exploring teenagers' accounts of bad communication: a new basis for intervention

Journal of Adolescence 1998, 21, 177–196

Exploring teenagers’ accounts of bad communication: anew basis for intervention

JOHN DRURY, LIZA CATAN, CATHERINE DENNISON AND ROZ BRODY

Interventions to enhance young people’s communication are rarely based onresearch into adolescent communication, but take a more general, analytic, skills-based approach. This paper argues that evidence of young people’s communicationexperiences is an important resource to inform the targeting and content of inter-ventions, which has hitherto been overlooked. An exploratory, hypothesis-generat-ing study of teenagers’ accounts of their communication experiences was carriedout. Four thousand and forty-eight adolescents aged 13–19 described a recent com-munication experience with (i) a family member, (ii) a friend or (iii) a non-familyadult (professional or official). Self-reported bad communication experiences out-weighed good ones only in adolescents’ communications with adults outside thefamily, and there were significant variations across contexts in terms of the pur-poses, explanations and attributions for perceived bad communication. Impli-cations of the research for future interventions are discussed.

1998 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

Introduction

Communication “skills” and communication needsInterventions to enhance communication skills in young people were first introduced in the1970s. In the U.K. communications skills components have featured in Youth TrainingScheme manuals (e.g. Manpower Services Commission, 1984) and Business & TechnicianEducation Council (BTEC) guidelines on “course skills and core themes” (e.g. 1986). Suchskills training is now a customary element among the aims and objectives of many courses.Hence “communication” is one of the key skills units in the most recent NCVQ1 publi-cation (National Council for Vocational Qualifications, 1996), written for use in bothNVQs2 and GCE “A” levels.3 Examples of communication areas and skills to be masteredinclude taking part in discussions (“check that you understand what others have said,” p. 8)and producing written material (“use correct spelling, punctuation and grammar,” p. 10).There has also lately been an explosion in manuals and courses in social skills, includingcommunication skills, for adults. Suggestions made concerning behaviours which might, forexample, improve “relational communication” include the following: receive the other’scomments without interrupting or allowing oneself to become defensive; repeat the person’s

Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to J. Drury, Trust for the Study of Adolescence, 23New Road, Brighton BN1 1WZ, U.K.

1The National Council for Vocational Qualifications is the body which administers post-16 vocationalqualifications in the U.K.

2National Vocational Qualifications: the main vocational qualification taken by those in post-compulsoryeducation in the U.K.

3General Certificate of Education, Advanced Level: the main academic qualification taken by those in post-compulsory education in the U.K.

0140-1971/98/020177+20/$25·00/0/ad970140 1998 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

178 J. Drury et al.

comments as objectively as possible; request the other person’s proposed way of dealing withthe problem; maintain eye contact; use suitable body language (Hargie and Tourish, 1997).

Both the student and adult versions of communication skills programmes share theassumption that communication can be analysed into component parts, generally definablein behavioural terms—showing you are listening, questioning, pausing, applying grammati-cal rules etc.—which can be learned as a skill in relative isolation from particular contexts.The use of these skills will, it is claimed, ensure effective communication in any situation.Where theoretical and empirical background is provided it is in general terms, drawing onestablished theories of motivation and perception (e.g. Nelson-Jones, 1996; Hargie, 1997).Such theories have a very different orientation from modern theories of interpersonal com-munication, which are concerned with concepts such as shared meaning and understandingand negotiation between different points of view (Burgoon et al., 1994). These concepts arecloser to the ways in which young people think about communication. Catan et al. (1996),for example, found that young people understood that communication was fundamentallyan intentional act with a variety of purposes, ranging from expressing emotions, to elaborat-ing a relationship, discussing or arguing, making practical arrangements to sharing points ofview. Inadequate skill, in the narrow sense, was only one of a number of reasons for the per-ceived success or failure of communication. Other reasons were: too much emotion, givingup the attempt, unpropitious practical conditions, failure or inability to consider eachother’s point of view.

The implication of these arguments is that adolescent communication can be experi-enced as satisfactory, and might in fact be highly skilful, without conforming to the defi-nitions of effective communication employed in much communications skills training. Bythe same token, even where the criteria for “effective communication” are met according tothe “skills” model, there may still be perceived problems and lack of satisfaction.

The neglect of the complexity of communication forms and motives may be a reflectionof the narrow agenda of existing interventions. The emphasis in many of the U.K. pro-grammes aimed at young people is on the correct use of English, particularly writtenEnglish, and particularly in preparation for the workplace. Clearly, in order to be acceptedas an employee in most jobs, young people need to be reasonably articulate and literate, andto be able to listen and speak in appropriate ways. But young people also have other needsand desires that relate to communication. The concerns behind existing initiatives arecharacteristically those of adults, especially those responsible for the training and employ-ment of young people. The aims are to train young people to fit certain narrowly definedneeds of the world of work, rather than to develop different communicative abilities thatyoung people might value across a range of relationship contexts.

The argument of this paper is that communications interventions need to address aspectsof communication which young people themselves perceive as difficult. Existing researchon adolescent communication provides some insight into the nature and location of com-munication which may be problematic for young people. Most of this research focuses oncommunication in the contexts of intimate relationships, such as the family and peer group.

Adolescent experiences of problematic communication in the family, the peergroup and in the wider communityDespite the increasing importance of peers, the family continues to be a vital source ofsocial support in the young person’s life (Noller and Callan, 1991; Brown et al., 1993;

179Teenagers’ bad communication accounts

Schonert-Reichl and Muller, 1996). However, research has emphasized the pervasiveness ofconflict in young people’s communication within the family. Conflict with parents tends toincrease in early adolescence and then to decline over time (Noller and Callan, 1991). Thetypical teenager and parent quarrel twice weekly on average. Curfew, household chores,friendships and school responsibilities are the most commonly mentioned sources of argu-ment (Steinberg, 1990; Noller and Callan, 1991). Resolution of conflict is more likely oversuch issues as regulation of the adolescent’s behaviour than over the adolescent’s personalstyle (appearance, personality, health and hygiene) and homework (Smetana et al., 1991).

Communication may have bad outcomes not only because of what is said but alsobecause of what is not said. Children entering adolescence become less willing to discloseprivate information to their parents. Sex, drugs and politics are the topics most avoided.Young people avoid discussion of these issues, not always because their beliefs are notknown to their parents, but because of the family conflict the expression of the beliefs hascaused in the past (Noller and Callan, 1991; Guerrero and Afifi, 1995).

