Patterns of Interaction - Grotevant & Cooper (1985)

Patterns of Interaction in Family Relationships and the Development of Identity
Exploration in Adolescence
Author(s): Harold D. Grotevant and Catherine R. Cooper
Source: Child Development, Vol. 56, No. 2, Family Development and the Child (Apr., 1985),
pp. 415-428
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1129730
Accessed: 12-05-2017 06:09 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1129730?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for Research in Child Development, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development
This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Fri, 12 May 2017 06:09:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Patterns of Interaction in Family Relationships
and the Development of Identity Exploration in
Adolescence
Harold D. Grotevant and Catherine R. Cooper

University of Texas at Austin
GROTEVANT, HAROLD D., and COOPER, CATHERINE R. Patterns of Interaction in Fam

ships and the Development of Identity Exploration in Adolescence. Child Developme
415-428. The purpose of this research was to develop a model of individuation in fami
ships that focuses on communication processes, and to assess the links between them
cent identity exploration. Expressions of the 4 dimensions of the model-self-asse
rateness, permeability, and mutuality-were predicted to be positively associated w
exploration in adolescents. A sample of 84 Caucasian, middle-class, 2-parent families, e
ing an adolescent and 1 or 2 siblings, was observed in a Family Interaction Task design
the expression and coordination of a variety of points of view. Multiple regression ana
differentiated results concerning father-son, father-daughter, mother-son, mother-d
marital relationships as well as both positive and negative contributions of communicat
to identity exploration when verbal ability and sociability were controlled. Results ar
terms of recent formulations of the progressive redefinition of the parent-child relati
adolescence.
An important developmental task of ado- a central role in identity formation during the
late high school years. In recent work, iden-
lescence, in societies offering choices in these
tity exploration is increasingly viewed as a
areas, is the formulation of a sense of identity,
a cohesive set of personal values regarding process that can be facilitated within the con-
career goals, relationships, and political andtext of relationships (Grotevant, Thorbecke, &
religious beliefs (Erikson, 1950, 1968). Sur- Meyer, 1982; Thorbecke & Grotevant, 1982).
prisingly, few studies have addressed issues The present study examines the relations
concerning the development of individual
between individual differences among ado-
differences in this accomplishment. Although
lescents in their identity exploration and the
a number of researchers have proposed a link
interaction patterns of their families. In con-
between patterns of family functioning andtrast to traditional conceptualizations of ado-
adolescent identity formation (e.g., Adamslescence
& as a time of breaking the parent-
Jones, 1983; Cushing, 1971; LaVoie, 1976),
child bond, recent evidence supports a view
these investigations have assessed percep-
of this period as one of gradual renegotiation
tions of past or present child-rearing styles
between parents and children from the asym-
rather than actual family interaction. In addi-
metrical authority of early and middle child-
tion, in these studies, identity formation has
hood toward, potentially, a peerlike mutuality
been assessed in terms of identity status
in adulthood (White, Speisman, & Costos,
(Marcia, 1966, 1980), a construct for which no
1983). Just how these transactions occur is not
one developmental sequence has been estab- well understood, but accounts of the maturing
lished (Waterman, 1982). However, identity parent-adolescent relationship require going
exploration, the process of considering alter-
beyond unilateral concepts such as parental
natives in the various domains of personal warmth or restrictiveness to more reciprocal
values (Jordaan, 1963; Matteson, 1977), plays
relational constructs (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (HD-92819 and HD-17983) and the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health and from th
University Research Institute and the Institute of Human Development and Family Studies of the
University of Texas at Austin. We express our appreciation to the families who generously shared
their time by participating in the Family Process Project. We especially acknowledge the contribu
tions of Susan Ayers-Lopez and Kathryn Kramer to the completion of this report. In addition, we
thank three anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions. Reprint requests may be sent to
either author at: Department of Home Economics, Division of Child Development and Family
Relationships, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
[Child Development, 1985, 56, 415-428. @ 1985 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/85/5602-0004$01.00]
416 Child Development
dividuality and connectedness (i.e., an indi-

The present investigation is based on de-
velopmental and clinical conceptualizations viduated relationship) would be predicted as
providing for its members the context for ex-
of the family that emphasize the importance
of both individuality and connectednessploring and clarifying individual points of
view.
