3 Family Environment and Adolescent Development
Communication is also a crucial aspect of the family environment, particularly the micro-environment of parent/s and offspring. Relationships are established and maintained through communication, both verbal and nonverbal, and the family environment is, at least in part, a function of that communication. Where communication is generally positive and constructive, conflicts are resolved and decisions worked through appropriately, family members are likely to do well. We will explore the issue of communication in families with adolescents in the next chapter.
The family environment is actually quite a complex phenomenon. For example, as Family Systems Theory reminds us (see Chapter 2), all the members of the family make a unique contribution to the family environment: each of the parents and each of the siblings. In addition, not all family members experience the family in the same way, but experience it in their own unique way. It is also important to remember that family environments are embedded in communities and in the larger society.
3.1 Family Structure
One important aspect of the family environment is the structure of the family. In Chapter 1, we listed many of the different types of families that exist at the present time. These families may vary in terms of whether there are one or two parents in the family, whether the parents are married or not, whether the children in the family are the biological children of the parent or parents or are adopted, step or foster children. Given the medical treatments available through fertility clinics, the children may even be formed from the egg and/or sperm of strangers.
Do each of these different types of family provide equally good environments for children’s growth and development? It seems to us that the research indicates that overall well-functioning nuclear families in which the children are cared for by both their biological parents provide the best environment for children (e.g., Blackwell, 2010; Sroufe et al., 2005). In making this claim we are not suggesting that all families that are not traditional nuclear families provide poor environments for the children. Many single parents are successful at bringing up their children on their own, a very difficult and demanding task. Nevertheless, the data seem to show that compared with children in nuclear families, there is a greater risk of ongoing problems for children in single-parent families as well as in other types of nonnuclear families.
For example, in their longitudinal (3-decade) study of development in children born into poverty, Sroufe et al. (2005) found that if a mother was single at the time of a child’s birth, the child was more likely to have behaviour problems than was true for those whose parents were married (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland & Carlson, 2000; Carlson, Jacobvitz & Sroufe, 1995). These children were more likely to have attention/ hyperactivity problems when they were in elementary school, and to be involved in drug and alcohol problems as adolescents, as well as engaging in risky sexual behaviours at that stage of their lives.
Of course, it is important to acknowledge that the fact that these children were born into families in poverty may well have implications for their futures, irrespective of their family structure. We will return to the issue of the implications of financial status later in this section. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA carry out regular surveys of the physical and mental health of families and children and these surveys are known as the National Interview Health Surveys. Children who participate in these surveys are randomly selected, one child per family, to engage in a face-to-face interview along with a supporting adult familiar with the child’s health issues. Thus this study does not focus only on those children born into poverty, but focuses on the broad range of families, coming from a range of different communities and ethnic groups. In a recent paper (Blackwell, 2010), reports were provided on the links between family structure and children’s physical and emotional health in the USA, using the surveys from 2001 to 2007.
Children in nuclear families were more likely than children in nonnuclear families to enjoy optimal health and less likely to have a physical disability, a learning disability or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), to behave badly at home and/or school and to have displayed emotional or behavioural difficulties during the six months preceding the interviews. It is important to note that the findings for single-parent families were very similar to those for other nonnuclear families. Thus nuclear families are more likely than all other types of families to provide optimal family environments for their children. These findings do not mean that all children in stable nuclear families grow up in optimal environments, nor do they mean that all children in nonnuclear families struggle. These findings mean that, on average, children in nuclear families have a better chance than children in other forms of family of doing well on a range of physical and emotional variables.
This study covered a large number of families across a 7-year period, so these findings are well based. We are not arguing that all adolescents in nonnuclear families have problems and nor are we arguing that all children who grow up in traditional families have problem-free lives. There is strong evidence, however, that children brought up by their two biological parents have a better chance of doing well for a range of reasons.
3.1.1 The Role of Financial Difficulties
It is important to note that part of the problem for nonnuclear families concerns the fact that these families are more likely to be struggling financially in ways that affect the health of the children. Blackwell (2010) reported that parents in nonnuclear families were more likely to lack health insurance (a very important issue in the USA), more likely to have to delay having a prescription dispensed for their child or children, and more likely to forego dental care for themselves and their children because of the costs. These findings fit with data showing that married people tend to be better off financially than those who are not married (Waite & Gallagher, 2000).
Hao (1996) was interested in how family structure affects net financial worth, studying households in the process of raising children, a stage when most families have minimal savings and few assets. The participant families included Caucasian, Hispanic and African American families residing in the USA. She found that married families were marginally better off financially than remarried families and single-father families, but single mothers and cohabiting couples had minimal wealth and single-mother families had no assets at all. Of course, a number of these single mothers would have been unmarried adolescents who were poorly educated, struggling to pay their bills and with little possibility of accumulating wealth (Demo & Cox, 2000; Magnusson & Berger. 2009; Osborrne & McLanahan; 2007). These are not isolated findings.
It is important to comment, however, that a lack of financial resources, per se is unlikely to account for some of the differences in child behaviour reported in the Blackwell (2010) study. Having a physical disability, a learning disability, ADHD or behaving badly at home or school are unlikely to be caused by low levels of financial resources. On the other hand, having few resources may make it much more difficult for parents to deal with these problems. In addition, there is evidence, as we will explore more fully in the section on social class and economics, that poorer neighbourhoods tend to be inhabited by single-parent and other nonnuclear families and the adolescents in these families are more likely to be involved in delinquent behaviour, at least partly because of the environments in which they live (Hoffman, 2006; Weijters, Scheepers & Gerris, 2006).
Thompson, Hanson and McLanahan (1994) noted that academic performance was particularly affected by the lack of financial resources in single-mother families and in families where the mother of the children lived with a male partner unrelated to the children. They point out that the effects of financial pressures on academic performance were stronger than the effects of these pressures on problem behaviours and temperaments. They argue that the differences in problem behaviour and temperament between the adolescents who lived with both of their biological parents and those who lived only with their mothers while the fathers resided elsewhere were generally related to the level of support from both of their parents experienced by the young people in nuclear families.
3.1.2 Financial Difficulties or Problems with Parenting?
As Turunen (2013) notes, there are two popular explanations about the differences between the offspring of nuclear families and those single-parent and stepfamily households. These are differences in financial resources just discussed and differences in parenting (Sweeney, 2010). Turunen points out that Sweden, where his study was carried out has been a fore-runner in terms of alternative family forms and also has a government that provides generous support to families and has measures in place to support post divorce families. In his study, Turunen focuses on two hypotheses: the economic deprivation hypothesis and the socialization hypothesis.
Turunen (2013) compared five different types of families; original 2-parent families, single-mother families, single-father families, mother-stepfather families and father-stepmother families. He found little support for the economic deprivation hypothesis, but found that the important mediator of the link between emotional well being in adolescents from both single-parent families and stepfamilies was the relationship between the adolescent and his or her biological parent. This finding is different from that of Sweeney (2007) using an American sample. Sweeney found that financial conditions were the main mediator for single-parent families whereas for stepfamilies it was the relationship with the parent. Sweeney also showed that comparing single-parent families with stepfamilies entered into following a divorce ameliorated some of the negative effects, both because of higher levels of contact with parents and increased income for stepfamilies.
3.1.3 Presence or Absence of Fathers
There is some evidence, that fathers’ involvement with their children is as important for adult functioning as is the involvement of mothers (Lewis & Lamb, 2003), but in most families, mothers tend to be more involved with their adolescents than are fathers. Division of labour tends to involve mothers having particular responsibility for adolescents’ discipline, daily care and recreational activities, even when these mothers are working fulltime. In one study, however, mothers tended to be more satisfied when fathers were prepared to take more responsibility for adolescents’ leisure activities (Phares, Fields & Kamboukos, 2009).
Adolescents whose fathers are involved in their lives tend to have fewer problems than those with uninvolved fathers. Where fathers were involved, adolescents were less likely to be hyperactive, had fewer difficulties and engaged in more prosocial behaviour (Flouri, 2007). Father involvement was not related to children’s problems with their peers, behaviour problems or emotional problems. Stepfathers were more likely than resident biological fathers to report problems in their adolescents’ behaviour in this British study. Conflict between parents had the most consistent impact on adolescents’ behaviour. This finding is in line with the findings of Amato and Keith (1991) who showed that across many studies, conflict between parents was more important than father absence in predicting adjustment problems in children and adolescents. (See also Chapter 5 on divorce and families).
In a study of a large sample of US adolescents with non-resident fathers, Mitchell, Booth and King (2009) found that, overall, sons and daughters tended to report being equally involved with their non-resident fathers. Sons reported feeling closer to their fathers than daughters did, but this may be because of common interests. Sons were more likely to report sharing activities with their fathers such as movies and sport and were even more likely than daughters to spend the night with their fathers. Nevertheless, girls who reported feeling closer to their fathers also reported lower levels of internalizing problems such as depression, anxiety and lack of self-esteem.
In a US study comparing adolescent boys living with both biological parents with another group of boys who lived with their mothers while the father resided elsewhere (Jones, Kramer, Armitage & Williams, 2003), the focus was on the separation/ individuation (see Chapter 2) of the adolescents. There were no differences on this variable between the two groups of adolescents, but the quality of the mother-son relationship was very important. In addition, where contact with non-resident fathers was frequent, adolescents experienced a more healthy level of individuation.
In another US study of adolescents’ relationships with resident stepfathers and non-resident biological fathers, adolescents varied greatly in terms of whether they had close relationships with these different types of fathers (King, 2006). Those adolescents who had close relationships with both types of fathers tended to have better mental health outcomes. In addition, relations with stepfathers had a stronger impact on adolescents than relationships with non-resident fathers, presumably because the young people actually lived with their stepfathers. (See Chapter 5 for more information about stepfamilies)
Overall, these studies point to the importance of children having a relationship with a father or father figure. While children tended to do better when their biological father was involved in their lives, especially when he actually lived with them, non-resident fathers and stepfathers also tended to provide a positive influence. Of course, when fathers were violent or abusive, or in constant conflict with the mother their involvement could be detrimental to the children.
3.1.4 Instability of Family Structure
An important question concerns not only family structure but also whether that structure is stable or unstable. To explore this question, Fomby and Cherlin (2007), used another US database (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth NLSY79, Bureau of Labour Statistics et al., 2002) that provided data from surveys conducted from 1979 through 2000. They also used the 2000 mother-child supplement, Children of the NLSY from the same bureau. Because of their two-generation design, these databases provided information about the mother’s background before the child was born, that could be used in conjunction with data about the children in 2000.
Based on these data, it seems that not just family structure but instability in family structure does have an impact on children (Fomby & Cherlin, 2007). Fomby and Cherlin assessed whether cognitive achievement and emotional and behavioural problems in young people were affected by the number of times the structure of their family changed when they were growing up (e.g., a parent moving out of the family or the mother’s new partner moving in) for both African-American and white children. They found that for white children, the number of transitions was significantly associated with self-reported delinquent behaviour for those young people aged between 10 and 14. The significance of the association remained when characteristics of the mother before the child was born were controlled for. We will discuss the findings for African-American children later in this section.
Earlier research had shown emotional and behavioural problems in children who experienced changes in family structure. For example, research involving children in elementary school indicates that compared with children who have experienced no or one change in family structure, children whose families have been involved in two or more transitions (e.g., a family changing from a 2-parent family to a single-parent family and then to a 2-parent family with a step-parent) are more likely to be disruptive in school and struggle academically (Kurdek, Fine & Sinclair, 1995; Martinez & Forgatch, 2002).
In addition, Najman et al., (1997) in Australia, found that children who experienced even one change in family structure when they were very young tended to engage in more problematic behaviour than other children by the time they were five. In a study of American adolescents, Pong and Ju (2000) showed that young people who had experienced more than one change in the structure of their family were more likely than those in stable families to drop out of school. Thus studies in both America and Australia support the proposition that instability in family structure is disruptive for children and is associated with a range of adjustment and behaviour problems.
Fomby and Cherlin (2007) wanted to move beyond these earlier findings and be able to test the alternative hypothesis that the problems were caused, not necessarily by changes in family structure, but by characteristics of the mother before the child was born. In other words, they wanted to directly test the instability hypothesis against the selection hypothesis. They argue that although there is evidence that measures of family instability and of children’s well being are correlated, one or both may be affected by a third set of variables such as the parents’ cognitive abilities and their personality characteristics. This study focused just on transitions in the marital status of the mother.
Fomby and Cherlin (2007) found different effects depending on whether the child being assessed was white or African-American. For white children, the association between number of family structure changes and a child’s externalizing behaviour was lower than for the African American children, but still significant, when attributes of the mother were included in the model. In other words, both the characteristics of the mother and the amount of instability are associated with the outcome for the child. The characteristics of the mother found to be associated with her child’s externalizing behaviour included having sex before she was 16, having a baby while still a teenager, the number of relationship transitions she experienced before the birth of the child, her education level and her self-esteem.
For African-American children, there was generally no significant association between changes in family structure and child behaviour problems even when attributes of the mother were included in the model. This difference may be related to the more open family structure of African-American families, with grandparents and other relatives tending to play a more important role and this involvement may provide a level of stability for the children, regardless of changing structure in the immediate family (Fomby & Cherlin, 2007).
On the other hand, in a study of Mexican-American families, children were assessed at Grade 5 and again at Grade 7 in terms of both mental health and academic performance (Vargas, Root, Knight and O’Donnell, 2013). These researchers found that in those families that had experienced instability between Grades 5 and 7, there were higher levels of mother-adolescent conflict in Grade 7 that was related to lower levels of attachment to school and higher levels of both internalizing and externalizing problems. In addition, the higher level of mother-adolescent conflict mediated the association between family instability, lower academic performance and mental health.
3.2 What Makes a Positive Family Environment?
According to a small interview study of Finnish adolescents by Joronen and Astedt-Kurki (2005), the essential features of the family environment that contribute to the sense of well being of family members include an emotionally warm atmosphere, open communication, parent/s being involved in their young people’s lives through fun activities, and parent/s encouraging them and providing supervision when needed. Other factors mentioned were having a sense of being important in the family and the possibility of relationships outside the family.
The factors that these Finnish adolescents saw as contributing most to their lack of well-being were hostility in the family, death or chronic illness of a family member, and a sense of being excessively dependent on parents for financial or other help. This finding may help to explain why so many young people these days take on work as soon as they are old enough, and continue to work throughout the period of their education, often to the detriment of their studies.
As Sroufe et al. (2005) note, an important question concerning adolescence is “why some young people thrive and others seriously falter during this challenging period” (p. 175). These researchers see the answer as related to the extent to which the young person has developed a healthy self-esteem and has experienced close connections with others who support them and are available to help them when needed. On the other hand, behavioural problems in the Sroufe et al. study were associated with a family climate “of violence, chaos and disruption in the home” (p. 197).
Sroufe et al., (2005) see the capacity for intimacy that is so vital to successful personal relationships as stemming from the early care and ongoing support that the young people receive from their parents, as well as their history of relationships with peers. How well parents in particular are able to provide this ongoing support for their children depends on a range of factors such as their own personal characteristics and their relationship with one another, as well as the wider social environment in which they parent their children. The important point here is that, as we noted earlier, relationships in adolescence build upon the quality of relationships in childhood (Collins & Laursen, 2004).
3.2.1 Characteristics of Parent/s
While we acknowledge that in this 21st Century, and perhaps particularly in Western countries, not all families include both biological parents of the children, and some parents will not be married, we still believe that it is important to discuss the role of parents, including married parents, in creating a healthy environment for their children. Parents and the quality of their relationship are central to the functioning of the family. In fact, as Erel and Burman (1995) note, “the marital relationship is regarded by many as the core of family solidarity and the key element in determining the quality of family life” (p.108). In this section, we will explore individual characteristics of the parent/s such as personality, attachment security and mental health that may have an impact on the family environment. In a later section, we will explore the issue of the quality of the relationship between parents and implications of that relationship for the healthy functioning of the family and the well being of family members. We also explore various factors that have an impact on the parenting style of the parent/s and the consequences of that style for adolescent family members.
Rather than just assessing one family risk factor for adolescents such as instability, Buehler and Gerard (2013) focused on the implications of cumulative risk for early adolescents across four domains: socioeconomic, parents’ psychological distress, marital problems and parenting issues. Effects were assessed both concurrently and across time. For the 6th grade adolescents, cumulative family risk was associated with higher levels of internalizing problems for daughters that tended to increase in early adolescence, as well as an increase in externalizing problems over time. For sons, cumulative family risk was associated only with higher levels of externalizing problems. For both sons and daughters, family risk was related to lower grades concurrently and to declining levels of achievement over time. It is important to note that these were two-parent families but could include long-term cohabitants who were not married.
3.2.2 Parent Personality
There is evidence that parents who are high in neuroticism or emotional instability and low in extraversion are more rejecting and less warm towards their offspring than other parents (Arrindell et al., 1999). Parents who are stable, responsible and friendly tend to relate better to their children and tend to be high in warmth and acceptance and low in rejection (Aluja, Del Barrio & Garcia, 2007). All these characteristics are important for adolescent adjustment.
Conscientiousness is another personality factor relevant to parenting. For example, in an Australian study, Heaven and Newbury (2004) found that if parents were high in conscientiousness, adolescents were likely to do well at school. Characteristics such as persistence, dutifulness and being organized may be modelled by these parents for their children.