Conflict between adolescent siblings seems fairly pervasive (Noller and Callan, 1991).Montemayor and Hanson (1985) found that disagreement with siblings was as common asthose with parents, supporting the suggestion that the causes lie in the close living con-ditions, competition and personal characteristics of family members interacting with eachother (Catan et al., 1996).

The emphasis in research and in popular images has been on the active role of the ado-lescent in conflictual family communication. But, of course, communication is a two-wayprocess, to which parents can contribute equally (Coleman, 1997). However, parents spendmore time explaining their own positions than listening to their adolescents and trying tounderstand their positions (Noller and Callan, 1990, 1991). Problems in young people’scommunication with family members may not be resolvable, therefore, by simply equippingthe adolescent alone with further communication skills, narrowly defined and disconnectedfrom the complexities of interpersonal relationships.

Peer cultures and peer groups take a great variety of forms (Brown, 1990), but researchhas pointed to a number of general features of young people’s relationships with theirfriends. Teenagers report that communication interactions with friends are more mutualthan those with parents, with friends doing just what young people feel their parents fail todo: listening and trying to understand (Youniss and Smoller, 1985; Noller and Callan,1991). Peer support serves as a buffer against stress, but Schonert-Reichl and Muller (1996)found that males were less likely to seek help from their peers than were females.

Friendship patterns among young people are thought to be an indicator of emotionalhealth (Cotterell, 1996). It has been argued that adolescent friendships marked by frequentconflicts have negative effects on social adjustment and development; correlations havebeen found between friendships with positive features and high school grades, and betweenmore conflictual friendships and low subjective competence (Berndt and Perry, 1990).

Relative to the work on family and peer communications, there is less emphasis in theresearch literature on young people’s communication with unfamiliar adults in the com-munity, even though adolescents contact increasing numbers and a greater diversity of newadults with age (Jackson and Rodriguez-Tome, 1993; Catan et al., 1996). Where researchhas been carried out on this topic, two issues have been prominent: (i) problematic com-munication, and (ii) adolescents’ help-seeking behaviour. Generally, where young peopleconsider the relationship with the adult communication partner to be unequal, their expec-tations of communication are bound to be affected; they may start out with the assumption

180 J. Drury et al.

that their views will not be given a fair hearing, and as a result will give up even before theconversation has started (Coleman et al., 1997). Communication with non-family adults isparticularly difficult for adolescents when power is obviously unequal—for example whenthe young person has to communicate with police and benefits officers. Many young peopleare unfamiliar with the rules of social interaction in formal, adult-defined situations, such asthe benefits office or job interview (Catan et al., 1996).

Communication with doctors is problematic for many patients (Ley, 1988) but this maybe particularly the case for young people who might be self-conscious about their bodies.Adolescents may sometimes be hesitant to attend their local GP surgery, particularly if theyare seeking contraceptive advice; they are often worried about issues of confidentiality(Coleman et al., 1997). There are also age differences among adolescents. Older adolescentsare more likely than younger adolescents to seek help from professionals (Schonert-Reichland Muller, 1996). Indeed, older and socially disadvantaged adolescents report higher levelsof contact with professionals and officials generally (Catan et al., 1996).

Rationale for the present studyWhile the research findings discussed above can usefully inform the design of future inter-ventions on teenage communication, taken together they are limited in several respects.First, they have focused on general features of problematic adolescent communication (e.g.arguments) or on concepts derived from a wider research literature (e.g. help-seeking),rather than exploring the young person’s own phenomenology of bad communication.Hence there may be forms of—and reasons for—communication difficulties which are par-ticularly salient for young people, but which research has not yet considered. Second, mostof the research has examined communication difficulty in only one social context at a time.Thus it does not identify areas where adolescents encounter most communication difficulty,or whether and how communication difficulty varies across contexts.

The present research was carried out principally to inform the targeting and content ofcommunication education for young people which are not based on assumptions about iso-lated, general skills. Given the gaps in the research literature identified above, its aimswere: first, to identify the locations of young people’s perceived bad communication experi-ences (i.e. who they are mainly with); second, to derive analytic categories from youngpeople’s own accounts of bad communication; and third, to use these categories to examinethe nature of communication difficulties in the different contexts. Previous research did notprovide specific hypotheses about adolescent communication difficulty from the perspectiveof young people, or about variation between communication contexts. Consequently, themethods of both data collection and data analysis employed were geared towards explo-ration, rather than specific hypothesis-testing. There are also indications, in previousresearch, that communication changes over the course of adolescence. Thus the studyaimed to examine any age differences in perceived communication difficulty which mightindicate the need for different approaches to intervention for younger and older ado-lescents.

Methods

SubjectsThe sample consisted of 4048 young people aged between 12 and 20. In order to obtain asample of young people representative of adolescents in the U.K. population in terms of


class, education, experience and employment situation, the survey was based in five regionsacross the U.K.: (i) a medium sized Scottish city; (ii) a large metropolitan centre in thenorth-west of England; (iii) a service town in the south-east of England; (iv) a medium sizedcity in Northern Ireland; and (v) a rural-cum-suburban area in south-east England.

Most of the sample were approached through their schools, colleges and universities. Thefew who were outside the education and training systems were approached through organiz-ations such as the careers service, homeless hostels and pupil referral units.

All respondents were given a questionnaire asking them to describe communicationexperiences with: (i) “a member of your family,” (ii) “a friend or workmate” or (iii) “a pro-fessional person or official.” Three thousand six hundred and eighty-seven young peopleresponded to the items on a family member, 3630 responded to the items on a friend orworkmate, and 2993 responded to the items on a professional person or official. Respon-dents were spread between the age groups as follows: 14·4% were 12–13-years-old, 30·3%were 14–15-years-old, 31·9% were 16–17-years-old, and 22·6% were 18–20-years-old. Twothousand and fifty-two (50·7%) males responded, as opposed to 1996 (49·3%) females. Thecomposition of the sample in terms of education and employment is set out in Table 1.

In relation to ethnicity, 86·8% were White, 4·6% were Asian and 2·7% were Black.Around 5·7% came from no-income families. Most respondents (86·6%) were living withparents and/or stepparents. The remainder were divided between residential care, universityaccommodation, foster parents, with friends, in hostels or living on their own.

