Parent-adolescent communication, family functioning, and ...



Parent-adolescent communication, family functioning, and school performance

Masselam VS, Marcus RF, Stunkard CL,

Adolescence,1990 Fall, Vol. 25, Issue 99

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the results of a test of theoretical postulates proposed by Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1983) using a matched set of adolescents and their parents. One set of families (n = 40) consisted of adolescents who had been unsuccessful in public school and were attending alternative schools, while the other (n = 52) was a matched group of public school adolescents and their families. Results showed predicted differences in the direction of greater balanced functioning (i.e., optimal cohesion and adaptability) and more positive communication in the public school families. Public school families also perceived greater congruence between perceived and ideal family functioning. Congruence and differences between adolescent and parent perceptions, the importance of positive communication for optimal functioning, and implications for family treatment are discussed.

This study focuses on interaction and communication within dysfunctional and healthy families containing an adolescent member. It is primarily a test of theoretical postulates proposed by Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1983) using two distinct groups of families, those containing an adolescent who has failed in public school (and is attending an alternative school) and those containing an adolescent who is succeeding. The family functioning of these two groups is analyzed with regard to patterns of communication as perceived by the mother, father, and adolescent. The focus is on qualitative distinctions in family functioning as perceived by all members as they relate to family cohesion and adaptation.

Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1979,1983) articulated a theory of family functioning called the circumplex model which was based, in part, upon concepts drawn from Bertalanffy's (1968) definition of a system as well as a conceptual framework drawn from developmental theories of the family life cycle. In this model, the family's developmental stage affects family system functioning. Thus, for example. an "adolescent family" (i.e., a family with at least one adolescent at home) will experience changes as a result of the adolescent's demands for greater independence and power. An adolescent who is succeeding at the developmental tasks related to emancipation from home. such as those in the academic and social domains, can expect to influence the family in positive ways. This adolescent also will be influenced by the family in positive ways. Conversely, an adolescent who is failing to achieve in school and progress socially will adversely influence and be influenced by the family system.

Two studies of the relationships between adolescent social/personality development and academic performance and family functioning support this conceptualization. Wood, Chapin, and Hannah (1988) administered the Family Environment Scale (Moos, 1974) to underachieving parochial school adolescents and a matched group of achievers. Achievers rated their families as high on scales of cohesion, expressiveness, intellectual-cultural orientation, active recreational orientation. moral-religious emphasis, and organization. Underachievers rated their families as higher on scales measuring conflict and achievement orientation (interpreted as a pressuring style). LeCroy (1988) found that intimacy between adolescents and their fathers, but not mothers, correlated with self-esteem and self-reports of delinquent behavior. Both studies utilized adolescent ratings alone. The present research includes parental perceptions of family functioning, as well as adds the circumplex model as a method of relating adolescent behavior to three dimensions of whole-family functioning.

The circumplex model proposes a system of classifying healthy and dysfunctional families on dimensions of cohesion, adaptability, and communication. Cohesion refers to the emotional bonding that family members feel toward one another and is measured along a four-level continuum: disengaged, separated, connected, and enmeshed. The second major dimension is adaptability, defined as the ability of a family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress. The four levels of adaptability are: rigid, structured, flexible, and chaotic. Extreme levels of cohesion and adaptability are indicative of dysfunctional family interaction, while moderate (balanced) levels indicate healthy family functioning. The third dimension, communication. facilitates movement toward' end maintenance of balanced levels of family cohesion and adaptability. Open and unproblematic communication between family members is conducive to healthy family functioning.

Research into the circumplex model of family functioning has used the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales to investigate these three dimensions. Barnes and Olson (1985) tested 465 families with adolescents and found that families that were balanced on the cohesion and adaptability dimensions had more positive communication. Parents' scores but not those of adolescents, were related to communication. Rodick. Henggeler, and Hansen (1986) also tested the hypothesis that communication in balanced families is more positive than in families which are extreme on the dimensions of cohesion and adaptability. They found that mothers in the balanced group had significantly higher rates of supportive communication. Finally, generational differences in communication have been investigated by Olson et al. (1983) and Moos (1974). They found that adolescents' perceptions of family functioning and communication tended to be more negative than adults' perceptions. Hall (1987), in a review of treatment approaches to parent-child conflict, suggested that generational differences over issues such as independence versus dependence tend to combine with negative perceptions of communication to produce increased parent-child conflict. Families which are at high risk for parent-adolescent conflict (see Garbarino et al., 1984), where the parents frequently use physical and psychological coercion, could be reconceptualized as being at the extremes of the cohesion and adaptability dimensions.