There is also evidence that fathers who are high in anxiety and low in conscientiousness are more likely to have sons involved in delinquent activities (Heaven, Newbury & Mak, 2004), suggesting that fathers’ anxiety and the chaotic nature of the family contribute to the young people feeling unsafe and more likely to seek safety elsewhere such as in gangs. In this same study, Australian adolescents whose fathers were low in warmth were more likely to be depressed than those whose fathers were high in warmth, and this was particularly true for daughters. This finding illustrates the importance of father warmth for young people’s self-esteem and further supports the importance of fathers.
3.2.3 Attachment Security
We often think about how important it is for babies to be securely attached to their parent/s, but rarely think about the secure attachment of adolescents or their parents. Individuals who are secure in attachment tend to have confidence that their loved ones will be available to them when needed and they tend to be comfortable with being close to others. They are also happy to depend on others and to have others depend on them (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Secure people also tend to report warmer, more stable and more satisfying romantic relationships than insecure people and report high levels of trust, self-disclosure, caregiving and social support (Collins, 1996; Feeney & Noller, 1991; Kunce & Shaver, 1994). According to these researchers, those who are avoidant in terms of their attachment tend to prefer distance from others more than closeness and are not sure about the likely availability of loved ones when they themselves need help. Those who are anxiously attached, on the other hand, have a strong need for intimacy (often want to be closer to other people than those people are comfortable with), and a high fear of rejection or abandonment.
3.2.3.1 Correspondence Between Attachment Styles of Parents And Offspring
There is evidence of a strong correspondence between mothers’ security of attachment and the security of attachment of their infants (Benoit & Parker, 1994) even across three generations (that is, mothers, children and grandmothers). In addition, in a sample of young Israeli adults, Mikulincer and Florian (1999a) found strong correspondence between the attachment of these young people and the attachment style of their same-sex parent. In a different study, these researchers also showed that young parents tended to have differing views of the way their families functioned, depending on their own attachment style (Mikulincer & Florian, 1999b). Those who reported being secure in attachment saw their families as high in both closeness and flexibility; those who reported being anxious in attachment saw their families as high in closeness but low in flexibility; and those who reported being avoidant in terms of their attachment saw their families as low in both closeness and flexibility. These findings point to the problems with self-report studies where a single participant reports on both their own attachment and the state of the family.
On the other hand, these findings make sense in terms of adolescents attempting to maximise their experience in their families. For example, adolescents who are both confident in the ongoing nature of their close relationship with their parents and are free to explore would feel secure in their place within the family. Adolescents who experience their parents as close to them but controlling may become anxious about their relationships as they attempt to follow the rigid rules laid down by those parents whilst trying to maintain a comfortable level of closeness. Also, adolescents who perceive their relationships with their parents as distant and experience control rather than flexibility may be avoidant in their relationships as they do not feel connected to the family. Those who are secure in attachment seem to have positive views of their family that reflect their own security, whereas those individuals who are insecure in terms of their attachment see their family in a more negative light. What is hard to work out from this study is the extent to which their perceptions reflect the true state of their families.
Research on attachment security in adolescents and their parents has shown a positive correlation between secure attachment in parents and self-esteem in their adolescents (Arbona & Power, 2003; Leondari & Kiosseoglou, 2002; Rubin, Dwyer, Booth-LaForce, Kim, Burgess & Rose-Krasnor (2004). There is also evidence of a negative correlation between secure attachment in parents and aggression in their adolescents (Arbona & Power, 2003; Fergusson & Lynskey, 1998; Laible et al., 2000). Thus attachment security in parents seems critical to the mental health of their adolescents.
3.2.3.2 Impact of Attachment on Parenting Style
As well as these links between parents’ attachment security and the psychological adjustment of their adolescents, there is also evidence that how individuals parent is affected by attachment style (Cohn, Cowan, Cowan, & Pearson, 1992). Across several studies, secure individuals (adolescents and adults) described their parents as caring, accepting and responsive, whereas insecure individuals tended to describe their parents as lacking in care, responsiveness and acceptance (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). Although these data tend to again raise the issue of whether it is just the perceptions of families that are affected by attachment insecurity, Cohn et al. showed that parents classified as insecure were actually less warm in their interactions with their children than those classified as secure, and that children of insecure parents were less warm towards their parents than were children of secure parents. These researchers were also able to show that the risk of inadequate or ineffective parenting was even greater when both parents were insecure in attachment. In addition, children of insecure parents were less warm towards their parents than children of secure parents, suggesting a way by which attachment style could be passed through the generations (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1: Attachment Style and Parenting
| Attachment Style of Parent | |
|---|---|
| Secure | See families as high in both closeness and flexibility |
| Insecure | Less warm in interactions with family members |
| Lacking in responsiveness and acceptance | |
| If anxious, see families as high in closeness and low in flexibility | |
| Attachment Style of Adolescent | |
| Secure | See parents as caring, accepting and responsive |
| Insecure | Less warm towards their parents than children of secure parents |
3.3 Mental Health of Parents
Mental health issues of parents that are associated with the mental health of adolescents include depression, alcoholism, drug abuse and violence. Van Loon, Van Ven, Van Doesum et al. (2013) claim that in the Netherlands, approximately 17 percent of adolescents live with a mentally-ill parent. According to Van Santvoort (2012) around 50 percent of these adolescents are at risk of developing mental health problems themselves. Van Loon et al. compared adolescents from families with a mentally-ill parent with those whose parents were healthy. They compared these adolescents in terms of their self-reports of their externalizing and internalizing behaviours. Parents completed questionnaires about their mental health and about their monitoring of their adolescents and the level of support they provided for them. Findings indicated higher levels of negativity in the interactions between mentally-ill parents and their offspring and less monitoring of their adolescents. This lack of monitoring was associated with more externalizing behaviour on the part of their adolescents.
3.3.1 Parent Depression
Maternal depression is an important predictor of adolescent depression, but only for girls (Sroufe et al., 2005). Sroufe and colleagues found that the only real difference between adolescents with serious depression and those who were not depressed was whether the mother was depressed. For boys, having a depressed mother was more strongly associated with depression in childhood than with depression in adolescence.
Having depressed parents tends to put children at risk for a range of adjustment problems, including clinical depression (Downey & Coyne, 1990). These children also experience higher levels of psychiatric disturbance, and they also tend to have deficits in social and academic performance that are not related to their intellectual ability. These young people also tend to have poorer physical health than other young people, and are likely to have a negative self-concept and negative ideas about relationships (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Parent Mental Health and Adolescent Outcomes
| Mental Health Problem | Possible Outcome for Adolescents |
|---|---|
| Depression | Maternal depression leads to depression in adolescence for girls |
| Range of psychiatric disturbances | |
| Poor physical health | |
| Negative self-concept | |
| Negative ideas about relationships | |
| Alcohol and drug abuse | High levels of disruptive behaviour problems for boys |
| Issues around consumption of alcohol | |
| Personality problems | |
| Other mental health issues | |
| Struggle with education | |
| Difficulties with social relationships | |
| Violence | Negative impact on well-being |
| Becoming victim of violence from parent | |
| Conduct disorder | |
| Risk of perpetrating violence against peer or romantic partner |
In a longitudinal study using an Australian sample (Tartter, Hammen & Brennan, 2013), data on depression and externalizing problems in the adolescents were collected before age 15, and the presence of substance use disorders was assessed between the ages of 16 and 20. These researchers were focused on whether depression and externalizing disorders in early adolescence mediate the association between maternal depression and the likelihood of developing a substance use disorder in late adolescence. Tartter et al. found that externalizing disorders in the adolescents directly predicted all diagnoses of substance abuse in late adolescence. These disorders also mediated the relationship between maternal depression and drug abuse but only for alcohol and cannabis.
3.3.2 Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Adolescent sons of alcoholic fathers tend to display higher levels of disruptive behaviour problems than their peers whose fathers are not alcoholic (Loukas, Zucker, Fitzgerald & Krull, 2003). Young adult children with an alcoholic father tend to experience serious issues around their drinking of alcohol and other mental health issues (Van Loon et al, 2013). Kendler et al. (2012) also found evidence of genetic and family environment effects on the risk of drug abuse. In this Swedish study involving adopted and natural family members, young adult children with an alcoholic father were also likely to struggle in terms of coping with their education and their social lives. In contrast, Yule and Prince (2012) found that exposure to the drug dependence of their mothers increased the likelihood that female adolescents and their siblings would develop problems with drugs. There was also an overall effect of parental substance use on increased drug use in offspring. (See Chapter 6 for further discussion of the impact of parents’ drinking behaviour on the drinking of their adolescents.)
In a study of risk and protective factors for adolescents in Central America, family problems with drugs and alcohol were again shown to be risk factors for the adolescents, increasing the chances that they would also be involved in various kinds of drug abuse (Kliewer & Murrelle, 2007). It is interesting to note that religious factors such as parent religiosity and a personal belief in God decreased the chances that an adolescent exposed to risk factors would have problems with drugs.
