$1.55.... . .
F. . . $.39: can
U n I f.
. may.

4....~...ﬂ..w.. v ..
Wain“. . H
.3 .

mm

5 . a. rd 1
. ...2.3§...

ﬂan.

. . I
. . . Y o .
. .... . .mu . . mun. J.
. .. . . . . .Imeuutu. #th
. ‘ O.‘ I \ ‘5‘ . I
. 1.. y z . hm”
. . . ...Jnov.&.....l3.| 4.: . .
IVV :ﬂWulo - .
. . . unaflkunl. 9.001.... .l .
I 4“. thorn“...th . . f . . nu.
. . I Ihﬂohd. . . . .. . . . .. . . . o..-
. . . .. . . .. 3.2.1.... a...
. . . . . . . .. nhmv.w~.m.p.\..r...n!€umuw r.
n t. . .

:1
.AJ.V.|.V.J...\.4 “9“... . . ..
.rh...-..~...f 351....
. .4...ka E.
. alt-.81.}.

. .-
6......»3 «my... -. , .
(I 1 "l.|0ﬂ..ﬁ.vﬂ-XV

“Anﬁﬂdﬂnbhvaﬂ . . u latloll .11....

 

Ju .w 3:1...-
. h.....rn..vl.1..a.... .
. 3. (t. 36.4-

....:L.._!....bu.«. .

uL..w«Ino.nv.£|.-.,-.l.

 

y . Mil- .
,.. :1 I: . V
:1: . n. .
11;. Kirby... I IlbttthINo
.Mo.l60o0lllll’o=|v‘|.
ll .4l0n.

kg“..-
4.qu .-

V
3:
:1

3.3;“
3;;

,5‘.
‘E

: I‘ll "i’l. .‘n .
.ivlo? -1! ﬁndinohh. -5. .4. 1:12...”
.1.“ 0.19.... 1......“ a 1 .1”. V... .

'ﬂ.
.

;
‘ a

.u. Ikl‘f

      

.D.‘ ...D.I...a..1:ql... . . .. . .. I . .. .
A o .‘ Q- ‘I ". 4| c". . t h ‘ u I n. V .‘l r I I .ln'v ht A ~A
. I n V U ‘ s- ‘ a . . v rt: . 5- . '.A I V.-- 5“, ’r
1 . ..v. ‘3! ‘IIidr..f\a€1.-.vo.0 . . . . . . V . . . . . a. .1! 3.». WU”...- f. ..... . . .
.. . x 3. . I .2 . .. 1.9.3.4.. alv! f t. J
- c . . .{v u. .

 

.
Wt .
o -
q I .r. if. n‘ I I.“ . It .1 .
it :1.“ . .Ib , L . . v
v-10 . ........ ovlll . n. I .. . t I . . p v 1 . V. . . |
, ‘ . 5 ..v ‘13! a.-- a}. vi .1 :11. .v-... I
1 n ‘ . .. . 4 mi... . ut.‘.|.O. .I.vn. 7

THESlS

3333333333333333333333313333333 33 333333333333333333

3 12930

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The influence of a parent-teen event on

parent-teen interaction

presented by

Jerry Schreur

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

PhD degree in WChi 1d Ecology

 

ﬂag/6.0M), QC

Major professor

 

Date /°2 " ‘9“ 9 7

 

MS U i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0— 12771

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
5.5 g in 2 6 o 4 .
We ~.
inciﬁﬁ
H35 2 031 “it. 7 ! .7 #_
we GICIRCIDIDDWpGS-nu

THE INFLUENCE OF A PARENT-TEEN EVENT ON PARENT-TEEN
INTERACTION

By

Jerry A. Schreur

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1997

ABSTRACT

THE INFLUENCE OF A PARENT-TEEN EVENT ON PARENT-TEEN
INTERACTION

By

Jerry A. Schreur

The purpose of this exploratory, quasi-experimental study was to examine the
effects of a seminar entitled a Parent-Teen Event (PTE). This seminar, which emphasizes
the family strengths of communication, conﬂict resolution, appreciation and time together,
was presented to parents and adolescents. The family strengths on which the program
focuses are supported by the research of Stinnett and DeFrain (1985). Major variables
examined were positive parent-teen communication, family cohesion and family
adaptability. Differences related to age, gender, form of family, parent education, income
and occupations also were examined. Pre-tests and post-tests were completed at three
month intervals by participants of the seminar and also by a control group. ANCO VA was
used to determine signiﬁcant differences between time one and time two.

This quantitative evaluation provided limited support for the effectiveness of a
Parent-Teen Event. Although some diﬂ‘erences in communication and cohesion were
observed, most did not reach the .05 level of statistical signiﬁcance.

Trends observed included increases in family communication, family cohesion and
family adaptability for most participants, except for adolescent girls, whose scores
decreased slightly for each variable. Communication posttest scores for parents and sons
were higher than pretest scores. Family cohesion posttest scores as reported by parents

were higher than pretest scores. Adaptability scores as reported by parents and

adolescents increased slightly. In general, mothers and sons were more positively affected
by the PTE than were fathers and daughters. Anecdotal evidence from seminar
participants indicated very positive results from the seminar.

Implications from this research address practitioners, policy-makers and
researchers. Practitioners need to be aware of the value of seminars such as the PTE, and
the possibility of adapting this seminar to their educational environment. Policy-makers
are reminded of the need for policy that positively inﬂuences families, and researchers are

encouraged to conduct further investigation into seminars such as a PTE.

This dissertation is dedicated to my friend Perk Hamming who has impacted my life for

eternity and continues to positively inﬂuence my life and ministry for God.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation could not have been completed without the help of several people
who gave of themselves when I needed help the most. My wife, Judy, supported me
emotionally and ﬁnancially through the long process. Without her support I would have
given up long ago. Thanks, Judy Kay! My son Jon was of tremendous help with a
computer that at times refused to cooperate with me. His computer skills preserved my
sanity. My other son, Jack, helped me with the English language when things just didn’t
sound right. The chair of my committee, Dr. Barbara Ames, encouraged me to continue
throughout the years and was of great help to me, always there to provide support and
encouragement. Thanks, Barbara. You’re the best! My advisory committee members,
Dr. Tom Luster, Dr. Larry Schiarnberg and Dr. Norm Bell were available to work with me
and support me when I needed them. In the ﬁnal stages Dr. Luster was of tremendous
help to me with statistical analysis. Thanks, Tom, for helping me ﬁnish well. My
employer, Calvary Church, and Senior Pastor, Dr. Ed Dobson, gave me the freedom and
ﬂexibility at work, and permission to work part-time for three years. My ﬁiend, Jim
DeVries, made it ﬁnancially possible for me to work part-time while completing my course
work. I am a privileged person and grateful to all who helped me in so many ways to

complete this project and my degree. Thank you all, so very much!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Scope of the problem ................................................................................................... 4
Statement of the problem ............................................................................................. 6
Purpose of the study .................................................................................................... 7
Signiﬁcance of research ............................................................................................... 8
Theoretical models ....................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 12
School attitudes and achievement ............................................................................... 12
Personal identity ........................................................................................................ 13
Cohesion and adaptability .......................................................................................... l4
Prosocial behavior ..................................................................................................... 16
Psychological development ........................................................................................ 16
Self-esteem ................................................................................................................ 18
Disclosure .................................................................................................................. 18
Parental support ......................................................................................................... 19
Gender differences ..................................................................................................... 21
Age of adolescents ..................................................................................................... 22
Perceptions ................................................................................................................ 24
Summary ................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 3 METHODS ................................................................................................ 26
Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 27

Research Objectives ................................................................................................... 27

Research Questions .................................................................................................... 28
Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 29
Ecological Framework ............................................................................................... 31
Conceptual and Operational Deﬁnitions for Major Variables ...................................... 38
Conceptual and Operational Deﬁnitions for Participant Characteristics ....................... 42
Parent Characteristics ............................................................................................. 42
Adolescent Characteristics ..................................................................................... 43
Instruments ................................................................................................................ 44
Inventory of Parent-adolescent Communication ...................................................... 44
FACES H (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales) ........................... 46
Research Sample ........................................................................................................ 47
Data collection ........................................................................................................... 48
Analysis of data ......................................................................................................... 50
Limitations of the study ............................................................................................. 50
Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 52
Chapter 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................. 53
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 53
Description of population ........................................................................................... 53
Dependent variable #1, Positive parent-teen interaction .............................................. 58
Comparison of parents’ experimental and control groups and norms ....................... 59
Parents’ results ....................................................................................................... 61
Comparison of adolescents’ experimental and control groups and norms ................ 66
Adolescents’ results ............................................................................................... 68

vii

Discussion of research questions and acceptance or rejection of null hypotheses

related to positive parent-teen interaction ............................................................... 73
Dependent variable #2, family cohesion ...................................................................... 74
Comparison of parents’ experimental and control groups ........................................ 75
Parents’ results ....................................................................................................... 76
Comparison of adolescents’ experimental and control groups ................................. 79
Adolescents’ results ............................................................................................... 80

Discussion of research questions and acceptance or rejection of null hypotheses

related to family cohesion ....................................................................................... 82
Dependent variable #3, family adaptability .................................................................. 83
Comparison of parents’ experimental and control groups ........................................ 83
Parents’ results ....................................................................................................... 85
Comparison of adolescents’ experimental and control groups results ...................... 88
Adolescents’ results ............................................................................................... 89

Discussion of research questions and acceptance or rejection of null hypotheses

related to family adaptability ................................................................................... 91
Correlation Coefﬁcients ............................................................................................. 93
Summary ................................................................................................................... 97

Chapter 5 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 101
Summary ................................................................................................................. 101

Conceptual model ................................................................................................ 101

Ecological perspective .......................................................................................... 102
Implications ............................................................................................................. 104

For Practice ......................................................................................................... 104

For Policy ............................................................................................................ 108

For Research ........................................................................................................ 109

viii

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 1 10

Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 1 l 1
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................ 112
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................ 113
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................ 115
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................ 117
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................ 118
APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................. 119
APPENDIX G ............................................................................................................ 123
APPENDIX H ............................................................................................................ 125
APPENDIX 1 ............................................................................................................. 127
APPENDIX J ............................................................................................................. 128
APPENDIX K ............................................................................................................ 129
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 132

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Communication: Test sample .......................................................................... 46
Table 2 - Gender & Age ................................................................................................ 57
Table 3 - Marital & Family Information .......................................................................... 57
Table 4 — Income & Education ....................................................................................... 57
Table 5 - Occupation ..................................................................................................... 58
Table 6 - Communication: Parents - Test sample & study sample ................................... 59
Table 7 - Communication: Parents (E & C, T1) .............................................................. 60
Table 8 - Communication: Parents ................................................................................. 61
Table 9 - Communication: Parents with sons .................................................................. 62
Table 10 - Parents with daughters .................................................................................. 63
Table 11 - Parents: Effects of other variables ................................................................. 65
Table 12 - Adolescents: Communication - norms & study sample ................................... 66
Table 13 - Adolescents’ communication (E & C, T1) ..................................................... 67
Table 14 - Communication: Adolescents with parents .................................................... 68
Table 15 - Communication: Adolescents with mothers ................................................... 69
Table 16 - Communication: Adolescents with fathers ..................................................... 70
Table 17 - Communication: Adolescents - Age ............................................................... 72
Table 18 - Cohesion: Parents (E & C, T1) ...................................................................... 75
Table 19 - Cohesion: Parents ......................................................................................... 76
Table 20 - Cohesion: Parents - effects of family characteristics ....................................... 78
Table 21 - Cohesion: Adolescents (E & C, T1) .............................................................. 79

Table 22 - Cohesion: Adolescents .................................................................................. 80

Table 23 - Cohesion: Adolescents - by Age .................................................................... 82
Table 24 - Adaptability: Parents (E & C, T1) ................................................................. 84
Table 25 - Adaptability: Parents ..................................................................................... 85
Table 26 - Adaptability: Parents - effects of family characteristics ................................... 86
Table 27 - Adaptability: Adolescents (E & C, T1) .......................................................... 88
Table 28 - Adaptability: Adolescents .............................................................................. 89
Table 29 - Adaptability: Adolescents by Age .................................................................. 91
Table 30 - Pearson correlation coefﬁcients, adolescent data ........................................... 94
Table 31 - Pearson correlation coefﬁcients, parents' data ................................................ 96
Table 32 - Scores for major variables, T] E & T2 E ....................................................... 98

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - A Family Ecosystem ...................................................................................... 34
Figure 2 - Bronfenbrenner’s Model of the Ecology of Human Development ................... 37
Figure 3 - Conceptual Model ......................................................................................... 39
Figure 4 - Parents’ communication scores ...................................................................... 64
Figure 5 - Adolescents’ communication scores ............................................................... 71
Figure 6 - Parents' cohesion scores ................................................................................ 77
Figure 7 - Adolescents’ cohesion scores ......................................................................... 81
Figure 8 - Parents’ adaptability scores ............................................................................ 87
Figure 9 - Adolescents’ adaptability scores ..................................................................... 90
Figure 10 - Conceptual Model ..................................................................................... 101

Figure 11 - Bronfenbrenner’s Model of the Ecology of Human
Development ............................................................................................................... 1 03

xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Parenting adolescents often brings fear and dread to the hearts of parents. Even
the anticipation of children becoming adolescents causes parents to wonder how well they
will do as parents, and whether they will survive this difﬁcult stage. Parents wonder if
their children will survive adolescence without permanent scars. They are concerned
about how their relationship with them will weather the anticipated storms of the
adolescent years.

Parent-teen interaction is of great concern to parents and teens as well as family
researchers and therapists (Montemayor & Hanson, 1985; Rawlins & Holl, 1988;
Greenberger & O' Neil, 1990). Family researchers and therapists understand the
importance of this relationship and recognize the difﬁculty of sustaining this relationship
through the teen years. In a study of family relationships during the preadolescent years,
Coughlin and Vuchinich (1996) found that good parent relations and discipline had
signiﬁcant protective effects against male delinquency during the adolescent years which
followed. A study of intrafamily images of hospitalized adolescents found when
communication was poor from a parent’s perspective, the adolescent was seen as more
compromised in almost every dimension. When the adolescent perceived the
communication as poor, family alienation (separation and distancing of family members)
occurred. This was particularly true of adolescents and their fathers (Young & Childs,

1994)

Another study of family processes during adolescence found that paternal warmth
was longitudinally associated with parent-young adult attitude similarity. To the extent
that adolescents’ relationships with their fathers were warm, attitudes were similar six
years later (Brody, Moore & Glei, 1994). Parent-child interaction is the strongest
predictor of life satisfaction in adolescent offspring (Leung & Leung, 1992; Man, 1991),
and children's satisfaction with family life is strongly correlated with psychological well-
being (Huebner, 1991). It is obvious that parent-teen relationships are of great importance
to the psychological and emotional health of the family system.

Adolescent family life satisfaction also is signiﬁcantly correlated with family
ﬂexibility, family bonding and parental support (Henry, 1994). Olson, Russell & Sprenkle,
(1983) suggest that a primary means through which family bonding is facilitated is
communication. Working with families to develop effective communication skills can
potentially enhance parent-teen bonding. By providing opportunities to engage in activities
such as discussing concerns with each other, expressing feelings of closeness, spending
time together, sharing activities with other family members and making family decisions,
communication skills are built (McCubbin, Thompson, Pimer & McCubbin, 1988).

A major study of 46,000 adolescents lists 30 assets which help adolescents thrive
and act responsibly when on their own. Included in that list are six assets that involve
parent-teen interaction: family support, parents as social resources, parent communication,
parental standards, parental discipline and parental monitoring. These six assets all helped
adolescents as they moved ﬁ'om dependence to independence, the task of adolescence.

While many of the assets decreased as the grade level increased, parent communication

increased substantially from grade six adolescents to grade twelve adolescents (Benson,
1990)

In another major review of the social science and health literature, the Minnesota
Department of Education (1992) identiﬁed 26 strategies for prevention of alcohol,
tobacco and drug use among adolescents. Three of these strategies would empower
parents by (1) helping parents develop a commitment to play a primary role in prevention
(2) teaching them how to establish rules, standards and effective discipline and (3)
showing them how to support, nurture and afﬁrm their children.

A family context characterized by warm, supportive family interaction promotes
ﬂexible, involved problem solving, which in turn decreases parent-adolescent conﬂict
(Anderson & Sabatelli, 1990; Cooper, 1988; Galatzer-Levy & Cohler, 1993; Hauser &
Boulds, 1990; Hill, 1993; Paikoﬁ’& Brooks-Gunn, 1991; Reuter & Conger, 1995; and
Steinberg, 1990). Warm supportive family interaction strengthens family relationships
during adolescence, especially if this type of family interaction is present prior to the teen
years (Reuter & Conger, 1995).

Family communication affects adolescent identity formation (Cooper, Grotevant,
& Condon, 1983), facilitates development of higher levels of moral reasoning in
adolescents (Holstein, 1972), is related to higher self-esteem (Small, 1988) and is the
mechanism families use to share their changing preferences, needs and feelings (Barnes &
Olson, 1985). Family communication is vitally important if adolescents are to accomplish
the developmental tasks of this stage of life. Contrary to popular opinion and anecdotal
information, adolescents desire more parental interest, help, listening, understanding,

talking, love, acceptance, trust and autonomy than they are presently receiving

(Schiamberg, 1988). However, parents are not always aware of this, and often parent-
adolescent communication suffers during this period of life. There is oﬁen great emotional
distance when adolescents need their parents most. Both adolescents and parents struggle

with this distance.

Scope of the problem

Researchers have pictured adolescents as "the new lost generation" (Ianni, 1989).
Juvenile delinquency has increased almost three-fold since WWII (Demo, 1992); suicide
rates for children in the 5-14 age group increased from 0.2 per 100,000 population in 1950
to 0.7 per 100,000 in 1994 (Wright, Andrews & McMeel, 1995;and suicide rates for ages
15-19 increased from 8.5 per 100,000 population in 1980 to 11.0 per 100,000 in 1991
(National Center for Health Statistics, cited by Barna, 1995). On the average, mothers and
fathers engage in no more than ten minutes per day of direct conversation with their older
adolescent children (Demo, 1992).

The adolescent period of life is described as a period of great psychological
upheaval and disturbance (Allerbeck & Hoag, 1985; Eissler, 1958). Others have called
this a time of storm and stress (Kenniston, 1970; B105, 1979). Although the storm and
stress theory has been challenged by many (Conger, 1981; Dusek & Flaherty, 1981; Offer,
Ostrov & Howard, 1981; Oﬁ‘er, Ostrov, Howard & Atkinson, 1988; O' Malley &
Bachman, 1983; Rutter, Graham, Chadwick & Yule, 1976; Steinberg & Silverberg,
1986), a majority of parents still perceive adolescence as the most diﬂicult stage of
parenting. Several researchers suggest that parenting is particularly stressful at the

adolescent stage of the life cycle (Kidwell, Fisher, Dunham & Baranoski, 1983;

Montemayor, 1983; Pasley & Gecas, 1984; Small, Cornelius & Eastman, 1983; Olson,
Russell & Sprenkle (1983), marital satisfaction is at its lowest point (Gegas & Seff, 1990;
Rollins & Feldman, 1970) and life satisfaction at this stage is lowest for parents (Hoﬂ‘man
& Manis, 1978), particularly for fathers (Umberson, 1989). Parents need help
understanding their teenage children and their role of parents during this stage of life.

Olbrich and Todt (1984) call the adolescent stage of life a period of coping. If the
adolescent task is moving from dependence to independence, the parental task during this
stage seems to be coping with the changing adolescent. Coping contributes to
achievement and management of developmental tasks (Eisen, 1986; Tyler, 1978).
Developmental tasks for the adolescent include achieving emotional independence from
parents, developing appropriate social roles and preparing for marriage and family life and
economic independence ( Havighurst, 1953, 1972; Liepman & Sticksrud, 1985; Oerter,
1985)

As children progress through adolescence they become more independent
(Schoenleber & Collins, 1988), more concerned about their desires and goals, and more
reluctant to pursue parental goals, especially when those goals conﬂict with one another
(Csikszentmihalyi & Larsen, 1984). Generational differences over issues such as
independence versus dependence tend to combine with negative perceptions of
communication to produce increased parent-child conﬂict (Hall, 1987). Family tension is
to be expected (Campbell, 1969) and requires interaction skills to eﬂ‘ectively resolve.
Many families lack these skills.

The transition from adolescence to adulthood often brings issues of power,

sexuality and personal identity to the foreﬁ'ont (Blos, 1979; Elkind, 1984; Erikson, 1968).

These issues create conﬂict in the family system and in adolescents themselves. It is
important for parents to provide a good "transitional world" through which adolescents

can progress to the social interdependence of adulthood (Ianni, 1989).

Statement of the problem

Researchers have recognized that dyadic and family relationships can be improved
through a variety of assertiveness training programs that include building social skills
(Alexander, 1973; Barton & Alexander, 1981; Blechman & Olson, 1976; Goldstein &
Pentz, 1984; Goldstein, Spraﬂcin, Gershaw & Klein, 1980; L'Abate, 1977; Robin, 1981;
Tisdell & St Laurence, 1988). Educators and clinicians have designed many programs to
equip parents and teens with knowledge and communication skills, e. g.. PET, STEP, FIP
(Garbarino, Schellenbach, Sebes & Associates. 1986). However, most of these programs
are offered for clinical populations only. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of
social skill training with parents and adolescents in non-clinical populations (Openshaw,
Mills, Adams & Durso, 1992). Also, most of these programs train parents and
adolescents separately. They do not bring them together to develop these skills and
practice them as a family. Garbarino, Schellenback & Sebes & Associates (1986) suggest
"double programming", or programming for both parents and adolescents together, as a
solution to this problem.

Generally there is a lack of programs designed to build parent-teen interaction. A
literature search reveals only one other seminar, Parent-Adolescent Relationship
Development (PARD), which brings parents and teens together to build positive parent-

teen interaction. PARD was created as a way to improve the relationship between fathers

and sons. This lO-session seminar which brings fathers and their adolescent sons together
in small groups to learn communication and relationship skills, helps fathers and sons to
improve positive feelings toward each other, and feel better about themselves (Ginsberg,
1995). Results of PARD are not presently available.

Kumpfer (1989) reports positive prevention results for an experimental study of
the impact of such a program designed to strengthen family dynamics. Kumpfer’s study
was done in the context of adolescent alcohol and drug abuse. Face to Face Ministries, a
non-proﬁt organization in Grand Rapids, Michigan has designed a seminar called, “A
Parent-Teen Event”(PTE) which brings parents and adolescents together for a one-day
seminar to develop interactive skills and strengthen family relationships (see Appendix A
for description). This seminar, which is based on Stinnett and DeFrain’s (1985) research
on family strengths, addresses both parents and teens together in a highly interactive one-
day seminar. However, it has never been tested for its effectiveness in strengthening
parent-teen interaction. The Parent-Teen-Event was speciﬁcally designed to meet the need

for double programming in educating parents and adolescents.

Pugpose of the study

Parent-Teen Events are projected by the founders to be presented to over 5,000
families in the next ﬁve years. A video series is being considered to increase the
availability of the live seminar to greater numbers of people. This research will assess the
effectiveness of a PTE and provide direction for further development of this seminar. If

this research indicates signiﬁcant increase in positive parent-teen interaction following a

PTE, this seminar could become a national model for increasing positive parent-teen

interaction and serve as a valuable tool to strengthen parent-teen relationships.

Signiﬁcance of research

The Parent-Teen Event (PTE) enables parents and teens to actually practice
interacting positively together during the one day seminar. This seminar could be a
valuable resource to churches and community groups across the country, especially if a
video format became available to make it more accessible to groups of all sizes in various
locations. The PTE can be used by almost any parent-teen group because of its non-
sectarian theoretical base. It has been presented to both Protestant and Catholic groups
with participants from various racial and ethnic backgrounds with similar results and
reception. For example, this seminar was presented to three different groups in the
Hawaiian Islands with participants from at least ﬁve different racial/ethnic backgrounds,
various types of interracial marriages and blended families.

Anecdotal reports of improved communication and positive parent-teen interaction
are many, but until now there has been no research to assess this Parent-Teen-Event
presented by Face to Face Ministries of Grand Rapids, Michigan. This research was
undertaken to substantiate the value of a PTE and to give direction for timber

development, and increased effectiveness among diverse audiences.

Theoretical models

This research is based on two theoretical models, the Family Strengths model
(Stinnett and DeFrain, 1985) and the Circumplex Model of Family Systems (Olson,
McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen & Wilson, 1989).

Family Strengths Model. Stinnett and DeFrain (1985) studied 3000 families to
determine the characteristics of strong families. They discovered six major strengths from
their research: Family commitment, family appreciation, family communication, family
time together, spiritual wellness and the ability to resolve family conﬂict and crisis.

The Family Strengths Model was used as the basis for development of the Parent-
Teen Event (PTE). The PTE presents the following four family strengths ﬁ'om Stinnett
and DeFrain’s research: family appreciation, family communication, family time together
and family ability to resolve conﬂict and manage crises. Family appreciation is deﬁned as
recognizing positive characteristics in other family members and expressing appreciation
for those characteristics. Family communication is the ability to clearly give and receive
messages. This process involves at least four components: talking, listening, understanding
and non-verbal language. Time together is a quantity of time in which there are
opportunities for quality experiences and mutual satisfaction and fulﬁllment. The ability to
resolve conﬂict and manage crises assumes that conﬂicts and crises are faced and resolved
without major disruption of the family system.

The PTE consists of four one and one-half hour presentations, which were
presented to parents and teenagers together in a conference setting. These sessions were
presented with a variety of methods: lecture, discussion, brainstorming exercises, video,

small group exercises and various paper exercises. Each session was designed to involve

10

parents and their teenagers in discussion and application of the four family strengths.
Sessions were titled “Just Say It” (the family strength of appreciation), “More Than
Words Can Say” (the family strength of communication), “Saturday Night at the Fights”
(the family strength of conﬂict resolution) and “Totally Necessary Time (TNT) (the family
strength of time together).

The Circumplex Model of Family Systems. The Circumplex Model of Family
Systems (Appendix B) was developed to bridge the gap between research, theory and
practice. This model is not only used in research but also in clinical practice to assess
marital and family systems. It has three dimensions: cohesion, adaptability, and
communication. Cohesion is deﬁned as the emotional bonding that family members have
with one another. Family adaptability is the ability of a marital or family system to change
its structure, its relationships and its rules in response to various stressors.
Communication enables couples and families to move on the other two dimensions.
Positive communication skills enable families to share with each other their changing needs
and preferences as they relate to cohesion and adaptability. Positive communication skills
will enable balanced families to change their levels of cohesion and adaptability more easily
than those at the extremes. Balanced families score higher than extreme families on both
dimensions, cohesion and adaptability. The following hypotheses have been derived from
the Circumplex Model (Olson, Foumier & Druckman, 1988, pp113-115):

1. Couples/families with balanced (two central levels) cohesion and adaptability

will generally function more adequately across the family life cycle than those

at the extreme of these dimensions.

11

2. Balanced family types have a larger behavioral repertoire and are more able to
change compared with extreme family types.

3. If the normative expectations of a couple or family support behaviors extreme
on one or both of the Circumplex dimensions, they will function well as long as
all family members accept these expectations.

4. Balanced couples/families will tend to have more positive communication skills
than extreme families.

5. Positive communication skills will enable balanced couples/families to change
their levels of cohesion and adaptability more easily than those at the extremes.

6. To deal with situational stress and developmental changes across the family life
cycle, balanced families will change their cohesion and adaptability, whereas
extreme families will resist change over time.

The Circumplex Model was used in this study to assess the degree of emotional
closeness between parents and adolescents and the degree of adaptability of families
studied. This model also was used to assess changes in emotional closeness and
adaptability for participants in the Parent-Teen-Event. Emotional closeness and

adaptability are both important elements of positive parent-teen interaction (Barnes &

Olson, 1985).

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Positive parent-teen interaction, which is the freedom of ﬂow of factual and
emotional information and the absence of problem communication, is related to many
different facets of adolescent life: school attitudes and achievement, personal identity,
family cohesion and adaptability, prosocial behavior, psychological development, self-
esteem, disclosure to parents and parental support. Gender of parent, gender of adolescent

and age of adolescent also are related to the degree of positive parent-teen interaction.

School attitudes and achievement

Positive school attitudes and higher academic achievement are correlated with
positive parent-teen interaction and quality family relationships. Adolescents who describe
their parents as treating them warmly and democratically are more likely than their peers
to develop positive attitudes toward school achievement and do well in school (Steinberg,
Elmen & Mounts, 1989; Cotterell, 1992). Public school families who scored higher on
communication reﬂected fewer problems than alternative (parochial or other) school
families (Masselam, Marcus & Stunkard, 1989) and the quality of family relationships, not
social class or absence of father or mother, determined academic achievement (Clark,
1983)

Positive parent-teen interaction helps students to develop positive attitudes toward

academic achievement and do better both academically and behaviorally. The research

12

13

seems clear that the quality of a parent-teen relationship is closely related to school

achievement and adolescents’ attitudes toward school.

Personal identity

Various studies suggest that personal identity formation for adolescents is strongly
affected by parent-adolescent relationships and positive parent-teen interaction. In a study
of 410 college students, Kamptner (1984) found that parental warmth, parental autonomy
and family cohesion have a direct positive impact on adolescent identity formation. These
three items were all positively correlated with positive self-identity and with Erikson’s
scales of psycho-social stages of industry, identity and intimacy. Several other studies
indicate that high parental support, positive parent-teen communication and parent
involvement facilitate the development of ego identity in adolescence (Adams & Fitch,
1982; Campbell, Adams & Dobson, 1984; Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hauser, Powers,
Noam & Bowlds, 1987). In addition, Grotevant and Cooper (1985) found that identity
exploration in boys is associated with “connecting types of interactions with parents”,
particularly with their fathers. It is easier for adolescent boys to work on identity
exploration when they have positive interaction and a positive relationship with their
fathers. Together these studies indicate that positive parent-teen interaction which includes
parental warmth, parental autonomy, parental involvement, positive communication and

family cohesion, is positively related to identity formation in adolescence.

14

Cohesion and adaptability

Cohesion is the emotional closeness and bonding between family members.
Adaptability is the ability of a family system to change its structure, its relationships and its
rules in response to various stressors.

Contrary to popular beliefs, between two-thirds and three-quarters of adolescents
feel close to their parents, identify with them and are satisﬁed with the “way they get
along” (Bachman, Johnston & O' Malley, 1987; Steinberg, Elmen & Mounts, 1989).
These adolescents who report close and satisfactory relationships with parents routinely
turn to them for advice and guidance (Demo, 1992).

Families who report open communication and satisfaction with family interactions
perceive themselves, in terms of the Circumplex Model of Family Systems, as higher on
family cohesion and family adaptability (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Adolescents' disclosure
to parents is strongly associated with family cohesion (Papini, Clark, Barnett & Snell,
1989). Communication in “balanced families” is more positive, especially with mothers,
who have a signiﬁcantly higher rate of supportive communication, than in families which
are “extreme” on the dimensions of cohesion and adaptability (Rodick, Henggeler &
Hansen, 1986). Balanced families are not extreme on either of the scales of cohesion or
adaptability as measured by Olson’s Circumplex Model of Family Systems. Steinberg
(1987, 1988, 1990) found diminished levels of positive interaction and heightened
bickering and squabbling over mundane issues of daily life during adolescence. However,
this did not seem to negatively affect parent-adolescent bonding and cohesion, especially

within the context of a close emotional relationship between parent and adolescent.

15

Family cohesion affects parent-teen relationships in many ways. For example,
different levels of cohesion, adaptability and communication may create different moral
expressions and preferences in adolescents (White, 1996). Substance abuse was more
prevalent with adolescents in families with lower family cohesion, less adaptability and less
family togetherness (Malkus, 1994). Delinquent behavior of adolescents was more likely
to occur where family adaptability was low (Shields, 1995). In a study of depression in
adolescents in therapy compared to a non-clinical group, Cumsille and Epstein (1994)
found that the strongest predictor of depressive symptoms was the adolescent’s level of
satisfaction with cohesion and adaptability in their families. Family cohesion was inversely
related to depression. This was especially true of depression among male adolescents.

Cohesion may vary with intact two-parent families and other forms of family. A
study of 758 adolescents from intact families and 95 adolescents from stepfamilies found
stepfamilies were less cohesive than intact families (Barber & Lyons, 1994). However,
functional levels of cohesion are maintained when the children’s biological parents
continue to interact in a healthy manner. In a study of 50 non-custodial fathers, Esposito
(1995) found ﬁrnctional levels of family cohesion when these fathers maintained quality
interactions with their children and ex-wives.

In summary, parents and adolescents who perceive their communication as positive
and open are higher in cohesion and adaptability. Mundane issues do not seem to affect a
close emotional relationship between parents and adolescents. Levels of family cohesion
vary with different forms of family, and adolescents from families with lower levels of

cohesion may be more susceptible to substance abuse and depression.

l6

Prosocial behavior

Prosocial behavior is that which is acceptable to society in general. As adolescents
search for identity and move toward independence, they often challenge prosocial
behavior. According to several researchers, the challenge of psychosocial development is
both a search for individuality and connectedness (Bakan, 1966; Block, 1973; Chodorow,
1978; Cooper, Grotevant & Condon, 1983; Gilligan, 1982; Hassan & Bar-yam, 1987;
Leaper, 1989; Selman, 1989; White, Speisman, Costos & Smith, 1987). Connectedness
with parents is crucial during adolescent identity exploration. This connectedness enables
parents to provide supportive behavior to their adolescent children as they seek
independence and identity. Parental supportive behavior is related to prosocial outcomes
in children of all ages and across ethnic, social and cultural boundaries (Maccoby &
Martin, 1983; Rhoner, 1986; Rollins & Thomas, 1979). Adolescent prosocial behaviors
are enhanced when behavioral expectations are clearly speciﬁed and reinforced with
praise, encouragement and other positive rewards (Coombs & Landsverk, 1988; Benson,
Williams & Johnson, 1987). Family closeness is negatively correlated with adolescent
delinquent behavior. In a study of 471 adolescents, Barber and Buehler (1996) found that
cohesion was negatively associated with adolescent delinquent behavior, both externalized
and internalized. Prosocial behavior was clearly associated with positive parent-teen

interaction and parental support.

Psychological development

Psychological development of adolescents is related to positive parent-teen

interaction. Warm family relationships, clear expectations of adolescents and autonomy all

17

contribute to adolescent psychological development. Adolescents thrive developmentally
when their family environment is characterized by warm relationships in which individuals
are permitted to express their opinions and assert their individuality and in which parents
expect mature behavior and set and enforce reasonable rules and standards (Groteth &
Cooper 1986; Cotterell, 1992). The opportunity for individuality and autonomy is needed
for adolescents to complete the “task of adolescence”.

Parents are more likely now than thirty years ago to emphasize autonomy for their
children (Demo, 1992), and adolescents who report more autonomy also report better
communication with both mother and father (Hamil, 1988). Conversely, children who are
over controlled psychologically may lack conﬁdence to deal with the external world
(Barber, 1992) and may lack social competence with peers. These children may withdraw
and refuse or be unable to take social initiative (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Intrusive
psychological control can limit the child's opportunity for self-discovery, disrupt the
individuation process and transmit anxiety to the child (Costanzo & Woody, 1985).
Adolescents are adversely affected by psychological control but positively affected by
behavioral control (Steinberg, 1990). Disagreements concerning everyday issues may be
viewed as adaptive, and part of the negotiation of independence between adolescents and
their parents. This may facilitate adjustment and individuation (Holmbeck & O' Donnell,
1991). In a study of family interaction and individual psychological health, Amerikaner
(1994) found that psychological health in 301 undergraduates was positively related to
family cohesion, satisfaction with family and communication with parents.

In summary, positive parent-teen interaction in a warm family environment

positively inﬂuences adolescent psychological development. Adolescents thrive in such an

18

environment. A lack of this kind of an environment is negatively associated with

psychological development and adversely affects the adolescent.

m

Adolescent females who experienced positive communication in their relationship
with their mothers perceived themselves to have high self-esteem (Lyle & Newton, 1979:
Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Intimacy between adolescents and their fathers is
positively correlated with self-esteem (LeCroy, 1988; Wenk, Hardesty, Morgan & Blair,
1994)

Parental supportive behavior is positively related to adolescent self-esteem, and
controlling behavior is negatively related to adolescent self-esteem (Barber, 1990; Barber
& Thomas, 1986; Felson & Zielinski, 1989; Gecas & Schwalbe, 1986; Demo, Small &
Savin-Williams, 1987). Lack of parental support is associated with low self-esteem
(Peterson & Rollins, 1987; Simon & Miller, 1987).

Adolescent self-esteem is directly affected by the adolescent’s relationship with his
parents. It may even be said that a strong parent-teen relationship is a harbinger of

adolescent self-esteem.

Disclosure

Adolescent disclosure to parents is strongly associated with their perceptions of
openness of family communication, family cohesion and satisfaction with family
relationships (Papini, Sebby & Clark, 1989). Communication diﬁiculties are associated

with relationship difficulties (Gottman, 1979; Prinz, Foster, Kent & O' Leary, 1979).

l9

Memories and recollections of communicative interactions contribute to the quality of

relationships (Duck, 1990; Surra & Ridley, 1991).

Parental support

Adolescents establish supportive relationships in three major areas: the family, the
school and the world of their peers (Armsden & Greenburg, 1987; Offer, Ostrov &
Howard, 1981; Dunn, Putallaz, Sheppard & Lindstrom, 1987). According to Offer,
Ostrov & Howard (1981), adolescent well-being is still dependent upon positive
relationships with parents.

Parental support affects adolescents’ social competence, attitudes toward self, risk-
taking behavior and life satisfaction. Parental support is deﬁned as physical affection,
companionship and sustained contact, and consists of variables such as acceptance, open
communication, expressive and instrumental affection, nurturance, rapport, responsiveness
and companionship (Barber & Thomas, 1986; Peterson, Rollins, Thomas & Ellis, 1980;
Rhoner, 1986). After reviewing the extensive research on parental support, Rollins and
Thomas (1979) conclude that the greater the parental support, the greater the child's social
competence. They deﬁned support as "behavior manifest by a parent toward a child that
makes the child feel comfortable in the presence of the parent and conﬁrms in the child's
mind that he is basically accepted and approved as a person by the parent" (Rollins &
Thomas, 1979, p.320). Parental support is an important antecedent in the development of
positive attitudes of children towards themselves and their life circumstances (Barber,

Olsen & Shagle, 1994; Barber & Thomas, 1986; Felson & Zielinski, 1989).

20

In a study of more than 2,500 teenagers and their sexual risk-taking behaviors,
Luster and Small (1994) found that high risk females received lower levels of support
from their parents. In addition, they were less likely to talk with their mothers about birth
control than those in the low-risk group who were more likely to have discussed birth
control with their mothers.

Another study assessed family characteristics as predictors of treatment outcome
for adolescent substance abusers. The more positively subjects described the family’s
functioning and relationships at pretreatment, the more improvement was reported after
treatment. FACES and the Parent-Adolescent Communication Inventory were two of the
instruments used for assessment in this study (Friedman, 1995).

Positive perceptions of adolescents by their parents resulted in less conﬂict for
those families. The opposite also was true, as negative perceptions of children by parents
resulted in more conﬂict (Barber, 1994).

Adolescents' perceptions of parental support and closeness are positively
correlated to their life satisfaction (Young, Miller, Norton & Hill, 1995). Conversely,
adjustment diﬂiculties in adolescents are directly linked to the lack of emotional support
from parents. In a sample of normal and disturbed 13 to 18 year-olds Offer, Ostrov &
Howard (1981) found the disturbed group was less close to parents, trusted parents less
and relied upon them for help less than the normal group. Lack of parental support is
associated with low self-esteem, delinquency, deviance, drug abuse and other problem

behaviors (Peterson & Rollins, 1987; Simon & Miller, 1987).

21

Parental support continues to be a positive and necessary factor in parent-teen
relationships. Parental support affects children’s social competence and attitudes towards

themselves and is correlated with children’s life satisfaction.

Gender differences

Gender of both parents and teenagers affect parent-teen interaction. Fathers and
mothers in general treat their sons and daughters differently (Harris & Morgan, 1991;
Siegal, 1987). The typical teenager is twice as likely to get along better with his mother as
with his father (Bezilla, 1988). Mothers report more positive communication with their
adolescents than do fathers (Barnes & Olson, 1985). The intensity of the mother-daughter
relationship is greatest, and the father-daughter relationship is least intense (Steinberg,
1987). Girls with eating disorders reported more problems with their fathers with
autonomy and problem solving than did girls without eating disorders. Parents did not
report any difference, but subjects reported more global distress, dysfunctional family
patterns and problems with their fathers (Eme, R.F. & Danielak, M.H., 1995). Girls
report a better relationship with their mothers than do boys (Van Wei, 1994). Parents are
reported to emphasize interpersonal closeness and intimacy more in daughters and
encourage separation and autonomy more in sons (Block, 1983; F eldman, 1982; Huston,
1983; Leaper, 1989). While both boys and girls report a decline in affection between ﬁfth
and ninth grade, the greatest decline is in affection from fathers (Benson, Williams &
Johnson, 1987).

Females exhibit greater self-disclosure to parents and peers than males (Papini,

Clark, Barnett & Savage, 1989). Girls are more likely to talk to their mothers about

22

friends, their bodies, sex (Keith, 1985; Nolin & Petersen, 1992) and personal issues
(Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Fathers engage in less communication about sexuality with
children of either gender than do mothers (Kahn, Smith & Roberts, 1984; Fox, 1986).

Both females and males report that they feel close or very close to both mother
and father, but in times of stress males are more likely to keep their feelings to themselves
(Keith, 198 5). Sons report less communication within the family, fewer opportunities to
discuss sexuality with the same sex parent and less discussion of topics likely to teach
family values and norms about sexual behavior (Nolin & Petersen, 1992).

Female adolescents generally experience more conﬂict with parents than males, but
males report more conﬂicts with parents concerning speciﬁc issues such as money (Ellis-
Schwabe & Thomburg, 1986), drugs, cursing and drinking (Papini, Clark, Barnett &
Savage, 1989).

To summarize, both male and female adolescents seem to interact better and report
closer relationships with their mothers than with their fathers. Girls exhibit more self
disclosure to their mothers than to their fathers, especially about sexual and personal
issues. They also experience more conﬂict with their parents. Daughters experience more
intimacy and closeness, while sons experience more autonomy. Fathers engage in less

communication and give less affection than mothers.

Age of adolescents

Age of adolescents affects both parent-teen interaction and degree of conﬂict
between parents and adolescents. The family is the preferred forum to express emotions

for younger adolescents, while the peer group is the preferred forum for expressing

23

emotions for older adolescents (Papini Clark, Barnett & Snell, 1989). Older adolescents
disclose signiﬁcantly more to friends than do younger adolescents (Papini, Clark, Barnett
& Snell, 1989). In contrast, Benson (1990), in a study of 46,000 6‘“ to 12‘" grade students,
reported an increase in parent adolescent communication from early to late adolescence
(56% of 12“1 graders reported parent-teen communication as an asset compared to 44% of
6‘“ to 8“I graders). Older teens reported better relations with their mothers than did
younger teens (Bezilla, 1988). Benson’s study was supported by a later longitudinal
study, which reported adolescent-parent intimacy from early adolescence to young
adulthood. This study found that both boys and girls reported increases in intimacy with
fathers over time. For boys, the increase in intimacy with mothers was greater from 8‘” to
12th grades than the increase through the young adult period. Girls’ intimacy with mothers
also increased over this time period. However, greater increases occurred during young
adulthood for girls. Rice and Mulkeen (1995) found stability in parent-daughter and
mother-son intimacy over time. Several researchers found a decrease in the amount of
parent/adolescent conﬂict ﬁ'om middle to late adolescence (Papini & Sebby, 1987; Papini,
Clark, Barnett & Savage, 1989; Smetana, 1988; Sullivan & Sullivan, 1980). It is possible
that older adolescents may heighten their memories of certain communication interactions
and diminish their memories of others (Ross & Sicoly, 1979).

In summary, while it has been generally recognized by many that older adolescents
are closer to peer groups than younger adolescents, other research indicates older
adolescents still regard their parents’ interaction as very important to them. In many cases

older adolescents report better relationships with parents than do younger adolescents.

