PSYC 631 Liberty University Adolescent Psychology Essay 2022.pdf

PSYC 631

Page 1 of 2

FAMILY ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

OVERVIEW

The purpose of this assignment is to provide you with an opportunity to apply course content to

what is shown in the media. For this assignment, you will be choosing and analyzing a fictional

family found in either a TV show or a movie. The family must include an adolescent and your

analysis will focus on the parent-adolescent relationship. You can use TV shows/movies that are

currently airing or ones from the past. Once you identify a fictional family, you will apply

module readings to what you can observe from parent-adolescent relationship(s) in this family.

Your analysis must include connections to specific module research as well as a biblical

integration component.

INSTRUCTIONS

In your analysis, you will be required to describe and integrate details related to the following

topic areas, so be sure that you choose a fictional family that provides enough information to do

a thorough job. The structure of your analysis must follow the outline below and all headings

must be formatted as Level I APA-style headings.

 At the beginning of your analysis, describe as much basic information about the family as

possible including:

o Name of TV show/movie

o Number of parents present and if they are married or not

o Description of any siblings in the home and anyone else who lives in the home

o Best estimates as to ages of children and parent(s)

o Any other demographic information you feel is pertinent

 Parenting Styles – Using research found in your Laursen & Collins module reading (see

pages 16-18), identify which of the four parenting styles are represented in the family. Be

sure to include specific examples and descriptions to support your conclusion.

 Positive Interactions and Support – Using research from Laursen & Collins (p. 18-21),

describe any evidence of positive interactions, closeness, and support between the

parent(s) and adolescent. For full credit, you must compare and contrast what you

observe within the family to specific research results cited in Laursen & Collins.

 Negative Interactions and Conflict - Using research from Laursen & Collins (p. 21 -

25), describe any evidence of negative interactions and conflict between the parent(s) and

adolescent. For full credit, you must compare and contrast what you observe within the

family to specific research results cited in Laursen & Collins.

 Adolescent Outcomes - Using research from Laursen & Collins (p. 26 - 29), describe

any evidence of positive or negative outcomes seen in the adolescent. If there is not

enough information to be observed, be sure to include a discussion of what outcomes

could be expected given the parenting styles, positive interactions, and conflict assessed

above.

 Biblical Integration – Provide a discussion of what the Bible has to say about family

relationships, support, and/or conflict. You must use at least two different Scriptural

references in this section to support your discussion.

PSYC 631

Page 2 of 2

Additional assignment requirements include:

 The analysis must be 2–3 pages (double-spaced) in current APA format. This length

requirement does not include the title and reference pages.

 The review must include an APA-style title page and a reference page.

 The paper must be submitted as a Word document.

Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

PART I

Interpersonal Influences

c01.indd 1c01.indd 1 2/16/09 4:27:27 PM2/16/09 4:27:27 PM

Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, edited by Richard M. Lerner and Laurence Steinberg.

c01.indd 2c01.indd 2 2/16/09 4:27:27 PM2/16/09 4:27:27 PM

CHAPTER 1

Parent – Child Relationships

During Adolescence

BRETT LAURSEN AND W. ANDREW COLLINS

No aspect of adolescent development has

received more attention from the public and

from researchers than parent – child relation-

ships. Much of the research indicates that

despite altered patterns of interaction, relation-

ships with parents remain important social and

emotional resources well beyond the child-

hood years (for recent reviews, see Collins &

Steinberg, 2006 ; Smetana, Campione - Barr,

& Metzger, 2006 ). Yet it is a challenge to rec-

oncile this conclusion with the widespread per-

ception that parent – child relationships decline

in quality and influence over the course of the

adolescent years. The aim of this chapter is to

specify the characteristics and processes of

parent – child relationships that sustain the cen-

trality of the family amid the extensive changes

of adolescence. We will argue that it is the con-

tent and the quality of these relationships, rather

than the actions of either parent or adolescent

alone, that determine the nature and extent of

family influences on adolescent development.

We will also argue that divergence between

academic prescriptions and public perceptions

about parent – adolescent relationships can be

traced to the relative emphasis that each places

on potential individual differences.

The chapter reflects three premises that

have emerged from the sizable literature on

parent – child relationships during adolescence.

First, relationships with parents undergo trans-

formations across the adolescent years that set

the stage for less hierarchical interactions dur-

ing adulthood. Second, family relationships

have far - reaching implications for concurrent

and long - term relationships with friends,

romantic partners, teachers, and other adults,

as well as for individual mental health, psy-

chosocial adjustment, school performance,

and eventual occupational choice and suc-

cess. Third, contextual and cultural variations

significantly shape family relationships and

experiences that, in turn, affect the course

and outcomes of development both during and

beyond adolescence.

The chapter is divided into four main sec-

tions. The first section outlines theoretical

views of parent – adolescent relationships and

their developmental significance. The second

section focuses on the behavior of parents

and children and on interpersonal processes

between them, with particular attention given

to the distinctive characteristics of parent –

child relationships and how these relationships

change during adolescence. The third sec-

tion considers whether and how parent – child

relationships and their transformations are

significant for adolescent development. The

fourth section focuses on variability in parent –

child relationships during adolescence as a

function of structural, economic, and demo-

graphic distinctions among families.

THEORIES OF

PARENT – ADOLESCENT

RELATIONSHIPS AND THEIR

INFLUENCE

For heuristic purposes, we have divided theo-

ries of parent – adolescent relationships into

two groups: those that describe changes in

c01.indd 3c01.indd 3 2/16/09 4:27:27 PM2/16/09 4:27:27 PM

4 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

relationships across the adolescent years and

those that describe the influence of parenting

and parent – child relationships. The first set of

theories is dedicated to explaining the signifi-

cant transformations that take place in parent –

adolescent relationships. The second set of

theories is dedicated to explaining the contribu-

tions that parents and parent – child relationships

make to individual adolescent adjustment.

Theories Addressing Relationship

Transformations

Conceptual models of transformation in parent –

adolescent relationships vary in whether their

primary focus is on the adolescent or on the rela-

tionship (Laursen & Collins, 2004 ). The preva-

lent perspective for most of the last century was

that adolescents ’ physical, cognitive, and social

maturation undermined patterns of interaction

in close relationships that were established dur-

ing childhood. The implications of individual

change varied from one theoretical perspective

to another, the common focus being the relative

turbulence and instability of relationships dur-

ing adolescence relative to those during child-

hood. More recent models emphasize stable

features of parent – child relationships. Enduring

bonds forged between parents and children are

assumed to be the foundation for continuity in

the functional properties of the relationship that

transcend age - related changes in the character-

istics of participants and alterations in the con-

tent and form of their interactions.

Models of Individual Change

Theories of individual change focus on dis-

ruptions caused by adolescent maturation

and their potential to destabilize parent – child

relationships. These models hold that changes

in adolescents provoke changes in families.

Maturationist models assume that a period of

diminished closeness and heightened conflict

accompanies adolescent maturation and that

these perturbations continue until parent – ado-

lescent relationships and roles are renegoti-

ated. Most models hold that a rapprochement

follows this period of normative relationship

turbulence (Collins, 1995 ). Conflict should

become less frequent and better managed,

closeness should increase, and social inter-

actions should grow more sophisticated and

constructive as a result of transformations in

relationships.

Psychoanalytic theorists (A. Freud, 1958 ;

S. Freud, 1921/ 1949 ) assumed that hormonal

changes at puberty give rise to unwelcome

Oedipal urges that foster impulse control prob-

lems and anxiety, as well as rebelliousness and

distance from the family. More recent psycho-

analytic formulations place greater empha-

sis on adolescent autonomy striving and ego

identity development than on impulse con-

trol (Blos, 1979 ; Erikson, 1968 ). These later

models converge on the dual contentions that

awareness of parental fallibility (deidealiza-

tion) and psychic emancipation drive a wedge

between parents and children that is exacer-

bated by the inner turmoil brought on by ado-

lescent hormonal fluctuations. This account

implies that heightened conflict and dimin-

ished closeness inevitably follow maturational

changes, as adolescents grapple with psychic

disturbances. Child withdrawal and disengage-

ment should continue into young adulthood,

although a measure of closeness may be rees-

tablished after parents are no longer perceived

as a threat to the ego, sometime after identity

achievement is complete and intimate relation-

ships with peers are established.

Evolutionary views also emphasize the

role of puberty in transforming relationships,

but propose that change processes stem from

physical and cognitive advances that are

designed to encourage adolescents to sepa-

rate from the family in order to seek mates

elsewhere (Steinberg, 1989 ). In this view, ado-

lescent maturation threatens parental domi-

nance, resulting in heightened conflict with

and diminished closeness to parents. This

prompts youth to turn away from their family

to be comforted by peers who are experiencing

similar relationship disruptions. Some envision

a reciprocal process, whereby independence

hastens pubertal maturation and vice versa

c01.indd 4c01.indd 4 2/16/09 4:27:28 PM2/16/09 4:27:28 PM

Theories of Parent–Adolescent Relationships and Their Influence 5

(Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991 ). Although

evolutionary views stipulate no mechanism

for reestablishing parent – child closeness dur-

ing young adulthood, it may be that parental

investment in offspring and the warmth expe-

rienced in earlier periods provide a foundation

of positive affect and regard that enables both

parties to transcend the difficulties of adoles-

cence (Gray & Steinberg, 1999 ). Improved

relations should follow the child ’ s transition

to parenthood to the extent that grandparents

are interested in providing resources and assis-

tance to help ensure the survival and reproduc-

tive success of the next generation (Crosnoe &

Elder, 2002 ; Smith & Drew, 2002 ).

Other maturational models give cognitive

development a central role in parent – adolescent

relationship changes. In these accounts,

advances in abstract and complex reasoning

foster a more nuanced appreciation of interper-

sonal distinctions and an increasingly egalitar-

ian view of relationships that were previously

oriented around the unilateral authority of

adults (e.g., Selman, 1980 ; Youniss & Smollar,

1985 ). As a result, adolescents increasingly

aspire to reciprocity and equal power in their

interactions with parents. The same cognitive

advances underlie the emerging tendency to

consider certain issues as matters of personal

volition, even though they previously were

under parental jurisdiction (Smetana, 1988 ).

Parents ’ reluctance to transform the hierar-

chical relationships established in childhood

into more egalitarian ones creates conflict and

curtails closeness. Eventually, familial roles

are renegotiated to acknowledge the child ’ s

enhanced status and maturity. Conflict should

dissipate as relationship roles and expectations

are realigned, but the long - term implications

for relationship closeness and harmony depend

on whether parents and children are successful

in revising their relationship in a mutually sat-

isfactory manner.

A fourth group of theorists view physical and

cognitive maturation as sources of constraints

and demands on adolescents but give equal

emphasis to changes in social expectations

and the need to adapt to a variety of new situ-

ations during age - graded transitions. Four

kinds of moderated maturationist models typify

this approach. The first set of models implicates

changes in parents as the source of alterations

in parent – adolescent relationships (Steinberg,

2001 ). Parents ’ developmental issues related to

careers, personal goals, and future orientation

can exacerbate the difficulty of the adjustments

required in parent – adolescent relationships.

Parents are also confronted with diminished or

extinguished physical and reproductive capabil-

ities and fading allure at a time when adolescent

sexuality and attractiveness are blossoming,

both of which may aggravate conflict and dis-

engagement (Steinberg & Steinberg, 1994 ). A

strong orientation toward work and investments

in other nonfamilial domains could mean that

parents view adolescents ’ movement toward

autonomy as positive, ameliorating some of

the obstacles to relationship transformation

(Silverberg & Steinberg, 1990 ). Reestablishing

positive relationship ties may be difficult for

those who experience the most disruption, par-

ticularly if parents are unable or unwilling to

address factors in their own lives that exacer-

bated transitional turmoil.

Two related theories emphasize the role of

parents ’ beliefs and expectations in moderat-

ing age - related changes in relationships with

adolescent children. Generalized or category -

based beliefs models (Eccles, 1992 ; Holmbeck,

1996 ) posit a straightforward link between

parents ’ stereotypes and expectations about

adolescence in general and parents ’ relations

with their own adolescent children. Beliefs

become a self - fulfilling prophesy: Those who

expect adolescence to be a period of turmoil

are more likely to behave in a manner that pro-

vokes relationship deterioration compared with

those who expect adolescence to be relatively

benign. The expectancy violation – realignment

model (Collins, 1995 ) begins with the assump-

tion that interactions between parents and chil-

dren are mediated by cognitive and emotional

processes associated with expectancies about

the behavior of the other person. In periods

c01.indd 5c01.indd 5 2/16/09 4:27:28 PM2/16/09 4:27:28 PM

6 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

of rapid developmental change, such as the

transition to adolescence, parents ’ expec-

tancies often are violated. In younger age

groups, change may occur more gradually, so

that discrepancies are both less common and

less salient than in periods of rapid multiple

changes, such as adolescence. Expectancy vio-

lations are assumed to be a source of conflict

that eventually stimulates parents to realign

their expectations. It follows that changes

in the tenor of parent – child relationships over

the course of adolescence will vary as a function

of the accuracy of parental expectations; those

with unrealistic expectations should experience

frequent violations and more relationship dis-

ruption than those with accurate expectations.

Expectancies should also shape relationship

recovery. Parents who foresee improved rela-

tions, particularly those who anticipate altered

expressions of relationship closeness, are more

likely to successfully repair relationships than

those who expect irreparable damage and those

who expect a return to the perceived tranquil-

ity of childhood.

The second set of moderated maturation-

ist models implicates changes in parent – older

sibling relationships in alterations in parent –

younger sibling relationships. Models differ in

terms of their postulated consequences for

younger siblings. According to the spillover

model, changes in relations between first-

born children and parents dictate the timing of

changes in relations between later born chil-

dren and parents (Larson & Almeida, 1999 ).

Relationships with later born children deterio-

rate and are renegotiated concurrent with (or

shortly after) relationships with firstborn chil-

dren. Thus, child maturation is more strongly

related to parent – child relationship change

in firstborn than in later born adolescents.

Several mechanisms besides child maturation

may be responsible for changes in relation-

ships between later born children and parents,

including sibling modeling and imitation, and

a parental desire to avoid differential treat-

ment. Parent – adolescent relationship decline

and recovery may depend on the extent to

which firstborn and later born children share

the burden of conflict and role renegotiation.

Relationships between parents and “ me too ”

children should be more resilient because first-

borns are apt to bear the brunt of negativity

with parents and because younger children may

continue to look to parents to satisfy more of

their emotional needs (Whiteman, McHale, &

Crouter, 2003 ).

A related theory also postulates birth order

differences in changes in parent – adolescent

relationships. The learning - from - experience

model argues that parents hone their skills

with firstborn children and are thus better

able to cope constructively with developmen-

tal changes in later born children (Whiteman

et al., 2003 ). According to this view, it is the

magnitude of parent – child transitions that dif-

fers between firstborns and later borns, not

the timing of change. Declines in warmth and

increases in conflict should be greater for par-

ents and firstborn children than for parents

and later born children because parents have

learned how to navigate transitions during

adolescence. Improved parenting skills should

not only minimize relationship disruption but

should also help relationships with later born

children recover more quickly and perhaps

more satisfactorily than relationships with

firstborn children.

The third moderated maturationist model

implicates parent and child gender in changes

in parent – child relationships. The gender inten-

sification model argues that with the onset of

puberty, parents increasingly assume responsi-

bility for the socialization of same - sex offspring

(Hill & Lynch, 1983 ). The original model sug-

gested that parent – child closeness increases

in same - sex dyads and decreases in other - sex

dyads. Another possibility, however, is that

same - sex parent – child relation ships become

closer than other - sex relationships because,

although absolute levels of closeness decline in

both, the latter deteriorates more than the former.

The model also has implications for parent – child

conflict: With the advent of puberty, same - sex

parent – child relationships should experience

c01.indd 6c01.indd 6 2/16/09 4:27:29 PM2/16/09 4:27:29 PM

Theories of Parent–Adolescent Relationships and Their Influence 7

greater turmoil than other - sex relationships,

as conflict and role negotiation are focused on

the parent who has most of the socialization

responsibilities. Notwithstanding these differ-

ent interpretations, there is general agreement

that by the end of the adolescent years, children

should have better relations with their same - sex

parent than with their other - sex parent.

The fourth moderated maturationist model

implicates schools and other extrafamilial

peer settings in alterations in parent – adoles-

cent relationships (Simmons & Blyth, 1987 ).

Accord ing to this view, maturity - related

expectations vary across peer contexts, accel-

erating or delaying demands for realign-

ing relationships with parents. Settings that

encourage contact between early adolescents

and late adolescents may elicit parent – child

relationship disturbance earlier than settings

that limit contacts to same - age adolescents

because the former may prompt young adoles-

cents to seek greater rights and privileges than

the latter. Thus, exposure to older peers may

hasten the onset of parent – child relationship

change and lengthen the period of estrange-

ment and heightened conflict with parents.

Reestablishing positive parent – child relation-

ships after early, off - time transformations may

be difficult in cases where closeness was dis-

continued prematurely and followed by a pro-

longed period of discord and dissatisfaction.

Models of Relationship Continuity

Some models of parent – adolescent relation-

ships focus on forces that promote stability

within the dyad, rather than on the impact

of individual change on the dyad. The most

prominent example, attachment theory,

emphasizes the strong emotional ties between

parents and adolescents. As a mutually regu-

lated system, parents and children work jointly

to maintain the relationship in a manner con-

sistent with cognitive representations derived

from their history of interactions with signifi-

cant others (Bowlby, 1969 ). Thus, the quality

of parent – child relationships is presumed to be

stable over time. Manifestations of attachment

undergo gradual developmental transforma-

tions, but these changes are consistent with the

underlying quality of the relationship, which

tends to be durable (Ainsworth, 1989 ).

Attachment in adolescence is distinc-

tive from attachment in earlier relationships,

both behaviorally and cognitively. Strong

emotional ties to parents may be indicated in

subtle and private ways, including friendly

teasing and small acts of concern, as well as

in more obvious connections such as shared

activities (particularly with fathers) and self -

disclosure (particularly to mothers). Cognitive

advances in adolescence make possible

an integrated, overarching view regarding

experiences that involve caregiving, care-

taking, and confidence in the availability

of significant others (Allen & Land, 1999 ).

Consequently, whereas younger children view

attachment in terms that are more specific to

the parent – child relationship, adolescents are

increasingly attuned to the similarities and dif-

ferences between relationships with parents,

other significant adults, friends, and romantic

partners.

The functions of attachment relation-

ships for adolescents, however, are parallel to

those for young children. In both cases, parents

serve as a secure base for exploring the environ-

ment. Whereas security facilitates the toddler ’ s

exploration of the immediate environment,

security affords the adolescent a sense of

confidence in family support for explorations

outside of the family, including the forma-

tion of new relationships. Security also allows

adolescents an opportunity to explore intellec-

tual and emotional autonomy from the family,

which includes the realization that parents are

fallible and an appreciation of the advantages

of amicably resolving disagreements (Allen

et al., 2003 ). Put simply, the form of secure

base behavior changes with age but the func-

tion remains essentially the same.

A key implication of attachment formula-

tions is that relationship reorganization occurs

gradually. Adolescents and parents with a

history of sensitive, responsive interactions

c01.indd 7c01.indd 7 2/16/09 4:27:29 PM2/16/09 4:27:29 PM

8 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

and strong emotional bonds should main-

tain these positive features throughout ado-

lescence, although supportive interactions

may be reformulated as the child matures.

Adolescents and parents with a history of dif-

ficult, unresponsive interactions are also likely

to experience continuity in the quality of their

interactions. Dismissive youth may seek to

distance themselves from parents as soon as

possible, whereas preoccupied youth may be

unwilling or unable to embrace demands for

greater autonomy made by parents. These

families may experience an increase in con-

flict and a decline in warmth, but this does not

necessarily signal worsening relationships, but

may instead represent a new manifestation of

insecurity. Attachment theory does not rule

out the possibility that increasing adolescent

autonomy may give rise to modest age - related

changes in the frequency with which affection

and disagreement are expressed, but these

changes are thought to reflect shifts in forms

of expression, not in the fundamental quality of

relationships between parents and children

(Allen & Land, 1999 ; Allen & Manning, 2007 ;

Carlivati & Collins, 2007 ). Greater signifi-

cance is attached to the tenor of interactions

between parents and children and the degree to

which participants treat each other with mutual

regard. These and other indices of relationship

quality are directly tied to attachment security.

Stability in attachment security implies stabil-

ity in relationship quality both over time and

across individuals.

Similar predictions characterize develop-

mental applications of interdependence and

social relations models (Laursen & Bukowski,

1997 ; Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000 ).

Interdependence is a hallmark of all close rela-

tionships and is manifested in frequent, strong,

and diverse interconnections maintained over

an extended time (Kelley et al., 1983 ). In an

interdependent relationship, partners engage in

mutually influential exchanges and share the

belief that their connections are reciprocal and

enduring. These enduring interconnections are

internalized by participants and organized into

mental schemas that shape expectations con-

cerning future interactions.

Cognitive advances during adolescence

give rise to a realization that the rules of reci-

procity and social exchange govern interac-

tions with friends but not parents (Youniss &

Smollar, 1985 ). Greater autonomy provides

an impetus for adolescents to seek changes

in relationships with parents so that interac-

tions incorporate many of the same principles

of social exchange. Although the affiliation

remains involuntary or obligatory, there is

great variability in the degree to which parents

and children remain interconnected during late

adolescence and early adulthood. To the extent

that affiliations become increasingly voluntary,

exchanges may be revised to better reflect their

costs and benefits to participants. The magni-

tude of change depends on the potential for

children to lead independent lives: Children

(of all ages) who are utterly dependent on their

parents are less likely to insist upon equitable

exchanges than children who are (potentially)

self - sufficient.