Materials and procedureRespondents were asked to recall a recent communication experience with each of “a mem-ber of your family,” “a friend or workmate” or “a professional person or official.” Four head-ings were provided: (i) who the communication was with; (ii) the purpose of the communi-cation; (iii) how it went (well, okay, badly or don’t know);4 and (iv) why it went well orbadly. Except for question (iii), all questions were open ended, with up to six lines providedfor responses. These questions on communication difficulty were part of a larger question-naire survey, described in Catan et al. (1996).

The questionnaire was usually administered by a class teacher or tutor. A set of stan-dardized instructions was issued for administrators. Administrators were alerted to issues of

Table 1 Education and employment situation of the sample

Education/employment n %

Secondary school 1943 48·0Off-site education* 67 1·7Tertiary college 1369 33·8

(academic) (841) (20·8)(vocational) (528) (13·0)

Higher education 417 10·3Apprenticed 97 2·4Unemployed 95 2·3Homeless 60 1·5

*Receiving secondary education in small specialist units for educational or behavioural problems.

4In the analysis, all “okay” and “don’t know” responses were eliminated.

182 J. Drury et al.

confidentiality (respondents were guaranteed anonymity and were told that it was betternot to discuss answers with their friends while filling out the questionnaire). Respondentswere asked to pay close attention to the questionnaire and to give as much detail as poss-ible. The smaller subsamples outside the educational settings were interviewed individuallyor filled in the questionnaires in small groups.

Analytic approachSince one of the aims of the study was to examine young people’s own conceptions of com-munication difficulty, a coding typology for responses was developed from open-ended pilotstudy responses on a sample of 310 young people, rather than imposed a priori (cf., Glaserand Strauss, 1967). The broad, headline categories derived concerned: the location of thecommunication experience (i.e. who it was with), its purpose, the reasons for its success orfailure, and the attributions made for its success or failure.

For the purposes or the content of communication experiences, the following sub-categor-ies were derived: (i) mood creating (“to cheer me up”); (ii) superficial friendly or social con-tact (“got in touch for gossip,” “dropped round for a chat”); (iii) factual/practical (“to makearrangements”); (iv) initiating or maintaining a social or personal relationship (e.g. “to getto know someone,” “patch up a quarrel”); (v) discussions, arguments or fights (“had noisydiscussion where views were not heard,” “lectured at, told off”); and (vi) sharing of thoughtsor negotiation of differences (“to explain my point of view,” “to reach a compromise”).

For the reasons for success or failure, the following categories were derived: (i) mood cre-ating (“cheered me up”) and emotion (“too upset or embarrassed”); (ii) impersonal (“a bor-ing topic”); (iii) time or material constraints (“in too public a place for privateconversation”); (iv) instrumental, outcome-oriented (“I got what I wanted,” “I got what Ineeded”); (v) characteristics of the relationship (“we’ve always been distant”); (vi) skill, orlack of it, in oneself or the other person (“couldn’t express myself”); (vii) understandingother points of view (“he can’t understand my feelings,” “she wasn’t interested in what Ithought”); (viii) not being treated as equal by an adult (“he talked down, was patronizing,”“he was intrusive, failed to respect my privacy”); and (ix) basic reasons indicating an under-standing of communication as the sharing of meaning (“we shared the same view or feel-ings,” “I got through in the end”).

For attributions of the success or failure of the communication, responses were dividedinto the following categories: (i) to self; (ii) to the other; (iii) equal; (iv) to the situation.

The analytic typology was used by five raters to code the responses. After training, anassessor checked 10% of each coder’s output and calculated the level of agreement betweenher judgement and that of the other coders. Average agreement levels across the five ratersranged between 94 and 97%.

It should be re-emphasized at this point that analysis of the data was exploratory, and wasnot driven by specific hypotheses. A preliminary inspection of comparative frequencies ofcommunication experiences reported as “good” vs. “bad” across locations, and of the use ofdifferent purposes, explanations and attributions for “bad” communication experiences acrosslocations, enabled the detection of differences which appeared sufficiently large to warrantstatistical testing. These purposes, explanations and attributions were then related to salientaspects of previous research on young people’s communication and adolescent developmentmore generally. Thus the purpose of data analysis in this paper is exploratory and hypoth-esis-generating, rather than hypothesis-testing.


Analysis of data was conducted in five stages. First, the location of bad communicationwas identified by comparing the incidence of good and bad communication across contexts,identifying the people with whom adolescents were most likely to describe bad communi-cation. In the analysis, locations are referred to as “contexts” of communication.

Second, although a range of purposes were cited by respondents, “discussion/argument”purposes figured prominently in their accounts of bad communications, reflecting the focusin previous research on adolescent communication problems on conflict. It was decided tocompare the incidence of “discussion/argument” purposes across locations with the locationof another frequently-appearing communication aim—more neutral, pragmatic communi-cations, indicated by a “practical/factual” purpose.

Third, respondents gave a range of explanations for bad outcomes, but the interest herewas in those shown elsewhere to be important in young people’s experience of problematiccommunication, and which relate to adolescents’ greater ability, compared with children, toperceive and reflect on alternative viewpoints (Elkind, 1967), yet without being as sociallypowerful as adults (Emler and Reicher, 1995). Hence, explanations such as “failure to seeanother’s point of view” were of particular interest since these are thought to be associatedwith an understanding of good communication as shared, reciprocal meaning. “Powerimbalance” explanations are of interest because these refer to young people’s understandingof their own social position in relation to adults (Catan et al., 1996). “Relationship” expla-nations were thought likely to be important, particularly in intimate and familiar contexts.An analysis was carried out to compare the frequency with which these explanationsappeared across locations (within the family, with friends, with an adult outside the family)and between individuals within these locations.

Fourth, the attribution literature (e.g. Hewstone, 1989) suggests an adult preference forattributing success to the self and failure externally. Attribution of bad communication toself or both parties equally may be a condition of successful intervention. Thus the use ofequal vs. self and other attributions for good vs. bad communications were compared acrossand within locations.

Finally, the decision was made to carry out a limited number of age comparisons (youngervs. older teenagers) based on findings from previous research, indicating increased com-municative effectiveness with age.