24

Perceptions

Perceptions about parent-teen relationships are not always accurate, nor does
everyone in a family agree when describing the relationships. For some, especially
parents, social desirability is a factor to be considered. Parents generally report higher
levels of communication with adolescents than do adolescents with parents (Barnes &
Olson, 1985; Keith, 1985) and view their relationship as more positive and less conﬂictual
than adolescents (Montemayor, 1986; Smetana, 1989; Olson, Russell & Sprenkle 1983;
Moos, 1974). Parents who experienced a stormy adolescence themselves may reﬂect that
experience in their relationship with their adolescent children. Scheer (1995) discovered
that parents who experienced greater storm and stress in their teen years had more conﬂict
in their relationships with their adolescent children and were less satisﬁed with their
families. In a study of discrepancies between adolescents’ and parents’ perception of
family ﬁrnctioning, Ohannessian (1995), found that 6m and 7th grade boys and girls
perceived lower levels of family cohesion than their parents perceived. They also
perceived lower levels of family adjustment than did both parents. Another study, which
compared preadolescent children with behavior disorders with children without behavior
disorders, found that parents who accurately perceived their children’s perceptions tended
to have children with fewer behavior disorders. These parents also tended to expect their
children to have more positive self-concepts (Schor, Stidley & Malspeis, 1995).
Adolescents' perceptions of parent-child relationships may be more accurate since they

seem less susceptible to social desirability effects (Niemi, 1974).

25

Summag

Positive parent-teen interaction is positively related to adolescent school attitudes
and achievement, adolescent identity, family cohesion and adaptability, adolescent self-
esteem, disclosure to parents, adolescent prosocial behavior, adolescent psychological
development and parental support. Gender of parent, gender of adolescent and age of
adolescent also are related to positive parent-teen interaction. Perceptions of parents and
adolescents differ. Parents are likely to perceive family relationships as more positive than
adolescent family members. Responses of parents are likely to reﬂect a social desirability

factor.

CHAPTER 3 METHODS

This exploratory study of the inﬂuence of participation in a Parent-Teen-Event
(PTE) by parents and adolescents on parent-teen interaction is quasi-experimental in
nature. Quasi-experiments are “distinguished from true experiments primarily by the lack
of random assignment of subjects to an experimental and a control group” (Babbie, 1989,
p333). Exploratory studies are done to “satisfy the researcher’s curiosity and desire for
better understanding” and “whenever the researcher is breaking new ground”(Babbie,
1989, p80-81). Parent-Teen-Events have never been studied for their effectiveness in
positively inﬂuencing parent-teen interaction. In that sense this study is exploratory.
Because there is no random assignment of subjects to experimental and control groups this
study is quasi-experimental in nature.

This study of Parent-Teen Events was conducted in a partially controlled
environment, a seminar group setting. An assessment was given to each participant at the
beginning of the one-day seminar at the seminar site. The posttest was completed at home
three months after the seminar. Although this time span was chosen mainly because of
time limitations of this research, a three-month interval was considered suﬁcient to
observe changes in parent-teen interaction.

A control group was used with pretests and posttests given three months apart.
This group, chosen ﬁ'om a convenience sample, did not participate in the seminar. A
convenience sample diﬂ’ers from a random sample in that participants are not chosen

randomly but rather because of their availability to the researcher. The control group for

26

27

this study was comparable to the experimental seminar group in the sense that the
experimental group was composed of families that participated in a PTE, and the control
group was composed of families scheduled to participate in a PTE. Some control group
families attended a PTE later, but some scheduled events did not occur due to cancellation
by the churches or conﬂicts with other church scheduled events.

The unit of analysis was adolescents and their parents. Individual self-reports of
parents and adolescents were treated as independently valid measures of family properties.
Participants in Parent Teen Events composed of 15 to 30 families each comprised the

experimental group.

Pugpose

The major purpose of this research was to assess the inﬂuence of a Parent-Teen
Event (PTE) on positive parent-teen interaction, family cohesion and family adaptability,
as measured by the instruments and statistics chosen by the researcher. The following

research objectives and questions further clarify and expand the purposes of this study:

Research Objectives

1. To assess the inﬂuence of a PTE on positive parent-teen interaction.

2. To assess the inﬂuence of a PTE on family cohesion.

3. To assess the inﬂuence of a PTE on family adaptability.

4. To assess differences in the level of positive parent-teen interaction, family cohesion
and family adaptability among different age adolescents.

5. To assess differences in the level of positive parent-teen interaction, family cohesion

and family adaptability due to gender.

10.

28

To assess differences in the level of positive parent-teen interaction, family cohesion
and family adaptability due to other family characteristics in the conceptual model
(Figure 3).

Wm

. Does participation in a PTE affect parent-teen interaction, and if so, how?

Does the amount of positive parent-teen interaction differ with the gender of the

parent or adolescent, and if so, how?

. Does the level of positive parent-teen interaction vary with the age of the adolescent,

and if so, how?

Does participation in a PTE affect family cohesion, and if so, how?

Does the amount of family cohesion differ with the gender of the parent or adolescent,
and if so, how?

Does the level of family cohesion vary with the age of the adolescent, and if so, how?
Does participation in a PTE aﬂ‘ect family adaptability, and if so, how?

Does the amount of family adaptability differ with the gender of the parent or
adolescent, and if so, how?

Does the level of family adaptability vary with the age of the adolescent, and if so,
how?

Are any of the three major dependent variables affected by other family characteristics

in the conceptual model, and if so, how (Figure 3)?

29

Research Hypotheses

In order to accomplish these objectives and answer the research questions the

following null and alternative hypotheses were proposed:

H01

H02

H03

H.3

H.4

H05

There is no signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erence between the levels of positive parent-teen
interaction for PTE participants and non-participants.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of positive parent-teen interaction for PTE
participants than for non-participants.

There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of positive parent-teen
interaction for fathers and mothers.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of positive parent-teen interaction for mothers
than for fathers.

There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of positive parent-teen
interaction for adolescent boys and girls.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of positive parent-teen interaction for
adolescent girls than for boys.

There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of positive parent-teen
interaction for various age adolescents.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of positive parent-teen interaction in younger
adolescents than for older adolescents.

There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family cohesion for PTE

participants and non-participants.

Ha6

H07

H08

H09

Halo

Ha10

H011

30

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family cohesion for PTE participants than for
non-participants.

There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family cohesion for fathers
and mothers.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family cohesion for mothers than for fathers.
There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family cohesion for
adolescent boys and girls.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family cohesion for adolescent girls than for
adolescent boys.

There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family cohesion for various
age adolescents.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family cohesion for younger adolescents than
for older adolescents.

There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family adaptability for PTE
participants and non-participants.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family adaptability for PTE participants than
for non-participants.

There is no signiﬁcant diﬂ‘erence between the levels of family adaptability for
fathers and mothers.

There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family adaptability for mothers than for
fathers.

There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family adaptability for

adolescent boys and girls.

31

H.“ There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family adaptability for adolescent girls than
for adolescent boys.

Hm There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family adaptability for
various age adolescents.

Hm There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family adaptability for older adolescents than
for younger adolescents.

Hon There is no signiﬁcant difference for any of the three major variables due to other
family characteristics in the conceptual model (ﬁgure 3).

Hm There is a signiﬁcantly higher level of family adaptability for families with higher
SES than for families with lower SES (as measured by education, occupation and
income).

The .05 level of signiﬁcance was required to reject the null hypotheses and accept the

alternative hypotheses.

Ecological Framework

This study is approached from an ecological perspective, which is mainly based on
the work of Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986) and Bubolz and Sontag (1990). These family
theorists proposed that families or individuals cannot be studied appropriately apart ﬁom a
consideration of the environment in which they live, and the various interactions which
occur within that environment. This environment is called the ecosystem. “Environments
are not simply objective external conditions in which families exist. They are subjectively

experienced, and the family and its members perceive, interpret, and create meaning on the

32

basis of their needs, values, and goals (Bubolz & Sontag, 1990, p20). Several

assumptions are made in regard to the basic premises of an ecosystem.

1.

As human groups, families are part of the total life system, interdependent with
other forms of life and the nonliving environment.

Families are semi-open, goal directed, dynamic, adaptive systems. They can
respond, change, develop, and can act on and modify their environment.

All parts of the environment are interrelated and inﬂuence each other.

Families interact with multiple environments.

. Environments do not detemrine human behavior but pose limitations and

constraints as well as possibilities and opportunities for families.
Families have varying degrees of control and freedom with respect to

environmental interactions (Bubolz & Sontag, 1990, pp. 16-17)

Bubolz and Sontag (1990) proposed a model (Figure 1) which conceptualizes

three interrelated environments: (1) the natural physical-biological environment, (2) the

human-built environment, and (3) the social-cultural environment. They deﬁne and

describe these environments as follows:

The natural physical-biological environment includes physical and biological

components. . .as they exist unaltered in nature. The human built environment

includes alterations and transformations made by humans of the natural physical-

biological environment. . .The social-cultural environment includes the presence of

other human beings... abstract cultural constructions (e. g., language, laws, norms,

and cultural values). . .and social and economic institutions (e. g., the social-

regulatory system, agricultural-industrial system, and market economy)...

33

The environment can be conceptualized in terms of its proximity. . .to the
family physically, psychologically, and socially. . .People develop emotional
attachments to their environment. . .and may attach special meanings to various
components, and meanings may differ within families (Bubolz & Sontag, 1990,
p28-29).

Individuals and families tend to personalize and take possession of their near
environment, and complete and change it to be consistent with their own values and goals.
This contributes to their personal and family identity within the community. The
perception of an adequate environment gives families and individuals choices, which in

turn bring satisfaction and ﬁilﬁllment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1990).

34

 

Space-Time Dimension

 

Past Present Future

Figure l - A Family Ecosystem
Adapted from Bubolz and Sontag, 1990

35

Bronfenbrenner proposed a somewhat different model (Figure 2) which describes
the ecological environment as composed of four levels: (1) the microsystem, (2) the
mesosystem, (3) the exosystem, and (4) the macrosystem. He later added a ﬁﬁh level, the
chronosystem. These are deﬁned as follows: (1) The microsystem is the immediate setting
in which the person or family spends time. Examples of this are: school, church,
neighborhood and work, or for the individual, the family. (2) The mesosystem is the
interrelationship among the various settings in the microsystem. Although this is a more
difficult concept to grasp, examples for a child are the relations among home, school and
neighborhood, and for an adult, the relations among family, work and the church. (3) The
exosystem “includes the primary social structures that inﬂuence the developing person”
(Schiamberg, 1988, p55). This setting typically does not include the developing person,
but affects his/her development. Examples would be the parents’ workplace for a child,
political/govemmental structures, neighborhood and community organizations and
informal communication networks. (4) The macrosystem is deﬁned as “the broad
ideological values, norms, and institutional patterns of a particular culture which make up
the blueprints for that culture’s ecology of human development” (Bubolz & Sontag, 1990,
p11). Examples of this are: the value that a society places on a child or family, the value
society places on education, and the expectations of a particular culture of the family
member at various ages or stages of development. (5) The chronosystem examines a
person’s or family’s continuity and change over time in the environment (Bronfenbrenner,

1986).

36

Although Bronfenbrenner’s model is similar in some respects to that of Bubolz and
Sontag, Bronfenbrenner does not focus on the interdependence of natural and built

environments with social and psychological environments (Bubolz & Sontag, 1990).

37

 

Time Dimension

Past Present Future

Figure 2 - Bronfenbrenner’s Model of the Ecology of Human Development
(Adapted)

Child & Adolescent Development, Lawrence B. Schiamberg. Macmillan, 1988

38

This present study assessed family members interacting together, adapting to each
other and building cohesive relationships. All of this occurred within multiple
environments, and affected and was affected by the various environments within the
ecosystem. This study mainly focused on the individual family members within the
microsystem, but considered other variables such as family income, education, occupation
and chronological age, which interact with other levels in the ecological model. Because
the seminar (PTE) studied was presented from a religious perspective, the macrosystem
(cultural beliefs and values) also is considered. The inﬂuences of other levels of the
ecological system were considered when interpreting the data from this study.

Several key concepts from family ecology relate strongly to this study: interaction,
interdependence, perception, adaptability, communication and cohesion. The three major
variables in this study are positive parent-teen interaction, family cohesion and family

adaptability, which all directly relate to the above concepts.

Conceptual and Operational Definitions for Major Variables

This section provides deﬁnitions of the major variables used in this study.
Operational deﬁnitions follow conceptual deﬁnitions. The following conceptual model
(Figure 3) identiﬁes the independent variable, the dependent variables and other
participant characteristics, which may affect the dependent variables. Deﬁnitions of

variables and operational deﬁnitions follow.

39

Conceptual Model

Independent Variable Dependent Variables

 

 

   
 

acrpatron m a . .
Ii 4327.12"? zacen Event """"""" lmemcm” -
.. - Family gjz-ijioheswn

 

 

 

 

.............................................................

 

 

Family Characteristics

 

.Qijﬁiender 0;:‘5555‘ggarent” ' " " " “

 

 

 

Figure 3 - Conceptual Model

40

Participation in a Parent-Teen Event (PTE) is the independent variable. The level
of positive parent-teen interaction is the major dependent variable. Two other important
dependent variables are family cohesion and family adaptability. Several participant
characteristics also are important and are listed and deﬁned.

A family is deﬁned as at least one parent and at least one adolescent aged 12-18
living together in the same household. This was operationalized by asking adolescents to
indicate their age on the questionnaire and also to indicate whether they resided with both
parents, one parent, or live elsewhere.

Positive parent-teen interaction is conceptually deﬁned as communication
between parents and adolescents that can be described as: (1) open communication, which
is the freedom of ﬂow of factual and emotional information and (2) the absence of
problem communication (destructive communication patterns and avoidance tactics).

Operationally, positive parent-teen interaction was measured by the Parent-
Adolescent Communication: Adolescent Form and by the Parent-Adolescent
Communication: Parent Form, developed by Barnes and Olson (1982). This instrument is
composed of two subscales: Open Family Communication and Problems in Family
Communication. Positive communication scores range from 20 to 100.

Family cohesion is conceptually deﬁned as the emotional bonding that family
members have toward one another, ranging ﬁ'om disengaged (low) to very connected
(high). The following eight concepts are related to family cohesion: emotional bonding,
family boundaries, coalitions, time, space, ﬁiends, decision-making, interests and

recreation. Operationally, family cohesion was measured by FACES II and is reported on

41

four levels, disengaged, separated, connected, and very connected. Family cohesion scores
range from 15 (disengaged) to 80 (very connected).

Family adaptability is conceptually deﬁned as the ability of a family system to
change its structure, its relationships and its rules in response to various stressors. The
following six concepts are related to family adaptability: assertiveness, leadership,
discipline, negotiation, roles and rules.

Operationally, family adaptability was measured by FACES II and is reported on
four levels: rigid, structured, ﬂexible and very ﬂexible. Family adaptability scores range
from 15 (rigid) to 70 (very ﬂexible).

Family participation in a PTE is conceptually deﬁned as at least one parent and
at least one adolescent aged 12-18 who reside together, and attended all four sessions of a
PTE. A Parent-Teen Event is approximately six hours in length and consists of four one
and one-half hour sessions in which parents and teens are guided through discussion and
exercises together on the following subjects: Family Appreciation, Family Communication,
Family Conﬂict Resolution and Family Time Together. These topics have been identiﬁed
as family strengths by Stinnett and DeFrain (1985), and are related to the major dependent
variable, positive parent-teen interaction.

Operationally, participation in a PTE was measured by asking parents and
adolescents to indicate on the questionnaire if they participated in all four sessions of the
PTE. Experimental and control groups were coded as follows:

Parent experimental group = PE

Adolescent experimental group = AE

42

Parent control group = PC

Adolescent group = AC

Conceptual and Operational Definitions for Participant Characteristics

Data concerning the following participant characteristics were gathered on the
demographic portion of the questionnaire. Conceptual deﬁnitions are given when

necessary with operational deﬁnitions following.

Parent Characteristics

Gender of parent was measured by asking parents to indicate whether they are
male or female. These were coded 1 and 2 respectively.

Educational level of parent was measured by asking respondents to indicate the
highest level of education completed in one of six categories ranging from less than high
school to graduate degree. These six categories were coded 1-6 respectively.

Occupation was measured by asking respondents to indicate which type of
occupation best describes their work from a list of seven categories. These categories are
taken from Olson's instrument PREPARE (Olson, Fournier & Druckman, 1988).
Category 1 = Professionals, doctors, lawyers, executives; category 2 = Other
professionals, managers, teachers, nurses; category 3 = Skilled and building trades, farmer;
category 4 = Sales, technicians, clerical; category 5 = Laborer, factory worker, waitress,
category 6 = General service employees; and category 7 = Homemaker.

Annual household income as measured by asking parents to indicate numerically

their annual household income (before taxes). Actual numbers were recorded.

43

Form of family was measured by asking participants to indicate the best
description of their family from ﬁve choices: (1) two-parent biological family, (2)
stepfamily, (3) blended family, (4) single parent family, or (5) other. These were coded 1-
5. These ﬁve categories were later collapsed into two categories and coded: 1=two-
parent biological family, 2=other.

The demographic section of the parent's questionnaire (Appendix C) measured

parents’ gender, age, education, occupation, income and marital status.

Adolescent Characteristics

Gender of adolescent was measured by asking adolescents to indicate whether
they are male or female. These were coded 1 and 2 respectively.

Age of adolescent was measured by asking respondents to indicate their actual
age. Actual age was recorded.

Form of family was measured by asking respondents to indicate whether they
lived with: (1) both biological parents, (2) with one parent, (3) with parent and step-
parent, (4) other. These were coded 1-4. These categories were later collapsed into two
categories, (1) both biological parents, and (2) other. This was done because of the
limited size of cell groups.

Only the gender, age and form of family were requested on the adolescent's
questionnaire. These were reported on the adolescent demographic portion of the

questionnaire (Appendix D).

44

Instruments

Two standardized instruments were used for this study: Inventory of Parent-
Adolescent Communication and FACES H (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation
Scales). Following are descriptions of these two instruments adapted from Touliatos,

Perlmutter, and Straus (1990) and Olson and Tiesel (1991).

Inventory of Parent-adolescent Communication

This instrument was selected for its ability to measure the two major elements of
positive parent-teen interaction, open communication and problems in family
communication. Permission to use this instrument for research was granted by Dr. David
Olson (Appendix E).

Developers: Barnes, H. & Olson, DH, 1982

Vambles measured: Amount of openness, problems or barriers to family
communication, and selectivity of family members in their discussions with other family
members.

Sample for Barnes and Olson study: n=1841

Type of instrument: Self-report questionnaire

Description: This instrument is a 20-item Likert—type scale designed to measure
both positive and negative aspects of communication between teenagers and their parents
as well as content and process variables of communication. This scale can be used for
both parents and teenagers and was derived from an initial pool of 35 items. Two
subscales are included. The ﬁrst, Open Family Communication, is designed to measure
positive aspects of communication between parents and their adolescent children. “The

focus is on the freedom of free ﬂowing exchange of information, both factual and

45

emotional as well as on the sense of lack of constraint and degree of understanding and
satisfaction experienced in their interactions. The second subscale, Problems in Family
Communication, focuses on the negative aspects of communication: hesitancy to share,
negative styles of interaction, and selectivity and caution in what is shared” (Olson et al.,
1985, p56). All items on both subscales utilize a 5-point Likert Scale with responses
ranging ﬁ'om strongly disagree to strongly agree. Following reversal of scores in the
problems subscale, items within subscales were summed to arrive at composite scores.

Items and factor loaLinga: See Appendix F

Construct validity: Factor analysis for combined parent and adolescent data ranges
from .48 to .71 for factor I (Open Family Communication), and from .26 to .60 for factor
11 (Problems in Family Communication).

Reliability: Cronbach's alpha = .88 for instrument, .87 for Open Communication
scale, and .78 for Problems in Communication scale. Test/Retest = .60 for instrument, .78
for Open Communication scale, and .77 for Problems in Communication scale. The
interval between the ﬁrst and second administration of the test was four to ﬁve weeks.

m: The total score is a summed score but it is necessary to distinguish items
from the two subscales. Problems in Family Communication score responses were
reversed in point value, changing every 5 to a 1, l to a 5, 4 to a 2 and 2 to a 4. Items 2, 4,
5, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20 were then summed and added to the responses on the ﬁrst
subscale (items 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17) Open Family Communication for a summed

total. Descriptive statistics for total scale scores are as follows (Table 1).

46

Table 1 - Communication: Test sample

 

Fathers Mothers Adolescents regarding Adolescents regarding
their mothers: their fathers
Mean 72.55 75.47 66.56 63.74
SD. 10.74 11.12 12.10 12.02

 

FACES H (Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales)

This instrument was selected for its ability to measure the two key dependent
variables, family cohesion and family adaptability. Family cohesion and family adaptability
were measured separately, then combined to produce the family type.

Developers: Olson, D.H., Portner, J ., & Lavee, Y. (1985), Olson, D.H. & Tiesel,
J. (1991). Permission to use this instrument for research was granted by Dr. David Olson
(Appendix E).

miables measured: Family cohesion and adaptability

Type of instrument: Self-rating questionnaire

Description: This instrument classiﬁes families into 4 general family types
(Balanced, Moderately Balanced, Mid-Range and Extreme) combining adaptability and
cohesion dimensions. This 30-item instrument which was titled “Family Interaction
Inventory” in the survey was administered to individuals within families. Each item asked
the frequency of a speciﬁc behavior using a 5-point Likert response format with responses
ranging from almost never to almost always.

Mg: Linear scoring is recommended and used for FACES H. Cohesion is
scored by summing the negative items (3,9,15,19,25, & 29), then subtracting from the

constant of 36. This subtotal is then added to the sum of items 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 21, 23,

47

27, & 30. This results in a total cohesion score, which ranges from 16-80. Adaptability is
scored by summing the negative items (24 & 28), then subtracting from the constant of
12. This subtotal is then added to the sum of items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 &
26. This results in a total adaptability score, which ranges ﬁ'om 15-70.

Sa_mpﬁ: Adults (N=2,453), Families with adolescents (N=l,315), Adolescents
(N=412), Young couples (N=242).

Legs: See Appendix G

m: Concurrent validity when compared with Dallas Self-Report Family
Inventory which measures constructs similar to cohesion and adaptability is .93 for
cohesion and .79 for adaptability (Hampson, Hulgus, & Beavers, 1991).

Reliabilig: Cronbach's alpha = .87 for cohesion, .78 for adaptability, and .90 for
the entire instrument. Test/retest reliability for this instrument before revision from 50
items to 30 items over a 4-week interval: cohesion = .83, adaptability = .80. Test/retest

values were not available for the revised instrument.

Research Sample

This quasi-experimental study was conducted in major metropolitan areas with
populations of 100,000 to 600,000. Major metropolitan areas were chosen because of the
number of churches available needed to enroll a minimum number of participants.

Families paid a fee of $55.00 for attending the seminar and participated in a PTE on a
voluntary basis. Most groups to which the seminar was presented were white middle and
upper-middle class Protestant church groups, with families from several churches

combining for a PTE. This may limit generalizability of the study to similar populations.

