Adolescents' Perceptions of the Democratic

Special Section: Family Dynamics Original Articles and Reviews

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Adolescents’ Perceptions of the Democratic Functioning in their Families Håkan Stattin,1 Stefan Persson,1 William J. Burk,2 and Margaret Kerr1 1

Center for Developmental Research, School of Law, Psychology and Social Work, Örebro University, Sweden, 2Developmental Psychology, Behavioral Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands Abstract. Democratic family functioning has traditionally been interpreted as effects of parenting, leaving little room for the adolescent in shaping the democratic climate. Here we argued that an understanding of the democratic family functioning has to involve both adolescent and parental behaviors. We hypothesized that parental openness and fair treatment, and adolescent openness, each uniquely predict changes in democratic family functioning. Also, we argued that family functioning constellations characterized by parental openness and fair treatment, and adolescent openness, should be the constellations adolescents experience as democratic, and where parents know much about their adolescents’ whereabouts outside home. We used a longitudinal study following a group of 13–15-year-old adolescents (N = 527) over 2 years. Results using variable-oriented methods confirmed that both adolescent and parental behaviors were prospectively linked to adolescents’ perceptions of the democratic family climate. Person-oriented methods showed that adolescents perceived a highly democratic family climate, and that parents’ knowledge was highest, in families characterized by both parental and adolescent openness and parental fair treatment. Over-time changes in family functioning corresponded to changes in parental knowledge and adolescents’ perceptions of democratic family functioning. We conclude that conceptions of the democratic functioning of the family have to include the behaviors of both parents and adolescents, and that mutual responsivity is a marker of the democratic family functioning. Keywords: family democracy, adolescents, parent-adolescent relations, family system, parenting

It has often been said that democracy and civic education start at home (e.g., Austin & Pinkleton, 2001; Flanagan, Gallay, Gill, Gallay, & Nti, 2005), meaning that if the family leadership is democratic, children in the family will adopt democratic attitudes and behaviors toward others. In the literature, the assumption seems to have been that parents determine the family climate. For instance, in early parenting research, Baldwin and colleagues talked about parents as leaders who determined the family climate (Baldwin, 1955). In later research, democratic parenting has been discussed as most relevant in adolescence, when youths are developing autonomy (see Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). Specifically, democracy, also referred to as autonomy granting, appears in the parenting styles literature as one of three important aspects of authoritative parenting (e.g., Gray & Steinberg, 1999). Notably, however, defining democracy as an aspect of parenting style also implies that the democratic climate in the family is determined by parents. Thus, whenever family democracy has appeared in the literature, it appears to have been with the assumption that it is under the control of parents. What has not been part of research on family democracy is the possible role children or adolescents might play in influencing democratic parenting. European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42 DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000039

In socialization research more broadly, ideas about reciprocal influences between parents and children are gaining prominence (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2003; Kuczynski & Parkin, 2006; Van Geert & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, 2005). A growing body of empirical work shows that changes in parents’ behaviors can be predicted by youth characteristics, both positive (e.g., Kerr, Stattin, & Pakalniskiene, 2008) and negative (e.g., Meeus, Branje, & Overbeek, 2004). This suggests that rather than viewing a democratic family environment as something parents create unilaterally, one might better see it as jointly created by parents and children acting and reacting to each other over time. One study provided cross-sectional evidence for this by showing that adolescent behaviors provided additional, unique prediction of family democracy over and above parental behaviors (Persson, Stattin, & Kerr, 2004). The authors concluded that parents do not unilaterally create a democratic family climate; youths also play a role. In the present conceptualization we go beyond this to suggest that it is difficult to see parental and youth behaviors as making independent contributions, because they are so interdependent. We argue that the democratic family system is so dependent on both adolescent and parental input that any changes observed over time will affect all parts of the system.  2011 Hogrefe Publishing

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

We assume that mutual openness and responsiveness are important, because democratic processes involve open discussion. Children and adolescents prefer to talk to adults who listen to them and try to understand how they think and feel (e.g., Collins & Miller, 1994). We suggest, however, that parents are equally responsive to the openness, interest, and expressed warmth of their children. Previous research suggests that parents react to warm, open behavior in their teenagers by maintaining high levels of monitoring, and they react to secretive, defiant behavior with outbursts of anger, emotional coldness, and reductions in monitoring efforts (Kerr & Stattin, 2003; Kerr et al., 2008). Thus, just as youths are responsive to their parents’ warmth and openness, parents are responsive to their adolescents’ warmth and openness. We assume that both are necessary for family democracy to work. Harsh treatment from either party should also influence relationship functioning. If either adolescents or parents perceive that the other is treating them badly, they should become less willing to communicate, and this should have consequences for family democracy. Thus, in our view, parents’ and adolescents’ responses to each other should have consequences for family democracy. Mutual openness and responsiveness should contribute to the maintenance of family democracy, and harsh treatment from either party should interfere with it. A democratic family system should maximize adolescents’ willingness to talk to their parents about their thoughts, feelings, and activities, thus providing parents with knowledge how their children feel and think, and about what their children do with others in their free time away from home. Stattin and Kerr (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) found empirical support for the argument that most of what parents know about their adolescents’ whereabouts comes from the adolescents’ voluntary disclosure of information. But, disclosure should depend on mutual responsiveness. Parents should have much knowledge when their children are open to them, and when they are open to their children and treat them well. But when the parents or children are closed, or when the youths perceive that they are treated badly, then parents are not likely to have much knowledge. Hence, parental knowledge should be generated in families characterized by democratic functioning. A complete investigation of the adequacy of the proposed model of family democracy would require linking conceptions of family democracy to: (1) adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ openness and fair treatment and adolescents’ openness to their parents and (2) parents’ perceptions of adolescents’ openness and respect relative to them, and their own openness to the adolescents. The first part, the adolescents’ perspective, is the focus of this study. We examine adolescents’ perceptions of their influence in family matters. We reason that the level of influence adolescents feel they have in their families is a good marker of the democratic climate in the family. We use a longitudinal design, following a sample of 13–15-year-olds over 2 years. We use measures of parents’ and adolescents’ openness to communication, and parents’ harsh treatment. First, we ask whether parental openness, adolescent openness, and parental harsh treatment uniquely  2011 Hogrefe Publishing

