adolescents’ disclosure and advice-seeking behavior … · the goals of this study were 1) to...
TRANSCRIPT
ADOLESCENTS’ DISCLOSURE AND ADVICE-SEEKING BEHAVIOR ABOUT PEER
DILEMMAS: CHARACTERISTICS, MATERNAL PARENTING PREDICTORS, AND
ADOLESCENT SOCIAL OUTCOMES
by
Alisa N. Almas
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate Department of Psychology
University of Toronto
© Copyright by Alisa N. Almas 2009
Adolescents’ Disclosure and Advice-seeking Behavior about Peer Dilemmas: Characteristics,
Maternal Parenting Predictors, and Adolescent Social Outcomes
Ph.D. 2009
Alisa N. Almas
Department of Psychology
University of Toronto
Abstract
The goals of this study were 1) to examine the features of adolescents’ disclosure and
advice-seeking behavior about peer dilemmas; and 2) to examine the maternal parenting
predictors of disclosure and advice-seeking behavior and the adolescent social correlates of
these behaviors. Further, this study sought to examine adolescent advice-seeking as a
potential mediator of the relations between maternal parenting characteristics and adolescent
social outcomes (friendship quality and interpersonal competence). One hundred and one
mother-child dyads were assessed when the children were approximately 10-12 years of age
(M = 11.0) and 74 were re-assessed when the children were approximately 12-14 years of age
(M = 12.8). Mothers provided reports of their parenting characteristics at Time 1 and Time
2, while adolescents provided reports of their disclosure at Time 1, and disclosure, advice-
seeking, personality and social outcomes at Time 2.
Results showed the adolescents disclosed and sought advice from their mothers
moderately often across a variety of situations involving their close friends. The reasons
adolescents chose to disclose, not disclose, and seek advice were discussed. Regression
analyses showed that neither mothers’ positive nor their negative parenting characteristics
ii
were predictors of adolescent disclosure. Mothers’ positive parenting characteristics
(including perspective-taking, warmth and positive responsiveness to children’s negative
emotions) did significantly predict adolescent advice-seeking, for girls but not boys, after
controlling for adolescent personality and maternal interpersonal competence. With respect
to adolescent social outcomes, adolescent advice-seeking was significantly related to
friendship quality, but not interpersonal competence, after controlling for adolescent
personality and disclosure. There was no evidence for the role of advice-seeking as a
mediator of the relations between parenting and adolescent social outcomes.
The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of the importance of
determining the conditions that encourage adolescents to seek advice from their parents when
they encounter difficult situations involving their friends, and the value parental advice has
for adolescent social success.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge a number of individuals who have contributed to this
thesis in various ways. Most importantly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Joan Grusec,
for her support, encouragement and inspiration throughout this project and my graduate
career. I am very grateful for all that she has taught me and will continue to value our work
together throughout my academic career. To my committee members, Jennifer Tackett and
Marc Fournier, thank you for encouragement and your helpful comments and suggestions.
Thank you also to Ann Lang, whose constant support, both administrative and emotional,
will never be forgotten.
I would like to express my gratitude to all of the families who participated in this
study for giving me their time, and more importantly, for sharing their thoughts.
I would also like to thank all of the dedicated students who have been a part of my
“team”, contributing their ideas, time and effort over many years to every aspect of the study.
Especially Veronica Barton, Elah Nadel, Alexandra Basile and Veronica Gershenzon, whose
diligence and thoughtfulness made a very large task both efficient and enjoyable.
To my fellow Psychology graduate students, especially Katherine Krpan, Vedran
Lovic and Darren Kadis, thank you for your support, advice and friendship throughout this
great adventure. Thank you also to Leah Lundell, Tsasha Awong, Julia Vinik and Amanda
Sherman, for making our lab a place of sharing, learning and great fun.
And finally, to my family and friends, thank you so much for all of your love and
support during my graduate career and always.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract …………………………………………………………….………………….......ii
Acknowledgments ………………………………………………….……….……..….......iv
Table of Contents …………………………………………………….……………….......vi
List of Tables ………………………………………………………….……………….....ix
List of Appendices ...............................................................................................................x
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
Social Interactions during Childhood and Adolescence and their Increasing
Complexity .......................................................................................................................1
The Value of Friendships and Peer Acceptance ..............................................................3
Purpose of the Present Study ...........................................................................................5
Parents’ Influence on Children’s and Adolescent’s Peer Relationships .........................7
Indirect Influences ..................................................................................................7
Direct Influences .....................................................................................................8
Adolescent Disclosure and Parental Knowledge ...........................................................11
Adolescent Advice-seeking Behavior ............................................................................15
Characteristics of Parents Related to Adolescents’ Disclosure and
Advice-seeking ..............................................................................................................19
Adolescent Social Outcomes of Disclosure and Advice-seeking ..................................20
Overview of the Present Study ......................................................................................24
Summary of Hypotheses ................................................................................................25
Method: Time 1 ..................................................................................................................28
v
Participants .....................................................................................................................28
Procedure .......................................................................................................................28
Measures ........................................................................................................................29
Maternal Responsiveness to Distress ....................................................................29
Maternal Warmth ..................................................................................................30
Maternal Perspective-taking .................................................................................31
Maternal Anger .....................................................................................................31
Child Disclosure ....................................................................................................32
Method: Time 2 ..................................................................................................................33
Participants .....................................................................................................................33
Procedure .......................................................................................................................34
Measures ........................................................................................................................36
Parent-adolescent Conversations about Friendship Dilemmas .............................36
Adolescent Friendship Quality .............................................................................39
Adolescent Interpersonal Competence .................................................................40
Adolescent Personality ..........................................................................................41
Maternal Interpersonal Competence .....................................................................41
Results ................................................................................................................................45
Overview of Analyses ....................................................................................................45
Data Screening ...............................................................................................................45
Missing Data .........................................................................................................43
Data Transformations .....................................................................................................44
Measures of Maternal Parenting Characteristics ..................................................44
vi
Measures of Adolescent Disclosure and Advice-seeking .....................................45
Measures of Adolescent Friendship Quality and Interpersonal Competence .......45
Features of Adolescent Disclosure and Advice-seeking ................................................45
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics ....................................................................45
Features of adolescent disclosure ..............................................................45
Features of adolescent advice-seeking ......................................................49
Comparison of part 1 and part 2, conversations measure .........................51
Summary ...............................................................................................................56
Relations between Maternal Characteristics, Adolescent Disclosure and
Advice-seeking Behavior, and Adolescent Social Outcomes ........................................57
Preliminary Data Reduction ..................................................................................57
Adolescent disclosure and advice-seeking, part 1, conversations
measure .....................................................................................................57
Descriptive Statistics for the Raw Variables Measures at Time 1 and
Time 2 ...................................................................................................................59
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations ..............................................59
Data Reduction .....................................................................................................62
Measures of maternal parenting characteristics ........................................62
Measures of adolescent advice-seeking ....................................................63
Correlational Analyses ..........................................................................................63
Regression Analyses .............................................................................................69
Maternal parenting characteristics, adolescent disclosure and
advice-seeking ...........................................................................................69
vii
Adolescent advice-seeking and social outcomes ......................................74
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................76
Features of Adolescents’ Disclosure and Advice-seeking .............................................77
Features of adolescents’ disclosure .......................................................................77
Features of adolescents’ advice-seeking ...............................................................80
Comparisons between disclosure and advice-seeking in real versus
hypothetical situations ..........................................................................................81
Relations between disclosure and advice-seeking behaviors ................................83
Gender differences in advice-seeking behavior ....................................................85
Maternal Parenting Predictors of Adolescents’ Disclosure and Advice-seeking
Behavior .........................................................................................................................85
Positive parenting predictors of disclosure ...........................................................86
Positive parenting predictors of advice-seeking ...................................................86
Negative parenting predictors of disclosure and advice-seeking ..........................87
The influence of adolescents’ personality characteristics .....................................87
The role of mothers’ interpersonal competence ....................................................87
Adolescent Outcomes Associated with Advice-seeking ...............................................89
Advice-seeking and friendship quality .................................................................89
Advice-seeking and interpersonal competence .....................................................91
The Mediating Role of Advice ......................................................................................91
Strengths and Contributions of the Study .....................................................................92
Limitations of the Present Study ...................................................................................93
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................93
viii
References ..........................................................................................................................95
Appendices .......................................................................................................................103
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Adolescent Disclosure to Mothers for the
Six Hypothetical Vignettes, Part 1, Conversations Measure ................................46
Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for the Various Reasons for Adolescent
Disclosure to Mothers, Part 1, Conversations Measure ........................................47
Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations for the Reasons for Adolescent
Nondisclosure to Mothers, Part 1, Conversations Measure ..................................49
Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations for Adolescent Advice-seeking from Mothers
for the Six Hypothetical Vignettes, Part 1, Conversations Measure .....................50
Table 5: Frequencies for the Reasons Adolescents Reported for Not Seeking Advice from
Mothers, Part 1, Conversations Measure ..............................................................51
Table 6: Frequencies of the Topics Reported in Part 2, Conversations Measure, and
Relevant Topic from Part 1, Conversations Measure ...........................................52
Table 7: Frequencies of the Reasons for Adolescents’ Nondisclosure to Mothers, Part 1
and Part 2 ..............................................................................................................54
Table 8: Frequencies of the Reasons Adolescents Reported for Not Seeking Advice from
Mothers .................................................................................................................55
Table 9: Inter-correlations of Adolescent Disclosure for the Six Hypothetical Vignettes,
Part 1, Conversations Measure .............................................................................58
x
Table 10: Inter-correlations of Adolescent Advice-seeking for the Six Hypothetical
Vignettes, Part 1, Conversations Measure ............................................................58
Table 11: Descriptive Statistics for Time 1 Study Variables: Parenting Characteristics
and Child Disclosure .............................................................................................59
Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Time 2 Study Variables: Maternal Interpersonal
Competence, Adolescent Personality, Disclosure, Advice-seeking and Social
Outcomes ..............................................................................................................60
Table 13: Inter-correlations of Maternal Parenting Variables from Time 1 .........................61
Table 14: Inter-correlations of Adolescent Disclosure at Time 1 and Time 2 and
Advice-seeking from Time 2 ................................................................................62
Table 15: Inter-correlations of Variables included in Hierarchical Regression Analyses.....65
Table 16: Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Adolescent Disclosure at Time 2
(N = 74) .................................................................................................................68
Table 17: Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Adolescent Advice-seeking at
Time 2 (N = 74) ....................................................................................................70
Table 18: Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Adolescent Friendship Quality
(N = 74) .................................................................................................................74
Table 19: Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Adolescent Interpersonal Competence
(N = 74) .................................................................................................................75
xi
xii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Six Hypothetical Vignettes, Part 1, Conversations Measure .........................91
Appendix B: Interview Script, Part 2, Conversations Measure ...........................................92
Appendix C: Coding Scheme for Reasons for Not Seeking Advice from Mothers,
Parts 1 and 2, Conversations Measure ...........................................................94
Appendix D: Coding Scheme for Topics of Peer Dilemmas, Part 2, Conversations
Measure ..........................................................................................................95
Appendix E: Coding Scheme for Reasons for Nondisclosure, Part 2, Conversations
Measure ..........................................................................................................96
Adolescent Disclosure and Advice-seeking Behavior
ADOLESCENTS’ DISCLOSURE AND ADVICE-SEEKING BEHAVIOR ABOUT PEER
DILEMMAS: CHARACTERISTICS, MATERNAL PARENTING PREDICTORS, AND
ADOLESCENT SOCIAL OUTCOMES
Early adolescence is a period of transition between childhood and adolescence during
which young people have to negotiate changes in many aspects of their lives – physical,
cognitive – and arguably the most important to this developmental period, social. Two
important aspects of the social domain that change across development are the nature of close
interpersonal relationships or friendships and more general experiences or interactions with
peers. As children enter early adolescence, the nature of social relationships becomes more
complex and difficult to negotiate as they have greater expectations for their relationships
and become more concerned with peer acceptance (i.e., fitting in) (Berndt, 1982; Buhrmester,
1990). An important goal for developmental researchers is to determine factors that
contribute to adolescents’ abilities to overcome these challenges that are specific to the peer
context. The purpose of the present study was to examine parents’ influence on adolescents’
peer relationships as one such factor.
Social Interactions during Childhood and Adolescence and their Increasing Complexity
The increasing complexity of children’s and adolescents’ peer relationships is evident
from an examination of the nature of interactions with peers from infancy to adolescence.
Early on, infants begin to communicate and share toys with their peers (Eckerman, Whatley
& Kutz, 1975) and participate in cooperative games (Mueller & Brenner, 1977). In early
childhood, rudimentary friendships are formed and these are often characterized as
instrumental or concrete in nature. Thus children choose friends with whom they have play
1
2
interests in common, they have the opportunity to interact with often, and they enjoy
spending time with in a play setting (Bigelow, 1977). Beginning in late childhood, time
spent with peers begins to increase dramatically and this continues as children move into
adolescence. As a consequence, older children’s needs to feel accepted by the larger peer
group are greatest at this time in development (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006).
During early adolescence, more time is spent with peers than ever before, and
includes both time spent at school and after school in organized activities or just “hanging
out” (see Rubin et al., 2006). As a consequence, friends begin to gradually take over the
roles of companion and confidante from parents (Buhrmester & Furman, 1987), which makes
them more central to adolescents’ development. At the same time, adolescents’ desires for
intimacy in their friendships, often characterized by the sharing of personal thoughts and
feelings, are becoming stronger. Friends are expected to be loyal and intimate with each
other, and to make an effort to understand each other. Trust becomes another salient
characteristic of friendships with age. Adolescents choose their friends based on common
values and a shared understanding of social interactions, in addition to those factors that they
considered earlier such as common interests and activities (see Rubin et al., 2006).
The larger context in which adolescents’ friendships and peer relations exist is
another aspect of the social domain that changes over time, adding to the complexity of
experiences involving peers that early adolescents encounter. For example, many
adolescents move to a new school when they begin middle school and high-school. As a
consequence, they are faced with the task of making new friends and maintaining friendships
with those peers who no longer attend the same school (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). With
age, adolescents also begin to encounter situations where they are exposed to or are pressured
3
to participate in illicit activities with their friends, including using drugs or alcohol,
participating in delinquent acts (e.g., vandalizing school property), or engaging in sexual
activity.
Early adolescence, then, is a period during which the combination of greater
expectations for friendships combined with a number of external changes and pressures make
managing interactions with peers especially difficult. Of interest in the present study was
how parents help adolescents learn to manage these different changes and experiences
successfully so that adolescents feel competent in dealing with interpersonal situations
involving peers and are able to maintain friendships with those peers whom they desire as a
friends. One possible mechanism by which parents help adolescents negotiate their peer
relationships is through parent-child communication about such issues. This thesis looks at
this mechanism.
The Value of Friendships and Peer Acceptance
Why is parent-child communication about peer relationships an important aspect of
socialization for researchers to examine? It is especially important for parents to help their
adolescents maintain and successfully negotiate their friendships and experiences with peers
because making and keeping friends are not only normative experiences throughout
development but having friends also has many positive consequences for the individual,
especially during adolescence. In support of this, Laursen, Furman, and Mooney (2006)
found that those adolescents who perceived their friends to be high sources of social support
reported greater self-worth and interpersonal competence two years later. Jensen-Campbell
and colleagues (Jensen-Campbell, Rex-Lear, & Waldrip, 2006) found that early adolescents
who were better accepted by their peers and had more friends at the beginning of a school
4
year were less likely to be the victims of relational aggression at the end of the school year.
Similarly, Wojslawowicz and colleagues (2006) found that those older children who
experienced the dissolution of a friendship over a school year were more likely to be
victimized by their peers.
Not only do friends act as a protective barrier against victimization, they can also act
as a buffer from the negative effects of the larger social context in which a child lives. Some
support for this notion comes from studies of younger children where the protective effects of
having friends and being accepted by the peer group were examined (Criss, Pettit, Bates,
Dodge, & Lapp, 2002). Criss and colleagues, for example, found that, in families suffering
from ecological disadvantage (e.g., low SES, high family stress, single parent household),
children who were liked more by their peers during kindergarten had lower rates of
aggression in the second grade. Thus having friends seems to increase positive outcomes
while at the same time act as a buffer against negative ones, both during childhood and
adolescence.
Further support for the view that having friends is important comes from studies of
children and adolescents that have examined outcomes for those who have fewer friends or
none at all; those outcomes include loneliness, depression and lower school achievement (see
Hartup, 1996). Ladd (1990), for example found that young children who had fewer friends at
the start of the school year reported more negative perceptions of school and greater school
avoidance across the school year. Research focused on loneliness, in particular, has shown
that having fewer friends or lower quality friendships is related to greater feelings of
loneliness in childhood (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1993) and adolescence (e.g., Mounts,
Valentine, Anderson, & Boswell, 2006). As another example, Nangle and colleagues
5
(Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, & Carpenter, 2003) found that during middle childhood,
children who had a greater number of reciprocated close and best friendships reported being
less lonely. These researchers found that loneliness scores were also negatively related to
boys’ ratings of their friendship quality, that is, lower in loneliness when friendships were
high in companionship and intimacy and low in conflict. Researchers have also shown that
experiences with friends predict loneliness over time (Pederson, Vitaro, Barker, & Borge,
2007) and loneliness, in turn, has been shown to be related to negative outcomes, including
negative attitudes towards and greater avoidance of school (Coplan, Closson, & Arbeau,
2007).
Purpose of the Present Study
Research discussed thus far indicates that friendships are important and that
experiences with peers change over time. Those changes that occur during the transition to
adolescence are arguably more difficult to negotiate than previous ones because changes
have occurred both in the expectations one has for friendships as well as in the context in
which they occur. The present study sought to examine parent-adolescent conversations
about adolescents’ experiences with close friends as a context in which parents may help
their adolescents deal with complicated social situations.
Given that during early adolescence, experiences with friends become much more
frequent and adolescents’ concerns with more general peer acceptance increase (Rubin,
Bukowski, & Parker, 2006) difficult interactions with friends might be more distressing than
they were at previous stages in development. Help from parents in dealing with these
interactions, then, may be more valuable to their children than ever before. At the same time,
although parents’ influence in their children’s lives is decreasing as peers begin to play a
6
more central role in the socialization of adolescents, research shows that parents’ influence
on their children’s interactions with peers during early adolescence is still strong (Mounts,
2000). Thus early adolescents may turn to their parents for help in dealing with issues or
situations that arise concerning their close friends by disclosing, or telling them about such
problems, and asking for their advice. Parents’ advice in turn may help adolescents be more
successful in their friendships. The current study was designed to examine this possibility.
The present study had three major goals. The first was to examine the features or
characteristics of adolescents’ voluntary disclosure to their parents about their difficult
experiences with their friends as well as their advice-seeking behavior with regards to these
experiences. The second was to determine the characteristics of parents which encourage
their adolescents to disclose and seek advice. The third was to determine whether the advice
that parents provide to their adolescents is helpful, in other words, whether it is related to
positive social outcomes for adolescents in the forms of greater interpersonal competence
(i.e., social skills) and the experience of higher quality friendships. Also of interest was
whether the provision of advice is the mechanism by which parents with particular
characteristics have more or less socially successful adolescents.
A brief overview of the research on the roles parents play in influencing their
children’s and adolescents’ peer relations will now be provided in order to highlight the fact
that, although peers are playing an increasing role in early adolescents’ lives, the role of
parents continues to be important to development as well. This will be followed by a
discussion of the literature on adolescent disclosure in order to highlight the role adolescents
play in parents’ acquisition of knowledge of and parent-child communication about
adolescents’ everyday experiences including those involving peers. Next, the limited amount
7
of existing research on adolescent advice-seeking behavior will be discussed as it relates to
adolescents’ interactions with peers. This will be followed by a description of some of the
characteristics of parents that may make them attractive targets of adolescent disclosure and
advice-seeking. Finally, two adolescent outcomes that may benefit from adolescent
disclosure and the advice given by parents will be discussed: the quality of adolescents’
friendships and adolescents’ interpersonal competence. These two outcomes were chosen for
the present study because they are indicators of adolescents’ social success both at the dyadic
level (friendships) and the larger group level (competence in dealing with interpersonal
situations involving all peers).
Parents’ Influence on Children’s and Adolescents’ Peer Relationships
Researchers have long studied the inter-relations between parents and peers,
recognizing that both make an important contribution to children’s development, although
the degree to which each influences development as well as the way the two interact varies
across time (Ross & Howe, 2008). Throughout childhood and adolescence, research has
shown that parents influence children’s friendships and interactions with peers in a number
of ways.
Indirect influences. Indirectly, parents influence peer relations through their child
rearing practices and family interactions. Researchers have found, for example, that the
quality of parent-child interactions has important consequences for children’s social success.
Specifically, mothers who, during interactions with their children, consistently respond to
their children’s distress with comfort and support have children who form expectations that
others will respond to them in similar, positive ways. As a consequence, these expectations
positively influence children’s peer interactions. These types of interactions are a reflection
8
of a secure mother-child attachment relationship which has found to be moderately related to
the quality of children’s friendships (Lieberman, Boyle, & Markiewicz, 1999; Rubin, Dwyer,
Booth-LaForce, Kim, Burgess, & Rose-Krasnor, 2004; Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001).
Parents’ more general style of interacting with their children has also been shown to
be related to the children’s peer relations. Mize and Pettit (1997), for example, found that
mothers’ responsiveness to their children, indexed by the degree to which mother-child
interactions were synchronous and reciprocal, was related to socio-metric ratings of peer
acceptance. These results are somewhat related to those found by researchers studying
attachment, as responsiveness in both contexts includes responding to children’s distress
(although the study by Mize and Pettit also included responses to children’s positive
emotions). Therefore, it seems that maternal responsiveness as an index of the quality of
parent-child interactions has an impact on children’s success with peers.
The degree to which mothers are warm during interactions with their children also
seems to impact children’s experiences with peers. Support for this notion comes from a
study by Leve and Fagot (1997) who found that mothers who were rated as warm and high in
scaffolding behaviors with their children at 18 months and 5 years had children who, at age
7, were rated by teachers as more popular and by observers in the lab as more cooperative
and positive in their interactions with a friend, although this relation only held for boys.
Further support comes from work by Davidov and Grusec (2006) who reported a similar
relation between maternal warmth and social acceptance in their sample of 6 to 8 year old
boys, but not girls.
Direct influences. Parents can also directly influence children’s peer relations by
teaching them appropriate ways to interact with friends. This category of parenting
9
behaviors is often called “social coaching” (Mize & Pettit, 1997). For example, Russell and
Finnie (1990) found that mothers who gave their preschool children group-oriented
instructions (e.g., by suggesting ways the child could integrate him/herself into the activity
that the other children were engaged in) immediately before and during a play session in the
lab had children who were rated as having higher social status by teachers. Alternately,
mothers who gave little or no instructions at all had children who had lower social status.
Laird and colleagues (Laird, Pettit, Mize, Brown & Lindsey, 1994) found that mothers who
gave their preschoolers advice during day-to-day conversations about peers, which included
suggestions on how to initiate play and how to resolve disputes, had children who received
higher sociometric ratings from their classmates.
Another way that parents can influence peer relations is through their managing of
peer interactions. Ladd and Golter (1988) found that parents who initiated a greater number
of peer contacts for their preschoolers, by setting up play-dates, interacting with other
parents, and encouraging children to interact with peers, had children who were more
accepted by peers at school (Ladd & Golter, 1988).
Parents continue to influence their older children’s and adolescents’ interactions with
peers through what researchers call “peer management strategies” (Tilton-Weaver &
Galambos, 2003). This category of parenting behaviors includes a variety of strategies
ranging from more to less involved, or more to less direct. Overall, research shows that
parents are involved to varying degrees in the management of their adolescents’ peer
relationships and the degree to which this involvement is helpful depends on the way it is
interpreted by the adolescents.
10
Mounts (2001; 2002; 2004; 2007) has examined various strategies parents can use to
influence their adolescents’ interactions with peers, as well as the correlates of the different
strategies. She found that parents range in their peer management behaviors, from actively
consulting with their adolescents by providing advice on ways to solve problems amongst
friends, to taking a more hands-off approach and allowing their adolescents to be more
autonomous in their decisions about different ways to deal with peer relationships. Parental
consulting behavior was found to be related to higher adolescent reports of their friendship
quality, while autonomy-granting was not (Mounts, 2004).
Vernberg and colleagues (Vernberg, Beery, Ewell, & Abwender, 1993) examined
peer management strategies in the context of moving to a new community. They found that
some parents took an active role in helping their adolescents make friends upon relocating,
by allowing their adolescent to invite friends over to the new family home or by getting to
know the parents of other adolescents whom their child desired as a friend. This resulted in
adolescents who reported greater companionship and intimacy during an interview about
their relationships with their new friends at the end of the school year.
Finally, Soenens and colleagues (2007) recently examined various peer management
strategies in order to determine the degree of psychological control adolescents felt in
relation to these strategies, and the consequences for adolescents’ social outcomes. It is
possible for parents to become too involved in their adolescents peer relationships and this
may result in negative consequences to the adolescent. In support of this, they found that
parents’ strategies that involved prohibiting their adolescents from interacting with certain
friends or helping them to weigh the pros and cons of associating with certain friends
(“guiding”) were perceived by adolescents to be psychologically controlling behaviors, while
11
encouraging adolescents to spend time with peers that parents liked (“supporting”) was not.
To support their hypothesis that adolescents’ perceptions of parental management strategies
as psychologically controlling would be related to negative outcomes, the researchers found
that when adolescents perceived parental “guiding” as psychologically controlling, they also
reported lower feelings of group belongingness. It is possible that adolescents, in response to
feeling psychologically controlled, resist their parents’ guidance towards certain friends and,
as a consequence, form fewer friendships overall and feel less connected to the larger peer
group. These results highlight how feelings of psychological control in the context of
parents’ management of their adolescents’ interactions with peers may have negative
consequences for adolescents’ peer relationships
Overall, parental peer management research has examined a variety of strategies
parents use to influence their adolescents’ interactions with peers, and this research has
shown that parents are involved to varying degrees. Although the research is limited, it
highlights important ways that parents have an impact on their adolescents’ social
experiences. Some of this research supports the notion that parents’ involvement has positive
consequences for adolescents’ peer relationships specifically, in the form of greater
friendship quality (Mounts, 2004; Vernberg et al., 1993). One purpose of the present study
was to contribute to this growing body of research by examining the role of adolescents’
disclosure and advice-seeking.
Adolescent Disclosure and Parental Knowledge
With increasing age, children’s and adolescents’ interactions with peers begin to
occur outside the home and with less direct parental supervision and, as noted above, parents’
influence over their adolescents’ peer interactions begins to diminish. Parents must rely to
12
some extent on their adolescents to disclose information about their peer interactions, as well
as other aspects of their lives, in order to be knowledgeable about their adolescents’ day to
day activities. Indeed, Kerr and Stattin (2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000), in their work on
parental monitoring and adolescent deviant behavior, found that the greatest source of
parental knowledge of adolescents’ daily activities was adolescent disclosure, over and above
other sources of knowledge such as parental solicitation of information or parental control
(e.g., parental rules restricting their adolescents’ activities which allow parents to be
knowledgeable about their adolescents’ whereabouts and peer companions). They also found
that disclosure predicted parental knowledge over time, in a study of young adolescents
followed over two years (Kerr, Stattin, & Burk, in press). Although this work was done
within the context of parental monitoring, that is, parents’ tracking and surveillance of their
children’s activities, and focused specifically on parental knowledge as one way parents can
prevent their children from associating with deviant peers, the role of child disclosure has
more recently been examined within the larger domain of parent-adolescent communication.
Recent research has elaborated on the work by Kerr and Stattin (2000) by examining
the features or characteristics of adolescents’ disclosure to their parents. These features
include the content of adolescent disclosure, the reasons for disclosure and nondisclosure,
and factors that may influence these. Researchers have found that adolescents disclose
information to parents to varying degrees depending on the social-cognitive domain of the
information (Smetana, Metzger, Gettman, & Campione-Barr, 2006) and whether or not that
domain falls under the parents’ or adolescents’ jurisdiction (Marshall, Tilton-Weaver, &
Bosdet, 2005). For example, Smetana and colleagues found that adolescents felt more
13
obligated to tell parents about prudential behavior (e.g., getting a bad grade at school) than
personal issues (e.g., how they spend their free time; who they like or have a “crush” on).
Researchers have also examined adolescents’ reasons for disclosure and found that
adolescents tend to disclose or tell their parents about their thoughts, feelings and activities
because they feel obligated to tell (e.g., they would get in trouble if they didn’t; Darling,
Cumsille, Caldwell, & Dowdy, 2006; Marshall et al., 2005; Smetana et al., 2006), because
their parents ask them direct questions about their activities and whereabouts (Kerr & Stattin,
2000; Smetana et al., 2006) or because they feel they can not get away with not disclosing
(Darling et al., 2006). In addition, Marshall and colleagues found that adolescents
considered their own needs (or potential needs) for their parents’ help or support (e.g., they
would tell their parents they were going on a hike in case they got lost and needed to be
rescued) in deciding whether or not to disclose.
Looking at disclosure from a different perspective, that is, in the form of
nondisclosure, Darling and colleagues (2006) found that adolescents reported choosing not to
disclose because of emotional reasons (e.g., “my parents would be disappointed in me”), fear
of the consequences (e.g., “my parents would be angry”) and because they felt the issue was
not within their parents’ jurisdiction (e.g., “it’s my private business”). The researchers also
found that adolescents reported not disclosing more often if the activity to be disclosed was
something both parent and adolescent disagreed about (i.e., was a potential source of
conflict).
Thus far, research indicates when, what and, to a certain extent, why adolescents
disclose to parents. Although interactions with peers and friends have been included in
research on disclosure already discussed (e.g., Darling et al., 2006; Smetana et al., 2006), this
14
research is not extensive nor have peer relations been the specific focus of any one study. As
well, the primary context for past research on disclosure has been parental control, meaning
that adolescent disclosure has been considered a mechanism by which parents can control
and guide adolescents’ behavior and interactions. Therefore, one aim of the present study
was to examine disclosure in a different context, one involving peers. Of particular interest
were the types of difficult experiences involving peers about which adolescents’ disclose and
the reasons adolescents choose to disclose or not disclose these experiences to their parents.
Once adolescents disclose or tell their parents about their experiences with peers, the
question that follows is: What do parents do with the knowledge they acquire? Another aim
of the present study was to answer this question with respect to knowledge about peer
relations. Research on parental knowledge of children and adolescents’ day to day
experiences, including those that cause them distress, provides some insight into how this
question may be answered. Similarly to research on adolescent disclosure, most of the
research on parental knowledge has been focused in the area of adolescent delinquent
behavior. Researchers have examined the relations between parental knowledge of their
children’s activities and peer affiliations and adolescents’ engagement in behaviors ranging
from drinking and smoking, to getting in trouble with the police (e.g., Waizenhofer,
Buchanan, & Jackson-Newsom, 2004). The most common conclusion from these studies is
that higher rates of parental knowledge are related to lower rates of delinquent behavior, both
concurrently (Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, &
Goossens, 2006; Waizenhofer, Buchanan, & Jackson-Newsom, 2004) and longitudinally
(Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003). The assumption is that parents’ knowledge of their
children’s activities motivates parents to intervene in some way, either by imposing stricter
15
rules for behavior or restricting their adolescents’ activities, thereby lessening the chances
that their children can engage in delinquent acts. Parents’ knowledge, then, is used to help
keep adolescents on the “right track”.
Little research has been done examining parental knowledge in other domains, but
what work has been done further supports the notion that parents may take their knowledge
and put it to good use. As one example, Vinik, Almas and Grusec (2008) found that mothers
who were knowledgeable about what distresses their children as well as what comforts them
have children who use more positive strategies to cope with distress. In a related study,
Almas, Grusec and Tackett (2008) found that children who disclosed to their parents about
their everyday experiences were also better at coping with their own distress. The
interpretation of these results is that children disclose or tell their parents about their
everyday experiences as well as their thoughts and feelings about those experiences, and
parents use their knowledge to successfully socialize their children (e.g., by teaching them
positive coping strategies), resulting in positive outcomes for the children.
The research on parental knowledge, then, shows that parents take their knowledge
and use it to help their children. One purpose of the present study was to determine whether
parents who are knowledgeable about their adolescents’ difficult peer experiences, acquired
through their adolescents’ disclosure, also help their adolescents in some way. In other
words, if adolescents tell their parents about difficult situations or problems involving their
friends, do parents use this knowledge to provide advice or guide their children in resolving
these issues? Taken a step further, do adolescents disclose about experiences with friends
partly in order to seek advice?
16
The present study sought to extend existing knowledge about adolescent disclosure
by examining the role that disclosure and possible subsequent conversations with parents
about the disclosed information may play in adolescent success with their friendships. It is
possible that adolescents may have reasons for disclosing besides feeling obligated to parents
or fearing punishment (Darling et al., 2006; Smetana et al., 2006), and that disclosure may be
one way adolescents achieve their personal goals of receiving support and advice. Disclosure
of friendship-related issues may facilitate discussions with parents about such issues and
create a context in which adolescents can seek comfort and advice. This may be one way
adolescents develop strategies for dealing with new types of friendship dilemmas that arise
during the transition to adolescence that they may not have had experience with in the past.
Adolescent Advice-seeking Behavior
Very little research has been conducted to examine adolescents’ advice-seeking
behavior with respect to their peer relationships or even about everyday experiences in
general. The research that has been done has, for the most part, examined the degree to
which the advice of parents and peers is sought as well as whether adolescents’ decisions
about who to approach for advice differ depending on the type of problem they are facing.
Early studies focused on the characteristics of adolescent advice-seeking behavior,
including determining the target of this behavior (e.g., parents versus peers; Wilks, 1986) and
whether the target varied by situation (Wintre, Hicks, McVey & Fox, 1988). Gould and
Mazzeo (1982), as one example, found that 10 to 14 year olds prefer to talk to mothers more
than fathers when they have questions about “general life issues”. As well, they found that
girls tend to rely on peers at earlier ages than do boys when looking for advice in general.
More recently, Fuligni and colleagues (Fuligni, Eccles, Barber & Clements, 2001) found that
17
seventh graders reported seeking advice from parents more than peers, especially if they also
reported greater family cohesion. These studies provide evidence to support the notion that
early adolescents ask parents for advice, in addition to peers, and that the gender of both
parent and adolescent influence advice-seeking behavior.
Research focused more narrowly on adolescent advice-seeking about peer
relationships has shown that early adolescents frequently experience problems with peers,
that they seek advice from parents about peer issues, although the degree to which they do so
generally decreases with age, and that there are gender differences in advice-seeking
behavior (Boldero & Fallon, 1995). For example, Wintre and colleagues (Wintre, Hicks,
McVey & Fox, 1988) interviewed adolescents ranging in age from 8 to 17 years about three
different hypothetical situations (one of which involved a peer) and asked who they would be
most likely to seek advice from about each situation. Their choices of advice-giver varied on
two dimensions: adult vs. peer and familiar vs. expert. With age, females showed less
preference for familiar adults as sources of advice across the three situations, while males
showed their greatest preference for familiar adults at age 11, followed by a decrease at age
14 and then an increase again at age 17. As well, they found that at ages 8 and 11, children
indicated that they would seek help from a familiar adult in dealing with the situation
involving an interpersonal problem with a peer (i.e., not getting along with a friend), while at
ages 14 and 17 they would do so less often but still to some degree. Similar to the results
reported by Gould and Mazzeo (1982), Wintre and colleagues found that females preferred
seeking advice from peers more than males overall. Taken together, this early work on
adolescent advice-seeking suggests that adolescents’ do rely on parents, especially mothers,
18
to give them advice about difficult everyday experiences including those involving peers, and
that boys tend to rely on their parents for advice more than do girls.
It seems logical that if parents provide advice to their adolescents about their peer
relationships, adolescents will use this advice to successfully negotiate difficult interactions
with peers. One study in support of this notion comes from research by Mounts (2004). In
her study of parents’ peer management strategies, as noted above, she examined the
provision of advice that she calls “consulting” or helping adolescents to problem-solve with
respect to their peer relations. Recall that in a sample of ethnically diverse 7th and 8th
graders, she found that those adolescents who reported that their parents engaged in
consulting with regards to their peer relationships also reported higher friendship quality.
This relation was not moderated by ethnicity, but held for White, African American and
Latino adolescents. There was no relation between parental consulting behavior and
adolescents’ reports of the level of conflict in their peer relationships. Mounts reasoned that
perhaps by providing advice parents teach adolescents skills they can use to maintain and
strengthen their friendships, and that there are other parental attitudes or skills that may
influence the way adolescents deal with conflict within a friendship. For example, if parents
convey the attitude that it is better to maintain a friendship than be right in an argument, their
adolescents may work to minimize conflicts more than if their parents convey the opposite
attitude. This study by Mounts is the only research undertaken where adolescent social
outcomes were examined as potential correlates of parental advice.
There is some evidence then to show that parents, especially mothers, continue to be a
source of information and advice during adolescence and that adolescents not only have
stressful experiences involving their peers but also seek advice about these situations. The
19
present study sought to explore the advice-seeking/giving relationship further and in the
specific context of peer relations in a number of ways. One goal was to add to the existing,
although small, body of research showing that adolescents seek advice from their parents
about peer relationships. Most studies have relied upon hypothetical vignettes and
questionnaire measures to assess advice-seeking and, in the present study, adolescents’
advice-seeking behavior in relation to their own real-life experiences was assessed using both
vignettes and an open-ended interview. Only one other study has involved asking
adolescents about their experiences and this was done in a sample of Australians with a much
broader age range (Boldero & Fallon, 1995).
The nature of the peer dilemmas about which adolescents are more likely to seek
advice was also of interest, as were the reasons adolescents chose not to seek advice from
their parents. Gender differences in advice-seeking were expected, as previous research has
shown boys to be more likely to seek advice from parents than girls (e.g., Boldero & Fallon,
1995).
If adolescents do indeed seek advice, the questions that follow are: What are the
characteristics of parents that make them attractive targets of advice-seeking about peer
dilemmas? Is the advice adolescents receive actually helpful, in other words, does it lead to
greater success with peers? Does advice partially mediate the relations between parental
characteristics and adolescent outcomes? These are questions that the present study sought
to answer.
Characteristics of Parents Related to Adolescents’ Disclosure and Advice-seeking
Studies examining adolescents’ disclosure about their day-to-day experiences have
shown that adolescents disclose more often to parents with specific qualities (e.g., parents
20
who are warm, supporting, accepting, trusting). Specifically, Smetana, Metzger, Gettman,
and Campione-Barr (2006) found that parental warmth and support were associated with
children’s greater disclosure about personal issues, such as how they spend their free time or
what they write in a journal, and schoolwork. Moreover, they found that adolescents who
trusted their parents more disclosed more information about the same issues, as well as those
involving peers. Kerr, Stattin, and Trost (1999) also found that when parent-child
relationships were characterized by trust adolescents were more likely to disclose. In
addition, they found that disclosure increased when the activities being disclosed were
known by adolescents to be acceptable to their parents.
Further support for the notion that certain characteristics make parents attractive
targets of adolescent disclosure comes from research by Wissink, Dekovic, and Meijer
(2006). They found that parents’ support and authoritative control were predictive of
adolescent disclosure across the four major ethnic groups in the Netherlands. Specifically,
they found adolescents who reported that their parents did things like praise them and talk to
them about their problems (“support”) and provide clear and realistic expectations for their
behavior (“authoritative control”) were also more likely to tell their parents about their
friends, activities and academic performance. Similarly, Darling and colleagues (Darling,
Cumsille, Caldwell, & Dowdy, 2006) found that adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’
authoritativeness was related to their self-reported levels of disclosure. Finally, Soenens,
Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, and Goossens (2006), in a study of Belgian adolescents, reported that
parents who were accepting and behaviorally controlling had children who disclosed more
about their day-to-day activities and information about their friends.
21
What is still unknown is whether or not adolescents disclose and seek advice about
difficult situations involving their friends to and from these same types of parents. It is
possible that, because difficult situations involving friends are potentially distressing,
adolescents may seek out parents with different qualities than those already discussed, where
the adolescents were often simply disclosing about their day-to-day experiences in a more
general way.
One parental characteristic that might be important in the context of disclosure and
advice-seeking about difficult peer situations is the way in which parents respond to their
children’s negative emotions. Disclosure, as discussed above and studied in previous
research, most often has included a mix of day-to-day activities and peer interactions (e.g.,
what happened at school that day, which friends you spent time with), which could include
both distressing and non-distressing events and experiences. In the present study, the focus
was on disclosure about distressing peer experiences specifically and as such, an important
characteristic to consider would be parents’ responses to their adolescents’ potentially
negative emotions, including anger, sadness and even fear, in the context of disclosure.
These have not been examined previously in the disclosure literature. Adolescents may be
likely to seek out parents, both for disclosure and advice-seeking, who respond in positive
ways to their negative emotions, for example, by being accepting of their child’s emotions or
by helping their child to focus on ways to solve whatever problem has upset them.
Alternately, adolescents may be less likely to seek out parents who respond negatively to
their emotions, by dismissing their emotional experiences or getting upset or angry that their
child is acting in such a way. Therefore, it was expected that parents who used positive
strategies to respond to their children’s negative emotions would have adolescents who
22
disclosed and sought their advice more often, and parents who used negative strategies would
have adolescents who disclosed and sought their advice less often.
By telling their parents about their difficult experiences with peers in order to ask for
advice or help in dealing with them, adolescents are taking on the role of the student and
expecting their parents to act as the teacher. Presumably parents’ own skill in dealing with
interpersonal situations would make them more effective teachers, as would their ability to
take their child’s perspective and provide advice that is well suited to the child and the
particular situation. Thus two additional characteristics included in the present study that
could make parents more or less attractive to adolescents as potential sources of advice were
parents’ own interpersonal competence and their perspective-taking abilities. It was
expected, then, that parents who were more interpersonally competent and higher in
perspective-taking would have adolescents who disclose and seek their advice more often.
Also relevant are dispositional qualities of parents, such as their levels of warmth and
anger, which make adolescents more or less likely to want to be around their parents and
learn from them more successful ways of interacting with others. Maternal warmth has been
examined previously in relation to adolescents’ general disclosure (Smetana, et al., 2006) and
the present study sought to examine warmth in the context of disclosure and advice-seeking
about peer dilemmas. It is reasonable to assume that adolescents would seek out parents who
respond warmly to their initiation of communication and potential distress. It was expected
that parents who were warm would have adolescents who disclosed to them and sought their
advice more often. Parental warmth, as previously examined by Smetana and colleagues,
was inferred from a questionnaire measure of parental acceptance. In the present study,
23
parental warmth was assessed specifically, by asking parents to report on their own behavior
using an open-ended essay format.
In addition, it was assumed that parents who are easily angered would be considered
less attractive targets of disclosure and advice-seeking, especially in the case of difficult or
potentially stressful experiences, because adolescents may fear a negative response from
parents as opposed to the teaching or guidance that they desire. Thus parental anger was
expected to be negatively related to disclosure and advice-seeking.
It is also important to consider the fact that some adolescents may be more inclined to
disclose or seek advice due to qualities inherent to their personality. These adolescents may
be more talkative, or simply more concerned with resolving interpersonal issues. Therefore,
two personality dimensions, agreeableness and conscientiousness, were included in the
present study as control variables, in order to account for characteristics of adolescents that
may be related to their tendencies to disclose and seek advice.
Adolescent Social Outcomes of Disclosure and Advice-seeking
Much research to date has examined the characteristics of parents who have socially
successful children. These characteristics include warmth, supportiveness and
responsiveness as it relates to the attachment relationship. As described earlier, one
mechanism by which attachment influences children’s social success is through the
development of internal working models about the nature of relationships which in turn are
applied to interactions with peers (see Thompson, 2006, for a summary). However, the
process or mechanism by which other parenting characteristics lead to positive peer
relationships is unclear. Certainly it is likely that children model their parents more desirable
characteristics and as a consequence learn appropriate and successful ways of interacting
24
with others. As mentioned earlier though, during early adolescence friendships and
experiences with peers become much more complex and adolescents have to negotiate a
number of aspects of these relationships at once (e.g., characteristics at the level of the dyad
as well as contextual factors). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there may be a more
direct mechanism operating through which parents with positive characteristics influence
their children’s peer relationships. This mechanism is the provision of advice.
Before examining parental advice as the mechanism by which parents with certain
characteristics have more or less socially successful children, it is important to ask: Do
adolescents benefit in some way from disclosing to their parents about their experiences with
peers and receiving advice? There seems to be only one study that can help to answer this
question. Mounts (2004), as discussed earlier, found a positive relation between the peer
management strategy “consulting”, which involved the provision of advice, and adolescent
friendship quality. However, Mounts did not examine the characteristics of parents who
were more likely to use consulting as a strategy, nor did she explore it as a potential mediator
of the relations between parenting and adolescent social outcomes.
In the present study, the expectations then were that those adolescents who received
more advice from their parents would report having close friendships of higher quality and a
greater sense of interpersonal competence. These relations were expected to exist over and
above any contributions made by adolescent disclosure. In other words, it may not be the
simple act of disclosing or telling parent about peer experiences, but instead the concrete
advice provided by parents, that leads to greater social success. As well, it was expected that
advice would mediate the relations between parental parenting characteristics and
adolescents’ friendship quality and interpersonal competence. This was a direct test of the
25
hypothesis that advice is the mechanism by which “good” parents have children who are
successful with their peers.
Given the expectation discussed earlier that boys would seek advice from their
parents more often than girls, it was also expected that, as a consequence, the boys would see
more positive consequences of that advice than girls. Therefore it was expected that the
relations between advice and friendship quality and interpersonal competence would be
stronger for boys than for girls.
Overview of the Present Study
The present study had three main goals. The first goal was to examine adolescents’
conversations with their mothers about dilemmas involving a close friend and, more
specifically, the features of adolescents’ disclosure about friendship dilemmas and
subsequent advice-seeking for help in dealing with these types of situations. The features of
interest included the kinds of peer experiences adolescents’ tell their mothers about,
adolescents’ reasons for disclosure and nondisclosure, as well as their reasons for choosing
not to seek advice.
The second goal was to identify and examine the parenting characteristics of mothers
to whom adolescents disclose and seek advice about difficult peer situations. And finally, the
third goal was to examine the potential positive consequences to adolescents of their
disclosure and advice-seeking in the forms of increased friendship quality and greater
interpersonal competence, and to determine whether advice acts as a mediator of the relation
between parenting characteristics and adolescent outcomes.
26
The present study focused on mothers specifically because, although it is
acknowledged that research is increasingly showing the important contributions of fathers to
children’s social development, the inclusion of fathers was beyond the scope of this thesis.
Mothers’ responsiveness to their child’s distress, perspective-taking, warmth and
anger were measured by mother reports of their behavior at Time 1 of a longitudinal study
while their interpersonal competence was measured by mother report two years later, at Time
2. Adolescents’ disclosure was measured by adolescent reports at Time 1 and Time 2, while
their advice-seeking to mothers as well as their friendship quality, interpersonal competence
and personality were measured by adolescent reports at Time 2.
Summary of Hypotheses
1) Boys were expected to seek advice more often than were girls.
2) Mothers who were warm, took their adolescents’ perspective and used positive
strategies for responding to their children’s negative emotions would later have
adolescents who disclosed to them more and subsequently sought their advice
more often for dealing with difficult peer situations, after controlling for
adolescents’ disclosure at Time 1 and personality variables; these mothers would
also have adolescents with greater friendship quality and interpersonal
competence.
3) Mothers who had greater interpersonal competence would have adolescents who
disclosed to them more and subsequently sought their advice more often, after
controlling for adolescents’ personality variables.
4) Mothers who were angry and used negative strategies for responding to their
children’s negative emotions would later have adolescents who disclosed to them
27
less and subsequently sought their advice less often for dealing with difficult peer
situations, after controlling for adolescents’ disclosure at Time 1 and personality
variables; these mothers would also have adolescents with lower friendship
quality and less interpersonal competence.
5) Adolescents’ advice-seeking behavior would be related to greater friendship
quality and greater interpersonal competence, after controlling for adolescents’
disclosure at Time 2 and personality. This relation would be stronger for boys
than for girls.
6) Adolescents’ advice-seeking would mediate the relations between maternal
characteristics at Time 1 and adolescents’ social outcomes at Time 2.
Method: Time 1
Participants
One hundred and one children (53 boys and 48 girls) and their mothers participated at
Time 1. The children’s ages ranged from 9.8 to 12.5 years (M = 10.99, SD = 0.68) and the
mothers’ from 35 to 60 years (M = 44.46, SD = 4.87). The majority of the mothers (84%)
were married or living with a common-law partner. Participants were primarily of middle-
class socioeconomic status. They identified their ethnicities as follows: Western European,
53%; Canadian, 18%; Asian, 12%; Eastern European, 7%; African/Caribbean, 4%; other
(mixed parentage, white South African, Latino), 6%. All but two mothers had completed
high school, and 81% had completed university. Sixty-one percent of mothers were
employed full-time, 16% were employed part-time, and 12% were unemployed. Eleven
percent of mothers did not indicate their employment status.
Procedure
Participants were recruited primarily through a database of families who had agreed
to be contacted by phone for participation in research studies at the university. Recruiters
called mothers and explained to them the purpose of the study and that participation involved
completing a set of questionnaires at home and then visiting the laboratory at the University
of Toronto with their child. Mothers were told the approximate length of the study (2 hours)
and that parts of the study would be audio-taped. Finally they were told that their child
would receive a book at the end of the study to thank him or her for his or her participation.
Once mothers agreed to participate, they were mailed a paper questionnaire package
to be completed at home prior to the lab visit and later brought to the lab. Mothers and
children then visited the research lab, where they were greeted by two undergraduate student
28
29
interviewers. First, mothers and children were familiarized with the rooms they would be
working in and then the interviewers explained the study procedure in general terms and
answered any questions that were asked. The interviewers also explained the confidentiality
rules governing the study and assured mothers and adolescents that the information each
provided would not be shared with the other. They were told that there were “no right or
wrong answer to any of the questions” and they could choose to not to answer any questions
or withdraw from the study at any time. Both mothers and children were then asked to sign
the consent form, and subsequently separated into two rooms where they were interviewed
and completed various questionnaires. All families agreed to participate. At the conclusion
of the study, mothers and their children were reunited and debriefed about the purpose of the
study, and any questions they had were then answered. Children received a book at this time.
A subset of those measures completed at home and in the lab was used for the present study.
Measures
Maternal responsiveness to distress. Mothers completed the Coping with Children’s
Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; Fabes, Eisenberg, & Bernzweig, 1990). Mothers are
presented with 12 scenarios in which a child is distressed (e.g. “If my child loses some prized
possession and reacts with tears, I would…”) and then asked how likely they would be to
respond in each of six different ways on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 7
(highly likely). The six ways include: Distressing Reactions (e.g. “get upset with him/her for
being so careless and then crying about it”), Punitive Reactions (e.g. “tell him/her that’s what
happens when you’re not careful”), Expressive Encouragement (e.g. “tell him/her it’s ok to
cry when you feel unhappy”), Emotion-focused Reactions (e.g. “distract him/her by talking
about happy things”), Problem-focused Reactions (e.g. “help him/her think of places he/she
30
hasn’t looked yet”), and Minimization Reactions (e.g. “tell him/her that he/she is over-
reacting”). For the present study, the three more positive strategies were combined to form a
positive maternal responsiveness scale (CCNESpos) by averaging scores on the Expressive
Encouragement, Emotion-Focused Reactions, and the Problem-Focused Reactions subscales
(all three subscales were significantly inter-correlated, ps < .01). The three more negative
strategies were combined to form a negative maternal responsiveness scale (CCNESneg) by
averaging scores on the Distressing Reactions, Punitive Reactions and Minimization
Reactions subscales (all three subscales were significantly inter-correlated, ps < .001). The
decision to create two scales was also supported by a principal components analysis which
yielded two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, accounting for 69% of the variance,
and showed the six subscales to load in the same ways that they were grouped to form
CCNESpos and CCNESneg. Fabes and colleagues (Fabes, Poulin, Eisenberg, & Madden-
Derdich, 2002) reported good reliability for the subscales, with alphas ranging from .72 to
.88. In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas for the three positive subscales were .89, .81,
and .67 respectively, and .69 for CCNESpos. Cronbach’s alphas were .62, .77, and .80 for
the three negative subscales respectively, and .78 for CCNESneg.
Maternal warmth. Mothers were asked to write two essays, one describing “What it’s
like to be the mother of [study child’s name]” and one “About [study child’s name]”. The
instructions given by the interviewer were as follows:
“Now I am going to give you some paper, and I would like you to please write a
paragraph describing what it is like to be the mother of _______ [insert child’s name].
You can write as much or a little as you want on the page, and you have as much time
as you need”.
31
The instructions were repeated for the second essay once the first essay was completed
(Hastings & Hersh, 1999; Davidov & Grusec, 2006). Mothers’ essays were then coded on
two dimensions of warmth: mothers’ enjoyment of her child and mothers’ positive view of
her child, using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not present) to 4 (strong presence).
The two dimensions were subjected to a principal components analysis and loaded on a
single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0, accounting for 66% of the variance in the
two dimensions. They were subsequently averaged to form a single measure of maternal
warmth (WARMTH). Inter-rater reliability for 25 percent of the essays was r = .93 for the
enjoyment dimension and r = .82 for the positive view dimension.
Maternal perspective-taking. Mothers completed an adapted version of the Self-
Dyadic Perspective-Taking Scale (SDPT; Long, 1990; Lundell, Grusec, McShane, &
Davidov, 2008). They were asked to respond to 15 items according to how well the statement
described their behavior with their child. Sample items include: “I try to look at my
son’s/daughter’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision” and “When I’m upset with
my son/daughter, I usually try to put myself in his/her shoes for a while.” Responses were
rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not describe me well) to 5 (describes me
very well). The scale was originally designed for use with adult couples but was adapted by
Lundell et al. to be used with parents and children. They reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .86
for the scale and in the present study Cronbach’s alpha was also .86.
Maternal anger. Maternal anger was measured in two ways. First, mothers
completed the Trait Anger subscale of the State-Trait Anger Inventory (STAXI Trait;
Spielberger, 1988) which consists of 10 items assessing an individual’s dispositional
tendency to become angry (e.g. “I am quick tempered”, “I have a fiery temper”). They were
32
asked to rate how often they felt each way on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to
4 (almost always). Spielberger (1988) reported an alpha of .82 and, in the present study,
Cronbach’s alpha was .80. Then, mothers also completed the Anger Expression subscale of
the STAXI (STAXI Exp), which consists of 32 items assessing an individual’s tendency to
express his or her anger (e.g. “I can’t stop myself from losing my temper”) rated on a scale of
1 to 4 (same as above). Spielberger reported an alpha of .80 and, in the present study, the
alpha was .89.
Child disclosure. In order to control for children’s disclosure at Time 1 in the
prediction of their disclosure at Time 2 from parenting characteristics at Time 1, they
completed the child disclosure subscale of the Parental Monitoring Scale (CD; Stattin &
Kerr, 2000). This measure assesses the degree to which children disclose information about
their day to day activities to their parents, including those activities involving their peers. The
subscale consists of five items: “Do you spontaneously tell your parents about your friends
(e.g. which friends you hang out with and how you think and feel about various things)?”,
“How often do you want to tell your parents about school (e.g. how each subject is going;
relationships with teachers)?”, “Do you like to tell your parents about what you did and
where you went during the evening?”, “Do you keep a lot of secrets from your parents about
what you do during your free time?”, “Do you hide a lot from your parents about what you
do during nights and weekends?”. Children responded to each statement using a scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Kerr and Stattin (2000) reported good reliability for the
subscale (Cronbach’s alpha was .78). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .61.
Measures of maternal responsiveness, perspective-taking and anger were completed
at home, while the child measure was completed in the lab.
33
Method: Time 2
Participants
All of the families from Time 1 agreed to be contacted for a follow up study by
giving verbal consent to the interviewer at the end of the study. A letter was sent to families
approximately one year after Time 1 indicating that a follow-up study would be conducted
and that they would be contacted in the near future to ask for their participation two years
from the time of original participation. All the families who had taken part at Time 1 were
contacted for Time 2 participation. Of these, 17 (17%) families declined participation, 3
(3%) could not participate because they had moved away, 4 (4%) families could not be
contacted (e.g. because their phone number was no longer in service), and 2 (2%) families
indicated family disruption (death of mother and child receiving intensive therapy) as their
reason for not participating. One family withdrew from the study partway through
participating. The sample at Time 2 therefore consists of 74 families.