48

The sampling frame consisted of PTE participants in 1993-1994 seminars
conducted in the continental USA and Canada. The study population consisted of all PTE
participants who agreed to be a part of the experimental group. One hundred sixty-one
(161) parents and one hundred twenty-one (121) adolescents participated in the study at
time one. Families who participated were given a free cassette tape series or a book, the
value of which was about $10.

Participants for the control group were selected from various church groups that
were scheduled to participate in future PTEs. Pastors from these churches were
approached personally, shown the research questionnaires and asked to encourage their
families with adolescent children to participate in the seminar and be a part of the research.
Participants in the control group also were given a free cassette tape series or book in
appreciation for their participation in the research project. A letter (Appendix H) was sent
to each family whose name was given to the researcher by the pastor requesting their

participation in the seminar and research project.

Data collection

The method of data collection was a self-report questionnaire which was given to
parents and adolescents in the experimental group. The questionnaire given to parents
included demographic data, FACES II and the Inventory of Parent-Adolescent
Communication: Parent Form. The adolescent form included limited demographic data
(gender, age, and form of family), FACES H, and the Inventory of Parent-Adolescent
Communication: Adolescent Form. Two sets of questionnaires were given to participants:

The ﬁrst set was handed out to PTE participants at the seminar location before any

49

seminar content was presented. These were completed and collected by the seminar
leader at the seminar location. The second set was mailed three months after the
completion of the seminar with a request to complete and return immediately in the
enclosed self-addressed envelope. A follow-up reminder letter was sent to participants
one week after the second questionnaire was due to be returned.

The control group received the same questionnaires as the experimental group.
One hundred families were contacted and asked to participate in the project. Forty-one
(41) parents and thirty-six (3 6) adolescents participated in the control group at time one.
This amounted to a response rate of 21% (21 families). Two sets of questionnaires were
mailed to each family agreeing to participate in the study. The ﬁrst copy was mailed with
a cover letter (Appendix I). The second set of questionnaires was sent three months later.
These were completed in a natural setting, the home enviromnent. Two follow-up letters
were mailed requesting completion and returning of the questionnaires. The ﬁrst letter
was sent one week after the ﬁrst forms were due to be returned, and the second letter was
sent one week after the second set of forms was due to be returned.

Research was approved prior to data collection by UCRIHS of Michigan State

University (Appendix J).

50

Analysis of data

In order to meet the objectives of this study the following statistical analyses were
conducted:

Descriptive statistics were used to describe both the experimental and the control
groups demographically. These groups were described at T1, before the seminar.

ANO VA was used to measure differences between experimental and control
groups at T1 and the inﬂuence of other variables. The .05 level of signiﬁcance was
required to reject the null hypotheses.

ANCO VA was used to test the research hypotheses. This statistical test was
chosen for its ability to measure continuous and discrete variables simultaneously.
ANCO VA also allows the measurement of interaction effects of other variables. All
hypotheses were tested by comparing the dependent variable (posttest scores of
experimental and control groups) by group and gender with the covariant (pretest scores
of experimental and control groups). The .05 level of signiﬁcance was required to reject
the null hypotheses.

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to measure the relationship between
major variables and family characteristics. Correlation coefﬁcients were also calculated to

measure the relationships between major variables at T1 and T2.

Limitations of the study

There are several limitations to this study. The ﬁrst and most serious limitation is

the nonprobability sample, which limits generalizability. This type of study is utilized for

51

certain studies based on the nature of the research aims (Babbie, 1989, p204). The aim of
this research was to assess the inﬂuence of a Parent-Teen Event on participating families.

Another major limitation to this study is the limited number of responses from
participants in the PTE. Although 161 parents and 121 adolescents responded at Time 1,
only 49 parents and 38 adolescents responded at Time 2 (after participating in the PTE),
which limits generalizability. Sample size was decreased even further in order to insure
appropriate comparison of time one respondents and time two respondents. The ﬁnal
numbers used for this study were 44 parents and 32 adolescents who responded at both
time one and time two. This amounts to a response rate of about 25%. However, when
T1 participants in the experimental group who also participated at T2 were compared (by
T - Tests) with T1 participants who dropped out at T2, only one signiﬁcant difference,
parents’ age, was found. Non-participants were one and one-half years older. Parents’
scores were not signiﬁcantly different for any of the three major variables: communication,
cohesion and adaptability. Adolescents’ scores also were similar for each of the three
major variables. Control group participants’ and non-participants’ scores also were not
signiﬁcantly different, except for communication of parents with daughters. Non-
participants’ scores were signiﬁcantly lower (p = .03 8) than participants’ scores
(Appendix K). The data support the conclusion that participants and non-participants
were very similar (Appendix K). This study was limited to primarily white Protestant
church families, middle to upper-middle and upper class population. The religious element
of the seminar, which reﬂects a Christian biblical perspective, also may limit

generalizability.

52

Another limitation relates to the three-month span of time used for this longitudinal
study. This was necessary due to limited time available for doctoral studies. A follow-up
study at six months or one year might reveal more lasting effects of participation in the
seminar. The positive element with this three-month time span is limited maturational

effects.

Assumptions

It was assumed that subject material, teaching methods and timing were consistent
in all seminars. The same two instructors, one of whom was the researcher, team-taught
every seminar to ensure consistency. A seminar notebook was used with all participants,
which protected consistency of material presented.

A second assumption relates to the content of the Parent-Teen Encounters. It was
assumed that the subjects presented (Family appreciation, family communication, family
conﬂict resolution, and family time together) relate to the objectives of this study. The

literature review supports this assumption.

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

Introduction

The primary goal of this research was to measure the inﬂuence of a Parent-Teen-
Event (PTE) on positive parent-teen interaction. Two other major research objectives
were to assess the inﬂuence of a PTE on family cohesion and family adaptability. Several
other independent variables (family characteristics) affect these three dependent variables
(Figure 3).

Frequencies and descriptive statistics will be presented ﬁrst to describe the sample.
Tables and ﬁgures will be used throughout to explain and illustrate the ﬁndings. The three
major dependent variables will then be presented with other independent variables (family
characteristics) discussed. Finally, the results will be organized and discussed as they
relate to the research questions. The proposed null hypotheses will then be accepted or

rejected. A summary and implications of the research will follow in Chapter 5.

Description of population

One hundred sixty-one parents participated in the experimental group, time one
(T1), 49 at time two (T2). One hundred twenty-one adolescents participated in the
experimental group, T1, 38 at T2. One hundred percent of parents (161) and adolescents
(121) who were asked to participate at T1 responded positively and completed the

questionnaires. However the response rate at T2 for parents was only 27.3%, and for

53

54

adolescents, 26.4%. This low response rate occurred in spite of two follow-up letters.
Statistical analysis incorporated only scores from participants who responded at both T1
and T2 (44 parents and 32 adolescents). Time one occurred at the seminar before any
presentations were made. Time two occurred approximately three months after the
seminar was presented. Questionnaires at T2 were completed at home.

Control group studies were conducted during the same time period (1993-94).
One hundred families with adolescents were asked to participate in the control group.
Forty-one parents (approximately 20-25% response) participated at T1, 25 at T2. Thirty-
six adolescents participated at T1, 18 at T2. Statistical analysis incorporated only scores
from participants who responded at both T1 and T2 (21 parents and 16 adolescents). The
response rate at T2 for parents was 51%, for adolescents, 50%. Control group
participants completed the questionnaires at home at T1 and T2, three months apart.

Fourteen surveys were dropped for the following reasons: (1) Four were
incomplete. (2) Five adolescent participants were younger than age 12. (3) Five people
did not attend all seminar sessions. Missing data were incorporated as follows: (1)
Participants failed to respond 48 times on the Family Interaction Inventory (FACES 11).
These were assigned a number 3 on a ﬁve-point scale (“sometimes”, the mid-point on a
scale ranging from “almost never” to “almost always”). The Likert scale for the
instrument used did not offer a “no opinion” response so the mid-point was used. This
amounted to .3% of approximately 15,000 responses on this inventory. (2) Participants
failed to respond 79 times on the Parent Adolescent Communication form. These were

assigned a number 3 on a ﬁve-point scale (“neither agree nor disagree”, the mid-point on a

55

scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”). This amounted to .4% of
approximately 20,000 responses on this inventory.

The following labels are used throughout this study to represent experimental and
control groups:

PE = Parent experimental group

PC = Parent control group

AB = Adolescent experimental group

AC = Adolescent control group

The mean age of parents in the experimental group was 41.43 and ranged from 30
to 54, compared to 41.28 with a range of 33-53 for the control group parents. Sixty-four
percent of parents in the experimental group were females, 36%, male, compared to
52.9% females and 47.1% males in the control group (Table 2). Adolescents’ ages for
both experimental and control groups ranged from 12 to 18 years. Mean age for the
adolescent control group was about 6 months older than for the experimental group
(Table 2).

Almost 90% of parents participating in the experimental group were married. All
control group parents were married. Seventy-seven percent of participants in the
experimental group came from two-parent biological families, compared to 100% in the
control group. Others in the experimental group were stepfamilies (9.1%) and blended
families (13.6%). The number of children under age eighteen residing at home ranged
ﬁ'om one to ﬁve with a mean of 2. 11 for the experimental group and 2.52 for the control

81' Cup (Table 3).

56

Parents’ education ranged from less than high school to graduate degrees. The
majority (91%) of parents’ education in the experimental group ranged from “some
college” to “graduate degree”. Over 50% had at least a bachelor’s degree. Parents’
education in the control group ranged from “high school” to “graduate degree”. Eighty-
ﬁve percent of these parents had less than a bachelor’s degree (Table 4).

Household income ranged from $10,000 to $350,000 with a mean income of
$72,190. This mean is skewed positively because of the higher income of a few families.
When three outliers of $150,000 or more were dropped, the mean income was $56,500.
Income of the control group was slightly less at $50,170 (Table 4).

Over 50% of adult participants in the experimental group were professionals,
compared to about 25% of control group participants. Others worked in skilled trades
and farming, sales, technical and clerical, laborers, factory workers and waitress, and
general service. Almost 25% in the control group were homemakers compared to 17% in
the experimental group (Table 5).

When occupation, education and income were considered, the data indicated the
population studied was mainly middle to upper middle class. Although some participants
came from lower and lower middle class, the majority had higher S.E.S. Control group
participants appeared to have signiﬁcantly lower S.E.S. than experimental group
participants. However, when compared with T -tests, only education was signiﬁcantly
different in the two groups (p = .003). Neither occupation (p = .107) nor income (p =

.164) differences were signiﬁcant.

57

Table 2 - Gender & Age

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group II % of males % of females Mean age Age range
PE 44 36.4 63.6 41.43 30-54
PC 21 47.1 52.9 41.28 33-53
AE 32 37.5 62.5 14.06 12-18
AC 16 43.7 56.3 14.5 12-18
N = 113
Table 3 - Marital & Family Information
Group II Marital Status Family Form # of children at
home
PE 44 88.6% Married 77.3% Two-parent biol. 2.11
PC 21 100% Married 100% Two-parent biol. 2.52
N = 65
Table 4 - Income & Education
Group n Mean income Range of Mean Median
income Education Education
PE 44 *56.50 *10-100 3.85 4.0
PC 21 50.17 25-100 2.80 3.0
N = 65

*Without three extreme values of 150, 250, and 350 thousand (Median = 56).

With outliers included, Mean = 72.19, Median = 57

58

Table 5 - Occupation

 

 

Variable Group II Percent
Professionals, doctors, lawyers, executives PE 8 19.5
PC 2 9.5
Other professionals, managers, teachers, nurses PE 14 34.1
PC 3 14.3
Skilled and building trades, farmer PE 1 2.4
PC 3 14.3
Sales, technicians, clerical PE 7 17.1
PC 3 14.3
Laborer, factory worker, waitress PE 1 2.4
PC 3 14.3
General service employees PE 3 7.3
PC 2 9.5
Homemaker PE 7 l7. 1
PC 5 23.8
N = 62

Dependent variable #1, Positive parent-teen interaction

Positive parent-teen interaction was the major dependent variable studied. This is
deﬁned as open communication (freedom of ﬂow of factual and emotional information),
and the absence of problem communication (destructive communication patterns and
avoidance tactics). The Parent-Adolescent Communication instrument developed by
Barnes and Olson (1982) measured this. Positive communication scores on this
instrument range from 20 to 100 with higher scores representing more positive
communication. Mean scores for the original sample studied by Barnes and Olson
(N=1841) were: fathers re: adolescents, 72.55, mothers re: adolescents, 75.47,

adolescents re: mothers, 66.56, adolescents re: fathers, 63.74.

59

Comparison of parents’ experimental and control groups and norms

ANOVA was used to compare experimental and control groups at T1 for
differences in communication scores and differences due to gender. Interaction effects
also were examined. Both fathers and mothers in the experimental group scored lower
than those in the original test sample (Table 6). Fathers in the control group scored
slightly lower and mothers scored higher than those in the original test sample (Table 6).
The control group of parents appeared to be healthier in family communication than the
average group of parents, and the experimental group more needy in family
communication than average (Table 6). This comparison with the original test sample was
used assuming the scores for the original test sample represented the general population.
The researchers, Barnes and Olson, used random sampling in the development of the

instrument used for this present study.

Table 6 - Communication: Parents - Test sample & study sample

Fathers Fathers Fathers Mothers Mothers Mothers

 

norm, test exper. control norm, test exper. control
sample group group sample group group
Mean 72.55 64.44 70.80 75.47 69.87 79.57

SD. 10.74 11.74 9.01 11.12 9.48 7.74

 

60

The control group of parents scored signiﬁcantly higher on positive parent-teen
interaction than the experimental group (p = .000, Table 7). Differences due to gender
also were signiﬁcant (p = .022, Table 7). Mothers scored higher than fathers for both
experimental and control groups. However, there was no signiﬁcant interaction effect

between group and gender (Table 7).

Table 7 - Communication: Parents (E & C, Tl)

*‘H' ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ***

 

Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Main Effects 2967.050 2 1483.525 14.31 1 .000
Group 2497.700 1 2497 .700 24.094 .000
Gender ofparents 571.814 1 571.814 5.516 .022
2-Way Interactions 11.805 1 11.805 .114 .737
Group/Gender 1 1.805 1 11.805 .1 14 .737
Explained 3022.322 3 1007.441 9.718 .000
Residual 7463.928 72 103.666

Total 10486.250 75 139.817

 

61

Parents’ results

Parents demonstrated no signiﬁcant increase in positive communication with their
adolescent children after participating in the PTE. Communication at T1 was highly
correlated with communication at T2 (r = .742, p = .000). Gender of parent did not
signiﬁcantly contribute to differences in scores, and there was no signiﬁcant interaction
effect between gender of parent and group (Table 8). Mothers’ communication with sons
and daughters did increase slightly as did fathers’ communication with sons (Figure 4).
Fathers’ communication with daughters decreased slightly (Figure 4). However, none of

these changes reached signiﬁcance.

Table 8 - Communication: Parents

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 4292.625 1 4292.625 78.830 .000
Communication 4292.625 1 4292.625 78.830 .000
pretest scores
Main Effects 115.035 2 57.518 1.056 .353
Group 40.589 1 40.589 .745 .391
Gender of parents 54.878 1 54.878 1.008 .319
2-Way Interactions 42.451 1 42.451 .780 .380
Group/Gender 42.451 1 42.451 .780 .380
Explained 5847. 153 4 1461.788 26.844 .000
Residual 3866.268 71 54.454
Total 9713.421 75 129.512

 

62

Although parents’ communication with sons increased (p = .066) the increase did

not reach the signiﬁcance level of .05. There was no signiﬁcant gender effect and no

interaction effect between gender and group (Table 9).

Table 9 - Communication: Parents with sons

 

**ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 1737.385 1 1737.3 85 24.460 .000
Communication 1737.385 1 1737.3 85 24.460 .000
pretest scores
Main Effects 260.663 2 130.332 1.835 .177
Group 257.222 1 257.222 3.621 .066
Gender of parents .030 1 .030 .000 .984
2-Way Interactions 75.658 1 75.658 1.065 .310
Group/Gender 75.658 1 75.658 1.065 .310
Explained 2079.678 4 519.919 7.320 .000
Residual 2201.961 31 71.03]
Total 4281.639 35 122.333

 

63

Parents’ communication scores with daughters did not signiﬁcantly increase, but
gender effect approached signiﬁcance (p = .056). Mothers’ scores were higher (M =
69.71) than fathers’ (M = 65.13). Communication at T1 was highly correlated with
communication at T2 (r = .825, p = .000). There was no signiﬁcant interaction effect

between gender and group. (Table 10).

Table 10 - Parents with daughters

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 2018.014 1 2018.014 56.913 .000
Communication 2018.014 1 2018.014 56.913 .000
pretest scores
Main Effects 162.938 2 81.469 2.298 .115
Group 55.053 1 55.053 1.553 .221
Gender of parents 138.685 1 138.685 3.911 .056
2-Way Interactions 1.358 1 1.358 .038 .846
Group/Gender 1.3 58 1 1.3 58 .038 .846
Explained 4123.760 4 1030.940 29.075 .000
Residual 1241.015 35 35.458
Total 5364.775 39 137.558

 

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

IT1
IT2

 

 

 

 

 

 

65

Communication scores varied with the number of children in the family. This

difference approached signiﬁcance (p = .068). Families with only one child scored higher

on communication than families with two or more children (Table 11). Number of

children in the family was negatively correlated with communication of parents with

children at T2 (r = -.399, p = .053, Table 31). Hours worked also was negatively

correlated with communication of parents with children at T2 (r = -.53 6, p = .018). The

fewer hours worked, the higher the communication.

Table 11 - Parents: Effects of other variables

 

*‘H‘ ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ‘”"*
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 4202.541 7 600.363 10.770 .000
Communication 2333.709 1 2333.709 41.864 .000
pretest scores
Hours worked 40.156 1 40.156 .720 .400
Income 38.332 1 38.332 .688 .411
Occupation 63.106 1 63.106 1.132 .293
Education 111.419 1 111.419 1.999 .164
# of Children 194.610 1 194.610 3.491 .068
Main Effects 23.278 1 23.278 .418 .521
Group 23.278 1 23.278 .418 .521
Explained 4758. 142 8 594.768 10.669 .000
Residual 2564.294 46 55.746
Total 7322.436 54 135.601

 

66

Comparison of adolescents’ experimental and control groups and norms

Adolescents scored slightly lower at T1 than the norms for adolescent
communication with mothers and fathers. Both males and females in the control group

scored higher than the norms in the original test sample (Table 12).

Table 12 - Adolescents: Communication - norms & study sample

Adol. re Adol. re Adol. re Adol. re Adol. re Adol. re
mothers, mothers, mothers, fathers, fathers, fathers, '
norms exper. control norms exper. control
Mean 66.56 65.16 73.94 63.74 61.37 69.31

S.D. 12.10 13.00 14.61 12.02 15.58 15.33

 

67

Control group scores of adolescents were signiﬁcantly higher than experimental

group scores at T1 (p = .03 0, Table 13). Gender affected communication scores (p =

.031). In addition, an interaction effect between group and gender was observed (p =

.053). Females scored higher than males in the control group. Differences for males’

scores between the experimental group and the control group were negligible. Although

male/female differences in scores for the experimental group did not reach signiﬁcance (p

= .127), females scored higher than males (Mean difference = 6.45).

Table 13 - Adolescents’ communication (E & C, Tl)

***

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

***

 

Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Main Effects 1929.980 2 964.990 4.735 .011
Group 996.351 1 996.351 4.889 .030
Gender 985.790 1 985.790 4.837 .031
2-Way Interactions 781.371 1 781.371 3.834 .053
Group/Gender 781.371 1 781.371 3.834 .053
Explained 2661.881 3 887.294 4.354 .007
Residual 17730.404 87 203.798

Total 203 92.286 90 226. 581

 

68

Adolescents’ results

Although adolescents’ communication with parents increased at T2, this increase
did not approach signiﬁcance (p = .207). Communication at T1 was highly correlated
with communication at T2 (r = .734, p = .000). When group and gender were examined
for interaction effect, a signiﬁcant effect was observed (p = .016, Table14). Male
adolescents’ communication with their parents was signiﬁcantly higher than female
adolescents’ communication with their parents in the experimental group (Figure 5), but
not in the control group. Most of this difference was attributed to the difference between
male and female adolescents’ communication scores with their fathers. Female

adolescents scored signiﬁcantly lower than male adolescents (Figure 5, Table 16, p =

 

.034)

Table 14 - Communication: Adolescents with parents

*‘H' ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 1262.621 1 1262.621 5.825 .018
Communication 1262.621 1 1262.621 5 . 825 .018
pretest scores
Main Effects 350.069 2 175.035 .808 .449
Group 349.728 1 349.728 1.613 .207
Gender of adol. .014 1 .014 .000 .994
2-Way Interactions 1317.200 1 1317.200 6.077 .016
Group/Gender 1317.200 1 1317.200 6.077 .016
Explained 3255.220 4 813.805 3.754 .007
Residual 18424.380 85 216.757
Total 21679.600 89 243.591

 

69

There was no signiﬁcant increase in adolescent communication with their mothers
at T2. Communication at T1 was moderately correlated with communication at T2 (r =
.688, p = .000). Although males’ scores increased more than females’ scores, there was

no signiﬁcant interaction effect between group and gender (p = .101, Table 15).

Table 15 - Communication: Adolescents with mothers

 

*‘H' ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ‘**
Source of Variation Sum of square DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 453.718 1 453.718 2.087 .156
Communication 453.718 1 453.718 2.087 .156
pretest scores
Main Effects 304.090 2 152.045 .699 .503
Group 162.905 1 162.905 .749 .392
Gender 146.711 1 146.711 .675 .416
2-Way Interactions 611.188 1 611.188 2.811 .101
Group/Gender 611.188 1 611.188 2.811 .101
Explained 1336.549 4 334.137 1.537 .209
Residual 9131.281 42 217411
Total 10467.830 46 227.562

 

70

There was no signiﬁcant increase in communication of adolescents with their
fathers. Communication at T1 was moderately correlated with communication at T2 (r =
.659, p = .000). When gender effect was examined, male adolescents scored signiﬁcantly
higher than female adolescents (p = .034, Table 16). There was no signiﬁcant interaction

effect between group and gender.

Table 16 - Communication: Adolescents with fathers

 

*‘H' ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***

Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F

Squares DF Square F of F
Covariates 4775.685 1 4775.685 41. 182 .000
Communication 4775.685 1 4775.685 41.182 .000
pretest scores
Main Effects 561.343 2 280.671 2.420 .102
Group 2.006 1 2.006 .017 .896
Gender 560.381 1 560.381 4.832 .034
2-Way Interactions 211.554 1 211.554 1.824 .185
Group/Gender 211.554 1 211.554 1.824 . 185
Explained 6283.691 4 1570.923 13.546 .000
Residual 4406.728 3 8 1 15.967
Total 10690.419 42 254.534

 

71

 

 

 

 

IT1
IT2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5 - Adolescents’ communication scores

72

Communication scores of adolescents with their parents were not signiﬁcantly

affected by age of adolescent. Age of adolescent was collapsed due to small cell size.

