Does General Parenting Context Modify Adolescents' Appraisals and Coping with a Situation of Parental Regulation? The Case of Autonomy-Supportive Parenting
- 556 Downloads
Theory and research suggest that adolescents differ in their appraisals and coping reactions in response to parental regulation. Less is known, however, about factors that determine these differences in adolescents’ responses. In this study, we examined whether adolescents' appraisals and coping reactions depend upon parents’ situation-specific autonomy-supportive or controlling communication style (i.e., the situation) in interaction with adolescents’ past experiences with general autonomy-supportive parenting (i.e., the parenting context). Whereas in Study 1 (N = 176) adolescents’ perceived general autonomy-supportive parenting context was assessed at one point in time, in Study 2 (N = 126) it was assessed multiple times across a 6-year period, allowing for an estimation of trajectories of perceived autonomy-supportive parenting context. In each study, adolescents read a vignette-based scenario depicting a situation of maternal regulation (i.e., a request to study more), which was communicated in either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling way. Following this scenario, they reported upon their appraisals and their anticipated coping reactions. Results of each study indicated that both the autonomy-supportive (relative to the controlling) situation and the perceived autonomy-supportive parenting context generally related to more positive appraisals (i.e., more autonomy need satisfaction, less autonomy need frustration), as well as to more constructive coping responses (i.e., less oppositional defiance and submission, more negotiation and accommodation). In addition, situation × context interactions were found, whereby adolescents growing up in a more autonomy-supportive context seemed to derive greater benefits from the exposure to an autonomy-supportive situation and reacted more constructively to a controlling situation.
KeywordsAdolescence Parenting Coping Appraisal Autonomy Control Regulation
S.V.P. coordinated the project, conceived of the study, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. M.Z.G., B.S. and M.V. helped in the conception of the study, interpretation of the data, and writing the manuscript. K.B. helped in the data collection and in writing the manuscript. E.M. helped in writing the manuscript. J.V. helped in the analysis and interpretation of the data, and writing the manuscript. G.Z. helped in the interpretation of the data and in writing the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All procedures performed involving human participants in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ghent University Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consents were obtained from all participants included in the study.
- Barber, B. K., & Xia, M. (2013). The centrality of control to parenting and its effects. In R. E. Larzelere, A. S. Morris, & A. W. Harrist (Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline for optimal child development. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
- Baudat, S., Zimmermann, G., Antonietti, J. P., & Van Petegem, S. (2016). Maternal reaction to an adolescent alcohol use episode: Enforcing control will lead to change motivation? Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy. doi: 10.1080/09687637.2016.1192584.
- Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of Child Development: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Chen, B., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Petegem, S., & Beyers, W. (2016). Where do the cultural differences in dynamics of controlling parenting lie? Adolescents as active agents in the perception of and coping with parental behavior. Psychologica Belgica, 56, 169–192. doi: 10.5334/pb.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomson, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A. H., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976–992. doi: 10.1080/10615800410001709412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backfires. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec, & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children's internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Kliewer, W., Sandler, I., & Wolchik, S. (1994). Family socialization of threat appraisal and coping: Coaching, modeling, and family context. In K. Hurrelman, & F. Nestmann (Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence (pp. 271–291). New York, NY: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
- Kuczynski, L. (2003). Beyond bidirectionality: Bilateral conceptual frameworks for understanding dynamics in parent–child relations (pp. 1–24). In L. Kuczynski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent–child relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research and theory. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 13–41). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society from the point of view of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University Press of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Nucci, L. (1996). Morality and personal freedom. In E. S. Reed, E. Turiel, & T. Brown (Eds.), Knowledge and values (pp. 41–60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Rowe, S., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Rudolph, J., Nesdale, D., & Gowney, G. A. (2015). A longitudinal study of rejecting and autonomy-restrictive parenting, rejection sensitivity, and socioemotional symptoms in early adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 1107–1118. doi: 10.1007/s10802-014-9966-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Skinner, E. A., & Edge, K. (2002). Self-determination, coping and development. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Self-determination theory: Extensions and applications (pp. 297–337). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
- Skinner, E. A., & Wellborn, J. G. (1994). Coping during childhood and adolescence: A motivational perspective. In R. Lerner, D. Featherman, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Lifespan development and behavior (pp. 91–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen, & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Beyers, W., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promotion of independence versus promotion of volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 43, 633–646. doi: 10.1037/0012-16126.96.36.1993.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater: Applying the principle of ‘universalism without uniformity’ to autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 44–49. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Van Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Zimmermann, G., Antonietti, J.-P., Baudat, S., & Audenaert, E. (2017). When do adolescents accept or defy to maternal prohibitions? The role of social domain and communication style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1022–1037. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0562-7.
- Vanhalst, J., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Van Petegem, S., Weeks, M. S., & Ascher, S. R. (2015). Why do the lonely stay lonely? Chronically lonely adolescents’ attributions and emotions in situations of social inclusion and exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 932–948. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivation learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260. doi: 10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76, 483–501. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Skinner, E. A. (2016). The development of coping and regulation: Implications for psychopathology and resilience. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Developmental psychopathology (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 485–544). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar