0140-1971/98/030305+18/$30·00/0 ©1998 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

305

Journal of Adolescence

1998,

21

, 305–322Article No. ad980155

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents relative to specific aspects of relationships with parents and personal development

S

ANDY

J

ACKSON

, J

AN

B

IJSTRA

, L

EEUWE

O

OSTRA

AND

H

ARKE

B

OSMA

Adolescents’ views of communication with their parents are examined in relation tomeasures of family satisfaction, adolescent decision-making and disagreement withparents (Study I), and to measures of self-esteem, well-being and coping (Study II).The results provide some support for the psychometric qualities of the Parent–Adolescent Communicat ion Scale (PACS) and suggest that good fami lycommunication is associated with satisfaction with the family and with lack ofdisagreement between adolescents and parents. They also indicate a positiveassociation between family communication and adolescent self-esteem, certain aspectsof adolescent well-being and type of coping strategy employed.

© 1998 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

Introduction

Communication is a central aspect of all forms of interaction; indeed at one level the twocan be regarded as so intimately connected that they are virtually indistinguishable fromeach other. Within the latter perspective, communication between persons occurs in awide variety of ways which together contribute to what Fogel (1993) has described as a“consensual frame,” i.e. a shared way of perceiving and comprehending each other,which can itself change and develop with the passage of time.

Another view of communication is more restricted and sees it in terms of relativelyconcrete behaviours which are open to observation and description. It focuses uponbehaviours such as discussion, open expressions of affection, nagging and readiness to lis-ten. Such a view underlies a variety of studies including a number which have beenconcerned with communication between adolescents and their parents (e.g. Barnes andOlson, 1985; Grotevant and Cooper, 1986). This article follows the latter tradition anddiscusses communication in this narrower sense.

Effective communication is generally regarded as a central feature of good familyfunctioning. This is particularly so when children reach adolescence and begin to estab-lish a clearer sense of their own identity and their ability to make decisions forthemselves. As Barnes and Olson (1985) have shown, where parent–adolescent commu-nication is good, the family is closer, more loving and more flexible in solving familyproblems. Indeed, Olson and his colleagues (Olson

et al

., 1979) have argued that com-munication is a facilitating process in developing family cohesion and adaptability.

Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to Dr S. Jackson, Department of Developmentaland Experimental Clinical Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen,The Netherlands.

306

S. Jackson

et al

.

It may also be the case that families which function in this way help the adolescent toestablish a clearer sense of personal identity. Grotevant and Cooper (1986) indicate thatcommunication helps the adolescent to clarify his/her position within the family and tolearn to be sensitive to the ideas and feelings of others. They suggest that it encouragesboth a feeling of individuality and a feeling of connectedness, and that together thesefacilitate the process of individuation. Noller and Callan (1991) are in agreement withthis position and point out that good communication and negotiation within the familyhelp to increase the adolescent’s sense of independence.

In considering the role of communication processes within the family, one mightanticipate that differences in the role played by each parent and age differences betweenadults and adolescents could lead to variations in the communicative process betweendifferent family members. There is evidence that this is indeed the case. Adolescentsreport that they talk more with mother than with father and most adolescents, particu-larly girls, see mother as more understanding and accepting, while fathers tend to beregarded as more judgemental, more inclined to impose authority and less willing to dis-cuss emotional or personal issues (Youniss and Smollar, 1985). This work is consonantwith more recent research which indicates that adolescents and their parents differ intheir perceptions of how parenting is approached (Darling and Steinberg, 1993).

There is also evidence of differences between boys and girls in the type of informationthey communicate to parents, as well as selectivity with regard to the parent to whom itis addressed (Noller and Callan, 1991). Boys and girls agree, however, in being less posi-tive about family communication than are their parents (Barnes and Olson, 1985). Thisdifference in perspective is not unexpected perhaps, given the asymmetry of the parent–adolescent relationship and the developing sense of personal identity and the wideningof social horizons which are typical of adolescence (Collins, 1990).

While there is considerable consensus about the importance of communication andevidence that such communication may vary according to family role and sex, surpris-ingly little is known about the ways in which parent–adolescent communication maychange as the adolescent grows older or as a result of variations in the situation or topicaround which communication takes place. In a series of studies, Smetana (Smetana,1988

a

,

b

, 1995; Smetana and Asquith, 1994) has shown the co-occurrence of differentforms of parental authority during adolescence. Certain areas of behaviour, e.g. moralissues, such as taking money without permission, are seen as more subject to parents’authority by parents and adolescents alike. Other areas of behaviour, such as physicalappearance, activities with friends and cleaning one’s room, are seen by parents as fallingunder their control but they are prepared to yield greater authority over these issues tothe adolescent as he/she grows older. Parents and adolescents differ in their view of theextent of parental authority over these latter issues.

Olson and his colleagues (Olson

et al

., 1979) point to the fact that good parent–ado-lescent communication facilitates adaptability and flexibility in solving problems withinthe family. Less attention has been given to its effects on the developing adolescent as anindividual who is gradually taking on more responsibility for his/her life at home andbeyond. Is adaptability in family functioning parallelled by adaptability in coping withproblems arising in other areas of the young person’s life? If the adolescent experiencesfamily communication as good, does this have positive effects where his/her feelings ofpersonal well-being or self-esteem are concerned? Intuitively, one might anticipate a

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents 307

relationship between communication processes and such areas of development, but theempirical evidence remains lacking.

The research presented in this article sets out to address some of the above issues. It isdivided into two studies involving two separate groups of adolescents but with someoverlap in the research procedures. Both studies focus on the adolescent’s view of spe-cific communication activities within the home and do not take account of parentalperceptions. This approach is adopted because the main focus is on the relationshipbetween adolescents’ ideas about family communication and about other aspects of theirpersonal functioning. The first study is concerned with adolescents’ views of communica-tion with their parents and of other areas of their life at home: decision-making, conflictand conflict resolution, and family satisfaction.

The second study focuses upon the link between parent–adolescent communicationand other aspects of the adolescents’ personal development: self-esteem; well-being andcoping. Of these, well-being is a term which may refer to different areas of individualfunctioning. With this in mind, the approach adopted in the present study involves fourdifferent aspects: physical health, psychosocial health, experience of positive and nega-tive affect, and general life satisfaction. In both studies, the focus is on early tomid-adolescence, i.e. the period between 13 and 15 years of age. This period can beregarded as embracing the phase in adolescence when young people begin to extendtheir social world, to develop new forms of self-expression and to establish more freedomto decide for themselves about a variety of areas of behaviour. Such activities may beseen as likely to strain the relations between the young people and their parents andthere is indeed some evidence that conflict does increase during this period (Collins,1990; Steinberg, 1990; Paikoff and Brooks-Gunn, 1991). Given these characteristics, thenature of the communication between the young adolescent and the parents appearslikely to be of considerable importance.

Both studies also consider the possible relation between intellectual ability and com-munication. The Dutch secondary education system comprises a variety of differenttypes of school which are geared to different levels of educational aims and ability. Mostyoung people of normal and higher ability attend one of three different types of school,each of which is graded according to the general ability levels and orientation of thepupils (see following section for further information on the three types of school). Thestudies took advantage of this division in order to examine the possibility that differencesin how communication is perceived might vary according to the intellectual level of theadolescents concerned. The rationale here was that higher ability adolescents might bebetter able to take account of other points of view than their own and that this mightinfluence their view of and engagement in communication with their parents.

Study I

Method

Subjects

A group of 413 adolescents (232 girls and 178 boys; three subjects gave no information)from six Dutch secondary schools participated in study I. The schools were all situated in

308

S. Jackson

et al

.

towns in the east and north of The Netherlands with pupils drawn from the towns them-selves and from the surrounding rural areas. The adolescents were divided into twogroups—an early adolescent group which consisted of all of the 13-year-olds (

n

=200)and a mid-adolescent group the majority of which were 15-years-old (

n

=185). The lattergroup also included small numbers of adolescents aged 14 (

n

=16), 16 (

n

=8) or 17(

n

=1). Three different levels of secondary education were represented in the totalgroup: MAVO (

n

=162), HAVO (

n

=110) and VWO (

n

=119) (see further, Table 1).The great majority of the adolescents came from homes in which two parental figureswere present (slightly over 80%; no data are available concerning the percentage of nat-ural parents as opposed to step-parents.)

Material

All subjects completed a Dutch translation (Ligthart, 1987) of the Parent–AdolescentCommunication Scale (Barnes and Olson, 1995). This scale provides measures of whatBarnes and Olson describe as “Open” and “Problem” communication between adolescentand parents. It provides information concerning the adolescent’s view of the nature ofthe concrete interactions between him/herself and each of the parents. Subjects areasked to respond to 20 items and to give two separate responses to each item, one refer-ring to mother and the other to father. Typically, items involve statements such as: “Mymother/father is always a good listener” or “When I ask questions, I get honest answersfrom my mother/father.”

1

Responses are given on a five-point scale ranging from“Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.”

Three other self-report measures were used in addition to the PACS: a family satisfac-tion scale; a decision-making scale; and a family disagreement scale. The first of thesemeasures was a Dutch version (Stulp, 1987) of the Family Satisfaction Scale (FSS)(Olson and Wilson, 1995). Respondents are asked to indicate how satisfied they are withaspects of family functioning such as decision-making, family boundaries and rules. Theyare asked to respond to items such as “How satisfied are you with how often parentsmake decisions in the family?” by selecting an appropriate response (very dissatisfied, notvery satisfied, generally satisfied, very satisfied).

The Perspectives on Adolescent Decision-Making Questionnaire, Part A (PADM-A;Bosma

et al

., 1996) was used to assess the adolescents’ ideas about decision-making. Itgoes beyond the couple of more general questions regarding parental decision-makingused in the FSS by focusing on specific activities such as language, smoking, time tocome in, etc. Such activities tend to feature prominently in the adolescent years and arefrequently seen as issues around which debate between parents and adolescents canoccur. Adolescents respond to four standard items about 21 issues of potential conflictwith their parents. Issues include: “Helping with household chores,” “Smoking” and“What time to come home at night.” The four items are as follows: (1) I decide myselfwhether I (e.g.) smoke or not (Yes, ?, No) (2); my parents feel I should not smoke (Yes,?, No); (3) I often have arguments with my parents about smoking (Yes, ?, No); (4) I

1

These examples are taken from the original English version of the PACS which was used for translationinto Dutch. As with the example from the Family Satisfaction Scale provided in the following paragraph, theyare cited with the permission of David Olson. Further information about the English version of each of thesescales can be obtained from Prof. D. H. Olson, Department of Family Social Science, 290 McNeal Avenue,University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, U.S.A.

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents 309

think it is normal for someone of my age to decide for him/herself about smoking (Yes, ?,No).

The PADM-A provides two sets of variables. The first set gives measures of (1) “Ado-lescent choice;” (2) “Parental feeling;” (3) “Arguments;” and (4) “Normality.” Thesevariables indicate the extent to which adolescents give “Yes” answers to the four differ-ent standard items. The second set comprises: (1) “Norm-supported conflict;” (2)“Norm-supported compromise;” (3) “Norm-supported autonomy;” and (4) “Acceptedparental authority.” These variables refer to specific constellations of answers to the fourstandard items taken together. For example, “Norm-supported conflict” involves “Yes”answers to each of the items.