3.4 Marital Or Relationship Satisfaction, Conflict And Violence
3.4.1 Marital Satisfaction
While acknowledging that families can take different forms, as we have noted earlier in this chapter, there is a lot of research about marital relationships and their impact on families and adolescents that is important to our understanding of adolescent development. Because it does not seem appropriate to ignore the fact that marital relationships were being studied, we have chosen to continue to use the word “marital” when discussing these studies.
Marital satisfaction has an impact on the parenting styles used by parents in raising their children (Aluja et al., 2007). Parenting styles are associated with personality factors, satisfaction with the marriage and social values. Further, parents who are emotionally stable and responsible are more likely to have satisfying marriages and hence are more likely to be warm and accepting in their relationships with their children, and less likely to be rejecting.
Partners in distressed relationships tend to model interactions that are hostile or lacking in warmth and caring, whereas those in harmonious relationships tend to model interactions that are warm and caring rather than hostile (Noller et al., 1995). There is a strong positive association between the quality of the marital relationship and the quality of the parent-child relationship (Erel & Burman, 1995). In other words, the positive feelings engendered by a satisfying marriage will spill over to the parent-child relationship, and the negative feelings experienced in a distressed relationship are also likely to spill over to the parent-child relationship. For example, there is specific evidence for fathers, in particular, with their perceptions of their children being more negative if they see their relationship with their wife as coercive and lacking in goodwill (Noller et al., 2000).
3.4.2 Marital or Relationship Conflict
There is a lot of evidence for the detrimental effects of marital or relationship conflict on parent-child relationships and adolescent well-being. Marital conflict has been shown to have a direct effect on adolescent internalizing problems such as depression and anxiety, and also to affect the emotional tone of the parent-child relationship adversely (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Harold, Fincham, Osborn & Conger, 1997). An important issue is how the adolescents perceive the conflict, given that seeing the conflict as negative, irrespective of whether others would see it that way, increases adolescents’ psychological distress (Erel & Burman, 1995). In an Australian study where adolescents listened to audiotapes of a couple arguing and then made ratings of their reactions, adolescents saw coercive interactions as more typical of their parents than the parents did, but were also more optimistic than their parents that the conflict would be resolved (Noller et al., 2006). Presumably these adolescents have seen many conflicts resolved by their parents over their lifetimes and were confident that such issues would continue to be resolved. (See Chapter 4 on Communication in families with adolescents.)
In another Australian study comparing separated/divorcing couples and continuously married couples, the lowest levels of psychological adjustment in the adolescents (low self-esteem, high anxiety and depression) were found in the families that were both separated/divorcing and high in conflict (Noller et al., 2008). In addition, these adolescents tended to see their parents’ conflict in very negative terms, describing their conflicts as stupid and trivial and their parents’ behaviour as immature. Of course, the adolescents may not have understood the underlying issues of power and control and fear of abandonment that were often at the heart of these conflicts. For example, they may not have realised that an argument about where to spend holidays may really be about who has the power to make such a decision, rather than about desirable holiday destinations (see also Chapter 5).
Although some conflict is inevitable in marriage and other close relationships, intense conflict that is chronic has detrimental effects on young people. Given that high conflict couples are likely to behave towards their children in ways that are unresponsive and even cold and angry, the young people are likely to be angry and noncompliant and behave in this way with both their parents and friends (Katz & Gottman, 1996). On the other hand, when marital conflict leads to a couple withdrawing from each other, couples tend to become more power-assertive and less playful with their children, the family environment is likely to be less close and warm and children are more likely to have behaviour problems (Katz & Woodin, 2002; see Table 3.3).
Table 3.3: Marital Satisfaction, Conflict and Adolescent outcomes
| Quality of Parental Relationship | Adolescent Outcomes |
|---|---|
| MARITAL SATISFACTION | |
| High | Warm and accepting in relationships with adolescents |
| Less likely to be rejecting | |
| High quality relationships with adolescents | |
| Positive feelings from marriage spill over to parent-child relationships | |
| Low | Model interactions for adolescents that are hostile or lacking in warmth |
| Negative feelings from marriage spill- over to parent-child relationship especially for fathers | |
| MARITAL CONFLICT | |
| High | Increased risk of depression, anxiety and low self-esteem |
| Family environment less close and warm | |
| Parents more power-assertive | |
| Adolescents become angry and noncompliant with parents and peers | |
| More behaviour problems in adolescents | |
| Low | Mild conflict inevitable in families – few negative effects |
3.4.2.1 Violence
As would be expected, violence in the marital relationship also has a negative impact on adolescent well-being. In addition, exposure to violence between parents increases the risk of young people themselves receiving violence from a parent, and child physical abuse and conduct disorder in adolescence increase the risk of perpetrating violence against a partner later on (Ehrensaft, Cohen, Brown, Smailes, Chen & Johnson (2003). In a large sample of Canadian adults who reported on both marital and parent-child violence in their families, all forms of violence in the family of origin were associated with all forms of relationship violence in later relationships (Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson & Trinke, 2003). There were no differences related to gender or family role. The authors interpret these findings in terms of the general models for violent behaviour that young people experience in their families. Other studies have also shown that marital violence experienced by adolescents is associated with violence in their later relationships (Kassis et al; 2010; Kassis et al., 2011; Sousa et al., 2011).
3.5 Relationships with Extended Family and Community
It is important to remember that families are embedded within a variety of other social systems. Families may operate within a particular cultural or sub cultural group and within a larger community and are also affected by the social conditions and values of the time in which they exist. Families are also embedded in a network of social relationships including extended family members and friends (Parke, 2004a), and these networks can have important influences on family members.
There is some evidence that having a number of unrelated adults involved in one’s network is important for adolescents (Fletcher, Darling, Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1995). For example, adolescents who reported a high level of contact with their parents’ friends and their own friends’ parents tended to perform better academically and behave in more socially acceptable ways than adolescents who did not have this type of contact.
Adolescents across four countries (Canada, France, Belgium and Italy) when asked about their relationships with adults identified few non-related adults but identified a number of members of their extended families that they considered had a significant influence on their lives (Claes, Lacourse, Bouchard & Luckow, 2001). Most of these extended family members played emotional roles such as listening to the adolescents’ issues and providing advice and support. Contacts with extended family members in the European countries, particularly in Italy, were more frequent than in Canada.
Probably the most important members of the extended families of adolescents are grandparents (Bengtson, 2001). Grandparents are seen as influencing adolescents both directly and indirectly and can be family stabilizers, affecting the family environment in ways that help soften the impact of the harshness of modern life (Botcheva & Feldman, 2004; Hagestad, 1985). Grandparents generally play a supportive role in the lives of their adolescent grandchildren, especially when the family is under stress, although they themselves can also be a source of stress and distress, especially if parents see the grandparents as interfering in their relationships with their children. Grandparent relationships tend to be stronger in cultures like China where living arrangements often involve three generations living under one roof, and in non Caucasian groups like African-Americans, Mexican-Americans or American-Indians that emphasize family bonds (Botcheva & Feldman, 2004).
Botcheva and Feldman (2004) found that in Bulgarian families with high levels of economic stress, the presence of a supportive grandparent decreased the effect of economic pressure on the harshness of parenting behaviours, particularly in the case of mothers. Having support from a grandparent also resulted in less depression in adolescents, even when they were experiencing harsh parenting that so often results when a family is having financial difficulties (e.g., Conger & Elder, 1994; Noack, Hofer & Kracke, 1994). Based on the qualitative responses obtained in the Botcheva and Feldman study, girls tended to emphasize the emotional support provided by grandparents who were seen as understanding them better than their parents, whereas boys were more likely to mention support such as providing them with an allowance from their meagre pensions. Overall, grandparents were seen as playing a softening and important role in the family.
3.5.1 Social Class/Economics
Social class and the economic circumstances of families are also likely to affect the family environments of adolescents. In one study, researchers found that economic circumstances affect the parents in terms of their general mood and that financial stress can lead to more marital and relationship conflict and less effective parenting (Conger, Conger, Elder, Lorenz, Simons & Whitbeck, 1993). These researchers showed that hostility and lack of warmth and involvement as well as a lack of discipline all contributed to adverse consequences for this sample of American girls.
3.5.2 Neighbourhoods and Communities
Adolescents may be affected by the neighbourhoods in which they live, and the quality of the neighbourhood can be determined by the socio-economic circumstances of the family. In other words, adolescents with poor or unemployed parents are likely to live in the poorest suburbs with the most problematic schools and can be led into delinquency by their peers. There is evidence that young people in highly disadvantaged communities have an increased risk of becoming violent because of family problems, as well as an increased risk of being exposed to people involved in criminal activities (De Coster, Heimer, & Wittrock, 2006). Another study of the links between poverty and juvenile delinquency was based on a national sample of US adolescents (Carter, Fortson, Hollist, Altheimer, & Schaible, 2007). Carter et al. found that family poverty particularly increased the risk of delinquency in families living in poor communities.