Results

The analysis focuses on both inter-context comparisons (family members,friends/workmates and non-family adults), as well as on what might be called intra-contextcomparisons, using the largest subcategories within contexts (see Table 4, below): mother,father, siblings, friend, best friend, girl- or boyfriend, workmate, teacher or tutor, employer,police officer, careers advisor and health professional (doctor, dentist or nurse). For inter-context comparisons, intra-context comparisons and age comparisons, chi-squared testswere carried out across locations, purposes, explanations and attributions.5

Location of good and bad communication experiences

Inter-context comparisons. Respondents were more likely to describe bad com-munication experiences with family members than with friends/workmates (χ2=50·87, df=1,

5Due to the large number of chi-square tests carried out, results are taken as significant only at p=0·01 or smaller.

184 J. Drury et al.

p<0·0001); they were also more likely to describe bad communication experiences withnon-family adults than with friends/workmates (χ2=84·62, df=1, p<0·0001) and with non-family adults than family members (χ2=6·5, df=1, p=0·01). Good communication experi-ences formed a similar pattern. Respondents described proportionately more good experi-ences with friends/workmates than with family members (χ2=28·55, df=1, p<0·0001), andmore good communication experiences with friends/workmates than with non-family adults(χ2=67·16, df=1, p<0·0001). Finally, respondents described proportionately more good com-munication experiences with family members than with non-family adults (χ2=11·04, df=1,p<0·001). (See Table 2.)

Intra-context comparisons. Within the family, significantly more good than badexperiences were reported (χ2=378·57, df=1, p<0·0001) (see Table 3). Table 4 shows thatthe family member young people were most likely to describe a bad communication experi-ence with, given a free choice, was their mother, followed by their brother, father and sister;the family members respondents most frequently described good communication

Table 2 Inter-context comparisons for numbers of young people describing good and badcommunications

Family Peers‡ Non-family adults χ2

Bad 328 (248·5) 169 (248·5) 50·9**169 (270·7) 325 (23·2) 84·6**

328 (360·4) 325 (292·6) 6·5*

Good 319 (394·0) 469 (394·0) 28·6**469 (364·1) 193 (297·9) 67·2**

319 (281·6) 193 (230·4) 11·0**

*p<0·01; **p<0·001. (Numbers in parentheses are expected values.)‡The term “peers” is used to denote the “friends or workmates” category.

Table 3 Numbers citing good vs. bad communication

Good Bad χ2

Family members 1667 717 378·6**Mother 702 331 133·2**Father 207 96 40·7**Sibling 425 178 101·2**

Peers 1895 470 858·6**Friend 1299 297 629·1**Best friend 359 73 189·3**Boy or girlfriend 77 42 10·3*Workmate 87 25 34·3**

Non-family adults 1005 572 118·9**Police officer 50 84 8·6*Teacher 335 177 48·8**Health professional 150 86 17·4**Careers advisor 150 54 45·2**Employer 105 55 16·6**

*p<0·01; **p<0·001.


Table 4 Cited examples of partners with whom respondents had bad communications (freechoice)

n

Family membersMother 331Brother 115Father 96Sister 63Family group 43Stepfather 7Grandparent 5Stepmother 5Partner 3Stepsister 2Stepbrother 1Foster sib 1Other family 29Other 15

Total 716

PeersFriend 297Best friend 73Boy- or girlfriend 42Workmate 25Other friend 7Group of friends 3Mentor 2Neighbour 1Other 17

Total 467

Non-family adultsTeacher 177Health professional 86Police officer 84Employer 55Careers advisor 54DSS officer 21Social worker 10Counsellor 8Housing official 3Probation officer 3Care worker 2Other* 68

Total 572

*E.g. football coach, youth worker etc.

186 J. Drury et al.

experiences with were in the same sequence of magnitude.6 Significantly more good thanbad communication experiences were reported for mothers (χ2=133·24, df=1, p<0·0001),fathers (χ2=40·66, df=1, p<0·0001) and combined siblings (χ2=101·18, df=1, p<0·0001).

Among friends/workmates overall, significantly more good than bad communicationexperiences were reported (χ2=858·62, df=1, p<0·0001). Table 4 shows that thefriends/workmates young people were most likely to describe a bad communication experi-ence with, given a free choice, were, in order of magnitude, friends, best friends, boy- orgirlfriends and workmates. Significantly more good than bad communication experienceswere reported for friends (χ2=629·08, df=1, p<0·0001), best friends (χ2=189·34, df=1, p<0·0001), boy- or girlfriends (χ2=10·29, df=1, p=0·001) and workmates (χ2=34·32, df=1, p<0·0001). (See Table 2.)

Among non-family adults overall, significantly more good than bad communicationexperiences were reported (χ2=118·89, df=1, p<0·0001). Table 4 shows that the “pro-fessionals or officials” young people were most likely to describe a bad communicationexperience with, given a free choice, were teachers, health professionals, police officers,employers and careers officers. A significantly greater proportion of good over bad com-

Table 5 Age differences in bad communication experiences; numbers of young people forlocations, purposes, explanations and attributions

12–15-year-olds 16–20-year-olds χ2

LocationFamily: good 665 (711·3) 991 (944·7) 17·5**Family: bad 353 (306·7) 361 (407·3)Peers: good 750 (786·4) 1129 (1092·6) 14·6**Peers: bad 231 (194·6) 234 (270·4)Non-family adults: good 388 (395·0) 609 (602·0) 0·6Non-family adults: bad 232 (225·0) 336 (343·0)Discussion/argument purposes for bad communicationsFamily members 280 (262·9) 251 (268·1) 2·2Peers 101 (97·2) 95 (98·8) 0·3Non-family adults 118 (87·9) 97 (127·2) 17·5**Explanations for bad communicationFamily: point of view 70 (77·7) 99 (91·3) 1·4Peers: point of view 39 (36·8) 41 (43·2) 0·2Non-family adults: point of view 32 (34·1) 45 (42·9) 0·2Attributions for bad communicationsFamily: self 70 (53·3) 54 (70·7) 9·2*Family: other 140 (123·6) 148 (164·4) 3·8Family: equal 84 (82·6) 108 (109·4) 0·0Peers: self 41 (40·9) 54 (54·2) 0·0Peers: other 82 (67·1) 74 (88·9) 5·8Peers: equal 58 (58·9) 79 (7·1) 0·0Non-family adults: self 43 (49·5) 72 (65·6) 1·5Non-family adults: other 107 (114·8) 160 (152·2) 0·9Non-family adults: equal 15 (21·1) 34 (27·9) 3·1

*p<0·01; **p<0·001. (Numbers in parentheses are expected values.)

