Families with Adolescents: Bridging the Gaps Between Theory, Research, and Practice (Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development) 3031434064, 9783031434068

Citation preview

Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development

Stephen M. Gavazzi Ji-Young Lim

Families with Adolescents Bridging the Gaps Between Theory, Research, and Practice Second Edition

Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development Series Editor Roger J. R. Levesque Department of Criminal Justice Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA

Brief Overview This series advances disciplinary and multidisciplinary inquiry into the individual, social, biological, and institutional responses to adolescents and their development. It champions research that examines conditions that either stifle or enhance responsible development. Description Responsible adolescent development - one that is healthy, fulfilling, engaged, and respectful of one's self and others - requires responsive relationships with families, peers, neighbors, schools, community organizations, religious institutions, and other socializing systems. All these socializing influences reach optimal effectiveness when reinforced by appropriate social policies and norms at local, cultural, state, national, international and global levels. This series examines the wide variety of sources that shape responses to adolescents and responsible development. This series explores these complex sources by exhibiting theories, models, research studies, and symposia that examine multiple dimensions of adolescent development. Drawing from numerous disciplines, the series examines dimensions and experiences of adolescent development that contribute to responsibility (including irresponsibility) in multiple contexts and settings. The focus on multiple arenas of development necessarily encompasses the need to center on adolescents as well as on the conditions in which they live. Thus, the series publishes manuscripts that speak to issues adolescents face, but does not require that texts directly study adolescents themselves. Manuscripts may examine images and portrayals of adolescents through, for example, cultural assumptions of parenting, media depictions, religious groups' proselytizing, schooling's hidden curriculum, justice systems' presumptions, clinicians' interventions, and many other potential influences on adolescent development. The broadening of the disciplinary and multidisciplinary study of adolescence, however, does not mean that the series ignores core issues from adolescents' own perspectives, such as adolescents' experiences with significant others and with the wide variety of tasks, risks, and opportunities they encounter.

Stephen M. Gavazzi • Ji-Young Lim

Families with Adolescents Bridging the Gaps Between Theory, Research, and Practice Second Edition

Stephen M. Gavazzi Department of Human Sciences The Ohio State University Columbus, OH, USA

Ji-Young Lim Department of Child and Family Studies Kyungpook National University Daegu, Korea (Republic of)

ISSN 2195-089X     ISSN 2195-0903 (electronic) Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development ISBN 978-3-031-43406-8    ISBN 978-3-031-43407-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2011, 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

This book is dedicated to the memory of Patrick C. McKenry, Ph.D. Mentor, scholar, and friend

Preface

What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a new beginning. The end is where we start from. T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding

All books, like everything else in life, have a beginning and an end, reflecting a storyline that the author has chosen to follow. Selecting an end for the present book – in this case, a review of the most recent literature pertaining to families with adolescents that would be covered as part of this effort – was the easy part for both the first and second editions of this volume. In each case, the contract from Springer called for the manuscript of this second edition of the Families with Adolescents textbook to be delivered no later than August of 2023 (just as the first edition’s deadline was set as May of 2010). So, no information from articles or book chapters published beyond the due dates of the manuscripts could be placed into either edition. For the first edition of this book, publication coincided with the 15th anniversary of the release of Vision 2010: Families and Adolescents (McKenry & Gavazzi, 1994), a collection of articles published by the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR). This NCFR monograph was co-edited by Patrick McKenry, an Ohio State colleague who had been a prominent leader in the family science field for many years before his untimely passing in 2004 (and to whom this book is dedicated). According to Sharon Price, the series editor, the primary purpose for the overall Vision 2010 effort was “to increase awareness of the critical nature and role of families in our society and how major social, economic, and developmental life problems are affecting the core of our social fabric – our family life” (Price, 2004, p. i). This publication was designed as a virtual “Who’s Who” of luminaries in the field at the time who had focused their attention on topics related to families with adolescents. For instance, Richard Gelles wrote a chapter on “Violence and Abuse in the Lives of Adolescents,” covering a number of topics concerning adolescent involvement in family violence. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn co-wrote chapters on the biological aspects of adolescence (with Julia Graber) as well as a chapter on the impact of poverty (with Greg Duncan). Richard Lerner wrote a chapter on the school context alongside a chapter by Brad Brown on peer effects. Michael Farrell and Grace vii

viii

Preface

Barnes co-wrote a piece entitled “Families and Adolescent Substance Abuse,” while Tom Gullotta compiled a chapter on prevention approaches. And so on. The fact that a book on families of adolescents was set to be published in the year 2010 (eventually the actual publication date became 2011) lent itself to the idea of compiling a literature review of studies conducted over the previous decade and a half of scholarship activities. Hence, the year 1995 was selected as the beginning point for the first edition of this book, at least in terms of the bulk of empirical and application work that would be covered. This second edition takes up where the first edition left off; that is, additional coverage of scholarly material generated from 2011 forward. The Families with Adolescents textbook was a popular offering for Springer Press as evidenced by its regular appearance in the higher ranks of downloaded materials. In fact, the in-demand nature of this book was a defining feature of the request for a second edition by the series editor, Roger Levesque. As well, I was highly motivated to update the text. Following a stint as dean and director of The Ohio State University’s regional campus in Mansfield, I had returned to the classroom in 2017 and was using the text to teach both graduate and undergraduate courses in my home department. Among other challenges, I found myself providing ever-increasing amounts of supplemental material to my students in service to covering all the new information being generated by scholars who were working in this area. My longtime employer had made the idea of updating this textbook even easier to imagine by offering me a sabbatical. In essence, I was being offered six consecutive months of uninterrupted time to complete this work. However, another twist in my career path almost prevented this second edition from coming to fruition. Approximately eight months in front of my sabbatical, I was asked to serve as the interim director for CHRR at The Ohio State University (https://chrr.osu.edu), this institution’s center for data and survey excellence. The job involved providing light management for the center while they looked for a new director. All well and good as a plan until the search failed to produce a viable candidate. As a result, I was asked how much longer I could stay on in the interim role. My initial response was a hard no. I could not continue to serve as an interim director because of the upcoming sabbatical and the textbook I had to update. But what if I were to be made an offer I couldn’t refuse, I was asked. Which got me to thinking about something else that was going on at the time. One of my former doctoral students, Ji-Young Lim, was interested in returning to the United States under the J-1 Visiting Research Scholars Visa Program. We were in the midst of discussions about the various projects we were going to work on together anyway, so I broached the subject of her becoming a co-author on the second edition. Fortunately, Dr. Lim replied that she was “all in” as a collaborator. With the knowledge of such a willing and capable writing partner available in a manner that all but guaranteed the completion of work on the textbook, I turned around and accepted the offer to become CHRR’s newest director. In turn, my involvement with this center created an impact on my thinking about how to approach an important update regarding the future of research on families with adolescents (and especially the new writing that would be contained in

Preface

ix

Chap. 13). While CHRR at The Ohio State University provides an array of survey and data services for researchers worldwide, the center is perhaps most well-known for its work on the National Longitudinal Studies (NLS), a set of surveys sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, which is part of the U.S. Department of Labor). This includes the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979 (NLSY79), which began following families of 12–16 year-old adolescents in 1979, as well as the NLSY97 cohort that began studying a new cohort of families containing 12–16-year-­old adolescents in 1997. The fact that CHRR was participating in the development of plans for a new third cohort of these same families with adolescents during the beginning of my tenure as director made me acutely aware of the fact that BLS had commissioned a content panel that focused specific attention on family factors (https://www.bls.gov/nls/pdf/NLSY26_family_background.pdf). As readers undoubtedly will see, the work contained in the subsequent report released by BLS became a critical resource regarding our vision of research on the families of adolescents. In closing, I thought it is also important to mention the fact that the finalization of this second edition once again was facilitated by my membership in the National Council of Family Relations (NCFR). As I was compiling the first edition of this book back in 2010, I was fortune to have had approximately a large contingent of NCFR members respond to an email inquiry that I had sent to the affiliates of all specialty sections. In 2010, my request was for members to pass along to me any and all citations of material on families with adolescents that they had authored or co-authored over the past 15 years. I did this with the belief that, no matter how hard you search, you always end up overlooking extremely relevant material. In a similar manner, in 2023 I put out a call for NCFR members to once again contribute to this second edition. And once again, these members came out in full force with their citations. As a direct result, this book is all the more rich and detailed because of the time that my colleagues took to respond to that second inquiry. Columbus, OH, USA April 28, 2023

Stephen M. Gavazzi

Acknowledgments

Stephen M. Gavazzi: First and foremost, I had no better teachers for this content area than my own sons. Their growing up experiences constantly forced me to examine what it was that I really knew about families with adolescents. Second, I have had the pleasure of mentoring quite a number of budding young scholars over the years. These dedicated professionals, who share my passion and interest in both basic and applied research regarding families with adolescents, are helping to advance the field through the direct utilization of the extensive knowledge base represented by this book’s contents. Third, I am grateful to have had the privilege of working with hundreds of families with teenagers over the past three decades of my professional career, both through the programs I have developed and the clinical work I have conducted. Their stories and experiences are woven into the very fabric of the many examples of family situations that I have used to illustrate certain points throughout this book. Second, I owe much to Roger Levesque, who not only is the Springer Press editor responsible for both editions of this book, but who also is the editor of the Journal of Youth and Adolescence. Among other things, Dr. Levesque has written specifically about the need to take books more seriously in the social sciences (Levesque, 2007). Thus, this scholar understands the important place that monographs – such as the one you are now reading – have in the dissemination of knowledge within the academic community and beyond. I am grateful that Dr. Levesque encouraged me to make this second edition a reality. Third and finally, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Ji-Young Lim. As I noted in the preface, this second edition simply would not have been possible without her partnership. And if ever there is to be a third edition to this book, my hope is that Dr. Lim will be the lead author so that this monograph can enjoy an even longer life. Ji-Young Lim: I am deeply indebted to Dr. Gavazzi for his invaluable mentorship and unwavering support throughout crafting this profound work, Families with Adolescents. His profound expertise in the realm of family science, coupled with his unwavering commitment to our shared endeavor, has been pivotal in shaping the xi

xii

Acknowledgments

substantive content and strategic direction of this opus. I am truly fortunate to have had the opportunity to collaborate with such a distinguished scholar. When I was initially approached by Dr. Gavazzi to contribute as a co-author to this book, I found myself immersed in contemplation. I pondered over the distinctive imprint I could bestow upon this already meticulously crafted manuscript. After thoughtful yet expeditious deliberation, I resolved to partake as a co-author by delving deep into international studies and cultural diversity within families with adolescents. Also, I have been fortunate to learn from many inspiring individuals studying adolescents and families, and I am deeply grateful for their contributions. Their research, guidance, and support have played a significant role in shaping my work. Additionally, I have had the pleasure of working with numerous talented students and colleagues in the United States and South Korea. Their enthusiasm and dedication to adolescent development and family science have been inspiring. In conclusion, I am privileged to be part of the vibrant and dynamic Human Development and Family Science field. I eagerly anticipate the honor of contributing to the enduring legacy of this monograph, ensuring its longevity. Columbus, OH, USA Daegu, Korea (Republic of)

Stephen M. Gavazzi Ji-Young Lim

Contents

Part I Introduction and Overview of Theoretical, Research, and Application Topics 1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    3 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    7

2

 Overview of Theory, Research, and Application Topics ����������������������    9 2.1 A Theoretical Overview��������������������������������������������������������������������    9 2.2 Overview of Family-Based Research������������������������������������������������   14 2.3 Overview of Family-Based Application Efforts�������������������������������   20 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21

Part II Theorizing About Families with Adolescents 3

Family Development Theory ������������������������������������������������������������������   25 3.1 Basic Family Development Theory Concepts����������������������������������   26 3.2 Reflections: Family Development Theory and Families with Adolescents ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   30 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   32

4

Family Systems Theory����������������������������������������������������������������������������   35 4.1 Basic Family Systems Theory Concepts������������������������������������������   36 4.2 Reflections: Family Systems Theory and Families with Adolescents ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   40 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   43

5

Ecological Theory������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   47 5.1 Basic Ecological Theory Concepts ��������������������������������������������������   48 5.2 Reflections: Ecological Theory and Families with Adolescents ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   52 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   55

xiii

xiv

Contents

6

Attachment Theory����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   61 6.1 Basic Attachment Theory Concepts��������������������������������������������������   62 6.2 Reflections: Attachment Theory and Families with Adolescents ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   66 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   68

7

Social Learning Theory ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   75 7.1 Basic Social Learning Theory Concepts������������������������������������������   76 7.2 Reflections: Social Learning Theory and Families with Adolescents ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   80 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   83

Part III Research on Families with Adolescents 8

 Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad ��������������������������������������������   91 8.1 Basic Parenting Concepts ����������������������������������������������������������������   92 8.2 Selected Studies on Parenting Behaviors������������������������������������������   94 8.3 The Dimensionality of Parenting Behaviors������������������������������������   97 8.4 The Cultural Relevance of Parenting Behaviors ������������������������������  100 8.5 Summary of Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad ������������������  102 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  103

9

 Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents����������������������������������  109 9.1 Basic Triadic/Polyadic Concepts������������������������������������������������������  110 9.2 Selected Studies Regarding Family Distance Regulation����������������  114 9.3 Selected Studies Regarding Family Conflict and Family Problem-Solving������������������������������������������������������������  119 9.4 Selected Studies Regarding the Influence of Siblings����������������������  124 9.5 Summary of Polyadic Research��������������������������������������������������������  127 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  128

10 The  Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes ������������������������������������  135 10.1 Overview of the Literature��������������������������������������������������������������  136 10.2 The Impact of Families on Delinquency and Conduct Disorders��������������������������������������������������������������������  138 10.3 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Mental Health����������������  141 10.4 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Substance Use����������������  145 10.5 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Sexual Activity ��������������  149 10.6 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Educational Issues����������  153 10.7 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Social Competence��������  159 10.8 Summary of Research Regarding Family Influences on Adolescent Outcomes����������������������������������������������������������������  162 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  162

Contents

xv

Part IV Application Topics Concerning Families with Adolescents 11 Family  Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts����������  171 11.1 Overview����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  172 11.2 Specific Family Intervention Models����������������������������������������������  174 11.2.1 Brief Strategic Family Therapy������������������������������������������  174 11.2.2 Functional Family Therapy������������������������������������������������  176 11.2.3 Multidimensional Family Therapy��������������������������������������  178 11.2.4 Multisystemic Therapy ������������������������������������������������������  180 11.3 Other Family-Based Intervention Efforts����������������������������������������  182 11.4 Summary of the Family Intervention Literature ����������������������������  184 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  184 12 Family Prevention Programs������������������������������������������������������������������  191 12.1 Overview����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  192 12.2 Characteristics of Effective Family Programs��������������������������������  193 12.3 Examples of Specific Family-Based Prevention Programs������������  196 12.4 Web-Based Resources on Family Programs ����������������������������������  201 12.5 Summary of the Family Prevention Literature��������������������������������  203 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  203 Part V Summary and Future Directions 13 Outlook  on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  209 13.1 Outlook of Theoretical Efforts to Understand Families with Adolescents ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  209 13.2 Outlook on Empirical Efforts to Understand Families with Adolescents ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  212 13.3 Outlook on Application Efforts Targeting Families with Adolescents ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  218 13.4 The Next Wave of Longitudinal Research on Families with Adolescents ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  220 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  221 14 The  Need to Integrate Theory, Research, and Application Efforts���������������������������������������������������������������������������  231 14.1 The Beginning of the End ��������������������������������������������������������������  232 14.2 Original Thoughts about the Need for a “Triple Threat” Model��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  233 14.3 Key Factors that Serve as Barriers to Unification ��������������������������  235 14.4 The Importance of Integration in the Study of Families with Adolescents ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  237

xvi

Contents

14.5 Coda������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  238 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  238 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  241 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  293

About the Authors

Stephen  M.  Gavazzi, Ph.D.,  is Professor, Department of Human Sciences, and Director of CHRR at The Ohio State University. During the past 30+ years at Ohio State, Dr. Gavazzi has established a research program that identifies the impact of family dynamics on youth development, psychopathology, and problem behavior. This work has been supported by more than $5 million in grants from a wide variety of federal, state, and private sources. He also is a trained Family Therapist, thus bringing an applied clinical perspective to his work. Dr. Gavazzi has been involved in the development and evaluation of a number of family-based programming efforts, including a multifamily psychoeducational group for families containing children with mood disorders, as well as a strength-based program for families who have adolescents involved in some aspect of the juvenile court. Notably, he provided leadership in the development of the Global Risk Assessment Device, a web-based instrument designed to generate information that assists professionals in making appropriate service referrals for at-risk youth and their families. Ji-Young Lim, Ph.D.,  is Professor in the Department of Child and Family Studies at Kyungpook National University in South Korea. Dr. Lim embarked on a rewarding and impactful professional journey with a Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Science (HDFS) from The Ohio State University, where she also minored in Quantitative Psychology. Her career began as Assistant Professor at the Department of Family Studies and Social Work at Miami University. Over the past 17 years, Dr. Lim has diligently employed diverse quantitative research methods to delve into various facets of children and adolescents within diverse family contexts. Notably, she played a significant role in validating the Korean Version of Rothbart’s Temperament scales, a project funded by the Korea Research Foundation. Her research efforts have shed light on child and adolescent development within multicultural families in South Korea. Dr. Lim’s dedication to rigorous scholarship is evident through her extensive publication record, which boasts over 100 papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

xvii

Part I

Introduction and Overview of Theoretical, Research, and Application Topics

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract  This chapter serves as an introduction to the basic format of this book. Brief descriptions are given in each of the three main parts of this book in terms of coverage of theoretical, research, and application topics concerning the study of families with adolescents. Three questions are raised that correspond to each of the three main parts of this book: (1) where do we get our ideas about the families within which adolescents grow and develop, (2) what actual data do we have that informs us about the families of adolescents, and (3) what is our knowledge base about how to prevent problems in families with adolescents or otherwise how do we intervene with adolescents and their families when difficulties arise? The natural overlap between the theoretical, empirical, and practical parts of the book is discussed as well. Further, the intended audience of this book is delineated, including most importantly those students and instructors of both family-based and adolescent development courses. The secondary audience of professionals working directly with adolescents and their families is also identified. The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious. Marcus Aurelius, Historia Augusta

Families matter: The available empirical evidence strongly supports the notion that the impact of family members on the lives of adolescents is both profound and lasting. In fact, this body of research findings directly challenges the general public’s view that peers are the most important influence in the lives of adolescents. While peers, without doubt, play a progressively more important role in adolescent’s well-­ being, the family environment remains the first and most significant social context within which adolescents grow and develop. As researchers continue to generate evidence regarding the immense power and influence that families exert in the lives of adolescents, more and more social scientists have become interested in including family variables in their theoretical, empirical, and application efforts (Collins & Laursen, 2004; Kurock et  al., 2022). In parallel fashion, there has been heightened awareness of some noteworthy demographic shifts that have taken place within families over the last century (Hernandez, 1993, 1997, 2003). These factors include the following:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_1

3

4

• • • • • •

1 Introduction

Increased divorce rates Increased numbers of single-parent (and especially mother-headed) families Increased parent education levels Increased numbers of mothers in the workplace Decreased numbers of siblings Migration from rural to urban environments

Among other things, these changes provide the field with a historical context by which consumers of literature on families with adolescents can reflect on the representativeness of samples used to conduct research and build programs. Additionally, changes in both the school and workplace environments (Carlson et  al., 2022; Panagouli et  al., 2021) during the COVID-19 pandemic continue to reverberate through family life at present. This first part of the book serves both as an introduction and an overview to all the topics that will be covered within the subsequent pages. As well, there is a final part that serves both as a review of the content of this book and as a springboard for future directions in terms of scholarship on families with adolescents. In order to provide coverage of the resulting knowledge base that has been created by leading theorists, researchers, and practitioners, however, this book is organized further into three main parts related to the field’s current understanding of families with adolescents: theory, research, and application topics. Separately, these parts are meant to describe different aspects of how we understand, observe, and work with families containing adolescent members. At the same time, however, there is a natural overlap between these three main parts that will be explored wherever possible. For example, when empirical studies are based on specific family theory approaches or premises, these linkages will be discussed in the research portion of this book. As well, the empirical work that is based upon prevention and intervention efforts will be presented in the application portion. Hence, the three main parts of this book are thought to be distinct and yet interrelated with components, of the field’s overall acquired wisdom, about families with adolescents. This overlap here is portrayed as “natural” because these intersections reflect the reality of how both science and research-based applications typically are practiced. The theory involves a set of ideas about the way that things work (in this case, families with adolescents). Research aims to test those ideas, which generate supportive evidence in some cases and less than supportive data in others. Applications are then built based on those ideas and data that are most compelling in terms of their ability to explain and predict phenomena. Taken together, the three main parts of this book draw evenly from a broad crosssection of social science disciplines, providing an integrative and concise approach to the interdisciplinary nature of work being conducted in this area of inquiry. These three main parts are further broken down into subdivisions that organize the content of adolescents and their families and illustrate the basic themes of each subdivision contained in this book.

1 Introduction

5

The most important point about the scope of this monograph that may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader is that this book centers on the families of adolescents, not on the adolescents themselves. Hence, the topics that are covered throughout this book – and especially in the research part – pertain to those areas that are family-focused in their orientation. This is why the opening portion of the book is titled as “Families with Adolescents” and not “Adolescents and Their Families.” The former implies concentration on the family as a whole, whereas the latter makes the adolescent as the central point of focus. Therefore, instead of the typical biological (puberty and physical development) and individual developmental (identity, cognitive growth, and emotional maturity) issues found in texts on adolescents, this book shines a spotlight on subject matter such as family processes, family structure, family conflict, and family problem-solving and focuses on variables that reflect interactions within and among different dyads in the family such as the parent–adolescent, interparental, and sibling subsystems. The first main part of this book (Part 2) involves efforts to theorize about families with adolescents. In essence, we will be attempting to answer this question: Where do we get our ideas about the families within which adolescents grow and develop? The reader will be exposed to a variety of theoretical frameworks from the field of human development and family science, including family development theory and family systems theory. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this book, however, we also will be examining theories coming from other fields that have been used to understand families with adolescents, including ecological theory, attachment theory, and social learning theory. The second main part of this book (Part 3) focuses on family research topics. Here, we want to answer the question: What data do we have that informs us about the families of adolescents? As noted in the foreword, this book covers the empirical literature on families with adolescents conducted over the last 30 years. Particular attention has been given to articles in family-focused journals such as Journal of Marriage and the Family, Family Relations, Family Process, and Journal of Family Psychology. Information on family issues published in more adolescent-oriented journals such as Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Journal of Adolescent Research, Journal of Research on Adolescence, and Journal of Early Adolescence also are extensively covered. And again, because of the interdisciplinary scope of this book, articles concerning families with adolescents contained in other journals from fields related to health, psychology, psychiatry, counseling, and social work also are included wherever applicable. In these journals, while covering empirical material about how the families of adolescents operate, attention also is paid to the research literature concerning the family’s impact on adolescent-oriented outcomes. That being said, this is not an exhaustive review of studies pertaining to the role of families in all aspects of adolescent’s development and well-being. Instead, systematic attention is given to a core set of outcome indicators – delinquency, mental health, substance use, sexual activity, education, and social competence – that are believed to be representative of the family’s influence on the positive (and not so positive) outcomes of its adolescent members.

6

1 Introduction

The third main part of this book (Part 4) concerns application topics, and our question to answer is this: How do we prevent problems and intervene with families of adolescents when difficulties arise? In the family intervention chapter, we will focus on family-based work that targets many of the same issues covered in the empirical portion of this book, especially problem behaviors related to adolescent’s delinquency, mental health, and substance abuse. Other family-based interventions that deal with multiple problem behaviors will also be covered. In the family prevention chapter, our focus will turn to family strengthening programs that reflect a primary prevention (or universal) focus. As well, however, those initiatives that fall into realm of selective prevention will also be covered, meaning that more at-risk families are targeted. Once again we will confine our review largely to those works published over the last three decades and also cover information contained in most of the same journals. On an as-needed basis, books and book chapters published during the same time period also will be referenced. And once again, the emphasis is on family-­ based work rather than mere individual-oriented approaches to the adolescents themselves. Throughout the book, assistance will be provided to readers in the integration and utilization of each part’s contents. The intent here is to allow some back-and-­ forth movement between academic literature and real-life situations and issues. For instance, every theory covered in the first main part of this book (Part 2) will begin with a vignette. Each of these brief scenes is meant to provide an illustration of how a family with adolescents would be viewed through the lens of that particular theoretical framework. The second main part (Part 3) contains straightforward examples of how researchers can measure variables related to family dynamics and adolescent outcomes. Here, the reader will be able to examine items taken directly from various measures, including, but not limited to, domains embedded within the Global Risk Assessment Device (GRAD), a risk and needs instrument developed by a team of researchers at the Ohio State University for use with adolescents, their family members, and those professionals who work with these youth and families. Finally, the third main part (Part 4) provides descriptions of families that the first author has worked with over the past three decades, altered only enough to protect the identities of the family members. These case examples are meant to present readers with some realistic illustrations of the kinds of issues and concerns that are routinely faced by families with adolescents. Closing out this book is a capstone section (Part 5) that serves as both a summary and discussion of future directions for scholars interested in families with adolescents. Beyond a chapter that reviews all of the theoretical, empirical, and application-­ based materials covered in this book, readers will be exposed to deliberation about how the current state of literature on families with adolescents tells us something about where the field should be headed in the future. Hence, in the last chapter, particular consideration will be given to the intersection of theoretical, empirical, and application issues. The viewpoint of students who are attempting to integrate all of this information on families with adolescents is kept firmly in the forefront

References

7

throughout this final chapter. For that reason, this closing chapter begins with a vignette that is focused on graduate students themselves. While hypothetical, the topic covered within the conversation that ensues is one that occurs with some regularity among the students your first author has known and taught over the years. Taken together, the parts of this book have been compiled for a wide audience of students and professionals interested in and working with the families of adolescents. Instructors of courses that specifically focus on families of adolescents, often as not, must either decide among several books that cover portions of theory, research, and application material and/or must work hard to compile a course packet made up of those articles and book chapters that “fill in” what those books do not cover. Expectantly, students in those classes will appreciate the ability to have one primary text that contains sufficient and necessary material for mastery in this area of study. For instructors of more straightforward adolescent development courses, it is anticipated that this book becomes the perfect companion to the primary text that has been selected, allowing students to experience a much wider breadth and depth of topics surrounding families with adolescents. And finally, for professionals working directly with adolescents and their families, this book is meant to provide “one-­ stop shopping” in terms of serving as a reference guide to the theoretical, empirical, and applied work being conducted in this burgeoning field.

References Carlson, D. L., Petts, R. J., & Pepin, J. R. (2022). Changes in US parents’ domestic labor during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sociological Inquiry, 92(3), 1217–1244. Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(1), 55–62. Hernandez, D. J. (1993). America’s children: Resources from family, government, and the economy. Russell Sage Foundation. Hernandez, D.  J. (1997). Child development and the social demography of childhood. Child Development, 68, 149–169. Hernandez, D.  J. (2003). Changing family circumstances. In R.  P. Weissberg, H.  J. Walberg, M.  U. O’Brien, & C.  B. Kuster (Eds.), Long-term trends in the well-being of children and youth (pp. 115–179). Child Welfare League of America Press. Kurock, R., Gruchel, N., Bonanati, S., & Buhl, H. M. (2022). Family climate and social adaptation of adolescents in community samples: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 7(4), 551–563. Panagouli, E., Stavridou, A., Savvidi, C., Kourti, A., Psaltopoulou, T., Sergentanis, T.  N., & Tsitsika, A. (2021). School performance among children and adolescents during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Children, 8(12), 1134.

Chapter 2

Overview of Theory, Research, and Application Topics

Abstract  This chapter serves as an overview of the three main parts of this book: theorizing about families with adolescents, research on families with adolescents, and application topics concerning families with adolescents. Theoretically, an intergenerational nurturing definition of families with adolescents is advanced in order to provide parameters around the literature covering two theoretical frameworks most associated with the field of human development and family science – family development theory and family systems theory – as well as three additional theories that claim more individual psychological origins: ecological theory, attachment theory, and social learning theory. The empirical overview offered in this chapter presents a number of heuristic models that help readers to understand the ways in which the direct and indirect effects of family factors are measured by researchers, as well as discussing unit of analysis issues that help to define both dyadic and polyadic efforts to understand families with adolescents. Finally, the application overview sets the stage for a review of both prevention and intervention efforts targeting families with adolescents. Here, our intergenerational nurturing definition regarding families with adolescents is used as a litmus test to determine which initiatives actually “do” something that is family-oriented. If you wish to converse with me, you must first define your terms. Voltaire Dictionnaire Philosophique

2.1 A Theoretical Overview Where do we get our ideas about the families within which adolescents grow and develop? In order to answer this question, indeed to undertake an examination of any type of phenomena, we must develop and adopt definitions of terms that describe our central focus of inquiry. For present purposes, the task at hand is to define what it means to study “families with adolescents.” Despite the assertion that this book concerns family phenomena and not individual developmental issues, the fact that family life cycle stages are predicated on the developmental phases of its offspring necessitates a delineation of what the term “adolescent” implies. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_2

9

10

2  Overview of Theory, Research, and Application Topics

Table 2.1  First exercise in defining terms Child

Adolescent

Adult

A brief exercise can be done with a blank piece of paper in order to help us accomplish this initial task. At the top of the paper, draw three boxes in a row and label them sequentially with the following words: “child,” “adolescent,” and “adult.” Next, draw lines in between each of the boxes in order to make three columns that stretch from the top to the bottom of the paper. Your paper should look like Table 2.1. Next, use the left-hand column to write down all of the words you can think of that can be used to describe someone who is a child. When you have filled out that column, move to the right-hand column and write down all of the words you can think of that can be used to describe someone who is an adult. Now comes the interesting part of this assignment. Without using any of the words you have already written in the left- and right-hand columns of your piece of paper, use the middle column to write down all of the words you can think of that can be used to describe someone who is an adolescent. If you experienced any sort of difficulty in completing the middle column, you are not alone. The complexity involved in defining adolescence is reflected in many books that focus on this developmental period. These texts typically contain a section that discusses the variety of ways that the adolescent developmental period can be defined. Steinberg (2023), for example, notes that there are various ways that definitions of adolescence can be constructed depending on the biological, cognitive, and/or social context criteria that are employed. For instance, chronological age can be used, resulting in a focus on teenagers (13–19 years of age). Alternatively, there are legal definitions, with an emphasis on 18 as the “age of majority” signifying adulthood (although the age of 21 as the legal drinking age also can be employed). Also, there are definitions that surround physical development, usually emphasizing events such as puberty, the end of physical growth and the development of adult sex characteristics. Further, there are more psychology-based definitions that rely on markers of emotional and cognitive maturity. Finally, there are definitions that are based on social contexts and events, such as high school graduation. Such variations in definitions also are reflected in differences of opinion regarding the period of time covered by adolescence. The general public tends to think only in terms of chronological age, thus making the terms “adolescent” and “teenager” synonymous. In contrast, developmental theorists and researchers employ a variety of timeframes to capture the adolescent period. For instance, some scholars divide this developmental period into early adolescence and late adolescence (Cobb, 2010; Santrock, 2023). Here, early adolescence is marked by tasks related to the establishment of a group identity among one’s friends, whereas later adolescence concerns the development of an individual identity. Others break down this developmental period into early, middle, and later adolescence, with an emphasis on the

2.1  A Theoretical Overview

11

Table 2.2  Second exercise in defining terms Family with young children

Family with adolescents

Family with adult offspring

school environment (middle school, high school, and college, respectively), as well as emphasizing an additional transitional period known as “emerging adulthood” (Arnett, 2017). As noted earlier, the present book goes beyond the individualized focus on adolescents in order to establish and describe the larger family context. At the same time, the complexity of describing the adolescent developmental period directly impacts the definition of terms regarding families with adolescents. To illustrate, a modification of the first exercise described above can be carried out by creating another sheet of paper that contains three columns (see Table 2.2). Using the left-­ hand column, write down all of the words you can think of that describe a “family with young children,” and using the right-hand column, write down all of the words that describe a “family with adult offspring.” Are there any words left over that can be used to describe a “family with adolescents?” Write all of the words you can think of in the middle column. Do not become unduly concerned if this exercise proves to be an even more difficult challenge in comparison to the activity that simply asked you to describe the adolescent family member. The chapters ahead are meant to provide assistance to you in this task, as the necessary and sufficient material regarding the conceptualization, research, and treatment of families with adolescents is covered in comprehensive detail. At the same time, because there are differences of opinions regarding the beginning and ending points of this developmental period, the reader also must expect that definitions will vary regarding what constitutes a family with adolescents. This lack of unanimity is both embraced and used as a point of comparison wherever possible, such that the scholarship reviewed throughout this book makes explicit reference to the ages of adolescent family members wherever available in material regarding theories and research findings related to their families. The theory chapters cover conceptual frameworks that directly impact our understanding of families with adolescents. In preparation, we might well ask the question: What is a theory? A theory – any theory – involves the use of a set of principles that are used to predict and explain some sort of phenomena. In turn, these principles are subject to scientific testing in order to determine their reliability and validity, meaning how consistent and convincing they are in accounting for the things that we observe and experience. What then does it mean to say that we are interested in family theory? It would follow most simply that a family theory would involve scientifically supported ideas that help us understand and explain certain phenomena about families. To follow

12

2  Overview of Theory, Research, and Application Topics

this line of logic, however, some common ground must be developed regarding what our definition of family will be. Dictionary definitions state that the term “family” references the most basic unit of a society that has as its main function – the raising of children. In most mainstream Western societies, families traditionally are thought to be made up of two parents rearing their offspring (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2010). In other societies, there is greater emphasis on the extended generations of a family and therefore can include any number of additional members such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and the like. Even in current American society, however, the consistently high divorce rates and large numbers of children being born to unmarried parents have given rise to the need to include different combinations of members that can be regarded as comparable to the traditional family form (Olson & DeFrain, 2022). Hence, single-parent-headed households, custodial and noncustodial parents following a divorce, cohabiting couples with children, stepfamilies, and gay and lesbian parents together create a virtual kaleidoscope of diversity regarding family forms. Given this rather tremendous variation in family membership, this book adopts what might best be described as an “intergenerational nurturing” definition regarding families with adolescents. The intergenerational component denotes that there is at least one adult and one adolescent present to count as a family. As well, the nurturing component of this definition implies that the adult or adults inside of this family have primary caregiving responsibilities for the adolescent. The notion of intergenerational nurturing is thought to align well with frameworks offered by Bush and Peterson (2008) and others regarding the main influences that families have on their offspring. Here, major emphasis is placed on a family socialization process that views parents and other adult caregivers as assuming a central role in teaching their adolescents how to become useful members of the larger society in which they reside (Bush and Price, 2020). The relative success of these parental efforts often is addressed in terms of the offspring’s development of socially competent behavior (i.e., problem-solving skills, achievement orientation) as examples of positive outcomes on the one hand and the manifestation of problematic behaviors (i.e., delinquent behavior, substance abuse) as instances of more negative outcomes. This book reviews various family-based theories that fit well within the intergenerational nurturing framework. In the most general sense, White and Klein (2019) have asserted that there are two kinds of family theories. First, there are theories containing family concepts that are used to describe other phenomena. Second, there are theories that attempt to describe families themselves as an object of study. Extending this to our present purposes, we can see there are theories that use family concepts to describe how adolescents develop, and there are theories that describe families of adolescents as entities of their own. Often as not, the theories covered in this book chapter are utilized to accomplish both tasks, that is, these theories both describe the families themselves as well as their impact on the development and well-being of their adolescents.

2.1  A Theoretical Overview

13

The first two theoretical frameworks covered in this book are associated most often with the field of human development and family science: family development theory and family systems theory. In addition, three additional theories that are known more broadly throughout the social sciences are covered due to their critical focus on the larger social context within which these families with adolescents are situated (ecological theory) as well as the nature of the parent–offspring relationship itself (attachment theory and social learning theory). Because five very different conceptual frameworks will be presented in the theoretical part of this book, there is reason to stop and ponder how readers will be able to evaluate the relative merits of each theory in terms of our efforts to understand families with adolescents. The White and Klein’s (2019) book on family theories utilizes 13 criteria that family scientists have endorsed for making judgments about the relative worth of a family theory in order to discuss the relative merits of the conceptual frameworks included in their text. As originally reported by Klein (1994), these criteria include internal consistency, clarity/explicitness, explanatory power, coherence, understanding, empirical fit, testability, heuristic value, groundedness, contextualization, interpretive sensitivity, predictive power, and practical utility. In a similar vein, but somewhat more parsimoniously, Knapp (2009) presents five functions of theory that also can be used to evaluate the assistance that different conceptual frameworks provide in terms of our knowledge base about families. These functions, which are thought to be generative in nature, include the following: 1. A descriptive function 2. A sensitizing function 3. An integrative function 4. An explanatory function 5. A value function For present purposes, these functions will be adopted in order to launch a discussion of each theory’s comparative contributions in this area of inquiry. Because these five functions are thought to be generative, they can be viewed as benchmarks for the production of knowledge about families with adolescents. As such, each chapter devoted to a theory will end with a reflective segment that will include commentary about the degree to which these five functions are reflected in that conceptual framework. For instance, the focus on the “descriptive function” will allow readers to evaluate the ways in which each theory helps to depict the particular details regarding families with adolescents. In turn, the “sensitizing function” will help us to explicate exactly what each theory spotlights in terms of main concepts, as well as calling into question how sharply that conceptual framework brings families with adolescents into focus. Further, an examination of the “integrative function” draws readers toward an understanding of how well a given theory helps to organize our overall thinking about families with adolescents. A focus on the “explanatory function” will help us explore the degree to which the concepts embedded in each theory can help us to

14

2  Overview of Theory, Research, and Application Topics

elucidate or otherwise give reasons for what is observed as occurring in these families. Finally, the “value function” will be used to draw out exactly what principles, standards, and ideals stand behind each theoretical framework covered in this book.

2.2 Overview of Family-Based Research What data do we have that informs us about the families of adolescents? The Russian writer Leo Tolstoy wrote that “happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” This quote from the novel Anna Karenina is thought to represent but one example of the many ways that people attempt to organize knowledge about families. In this case, the Russian author would have us believe that the path to “happiness” is pretty much the same for all families, whereas the state of “unhappiness” can come from almost limitless sources. Whether or not you agree with this sentiment can and should be a function of the evidence that you are given in support of such a statement. And to gain access to such evidence, we must examine the research literature on families. It was noted earlier that White and Klein (2019) had classified family theories into one of two categories: theories containing family concepts used to describe other phenomena (e.g., how well individual family members are functioning) and theories that describe families themselves as a whole (i.e., how the entire family is functioning). If this perspective were to be extended into the empirical realm, we could classify research efforts surrounding families with adolescents into two similar kinds of categories. First, there are efforts to use family concepts as independent variables in order to explain dependent variables associated with adolescent development and well-being. As well, there are efforts to study families with adolescents as the central theme of the empirical effort, where the family variables themselves, often as not, serve as the de facto dependent measures. In practice, many of the research studies in this area of inquiry represent a blend of both efforts, such that families with adolescents are both described and are used to explain variations in adolescent development and well-being. In order to gain a sense of the different approaches that can be adopted within family-based research efforts, readers are presented with a brief overview of six different models that can be used to conduct research on families with adolescents. These models include (1) the direct family effects model, (2) the mediated indirect family effects model, (3) the complex mediated family effects model, (4) the family as mediator model, (5) the family as moderator model, and (6) the transactional family effects model. This is followed by a discussion of “unit of analysis” issues, used here to describe different focal points that researchers can adopt when seeking to generate family-based data: (1) the single intergenerational dyad, (2) the adolescent’s relationship to both parents, (3) the adolescent’s family as a totality, and (4) the family with adolescents as the combination of various dyads. This discussion is meant to provide a context for the review of studies in Part 3 of this book that focuses on families of adolescents, covering empirical work in

2.2  Overview of Family-Based Research

15

three main areas: (1) research on the parent–adolescent dyad, (2) polyadic (i.e., multiple dyads) research on families with adolescents, and (3) the family’s impact on adolescent outcomes. In Part 3, the main topics that have been covered by researchers to date in each of these three main areas of inquiry are reviewed, and newer trends that are emerging out of this empirical work are discussed as well. Examples of studies within each of these three main areas are presented in order to provide readers with an understanding of the types of samples that are being employed, the empirical questions that are being addressed, and the methods that are being utilized by these researchers. Readers are invited to evaluate the relative merits of the present state of research in each of these three main areas, empirical areas, through the use of the information that is given about this collection of studies. For instance, the information about samples includes the age ranges of the study’s participants, an important indicator of the boundaries or parameters that researchers are setting in terms of their definition of who is (and who is not) considered to be an adolescent family member. Information about empirical questions identifies not only what a given researcher is trying to document about families with adolescents but also what is not being covered in that study. Finally, information about methods includes information about who exactly is being used to generate information that will be used in the study, among other things. In other words, this becomes critical information about precisely whose viewpoint “counts” in the eyes of a given researcher. Models for Conducting Research on Families Masten and Shaffer (2006) presented six basic models for understanding how families matter in terms of their impact on children and adolescents. Most simple and straightforward of all is the “direct family effects” model (see Fig. 2.1), where the influence of a given family variable has an immediate and undeviating impact on some factor related to the youth. For instance, we could hypothesize that family conflict is directly related to depression levels in adolescent family members. That is, as family conflict levels increase, so too does the amount of depressive symptoms reported by adolescents. The “mediated indirect family effects” model (see Fig. 2.2) assumes that a third variable plays an intermediary role regarding the impact of the family variable. Extending our example above, the impact of greater levels of family conflict on adolescent depression levels may be buffered (mediated) by the amount of affection that is expressed in the mother–adolescent relationship. For instance, it might be the case that the impact of family conflict on adolescent depression is decreased by the presence of higher levels of mother–adolescent affection. The “complex mediated family effects” (see Fig. 2.3) model elaborates how multiple variables might be employed in order to better understand the indirect influences of family factors on youth outcomes. Taking the example above one step Fig. 2.1  Direct family effects model

16

2  Overview of Theory, Research, and Application Topics

Fig. 2.2  Mediated indirect family effects model

Fig. 2.3 Complex mediated family effects model

further, the impact of greater levels of family conflict on adolescent depression levels may be mediated both by the presence or absence of a family history of depression and the amount of mother–adolescent affection. The “family as mediator” model (see Fig. 2.4) holds that certain family factors can mediate the influence of other variables on factors related to youth. Here, we might hypothesize that the relationship between gender and the type of problem behaviors experienced by adolescents – where girls are more likely to report internalizing problems (depression and anxiety) and boys are more likely to report externalizing problems (delinquency and aggressive behavior)  – is mediated by the amount of family conflict reported by adolescents. When family conflict levels are high, for instance, boys are more likely to report internalizing problems and girls are more likely to report externalizing problems in addition to the more gender-specific findings that are present when family conflict levels are low. The “family as moderator” model (see Fig. 2.5) holds that certain family factors can moderate the influence of other variables on factors related to youth. In the case of moderation, the family variable has a “conditional” influence on the relationship between some independent variables and adolescent outcomes. For example, we might hypothesize that the strength of the association between negative peer pressure and adolescent antisocial behavior is conditional on the amount of family support experienced by adolescents. Here, high amounts of peer pressure to become involved in delinquent activities may exert a substantial influence on the likelihood of an adolescent actually displaying antisocial behavior, when family support levels are low. Alternatively, however, in the presence of high amounts of family support, the strength of association between negative peer pressure and adolescent antisocial behavior may be sharply reduced.

2.2  Overview of Family-Based Research

17

Fig. 2.4  Family as mediator model

Fig. 2.5  Family as moderator model

Finally, the longitudinal and reciprocal impact of family and youth factors is represented by the “transactional family effects” model (see Fig. 2.6), whereby the bidirectional influence that parents and their offspring can have on each other is taken into account as they impact both present and future family member interactions across time. For example, we might hypothesize that the consistency of discipline displayed by parents both impacts and is impacted by the amount of antisocial behavior displayed by adolescents across several time points. In addition, we might further hypothesize that the amount of consistent discipline displayed by parents at Time 2 will be predicted by the amount of consistent discipline the parents displayed at Time 1, as well as hypothesizing that the amount of antisocial behavior displayed by adolescents at Time 2 will be predicted by the amount of antisocial behavior the adolescents displayed at Time 1. Here, the associations between the family and adolescent outcome variables are both bidirectional (reciprocal) at any one point in time, as well as being prognostic across time. Studies have documented the critical role that family factors play in explaining a variety of outcome variables associated with adolescent development and well-­ being through the use of a variety of models described above. In total, these studies have served to emphatically counter some arguments that the family environment plays a relatively inconsequential role when compared to the impact of other predictor variables such as peer groups and genetic susceptibilities (Clarke-Stewart, 2006; Dermott & Fowler, 2020). As well, this body of compelling evidence has given rise to many forms of family-focused treatment for families with adolescents that are evidence-based and contain objectives founded on the results of this body of family-­ focused research (Werner-Wilson & Morrissey, 2005; Becker & Chorpita, 2023). In

18

2  Overview of Theory, Research, and Application Topics

Fig. 2.6  Transactional family effects model

fact, the overall literature base was thought to have been sufficiently well developed 20  years ago for Hinde (2006) to pose the question: “Are we not getting near to knowing enough for framing policies that will permit interventions where they are most needed and ameliorate the most urgent issues, and indeed for framing any policy that is likely to be implemented?” (p. 363). The answer now almost assuredly is an affirmative one. Unit of Analysis Issues In general, issues concerning the “unit of analysis” are thought to provide assistance in helping us to define exactly what we are attempting to think about, study, or otherwise impact (Sabatelli & Bartle, 1995; Oliveira et al., 2020). Regarding families with adolescents, there are at least two units of analysis that we could consider beyond the focus on any individual family member. One of these units of analysis concerns the dyad or two-person system. In fact, there are a number of potential dyads that we can focus on within the family, including the parent–adolescent dyad, the marital dyad, and sibling dyads. The second unit of analysis would include triads and larger constellations of members (polyads) that are labeled as “family level” variables. These three-person systems (and four-person systems, five-person systems, etc.) can include triads such as mother–father–adolescent, for instance, mother–adolescent–sibling, father–adolescent–grandmother, and so on. All of the dyads mentioned in the previous paragraph potentially exist within a family and certainly are considered to be a part of the larger family system. However, typically these dyads are not considered to be fully representative of the family unit itself. At the same time, the parent–adolescent dyad (mother–adolescent, father– adolescent) is thought to be a distinctive dyad inside of the family. Unlike others mentioned, it is both intergenerational and is based on caring activities, thus satisfying the “intergenerational nurturing” definition of family adopted within this book. As well, the parent–adolescent dyad has been the most extensively utilized unit of analysis to date and often has been given the label of “family” research by others. Hence, there is a precedent for viewing these empirical efforts as family-based, even though this book maintains that such a dyadic approach is incomplete at best. Finally, not being able to label certain household compositions (i.e., a single parent and his/her adolescent offspring) as representing a family unit is fraught with all

19

2.2  Overview of Family-Based Research Table 2.3  Types of studies focused on families with adolescents

Focus of the study Example of the wording on an item used in this type of study

One intergenerational dyad “My mother gives me the support I need”

Adolescent and both parents “My parents give me the support I need”

Family as a totality “My family members give me the support I need”

Family as the combination of dyads “My mother gives me the support I need” and “My father gives me the support I need”

kinds of political and policy difficulties. In other words, if a given household consisted of an unmarried single mother and her teenage son, it would be indelicate to state that this dyad does not “count” as a family. In all, Part 3 of this book contains examples of empirical work that reflect four distinct types of studies that have made contributions to the field’s empirical understanding of families with adolescents (see Table 2.3). First, there are those studies that have focused on a single intergenerational dyad. Second, there are empirical efforts that have centered on the adolescent’s relationship to both parents. Third, there are studies that have focused on the adolescent’s family as a totality. Fourth, there are empirical efforts that have conceptualized the family with adolescents as the combination of various dyads. Studies that have focused on an intergenerational dyad typically concern a single parent–adolescent relationship but could include the adolescent’s relationship to other caregivers such as a grandparent or a foster parent. Empirical work classified as focusing on the adolescent in relation to both parents concerns studies that do not make a distinction between the two caregiving adults (i.e., parents are treated as a single entity with questions such as “My parents…”), or ask about relationships to both parents, but conduct separate analyses for data pertaining to the mother–adolescent and father–adolescent relationships. Research findings generated from these first two types of studies will be reviewed below under the heading of “dyadic research on families with adolescents.” Studies focusing on the family with adolescents as a totality would involve research that makes no distinction among various members (i.e., family members are treated as a single entity with questions such as “My family…”). Finally, those studies that conceptualize the family with adolescents as being comprised of various dyads that exist within the family involve the combination of at least two reciprocal relationships such as adolescent–mother, adolescent–father, and adolescent–sibling. In these cases, data pertaining to the dyadic relationships are handled as “relational family data” (Fisher et al., 1985; Bortz et al., 2019), meaning that the appropriate statistical analyses are employed in order to examine the interrelated nature of the dyads. Research from these latter two types of studies will be reviewed below under the heading of “polyadic research on families with adolescents.”

20

2  Overview of Theory, Research, and Application Topics

2.3 Overview of Family-Based Application Efforts What is our knowledge base about how to intervene with adolescents and their families when difficulties arise? And what do we know about preventing problems in families with adolescents? We borrow again from White and Klein’s (2019) conceptual scheme of family theories to acknowledge that family-based application efforts also can take one of two basic forms. First, there are programs that serve to prevent or intervene with difficulties at a family system level. Second, there are programs that help families to prevent problems or intervene when difficulties are experienced by an individual adolescent member. In this latter case, these prevention and intervention programs have more of an “adolescent outcome” orientation. Similar to the theoretical and research efforts overviews above, in practice, many of these familybased applications represent a blend of both efforts, such that both family processes and outcomes associated with adolescent development and well-­being are targeted by the program efforts. In general, the family-based programs described in Part 4 of this book specifically serve families containing youth somewhere between the ages of 10 and 21. More explicitly, however, a prevention or intervention effort has to be intergenerational in its orientation in order to be included in this part of the book. The intergenerational criterion translates into the fact that the initiative requires the participation of two generations of family members (i.e., parent and adolescent) in shared activities. This condition rules out parenting skills programs, for instance, as well as eliminating those efforts that have parents and adolescents participating in concurrent but separate activities (Lochman, 2000). In essence, our “intergenerational nurturing” definition regarding families with adolescents is used as the basis of a litmus test in terms of which prevention and intervention programs actually “do” something that are family-oriented. The first chapter of Part 4 will cover the family therapy literature that focuses on work with adolescents and their families, as well as other family-based intervention efforts that target adolescents and their families. In essence, the work reviewed in this chapter will encompass those efforts that are directed at families in need of actual treatment (i.e., those programs that provide targeted interventions, therapy, etc.) because of problems or difficulties that already have surfaced. The interventions included in this chapter involve at least two generations of family members in the activities described within the effort. This is followed by the prevention program chapter of Part 4. In addition to an intergenerational orientation, programs reviewed in this chapter had to target positive features of family life that are applicable to universal populations of families. Hence, prevention activities are thought to be focused on the deterrence of problems, as opposed to the treatment or management of difficulties already present in the family. In acknowledgment of initiatives that target families identified as high risk, those programs invariably known as “selective prevention” efforts also will be reviewed in the prevention chapter of this book.

References

21

References Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (2010). Family interaction: A multigenerational development perspective (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Arnett, J. J. (2017). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (6th ed.). Pearson. Becker, K. D., & Chorpita, B. F. (2023). Future directions in youth and family treatment engagement: Finishing the bridge between science and service. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 52(2), 284–309. Bortz, P., Berrigan, M., VanBergen, A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (2019). Family systems thinking as a guide for theory integration: Conceptual overlaps of differentiation, attachment, parenting style, and identity development in families with adolescents. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(4), 544–560. Bush, K. R., & Peterson, G. W. (2008). Family influences on child development. In T. P. Gullotta & G. M. Blau (Eds.), Handbook of childhood behavioral issues: Evidence-based approaches to prevention and treatment (pp. 43–67). Routledge. Bush, K. R., & Price, C. A. (2020). Families & change: Coping with stressful events and transitions (6th ed.). Sage. Clarke-Stewart, A. (2006). What we have learned: Proof the families matter, policies for families and children, prospects for future research. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 321–336). Cambridge University Press. Cobb, N. J. (2010). Adolescence: Continuity, change, and diversity (7th ed.). Sinauer Associates. Dermott, E., & Fowler, T. (2020). What is a family and why does it matter? Social Sciences, 9(5), 83. Fisher, L., Kokes, R. F., Ransom, D. C., Philips, S. L., & Rudd, P. (1985). Alternative strategies for creating relational family data. Family Process, 24, 213–224. Hinde, R.  A. (2006). Prognosis: Policy and process. In A.  Clarke-Stewart & J.  Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 361–370). Cambridge University Press. Klein, D. M. (1994). Theory as data: An investigation of ourselves. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations Conference Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, November, Minneapolis, MN. Knapp, S. J. (2009). Critical theorizing: Enhancing theoretical rigor in family research. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1(3), 133–145. Lochman, J. E. (2000). Parent and family skills training in targeted prevention programs for at-risk youth. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 253–265. Masten, A.  S., & Shaffer, A. (2006). How families matter in child development. In A.  Clarke-­ Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 5–25). Cambridge University Press. Oliveira, C., Fonseca, G., Sotero, L., Crespo, C., & Relvas, A. P. (2020). Family dynamics during emerging adulthood: Reviewing, integrating, and challenging the field. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 350–367. Olson, D. H. L., & DeFrain, J. (2022). Marriages and families (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Sabatelli, R. M., & Bartle, S. E. (1995). Survey approaches to the assessment of family functioning: Conceptual, operational, and analytical issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1025–1039. Santrock, J. W. (2023). Adolescence (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Steinberg, L. (2023). Adolescence (13th ed.). McGraw Hill. Werner-Wilson, R. J., & Morrissey, K. M. (2005). Family influences on adolescent development. In T. P. Gullotta & G. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behavior problems (pp. 79–100). Springer. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2019). Family theories (5th ed.). Sage.

Part II

Theorizing About Families with Adolescents

Chapter 3

Family Development Theory

Abstract Family development theory sensitizes users to a variety of family-­ oriented ideas that provide an organized approach to the pursuit of knowledge about families with adolescents. Great attention is paid to the normal and typical experiences and events contained within this family life cycle stage. The conceptual attractiveness and practical utility of this approach is evidenced in its widespread use in the family science and family therapy literatures. In the present chapter, particular consideration is given to the main theme of boundary flexibility and associated developmental tasks (or second-order changes), as well as the timing of roles and events that take place within this developmental period. Critiques of the family developmental approach are covered as well, including current limitations associated with its empirical utility, as well as questions that have been raised about its generalizability to families with adolescents living both in contemporary Western society and in other cultures. Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family. Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one. Jane Howard Families

Jack and Mary Anderson think of themselves as typical parents who are trying to balance the needs of their teenagers – 16-year-old son Josh and 14-year-old daughter Jessica  – with their own work and extended family responsibilities. The Andersons do focus a great deal of attention on Josh and Jessica. They attend all of their son’s football games and track events and are the parent leaders of the booster club for Jessica’s school marching band. While Jack and Mary work full-time, both parents also spend a significant amount of time in community service efforts. Jack is a board member of the local education foundation that provides support for academic enrichment activities in the schools, and Mary spends at least 10 h a week doing volunteer work for their school district. The Andersons are excited about Josh’s recent enrollment in driving school, because an extra driver in the house will relieve some of the pressure the parents feel about being a “taxi service” for their teenagers. At the same time, they are a little nervous about Josh fully realizing the responsibilities that come with driving, even though both parents believe Josh is a remarkably conscientious 16-year-old. More anxiety-provoking is Jessica’s recent push to be allowed to date, especially in light of her desire to see someone who is in Josh’s grade. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_3

25

26

3  Family Development Theory

And there are other things going on as well. Jack and Mary tell friends that they feel “sandwiched” between the demands of their kids and what their own parents are going through. Mary’s dad died of a heart attack a while ago, but her mom lives nearby and is increasingly in need of help around the house. Both of Jack’s parents are still alive but are medically fragile. They live some distance away, yet are resistant to Jack’s suggestions to move them into an assisted living environment. In the midst of all of this, Jack and Mary are beginning to have conversations about what they would like to be doing when Josh and Jessica graduate from high school. Jack is in a position to take a new job within his company that will mean more income but also will require more travel. In turn, Mary is now thinking about going back to school to get her teaching certificate.

3.1 Basic Family Development Theory Concepts The sketch of the Anderson family given above provides us with an illustration of many of the conventional issues that would be of interest to a family developmental theorist. Most generally, family development theory concerns the description of how families make transitions across time as members enter and leave through birth and death and marriage and divorce and otherwise deal with various normative and nonnormative life events. While there is rather substantial variation among scholars in terms of the concepts that are used to discuss family development (Rodgers & White, 1993), most theoretical applications give some attention to family life cycle stages and developmental tasks, a tradition that stems back to the inaugural work of Glick (1947) and Duvall (1957). Through the employment of stages, family development is meant to be viewed as a linear progression of events. Hence, preceding experiences within the family are thought to directly impact what is happening in the here and now. In turn, those circumstances occurring in the present are thought to influence future family situations. Sometimes this is referred to as the “epigenetic principle,” a theoretical tradition that stems back to the original work on human development conducted by Erik Erikson (1950, 1968). The use of developmental tasks also has a rich tradition in human development theory. Havighurst (1944, 1972) and others (including Erikson) wrote about how each human life cycle stage contained its own particular challenges (tasks) that individuals had to master in order to make a successful transition to the next stage. Family development theorists have borrowed this concept and applied it to families as a whole rather than only at the level of each individual family member. Hence, there are certain challenges or tasks that must be accomplished if the family as an entity will be able to effectively move on to the next family life cycle stage. As such, family development theory contains the notion that families with adolescents are most successful when they have mastered the developmental tasks of the “family with young children” life cycle stage (Carter & McGoldrick, 1980). The theme of this preceding stage surrounds the acceptance of new members into the

3.1  Basic Family Development Theory Concepts

27

family. Manifestations of this theme include the realignment of relationships not only within the marital dyad but also with extended family, such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. Therefore, the successful transition to the next family life cycle stage is thought to be predicated on family members adopting new roles and obligations associated with their specific relationships to these children. In turn, the “families with adolescents” stage of the family life cycle (Carter & McGoldrick, 1980) is centered on the theme of increasing the flexibility of the family’s boundaries in order to both facilitate greater adolescent independence and accommodate the growing dependence of grandparents and other older family members. This theme of increased family boundary flexibility is linked to a number of key family developmental tasks (also discussed as “second-order changes” in the family literature). These developmental tasks include the following: (a) The alteration of the parent–adolescent relationship in order to allow the adolescent to move more freely out of and back into the family environment (b) A renewed focus on marital issues and parental career interests (c) Taking on a greater role in caregiving for older family members (Carter & McGoldrick, 1989) In combination, these developmental tasks strongly suggest a perspective that accounts simultaneously for interacting needs and desires of three generations of family members: adolescents, parents, and grandparents (Ackerman, 1980; Feldman, 2020). Remember how Jack and Mary Anderson described themselves as feeling “sandwiched” between the needs of their teenagers and the needs of their own parents? The term “sandwich generation” in fact has been used by a variety of theorists, clinicians, and researchers to describe the caregiving responsibilities for multiple generations of family members (Lei et al., 2023; Loomis & Booth, 1995; Spillman & Pezzin, 2000). And it is exactly this experience of being “caught in the middle” that can be dealt with most functionally by developing and maintaining firm but flexible family boundaries, flexible enough so that family members remain open to helping each other but firm enough to make sure that the caregiving is both balanced between the generations and not overwhelming to the caregivers themselves. Some of the most common issues that arise out of this multigenerational theoretical focus include issues that focus on individuality (autonomy and identity) and intimacy (dating and sexuality) concerns (Preto, 1989). As previous writings on “adolescence in contemporary families” have pointed out (Steinmetz, 1999), topics falling under these broad categories have become some of the more well-researched subject areas that are covered in the families with adolescent literature. Typically, the focus on both individuality and intimacy as expressed through family interactions seems to be balanced around the actions of the parents, who in effect become the “pivot point” for these developmental issues (Mattessich & Hill, 1987). For instance, family developmental theorists hold that adolescents and parents are engaged in an almost constant renegotiation of issues that underscore the adolescent’s autonomy claims at the very same time the parents are beginning to communicate about independent living decisions with their own parents and other older

28

3  Family Development Theory

family members. Josh’s recent enrollment in driving school and Jessica’s push to be allowed to date are both excellent examples of how adolescents and parents must negotiate ever-changing demands for more independent functioning. And, of course, all of this is happening while Mary and Jack are being required to give greater attention to their own parent’s increased dependency needs. The failure to grant greater autonomy has been seen as one of the primary mechanisms by which families can throw off the developmental progress of adolescent members (Matjasko & Paz, 2005a). Less functional outcomes are thought to be the result of a lack of “stage environment fit” (Eccles et al., 1993), whereby a mismatch occurs between the family’s inability to tolerate individuality claims at the very time the adolescents are in need of social contexts that allow for independent exploration and experimentation (Gutman & Eccles, 2007; Tulagan, 2020). Family development theory balances attention paid to individuality alongside the consideration of intimacy issues. Here, adolescents are thought to be experiencing the awakening of their sexual desires while parents may be dealing with sexual issues inside of their marriage or, if the marriage has dissolved, one or both parents might find themselves reeducating themselves about sexual expectations within the current dating scene. Clearly, Jessica’s desire to date brings up a whole host of issues involving both her developing sexuality and that of her brother. Just because Josh is not dating anyone presently does not mean he has no sexual interests or desires. In fact, Jack and Mary have long suspected that Josh has been accessing adult-oriented material on the Internet, something that Josh vehemently denies each time the subject is brought up. Discussion of sexually oriented topics is not something that comes easily to Jack and Mary. Jack reports that he has had “the talk” with Josh about sex and has supplied him with a number of books and pamphlets that focus on teen sexuality. Mary notes that she has had numerous conversations with Jessica about sex and intimacy, as well as also making written materials available. These parents, who have been married for almost 20 years, report that their own sex life has been and continues to be “comfortable.” At the same time, each of them does admit that they have noticed a slow “cooling off,” especially in the past couple of years. Jack and Mary also report that their more recent interactions around Jessica’s dating requests have produced some friction between them as parents. Mary believes that Jessica will be able to handle herself well in a dating situation, whereas Jack would prefer that she be protected by being made to wait at least another year. As well, Jack increasingly has become more and more uneasy around Jessica, whom he describes as “14 going on 24.” Jessica had her first period when she was 11 years old and now has fully developed breasts. Whereas Jack used to hug and squeeze his daughter all of the time, he now is very uncertain about showing any sort of affection at all, making for some very awkward moments between them. In tandem, Mary reports that Josh seems to become irritated about her own attempts at affection, which she very much wants to continue. She reports that she no longer is supposed to kiss Josh in public, she has been told, and her attempts to hug him when he is leaving or returning home are received rather reluctantly.

3.1  Basic Family Development Theory Concepts

29

Further, family developmental theory pays attention to parents undergoing mid-­ life recalibrations. Here, mothers and fathers may focus on career aspirations by seeking advancement in their current positions and/or returning to higher educational pursuits at the very same time that their adolescents are getting ready for their first college experience. We know that Jack and Mary are discussing what life is going to be like for them after Josh and Jessica leave home. Jack is pondering a position within his company, and Mary is thinking about going back to school. Parents faced with an “emptying nest” often as not use both work and educational pursuits in order to shift the energies they had been putting into raising their adolescents to other positive activities. Taken together, there is the clear sense that family member interactions can be “felt across generations” (Preto & Travis, 1985) as adolescents, parents, and grandparents work to resolve the developmental issues of this family life cycle stage. Of course, this description of family development theory would be incomplete if there was not some mention of the notion that future family accomplishments will be hinged on how the family meets its developmental tasks in the here and now, reflecting both continuity and change in the ways that family members interact with one another (Matjasko & Paz, 2005b). Hence, the ability of families to make a successful transition into the “launching members and moving on” (Carter & McGoldrick, 1980) family life cycle stage will be based in large part on how well boundary flexibility is established. And this makes a great deal of sense, as the theme of this next family life cycle stage concerns the acceptance of a multitude of entries and exits by members as adult children begin to establish households of their own at the same time that members of the older generation become even frailer and eventually pass away. It is important to note that family development theory has been discussed as being part of a larger theoretical tradition that includes the individual life course (Kohli, 2007) and family life course perspectives as well (White & Klein, 2008). As applied to the family, the life course perspective centers attention on a number of additional factors such as the timing and sequencing of roles and events (temporally, generationally, and historically) as well as the sociocultural construction of meaning surrounding these theoretical concepts (Bengston & Allen, 1993). Here, the main emphasis becomes the trajectories that families and their members follow as they move through life’s transitions (Bianchi & Casper, 2005). Excellent examples of this type of work include life course depictions of violent behavior experienced by adolescents and their parents (Pagani et al., 2004), for instance, as well as how later adolescents and young adults maintain contact with their parents as a function of their own life course status (Bucx et al., 2008). Significant attention also has been given to trajectories related to the timing of sexual activity and pregnancy in adolescent samples (Stevens, 2001). In addition to providing an exceptional summary of family life course conceptual definitions and an overview of a statistical approach (latent class analysis) that is consistent with this theoretical perspective, MacMillan and Copher (2005) offer an illustration of the use of these concepts and methods in the examination of adolescent parenthood and race. Complex differences between White, African American, and Hispanic

30

3  Family Development Theory

females emerged in terms of the relationship between teenage childbearing and multiple longer-term outcomes associated with education, work, and family roles. These findings involved the delineation of a number of different pathways to adulthood (i.e., a rapid school to parenthood pathway in comparison to a school to work/ work to family pathway) and included results within these pathways that the authors assert would have been “missed” by other theoretical and statistical approaches. Hence, we might also want to view what the Andersons are experiencing through a family life course lens. This would mean gathering more information about how Jack and Mary’s families of origins dealt with issues surrounding autonomy and connectedness, for instance, including whether or not certain events and the adoption of specific roles were “on time” or “off time” in comparison to what happened in previous generations. Concurrently, these same questions about the normative nature of these roles and events also would require sensitivity to the particular historical context within which the Anderson family is situated.

3.2 Reflections: Family Development Theory and Families with Adolescents How does the reader begin to evaluate the use of family development theory in terms of understanding families with adolescents? In terms of the descriptive function of this theory, clear and consistent depictions are given of the main theme of boundary flexibility and associated developmental tasks (or second-order changes), as well as the timing of roles and events that take place within this developmental period. In terms of the sensitizing function of family development theory, we are clearly being exposed to a conceptual approach that is epigenetic in nature, one in which there are unmistakable illustrations regarding how the timing of roles and events can make a critical difference in terms of individual and family functioning. In related fashion, it can also be said that family developmental theory “rings true” in terms of the connection between its concepts and real world experiences of families with adolescents. Discussing family developmental theory more generally, Russell (1993) notes that this perspective carries with it an “innate appeal” to family members seeking to understand the continuity and change aspects of their family relationships over time. Thus, this framework does seem to do well in terms of helping us to organize our overall thinking about these families, that is, the integrative function of this theory. This conceptual attractiveness also speaks to the practical utility of this framework, another hallmark of this theory’s ability to create a more generalized and holistic knowledge base about families with adolescents. In addition to its widespread use in the family science (MacMillan & Copher, 2005) and family therapy literatures (Nichols & Schwartz, 2016), family development theory has been used as the foundational basis for other applied work in the social sciences. For instance, this theoretical perspective has been used to discuss parenting (Seltzer et al., 2001)

3.2  Reflections: Family Development Theory and Families with Adolescents

31

and career development work with families containing disabled adolescents (Burkhead & Wilson, 1995), children’s media use in families with and without siblings (Davies & Gentile, 2012), family caregiving process of African American families (Woods, 2021), family-based obesity treatment (Skelton et al., 2012), families as adaptive systems (Harrist et al., 2019), and family nursing efforts targeting these families (Rankin & Weekes, 1989; St John & Flowers, 2009). The family developmental approach is not without its criticisms, however, especially with regard to its explanatory function. In fact, Rodgers and White (1993) proclaimed that family development theory was “in a state of gridlock” (p. 249), with little explanatory (or predictive) power having been generated by studies using this theoretical framework. While White and Klein (2008) were a bit more gracious in their assessment of the value of this body of empirical work, these authors also pointed out several other flaws, including the lack of appreciation for diversity and cultural variation that families display in making transitions over time (see also White et al., 2018). Martin (2018) has raised four primary concerns regarding the future relevancy of family development theory. First, this theory was seen as suffering from “academic fragmentation,” whereby more individually oriented life span concepts eventually became more widely used than the theory which sought to integrate them into a larger whole. Second, there was asserted to be confusion among individual, family, and larger systems levels of analysis as represented by various micro and macro concepts employed in research efforts. Third, certain methodological challenges related to the first two concerns also were thought to exist, although new techniques such as sequence analysis and other multilevel methods might “breathe new life” (p. 60) into the theory. Fourth and finally, Martin (2018) discussed the prescriptive versus proscriptive challenges presented by family development theory, focusing on how the theory tells us more about what families “should” be like versus what families “could” be like. The Martin’s (2018) critique speaks to the value function of this theory as well. Almost by definition, the family developmental approach asserts what the “normal and typical” experiences and events will be for families in a given life cycle stage. And the fact of the matter is that the majority of families in contemporary Western society do not experience the life cycle stages in the invariant manner as proposed by Carter and McGoldrick (1980). Another criticism has been the overemphasis on the discrete nature of the transitions regarding moving into and out of family life cycle stages (White & Klein, 2008). In point of fact, there is something intuitively appealing about the idea that these transitions are more gradual than sudden, especially in terms of families with adolescents. In this last regard, one very interesting qualitative study conducted by Molinari et al. (2010) may help shed some further light on the nature of transitions into and out of this developmental period. These researchers examined what they termed “microtransitions” in families with adolescents, work that emphasizes the compressed and sometimes clustered nature of transitional events that are experienced by families with adolescents.

32

3  Family Development Theory

Using the concepts of “coordination” and “oscillation,” these authors identified different patterns by which families respond to change. For instance, some families were categorized as having undergone a “stormy” pattern that represented rapid and intense change. If one only studied those sorts of families, one might be drawn to the conclusion that transitions during this developmental period were very abrupt and discontinuous. In contrast, other families experienced a change in a “quiet” pattern that was exemplified by stability and cooperation. If those were the sorts of families that you studied, instead you might deduce that these transitions were more gradual in nature. Hence, these findings may point the way to a “both/and” approach to transitions in families with adolescents, whereby the degree to which movement into and out of this family life cycle stage is discrete or gradual can become an additional important variable to conceptualize and measure. Most recently, Crapo and Bradford (2021) proposed a multidimensional family development theory (MFDT) containing four dimensions of development  – personal, vocational, couple, and generative – that were thought to increase the utility and usability of family development theory for researchers and practitioners. Here, Duvall’s (1957) original eight stages of family development were recast in ways that increased the flexibility of the theory to account for diversity in individual development, family structures, and processes. A key component of the MFDT work surrounds a focus on what was termed the “adoption and abandonment of roles” (p. 204) that surrounded the four core dimensions of development as individuals, partners, and families traversed time. Such attention to roles was presented as a way to move family development theory away from fixed stages and toward a more elastic “phase”-based approach. In sum, family development theory clearly describes and sensitizes users to family-­oriented ideas. As well, this conceptual approach provides an organized approach to the pursuit of knowledge about families with adolescents. Family development theory has a highly practical side in terms of understanding families with adolescents through its emphasis on transitions (Hamon & Smith, 2017). However, while this theoretical perspective has faced much criticism in terms of its application to diverse contemporary families (Martin, 2018), attempts have been made to address these shortcomings (Laszloffy, 2002; Crapo & Bradford, 2021). Future work should pay particular attention to increasing our understanding about the explanatory function of family development theory and deal with some of the value function’s shortcomings of this approach.

References Ackerman, N. J. (1980). The family with adolescents. In E. A. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 147–170). Gardner Press. Bengston, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 469–499). Plenum.

References

33

Bianchi, S. M., & Casper, L. M. (2005). Explanations of family change: A family demographic perspective. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 93–103). Sage. Bucx, F., van Wel, F., Knijn, T., & Hagendoorn, L. (2008). Intergenerational contact and the life course status of young adult children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 144–156. Burkhead, E.  J., & Wilson, L.  M. (1995). The family as a developmental system: Impact on the career development of individuals with disabilities. Journal of Career Development, 21, 187–199. Carter, E. A., & McGoldrick, M. (1980). The family life cycle: A framework for family therapy. Gardner. Carter, E. A., & McGoldrick, M. (1989). The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy. Allyn & Bacon. Davies, J. J., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Responses to children's media use in families with and without siblings: A family development perspective. Family Relations, 61(3), 410–425. Duvall, E. M. (1957). Family development. Lippincott. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit on adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton. Feldman, H. S. (2020). Developmental psychology for the health care professions, Part II: Young adult through late aging. Routledge. Glick, P. C. (1947). The life cycle of the family. Marriage and Family Living, 17, 3–9. Gutman, L. M., & Eccles, J. E. (2007). Stage–environment fit during adolescence: Trajectories of family relations and adolescent outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 43, 522–537. Hamon, R. R., & Smith, S. R. (2017). Family science as translational science: A history of the discipline. Family Relations, 66(4), 550–567. Harrist, A. W., Henry, C. S., Liu, C., & Morris, A. S. (2019). Family resilience: The power of rituals and routines in family adaptive systems. In B. H. Fiese, M. Celano, K. Deater-Deckard, E. N. Jouriles, & M. A. Whisman (Eds.), APA handbook of contemporary family psychology: Foundations, methods, and contemporary issues across the lifespan (pp. 223–239). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000099-­013 Havighurst, R. J. (1944). Who shall be educated? The challenge of unequal opportunities. Harper. Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. McKay. Kohli, M. (2007). The institutionalization of the life course: Looking back to look ahead. Research in Human Development, 4, 253–271. Laszloffy, T. A. (2002). Rethinking family development theory: Teaching with the systemic family development (SFD) model. Family Relations, 51(3), 206–214. Lei, L., Leggett, A. N., & Maust, D. T. (2023). A national profile of sandwich generation caregivers providing care to both older adults and children. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 71(3), 799–809. Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Multigenerational caregiving and well-being: The myth of the beleaguered sandwich generation. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 131–148. MacMillan, R., & Copher, R. (2005). Families in the life course: Interdependency of roles, role configurations, and pathways. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 858–879. Martin, T.  F. (2018). Family development theory 30 years later. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 49–69. Matjasko, J., & Paz, K. A. (2005a). The role of families in developmental continuity and change in adolescence. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 385–387). Sage. Matjasko, J. L., & Paz, K. A. (2005b). The role of families in developmental continuity and change during adolescence. In V.  L. Bengston, A.  C. Acock, K.  R. Allen, P.  Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 385–387). Sage.

34

3  Family Development Theory

Mattessich, P., & Hill, R. (1987). Life cycle and family development. In M.  B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 437–469). Plenum. Molinari, L., Everri, M., & Fruggeri, L. (2010). Family microtransitions: Observing the process of change in families with adolescent children. Family Process, 49, 236–250. Nichols, M.  P., & Schwartz, R.  C. (2016). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (11th ed.). Pearson. Pagani, L. S., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., Vitaro, F., & McDuff, P. (2004). Risk factor models for adolescent verbal and physical aggression toward mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 528–537. Preto, N.  G. (1989). Transformation of the family system in adolescence. In E.  A. Carter & M.  McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 255–284). Allyn & Bacon. Preto, N. G., & Travis, N. (1985). The adolescent phase of the family life cycle. In M. P. Mirkin & S. L. Koman (Eds.), Handbook of adolescents and family therapy (pp. 52–69). Allyn & Bacon. Rankin, S.  H., & Weekes, D.  P. (1989). Life-span development: A review of theory and practice for families with chronically ill members. Scholarly Inquiry far Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 3, 3–22. Rodgers, R. H., & White, J. M. (1993). Family development theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R.  LaRossa, W.  R. Schumm, & S.  K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 225–254). Plenum. Russell, C. S. (1993). Family development theory as revised by Rodgers and White: Implication for practice. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. Larossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 255–257). Plenum. Crapo, J. S., & Bradford, K. (2021). Multidimensional family development theory: A reconceptualization of family development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(2), 202–223. Seltzer, M. M., Greenberg, J. S., Floyd, F. J., Pettee, Y., & Hong, J. (2001). Life course impacts of parenting a child with a disability. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106, 265–286. Skelton, J.  A., Buehler, C., Irby, M.  B., & Grzywacz, J.  G. (2012). Where are family theories in family-based obesity treatment?: Conceptualizing the study of families in pediatric weight management. International Journal of Obesity, 36(7), 891–900. Spillman, B. C., & Pezzin, L. E. (2000). Potential and active family caregivers: Changing networks and the “sandwich generation.”. The Milbank Quarterly, 78, 347–374. St John, W., & Flowers, K. (2009). Working with families: From theory to clinical nursing practice. Collegian, 16, 131–138. Steinmetz, S. K. (1999). Adolescence in contemporary families. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 371–424). Plenum. Stevens, J. W. (2001). The social ecology of the co-occurrence of substance use and early coitus among poor, urban black female adolescents. Substance Use and Misuse, 36, 421–446. Tulagan, N., Jr. (2020). The family socialization and stage-environment fit of African-American adolescents’ academic and recreational talent development. University of California. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2008). Family theories. Sage. White, J.  M., Martin, T.  F., & Adamsons, K. (2018). Family theories: An introduction. Sage Publications. Woods, T. (2021). The health of African American grandmothers raising grandchildren: A growing social problem. Journal of Family Issues, 42(7), 1429–1442.

Chapter 4

Family Systems Theory

Abstract  Family systems theory provides users with a holistic framework that centers attention on the interactive and bidirectional nature of relationships within families with adolescents. The family systems framework enjoys widespread use in the family intervention literature, as well as having been increasingly employed within the child and adolescent developmental literatures. In this chapter, attention is paid to a number of concepts that are related to the understanding of the family as a self-­ organizing unit. In particular, the systems concept of the steady state is used to discuss the balance of stability and change that must be struck in families with adolescents as members negotiate the demands of this developmental period. Additionally, the importance of newer statistical techniques such as structural equation modeling is reviewed with an eye toward expanding the explanatory function of family systems-oriented research. Critiques of the family systems approach also are covered, including especially empirical limitations associated with its generating descriptive rather than explanatory abilities. Questions about the generalizability of research findings to non-Western and non-White families with adolescents are also addressed. The overall name of these interrelated structures is system. The motorcycle is a system. A real system....There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding. That’s all a motorcycle is, a system of concepts worked out in steel. (Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)

Caleb Young, Evan Timberland, and Trevor Banner call themselves the three musketeers. And while these three 14-year-old best friends are indeed “one for all, and all for one,” they could not come from more different families. These three teens most often can be found at the Timberland home, in large part because Evan’s parents believe that the safest place for their son is under their watchful eyes. Mr. and Mrs. Timberland spent a great deal of time in their own homes growing up and are quick to point out that they both “didn’t do drugs and avoided all the problems other kids had growing up.” Although Evan appreciates the fact that his parents want the very best for him, at times he becomes irritated by their reluctance to let him do things for himself.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_4

35

36

4  Family Systems Theory

In contrast, the teens rarely if ever get together at Trevor’s house. His parents are attorneys in a very successful downtown law firm. Mr. and Mrs. Banners work long hours during the week and often are called into the office on weekends as well. The result is that Trevor is left by himself quite a bit, and his parents absolutely forbid having friends over when they are not home. The Banners are glad that their son has good friends, but they also are not bothered by Trevor choosing to stay home alone once in a while as well. In fact, the Banners are quite proud of their son’s ability to be so independent and oftentimes brag that he seems more self-reliant than his 19-year-old sister Hannah, who is a sophomore in college. When not at Evan’s house, the three teens hang out at the Young’s home. While Mr. and Mrs. Young are very flexible in terms of allowing Caleb to visit the homes of his friends, they also make it a special point to ask their son to have his friends come over whenever they perceive that there has been an unequal amount of time spent at home versus away from home. These parents talk often with each another about how to balance their son’s desire to “just be himself” with their family’s need to remain connected with one another. While his parents make snacks and other treats available to his friends when they are visiting, he appreciates the fact that they largely are left alone to play videogames and listen to music in the family’s basement recreational room. As a result, Caleb is quite comfortable being with friends in his own home, even though he has two younger siblings.

4.1 Basic Family Systems Theory Concepts Perhaps the most well-known quotation in all of the writing done on systems is that “the whole is more than the sum of its parts.” This statement, attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, is meant to imply that a system cannot be understood simply by knowing something about each of its components. Said in a slightly different way, a system is not simply the adding up of what we know about each of its parts. Instead, any system (a motorcycle, a family, a corporation, an ecosystem, etc.) is best comprehended by having knowledge of both the parts and their interaction together. Hence, the family systems of the three teenagers described in the sketch above are thought to be best appreciated through the observation of how each set of family members behaves around each other. Most systems-oriented works in the social sciences have as their origin the general systems theory (GST) work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968), whose efforts involved no less than an attempt to unify all sciences through the recognition of concepts that were common to each academic discipline. Such shared features, or isomorphic properties, were thought to exist at practically all levels of a system, regardless of how microscopic or macroscopic your point of view is. “To take a simple example, an exponential law of growth applies to certain bacterial cells, to populations of bacteria, of animals or humans, and to the progress of scientific research measured by the number of publications in genetics or science in general” (Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 33).

4.1  Basic Family Systems Theory Concepts

37

Interestingly, at least one of von Bertalanffy’s biographers has noted that the English language version of this author’s original work in German was a mistranslation that should have read “general systems thinking” instead of “general systems theory” (Davidson, 1983). Hence, while the body of work that centers on a systems perspective typically is accorded the status of a theoretical framework, readers might do well to ponder the potential consequences of such a possible mistranslation. In particular, appreciation of this misunderstanding might go a long way toward dampening the criticism of the systems perspective as an “untestable theory” (Baptist & Hamon, 2022; L’Abate & Colondie, 1987). Nevertheless, family theorists, family researchers, and family-based clinicians all have made ample use of systems concepts (Tadros, 2020). The application of general systems work within the family field has emphasized the use of concepts such as the following: • • • • • •

Hierarchy Boundaries Equifinality and multifinality Positive and negative feedback Circularity Organization

In combination, the concepts reflect an emphasis on understanding how family members operate as systems with properties that are of a non-summative nature (Whitechurch & Constantine, 1993). Hence, the family as a system is thought to be best understood through the recognition that family members (as the parts of the system) interact with one another in a manner such that, over time, these interactions become patterned behavior (Suppes, 2022). Although not typically discussed in such GST terms, the hallmark application of the systems perspective as applied to the study of families with adolescents surrounds the systems property of the steady state (Ashbourne, 2009). Likened to a host of other dynamic processes (such as blood pressure, which is made up of both systolic and diastolic readings), this concept typically is used to discuss the balance of stability and change – achieving a “dynamic equilibria” (Bertalanffy, 1968) – that must be struck in families with adolescents as members negotiate the demands of this developmental period (Arnett, 2010; Koman & Stechler, 1985). The steady state is a property of open systems or systems that have ongoing interactions with their environment (Kelledy & Lyons, 2019). Although the steady state sometimes also is referred to as homeostasis, this actually is a closed systems concept in the GST tradition, where the emphasis is on the lack of interaction between system and environment. Because families like all living systems are open by nature, the term steady state is preferred. A result of this emphasis on the steady state in the literature on families with adolescents is the focus on distance regulation and boundary maintenance, most often discussed in terms of differentiation levels (Bowen, 1978). Here, family differentiation is seen as the family system’s ability to display both tolerance for intimacy and tolerance for individuality among its members (see Table  4.1). High

38

4  Family Systems Theory

Table 4.1  Family differentiation levels High intimacy tolerance Low intimacy tolerance High individuality tolerance Highly differentiated family Moderately differentiated family Low individuality tolerance Moderately differentiated family Poorly differentiated family

tolerance for intimacy is seen in families where members experience high degrees of closeness and warmth with one another, where in contrast low intimacy tolerance is associated with family members who seem cold and distant. High tolerance for individuality is seen in families that generate the sense of being able to be oneself, whereas low individuality tolerance is related to the perception that it is not acceptable for family members to display any sense of uniqueness (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1990; Bortz et al., 2019). The combination of high individuality tolerance and high intimacy tolerance (termed high family differentiation), where family members are able to simultaneously experience themselves as both separate yet connected individuals, is associated with the highest levels of adolescent and family functioning. The Young family described in the vignette at the beginning of this chapter is an excellent example of a highly differentiated family. Mr. and Mrs. Young certainly seem interested in promoting their son Caleb’s ability to express his own individuality, largely through the choices that he makes about who his friends are and where he spends significant amounts of time. At the same time, these parents are committed to keeping family members connected with one another and see the openness of their home to Caleb’s friends as a useful way to allow that sense of belongingness to be shared with others as well. Conversely, low differentiation levels (where both low individuality tolerance and low intimacy tolerance are described in terms of a poorly differentiated family) have neither the experience of separateness nor togetherness and therefore are associated with the lowest functioning levels. In the middle of these polar extremes are combinations described as moderate differentiation levels that are associated with unexceptional adolescent and family functioning levels. The combination of high individuality tolerance and low intimacy tolerance is thought to reflect the sacrifice of connectedness experiences for the sake of individuality claims, while the combination of low individuality tolerance and high intimacy tolerance is the exact reverse, that is , the sacrifice of individuality for the sake of togetherness (Gavazzi, 1993; Jankowski et al., 2021). While the vignette at the beginning of this chapter does not contain an example of a poorly differentiated family, the Timberland and Banner families illustrate the two complementary types of moderate family differentiation levels. The Timberlands clearly care for their son Evan, and they do as much as they can to make their home both inviting and comfortable. Like the Young family, they are very open to Evan having his friends over, as they rightly recognize the need for peer companionship at this age. However, their fear of “teenage problems” tends to make them reluctant to allow Evan to make decisions by himself, even when there is little apparent cause for concern or alarm. The desire to maintain a sense of connectedness among

4.1  Basic Family Systems Theory Concepts

39

members of the Timberland family seems to get in the way of Evan being able to express himself individually. The Banner family seems to operate in the exact opposite fashion. Trevor has no problems whatsoever in terms of expressing his sense of separateness from his parents. In fact, he is applauded by his parents for his ability to think and act independently. Caleb’s parents feel much the same way about their own son. However, Trevor has far less of a sense that he is connected to his parents and his sister Elena. This was not always the way things were in the Banner family; either. Mr. and Mrs. Banner both worked far fewer hours when their children were younger, allowing them to share many more family activities together. When Elena began to voice complaints in her junior year about how family gatherings “were just stupid,” the parents started to slowly withdraw and eventually channeled more time and energy into their work. While seeing themselves as launching their first offspring in a developmentally appropriate manner, the Banners seemed less aware of their younger adolescent’s need for continued connectedness. Other variations on the application of these distance regulation concepts exist in the systems-influenced literature on families with adolescents. For instance, Stierlin (1981) discussed the family context of the adolescent as being made up of both centripetal and centrifugal processes that alternatively push and pull family members into and out of the home environment. Another example is Hauser et  al.’s (1991) work on constraining and enabling processes, whereby separateness and connectedness experiences are either restricted or facilitated through interactions between parents and adolescents. Although applied more generally to all families instead of only to families with adolescents, a review of this literature would be incomplete without mention of Broderick’s (1993) bonding and buffering processes as well. Here, bonding processes are equated with the centripetal pull to remain connected with other family members, while the buffering processes are thought to be those centrifugal forces that maintain some distance between members of the family. Family systems theory also has been used to describe the context surrounding more individual-oriented phenomena experienced by adolescents. For instance, Cook (2001) employed a number of family systems concepts, including differentiation and triangulation, in a description of the family’s influence on chemical addiction and the illegal behaviors of its adolescent members. Particularly, interesting here was the author’s discussion of how the “under-functioning” behaviors of the adolescent were matched by the “over-functioning” behaviors of the other family members. A second example is that of Hughes and Gullone (2008), who discuss the family systems perspective on adolescent internalizing problem behaviors (this article also stands out as an excellent review of empirical literature on this topic area). The main thrust of this article was directed toward the need for greater attention paid to the reciprocal nature of relationships within families called for by the systems concept of circularity. As well, while noting the association between the presence of an internalizing disorder and such system level concepts as lower family cohesion levels, these authors also discussed the impact of dyadic factors such as difficulties in the marital and parent–adolescent subsystems.

40

4  Family Systems Theory

The reciprocal nature of parent–adolescent relationships within the family systems theoretical perspective has been extended to other forms of developmental psychopathology as well. For example, Sameroff and MacKenzie (2003) employed systems concepts such as positive and negative feedback in support of the need for transactional models that would account for the bidirectional influences of parents and adolescents. In a different realm, Corwyn and Bradley (2005) employed the systems concepts of equifinality and multifinality to describe the differential influences of economic circumstances on adolescent externalizing behaviors. Here, the authors described socioeconomic status (SES) as having an “equifinal” impact by influencing different factors in ways that produced similar outcomes, as well as observing that SES could influence numerous outcomes in more “multifinal” fashion. Further, one non-psychopathology-related article employed family systems concepts to discuss the influence of youth sports on family functioning (Bremer, 2012), with special attention paid to the ways in which family members reorganize themselves around the child who participates in competitive sports. Finally, very recently, family systems theory has been applied to investigate family well-being when threatened by the social disruption caused by COVID-19 (Prime et al., Prime et al., 2020). This included systems-focused work that investigated how varying levels of parent and child/adolescent psychological flexibility became sources of either resiliency or risk during the pandemic era (Daks et al., 2020). As can be seen in these latest studies, family systems theory has been used as an excellent framework for describing and explaining problematic functioning within those families with adolescents living amidst large-scale societal changes that stem from unforeseen and therefore unexpected events.

4.2 Reflections: Family Systems Theory and Families with Adolescents How does the reader begin to evaluate the use of family systems theory in terms of understanding families with adolescents? In terms of the descriptive function of this theory, there seems to be a bit of controversy in how this theoretical perspective helps scholars. On the one hand, Cox and Paley (1997) have noted that family systems concepts such as wholeness and hierarchy increasingly have been brought to bear on the child and adolescent developmental literatures as scholars have advanced their understanding of the family as a self-organizing unit. This sentiment is echoed in Masten and Shaffer’s (2006) own discussion of the same literature a decade later. On the other hand, White and Klein (2019) have noted that the family systems perspective has been seen as “too abstract and global” and has been likened more to a model or a heuristic tool than a theory per se, criticisms that are echoed elsewhere (cf., Reis et al., 2000).