33

contribute to changes in adolescents’ perceived influence in the family over time. Then, taking a person-centered approach, we expect that family constellations where both parents and adolescents are open to each other and parents are low on harsh treatment will be the families where adolescents perceive the highest levels of influence in family matters and where parents know most about the adolescents’ thoughts, feelings, and whereabouts. To test this, we use cluster analysis. Third, we hypothesize that if any changes occur over time in family constellations involving adolescent or parental openness or in parental treatment, adolescents’ perceptions of the democratic functioning of the family as well as parents’ knowledge will change too. This is the critical test of the idea that adolescents and their parents can change the democratic climate in the family. To examine this, we simultaneously cluster analyze the three factors at both points in time and examine changes in relation to changes in adolescents’ perceived influence in the family and parents’ knowledge.

Method Participants and Procedure The analytical sample included 527 adolescents (243 males and 284 females) and their parents drawn from a larger longitudinal study conducted in a small city in central Sweden (population of 26,000). The 527 adolescents were recruited from all 7th to 9th grade classrooms in the town. Students were targeted each year over 5 years. Parents participated every second year, so data presented here are from Wave 1 and Wave 3 subsequently referred to as Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2). The mean age of the adolescents at T1 was 13.89 years (SD = .83). Adolescents completed surveys during regular school hours in sessions administered by trained research assistants. Teachers were not present. Parents received questionnaires in the mail and returned them by mail. Neither the parents nor the youths were paid for their participation. Of the 1,025 students registered in grades 7–9 in the community at T1 (the target sample), 981 (96%) participated in the study. Of these, 688 (70%) participated at T2. We used the 527 youths with complete data for the six measures of openness and harsh treatment at T1 and T2 (the analytical sample). Parent reports were available for 397 participants at T1 (75%) and 289 at T2 (55%). We used logistic regression analyses to examine attrition at T2. Variables were adolescents’ age, gender, family structure, parents’ and adolescents’ places of birth, and the measures included in the study. The only significant predictors of adolescent attrition were age (OR = 0.58, p < .001) and family structure (OR = 1.52, p = .03).

Measures Some of the measures used in the study have been described in full elsewhere. Others are reported for the first time here European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

34

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

(perceived democratic functioning, parents’ attempted understanding, parents’ angry outbursts, and parents’ coldness-rejection). For all scales below, items were averaged into a mean score.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Perceived Democratic Functioning Perceived democratic functioning was a measure developed for this study. Adolescents responded to six statements. They were: ‘‘Your parents listen to you when they make a decision,’’ ‘‘Your parents let you take part when you are going to decide something in the family,’’ ‘‘If you have other points of view than your parents, your views can change decisions that are taken,’’ ‘‘You think that you have influence and take part in what is happening in your family,’’ ‘‘Your parents ask you when decisions are made in the family,’’ and ‘‘When you are having a discussion at home, you usually get to finish what you have to say.’’ Responses ranged from 1 (don’t agree at all) to 4 (agree totally). Alpha reliabilities were .87 at T1 and .91 at T2. Indicators of Adolescents’ Openness

1 (never) to 3 (most often). Scales for mother and father were highly correlated (rs = .68 at T1 and .59 at T2), so mother and father scales were aggregated within T1 and T2, respectively. Alpha reliabilities for the combined measures were .72 at T1 and .82 at T2. Parents’ Attempted Understanding The items measuring parents’ attempted understanding were part of an instrument where the stem question was, ‘‘How do your parents react when you have done something they really don’t like?’’ The items listed fell into several scales. Attempted understanding included the following items: ‘‘Talks to you at once,’’ ‘‘Honestly wants to understand why you did what you did,’’ ‘‘Tries to understand how you thought and felt,’’ ‘‘Tries to talk through it without creating new conflicts,’’ and ‘‘Is clear about what he/she thinks, but is open to discussions.’’ Responses were given separately for mother and father, ranging from 1 (never) to 3 (most often). Scales for mother and father were highly correlated (rs = .68 at T1 and .58 at T2), so they were aggregated. Alpha reliabilities for the combined measures were .72 at T1 and .82 at T2.