The hypotheses of the present study are based on theoretical postulates formulated by Olson et al. (1983). Families with an adolescent attending a public high school and those with an adolescent enrolled in an alternative school were compared. Olson et al. postulated that communication is more positive in balanced families. Hypothesis 1 proposes that parents' and adolescents' communication will be more positive and open in the public school families than in the alternative school families. Olson et al. also postulated that families in the balanced range function more adequately across the family life cycle than do those in the extreme ranges. Hypothesis 2 proposes that a higher proportion of families in the public school group will be functioning in the balanced range than families in the alternative school group. Finally, Olson et al. postulated that families function best if there is a high level of congruence between perceived and ideal descriptions of family life for all family members. Hypothesis 3 states that parents and adolescents in the public school group will show greater congruence between perceived and ideal family functioning than will families in the alternative school group.

METHOD

Sample

The sample for this study included two groups of adolescents and their families, one group of adolescents drawn from alternative schools (AS) and one group drawn from public schools (PS). The characteristics of the two samples in terms of sex, age, grade, racial status, family structure, and salaries of parents are presented in Table 1.

A chi-square test of homogeneity of distribution was performed for the two groups. Only the gender variable statistically differentiated the two groups: there were more males in the AS group. Other tests of homogeneity of distribution concerning age of parents, number of siblings, and education of parents revealed no significant differences between groups. Both groups consisted of primarily white, upper-middle-class families from a suburban, northern Virginia county.

Alternative vs. Public School Groups

The alternative school students had been unsuccessful in public school and required a setting in which both their educational and therapeutic needs could be met. Forty subjects were selected from three alternative schools. One was a residential treatment facility and the other two differed in terms of the relative emphasis upon education or family therapy treatment. Among the children in the alternative schools, 62.5% had been suspended or had repeated a grade, 45% had been on probation at some point, and 25.6% had indicated substance abuse. All were involved in some form of psychotherapeutic treatment.

For comparison, 52 students were selected from one midsize public high school. Students were chosen for the study if they had not repeated a grade, were not in special education classes, did not have a record of excessive absences or tardiness, were never suspended or expelled from school, and had no more than one D on their report cards. Further, the students had never been involved with the court system due to behavior problems and had reported no use of illegal substances.

Instrumentation

Both children and parents completed the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES III; Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen, & Wilson, 1985). This instrument was used to measure family adaptability and cohesion, as well as ideal and perceived family functioning. Subscores were obtained for adolescents regarding mother and father separately, and for fathers and mothers regarding their adolescent. Families were classified as balanced, midrange, or extreme based upon individual scores and the circumplex model. Cronbach alpha coeffcients indicated that internal consistency of the 12 measures ranged from .87 to .90 for cohesion and .68 to .72 for adaptability.

Parents and adolescents also were administered the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS; Barnes & Olson, 1985). The PACS was used to determine the extent of openness or freedom to exchange ideas, information, and concerns between the generations; the trust or honesty experienced; and the emotional tone (positive or negative) of the interactions between family members. Two subscales, open and problem, measure positive and negative processes and content issues in communication. Ten items measure positive aspects (open) and ten measure negative aspects (problem). Cronbach alpha coefficients for the open subscale for adolescents, mothers, and fathers ranged from .81 to .91, while coefficients for the problem subscale ranged from .74 to .79.

RESULTS

Communication Between Parent and Adolescent

Hypothesis 1 predicted that communication would be more open and positive in PS than in AS families. Table 2 presents the results of the analyses of variance of PACS scores for adolescent regarding mother, mother regarding adolescent, adolescent regarding father, and father regarding adolescent. Higher scores on the problem subscale reflect fewer problems. Results were consistent with the hypothesis; only one scale failed to reach statistical significance.

Family PACS scores were then formed by arithmetically averaging open and total communication scores (Masselam, 1989). Differences between PS and AS groups were tested using a variance ratio test of the means (see Table 3). Again, PS families showed superior communication to that of AS families.

Family Adaptability and Cohesion

Hypothesis 2 predicted that a higher proportion of families in the PS group will be functioning in the balanced range than families in the AS group. Table 4 presents the distribution of family functioning based upon FACES III scores for adolescents, mothers, and fathers, along with a chi-square test of homogeneity of distribution. The data indicated that regardless of whether classification was based upon adolescent or parent self-reports, there was a consistently greater proportion of PS families in the balanced range and a smaller proportion in the extreme range as compared with AS families.