Ages 12-14 were coded “1”, 15-18 were coded “2” (Table 17). The correlation between

age (collapsed) and communication was negligible (r = .114 at T1, r = .043 at T2).

Table 17 - Communication: Adolescents - Age

***

ANALYSIS OF CO VARIANCE

***

 

Source of Variation Sum of BF Mean F Sig of F
Srurares Sgare

Covariates 5418.005 1 5418.005 50.206 .000

Communication pretest 5418.005 1 5418.005 50.206 .000

scores

Main Effects 105.731 2 52.865 .490 .616

Age of Adolescent 88.933 1 88.933 .824 .369

Group 17.747 1 17.747 . 164 .687

2-Way Interactions 88.864 1 88.864 .823 .369

Age of Adol./Group 88.864 1 88.864 .823 .369

Explained 5935.389 4 1483.847 13.750 .000

Residual 4532.441 42 107.915

Total 10467.830 46 227.562

 

73

Discussion of research questions and acceptance or rejection of null hypotheses
related to positive parent-teen interaction

RQ #1: Does participation in a PTE affect parent-teen interaction?

Based on the above data, null hypothesis Ho; was accepted. There is no signiﬁcant
difference between the levels of positive parent-teen interaction at T1 (before
participation) and T2 (after participation) in both parents and adolescents. Parents’
communication with sons approached signiﬁcance (p = .066).

RQ #2: Does the level of positive parent-teen interaction differ with gender of
parent or adolescent, and if so, how? Although parents’ communication with sons
increased at T2 , the increase was not signiﬁcant. Diﬂ‘erences between mothers’ and
fathers’ communication with their adolescent children approached signiﬁcance (p = .056).
Mothers scored higher than fathers, especially with their daughters. Based on the above
data, null hypothesis H02 was accepted. There is no signiﬁcant difference in positive
parent-teen interaction due to gender of parent.

Adolescent girls scored signiﬁcantly lower than adolescent boys in communication
with their fathers (p = .034), but not with their mothers (p = .101). There is a signiﬁcant
difference in positive parent-teen interaction due to gender of adolescent. Based on the
above data null hypothesis Ho3 was rejected.

R0 #3: Does the level of positive parent-teen interaction vary with the age of
the adolescent, and if so, how? Although interaction effects of group and age of
adolescent approached signiﬁcance (p = .078), indicating that age of adolescent does

affect positive parent-teen interaction in some way, the difference due to age did not reach

74

the .05 level of signiﬁcance. Therefore, null hypothesis H04 was accepted. There is no

signiﬁcant difference in scores of parent-teen interaction due to age of adolescent.

Dependent variable #2, family cohesion

Family cohesion was the second major dependent variable studied. Family
cohesion is deﬁned as the emotional bonding that family members have towards one
another. FACES II was used to measure family cohesion. Cohesion scores with this
instrument range from 16 to 80, with higher scores representing greater family cohesion.
Family cohesion ranges from “disengaged” to “enmeshed”. Cohesion scores fall into one
of four categories on a continuum: disengaged (low cohesion), separated (low to
moderate cohesion), connected (moderate to high cohesion) and enmeshed (high
cohesion). All groups scored within the “connected” range. Scores in this category

describe families with moderate to high closeness, some loyalty and interdependence.

75

Comparison of parents’ experimental and control groups

ANCO VA was used to compare experimental groups at T1 and T2. ANOVA was
used to compare experimental and control groups at T1. The control group of parents
scored signiﬁcantly higher on cohesion than the experimental group (p = .004, Table 18).
Although females scored higher than males for both groups, the differences were not

signiﬁcant. There was no signiﬁcant interaction effect between group and gender.

Table 18 - Cohesion: Parents (E & C, Tl)

** ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE *‘H‘

 

Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Main Effects 889.770 2 444.885 5.549 .006
Group 737.952 1 737.952 9.204 .004
Gender 194.908 1 194.908 2.431 .124
2-Way Interactions .228 l .228 .003 .958
Group/Gender .228 1 .228 .003 .958
Explained 889.817 3 296.606 3.699 .016
Residual 4890.736 61 80.176

Total 5780.554 64 90.321

 

Parents’ results

76

Parents who participated in the PTE did not indicate a signiﬁcant increase in

family cohesion at T2 (p = .180). Cohesion at T1 was highly correlated with cohesion at

T2 (r = .787, p = .000). However, gender differences were signiﬁcant (p = .005), with

mothers scoring higher than fathers (Figure 6). Also an interaction effect between group

and gender was observed (p = .030, Table 19). Mothers in the control group at T2 scored

signiﬁcantly higher than fathers in that group.

***

Table 19 - Cohesion: Parents

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE

##4‘

 

Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 2297.690 1 2297.690 102.482 .000
Cohesion pretest 2297.690 1 2297.690 102.482 .000
scores

Main Effects 256.408 2 128.204 5.718 .005
Group 41.341 1 41.341 1.844 .180
Gender of parents 188.547 1 188.547 8.410 .005
2-Way Interactions 111.460 1 111.460 4.971 .030
Group/Gender 1 11.460 1 1 1 1.460 4.971 .030
Explained 2985.765 4 746.441 33.293 .000
Residual 1345.219 60 22.420

Total 4330.985 64 67.672

 

77

 

 

 

 

 

 

IT1
IT2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parents Mothers Fathers

Figure 6 - Parents' cohesion scores

78

When examined for effects of family characteristics upon levels of cohesion, only
effects of hours worked approached signiﬁcance (p = .071, Table 20). The fewer hours
worked, the higher the cohesion. Hours worked was negatively correlated with cohesion

at T2 (r = -.246, p = .154).

Table 20 - Cohesion: Parents - effects of family characteristics

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE *‘H‘
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 1669.843 7 238.549 8.637 .000
Cohesion pretest 1015.281 1 1015.281 36.762 .000
scores
Education 8.592 1 8.592 .311 .580
Hours worked 95.342 1 95.342 3.452 .071
Income .824 l .824 .030 .864
Marital status 21.341 1 21.341 .773 .385
Occupation .517 l .517 .019 .892
Family form .325 l .325 .012 .914
Main Effects 49.402 1 49.402 1.789 .189
Group 49.402 1 49.402 1.789 . 189
Explained 1685.787 8 210.723 7.630 .000
Residual 1021.865 37 27.618
Total 2707.652 45 60.170

 

79

Comparison of adolescents’ experimental and control groups

The cohesion scores for the control group and experimental group of adolescents
were not signiﬁcantly different (p = .425, Table 21). Also, no interaction effect between

group and gender was observed.

Table 21 - Cohesion: Adolescents (E & C, Tl)

*** ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE *‘H'

 

Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Main Effects 259.414 2 129.707 .901 .413
Group 93.148 1 93.148 .647 .425
Gender of adol. 167.285 1 167.285 1.162 .287
2-Way Interactions 114.154 1 114.154 .793 .378
Group/Gender 114.154 1 114.154 .793 .378
Explained 337.843 3 112.614 .782 .510
Residual 6332.470 44 143.920

Total 6670.313 47 141.922

 

Adolescents’ results

80

Adolescents who participated in the PTE indicated no signiﬁcant increase in

cohesion after attendance (p = .262, Table 22). Cohesion at T1 was moderately correlated

with cohesion at T2 (r = .474, p = .006). No signiﬁcant gender differences were observed,

and there was no signiﬁcant interaction effect between group and gender. Adolescent

males’ scores increased while females’ scores decreased (Figure 7).

Table 22 - Cohesion: Adolescents

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 2786.752 1 2786.752 25.356 .000
Cohesion pretest 2786.752 1 2786.752 25.356 .000
scores
Main Effects 223.096 2 111.548 1.015 .371
Group 141.724 1 141.724 1.290 .262
Gender of adol. 86.415 1 86.415 .786 .380
2-Way Interactions 62.588 1 62.588 .569 .455
Group/Gender 62.588 1 62.588 .569 .455
Explained 3055.337 4 763.834 6.950 .000
Residual 4725.913 43 109.905
Total 7781.250 47 165.559

 

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64-
62-
601
58~
I T1
56 l T2

 

 

 

54‘
52

    

 

 

Adol. Sons Daughters

Figure 7 - Adolescents’ cohesion scores

82

Adolescent scores for family cohesion did not vary signiﬁcantly with age of
adolescent (p = .893, Table 23). Due to small cell size, age was collapsed into two
categories and coded “1” for ages 12-14, “2” for ages 15-18. No signiﬁcant interaction

effect between group and age was observed.

Table 23 - Cohesion: Adolescents - by Age

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***

Source of Variation Sum of Df Mean F Sig

Squares Square of F
Covariates 2453.385 1 2453.385 22.329 .000
Cohesion pretest scores 2453.385 1 2453.385 22.329 .000
Main Effects 41.950 2 20.975 .191 .827
Age of adolescent 2.013 1 2.013 .018 .893
Group 38.671 1 38.671 .352 .556
2-Way Interactions 192.153 1 192.153 1.749 .193
Age of adol./Group 192.153 1 192.153 1.749 .193
Explained 3056.635 4 764.159 6.955 .000
Residual 4724.615 43 109.875
Total 7781.250 47 165.559

 

Discussion of research questions and acceptance or rejection of null hypotheses
related to family cohesion

R0 #4: Does participation in a PTE affect family cohesion, and if so, how?
Parents and adolescents who participated in the PTE increased in levels of family
cohesion, but neither increase was statistically signiﬁcant (Parents: p = .180; Adolescents:
p = .262). Therefore, null hypothesis Hos was accepted. There is no signiﬁcant difference

in family cohesion due to participation in a PTE.

83

R0 #5: Does the level of family cohesion differ with the gender of the parent
or adolescent, and if so, how? Gender of parent was one of the main sources of
variation in family cohesion (p = .005). There was a signiﬁcant interaction effect between
group and gender of parent (p = .030). Mothers scored signiﬁcantly higher than fathers,
but only in the control group, not in the experimental group. Therefore, null hypothesis
H06 was rejected. There is a signiﬁcant difference in family cohesion due to gender of
parent.

There were no signiﬁcant differences in levels of family cohesion due to gender of
adolescent (p = .380). Therefore, null hypothesis Hg was accepted.

RQ # 6: Does the level of family cohesion vary with the age of the adolescent?
Family cohesion scores for adolescents did not vary signiﬁcantly with age. Therefore, null
hypothesis Hos was accepted. There is no signiﬁcant difference in family cohesion due to

age of adolescent.

Dependent variable #3, family adaptability

Family adaptability was the third major variable studied. Family adaptability is
deﬁned as the ability of a family system to change its structure, its relationships and its
rules in response to various stressors. Family adaptability was measured by FACES II,

with scores ranging ﬁom 15 to 70. Higher scores indicate more adaptability.

Comparison of parents’ experimental and control groups

ANCOVA was used to compare experimental groups at T1 and T2, and ANOVA

was used to compare experimental and control groups at T1. Family adaptability scores

84

for parents in the control group and experimental group were similar. They did not differ

signiﬁcantly nor was there an interaction effect between group and gender (Table 24)

Table 24 - Adaptability: Parents (E & C, T1)

*** ANALYSISOF VARIANCE *‘H'

 

Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Main Effects 95.821 2 47.911 .895 .414
Group 73.202 1 73.202 1.367 .247
Gender of parents 17.837 1 17.837 .333 .566
2-Way Interactions 2.962 1 2.962 .055 .815
Group/Gender 2.962 1 2.962 .055 .8 1 5
Explained 117.378 3 39.126 .731 .538
Residual 3265.484 61 53.533

Total 3382.862 64 52.857

 

85

Parents’ results

Parents who attended a PTE did not demonstrate a signiﬁcant increase in family
adaptability at T2 (p = .83 9, Table 25). The correlation between adaptability at T1 and T2
was moderate (r = .519, p = .000). There were no signiﬁcant differences due to gender,
and no interaction effect between group and gender was observed. However, both fathers

and mothers scores increased slightly from T1 to T2 (Figure 8).

Table 25 - Adaptability: Parents

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 371.257 1 371 .257 26.607 .000
Adaptability pretest 371.257 1 371.257 26.607 .000
scores
Main Effects 17.606 2 8.803 .631 .536
Group .582 1 .582 .042 .839
Gender of parents 16.575 1 16.575 1.188 .280
2-Way Interactions .399 1 .399 .029 .866
Group/Gender .399 1 .399 .029 .866
Explained 423.795 4 105.949 7.593 .000
Residual 837.189 60 13 .953
Total 1260.985 64 19.703

 

86

No other family characteristic signiﬁcantly affected family adaptability scores

(Table 26). Number of hours worked approached signiﬁcance, but small cell size

prevented inclusion in table.

Table 26 - Adaptability: Parents - effects of family characteristics

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 221.837 7 31.691 1.677 .145
Education 1.671 1 1.671 .088 .768
Income .020 l .020 .001 .974
Marital status 43 .406 1 43.406 2.298 . 13 8
Occupation 9.572 1 9.572 .507 .481
Family form .555 1 .555 .029 .865
Adaptability pretest 26.842 1 26.842 1.421 .241
scores
Main Effects 17.394 1 17.394 .921 .344
Group 17.394 1 17.394 .921 .344
Explained 236.238 8 29.530 1.563 .170
Residual 699.002 37 18.892
Total 935.239 45 20.783

 

87

 

50-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parents Mothers Fathers

Figure 8 - Parents’ adaptability scores

 

 

IT1
IT2

 

 

88

Comparison of adolescents’ experimental and control groups results

Although the adolescent control group scored higher than the experimental group
on family adaptability, the difference did not approach signiﬁcance (p = .180, Table 27).

There was no signiﬁcant gender effect, nor was there an interaction effect between group

 

and gender.
Table 27 - Adaptability: Adolescents (E & C, Tl)
*** ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE "'**

Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Main Effects 212.893 2 106.447 1.498 .235
Group 131.850 1 131.850 1.856 .180
Gender of adol. 81.891 1 81.891 1.152 .289
2-Way Interactions 36.602 1 36.602 .515 .477
Group/Gender 36.602 1 36.602 .5 15 .47 7
Explained 243 .454 3 81.151 1.142 .343
Residual 3126.546 44 71.058
Total 3 3 70. 000 47 71 .702

 

89

Adolescents’ results

Adolescents who attended a PTE demonstrated no signiﬁcant increase in family
adaptability at T2 (p = .330). However, sons’ scores increased slightly from T1 to T2,
while scores of daughters stayed the same (Figure :9). Group and gender interaction was
not signiﬁcant (p = .169, Table 28). Adaptability at T1 was moderately correlated with

adaptability at T2 (r = .563, p = .001).

Table 28 - Adaptability: Adolescents

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of squares DF Mean square F Sig of F
Covariates 1449.1 14 1 1449.1 14 27.026 .000
Adaptability pretest 1449.114 1 1449.114 27.026 .000
scores
Main Effects 59.916 2 29.958 .559 .576
Group 52.025 1 52.025 .970 .330
Gender of adol. 6.486 1 6.486 .121 .730
2-Way Interactions 104.853 1 104.853 1.956 .169
Group/Gender 104.853 1 104.853 1.956 . 169
Explained 1684.044 4 421.01 1 7.852 .000
Residual 2305.622 43 53.619
Total 3989.667 47 84.887

 

90

 

 

 

 

 

  

Adol. Sons Daughters

Figure 9 - Adolescents’ adaptability scores

 

 

IT1
IT2

 

 

 

 

91

When adolescent adaptability scores were examined for eﬂ’ects by age, no

signiﬁcant differences were observed. Due to small cell size, age was collapsed into two

categories and coded “1” for ages 12-14 and “2” for ages 18. There was no signiﬁcant

interaction effect observed between group and age (Table 29).

Table 29 - Adaptability: Adolescents by Age

 

*** ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE ***
Source of Variation Sum of Df Mean F Sig of F
Squares Square

Covariates 1661.778 1 1661.778 31.176 .000
Adaptability pretest scores 1661.778 1 1661.778 31.176 .000
Main Effects 17.057 2 8.529 .160 .853
Age of adol. 2.355 1 2.355 .044 .835
Group 14.911 1 14.911 .280 .600
2-Way Interactions 116.649 1 116.649 2.188 .146
Age of adol./Group 116.649 1 116.649 2.188 .146
Explained 1697.612 4 424.403 7.962 .000
Residual 2292.055 43 53.304

Total 3989.667 47 84.887

 

Discussion of research questions and acceptance or rejection of null hypotheses

related to family adaptability

RQ #7: Does participation in a PTE affect family adaptability, and if so,

how? Neither parents’ nor adolescents’ scores increased signiﬁcantly after attending a

PTE. Therefore, null hypothesis H09 was accepted. Participation in a PTE does not

signiﬁcantly affect family adaptability.

92

RQ #8: Does the level of family adaptability differ with the gender of the
parent or adolescent, and if so, how? Fathers’ and mothers’ scores for family
adaptability did not differ signiﬁcantly (p = .232). Therefore, null hypothesis How was
accepted. There is no signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family adaptability in
fathers and mothers.

Interaction effects between group and gender of adolescent did not reach
signiﬁcance (p = .169). Therefore, null hypothesis H,” was accepted. There is no
signiﬁcant difference between the levels of family adaptability in adolescent boys and girls.

R0 #9: Does the level of family adaptability vary with the age of the
adolescent, and if so, how? No signiﬁcant differences due to age of adolescent were
observed. Therefore, null hypothesis Hon was accepted. There is no signiﬁcant difference
between the levels of family adaptability in various age adolescents.

RQ #10: Are any of the three major dependent variables significantly
affected by other family characteristics in the conceptual model, and if so, how? No
other family characteristics signiﬁcantly affected any of the three major dependent
variables. Number of children in a family affected communication, but differences were
not signiﬁcant. Also, hours worked affected family cohesion but differences were not
signiﬁcant. Therefore null hypothesis Ho]; was accepted. There are no signiﬁcant
differences in any of the three major variables due to other family characteristics in the

conceptual model.

93

Correlation Coefficients

Correlation measures “the strength of the relationship between the values of two
variables” (Rountree, 1981, p156). The following ranges are suggested by Rountree
(1981, p170): 0.0 to 0.2 = very weak, negligible; 0.2 to 0.4 = weak, low; 0.4 to 0.7 =
moderate; 0.7 to 0.9 = strong, high, marked; 0.9 to 1.0 = very strong, very high. These
ranges are used for establishing correlation coefﬁcients for all continuous variables in this
study. Strong and moderate correlations are bolded in the table.

Analysis of adolescents’ data established the following moderate or strong
correlations: Communication of adolescents with parents at T1 was highly correlated with
communication at T2 (r = .734, p = .000); adaptability of adolescents was moderately
correlated with communication at T1 (r = .524, p = .002) and at T2 (r = .571, p = .001);
and was moderately correlated with adaptability at T2 (r = .563, p = .001); cohesion as
reported by adolescents at T1 was moderately correlated with communication at T1 (r
=.567, p = .001); and also was moderately correlated with adaptability at T1 (r = .634, p =
.000); cohesion as reported by adolescents at T2 was moderately correlated with
communication at T2 (r = .663, p = .000), was strongly correlated with adaptability at T2
(r = .782, p = .000), and was moderately correlated with cohesion at T1 (r = .473, p =

.006). All other correlations for adolescent variables were weak or negligible (Table 30).

94

Table 30 - Pearson correlation coefficients, adolescent data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age of Com Comm Adapt, Adapt, Cohesion Cohesion

adol. adol. Tl adol. T2 adol. T1 adol. T2 adol. Tl adol. T2
Age of adolescent 1.0000 .1143 -.0429 .2082 -.0065 -.2956 -.3358

(96) (47) (47) (32) (32) (32) (32)

p= . p= .444 p= .774 p= .253 p= .972 p= .101 p=.060
Comm. adol. w .1143 1.0000 .7339 .5238 .3466 .5666 .2976

greats at T1 E

(47) (47) (47) (31) (31) (31) (31)

p= .444 p= . p= .000 p= .002 p= .056 p= .001 p=.104
Comm. adol. w -.0429 .7339 1.0000 .3416 .5712 .3301 .6630
parents at T2 E

(47) (47) (47) (31) (31) (31) (31)

p= .774 p= .000 p= . p= .060 p= .001 p= .070 p=.000
Adaptability/ .2082 .5238 .3416 1.0000 .5631 .6342 .3454
adol., T1 E

(32) (31) (31) (32) (32) (32) (32)

p= .253 p= .002 p= .060 p= . p= .001 p= .000 p=.053
Adaptability/ -.0065 .3466 .5712 .5631 1.0000 .4028 .7824
adol. T2 E

(3 2) (3 l) (31) (3 2) (32) (32) (32)

p= .972 p= .056 p= .001 p= .001 p= . p= .022 p=.000
Cohesion/ adol., -.2956 .5666 .3301 .6342 .4028 1.0000 .4739
T1 E

(32) (31) (31) (32) (32) (32) (32)

p= .101 p= .001 p= .070 p= .000 p= .022 p= . p=.006
Cohesion/ adol., -.3358 .2976 .6630 .3454 .7824 .4739 1.000
T2 E

(32) (31) (31) (32) (32) (32) (32)

p= .060 p= .104 p= .000 p= .053 p= .000 p= .006 p=.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95

Analysis of parents’ data established the following moderate or high correlation
coefficients: Communication of parents with sons and daughters at T1 was highly
correlated with communication at T2 (r = .742, p = .000); cohesion as reported by parents
at T1 was highly correlated with cohesion at T2 (r = .787, p = .000); and adaptability at
T1 was moderately correlated with adaptability at T2 (r = .519, p = .000). Adaptability at
T1 also was moderately correlated with cohesion at T1 (r = .531, p = .000) and at T2 (r =
.414, p = .005), and adaptability as reported by parents at T2 was moderately correlated
with cohesion at T2 (r = .490, p = .001). Hours worked was negatively correlated with
communication at T2 (r = -.536, p = .018). All other correlations for parents’ variables

were weak or negligible (Table 31).