Hoffman (2006) explored adolescent problem behaviours at the level of the family and at the level of the community. Adolescents from families with a recently divorced mother, a mother and stepfather, or a single parent (mother or father) tended to engage in more problem behaviour than those who lived with their biological parents, regardless of the type of community they lived in. In addition, adolescents living in communities that involved a large number of impoverished households, female-headed households or unemployed males were more likely to engage in problem behaviours, regardless of family structure. Thus both family structure and the nature of the community can have independent effects on adolescent problem behaviour. (see Chapter 6 for more information about adolescent problem behaviours)
In a Dutch study focused on the city or neighbourhood determinants of youth delinquency, the percentage of single-parent families in the community had the most significant effect on rates of youth delinquency (Weijters, Scheepers & Gerris, 2009). In addition, social class was associated with the type of work that parents did, which in turn may have had an impact on how these parents behaved towards their children as we shall see in the next section.
Type of neighbourhood can also affect how parents monitor and control their adolescents (Shor, 2000). In this Israeli study, perceptions of situations of abuse and neglect involved comparing parents living in a low-income deprived neighbourhood and parents living in a middle-income neighbourhood. Parents in the deprived neighbourhood emphasized the need to control and monitor their children’s behaviour because of the extra risks to their children’s safety in that environment. Parents in the middle-income neighbourhood, on the other hand, believed that they could use less restrictive monitoring of their children because their neighbourhood was a lot safer.
Cuellar, Jones and Sterrett (2013) produced an integrative review of the research on the impact of neighbourhood characteristics on parenting behaviour. They explored three particular neighbourhood characteristics: danger, disadvantage and disengagement. Danger included crime levels and concerns about safety, disadvantage referred to the absence of financial and institutional resources and disengagement referred to a lack of opportunities for positive involvement available in the neighbourhood. Although these researchers found evidence of the neighbourhood in which children and parents live affecting parenting practices, there were not a lot of consistent findings, likely due to inconsistencies in how parenting and other relevant variables were measured. Disadvantage and disengagement seem to have the strongest impact on parenting and fostering social support among families in disadvantaged communities can be very helpful in producing more positive parenting (Akers & Mince, 2008; DePanfilis & Dubowitz, 2005).
Families and communities can also have positive effects on developmental outcomes for adolescents (Morrissey & Werner-Wilson, 2005). This study particularly focused on participation in out-of-school leisure activities as being associated with positive developmental outcomes for adolescents. Where such activities were available, those young people with positive attitudes towards their families and their communities were more likely to be involved in these leisure activities and more likely to engage in positive social behaviour rather than become involved in problem behaviour and delinquent activities.
Stevick (2007) reports a study of the Amish community, showing how their strong and distinct identity is fostered by the entire Amish community: parents, teachers, neighbours and ministers. He also shows how this strong and distinctive identity keeps most young people from identifying with the outside community, with the result that almost 90 percent of those who grow up in an Amish community choose to remain in that traditional way of life. Of course, it may not only be the strength of their group identity that protects Amish young people. Their traditional way of life means that they are not continually bombarded with the negative influences that are prevalent at least in modern western society.
3.6 Work and Family
Social class can also be associated with the parenting practices of men and women through their occupations (Kohn, 1995). For example, men who work in jobs where they have a lot of autonomy and have to deal with a lot of complexity tend to value independence in their children, and they tend to take their children’s intentions into account when deciding whether and how to punish them (Grimm-Thomas & Perry-Jenkins, 1994). These fathers tended to respond to their children with more warmth and were more likely to try to explain things to them (Greenberger, O’Neil & Nagel, 1994). Children also had fewer behaviour problems when their mothers worked in jobs involving autonomy, such as working with people and providing opportunities for problem-solving (Cooksey, Menaghan & Jekielek, 1997). Kohn also found that men in jobs where they were highly supervised tended to value conformity and obedience in their children and were also more likely to use physical punishment.
Apart from the kinds of work parents do, their work pressures are likely to be associated with the well being of adolescents, especially in dual-earner families (Ransford, Crouter & McHale, 2008). These researchers found that when either parent was in a high-pressure job where little support was provided to workers, both parents reported higher levels of role overload than was true for other families. They reported that the consequent stress affected their families in terms of more conflict and less intimacy in their relationships with their children. In addition, their children were more likely than other children to report symptoms of depression.
In another sample of dual-earner families (Bumpus, Crouter & McHale, 2006), the researchers explored associations between negative work-to-family spill over (when parents’ work has negative consequences for the family) and parents’ knowledge of the daily activities of their young adolescents. Although mothers and fathers in this sample were likely to experience similar levels of negative spill over from work to family, spill over from mothers’ work did not affect mothers’ knowledge of her adolescents’ activities. On the other hand, fathers who reported high levels of spill over tended to know less about their adolescents’ daily activities. These researchers suggest that fathers’ involvement with their adolescents may be seen by them as more voluntary or optional than that of mothers, with mothers believing that knowing about adolescents’ daily activities was part of their role. Another possibility is that the quality of the father-adolescent relationship may depend on the levels of stress experienced by the father at work that day. Adolescents may be more prepared to discuss their activities with their fathers when the fathers are in the right mood (Larson & Richards, 1994).
Where parents work shifts involving nonstandard work schedules (that is, not between 8 am, and 5 pm) there is also likely to be an impact on relationships with adolescents (Davis, Crouter & McHale, 2006). Whereas mothers’ relationships with their adolescents were not negatively affected by shift work, fathers’ relationships with their adolescents were. In fact, adolescents with shift-working mothers reported more intimacy with their mothers than those whose mothers worked standard daytime hours, and these mothers were more knowledgeable about their adolescents’ activities.
Because adolescents whose mothers worked nonstandard shifts reported more intimacy with their mothers than those whose mothers worked daytime shifts, these researchers discuss the possibility that mothers who work shifts may put in a lot of effort to compensate their adolescents for work-related absences. On the other hand, when fathers worked shifts, adolescents reported less intimacy with both parents, especially if there was also conflict in the marriage. Crouter and Goodman (2006) suggest that because mothers’ family responsibilities are more specific, they are likely to make sure their responsibilities are fulfilled whatever their work hours. Again, the implication is that mothers in dual-earner families are more likely than fathers to make sure that they keep in touch with what their adolescents are doing.
Marchena (2005) had adolescents report on the impact on them of parents’ work-family conflict. Although adolescents generally accepted their parents’ work roles, they were sometimes critical of the effects of that work on family life. For example, they did not like the way that mothers who worked from home often ignored them (presumably so that they could get the required amount of work finished). They also were negative about parents’ work keeping them away from home longer than expected, or parents being called to work unexpectedly to fill-in for a colleague. They were also unhappy when parents’ work activities resulted in those parents missing out on important activities in their adolescents’ lives, such as school performances, parent-teacher nights and sporting events. These kinds of incidents were not tolerated more for fathers than for mothers. Both parents were expected to be involved in their adolescent’s lives, irrespective of work commitments. Another interesting aspect of this study was that these adolescents expected that they, too, would work when their own children were adolescents, but presumably would still make more effort to be involved in their children’s lives.
In another study of working mothers (Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2006), young adults were asked to report on the parenting practices of their mothers and fathers while they were growing up, in order to explore whether these differed by whether their mothers worked or not. Those young adults whose mothers worked during most of their childhood tended to report both less discipline and less support from each of their parents than was true for those whose mothers stayed at home. In addition, sons in dual-earner families reported more verbal assaults and more physical assaults from both of their parents than did those sons whose mothers did not work outside the home. Presumably these attacks from parents were related to the stress and pressures that they experienced in their work situations. It is also possible that these young males were not sympathetic to those pressures but selfishly expected parents to spend more time focused on them and their needs.
3.7 Family Functioning and Discipline
3.7.1 Parenting Style
Parenting styles are integral to the development of the family environment or the climate in which families function. Studies of parenting styles used with adolescents tend to show a clear link between parenting styles and the well being of adolescents (Milevsky, Schlechter, Netter & Keehn, 2007). The most commonly used typology of parenting style is that of Baumrind (1971) who focused on three styles: authoritarian, authoritative and permissive, with the authoritative style seen as more beneficial for young people because it involves high warmth or responsiveness and firm control or high demandingness (Baumrind & Black, 1967; Baumrind, 1971, 1983).
Later researchers such as Steinberg (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch & Darling, 1992) have developed a measure based on two underlying dimensions of parenting style: parental support or responsiveness and strict control. Using these two dimensions parents can be categorized as authoritarian (high control and low support), indulgent (high support and low control), authoritative (high support and high control) and uninvolved (low on both support and control).