4.2  Reflections: Family Systems Theory and Families with Adolescents

41

Less controversial is the sensitizing function of family systems theory. Clearly, the family systems approach grounds users in a holistic framework that centers attention on the interactive and bidirectional nature of relationships within the family. Added to this is the fact that family systems theory also “rings true” for many therapists and other helping professionals in terms of the connection between its concepts and the real-world experiences of families with adolescents (Tadros, 2020). Most pointedly, this conceptual framework has had a profound impact on the family therapy literature (Nichols & Schwartz, 2016). However, its influence has spread to diverse intervention areas targeting adolescents and their families such as wilderness programming (Harper & Russell, 2008), diabetes treatment (Butler et al., 2007; Wysocki et al. 2006), maladaptive perfectionism intervention (Walsh, 2012; Rasmussen & Troilo, 2016), obesity treatment (Pratt & Skelton, 2018), chronic post-surgical pain intervention (Newton-John, 2022), positive psychology intervention (Owens & Waters, 2020), family systems nursing (Clausson & Berg, 2008), and positive youth development (Lerner et  al., 2009) and social justice (Lerner & Overton, 2008). Hence, the integrative function of this conceptual framework is apparent in that it does help scholars in various fields to organize their overall thinking about families with adolescents. The family systems approach has been further criticized in terms of certain limits related to its explanatory function. For instance, Dilworth-Anderson et al. (2005) note that “compared with most other family theories, systems theories tend to be descriptive rather than explanatory” (p. 42). Part of the difficulty may lie in the traditional methods of research that are used in data gathering and analysis efforts. Expanding on Gottlieb and Halpern’s (2002) reference to the “analysis of variance mentality” (p. 421) that permeates much of the linear thinking inherent to mainstream research, O’Brien (2005) suggested a more “holistic” approach to measurement and analysis of system-oriented phenomena. Here, the use of structural equation modeling and person-centered analytic techniques – in addition to a focus on the mediating and moderating influences of family systems concepts  – might yield a more comprehensive set of studies that would demonstrate the actual explanatory power of this theoretical framework. While the use of structural equation modeling (SEM) is highly technical, a simplified discussion of the combination of these three terms – structural, equation, and modeling – is provided here in service to understanding how this statistical method provides scholars with an avenue for examining the explanatory power of family systems theory. In brief, SEM involves the writing of a series of mathematical equations which, when combined, forms the structural basis for the theoretical model we are utilizing to make sense of our research-related observations. Remember that the family systems theoretical perspective assumes that the actions and reactions of family members are nonindependent – that is, the behavior of one family member is to a great extent dependent on how other family members are behaving. The development of SEM techniques has allowed researchers to account for the nonindependence of the data they have gathered from multiple family members, which is a remarkable advancement over previous analytic techniques that assume independence. We are fortunate to witness some of this innovative statistical work being

42

4  Family Systems Theory

used to apply family systems concepts within scholarship efforts focused on families with adolescents. For example, SEM techniques were used with a subsample of the Flourishing Families Project (FFP) to examine the long-term associations between parents’ relationship conflict levels and parent–adolescent triangulation in a longitudinal study of adolescents’ sibling relationship quality (Ruff et al., 2018). While results suggested that marital conflict as reported by fathers had some impact on initial sibling hostility levels, it was mother’s over-involvement with their adolescents that predicted significant increases in sibling hostility over time. In a separate study of adolescents in stepfamilies that used the first wave of the Add Health database (King et al., 2015), SEM techniques were employed to examine the impact of dyadic characteristics within family relationships (in this case, the mother–child relationship, the stepfather–child relationship, and the mother–stepfather relationship) on adolescents’ feeling of family belonging. While findings pointed to the impact of both stepfathers and biological mothers, the mother–adolescent relationship displayed the strongest association with adolescent reports of family belongingness. SEM techniques also have been utilized to examine both family stress and family systems factors within Asian families. Hou et al.’s (2017) study, which employed a sample of Asian American adolescents and their parents in a study of family dynamics, reported significant associations between parental perceived discrimination (i.e., “People assume my English is poor”) and adolescent depression and delinquent behavior, indicating the role that parental stress can play in the lives of adolescents. In turn, there were interesting gender effects at play, where paternal (but not maternal) depressive symptoms, maternal (but not paternal) hostility toward adolescents, and maternal (but not paternal) marital hostility mattered in terms of the adolescent adjustment indicators employed in this study. From a family systems theoretical viewpoint, the interdependence of mother and father contributions to family processes was on full display here. Finally, the value function of family systems theory draws attention to a worldview that emphasizes the comprehensive importance of the family context as a whole. Within this perspective, there are concepts – including perhaps most importantly family distance regulation – that equate the highest functioning levels in families with greater amounts of both individuality and belongingness. It is important to note that there may be some cultural bias to this notion, however. As studies of family distance regulation in other cultures indicate (cf., Dwairy et al., 2006), the relative balance of individuality and intimacy and its connection to healthy adolescent development very well may shift in more collectivist or otherwise non-Western societies. Erdem and Safi (2018) tried to expand family systems theory by focusing more on cultural variation in experiences of individualism versus collectivism to explain why family processes are different, and thus contrary research findings are reported in studies focused on more collective-oriented societies. In these other non-Western cultures, there may be much more of an emphasis on the capacity for togetherness and concurrently less expectation that a sense of individuality could or should be fostered.

References

43

The value function also focuses attention on family systems theory’s ability to accurately reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of families with adolescents in the United States and abroad. In more recent literature, special attention has been paid to the application of family systems concepts to the inner workings of African American families. For example, while James et al. (2018) underscored the ability of family systems theory to account for various structural and process differences that would be critical for any scholarly undertaking that was focused on Black and/ or African American families, there also was an expressed need to better account for racial and ethnic socialization of children and adolescents that was deemed to be “the most salient process” (p. 420) within these families. In addition, James et al. (2018) asserted that historical time and degree of choice (as personal agency) be included in any systems formulations about African American families. Here, the authors pointed to the impact that life experiences in different periods of American history undoubtedly would have had on most facets of family life, including who would be considered as members within these families. While focused more specifically on resilience theory, Anderson (2019) concurrently invoked the utilization of a variety of family systems concepts – including wholeness, hierarchy, adaptation, and self-organization – in developing cautionary advice for family scholars and practitioners. For example, while adaptation generally is thought to be a positive family systems attribute, what does that mean when an adolescent family member is shot to death by the police? What is the appropriate coping response for such a tragic event? The author provided ample warning that general systems concepts not contextualized within the hostile environments often facing African American families may be “irresponsible at best and potentially damaging at worst” (p. 391). In sum, family systems theory does sensitize users to family-oriented ideas, but its descriptive abilities have been evaluated in a less consistent manner. This conceptual approach holds great practical utility and as such seems to provide for a well-organized approach to the pursuit of knowledge about families with adolescents. Scholars utilizing family systems theory must attend to issues surrounding the explanatory function of this approach and must also expand the field’s understanding of the cultural relevance of the values inherent to this theory.

References Anderson, L.  A. (2019). Rethinking resilience theory in African American families: Fostering positive adaptations and transformative social justice. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(3), 385–397. Anderson, S.  A., & Sabatelli, R.  M. (1990). Differentiating differentiation and individuation: Conceptual and operational challenges. American Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 32–50. Arnett, J.  J. (2010). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. Ashbourne, L. (2009). Reconceptualizing parent-adolescent relationships: A dialogic model. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1(4), 211–222.

44

4  Family Systems Theory

Baptist, J., & Hamon, R. R. (2022). Family systems theory. In Sourcebook of family theories and methodologies: A dynamic approach (pp. 209–226). Springer International Publishing. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory. George Braziller. Bortz, P., Berrigan, M., VanBergen, A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (2019). Family systems thinking as a guide for theory integration: Conceptual overlaps of differentiation, attachment, parenting style, and identity development in families with adolescents. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(4), 544–560. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Aronson. Bremer, K. L. (2012). Parental involvement, pressure, and support in youth sport: A narrative literature review. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4(3), 235–248. Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process. Sage. Butler, J. M., Skinner, M., Gelfand, D., Berg, C. A., & Wiebe, D. J. (2007). Maternal parenting style and adjustment in adolescents with Type I diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32, 1227–1237. Clausson, E., & Berg, A. (2008). Family intervention sessions: One useful way to improve schoolchildren’s mental health. Journal of Family Nursing, 14, 289–313. Cook, W. L. (2001). Interpersonal influence in family systems: A social relations model analysis. Child Development, 72, 1179–1197. Corwyn, R. F., & Bradley, R. H. (2005). Socioeconomic status and child externalizing behaviors. In V.  L. Bengston, A.  C. Acock, K.  R. Allen, P.  Dilworth-Anderson, & D.  M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 469–483). Sage. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 4, 243–267. Daks, J. S., Peltz, J. S., & Rogge, R. D. (2020). Psychological flexibility and inflexibility as sources of resiliency and risk during a pandemic: Modeling the cascade of COVID-19 stress on family systems with a contextual behavioral science lens. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 16–27. Davidson, M. (1983). Uncommon sense: The life and thought of Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. J. P. Tarcher. Dilworth-Anderson, P., Burton, L. M., & Klein, D. M. (2005). Contemporary and emerging theories in studying families. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 35–50). Sage. Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., & Farah, A. (2006). Adolescent-family connectedness among Arabs: A second cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 248–261. Erdem, G., & Safi, O.  A. (2018). The cultural lens approach to Bowen family systems theory: Contributions of family change theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 469–483. Gavazzi, S. M. (1993). The relation between family differentiation levels in families with adolescents and the severity of presenting problems. Family Relations, 42, 463–468. Gottlieb, G., & Halpern, C. (2002). A relational view of causality in normal and abnormal development. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 421–435. Harper, N. J., & Russell, K. C. (2008). Family involvement and outcome in adolescent wilderness treatment: A mixed-methods evaluation. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 1, 19–36. Hauser, S. T., Powers, S. I., & Noam, G. G. (1991). Adolescents and their families. Free Press. Hou, Y., Kim, S. Y., Hazen, N., & Benner, A. D. (2017). Parents’ perceived discrimination and adolescent adjustment in Chinese American families: Mediating family processes. Child Development, 88(1), 317–331. Hughes, E. K., & Gullone, E. (2008). Internalizing symptoms and disorders in families of adolescents: A review of family systems literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 92–117. James, A. G., Coard, S. I., Fine, M. A., & Rudy, D. (2018). The central roles of race and racism in reframing family systems theory: A consideration of choice and time. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 419–433. Jankowski, P. J., Hall, E., Crabtree, S. A., Sandage, S. J., Bronstein, M., & Sandage, D. (2021). Risk, symptoms, and well-being: Emerging adult latent profiles during treatment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99(4), 440–451.

References

45

Kelledy, L., & Lyons, B. (2019). Circular causality in family systems theory. Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy, 431–434. King, V., Boyd, L. M., & Thorsen, M. L. (2015). Adolescents’ perceptions of family belonging in stepfamilies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(3), 761–774. Koman, S. L., & Stechler, G. (1985). Making the jump to systems. In M. P. Mirkin & S. L. Koman (Eds.), Handbook of adolescents and family therapy (pp. 1–20). Allyn & Bacon. L’Abate, L., & Colondie, G. (1987). The emperor has no clothes! Long live the emperor! A critique of family systems thinking and a reductionistic proposal. American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 19–33. Lerner, R. M., & Overton, W. F. (2008). Exemplifying the integrations of the relational developmental system: Synthesizing theory, research, and application to promote positive development and social justice. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 245–255. Lerner, R. M., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lewin-Bizan, S. (2009). Exploring the foundations and functions of adolescent thriving within the 4-H study of positive youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 567–570. Masten, A.  S., & Shaffer, A. (2006). How families matter in child development. In A.  Clarke-­ Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 5–25). Cambridge University Press. Newton-John, T. (2022). Extending the biopsychosocial conceptualisation of chronic post surgical pain in children and adolescents: The family systems perspective. Canadian Journal of Pain, 6(2), 142–151. Nichols, M.  P., & Schwartz, R.  C. (2016). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (11th ed.). Pearson. O’Brien, M. (2005). Studying individual and family development: Linking theory and research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 880–890. Owens, R. L., & Waters, L. (2020). What does positive psychology tell us about early intervention and prevention with children and adolescents? A review of positive psychological interventions with young people. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(5), 588–597. Pratt, K. J., & Skelton, J. A. (2018). Family functioning and childhood obesity treatment: a family systems theory-informed approach. Academic Pediatrics, 18(6), 620–627. Prime, H., Wade, M., & Browne, D. T. (2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643. Rasmussen, K. E., & Troilo, J. (2016). “It has to be perfect!”: The development of perfectionism and the family system. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(2), 154–172. Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological bulletin, 126(6), 844–872. Ruff, S. C., Durtschi, J. A., & Day, R. D. (2018). Family subsystems predicting adolescents’ perceptions of sibling relationship quality over time. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(3), 527–542. Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 613–640. Stierlin, H. (1981). Separating parents and adolescents. Aronson. Suppes, B.  C. (2022). Family systems theory simplified: Applying and understanding systemic therapy models. Taylor & Francis. Tadros, E. (2020). The puzzling metaphor: Teaching general systems theory to marriage and family therapy trainees. The Family Journal, 28(1), 98–102. Walsh, F. (2012). Clinical views of family normality, health, and dysfunction: From a deficits to a strengths perspective. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 27–54). Guilford Press. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2019). Family theories (5th ed.). Sage. Whitechurch, G. C., & Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R.  LaRossa, W.  R. Schumm, & S.  K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 325–352). Plenum. Wysocki, T., Harris, M. A., Buckloh, L. M., Mertlich, D., Lochrie, A. S., Taylor, A., et al. (2006). Effects of behavioral family systems therapy for diabetes on adolescents’ family relationships, treatment adherence, and metabolic control. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 31, 928–938.

Chapter 5

Ecological Theory

Abstract  The ecological theoretical perspective most often is utilized to highlight various levels of environmental context (microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and macrosystems) within which families with adolescents are situated. Employed more comprehensively, this approach also can draw attention to the individual, to interactional processes among individuals, and to the impact of time (collectively known as the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model). In this chapter, ecological theory is covered in terms of its use in highlighting the interconnected nature of families with adolescents and other social contexts. While having been deemed to be one of the dominant theories utilized within this area of inquiry, the debate about its importance and usefulness is also covered, including questions about its inability to provide both conceptual and empirical assistance in describing the inner workings of families with adolescents. When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. (John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra)

Something just did not “add up” in the latest case that Malcolm Ward received on his probation caseload. A seasoned veteran of the juvenile court, Malcolm figured he had pretty much seen it all in his 20 years of justice system employment. The new case, however, defied most of the things he had learned to count on as conventional wisdom in his line of work. For starters, the case surrounded charges of aggravated assault with a knife, and the perpetrator was a 15-year-old female named Naomi Hendricks. Malcolm had seen plenty of these cases, but almost all of those offenses involved a male. In those cases where a female was involved, typically there was a history of conflict in the home and often as not the charges for those females were for aggravated domestic violence. But this was not the situation with regard to Naomi. First of all, the charges did not involve a family member as the victim but rather a neighbor. Also, in his initial home visit, Malcolm was greeted very warmly by Naomi’s parents, who discussed her violent behavior as being out of character and not at all connected to the way she acted at home or at school. Mr. and Mrs. Hendricks also noted that Naomi had maintained good friendships with a small number of friends over the years that the parents liked. In turn, Naomi’s teachers reported she was a B+ student who pretty much © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_5

47

48

5  Ecological Theory

kept to herself and her close circle of friends. The teachers and principal also noted that Mr. and Mrs. Hendricks were great supporters of the school, spending time in some sort of volunteer activity every couple of weeks, even though both of the parents worked full-time. The fact that Naomi is home alone for the 3 hours between school dismissal and when her parents arrive home from work was the only concern that Mr. and Mrs. Hendricks expressed in terms of the likelihood of Naomi getting into trouble again. The victim, Tiffany Little, also a 15-year-old female, lived with her mother and stepfather in an apartment complex not more than 500 yards from Naomi’s house (her biological father lived in another state). Tiffany was brand-new to the school that both of the girls attended, and the court records indicated that she had felt “bullied” by Naomi and her friends in the weeks leading up to the assault. Malcolm had difficulty piecing together additional information when he attempted to talk with other teens in the neighborhood (located in an economically challenged section of town), many of whom would simply state “no snitching” and walk away when he asked questions. Eventually he was able to learn that Tiffany had started to date Mike, Naomi’s ex-boyfriend, almost immediately after they had broken up. To make matters worse, some particularly steamy pictures of Tiffany and Mike began to appear on a variety of social media sites. In Malcolm’s first full interview with Naomi, she stated that her reason for attacking Tiffany with a knife revolved around the pressure she felt from people in her school to “do something” about the “disrespect” that Tiffany had shown her. Naomi said that everyone thought that Tiffany had stolen Mike from her and that the sexually oriented pictures were “just rubbing it in.” “What was I supposed to do,” Naomi asked, “with everybody saying that Tiffany kept disrespecting me?” Naomi said she knew that her parents were disappointed with her, but she admitted that it would all be worth it if everyone at school knew that she could not be insulted.

5.1 Basic Ecological Theory Concepts Theoretical attempts to place the family system within its larger social context are indebted to the ecological approach developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979). Although various aspects of human development and the individual’s interaction across time with various ecological contexts are highlighted in this body of work (Bronfenbrenner, 1995), the ecological approach perhaps is most well known for its emphasis on levels of the ecosystem. These levels, which are conceptualized as a range in size and scope from smallest to largest, are thought to include the following: • • • •

Microsystem Mesosystem Exosystem Macrosystem

5.1  Basic Ecological Theory Concepts

49

At the smallest level, the family is characterized as the primary “microsystem” of all human development. The family is thought to exist at this ecosystem level alongside other intimate social settings that involve ongoing face-to-face interaction. For adolescents and their families, most often, this means examining relationships within peer groups and the schools (Di Luzio et al., 2019; Sekaran et al., 2020). In turn, the next largest level is the “mesosystem.” The mesosystem is meant to describe various connections between microsystems. One such example is the linkage between families and schools. Another example involves the connection between home life and the adolescent’s peer group (Gaias et  al., 2018; Smith et al., 2016). The next largest level is the “exosystem.” The exosystem involves the influences of larger systems such as the neighborhood and community. Another important exosystem example involves the interface between parents and their work settings. This ecosystem level is especially important when variables related to time spent at work and sick leave policies impact on parents’ abilities to monitor the activities of their sons and daughters as well as to care for and nurture them (Crouter, 2006; Huang et al., 2023). Finally, the largest level is the “macrosystem.” The macrosystem represents even larger social contexts such as nation and culture (Nair et al., 2022). A good deal of the ecological literature focusing on macrosystem influences is centered on media imagery that promotes or discourages certain types of behaviors (Cottrell & Monk, 2004). Adolescents demonstrate greater attention to and preoccupation with media figures than other age groups (Maltby et al., 2005). More specifically, adolescents’ parasocial interaction (Horton & Wohl, 1956), which refers to a kind of psychological relationship with particular performers in the mass media, tends to be intense (Klimmt et al., 2006). Furthermore, these parasocial processes may play an important role in adolescents’ identity formation and the development of autonomy from parents for adolescents (Giles & Maltby, 2004). As well, some ecologically based writings have included a host of socioeconomic status indicators in their formulations of macrosystem features that impact adolescents and their families (Corcoran, 1999). These indicators include factors such as parent educational attainment, current occupation, income, and employment opportunities. Finally, as globalization becomes a meaningful context for adolescent development in the twenty-first century (Jensen & Arnett, 2012), there is a growing need to understand the implication of macrosystems such as culture and nations in families with adolescents. For example, Ferguson et al. (2018) conducted an interesting study of the influence that US culture has on non-US populations, in this case by examining the impact of US cable television consumption and what was termed “remote acculturation” (identification with American values) on the nutritional habits of Jamaican adolescents and their families. In general, consumption of more unhealthy food choices was associated with greater identification with US culture, and these relationships were mediated by the amount of US cable television watched by family members.

50

5  Ecological Theory

Malcolm Ward, the probation officer in the vignette at the beginning of this chapter, paid great attention to microsystem concerns in his assessment of Naomi’s situation. Mr. Ward discovered that Naomi came from what appeared to be a well-adjusted family, she seemed to have a number of good close friends, and she was doing relatively well in school. These are microsystems that typically are not displaying such positive tendencies when a youth comes into contact with the juvenile justice system. We also have some information about the home–school mesosystem connection through the school’s report that Naomi’s parents regularly volunteer their time during the school day. Additionally, Mr. and Mrs. Hendricks know and like Naomi’s friends, generating some evidence that there are positive exchanges occurring within the home–peer mesosystem as well. One particular piece of information about an exosystem factor begins to help us understand something about a contributing factor to Naomi’s situation. Because both of her parents are involved in the workplace, Naomi is unsupervised for extended periods of time during the week. As well, the Hendricks family lives in an impoverished neighborhood, an exosystem factor that is associated with increased risks for engaging in delinquent activities. Further, many neighbors who had contact with Mr. Ward also displayed a macrosystem factor of contemporary urban youth culture known as “no snitching,” a value that oftentimes delays or prevents authorities from maintaining law and order in such environments (Allnock & Atkinson, 2019; Rosenfeld et al., 2003). And finally, the social media postings that seemed to trigger the aggravated assault also underline the increased significance of social networking phenomena at the macrosystem level. Peterson and Hann (1999) have asserted that there are three important elements of the ecological approach as applied to the study of families with children. First, the ecological framework maintains an emphasis on the mutually reciprocal influences between children and these social contexts. This is a departure from a more unidirectional view concerning human social development within the family. Hence, this perspective rejects the notion that youth are impacted by their parents and other environment factors but do not have the ability to shape it. As well, this approach improves upon “child effects models” that focus on the exact reverse notion of what was described in the previous sentence, that is, examining only the effect that a youth has on their parent or parents (Ambert, 1992). Second, Peterson and Hann (1999) assert that within the ecological approach, the influences of various social contexts are thought to be both direct and indirect. One consequence of this approach is to create an emphasis on the potential mediating and moderating effects of variables that exist at different levels of the ecosystem. For instance, while certain neighborhood characteristics may not be thought to have a direct role in shaping specific family processes, they may create conditions under which these family factors are altered; as well, their relative presence or absence may serve as an indirect “go-between” in terms of the relationship between those family processes and adolescent outcomes. Third, and inclusive of the first two points, Peterson and Hann (1999) assert that the social contexts within this ecological approach are organized in systemic

5.1  Basic Ecological Theory Concepts

51

fashion. This perspective translates into the notion that no one social context can be understood in isolation from the others. Hence, in addition to seeing the family context as irreducible beyond the triad (mother–father–adolescent), the assertion that there is always “spillover” between factors at various ecosystemic levels demands that the interconnections between the family and its social context must always be taken into account (Goodnow, 2006). As such, researchers employing an ecological perspective have generated evidence underlining the primary of family factors, especially in studies that focus on adolescent outcomes associated with delinquency and violence (Bradshaw et al., 2006; Jacobs & Slabbert, 2019). Applied more specifically to the social milieu of adolescence, Antonishak et al. (2005) have emphasized the important influences of three ecological contexts: peers, neighborhoods, and the media. Peers represent both microsystem (close friendships) and exosystem (cliques and crowds) influences and are thought to have some of their greatest influence through sociometric status (Bagwell et al., 1998), meaning the degree to which someone is liked or disliked by others. Whereas families and peers historically have been seen as opposing forces in the lives of adolescents, other writings have reflected a more complementary and interconnected focus regarding their mutual influences (Collins et al., 1997; Collins & Roisman, 2006; Updegraff et al., 2001; Updegraff et al., 2006). The notion that support from friends positively influences young people’s well-being when accompanied by support from their families, especially concerning adolescents’ well-being, is an association that has been found in both US and non-US samples (Moore et al., 2018). The exosystem influences of neighborhood and community, in turn, are thought to be both proximal (direct) and distal (indirect) and are dominated by the influence of socioeconomic status and other family hardship indicators (Coulton et al., 1995). In fact, the way that parents and families operate may be a function of the kinds of resources that are available in their exosystem and thus how they seek to utilize those sources of support (Furstenberg et al., 1999). As with the family–peer complementarity described above, here too we see the sense that families and communities are interconnected and mutually (Hong et al., 2023). Finally, the effects of the media are thought to be the most widespread across social contexts. While typically seen as part of the overall culture and therefore macrosystemic in orientation, the continued rise in social media outlets generates evidence that these Internet-based collectives are having a more immediate microsystem impact. Relatedly, there is a growing concern over what has been termed “compulsive Internet use” (Van der Aa et al., 2009; Miltuze et al., 2021). Adolescents who are seen as being most at risk for this addictive behavior are those who come from less well-functioning families (van den Eijnden et al., 2010), again underlining the interconnected nature of the family microsystem and its macrosystemic environment. Also, there is evidence that greater Internet use and related social networking technologies are associated with higher amounts of substance use in adolescents (Fernández-Aliseda et al., 2020; Ohannessian, 2009).

52

5  Ecological Theory

5.2 Reflections: Ecological Theory and Families with Adolescents Descriptive Function  How does the reader begin to evaluate the use of ecological theory in terms of understanding families with adolescents? The descriptive function of this conceptual framework is a bit of a “mixed bag.” On the one hand, the ecological perspective has been criticized as offering little to scholars who are interested in describing what occurs inside of families with adolescents. For instance, Granic et al. (2006) noted that “although the ecological framework is critical for demarcating global influences, it falls short of specifying the mechanisms by which they transform family relationships and adolescent outcomes” (pp. 60–61). These authors go on to suggest the inclusion of “dynamic systems” concepts such as positive and negative feedback to enhance the ecological framework’s ability to describe the inner workings of these families. Similar criticisms of this perspective can be found elsewhere (cf., Demo et al., 2005). On the other hand, the specific details of the various social contexts within which families with adolescents are embedded are very well defined by ecological theory. In fact, this theoretical perspective is thought to have dominated the empirical literature concerning the social contexts of adolescent development, including the study of parenting and family factors (Smetana et al., 2006; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Further, Darling (2007) has asserted that attention paid to context only is an overly simplistic representation of this conceptual framework, as the ecological approach does extend beyond the examination of system levels. A similar line of thinking is put forward by Tudge et al. (2009), who argue that this emphasis on levels represents an “earlier or partial form” of the ecological perspective. As covered in the next section, Tudge and colleagues in particular have played a major role in shaping opinion about a more sophisticated understanding of Bronfenbrenner’s original work (Merçon-Vargas et al., 2020). Sensitizing Function  To examine the sensitizing function of ecological theory, consideration must be given to a “more mature” version of this conceptual framework. This would involve the examination of the entire process–person–context– time (PPCT) model put forth by Bronfenbrenner (2005), where “context” (representing the aforementioned levels) becomes one of the four elements that are critical to the ecological approach. In addition, “process” (or proximal processes) focuses attention on those regular interactions that occur between an individual and the people in their immediate environments, “person” refers to the idiosyncratic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, skills, motivation) that each individual brings into situations, and “time” represents the impact of being in a specific cohort or living during a certain era in history [also referred to as the “chronosystem” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998)]. Bronfenbrenner (2001) recast his work as a “bioecological theory” to emphasize the importance of both individual and larger systems characteristics. Previous studies applying the PPCT model have not considered all elements of the model, however,

5.2  Reflections: Ecological Theory and Families with Adolescents

53

and often have not analyzed the reciprocal relationships in an appropriate manner (Tudge et al., 2016). However, recent studies (Berg et al., 2018; Cheon & Chung, 2020; Conlin, 2019; Ferguson, 2018; Hayes, 2021; Navarro et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2022) based on the bioecological approach have attempted to more systematically include all aspects of the PPCT model and to analyze the data accordingly. For example, Navarro et al. (2022) recently published a very interesting study about methodological issues surrounding the PPCT model, and in so doing, they provided a rather practical guide to the design, implementation, and analysis of such PPCT-focused research. As well, Navarro and Tudge (2022) offered what they termed a “neo-ecological theory” that would address more specifically the interaction of development and technology. Here, the authors presented an alteration to the microsystem which was thought to exist as two distinct types – one physical and one virtual – as well as emphasizing the importance of certain macrosystemic cultural and subcultural influences thought to impact individual development in the digital era. Integrative Function  Taken all together, then, there would seem to be solid support regarding the integrative function that ecological theory retains. In the PPCT model, proximal processes are reciprocal interactions between an individual and others in the microsystem (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Also, the process must frequently occur for a certain length of time to be able to influence an individual. Initially, Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) only included positive interactions happening in the proximal environment as the proximal process (Navarro et al., 2022). However, recent studies have pointed out that development is also affected by negative interactions in the proximal process (Merçon-Vargas et al., 2020). Thus, Navarro et al. (2022) argued that both positive and negative reciprocal interactions should be considered as a proximal process since the PPCT model emphasizes how proximal processes prompt individual development and take information about a person, context, and time into consideration. At the same time, it does seem to be the case that most of the evidence surrounding the practical utility of this conceptual framework addresses the context dimension. For instance, Bogenschneider (1996) advanced an ecologically based approach to the development of prevention programs and policies surrounding families with adolescents. Similarly, Stokols (1996) discussed the ecology of community health promotion, while Stormshak and Dishion (2002) addressed the use of this conceptual framework to consider the complexity of providing mental health services to adolescents and their families. More recently, Moore et al.’s (2018) examination of the impact of various microsystems (family, friends, and school personnel) and their interactions noted that interventions promoting more positive interactions between adolescents and school staff might be particularly useful when adolescents were receiving less support from family members. Explanatory Function  Focusing on the explanatory function of ecological theory provides us with a similar “mixed” perspective regarding this framework’s ability to provide a rationale for what is being observed in families with adolescents. Certainly,

54

5  Ecological Theory

the ecological perspective has been embedded in efforts to understand the impact of families and other social contexts on more individually oriented phenomena experienced by adolescents, including delinquency (Stern & Smith, 1995), internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors (Schwartz et al., 2006), teen pregnancy (Raneri & Wiemann, 2007), smoking (Wiium & Wold, 2009), E-cigarette use (Lippert et al., 2019), substance use (Moore et al., 2018; Pei et al., 2020; Trucco, 2020), psychosocial development and mental health (Aziz et al., 2022), emotional instability (Latsch, 2018), anxiety (Li et al., 2022), school dropout (Lawrence & Adebowale, 2023), aggressive behavior (Lin et  al., 2020), risky sexual behaviors (Merrill & Liang, 2019), self-esteem issues (Lian & Yusooff, 2009), perception of classroom support (Cipriano et al., 2019), and school food choices (Brown & Landry-Meyer, 2007). However, Tudge et  al. (2009) noted that only 4 out of the 25 studies that they reviewed reflected or otherwise adequately addressed ecological theory in its more “advanced” form. Among other reasons surmised for this paucity of empirical work is the likelihood that some scholars are simply looking to provide general theoretical support for the examination of multiple contexts, as well as the possibility that others simply lack the conceptual clarity necessary to utilize this particular theory. In addition, Tudge et al. (2009) surmise that the “final reason for scholars not treating seriously the mature form of Bronfenbrenner’s theory may be that it is viewed as simply too difficult to translate effectively into research” (p. 207). Until recently, many who conduct research in the ecological system theory often ignore or misuse Bronfenbrenner’s fully developed bioecological theory and PPCT framework (Tudge et al., 2016). Of the four studies that did meet the criteria set forth by Tudge et al. (2009) as representative of the more complete form of ecological theory, two were focused on some aspect of families with adolescents. In the first study, Campbell et al. (2002) utilized a PPCT model to examine academic competence and self-worth in a sample of economically disadvantaged African American adolescents. In the second study that was conducted by Riggins-Caspers et al. (2003), these researchers also incorporated a PPCT model to retrospectively explain adolescent problem behaviors in a sample of adult adoptees and their adoptive parents. Hence, it would seem to be the case that this sort of explanatory function can and has been met by scholars targeting families with adolescents. Moreover, some recent studies seem to better reflect all elements of the PPCT model, especially when more sophisticated research methods (i.e., a multilevel analysis) are employed which enable researchers to explore the interaction between contextual factors and proximal processes on adolescents’ development. For example, Berg et al. (2018) used the PPCT model to understand the complex relations between Swedish and Finnish adolescents, their environment, and the passage of time in influencing their drinking behaviors and habits. Among other results, these researchers found that certain proximal processes associated with poor family relationships and frequent peer contact were significantly related to an increased likelihood of heavy episodic drinking behaviors. Several additional studies utilized the PPCT model with international samples. Cheon and Chung (2020) applied the PPCT model to a sample of Korean

References

55

adolescents in fifth and eighth grades to understand and examine how the daily experiences of paternal emotional support impacted their self-evaluation in social roles. They found a greater sensitivity to fathers’ emotional support among adolescents from less affluent families in comparison to those from more affluent families. Similarly, Wu et al. (2022) examined associations between adolescents’ daily self-­ esteem and perceived maternal warmth and mother–teen conflict in a sample of Chinese adolescents. These researchers concluded that adolescents living with fewer socioeconomic resources tended to display greater sensitivity to both negative and positive daily events. Value Function  In terms of the value function of ecological theory, some earlier scholars have written in praise of the values underlying this perspective – including principles such as justice and freedom – which are thought to be almost “universal” in their orientation (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Other writers have suggested that this conceptual framework is more of a “value orientation” than it is a scientific theory (White & Klein, 2019). While the newest studies using the PPCT model certainly ground this theory squarely within family science, there does seem to be some rather important value-laden content here as well. Perhaps the most significant ideal of all within ecological theory is the notion of the reciprocal survival needs of living systems and their nonliving environment. In sum, there is some very real debate about the importance and usefulness of ecological theory in the study of families. While potential users are sensitized to a rather comprehensive set of issues, this perspective is found to be at least somewhat lacking in terms of its ability to provide assistance in describing the inner workings of families with adolescents. As is the case with many of the other theories reviewed in this book, ecological theory offers significant practical utility and a well-­integrated approach to our main area of inquiry. Further, there are also some difficulties with regard to the explanatory function of this approach, especially when the PPCT model is not included in the research being conducted. Finally, the values inherent to ecological theory have made it a favored conceptual framework among those wanting to highlight the interconnected nature of all things. Despite a growing awareness of the need to emphasize the impact of cultural diversity, few theories give considerable and direct weight to the influence of culture and subculture. Ecological system theory, in contrast, is consequential exactly because both culture and subculture are included as essential reference points for research on families with adolescents.

References Allnock, D., & Atkinson, R. (2019). ‘Snitches get stitches’: School-specific barriers to victim disclosure and peer reporting of sexual harm committed by young people in school contexts. Child Abuse & Neglect, 89, 7–17. Ambert, A. (1992). The effects of children on their parents. Haworth.

56

5  Ecological Theory

Antonishak, J., Sutfin, E. L., & Reppucci, N. D. (2005). Community influence on adolescent development. In T.  P. Gullotta & G.  Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behavior problems (pp. 57–78). Springer. Aziz, N., Ong, Z. Y., Tham, P. W., Rahman, M. N. B. A., & Motevalli, S. (2022). The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on the psychosocial development and mental health wellbeing of children and adolescents. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(4), 243–261. Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140–153. Berg, N., Kiviruusu, O., Bean, C. G., Huurre, T., Lintonen, T., & Hammarström, A. (2018). Social relationships in adolescence and heavy episodic drinking from youth to midlife in Finland and Sweden—Examining the role of individual, contextual and temporal factors. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–12. Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory for building prevention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family Relations, 45, 127–138. Bradshaw, C. P., Glaser, B. A., Calhoun, G. B., & Bates, J. M. (2006). Beliefs and practices of the parents of violent and oppositional adolescents: An ecological perspective. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27(3), 245–263. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619–647). American Psychological Association. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 6963–6970). Elsevier. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development, 5th ed., pp. 993–1023). Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development, 6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley. Brown, S. A., & Landry-Meyer, L. (2007). An ecological approach to high school students’ school food choice. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 25, 34–44. Bubolz, M., & Sontag, S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 419–448). Plenum. Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). The development of perceived scholastic competence and global self-worth in African American adolescents from low-income families: The roles of family factors, early educational intervention, and academic experience. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(3), 277–302. Cheon, Y. M., & Chung, G. H. (2020). Adolescents’ daily experience of fathers’ emotional support and self-evaluation in Korea. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 142–157. Cipriano, C., Barnes, T.  N., Pieloch, K.  A., Rivers, S.  E., & Brackett, M. (2019). A multilevel approach to understanding student and teacher perceptions of classroom support during early adolescence. Learning Environments Research, 22(2), 209–228. Collins, W. A., & Roisman, G. I. (2006). The influence of family and peer relationships in the development of competence during adolescence. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count: Effects on child and adolescent development (pp. 79–103). Cambridge University Press. Collins, W. A., Laursen, B., Mortensen, N., Luebker, C., & Ferreira, M. (1997). Conflict processes and transitions in parent and peer relationships: Implications for autonomy and regulation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 178–198.

References

57

Conlin, D. M. (2019). Using Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model as a lens to understand refugee parent–teacher communication processes. Unpublished Master’s theses. The University of North Carolina, Carolina, USA. Corcoran, J. (1999). Ecological factors associated with adolescent pregnancy: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 34, 603–619. Cottrell, B., & Monk, P. (2004). Adolescent-to-parent abuse: A qualitative overview of common themes. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1072–1095. Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., Su, M., & Chow, J. (1995). Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Development, 66(5), 1262–1276. Crouter, A.  C. (2006). Mothers and fathers at work. In A.  Clarke-Stewart & J.  Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 135–154). Cambridge University Press. Darling, N. (2007). Ecological systems theory: The person in the center of the circles. Research in Human Development, 4, 203–217. Demo, D. H., Aquilino, W. S., & Fine, M. A. (2005). Family composition and family transitions. In V.  L. Bengtson, A.  C. Acock, K.  R. Allen, P.  Dilworth-Anderson, & D.  M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory & research (pp. 119–142). Sage. Di Luzio, S. S., Procentese, F., & Guillet-Descas, E. (2019). Physical activity in adolescence and substance use: Factors of interdependence between local community and relational micro-­ systems. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 28(2), 119–126. Ferguson, G.  M., Muzaffar, H., Iturbide, M.  I., Chu, H., & Meeks Gardner, J. (2018). Feel American, watch American, eat American? Remote acculturation, TV, and nutrition among adolescent–mother dyads in Jamaica. Child Development, 89(4), 1360–1377. Fernández-Aliseda, S., Belzunegui-Eraso, A., Pastor-Gosálbez, I., & Valls-Fonayet, F. (2020). Compulsive internet and prevalence substance use among Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 8747. Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families in high risk neighborhoods. University of Chicago Press. Gaias, L. M., Lindstrom Johnson, S., White, R. M., Pettigrew, J., & Dumka, L. (2018). Understanding school–neighborhood mesosystemic effects on adolescent development. Adolescent Research Review, 3, 301–319. Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in adolescent development: Relations between autonomy, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(4), 813–822. Goodnow, J. J. (2006). Research and policy: Second looks at development, families, and communities, and at translations into practice. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 3337–3360). Cambridge University Press. Granic, I., Dishion, T., & Hollerstein, T. (2006). The family ecology model of adolescence: A dynamic systems perspective on normative development. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Blackwell. Hayes, S. W. (2021). Commentary: Deepening understanding of refugee children and adolescents using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological and PPCT models – A commentary on Arakelyan and Ager (2020). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(5), 510–513. Hong, X., Liu, S., Fan, H., Xie, H., Fang, S., & Zhang, L. (2023). Effects of economic regional differences and family on adolescents’ aggressive behaviors: Perspective of ecosystem integration. Brain and Behavior, 13(2), e2856. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. Huang, Y., Lu, J., & Širůček, J. (2023). The associations between social environment and adolescents’ psychosomatic health: An ecological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. Jacobs, T., & Slabbert, I. (2019). Factors that could contribute to substance misuse and criminal activity amongst adolescents: An ecological perspective. Social Work, 55(2), 222–235. Jensen, L. A., & Arnett, J. J. (2012). Going global: New pathways for adolescents and emerging adults in a changing world. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 473–492.

58

5  Ecological Theory

Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2006). Parasocial interactions and relationships. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 291–313). Erlbaum. Latsch, A. (2018). The interplay of emotional instability and socio-environmental aspects of schools during adolescence. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 281–293. Lawrence, K. C., & Adebowale, T. A. (2023). Adolescence dropout risk predictors: Family structure, mental health, and self-esteem. Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1), 120–136. Li, X., Lee, C. Y., Chen, S. H., Gao, M., Hsueh, S. C., & Chiang, Y. C. (2022). The role of collective integration and parental involvement on adolescent anxiety—A multilevel analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 317, 37–45. Lian, T.  C., & Yusooff, F. (2009). Effects of family functioning on self-esteem of children. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9, 643–650. Lin, S., Yu, C., Chen, J., Zhang, W., Cao, L., & Liu, L. (2020). Predicting adolescent aggressive behavior from community violence exposure, deviant peer affiliation and school engagement: A one-year longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104840. Lippert, A. M., Corsi, D. J., & Venechuk, G. E. (2019). Schools influence adolescent e-cigarette use, but when? Examining the interdependent association between school context and teen vaping over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(10), 1899–1911. Maltby, J., Giles, D. C., Barber, L., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2005). Intense-personal celebrity worship and body image: Evidence of a link among female adolescents. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10(1), 17–32. Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Lima, R. F. F., Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2020). Processing proximal processes: What Bronfenbrenner meant, what he didn’t mean, and what he should have meant. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 321–334. Merrill, R. A., & Liang, X. (2019). Associations between adolescent media use, mental health, and risky sexual behaviors. Children and Youth Services Review, 103, 1–9. Miltuze, A., Sebre, S. B., & Martinsone, B. (2021). Consistent and appropriate parental restrictions mitigating against children’s compulsive internet use: A one-year longitudinal study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26, 883–895. Moore, G. F., Cox, R., Evans, R. E., Hallingberg, B., Hawkins, J., Littlecott, H. J., et al. (2018). School, peer and family relationships and adolescent substance use, subjective wellbeing and mental health symptoms in Wales: A cross sectional study. Child Indicators Research, 11(6), 1951–1965. Nair, R. L., White, R., Roche, K. M., & Zhao, C. (2022). Discrimination in Latinx families’ linked lives: Examining the roles of family process and youth worries. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(4), 523. Navarro, J.  L., & Tudge, J.  R. (2022). Technologizing bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology, 1–17. Navarro, J.  L., Stephens, C., Rodrigues, B.  C., Walker, I.  A., Cook, O., O’Toole, L., & Tudge, J. R. (2022). Bored of the rings: Methodological and analytic approaches to operationalizing Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model in research practice. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14(2), 233–253. Ohannessian, C. M. (2009). Does technology use moderate the relationship between parental alcoholism and adolescent alcohol and cigarette use? Addictive Behaviors, 34, 606–609. Pei, F., Wang, Y., Wu, Q., McCarthy, K. S., & Wu, S. (2020). The roles of neighborhood social cohesion, peer substance use, and adolescent depression in adolescent substance use. Children and Youth Services Review, 112, 104931. Peterson, G.  W., & Hann, D. (1999). Socializing children and parents in families. In M.  B. Sussman, S.  K. Steinmetz, & G.  W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 327–370). Plenum. Raneri, L. G., & Wiemann, C. M. (2007). Social ecological predictors of repeat adolescent pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39(1), 39–47. Riggins-Caspers, K.  M., Cadoret, R.  J., Knutson, J.  F., & Langbehn, D. (2003). Biology-­ environment interaction and evocative biology-environment correlation: Contributions of harsh

References

59

discipline and parental psychopathology to problem adolescent behaviors. Behavior Genetics, 33(3), 205–220. Rosenfeld, R., Jacobs, B. A., & Wright, R. (2003). Snitching and the code of the street. The British Journal of Criminology, 43, 291–309. Schwartz, S. J., Coatsworth, J. D., Pantin, H., Prado, G., Sharp, E. H., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). The role of ecodevelopmental context and self-concept in depressive and externalizing symptoms in Hispanic adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(4), 359–370. Sekaran, V. C., Bailey, A., Kamath, V. G., Ashok, L., & Kamath, A. (2020). ‘This is the place where I can be alone, no tension’: Photovoice evidence for adolescent perceptions of their microsystem and psychological adjustment. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 102021. Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284. Smith, E. P., Faulk, M., & Sizer, M. A. (2016). Exploring the meso-system: The roles of community, family, and peers in adolescent delinquency and positive youth development. Youth & Society, 48(3), 318–343. Steinberg, L., & Morris, A.  S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110. Stern, S. B., & Smith, C. A. (1995). Family processes and delinquency in an ecological context. The Social Service Review, 69, 703–731. Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 282–298. Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2002). An ecological approach to child and family clinical and counseling psychology. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 197–215. Trucco, E.  M. (2020). A review of psychosocial factors linked to adolescent substance use. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 196, 172969. Tudge, J.  R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B., & Karnik, R.  B. (2009). Uses and abuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 189–210. Tudge, J. R., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E., Cao, H., Liang, Y., Li, J., & O’Brien, L. (2016). Still misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(4), 427–445. Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Kupanoff, K. (2001). Parents’ involvement in adolescents’ peer relationships: A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 655–668. Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Thayer, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2006). The nature and correlates of Mexican-American adolescents’ time with parents and peers. Child Development, 77(5), 1470–1486. van Den Eijnden, R. J., Spijkerman, R., Vermulst, A. A., van Rooij, T. J., & Engels, R. C. (2010). Compulsive internet use among adolescents: Bidirectional parent–child relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(1), 77–89. Van der Aa, N., Overbeek, G., Engels, R. C., Scholte, R. H., Meerkerk, G. J., & Van den Eijnden, R. J. (2009). Daily and compulsive internet use and Well-being in adolescence: A diathesis-­ stress model based on big five personality traits. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(6), 765–776. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2019). Family theories (5th ed.). Sage. Wiium, N., & Wold, B. (2009). An ecological system approach to adolescent smoking behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1351–1363. Wu, Y., Yuan, R., & Wu, Y. (2022). Good can be stronger than bad: The daily relationship among maternal warmth, mother-teen conflict and adolescents’ self-esteem. Current Psychology, 1–10. Ye, Y., Wang, C., Zhu, Q., He, M., Havawala, M., Bai, X., & Wang, T. (2022). Parenting and teacher–student relationship as protective factors for Chinese adolescent adjustment during COVID-19. School Psychology Review, 51(2), 187–205.

Chapter 6

Attachment Theory

Abstract  Attachment theory offers much substance to scholars interested in the study of families with adolescents. Developed out of a more psychological tradition, this conceptual approach all too often is given little or no mention in texts on family theories. This chapter covers this perspective’s main focus that is on internal working models (secure, ambivalent, avoidant, and disorganized) which are used to describe interactions in dyadic and larger units of analysis within the family. The ways in which these internal working models can be used to describe attachment styles that develop over time are highlighted as well. The theoretical connections between other more mainstream family science concepts are reviewed, and the well-­ documented empirical approach to understanding families with adolescents from an attachment perspective is discussed in detail. Build today, then strong and sure, With a firm and ample base; And ascending and secure. Shall tomorrow find its place. (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, The Builders)

MacKenzie Williams most frequently is described as “a really well-adjusted young woman” by her teachers and other adults in her life. Not only is this 16-year-old academically successful, but she also seems to get along with everyone in her high school. She also is attractive and recently has started to date a few of the tenth grade boys. She has kept these contacts very informal and always has her date come to her house to meet her parents before going out. Because she has always felt a strong emotional connection to both her mother and her father, she continues to rely on them for advice and feedback about the dating process. In fact, MacKenzie is grateful that her mother was so open and honest with her about her own dating history when she had a small but significant problem with a senior who was being overly attentive at the beginning of the school year. MacKenzie notes with obvious pride that she is able to tell her parents about her feelings and experiences without her emotions being judged or her motives questioned. MacKenzie has had two best friends since grade school: Amanda Reynolds and Stacey Phillips. Although bright and intellectually capable, Amanda had never been a “good student,” preferring instead to spend most of her waking moments fully engaged in the social life of her high school. While she has never questioned her friendship with MacKenzie due to its longstanding nature, she is decidedly anxious © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_6

61

62

6  Attachment Theory

about her standing among many of the other girls she calls friends. As well, Amanda has dated boys since the sixth grade, and those relationships typically have been stormy and brief. She also is attractive, yet she is very apprehensive about her looks and what the boys think and say about her. Amanda describes her relationship with her parents as “extremely hot and cold,” where intensely positive periods are followed by long stretches of silence and unavailability on the part of both her mother and father. Hence, she feels that she cannot really rely on her mother or father to be there when she needs them most. As a result, more often than not, she turns to MacKenzie for advice and support. Stacey Phillips might be the most attractive of the three friends, except that she neither cares about nor attends to her looks. In fact, it almost seems as if she works to be as unappealing as possible. As a result, Stacey has never dated, much less given a boy any opening to approach her. Nor does she care much for school, always opting to do the bare minimum in order to get by. Instead, she is devoted almost single-mindedly to the poetry she writes and the photographs she takes, which for the most part are dark and brooding. Stacey’s mother, who is the owner of an art gallery in a trendy downtown area, is stern and demanding but otherwise completely unavailable to her emotionally. Stacey has not seen her father since the time she was a preschooler, even though she thinks that he still lives in the area. Her mother gives little information about her ex-husband, saying only that “your father is doing you a favor in not coming around to see you.” Except for her continued contact with MacKenzie (she thinks Amanda is a “boy-obsessed airhead” and wants nothing to do with her), Stacey feels very alone in her world. In fact, if MacKenzie did not continue to insist on making plans to do things with her, Stacey probably would not participate in activities with anyone at all.

6.1 Basic Attachment Theory Concepts Attachment theory has had a long tradition as a theory in developmental psychology, going back to the pioneering work of Bowlby (1969) and Ainsworth et  al. (1978). Most of the early work using this perspective was focused on the developmental period surrounding infancy, where the groundwork for all subsequent attachment relationships was thought to be laid. As well, theorists and researchers using this perspective traditionally had focused on the mother–infant dyadic relationship most specifically. As we shall see, however, this perspective has expanded over time to include a more life span perspective on multiple interpersonal relationships, thus setting the stage for its use in understanding families with adolescents. The basics of this approach surround “internal working models,” which are thought to be comprised of the individual’s early experiences with their primary caregiver and, as such, guide all present interactions within interpersonal relationships. The four main internal working models are thought to include the following:

6.1  Basic Attachment Theory Concepts

• • • •

63

Secure Ambivalent Avoidant Disorganized

In turn, work on the expansion of attachment theory beyond infancy produced new labels to represent the manifestations of these internal working models later in life. Hence, secure attachment has been described as “autonomous,” ambivalent attachment as “preoccupied,” avoidant attachment as “dismissing,” and disorganized attachment as “unresolved” (Decarli et al., 2022; Main et al., 1985). The most well-adjusted individuals are those who are both “secure” and “autonomous,” the result of having experienced consistent nurturance from the primary caregiver. Over time, secure attachment leads to an internal working model that sees relationships as trustworthy and dependable. This internal working model allows the individual to strike a relative balance between a sense of individuality and a sense of togetherness (Anderson, 2020; Feeney & Nollar, 1996). The character of MacKenzie Williams in the vignette at the beginning of this chapter provides a nice illustration of the securely attached (autonomous) adolescent. She is seen by adults as well adjusted, she is academically successful, and she displays excellent social skills as witnessed by her ability to get along with large numbers of her classmates. Further, her continued strong emotional connections with both parents are in evidence, another hallmark of secure attachment in adolescence (Cretzmeyer, 2003; Kerns & Stevens, 1996; Zou et al., 2020). Less well-adjusted individuals are represented by the three other internal working models. The ambivalent/preoccupied attached style, generated from the uneven availability of caregivers, is thought to lead to an internal working model that demands continuous monitoring of relationships due to the untrustworthy nature of relationships (Dagan et al., 2020). In turn, the avoidant/dismissing attached style, the result of consistent rejection from the caregiver, is associated with an internal working model that thwarts others’ attempts to get close (Zhou et al., 2021). The last internal working model – the disorganized/unresolved attached style – is thought to be the product of a traumatic event associated with the sudden loss of a primary caregiver, exposure to abusive situations, or may even be the product of frightening parental behavior (Jacobvitz et al., 2006). Because the disorganization and lack of resolution surround the trauma event itself (i.e., continually experiencing the hurt associated with that loss), individuals with these experiences otherwise are thought to operate with another internal working model (Rosenstein & Horowitz, 1996). In the vignette above, MacKenzie’s friends, Amanda and Stacey, are meant to represent the ambivalent/preoccupied and avoidant/dismissing attachment styles, respectively. As an ambivalently attached adolescent, Amanda constantly questions her status among friends, is very anxious and insecure about her looks, and is nervous about her reputation with male peers. Amanda was raised in a household with parents she describes as “hot and cold” who only sometimes (and thus unpredictably) have been there for Amanda when she needed them to be caring and nurturing. Stacey exemplifies the avoidant attached style, as seen in her general lack of contact

64

6  Attachment Theory

with male and female peers and withdrawal into her solitary world of poetry and photography. Her father has never been involved in any part of her life that she can remember, and her mother is emotionally unavailable to her. Thus, Stacey has had no real opportunities to form a meaningful attachment with a caregiver. Liddle and Schwartz (2002) have noted that the attachment perspective is particularly well suited for the developmental challenges faced by families with adolescents. These scholars emphasize that secure attachments during this family life cycle stage require mutually trusting relationships between adolescents and their parents as certain developmental demands are met. This is especially the case in terms of striking the appropriate balance between the adolescent’s need to explore her/his social environment and the parent’s need to remain connected as both a monitor and guide (Cobb, 1996; Miller, 2023), described elsewhere in the attachment literature as balancing autonomy and relatedness claims (Allen & Hauser, 1996). There has been some important work done on the relative stability of attachment styles from infancy through adolescence and early adulthood (Fraley, 2002; Groh et al., 2014; Waters et al., 2000). In some studies, there is a consistent pattern of results indicating that attachment styles display weak to moderate continuity across time (Eiden et al., 1995; Hamilton, 2000; Pinquart et al., 2013). This is especially the case with the secure attachment working model, which is more likely to be stable over time than insecure attachment (Pinquart et al., 2013). On the other hand, the presence of family life events such as divorce (Lewis et al., 2000), parental depression problem (Fraley et  al., 2013), and other significant stressors in higher-risk samples are thought to increase the likelihood of more discontinuous attachment styles (Beijersberen et  al., 2012; Pinquart et  al., 2013; Weinfield et  al., 2000). Further, short-term changes in adolescent attachment have been found to be related to baseline levels of adolescent depression and lower family income, even as other studies reported greater attachment style stability across mental health status and demographic characteristics (Allen et al., 2004, 2018). Much of the attachment literature has been based on the relationship between the youth and his or her mother. However, a number of studies have examined attachment styles to both mothers and fathers. Levy et al. (1998) reported that both parents played an important role in the development of attachment styles in later adolescents and young adults and that ambivalence toward fathers in particular was a determinant of less secure attachment. Maio et al. (2000) found similar results in a study of attachment to mothers and fathers in a younger sample of adolescents. Several scholars have suggested that mothers and fathers play complementary roles in the development of attachment styles in adolescents (Grossmann et  al., 2002; Thompson, 2016). Recently, Keizer et  al. (2019) examined the separate impact of attachment of fathers and mothers on 542 Dutch adolescents’ self-esteem. Interestingly, the study revealed that the attachment relationship with fathers was only linked to daughters’ self-esteem, not to that of sons. In contrast, attachment to mothers was related to the self-esteem of both sons and daughters. Hence, relationships with mothers and fathers may have differential impacts on adolescent attachment styles, underscoring the importance of including the entire family system in both research and intervention efforts.

6.1  Basic Attachment Theory Concepts

65

Belsky (1981) and others have long maintained that the child–mother–father triad is the most appropriate unit of analysis for understanding the reciprocal influences of family members. Based on this perspective, Talbot and McHale (2003) have asserted that the internal working models offered by attachment theory can be greatly enhanced by attention to “whole-family or polyadic relationship representations.” Of particular interest here is the flexibility of the internal working models (seen as a hallmark of the securely attached individual) that allow individuals to constantly integrate new information about people and relationships while preserving their emotional and cognitive balance. Such relational representations for youth are thought to be demonstrably influenced by coparenting processes, for instance. Researchers have employed a strategy for examining multiple attachments within the family and in so doing have uncovered both age and gender effects. For instance, Buist et al. (2002) reported that attachments between adolescents and their mothers, fathers, and siblings all show a significant decline as a function of age. As well, these scholars reported that the gender of both the adolescent and the attachment figure played an important role in the quality of those attachments. Here, same-sex relationships (mother–daughter, sister–sister, father–son, and brother–brother) were generally seen as retaining higher-quality attachments than opposite-sex relationships (mother–son, father–daughter, and brother–sister), and attachments to females more specifically (mothers, daughters, and sisters) were of a higher quality than attachments to males (fathers, sons, and brothers). In a similar vein, Viejo et al. (2019) investigated multiple attachments with 1025 Spanish adolescents and found significant gender differences among the patterns of attachment for boys and girls. For both male and female adolescents, family members continue to fulfill primary functions for attachment bonds which means peers do not replace family bonds during adolescence, even though the importance of family figures in attachment decreases with advancing age. Also, there were gender differences in the “attachment hierarchy” of different attachment figures. For example, female adolescents ranked best friends and romantic partners as having greater influence than did male adolescents. In contrast, male adolescents scored the fathers as having greater influence, especially during the first half of adolescence, followed by a tendency to reach a given score on the best friends by their female counterparts from 16 to 17. More recently, Profe et al. (2021) investigated the association between attachment security to mothers, fathers, closest grandparents, and peers and young adolescents’ prosocial behaviors with 520 adolescents in Cape Town, South Africa. Because grandparents in South Africa often play an essential role in childcare responsibilities, the results unsurprisingly showed that attachments with grandparents and peers significantly influenced adolescents’ prosocial behaviors. These results indicate that it is necessary to measure the various effects of multiple attachment figures in studies of attachment-related phenomena in families with adolescents.

66

6  Attachment Theory

6.2 Reflections: Attachment Theory and Families with Adolescents How does the reader begin to evaluate the use of attachment theory in terms of understanding families with adolescents? The fact that this conceptual framework historically has been developed out of a more psychological tradition often relegates it to minor mention in texts on family theories (Bengston et al., 2005; Boss et al., 1993; White et al., 2019). Nevertheless, attachment theory makes a solid contribution in terms of its descriptive function, both in terms of how families operate more generally when there are offspring, as well as families with adolescents most specifically. Especially impressive is this theory’s ability to depict the particular details of how dyads operate while remaining available to scholars who desire to see these aspects in a more “family systems” light (Caffery & Erdman, 2000), which affords a triadic (or greater) perspective. Of course, in terms of the sensitizing function of attachment theory, the emphasis is clearly grounded in the internal working models and related attachment styles that develop over time. At the same time, the best work with this perspective may be yet to come in terms of understanding families with adolescents. As an example, the use of systems concepts such as fusion and triangulation have been discussed as holding significant promise in expanding our understanding of parent–adolescent attachments (Benson, 2005). Further, the ties between attachment theory and structural family therapy factors such as parental coalitions and boundary maintenance also has been recognized (Faber et al., 2003), as has its ties to other approaches such as parental acceptance– rejection theory (cf., Rohner & Khaleque, 2009). This speaks well of this theory’s integrative function, as the attachment perspective can be linked to other related perspectives in organizing our overall thinking about families with adolescents. This conceptual framework also has been used to incorporate information about other social contexts, including both peer and romantic relationships (Allen, 2016; Assunção et al., 2017; Gorrese & Ruggieri, 2012; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Johnson, 2019; Laible et al., 2000; Roisman et al., 2001; Sutton, 2019). As the amount of work linking family factors to attachment phenomena increases (Bell, 2009; Davies & Forman, 2002; Fagan, 2020), there has been a corresponding rise in interest in attachment theory concepts by family therapists and others involving families in their treatment efforts (Byng-Hall, 1995; Lopez, 1995). Here, attachment theory has been used to discuss such phenomena such as therapeutic alliance with families (Johnson et al., 2006; Johnson, 2019), resilience (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000), and the family-based treatment of numerous presenting problems, including eating disorders (Johnson et al., 1998; Wagner et al., 2016), delinquency (Withers et al., 2016), depression (Sexson et al., 2001; Spruit et al., 2020), suicide (Lifshitz et al., 2021), sexual abuse (Karakurt & Silver, 2014), and trauma exposure (Prather, 2007; Prather & Golden, 2009a, b). Attachment-based family therapy (Diamond et al., 2014, 2021) has arisen as a new conceptual model for work targeting families with adolescents. Rooted in more

6.2  Reflections: Attachment Theory and Families with Adolescents

67

well-established intervention models such as structural family therapy (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981), multidimensional family therapy (Liddle, 2010), emotion-focused individual therapy (Greenberg & Paivio, 2003), emotion-focused couple therapy (Johnson, 2004), and contextual therapy (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 2013), the attachment-­ based perspective attempts to provide an interpersonal, process-oriented, trauma-­ focused approach to treating adolescent depression, suicidality, and trauma. Relatedly, a family-based intervention, which integrates aspects of attachment, psychoanalytic, and systems theories, has been developed for the treatment of adolescent substance abuse (Lewis, 2020). Further, the attachment perspective also has been used in the development of prevention programming that targets teen pregnancy and school-based issues (Allen et al., 1997). Attachment theory has an impressive evidence base that provides clear and well-­ supported reasons for observations made about families with adolescents, bolstering the explanatory function served by this conceptual framework. For instance, evidence has been generated that attachment styles are related to both internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors in adolescents (Allen et  al., 1998, 2007; Anderson et  al., 2019; Brenning et  al., 2012; Brown & Wright, 2003; Roskam, 2019; Scott et al., 2011; Tambelli et al., 2012). Tenets of the attachment perspective also have been discussed as extending the focus on how parenting styles impact a variety of adolescent outcome variables (Li & Gong, 2022; Pinquart & Silbereisen, 2005), as well as being associated with the adolescent’s peer relationships (Allen, 2016; Furman et al., 2014; Schneider et al., 2001). On a more international front, Assunção et al. (2017) examined the relationship between parental attachment and problematic Internet use in Portugal adolescents. They found that adolescents are less alienated in their relationships with peers when they have secure relationships with their parents and therefore use social media in a less problematic way. Interestingly, insecure attachment with parents affects more boys than girls regarding problematic social media use because girls tend to support others more than boys (Ma & Huebner, 2008), which reduces difficulties in a face-­ to-­face context. In a similar vein, Cacioppo et al. (2019) examined the relationship between problematic Internet use, attachment style, and perception of family functioning with 306 Italian adolescents. In this study, family functioning and attachment styles were significant predictors of adolescents’ problematic internet use, while adolescents’ attachment styles were correlated with family functioning. Thompson and Raikes (2003) have noted that the application of attachment theory beyond the mother–infant dyad and throughout the life course has created some significant conceptual and empirical challenges that leave this conceptual framework at a “crossroads.” One major point here concerns the internal working model, something that these authors consider to be “a conceptual metaphor, not a systematically defined theoretical construct” (p. 696), leaving it open to criticisms that it possibly could explain anything and everything, and hence nothing at all (also see Waters et al., 2002). Other points of concern include the theory’s ability to account for multiple attachment relationships in the family and other social contexts, variability in assessment strategies, and challenges to the validity claims of studies that

68

6  Attachment Theory

have examined the impact of attachment-based phenomena on longer-term outcomes associated with adolescence and early adulthood (Verschueren, 2020). Finally, the value function of attachment theory draws attention to a number of principles and ideals embedded in this framework. White and Klein (2008) discussed attachment concepts as residing within both a functionalist and evolutionary frameworks. Here, attachment theory is thought to hold values related to adaptation and selection as a way of describing how (and thus why) relationships function best within families. Also adopting functional and evolutionary perspectives, Bell (2009) has described the traditional viewpoint on attachment as based on “fear,” where felt security to an attachment figure is equated with not being afraid. This scholar goes on to use neurobiological research to assert that there are forms of both “distressed” and “non-distressed” attachments that can be used to expand our understanding of caregiving systems (Bell, 2012). In sum, despite the lack of coverage of this perspective in the family theory literature, there are substantial reasons for underlining the importance and usefulness of attachment theory in the study of families with adolescents. This conceptual framework offers clear and precise descriptions of relationships that sensitize users to a number of core concepts that can be used to categorize dyadic and larger units of analysis within the family. The attachment perspective displays a practical utility that is noteworthy and thus offers up a well-integrated approach to scholars interested in families with adolescents. The explanatory function of this approach is well documented even as others push adherents to take this empirical work to new levels. Finally, the values contained within this perspective are easily identified and create an appeal for those scholars who are comfortable in creating accounts of “why” relationships look the way they do as a function of “how” they have come into existence for reasons related to the advancement of our species.

References Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum. Allen, B. (2016). A RADical idea: A call to eliminate “attachment disorder” and “attachment therapy” from the clinical lexicon. Evidence-Based Practice in Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 1(1), 60–71. Allen, J.  P., & Hauser, S.  T. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of young adults’ states of mind regarding attachment. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 793–809. Allen, J.  P., Philliber, S., Herrling, S., & Kuperminc, G.  P. (1997). Preventing teen pregnancy and academic failure: Experimental evaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child Development, 64, 729–742. Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406–1419. Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Kuperminc, G. P., & Jodl, K. M. (2004). Stability and change in attachment security across adolescence. Child Development, 75(6), 1792–1805.

References

69

Allen, J. P., Porter, M., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., & Marsh, P. (2007). The relation of attachment security to adolescents’ paternal and peer relationships, depression, and externalizing behavior. Child Development, 78(4), 1222–1239. Allen, J. P., Grande, L., Tan, J., & Loeb, E. (2018). Parent and peer predictors of change in attachment security from adolescence to adulthood. Child Development, 89(4), 1120–1132. Anderson, J.  R. (2020). Inviting autonomy back to the table: The importance of autonomy for healthy relationship functioning. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(1), 3–14. Anderson, L. E., Connor, J. P., Voisey, J., Young, R. M., & Gullo, M. J. (2019). The unique role of attachment dimensions and peer drinking in adolescent alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 118–122. Assunção, R. S., Costa, P., Tagliabue, S., & Mena Matos, P. (2017). Problematic Facebook use in adolescents: Associations with parental attachment and alienation to peers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(11), 2990–2998. Beijersberen, M. D., Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2012). Remaining or becoming secure: Parental sensitive support predicts attachment continuity from infancy to adolescence in a longitudinal adoption study. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1277–1282. Bell, D. C. (2009). Attachment without fear. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 177–197. Bell, D.  C. (2012). Next steps in attachment theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(4), 275–281. Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental Psychology, 17, 3–23. Bengston, V.  L., Acock, A.  C., Allen, K.  R., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Klein, D.  M. (2005). Sourcebook of family theory and research. Sage. Benson, M. J. (2005). Parent-adolescent relationships: Integrating attachment and Bowenian family systems theories. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 382–385). Sage. Boss, P. G., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1993). Sourcebook of family theories and methods. Plenum. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. K. (2013). Between give and take: A clinical guide to contextual therapy. Brunner-Routledge. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Basic Books. Brenning, K. M., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. U. Y. (2012). Attachment and depressive symptoms in middle childhood and early adolescence: Testing the validity of the emotion regulation model of attachment. Personal Relationships, 19(3), 445–464. Brown, L. S., & Wright, J. (2003). The relationship between attachment strategies and psychopathology in adolescence. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 76(4), 351–367. Buist, K. L., Dekovic, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2002). Developmental patterns in adolescent attachment to mother, father and sibling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 167–176. Byng-Hall, J. (1995). Creating a secure attachment base: Some implications of attachment theory for family therapy. Family Process, 34, 45–58. Cacioppo, M., Barni, D., Correale, C., Mangialavori, S., Danioni, F., & Gori, A. (2019). Do attachment styles and family functioning predict adolescents’ problematic internet use? A relative weight analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(5), 1263–1271. Caffery, T., & Erdman, P. (2000). Conceptualizing parent-adolescent conflict: Applications from systems and attachment theories. Family Journal, 8, 14–21. Cobb, C. L. H. (1996). Adolescent-parent attachments and family problem-solving styles. Family Process, 35, 57–82. Cretzmeyer, S. (2003). Attachment theory applied to adolescents. In P.  Erdman & T.  Caffery (Eds.), Attachment and family systems (pp. 65–77). Brunner-Routledge.

70

6  Attachment Theory

Dagan, O., Facompré, C. R., Nivison, M. D., Roisman, G. I., & Bernard, K. (2020). Preoccupied and dismissing attachment representations are differentially associated with anxiety in adolescence and adulthood: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(4), 614–640. Davies, P. T., & Forman, E. M. (2002). Children’s patterns of preserving emotional security in the interparental subsystem. Child Development, 73, 1880–1903. Decarli, A., Pierrehumbert, B., Schulz, A., Schaan, V. K., & Vögele, C. (2022). Disorganized attachment in adolescence: Emotional and physiological dysregulation during the friends and family interview and a conflict interaction. Development and Psychopathology, 34(1), 431–445. Diamond, G.  S., Diamond, G.  M., & Levy, S.  A. (2014). Attachment-based family therapy for depressed adolescents. American Psychological Association. Diamond, G., Diamond, G.  M., & Levy, S. (2021). Attachment-based family therapy: Theory, clinical model, outcomes, and process research. Journal of Affective Disorders, 294, 286–295. Eiden, R. D., Teti, D. M., & Corns, K. M. (1995). Maternal working models of attachment, marital adjustment, and the parent-child relationship. Child Development, 66, 1504–1518. Faber, A. J., Edwards, A. E., Bauer, K. S., & Wetchler, J. L. (2003). Family structure: Its effects on adolescent attachment and identity formation. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 243–255. Fagan, J. (2020). Broadening the scope of father-child attachment research to include the family context. Attachment & Human Development, 22(1), 139–142. Feeney, J. A., & Nollar, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Sage. Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151. Fraley, R.  C., Roisman, G.  I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M.  T., & Holland, A.  S. (2013). Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 817–838. Furman, W., Stephenson, J. C., & Rhoades, G. K. (2014). Positive interactions and avoidant and anxious representations in relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(4), 615–629. Gorrese, A., & Ruggieri, R. (2012). Peer attachment: A meta-analytic review of gender and age differences and associations with parent attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(5), 650–672. Greenberg, L. S., & Paivio, S. C. (2003). Working with emotions in psychotherapy. Guilford Press. Groh, A.  M., Roisman, G.  I., Booth-LaForce, C., Fraley, R.  C., Owen, M.  T., Cox, M.  J., & Burchinal, M.  R. (2014). Stability of attachment security from infancy to late adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79(3), 51–66. Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K.  E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, A.  P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child–father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11(3), 301–337. Hamilton, C. E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy to adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690–694. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. Jacobvitz, D., Hazen, N., & Leon, K. (2006). Does expectant mothers’ unresolved/disorganized trauma predict frightening/frightened maternal behavior? Risk and protective factors. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 363–379. Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed.). Brunner-Routledge. Johnson, S. M. (2019). Attachment theory in practice: Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) with individuals, couples, and families. Guilford. Johnson, S. M., Maddeaux, C., & Blouin, J. (1998). Emotionally focused family therapy for bulimia: Changing attachment patterns. Psychotherapy, 25, 238–247.

References

71

Johnson, L. N., Ketring, S. A., Rohacs, J., & Brewer, A. L. (2006). Attachment and the therapeutic alliance in family therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 34, 205–218. Karakurt, G., & Silver, K. E. (2014). Therapy for childhood sexual abuse survivors using attachment and family systems theory orientations. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 79–91. Keizer, R., Helmerhorst, K.  O., & van Rijn-van Gelderen, L. (2019). Perceived quality of the mother–adolescent and father–adolescent attachment relationship and adolescents’ self-­ esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(6), 1203–1217. Kerns, K. A., & Stevens, A. C. (1996). Parent-child attachment in late adolescence: Links to social relations and personality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 323–342. Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Raffaelli, M. (2000). The differential relations of parent and peer attachment to adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 45–59. Levy, K. N., Blatt, S. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and parental representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 407–419. Lewis, A. J. (2020). Attachment-based family therapy for adolescent substance use: A move to the level of systems. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 948. Lewis, M., Feiring, C., & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over time. Child Development, 71, 707–720. Li, M., & Gong, H. (2022). Spare the rod, spoil the child?—Predictive effects of parental adult attachment on adolescent anxiety: The mediating role of harsh parenting. Journal of Affective Disorders, 312, 107–112. Liddle, H. A. (2010). Treating adolescent substance abuse using multidimensional family therapy. In J. Weisz & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (2nd ed., pp. 416–432). Guilford. Liddle, H. A., & Schwartz, S. J. (2002). Attachment and family therapy: Clinical utilization of adolescent-family attachment research. Family Process, 41, 457–478. Lifshitz, C., Tsvieli, N., Bar-Kalifa, E., Abbott, C., Diamond, G. S., Roger Kobak, R., & Diamond, G. M. (2021). Emotional processing in attachment-based family therapy for suicidal adolescents. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 267–279. Lopez, F. G. (1995). Attachment theory as an integrative framework for family counseling. The Family Journal, 3, 11–17. Luthar, S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885. Ma, C. Q., & Huebner, E. S. (2008). Attachment relationships and adolescents’ life satisfaction: Some relationships matter more to girls than boys. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 177–190. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66–104. Maio, G. R., Fincham, F. D., & Lycett, E. J. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence toward parents and attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1451–1464. Miller, E. A. (2023). The attachment versus differentiation debate: Bringing the conversation to parent–child relationships. Family Process, e12802. Advance publication https://doi. org/10.1111/famp.12802. Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Harvard University Press. Pinquart, M., & Silbereisen, R.  K. (2005). Influences of parents and siblings on the development of children and adolescents. In V.  L. Bengston, A.  C. Acock, K.  R. Allen, P.  Dilworth-Anderson, & D.  M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 367–382). Sage. Pinquart, M., Feußner, C., & Ahnert, L. (2013). Meta-analytic evidence for stability in attachments from infancy to early adulthood. Attachment & Human Development, 15(2), 189–218. Prather, W. (2007). Trauma and psychotherapy: Implications from a behavior analysis perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3, 555–570.

72

6  Attachment Theory

Prather, W., & Golden, J. A. (2009a). A behavioral perspective of childhood trauma and attachment issues: Toward alternative treatment approaches for children with a history of abuse. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 5, 56–74. Prather, W., & Golden, J.  A. (2009b). Learning and thinking: A behavioral treatise on abuse and antisocial behavior in young criminal offenders. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 5, 75–105. Profe, W. B., Wild, L. G., & Tredoux, C. (2021). Adolescents’ responses to the distress of others: The influence of multiple attachment figures via empathic concern. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(5), 1671–1691. Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2009). Testing central postulates of parental acceptance-rejection theory (PARTheory): A meta-analysis of cross-cultural studies. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 73–87. Roisman, G.  I., Madsen, S.  D., Hennighausen, K.  H., Sroufe, L.  A., & Collins, W.  A. (2001). The coherence of dyadic behavior across parent–child and romantic relationships as mediated by the internalized representation of experience. Attachment and Human Development, 3, 156–172. Rosenstein, D. S., & Horowitz, H. A. (1996). Adolescent attachment and psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 244–253. Roskam, I. (2019). Externalizing behavior from early childhood to adolescence: Prediction from inhibition, language, parenting, and attachment. Development and Psychopathology, 31(2), 587–599. Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86–100. Scott, S., Briskman, J., Woolgar, M., Humayun, S., & O’Connor, T. G. (2011). Attachment in adolescence: Overlap with parenting and unique prediction of behavioural adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(10), 1052–1062. Sexson, S. B., Glanville, D. N., & Kaslow, N. J. (2001). Attachment and depression: Implications for family therapy. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 10, 465–486. Spruit, A., Goos, L., Weenink, N., Rodenburg, R., Niemeyer, H., Stams, G.  J., & Colonnesi, C. (2020). The relation between attachment and depression in children and adolescents: A multilevel meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23(1), 54–69. Sutton, T. E. (2019). Review of attachment theory: Familial predictors, continuity and change, and intrapersonal and relational outcomes. Marriage & Family Review, 55(1), 1–22. Talbot, J., & McHale, J. (2003). Family-level emotional climate and its impact on the flexibility of relationship representations. In P. Erdman & T. Caffery (Eds.), Attachment and family systems (pp. 31–61). Brunner-Routledge. Tambelli, R., Laghi, F., Odorisio, F., & Notari, V. (2012). Attachment relationships and internalizing and externalizing problems among Italian adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(8), 1465–1471. Thompson, R. A. (2016). Early attachment and later development: Reframing the questions. In J.  Cassidy & P.  R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 330–365). Guilford Press. Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, H. A. (2003). Toward the next quarter-century: Conceptual and methodological challenges for attachment theory. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 691–718. Verschueren, K. (2020). Attachment, self-esteem, and socio-emotional adjustment: There is more than just the mother. Attachment & Human Development, 22(1), 105–109. Viejo, C., Monks, C.  P., Sánchez-Rosa, M., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2019). Attachment hierarchies for Spanish adolescents: Family, peers and romantic partner figures. Attachment & Human Development, 21(6), 551–570. Wagner, I., Diamond, G. S., Levy, S., Russon, J., & Litster, R. (2016). Attachment-based family therapy as an adjunct to family-based treatment for adolescent anorexia nervosa. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 37(2), 207–227.

References

73

Waters, E., Weinfield, N. S., & Hamilton, C. E. (2000). The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General discussion. Child Development, 71(3), 703–706. Waters, E., Crowell, J., Elliott, M., Corcoran, D., & Treboux, D. (2002). Bowlby’s secure base theory and the social/personality psychology of attachment styles: Work(s) in progress. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 230–242. Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71, 695–702. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2008). Family theories. Sage. White, J.  M., Martin, T.  F., & Adamsons, K. (2019). Family theories: An introduction (5th ed.). Sage. Withers, M. C., McWey, L. M., & Lucier-Greer, M. (2016). Parent–adolescent relationship factors and adolescent outcomes among high-risk families. Family Relations, 65(5), 661–672. Zhou, X., Zhen, R., & Wu, X. (2021). Insecure attachment to parents and PTSD among adolescents: The roles of parent–child communication, perceived parental depression, and intrusive rumination. Development and Psychopathology, 33(4), 1290–1299. Zou, S., Wu, X., & Li, X. (2020). Coparenting behavior, parent–adolescent attachment, and peer attachment: An examination of gender differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 178–191.

Chapter 7

Social Learning Theory

Abstract  Social learning theory utilizes precise descriptions of dyadic relationships and other larger systems dynamics that are present in families with adolescents. Similar to other theoretical perspectives that claim more individual psychological origins, however, this theoretical approach is not given extensive coverage in the family theory literature. This chapter discusses how social learning theory focuses attention on the ways in which adolescent’s and parent’s behaviors are both learned and reinforced – both positively or negatively – by family members and other socializing agents. The review of empirical evidence supporting the use of this conceptual approach to families with adolescents reveals a literature that is rather well developed and forms the basis for a number of prevention- and intervention-­based efforts that are based on the social learning perspective. By three methods we may learn wisdom: first, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third, by experience, which is the most bitter. (Confucius, Analects)

According to his mother, a 15-year-old James Monroe had always been a “follower.” Mr. Monroe used to ask James rhetorical questions such as “if all of your friends jumped off of a cliff, would you jump too?” Now, however, he was afraid that the answer would be “yes, of course.” So he stopped asking. When three of his friends decided that they were going to stop playing hockey last year, James told his parents that he was going to quit as well. Horrified, his parents pleaded and begged him to reconsider, telling him that he was the star of the team. If James continued to play hockey, Mr. and Mrs. Monroe offered to buy him the Ford Mustang he always said he wanted when he turned 16. He stayed on the team through the end of the season, although he threw endless temper tantrums about the early-morning practices. Often as not, this behavior got him whatever extra privileges he had been pushing for earlier that week. After the season ended, James started to put on a good deal of weight, owing to the fact that he and his friends were currently spending a great deal of time playing video games and hanging out at the local fast food joint. Both Mr. and Mrs. Monroes were overweight and had been so since they were teenagers themselves. They did not want their son to suffer from the same sorts of weight-related difficulties that they had experienced throughout their own lives. However, their attempts © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_7

75

76

7  Social Learning Theory

to talk with James about his recent weight gain were only met with sneers and derisive comments like “you should talk.” The Monroes decided not to push the matter, hoping instead that this was “just a passing phase” for James. Jasmine Miller wanted desperately to hang out with the most popular girls in her school. This 14-year-old had become an astute observer of the way that they dressed and had begged her mother to allow her to shop only in those stores that carried similar clothing choices. Also, these girls all wore their hair in the latest short and layered style, so Jasmine had her beautiful shoulder length hair cut as well (much to her mother’s dismay). Eventually, some of the girls she was trying so hard to be like began to befriend Jasmine and asked her to sit with them at the lunch table. One thing that Jasmine noticed right away was how much these girls liked to brag about how little effort they put into schoolwork. Who had time for schoolwork, one girl said, when there were so many boys to talk to? In a relatively short amount of time, Jasmine’s grades began to suffer as well. Mr. and Mrs. Miller, who both earned college degrees and were currently employed in the continuing education department of the local community college, became very angry with Jasmine over her latest report card (four Cs and a D-) and demanded to know if drug use was behind this slip in grades. Jasmine became furious about the substance use accusation, asking her parents why they could not just be happy that she was hanging out with the popular crowd now. Mr. Miller reminded his daughter that they could not afford to send her to a good university without some sort of academic scholarship, something that up to this point she was in the running to receive. And Mrs. Miller noted that while she had been flexible up to this point in terms of Jasmine’s requests for more choice in clothing and hairstyle selections, she would no longer be given the same freedoms if she could not keep her grades up. In fact, Jasmine was grounded until the next interim report cards came out, and her computer and phone use was restricted as well. Five weeks later, Jasmine’s interim grades all were back to acceptable levels (three As and two Bs). Mr. and Mrs. Miller eased up on the grounding but kept the computer and phone restrictions in place pending the results of the overall marking period.

7.1 Basic Social Learning Theory Concepts Social learning theory, another theory covered in this book that claims psychological origins, also is based as much on relationships as it is on individually oriented concepts. The underpinnings of this perspective rest in large part on the work of Albert Bandura (1977, 1986), although it should be noted that this scholar called his own work “social cognitive learning theory” to avoid confusion with other writings also using the title of social learning theory (Woolfolk, 2010). The more individually oriented components of this theory include a focus on self-efficacy and agency, which have to do with perceptions about one’s own abilities to have control over their own lives (Bandura, 2001). This theoretical framework retains its more social orientation by focusing attention on how learning takes

7.1  Basic Social Learning Theory Concepts

77

place through the observation of others’ behavior and especially those behaviors that are perceived as being incentivized in some way. Thus, imitation plays an important role in the learning process as individuals attempt to recreate the behaviors that are modeled and reinforced by the actions of others. As such, behavior is shaped by the positive reinforcement (reward) and/or negative reinforcement (removal of a punishment) that are linked as consequences to the specific actions taken by an individual (Akers et al., 1979). These are ideas about learning that have their foundations in the much earlier psychological literature surrounding the work of Skinner (1950, 1989). In turn, learning through reinforcement is thought to occur within three different modalities. First, there is direct reinforcement, where a behavior is praised or otherwise is situated in positive discourse with an authority figure. Second, more indirect or vicarious reinforcement can take place whereby the individual observes the rewarded behaviors of others. Third and finally, there is self-reinforcement, which as the term implies involves the individual’s own self-management (or self-control) of rewarded behavior (Schunk, 2005; Vito et al., 2019). In the sketch at the beginning of this chapter, the notion that James Monroe was a “follower” underscores the way this 15-year-old mimics the behaviors of his friend with regard to participation in sports and other activities. Such imitative behavior also can be seen in the way that Jasmine Miller selects her clothes and her hair, of course. And we can surmise in both cases that these adolescents are amply rewarded by their friends in terms of their approval, underscoring the power of positive reinforcement from the peer group. At the same time, attention also can be drawn from the differences in the type of reinforcement seen in terms of the parental responses from Mr. and Mrs. Monroe in comparison to the Mr. and Mrs. Miller. James’ parents react to his withdrawal threats with pleas, begging, and bribery. Jasmine’s parents, on the other hand, react to her slip in grades with more punitive actions, linking the eventual removal of these punishments to the more positive behavior (elevated grades) that they desire to see. Both of these situations involve negative reinforcement. However, in the Monroe family’s case, it is the parents whose behavior is being shaped by the negative reinforcement, that is, doing anything within their power to make the aversive stimuli (James’ threats and temper tantrums) go away. Attention also can be drawn to the different forms of modeling that are present in the situations of these two different sets of parents. Mr. and Mrs. Monroe were both overweight, and so in bringing up James’ recent weight gain, they were communicating the message “do as I say, not as I do.” Hence, there are a set of mixed verbal and nonverbal messages present within the Monroe family that weaken the impact of the overt message that these parents are trying to send to their son. On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Miller were asking Jasmine to follow in their footsteps by laying out a course for receiving an education from a good university. Here, contradictory messages are not an issue, and thus the impact of the messages being transmitted by the Millers to their daughter is thought to be much more powerful in their orientation.

78

7  Social Learning Theory

Theorists, researchers, and intervention-based professionals have long maintained an interest in the applicability of social learning theory in efforts to understand and work with families. For instance, Crosbie-Burnett and Lewis (1993) utilized the social learning concept of “reciprocal determinism” – with its emphasis on the circular influence that occurs between the individual and her/his social context  – as a way of describing the learning that is gained through family member interactions. Similarly, researchers have employed social learning theory as the basis of hypotheses that children and adolescents will learn a variety of social behaviors from their parents and in turn will utilize those same sorts of behaviors in relationships with siblings and friends (Cui et  al., 2002; Haj-Yahia & Dawud-­ Noursi, 1998; Jensen et al., 2022; McHale et al., 2003). Similarly, Pinquart and Silbereisen (2005) have asserted that social learning theory provides assistance in understanding how similarities among siblings are the result of shared experiences within the family environment. In addition, their experience with one another within the shared environment has the potential to model, reinforce, and encourage several adaptive and maladaptive behaviors (Briggs et al., 2018; Mota & Matos, 2015). Siblings, peers, and parents all are seen as important socializing agents within this theoretical perspective (Ardelt & Day, 2002; De Goede et  al., 2009; Henneberger et  al., 2021; Jensen et  al., 2022; McHale et  al., 2001), and their comparative influence has been at the center of much work in this area, especially with regard to outcome variables such as adolescent’s delinquency and other problem behaviors (Akers, 1998, 2000; Bank et  al., 2004; Markiewicz et al., 2001; Gosselin, 2010; Prather & Golden, 2009). Also, how adolescents interact with their siblings can be transferred to how they interact with peers (Kramer & Kowal, 2005) and romantic partners (Johnson et al., 2021). What is particularly notable in sibling relationships is that sibling relationships differentially influence individual behaviors depending on the sex composition of the sibling dyad (Masarik & Rogers, 2020) since same-sex sibling pairs are more influential models for one another when compared with mixed-sex pairs (McHale et al., 2012; Whiteman et al., 2014). The efforts of Gerald Patterson (1982) and his colleagues at the Oregon Social Learning Center are among the most recognized bodies of work that have applied social learning theory concepts to the study of families. Focusing on the family environment as the most important context in learning antisocial behavior, Patterson’s approach involved the recognition of a negative reinforcement cycle that he termed “coercive family processes.” Here, parents who employ coercive tactics with their children and adolescents (such as bribing or threatening behaviors) initiate a process whereby the offspring learn how to use aggressive behaviors (flying into a rage or otherwise throwing temper tantrums) in order to avoid compliance. Again referring back to the sketch at the beginning of this chapter, this is exactly the kind of interaction that was illustrated between James and his parents. Mr. and Mrs. Monroe use the bribe of a car in an attempt to keep James on the hockey team. As well, the temper tantrums that James threw about early-morning practices typically resulted in his parents rewarding that behavior by agreeing to give him extra

7.1  Basic Social Learning Theory Concepts

79

privileges in an attempt to appease him. Clearly, James has learned that his threats and out-of-control behavior resulted in positive outcomes, at least with his parents. Patterson and colleagues (1990) have discussed how stresses on both parents and adolescents generate what they term “irritable exchanges” between family members. These stresses can include many different normative and nonnormative transitions, including the beginning of puberty, changes in schools, changes in residence, and entrances and exits of family members (births, deaths, separation and divorce, etc.). In turn, these irritable exchanges lead to both inconsistent discipline on the part of parents and a reduction in the amount of supervision and monitoring that parents do with regard to adolescent’s activities (Berg & Mulford, 2020). Together, these factors are thought to significantly increase the probability of the youth engaging in antisocial behavior. In a similar context, Donohue et al. (2022) examined whether recurring conflict among parents and adolescents mediated the association between parental anger management and adolescent’s deviant and problem-solving behaviors in a sample of 415 rural families. Results showed that parental use of anger management during early adolescence decreases parent–child recurring conflict and promotes problem-­ solving behaviors during adolescent years, which means that adolescents internalize abstract mental representations of conflict resolution styles from observing parents’ behaviors in high-conflict situations. Over time, these behaviors are thought to generalize to other situations involving adult authority figures (i.e., schools), as well as within friendship groups and romantic relationships (Dishion et  al., 1997). Hence, in the context of school systems, authority figures such as teachers, principals, and guidance counselors all may find themselves trying alternatively to threaten and bribe a coercive adolescent into displaying better behavior at school. However, in the peer context, prosocial friends generally do not tolerate coercive behavior. Instead, well-functioning peers typically rebuff aggressive behaviors in a manner that leads to rejection (or ejection) from the peer group (Kornienko et al., 2020). The story can be more complicated in a romantic relationship, as adolescents derive thoughts and behaviors about how intimate relationships function via observing and modeling their parents and others (Dishion, 2016). For example, Ha et al. (2023) investigated how coercive relationships with parents and deviant friendships during adolescence predicted intimate partner violence (IPV) in adulthood. This longitudinal study found that violent behaviors during early adulthood mediated the link between coercive relationships with peers during adolescence and subsequent IPV experienced by couples in adulthood. However, coercive relationships with parents did not directly affect IPV. These results do not mean that levels of conflict and coercion in parent–adolescent relationships are not important in determining the relative health of an adult romantic relationship. Rather, conflictual relationships with parents may be a precursor to adolescents’ coercive relationships with peers, which in turn impacts romantic relationships in adulthood (Ha et al., 2019). Often as not, the continued lack of contact with more positive peers contributes to a lack of development of basic social skills for these rejected youth (Ettekal & Ladd, 2020). As a consequence, such youth will begin to associate with more

80

7  Social Learning Theory

delinquent peer groups, whose members not only tolerate but actually reinforce various displays of antisocial behavior. In turn, a “cascade effect” (Patterson & Yoerger, 1993) is set into motion where all manner and types of problem behaviors (academic failure, substance abuse, mental health symptoms, etc.) are experienced alongside the delinquent behavior. These patterns are thought to persist into adulthood, leading to an intergenerational cycle of antisocial behavior, unless and until certain “turning points” can be established that interrupt the modeling and reinforcement processes (Granic & Patterson, 2006; Sampson & Laub, 1997). This can include life events such as becoming romantically involved with a partner who is strongly invested in prosocial behaviors, as well as changing residences to locations that are farther away from antisocial friends and activities (Wiesner et al., 2022; Weisner et al., 2003).