6However, base rates indicate that respondents describe marginally more good compared to bad experiences withfathers (1:2·16) than mothers (1:2·12). The important point to note here, though, is that in both cases there werefar more good than bad communication experiences.


munication experiences were reported for teachers (χ2=48·76, df=1, p<0·0001), health pro-fessionals (χ2=17·36, df=1, p<0·0001) employers (χ2=15·63, df=1, p=0·0001) and careersadvisors (χ2=45·18, df=1, p<0·0001). However, for police officers, the reverse was the case:young people were significantly more likely to report bad than good communication experi-ences (χ2=8·63, df=1, p<0·01).

Age comparisons. For communications with family members, 16–20-year-oldsreported proportionately more good and proportionately less bad communication experi-ences than did 12–15-year-olds (χ2=17·54, df=1, p<0·0001). The same age pattern wasfound in the case of communication with friends/workmates (χ2=14·59, df=1, p=0·0001),and with non-family adults, although the latter was not significant (see Table 5).

Purposes of communications with bad outcomes

Inter-context comparisons. Among bad communications reported, “discussions” or“arguments” were proportionately more likely with family than with friends/workmates orprofessionals (χ2=67·27, df=2, p<0·0001). Thus, for example, there were proportionatelymore “discussion/argument” purposes for bad communications with fathers than with healthprofessionals (χ2=40·82, df=1, p<0·0001). Similarly, there was a higher proportion of “dis-cussions” or “arguments” for bad communication with siblings than with friends/workmatesoutside the family (χ2=48·23, df=1, p<0·0001). By contrast, there was a higher proportionof “factual/practical” purposes for bad communication with non-family adults than withfamily members (χ2=151·3, df=1, p<0·0001) (see Table 6).

Intra-context comparisons. For bad communication with family members, there wasa relatively high proportion of “discussions/arguments” and a relatively low proportion of“relationship” purposes; for good communication with family members, the reverse patternwas obtained; this difference was significant (χ2=416·61, df=1, p<0·0001).

“Discussion/argument” and “factual/practical” purposes were more likely to be cited in

Table 6 Numbers citing different purposes for bad communication across contexts

Purpose Context χ2

Discuss/argue Family member Peer Non-family adult 67·3**278 (191·3) 79 (125·9) 112 (151·8)

Discuss/argue Father Health professional 40·8**66 (38·8) 7 (34·2)

Discuss/argue Sibling Friend 48·2**107 (63·2) 63 (106·8)

Discuss/argue Police officer Health professional 35·9**52 (29·0) 7 (30·0)

Practical Family member Non-family adult 151·3**13 (91·3) 151 (72·7)


188 J. Drury et al.

certain non-family adults communication contexts than others. Thus young people describ-ing bad communications with police officers were more likely to cite “discussion/argument”purposes than those describing bad communication experiences with health professionals(χ2=35·87, df=1, p<0·0001) (see Table 6). For bad communications with police officers,only two types of purposes were cited; “discussion/argument” purposes featured more thandid “factual/practical” purposes (χ2=5·31, df=1, p<0·05). But for good communications withpolice officers, “factual/practical” purposes outweighed all the other purposes put together(χ2=6·42, df=1, p=0·01). For bad communications with health professionals, respondentscited a variety of purposes, but were more likely to cite “factual/practical” purposes than allthe other kinds of purposes put together (χ2=41·86, df=1, p<0·0001).

Age comparisons. Tests were carried out on age differences in the frequency of“discussion/argument” purposes for bad communications. In the cases of communicationswith both family members and friends/workmates, 12–15-year-olds cited“discussion/argument” purposes proportionately more frequently than did 16–20-year-olds,though neither was significant. In the case of non-family adults, however, the youngerrespondents cited “discussion/argument” purposes significantly more than did the olderrespondents (χ2=17·49, df=1, p<0·0001) (see Table 5).

Explanations for bad communications

Inter-context comparisons. A significantly larger number of bad communicationswere ascribed to failure to see the other’s point of view in communications with familymembers than in those with either professionals or friends/workmates (χ2=12·39, df=2, p<0·01). Thus, for example, a higher proportion of bad communications were ascribed to fail-ure to see the other’s point of view in the case of fathers than in the case of health pro-fessionals (χ2=13·29, df=1, p<0·001).

Power imbalance was cited relatively rarely as an explanation for bad communication;indeed, the friends/workmates cell was too small to subject to statistical analysis. However,power imbalance was cited significantly more in the case of non-family adults than familymembers (χ2=30·74, df=1, p<0·0001) (see Table 7).

Table 7 Numbers of young people citing “power” and “point of view” reasons for badcommunication

Reason Context χ2

Point of view Family Peers Non-family adults 12·4*109 (84·8) 40 (55·9) 60 (68·3)

Power imbalance Family Non-family adults 30·7**34 (63·4) 80 (50·6)

Point of view Father Health professional 13·1**30 (19·1) 6 (16·9)

Police officer Teacher 3·1Point of view 12 (15·9) 33 (29·1)Power imbalance 18 (14·1) 22 (25·9)



Intra-context comparisons. For communications with police officers, there weremore explanations given for bad communication in terms of “power imbalance” (the mostcommonly given reason) than “failure to see the other’s point of view;” for teachers thereverse pattern was the case. However, this comparison was not significant (see Table 7).

Age comparisons. Age differences in the occurrence of the explanation for bad com-munication in terms of “failure to see the other’s point of view” was tested in all three con-texts (family friends/workmates and non-family adults). Although 16–20-year-olds citedthis type of explanation proportionately more than expected and 12–15-year-olds cited itproportionately less, this was not significant in any of the contexts (see Table 5).

Attributions

Inter-context comparisons. For communications with family members, the numberof self-attributions for good communications was proportionately larger than the number ofself-attributions for bad communications, though this was not significant. In the case ofcommunications with friends/workmates, the reverse pattern was obtained: self-attributionsfor bad outcomes were proportionately more frequent than for good communications (χ2=6·46, df=1, p<0·05). For non-family adults, the proportion of self-attributions for good com-munications was higher than for bad communications (χ2=5·49, df=1, p<0·05).

A larger proportion cited other attributions for bad communications compared to goodcommunications in the case of family members (χ2=68·47, df=1, p<0·0001),friends/workmates (χ2=95·12, df=1, p<0·0001) and non-family adults (χ2=33·69, df=1, p<0·0001).

A significantly greater proportion than expected cited equal attributions for good com-munications rather than bad communications in the case of family members (χ2=50·76, df=1, p<0·0001), friends/workmates (χ2=60·18, df=1, p<0·0001) and non-family adults (χ2=27·36, df=1, p<0·0001).

The greater proportion citing situational attributions for good communications comparedto bad communications was not significant in the case of family members,friends/workmates or professionals (see Table 8).

Table 8 Numbers of young people making attributions for good and bad communications

Self Other Equal Situation

Good Bad χ2 Good Bad χ2 Good Bad χ2 Good Bad χ2

Family 261 124 1·0 356 289 68·5** 795 192 50·8** 138 56 0·1(270·1) (114·8) (452·2) (192·8) (692·6) (294·4) (136·1) (57·9)

Peers 270 95 6·5 220 156 95·1** 1029 137 60·2** 188 56 0·6(289·7) (75·4) (297·0) (79·0) (921·1) (244·9) (192·8) (51·2)

Non-family 267 115 5·5 295 269 33·7** 207 50 27·4** 156 98 1·4adults

(245·1) (137·0) (361·2) (202·8) (167·0) (90·0) (165·1) (88·9)


190 J. Drury et al.

Intra-context comparisons. Attributions to “other” for bad communication werecited proportionately more than attributions to self in the cases of family members overall(χ2=65·28, df=1, p<0·0001), friends/workmates overall (χ2=14·82, df=1, p=0·0001) andnon-family adults overall (χ2=61·76, df=1, p<0·0001). Thus “other” attributions outweighed“self” attributions for bad communications in all of the following cases: mothers (χ2=32·01,df=1, p<0·0001), fathers (χ2=20·64, df=1, p<0·0001), friends (χ2=26·28, df=1, p<0·0001),police officers (χ2=6·40, df=1, p=0·01), teachers (χ2=24·43, df=1, p<0·0001) and healthprofessionals (χ2=6·75, df=1, p<0·01). The following were in the same direction but werenot significant: siblings, best friends, workmates, careers advisors and employers. By con-trast, for girl- or boyfriends, there were more self than other attributions for bad communi-cations, though this was not significant (see Table 9).

Age comparisons. For bad communications with family members, attributions bothto self (χ2=9·2, df=1, p<0·01) and to the other (χ2=3·8, df=1, p=0·05) were proportionatelylarger among 12–15-year-olds than among 16–20-year-olds; equal attributions were alsoproportionately larger in the younger age group though this was not significant. For badcommunications with friends/workmates, attributions to the other were proportionatelylarger for 12–15-year-olds than 16–20-year-olds (χ2=5·8, df=1, p<0·05). There was no sig-nificant age difference in attributions to self or equal attributions. For bad communicationswith non-family adults, attributions to self, other and equal attributions were each pro-portionately greater among 16–20-year-olds than among 12–15-year-olds, though none ofthese comparisons was significant (see Table 5).

Discussion

When asked to describe three recent communications, the young people in this surveydescribed more good than bad experiences. This finding differs markedly from popular views

Table 9 Numbers of young people making attributions to self vs. other for bad communicationsacross social contexts

Self Other χ2

Family members 124 288 65·3**Mother 58 137 32·0**Father 11 45 20·6**Siblings 39 61 4·8Peers 95 156 14·8**Friend 44 107 26·3**Best friend 16 20 0·4Workmate 7 11 0·9Girl/boy friend 16 11 0·9Non-family adults 115 269 61·8**Police officer 50 84 8·6*Teacher 38 95 24·4**Health professionals 15 33 6·8*Careers advisor 17 29 3·1Employer 15 25 2·5

*p<0·01; **p<0·001.


of teenagers as generally negative or hostile, and as poor communicators (e.g. Wallace,1997). Moreover, the variety of their communications (in terms of outcomes, purposes,explanations and attributions), corresponding to the variety of communicative social con-texts (with family members, friends/workmates and non-family adults), suggests that inter-ventions designed to enhance young people’s communication need to focus on issues whicharise with particular people in specific social contexts, rather than offering a more general,context-independent approach.

Locations of bad communicationYoung people in this survey were most likely to report good communication experienceswith friends/workmates and bad communication experiences with non-family adults. This isin line with research which shows the importance of familiarity, equal status and sharedvalues in teenagers’ understandings of “good communication” (Collins and Repinski, 1994).The greater proportion of bad communications with family members than withfriends/workmates is consistent with research which emphasizes family conflict in ado-lescence when family relations become strained and parental assertions of authority oftenseem unfair to young people (Steinberg, 1990, Noller and Callan, 1991; Bosma et al., 1996).Young people in adolescence are in the process of forming their own values, which they seeas more likely to be shared with friends/workmates than with adult family members, andthey tend to see divergence of values as a cause of communication problems (Brody andCatan, in prep.).

The findings in this area indicate that, since most communication difficulty for youngpeople occurs in formal, adult-defined contexts, interventions should focus particularly onadults encountered in the wider community, often in professional or official roles. Withinthe family, specific, rather than general, communication issues need to be tackled. How-ever, young people’s relatively good communication with friends/workmates is clearly valu-able, and could be used as the basis of an enhanced understanding of communication.

As in other research, more bad communication experiences were reported with mothersthan with fathers (cf., Noller and Callan, 1991; Laursen, 1995). More positive communi-cation experiences with mothers than with fathers were also reported. It seems likely thatboth results are a function of the fact that there is probably more communication overallwith mothers than other family members (Catan et al., 1996). Several researchers haveargued that conflict is a part of “normal” intimate relationships (Cupach and Spitzberg,1994). Communication with mothers is usually ongoing rather than one-off, in contrastwith their communication with many non-family adults, and thus bad communicationinterspersed with more positive experiences may not have overall or long-term bad conse-quences. It should be noted that the data reported here was based on a question whichemphasized particular communication experiences. Catan et al. (1996) found, using a diff-erent question that encouraged respondents to focus on general feelings about communi-cation, that adolescents of all ages report significantly more positive general attitudes tocommunication with mothers than with fathers. Consequently, interventions may not needto focus unduly on communication with mothers.