Baumrind (1991) was able to show that authoritative parents tended to be very successful at producing competent children who did not get involved in the use of illegal drugs. Baumrind (1983) argues that authoritative parents also promote self-efficacy or a sense of competency that gives young people the motivation to try new and even difficult tasks. In addition, parents who use an authoritative style tend to have children who are higher in self-esteem and life-satisfaction and lower in depression (Milevsky et al., 2007), although the effect tends to be clearer for the parenting of mothers than fathers.
It also seems that the impact of an authoritarian parenting style, which tends to be negative in the West, may not be so harmful in other cultures (Rudy & Grusec, 2001). Rudy and Grusec (2001) were interested in the transmission of values in families. They compared a sample of Anglo-Canadians with a sample of Egyptian-Canadians in terms of a range of parenting variables. The age range of those studied was 18 to 62 years. The Egyptian-Canadians were higher than the Anglo-Canadians on authoritarianism, collectivism and anger. For both groups, collectivism was the best predictor of authoritarianism but for the Anglo-Canadian group, lack of warmth was also a predictor. The researchers note that high levels of authoritarianism are not necessarily related to low levels of warmth, more negative attributions about children or rigid information-processing because authoritarianism tends to mean different things depending on whether a culture is collectivist or individualist. It is possible that because collectivist cultures focus on the greater good of the community rather than on the good of the individual, parents feel a stronger need to get this message across to their offspring.
A group of Arab researchers (Dwairy, Mustafa, Abouserie & Farah, 2006) studied a large sample of adolescents coming from eight different Arab societies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. They found that adolescents who experienced inconsistent parenting scored lower in terms of their sense of connectedness in the family and their mental health than those who experienced either controlling parenting or more flexible parenting. It is interesting to note that even in this very different culture, authoritative parenting was associated with better connectedness within the family and better mental health.
Using the measure designed by Steinberg and colleagues, a group of Dutch researchers assessed the relations between parent personality and parenting styles (Huver, Otten, de Vries & Engels, 2009). These researchers were able to show that parents’ levels of extraversion and agreeableness were associated with providing high support for their adolescents, and that parents who were high in emotional stability were more likely to exert strict control. They found that authoritative parents were more likely to be extraverted, agreeable and less emotionally stable than other parents. In fact, emotionally stable parents were more likely to engage in indulgent or uninvolved parenting. Perhaps emotionally stable parents maintain that stability by not becoming over involved in trying to control their children.
Although differences in parenting style between mothers and fathers has not received a lot of research attention, McKinney and Renk (2008) explored the association between late adolescents’ perceptions of the parenting styles of their parents and those same adolescents’ emotional adjustment. These researchers found that those adolescents who had at least one parent who used an authoritative parenting style showed higher levels of emotional adjustment than those who had no authoritative parent. McKinney and Renk suggest that having at least one authoritative parent increases the chances of adolescents having healthy psychological adjustment. For example, adolescents with healthy psychological adjustment would tend to have relatively high self-esteem and low levels of anxiety and depression.
A coercive or authoritarian style of parenting, on the other hand, tends to produce withdrawn, passive behaviour in girls and stereotyped behaviour in boys (Baumrind, 1983), at least in western cultures such as the US. Firm consistent discipline provided in a context of loving responsiveness tends to produce likable, independent and assertive behaviour in boys and affiliative, responsible and stable behaviour in girls. A Dutch study of the development of delinquency in adolescents also identified three styles of parenting: authoritative, authoritarian and neglectful or punishing (Hoeve, Blokland, Dubas, Loeber, Gerris, & van der Laan, 2008). They found that serious delinquents were generally experiencing neglectful parenting.
3.7.1.1 Encouragement of Autonomy
As we noted earlier, one of the tasks of adolescence is for the young person to develop a sense of autonomy or independence so that they can stand on their own feet and make decisions about what they want for the future (see Chapter 2), all with the support of their parents, but without inappropriate intrusiveness on the parents’ parts. Grotevant and Cooper (1986) for example, argued that a supportive parent-child relationship is essential for the optimal development of autonomy in adolescents.
It is also important that adolescents are not overly independent of their parents (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Lens, Luyckx, Goosens, Beyers & Ryan, 2007). These European authors suggest that, rather than promoting independence, parents should encourage their adolescents to act in line with their own values and interests. This approach is best nurtured in an environment where parents understand and appreciate their children’s perspectives, provide appropriate choices for them, and minimise their own use of control and power assertion (Grolnick, 2003; Ryan, Deci & Grolnick, 1995).
Kagitcibasi (2013), a Turkish researcher, discusses the issues of autonomy and relatedness in adolescence and argues that models based on Western psychology tend to focus on autonomy rather than relatedness, although both Western and Eastern researchers recognise that both are basic needs. She argues for a more inclusive model where both autonomy (or independence) and relatedness (or interdependence) are seen as important. She emphasizes the need for interdependence in the psychological realm but not the material realm. She argues for a focus on the autonomous-related self, with a balance between autonomy and relatedness even in adolescence.
3.7.1.2 Cohesion, Flexibility and Communication
Cohesion and flexibility are two key aspects of Olson’s (2000) Circumplex Model of Family Functioning. Cohesion concerns the level of closeness and affection in the family, and levels vary from enmeshed (or so close that family members can struggle to see themselves as separate persons) to disengaged (or so distant that there is no real connection between family members). Flexibility (previously labelled adaptability) varies from rigid (not at all flexible and limited by too many rules) to chaotic (or so flexible that there is no structure or organization). Balanced families are considered most appropriate, particularly for parenting adolescents, and tend to be moderate in terms of both cohesion and flexibility.
This finding has been supported across more than 250 questionnaire studies as well as studies where families were observed interacting with one another and then rated in terms of their closeness and flexibility. Families that were too close tended to include children who were more likely to become depressed (Jacobvitz, Hazen, Curran & Hitchens, 2004), and families that were too rigid or controlling tended to include children who were anxious or depressed, presumably because they are constantly afraid of making a mistake or breaking a rule. In addition, families that were disengaged or too distant tended to include children who were more likely to become anxious and depressed because of a lack of warmth or sense of security, that can lead to their feeling all alone. Parental factors also seem important to how well children perform at school. Children in warm, cohesive families are likely to perform better at school than children from families that are less supportive at least in Australia (Heaven & Newbury, 2004).
The third aspect of the Circumplex Model is communication, which is considered critical to the expression of cohesion (e.g., support and affection) and flexibility (e.g., discipline and organization). Families with communication problems are likely to also have problems in the areas of expressing cohesion and taking a flexible approach to decision-making and problem solving (see Chapter 4).
3.7.1.3 Parental Rejection
As a number of researchers have noted, adolescents who see themselves as rejected by their parents run the risk of developing a range of psychological problems (Akse, Hale, Engels, Raaijmakers & Meeus, 2004; Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Chang, Schwartz, Dodge & McBride-Chang, 2003; Khaleque & Rohner, 2002). Adolescents who perceive their parents as rejecting are likely to have low self-esteem and see their futures negatively, and this can make them vulnerable to depression and even suicide. These findings were particularly strong for girls in the study of Dutch children (Akse et al.). Boys, on the other hand are likely to react to parental rejection by engaging in socially unacceptable behaviour such as aggression.
3.7.1.4 Level of Control and Monitoring
As Baumrind (1991) points out, finding the appropriate level of control and monitoring for adolescents is not always easy. Adolescents need to become self-regulated, autonomous and competent individuals. In order to achieve such a goal, they need freedom to explore and experiment, but they also need to be protected from experiences that are definitely dangerous. Baumrind argues that adolescents can give up their childhood dependencies on parents, but still maintain positive relationships with them and even keep their parents’ values.
Pettit and Laird (2002) draw a clear distinction between monitoring and control. According to these authors, “monitoring reflects parents’ efforts to adapt and regulate children’s behaviour through guidance and supervision” (p. 100) and is generally positive. Psychological control, on the other hand is about parents wanting to limit the child’s developing psychological autonomy or independence, to keep the child dependent on the parent, and to maintain power in the relationship. This type of control is associated with both internalizing problems such as anxiety and depression as well as with externalizing problems such as delinquency. Monitoring, on the other hand, is associated with low levels of externalizing problems such as delinquency and other forms of acting-out (Barber, 1996). Barber argues that where adolescents are highly anxious or depressed or engaging in delinquent behaviours, parents are more likely to use psychological control, and where delinquency and other externalizing problems are at low levels, parents are more likely to rely on monitoring.