within family relationships for the well-being
of its members (Grotevant & Cooper, in press;
In earlier work on the Family Process
Karpel, 1976; Lewis, Beavers, Gossett, &
Phillips, 1976; Minuchin, 1974; Olson, Project (described in more detail later in the
Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979; Riskin & Faunce,paper), empirical evidence for the validity of
1970; Sroufe, 1983). The goal of this programthis conceptual model of family interaction
of research has been to develop a testablewas obtained. A sample of 121 families with
model of parent-adolescent relationships and
adolescent children (total N = 444) was ob-
served in a situation designed to elicit the ex-
to explore the links between these family con-
structs and measures of psychosocial compe- pression and coordination of a variety of
tence in normal adolescents. points of view (Cooper et al., 1983). Each fam-
ily's interaction was coded according to 14
Specifically, this investigation is basedcommunication categories hypothesized to
on a model of individuation in relationships reflect the four constructs of self-assertion,
(Cooper, Grotevant, & Condon, 1983; Grote- separateness, mutuality, and permeability,
vant & Cooper, in press). Historically, theand factor analysis was performed on the in-
construct of individuation has been used to tercorrelation matrix of these behaviors. Prin-
characterize relational as well as interper- cipal factors analysis followed by varimax (or-
sonal levels of analysis (Grotevant & Cooper, thogonal) rotation yielded four factors with
in press). For example, Blos (1979) described eigenvalues greater than 1.0; together they ac-
adolescence as a second period of individua-counted for 51.3% of the variance. The com-
tion similar to toddlerhood (Mahler, 1979), in munication behaviors loading on each of the
which autonomy is attained by disengagingfour factors are outlined in the Appendix.
from infantile object relations with parents.
Whereas our earlier work from this proj-
Other scholars (e.g., Beavers, 1976; Bell & ect has been concerned with individual fam-
Bell, 1983) consider individuation as a quality
ily communication behaviors, the present pa-
of family relationships.
per reports an investigation of the link
In the program of work of which the pres- between patterns of interaction in relation-
ent investigation is a part, individuation is ships within the family and adolescent iden-
comprised of the two components of individ- tity exploration. First, correlational analyses
uality and connectedness. In this model, indi- are used to examine the dimensions of self-
viduality is reflected by separateness (seen in assertion, separateness, permeability, and
expressions of the distinctiveness of self from mutuality separately for each relationship
others) and self-assertion (seen, e.g., in the ex- (adolescent-father, adolescent-mother, adoles-
pression of one's own point of view and in cent-sibling, and marital). Based on the con-
taking responsibility for communicating itceptual model of individuation and the evi-
clearly). For the adolescent, separateness and dence of the independence of its four factors,
self-assertion in family interaction have been the exploratory prediction was made that ado-
regarded as key qualities of healthy family re- lescents' identity exploration would be posi-
lationships because they concern the ability tively related to the frequency of each dimen-
of family members to have opinions that may sion observed in the Family Interaction Task.
differ from those of others (Beavers, 1976; It was anticipated that within each relation-
L'Abate, 1976; Minuchin, 1974). Connec- ship in which the adolescent participated, as
tedness is reflected by mutuality (seen in an well as in the marital relationship, variables
individual's sensitivity to and respect for the representing each dimension of individuation
views of others) and permeability (openness would be associated with identity explora-
and responsiveness to the views of others). tion. No causal direction of effects was
Mutuality can provide adolescents with sup- posited. In the case of separateness, for ex
port, acknowledgment, and respect for devel- ample, freedom to disagree in family interac
oping their own beliefs, whereas permea- tion may facilitate the adolescent's ability t
bility involves the management of the explore outside the family, or adolescent
boundaries between self and others, and may who have explored more outside the family
be of special significance during the process may feel more confident or competent to dis
of identity formation (Carter & McGoldrick, play that sense of self within the family. Sec
1980; Fischer, 1978). According to this con-ond, a multiple regression approach is used t
ception of relationships, evidence of both in- compare the relative contributions of com-
Grotevant and Cooper 417
munication behaviors within each relation- Measures
ship while controlling for the possible con- Family Interaction Task.-The Family
founding effects of verbal ability andInteraction Task involved the family in mak-
sociability. ing plans together for a fictional 2-week vaca-
tion for which they had unlimited funds.