Young people described more bad than good communication experiences with only onegroup; police officers. A perceived imbalance of power appears prominently in teenagers’accounts of bad communication with authority figures (see the discussion below), and thepolice appear to be a particularly salient group in this respect. Benefits officers have also

192 J. Drury et al.

been identified in other research as a group for whom young people report more negativethan positive communication, for the same reason (Catan et al., 1996). Future researchmight fruitfully test the suggestions offered here further by measuring the relative impact ofself-perceptions of power vs. powerlessness among young people in relation to communi-cation with such figures as police and benefits officers. A particular focus on interventionsto help young people better understand how to handle their relative powerlessness in cer-tain communication situations would seem to be a priority.

Purposes of bad communicationsFor bad communications, young people were most likely to have “discussions” or “argu-ments” with family members rather than with friends/workmates and non-family adults. Asin the foregoing discussion of the high proportion of negative communication withmothers, it seems relevant here to cite again views on the normality of conflict in intimaterelationships (Duck, 1994). This is consistent with the fact that “relationship” purposes pre-dominated in positive communication in the family. Thus conflict appears to have differentmeanings in close and on-going relationships (e.g. mothers, best friends), compared withmore formal and one-off communications (e.g. police officers). Future research shouldexamine this suggestion perhaps by a series of semi-structured interviews to explore the sig-nificance of “conflict” in different communication contexts.

The high proportion of “factual/practical” purposes among communication with non-family adults suggests that young people, like adults, have pragmatic expectations of com-munication with professionals and officials, expecting practical outcomes, such as adviceand help with a specific problem (Coleman et al., 1997). Interventions need to be focusedaccordingly.

Explanations for bad communicationThe respondents in this study were more likely to explain their bad communication interms of participants’ failure to share points of view in the case of family members than inthe case of friends/workmates and non-family adults. This suggests that empathy andintersubjectivity are perceived as the central issues in family communication. However,power imbalance was cited more commonly as an explanation in communication with non-family adults than family members. The research elicited many accounts of difficult com-munication situations framed in problematic social interactions with professionals andofficials. As the report by Catan et al. (1996) illustrates, this was particularly marked amongdisadvantaged young people, who reported higher levels of contact with this group:

A young man aged 16 and a half, had been living rough and begging over the summer, but hadrecently been found B&B accommodation by the local council housing officer. It took threeweeks for his benefits cheque to arrive and during that time he lived off soup and bread once aday at the YMCA. He cashed it and put the money in his bag, but on the way to the supermar-ket to buy food, his bag was stolen. He returned to the benefits office and filled in a claim tohave the loss made good. He was told to wait and after two hours:“She come back and said, ‘We can’t accept your claim.’ I says, ‘I don’t have no money. Whatam I going to do? I can’t help getting my bag stolen. I’ve got to do something. I don’t have anyfamily here.’ She just went ‘There’s nothing I can do’. So I got cross and said ‘You just take thepiss’, and walked out.” [Homeless young man, aged 16 (Catan et al., 1996, p. 60)].

The adolescent’s special position in the transition between childhood and adulthood


means that, particularly when interacting with adults representing powerful social insti-tutions, they are frequently aware that they lack the means to express often very adultneeds, and feel powerless to enlist authority figures’ help. Further studies should look moreclosely at the relative roles of power and a shared point of view in communication, byexploring teenagers’ adult communication partners’ views of their relative importance.

The variations found in the outcomes and purposes among different non-family adultsmean that these comments have particular significance for some adults rather than others.Thus, for example, for those with whom there is ongoing contact, such as teachers, interper-sonal issues appear to be important, as well as issues of power imbalance. In more sporadicrelationships with authority figures, however, the message of intervention might be that it isnot necessary to like, or feel close to the person and that a clear focus on practical matterswould be more beneficial. These insights could usefully be tested in other contexts, such asadolescents’ communication with general practitioners or employers. Interventions need tofocus on teenagers’ different purposes in these different social contexts, paying attention tothe role of empathy and the importance of the quality of relationships in the family, andinforming both young people and adults on how to handle issues of power in formalrelationships outside the family.

Attributions for bad communicationThe greater proportion of attributions to the other made in bad, as opposed to good, com-munications, across all three contexts, suggests the importance of interventions addressingthe general issue of accepting responsibility for communication outcomes—although this isa point that would apply as much to adults as to teenagers. Bad communications withfriends/workmates were characterized by a higher proportion of self attributions than werebad communications in other contexts, again indicating the need for interventions to buildupon the positive aspects of young people’s communications with their peers. The prepon-derance of equal attributions for good communication in all contexts indicates that goodoutcomes are associated with young people showing insight into the two-way, shared natureof communication (Wood, 1982; Burgoon et al., 1994; Catan et al., 1996). Attribution ispart of the communication “game” (Higgins et al., 1981), so interventions designed toenhance young people’s communication might therefore include material on equal attri-butions vs. other-blaming. The role and form of attributions in teenagers’ communicationexperience might be tested more rigorously in future studies by standardizing the nature ofthe communication episode (e.g. by providing vignettes) and by providing closed questionsinstead of the present open-ended format.

Age differences in bad communicationsOlder teenagers tended to report more positive communication experiences, suggesting agrowing ability to deal with communication difficulties and actively create positive out-comes (cf., Leyva and Furth, 1986; Noller and Callan, 1991). This may be due to a combi-nation of general cognitive competence in adolescence and increased social understandingdeveloped through engagement in a wider range of experiences (Mason and Gibbs, 1993).The predominance of positive communication experiences in older adolescents was lessmarked in communication with non-family adults, indicating that this is an area whereeven the most proficient adolescents could benefit from interventions to enhance com-munication.

194 J. Drury et al.

In all contexts, younger teenagers cited more “argument” purposes in their communi-cations with non-family adults, and this was more marked in communication with pro-fessionals and officials. In all contexts, younger adolescents appear to lack strategies to pre-vent differences of opinion escalating into conflict. In the teenage years, relations withformal authority change radically (Emler and Reicher, 1995), and confrontation with non-family adults in power is one way of expressing a rebellious identity. By late adolescence,both identities and relations with authority may be more settled; penalties for rebellionbecome harsher, and rebellious young people perhaps find other, less public, means toexpress any antagonism. Interventions designed for younger and older teenagers need totake account of these age differences.