In the Time 2 sample there were 36 boys and 38 girls and their ages ranged from 11.6
to 14.6 years, with a mean of 12.8 (SD = .79). Mothers’ ages ranged from 37 to 61 years,
with a mean of 45.5 (SD = 5.1). Three mothers did not report their ages. The majority of
mothers (87%) were married or living with a common-law partner. Participants were
primarily of middle-class socioeconomic status. They identified their ethnicities as follows:
Western European, 41%; Canadian, 30%; Asian, 3%; Eastern European, 9%;
African/Caribbean, 4%; other (mixed parentage, white South African, Latino), 6%. All but
one mother had completed high school, and 80% had completed university. Sixty-four
percent of mothers indicated they were employed full-time, 27% were employed part-time,
and 9% were unemployed.
34
There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics or study
variables between mothers who did and did not choose to participate at Time 2. There were
also no significant differences in Time 1 disclosure for adolescents who did and did not
choose to participate at Time 2.
Procedure
A similar procedure to that used at Time 1 was used at Time 2. Mothers were
contacted by telephone by an undergraduate research assistant and told about the follow-up
study in general terms. There were given details about what was involved in their
participation, including answering a set of questionnaires at home and then visiting the
research laboratory at the University of Toronto. They were told the approximate length of
the study (2.5 hours) and that parts of the study would be audio-taped. Finally, research
assistants informed mothers that their adolescent would receive a $15 gift certificate for a
local bookstore at the end of the study to thank him or her for his or her participation.
Once mothers agreed to participate, they were emailed a set of instructions on how to
complete the study questionnaires online. Mothers then logged onto a secure website
(www.psychdata.com) where they provided their email address and study password (assigned
by the research assistant) and completed a series of questionnaires. These home
questionnaires took approximately 20 minutes to complete. If a mother indicated her
discomfort in using the online system a set of paper questionnaires was mailed to her instead.
Mothers and their adolescents subsequently visited the research laboratory at the
University of Toronto where they were greeted by two undergraduate student interviewers.
First, mothers and adolescents were familiarized with the rooms they would be working in.
They were then taken to an interview room where the interviewers explained the study
35
procedure in general terms and answered any questions that were asked. The interviewers
also explained the confidentiality rules governing the study and assured mothers and
adolescents that the information they provided would not be shared with the other dyad
member. As well, mothers and adolescents were told that there were “no right or wrong
answers to any of the questions” and they could choose not to answer particular questions or
withdraw from the study at any time. Both mothers and adolescents were then asked to sign
the consent form. All families gave their consent.
One interviewer then took the adolescent to a playroom to begin the study. The
mother remained in the interview room with the second interviewer where she completed
questionnaires on a computer and was interviewed about interactions with her adolescent. At
the same time, the adolescent completed questionnaires on a computer and was interviewed
about interactions with his or her mother. The mother and adolescent were then reunited in
the playroom and were asked to complete two interactive tasks not used in the present study.
Subsequently, the mother and second interviewer returned to their original interview room to
complete some remaining questionnaires on the computer. The adolescent remained in the
playroom with the interviewer and also completed some questionnaires on the computer. At
the conclusion of the study, the mother and adolescent were reunited in the interview room
and debriefed about the purpose of the study, and any questions they had were then
answered. Adolescents received the $15 gift certificate at this time.
A subset of the measures completed in the lab was used for the present study, while
none of the measures completed at home was used for present purposes.
36
Measures
Parent-adolescent conversations about friendship dilemmas. Adolescents were
interviewed using a measure developed for the present study about conversations they have
with their mothers about difficult situations involving close friends, that is, situations where
the adolescent was not sure what to do but needed to figure it out or resolve it (Conversations
Measure; Almas & Grusec, 2007). In the first part of the interview, the interviewer provided
a definition of “close friends” to the adolescent:
“Now, for the purpose of today’s study, what I mean by “close friends” is people
who spend a lot of time together and have things in common, sometimes tell personal
things to each other or can trust with each other’s secrets, count on each other to be
there during tough times, things like that.”
The interviewer then described six hypothetical vignettes involving difficult situations with a
close friend and asked the adolescent to use a laptop computer to answer various questions
about how he or she might act in these situations. The six vignettes are listed in Appendix A.
The vignette topics were chosen so as to encompass a variety of situations that adolescents
may experience and have difficulty in deciding how to respond, ranging from the more
benign (e.g., conflicting plans with friends) to the more serious (e.g., a friend is smoking at
lunch and pressuring the adolescent to smoke too). The questions adolescents were asked
about each vignette included: “How likely would you be to tell your mother about this
situation?”; “Why would you tell your mother about this?” or “Why are you not likely to tell
your mother about this?”; “How likely would you be to ask your mother for advice about this
situation?”; “Why are you not likely to ask your mother for advice”. Adolescents answered
“How likely…” questions on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not likely) to 3 (very
37
likely). When asked about their reasons for disclosure/nondisclosure, adolescents were
prompted to answer by selecting from a list of various reasons. For disclosure, the reasons
included: “I feel obligated to tell my mother”; “She would be angry if I didn’t”; “If I tell her I
will feel better”; “Sharing stuff with my mother makes our relationship closer”; and “To get
advice”. For nondisclosure, the reasons included: “I might get into trouble”; “We don’t talk
about things like that”; “She might think less of me”; “I wouldn’t want to upset her”; “I
wouldn’t want my mother to think less of my friend”; and “I can handle it on my own”. In
both cases, adolescents were also given the option to choose “other”. These various reasons
were based on previous research examining adolescent disclosure (Smetana, Metzger,
Gettman & Campione-Barr, 2006; Darling, Cumsille, Caldwell & Dowdy, 2006; Marshall,
Tilton-Weaver & Bosdet, 2005) but were modified to be relevant to disclosure about difficult
situations involving friends. When adolescents were asked about their reasons for not
seeking advice, they were prompted to provide their answers in an open-ended format where
they were free to write whatever they wished. This format was chosen because, unlike
disclosure, there was no previous literature available to guide the formulation of a list of
reasons for not seeking advice from which adolescents could choose.
In the second part of the interview adolescents were asked to describe up to three
recent experiences they had had involving a difficult interaction with a close friend.
Specifically, interviewers said:
“We’ve just finished thinking about different issues that can come up that involve
close friends. By “issues” I mean situations where you’re not sure what to do but you
need to resolve it or figure it out. I’d like you to think back over the last couple of
months and think of any situations or issues like the ones we just talked about that
38
have occurred involving your close friends. I’m going to ask you some questions
about each of the situations you remember. I’ll make a brief note of the
situation/issue on this page so that we can refer back to it in a minute. So, can you
think of an issue or situation?”
Adolescents were then asked questions about their disclosure and advice-seeking behavior to
their mothers about the situations that they described, including their reasons for disclosure,
nondisclosure and not seeking advice. The full set of questions is presented in the
Interviewer Script in Appendix B. As is evident from the script, the questions that were
asked varied across adolescents, and depended on their answers to previous questions. More
specifically, for example, it was only if an adolescent indicated that he/she disclosed about a
situation that the adolescent was then asked “Did you ask your mother for help or advice in
resolving it?”
In the third part of the interview adolescents were asked a series of more general
questions about their disclosure to and advice-seeking from parents about difficult friendship
situations. Only one of these questions is relevant to the present study: “In general, when
you have a problem or an issue involving your close friend, how often do you talk to your
mom about it in order to get advice on how to deal with the situation?”. Adolescents
answered this question on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not often at all) to 5 (very
often).
Part 1 and Part 2 of the interview were transcribed from digital audio recordings.
Coding schemes were developed by the principal investigator for the open-ended portions of
the interview, including adolescents’ reasons for not seeking advice from Part 1, and topics
of peer dilemmas, reasons for nondisclosure and not seeking advice from Part 2. The coding
39
schemes for each of these are presented in Appendices C through E. Trained coders coded
25% of the transcripts and were able to achieve good inter-rater reliability, with Cohen’s
kappas of .83 for reasons for not seeking advice in Part 1, .88 for the topics of peer dilemmas
in Part 2, .94 for reasons for nondisclosure in Part 2, and .83 for reasons for not seeking
advice in Part 2.
To compare the frequency with which adolescents endorsed the various reasons for
disclosure and nondisclosure to mothers in Part 1 of the interview, proportion scores were
calculated in order to take into account the fact that adolescents varied in the number of times
they reported disclosing and not disclosing across the six vignettes. Proportion scores were
calculated by dividing the number of times an adolescent endorsed a particular reason by the
number of relevant vignettes. For example, if an adolescent indicated that he or she would
disclose about four of the six vignettes, and they endorsed “Felt Obligation” as a reason for
disclosure twice, then the proportion score for that adolescent for that reason for disclosure
would be .50.
Adolescents’ reasons for not seeking advice in Part 1, as well as their reasons for not
disclosing and not seeking advice in Part 2 were calculated as percentage frequencies in order
to allow for comparisons to be made between Parts 1 and 2 of the measure. Mean proportion
scores were not calculated in these cases because adolescents answered questions about these
reasons in an open-ended format and therefore their responses were not amendable to mean
proportion score calculations.
Adolescent friendship quality. Adolescents completed the Friendship Quality
Questionnaire (FQQ; Parker & Asher, 1993) which consists of 40 items describing various
qualities of a close friendship. Adolescents were asked to think of a close friend and indicate
40
how well each statement described that friendship on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0
(not at all true) to 4 (really true). The 40 items are grouped into six subscales: Validation &
Caring (10 items; “Care about my feelings”), Conflict Resolution (3 items; “Get over our
arguments really quickly”), Conflict & Betrayal (7 items; “Fight a lot”), Help & Guidance (9
items; “Gives advice with figuring things out”), Companionship & Recreation (5 items; “Do
fun things together a lot”), and Intimate Exchange (6 items; “Tell each other private things”).
Parker and Asher reported good reliability for the subscales (Cronbach’s alphas ranged from
.73 to .90) and in the present study Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .55 to .86. The six
subscales were subjected to a principal components analysis that yielded a single factor with
an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 that explained 54% of the variance in the subscales. Therefore
the six subscale scores were averaged to form a single score of adolescent friendship quality.
Cronbach’s alpha for the full scale was .89.
Adolescent interpersonal competence. Adolescents completed a modified version of
the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (AICQ; Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, &
Reis, 1988) which consists of 40 statements describing various interpersonal situations
involving interactions with friends and acquaintances, for example, making plans to hang
out. The wording of some statements was changed slightly to include more age-appropriate
language and examples (e.g. “Helping a close companion work through his or her thoughts
and feelings about a major life decision, e.g., a career choice” was changed to “Helping a
close friend work through his or her thoughts and feelings about something important, e.g.,
which sports team to join”). Adolescents were asked to rate their competency in dealing with
each situation on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I’m poor at this; I’d feel so
uncomfortable and unable to handle this situation, I’d avoid it if possible) to 5 (I’m extremely
41
good at this; I’d feel very comfortable and could handle this situation very well). The 40
items are grouped into five subscales with eight items each: Initiation (e.g. “Introducing
yourself to someone you might like to get to know”), Negative Assertion (e.g. Turning down
a request by a companion that is unreasonable), Disclosure (e.g. “Letting a new companion
get to know the ‘real you’”), Emotional Support (e.g. “Being a good and sensitive listener for
a companion who is upset”), and Conflict Management (e.g. “Refraining from saying things
that might cause a disagreement to build into a big fight”). Buhrmester et al. reported good
reliability for the subscales (Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .77 to .87) and in the present
study Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .82 to .93. The five subscales were subjected to a
principal components analysis that yielded a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0
that explained 72% of the variance in the subscales. Therefore the five subscale scores were
averaged to form a single score of adolescent interpersonal competence. Cronbach’s alpha
for the full scale was .96.
Adolescent personality. Adolescents completed the Big Five Personality Inventory
(BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999). This 44 item questionnaire assesses five dimensions of
personality. Individuals are asked to indicate how much they believe various statements
reflect their own personal qualities, by indicating their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Subscales and items include:
Agreeableness (9 items; “Likes to cooperate with others”), Conscientiousness (9 items;
“Makes plans and follows through with them”), Openness (10 items; “Likes to reflect, play
with ideas”), Extraversion (8 items; “Generates a lot of enthusiasm”), and Neuroticism (8
items; “Gets nervous easily”). Individual items were averaged to form five subscale scores.
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were considered most relevant to disclosure and
42
advice-seeking behavior and therefore were the only two personality variables used in the
present study. John and Srivastava (1999) report Cronbach’s alphas of .79 and .82 for the
two subscales respectively and in the present study Cronbach’s alphas were .79 and .78
respectively.
Maternal interpersonal competence. Mothers completed the Interpersonal
Competence Questionnaire (MICQ; Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988) which
consists of 40 statements describing various interpersonal situations involving interactions
with friends and acquaintances, for example, making plans to do something. Mothers were
asked to rate their competency in dealing with each situation on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (I’m poor at this; I’d feel so uncomfortable and unable to handle this
situation, I’d avoid it if possible) to 5 (I’m extremely good at this; I’d feel very comfortable
and could handle this situation very well). The 40 items are grouped into five subscales with
eight items each: Initiation (e.g. “Introducing yourself to someone you might like to get to
know”), Negative Assertion (e.g. “Turning down a request by a companion that is
unreasonable”), Disclosure (e.g. “Letting a new companion get to know the ‘real you’”),
Emotional Support (e.g. “Being a good and sensitive listener for a companion who is upset”),
and Conflict Management (e.g. “Refraining from saying things that might cause a
disagreement to build into a big fight”). Buhrmester et al. reported good reliability for the
subscales (Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .77 to .87) and in the present study Cronbach’s
alphas ranged from .81 to .93. The five subscales were subjected to a principal components
analysis that yielded a single factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 that explained 50% of
the variance in the subscales. Therefore the five subscale scores were averaged to form a
43
single score of maternal interpersonal competence. Cronbach’s alpha for the full scale was
.92.
Results
Overview of Analyses
The following analyses were conducted to examine the research questions outlined
above. First, descriptive statistics of the features of adolescents’ disclosure and advice-
seeking were examined, in order to determine the frequency with which adolescents disclose
and seek advice, as well as their reasons for doing so. Subsequently, data from Part 2 of the
Conversations Measure, in which adolescents answered questions about their disclosure and
advice-seeking behavior during real-life scenarios, was compared to adolescents’ responses
for the hypothetical vignettes as a check on their external validity. Reasons for nondisclosure
and not seeking advice from Part 2 were also examined.
Second, in order to answer questions about the relations between maternal parenting
characteristics, adolescents’ disclosure and advice-seeking behavior, and adolescents’ social
outcomes, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. These included an
examination of the relations between maternal parenting characteristics at Time 1 and
adolescents’ disclosure and advice-seeking behavior at Time 2, and the relations between
adolescents’ advice-seeking behavior at Time 2 and adolescents’ social outcomes at Time 2.
Data Screening
In Part 1 of the Conversations Measure, all the adolescents reported that they would
disclose to their mothers about at least one of the hypothetical vignettes. Two adolescents
(3%) reported that they would disclose about only one hypothetical vignette, 7 (10%)
reported that they would disclose about two vignettes, 8 (11%) reported that they would
disclose about three vignettes, 14 (19%) reported that they would disclose about four
44
45
vignettes, 10 (14%) reported that they would disclose about five vignettes, and 33 (45%)
reported that they would disclose about six vignettes.
With respect to adolescents’ reasons for disclosure, six adolescents did not choose
from the list of reasons provided but instead chose to answer “other”. These adolescents
were excluded from subsequent analyses of the reasons for disclosure and, therefore, the
sample consisted of 68 adolescents.
Seventy-two adolescents (97%) reported that they would seek advice from their
mothers about at least one of the hypothetical vignettes. Five adolescents (7%) reported that
they would seek advice about one hypothetical vignette, 8 (11%) reported that they would
seek advice about two vignettes, 9 (12%) reported that they would seek advice about three
vignettes, fourteen (19%) reported that they would seek advice about four vignettes, 5 (7%)
reported that they would seek advice about five vignettes and 31 (42%) reported that they
would seek advice about six vignettes.
Twenty-seven adolescents (37% of the sample) reported that they would not seek
advice from mothers and, of these, 25 reported that they would not seek advice about one
vignette and 2 adolescents reported that they would not seek advice about two vignettes.
Therefore, 29 open-ended responses were given about not seeking advice. However, because
of the fact that in three responses, adolescents’ provided two reasons for not seeking advice,
32 different reasons for not seeking advice were coded.
Missing Data
At Time 1, one mother did not complete one parenting measure and one child (from a
different family) did not complete one child measure during their visits to the research
laboratory. According to Cohen and Cohen (1983), the problem of missing data should be
46
addressed in situations where less than ten percent of data is missing. Therefore, SPSS
Missing Data Analysis was used to impute the missing values using regression for these two
participants. There was no missing data for any of the Time 2 questionnaire measures.
In Part 2 of the Conversations Measure, 10 adolescents (14%) were not able to
generate any scenarios to discuss. Seventeen (23%) only generated one scenario to discuss,
18 (24%) generated two scenarios to discuss, and 29 (39%) generated three scenarios to
discuss during the interview.
Of those adolescents who were able to generate scenarios to discuss, 17 (23%)
reported that they did not disclose to their mothers about any of the scenarios, 19 (26%)
reported that they disclosed about one scenario, 16 (22%) reported that they disclosed about
two scenarios, 8 (11%) reported that they disclosed about three scenarios, and 4 (5%)
reported that they disclosed about four scenarios.
Of those adolescents who disclosed to mothers, 22 (30%) reported that they did not
seek advice from mothers in any of their scenarios, 15 (20%) reported that they sought advice
in one scenario, 9 (12%) reported that they sought advice in two scenarios, and 2 (3%)
reported that they sought advice in three scenarios.
Data Transformations
All variables were screened and appropriately transformed in order to normalize the
distributions. Specifically, stem-and-leaf plots, box-plots, normality statistics, and skew and
kurtosis values were examined. Variables that were skewed and non-normally distributed
were transformed.
47
Measures of Maternal Parenting Characteristics
CCNESneg and STAXI Trait anger were positively skewed (with values > 1.0) and
had large kurtosis values (> 1.0). A square-root transformation was applied to both variables
successfully. The SDPT, WARMTH, CCNESpos, STAXI Exp and MICQ did not violate
normality assumptions and therefore were left untransformed.
Measures of Adolescent Disclosure and Advice-seeking
Adolescent disclosure and advice-seeking vignette scores were slightly skewed and
had kurtosis values greater than 1. A rank transformation was applied to all variables
successfully. The general measure of advice-seeking did not violate normality assumptions
and therefore was left untransformed.
Adolescents’ reasons for disclosure were positively skewed and had large kurtosis
values (> 1.0). Square-root transformations were applied to all variables successfully except
for one variable (Avoid Punishment). Adolescents’ reasons for nondisclosure and not
seeking advice were highly skewed (with values > 1.0) and transformations were not able to
normalize the distributions.
Adolescent disclosure measured at Time 1 did not violate normality assumptions and
therefore were left untransformed.
Measures of Adolescent Friendship Quality and Interpersonal Competence
Neither of the adolescent social outcome measures violated normality assumptions.
They were therefore left untransformed.