Method Their task was to plan the day-by-day itiner-
ary, listing both the location and the activity
Subjects planned for each day. The research assistant
The subjects in this study were members gave the family 20 min to reach their deci-
of 84 Caucasian, middle-class, two-parent sions, turned on an audiotape recorder, and
families, each including an adolescent who left the room.
was a high school senior and either one or two
siblings. Subjects were volunteers who re- The task, designed in terms of key
sponded to letters sent to families of seniors methodological considerations current in fam-
in local public high schools (87% of sample), ily problem-solving research (Klein & Hill,
letters to families with a high school senior in 1979), was an adaptation of the Plan Some-
local churches (2% of sample), or referrals thing Together Task first introduced by Watz-
from other sources, including participating lawick (1966). It was designed to elicit the
families (11% of sample). Those families were expression and coordination of the viewpoints
included who had up to three children and of all family members on a topic on which the
who were either biologically intact or had adolescent's interests and expertise could
legitimately contribute to the family's deci-
been together for at least the past 5 years. So-
cioeconomic status of the families was as- sions. Thus, it was anticipated that such a task
would enhance the families' potential for ex-
sessed by Hodge-Siegel occupational prestige
hibiting both individuality (as seen in sugges-
ratings of fathers' occupations (Mueller & Par-
cel, 1981). The mean rating for the sample tions for activities or disagreements) and con-
was 57.4 (range = 35.4-81.2), with mostnectedness
of (as seen in agreements, questions,
the fathers being employed in professional or initiating compromises).
work. The target adolescents (mean age = Concern for optimizing the adolescent's
17.6 years) included 46 females, 34 of whom
participation guided several decisions con-
were firstborns, and 38 males, 30 of whom
cerning the structure of the task. A Plan
were firstborns; the siblings (mean age = 15.2
Something Together Task, which allows mul-
years) included 47 females and 37 males. The
tiple ideas to be incorporated into a final plan,
families were drawn from a larger sample ofchosen rather than a Revealed or Unre-
was
121 families who participated in the Family
vealed Differences Task, which typically al-
Process Project, a study directed by the lows only one viewpoint to prevail; the Plan
coauthors. The subsample of 84 families was
Something Together Task facilitates "power
chosen for this report because in each of these
sharing" rather than "power wielding" in-
families four members (both parents, teractions
the that often result from tasks that in-
target adolescent, and a sibling) participated tentionally stimulate conflict (Cromwell & Ol-
in the Family Interaction Task. son, 1975). In addition, unlimited funds were
Procedures permitted for the hypothetical vacation so as
Data collection for the measures reported not to activate pre-established family roles
in this study involved both parents, the target
concerning the allocation of money, such as
adolescent, and one sibling, and took place in might occur when the purchase of a car was
the family's home. Among the measures ad- considered. Finally, in order to stimulate par-
ministered were the Family Interaction Task ticipation of all family members, the task re-
(to the whole family), the Ego Identity Inter- quired multiple decisions rather than a single
view (to the target adolescent), the Extended decision. The task appeared to be ecologically
Range Vocabulary Test (to each family mem- valid for these families, as most became
ber), and the Strong-Campbell Interest Inven- highly engaged in the task, and many men-
tory (to each family member). In addition to tioned trips to places they had visited or dis-
the measures discussed in this report, the cussed previously. Still, generalization of the
study also included several questionnaires findings should be made with caution since
measuring perceptions of self and family, sev- family communication was observed in only
eral social-cognitive tasks, an activity check- one context, and since the task was designed
list kept by each family member for 4 days, an to elicit optimal patterns of power sharing.