Younger teenagers were more likely to blame themselves than were older teenagers forbad outcomes with both family members and friends/workmates, although they were alsomore likely than were older teenagers to blame the other for bad communication with fam-ily members. These findings were largely not significant, and they suggest that it would beuseful to further examine the neglected question of whether the attribution “biases”described by Hewstone (1989) generalize from adults to teenagers.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that future interventions aimed at enhancing young people’scommunications might usefully move away beyond approaches which emphasize improvingwritten English and specific communication behaviours such as employment-oriented,transferable skills, and focus instead on the different communication motives and issues thatarise for young people in particular contexts. This means a shift towards accepting youngpeople’s own varied needs and agendas rather than just those of adults involved in trainingand employment. In other words, the focus should be on the features of their communi-cation that are meaningful and salient for young people.

Acknowledgements

This paper benefited from the comments of two anonymous reviewers. The authors grate-fully acknowledge BT Forum support for this project.

References

Berndt, T. J. and Perry, T. B. (1990). Distinctive features and effects of early adolescent friendships.In From Childhood to Adolescence: a transition period? Montemayor, R., Adams, R. R. and Gul-lotta, T. P. (Eds). Newbury Park: Sage.

Bosma, H. A., Jackson, S. E., Zijsling, D. H., Zani, B., Cicognani, E., Xerri, M. L., Honess, T. M. andCharman, L. (1996). Who has the final say? Decisions on adolescent behaviour within the fam-ily. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 227–291.

Brody, R. and Catan, L. (in prep.). Teenagers understanding of communication: Intuition andstrategy.

Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In At the Threshold: the developing adolescent, Feld-man, S. S. and Elliott, G. R. (Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D. and Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peergroup affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467–482.

Burgoon, M., Hunsacker, F. and Dawson, E. (1994). Human Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage.Business & Technician Education Council (1986). Common Skills and Core Themes: general guidelines.

London: BTEC.Catan, L., Dennison, C. and Coleman, J. (1996). Getting Through: effective communication in the teen-

age years. London: BT Forum/TSA.Coleman, J. C. (1997). The parenting of adolescents in Britain today. Children & Society, 11, 1–9.Coleman, J., Catan, L. and Dennison, C. (1997). You’re the last person I’d talk to. In Youth in Society,

Roche, J. and Tucker, S. (Eds). London: Sage.Collins, W. A. and Repinski, D. J. (1994). Relationships during adolescence: Continuity and change

in interpersonal perspective. In Personal Relationships During Adolescence, Montemayor, R.,Adams, G. R. and Gullotta, T. P. (Eds). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cotterell, J. (1996). Social Networks and Social Influences in Adolescence. London: Routledge.Cupach, W. and Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). The Dark Side of Communication. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Duck, S. (1994). Strategems, spoils and a serpent’s tooth: On the delights and dilemmas of personal

relationships. In The Dark Side of Communication, Cupach, W. and Spitzberg, G. H. (Eds). Hove:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Elkind, D. (1967). Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Development, 38, 1025–1034.Emler, N. and Reicher, R. (1995). Adolescence and Delinquency. Oxford: Blackwell.Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.Guerrero, L. K. and Afifi, W. A. (1995). What parents don’t know: Topic avoidance in child–parent

relationships. In Parents, Children and Communication: frontiers of theory and research, Socha, T. J.and Stamp, G. H. (Eds). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hargie, O. D. W. (1997). The Handbook of Communication Skills, 2nd Edn. London: Routledge.Hargie, C. T. C. and Tourish, D. (1997). Relational communication. In The Handbook of Communi-

cation Skills, 2nd Edn, Hargie, O. D. W. (Ed.). London: Routledge.Hewstone, M. (1989). Causal Attribution: from cognitive processes to collective beliefs. Oxford: Blackwell.Higgins, E. T., Fondacaro, R. and McCann, D. (1981). Rule and roles: The ‘communication game’

and speaker-listener processes. In Children’s Oral Communication Skills, Dickson, W. P. (Ed.).New York: Academic Press.

Jackson, S. and Rodriguez-Tome´, H. (1993). Adolescence: Expanding social worlds. In Adolescence

and its Social Worlds, Jackson, S. and Rodriguez-Tome´, H. (Eds). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Laursen, B. (1995). Conflict and social interaction in adolescent relationships. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 5, 55–70.

Ley, P. (1988). Communicating with Patients: improving communication, satisfaction and compliance. Lon-don: Chapman & Hall.

Leyva, F. A. and Furth, H. G. (1986). Compromise formation in social conflicts: The influence of age,issue and interpersonal context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 441–451.

Manpower Services Commission (1984). Core Skills in YTS: Youth Training Scheme Manual Part 1.Sheffield: MSC.

Mason, M. G. and Gibbs, J. C. (1993). Social perspective taking and moral development among col-lege students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 109–123.

Montemayor, R. and Hanson, E. (1985). A naturalistic view of conflict between adolescents andtheir parents and siblings. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 23–30.

National Council for Vocational Qualifications (1996). Key Skills: Level 3. London: NCVQ.Nelson-Jones, R. (1996). Relating Skills. London: Cassell.Noller, P. and Callan, V. J. (1990). Adolescents’ perceptions of the nature of their communication

with parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 349–362.Noller, P. and Callan, V. (1991). The Adolescent in the Family. London: Routledge.Schonert-Reichl, K. A. and Muller, J. R. (1996). Correlates of help-seeking in adolescence. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 25, 705–731.Smetana, J. G., Yau, J. and Hanson, S. (1991). Conflict resolution in families with adolescents. Jour-

nal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 189–206.Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict and harmony in the family relationship. In At the Threshold:

the developing adolescent, Feldman, S. S. and Elliott, G. R. (Eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

196 J. Drury et al.

Wallace, W. (1997). With an ‘uh huh’ here and a mutter there. Times Educational Supplement, January10.

Wood, J. T. (1982). Human Communication: a symbolic interactionist perspective. New York: Holt, Rine-hart & Winston.

Youniss, J. and Smoller, J. (1985). Adolescent Relations with Mothers, Fathers and Friends. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

exploring teenagers' accounts of bad communication: a new basis for intervention

Documents