Table 5 presents the means and standard deviations for the cohesion and adaptability dimensions of FACES III, broken down by adolescent, mother, and father responses for the PS and AS families. Analyses of variance of the differences between PS and AS groups indicated that cohesion but not adaptability scores distinguished the PS and AS groups.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that there will be greater congruence between real and ideal family functioning in PS as compared with AS families. Table 6 presents the results of an analysis of variance of the absolute differences between ideal and real cohesion and adaptability scores for each member and families as a whole in the PS and AS groups. The results indicated that for families as a unit, there was greater congruence between ideal and real family functioning within the PS group. This finding appears to be due primarily to the consistent difference between PS and AS groups on the cohesion dimension for all members, and to the scores for adolescents on the adaptability dimension. Adolescents showed predicted congruence on both dimensions, while parents showed predicted congruence only on the cohesion dimension.

DISCUSSION

The two groups of adolescents and their parents selected for this study displayed clear differences in communication and family functioning. While the major factor differentiating the two groups was that the AS group contained an adolescent who was not succeeding in a major developmental task, namely school achievement, it is not clear whether school failure led to deterioration in family functioning or deterioration in family functioning led to school failure. It may very likely be a case of dual direction of effects. It is clear that family communication and family functioning differentiated the two groups regardless of who was doing the rating, and that Olson et al.'s (1983) postulation that balanced families will function better in this developmental stage was supported.

The major index of functioning used in this study was the family's success in socializing the adolescent for academic work. Extreme and dysfunctional families are, perhaps, less able to provide the adolescent with a sense of emotional support and security which comes from cohesiveness and stability, or to provide the means by which such feelings about the family are created, namely open and minimally problematic communication.

AS families were more likely to have poorer communication and to be disengaged or, second, enmeshed. On the other hand, adaptability, or the ability of a family to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress, appeared to differentiate the AS and PS families less reliably. However, the fact that adolescent perceptions concerning adaptability differentiated the two groups suggests one possible interpretation of the results: their perceptions should be taken most seriously in this regard. First, since both samples were composed of highly educated, upper-middle-class families, the parents might have been reluctant to concede that they were not adjusting well to intra- and extra-familial stressors. The adolescents might have been more willing to acknowledge failure in this regard, whereas the parents might have been more likely to blame the adolescents rather than the family unit for the adolescents' problems, or to deny problems altogether. Second, since the bivariate correlations between adaptability and both cohesion and communication scores were low and statistically nonsignificant, adolescent perception of adaptability represents a statistically nonredundant or unique factor which differentiates the PS and AS groups and should therefore be given serious consideration.

Olson et al.'s (1983) postulation that balanced families have more positive communication skills than do extreme families also received strong support. Olson et al. suggested that effective communication facilitates movement toward and maintenance of systems at desired (balanced) levels on the adaptability and cohesion dimensions of the circumplex model. Public school families clearly perceived their communication to be more open and free of problems than did the alternative school families. When PS and AS groups were combined, and communication and family functioning scores calculated by family unit, the correlation between communication and cohesion was .64 (p < .01) while the correlation between communication and adaptability was .006. It appears that communication serves to enhance cohesion, or vice versa, but not adaptability.

Research from the counseling literature indicates that there is reason to suspect a closer relation between communication and cohesion. Research on the effects of encouraging self-disclosure by parents and their adolescents during counseling sessions suggests that cohesion increases as a result (Becker", 1975). Many clinicians believe that the key to helping families is through facilitating communication (Satir, 1967; Watzlawick, 1978; Haley, 1963) and, indeed, one might conclude that much of what is called family counseling is an attempt to improve communication so as to enhance family members' feelings about one another. Communication has been found to be more supportive and positive when mothers and their adolescent daughters rated their interchanges as arousing minimal defensiveness, confined communication to problem solving, demonstrated empathic understanding of the others' problems and feelings, and demonstrated equality through mutual trust (Rodick et al., 1986). Again it is communication which is linked to the affective climate of interpersonal interactions.

Communication between adolescents and parents presents some special problems and opportunities as compared with parent-child communication at other stages of the family life cycle. As Olson et al. (1983) suggest, it is at this stage of the family life cycle that one is likely to hear complaints about poor communication.

The pattern of scores on the PACS shows some similarities and differences as compared with the Olson et al. (1985) norms. Olson and associates found that the adolescents in their normative sample rated their communication as poorer than did their parents. They suggested that adolescents minimized aspects of family life, such as positive communication, in order to separate and achieve independence from parents. This pattern was found in the present study for the PS group, but the reverse was found for the AS parents and adolescents. In AS families, both mothers and fathers rated their communication as poorer than did their children. Thus, what mechanism might such AS youths use to achieve distance from parents? Is the attainment of independence easier or more difficult because the parents are more negative about communication? Such questions about the role of communication in facilitating or retarding emancipation from the family require further research.