48
Features of Adolescent Disclosure and Advice-seeking
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics
Features of adolescent disclosure. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations
for adolescent disclosure for the six hypothetical vignettes in Part 1 of the Conversations
Measure. In descending order of frequency, adolescents reported that they were most likely
to disclose about conflicting plans with friends, followed by a friend smoking at lunch, a
friend not being invited to a party, their own attendance at a party, a friend talking badly
about them, and two friends fighting.
Table 1 Means and standard deviations for Adolescent Disclosure to Mothers for the Six Hypothetical Vignettes, Part 1, Conversations Measure Vignette M SD Range Friend Not Invited to Party 2.27 .70 1-3 Friend Talking Badly About Adolescent 2.04 .77 1-3 Friend Smoking at Lunch 2.46 .78 1-3 Conflicting Plans with Friends 2.53 .71 1-3 Own Party Attendance 2.05 .79 1-3 Two Friends Fighting 2.00 .84 1-3 Note. N = 74. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the various reasons for
adolescents’ disclosure to their mothers about the six hypothetical vignettes. In descending
order of frequency, adolescents reported that they were most likely to disclose because telling
49
their mother would make them feel better (“Seek Comfort”), followed by to seek advice (“To
Get Advice”), to make the mother-child relationship closer (“Foster Mother-Child
Relationship”), because they felt obligated (“Obligation”), and in order to avoid punishment.
Because 80% of adolescents never reported “Avoid Punishment”, it was excluded from
further analyses.
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed with reasons for disclosure as a within-
subjects factor with four levels and adolescent sex as a between-subjects factor and revealed
a significant effect of reason (F = 10.47 (3, 198), p < .001) and sex (F = 5.73 (1,66), p < .05).
Pairwise comparisons revealed that adolescents were significantly more likely to disclose
because telling their mother would make them feel better than all other reasons (all p < .001).
Females were significantly more likely to disclose in order to get advice (p < .05) and to feel
better (p < .05) than were males.
50
Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for the Various Reasons for Adolescent Disclosure to Mothers, Part 1, Conversations Measure Reason Males Females Full Sample _____________________________________________ M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Range Seek Comfort .38 (.37)a .58 (.42)b .49 (.41)1 0-1 To Get Advice .19 (.22)a .31 (.28)b .25 (.25)2 0-1 Foster Mother-Child Relationship .19 (.34)a .24 (.36)a .22 (.35)2 0-1 Obligation .17 (.28)a .18 (.23)a .17 (.25)2 0-1 Avoid Punishment .05 (.14)a .03 (.11)a .04 (.12)2 0-0.5 Note. n = 68; males, n = 33, females, n = 35. Means with different letter subscripts are significantly different
from each other within rows, for boys and girls, at p < .05. Means with different number subscripts are
significantly different from each other within the column for the full sample, at p < .001.
Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for the various reasons
adolescents’ reported for not disclosing to their mothers about the six hypothetical vignettes.
In descending order of frequency, adolescents reported that they were most likely to not
disclose to mothers because of distance in the parent-child relationship (e.g. “We just don’t
talk about things like that”), followed by avoiding disapproval from their mothers of their
friends, feeling like they could handle the situation on their own, avoiding punishment,
avoiding upsetting their mothers, and avoiding disapproval from their mothers.
The last three reasons (Avoid Punishment, Avoid Disapproval, Avoid Upsetting
Mother) were endorsed infrequently and were not included in subsequent analyses. Values
51
for the three remaining reasons (Parent-child Distance, Avoid Disapproval of Friend, and
Can Handle on Own) were dichotomized because of their non-normal distributions. The
variables were subjected to Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests, which revealed no significant
difference in the frequency with which these reasons were reported by adolescents. In order
to examine gender differences, the three reasons for nondisclosure were subjected to Mann-
Whitney Tests which revealed no significant gender differences (Z = -.89, ns, Z = -.16, ns, Z
= -2.06, ns, for the three reasons respectively).
Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for the Reasons for Adolescent Nondisclosure to Mothers, Part 1, Conversations Measure Reason Males Females Full Sample _____________________________________________ M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Range Parent-child Distance .43(.10)a .23 (.10)a .361 (.87) 0-1 Avoid Disapproval of Friend .30 (.10)a .32 (.10)a .321 (.72) 0-1 Can Handle on Own .13 (.08)a .21 (.08)a .181 (.48) 0-1 Avoid Punishment .10 (.04) .02 (.03) .08 (.32) 0-0.5 Avoid Upsetting Mother .09 (.04) .02 (.03) .05 (.23) 0-0.5 Avoid Disapproval .08 (.05) .02 (.05) .04 (.20) 0-1
Note. n = 32; males, n = 15, females, n = 17. Means with different letter subscripts are significantly different
from each other within rows, for boys and girls, at p < .05. Means with different number subscripts are
significantly different from each other within the column for the full sample, at p < .05.
52
Features of adolescent advice-seeking. Table 4 presents the means and standard
deviations for adolescent advice-seeking behavior for the six vignettes in Part 1 of the
Conversations Measure. In descending order of frequency, adolescents reported that they
were most likely to seek advice from their mothers about a friend smoking at lunch, followed
by conflicting plans with friends, a friend not being invited to a party, two friends fighting, a
friend talking badly about them, and their own party attendance.
Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations for Adolescent Advice-seeking from Mothers for the Six Hypothetical Vignettes, Part 1, Conversations Measure Vignette N M SD Range Friend Not Invited to Party 63 2.37 .60 1-3 Friend Talking Badly About Adolescent 54 2.32 .67 1-3 Friend Smoking at Lunch 61 2.51 .67 1-3 Conflicting Plans with Friends 65 2.55 .59 1-3 Own Party Attendance 53 2.28 .72 1-3 Two Friends Fighting 48 2.50 .58 1-3
Table 5 presents percentage scores for the various reasons adolescents’ reported for
not seeking advice from their mothers. The scores are presented as percentages because,
unlike the reasons for disclosure and nondisclosure, adolescents were not provided with a list
of reasons for not seeking advice from which they could choose but instead provided their
reasons in an open-ended format. As a result, there are a large number of categories and
53
providing percentage scores seemed to be the most logical display choice. In descending
order of frequency, adolescents reported that they were most likely to not seek advice from
mothers because they felt they could handle the situation on their own, followed by advice
was unnecessary, their mothers’ advice is inadequate, their mothers’ advice could not help
the situation, and distance in the parent-child relationship.
Table 5 Frequencies for the Reasons Adolescents Report for Not Seeking Advice from Mothers, Part 1, Conversations Measure Reason % Personal Jurisdiction 41 Parental Advice Inadequate 16 Parent-child Distance 9 Protecting Friend 6 Mother is Intrusive 6 No Reason/ I Just Didn’t 6 Emotional Reasons 3 Fear of Consequences 3 Not a Big Deal/Advice Unnecessary 3 Other 6 Note. n = 27; total number of reasons for not seeking advice reported = 32.
54
Comparison of part 1 and part 2, conversations measure. Table 6 presents the
percentage frequencies of the topics of adolescents’ reported peer dilemmas from Part 2 of
the Conversations Measure. Adolescents reported experiencing peer dilemmas involving
pragmatic issues (e.g. a friend borrowing something and damaging it or not returning it,
conflicting plans with different friends) most often, followed by friends not getting along,
relational aggression (e.g. being excluded from a party), verbal or physical aggression,
emotional disappointment (e.g. a friend betraying their trust) and friends engaging in
dangerous behavior (e.g. smoking marijuana). Also included in Table 7 are the hypothetical
vignette topics in order to illustrate how they compare to the real-life scenarios adolescents
discussed. The only hypothetical vignette topic that was not reported by adolescents in their
real-life dilemmas was “Own Party Attendance” which involved the adolescent attending a
party where things would be going on that they did not want to participate in.
55
Table 6 Frequencies of the Topics Reported in Part 2, Conversations Measure, and Relevant Topic from Part 1, Conversations Measure Topic % Vignette Pragmatic 32 - Conflicting Plans Friends Not Getting Along 24 - Two Friends Fighting Relational Aggression 22 - Friend Not Invited to Party - Friend Talking Badly About Adolescent Verbal Aggression 6 Emotional Disappointment 6 Friends Doing Dangerous Things 4 - Friend Smoking at Lunch Physical Aggression 2 Other 4 Note. n = 64; total number of peer dilemmas reported = 140.
Table 7 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for adolescents’ reasons for
nondisclosure in both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Conversations Measure. Somewhat similar to
Part 1, in Part 2 adolescents reported distance in the parent-child relationship and being able
to handle the situation on their own as two of the most frequent reasons for nondisclosure. In
Part 2 adolescents also often reported that they did not disclose because the situation was not
serious enough to warrant disclosure (“Not a big deal”). This response option was not given
to adolescents in Part 1 of the measure. However, upon further examination of the reasons
that adolescents’ provided in the “other” category in Part 1, it was found that adolescents
56
reported not disclosing because the situation was “not a big deal” in two instances. Similarly
to Part 2, in Part 1, within the category of “other”, adolescents also reported that their
mothers’ advice would not be helpful, and that they simply did not choose to disclose (“I just
didn’t”), although they did so infrequently.
Table 7 Frequencies of the Reasons for Adolescents Nondisclosure to Mothers, Part 1 and Part 2 Part 1 – Hypothetical Vignettes Part 2 – Real-life Scenarios Reason % % Parent-child Distance 27 12 Avoid Disapproval of Friend 24 5 Can Handle on Own 13 25 Avoid Punishment 6 8 Avoid Upsetting Mother 4 4 Avoid Disapproval 3 6 Not a Big Deal 2 23 No Reason/I Just Didn’t 1 6 Circumstances Did Not Permit - 4 Parents’ Advice Inadequate 2 3 Other 18 4 Note. n = 32, total number of reasons (Part 1) = 100; n = 64, total number of reasons (Part 2) = 77.
57
Table 8 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for adolescents’ reasons for
not seeking advice in both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Conversations Measure. Similar to Part 1,
personal jurisdiction was reported as the most frequent reason adolescents’ did not seek
advice from mothers during real-life situations. Interestingly, when discussing their real-life
experiences, adolescents also often reported that the situation was such that their mother
would not be able to help or that there was nothing she could do, which was a reason not
reported in Part 1. Adolescents also often reported that their real-life situations were “not a
big deal” and therefore did not warrant advice, or that they “just didn’t” ask for advice (i.e.,
they had no reason), which were also reasons reported in Part 1. Adolescents reported that
their mothers’ advice was inadequate or that they would be embarrassed to ask for advice
during real-life situations as well.
58
Table 8 Frequencies of the Reasons Adolescents Reported for Not Seeking Advice from Mothers, Part 1 and Part 2
Part 1 – Hypothetical Vignettes Part 2 - Real-life Scenarios Reason % % Personal Jurisdiction 41 44 Parental Advice Inadequate 16 8 Parent-child Distance 9 0 Protecting Friend 6 0 Mother is Intrusive 6 0 No Reason/ I Just Didn’t 6 11 Emotional Reasons 3 6 Fear of Consequences 3 0 Not a Big Deal/Advice Unnecessary 3 11 Advice Can Not Help 0 19 Other 6 0 Note. total number of reasons reported (Part 1) = 32, n = 27; total number of reasons reported (Part 2) = 36, n =
47;.
One final comparison was made between the frequency with which adolescents who
reported that they would disclose also reported that they would seek advice (or who disclosed
sought advice) in Parts 1 and 2. In Part 1, adolescents who reported that they would disclose
about a vignette situation also reported they would seek advice from their mothers about it
59
92% of the time. In comparison, adolescents who reported disclosing about a real-life
situation reported also sought advice 42% of the time.
Summary
To summarize, in Part 1 of the Conversations Measure, adolescents reported that they
would disclose most often about conflicting plans and least often about two friends fighting.
With respect to adolescents’ reasons for disclosure, they reported that they would disclose
most often in order to seek comfort from their mothers, followed by in order to seek advice.
Adolescents most often reported that they would not disclose in order to avoid disapproval
from their mother of their friend, because they could handle the situation on their own, and
because of distance in the parent-child relationship. With respect to advice-seeking,
adolescents reported they would seek advice from their mothers most often about conflicting
plans with friends and least often about attending a party where things would be going on
that they did not want to do. The reasons adolescents gave most often for choosing not to
seek advice included because they felt the matter fell within their personal jurisdiction and
because they felt their mothers’ advice would be inadequate.
In Part 2, adolescents reported experiencing real-life friendship dilemmas that
involved pragmatic issues (e.g., conflicting plans), friends not getting along, and relational
aggression (e.g., exclusion). These issues were similar to those included in the vignette
measure in Part 1. Somewhat similar to Part 1, in Part 2 adolescents reported choosing not to
disclose because they felt they could handle the situation on their own, because the situation
was not important enough to warrant disclosure, and because of distance in the parent-child
relationship. Similar to Part 1, in Part 2 the reasons adolescents gave most often for choosing
60
not to seek advice was because they felt the matter fell within their personal jurisdiction.
They also reported not seeking advice because they felt that advice could not help.
Relations between Maternal Characteristics, Adolescent Disclosure and Advice-seeking
Behavior, and Adolescent Social Outcomes
Preliminary Data Reduction
Adolescent disclosure and advice-seeking, part 1, conversations measure. The inter-
correlations of adolescents’ disclosure and advice-seeking scores from Part 1 of the
Conversations Measure were examined separately and the values are presented in Tables 9
and 10 for disclosure and advice-seeking vignettes respectively. Disclosure and advice-
seeking scores from the six vignettes were moderately correlated, except for the fourth
vignette (Conflicting Plans with Friends) which did not correlate highly with the other
vignettes in the case of disclosure or advice-seeking. Scores from the remaining five
vignettes, then, were averaged to form a single overall disclosure score and a single overall
advice-seeking score for Part 1 of the Conversations Measure.
61
Table 9
Inter-correlations of Adolescent Disclosure for the Six Hypothetical Vignettes, Part 1,
Conversations Measure
Vignette
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Friend Not Invited to Party
-
2. Friend Talking Badly about Adolescent
.38**
-
3. Friend Smoking at Lunch
.19^ .36** -
4. Conflicting Plans with Friends
.18 .19^ .10 -
5. Own Party Attendance
.49** .56** .31** .22^ -
6. Two Friends Fighting
.23* .49** .17 .37** .47** -
Note. ^ p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01; N = 74 in all cells.
Table 10 Inter-correlations of Adolescent Advice-seeking for the Six Hypothetical Vignettes, Part 1, Conversations Measure Vignette
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Friend Not Invited to Party
-
2. Friend Talking Badly about Adolescent
.35* (47)
-
3. Friend Smoking at Lunch
.20 (53)
-.04 (50)
-
4. Conflicting Plans with Friends
.12 (56)
.14 (49)
.13 (55)
-
5. Own Party Attendance
.48** (49)
.26 (46)
.38** (48)
.08 (47)
-
6. Two Friends Fighting
.22 (42)
.18 (43)
-.14 (40)
.20 (45)
.41** (40)
-
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01; n in brackets
62
Descriptive Statistics for the Raw Variables Measured at Time 1 and Time 2
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations. Table 11 presents the descriptive
statistics for the study variables measured at Time 1. These descriptive data indicate that, on
average, mothers tended to use relatively positive strategies for responding to their children’s
distress (e.g. M score for CCNESpos, 5.22 vs. M score for CCNESneg, 2.58) and the range
was restricted to the higher end of the scale (e.g., the lowest score was 3.54 on a scale
ranging from 1 to 7). As well, mothers were relatively high in warmth and perspective-
taking and low on both measures of anger.
Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Time 1 Study Variables: Parenting Characteristics and Child Disclosure Measure M SD Range Perspective-taking SDPT 3.89 .55 2.13-4.93 Responsiveness to CCNESpos 5.22 .70 3.54-6.37 Children’s Distress
CCNESneg 2.58 .71 1.36-5.12 Warmth WARMTH 3.96 .74 1.50-5.00 Anger STAXI Trait 18.60 5.10 12.00-39.00 STAXI Exp 31.47 11.86 9.00-74.00 Child Disclosure CD 3.14 .91 1.00-5.00 Note. N = 74
63
Table 12 presents the descriptive statistics for the variables measured at Time 2.
These descriptive data indicate that, on average, both mothers and adolescents rated
themselves as moderately interpersonally competent and adolescents rated their friendships
as moderate in quality. Adolescents tended to report being agreeable and conscientious, and
they reported moderate rates of disclosure and advice-seeking.
Table 12 Descriptive Statistics for Time 2 Study Variables: Maternal Interpersonal Competence,
Adolescent Personality, Disclosure, Advice-seeking, and Social Outcomes
Measure N M SD Range Maternal Interpersonal Competence ICQ 74 3.45 .51 2.48-4.55 Adolescent Personality BFI: Agreeableness 74 3.83 .61 2.67-5.00 Conscientiousness 74 3.26 .65 1.89-4.78 Disclosure Conversations Measure: Part 1 74 2.23 .50 1.17-3.00 Part 2 64 1.90 .75 1.00-3.00 Advice-seeking Conversations Measure: Part 1 74 2.33 .47 1.00-3.00 Part 2 48 1.36 .42 1.00-2.00 Part 3 74 3.28 1.21 1.00-5.00 Friendship Quality FQQ 74 3.64 .49 2.35-4.52 Interpersonal Competence ICQ 74 3.73 .69 1.52-5.00
64
Table 13 presents the inter-correlations between the maternal parenting variables
measured at Time 1. The “negative” parenting characteristics, including CCNESneg, STAXI
Trait and Exp, were all significantly positively inter-correlated, while the same was not the
case for the “positive” parenting characteristics. CCNESpos was significantly positively
correlated with SDPT but not WARMTH, while WARMTH was significantly positively
correlated with SDPT.
Table 13
Inter-correlations of Maternal Parenting Variables from Time 1
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. CCNESpos -
2. SDPT .36** -
3. WARMTH .18 .28* -
4. CCNESneg -.11 -.42** -.23* -
5. STAXI Trait .19^ -.20^ -.08 .29* -
6. STAXI Exp -.04 -.41** .03 .39** .55** -
Note. N = 74. ^p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Table 14 presents the inter-correlations between child disclosure measured at Time 1
and adolescent disclosure and advice-seeking scores from the three parts of the
Conversations Measure measured at Time 2. Child disclosure (CD) at Time 1 was
significantly correlated with adolescent disclosure in Part 1 but not Part 2 of the
Conversations Measure, whereas child disclosure at Time 1 was significantly correlated with
65
advice-seeking in Part 3. Adolescent disclosure in Parts 1 and 2 were significantly correlated
with each other and with advice-seeking in Parts 1 and 3. Advice-seeking in Parts 1, 2 and 3
were somewhat inter-correlated, with Parts 2 and 3 related at the trend level, while all other
relations were significant.