The Disagreement Scales (Honess

et al

., 1997) were used to assess the adolescents’view of the style and outcome of conflicts between themselves and their parents. Theyconsist of three parts, the first two of which are concerned with style of conflict. Respon-dents are asked to describe mother’s, father’s and their own behaviour when a conflictarises. Two subscales (i.e. two styles of conflict) are distinguished—“Aggression” and“Compromise.” Each subject is asked to use a four-point scale to indicate how well eachof a set of statements describes father (or mother) when he (she) and the young persondisagree about something which is important to the adolescent. The adolescent is thenasked to complete the same scale with reference to him/herself. Typical items include:“He tries to avoid talking about it” or “He gets really angry and hits out.” Both of theseitems are from the scale used with father. Precisely the same items but with appropriatemodifications for person and gender are used for mother and for self.

Part 3 of the instrument is concerned with the outcome of conflict. Adolescents areasked about the outcomes of disagreements with their mother and their father. There arethree subscales (i.e. three outcomes): “Frustration,” “Escalation” and “Intimacy.” Anexample of an item is: “I end up going along with what my mother/father wants” (never,almost never, once in a while, fairly often, very often).

Results

Psychometric adequacy of the PACS

Since the version of the PACS used in this study was a Dutch translation of the original,the psychometric qualities of the Dutch version will be discussed before presenting thecomparisons with the other instruments.

Table 1

Gender and age distribution of the three levels of education, and gender distributionacross the age ranges

Boys

n

(%) Girls

n

(%) Age 13

n

(%) >Age 13

n

(%)

Level of education

MAVO 66 (41) 96 (59) 60 (37) 102 (63)HAVO 40 (36) 70 (64) 89 (81) 21 (19)VWO 63 (53) 56 (47) 44 (37) 75 (63)

Age

13 91 (46) 109 (54)>13 87 (41) 123 (59)

310

S. Jackson

et al

.

Means, standard deviations and reliability coefficients.

Table 2 shows themeans, standard deviations and reliability coefficients (Cronbach alphas) of the two sub-scales and of the total questionnaire. (Since the values of the responses on the“Problems” subscale have been reversed, a high score means “no problems”).

Table 2 shows that, in general, respondents were satisfied about their communicationwith their parents. In terms of the five response categories, they moderately agreed withthe “Open” items and moderately disagreed with the “Problems” items. However, theywere significantly more satisfied with communication with mother than with father(“Open”:

T

=9·70,

p

<0·001; “Problems”:

T

=5·14,

p

<0·001). Table 2 also shows that themagnitudes of the reliability coefficients were generally acceptable.

Correlations.

Table 3 shows that the two subscales correlated highly with the totalscale (correlations ranged from 0·83 to 0·87), and that the correlations between the twosubscales were moderately high (0·45 and 0·51). Correlations between the mother–ado-lescent communication subscales and the father–adolescent communication subscalesranged from 0·17 to 0·49 (Table 3, upper right).

Factorial validity.

Principal component analyses were carried out in order to studythe extent to which the two factors identified by Barnes and Olson (1995) also emergedfrom the data. These analyses were restricted to a 2-components solution and were fol-lowed by Varimax rotation.

Table 2

Means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients of the two PACS subscales and ofthe Total scale

Open=“Open family communication”; Prob.=“Problems in family communication.”

Mother FatherMean

S

.

D

.

a

Mean

S

.

D

.

a

Open 40·6 6·1 0·83 37·0 6·9 0·85Prob. 37·0 5·9 0·65 35·5 6·2 0·67Total 77·6 10·5 0·82 72·5 11·2 0·83

Table 3

Correlations between the two PACS subscales and the total scale. All correlationsare significant (

p

<0·001)

Open=“Open family communication;” Prob=“Problems in family communication.”

Mother FatherOpen Prob. Total Open Prob. Total

Mother

Open 0·51 0·87 0·40 0·17 0·35Prob. 0·86 0·20 0·48 0·40Total 0·35 0·37 0·43

Father

Open 0·45 0·87Prob. 0·83Total

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents 311

In general, the factor structure matched that reported by Barnes and Olson. Together,the two factors accounted for 34·4% (mother–adolescent communication) and 35·6%(father–adolescent communication) of the variance. Most items had the higher loadingon the appropriate factor (loadings ranged from 0·30 to 0·74). However, “Problems” item18 — an item referring to nagging — had the higher loading on the “wrong” factor (0·43

vs

. 0·38 on the mother–adolescent questionnaire and 0·37

vs

. 0·34 on the father–adoles-cent questionnaire). “Problems” item 2, which refers to believing what the appropriateparent says, had a loading of 0·36 on both factors of the mother–adolescent question-naire. “Problems” items 15 — dealing with avoidance of discussion on topics—from themother–adolescent questionnaire had a loading of 0·45 on the “correct” factor, but also aloading of 0·32 on the “wrong” factor. Indeed, nine items (including those alreadyreferred to) had comparatively high loadings on the “wrong” factor.

Effects of sex, age and level of education

A series of

ANOVAS

was performed in order to analyse whether sex, age and level of edu-cation had any effect on communication. When there were more than two groups, Tukeyanalyses were also carried out in order to study which groups were significantly differenton the dependent variable

Communication with father.

No interaction effects were found between sex, ageand level of education. Boys had significantly higher (=more positive) scores than girlson both subscales (“Open”:

F

=16·33,

p

=0·000; “Problems”:

F

=14·39,

p

=0·000). Fur-thermore, the early adolescent group (the 13-year-olds) had significantly higher scoresthan the mid-adolescent group (>13 years) on subscale “Open” (

F

=12·24,

p

=0·000).No difference emerged for subscale “Problems” (

F

=2·59, n.s.). Finally, with regard tolevel of education, significant differences emerged for subscale “Open” (

F

=4·71,

p

=0·001) and for subscale “Problems” (

F

=3·74,

p

=0·025). Since the sex and age distri-butions across the three educational levels were skewed, the latter two analyses werecarried out with sex and age as covariates. Tukey analyses revealed that the MAVO stu-dents had lower (=more negative) scores on subscale “Open” than both HAVO andVWO students and lower scores on subscale “Problems” than the VWO students.