Adolescent Disclosure of Information Indicators of Parental Harsh Treatment Adolescents completed five items describing their tendencies to provide unsolicited information to parents about their daily activities (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Examples of items were: ‘‘Do you usually tell how school was when you get home (how you did on different exams, your relationships with teachers, etc.)?’’ and ‘‘When you have been out in the evening, do you tell your parents where you went and what you did?’’ Responses ranged from 1 (never or not at all) to 5 (always or very much). Alpha reliabilities were .80 and .74 at T1 and T2, respectively. Adolescents’ Disclosure of Thoughts and Feelings Adolescents completed six items describing their tendencies to provide unsolicited information to parents about their thoughts and feelings (Persson et al., 2004). Examples of items were: ‘‘Do you tell your mom or dad how you really feel inside?’’ and ‘‘Can you talk as freely with your parents as with friends about most things?’’ Responses ranged from 1 (no, not at all, or never) to 5 (yes, fully, or almost always). Alpha reliabilities were .86 at T1 and .84 at T2. Indicators of Parental Openness

Parents’ Angry Outbursts For the same stem described above adolescents responded to five statements: ‘‘Becomes very angry and has an outburst,’’ ‘‘Has an outburst of anger and tells you off,’’ ‘‘Has a hard time controlling his/her irritation,’’ ‘‘Quarrels and complains loudly,’’ and ‘‘Yells and argues with you.’’ Responses were given separately for mother and father, ranging from 1 (never) to 3 (most often). Scales for mother and father were substantially correlated (rs = .54 at T1 and .43 at T2), so they were aggregated. Alpha reliabilities for the combined measures were .87 at T1 and .92 at T2. Parents’ Coldness-Rejection For the same stem as above, adolescents responded to five statements: ‘‘Ignores you if you try to explain,’’ ‘‘Doesn’t talk to you until after a long while,’’ ‘‘Is silent and cold toward you,’’ ‘‘Disregards your views or ideas,’’ and ‘‘Avoids you.’’ Responses were given separately for mother and father, ranging from 1 (never) to 3 (most often). Scales for mother and father were highly correlated (rs = .68 at T1 and .55 at T2), so they were aggregated. Alpha reliabilities for the combined measures were .73 at T1 and .86 at T2.

Parental Warmth Adolescents responded to six statements describing their parents’ warmth toward them (Persson et al., 2004), such as ‘‘Praises you for no special reason’’ and ‘‘Does small things that make you feel special (e.g., winks).’’ Responses were given separately for mother and father, ranging from European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

Parental Knowledge Parents and adolescents completed items describing parents’ knowledge of the adolescents’ whereabouts and activities (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Examples of these items  2011 Hogrefe Publishing

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

were: ‘‘Do you know what friends your youth spends time with during his/her free time?,’’ ‘‘Do you know what your youth is doing during his/her free time?,’’ and ‘‘Do you usually know when your youth has an exam or paper due in school?’’ Parents completed nine items; adolescents completed six items (with just minor changes in wording). Responses ranged from 1 (no, not at all, or never) to 5 (yes, fully, or almost always). For parents, alpha reliabilities were .80 and .85 at T1 and T2, respectively. For adolescents, alpha reliabilities were .84 and .85 for T1 and T2, respectively. Parents’ and adolescents’ reports were moderately correlated at each measurement point (rs = .34 and .40, p < .001).

Results Preliminary Analyses Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the perceived influence and family functioning measures. To explore the number of factors and their factor loadings, we first performed exploratory factor analyses on the six T1 family functioning measures (adolescents’ disclosure of their whereabouts, adolescents’ disclosure of thoughts and feelings, parents’ angry outbursts, parents’ coldnessrejection, parents’ attempted understanding, and parental warmth) and the six T2 measures separately. For these analyses, we used Mplus 4.0. (Muthe´n & Muthe´n, 2006). We used principal axis factor analyses with promax rotation. Three distinct factors emerged in each analysis according to a scree plot: The first factor, Adolescent openness, had high loadings for adolescents’ disclosure of whereabouts, and adolescents’ disclosure of thoughts and feelings; the second factor, Parental harsh treatment, had high loadings

35

for the scales measuring angry outbursts and coldnessrejection; and the third factor, Parental openness, had high loadings for the scales measuring parents’ attempted understanding and parental warmth. T1 factor loadings (T2 statistics presented in parentheses) for the adolescent openness factor ranged from .74 to .89 (.67 to .91); those for parental harsh treatment ranged from .60 to .85 (.73 to .88); and those for parental openness ranged from .50 to .84 (.51 to .85). No cross-loadings greater than .16 appeared. Thus, we conclude that parental and adolescent openness and parental harsh treatment can be treated as three separate phenomena. We subsequently performed confirmatory factor analyses to test the three-factor solution. They showed acceptable fit both at T1 (v2(df = 6) = 38.43, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = 0.08) and T2 (v2(df = 6) = 36.21, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = 0.08), thus confirming the exploratory analyses. We conclude that the six measures make up three distinct factors: Adolescent openness, Parental openness, and Parental harsh treatment.