Patterns of communication and interde-

pendence established during childhood are

assumed to carry forward into adolescence. As

the child becomes more autonomous, the

degree to which parent – child relationships

change depends on the degree to which par-

ticipants consider their exchanges to be fair,

which is closely linked to perceptions of rela-

tionship quality (Laursen & Collins, 2004 ).

Increased conflict may occur in poor quality

relationships, along with a decline in closeness,

as adolescents express a growing dissatisfac-

tion with unequal treatment and unfavorable

outcomes (Smetana, 1999 ). Participants in

these relationships are usually ill equipped to

navigate these challenges because they lack

a history of collaborative interactions and a

constructive process for resolving disputes.

High - quality relationships, however, may

change little during adolescence, or may even

improve, as participants build on beneficent

interactions to adjust exchanges in a mutually

satisfactory manner. In sum, patterns of social

c01.indd 8c01.indd 8 2/16/09 4:27:30 PM2/16/09 4:27:30 PM

Theories of Parent–Adolescent Relationships and Their Influence 9

Modes of Influence

Approaches that describe modes of influence

attempt to trace the paths through which par-

ents shape child outcomes. Theories tend to

be written in terms of concepts and processes,

using the vocabulary of ordinary language.

This differs from tests of hypotheses, which

model links among variables using analytic

terms. Consequently, the conceptual underpin-

nings of analytic models of modes of influ-

ence tend to be implicit rather than explicit.

An explication of these analytic assumptions

follows.

Perhaps the most obvious distinction in the

analytic approach is that between correlated

paths and causal paths. Some may be surprised

that this issue remains a point of contention,

given the extensive literature on parent – child

relationships, but the issue continues to gener-

ate vigorous and legitimate debate. The argu-

ment that parent socialization contributes little

to child outcomes hinges largely on the asser-

tion that (1) most research on the topic is corre-

lational; (2) causal designs yield sparse effects;

and (3) genetically informed designs attribute

minimal variance in child outcomes to shared

environments (Harris, 1998 ). Scholars making

the case that parents play an important role in

child outcomes respond that (1) nonexperi-

mental longitudinal designs reveal meaning-

ful changes in child outcomes as a function of

antecedent parent influence; (2) natural experi-

ments and interventions reveal pronounced

effects for parenting; and (3) traditional studies

of heredity overlook gene – environment interac-

tions and correlations, thereby underestimating

parent socialization effects (Collins, Maccoby,

Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000 ).

Both sides agree that little new can be learned

from cross - sectional, correlational studies of

parent behaviors and child outcomes.

In the most frequently proposed and tested

models, parenting or parent – adolescent rela-

tionships are treated as predictor variables.

Strictly speaking, parents are posited to be

causal influences in these models, particularly

(as is usually the case) when paths are not

exchange in close relationships are resistant to

change because they are sustained by a web of

interdependencies. When adolescents push to

revise interactions with parents, change comes

slowly and in a manner that typically extends

trajectories of relationship quality from ante-

cedent periods.

Interplay between continuity and discon-

tinuity is a feature of parent – child relation-

ships across the life span. Most models of

parent – adolescent relationships acknowledge

this interplay; few emphasize one without the

other. Our depiction of models in terms of their

relative emphasis on relationship change and

stability obscures many theoretical subtleties,

but it underscores an important conceptual dis-

tinction. Theories that focus on individual

development inevitably emphasize universal

changes in adolescents and their concomitant

effects on relationships with parents. Theories

that focus on relationship development

inevitably focus on distinctive trajectories of

parent – child relationships and their continuity

with prior relationship functioning. These dif-

ferent orientations have important implications

for models that describe the role parent – child

relationships play in adolescent outcomes.

Conceptual Models of the Influence

of Parents and Parent – Child

Relationships on Adolescent

Development

In this section we summarize conceptual mod-

els that address associations between parents,

parent – child relationships, and adolescent

development. Most models share the assump-

tion that parents (and relationships with par-

ents) shape adolescent outcomes, but there is

little agreement on the particulars. We begin

with a description of the various modes of

influence, followed by an overview of pro-

posed influence mechanisms. We then discuss

hypotheses concerning the direction and mag-

nitude of influence attributable to parents and

parent – child relationships, closing with a sum-

mary of theories describing developmental

variations in patterns of influence.

c01.indd 9c01.indd 9 2/16/09 4:27:30 PM2/16/09 4:27:30 PM

10 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

reversed to consider parent behaviors as out-

come variables. Influence paths may be direct

or mediated. Direct paths imply that changes

in parent behaviors or in parent – adolescent

relationships are responsible for changes in

adolescent outcomes, whereas indirect paths

suggest that parent variables act on proxi-

mal variables (e.g., home environment) that,

in turn, have consequences for youth devel-

opment. Mediated models have also been

proposed in which parent variables serve as

mediators, typically between contextual vari-

ables (e.g., neighborhood distress) and adoles-

cent outcomes.

Linear and nonlinear relations between

parent variables and adolescent development

have been proposed for both direct and medi-

ated models. In linear models, incremental

changes in parenting or in parent – adolescent

relationships are associated with commensu-

rate changes in adolescent outcomes. In non-

linear models, the effects of the parent variable

are not constant across its range. Often, the

relation posited is one in which parenting or

parent – adolescent relationships have linear

(or even exponential) effects below a certain

threshold, but above that threshold, effects of

the parent variable are weak, nonexistent, or

reversed (Hoff, Laursen, & Bridges, in press).

Consider parent – adolescent conflict, which is

thought to be beneficial at moderate levels, but

detrimental at high levels (Adams & Laursen,

2007 ). Analytic models are not always as they

appear: Studies that focus on one part of the

range of a parenting variable (e.g., harsh par-

enting) and ignore differences outside that

range implicitly model nonlinear or threshold

effects, despite the appearance of testing a

simple linear model.

Direct and mediated parental effects may

be ascribed to heredity and to socialization.

The once common practice of assessing effects

with an additive model that apportions unique

variance to genes (plus error), shared envi-

ronments (parent influence), and nonshared

environments (nonparental influence) has

given way to more nuanced strategies. As a

consequence, contemporary approaches rec-

ognize the need for multiple methodologies to

pull apart variables that typically go together

(Rutter, Pickles, Murray, & Eaves, 2001 ).

Although few dispute the conclu sion that

genes shape child outcomes, the claim that non-

shared environmental effects outweigh shared

environmental effects (Plomin & Daniels,

1987 ) has been challenged for several reasons

(Turkheimer & Waldron, 2000 ). Sampling and

methodological biases tend to favor genetic

and nonshared influences at the expense of

shared influences. The assessment of individ-

ual level variation overlooks population level

variation, failing to recognize that beneficial

parenting behaviors common across individu-

als may be invariant, but are influential nev-

ertheless. Further, sibling differences are not

necessarily due to nonfamilial influences;

differential perceptions and differential treat-

ment arise within shared environments. Thus,

genetically informed models remind us that

heritability accounts for much of the variance

that might otherwise be ascribed to the direct

effects of parental socialization, but they are

somewhat limited in their ability to disen-

tangle shared from nonshared environmental

effects.

Further pressure on either/or views of influ-

ence comes from models of bidirectional

influence. Several such models have been

proposed (see Kuczynski, 2003 , for review).

These models share the common assumption

that children and parents are unique social-

ization agents who construct meaning out of

their social experiences and who initiate pur-

poseful behavior intended to influence the part-

ner (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2006 ). Transactional

models emphasize continual change in chil-

dren and parents in response to recurring,

reciprocal interchanges (Sameroff, 1975 ). One

partner responds to the other ’ s behavior, and

the response influences the form of his or her

subsequent behavior. Transactional models are

not linear in the sense that stable behaviors in

one partner cause stable outcomes in the other;

they depict a dialectic of constantly changing

c01.indd 10c01.indd 10 2/16/09 4:27:31 PM2/16/09 4:27:31 PM

Theories of Parent–Adolescent Relationships and Their Influence 11

dynamics that fosters qualitative change in the

relationship and its participants. In contrast,

circular causality models typically imply lin-

ear, microanalytic influences that contain a

recursive loop in which cause and effect can-

not be isolated. In one example, difficult child

temperament and inept parenting combine to

foster a vicious cycle of escalating coercion

(Patterson, 1982 ). Finally, fit and coevolution

models suggest that causality is located not

in the interactions between parents and chil-

dren, but in the system they construct and

the degree to which their attributes and needs

mesh (Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1977 ). Linear

effects may be hypothesized as a function of

goodness - of - fit, or qualitative distinctions may

be made according to the salient features of

parents and children.

In another type of model, parent variables

serve as moderators. These models typically

start from the premise that there are qualitative

differences between groups. As a consequence,

associations between predictor variables and

outcome variables differ for those who expe-

rience different types of parents or relation-

ships. Parenting styles provide an example.

Authoritative parents differ from authoritarian

parents on a constellation of attributes that com-

bine to create distinct child - rearing environments

(Baumrind, 1991 ; Darling & Steinberg, 1993 ).

Within each, similar parent behaviors may elicit

different outcomes. For instance, adolescents

with authoritative parents may be less likely

to dissemble in response to parental requests

for information than adolescents with authori-

tarian parents (Darling, Cumsille, Caldwell, &

Dowdy, 2006 ). Parent moderators may enhance

risk for some youth and buffer against adversity

for others. Some argue that authoritarian par-

ents may buffer against detrimental peer influ-

ences for youth in troubled neighborhoods, but

the same parents may alienate youth in benign

settings, inadvertently promoting fraternization

with other alienated youth (Furstenberg, Cook,

Eccles, Elder, & Sameroff, 1999 ).

All of the foregoing models invoke parenting

or parent – child relationships as a substantive

influence or a meaningful outcome at some

point in a causal sequence. Direct effects mod-

els imply that parents cause subsequent adoles-

cent outcomes. Mediated effects models imply

that parents cause change in an intermediary

agent, which, in turn, causes change in ado-

lescent outcomes. Bidirectional models imply

that parent behaviors are both the cause and the

consequence of child behaviors. In contrast,

correlated change models argue that parent

influences are limited to genetic contributions

and to external causal factors that are either

correlated with or responsible for the parent

behaviors that are linked to child outcomes.

Agents of Influence

Models that assume participant driven effects,

typically from parents to offspring, are still

the primary framework for research on

parent – adolescent relationships (Collins, 2002 ).

They stem from an implicitly individualistic

approach that focuses on associations between

differences among the properties of individu-

als and differences among their behaviors

and outcomes. Models that describe relation-

ship driven effects are not uncommon, how-

ever, and research designs increasingly adopt

this perspective (Laursen & Collins, 2004 ).

Relationship - focused models reflect a systemic

approach that focuses on associations between

differences among the properties of relation-

ships or systems of relationships and differ-

ences among the behaviors and outcomes of

individuals (Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000 ).

Early conceptions of family influence

focused exclusively on parents: The parent cast

a social mold for the child, which was respon-

sible for his or her development (Collins,

2002 ). Few today would advocate this position

conceptually, but research designs tell another

story. Despite the growing acceptance of

child - centered, relationship, and bidirectional

frameworks, most research designs still entail

the straightforward prediction of adolescent

outcomes from parent behavior. Prominent in

this regard are studies of parenting styles and

parenting practices, and other topics that that

c01.indd 11c01.indd 11 2/16/09 4:27:31 PM2/16/09 4:27:31 PM

12 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

have recently come to dominate the research

landscape, such as parent psychological con-

trol. Most learning theory models of coercive

training, inept parenting, and deviant model-

ing also fall into this category; the contribu-

tions made by temperamental difficulties in

offspring have been added to recent formu-

lations, but the research is overwhelmingly

parent - driven, particularly as it applies to the

second decade of life.

Child - driven or evocative models have

greater currency in the study of young children

than in the study of adolescents. In these mod-

els, offspring with certain characteristics or

behaviors elicit particular responses from par-

ents, which, in turn, shape child outcomes. The

development of antisocial behavior in tem-

peramentally difficult children is one example.

Parents tend to respond to disruptive, aggres-

sive children by withdrawing affection and

reducing monitoring, which increases the risk

of alienation and affiliation with deviant peers

(Lytton, 2000 ). Child - driven models applied to

adolescence typically focus on the influence

of personality and emotional regulation. One

recent model suggests that adolescent open-

ness and disclosure elicits parent behaviors

that are usually operationalized as monitoring

(Kerr, Stattin, & Pakalniskiene, 2006 ). In this

view, parent reactions to adolescent engage-

ment and withdrawal shape subsequent adoles-

cent outcomes and behaviors. This may strike

some as circular causality, but the process is

clearly categorized as child driven.

Considerable interest surrounds bidirec-

tional models that address concurrent and

over - time influences between children and par-

ents. These models include child - driven effects

and parent - driven effects, but it is one thing to

hypothesize a model in which both participants

in a relationship are agents of influence, and it is

another thing to apply this model to actual data.

Statistical obstacles have long plagued efforts

to identify bidirectional effects as scholars have

struggled to test reciprocal and joint influences

(Laursen, 2005 ). Most conventional analytic

procedures cannot easily incorporate data from

both participants; those that do typically provide

biased or misspecified results. Recent advances

in dyadic data analyses can overcome these

limitations, which will help to bridge the gap

between theory and research (Card, Little, &

Selig, 2008 ; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006 ). It is

important to note that although dyadic analytic

techniques were initially developed to describe

the influence of one partner on another over the

course of a specific interchange, they have been

successfully applied to global perceptions of

concurrent parent – adolescent relationships,

including attachment security (Cook & Kenny,

2005 ) and perceived social support (Branje, van

Lieshout, & van Aken, 2005 ). Modifications

for longitudinal data have been proposed that

will permit the analyses of nonindependent

data across multiple time points (Kashy &

Donnellan, 2008 ; Laursen, Popp, Burk, Kerr,

& Stattin, 2008 ).

Relationship models start from the premise

that parent – child relationships are more than

the sum of the child ’ s behavior and the parent ’ s

behavior. As a consequence, relationships are

hypothesized to be important influence agents.

Relationship influence mechanisms range

from global indices of relationship quality

(such as attachment security and support), to

composites that describe positive and nega-

tive attributes of the relationship, to specific

features of the relationship (such as communi-

cation and cohesion). Direct links are hypoth-

esized between relationship quality and child

outcomes, on the assumption that positive

relationships are beneficial to development

and negative relationships are detrimental.

Relation ship experiences are also filtered

through relationship perceptions, which serve

as a lens through which the child interprets the

environment. This suggests an indirect effects

model in which perceived relationship qual-

ity partially or wholly mediates associations

between parent behavior and child outcomes.

Developmental Patterns of Influence

Conventional wisdom holds that parental

influence wanes across the teen years relative

c01.indd 12c01.indd 12 2/16/09 4:27:32 PM2/16/09 4:27:32 PM

Theories of Parent–Adolescent Relationships and Their Influence 13

to peer influences. Plato quotes Socrates ’ s

lament about the youth of his time: “ They

have bad manners, contempt for authority;

they show disrespect for their elders and love

chatter in place of exercise. ” More recently,

Bronfenbrenner ( 1970 ) observed that ado-

lescent concern with and conformity to peer

norms increases with age as the school structure

becomes more impersonal. That is, as schools

get larger and contact with teachers becomes

more superficial, youth band together to form

their own culture; social pressures within the

peer group increase, gradually eclipsing that

exerted by adults. Similar claims of declining

parental influence accompany theories of par-

ent deidealization (Blos, 1979 ). According to

this view, identity development and individu-

ation require youth to separate from their par-

ents. As adolescents recognize that parents are

not infallible, they increasingly question and

resist parent influence attempts. This creates

an influence vacuum, which tends to be filled

by peers.

But other scholars have noted that influ-

ence is not necessarily a zero - sum proposition.

According to this view, parent influence is not

necessarily tied to peer influence (Brittain,

1963 ). If absolute levels of influence are unre-

lated across relationships, change in influence

accorded to one relationship does not neces-

sarily prompt change in influence accorded

to another. It follows that when peers become

more influential, parents do not necessarily

become less influential. In other words, the

influence of parents may not decline in abso-

lute terms over the course of the adolescent

years, although it may decline relative to that

of peers. A more nuanced version of this model

holds that developmental changes in influence

are domain specific (Kandel & Lesser, 1972 ).

Different developmental patterns of influence

may arise for different outcomes. For instance,

peer influence may increase over matters such

as attire but not over matters such as future

career aspirations.

The models described thus far portray a

steady growth in peer influence across the

adolescent years. Curvilinear models of peer

influence have also been advocated (Devereux,

1970 ). According to this view, adolescents are

especially vulnerable to peer pressure during

the process of identity formation because, in the

absence of a clear sense of self, they look to

age - mates for guidance. Susceptibility to peer

pressure purportedly declines in late adoles-

cence with a rise in autonomous thought. In

keeping with the notion of domain specific-

ity, different curvilinear trajectories may apply

to different outcomes (Berndt, 1979 ). For

instance, normative increases in delinquent

activity between early and mid - adolescence

should accompany increases in peer pressure to

experiment with deviant behavior; these pres-

sures subside by late adolescence and so does

the prestige of youth engaged in delinquent

acts. Similar developmental trends would not

be anticipated in peer pressure concerning

internalizing problems or prosocial behavior.

Berndt ( 1999 ) offers an important caveat to

the coda. It is typically assumed that parents

and peers are opposing sources of influence.

Adolescents are thought to be buffeted between

the competing interests of family and friends.

An alternative scenario holds that parents and

peers are generally complementary sources

of influence, providing a consistent message

concerning adolescent behavior. Parents are

hypothesized to have considerable direct and

indirect leverage over the child ’ s selection of

friends (Parke & Buriel, 2006 ), so we should

expect parents to encourage youth to befriend

those who share their values. Another possibil-

ity holds that parent and peer influences are

distinct during the early adolescent years, as

adolescents struggle to establish and maintain

unique identities, but that parent and peer rela-

tionships (and their influence) become gradu-

ally more integrated over time (Collins &

Laursen, 2000 ). After youth establish an inde-

pendent sense of self, sometime during mid -

adolescence, peer group cohesion should

decline and adolescents should spend more

time in mixed - sex cliques and with roman-

tic partners. By late adolescence, family and

c01.indd 13c01.indd 13 2/16/09 4:27:32 PM2/16/09 4:27:32 PM

14 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

friend relationships are reintegrated as youth

prepare for the challenges of young adulthood.

This suggests that parents and peers become

increasingly complementary forces across the

adolescent years.

Magnitude of Influence

Until recently, the notion that parenting played

a significant role in adolescent outcomes

was taken for granted. Even today, after two

decades of evidence suggesting that heredity

accounts for a substantial proportion of the vari-

ance previously ascribed to parenting, it is still

unusual to see models that hypothesize effect

sizes. The focus remains squarely on statistical

significance, with little or no discussion about

whether large or small effects are expected.

There are many good reasons to consider the

magnitude of effects. First, if there is no con-

ceptual distinction between strong trends and

weak trends, there is no incentive to consider

the magnitude of a particular trend. Second,

models that fail to distinguish weak effects

from strong effects suggest a simple main -

effects model in which parents exert uniform

influence over all aspects of adolescent devel-

opment. Weak or null effects are counterfac-

tual to this proposition, which leaves the door

open to the assertion that parents don ’ t matter.

Third, those models that do not anticipate the

relative strength of parent effects tell us only

whether parents make contributions to out-

comes but are of little use in explaining when

and why these contributions are important.

Conceptual models hold practical and sta-

tistical implications for research. Moderated

effects and nonlinear effects, which are cen-

tral to many contemporary models, are diffi-

cult to detect without large samples (Fritz &

MacKinnon, 2007 ). Furthermore, they typi-

cally yield small effects. Scholars who adopt

these models must be prepared to argue that

statistical procedures tend to underestimate

their magnitude or else describe how small

effects have important implications for devel-

opment. Bidirectional models tend to be tested

within a path or structural equation – modeling

framework, which can make the estimation of

effect sizes less than straightforward. Effects

for any one particular influence path are bound

to be small after variance is partitioned across

variables and relationship participants (Saris &

Satorra, 1993 ). One consideration often over-

looked is that models often dictate the selec-

tion of constructs. Event - based constructs may

be less prone to bias from relationship cogni-

tions but, as a consequence, they are less reli-

able and poorer predictors of outcomes (Burk,

Dennissen, van Doorn, Branje, & Laursen, in

press). Constructs that are highly stable also

tend to yield small effects because they have

insufficient variability to predict change in

outcome variables. Finally, systemic models

are apt to yield greater effects than individu-

alistic models because the former encompass a

wider range of variables than the latter. By the

same token, interpreting systemic effects can

be more difficult than interpreting individu-

alistic effects because influence mechanisms

may be less obvious.

A final point is that theories of relationship

transformation have implications for models

of parent influence on adolescent outcomes.

Conceptualizations that emphasize change in

parent – child relationships in response to the

maturation of the child do not speak directly to

patterns of adolescent adjustment because an

accounting of normative changes experienced

by all youth cannot anticipate individual dif-

ferences in outcomes. Approaches that empha-

size enduring characteristics of relationships

should help to explain patterns of adolescent

adjustment because they are predicated on the

notion that some parents and some relation-

ships are better equipped than others to help

children successfully navigate the challenges

of adolescence.

Maturational models assume that all fami-

lies experience a period of heightened conflict

and diminished closeness associated with ado-

lescent physical and cognitive development.