Communication with mother.

No interaction effects were found between sex, ageand level of education. Boys and girls did not differ with regard to the communicationwith their mother (“Open”:

F

=0·97, n.s.; “Problems”:

F

=2·07, n.s.). With regard to age,there was a significant difference for subscale “Open” (

F

=16·90,

p

=0·000), but not forsubscale “Problems” (

F

=3·28, n.s.). The results showed that the early adolescent grouphad a more positive score on subscale “Open” than the mid-adolescent group. Finally,there were no significant differences between the three educational levels (“Open”:

F

=1·27, n.s.; “Problems”:

F

=0·85, n.s.). The latter two analyses were corrected for sexand age.

Relationships between communication and aspects of family functioning

In order to study the relationship between communication and other areas of familyfunctioning, correlations were computed between the two subscales “Open communica-tion” and “Problems in communication” and the other measures.

312

S. Jackson

et al

.

Table 4 shows that communication and family satisfaction were moderately related. Italso shows that the relationship between communication and decision-making was veryweak. Most correlations between the two communication subscales and the deci-sion-making variables were non-significant. Where significant correlations were found,these were lower than 0·32. In contrast, the relationship between communication andstyle and outcome of conflict was clearly stronger. Almost all of the relevant correlationswere weakly or moderately significant (whether correlations were positive or negativedepended on the type of style and outcome).

Conclusions

The results of study I indicate that the PACS is a reliable instrument, the factor struc-ture of which generally matches that of the original version. They show most of theadolescents to be satisfied about how they communicate with their parents, but more sat-isfied about communication with mother than with father. Boys emerge as more positivethan girls about their father. Early adolescents are more positive than mid-adolescentsabout both of their parents, and adolescents participating at a higher level of educationare more positive about both their father and mother than are those at a lower level.Communication is correlated, though not strongly, with family satisfaction and with styleand outcome of conflict. There is evidence of a relationship between communication anddecision-making, but this is largely restricted to issues where there are differences ofopinion and even here the correlations are relatively weak.

Table 4

Correlations between the two PACS subscales and aspects of family functioning.Correlations marked ** are significant at

p

<0·001; those marked * are significant at

p

<0·01

Mother FatherOpen Prob. Open Prob.

Family satisfaction

FSS 0·50** 0·41** 0·53** 0·40**

Decision-making

“Adolescent choice” – 0·13 0·05 – 0·07 – 0·03“Parental feeling” 0·09 0·07 0·10 0·06“Arguments” – 0·14* 0·26** – 0·25** 0·32**“Normality” – 0·15* 0·08 – 0·07 – 0·01“Norm-supported conflict” – 0·16* 0·22** – 0·16* 0·25**“Norm-supported compromise” – 0·03 – 0·00 0·09 – 0·12“Norm-supported autonomy” 0·04 – 0·11 0·05 – 0·17**“Accepted parental authority” 0·25** – 0·13 0·19** – 0·06

Conflicts

Style: “aggression” – 0·26** – 0·41** – 0·27** – 0·30**Style: “compromise” 0·33** 0·07 0·35** 0·18**Outcome: “frustration” – 0·37** – 0·49** – 0·40** – 0·44**Outcome: “escalation” – 0·39** – 0·42** – 0·39** – 0·36**Outcome: “intimacy” 0·37** 0·12* 0·40** 0·24**

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents 313

Study II

Method

Subjects

Six hundred and sixty adolescents (352 girls and 306 boys; two subjects gave no informa-tion) from four Dutch secondary schools took part in study II. They were aged between13 and 15 (343 thirteen-year-olds, 210 fourteen-year-olds and 103 fifteen-year-olds; fivesubjects did not give their age). As in study I, they were categorized according to threelevels of education: MAVO (

n

=227), HAVO (

n

=120) and VWO (

n

=313) (see alsoTable 5). Almost all of the adolescents came from homes in which two parental figureswere present (slightly over 97%; no data are available concerning the percentage of nat-ural parents as opposed to step-parents.)

Material

All subjects completed the Dutch version of the PACS (Ligthart, 1987). In addition,they also responded to seven other self-report measures. Together, these measures cov-ered three psychological domains: self-esteem; well-being; coping.

Self-esteem was assessed by means of the CBSK, the Perceived Competence Scale forAdolescents (Straathof and Treffers, 1989), which is the Dutch version of the Self Per-ception Profile (Harter, 1985). Respondents are asked to indicate how they perceivethemselves with regard to seven specific domains (e.g. “Physical appearance”) and oneglobal domain, “Global self-worth.” In the present study, only the results on the latterscale were calculated. The alpha coefficient was 0·79. A typical item is: “Some youngpeople are happy with themselves as a person but other young people are often not happywith themselves.” Respondents first choose the statement that is most true for them-selves and then decide whether the statement is “Wholly true” or “Partly true.”

Well-being was measured using four different tests, each with a different orientation.The Dutch scale VOEG (Physical Health Questionnaire; Joosten and Drop, 1987) wasused to study how adolescents perceive their physical health. Respondents are asked to

Table 5

Gender and age distribution of the three levels of education, and gender distributionacross the age ranges (total percentages are not always 100% due to missing information)

Boys

n

(%) Girls

n

(%) Age 13

n

(%) Age 14

n

(%) Age 15

n

(%)

Level of education

MAVO 110 (48) 117 (51) 76 (33) 82 (36) 69 (30)HAVO 52 (43) 66 (55) 49 (41) 49 (41) 19 (16)VWO 144 (46) 169 (54) 218 (70) 80 (26) 14 (5)

Age

13 148 (43) 195 (57)14 107 (51) 103 (49)15 49 (48) 53 (52)

314

S. Jackson

et al

.

say whether they experience physical complaints like headache, tiredness and shortnessof breath. An example of an item is: “Do you feel more tired than normal?” (Yes, No).

The AGV, a Dutch version of the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg and Will-iams, 1988) was used to assess adolescents’ perceptions of their psychosocial health.Respondents are asked about the extent to which they feel able to deal with aspects oflife. A typical item is: “Has your life been one long struggle over the last few weeks?”(Not at all, Not more than normal, More than normal, Much more than normal). ADutch version of the ABS, the Affect Balance Scale (Bradburn, 1969), was used to assessthe presence of positive and negative feelings. An example of an item is: “Have you beenvery happy in the last few weeks?” (Not at all, Sometimes, Often, Very often). Finally,the Cantril Ladder (Cantril, 1965) was used to obtain a global indication of life satisfac-tion (1 represents least satisfied, 10 is most satisfied).

Coping strategies were assessed with the UCL-A, the Utrecht Coping List, adolescentversion (Bijstra

et al

., 1994

a

). Respondents are asked to indicate how they respond todifferent types of problem. Scores are obtained on the following subscales: “Confrontingthe problem;” “Seeking social support;” “Avoidance;” “Depressive reactions.” An exam-ple of an item is: “I discuss the problem with friends or family” (Seldom or never,Sometimes, Often, Very often).

Results

Psychometric adequacy of the PACS

As with Study I, attention will first focus upon the qualities of the PACS.

Means, standard deviations and reliability coefficients.

As Table 6 shows, theresults of study II confirm those of study I. Again, adolescents were generally satisfiedabout their communication with their parents, and again they were more satisfied withtheir communication with their mother than with their father (“Open”:

T

=9·99,

p

<0·001; “Problems”:

T

=7·66,

p

<0·001).

Correlations.

As in study I, the correlations between the two subscales and thetotal scale were high and the correlations between the two subscales were moderatelyhigh (see Table 7). However, the two studies clearly differed in that in study II adoles-cents were much more inclined to see their communication with mother and father assimilar than were the adolescents in study I. While correlations between the mother–adolescent communication subscales and the father–adolescent communication sub-scales in study I ranged from 0·17 to 0·49, they were considerably higher in study II(between 0·40 and 0·80).

Factorial validity.

In study II, the factor structure completely matched the struc-ture reported by Barnes and Olson. Together, the two factors accounted for 41·8%(mother–adolescent communication) and 42·3% (father–adolescent communication) ofthe variance.

On this occasion, each item had the higher loading on the appropriate factor (load-ings ranged from 0·40 to 0·77) in both the adolescent–mother and the adolescent–fatherquestionnaires. Again, however, about half of the items loaded comparatively highly

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents 315

(0·20 or higher) on the “wrong” factor. The three items which loaded inappropriately inStudy I (items 2, 15 and 18) conform to the anticipated pattern in Study II, though item18 in particular also has high loadings on the other factor.

Effects of sex, age and level of education Communication with father.

No interaction effects were found between sex, ageand level of education. With regard to sex, no differences emerged (“Open”: F=3·35,n.s.; “Problems”:

F

=0·23, n.s.). Thus, while in study I boys were more positive about thecommunication with their father than girls, no differences emerged in study II. Withregard to age, there were significant differences for subscale “Open” (

F

=4·07,

p

=0·017)and subscale “Problems” (

F

=6·69,

p

=0·001). Tukey analyses showed that the13-year-olds had higher scores on subscale “Open” than the 14-year-olds, and higherscores on subscale “Problems” than both the 14- and 15-year-olds. These results confirmthe findings of study I. With regard to level of education, a significant differenceemerged for subscale “Problems” (

F

=9·49, p=0·000), but not for subscale “Open”(F=2·42, n.s.). Since the age distribution across the three educational levels was skewed,these two analyses were carried out with age as covariate. Tukey analyses revealed thatthe MAVO students had lower scores on subscale “Problems” than the VWO students.This effect was also found in study I.

Table 6 Means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients of the two PACS subscales and ofthe Total scale

Open=“Open family communication”; Prob.=“Problems in family communication.”

Mother FatherMean S.D. a Mean S.D. a

Open 39·3 7·0 0·89 37·3 7·6 0·89Prob. 35·5 6·7 0·77 34·4 7·0 0·77Total 74·8 11·9 0·89 71·7 12·8 0·88

Table 7 Correlations between the two PACS subscales and the Total scale. All correlations aresignificant (p<0·001)

Open=“Open family communication”; Prob=“Problems in family communication.”

Mother FatherOpen Prob. Total Open Prob. Total

MotherOpen 0·51 0·87 0·70 0·40 0·63Prob. 0·86 0·43 0·80 0·69Total 0·65 0·69 0·76

FatherOpen 0·54 0·89Prob. 0·86Total

316 S. Jackson et al.

Communication with mother. Where main effects were concerned, boys andgirls did not differ with regard to the communication with their mother (“Open”:F=1·51, n.s.; “Problems”: F=1·55, n.s.). These results are in accordance with those instudy I. With regard to age, there were significant differences for both subscales(“Open”: F=5·91, p=0·002; “Problems”; F=8·16, p=0·000). Tukey analyses showedthat the 13-year-olds had significantly higher (=more positive) scores on both subscalesthan the 14- and 15-year-olds.

An interaction effect between age and level of education was found for subscale“Open”: F=2·93, p=0·020. The 13- and 15-year-olds showed a similar pattern: withhigher educational level, scores on subscale “Open” became higher. Moreover, for both13- and 15-year-olds, MAVO students (the lowest level) had the lowest score, andVWO students (the highest level) the highest score. However, the 14-year-olds’ patternwas somewhat different: like the 13- and 15-year-olds, there was an increase fromMAVO (lowest) to HAVO (middle), but a relatively large decrease occurred fromHAVO to VWO (highest). For subscale “Problems” there were no interaction effects.Inspection of the data indicated that these results (for the 14-year-olds) accounted forthe interaction effect. The pattern of scores for the 13- and 15-year-olds at each educa-tional level was very similar to that for study I. Indeed, the scores for the 14-year-olds inMAVO and HAVO were also very much in line with the general pattern and it was onlythe set of scores for the VWO group which accounted for the interaction.

Finally, with regard to level of education, there was a significant difference for sub-scale “Problems” (F=11·54, p=0·000), but not for subscale “Open” (F=0·48, n.s.). Thelatter two analyses were corrected for age. On subscale “Problems,” the MAVO studentshad more negative scores than the HAVO and VWO students. Again, these findings arein accordance with those of study I.

Relationships between communication and aspects of psychosocial functioning Table 8 shows that most well-being, self-esteem and coping measures were significantlybut weakly correlated with the two communication subscales. All correlations were

Table 8 Correlations between the two PACS subscales and aspects of psychosocialfunctioning. Correlations marked with * are significant at level p<0·001

Mother FatherOpen Prob. Open Prob.

Self-esteem CBSK “global self-worth” 0·28* 0·31* 0·36* 0·32*Well-beingVOEG 0·22* 0·23* 0·32* 0·28*GHQ 0·21* 0·26* 0·27* 0·30*ABS 0·29* 0·26* 0·35* 0·30*Ladder 0·29* 0·29* 0·30* 0·30*CopingUCL-A “confronting the problem” 0·23* 0·16* 0·24* 0·15*UCL-A “seeking social support” 0·20* 0·05 0·13* –0·02UCL-A “avoidance reactions” –0·15* –0·25* –0·06 –0·21*UCL-A “depressive reactions” –0·19* –0·34* –0·23* –0·33*

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents 317

positive except for those between communication and the two coping subscales “Avoid-ance reactions” and “Depressive reactions.” This result is hardly surprising, since both ofthese subscales reflect inadequate types of coping strategies.

Conclusions

Study II largely confirms the findings of study I. As in Study I, the factor structure of thePCAS matches that obtained by Barnes and Olson (1995). Again, the adolescents aregenerally satisfied about their communication with their parents (particularly mother)and early adolescents are more positive about communication with their parents thanmid-adolescents. Similarly, adolescents at a higher educational level are more positivethan those at a somewhat lower educational level. However, the finding in study I thatboys were more positive about their fathers than girls was not replicated in study II. Theresults also show that communication correlates significantly with well-being, self-esteemand aspects of coping.

General discussion

The PACS is central to the approach adopted in each of the two studies reported in thisarticle. With this in mind, consideration will first be given to the psychometric resultsand thereafter the discussion will focus upon the findings concerning adolescents’ per-ceptions of communication within the family.

Psychometric qualities of the PACSEach of the two studies leads to a similar factor structure which, in both cases, also cor-responds well with that originally obtained by Barnes and Olson (1995). The alphascores in both studies are mainly very satisfactory. These are encouraging results, thoughthey are somewhat tempered by the fact that factor loadings on three items in Study Iwere inappropriate. In addition, the occurrence on some of the items of fairly high factorloadings on both factors is a ground for some concern. Unfortunately, Barnes and Olsondo not report all factor loadings, but confine themselves to the figures relevant to eachspecific factor. In addition, most other studies which have made use of the PACS andwhich we have been able to consult, provide no clear information about this issue. Anexception is a study by Knight et al. (1992) involving Hispanic and Anglo-Americanfamilies. The statistical procedures employed in this study differ from those used in thepresent two studies, so that direct comparison is not possible. However, on the basis ofitem examination and item level analyses the authors report difficulties with the Prob-lems scale, particularly in the case of the Hispanic children. In view of their findings,they argue that the additional development of the Problem scale would be of benefit.The results with the Dutch children support this standpoint by indicating that, like theHispanic group, Dutch adolescents respond differently from Anglo-American adoles-cents to the PACS.

The problems at item level in Study I are unlikely to be caused simply by changes dueto translation. This type of explanation would require a similar pattern of factor loadingacross each use of the item and this fails to occur between the two studies and to some

318 S. Jackson et al.

measure within Study I. A more plausible explanation may well lie in sample differences.The adolescents who participated in Study I were drawn from schools in several smalltowns with strong rural associations. Some of those participating in Study II came fromsimilar schools, but roughly 65% were from schools in the city of Groningen. Even if sam-ple differences do provide an explanation, the underlying reason for this still remainsunclear. It is possible that interpersonal interactions in rural families differ from those ofurban families and that adolescents’ ideas and expectations of communication with par-ents are coloured by this. If this is so, one would expect the results from the more ruralschool in Study II to follow the pattern of the schools in Study I. When this possibilitywas tested, however, a similar level of difference was maintained. It is therefore not pos-sible to say whether the differences between the two studies stem from variation at arural vs. urban level. Further research with the PCAS is required in order to clarify thismatter. Indeed, with the results of Knight in mind (op. cit.) such research should extendbeyond the urban rural divide to include specific ethnic, cultural or religious groups.

Taken overall, however, the findings concerning the psychometric qualities of thePACS are satisfactory. The instrument appears to offer useful prospects for the study offamily communication as it is understood within the present article (see Introduction).

Adolescents’ perspectives of communication with parents One feature of the sex differences found in Study I is somewhat perplexing. It will berecalled that there were no differences between boys and girls in communication withmother, but that boys reported less problem and more open communication with fatherthan girls. Other studies have found that girls communicate more with both parents thanboys and that adolescents talk more with mothers than with fathers (see Noller and Cal-lan, 1991). The findings in Study I appear to run counter to this pattern, but they arealso not confirmed by Study II. As stated earlier, Study I was carried out in schoolsdrawn from rural areas. One might speculate that in a sample drawn from a rural com-munity there is a stronger likelihood that a greater percentage of fathers and sons willparticipate together in work activities (e.g. on the farm) and that this leads to qualitativedifferences in communication, but this requires further investigation.