96

Table 31 - Pearson correlation coefficients, parents' data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comm. Comm. Cohesion Cohesion Adaptabili Adaptabili

parents w parents w parents parents ty of ty of

sons & dau. sons & dau. T1 E T2 E parents T1 parents T2

T1 E T2 E E E
Comm. 1.0000 .7417 .2445 .2511 .3316 .0748
parents w
sons & dau.
T1 E

(24) (24) (24) (24) (24) (24)

p= . p= .000 p: .250 p= .237 p= .113 pf .728
Comm. .741 1.0000 .2025 .3064 .2832 .2912
parents w
sons & dau.
T2 E

(24) (24) 24) (24) (24) (24)

p= .000 p=. p= .343 p= .145 p= .180 p= .167
Cohesion/par .2445 .202 1.0000 .7874 .5309 .2804
ents T1 E

(24) (24) (44) (44) (44) (44)

p= .250 p= .343 p= . - .000 [F .000 p= .065
Cohesion/par .2511 .3064 .787 1.0000 .4137 .4901
ents T2 E

@1) (24) (44) (44) (44) (44)

p= .237 p= .145 p= .000 p=. p= .005 p= .001
Adaptability/ .3316 .2832 .5309 .413 1.0000 .5189

Jgarenu T1 E

(242 (24) (44) (44) (44) (44)

15.113 p= .180 p= .000 p= .005 p=. p= .000
Adaptability/ .0748 .2912 .2804 .4901 .518 1.0000

Jarents T2 E

(24) (24) (44) (44) (44) (44)

p= .728 p= .167 p= .065 p= .001 p= .000 p= .
# of children -.l461 -.3991 -.1156 -.2548 .0335 .006

(24L (24) (44) (44) (44) (44)

p= .496 p= .053 p= .455 p= .095 p= .829 p= .969
Age of parent -.2356 -.3319 -.0643 -.0423 -.1924 -.3825

(24) (24) :44) (44) (44) (44)

p= .268 p= .113 p= .679 p= .785 p= .211 — .010
Education .0793 -.3743 .1714 .1355 .0175 -.0796

(24) (24) (44) (44) (44) (44)

p= .713 p= .072 p= .266 p= .380 p= .910 p= .607
Hours -.2580 -.5363 -. 1665 -.2463 .0254 -.2927
worked

(19) (19) (35) (35) (35) (35)

p= .286 p: .018 p= .339 p= .154 p= .885 p= .088
Income .1223 -.2517 .0795 .0205 .1402 -. 1485

(21) (21) (37) (37) (37) (37)

p= .597 p= .271 p= .640 p= .904 p= .408 p= .380

97

Summag

The data indicated that overall, participation in a PTE did not signiﬁcantly affect
any of the major variables studied: positive parent-teen interaction, family cohesion or
family adaptability, as measured by this researcher using the .05 level of signiﬁcance and
the instruments chosen for this study. However, there is a trend toward higher scores for
participants at T2. Most posttest scores for major variables were higher than pretest
scores (Table 32). All communication posttest scores were higher than pretest scores
except those related to daughters. Daughters with moms, daughters with dads, and dads
with daughters all had lower posttest than pretest scores. Posttest scores for cohesion as
reported by parents were higher than pretest scores, while scores for adolescents were
slightly lower at T2. The exception was sons’ scores, which increased. Adaptability

scores increased slightly for both parents and adolescents at T2.

98

Table 32 - Scores for major variables, T1 E & T2 E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Mean Std Dev Min. Max. n
Communication of parents with sons 68.04 11.13 46.00 85.00 24
& daugh_ters T1 E

Communication of parents with sons 70.82 11.11 39.00 85.00 24
& dangliters T2 E

Communication of dads with sons and 64.76 10.23 17
daughters T1 E

Communication of dads with sons and 66.06 11.64 17
daggpters T2 E

Communication of moms with sons 69.78 10.23 32
and daughters TlE

Communication of moms with sons 73.34 10.10 32
and daughters T2 E

Communication of parents with sons 67.83 10.48 46.00 85.00 24
T1 E

Communication of parents with sons 72.46 11.73 39.00 85.00 24
T2 E

Communication of dads with sons T1 64.44 11.74 9
E

Communication of dads with sons T2 67.89 14.16 9
E

Communication of moms with sons 69.86 9.48 15
T1 E

Communication of moms with sons 75.20 9.47 15
T2 E

Communication of parents with 68.24 11.93 45.00 89.00 25
daughters Tl E

Communication of parents with 69.24 10.47 52.00 88.00 25
daghters T2 E

Communication of dads with 65.13 9.01 8
daughters T1 E

Communication of dads with 64.24 8.47 8
daughters T2 E

Communication of moms with 69.71 13.07 17
dauglﬁrs T1 E

Communication of moms with 71.71 10.63 17

daughfters T2 E

 

 

 

 

 

 

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 32 (cont’)
Communication of adolescents with 63.40 14.26 41.00 89.00 31
moms & dads T1 E
Communication of adolescents with 64.15 16.71 35.00 95.00 31
moms & dads T2 E
Communication of sons with moms & 62.05 17.37 20
dads T1 E
Communication of sons with moms & 68.14 17.34 22
dads T2 E
Communication of daughters with 64.11 12.52 38
moms & dads T1 E
Communication of daughters with 61.90 16.14 39
moms & dads T2 E
Communication of adolescents with 65.16 13.00 41.00 89.00 31
moms T1 E
Communication of adolescents with 67.03 15.80 35.00 95.00 31
moms T2 E
Communication of sons with moms 63.09 14.67 11
T1 E
Communication of sons with moms 68.81 14.65 11
T2 E
Communication of daughters with 66.30 12.23 20
moms T1 E
Communication of daughters with 66.05 16.69 20
moms T2 E
Communication of adolescents with 61.37 15.58 31.00 91.00 27
dads T1 E
Communication of adolescents with 61.17 17.36 31.00 93.00 30
dads T2 E
Communication of sons with dads T1 60.78 21.07 9
E
Communication of sons with dads T2 67.45 20.39 11
E
Communication of daughters with 61.67 12.73 18
dads T1 E
Communication of daughters with 57.53 14.71 19

dads T2 E

 

 

 

 

 

 

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 32 (cont’)
Cohesion/parents T] E 57.43 9.48 40.00 75.00 44
Cohesion/parents T2 E 61.05 8.49 42.00 74.00 44
Cohesion/fathers Tl E 55.13 7.71 16
Cohesion/fathers T2 E 58.87 8.88 16
Cohesion/mothers T1 E 58.75 10.24 28
Cohesion/mothers T2 E 62.29 8.16 28
Cohesion/adolescents T] E 56.19 10.87 25.00 76.00 32
Cohesion/adolescents T2 E 55.91 12.93 21.00 74.00 32
Cohesion/sons Tl E 55.75 14.38 12
Cohesion/sons T2 E 59.00 14.41 12
Cohesion/daughters T1 E 56.45 8.54 20
Cohesion/daughters T2 E 54.05 11.96 20
Adaptability/ parents T1 E 45.64 5.28 31.00 56.00 44
Adaptability/ parents T2 E 47.39 4.54 37.00 59.00 44
Adaptability/ fathers Tl E 45.06 4.30 16
Adaptability] fathers T2 E 46.31 4.54 16
Adaptability/ mothers Tl E 45.96 5.82 28
Adaptability/ mothers T2 E 48.00 4.97 28
Adaptability/adolescents T1 E 43.75 8.91 21.00 64.00 32
Adaptability/adolescents T2 E 44.81 9.71 18.00 60.00 32
Adaptability/sons Tl E 43.17 10.77 12
Adaptability/sons T2 E 45.92 10.88 12
Adaptability/daughters T1 E 44.10 7.88 20
Adaptability/daughters T2 E 44.15 9.17 20

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
Summan
The major purpose of this research was to measure the inﬂuence of participation in
a Parent-Teen Event (PTE) on positive parent-teen interaction. Two other important
objectives were to measure the inﬂuence of participation in a PTE on family cohesion and

family adaptability (Figure 10, below).

Conceptual model

Other family characteristics such as age, gender, form of family, education,
occupation and income (Figure 10) were discussed as they affected the three major
dependent variables. Only one of the family characteristics signiﬁcantly affected any of
the three dependent variables. Gender of parents and adolescents signiﬁcantly affected
positive parent-teen interaction. Mothers and sons scored higher than fathers and

daughters on positive parent-teen interaction.

 

 

 

Independent Variable > Dependent Variables
Participation in a PTE Positive Parent-teen interaction

Family Cohesion
Family Adaptability

Family Characteristics
Gender

Age of adolescent
Form of family
Education
Occupation
Income

 

Figure 10 - Conceptual Model

101

 

102

Ecological perspective.

This study assessed family members interacting in their multiple environments
(Figure 11). Although the study focused mainly on parent-teen interaction within the
family (the microsystem), the effects of other parts of the ecosystem were considered
when interpreting and applying the data. For example, income, occupation, education and
chronological age were all considered. There also was a religious element to the seminar.
The seminar was presented ﬁom a Protestant theological perspective using the Bible as a
reference point to support the family strengths presented to parents and adolescents.
Therefore, the macrosystem must be considered when interpreting and applying the results
to other populations. Powerﬁil forces in the macrosystem and exosystem affect the
families of parents and adolescents.

Although the effects of the exosystem were not examined, extended family,
neighbors and ﬁiends of the family may affect the interaction between parents and their
adolescent children. Mass media and other social and legal services also affect families
and their relationships. These important variables should be considered and examined in

future studies regarding parent-teen interaction.

’.
.w‘...

m. m

. - :- ”-

‘8

.,

:~

w»-
v.

-. .-
3: ”pm,
3.433. s,“
. 5 ‘2...

' A. .
MK

 

 

Figure 11 - Bronfenbrenner’s Model of the Ecology of Human Development

Adapted from Child & Adolescent Development, Lawrence B. Schiarnberg,

Macmillan, 1988

104

Implications

Although the generalization of the results of this study is limited by several factors
including sample, family characteristics and duration of the study (3 months), there are

implications for practitioners, policy-makers and researchers.

For Practice

Family therapists, ministers and educators can beneﬁt ﬁ'om the results of this
study. Awareness of the limited inﬂuence of an event such as the PTE should encourage
all professionals working with families to look carefully at various seminars and
workshops offered to the public before using these events to supplement their services to
families. Research supported events should be given high priority over events such as the
PTE which has limited support ﬁom research to date. However, anecdotal evidence of
the inﬂuence of a PTE is very positive. Years after participating in the event parents were
still talking about positive effects in their parent-teen relationships. Perhaps a different
methodology, using other instruments and approaches, would yield more information.
Parents and adolescents could be interviewed to conﬁrm anecdotal evidence offered at the
end of the seminar. When parents and adolescents were asked to complete an evaluation
of the seminar by answering two questions about the seminar, most adolescents and
parents responded very positively. Participants were asked, “What did you like most
about the seminar?” and “What did you like least about the seminar?”

A seminar like this is needed, since there is little offered to parents and teens today
which builds family strengths. Perhaps, with some revision, the Parent-Teen-Event could

be presented with more positive results. Communication and conﬂict resolution sessions

105

could be changed to give participants more skills in those areas. More cohesion building
activities could be used to bring families closer together. Activities could be structured to
encourage family adaptability. Two male presenters were used in this study, and perhaps a
female presenter on the team would affect adolescent girls more positively. The seminar
could be presented over several weeks, rather than in a one-day format. This would give
participants more time to assimilate the information and make the application to the
parent-teen relationship.

Family therapists need to consider the differences in positive parent-teen
interaction and family cohesion due to different family forms, gender, age of adolescents,
occupation and education of parents. Consideration of the inﬂuence of these variables will
lead to a greater understanding of clients’ presenting and underlying problems, and will aid
in diagnosis and formation of treatment plans.

Earlier research found that identity formation is strongly affected by parent-
adolescent relationships and positive parent-teen interaction (Kamptner, 1984; Adams &
Fitch, 1982; Campbell, Adams & Dobson, 1984; Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hauser,
Powers, Hoam & Bowlds, 1987; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985). Participation in a PTE or
similar event which brings parents and adolescents together enables family members to
build positive family relationships, which in turn may positively affect identity formation.

Family ministers need to be aware of the limited results of some seminars and
workshops offered to families. They need to be careful to sponsor research supported
events whenever possible. Current seminars such as PTE need to be strengthened to
reﬂect ﬁndings from this research. Similar seminars could be developed in local churches

and synagogues using various community professionals and religious leaders for

106

presenters. Content for the seminar could be adapted from Stinnett and DeFrain’s Family
Strengths Model, which is non-sectarian in nature. Religious content could be included
which supports the theology of the group of local churches, parishes or synagogues.

Most of Stinnett and DeFrain’s research is consistent with and supported by
Scripture. For example, parents are instructed to “Train a child in the way he should go,
and when he is old he will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6, NIV Bible, Zondervan, 1978).
Fathers are further instructed, “Do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in
the training and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4, NIV Bible, Zondervan, 1978).
In each of these references the biblical writer encourages parents to examine the particular
needs of their children as they relate to training. The writer of Proverbs alludes to the
unique way in which each child should go. The writer of Ephesians tells fathers to be
careful not to “exasperate” their children. The implication in both cases is for parents to
know their children well, their strengths and their weaknesses, their abilities and their
inabilities, their likes and their dislikes, then to train them accordingly. Stinnett and
DeF rain (1985) found “family commitment” to be a major strength. This family strength is
deﬁned as helping family members become all they can be. The implication is to know
your children well and help them develop in the particular way that would make best use
of their qualities and abilities so they may become “all they can be.” To do any less may
frustrate the children.

The writer of the Proverbs reminds us, “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a
harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1, NIV Bible, Zondervan, 1978). James, the
brother of Jesus, tells us, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to

become angry, for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires”

107

(James 1:19-20, NIV Bible, Zondervan, 1978). One of the family strengths discovered by
Stinnett and DeFrain (1985) is family communication. The two references above directly
relate to positive communication, both speaking and listening.

The fathers of ancient Israel were reminded to “Love the Lord your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I
give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about
them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and
when you get up” Deuteronomy 6:4-7, NIV Bible, Zondervan, 1978). Spiritual wellness
is one of the six major family strengths listed by Stinnett and DeFrain (1985). Spiritual
wellness can best be deﬁned as a proper relationship (a wellness) with God. Moses, the
writer of Deuteronomy, tells parents, especially fathers, that it is their responsibility to
instill biblical truth in their children about loving God. This is to be done, not in a
professional school setting, but in the daily life of a family, as family members interact
together in the microsystem.

The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, wrote “Do not let any
unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others
up according to their needs, that it may beneﬁt those who listen (Ephesians 4:29, NIV
Bible, Zondervan, 1978). This biblical truth supports the family strengths of
communication and appreciation discovered by Stinnett and DeFrain (1985) in their
research. Paul writes about positive communication and building others up. Many of his
epistles begin with appreciation and thanksgiving expressed for the recipients of the letter

(Philippians 1:3; Colossians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:2; 11 Thessalonians 1:3, NIV Bible,

108

Zondervan, 1978). Much more scripture could be cited which directly supports the
research of Stinnett and DeFrain on family strengths.

Family educators in colleges and communities need to be aware of the limited
potential of some events, such as the PTE, to positively inﬂuence parent-teen
relationships. However, events such as the PTE could be reﬁned, presented and studied
for effectiveness. Although the participants in this study were not chosen from a clinical
population, it may be possible for this type of seminar to be presented to clinical
populations with different and more positive results. The development of family strengths
would enable families to cope with problems such as substance abuse, family violence,
teenage pregnancy and criminal activities of youth. If eﬂ’ective programs were being
presented periodically, courts, churches and family therapists could refer families to these
seminars as part of the treatment program.

Schools could sponsor events such as the PTE for students and their parents.
Earlier research indicates that positive school attitudes and higher academic achievement
are correlated with positive parent-teen interaction and quality family relationships
(Steinberg, Elmen & Mounts, 1989; Cotterell, 1992; Masselam, Marcus & Stunkard, 1989
and Clark, 1983). An improved PTE may do a better job of addressing these issues.
Educators need to implement this type of family education to build these family qualities,

which indirectly affect the problems noted above.

For Policy
Although the results ﬁom this research may not directly affect policy-makers,
leading to new legislation, policy-makers need to be aware of the signiﬁcance of strong

families. Previous research cited in chapter 2 documents the effects of strong families on

 

109

school attitudes and achievement, sexual risk-taking behaviors, prosocial behavior and
psychological development. Policy-makers need to consider the effects of ﬁiture and
impending legislation on families. They need to be constantly asking the question, “How

will this legislation affect families?”

For Research

The data from this research support many previous studies and indicate a need for
additional research related to parent-teen relationships.

Data from this present study support earlier research which found that parents
report higher levels of communication with adolescents than do adolescents with parents
(Barnes & Olson, 1985; Keith, 1985; Montemayor, 1986; Smetana, 1989; Olson, Russell
& Sprenkle, 1983; Moos, 1974). The ﬁndings on fathers and daughters parent-teen
interaction is consistent with earlier studies by Bezilla, 1988; Barnes & Olson, 1985; and
Steinberg, 1987, which found higher levels of positive communication of adolescents with
mothers than with their fathers. One of the reasons for this may be the tendency of
parents to emphasize more intimacy and closeness with daughters and more autonomy
with sons (Block, 1983; Feldman, 1982; Huston, 1983; Leaper, 1989).

Adolescents indicated a high level of family cohesion and feeling “connected” with
their parents (M =56.185). This places them in the “connected” category of Olson’s
Circumplex Model of Family Systems. This is consistent with earlier research which

found that between two-thirds and three-quarters of adolescents feel close to their parents
(Bachman, Johnston & O’Malley, 1987; Steinberg, Elmen & Mounts, 1989).
Adolescents from two-parent biological families reported higher levels of family

cohesion than did adolescents from other forms of family (Mean Difference = 8.29, p

110

=.081). Although this ﬁnding did not reach statistical signiﬁcance, a larger sample may
have enabled this ﬁnding to reach signiﬁcance. The cell size for “other forms of family”
was nine. This ﬁnding is consistent with studies of Barber and Lyons (1994).

There are several questions that arise from this study that need further
investigation: (1) Why did daughters score signiﬁcantly lower than sons on communication
with their fathers? (2) is there something about this type of seminar that affects adolescent
boys more positively than adolescent girls? (3) would a female presenter on the team
relate better to adolescent girls? (4) how would the results differ with larger numbers? (5)
how would the results differ with a different racial/ethnic sample? (6) how would these
results differ in a group with lower S.E.S.? (7) how would these results differ in a less
religious sample? (8) should this seminar be more skill oriented, especially the sessions on

communication and conﬂict resolution?

Limitations

There are two serious limitations which may affect the strength and generalizability
of the ﬁndings from this study. Both of these are related to sampling. The most important
limitations are (1) the white, Protestant, middle to upper-middle class sample; (2) the
sample size, which at times limited power to detect statistical signiﬁcance.

The sample for this study did not adequately represent minority groups or lower
socio-economic groups. Non-traditional families such as single parent, step and blended
families attended the PTE, but were not well represented. Future studies should include
more non-traditional families, various racial/ethnic groups and more participants from

lower socio-economic classes.

111

The sample size was generally adequate for statistical purposes, but at times cell
size limited detection of signiﬁcance, especially when the groups were broken down by
family characteristics. Larger studies should be attempted on events such as a PTE.
Results could vary greatly with a larger sample, and a larger sample might provide more

information on the effects of various family characteristics.

Conclusions

This research provides limited support for the seminar called the Parent-Teen
Event presented by Face to Face Ministries. Most increases in positive parent-teen
interaction and family cohesion did not reach statistical signiﬁcance. Family adaptability
was not signiﬁcantly affected by this seminar. The seminar seemed to beneﬁt parent-son
relationships more than parent-daughter relationships. The father-daughter relationship
was least positively affected by the PTE. However, there was a trend toward higher
scores for participants at T2 for most variables.

This researcher used .05 as the level of signiﬁcance for acceptance or rejection of
the null-hypotheses. In the light of the exploratory nature of this study, a level of
signiﬁcance of .10 may be more reasonable in detecting statistical signiﬁcance.

Developers of the seminar need to address some of the questions noted above,
especially the question about the lower scores for the father-daughter relationship.
Additional research would be helpful to support the conclusions of this study and to give

direction for further development and continual improvement of the Parent-Teen Event.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

A description of a Parent-Teen Event

A Face to Face Parent-Teen Event is an eight-hour one-day seminar designed to
bring parents and teens together to build four family strengths: time together,
communication, conﬂict resolution and appreciation. Four sessions are presented by Jerry
and Jack Schreur, a father and son team. These sessions are approximately one and one-
half hours each with short breaks between the ﬁrst and second sessions, then a break for
lunch, followed by the last two sessions, with another short break between the third and
fourth sessions. Typically the day begins at 8:30 AM. and ends at about 4:30 PM.

Experienced presenters use humor, stories, scripture and research ﬁndings to
encourage family members to build strong family relationships. Various teaching methods
are employed such as: lecture, storytelling, video clips, small group discussion,
brainstorming and paper exercises. Participants are actively involved in a very positive
learning experience, with family members interacting together and with other families.
Sessions move along quickly with little opportunity for boredom or inactivity.

Most of the Parent-Teen Events (PTE) are conducted in church facilities, with
lunch served on the premises. Usually two or more churches combine for a PTE. Most
events are rather small, with 10 to 30 families attending. Families are charged $55 per
family. This fee covers speaker fees, a notebook for each family and lunch, which is
usually provided by the host church. Both parents are encouraged to attend with their
teen(s), and single parents are welcome. Parents are discouraged from attending without

at least one of their teenagers attending with them.

112

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Circumplex Model of Marital & Family Systems

 

 

19

RIGID 15

4—Low -———' coussrou ' High —->
SCORE DISENGAGED SEPARATED CONNECTED ENMESHED
so -
Chaotlcalfy
Separated
CHAOTIC 40
I 23
5" cu [y Flexibly
t WIBLE : Separated
2'2
,_ 24
n.
,g .
I sraucrunso ._ 56333:?

 

 

10

Olson, D.H., Fournier, D.G. & Druckman, J.M. (1988), Prepare Enrich Counselor’s
Manual, p. 105

113

114

APPENDIX B

Circumplex Model — Balanced and Extreme Types

BAanced Systems: Separated to connected on cohesion. There is a good balance between
too close and too separate. There is a balance of time together with time apart with some
involvement between members. There is some independent decision making and some
joint decisions. There is a balance between energy focused inside and outside the family.
Loyalty of the family is expected but not demanded. Structured to ﬂexible on
adaptability. Leadership is sometimes shared and democratic. The roles and household
responsibilities are stable but may be shared. The rules are predictable and fair, but can be
ﬂexible when needed. The children’s feelings are sometimes taken into account when
making decisions.

Chaotic: Erratic leadership, unsuccessful parental control, ineﬁ‘ective discipline,

 

inconsistent consequences, impulsive decisions, endless negotiation, lack of role clarity,
role reversals and frequent rule changes.