Differences in adjustment outcomes may be

traced to the extent to which maturation is nor-

mative, both in its course and its timing. The

c01.indd 14c01.indd 14 2/16/09 4:27:33 PM2/16/09 4:27:33 PM

Interpersonal Processes and Relationship Perceptions 15

notion that adolescence is a period of norma-

tive disturbance (Blos, 1979 ; A. Freud, 1958 ;

Hall, 1904 ) stands in contrast with more recent

assertions that youth whose physical develop-

ment is internally asynchronous (e.g., pubertal

maturation in the absence of emotional matu-

ration) and youth who are off - time relative

to peers are at risk for adjustment difficulties

(Simmons & Blyth, 1987 ). The general prem-

ise that variation in parenting and parent – child

relationships is a product of adolescent devel-

opment, rather than a cause of maladaptive

development, contrasts with theories of rela-

tionship continuity. These latter models do

not assume that adolescence is inevitably a

time of troubled parent – child relationships.

Rather, they are predicated on the view that

parenting and parent – child relationships at

the outset of adolescence anticipate changes

in individual adjustment over the course of

adolescence: Youth in secure, supportive rela-

tionships should experience few difficulties

coping with maturational changes. Youth in

poor quality relationships may lack resources

to cope with maturation and thus may expe-

rience an upsurge in interpersonal difficulties

that heighten the risk of adjustment problems.

These difficulties do not spring up overnight.

Escalating conflict and emotional alienation

are thought to be symptomatic of relationship

distress that is evident in the years leading up

to adolescence.

INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES

AND RELATIONSHIP

PERCEPTIONS

These theoretical views underscore a fun-

damental but often neglected point: Despite

a long - standing orientation to the impact of

parental actions, the significance of relation-

ships with parents derives from joint action

patterns. The meaning of most parental actions

depends on the history of interactions between

parent and adolescent and the immediate con-

text of the action of each toward the other

(Maccoby, 1992 ). This suggests that a focus on

behavior alone provides a less - than - complete

picture of the relationship; we must also con-

sider how participants perceive their own

behavior and that of their partner. There are

systematic differences between parents and

children in perceptions of their relationship.

There are also individual differences in views

of relationships. Put simply, interactions differ

across relationships and these interactions are

interpreted differently by parents and children,

and by individuals with specific attributes. In

this section we will describe these behavioral

and perceptual differences and discuss some of

their ramifications.

Most of the developmental research on

parent – child relationships has focused on iden-

tifying aspects of the relationship that are sub-

ject to change and to charting the course of

these normative alterations. As is the case in

relationships generally, parent – adolescent dyads

vary in the content or kinds of interactions;

the patterning, or distribution of positive and

negative exchanges; the quality, or the degree

of responsiveness that each shows to the other;

and the cognitive and emotional responses of

each individual toward the partner and his or

her behavior. In this section, we will describe

continuity and change in parent – child relation-

ships during adolescence and review the avail-

able evidence concerning age - related trends

in parent and adolescent behaviors and per-

ceptions as well as individual differences that

affect them.

Parents and Adolescents as

Relationship Participants and

as Relationship Reporters

Thirty years ago, Olson ( 1977 ) made an

important distinction between insider and out-

sider views of the family. The point is worth

repeating (and the chapter is worth reread-

ing), because it contains many subtle dis-

tinctions that tend to be lost or overlooked.

There is widespread acknowledgment that

family members experience family relation-

ships differently. But what, exactly, does this

mean? For starters, it means that mothers,

fathers, and adolescent children have different

c01.indd 15c01.indd 15 2/16/09 4:27:33 PM2/16/09 4:27:33 PM

16 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

expectations about their relationships. Fathers

expect the family to be a respite from work;

mothers anticipate family obligations to be a

major source of stress and gratification; ado-

lescents, whose emotional energies tend to be

focused on peers, tend to hold utilitarian views

of the family (Larson & Richards, 1994 ).

These expectations are a product of schema,

cognitive structures that interpret experiences

on the basis of past interactions and that con-

struct scripts that guide future interactions

(Baldwin, 1992 ). Differences in relationship

schema arise because the nature and the con-

tent of interactions differ across family mem-

bers: Mothers have more mundane socializing

interactions with children than fathers, and a

much higher percentage of mother – child inter-

actions fall into this category than father – child

interactions. In contrast, fathers devote a higher

proportion of their time with adolescents to

recreational activities. These distinctions are

amplified in households with more than one

child. Participants interpret these interactions

in terms of their relationship schema; fathers,

looking to relax, seek to minimize socializa-

tion hassles with children, whereas mothers,

who often experience negative affective spill-

over from work, may invest considerable emo-

tion in otherwise mundane interactions with

children.

Differences in schemas and experiences

have important implications for reports about

family relationships and interactions. Olson

( 1977 ) notes that reports differ not only

between members of a family, but also between

family members and observers. The relation-

ship schema held by observers are not the

same as those held by parents or children

because observers have no common relation-

ship history on which to base expectations

and no emotional stake in the interaction.

Does this mean that observer reports are more

accurate? Not necessarily because, although

observers may be less biased, they are also

less informed. Observers may have difficulty

distinguishing playful insults from hostil-

ity, and they may miss inside jokes or veiled

animosity (Gonzales, Cauc é , & Mason, 1996 ).

This is not to say that observer reports are

unhelpful. There are many important uses for

observer reports, particularly when one needs

an objective take on microanalytic events. But

self - reports are important for precisely the rea-

son they are often shunned by researchers —

namely, because they are biased by participant

perceptions, expectations, and cognitions. The

challenge for developmental scientists is how

best to collect and utilize reports from both

participants in a relationship, which are, by

definition, not independent. To understand the

true course of parent – adolescent relationships,

we must distinguish stability and change as

they are experienced by each participant. This

requires longitudinal data for each reporter. To

understand the role that parent – child relation-

ships play in adolescent outcomes we must

distinguish each participant ’ s perceptions

of the relationship from their perceptions of

their own behavior and that of their partner.

This requires analytic techniques designed for

interdependent data (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook,

2006 ). There are very few circumstances in

which the optimal research strategy involves

(1) focusing exclusively on the views of a sin-

gle relationship participant or (2) combining

parent and child reports into a single score.

Parenting Styles and Practices

Interactional variations from one parent –

adolescent dyad to another have been sub-

sumed, in part, by the construct of parenting

styles (Baumrind, 1991 ; Darling & Steinberg,

1993 ). Parenting styles characterize parents

and their relations with specific children.

Authoritative parenting denotes a complex

amalgam of actions and attitudes that give pri-

ority to the child ’ s needs and abilities while

at the same time implying age - appropriate

maturity demands. By contrast, authoritarian

parenting is typified by interactions implying

relative neglect of the child ’ s needs in favor of

the parent ’ s agenda, strong demands for child

compliance, and forceful methods for gain-

ing compliance and punishing infractions.

c01.indd 16c01.indd 16 2/16/09 4:27:34 PM2/16/09 4:27:34 PM

Interpersonal Processes and Relationship Perceptions 17

Permissive parenting implies low demands

from parents related to child - centered indul-

gence and self - direction on the part of the

child. A fourth dimension, uninvolved parent-

ing , refers to parent - centered inattentiveness

and neglect of the child (Maccoby & Martin,

1983 ). These concepts almost certainly gain

their explanatory power from diverse inter-

actions whose influence is often mistakenly

attributed to parents alone (Collins & Madsen,

2003 ). Indeed, parenting styles are defined in

terms of the attitudes that parents have toward

children and child rearing, the tenor of inter-

actions between parents and children, and

expressions of warmth and discipline. For

example, Maccoby and Martin ( 1983 ) identi-

fied the defining features of authoritativeness as

interactions that are high in reciprocity and

bidirectional communication, whereas authori-

tarian and indulgent styles imply relationships

in which reciprocity and communication are

disrupted by the dominance by the parent (in

the authoritarian style) or the child (in the

indulgent style). As initially conceived, inter-

actions between parents and children were

both a marker and a product of different styles

of parenting.

The distinction between the parent ’ s atti-

tudes about children and the parent ’ s actions

toward children becomes clearer in Darling

and Steinberg ’ s ( 1993 ) formulation, in which

parental styles are global attitudes and emo-

tional stances, and parental practices are

specific strategies for gaining children ’ s com-

pliance, maintaining control, and enforcing

expectations. Although relevant to relation-

ships, styles and practices should not be con-

sidered indices of relationship quality; rather,

these variables refer to the parent ’ s views

about the relationship and behavior within the

relationship, respectively. Practices are pos-

tulated to be an outgrowth of styles, so styles

have more influence over the overall quality

of the relationship than practices. Neither is

fixed; practices change as attitudes about par-

enting are modified and, presumably, parents

modify styles on the basis of experiences with

particular practices in specific relationships. As

their names imply, parental styles and parental

practices describe parents, who are assumed

to be the primary vehicle of influence in the

relationship. Styles and practices are related

to characteristics of parents, such as education

and personality, but they are not traits; parents

can and do adopt different styles and practices

with different children (Baumrind, 1991 ).

Scholars have devoted considerable effort

to the challenge of parsing authoritative parent-

ing. Two areas of controversy merit mention.

The first concerns distinguishing psychologi-

cal control from other aspects of authoritative

parenting (Barber, 1996 ; Gray & Steinberg,

1999 ). Despite recent studies suggesting

that psychological control is distinct from

autonomy granting (Silk, Morris, Kanaya, &

Steinberg, 2003 ) and monitoring (Smetana

& Daddis, 2002 ), the construct remains poorly

understood, in part because some studies

operationalize psychological control as an

index of parenting style whereas others treat

it as a parenting practice (Steinberg, 2005 ).

The second area of controversy concerns the

distinction between parental monitoring and

adolescent disclosure (Kerr & Stattin, 2000 ;

Stattin & Kerr, 2000 ). Although monitoring

is typically defined as parents ’ attempts to

elicit information about youths ’ activities and

whereabouts, measures tend to conflate paren-

tal knowledge with parental efforts to stay

informed (Stattin, Kerr, & Tilton - Weaver, in

press). Stattin and Kerr argue that most paren-

tal knowledge comes from the voluntary dis-

closure of information by adolescents rather

than the active solicitation of information by

parents. Dis closure, they argue, is a product of

family climate or parenting style, not parent-

ing practices. These controversies underscore

the need for scholars to separately consider

information from parents and children because

there are obvious confounds between the

child ’ s reports of their own behavior and their

views of their parents ’ styles and practices.

In North American samples, authoritative

parenting and indulgent parenting are more

c01.indd 17c01.indd 17 2/16/09 4:27:34 PM2/16/09 4:27:34 PM

18 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

prevalent than authoritarian parenting and

neglectful parenting. Most studies that describe

parents of adolescents focus on mothers; some

report the average of maternal and paternal

scores; few examine mothers and fathers sepa-

rately. There is some evidence to suggest that

mothers and fathers in the same household

tend to adopt similar or pure parenting styles

(Steinberg, 2001 ). A recent study (Simmons &

Conger, 2007) revealed consistency between

parents but divergence between reporters: Both

child reports and observer reports agreed that

pure parenting prevailed in most households.

Children indicated that indulgent parenting

was the most common style, whereas observ-

ers indicated that authoritative parenting was

prevalent. Cross - sectional findings imply that

practices associated with authoritarian par-

enting decline across the adolescent years,

practices associated with indulgent parenting

increase across the adolescent years, and prac-

tices associated with authoritative parenting

hold steady (Steinberg & Silk, 2002 ).

Positive Interactions and

Perceived Support

In order to maintain relationships in the midst

of rapid and extensive change, they must be

adapted to the characteristics of individuals.

The most obvious pressure on relationships

comes from the physical, social, and cogni-

tive changes in adolescents. At the same time,

adolescents have a number of new experiences

that differ from their experiences with family

members. As a consequence, the importance

of parents in adolescents ’ lives depends less on

the physical power of parents and the extent to

which they share experiences with their chil-

dren and more on the emotional and instru-

mental support the family provides and the

psychological bond between parents and chil-

dren. Even so, there is considerable continuity

between positive features of relationships dur-

ing adolescence and those earlier in life, despite

alterations in interaction, affect, and cognition.

Early studies pitting parents against peers

found that the latter steadily gained influence at

the expense of the former across the transition

into adolescence and beyond (Bowerman &

Kinch, 1959 ). Subsequent work underscored

the limitations of this hydraulic perspective,

revealing that relative parent and peer influ-

ences vary across domains. For issues relating

to the future (e.g., school and career), parent

influence remains greater than peer influence

across the course of adolescence, but for issues

concerning contemporary lifestyle (e.g., attire

and leisure activities), peer influence increases

during adolescence and eventually outweighs

that of parents (Collins & Steinberg, 2006 ).

Taken together, the literature suggests that

relationships with parents remain the most

influential of all adolescent relationships and

shape most of the important decisions con-

fronting children, even as parents ’ relative

authority over mundane details of adolescents ’

lives wanes. Yet the issue is far from settled

because important questions remain about the

mechanisms of influence, the relative strength

of parents and peers over specific forms of

behavior, and the degree to which relative

influences vary as a product of individual dif-

ferences in family and friend relationships and

in characteristics of youth.

Closeness is an umbrella term that

describes the extent to which two individuals

are connected behaviorally and emotionally.

Com monly invoked indicators include inter-

dependence, intimacy, support, trust, and com-

munication. Although parents and adolescents

who consider themselves close also report

positive thoughts and feelings (Laursen &

Williams, 1997 ), a minority appear to have

highly interdependent and mutually influen-

tial relationships comprised predominantly of

negative interactions in which one person nei-

ther feels positive about nor close to the other

person (Collins & Repinski, 2001 ). The gen-

erally positive views attributed to parents and

adolescents rest on findings that both report

frequent, supportive interactions and a very

low incidence of problems such as physical

withdrawal and communication difficulties.

This depiction of positive, well - functioning

c01.indd 18c01.indd 18 2/16/09 4:27:35 PM2/16/09 4:27:35 PM

Interpersonal Processes and Relationship Perceptions 19

parent – adolescent relationships applies to

families in cultures around the world (Collins,

1995 ; Collins & Repinski, 2001 ).

Continuities in relationships coexist, how-

ever, with significant changes in the amount,

content, and perceived meaning of interac-

tions; in expressions of positive affect between

parents and adolescents; and in their percep-

tions of each other and their relationship

(Collins, 1995 ). Closeness during adolescence

is manifest in forms that differ from close-

ness in earlier parent – child relationships. For

example, intimacy, as expressed by cuddling

and extensive joint interactions, decreases as

children mature, whereas conversations in

which information is conveyed and feelings are

expressed increase (Hartup & Laursen, 1991 ).

These adaptations are appropriate responses to

the maturity level and changing needs of the

adolescent.

Developmental changes in closeness are

well documented. Subjective rankings of

closeness and perceived support and objective

indices of interdependence decrease across

the adolescent years (Laursen & Williams,

1997 ; Mooney, Laursen, & Adams, 2006 ),

as does the amount of time parents and ado-

lescents spend together (Larson, Richards,

Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996 ). Both

the form and the content of time spent together

change. As children get older, they spend

more time watching TV with their parents and

less time sharing meals and going out together

(Dubas & Gerris, 2002 ). Relative to preadoles-

cents, adolescents perceive less companion-

ship and intimacy with parents (Buhrmester &

Furman, 1987 ) and report lower feelings of

acceptance by parents and less satisfaction with

family life (Hill, 1988 ). Although perceptions

of relationships remain generally warm and

supportive, both adolescents and parents report

less frequent expressions of positive emotions

when compared with reports during preadoles-

cence. Decreases in expressed warmth appear

to be steepest from preadolescence to mid -

adolescence, tapering off or even rebound-

ing by late adolescence. In relationships with

mothers and fathers, warmth expressed by

daughters declines more than that expressed

by sons, in part because the former start from

a higher level than the latter (McGue, Elkins,

Walden, & Iacono, 2005 ). Birth order appears

to moderate these trends. First - born children

report the warmest relationships with mothers

and fathers across the course of adolescence,

but firstborns also report the steepest drops

in warmth from early adolescence to mid -

adolescence (Shanahan, McHale, Crouter, &

Osgood, 2007 ). Maternal experiences with

older siblings predict subsequent maternal

perceptions of relations with younger siblings;

parents who have unsatisfactory relationships

with older siblings tend to have similarly

unsatisfactory relationships with younger sib-

lings (Whiteman & Buchanan, 2002 ).

It is important to note, however, that

descriptive data on age - related declines in

closeness may overstate the significance of

changes in parent – adolescent relationships.

Many of the changes reflect a declining depen-

dence on parents, but not necessarily erosion in

the positive features or the importance of these

relationships. This point may be obscured

because research typically focuses on accu-

mulated estimates of change at the group level

without considering change at the level of the

family. Longitudinal data from the Pittsburgh

Youth Study revealed moderate to high levels

of stability in parent and child reports of rela-

tionship qualities (Loeber et al., 2000 ). Across

childhood and adolescence, the relative order-

ing of families on various dimensions of close-

ness remained fairly constant from one year to

the next, even though the mean level of each

variable fell. Other findings show that despite

decreases across the adolescent years, par-

ents remain second only to friends or roman-

tic partners in perceived support during late

adolescence (Furman & Buhrmester, 1989 ).

Almost 20% of late adolescents nominated a

parent as their closest relationship partner, and

25% rated these relationships as their most

interdependent (Laursen & Williams, 1997 ).

Taken together, the available findings portray

c01.indd 19c01.indd 19 2/16/09 4:27:35 PM2/16/09 4:27:35 PM

20 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

a complex dynamic of relationship continu-

ity and change that belies the conventional

view of an abrupt descent toward distance and

alienation.

Parent and adolescent views of the family

are notable for their divergence, particularly

during early adolescence. In general, children

tend to see the family in terms quite different

from parents. Maternal and paternal reports

of their own relationships with an adolescent

child agree more than the child ’ s reports and

that of either parent (Cook & Goldstein, 1993 ).

Where mothers and fathers see unique rela-

tionships, adolescents see monolithic ones.

Parents, especially mothers, tend to appraise

the family more positively than adolescents do

(Laursen & Collins, 2004 ). Mothers routinely

report more warmth and affection among fam-

ily members than adolescents do (Noller &

Callan, 1988 ), which may be an attempt to

ward off the decline in maternal life satisfac-

tion that accompanies increasing adolescent

autonomy (Silverberg & Steinberg, 1990 ).

Another explanation of perceptual discrepan-

cies is rooted in the different orientations of

parents and children. Based on a round - robin,

Social Relations Model design (Cook &

Kenny, 2005 ), recent findings indicate that

adolescents ’ perceptions of family support

were primarily driven by their general views

of the family, whereas parents ’ give greater

weight to evaluations of specific relationships

(Branje, van Aken, & van Lieshout, 2002 ).

Discrepant expectations and mismatched per-

ceptions of cohesion, expressiveness, and sup-

port are highest at the outset of adolescence;

parent and child views gradually converge over

time (Collins, Laursen, Mortensen, Luebker, &

Ferreira, 1997 ; Seiffge - Krenke, 1999 ).

Closeness varies from one adolescent to

another and from one adolescent – parent pair

to another. Adolescents spend more time with

their mothers and are more likely to share

feelings with them. Adolescents are more

likely to disclose information about personal

matters to mothers than to fathers (Smetana,

Metzger, Gettman, & Campione - Barr, 2006 ).

Fathers are often somewhat distant figures,

who tend be consulted primarily for informa-

tion and material support. Sons and daughters

have similarly warm relationships with moth-

ers, but fathers are typically closer to sons

than daughters (Smetana, Campione - Barr, &

Metzger, 2006 ). These trends accelerate across

childhood and adolescence. One longitudinal

study showed that parent involvement during

childhood predicted closeness during adoles-

cence, with stronger links between early father

involvement and closeness to father at age 16

for girls than for boys (Flouri & Buchanan,

2002 ). Adolescent pubertal maturation, above

and beyond age, has also been implicated in

increased family distance, but the effects are

small and inconsistent (Susman & Rogol,

2004 ); the timing of puberty appears to be a

more potent predictor of changes in closeness

than physical maturation per se.

Families adapt to individual and relation-

ship changes in varying ways. Most families

capitalize on greater adolescent maturity by

fostering patterns of sustained inter action

that promote a psychological closeness that

depends less on frequency of interactions

than was the case in childhood. They do so

by adjusting interaction patterns to meet

demands for adolescent autonomy (Collins,

1995 ). Families with a history of interpersonal

problems, however, may lack the adaptive pat-

terns needed for new forms of closeness dur-

ing periods of relative distance and thus may

be unable to surmount the barriers to effective

relationships during adolescence (Grotevant &

Cooper, 1986 ; Hauser, Powers, & Noam,

1991 ). Longitudinal evidence is consistent

with the notion that some families experience

greater diminutions in warmth and closeness

than others. Youth who report the highest lev-

els of support from mothers at the outset of

adolescence experience little or no decline

in perceived support across ages 11 to 13,

whereas those who perceive the lowest initial

levels of perceived support report steep drops

in subsequent support (Adams, 2005 ). Similar

findings emerge from measures of attachment,

c01.indd 20c01.indd 20 2/16/09 4:27:36 PM2/16/09 4:27:36 PM

Interpersonal Processes and Relationship Perceptions 21

where the general trend indicating a decline

in parent – child attachment across the adoles-

cent years appears to be moderated by char-

acteristics of the relationship (Buist, Dekovi c

´ ,

Meeus, & van Aken, 2002 ). Mother – adolescent

attachment security remains steady and even

increases slightly during mid - adolescence for

nondistressed youth, but it declines dramati-

cally for distressed youth (Allen, McElhaney,

Kuperminc, & Jodl, 2004 ). With age, inse-

curely attached youth increasingly turn to

peers to fulfill attachment needs (Markiewicz,

Lawford, Doyle, & Haggart, 2006 ).