Minuchin (1974) and Haley (1963) have counseled families with an emphasis on structural and strategic changes which aim to enhance the adaptability dimension of family functioning. Minuchin also discusses problems with enmeshed and disengaged families at various stages of family development, both of which are opposite poles of the cohesion dimension. However, cohesion has not received sufficient attention as a major focus in assessment or treatment. The circumplex model provides a conceptual framework for doing so, and PACS and FACES III are useful instruments for assessment. In view of the current findings, it would be beneficial to specify family cohesion as a treatment goal, particularly with those families with youths at risk for academic failure. In the experience of the senior author, adolescents in AS settings are often asked to whom they might turn if they had a problem. They rarely respond with the name of a parent. Improving the sense of emotional security and optimal closeness in the families of at-risk youths would provide a more comfortable and stable base from which they could venture out into the academic or work environment.

Table 1 Percentage Distributions of Students in the Public and Alternative School Groups by Individual and Demographic Data

Group Chi-Square

Measure Category PS AS Both df Value

Sex Female 55.8% 35.0% 46.7%

Male 44.2 65.0 53.3 1 3.92[F*]

Age 14,15 50.0 30.0 41.3

16 36.5 57.5 45.7

17,18 13.5 12.5 13.0 2 4.38

Grade 8,9 28.8 35.0 31.5

10 28.8 40.0 33.7

11,12 42.3 25.0 34.8 2 3.05

Racial White 78.8 90.0 83.7

Status Non-White 21.2 10.0 16.3 1 2.06

Family One Parent 21.2 37.5 28.3

Structure Two

Parents 78.8 62.5 71.7 1 2.98

Mother's $2,000-

$20,000 61.1 53.6 57.8

Salary $20,001-

$60,000 38.9 46.4 42.2 1 .37

Father's $17,000-

$50,000 56.1 56.5 56.2

Salary $50,001-

$100,000 43.9 43.5 43.8 1 .00

[F*] Indicates significance at the .05 level.

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of PACS Scores for Adolescents Regarding Parents and Parents Regarding Adolescents

Group Test

Measure Statistics PS AS Both df F

Adolescent regarding mother

Open Means 53.43 45.30 49.93 1,84 16.05[F*]

S.D. 8.63 10.16 10.11

Problem Means 52.10 47.05 49.93 1,84 5.51[F*]

S.D. 11.14 7.86 10.13

Total Means 53.14 45.76 49.97 1,84 12.71[F*]

S.D. 10.04 8.75 10.15

Mother regarding adolescent

Open Means 54.63 43.51 49.85 1,84 36.21[F*]

S.D. 6.86 10.26 10.09

Problem Means 55.41 42.86 50.01 1,84 52.17[F*]

S.D. 8.35 7.44 10.09

Total Means 55.59 42.62 50.01 1,84 57.70[F*]

S.D. 7.20 8.61 10.12

Adolescent regarding father

Open Means 52.34 46.18 49.94 1,70 6.84[F*]

S.D. 10.57 8.27 10.41

Problem Means 51.55 47.86 50.11 1,70 2.30

S.D. 11.10 8.14 10.15

Total Means 52.25 46.68 50.08 1,70 5.51[F*]

S.D. 10.93 7.72 10.12

Father regarding adolescent

Open Means 53.21 44.50 49.88 1,66 14.23[F*]

S.D. 9.02 9.63 10.13

Problem Means 55.79 40.96 50.12 1,66 69.32[F*]

S.D. 7.09 7.20 10.14

Total Means 55.07 41.88 50.03 1,66 44.72[F*]

S.D. 7.76 8.13 10.16

[F*] Indicates significance at the .05 level.

Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Arithmetic Averages of Total and Open PACS Scores for Families with Variance Ratio Test

Group Test

Category Statistics PS AS Both df F

Open Means 54.00 45.75 50.41 1,90 33.23[F*]

S.D. 5.82 7.91 7.92

Total Means 54.69 45.50 50.70 1,90 40.12[F*]

S.D. 6.59 7.28 8.25

[F*] Indicates significance at the .05 level.

Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Functioning Level Based upon FACES III Scores of Adolescents,Mothers, Fathers and Arithmetically Averaged Families

Group Chi-Square

Measure Category PS AS Both df Value

Adolescent's Balanced 32.7% 5.0% 20.7%

Functioning Mid-Range 42.3 55.0 47.8

Level Extreme 25.0 40.0 31.5 2 10.77[F*]

Mother's Balanced 40.8% 16.2% 30.2%

Functioning Mid-Range 40.8 64.9 51.2

Level Extreme 18.4 18.9 18.6 2 6.61[F*]

Father's Balanced 50.0 19.2 38.2

Functioning Mid-Range 38.1 61.5 47.1

Level Extreme 11.9 19.2 14.7 2 6.44[F*]

Family's Balanced 55.8 12.5 37.0

Functioning Mid-Range 34.6 60.0 45.7

Level Extreme 9.6 27.5 17.4 2 18.80[F*]

[F*] Indicates significance at the .05 level.

Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Cohesion and Adaptability Scores of FACES III for Adolescents, Mothers and Fathers

Group Test

Measure Statistics PS AS Both df F

Adolescents

Cohesion Means 33.77 25.30 30.09 1,90 23.14[F*]

S.D. 7.78 9.08 9.23

Adaptability Means 23.58 26.20 24.72 1,90 3.69

S.D. 5.10 7.95 6.59

Mothers

Cohesion Means 38.37 29.46 34.53 1,84 33.04[F*]

S.D. 6.50 7.86 8.35

Adaptability Means 24.22 26.27 25.10 1,84 2.82

S.D. 5.55 5.60 5.65

Fathers

Cohesion Means 37.95 29.54 34.74 1,66 32.79[F*]

S.D. 6.27 5.21 7.15

Adaptability Means 23.10 24.35 23.57 1,66 1.35

S.D. 4.13 4.60 4.32

[F*] Indicates significance at the .05 level.

Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of Discrepancy Between Ideal and Real Cohesion and Adaptability Scores for Adolescents, Mothers,Fathers and Families

Group Test

Measure Statistics PS AS Both df F

Adolescents

Cohesion Means 17.15 29.85 22.67 1,90 10.17[F*]

S.D. 16.64 21.56 19.86

Adaptability Means 30.10 44.13 36 20 1,90 12.64[F*]

S.D. 18.19 19.48 19 92

Mothers

Cohesion Means 12.33 29.22 19.68 1,83 18.09[F*]

S.D. 14.95 21.62 19.91

Adaptability Means 27.13 28.70 27.81 1,83 .20

S.D. 17.94 13.82 16.20

Fathers

Cohesion Means 9.74 24.42 15.35 1,66 25.30[F*]

S.D. 7.97 16.04 13.66

Adaptability Means 23.31 23.19 23.26 1,66 .00

S.D. 11.19 12.58 11.65

Families

Cohesion Means 13.50 28.43 19.99 1,90 26.11[F*]

S.D. 11.45 16.54 15.69

Adaptability Means 27.29 33.60 30.03 1,90 7.83[F*]

S.D. 10.33 11.23 11.12

[F*] Indicates significance at the .05 level.

REFERENCES

Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 36, 438-447.

Beckert, C. (1975). The effect of self-disclosure within a family on the perceived family environment and on individual personality traits. Doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University.

Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General systems theory and psychiatry. New York: Braziller.

Garbarino, J., Sebes, J., & Schellenbach, C. (1984). Families at risk for destructive parent child relations in adolescence. Child Development, 55, 174-183.

Haley, J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Hall, J. A. (1987). Parent-adolescent conflict: An empirical review. Adolescence, 22(88), 767-789.

LeCroy, C. W. (1988). Parent-adolescent intimacy: Impact on adolescent functioning. Adolescence, 23(89), 137-147.

Masselam, V. S. (1989). Parent adolescent communication: When does it work? Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moos, R. H. (1974). Family environment scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H. L., Larsen, A. S., Muxen, M. J., & Wilson, M. A. (1985). Family inventories (rev. ed.). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3-27.

Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model: VI. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22, 69-83.

Rodick, P., Henggeler, S. W., & Hansen, G. (1986). An evaluation of Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) and the circumplex model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 77-87.

Satir, V. (1967). Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Watzlawick, P. (1978). The language of change. New York: Basic Books.

Wood, J., Chapin, K., & Hannah, M. E. (1988). Family environment and its relationship to underachievement. Adolescence, 23(90), 283-290.

Reprint requests to Robert F. Marcus, Ph.D., Institute for Child Study, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.

By Venus S. Masselam, Robert F. Marcus and Clayton L. Stunkard

Venus S. Masselam, Ph.D., Program Director, The Enterprise School, Vienna, Virginia

Clayton L. Stunkard, Ph.D., Department of Measurement, Statistics and Evaluation, University of Maryland.

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

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download