Are Parental Openness, Adolescent Openness, and Parental Harsh Treatment all Separate Components of Family Democracy? We ask, next, whether adolescents’ perceptions of influence in family matters are dependent both on their parents’ and their own behaviors, and whether these behaviors are all uniquely predictive of adolescents’ perceptions of influence in their families. To answer this, we performed a sequence of five nested structural path models. The first was an autoregressive ‘‘baseline’’ model as shown in Figure 1. In each of three successive models, we added all possible predictive paths from one latent variable at a time – adolescent openness, parental harsh treatment, and parental openness. In the fifth model, we added all paths from Time-1 perceived

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between observed indicators used in structural equation models Measures 1. Perceived influence (T1) 2. Disclosure of daily activities (T1) 3. Disclosure of feelings (T1) 4. Parents’ coldness-rejection (T1) 5. Parents’ angry outbursts (T1) 6. Parents’ warmth (T1) 7. Parents’ understanding (T1) 8. Perceived influence (T2) 9. Disclosure of daily activities (T2) 10. Disclosure of feelings (T2) 11. Parents’ coldness-rejection (T2) 12. Parents’ angry outbursts (T2) 13. Parents’ warmth (T2) 14. Parents’ understanding (T2)

(1)

(2)

– .41 .43 .30 .29 .57 .46 .43 .33 .34 .29 .24 .34 .31

– .67 .20 .24 .38 .39 .24 .53 .41 .17 .16 .28 .27

(3)

– .18 .28 .48 .41 .26 .42 .52 .18 .18 .34 .28

(4)

– .62 .30 .29 .20 .14 .12 .32 .20 .20 .24

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10) (11) (12) (13) (14)

– .33 – .13 .53 – .24 .34 .32 – .16 .26 .26 .47 – .19 .32 .27 .52 .62 – .22 .22 .23 .30 .26 .23 – .44 .21 .10 .38 .23 .24 .50 – .22 .49 .40 .54 .38 .47 .32 .29 – .19 .32 .44 .44 .35 .39 .24 .10 .51

–

M

(SD)

3.16 3.00 2.92 1.40* 1.67 2.31 2.32 3.13 2.95 2.95 1.31* 1.63 2.30 2.37

(.64) (.57) (.83) (.43) (.51) (.47) (.44) (.59) (.63) (.88) (.38) (.48) (.42) (.41)

Note. N = 527. All correlations are statistically significant (p < .05). *Significant decrease from T1 to T2, t(526) = 4.64, p < .001.

 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

36

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

T1 Perceived influence .61 Disclosure of Feelings Disclosure of Whereabouts

T1 Adolescents’ Openness

.47

−.50

−.24 .69

T1 Parental Harsh Treatment

.68

.71

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Parental Warmth

Angry Outbursts

T2 Parental Harsh Treatment .63

−.55 − Attempted Understanding

Disclosure of Whereabouts

−.29

.41

Coldness, Rejection

Disclosure of Feelings

T2 Adolescents’ Openness

.63

−.40 Angry Outbursts

Figure 1. Conceptual autoregressive model of associations between measures of family functioning (adolescents’ openness, parental fair treatment, and parental openness) and perceived influence in family matters at T1 and T2. Correlated error terms over time are omitted from the Figure.

T2 Perceived influence

Coldness, Rejection −.29

T1 Parents’ Openness

Attempted Understanding

T2 Parents’ Openness

.63

influence to adolescent openness, parental harsh treatment, and parental openness at T2, to test for bidirectional effects. Factorial invariance over time was tested by comparing models where factor loadings were free to vary over time versus constrained to be equal over time. This was done for the three constructs separately. The chi-square differences between these models were not significant, so in each structural model, factor loadings of the latent measures were constrained to be invariant over time. In addition, we allowed the error terms of the indicators of the family functioning constructs to be correlated over time (Bollen, 1989). Table 2 presents the goodness-of-fit indices and comparisons between nested models, beginning with the autoregressive ‘‘baseline’’ model (see Figure 1). Figure 2 shows the significant slopes from the models. As shown in the table, paths from adolescent openness, parental harsh treatment, and parental openness each contributed significantly or marginally significantly to the fit of the model. Moreover, Figure 2 reveals that they each contributed to changes in perceived influence. The paths from perceived influence did not, however, contribute to overall model fit and did not predict changes in the latent constructs. It appears, then, that adolescents’ perceptions of influence in family matters are dependent both on their parents’ and their own behaviors, and each of these behaviors uniquely predicts changes in adolescents’ perceptions of family influence.

Parental Warmth

Family Functioning Constellations and Perceived Influence: Time-Independent, Person-Centered Analyses There are many different constellations of adolescent openness, parent openness, and parental harsh treatment among families. We assume that these constellations will have predictive implications for adolescents’ perceived influence in the family. We use two different person-oriented methods, one focusing on stability and the other on change. The first is a time-independent analysis. Here, the assumption is that constellations of adolescent and parent openness and parental harsh treatment are stable over time. I-States as Objects of Analysis (ISOA) (Bergman, Magnusson, & El-Khouri, 2003), is a cluster analytical technique that identifies timeindependent constellations by providing a single solution that applies to both time points. Thus, identical patterns are identified at T1 and T2 (i.e., T1 and T2 clusters have identical centroids). The different possible longitudinal constellations of family functioning were analyzed with the linear model used in the previous analyses as a base in the Sleipner program (Sleipner 2.1, Bergman et al., 2003). Hence, ISOA was performed on the standardized latent factor scores of adolescent openness, parental harsh treatment, and parental openness

Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indices of structural equation models examining prospective associations between adolescents’ perceptions of family functioning and their perceived influence in family matters Model comparisons

Autoregressive model (1) + adolescent openness paths (2) + parental harsh treatment paths (3) + parental openness paths (4) + perceived influence paths (5)

v2

df

RMSEA

CFI

TLI

134.997 125.455 118.623 106.614 102.043

60 57 54 51 48

.049 .048 .048 .045 .046

.975 .977 .978 .981 .982

.962 .963 .963 .967 .966

DModel

Dv2

Ddf

   