In a study of psychological control by both mothers and fathers (Luebbe, Bump, Fussner & Rulon, 2013) researchers assessed early adolescents’ perceptions of psychological control by both mothers and fathers, as well as any discrepancies between them in their levels of control. They were interested in whether perceptions of control were associated with the adolescents’ regulation of negative emotion and the extent to which they experience anxiety. Perception of psychological control by both mothers and fathers was related to adolescent anxiety, but in multivariate analyses only the discrepancy between the parents in their psychological control was related to anxiety. In addition, this effect was partially explained by the adolescents’ problems in regulating negative emotions.
Parental monitoring is generally assessed in term of three variables: parental solicitation, child disclosure and parental involvement (Criss et al., 2013; Laird et al., 2012) and tends to involve knowledge about adolescents’ whereabouts and activities. “Do you know where your children are?” as an Australian government advertisement asked at one time when concern about adolescents being out late at night and involved in problem activities was at a high level. Parental monitoring tends to be linked with fewer problem behaviours and better school performance (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Laird et al., 2012; Padilla-Walker, Harper & Bean, 2011)) so is clearly important. In these studies, what parents knew about their adolescents’ activities tended to come from adolescents’ voluntary disclosure rather than from any actual tracking by the parents. Thus the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship is critical as adolescents will be more likely to disclose their activities to parents with whom they have a positive bond.
In fact, child disclosure was more strongly linked to adolescent adjustment than was parental tracking or surveillance. Those who willingly disclosed information about their activities were less depressed, had better relationships with their parents and better self-esteem, all of which underlines the importance of having good relationships with one’s adolescents. Of course, as we have suggested earlier, it is possible that good relationships with parents increased the willingness of young people to disclose their activities to their parents. From our perspective, good parent-child relationships increase the likelihood that adolescents will cooperate with parents and generally comply with their wishes. Feeling controlled, on the other hand, was associated in Kerr and Stattin’s (2000) study with every measure of poor psychological adjustment, a topic discussed further below.
In another study (Waizenhofer, Buchanan & Jackson-Newman, 2004), mothers’ knowledge of adolescent activities was related to lower levels of deviant behaviour among adolescents, but did not predict psychological adjustment. Overall, mothers knew more than fathers about the activities of their adolescents. Mothers were also more likely than fathers to get information through direct disclosure from the adolescent, or through their own supervision of the adolescent’s activities. Active supervision was associated with more knowledge of adolescents’ activities by both mothers and fathers from dual-earner families.
Parents who are psychologically controlling tend to be critical of their adolescents, very achievement-oriented in their dealings with their adolescents, and highly demanding and strict (Barber & Harmon, 2002; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Duriez & Goossens, 2006). They also tend to be over-involved with their own personal needs to the exclusion of the needs of their adolescents, and to lack understanding or empathy with regard to the perspectives and goals of their children and adolescents.
One problem is that their approach to their adolescents tends to hinder autonomy development as well as identity formation, both of which are important aspects of growing up (Barber & Harmon, 2002). (see also Chapter 2) In addition, these parents tend to intrude on their adolescents’ sense of self and not allow them to make decisions for themselves (Soenens et al., 2006). These adolescents are also likely to have lower self-esteem and to be more vulnerable to depression and anxiety than other adolescents. These problems tend to be associated with children’s delinquent behaviours (Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates & Criss, 2001) and with inter-parental hostility and conflict (see Chapter 6 for more detailed discussion of delinquency in adolescence). Parenting that encourages adolescents to explore their own thoughts and values facilitates autonomy development and high self-esteem.
Soenens et al. (2006) carried out a study to test the links among parental separation anxiety with regard to their adolescents (that is, fear that their adolescents would distance from them), their demand for exceptionally high standards from their adolescents and the extent to which they used psychological control. They found that both separation anxiety and exceptionally high standards (or perfectionism) were associated with increased psychological control in their dealings with their adolescents. These authors suggest that there may be two types of psychological control, one associated with separation anxiety and the other associated with extreme perfectionism or high demands.
Those parents who experience separation anxiety are likely to feel anxious about their adolescent’s increasing autonomy and independence and to use control to keep them in a close and dependent relationship. These adolescents are also likely to develop a dependent, clinging attitude towards others as happens for the child with preoccupied attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Perfectionistic parents, on the other hand, are likely to communicate to the child that they can love them only if they meet the very high standards demanded by the parents. Either of these types of control is likely to make the adolescent vulnerable to depression and anxiety. Therefore, parenting that incorporates realistic expectations and unconditional positive regard is likely to produce well-adjusted adolescents.
3.7.1.5 Discipline
Although it is important that adolescents are disciplined by their parents, the nature of that discipline needs to be considered carefully. Power assertive punishment has a negative effect on young people and physical abuse increases the risk that a young person will abuse a partner later on and even inflict injury (Ehrensaft et al., 2003). It is interesting to note that physical punishment seems to have different effects on boys and girls, at least with regard to their involvement in delinquent behaviours (Heaven et al., 2004). These authors found that the delinquent behaviour of boys increased with increases in father’s physical punishment, whereas the delinquent behaviour of girls decreased. (See Chapter 4 for more on discipline)
3.8 Sibling Relationships
Sibling relationships are an important aspect of the family environment. For most people, the sibling relationship is the longest relationship they will ever have. Even with the decline in family size, most people have at least one sibling, and they are likely to spend more time with their sibling than with anyone else according to time-use data (McHale, Kim, Whiteman & Crouter, 2007). Some recent research suggests that children from European/American backgrounds in the USA are more likely to live with a sibling than a father (McHale et al., 2007). Siblings are in competition with each other for the love and attention of their parents and need to maintain a lifelong relationship with one another (Noller, 2005b).
Some sibling researchers (e.g., Dunn & Plomin, 1990) talk about shared and non-shared family environments. The shared family environment is what all the siblings are likely to experience similarly, including parental values, parental health issues, marital discord, family rules, family climate and the family’s financial situation. The non-shared family environment is unique to each individual and includes relationship with mother, relationship with father, relationships with each sibling, differential treatment by parent/s, own health issues, peer group and involvement in outside activities. Of course, personality differences are also likely to contribute to family members’ reacting in different ways to what happens in the family. For example, an anxious insecure child is likely to react differently to minor arguments between parents than one who is more secure.
Thus it is important to remember that each sibling has a different experience in the family (Dunn, 2000; Dunn & Plomin, 1990). As Dunn (2000) notes parents need to understand the experiences that are specific to each child in the family. For example, a child with a chronic illness is likely to have a very different experience of the family than his or her well sibling. Siblings can also play different roles with each other. They can be “attachment figures, antagonists, playmates, protectors and socialisers” (Davies, 2002, p.94).
An important aspect of relationships between siblings is the tendency for others to make comparisons between them, and for them to compete with one another. Comparisons may be made by parents, teachers or friends and can be about a range of characteristics such as physical appearance (height, weight, attractiveness, physique), personality characteristics (outgoingness, friendliness, conscientiousness, helpfulness, stubbornness) or skills and abilities (athleticism, intelligence, artistic or musical ability). Comparisons tend to begin in infancy (Dunn, 1988, 2000) and to continue throughout their lives (Cicirelli, 1996).
Siblings are likely to have strong emotional reactions to comparisons made about them and to being in competition with each other, although where the relationships between siblings are high in support and low in conflict, reactions are likely to be less intense (Noller, Conway & Blakeley-Smith, 2008). Birth order also tends to affect siblings’ reactions to being outperformed by their sibling. In this study of Australian siblings, older siblings reacted more negatively to being outperformed by a younger sibling than did younger siblings to being outperformed by an older sibling, and that was also true for twins even though the age difference might be only a few minutes. When younger siblings are outperformed by an older sibling, they can attribute their defeat to age, but older siblings would generally expect to outperform their younger siblings.
Buist, Paalman, Branje, Dekovic, et al. (2013) carried out a study of Dutch and Moroccan adolescents in which they compared ethnic differences but also the association between the quality of the sibling relationship and adolescents’ problem behaviour. Although there were differences between the ethnic groups in terms of sibling quality (support and control) and problem behaviour (externalizing disorders and depression), they found no significant differences in the link between sibling relationships and adolescent behaviour between the two different ethnic groups. In addition, the association between sibling relationship quality and problem behaviour was similar irrespective of cultural group.
3.8.1 Differential Parenting
Differential parenting is about siblings being treated differently by a parent or parents such that one could be considered favoured and the other disfavoured. A favoured child would tend to receive more affection and less control than a disfavoured sibling, whereas the disfavoured sibling would receive less affection and more control. Differential parenting can have a profound effect on children, particularly on the disfavoured child and can affect their sense of competence and self-worth, personality, behavioural problems and mental health (Baker & Daniels, 1990; Dunn, Stocker & Plomin, 1990; Sheehan & Noller, 2002; Tejerina-Allen, Wagner & Cohen, 1994).
Sheehan and Noller (2002) found that adolescent twins who were disfavoured in terms of the support and affection they received from their parents were more likely to be avoidant in terms of their attachment, and more anxious than their favoured sibling. (See Chapter 2) Adolescent twins who saw their mothers as more controlling of them than of their co-twin tended to report both lower self-esteem and higher anxiety than their more favoured twin. Surprisingly, twins who reported more control from their fathers than their co-twin reported higher personal self-esteem than their co-twin, suggesting that guidance and monitoring by the father tends to have a positive effect on adolescents’ psychological adjustment.
In another study, Tucker, McHale and Crouter (2003) explored parents’ differential treatment of their adolescents in five areas: privileges, chores, affection, discipline and the amount of time spent with adolescent offspring. They also assessed the extent to which personal characteristics of the adolescents were associated with differential treatment. These researchers found that equal treatment was common, particularly in the domains of discipline and privileges. Firstborns tended to receive more privileges than others in the family, but that may have been because they were older.
Differential treatment was clearly related to gender, especially with regard to time spent with adolescents, and treatment by fathers. Mothers tended to spend more time with girls and fathers spent more time with boys, perhaps because they believed that they had more in common with their same sex adolescent. Fathers also differentiated on the basis of birth order, spending more time with their firstborns. Overall, the findings indicated that parents’ affection, discipline and amount of time spent with their adolescent were affected by the adolescent’s gender and sex-typed qualities. Privileges and chores were more related to birth order and age. Some researchers suggest that where differential treatment is seen by adolescents as legitimate because of the different needs of each sibling, adolescents and their sibling relationships are less likely to be negatively affected (Kowal & Kramer, 1997; McHale, Updegraff, Jackson-Newsom, Tucker & Crouter, 2000).
3.8.2 Sibling Relationships and Adolescent Adjustment
As Dunn (2000) noted in discussing the sibling relationship, “that emotional intensity and the intimacy of the relationship, the familiarity of children with each other, and the significance of sharing parents mean that the relationship has considerable potential for affecting children’s well being” (p. 244). For example, Patterson and his colleagues have shown that siblings are trained in aggressive behaviour by the way they and their siblings react to teasing, conflict and fighting (Bank, Patterson & Reid, 1996).
Comparisons between siblings made by parents and others are likely to have an impact on adolescent adjustment and well-being (Noller et al., 2008). In this study, siblings in situations of comparison and competition, felt more positive and less negative toward their sibling if their overall relationship was high in warmth and low in conflict. In addition, those siblings who were high in self-esteem were more likely to react positively in situations of comparison and competition, irrespective of whether they performed better than their sibling or not, and those who were depressed were more likely to react negatively, even when they performed better. Clearly these data underline the importance of the quality of sibling relationships to individuals’ psychological adjustment.
3.9 Summary
An important aspect of the family environment is the structure of the family. There is considerable evidence that nonnuclear families may be compromised in their ability to provide as positive an environment for adolescents as traditional nuclear families involving two married parents and their biological children. One reason for this difference is that some types of nonnuclear families struggle financially and are unable to provide good medical care for their children.
Individual family members make their own unique contributions to the family environment. In addition, some aspects of the family environment such as parental values, financial resources, family rules and marital or relationship satisfaction/ discord affect all family members although not necessarily in the same way, whereas other aspects are unique to that particular family member: their own health, their relationships with each of their parents and their involvement in outside activities.
Characteristics of the family that are important to the well-being of family members include an emotionally warm atmosphere, communication that is open, and parents being involved in the lives of their children through fun activities, encouragement and supervision. Factors such as chronic health problems in the family, hostility and conflict, and being too dependent on the parents tend to be seen as having a negative impact on well-being.
Those adolescents who have healthy self-esteem and who have parents who support them are more likely to thrive in adolescence than those whose families are violent or chaotic. Having strong support from parents and positive peer relationships help adolescents develop skills in intimacy that are important for their future relationships.
The quality of the parental relationship is a key aspect of family functioning, with parents’ personality characteristics such as neuroticism and conscientiousness, warmth, attachment security, and mental health all having an impact on their adolescents. Parents’ marital or relational satisfaction, chronic and intense conflict, and violent behaviour also have an impact on the well being of other family members, through their effects on the quality of their parenting. These problems are also likely to affect the later relationships of adolescents.
Family members are also affected by the social and economic networks in which they are embedded. Adolescents generally benefit from contact with extended family members and with unrelated adults such as friends of their parents and the parents of their friends. Financial difficulties can increase the likelihood of negative parenting and social class affects the demands parents make on their children and the types of punishment they use. Adolescents can also be affected by the communities in which they live, with those from poor families living in poor neighbourhoods more likely to be caught up in delinquent behaviour than adolescents who live in more affluent neighbourhoods.
Parenting styles also affect the well-being of adolescents, with authoritative parenting generally seen as optimal in Western cultures and as producing the most competent children, whereas authoritarian parenting tends to be seen as undesirable. In other cultures, authoritarian parenting does not seem to be so harmful. Adolescents, particularly those in Western societies also need to be encouraged to develop autonomy from their parents and work towards being independent of them. Levels of cohesion and flexibility in the family are also important, with the most effective families being balanced in terms of cohesion and flexibility.
Adolescents generally need supervision and monitoring that is associated with low levels of delinquency. Psychological control, on the other hand, is designed to keep the adolescent dependent on the parent and has a negative impact on them, being associated with high levels of anxiety and depression as well as delinquency. Interestingly, those adolescents who had good relationships with their parents tended to disclose their whereabouts and activities to them voluntarily. Controlling parents tend to hinder both autonomy development and identity formation in their adolescents, although these factors are critical to the adolescents growing up well-adjusted. Those parents who were highly controlling tended to feel anxious about their children’s attempts at separation from them, or have very high, even perfectionistic, standards for them.
Sibling relationships are very important for adolescents and impact their psychological adjustment, particularly if parents and others make continual comparisons between them. Being well-adjusted in terms of high self-esteem, low levels of anxiety and low levels of depression increases the chances that adolescents will be able to cope well with comparison and competition, even when they don’t perform as well as their sibling.
3.10 Implications for Practitioners
Practitioners dealing with adolescents engaging in problem behaviours need to explore issues in the parental relationship, where relevant, because of the negative impact of parental conflict on adolescent offspring. The tensions and insecurities that arise in adolescents in response to parental conflict need to be dealt with, perhaps in family therapy sessions where the whole family has an opportunity to share their concerns and to talk about the impact of the ongoing conflict on them, in the presence of their parents.
Involving parents in therapy where all family members are included can also give the therapist the opportunity to observe the parenting styles used by parents and their adolescents’ reactions to their parents’ attempts at controlling them. Such a session would also provide an opportunity for the therapist to model more appropriate ways of dealing with the adolescents, helping the parents to move toward a more age-appropriate authoritative style where parents and adolescents are able to negotiate solutions to the issues facing them.
Other issues such as the impact of parents’ work schedules on adolescents can also be discussed and hopefully resolved. For example, adolescent firstborns may believe that being expected to care for younger siblings every afternoon limits their opportunities to meet with friends and also has implications for completing homework assignments and preparing for exams.
It may also be important for practitioners to explore sibling relationships, especially if they suspect that differential treatment is occurring. Because these kinds of relationships can be so detrimental to the mental health of the disfavoured sibling and to the quality of the sibling relationship, it is important that these issues are dealt with. In addition, as Minuchin shows in his videotaped family therapy session “Anorexia is a Greek Word”, siblings can unknowingly reinforce problematic behaviours such as refusing to eat by providing a lot of attention to the so-called “victim”.
Feinberg et al. (2013) has designed a program to “promote positive and reduce negative youth outcomes by enhancing sibling relationships” (p.166). The program is called Siblings are Special (SIBS) and involves primary school children (5th graders with a younger sibling in 2nd through 4th grades). An extensive test of the program showed that completing the program had a positive effect on sibling relationships and child competence and mental health. In addition, it led to improved maternal mental health, at least in terms of depression.
Relationships with extended family members may also need to be a focus of therapy. For example, the therapist may be able to support grandparents, aunts etc. who can make a positive impact on the adolescent and/or the family environment. In addition, he or she may be able to work with members of the extended family who are having a negative effect on the family environment, and on the well being of the adolescent.
The characteristics of the neighbourhoods in which families live and the schools that children attend relate to broader social issues of poverty and violence, which need to be addressed by the broader community. For example, the provision of recreational centres and safe places for families and young people to congregate may assist to lessen the impacts of a poorer social environment. One role of practitioners could involve advocating for better facilities for families.
In this chapter we have focused on many aspects of the family environment from the micro to the macro, and have seen how important relationships between parents and with parents can be for the adolescent. In the next chapter, we focus on the communication between adolescents and their parents, as well as other family members and the implications of that communication for the family environment and for the well-being of the adolescent.