Sex differences were not found in Study II: in fact the pattern of results for girls inStudy I was very similar to that for both boys and girls in the second study. The lack ofsignificant differences between the sexes—except, of course, for the difference in theunexpected direction with regard to boys in Study I—does not provide firm support forprevious findings showing that girls have significantly better communication with theirparents than boys (Youniss and Smollar, 1985). On the other hand, it should be remem-bered that Youniss and Smollar’s data were based on interview data. This type of data islikely to yield more elaborated information than a questionnaire and the difference infindings may be attributable to this fact.

If the two studies are considered together, the general pattern is one where for most ofthe adolescents—boys and girls alike—communication with mother is more open andless problematic than with father. This finding corresponds with that of many other stud-ies (see Noller and Callan, 1991, for examples). Referring to their own research, forexample, Noller and Callan (op. cit., p. 44) note that adolescents saw their mothers asrecognizing and accepting their opinions and as starting discussions with them more thandid their fathers. Such findings are consistent with societal patterns within which moth-

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents 319

ers are more concerned than fathers with child-rearing issues, including those relating tothe social and emotional development of their children.

The age differences which emerged are not unexpected. Younger adolescents reportmore positive open communication with mother and father than the older adolescents.In Study II, problems in communication with both parents also increase with age. Thefact that the two studies differ in this respect can be attributed to the positive responsesof the boys to the father scale in Scale I. Generally speaking, however, one can anticipatethat with increasing age, adolescents are likely to encounter more situations whichinvolve a difference of opinion with their parents or where the lines of communicationare less open (Bosma et al., 1996; Honess et al., 1997). The suggestion here is that at anearlier stage in adolescence, young people are more likely to accept a parental stand-point, but that this is likely to happen less as adolescence progresses and more situationsarise where differences between parental and adolescent point of view arise. Possibly thispattern changes again as adolescence progresses still further and the young person’s com-municative ski l l s increase so that there is an improvement in the qual i ty ofcommunication. There is some evidence that this pattern does occur (Jackson et al.,1997) but further investigation remains necessary.

The school differences are more difficult to explain. As with the age differences, thebroad pattern is similar across the two studies, but there is no immediate explanation forthe differences attributable to level of schooling. It may be that parents’ aspirations areperceived as favouring a more advanced level of education and that this leads theMAVO pupils to report less open and more problem communication. This could involvea situation where, for example, adolescents say less to their parents about school-relatedtopics and parents nag more about (lack of) school achievement. An alternative expla-nation is that more highly educated adolescents are likely to have more highly developedverbal skills and that this enhances their capacity to explain their point of view to theirparents. There may be some relationship here to social class, but if so, the mechanismsinvolved are difficult to explain since class differences between the various school levels,while present, are not strongly defined. Again, further research is required.

It was anticipated that quality of communication at home would be associated with avariety of aspects of the young person’s life. One would expect, for example, that whereadolescents feel that they can communicate their point of view to their parents and thattheir parents express the reasons for their parenting approach that this would lead tomore satisfaction with family life and to a greater feeling of personal worth. Such a situa-tion should also lead to greater clarity about the issues concerning which adolescents candecide for themselves and those which remain under parental control. It might also beseen as encouraging a more active approach in dealing with problems inside and outsidethe family. Previous work has already indicated that there are relationships betweensocial skills and self-esteem, well-being, coping and social support (Bijstra et al., 1994b).If communication is thought of as representing a particular kind of social skill, similarrelationships might be expected to arise between it and these areas of psychosocial func-tioning. Accordingly, measures of family satisfaction, decision-making at home anddisagreement at home were included in Study I and measures of self-worth, well-beingand coping were used in Study II.

In Study I, strong correlations emerged between open communication with motherand father and family satisfaction. The pattern was similar for lack of problems in com-

320 S. Jackson et al.

munication with each parent. This result can hardly be described as surprising. Goodcommunication between family members appears likely to encourage positive feelingsabout the family and this result backs up this idea.

The relation between the PACS scores and the measures of adolescent decision-mak-ing is less clear-cut. It might be anticipated that freedom to decide for oneself aboutvaried aspects of personal behaviour is the product of an open communication pattern.This need not necessarily be the case, however. Even in situations where communicationis not good, parents might feel that the young person has reached an appropriate point atwhich to make decisions and may therefore simply do nothing to prevent this happening.An additional point is that there is evidence that freedom to decide for oneself (as ado-lescent) is strongly age-related (Bosma et al., 1996), i.e. that at a given age adolescentsmay be free to decide about certain things but not about others. In such circumstances,the relationship between the two measures is hardly likely to be clear-cut, except perhapsin circumstances where strong differences of opinion (i.e. conflict) occurs. The resultsare broadly in line with these expectations. “Adolescent choice,” “parental feeling” and“normality” are not related to communication and the same is true with regard to thetwo constellations “norm-supported compromise” and “norm-supported autonomy.”“Conflict” is correlated—though weakly—with poorer communication with mother andfather and this pattern is also true for the constellation “norm-supported conflict.” Simi-lar problems in communication are associated with the occurrence of conflict.

The positive correlation between open communication and the constellation“accepted parental authority” can also be regarded as fitting with the family patterndescribed by the constellation. In families where young people accept parental authority,without argument, even though other adolescents have more freedom, one might expectto find a clear and consistent presentation of the parental view, i.e. the parents’ view iscommunicated clearly and the young person is prepared to hear it.

The correlations between the PACS and the Disagreement Scale are virtually all signifi-cant and in the appropriate direction. A lack of open communication and more problemcommunication are associated with an aggressive approach to disagreement and to out-comes of disagreement involving frustration or escalation. An approach to disagreementwhich involves seeking to compromise and achieve a positive outcome is related to goodopen communication and to little evidence of problems in communication.