7.2 Reflections: Social Learning Theory and Families with Adolescents How does the reader begin to evaluate the use of social learning theory in terms of understanding families with adolescents? The descriptive function of this conceptual framework certainly helps to depict the particular details of dyadic relationship factors within the family with adolescents. However, the attempt to locate descriptions of more “whole family” characteristics within the social learning theory perspective historically has a bit more complicated. Fortunately, newer research is beginning to push the envelope here (cf., McCauley et al., 2021). The challenge of portraying family level factors may’s be one reason why many of the family theory texts either have ignored or only superficially covered this framework. One early notable exception in this regard is the work of Chibucos and Leite (2005), who asserted that a variety of family development issues were compatible with the social learning approach. This text also contains an excellent chapter on the intergenerational transmission of parenting written by Chen and Kaplan (2005), which employs a variety of social learning concepts – most notably including observation, modeling, and reinforcement – in order to describe how adolescent exposure to “constructive” parenting is significantly related to their acquirement and use of those same parenting skills as adults. Other work that employs a social learning theoretical perspective contains clear references to family level processes and characteristics. One excellent example in this regard is a study conducted by Buehler et al. (2009), who were extending the original scholarship on a “social learning model of family process” developed by Capaldi and her colleagues at the Oregon Social Learning Center (cf., Capaldi & Stoolmiller, 1999). Focusing on family triangulation processes, Buehler et al. (2009) found that involvement in marital conflict set in motion a set of observational and participatory learning processes for adolescents that carried over behaviorally into their relationships with friends. The fact that this work has influenced the

7.2  Reflections: Social Learning Theory and Families with Adolescents

81

international and cross-cultural study of social learning theory concepts as applied to families with adolescents is encouraging (Kwok et al., 2020). The sensitizing function of social learning theory spotlights the ways in which adolescent’s and parent’s behaviors are both learned and reinforced – either positively or negatively – by other family members, as well as by additional socializing agents who are outside of the family. In turn, both the straightforward use of this theory and its adaptation and use within other conceptual frameworks speaks to the integrative function of social learning theory in helping scholars to organize their work on families with adolescents. An important example in this latter regard is the incorporation of social learning theory concepts into the “social development model” developed out of the University of Washington’s Social Development Research Group (Catalano et al., 1996, 2021; Hawkins et al., 1999). In outlining the role that both risk and protective factors play in the development and maintenance of antisocial behavior, this group of researchers centered attention on the ways in which adolescents learn to act through contact with socializing agents in their families, schools, and other community contexts (Hill et al., 2005; Huang et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2020). Further evidence regarding the integrative function of social learning theory resides in the significant amount of interventions that are based on this conceptual framework. One such effort involves what is known as multidimensional treatment foster care (Åström et al., 2020; Chamberlain & Reid, 1998), which is discussed below in the family-based application part of this book. As well, there is a rather impressive amount of literature on what collectively is now discussed as parent management training (cf., Rowe et al., 2006), an approach to the treatment of adolescent’s antisocial behavior that focuses attention on the development of parenting skills such as the employment of consistent discipline strategies and monitoring of adolescent’s activities. In turn, this work has led to the development of highly effective prevention-­ oriented programs for parents as well (Connell et al., 2019; Dishion et al., 2002). In a more recent systematic review of this literature, Kuntsche and Kuntsche (2016) reported on the effectiveness of parent-based programs in preventing, curbing, or reducing substance use among 10–18-year-olds. Support for the effectiveness of parent-based programs included efforts targeting the improvement of parent–adolescent communication and monitoring adolescent’s activities in combination with the application of strict rules against and attendant consequences for substance use. The focus on how problem behaviors are maintained or extinguished through learning experiences also goes a long way toward highlighting the explanatory function served by social learning theory. For example, a very well-respected collection of studies have been conducted by Akers and colleagues around smoking (Akers & Lee, 1996) and other forms of substance use (Akers & Lee, 1999; Lee et al., 2004; Trucco, 2020). Many other researchers have adopted a social learning approach to the family’s role in adolescent’s substance use and abuse (Catanzaroa & Laurent, 2004; Kruis et  al., 2020), including the effects of parent alcoholism (Kuendig & Kuntsche, 2006; Vito et al., 2019), parent–adolescent communication

82

7  Social Learning Theory

(Miller-Day, 2002; Pantaleao & Ohannessian, 2019), online social gaming (Gong et al., 2020), and the family–peer interface (Eitle, 2005; Walters, 2019). Social learning theory also has been applied in efforts targeting the resocialization of adolescents exposed to violence and collaborating with agencies to work together to provide programs to the adolescents and their parents that model positive interpersonal relationships (Gosselin, 2010). Likewise, scholars have attended to the socializing role that religion plays within the family (Bao et al., 1999), as well as its influence on adolescent’s delinquent behavior (Benda & Corwyn, 1997; Solakoglu & Yuksek, 2020) and substance use (Bahr et  al., 1998; Hwang & Akers, 2017). The social learning perspective also has seen widespread use in areas connected to adolescent’s sexuality and violence (Pusch, 2022). With regard to sex, this conceptual framework has been employed in scholarship surrounding the impact of the family and other social contexts on risky behaviors (Miller et  al., 1999; Taylor-­ Seehafer & Rew, 2000), the timing of first sexual intercourse for adolescents (Crockett et al., 1996; Goodson et al., 1996; Hogben & Byrne, 1998), and sexual education issues (Attila et al., 2023). Regarding violence, social learning theory has been utilized to examine adolescents who both witness (O’Keefe, 1997) and perpetrate violence (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997; Saner & Ellickson, 1996), especially in dating relationships (Foshee et al., 1999, 2001; Ha et al., 2023; Lavoie et al., 2002; Simons et al., 1998). Exposure to violence vis-à-vis corporal punishment also has been examined within a social learning perspective. For example, Cuartas et al. (2020) examined the association between parental physical punishment and 5801 Colombian adolescents’ outcomes within a social learning theory perspective. Findings suggested that adolescents’ exposure to physical punishment was linked to greater internalizing and externalizing problems as well as lower prosocial behaviors. From an application perspective, these findings imply that adverse parenting practices such as physical punishment lead to negative consequences in children and adolescents in cultural contexts where physical punishment practice is more accepted. Finally, the value function of social learning theory draws attention to a number of standards and ideals that can be recognized at both the individual and social context levels. Through psychological mechanisms such as self-reflection and forethought, this perspective places a significant emphasis on the power of the individual to direct her or his life, thus placing one’s sense of agency at the center of human existence. At the same time, however, the interdependent nature of individuals also is highlighted and includes the recognition of not only the bidirectionality of relationships but also of the way that that culture shapes the relative balance between individual and collective issues. In sum, there are considerable reasons for underlining the value and worth of social learning theory in the study of families with adolescents, even though this perspective (like attachment theory) is not well covered in the family theory literature. This conceptual framework offers rather precise descriptions of dyadic relationships as well as larger family system dynamics and sensitizes users to the learning processes that are occurring within families and other social contexts

References

83

within which adolescents reside. The practical utility of the social learning perspective is evidenced by its use in a number of prevention- and intervention-based efforts and, combined with its concepts being used within other conceptual models, seems to offer an integrated approach to the study of families with adolescents. The widespread use of this conceptual framework, especially in studies that attempt to examine the family’s influence on adolescent’s problem behavior, underscores its explanatory worth to scholars, and the values contained within this perspective represent an important blend of individual and social context principles.

References Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press. Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories. Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd ed.). Roxbury. Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 317–343. Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1999). Age, social learning, and social bonding in adolescent substance use. Deviant Behavior, 20, 1–25. Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44, 636–655. Ardelt, M., & Day, L. (2002). Parents, siblings, and peers: Close social relationships and adolescent deviance. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 310–349. Åström, T., Bergström, M., Håkansson, K., Jonsson, A. K., Munthe, C., Wirtberg, I., & Sundell, K. (2020). Treatment foster care Oregon for delinquent adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 30(4), 355–367. Attila, F.  L., Owusu, F., Agyei-Sarpong, K., & Donkoh, H. (2023). Socio-cultural and psycho-­ theoretical perspectives of adolescence and sex education. Mediterranean Journal of Social & Behavioral Research, 7(1), 1–7. Bahr, S. J., Maughan, S. L., Marcos, A. C., & Li, B. (1998). Family, religiosity, and the risk of adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 979–992. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Bank, L., Burraston, B., & Snyder, J. (2004). Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting as predictors of adolescent boys’ antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and interactional effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 99–125. Bao, W. N., Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Perceived parental acceptance as a moderator of religious transmission among adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 362–374. Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (1997). Religion and delinquency: The relationship after considering family and peer influences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 81–92. Berg, M. T., & Mulford, C. F. (2020). Reappraising and redirecting research on the victim–offender overlap. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(1), 16–30. Briggs, H. E., Kim, I., Mowbray, O., Orellana, E. R., & Elkins, J. (2018). Trusting and dependable sibling relationships as social capital among African American youth. Journal of Substance Use, 23(6), 557–562.

84

7  Social Learning Theory

Buehler, C., Franck, K. L., & Cook, E. C. (2009). Adolescents’ triangulation in marital conflict and peer relations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 669–689. Capaldi, D.  M., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: III. Prediction to young-adult adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 59–84. Catalano, R.  F., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.  D., Newcomb, M.  D., & Abbott, R.  D. (1996). Modeling the etiology of adolescent substance use: A test of the social development model. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 429–455. Catalano, R.  F., Hawkins, J.  D., Kosterman, R., Bailey, J.  A., Oesterle, S., Cambron, C., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Applying the social development model in middle childhood to promote healthy development: Effects from primary school through the 30s and across generations. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 7, 66–86. Catanzaroa, S. J., & Laurent, J. (2004). Perceived family support, negative mood regulation expectancies, coping, and adolescent alcohol use: Evidence of mediation and moderation effects. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1779–1797. Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 624–633. Chen, Z. Y., & Kaplan, H. B. (2005). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. In T. R. Chibucos & R. W. Leite (Eds.), Readings in family theory (pp. 118–136). Sage. Chibucos, T. R., & Leite, R. W. (2005). Readings in family theory. Sage. Connell, A.  M., Shaw, D., Wilson, M., Danzo, S., Weaver-Krug, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). Indirect effects of the early childhood family check-up on adolescent suicide risk: The mediating role of inhibitory control. Development and Psychopathology, 31(5), 1901–1910. Crockett, L. J., Bingham, C. R., Chopak, J. S., & Vicary, J. R. (1996). Timing of first sexual intercourse: The role of social control, social learning, and problem behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 89–111. Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Lewis, E.  A. (1993). Theoretical contributions from social and cognitive behavioral psychology. In P.  G. Boss, W.  J. Doherty, R.  LaRossa, W.  R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 531–558). Plenum. Cuartas, J., Ward, K. P., Ma, J., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2020). Physical punishment and Colombian children and adolescents’ cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 68, 101140. Cui, M., Conger, R. D., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. (2002). Parental behavior and the quality of adolescent friendships: A social-contextual perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 676–689. De Goede, I. H. A., Branje, S. J. T., Delsing, M. J. M. H., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Linkages over time between adolescents’ relationships with parents and friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1304–1315. Dishion, T. J. (2016). An evolutionary framework for understanding coercion and aggression. In T. J. Dishion & J. J. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics (pp. 53–69). Oxford University Press. Dishion, T. J., Eddy, J. M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklin, K. M. (1997). Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6, 207–225. Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., Schneiger, A., Nelson, S., & Kaufman, N. (2002). Preventing early adolescent substance use: A family-centered strategy for the public middle-school ecology. Prevention Science, 3, 191–201. Donohue, E., Halgunseth, L. C., Chilenski, S. M., & Perkins, D. F. (2022). Parent–child recurring conflict: A mediator between parental anger management and adolescent behavior. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 51(1), 6–19. Eitle, D. (2005). The moderating effects of peer substance use on the family structure–adolescent substance use association: Quantity versus quality of parenting. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 963–980.

References

85

Ettekal, I., & Ladd, G.  W. (2020). Development of aggressive-victims from childhood through adolescence: Associations with emotion dysregulation, withdrawn behaviors, moral disengagement, peer rejection, and friendships. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 271–291. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., & Linder, G. F. (1999). Family violence and the perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 331–342. Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128–141. Gong, X., Zhang, K. Z., Chen, C., Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of excessive online social gaming: A social learning perspective. Information Technology & People, 33(2), 657–688. Goodson, P., Evans, A., & Edmunson, E. (1996). Female adolescents and onset of sexual intercourse: A theory-based review of research from 1984 to 1994. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 147–156. Gosselin, D. K. (2010). Heavy hands: An introduction to the crimes of family violence. Prentice Hall. Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113, 101–131. Ha, T., Otten, R., McGill, S., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). The family and peer origins of coercion within adult romantic relationships: A longitudinal multimethod study across relationships contexts. Developmental Psychology, 55(1), 207–215. Ha, T., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Elam, K. K. (2023). Socialization processes within adolescents’ relationships with parents and peers predicting couples’ intimate partner violence in adulthood: A social learning perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 35(1), 204–217. Haj-Yahia, M., & Dawud-Noursi, S. (1998). Predicting the use of different conflict tactics among Arab siblings in Israel: A study based on social learning theory. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 81–103. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R. D., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226–234. Henneberger, A. K., Mushonga, D. R., & Preston, A. M. (2021). Peer influence and adolescent substance use: A systematic review of dynamic social network research. Adolescent Research Review, 6(1), 57–73. Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R. D., & Guo, J. (2005). Family influences on the risk of daily smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 202–210. Hogben, M., & Byrne, D. (1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences in human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 58–71. Huang, B., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.  F., Hawkins, J.  D., & Abbot, R.  D. (2001). Modeling mediation in the etiology of violent behavior in adolescence: A test of the social development model. Criminology, 39, 75–108. Hwang, S., & Akers, R. L. (2017). Substance use by Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. In Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 39–63). Routledge. Jensen, A. C., Killoren, S. E., Campione-Barr, N., Padilla, J., & Chen, B. B. (2022). Sibling relationships in adolescence and young adulthood in multiple contexts: A critical review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221104188 Johnson, M. D., Hank, K., & Yurkiw, J. (2021). Longitudinal associations between adult relations with intimate partners and siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83(2), 551–562. Kim, B. K. E., Gilman, A. B., Tan, K. P., Kosterman, R., Bailey, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2020). Identifying and predicting criminal career profiles from adolescence to age 39. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30(4), 210–220. Kornienko, O., Ha, T., & Dishion, T. J. (2020). Dynamic pathways between rejection and antisocial behavior in peer networks: Update and test of confluence model. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 175–188.

86

7  Social Learning Theory

Kramer, L., & Kowal, A. K. (2005). Sibling relationship quality from birth to adolescence: The enduring contributions of friends. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 503–511. Kruis, N. E., Seo, C., & Kim, B. (2020). Revisiting the empirical status of social learning theory on substance use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Substance Use & Misuse, 55(4), 666–683. Kuendig, H., & Kuntsche, E. (2006). Family bonding and adolescent alcohol use: Moderating effect of living with excessive drinking parents. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41, 464–471. Kuntsche, S., & Kuntsche, E. (2016). Parent-based interventions for preventing or reducing adolescent substance use—A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 45, 89–101. Kwok, S.  Y., Gu, M., Synchaisuksawat, P., & Wong, W.  W. (2020). The relationship between parent-child triangulation and early adolescent depression in Hong Kong: The mediating roles of self-acceptance, positive relations and personal growth. Children and Youth Services Review, 109, 104676. Lavoie, F., Hebert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Vezina, L., & McDuff, P. (2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 375–383. Lee, G., Akers, R. L., & Borg, M. J. (2004). Social learning and structural factors in adolescent substance use. Western Criminology Review, 5, 17–34. Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A. B., & Brengdon, M. (2001). The quality of adolescents’ friendships: Associations with mothers’ interpersonal relationships, attachment to parents and friends, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 429–445. Masarik, A. S., & Rogers, C. R. (2020). Sibling warmth moderates the intergenerational transmission of romantic relationship hostility. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(5), 1431–1443. McCauley, D. M., Sloan, C. J., Xia, M., & Fosco, G. M. (2021). Same family, divergent realities: How triangulation preserves parents’ illusory harmony while adolescents navigate interparental conflicts. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 128. McHale, S.  M., Updegraff, K.  A., Helms-Erikson, H., & Crouter, A.  C. (2001). Sibling influences on gender development in middle childhood and early adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 37, 115–125. McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003). The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12, 125–148. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 913–930. Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21–47. Miller, K. S., Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1999). Adolescent sexual behavior in two ethnic minority samples: The role of family variables. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 85–98. Miller-Day, M.  A. (2002). Parent-adolescent communication about alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 604–616. Mota, C. P., & Matos, P. M. (2015). Does sibling relationship matter to self-concept and resilience in adolescents under residential care? Children and Youth Services Review, 56, 97–106. O’Keefe, M. (1997). Adolescents’ exposure to community and school violence: Prevalence and behavioral correlates. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 368–376. Pantaleao, A., & Ohannessian, C.  M. (2019). Does coping mediate the relationship between adolescent-­parent communication and adolescent internalizing symptoms? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 479–489. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Castalia. Patterson, G.  R., & Yoerger, K. (1993). Developmental models for delinquent behavior. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 140–172). Sage. Patterson, G.  R., Bank, L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1990). The preadolescent’s contributions to disrupted family process. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence (pp. 107–133). Sage.

References

87

Pinquart, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2005). Influences of parents and siblings on the development of children and adolescents. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 367–382). Sage. Prather, W., & Golden, J. A. (2009). Learning and thinking: A behavioral treatise on abuse and antisocial behavior in young criminal offenders. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 5(1), 75–105. Pusch, N. (2022). A meta-analytic review of social learning theory and teen dating violence perpetration. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. https://doi. org/10.1177/00224278221130004 Rowe, C. L., Gomez, L., & Liddle, H. A. (2006). Family therapy research: Empirical foundations and practice implications. In M. Nichols & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Family therapy: Concepts and methods (7th ed., pp. 395–445). Allyn & Bacon. Sampson, R.  J., & Laub, J.  H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T.  P. Thornberry (Ed.), Advances in criminological theory: Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (Vol. 7, pp. 133–161). Transaction Publishers. Saner, H., & Ellickson, P. (1996). Concurrent risk factors for adolescent violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 94–103. Schunk, D.  H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R.  Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 85–94. Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 467–478. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are learning theories necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216. Skinner, B. F. (1989). The origins of cognitive thought. American Psychologist, 44, 13–18. Solakoglu, O., & Yuksek, D. A. (2020). Delinquency among Turkish adolescents: Testing Akers’ social structure and social learning theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(5), 539–563. Taylor-Seehafer, M., & Rew, L. (2000). Risky sexual behavior among adolescent women. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 5, 15–25. Trucco, E.  M. (2020). A review of psychosocial factors linked to adolescent substance use. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 196, 172969. Vito, A. G., Schaefer, B., Higgins, G. E., Marcum, C., & Ricketts, M. (2019). Self-control, social learning theory, social bonds and binge drinking: Results from a national sample. Journal of Substance Use, 24(6), 655–659. Walters, G.  D. (2019). Social control versus social learning: Self-efficacy for future academic success and peer delinquency as mediators of the parental support–delinquency relationship. Criminal Justice Review, 44(2), 101–118. Weisner, M., Capaldi, D.  M., & Patterson, G.  R. (2003). Development of antisocial behavior and crime across the life-span from a social interactional perspective: The coercion model. In R.  L. Akers & G.  F. Jensen (Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 317–337). Transaction. Whiteman, S. D., Zeiders, K. H., Killoren, S. E., Rodriguez, S. A., & Updegraff, K. A. (2014). Sibling influence on Mexican-origin adolescents’ deviant and sexual risk behaviors: The role of sibling modeling. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5), 587–592. Wiesner, M., Capaldi, D. M., Kerr, D. C., & Wu, W. (2022). Bidirectional associations of mental health with self-reported criminal offending over time for at-risk early adult men in the USA. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40865-­022-­00221-­y Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology. Merrill/Pearson.

Part III

Research on Families with Adolescents

Chapter 8

Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

Abstract  Historically, empirical attempts to understand families with adolescents have paid great attention to the activities of parents, especially in terms of what they are doing to socialize their offspring to become productive members of society. As a natural extension, then, the parent–adolescent dyad becomes the smallest unit of analysis that can be used in the study of families with adolescents. The seminal work of Diana Baumrind on parenting styles (authoritative, authoritarian, permissive/indulgent, and indifferent/neglectful) continues to maintain a strong influence on the most recent research that focuses attention on parent–adolescent dyadic relationships. This chapter reviews studies that have been conducted over the last 25 years, with particular attention paid to the linkage that has been established between healthy adolescent development and an authoritative style of parenting. In addition, newer studies that have extended this work in a number of important directions are also highlighted. This includes work that examines parenting style differences between mothers and fathers and the degree to which parenting style consistency matters. The empirical literature concerning other related parenting behaviors such as monitoring and knowledge, responsiveness, warmth, and psychological control also is reviewed, and variations that may exist as a function of race, ethnicity, and culture are discussed as well. Parents who are afraid to put their foot down usually have children who step on their toes. (Ancient Chinese Proverb)

1. When you think about how your mother acts toward you, in general, would you say that she is very supportive, somewhat supportive, or not very supportive? 1 Very supportive

2 Somewhat supportive

3 Not very supportive

2. In general, would you say that your mother is permissive or strict about making sure that you did what you were supposed to do? 1 Permissive

2 Strict

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_8

91

92

8  Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

3. When you think about how your father acts toward you, in general, would you say that he is very supportive, somewhat supportive, or not very supportive? 1 Very supportive

2 Somewhat supportive

3 Not very supportive

4. In general, would you say that your father is permissive or strict about making sure that you did what you were supposed to do? 1 Permissive

2 Strict

8.1 Basic Parenting Concepts The desire to understand the inner workings of families with adolescents inevitably focuses attention on the parents, who are seen as the driving force behind most matters concerning the development and well-being of family members (Bornstein, 1995). In fact, Lerner (2002) makes the statement that “parenting is the core function of the family” (p. 181). This sentiment certainly fits well within the “intergenerational caring” definition of family adopted by this book, as there is a great emphasis on what parents and other adult caregivers are doing in order to socialize their offspring to become productive members of society. Historically, the literature pertaining to the impact of parents on adolescents has been based on Baumrind’s (1978) original conceptualizations of authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and indifferent parenting styles. These styles (see Fig. 8.1) are comprised of a two-dimensional view of parenting (Maccoby & Martin, 1983) that recognizes variation in both parent responsiveness (warmth and affection) and parent demandingness (rule-setting and discipline). Although somewhat oversimplified, the items presented at the beginning of this chapter – taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (Gillespie, 2020; Moore et  al., 1999)  – are fairly precise representations of the two-dimensional nature of parenting styles. The response of “1” on the support-oriented question is

High Demandingness Low Demandingness

Fig. 8.1  Parenting styles

High Responsiveness Authoritative Permissive/Indulgent

Low Responsiveness Authoritarian Indifferent/Neglectful

8.1  Basic Parenting Concepts

93

coded as “high responsiveness,” while responses of “2” or “3” are coded as “low responsiveness.” In turn, a response of “1” on the permissive/strict-oriented question is coded as “low demandingness,” and the response of “2” is coded as “high demandingness.” Authoritative parents, the style of parenting most often associated with positive adolescent outcomes (Collins & Laursen, 2004; Mowen & Schroeder, 2018; Pinquart & Gerke, 2019; Sahithya et al., 2019; Smetana, 1995; Steinberg & Silk, 2002; White et al., 2013), represents the combination of high responsiveness and high demandingness. Because authoritative parents display high responsiveness, relationships with adolescents include a great deal of warmth, support, affection, and nurturance. At the same time, however, the high demandingness of authoritative parents translates into a great deal of structure and control being placed on the adolescent’s life. Hence, there are rules that carry rewards when they are followed and meaningful consequences when they are broken or disobeyed. That said, these messages take place within a context that reads: “we are demanding this of you because we love you and know what’s best for you.” While authoritarian parents also are high in demandingness, this style of parenting is characterized by low responsiveness. Hence, the expectation that rules and regulations will be adhered to occurs in a much less warm emotional environment, often with the message that you will follow directions because “I am the parent and I told you to do this.” There is some research indicating that non-White parents are more likely to adopt this style of parenting (Fuligni et al., 2009), and other studies have reported that authoritarian parenting can lead to positive outcomes for these minority youth (Dixon et al., 2008; Simons et al., 2013). Permissive parents (also termed indulgent) are low on demandingness but high on responsiveness. Without rules and other forms of control, permissive parents offer little in the way of expectations that are placed on their teenage sons and daughters. Instead, the emphasis is on the creation of a warm and accommodating emotional environment. In essence, the message that is transmitted in this context is one of “unconditional love,” regardless of the behaviors displayed by the adolescent. Indifferent parents (also labeled neglectful), as the label implies, are low in both demandingness and responsiveness. These parents do not place any sort of structure or control over the lives of their teenage sons and daughters, nor they have any felt sense of closeness or connection. Instead, the message is “go ahead and do whatever you please whenever you please, just please leave me out of it.” These latter two parenting styles – permissive/indulgent and indifferent/neglectful – are most representative of the types of mothers and fathers being targeted in the ancient Chinese proverb that begins this chapter. In both cases, parents are choosing not to “put their foot down,” meaning that they are not placing any kinds of demands on their sons and daughters. In return, what they typically get is their own toes “stepped on,” at least in terms of the parents being ineffective at curtailing the display of “out-of-control behaviors” by their adolescents (Conger et al., 1995). In addition to research pertaining to parenting styles, Peterson’s (2005) review of literature relevant to the influence of parents on adolescents recognizes the important contributions made regarding parental behavior on adolescent outcomes,

94

8  Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

beginning with the recognition that “the closest thing to a general law of parenting is that warm, supportive, nurturant, and accepting behavior by mothers and fathers is associated with the development of social competence by adolescents” (p. 40). Hence, research on parenting factors related to support, use of reasoning/induction, monitoring, supervision, knowledge, granting of psychological autonomy, and discipline strategies all must be recognized as additional important areas of inquiry regarding the impact of parents on adolescent’s development and well-being (Cox & Harter, 2003; Lee et al., 2020). Crosnoe and Cavanagh (2010) completed the Journal of Marriage and the Family’s decade review of articles on families with children and adolescents, which included a discussion of emerging trends in the parenting literature over the last 10 years. These scholars noted five such trends, including the following: 1. Greater articulation of the developmental significance of parenting behaviors. 2. Greater distinction between parenting behaviors and what occurs in parent–adolescent relationships. 3. Greater visibility of fathers and fatherhood issues. 4. Greater sensitivity to the culturally specific meaning of parenting behaviors. 5. Greater awareness of the need for more internationally diverse samples of parents. In the Journal of Marriage and the Family’s review one decade later, Buehler (2020) noted the increasingly robust emphasis placed on the use of a diversity lens in literature focusing on the family’s impact on child’s and adolescent’s well-being. As well, constructs related to positivity, regulatory processes, and family organization were highlighted as particularly important examples of a more strength-based perspective reflected in this literature. As shall be seen next, most of these trends are rather easily identified in the parenting and parent–adolescent dyadic studies selected for review. First, a representative sample of studies that focus on some of the standard approaches to this area of inquiry is reviewed, with special attention given to those research efforts that examine the relative contributions of both mothers and fathers, the gathering of information from multiple family members, and the use of data from observers outside of the family. Following this, two ongoing issues that confront researchers interested in the parent–adolescent dyad are addressed: the dimensionality of parenting behaviors and the cultural relevance of parenting behaviors.

8.2 Selected Studies on Parenting Behaviors Many studies that have focused on parenting styles over the past 25 years continue to underscore the long-held belief that an authoritative parenting style is associated with the most positive adolescent’s well-being outcomes (Mowen & Schroeder, 2018; Pinquart & Gerke, 2019; Weiss & Schwartz, 1996). One more recent twist on this body of findings has been a greater focus on the specific parenting styles of both

8.2  Selected Studies on Parenting Behaviors

95

mothers and fathers. This newer more expanded approach to parenting styles accomplishes a number of additional things, including most importantly allowing for greater specificity in terms understanding the relative importance of mothers’ and fathers’ contributions to adolescent’s development and well-being (cf., de Maat et al., 2021; Stolz et al., 2005). In related fashion, gathering data on both mothers and fathers sets the stage for shifting the unit of analysis toward the family unit as a combination of these mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads. One excellent example of how this newer approach to the study of parenting styles illuminates the particular role that fathers play in the lives of adolescents was conducted by Bronte-Tinkew et  al. (2006). These researchers reported that an authoritative style of parenting displayed by fathers was significantly associated with positive outcomes for adolescents (average age 15.3 years) even after a number of mother-related variables (including mother’s own parenting style) were controlled. In addition, as hypothesized, these researchers found that fathers’ impact was greater for male adolescents than for female adolescents. The focus on the parenting styles of both mothers and fathers is a fortunate turn of events, especially for those scholars interested in understanding the impact of both parents on adolescent’s growth and development. Historically, much of this literature has been limited precisely because of its singular focus on mothers only (Phares, 1999, 2002). More recently, scholars have been uncovering differences in the amount and type of involvement that both parents have with their adolescents (Paley et al., 2000; Phares et al., 2009a; Pleck, 2010; Stolz et al., 2005), as well as gender differences in terms of how adolescents relate to their mothers and fathers (Phares et al., 2009b). Bolkan et  al. (2010) investigated early adolescents’ perception of parenting styles in mother–father–adolescent triads along with adolescent’s self-reported problem behaviors. For the study, data from 3353 young adolescents (aged 12–14) within the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth were analyzed using a MIMIC (multiple-indicator multiple-cause) model. Results indicated that adolescents’ interpretations of their parents’ behavior predicted their own subsequent behaviors, and these same perceptions of each parent were equally important in explaining problem behavior, regardless of the gender of the youth. Also, compared to situations where both parents were viewed as authoritative, adolescents’ behavior was more problematic when either parent was viewed by the youth as either disengaged or authoritarian. More recently, Yaffe’s (2020) systematic review of parenting styles in 15 countries revealed that mothers, compared to fathers, are perceived as more accepting, responsive, and supportive, as well as more behaviorally controlling, demanding, and autonomy-granting than fathers. According to parent and adolescent reports, mothers also were predominantly more authoritative than fathers, and fathers were mostly more authoritarian than mothers. However, readers should keep in mind that there have recently been other viewpoints on gender-differentiated parenting. Based on 126 observational studies, Endendijk and colleagues’ (2016) meta-analysis review found few differences in parents’ use of control with both sons and daughters. Parents were slightly more controlling with boys than with girls, but the effect

96

8  Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

size was negligible, and there were no gender-related differences on the autonomy-­ supportive dimension of parenting. One additional interesting finding was related to cohort effects across time, such that studies published in the 1970s and 1980s reported more autonomy-supportive strategies with boys than toward girls, but from 1990 onward, parents showed somewhat more autonomy-supportive strategies with girls than toward boys. The results may be in line with Fagan and colleagues’ (2014) systemic review which indicated that fathers and mothers are becoming more similar in terms of their parental roles and the types of behaviors with which they engage their sons and daughters, a trend in parenting practices that may indicate a move toward creating a more egalitarian family environment (Trifan et al., 2014). In related fashion, the emphasis on obtaining information from both mothers and fathers has led to efforts to examine the uniformity of parenting styles. For instance, Fletcher et al. (1999) reported that “interparental consistency” (inferred from the reports of high school students on the parenting styles of their mothers and fathers) was less important than the presence of at least one authoritative parent for adolescents’ academic competency. Additionally, few differences in adolescent outcomes were identified between families with two authoritative parents versus those containing only one authoritative parent. While the Fletcher et al.’s (1999) study helped the field to recognize the need to examine the uniformity of parental behaviors, this research was limited by the fact that adolescent’s perspectives only were utilized. This is a problem for a number of reasons, not the least of which is we do not have access to what the parents themselves believe they are doing behaviorally. As suggested by Sabatelli and Bartle (1995), when parental and family variables are targeted in empirical efforts, the researcher ought to let those family members speak for themselves, as well as having others comment on their activities. Readers can ponder the relative importance of this last point. Suppose you were a researcher who was interested in learning more about parenting behaviors. Do you think it would matter if you talked to mothers but not fathers or vice versa? And of what value would the adolescent’s viewpoint be to you? It seems axiomatic to state that most people would choose to gather information from as many sources as possible. What is equally self-evident, however, is that the gathering of multiple family member perspectives is not a strategy of convenience but rather is a challenging necessity for researchers who are invested in the notion that all points of view within the family are valuable and therefore must be sought and acquired. An excellent example that underscores the importance of seeking multiple family member perspectives on such variables of interest comes from a study conducted by Bogenschneider et al. (1997), who examined the relationship between parents’ perceptions of their own parenting competence and what their eighth through twelfth grade adolescents reported about their parenting behaviors. Findings indicated that higher perceived levels of competence by parents were associated with adolescent reports of greater monitoring, higher levels of parent responsiveness, and less psychologically controlling behaviors by their parents. In addition, parents who reported higher levels of competence also reported less stress in parenting their son

8.3  The Dimensionality of Parenting Behaviors

97

or daughter in combination with greater perceptions of that adolescent’s cooperativeness and openness to being socialized. Said in a slightly different way, it appears that parents and high school-aged adolescents tend to display agreement in their ratings of parenting behaviors. The more competent parents feel, the more likely their son or daughter is to report higher levels of the kinds of parenting behaviors that the literature associates with constructive parenting – monitoring and responsiveness – and lower levels of questionable parenting behaviors (in this case, psychologically controlling activities). And to top it all off, mothers and fathers who engage in more competent parenting behaviors experience less stress and more cooperativeness in their relationships with their high schoolers. A related issue involves the comparison of “insider” and “outsider” perspectives, whereby the viewpoints of family members are compared with observations made by researchers (Johnson, 2010). One great example of how to extend this type of research through the use of both self-report and observational ratings (thus examining both the “insider” reports of adolescents and the “outsider” views of observers) comes from Simons and Conger (2007), who examined parenting styles of both parents with seventh grade adolescents (followed longitudinally with measures taken in the eighth and ninth grades). In addition to findings that marked notable differences between insider and outsider perspectives, these researchers reported that mothers and fathers most often were seen as sharing a common parenting style. Further, it was reported that the most positive adolescent outcomes were associated with reports indicating that both parents displayed authoritative parenting styles. In addition to the comparison of insider and outsider perspectives, this last research article also displays the strength of having used a longitudinal design. This approach to research becomes incredibly important to scholars who are interested in tracking continuity and change throughout this developmental period. It has been noted that the increased number of large longitudinal databases made available to researchers  – including but not limited to the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth (NLSY) (both the NLSY79 and NLSY1997 cohorts) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) – has allowed for more focused attention on generating support for theoretically derived suppositions about how families behave over time. Further, the increased use of longitudinal designs has coincided with the development and use of more sophisticated statistical methods for handling these sorts of data (Greenstein & Davis, 2012).

8.3 The Dimensionality of Parenting Behaviors While a number of strengths have been identified in this literature, the empirical work on parenting styles is not without its limitations and controversies, however. For instance, Barber (1997) has criticized the parenting style literature as unnecessarily blurring the distinction between dimensions of parenting associated with connectedness, behavioral regulation, and the promotion of psychological autonomy.

98

8  Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

This assertion is backed up by studies that have purposefully kept these three dimensions separate in order to compare and contrast their relative influence (Barber & Xia, 2013; Garber et al., 1997; Grotevant, 1997; Hennan et al., 1997; Hunter et al., 2015; Salaam & Mounts, 2016). Barber (1997) argues that while connectedness is represented within the more general realm of responsiveness, this dimension also can be more specifically measured as warmth, nurturance, love, cohesion, support, and attachment. Behavioral regulation also is captured by the more general realm of demandingness, yet this dimension also can be more exactly quantified as monitoring, supervision, discipline strategies, and the like. Finally, Barber (1997) discusses the promotion of psychological autonomy as a sort of “lost” dimension that has received much less identifiable attention in the literature, even though concepts such as intrusiveness, enmeshment, and (over)protectiveness are embedded in the larger parenting styles literature. Barber’s (1996) own work in this area has focused largely on parent promotion of psychological autonomy, also conceptualized as parental psychological control. In the first of three studies reported in a single article, Barber (1996) used reports from a sample of fifth, eighth, and tenth grade students in order to generate evidence that parent’s psychological control (as measured through a parent’s use of guilt, withdrawal of love, and “excessive pressure for change”) could be differentiated from parent’s behavioral control (in this case, as measured by monitoring of the youth’s activities). In the second study, observational techniques were employed with a sample of families containing adolescents (average age: 12 years) in order to make that same claim; however, this approach yielded more mixed results. Finally, in the third study, the reports of adolescents (fifth and eighth graders at the initiation of the study) over a 2-year period provided some further evidence that discriminated between psychological and behavioral control efforts undertaken by parents. Readers might pause here to consider the relative significance of the points being made. Clearly, Barber and colleagues are emphasizing the importance of the two classic dimensions of parenting that concern the giving of warmth (responsiveness) and the provision of structure (demandingness). In addition, however, these scholars are going to great lengths to specify the differences between the behavioral control aspect of demandingness and what they have termed psychological control. While their distinctness is argued here, one might also wonder about the degree to which the utilization of psychological control is dependent on the existence of behavioral control as well (Romm & Metzger, 2021). Said in another way, is psychological control actually an extension of behavioral control, such that they exist on a continuum of influence that parents attempt to exert on their adolescent sons and daughters? More recently, Taşkın Sayıl and Erdem (2023) examined the influence of parental control on basic psychological needs frustration (BPNF) during emerging adulthood in Turkey. Guided by self-determination theory, BPNF is related to the lack of satisfaction in the core psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). More specifically, this research examined the associations between perceived parental psychological control, sexual control, behavioral

8.3  The Dimensionality of Parenting Behaviors

99

control, and BPNF using a sample of 714 Turkish participants aged 18–24 years. The results indicated that perceived parental psychological and sexual controls were positively associated with BPNF. On the other hand, behavioral control was negatively associated with BPNF, implying that higher levels of perceived control were related to lower frustration of basic psychological needs. Additionally, BPNF was found to mediate the relationship between perceived parental psychological and behavioral control and both mental well-being and sexual well-being. This suggests that the influence of parental control on well-being outcomes operates through the frustration of basic psychological needs, at least in the lives of young adults residing in Turkey. Yet another controversial aspect of this literature surrounds concepts related to parental monitoring and parents’ supervision of their adolescent’s activities, topics that more recently have come under increased scrutiny by researchers interested in parenting behaviors. For many years, consistent evidence had built up in the literature that created the sense that adolescent development and well-being were integrally tied to how much information parents had about their location and activities (Hair et al., 2008). The lack of such information was thought to create serious and potentially dangerous situations for adolescents (Griffin et  al., 2000; Kim et  al., 1999; Paschall et al., 2003; Vazsonyi et al., 2021a). Parental supervision often involves parents monitoring their adolescent’s interactions with peers by seeking direct information about their activities (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2019). The role of adolescent disclosure – the extent to which adolescents actually share accurate information with their parents about their whereabouts and activities – has received increased attention more recently. For example, Mounts and Valentiner (2021) investigated the bidirectional nature of parental solicitation of information and adolescent disclosure using sequential analysis of observational data. A diverse sample of 68 early adolescents and their mothers from the United States completed questionnaires and engaged in video-recorded discussions focused on hypothetical peer relationship situations. The researchers reported that, in general, higher maternal solicitation was followed by more adolescent disclosure, although that disclosure was more likely when prosocial behavior was the focus of the interaction. Additionally, this same study indicated that higher levels of conflict within peer relationships, when combined with a lower likelihood of adolescent disclosure following maternal solicitation, were associated with more negative outcomes. These findings emphasize that the effects of interaction dynamics between parental solicitation and adolescent disclosure can vary depending on the specific relational context. The work of Stattin and Kerr (2000), in particular, set the stage for the need to discriminate between parental knowledge of adolescent’s whereabouts/behaviors and the specific activities undertaken by parents to track their adolescent (deemed to be actual monitoring). In a study using the reports of 14-year-old adolescents and parents from Sweden, these researchers documented how greater parental knowledge was most closely related to adolescent disclosure in comparison to more active monitoring attempts on the part of parents (such as parents’ direct solicitation of information). A similar study using the same sample (Kerr & Stattin, 2000)

100

8  Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

replicated and extended these findings with an enhanced set of adolescent adjustment variable indicators. In essence, these findings strongly suggest that the quality of the relationship between parents and their sons and daughters may play a substantial role in determining how much information parents can gather about their adolescents’ whereabouts (Smetana, 2008; Soenens et al., 2006). In related fashion, Garthe et al. (2015) studied the longitudinal nature of reciprocal relations among variables associated with child disclosure, parental acceptance, parental knowledge, and adolescents’ internalizing problems in a sample of 358 urban (predominantly African American) adolescents and their primary caregivers. Results showed that parental knowledge and acceptance predicted child disclosure and child disclosure predicted parental knowledge 1 year later, supported by several prior studies (Hamza & Willoughby, 2011; Racz & McMahon, 2011). Additionally, no differences in the strength of these relationships were found across grades or gender. The findings highlight the role of the adolescent’s perceived acceptance by parents in promoting children’s disclosure and the benefits of parental acceptance in decreasing depressive symptoms over time. Hence, while parenting behaviors associated with monitoring and supervising the whereabouts and activities of adolescents have associated repeatedly with more positive outcomes, it may very well be the case that the parents who are most effective in doing this sort of supervision are precisely those mothers and fathers who have higher-quality relationships with their sons and daughters in general (Baldry et al., 2019). To wit, some of these studies suggest that because parents largely are reliant on their adolescents to provide information about their activities, they will only be supplied with such information when their adolescents are agreeable. Hence, monitoring and supervision effectiveness may be a by-product of other dynamics within the parent–adolescent dyad.

8.4 The Cultural Relevance of Parenting Behaviors Notably, there have been a number of studies that have examined the “cultural equivalence” of parenting behaviors, including the dimensions of connectedness, the behavioral regulation, and the promotion of psychological autonomy/control. For instance, Bean et  al. (2003) used reports from a high school-aged sample of African American and White adolescents regarding the parenting behaviors of both their mothers and fathers. Both similarities and differences between the two racial groups on measures of support (as the connectedness measure), behavioral control, and psychological control were reported, and the disaggregation of reports on both mothers and fathers was highlighted as a contributing factor toward the researchers’ abilities to specify these comparisons. In a second study that examined cultural equivalency, Bean et al. (2006) examined the reports of fifth, eighth, and tenth grade African American students on the same three measures of parenting behaviors used in the previously reviewed study. Again disaggregating the behaviors of mothers and fathers, these researchers

8.4  The Cultural Relevance of Parenting Behaviors

101

reported findings that underscore the relative similarity of African American and White parenting behaviors and their association with adolescent outcomes, especially with regard to both parents’ behavioral control efforts and fathers’ support displays. At the same time, however, the lack of impact that was displayed by mothers’ support displays and both parents’ psychological control efforts led the researchers to call for more racially diverse studies employing these types of variables. These two studies serve as a solid segue into another controversy within the parenting literature surrounding the “most favored status” of the authoritative style of parenting across groups who differ in terms of race, ethnicity, and culture. Some scholars have paid attention to variation in parenting styles as a function of race and economic conditions in the United States, noting that a more authoritarian style might be more functional for minority families living in dangerous neighborhoods (Steinberg et al., 2006). In essence, this viewpoint argues that the magnified sense of control that parents exert over their sons and daughters serves as an important barrier to those adolescents becoming involved in a variety of risky and problematic behaviors. Others have argued that non-White parents simply express the combination of high demandingness and high responsiveness in ways that are different than their White counterparts in this country (Arcia et  al., 2000; Chao, 2001; Halgunseth et al., 2006; Smetana et al., 2004). This argument has been extended to traditional cultures outside of the United States as well (Keshavarz & Mounts, 2017; Pomerantz & Wang, 2009; Zhang & Fuligni, 2006). Keshavarz and Mounts (2017) examined the influence of adolescents’ gender on the relationship between paternal parenting styles and self-efficacy in a sample of 382 adolescents residing in Iran, a more collectivist-­oriented society. The results of this study indicated that both paternal authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles were significantly and positively associated with adolescents’ self-efficacy. Furthermore, the findings suggested that male adolescents who perceived their fathers as highly authoritative reported higher levels of self-efficacy compared to their female counterparts. More recently, a systematic review of parental socialization (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018) revealed that the authoritative style of parenting was associated with lower internalization and externalization problems in North America, Western Europe, Southeast Asia, Australia, and Arabic countries. In Latin America, the authoritative style was only associated with lower emotional disturbance, while in Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa, there was no association between adolescent’s well-being and authoritative parenting styles at all. Such discrepancies reflect the influence of cultural factors on parenting style and its impact on psychosocial development (Garcia et al., 2019; Martínez et al., 2019). In this context, Gimenez-Serrano et al. (2022) examined the relationship between parenting style and outcomes of 2131 Spanish children and reported that the indulgent and authoritative parenting styles showed better socialization outcomes for all well-being variables across all age ranges. However, offspring from indulgent families scored higher on emotional self-concept and lowered on hostile sexism and nervousness than those from authoritative families.

102

8  Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

These results are consistent with emerging research indicating that Hispanic parents are much less likely to exhibit greater degrees of demandingness relative to levels of warmth in their parenting style, even when presented with unsafe neighborhoods (White et al., 2013). Also, Simons et al. (2013) reported that harsh parenting practices, including the use of corporal punishment, tend not to have negative consequences for Black youth when compared with White youth. Hence, questions about the generalizable nature of parenting styles and their association with markers of adolescent development and well-being remain unresolved at this time in terms of potential variations that are a function of race, ethnicity, and culture. Further research using more diverse samples undoubtedly will generate additional information about these similarities and differences in overall parenting styles and behaviors. For example, Vazsonyi et al. (2021b) examined the links between perceived maternal and paternal parenting and internalizing and externalizing problems across 10 cultures (China, Czech Republic, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States). They collected self-report data from a sample of 12,757 adolescents (average age of approximately 17 years and relatively equal numbers of males and females). Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses were employed to determine if parenting processes (encompassing six dimensions associated with closeness, support, monitoring, communication, peer approval, and conflict) and measures of internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors varied across the different countries and cultures. Initial findings indicated the underlying structure of the parenting processes was similar across the cultural contexts studied. Furthermore, the researchers found that the links between the parenting processes and internalizing and externalizing problems did not vary across cultures. One concern here is that many previous studies have tended to use oversimplified ways of assessing parenting-oriented variables in a manner that may not always be consistent with the cultural values of the samples under study. More in-depth examination of what exactly constitutes parenting styles and behaviors undoubtedly will yield more precise information about the cultural relevance of this work. On a related note, researchers typically are not asking questions about parent’s behaviors that surround specific situations and issues but rather are pulling for information about more general patterns of behavior. It may well be the case that the pursuit of information about how parents behave in more particular instances also will generate data that provides a more comprehensive comparison and contrast of parenting styles and behaviors across diverse samples.

8.5 Summary of Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad Baumrind’s (1978) original work on parenting styles has maintained a strong influence on the most recent research that focuses on dyadic relationships in families with adolescents. The vast majority of the studies conducted over the last 25 years underscore the linkage between healthy adolescent development and an

References

103

authoritative style of parenting. Newer studies have extended this work in a number of important directions, including work that has examined potential differences between mothers and fathers in terms of their parenting styles, as well as exploring the impact that parenting style consistency has within the context of families with adolescents. As well, the very definitions of parenting styles have been expanded to include variables such as monitoring and knowledge, responsiveness, warmth, and psychological control. Additionally, the influence of parental involvement beyond financial assistance on young adults’ overall lives, including their education, work, residential transitions, and family formation, has been well documented in the literature. This, in turn, has led to increased attention being given to further elaborations within the research literature on the parent–adolescent dyad, including variations that may exist as a function of race, ethnicity, and culture.

References Arcia, E., Reyes-Blanes, M.  E., & Vasquez-Montilla, E. (2000). Constructions and reconstructions: Latino parents’ values for children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 333–350. Baldry, A. C., Sorrentino, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Cyberbullying and cybervictimization versus parental supervision, monitoring and control of adolescents’ online activities. Children and Youth Services Review, 96, 302–307. Barber, B.  K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67(6), 3296–3319. Barber, B. K. (1997). Adolescent socialization in context: The role of connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5–11. Barber, B.  K., & Xia, M. (2013). The centrality of control to parenting and its effects. In R. Larzelere, A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development (pp.  61–87). American Psychological Association. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parent disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239–276. Bean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., & Wilson, S. M. (2003). The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 523–541. Bean, R. A., Barber, B. K., & Crane, D. R. (2006). Parent support, behavioral control, and psychological control among African American youth: The relationships to academic grade, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1335–1355. Bogenschneider, K., Small, S. A., & Tsay, J. C. (1997). Child, parent, and contextual influences on perceived parenting competence among parents of adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 345–362. Bolkan, C., Sano, Y., De Costa, J., Acock, A. C., & Day, R. D. (2010). Early adolescents’ perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles and problem behavior. Marriage & Family Review, 46(8), 563–579. Bornstein, M. H. (1995). Handbook of parenting (Vol. 3. Status and social conditions of parenting.). Erlbaum. Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., & Carrano, J. (2006). The father-child relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 850–881.

104

8  Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

Buehler, C. (2020). Family processes and children’s and adolescents’ well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 145–174. Chao, R. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832–1843. Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 55–62. Conger, R. D., Patterson, G. R., & Ge, X. (1995). It takes two to replicate: A meditational model for the impact of parents’ stress on adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 66, 80–97. Cox, M., & Harter, K. S. M. (2003). Parent-child relationships. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, K. A. Moore, & The Center for Child Well-Being (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 191–204). Lawrence Erlbaum. Crosnoe, R., & Cavanagh, S. E. (2010). Families with children and adolescents: A review, critique, and future agenda. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 594–611. de Maat, D.  A., Jansen, P.  W., Prinzie, P., Keizer, R., Franken, I.  H., & Lucassen, N. (2021). Examining longitudinal relations between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress, parenting behaviors, and adolescents’ behavior problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30, 771–783. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Dixon, S. V., Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). The roles of respect for parental authority and parenting practices in parent-child conflict among African American, Latino, and European American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 1–11. Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Mesman, J. (2016). Gender-­ differentiated parenting revisited: Meta-analysis reveals very few differences in parental control of boys and girls. PLoS One, 11(7), e0159193. Fagan, J., Day, R., Lamb, M. E., & Cabrera, N. J. (2014). Should researchers conceptualize differently the dimensions of parenting for fathers and mothers? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 390–405. Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Sellers, E. B. (1999). Adolescents’ well-being as a function of perceived interparental consistency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 599–610. Fuligni, A. J., Hughes, D. L., & Way, N. (2009). Ethnicity and immigration. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed.). Wiley. Garber, J., Robinson, N. S., & Valentiner, D. (1997). The relation between parenting and adolescent depression: Self-worth as a mediator. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 12–33. Garcia, F., Serra, E., Garcia, O. F., Martinez, I., & Cruise, E. (2019). A third emerging stage for the current digital society? Optimal parenting styles in Spain, the United States, Germany, and Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2333. Garthe, R. C., Sullivan, T., & Kliewer, W. (2015). Longitudinal relations between adolescent and parental behaviors, parental knowledge, and internalizing behaviors among urban adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 819–832. Gillespie, B. J. (2020). Adolescent intergenerational relationship dynamics and leaving and returning to the parental home. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 997–1014. Gimenez-Serrano, S., Garcia, F., & Garcia, O. F. (2022). Parenting styles and its relations with personal and social adjustment beyond adolescence: Is the current evidence enough? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(5), 749–769. Greenstein, T. N., & Davis, S. N. (2012). Methods of family research (3rd ed.). Sage. Griffin, K.  W., Botvin, G.  J., Scheier, L.  M., Diaz, T., & Miller, N.  L. (2000). Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 174–184. Grotevant, H.  D. (1997). Family processes, identity development, and behavioral outcomes for adopted adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 139–161.

References

105

Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Garrett, S. B., Ling, T., & Cleveland, K. (2008). The continued importance of quality parent–adolescent relationships during late adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 187–200. Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review in the literature. Child Development, 77(5), 1282–1297. Hamza, C.  A., & Willoughby, T. (2011). Perceived parental monitoring, adolescent disclosure, and adolescent depressive symptoms: A longitudinal examination. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 902–915. Hennan, M. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Herron, M. C., & Herting, J. R. (1997). The influence of family regulation, connection, and psychological autonomy on six measures of adolescent functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 34–67. Hunter, S. B., Barber, B. K., & Stolz, H. E. (2015). Extending knowledge of parents’ role in adolescent development: The mediating effect of self-esteem. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2474–2484. Johnson, V.  K. (2010). From early childhood to adolescence: Linking family functioning and school behavior. Family Relations, 59, 313–325. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366–380. Keshavarz, S., & Mounts, N.  S. (2017). Perceived parenting style of fathers and Iranian adolescents’ self-efficacy: The moderating role of gender and education. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 178(5), 281–290. Kim, J.  E., Hetherington, E.  M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development, 70, 1209–1230. Ladd, G., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. (2019). Parents and children’s peer relationships. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 5: The practice of parenting (3rd ed.). Routledge. Lee, B., Gerber, J., & Cochran, J. (2020). Parenting styles and children’s delinquency reconsidered: An empirical assessment. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 71(2), 33–59. Lerner, R. M. (2002). Adolescence: Development, diversity, context, and application. Prentice-Hall. Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (Vol. 4, pp. 1–101). Wiley. Martínez, I., Murgui, S., Garcia, O. F., & Garcia, F. (2019). Parenting in the digital era: Protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 84–92. Moore, K. A., McGroder, S. M., Hair, E. C., & Gunnoe, M. (1999). NLSY97 codebook supplement main file round 1. Appendix 9: Family process and adolescent outcomes measures. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. From http://www.nlsinfo.org/ Mounts, N. S., & Valentiner, D. P. (2021). Do ask, do tell? Observations of mothers’ solicitation and adolescents’ disclosure. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 160–171. Mowen, T. J., & Schroeder, R. D. (2018). Maternal parenting style and delinquency by race and the moderating effect of structural disadvantage. Youth & Society, 50(2), 139–159. Paley, B., Conger, R. D., & Harold, G. T. (2000). Parents’ affect, adolescent cognitive representations, and adolescent social development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 761–776. Paschall, M. J., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (2003). Effects of parenting, father absence, and affiliation with delinquent peers on delinquent behavior among African-American male adolescents. Adolescence, 38, 15–34. Peterson, G. W. (2005). Family influences on adolescent development. In T. P. Gullotta & G. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behavior problems (pp. 27–55). Springer. Phares, V. (1999). “Poppa” psychology: The role of fathers in children’s mental well-being. Praeger.

106

8  Research on the Parent–Adolescent Dyad

Phares, V. (2002). Finding poppa in substance abuse research. Addiction, 97, 1119–1120. Phares, V., Fields, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009a). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with their adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 1–9. Phares, V., Renk, K., Duhig, A. M., Fields, S., & Sly, J. (2009b). Gender differences in positive and negative feelings between adolescents and their fathers and mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 213–218. Pinquart, M., & Gerke, D. C. (2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 2017–2035. Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(1), 75–100. Pleck, J. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M.  E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 58–93). Wiley. Pomerantz, E. M., & Wang, Q. (2009). The role of parental control in children’s development in Western and East Asian countries. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 285–289. Racz, S. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2011). The relationship between parental knowledge and monitoring and child and adolescent conduct problems: A 10-year update. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 377–398. Romm, K. F., & Metzger, A. (2021). Profiles of parenting behaviors: Associations with adolescents’ problematic outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30, 941–954. Sabatelli, R. M., & Bartle, S. E. (1995). Survey approaches to the assessment of family functioning: Conceptual, operational, and analytical issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1025–1039. Sahithya, B. R., Manohari, S. M., & Vijaya, R. (2019). Parenting styles and its impact on children–a cross cultural review with a focus on India. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 22(4), 357–383. Salaam, B., & Mounts, N.  S. (2016). Maternal warmth, behavioral control, and psychological control: Relations to adjustment of Ghanaian early adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 49, 99–104. Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 212–241. Simons, L., Schrager, S. M., Clark, L. F., Belzer, M., & Olson, J. (2013). Parental support and mental health among transgender adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(6), 791–793. Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development, 66, 299–316. Smetana, J. (2008). It’s 10 o’clock: Do you know where your children are? Recent advances in understanding parental monitoring and adolescents’ information management. Child Development Perspectives, 2(1), 19–25. Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., & Campione-Barr, N. (2004). African American adolescents’ relationships with parents: Developmental transitions and longitudinal patterns. Child Development, 75, 932–947. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., & Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology, 42, 305–318. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072–1085. Steinberg, L. D., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 103–134). Erlbaum. Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: Replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 47–58.

References

107

Stolz, H., Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Toward disentangling fathering and mothering: An assessment of relative importance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1076–1092. Taşkın Sayıl, D., & Erdem, G. (2023). An examination of different types of parental control on the well-being of Turkish emerging adults. Family Relations. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12851 Trifan, T. A., Stattin, H., & Tilton-Weaver, L. (2014). Have authoritarian parenting practices and roles changed in the last 50 years? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(4), 744–761. Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A. J., & Javakhishvili, M. (2021a). Problems of cross-cultural criminology no more! Testing two central tenets of self-control theory across 28 nations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 75, 101827. Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A. J., Javakhishvili, M., Scarpate, J. M., & Kahumoku-Fessler, E. (2021b). Links between parenting and internalizing and externalizing problems: Cross-cultural evidence from ten countries. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 53, 1–17. Weiss, L. H., & Schwartz, J. C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents’ personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67, 2101–2114. White, R., Zeiders, K.  H., Gonzales, N.  A., Tein, J.  Y., & Roosa, M.  W. (2013). Cultural values, US neighborhood danger, and Mexican American parents’ parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 365–375. Yaffe, Y. (2020). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current Psychology, 42, 1–14. Zhang, W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Authority, autonomy, and family relationships among adolescents in urban and rural China. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 527–537.

Chapter 9

Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

Abstract  Research efforts that have focused attention on triadic and larger (polyadic) relationships in families with adolescents largely have focused on a core number of “compelling family processes.” These family processes historically have been used to describe the reciprocal and mutually causal interactions that occur between and among family members over time. This chapter reviews studies of these family processes over the past 25 years that have included constructs such as family differentiation, triangulation, parentification, family conflict, and family decision-­ making activities. Particular attention is paid to the increased use of multiple family member perspectives in this type of research. The increased concentration on variation in family processes as a function of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and other significant demographic variables is discussed as well. Finally, empirical efforts that have focused on the impact of siblings are highlighted, as these studies are thought to represent an important and innovative advancement in the study of families with adolescents. In every conceivable manner, the family is the link to our past and bridge to our future. (Alex Haley)

Please indicate how often your father says or does the following things to you. Keep in mind there are no correct answers. Please circle the best answer. Response choices  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Sometimes Always 1. My father tells me I have not been a responsible family member.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. My father criticizes the way I run my life.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. My father tells me there are certain obligations I have to the family.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_9

109

110

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

4. My father tells me I do things a member of our family should not do.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. My father tells me how I should use my time and energy.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please indicate how often your mother says or does the following things to you. Keep in mind there are no correct answers. Please circle the best answer. Response choices  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Sometimes Always 1. My mother tells me I have not been a responsible family member.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. My mother criticizes the way I run my life.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. My mother tells me there are certain obligations I have to the family.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. My mother tells me I do things a member of our family should not do.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. My mother tells me how I should use my time and energy.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9.1 Basic Triadic/Polyadic Concepts In contrast to the previous chapter on research that focuses on the parent–adolescent dyad, this chapter focuses on empirical efforts that have viewed the families of adolescents through a systems lens. The family system is comprised of many subsystems, one of which is the parent–adolescent dyad, of course. In the more systems-oriented approach to the family with adolescents, however, the emphasis decidedly is on either the family as a totality or as the combinatorial effects of various dyads within the family. Examine for a moment the scale presented at the beginning of this chapter. These items come from an instrument known as the Family Intrusiveness Scale (FIS: Gavazzi et al., 1998). The FIS was designed to measure the ways in which family members monitor and adjust the amount of closeness or distance that they experience in relationship to one another, a task that has been associated with how well the overall family with adolescents is functioning as a system. Although originally worded and thus used to gather information about the family as a totality (Gavazzi

9.1  Basic Triadic/Polyadic Concepts

111

& Sabatelli, 1990), these items also have been modified in order to capture data about the mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyadic relationships more specifically (Cohen et al., 2003). Translations of the FIS also have been implemented in cross-cultural research (Fan et al., 2014). It should be noted here that researchers can and will shift the wording of items in order to best reflect the unit of analysis they are most interested in studying. The metaphor of the microscope and its core parts might fit well here. To wit, readers might think of the movement among units of analysis as the revolving of the turret in order to exchange lenses of different power. Alternatively, one might see this best illustrated through the use of the side knobs on the microscope that adjust both coarse and fine-grain focus. Whether or not a given study focuses on the family with adolescents as a totality or as the combination of multiple dyads, the empirical effort exists within a larger literature that is dominated by research on what has been termed “family processes.” Day et  al. (2009) define family processes as “the dynamics of the relationships among the multiple family members and across boundaries to those outside the system” (p. 120). As such, these family processes are meant to capture the reciprocal and mutually causal interactions that occur between and among family members over time. And as the quote from Alex Haley at the beginning of this chapter implies, these interactions or processes are thought to generate important information both about a given family’s past and that family’s prospects for the future (Moore & Lippman, 2005). General systems theory contains a teleological argument about systems, meaning that systems like families are seen as being comprised of goal-directed activity (Bertalanffy, 1968). For instance, recall that the FIS discussed above was thought to tap into certain “tasks” associated with family functioning. Day et al. (2001) extend this line of reasoning by asserting that family processes are those strategies used by families to accomplish certain goals and objectives that enhance outcomes for its members. These scholars go on to identify certain “compelling family processes” in the research literature that were thought to form the backbone of empirical work in this domain. The term “compelling” was adopted by these authors to highlight the sense that some family constructs seemed to have achieved an enduring presence over the years. In essence, theorists and researchers seemed to have conceptualized family processes in very similar ways, even though very different terms and labels were applied to these family processes (Bodman et al., 2022). These compelling family processes are thought to include a number of core constructs and associated areas of research. For instance, there are family processes associated with distance regulation, an area of inquiry that includes such related concepts as family differentiation, boundary maintenance, expressed emotion, and triangulation. Also, family flexibility and other concepts thought to be associated with this construct such as adaptability, problem-solving, and coping strategies make up another area of compelling family processes. Even areas of parenting covered in the previous chapter that are related more to parenting dimensions such as supervision (monitoring and behavioral control), and caring (support, affection,

112

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

acceptance, and companionship) are thought to have garnered a prominent place in the family process literature. It should be noted that some of the research studies within these related areas of inquiry also focus attention on issues related to family structure, which largely has to do with the marital status of parents and their biological relationships with youth in the household (for an excellent review of the foundational literature on this topic, see especially Wallerstein (1991)). For instance, many studies have been conducted that examine the impact of divorce on adolescent adjustment and well-being, generally reporting on its deleterious effects (Auersperg et al., 2019; Breivik & Olweus, 2006; Cherlin et al., 1995; Haskins, 2015; Krohn et al., 2009; Levin et al., 2012; Wallerstein & Lewis, 2009; Tullius et al., 2022; Weaver & Schofield, 2015). Other researchers have focused on the disruptive impact that stepfamily formation and membership have on adolescent outcomes (Gath, 2022; Koerner et al., 2004; Stoll et al., 2005). In essence, these studies rather uniformly have portrayed adolescents coming from two-parent households (and especially married biological parents) as having inherent advantages in comparison to adolescents who reside in single-parent-­ headed households. While these sorts of studies might seemingly support the notion that there is a dominant effect of family structure, many scholars insist that any distinction made between family processes and family structure is “somewhat artificial” (Peterson, 2005; Teachman, 2000). This sentiment is perhaps best expressed by the distinguished researcher Mavis Heatherington (2006), who wrote that “happy, well adjusted children can be found in diverse types of families … it is family process rather than family structure that is critical to the well-being of children” (p. 232). Thus, the contention here is that any type of disturbance to the family’s structure (separation, divorce, remarriage, etc.) will only impact youth’s well-being in a negative way if core family processes are disrupted. Such disruptions can include marked declines in father’s involvement (Booth et  al., 2010; Carlson, 2006; King & Sobolewski, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2007; Stewart, 2003), alterations in the mother–adolescent relationship (Arditti, 1999; Demo & Acock, 1996; Koerner et al., 2000; Langenkamp & Frisco, 2008), and/or increased marital conflict levels (Buehler et al., 1998; Gagne et al., 2007; Harold & Conger, 1997). Amato et  al. (2016) focused on stepfather families, including the information regarding adolescents’ perceived closeness with nonresident biological fathers, to understand variation in stepfamilies and how this variation is related to adolescents’ adjustment. These researchers analyzed data from Waves I and III of the Add Health’s study through the use of latent class analysis (LCA), a measurement model that examines patterns of answers given by individuals on a set of categorical variables. The results indicated that adolescents’ relationships can be represented with four latent classes, which provided evidence that there was variation in family functioning levels within stepfather families. More specifically, the study found that adolescents with weak ties to resident parents reported the most symptoms of depression, substance abuse, and the largest number of delinquent activities.

9.1  Basic Triadic/Polyadic Concepts

113

More recently, Murry and Lippold (2018) conducted a systemic review of family relationships within the family structure and concluded that while family transitions generally result in reductions of effective parenting practices, poor parenting practices and economic well-being negatively affect adolescent’s development and adjustment regardless of family structure. These results are similar to the Waldfogel et al.’s (2010) study that reported on the association between number of family transitions and optimal youth development. In a related fashion, Jensen and colleagues conducted a series of studies on family relations within stepfamilies (Jensen, 2022; Jensen & Harris, 2017a, b; Jensen & Lippold, 2018) and revealed that what is essential for adolescent adjustment in stepfamilies is not the family structure per se but rather how family relationships function over time. In turn, disrupted family processes can be further aggravated by an overall increase in cumulative risks (Cavanagh, 2008; Linebarger et  al., 2014; Matjasko et  al., 2007) in other areas of family life. Especially important in this regard are economic disadvantages (Manning & Lamb, 2003) that are either in place before family disruptions occur and/or are the direct or indirect result of the disruptions themselves. As well, new relationship issues brought on through parents’ dating experiences and one or both of the parents’ remarriages (Halpern-Meekin & Tach, 2008; King, 2006, 2009; Yuan et al., 2006) also are thought to hold great potential to further exacerbate disruptive family processes. As noted in the previous research chapter, Crosnoe and Cavanagh (2010) utilized two primary categories to organize the literature on families with adolescents: family status and family process. Of great interest here is the emphasis that these scholars have placed on the field’s movement away from attention paid to marital status per se and toward the number and types of transitions that youth are exposed to over time. Most simply stated, the evidence strongly suggests that, when more transitions occur, poor outcomes are more likely to occur (Bethell et al., 2017; Cavanagh & Huston, 2008; Osborne & McLanahan, 2007; Wu & Thomson, 2001). Additionally, Crosnoe and Cavanagh (2010) also pointed out that there was sustained growth in terms of the empirical attention that has been paid to a variety of family processes. Perhaps most notably, these scholars wrote that issues such as conflict in the family “both explain and condition the negative developmental risks of parental divorce” (p.  601) and other disruptions and transitions experienced within families. This underscores the need to understand the impact of all family-­ based changes in light of the amount of disruption that results to the inner workings of those families. Unfortunately, the Crosnoe and Cavanagh’s (2010) review did not unpack significant trends in the family process literature beyond that of the parenting behavior studies. Nonetheless, there are some important and noteworthy developments that have occurred over the last 25 years, something that was much more emphasized in Buehler’s (2020) subsequent decade review. First and foremost, a significant portion of this work falls under the general heading of family distance regulation, although the specific constructs employed in these studies (family differentiation, triangulation, and parentification) cut across a number of topic areas. These are exactly the types of “compelling family processes” that Day and colleagues have discussed in

114

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

their own reviews of empirical work in this conceptual arena (Day et  al., 2001, 2009), and thus a select number of studies are reviewed in order to give the reader some idea of how this type of research is conducted. Next, an increasing number of studies have employed multiple family member perspectives in their attempts to measure family-oriented phenomena, thus moving beyond the reliance on single reporter data collection methods that had dominated the field in earlier times. As well, some of these studies utilize variables related to race, ethnicity, gender, and age in order to elucidate how families with adolescents may display certain similarities and differences as a function of those more demographically oriented variables. Because excellent examples of studies that make such comparisons and contrasts among diverse samples can be found in empirical work focusing on family conflict and family problem-solving, studies reflecting these two areas of research are reviewed in some detail as well. Finally, there has been increased interest in an examination of how certain family processes play out in the presence of siblings. One especially interesting line of research in this regard revolves around the degree to which adolescent brothers and sisters are treated similarly or dissimilarly by their parents. Other works seek to understand the degree to which certain processes that are contained within one part of the family system – for instance, the parent–adolescent relationship – are replicated in other dyads such as the sibling–sibling relationship. Hence, a select number of studies that focus on sibling-oriented topics also are reviewed in the closing portion of this chapter, again to help readers gain some sense of the kind of empirical work that is being conducted in this area of inquiry.

9.2 Selected Studies Regarding Family Distance Regulation As noted above, research on family processes has been dominated by studies that have focused on distance regulation concepts. One particularly well-developed area of inquiry within the family processes literature surrounds those empirical efforts that use the family differentiation construct. As discussed in the family systems theory chapter, family differentiation is seen as the family system’s ability to display tolerance for both intimacy (closeness and warmth) and individuality (respecting the uniqueness of each family member). Well-differentiated families display greater levels of both intimacy and individuality tolerance and are thought to create environments that lead to most well-adjusted adolescents. More poorly differentiated families have lower levels of intimacy and/or individuality tolerance, which have been associated with less functional outcomes for adolescent members. While many earlier studies of the family differentiation construct relied solely on the adolescents’ perspective, the use of multiple family member perspectives in the assessment of family differentiation levels was initiated by Bartle-Haring and Gavazzi (1996). Using a family systems theoretical approach to two samples of families with adolescents (ages 11–19) and families of college students (average age 19.8  years), these researchers demonstrated how mother’s, father’s, and

9.2  Selected Studies Regarding Family Distance Regulation

115

adolescent’s perspectives on family differentiation levels converged onto a latent variable that represented the family system as a single unit (i.e., the family as the unit of analysis). The findings from this particular study indicated that the perspectives of multiple family members could be combined in meaningful ways in order to better understand a family systems property. This is different than simply talking about the amount of intimacy or individuality contained within a single dyad (i.e., the mother– adolescent or father–adolescent relationship). Instead, the researchers demonstrated that multiple family perspectives could be used to describe how the overall family system has tolerance levels for both intimacy and individuality experiences that emerge from the interactions that occur among family members. Furthering this line of research, Bartle-Haring et al. (1999) used a social relations model approach to analyze data from a sample of families with college students (average age 19.6 years). Similar to the previously reviewed study, this empirical work also generated evidence that supported the operationalization of differentiation as a family system variable through the combination of multiple family member’s perspectives. At the same time, however, the findings of this particular study underscored the importance of understanding variation in agreement about what was happening inside of the multiple dyads of these families. For instance, it was reported that family members tended to agree most with the reports of mothers and to agree least with the reports of fathers. These results point to the fact that, while whole systems properties exist within families, these family characteristics are still comprised of dyadic relationships that can differ to greater and lesser extents. Yet another study conducted by Cohen et al. (2003) that was referenced above (in terms of employing the FIS) used a sample of families with college-age students (average age 18.6 years) to generate support for the bidimensional structure of family differentiation (as both individuality tolerance and intimacy tolerance). In addition, the findings of this study highlighted the predictive influence of higher individuality tolerance levels on reduced adolescent internalized distress (such as trait anxiety, depression, and worry). This latter result underscored the fact that family systems properties as measured through multiple member perspectives have a direct and immediately measurable impact on the individual well-being of adolescents. The FIS also was utilized in a cross-cultural comparison effort to examine the relationship between family intrusiveness and career decision-making difficulties in different cultural settings (Hong Kong and the United States), along with testing the mediating effect of family orientation in the relationship (Fan et al., 2014). In both samples, family intrusiveness levels were reported to be significantly associated with family orientation scores, an interpersonal personality trait highlighting individuals’ orientation toward close family ties. Also, the contributions of family intrusiveness to career decision-making difficulties were demonstrated across both cultural settings. At the same time, the influence of family orientation on college students’ career decision-making was significant only for the Hong Kong sample. Family differentiation levels have also been studied cross-culturally in a variety of studies to date. For instance, Chun and MacDermid (1997) used a sample of

116

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

Korean adolescents (average age 15.7 years) in order to examine the associations among variables related to family differentiation and adolescent’s individuation and self-esteem. Interesting same-sex pairings resulted, including the finding that father–adolescent differentiation levels were the strongest predictors of male adolescent individuation, whereas female adolescent individuation levels were most strongly related to mother–adolescent differentiation levels. Also, adolescent individuation levels (as measured by the amount of fusion versus psychological separateness that adolescents experienced in relation to parents) were negatively associated with self-esteem, the exact opposite of what is typically found in samples from the United States. In a second study representing international diversity, Manzi et  al. (2006) employed two samples of older adolescents (ages 17–21) from Italy and the UK in order to examine the relationships among variables related to family differentiation [operationalized here as the combination of family cohesion and enmeshment, building off of earlier work done with these concepts by Barber & Buehler, 1996] and a host of adolescent adjustment variables. These researchers reported both the usual and typical association between greater family cohesion and positive adolescent’s well-being found in American samples, as well as the somewhat unusual (by US standards of research) findings regarding the lack of relationship between enmeshment and adolescent’s adjustment in the Italian sample. More recently, Lee and Park (2020) conducted a study to examine whether autonomy mediates the relationship between family differentiation and depression levels among college students in South Korea. The participants included 312 college students aged 17–24 (172 males and 140 females) who completed the Differentiation in the Family System Scale (DIFS), Autonomy Scale, and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) to collect survey data. The results of the study indicated that family differentiation had a pronounced impact on college students’ autonomy, and autonomy, in turn, influenced their levels of depression. Specifically, lower levels of family differentiation were associated with lower autonomy among college students, and those with lower autonomy experienced higher levels of depression. Furthermore, the study revealed a significant full mediating effect of autonomy in the relationship between family differentiation and depression among college students. This suggests that family differentiation affects college students’ depression through the mediating role of autonomy in a more collectivist-oriented cultural context. Both the studies by Chun and MacDermid (1997) and Manzi et al. (2006), as well as Lee and Park (2000), underscore the importance of looking beyond the findings from empirical work conducted with families residing in the United States, especially if one is interested in examining the universal nature of family processes. In essence, the findings of these two studies indicate that the associations between family processes and adolescent outcomes reported from families residing in more collectivistic societies (or in the case of Italy, those societies that place a higher value on family togetherness) will not reflect what is thought to be “commonly held wisdom” about the nature of family interactions and their impact on adolescent’s well-being. This follows well with a now long-standing discussion of the relative

9.2  Selected Studies Regarding Family Distance Regulation

117

balance of separateness and connectedness experiences in families (Fuhrman & Holmbeck, 1995; Matsumoto et al., 1996; Olson et al., 2019). More recently, Mastrotheodoros et  al. (2020a) conducted a longitudinal study that examined the dynamic associations between family functioning and internalizing and externalizing problems among Greek adolescents. They used self-report questionnaires administered three times over 12 months. Random-Intercept Cross-­ Lagged Panel Models (RI-CLPM) were employed to disentangle between-family differences from within-family processes, providing a more stringent examination of these variables across time points. The study found that on the within-family level, fluctuations in family functioning over time were not significantly associated with either internalizing or externalizing problem behaviors. However, adolescents with higher internalizing and externalizing problems tended to experience worse family functioning later on, pointing to the deleterious effects of problematic adolescent behavior on the family. The findings have theoretical implications, highlighting the need for further research and possible refinement of ecological levels and time scales in understanding developmental processes. The null results on the within-person level call for more empirical investigations as well. Another distance regulation concept that has been employed in the study of families with adolescents is the triangulation concept, whereby third family members are pulled into the conflicts that erupt between two parties within the family (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Often as not, this family process is associated with negative effects, especially with regard to the triangulated adolescent (Bell et  al., 2001; Fosco & Grych, 2008; van Dijk et al., 2021). For instance, Franck and Buehler (2007) used a sample of families with sixth grade students in order to examine the relationship between triangulation, marital hostility, and adolescent outcome variables associated with problematic behavior. These findings generated evidence regarding the deleterious effects on adolescents who become “caught in the middle” of parental conflict, especially with regard to the adolescent’s increased susceptibility to internalizing problem behaviors. Similar findings using only adolescent perspectives (ages 14–19) were reported by Grych et al. (2004). These researchers also noted some interesting results regarding sibling relationships and the particularly protective role of fathers. Contrary to stated expectations, those adolescents who reported greater closeness to siblings also reported of feeling more threatened by parental conflict. Second, while closeness with both parents generally predicted better adolescent adjustment, internalizing problems reported by adolescents were uniquely predicted by the amount of attachment experienced in relation to fathers. Subsequent studies conducted by this research team have reported similar results (Fosco & Grych, 2008), including longitudinal work that supports the notion of “spillover” occurring between marital conflict and parent–adolescent relationships over time (Fosco & Grych, 2010). More recently, Kwok et al. (2020) conducted a study to investigate the relationship between parent–child triangulation and early adolescents’ depressive symptoms, as well as the potential mediating role of adolescents’ protective factors such as self-acceptance, positive relation, and personal growth. The study utilized a cross-sectional survey with 618 early adolescents (in grades 5 through 8) residing in

118

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

Hong Kong, China. The results of the study revealed a positive correlation between parent–child triangulation and adolescents’ depressive symptoms. On the other hand, self-acceptance, positive relationships with others, and personal growth all were found to be negatively correlated with early adolescents’ depressive symptoms. Additionally, the positive relationships factor was identified as a significant mediator between parent–child triangulation and adolescents’ depressive symptoms for female adolescents but not their male counterparts. Understanding these underlying mechanisms can provide valuable insights for interventions and support programs aimed at mitigating the negative effects of parent–child triangulation on adolescent’s well-being. However, triangulation may have both positive and negative implications, at least for adolescent’s dating relationships. Fosco et al. (2016) conducted a longitudinal analysis with 236 ethnically diverse high school students. They examined the impact of dyadic and triadic family processes (triangulation) on adolescents’ dating relationships. Unexpectedly, triangulation into parental conflicts was positively associated with adolescents’ positive conflict resolution skills in resolving disagreements with their dating partners, even though triangulation was also related to increased verbally abusive behavior with dating partners over time. This same kind of “spillover” is recognizable in other studies of triangulation and adolescent’s well-being. For example, Baril et al. (2007) used a sample of married parents and their adolescents (where outcomes were measured at 16 and 18 years of age) in order to examine associations among variables related to marital conflict, marital love, co-parenting conflict, and adolescent’s well-being. These researchers reported a significant association between greater co-parenting conflict reported by parents and more risky behaviors as reported by adolescents. In addition, greater marital love was reported to have a mediating effect on the relationship between these two variables over time. Interestingly, triangulation was not strongly associated with adolescent’s risky behavior, although problems in the detection of this systems construct were discussed as one possible explanation of this finding. Another concept related to triangulation is that of “parentification.” This construct is defined as the assumption of a parent role by the youth in order to provide such things as emotional support to a parent. That is, parentification emerges and is maintained when boundaries between and around the family system and subsystems are poor or blurred (Kerig, 2014). Peris et al. (2008) employed the parentification construct in a longitudinal study informed by the family systems perspective that used a sample of 14–18-year-old adolescents and their parents. Here, parentification was found to be stable over a one-year period and was associated both with greater marital conflict and with poor outcomes for the adolescents in terms of internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. Overall, the triangulation literature (including parentification) points to the deleterious effects of overburdening adolescents with developmentally unsuitable obligations within the family (Hooper et al., 2011), and parentification harms adolescents through the neglect of the adolescent’s individual and relational and bonding needs with the parent (Wasilewska & Kuleta, 2014). When the adolescent is “triangled” into interactions between parents, including when a parent seeks emotional support

9.3  Selected Studies Regarding Family Conflict and Family Problem-Solving

119

from a son or daughter, this seems to set in motion a process whereby the adolescent will suffer certain consequences. This will include greater amounts of their own conflict (presumably including especially the parent against whom the adolescent has been “sided”), as well as having a greater likelihood of experiencing psychological problems and risky behaviors. More recently, Masiran et al. (2022) conducted a comprehensive review of 61 studies related to the parentification literature. The review aimed to understand the concept and outcomes of parentification and identify adaptive and maladaptive factors associated with it. Over the past five decades, research has shown that parentification generally has more negative than positive effects on children and adolescents. However, the review highlighted the potential for parentification to be an empowering experience for some sons and daughters. Several components that contribute to adaptive parentification were identified, including the receipt of emotional support, having supportive relationships with siblings and grandparents, parents openly assigning roles to each child, having age-appropriate responsibilities, receiving parental support and validation, and the child’s positive appraisal of their role-­ taking. The findings emphasize the importance of understanding the complex dynamics of parentification and its potential adaptive aspects while also highlighting the need for further research to deepen our knowledge and identify specific areas for investigation within the field of parentification.

9.3 Selected Studies Regarding Family Conflict and Family Problem-Solving In other areas of empirical inquiry regarding family processes, conflict itself has emerged as an important topic of interest in studies of families with adolescents (Adams & Laursen, 2007; Bornovalova et  al., 2014; David et  al., 1996; Gerard et al., 2005; Harold & Conger, 1997; Lee et al., 2013; Lucas-Thompson et al., 2017; Plunkett & Henry, 1999). For instance, a widely cited study conducted by Demo and Acock (1996) reported that the most powerful predictor of adolescent’s adjustment across all family types is the amount of disagreement that occurs between mothers and their teenage sons and daughters. In a related vein, Buehler et al. (1998) reported findings that underscore the salience of marital conflict, generating evidence that the amount of hostility present in the marital interactions and not the amount of disagreements per se was the best predictor of adolescent’s well-being. Similar to what was described earlier in terms of “spillover” effects found in the triangulation literature, these findings have been part of a growing emphasis on examining the ways that conflict-oriented interaction patterns are replicated across different family subsystems (Cui et al., 2007; Nelson et al., 2009). For example, Van Doom et al. (2007) reported that the ways in which parents handled their conflicts with one another were significantly related to how those parents and their adolescents (average age 13.2 years) resolved conflict. In a similar vein, Reuter and Conger

120

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

(1995) employed a longitudinal observation study of parents and adolescents (over a 4-year period from the time the youth were 12–13 years of age) and reported that more disruptive and hostile family interaction styles were significantly related to less parent–adolescent agreement over time. The results of these studies are supported by a variety of theoretical orientations, and as such there is an almost intuitive sensibility to these findings. For instance, the family systems literature would predict similarities between marital and parent– adolescent conflicts based on the concept of isomorphism, whereby processes at one system level are theorized to replicate naturally on other system levels. Social learning theory, on the other hand, would posit that the conflict tactics displayed by the parents to each other would be incorporated through an imitation process into the parent–adolescent relationship. More recently, Lucas-Thompson et  al. (2017) examined associations between marital conflict and adolescent appraisal of that conflict, as well as adolescent’s stress physiology and mental health. Among other findings, this study reported that only those situations where adolescents thought they were responsible for their parent’s conflict levels yielded significant associations between greater marital conflict and lower adolescent’s well-being (as measured by dysregulated cortisol production patterns). Hence, feeling responsible for parental conflict appears to be particularly damaging regarding adolescent’s physiological regulation and adjustment. Park and Park (2017) investigated the direct and indirect effects of marital conflict on adolescent’s problem behaviors through sibling relationships, building upon previous research on the association between marital conflict and adolescent’s maladjustment. The study included 355 high school students from South Korea, comprising 158 males and 197 females. The results of the study indicated that marital conflict had direct effects on adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Additionally, the study found that marital conflict indirectly influenced adolescents’ internalizing problems through the quality of sibling relationships. Higher levels of marital conflict were associated with lower levels of warmth in sibling relationships, which, in turn, were related to higher levels of internalizing problems in adolescents. This suggests that the negative impact of marital conflict on adolescents’ internalizing problems can be partially explained by the quality of their sibling relationships. Furthermore, the study revealed that higher levels of marital conflict were associated with increased levels of sibling conflict. Increased sibling conflict, in turn, was related to higher levels of internalizing problems in adolescents. Thus, marital conflict exerted both direct and indirect effects on adolescents’ internalizing problems through its influence on sibling conflict. Regarding externalizing problems, the study found that marital conflict had both direct and indirect effects through sibling conflict. Higher levels of marital conflict were associated with increased levels of sibling conflict, which, in turn, were related to higher levels of externalizing problems in adolescents. However, the warmth of sibling relationships did not mediate the relationship between marital conflict and externalizing problems. Mastrotheodoros et al. (2020b) aimed to investigate the trajectories of parent– adolescent conflict intensity, the trajectories of informant discrepancies in perceptions of conflict, and the prediction of these trajectories as a function of both parental

9.3  Selected Studies Regarding Family Conflict and Family Problem-Solving

121

and adolescent personality traits. This longitudinal study included Dutch adolescents (N = 497, 43.1% female, with a mean age of 13.03 at Time 1) and their mothers and fathers, who reported on parent–adolescent conflict intensity and personality characteristics over a span of 6 years. Using Latent Growth Curve Modeling and Latent Congruence Modeling, the researchers found curvilinear changes in conflict intensity as well as in discrepancies between perceptions of conflict. Two cycles of discrepancies were identified. First, during early-to-middle adolescence, discrepancies in perceptions of conflict between parents and adolescents increased, indicating that adolescents’ perceived conflict intensity was on the rise. Second, in middle-to-­ late adolescence, father–adolescent discrepancies further increased, reflecting a decrease in fathers’ perceptions of conflict intensity. The study also examined the role of personality in relation to conflict intensity. Resilient adolescents, as well as their mothers and fathers, reported lower levels of conflict intensity compared to undercontrollers and overcontrollers. However, personality was not found to be associated with the rate of change in conflict intensity over time. Furthermore, the study revealed that undercontrolling fathers and overcontrolling adolescents exhibited higher levels of father–adolescent discrepancies in perceptions of conflict. Overall, the findings highlight the differential perceptions of conflict intensity between parents and adolescents and demonstrate that the extent of these differences in the adolescent–father relationship depends on the personalities of the adolescents and fathers. Fosco and Lydon-Staley (2020) utilized a 21-day daily diary protocol with 151 caregivers (95.3% female) and adolescents (61.5% female) from two-caregiver families. The aim was to investigate the associations between daily fluctuations in family functioning and adolescent’s well-being and the role of average levels of family functioning in adolescent’s well-being. The researchers focused on family cohesion and conflict, examining their impact on various aspects of adolescent’s mood and well-being. Within-family analyses revealed that adolescent-reported cohesion and conflict had unique associations with all six measures of adolescent’s well-being, including angry, depressed, and anxious mood, as well as happiness, life satisfaction, and meaning and purpose in life. Furthermore, cross-level interactions indicated that within-family fluctuations in cohesion were specifically linked to adolescent’s depression in families with lower average cohesion levels across the 21-day period. This suggests that the influence of daily changes in cohesion on adolescent’s well-being may depend on the overall level of cohesion within the family. Kim et al. (2020) examined the influence of perceived family conflict on family satisfaction among adolescents, with a specific focus on the mediating effect of family cohesion and the moderating effect of family communication. The data for this study were collected through questionnaires on family conflict, family satisfaction, family cohesion, and family communication from 747 Korean adolescents. The study found significant gender differences in the results such that female students reported higher levels of family conflict, while male students perceived higher levels of family satisfaction, family cohesion, and family communication. Additionally, family conflict was found to decrease family satisfaction, and this effect was

122

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

mediated by family cohesion. Also, family communication moderated the relationship between family conflict and family cohesion, but this moderating effect was observed only among female students. Furthermore, among female students, there was a moderated mediating effect of family cohesion, indicating that family conflict influenced family satisfaction through the moderated mediation of family communication. This study highlights the importance of family cohesion and communication in understanding the impact of family conflict on family satisfaction, particularly among female adolescents. Beyond these more inherent aspects of family conflict, there also is some evidence that disagreements and differences expressed by family members may vary as a function of race and ethnicity. For instance, Chung et al. (2009) used a daily diary method with a sample of Hispanic, Asian American, and White adolescents in order to conduct a longitudinal examination (in the 9th and 12th grades) of the relationships between adolescent distress and both parent–adolescent and interparental conflict. White adolescents reported the most conflict and Asian American youth reported the least conflict, and female youth reported both more conflict and greater sensitivity to that conflict across time periods. Interestingly, the relationship between interparental conflict and adolescent’s distress was significantly greater in immigrant families, regardless of race/ethnicity. Family problem-solving research has also been an area of inquiry, whereby the relative influence of race/ethnicity and other demographically oriented variables (such as gender and age) has been studied. In terms of race/ethnicity and the community context of family problem-solving activities, Lamborn et  al. (1996) conducted a longitudinal study using a sample of ninth, 10th, and 11th grade adolescents from four race/ethnicity backgrounds (White non-Hispanic, Hispanic American, African American, and Asian American) who resided in either predominantly White or mixed ethnicity communities (as a proxy for residing in an advantaged versus disadvantaged neighborhood). As hypothesized, adolescents who came from families displaying more joint decision-making activities fared better over time in comparison to those adolescents who exerted more unilateral control in decision-making. In this same study, interesting interactions occurred between the race and community context variables. For Hispanic youth, making more unilateral decisions had more deleterious effects when their families resided in a disadvantaged neighborhood, while for African American youth, the exact opposite findings were reported. Type of neighborhood did not appear to matter for the White and Asian American youth, however. Hence, the impact of race/ethnicity may only be fully realized in combination with certain neighborhood variables and even then may be a function of the specific cultural backgrounds of different families. Dishion et al. (2012) aimed to investigate the impact of family interactions (specifically family problem-solving) on adolescent’s antisocial behavior. The researchers used videotaped observations of adolescents and their parents from a community sample. The participants’ levels of antisocial behavior were assessed during early to late adolescence, and when they reached ages 16–17, they were videotaped engaging in various tasks, including family problem-solving activities. The main finding

9.3  Selected Studies Regarding Family Conflict and Family Problem-Solving

123

regarding problem-solving was that the mean duration of conflict bouts during family interactions was the only interaction pattern that distinguished the three groups of adolescents who displayed different developmental patterns of antisocial behavior. This suggests that the length of conflicts during family problem-solving activities can serve as an indicator for distinguishing adolescents with varying levels of antisocial behavior. Family problem-solving can have a significant impact on adolescents with chronic illnesses. Schuman et  al. (2013) examined the role of family problem-­ solving and affective involvement as moderators in the relationship between disease severity in adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and their depressive symptoms. The study involved 122 adolescents with IBD and their parents. The results showed that family problem-solving was a significant predictor of selfreported depressive symptoms in the adolescents. However, neither affective involvement nor problem-solving acted as moderators in the relationship between disease severity and depressive symptoms. These findings emphasize the importance of effective problem-solving within the family context for the emotional well-­ being of adolescents with IBD. More recently, the study conducted by Keyzers et al. (2019) focused on exploring the associations between attachment quality, family problem-solving, and adolescent’s risk-taking behavior. The researchers also investigated whether family problem-solving mediated the relationship between attachment quality and adolescent’s risk-taking behavior. The study included 520 adolescents (aged 10–19, with a mean age of 14.24) and their parents or guardians (N = 520). Results indicated that attachment quality was negatively associated with both parent’s and adolescent’s perceptions of adolescent’s risk-taking behavior. Additionally, attachment quality was positively correlated with family problem-solving ability, even after controlling for factors such as age, gender, and race/ethnicity. This suggests that stronger attachment quality was linked to better family problem-solving skills. However, contrary to expectations, the study did not find evidence for family problem-solving ability mediating the relationship between attachment quality and parent’s or youth’s perceptions of adolescent’s risk-taking behavior. In other words, family problem-­ solving did not act as a mediator between attachment quality and the perception of risk-taking behavior in adolescents, according to both parents and youth. In terms of the influence of gender, Jory et al. (1996) used a sample of 17-year-­ old adolescents and their parents in order to study family alliances during a problem-­ solving task. Male adolescents were much more active in seeking alliances than females, evidenced by sons reaching out to mothers twice as often as daughters. Also, while fathers were reported to be unaffected by the gender of their adolescent, mothers of daughters sought alliances with their husbands much less often than mothers of sons. There also is some evidence suggesting that adolescent age might also play a role in the ways in which family problem-solving processes are displayed. For example, Vuchinich et al. (1996) conducted a 2-year longitudinal study of family problem-­ solving using a sample of preadolescents (average age was 9.5 years at the beginning of the study) and their parents. These researchers reported that family

124

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

problem-solving abilities decreased over time as the budding adolescents became more engaged in autonomy-related activities. Now try to envision an empirical effort focused on family processes that, within a single study, also accounts for all of the demographic variables covered within this chapter: race/ethnicity background of the family, type of neighborhood in which the family resides, age of adolescent, and the gender combinations of parent and adolescent. Among other things, we quickly begin to understand how such an effort would demand a fairly large sample in order to control for all of the different permutations, a fact that has thwarted some family process researchers in the past. Now add additional demographic factors such as family structure while beginning to imagine a study that simultaneously examines more multiple family processes. Most probably, readers can appreciate the tremendous potential for variability and interaction effects among these demographic variables and factors associated with different family processes and will realize why most scholars believe that such research efforts are still in a relatively early stage of development.

9.4 Selected Studies Regarding the Influence of Siblings In terms of the trends noted at the beginning of this chapter, all of the studies reviewed up to this point are noteworthy in terms of having employed a variety of constructs that measure distinct and meaningful family processes. Also, many of these empirical efforts are significant because they employ multiple perspectives within the family in order to tap into these family system characteristics, as well as presenting information about how demographic variables help to further elaborate similarities and differences in families with adolescents. At the same time, the last area of research to be covered in detail in this chapter – research on families containing adolescent siblings  – is a newer area of family process research that has made remarkable inroads into combining many of the best aspects of what makes family process research so compelling. In this regard, variation in parenting behaviors exhibited to adolescent siblings has emerged as one fundamentally important topic within this empirical area (Jensen & Whiteman, 2014; Meunier et al., 2013; O’Connor et al., 1998; Rolan & Marceau, 2018; Shanahan et al., 2008; Solmeyer & McHale, 2017). For instance, Feinberg and Hetherington (2001) used a sample of same-sex paired sibling adolescents (between the ages of 9 and 18  years) and their parents in order to examine the impact of “differential parenting,” defined in this study as the parental display of different levels of warmth and negativity to their offspring. These researchers, who were employing a family systems framework, reported on the unique, if somewhat modest, contributions of the differential parenting construct regarding its impact on adolescent’s well-being after parenting behaviors themselves were taken into account. Here, greater differences in terms of how parents treated siblings corresponded to more negative outcomes for the less well-treated adolescent, even after the level of poor treatment was taken into account.

9.4  Selected Studies Regarding the Influence of Siblings

125

Kan et al. (2008) examined a similar construct labeled “interparental incongruence” in a longitudinal study of parents and their first-born and second-born adolescents (average ages were 17.3 and 14.8 years, respectively, at the sixth and final year of this study). These researchers measured youth perceptions of interparental incongruence in terms of the differing levels of intimacy and conflict that were shown to the adolescent offspring. The adolescent’s reports of interparental incongruence at the beginning of this study were predictive of parent’s reports of marital quality levels (measured as the levels of intimacy and conflict shown between the parents) a full 6 years later. These two studies might require readers to pause and reflect a bit on the findings. The first study noted that differential treatment mattered in terms of the adjustment and well-being of adolescent siblings even after the overall quality of parenting was taken into account. In some sense, it is almost as if a sibling gains some advantage simply by being treated “better” than the other sibling. In the second study, the amount of differential treatment (labeled as incongruence) among siblings had an effect over time in terms of how the parents experienced their own relationship with one another. What might be going on in terms of these effects? A study conducted by Kowal et al. (2004) might provide some partial answers. These scholars also examined differential treatment among siblings in a study of parents and adolescents between the ages of 11 and 13 years and their siblings, who were 2–4 years older. Interestingly, findings indicated that it was not the amount of difference per se that was predictive of outcomes. Instead, what was critical was whether or not the amount of difference in treatment between the siblings was perceived to be unfair. This study is particularly informative because, in the employment of multiple family member perspectives, it was determined that perceptions about the legitimacy of relationship inequalities among siblings were a more important factor than the actual amount of similarity. The literature, regarding the impact of differential treatment of siblings, has included studies that also have examined certain “spillover” effects. For instance, Updegraff et al. (2005) used a sample of 185 older (average age of 15.9 years) and younger (average age of 13.5 years) adolescent siblings and their parents in order to examine the connection between the quality of parent–adolescent relationships and sibling relationship quality. These researchers found that lower amounts of intimacy and greater amounts of negativity and “relational aggression” between siblings – or those actions taken to harm one another’s social relationships – were significantly related to lower levels of parental warmth and father (but not mother) involvement. As well, more parental direct intervention in sibling conflict led to greater amounts of relational aggression, especially for female siblings. Differences between older and younger siblings were noted as well, including the finding that only for younger siblings was there a significant association between greater perceived differences in parental treatment of each sibling and higher levels of relational aggression. An attempt to replicate the Updegraff et  al.’s (2005) findings described in the previous paragraph was undertaken by Yu and Gamble (2008). These researchers

126

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

employed a sample of 433 older (average age of 14.3 years) and younger (average age of 11.6 years) adolescent siblings and their mothers and added a measure of more overtly aggressive behaviors between siblings with the focus on sibling relational aggression. While the significant relationship between greater family cohesion levels and lower adolescent overt and relational aggression displays paralleled the findings of Updegraff et al.’s study, Yu and Gamble (2008) did not find the same differences between siblings in terms of parental differential treatment and the aggression indicators. In a related and extended fashion, Ruff et al. (2018) tested the spillover hypothesis and sibling compensating hypothesis that focused on understanding the potential protective benefits of sibling relationships. This study examined associations between parents’ relationship conflict and parent–adolescent triangulation from the multiple perspectives and changes in adolescents’ perceptions of sibling affection and hostility over time. Both mothers’ and fathers’ reports for both parental conflict and triangulation were included in the analysis. This study reported that mother– adolescent triangulation levels predicted an increase in sibling hostility across 2 years. In turn, fathers’ reports of relationship conflict were related to increased levels of initial sibling hostility but predicted only a marginal decrease in hostility over time. More recently, Milevsky (2022) conducted a study that examined the relationship between maternal and paternal parenting styles and sibling relationships during the transition from early to late adolescence. The original sample consisted of 272 participants in grades 9 and 11 from a high school in the Northeastern USA. Three years later, Time 2 data were collected from 135 students who were part of the original sample. The study assessed parenting behaviors and examined sibling relationship outcomes, including sibling support, warmth, and conflict. The findings indicated that maternal authoritative and permissive styles were associated with greater sibling support at Time 2 as compared to maternal authoritarian and neglectful styles. Maternal authoritative style was also linked to higher sibling warmth at Time 2 when compared to authoritarian and neglectful styles. Similarly, paternal authoritative style was associated with greater sibling support during Time 2 as compared to authoritarian and neglectful styles. Furthermore, while overall low levels of acceptance and involvement in parenting were associated with reduced sibling relationship quality, paternal neglectful parenting style showed greater increases over time in sibling support when compared to other paternal parenting styles. These findings emphasize the ongoing influence of parenting behaviors on the quality of sibling relationships during adolescence. They also suggest the potential compensatory support offered by siblings during early and late adolescence. One of other empirical efforts focused on sibling relationships that deserves mention here is a study conducted by Conger et al. (1997). These scholars sought to extend commonly reported results from the parenting style literature into a more systems-oriented approach that focused on family processes. While one of the main thrusts of this 3-year longitudinal study of adolescents (mean age of 13.2 years at the initiation of the study) involved parental psychological control, these

9.5  Summary of Polyadic Research

127

researchers also focused on the psychological control exerted by siblings. Therefore, this empirical work captured information pertaining both to the parent–adolescent and the adolescent–sibling dyads. Interestingly, these researchers found evidence regarding a “cumulative effect” of sibling psychological control efforts when parent’s psychological control was already present. Further, there seemed to have been a more pronounced impact of the sibling psychological control efforts on males in comparison to females. Further, a study conducted by Shi and Campione-Barr (2021) investigated the influence of temperament similarity on the relationship between parenting similarity and positive family relationship qualities in adolescent sibling dyads over a period of 1 year. The sample consisted of 145 sibling pairs, with the first-born sibling having a mean age of 14.97  years (SD  =  1.68) and the second-born sibling having a mean age of 12.20 years (SD = 1.92). While previous research has demonstrated the negative effects of parental differential treatment, the authors noted that not all differential treatment leads to negative outcomes. In this study, the researchers employed Latent Moderator Structure (LMS) models to examine the role of temperament similarity as a potential moderator. The findings indicated that higher levels of parenting similarity were associated with more positive family relationships when siblings exhibited greater similarity in their temperaments. Conversely, lower levels of parenting similarity were linked to more positive relationship qualities with family members 1 year later in cases where there was less similarity in temperament between the siblings. These results suggest that the impact of parenting similarity on family relationships depends on the level of similarity in temperament between the siblings. When siblings have similar temperaments, parenting similarity is associated with positive outcomes in family relationships. However, when there is less similarity in temperament, a lower level of parenting similarity may lead to more positive relationship qualities with family members over time.

9.5 Summary of Polyadic Research Research efforts focused on polyadic relationships in families with adolescents have paid attention to a variety of “compelling family processes” that have included constructs such as family differentiation, triangulation, parentification, family conflict, and family decision-making activities. Of particular note is the rising interest in the gathering of multiple family member perspectives in this type of research, as well as the increased awareness of the field’s need to account for variation in family processes as a function of race, ethnicity, gender, age, and other significant demographic variables. As well, the increased attention given to siblings and the degree to which parents treat them in a congruent manner represent an important and innovative advancement in this empirical area.

128

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

References Adams, R. E., & Laursen, B. (2007). The correlates of conflict: Disagreement is not necessarily detrimental. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 445–458. Amato, P. R., King, V., & Thorsen, M. L. (2016). Parent–child relationships in stepfather families and adolescent adjustment: A latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 482–497. Arditti, J.  A. (1999). Rethinking relationships between divorced mothers and their children: Capitalizing on family strengths. Family Relations, 48, 109–120. Auersperg, F., Vlasak, T., Ponocny, I., & Barth, A. (2019). Long-term effects of parental divorce on mental health – A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 119, 107–115. Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433–441. Baril, M. E., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2007). Processes linking adolescent well-being, marital love, and coparenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 645–654. Bartle-Haring, S. E., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1996). Multiple views on family data: The sample case of adolescent, maternal, and paternal perspectives on family differentiation levels. Family Process, 35, 457–472. Bartle-Haring, S.  E., Kenny, D.  A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (1999). Multiple perspectives on family differentiation: Analyses by multitrait multimethod matrix and triadic social relations models. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 491–503. Bell, L. G., Bell, D. C., & Nakata, Y. (2001). Triangulation and adolescent development in the US and Japan. Family Process, 40, 173–186. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory. George Braziller. Bethell, C. D., Carle, A., Hudziak, J., Gombojav, N., Powers, K., Wade, R., & Braveman, P. (2017). Methods to assess adverse childhood experiences of children and families: Toward approaches to promote child Well-being in policy and practice. Academic Pediatrics, 17(7), S51–S69. Bodman, D. A., Van Vleet, B. B., & Day, R. D. (2022). Introduction to family processes: Diverse families, common ties. Routledge. Booth, A., Scott, M. E., & King, V. (2010). Father residence and adolescent problem behavior: Are youth always better off in two-parent families? Journal of Family Issues, 31, 585–605. Bornovalova, M. A., Cummings, J. R., Hunt, E., Blazei, R., Malone, S., & Iacono, W. G. (2014). Understanding the relative contributions of direct environmental effects and passive genotype– environment correlations in the association between familial risk factors and child disruptive behavior disorders. Psychological Medicine, 44(4), 831–844. Breivik, K., & Olweus, D. (2006). Adolescents’ adjustment in four post-divorce family structures: Single mother, stepfather, joint physical custody and single father families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 99–124. Buehler, C. (2020). Family processes and children’s and adolescents’ well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 145–174. Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Anthony, C., Pemberton, S., Gerard, J., et al. (1998). Interparental conflict styles and youth problem behaviors: A two-sample replication study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 119–132. Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137–154. Cavanagh, S.  E. (2008). Family structure history and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 944–980. Cavanagh, S. E., & Huston, A. C. (2008). The timing of family instability and children’s social adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1258–1270. Cherlin, A. J., Kiernan, K. E., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1995). Parental divorce in childhood and demographic outcomes in young adulthood. Demography, 32, 299–318. Chun, Y. J., & MacDermid, S. M. (1997). Perceptions of family differentiation, individuation, and self-esteem among Korean adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 451–462.

References

129

Chung, G.  H., Flook, L., & Fuligni, A. (2009). Daily family conflict and emotional distress among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1406–1415. Cohen, E. A., Vasey, M. W., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2003). Family differentiation as individuality and intimacy tolerance: Multiple family perspectives and the dimensionality of family distance regulation. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 99–123. Conger, K. J., Conger, R. D., & Scaramella, L. V. (1997). Parents, siblings, psychological control, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(1), 113–138. Crosnoe, R., & Cavanagh, S. E. (2010). Families with children and adolescents: A review, critique, and future agenda. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 594–611. Cui, M., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Reciprocal influences between parents’ marital problems and adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1544–1552. David, C., Steele, R., Forehand, R., & Armistead, L. (1996). The role of family conflict and marital conflict in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 81–91. Day, R. D., Gavazzi, S., & Acock, A. (2001). Compelling family processes. In A. Thornton (Ed.), The well-being of children and families: Research and data needs (pp. 103–126). University of Michigan Press. Day, R.  D., Gavazzi, S.  M., Miller, R., & Langeveld, A. (2009). Compelling family processes. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 116–128. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457–488. Dishion, T. J., Forgatch, M., Van Ryzin, M., & Winter, C. (2012). The nonlinear dynamics of family problem solving in adolescence: The predictive validity of a peaceful resolution attractor. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 16(3), 331–352. Fan, W., Cheung, F.  M., Leong, F.  T., & Cheung, S.  F. (2014). Contributions of family factors to career readiness: A cross-cultural comparison. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(3), 194–209. Feinberg, M., & Hetherington, E. M. (2001). Differential parenting as a within-family variable. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 22–37. Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2008). Emotional, cognitive, and family systems mediators of children’s adjustment to interparental conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 843–854. Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Adolescent triangulation into parental conflicts: Longitudinal implications for appraisals and adolescent-parent relations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 254–266. Fosco, G.  M., & Lydon-Staley, D.  M. (2020). Implications of family cohesion and conflict for adolescent mood and well-being: Examining within-and between-family processes on a daily timescale. Family Process, 59(4), 1672–1689. Fosco, G. M., Xia, M., Lynn, M. G., & Grych, J. H. (2016). Triangulation and parent–adolescent relationships: Implications for adolescent dating competence and abuse. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(3), 524–537. Franck, K. L., & Buehler, C. (2007). A family process model of marital hostility, parental depressive affect, and early adolescent problem behavior: The roles of triangulation and parental warmth. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 614–625. Fuhrman, T., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1995). A contextual moderator analysis of emotional autonomy and adjustment in adolescence. Child Development, 66, 793–811. Gagne, M.  H., Drapeau, S., Melancon, C., Saint-Jacques, M.  C., & Lepine, R. (2007). Links between parental psychological violence, other family disturbances, and children’s adjustment. Family Process, 46, 523–542. Gath, M. E. (2022). Parents and adolescents in stepfamilies: Longitudinal links to physical health, psychological distress, and stress. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(1), 17–28. Gavazzi, S. M., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1990). Family system dynamics, the individuation process and psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 499–518.

130

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

Gavazzi, S. M., Reese, M. J., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1998). Conceptual development and empirical use of the family intrusiveness scale. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 65–74. Gerard, J.  M., Buehler, C., Franck, K., & Anderson, O. (2005). In the eyes of the beholder: Cognitive appraisals as mediators of the association between interparental conflict and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 376–384. Grych, J. H., Raynor, S. R., & Fosco, G. M. (2004). Family processes that shape the impact of interparental conflict on adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 649–665. Halpern-Meekin, S., & Tach, L. (2008). Heterogeneity in two-parent families and adolescent well-­ being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 435–451. Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The role of adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68, 333–350. Haskins, R. (2015). No way out: Dealing with the consequences of changes in family composition. In P. R. Amato, A. Booth, S. M. McHale, & J. van Hook (Eds.), Families in an era of increasing inequality (pp. 167–199). Springer. Heatherington, E. M. (2006). The influence of conflict, marital problem solving and parenting on children’s adjustment in nondivorced, divorced, and remarried families. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 203–237). Cambridge University Press. Hooper, L. M., DeCoster, J., White, N., & Voltz, M. L. (2011). Characterizing the magnitude of the relation between selfreported childhood parentification and adult psychopathology: A meta-­ analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(10), 1028–1043. Jensen, T. M. (2022). Stepparent–child relationships and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Family Nursing, 28(4), 321–340. Jensen, T. M., & Harris, K. M. (2017a). A longitudinal analysis of stepfamily relationship quality and adolescent physical health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(4), 486–492. Jensen, T. M., & Harris, K. M. (2017b). Stepfamily relationship quality and stepchildren’s depression in adolescence and adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 5(3), 191–203. Jensen, T. M., & Lippold, M. A. (2018). Patterns of stepfamily relationship quality and adolescents’ short-term and long-term adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(8), 1130–1141. Jensen, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2014). Parents’ differential treatment and adolescents’ delinquent behaviors: Direct and indirect effects of difference-score and perception-based measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 549–559. Jory, B., Rainbolt, E., Xia, Y., Karns, J., Freeborn, A., & Greer, C. (1996). Communication patterns and alliances between parents and adolescents during a structured problem solving task. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 339–346. Kan, M. L., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2008). Interparental incongruence in differential treatment of adolescent siblings: Links with marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 466–479. Kerig, P. K. (2014). Implications of parent-child boundary dissolution for developmental psychopathology: “Who is the parent and who is the child?”. Routledge. Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. Norton. Keyzers, A., Weiler, L., Haddock, S., & Doty, J. (2019). Family problem-solving and attachment quality: Associations with adolescent risk-taking behavior. Journal of Youth Development, 14(1), 70–92. Kim, B.  Y., Yang, M.  H., & Kim, H.  J. (2020). The influence of family conflicts and cohesion on teenagers’ family satisfaction: The moderated mediation effect of family communications. Korean Journal of Parents and Guardians, 7(4), 49–75. King, V. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with stepfathers and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910–928. King, V. (2009). Stepfamily formation: Implications for adolescent ties to mothers, nonresident fathers, and stepfathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 954–968. King, V., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2006). Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 537–557.

References

131

Koerner, S.  S., Jacobs, S.  L., & Raymond, M. (2000). When mothers turn to their adolescent daughters: Predicting daughters’ vulnerability to negative adjustment outcomes. Family Relations, 49, 301–309. Koerner, S.  S., Rankin, L.  A., Kenyon, D.  B., & Korn, M. (2004). Mothers re-partnering after divorce: Diverging perceptions of mothers and adolescents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41, 25–38. Kowal, A., Krull, J., & Kramer, L. (2004). How the differential treatment of siblings is linked with parent-child relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 658–665. Krohn, M. D., Hall, G. P., & Lizotte, A. J. (2009). Family transitions and later delinquency and drug use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 466–480. Kwok, S.  Y., Gu, M., Synchaisuksawat, P., & Wong, W.  W. (2020). The relationship between parent-child triangulation and early adolescent depression in Hong Kong: The mediating roles of self-acceptance, positive relations and personal growth. Children and Youth Services Review, 109, 104676. 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. Langenkamp, A. G., & Frisco, M. L. (2008). Family transitions and adolescent severe emotional distress: The salience of family context. Social Problems, 55, 238–253. Lee, D. M., & Park, J. H. (2020). The effect of family differentiation on college students’ depression: The mediating role of autonomy. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 27(3), 87–119. https:// doi.org/10.5723/kjcs.2017.38.4.65 Lee, T. K., Wickrama, K. A., & Simons, L. G. (2013). Chronic family economic hardship, family processes and progression of mental and physical health symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(6), 821–836. Levin, K. A., Dallago, L., & Currie, C. (2012). The association between adolescent life satisfaction, family structure, family affluence and gender differences in parent–child communication. Social Indicators Research, 106(2), 287–305. Linebarger, D.  L., Barr, R., Lapierre, M.  A., & Piotrowski, J.  T. (2014). Associations between parenting, media use, cumulative risk, and children’s executive functioning. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 35(6), 367–377. Lucas-Thompson, R. G., Lunkenheimer, E. S., & Dumitrache, A. (2017). Associations between marital conflict and adolescent conflict appraisals, stress physiology, and mental health. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(3), 379–393. Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-­ parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 876–893. Manzi, C., Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., & Scabini, E. (2006). Cohesion and enmeshment revisited: Differentiation, identity, and well-being in two European cultures. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 673–689. Masiran, R., Ibrahim, N., Awang, H., & Ying, L. P. (2022). The positive and negative aspects of parentification: An integrated review. Children and Youth Services Review, 144, 106709. Mastrotheodoros, S., Canário, C., Cristina Gugliandolo, M., Merkas, M., & Keijsers, L. (2020a). Family functioning and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems: Disentangling between-, and within-family associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 804–817. Mastrotheodoros, S., Van der Graaff, J., Deković, M., Meeus, W. H., & Branje, S. (2020b). Parent– adolescent conflict across adolescence: Trajectories of informant discrepancies and associations with personality types. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 119–135. Matjasko, J. L., Grunden, L. N., & Ernst, J. L. (2007). Structural and dynamic process family risk factors: Consequences for holistic adolescent functioning. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 654–674. Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., & Takeuchi, S. (1996). Changing patterns of individualism and collectivism in the United States and Japan. Culture and Psychology, 2, 77–107.

132

9  Polyadic Research on Families with Adolescents

Meunier, J.  C., Boyle, M., O’Connor, T.  G., & Jenkins, J.  M. (2013). Multilevel mediation: Cumulative contextual risk, maternal differential treatment, and children’s behavior within families. Child Development, 84(5), 1594–1615. Milevsky, A. (2022). Relationships in transition: Maternal and paternal parenting styles and change in sibling dynamics during adolescence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 89–109. Mitchell, K. S., Booth, A., & King, V. (2009). Adolescents with nonresident fathers: Are daughters more disadvantaged than sons? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 650–662. Moore, K.  A., & Lippman, L. (2005). What do children need to flourish: Conceptualizing and measuring positive development. Springer. Murry, V.  M., & Lippold, M.  A. (2018). Parenting practices in diverse family structures: Examination of adolescents’ development and adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28(3), 650–664. Nelson, J., O’Brien, M., Blankson, N., Calkins, S., & Keane, S. (2009). Family stress and parental responses to children’s negative emotions: Tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypotheses. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 671–679. O’Connor, T. G., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1998). Family systems and adolescent development: Shared and nonshared risk and protective factors in nondivorced and remarried families. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 353–375. Olson, D. H., Waldvogel, L., & Schlieff, M. (2019). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: An update. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 199–211. Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065–1083. Park, J. H., & Park, J. S. (2017). The relation between marital conflict and adolescents’ behavioral problems: Testing the mediating process of sibling relationship. The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 1–18. Peris, T. S., Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Emery, R. E. (2008). Martial conflict and support seeking by parents in adolescence: Empirical support for the parentification construct. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 633–642. Peterson, G. W. (2005). Family influences on adolescent development. In T. P. Gullotta & G. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behavior problems (pp. 27–55). Springer. Plunkett, S. W., & Henry, C. S. (1999). Adolescent perceptions of interparental conflict, stressors, and coping as predictors of adolescent family life satisfaction. Sociological Inquiry, 69, 599–620. Reuter, M., & Conger, R. D. (1995). Antecedents of parent-adolescent disagreements. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 435–448. Rolan, E., & Marceau, K. (2018). Individual and sibling characteristics: Parental differential treatment and adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(12), 2535–2553. Ruff, S. C., Durtschi, J. A., & Day, R. D. (2018). Family subsystems predicting adolescents’ perceptions of sibling relationship quality over time. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(3), 527–542. Schuman, S. L., Graef, D. M., Janicke, D. M., Gray, W. N., & Hommel, K. A. (2013). An exploration of family problem-solving and affective involvement as moderators between disease severity and depressive symptoms in adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 20, 488–496. Scott, M. E., Booth, A., King, V., & Johnson, D. R. (2007). Postdivorce father-adolescent closeness. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1194–1209. Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Osgood, D. W. (2008). Parents’ differential treatment and youth depressive symptoms and sibling relationships: Longitudinal linkages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 70, 480–495. Shi, X., & Campione-Barr, N. (2021). The effects of parenting and temperament similarity among adolescent siblings on positive family relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 702000.

References

133

Solmeyer, A. R., & McHale, S. M. (2017). Parents’ differential treatment of adolescent siblings in African American families. Family Process, 56(1), 171–188. Stewart, S. D. (2003). Nonresident parenting and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 217–244. Stoll, B. M., Arnaut, G. L., Fromme, D. K., & Felker-Thayer, J. A. (2005). Adolescents in stepfamilies: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 177–189. Teachman, J.  D. (2000). Diversity of family structure: Economic and social influences. In D.  H. Demo, K.  R. Allen, & M.  A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp.  32–58). Oxford University Press. Tullius, J. M., De Kroon, M. L., Almansa, J., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2022). Adolescents’ mental health problems increase after parental divorce, not before, and persist until adulthood: A longitudinal TRAILS study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(6), 969–978. Updegraff, K.  A., Thayer, S.  M., Whiteman, S.  D., Denning, D.  A., & McHale, S.  M. (2005). Sibling relational aggression in adolescence: Links to parent-adolescent and sibling relationship quality. Family Relations, 54, 373–385. van Dijk, R., van der Valk, I. E., Vossen, H. G., Branje, S., & Deković, M. (2021). Problematic internet use in adolescents from divorced families: The role of family factors and adolescents’ self-esteem. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3385. Van Doom, M. D., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2007). Longitudinal transmission of conflict resolution styles from marital relationships to adolescent-parent relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 426–434. Vuchinich, S., Angelelli, J., & Gatherum, A. (1996). Context and development in family problem solving with preadolescent children. Child Development, 67, 1276–1288. Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 20(2), 87–112. Wallerstein, J.  S. (1991). The long-term effects of divorce on children: A review. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 349–360. Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. M. (2009). Divorced fathers and their adult offspring: Report from a 25 year study. Family Law Quarterly, 42, 695–711. Wasilewska, M., & Kuleta, M. (2014). Charakterystyka systemów rodzinnych, w których występuje zjawisko parentyfikacji [Characteristics of family systems in which Parentification occurs]. In A. Borzęcki (Ed.), Higiena i środowisko a zdrowie człowieka [Hygene, environment and human’s health] (pp. 46–54). Wyd. Druk Norbertinum. Weaver, J. M., & Schofield, T. J. (2015). Mediation and moderation of divorce effects on children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(1), 39–48. Wu, L. L., & Thomson, E. (2001). Race differences in family experiences and early sexual initiation: Dynamic models of family structure and family change. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 682–696. Yu, J. J., & Gamble, W. C. (2008). Familial correlates of overt and relational aggression between young adolescent siblings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 655–673. Yuan, A. S., Vogt, H., & Hayley, A. (2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191–1213.

Chapter 10

The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

Abstract  Research efforts focused on both the parent–adolescent dyad and polyadic relationships inside of families with adolescents invariably are linked to attempts to understand the impact of these family-oriented variables on adolescent outcomes. This chapter reviews the empirical literature over the last 25 years that centers attention on the linkage between family factors and various aspects of adolescent outcomes, including adolescent’s delinquency, mental health issues, substance use and abuse, sexual activity, education, and socially competent behaviors. Many of these studies share some important similarities, including having generated substantial evidence concerning the critical role that parenting behaviors and family processes play in adolescent’s adjustment and well-being. Many of these studies also underscore the corresponding impact of peers and other social contexts beyond the family, as well as highlighting the importance of sibling relationships in families with adolescents. As well, the ways in which gender, race, ethnicity, and culture influence parenting and family process variables also are discussed in many of the studies reviewed in this chapter. When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he’d learned in seven years. Mark Twain, Old Times on the Mississippi Below are some questions about challenges that young people sometimes face. They may or may not apply to you. Think back on how things have been for you over past six months to answer the questions. Please answer the questions with these responses:   0      1       2   No/Never  Yes/A couple  Yes/A lot of times 1. How often do you get into fights with adults who live in your home? 0      1       2 2. How much of the time do the adults who live with you NOT know where you are? 0      1       2 3. Have the police or anyone else from law enforcement stopped you because of something you did? 0      1       2

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_10

135

136

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes 4. Have you spent time in juvenile detention or lockup? 0      1      2 5. Have you felt sad, moody, blue, or depressed? 0      1      2 6. Do you ever have difficulty breathing and pain in your chest, or do you feel like your heart is pounding too much? 0      1      2 7. Have you used marijuana? 0      1      2 8. Have you used legal drugs for nonmedical reasons? 0      1      2 9. Have you had difficulty controlling your behavior in school? 0      1      2 10. Have you had a difficult time getting to school or staying in school for the entire day? 0      1      2 11. Have you engaged in unprotected sex? 0      1      2 12. Have you been pregnant or have you impregnated someone else? 0      1      2

10.1 Overview of the Literature The Mark Twain’s quote above reflects a commonly held sentiment regarding the relationships between parents and their teenage sons and daughters. Despite overwhelming research evidence to the contrary, the general public continues to maintain the belief that these relationships almost necessarily are antagonistic by nature. For most parents with adolescents, however, this is not the norm. Although studies do indicate that there is more parent–adolescent disagreement than parent–child disagreement, these same studies indicate that, at least for most families, everyday life in no way is defined by conflict. However, for some families, this is clearly not the case. For a variety of reasons, life within these homes is more problematic. Larger amounts of conflict, problems in following rules, lack of consistent discipline, and other difficulties can and do arise in families with adolescents. In turn, the research evidence indicates that family environments characterized by these less functional family processes are significantly more likely to contain adolescents who are experiencing problems in terms of their own individual ability to function. In fact, studies often show that family factors are among the most important predictors of adolescent’s development and well-being.

10.1  Overview of the Literature

137

The scale items displayed at the beginning of this chapter are from an instrument known as the Global Risk Assessment Device (GRAD: Gavazzi et  al., 2003). Originally developed for use with court-involved youth and their families, this scale more recently has been used with samples drawn from community-based mental health clinics and child protective services, as well as in schools and other educationally based settings. The development of the GRAD has been built largely upon an ecological systems theoretical framework (see the discussion of this approach in the theoretical portion of this book above), which holds that a variety of individual and social context factors – including most importantly that of the family – shape the developmental pathways that can lead to either highly functional or problematic behavioral outcomes (Laub, 2002; Lochman, 2004; Pinquart, 2017). Presently, the GRAD contains 11 factors that are thought to form a set of “global risks” that can significantly impact adolescent’s development and well-being. The scale items presented at the beginning of this chapter represent seven of these factors that are reflected in the empirical work that is reviewed here. This includes items that serve as examples of the family processes that have been used in past research examining the association between family and adolescent outcomes (items 1 and 2). As well, the outcomes-oriented variables themselves are represented through items that focus on delinquent behavior (items 3 and 4), mental health issues (items 5 and 6), substance use (items 7 and 8), educational risks (items 9 and 10), and risky sexual behaviors and consequences (items 11 and 12). The GRAD has been further modified for use in young adult populations as well (Shapiro et al., 2018). The review of research literature represented by these items will begin with studies that have examined the impact of family factors on delinquent behavior, one of the most salient outcomes within a syndrome of difficulties often categorized as “externalizing problem behaviors.” These problems are external because they are directed outward toward others (aggression, criminal activity, etc.) often as not described as “acting-out” behaviors. Next, associations between family processes and mental health issues are covered, expanding the review to include literature that focuses on a second syndrome of issues that typically are labeled “internalizing problem behaviors.” These additional problems (depression, anxiety, etc.) are internal because they are experienced within the individual adolescent. This is followed by research that links family factors and substance use, an adolescent outcome that has been characterized as a blend of internalizing and externalizing difficulties (Steinberg, 2020). The literature review then moves to studies that have examined the impact of family processes on adolescent outcomes related to sexual activity, as well as education and other school-oriented factors. Finally, in order to provide an entry point into a more strength-based perspective, studies that have linked family factors to adolescent social competence are covered. Readers will recall that a number of trends already have been articulated for studies of parental behaviors and family processes. Many of these trends remain relevant to the literature regarding the family’s impact on adolescent outcomes. Hence, readers will notice that empirical work focusing on how parenting behaviors impact adolescent’s development and well-being will see examples of studies that pay

138

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

attention to the developmental appropriateness of the parenting behaviors, make distinctions between those parenting behaviors and what occurs in parent–adolescent relationships, give greater visibility of fathers as well as mothers, and attend to issues of diversity. Likewise, the empirical work focusing on the relationship between family processes and adolescent outcomes will reflect a great deal of attention paid to distance regulation concepts and other “compelling family processes”; will include studies that have employed multiple family member perspectives and have attended to the impact of demographic variables like race, ethnicity, gender, and age; and will include examples of scholarly work that examine how family processes play out in the presence of siblings.

10.2 The Impact of Families on Delinquency and Conduct Disorders The impact of parenting variables continues to dominate the literature concerning adolescent delinquency and conduct disorders (Crosswhite & Kerpelman, 2009; Harris-McKoy & Cui, 2013; Hoeve et al., 2011). As would be expected from the review of the literature covered in the research on the parent–adolescent dyad chapter, the relative effectiveness of different parenting behaviors would be significantly associated with the likelihood of an adolescent engaging in delinquent activities and other forms of externalizing problem behaviors. One example of this approach is that of Simons et al. (2001), who examined the impact of parenting on adolescent’s self-reported delinquent behaviors in a longitudinal study of parents and their adolescents (seventh graders at the initiation of this study). The strongest associations between family factors and delinquent behavior were reported with more “inept” parenting behaviors, defined in this study as low monitoring, harsh and inconsistent discipline, and less use of inductive reasoning (these variables were discerned from the aggregated reports of parents, children, and observer ratings). However, results were also reported indicating that more functional parenting over time did serve to reduce antisocial behavior, albeit indirectly through the reduction of adolescent association with delinquent peers. Using a combined social learning and ecological approach, Deković et al. (2003) examined a variety of parenting, marital, family, and demographic indicators in a sample of parents and three age groups of adolescents (12–13, 14–15, and 16–18 years). These researchers found that more positive parenting behaviors (more responsiveness, more involvement, less punishment, more monitoring, and greater consistency) and a more positive parent–adolescent relationship (greater attachment and less rejection and conflict) were strongly associated with less self-reported adolescent’s delinquent acts across these age groups. In fact, once these more “proximal” variables regarding the parent–adolescent relationship were taken into account, the impact of more “distal” factors (parent characteristics that included depression and perceived competence in parenting) and “contextual” factors (family cohesion and parent marital satisfaction) were eliminated.

10.2  The Impact of Families on Delinquency and Conduct Disorders

139

Using data from the Add Health dataset, Harris-McKoy and Cui (2013) examined the relationship between parental control and delinquency in adolescence and young adulthood, as previous literature showed that parental behavioral control is essential in predicting delinquency for adolescents (Baumrind, 2005). The study found that the lack of parental control was associated with higher levels of delinquency in adolescence and even young adulthood. More recently, the study conducted by Hinnant et al. (2016) examined the moderating role of sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity in the indirect path from permissive parenting to deviant peer affiliations to delinquency among a community sample of adolescents. The participants included 252 adolescents, with an average age of 15.79 years. The sample consisted of 53% boys, with 66% identifying as European American and 34% as African American. The researchers measured two indicators of SNS reactivity: skin conductance level reactivity (SCLR) and cardiac pre-ejection period reactivity (PEPR). SNS activity was assessed during a baseline period and a problem-solving task (star-tracing), and reactivity was computed as the difference between the task and baseline periods. The adolescents reported on permissive parenting, deviant peer affiliations, externalizing behaviors, and substance use (specifically alcohol and marijuana). The findings of the study revealed indirect effects, indicating that permissive parenting was associated with delinquency through affiliation with deviant peers. Additionally, the links between permissive parenting and deviant peer affiliations, as well as deviant peer affiliations and delinquency, were found to be moderated by SNS reactivity. Specifically, lower SNS reactivity (less PEPR and/or less SCLR) was identified as a risk factor for externalizing problems and alcohol use. The results suggest that adolescents with lower SNS reactivity may be particularly vulnerable to the negative influences of permissive parenting and deviant peer affiliations, increasing their risk for externalizing problems and alcohol use. There also has been sustained interest in the role that siblings play in the development of delinquent and antisocial behavior. Snyder, Bank, and Burraston (2005) conducted a 10-year longitudinal study using a social learning approach with parents, older brothers (average age 19.5 years at the end of the study), and their younger siblings (average age 16.3 years at the end of the study). Interestingly, the impact of more ineffective parenting (defined here as lack of supervision and greater parental conflict) was only related indirectly (through the older siblings’ greater exposure to delinquent peers) to a set of poor adjustment indicators after various sibling variables were taken into account. Here, both greater sibling conflict and more sibling co-participation in deviant behaviors were reported to have been the main predictors of increases in the younger siblings’ delinquent behavior. Another example of sibling-focused research is that of Slomkowski et al. (2001), who included both brother–brother and sister–sister pairs in their 4-year longitudinal study of adolescent’s (ages 11–15 years at the outset of the study) delinquent behavior. Similar results were found for both brother and sister sibling pairs, such that greater older sibling’s delinquent behavior and more hostile and coercive sibling’s relationships predicted greater younger sibling’s delinquent behavior over time. These researchers also reported a unique finding for brothers only, whereby

140

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

higher degrees of warmth and closeness were associated with greater delinquency. This latter finding was discussed in terms of the male siblings having a greater propensity to develop a “partners-in-crime” relationship with one another, reflecting the social learning approach adopted by the researchers. Using longitudinal data from 249 Dutch sibling pairs (11–15 years), Buist (2010) examined the relationship between sibling relationship quality and older sibling delinquency and younger sibling delinquency in various sibling gender combinations. Unlike earlier studies (Bank et al., 2004; Criss & Shaw, 2005), lower levels of sibling relationship quality were not related to higher levels of younger sibling delinquency, even though sibling relationship quality was related to the delinquency of older siblings. Interestingly, the delinquency of older siblings was associated with younger sibling delinquency two years later. Also, there were significantly stronger associations for brother and sister pairs than for mixed-gender siblings regarding the relationship between changes in older sibling delinquency and level of younger sibling delinquency, as well as the relationship between changes in older sibling delinquency and changes in younger sibling delinquency. Some other important gender-related differences have been noted in the literature connecting family factors with delinquent behavior. Emphasizing the coercion component of social learning theory, Cashwell and Vacc (1996) examined associations between family level variables and delinquent behavior as reported in a sample of sixth through eighth grade adolescents. These researchers reported that lower family cohesion was strongly associated with greater self-reported delinquent behavior for males only. As well, gender differences on this family adaptability indicator were reported, such that family cohesion was negatively related to delinquent behavior for females but was positively related to delinquency for males. Using a sample of 330 Dutch families with adolescents (ages 14–22), Hoeve et al. (2011) examined the longitudinal relationship among fathers’ and mothers’ parenting styles and male and female delinquency. The findings showed a significant parenting style by adolescent gender interaction. Neglectful parenting was related to higher delinquency levels in males, and permissive parenting was linked to delinquency in females. Furthermore, the findings indicated that the level of delinquency was associated with the combination of the father’s and mother’s parenting style regardless of the gender of adolescents, showing that levels of delinquency were the lowest in families having at least one authoritative parent and highest in families with two neglectful parents. In addition to examining delinquency in general samples of adolescents, researchers also have employed samples of youth who have come to the attention of the juvenile court. Adopting an ecological family systems approach, Gavazzi (2006) used a sample of court-involved adolescents (average age 14.9 years) to examine the impact that “disrupted family processes” (more conflict, lack of monitoring, and inconsistent discipline) had on self-reported delinquent behavior. Results indicated a significant gender X race interaction, such that females in general and African American girls in particular reported the strongest associations between greater amounts of disrupted family processes and higher levels of delinquency. Family factors also seemed to play a pivotal role in determining the amount of prior offenses

10.3  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Mental Health

141

the adolescents in this sample had reported. While the males in the low family risk group engaged in more previous delinquent activities than the females, this was not the case in the high-risk family group; it was almost as if the greater family risks allowed females to “catch up” to their male counterparts. Last but not least, culture is an important variable that we should consider when identifying the influence of parenting on adolescent delinquency. Based on a cultural ecological framework, Yun and Cui (2020) examined cultural differences in the levels of delinquency and their associations with parental warmth with a national sample of the United States (using the Add Heath dataset) and South Korea (which employed the Korean Youth Panel Survey or KYPS). The findings indicated that the overall delinquency levels were lower for Korean adolescents than for American adolescents, and parental warmth was negatively associated with adolescent delinquency in both countries. However, there was a protective effect of parental warmth on delinquency for only American adolescents, and parental warmth by country interaction suggested that the protective effect of parental warmth was statistically stronger for American adolescents than Korean adolescents. These findings indicated that verbal and physical expression of warmth and affection may function differently in South Korea, which was consistent with the extant literature (Kim et al., 2013). In sum, a range of poor parenting behaviors and less functional family processes have been shown to have significant associations with adolescent’s delinquent behavior. Interesting nuances to this work include findings that noted the intermediary influences of delinquent peer associations, the relative impact of proximal versus distal factors, the importance (and sometimes primacy effect) of sibling relationships, and the ways in which gender and race may interact around family process issues in samples of court-involved adolescents. Finally, more accurate meanings and functions of certain parenting behaviors and family processes must be considered when studying the influence of family factors on adolescent delinquency in different cultures.

10.3 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Mental Health The literature has outlined a variety of ways that family factors are associated with the mental health of adolescents (Schock-Giordano & Gavazzi, 2010). From an intergenerational perspective, parent’s mental health issues leave adolescents more vulnerable to suffering from psychological distress themselves (Ohannessian & Hesselbrock, 2005, 2008). As well, studies have indicated that family problems are associated with a longitudinal increase in mental health difficulties, while high-­ quality relationships between parents and adolescents appear to function as a protective factor against the development of these mental health issues for both male and female adolescents. Hence, family factors have been characterized as retaining both protective and risk factors in terms of mental health issues for adolescents and especially

142

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

adolescent depressive symptoms. For example, Slesnick and Waldron (1997) used a sample of depressed and nondepressed adolescents (average age 15.1 years) and their parents in a study of the association between family problem-solving and adolescent depression. Using videotaped interactions between parents and adolescents, these researchers reported that parents of depressed adolescents engaged in greater amounts of incongruent communication than parents of nondepressed adolescents. These findings led the researchers to conclude that depressive symptoms may be an adaptive response to confusing parent’s behavior. In a related fashion, the study conducted by Haverfield and Theiss (2023) aimed to investigate the relationship between adolescents’ emotional regulation difficulties and parental alcohol use. The researchers utilized an interaction-based study design and examined communication dynamics within parent–adolescent dyads. The study included 60 dyads, with 30 families having harmful parental alcohol use and the other 30 families without such alcohol use. The results of the study indicated that adolescent’s perceptions of parental communication were stronger predictors of adolescent’s emotion regulation compared to the observed parental communication behavior. This suggests that how adolescents perceive their parents’ communication style has a greater impact on their own emotional regulation abilities than the actual observed behavior of their parents. Furthermore, the study found that perceived parental control had a stronger association with adolescent’s emotion regulation in families with harmful parental alcohol use. This suggests that in families where parental alcohol use is harmful, the level of perceived control exerted by parents has a greater influence on adolescents’ ability to regulate their emotions. In another study employing family process variables, Herman et al. (2007) used a sample of adolescents (ages 12–17 years) to examine the associations among variables related to family cohesion, family conflict, and adolescent depression. These researchers reported a significant interaction between adolescent race and family factors, such that African American adolescent depression was related to low family cohesion levels, while White adolescent depression was associated with high family conflict. These researchers note that the primacy of family cohesion in the lives of African American youth has been reported by others (cf., Sagrestano et al., 2003), whereas “reducing family conflict may be the critical leverage point in alleviating child depressive symptoms” (p. 329) for White youth. More recently, Moreira and Telzer (2015) examined whether family cohesion across the time period in which high school students were making the transition to college life was related to changes in depressive symptoms in a sample of 338 first year college students. Results indicated that adolescents who reported increases in family cohesion reported declines in depressive symptoms during the college transition. Also, gender moderated the relationship between family cohesion and depressive symptoms, such that changes in family cohesion act as a buffer against depressive symptoms only for girls, in line with the previous studies (Telzer & Fuligni, 2013). Other researchers have sought to understand the relative influences of family structure and family processes on adolescent’s mental health. For instance, McKeown et  al. (1997) used the reports of adolescents (seventh through ninth

10.3  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Mental Health

143

grades at the initiation of the study) to examine the longitudinal impact of both family structure and family processes on adolescent depression. Both the initial family cohesion levels and the changes in family cohesion one year later were significantly associated with adolescent depressive symptoms, whereas family structure (as the condition of living with both biological parents or not) displayed no such relationship. Race/ethnicity and gender variation also was reported, including the finding that African American females reported the lowest amounts of family cohesion and White females reported the highest cohesion levels. Parenting behaviors also have been a focal point in this area of inquiry. For instance, a study conducted by O’Donnell et al. (2010) examined the relationship between interparental conflict, parenting behaviors, and depression over time in a sample of fifth and sixth grade adolescents (average age of 10.7 years). At the outset of the study, greater amounts of both interparental conflict and poor parenting behaviors (including measures of rejection and lenient behavioral control) were associated with adolescent depressive symptoms. Using the longitudinal data, the parenting behaviors were shown to play a mediating role in terms of the relationship between interparental conflict and depression. More recently, Kingsbury et al. (2020) examined the impact of positive and harsh parenting in childhood on adolescent’s mental health with data from Canada’s population-­based National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Results showed that harsh parenting at age 10–11 years was associated with elevated symptoms of early adolescent physical aggression, social aggression, and suicidal ideation for boys only. Beginning at age 8/9, harsh discipline was associated with elevated symptoms of depression/anxiety for boys only. Unexpectedly, beginning at age 8/9, positive parenting was associated with higher symptoms of depression/ anxiety for boys only, and positive parenting at age 10/11 was associated with increased depression/anxiety, physical aggression, social aggression, and suicidal ideation among boys but decreased symptoms of physical aggression, social aggression, and suicidal ideation among girls. Results showed that the impact of positive and harsh parenting might depend on the age and gender of the children. Other researchers have taken a more global view of adolescent’s mental health through an examination of both internalizing (depression, anxiety, and other emotional disorders that are experienced “inside” the adolescent) and externalizing (aggression, conduct disorders, and other psychological concerns that are “acted out” on others) problem behaviors. Forehand et  al. (1998) conducted a six-year longitudinal study that examined the linkage between family risk factors and internalizing and externalizing difficulties in a sample of adolescents (ages 11–15 at the start of the study). This study found significant associations between family risks (more interparental conflict, lack of two parents in the home, greater parent–adolescent relationship problems, and more parent physical and mental health problems as reported by mothers) and both types of adolescent’s mental health concerns, such that increased numbers of these family risk factors predicted greater amounts of both short-term and long-term adolescent’s problem behaviors. In general, studies tend to support the observation that females are more likely to display internalizing behaviors, while males are more likely to display externalizing

144

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

behaviors. For instance, Storvoll et  al. (2003) noted that conduct problems were reported at higher levels by males, whereas suicidal behavior, symptoms of depression, and symptoms of anxiety all were reported more frequently by females. Further, Bosco et al. (2003) found a complex interaction between the gender of the parent and the gender of the youth with regard to the display of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. These researchers reported that higher levels of paternal depression and anxiety and lower levels of maternal control led to greater internalizing problems being reported by female youth, whereas greater levels of externalizing problems reported by male youth were related to negative feelings about their mothers and lower maternal acceptance. In another study examining both internalizing and externalizing problems, Gavazzi, Bostic, et al. (2008a) used an ecological systems approach to examine the influence of adolescent gender and race on the association between disrupted family processes (more conflict, lack of monitoring, inconsistent discipline) and adolescent’s mental health concerns in a sample of court-involved adolescents (average age 15.2 years). Among other results, this study generated evidence that disrupted family processes mediated the impact of gender on both internalizing and externalizing problems for African American adolescents (but not the White adolescents). This is a striking contrast to the long-held notion that girls are more likely to display internalizing problems and boys are more likely to externalize their mental health issues. These researchers noted some consistency of findings when compared to other studies examining the impact that family factors have on internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors among African American youth (cf., Griffin et al., 2000); however, the lack of similar findings for the White youth prompted the authors to call into question the possibility that race was serving as a proxy for socioeconomic status, something that was not controlled for in this study. In other words, questions were raised about the degree to which these findings were a reflection of race/ethnicity differences or instead were a manifestation of differing family economic circumstances. Still another set of studies has sought to examine the combined impact of both family and friends on adolescent’s mental health concerns. Deković et al. (2004) conducted a 3-year longitudinal study of adolescent (average age 13.4 years) reports of both family and peer relationships and adolescent’s internalizing and externalizing problems using both a social learning and ecological approach. Parent–adolescent relationship quality (measured as greater communication quality, greater trust, and less alienation) was associated with both dimensions of adolescent’s mental health, whereas friendship relationship quality (also measured as greater communication quality, greater trust, and less alienation) was associated only with internalizing problems. Within an attachment theory framework, Rubin et al. (2004) examined the associations between family, peer, and adolescent mental health variables in a sample of adolescents (average age 10.3 years), their mothers, and their best friends. More positive family (as adolescents’ perceptions of greater maternal and paternal support) and more positive peer (as greater friendship quality) factors were associated with less internalizing problems. In contrast, less externalizing difficulties were

10.4  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Substance Use

145

related only to greater maternal and paternal support. As well, a significant three-­ way interaction was reported for gender, friendship quality, and maternal support (but not paternal support) on the internalizing variables. For females in low- or average-quality friendships, greater internalizing problems were associated with lower maternal support, whereas only those boys in low-quality relationships displayed a significant relationship between low maternal support and internalizing problems. Unlike most previous studies exclusively focusing on unidirectional models of older-to-younger sibling influence (Whiteman et al., 2017), Fry et al. (2021) examined the bidirectional role of sibling warmth on the longitudinal association between social problems and maladjustment in a sample of 45 adolescent sibling dyads (younger siblings, mean age of 12.1 years, and older siblings, mean age of 14.5 years). Multilevel analyses indicated that adolescents with older siblings who exhibited more warmth were buffered against the effect of social problems on externalizing behaviors, with marginal effects for internalizing symptoms, which is consistent with the previous studies showing that warm sibling relationships in adolescence are linked to both concurrent and longitudinal psychosocial outcomes, including reduced internalizing and externalizing problems (Buist et  al., 2013; Hollifield & Conger, 2015). In contrast, younger sibling warmth did not serve as a buffer for older sibling maladjustment. In sum, quite a number of family processes – including family cohesion, conflict, and communication  – all have been shown to have significant associations with adolescent’s mental health issues, and in at least one of the studies reviewed here, the primacy of family process over family structural issues was noted. Quite a number of studies attended to the role that gender played in both internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors among adolescents. Further, the impact of race also was well attended to, including its role as a mediating variable between gender and family factors. Finally, the examination of friendship variables alongside family factors helped to further describe the presence and type of adolescent’s mental health issues.

10.4 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Substance Use The family environment also is a known predictor of adolescent’s use of alcohol and other substances (Scheer et al., 2000). Similar to mental health issues, there is an intergenerational nature to substance use, whereby parent abuse of substances increases the likelihood of adolescent difficulties (Ohannessian & Hesselbrock, 2008). For example, the study conducted by Adamsons and Russell (2023) examined the connections between parental substance use when the child was nine years old and the child’s substance use and delinquent behaviors at the age of 15. The researchers also investigated the role of relational factors, specifically coparenting and parent–child closeness, as mediators of these associations. The data for the study were obtained from the Fragile Families and Child Well-Being Study, which

146

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

included 2,453 mothers, fathers, and children. The findings of the study revealed that fathers’ drug and alcohol use at the child’s age of 9 were not directly linked to adolescent’s risk behaviors at the age of 15. However, there was an indirect association between fathers’ drug use and adolescent’s substance use. This indirect association was mediated through its impact on maternal coparenting, which then influenced the closeness between the father and child. In other words, fathers’ drug use influenced coparenting dynamics, which subsequently affected the quality of the relationship between the father and the child and ultimately contributed to adolescent’s substance use. On the other hand, mothers’ alcohol and drug use were both directly associated with later adolescent’s drug use and delinquency. Additionally, these associations were indirectly linked to delinquency through their impact on fathers’ coparenting behaviors and subsequently on mother–child closeness. This suggests that mothers’ substance use had direct effects on adolescent’s behaviors, and these effects were partially mediated by the quality of coparenting and the closeness between the mother and the child. Studies of family involvement across the developmental stages of substance use (initiation, escalation, maintenance, discontinuation, and renewal) have revealed that youth who experience higher-quality relationships with their parents were less likely to escalate their substance use (Urberg et al., 2005). In turn, a variety of less functional family processes also were predictive of alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco use in other studies (Vakalahi, 2002). Clearly, family factors also can serve as both risk factors and protective elements regarding adolescent’s substance abuse. Brody and Ge (2001) examined the associations between parenting behaviors and adolescent’s (ages 11–12 years) alcohol use in a three-wave longitudinal study. Interestingly, these researchers noted that the significant association between more positive parenting (as both greater “nurturant-­ responsive” and less “harsh-conflicted” reports of parent’s behaviors by mothers, fathers, and adolescents) and less adolescent alcohol use was mediated by adolescent’s self-regulation, supporting the notion that parents best shield their adolescents from substance use by teaching them how to control their own behavior. Other studies have examined the impact of parenting behaviors and parent–adolescent relationship qualities on adolescent’s substance use. Using a more general family socialization conceptual framework, Barnes et al. (2000) conducted a six-­ wave longitudinal study regarding the influences of the family on the alcohol use of adolescents (average age 14.5 years at the initiation of the study). Results using adolescent’s reports indicated that greater parent monitoring and more support were associated both with less initial adolescent’s involvement with alcohol and predicting lower rates of misuse over time. Using both a social learning and social control theory approach, Dorius et al. (2004) examined adolescent’s marijuana use through the reports of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19 years. One interesting nuance within this study involved making the distinction between adolescent closeness to each parent, leading to the finding that greater closeness to fathers, but not mothers, attenuated the relationship between more peer involvement with drugs and greater adolescent’s marijuana use.

10.4  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Substance Use

147

As in other studies of adolescent outcomes reviewed above, there also has been increased interest in the combined impact of family and peer factors. Barnes et al. (2006) extended their earlier effort discussed in the previous paragraph by examining the impact of peer characteristics on adolescent’s alcohol use as well as other substances. While greater amounts of peer deviance (measured as the youth’s reports of their friends’ involvement in delinquent behaviors) were reported to be significantly associated with greater adolescent’s misuse of alcohol and other drugs, parental monitoring also was reported to have an important role in buffering these peer influences. Using a longitudinal design, Allen et al. (2012) explored the impact of mother– adolescent relationship (maternal support and adolescent recantations with mother indicating autonomy difficulty) and peer influence on adolescents’ substance abuse in a sample of 157 adolescents (average age of 13.35 years). As expectedly, close friend substance use was a significant overall predictor of change in adolescents’ substance use. More importantly, findings showed that peer influence is maximized in which adolescents lacked autonomy with their mothers and felt less supported by their mothers. More specifically, peer substance use was more likely to predict future changes in substance use for adolescents who had experienced less maternal support and for adolescents who were more likely to recant their positions in disagreements with their mothers. Van Ryzin et al. (2012) examined the influence of parental monitoring, family relationship quality, and association with deviant peers on change in substance use across time in an ethnically diverse sample of 998 early adolescents (starts at age 12 and ends at age 23). The results suggested that parental monitoring and deviant peer association were associated with substance use in early adolescence, while overall family relationship quality was a significant predictor across the transition to high school and continued to predict substance use into later adolescence. That is, parental monitoring is a more powerful protective factor in substance use of early adolescents, but the family context has a more critical influence as they go into later adolescence. Also, parental monitoring and family relationship quality indirectly predicted later substance use through deviant peers, implying that family context affects adolescent’s substance use by influencing the choice of friends and peer group composition. Studies also have sought to examine the impact of both family structure and family process variables on adolescent’s smoking and drinking behaviors. For instance, a study conducted by Brown and Rinelli (2010) used a social learning approach with a sample of adolescents (average age of 15.3 years) and their parents. Findings indicated that adolescents living with both biological parents were using the least amount of substances and adolescents residing with adults who were cohabiting were displaying the most substance use. Adolescents residing in single-parent-­ headed and stepfamily households displayed substance use rates in between these two other groups. However, the higher risk levels in part were associated with lower levels of maternal support and behavioral control, higher levels of maternal substance use (smoking and drinking), and greater economic disadvantage, thus pointing to the complex interplay of family structure and family processes.

148

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

There is also evidence suggesting that family protective factors may have less influence in higher-risk social contexts. Using an ecological perspective, Cleveland et al. (2010) employed a sample of adolescents in the 6th, 8th, 10th, and 12th grades from over 300 larger and smaller schools located in urban, suburban, and rural communities. Well-established factors such as greater parental supervision and more consistent discipline strategies were significantly associated with lower substance use overall, especially for adolescents in the upper grades. However, the impact of these family protective factors was more pronounced for those adolescents who were attending schools that were deemed to be more protective as compared to adolescents who were attending school in a more high-risk environment. Calafat et al. (2014) examined the impact of different parenting styles as protective factors for adolescents regarding substance abuse with a sample of 7,718 adolescents (average age of 14.63 years) from Sweden, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic. Indulgent and authoritative parenting styles were associated with less use of substance than authoritarian and neglectful parenting in all studied countries, which was consistent with earlier studies indicating that the indulgent parenting style retains the same positive impact as the authoritative parenting style in European samples. Another important line of research that has its parallel in other outcomes-based studies discussed above involves the effects of siblings. Rende et al. (2005) employed a “social contagion” approach (conceptually similar to social learning theory) to the study of sibling effects on adolescent’s (7th through 12th graders) smoking and drinking behaviors. The results of this study presented a strong argument that shared environment factors (including sibling contact and mutual friendships) were much stronger influences than genetic factors regarding adolescent’s substance use. Here, greater amounts of contact with substance-using siblings and their friends were more strongly associated with increased adolescent’s substance use than genetic relatedness. In another sibling-focused empirical effort, East and Khoo (2005) conducted a 5-year longitudinal study of Latino and African American adolescents (average age of 13.8 years), their older sisters (average age of 17.0 years), and their mothers. Couched within a social learning perspective, findings were reported indicating that greater warmth/closeness in the sibling relationship and older sister’s greater drug and alcohol use predicted higher levels of younger sibling drug and alcohol use in the full sample of male and female younger siblings. In addition, sibling warmth/ closeness mediated the impact of family structure (single versus married mothers) on adolescent’s substance use (where siblings with single mothers displayed greater warmth and closeness), while mothers’ monitoring behaviors were unrelated to this adolescent outcome variable. More recently, Cruz et al. (2019) examined the influence of sibling relationship qualities and traditional family values (i.e., familism) on alcohol use and whether sibling sex combinations (sisters, brothers, mixed) modified the patterns of influence in a sample of 404 Mexican-origin youth (at ages 14 and 16). Results indicated familism moderated the effects of sibling intimacy on later alcohol use. For example, increased sibling intimacy was associated with a higher probability of

10.5  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Sexual Activity

149

substance use, but decreasing degree of use (especially for same-sex pairs) for adolescents was associated with a lower sense of familism. Among those displaying higher familism, increased sibling intimacy predicted reduced probability of overall substance use but also predicted increases in the degree of use for those sister and mixed pair siblings who had displayed substance use experience. Also, negative sibling interactions were related to reduced alcohol use probability for brothers and increased alcohol use in mixed sibling pairs. The results imply that culture, sibling relationships, and family values may interplay in complex ways regarding adolescent’s substance abuse. In a related fashion, race/ethnicity needs to be considered in the influence of family factors on adolescent’s drinking-related problems. Using Hirschi’s social control theory of youth delinquency, Reeb et al. (2015) examined racial/ethnic variation in the influence of family cohesion on adolescent’s alcohol-related problems using the first two waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. The results showed that higher family cohesion levels predicted lower adolescent’s alcohol-related problems, consistent with the earlier studies. Findings from moderation analyses indicated that the magnitude of associations differed across races, however. The protective effect of family cohesion was strongest among White adolescents, while family cohesion was not associated with alcohol-related problems for Latino adolescents. For Latino adolescents undergoing acculturation processes, high-level family cohesion might function differently. In sum, the parallel influences of family and friends are probably most well documented in the literature on adolescent’s substance use. And for good reason, family characteristics (including of course parenting behaviors) and peer relationships both play a substantial role in predicting adolescent’s use and misuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. Additionally, the role of siblings more specifically as part of a “contagion” effect on adolescent’s substance use also is highlighted in several studies.

10.5 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Sexual Activity Parental and family factors have been linked to a variety of indicators of adolescent’s sexual activity (Kincaid et al., 2011; Miller et al., 1998), and excellent reviews of this area of inquiry are available (see especially Meschke et al. (2000)). Similar to many of the other studies on adolescent outcomes discussed in this chapter, this empirical work tends to examine parenting behaviors such as behavioral control, monitoring/supervision/knowledge, warmth, and support, as well as parent–adolescent communication and other more family system-oriented variables. One main component of the research regarding the impact of families on adolescent’s sexual activity concerns the timing or initiation of sexual activity. For example, Longmore et al. (2001) used a sample of adolescents (average age of 14.8 years) to conduct a longitudinal study of dating and sexual initiation. Unexpectedly, results of the adolescent’s reports indicated that timing of the first date was not at all

150

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

influenced by any of the parenting behaviors measured in this study nor by family structure or family economic circumstances. In turn, monitoring was the only parenting behavior that predicted first sexual intercourse over time (whereas parental support and coercive control were not). Other studies have found a more pronounced effect of parenting and family factors. For example, a study conducted by Regnerus and Luchies (2006) used the reports of adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 (average age of 15.9 years) who lived with both biological parents, of particular interest because adolescents residing in these “intact” households typically are older in terms of their first sexual experiences. Results indicated that a closer relationship between female adolescents and their fathers (but not their mothers) was significantly related to first sexual experience. Closeness with either parent was not associated with sexual debut for the male adolescents in this study. Ream and Savin-Williams (2005) employed a sample of adolescents (average age of 14.5 years) in a study of the associations between the initiation of sexual activity and the quality of mother–adolescent and father–adolescent interactions. Some well-established findings were replicated in this study, including results indicating that adolescent’s reports of lower amounts of closeness and shared activities and greater amounts of problem-focused interactions in parent–adolescent relationships significantly predicted earlier sexual experiences. However, evidence of a reciprocal effect also was generated in this study, in that the first sexual experience also significantly predicted subsequent increases in problem-focused interactions between parents and adolescents. Reciprocal effects regarding closeness also were found for mother–daughter and father–son dyads, as well as reciprocal efforts regarding shared activities for mother–son and father–daughter dyads. Using the Add Health data, Deptula et  al. (2010) examined the relationship between parental involvement and the parent–adolescent relationship quality and adolescent’s sexual behaviors, including adolescent’s sexual initiation, inconsistent condom use, and outcomes such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Findings showed that a higher level of parent–adolescent relationship quality was associated with lower levels of adolescent’s unprotected intercourse and intercourse initiation. Better parent–adolescent relationship quality was also associated with lower levels of young adult sexually transmitted infections for younger adolescents. Unexpectedly, more parent–adolescent communication regarding the risks associated with sexual activity was negatively associated with condom use and a greater likelihood of sexual initiation, partially consistent with previous studies. In related fashions, McDade et al. (2020)’s narrative literature review examined the effect of parental communication on African American adolescent’s sexual behaviors with studies published on the subject after 2010. Analyses indicated that breadth of content and open parental communication style tended to influence safe sex practices in this population of adolescents. Additionally, significant gender differences were found regarding parent–teen sexual communication (PTSC) topics. More specifically, results showed that mothers were more likely to engage in sexual communication with adolescents and parents were more likely to discuss abstinence with females in comparison to males and more likely to discuss condom use and

10.5  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Sexual Activity

151

condom obtainment with males in contrast to females. However, PTSC, in and of itself, is not enough to protect adolescents from engaging in risky sexual behaviors. More recently, the study conducted by Payne et al. (2023) focused on exploring the perceptions of young adults regarding the messages about sexual morality that they received from their parents during their upbringing. The study involved surveying a total of 350 young adults as part of a larger study with a sample size of 425 participants. The participants were asked about their experiences of parent–child communication regarding sexuality. The results of the study revealed that parents may inadvertently convey gendered information that reinforces specific sexual scripts. More specifically, the findings indicated that women tend to receive different teachings compared to men in several areas related to sexual morality. These areas include relationship structures (such as marriage), abstinence, consent, avoidance of pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), contraception, and autonomy. Moreover, women reported receiving a disproportionately higher number of mixed and unclear messages compared to men. These gendered differences in the messages received from parents could potentially shape the sexual knowledge and behaviors of young adults. It may be necessary to consider the gender of adolescents in understanding the effects of various parenting behaviors on adolescents’ sexual behavior. Kincaid et al. (2012) reviewed 24 studies in the literature and focused largely on the impact of adolescent’s gender on associations among various parenting behaviors (including behavioral control, warmth/relationship quality, and psychological control) and adolescents’ sexual behaviors. Findings suggested that monitoring may be more protective against sexual risk behavior for male adolescents, particularly those with ethnic minority backgrounds, as compared to female adolescents. At the same time, higher parent–adolescent relationship quality may be an essential protective factor for adolescent females versus males. Furthermore, psychological control also was viewed to be more detrimental for female adolescents than for male adolescents. As discussed above, studies have asserted that parent–adolescent communication itself is not a consistent predictor of adolescents’ healthy sexual behaviors. In this context, it is necessary to examine the influence of specific attributes of parent–adolescent communication on adolescents’ sexual behavior. Using a family communication pattern theoretical background, Hurst et  al. (2022) examined how family communication patterns, above and beyond the frequency of parent–child sexual communication, are associated with adolescents’ sexual self-efficacy, intentions to communicate about sex with partners, and intentions to use condoms in a sample of 452 adolescents (mean age of 15.06 years). Results indicated that the interaction between conversation orientation (where freewheeling discussions among family members about various topics is encouraged) and conformity orientation (where family members are encouraged to “think alike”) was associated with adolescent’s sexual self-efficacy and intentions to communicate about sex with partners even after controlling for the frequency of parent–child sexual communication and gender. More specifically, when families were high on conversation orientation and low on conformity orientation, adolescents displayed significantly higher sexual self-­ efficacy than in any other family communication pattern combinations. Further,

152

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

when families were low on both conversation and conformity orientation, adolescents displayed statistically significantly lower intentions to communicate with future sex partners than any other family communication pattern. Two studies by Roche and colleagues extended the influence of parenting and family factors in order to take into account the influence of neighborhoods. The reports of adolescents in the 17th through 12th grades in a study conducted by Roche et  al. (2005) indicated that greater parental involvement was significantly related to greater likelihood of first sexual intercourse only for adolescents living in higher socioeconomic neighborhoods. As well, parent’s decision-making control was significantly associated with a lower likelihood of sexual initiation for adolescents residing in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods but a higher likelihood for adolescents residing in higher socioeconomic neighborhoods. These findings were largely replicated in a second sample of adolescents between the ages of 10 and 14 and their mothers (Roche & Leventhal, 2009), along with evidence that the magnitude of relationship between lower likelihood of sexual initiation and both greater amounts of family routines and parental monitoring/knowledge was greater for those adolescents residing in lower socioeconomic neighborhoods. Another component of the research on families and adolescent’s sexual activity concerns unsafe sexual practices, pregnancy, and teen parenthood. For example, Frisco (2005) employed a sample of adolescents in their first year post-high school who were unmarried and sexually active in order to examine the associations among parental behaviors and adolescent’s contraceptive use. Results indicated that parent’s involvement with their adolescent on issues surrounding education significantly increased the likelihood of contraception use in general, as well as more specifically increasing the likelihood of the adolescent using oral contraceptives and condoms. Two studies conducted by Khurana and colleagues using an ecological systems perspective shed light on the connection between family factors and teen parenthood in samples of male and female adolescents coming into contact with the juvenile court. In a first sample of court-involved female adolescents between 11 and 18 years (average age of 15.0 years), those females who reported at least one pregnancy also reported greater disrupted family processes in addition to higher levels of many other risk factors (Khurana et al., 2011). A second sample of court-involved male adolescents between the ages of 11 and 19 (average age of 14.9 years) indicated that having fathered a child was not at all related to disruptive family processes but rather only to greater exposure to trauma and higher amounts of prior offenses (Khurana & Gavazzi, 2011). Siblings also are thought to play an important role in adolescent’s sexual activity (East, 1996). For instance, Widmer (1997) used interview data from a sample of adolescents (average age of 15.1 years), their older siblings (average age of 17.3 years), and their parents. Results indicated that parent variables related to attitudes about sexuality were the most important predictors of the timing of the younger sibling’s first sexual intercourse. However, older siblings, and especially older brothers, do have a significant influence on both the timing of sexual debut and on the use (or nonuse) of contraceptives.

10.6  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Educational Issues

153

In another sibling-focused study, Kowal and Blinn-Pike (2004) employed a sample of adolescents (average age of 17.7 years) in order to examine the role that siblings and parents can play with regard to discussions about safe sexual practices. These researchers reported that the combination of having conversations with parents and siblings provided a context for developing less risky attitudes about sexual behaviors and a greater likelihood of being able to communicate with potential sex partners about the need to use contraception. In sum, parenting behaviors and family processes seem to play a complex role in issues related to adolescent’s sexual activity. In some studies, there seems to be little if any impact at all, while in other studies, the impact of parent–adolescent and sibling–sibling relationships seems paramount. There also is evidence that gender can play an important role in further delineating these associations, and the role of neighborhood context also has been shown to have a determinative effect.

10.6 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Educational Issues A growing number of studies (Boonk et  al., 2018; Froiland & Worrell, 2017; Pinquart, 2016; Pinquart & Ebeling, 2020) have documented the impact of parental and family factors on a variety of adolescent’s educational issues. As with studies conducted on other adolescent outcomes, this is an area of inquiry that emphasizes the relative impact of both functional and less functional family processes. In turn, this literature also reflects both competent and problematic behaviors in school in addition to variables associated with academic abilities and actual performance (Vazsonyi & Flannery, 1997). As with many other areas of inquiry, there is a pronounced focus on the impact of parenting behaviors. For example, Melby and Conger (1996) used a social learning approach in order to conduct a four-wave longitudinal study to examine the associations between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting behaviors and adolescent’s (average age 12.6 years at the initiation of the study) academic performance. The findings of this study indicated that mother’s and father’s parenting behaviors (such as greater involvement and less hostility as reported by mothers, fathers, adolescents, and trained observers) were associated both with earlier grade point average and with more positive changes in this academic performance indicator over time. Amato and Fowler (2002) used a two-wave longitudinal design to consider the connection between parenting behaviors (such as support, monitoring, and use of harsh discipline) and adolescent’s (12–18 years of age at the initiation of the study) school success. These researchers reported significant associations between both greater parent’s support and less harsh discipline in terms of greater adolescent’s school success but no such relationship regarding the parental monitoring variable in the overall sample. These results did not vary as a function of race (White versus African American), but differences in family structure were detected in that parent monitoring did seem to matter more in single-parent-headed households.

154

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

Spera (2005) used a sample of adolescents (fifth through eighth grade students) to expand upon Darling and Steinberg’s (1993) “contextual model” in a study of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and school achievement. Results indicated that adolescent reports of parent educational aspirations were related to parent’s involvement in school-related issues, which in turn was related to adolescent’s educational outcomes (defined here as interest in school, self-­regulating academic behaviors, and pursuit of educational goals). Some interesting race and gender differences also were noted. African American adolescents reported the highest parental aspirations in comparison to White and Hispanic adolescents, and females reported greater parental aspirations in comparison to males. More recently, Chung et  al. (2020) examined the extent to which patterns of parental warmth moderated the association between parental involvement and adolescents’ academic achievement and school engagement behaviors in a sample of 2,306 adolescents (mean age of 15.31 years) from the Add Health. A latent profile analysis identified five profiles, including “congruent high warmth,” “congruent moderate warmth,” “congruent low warmth,” “incongruent high mother/low father warmth,” and “incongruent low father/lower mother warmth.” Results showed that parental involvement and congruent high warmth were positively associated with adolescents’ academic achievement. Subsequent analyses revealed that there was a moderating effect of “congruent low warmth” on the relationship between parental involvement and adolescents’ achievement by weakening the relationship between parental involvement and their adolescents’ academic achievement. In related fashion, Yau et al. (2022) examined the associations between parental behavior, adolescents’ motivation, and academic achievement in a sample of 220 adolescents in grades 9–12. Results indicated that perceived maternal support was positively associated with adolescent’s academic achievement and that students’ engagement with academic goals mediated this association. On the other hand, perceived maternal psychological control was negatively associated with students’ academic success by influencing adolescents’ academic motivation. More specifically, maternal warmth was most beneficial for adolescents’ academic success, and maternal devaluation was most detrimental. In contrast, paternal psychological control was only weakly associated with lower academic achievement and was unrelated to adolescent’s motivation. The study conducted by Barton et al. (2019) examined the unique and long-term effects of routinized family environments during adolescence on various developmental domains in young adulthood for rural African Americans. The researchers collected prospective data annually for 6 years from a sample of 504 rural African American youth and their parents, starting when the youth were 16 years old. The results of the study indicated that youth who were raised in families with more routinized family environments during adolescence reported several positive outcomes in young adulthood. Specifically, these individuals reported lower levels of alcohol use, greater emotional self-regulation, lower epinephrine levels (a stress-related hormone), and higher rates of college or university enrollment. Importantly, these effects remained significant even after controlling for other factors such as supportive parenting, harsh parenting, household chaos, socioeconomic risk, and sex. This

10.6  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Educational Issues

155

suggests that the benefits of routinized family environments during adolescence on the mentioned outcomes were distinct and independent from these other factors. The findings of this study provide support for the advantages of consistent and predictable family environments in promoting healthy development among rural African American youth. The results suggest that the establishment of family routines constitutes an essential yet often overlooked factor in shaping adolescents’ long-term development. While healthy family environments generally are thought to promote adolescent’s academic achievement, family environments that include incidences of family violence can significantly harm academic achievement levels. Supol et  al.’s (2021) systematic review of the literature reported significant direct, mediating, and/or moderating effects of family violence exposure on adolescent’s academic achievement. Interestingly, some of the studies reviewed by these scholars suggested that adolescent’s self-blame regarding family violence may serve as a mediator in terms of explaining how exposure to violence negatively impacts academic achievement. Also, the effects of family violence exposure can be moderated by certain sociodemographic factors, such as age and gender. Other studies have contained results indicating academic differences related to family structure alone. For example, Frisco et al. (2007) examined the impact of family structure changes (in terms of parental marital dissolution) on academic performance over time using a sample of parents and adolescents who were in the 9th through 11th grades at the initiation of the study. Across a one-year time period, significant declines in grades were displayed by those adolescents whose parents had reported the dissolution of their marriage during that time period. Although these researchers demonstrated that these results were consistent across two different types of propensity matching strategies (which can reduce the bias inherent to this type of research), there was no corresponding set of variables that could be used to examine the degree to which these results were linked to disrupted family processes. In comparison, Demo and Acock (1996) conducted a longitudinal study of family structure and variables related to both parent–adolescent and interparental factors in a sample containing reports of adolescents (ages 12–18) and their mothers. These researchers reported that adolescents residing with never-divorced parents fared best in terms of mother reports of academic performance. However, less mother–adolescent disagreement itself was the strongest overall predictor of better grades, pointing to the complex interplay of family structure and family processes that has been noted in many other studies reviewed throughout this book. Conflict within the parent–adolescent relationship also has been linked to academic performance. Dotterer et al. (2008) reported on findings from a 2-year longitudinal study of adolescents (average age 14.9 years) and their mothers and fathers undertaken within an ecological approach. A number of interesting bidirectional associations were discussed, including how greater parent–adolescent conflict as reported by both parents predicted lower grades (from student report cards) at the end of the study, as well as how lower grades in math at the onset of the study predicted greater parent–adolescent conflict two years later.

156

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

A study conducted by Ghazarian and Buehler (2010) to test a risk and resiliency model used a sample of adolescents (average age of 11.9 years) in order to examine the impact of interparental conflict and parenting behaviors on adolescent’s academic performance. These researchers reported that, as expected, higher levels of interparental conflict were significantly associated with lower grades. In addition, adolescent’s self-blame significantly mediated this relationship, and greater amounts of maternal acceptance and monitoring behaviors were reported to have buffered the relationship between the self-blame variable and interparental conflict. Other studies have generated more detailed information about the subject matter of these disagreements and whether or not potential gender differences exist. For example, Allison and Schultz (2004) compared the reports of adolescents (sixth through eighth graders) regarding the amounts and types of conflict they experienced with their parents. Homework and school performance were among the most frequent domains of conflict endorsed by adolescents. These researchers reported that these topic areas were especially important in parent–son relationships. Also, while the amount of conflict was a frequent occurrence as reported by the adolescents, the intensity level of these parent–adolescent disagreements was relatively moderate. Research has been conducted that identifies the relationship between sibling relationships and adolescents’ more comprehensive outcomes encompassing mental health, academic attachment, and social competence. Buist and Vermande (2014) examined sibling relationship quality, internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, and social competence in a sample of 1,670 Dutch adolescents (average age of 11.40 years). In this study, the researchers categorized sibling relationships into three categories using cluster analysis: a conflictual cluster (low on warmth, high on conflict), an affect-intense cluster (above average on warmth and conflict), and a harmonious cluster (high on warmth, low on conflict). Sister pairs were underrepresented in the conflictual cluster and overrepresented in the harmonious cluster, while brother pairs and sibling pairs consisting of an older brother and a younger sister were underrepresented in the harmonious relationship type and overrepresented in the conflictual relationship type. Results indicated that adolescents with conflictual sibling relationships reported significantly more internalizing and externalizing problems, and lower academic and social competence and global self-­ worth, than adolescents with harmonious sibling relationships. Also, adolescents with affect-intense sibling relationships reported less aggression and better social competence than adolescents with conflictual sibling relationships. Possible linkages between family factors and relationships outside of the home also have been highlighted within this area of inquiry. Using a life course theoretical perspective, Crosnoe and Elder (2004) conducted a longitudinal study of adolescents (average age 16.0 years at the initiation of the study) and their parents. Results indicated that greater parent–adolescent emotional distance as reported by parents was associated with more academic difficulties (being held back, suspended/ expelled, skipping classes, homework trouble, and low grades). Although variables related to friendship (lower numbers of friends and less peer support) and lower levels of teacher–adolescent bonding also predicted greater academic difficulties,

10.6  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Educational Issues

157

these variables generally were not shown to buffer the effects of the parent–adolescent relationship. Using a similar sample from the same database, Crosnoe (2004) examined the impact of indicators of both family social capital (measured as emotional distance between parents and adolescents) and school social capital (student–teacher bonding, parent educational attainment, and parent educational aspirations for their adolescents) on self-reported adolescent grades. In addition to the replicated findings regarding the main effects for the family and school factors employed in the previously discussed research effort, this study also generated evidence of “mesolevel interactions” indicating that those students with the most social capital at home were more likely both to have greater social capital at school and to take advantage of those resources. Perhaps most notable is the exponential growth of studies that have used racially and culturally diverse samples in order to refine work in this area. For instance, Heard (2007) used a longitudinal database containing reports from White, African American, and Latino adolescents (average age 14.9 years at the initiation of the study) and their parents to examine the impact of both the duration of time spent in various family structural situations and the total number of family constellation changes on grade point average. Interpreted from a life course theoretical perspective, African American adolescents were reported to have been less negatively impacted by exposure to single parenthood and Hispanic adolescents less negatively impacted by time lived with nonparents; however, these race/ethnicity differences in grades were due to variables related to social support, stress levels, and school-­ related difficulties. Building on previous research (Gavazzi, Yarcheck, et al., 2008b) that noted the primacy of educational risks in predicting delinquent behavior, Gavazzi et al. (2009) used an ecological systems perspective to examine a sample of court-involved African American adolescents (15.1 years) regarding the association between educational risks and a variety of “nonacademic barriers to learning.” Results indicated that there were three main forms of educational risks – disruptive classroom behavior, learning difficulties, and threats to academic progress – that were significantly predicted by disrupted family processes, delinquent peer associations, and mental health issues. Using a social learning framework, Aldous (2006) employed a sample of adolescents and their parents who had emigrated to the United States from Asian, Hispanic (Central America and South America), or European countries in order to examine the potential impact of family factors on educational achievement. While students emigrating from Asian countries did best academically and those students from Hispanic countries did least well, parental educational aspirations for their offspring and the adolescent’s own aspirations were significantly associated with educational achievement regardless of country of origin. A study conducted by Alfaro et al. (2006) within an ecological approach used the reports of Hispanic adolescents between the ages of 14 and 17 (average age of 15.3 years) in order to examine the influence of mothers, fathers, teachers, and peers on adolescent’s academic motivation. Female adolescent motivation was most

158

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

significantly affected by the academic support given by mothers and teachers, whereas the academic support provided by fathers and teachers was most salient for the male adolescents. Interestingly, neither “generational status” (whether or not the parents were born in the United States) nor parent’s educational attainment was a significant predictor of adolescent’s academic motivation in this study. Dumka et al. (2009) examined the impact of parenting behaviors on academic success using a sample of Hispanic adolescents of Mexican origin between the ages of 11 and 14 (average age of 12.3 years) and their mothers, fathers, and teachers. Interpreted within a developmental contextual perspective, findings indicated that greater harshness used by both mothers and fathers was related to more problematic classroom behavior for male adolescents while greater father harshness was related to more involvement with problematic peers for the sons. As well, greater mother harshness was associated with more problem peer involvement yet higher grade point averages for the daughters. Two studies conducted by Eng and colleagues using an ecological approach have generated important information about the families of adolescents from Asian backgrounds. In the first study, school achievement (as grade point average) in a sample of Chinese American and Filipino American adolescents (average age of 16.5 years) was found to be significantly related to parent–adolescent attachment levels but not parent’s involvement in school work (Eng et al., 2008). In the second study, a sample of Cambodian adolescents between the ages of 13 and 22 (average age of 17.0 years) and their parents revealed that higher adolescent grades were significantly related to being female, greater amounts of study time, higher levels of father education, and less parental exposure to traumatic events (Eng et al., 2009). More recently, Pinquart and Kauser’s (2018) random-effects meta-analysis examined whether there were ethnic and regional differences in the associations of parenting styles with internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and academic achievement with 428 studies. Overall, the review indicated that there were more ethnic and regional similarities than differences. When focusing on studies from Western countries, associations of authoritative parenting with academic achievement were stronger in non-Hispanic, White families than in Asian minorities. In these countries, associations of authoritarian parenting with academic achievement were less negative in Hispanic families than in non-Hispanic, White families. Also, positive associations of authoritative parenting with academic achievement and negative associations of authoritarian parenting with academic achievement were weaker in countries with higher individualism scores, implying that authoritarian and permissive parenting is, to some extent, tolerable in a few cultural contexts. The influence of siblings also can be related to the academic achievement of adolescents. Based on social–cognitive process theoretical premises, Bouchey et al. (2010) investigated the relations between older siblings’ support and academic engagement and younger siblings’ academic adjustment from seventh to eighth grade in a sample of 341 African American and European American adolescents. The results revealed that African American adolescents reported more academic support from and admiration of their older siblings than European American

10.7  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Social Competence

159

adolescents in this study. Also, findings indicated that older siblings who reported high engagement and academic success themselves had younger siblings who increased their academic adjustment over time, even after controlling for parental support and younger siblings’ demographic background factors. This finding suggests that academically successful older siblings function as salient role models for academic achievement. As well, features of older siblings associated with younger siblings’ academic adjustment did not appear to differ by race, despite mean-level group differences in older sibling characteristics. However, findings revealed that younger siblings’ perceptions of support from the older sibling and their positive image of the older sibling and older siblings’ reported support to younger siblings predicted declines in the younger sibling’s academic self-perceptions and performance over time. The results should be carefully interpreted, but it may imply that continuing to get support from older siblings decreases the ability of younger siblings to work independently on their academic progress. In sum, the impact of both parenting behaviors and family processes on a wide variety of educational outcome indicators – including grade point average and other forms of academic performance and school success, as well as academic motivation and interest in school – has been well documented. Quite a number of studies have attended to the role that race, ethnicity, and culture play in shaping similarities and differences regarding the relative associations among family variables and educational outcomes. Further, more ecologically oriented variables outside of the home (including friendships and relationships with teachers) also have been shown to have an important impact on these educational outcomes.

10.7 The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Social Competence There has been increased interest in documenting the role that family factors play in the development of adolescent’s social competence. Alongside the examination of educational outcomes reviewed above, research on adolescent’s social competence – those behaviors associated with positive outcomes in the lives of youth – is thought to serve as an important counterbalance to the widespread examination of adolescent’s problem behaviors that have been reported throughout this chapter. Socially competent behaviors have been measured in a variety of ways in studies that have focused on the impact of parenting and family factors. Using an ecological perspective, Henry et  al. (1996) conducted a study on adolescent’s (average age 14.7 years) perspectives regarding parent and family factors and how they were linked to adolescent’s social competence as measured by both emotional and cognitive dimensions of empathy. Results were reported indicating that greater adolescent’s emotional empathy was associated with more family cohesion and higher levels of parental support, while greater amounts of the cognitive dimension of adolescent’s empathy were related to more parental inductive behaviors.

160

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

A study conducted by Hardy et al. (2010) used the reports of adolescents (average age of 16.8 years) and their parents and teachers in order to examine the relationship between adolescent’s prosocial behavior and their expectations about parental behaviors. The findings of this study included reports of a significant association between adolescent’s perceptions of the degree to which their parents would respond “appropriately” to their behaviors (both prosocial and antisocial) and the parent’s and teacher’s reports of the adolescent’s tendency to engage in prosocial behavior. Padilla-Walker (2007) used reports from mother–adolescent (average age of 16.3 years) dyads in order to examine the relationship between prosocial behaviors and family member values related to honesty and kindness. Female adolescents reported significantly higher values than their male counterparts, and significant disparities existed between the reports of mothers and adolescents on each other’s values. At the same time, however, greater prosocial behavior was related to both greater congruence between mother’s and adolescent’s perceptions and when adolescents largely had adopted their mother’s values. More recently, the study conducted by Tu et al. (2021) investigated the prospective associations between parental responses to peer victimization and adolescents’ coping strategies and experiences of peer victimization. The study involved 203 adolescents (with an average age of 12.16 years) and one of their parents, with 81% of the parents being mothers. At Time 1, parents were asked to provide open-ended responses to a hypothetical scenario of peer victimization. The adolescents reported on their experiences of peer victimization and their coping strategies at both Time 1 and Time 2. The findings of the study revealed that parents’ active-engaged responses to the hypothetical scenario, such as approaching the school, were associated with more conflict resolution and support-seeking behaviors reported by the adolescents over time. On the other hand, parents’ passive-disengaged responses, such as advising the child to tell an adult, were associated with less support-seeking behavior reported by the adolescents. Interestingly, the study found that parents’ positive appraisals of the situation predicted less conflict resolution while parents’ negative appraisals predicted less revenge-seeking behavior reported by the adolescents over time. The study highlights the importance of parents’ active engagement and support in promoting conflict resolution and support-seeking behaviors among adolescents. Other studies have examined the reciprocal influences of family factors and adolescent’s social competence. O’Connor et al. (1997) reported on a study of adolescents (average age 11.4 years) that used the combined reports of adolescents, both parents, teachers, and trained observers on various measures of social competence. Using a family systems approach, these researchers reported strong support for the bidirectional influence of variables that tapped into parent-to-adolescent and adolescent-­to-parent behaviors, whereby greater “positivity” (as reflected in family member enjoyment of the relationship, affection displayed, and positive communication) was related to indicators such as social competence, cognitive competence, physical competence, prosocial behavior, and global self-worth. Some gender differences also have been reported as well.

10.7  The Impact of Families on Adolescent’s Social Competence

161

Using a more general social interaction approach, Schoenrock et al. (1999) collected data from male and female adolescents (ages 17–19) in order to examine the impact that parent and family factors had on a global measure of social competence. For male adolescents, greater social competence was associated with higher levels of family support and family autonomy. For females, greater adolescent’s social competence was related to higher levels of family support only. Potential differences in the relationships between family factors and adolescent’s social competence have been studied in terms of race/ethnicity and cultural variation, as well as the potential intermediary nature of these variables. Prelow et al. (2007) conducted a longitudinal study of Latino adolescents (average age 11.9 years at the initiation of the study) and their mothers within a family economic stress model. These researchers reported that both family routines (measured as the regularity of family events in the home) and adolescent’s social competence mediated the impact of socioenvironmental risk (operationalized as the accumulation of risks associated with family financial strain, neighborhood problems, and maternal psychological distress and parenting stress) on adolescent’s externalizing problems. Garcia and Gracia (2009) used an ecological approach in order to examine the reports of adolescents (average age 14.9 years) from Spain in a study of parenting styles and self-perceptions of social competence. Results indicated that authoritative and permissive/indulgent styles of parenting both were associated with the highest levels of social competence. Interestingly, these researchers concluded that adolescents from Spain experienced the most optimal family environment from parents employing the permissive/indulgent style, as their scores on all of the outcomes measures were either the same or better than adolescents with authoritative parents. Leidy et al. (2010) examined the relationship between positive parenting, family cohesion, and adolescents’ social competence in a sample of 282 recent immigrant Latino families having children (ages 9 –12). Results indicated that positive parenting and family cohesion predicted gains in social self-efficacy, whereas only family cohesion predicted improvements in social problem-solving skills. In essence, positive parenting and greater family cohesion levels within newly immigrated families are associated with young adolescents’ adjustment to school within a new social environment. This finding suggests that, even under adverse conditions, parents who can communicate openly and effectively with their offspring and maintain close family connections with them help to develop adolescents who display improvements in social competence, particularly in the area of social problem-­ solving skills and social self-efficacy. Carson et  al. (1999) used the reports of adolescents (average age 13.7 years) from India along with their fathers and teachers in order to examine the associations between a number of parent and family variables and adolescent’s social competence in school. Findings revealed that the most socially competent adolescents come from families who display lower enmeshment styles in terms of family cohesion, employ more democratic family styles, and score lower on a measure of external locus of control within the family. In sum, while there is some variability in how social competence is defined and measured, there is a growing body of evidence that documents how parenting

162

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

behaviors and family processes play an important role in the development of prosocial behaviors. Of particular note here is the wide-ranging nature of studies that have been conducted on racially and internationally diverse samples. These findings seem to indicate that there are both similarities and differences across samples that warrant further exploration in future studies.

10.8 Summary of Research Regarding Family Influences on Adolescent Outcomes The research literature regarding the linkage between family factors and various aspects of adolescent outcomes share some very important similarities. First and foremost, these studies uniformly underscore the critical role that parenting behaviors and family processes play in adolescent’s adjustment and well-being. Quite simply put, whether the particular empirical focus is delinquency, mental health, substance use, sexual activity, education, or social competency, and parent and family factors matter a great deal. Other similarities include the parallel influence of peers and other social contexts, the importance of sibling relationships, and the ways in which gender, race, ethnicity, and culture all may have an impact on findings related to the adolescent outcome variables in question.

References Adamsons, K., & Russell, B. (2023). Longitudinal transmission of risk behaviors between mothers, fathers, and adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001086 Aldous, J. (2006). Family, ethnicity, and immigrant youths’ educational achievements. Journal of Family Issues, 27(12), 1633–1667. Alfaro, E. C., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Bámaca, M. Y. (2006). The influence of interpersonal support on Latino adolescents’ academic motivation. Family Relations, 55, 279–291. Allen, J. P., Chango, J., Szwedo, D., Schad, M., & Marston, E. (2012). Predictors of susceptibility to peer influence regarding substance use in adolescence. Child Development, 83(1), 337–350. Allison, B., & Schultz, J. (2004). Parent–adolescent conflict in early adolescence. Adolescence, 39, 100–119. Amato, P.  R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703–716. Bank, L., Burraston, B., & Snyder, J. (2004). Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting as predictors of adolescent boys' antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and interactional effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(1), 99–125. Barnes, G. M., Reifman, A. S., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2000). The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: A six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 175–186. Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2006). Effects of parental monitoring and peer deviance on substance use and delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1084–1104.

References

163

Barton, A. W., Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Kogan, S. M., Chen, E., & Ehrlich, K. B. (2019). The profundity of the everyday: Family routines in adolescence predict development in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(3), 340–346. Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(108), 61–69. Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J., Ritzen, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10–30. Bosco, G.  L., Renk, K., Dinger, T.  M., Epstein, M.  K., & Phares, V. (2003). The connections between adolescents’ perceptions of parents, parental psychological symptoms, and adolescent functioning. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 179–200. Bouchey, H. A., Shoulberg, E. K., Jodl, K. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2010). Longitudinal links between older sibling features and younger siblings' academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 197–211. Brody, G. H., & Ge, X. (2001). Linking parenting practices and self-regulation to psychological functioning and alcohol use during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 82–94. Brown, S. L., & Rinelli, L. N. (2010). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent smoking and drinking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 259–273. Buist, K. L. (2010). Sibling relationship quality and adolescent delinquency: A latent growth curve approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4), 400–410. Buist, K. L., & Vermande, M. (2014). Sibling relationship patterns and their associations with child competence and problem behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 529–537. Buist, K. L., Deković, M., & Prinzie, P. (2013). Sibling relationship quality and psychopathology of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 97–106. Calafat, A., García, F., Juan, M., Becoña, E., & Fernández-Hermida, J. R. (2014). Which parenting style is more protective against adolescent substance use? Evidence within the European context. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 138, 185–192. Carson, D. K., Chowdhury, A., Perry, C. K., & Pati, C. (1999). Family characteristics and adolescent competence in India: Investigation of youth in Southern Orissa. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 211–233. Cashwell, C.  S., & Vacc, N.  A. (1996). Familial influences on adolescent delinquent behavior. Family Journal, 4, 217–225. Chung, G., Phillips, J., Jensen, T. M., & Lanier, P. (2020). Parental involvement and adolescents’ academic achievement: Latent profiles of mother and father warmth as a moderating influence. Family Process, 59(2), 772–788. Cleveland, M.  J., Feinberg, M.  E., & Greenberg, M.  T. (2010). Protective families in high-and low-risk environments: Implications for adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 114–126. Criss, M. M., & Shaw, D. S. (2005). Sibling relationships as contexts for delinquency training in low-income families. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 592–600. Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 267–280. Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H. (2004). Family dynamics, supportive relationships, and educational resilience during adolescence. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 571–602. Crosswhite, J. M., & Kerpelman, J. (2009). Coercion theory, self-control, and social information processing: Understanding potential mediators for how parents influence deviant behaviors. Deviant Behaviors, 30, 611–646. Cruz, R. A., Mechammil, M., & Robins, R. W. (2019). Familism, sibling relationship qualities, and sibling sex constellation as predictors of alcohol use among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(7), 868–875. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L.  D. (1993). Parenting styles as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496. Deković, M., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & van As, N. M. C. (2003). Parental predictors of antisocial behavior in adolescence. Family Process, 42, 223–235.

164

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

Deković, M., Buist, K. L., & Reitz, E. (2004). Stability and changes in problem behavior during adolescent latent growth analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 1–12. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457–488. Deptula, D.  P., Henry, D.  B., & Schoeny, M.  E. (2010). How can parents make a difference? Longitudinal associations with adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 731–739. Dorius, C. J., Bahr, S. J., Hoffmann, J. P., & Harmon, E. L. (2004). Parenting practices as moderators of the relationship between peers and adolescent marijuana use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 163–178. Dotterer, A. M., Hoffman, L., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2008). A longitudinal examination of the bidirectional links between academic achievement and parent-adolescent conflict. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 762–779. Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Bonds, D., & Millsap, R. (2009). Academic success in Mexican origin adolescent boys and girls: The role of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting and cultural orientation. Sex Roles, 60, 588–599. East, P. L. (1996). The younger sisters of childbearing adolescents: Their attitudes, expectations, and behaviors. Child Development, 67, 267–282. East, P., & Khoo, S.  T. (2005). Longitudinal pathways linking family factors and sibling relationship qualities to adolescent substance use and sexual risk behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 571–580. Eng, S., Kanitkar, K., Cleveland, H.  H., Herbert, R., Fischer, J., & Wiersma, J. (2008). School achievement differences among Chinese and Filipino American students: Acculturation and family factors. Educational Psychology, 28, 535–550. Eng, S., Mulsow, M., Cleveland, H. H., & Hart, S. (2009). Academic achievement among adolescents in Cambodia: Does maternal trauma matter? Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 754–768. Forehand, R., Biggar, H., & Kotchick, B. A. (1998). Cumulative risk across family stressors: Shortand long-term effects for adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 119–128. Frisco, M.  L. (2005). Parental involvement and young women’s contraceptive use. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67, 110–121. Frisco, M. L., Muller, C., & Frank, K. A. (2007). Family structure change and adolescents’ school performance: A propensity score approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 721–741. Froiland, J.  M., & Worrell, F.  C. (2017). Parental autonomy support, community feeling and student expectations as contributors to later achievement among adolescents. Educational Psychology, 37(3), 261–271. Fry, C. M., Telzer, E. H., & Rogers, C. R. (2021). Siblings as buffers: Social problems and internalizing and externalizing behaviors across early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(7), 939–949. Garcia, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence, 44, 101–131. Gavazzi, S. M. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, and the family environment: Contributions to assessment efforts within the realm of juvenile justice. Family Relations, 55, 190–199. Gavazzi, S. M., Slade, D., Buettner, C. K., Partridge, C., Yarcheck, C. M., & Andrews, D. W. (2003). Toward conceptual development and empirical measurement of global risk indicators in the lives of court-involved youth. Psychological Reports, 92, 599–615. Gavazzi, S. M., Bostic, J. M., Lim, J. Y., & Yarcheck, C. M. (2008a). Examining the impact of gender, race/ethnicity, and family factors on mental health issues in a sample of court-involved youth. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 353–368. Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., Sullivan, J. M., Jones, S. C., & Khurana, A. (2008b). Global risk factors and the prediction of recidivism rates in a sample of first-time misdemeanant offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 330–345.

References

165

Gavazzi, S. M., Russell, C. M., & Khurana, A. (2009). Predicting educational risks among court-­ involved Black males: Family, peers and mental health issues. Negro Educational Review, 60, 99–114. Ghazarian, S. R., & Buehler, C. (2010). Interparental conflict and academic achievement: An examination of mediating and moderating factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 23–32. Griffin, K.  W., Botvin, G.  J., Scheier, L.  M., Diaz, T., & Miller, N.  L. (2000). Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 174–184. Hardy, S. A., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. C. (2010). Links between adolescents’ expected parental reactions and prosocial behavioral tendencies: The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 84–95. Harris-McKoy, D., & Cui, M. (2013). Parental control, adolescent delinquency, and young adult criminal behavior. Journal of Child and Family studies, 22, 836–843. Haverfield, M. C., & Theiss, J. A. (2023). Comparing enacted and perceived parental communication as predictors of adolescents’ emotion regulation in families with harmful versus non-­ harmful parental alcohol use. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 41(1), 114–135. Heard, H. E. (2007). The family structure trajectory and adolescent school performance. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 319–354. Henry, C. S., Sager, D. W., & Plunkett, S. W. (1996). Adolescents’ perceptions of family system characteristics, parent-adolescent dyadic behaviors, adolescent qualities, and adolescent empathy. Family Relations, 45, 283–292. Herman, K.  C., Ostrander, R., & Tucker, C.  M. (2007). Do family environments and negative cognitions of adolescents with depressive symptoms vary by ethnic group? Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 325–330. Hinnant, J.  B., Erath, S.  A., Tu, K.  M., & El-Sheikh, M. (2016). Permissive parenting, deviant peer affiliations, and delinquent behavior in adolescence: The moderating role of sympathetic nervous system reactivity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 1071–1081. Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R., van der Laan, P. H., & Smeenk, W. (2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles: Unique and combined links to adolescent and early adult delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 813–827. Hollifield, C. R., & Conger, K. J. (2015). The role of siblings and psychological needs in predicting life satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 3(3), 143–153. Hurst, J. L., Widman, L., Maheux, A. J., Evans-Paulson, R., Brasileiro, J., & Lipsey, N. (2022). Parent–child communication and adolescent sexual decision making: An application of family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(3), 449–457. Khurana, A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (2011). Juvenile delinquency and adolescent fatherhood. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 55(5), 756–770. Khurana, A., Cooksey, E. C., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2011). Juvenile Delinquency and teenage pregnancy: A comparison of ecological risk profiles among Midwestern European and African American female juvenile offenders. Psychology of Women’s Quarterly, 35(2), 282–289. Kim, D. H., Kim, Y. S., Koh, Y. J., & Leventhal, B. L. (2013). Relationship between behavior problems and perceived parenting practices in Korean youth. Child Care Health and Development, 39(2), 194–201. Kincaid, C., Jones, D. J., Cuellar, J., & Gonzalez, M. (2011). Psychological control associated with youth adjustment and risky behavior in African American single mother families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 102–110. Kincaid, C., Jones, D. J., Sterrett, E., & McKee, L. (2012). A review of parenting and adolescent sexual behavior: The moderating role of gender. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(3), 177–188. Kingsbury, M., Sucha, E., Manion, I., Gilman, S.  E., & Colman, I. (2020). Adolescent mental health following exposure to positive and harsh parenting in childhood. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 65(6), 392–400.

166

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

Kowal, A. K., & Blinn-Pike, L. (2004). Sibling influences on adolescents’ attitudes toward safe sex practices. Family Relations, 53, 377–384. Laub, J. H. (2002). A century of delinquency research and delinquency theory. In M. K. Rosenbaum, F. E. Zimring, D. S. Tanenhaus, & B. Dohrn (Eds.), A century of juvenile justice (pp. 179–205). University of Chicago Press. Leidy, M. S., Guerra, N. G., & Toro, R. I. (2010). Positive parenting, family cohesion, and child social competence among immigrant Latino families. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 252–260. Lochman, J.  E. (2004). Contextual factors in risk and prevention research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 311–325. Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., & Giordano, P. C. (2001). Preadolescent parenting strategies and teens’ dating and sexual initiation: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 322–335. McDade, R. S., Vidourek, R. A., Biradar, K. S., King, K. A., & Merianos, A. A. (2020). Impact of parental communication on African American adolescent sexual behavior: A mini literature review. Sexuality & Culture, 24, 1579–1593. McKeown, R. E., Garrison, C. Z., Jackson, K. L., Cuffe, S. P., Addy, C. L., & Waller, J. L. (1997). Family structure and cohesion, and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 267–281. Melby, J., & Conger, R. D. (1996). Parental behaviors and adolescent academic performance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 113–137. Meschke, L.  L., Bartholomae, S., & Zentall, S.  R. (2000). Adolescent sexuality and parent-­ adolescent processes: Promoting healthy teen choices. Family Relations, 49, 143–154. Miller, B.  C., Norton, M.  C., Fan, X., & Christopherson, C.  R. (1998). Parental discipline and control attempts in relation to adolescent sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 503–512. Moreira, J. F. G., & Telzer, E. H. (2015). Changes in family cohesion and links to depression during the college transition. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 72–82. O’Connor, T.  G., Hetherington, E.  M., & Clingepeel, W.  G. (1997). Systems and bidirectional influences in families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 491–504. O’Donnell, E. H., Moreau, M., Cardemil, E. V., & Pollastri, A. (2010). Interparental conflict, parenting, and childhood depression in a diverse urban population: The role of general cognitive style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 12–22. Ohannessian, C. M., & Hesselbrock, V. (2005). The relationship between parental psychopathology and adolescent psychopathology: An examination of gender patterns. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(2), 67–76. Ohannessian, C. M., & Hesselbrock, V. M. (2008). Paternal alcoholism and youth substance abuse: The indirect effects of negative affect, conduct problems, and risk taking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(2), 198–200. Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2007). Characteristics of mother-child interactions related to adolescents’ positive values and behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 675–686. Payne, P. B., Mitchell, S.N., Lopez, C., DeCount, T., Shrout, M.R., Russell, K.N., Weigel, D.J., Evans, W.P., & Weiser, D.A. (2023). Young adults’ perceptions of morality based messages from parents about sex: An exploratory study. Family Relations. Advance publication https:// doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/fare.12942 Pinquart, M. (2016). Associations of parenting styles and dimensions with academic achievement in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 475–493. Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873. Pinquart, M., & Ebeling, M. (2020). Parental educational expectations and academic achievement in children and adolescents—a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 463–480. Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(1), 75–100.

References

167

Prelow, H. M., Loukas, A., & Jordan-Green, L. (2007). Socioenvironmental risk and adjustment in Latino youth: The mediating effects of family processes and social competence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 465–476. Ream, G.  L., & Savin-Williams, R.  C. (2005). Reciprocal associations between adolescent sexual activity and quality of youth–parent interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 171–179. Reeb, B.  T., Chan, S.  Y. S., Conger, K.  J., Martin, M.  J., Hollis, N.  D., Serido, J., & Russell, S.  T. (2015). Prospective effects of family cohesion on alcohol-related problems in adolescence: Similarities and differences by race/ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1941–1953. Regnerus, M.  D., & Luchies, L.  B. (2006). The parent-child relationship and opportunities for adolescents’ first sex. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 159–183. Rende, R., Slomkowski, C., Lloyd-Richardson, E., & Niaura, R. (2005). Sibling effects on substance use in adolescence: Social contagion and genetic relatedness. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 611–618. Roche, K.  M., & Leventhal, T. (2009). Beyond neighborhood poverty: Family management, neighborhood disorder, and adolescents’ early sexual onset. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 819–827. Roche, K. M., Mekos, D., Alexander, C. S., Astone, N. M., Bandeen-Roche, K., & Ensminger, M. E. (2005). Parenting influences on early sex initiation among adolescents: How neighborhood matters. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 32–54. Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K. M., Booth-LaForce, C., Kim, A. H., Burgess, K. B., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2004). Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 326–356. Sagrestano, L. M., Paikoff, R. L., Holmbeck, G. N., & Fendrich, M. (2003). A longitudinal examination of familial risk factors for depression among inner-city African American adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 108–120. Scheer, S. D., Borden, L. M., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000). The relationship between family factors and adolescent substance use in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 105–115. Schock-Giordano, A. M., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2010). Mental illness in a family context. In S. J. Price & C. A. Price (Eds.), Families and change (4th ed.). Sage. Schoenrock, C. J., Bell, N. J., Sun, S., & Avery, A. W. (1999). Family correlates of adolescent self-­ monitoring and social competence. Journal of Psychology, 133, 377–393. Shapiro, C. J., Malone, P. S., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2018). Modifying a risk assessment instrument for youthful offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(2), 482–503. Simons, R. L., Chao, W., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (2001). Quality of parenting as mediator of the effect of childhood defiance on adolescent friendship choices and delinquency: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 63–79. Slesnick, N., & Waldron, H. B. (1997). Interpersonal problem-solving interactions of depressed adolescents and their parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 234–245. Slomkowski, C., Rende, R., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2001). Sisters, brothers, and delinquency: Evaluating social influence during early and middle adolescence. Child Development, 72, 271–283. Snyder, J., Bank, L., & Burraston, B. (2005). The consequences of antisocial behavior in older male siblings for younger brothers and sisters. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 643–653. Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125–146. Steinberg, L. (2020). Adolescence (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Storvoll, E. E., Wichstrom, L., & Pape, H. (2003). Gender differences in the association between conduct problems and other problems among adolescents. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 3, 194–209.

168

10  The Family’s Impact on Adolescent Outcomes

Supol, M., Satyen, L., Ghayour-Minaie, M., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2021). Effects of family violence exposure on adolescent academic achievement: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1042–1056. Telzer, E. H., & Fuligni, A. J. (2013). Positive daily family interactions eliminate gender differences in internalizing symptoms among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1498–1511. Tu, K. M., Erath, S. A., Pettit, G. S., & Vandenberg, C. (2021). Parents’ responses to peer victimization: Associations with early adolescent coping and peer victimization. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 41(1), 167–196. Urberg, K., Goldstein, M. S., & Toro, P. A. (2005). Supportive relationships as a moderator of the effects of parent and peer drinking on adolescent drinking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 1–19. Vakalahi, H. F. (2002). Family-based predictors of adolescent substance use. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 11, 1–15. Van Ryzin, M. J., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). Family and peer predictors of substance use from early adolescence to early adulthood: An 11-year prospective analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 37(12), 1314–1324. Vazsonyi, A., & Flannery, D. (1997). Early adolescent delinquent behaviors: Associations with family and school domains. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 271–293. Whiteman, S.  D., Jensen, A.  C., & McHale, S.  M. (2017). Sibling influences on risky behaviors from adolescence to young adulthood: Vertical socialization or bidirectional effects? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2017(156), 67–85. Widmer, E. D. (1997). Influence of older siblings on initiation of sexual intercourse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 928–938. Yau, P. S., Cho, Y., Shane, J., Kay, J., & Heckhausen, J. (2022). Parenting and adolescents’ academic achievement: The mediating role of goal engagement and disengagement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(4), 897–909. Yun, H. J., & Cui, M. (2020). The effects of parental warmth on adolescent delinquency in the United States and South Korea: a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 228–237.

Part IV

Application Topics Concerning Families with Adolescents

Chapter 11

Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

Abstract  In many ways, the history of family therapy is the history of interventions that target families with adolescents, as many early family therapists were focused on adolescent-oriented issues that were being seen for the first time within the context of the family. This chapter covers a number of interventions targeting families with adolescents that have received sizable empirical attention over the past 25 years, including brief strategic family therapy, functional family therapy, multidimensional family therapy, and multisystemic therapy. A brief summary of each approach is given, including information regarding its theoretical foundations, and is followed by an overview of the empirical attention that each of these models has been given to date. In addition to these major modalities of family therapy, attention is paid to a number of other forms of family-based interventions that also have received empirical attention during this same time period, including Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, attachment-based family therapy, and ecologically based family therapy. Healing is a matter of time, but it is sometimes also a matter of opportunity. (Hippocrates, Precepts)

John, a 17-year-old White adolescent, and Jane Downs, his mother, were referred for family therapy services after John had been released to parole following a yearlong commitment at a state juvenile training school. During an initial phone conversation, Mrs. Downs told the clinician that the family had “lots of problems” and that she was interested in anything that could assist her in working with her son to prevent his future parole revocation. In their first session, John and his mother reported a number of significant risk and protective factors. Risks included an intergenerational family history of alcoholism, significant anger management problems for many family members (including John and his biological father), and conflict around rules in the home. Protective factors included reports that John and his mother felt that they were emotionally available to each other, as well as John being willing to get a job and finish his GED (general education development test). In the second therapy session, John and his mother began to discuss how nearly every illegal act John took part in involved some form of substance abuse. In fact, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_11

171

172

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

John had an upcoming court date for an illegal activity related to substance abuse issues for which he was arrested (driving while under the influence), the result of which could seriously jeopardize his parole status. John’s parole officer made it clear that, though he would advocate for John because of his positive efforts made to date, he would also recommend and support the court’s mandating intensive substance abuse treatment for John, including the possibility of using residential treatment, in addition to John and his mother participating in family therapy. In addition to monitoring the ongoing need for counseling related to alcohol and drug use, the family therapy sessions began to focus on how to repair the harm that had been done by John’s offenses, including the most recent DUI (driving under the influence) charge. Fortunately, John’s DUI did not result in a direct victim (e.g., someone hit by his vehicle), and John was quick to identify himself as the person who needed to take full responsibility for his actions. John also determined that the harm done to himself by his actions was putting his parole (and his future as a productive member of society) at risk. Additionally, he identified his immediate family and his good friends as having been harmed by this incident because of their loss of trust in his previous vow to “turn his life around.” John and his mother were able to identify a number of things that John had already done to repair the harm done by this offense. Since the incident, John had chosen to walk whenever he could to work, school, and social activities, he had ceased drinking alcohol (though admittedly still smoking marijuana once in a while, as evidenced by two failed urine screens), and he had prepared himself for his upcoming court date by, among other things, consistently attending and participating in the family therapy sessions. At home, John had put more energy into doing household chores and “getting along” with other family members. Mrs. Downs explained to John that his cooperation and help at home had allowed her to focus more of her energy on dealing with other family members, thereby lessening the amount of conflict in the home and in turn affording her more time to assist him with his new circumstances with the court.

11.1 Overview What do we know about intervening when problems arise in families with adolescents? This chapter covers family therapy methods and other family-based intervention efforts that target the many types of difficulties and issues experienced by adolescents and their families. As noted above, interventions included in this portion of the book involve at least two generations of family members in the efforts undertaken within the family-based effort. The mother of the Downs family in the vignette that begins this section was referred for family therapy services because of her son’s delinquent behavior. However, she reported to her clinician that members also were attempting to deal with a number of other problems in the family as well, including interpersonal conflict and an intergenerational history of alcoholism. Hence, the family-based

11.1 Overview

173

services being requested would necessarily need to involve activities that both prevented future illegal activity and helped to alleviate present difficulties that were being experienced by all members of the Downs family. The need to focus on such a diverse range of goals and objectives within a single family, taken from writing that examines the interplay of prevention and intervention efforts (Gavazzi & Law, 1997), is an all-too-typical scenario faced by clinicians whose work primarily involves families with adolescents. The history of family therapy in various ways is the history of interventions that target families with adolescents. Many of the early family therapy pioneers were focused in whole or in part on adolescent-oriented issues that were being seen within the context of the family for the first time. One example is the structural family therapy approach developed by Salvador Minuchin, who had based much of his earliest work on understanding and treating adolescent anorexia in a family context (Minuchin et al., 1978). A second example is the work of Nathan Ackerman (1966), whose family-based work included the notion that adolescent individuation occurred as a result of repetitively pulling away from mother by becoming closer with father and then pulling away from father by becoming closer to mother. Other examples come from work that surrounded schizophrenia, whereby several foundational family therapy models paid great attention to the families of adolescents and young adults who were suffering from this mental disorder (Nichols & Schwartz, 2006). The family therapy movement was as much about family-based research as it was about family-centered practice, at least in the early years of the 1940s and 1950s. Mental health professionals who were experimenting with family-based work often as not were working within research programs. However, for some amount of time (especially in the 1960s and 1970s), a “split” of sorts seemed to occur between the practice of family therapy and the conduct of family research. This divisiveness seemed to take the form of an opposing set of value systems, where the researcher was seen as wanting to explain “complex variables” and the therapist was after “simple ideas” that worked to meet therapeutic goals (Haley, 1978). This viscerally appealing yet factually erroneous dichotomy set up between research and therapy took on a life of its own and unfortunately was perpetuated for many years. This may have had more to do with solidifying the distinct identity of family therapy as a profession (Shields et al., 1994) and less to do with any inherent contradiction between conducting therapy and carrying out research with families. Perhaps as early as the 1980s (Wynne, 1983), but most certainly by the 1990s, there was a rapprochement between family therapists and family researchers. As evidenced in 1995, a series of review articles regarding studies of family therapy were published by the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. These reviews included studies of family-based treatment for adolescents and their families, most notably in the areas of conduct disorders/delinquency (Chamberlain & Rosicky, 1995) and substance use (Liddle & Dakof, 1995). Pinsof and Wynne (1995a, b), the guest editors of that special issue of the journal, concluded from these reviews that family therapy had significantly greater effects on both adolescent conduct disorders and substance use in comparison to

174

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

therapies that did not involve family members. In addition, family therapy was seen as superior to no treatment at all for early adolescent anorexia and obesity. However, these authors also made it clear that family involvement was a necessary but not sufficient part of treatment for these difficulties. “An emerging hypothesis from these data is that multicomponent, integrative, and problem-focused treatments may be necessary to treat severe behavioral disorders effectively in adults, adolescents, and children” (Pinsof & Wynne, 1995b, p. 605). In the past 25  years since this special issue was published (and conveniently throughout the time period covered in the present book), the family therapy field has witnessed a great deal of effort put into the development of interventions that are evidence-based examples of “multicomponent,” “integrative,” and “problem-­ focused” forms of family treatment. This section focuses on a number of those forms of therapy that have received sizable empirical attention, including brief strategic family therapy (Szapocznik et al., 2003), functional family therapy (Alexander & Parsons, 1982), multidimensional family therapy (Liddle et al., 1991), and multisystemic therapy (Henggeler & Borduin, 1990).

11.2 Specific Family Intervention Models Each of the family intervention models will be discussed in alphabetical order below. A brief summary of each approach will be given, including information that is available on its theoretical foundations, as this type of information oftentimes is not easily discerned in the family therapy literature (Hawley & Geske, 2000). This will be followed by an overview of the empirical attention that each of these models have been given to date.

11.2.1 Brief Strategic Family Therapy Brief strategic family therapy (BSFT: Szapocznik et  al., 2003) is a short-term (approximately 12 sessions) family-based treatment that was developed out of both applied and basic research efforts conducted through the Center for Family Studies at the University of Miami (Santisteban et al., 2006). This approach largely targets substance use, sexual risk, and delinquent behaviors presented by Hispanic (and to a lesser extent African American) youth (Szapocznik & Williams, 2000; Willoughby et al., 2004). The BSFT model is closely related to other family interventions found in the literature that are culturally informed (Santisteban & Mena, 2009) and shares a common heritage with family engagement activities (Szapocznik et  al., 1988; Santisteban et al., 1996) and prevention efforts (Szapocznik et al., 1989). In practice, the BSFT model reflects a combination of concepts borrowed from the structural and strategic schools of family therapy, both of which claim a systems theory heritage. According to Santisteban et al. (1997), there are three basic parts to

11.2  Specific Family Intervention Models

175

this approach. First, there is a great deal of consideration given to joining activities or those attempts to create a working partnership with family members. Second, there are activities related to family pattern diagnosis that involve attention being paid to the ways in which habituated family interactions are linked to the problems being experienced by the adolescent. Third, restructuring activities are then employed to disrupt and change those family interactions in ways that help to reduce or eliminate the adolescent’s problem behaviors. Szapocznik et al. (2012) further elaborated on these activities as joining, tracking and diagnostic enactment, reframing, and restructuring. The empirical evidence provides solid support for the use of the BSFT model. A study conducted by Santisteban et al. (1997) of 122 families containing adolescents (85% Hispanic and 15% African American) between the ages of 12 and 14 years reported that the BSFT approach was able to significantly reduce problem behaviors and improve family functioning level. Also, significant reductions in substance use also were reported in a subsample of youth who already had initiated use. Santisteban et al. (2003) compared BSFT to group treatment in a sample of 126 families of Hispanic adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 (average age of 15.6 years). Reports of parents from families receiving BSFT indicated significantly lower conduct disorder difficulties, delinquent behaviors, and marijuana use in comparison to those parents from the control group. As well, both observer and parent ratings of family functioning were significantly greater for the families receiving BSFT. There also are indications that the BSFT model is effective at improving therapeutically important factors such as engagement and retention. Coatsworth et  al. (2001) used a sample of 104 families containing adolescents (75% Hispanic and 25% African American) between the ages of 12 and 14 years who were randomly assigned to receive BSFT or individual and family therapy “treatment as usual” within a community setting. This study reported significantly greater family engagement and retention versus the comparison group, although treatment effects were similar between the two groups. Szapocznik et al. (2012) reviewed the effect and degree of BSFT comprehensiveness on adolescents’ drug abuse and related problem behaviors. Their review included specialized features such as engagement of difficult families and cataloguing the empirical evidence that supported the BSFT approach. These authors also asserted that the BSFT model was equally applicable to African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and White Americans even though the model was originally developed to address acculturation discrepancies between Cuban adolescents and their parents in Miami and treat drug abuse problems with Hispanic adolescents more specifically. The long-term effect of BSFT on the treatment of adolescents having substance abuse problems has also been demonstrated. Horigian et al. (2015) examined the impact of BSFT on the rates of drug use, number of arrests, and externalizing behaviors in a sample of adolescents (78.5% male, 44.3% Hispanic/Latino, 30.8% non-­ Hispanic White, and 22.9% Black/African Americans) between the ages of 12 and 17  years (average age of 16.01  years) in 8 outpatient community treatment

176

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

providers. To compare BSFT to treatment as usual (TAU), they randomly assigned 261 of 480 adolescents to BSFT. Results showed that BSFT youth reported a lower incidence of lifetime and past year arrests, lower rates of lifetime and past year incarceration, and lower scores on externalizing behaviors at follow-up compared with TAU, while there were no differences in drug use. The results demonstrated that BSFT was more effective in the long-term outcomes of family therapy for adolescent’s drug abuse.

11.2.2 Functional Family Therapy Functional family therapy (FFT: Alexander & Parsons, 1982) is among the oldest of all family-based approaches discussed in this section, having been developed at the University of Utah in the early 1970s (Alexander & Parsons, 1973). This approach targets delinquency and other associated adolescent’s problem behaviors (Sexton & Alexander, 2002) and has been identified as one of the few family-based intervention models that combine qualities related to a rigorous research design, a body of evidence regarding significant treatment impact, multi-site replication, and evidence of treatment sustainability (Mihalic et al., 2004). This model uses concepts from the family systems framework as well as adopting a more behavioral and social learning-inspired approach in order to disrupt and reduce negative family interactions that contribute to adolescent’s problem behavior (Robbins et al., 2000). As well, attention to the establishment and maintenance of a therapeutic alliance with family members is thought to be a key ingredient in the success of the FFT approach (Alexander et al., 1976; Robbins et al., 2003), as is the use of therapeutic reframes and other non-blaming restatements of client situations and experiences (Robbins et al., 1996). There is stage-like method employed in the FFT model, whereby family engagement (phase 1) is followed by a focus on changing family interactions (phase 2) that, in turn, is generalized into the larger community context (phase 3) in which the adolescent and family reside (Henggeler & Sheidow, 2003). In order to examine the bulk of empirical evidence published in refereed journal articles that provides support for the use of the FFT model, our review must extend back to a prior set of studies that were conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. The earliest empirical work was conducted by Alexander and Parsons (1973), who used a sample of 86 families containing delinquent adolescents who were 13–16 years of age. Those families who were randomly assigned to the FFT approach experienced significantly greater gains on family functioning measures and witnessed significantly less recidivistic activity with their adolescents in comparison to no treatment at all and a different family therapy treatment. Klein et  al. (1977) conducted a study of the FFT model’s impact on primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention indicators using a sample of 86 families containing delinquent adolescents who were 13–16  years of age. Families randomly assigned to the FFT approach experienced significantly greater gains on family

11.2  Specific Family Intervention Models

177

process measures (the tertiary effect), witnessed significantly less recidivistic activity (the secondary effect), and significantly had less younger sibling referrals to court (the primary prevention effect) in comparison to no treatment at all and a different family therapy treatment. The generalizability of FFT was demonstrated in a series of three studies reported by Barton et al. (1985). In the first study, 27 families of adolescents referred for therapy by juvenile court workers displayed a 50% reduction in adolescent recidivism rates compared to the general population of adolescent offenders. In the second study, FFT as implemented with 109 families with adolescents coming into contact with child welfare professionals generated a 37% reduction in foster care utilization as compared to 206 families also referred to the child welfare system during the time of this study. In the third study, 30 families of incarcerated adolescents who received FFT displayed a 33% reduction in adolescent recidivism rates as compared to 43 families of youth who were randomly selected as a comparison group. Gordon et al. (1988) employed a sample of 54 families of adolescents (average age of 15.6 years) who were placed on probation for a variety of criminal offenses. Approximately, 30 months following the end of treatment, adolescents from families who received FFT had a recidivism rate of 11% in comparison to a recidivism rate of 67% in the no-treatment control group. While treatment assignment was nonrandom, these authors argued that these results were all the more impressive due to the fact that court staff assigned the “highest risk cases” to the FFT approach. Recent reviews examining the empirical evidence supporting the use of FFT have been based on more strict criteria and thus required more the use of more rigorous methods. Robbins et al. (2016) investigated factors that influenced the effectiveness of FFT implementation across more than 300 clinical settings that had provided therapeutic services to nearly 400,000 families. They presented findings from five critical FFT research areas: basic research, efficacy research, effectiveness research, implementation and dissemination research, and change mechanism research. Regarding the basic research on nonclinical population studies, findings demonstrated the potential malleability of negative interactions and blaming interactions in delinquent families. The review of efficacy studies (which focused attention on internal validity claims) indicated strong support for the efficacy of FFT with delinquent and substance-using youth regardless of ethnicity. Effectiveness studies (which focused attention primarily on external validity claims) demonstrated that FFT could be implemented with high integrity and effectiveness in community settings in service to reducing adolescent recidivism rates and substance use; in turn, these same studies indicated that FFT also could be used to improve ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) symptom management both at home and at school. Dissemination and implementation research reviewed by Robbins et al. (2016) demonstrated that the impact of FFT in real-world settings provided strong support for the use of FFT in community settings. Here, studies indicated that the use of FFT generated significant reductions in youth’s behavior problems, greater effectiveness in engaging and retaining youth with callous-unemotional traits into treatment,

178

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

improving youth internalizing symptoms, reducing parental internalizing symptoms and distress, and increasing school attendance and achievement. Finally, process research examining the treatment’s clinical interior, including therapist’s and family member’s behavior and clinical interactions, showed strong support and evidence of FFT. On the other hand, Weisman and Montgomery (2019) reviewed 31 FFT-focused scholarly works that met criteria established by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group (a now defunct research community dedicated to systematic reviews of evidence-based literature). Notably, these researchers asserted that the overall quality of FFT reviews was relatively low. More specifically, the main effects of FFT on core outcomes such as recidivism and substance abuse were found to be quite modest, while the impact on out-of-home placement largely was not reported. Secondary outcomes were also thought to be modest but generally positive, although particular criticism surrounded the fact that school attendance as an outcome variable generally was not sufficiently addressed. More recently, studies have been conducted to show the effectiveness of FFT on international samples. For example, Vardanian et al. (2020) examined the effectiveness of FFT within a Danish community sample, including 687 families and adolescents (mean age of 14.5  years) who participated in an average of 12 one-hour sessions over three to 4 months. There were significant improvements in youth disruptive behaviors, all domains of family functioning, and school-related outcomes, even though the sample had a 60% attrition rate.

11.2.3 Multidimensional Family Therapy Multidimensional family therapy (MDFT: Liddle et  al., 1991) is a family-based treatment that initially was developed through Howard Liddle’s work at the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic, the University of California at San Francisco, the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago, and the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California (H.A.  Liddle, May 16, 2010, personal communication). Eventually, what has become known as MDFT was refined both at the Temple University’s Center for Research on Adolescent Drug Abuse and then at the University of Miami’s Center for Treatment Research on Adolescent Drug Abuse. For all intents and purposes, the MDFT model targets adolescent’s substance use and antisocial behavior, although associated behaviors such as increased HIV/AIDS risk factors also have been the focus of more recent efforts (Marvel et al., 2009). Like many of the other models in this section, there is a strong research to practice link (Liddle, 2004). However, the MDFT approach seems to be as much about reshaping the field of family therapy itself – at least in terms of asserting a strong research component that is translatable into clinical practice – as it is about creating effective family-based treatments for adolescent’s problem behaviors (Liddle, 1991). The “multidimensionality” of this model points to its use of a variety of theoretical frameworks and concepts. Perhaps most prominent is the use of a developmental

11.2  Specific Family Intervention Models

179

framework to understand both family and individual growth and development (Liddle et al., 2000), although attachment theory is used recurrently to conceptualize strengths and limitations inherent to the parent–adolescent relationship (Liddle & Schwartz, 2002). There is a heavy emphasis on assessing and changing parenting practices and involvement levels (Schmidt et  al., 1996; Henderson et  al., 2009), activities that in turn are translated into more family systems-oriented efforts to alter the parent–adolescent relationship (Liddle et al., 1998), the individual functioning of the teen and the parent, and the family members’ interactions with extrafamilial influences such as schools and the juvenile justice system. Attention also has been paid to culturally specific elements within this approach (Liddle et al., 2006). There is a rich and detailed set of studies published as refereed journal articles that has generated support for the use of the MDFT model. For example, Liddle et al. (2001) used a sample of 182 families of adolescents (51% White and 49% minority youth who were predominantly African American or Hispanic) between the ages of 13 and 18 (average age of 15.9 years) who were actively using illegal substances at the time of entry into the study. These families were randomly assigned to the MDFT approach or two other conditions: adolescent group therapy and a multifamily educational intervention. Although all three groups displayed gains following treatment in terms of decreased adolescent’s substance use and increased family competence, families assigned to the MDFT condition displayed the most improvement. As well, MDFT youth experienced greater amounts of clinically significant change in substance use and more improved grade point averages at the one-year follow-up in comparison to youth exposed to the two other conditions. Liddle et al. (2008) conducted a study comparing MDFT with cognitive behavioral therapy using a sample of 224 families containing adolescents (73% African American, 17% White, and 10% Hispanic) between the ages of 12 and 17 (average age of 15.3 years) who were actively using substances at the time of enrollment in the study. Adolescents from families exposed to both conditions displayed significant decreases in marijuana and alcohol use at the end of treatment. However, adolescents from families enrolled in MDFT displayed greater substance use reduction at the 1-year follow-up in comparison to those adolescents from families enrolled in the cognitive behavioral therapy condition. A study conducted by Liddle et al. (2009) used a sample of 83 families containing adolescents (predominantly Hispanic or African American) between the ages of 11 and 15 (average age of 13.7 years) who were referred for outpatient substance abuse treatment in order to compare the impact of MDFT with adolescent group therapy. Although adolescents in both conditions experienced treatment gains, adolescents from families exposed to the MDFT approach displayed significantly reduced substance use difficulties, as well as demonstrating lower risk levels in family, peer, and school contexts as compared to adolescents from families exposed to the control condition. Liddle et al. (2011) employed a sample of families containing substance-abusing adolescents (predominantly Hispanic or African American) between the ages of 13 and 17 (average age of 15.5 years) who were incarcerated in a juvenile justice facility in order to compare MDFT to “enhanced services as usual” (ESAU). Parents and

180

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

adolescents enrolled in MDFT reported significantly more satisfaction with services, were significantly more likely to remain in treatment, and received significantly more services in comparison to the control group. In addition, data collected only on MDFT cases indicated that higher levels of collaboration among professionals working on a given case (a stated goal of the MDFT approach in this study) were significantly related to lower levels of adolescent’s substance use following discharge. Greenbaum et  al. (2015) examined MDFT effectiveness for adolescent’s drug abuse in a sample of 646 adolescents (14% European American, 35% Hispanic, and 51% African American) aged 11–17 years (average age of 15.31 years) who were receiving chemical dependency treatment. Among other factors, these researchers included gender and ethnicity as potential moderating variables. Findings showed that MDFT reduced drug use involvement for all participant groups, but that MDFT methods were more effective for males when compared to females and more effective for African Americans and European Americans when compared to Hispanics in the sample. Van Der Pol et  al. (2018) tested the long-term effects of MDFT on criminal offending in a sample of 109 Dutch adolescents (average age of 16.8 years) with cannabis use disorder and comorbid problem behaviors as the primary outcome variables. Adolescents were randomly assigned to either MDFT or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), after which the two treatment groups were compared on the number of arrests, type of offense, and severity of offense with moderators of age, disruptive behavior disorders, history of crimes, family functioning, and (severe) cannabis use. Findings showed that the police arrest rates decreased sharply after the start of both treatments. This drop was observed for all offense measures, including the severity of offenses and the categories of violent and property offenses in both groups to the same extent. Furthermore, a treatment effect trend favoring MDFT was found for property offending in the subgroup of adolescents with high baseline severity of cannabis use. More recently, Nielsen et al. (2021) compared the effects of MDFT with that of family therapy as usual (FTAU) in a sample of 42 adolescents (between the ages of 12 and 19 years) who met at least 5 of the 9 DSM-5 criteria for with Internet gaming disorder (IGD). Both family therapies decreased the prevalence of IGD across 1 year. Also, while both therapies lowered the number of IGD criteria met, MDFT outperformed FTAU on this outcome. As well, MDFT retained families in treatment at significantly greater levels than did FTAU.

11.2.4 Multisystemic Therapy Multisystemic therapy (MST: Henggeler & Borduin, 1990) is a family-based treatment that was developed through a partnership between Scott Henggeler at the University of South Carolina and Charles Borduin at the University of Missouri. While the major focus of MST surrounds the treatment of issues for families of

11.2  Specific Family Intervention Models

181

delinquent youth (Henggeler et  al., 1998), including substance use (Henggeler et al., 1996) and juvenile sex offenses (Borduin et al., 1990), this approach also has been applied to other areas, including most notably youth in psychiatric crisis (Henggeler et al., 1999b) and the ancillary treatment of adolescent diabetes (Ellis et al., 2003, 2005). Liddle (1996) has noted that the attention given to myriad social context factors that contribute to adolescent’s problem behavior demarcates the ecological underpinnings of the MST approach. Therapy is conducted by teams of professionals in a home-based service delivery model and targets individual attitudes, parenting behaviors, peer influences, academic performance, and social support factors (Henggeler et al., 1999a). That said, this model also contains concepts from both the structural and strategic schools of family therapy, as well as elements of cognitive therapy and parent training (Henggeler & Sheidow, 2003). The available empirical evidence provides substantial support for the use of the MST model. For example, Henggeler et al. (1999b) used a sample of 116 families of adolescents between the ages of 10 and 17 years who had been referred for emergency psychiatric hospitalization. Families enrolled in MST displayed significantly lower adolescent externalizing problems, greater family functioning, better school attendance, and more satisfaction in services as compared to those families whose adolescents experienced the control condition of inpatient hospitalization. Interestingly, the adolescents in the control condition experienced more significant improvement in self-esteem as compared to the adolescents in the MST condition. Henggeler et  al. (2002) used a sample of 118 families containing adolescents (average age of 15.7 years) who were using substances and involved in the juvenile courts (evenly split between African American and White youth) in order to examine the longer-term impact of MST.  At a four-year follow-up, adolescents from families enrolled in MST displayed significantly fewer aggressive criminal behaviors and significantly less marijuana use in comparison to adolescents placed in the “usual community services” condition. Further analyses revealed that these treatment results did not vary as a function of age, race, or gender nor did the impact of treatment differ because of the level of psychological difficulties or types of criminal behavior displayed by adolescents at the outset of the study. In a study conducted by Henggeler et al. (2006), 161 families contained adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 (average age of 15.2 years) who were using substances and involved in the juvenile courts (two-thirds African American and one-third White youth) in order to examine juvenile drug court outcomes. Cases were assigned to one of four conditions: family court (FC), drug court (DC), drug court with MST (DC/MST), or drug court with MST and contingency management (DC/MST/CM), a second evidence-based practice that has been used to effectively treat substance abuse (Budney & Higgins, 1998). Significantly reduced alcohol use was displayed only by the DC/MST/CM group, while all three drug court groups displayed significantly reduced marijuana use, polydrug use, and status offenses. Additionally, within-group analyses regarding the three drug court conditions indicated that MST served to significantly reduce positive drug screens and significantly increase program graduate rates in comparison to the non-MST condition.

182

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

Borduin et al. (2009) compared MST to “usual community services” with a sample of 48 families containing adolescents (average age of 14.0 years) who had been arrested on a serious sex offense charge (approximately 75% White and 25% African American). Families placed in the MST condition experienced significantly reduced adolescent psychiatric symptoms, significantly increased family cohesion and adaptability, significantly improved peer relationships, and significantly increased grades in comparison to families placed in the control condition. As well, follow-up for almost 9 years after treatment ended, indicating that adolescents from families placed in the MST condition were significantly less likely to have been arrested for both sex-related and non-sex-related crimes. Van der Stouwe et al. (2014) performed a multilevel meta-analysis of 22 MST studies, reporting on 4066 juveniles, of whom 1890 received MST treatment and 1835 constituted the control group. The findings showed that small but significant treatment effects were found on the primary outcome of delinquency and the secondary outcomes of psychopathology, substance use, family factors, out-of-home placement, and peer factors, whereas no significant treatment effect was found for skills and cognitions. Moderator analyses showed MST seemed to be most effective with the families of adolescents under the age of 15 years and especially those with more significant problems at the initiation of treatment. Fonagy et al. (2018) tested the effectiveness of MST with 684 adolescents (aged 11–17 years) living in England with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviors. The families of these adolescents were randomly and evenly assigned to MST or treatment as usual. The proportion of participants in out-of-home placement at the 18-month mark was not significantly different between the groups. In both groups, out-of-home placement was reduced by 20%. Further, parents in the MST group reported a higher level of sustained changes in parenting behaviors and improved mood of the adolescents. In contrast, however, young people in the MST group did not confirm the reduction in inconsistent parenting reported by their parents. More recently, Conroy et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative study to examine the possible long-term effects of MST on 32 young people aged 16–22 years who had earlier been diagnosed with conduct disorder. Sixteen participants had received MST, while 16 received management as usual (MAU). Interviews addressed participants’ current life experiences and were analyzed with interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) as a qualitative framework. Findings showed that significantly more mature outcomes were found among participants who had received MST compared with MAU among the males included in this study, whereas there were no differences between the female groups.

11.3 Other Family-Based Intervention Efforts In addition to the modalities of family therapy covered above, Rowe et al.’s (2006) review of the family therapy research literature covered a number of other forms of family-based interventions that also have received empirical attention. These

11.3  Other Family-Based Intervention Efforts

183

interventions tend to be targeted directly toward the amelioration of a specific problem or issue being faced by the adolescent. For instance, the Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (Chamberlain & Reid, 1998) approach is used as an alternative to more intensive residential placements for delinquent and antisocial youth. This model, which centers on the use of trained foster care parents to provide structure and consistency in the lives of troubled youth, has been shown to be very promising in reducing adolescent’s problem behavior (Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000; Kerr et al., 2009; Hansson & Olsson, 2012) and psychotic symptoms of delinquent adolescent girls (Poulton et  al., 2014). Developed at the Oregon Social Learning Center, this initiative exists alongside other more parent-centered intervention efforts that have adopted a social learning approach to reducing antisocial behavior (Connell et al., 2007; Dishion et al., 2003; Gardner et al., 2009). Recently, Åström et al. (2020) examined the effects of Treatment Foster Care on youth with 18 studies published between 1990 and September 2017 and meeting certain inclusion criteria for this study. Findings showed moderate certainty that Treatment Foster Care Oregon (TFCO) reduced the risk of future criminal behavior and the number of days in locked settings, whereas there was low certainty of evidence that TFCO reduces the risk of delinquent peer associations, drug use, and depression. More emotionally based problems such as depression and anxiety also have been treated successfully by family-based interventions. For instance, a close cousin to MDFT known as attachment-based family therapy (ABFT) (Diamond et al., 2002, 2003) has been used effectively with families of depressed adolescents, including its use in reducing suicidal ideation (Diamond et al., 2010; Ewing et al., 2015). More recently, Russon et al. (2022) showed the effectiveness of ABFT modifications for transgender and gender-diverse youth (TGDS) with thoughts of suicide. Depression and other mood disorders also have been treated successfully with family psychoeducation programs in work with families of both preteens (Fristad et  al., 2002, 2003) and adolescents (Diamond et al., 2016, 2021; Lifshitz et al., 2021; Miklowitz et al., 2000, 2004). A number of family-based interventions exist for the treatment of adolescent eating disorders as well. There are efforts using structural family therapy concepts (Lemmon & Josephson, 2001) that are logical extensions of the original family-­ based work conducted by Minuchin et al. (1978). As well, there are other efforts extending the structural family therapy work to also include elements of the strategic and Bowenian schools of family therapy (Krautter & Lock, 2004), and family psychoeducational efforts also have been employed with some success (Geist et al., 2000). More recently, studies showed that these family-based treatments are more effective for eating disorders than individual-centered treatments (Le Grange et al., 2022; Lock & Le Grange, 2019). Finally, newer forms of family-based interventions are being developed for harder-to-reach adolescents and families. For instance, an ecologically based family therapy (Slesnick & Prestopnik, 2005) has been developed in order to treat the families of runaway adolescents. This approach was shown to have a similar impact on

184

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

reducing substance use as FFT and was superior to a control condition of treatment as usual (Slesnick & Prestopnik, 2009). As well, Slesnick et al. (2011) have reported that this model has a superior impact in terms of higher engagement into treatment in comparison to two other forms of treatment that have been used in previous work with the families of runaway youth: the community reinforcement approach (Meyers & Smith, 1995) and motivational enhancement therapy (Miller & Rollnick, 2002). More recently, Slesnick et al. (2013) also examined the efficacy of three different interventions for substance-abusing runaway adolescents and explore individual differences in trajectories of change. The three interventions tested were the community reinforcement approach (CRA), motivational interviewing (MI), and ecologically based family therapy (EBFT). The study indicated that the community reinforcement approach (CRA), ecologically based family therapy (EBFT), and motivational interviewing (MI) were effective treatments for substance-abusing runaway adolescents. There were few differences among the treatment conditions, but within the “decreasing” group, adolescents in the MI treatment showed a quicker decline in substance use but a faster relapse compared to those receiving EBFT.

11.4 Summary of the Family Intervention Literature The chronology of the overall family therapy movement in many ways is intertwined with the history of interventions that target families with adolescents. The empirical evidence generated by scholars working in this portion of the clinically based literature is substantial and in many ways leads the rest of the field in its breadth and depth. As well, this set of studies provides many excellent examples of how to include specific family theory frameworks in these sophisticated research and application activities conducted on behalf of families with adolescent members.

References Ackerman, N. W. (1966). Treating the troubled family. Basic Books. Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1973). Short term behavior interventions with delinquent families: Impact on family process and recidivism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 219–225. Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1982). Functional family therapy. Brooks/Cole. Alexander, J. F., Barton, C., Schiavo, R. S., & Parsons, B. V. (1976). Systems-behavioral intervention with families of delinquents: Therapist characteristics, family behavior, and outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 656–664. Åström, T., Bergström, M., Håkansson, K., Jonsson, A. K., Munthe, C., Wirtberg, I., et al. (2020). Treatment foster care Oregon for delinquent adolescents: A systematic review and meta-­ analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 30(4), 355–367. Barton, C., Alexander, J.  F., Waldron, H., Turner, C.  W., & Warburton, J. (1985). Generalizing treatment effects of functional family therapy: Three replications. American Journal of Family Therapy, 13, 16–26.

References

185

Borduin, C.  M., Henggeler, S.  W., Blaske, D.  M., & Stein, R. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105–113. Borduin, C. M., Schaeffer, C. M., & Heiblum, N. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: Effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 26–37. Budney, A.  J., & Higgins, S.  T. (1998). A community reinforcement plus vouchers approach: Treating cocaine addiction (NIH Publication No. 98-4309). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 624–633. Chamberlain, P., & Rosicky, J. G. (1995). The effectiveness of family therapy in the treatment of adolescents with conduct disorders and delinquency. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 441–459. Coatsworth, J. D., Santisteban, D. A., McBride, C. K., & Szapocznik, J. (2001). Brief strategic family therapy versus community control: Engagement, retention, and an exploration of the moderating role of adolescent symptom severity. Family Process, 40, 313–332. Connell, A. M., Dishion, T. J., Yasui, M., & Kavanagh, K. (2007). An adaptive approach to family intervention: Linking engagement in family-centered intervention to reductions in adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 568–579. Conroy, D., Smith, J. A., Butler, S., Byford, S., Cottrell, D., Kraam, A., et al. (2021). The long-­ term impact of multisystemic therapy: An experiential study of the adolescent-young adult life transition. Journal of Adolescent Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584211025323 Diamond, G.  S., Reis, B.  F., Diamond, G.  M., Siqueland, L., & Isaacs, L. (2002). Attachment based family therapy for depressed adolescents: A treatment development study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1190–1196. Diamond, G.  S., Siqueland, L., & Diamond, G.  M. (2003). Attachment-based family therapy: A program of treatment development research. Clinical Child Family Psychology Review, 6, 107–128. Diamond, G. S., Wintersteen, M. B., Brown, G. K., Diamond, G. M., Gallop, R., Shelef, K., & Levy, S. (2010). Attachment-based family therapy for adolescents with suicidal ideation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(2), 122–131. Diamond, G., Russon, J., & Levy, S. (2016). Attachment-based family therapy: A review of the empirical support. Family Process, 55(3), 595–610. Diamond, G., Diamond, G.  M., & Levy, S. (2021). Attachment-based family therapy: Theory, clinical model, outcomes, and process research. Journal of Affective Disorders, 294, 286–295. Dishion, T.  J., Nelson, S.  E., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). The family check-up for high-risk adolescents: Preventing early-onset substance use by parent monitoring. Behavior Therapy, 34, 553–571. Eddy, J. M., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer association as mediators of the impact of treatment condition on youth antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 857–863. Ellis, D. A., Naar-King, S., Frey, M. A., Rowland, M., & Greger, N. (2003). Case study: Feasibility of multisystemic therapy as a treatment for urban adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, 287–294. Ellis, D. A., Frey, M. A., Naar-King, S., Templin, T., Cunningham, P., & Cakan, N. (2005). Use of multisystemic therapy to improve regimen adherence among adolescents with type 1 diabetes in chronic poor metabolic control: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care, 28, 1604–1610. Ewing, E. S. K., Diamond, G., & Levy, S. (2015). Attachment-based family therapy for depressed and suicidal adolescents: Theory, clinical model and empirical support. Attachment & Human Development, 17(2), 136–156.

186

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

Fonagy, P., Butler, S., Cottrell, D., Scott, S., Pilling, S., Eisler, I., et al. (2018). Multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(2), 119–133. Fristad, M. A., Goldberg-Arnold, J. S., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2002). Multifamily psychoeducation groups for families of children with bipolar disorder. Journal of Bipolar Disorders, 4, 254–262. Fristad, M.  A., Gavazzi, S.  M., & Mackinaw-Koons, B. (2003). Family psychoeducation: An adjunctive intervention for children with early onset bipolar disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 53, 1000–1008. Gardner, F., Connell, A., Trentacosta, C. J., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2009). Moderators of outcome in a brief family-centered intervention for preventing early problem behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 543–553. Gavazzi, S. M., & Law, J. C. (1997). Therapeutic utility of the growing up FAST program. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 8, 21–39. Geist, R., Heinmaa, M., Stephens, D., Davis, R., & Katzman, D. K. (2000). Comparison of family therapy and family group psychoeducation in adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 173–178. Gordon, D. A., Arbuthnot, J., Gustafson, K. E., & McGreen, P. (1988). Home-based behavioral systems family therapy with disadvantaged juvenile delinquents. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16(3), 243–255. Greenbaum, P.  E., Wang, W., Henderson, C.  E., Kan, L., Hall, K., Dakof, G.  A., & Liddle, H.  A. (2015). Gender and ethnicity as moderators: Integrative data analysis of multidimensional family therapy randomized clinical trials. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(6), 919–930. Haley, J. (1978). Ideas which handicap therapists. In M. M. Berger (Ed.), Beyond the double bind (pp. 65–82). Bruner/Mazel. Hansson, K., & Olsson, M. (2012). Effects of multidimensional treatment foster care (MTFC): Results from a RCT study in Sweden. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1929–1936. Hawley, D. R., & Geske, S. (2000). The use of theory in family therapy research: A content analysis of family therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 17–22. Henderson, C. E., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Hawes, S. W., & Liddle, H. A. (2009). Parenting practices as mediators of treatment effects in an early-intervention trial of multidimensional family therapy. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35, 220–226. Henggeler, S. W., & Borduin, C. M. (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A multisystemic approach to treating the behavior problems of children and adolescents. Brooks/Cole. Henggeler, S. W., & Sheidow, A. J. (2003). Conduct disorder and delinquency. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 505–522. Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., Brondino, M. J., & Crouch, J. L. (1996). Eliminating (almost) treatment dropout of substance abusing or dependent delinquents through home-based multisystemic therapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 427–428. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. Guilford. Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Brondino, M. J. (1999a). Multisystemic treatment of substance abusing and dependent delinquents: Outcomes, treatment fidelity, and transportability. Mental Health Services Research, 1, 171–184. Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Randall, J., Ward, D. M., Pickrel, S. G., Cunningham, P. B., et al. (1999b). Home-based multisystemic therapy as an alternative to the hospitalization of youths in psychiatric crisis: Clinical outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1331–1339. Henggeler, S. W., Clingempeel, W. G., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (2002). Four-year follow­up of multisystemic therapy with substance-abusing and substance dependent juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 868–874. Henggeler, S.  W., Halliday-Boykins, C.  A., Cunningham, P.  B., Randall, J., Shapiro, S.  B., & Chapman, J.  E. (2006). Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-­ based treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 42–54.

References

187

Horigian, V. E., Feaster, D. J., Robbins, M. S., Brincks, A. M., Ucha, J., Rohrbaugh, M. J., et al. (2015). A cross-sectional assessment of the long term effects of brief strategic family therapy for adolescent substance use. The American Journal on Addictions, 24(7), 637–645. Kerr, D. C. R., Leve, L. D., & Chamberlain, P. (2009). Pregnancy rates among juvenile justice girls in two randomized controlled trials of multidimensional treatment foster care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 588–593. Klein, N., Alexander, J., & Parsons, B. (1977). Impact of family systems intervention on recidivism and sibling delinquency: A model of primary prevention and program evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 469–474. Krautter, T. H., & Lock, J. (2004). Treatment of anorexia nervosa using family-based manualized treatment. Clinical Case Studies, 3, 107–123. Le Grange, D., Eckhardt, S., Dalle Grave, R., Crosby, R.  D., Peterson, C.  B., Keery, H., et  al. (2022). Enhanced cognitive-behavior therapy and family-based treatment for adolescents with an eating disorder: A non-randomized effectiveness trial. Psychological Medicine, 52(13), 2520–2530. Lemmon, C.  R., & Josephson, A.  M. (2001). Family therapy for eating disorders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinics of North America, 10, 519–542. Liddle, H. A. (1991). Empirical values and the culture of family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 327–348. Liddle, H. A. (1996). Family-based treatment for adolescent problem behaviors: Overview of contemporary developments and introduction to the special section. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 3–11. Liddle, H. A. (2004). Family-based therapies for adolescent alcohol and drug use: Research contributions and future research needs. Addiction, 99, 76–92. Liddle, H. A., & Dakof, G. A. (1995). Efficacy of family therapy for drug abuse: Promising but not definitive. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 511–543. Liddle, H. A., & Schwartz, S. J. (2002). Attachment and family therapy: Clinical utilization of adolescent-family attachment research. Family Process, 41, 457–478. Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., & Diamond, G. (1991). Adolescent substance abuse: Multidimensional family therapy in action. In E. Kaufman & P. Kaufmann (Eds.), Family therapy of drug and alcohol abuse (2nd ed., pp. 120–171). Allyn & Bacon. Liddle, H.  A., Rowe, C.  L., Dakof, G., & Lyke, L. (1998). Translating parenting research into clinical interventions for families of adolescents. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3, 419–443. Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Diamond, G. M., Sessa, F., Schmidt, S., & Ettinger, D. (2000). Towards a developmental family therapy: The clinical utility of adolescent development research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 491–505. Liddle, H.  A., Dakof, G.  A., Parker, K., Diamond, G.  S., Barrett, K., & Tejeda, M. (2001). Multidimensional family therapy for adolescent substance abuse: Results of a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27, 651–687. Liddle, H. A., Jackson-Gilfort, A., & Marvel, F. A. (2006). An empirically-supported and culturally specific engagement and intervention strategy for African-American adolescent males. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 215–225. Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Turner, R. M., Henderson, C. E., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2008). Treating adolescent drug abuse: A randomized trial comparing multidimensional family therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. Addiction, 103, 1660–1670. Liddle, H.  A., Rowe, C.  L., Dakof, G.  A., Henderson, C.  E., & Greenbaum, P.  E. (2009). Multidimensional family therapy for young adolescent substance abuse: Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 12–25. Liddle, H.  A., Dakof, G.  A., Henderson, C., & Rowe, C. (2011). Implementation outcomes of multidimensional family therapy  – Detention to community: A reintegration program for drug-using juvenile detainees. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 587–604.

188

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

Lifshitz, C., Tsvieli, N., Bar-Kalifa, E., Abbott, C., Diamond, G. S., Roger Kobak, R., & Diamond, G. M. (2021). Emotional processing in attachment-based family therapy for suicidal adolescents. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 267–279. Lock, J., & Le Grange, D. (2019). Family-based treatment: Where are we and where should we be going to improve recovery in child and adolescent eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 52(4), 481–487. Marvel, F., Rowe, C., Colon-Perez, L., DiClemente, R. J., & Liddle, H. A. (2009). Multidimensional family therapy HIV/STD risk reduction intervention: An integrative family-based model for drug-involved juvenile offenders. Family Process, 48, 69–84. Meyers, R. J., & Smith, J. E. (1995). Clinical guide to alcohol treatment: The community reinforcement approach. Guilford. Mihalic, S.  W., Fagan, A., Irwin, K., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D. (2004). Blueprints for violence prevention. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http:// www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204274.pdf Miklowitz, D. J., Simoneau, T. L., George, E. L., Richards, J. A., Kalbag, A., Sachs-Ericsson, N., et al. (2000). Family-focused treatment of bipolar disorder: 1-year effects of a psychoeducational program in conjunction with pharmacotherapy. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 582–592. Miklowitz, D.  J., George, E.  L., Axelson, D.  A., Kim, E.  Y., & Birmaher, B. (2004). Family-­ focused treatment for adolescents with bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, 113–128. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Minuchin, S., Rosman, B. L., & Baker, L. (1978). Psychosomatic families. Harvard University Press. Nichols, M.  P., & Schwartz, R.  C. (2006). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (7th ed.). Pearson. Nielsen, P., Christensen, M., Henderson, C., Liddle, H. A., Croquette-Krokar, M., Favez, N., & Rigter, H. (2021). Multidimensional family therapy reduces problematic gaming in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(2), 234–243. Pinsof, W.  M., & Wynne, L.  C. (1995a). The effectiveness and efficacy of marital and family therapy: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 341–343. Pinsof, W.  M., & Wynne, L.  C. (1995b). The effectiveness and efficacy of marital and family therapy: An empirical overview, conclusions, and recommendations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 341–343. Poulton, R., Van Ryzin, M. J., Harold, G. T., Chamberlain, P., Fowler, D., Cannon, M., et al. (2014). Effects of multidimensional treatment foster care on psychotic symptoms in girls. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(12), 1279–1287. Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., Newell, R. M., & Turner, C. W. (1996). The immediate effect of reframing on client attitude in family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 28–34. Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., & Turner, C. W. (2000). Disrupting defensive family interactions in family therapy with delinquent adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(4), 688–701. Robbins, M.  S., Turner, C.  W., Alexander, J.  F., & Perez, G.  A. (2003). Alliance and dropout in family therapy for adolescents with behavior problems: Individual and systemic effects. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 534–544. Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., Turner, C. W., & Hollimon, A. (2016). Evolution of functional family therapy as an evidence-based practice for adolescents with disruptive behavior problems. Family Process, 55(3), 543–557. Rowe, C. L., Gomez, L., & Liddle, H. A. (2006). Family therapy research: Empirical foundations and practice implications. In M. Nichols & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Family therapy: Concepts and methods (7th ed., pp. 395–445). Allyn & Bacon. Russon, J., Smithee, L., Simpson, S., Levy, S., & Diamond, G. (2022). Demonstrating attachment-­ based family therapy for transgender and gender diverse youth with suicidal thoughts and behavior: A case study. Family Process, 61(1), 230–245.

References

189

Santisteban, D. A., & Mena, M. P. (2009). Culturally informed and flexible family-based treatment for adolescents: A tailored and integrative treatment for Hispanic youth. Family Process, 48, 253–268. Santisteban, D. A., Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W. M., Murray, E. J., & Laperriere, A. (1996). Efficacy of intervention for engaging youth and families into treatment and some variables that may contribute to differential effectiveness. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 35–44. Santisteban, D. A., Coatsworth, J. D., Perez-Vidal, A., Mitrani, V., Jean-Gilles, M., & Szapocznik, J. (1997). Brief structural strategic family therapy with African American and Hispanic high risk youth: A report of outcome. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 453–471. Santisteban, D. A., Coatsworth, J. D., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W. M., Schwartz, S. J., LaPerriere, A., et al. (2003). The efficacy of brief strategic/structural family therapy in modifying behavior problems and an exploration of the mediating role that family functioning plays in behavior change. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 121–133. Santisteban, D. A., Suarez-Morales, L., Robbins, M. S., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Brief strategic family therapy: Lessons learned in efficacy research and new research directions on blending research and practice. Family Process, 45, 259–275. Schmidt, S. E., Liddle, H. A., & Dakof, G. A. (1996). Changes in parenting practices and adolescent drug abuse during multidimensional family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 12–27. Sexton, T. L., & Alexander, J. F. (2002). Family-based empirically supported treatment interventions. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(2), 238–261. Shields, C. G., Wynne, L. C., McDaniel, S. H., & Gawinski, B. A. (1994). The marginalization of family therapy: A historical and continuing problem. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 117–138. Slesnick, N., & Prestopnik, J.  L. (2005). Ecologically-based family therapy outcome with substance abusing runaway adolescents. The Journal of Adolescence, 28, 277–298. Slesnick, N., & Prestopnik, J.  L. (2009). Comparison of family therapy outcome with alcohol-­ abusing runaway adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35, 255–277. Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Collins, J., Bantchevska, D., & Katafiasz, H. (2011). Predictors of treatment attendance among adolescent substance abusing runaways: A comparison of family and individual therapy modalities. Journal of Family Therapy., 33, 66. Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Bartle-Haring, S., & Brigham, G. S. (2013). Intervention with substance-­ abusing runaway adolescents and their families: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(4), 600–614. Szapocznik, J., & Williams, R.  A. (2000). Brief strategic family therapy: Twenty-five years of interplay among theory, research and practice in adolescent behavior problems and drug abuse. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 117–134. Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Brickman, A., Foote, F. H., Santisteban, D., Hervis, O. E., et al. (1988). Engaging adolescent drug abusers and their families into treatment: A strategic structural systems approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 552–557. Szapocznik, J., Santisteban, D., Rio, A., Perez-Vidal, A., Santisteban, D., & Kurtines, W. M. (1989). Family effectiveness training: An intervention to prevent drug abuse and problem behaviors in Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11, 4–27. Szapocznik, J., Hervis, O. E., & Schwartz, S. (2003). Brief strategic family therapy manual. NIDA therapy manuals for drug addiction series. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Szapocznik, J., Schwartz, S. J., Muir, J. A., & Brown, C. H. (2012). Brief strategic family therapy: An intervention to reduce adolescent risk behavior. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1(2), 134–145. Van Der Pol, T. M., Hendriks, V., Rigter, H., Cohn, M. D., Doreleijers, T. A., Van Domburgh, L., & Vermeiren, R. R. (2018). Multidimensional family therapy in adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: Long-term effects on delinquency in a randomized controlled trial. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 12(1), 1–10.

190

11  Family Therapy and Other Family Intervention-Based Efforts

Van der Stouwe, T., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G. J. J., Deković, M., & van der Laan, P. H. (2014). The effectiveness of multisystemic therapy (MST): A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(6), 468–481. Vardanian, M. M., Scavenius, C., Granski, M., & Chacko, A. (2020). An international examination of the effectiveness of functional family therapy (FFT) in a Danish community sample. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(2), 289–303. Weisman, C. B., & Montgomery, P. (2019). Functional family therapy (FFT) for behavior disordered youth aged 10–18: An overview of reviews. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(3), 333–346. Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Busseri, M. A. (2004). Where is the syndrome? Examining co-­ occurrence among multiple problem behaviors in adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1022–1037. Wynne, L. C. (1983). Family research and family therapy: A Reunion? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 113–117.

Chapter 12

Family Prevention Programs

Abstract  A variety of approaches and labels currently exist with regard to the development and implementation of prevention efforts targeting families with adolescents. This chapter first covers a number of principles that are thought to characterize effective family-focused prevention efforts. Next, this chapter goes on to review those prevention efforts that have received empirical attention over the past 25 years, with special emphasis given to those initiatives that require the participation of two generations of family members in shared program activities. Programs are described in accordance to their main objectives, their theoretical orientation is discussed, and the empirical evidence that has been generated through implementation and evaluation efforts is covered as well. Finally, a number of web-based resources are offered in order to assist readers in finding continuously updated information on these and other family-based prevention programs. It is easier to prevent bad habits than to break them. (Benjamin Franklin)

The Green family consisted of 15-year-old Jennifer, her mother Kate, and her father John, who chose to participate in the Growing Up FAST program after another family in their neighborhood had participated earlier in the year. After introductions were made, the program facilitator (PF) reviewed the goals of the program. The session then began with the PF explaining that the Green family was going to be left on their own for 5 min in order to create a definition of what it meant to be a successful adult. While encouraging the family to come up with as many ideas as they could in the brief time that they had, the PF stated that all three family members needed to be in agreement with all components of this definition that they would use for the remainder of the session. The Green family also was instructed to choose a “scribe” in order to record those parts of the definition that they agreed on. The Greens were asked if they had any questions about the exercise. Having none, the PF then left a clipboard with paper and pen on the floor (for use by the scribe) and exited the program room. After the 5-min period elapsed, the PF reentered the room. Jennifer stated that she had agreed to be the family scribe and had just finished writing the last part of their definition. Jennifer was asked to read her family’s definition. There were six components, including “to be financially independent,” “to get a college education,” © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_12

191

192

12  Family Prevention Programs

“to be involved in the community,” “to be trusting and honest,” “to be able to manage your finances,” and “to be an active family member.” After recording the family’s definition on a program worksheet, the PF then read a series of prompts to the family that could be used to expand their definition if desired. The Greens agreed that the prompt related to “effective problem-solving and decision-making skills” was something that should be placed inside their family’s definition and chose to add “to be a good problem solver” as another component. The family members agreed that they were ready to move on with the rest of the program. First, however, the PF explained that the program is most effective when only four or five components are made the focus of the remaining tasks. It was explained that too many components could make each part of the program seem unduly long, and hence there was the risk that their family could lose focus and stamina. After a brief discussion, the Greens decided to drop three of their components – involvement in the community, managing your own finances, and being an active family member – for the purpose of moving on through the rest of the program. They explained to the PF that the components that had been dropped were less important to focus on in terms of Jennifer becoming a successful adult. At that point, and with the Green family’s definition comprising a total of four components, the PF stated that they were ready to work on to the next session goal.

12.1 Overview What is our knowledge base about how to prevent problems in families with adolescents? This chapter deals with prevention programs serving families with adolescents that are intergenerational in orientation and that are applicable either to universal or selective populations of families. The vignette that begins this section briefly discusses the Green family’s participation in the Growing Up FAST program (reviewed more extensively below). We witness the program facilitator setting up an opportunity for Mr. and Mrs. Green to work with their daughter Jennifer in building a definition of what it means to be a successful adult in their family. As with many of the programs that will be covered in this section, the approach is designed to prevent any number of adolescent’s problem behaviors by building up certain protective factors in the family, in this case, the family’s ability to create a strength-­ based identity regarding behaviors associated with the successful transition into adulthood status in their family. A variety of approaches and labels currently exist with regard to the development and implementation of family-based prevention efforts, and in fact the focus on families seems to have grown significantly over the years (Bloom, 2000). Some of these initiatives are explicitly discussed as “family strengthening” programs; other descriptors include “family enrichment,” “family life education,” “family skills training,” “family wellness,” and “family support” programs. At least one comprehensive review of these family-based prevention programs has been conducted previously (Gavazzi, 2003). As such, the present chapter incorporates this earlier effort

12.2  Characteristics of Effective Family Programs

193

to compile information about these types of programs and the characteristics of these initiatives. At the same time, a number of new initiatives have made their way into the literature since this review was published. Hence, the present section augments this original anthology with information about these newly developed programs. As well, this section incorporates additional evidence from evaluation efforts of programs that already were in existence at the time of the Gavazzi’s (1993) review.

12.2 Characteristics of Effective Family Programs Kumpfer and Alvarado (1998) provided a slightly more restrictive review of family-­ based programs that specifically targeted the reduction of adolescent’s involvement in delinquency and substance abuse. Borrowing from guidelines developed through the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), these reviewers called attention to a set of principles that they believed seemed to characterize effective family-focused interventions. These principles included the following: • Allowance of family members to remain involved in programming for a sufficient length of time and intensity level that would permit them to solidify changes in family dynamics. • Use of post-program booster sessions to counter the degradation of program gains. • Comprehensive attention given to skill development in areas such as family cohesiveness, interpersonal communication, and parental monitoring. • Attention paid to culturally specific issues in both program content and recruitment/retention efforts. • Program material being developmentally appropriate to adolescents and starting as early as possible in this developmental period. • Use of audiovisual instructional material for skill-building components of the program. • Attention given to advanced training opportunities for program facilitators. Parenthetically, these same NIDA guidelines have been applied to the prevention of substance use in other realms that also touch on families, including most notably school–community–home collaborations (Adelman & Taylor, 2003). The first issue that Kumpfer and Alvarado (1998) target  – program time and intensity level – concerns what might best be called “dosage.” In essence, time and intensity surround the central question of how much programming is enough to make a difference in family functioning levels. However, rather than making the assertion that there is some minimum number of contacts with families that will make a given program effective, it is asserted here that it is more useful to adopt the general principle that more sessions are needed for families that are at lower levels of functioning and/or higher risk for the development of problems. The dosage issue overlaps with the second principle regarding program booster sessions or other methods of “follow-up.” Here, programs that have more built-in contacts with

194

12  Family Prevention Programs

families are thought to be better able to retain program gains in comparison to programs that do not offer such booster sessions. Whether the focus is dosage or follow-up, it is important to acknowledge that lower functioning families may be more challenged to access greater amounts of program resources. In turn, it almost certainly is the case that higher functioning families are more able to choose nonparticipation without negative repercussions. Hence, this leaves families functioning at some “mid-range” level that are the ones who are most likely to take full advantage of programs that offer the most contact points. The third issue covered by Kumpfer and Alvarado (1998)  – attention to skill development – concerns specific areas of family dynamics that are directly targeted by family-based prevention programs, such as family cohesiveness, interpersonal communication, and parental monitoring. At the same time, these programs also are thought to impact other important areas of family life, even if only indirectly. Such family-oriented areas include adaptability, family problem-solving and decision-­ making skills, conflict management in the family, and the interplay of family and larger social systems (including most notably the school setting). The fourth issue – being culturally specific – has been discussed in the general social sciences literature as being one of the most important yet underutilized factors related to the successful transition into adulthood in past discussions of program focus. However, attention to racial/ethnic background and the geographical location of the families have become two of the more salient issues that have begun to permeate program efforts (Turner, 2000). In turn, the issue of cultural specificity can be linked to the fifth effective programming principle concerning the developmental appropriateness of program content. In essence, both of these issues involve attention paid to the fit between the idiosyncratic needs of the targeted population and what the programs actually provide. Currently, while family-based prevention programs have targeted youth of all ages, the majority of these programs tend to target the lower bounds of the adolescent period. The last two principles of effective program covered by Kumpfer and Alvarado (1998) include the use of audiovisual instructional material and advanced training opportunities for program facilitators. Having audiovisual material available for use by family members is thought to better facilitate the transfer of learning of skills covered by program facilitators in family sessions, something found in parenting skill programs as well (Gordon, 2000). In turn, the use of lecture-based formats (Tobler & Stratton, 1997) and other information-only modalities of program implementation (Norman & Turner, 1993) largely have failed to generate much in the way of empirical support. Advanced training opportunities hold the promise of increased program effectiveness and fidelity to the family-based model being offered by a given program. That being said, little documentation of this issue currently exists in the family-based prevention literature. Small and Huser (2011), following the model advanced by Small et al. (2009), expanded on the work of Kumpfer and Alvarado (1998) by asserting a total of 11

12.2  Characteristics of Effective Family Programs

195

principles of effective programs that are classified into 4 categories. These principles included the following: • Program Design and Content –– –– –– ––

Being theory-driven Use of sufficient levels of dosage and intensity Program comprehensiveness Use of active learning techniques

• Program Relevance –– Being developmentally appropriate –– Reaching participants at the point they are ready to change –– Remaining socioculturally relevant • Program Delivery and Implementation –– Fostering good relationships –– Delivery by staff who are well-trained –– Implementation with fidelity • Program Assessment and Quality Assurance –– Thorough documentation of effectiveness evidence –– Continuous refinement and evaluation of program efforts Due to the overlapping nature of these principles with the prior work of Kumpfer and Alvarado (1998) reviewed above (common characteristics also can be found in other articles that provide overviews of the prevention literature as well, including Dusenbury, 2000), two particular principles – the theory-driven nature of the program and the thorough documentation of program effectiveness – are selected for further discussion here. The theoretical underpinnings of family-based prevention programs found in the literature are quite different. For instance, some programs were developed by professionals who were interested in outcomes related to delinquency and related antisocial behavior and thus based their work on principles that came out of social learning theory and/or the social development model. Other professionals were influenced by theories coming more directly from the family therapy movement. In another realm, family life education programs largely were created by family scientists who utilized family development theory to guide their work. Different still are those family support programs that largely came out of an ecological systems framework. Just as there is great variety in terms of the theoretical backgrounds represented in the literature concerning family-based prevention programs, so too is there a rather wide range of efforts undertaken in order to conduct an empirical evaluation of the implementation of these programs. First of all, it should be said that there are many more family prevention programs currently being implemented than are contained in the literature that has been reviewed. Most simply put, many of the

196

12  Family Prevention Programs

programs that are absent from this literature have lacked the empirical testing required for acceptance into many refereed journals. Those programs that have undergone such rigorous examination are oftentimes given the label “best practice.” At the same time, the gathering of summative evaluation data is not an appropriate task for those developers whose programs are at the more beginning stages of development. Hence, there are some programs that have made it into the literature with formative evaluation data, often with the label “promising approach.” These latter efforts may be guided by any number of continuous quality improvement activities (cf., Wandersman et al., 1998). More recently, research has documented the positive effects of family-based prevention programs on adolescents’ healthy development and adjustment. Van Ryzin et al. (2016) summarized the effects of family-based programs on adolescent’s substance use using a component-based approach to meta-analysis. Results suggested that family-based interventions exhibit small-to-medium effects when targeting adolescent’s substance use.

12.3 Examples of Specific Family-Based Prevention Programs Programs are reviewed in alphabetical order and are described in summary fashion according to their main objectives. Where possible, their theoretical framework and the empirical evidence that has been generated through implementation and evaluation efforts are covered as well. The Bridges to High School Program (Bridges/Puentes) (Gonzales et al., 2004) is a 10-week prevention initiative that targets the families of adolescents (predominantly focusing on Mexican Americans) who are entering middle school (junior high school), with particular attention paid to mental health issues and school retention. Program activities include adolescent skills for dealing with stress; parenting skills related to discipline, monitoring, and support; a combined parent–adolescent family strengthening task that is designed to increase family cohesion levels; and a home–school linkage component. Based on focus groups and other initial qualitative data gathered during the planning phase (Dumka et al., 1998; Lengua et al., 1992), this program is based on a “small theory” approach that positive changes in the adolescent, parent, and family factors noted above would significantly decrease the likelihood of mental health issues and school dropout. Initial results of one quantitative study included both adolescent reports of significantly increased coping skills and maternal reports of significant decreases in inconsistent discipline, significant increased in parental support, and significant decreases in adolescent behavioral difficulties (Gonzales et al., 2004). Research has accumulated evidence of the program’s effectiveness, such that the Bridges to High School Program significantly increased adolescents’ outcomes (e.g., school engagement, internalizing symptoms, adolescent’s substance use,

12.3  Examples of Specific Family-Based Prevention Programs

197

adolescent’s coping efficacy, and school dropout) and parental outcomes (e.g., effective parenting and family cohesion) (Gonzales et al., 2012, 2014). The Chicago HIV Prevention and Adolescent Mental Health Project (CHAMP) (Madison et al., 2000; McKay et al., 2004; Paikoff et al., 1997) is a 12-week family strengthening program that is designed to help urban families of early adolescents (aged 10–12  years of age) deal with sexual activity and related behaviors that increase HIV exposure risk. Program activities include family communication skill building, discussion of the impact of neighborhood and peer environments, the role of parental monitoring and discipline, and education about issues concerning adolescent sexuality and HIV/AIDS transmission. The program utilizes a generic set of theoretical assumptions stemming from the adolescent developmental literature that includes the impact of biological, cognitive/psychological, and social context factors on risk-taking behaviors including social action theory. The CHAMP model was subsequently adapted to address the unmet needs of perinatal transmission of HIV (PHIV) for early adolescents and caregivers in New York in a program called CHAMP+ (McKay et al., 2007). Also, there are some recent adaptations of the program in multiple contexts including the United States, South Africa, and Thailand (also called CHAMPSA, CHAMP+Asia, and VUKA) (Bhana et al., 2021; Nestadt et al., 2019). Data have been reported on relatively successful recruitment and retention rates, as well as preliminary outcomes that suggest programmatic impact on variables related to knowledge gain and increased parental functioning. Studies showed that CHAMP promoted mental health in adolescents through promoting family and peer support, adolescent and caregiver skill building, and promotion of resilience (McKay et al., 2014; Mellins et al., 2014). Familias Unidas (United Families) (Coatsworth et al., 2002) is a family-based program targeting recently immigrated Hispanic families with adolescents that is meant to be carried out on a weekly basis throughout the school year. The program centers on factors that provide protection against the development of adolescent’s problem behaviors, including parental involvement and adolescent’s abilities related to self-regulation, social competence, and academic achievement. The program adopts what the authors term an “ecodevelopmental” theoretical perspective, whereby the ecological perspective is combined both with elements of developmental theory and attention to social interactions (largely influenced by the structural family therapy perspective). Predated by earlier work known as the Family Effectiveness Training Program (Szapocznik et al., 1989), this program has a solid history of generating both program efficacy data and the effectiveness of family engagement strategies. One interesting study also documented the “value-added” nature of Familias Unidas when combined with other selective prevention efforts (Prado et al., 2007). Recent studies to examine the effects of the Familias Unidas program found that this initiative is effective in improving internalizing symptoms, family functioning, and adolescent’s behavioral problems across US and Latin American samples (Brincks et al., 2021; Perrino et al., 2016a, b; Rojas et al., 2021b). Also, there was an Internet adaptation of the program (e-Familias Unidas) that aimed to scale up the

198

12  Family Prevention Programs

intervention to maximize reach and sustainability (Rojas et  al., 2021a). The e-­Familias Unidas program includes automated online processes for recruitment, intervention delivery (i.e., the eight online videos and four e-homework sessions), and follow-up assessments. The Families and Schools Together Program (Kratochwill et al., 2004; McDonald & Frey, 1999) is an initial 8–10 session family strengthening program (followed by 2 years of monthly booster sessions) that is designed to assist families of youth (up to the age of 14 years) to prevent school failure and substance use while concurrently increasing family functioning levels. Program activities include quite a variety of experiential activities (singing, game-playing, eating, and drawing) that are linked to programmatic objectives. The theoretical frameworks of this program include a number of therapy literatures (psychiatry, psychology, play therapy, and family therapy), as well as more generic parent, family, and communication literatures. Interestingly, this program is strongly connected to the school system as a source of referrals, a site for program implementation, and a connection point for family member involvement in community-­oriented activities. This program has been evaluated through a number of studies that have gathered follow-up data from program participants, and analyses have indicated programmatic impact in terms of decreased externalizing problem behaviors and increased parental social capital and family functioning (McDonald & Sayger, 1998; Mechielsen et al., 2014). Qualitative research further explored the components underlying these outcomes (Shoji et al., 2014) and identified four interactional processes conducive to producing social capital and parent engagement: (1) responsive communication, (2) reciprocal communication, (3) shared experiences, and (4) institutional linkage. The Families in Action Program (Abbey et al., 2000; Pilgrim et al., 1998) is a six-session family strengthening program that is designed to assist rural families of adolescents (entering junior high or middle school) increase protective factors and decrease risk factors associated with alcohol, tobacco, and other substance use. Program activities include communication skill building, focusing on positive thinking, school success, and substance use avoidance strategies. Theoretically, this program is based on the social development model. Formative data has focused on curriculum adherence and group discussion facilitation. Additionally, the results of one quasi-experimental design study have indicated that participating adolescents were more receptive to the use of social services than were adolescent controls, while male adolescents (but not females) reported greater attachment to school and peers and more functional attitudes toward substance use. In turn, participating parents reported increased family functioning and more functional attitudes toward substance use than did parent controls. The Growing Up FAST: Families with Adolescents Surviving and Thriving Program (Gavazzi, 1995; Law & Gavazzi, 1999) is a two-session family strengthening program that is designed to assist families of adolescents (aged 12–18 years) in meeting a variety of developmental demands through identification of family strengths and capabilities. Program activities include the creation of a definition of what successful adulthood means to family members, identification of those

12.3  Examples of Specific Family-Based Prevention Programs

199

behaviors family members are engaged in presently or could become engaged in that support achievement of successful adulthood status, development of needs assessment and decision-making skills, and the utilization of community resources. The theoretical framework of this program includes a blend of literatures concerning rites of passage, multicultural studies, and the solution-focused perspective. To date, empirical evidence is primarily formative. This information includes the actual use of this program to generate outputs that are consistent with its stated objectives (i.e., creating definitions of successful adulthood), as well as family member perceptions of program effectiveness. More comprehensive juvenile justice diversion (Gavazzi et al., 2000) and parole (Gavazzi et al., 2003) versions of this program also have been developed for use with more selective populations of families with adolescents. Gavazzi (2010) developed a self-help version of the Growing Up FAST program in service to reaching the widest possible audience of families with adolescents. The foundational core of this program – creating a family definition of what it means to be a successful adult – was revised to target the very specific task of helping adolescents reach their full academic potential. Each subsequent strength-based objective was then tied specifically to the family’s definition of what it meant to be a successful student: identifying what the adolescent and parent(s) already were doing to support that definition, recognizing how additional success could be experienced by building on current strengths, locating and accessing resources, and learning and applying decision-making skills. The Home and On Your Own Program (Colan et al., 1994) is a six-session family strengthening program designed to increase safety in homes where adolescents are alone for periods of time after school (although no age range is specified by the program developers, this program was included in this chapter due to the program’s general applicability to 12–18-year-old students). Program activities include family communication and decision-making skill building, education about safety issues in the home and neighborhood environments, and issues involving risk-taking behaviors, including substance use. The self-care literature is the primary theoretical underpinning of this program. Interestingly, this program utilizes a recruitment strategy that involves employee assistance programs. Reported evaluative data is formative and involves participant perceptions of the program’s effectiveness. Additionally, relatively high rates of retention are reported. The Preparing for the Drug Free Years Program (Catalano et  al., 1998; Park et al., 2000) is a five-session family strengthening program designed to assist families of adolescents (up to 14 years of age) in reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors related to substance use and related problem behaviors. Many of the program activities are attended by parents only and include family conflict management, education on the extent of substance use and its connection to family and peer factors, and parent communication skill building. There also is a session attended by parents and adolescents together that focuses on the development of substance use refusal skills. The program is now named the Guiding Good Choice (GGC) and includes an interactive and multimedia curriculum (Kuklinski & Jean-­ Francois, 2023).

200

12  Family Prevention Programs

This program is grounded in the social development model (the program developers include some of the original theorists who created this model). Evaluation of this program has included both formative and summative data collection efforts. Formative data collected on program dissemination indicated that the program reaches its intended audience and that parents perceive their participation to have been helpful in reaching the program’s stated objectives. The results of one experimental design study indicated improvement in participating adults’ parenting and communication skills versus controls, as well as decreases in adolescent’s substance use. Recently, a systematic review observed a significant increase in parents’ restrictive rules regarding their adolescent’s alcohol consumption (Hurley et al., 2019). The Strengthening Families Program (Kumpfer et  al., 2002; Kumpfer & Tait, 2000) is a 14-week family strengthening program that is designed to assist families of adolescents (up to 14 years of age) in the deterrence of substance use, impulse control disorders (Kumpfer, 2014), and the improvement of parent–adolescent relationships. Program activities include a combination of parent skill development (anger and stress management, discipline, use of rewards, and communication), adolescent skill development (social skills, coping, and communication), and family skill development (problem-solving, practicing communication skills, and use of family meeting times). The theoretical framework of this program is a combination of the VASC (vulnerability, accessibility, and social control) and social ecology models of substance abuse. This program has been rigorously examined in at least 12 summative evaluation studies conducted by independent program evaluators. Reports of results include significant decreases in adolescent’s substance use and increased family functioning. A number of culturally specific variations of this program concurrently have been developed (Aktan, 1999; Marek et al., 2006) and include initiatives that target African American, Hawaiian Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, and Appalachian families. Of these, the program seemingly with the greatest amount of work put into its cultural adaptation has led to its own relabeling as “The Strong African American Families Program” (Brody et al., 2008, 2006). The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 (Molgaard & Spoth, 2001; Molgaard et al., 2000) is a 7-week family strengthening program (with four additional booster sessions) that resulted from a significant modification of the original Strengthening Families Program (SFP) described above. In essence, the program was altered in order to better fit the universal needs of rural families with adolescents (aged 10–14 years of age) such that intermediate outcomes related to improved family skills would serve the more long-term outcome of decreased adolescent’s problem behaviors. Each program session consists of 1 h of separate parent and adolescent activities that cover a spectrum of skills and a second hour that unites the family members in order to put into practice the skills just learned. While there is theoretical kinship to the original SFP initiative, conceptual linkages to a biopsychosocial vulnerability model, the resiliency literature, and attention to family processes also are emphasized. At least one study incorporating an experimental design has been conducted to date, and results are reported that

12.4  Web-Based Resources on Family Programs

201

indicate increases in functional parenting skills, as well as decreases in a variety of adolescent’s problem behaviors. Interestingly, researchers were able to document the direct and indirect effects of this program on certain parenting variables as part of this study. Recently, de Menezes and Murta (2021) conducted an integrative review of the cultural adaption process of SFP 10–14. The results showed that the modifications were focused on the superficial structure and intervention materials, whereas modifications were less made on the intervention format and structure.

12.4 Web-Based Resources on Family Programs In order to find continuously updated information on family-based prevention programs, as well as to examine other programs that are not focused exclusively on working with families, Small and Huser (2011) offered up a number of reputable registries of programs that can be accessed through the Internet (some of which have been updated to include the most recent URL addresses), including the following: • Blueprints for Violence Prevention –– http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html • California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare –– http://www.cebc4cw.org/ • Casey Family Programs –– https://www.casey.org/ • Familias Unidas (United Families) –– https://familias-­unidas.info/ • Family-Based Addiction Prevention –– https://echorecovery.org/blog/family-­based-­addiction-­prevention/ • Family First Adolescent Services –– https://familyfirstas.com/ • Family Focused Programs –– h t t p s : / / w w w. c o m m u n i t i e s t h a t c a r e . o rg . a u / p r eve n t i o n -­p r o g r a m / family-­focused-­programs • FFT-CW Program –– https://childrensvillage.org/nyc-­b ased-­p rograms/preventive-­s ervices/ functional-­family-­therapy-­child-­welfare/

202

12  Family Prevention Programs

• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide –– https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-­programs-­guide/home/ • Positive Family Support Programs –– h t t p s : / / w w w. b l u e p r i n t s p r o g r a m s . o r g / p r o g r a m s / 1 5 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 / positive-­family-­support/ • Promising Practices Network on Children, Families and Communities –– http://www.promisingpractices.net/programs.asp • SHIELDS for Families’ Exodus program –– https://www.shieldsforfamilies.org/ • Strengthening America’s Families: Effective Family Programs for Prevention of Delinquency –– http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/ • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices –– https://www.samhsa.gov/ • Supporting Your Child Through Residential Treatment –– https://pathwayfs.org/supporting-­child-­through-­residential-­treatment/ • The Bridges to High School Program (Bridges/Puentes) –– https://reachinstitute.asu.edu/programs/bridges-­to-­high-­school • The Families and Schools Together Program –– https://www.familiesandschools.org/ • The Families in Action Program –– https://www.familiesinaction.net/ • The Strengthening Families Program –– https://strengtheningfamiliesprogram.org/ • What Works Wisconsin: Evidence-based Parenting Program Directory –– https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/whatworkswisconsin/evidence-­b ased-­ programs/evidence-­based-­program-­registries/ • Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General –– https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44294/

References

203

12.5 Summary of the Family Prevention Literature There is a considerable literature that informs the practice of preventing problems in families with adolescents. This chapter reviewed a number of principles thought to be reflective of effective family-focused prevention efforts and then covered a variety of evidence-based approaches to this type of work. Special emphasis was given to those initiatives that require the participation of two generations of family members in shared program activities, in many ways the main litmus test for determining what comprised a family-based prevention program. Many of the programs covered in this chapter not only displayed empirical sophistication but also contained clear and useful linkages to family theory frameworks.

References Abbey, A., Pilgrim, C., Hendrickson, P., & Buresh, S. (2000). Evaluation of a family-based substance abuse prevention program targeted for the middle school years. Journal of Drug Education, 30, 213–228. Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). Creating school and community partnerships for substance abuse prevention programs. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 23, 329–369. Aktan, G. B. (1999). A cultural consistency evaluation of a substance abuse prevention program with inner city African-American families. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 19, 227–239. Bhana, A., Kreniske, P., Pather, A., Abas, M. A., & Mellins, C. A. (2021). Interventions to address the mental health of adolescents and young adults living with or affected by HIV: State of the evidence. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 24, e25713. Bloom, M. (2000). Twenty years of the journal of primary prevention: A collage. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 189–255. Brincks, A., Perrino, T., Howe, G., Estrada, Y., Robles, N., & Prado, G. (2021). Familias Unidas prevents youth internalizing symptoms: A baseline target moderated mediation (BTMM) study. Prevention Science, 24, 1–10. Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., McNair, L., Brown, A. C., et al. (2006). The strong African American families program: Prevention of youths’ high-risk behavior and a test of a model of change. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 1–11. Brody, G. H., Kogan, S. M., Chen, Y.-f., & Murry, V. M. (2008). Long-term effects of the strong African American families program on youths’ conduct problems. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 474–481. Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Haggerty, K. P., Hawkins, J. D., & Spoth, R. (1998). A universal intervention for the prevention of substance abuse: Preparing for the drug free years. In R. S. Ashery, E. B. Robertson, & K. L. Kumpfer (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention through family interventions (pp. 130–159). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Coatsworth, J. D., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Familias Unidas: A family-centered ecodevelopmental intervention to reduce risk for problem behavior among Hispanic adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 113–132. Colan, N. B., Mague, K. C., Cohen, R. S., & Schneider, R. J. (1994). Family education in the workplace: A prevention program for working parents and school-age children. Journal of Primary Prevention, 15, 161–172. de Menezes, J.  C. L., & Murta, S.  G. (2021). Cultural adaptation process of the strengthening families program (10–14) around the world: An integrative review. Trends in Psychology, 29(1), 31–50.

204

12  Family Prevention Programs

Dumka, L.  E., Gonzales, N., Woods, J., & Formoso, D. (1998). Using qualitative methods to develop contextually relevant measures and preventive interventions: An illustration. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 600–633. Dusenbury, L. (2000). Family-based drug abuse prevention programs: A review. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 337–352. Gavazzi, S. M. (1993). The relation between family differentiation levels in families with adolescents and the severity of presenting problems. Family Relations, 42, 463–468. Gavazzi, S. M. (1995). The growing up FAST: Families and Adolescents Surviving and ThrivingTM Program. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 31–47. Gavazzi, S.  M. (2003). Family strengthening programs for families with adolescents. In T. P. Gullotta & M. Bloom (Eds.), The encyclopedia of primary prevention and health promotion (pp. 486–492). Kluwer/Plenum. Gavazzi, S.  M. (2010). Strong families, successful students: Helping teenagers reach their full academic potential. Book Surge. Gavazzi, S. M., Wasserman, D., Partridge, C., & Sheridan, S. (2000). The growing up FAST diversion program: An example of juvenile justice program development for outcome evaluation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 159–175. Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., Rhine, E. E., & Partridge, C. (2003). Building bridges between parole officers and the families of serious juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 291–308. Gonzales, N. A., Dumka, L. E., Deardorff, J., JacobsCarter, S., & McCray, A. (2004). Preventing poor mental health and school dropout of Mexican-American adolescents following the transition to junior high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 113–131. Gonzales, N. A., Dumka, L. E., Millsap, R. E., Gottschall, A., McClain, D. B., Wong, J. J., et al. (2012). Randomized trial of a broad preventive intervention for Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(1), 1–16. Gonzales, N. A., Wong, J. J., Toomey, R. B., Millsap, R., Dumka, L. E., & Mauricio, A. M. (2014). School engagement mediates long-term prevention effects for Mexican American adolescents. Prevention Science, 15(6), 929–939. Gordon, D. A. (2000). Parent training via CD-ROM: Using technology to disseminate effective prevention practices. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 227–251. Hurley, E., Dietrich, T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2019). A systematic review of parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in adolescents. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–14. Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Bear-Tibbetts, H. Y., & Demaray, M. K. (2004). Families and schools together: An experimental analysis of a parent-mediated multi-family group program for American Indian children. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 359–383. Kuklinski, M., & Jean-Francois, B. (2023, June). Guiding good choices for health: Increasing the reach of effective family-focused intervention through virtual implementation in pediatric primary care. In Society for prevention research 31st annual meeting. SPR. Kumpfer, K. L. (2014). Family-based interventions for the prevention of substance abuse and other impulse control disorders in girls. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2014, 1–23. Kumpfer, K.  L., & Alvarado, R. (1998). Effective family strengthening interventions. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Kumpfer, K.  L., & Tait, C.  M. (2000). Family skills training for parents and children. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Smith, P., & Bellamy, N. (2002). Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention interventions. Prevention Science, 3, 241–246. Law, J. C., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1999). Definitions of adulthood: From the voices of parents and adolescents. Family Science Review, 11, 318–335.

References

205

Lengua, L., Roosa, M. W., Shupak, E., Michaels, M., Berg, C., & Ayers, T. (1992). The role of focus groups in the development of community-based parenting intervention programs. Family Relations, 41, 163–168. Madison, S. M., McKay, M. M., Paikoff, R., & Bell, C. C. (2000). Basic research and community collaboration: Necessary ingredients for the development of a family-based HIV prevention program. AIDS Education and Prevention, 12, 281–298. Marek, L. I., Brock, D. J. P., & Sullivan, R. (2006). Cultural adaptations to a family life skills program: Implementation in rural Appalachia. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 113–133. McDonald, L., & Frey, H. E. (1999). Families and schools together: Building relationships. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. McDonald, L., & Sayger, T. V. (1998). Impact of a family and school based prevention program on protective factors for high risk youth. Drugs & Society, 12(1–2), 61–85. McKay, M.  M., Taberchasse, K., Paikoff, R., McKinney, L., Baptiste, D., Coleman, D., et  al. (2004). Family-level impact of the CHAMP family program: A community collaborative effort to support urban families and reduce youth HIV risk exposure. Family Process, 43, 79–93. McKay, M., Block, M., Mellins, C., Traube, D.  E., Brackis-Cott, E., Minott, D., et  al. (2007). Adapting a family-based HIV prevention program for HIV-infected preadolescents and their families: Youth, families and health care providers coming together to address complex needs. Social Work in Mental Health, 5(3–4), 355–378. McKay, M.  M., Alicea, S., Elwyn, L., McClain, Z.  R., Parker, G., Small, L.  A., & Mellins, C.  A. (2014). The development and implementation of theory-driven programs capable of addressing poverty-impacted children’s health, mental health, and prevention needs: CHAMP and CHAMP+, evidence-informed, family-based interventions to address HIV risk and care. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(3), 428–441. Mechielsen, J., Galbraith, M., & White, A. (2014). Reclaiming indigenous youth in Australia: Families and schools together. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems: Reclaiming Children and Youth, 23(2), 35–41. Mellins, C. A., Nestadt, D., Bhana, A., Petersen, I., Abrams, E. J., Alicea, S., et al. (2014). Adapting evidence-based interventions to meet the needs of adolescents growing up with HIV in South Africa: The VUKA case example. Global Social Welfare, 1(3), 97–110. Molgaard, V., & Spoth, R. (2001). The strengthening families program for young adolescents: Overview and outcomes. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 18, 15–29. Molgaard, V., Spoth, R.  L., & Redmond, C. (2000). Competency training: The strengthening families program for parents and youth 10–14. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Nestadt, D. F., Saisaengjan, C., McKay, M. M., Bunupuradah, T., Pardo, G., Lakhonpon, S., et al. (2019). CHAMP+ Thailand: Pilot randomized control trial of a family-based psychosocial intervention for perinatally HIV-infected early adolescents. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 33(5), 227–236. Norman, E., & Turner, S. (1993). Adolescent substance abuse prevention programs: Theories, models, and research in the encouraging 80s. Journal of Primary Prevention, 14, 3–20. Paikoff, R. L., Parfenoff, S. H., Williams, S. A., & McCormick, A. (1997). Parenting, parent–child relationships, and sexual possibility situations among urban African American preadolescents: Preliminary findings and implications for HIV prevention. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 11–22. Park, J., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., et al. (2000). Effects of the “preparing for the drug free years” curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prevention Science, 1, 125–138. Perrino, T., Brincks, A., Howe, G., Brown, C. H., Prado, G., & Pantin, H. (2016a). Reducing internalizing symptoms among high-risk, Hispanic adolescents: Mediators of a preventive family intervention. Prevention Science, 17(5), 595–605.

206

12  Family Prevention Programs

Perrino, T., Pantin, H., Huang, S., Brincks, A., Brown, C. H., & Prado, G. (2016b). Reducing the risk of internalizing symptoms among high-risk Hispanic youth through a family intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Family Process, 55(1), 91–106. Pilgrim, C., Abbey, A., Hendrickson, P., & Lorenz, S. (1998). Implementation and impact of a family-based substance abuse prevention program in rural communities. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 341–361. Prado, G., Pantin, H., Briones, E., Schwartz, S. J., Feaster, D., Huang, S., et al. (2007). A randomized controlled trial of a parent-centered intervention in preventing substance use and HIV risk behaviors in Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 914–926. Rojas, L.  M., Bahamon, M., Lebron, C., Montero-Zamora, P., Pardo, M., Wakefield, M., et  al. (2021a). A feasibility trial of an online-only, family-centered preventive intervention for Hispanics: E-Familias Unidas. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 42, 97–124. Rojas, L. M., Ochoa, L. G., Sánchez Ahumada, M., Quevedo, A., Muñoz, V., Condo, C., & Prado, G. (2021b). Parent attendance in a family-based preventive intervention delivered in Latin America and the United States. Health Promotion Practice, 22(4), 531–539. Shoji, M. N., Haskins, A. R., Rangel, D. E., & Sorensen, K. N. (2014). The emergence of social capital in low-income Latino elementary schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 600–613. Small, S. A., & Huser, M. (2011). Family-based prevention programs. In Encyclopedia of adolescence. Springer. Small, S. A., Cooney, S., & O’Connor, C. (2009). Evidence-based program improvement: Using principles of effectiveness to enhance the quality and impact of youth and family-based prevention programs. Family Relation, 58, 1–13. Szapocznik, J., Santisteban, D., Rio, A., Perez-Vidal, A., Santisteban, D., & Kurtines, W. M. (1989). Family effectiveness training: An intervention to prevent drug abuse and problem behaviors in Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11, 4–27. Tobler, N.  S., & Stratton, H.  H. (1997). Effectiveness of school-based prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 71–128. Turner, W. L. (2000). Cultural considerations in family-based primary prevention programs in drug abuse. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 285–303. Van Ryzin, M. J., Roseth, C. J., Fosco, G. M., Lee, Y. K., & Chen, I. C. (2016). A component-­ centered meta-analysis of family-based prevention programs for adolescent substance use. Clinical Psychology Review, 45, 72–80. Wandersman, A., Morrissey, E., Davino, K., Seybolt, D., Crusto, C., Nation, M., et  al. (1998). Comprehensive quality programming and accountability: Eight essential strategies for implementing successful prevention programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 19, 3–30.

Part V

Summary and Future Directions

Chapter 13

Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

Abstract  This chapter serves as a review of each of the three main parts of this book in terms of coverage of theoretical, research, and application topics concerning the study of families with adolescents. The review of theoretical material focuses on this book’s coverage of where we get our ideas about the families within which adolescents grow and develop. Special attention is given to both the generative and degenerative aspects of theories, as well as discussing the place of theoretical development in family-specific journals. The review of empirical material focuses on this book’s coverage of the actual data that we have, which informs us about the families of adolescents. Issues requiring additional attention that are identified in this chapter include the need to incorporate more qualitative-oriented efforts, as well as greater attention being given to methods that allow multiple family member perspectives to be adequately accounted for in the gathering of family-oriented data. The review of application material focuses on our knowledge base about how to prevent problems in families with adolescents or otherwise how to intervene with adolescents and their families when difficulties arise. The reader’s sensitivity to understanding how families can be viewed from quite different lenses when prevention and intervention efforts reflect activities are seen as something that are done “to” families in contrast to providing services “for families” and “with families.” Just as the largest library, badly arranged, is not so useful as a very moderate one that is well arranged, so the greatest amount of knowledge, if not elaborated by our own thoughts, is worth much less than a far smaller volume that has been abundantly and repeatedly thought over. (Arthur Schopenhauer)

13.1 Outlook of Theoretical Efforts to Understand Families with Adolescents We began our focus on theoretical efforts with the question: Where do we get our ideas about the families within which adolescents grow and develop? The theoretical frameworks used to understand families with adolescents reviewed within this book included family development theory, family systems theory, ecological theory, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_13

209

210

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

attachment theory, and social learning theory. The five functions of theory (descriptive, sensitizing, integrative, explanatory, and value) discussed by Knapp (2009) were used to discuss what each of these conceptual frameworks offer scholars who are interested in families with adolescents. Obviously, there is a great wealth of information from each of these theories that contributes to ideas about the families within which adolescents grow and develop. Although these five functions point to the generative nature of theory, Knapp (2009) also provided warnings about their potential degenerative characteristics. This is especially thought to be the case when theories are developed in “monological” fashion. That is to say, sometimes a conceptual framework is treated in isolation and therefore is not subjected to any sort of comparison or contrast with other theoretical perspectives. Often as not, this contributes to a theory veiling and obscuring as much as it reveals and brings to light. Knapp (2009) argues for a “critical theorizing” approach to combat the more degenerative aspects of theory building (and research). This is thought to be especially important for the family field. In Knapp’s (2009) own words: Attention to methodological rigor without an accompanying emphasis on theoretical rigor in the form of critical and dialogical theorizing will therefore likely result in the creation of multiple theories and research outcomes that coexist in indifference with each other and other alternative perspectives. Perhaps some will object, but this seems to describe quite well the state of much work in the family field. (p. 138)

Although this is a criticism lodged against the family field in general, the very same thing can be said about the more specific theoretical literature regarding families with adolescents. Very little information exists that would allow readers to engage in a comparison and contrast of theoretical approaches. While there are instances of multiple theories being used in a blended approach, the side-by-side assessment of any two theoretical approaches does not appear in a single refereed journal article published over the last 15 years that was uncovered for the purposes of this book. Thus, one area that is crying out for further development is exactly this sort of evaluative work with the five theoretical perspectives contained in this book. However, lest we forget there are other conceptual frameworks from the family field  – including especially social exchange theory and symbolic interaction theory – that also have been used to describe families with adolescents in past scholarly efforts. While these theories receive much less attention in the scholarly work published over the past 25 years, they certainly can become part of the “critical theorizing” work suggested by Knapp (2009). As well, there are certain “mid-range” family frameworks that have received some empirical attention in the literature on families with adolescents yet also were not covered in the theory part of this book. Most prominently perhaps is the boundary ambiguity framework, which has been used to conceptualize uncertainties surrounding life in a cohabiting household (Brown & Manning, 2009), parenting transgender youth (Catalpa & McGuire, 2018), the stressors coming from truncated contact with an incarcerated parent (Bocknek et al., 2009), and parents deployed by

13.1  Outlook of Theoretical Efforts to Understand Families with Adolescents

211

the military (Chawla & Solinas-Saunders, 2011) or forcefully deported by immigration authorities (Lovato, 2019). Also, there are some other theoretical perspectives mentioned in the research part of this book that are not family theories per se but certainly could become more impactful if greater attention was paid to their family-oriented conceptualizations. One such example is that of Crosswhite and Kerpelman (2009a, 2012), who write about the parental and family underpinnings of social control theory. Because these and other family-based theories not reviewed more thoroughly in this book’s theoretical part could in fact offer rich insights about families with adolescents, scholars with an affinity to these frameworks are urged to renew their efforts to provide theoretical guidance to scholars who are studying these families. As well, theorists and researchers alike should redouble their efforts to build and test propositions from all of these family theory frameworks that are directly applicable to families with adolescents. Great hope for theoretical advances in the family field comes from the 2009 launch of the Journal of Family Theory and Review. Although the family field’s main professional organization  – the National Council on Family Relations  – already maintains two journals (Journal of Marriage and the Family and Family Relations), this new periodical fills a basic need that largely has gone unmet by any other family-focused journal to date, that is, to publish works on theory and the methods by which theory development is advanced (Milardo, 2009, 2010). In fact, the work of Knapp (2009) that has been used so liberally above can be found in this journal, as can a more updated take on many of the same theory-based issues (Knapp & Wurm, 2019). In the more general sense, this journal has been seen as holding the promise of creating a forum for all family scholars both to increase the explanatory power of family theories and to critically investigate their biases and shortcomings. More specifically, however, this new journal already has generated some exciting and innovative theoretical approaches that speak directly to an audience interested in the theoretical treatment of families with adolescents. For example, Ashbourne (2009) presents a dialogic approach to understanding the parent–adolescent relationship. By focusing attention on the communication (dialogue) that takes place between parents and adolescents, this theorist draws attention to the intergenerational “gaps” that exist between the lived experiences of these family members and how these differences are negotiated. Particular consideration is given to the dynamic tension that exists within dialectics such as the responsiveness–demandingness concerns addressed in the parenting literature, as well as the separateness–connectedness issues that are contained within the family process literature. Clearly, the field will benefit from more theoretical work that fosters links between concepts used to describe parenting behaviors and family systems dynamics. As referenced above, Crosswhite and Kerpelman (2009b) provided treatment of a classic criminology theory – social control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) – within a more parent- and family-based approach. Part of this effort involves the

212

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

systematic review of evidence that supports the established thinking of those parenting behaviors linked to adolescent’s antisocial behavior within the social control perspective. Here, parent–adolescent attachment, parental monitoring/supervision/ knowledge, parental recognition, and punishment of deviant activities all are acknowledged as having an important impact on adolescent’s problem behaviors. As well, however, these authors assert that a host of other well-documented parent- and family-based predictors of antisocial behavior are not accounted for in social control theory. Special attention in this regard is given to concepts and variables contained within the social learning and social information processing theories. Their call for the expansion of theoretical perspectives to be based on available research evidence is exactly the direction that family scholars need to take with other family theories. Bortz et al. (2019) provided a guide for the integration of theoretical concepts used to describe the inner workings of families with adolescents. These scholars identified key conceptual overlaps among factors related to family systems (using the differentiation construct), attachment styles, and parenting styles (and to a lesser extent identity development as well). For example, higher levels of family differentiation – as denoted by greater amounts of both individuality and intimacy tolerance  – were equated with more secure attachment styles  – represented by lower levels of both anxiety and avoidance. In turn, both high differentiation and secure attachment were compared favorably to authoritative parenting, seen as the combination of high responsiveness and high demandingness. Theoretical integration akin to the Bortz et al.’s (2019) article is thought to create a range of new opportunities that can “guide new research questions, extend clinical interventions, and foster theoretical complexity that advances understanding of family processes” (p. 557). In sum, readers should get the sense that there is a groundswell of support for making sure that ideas about families and data from families become better connected. Much of the family theory work that has been done with regard to families with adolescents has laid a foundation for this sort of work to occur. It is now up to the present generation of scholars to advance these efforts. To paraphrase the work of White (2005), it is high time for the family field’s “context of justification” to be better linked to its “context of discovery.”

13.2 Outlook on Empirical Efforts to Understand Families with Adolescents We began our focus on empirical efforts with the question: What data do we have that informs us about the families of adolescents? This book’s review of the empirical literature on families with adolescents offered a selection of articles that were meant to provide a representative sample of the types of studies that have been conducted over the last decade and a half. Clearly, there is an enormous amount of empirical information that informs the field about the families of adolescents.

13.2  Outlook on Empirical Efforts to Understand Families with Adolescents

213

While researchers still routinely assess the impact of parenting behaviors in the most recent of studies reviewed here, the last 25 years have seen a clear emergence of interest in family processes. Over two decades ago, Cox and Paley (1997) noted that Much of family research has focused on the patterns of interaction within and across family subsystems (e.g., marital and parent-child, parent-child and sibling, parent-child and individual). Less research has focused on the impact of larger units in the family (triadic and whole family), perhaps because conceptualizing and measuring characteristics of the whole system has been difficult. (pp. 246–247)

Several themes can be discerned from those articles that are related to the field’s general progression toward more complex and sophisticated approaches to the study of these family processes, including the attention being given to the impact of siblings, the overlapping influences of marital and parent–adolescent conflict, and the interactive effects of family and other social context variables. At the same time, there are several interesting areas of family-based research that did not receive attention in this book but nonetheless deserve some mention here. This includes the growing body of work that examines issues that concern adolescents in stepfamilies (Raley & Sweeney, 2020), including stepsibling influences (Landon et  al., 2022; Tillman, 2008a, b; Wallerstein & Lewis, 2007), as well as adolescents with same-sex parents (Baumrind, 1995; Gershon et al., 1999; Regnerus, 2012; Wainright et al., 2004). Also, the role of grandparents in the lives of adolescents has been the focus of studies throughout the time period covered in this book (King & Elder, 1997, 1998a, b; Klein, 2022) as have other extended family networks (Gowdy et al., 2023; Pallock & Lamborn, 2006). Clearly, these areas can and should be investigated in future studies. The increased attention given to racial, ethnic, and cultural considerations in the family also has given rise to a number of studies that have examined “familism” or the sense in which family values assume a position of ascendance over the interests of individual family members (Son et al., 2022). Much of this work is being done in samples of Hispanic families (German et al., 2009; Stein et al., 2019; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2011; Umaña-Taylor & Guimond, 2010; Updegraff et al., 2005). That said, the familism construct can be found in studies of families with other racial and ethnic backgrounds (Ghazarian et al., 2008) and other forms of intensive family cohesion displayed by immigrant families (Shah et al., 2021). As researchers continue to examine issues of diversity, the familism construct in particular may help advance work in this area of inquiry. In addition to race, ethnicity, and cultural variation, other studies reviewed in this book paid attention to potential variation as a function of other demographic variables such as gender and socioeconomic status. In the latter case, there are other important demographic characteristics linked to family economic circumstances that did not receive much coverage in this book that deserve mention here. This includes studies regarding the impact of family mobility (Du & Kim, 2021; South et al., 2005), family economic stressors (Barrera et al., 2002; Skinner & McHale, 2022) and socioeconomic circumstances (Conger et al., 2010; He et al., 2021), the

214

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

neighborhood conditions in which families reside (Henry et al., 2008; Mendez & Kerig, 2023; Roche et al., 2007; Roche & Leventhal, 2009; Upchurch et al., 1999), and the geographic location of families (Ball & Wiley, 2005; Elder et  al., 1996; Freeman & Anderman, 2005; King et  al., 1997; Olson & Metzger, 2019; Vicary et al., 2000; Wiley et al., 2005). The addition of these demographically oriented factors to future research efforts will help to shed further light on the broader social context in which families with adolescents are situated. The review of the research literature in this book regarding the linkage between family factors and adolescent outcomes was limited to four aspects of adolescent’s problem behaviors (delinquency, mental health, substance use, and sexual activity) and two areas of potential adolescent assets (education and social competency). A variety of topics related to adolescent outcomes were not covered at all and could be given consideration in future research efforts that seek to understand how families impact adolescent’s development and well-being. One area of inquiry that seems especially promising is the family’s impact on adolescent’s identity development (Branje, 2022; Mullis et al., 2003, 2007, 2009; Prioste et  al., 2020), including ethnic identity formation (Constante et  al., 2020; Gonzales-Backen & Umaña-Taylor, 2011; Kiang & Fuligni, 2009). Another growing area of inquiry surrounds studies that are examining the relationship between family factors and adolescent health issues, including conditions such as asthma (Chen et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2008), diabetes (Naar-King et al., 2006; Starkman et al., 2019), and obesity (Fulkerson et al., 2007; Skelton et al., 2020). Other emergent works surround the impact of religion on family processes (Hardy et al., 2019; Stokes, 2008; Stokes & Regnerus, 2009). Further, it is important to note that there has been a considerable rise in the number and types of longitudinal studies that have been conducted in the last 25 years, including the use of large and nationally representative databases containing information about families with adolescents. And as been mentioned earlier in this section, the field has witnessed the development of more sophisticated statistical methods for dealing with the complexities of these databases on dyads and larger systems (Lyons & Lee, 2020; Lyons & Sayer, 2005). Clearly, the field has profited from these efforts, as the results of these large-scale representative studies are more generalizable to larger segments of the population. As well, those empirical efforts that have adopted longitudinal designs have become more causal in their orientation, in that the measurement of set of variables at one time point allows researchers to discuss their consequential effects on variables at subsequent points in time. The vast majority of studies covered in this book are of a more quantitative nature, meaning that great emphasis has been placed on studies that revolve around the statistical analysis of numerically based data. At the same time, more recently, the families with adolescents’ literature has witnessed an upsurge in the publication of studies that are more qualitative in nature. Here, greater attention is given to text-­ based data that is used to search for patterns and uncover meanings and interpretations related to participant’s experiences. It is asserted here that greater attention to such qualitatively based work would provide a helpful parallel effort to the quantitative studies covered in the present text, research efforts that tend to lack the

13.2  Outlook on Empirical Efforts to Understand Families with Adolescents

215

thickness of description often necessitated in interpreting results for practitioners. Even better, more mixed methods studies of families with adolescents also could be advanced, whereby quantitative and qualitative data gathering and analysis efforts could be combined. Excellent recent examples of more qualitatively based work include studies on parent–adolescent dyadic topics such as communication about sex (Afifi et  al., 2008; O’Sullivan et al., 2001; Usonwu et al., 2021), more general parent–adolescent communication (Hou et  al., 2020; Richardson, 2004), adolescent-to-parent abuse (Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Shanholtz et al., 2020), and parent and adolescent choices made about spending time together (Ashbourne & Daly, 2010). Fatherhood issues more specifically also have received increased attention by qualitative researchers, including topics such as the fatherhood experiences of violent inner-city youth (SmithBattle et al., 2019; Wilkinson et al., 2009) and court-involved Mexican-origin teenage fathers (Parra-Cardona et al., 2008), father–daughter relationships in low-­ income minority families (Way & Gillman, 2000), and adolescent’s and young adult males’ expectations about future fatherhood issues (Marsiglio et  al., 2000). Still other qualitative works on families with adolescents include a focus on the family dynamics of immigrant families (Van Hook & Glick, 2020; Qin, 2008), attachment and individuation issues (Bell et al., 2007; Shankleman et al., 2021), family contributions to adolescent resilience (Phillips et al., 2019; Ungar, 2004), and the experience of being in family therapy (Sheridan et al., 2010). Finally, while enormous empirical gains clearly have been made over the past 25 years, it must be said that the literature on families with adolescents continues to suffer from an overreliance on the adolescent’s perspective. In a similar vein, whenever a parent’s perspective is utilized in a study, more often than not it is that of the mother. Although these predilections exist throughout the family literature (Aquilino, 1999; Dadds, 1995; Phares, 1999), the continued reliance on adolescent-­ only and mother-only perspectives in research on families with adolescents is thought to be particularly problematical, especially when the focus becomes the assessment of some aspect of family functioning (Mastrotheodoros et  al., 2019; Mathijssen et al., 1997; Sabatelli & Bartle, 1995). Bogenschneider and Pallock (2008) raised these sorts of questions about the use of family member perspectives in a study of parental responsiveness using the reports of 440 adolescents in the 8th–12th grades and their mothers and fathers. One part of this study was a reaction to previous research efforts that asserted a preference for using adolescents’ perspectives on parenting behaviors when predicting adolescent outcomes (cf. Fletcher et al., 2004). A second component of this research focused on the relative similarities or discrepancies between parent and adolescent reports, something that also has been related to adolescent outcomes in previous research (Ohannessian et al., 2000). A third objective of this study attended to the relative degree to which parent and adolescent reports operated in an independent fashion from one another. Overall, the findings from this study provided strong support for the notion that all three perspectives – adolescent, mother, and father – were important sources of information about the adolescent outcome variables (grades, substance use,

216

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

delinquent activity, and internal distress as reported by the adolescents only). Some evidence also was generated regarding the association between dissimilar scores and poor adolescent outcomes, at least in terms of internal stress, and the analyses also hinted at some complex and nonindependent relationships among the reports of the three family members. Bogenschneider and Pallock (2008) raised a number of important methodological issues in light of their findings that have applicability beyond the parochial study of parental responsiveness. Of significant interest here was their rejection of the notion that any one family member could generate a “better” report than the others, instead noting that each perspective was unique and valuable. Also, these scholars argued against the combination of family member scores in any manner that could potentially obscure important differences among raters. These are exactly the types of methodological issues that provoke questions regarding the unit of analysis that is employed in any family-based research effort. Readers will recall that the empirical part of this book regarded empirical efforts to be family-based under any of four circumstances: the single intergenerational dyad, the adolescent’s nonspecific relationship to parents, the adolescent’s family as a totality, and the family with adolescents as the combination of various dyads (adolescent–father, adolescent–mother, adolescent–sibling, etc.). While these four different forms of “family” were given equal treatment in the research section, the assertion is made here that these different approaches are not equally sophisticated in their approach to the study of family variables. The difficulty with a single intergenerational dyad approach is axiomatic. By definition, it does not reflect the family as a whole, unless the empirical effort is meant to describe the more atypical case where a given household contains only one adult and one adolescent. In turn, the main problem with the nonspecific parent– adolescent relationship and the family as a totality is what might best be described as questions regarding “regression to the mean.” For instance, when the researcher does not discriminate between parents, what happens to adolescents’ answers about the relationships with their parents when their relationship with their mother is extremely warm while their relationship with their father is slightly cold? In the situation where the family as a totality approach is adopted, in addition to potentially different relationships between the adolescent and each parent, how does an adolescent judge the overall emotional climate of her/his family when relationships with siblings might vary as much or more? In fact, it is only when the family is seen or measured as the combination of various dyads that the researcher is able to acquire that specificity of measurement and therefore gains a more precise way of describing what is occurring within the various dyads of those families (Bartle-Haring & Gavazzi, 1996). Hence, it is believed that future research efforts not only should incorporate multiple family member’s perspective wherever possible but also should focus questions at a dyadic level. This means that adolescents should be asked to report about their relationship with their mother in a separate fashion from how they would report on their relationship with their father. In turn, mothers and fathers each would report on their own

13.2  Outlook on Empirical Efforts to Understand Families with Adolescents

217

individual relationship with their son or daughter. And most importantly, such data would be analyzed with statistical procedures that retain and attend to the dyadic qualities of this information. There are a number of ways that researchers can handle dyadic data of this nature, and the number and use of these sophisticated statistical procedures continue to expand rapidly in the family field (Lyons & Sayer, 2005; Whiteman & Loken, 2006). That being said, there is at least one approach to family-oriented data – the social relations model (SRM: Kenny & La Voie, 1984)  – that holds great promise for future studies of families with adolescents. SRM allows for the conceptualization and analysis at all three units of analysis: individual, dyadic, and family system levels. This is accomplished through the isolation of four unique sources of information – an actor effect, a partner effect, a relationship effect, and a family effect – that each account for a certain portion of the variance regarding a variable of interest to researchers (Cook, 2001a, b). To explain, consider first the adolescent’s (let’s call her Susie) perspective regarding her family’s problem-solving skills. There is an “actor effect” that is used to describe how Susie thinks each of her family members is able to solve problems in general (Susie thinks that her Dad and Mom are pretty good problem solvers, but her older sister Tina is the best problem solver of all). There is also a “partner effect” that is used to indicate how Susie thinks that each family member elicits problem-­ solving abilities from others (Mom seems to help everyone do their best problem solving, for instance). Further, there is a “relationship effect” that speaks to what happens in specific dyads (for some reason, Tina just cannot seem to problem-solve well with Susie as she can with other family members). And finally, the “family effect” is an indication of overall similarities or differences among family members (compared to all other families in the sample, Susie’s family members solve problems very well). Now add in Dad, Mom, and Tina’s perceptions of each family member’s problem-solving abilities in the same manner – which gives you the ability to look specifically at “rater effects” as well – and you get a snapshot of what the SRM approach is capable of generating for researchers (Cook, 2005). The Bartle-Haring et  al.’s (1999) study on family differentiation that was reviewed in the research portion of the book above provides one illustration of the SRM’s use in research that specifically targets families with adolescents. Another excellent example is a study by Buist et al. (2004), whereby the SRM approach was used to examine attachment relationships in families with adolescents. Still other examples of the SRM approach’s use in research on families with adolescents can be found in an excellent review conducted by Eichelsheim et al. (2009) as well as a study of stepfamilies with adolescents conducted by Pylyser and colleagues (2020). From a methodological standpoint, the sophisticated nature of these studies provides ample evidence to suggest that substantial consideration should be given to utilizing this particular way of framing research on families with adolescents. In essence, the reader gains access to information about potential similarities and differences at multiple levels of analysis: individual, dyadic, and family system.

218

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

13.3 Outlook on Application Efforts Targeting Families with Adolescents We began the application focus of this book with the question: What is our knowledge base about how to prevent problems in families with adolescents, or otherwise what do we know about how to intervene with adolescents and their families when difficulties arise? There is in fact a substantial knowledge base about how to intervene with adolescents and their families when difficulties arise, and there is a considerable literature that informs the practice of preventing problems in families with adolescents as well. The family-based prevention and intervention efforts reviewed in the application part of this book represent a praiseworthy collection of best practices and promising approaches to work with the families of adolescents. On the whole, the developers of these initiatives are to be commended for their attention to both theoretical and empirical rigor. Similar to the theoretical and empirical parts of this book, readers must be cautioned that the literature covered in the application part was not exhaustive. Rather, the studies covered here were meant to serve as a solid representation of some of the best prevention and intervention efforts that target families with adolescents. Bodies of work not covered in this book that readers might find interesting and informative include the empirical literature surrounding new treatment approaches in the health-­ care arena, including the adolescent’s response to illness in other family members (Davey et al., 2005; Faulkner & Davey, 2002), including responses to the Covid-19 pandemic (Hussong et  al., 2022). As well, other application works having arisen more recently in response to contemporary issues eventually may make an important contribution to the evidence-based literature on working with families of adolescents, including those dealing with hurricane destruction (Brymer et al., 2019; Rowe & Liddle, 2008), war (Júnior et  al., 2022; Taft et  al., 2008), violence (Beckmann, 2020; Bonomi & Kelleher, 2007), and homelessness (Gewirtz, 2007; Heerde et al., 2022); having adolescents who come out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (Saltzburg, 2007; Selkie et  al., 2020); managing HIV risks (Bhana et  al., 2021; Gangamma et  al., 2008); and dealing with issues revolving around cybersex (Delmonico & Griffin, 2008; Rivas-Koehl et al., 2023). In addition, the present limitations of the work covered within this book give us plenty of clues about the direction that future application-based work targeting families with adolescents ought to take. Much of the course of action can be extracted directly from the effectiveness principles (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 1998; Small et al., 2009; Small & Huser, 2011) covered in the application part of this book. That is, future work in this area should intensify present efforts to be guided by explicit theoretical principles, to offer comprehensive activities for family members to take part in together that are developmentally appropriate, to attend to culturally specific issues in the design and implementation phases of the initiative, to use the latest methodological advances in research and evaluation efforts surrounding the initiative, and to have all of this offered by well-trained professionals in a manual-driven format that attends closely to issues of fidelity.

13.3  Outlook on Application Efforts Targeting Families with Adolescents

219

All of that said, it is important to increase the reader’s sensitivity to understanding how families can be viewed from quite different lenses within the context of this literature on application. Often as not, prevention and intervention efforts reflect activities that are done “to” families. Here, families are the recipients or “consumers” of the efforts. In contrast, calls have been made to direct the field’s attention toward efforts that provide services “for families” and “with families” (Hoagwood, 2005; Waid & Kelly, 2020). In essence, families viewed in this latter manner are more likely to be seen as “partners” in the delivery of services to their members. This is a difference that can truly make a difference in application efforts targeting families with adolescents. For this reason, developers of prevention and intervention-based work with this population would do well to attend to a number of efforts that seek to create these sorts of partnerships within a collaborative context of working “for” and “with” family members. Family empowerment, both as an activity and as a measurable construct, is one important contribution to the discussion of such partnerships with families. The use of a family empowerment perspective focuses attention on how family members are able to experience a sense of control over their lives and the situations that they are facing in their lives together (Gentles-Gibbs & Zema, 2020; Koren et al., 1992). In a similar vein, family empowerment has been discussed as an effort to give family members “voice and choice” in the types and amounts of services that they receive (Fialkowski et al., 2022; Scheer & Gavazzi, 2009). Often as not, family empowerment efforts focus on information-sharing and decision-making actions taken for and with adult caregivers that surround the provision of some sort of services for adolescent (and younger age) family members (Kalafat, 2004; McCammon et  al., 2018; Singh et  al., 1997). As such, family empowerment becomes a process of considering families within concepts of wellness, competence, and strengths rather than illness, deficits, and weaknesses (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995; Wagaman, 2011). Such efforts coexist with more individualized efforts to foster “adolescent empowerment” as well (Anyon et al., 2018; Chinman & Linney, 1998). Studies generally have indicated that family empowerment efforts are linked to positive outcomes for children, adolescents, and their families. For instance, Resendez et al. (2000) reported significant associations between family empowerment, satisfaction with mental health services, and the functioning levels of adolescents and children. Graves and Shelton (2007) reported that the relationship between those same functioning levels and being involved in family-centered care is mediated by family empowerment levels. Further, family empowerment training efforts developed by Bickman and colleagues (Bickman et al., 1998; Heflinger et al., 1998) have been shown to generate significant gains for families whose adolescents and children are receiving services from mental health systems. The idea of giving family members greater “voice and choice” in terms of the services they receive is not an unfamiliar concept in the literature on family-based interventions. For example, a study of the family empowerment component of MST (multisystemic therapy) as reviewed in the family intervention chapter above was

220

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

undertaken by Cunningham et al. (1999) using a sample of 118 families with substance using and court-involved adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 (average age of 15.7 years). Families enrolled in MST displayed significantly greater family empowerment levels as compared to the treatment as usual control group. Also, results indicated that higher family empowerment levels were significantly associated with a range of individual, dyadic, and family systems variables. Dembo et  al. (2003) report on the use of a family empowerment intervention (FEI) with 278 families of adolescents (average age of 14.5 years) arrested on either misdemeanor or felony charges. Latent growth analyses indicated that youth from families enrolled in FEI displayed significantly lower levels of delinquent behavior over a three-year period in comparison to the control group. These findings are built on earlier evidence of the FEI’s impact after one year (Dembo et al., 2000a, b) and beyond (Pallone et al., 2014). Seeing family members as partners instead of (or at least alongside of) the view that families are consumers or customers has great potential to refashion how application efforts move forward. Hence, scholars interested in this type of alternative framework may do well to attend to family empowerment issues in their work with adolescents and their families (Mardhiyah et al., 2022). As well, there may be similar efforts to change lenses underway in other application areas that also may bear watching, perhaps most notably including the social justice approach that is being advanced in both the prevention (Gullotta et al., 2014; Hage & Kenny, 2009; Kenny & Hage, 2009) and intervention realms (Bowling et  al., 2002; Luke & Carmen, 2018; McDowell & Shelton, 2002; McGoldrick et al., 1999).

13.4 The Next Wave of Longitudinal Research on Families with Adolescents Longitudinal research is considered to be the “gold standard” in research on families, especially when those studies are relatively long term in duration. Perhaps the “Granddaddy” of all such efforts is the set of data collection efforts known collectively as the National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS). Overseen by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS is part of the US Department of Labor), there are two ongoing studies at present: the NLSY79 and the NLSY97 (several previous cohorts that targeted both young and mature males and females have been retired over the years). In 1979, a large sample of youth between 14 and 22 years of age were enrolled in the NLSY79 study (totaling 12,686 individuals). In 1997, another large sample of youth between 12 and 17 years of age were enrolled in the NLSY97 study (totaling 8,984 individuals). At present, there have been 29 rounds of data collection for the NLSY79 (with the 30th round expected to be made available in 2024) and 19 rounds of data collection for the NLSY97 (with the 20th round expected to be made available in late 2023). These rounds have generated a sizable amount of information on thousands of factors related to everything from family health and educational attainment to substance use and criminal activity (Cooksey, 2018).

References

221

Plans are now underway to create a new NLSY26 cohort, which will involve the recruitment and retention of a new large sample of youth. Likely to replicate the sample parameters of the NLSY97 cohort, this effort will recruit youth between 12 and 17 years of age, meaning that these respondents would have been in kindergarten through fifth grade during the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. The NLSY26 effort thus will build on the experiences and products associated with each of the previous cohorts, while additionally creating opportunities for new and innovative data collection activities (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). One of the approaches that BLS took to generate important information about content and methodological issues involved the implementation of a needs assessment process that focused attention on several critical empirical areas. Those efforts that centered on child and family background issues are the area of most interest to scholars who conduct research on families with adolescents (Magnuson et  al., 2022). Here, a content panel of experts was convened with the primary task of providing “high-level recommendations that highlight emerging research themes, social trends, and policy changes relevant to consider for future data collection; alternative data sources that might supplement a new survey; and methodological issues that may impact data collection for the NLSY26” (p. 2). Topic-related recommendations for the NLSY26 cohort included issues related to incarceration, family life complexity (including cohabitation, divorce, and residence across multiple household), family member self-identification as LGBTQ+, immigration and customs enforcement, the impact of technological advancements, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and its aftermath. In turn, several areas of inquiry were targeted as “foundational data important for studying later life outcomes.” Parental “investments” topped this list, which surrounded the many ways that fathers and mothers both directly and indirectly ensure that their sons and daughters “reach their full potential.” Many of the topics contained in this section of the content panel report have direct links to areas covered in Chaps. 8 (research on the parent–adolescent dyad) and 9 (polyadic research on families with adolescents) within this textbook.

References Afifi, T. D., Joseph, A., & Aldeis, D. (2008). Why can’t we just talk about it? An observational study of parents’ and adolescents’ conversations about sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 689–721. Anyon, Y., Kennedy, H., Durbahn, R., & Jenson, J.  M. (2018). Youth-led participatory action research: promoting youth voice and adult support in afterschool programs. Afterschool Matters, 27, 10–18. Aquilino, W. (1999). Two views of one relationship: Comparing parents’ and young adult children’s reports of the quality of intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 858–870. Ashbourne, L. M. (2009). Reconceptualizing parent-adolescent relationships: A dialogic model. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 211–222.

222

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

Ashbourne, L. M., & Daly, K. J. (2010). Parents and adolescents making time choices: Choosing a relationship. Journal of Family Issues., 31(11), 1419–1441. Ball, A., & Wiley, A. (2005). The aspirations of farm parents and pre-adolescent children for generational succession of the family farm. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46, 36–46. Barrera, M., Prelow, H. M., Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Knight, G. P., Michaels, M. L., et al. (2002). Pathways from family economic conditions to adolescents’ distress: Supportive parenting, stressors outside the family, and deviant peers. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 135–152. Bartle-Haring, S. E., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1996). Multiple views on family data: The sample case of adolescent, maternal, and paternal perspectives on family differentiation levels. Family Process, 35, 457–472. Bartle-Haring, S.  E., Kenny, D.  A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (1999). Multiple perspectives on family differentiation: Analyses by multitrait multimethod matrix and triadic social relations models. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 491–503. Baumrind, D. (1995). Commentary on sexual orientation: Research and social policy implications. Developmental Psychology, 31, 130–136. Beckmann, L. (2020). Family relationships as risks and buffers in the link between parent-to-­ child physical violence and adolescent-to-parent physical violence. Journal of Family Violence, 35(2), 131–141. Bell, L. G., Meyer, J., Rehal, D., Swope, C., Martin, D. R., & Lakhani, A. (2007). Connection and individuation as separate and independent processes: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 18, 43–59. Bhana, A., Kreniske, P., Pather, A., Abas, M. A., & Mellins, C. A. (2021). Interventions to address the mental health of adolescents and young adults living with or affected by HIV: State of the evidence. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 24, e25713. Bickman, L., Heflinger, C.  A., Northrup, D., Sonnichsen, S., & Schilling, S. (1998). Longterm outcomes to family caregiver empowerment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7, 269–282. Bocknek, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. A. (2009). Ambiguous loss and posttraumatic stress in school-age children of prisoners. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 323–333. Bogenschneider, K., & Pallock, L. (2008). Responsiveness in parent-adolescent relationships: Are influences conditional? Does the reporter matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1015–1029. Bonomi, A. E., & Kelleher, K. J. (2007). Dating violence, sexual assault and suicide attempts in urban adolescents: Ending the silence. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 609–610. Bortz, P., Berrigan, M., VanBergen, A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (2019). Family systems thinking as a guide for theory integration: Conceptual overlaps of differentiation, attachment, parenting style, and identity development in families with adolescents. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(4), 544–560. Bowling, S. W., Kearney, L. K., Lumadue, C. A., & St. Germain, N. R. (2002). Considering justice: An exploratory study of family therapy with adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 213–223. Branje, S. (2022). Adolescent identity development in context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45(1–6), 101286. Brown, S. L., & Manning, W. D. (2009). Family boundary ambiguity and the measurement of family structure: The significance of cohabitation. Demography, 46, 85–101. Brymer, M. J., Hansel, T., Steinberg, A. M., Speier, A., Osofsky, J., & Osofsky, H. (2019). The Louisiana spirit hurricane recovery program: addressing the needs of children and adolescents after catastrophic hurricanes. Journal of Family Strengths, 19(1), 1. Buist, K. L., Dekovic, M., Meeus, M. H., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2004). Attachment in adolescence: A social relations model analysis. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 826–850. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). NLSY26: Context and objectives. https://www.bls.gov/nls/ nlsy26-­context-­and-­objectives.htm

References

223

Catalpa, J. M., & McGuire, J. K. (2018). Family boundary ambiguity among transgender youth. Family Relations, 67(1), 88–103. Chawla, N., & Solinas-Saunders, M. (2011). Supporting military parent and child adjustment to deployments and separations with filial therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 39(3), 179–192. Chen, E., Hayen, R., Le, V., Austin, M. K., Shalowitz, M. U., Story, R. E., & Miller, G. E. (2019). Neighborhood social conditions, family relationships, and childhood asthma. Pediatrics, 144(2), e20183300. Chinman, M. J., & Linney, J. A. (1998). Toward a model of adolescent empowerment: Theoretical and empirical evidence. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 393–413. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 685–704. Constante, K., Cross, F. L., Medina, M., & Rivas-Drake, D. (2020). Ethnic socialization, family cohesion, and ethnic identity development over time among Latinx adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 895–906. Cook, L. S. (2001a). Adolescent addiction and delinquency in the family system. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 22, 151–157. Cook, W. L. (2001b). Interpersonal influence in family systems: A Social Relations Model analysis. Child Development, 72, 1179–1197. Cook, W. L. (2005). The SRM approach to family assessment: An introduction and case example. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 216–225. Cooksey, E. C. (2018). Using the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth (NLSY) to conduct life course analyses. Handbook of Life Course Health Development, 561–577. Cottrell, B., & Monk, P. (2004). Adolescent-to-parent abuse: A qualitative overview of common themes. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1072–1095. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 4, 243–267. Crosswhite, J. M., & Kerpelman, J. (2009a). Coercion theory, self-control, and social information processing: Understanding potential mediators for how parents influence deviant behaviors. Deviant Behaviors, 30, 611–646. Crosswhite, J. M., & Kerpelman, J. (2009b). Critiquing the general theory of crime’s empirical evidence: Does the evidence support the theory? Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 146–163. Crosswhite, J. M., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2012). Parenting and children's self-control: Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Deviant Behavior, 33(9), 715–737. Cunningham, P. B., Henggeler, S. W., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (1999). Testing underlying assumptions of the family empowerment perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 437–449. Dadds, M. R. (1995). Families, children, and the development of dysfunction. Sage. Davey, M., Gulish, L., Askew, J., Godette, K., & Childs, N. (2005). Adolescents coping with mom’s breast cancer: Developing family intervention programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 247–258. Delmonico, D. L., & Griffin, E. J. (2008). Cybersex and the e-teen: What marriage and family therapists should know. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 431–444. Dembo, R., Ramirez-Garnica, G., Rollie, M., Schmeidler, J., Livingston, S., & Hartsfield, A. (2000a). Youth recidivism 12 months after a family empowerment intervention: Final report. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 29–65. Dembo, R., Seeberger, W., Shemwell, M., Schmeidler, J., Klein, L., Rollie, M., et  al. (2000b). Psychosocial functioning among juvenile offenders 12 months after family empowerment intervention. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32, 1–56. Dembo, R., Schmeidler, J., & Wotke, W. (2003). Impact of a family empowerment intervention on delinquent behavior: A latent growth model analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37, 17–41.

224

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

Du, X., & Kim, Y. K. (2021). Direct and indirect associations between family residential mobility, parent functioning, and adolescent behavioral health. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(12), 3055–3069. Eichelsheim, V. I., Dekovic, M., Buist, K. L., & Cook, W. L. (2009). The social relations model in family studies: A systematic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1052–1069. Elder, G. H., Jr., King, V., & Conger, R. D. (1996). Attachment to place and migration prospects: A developmental perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 397–425. Faulkner, R. A., & Davey, M. (2002). Children and adolescents of cancer patients: The impact of cancer on the family. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 63–72. Fialkowski, A., Shaffer, K., Ball-Burack, M., Brooks, T. L., Trinh, N. H. T., Potter, J. E., & Peeler, K. R. (2022). Trauma-informed care for hospitalized adolescents. Current Pediatrics Reports, 10(2), 45–54. Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Williams-Wheeler, M. (2004). Parental influences on adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and Kerr. Child Development, 75, 781–796. Freeman, T. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2005, January 12). Changes in mastery goals in urban and rural middle school students. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(1). Retrieved May 23, 2010, from http://www.umaine.edu/jrre/20-­1.pdf Fulkerson, J. A., Strauss, J., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Boutelle, K. (2007). Correlates of psychosocial well-being among overweight adolescents: The role of the family. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 181–186. Gangamma, R., Slesnick, N., Toviessi, P., & Serovich, J. (2008). Comparison of HIV risks among gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual homeless youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 456–464. Gentles-Gibbs, N., & Zema, J. (2020). It’s not about them without them: Kinship grandparents’ perspectives on family empowerment in public child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104650. German, M., Gonzales, N. A., Bonds, D. D., Dumka, L. E., & Millsap, R. E. (2009). Familism values as a protective factor for Mexican-origin adolescents exposed to deviant peers. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 16–42. Gershon, T. D., Tschann, J. M., & Jemerin, J. M. (1999). Stigmatization, self-esteem, and coping among the adolescent children of lesbian mothers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 437–445. Gewirtz, A.  H. (2007). Promoting children’s mental health in family supportive housing: A community-­university partnership for formerly homeless children and families. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(3–4), 359–374. Ghazarian, S.  R., Supple, A.  J., & Plunkett, S.  W. (2008). Familism as a predictor of parent-­ adolescent relationships and developmental outcomes for adolescents in Armenian American families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 599–613. Gonzales-Backen, M. A., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2011). Examining the role of physical appearance in Latino adolescents' ethnic identity. Journal of adolescence, 34(1), 151–162. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Gowdy, G., Fruiht, V., Tadese, H., & Rivera, M. (2023). One of these things is not like the other: Predictors of core and capital mentoring in adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 71(3-4), 257–273. Graves, K.  N., & Shelton, T.  L. (2007). Family empowerment as a mediator between family-­ centered systems of care and changes in child functioning: Identifying an important mechanism of change. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 556–566. Gullotta, T. P., Plant, R. W., & Evans, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of adolescent behavioral problems: Evidence-based approaches to prevention and treatment. Springer. Hage, S. M., & Kenny, M. E. (2009). Promoting a social justice approach to prevention: Future directions for training, practice, and research. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 75–87. Hardy, S. A., Nelson, J. M., Moore, J. P., & King, P. E. (2019). Processes of religious and spiritual influence in adolescence: A systematic review of 30 years of research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(2), 254–275.

References

225

He, M., Cabrera, N., Renteria, J., Chen, Y., Alonso, A., McDorman, S. A., et al. (2021). Family functioning in the time of COVID-19 among economically vulnerable families: Risks and protective factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 730447. Heerde, J. A., Bailey, J. A., Toumbourou, J. W., Rowland, B., & Catalano, R. F. (2022). Adolescent antecedents of young adult homelessness: A cross-national path analysis. Prevention Science, 1–11. Heflinger, C.  A., Bickman, L., Northrup, D., Sonnichsen, S., & Schilling, S. (1998). A theory-­ driven intervention and evaluation to explore family caregiver empowerment. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 57, 184–191. Henry, C. S., Merten, M. J., Plunkett, S. W., & Sands, T. (2008). Neighborhood, parenting, and adolescent factors and academic achievement in Latino adolescents from immigrant families. Family Relations, 57, 579–590. Hoagwood, K. E. (2005). Family-based services in children’s mental health: A research review and synthesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 690–713. Hou, Y., Benner, A. D., Kim, S. Y., Chen, S., Spitz, S., Shi, Y., & Beretvas, T. (2020). Discordance in parents’ and adolescents’ reports of parenting: A meta-analysis and qualitative review. American Psychologist, 75(3), 329–348. Hussong, A.  M., Midgette, A.  J., Richards, A.  N., Petrie, R.  C., Coffman, J.  L., & Thomas, T. E. (2022). COVID-19 life events spill-over on family functioning and adolescent adjustment. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 42(3), 359–388. Júnior, J. G., de Amorim, L. M., Neto, M. L. R., Uchida, R. R., de Moura, A. T. M. S., & Lima, N. N. R. (2022). The impact of “the war that drags on” in Ukraine for the health of children and adolescents: Old problems in a new conflict? Child Abuse & Neglect, 128, 105602. Kalafat, J. (2004). Enabling and empowering practices of Kentucky’s school-based family resource centers: A multiple case study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 65–78. Kenny, M. E., & Hage, S. M. (2009). The next frontier: Prevention as an instrument of social justice. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 1–10. Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berrowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142–182). Academic. Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Ethnic identity and family processes among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 228–241. King, V., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1997). The legacy of grandparenting: Childhood experiences with grandparents and current involvement with grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 848–859. King, V., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998a). Education and grandparenting roles. Research on Aging, 20, 450–474. King, V., & Elder, G.  H., Jr. (1998b). Perceived self-efficacy and grandparenting. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53, 249–S257. King, V., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1997). Religious involvement among rural youth: An ecological and life course perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 431–456. Klein, A. (2022). The new version of the relationship grandparents-grandchildren as an opportunity of unprecedented bonds. Journal of Population Ageing, 15(3), 691–705. Knapp, S. J. (2009). Critical theorizing: Enhancing theoretical rigor in family research. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 133–145. Knapp, S. J., & Wurm, G. (2019). Theorizing family change: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 212–229. Koren, P. E., DeChillo, N., & Friesen, B. J. (1992). Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 305–320. Kumpfer, K.  L., & Alvarado, R. (1998). Effective family strengthening interventions. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

226

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

Landon, O., Ganong, L., & Sanner, C. (2022). “Stop going in my room”: A grounded theory study of conflict among stepsiblings. Family Relations, 71(1), 256–278. Lovato, K. (2019). Forced separations: A qualitative examination of how Latino/a adolescents cope with parental deportation. Children and Youth Services Review, 98, 42–50. Luke, A., & Carmen, L. (2018). Adolescence lost/childhood regained: On early intervention and the emergence of the techno-subject. In Critical literacy, schooling, and social justice (pp. 189–215). Routledge. Lyons, K. S., & Lee, C. S. (2020). A multilevel modeling approach to examine incongruent illness appraisals in family care dyads over time. Journal of Family Nursing, 26(3), 229–239. Lyons, K.  S., & Sayer, A.  G. (2005). Longitudinal dyad models in family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1048–1060. Magnuson, K., Alvarado, S., Bures, R., Gennetian, L., & Kalil, A. (2022). Family background and early childhood retrospectives content panel report. Accessed here: https://www.bls.gov/nls/ pdf/NLSY26_family_background.pdf Mardhiyah, A., Panduragan, S.  L., & Mediani, H.  S. (2022). Reducing psychological impacts on children with chronic disease via family empowerment: A scoping review. Healthcare, 10(10), 2034. Marsiglio, W., Hutchinson, S., & Cohan, M. (2000). Envisioning fatherhood: A social psychological perspective on young men without kids. Family Relations, 49, 133–142. Mastrotheodoros, S., Van der Graaff, J., Deković, M., Meeus, W.  H., & Branje, S.  J. (2019). Coming closer in adolescence: Convergence in mother, father, and adolescent reports of parenting. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(4), 846–862. Mathijssen, J. J. J. P., Koot, H. M., Verhulst, F. C., De Bruyn, E. E. J., & Oud, J. H. L. (1997). Family functioning and child psychopathology: Individual versus composite family scores. Family Relations, 46, 247–255. McCammon, S.  L., Spencer, S.  A., & Friesen, B.  J. (2018). Promoting family empowerment through multiple roles. In D. A. Dosser, D. Handron, S. McCammon, & J. Y. Powell (Eds.), Child mental health: Exploring systems of care in the new millennium (pp. 1–24). Routledge. McDowell, T., & Shelton, D. (2002). Valuing social justice in MFT curriculum. Contemporary Family Therapy, 24, 313–331. McGoldrick, M., Almeida, R., Preto, N. G., Bibb, A., Sutton, C. E., Hudak, J., et al. (1999). Efforts to incorporate social justice perspectives into a family therapy training program. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 191–209. Mendez, L., & Kerig, P. K. (2023). Gang membership among adolescents from distinct racial and ethnic backgrounds: The roles of neighborhood conditions and victimization. Journal of interpersonal violence, 38(11-12), 7556–7577. Milardo, R. M. (2009). Editorial: Following a sociological imagination. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 1–3. Milardo, R.  M. (2010). From the editor: Auguries of year two. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 1–3. Mullis, R. L., Brailsford, J. C., & Mullis, A. K. (2003). Relations between identity formation and family characteristics among young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 966–980. Mullis, A. K., Mullis, R. L., Schwartz, S. J., Pease, J. L., & Shriner, M. (2007). Relations among parental divorce, identity status, and coping strategies of college age women. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7, 137–154. Mullis, R. L., Graf, S. C., & Mullis, A. K. (2009). Parental relationships, autonomy, and identity processes of high school students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170, 326–338. Naar-King, S., Podolski, C. L., Ellis, D. A., Frey, M. A., & Templin, T. (2006). Social ecological model of illness management in high-risk youths with Type 1 diabetes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 785–789. O’Sullivan, L. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., & Watkins, B. X. (2001). Mother-daughter communication about sex Among urban African American and Latino families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 269–292.

References

227

Ohannessian, C. M., Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & von Eye, A. (2000). Adolescent-parent discrepancies in perceptions of family functioning and early adolescent self-competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 362–372. Olson, R., & Metzger, A. (2019). Disaggregating behavioral and psychological components of religious and spiritual development across adolescence: Variations by geographic location. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(1), 1–8. Pallock, L., & Lamborn, S. (2006). Beyond parenting practices: Extended kinship support and the academic adjustment of African American and European American teens. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 813–828. Pallone, L.  C., Dembo, R., & Schmeidler, R.  J. (2014). Family empowerment intervention: An innovative service for high-risk youths and their families. Routledge. Parra-Cardona, J. R., Sharp, E. A., & Wampler, R. S. (2008). “Changing for my kid”: Fatherhood experiences of Mexican-origin teen fathers involved in the justice system. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 369–387. Perkins, D.  D., & Zimmerman, M.  A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 569–579. Phares, V. (1999). “Poppa” psychology: The role of fathers in children’s mental well-being. Praeger. Phillips, S. P., Reipas, K., & Zelek, B. (2019). Stresses, strengths and resilience in adolescents: A qualitative study. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 40(6), 631–642. Prioste, A., Tavares, P., Silva, C.  S., & Magalhães, E. (2020). The relationship between family climate and identity development processes: The moderating role of developmental stages and outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(6), 1525–1536. Pylyser, C., Loncke, J., Loeys, T., De Mol, J., & Buysse, A. (2020). Perceived mattering in stepfamilies: A social relations model analysis. Personal Relationships, 27(2), 366–384. Qin, D.  B. (2008). Doing well vs. feeling well: Understanding family dynamics and the psychological adjustment of Chinese immigrant adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 22–35. Raley, R.  K., & Sweeney, M.  M. (2020). Divorce, repartnering, and stepfamilies: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 81–99. Regnerus, M. (2012). How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research, 41(4), 752–770. Resendez, M. G., Quist, R. M., & Matshazi, D. G. M. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of family empowerment and client outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 449–460. Richardson, R. A. (2004). Early adolescence talking points: Questions that middle school students want to ask their parents. Family Relations, 53, 87–94. Rivas-Koehl, M., Valido, A., Espelage, D.  L., & Lawrence, T.  I. (2023). Adults and family as supportive of adolescent sexual development in the age of smartphones? Exploring cybersexual violence victimization, pornography use, and risky sexual behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1–13. Advance publication https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02618-2 Roche, K.  M., & Leventhal, T. (2009). Beyond neighborhood poverty: Family management, neighborhood disorder, and adolescents’ early sexual onset. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 819–827. Roche, K. M., Ensminger, M. E., & Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Variations in parenting and adolescent outcomes among African American and Latino families living in low-income, urban areas. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 882–909. Rowe, C. L., & Liddle, H. A. (2008). When the levee breaks: Treating adolescents and families in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 132–148. Sabatelli, R. M., & Bartle, S. E. (1995). Survey approaches to the assessment of family functioning: Conceptual, operational, and analytical issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1025–1039.

228

13  Outlook on Theoretical, Research, and Application Efforts to Date

Saltzburg, S. (2007). Narrative therapy pathways for re-authoring with parents of adolescents coming-­out as lesbian, gay, and bisexual. Contemporary Family Therapy, 29, 57–69. Scheer, S.  D., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (2009). A qualitative examination of a state-wide initiative to empower families containing children and adolescents with behavioral health care needs. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 370–377. Selkie, E., Adkins, V., Masters, E., Bajpai, A., & Shumer, D. (2020). Transgender adolescents’ uses of social media for social support. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(3), 275–280. Shah, S., Choi, M., Miller, M., Halgunseth, L. C., van Schaik, S. D., & Brenick, A. (2021). Family cohesion and school belongingness: Protective factors for immigrant youth against bias-based bullying. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2021(177), 199–217. Shanholtz, C.  E., O'Hara, K.  L., Duchschere, J.  E., Beck, C.  J., & Lawrence, E. (2020). Understanding the perception of stakeholders in reducing adolescent-to-parent violence/ aggression. Journal of Adolescence, 80, 264–274. Shankleman, M., Hammond, L., & Jones, F. W. (2021). Adolescent social media use and well-­ being: A systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis. Adolescent Research Review, 6, 471–492. Sheridan, M., Peterson, B. D., & Rosen, K. H. (2010). The experiences of parents of adolescents in family therapy: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(2), 144–157. Singh, N.  N., Curtis, W.  J., Cohen, R., Ellis, C.  R., Best, A.  M., & Wechsler, H.  A. (1997). Empowerment status and families whose children have serious emotional disturbance and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5, 223–229. Skelton, J. A., Van Fossen, C., Harry, O., & Pratt, K. J. (2020). Family dynamics and pediatric weight management: putting the family into family-based treatment. Current Obesity Reports, 9(4), 424–441. Skinner, O.  D., & McHale, S.  M. (2022). Context matters: Longitudinal associations between marital relationships and sibling relationships in Black families. Family Relations, 71(3), 987–1003. Small, S.  A., & Huser, M. (2011). Family-based prevention programs. Encyclopedia of Adolescence. Springer. Small, S. A., Cooney, S., & O’Connor, C. (2009). Evidence-based program improvement: Using principles of effectiveness to enhance the quality and impact of youth and family-based prevention programs. Family Relation, 58, 1–13. SmithBattle, L., Phengnum, W., Shagavah, A.  W., & Okawa, S. (2019). Fathering on tenuous ground: A qualitative meta-synthesis on teen fathering. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 44(4), 186–194. Son, D., Updegraff, K. A., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2022). Familism values and Mexican-origin adolescents’ disclosure and secrecy with fathers and mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(8), 1296–1305. South, S. J., Haynie, D. L., & Bose, S. (2005). Residential mobility and the onset of adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 499–514. Starkman, H., Fisher, K., Pilek, N.  L., Lopez-Henriquez, G., Lynch, L., & Bilkins-Morgis, B. L. (2019). Listening to adolescents with uncontrolled diabetes, their parents and medical team. Families, Systems, & Health, 37(1), 30–37. Stein, G. L., Cavanaugh, A. M., Castro-Schilo, L., Mejia, Y., & Plunkett, S. W. (2019). Making my family proud: The unique contribution of familism pride to the psychological adjustment of Latinx emerging adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(2), 188–198. Stokes, C.  E. (2008). The role of parental religiosity in high school completion. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 531–555. Stokes, C. E., & Regnerus, M. D. (2009). When faith divides family: Religious discord and adolescent reports of parent-child relations. Social Science Research, 38, 155–167.

References

229

Taft, C. T., Schumm, J. A., Panuzio, J., & Proctor, S. P. (2008). An examination of family adjustment among Operation Desert Storm veterans. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 648–656. Tillman, K. H. (2008a). Co-resident sibling composition and the academic ability, expectations, and performance of youth. Sociological Perspectives, 51, 679–712. Tillman, K. H. (2008b). Non-traditional siblings and the academic outcomes of adolescents. Social Science Research, 37, 88–108. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Guimond, A. (2010). A longitudinal examination of parenting behaviors and perceived discrimination predicting Latino adolescents’ ethnic identity. Developmental Psychology, 46, 636–650. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Updegraff, K. A., & Gonzales-Backen, M. A. (2011). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 140–157. Ungar, M. (2004). The importance of parents and other caregivers to the resilience of high-risk adolescents. Family Process, 43, 23–41. Upchurch, D. M., Aneshensel, C. S., Sucoff, C. A., & Levy-Storms, L. (1999). Neighborhood and family contexts of adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 920–933. Updegraff, K.  A., McHale, S.  M., Whiteman, S.  D., Thayer, S.  M., & Delgado, M.  Y. (2005). Adolescents’ sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 512–522. Usonwu, I., Ahmad, R., & Curtis-Tyler, K. (2021). Parent–adolescent communication on adolescent sexual and reproductive health in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative review and thematic synthesis. Reproductive Health, 18(1), 1–15. Van Hook, J., & Glick, J.  E. (2020). Spanning borders, cultures, and generations: A decade of research on immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 224–243. Vicary, J. R., Snyder, A. R., & Henry, K. L. (2000). The effects of family variables and personal competencies on the initiation of alcohol use by rural seventh grade students. Adolescent and Family Health, 1, 21–28. Wagaman, M. A. (2011). Social empathy as a framework for adolescent empowerment. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(3), 278–293. Waid, J., & Kelly, M. (2020). Supporting family engagement with child and adolescent mental health services: A scoping review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 28(5), 1333–1342. Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development, 75, 1886–1898. Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. M. (2007). Sibling outcomes and disparate parenting and stepparenting after divorce: Report from a 25 year longitudinal study. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 24, 445–458. Way, N., & Gillman, D. A. (2000). Early adolescent girls’ perceptions of their relationships with their fathers: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 309–331. White, J. M. (2005). Advancing family theories. Sage. Whiteman, S. D., & Loken, E. (2006). Comparing analytic techniques to classify dyadic relationships: An example using siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1370–1382. Wiley, A. R., Bogg, T., & Ho, M. R. (2005). The influence of parental socialization factors on family farming plans of preadolescent children: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20, from http://www.umaine.edu/jrre/20-­11.htm Wilkinson, D. L., Magora, A., Garcia, M., & Khurana, A. (2009). Fathering from the margins of society. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 945–967. Wood, B. L., Lim, J., Miller, B. D., Cheah, P., Zwetch, T., Ramesh, S., et al. (2008). Testing the biobehavioral family model in pediatric asthma: Pathways of effect. Family Process, 47, 21–40.

Chapter 14

The Need to Integrate Theory, Research, and Application Efforts

Abstract  The knowledge base created about families with adolescents over the past 15 years has been organized in this book as three separate parts according to work done on theory, research, and application topics, respectively. At the same time, the natural overlap of these theoretical, empirical, and application literatures was discussed wherever possible. This chapter makes the case for more systematic attempts to highlight the interconnectedness of these oft-separated scholarly works. Harkening back over three decades ago in the family literature, David Olson’s “triple threat” model for bridging theory, research, and application efforts is brought forward for consideration by scholars who think about, observe, and work with families with adolescents. This chapter begins by briefly reviewing some of the key points made in this earlier work and is followed by a discussion of some of the key factors that have served as barriers to the unification of these academic activities. This is followed by some concluding thoughts as to why the “triple threat” model is both applicable and advantageous to those scholars who study families with adolescents. If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story. Orson Welles Emily, Gordon, and Pat started graduate school at the same time two years ago and had taken all of the same classes together during their first year of coursework. During their second year, however, each of these students had elected to take very different paths in pursuit of their individual interests. Emily had loaded up on every theory-based class that she could take throughout the university, whereas Gordon spent most of his second year sitting in research methods and statistics classes. Pat was enrolled in the clinical scholar track, so she had started her internship in the program’s family clinic on campus at the same time that she had sat through a series of therapy technique courses. These three budding scholars all ran into each other in the local coffee shop just prior to the start of classes for the year. Now entering their third year of graduate work, these students had a bit more flexibility in the scheduling of classes. Much to their mutual delight, they discovered that they all had decided to take the same class on families with adolescents. “I can’t wait to hear what Professor Intégrez is going to talk about in terms of doing therapy with adolescents and their families,” Pat exclaimed. “I have been working with so many families with teenagers this past year, and honestly I think they are my hardest cases.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5_14

231

232

14  The Need to Integrate Theory, Research, and Application Efforts

There are just so many problems going on in those families. Funny enough, though, I think that I have helped out most when we have spent more time identifying their family’s strengths instead of talking about their problems.” “My understanding is that the class is going to start with theory, Pat, so you’re going to have to be patient,” noted Gordon. “Besides, I bet the best part of the class is going to be the section on research. Professor Intégrez may be trained as a family therapist, but his track record as a researcher is pretty impressive. I hope he spends a lot of time talking about structural equation modeling techniques and multiple family member perspectives.” “Ugggh. Both of you are going to have to chill out a bit,” Emily said. “And Gordon, you’re right, Professor Intégrez is going to start out with theory, which is exactly where any class should start anyway. You guys can’t do good research or clinical practice without a sound theoretical grounding, right?” “Yeah, but come on, how much theory did you read in the last journal article you read?” asked Gordon. “And I sure don’t see a lot of theory in Professor Intégrez’s publications.” Emily countered, “That’s because you’re only reading his research articles.” “It’s not his fault that journal editors keeping reducing the amount of space dedicated to theory.” “Well, it will be interesting to see how all of this is handled in class,” Pat said. “The only reason I took this course was because I thought that Professor Intégrez would be able to keep us talking about the practical implications of all this theory and research stuff you both are so hopped up about.”

14.1 The Beginning of the End The last vignette in this book features students who are engaged in a dialogue that surrounded issues related to creating linkages between ideas, data, and application. Actual students (and professionals who train those students, for that matter) may recognize certain features of this hypothetical conversation in their own educational experiences. How many readers can relate most to Emily, or Gordon, or Pat? And how many more can relate to what Professor Intégrez might be up to in terms of designing a course that would cover the theory, research, and application literature on families with adolescents? Your author had exactly these types of students and educators in mind when the goals and objectives of the present text were formulated. Overall, this book set out to cover the knowledge base that has been created about families with adolescents by organizing the literature according to work done (especially over the last 25 years) within the realms of theory, research, and application topics. It is anticipated that even a casual glance at the breadth and depth of material generated over the past quarter century would create a rather stunning portrait of our knowledge base about these families. Hopefully, after reading through all three major parts of this book it becomes even more clear that the field has developed a substantial knowledge base about families with adolescents as a result of the distinct activities within these three areas. At the same time, it should be noted that this book also promised to cover the “natural overlap” between the theoretical, empirical, and application parts wherever possible. To a reasonable extent, this objective was achieved. Readers will observe that a significant portion of the empirical studies covered in the research portion of

14.2  Original Thoughts about the Need for a “Triple Threat” Model

233

this book were designated as having been based on specific theoretical approaches, for instance. Also, the majority of prevention and intervention efforts reviewed in the application part were attached to some sort of theoretical framework. That being the case, the family field in general, and certainly the literature concerning families with adolescents more specifically, still has ways to go in terms of making clear, consistent, and simultaneous connections between theory, research, and application. Is it meaningful (much less realistic) to imagine a family field that makes these linkages in a coherent and dependable manner? The answer to that question, stemming back at least four decades ago in the family literature, is decidedly in the affirmative. The roots of this type of effort were set down over three decades ago in the family literature. Most notably, Olson (1976) wrote about the “triple threat” of bridging theory, research, and application efforts as something to which all family-based professionals were supposed to aspire. Similar sentiments also were expressed by Sprenkle (1976) in that same year and have been echoed in the 1980s (Volk, 1989), in the 1990s (Lavee & Dollahite, 1991), and in the years since (Hawley & Gonzalez, 2005; Karem & Sprenkle, 2010; Kaslow & Hammerschmidt, 2014; McWey et al., 2002). These final thoughts begin by briefly reviewing some of the key points made in these earlier contributions. Next, some of the key factors that have served as barriers to the unification of these academic activities are discussed. This is followed by some concluding thoughts as to why the “triple threat” is both applicable and advantageous to those scholars who study families with adolescents.

14.2 Original Thoughts about the Need for a “Triple Threat” Model Stressing the importance of making connections between theory, research, and application efforts can seem almost axiomatic, at least on the surface. The present state of the literature, however, hardly makes for any sort of “Manifest Destiny” regarding the comprehensive integration of these scholarly activities. So it might well be asked: Are these potential connections mutually advantageous to theorists, researchers, and practitioners? Olson (1976) wrote as if the answer to that question was an unqualified affirmative response, delineating the favorable contributions that each linkage rendered. Highlights of these benefits for practitioners (mainly therapists in this article, as this was a chapter in a clinically oriented book that he edited) included the assertion that greater connectedness to researchers would foster the formulation of more precise operational definitions regarding therapeutic concepts, dimensions, and goals. Also, researchers were thought to be in a trustworthy position to supply practitioners with enhanced tools for both the initial assessment of family functioning and the measurement of change (especially in terms of treatment impact), as well as providing

234

14  The Need to Integrate Theory, Research, and Application Efforts

a platform for comparing family-based issues as they manifest themselves inside both clinical and nonclinical samples. Reciprocally, Olson (1976) noted that researchers were thought to benefit from practitioners by gaining access to actual families involved in therapeutic interventions. Here, the ability to have contact with families dealing with authentic life situations and events were seen as having the potential to stimulate new and more complex hypotheses about how family dynamics play out in actual practice. In related fashion, researchers who were gathering data in the real-life settings provided by practitioners were thought to have a huge advantage in terms of establishing increased validity claims about their empirical assertions. All of this connects well to various calls that have been made to get beyond the sterile confines of therapeutic efficacy studies conducted in controlled research laboratories and out into the real-world studies of therapeutic effectiveness (D'Aniello & Fife, 2020; Pinsof & Wynne, 2000). In the most classic sense, the documentation of therapeutic efficacy revolves around the impact that a family-based treatment would have within a highly controlled setting such as a university research lab or hospital setting. And “controlled” is the operative word here, in that the main purpose of such research is to regulate and restrict any and all variation in outcomes due to influences beyond the treatment model itself. In contrast, the documentation of therapeutic effectiveness involves the use of that same family-based treatment in an actual clinic or other location where families typically receive such services. The purpose of this type of research is much different, in that one of its main objectives surrounds the gathering of information about how well a given family-based treatment model works under “normal circumstances.” It is overly simplistic and philosophically divisive to portray efficacy and effectiveness studies as dichotomous approaches to clinically based research, however. Instead, the documentation of efficacy and effectiveness should be seen as existing on a continuum that allows researchers and clinicians to compare and contrast findings from both “sides” of this empirical spectrum. Olson (1976) also cataloged the potential contributions of theorists to both researchers and practitioners. The theorist–researcher relationship was portrayed as the strongest of all linkages in the triple threat model, in that historically a considerable amount of attention has been given to the testing of theoretically derived hypotheses in the family field. That said, there are various accounts of how otherwise sound empirical studies in the family field often avoid mention of any sort of specific theoretical grounding (Jarrott et al., 2019; Lavee & Dollahite, 1991). The theorist–practitioner relationship, in turn, was depicted by Olson (1976) as the “weakest link” of all, although the grounded theory approach was noted as providing perhaps the best opportunity for some scholarly connectedness. In brief, the grounded theory approach sorts and interprets qualitative data in ways that help researchers to identify overarching themes or categories of participant responses (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In fact, examples of a grounded theory approach have been used to guide effective practices in work with adolescents and their families (Laird et al., 2018; Schmied & Walsh, 2010a, b). In any event, theorists are thought to offer to both researchers and practitioners the ability to condense and refine their

14.3  Key Factors that Serve as Barriers to Unification

235

knowledge base through the development of fundamental and interrelated propositions about the phenomena under study. In sum, these potential linkages all seem like “win–win” relationships here. Practitioners working with researchers could launch more rigorous comparisons and contrasts between different family therapy approaches, as well as examining potential within-group differences among clinicians working inside of a single modality of family-based treatment. Researchers working with practitioners in turn could gain access to real-world settings that would increase both the complexity and validity of their work. And theorists working with both researchers and practitioners would enhance the explanatory power of these empirical and applied efforts through an emphasis on deductive reasoning.

14.3 Key Factors that Serve as Barriers to Unification If the “triple threat” family scientist is deemed to be a constructive notion, then what is preventing such an intention from becoming fully realized? There are at least three major stumbling blocks that have arisen along the way. The first barrier to integration has been the perceptions (real or imagined) of the “split” between family researchers and family therapists. As first discussed above in the family-based interventions chapter of this book, it was noted that there has been some lessening of the divisions between family therapists and family researchers in more recent years. To this day, however, those who claim to be “researcher clinicians” (or scientist– practitioners) remain a distinct minority in the family field (Crane et al., 2002; Zak-­ Hunter et  al., 2014), despite the fact that the main regulating body of the profession  – the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) – states specifically its vested interest in promoting empirical knowledge and practice (Hoff & Distelberg, 2017; Lee & Nichols, 2010). This lack of empirical grounding among members is evidenced by the relatively low numbers of practicing clinicians who are open to collaboration with researchers (Johnson et  al., 2017; Sandberg et al., 2002), the fairly small numbers of clinical faculty engaged in publishing research (Hawley & Gonzalez, 2005; Lambert-Shute et al., 2019), and the infrequent emphasis on empirical work as a requirement of graduate training programs (Lyness, 2020; McWey et al., 2002). A second barrier to integration concerns the “ghettoization” of the family-based journals. Even a cursory examination of the three main family journals  – all of which are amply represented in the articles covered in this book – reveals a rather acute isolation of scholarly activities. The Journal of Marriage and the Family, for instance, remains most intensively focused on empirical activity in an attempt to remain the “flagship journal for family research” (Demo, 2008). While several of the articles cited in this textbook have included at least some mention of the theoretical underpinnings of the studies published in JMF, they are not representative of the majority of articles contained within this journal. As well, there is scant mention of information that would be of interest to practitioners.

236

14  The Need to Integrate Theory, Research, and Application Efforts

Family Relations, in contrast, historically has published empirical work that consistently highlights the implication of findings for practitioners. As noted in its mission statement, this journal “emphasizes family research with implications for intervention, education, and public policy.” While the theoretical foundations of certain scholarly contributions periodically are discussed in the articles published in FR, this is by no means a consistent pattern of activities. And as noted above in the theory part of this book, the launch of the Journal of Family Theory and Review was meant to fulfill the need for a publication outlet for works on theory and the methods by which theory development is advanced. A third barrier to integration, and perhaps the biggest culprit of all, is the subtle and obvious pressures that begin in graduate school to become more of a specialist and, therefore, less of a generalist. Volk (1989) railed against this tendency in his own attempt to make a call for the integration of theory, research, and application efforts, stating that “those in the applied domain (should) pursue training in advanced family research methodologies and statistical analysis … and that theorists and researchers address the practical relevance of their work in all published materials” (p.  221). This may go a long way toward helping readers to understand the first stumbling block discussed above regarding the lack of emphasis on research in the family therapy field. To wit, although this relative newcomer to the mental health service delivery system seemingly would be under pressure to generate supportive empirical evidence, many of the professionals within the field simply do not have the proper training to meet the simultaneous demands for conducting appropriately sophisticated research activities alongside the provision of high-quality clinical services. Therefore, integration (or the lack thereof) of theory, research, and application efforts has its proper beginning in graduate training programs. Presently, however, there does indeed seem to be a set of demands, perhaps even an unwritten code of conduct, which guides students and new professionals toward the adoption of a more singular area of expertise. There certainly is something to be said for that sort of specialization. At the very least, it helps to define one’s identity and clarify one’s purpose and direction in her or his scholarship. As well, specialization tracks help departments and colleges set themselves apart from one another as they market their graduate programs to interested students. And yet, to be an expert in one particular area does not automatically disqualify anyone from being conversant in other areas. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Theorists and researchers who state that they do not need each other’s wares have little or no understanding of the scientific process. And intervention-based professionals who declare that they do not need theory or data to do their work are naïve at best and downright dangerous at worst. In practice, the solution requires a “both/and” approach, where change takes place in both graduate programs and the journals. Yes, graduate programs need to do a better job by ensuring that their clinically trained students also are well trained in theory and research methods. Likewise, more theoretically and empirically driven programs also need to create opportunities for graduate students to better understand the real-world (i.e., real family) applicability of the material they are covering.

14.4  The Importance of Integration in the Study of Families with Adolescents

237

At the same time, there needs to be more material covered in the flagship family journals that integrates information about theory, research, and practice. After all, if that sort of information is present in the journals, the graduate programs undoubtedly will teach it. And finally, all of these efforts over time should naturally produce more young professionals within the field who will self-identify as scientist–practitioners.

14.4 The Importance of Integration in the Study of Families with Adolescents The “triple threat” model is ideally suited for scholars focused on families with adolescents. In large part, this model seems so relevant because the literature already contains so many excellent examples of exactly this sort of work. This is particularly true with regard to the sophisticated articles that published in the applied realm, the content that were reviewed in this book’s application part. Numerous examples of this type of work can be found in the family-based interventions chapter of this book, for instance. Here, readers were exposed to a number of application-based efforts (cf. brief strategic family therapy, functional family therapy, multidimensional family therapy, and multisystemic therapy) that retained high degrees of theoretical and empirical rigor. Hence, the scholarly efforts that surround these family-based interventions are shining examples of the triple threat model in action. In turn, the better integration of theoretical-, empirical-, and practice-based material related to families with adolescents creates an opportunity for leadership in the social sciences. Most specifically, this ability to lead would surround the fulfillment of the tripartite mission of the university system itself or at least those institutions of higher learning that operate under the land grant tradition of teaching, research, and service. This ideal borrows loosely from a vision put forward by MacKenzie (1998) to deal with crime in the twenty-first century in the same way as agricultural issues were dealt with in previous generations. By targeting scholarship on families with adolescents in a similar manner, the field could bring needed simultaneous attention to what we know theoretically about these families, the amount of scientific evidence we have accrued in support of our concepts and propositions, and how to apply all of this information in the most practical sense possible. In an era when greater accountability is being demanded of publically funded universities and its faculty members, this would seem like an ideal time to be seen as leading the way in terms of accomplishing the core missions of higher learning institutions. The logical outcome of such efforts would be reflected in a rather radically altered conversation between Emily, Gordon, and Pat, the fictional graduate students we first met at the beginning of this chapter. For starters, these students would not have “lost touch” with each other in their second year of graduate studies, in

238

14  The Need to Integrate Theory, Research, and Application Efforts

large part because they would have continued to have been enrolled in many of the same classes. Emily could remain most excited about the theoretical aspects of an upcoming class on families with adolescents, Gordon might still long for an extended empirical treatment of this area of inquiry, and Pat could continue to search for the practical application of various theoretical and research aspects of the class content. However, none of these graduate students would appear to be as disconnected from each other’s main interests to the degree that they are portrayed currently in the opening vignette. And finally, instructors such as Professor Intégrez would be the rule, not the exception. At least at some future point, professionals trained in the “triple threat” tradition would begin to take their place within academia and in so doing would forever change the face of family sciences, especially in terms of the study of families with adolescents.

14.5 Coda So these final thoughts end on the hopeful note that a book such as this, one that contains all three components – theory, research, and application – might in some way make a small but significant contribution to a more general approach to understanding and working with families with adolescents. Thus, the final thoughts we have expressed here are part of an appeal for scholars to do a better job of bringing their work together under a common umbrella. In essence, a call is being made here for all parties involved to commit to an effort that makes the different aspects of how we understand, observe, and work with families containing adolescent members more unified and seamless.

References Crane, D. R., Wampler, K. S., Sprenkle, D. H., Sandberg, J. G., & Hovestadt, A. J. (2002). The scientist-practitioner model in marriage and family therapy programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 75–83. D'Aniello, C., & Fife, S. T. (2020). A 20-year review of common factors research in marriage and family therapy: A mixed methods content analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(4), 701–718. Demo, D. H. (2008). From the editor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1–2. Hawley, D. R., & Gonzalez, C. (2005). Publication patterns of faculty in commission on accreditation for marriage and family therapy education programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 89–98. Hoff, C., & Distelberg, B. (2017). Developmental pedagogy in marriage and family therapy education: Preparing students to work across epistemologies. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3), 382–390. Jarrott, S.  E., Stremmel, A.  J., & Naar, J.  J. (2019). Practice that transforms intergenerational programs: A model of theory-and evidence informed principles. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17(4), 488–504.

References

239

Johnson, L. N., Miller, R. B., Bradford, A. B., & Anderson, S. R. (2017). The marriage and family therapy practice research network (MFT-PRN): Creating a more perfect union between practice and research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(4), 561–572. Karem, E. A., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2010). The research-informed clinician: A guide to training the next-generation MFT. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 307–319. Kaslow, F. W., & Hammerschmidt, H. (2014). Long term “good” marriages: The seemingly essential ingredients. In C. Therapy (Ed.), Multiple perspectives (pp. 15–38). Routledge. Laird, Y., Fawkner, S., & Niven, A. (2018). A grounded theory of how social support influences physical activity in adolescent girls. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 13(1), 1435099. Lambert-Shute, J. J., Nguyen, H. N., Peterson, P. W., & Pirasteh, A. B. (2019). Reflecting on the past: A content analysis of family therapy research from 2000-2015. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 45(2), 256–274. Lavee, Y., & Dollahite, D. C. (1991). The linkage between theory and research in family science. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 361–373. Lee, R. E., & Nichols, W. C. (2010). The doctoral education of professional marriage and family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 259–269. Lyness, K. P. (2020). Training and credentialing in the profession of marriage and family therapy. The Handbook of Systemic Family Therapy, 1, 555–575. MacKenzie, D. L. (1998). Using the US land-grant system as a model to attack this nation’s crime problem. The. Criminologist, 23, 1–4. Accessed July 12, 2010, from http://www.asc41.com/ March-­April%201998.htm McWey, L. M., West, S. H., Ruble, N., Handy, A. K., Handy, D. G., Koshy, M., et al. (2002). The practice of clinical research in accredited marriage and family therapy programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 85–92. Olson, D. H. L. (1976). Bridging research, theory, and application: The triple threat in science. In D. H. L. Olson (Ed.), Treating relationships (pp. 565–579). Graphic Press. Pinsof, W. M., & Wynne, L. C. (2000). Toward progress research: Closing the gap between family therapy practice and research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 1–8. Sandberg, J. G., Johnson, L. N., Robila, M., & Miller, R. B. (2002). Clinician identified barriers to clinical research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 61–67. Schmied, V., & Walsh, P. (2010a). Effective casework practice with adolescents: Perspectives of statutory child protection practitioners. Child and Family Social Work, 15, 165–175. Schmied, V., & Walsh, P. (2010b). Effective casework practice with adolescents. Perspectives of statutory child protection practitioners. Child and Family Social Work, 15, 165–175. Sprenkle, D. H. (1976). In my opinion: The need for integration among theory, research, and practice in the family field. The Family Coordinator, 25, 261–263. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage. Volk, R. J. (1989). The need for integration among theory, research, and application in family science: An update. Family Relations, 38, 220–222. Zak-Hunter, L., Berge, J., Lister, Z., Davey, M., Lynch, L., & Denton, W. (2014). Medical family therapy scientist-practitioners. In J. Hodgson, A. Lamson, T. Mendenhall, & D. Crane (Eds.), Medical family therapy: Advanced applications (pp. 219–240). Springer.

References

Abbey, A., Pilgrim, C., Hendrickson, P., & Buresh, S. (2000). Evaluation of a family-based substance abuse prevention program targeted for the middle school years. Journal of Drug Education, 30, 213–228. Ackerman, N. W. (1966). Treating the troubled family. Basic Books. Ackerman, N. J. (1980). The family with adolescents. In E. A. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 147–170). Gardner Press. Adams, R. E., & Laursen, B. (2007). The correlates of conflict: Disagreement is not necessarily determinental. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 445–458. Adamsons, K., & Russell, B. (2023). Longitudinal transmission of risk behaviors between mothers, fathers, and adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001086 Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). Creating school and community partnerships for substance abuse prevention programs. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 23, 329–369. Afifi, T. D., Joseph, A., & Aldeis, D. (2008). Why can’t we just talk about it? An observational study of parents’ and adolescents’ conversations about sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 689–721. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press. Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories. Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd ed.). Roxbury. Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 317–343. Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1999). Age, social learning, and social bonding in adolescent substance use. Deviant Behavior, 20, 1–25. Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44, 636–655. Aktan, G. B. (1999). A cultural consistency evaluation of a substance abuse prevention program with inner city African-American families. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 19, 227–239. Aldous, J. (2006). Family, ethnicity, and immigrant youths’ educational achievements. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1633–1667. Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1973). Short term behavior interventions with delinquent families: Impact on family process and recidivism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 219–225. Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1982). Functional family therapy. Brooks/Cole. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5

241

242

References

Alexander, J. F., Barton, C., Schiavo, R. S., & Parsons, B. V. (1976). Systems-behavioral intervention with families of delinquents: Therapist characteristics, family behavior, and outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 656–664. Alfaro, E. C., Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Bámaca, M. Y. (2006). The influence of interpersonal support on Latino adolescents’ academic motivation. Family Relations, 55, 279–291. Allen, B. (2016). A RADical idea: A call to eliminate “attachment disorder” and “attachment therapy” from the clinical lexicon. Evidence-Based Practice in Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 1(1), 60–71. Allen, J.  P., & Hauser, S.  T. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of young adults’ states of mind regarding attachment. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 793–809. Allen, J.  P., Philliber, S., Herrling, S., & Kuperminc, G.  P. (1997). Preventing teen pregnancy and academic failure: Experimental evaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child Development, 64, 729–742. Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406–1419. Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Kuperminc, G. P., & Jodl, K. M. (2004). Stability and change in attachment security across adolescence. Child Development, 75(6), 1792–1805. Allen, J. P., Porter, M., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., & Marsh, P. (2007). The relation of attachment security to adolescents’ paternal and peer relationships, depression, and externalizing behavior. Child Development, 78(4), 1222–1239. Allen, J. P., Chango, J., Szwedo, D., Schad, M., & Marston, E. (2012). Predictors of susceptibility to peer influence regarding substance use in adolescence. Child Development, 83(1), 337–350. Allen, J. P., Grande, L., Tan, J., & Loeb, E. (2018). Parent and peer predictors of change in attachment security from adolescence to adulthood. Child Development, 89(4), 1120–1132. Allison, B., & Schultz, J. (2004). Parent–adolescent conflict in early adolescence. Adolescence, 39, 100–119. Allnock, D., & Atkinson, R. (2019). ‘Snitches get stitches’: School-specific barriers to victim disclosure and peer reporting of sexual harm committed by young people in school contexts. Child Abuse & Neglect, 89, 7–17. Amato, P.  R., & Fowler, F. (2002). Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 703–716. Amato, P. R., King, V., & Thorsen, M. L. (2016). Parent–child relationships in stepfather families and adolescent adjustment: A latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(2), 482–497. Ambert, A. (1992). The effects of children on their parents. Haworth. Anderson, L.  A. (2019). Rethinking resilience theory in African American families: Fostering positive adaptations and transformative social justice. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(3), 385–397. Anderson, J.  R. (2020). Inviting autonomy back to the table: The importance of autonomy for healthy relationship functioning. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(1), 3–14. Anderson, S.  A., & Sabatelli, R.  M. (1990). Differentiating differentiation and individuation: Conceptual and operational challenges. American Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 32–50. Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (2006). Family interaction (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Anderson, S. A., & Sabatelli, R. M. (2010). Family interaction: A multigenerational development perspective (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Anderson, L. E., Connor, J. P., Voisey, J., Young, R. M., & Gullo, M. J. (2019). The unique role of attachment dimensions and peer drinking in adolescent alcohol use. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 118–122. Antonishak, J., Sutfin, E. L., & Reppucci, N. D. (2005). Community influence on adolescent development. In T.  P. Gullotta & G.  Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behavior problems (pp. 57–78). Springer.

References

243

Anyon, Y., Kennedy, H., Durbahn, R., & Jenson, J.  M. (2018). Youth-led participatory action research: Promoting youth voice and adult support in afterschool programs. Afterschool Matters, 27, 10–18. Aquilino, W. (1999). Two views of one relationship: Comparing parents’ and young adult children’s reports of the quality of intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 858–870. Arcia, E., Reyes-Blanes, M.  E., & Vasquez-Montilla, E. (2000). Constructions and reconstructions: Latino parents’ values for children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 333–350. Ardelt, M., & Day, L. (2002). Parents, siblings, and peers: Close social relationships and adolescent deviance. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 310–349. Arditti, J.  A. (1999). Rethinking relationships between divorced mothers and their children: Capitalizing on family strengths. Family Relations, 48, 109–120. Arnett, J.  J. (2010). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. Arnett, J. J. (2017). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (6th ed.). Pearson. Ashbourne, L. M. (2009). Reconceptualizing parent-adolescent relationships: A dialogic model. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 211–222. Ashbourne, L. M., & Daly, K. J. (2010). Parents and adolescents making time choices: Choosing a relationship. Journal of Family Issues, 31(11), 1419–1441. Assunção, R. S., Costa, P., Tagliabue, S., & Mena Matos, P. (2017). Problematic Facebook use in adolescents: Associations with parental attachment and alienation to peers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(11), 2990–2998. Åström, T., Bergström, M., Håkansson, K., Jonsson, A. K., Munthe, C., Wirtberg, I., et al. (2020). Treatment foster care Oregon for delinquent adolescents: A systematic review and meta-­ analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 30(4), 355–367. Attila, F.  L., Owusu, F., Agyei-Sarpong, K., & Donkoh, H. (2023). Socio-cultural and psycho-­ theoretical perspectives of adolescence and sex education. Mediterranean Journal of Social & Behavioral Research, 7(1), 1–7. Auersperg, F., Vlasak, T., Ponocny, I., & Barth, A. (2019). Long-term effects of parental divorce on mental health–A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 119, 107–115. Aziz, N., Ong, Z. Y., Tham, P. W., Rahman, M. N. B. A., & Motevalli, S. (2022). The impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on the psychosocial development and mental health wellbeing of children and adolescents. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(4), 243–261. Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69, 140–153. Bahr, S. J., Maughan, S. L., Marcos, A. C., & Li, B. (1998). Family, religiosity, and the risk of adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 979–992. Baldry, A. C., Sorrentino, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Cyberbullying and cybervictimization versus parental supervision, monitoring and control of adolescents’ online activities. Children and Youth Services Review, 96, 302–307. Ball, A., & Wiley, A. (2005). The aspirations of farm parents and pre-adolescent children for generational succession of the family farm. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46, 36–46. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Bank, L., Burraston, B., & Snyder, J. (2004). Sibling conflict and ineffective parenting as predictors of adolescent boys’ antisocial behavior and peer difficulties: Additive and interactional effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(1), 99–125.

244

References

Bao, W. N., Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Perceived parental acceptance as a moderator of religious transmission among adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 362–374. Baptist, J., & Hamon, R. R. (2022). Family systems theory. In Sourcebook of family theories and methodologies: A dynamic approach (pp. 209–226). Springer. Barber, B.  K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319. Barber, B. K. (1997). Adolescent socialization in context: The role of connection, regulation, and autonomy in the family. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5–11. Barber, B. K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 433–441. Barber, B.  K., & Xia, M. (2013). The centrality of control to parenting and its effects. In R. Larzelere, A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development (pp.  61–87). American Psychological Association. Baril, M. E., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2007). Processes linking adolescent well-being, marital love, and coparenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 645–654. Barnes, G. M., Reifman, A. S., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2000). The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: A six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 175–186. Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2006). Effects of parental monitoring and peer deviance on substance use and delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1084–1104. Barrera, M., Prelow, H. M., Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Knight, G. P., Michaels, M. L., et al. (2002). Pathways from family economic conditions to adolescents’ distress: Supportive parenting, stressors outside the family, and deviant peers. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 135–152. Bartle-Haring, S. E., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1996). Multiple views on family data: The sample case of adolescent, maternal, and paternal perspectives on family differentiation levels. Family Process, 35, 457–472. Bartle-Haring, S.  E., Kenny, D.  A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (1999). Multiple perspectives on family differentiation: Analyses by multitrait multimethod matrix and triadic social relations models. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 491–503. Barton, C., Alexander, J.  F., Waldron, H., Turner, C.  W., & Warburton, J. (1985). Generalizing treatment effects of functional family therapy: Three replications. American Journal of Family Therapy, 13, 16–26. Barton, A. W., Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Kogan, S. M., Chen, E., & Ehrlich, K. B. (2019). The profundity of the everyday: Family routines in adolescence predict development in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(3), 340–346. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parent disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239–276. Baumrind, D. (1995). Commentary on sexual orientation: Research and social policy implications. Developmental Psychology, 31, 130–136. Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2005(108), 61–69. Bean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., & Wilson, S. M. (2003). The impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 523–541. Bean, R. A., Barber, B. K., & Crane, D. R. (2006). Parent support, behavioral control, and psychological control among African American youth: The relationships to academic grade, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1335–1355.

References

245

Becker, K. D., & Chorpita, B. F. (2023). Future directions in youth and family treatment engagement: finishing the bridge between science and service. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 52(2), 284–309. Beckmann, L. (2020). Family relationships as risks and buffers in the link between parent-to-­ child physical violence and adolescent-to-parent physical violence. Journal of Family Violence, 35(2), 131–141. Beijersberen, M. D., Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2012). Remaining or becoming secure: Parental sensitive support predicts attachment continuity from infancy to adolescence in a longitudinal adoption study. Developmental Psychology, 48(5), 1277–1282. Bell, D. C. (2009). Attachment without fear. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 177–197. Bell, D.  C. (2012). Next steps in attachment theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(4), 275–281. Bell, L. G., Bell, D. C., & Nakata, Y. (2001). Triangulation and adolescent development in the US and Japan. Family Process, 40, 173–186. Bell, L. G., Meyer, J., Rehal, D., Swope, C., Martin, D. R., & Lakhani, A. (2007). Connection and individuation as separate and independent processes: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 18, 43–59. Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental Psychology, 17, 3–23. Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (1997). Religion and delinquency: The relationship after considering family and peer influences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 81–92. Bengston, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 469–499). Plenum. Bengston, V.  L., Acock, A.  C., Allen, K.  R., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Klein, D.  M. (2005). Sourcebook of family theory and research. Sage. Benson, M. J. (2005). Parent-adolescent relationships: Integrating attachment and Bowenian family systems theories. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 382–385). Sage. Berg, M.  T., & Mulford, C.  F. (2020). Reappraising and redirecting research on the victim– Offender overlap. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(1), 16–30. Berg, N., Kiviruusu, O., Bean, C. G., Huurre, T., Lintonen, T., & Hammarström, A. (2018). Social relationships in adolescence and heavy episodic drinking from youth to midlife in Finland and Sweden – Examining the role of individual, contextual and temporal factors. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–12. Bhana, A., Kreniske, P., Pather, A., Abas, M. A., & Mellins, C. A. (2021). Interventions to address the mental health of adolescents and young adults living with or affected by HIV: State of the evidence. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 24, e25713. Bianchi, S. M., & Casper, L. M. (2005). Explanations of family change: A family demographic perspective. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 93–103). Sage. Bickman, L., Heflinger, C.  A., Northrup, D., Sonnichsen, S., & Schilling, S. (1998). Longterm outcomes to family caregiver empowerment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7, 269–282. Bloom, M. (2000). Twenty years of the Journal of Primary Prevention: A collage. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 189–255. Blume, L. B. (2009). Books still matter: A note from the book review editor. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 54–55. Blumenkrantz, D. G., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1993). Guiding transitional events for children and adolescents through a modern day rite of passage. Journal of Primary Prevention, 13, 199–212. Bocknek, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. A. (2009). Ambiguous loss and posttraumatic stress in school-age children of prisoners. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 323–333.

246

References

Bodman, D. A., Van Vleet, B. B., & Day, R. D. (2022). Introduction to family processes: Diverse families, common ties. Routledge. Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory for building prevention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family Relations, 45, 127–138. Bogenschneider, K., & Pallock, L. (2008). Responsiveness in parent-adolescent relationships: Are influences conditional? Does the reporter matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1015–1029. Bogenschneider, K., Small, S. A., & Tsay, J. C. (1997). Child, parent, and contextual influences on perceived parenting competence among parents of adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 345–362. Bolkan, C., Sano, Y., De Costa, J., Acock, A. C., & Day, R. D. (2010). Early adolescents’ perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles and problem behavior. Marriage & Family Review, 46(8), 563–579. Bonomi, A. E., & Kelleher, K. J. (2007). Dating violence, sexual assault and suicide attempts in urban adolescents: Ending the silence. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 609–610. Boonk, L., Gijselaers, H. J., Ritzen, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2018). A review of the relationship between parental involvement indicators and academic achievement. Educational Research Review, 24, 10–30. Booth, A., Scott, M. E., & King, V. (2010). Father residence and adolescent problem behavior: Are youth always better off in two-parent families? Journal of Family Issues, 31, 585–605. Borduin, C.  M., Henggeler, S.  W., Blaske, D.  M., & Stein, R. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105–113. Borduin, C. M., Schaeffer, C. M., & Heiblum, N. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: Effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 26–37. Bornovalova, M. A., Cummings, J. R., Hunt, E., Blazei, R., Malone, S., & Iacono, W. G. (2014). Understanding the relative contributions of direct environmental effects and passive genotype– Environment correlations in the association between familial risk factors and child disruptive behavior disorders. Psychological Medicine, 44(4), 831–844. Bornstein, M. H. (1995). Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Status and social conditions of parenting. Erlbaum. Bortz, P., Berrigan, M., VanBergen, A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (2019). Family systems thinking as a guide for theory integration: Conceptual overlaps of differentiation, attachment, parenting style, and identity development in families with adolescents. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(4), 544–560. Bosco, G.  L., Renk, K., Dinger, T.  M., Epstein, M.  K., & Phares, V. (2003). The connections between adolescents’ perceptions of parents, parental psychological symptoms, and adolescent functioning. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 179–200. Boss, P. G., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1993). Sourcebook of family theories and methods. Plenum. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. K. (2013). Between give and take: A clinical guide to contextual therapy. Brunner-Routledge. Bouchey, H. A., Shoulberg, E. K., Jodl, K. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2010). Longitudinal links between older sibling features and younger siblings’ academic adjustment during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 197–211. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Aronson. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Basic Books. Bowling, S. W., Kearney, L. K., Lumadue, C. A., & St. Germain, N. R. (2002). Considering justice: An exploratory study of family therapy with adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 213–223.

References

247

Bradshaw, C. P., Glaser, B. A., Calhoun, G. B., & Bates, J. M. (2006). Beliefs and practices of the parents of violent and oppositional adolescents: An ecological perspective. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27(3), 245–263. Branje, S. (2022). Adolescent identity development in context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45(1–6), 101286. Breivik, K., & Olweus, D. (2006). Adolescents’ adjustment in four post-divorce family structures: Single mother, stepfather, joint physical custody and single father families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 99–124. Bremer, K. L. (2012). Parental involvement, pressure, and support in youth sport: A narrative literature review. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4(3), 235–248. Brenning, K. M., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. U. Y. (2012). Attachment and depressive symptoms in middle childhood and early adolescence: Testing the validity of the emotion regulation model of attachment. Personal Relationships, 19(3), 445–464. Briggs, H. E., Kim, I., Mowbray, O., Orellana, E. R., & Elkins, J. (2018). Trusting and dependable sibling relationships as social capital among African American youth. Journal of Substance Use, 23(6), 557–562. Brincks, A., Perrino, T., Howe, G., Estrada, Y., Robles, N., & Prado, G. (2021). Familias Unidas prevents youth internalizing symptoms: A baseline target moderated mediation (BTMM) study. Prevention Science, 1–10. Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process. Sage. Brody, G. H., & Ge, X. (2001). Linking parenting practices and self-regulation to psychological functioning and alcohol use during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 82–94. Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., McNair, L., Brown, A. C., et al. (2006). The strong African American families program: Prevention of youths’ high-risk behavior and a test of a model of change. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 1–11. Brody, G. H., Kogan, S. M., Chen, Y.-f., & Murry, V. M. (2008). Long-term effects of the Strong African American Families program on youths’ conduct problems. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 474–481. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619–647). American Psychological Association. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 6963–6970). Elsevier. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Sage. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1023). Wiley. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley. Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., & Carrano, J. (2006). The father-child relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 850–881. Brown, S. A., & Landry-Meyer, L. (2007). An ecological approach to high school students’ school food choice. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education, 25, 34–44. Brown, S. L., & Manning, W. D. (2009). Family boundary ambiguity and the measurement of family structure: The significance of cohabitation. Demography, 46, 85–101. Brown, S. L., & Rinelli, L. N. (2010). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent smoking and drinking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 259–273.

248

References

Brown, L. S., & Wright, J. (2003). The relationship between attachment strategies and psychopathology in adolescence. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 76(4), 351–367. Brymer, M. J., Hansel, T., Steinberg, A. M., Speier, A., Osofsky, J., & Osofsky, H. (2019). The Louisiana spirit hurricane recovery program: Addressing the needs of children and adolescents after catastrophic hurricanes. Journal of Family Strengths, 19(1), 1. Bubolz, M.  M., & Sontag, M.  S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P.  G. Boss, W.  J. Doherty, R.  LaRossa, W.  R. Schumm, & S.  K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 419–468). Plenum. Bucx, F., van Wel, F., Knijn, T., & Hagendoorn, L. (2008). Intergenerational contact and the life course status of young adult children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 144–156. Budney, A.  J., & Higgins, S.  T. (1998). A community reinforcement plus vouchers approach: Treating cocaine addiction (NIH Publication No. 98–4309). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Buehler, C. (2020). Family processes and children’s and adolescents’ well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 145–174. Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Anthony, C., Pemberton, S., Gerard, J., et al. (1998). Interparental conflict styles and youth problem behaviors: A two-sample replication study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 119–132. Buehler, C., Franck, K. L., & Cook, E. C. (2009). Adolescents’ triangulation in marital conflict and peer relations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 669–689. Buist, K. L. (2010). Sibling relationship quality and adolescent delinquency: A latent growth curve approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4), 400–410. Buist, K. L., & Vermande, M. (2014). Sibling relationship patterns and their associations with child competence and problem behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 529–537. Buist, K. L., Dekovic, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2002). Developmental patterns in adolescent attachment to mother, father and sibling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 167–176. Buist, K. L., Dekovic, M., Meeus, M. H., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2004). Attachment in adolescence: A social relations model analysis. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 826–850. Buist, K. L., Deković, M., & Prinzie, P. (2013). Sibling relationship quality and psychopathology of children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(1), 97–106. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). NLSY26: Context and objectives. https://www.bls.gov/nls/ nlsy26-­context-­and-­objectives.htm Burkhead, E.  J., & Wilson, L.  M. (1995). The family as a developmental system: Impact on the career development of individuals with disabilities. Journal of Career Development, 21, 187–199. Bush, K. R., & Peterson, G. W. (2008). Family influences on child development. In T. P. Gullotta & G. M. Blau (Eds.), Handbook of childhood behavioral issues: Evidence-based approaches to prevention and treatment (pp. 43–67). Routledge. Bush, K. R., & Price, C. A. (2020). Families & change: Coping with stressful events and transitions (6th ed.). Sage. Butler, J. M., Skinner, M., Gelfand, D., Berg, C. A., & Wiebe, D. J. (2007). Maternal parenting style and adjustment in adolescents with Type I diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32, 1227–1237. Byng-Hall, J. (1995). Creating a secure attachment base: Some implications of attachment theory for family therapy. Family Process, 34, 45–58. Cacioppo, M., Barni, D., Correale, C., Mangialavori, S., Danioni, F., & Gori, A. (2019). Do attachment styles and family functioning predict adolescents’ problematic internet use? A relative weight analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(5), 1263–1271. Caffery, T., & Erdman, P. (2000). Conceptualizing parent-adolescent conflict: Applications from systems and attachment theories. Family Journal, 8, 14–21.

References

249

Calafat, A., García, F., Juan, M., Becoña, E., & Fernández-Hermida, J. R. (2014). Which parenting style is more protective against adolescent substance use? Evidence within the European context. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 138, 185–192. Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). The development of perceived scholastic competence and global self-worth in African American adolescents from low-income families: The roles of family factors, early educational intervention, and academic experience. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 277–302. Capaldi, D.  M., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: III. Prediction to young-adult adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 59–84. Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 137–154. Carlson, D. L., Petts, R. J., & Pepin, J. R. (2022). Changes in US parents’ domestic labor during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sociological Inquiry, 92(3), 1217–1244. Carson, D. K., Chowdhury, A., Perry, C. K., & Pati, C. (1999). Family characteristics and adolescent competence in India: Investigation of youth in Southern Orissa. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 211–233. Carter, E. A., & McGoldrick, M. (1980). The family life cycle: A framework for family therapy. Gardner. Carter, E. A., & McGoldrick, M. (1989). The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy. Allyn & Bacon. Cashwell, C.  S., & Vacc, N.  A. (1996). Familial influences on adolescent delinquent behavior. Family Journal, 4, 217–225. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. Guilford. Catalano, R.  F., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.  D., Newcomb, M.  D., & Abbott, R.  D. (1996). Modeling the etiology of adolescent substance use: A test of the Social Development Model. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 429–455. Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Haggerty, K. P., Hawkins, J. D., & Spoth, R. (1998a). A Universal intervention for the prevention of substance abuse: Preparing for the drug free years. In R. S. Ashery, E. B. Robertson, & K. L. Kumpfer (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention through family interventions (pp. 130–159). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Haggerty, K. P., Hawkins, J. D., & Spoth, R. (1998b). A Universal intervention for the prevention of substance abuse: Preparing for the drug free years. In Drug abuse prevention through family interventions (pp. 130–159). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Catalano, R.  F., Hawkins, J.  D., Kosterman, R., Bailey, J.  A., Oesterle, S., Cambron, C., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Applying the social development model in middle childhood to promote healthy development: Effects from primary school through the 30s and across generations. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 7, 66–86. Catalpa, J. M., & McGuire, J. K. (2018). Family boundary ambiguity among transgender youth. Family Relations, 67(1), 88–103. Catanzaroa, S. J., & Laurent, J. (2004). Perceived family support, negative mood regulation expectancies, coping, and adolescent alcohol use: Evidence of mediation and moderation effects. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1779–1797. Cavanagh, S.  E. (2008). Family structure history and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 944–980. Cavanagh, S. E., & Huston, A. C. (2008). The timing of family instability and children’s social adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1258–1270. Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 624–633. Chamberlain, P., & Rosicky, J. G. (1995). The effectiveness of family therapy in the treatment of adolescents with conduct disorders and delinquency. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 441–459.

250

References

Chao, R. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development, 72, 1832–1843. Chawla, N., & Solinas-Saunders, M. (2011). Supporting military parent and child adjustment to deployments and separations with filial therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 39(3), 179–192. Chen, Z. Y., & Kaplan, H. B. (2005). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. In T. R. Chibucos & R. W. Leite (Eds.), Readings in family theory (pp. 118–136). Sage. Chen, E., Hayen, R., Le, V., Austin, M. K., Shalowitz, M. U., Story, R. E., & Miller, G. E. (2019). Neighborhood social conditions, family relationships, and childhood asthma. Pediatrics, 144(2), e20183300. Cheon, Y. M., & Chung, G. H. (2020). Adolescents’ daily experience of fathers’ emotional support and self-evaluation in Korea. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 142–157. Cherlin, A. J., Kiernan, K. E., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (1995). Parental divorce in childhood and demographic outcomes in young adulthood. Demography, 32, 299–318. Chibucos, T. R., & Leite, R. W. (2005). Readings in family theory. Sage. Chinman, M. J., & Linney, J. A. (1998). Toward a model of adolescent empowerment: Theoretical and empirical evidence. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 393–413. Chun, Y. J., & MacDermid, S. M. (1997). Perceptions of family differentiation, individuation, and self-esteem among Korean adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 451–462. Chung, G.  H., Flook, L., & Fuligni, A. (2009). Daily family conflict and emotional distress among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1406–1415. Chung, G., Phillips, J., Jensen, T. M., & Lanier, P. (2020). Parental involvement and adolescents’ academic achievement: Latent profiles of mother and father warmth as a moderating influence. Family Process, 59(2), 772–788. Cipriano, C., Barnes, T.  N., Pieloch, K.  A., Rivers, S.  E., & Brackett, M. (2019). A multilevel approach to understanding student and teacher perceptions of classroom support during early adolescence. Learning Environments Research, 22(2), 209–228. Clarke-Stewart, A. (2006). What we have learned: Proof the families matter, policies for families and children, prospects for future research. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 321–336). Cambridge University Press. Clausson, E., & Berg, A. (2008). Family intervention sessions: One useful way to improve schoolchildren’s mental health. Journal of Family Nursing, 14, 289–313. Cleveland, M.  J., Feinberg, M.  E., & Greenberg, M.  T. (2010). Protective families in high-and low-risk environments: Implications for adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 114–126. Coatsworth, J. D., Santisteban, D. A., McBride, C. K., & Szapocznik, J. (2001). Brief strategic family therapy versus community control: Engagement, retention, and an exploration of the moderating role of adolescent symptom severity. Family Process, 40, 313–332. Coatsworth, J. D., Pantin, H., & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Familias Unidas: A family-centered ecodevelopmental intervention to reduce risk for problem behavior among Hispanic adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 113–132. Cobb, C. L. H. (1996). Adolescent-parent attachments and family problem-solving styles. Family Process, 35, 57–82. Cobb, N. (2006). Adolescence: Continuity, change, and diversity (6th ed.). McGraw Hill. Cobb, N. J. (2010). Adolescence: Continuity, change, and diversity (7th ed.). Sinauer Associates. Cohen, E. A., Vasey, M. W., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2003). Family differentiation as individuality and intimacy tolerance: Multiple family perspectives and the dimensionality of family distance regulation. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 99–123. Colan, N. B., Mague, K. C., Cohen, R. S., & Schneider, R. J. (1994). Family education in the workplace: A prevention program for working parents and school-age children. Journal of Primary Prevention, 15, 161–172.

References

251

Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Changing relationships, changing youth: Interpersonal contexts of adolescent development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(1), 55–62. Collins, W. A., & Roisman, G. I. (2006). The influence of family and peer relationships in the development of competence during adolescence. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count: Effects on child and adolescent development (pp. 79–103). Cambridge University Press. Collins, W. A., Laursen, B., Mortenson, N., Luebker, C., & Ferreira, M. (1997). Conflict processes and transitions in parent and peer relationships: Implications for autonomy and regulation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 178–198. Conger, R. D., Patterson, G. R., & Ge, X. (1995). It takes two to replicate: A meditational model for the impact of parents’ stress on adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 66, 80–97. Conger, K. J., Conger, R. D., & Scaramella, L. V. (1997). Parents, siblings, psychological control, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(1), 113–138. Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 685–704. Conlin, D. M. (2019). Using Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model as a lens to understand refugee parent–Teacher communication processes. Unpublished master’s theses. The University of North Carolina. Connell, A. M., Dishion, T. J., Yasui, M., & Kavanagh, K. (2007). An adaptive approach to family intervention: Linking engagement in family-centered intervention to reductions in adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 568–579. Connell, A.  M., Shaw, D., Wilson, M., Danzo, S., Weaver-Krug, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). Indirect effects of the early childhood Family Check-Up on adolescent suicide risk: The mediating role of inhibitory control. Development and Psychopathology, 31(5), 1901–1910. Conroy, D., Smith, J. A., Butler, S., Byford, S., Cottrell, D., Kraam, A., et al. (2021). The long-­ term impact of multisystemic therapy: an experiential study of the adolescent-young adult life transition. Journal of Adolescent Research, 07435584211025323. Constante, K., Cross, F. L., Medina, M., & Rivas-Drake, D. (2020). Ethnic socialization, family cohesion, and ethnic identity development over time among Latinx adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 895–906. Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 285–294. Cook, W. L. (2001). Interpersonal influence in family systems: A social relations model analysis. Child Development, 72, 1179–1197. Cook, L. S. (2001a). Adolescent addiction and delinquency in the family system. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 22, 151–157. Cook, W. L. (2005). The SRM approach to family assessment: An introduction and case example. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 216–225. Cooksey, E. C. (2018). Using the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth (NLSY) to conduct life course analyses. In Handbook of life course health development (pp. 561–577). Springer. Corcoran, J. (1999). Ecological factors associated with adolescent pregnancy: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 34, 603–619. Corwyn, R. F., & Bradley, R. H. (2005). Socioeconomic status and child externalizing behaviors. In V.  L. Bengston, A.  C. Acock, K.  R. Allen, P.  Dilworth-Anderson, & D.  M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 469–483). Sage. Cottrell, B., & Monk, P. (2004). Adolescent-to-parent abuse: A qualitative overview of common themes. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1072–1095. Coulton, C., Korbin, J., Su, M., & Chow, J. (1995). Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Development, 66, 1262–1276. Cox, M., & Harter, K. S. M. (2003). Parent-child relationships. In M. H. Bornstein, L. Davidson, C. L. M. Keyes, K. A. Moore, & The Center for Child Well-being (Eds.), Well-being: Positive development across the life course (pp. 191–204). : Lawrence Erlbaum. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 4, 243–267.

252

References

Crane, D. R., Wampler, K. S., Sprenkle, D. H., Sandberg, J. G., & Hovestadt, A. J. (2002). The scientist-practitioner model in marriage and family therapy programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 75–83. Cretzmeyer, S. (2003). Attachment theory applied to adolescents. In P.  Erdman & T.  Caffery (Eds.), Attachment and family systems (pp. 65–77). Brunner-Routledge. Criss, M. M., & Shaw, D. S. (2005). Sibling relationships as contexts for delinquency training in low-income families. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 592–600. Crockett, L. J., Bingham, C. R., Chopak, J. S., & Vicary, J. R. (1996). Timing of first sexual intercourse: The role of social control, social learning, and problem behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 89–111. Crosbie-Burnett, M., & Lewis, E.  A. (1993). Theoretical contributions from social and cognitive behavioral psychology. In P.  G. Boss, W.  J. Doherty, R.  LaRossa, W.  R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 531–558). Plenum. Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 267–280. Crosnoe, R., & Cavanagh, S. E. (2010). Families with children and adolescents: A review, critique, and future agenda. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 594–611. Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G. H. (2004). Family dynamics, supportive relationships, and educational resilience during adolescence. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 571–602. Crosswhite, J. M., & Kerpelman, J. (2009a). Coercion theory, self-control, and social information processing: Understanding potential mediators for how parents influence deviant behaviors. Deviant Behaviors, 30, 611–646. Crosswhite, J. M., & Kerpelman, J. (2009b). Critiquing the general theory of crime’s empirical evidence: Does the evidence support the theory? Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 146–163. Crosswhite, J. M., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2012). Parenting and children’s self-control: Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Deviant Behavior, 33(9), 715–737. Crouter, A.  C. (2006). Mothers and fathers at work. In A.  Clarke-Stewart & J.  Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 135–154). Cambridge University Press. Cruz, R. A., Mechammil, M., & Robins, R. W. (2019). Familism, sibling relationship qualities, and sibling sex constellation as predictors of alcohol use among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(7), 868–875. Cuartas, J., Ward, K. P., Ma, J., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2020). Physical punishment and Colombian children and adolescents’ cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 68, 101140. Cui, M., Conger, R. D., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. (2002). Parental behavior and the quality of adolescent friendships: A social-contextual perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 676–689. Cui, M., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Reciprocal influences between parents’ marital problems and adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1544–1552. Cunningham, P. B., Henggeler, S. W., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (1999). Testing underlying assumptions of the family empowerment perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 437–449. Dadds, M. R. (1995). Families, children, and the development of dysfunction. Sage. Dagan, O., Facompré, C. R., Nivison, M. D., Roisman, G. I., & Bernard, K. (2020). Preoccupied and dismissing attachment representations are differentially associated with anxiety in adolescence and adulthood: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(4), 614–640. Daks, J. S., Peltz, J. S., & Rogge, R. D. (2020). Psychological flexibility and inflexibility as sources of resiliency and risk during a pandemic: Modeling the cascade of COVID-19 stress on family systems with a contextual behavioral science lens. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 16–27.

References

253

D'Aniello, C., & Fife, S. T. (2020). A 20-year review of common factors research in marriage and family therapy: A mixed methods content analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(4), 701–718. Darling, N. (2007). Ecological systems theory: The person in the center of the circles. Research in Human Development, 4, 203–217. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L.  D. (1993). Parenting styles as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496. Davey, M., Gulish, L., Askew, J., Godette, K., & Childs, N. (2005). Adolescents coping with mom’s breast cancer: Developing family intervention programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 247–258. David, C., Steele, R., Forehand, R., & Armistead, L. (1996). The role of family conflict and marital conflict in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 81–91. Davidson, M. (1983). Uncommon sense: The life and thought of Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. J. P. Tarcher. Davies, P. T., & Forman, E. M. (2002). Children’s patterns of preserving emotional security in the interparental subsystem. Child Development, 73, 1880–1903. Davies, J. J., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Responses to children’s media use in families with and without siblings: A family development perspective. Family Relations, 61(3), 410–425. Day, R. D. (2010). Stephen Gavazzi: Strong families, successful students: Helping teenagers reach their full academic potential. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 704–705. Day, R. D., Gavazzi, S., & Acock, A. (2001). Compelling family processes. In A. Thornton (Ed.), The well-being of children and families: Research and data needs (pp. 103–126). University of Michigan Press. Day, R.  D., Gavazzi, S.  M., Miller, R., & Langeveld, A. (2009). Compelling family processes. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 116–128. De Goede, I. H. A., Branje, S. J. T., Delsing, M. J. M. H., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). Linkages over time between adolescents’ relationships with parents and friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1304–1315. de Maat, D.  A., Jansen, P.  W., Prinzie, P., Keizer, R., Franken, I.  H., & Lucassen, N. (2021). Examining longitudinal relations between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress, parenting behaviors, and adolescents’ behavior problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30, 771–783. de Menezes, J.  C. L., & Murta, S.  G. (2021). Cultural adaptation process of the strengthening families program (10–14) around the world: An integrative review. Trends in Psychology, 29(1), 31–50. Decarli, A., Pierrehumbert, B., Schulz, A., Schaan, V.  K., & Vögele, C. (2022). Disorganized attachment in adolescence: Emotional and physiological dysregulation during the Friends and Family Interview and a conflict interaction. Development and Psychopathology, 34(1), 431–445. Deković, M., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & van As, N. M. C. (2003). Parental predictors of antisocial behavior in adolescence. Family Process, 42, 223–235. Deković, M., Buist, K. L., & Reitz, E. (2004). Stability and changes in problem behavior during adolescent latent growth analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 1–12. Delmonico, D. L., & Griffin, E. J. (2008). Cybersex and the e-teen: What marriage and family therapists should know. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 431–444. Dembo, R., Ramirez-Garnica, G., Rollie, M., Schmeidler, J., Livingston, S., & Hartsfield, A. (2000a). Youth recidivism 12 months after a family empowerment intervention: Final report. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 29–65. Dembo, R., Seeberger, W., Shemwell, M., Schmeidler, J., Klein, L., Rollie, M., et  al. (2000b). Psychosocial functioning among juvenile offenders 12 months after family empowerment intervention. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32, 1–56.

254

References

Dembo, R., Schmeidler, J., & Wotke, W. (2003). Impact of a family empowerment intervention on delinquent behavior: A latent growth model analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37, 17–41. Demo, D. H. (2008). From the editor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1–2. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457–488. Demo, D. H., Aquilino, W. S., & Fine, M. A. (2005). Family composition and family transitions. In V.  L. Bengston, A.  C. Acock, K.  R. Allen, P.  Dilworth-Anderson, & D.  M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 119–134). Sage. Deptula, D.  P., Henry, D.  B., & Schoeny, M.  E. (2010). How can parents make a difference? Longitudinal associations with adolescent sexual behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 731–739. Dermott, E., & Fowler, T. (2020). What is a family and why does it matter? Social Sciences, 9(5), 83. Di Luzio, S. S., Procentese, F., & Guillet-Descas, E. (2019). Physical activity in adolescence and substance use: Factors of interdependence between local community and relational micro-­ systems. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 28(2), 119–126. Diamond, G.  S., Reis, B.  F., Diamond, G.  M., Siqueland, L., & Isaacs, L. (2002). Attachment based family therapy for depressed adolescents: A treatment development study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and& Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1190–1196. Diamond, G.  S., Siqueland, L., & Diamond, G.  M. (2003). Attachment-based family therapy: A program of treatment development research. Clinical Child Family Psychology Review, 6, 107–128. Diamond, G. S., Wintersteen, M. B., Brown, G. K., Diamond, G. M., Gallop, R., Shelef, K., & Levy, S. (2010). Attachment-based family therapy for adolescents with suicidal ideation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(2), 122–131. Diamond, G.  S., Diamond, G.  M., & Levy, S.  A. (2014). Attachment-based family therapy for depressed adolescents. American Psychological Association. Diamond, G., Russon, J., & Levy, S. (2016). Attachment-based family therapy: A review of the empirical support. Family Process, 55(3), 595–610. Diamond, G., Diamond, G.  M., & Levy, S. (2021). Attachment-based family therapy: Theory, clinical model, outcomes, and process research. Journal of Affective Disorders, 294, 286–295. Dilworth-Anderson, P., Burton, L. M., & Klein, D. M. (2005). Contemporary and emerging theories in studying families. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 35–50). Sage. Dishion, T. J. (2016). An evolutionary framework for understanding coercion and aggression. In T. J. Dishion & J. J. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics (pp. 53–69). Oxford University Press. Dishion, T. J., Eddy, J. M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklin, K. M. (1997). Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6, 207–225. Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., Schneiger, A., Nelson, S., & Kaufman, N. (2002). Preventing early adolescent substance use: A family-centered strategy for the public middle-school ecology. Prevention Science, 3, 191–201. Dishion, T.  J., Nelson, S.  E., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). The family check-up for high-risk adolescents: Preventing early-onset substance use by parent monitoring. Behavior Therapy, 34, 553–571. Dishion, T. J., Forgatch, M., Van Ryzin, M., & Winter, C. (2012). The nonlinear dynamics of family problem solving in adolescence: The predictive validity of a peaceful resolution attractor. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 16(3), 331–352. Dixon, S. V., Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). The roles of respect for parental authority and parenting practices in parent-child conflict among African American, Latino, and European American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 1–11.

References

255

Donohue, E., Halgunseth, L. C., Chilenski, S. M., & Perkins, D. F. (2022). Parent–child recurring conflict: A mediator between parental anger management and adolescent behavior. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 51(1), 6–19. Dorius, C. J., Bahr, S. J., Hoffmann, J. P., & Harmon, E. L. (2004). Parenting practices as moderators of the relationship between peers and adolescent marijuana use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 163–178. Dotterer, A. M., Hoffman, L., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2008). A longitudinal examination of the bidirectional links between academic achievement and parent-adolescent conflict. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 762–779. Du, X., & Kim, Y. K. (2021). Direct and indirect associations between family residential mobility, parent functioning, and adolescent behavioral health. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(12), 3055–3069. Dumka, L.  E., Gonzales, N., Woods, J., & Formoso, D. (1998). Using qualitative methods to develop contextually relevant measures and preventive interventions: An illustration. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 600–633. Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Bonds, D., & Millsap, R. (2009). Academic success in Mexican origin adolescent boys and girls: The role of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting and cultural orientation. Sex Roles, 60, 588–599. Dusenbury, L. (2000). Family-based drug abuse prevention programs: A review. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 337–352. Duvall, E. M. (1957). Family development. Lippincott. Dwairy, M., Achoui, M., Abouserie, R., & Farah, A. (2006). Adolescent-family connectedness among Arabs: A second cross-regional research study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 248–261. East, P. L. (1996). The younger sisters of childbearing adolescents: Their attitudes, expectations, and behaviors. Child Development, 67, 267–282. East, P., & Khoo, S.  T. (2005). Longitudinal pathways linking family factors and sibling relationship qualities to adolescent substance use and sexual risk behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 571–580. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit on adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. Eddy, J. M., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer association as mediators of the impact of treatment condition on youth antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 857–863. Eichelsheim, V. I., Dekovic, M., Buist, K. L., & Cook, W. L. (2009). The Social Relations Model in family studies: A systematic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1052–1069. Eiden, R. D., Teti, D. M., & Corns, K. M. (1995). Maternal working models of attachment, marital adjustment, and the parent-child relationship. Child Development, 66, 1504–1518. Eitle, D. (2005). The moderating effects of peer substance use on the family structure–Adolescent substance use association: Quantity versus quality of parenting. Addictive Behaviors, 30, 963–980. Elder, G. H., Jr., King, V., & Conger, R. D. (1996). Attachment to place and migration prospects: A developmental perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 397–425. Ellis, D. A., Naar-King, S., Frey, M. A., Rowland, M., & Greger, N. (2003). Case study: Feasibility of multisystemic therapy as a treatment for urban adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28, 287–294. Ellis, D. A., Frey, M. A., Naar-King, S., Templin, T., Cunningham, P., & Cakan, N. (2005). Use of multisystemic therapy to improve regimen adherence among adolescents with type 1 diabetes in chronic poor metabolic control: A randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care, 28, 1604–1610.

256

References

Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Mesman, J. (2016). Gender-­ differentiated parenting revisited: Meta-analysis reveals very few differences in parental control of boys and girls. PloS One, 11(7), e0159193. Eng, S., Kanitkar, K., Cleveland, H.  H., Herbert, R., Fischer, J., & Wiersma, J. (2008). School achievement differences among Chinese and Filipino American students: Acculturation and family factors. Educational Psychology, 28, 535–550. Eng, S., Mulsow, M., Cleveland, H. H., & Hart, S. (2009). Academic achievement among adolescents in Cambodia: Does maternal trauma matter? Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 754–768. Erdem, G., & Safi, O.  A. (2018). The cultural lens approach to Bowen family systems theory: Contributions of family change theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 469–483. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton. Ettekal, I., & Ladd, G.  W. (2020). Development of aggressive-victims from childhood through adolescence: Associations with emotion dysregulation, withdrawn behaviors, moral disengagement, peer rejection, and friendships. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 271–291. Ewing, E. S. K., Diamond, G., & Levy, S. (2015). Attachment-based family therapy for depressed and suicidal adolescents: Theory, clinical model and empirical support. Attachment & Human Development, 17(2), 136–156. Faber, A. J., Edwards, A. E., Bauer, K. S., & Wetchler, J. L. (2003). Family structure: Its effects on adolescent attachment and identity formation. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 243–255. Fagan, J. (2020). Broadening the scope of father-child attachment research to include the family context. Attachment & Human Development, 22(1), 139–142. Fagan, J., Day, R., Lamb, M. E., & Cabrera, N. J. (2014). Should researchers conceptualize differently the dimensions of parenting for fathers and mothers? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 390–405. Fan, W., Cheung, F.  M., Leong, F.  T., & Cheung, S.  F. (2014). Contributions of family factors to career readiness: A cross-cultural comparison. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(3), 194–209. Faulkner, R. A., & Davey, M. (2002). Children and adolescents of cancer patients: The impact of cancer on the family. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 63–72. Feeney, J. A., & Nollar, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Sage. Feinberg, M., & Hetherington, E. M. (2001). Differential parenting as a within-family variable. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 22–37. Feldman, H. S. (2020). Developmental psychology for the health care professions, part II: Young adult through late aging. Routledge. Ferguson, G.  M., Muzaffar, H., Iturbide, M.  I., Chu, H., & Meeks Gardner, J. (2018). Feel American, watch American, eat American? Remote acculturation, TV, and nutrition among adolescent–mother dyads in Jamaica. Child Development, 89(4), 1360–1377. Fernández-Aliseda, S., Belzunegui-Eraso, A., Pastor-Gosálbez, I., & Valls-Fonayet, F. (2020). Compulsive internet and prevalence substance use among spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 8747. Fialkowski, A., Shaffer, K., Ball-Burack, M., Brooks, T. L., Trinh, N. H. T., Potter, J. E., & Peeler, K. R. (2022). Trauma-informed care for hospitalized adolescents. Current Pediatrics Reports, 10(2), 45–54. Fisher, L., Kokes, R. F., Ransom, D. C., Philips, S. L., & Rudd, P. (1985). Alternative strategies for creating relational family data. Family Process, 24, 213–224. Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Sellers, E. B. (1999). Adolescents’ well-being as a function of perceived interparental consistency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 599–610. Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Williams-Wheeler, M. (2004). Parental influences on adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and Kerr. Child Development, 75, 781–796.

References

257

Fonagy, P., Butler, S., Cottrell, D., Scott, S., Pilling, S., Eisler, I., et al. (2018). Multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(2), 119–133. Forehand, R., Biggar, H., & Kotchick, B. A. (1998). Cumulative risk across family stressors: Shortand long-term effects for adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 119–128. Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2008). Emotional, cognitive, and family systems mediators of children’s adjustment to interparental conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 843–854. Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2010). Adolescent triangulation into parental conflicts: Longitudinal implications for appraisals and adolescent-parent relations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 254–266. Fosco, G.  M., & Lydon-Staley, D.  M. (2020). Implications of family cohesion and conflict for adolescent mood and well-being: Examining within-and between-family processes on a daily timescale. Family Process, 59(4), 1672–1689. Fosco, G. M., Xia, M., Lynn, M. G., & Grych, J. H. (2016). Triangulation and parent–adolescent relationships: Implications for adolescent dating competence and abuse. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(3), 524–537. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, & Linder, G. F. (1999). Family violence and the perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 331–342. Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128–141. Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123–151. Fraley, R.  C., Roisman, G.  I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M.  T., & Holland, A.  S. (2013). Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 817–838. Franck, K. L., & Buehler, C. (2007). A family process model of marital hostility, parental depressive affect, and early adolescent problem behavior: The roles of triangulation and parental warmth. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 614–625. Freeman, T. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2005, January 12). Changes in mastery goals in urban and rural middle school students. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(1). Retrieved May 23, 2010, from http://www.umaine.edu/jrre/20-­1.pdf Frisco, M.  L. (2005). Parental involvement and young women’s contraceptive use. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67, 110–121. Frisco, M. L., Muller, C., & Frank, K. A. (2007). Familystructure change and adolescents’ school performance: A propensity score approach. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 721–741. Fristad, M. A., Goldberg-Arnold, J. S., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2002). Multifamily psychoeducation groups for families of children with bipolar disorder. Journal of Bipolar Disorders, 4, 254–262. Fristad, M.  A., Gavazzi, S.  M., & Mackinaw-Koons, B. (2003). Family psychoeducation: An adjunctive intervention for children with early onset bipolar disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 53, 1000–1008. Froiland, J.  M., & Worrell, F.  C. (2017). Parental autonomy support, community feeling and student expectations as contributors to later achievement among adolescents. Educational Psychology, 37(3), 261–271. Fry, C. M., Telzer, E. H., & Rogers, C. R. (2021). Siblings as buffers: Social problems and internalizing and externalizing behaviors across early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(7), 939–949. Fuhrman, T., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1995). A contextual moderator analysis of emotional autonomy and adjustment in adolescence. Child Development, 66, 793–811. Fuligni, A. J., Hughes, D. L., & Way, N. (2009). Ethnicity and immigration. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed.). Wiley.

258

References

Fulkerson, J. A., Strauss, J., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Boutelle, K. (2007). Correlates of psychosocial well-being among overweight adolescents: The role of the family. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 181–186. Furman, W., Stephenson, J. C., & Rhoades, G. K. (2014). Positive interactions and avoidant and anxious representations in relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(4), 615–629. Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. University of Chicago Press. Gagne, M.  H., Drapeau, S., Melancon, C., Saint-Jacques, M.  C., & Lepine, R. (2007). Links between parental psychological violence, other family disturbances, and children’s adjustment. Family Process, 46, 523–542. Gaias, L. M., Lindstrom Johnson, S., White, R. M., Pettigrew, J., & Dumka, L. (2018). Understanding school–neighborhood mesosystemic effects on adolescent development. Adolescent Research Review, 3, 301–319. Gangamma, R., Slesnick, N., Toviessi, P., & Serovich, J. (2008). Comparison of HIV risks among gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual homeless youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 456–464. Garber, J., Robinson, N. S., & Valentiner, D. (1997). The relation between parenting and adolescent depression: Self-worth as a mediator. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 12–33. Garcia, F., & Gracia, E. (2009). Is always authoritative the optimum parenting style? Evidence from Spanish families. Adolescence, 44, 101–131. Garcia, F., Serra, E., Garcia, O. F., Martinez, I., & Cruise, E. (2019). A third emerging stage for the current digital society? Optimal parenting styles in Spain, the United States, Germany, and Brazil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2333. Gardner, F., Connell, A., Trentacosta, C. J., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., & Wilson, M. N. (2009). Moderators of outcome in a brief family-centered intervention for preventing early problem behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 543–553. Garthe, R. C., Sullivan, T., & Kliewer, W. (2015). Longitudinal relations between adolescent and parental behaviors, parental knowledge, and internalizing behaviors among urban adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 819–832. Gath, M. E. (2022). Parents and adolescents in stepfamilies: Longitudinal links to physical health, psychological distress, and stress. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(1), 17–28. Gavazzi, S. M. (1993). The relation between family differentiation levels in families with adolescents and the severity of presenting problems. Family Relations, 42, 463–468. Gavazzi, S. M. (1995). The growing up FAST: Families and adolescents surviving and thriving TM program. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 31–47. Gavazzi, S.  M. (2003). Family strengthening programs for families with adolescents. In T. P. Gullotta & M. Bloom (Eds.), The encyclopedia of primary prevention and health promotion (pp. 486–492). Kluwer/Plenum. Gavazzi, S. M. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, and the family environment: Contributions to assessment efforts within the realm of juvenile justice. Family Relations, 55, 190–199. Gavazzi, S.  M. (2010). Strong families, successful students: Helping teenagers reach their full academic potential. Book Surge. Gavazzi, S. M., & Blumenkrantz, D. G. (1993). Facilitating clinical work with adolescents and their families through the rite of passage experience program. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 4, 47–67. Gavazzi, S. M., & Law, J. C. (1997). Therapeutic utility of the growing up FAST program. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 8, 21–39. Gavazzi, S. M., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1990). Family system dynamics, the individuation process and psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 499–518. Gavazzi, S. M., Reese, M. J., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1998). Conceptual development and empirical use of the family intrusiveness scale. Journal of Family Issues, 19, 65–74.

References

259

Gavazzi, S. M., Wasserman, D., Partridge, C., & Sheridan, S. (2000). The growing up FAST diversion program: An example of juvenile justice program development for outcome evaluation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 159–175. Gavazzi, S. M., Slade, D., Buettner, C. K., Partridge, C., Yarcheck, C. M., & Andrews, D. W. (2003a). Toward conceptual development and empirical measurement of global risk indicators in the lives of court-involved youth. Psychological Reports, 92, 599–615. Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., Rhine, E. E., & Partridge, C. (2003b). Building bridges between parole officers and the families of serious juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 291–308. Gavazzi, S. M., Bostic, J. M., Lim, J. Y., & Yarcheck, C. M. (2008a). Examining the impact of gender, race/ethnicity, and family factors on mental health issues in a sample of court-involved youth. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 353–368. Gavazzi, S. M., Yarcheck, C. M., Sullivan, J. M., Jones, S. C., & Khurana, A. (2008b). Global risk factors and the prediction of recidivism rates in a sample of first-time misdemeanant offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 330–345. Gavazzi, S. M., Russell, C. M., & Khurana, A. (2009). Predicting educational risks among court-­ involved Black males: Family, peers and mental health issues. Negro Educational Review, 60, 99–114. Geist, R., Heinmaa, M., Stephens, D., Davis, R., & Katzman, D. K. (2000). Comparison of family therapy and family group psychoeducation in adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 173–178. Gentles-Gibbs, N., & Zema, J. (2020). It’s not about them without them: Kinship grandparents’ perspectives on family empowerment in public child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104650. Gerard, J.  M., Buehler, C., Franck, K., & Anderson, O. (2005). In the eyes of the beholder: Cognitive appraisals as mediators of the association between interparental conflict and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 376–384. German, M., Gonzales, N. A., Bonds, D. D., Dumka, L. E., & Millsap, R. E. (2009). Familism values as a protective factor for Mexican-origin adolescents exposed to deviant peers. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 16–42. Gershon, T. D., Tschann, J. M., & Jemerin, J. M. (1999). Stigmatization, self-esteem, and coping among the adolescent children of lesbian mothers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 437–445. Gewirtz, A.  H. (2007). Promoting children’s mental health in family supportive housing: A community-­university partnership for formerly homeless children and families. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(3–4), 359–374. Ghazarian, S. R., & Buehler, C. (2010). Interparental conflict and academic achievement: An examination of mediating and moderating factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 23–32. Ghazarian, S.  R., Supple, A.  J., & Plunkett, S.  W. (2008). Familism as a predictor of parent-­ adolescent relationships and developmental outcomes for adolescents in Armenian American families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 599–613. Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in adolescent development: Relations between autonomy, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(4), 813–822. Gillespie, B. J. (2020). Adolescent intergenerational relationship dynamics and leaving and returning to the parental home. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 997–1014. Gimenez-Serrano, S., Garcia, F., & Garcia, O. F. (2022). Parenting styles and its relations with personal and social adjustment beyond adolescence: Is the current evidence enough? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(5), 749–769. Glick, P. C. (1947). The life cycle of the family. Marriage and Family Living, 17, 3–9. Gong, X., Zhang, K. Z., Chen, C., Cheung, C. M., & Lee, M. K. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of excessive online social gaming: a social learning perspective. Information Technology & People, 33(2), 657–688.

260

References

Gonzales, N. A., Dumka, L. E., Deardorff, J., JacobsCarter, S., & McCray, A. (2004). Preventing poor mental health and school dropout of Mexican-American adolescents following the transition to junior high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 113–131. Gonzales, N. A., Dumka, L. E., Millsap, R. E., Gottschall, A., McClain, D. B., Wong, J. J., et al. (2012). Randomized trial of a broad preventive intervention for Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(1), 1–16. Gonzales, N. A., Wong, J. J., Toomey, R. B., Millsap, R., Dumka, L. E., & Mauricio, A. M. (2014). School engagement mediates long-term prevention effects for Mexican American adolescents. Prevention Science, 15(6), 929–939. Gonzales-Backen, M. A., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2011). The role of physical appearance on ethnic identity formation processes among Latino adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 151–162. Goodnow, J. J. (2006). Research and policy: Second looks at development, families, and communities, and at translations into practice. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 3337–3360). Cambridge University Press. Goodson, P., Evans, A., & Edmunson, E. (1996). Female adolescents and onset of sexual intercourse: A theory-based review of research from 1984 to 1994. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 147–156. Gordon, D. A. (2000). Parent training via CD-ROM: Using technology to disseminate effective prevention practices. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 227–251. Gordon, D. A., Arbuthnot, J., Gustafson, K. E., & McGreen, P. (1988). Home-based behavioral systems family therapy with disadvantaged juvenile delinquents. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16(3), 243–255. Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P.  H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L.  R. (1996). The relation of family functioning to violence among inner-city minority youths. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 115–129. Gorrese, A., & Ruggieri, R. (2012). Peer attachment: A meta-analytic review of gender and age differences and associations with parent attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(5), 650–672. Gosselin, D. K. (2010). Heavy hands: An introduction to the crimes of family violence. Prentice Hall. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Gottlieb, G., & Halpern, C. (2002). A relational view of causality in normal and abnormal development. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 421–435. Gowdy, G., Fruiht, V., Tadese, H., & Rivera, M. (2023). One of these things is not like the other: Predictors of core and capital mentoring in adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 71(3–4), 257–273. Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113, 101–131. Granic, I., Dishion, T. J., & Hollenstein, T. (2006). The Family ecology of adolescence: A dynamic systems perspective on normative development. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 60–91). Blackwell. Graves, K.  N., & Shelton, T.  L. (2007). Family empowerment as a mediator between family-­ centered systems of care and changes in child functioning: Identifying an important mechanism of change. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 556–566. Greenbaum, P.  E., Wang, W., Henderson, C.  E., Kan, L., Hall, K., Dakof, G.  A., & Liddle, H.  A. (2015). Gender and ethnicity as moderators: Integrative data analysis of multidimensional family therapy randomized clinical trials. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(6), 919–930. Greenberg, L. S., & Paivio, S. C. (2003). Working with emotions in psychotherapy. Guilford Press. Greenstein, T. N. (2006). Methods of family research (2nd ed.). Sage. Greenstein, T. N., & Davis, S. N. (2012). Methods of family research (3rd ed.). Sage. Griffin, K.  W., Botvin, G.  J., Scheier, L.  M., Diaz, T., & Miller, N.  L. (2000). Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure. and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14, 174–184.

References

261

Groh, A.  M., Roisman, G.  I., Booth-LaForce, C., Fraley, R.  C., Owen, M.  T., Cox, M.  J., & Burchinal, M.  R. (2014). Stability of attachment security from infancy to late adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79(3), 51–66. Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K.  E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, A.  P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child–father attachment relationship: Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11(3), 301–337. Grotevant, H.  D. (1997). Family processes, identity development, and behavioral outcomes for adopted adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 139–161. Grych, J. H., Raynor, S. R., & Fosco, G. M. (2004). Family processes that shape the impact of interparental conflict on adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 649–665. Gullotta, T. P., Plant, R. W., & Evans, M. A. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of adolescent behavioral problems: Evidence-based approaches to prevention and treatment. Springer. Gutman, L. M., & Eccles, J. E. (2007). Stage–environment fit during adolescence: Trajectories of family relations and adolescent outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 43, 522–537. Ha, T., Otten, R., McGill, S., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). The family and peer origins of coercion within adult romantic relationships: A longitudinal multimethod study across relationships contexts. Developmental Psychology, 55(1), 207–215. Ha, T., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Elam, K. K. (2023). Socialization processes within adolescents’ relationships with parents and peers predicting couples’ intimate partner violence in adulthood: A social learning perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 35(1), 204–217. Hage, S. M., & Kenny, M. E. (2009). Promoting a social justice approach to prevention: Future directions for training, practice, and research. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 75–87. Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Garrett, S. B., Ling, T., & Cleveland, K. (2008). The continued importance of quality parent–adolescent relationships during late adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 187–200. Haj-Yahia, M., & Dawud-Noursi, S. (1998). Predicting the use of different conflict tactics among Arab siblings in Israel: A study based on social learning theory. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 81–103. Haley, J. (1978). Ideas which handicap therapists. In M. M. Berger (Ed.), Beyond the double bind (pp. 65–82). Bruner/Mazel. Halgunseth, L. C., Ispa, J. M., & Rudy, D. (2006). Parental control in Latino families: An integrated review in the literature. Child Development, 77(5), 1282–1297. Halpern-Meekin, S., & Tach, L. (2008). Heterogeneity in two-parent families and adolescent well-­ being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 435–451. Hamilton, C. E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy to adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690–694. Hamon, R. R., & Smith, S. R. (2017). Family science as translational science: A history of the discipline. Family Relations, 66(4), 550–567. Hamza, C.  A., & Willoughby, T. (2011). Perceived parental monitoring, adolescent disclosure, and adolescent depressive symptoms: A longitudinal examination. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 902–915. Hansson, K., & Olsson, M. (2012). Effects of multidimensional treatment foster care (MTFC): Results from a RCT study in Sweden. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1929–1936. Hardy, S. A., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. C. (2010). Links between adolescents’ expected parental reactions and prosocial behavioral tendencies: The mediating role of prosocial values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 84–95. Hardy, S. A., Nelson, J. M., Moore, J. P., & King, P. E. (2019). Processes of religious and spiritual influence in adolescence: A systematic review of 30 years of research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(2), 254–275. Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The role of adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68, 333–350.

262

References

Harper, N. J., & Russell, K. C. (2008). Family involvement and outcome in adolescent wilderness treatment: A mixed-methods evaluation. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 1, 19–36. Harris-McKoy, D., & Cui, M. (2013). Parental control, adolescent delinquency, and young adult criminal behavior. Journal of Child and Family studies, 22, 836–843. Harrist, A. W., Henry, C. S., Liu, C., & Morris, A. S. (2019). Family resilience: The power of rituals and routines in family adaptive systems. In B. H. Fiese, M. Celano, K. Deater-Deckard, E. N. Jouriles, & M. A. Whisman (Eds.), APA handbook of contemporary family psychology: Foundations, methods, and contemporary issues across the lifespan (pp. 223–239). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000099-­013 Haskins, R. (2015). No way out: Dealing with the consequences of changes in family composition. In P. R. Amato, A. Booth, S. M. McHale, & J. van Hook (Eds.), Families in an era of increasing inequality (pp. 167–199). Springer. Hauser, S. T., Powers, S. I., & Noam, G. G. (1991). Adolescents and their families. Free Press. Haverfield, M. C., & Theiss, J. A. (2023). Comparing enacted and perceived parental communication as predictors of adolescents’ emotion regulation in families with harmful versus non-­ harmful parental alcohol use. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 41(1), 114–135. Havighurst, R. J. (1944). Who shall be educated? The challenge of unequal opportunities. Harper. Havighurst, R. J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. McKay. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R. D., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 226–234. Hawley, D. R., & Geske, S. (2000). The use of theory in family therapy research: A content analysis of family therapy journals. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 17–22. Hawley, D. R., & Gonzalez, C. (2005). Publication patterns of faculty in commission on accreditation for marriage and family therapy education programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 89–98. Hayes, S. W. (2021). Commentary: Deepening understanding of refugee children and adolescents using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological and PPCT models–A commentary on Arakelyan and Ager (2020). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(5), 510–513. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. He, M., Cabrera, N., Renteria, J., Chen, Y., Alonso, A., McDorman, S. A., et al. (2021). Family functioning in the time of COVID-19 among economically vulnerable families: Risks and protective factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 730447. Heard, H. E. (2007). The family structure trajectory and adolescent school performance. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 319–354. Heatherington, E. M. (2006). The influence of conflict, marital problem solving and parenting on children’s adjustment in nondivorced, divorced, and remarried families. In A. Clarke-Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 203–237). Cambridge University Press. Heerde, J. A., Bailey, J. A., Toumbourou, J. W., Rowland, B., & Catalano, R. F. (2022). Adolescent antecedents of young adult homelessness: A cross-national path analysis. Prevention Science, 1–11. Heflinger, C.  A., Bickman, L., Northrup, D., Sonnichsen, S., & Schilling, S. (1998). A theory-­ driven intervention and evaluation to explore family caregiver empowerment. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 57, 184–191. Henderson, C. E., Rowe, C. L., Dakof, G. A., Hawes, S. W., & Liddle, H. A. (2009). Parenting practices as mediators of treatment effects in an early-intervention trial of multidimensional family therapy. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 35, 220–226. Henggeler, S. W., & Borduin, C. M. (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A multisystemic approach to treating the behavior problems of children and adolescents. Brooks/Cole. Henggeler, S. W., & Sheidow, A. J. (2003). Conduct disorder and delinquency. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 505–522.

References

263

Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., Brondino, M. J., & Crouch, J. L. (1996). Eliminating (almost) treatment dropout of substance abusing or dependent delinquents through home-based multisystemic therapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 427–428. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. Guilford. Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Brondino, M. J. (1999a). Multisystemic treatment of substance abusing and dependent delinquents: Outcomes, treatment fidelity, and transportability. Mental Health Services Research, 1, 171–184. Henggeler, S. W., Rowland, M. D., Randall, J., Ward, D. M., Pickrel, S. G., Cunningham, P. B., et al. (1999b). Home-based multisystemic therapy as an alternative to the hospitalization of youths in psychiatric crisis: Clinical outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1331–1339. Henggeler, S. W., Clingempeel, W. G., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (2002). Four-year follow­up of multisystemic therapy with substance-abusing and substance dependent juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 868–874. Henggeler, S.  W., Halliday-Boykins, C.  A., Cunningham, P.  B., Randall, J., Shapiro, S.  B., & Chapman, J.  E. (2006). Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-­ based treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 42–54. Hennan, M. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Herron, M. C., & Herting, J. R. (1997). The influence of family regulation, connection, and psychological autonomy on six measures of adolescent functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 34–67. Henneberger, A. K., Mushonga, D. R., & Preston, A. M. (2021). Peer influence and adolescent substance use: A systematic review of dynamic social network research. Adolescent Research Review, 6(1), 57–73. Henry, C. S., Sager, D. W., & Plunkett, S. W. (1996). Adolescents’ perceptions of family system characteristics, parent-adolescent dyadic behaviors, adolescent qualities, and adolescent empathy. Family Relations, 45, 283–292. Henry, C. S., Huey, E. L., Robinson, L. C., & Neal, R. A. (2006). Adolescent perceptions of family system functioning and parental behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 308–318. Henry, C. S., Merten, M. J., Plunkett, S. W., & Sands, T. (2008). Neighborhood, parenting, and adolescent factors and academic achievement in Latino adolescents from immigrant families. Family Relations, 57, 579–590. Herman, K.  C., Ostrander, R., & Tucker, C.  M. (2007). Do family environments and negative cognitions of adolescents with depressive symptoms vary by ethnic group? Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 325–330. Hernandez, D. J. (1993). America’s children: Resources from family, government, and the economy. Russell Sage Foundation. Hernandez, D.  J. (1997). Child development and the social demography of childhood. Child Development, 68, 149–169. Hernandez, D.  J. (2003). Changing family circumstances. In R.  P. Weissberg, H.  J. Walberg, M.  U. O’Brien, & C.  B. Kuster (Eds.), Long-term trends in the well-being of children and youth (pp. 115–179). Child Welfare League of America Press. Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R. D., & Guo, J. (2005). Family influences on the risk of daily smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 202–210. Hinde, R.  A. (2006). Prognosis: Policy and process. In A.  Clarke-Stewart & J.  Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 361–370). Cambridge University Press. Hinnant, J.  B., Erath, S.  A., Tu, K.  M., & El-Sheikh, M. (2016). Permissive parenting, deviant peer affiliations, and delinquent behavior in adolescence: The moderating role of sympathetic nervous system reactivity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 1071–1081. Hoagwood, K. E. (2005). Family-based services in children’s mental health: A research review and synthesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 690–713.

264

References

Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Gerris, J. R., van der Laan, P. H., & Smeenk, W. (2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles: Unique and combined links to adolescent and early adult delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 813–827. Hoff, C., & Distelberg, B. (2017). Developmental pedagogy in marriage and family therapy education: Preparing students to work across epistemologies. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(3), 382–390. Hogben, M., & Byrne, D. (1998). Using social learning theory to explain individual differences in human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 58–71. Hollifield, C. R., & Conger, K. J. (2015). The role of siblings and psychological needs in predicting life satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 3(3), 143–153. Hong, X., Liu, S., Fan, H., Xie, H., Fang, S., & Zhang, L. (2023). Effects of economic regional differences and family on adolescents’ aggressive behaviors: Perspective of ecosystem integration. Brain and Behavior, 13(2), e2856. Hooper, L. M., DeCoster, J., White, N., & Voltz, M. L. (2011). Characterizing the magnitude of the relation between selfreported childhood parentification and adult psychopathology: A meta-­ analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(10), 1028–1043. Horigian, V. E., Feaster, D. J., Robbins, M. S., Brincks, A. M., Ucha, J., Rohrbaugh, M. J., et al. (2015). A cross-sectional assessment of the long term effects of brief strategic family therapy for adolescent substance use. The American Journal on Addictions, 24(7), 637–645. Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. Hou, Y., Kim, S. Y., Hazen, N., & Benner, A. D. (2017). Parents’ perceived discrimination and adolescent adjustment in Chinese American families: Mediating family processes. Child Development, 88(1), 317–331. Hou, Y., Benner, A. D., Kim, S. Y., Chen, S., Spitz, S., Shi, Y., & Beretvas, T. (2020). Discordance in parents’ and adolescents’ reports of parenting: A meta-analysis and qualitative review. American Psychologist, 75(3), 329–348. Huang, B., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.  F., Hawkins, J.  D., & Abbot, R.  D. (2001). Modeling mediation in the etiology of violent behavior in adolescence: A test of the social development model. Criminology, 39, 75–108. Huang, Y., Lu, J., & Širůček, J. (2023). The associations between social environment and adolescents’ psychosomatic health: An ecological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1141206. Hughes, E. K., & Gullone, E. (2008). Internalizing symptoms and disorders in families of adolescents: A review of family systems literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 92–117. Hunter, S. B., Barber, B. K., & Stolz, H. E. (2015). Extending knowledge of parents’ role in adolescent development: The mediating effect of self-esteem. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2474–2484. Hurley, E., Dietrich, T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2019). A systematic review of parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in adolescents. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–14. Hurst, J. L., Widman, L., Maheux, A. J., Evans-Paulson, R., Brasileiro, J., & Lipsey, N. (2022). Parent–child communication and adolescent sexual decision making: An application of family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(3), 449–457. Hussong, A.  M., Midgette, A.  J., Richards, A.  N., Petrie, R.  C., Coffman, J.  L., & Thomas, T. E. (2022). COVID-19 life events spill-over on family functioning and adolescent adjustment. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 42(3), 359–388. Hwang, S., & Akers, R. L. (2017). Substance use by Korean adolescents: A cross-cultural test of social learning, social bonding, and self-control theories. In Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 39–63). Routledge. Jacobs, T., & Slabbert, I. (2019). Factors that could contribute to substance misuse and criminal activity amongst adolescents: An Ecological Perspective. Social Work, 55(2), 222–235. Jacobvitz, D., Hazen, N., & Leon, K. (2006). Does expectant mothers’ unresolved/disorganized trauma predict frightening/frightened maternal behavior? Risk and protective factors. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 363–379.

References

265

James, A. G., Coard, S. I., Fine, M. A., & Rudy, D. (2018). The central roles of race and racism in reframing family systems theory: A consideration of choice and time. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(2), 419–433. Jankowski, P. J., Hall, E., Crabtree, S. A., Sandage, S. J., Bronstein, M., & Sandage, D. (2021). Risk, symptoms, and well-being: Emerging adult latent profiles during treatment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 99(4), 440–451. Jarrott, S.  E., Stremmel, A.  J., & Naar, J.  J. (2019). Practice that transforms intergenerational programs: A model of theory-and evidence informed principles. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17(4), 488–504. Jensen, T. M. (2022). Stepparent–child relationships and child outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Family Nursing, 28(4), 321–340. Jensen, L. A., & Arnett, J. J. (2012). Going global: New pathways for adolescents and emerging adults in a changing world. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3), 473–492. Jensen, T. M., & Harris, K. M. (2017a). A longitudinal analysis of stepfamily relationship quality and adolescent physical health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(4), 486–492. Jensen, T. M., & Harris, K. M. (2017b). Stepfamily relationship quality and stepchildren’s depression in adolescence and adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 5(3), 191–203. Jensen, T. M., & Lippold, M. A. (2018). Patterns of stepfamily relationship quality and adolescents’ short-term and long-term adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(8), 1130–1141. Jensen, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2014). Parents’ differential treatment and adolescents’ delinquent behaviors: Direct and indirect effects of difference-score and perception-based measures. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 549–559. Jensen, A. C., Killoren, S. E., Campione-Barr, N., Padilla, J., & Chen, B. B. (2022). Sibling relationships in adolescence and young adulthood in multiple contexts: A critical review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 02654075221104188. Johnson, S. M. (2004). The practice of emotionally focused couple therapy: Creating connection (2nd ed.). Brunner-Routledge. Johnson, V.  K. (2010). From early childhood to adolescence: Linking family functioning and school behavior. Family Relations, 59, 313–325. Johnson, S. M. (2019). Attachment theory in practice: Emotionally focused therapy (EFT) with individuals, couples, and families. Guilford. Johnson, S. M., Maddeaux, C., & Blouin, J. (1998). Emotionally focused family therapy for bulimia: Changing attachment patterns. Psychotherapy, 25, 238–247. Johnson, L. N., Ketring, S. A., Rohacs, J., & Brewer, A. L. (2006). Attachment and the therapeutic alliance in family therapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 34, 205–218. Johnson, L. N., Miller, R. B., Bradford, A. B., & Anderson, S. R. (2017). The marriage and family therapy practice research network (MFT-PRN): Creating a more perfect union between practice and research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(4), 561–572. Johnson, M. D., Hank, K., & Yurkiw, J. (2021). Longitudinal associations between adult relations with intimate partners and siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83(2), 551–562. Jory, B., Rainbolt, E., Xia, Y., Karns, J., Freeborn, A., & Greer, C. (1996). Communication patterns and alliances between parents and adolescents during a structured problem solving task. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 339–346. Júnior, J. G., de Amorim, L. M., Neto, M. L. R., Uchida, R. R., de Moura, A. T. M. S., & Lima, N. N. R. (2022). The impact of “the war that drags on” in Ukraine for the health of children and adolescents: Old problems in a new conflict? Child Abuse & Neglect, 128, 105602. Kalafat, J. (2004). Enabling and empowering practices of Kentucky’s school-based family resource centers: A multiple case study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 65–78. Kan, M. L., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2008). Interparental incongruence in differential treatment of adolescent siblings: Links with marital quality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 466–479.

266

References

Karakurt, G., & Silver, K. E. (2014). Therapy for childhood sexual abuse survivors using attachment and family systems theory orientations. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42(1), 79–91. Karem, E. A., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2010). The research-informed clinician: A guide to training the next-generation MFT. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 307–319. Kaslow, F. W., & Hammerschmidt, H. (2014). Long term “good” marriages: The seemingly essential ingredients. In Couples therapy, multiple perspectives (pp. 15–38). Routledge. Keizer, R., Helmerhorst, K.  O., & van Rijn-van Gelderen, L. (2019). Perceived quality of the mother–adolescent and father–adolescent attachment relationship and adolescents’ self-­ esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(6), 1203–1217. Kelledy, L., & Lyons, B. (2019). Circular causality in family systems theory. In Encyclopedia of couple and family therapy (pp. 431–434). Springer. Kenny, M. E., & Hage, S. M. (2009). The next frontier: Prevention as an instrument of social justice. Journal of Primary Prevention, 30, 1–10. Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berrowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142–182). Academic. Kerig, P. K. (2014). Implications of parent-child boundary dissolution for developmental psychopathology: “Who is the parent and who is the child?”. Routledge. Kerns, K. A., & Stevens, A. C. (1996). Parent-child attachment in late adolescence: Links to social relations and personality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 323–342. Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation. Norton. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366–380. Kerr, D. C. R., Leve, L. D., & Chamberlain, P. (2009). Pregnancy rates among juvenile justice girls in two randomized controlled trials of multidimensional treatment foster care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 588–593. Keshavarz, S., & Mounts, N.  S. (2017). Perceived parenting style of fathers and Iranian adolescents’ self-efficacy: The moderating role of gender and education. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 178(5), 281–290. Keyzers, A., Weiler, L., Haddock, S., & Doty, J. (2019). Family problem-solving and attachment quality: Associations with adolescent risk-taking behavior. Journal of Youth Development, 14(1), 70–92. Khurana, A., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (2011). Juvenile delinquency and adolescent fatherhood. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(5), 756–770. Khurana, A., Cooksey, E. C., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2011). Juvenile Delinquency and teenage pregnancy: A comparison of ecological risk profiles among Midwestern European and African American female juvenile offenders. Psychology of Women’s Quarterly, 35(2), 282–289. Kiang, L., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Ethnic identity and family processes among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 228–241. Kim, J.  E., Hetherington, E.  M., & Reiss, D. (1999). Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors: Gender and family type differences. Child Development, 70, 1209–1230. Kim, D. H., Kim, Y. S., Koh, Y. J., & Leventhal, B. L. (2013). Relationship between behavior problems and perceived parenting practices in Korean youth. Child Care Health and Development, 39(2), 194–201. Kim, B. K. E., Gilman, A. B., Tan, K. P., Kosterman, R., Bailey, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2020a). Identifying and predicting criminal career profiles from adolescence to age 39. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 30(4), 210–220. Kim, B., Yang, M. H., & Kim, H. J. (2020b). The influence of family conflicts and cohesion on teenagers’ family satisfaction: The moderated mediation effect of family communications. Korean Journal of Parents and Guardians, 7(4), 49–75.

References

267

Kincaid, C., Jones, D. J., Cuellar, J., & Gonzalez, M. (2011). Psychological control associated with youth adjustment and risky behavior in African American single mother families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 102–110. Kincaid, C., Jones, D. J., Sterrett, E., & McKee, L. (2012). A review of parenting and adolescent sexual behavior: The moderating role of gender. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(3), 177–188. King, V. (2006). The antecedents and consequences of adolescents’ relationships with stepfathers and nonresident fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 910–928. King, V. (2009). Stepfamily formation: Implications for adolescent ties to mothers, nonresident fathers, and stepfathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 954–968. King, V., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1997). The legacy of grandparenting: Childhood experiences with grandparents and current involvement with grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 848–859. King, V., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998a). Education and grandparenting roles. Research on Aging, 20, 450–474. King, V., & Elder, G.  H., Jr. (1998b). Perceived self-efficacy and grandparenting. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 53, S249–S257. King, V., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2006). Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 537–557. King, V., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1997). Religious involvement among rural youth: An ecological and life course perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 431–456. King, V., Boyd, L. M., & Thorsen, M. L. (2015). Adolescents’ perceptions of family belonging in stepfamilies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(3), 761–774. Kingsbury, M., Sucha, E., Manion, I., Gilman, S.  E., & Colman, I. (2020). Adolescent mental health following exposure to positive and harsh parenting in childhood. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 65(6), 392–400. Klein, D. M. (1994, November). Theory as data: An investigation of ourselves. Paper presented at the National Council on family relations conference theory construction and research methodology workshop, Minneapolis, MN. Klein, A. (2022). The new version of the relationship grandparents-grandchildren as an opportunity of unprecedented bonds. Journal of Population Ageing, 15(3), 691–705. Klein, N., Alexander, J., & Parsons, B. (1977). Impact of family systems intervention on recidivism and sibling delinquency: A model of primary prevention and program evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 469–474. Klimmt, C., Hartmann, T., & Schramm, H. (2006). Parasocial interactions and relationships. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 291–313). Erlbaum. Knapp, S. J. (2009). Critical theorizing: Enhancing theoretical rigor in family research. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1(3), 133–145. Knapp, S. J., & Wurm, G. (2019). Theorizing family change: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 212–229. Koerner, S.  S., Jacobs, S.  L., & Raymond, M. (2000). When mothers turn to their adolescent daughters: Predicting daughters’ vulnerability to negative adjustment outcomes. Family Relations, 49, 301–309. Koerner, S.  S., Rankin, L.  A., Kenyon, D.  B., & Korn, M. (2004). Mothers re-partnering after divorce: Diverging perceptions of mothers and adolescents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 41, 25–38. Kohli, M. (2007). The institutionalization of the life course: Looking back to look ahead. Research in Human Development, 4, 253–271. Koman, S. L., & Stechler, G. (1985). Making the jump to systems. In M. P. Mirkin & S. L. Koman (Eds.), Handbook of adolescents and family therapy (pp. 1–20). Allyn & Bacon. Komro, K. A., Perry, C. L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Farbakhsh, K., Kugler, K. C., Alfano, K. A., et al. (2006). Cross-cultural adaptation and evaluation of a home-based program for alcohol use prevention among urban youth: The “Slick Tracy Home Team Program”. Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 135–154.

268

References

Koren, P. E., DeChillo, N., & Friesen, B. J. (1992). Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 305–320. Kornienko, O., Ha, T., & Dishion, T. J. (2020). Dynamic pathways between rejection and antisocial behavior in peer networks: Update and test of confluence model. Development and Psychopathology, 32(1), 175–188. Kowal, A. K., & Blinn-Pike, L. (2004). Sibling influences on adolescents’ attitudes toward safe sex practices. Family Relations, 53, 377–384. Kowal, A., Krull, J., & Kramer, L. (2004). How the differential treatment of siblings is linked with parent-child relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 658–665. Kramer, L., & Kowal, A. K. (2005). Sibling relationship quality from birth to adolescence: The enduring contributions of friends. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 503–511. Kratochwill, T. R., McDonald, L., Levin, J. R., Bear-Tibbetts, H. Y., & Demaray, M. K. (2004). Families and schools together: An experimental analysis of a parent-mediated multi-family group program for American Indian children. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 359–383. Krautter, T. H., & Lock, J. (2004). Treatment of anorexia nervosa using family-based manualized treatment. Clinical Case Studies, 3, 107–123. Krohn, M. D., Hall, G. P., & Lizotte, A. J. (2009). Family transitions and later delinquency and drug use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 466–480. Kruis, N. E., Seo, C., & Kim, B. (2020). Revisiting the empirical status of social learning theory on substance use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Substance Use & Misuse, 55(4), 666–683. Kuendig, H., & Kuntsche, E. (2006). Family bonding and adolescent alcohol use: Moderating effect of living with excessive drinking parents. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 41, 464–471. Kuklinski, M., & Jean-Francois, B. (2023, June). Guiding good choices for health: Increasing the reach of effective family-focused intervention through virtual implementation in pediatric primary care. In Society for prevention research 31st annual meeting. SPR. Kumpfer, K. L. (2014). Family-based interventions for the prevention of substance abuse and other impulse control disorders in girls. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2014, 1–23. Kumpfer, K.  L., & Alvarado, R. (1998). Effective family strengthening interventions. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Kumpfer, K.  L., & Tait, C.  M. (2000). Family skills training for parents and children. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Smith, P., & Bellamy, N. (2002). Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention interventions. Prevention Science, 3, 241–246. Kuntsche, S., & Kuntsche, E. (2016). Parent-based interventions for preventing or reducing adolescent substance use – A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 45, 89–101. Kurock, R., Gruchel, N., Bonanati, S., & Buhl, H. M. (2022). Family climate and social adaptation of adolescents in community samples: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 7(4), 551–563. Kwok, S.  Y., Gu, M., Synchaisuksawat, P., & Wong, W.  W. (2020). The relationship between parent-child triangulation and early adolescent depression in Hong Kong: The mediating roles of self-acceptance, positive relations and personal growth. Children and Youth Services Review, 109, 104676. L’Abate, L., & Colondie, G. (1987). The emperor has no clothes! Long live the emperor! A critique of family systems thinking and a reductionistic proposal. American Journal of Family Therapy, 15, 19–33. Ladd, G., & Ladd, B.  K. (2019). Parents and children’s peer relationships. In M.  H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 5: The practice of parenting (3rd ed.). Routledge. Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Raffaelli, M. (2000). The differential relations of parent and peer attachment to adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 45–59.

References

269

Laird, Y., Fawkner, S., & Niven, A. (2018). A grounded theory of how social support influences physical activity in adolescent girls. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 13(1), 1435099. Lambert-Shute, J. J., Nguyen, H. N., Peterson, P. W., & Pirasteh, A. B. (2019). Reflecting on the past: A content analysis of family therapy research from 2000-2015. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 45(2), 256–274. 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. Landon, O., Ganong, L., & Sanner, C. (2022). “Stop going in my room”: A grounded theory study of conflict among stepsiblings. Family Relations, 71(1), 256–278. Langenkamp, A. G., & Frisco, M. L. (2008). Family transitions and adolescent severe emotional distress: The salience of family context. Social Problems, 55, 238–253. Laszloffy, T. A. (2002). Rethinking family development theory: Teaching with the systemic family development (SFD) model. Family Relations, 51(3), 206–214. Latsch, A. (2018). The interplay of emotional instability and socio-environmental aspects of schools during adolescence. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 281–293. Laub, J. H. (2002). A century of delinquency research and delinquency theory. In M. K. Rosenbaum, F. E. Zimring, D. S. Tanenhaus, & B. Dohrn (Eds.), A century of juvenile justice (pp. 179–205). University of Chicago Press. Lavee, Y., & Dollahite, D. C. (1991). The linkage between theory and research in family science. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 361–373. Lavoie, F., Hebert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Vezina, L., & McDuff, P. (2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 375–383. Law, J. C., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1999). Definitions of adulthood: From the voices of parents and adolescents. Family Science Review, 11, 318–335. Lawrence, K. C., & Adebowale, T. A. (2023). Adolescence dropout risk predictors: Family structure, mental health, and self-esteem. Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1), 120–136. Le Grange, D., Eckhardt, S., Dalle Grave, R., Crosby, R.  D., Peterson, C.  B., Keery, H., et  al. (2022). Enhanced cognitive-behavior therapy and family-based treatment for adolescents with an eating disorder: A non-randomized effectiveness trial. Psychological Medicine, 52(13), 2520–2530. Lee, R. E., & Nichols, W. C. (2010). The doctoral education of professional marriage and family therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 259–269. Lee, D. M., & Park, J. H. (2020). The effect of family differentiation on college students’depression: The mediating role of autonomy. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 27(3), 87–119. Lee, G., Akers, R. L., & Borg, M. J. (2004). Social learning and structural factors in adolescent substance use. Western Criminology Review, 5, 17–34. Lee, T. K., Wickrama, K. A., & Simons, L. G. (2013). Chronic family economic hardship, family processes and progression of mental and physical health symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(6), 821–836. Lee, B., Gerber, J., & Cochran, J. (2020). Parenting styles and children’s delinquency reconsidered: An empirical assessment. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 71(2), 33–59. Lei, L., Leggett, A. N., & Maust, D. T. (2023). A national profile of sandwich generation caregivers providing care to both older adults and children. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 71(3), 799–809. Leidy, M. S., Guerra, N. G., & Toro, R. I. (2010). Positive parenting, family cohesion, and child social competence among immigrant Latino families. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 252–260. Lemmon, C.  R., & Josephson, A.  M. (2001). Family therapy for eating disorders. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinics of North America, 10, 519–542.

270

References

Lengua, L., Roosa, M. W., Shupak, E., Michaels, M., Berg, C., & Ayers, T. (1992). The role of focus groups in the development of community-based parenting intervention programs. Family Relations, 41, 163–168. Lerner, R. M. (2002). Adolescence: Development, diversity, context, and application. Prentice-Hall. Lerner, R. M., & Overton, W. F. (2008). Exemplifying the integrations of the relational developmental system: Synthesizing theory, research, and application to promote positive development and social justice. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 245–255. Lerner, R. M., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lewin-Bizan, S. (2009). Exploring the foundations and functions of adolescent thriving within the 4-H study of positive youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 567–570. Levesque, R. J. R. (2007). Book reviews and the need to take books more seriously. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 1086–1088. Levin, K. A., Dallago, L., & Currie, C. (2012). The association between adolescent life satisfaction, family structure, family affluence and gender differences in parent–child communication. Social Indicators Research, 106(2), 287–305. Levy, K. N., Blatt, S. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and parental representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 407–419. Lewis, A. J. (2020). Attachment-based family therapy for adolescent substance use: A move to the level of systems. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 948. Lewis, M., Feiring, C., & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over time. Child Development, 71, 707–720. Li, M., & Gong, H. (2022). Spare the rod, spoil the child? – Predictive effects of parental adult attachment on adolescent anxiety: The mediating role of harsh parenting. Journal of Affective Disorders, 312, 107–112. Li, X., Lee, C. Y., Chen, S. H., Gao, M., Hsueh, S. C., & Chiang, Y. C. (2022). The role of collective integration and parental involvement on adolescent anxiety  – A multilevel analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 317, 37–45. Lian, T.  C., & Yusooff, F. (2009). Effects of family functioning on self-esteem of children. European Journal of Social Sciences, 9, 643–650. Liddle, H. A. (1991). Empirical values and the culture of family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 327–348. Liddle, H. A. (1996). Family-based treatment for adolescent problem behaviors: Overview of contemporary developments and introduction to the special section. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 3–11. Liddle, H. A. (2004). Family-based therapies for adolescent alcohol and drug use: Research contributions and future research needs. Addiction, 99, 76–92. Liddle, H. A. (2010). Treating adolescent substance abuse using multidimensional family therapy. In J. Weisz & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (2nd ed., pp. 416–432). Guilford. Liddle, H. A., & Dakof, G. A. (1995). Efficacy of family therapy for drug abuse: Promising but not definitive. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 511–543. Liddle, H. A., & Schwartz, S. J. (2002). Attachment and family therapy: Clinical utilization of adolescent-family attachment research. Family Process, 41, 457–478. Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., & Diamond, G. (1991). Adolescent substance abuse: Multidimensional family therapy in action. In E. Kaufman & P. Kaufmann (Eds.), Family therapy of drug and alcohol abuse (2nd ed., pp. 120–171). Allyn & Bacon. Liddle, H.  A., Rowe, C.  L., Dakof, G., & Lyke, L. (1998). Translating parenting research into clinical interventions for families of adolescents. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3, 419–443. Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Diamond, G. M., Sessa, F., Schmidt, S., & Ettinger, D. (2000). Towards a developmental family therapy: The clinical utility of adolescent development research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 491–505.