9.542 6.832 12.009 4.571

3 3 3 3

2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4

p value < < < >

.05 .10 .01 .10

Note. N = 527. CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; and TLI, Tucker-Lewis index. European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

T1 Perceived influence

Disclosure of Feelings Disclosure of Whereabouts Angry Outbursts

T1 Adolescents’ Openness

T2 Perceived influence

.11

T2 Adolescents’ Openness

−.15

T1 Parental Harsh Treatment

−.14

T2 Parental Harsh Treatment

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Coldness, Rejection Attempted Understanding Parental Warmth

Disclosure of Feelings

37

Figure 2. Significant paths from measures of family functioning and perceived influence at T1 to the same measures at T2.

Disclosure of Whereabouts

Angry Outbursts

Coldness, Rejection

T1 Parents’ Openness

.30

T2 Parents’ Openness

Attempted Understanding Parental Warmth

Figure 3. Family functioning groups described by T1 and T2 standardized scores of adolescents’ openness, parental harsh treatment, and parental openness.

from both measurement points (see Andershed, Ko¨hler, Eno Louden, & Hinrichs, 2008 for a similar approach). The procedure (using Ward’s method) produced a six-cluster solution that explained 73.3% of the error sums of squares. This exceeds the minimum of 70% recommended by Bergman et al. (2003). We use ± .5 SD for ‘‘differences’’ and ± 1 SD for ‘‘pronounced differences.’’ The cluster results are presented in Figure 3. The six family functioning constellations were: Open (pronounced high adolescent and parental openness, and low parental harsh treatment; n = 124), Closed parents (low parental openness; n = 79), Average (none of the measures higher or lower than ± .5 SD; n = 125), Harsh treatment (pronounced high parental harsh treatment; n = 65), Discordant (low adolescent and parental openness, and high parental harsh treatment; n = 97), and the sixth cluster Pronounced discordant (pronounced low adolescent and parental openness, and pronounced high parental harsh treatment; n = 37). Do these constellations differ on adolescents’ perceived influence and parental knowledge? Two sets of 2 (Gender) · 6 (Family functioning constellation) analyses of  2011 Hogrefe Publishing

variance (ANOVAs) were conducted with the measures of perceived influence and parental knowledge (both adolescent and parent reported) as dependent variables. The first set of analyses included T1 family functioning constellations; the second set used T2 constellations. In each analysis, significant effects emerged for the family functioning constellations. Table 3 presents mean-level differences between the six constellations. Specifically, adolescents in the open family group reported more influence in the family than those in the closed, average, harsh treatment, and discordant groups, who, in turn, reported more influence than those in the pronounced discordant group. Adolescents and their parents in the open family group also consistently reported that the parents were more knowledgeable about their activities than those in the closed, average, harsh treatment, and discordant groups, who, in turn, reported higher levels of parental knowledge than those in the pronounced discordant group. There were no significant main effects of gender or any two-way interactions between gender and family functioning groups. Thus these findings may be generalized to boys and girls. European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

38

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 3. Results of ANOVAs examining family functioning group differences at T1 and T2, respectively, on measures of adolescents’ perception of influence in their families and parental knowledge Open M (SD) (n = 124)

Closed M (SD) (n = 79)

T1 Perceived influence Parental knowledge (AR) Parental knowledge (PR)

.62a (.52) .59a (.42) .21a (.58)

.16cd (.58) .24c (.71) .08b (.50)

T2 Perceived influence Parental knowledge (AR) Parental knowledge (PR)

.54a (.60) .47a (.50) .20a (.61)

.23c (.66) .23c (.74) .03ab (.62)

Harsh treatment M (SD) (n = 65)

Discordant M (SD) (n = 97)

Pronounced discordant M (SD) (n = 37)

.14b (.53) .03d (.56) .05b (.68)

.04bc (.78) .31b (.58) .20ab (.54)

.34d (.64) .42d (.69) .20c (.58)

1.27e (.85) 1.03e (.70) .18c (.78)

22.47(5,513)*** .36 54.95(5,515)*** .35 5.16(5,385)*** .08

.27b (.56) .08b (.56) .09ab (.64)

.04bc (.72) .22ab (.55) .05ab (.54)

.42d (.78) .28c (.79) .24bc (.76)

1.24e (.93) 1.06d (.95) .52c (.92)

45.46(5,511)*** .34 32.80(5,515)*** .24 4.61(5,276)*** .11

Average M (SD) (n = 125)

F values (df)

g2

Note. Across rows, means with different subscripts differ significantly at p < .05 in Bonferroni comparisons. *p < .05; **p < .01; and ***p < .001. Means sharing one of the subscripts do not differ. For example, ab does not differ from a or b, but ab differs from c.

Do Changes in Adolescent or Parental Openness or Parental Harsh Treatment in Family Constellations Produce Changes in Perceived Influence? Family functioning changes over time in some families. Our hypothesis is that when family functioning changes, adolescents’ perceived influence and parents’ knowledge of the adolescents’ whereabouts will change, too. We performed a cluster analysis that accentuates changes in family functioning over time. This analysis included the three family functioning measures (adolescent openness, parental harsh treatment, and parental openness) at each measurement point simultaneously (cluster analyzing six measures simultaneously), so as to maximize the chances of observing changes in family functioning over time. The hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s method produced a nine-cluster solution that accounted for 69.2% of the error sums of squares. The standardized scores of these clusters and statistically significant changes in family functioning measures over time are presented in Table 4.

Of the nine distinct clusters, six involved significant changes in family functioning measures. (We focus on clusters with changes in at least one of the three measures at the p < .01 level.) Specifically, two groups (Clusters 2 and 8) showed improved family functioning (increases in adolescent openness in combination with increases in parental openness, decreases in parental harsh treatment, or both); two groups (Clusters 3 and 4) showed deteriorating family functioning (decreases in adolescent and parents’ openness, and increases in parental harsh treatment); one group (Cluster 5) showed worse parental behaviors (decreases in parents’ openness); and one group (Cluster 7) showed improved parental behaviors (decreases in parental harsh treatment). Clusters 1, 6, and 9 (stable) did not involve significant changes in any of the family functioning measures at the p < .01 level. Note that when changes over time occurred in families, in two out of three cases it meant that both parents and children changed (Clusters 2, 3, 4, and 8: 63% of the participants in clusters showing significant changes), thus supporting our view of the family as a system. To investigate whether changes in mean levels of family functioning corresponded with changes in mean levels of

Table 4. Cluster analysis of T1 and T2 measures of adolescents’ openness, parental harsh treatment, and parents’ openness T1 Cluster

Adolescents’ openness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

.54 .27b .56c .53c 1.46a .32 .32 1.66c 1.01a

Parental harsh treatment .98 .32c .41c .16c .96a .42a 1.19b 1.37c .21a

T2 Parents’ openness

Adolescents’ openness

.62 .07a .57c .37c 1.43b .05a .46a 1.86c .97a

.56 .53b .14c 1.02c 1.32a .21 .22 1.34c .85a

Parental harsh treatment .91 .19c 1.38c .89c .78a .58a .85b .93c .47a

Parents’ openness

N

Change in family functioning

.61 .27a .21c .81c 1.29b .07a .34a 1.56c .81a

82 73 38 58 70 64 56 49 37

Stable Improved family Deteriorating family Deteriorating family Worse parents Stable Improved parents Improved family Stable

Note. Across rows, superscripts between identical measures at T1 and T2 represent differences in paired samples t tests: ap < .05, b p < .01, and cp < .001. European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

 2011 Hogrefe Publishing

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

39

Table 5. Changes in perceived influence and other adolescent-parent relationship features from T1 to T2 as a function of changes in family functioning

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Form of change (clusters)

M

(SD)

M

(SD)

t

df

p

d

Stable (1, 6, 9) Perceived influence (AR) Parental knowledge (AR) Parental knowledge (PR)

.11 .02 .01

(.55) (.70) (.58)

.20 .02 .10

(.67) (.68) (.62)

1.54 .01 1.45

181 182 86

ns ns ns

.15 0 .15

Improved family functioning (2, 8) Perceived influence (AR) Parental knowledge (AR) Parental knowledge (PR)

.40 .32 .07

(.95) (.83) (.66)

.31 .13 .09

(1.00) (.92) (.79)

1.06 2.74 2.09

118 121 55

ns < .01 < .05

.09 .22 .23

Deteriorating family functioning (3, 4) Perceived influence (AR) Parental knowledge (AR) Parental knowledge (PR)

.01 .05 .03

(.65) (.71) (.49)

.28 .19 .18

(.79) (.76) (.54)

3.02 3.24 2.44

94 95 42

< .01 < .01 < .05

.38 .32 .40

Improved parental behaviors (7) Perceived influence (AR) Parental knowledge (AR) Parental knowledge (PR)

.41 .14 .01

(.72) (.63) (.66)

.17 .02 .06

(.69) (.61) (.71)

1.99 1.63 .46

55 55 32

= .05 ns ns

.34 .25 .07

.72 .65 .31

(.51) (.39) (.62)

.57 .52 .26

(.57) (.45) (.61)

2.01 2.50 .58

68 69 34

= .05 < .05 ns

.28 .30 .09

Worse parental behaviors (5) Perceived influence (AR) Parental knowledge (AR) Parental knowledge (PR)

Note. AR, adolescent reports and PR, parent reports.

perceived influence and parental knowledge, we examined differences within the five types of clusters combined from the original 9 clusters. They were: (1) improved family functioning (Clusters 2 and 8, n = 122); (2) deteriorating family functioning (Clusters 3 and 4, n = 96); (3) improved parental behaviors (Cluster 7, n = 56); (4) worsened parental behaviors (Cluster 5, n = 70); and (5) the stable group (Clusters 1, 6, and 9, n = 183). This aggregation was done to preserve enough statistical power to detect significant differences. Dependent variables in these analyses included perceived influence in family matters, as well as parental knowledge reported by both adolescents and parents. Table 5 presents the results of paired t tests contrasting within-group differences on measures over time. Specifically, those demonstrating improved family functioning (Clusters 2 and 8), exhibited increases in both adolescent- and parent-reported parental knowledge, but no change in the adolescents’ perceptions of influence in the family. Those reporting deteriorating family functioning (Clusters 3 and 4) exhibited decreases in perceived influence and decreases in both adolescent- and parent-reported parental knowledge. For those reporting improved parental behavior (Cluster 7), perceived influence in the family increased and for those reporting worse parental behaviors (Cluster 5), perceived influence decreased and adolescents reported decreased parental knowledge. Finally, there were no significant changes in perceived influence or parental knowledge for adolescents in the stable group (Clusters 1, 6, and 9). These results indicate that increases or decreases in family functioning generally correspond to increases or decreases in adolescents’  2011 Hogrefe Publishing

perceptions of their influence in family matters, as well as increases or decreases in parental knowledge.

Discussion Research on family democracy in developmental psychology has been primarily based on the assumption that youths’ perceptions of family democracy are largely due to parental influences. The agency of adolescents has seldom been addressed, and as a result, transactional processes, where parents and youths act together to create a democratic family environment, have been largely absent. In this study we suggested that both parents’ and adolescents’ actions and reactions to each other are needed to understand how adolescents perceive the democratic functioning of their own families. In support of this idea, adolescent openness and parent openness and harsh treatment were all found to predict changes in adolescents’ perceptions of the democratic climate in their families. Moreover, when changes occurred, they most often affected both parent and adolescent behaviors. This supports our hypothesis that the democratic functioning of the family concerns both adolescent and parent openness to each other and the way parents treat their adolescents. One contribution of this study is the use of complementary variable- and person-centered analyses to study family processes. Variable-centered approaches demonstrated that both adolescent and parental behaviors were prospectively European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

40

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

linked to adolescents’ perceptions of the democratic climate in their families. Person-centered analyses revealed that distinct constellations of families could be identified, and that meaningful differences in youths’ perceived influence in family matters existed between the different family constellations. The person-oriented analysis makes clear that it is the whole pattern of parental and adolescent behaviors in the family, not isolated parts, that are important. We hypothesized that if any changes occurred in the three measures of openness and harsh treatment over time, this would affect adolescents’ perceptions of the democratic functioning of the family. This is the critical test of our assertion that adolescents and parents can change the democratic climate in the family. We found that clusters characterized by changes in family functioning over time were associated with changes in the adolescents’ perceptions of the democratic climate. The results did not differ by adolescents’ age or gender. Collectively, these results suggest that both adolescents and parents contribute to the democratic climate in the family. In the literature, parents’ knowledge of their adolescents’ whereabouts and associations away from home has traditionally been interpreted to be due to parents’ monitoring their adolescents (for a review, see Crouter & Head, 2002). Here we argued that parents will have much knowledge about their adolescents’ whereabouts under conditions of mutual responsivity. Parents will know much if they are open to their youths and treat them with respect and if the youths are open to them. Of the youths in the six family functioning constellations, parental knowledge was particularly low for the youths in the clusters describing a discordant or pronounced discordant family climate and was highest for those in the open family climate cluster. The argument that parental knowledge is associated with the functioning of the whole family is sustained by the findings from the cluster analyses of changes in family functioning over time. Parental knowledge changed only when the whole family changed. This suggests that parental knowledge is best explained as an integrated family process. What is gained by reviving the issues of democracy in the family rather than simply looking at parenting behaviors and youth behaviors separately? Perhaps the primary answer is that doing so facilitates thinking about the interplay between family members and a view of youths as active agents in the family. This is consistent with current theoretical views of youths as active agents. For instance, according to self-determination theory, human beings are born with a need for agency (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000), and broadly speaking there is evidence that people react badly to being controlled, not treated justly, or not having a voice in family decision making (e.g., Barber, 1996; Dalbert & Stoeber, 2006; Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Steinberg, 1996; Rodin & Langer, 1977; Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Daddis, 2004). Moreover, feeling able to control one’s circumstances is also important for youths in context-choice theory (Kerr, Stattin, Biesecker, & Ferrer-Wreder, 2003). Having a sense of control and feeling valued and respected are, in this theory, psychologically important experiences that youths associate with the contexts in which they occur, and these associations help motivate adolescents’ choices of other contexts (Persson, Kerr, & Stattin, 2007). Because democratic European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

involvement is central to feeling valued, feeling respected, and being an active agent in family processes, the democratic climate youths perceive in the family might be more important than individual behaviors of their parents. Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. First, we have looked at the democratic climate of the family from the perspective of the adolescent. We have not attended to how parents view it. However, one study found parents’ views of youth openness to communication, parents’ views of youth defiance of their rules, and parents’ trust in their adolescents’ to be related to youths’ perceptions of their families as democracies (Persson et al., 2004). Second, we have not dealt with ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or structural aspects of the home. These factors might moderate the relations we have found. However, in general, studies have shown the relations between joint decision making and youths’ positive adjustment to generalize across ethnicity, parent education, and family structure (e.g., Lamborn et al., 1996). Third, we do not know the childhood precursors of adolescents’ perceptions of family democracy. Nonetheless, the changes that took place over the two years examined here support the notion that youths’ perceived influence in family matters is dependent on aspects of both the youths themselves and their parents. Despite these limitations, this study has a number of strengths. One is the use of data from a community-wide study with a high participation rate. This strengthens the ecological validity of our findings. Whenever possible, we included gender as a moderating factor in analyses. No moderating effects of gender were found. Another strength is the use of different analytical perspectives. Variable-centered analyses were used to investigate processes over time on a population level, and person-centered analyses were used to understand qualitative differences and changes within families. These two approaches complement each other and further strengthen our main conclusion regarding the need to move toward a more agentic view of youths’ input into the families they live in. In research on family democracy the tradition has been to focus on parents as leaders who set up the family climate. Keeping with the current emphasis on bidirectional parentchild processes for understanding children’s and adolescents’ development and adjustment (Kerr & Stattin, 2003; Kuczynski & Parkin, 2006; Magnusson & Stattin, 2006), we argued that adolescents’ conceptions of the democratic functioning in the family is not an issue that pertains solely to adolescents or parents. Clearly, parents are important, but children are, as well. Although limit setting is undoubtedly important, new discoveries about parenting adolescents and additional helpful advice to parents will likely involve ways to open up the channels of communication in the family. Allowing youths to experience themselves as active agents in their lives is important and is likely to foster feelings of being valued and respected, which will promote concurrent and future well-being. Acknowledgments The authors thank the Swedish Research Council for the funding of this longitudinal project. This work was  2011 Hogrefe Publishing

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

funded by grants from the Swedish Research Council and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, and the research was con¨ rebro ducted at the Center for Developmental Research at O University. The preparation of this manuscript was supported by the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation and the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research. William J. Burk was supported by the Swedish Research Council and by a postdoctoral research fellowship from the European Science Foundation.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

References Andershed, A., Ko¨hler, D., Eno Louden, J., & Hinrichs, G. (2008). Does the three-factor model of psychopathy identify a problematic subgroup of young offenders? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 189–198. Austin, E., & Pinkleton, B. E. (2001). The role of parental mediation in the political socialization process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 221–241. Baldwin, A. L. (1955). Behavior and development in childhood. New York: Dryden Press. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319. Bergman, L. R., Magnusson, D. & El-Khouri, B. M. (2003). Studying individual development: A person-oriented approach. In D. Magnusson (Series Ed.), Paths through life (Vol. 4). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475. Crouter, A. C., & Head, M. R. (2002). Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, 2nd ed., Vol. 3: Becoming and being a parent (pp. 461–483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dalbert, C., & Stoeber, J. (2006). The personal belief in a just world and domain-specific beliefs about justice at school and in the family: A longitudinal study with adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(3), 200–207. Flanagan, C. A., Gallay, L. S., Gill, S., Gallay, E., & Nti, N. (2005). What does democracy mean? Correlates of adolescents0 views. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 193–218. Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574–587. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescents adjustment: Further evidence for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reaction? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships. (pp. 121–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Biesecker, G., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2003). Relationships with parents and peers in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology (Vol. 6: Developmental Psychology) (pp. 395–422). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Pakaliniskiene, V. (2008). Parents react to adolescent problem behaviors by worrying more and monitoring less. In M. Kerr, H. Stattin, & R. Engels (Eds.), What can parents do?: New insights into the role of parents in adolescent problem behavior (pp. 91–112). London: Wiley.  2011 Hogrefe Publishing

41

Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, M. (2006). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics (pp. 259–283). In J. E. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization. NewYork, NY: Guilford. Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Ethnicity and community context as moderators of the relations between family decision making and adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 67, 283–301. Magnusson, D., & Stattin, H. (2006). The person in the environment: Towards a general model for scientific inquiry. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development. Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 400–464). New York, NY: Wiley. Meeus, W., Branje, S., & Overbeek, G. J. (2004). Parents and partners in crime: A six-year longitudinal study on changes in supportive relationships and delinquency in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1288–1298. Muthe´n, L. K., & Muthe´n, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.), Los Angeles, CA: Muthe´n & Muthe´n. Persson, A., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2007). Staying in or moving away from structured activities: Explanations involving parents and peers. Developmental Psychology, 43, 197– 207. Persson, S., Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2004). Adolescents’ conceptions of family democracy: Does their own behavior play a role? The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 317–330. Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 897–902. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Daddis, C. (2004). Longitudinal development of family decision making: Defining healthy behavioural autonomy for middle-class African American adolescents. Child Development, 75, 1418–1434. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072–1085. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266–1281. Van Geert, P. L. C., & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A. (2005). A Dynamic Systems Approach to Family Assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 240–248.

Received July 30, 2008 Accepted December 22, 2009

About the authors Ha˚kan Stattin is a Professor of Psychology at Uppsala and ¨ rebro Universities, Sweden. He is primarily working in the O areas of delinquency development, pubertal maturation in adolescent girls, parental monitoring, and youths’ development of civic engagement. He is also conducting prevention trials to reduce alcohol drinking and delinquency among adolescents. Stefan Persson is a doctoral student at the Center for Developmental Research. His main research interests are democratic family functioning and political socialization. European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

42

H. Stattin et al.: Democratic Family Functioning

William Burk is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Developmental Research. His main research focus is the longitudinal analysis of social networks and behavior. He is now working at Radboud University, the Netherlands.

Center for Developmental Research at JPS ¨ rebro University O ¨ rebro 701 82 O Sweden Tel. +46 19 30 33 64 Fax +46 19 30 34 84 E-mail [email protected]

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Margaret Kerr is a Professor of Psychology and Codirector of the ¨ rebro University. Her Center for Developmental Research at O research focuses on internal and external adjustment in adolescents and its role in the life course. Her current research interests include adolescents’ choices of developmental contexts and parent-child relationships and their role in the development of delinquency.

Ha˚kan Stattin

European Psychologist 2011; Vol. 16(1):32–42

 2011 Hogrefe Publishing