audiotaped role-taking measure, and an au- As described earlier, the coding of family
diotaped interaction task between the target interaction variables was guided by develop-
adolescent and an unacquainted peer. mental and clinical research, as well as by
principles of speech and conversational anal- Vocabulary.-The Extended Range Vo-
ysis (Coulthard, 1977; Dore, 1979). Details of cabulary Test (Ekstrom, French, Harman, &
the principles governing the preparation of Derman, 1976) was administered to each fam-
transcripts, unitizing of discourse, definitionsily member to determine the association of
of communication behaviors, and conduct ofindividual differences in performance on
the coding itself are given in Condon, other measures with verbal ability. In another
Cooper, and Grotevant (1984). Using tran-study, this measure was shown to correlate
scripts and tapes, coders assigned each of the.78 with the verbal section of the Scholastic
first 300 utterances of the family interaction toAptitude Test (Grotevant & Adams, in press).
one of 14 categories operationalizing the di-
mensions of individuation. A previous study Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory.-
indicated that the first 300 utterances were The Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory
sufficiently representative of the whole ses-(Campbell, 1974) is the 1974 revision of the
sion to serve as the basis for data analysisStrong Vocational Interest Blank, which has
(Cooper, Grotevant, & Condon, 1982). Inter- been used since 1927 to assess vocational
judge reliabilities (percent agreement in cod-interests. Besides the occupational scales,
ing specific utterances) exceeded .75 for allthe Strong also includes an Introversion-
but three utterance types (initiates compro-Extraversion scale, which assesses the degree
mise, acknowledgment, and agreement). Reli-to which the subject expresses a preference
ability of coding for each transcript was re-for occupations and social environments that
viewed by a single trainer (a linguist workingemphasize interpersonal interaction. Low
on the project), and all coding discrepancies scores on this scale indicate a preference for
were resolved by consultation with the cod- activities and situations involving interper-
ing manual (Condon et al., 1984); these proce-sonal contact; thus it is used as an indicator of
dures were recommended by Gottman (1979).sociability.
Coders were blind with respect to the adoles-
cents' performance on the Ego Identity Inter-Results
view and all other measures.
The findings provide evidence of the link
between relational properties of family in-
Ego Identity Interview.-The Ego Iden- teraction and adolescent identity exploration,
tity Interview, developed by Marcia (1966)with some unexpectedly differentiated results
and revised and extended by Grotevant and concerning family subsystems. The results
Cooper (1981), operationalizes Erikson's are presented in three major sections. In the
(1950, 1968) construct of identity in six do- first two sections, descriptive statistics con-
mains that are pertinent developmentally for cerning adolescent identity exploration and
both male and female high school students in family communication behaviors are given. In
the United States (Grotevant et al., 1982): oc- the third section, results examining the hy-
cupational choice, religion, politics, friend- pothesized relations between dimensions of
ship, dating, and sex roles. The interview was family communication and identity explora-
administered by an interviewer of the same tion are presented.
sex as the subject and was audiotaped. Each
tape was rated independently by two coders Adolescent Identity Exploration
who were blind to the hypotheses of the The identity exploration rating was the
study and to the performance of the subjects sum of individual ratings of identity explora-
they rated on any other task. Disagreements tion across six domains: occupational choice,
were resolved by a third rater. Percent exactreligion, politics, friendship, dating, and sex
agreement between two raters averaged roles. The theoretical range of scores for each
80.7% for interviews of females and 79.6% for subject was 6-24 points. Actual scores in this
interviews of males. Percent agreement for sample ranged from 9 to 19 for males and
two out of three raters averaged 97.3% for fe-from 10 to 19 for females; the mean difference
male subjects and 96.6% for male subjects. between males and females was not sig-
The identity exploration score used as a key nificant, t(81) = 1.02, N.S. Ratings of explora-
measure in this study was the sum of the ex- tion were also examined for a possible rela-
ploration ratings across these six domains. tion with verbal ability. The correlation
Adolescents receiving the highest scores had between identity exploration and adolescents'
actively considered a variety of options for vocabulary scores was .04 (N.S.). In addition,
themselves (reflecting breadth) by exploring identity exploration was examined with re-
each option in a variety of ways (reflecting spect to subjects' birth order. When ratings of
depth). only children, firstborns, and second-borns
were compared, no significant difference these scores and identity exploration are pre-
emerged, F(2,87) = 1.90, N.S. sented in Table 3.