References

271

Liddle, H.  A., Dakof, G.  A., Parker, K., Diamond, G.  S., Barrett, K., & Tejeda, M. (2001). Multidimensional family therapy for adolescent substance abuse: Results of a randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27, 651–687. Liddle, H. A., Jackson-Gilfort, A., & Marvel, F. A. (2006). An empirically-supported and culturally specific engagement and intervention strategy for African-American adolescent males. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 215–225. Liddle, H. A., Dakof, G. A., Turner, R. M., Henderson, C. E., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2008). Treating adolescent drug abuse: A randomized trial comparing multidimensional family therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. Addiction, 103, 1660–1670. Liddle, H.  A., Rowe, C.  L., Dakof, G.  A., Henderson, C.  E., & Greenbaum, P.  E. (2009). Multidimensional family therapy for young adolescent substance abuse: Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 12–25. Liddle, H.  A., Dakof, G.  A., Henderson, C., & Rowe, C. (2011). Implementation outcomes of multidimensional family therapy  – Detention to community: A reintegration program for drug-using juvenile detainees. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 587–604. Lifshitz, C., Tsvieli, N., Bar-Kalifa, E., Abbott, C., Diamond, G. S., Roger Kobak, R., & Diamond, G. M. (2021). Emotional processing in attachment-based family therapy for suicidal adolescents. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 267–279. Lin, S., Yu, C., Chen, J., Zhang, W., Cao, L., & Liu, L. (2020). Predicting adolescent aggressive behavior from community violence exposure, deviant peer affiliation and school engagement: A one-year longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104840. Linebarger, D.  L., Barr, R., Lapierre, M.  A., & Piotrowski, J.  T. (2014). Associations between parenting, media use, cumulative risk, and children’s executive functioning. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 35(6), 367–377. Lippert, A. M., Corsi, D. J., & Venechuk, G. E. (2019). Schools influence adolescent e-cigarette use, but when? Examining the interdependent association between school context and teen vaping over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(10), 1899–1911. Lochman, J. E. (2000). Parent and family skills training in targeted prevention programs for at-risk youth. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 253–265. Lochman, J.  E. (2004). Contextual factors in risk and prevention research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 311–325. Lock, J., & Le Grange, D. (2019). Family-based treatment: Where are we and where should we be going to improve recovery in child and adolescent eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 52(4), 481–487. Longmore, M. A., Manning, W. D., & Giordano, P. C. (2001). Preadolescent parenting strategies and teens’ dating and sexual initiation: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 322–335. Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Multigenerational caregiving and well-being: The myth of the beleaguered sandwich generation. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 131–148. Lopez, F. G. (1995). Attachment theory as an integrative framework for family counseling. The Family Journal, 3, 11–17. Lovato, K. (2019). Forced separations: A qualitative examination of how Latino/a adolescents cope with parental deportation. Children and Youth Services Review, 98, 42–50. Lucas-Thompson, R. G., Lunkenheimer, E. S., & Dumitrache, A. (2017). Associations between marital conflict and adolescent conflict appraisals, stress physiology, and mental health. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 46(3), 379–393. Luke, A., & Carmen, L. (2018). Adolescence lost/childhood regained: On early intervention and the emergence of the techno-subject. In Critical literacy, schooling, and social justice (pp. 189–215). Routledge. Luthar, S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885.

272

References

Lyness, K. P. (2020). Training and credentialing in the profession of marriage and family therapy. In The handbook of systemic family therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 555–575). Lyons, K. S., & Lee, C. S. (2020). A multilevel modeling approach to examine incongruent illness appraisals in family care dyads over time. Journal of Family Nursing, 26(3), 229–239. Lyons, K.  S., & Sayer, A.  G. (2005). Longitudinal dyad models in family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1048–1060. Ma, C. Q., & Huebner, E. S. (2008). Attachment relationships and adolescents’ life satisfaction: Some relationships matter more to girls than boys. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 177–190. Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization, personality, and social development (Vol. 4, pp. 1–101). Wiley. MacKenzie, D. L. (1998). Using the US land-grant system as a model to attack this nation’s crime problem. The Criminologist, 23, 1–4. Accessed July 12, 2010, from http://www.asc41.com/ March-­April%201998.htm MacMillan, R., & Copher, R. (2005). Families in the life course: Interdependency of roles, role configurations, and pathways. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 858–879. Madison, S. M., McKay, M. M., Paikoff, R., & Bell, C. C. (2000). Basic research and community collaboration: Necessary ingredients for the development of a family-based HIV prevention program. AIDS Education and Prevention, 12, 281–298. Magnuson, K., Alvarado, S., Bures, R., Gennetian, L., & Kalil, A. (2022). Family background and early childhood retrospectives content panel report. https://www.bls.gov/nls/pdf/NLSY26_ family_background.pdf Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66–104. Maio, G. R., Fincham, F. D., & Lycett, E. J. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence toward parents and attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1451–1464. Maltby, J., Giles, D. C., Barber, L., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2005). Intense-personal celebrity worship and body image: evidence of a link among female adolescents. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10(1), 17–32. Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-­ parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 876–893. Manzi, C., Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., & Scabini, E. (2006). Cohesion and enmeshment revisited: Differentiation, identity, and well-being in two European cultures. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 673–689. Mardhiyah, A., Panduragan, S.  L., & Mediani, H.  S. (2022). Reducing psychological impacts on children with chronic disease via family empowerment: A scoping review. Healthcare, 10(10), 2034. Marek, L. I., Brock, D. J. P., & Sullivan, R. (2006). Cultural adaptations to a family life skills program: Implementation in rural Appalachia. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 113–133. Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A. B., & Brengdon, M. (2001). The quality of adolescents’ friendships: Associations with mothers’ interpersonal relationships, attachment to parents and friends, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 429–445. Marsiglio, W., Hutchinson, S., & Cohan, M. (2000). Envisioning fatherhood: A social psychological perspective on young men without kids. Family Relations, 49, 133–142. Martin, T.  F. (2018). Family development theory 30 years later. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 49–69. Martínez, I., Murgui, S., Garcia, O. F., & Garcia, F. (2019). Parenting in the digital era: Protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 84–92. Marvel, F., Rowe, C., Colon-Perez, L., DiClemente, R. J., & Liddle, H. A. (2009). Multidimensional Family Therapy HIV/STD risk reduction intervention: An integrative family-based model for drug-involved juvenile offenders. Family Process, 48, 69–84.

References

273

Masarik, A. S., & Rogers, C. R. (2020). Sibling warmth moderates the intergenerational transmission of romantic relationship hostility. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(5), 1431–1443. Masiran, R., Ibrahim, N., Awang, H., & Ying, L. P. (2022). The positive and negative aspects of parentification: An integrated review. Children and Youth Services Review, 144, 106709. Masten, A.  S., & Shaffer, A. (2006). How families matter in child development. In A.  Clarke-­ Stewart & J. Dunn (Eds.), Families count (pp. 5–25). Cambridge University Press. Mastrotheodoros, S., Van der Graaff, J., Deković, M., Meeus, W.  H., & Branje, S.  J. (2019). Coming closer in adolescence: Convergence in mother, father, and adolescent reports of parenting. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(4), 846–862. Mastrotheodoros, S., Canário, C., Cristina Gugliandolo, M., Merkas, M., & Keijsers, L. (2020a). Family functioning and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems: Disentangling between-, and within-family associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 804–817. Mastrotheodoros, S., Van der Graaff, J., Deković, M., Meeus, W. H., & Branje, S. (2020b). Parent– adolescent conflict across adolescence: Trajectories of informant discrepancies and associations with personality types. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 119–135. Mathijssen, J. J. J. P., Koot, H. M., Verhulst, F. C., De Bruyn, E. E. J., & Oud, J. H. L. (1997). Family functioning and child psychopathology: Individual versus composite family scores. Family Relations, 46, 247–255. Matjasko, J.  L., & Paz, K.  A. (2005). The role of families in developmental continuity and change in adolescence. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 385–387). Sage. Matjasko, J. L., Grunden, L. N., & Ernst, J. L. (2007). Structural and dynamic process family risk factors: Consequences for holistic adolescent functioning. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 654–674. Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., & Takeuchi, S. (1996). Changing patterns of individualism and collectivism in the United States and Japan. Culture and Psychology, 2, 77–107. Mattessich, P., & Hill, R. (1987). Life cycle and family development. In M.  B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 437–469). Plenum. McCammon, S.  L., Spencer, S.  A., & Friesen, B.  J. (2001). Promoting family empowerment through multiple roles. In D. A. Dosser, D. Handron, S. McCammon, & J. Y. Powell (Eds.), Child mental health: Exploring systems of care in the new millennium (pp. 1–24). Haworth. McCammon, S.  L., Spencer, S.  A., & Friesen, B.  J. (2018). Promoting family empowerment through multiple roles. In D. A. Dosser, D. Handron, S. McCammon, & J. Y. Powell (Eds.), Child mental health: Exploring systems of care in the new millennium (pp. 1–24). Routledge. McCauley, D. M., Sloan, C. J., Xia, M., & Fosco, G. M. (2021). Same family, divergent realities: How triangulation preserves parents’ illusory harmony while adolescents navigate interparental conflicts. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 128. McDade, R. S., Vidourek, R. A., Biradar, K. S., King, K. A., & Merianos, A. A. (2020). Impact of parental communication on African American adolescent sexual behavior: A mini literature review. Sexuality & Culture, 24, 1579–1593. McDonald, L., & Frey, H. E. (1999). Families and schools together: Building relationships. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. McDonald, L., & Sayger, T. V. (1998). Impact of a family and school based prevention program on protective factors for high risk youth. Drugs & Society, 12(1–2), 61–85. McDowell, T., & Shelton, D. (2002). Valuing social justice in MFT curriculum. Contemporary Family Therapy, 24, 313–331. McGoldrick, M., Almeida, R., Preto, N. G., Bibb, A., Sutton, C. E., Hudak, J., et al. (1999). Efforts to incorporate social justice perspectives into a family therapy training program. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 191–209. McHale, S.  M., Updegraff, K.  A., Helms-Erikson, H., & Crouter, A.  C. (2001). Sibling influences on gender development in middle childhood and early adolescence: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 37, 115–125.

274

References

McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. D. (2003). The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12, 125–148. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 913–930. McKay, M.  M., Taberchasse, K., Paikoff, R., McKinney, L., Baptiste, D., Coleman, D., et  al. (2004). Family-level impact of the CHAMP family program: A community collaborative effort to support urban families and reduce youth HIV risk exposure. Family Process, 43, 79–93. McKay, M., Block, M., Mellins, C., Traube, D.  E., Brackis-Cott, E., Minott, D., et  al. (2007). Adapting a family-based HIV prevention program for HIV-infected preadolescents and their families: Youth, families and health care providers coming together to address complex needs. Social Work in Mental Health, 5(3–4), 355–378. McKay, M.  M., Alicea, S., Elwyn, L., McClain, Z.  R., Parker, G., Small, L.  A., & Mellins, C.  A. (2014). The development and implementation of theory-driven programs capable of addressing poverty-impacted children’s health, mental health, and prevention needs: CHAMP and CHAMP+, evidence-informed, family-based interventions to address HIV risk and care. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(3), 428–441. McKenry, P.  C., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (1994). Visions 2010: Adolescents and families. National Council on Family Relations Publications. McKeown, R. E., Garrison, C. Z., Jackson, K. L., Cuffe, S. P., Addy, C. L., & Waller, J. L. (1997). Family structure and cohesion, and depressive symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 267–281. McWey, L. M., West, S. H., Ruble, N., Handy, A. K., Handy, D. G., Koshy, M., et al. (2002). The practice of clinical research in accredited marriage and family therapy programs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 85–92. Mechielsen, J., Galbraith, M., & White, A. (2014). Reclaiming indigenous youth in Australia: Families and schools together. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems: Reclaiming Children and Youth, 23(2), 35–41. Melby, J., & Conger, R. D. (1996). Parental behaviors and adolescent academic performance: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 113–137. Mellins, C. A., Nestadt, D., Bhana, A., Petersen, I., Abrams, E. J., Alicea, S., et al. (2014). Adapting evidence-based interventions to meet the needs of adolescents growing up with HIV in South Africa: The VUKA case example. Global Social Welfare, 1(3), 97–110. Mendez, L., & Kerig, P. K. (2023). Gang membership among adolescents from distinct racial and ethnic backgrounds: The roles of neighborhood conditions and victimization. Journal of interpersonal violence, 38(11-12), 7556–7577. Merçon-Vargas, E. A., Lima, R. F. F., Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2020). Processing proximal processes: What Bronfenbrenner meant, what he didn’t mean, and what he should have meant. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 321–334. Merrill, R. A., & Liang, X. (2019). Associations between adolescent media use, mental health, and risky sexual behaviors. Children and Youth Services Review, 103, 1–9. Meschke, L.  L., Bartholomae, S., & Zentall, S.  R. (2000). Adolescent sexuality and parent-­ adolescent processes: Promoting healthy teen choices. Family Relations, 49, 143–154. Meunier, J.  C., Boyle, M., O’Connor, T.  G., & Jenkins, J.  M. (2013). Multilevel mediation: Cumulative contextual risk, maternal differential treatment, and children’s behavior within families. Child Development, 84(5), 1594–1615. Meyers, R. J., & Smith, J. E. (1995). Clinical guide to alcohol treatment: The community reinforcement approach. Guilford. Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21–47. Mihalic, S.  W., Fagan, A., Irwin, K., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D. (2004). Blueprints for violence prevention. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http:// www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204274.pdf

References

275

Miklowitz, D. J., Simoneau, T. L., George, E. L., Richards, J. A., Kalbag, A., Sachs-Ericsson, N., et al. (2000). Family-focused treatment of bipolar disorder: 1-year effects of a psychoeducational program in conjunction with pharmacotherapy. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 582–592. Miklowitz, D.  J., George, E.  L., Axelson, D.  A., Kim, E.  Y., & Birmaher, B. (2004). Family-­ focused treatment for adolescents with bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, 113–128. Milardo, R. M. (2009). Editorial: Following a sociological imagination. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 1–3. Milardo, R.  M. (2010). From the editor: Auguries of year two. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 1–3. Milevsky, A. (2022). Relationships in transition: Maternal and paternal parenting styles and change in sibling dynamics during adolescence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 89–109. Miller, E. A. (2023). The attachment versus differentiation debate: Bringing the conversation to parent–child relationships. Family Process, e12802. Advance publication https://doi. org/10.1111/famp.12802 Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). Guilford. Miller, B.  C., Norton, M.  C., Fan, X., & Christopherson, C.  R. (1998). Parental discipline and control attempts in relation to adolescent sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 503–512. Miller, K. S., Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (1999). Adolescent sexual behavior in two ethnic minority samples: The role of family variables. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 85–98. Miller-Day, M.  A. (2002). Parent-adolescent communication about alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 604–616. Miltuze, A., Sebre, S. B., & Martinsone, B. (2021). Consistent and appropriate parental restrictions mitigating against children’s compulsive internet use: A one-year longitudinal study. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26, 883–895. Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302. Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Harvard University Press. Minuchin, S., Rosman, B. L., & Baker, L. (1978). Psychosomatic families. Harvard University Press. Mitchell, K. S., Booth, A., & King, V. (2009). Adolescents with nonresident fathers: Are daughters more disadvantaged than sons? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 650–662. Molgaard, V., & Spoth, R. (2001). The strengthening families program for young adolescents: Overview and outcomes. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 18, 15–29. Molgaard, V., Spoth, R.  L., & Redmond, C. (2000). Competency training: The strengthening families program for parents and youth 10–14. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Molinari, L., Everri, M., & Fruggeri, L. (2010). Family microtransitions: Observing the process of change in families with adolescent children. Family Process, 49, 236–250. Moore, K.  A., & Lippman, L. (2005). What do children need to flourish: Conceptualizing and measuring positive development. Springer. Moore, K. A., McGroder, S. M., Hair, E. C., & Gunnoe, M. (1999). NLSY97 codebook supplement main file round 1. Appendix 9: Family process and adolescent outcomes measures. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor, from http://www.nlsinfo.org/ Moore, G. F., Cox, R., Evans, R. E., Hallingberg, B., Hawkins, J., Littlecott, H. J., et al. (2018). School, peer and family relationships and adolescent substance use, subjective wellbeing and mental health symptoms in Wales: A cross sectional study. Child Indicators Research, 11(6), 1951–1965. Moreira, J. F. G., & Telzer, E. H. (2015). Changes in family cohesion and links to depression during the college transition. Journal of Aadolescence, 43, 72–82.

276

References

Mota, C. P., & Matos, P. M. (2015). Does sibling relationship matter to self-concept and resilience in adolescents under residential care? Children and Youth Services Review, 56, 97–106. Mounts, N. S., & Valentiner, D. P. (2021). Do ask, do tell? Observations of mothers’ solicitation and adolescents’ disclosure. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 160–171. Mowen, T. J., & Schroeder, R. D. (2018). Maternal parenting style and delinquency by race and the moderating effect of structural disadvantage. Youth & Society, 50(2), 139–159. Mullis, R. L., Brailsford, J. C., & Mullis, A. K. (2003). Relations between identity formation and family characteristics among young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 966–980. Mullis, A. K., Mullis, R. L., Schwartz, S. J., Pease, J. L., & Shriner, M. (2007). Relations among parental divorce, identity status, and coping strategies of college age women. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7, 137–154. Mullis, R. L., Graf, S. C., & Mullis, A. K. (2009). Parental relationships, autonomy, and identity processes of high school students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 170, 326–338. Murry, V.  M., & Lippold, M.  A. (2018). Parenting practices in diverse family structures: Examination of adolescents’ development and adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28(3), 650–664. Naar-King, S., Podolski, C. L., Ellis, D. A., Frey, M. A., & Templin, T. (2006). Social ecological model of illness management in high-risk youths with Type 1 Diabetes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 785–789. Nair, R. L., White, R., Roche, K. M., & Zhao, C. (2022). Discrimination in Latinx families’ linked lives: Examining the roles of family process and youth worries. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(4), 523. Navarro, J.  L., & Tudge, J.  R. (2022). Technologizing bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology, 1–17. Navarro, J.  L., Stephens, C., Rodrigues, B.  C., Walker, I.  A., Cook, O., O’Toole, L., & Tudge, J. R. (2022). Bored of the rings: Methodological and analytic approaches to operationalizing Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model in research practice. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 14(2), 233–253. Nelson, J., O’Brien, M., Blankson, N., Calkins, S., & Keane, S. (2009). Family stress and parental responses to children’s negative emotions: Tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypotheses. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 671–679. Nestadt, D. F., Saisaengjan, C., McKay, M. M., Bunupuradah, T., Pardo, G., Lakhonpon, S., et al. (2019). CHAMP+ Thailand: pilot randomized control trial of a family-based psychosocial intervention for perinatally HIV-infected early adolescents. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 33(5), 227–236. Newcomb, M. D., & Loeb, T. B. (1999). Poor parenting as an adult problem behavior: General deviance, deviant attitudes, inadequate family support and bonding, or just bad parents? Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 175–193. Newton-John, T. (2022). Extending the biopsychosocial conceptualisation of chronic post surgical pain in children and adolescents: The family systems perspective. Canadian Journal of Pain, 6(2), 142–151. Nichols, M.  P., & Schwartz, R.  C. (2006). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (7th ed.). Pearson. Nichols, M.  P., & Schwartz, R.  C. (2016). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (11th ed.). Pearson. Nielsen, P., Christensen, M., Henderson, C., Liddle, H. A., Croquette-Krokar, M., Favez, N., & Rigter, H. (2021). Multidimensional family therapy reduces problematic gaming in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 10(2), 234–243. Norman, E., & Turner, S. (1993). Adolescent substance abuse prevention programs: Theories, models, and research in the encouraging 80s. Journal of Primary Prevention, 14, 3–20. O’Brien, M. (2005). Studying individual and family development: Linking theory and research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 880–890.

References

277

O’Connor, T.  G., Hetherington, E.  M., & Clingepeel, W.  G. (1997). Systems and bidirectional influences in families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 491–504. O’Connor, T. G., Hetherington, E. M., & Reiss, D. (1998). Family systems and adolescent development: Shared and nonshared risk and protective factors in nondivorced and remarried families. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 353–375. O’Donnell, E. H., Moreau, M., Cardemil, E. V., & Pollastri, A. (2010). Interparental conflict, parenting, and childhood depression in a diverse urban population: The role of general cognitive style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 12–22. O’Keefe, M. (1997). Adolescents’ exposure to community and school violence: Prevalence and behavioral correlates. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 368–376. O’Sullivan, L. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., & Watkins, B. X. (2001). Mother-daughter communication about sex Among urban African American and Latino families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 269–292. Ohannessian, C. M. (2009). Does technology use moderate the relationship between parental alcoholism and adolescent alcohol and cigarette use? Addictive Behaviors, 34, 606–609. Ohannessian, C. M., & Hesselbrock, V. (2005). The relationship between parental psychopathology and adolescent pychopathology: An examination of gender patterns. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(2), 67–76. Ohannessian, C. M., & Hesselbrock, V. M. (2008). Paternal alcoholism and youth substance abuse: The indirect effects of negative affect, conduct problems, and risk taking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(2), 198–200. Ohannessian, C. M., Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & von Eye, A. (2000). Adolescent-parent discrepancies in perceptions of family functioning and early adolescent self-competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 362–372. Oliveira, C., Fonseca, G., Sotero, L., Crespo, C., & Relvas, A. P. (2020). Family dynamics during emerging adulthood: Reviewing, integrating, and challenging the field. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 350–367. Olson, D. H. L. (1976). Bridging research, theory, and application: The triple threat in science. In D. H. L. Olson (Ed.), Treating relationships (pp. 565–579). Graphic Press. Olson, D. H. L., & DeFrain, J. (2006). Marriages and families (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Olson, D. H. L., & DeFrain, J. (2022). Marriages and families (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Olson, R., & Metzger, A. (2019). Disaggregating behavioral and psychological components of religious and spiritual development across adolescence: Variations by geographic location. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(1), 1–8. Olson, D. H., Waldvogel, L., & Schlieff, M. (2019). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: An update. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 199–211. Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065–1083. Owens, R. L., & Waters, L. (2020). What does positive psychology tell us about early intervention and prevention with children and adolescents? A review of positive psychological interventions with young people. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(5), 588–597. Padilla-Walker, L. M. (2007). Characteristics of mother-child interactions related to adolescents’ positive values and behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 675–686. Pagani, L. S., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., & Patterson, G. R. (1982). Risk factor models for adolescent verbal and physical aggression toward mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 528–537. Paikoff, R. L., Parfenoff, S. H., Williams, S. A., & McCormick, A. (1997). Parenting, parent–child relationships, and sexual possibility situations among urban African American preadolescents: Preliminary findings and implications for HIV prevention. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 11–22. Paley, B., Conger, R. D., & Harold, G. T. (2000). Parents’ affect, adolescent cognitive representations, and adolescent social development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 761–776.

278

References

Pallock, L., & Lamborn, S. (2006). Beyond parenting practices: Extended kinship support and the academic adjustment of African American and European American teens. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 813–828. Pallone, L.  C., Dembo, R., & Schmeidler, R.  J. (2014). Family empowerment intervention: An innovative service for high-risk youths and their families. Routledge. Panagouli, E., Stavridou, A., Savvidi, C., Kourti, A., Psaltopoulou, T., Sergentanis, T.  N., & Tsitsika, A. (2021). School performance among children and adolescents during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Children, 8(12), 1134. Pantaleao, A., & Ohannessian, C.  M. (2019). Does coping mediate the relationship between adolescent-­parent communication and adolescent internalizing symptoms? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 479–489. Park, J. H., & Park, J. S. (2017). The relation between marital conflict and adolescents’ behavioral problems: Testing the mediating process of sibling relationship. The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 1–18. Park, J., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., et al. (2000). Effects of the “preparing for the drug free years” curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prevention Science, 1, 125–138. Parra-Cardona, J. R., Sharp, E. A., & Wampler, R. S. (2008). “Changing for my kid”: Fatherhood experiences of Mexican-origini teen fathers involved in the justice system. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 369–387. Paschall, M. J., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (2003). Effects of parenting, father absence, and affiliation with delinquent peers on delinquent behavior among African-American male adolescents. Adolescence, 38, 15–34. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Castalia. Patterson, G.  R., & Yoerger, K. (1993). Developmental models for delinquent behavior. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 140–172). Sage. Patterson, G.  R., Bank, L., & Stoolmiller, M. (1990). The preadolescent’s contributions to disrupted family process. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence (pp. 107–133). Sage. Payne, P. B., Mitchell, S.N., Lopez, C., DeCount, T., Shrout, M.R. , Russell, K.N., Weigel, D.J., Evans, W.P., & Weiser, D.A. (2023). Young adults’ perceptions of morality based messages from parents about sex: An exploratory study. Family Relations. Advance publication https:// doi-org/proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1111/fare.12942 Pei, F., Wang, Y., Wu, Q., McCarthy, K. S., & Wu, S. (2020). The roles of neighborhood social cohesion, peer substance use, and adolescent depression in adolescent substance use. Children and Youth Services Review, 112, 104931. Peris, T. S., Cummings, E. M., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Emery, R. E. (2008). Martial conflict and support seeking by parents in adolescence: Empirical support for the parentification construct. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 633–642. Perkins, D.  D., & Zimmerman, M.  A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 569–579. Perrino, T., Brincks, A., Howe, G., Brown, C. H., Prado, G., & Pantin, H. (2016a). Reducing internalizing symptoms among high-risk, Hispanic adolescents: Mediators of a preventive family intervention. Prevention Science, 17(5), 595–605. Perrino, T., Pantin, H., Huang, S., Brincks, A., Brown, C. H., & Prado, G. (2016b). Reducing the risk of internalizing symptoms among high-risk Hispanic youth through a family intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Family Process, 55(1), 91–106. Peterson, G. W. (2005). Family influences on adolescent development. In T. P. Gullotta & G. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behavior problems (pp. 27–55). Springer. Peterson, G.  W., & Hann, D. (1999). Socializing children and parents in families. In M.  B. Sussman, S.  K. Steinmetz, & G.  W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 327–370). Plenum.

References

279

Phares, V. (1999). “Poppa” psychology: The role of fathers in childrens’ mental well-being. Praeger. Phares, V. (2002). Finding poppa in substance abuse research. Addiction, 97, 1119–1120. Phares, V., Fields, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009a). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with their adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 1–9. Phares, V., Renk, K., Duhig, A. M., Fields, S., & Sly, J. (2009b). Gender differences in positive and negative feelings between adolescents and their fathers and mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 213–218. Phillips, S. P., Reipas, K., & Zelek, B. (2019). Stresses, strengths and resilience in adolescents: A qualitative study. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 40(6), 631–642. Pilgrim, C., Abbey, A., Hendrickson, P., & Lorenz, S. (1998). Implementation and impact of a family-based substance abuse prevention program in rural communities. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 341–361. Pinquart, M. (2016). Associations of parenting styles and dimensions with academic achievement in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 475–493. Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873. Pinquart, M., & Ebeling, M. (2020). Parental educational expectations and academic achievement in children and adolescents – A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 463–480. Pinquart, M., & Gerke, D. C. (2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28, 2017–2035. Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(1), 75–100. Pinquart, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2005). Influences of parents and siblings on the development of children and adolescents. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 367–382). Sage. Pinquart, M., Feußner, C., & Ahnert, L. (2013). Meta-analytic evidence for stability in attachments from infancy to early adulthood. Attachment & Human Development, 15(2), 189–218. Pinsof, W.  M., & Wynne, L.  C. (1995a). The effectiveness and efficacy of marital and family therapy: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 341–343. Pinsof, W.  M., & Wynne, L.  C. (1995b). The effectiveness and efficacy of marital and family therapy: An empirical overview, conclusions, and recommendations. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 341–343. Pinsof, W. M., & Wynne, L. C. (2000). Toward progress research: Closing the gap between family therapy practice and research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 1–8. Pleck, J. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M.  E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 58–93). Wiley. Plunkett, S. W., & Henry, C. S. (1999). Adolescent perceptions of interparental conflict, stressors, and coping as predictors of adolescent family life satisfaction. Sociological Inquiry, 69, 599–620. Pomerantz, E. M., & Wang, Q. (2009). The role of parental control in children’s development in Western and East Asian Countries. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 285–289. Poulton, R., Van Ryzin, M. J., Harold, G. T., Chamberlain, P., Fowler, D., Cannon, M., et al. (2014). Effects of multidimensional treatment foster care on psychotic symptoms in girls. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(12), 1279–1287. Prado, G., Pantin, H., Briones, E., Schwartz, S. J., Feaster, D., Huang, S., et al. (2007). A randomized controlled trial of a parent-centered intervention in preventing substance use and HIV risk behaviors in Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 914–926. Prather, W. (2007). Trauma and psychotherapy: Implications from a behavior analysis perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3, 555–570.

280

References

Prather, W., & Golden, J.  A. (2009a). Learning and thinking: A behavioral treatise on abuse and antisocial behavior in young criminal offenders. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 5(1), 75–105. Prather, W., & Golden, J. A. (2009b). A behavioral perspective of childhood trauma and attachment issues: Toward alternative treatment approaches for children with a history of abuse. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 5, 56–74. Pratt, K. J., & Skelton, J. A. (2018). Family functioning and childhood obesity treatment: A family systems theory-informed approach. Academic Pediatrics, 18(6), 620–627. Prelow, H. M., Loukas, A., & Jordan-Green, L. (2007). Socioenvironmental risk and adjustment in Latino youth: The mediating effects of family processes and social competence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 465–476. Preto, N.  G. (1989). Transformation of the family system in adolescence. In E.  A. Carter & M.  McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 255–284). Allyn & Bacon. Preto, N. G., & Travis, N. (1985). The adolescent phase of the family life cycle. In M. P. Mirkin & S. L. Koman (Eds.), Handbook of adolescents and family therapy (pp. 52–69). Allyn & Bacon. Price, S. (1994). Note from the series editor. In P. C. McKenry & S. M. Gavazzi (Eds.), Visions 2010: Adolescents and families (p. i). National Council on Family Relations Publications. Prime, H., Wade, M., & Browne, D. T. (2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 75(5), 631–643. Prioste, A., Tavares, P., Silva, C.  S., & Magalhães, E. (2020). The relationship between family climate and identity development processes: The moderating role of developmental stages and outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(6), 1525–1536. Profe, W. B., Wild, L. G., & Tredoux, C. (2021). Adolescents’ responses to the distress of others: The influence of multiple attachment figures via empathic concern. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(5), 1671–1691. Pusch, N. (2022). A meta-analytic review of social learning theory and teen dating violence perpetration. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 00224278221130004. Pylyser, C., Loncke, J., Loeys, T., De Mol, J., & Buysse, A. (2020). Perceived mattering in stepfamilies: A social relations model analysis. Personal Relationships, 27(2), 366–384. Qin, D.  B. (2008). Doing well vs. feeling well: Understanding family dynamics and the psychological adjustment of Chinese immigrant adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 22–35. Racz, S. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2011). The relationship between parental knowledge and monitoring and child and adolescent conduct problems: A 10-year update. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 377–398. Raley, R.  K., & Sweeney, M.  M. (2020). Divorce, repartnering, and stepfamilies: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 81–99. Raneri, L. G., & Wiemann, C. M. (2007). Social ecological predictors of repeat adolescent pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39, 39–47. Rankin, S.  H., & Weekes, D.  P. (1989). Life-span development: A review of theory and practice for families with chronically ill members. Scholarly Inquiry far Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 3, 3–22. Rasmussen, K. E., & Troilo, J. (2016). “It has to be perfect!”: The development of perfectionism and the family system. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(2), 154–172. Ream, G. L., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). Reciprocal associations between adolescent sexual activity and quality of youth–parent interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 171–179. Reeb, B.  T., Chan, S.  Y. S., Conger, K.  J., Martin, M.  J., Hollis, N.  D., Serido, J., & Russell, S.  T. (2015). Prospective effects of family cohesion on alcohol-related problems in adolescence: Similarities and differences by race/ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1941–1953. Regnerus, M. (2012). How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the new family structures study. Social Science Research, 41(4), 752–770.

References

281

Regnerus, M.  D., & Luchies, L.  B. (2006). The parent-child relationship and opportunities for adolescents’ first sex. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 159–183. Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 844–872. Rende, R., Slomkowski, C., Lloyd-Richardson, E., & Niaura, R. (2005). Sibling effects on substance use in adolescence: Social contagion and genetic relatedness. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 611–618. Resendez, M. G., Quist, R. M., & Matshazi, D. G. M. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of family empowerment and client outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 449–460. Reuter, M., & Conger, R. D. (1995). Antecedents of parent-adolescent disagreements. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 435–448. Richardson, R. A. (2004). Early adolescence talking points: Questions that middle school students want to ask their parents. Family Relations, 53, 87–94. Riggins-Caspers, K.  M., Cadoret, R.  J., Knutson, J.  F., & Langbehn, D. (2003). Biology-­ environment interaction and evocative biology-environment correlation: Contributions of harsh discipline and parental psychopathology to problem adolescent behaviors. Behavior Genetics, 33, 205–220. Rivas-Koehl, M., Valido, A., Espelage, D. L., & Lawrence, T. I. (2023). Adults and family as supportive of adolescent sexual development in the age of smartphones? Exploring cybersexual violence victimization, pornography use, and risky sexual behaviors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1–13. Advance publication https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02618-2 Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., Newell, R. M., & Turner, C. W. (1996). The immediate effect of reframing on client attitude in family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 28–34. Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., & Turner, C. W. (2000). Disrupting defensive family interactions in family therapy with delinquent adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 688–701. Robbins, M.  S., Turner, C.  W., Alexander, J.  F., & Perez, G.  A. (2003). Alliance and dropout in family therapy for adolescents with behavior problems: Individual and systemic effects. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 534–544. Robbins, M. S., Alexander, J. F., Turner, C. W., & Hollimon, A. (2016). Evolution of functional family therapy as an evidence-based practice for adolescents with disruptive behavior problems. Family Process, 55(3), 543–557. Roche, K.  M., & Leventhal, T. (2009). Beyond neighborhood poverty: Family management, neighborhood disorder, and adolescents’ early sexual onset. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 819–827. Roche, K. M., Mekos, D., Alexander, C. S., Astone, N. M., Bandeen-Roche, K., & Ensminger, M. E. (2005). Parenting influences on early sex initiation among adolescents: How neighborhood matters. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 32–54. Roche, K. M., Ensminger, M. E., & Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Variations in parenting and adolescent outcomes among African American and Latino families living in low-income, urban areas. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 882–909. Rodgers, R. H., & White, J. M. (1993). Family development theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R.  LaRossa, W.  R. Schumm, & S.  K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 225–254). Plenum. Rohner, R. P., & Khaleque, A. (2009). Testing central postulates of Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory (PARTheory): A meta-analysis of cross-cultural studies. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 73–87. Roisman, G.  I., Madsen, S.  D., Hennighausen, K.  H., Sroufe, L.  A., & Collins, W.  A. (2001). The coherence of dyadic behavior across parent–child and romantic relationships as mediated by the internalized representation of experience. Attachment and Human Development, 3, 156–172. Rojas, L.  M., Bahamon, M., Lebron, C., Montero-Zamora, P., Pardo, M., Wakefield, M., et  al. (2021a). A feasibility trial of an online-only, family-centered preventive intervention for Hispanics: e-Familias Unidas. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 42, 97–124.

282

References

Rojas, L. M., Ochoa, L. G., Sánchez Ahumada, M., Quevedo, A., Muñoz, V., Condo, C., & Prado, G. (2021b). Parent attendance in a family-based preventive intervention delivered in Latin America and the United States. Health Promotion Practice, 22(4), 531–539. Rolan, E., & Marceau, K. (2018). Individual and sibling characteristics: Parental differential treatment and adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(12), 2535–2553. Romm, K. F., & Metzger, A. (2021). Profiles of parenting behaviors: Associations with adolescents’ problematic outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30, 941–954. Rosenfeld, R., Jacobs, B. A., & Wright, R. (2003). Snitching and the code of the street. The British Journal of Criminology, 43, 291–309. Rosenstein, D. S., & Horowitz, H. A. (1996). Adolescent attachment and psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 244–253. Roskam, I. (2019). Externalizing behavior from early childhood to adolescence: Prediction from inhibition, language, parenting, and attachment. Development and Psychopathology, 31(2), 587–599. Rowe, C. L., & Liddle, H. A. (2008). When the levee breaks: Treating adolescents and families in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 132–148. Rowe, C. L., Gomez, L., & Liddle, H. A. (2006). Family therapy research: Empirical foundations and practice implications. In M. Nichols & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Family therapy: Concepts and methods (7th ed., pp. 395–445). Allyn & Bacon. Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K. M., Booth-LaForce, C., Kim, A. H., Burgess, K. B., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (2004). Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 326–356. Ruff, S. C., Durtschi, J. A., & Day, R. D. (2018). Family subsystems predicting adolescents’ perceptions of sibling relationship quality over time. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(3), 527–542. Russell, C. S. (1993). Family development theory as revised by Rodgers and White: Implications for practice. In D. Boss, S. LaRossa, & Steinmetz (Eds.), Source book of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 255–258). Plenum. Russon, J., Smithee, L., Simpson, S., Levy, S., & Diamond, G. (2022). Demonstrating attachment-­ based family therapy for transgender and gender diverse youth with suicidal thoughts and behavior: A case study. Family Process, 61(1), 230–245. Sabatelli, R. M., & Bartle, S. E. (1995). Survey approaches to the assessment of family functioning: Conceptual, operational, and analytical issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 1025–1039. Sagrestano, L. M., Paikoff, R. L., Holmbeck, G. N., & Fendrich, M. (2003). A longitudinal examination of familial risk factors for depression among inner-city African American adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 108–120. Sahithya, B. R., Manohari, S. M., & Vijaya, R. (2019). Parenting styles and its impact on children–a cross cultural review with a focus on India. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 22(4), 357–383. Salaam, B., & Mounts, N.  S. (2016). Maternal warmth, behavioral control, and psychological control: Relations to adjustment of Ghanaian early adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 49, 99–104. Saltzburg, S. (2007). Narrative therapy pathways for re-authoring with parents of adolescents coming-­out as lesbian, gay, and bisexual. Contemporary Family Therapy, 29, 57–69. Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 613–640. Sampson, R.  J., & Laub, J.  H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T.  P. Thornberry (Ed.), Advances in criminological theory: Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (Vol. 7, pp. 133–161). Transaction Publishers. Sandberg, J. G., Johnson, L. N., Robila, M., & Miller, R. B. (2002). Clinician identified barriers to clinical research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 61–67.

References

283

Saner, H., & Ellickson, P. (1996). Concurrent risk factors for adolescent violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 19, 94–103. Santisteban, D. A., & Mena, M. P. (2009). Culturally informed and flexible family-based treatment for adolescents: A tailored and integrative treatment for Hispanic youth. Family Process, 48, 253–268. Santisteban, D. A., Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W. M., Murray, E. J., & Laperriere, A. (1996). Efficacy of intervention for engaging youth and families into treatment and some variables that may contribute to differential effectiveness. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 35–44. Santisteban, D. A., Coatsworth, J. D., Perez-Vidal, A., Mitrani, V., Jean-Gilles, M., & Szapocznik, J. (1997). Brief structural strategic family therapy with African American and Hispanic high risk youth: A report of outcome. Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 453–471. Santisteban, D. A., Coatsworth, J. D., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W. M., Schwartz, S. J., LaPerriere, A., et al. (2003). The efficacy of brief strategic/structural family therapy in modifying behavior problems and an exploration of the mediating role that family functioning plays in behavior change. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 121–133. Santisteban, D. A., Suarez-Morales, L., Robbins, M. S., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Brief strategic family therapy: Lessons learned in efficacy research and new research directions on blending research and practice. Family Process, 45, 259–275. Santrock, J. W. (2008). Adolescence (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Santrock, J. W. (2023). Adolescence (18th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Scheer, S.  D., & Gavazzi, S.  M. (2009). A qualitative examination of a state-wide initiative to empower families containing children and adolescents with behavioral health care needs. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 370–377. Scheer, S. D., Borden, L. M., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000). The relationship between family factors and adolescent substance use in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 105–115. Schermerhorn, A. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2008). Transactional family dynamics: A new framework for conceptualizing family influence processes. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36, 187–250. Schmidt, S. E., Liddle, H. A., & Dakof, G. A. (1996). Changes in parenting practices and adolescent drug abuse during multidimensional family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 12–27. Schmied, V., & Walsh, P. (2010). Effective casework practice with adolescents: Perspectives of statutory child protection practitioners. Child and Family Social Work, 15, 165–175. Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86–100. Schock-Giordano, A. M., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2010). Mental illness in a family context. In S. J. Price & C. A. Price (Eds.), Families and change (4th ed.). Sage. Schoenrock, C. J., Bell, N. J., Sun, S., & Avery, A. W. (1999). Family correlates of adolescent self-­ monitoring and social competence. Journal of Psychology, 133, 377–393. Schuman, S. L., Graef, D. M., Janicke, D. M., Gray, W. N., & Hommel, K. A. (2013). An exploration of family problem-solving and affective involvement as moderators between disease severity and depressive symptoms in adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 20, 488–496. Schunk, D.  H. (2005). Self-regulated learning: The educational legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 85–94. Schwartz, S. J., Coatsworth, J. D., Pantin, H., Prado, G., Sharp, E. H., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). The role of ecodevelopmental context and self-concept in depressive and externalizing symptoms in Hispanic adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(4), 359–370. Crapo, J. S., & Bradford, K. (2021). Multidimensional family development theory: A reconceptualization of family development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(2), 202–223.

284

References

Scott, M. E., Booth, A., King, V., & Johnson, D. R. (2007). Postdivorce father-adolescent closeness. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1194–1209. Scott, S., Briskman, J., Woolgar, M., Humayun, S., & O’Connor, T. G. (2011). Attachment in adolescence: Overlap with parenting and unique prediction of behavioural adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(10), 1052–1062. Sekaran, V. C., Bailey, A., Kamath, V. G., Ashok, L., & Kamath, A. (2020). ‘This is the place where I can be alone, no tension’: Photovoice evidence for adolescent perceptions of their microsystem and psychological adjustment. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 102021. Selkie, E., Adkins, V., Masters, E., Bajpai, A., & Shumer, D. (2020). Transgender adolescents’ uses of social media for social support. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(3), 275–280. Seltzer, M. M., Greenberg, J. S., Floyd, F. J., Pettee, Y., & Hong, J. (2001). Life course impacts of parenting a child with a disability. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106, 265–286. Sexson, S. B., Glanville, D. N., & Kaslow, N. J. (2001). Attachment and depression: Implications for family therapy. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 10, 465–486. Sexton, T. L., & Alexander, J. F. (2002). Family-based empirically supported treatment interventions. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(2), 238–261. Shah, S., Choi, M., Miller, M., Halgunseth, L. C., van Schaik, S. D., & Brenick, A. (2021). Family cohesion and school belongingness: Protective factors for immigrant youth against bias-based bullying. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2021(177), 199–217. Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Osgood, D. W. (2008). Parents’ differential treatment and youth depressive symptoms and sibling relationships: Longitudinal linkages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 70, 480–495. Shanholtz, C.  E., O’Hara, K.  L., Duchschere, J.  E., Beck, C.  J., & Lawrence, E. (2020). Understanding the perception of stakeholders in reducing adolescent-to-parent violence/ aggression. Journal of Adolescence, 80, 264–274. Shankleman, M., Hammond, L., & Jones, F. W. (2021). Adolescent social media use and well-­ being: A systematic review and thematic meta-synthesis. Adolescent Research Review, 6, 471–492. Shapiro, C. J., Malone, P. S., & Gavazzi, S. M. (2018). Modifying a risk assessment instrument for youthful offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(2), 482–503. Sheridan, M., Peterson, B. D., & Rosen, K. H. (2010). The experiences of parents of adolescents in family therapy: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(2), 144–157. Shi, X., & Campione-Barr, N. (2021). The effects of parenting and temperament similarity among adolescent siblings on positive family relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 702000. Shields, C. G., Wynne, L. C., McDaniel, S. H., & Gawinski, B. A. (1994). The marginalization of family therapy: A historical and continuing problem. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 117–138. Shoji, M. N., Haskins, A. R., Rangel, D. E., & Sorensen, K. N. (2014). The emergence of social capital in low-income Latino elementary schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 600–613. Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 212–241. Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998). Socialization in the family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 467–478. Simons, R. L., Chao, W., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (2001). Quality of parenting as mediator of the effect of childhood defiance on adolescent friendship choices and delinquency: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 63–79. Simons, L., Schrager, S. M., Clark, L. F., Belzer, M., & Olson, J. (2013). Parental support and mental health among transgender adolescents. Journal of Aadolescent Health, 53(6), 791–793. Singh, N.  N., Curtis, W.  J., Cohen, R., Ellis, C.  R., Best, A.  M., & Wechsler, H.  A. (1997). Empowerment status and families whose children have serious emotional disturbance and

References

285

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5, 223–229. Skelton, J.  A., Buehler, C., Irby, M.  B., & Grzywacz, J.  G. (2012). Where are family theories in family-based obesity treatment?: Conceptualizing the study of families in pediatric weight management. International Journal of Obesity, 36(7), 891–900. Skelton, J. A., Van Fossen, C., Harry, O., & Pratt, K. J. (2020). Family dynamics and pediatric weight management: putting the family into family-based treatment. Current Obesity Reports, 9(4), 424–441. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are learning theories necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216. Skinner, B. F. (1989). The origins of cognitive thought. American Psychologist, 44, 13–18. Skinner, O.  D., & McHale, S.  M. (2022). Context matters: Longitudinal associations between marital relationships and sibling relationships in Black families. Family Relations, 71(3), 987–1003. Slesnick, N., & Prestopnik, J.  L. (2005). Ecologically-based family therapy outcome with substance abusing runaway adolescents. The Journal of Adolescence, 28, 277–298. Slesnick, N., & Prestopnik, J.  L. (2009). Comparison of family therapy outcome with alcohol-­ abusing runaway adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35, 255–277. Slesnick, N., & Waldron, H. B. (1997). Interpersonal problem-solving interactions of depressed adolescents and their parents. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 234–245. Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Collins, J., Bantchevska, D., & Katafiasz, H. (2011). Predictors of treatment attendance among adolescent substance abusing runaways: A comparison of family and individual therapy modalities. Journal of Family Therapy, 33, 66–84. Slesnick, N., Erdem, G., Bartle-Haring, S., & Brigham, G. S. (2013). Intervention with substance-­ abusing runaway adolescents and their families: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81(4), 600–614. Slomkowski, C., Rende, R., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2001). Sisters, brothers, and delinquency: Evaluating social influence during early and middle adolescence. Child Development, 72, 271–283. Small, S. A., & Huser, M. (2011). Family-based prevention programs. In Encyclopedia of adolescence. Springer. Small, S. A., Cooney, S., & O’Connor, C. (2009). Evidence-based program improvement: Using principles of effectiveness to enhance the quality and impact of youth and family-based prevention programs. Family Relation, 58, 1–13. Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence. Child Development, 66, 299–316. Smetana, J. (2008). It’s 10 o’clock: Do you know where your children are? Recent advances in understanding parental monitoring and adolescents’ information management. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 19–25. Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., & Campione-Barr, N. (2004). African American adolescents’ relationships with parents: Developmental transitions and longitudinal patterns. Child Development, 75, 932–947. Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284. Smith, E. P., Faulk, M., & Sizer, M. A. (2016). Exploring the meso-system: The roles of community, family, and peers in adolescent delinquency and positive youth development. Youth & Society, 48(3), 318–343. SmithBattle, L., Phengnum, W., Shagavah, A.  W., & Okawa, S. (2019). Fathering on tenuous ground: A qualitative meta-synthesis on teen fathering. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 44(4), 186–194. Snyder, J., Bank, L., & Burraston, B. (2005). The consequences of antisocial behavior in older male siblings for younger brothers and sisters. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 643–653.

286

References

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., & Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology, 42, 305–318. Solakoglu, O., & Yuksek, D. A. (2020). Delinquency among Turkish adolescents: Testing Akers’ social structure and social learning theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(5), 539–563. Solmeyer, A. R., & McHale, S. M. (2017). Parents' differential treatment of adolescent siblings in African American families. Family Process, 56(1), 171–188. Son, D., Updegraff, K. A., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2022). Familism values and Mexican-origin adolescents’ disclosure and secrecy with fathers and mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(8), 1296–1305. South, S. J., Haynie, D. L., & Bose, S. (2005). Residential mobility and the onset of adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 499–514. Spera, C. (2005). A review of the relationship among parenting practices, parenting styles, and adolescent school achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 125–146. Spillman, B. C., & Pezzin, L. E. (2000). Potential and active family caregivers: Changing networks and the “sandwich generation”. The Milbank Quarterly, 78, 347–374. Sprenkle, D. H. (1976). In my opinion: The need for integration among theory, research, and practice in the family field. The Family Coordinator, 25, 261–263. Spruit, A., Goos, L., Weenink, N., Rodenburg, R., Niemeyer, H., Stams, G.  J., & Colonnesi, C. (2020). The relation between attachment and depression in children and adolescents: A multilevel meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 23(1), 54–69. St John, W., & Flowers, K. (2009). Working with families: From theory to clinical nursing practice. Collegian, 16, 131–138. Starkman, H., Fisher, K., Pilek, N.  L., Lopez-Henriquez, G., Lynch, L., & Bilkins-Morgis, B. L. (2019). Listening to adolescents with uncontrolled diabetes, their parents and medical team. Families, Systems, & Health, 37(1), 30–37. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072–1085. Stein, G. L., Cavanaugh, A. M., Castro-Schilo, L., Mejia, Y., & Plunkett, S. W. (2019). Making my family proud: The unique contribution of familism pride to the psychological adjustment of Latinx emerging adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(2), 188–198. Steinberg, L. (2007). Adolescence (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Steinberg, L. (2020). Adolescence (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Steinberg, L. (2023). Adolescence (13th ed.). McGraw Hill. Steinberg, L., & Morris, A.  S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110. Steinberg, L. D., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 103–134). Erlbaum. Steinberg, L., Blatt-Eisengart, I., & Cauffman, E. (2006). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful homes: Replication in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 47–58. Steinmetz, S. K. (1999). Adolescence in contemporary families. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 371–424). Plenum. Stern, S. B., & Smith, C. A. (1995). Family processes and delinquency in an ecological context. The Social Service Review, 69, 703–731. Stevens, J. W. (2001). The social ecology of the co-occurrence of substance use and early coitus among poor, urban black female adolescents. Substance Use and Misuse, 36, 421–446. Stewart, S. D. (2003). Nonresident parenting and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 217–244. Stierlin, H. (1981). Separating parents and adolescents. Aronson.

References

287

Stokes, C.  E. (2008). The role of parental religiosity in high school completion. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 531–555. Stokes, C. E., & Regnerus, M. D. (2009). When faith divides family: Religious discord and adolescent reports of parent-child relations. Social Science Research, 38, 155–167. Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 282–298. Stoll, B. M., Arnaut, G. L., Fromme, D. K., & Felker-Thayer, J. A. (2005). Adolescents in stepfamilies: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 177–189. Stolz, H., Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Toward disentangling fathering and mothering: An assessment of relative importance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1076–1092. Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2002). An ecological approach to child and family clinical and counseling psychology. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 197–215. Storvoll, E. E., Wichstrom, L., & Pape, H. (2003). Gender differences in the association between conduct problems and other problems among adolescents. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 3, 194–209. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage. Supol, M., Satyen, L., Ghayour-Minaie, M., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2021). Effects of family violence exposure on adolescent academic achievement: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1042–1056. Suppes, B.  C. (2022). Family systems theory simplified: Applying and understanding systemic therapy models. Taylor & Francis. Sutton, T. E. (2019). Review of attachment theory: Familial predictors, continuity and change, and intrapersonal and relational outcomes. Marriage & Family Review, 55(1), 1–22. Szapocznik, J., & Williams, R.  A. (2000). Brief strategic family therapy: Twenty-five years of interplay among theory, research and practice in adolescent behavior problems and drug abuse. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 117–134. Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Brickman, A., Foote, F. H., Santisteban, D., Hervis, O. E., et al. (1988). Engaging adolescent drug abusers and their families into treatment: A strategic structural systems approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 552–557. Szapocznik, J., Santisteban, D., Rio, A., Perez-Vidal, A., Santisteban, D., & Kurtines, W. M. (1989). Family effectiveness training: An intervention to prevent drug abuse and problem behaviors in Hispanic adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11, 4–27. Szapocznik, J., Hervis, O. E., & Schwartz, S. (2003). Brief strategic family therapy manual (NIDA therapy manuals for drug addiction series). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Szapocznik, J., Schwartz, S. J., Muir, J. A., & Brown, C. H. (2012). Brief strategic family therapy: An intervention to reduce adolescent risk behavior. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1(2), 134–145. Tadros, E. (2020). The puzzling metaphor: Teaching general systems theory to marriage and family therapy trainees. The Family Journal, 28(1), 98–102. Taft, C. T., Schumm, J. A., Panuzio, J., & Proctor, S. P. (2008). An examination of family adjustment among Operation Desert Storm veterans. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 648–656. Talbot, J., & McHale, J. (2003). Family-level emotional climate and its impact on the flexibility of relationship representations. In P. Erdman & T. Caffery (Eds.), Attachment and family systems (pp. 31–61). Brunner-Routledge. Tambelli, R., Laghi, F., Odorisio, F., & Notari, V. (2012). Attachment relationships and internalizing and externalizing problems among Italian adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(8), 1465–1471. Taşkın Sayıl, D., & Erdem, G. (in press). An examination of different types of parental control on the well-being of Turkish emerging adults. Family Relations. https://doi.org/10.1111/ fare.12851

288

References

Taylor-Seehafer, M., & Rew, L. (2000). Risky sexual behavior among adolescent women. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 5, 15–25. Teachman, J.  D. (2000). Diversity of family structure: Economic and social influences. In D.  H. Demo, K.  R. Allen, & M.  A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp.  32–58). Oxford University Press. Telzer, E. H., & Fuligni, A. J. (2013). Positive daily family interactions eliminate gender differences in internalizing symptoms among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1498–1511. Thompson, R. A. (2016). Early attachment and later development: Reframing the questions. In J.  Cassidy & P.  R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 330–365). Guilford Press. Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, H. A. (2003). Toward the next quarter-century: Conceptual and methodological challenges for attachment theory. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 691–718. Tillman, K. H. (2008a). Co-resident sibling composition and the academic ability, expectations, and performance of youth. Sociological Perspectives, 51, 679–712. Tillman, K. H. (2008b). Non-traditional siblings and the academic outcomes of adolescents. Social Science Research, 37, 88–108. Tobler, N.  S., & Stratton, H.  H. (1997). Effectiveness of school-based prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 71–128. Trifan, T. A., Stattin, H., & Tilton-Weaver, L. (2014). Have authoritarian parenting practices and roles changed in the last 50 years? Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(4), 744–761. Trucco, E.  M. (2020). A review of psychosocial factors linked to adolescent substance use. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 196, 172969. Tu, K. M., Erath, S. A., Pettit, G. S., & Vandenberg, C. (2021). Parents’ responses to peer victimization: Associations with early adolescent coping and peer victimization. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 41(1), 167–196. Tudge, J.  R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B., & Karnik, R.  B. (2009). Uses and abuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1, 189–210. Tudge, J. R., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E., Cao, H., Liang, Y., Li, J., & O’Brien, L. (2016). Still misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(4), 427–445. Tulagan, N., Jr. (2020). The family socialization and stage-environment fit of African-American adolescents’ academic and recreational talent development. University of California. Tullius, J. M., De Kroon, M. L., Almansa, J., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2022). Adolescents’ mental health problems increase after parental divorce, not before, and persist until adulthood: A longitudinal TRAILS study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(6), 969–978. Turner, W. L. (2000). Cultural considerations in family-based primary prevention programs in drug abuse. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 285–303. Umaña-Taylor, A.  J., & Guimond, A. (2010). A Longitudinal examination of parenting behaviors and perceived discrimination predicting latino adolescents’ ethnic identity. Developmental Psychology, 46, 636–650. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Updegraff, K. A., & Gonzales-Backen, M. A. (2011). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 140–157. Ungar, M. (2004). The importance of parents and other caregivers to the resilience of high-risk adolescents. Family Process, 43, 23–41. Upchurch, D. M., Aneshensel, C. S., Sucoff, C. A., & Levy-Storms, L. (1999). Neighborhood and family contexts of adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 920–933. Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Kupanoff, K. (2001). Parents’ involvement in adolescents’ peer relationships: A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 655–668.

References

289

Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Thayer, S. M., & Delgado, M. Y. (2005a). Adolescents’ sibling relationships in Mexican American families: Exploring the role of familism. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 512–522. Updegraff, K. A., Thayer, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Denning, D. A., & McHale, S. M. (2005b). Sibling relational aggression in adolescence: Links to parent-adolescent and sibling relationship quality. Family Relations, 54, 373–385. Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Whiteman, S. D., Thayer, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2006). The nature and correlates of Mexican American adolescents’ time with parents and peers. Child Development, 77, 1470–1486. Urberg, K., Goldstein, M. S., & Toro, P. A. (2005). Supportive relationships as a moderator of the effects of parent and peer drinking on adolescent drinking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 1–19. Usonwu, I., Ahmad, R., & Curtis-Tyler, K. (2021). Parent–adolescent communication on adolescent sexual and reproductive health in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative review and thematic synthesis. Reproductive Health, 18(1), 1–15. Vakalahi, H. F. (2002). Family-based predictors of adolescent substance use. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 11, 1–15. van den Eijnden, R.  J. J.  M., Spijkerman, R., Vermulst, A.  A., van Rooij, T.  J., & Engles, R. C. M. E. (2009). Compulsive internet use among adolescents: Bidirectional parent – child relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 77–89. van Den Eijnden, R. J., Spijkerman, R., Vermulst, A. A., van Rooij, T. J., & Engels, R. C. (2010). Compulsive Internet use among adolescents: Bidirectional parent–child relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(1), 77–89. van der Aa, N., Overbeek, G., Engels, R. C. M. E., Scholte, R. H. J., Meerkerk, G. J., & van den Eijnden, R. J. J. M. (2009). Daily and compulsive internet use and well-being in adolescence: A diathesis-stress model based on big five personality traits. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 765–776. Van Der Pol, T. M., Hendriks, V., Rigter, H., Cohn, M. D., Doreleijers, T. A., Van Domburgh, L., & Vermeiren, R. R. (2018). Multidimensional family therapy in adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: long-term effects on delinquency in a randomized controlled trial. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 12(1), 1–10. Van der Stouwe, T., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G. J. J., Deković, M., & van der Laan, P. H. (2014). The effectiveness of multisystemic therapy (MST): A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(6), 468–481. van Dijk, R., van der Valk, I. E., Vossen, H. G., Branje, S., & Deković, M. (2021). Problematic internet use in adolescents from divorced families: the role of family factors and adolescents’ self-esteem. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3385. Van Doom, M. D., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2007). Longitudinal transmission of conflict resolution styles from marital relationships to adolescent-parent relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 426–434. Van Hook, J., & Glick, J.  E. (2020). Spanning borders, cultures, and generations: A decade of research on immigrant families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 224–243. Van Ryzin, M. J., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2012). Family and peer predictors of substance use from early adolescence to early adulthood: An 11-year prospective analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 37(12), 1314–1324. Van Ryzin, M. J., Roseth, C. J., Fosco, G. M., Lee, Y. K., & Chen, I. C. (2016). A component-­ centered meta-analysis of family-based prevention programs for adolescent substance use. Clinical Psychology Review, 45, 72–80. Van Stee, E.  G. (2022). Parenting young adults across social class: A review and synthesis. Sociology Compass, 16(9), 1–16. Vardanian, M. M., Scavenius, C., Granski, M., & Chacko, A. (2020). An international examination of the effectiveness of functional family therapy (FFT) in a Danish community sample. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 46(2), 289–303.

290

References

Vazsonyi, A., & Flannery, D. (1997). Early adolescent delinquent behaviors: Associations with family and school domains. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 271–293. Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A. J., & Javakhishvili, M. (2021a). Problems of cross-cultural criminology no more! Testing two central tenets of self-control theory across 28 nations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 75, 101827. Vazsonyi, A. T., Ksinan, A. J., Javakhishvili, M., Scarpate, J. M., & Kahumoku-Fessler, E. (2021b). Links between parenting and internalizing and externalizing problems: Cross-cultural evidence from ten countries. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 1–17. Verschueren, K. (2020). Attachment, self-esteem, and socio-emotional adjustment: There is more than just the mother. Attachment & Human Development, 22(1), 105–109. Vicary, J. R., Snyder, A. R., & Henry, K. L. (2000). The effects of family variables and personal competencies on the initiation of alcohol use by rural seventh grade students. Adolescent and Family Health, 1, 21–28. Viejo, C., Monks, C.  P., Sánchez-Rosa, M., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2019). Attachment hierarchies for Spanish adolescents: family, peers and romantic partner figures. Attachment & Human Development, 21(6), 551–570. Vito, A. G., Schaefer, B., Higgins, G. E., Marcum, C., & Ricketts, M. (2019). Self-control, social learning theory, social bonds and binge drinking: Results from a national sample. Journal of Substance Use, 24(6), 655–659. Volk, R. J. (1989). The need for integration among theory, research, and application in family science: An update. Family Relations, 38, 220–222. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. George Braziller. Vuchinich, S., Angelelli, J., & Gatherum, A. (1996). Context and development in family problem solving with preadolescent children. Child Development, 67, 1276–1288. Wagaman, M. A. (2011). Social empathy as a framework for adolescent empowerment. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(3), 278–293. Wagner, I., Diamond, G. S., Levy, S., Russon, J., & Litster, R. (2016). Attachment-based family therapy as an adjunct to family-based treatment for adolescent anorexia nervosa. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 37(2), 207–227. Waid, J., & Kelly, M. (2020). Supporting family engagement with child and adolescent mental health services: A scoping review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 28(5), 1333–1342. Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child Development, 75, 1886–1898. Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 20(2), 87–112. Wallerstein, J. S. (1991). The long-term effects of divorce on children: A review. Journal of the American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 349–360. Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. M. (2007). Sibling outcomes and disparate parenting and stepparenting after divorce: Report from a 25 year longitudinal study. Psychoanlytic Psychology, 24, 445–458. Wallerstein, J. S., & Lewis, J. M. (2009). Divorced fathers and their adult offspring: Report from a 25 year study. Family Law Quarterly, 42, 695–711. Walsh, F. (2012). Clinical views of family normal ity, health, and dysfunction: From a deficits to a strengths perspective. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 27–54). Guilford Press. Walters, G.  D. (2019). Social control versus social learning: Self-efficacy for future academic success and peer delinquency as mediators of the parental support–delinquency relationship. Criminal Justice Review, 44(2), 101–118. Wandersman, A., Morrissey, E., Davino, K., Seybolt, D., Crusto, C., Nation, M., et  al. (1998). Comprehensive quality programming and accountability: Eight essential strategies for implementing successful prevention programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 19, 3–30. Wasilewska, M., & Kuleta, M. (2014). Charakterystyka systemów rodzinnych, w których występuje zjawisko parentyfikacji [Characteristics of family systems in which Parentification

References

291

occurs]. In A. Borzęcki (Ed.), Higiena i środowisko a zdrowie człowieka [Hygene, envirinment and human’s health] (pp. 46–54). Wyd. Druk Norbertinum. Waters, E., Weinfield, N.  S., & Hamilton, C.  E. (2000). The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence to early adulthood: General discussion. Child Development, 71, 703–706. Waters, E., Crowell, J., Elliott, M., Corcoran, D., & Treboux, D. (2002). Bowlby’s secure base theory and the social/personality psychology of attachment styles: Work(s) in progress. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 230–242. Way, N., & Gillman, D. A. (2000). Early adolescent girls’ perceptions of their relationships with their fathers: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20, 309–331. Weaver, J. M., & Schofield, T. J. (2015). Mediation and moderation of divorce effects on children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(1), 39–48. Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71, 695–702. Weisman, C. B., & Montgomery, P. (2019). Functional Family Therapy (FFT) for behavior disordered youth aged 10–18: An overview of reviews. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(3), 333–346. Weisner, M., Capaldi, D.  M., & Patterson, G.  R. (2003). Development of antisocial behavior and crime across the life-span from a social interactional perspective: The coercion model. In R.  L. Akers & G.  F. Jensen (Eds.), Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 317–337). Transaction. Weiss, L.  H., & Schwartz, J.  C. (1996). The relationship between parenting types and older adolescents’personality, academic achievement, adjustment, and substance use. Child Development, 67, 2101–2114. Werner-Wilson, R. J., & Morrissey, K. M. (2005). Family influences on adolescent development. In T. P. Gullotta & G. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent behavior problems (pp. 79–100). Springer. White, J. M. (2005). Advancing family theories. Sage. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2008). Family theories. Sage. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2019). Family theories (5th ed.). Sage. White, R., Zeiders, K.  H., Gonzales, N.  A., Tein, J.  Y., & Roosa, M.  W. (2013). Cultural values, US neighborhood danger, and Mexican American parents’ parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 365–375. White, J.  M., Martin, T.  F., & Adamsons, K. (2019). Family theories: An introduction (5th ed.). Sage. Whitechurch, G. C., & Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R.  LaRossa, W.  R. Schumm, & S.  K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 325–352). Plenum. Whiteman, S. D., & Loken, E. (2006). Comparing analytic techniques to classify dyadic relationships: An example using siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1370–1382. Whiteman, S. D., Zeiders, K. H., Killoren, S. E., Rodriguez, S. A., & Updegraff, K. A. (2014). Sibling influence on Mexican-origin adolescents’ deviant and sexual risk behaviors: The role of sibling modeling. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5), 587–592. Whiteman, S.  D., Jensen, A.  C., & McHale, S.  M. (2017). Sibling influences on risky behaviors from adolescence to young adulthood: Vertical socialization or bidirectional effects? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2017(156), 67–85. Widmer, E. D. (1997). Influence of older siblings on initiation of sexual intercourse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 928–938. Wiesner, M., Capaldi, D. M., Kerr, D. C., & Wu, W. (2022). Bidirectional associations of mental health with self-reported criminal offending over time for at-risk early adult men in the USA. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 1–27.

292

References

Wiium, N., & Wold, B. (2009). An ecological system approach to adolescent smoking behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1351–1363. Wiley, A. R., Bogg, T., & Ho, M. R. (2005). The influence of parental socialization factors on family farming plans of preadolescent children: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20, from http://www.umaine.edu/jrre/20-­11.htm Wilkinson, D. L., Magora, A., Garcia, M., & Khurana, A. (2009). Fathering from the margins of society. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 945–967. Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Busseri, M. A. (2004). Where is the syndrome? Examining co-­ occurrence among multiple problem behaviors in adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1022–1037. Withers, M. C., McWey, L. M., & Lucier-Greer, M. (2016). Parent–adolescent relationship factors and adolescent outcomes among high-risk families. Family Relations, 65(5), 661–672. Wood, B. L., Lim, J., Miller, B. D., Cheah, P., Zwetch, T., Ramesh, S., et al. (2008). Testing the biobehavioral family model in pediatric asthma: Pathways of effect. Family Process, 47, 21–40. Woods, T. (2021). The health of African American grandmothers raising grandchildren: A growing social problem. Journal of Family Issues, 42(7), 1429–1442. Woolfolk, A. (2010). Educational psychology. Merrill/Pearson. Wu, L. L., & Thomson, E. (2001). Race differences in family experiences and early sexual initiation: Dynamic models of family structure and family change. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 682–696. Wu, Y., Yuan, R., & Wu, Y. (2022). Good can be stronger than bad: The daily relationship among maternal warmth, mother-teen conflict and adolescents’ self-esteem. Current Psychology, 1–10. Wynne, L.  C. (1983). Family research and family therapy: A reunion? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 113–117. Wysocki, T., Harris, M. A., Buckloh, L. M., Mertlich, D., Lochrie, A. S., Taylor, A., et al. (2006). Effects of behavioral family systems therapy for diabetes on adolescents’ family relationships, treatment adherence, and metabolic control. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 31, 928–938. Yaffe, Y. (2020). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current Psychology, 1–14. Yau, P. S., Cho, Y., Shane, J., Kay, J., & Heckhausen, J. (2022). Parenting and adolescents’ academic achievement: The mediating role of goal engagement and disengagement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(4), 897–909. Ye, Y., Wang, C., Zhu, Q., He, M., Havawala, M., Bai, X., & Wang, T. (2022). Parenting and teacher–student relationship as protective factors for Chinese adolescent adjustment during COVID-19. School Psychology Review, 51(2), 187–205. Yu, J. J., & Gamble, W. C. (2008). Familial correlates of overt and relational aggression between young adolescent siblings. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 655–673. Yuan, A. S., Vogt, H., & Hayley, A. (2006). Stepfather involvement and adolescent well-being: Do mothers and nonresidential fathers matter? Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1191–1213. Yun, H. J., & Cui, M. (2020). The effects of parental warmth on adolescent delinquency in the United States and South Korea: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 228–237. Zak-Hunter, L., Berge, J., Lister, Z., Davey, M., Lynch, L., & Denton, W. (2014). Medical family therapy scientist-practitioners. In J. Hodgson, A. Lamson, T. Mendenhall, & D. Crane (Eds.), Medical family therapy: Advanced applications (pp. 219–240). Springer. Zhang, W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2006). Authority, autonomy, and family relationships among adolescents in urban and rural China. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 527–537. Zhou, X., Zhen, R., & Wu, X. (2021). Insecure attachment to parents and PTSD among adolescents: The roles of parent–child communication, perceived parental depression, and intrusive rumination. Development and Psychopathology, 33(4), 1290–1299. Zou, S., Wu, X., & Li, X. (2020). Coparenting behavior, parent–adolescent attachment, and peer attachment: An examination of gender differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 178–191.

Index

A AAMFT, see American association for marriage and family therapy (AAMFT) Adolescent delinquency, 138, 141 Adolescent development, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 20, 35, 40, 42, 49, 52, 91, 99, 102, 197 Adolescent drug abuse, 178 Adolescent outcomes, 6, 15–17, 20, 50–52, 67, 93, 96, 97, 101, 112, 116, 117, 135–162, 214–216 associations, family, 116, 137, 142–144 attachment theory, 67, 144 authoritative parents, 93, 96, 97, 161 “conditional” influence, family variable, 16 delinquency and violence, 51 families impact delinquency and conduct disorders, 138–141 demographic variables, 138 educational issues, 153–159 externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors, 137–139, 143–145, 156 global risk factors and GRAD, 137 mental health, 141–145 parent-adolescent disagreement, 136, 156 processes and parental behaviors, 137 sexual activity, 149–153 social competence, 159–162 substance use, 145–149 prevention and intervention programs, 20 research literature, 136–138 step-family formation, 112

transactional family effects model, 14, 17, 18 variables measurement, 215–216 Adolescent problem behavior, 54 Adolescent relationship, 15, 19, 27, 40, 42, 79, 94, 112, 114, 115, 117, 120, 125, 138, 143, 144, 146, 150, 151, 155, 157, 167, 179, 200, 211, 216 American association for marriage and family therapy (AAMFT), 235 Analysis child-mother-father triad, reciprocal influences, 65 family-based research families with adolescents, 14, 15, 17–19 parent-adolescent dyad, 15, 18 relational family data, 19 “unit of analysis”, 14, 18–19 SRM, 217 unit of analysis, family-based research effort, 18 variance mentality, 41 Anna Karenina, 14 Antisocial behavior, 16, 17, 78–81, 122, 123, 138, 139, 178, 182, 183, 195, 212 Attachment style, 63, 64, 66, 67, 212 Attachment theory, 5, 13, 61–83, 144, 179, 210 ambivalent/preoccupied and avoidant/ dismissing attachment, 63 child-mother-father triad, 65 families with adolescents dyads, 66, 67 explanatory function, 67, 68

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. M. Gavazzi, J.-Y. Lim, Families with Adolescents, Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43407-5

293

294 Attachment theory  (cont.) internalizing and externalizing problem, 67 multiple attachment relationships, 67 parental coalitions and boundary maintenance, 66 therapeutic alliance, 66 value function, 68 gender, 65 internal working models, 62, 63, 65–67 mother-infant dyadic relationship, 62 multiple attachments, 65, 67 relationship, mother, 64 relative stability, 64 secure attachment, 63, 64, 67 strong emotional connections, 61, 63 well-adjusted individuals, 63 Authoritative parenting, 94, 97, 101, 148, 158, 212 B The Bridges to High School Program, 196 Brief strategic family therapy (BSFT) approach and treatment, 174 description, 174 engagement and retention improvement, 175 family pattern diagnosis, 175 substance use, 174, 175 BSFT, see Brief strategic family therapy (BSFT) C CHAMP, see The Chicago HIV Prevention and Adolescent Mental Health Project (CHAMP) The Chicago HIV Prevention and Adolescent Mental Health Project (CHAMP), 197 Conduct disorders BSFT, 175 disrupted family processes, 140 gender-related differences, 140 “inept” parenting behaviors, 138 positive parenting, 138 review articles, family therapy, 173 siblings, 139–141 D Delinquency adolescent and families impact

Index “inept” parenting behaviors, 138 intermediary influences, 141 males vs. females, 140, 141 peer associations, 141 siblings role, 139, 140 social learning and ecological approach, 138 adolescent outcomes, 138–141 FEI, 220 Delinquent behavior, 12, 42, 80, 82, 137–141, 145, 147, 157, 172, 174, 175, 220 Developmental task, 26, 27, 29, 30 Disorganized attachment, 63 E Eating disorder, 66, 183 Ecological approach, 48, 50, 52, 53, 138, 144, 155, 157, 158, 161 Ecological theory, 5, 13, 47–55, 209 child effects models, 50 “compulsive internet use”, 51 contributing factor, Naomi’s situation, 50 ecosystem levels, 49 exosystem and macrosystem, 49–51, 53 families with adolescents “advanced” form, 54 dynamic systems, 52 empirical literature, adolescent development, 52 explanatory function, 53–55 PPCT model, 47, 52–55 prevention programs, 53 sensitizing function, 52–53 family context, 51 mesosystem and microsystem, 47–51, 53 neighborhood and media, 48–51 peers, 49–51, 54 social contexts, 48–52, 54 Educational issues adolescent, family impact academic motivation, 154, 157–159 Asian and African American backgrounds, 157, 158 competent and problematic behaviors, school, 153 conflict, amounts and types, 156 “contextual model”, 154 harshness and classroom behavior, 158 outcomes, 159 parent-adolescent relationship, conflict, 150 race/ethnicity, 149

Index social capitals and mesolevel interactions, 157 structure change and academic performance, 155 HIV/AIDS transmission, 197 safety, 199 Empirical dffort, 14, 18, 19, 96, 110, 111, 114, 124, 126, 148, 212–217 Epigenetic principle, 26 Explanatory function, 13, 31, 32, 41, 43, 53–55, 67, 68, 81 F Familias Unidas/United Families, 197, 201 Families adolescents interventions, 6, 116, 120, 122, 123, 175, 176 members, 3, 6, 11, 15, 19, 20, 27, 29, 39, 43, 53, 65, 79, 117, 151, 200, 219 peers, 3, 16, 49, 144 positive outcomes, 5, 154, 159, 219 theorizing, 5 coercive family processes, negative reinforcement cycle, 78 conflict (see Family conflict) demographic shifts, factors, 3 development theory (see Family development theory) differentiation levels, 38, 114, 115 distance regulation (see Family distance regulation) empirical studies, 4, 234 impoverished neighborhood, 50 instructors, development courses, 7 interactions, 27, 116, 120, 122, 123, 175, 176 intergenerational caring, 92 Journal of Marriage and the Family’s decade review, 94 life events, 64 microsystem, 49, 51, 53 multiple attachments, 65, 67 observational techniques, 98 research empirical work, 14 “happiness” and “unhappiness”, 14 models, 14–19 theory classification, 14 “unit of analysis”, 14, 18–19, 216 social learning theory dyadic relationships, 80, 82

295 family level factors, 80 integrative function, 81 multidimensional treatment foster care, 81 psychological mechanisms, 82 social development model, 81, 195 substance use and abuse, 81 triangulation processes, 80 theory child, adolescent and adult, 82, 211, 212 definition, 14 dictionary definitions, 12 “emerging adulthood”, 11, 98 “families with adolescents”, 9, 11–13, 66, 68, 80, 184, 211, 212 functions, 30, 32, 40, 42 intergenerational nurturing, 12, 18, 20 merits, frameworks, 184, 203, 211 variations, definitions, 26 young children, adolescents and adult offspring, 6, 11, 14, 19, 26, 80, 110, 111, 216 therapy (see Family therapy) See also Families with adolescents; Polyadic research Families and schools, 49 The Families and Schools Together Program, 198, 202 The Families in Action Program, 198, 202 Families with adolescents application efforts effectiveness principles, 218 FEI, 220 health-care arena, 218 “partners”, 219 problem prevention, 3, 192, 218 social justice approach, 220 empirical efforts demographic variables, 124, 127 dyadic topics, 215 evidence, 3 “familism”, 213 identity development, 214 intergenerational dyad approach, 216 longitudinal studies, 117, 118, 121–123, 125 methodological issues, 216, 221 parenting behaviors, 138, 141, 143, 146, 151, 153, 156, 158, 162, 215 problem behaviors and assets, 214 problem-solving skills, 12, 123, 161, 217 reliance, adolescent, 114, 215

296 Families with adolescents  (cont.) specificity, measurement, 95 SRM, 217 stepsibling influences, 213 family development theory, 26, 30–32, 209 theoretical efforts boundary ambiguity framework, 210 “critical theorizing” approach, 210 dialogic approach, 211 functions, 210 Journal of Family Theory and Review, 211 social control theory, 211, 212 social learning and information processing, 212 See also Attachment theory; Ecological theory Families with Adolescents Surviving and Thriving Program, 198 Family-based application efforts adolescents, understanding effectiveness principles, 218 FEI, 220 health-care arena, 218 “partners”, 219 problem prevention, 218 social justice approach, 220 forms, 20 intergenerational criterion, 20 “selective prevention”, 20 Family-based interventions “adolescent outcome” orientation, 20 adolescents amelioration, 183 eating disorders, 183 treatment, 67, 176, 183 ecologically-based family therapy, 183, 184 multidimensional treatment foster care, 81, 183 Family-based prevention “adolescent outcome” orientation, 20 empirical evaluation, 195 information, 201 programs (see Family programs) skill development, 193, 194, 200 Family-based research adolescents, stepfamilies, 14–19, 213 analysis issues dyad/two-person system, 18 “family level” variables, 18 intergenerational dyad and, 14, 19 parent-adolescent dyad, 15, 18, 91–103, 110, 138, 221

Index reciprocal relationships, 19 empirical work, 14, 15, 19, 111, 114, 235 “happiness” and “unhappiness”, 14 theory classification, 14 unit of analysis, 14, 18, 216 See also Models Family cohesion, 39, 116, 121, 122, 126, 138, 140, 142, 143, 145, 149, 159, 161, 196, 197, 213 Family conflict, 5, 15, 16, 114, 119–124, 127, 142, 199 adolescent depression levels alleviation, 142 mother-adolescent affection, 15, 16 symptoms, 142, 143 internalizing and externalizing problems, 144 and problem-solving adolescent adjustment, 117 alliances and adolescent age, 123 demographic variables, 127 disagreements and differences, members, 122 parents handling, 119 race/ethnicity and community variables, 122 social learning theory, 120 Family development, 5, 13, 25–43, 80, 195, 209 Family development theory autonomy, 27, 28, 30 boundary flexibility, 27, 29, 30 conventional issues, 26 developmental tasks, 26, 27, 29, 30 “emptying nest”, 29 “epigenetic principle”, 26 families with adolescents criticisms, 31, 32 descriptive and sensitizing function, 30 family-oriented ideas, 32 microtransitions, 32 and real world experiences, 30 life course status, 29 life cycle stage, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32 “sandwich generation” term, 27 “second-order changes”, 27, 30 sexually oriented topics, 28 timing, sexual activity, 29 Family distance regulation bi-dimensional structure, 115 differentiation levels, 114–116 functioning levels, 42 parental and marital conflict, 117, 118 parentification, 113, 118, 119

Index relative balance, individuality and intimacy, 42, 114, 115 sibling relationships and fathers protective role, 117 social relations model, 115 tolerance intimacy and individuality, 37, 114 triangulation, 111, 113, 117, 118 Family Intrusiveness Scale (FIS), 110, 111, 115 Family problem-solving adolescent depression, 142 and family conflict, 5, 114, 119–124 units of analysis, 217 Family process, 5, 20, 42, 50, 78, 80, 111–114, 116–119, 124, 126, 127, 136–138, 140–147, 152, 153, 155, 157, 159, 162, 200, 211–214 Family programs The Bridges to High School Program, 196, 202 CHAMP, 197 characteristics advanced training opportunities, 193, 194 audiovisual instructional material, use, 193, 194 best practice and promising approach, 196 categories, principles, 193–195, 203 cultural specificity and developmental appropriateness, 194 dosage and follow-up, 193–195, 198 literature and professionals, 193–200 principles, 193–195 skill development, attention, 193, 194 Familias Unidas/United Families, 197, 201 The Families and Schools Together Program, 198, 202 The Families in Action Program, 198, 202 Families with Adolescents Surviving and Thriving Program, 198 The Home and On Your Own Program, 199 initiatives, 196, 197, 200, 203 The Preparing for the Drug Free Years Program, 199 The Strengthening Families Program, 200, 202 The Strengthening Families Program (parents and youth 10–14), 200 web-based resources, 201–202 Family skill development, 200 Family strengthening programs, 6, 192, 197–200

297 Family system, 18, 20, 36, 37, 39–43, 48, 64, 66, 82, 110, 114, 115, 118, 120, 124, 140, 149, 160, 176, 179, 211, 212, 217, 220 Family systems theory, 5, 13, 35–43, 114, 209 complementary types, moderate family differentiation levels, 38 concept of circularity, 39 differentiated family, 38 differentiation levels, 37, 38, 115 distance regulation and boundary maintenance, 37 equifinality and multifinality, 37, 40 families with adolescents explanatory function, 41, 43 integrative function, 41 sensitizing function, 41 value function, 42, 43 wholeness and hierarchy, 40 family members, 36–41, 43, 115 under functioning and over functioning behaviors, 39 GST, 36, 37 homeostasis, 37 human development and family science, 5, 13, 48 individuality and intimacy tolerance, 42 interaction, parts, 36 mistranslation, 37 separateness and connectedness, 39 Family system theory Family therapy, 20, 30, 41, 66, 67, 171–184, 195, 197, 198, 215, 235–237 AAMFT, 235 adolescent conduct disorders and treatment, 173 adolescent-oriented problems, 173 family development theory, 30 intervention models BSFT, 174–176 family-based, 20, 172, 176, 182 FFT, 176–178 MDFT, 178–180, 183 MST, 180–182 Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 173 parental coalitions and boundary maintenance, 66 services, 171, 172 FFT, see Functional family therapy (FFT) FIS, see Family Intrusiveness Scale (FIS) Functional family therapy (FFT) adolescent recidivism rates, 177 constituent, 176–178

298

Index

Functional family therapy (FFT)  (cont.) description, 176 prevention indicators, 176

L Latent class analysis (LCA), 29, 112 Life cycle stage, 9, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 64

G General system theory (GST), 36, 37, 111 Global risk assessment device (GRAD), 6, 137 GRAD, see Global risk assessment device (GRAD) Grade point average, 153, 157–159, 179 Growing Up FAST program Families with Adolescents Surviving and Thriving Program, 198 successful adult, 191, 198, 199 GST, see General system theory (GST)

M Main part, 4–6 Marital conflict, 42, 80, 112, 117–120 MDFT, see Multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) Mental health adolescent, families impact attachment theory framework and friends, 144 depressed vs. non-depressed, 142 gender and race, influence, 144 internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, 143–145 males vs. females, 143–144 parenting behaviors, 143 psychological distress, 141 race, 142 variables association, 142 CHAMP, 197 systems, services, 219, 236 Models BSFT (see Brief strategic family therapy (BSFT)) child effects, 50 family-based research complex mediated family effects, 14–16 direct family effects, 14, 15 family as mediator, 14, 16, 17 family as moderator, 14, 16, 17 transactional family effects, 14, 17, 18 types, 14 family-based treatment, 174, 178, 234 FFT (see Functional family therapy (FFT)) internal working attachment theory, 61–63, 65–67 types, 62–63 MDFT (see Multidimensional family therapy (MDFT)) MST (see Multisystemic therapy (MST)) PPCT, 52–55 secure attachment, 63, 64 social development The Families in Action Program, 198, 202 integrative function, social learning theory, 81

H The Home and On Your Own Program, 199 I Integration families with adolescents crime, 237 empirical treatment, 235, 237 leadership ability, 237 triple threat model, 233–235, 237, 238 linkages creation, 235, 237 natural overlap, 212 triple threat authentic life situations, 234 bridging theory, 233 favorable contributions, 233 theory, research and application efforts, 233, 236 therapeutic efficacy, 234 win–win relationships, 235 unification barriers AAMFT, 235 both/and approach, 236 ghettoization, 235 graduate training programs, 235 pressures, graduate school, 236 split perceptions, 235 Interconnected nature, 51, 55 Interdisciplinary nature, 4, 5 J Juvenile court, 47, 140, 152, 177, 181

Index The Preparing for the Drug Free Years Program, 199 social learning, family process, 80 SRM, 217 transactional, 14, 17, 18, 40 triple threat (see Triple threat model) value orientation, 55 MST, see Multisystemic therapy (MST) Multidimensional family therapy (MDFT) vs. cognitive behavioral therapy, 179, 180 description and targets, 178 multidimensionality, 178 outpatient substance abuse treatment, 179 parent–adolescent relationship, 179 substance-abusing adolescents, 179 Multisystemic therapy (MST), 174, 180–182, 219, 237 criminal behaviors and marijuana use, 181 description, 180–181 drug court groups, 181 family empowerment component, 219–220 home-based service delivery model, 181 vs. usual community services, 181 N Negative reinforcement, 77, 78 P Parent-adolescent dyads, 15, 18, 91–103, 110, 138, 142, 215, 221 authoritarian, 92, 93, 95, 101 behaviors competence level, 96 cultural relevance, 100–102 dimensionality, 94, 97 insider vs. outsider perspectives, 97 mothers and fathers contributions, 95 uniformity, parenting styles, 96 communication, sex, 102 “intergenerational nurturing” definition, 92 law and factors, 94 parenting styles, 92–98, 101–103 two-dimensional view, 92 permissive parents, 92–93 responsiveness and demandingness, 93, 98, 101, 102 style consistency, 103 trends, 94, 96 Parental behavior, 63, 93, 96, 137, 139, 152, 154, 160 Parental psychological control, 98, 126

299 Parenting behaviors, 94–102, 113, 124, 126, 137, 138, 141, 143, 146, 149–151, 153, 156, 158, 159, 162, 181, 182, 211–213, 215 competence level, 161 cultural relevance behavioral and psychological control, 100–101 demandingness and responsiveness combination, 93 equivalency, 100 dimensionality connectedness and behavioral regulation, 97, 98, 100 monitoring and supervising, 100 observational techniques, 98 parental knowledge, 100 responsiveness and demandingness, 101 strengths, parenting styles, 92, 93 insider vs. outsider perspectives, 97 mothers and fathers contributions, 95 uniformity, parenting styles, 96 Partner effect, 217 Polyadic research attachment theory, 123 conflict and problem-solving, 114, 119–124 distance regulation, 114–119 family-based application efforts, 20 family processes adolescents comparison, 112 compelling, 111, 113, 127, 138 definition, 111 disruptive, 113 distance regulation, 111, 113–114 scholars conflict, 113 sibling relationship, 117, 120, 125, 126 supervision and caring, 111 family system and FIS, 110–111 general systems theory, 111 siblings influence “differential parenting”, 124 differential treatment, 125–127 interparental incongruence, 125 parental psychological control, 126 relational aggression, 125–126 units of analysis, 111 Positive Family Support, 202 Positive youth development, 41 The Preparing for the Drug Free Years Program, 199 Prevention, 4, 6, 20, 53, 67, 81, 83, 173, 174, 176, 177, 191–203, 218–220, 233

300 Process-person-context-time (PPCT) model, 47, 52–55 Psychological control, 98, 100, 101, 103, 126, 127, 151, 154 R Relational aggression, 125, 126 S Secure attachment, 63, 64, 67, 212 Sexual activity adolescent, families impact initiation and interaction quality, association, 149 parenting factors, 94 siblings role, 152 timing/initiation, 149 unsafe practices, pregnancy and teen parenthood, 152 CHAMP, 197 timing, adolescents, 82 Social competence emotional and cognitive dimensions, empathy, 159 enmeshment styles and reciprocal influences, 116 parenting styles and self perceptions, 161 prosocial and parental behaviors, relationship, 160 Social learning, 78, 80–83, 138–140, 144, 146–148, 153, 157, 176, 183, 212 Social learning theory, 5, 13, 75–83, 120, 140, 148, 195, 210 cascade effect, 80 coercive family processes, 78 components, 76 and families, adolescents dyadic relationships, 80 functions use, 13 integrative function, 81 level factors, 0 multidimensional treatment foster Care, 81 psychological mechanisms, 82 social development model, 81 substance use and abuse, 81 triangulation processes, 80 irritable exchanges, parents and adolescents, 79 mixed verbal and nonverbal messages, 77 peer group, coercive adolescent behavior, 79

Index reciprocal determinism, 78 reinforcement and parental responses, 77 threats and out-of-control behavior, 79 The Strengthening Families Program, 200, 202 The Strengthening Families Program (parents and youth 10–14), 200 Substance use adolescents BSFT, 174–176 FFT, 176 internet use, 67 MDFT, 178 MST, 180–182 families impact alcohol use and parenting behaviors, association, 146 environment, 154 peer and protective factors, 171 sibling effects, 148 social learning and control theory approach, 146 structure and process variables, 147 social learning approach, adolescent, 81 System concept, 37, 39–43, 52, 66 T Temper tantrum, 75, 77, 78 Triple threat model family-based interventions, 237 favorable contributions, 233 relationship theorist-practitioner, 234 theorist-researcher, 234 “win-win”, 235 theory, research and application efforts, 233 therapeutic efficacy, 234 U Unification barriers AAMFT, 235 “both/and” approach, 236 “ghettoization”, 235 graduate training programs, 235, 236 pressures, graduate school, 236 “split” perceptions, 235 W Web-based resources, family programs, 201–202