Negative Interactions and

Perceived Conflict

Conflict, which is ubiquitous in close rela-

tionships, is especially prominent in families.

Surveys of adolescents indicate that disagree-

ments are most common with mothers, followed

by siblings, friends, and romantic partners, then

fathers; angry disputes arise more frequently

with family members than with close peers

(Laursen, 1995 ). When college students were

asked to recount three memories that defined

the person they came to be, almost all of the

memories involving parents concerned conflict

during the adolescent years (McLean & Thorne,

2003 ). Thus, significant meaning is attached to

some parent – child disagreements.

There is considerable continuity in parent –

child discord. Negativity begets more negativ-

ity. From one year to the next across the course

of adolescence, children ’ s negative feelings for

parents predicted a subsequent increase in par-

ent ’ s negative feelings for children, and vice

versa (Kim, Conger, Lorenz, & Elder, 2001 ).

Family contentiousness during the adolescent

years is best forecast by family disharmony

during the preadolescent years (Stattin &

Klackenberg, 1992 ), and parent – child conflict

during the adolescent years predicts negative

interactions between parents and children dur-

ing young adulthood (Belsky, Jaffee, Hsieh, &

Silva, 2001 ).

Negativity takes many different forms,

but it is most commonly gauged in terms of

interpersonal conflict. Disagreements are com-

posed of discrete components with a sequen-

tial structure (Laursen & Collins, 1994 ). Like

plays or novels, conflicts follow scripts con-

sisting of a protagonist and an antagonist (the

participants), a theme (the topic), a complica-

tion (the initiation), rising action and crisis (the

resolution), and a denouement (the outcome

and aftermath). Conflicts that adolescents

identify as important differ from other con-

flicts primarily in terms of the intense negative

feelings generated during and lingering after

the interaction (Laursen & Koplas, 1995 ).

A few words about assessment are in order.

Disagreement is common, but serious con-

flict is not. This poses a problem for measure-

ment. Some scholars address this problem

by asking parents and children to describe

global perceptions of conflict in their rela-

tionship. Unfortunately, global rating scales

of event frequency are heavily influenced by

individual atrributes, such as personality, and

by overall perceptions of relationship qual-

ity (Schwarz, 1991 ). Other scholars ask par-

ticipants to report on events using a recall

period that spans an extended period of time,

such as the past 2 weeks or month. This, too,

introduces perceptual confounds. When com-

pared to ratings of conflict immediately after

the interaction, adolescent reports of the same

interaction 6 weeks later shifted to be more

consistent with their attachment - related rep-

resentations (Feeney & Cassidy, 2003 ). When

compared to peak ratings of emotion made at

the close of the day, individuals who described

themselves as neurotic recalled more negative

emotions one month later, whereas individu-

als who described themselves as extraverted

recalled more positive emotions one month

later (Barrett, 1997 ). Still other scholars ask

participants to report on recent events, such

as those during the current or previous day.

This minimizes perceptual confounds, but

raises the risk that some youth will describe

unrepresentative days; large samples amelio-

rate this liability to some extent, although it

is still the case that the highly contentious are

c01.indd 21c01.indd 21 2/16/09 4:27:36 PM2/16/09 4:27:36 PM

22 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

most accurately described. A running average

of reports from several consecutive days may

afford the least biased measure of conflict. By

definition, the stability and reliability of reports

of conflict from a single day will be lower than

those that encompass longer time periods,

which, in turn, will be lower than those from

global rating scales; these differences have less

to do with the assessment of conflict than with

the fact that the variables confounded with con-

flict (e.g., personality, relationship representa-

tions) are highly stable (Burk et al., in press).

One final concern: Participants infer meaning

from the time frame given for the recollection

of conflict; long periods imply rare, affectively

laden events, whereas short periods suggest that

the investigator is interested in frequent, mun-

dane experiences (Winkielman, Kn ä uper, &

Schwarz, 1998). These issues, combined with

the absence of a common measurement met-

ric, mean that considerable variability should

be expected in accounts of parent – adolescent

conflict.

Most disagreements between parents and

adolescents concern mundane topics, famously

tagged by John Hill ( 1988 ) as “ garbage and

galoshes ” disputes. Findings from a small

meta - analysis indicate that parent - adolescent

disagreements are usually resolved through

submission or disengagement; compromise is

relatively rare (Laursen, 1993 ). Adolescents

report that conflicts with parents have few

negative repercussions for the relationship,

despite the fact that coercive tactics prevail.

The prototypical conflict between parents and

adolescents involves a mundane topic, with a

power - assertive resolution and a winner/loser

outcome that elicits neutral or angry affect

(Adams & Laursen, 2001 ). This form of

disagreement is to be expected in obligatory

affiliations where power is shared unequally

and where interactions tend to take place on a

closed field (Homans, 1961 ). During the ado-

lescent years, children remain dependent on

parents and have little choice but to engage

them in matters of mutual concern. The con-

tinuity of the relationship does not depend

on getting along, so participants are free to

adopt coercive strategies in conflicts without

fear that the relationship will dissolve as a

consequence.

Conflict with parents was once thought to

increase in early adolescence and decline begin-

ning in middle adolescence, but meta - analytic

methods demonstrated that this presumed

inverted U - shaped curve was an artifact of the

failure to distinguish the frequency of conflict

from its affective quality. Evidence from mul-

tiple studies actually reveals linear declines

in the frequency of conflict with parents from

early adolescence to mid - adolescence and again

from mid - adolescence to late adolescence.

Significantly, however, the anger associated

with these conflicts increases from early ado-

lescence to mid - adolescence, with little change

thereafter (Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998 ).

Thus, conflict rates fall as negative affect

rises, leaving families with the per ception of

worsening discord. A recent challenge to this

explanation argues that curvilinear trends in

parent – child conflict take place at the level of

the family, not the dyad (Shanahan, McHale,

Osgood, & Crouter, 2007 ). According to this

view, conflict between parents and all children

in the household follows an inverted U – shaped

function, beginning when the eldest child is

an early adolescent. This spillover hypothesis

opens a new avenue of research on a topic that

many thought had been settled.

No reliable age differences have emerged

in either the topics or the outcomes of parent –

adolescent conflict, but there is some indica-

tion that conflict resolutions are somewhat

altered across the adolescent years. The fre-

quency with which adolescents submit to par-

ents declines, accompanied by an increase in

disengagement and, during late adolescence,

compromise (Smetana, Daddis, & Chuang,

2003 ; Smetana & Gaines, 1999 ). Perhaps

more important are changes in views concern-

ing the legitimacy of parental authority and

decision making (Smetana, 2000 ). Across the

adolescent years, but particularly during early

adolescence, parents and children renegotiate

c01.indd 22c01.indd 22 2/16/09 4:27:37 PM2/16/09 4:27:37 PM

Interpersonal Processes and Relationship Perceptions 23

domains of authority. Adolescents view an

increasing number of issues to be personal

matters outside of parental authority, whereas

parents continue to see the same topics as pru-

dential or social - conventional matters that fall

within their jurisdiction. Steinberg ( 2001 ) sug-

gests that one reason adults see adolescence as

a particularly contentious age period is that in

the process of claiming authority over domains

previously regulated by parents, youth may

appear overly eager to reject the ways of their

elders.

In contrast to the relatively detailed infor-

mation available about parent – child conflict

during adolescence, we know remarkably

little about changes in parent – child conflict

from childhood to adolescence and from ado-

lescence to adulthood. Evidence is limited to

a single cross - sectional survey indicating that

children perceive conflicts with mothers and

fathers to be more prevalent during adoles-

cence than during childhood or young adult-

hood (Furman & Buhrmester, 1989 ). In the

absence of an empirical literature, Laursen and

Collins ( 2004 ) offered two speculative propo-

sitions regarding long - term developmental

trends in parent – child conflict: (1) The level of

negative affect in parent – child conflict prob-

ably is higher during adolescence than during

any other age period, except perhaps toddler-

hood; and (2) the prevalence of coercion and

winner/loser outcomes in parent – child con-

flict gradually declines across successive age

periods from toddlerhood to adulthood. To this

we would add that parents and children view

these developmental trends somewhat differ-

ently. Parents may regard the changes as signs

of rejection and deteriorating relationships,

whereas adolescents may regard them as evi-

dence of an (overdue) acknowledgment of

enhanced maturity. Those who perceive loss

(i.e., parents) in response to change experience

greater stress than those who perceive gain

(i.e., adolescent children).

Viewing relationships through the prism of

personal gain and loss helps to explain why par-

ents and adolescents describe their interactions

in different terms (Noller, 1994 ). Adolescents

appear to have more accurate (or more hon-

est) appraisals of unpleasant aspects of the

relationship than do parents. Reports of family

conflict from independent observers frequently

match those of adolescent children, but neither

observer nor adolescent reports accord with

parent reports of the same events (Gonzales

et al., 1996 ). Although fathers are stereotyped

as the family member most likely to be out of

touch, accumulating evidence implies that it

is mothers who most often underestimate the

incidence of parent – adolescent conflict and

overestimate its severity. Not coincidentally,

mothers also report the most negative reper-

cussions from conflicts with adolescent chil-

dren (Silverberg & Steinberg, 1990 ). Several

explanations have been offered for mothers ’

relatively extreme responses. Chief among

them is that conflict represents a personal fail-

ure for mothers because it is an indictment of

their ability to serve as family conciliators and

peacemakers (Vuchinich, 1987 ). Moreover,

conflict is the primary vehicle through which

adolescents renegotiate their role in the fam-

ily, which inevitably diminishes maternal (but

not necessarily paternal) authority (Steinberg,

1981 ). The fact that parent and child reports

of conflict appear to converge during late ado-

lescence suggests that disagreements, though

often unpleasant, play an important role in

aligning expectations and facilitating com-

munication among family members (Collins,

1995 ).

Parents appear to become either more

skilled or less invested in changes in relation-

ships with later born children as compared

with firstborn children. It is also possible that

later born children learn how to better navigate

relationships with parents by watching their

older counterparts. In any event, second - born

children report less conflict during early and

mid - adolescence than firstborn children did

during these age periods (Whiteman, McHale, &

Crouter, 2003 ). Compared to second - born chil-

dren, mothers and fathers discipline firstborn

children relatively more often during early

c01.indd 23c01.indd 23 2/16/09 4:27:37 PM2/16/09 4:27:37 PM

24 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

adolescence, particularly if they display high

levels of emotionality (Tucker, McHale, &

Crouter, 2003 ). This type of differential treat-

ment is not necessarily detrimental. Adolescent

perceptions of differential treatment are asso-

ciated with parent reports of greater relation-

ship hostility only when the child perceives

the treatment to be unfair (Kowal, Krull, &

Kramer, 2004 ).

The extent to which gender moderates the

relation between parent – child conflict behav-

ior and developmental changes in adoles-

cents varies according to whether the focus

is the frequency of conflict, the affective

response to it, or the resolution. Rates of con-

flict and levels of negative affect are higher in

mother – daughter relationships than in other

parent – child relationships (Laursen & Collins,

1994 ). In the meta - analysis by Laursen and

colleagues ( 1998 ), conflict rates declined more

in mother – child relationships than in father –

child relationships, but gender did not mod-

erate changes in affective intensity. Conflict

resolutions vary as a function of both parent

and adolescent gender: Compromise is more

common with mothers than with fathers, and

disengagement is more typical of conflict with

sons than of conflict with daughters (Smetana

et al., 2003 ; Smetana, Yau, & Hanson, 1991 ;

Vuchinich, 1987 ). In contrast, studies of nega-

tive affect and conflict resolution yield no reli-

able evidence that gender moderates patterns

of developmental change. Too little attention

has been given to understanding the role gen-

der plays in differences between dyadic and tri-

adic parent – child conflict. Adolescents clearly

interact differently with one parent than they

do with two parents (Vuchinich, Emery, &

Cassidy, 1988 ), and some evidence suggests

that conflict discussions are more con structive

when they involve one parent than when they

involve both (Gjerde, 1986 ). Fathers and sons

are particularly likely to alter conflict behav-

iors in the presence of another parent (Smetana,

Abernethy, & Harris, 2000 ).

Variations in conflict attributed to puberty

depend on whether the indicator is pubertal

status or pubertal timing. Pubertal status refers

to absolute level of sexual maturity. Meta -

analytic comparisons yield a small positive

linear association between pubertal status and

conflict affect, indicating that greater physical

maturity is associated with greater negative

affect (Laursen et al., 1998 ). No similar asso-

ciation emerged for pubertal status and the fre-

quency of parent – child conflict. Observational

studies of problem - solving interactions among

fathers, mothers, and children suggest that

family dynamics shift as a function of puber-

tal maturation (Hill, 1988 ; Steinberg, 1981 ).

Fathers interrupt adolescents during discus-

sions more in the middle phases of pubertal

maturation than in earlier or later phases, suc-

cessfully signaling their dominant role in fam-

ily decision making. Adolescents and mothers

mutually interrupted each other most often

during mid - adolescence, as the former chal-

lenges the authority of the latter. In later puber-

tal phases, mothers interrupt less and appear to

be less influential over the outcomes of group

decisions than sons; mothers and daughters

interrupt each other less and exert similar lev-

els of influence over family decisions.

Pubertal timing is an indicator of ado-

lescents ’ level of maturity relative to peers.

Generally, early maturing sons and daughters

experience more frequent and more intense

parent – child conflict than do adolescents who

mature on time (Laursen & Collins, 1994 ).

Indeed, pubertal timing accounts for much

of the variance in parent – adolescent conflict

that might otherwise be attributed to pubertal

status. Several explanations for the associa-

tion between pubertal timing and parent – child

conflict have been offered, most of which sug-

gest that parents do not agree with adolescents

that physical precocity is a sufficient basis for

autonomy granting (Laursen & Collins, 2004 ).

Evolutionary accounts take a more distal view,

arguing that heightened parent – adolescent

conflict accompanies early puberty and the

onset of sexual activity, which helps to ensure

reproductive success under conditions of envi-

ronmental risk (Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper,

c01.indd 24c01.indd 24 2/16/09 4:27:38 PM2/16/09 4:27:38 PM

The Role of Parent–Child Relationships in Adolescent Adjustment 25

1991 ). Findings that heightened conflict pre-

cedes rather than follows the early onset of

puberty (Belsky et al., 2007 ; Graber, Brooks -

Gunn, & Warren, 1995 ; Moffitt, Caspi, Belsky,

& Silva, 1992 ) underscore the notion that indi-

vidual differences in parent - adolescent con-

flict are rooted in long - standing differences in

family relationships.

Although families vary considerably, the

extreme forms of conflict implied by the popu-

lar impression of storm and stress are neither

typical nor inevitable. Bandura ( 1964 ) force-

fully argued that difficult relations during the

teenage years are generally circumscribed to

those families that also had difficult relations

during childhood. Subsequent reviews of the

literature consistently conclude that turmoil

characterizes a small minority of house-

holds with adolescent children — probably

somewhere between 5% and 15% of North

American families. As we will discuss later,

individual adjustment is closely bound to

interpersonal conflict (Smetana et al., 2006 ).

Relationship difficulties usually have more

to do with distressed family systems or indi-

vidual mental health problems than with the

challenges posed by adolescent development

(Offer & Offer, 1975; Rutter et al., 1976). This

serves as a fitting backdrop to findings from

cluster analyses indicating that bickering is

fairly common in some families, but only a

small fraction have frequent and angry quarrels

(Branje, van Doorn, van der Valk, & Meeus, in

press; Smetana, 1996 ).

Conflict management processes also vary

across dyads such that the significance of a

disagreement depends on the perceived qual-

ity of the relationship. Feelings of positive

connectedness promote the consideration of

alternatives in a nonthreatening context; in less

supportive relationships, disagreement may be

interpreted as a hostile attack that requires an

antagonistic response (Hauser et al., 1991 ). It is

not surprising, therefore, that securely attached

adolescents report fewer conflicts overall

and are more likely to resolve conflict with

parents through the use of compromise and

are less likely to rely on disengagement than

dismissing adolescents (Ducharme, Doyle, &

Markiewicz, 2002 ). One of the most important

tasks confronting parents and children during

adolescence is to renegotiate their roles and

relationship; the overall tenor of the affiliation

has an important bearing on the attitudes that

each brings to the discussion.

To conclude, many families experience a

modest upswing in conflict at the outset of ado-

lescence, but disagreements typically are not a

threat to relationships. Indeed, conflict during

this period actually may strengthen relationships

by providing a vehicle for communication about

interpersonal issues that require attention. More

than any other form of social interaction, dis-

agreements offer parents and adolescents an

opportunity to reconsider and revise expecta-

tions and renegotiate roles and responsibilities

to be consistent with the autonomy typically

accorded to youth in their culture. Most fami-

lies successfully meet this challenge because

they are able to draw on healthy patterns of

interaction and communication established dur-

ing earlier age periods. But for a small minority

of families, the onset of adolescence holds

the potential for a worsening of relationships.

Families with histories of ineffective relation-

ships are at risk for dysfunctional discord as

they encounter pressures to realign relationships

in response to the developmental demands of

adolescence.

THE ROLE OF PARENT – CHILD

RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENT

ADJUSTMENT

Links between parent – adolescent relationships

and the development of individual adolescents

have been the focus of most of the research

on families as contexts of adolescent devel-

opment. Because the evidence on this point

has been reviewed recently and extensively

(Collins & Steinberg, 2006 ; Steinberg & Silk,

2002 ), this section is selective. It focuses pri-

marily on how the recurring action patterns

and emotional qualities of parent – adolescent

interactions are related to key aspects of

c01.indd 25c01.indd 25 2/16/09 4:27:38 PM2/16/09 4:27:38 PM

26 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

psychosocial competence in adolescence. The

section is divided into two parts. The first is an

overview of findings directly linking parent –

child interactions to adolescent development.

The second outlines illustrative evidence that

parent – child relationships also play an impor-

tant indirect role in adolescent socialization by

moderating and mediating the impact of influ-

ences in and beyond the family.

Adolescent Outcomes Associated with

Parent – Adolescent Relationships

Parental style, the dimension that is most

closely related to the emotional tenor or qual-

ity of the parent – child relationship, is regarded

as having motivational effects on the child ’ s

receptiveness to specific practices (Darling &

Steinberg, 1993 ). It follows that the quality of

parent – child exchanges and shared decision

making, over and above the specific content

of parental teaching, should contribute to the

development of autonomous, responsible ado-

lescent behavior by facilitating role - taking

skills, ego development, and identity explo-

ration (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986 ; Hauser

et al., 1991 ). The evidence is consistent with

this hypothesis: Mature levels of these compe-

tencies are associated with parent – adolescent

relationships in which both individuation and

connectedness are encouraged (Allen, Hauser,

Bell, & O ’ Connor, 1994 ; Lamborn, Mounts,

Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991 ).

Parental styles have been linked to a wide

range of adjustment outcomes. In general,

children of authoritative parents are most apt

to excel in school and display the highest lev-

els prosocial behavior, whereas children of

neglectful or uninvolved parents tend to evince

the most antisocial and health - risk behaviors

and the least psychosocial maturity (Steinberg,

2001 ). Authoritative parent – child relationships

are marked by parents ’ expectations of mature

behavior in combination with interpersonal

warmth, accepting attitudes, bidirectional

communication, and an emphasis on train-

ing social responsibility and concern for the

impact of one ’ s action on others. Neglectful

parenting, in contrast, consists of relatively

few expectations, low involvement with the

child, and a rejecting, unresponsive, parent -

centered attitude. Recent evidence suggests

that the advantages of authoritative parenting

and the disadvantages of neglectful parenting,

found in community samples across cultures,

may even extend to families of youth who

commit serious criminal offenses (Steinberg,

Blatt - Eisengart, & Cauffman, 2006 ).

Practices that are typical of authorita-

tive families are linked to indices of positive

adjustment. In studies of moral development

and social responsibility, prosocial behavior is

correlated with clearly communicated paren-

tal expectations for appropriate behavior, and

with warmth and moderate power accompa-

nied by reasoning and explanation (Eisenberg,

Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006 ). Adolescents ’ percep-

tions of parental acceptance and involvement

are correlated positively with self - confidence,

identity exploration, and empathic behav-

ior (Jackson, Dunham, & Kidwell, 1990 ;

Kamptner, 1988 ). Observational studies of

parent – adolescent interaction have shown

that adolescents from families marked by high

encouragement for expressing and develop-

ing one ’ s own point of view manifested higher

levels of identity exploration (Grotevant &

Cooper, 1985 ). These conclusions are bolstered

by longitudinal studies showing that high lev-

els of bidirectional communication and mutual

respect in parent – child relationships corre-

late positively with subsequent adolescent

psychosocial maturity. Allen and colleagues

( 1994 ) report that parents ’ (especially fathers ’ )

behaviors that made it more difficult for fam-

ily members to discuss their preferences were

highly correlated with subsequent decreases in

adolescents ’ ego development and self - esteem.

In a similar study, Walker and Taylor ( 1991 )

found that advances in adolescents ’ moral -

reasoning levels were best predicted by earlier

parent – child interactions characterized by sup-

portive, but cognitively challenging, discus-

sions of moral issues. Although joint decision

making is generally associated with the most

c01.indd 26c01.indd 26 2/16/09 4:27:39 PM2/16/09 4:27:39 PM

The Role of Parent–Child Relationships in Adolescent Adjustment 27

favorable adolescent outcomes, longitudinal

findings suggest that additional benefits may

accrue to those who are gradually accorded

autonomy over personal issues (Smetana,

Campione - Barr, & Daddis, 2004 ).

