adolescents’ responses to situations of parental rule

Adolescents’ responses to situations of parental rule-setting: The role of situational communication style and autonomy-supportive parenting history

Stijn Van Petegem, Melanie Zimmer-Gembeck, Bart Soenens, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Katrijn Brenning, Elien Mabbe, Janne Vanhalst, & Grégoire Zimmermann

Septembre 18, 2016 – EARA 2016

Introduction

•  Parental rule-setting = challenging in adolescence

•  Rules = necessary guidelines? –  Provision of structure

•  Rules = counterproductive? –  Forbidden fruits

•  Qualifying factors –  Situation: specific communication style –  Context: parenting history

EARA 2016 – Septembre, 2016 2

Introduction: Situation

•  Situation-specific communication style

3

Autonomy-supportive Controlling

Inviting language Forceful language

Acknowledging perspective Threatening with punishments

Meaningful explanation Guilt induction

EARA 2016 – Septembre, 2016

Introduction: Situation

•  Predictive of adolescents’ appraisals (i.e., interpretations)? –  Need satisfaction and need frustration?

•  Autonomy (volition vs. pressure) •  Relatedness (connection vs. rejection) •  Competence (effectiveness vs. failure)

•  Predictive of adolescents’ coping responses? –  Oppositional defiance: blunt rejection of request –  Submission: rumination, submissive compliance –  Negotiation: constructive formulation of disagreement –  Accommodation: cognitive restructuring, acceptance

4 EARA 2016 – Septembre, 2016

Introduction: Context

•  General parenting context –  Accumulated history of interactions –  Autonomy-supportive vs. controlling context

•  Impacts appraisals? –  Symbolic interactionism –  Sensitization

•  Impacts coping responses? –  Socialization of coping


Present Study

•  Situation –  Hypothetical vignette –  Autonomy-supportive vs. controlling style

•  Context –  Parenting trajectory across 6 years

•  Appraisals –  Situation x context?

•  Coping responses? –  Situation x context?


Method

•  Sample –  N = 127 –  59.8% girls –  87% intact families

•  4 assessments –  T1: M = 12 years –  T2: M = 13.1 years –  T3: M = 16 years –  T4: M = 17.4 years

•  MCAR-test: ns


Method

•  Perceived autonomy-supportive parenting context

–  Autonomy support (POPS; Grolnick et al., 1991) •  7 items (e.g., « Whenever possible, my mother allows me to choose

what to do »)

–  Psychological control (PCS-YSR; Barber, 1996) •  8 items (e.g., « My mother is less friendly to me if I don’t see things

like she does »)

–  Composite score •  α = .79 - .91


Method

•  At T4: hypothetical vignette

“Imagine the following situa2on: One day you come home from school with a result for an important course which is worse than usual. Yet, ini2ally you thought the test went fairly well so you expected good points, and this is what you also told your mother. When you now tell your results to your mother, she says the following:”


Method

•  Controlling response:

“Oh, such a bad result disappoints me, I’d really expected beBer from you. I didn’t count on such a bad result, so I can’t be happy with that. You probably haven’t worked much on it? To do well at such a test, it’s not only about being able to do it, but also about wan2ng it, of course.

Look, it is certainly clear that such failures cannot be repeated in the future and that the result must be beBer next 2me. From now on, you’ll have to study for this course on the moments I say so, and I will control it regularly. I’m not doing this for fun, but I have to, if you don’t want to disappoint me and yourself again with a bad result.”


Method

•  Autonomy-supportive response:

“Oh, you had a good feeling about it, and you probably expected it to be beBer. Probably you did your best, so I can imagine this result is not what you hoped for. Why do you think it turned out this way? It can happen that you deal with a test not as good as at other.

Okay, this 2me it was not that good, but you can try to learn from what went wrong. Maybe you can see it as a challenge to deal with the maBer in another way? If you’d need some help, you can always rely on me for this.”


Method

•  After each vignette: Need satisfaction and frustration « If my mother would react like this, I would… »

•  Need satisfaction (6 items; α = .77 and .79) –  « … feel a sense of choice and freedom »

•  Need frustration (6 items; α = .77 and .81) –  « …feel forced to do things I wouldn’t choose to do »

12

EARA 2016 – Septembre, 2016

Method

Coping « If your mother would react like this, what would you do? » •  Oppositional defiance (4 items; α = .86 and .88)

–  « I would rebel against the request of my mother »

•  Submission (6 items; α = .83 and .88) –  « I would worry about why my mother acts like this »

•  Negotation (5 items; α = .90 and .91) –  « I would explain my mother how I think about it »

•  Accommodation (6 items; α = .76 and .79) –  « I would tell myself it’s no big deal just to do what she asks »


Results

•  Latent Class Growth Analysis (Nagin, 2005)


Results: LCGA


Results: RMANOVAs


Results: Experienced Need Satisfaction


Results: Experienced Need Frustration


Results: Oppositional Defiance


Results: Submission


Results: Negotiation


Results: Accommodation


Conclusion •  Situation:

–  AS communication style = positive! •  Positive appraisals •  Constructive coping (less defiance and submission, more accommodation)

•  Context: –  AS parenting history = positive!

•  Positive appraisals •  Constructive coping (less defiance and submission, more negotiation)

•  Situation x Context: –  AS parenting history: intensifies effect of situation!

•  Effects of AS communication style most pronounced among high-increasing group •  Sensitization


Thanks for your attention!


adolescents’ responses to situations of parental rule

Documents