In short, the results of Study I point to clear relationships between communicationbetween parents and adolescents and positive feelings about the family coupled with apositive approach to situations where disagreement occurs. The link with adolescentdecision-making is less definite, except perhaps where it is associated with conflict.

Given that good communication is associated with family satisfaction and with a con-structive approach to disagreement, one might anticipate that it should also beassociated with positive feelings about the self and personal well-being and with effectivepatterns of coping behaviour. The results support this expectation consistently, thoughthe correlations are not particularly high. Good communication with the parents is asso-ciated with positive feelings of self-worth and with different aspects of well-being. It isalso linked in the appropriate way with coping behaviour.

In sum, the results point to an association between good communication betweenadolescents and parents and a variety of features of adolescent development. Wherecommunication is open and free of problems, young people are likely to be satisfied with

Adolescents’ perceptions of communication with parents 321

their family and to experience less conflict. They are also likely to have positive feelingsof self-esteem, to feel more healthy, to be happier and to feel more satisfied with theirlives. Their approach to problems involves coping behaviour of a more positive kind. Theresults of the study support and complement the ideas advanced by others (e.g. Grote-vant and Cooper, 1986; Noller and Callan, 1991; Barnes and Olson, 1995) concerningthe positive benefits of good family communication.

References

Barnes, H. L. and Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent–adolescent communication and the circumplexmodel. Child Development, 56, 438–447.

Barnes, H. L. and Olson, D. H. (1995). Parent–adolescent communication. In Family Inventories, 3rdEdn, Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H. L., Larsen, A., Muxen, M. and Wilson, M.(Eds). St. Paul: University of Minnesota.

Bijstra, J. O., Jackson, S. and Bosma, H. A. (1994a). De Utrechtse Coping Lijst voor Adolescenten.Kind en Adolescent, 15, 98–109.

Bijstra, J. O., Bosma, H. A. and Jackson, A. E. (1994b). The relationship between social skills andpsycho-social functioning in early adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 767–776.

Bosma, H. A., Jackson, S., 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, 277–291.

Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The Structure of Psychological Well-being. Chicago: Aldine.Cantril, H. (1965). The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent–child relationships in the transition to adolescence: continuity and

change in interaction, affect and cognition. In From Childhood to Adolescence: a transitionalperiod, Montemayor, R., Adams, G. R. and Gulotta, T. P. (Eds). Newbury Park: Sage.

Darling, N. and Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model. PsychologicalBulletin, 113, 487–496.

Fogel, A. (1993). Developing Through Relationships. Origins of communication, self, and culture. HemelHempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Goldberg, D. P. and Williams, P. (1988). A User’s Guide to the General Questionnaire. Berkshire:NFER-Nelson Publishing Company.

Grotevant, H. D. and Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships. Human Develop-ment, 29, 82–100.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-perception Profile for Children. Denver: University of Denver.Honess, T. M., Charman, E. A., Zani, B., Cicognani, E., Xerri, M. L., Jackson, A. E. and Bosma, H.

A. (1997). Conflict between parents and adolescents: Variation by family constitution. BritishJournal of Developmental Psychology, 15, 367–385.

Jackson, A. E., Bosma, H. A. and Zijsling, D. (1997). Beslissen jongeren zelf over alles? Grenzen voorouders en opvoeders [Do you people decide everything for themselves? Boundaries for parentsand child-rearers]. In Jongeren Problematiek: hulpverlening en gezinsonderzoek, [Adolescent prob-lems: intervention and family research], Gerris, J. R. M. (Ed.). Assen: van Gorcum.

Joosten, J. and Drop, M. J. (1987). De betrouwbaarheid en vergelijkbaarheid van drie versies van deVOEG. Gezondheid & Samenleving, 8, 251–265.

Knight, G. P., Yun Tein, J. Y., Shell, R. and Roosa, M. (1992). The cross-ethnic equivalence ofparenting and family interaction measures among Hispanic and Anglo-American families. ChildDevelopment, 63, 1392–1403.

Ligthart, J. (1987). Communicatie in Gezinnen. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Groningen,Groningen.

Noller, P. and Callan, V. (1991). The Adolescent in the Family. London: Routledge.

322 S. Jackson et al.

Olson, D. H. and Wilson, M. (1995). Family satisfaction. In Family Inventories, 3rd Edn, Olson, D.H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H. L., Larsen, A., Muxen, M. and Wilson, M. (Eds). St. Paul: Uni-versity of Minnesota.

Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H. and Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and familysystems I: cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types and clinical applications. FamilyProcess, 18, 3–28.

Paikoff, R. L. and Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Do parent–child relationships change during puberty?Psychological Bulletin, 110, 47–66.

Smetana, J. G. (1988a). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority. Child Develop-ment, 59, 321–335.

Smetana, J. G. (1988b). Concepts of self and social convention: adolescents’ and parents’ reasoningabout hypothetical and actual family conflict. In 21st Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology:development during the transition to adolescence, Gunnar, M. R. and Collins, W. A. (Eds). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smetana, J. G. (1989). Adolescents’ and parents’ reasoning about actual family conflict. Child Devel-opment, 60, 1052–1067.

Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parental styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence.Child Development, 66, 299–316.

Smetana, J. G. and Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authorityand personal autonomy. Child Development, 65, 1147–1162.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict and harmony in the family relationship. In At the Thresh-old: the developing adolescent, Feldman, S. and Elliot, G. (Eds). Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, pp. 255–276.

Straathof, M. A. E. and Treffers, Ph. D. A. (1989). De Adolescentenversie van de CNSK. Oegstgeest:Academic Centre, Child- and Youth-Psychiatry Curium (internal publication).

Stulp, H. (1987). De GDS en de GTL. Een onderzoek naar het meten van cohesie, aanpassingsvermogenen tevredenheid in gezinnen. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen.

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