A large body of evidence links certain

parenting practices to maladaptive adoles-

cent out comes. Correlational findings imply

that antisocial behavior and substance use

are most strongly predicted by an absence of

behavioral control; self - esteem and internaliz-

ing problems have the strongest links to warmth

and autonomy granting; and school grades are

uniquely associated with warmth, autonomy

granting, and behavioral control (Barber,

Stoltz, & Olsen, 2005 ; Gray & Steinberg,

1999 ). Studies of this type have been justly

criticized for their reliance on concurrent data,

but recent longitudinal evidence indicates that

parenting practices predict subsequent changes

in adolescent outcomes. Among youth affiliat-

ing with deviant peers at age 11, externalizing

behaviors increased across the next 4 years

for those whose parents reported low levels of

behavioral control, but there was no change in

externalizing problems for those whose par-

ents reported high levels of behavioral control

(Galambos, Barker, & Almeida, 2003 ). Parental

warmth also forecasts decreases in adolescent

externalizing behaviors; psychological control

anticipates increases in adolescent internaliz-

ing (Doyle & Markiewicz, 2005 ). Some studies

have raised the prospect that the influence of

different parenting practices varies as a func-

tion of the child ’ s characteristics. For instance,

harsh parenting best predicts externalizing

problems for undercontrolled youth but inter-

nalizing problems for overcontrolled youth

(van Leeuwen, Mervielde, Braet, & Bosmans,

2004 ). Findings of this sort strongly imply that

greater attention must be given to the match

between parenting practices and child char-

acteristics, because some child characteristics

may amplify the risks associated with deleteri-

ous parenting.

Negative and positive features of parent – child

relationship are only modestly intercorrelated,

and each is known to make a unique contribu-

tion to adolescent outcomes. With regard to

negative features, many studies have indicated

that high levels of conflict are associated with

psychosocial problems during adolescence and

beyond. Reciprocated hostility between parents

and early adolescents predicts subsequent con-

duct problems and depressive symptoms during

mid - adolescence and high levels of expressed

negative affect toward romantic partners at age

18 (Ge, Best, Conger, & Simons, 1996 ; Kim,

Conger, Lorenz, & Elder, 2001 ). High levels of

parent – child conflict during adolescence have

also been linked to emotional maladjustment

and poor - quality relationships with roman-

tic and marital partners at age 25 (Overbeek,

Stattin, Vermulst, Ha, & Engels, 2007 ).

Conflict is not uniformly deleterious, how-

ever. Its impact appears to vary as a function

of the perceived quality of the relationship.

Evidence suggests that conflict is inversely

related to well - being if the relationship is per-

ceived to be poor, but moderate amounts of

conflict may be beneficial for those whose rela-

tionships are good (Adams & Laursen, 2007 ).

Regardless of the quality of the relationship,

the worst outcomes are generally reserved for

those with the most conflicts. But when ado-

lescents reporting no conflicts with mothers

and fathers are compared to those reporting

an average number of conflicts, the latter had

higher school grades if they were in better but

not poorer quality relationships and reported

more withdrawal if they were in poorer but

not better quality relationships. The negative

tenor of conflicts in relationships perceived to

be unsupportive undoubtedly plays a central

role in these deleterious outcomes. Findings

that poorly managed parent – child conflict is

associated with adolescent depression, delin-

quency, and self - esteem (Caughlin & Malis,

2004 ; Tucker, McHale, & Crouter, 2003; van

Doorn, Branje, & Meeus, in press) suggest that

dysfunctional families not only have frequent

disagreements but that these disagreements are

typically angry and are resolved in a coercive,

unconstructive manner.

c01.indd 27c01.indd 27 2/16/09 4:27:39 PM2/16/09 4:27:39 PM

28 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

Perceptions matter. New studies indicate

that adolescent views of relationship quality

predict the trajectory of subsequent individual

adjustment. Studies of attachment security

indicate that adolescent representations of

parent – child relationships predict changes

in internalizing and externalizing symptoms

(Allen, Porter, McFarland, McElhaney, &

Marsh, 2007 ). Adolescent attachment security

also predicts increases in social skills and con-

structive interactions with romantic partners

(Allen, Marsh, McFarland, McElhaney, &

Land, 2002 ; Roisman, Madsen, Hennighausen,

Sroufe, & Collins, 2001 ). Difficulties increase

over time for adolescents who initially perceive

low support from parents, whereas adjustment

problems remain flat or even decline for those

who initially perceive high support from parents

(Brendgen, Wanner, Morin, & Vitaro, 2005 ;

Dekovic

´ , Buist, & Reitz, 2004 ). This is not just

a matter of the troubled getting worse and the

well - adjusted getting better; the same findings

emerge for youth with comparable levels of

behavior problems at the outset of adolescence

(Mooney, Laursen, & Adams, 2007).

Adolescent reports are most likely to be

indicative of positive adjustment when they

converge with parent reports. Regardless of who

sees the relationship in better terms, large dis-

crepancies signal poor adolescent functioning.

Specifically, divergent reports of relationship

quality and parenting practices are associated

with concurrent academic and behavioral prob-

lems (Feinberg, Howe, Reiss, & Hetherington,

2000 ; Mounts, 2007 ) and prospective declines

in adolescent self - esteem (Ohannessian, Lerner,

Lerner, & von Eye, 2000 ). Perceptions also

matter in terms of whether adolescents see

themselves as receiving the same treatment as a

sibling. After accounting for absolute levels of

each, differential warmth and control uniquely

predict adolescent outcomes (Tamrouti -

Makkink, Dubas, Gerris, & van Aken, 2004 ).

Not surprisingly, effects are stronger for the

sibling who perceives himself or herself to be

the recipient of poorer treatment (Feinberg &

Hetherington, 2001 ; Sheehan & Noller, 2002).

The increasing use of longitudinal designs

bodes well for conclusions concerning parent

influences. However, the largely correlational

nature of findings from longitudinal data

leaves open the question of process: What is

the origin of associations between variations

in family relationships and adolescent adjust-

ment? Several possibilities have been proposed

(Collins et al., 2000 ). One is that parents ’ child -

rearing behaviors provide models of different

patterns of social responsibility and concern

for others. A second possibility is that differ-

ent parenting styles engender differentially

effective skills for autonomous, responsible

behavior. In this respect, parent – child rela-

tionships provide continuities between child-

hood and the new demands of adolescence

that facilitate the integration of past and future

roles. Third, sensitive, responsive parental

treatment of children and adolescents pro-

motes positive emotional bonds that make the

values and behaviors of parents more salient

and attractive to adolescents. These three pos-

sibilities are not mutually exclusive. Indeed,

multiple plausible mechanisms imply a more

complex causal process than does a view that

emphasizes the simple transmission of par-

ents ’ values to the next generation (Kuczynski,

2003 ; Grusec, Goodnow, & Kuczynski, 2000).

Adolescent adjustment clearly is facilitated by

certain parental behaviors, but the operative

processes almost certainly include dynamic

properties of relationships between parent and

child that foster the adolescents ’ desire or will-

ingness to be influenced.

The debate on parental monitoring and

child disclosure is instructive in this regard.

Parental monitoring has long been assumed

to be beneficial for adolescent development.

Many scholars have reported that monitoring

predicts concurrent and prospective adolescent

outcomes. Although monitoring is conceptu-

alized as an active process whereby parents

solicit information about children and keep

track of their activities and whereabouts, the

conflation of measures of parental control and

knowledge with measures of child disclosure

c01.indd 28c01.indd 28 2/16/09 4:27:40 PM2/16/09 4:27:40 PM

The Role of Parent–Child Relationships in Adolescent Adjustment 29

calls into question the mechanisms of parent

influence, raising the prospect that a family

climate that encourages disclosure may be

more important than parent monitoring efforts.

Initial reports by Stattin and Kerr ( 2000 ; Kerr &

Stattin, 2000 ) and a recent longitudinal rep-

lication (Kerr, Stattin, and Burk, in press)

indicating that parental knowledge from child

disclosure predicted concurrent adolescent

adjustment more strongly than did knowledge

gained by tracking and surveillance launched

a flurry of empirical work. The finding that

parental monitoring is of secondary impor-

tance in the prediction of adolescent out-

comes has not been consistently replicated

(Fletcher, Steinberg, & Williams - Wheeler, 2004 ;

Waizenhofer, Buchanan, & Jackson - Newsom,

2004 ), which has stimulated an ongoing search

for potential moderating variables.

One important distinction to emerge is

that between voluntary disclosure and active

attempts to keep secrets from parents (Frijns,

Finkenaur, Vermulst, & Engels, 2005). Adoles-

cents from authoritative homes and those who

report high levels of trust and acceptance in

relationships with parents are more apt to dis-

close information and refrain from lying and

keeping secrets than adolescents who report

low levels of trust and acceptance (Darling,

Cumsille, Caldwell, & Dowdy, 2006 ; Smetana,

Metzger, Gettman, & Campione - Barr, 2006 ).

These findings raise the possibility that some

parents find monitoring more effective and

rewarding than others. We know that parents

tend to decrease their monitoring of deviant

youth, even though this results in a subsequent

escalation of antisocial behavior (Dishion,

Nelson, & Bullock, 2004 ; Jang & Smith, 1997 ;

Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003 ). Perhaps

the parents of deviant children (for whom trust

and acceptance are in short supply) respond to

secretive and nonresponsive youth by reducing

efforts to solicit information, which widens the

gulf between them and diminishes the parent ’ s

potential for positive influence (Kerr, Stattin, &

Pakalnaskiene, in press). Thus, family climate

dictates the degree to which parental knowledge

is effective in shaping adolescent outcomes by

creating conditions that foster or inhibit honest

disclosure and effective supervision.

Parent – Child Relationships as

Moderators and Mediators of

Influence

Contemporary approaches to research on

parenting have moved beyond the exclusive

reliance on the global analyses of parental influ-

ence that dominated the field in the last cen-

tury (Collins et al., 2000 ). Among the insights

emerging from these more complex models of

parenting is the recognition that, in addition

to their direct impact on adolescent develop-

ment, relationships with parents also may be

significant as intervening mechanisms. In this

section, we consider instances in which parent –

adolescent relationships serve as moderators

of relations between other sources of influence

and adolescent outcomes and as mediators that

help to account for or explain why a predictor

is related to the outcome of interest.

The complex interplay between genetic

and environmental influences on adolescent

development is illustrated by recent findings

indicating that parenting moderates the heri-

tability of adolescent adjustment difficulties.

The first example concerns the role of parental

monitoring on adolescent cigarette smoking

(Dick, Viken, Purcell, Kaprio, Pulkkinen, &

Rose, 2007 ). A genetically informed twin

design revealed that parental monitoring had

a very modest direct influence on smoking

(accounting for less than 2% of the variance),

but the effects for monitoring as a moderator

of genetic influence were dramatic: Genetic

factors accounted for more than 60% of the

variance at the low end of the parental moni-

toring continuum and less than 15% of the

variance at the high end. A related study indi-

cated that parental warmth similarly moder-

ates genetic influence on adolescent antisocial

behavior but not depression (Feinberg, Button,

Neiderhiser, Reiss, & Hetherington, 2007 ). At

low levels of warmth, genetics accounts for

90% of the variance in antisocial behavior, but

c01.indd 29c01.indd 29 2/16/09 4:27:40 PM2/16/09 4:27:40 PM

30 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

at high levels of warmth, the contribution of

genetics approaches zero. These findings ren-

der discussions about the relative importance

of genes and parenting practices obsolete;

child outcomes clearly depend on both.

As one set of relationships in a larger net-

work of close relationships, parent influences

moderate and are moderated by peer rela-

tionships and relationships with other family

members. Most adolescents are embedded

in networks of relationships that are similar in

their perceived quality. Longitudinal evidence

indicates that the majority of adolescents

describe all of their parent and friend rela-

tionships as either high quality or low qual-

ity; fewer than one in four adolescents report

diverging support from peers and parents

(Laursen, Furman, & Mooney, 2006 ). Good

relationships with friends can ameliorate some

of the detrimental impact associated with poor

relationships with parents (Gauze, Bukowski,

Aquan - Assee, & Sippola, 1996 ), but there are

limits to this buffering. Adolescents reporting

a positive relationship with a parent or a friend

(but not both) had somewhat better outcomes

than adolescents with no positive relation-

ships, but adolescents with uniformly posi-

tive relationships almost always had the best

school grades, the highest self - worth, and the

fewest behavior problems (Laursen & Mooney,

2008).

Parenting quality moderates extrafamilial

stressors. Mid - adolescents experiencing high

levels of school hassles demonstrated more

competent functioning and less evidence of

psychopathology if they rated their familial

relationships as high quality rather than lower

quality (Garber & Little, 1999 ). Moreover,

the link between after - school self - care and

involvement in problem behaviors was found

to be buffered by parental acceptance and firm

control, which are the dual hallmarks of rela-

tionships in authoritative families (Galambos &

Maggs, 1991 ). The potential complexity of

moderation is evident in research showing

that the perceived quality of relationships with

parents facilitated adolescents ’ modeling of

parents ’ substance use. Adolescents who had

a relatively good relationships with parents

tended to follow their parents ’ example more

than if the relationship was relatively poor

(Andrews, Hops, & Duncan, 1997), implying

that positive relationships with antisocial par-

ents may be a source of risk.

These instances broaden simplistic cause -

and - effect models of the impact of parent –

adolescent relationships. Rather than focusing

only on the assumption that parenting styles

and practices cause the outcomes to which cor-

relational findings have linked them, compel-

ling evidence shows that parent – adolescent

relationships contribute to adolescent develop-

ment by modifying the impact of other sources

of influence and by transmitting them to ado-

lescents through moment - to - moment exchanges

between parents and children. The next section

includes examples that illustrate the process

whereby parenting mediates associations from

familial and extrafamilial stressors to adoles-

cent adjustment outcomes. We know that chil-

dren are active participants in the socialization

process and that parents react to their children ’ s

behavior. Thus, parenting practices may buffer

against or exacerbate child tendencies, as in

findings where inept parenting mediates links

between oppositional behavior in early adoles-

cence and the subsequent trajectory of adoles-

cent delinquent peer affiliation (Simons, Chao,

Conger, & Elder, 2001 ). It is fitting, therefore,

that scholars devote more effort to understanding

and elaborating the various bidirectional models

of parent – child relationship influence.

THE INTERPLAY OF

CONTEXT AND RELATIONSHIP

PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES

Although the significance of parent – adolescent

relationships and influences is surprisingly

consistent across social, economic, and cul-

tural contexts (Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005 ;

Steinberg, 2001 ), forces outside of the parent –

adolescent dyad nevertheless help to shape

the nature and impact of interactions and their

impact on adolescent behavior and adjustment.

c01.indd 30c01.indd 30 2/16/09 4:27:41 PM2/16/09 4:27:41 PM

The Interplay of Context and Relationship Processes and Outcomes 31

Links between adolescent adjustment and

differing contexts are well documented

(e.g., Fuligni, Hughes, & Way, this volume).

Recently, researchers have begun to exam-

ine the processes that account for these asso-

ciations. In general, their findings have shown

that, although differing contexts each exert cer-

tain direct influences both on parenting and on

adolescent behavior and adjustment, it is often

the case that parent – adolescent interactions

serve as conduits by which contexts impinge

on adolescent development or as buffers of the

potential impact of contexts.

This section briefly outlines illustrative

instances of parent – adolescent interactions as

moderators and mediators of contextual influ-

ences. The first concerns changes in the fam-

ily system associated with marital difficulties.

The second focuses on links between adoles-

cent – parent relationships and parents ’ work

experiences and socioeconomic circumstances.

The third considers the opportunities and con-

straints in parent – adolescent relationships

associated with ethnic and cultural variations.

Characteristics of Family Systems

Adolescent development occurs within family

systems, and apparently direct effects of fea-

tures of, and especially changes in, the systems

are well documented. Most prominently, differ-

ences between parent – adolescent relationships

in generally harmonious families versus those

marked by high levels of conflict and disrup-

tion in one or more of the relationships in the

systems are frequently associated with sharply

contrasting behavior and adjustment of adoles-

cents (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992 ).

Impact of Parental Conflict

Children and adolescents who witness fre-

quent, angry, unresolved conflicts between

mothers and fathers become distressed and

manifest depressive symptoms and behavior

problems (Cummings & Davies, 1994 ). In

addition, marital conflict is associated with

increased conflict between parents and ado-

lescents (Almeida, Wethington, & Chandler,

1999 ). This heightened conflict is associ-

ated with more negative adolescent behavior

and poorer adjustment, even in cases where

the parent – adolescent relationship is generally

positive (Erel & Burman, 1995 ).

The accumulated evidence implies that

marital conflict and other stressors may under-

mine parents ’ ability to maintain an authori-

tative parenting style. In many families links

between marital conflict and adolescent inter-

nalizing and externalizing problems are medi-

ated by high parent – adolescent conflict and

associated harsh discipline (Buehler & Gerard,

2002 ; Low & Stocker, 2005 ). Moreover,

according to longitudinal evidence, the non-

constructive resolution strategies that typify

conflictful marital relationships are effectively

transmitted to parent – adolescent relationships

(van Doorn, Branje, & Meeus, 2007 ). Relations

between children and fathers are particularly

vulnerable to high levels of marital troubles

(Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000 ), suggest-

ing that mediated effects may occur more fre-

quently in father – adolescent relationships than

in mother – adolescent relationships.

Divorce and Remarriage

High levels of marital conflict commonly

eventuate in divorce, which can exacerbate the

stress and emotional disruption that stem from

the multiple physical, cognitive, and social

changes of adolescence. Moreover, the transi-

tions necessitated by divorce may entail other

stressors, such as economic need and changes

in domicile, neighborhoods, and schools, as

well as continuing emotional distress for par-

ents and reorganization of family roles and

relationships (Hetherington, 1999 ). These mul-

tiple stressors contribute to temporary disorga-

nization and disruption of parent – adolescent

relationships. Mother – adolescent relationships

in divorced families manifest higher levels of

both conflict and harmony than do relation-

ships in never - divorced families. Divorced

mothers monitor their children ’ s activities less

closely and demand greater responsibility for

family tasks than do married mothers. Divorced

c01.indd 31c01.indd 31 2/16/09 4:27:41 PM2/16/09 4:27:41 PM

32 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

mothers also use more peremptory and coer-

cive techniques to discipline and otherwise

influence adolescents ’ behavior. For their part,

adolescents in recently divorced families tend

to feel anger and moral indignation toward

their parents. Some adolescents react by pull-

ing away from the family and behaving with

aloofness toward both parents, a withdrawal

that may help them adjust to the divorce. These

changes in parent – adolescent relationships

and influences, rather than direct effects of

the divorce or remarriage, likely account for the

links between transitions in family systems

and negative behavior and adjustment in the

adolescent (for review, see Hetherington &

Stanley - Hagan, 2002 ).

Whether perturbed parent – adolescent

relationships imply higher levels of parent –

adolescent conflict in divorced than in

never - divorced families is unclear. Some

researchers found more conflict in divorced

families in the 2 - year period of adjustment,

with a gradual return to levels similar to those

of never - divorced families (Hetherington &

Kelly, 2002 ). Others report that initial

increased levels are sustained beyond the first

2 years (Baer, 1999 ), and still others found

fewer arguments in single - parent families

than in married households (Smetana, Yau,

Restrepo, & Braeges, 1991 ). Two studies sug-

gests that overall rates of parent – adolescent

conflict in intact two - parent households and

divorced single - parent households are similar,

but that mother – adolescent conflict differs

across house holds because mothers in single -

parent house holds are engaged in disputes

that otherwise fall to fathers in two - parent

households (Laursen, 1995 , 2005 ).

Custodial parenting arrangements vary.

Disruptions in relationships with noncus-

todial fathers appear to be more extensive

and long - lasting than in mother – adolescent

relationships, showing links to adjustment

and relationships of offspring a decade later

during young adulthood (Burns & Dunlop,

1998 ; Hetherington, 1999 ). Regardless, ado-

lescents who have regular, supportive contact

with their noncustodial parent have different

experiences than those for whom the non-

custodial parent is rarely, if ever, in contact.

Moreover, having support from an extended

family member, such as a grandparent, is

linked to single parents ’ success in maintain-

ing authoritative parenting practices; extended

family support is notably less important for

sustained authoritative parenting in intact

households (Taylor, Casten, & Flickinger,

1993 ). These differences in the significance of

postdivorce arrangements vary to some extent

with the recency of divorce and the number

of ancillary changes that accompany divorce

(Steinberg & Silk, 2002 ).

Are the implications of apparent disruptions

in relationships unique to recently divorced

parents and adolescents? Some evidence sug-

gests that parental conflict and lack of har-

mony in the family have negative effects much

like those observed in studies of the impact

of divorce (Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, &

Wierson, 1990 ). Moreover, the nature and

extent of disruptions vary among divorced

families, with more pronounced links for boys

than for girls, especially when the mother is

the custodial parent (Needle, Su, & Doherty,

1990 ). Adolescents who have experienced

divorce tend to be somewhat less well adjusted

than those who have not. A meta - analysis of

parental divorce and child adjustment revealed

modest differences between divorced and

intact families in terms of secondary school

student outcomes in the domains of academic

achievement, conduct, psychological adjust-

ment, self - concept, and parent – adolescent

relationships (Amato, 2001 ).

The impact of remarriage on parent –

adolescent relationships likewise varies con-

siderably from family to family and adolescent

to adolescent (Amato, 2000 ). Adjustment to

remarriage appears to be more difficult initially

for daughters than for sons (Hetherington &

Stanley - Hagan, 2002 ). Whereas warmth and

intimacy characterize mothers and daughters

in divorced, single - parent families relative

to intact, two - parent families, closeness in

c01.indd 32c01.indd 32 2/16/09 4:27:42 PM2/16/09 4:27:42 PM

The Interplay of Context and Relationship Processes and Outcomes 33

the former group declines somewhat when the

parent remarries. In contrast, sons sometimes

benefit from the introduction of a stepfather

into the family. Their relations with mothers

often improve, and stepfathers also report

more positive relationships with boys than with

girls. Findings from one study imply that some

African American adolescents benefit more

from remarriage than European American

adolescents (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994 ).

In the final analysis, adolescents ’ relationships

with parents and stepparents depend on sev-

eral factors. Continuing tensions and conflict

between an adolescent ’ s biological mother and

father generally make it more difficult for the

adolescent to adjust.

In general, noncustodial parents who put the

welfare and adjustment of their children before

their own personal difficulties foster posi-

tive parent – adolescent relationships and high

levels of authoritative parenting during family

transitions. Recent findings show that adoles-

cents who perceive little conflict between their

parents and close relationships between them-

selves and their parents have fewer adjustment

problems than do those whose parents are in

conflict with one another (Brody & Forehand,

1990 ). One reason for this is that adolescents

often feel caught between warring parents and

have attendant fears of breaching their rela-

tionship with one parent or another (Buchanan,

Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991 ).

Economic Status

In cases where parents either are unemployed

or income is insufficient for the family, ado-

lescents face well - documented developmental

challenges. Among the multiple risks associ-

ated with economic strain are difficulties in

familial relationships, including those between

parents and adolescents. As with the effect

of family system stressors, the operative fac-

tor appears to be deterioration of the parents ’

ability to maintain nurturant, authoritative par-

enting (Grant, Compas, Stuhlmacher, Thurm,

McMahon, & Halpert, 2003 ).

Strong evidence indicates that the impact

of family economic strain on adolescents is

mediated by a rise in negativity and a deteriora-

tion of nurturant and involved parenting, which

in turn is associated an increase in adolescent

academic and behavior problems (Gutman &

Eccles, 1999 ). Familial conflicts serve a similar

mediating role in the link between family eco-

nomic hardship and adolescent aggression and

anxiety – depression (Wadsworth & Compas,

2002 ). Both chronic poverty (McLoyd, 1998 )

and sudden economic loss (Conger et al., 1992 ,

1993 ) are associated with greater parent –

adolescent conflict, more negative behaviors,

harsh, punitive parenting, and adverse adoles-

cent outcomes in domains ranging from proso-

cial behavior to academic achievement.

Recent findings specify one process by

which parent – adolescent relationships may

exacerbate or buffer the impact of economic

strain on adolescent behavior and adjustment.

Early adolescents who experience chronic

stress from family turmoil, poverty, and

crowded, substandard living conditions gener-

ally manifest higher allostatic load (a physio-

logical marker of cumulative wear and tear on

the body) than adolescents with lower cumu-

lative risk. This effect is most pronounced for

adolescents whose mothers are low in respon-

siveness, implying that having a responsive

mother is a resource for adolescents in stressful

circumstances, whereas low maternal respon-

siveness is an additional risk factor (Evans,

Kim, Ting, Tesher, & Shannis, 2007 ).

It should be noted that stressors and devel-

opmental challenges emanate not only from

economic loss and disadvantage. As a group,

children and adolescents from affluent families

manifest problems such as depression, anxiety,

and substance abuse to a greater extent than

those from less affluent families (Luthar &

Latendresse, 2005 ). This link between afflu-

ence and developmental risk is mediated by

achievement pressures and isolation from par-

ents. In many affluent families, material wealth

appears to be accompanied by reduced contact

between parents and their offspring, possibly

c01.indd 33c01.indd 33 2/16/09 4:27:42 PM2/16/09 4:27:42 PM

34 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

resulting in poorer quality parent – adolescent

relationships (Luthar & Becker, 2002 ).

Parental Work Roles

Parent – adolescent relationships often reflect

the nature of parents ’ work roles and the

stresses associated with them. Kohn ( 1979 )

argued that parents whose work requires con-

formity rather than individual initiative tend

to value obedience over autonomy in their

children ’ s behavior. In addition, parents ’ work

schedules — whether they are required to travel

extensively, and even the distance between

workplace and home — often influence what

adolescents are expected or allowed to do

(Gottfried, Gottfried, & Bathurst, 2002 ).

Until recently, researchers focused almost

exclusively on maternal employment. Today,

few studies show differences in closeness or

other qualities of relationships for working and

nonworking mothers (Galambos & Maggs,

1991 ; Keith, Nelson, Schlabach, & Thompson,

1990 ). Indeed, both sons and daughters of

working mothers appear to have less stereo-

typed views of masculine and feminine gender

roles than children with nonworking mothers

(Hoffman & Youngblade, 1999 ).

In response, researchers have broadened

their inquiries to address the impact that par-

ents ’ work - related stressors have on their

family lives. Findings show that work - related

stressors may exacerbate marital and parent –

adolescent conflicts. In one study, mothers

and fathers were more likely to experience

tense interactions with their adolescents when

they also had experienced work overloads or

home demands (Almeida et al., 1999 ). Tension

spillover was more likely for mothers with

adolescents than for mothers with younger

children. Other findings have revealed that

the link between parents ’ work pressures and

adolescent well - being are mediated by parents ’

sense of role overload (Crouter et al., 1999 ).

Having documented these problems, we still

lack research that describes the processes by

which parents and adolescents adjust to the

competing demands of parents ’ work and

family roles.

Ethnic and Cultural Variations

Little is known about variations in closeness

among adolescents and parents who differ in

socioeconomic status or ethnic background.

One issue in comparing diverse groups is the

best method for equating the degree of close-

ness associated with different norms and cul-

tural forms of relating. The suggestion that

closeness be operationalized as interdepen-

dence may provide a partial solution to this

quandary by allowing for members of cul-

tural groups to specify and report on the fre-

quency, duration, diversity, and salience of

activities that denote closeness in their respec-

tive contexts (Reis et al., 2000 ). Variations

among families also reflect differences in

ethnic and cultural heritages. Different cul-

tures foster sometimes contrasting views of

parent – adolescent relationships (Feldman &

Rosenthal, 1991 ). For Korean adolescents,

strict parental control signifies parental

warmth and low neglect, whereas middle - class

adolescents in North America typically regard

the same behavior from parents as repressive

(Rohner & Pettengill, 1985 ). Adolescents from

European backgrounds report similar or greater

closeness, compared to their peers from fami-

lies with Mexican or Chinese backgrounds, yet

those from the latter two groups experience a

stronger emphasis on family obligation and

assistance than do adolescents from European

backgrounds (Hardway & Fuligni, 2006 ).

Cultural comparisons generally show sizable

overlaps in descriptions of relationships across

differing cultural groups and equal or even

greater diversity within than between these

groups (Harkness & Super, 2002 ).

Cultural gaps in the nature and significance

of parent – adolescent interactions are espe-

cially apparent in immigrant families. Parent –

adolescent relationships vary across immigrant

families and between immigrant families and

those of the host culture, reflecting parents ’

varied cultural and normative patterns. For

c01.indd 34c01.indd 34 2/16/09 4:27:43 PM2/16/09 4:27:43 PM

Conclusion 35

example, Asian American families in California

reported more formal communication with

their parents than did either Hispanic American

or European American adolescents (Cooper,

1994 ). Asian American youth also expressed

higher levels of familistic values, emphasizing

the importance of respect for and duty toward

parents and family. Some cultures foster rela-

tively more attention to duty and filial piety

than others (Hofstede, 1980 ), and these differ-

ences may affect the degree to which adoles-

cents evaluate their relationships with parents

and siblings in terms of the quality of interac-

tion. Research findings suggest that patterns

of parent – adolescent conflict differ between

immigrant and nonimmigrant families in the

United States (Fuligni, 1998 ), but not between

different nonimmigrant subgroups (Smetana &

Gaines, 1999 ). Similarly, Greek Australian

adolescents reported more tolerance and accep-

tance of conflict than did Greek adolescents

reared in Greece, but Greek Australian par-

ents viewed conflict with their children much

as the parents living in Greece did (Rosenthal,

Demetriou, & Efklides, 1989 ).

Despite cultural and ethnic differences

in the perceived qualities of relationships,

several studies have documented consistent

correlations between the characteristics of

paren tal behavior toward adolescents and ado-

lescents ’ behavior and development. In one

multiethnic sample, adolescents ’ perceptions

that their parents were authoritative, rather than

authoritarian or neglectful, were correlated with

personal maturity, school achievement, and low

levels of behavioral and psychological prob-

lems (for an overview, see Steinberg, 2001 ).

This correlation held for African Americans,

Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and

European Americans alike. Similarly, percep-

tions of parental rejection have been found to

be correlated with poor individual outcomes

in a number of different cultures (Rohner &

Pettingill, 1985 ; Rohner & Rohner, 1981 ).

In other words, although typical patterns of

parental control may vary across cultures, fam-

ily environments that emphasize mutuality,

respect for the child ’ s opinions, and training

for maturity seem to be most effective in help-

ing adolescents develop attitudes and behaviors

appropriate to their society. A recent study of the

impact of racial identity and parent – adolescent

relationships on adolescent functioning illus-

trates the complexity of these links. A sam-

ple of African American high school seniors

revealed that correlations between racial iden-

tity and maternal support, on one hand, and

depressive symptoms and anxiety, on the other,

were mediated by perceived stress (Caldwell,

Zimmerman, Bernat, Sellers, & Notaro, 2002 ).

It is clear that direct and indirect influ-

ences of relationships with parents extend to

families in all cultures. However, the enter-

prise of amassing information on variations in

the nature of these links is still in its infancy.

Knowledge of indirect links is especially mea-

ger. The next phase of research incorporating

ethnic and cultural diversity must attend to the

more complex models of parenting that encom-

pass multiple possible pathways of influence.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary research with parents and

adolescents challenges traditional theoreti-

cal and methodological approaches to adoles-

cent devel opment. Conceptually, the growing

body of findings on adolescents ’ close rela-

tionships implies that adolescent development

can be understood more fully in the context

of relationships with significant others and that

relationships with parents remain central to these

contexts. Methodologically, the findings imply

the need for broadening the construct of ado-

lescent outcomes to incorporate interpersonal

competencies and developmental changes in

them and also to adopt more complex models of

the processes through which parent – adolescent

relationships have an impact. The key task is to

understand not only the developing individual,

but also the interplay between individual growth

and change in the nature and developmental sig-

nificance of relationships with others.

c01.indd 35c01.indd 35 2/16/09 4:27:43 PM2/16/09 4:27:43 PM

36 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

REFERENCES

Adams , R. ( 2005 ). Parent - child relationships across early adoles-

cence: Changes and adjustment . Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University,

Boca Raton, FL.

Adams , R. , & Laursen , B. ( 2001 ). The organization and dynam-

ics of adolescent conflict with parents and friends . Journal of

Marriage and Family, 63, 97 – 110 .

Adams , R. , & Laursen , B. ( 2007 ). The correlates of conflict:

Disagreement is not necessarily detrimental . Journal of Family

Psychology, 21, 445 – 458 .

Ainsworth , M. D. S. ( 1989 ). Attachments beyond infancy . American

Psychologist, 44, 709 – 716 .

Allen , J. P. , Hauser , S. T. , Bell , K. L. , & O ’ Connor , T. G. ( 1994 ).

Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in

adolescent – family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego

development and self - esteem . Child Development, 65, 179 – 194 .

Allen , J. P. , & Land , D. ( 1999 ). Attachment in adolescence . In

J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:

Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 319 – 335 ). New

York : Guilford Press .

Allen , J. P. , & Manning , N. ( 2007 ). From safety to affect regulation:

Attachment from the vantage point of adolescence . In M. Scharf &

O. Mayseless (Eds.), Attachment in adolescence: Reflections

and new angles. New Directions for Child and Adolescent

Development (No. 117, pp. 23 – 39 ). San Francisco : Jossey - Bass.

Allen , J. P. , Porter , M. , McFarland , C. , McElhaney , K. B. , & Marsh , P.

( 2007 ). The relation of attachment security to adolescents ’

paternal and peer relationships, depression, and externalizing

behavior . Child Development, 78, 1222 – 1239 .

Allen , J. P. , Marsh , P. , McFarland , C. , McElhaney , K. B. , & Land , D. J.

( 2002 ). Attachment and autonomy as predictors of the develop-

ment of social skills and delinquency during midadolescence .

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 56 – 66 .

Allen , J. P. , McElhaney , K. B. , Kuperminc , G. P. , & Jodl , K. M.

( 2004 ). Stability and change in attachment security across ado-

lescence . Child Development, 75, 1792 – 1805 .

Allen , J. P. , McElhaney , K. B. , Land , D. J. , Kuperminc , G. P. , Moore ,

C. W. , O ’ Beirne - Kelly , H. , et al. ( 2003 ). A secure base in

adolescence: Markers of attachment security in the mother –

adolescent relationship . Child Development, 74, 292 – 307 .

Almeida , D. M. , Wethington , E. , & Chandler , A. L. ( 1999 ). Daily

transmission of tensions between marital dyads and parent –

child dyads .

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 49 – 61 .

Amato , P. R. ( 2000 ). The consequences of divorce for adults and

children . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269 – 1287 .

Amato , P. R. ( 2001 ). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of

the Amato and Keith (1991) meta - analysis . Journal of Family

Psychology, 15, 355 – 370 .

Andrews, J. A., Hops, H., & Duncan, S. C. (1997). Adolescent

modeling of parent substance use: The moderating effect of the

relationship with the parent. Journal of Family Psychology, 11,

259–270.

Baer , J. ( 1999 ). The effects of family structure and SES on fam-

ily processes in early adolescence . Journal of Adolescence, 22,

341 – 354 .

Baldwin , M. W. ( 1992 ). Relational schemas and the processing of

social information . Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461 – 484 .

Bandura , A. ( 1964 ). The stormy decade: Fact or fiction? Psychology

in the Schools, 1, 224 – 231 .

Barber , B. K. ( 1996 ). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a

neglected construct . Child Development, 67, 3296 – 3319 .

Barber , B. L. , & Eccles , J. S. ( 1992 ). Long - term influence of divorce

and single parenting on adolescent family - and work - related

values, behaviors, and aspirations . Psychological Bulletin, 111,

108 – 126 .

Barber , B. K. , Stolz , H. E. , & Olsen , J. A. ( 2005 ). Parent support,

psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance

across time, culture, and method . Monographs of the Society for

Research in Child Development, 70, 4 (serial no. 282).

Barrett , L. S. ( 1997 ). The relationships among momentary emo-

tional experiences, personality descriptions, and retrospective

ratings of emotion . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

23, 1173 – 1187 .

Baumrind , D. ( 1991 ). Effective parenting during the early adolescent

transition . In P. A. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family

transitions (pp. 111 – 163 ). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Belsky , J. , Jaffee , S. , Hsieh , K. , & Silva , P. A. ( 2001 ). Child rearing

antecedents of intergenerational relations in young adulthood:

A prospective study . Developmental Psychology, 37, 801 – 813 .

Belsky , J. , Steinberg , L. , & Draper ,

P. ( 1991 ). Childhood experience,

interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolu-

tionary theory of socialization . Child Development, 62, 647 – 670 .

Belsky , J. , Steinberg , L. D. , Houts , R. M. , Friedman , S. L. , De Hart ,

G. , Cauffman , E. , et al. ( 2007 ). Family rearing antecedents of

pubertal timing . Child Development, 78, 1302 – 1321 .

Berndt , T. ( 1979 ). Developmental changes in conformity to peers

and parents . Developmental Psychology, 15, 608 – 616 .

Berndt , T. ( 1999 ). Friends ’ influence on children ’ s adjustment to

school . In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), The Minnesota

Symposia on Child Psychology: vol. 30. Relationships as develop-

mental contexts (pp. 85 – 107 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Blos , P. ( 1979 ). The adolescent passage . New York : International

Universities Press .

Bolger , K. E. , Patterson , C. J. , Thompson , W. W. , & Kupersmidt , J. B.

( 1995 ). Psychosocial adjustment among children experiencing

persistent and intermittent family economic hardship . Child

Development, 66, 1107 – 1129 .

Bowerman , C. E. , & Kinch , J. W. ( 1959 ). Changes in family and

peer orientation of children between the 4th and 10th grades .

Social Forces, 37, 206 – 211 .

Bowlby , J. ( 1969 ). Attachment and loss, vol. 1: Attachment . New

York : Basic Books .

Branje , S. J. T. , van Aken , M. A. G. , & van Lieshout , C. F. M.

( 2002 ). Relational support in families with adolescents . Journal

of Family Psychology, 16, 351 – 362 .

Branje , S. J. T. , van Doorn , M. , van der Valk , I. , & Meeus , W. (in

press). Parent – adolescent conflicts, conflict resolution, and

adolescent adjustment . Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology .

Branje , S. J. T. , van Lieshout , C. F. M. , & van Aken , M. A. G.

( 2005 ). Relations between agreeableness and perceived sup-

port in family relationships: Why nice people are not always

supportive . International Journal of Behavioral Development,

29, 120 – 128 .

Brendgen , M. , Wanner , B. , Morin , A. J. S. , & Vitaro , F. ( 2005 ).

Relations with parents and with peers, temperament, and trajec-

tories of depressed mood during early adolescence . Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 579 – 594 .

Brittain , C. ( 1963 ). Adolescent choices and parent – peer cross pres-

sures . American Sociological Review, 28, 385 – 391 .

Brody , G. , & Forehand , R. ( 1990 ). Interparental conflict, relation-

ship with the noncustodial father, and adolescent post - divorce

adjustment . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11,

139 – 147 .

Bronfenbrenner , U. ( 1970 ). Reaction to social pressure from adults

versus peers among Soviet day school and boarding school

pupils in the perspective on an American sample . Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 179 – 189 .

Buchanan , C. M. , Maccoby , E. E. , & Dornbusch , S. M. ( 1991 ).

Caught between parents: Adolescents ’ experience in divorced

homes . Child Development, 62, 1008 – 1030 .

Buehler , C. , & Gerard , J. M. ( 2002 ). Marital conflict, ineffective

parenting, and children ’ s and adolescents ’ maladjustment .

Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 78 – 92 .

Buhrmester , D. , & Furman , W. ( 1987 ). The development of com-

panionship and intimacy . Child Development, 58, 1101 – 1113 .

c01.indd 36c01.indd 36 2/16/09 4:27:44 PM2/16/09 4:27:44 PM

References 37

Buist , K. L. ,

Dekovic

, M. , Meeus , W. , & van Aken , M. A. G. ( 2002 ).

Developmental patterns in adolescent attachment to mother,

father, and sibling . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31,

167 – 176 .

Burk , W. J. , Denissen , J. , van Doorn , M. , Branje , S. J. T. , & Laursen ,

B. (in press). The vicissitudes of conflict measurement: Stability

and reliability in the frequency of disagreements . European

Psychologist .

Burns , A. , & Dunlop , R. ( 1998 ). Parental divorce, parent – child rela-

tions, and early adult relationships: A longitudinal Australian

study . Personal Relationships, 5, 393 – 407 .

Caldwell , C. H. , Zimmerman , M. A. , Bernat , D. H. , Sellers , R. M. , &

Notaro , P. C. ( 2002 ). Racial identity, maternal support, and psy-

chological distress among African American adolescents . Child

Development, 73, 1322 – 1336 .

Card , N. A. , Little , T. D. , & Selig , J. P. (Eds.) ( 2008 ). Modeling

dyadic and interdependent data in developmental research .

Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Carlivati , J. , & Collins , W. A. ( 2007 ). Adolescent attach-

ment representations and development in a risk sample . In

M. Scharf & O. Mayseless (Eds.), Attachment in adolescence

Reflections and new angles. New Directions for Child and

Adolescent Development (No. 117, pp. 91 – 106 ). San Francisco :

Jossey - Bass .

Caughlin , J. P. , & Malis , R. S. ( 2004 ). Demand/withdraw commu-

nication between parents and adolescents: Connections with

self - esteem and substance use . Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 21, 125 – 148 .

Collins , W. A. ( 1995 ). Relationships and development: Family

adaptation to individual change . In S. Shulman (Ed.), Close

relationships and socioemotional development (pp. 128 – 154 ).

New York : Ablex .

Collins , W. A. ( 2002 ). Historical perspectives on contemporary

research in social development . In P. Smith & C. Hart (Eds.),

Blackwell Handbook of Social Development (pp. 3 – 23 ).

Oxford : Blackwell .

Collins , W. A. , & Laursen , B. ( 2000 ). Adolescent relationships: The

art of fugue . In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close rela-

tionships: A sourcebook (pp. 59 – 69 ). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Collins , W. A. , Laursen , B. , Mortensen , N. , Luebker , C. , & Ferreira ,

M. ( 1997 ). Conflict processes and transitions in parent and

peer relationships: Implications for autonomy and regulation .

Journal of Adolescence, 12, 178 – 198 .

Collins , W. A. , Maccoby , E. , Steinberg , L. , Hetherington , E. M. , &

Bornstein , M. ( 2000 ). Contemporary research on parenting: The

case for nature and nurture . American Psychologist, 55, 218 – 232 .

Collins , W. A. , & Madsen , S. D. ( 2003 ). Developmental changes

in parenting interactions

. In L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Handbook of

dynamics in parent – child relations (pp. 49 – 66 ). Beverly Hills,

CA : Sage .

Collins , W. A. , & Repinski , D. J. ( 2001 ). Parents and adolescents as

transformers of relationships: Dyadic adaptations to develop-

mental change . In J. R. M . Gerris (Ed.), Dynamics of parenting:

International perspectives on nature and sources of parenting

(pp. 429 – 443 ). Leuven, Netherlands : Garant .

Collins , W. A. , & Steinberg , L. ( 2006 ). Adolescent development in

interpersonal context . In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.)

and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), The handbook of child psychology,

vol 3: Social, emotional and personality development ( 6th ed. ;

pp. 1003 – 1067 ). Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons .

Conger , R. D. , Conger , K. J. , Elder , G. H. , Jr. , Lorenz , F. O. , Simons ,

R. L. , & Whitbeck , L. ( 1992 ). Family process model of eco-

nomic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys . Child

Development, 63, 526 – 541 .

Conger , R. D. , Conger , K. J. , Elder , G. H. , Jr. , Lorenz , F. O. ,

Simons , R. L. , & Whitbeck , L. ( 1993 ). Family economic

stress and adjustment of early adolescent girls . Developmental

Psychology, 29, 206 – 219 .

Cook , W. L. , & Goldstein , M. J. ( 1993 ). Multiple perspectives

on family relationships: A latent variables model . Child

Development, 64, 1377 – 1388 .

Cook , W. L. , & Kenny , D. A. ( 2005 ). The Actor – Partner

Interdependence Model: A model of bidirectional effects in

developmental studies . International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 29, 101 – 109 .

Cooper , C. R. ( 1994 ). Cultural perspectives on continuity and

change in adolescents ’ relationships . In R. Montemayor , G. R.

Adams , & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships during

adolescence (pp. 78 – 100 ). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Crosnoe , R. A. , & Elder , E. H. , Jr. ( 2002 ). Life course tranisitions,

the generational stake, and grandparent – grandchild relation-

ships . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 1089 – 1096 .

Crouter , A. C. , Bumpus , M. F. , Maguire , M. C. , & McHale , S. M.

( 1999 ). Linking parents ’ work pressure and adolescents ’

well - being: Insights into dynamics in dual - earner families .

Developmental Psychology, 35, 1453 – 1461 .

Cummings , E. M. , & Davies , P. ( 1994 ). Children and marital con-

flict: The impact of family dispute and resolution . New York :

Guilford Press .

Darling , N. , Cumsille , P. , Caldwell , L. , & Dowdy , B. ( 2006 ).

Predictors of adolescents ’ disclosure to parents and perceived

parental knowledge: Between - and within - person differences .

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 667 – 678 .

Darling , N. , & Steinberg , L. ( 1993 ). Parenting style as context: An

integrative model . Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487 – 496 .

Dekovic

, M. , Buist , K. L. , & Reitz , E. ( 2004 ). Stability and changes

in problem behavior during adolescence: Latent growth analy-

sis . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 1 – 12 .

Devereux , E. ( 1970 ). The role of peer group experience in moral

development . In J. Hill (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposia on

Child Psychology , vol. 4 (pp. 94 – 140 ). Minneapolis : University

of Minnesota Press .

Dick , D. M. , Viken , R. , Purcell , S. , Kaprio , J. , Pulkkinen , L. , &

Rose , R. J. ( 2007 ). Parental monitoring moderates the impor-

tance of genetic and environmental influences on adolescent

smoking . Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 213 – 218 .

Dishion , T. J. , Nelson , S. E. , & Bullock , B. M. ( 2004 ). Premature

adolescent autonomy: Parent disengagement and deviant peer

process in the amplification of problem behavior . Journal of

Adolescence, 27, 515 – 530 .

Doyle , A. B. , & Markiewicz , D. ( 2005 ). Parenting, marital conflict

and adjustment from early - to mid - adolescence: Mediated by

adolescent attachment style? Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

34, 97 – 110 .

Dubas , J. , & Gerris , J. R. M. ( 2002 ). Longitudinal changes in the

time parents spend in activities with their adolescent children as

a function of child age, pubertal status, and gender . Journal of

Family Psychology, 16, 415 – 427 .

Ducharme , J. , Doyle , A. B. , & Markiewicz , D. ( 2002 ). Attachment

security with mother and father: Associations with adoles-

cents ’ reports of interpersonal behavior with parents and peers .

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 203 – 231 .

Eccles , J. S. ( 1992 ). School and family effects on the ontogeny of

children ’ s interests, self - perceptions, and activity choices . In

J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, vol.

40: Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 145 – 208 ).

Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press .

Eisenberg , N. , Fabes , R. A. , & Spinrad , T. L. ( 2006 ). Prosocial

development . In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Series Ed.) and

N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), The handbook of child psychology, vol. 3:

Social, emotional and personality development ( 6th ed. pp.

646 – 718 ). Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons .

Erel , O. , & Burman , B. ( 1995 ). Interrelatedness of marital rela-

tions and parent – child relations: A meta - analytic review .

Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108 – 132 .

Erikson , E. H. ( 1968 ). Identity: Youth and crisis . New York :

W. W. Norton .

Evans , G. W. , Kim , P. , Ting , A. H. , Tesher , H. B. , & Shannis , D.

( 2007 ). Cumulative risk, maternal responsiveness, and allostatic

load among young adolescents . Developmental Psychology, 43,

341 – 351 .

Fauber , R. , Forehand , R. , Thomas , A. M. , & Wierson , M. ( 1990 ).

A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on ado-

lescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of

disrupted parenting . Child Development, 61, 1112 – 1123 .

Feeney , B. C. , & Cassidy , J. ( 2003 ). Reconstructive memory

related to adolescent – parent conflict interactions: The influ-

ence of attachment - related representations on immediate

perceptions and changes in perceptions over time . Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 945 – 955 .

c01.indd 37c01.indd 37 2/16/09 4:27:45 PM2/16/09 4:27:45 PM

38 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

Feinberg , M. , & Hetherington , E. M. ( 2001 ). Differential parenting

as a within - family variable . Journal of Family Psychology, 15,

22 – 37 .

Feinberg , M. E. , Button , T. M. M. , Neiderhiser , J. M. , Reiss , D. , &

Hetherington , E. M. ( 2007 ). Parenting and adolescent antisocial

behavior and depression: Evidence of genotype X parenting

environment interaction . Archives of General Psychiatry, 64,

457 – 465 .

Feinberg , M. E. , Howe , G. W. , Reiss , D. , & Hetherington , E. M.

( 2000 ). Relationship between perceptual differences of parent-

ing and adolescent anti - social behavior and depressive symp-

toms . Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 531 – 555 .

Feldman , S. S. , & Rosenthal , D. A. ( 1991 ). Age expectations of

behavioral autonomy in Hong Kong, Australian and American

youth: The influence of family variables and adolescents ’ val-

ues . International Journal of Psychology, 26, 1 – 23 .

Fletcher , A. C. , Steinberg , L. , & Williams - Wheeler , M. ( 2004 ).

Parental influences on adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting

Stattin and Kerr . Child Development, 75, 781 – 796 .

Flouri , E. , & Buchanan , A. ( 2002 ). What predicts good relation-

ships with parents in adolescence and partners in adult life:

Findings from the 1958 British birth cohort . Journal of Family

Psychology, 16, 186 – 198 .

Freud , A. ( 1958 ). Adolescence . In R. Eissler , A. Freud , H. Hartman ,

& M. Kris (Eds.), Psychoanalytic study of the child , vol. 13 (pp.

255 – 278 ). New York : International Universities Press .

Freud , S. ( 1949 ). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego .

New York : Bantam . (Original work published 1921.)

Frijins , T. , Finkenauer , C. , Vermulst , A. A. , & Engels , R. C. M. E.

( 2005 ). Keeping secrets from parents: Longitudinal associations

of secrecy in adolescence . Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

34, 137 – 148 .

Fritz , M. S. , & MacKinnon , D. P. ( 2007 ). Required sample size

to detect the mediated effect . Psychological Science, 18,

233 – 239 .

Fuligni , A. J. ( 1998 ). The adjustment of children from immigrant

families . Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7,

99 – 103 .

Furman , W. , & Buhrmester , D. ( 1989 ). Age and sex differences

in perceptions of networks of personal relationships . Child

Development, 63, 103 – 115 .

Furstenberg , F. , Cook , T. , Eccles , J. , Elder , G. H. , & Sameroff , A. J.

( 1999 ). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent

success . Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Galambos , N. L. , Barker , E. T. , & Almeida , D. M. ( 2003 ). Parents

do matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internal-

izing problems in early adolescence . Child Development, 74,

578 – 594 .

Galambos , N. L. , & Maggs , J. L. ( 1991 ). Out - of - school care of

young adolescents and self - reported behavior . Developmental

Psychology, 27, 644 – 655 .

Garber , J. , & Little , S. ( 1999 ). Predictors of competence among off-

spring of depressed mothers . Journal of Adolescent Research,

14, 44 – 71 .

Gauze , C. , Bukowski , W. M. , Aquan - Assee , J. , & Sippola , L. K.

( 1996 ). Interactions between family environment and friend-

ship and associations with self - perceived well - being during

early adolescence . Child Development, 67, 2201 – 2216 .

Ge , X. , Best , K. M. , Conger , R. D. , & Simons , R. L. ( 1996 ).

Parenting behaviors and the occurrence and co - occurrence

of adolescent depressive symptoms and conduct problems .

Developmental Psychology, 32, 717 – 731 .

Gjerde , P. F. ( 1986 ). The interpersonal structure of family interac-

tion settings: Parent – adolescent relations in dyads and triads .

Developmental Psychology, 22, 297 – 304 .

Gonzales , N. A. , Cauc é , A. M. , & Mason , C. A. ( 1996 ). Interobserver

agreement in the assessment of parental behavior and parent -

adolescent conflict: African American mothers, daughters, and

independent observers . Child Development, 67, 1483 – 1498 .

Gottfried , A. E. , Gottfried , A. W. , & Bathurst , K. ( 2002 ). Maternal

and dual - earner employment status and parenting . In

M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, vol. 2: Biology and

ecology of parenting (pp. 207 – 230 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence

Erlbaum .

Graber , J. A. , Brooks - Gunn , J. , & Warren , M. P. ( 1995 ). The ante-

cedents of menarcheal age: Heredity, family environment, and

stressful life events . Child Development, 66, 346 – 359 .

Graham - Bermann , S. A. , Cutler , S. E. , Litzenberger , B. W. , &

Schwartz , W. E. ( 1994 ). Perceived conflict and violence in

childhood sibling relationships and later emotional adjustment .

Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 85 – 97 .

Grant , K. E. , Compas , B. E. , Stuhlmacher , A. , Thurm , A. , McMahon S. ,

& Halpert J. ( 2003 ). Stressors and child and adolescent psy-

chopathology: Moving from markers to mechanisms of risk .

Psychological Bulletin, 129, 447 – 466 .

Gray , M. , & Steinberg , L. ( 1999 ). Unpacking authoritative par-

enting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct . Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 61, 574 – 587 .

Grotevant , H. D. , & Cooper , C. R. ( 1985 ). Patterns of interaction in

family relationships and the development of identity formation

in adolescence . Child Development, 51, 415 – 428 .

Grotevant , H. D. , & Cooper , C. R. ( 1986 ). Individuation in fam-

ily relationships: A perspective on individual differences in the

development of identity and role - taking in adolescence . Human

Development, 29, 82 – 100 .

Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J., & Kuczynski, L. (2000). New directions

in analyses of parenting contributions to children’s acquisition

of values. Child Development, 71, 205–211.

Gutman , L. M. , & Eccles , J. S. ( 1999 ). Financial strain, parenting

behaviors, and adolescent achievement: Testing model equiva-

lence between African American and European American single -

and two - parent families . Child Development, 70, 1464 – 1476 .

Hall , G. S. ( 1904 ). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to

physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and

education , vols. 1 and 2. New York : Appleton .

Hardway , C. , & Fuligni , A. ( 2006 ). Dimensions of family connected-

ness among adolescents with Mexican, Chinese, and European

backgrounds . Developmental Psychology, 42, 1246 – 1258 .

Harkness , S. , & Super , C. ( 2002 ). Culture and parenting . In

M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, vol. 2: Biology and

ecology of parenting (pp. 253 – 280 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence

Erlbaum .

Harris , J. R. ( 1998 ). The nurture assumption . New York : Free Press .

Hartup , W. W. , & Laursen , B. ( 1991 ). Relationships as developmen-

tal contexts . In R. Cohen & A. W. Siegel (Eds.), Context and

development (pp. 253 – 279 ). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Hauser , S. T. , Powers , S. , & Noam , G. ( 1991 ). Adolescents and their

families: Paths of ego development . New York : Free Press .

Hetherington , E. M. ( 1999 ). Social capital and the development of

youth from nondivorced, divorced, and remarried families . In

W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), The Minnesota Symposia

on Child Psychology, vol. 30: Relationships as developmental

contexts (pp. 177 – 209 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Hetherington , E. M. , & Clingempeel , W. G. ( 1992 ). Coping with

marital transitions: A family systems perspective . Monographs

of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57 ( 2 – 3 ,

serial no. 227).

Hetherington , E. M. , & Kelly , J. ( 2002 ). For better or worse:

Divorce reconsidered . New York : W. W. Norton .

Hetherington , E. M. , & Stanley - Hagan , M. ( 2002 ). Parenting

in divorced and remarried families . In M. Bornstein (Ed.),

Handbook of parenting, vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent

(pp. 287 – 315 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Hill , J. P. ( 1988 ). Adapting to menarche: Familial control and

conflict . In M. R. Gunnar & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Minnesota

Symposia on Child Psychology, vol. 21: Development dur-

ing the transition to adolescence (pp. 43 – 77 ). Hillsdale, NJ :

Lawrence Erlbaum .

c01.indd 38c01.indd 38 2/16/09 4:27:46 PM2/16/09 4:27:46 PM

References 39

Hill , J. P. , & Lynch , M. E. ( 1983 ). The intensification of gender -

related role expectations during early adolescence . In J. Brooks -

Gunn & A. C. Petersen (Eds.), Girls at puberty: Biological and

psychological perspectives (pp. 201 – 228 ). New York : Plenum

Press .

Hodgkinson , H. ( 1985 ). All one system: Demographics of educa-

tion, kindergarten through graduate school . Washington, DC :

Institute of Educational Leadership .

Hoff , E. , Laursen , B. , & Bridges , K. (in press). Measurement and

model building in studying the influence of socioeconomic sta-

tus on child development . In L. C. Mayes & M. Lewis (Eds.),

A developmental environmental measurement handbook . New

York : Cambridge University Press .

Hoffman , L. W. , & Youngblade , L. ( 1999 ). Mothers at work: Effects

on children ’ s well - being . New York : Cambridge University

Press .

Hofstede , G. ( 1980 ). Culture ’ s consequences: International differ-

ences in work - related values . Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .

Holmbeck , G. N. ( 1996 ). A model of family relational transforma-

tions during the transition to adolescence: Parent - adolescent

conflict and adaptation . In J. A . Graber , J. Brooks - Gunn , &

A. C. Petersen (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence:

Interpersonal domains and contexts (pp. 167 – 200 ). Mahwah,

NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Homans , G. C. ( 1961 ). Social behavior: Its elementary forms . New

York : Harcourt .

Jackson , E. P. , Dunham , R. M. , & Kidwell , J. S. ( 1990 ). The effects

of gender and of family cohesion and adaptability on identity

status . Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 161 – 174 .

Jang , S. J. , & Smith , C. A. ( 1997 ). A test of reciprocal causal rela-

tionships among parental supervision, affective ties, and delin-

quency . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34,

307 – 336 .

Kamptner , N. L. ( 1988 ). Identity development in late adolescence:

Causal modeling of social and familial influences . Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 17, 493 – 514 .

Kandel , D. B. , & Lesser , G. S. ( 1972 ). Youth in two worlds . San

Francisco : Jossey - Bass .

Kashy , D. A. , & Donnellan , M. B. ( 2008 ). Comparing MLM and

SEM approaches to analyzing developmental dyadic data:

Growth curve models of hostility in families . In N. A . Card ,

T. D. Little , & J. P. Selig (Eds.), Modeling dyadic and inter-

dependent data in developmental research . Mahwah, NJ :

Lawrence Erlbaum .

Keith , J. G. , Nelson , C. S. , Schlabach , J. H. , & Thompson , C. J.

( 1990 ). The relationship between parental employment and

three measures of early adolescent responsibility: Family -

related, personal, and social . Journal of Early Adolescence, 10,

399 – 415 .

Kelley , H. H. , Berscheid , E. , Christensen , A. , Harvey , J. H. , Huston , T. L. ,

Levinger , G. , et al. ( 1983 ). Close relationships . New York :

Freeman .

Kenny , D. A. , Kashy , D. A. , & Cook , W. L. ( 2006 ). Dyadic data

analysis . New York : Guilford Press .

Kerr , M. , & Stattin , H. ( 2000 ). What parents know, how they know

it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support

for a reinterpretation of monitoring . Developmental Psychology,

36, 366 – 380 .

Kerr , M. , Stattin ., H. , & Burk , W. J. (in press). A reinterpretation

of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective . Journal of

Research on Adolescence .

Kerr , M. , Stattin , H. , & Pakalniskiene , V. ( 2006 ). What do par-

ents do when faced with adolescent problem behavior? In

J. Coleman , M. Kerr , & H. Stattin (Eds.), Parenting of adoles-

cents . Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons .

Kim , K. J. , Conger , R. D. , Lorenz , F. O. , & Elder , G. H. , Jr. ( 2001 ).

Parent – adolescent reciprocity in negative affect and its relation

to early adult social development . Developmental Psychology,

37, 775 – 790 .

Kohn , M. L. ( 1979 ). The effects of social class on parental val-

ues and practices . In D. Reiss & H. A. Hoffman (Eds.), The

American family: Dying or developing (pp. 45 – 68 ). New York :

Plenum Press .

Kowal , A. K. , Krull , J. L. , & Kramer , L. ( 2004 ). How the differen-

tial treatment of siblings is linked with parent – child relation-

ship quality . Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 658 – 665 .

Krishnakumar , A. , & Buehler , C. ( 2000 ). Interparental conflict and

parenting behaviors: A meta - analytic review . Family Relations,

49, 25 – 44 .

Kuczynski , L. (Ed.). ( 2003 ). Handbook of dynamics in parent - child

relations . Thousands Oaks, CA : Sage .

Kuczynski , L. , & Parkin , M. ( 2006 ). Agency and bidirectionality in

socialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialec-

tics . In J. E. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of social-

ization (pp. 259 – 283 ). New York : Guilford Press .

Laird , R. D. , Pettit , G. S. , Bates , J. E. , & Dodge , K. A. ( 2003 ).

Parents ’ monitoring - relevant knowledge and adolescents ’ delin-

quent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes

in reciprocal influences . Child Development, 74, 752 – 768 .

Lamborn , S. D. , Mounts , N. S. , Steinberg , L. , & Dornbusch , S. M.

( 1991 ). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adoles-

cents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglect-

ful families . Child Development, 62, 1049 – 1065 .

Larson , R. W. , & Almeida , D. M. ( 1999 ). Emotional transmission in

the daily lives of families: A new paradigm for studying family

process . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 5 – 20 .

Larson , R. W. , & Richards , M. H. ( 1994 ). Divergent realities: The

emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents . New York :

Basic Books .

Larson , R. W. , Richards , M. H. , Moneta , G. , Holmbeck , G. , &

Duckett , E. ( 1996 ). Changes in adolescents ’ daily interactions

with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and

transformation . Developmental Psychology, 32, 744 – 754 .

Laursen , B. ( 1993 ). Conflict management among close peers .

In B. Laursen (Ed.), Close friendships in adolescence. New

Directions for Child Development (no. 60 ; pp. 39 – 54 ). San

Francisco : Jossey - Bass .

Laursen , B. ( 1995 ). Conflict and social interaction in adolescent

relationships . Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 55 – 70 .

Laursen , B. ( 2005 ). Conflict between mothers and adolescents in

single - mother, blended, and two - biological - parent families .

Parenting: Science and Practice, 5, 347 – 370 .

Laursen , B. , & Bukowski , W. M. ( 1997 ). A developmental guide to

the organisation of close relationships . International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 21, 747 – 770 .

Laursen , B. , & Collins , W. A. ( 1994 ). Interpersonal conflict during

adolescence . Psychological Bulletin, 115, 197 – 209 .

Laursen , B. , & Collins , W. A. ( 2004 ). Parent – child communica-

tion during adolescence . In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of

family communication (pp. 333 – 348 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence

Erlbaum .

Laursen , B. , Coy , K. C. , & Collins , W. A. ( 1998 ). Reconsidering

changes in parent – child conflict across adolescence: A meta -

analysis . Child Development, 69, 817 – 832 .

Laursen , B. , Furman , W. , & Mooney , K. S. ( 2006 ). Predicting

interpersonal competence and self - worth from adolescent

relationships and relationship networks: Variable - centered and

person - centered perspectives . Merrill - Palmer Quarterly, 52,

572 – 600 .

Laursen , B. , & Koplas , A. L. ( 1995 ). What ’ s important about impor-

tant conflicts? Adolescents ’ perceptions of daily disagreements

Merrill - Palmer Quarterly, 41, 536 – 553 .

Laursen , B. , & Mooney , K. S. ( 2008 ). Adolescent adjustment as a

function of the number of perceived high quality relationships

with parents and friends . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,

78, 47 – 53 .

Laursen , B. , Popp , D. , Burk , W. J. , Kerr , M. , & Stattin , H. ( 2008 ).