Ring: Authoritarian leadership, highly controlling parents, strict consequences and limited
negotiations with parents. Strictly deﬁned roles, generally traditional male-female roles,
and unchanging rules.

Disengaged: Extreme emotional separateness, lack of family loyalty, very little
involvement with each other, very little sharing of feelings, lack of parent-child closeness;
separateness preferred, independent decision making and little time together.

Enmeshed: Extreme emotional closeness, loyalty to family demanded, very dependent of
one another, little private space permitted, lack of generational boundaries, energy mainly
focused inside the family, few individual friends pemiitted, very reactive emotionally,

decisions are subject to the wishes of the whole group.

Adapted from Olson, D.H., Fournier, D.G. & Druckman, J .M. (1988), Prepare Enrich
Counselor’s Manual, p. 107

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Family information: Parents form

Please check (\I) the appropriate items or ﬁll in the appropriate information that
best describes you and your family.

1. Marital status?
_(1) Married
____(2) Single
___(3) Divorced/ Separated

2. Gender?
_(1) Male
_(2) Female

3 . Age?
_Years

4. On average, about how many hours do you work per week for pay?
_Hours

/—5\) What is your occppation?,\Check the number that best describes your
k/ work. IV" ’ if V ‘ I

_(1) Professionals, Doctors, Lawyers, Executives

_(2) Other Professionals, Managers, Teachers, Nurses

___(3) Skilled and Building Trades, Farmer

__(4) Sales, Technicians, Clerical

____(5) Laborer, Factory Worker, Waitress

_(6) General Service Employees

_(7) Homemaker
-,. \-
6. ‘ What is your annual household income (before taxes)?
‘_ 7. How many children (ages 18 and under) presently reside in your

household a majority of the time?
_Children

115

10.

11.

12.

116

APPENDIX C

Please check the highest level of education you have completed
_(1) Less than high school

_(2) High school

_(3) Some college

_(4) Bachelor's degree

_(5) Some graduate work

_(6) Graduate degree

Please check the best description of your family

_(1)\Two}parent biological family

_(2) Stepfamily ie. remarried with stepchildren living with you

_(3) Blended family ie., remarried with children from both previous
marriages living together and/or with children from present marriage

_(4) Single .parent family

_(5) Other

Did you attend all four sessions of the Parent-Teen Encounter?
_Yes
_No

How many of your teenage children attended the PTE?
_Teenagers

Did your children attend all four sessions of the PTE?
_Yes
_No

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

Family information: Teenager's form

Please check ( ‘1 ) the appropriate items or ﬁll in the appropriate information that
best describes you and your family.

1 . Age
_Years

2. Gender
_(1) Male
_(2) Female

3. Where do you live the majority of the time?
_(1) With both biological parents
_(2) With one parent
_(3) With parent and step-parent
_(4) Other

4. Did you attend all four sessions of the Parent-Teen Encounter?
_(1) Yes
_(2) N0

5. Did both biological parents attend the entire seminar?

_(1) Yes
_(2) N0

117

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Twin C itier Campus F amily Social Science 290 McNeal Hall
College of Human Ecology (383(57/ (1:1,?573;

612-625-7250
Fax: ()I2 -625 4227

PERMISSION TO USE FAMILY INVENTORIES

I am pleased to give you permission to use the instruments included in Family
Inventories. You have my permission to duplicate these materials for your clinical work.
teaching, or research project. You can either duplicate the materials directly from the
manual or have them retyped for use in a new format. If they are retyped.
acknowledgements should be given regarding the name of the instrument, developers’

names, and the University of Minnesota.

If you are planning to use FILE, A-FILE, and F-COPES, you need to obtain
separate permission from Dr. Hamilton McCubbin. His address is 1300 Linden Drive,

University of Viﬁsconsin. Madison. WI 53706.

Separate permission is also required to use the ENRICH inventory in either
clinical work or research. This is because the inventory is computer scored and is
distributed through the PREPARE/ENRICH ofﬁce. Contact Dr. David Olson at
PREPARE/ENRICH. PO. Box 190, Minneapolis, MN 55458.

In exchange for providing this permission, we would appreciate a copy of any
papers, thesis, or reports that you complete using these inventories. This will help
us in staying abreast of the most recent development and research with these scales.

Thank you for your cooperation.

In closing. I hope you ﬁnd the Family Inventories of value in your work with
couples and families. I would appreciate feedback regarding how these instruments are

used and how well they are working for you.

Sincerely

Q

   

(rm

David H. Olson. Ph.D.
Professor

118

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

Parent-Adolescent Communication: Adolescent Form"

Items

Howard L. Barnes & David H. Olson, 1982

Mother Father

1.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

I can discuss my beliefs with my mother/father without feeling
restrained or embarrassed.

Sometimes I have trouble believing everything my mother/father
tells me.

My mother/father is always a good listener.
I am sometimes aﬁaid to ask my mother/father for what I want.

My mother/father has a tendency to say things to me that would be
better left unsaid.

My mother/father can tell how I'm feeling without asking.

I am very satisﬁed with how my mother/father and I talk together.
If I were in trouble, I could tell my mother/father.

I openly show affection to my mother/father.

When we are having a problem, I often give my mother/father the
silent treatment.

I am careﬁrl about what I say to my mother/father.

When talking to my mother/father, I have a tendency to say things
that would be better left unsaid.

When I ask questions, I get honest answers from my mother/father.

My mother/father tries to understand my point of view.

119

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

*

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

120

APPENDIX F
There are topics I avoid discussing with my mother/father.
I ﬁnd it easy to discuss problems with my mother/father.

It is very easy for me to express all my true feelings to my
mother/father.

My mother/father nags/bothers me.
My mother/father insults me when s/he is angry with me.

I don't think I can tell my mother/father how I really feel about
some things.

Parent form includes the items written from a parental perspective. Example:
“My son/daughter”

l6.

7.

3.

1.

14.

121

APPENDIX F
Factor loadings of the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale
Howard Barnes & David Olson
Family Inventories, p 55

Open FamilyCommunicgtion (F gorﬂ

I ﬁnd it easy to discuss problems with my mother/father, or child

I am very satisﬁed with how my mother/father, or child and I talk together.

My mother/father, or child is always a good listener.

I can discuss my beliefs with my mother/father, or child without feeling
restrained or embarrassed.

My mother/father, or child tries to understand my point of view.

17. It is very easy for me to express all my true feelings to my mother/father,

13.

19.

18.

12.

or child

. If I were in trouble, I could tell my mother/father, or child.

My mother/father, or child can tell how I’m feeling without asking.

I openly show affection to my mother/father, or child.

When I ask questions, I get honest answers from my mother/father, or child.

Problems in Family Communication (Factor 11)

My mother/father, or child insults me when they are angry with me.

. My mother/father, or child has a tendency to say things to me which would

be better left unsaid.
My mother/father, or child nags me.

Sometimes I have trouble believing everything my mother/father, or child
tells me.

When talking with my mother/father, or child, I have a tendency to
say things that would be better left unsaid.

.70

.71

.59

.53

.66

.66

.59

.48

.55

.55

.47

.60

.55

.29

.58

122

APPENDIX F
10. When we are having a problem, I often give my mother/father, or child
the silent treatment.

15. There are topics I avoid discussing with my mother/father, or child.

20. I don’t think I can tell my mother/father, or child how I really feel about
some things.

11. I am careful about what I say to my mother/father, or child.

4. I am sometimes afraid to ask my mother/father, or child for what I want.

.56

.45

.57

.26

.49

APPENDIX G

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

APPENDIX G

FACES H Items
D.H. Olson, J. Portner, & Richard Bell, 1982
Family members are supportive of each other during difﬁcult times.
In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion.

It is easier to discuss problems with people outside the family than with
other family members.

Each family members has input in major family decisions.

Our family gathers together in the same room.

Children have a say in their discipline.

Our family does things together.

Family members discuss problems and feel good about the solutions.
In our family everyone goes his/her own way.

We shiﬁ household responsibilities from person to person.
Family members know each other's close ﬁiends.

It is hard to know what the rules are in our family.

Family members consult other family members on their decisions.
Family members say what they want.

We have diﬂiculty thinking of things to do as a family.

In solving problems, the children's suggestions are followed.
Family members feel very close to each other.

Discipline is fair in our family.

123

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

124

APPENDIX G

Family members feel closer to people outside the family than to other
family members.

Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems.

Family members go along with what the family decides to do.
In our family, everyone shares responsibilities.

Family members like to spend their free time with each other.
It is difﬁcult to get a rule changed in our family.

Family members avoid each other at home.

When problems arise, we compromise.

We approve of each other's ﬁiends.

Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds.
Family members pair up rather than do things as a total family.

Family members share interests and hobbies with each other.

APPENDIX H

APPENDIX H

Letter requesting participation

Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith
201 W. Fulton Apt 912
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith:

I am the Minister of Family Life in a large church in Grand Rapids, Michigan,
cofounder of Face to Face Ministries, and also a graduate student at Michigan State
University, involved in the study of families and their strengths. 1 am currently researching
positive family interaction with parents and teenagers.

Your pastor has suggested that you might want to help me by participating in this
study. This study measures family interaction over time so it will be necessary to complete
a questionnaire at two (2) separate times, the ﬁrst time will be in of this year.
The second time will be approximately 3 months later. Both parents (if possible) and all
adolescent children between the ages of 12 and 18 are asked to complete the
questionnaires. All answers are conﬁdential.

This research will be extremely helpful for churches and organizations who are
attempting to meet the changing needs of families in the nineties. If you and your family
would like to be a part of this research and help me in this important project please
complete and mail the enclosed card as soon as possible.

Later this year we will be conducting a Parent-Teen-Event for your church. Your
pastor has more information. In appreciation for your help in this project 1 will send your
family a cassette tape series entitled Family Fears. If you have any questions please call
me at (home) or (church).

 

 

Sincerely,

Rev. Jerry Schreur
Doctoral Candidate
Dept. of Family & Child Ecology-MSU

Face to Face Ministries
PO. Box 6672
Grand Rapids, MI 49516

125

126

APPENDIX H

Return Card

Dear Rev.Schreur:

We would like to participate in your study of parent-teen interaction. We understand that

all answers are conﬁdential. Please send us the questionnaires to complete.

 

 

 

Name(s)
(Please give both names if two-parent family)
Address
City
State Zip

 

 

Teens' Names and Ages: (12-18)

 

 

Name Age
Name Age
Name Age

 

 

Please mail this card in the enclosed self-addressed stamped enve10pe.

I will mail you the ﬁrst set of questionnaires on or about

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

Cover letter for questionnaire

Mr. and Mrs.Joe Smith
201 W. Fulton Apt 912
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith:

Thank you for agreeing to be a part of our study on positive parent-teen
interaction. Enclosed are questionnaires for you and your teenagers to complete and
return. Forms are appropriately labeled "Parent" and "Adolescent" and are self-
explanatory.

Please do not consult with each other while completing the forms. Allow each
family member privacy and conﬁdentiality while completing and mailing these forms.

Please complete these forms as soon as possible and mail them to me in the
enclosed self-addressed envelopes. In approximately 3 months I will send you another set
of identical forms to complete.

Thanks so much for your help in this project!

Sincerely,

Rev. Jeny Schreur
Doctoral Candidate
Dept. of Family & Child Ecology-MSU

Face to Face Ministries
PO. Box 6672
Grand Rapids, MI 49516

127

APPENDIX J

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

University Committee an
Research Involving
Human Subjects
(UCRIHS)

517/355-2180

FAX: 517/336-1171

APPENDIX J

MICHIGAN STATE
11 N 1 v E R s l r Y

July 13. 1993

TO: Jerry Schreur
201 W. Fulton. Apt. 1011
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

RE: IRE at: 93250
TITLE: THE lNFLU ENCE or A PARENT-TEEN ENCOUNTER ON PARENT-
TEEN INTERACTION
CATEGORY: Full Review
REVISION REQUESTED: NIA
APPROVAL DATE: July 12. 1993

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects‘ (UCRIHS) review of this project
is complete. 1 am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human mbjects appear to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the
UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed above.

UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval datesbown above.
Investigators planning to continue a project beyond one year must seek updated certification. Request
for renewed approval must be accompanied by all four of the following mandatory assurances.

I. The human subjects protocol is the same as in previous studies.

2. There have been no ill effects suffered by the subjects due to their participation in the study.

3. There have been no complaints by the subjects or their representatives related to their
participation in the study.

4. There has not been a change in the research environment nor new information which would
indicate greater risk to human subjects than that assumed when the protocol was initially
reviewed and approved.

Thereis a maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
project beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review.

UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to initiation of the
change. Investigators must notify UCRIHS promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects.
complaints. etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the _work.

If we can be of any future help. please do not hesitate to contact us at (517) 355-2180 or FAX (517)
336-1 171.

Sincerely.

 

DEW:pjm

cc: Dr. Barbara Arnes |/ 128

APPENDIX K

E = experimental group

T1 participants and non-participants scores

C = control group
P = participants at T1 & T2
NP = non-participants (participants at T1 but not at T2)

APPENDIX K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group 11 Variable Mean Score S.D.
Adol E P 31 Age 14.13 1.67
Adol EN? 90 Age 14.11 1.58
t-test sig. dif p = .957

Adol E P 31 Comm w mom 65.94 13.68
Adol E NP 84 Comm w mom 63.26 12.00
t-tests Sig dif. p = .310

Adol E P 27 Comm w dad 61.37 15.58
Adol E NP 79 Comm w dad 63.90 12.75
t-test sig. dif. p = .403

Adol E P 31 Adaptability 43.67 9.05
Adol E NP 90 Adaptability 41.13 7.92
t-test sig. dif. p = .140

Adol E P 31 Cohesion 56.29

Adol E NP 90 Cohesion 52.97

t-test sig. dif. P = .139

Group II Variable Mean Score S.D.
Adol C P 16 Age 14.50 1.90
Adol C NP 20 Age 14.85 1.76
t-test sig. dif. P = .570

Adol C P 16 Comm w mom 73.94 14.61
Adol C NP 20 Comm w mom 69.15 13.37
t-test Sl& dif. P = .313

Adol C P 15 Comm w dad 69.80 15.74
Adol C NP 20 Comm w dad 67.30 11.61
t-test sig. dif. P = .592

Adol C P 16 Adaptability 47.50 7.11
Adol C NP 20 Adaptability 43.80 1.54
t-test sig. dif. P = .124

Adol C P 16 Cohesion 59.56 13.87
Adol C NP 20 Cohesion 58.00 9.81
t-test sig. dif. P = .695

 

 

 

 

 

129

 

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX K

Group II Variable Mean Score S.D.
Parents E P 24 Comm w sons 67.83 10.48
Parents E NP 74 Comm w sons 66.72 13.73
t-test sig. dif. P = .716

Parents E P 25 Comm w dau. 68.24 11.93
Parents E NP 65 ' Comm w dau. 64.62 13.01
t-test sig. dif. P = .229

Parents E P 44 Adaptability 46.55 8.06
Parents E NP 116 Adaptability 44.69 6.51
t-test sig. dif. P = .134

Parents E P 44 Cohesion 57.43 9.48
Parents E NP 117 Cohesion 56.55 9.97
t-test sig. dif. P = .612

Parents E P 35 Hours worked 37.77 1700
Parents E NP 91 Hours worked 39.25 14.05
t-test sig. dif. P = .618

Parents E P 37 Income 72.19 64.35
Parents E NP 97 Income 57.88 38.52
t-test sig. dif. P = .117

Parents E P 44 Education 3.82 1.28
Parents E NP 117 Education 3.85 1.38
t-test sig. dif. P = .879

Parents E P 44 Age 41.43 5.24
Parents E NP 114 Age 42.97 3.88
t-test sig. dif. P = .045

Parents E P 44 # of children 2.11 .895
Parents E NP 117 # of children 2.29 1.08
t-test sig. dif. P = .335

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

APPENDIX K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group It Variable Mean Score S.D.
Parents C P 12 Comm w sons 75.92 9.09
Parents C NP 16 Comm w sons 75.19 17.63
t-test sig. dif. p = .897

Parents C P 15 Comm w dau. 83.07 7.80
Parents C NP 14 Comm w dau. 75.57 10.54
t-test sig. dif. p = .038

Parents C P 21 Adaptability 49.05 5.01
Parents C NP 20 Adaptability 46.85 6.42
t-test sig. dif. p = .228

Parents C P 21 Cohesion 64.33 7 .88
Parents C NP 20 Cohesion 63.05 7.97
t-test sig. dif. p = .607

Parents C P 18 Hours worked 34.89 15.28
Parents C NP 18 Hours worked 38.05 14.93
t-test sig. dif. p = .534

Parents C P 18 Income 50.16 20.24
Parents C NP 13 Income 42.38 8.41
t-test sig. dif. p = .203

Parents C P 20 Education 2.80 1.00
Parents C NP 20 Education 2.80 .894
t-test sig. dif. p = 1.00

Parents C P 21 Age 41.29 5.49
Parents C NP 20 Age 41.05 5.61
t-test sig. dif. p = .893

Parents C P 21 # of children 2.52 1.17
Parents C NP 20 # of children 2.70 .979

 

 

t-test sigdif.

 

 

 

p = .604

 

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adams, G.R., & Fitch, SA. (1982). Ego stage and identity status development: A
cross-sequential analysis. Joumal of Social Psychology, 43, 574-583.

Alexander, J.F. (1973). Defensive and supportive communication in normal and

deviant families. Journal of Consultingatd Clinical Psychology, 40, 223-231.
Allerbeck, K. & Hoag, W. (1985). Youth without future? Munich: Piper.

Amerikaner, M. (1994). Family interaction and individual psychological health.
Journal of Counseling& Development. 72(6), 614-620.

Anderson, S.A. & Sabatelli, RM. (1990). Differentiating differentiation and

individuation: Conceptual and Operational challenges. Americaa Journal of Family

Therapy, 18, 32-50.

Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, MT (1987) The inventory of parent and peer
attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 16. 427-45.

Bachman, J.G., Johnston, L.D. & 0' Malley, PM. (1987). Monitoring the ﬁIture:
Questionnaire raaponses from the nation's hghschool seniora, 1986. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

Babbie, E. (1989) The practice of social researc_h. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in

western man. Boston: Beacon Press.

132

133

Baldwin, S.E. & Baranoski, M.V.(1990). Family interactions and sex education in
the home. Adolescence. 25.(99).

Barber, B.K. (1990). Marital quality, parental behaviors, and adolescent self-
esteem. In B.K. Barber & B.C. Rollins, (Eds), Parent-adolescent relationships, pp.49-74.
Lanharn, MD: University Press Of America.

Barber, B.K. (1992) Family, personality, and adolescent problem behaviors.
Journal Of Marriage and the Family, 54. 69-79.

Barber, BK. (1994). Cultural, family, and personal contexts of parent-adolescent
conﬂict. Jouraal Of Marriage and Family, 56, 375-386.

Barber, B.K. & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different
constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58. 433-441.

Barber, B. & Lyons, J .M. (1994). Family processes and adolescent adjustment in
intact and remarried families. Journal Of Youth & Adolescence. 23 Q4'L421-43 6.

Barber, B.K. , Olsen, J.E. & Shagle, SC. (1994). Association between parental
psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors.

Qijld Development, 65, 1120-1136.

Barber, B.K. & Thomas, BL. (1986). Dimensions Of fathers' and mothers'
supportive behavior: The case for physical affection. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
ﬂ, 783-794.

Barna, G. (1995). Generation next. Ventura, California: Regal Books

Barnes, H.L. & Olson, DH. (1982). Parent-adolescent communication. In Olson,
McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen & Wilson, Family inventories. pp. 51-66, Family
Social Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Barnes, H.L. & Olson, DH. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the
Circumplex Model. Child Development. 56. 43 8-447 .

134

Barton, C. & Alexander, J .F . (1981). Functional family therapy. In A.S. Gurman
& D.P. Knisker, (Eds), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 403-443). New York:

Brunner/Mazel.

Benson, P. (1990). The troubled journey: A portrait of 6th-12th ggade youth.
Minneapolis, MN. Search Institute & Lutheran Brotherhood.

Benson, P., Williams, D. & Johnson, A. (1987). The quicl<_sijver years: The hopes
and fgrs Of early adolescence. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Bezilla, R. (Ed). (1988). America's youth 1977-1988. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Org.

Blechman, EA. & Olson, D.L. (1976). The family contract game: Description and
effectiveness. In D. Olson (Ed), Treating relationships (pp. 133-149). Lake Mills, IA:
Graphic Publishing.

Block, J .H. (1973). Conceptions Of sex role: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal
perspectives. American Psychologist. 23. 339-340.

Block, J .H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization Of

the sexes. Child Develmpment. 54. 1335-1354.

Blos, P. (1979). The second individuation process Of adolescence. In P. 8105
(Ed), The adolescent passage: Developmental issues (pp. 141-170). New York:

International University Press.

Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory for building
prevention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family

Relations 45 127-138.

 

Brody, G.H., Moore, K., & Glei, D. (1994). Family processes during adolescence
as predictors of parent-young adult attitude similarity: A six-year longitudinal analysis.

Family Relations, 43, 369-373.

135

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by

pature and desigra Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22 (6), 723-742.

Bubolz, M. & Sontag, MS. (1990). Humﬂ ecology theogy. Prepared for
Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. Class notes,

Michigan State University.

Campbell, EC. (1969). Adolescent socialization. In Goslin, D.A. (Eds),
H_andbOOk Of sociaazation theory and resear_ch. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Campbell, B, Adams, G.R. & Dobson, W.R. (1984). Familial correlates of identity

formation in late adolescence. Journal Of Youth and Adolescence. 13, 509-525.

Carlton-Ford, S. & Collins, WA. (1988). Family conﬂict dimens_ions, differential
reporting,_and developmental differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of ASA,

Chicago, IL, August.

Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of motheriag: Psychoanalysis and the
sociology Of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clark, R.M., (1983). Family life and school achievement: Why poor black children

succeed or fail. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Conger, J .J . (1981). Freedom and commitment: Families, youth and social change.
American Psycholagist. 36, 1475-1484.

Coombs, R.H. & Landsverk, J. (1988). Parenting styles and substance use during
childhood and adolescence. Journalaof Marriage and the Family, 50, 475-82.

136

Cooper, CR. (1988). The role of conﬂict in adolescent-parent relationships. In
M.R.Gunnar (Eds), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology Vol. 21 1181-1187.
Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum.

Cooper, CR. Grotevant, H.D. & Condon, SM. (1983). Individuality and
connectedness in the family as a context for adolescent identity formation and role-taking

skill. New Directions in Child Development, 22. 43-60.