Table 14
Inter-correlation of Adolescent Disclosure at Time 1 and Time 2 and Advice-seeking from
Time 2
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. CD Time 1 -
2. Part 1 Disclosure, Time 2 .28* (74)
-
3. Part 2 Disclosure, Time 2 .20 (64)
.27* (64)
-
4. Part 1 Advice-seeking, Time 2 .20^ (74)
.71** (74)
.29* (64)
-
5. Part 2 Advice-seeking, Time 2 .00 (48)
.29* (48)
.16 (48)
.32* (48)
-
6. Part 3 Advice-seeking, Time 2 .27* (74)
.61** (74)
.41** (64)
.49** (74)
.24^ (48)
-
Note. ns in brackets. ^p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Data Reduction
Measures of maternal parenting characteristics. The six measures of maternal
parenting characteristics (SDPT, WARMTH, CCNESpos, CCNESneg, STAXI Trait, STAXI
Exp) were subjected to a principal components factor analysis. The solution yielded two
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, which explained 61% of the variance among the six
variables. Factor 1 included SDPT, WARMTH, and CCNESpos, with factor loadings of .74,
.61 and .75 respectively. Scores on the three variables were then standardized and averaged
66
to form a single measure labeled Positive parenting. Factor 2 included STAXI Trait, STAXI
Exp and CCNESneg, with factor loadings of .81, .85 and .64 respectively. Scores on the
three variables were standardized and averaged to form a single measure labeled Negative
parenting. Maternal interpersonal competence was not included in this factor analysis
because it was considered a characteristic of mothers that is not necessarily specific to their
parenting.
Measures of adolescent advice-seeking. Adolescents’ advice-seeking scores from Part
1 and Part 3 were subjected to a principal components analysis. The solution yielded a single
factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0, which explained 51% of the variance among the
two variables, with loadings of .77 for Part 1 advice-seeking and .67 for Part 3 advice-
seeking. The two sets of advice-seeking scores were standardized and averaged to form an
adolescent advice-seeking aggregate score.
Correlational Analyses
Table 15 presents the correlation matrix of adolescent characteristics (sex, adolescent
agreeableness and conscientiousness), adolescent disclosure at Time 1 (CD), maternal
interpersonal competence (MICQ), maternal parenting aggregates (Positive and Negative
parenting), adolescent disclosure and the advice-seeking aggregate, and adolescent social
outcomes (friendship quality, FQQ, and adolescent interpersonal competence, AICQ).
Maternal interpersonal competence did not correlate with either adolescent disclosure or
advice, and therefore no further analyses were done to examine the hypothesis relevant to
this variable. Maternal interpersonal competence was, however, significantly correlated with
both of the parenting aggregates and therefore was included as a control variable in
subsequent analyses involving parenting and adolescent disclosure and advice-seeking.
67
Adolescent agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly correlated with
disclosure, advice (at the trend level), and the adolescent social outcomes, and were included
in subsequent analyses as control variables. Child disclosure at Time 1 was significantly
correlated with disclosure and advice-seeking at Time 2, and was therefore included in
subsequent longitudinal regression analyses. Adolescent disclosure and advice-seeking were
significantly inter-correlated, which was to be expected given that adolescents must disclose
to mothers in order to seek advice. The two adolescent social outcomes (friendship quality
and interpersonal competence) were significantly inter-correlated. As is evident from Table
15, the conditions were not met to test for the mediating role of advice-seeking on maternal
parenting characteristics and adolescent social outcomes as the relevant variables were not
significantly inter-correlated (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
68
Table 15
Inter-correlations of Variables included in Hierarchical Regression Analyses
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
1. Adolescent Sex -
2. MICQ -.03 -
3. BFI Agreeableness .30** -.09 -
4. BFI Conscientiousness .14 .00 .42** -
5. CD .14 .13 .24* .05 -
6. Positive parenting .07 .28* .05 -.10 .30** -
7. Negative parenting -.11 -.41** -.35** -.16 -.21^ -.25* -
8. Disclosure .17 -.02 .31** .27* .28* .11 -.09 -
9. Advice .26* .06 .29* .21^ .27* .18 -.15 .78** -
10. FQQ .51** .02 .33** .25* -.04 .01 -.28* .15 .38** -
11. AICQ .20^ .04 .34** .25* .11 -.08 -.24* .07 .17 .63** -
Note. N = 74. ^p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01
69
Regression Analyses
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the relations between the
two parenting aggregate variables (Positive and Negative parenting) and adolescent disclosure
and advice-seeking, and advice-seeking and adolescent social outcomes (friendship quality and
interpersonal competence), as well as the role of sex as a potential moderator.
Adolescent disclosure at Time 1, and conscientiousness and agreeableness at Time 2
were included as control variables in all analyses, while maternal interpersonal competence was
included as a control variable in only the analyses involving parenting.
A step-wise procedure was used in order to allow for the examination of the individual
contributions of specific variables. For all sets of analyses, then, adolescent conscientiousness
and agreeableness (and maternal interpersonal competence in the first two analyses) were entered
into the first block, adolescent sex was entered into the second block, adolescent disclosure at
Time 1 was entered into the third block, the predictor variables were entered into the fourth
block and, to test for moderation, the predictor variable by sex interaction terms were entered
into the fifth block. Significant interactions were probed following the procedure described by
Aiken and West (1991) for interpreting interactions with a continuous and a categorical variable,
which involves running the relevant regression model twice, once with males dummy-coded as 0
and a second time with females dummy-coded as 0. All variables were standardized prior to
entry into the regression equation.
Maternal parenting characteristics, adolescent disclosure and advice-seeking. The
contributions of adolescent personality, maternal interpersonal competence, adolescent sex and
each of the parenting aggregate variables to the prediction of adolescent disclosure at Time 2
were examined first. In the final model, child disclosure at Time 1 significantly predicted
70
adolescent disclosure at Time 2, over and above the other control variables. For Positive
parenting, there was a significant interaction, indicating that the relation between Positive
parenting and disclosure for boys (t = -1.26, β = -.33, ns) and girls (t = 1.54, β = .33, ns) were
significantly different from each other. Negative parenting was not a significant predictor of
disclosure at Time 2. The model tested in the final step accounted for 25% of the variance in
adolescent advice-seeking at Time 2. A summary of this analysis is presented in Table 16.
71
Table 16
Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Adolescent Disclosure at Time 2 (N = 74)
Adolescent Disclosure Time 2
t β 95% Confidence Interval for β Lower Bound Upper Bound
R2 change per model
Model 1
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
1.87^ 1.39
-.03
.23
.17
-.00
-.02 -.08
-.23
.48
.42
.22
.12*
Model 2
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
Adolescent Sex
1.62 1.37
-.03
.65
.21
.17
-.00
.15
-.05 -.08
-.22
-.32
.47
.42
.22
.62
.01 Model 3
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
Adolescent Sex
Child Disclosure Time 1
1.14 1.52
-.36
.52
2.03*
.15
.19
-.04
.12
.23
-.11 -.06
-.26
-.34
.00
.41
.43
.18
.58
.47
.05*
Model 4
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
Adolescent Sex
Child Disclosure Time 1
Positive Parenting Negative Parenting
1.19 1.57
-.24
.49
1.81^
.57
.44
.17
.20
-.03
.12
.22
.10
.08
-.11 -.05
-.29
-.35
-.02
-.25 -.27
.45
.45
.23
.58
.46
.44
.43
.01
Model 5
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
Adolescent Sex
Child Disclosure Time 1
Positive Parenting Negative Parenting
Positive Parenting BY Sex Negative Parenting BY Sex
1.26 1.53
-.63
.45
2.01*
-1.80^ -1.60
2.01* 1.73^
.17
.19
-.08
.10
.24
-.97 -.79
.65
.53
-.10 -.06
-.34
-.35
.00
-2.05 -1.78
.00 -.08
.45
.43
.18
.56
.47
.11
.20
1.30 1.15
.07^ Final Model R2 .25
Note. a Males = 1, Females = 2. ^p < .10, *p < .05.
72
The contributions of the control variables and each of the parenting aggregate variables to
the prediction of adolescent advice-seeking at Time 2 were examined next. In the final model,
none of the control variables predicted adolescent advice-seeking at Time 2. For Positive
parenting, there was a significant main effect of parenting qualified by a significant interaction
with sex, indicating that mothers who were high on Positive parenting at Time 1 had daughters (t
= 2.66, β = .48, p < .01) who sought their advice significantly more often while sons (t = -1.67, β
= -.35, p < .10) sought their advice less often, at the trend level. Negative parenting did not
significantly predict adolescent advice-seeking. The model tested in the final step accounted for
29% of the variance in adolescent advice-seeking at Time 2. A summary of this analysis is
presented in Table 17.
73
Table 17
Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Adolescent Advice-seeking at Time 2 (N = 74)
Adolescent Advice-seeking Time 2
t β 95% Confidence Interval for β Lower Bound Upper Bound
R2 change per model
Model 1
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
2.04* .83
.76
.22
.09
.07
.01 -.12
-.12
.43
.30
.27
.10^
Model 2
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
Adolescent Sex a
1.57 .81
.77
1.59
.17
.09
.07
.32
-.05 -.13
-.12
-.08
.39
.29
.26
.71
.03 Model 3
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
1.15 .93
.50
1.48
1.72^
.13
.10
.05
.29
.17
-.09 -.11
-.14
-.10
-.03
.35
.30
.24
.68
.37
.04^
Model 4
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
Positive Parenting Negative Parenting
1.06 1.05
.25
1.43
1.39
1.00 .13
.13
.11
.03
.28
.14
.15
.02
-.11 -.10
-.19
-.11
-.06
-.14 -.28
.37
.32
.25
.68
.35
.44
.32
.01
Model 5
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Mother ICQ
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
Positive Parenting Negative Parenting
Positive Parenting BY Sex Negative Parenting BY Sex
1.20 1.00
-.10
1.42
1.66
-2.64* -1.53
3.08** 1.44
.14
.10
-.01
.27
.16
-1.17 -.62
.82
.36
-.09 -.10
-.22
-.11
-.03
-2.06 -1.44
.29 -.14
.36
.30
.20
.64
.36
-.28 .19
1.36 .87
.11* Final Model R2 .29
Note. a Males = 1, Females = 2. ^p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
74
Adolescent advice-seeking and social outcomes. The contributions of adolescent
personality, sex and advice-seeking was examined for each of the two social outcome variables
separately. In the final model for friendship quality, adolescent sex was a significant predictor,
with girls reporting higher quality friendships. Adolescent advice-seeking significantly predicted
friendship quality, over and above the control variables and adolescent disclosure at Time 1, and
uniquely explained 6% of the variance in friendship quality. The interaction term was not
significant. The model tested in the final step accounted for 41% of the variance in adolescent
friendship quality.
In the final model for interpersonal competence, adolescent agreeableness was the only
control variable that predicted adolescent interpersonal competence, at the trend level, with
adolescents who were more agreeable reporting greater interpersonal competence. Adolescent
advice-seeking did not significantly predict adolescent interpersonal competence and the
interaction term was not significant.
A summary of each of these sets of analyses are presented in Table 18 and 19.
75
Table 18
Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Adolescent Friendship Quality (N = 74)
Adolescent Friendship Quality
t β 95% Confidence Interval for β Lower Bound Upper Bound
R2 change per model
Model 1
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
2.21* 1.12
.13
.07
.01 -.05
.25
.19
.12* Model 2
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Adolescent Sex a
1.21 1.17
4.36**
.07
.06
.44
-.04 -.04
.24
.18
.17
.64
.19**
Model 3
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
1.51 1.10
4.49**
-1.49
.09
.06
.45
-.07
-.03 -.05
.25
-.17
.20
.16
.65
.03
.02
Model 4
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
Adolescent Advice-seeking
1.22 .84
4.15**
-2.07*
2.59*
.07
.04
.41
-.10
.15
-.04 -.06
.21
-.20
.04
.18
.15
.60
-.00
.27
.06*
Model 5
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
Adolescent Advice-seeking
Advice BY Sex
1.01 .66
4.26**
-1.81^
2.14*
-1.36
.06
.03
.42
-.09
.38
-.16
-.05 -.07
.22
-.19
.03
-.40
.17
.14
.61
.01
.74
.08
.02 Final Model R2 .41
Note. a Males = 1, Females = 2. ^p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
76
Table 19
Results of Regression Analyses Predicting Adolescent Interpersonal Competence (N = 74)
Adolescent Interpersonal Competence
t β 95% Confidence Interval for β Lower Bound Upper Bound
R2 change per model
Model 1
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
2.30* 1.06
.20
.09
.03 -.08
.36
.26
.13* Model 2
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Adolescent Sex a
1.95^ 1.04
.95
.17
.09
.15
-.00 -.08
-.17
.35
.26
.47
.01
Model 3
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
1.85^ 1.04
.93
.22
.17
.09
.15
.02
-.01 -.08
-.17
-.14
.35
.26
.47
.18
.00
Model 4
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
Adolescent Advice-seeking
1.77^ .98
.84
.13
.41
.16
.09
.14
.01
.04
-.02 -.09
-.19
-.15
-.16
.35
.26
.47
.18
.24
.00
Model 5
Adolescent Agreeableness Adolescent Conscientiousness
Adolescent Sex a
Child Disclosure Time 1
Adolescent Advice-seeking
Advice BY Sex
1.63 .87
.88
.26
.83
-.74
.15
.08
.15
.02
.26
-.15
-.03 -.10
-.19
-.15
-.36
-.55
.34
.25
.48
.19
.87
.25
.01 Final Model R2 .15
Note. a Males = 1, Females = 2. ^p < .10, *p < .05.
Discussion
Adolescents’ voluntary disclosure and subsequent advice-seeking behavior towards their
parents about difficult situations they encounter involving their friends and the consequences of
that advice for interpersonal success are important aspects of socialization for researchers to
consider. The present study sought to examine the features of adolescent disclosure and advice-
seeking behavior in this context. A second goal was to examine maternal characteristics that
encourage disclosure and advice-seeking. The third and final goal was to examine the positive
social correlates of advice-seeking, namely friendship quality and interpersonal competence, and
to determine whether advice mediates the relations between maternal characteristics and these
social outcomes. Each of these goals will be addressed in the following sections, including
discussion of the relevant results and their implications.
Features of Adolescents’ Disclosure and Advice-seeking
The first goal of the present study was to describe the features of adolescents’ disclosure
and advice-seeking behavior about difficult situations involving their friends. These behaviors
were assessed in two ways in the present study: from adolescents’ responses to hypothetical
vignettes and their reports of their behavior during real-life experiences. The vignette measure
was used in order to collect reports from the adolescents on their disclosure across a number of
situations, while the interview about real-life experiences was used in order to provide insight
into the kinds of experiences adolescents actually have as well as to provide a point of
comparison for the vignette measure as a way of assessing its validity. Results from the vignette
measure will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of the comparison between data from
77
78
the vignette and interview measures. Finally, the relation between disclosure and advice-seeking
will be discussed, as well as the influence of gender on advice-seeking behavior.
Features of adolescents’ disclosure. In the present study, it was argued that although
peers begin to take on a more prominent role in adolescents’ lives, parents continue to be
involved to some degree as well. The results support this notion in that adolescents reported
moderate rates of disclosure to their mothers across all of the friendship scenarios. The scenarios
included a range of situations, including those that the adolescents might find embarrassing (e.g.,
friend talking badly about the adolescent), uncomfortable (e.g., attending a party where things
will be going on that the adolescent does not want to do), or could potentially get them into
trouble (e.g., friend smoking at lunch). The scenarios also included more basic situations (e.g.,
conflicting plans with friends) and those where the adolescent is less directly involved (e.g., two
friends fighting), and varied in the degree to which one might find them upsetting. During early
adolescence, then, disclosure to mothers about friends seems to be something adolescents are
likely to do regardless of the nature of the situation. Adolescents choose to communicate their
problems with peers to their mothers, thus showing mothers’ continuing influence in adolescent
development.
Of particular interest to the present study were the reasons adolescents gave for
disclosing or telling their mothers about difficult experiences involving friends. Adolescents
reported disclosing in order to “seek comfort” more often than any other reason. It seems
reasonable, given that the scenarios involved potentially distressing situations, for adolescents to
want to tell their mothers with the hope or expectation that their mothers would relieve their
distress. This result shows that although adolescents are increasingly relying on peers for
79
support and companionship, parents continue to be a source of comfort as well, and adolescents
actively seek out this source by disclosing or telling their parents about their experiences.
In this thesis it was argued that one reason why adolescents may disclose or tell their
parents about difficult situations they encounter involving their close friends is in order to seek
advice from their parents about how to resolve the situations. Indeed, the results supported this
notion in that adolescents reported that they disclosed in order to “get advice” as the second most
frequently reported reason for disclosure. As discussed earlier, early adolescence is a time
during which experiences with friends become more complex than they were during childhood,
as the nature of friendships as well as the larger context in which friendship occurs is becoming
increasingly complex. The present study showed that adolescents rely on parents, in particular
mothers, for advice or help in dealing with difficult situations that they encounter during this
time.
Adolescents infrequently reported disclosing because they felt obligated to do so or
because they wanted to avoid punishment for their nondisclosure. This is in contrast to previous
research on adolescent disclosure which consistently found the opposite: adolescents reported
disclosing in order to avoid punishment or because they felt obligated (Darling et al., 2006;
Marshall et al., 2005; Smetana et al., 2006). This discrepancy is likely due to the fact that
previous research has focused on disclosure about day-to-day activities which may or may not
have included difficult experiences with peers. In the present study, the focus was on peer-
related experiences in particular and therefore it is reasonable to assume that in this specific
context, adolescents’ reasons for disclosure would be different than those previously described in
the literature. Some support for the present results comes from work by Smetana and colleagues
(Smetana et al., 2006) who discussed adolescents’ experiences with peers as “personal issues”
80
and therefore falling under adolescents’ jurisdiction as opposed to parents’. They found that
both parents and adolescents rated personal issues as those which adolescents are least obligated
to disclose to parents. Therefore it makes sense that adolescents would not often feel obligated
to tell their parents about experiences involving friends in the present study. As well, parents
would not have high expectations for adolescent disclosure, thereby also lowering the chances
that adolescents would report disclosing in order to avoid punishment for their nondisclosure.
Surprisingly, girls reported disclosing in order to seek advice more often than did boys in
the present study. This is in contrast to previous research that found that boys were more likely
to seek advice from their parents, as compared to girls who more often reported seeking advice
from peers (e.g., Wintre et al., 1988). One possible reason for this discrepancy could be that, in
previous research, the focus was on advice-seeking behavior in general (which could include
advice-seeking about friends) while in the present study the focus was on friendship specifically.
Research consistently shows that females have higher quality friendships than do boys
(Buhrmester, 1990; Parker & Asher, 1993) and, therefore, females may be more motivated to
resolve difficult situations they encounter involving their close friends, thus making them more
likely to seek advice from parents in such situations.
Also of interest in the present study were the reasons adolescents had for choosing not to
disclose. Adolescents most commonly reported not disclosing because the situation was not
something they felt like they could talk about with their mother, because they did not want their
mother to think less of the friend that was involved in the situation, and because they felt as
though they could handle the situation on their own. These reasons seem to reflect an
overarching theme of increasing affiliation with peers and increasing autonomy from parents that
is common during adolescence. For example, adolescents reported being able to handle things
81
on their own, evidence of their increasing autonomy. As well, adolescents reported wanting to
protect their friend, again highlighting the greater value adolescents are placing on peer relations.
And finally, adolescents frequently reported distance in the parent-child relationship (e.g., “we
don’t talk about things like that”), which again may highlight adolescents’ increasing autonomy
from parents. Alternately, this last reason could reflect distance in the relationship that has been
constant throughout development and is not specific to adolescence during which it is natural and
common for adolescents to desire autonomy and independence. In this case, endorsement of this
reason may reflect a lack of communicativeness or cohesiveness in the family. Adolescents in
these types of families may not receive the support they need when it comes to peer relationships
and interactions and, as a consequence, be less successful with peers. Future research could
examine characteristics of the family and their relation to adolescent disclosure and
nondisclosure.
Features of adolescents’ advice-seeking. Adolescents’ advice-seeking behavior in the
context of peer dilemmas has not been extensively studied in the literature and, therefore, one
aim of the present study was to describe this behavior in a variety of situations involving close
friends. Results showed that adolescents most often reported they would seek advice about a
friend smoking at lunch, and least often reported they would seek advice about their own party
attendance. Overall, though, advice-seeking was reported as moderately frequent across all of
the vignettes, indicating that seeking advice from mothers is a fairly common adolescent
behavior across a number of social situations.
Also of interest were adolescents’ reasons for not choosing to seek advice. Among the
most frequent reasons given was “personal jurisdiction”, or feeling like the situation was such
that the adolescent could deal with it on his or her own. This is similar to those results found for
82
disclosure and seems reasonable given that adolescents of this age are beginning to desire
autonomy and independence from their parents. Other frequently reported reasons for not
seeking advice were that adolescents felt their mothers’ advice would be inadequate and that
adolescents felt the situation was not something they often talk about with their mothers
(“distance in the parent-child relationship”). These two reasons may go hand-in-hand, as
adolescents who do not often talk to their parents about friendship-related issues and, as a
consequence, do not seek their advice, provide parents with fewer opportunities to learn about
and understand adolescents’ experiences with peers. This leaves parents less able to provide
adequate or helpful advice. Future research could explore the relations between these reasons for
not seeking advice to determine if this is indeed the case.
Comparisons between disclosure and advice-seeking in real versus hypothetical
situations. As mentioned earlier, the interview data collected in the present study was used as a
point of comparison, in order to determine whether or not the vignettes depicted situations that
were similar to those adolescents experienced in real-life, as well as whether adolescents’
responses to the vignettes were similar to those behaviors they may have exhibited in real-life.
To begin with, in order to determine whether the vignettes were representative of
adolescents’ real-life experiences, the topics that adolescents described during the interview were
compared to those of the vignettes. As is evident from the data, all of the vignette topics but one
(“Own Party Attendance”) were also themes found in the friendship dilemmas adolescents’
reported from their own experiences. Although none of the adolescents explicitly mentioned an
issue related to attending a party where things would be going on that they did not want to do (as
in the vignette), some adolescents mentioned experiences they had in real-life that could be
considered somewhat related to this vignette. For example, some adolescents described
83
situations they encountered where their friends were using drugs or alcohol. If the “Own Party
Attendance” vignette is interpreted as attending a party at which others will be using drugs or
drinking, then it could indeed be considered an experience adolescents of this age may encounter
in real-life. Alternately, the experience of attending a party of this nature may be something
relatively unfamiliar to adolescents of this age and slightly older adolescents may be more likely
to report having such experiences more frequently in everyday life.
Comparisons were also made between adolescents’ reasons for nondisclosure reported in
the vignette and real-life data. Overall, there were both similarities and differences in the
reasons adolescents’ endorsed or reported. For example, with respect to their real-life
experiences, adolescents most commonly reported choosing not to disclose because they felt like
they could handle the situation on their own. This reason was also endorsed by adolescents
moderately often during the vignette task. In addition, during their real-life experience,
adolescents reported not disclosing because of distance in the parent-child relationship. This was
the most frequently reported reason for nondisclosure in the vignette measure. Interestingly, in a
few scenarios in both parts of the measure adolescents stated that they did not feel their mothers’
advice would be helpful or useful. This last reason highlights the fact that adolescents often
disclose in order to seek advice, and in some cases, adolescents do not even disclose in the first
place because they know that they will not receive good advice.
It should be noted that because the interview measure followed the vignette measure,
adolescents’ descriptions of their real-life experiences during the interview may have been
influenced by both the vignette topics and the response options provided for the questions about
their reasons for nondisclosure. This could account for some of the similarities between the two
measures. Alternately, it could be considered beneficial that adolescents completed the vignette
84
task first, as it could have helped adolescents to remember their own similar experiences that
they would not have otherwise remembered and reported had they not first had to respond to the
vignettes.
Some differences between the two measures were also evident. In the interview,
adolescents frequently reported not disclosing because the situation was not serious enough to
warrant telling their mothers, while in the vignettes, this reason was indicated very infrequently.
As well, adolescents discussed real-life experiences during which they needed to make a decision
quickly and “think on their feet”, thereby making it impossible to ask their mothers for advice.
This reason was not reported in the vignettes.
The reasons adolescents gave for choosing not to seek advice from their mothers in both
the vignette and interview data were both assessed in an open-ended format, whereby
adolescents were not given response options but instead were free to describe any reason they
thought of. Data from the two measures were compared and again, there were both similarities
and differences between these two methods of assessment. For example, adolescents frequently
reported not seeking advice because they felt like the situation fell within their personal
jurisdiction, that is, it was something they felt like they should deal with on their own, in both the
vignette and interview data. Also, similar to the nondisclosure data, adolescents frequently
reported not seeking advice because they felt that maternal advice would be inadequate. It is
reasonable for adolescents not to seek advice if they do not feel like that advice would be helpful
in a given situation. And finally, unlike in the vignette data, in the interview data adolescents
somewhat frequently reported feeling like advice would not help the situation, that is, there was
nothing that their mother could do (as opposed to feeling her advice would not be helpful).
85
Taken together, these results show that adolescents’ responses to the hypothetical
vignettes were somewhat similar to their real-life experiences. As well, both the vignette and
interview data generated a number of reasons for not seeking advice, none of which have been
examined in the literature.
Relations between disclosure and advice-seeking behaviors. In the present study, it was
argued that adolescents may disclose to their mothers in order to meet their personal goals of
advice-seeking, that is, adolescents may tell their mothers about difficult situations they
encounter involving their close friends in order to ask for help in dealing with the situations. The
present study provided support for this notion in three ways. First, as mentioned earlier,
adolescents indicated “to seek advice” as the second most common reason for choosing to
disclose to their mothers in the hypothetical vignettes. Second, adolescents who did not expect
to receive helpful advice did not disclose in the first place. Third, adolescents reported that
would seek advice after they disclosed about a vignette situation 92% of the time, and that they
sought advice after disclosing about a real-life experience 42% of the time. Although
adolescents reported seeking advice less often in real-life, the percentage is still high and shows
that adolescents frequently do seek advice after telling their mothers about difficult situations
they encounter. As well, after anticipating future scenarios like those described in the vignettes,
adolescents reported that if they told their mothers about the scenarios, they would subsequently
seek their advice very often.
One possible reason for the difference in the frequency of advice-seeking behavior
reported in the hypothetical scenarios (92%) compared to the real-life experiences (42%) is that
adolescents often reported that their real-life experiences were “not a big deal” and therefore did
not warrant advice-seeking and that “advice could not help” the situation. These reasons were
86
given less often in the context of the hypothetical vignettes. Because the frequency of advice-
seeking in real life was calculated based on all of the experiences adolescents reported involving
their close friends and not just those that were similar to the hypothetical vignettes, the inclusion
of more benign real-life experiences (during which advice was not necessary) in this calculation
may have made the frequency with which they sought advice appear lower than that reported
during the vignette task.
Gender differences in advice-seeking behavior. Contrary to expectations, gender was not
a significant predictor of adolescents’ advice-seeking behavior. Although past research on
advice-seeking discussed earlier has found that boys seek their parents’ advice more so than do
girls (e.g., Wintre et al., 1988), this was not the case in the present study. Adolescent boys and
girls reported that they would seek advice from their mothers about difficult situations involving
close friends to similar degrees. It is possible that in previous research examining advice-
seeking to parents, where differences between mothers and fathers were not examined, boys may
have actually had a preference for seeking advice from fathers but reported a preference for
parents (as opposed to peers) because the gender of the parent was not specified in the questions.
In the present study, where the focus was on mothers in particular, you would therefore not
expect to see a difference between boys and girls in their preferences for seeking advice from
their mothers.
Maternal Parenting Predictors of Adolescents’ Disclosure and Advice-seeking Behavior
The characteristics of parents to whom adolescents disclose about their day-to-day
activities have been examined previously in the literature, and the second goal of the present
study was to extend this research to the context of disclosure, as well as advice-seeking, about
87
friendship dilemmas in order to determine those characteristics of mothers that make them
attractive targets of these adolescent behaviors.
Positive parenting predictors of disclosure. Contrary to expectation, positive maternal
parenting characteristics did not significantly predict adolescent disclosure. This is in contrast to
previous research that has found maternal characteristics, such as warmth (Smetana et al., 2006)
and authoritativeness (Darling et al., 2006; Wissink et al., 2006), to be related to adolescent
disclosure about day-to-day activities. In the present study, the measure of Positive parenting
included both warmth and perspective-taking, a characteristic of authoritative parents but, unlike
in previous research, these were unrelated to disclosure. This suggest that there may be other
qualities or characteristics of mothers not examined in the present study that predict adolescent
disclosure in the specific context of friendship dilemmas. Alternately, it may be that
characteristics of the relationship, such as the overall level of communication, need to be
considered.
Positive parenting predictors of advice-seeking. Consistent with prediction, at least for
girls, the results showed that mothers who were warm, took their children’s perspective and
responded to their children’s negative emotions in positive ways had girls who, two years later,
were more likely to seek their advice about difficult situations involving their friends. Mothers
who lacked these specific characteristics had girls who sought their advice less often. It was
argued that mothers with these specific characteristics would be more attractive to adolescents as
sources of advice as adolescents expect that their bids for advice will be met with warm,
thoughtful and helpful responses. The present study provided support for this notion, in the case
of girls. However, it is unclear why this was not the case for boys as well. One possibility is that
boys may be less concerned with maternal characteristics but more concerned with paternal
88
characteristics when considering disclosing and seeking advice about peer dilemmas. Future
research is needed to determine the degree to which fathers are sought out for disclosure and
advice, as well as the characteristics of fathers that make them more or less attractive targets of
these adolescent behaviors.
Negative parenting predictors of disclosure and advice-seeking. Contrary to
expectations, mothers’ anger and their tendencies to respond to children’s negative emotions in
negative ways were not predictive of adolescents’ disclosure or advice-seeking behavior. It is
possible that, because the present sample of mothers scored quite low, on average, in their levels
of anger, the restricted range prevented the detection of a significant relation between Negative
parenting and adolescent behavior. Future research involving a sample of mothers with a larger
range in anger could shed some light on the relations between these types of maternal
characteristics and adolescents’ disclosure and advice-seeking behavior.
The influence of adolescents’ personality characteristics. In examining the characteristics
of parents that influence adolescent advice-seeking behavior, it is important to consider the fact
that some adolescents may be more or less likely to disclose and seek their parents’ advice due to
some aspect of adolescents’ personalities that makes them more inclined to do so. For example,
some adolescents may be more concerned with resolving conflicts or maintaining harmony in
their lives, including within interpersonal relationships. As well, some adolescents may value
relationships and getting along with others to a greater extent. Accordingly, two dimensions of
personality were assessed in the present study, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and used as
control variables in the analyses predicting disclosure and advice-seeking from parenting
characteristics. This allowed for an examination of the influence of parenting on adolescent
behavior, over and above any influence of the adolescents’ personalities. Indeed, both aspects of
89
personality that were measured were related to disclosure and advice-seeking in the correlational
analyses, but Positive parenting predicted advice-seeking (for girls) over and above those
characteristics of adolescents.
The role of mothers’ interpersonal competence. Surprisingly, mothers’ own levels of
interpersonal competence did not predict adolescents’ advice-seeking behavior, nor was it related
to adolescents’ social outcomes. One reason for this lack of significant relations could be that
early adolescents do not have many opportunities to see their parents interacting in a social
context or with their friends. Therefore, adolescents are not aware of their parents’ interpersonal
skills nor do they consider these skills when making decisions about whether or not to ask their
parents for advice. It is possible that older adolescents may be more exposed to their parents’
own social interactions. This could result in adolescents having a greater understanding of their
parents’ friendships and interpersonal skills. It is then during later adolescence that one might
see a stronger relation between parents’ interpersonal competence and adolescents’ advice-
seeking behavior as adolescents seek out parents for advice who are more socially skilled. As
well, adolescents at this older age may then begin to model their parents’ interpersonal skills,
resulting in relations to adolescents’ own competence. Future research is needed to examine
these possibilities.
Mothers’ interpersonal competence was, however, related to both Positive and Negative
parenting, and therefore it was included as a control variable in the analyses where parenting was
examined as a predictor of disclosure and advice-seeking. Although adolescents may be
unaware of their mothers’ interpersonal skills, certain mothers seem to be more skilled than
others at dealing with interpersonal situations. By controlling for interpersonal competence, it
was possible to determine the influence of mothers’ parenting characteristics, over and above
90
their interpersonal skills, on adolescent behavior. The results of the present study, therefore,
more strongly support the notion that certain positive parenting characteristics of mothers predict
adolescents’ later advice-seeking behavior.
Adolescent Social Outcomes Associated with Advice-seeking
Most of the research on adolescent advice-seeking behavior has examined the
characteristics of this behavior without directly testing the effectiveness or helpfulness of
parental advice for adolescents (see Mounts, 2004, for an exception). As its third goal, the
present study sought to do so by examining the relations between advice-seeking and two
adolescent social outcomes: the quality of their friendships and their levels of interpersonal
competence.
Advice-seeking and friendship quality. As predicted, adolescents who sought their
mothers’ advice rated their own close friendships as higher in quality, after controlling for
adolescents’ personality characteristics as well as their disclosure to mothers. Contrary to
expectations, sex was not a significant moderator of this relation. Advice seems to have equally
positive consequences for both boys and girls. Consistent with previous research (Buhrmester,
1990; Parker & Asher, 1993), girls rated their friendships as higher in quality than did boys.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that adolescents were reporting on their own
advice-seeking behavior and friendship quality and, therefore, shared-method variance could
account for the strong relation between the two. As well, advice-seeking and friendship quality
were assessed at the same time point and therefore causality cannot be determined. Although the
conclusions that can be drawn about the influence of maternal advice on adolescent friendship
quality are therefore limited, results from the present study are nonetheless an important first step
in understanding these relations.
91
Mothers’ advice, then, seems important for adolescents. It is not the simple act of
disclosing, but instead the advice that follows the disclosure that is related to one form of
adolescent social success, friendship quality. Additionally, these results show that it is not some
aspect of adolescents’ personality that makes them more outgoing and therefore more likely to
both seek advice and have greater interpersonal success. Maternal advice may provide
adolescents with ways to successfully negotiate difficult situations that arise involving their close
friends and, as a result, adolescents have closer, more intimate friendships.
These results are in accord with those of Mounts (2004) who showed that adolescents’
reports of their parents’ provision of advice or help in problem solving in regards to peer
relationships was related to higher adolescent reports of their friendship quality. In the present
study, advice was assessed as an adolescent-driven behavior, in the form of advice-seeking, and
therefore provides a slightly different perspective than that provided by Mounts. Taken together,
the results of Mounts and those of the present study show that parental advice may have an
important impact on adolescents’ social functioning. Future research is needed to demonstrate
these relations over time and to make conclusions about the causal role of parent advice.
It should be noted that in every situation during which adolescents reported that they
sought their mothers’ advice during real-life experiences with peer dilemmas in the present
study, mothers provided advice. Therefore, it is safe to assume that when adolescents’ indicated
that they would seek their mothers’ advice in the hypothetical vignettes, mothers would indeed
provide that advice. Consequently, the measure of advice-seeking in the present study can also
be considered a measure of advice-giving.
Advice-seeking and interpersonal competence. Contrary to expectations, advice was not
related to adolescents’ reports of their interpersonal competence. It may be the case that
92
adolescents at this age do not have insight into their abilities to interact with others in general
and, as such, do not provide an accurate assessment of these abilities. This could be one reason
for the lack of relation between the two variables in this case. Compared to rating their
friendship quality where adolescents are simply reporting on their experiences within a
friendship, reporting on their own skill across a variety of social situations may be more difficult
for adolescents to do in an accurate way. It would be valuable for future research to use teacher
or peer ratings of adolescents’ interpersonal competence in order to provide a different
perspective on adolescents’ level of skill in dealing with social situations.
An alternate explanation of the lack of significant relation could be that advice was
assessed in the context of difficult situations involving close friends in the present study and
therefore may only have consequences for close friendships. If advice had been assessed within
the larger context of interactions with peers in general, not just close friends, the impact of this
advice on interpersonal competence, that is, skill in dealing with a variety of interpersonal
situations, may have been more evident.
The Mediating Role of Advice
Surprisingly, there were no direct relations between mothers’ Positive parenting
characteristics and adolescents’ social outcomes or between Negative parenting and adolescent
advice-seeking and, as such, there were no grounds for testing the mediating role of advice in
either case. One possible reason for the lack of significant relations may be that there are other
characteristics of mothers, such as their parenting style, or characteristics of the dyad, such as the
quality of communication, that may be related to adolescents’ tendency to seek advice as well as
be socially successful. Alternately, with respect to the positive characteristics of mothers, they
may be more related to other measures of adolescent’s social success, such as sociometric ratings
93
by classmates or teachers’ ratings of their peer acceptance, not used in the present study. An
important goal for future research would be to determine the context in which advice acts as a
mediator of the relations between parenting and adolescents’ social success to determine if it is
one mechanism by which certain parents have more or less socially successful children.
Strengths and Contributions of the Present Study
The present study contributes to the understanding of parenting and child development in
a number of important ways. It is the first of its kind to examine the characteristics of parents
that predict their children’s tendencies to seek their advice about difficult situations involving
their friends. As well, the present study suggests that parental advice in this context is beneficial
to adolescents as it may help them to have higher quality friendships.
This study also has methodological strengths. For example, the combined use of
hypothetical vignettes and an open-ended interview allowed for an in-depth examination of
adolescent disclosure and advice-seeking behavior. As well, the creation of composite disclosure
and advice-seeking scores from adolescents’ responses across five hypothetical vignettes
provided an assessment of their behavior across a variety of peer situations. This makes the
results somewhat generalizable to adolescents who experience a range of peer dilemmas. In
addition, the use of both mother and adolescent reports of their own behaviors is advantageous.
Finally, the fact that data collection occurred at two time points allowed for stronger
causal inferences to be made regarding parenting characteristics and adolescent advice-seeking
behavior.
Limitations of the Present Study
The present study is not without limitations. The sample of mothers and their children
was fairly homogenous, as the families were primarily Anglo-European and middle-class, and
94
the vast majority of mothers had post-secondary education. It is important for future research to
examine the parenting characteristics and outcomes related to adolescents’ advice-seeking
behavior in a more diverse sample. It is possible, for example, that adolescents from collectivist
cultures such as China, who have immigrated to North America, a more individualist cultural
context, may disclose less to their parents because they do not feel their parents will understand
their peer relationships in this new cultural setting. In turn, they would be less likely to seek
their parents’ advice and therefore have to rely on others when dealing with peer dilemmas. This
is just one example of how culture may influence the variables examined in the present study.
As well, the present findings are restricted to mothers only, and it is unclear to what
degree adolescents disclose and seek advice from fathers as well as what characteristics make
fathers attractive targets of these adolescent behaviors.
As noted earlier, perhaps the most serious limitations of the present study were that
advice-seeking and social outcomes were both measured through adolescent-report and at the
same time point, which limited inferences about causality. Future research should seek to
examine the effects of parental advice on adolescents’ friendships and interpersonal skills over
time and strive to obtain reports of adolescents’ behavior from multiple informants.
Conclusion
This study highlights the important role that mothers play in their children’s lives during
early adolescence by helping them negotiate complex interpersonal relationships. Specifically,
this research has shown that mothers, through their parenting characteristics, encourage their
children to come to them for advice and, in turn, this advice helps adolescents strengthen and
maintain high quality friendships. Given the importance of friendships discussed earlier in this
95
thesis, it is valuable for researchers to continue to examine factors that influence adolescents’
abilities to be socially successful.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Almas, A. N., Grusec, J., & Tackett, J. L. (2008). Children’s disclosure and secrecy: Links to
parenting experiences and coping. Unpublished manuscript.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child
Development, 53, 1447-1460.
Bigelow, B. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations: A cognitive-developmental
study. Child Development, 48, 246-253.
Boldero, J. & Fallon, B. (1995). Adolescent help-seeking: What do they get help for and from
whom? Journal of Adolescence, 18, 193-209.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during
preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1101–1111.
Buhrmester, D. & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy.
Child Development, 58, 1101-1113.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of
interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 991-1008.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
96
97
Collins, W.A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In W.
Damon & R. Lerner (Series Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of Child
Psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 1003–1067).
New York: Wiley.
Coplan, R., Closson, L., & Arbeau, K. (2007). Gender differences in the behavioral
associates of loneliness and social dissatisfaction in kindergarten. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 988-995.
Criss, M., Pettit, G., Bates, J., Dodge, K., & Lapp, A. (2002). Family adversity, positive peer
relationships, and children’s externalising behavior: A longitudinal perspective on risk
and resilience. Child Development, 73, 1220-1237.
Darling, N., Cumsille, P., Caldwell, L. & Dowdy, B. (2006). Predictors of adolescents’
disclosure to parents and perceived parental knowledge; Between- and within-
person differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 667-678.
Davidov, M. & Grusec, J. E. 2006. Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress
and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77, 44-58.
Eckerman, C. O., Whatley, J., & Kutz, S. L. (1975). Growth of social play with peers during the
second year of life. Developmental Psychology, 11, 42–49.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., & Bernzweig, J. (1990) Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions
Scale (CCNES): Description and scoring. Available from authors. Arizona State
University.
Fuligni, A.J., Eccles, J S., Barber, B. & Clements, P. (2001). Early adolescent peer orientation
and adjustment during high school. Developmental Psychology, 37, 28-36.
98
Gould, A. W. & Mazzeo, J. (1982). Age and sex differences in early adolescent’s information
sources. Journal of Early Adolescence, 2, 283-292.
Hartup, W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendship and their developmental significance.
Child Development, 67, 1-13.
Hastings, P. D., & Hersh, M. (1999). Transactional processes in the development of parenting
cognitions and emotions and child behavior problems. Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.
Jensen-Campbell, L., Rex-Lear, M., & Waldrip, A. (2006). Divided we fall: Children’s
friendships and peer victimization. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23,
721-740.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & Oliver P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–139). New York: Guilford Press.
Kerr, M. & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms
of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 366-380.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Burk, W. (in press). A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in
longitudinal perspective. Journal of Research in Adolescence.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (1999). To know you it to trust you: Parents’ trust is rooted in
child disclosure of information. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 737-752.
Ladd, G. (1990). Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by peers in the
classroom: Predictors of children's early school adjustment. Child Development, 61,
1081-1100.
99
Ladd, G., & Golter, B. (1988). Parents’ management of preschooler’s peer relations: Is it
related to children’s social competence? Developmental Psychology, 24, 109-
117.
Laird, R.D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A., & Bates, J.E. (2003). Change in parents' monitoring-
relevant knowledge: Links with parenting, relationship quality, adolescent beliefs, and
antisocial behavior. Social Development, 12, 401-419.
Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Mize, J., Brown, E. G., & Lindsey, E. (1994). Mother-child
conversations about peers: Contributions to competence. Family Relations, 43, 425-
432.
Laursen, B., Furman, W., & Mooney, K. S. (2006). Predicting interpersonal competence and
self-worth from adolescent relationships and relationship networks: Variable-centered
and person-centered perspectives. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 572 – 600.
Lieberman, M., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. 1999. Developmental patterns in security of
attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence: Associations
with peer relations. Child Development, 70, 202-213.
Leve, L. & Fagot, B. (1997). Prediction of positive peer relations from observed parent-
child interactions. Social Development, 6, 254-269.
Long, E. C. J. (1990) Measuring dyadic perspective-taking: Two scales for assessing
perspective-taking in marriage and similar dyads. Educational and Psychological
Measurement 50, 91-103.
Lundell, L. J., Grusec, J. E., McShane, K. E., & Davidov, M. (2008). Mother-adolescent conflict:
Adolescent goals, maternal perspective-taking, and conflict intensity. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 18, 555-571.
100
Marshall, S. K., Tilton-Weaver, L. C., & Bosdet, L. (2005). Information management,
considering adolescents’ regulation of parental knowledge. Journal of Adolescence, 28,
633-647.
Mize, J. & Pettit, G. (1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother-child relationship style,
and children’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development,
68, 312-332.
Mounts, N. (2007). Adolescents’ and their mothers’ perceptions of parental management of peer
relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 169-178.
Mounts, N. (2004). Adolescents’ perceptions of parental management of peer relationships in an
ethnically diverse sample. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 446-467.
Mounts, N. (2002). Parental management of adolescent peer relationships in context: The
role of parenting style. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 58-69.
Mounts, N. (2001). Young adolescents’ perceptions of parental management of peer
relationships. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 92-122.
Mounts, N. (2000). Parental management of adolescent peer relationship: What are its effects on
friend selection? In K. Kerns, J. Contreras, & A. Neal-Barnett (Eds.), Family and peers:
Linking two social worlds (pp. 169–193). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Mounts, N., Valentiner, D. P., Anderson, K. L., & Boswell, M. K. (2006). Shyness, sociability,
and parental support for the college of transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 71 – 80.
Mueller, E., & Brenner, J. (1977). The origins of social skills and interaction among
playgroup toddlers. Child Development, 48, 854–861.
101
Nangle, D., Erdley, C., Newman, J., Mason, C., & Carpenter, E. (2003). Popularity,
friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children’s
loneliness and depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32,
46-555.
Parker, J., & Asher, S. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links
with peer group acceptance and feeling of loneliness and social dissatisfaction.
Developmental Psychology, 29, 611-621.
Pederson, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Borge, A. I. H. (2007). The timing of middle-
childhood peer rejection and friendship: Linking early behavior to early-
adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 78, 1037-1051.
Pettit, G. S., Laird, R. D., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Criss, M. M. (2001). Antecedents of
behaviour-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early
adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583-598.
Ross, H., & Howe, N. (2008). Family influences on children’s peer relationships. In K. Rubin,
W. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds)., Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and
groups (2nd ed., pp. 508-530). New York: Guilford.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.
In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.
3, Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). New York:
Wiley.
Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K. M., Booth-LaForce, C., Kim, A. H., Burgess, K. B., Rose-Krasnor, L.
(2004). Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 326 – 356.
102
Russell, A. & Finnie, V. (1990). Preschool children’s social status and maternal
instructions to assist group entry. Developmental Psychology, 26, 603-611.
Schneider, B., Atkinson, L. & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and children’s
peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86-100.
Smetana, J., Metzger, A., Gettman, D. & Campione-Barr, N. (2006). Disclosure and
secrecy in adolescent-parent relationships. Child Development, 77, 201-217.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., & Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and adolescent
problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived
parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology, 42, 305-
318.
Soenens, B., Vansteeknkiste, M., Smits, I., Lowet, K., & Goossens, L. (2007). The role of
intrusive parenting in the relationship between peer management strategies and peer
affiliation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 239-249.
Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Professional Manuel for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory
(STAXI) (research ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Thompson, R. A. (2006). The development of the person: Social understanding, relationships,
self, conscience. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner (N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology, Volume 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp.
24–98). New York: Wiley.
Tilton-Weaver, L. & Galambos, N. (2003). Adolescents’ characteristics and parents’ beliefs as
predictors of parents’ peer management behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
13, 269-300.
103
Vernberg, E. M, Beery, S. H., Ewell, K. K., & Abwender, D. A. (1993). Parents use of
friendship facilitations strategies and the formation of friendships in early adolescence: A
prospective study. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 3546-369.
Vinik, J., Almas, A. N., & Grusec, J. (2008). Mothers’ knowledge of what distresses and what
comforts their children predicts children’s coping, empathy, and prosocial behavior.
Unpublished manuscript.
Waizenhofer, R. N., Buchanan, C. M., & Jackson-Newsom, J. (2004). Mothers’ and fathers’
knowledge of adolescents’ daily activities: Its sources and its links with adolescent
adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 348-360.
Wilks, J. (1986). The relative importance of parents and friends in adolescents’ decision making.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 323-334.
Wintre, M. G., Hicks, R., McVey, G., & Fox, J. (1988). Age and sex differences in choice
of consultant for various types of problems. Child Development, 59, 1046-1055.
Wissink, I. B., Dekovic, M., & Meijer, A. M. (2006). Parenting behavior, quality of the parent-
adolescent relationship, and adolescent functioning in four ethnic groups. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 26, 133-159.
Wojslawowicz, J., Rubin, K., Burgess, K., Booth-LaForce, C., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2006).
Behavioral characteristics associated with stable and fluid best friendship pattern in
middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 671-694.
Appendix A
Six Hypothetical Vignettes, Part 1, Conversations Measure
1. Someone invites you to their upcoming party, and your close friend is not invited. You want to go to the party but you also don’t want to leave your friend behind. You don’t know what to do.
2. You find out that one of your close friends said something mean about you behind your back. You don’t know what to do.
3. One day at school you notice your close friend is smoking at lunch with some other people. He/she tries to convince you to smoke too so you can be friends with those people. You don’t want to fight with your friend about this, but you also don’t want to smoke. You don’t know what to do.
4. On Monday your close friend invites you to the movies for Friday night and you agree to go. A couple of nights later another close friend invites you to a concert for Friday night that he/she has tickets for. You really want to go to the concert but you’ve already made plans with your other friend. You don’t know what to do.
5. You’re invited to a party where you know people will be doing things you don’t want to do. It’s a big party and everyone is going, including your close friend who says you should go to the party. You don’t know what to do.
6. Two of your close friends are in a fight and they each tell you their side of the story. Each of them wants you to pick a side, but you don’t want to get into the middle of it. You don’t know what to do.
104
105
Appendix B
Interviewer Script, Part 2, Conversations Measure
Now, for this next part, I’m going to be asking you about some situations that have happened to you. Remember, and this is important, I can’t tell anyone about our conversation today so everything you say is strictly between you and me. We’ve just finished thinking about different issues that can come up that involve close friends. By “issues” I mean situations where you’re not sure what to do but you need to resolve it or figure it out. I’d like you to think back over the last couple of months and think of any situations or issues like the ones we just talked about that have occurred involving your close friends. I’m going to ask you some questions about each of the situations you remember. I’ll make a brief note of the situation/issue on this page so that we can refer back to it in a minute.
- So can you think of an issue or situation? [Record issue on Event Record Sheet] - Can you think of another issue? [Record Issues; Repeat until 4 issues have been
recorded.] Ok, now I’m going to ask you some questions about each of the situations that I’ve written down here. So for the first one…[read first situation on list] 1) Can you describe what the situation was about and what happened? It’s really important that you tell me all the details of what actually happened, not just some parts and not others, OK? 2) Can you tell me how upsetting this was for you on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being not upsetting at all, and 5 being really upsetting? 3) What did you do to try and resolve the situation, or make it better? 4) Did you tell your mom about this situation? [If yes] Did you tell her all the details of the situation, did you keep some of it from her, or did you not tell the whole truth about part of the situation? [If no] How come? [SKIP to QUESTON 7] 5) Did you ask your mom for help or advice in resolving it?
106
[If yes] Did she provide help or advice? [If yes] What did she say or do? How helpful was her advice on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not helpful at all and 5 being very helpful? [If answered 2 or higher] Why was it helpful? [If no] Why not? Did she give you a reason? [If no] How come? 6) [If yes to Q5: Before you had a chance to ask, did she offer help without you asking? [If no to Q5: Did she offer help without you asking? [If yes] What did she say or do? How helpful was her advice on a scale of 1 to 5? [If answered 2 or higher] Why was it helpful? [If no] [Continue to next issue]
107
Appendix C
Coding Scheme for Reasons for Not Seeking Advice from Mothers, Parts 1 & 2, Conversations Measure
Category Description Examples 1. Personal
Jurisdiction Feelings of independence and competence regarding ability to handle the situation, or situation already handled.
“I felt that it was like, I can do it on my own.” “I felt I could deal with it myself”
2. Parental Advice is Inadequate/Bad
Adolescent feels mother couldn’t understand the situation; adolescent tends to find parental advice unhelpful.
“I don’t really use [her] advice that much...not too helpful.” “She didn’t really get it. She didn’t understand what was going on...”
3. Parent-Child Distance
Preference for one parent’s advice over the other; indication that adolescent does not ask advice from parent about particular topics.
“I just don’t really ask her for advice about that kind of stuff.” “Because I would talk to my Dad.” “We don’t usually share the same point of view on these subjects.”
4. Protecting Friend Fear that by asking for mother’s advice, there may be potential repercussions to friend.
“She would probably try to convince my friend not to go [to the party] as well. “
5. Mother is Intrusive Indication that adolescent finds mother annoying or intrusive
“She’ll ask too many questions” “I don’t need to ask in order to get advice, she’d just go ahead and tell me what to do”
6. No Reason/ Just didn’t/Unsure why
Adolescent unsure why he/she did not ask for help.
“I don’t know, um, no idea.” “I really don’t know.”
7. Emotional Reasons Adolescent is shy or uncomfortable discussing personal issues; avoiding awkwardness or embarrassment from talking to mother.
“It was really depressing for me. I didn’t really want to talk about it yet, you know?” “I’m kind of shy when it comes to, like, talking personally.”
108
8. Fear of Consequences
Avoiding potential repercussions to self, or not wanting to get into trouble.
“I wouldn’t want her to say no because of things that might be happening [at the party].”
9. Not a big deal/didn’t need help/advice not necessary
Situation was benign, didn’t warrant asking for advice.
“It wasn’t a big problem.” “Well, it’s not a really big situation.”
10. Advice can’t help with the situation
Situation is such that parental advice wouldn’t help.
“There wasn’t a lot she could do.”
11. Other “Because she’s old.” “That’s not how I act”
109
Appendix D
Coding Scheme for Topics of Peer Dilemmas, Part 2, Conversations Measure
Category Description Examples (abbreviated from transcripts)
1. Pragmatic Practical concerns, such as a friend not pulling their weight on a school project or damaging one of the adolescent’s possessions.
“a friend borrowed adolescents’ shirt, got whipped cream on it and didn’t clean it properly” “friends wanted to go to a party that the adolescent didn’t want to attend”
2. Friends Not Getting Along
Friends who do not get along, putting the adolescent in the middle.
“two friends mad at each other, adolescent defended one friend but felt she wasn’t listened to” “adolescent member of two groups of friends who don’t get along”
3. Relational Aggression
Inclusion or exclusion of individuals in plans or events, gossiping or spreading rumors, forcing individuals to choose sides.
“adolescent’s friend found out adolescent was hanging out with another friend and the first friend wanted to be included” “adolescent found out about friends’ gossiping about adolescent and a boy”
4. Verbal Aggression Saying hurtful things directly to a friend or a friend saying hurtful things directly to the adolescent.
“adolescent insulted when friend told her she liked being the centre of attention” “adolescent hurt when friend was critical of adolescent’s performance in a school play”
5. Emotional Disappointment
A friend letting the adolescent down in some way, e.g. betraying their trust, or vice versa.
“friend stopped disclosing personal information to adolescent because friend felt adolescent not trustworthy”
6. Friends Doing Dangerous Things
A friend engaging in dangerous behavior such as smoking drugs or cutting class.
“adolescent confronted friend about coming to class high” “conflict with friend over friend’s boyfriend who is older and abusive”
110
7. Physical Aggression Pushing, hitting, kicking, punching.
“a girl was pushing around participant’s friend” “fight with a friend during a rugby game”
8. Other “adolescent received invitation to friend’s party but had to ask permission from parents to attend and friend upset”
111
Appendix E
Coding Scheme for Reasons for Nondisclosure, Part 2, Conversations Measure Category Description Examples 1. Emotional Reasons Adolescent is shy or avoiding
awkwardness or embarrassment.
“I was kind of embarrassed to [tell].” “I kind of feel stupid…I didn’t want my mom to think, oh my gosh, she’s doing this again.”
2. Parent-Child Distance
Preference for one parent’s advice over the other; indication that adolescent does not talk to parent about particular issues very often.
“We just don’t talk about that.” “I don’t usually tell my mom about a lot of things.”
3. Personal Jurisdiction
Feelings of independence and competence regarding his/her ability to handle the situation.
“I felt I could handle it myself.” “I already knew what to do.” “I didn’t need help.”
4. Not a big deal/didn’t need help/advice not necessary
Situation was benign; does not warrant asking for advice.
“It wasn’t a big issue.” “It’s not really a serious situation, so I don’t think I should go ask my mom for advice on that.“
5. Parent’s advice is inadequate
Adolescent indicates that mother’s advice is inadequate or not helpful.
“I’ve asked for advice before, but it’s just never been what I’m looking for…she didn’t really understand.” “I didn’t think she would, um, really know what to do.”
6. Forgot reason/no reason
No reason given. “I forget” “I don’t know”
7. Fear of Consequences
Not wanting to get into trouble; avoiding potential repercussions.
“She’d try to convince me to go to, like, another high school…where he wasn’t going to.” “Because I’d get in trouble.” “She’d get mad at me.”
112
8. Protecting Parent Adolescent does not want mother to be burdened by the disclosure.
“I didn’t want her to worry.” “I didn’t really want to bug her about it.”
9. Avoid Disapproval of Friend
Fear that parent will think badly of friend, or have a lowered opinion of friend. Also includes protecting friend from punishment, protecting friend’s privacy, and friend’s reputation.
“Maybe she would think less of my friend.” “I think she would think …that I hang out with weird friends.”
10. Circumstantial Parent was circumstantially unavailable
“She wasn’t there.”
11. Other Reasons that do not fit any other category
“Because she knows the close friend but doesn’t know the new friend”