Incorporating interdependence into developmental research:

Examples from the study of homophily and homogeneity . In

c01.indd 39c01.indd 39 2/16/09 4:27:47 PM2/16/09 4:27:47 PM

40 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

N. A . Card , T. D. Little , & J. P. Selig (Eds.), Modeling dyadic

and interdependent data in developmental research . Mahwah,

NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Laursen , B. , & Williams , V. ( 1997 ). Perceptions of interdepen-

dence and closeness in family and peer relationships among

adolescents with and without romantic partners . In S. Shulman

& W. A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adoles-

cence: Developmental perspectives. New Directions for Child

Development (no. 78 ; pp. 3 – 20 ). San Francisco : Jossey - Bass .

Loeber , R. , Drinkwater , M. , Yin , Y. , Anderson , S. J. , Schmidt , L. C. ,

& Crawford , A. ( 2000 ). Stability of family interaction from ages

6 to 18 . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 353 – 369 .

Low , S. M. , & Stocker , C. ( 2005 ). Family functioning and children ’ s

adjustment: Associations among parents ’ depressed mood, mar-

ital hostility, parent – child hostility, and children ’ s adjustment .

Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 394 – 403 .

Luthar , S. S. , & Becker , B. E. ( 2002 ). Privileged but pressured? A

study of affluent youth . Child Development, 73, 1593 – 1610 .

Luthar , S. S. , & Latendresse , S. J. ( 2005 ). Children the affluent:

Challenges to well - being . Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 14, 49 – 53 .

Lytton , H. ( 2000 ). Toward a model of family – environmental and

child – biological influences on development . Developmental

Review, 20, 150 – 179 .

Maccoby , E. E. ( 1992 ). The role of parents in the socialization of

children: An historical overview . Developmental Psychology,

28, 1006 – 1017 .

Maccoby , E. E. , & Martin , J. A. ( 1983 ). Socialization in the context

of the family: Parent – child interaction . In P. H. Mussen (Series

Ed.) and E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psy-

chology, vol. 4: Socialization, personality, and moral develop-

ment (pp. 1 – 101 ). New York : John Wiley & Sons .

Markiewicz , D. , Lawford , H. , Doyle , A. B. , & Haggart , N. ( 2006 ).

Developmental differences in adolescents ’ and young adults ’

use of mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic partners to

fulfill attachment needs . Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35,

127 – 140 .

McGue , M. , Elkins , I. , Walden , B. , & Iacono , W. G. ( 2005 ).

Perceptions of the parent – adolescent relationship: A longitudi-

nal investigation .

Developmental Psychology, 41, 971 – 984 .

McLanahan , S. S. , & Sandefur , G. ( 1994 ). Growing up with a sin-

gle parent: What hurts, what helps . Cambridge, MA : Harvard

University Press .

McLean , K. C. , & Thorne , A. ( 2003 ). Late adolescents ’ self - defin-

ing memories about relationships . Developmental Psychology,

39, 635 – 645 .

McLoyd , V. C. ( 1998 ). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child

development . American Psychologist, 53, 185 – 204 .

Moffitt , T. E. , Caspi , A. , Belsky , J. , & Silva , P. A. ( 1992 ). Childhood

experience and onset of menarche: A test of a sociobiological

model . Child Development, 63, 47 – 58 .

Mooney, K. S., Laursen, B., & Adams, R. E. (2007). Social sup-

port and positive development: Looking on the bright side of

adolescent close relationships. In R. K. Silbereisen & R. M.

Lerner (Eds.), Approaches to positive youth development (pp.

189–203). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mooney , K. S. , Laursen , B. , & Adams , R. E. ( 2006 ). Social sup-

port and positive development: Looking on the bright side

of adolescent close relationships . In R. K. Silbereisen &

R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Approaches to positive youth development

(pp. 189 – 203 ). Los Angeles : Sage .

Mounts , N. S. ( 2007 ). Adolescents ’ and their mothers ’ perceptions of

parental management of peer relationships . Journal of Research

on Adolescence, 17, 169 – 178 .

Needle , R. H. , Su , S. , & Doherty , W. J. ( 1990 ). Divorce, remarriage,

and adolescent substance use: A prospective longitudinal study .

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 157 – 169 .

Noller , P. ( 1994 ). Relationships with parents in adolescence: Process

and outcome . In R. Montemayor , G. Adams , & T. Gullotta

(Eds.), Personal relationships during adolescence (pp. 37 – 78 ).

Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Noller , P. , & Callan , V. J. ( 1988 ). Understanding parent - adolescent

interactions: Perceptions of family members and outsiders .

Developmental Psychology, 24, 707 – 714 .

Offer, D., & Offer, J. B. (1975). From teenage to young manhood: A

psychological study. New York: Basic Books.

Ohannessian , C. M. , Lerner , R. M. , Lerner , J. V. , & von Eye , A.

( 2000 ). Adolescent – parent discrepancies in perceptions

of family functioning and early adolescent self - compe-

tence . International Journal of Behavior Development, 24,

362 – 372 .

Olson , D. H. ( 1977 ). Insiders ’ and outsiders ’ views of relationships:

Research studies . In G. Levinger & H. Raush (Eds.), Close rela-

tionships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy . Amherst:

MA University of Massachusetts .

Overbeek , G. , Stattin , H. , Vermulst , A. , Ha , T. , & Engels , R. ( 2007 ).

Parent – child relationships, partner relationships, and emo-

tional adjustment: A birth - to - maturity prospective analysis .

Developmental Psychology, 43, 429 – 437 .

Parke , R. D. , & Buriel , R. ( 2006 ). Socialization in the family: Ethnic

and ecological perspectives . In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner

(Series Eds.), N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psy-

chology, vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development

(pp. 429 – 504 ). Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons .

Patterson , G. R. ( 1982 ). Coercive family process . Eugene, OR :

Castelia .

Plomin , R. , & Daniels , D. ( 1987 ). Why are children in the same

family so different from each other? Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 10, 1 – 16 .

Reis , H. T. , Collins , W. A. , & Berscheid , E. ( 2000 ). The relationship

context of human behavior and development . Psychological

Bulletin, 126, 844 – 872 .

Rohner, R. P. , & Pettengill , S. M. ( 1985 ). Perceived parental

acceptance – rejection and parental control among Korean ado-

lescents . Child Development, 56, 524 – 528 .

Rohner , R. P. , & Rohner , E. C. ( 1981 ). Parental acceptance –

rejection and parental control: Cross - cultural codes . Ethnology,

20, 245 – 260 .

Roisman , G. I. , Madsen , S. D. , Henninghausen , K. H. , Sroufe , L.

A. , & Collins , W. A. ( 2001 ). The coherence of dyadic behavior

across parent – child and romantic relationships as mediated by

the internalized representation of experience . Attachment and

Human Development, 3, 156 – 172 .

Rosenthal , D. A. , Demetriou , A. , & Efklides , A. ( 1989 ). A cross -

national study of the influence of culture on conflict between

parents and adolescents . International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 12 207 – 219 .

Rutter, M., Graham, P., Chadwick, O. F. D., & Yule, W. (1976).

Adolescent turmoil: Fact or fiction? Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 35–56.

Rutter , M. , Pickles , A. , Murray , R. , & Eaves , L. ( 2001 ). Testing

hypotheses on specific environmental causal effects on behav-

ior . Psychological Bulletin, 127, 291 – 324 .

Sameroff , A. ( 1975 ). Transactional models of early social relations .

Human Development, 18, 65 – 79 .

Saris , W. E. , & Satorra , A. ( 1993 ). Power evaluations in structural

equation models . In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing

structural equation models (pp. 181 – 204 ). Thousand Oaks, CA :

Sage .

Schwarz , N . ( 1991 ). Self - reports: How the questions shape the

answers . American Psychologist, 54, 93 – 105 .

Seiffge - Krenke , I. ( 1999 ). Families with daughters, families with

sons: Different challenges for family relationships and marital

satisfaction? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 325 – 342 .

Selman , R. ( 1980 ). The development of interpersonal understand-

ing . New York : Academic Press .

Shanahan , L. , McHale , S. M. , Crouter , A. C. , & Osgood , D. W.

( 2007 ). Warmth with mothers and fathers from middle child-

hood to late adolescence: Within - and between - families com-

parisons . Developmental Psychology, 43, 551 – 563 .

c01.indd 40c01.indd 40 2/16/09 4:27:49 PM2/16/09 4:27:49 PM

References 41

Sheehan, G., & Noller, P. (2002). Adolescent's perceptions of dif-

ferential parenting: Links with attachment style and adolescent

adjustment. Personal Relationships, 9, 173–190.

Silk , J. S. , Morris , A. S. , Kanaya , T. , & Steinberg , L. ( 2003 ).

Psychological control and autonomy granting: Opposite ends

of a continuum or distinct constructs? Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 13, 113 – 128 .

Silverberg , S. B. , & Steinberg , L. ( 1990 ). Psychological well - being

of parents with early adolescent children . Developmental

Psychology, 26, 658 – 666 .

Simmons , L. G. , & Conger , R. D. ( 2007 ). Linking mother - father dif-

ferences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and

adolescent outcomes . Journal of Family Issues, 28, 212 – 241 .

Simmons , R. G. , & Blyth , D. A. ( 1987 ). Moving into adolescence:

The impact of pubertal change and school context . New York :

de Gruyter .

Simons , R. L. , Chao , W. , Conger , R. D. , & Elder , G. H. ( 2001 ).

Quality of parenting as mediator of the effect of childhood defi-

ance on adolescent friendship choices and delinquency: A growth

curve analysis . Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 6 3 – 7 9 .

Smetana , J. G. ( 1988 ). Adolescents ’ and parents ’ conceptions of

parental authority . Child Development, 59, 321 – 335 .

Smetana , J. G. ( 1996 ). Adolescent – parent conflict: Implications

for adaptive and maladaptive development . In D. Cicchetti

& S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester Symposium on Developmental

Psychopathology, vol. 7. Adolescence: Opportunities and chal-

lenges (pp. 1 – 46 ). Rochester, NY : University of Rochester .

Smetana , J. G. ( 2000 ). Middle - class African American adolescents ’ and

parents ’ conceptions of parental authority and parenting practices:

A longitudinal investigation . Child Development, 71, 1672 – 1686 .

Smetana , J. G. , Abernethy , A. , & Harris , A. ( 2000 ). Adolescent – par-

ent interactions in middle class African American families:

Longitudinal change and contextual variations . Journal of

Family Psychology, 14, 458 – 474 .

Smetana , J. G. , Campione - Barr , N. & Daddis , C. ( 2004 ). Longitudinal

development of family decision making: Defining healthy

behavioral autonomy for middle - class African American ado-

lescents . Child Development, 75, 1418 – 1434 .

Smetana , J. G. , Campione - Barr , N. , & Metzger , A. ( 2006 ).

Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts .

Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255 – 284 .

Smetana , J. G. , & Daddis , C. ( 2002 ). Domain - specific antecedents

of parental psychological control and monitoring: The role of

parenting beliefs and practices . Child Development, 73,

563 – 580 .

Smetana , J. G. , Daddis , C. , & Chuang , S. S. ( 2003 ). “ Clean your

room! ” A longitudinal investigation of adolescent – parent con-

flict and conflict resolution in middle - class African American

families . Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 631 – 650 .

Smetana , J. G. , & Gaines , C. ( 1999 ). Adolescent – parent conflict in

middle - class African American families . Child Development,

70, 1447 – 1463 .

Smetana , J. G. , Metzger , A. , Gettman , D.C. , & Campione - Barr , N.

( 2006 ). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent – parent relation-

ships . Child Development, 77, 201 – 217 .

Smetana , J. G. , Yau , J. , & Hanson , S. ( 1991 ). Conflict resolution in

families with adolescents . Journal of Research on Adolescence,

1, 189 – 206 .

Smetana , J. G. , Yau , J. , Restrepo , A. , & Braeges , J. L. ( 1991 ).

Adolescent – parent conflict in married and divorced families .

Developmental Psychology, 27, 1000 – 1010 .

Smith , P. K. , & Drew , L. M. ( 2002 ). Grandparenthood . In

M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting , vol. 3 (pp.

141 – 171 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Stattin , H. , & Kerr , M. ( 2000 ). Parental monitoring: A reinterpreta-

tion . Child Development, 71, 1072 – 1085 .

Stattin , H. , Kerr , M. , & Tilton - Weaver , L. (in press). Parental

monitoring: A critical examination of the research . In P. Dittus ,

V. Guilamo - Ramos , & J. Jaccard (Eds.), Parental monitoring of

adolescents . New York : Columbia University Press .

Stattin , H. , & Klackenberg , G. ( 1992 ). Discordant family relations

in intact families: Developmental tendencies over 18 years .

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 940 – 956 .

Steinberg , L. ( 1981 ). Transformations in family relations at puberty .

Developmental Psychology, 17, 833 – 840 .

Steinberg , L. ( 1989 ). Pubertal maturation and parent - adoles-

cent distance: An evolutionary perspective . In G. R . Adams ,

R. Montemayor , & T. Gullotta (Eds.), Advances in adolescent

development (pp. 71 – 97 ). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage .

Steinberg , L. ( 2001 ). We know some things: Adolescent - parent

relationships in retrospect and prospect . Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 11, 1 – 19 .

Steinberg , L. ( 2005 ). Psychological control: Style or substance?

In J. Smetana (Ed.), Changing boundaries of parental

authority during adolescence. New Directions for Child and

Adolescent Development (no. 108, pp. 71 – 78 ). San Francisco :

Jossey - Bass .

Steinberg , L. , Blatt - Eisengart , I. , & Cauffman , E. ( 2006 ). Patterns of

competence and adjustment among adolescents from authori-

tative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: A rep-

lication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 16, 47 – 58 .

Steinberg , L. , Lamborn , S. , Dornbusch , S. , & Darling , N. ( 1992 ).

Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement:

Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encourage-

ment to succeed . Child Development, 63, 1266 – 1281 .

Steinberg , L. , & Silk , J. S. ( 2002 ). Parenting adolescents . In

M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, vol. 1: Children

and parenting (pp. 103 – 134 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .

Steinberg , L. , & Steinberg , W. ( 1994 ). Crossing paths: How

your child ’ s adolescence triggers your own crisis . New York :

Simon & Schuster .

Susman , E. J. , & Rogol , A. ( 2004 ). Puberty and psychological

development . In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook

of adolescent psychology (pp. 15 – 44 ). Hoboken, NJ : John

Wiley & Sons .

Tamrouti - Makkink , I. D. , Dubas , J. S. , Gerris , J. R. M. , &

van Aken , M. A. G. ( 2004 ). The relation between the absolute

level of parenting and differential parental treatment with ado-

lescent siblings ’ adjustment . Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 45, 1397 – 1406 .

Taylor , R. D. , Casten , R. , & Flickinger , S. M. ( 1993 ). Influence

of kinship social support on the parenting experiences and

psychosocial adjustment of African - American adolescents .

Developmental Psychology, 29, 382 – 388 .

Thomas , A. , Chess , S. , & Birch , H. G. ( 1977 ). Temperament and

development . New York : Brunner/Mazel .

Tucker , C. J. , McHale , S. M. , & Crouter , A. C. ( 2003 ). Dimensions

of mothers ’ and father ’ s differential treatment of siblings:

Links with adolescents ’ sex - typed personal qualities . Family

Relations, 52, 82 – 89 .

Turkheimer , E. , & Waldron , M. ( 2000 ). Nonshared environ-

ment: A theoretical, methodological, and quantitative review .

Psychological Bulletin, 126, 78 – 108 .

van Doorn , M. D. , Branje , S. J. T. , & Meeus , W. H. J. (in press).

Conflict resolution in parent – adolescent relationships and ado-

lescent delinquency . Journal of Early Adolescence .

van Doorn M. D. , Branje , S. J. T. , & Meeus , W. H. J. ( 2007 ).

Longitudinal transmission of conflict resolution styles from

marital relationships to adolescent – parent relationships . Journal

of Family Psychology .

van Leeuwen , K. G. , Mervielde , I. , Braet , C. , & Bosmans , G.

( 2004 ). Child personality and parental behavior as moderators

of problem behavior: Variable - and person - centered approaches .

Developmental Psychology, 40, 1028 – 1046 .

Vuchinich , S. ( 1987 ). Starting and stopping spontaneous family

conflicts . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 591 – 601 .

c01.indd 41c01.indd 41 2/16/09 4:27:50 PM2/16/09 4:27:50 PM

42 Parent–Child Relationships During Adolescence

Vuchinich , S. , Emery , R. , & Cassidy , J. ( 1988 ). Family members as

third parties in dyadic family conflict: Strategies, alliances, and

outcomes . Child Development, 59, 1293 – 1302 .

Wadsworth , M. E. , & Compas , B. E. ( 2002 ). Coping with fam-

ily conflict and economic strain: The adolescent perspective .

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 243 – 274 .

Waizenhofer , R. N. , Buchanan , C. M. , & Jackson - Newsom , J.

( 2004 ). Mothers ’ and fathers ’ knowledge of adolescents ’ daily

activities: Its sources and its links with adolescent adjustment .

Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 348 – 360 .

Walker , L. , & Taylor , J. ( 1991 ). Family interactions and the

development of moral reasoning . Child Development, 62,

264 – 283 .

Whiteman , S. D. , & Buchanan , C. M. ( 2002 ). Mothers ’ and chil-

dren ’ s expectations for adolescence: The impact of perceptions

of an older sibling ’ s experience . Journal of Family Psychology,

16, 157 – 171 .

Whiteman , S. D. , McHale , S. M. , & Crouter , A. C. ( 2003 ). What

parents learn from experience: The first child as a first draft?

Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 608 – 621 .

Winkielman, P., Knäuper, B., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Looking back

at anger: Reference periods change the interpretation of emo-

tion frequency questions. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 75, 719–728.

Youniss , J. , & Smollar , J. ( 1985 ). Adolescent relations with mothers,

fathers, and friends . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

c01.indd 42c01.indd 42 2/16/09 4:27:51 PM2/16/09 4:27:51 PM

Family Analysis

Thesis: This paper will include a family analysis of the Dunphy Family in Modern Family TV

Show.

1. Overview

 Modern Family

 Dunphy family

2. Parenting style

 Claire’s authoritative parenting

 Phil’s permissive parenting

3. Positive interaction

 Haley and Claire’s bond

 Phil’s support

4. Negative interactions

 Haley and Phil’s disagreement

 Haley’s breakup

5. Adolescent outcomes

 Positive outcomes

 Autonomy and responsible behavior

6. Biblical Integration

 1 Timothy

 Ephesians

Family Analysis

Name

Institution

Course

Instructor

Date

Family Analysis

Modern Family is a vital TV show that aired in 2009. the show features the Dunphy

Family comprised of two parents, Claire and Phil Dunphy, who live in their family residence as a

married couple. The family consists of three children Haley, Luke and Alexandra Dunphy. In

season 1, the TV show premiers with Haley as the typical adolescent, approximately 16 years

old, and Alex, approximately 12 years old, as the middle child; at the same time, Luke, age 10, is

the family’s only son and last sibling.

Parenting Styles

Laursen & Collins (2009) indicate that authoritative parenting is an effective parenting

style since it focuses on including the child’s needs in the parenting actions and attitudes. While

this parenting focuses on prioritizing the child’s needs, it also enforces age-appropriate demands

to foster maturity. This parenting style was evident in season 1, episode 18, where Haley had to

complete a due school project. The parents employ rival parenting styles to achieve optimal

outcomes for the children. While Phil preferred to employ permissive parenting as the right

approach to foster project completion, Claire’s authoritative parenting achieved the desired

outcomes.

Positive Interaction and Support

According to Laursen & Collins (2009), closeness, support, and positive interactions are

vital aspects that affect the relationships of family members. Evidence from the TV show

indicates closeness between Claire and Haley. In season 1, episode 4, Haley opens up to Claire

about her boyfriend, Dylan. The closeness due to the mother-daughter bond reinforces the

relationship. Positive interaction and support are evident when after Claire listens to Haley’s plea

about the concert, she offers support and urges Phil to extend his support. Adjusting interaction

patterns to reconcile with adolescent autonomy enhances positive interaction and confers support

(Laursen & Collins, 2009).

Negative Interactions and Conflicts

Despite the positive interactions, the Dunphy family exhibits their fair share of conflicts.

Mundane topics fuel most disagreements and negative interactions between parents and

adolescents (Laursen & Collins, 2009). A typical occurrence that caused negative interactions

between Haley and Phil occurred in season 2, episode 9, where Phil develops a strong

relationship with Haley’s boyfriend Dylan only to find out that Haley broke up with him. in this

view, the conflict or negative interaction stemmed from Haley’s limited submission to her

father’s will. Laursen & Collins (2009) reveal that the frequency of submission among teenagers

declines as adolescence progresses, accounting for the adolescent’s less compliance with

compromise.

Adolescent Outcomes

Parenting styles influence the quality of parent-adolescent relationships and motivate

positive adolescent outcomes (Laursen & Collins, 2009). Drawing from the engagement of an

authoritative parenting style, positive interactions, and conflict resolution, expected outcomes

include the development of autonomy in various life aspects. Furthermore, Phil and Claire’s

parenting will foster responsible adolescent behavior involving a calm disposition and rational

approach to challenges.

Biblical Integration

The New King James Version provides important scriptures such as 1 Timothy 5:8,

which urges parents to support their family to attain actual believer status. Another vital scripture

is in Ephesians 6:1, which promotes family relationships and positive interactions while limiting

conflicts. It guides teenagers by urging them to respect their parents.

References

Laursen, B. & Collins, W.A. (2009) Chapter 1: Parent-Child Relationships During Adolescence.

Interpersonal Influence

New King James Version (n.d.) Bible Gateway

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=family+relationships&version

=NKJV

PSYC 631 Liberty University Adolescent Psychology Essay 2022.pdf

Students also viewed