Costanzo, P.R. & Woody, El. (1985). Domain speciﬁc parenting styles and their
impact on the child's development Of particular deviance: The example Of Obesity

proneness. Journal Of Social—and Clinical Psychology, 3, 425-445.

Cotterell, J .L. (1992). The relation of attachments and supports to adolescent well-

being and school adjustment. Joumal of Adolescent Research. 7(1).

Coughlin, C. & Vuchinich, S. (1996). Family experience in preadolescence and the
development of male delinquency. Jouraal of Marriage and F amily, 58, 491-501.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Larson, R.(1984). Being adolescent. NewYork: Basic
Books.

Cumsille, P.E. & Epstein, N. (1994). Family cohesion, family adaptability, social
support, and adolescent depressive symptoms in outpatient clinic families. Journal Of

Family Psychology, 8(2). 202-214.

Demo, DH. (1992). Parent-child relations: Assessing recent changes. Journal of

Marriage and the Family. 54. 104-117.

Demo, D.H., Small, S.A. & Savin-Williams, RC. (1987). Family relations and the
self-esteem Of adolescents and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the L amily. 49. 705-
716.

137

Duck, S.W., (1990). Relationships as unﬁnished business: Out of the frying pan

and into the 19903. Journal Of Social_and Persoaal Reﬁtionghips, 7, 5-28.

 

Dunn, S.E., Putallaz, M., Sheppard, B.H. & Lindstrom, R., (1987). Social support
and adjustment in gifted adolescents. Journalaof Educational Psychology, 79, 467-473.

Dusek, J .B., & Flaherty, J .F. (1981). The Development Of the self-concept during
the adolescent yea_ra Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46,

1-67.

Eisen, P. (1986). Coping strategies and vulnerabilities. International Journal of

Adolescent Medicine and Health. 2. 107-117.

Eissler, KR. (1958). Notes on problems of technique in the psychoanalytic
treatment of adolescents. PsychOmlytic Study of the Child. 13. 223-254.

Elkind, (1984). All grown up and no place to go: Teenagers in crisis. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.Ellis-Schwabe, M. & Thomburg, H.D. (1986). Conﬂict areas
between parents and their adolescents. Journal Of Psychology, 120, 59-68.

Eme, R.F. & Danielak, M.H. (1995). Comparison of fathers Of daughters with and
without maladaptive eating attitudes. JournJal of EmotiOtal & Behavioral Disorders, 31 1),
40-45.

Erikson, EH. (1968). Identityv: Youth and crias. New York: Norton.

Feldman, LB. (1982). Sex roles and family dynamics. In F. Walsh (Ed), Normal
family processes (pp. 354-3 79). New York: Guilford Press.

Esposito, SA. (1995). Cohesion and adaptability in the non-custodial father-child
relationship: The eﬂ‘ects Of interaction quality. Journal Of Divorce & Remarn'age, 2311-2),
21-37.

138

Felson, R.R. & Zielinski, MA. (1989). Children's self-esteem and parental support.
Joumal Of Marriage and the Family. 51. 727-736.

Fox, G.L. (1986). Intrafamilial sexual socialization: patterns and outcomes (Report
NO. APROO925-Ol). Washington DC: Ofﬁce of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs,

Department of Health and Human Services.

Friedman, AS. (1995). Family and client characteristics as predictors of outpatient
treatment outcome for adolescent drug abusers. Journal Of Substance Abuse. 7(3), 345-

56.

Galatzer-Levy, R.M. & Cohler, 8.]. (1993). The essential Other: A developmental
paycholagy of the self. New York, Basic Books.

Garbarino, J ., Schellenbach, C.J., Sebes, J. & Associates. (1986). Troubled youth.
troubled families. New York: Aldine DeGruyter.

Gecas, V. & Schwalbe, ML. (1986). Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem.
Journal Of Marriage and the F amily, 48. 37-46.

Gecas V. & Self, MA. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review Of the 19803.
Journal Of Marriage and the Family, 52, 941-958.

Ginsberg, B.G. (1995). Parent-Adolescent Relationship program (PARD):
Relationship enhancement therapy with adolescents and their families (fathers and sons).

Special Issue: Adolescent treatment: New frontiers and new dimensions. Psychotherapy,
32(1), 108-112.

Gilligan, C. (1982). I_n_a different voice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldstein, A.P. & Pentz, MA. (1984). Psychological skill training and the
aggressive adolescent. School Psycholagy Review. 13. 311-323.

139

Goldstein, A.P., Spraﬂtin, R.P., Gershaw, NJ. & Klein, P. (1980). Skillstreaming

the aaOIescent. Urbana, IL: Research Press.

Gottman, J. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York:

 

Academic Press.

Greenberger, E. & O' Neil, R. (1990). Parents' concerns about their child's
development: Implications for fathers' and mothers' well-being and attitudes towards

work. Journal of Marriage and Faanily. 52. 621-635.

Grotevant, H. & Cooper, C. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships
and the development Of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-
428.

Grotevant, H. & Cooper, C. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: A
perspective on individual differences in the development of identity and role-taking skill in

adolescence. Humap Development. 29. 82-100.

Hall, J .A. (1987). Parent-adolescent conﬂict: An empirical review. Adolescence,
2_2 , 767-789.

Hamill, SB. (1988). The family at adolescence: The coincidence Of parental mid-
life crisis apd children's adolescence. Paper for Society for Research In Adolescence.

Alexandria, VA.

Hampson, R.B., Hulgus, Y.F. & Beavers, W.R. (1991). Comparisons of self-
report measures of the Beavers Systems Model and Olson's Circumplex Model. Journal of

ﬂmily Psychology, 4, 326-340.

Harris, K.M. & Morgan, SP. (1991). Fathers, sons, and daughters: Differential
paternal involvement in parenting. Journal Of Marriage and the Family, 53, 531-544.

140

Hassan, A.B. & Bar-Yam, AM. (1987). Interpersonal development across the
lifespan: Communion and its interaction with agency in psychological development.

Contributions to Human Development. 18, 102-128.

Hauser, S.T. & Boulds. (1990). Stress, coping, and adaptation. In 8.8 Feldman
& G.R.Elliot (Eds), At the threshold: The develtmipgadolescent. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Hauser, S.T., Powers, 81., Noam, G. & Bowlds, MK. (1987). Family interiors of

adolescent ego development trajectories. Family Perspective. 21. 263-282.

Havighurst, RJ. (1953). Human developmentaand education. New York:

Longmans, Green.

Havighurst, R]. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. New York: Davis
McKay.

Henry, CS. (1994) Family systems characteristics, parental behaviors, and
adolescent family life satisfaction. Emily Relations. 43(4), 447-455.

Hill, J .P. (1993). Recent advances in selected aspects Of adolescent development.

Jouanal of Child Psycholggyaand Psyc_hiatry, 34. 69-99.

Hoffman, L.W. & Manis, J .B. (1978). Inﬂuences Of children on marital interaction
and parental satisfactions and dissatisfactions. Pp. 164-214. In R.M. Lerner & G.B.
Spanier (Eds), Child inﬂuences on marital and Emily interaction: A life-span perspective.

New York: Academic Press.

Holmbeck, G.N. & O'Donnell, K. (1991). Discrepancies between perceptions Of
decision-making and behavioral autonomy. In R.L. Paikoﬂ & W.A. Collins (Eds),
Parentitdolescent disagreements in the family: New directions for child development
(pp.51-69). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

141

Holstein, C. (1972). The relation of children's moral judgment level to that of their
parents and tO communication patterns in the family. In R. Smart and M. Smart (Eds),

Readings in Child Development. New York: Macmillan.

Huebner, ES. (1991). Correlates Of life satisfaction in children. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 6(2), 254-259.

 

Huston, AC. (1983). Sex-typing. In P.H. Mussen & E.M. Hetherington (Eds),
H_andbOOk of child psycholggy: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development
(pp.387-468). New York: John Wiley.

Ianni, FA]. (1989). The search for structure. New York: Free Press.

Kahn, JR, Smith, K.W. & Roberts EJ. (1984) Familial comanpnication apd

adolescent sexual behavior. Cambridge, MA: American Institutes for Research.

Kamptner, N.L. (1984) Attachment and individuation in late adolescence,
Dissertation, Michigan State University.

Keith, J. (1985). Michigan early adolescena survey: Final report. Michigan State
University. Paper presented at NCFR, November, 1986, in Dearborn, MI.

Kenniston, K. (1970). Youth: A new stage Of life. Americaﬂcholar. 39. 631-
654.

Kidwell, J., Fisher, J.L., Dunham, R.M. & Baranowski, M. (1983). Parents and
adolescents: Push and pull of change. In Figley, C.R.,& McCubbin, H.I. (Eds), Stress

 

and the family: Coping with normative tran_sitions (Vol. 1). New York, Brunner/Mazel.

Kumpfer, KL. (1989) Prevention of alcohol and drugabuse: A criticayeview of
risk factors and prevention strategies. OSAP Prevention Monograph-Z. Rockville, MD:
Oﬂice Of Substance Abuse Prevention (DHS), 37 1-3 90.

142

L' Abate, L. (1977). Intimacy is sharing hurt feelings: A reply to David Mace.
Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling,_3_, 13-16.

Leaper, C. (1989, April). Commentary: Sthand other in theories of adolescent
psychosocial development. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research on Child Development. Kansas City, MO.

LeCroy, CW. (1988). Parent-adolescent intimacy: Impact on adolescent
functioning. Adolescence. 23, 137-147.

Leung, L. & Leung, K. (1992). Life satisfaction, self-concept, and relationship

with parents in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 21. 653-665.

Liepmann, D. & Sticksrud, A. (1985). Developmentalplsks and problems in

COping in adolescence. Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Luster, T. & Small, S. (1994). Factors associated with sexual risk-taking behaviors

among adolescents. Joumaﬂ‘ Marriage and F amily. 56, 622-632.

Lyle, J .A. & Newton, B]. (1979) Mother-daughter communication and the

daughter's perceived self-esteem. University of Arizona.

Maccoby, E.E.. & Martin, J .A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In EM. Hetherington (Ed), P.H.Mussen (Series Ed),
Iimdbook of child psychology. Vol. 4. (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.

Malkus, BM. (1994). Family dynamic and structural correlates of adolescent
substance abuse: A comparison of families of non-substance abusers and substance

abusers. Journal of Child & Adolescent Subsaance Abuse. 3(4). 39-52.

Man, P. (1991). The inﬂuence of peers and parents on youth life satisfaction in
Hong Kong. Social Indicaaors resaarch, 24. 347-365.

143

Masselam, V.S., Marcus, R.F. & Stunkard, CL. (1989). _Parent-adolescent

communication, family functioning, and school performance. Unpublished Doctoral

 

Dissertation, University of Maryland.

McCubbin, H.I., Thompson, A.I., Pimer, P.A. & McCubbin, MA. (1988). Family
types and strengths: A life cycle and ecological perspective. Edina, MN. Burgess

International group.

Miller, B.C., McCoy, J.K., Olsen, T.D. & Wallace, CM. (1986). Parental
discipline and control attempts in relation to adolescent sexual attitudes and behavior.

Journa of Marriage and the Fanily. 48, 503-512.

Minnesota Department of Education. (1992). Promisiryaprevention strategies: A

look at what works. Minneapolis, MN.

Montemayor, R. (1983). Parents and adolescents in conﬂict: All families some of

the time and some families most of the time. Journal of Early Adolescencea3, 83-103.

Montemayor, R. & Hanson, E. (1985). A naturalistic view of conﬂict between

adolescents and their parents and siblings. Journal of Earlav Adolescence. 5. 23-30.

Moos, RH. (1974). Family environment scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Niemi, PM. (1974). How fapnily members perceive each other. New York: Yale

University Press.

Niemi, PM. (1988). Family Interaction Patterns and the Development of Social

Conceptions in the Adolescent. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 17, No. 5.

Nolin, M.J. and Petersen, K.K. (1992) Gender differences in parent-child

communication about sexuality. Journa of Adolescent Resgyrch. 7. No. 1.

Oerter, R. (1985). Coping in adolescence. Weinheirn: Verlag Chemie.

144

Offer, D. & Offer, J. (1985). From teenage to youngadulthood: A psghological
study. New York: Basic Books.

Offer, D., Ostrov, E. & Howard, K.I. (1981) The adolescent: A psychological self-
portrait. New York: Basic Books.

Offer, D., Ostrov, E., Howard, K.I. & Atkinson, R. (1988). The teenage world:

Adolescents' self-image in ten countries. New York: Plenum.

Ohannessian, CM. (1995). Discrepancies in adolescents’ and parents’ perceptions
of family functioning and adolescent emotional adjustment. Journal of Early Adolescence.

15(4), 490-516.
Olbrich, E. & Todt, E. (Eds). (1984). Problems ofadolescence. Berlin: Springer.

Olson, DH. (1991) Commentary: Three-dimensional (3D) Circumplex model and
revised scoring of FACES IH. _Flimily Process. 30. 74-79.

Olson, D.H., Fournier, D.G. & Druckman, J .M. (1988). Prepare enrich counselor's
manual pp. 98-122. Minneapolis, MN, Prepare Enrich, Inc.

Olson, D.H., McCubbin, H.I., Barnes, H.L., Larsen, A.S., Muxen, M.J.& Wilson,
M.A.(1989). Families: What makes them work. Newbury Park, CA. Sage Pub.

Olson, D.H., Portner, J. & Bell, R. (1982). FACES II . St. Paul: Family Social

Science, University of Minnesota.

Olson, D.H., Russell, C.S., & Sprenkle, DH. (1983). Circumplex model: VI.
Theoretical update. ﬁrmilyv Process, 22. 69-83.

Olson, D.H., Russell, C.S. & Sprenkle, D.H.(1989), Editors. Circumplex model:
Mssessment and treatament of families. New York, Haworth Press.

Olson, D.H. & Tiesel (1991) FACES II: Linaar scoringﬁ interpretation. Family

Inventories Project, Univ. of Minn.

145

O' Malley, P. & Bachman, J. (1983). Self-esteem: Change and stability between
ages 13 and 23. Developmental’avchology, 19, 257-268.

Openshaw, D.K., Mills, T.A., Adams, G.R. & Durso, DD. (1992). Conﬂict
resolution in parent-adolescent dyads: The inﬂuence of social skills training. Journal of

Adolescent Research. 7, 457-468.

Paikoff, R.L. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991. Do parent-child relationships change
during puberty? Psychological Bulletin, 110, 47-66.

Papini, D.R., Clark, S.M., Barnett, J .K., & Savage, CL. (1989). Grade, pubertal
status, and gender-related variations in conﬂictual issues among adolescents. Adolescence

_23, 977-987.

Papini, D.R., Clark, S.M., Barnett, J.K., & Snell, W.E. (1989). Early adolescent
age and gender differences in patterns of emoticm self-disclosure to parents and peers.
Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, April 1989. Kansas City, MO.

Papini, D.R. & Sebby, RA. (1987). Adolescent pubertal status and affective family

relationships: A multivariate assessment. Journal of Youth aad Adolescence. 16. 3-15.

Papini, D.R., Sebby, R.A. & Clark, S. (1989). Aﬂeaive quality of family relations
and adolescent identity exploration. Adolescence, 24. 457-466.

Pasley, K. & Gecas, V. (1984). Stresses and satisfactions of the parental role.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 2, 400-404.

Peterson, G.W. & Rollins, BC. ((1987). Parent-child socialization: A review of
research and applications of symbolic interaction concepts. Pp. 471-507 in MB. Sussman
and SK. Steinmetz (Eds) Handbooak of marriage and the family. New York: Plenum

Press.

146

Peterson, G.W., Rollins, B.C., Thomas, D.L. & Ellis, G.H. (1980). Multiple
dimensions of parental control and support. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

National Council on Family Relations. Portland, Oregon.

Prinz, R.J., Foster, 5., Kent, R.N. & O' Leary, K.D. (1979). Multivariate

assessment of conﬂict in distressed and non-distressed mother-adolescent dyads. Journal

 

of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 691-700.

Rawlins, W.K. & Holl, MR. (1988). Adolescents' interaction with parents and

friends: Dialectics of temporal perspective and evaluation. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 5, 27-46.

Reuter, M.A. & Conger, RD. (1995). Antecedents of parent-adolescent
disagreements. Journal of Marriage and Family. 57. 435-448.

Rhoner, RP. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-
rejection theory. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rice, K.G. & Mulkeen, P. (1995). Relationships with parents and peers: A
longitudinal study of adolescent intimacy. Jouml of Adolescent Research. 10(3), 338-57.

Robin, AL. (1981). Problem solving communication training: A behavioral

approach to the treatment of parent-adolescent conﬂict. American Joumal of Family

Therapy, 7, 69-82.

Rodick, P., Henggeler, S.W. & Hansen, G. (1986). An evaluation of Family
Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales and the Circumplex model. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 77-87.

Rollins, B.C. & Feldman, H. (1970). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle
Joumalaof Marriage and the Family, 32. 20-28.

147

Rollins, B.C. & Thomas, D.L. (1979). Parental support, power, and control
techniques in the socialization of children. Pp. 317-364 in W.R. Burr, R.I-Iill, R.I. Nye,
and IL. Reiss (Eds), Contemporary theories about the faintly/1V0]. 1). New York: Free

Press.

Ross, M. & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution.
Journal of Persopality and Social Psychology, 37, 322-336.

Rowntree, D. (1981). Statistics without tears. New York: Charles Scribner’s

Sons

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

turmoil: Fact or ﬁction? Jourpal of Adolescence. 10, 163-186.

Scheer, S.D. (1995). Parents’ perceptions of their adolescence: Implications for
parent-youth conﬂict and family satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 76(1Ll31-136.

Schiamberg, L.B.(1988). Child and adolescent development. New York:
Macmillan Pub.

Schoenleber, K. & Collins, WA. (1988). Parental perceptions. conﬂict. and family

satisfaction in preadolescence and adolescence. Unpublished manuscript, Institute of

 

Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Schor, E.L., Stidley, D.A. & Malspeis, S. (1995). Behavioral correlates of
diﬂ’erences between a child’s assessment and the parents’ assessment of the child’s self-

esteem. Journa of Development & Behayioral Pediatrics. 16(4), 211-219.

Selman, R.L. (1989). Fostering intimacy and autonomy. In W. Damon (Ed), Child
development todayand tomorrow (pp. 409-435). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shields, G. (1995). Family correlates of delinquency: Cohesion and adaptability.
Journal of Sociolo - & Soaial Welfare. 22(2), 93-106.

148

Siegal, M. (1987). Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers than

by mothers? Development ReviewJ, 183-211.

 

Simon, R.L. & Miller, MG. (1987). Adolescent depression: Assessing the impact

of negative cognitions and socio-environmental problems. Social Worka32. 326-330.

Small, SA. (1988). Parental self-esteem and its relationship to childrearing
practices, parent-adolescent interaction, and adolescent behavior. Journiof Marriage and

the Family, 50, 1063-1072.

Small, S.A., Cornelius, S.S. & Eastman, G. (1983 1. Parenting adolescent children:

A period of adult storm and stress? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.

Small, S.A., Cornelius, S. & Eastman, G., (1988). Adolescent autonomy and

parental stress. Journal of Youﬁand Adolescence. 17, No. 5.

Smetana, JG. (1988). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority.
Child Development. 59. 321-335.

Smetana, J .G. (1989). Adolescents' and parents' reasoning about actual family
conﬂict. Child Development. 60. 1052-1067.

Steinberg, L. (1987). Recent research on the family at adolescence: The extent and

nature of sex differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 16, 191-197.

 

Steinberg, L. (1987). Impact of puberty on family relations: Effects of pubertal
status and pubertal timing. DevelopmentalaPaychology, 23, 451-460.

Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relation between parent-child distance and
pubertal maturation. Develomnental Psychology, 24, 122-128.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conﬂict, and harmony in the family relationship.
In S.S. Feldman & GR. Elliot (Eds), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp.
255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

149

Steinberg, L., Elmen, J .D. & Mounts, N. (1989), Authoritative parenting,

psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development. 60,

424-436.

Steinberg, L. & Silverberg, S. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early
adolescence. Child Development, 57. 841-851.

Stinnett, N. & DeFrain, J. (1985). Secrets of strong families. Little, Brown and
Co.

Sullivan, K. & Sullivan, A. (1980). Adolescent-parent separation. Developmental

Psychology, 16, 93-99.

Surra, C.A. & Ridley, C. (1991). Multiple perspectives on interaction: Participants,
peers and observers, In B.M. Montgomery & S.W. Duck (Eds), Studying interpersoaal
WWPJS-SS). New York: Guilford.

 

Sussman and SK. Steinmetz (Eds) Handbook of marriage and the family. New

York: Plenum Press.

Tisdell, D.A. & St. Lawrence, J .S. (1988). Adolescent interpersonal problem-
solving skill training: Social validation and generalization. Behavior Therapy. 1.9, 171-182.

Touliatos, J ., Perlmutter, BF. & Straus, M.A.(l990). Editors. Handbook of family
W. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Pub.

Tyler, EB. (1978). Individual psychosocial competence: A personality
conﬁguration. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 309-323.

Umberson, D. (1989). Relationships with children: Explaining parents'
PSYchOlogical well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 999-1012.

 

Van Wel, F. (1994) I count my parents among my best friends: Youth's bonds with
parents and ﬁiends in the Netherlands. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 83 5-843.

150

Wenk, D., Hardesty, C.L., Morgan, C.S. & Blair, S.L. (1994). The inﬂuence of
parental involvement on the well-being of sons and daughters. Joupnal of Marriage and

Family, 56, 229-234.

White, FA. (1996). Family processes as predictors of adolescents’ preferences for

ascribed sources of moral authority: A proposed model. Adolescence, 31(117), 133-144.

White, K.M., Speisman, J .C., Costos, D. & Smith, A. (1987). Relationship
maturity: A conceptual and empirical approach. Contributions to Human Development.

l_8_, 82-102.

Williams, F. (1986) Reasonﬂg with statistics: How to read quantitative research.
New York: CBS College Publishing.

 

Wright, J ., Andrews & McMeel. (1994). The Universal Almanac 1995. Kansas
City, Kansas.

Young, D.W. & Childs, NA. (1994). Family images of hospitalized adolescents:

The failure to generate shared understandings. Psychiatgg: Integpersonal & Biological
Processes 57(3). 258-267.

 

Young, M.H., Miller, B.C., Norton, M.C. & Hill, E]. (1995). The effect of

parental supportive behaviors on life satisfaction of adolescent offspring. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 57, 813-822.

Youniss, J. & Smollar, J. (1985)aAdolescents' relations with mothers. famers. and

friends, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 

Zondervan Bible Publishers (1978). The hol bible new international version,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.