Family Interaction Task For separateness, modest positive corre-

Means and ranges of the 14 communica- lations with identity exploration were found
tion behaviors coded from the Family Interac-
for most dyads. When correlations for males
tion Task are contained in Table 1. T tests and females were examined separately, only
were performed to assess sex differences those
be- for females were significant. Sepa-
tween target adolescent males and females rateness expressed by each parent to the fe-
and between fathers and mothers. Only two male adolescent and separateness expressed
significant differences emerged between ado-by the adolescent to her sibling were
lescent males and females: males made more significantly related to identity exploration.
requests for information, t(82) = 2.60, p <
.05, whereas females gave more answers to The patterns of correlations relating iden-
requests for information, t(82) = -2.48, p tity
< exploration to permeability and mutuality
.05. Five significant mean differences were more differentiated by dyad. In the
emerged for parents: fathers expressed more mother-adolescent dyad, exploration was
relevant comments, t(83) = 3.15, p = .002; negatively related to permeability from the
indirect suggestions, t(83) = 3.61, p = .001; mother to the adolescent and negatively re-
answers to request for information, t(83) = lated to mutuality from the adolescent to the
3.04, p = .003; and requests for action, t(83) mother. This pattern suggests that the com-
= 2.36, p = .021; whereas mothers more fre- munication between adolescents higher in
quently showed compliance with requests for identity exploration and their mothers in-
action, t(83) = -2.08, p = .041. volved higher frequencies of reciprocated
separateness (i.e., both from the mother to
Family Communication and adolescent and the adolescent to mother) and
Identity Exploration lower degrees of reciprocated connectedness.
In this section, analyses linking qualities For adolescent boys and their fathers, signifi-
of family communication and adolescent cant correlations suggested the potential role
identity exploration will be presented.' In the of reciprocated connectedness in identity ex-
first set of analyses, correlations were com- ploration (permeability from adolescent to
puted between identity exploration ratings of father and mutuality from father to adoles-
the adolescents and the frequencies of com- cent). Correlations relating exploration to per-
munication behaviors directed from one permeability and mutuality in the adolescent-
son to another family member for each possi- sibling dyad were not significant.
ble dyad in the family. Separateness scores
included the sum of direct disagreements, in- The communication in the marital rela-
direct disagreements, and requests for action. tionship observed by the adolescents was also
Permeability scores included the sum of modestly correlated with their identity explo-
agreements, acknowledgments, and requests ration. The trend observed in the correlations
for action. Mutuality scores included the sum suggested that adolescent males rated higher
of initiations of compromise, statements of in exploration observed reciprocated sepa-
other's feelings, and answers to requests for rateness between their parents. For females,
information. Means and ranges for these identity exploration was negatively related to
scores in each dyad are presented in Table 2 reciprocated connectedness (permeability
for all adolescents, as well as for males and from each parent to the other and mutuality
females separately; correlations between from father to mother).
1 Two alternate approaches to the use of actual frequencies of communication variables were
examined. First, to consider the possible attenuation of correlations between communication behav-
iors and identity exploration (because of skewedness of the communication behaviors), the square
root transformation was applied to the communication variables. Correlations were then computed
between the transformed and untransformed variables; all exceeded .90. Correlations of transformed
and untransformed variables with identity exploration were then compared. These correlations were
virtually identical, differing on the average by <.02. Second, because different family members
contributed different proportions of total utterances to the interaction, frequencies of each person's
14 communication behaviors were divided by the number of total utterances for each person. These
proportional scores were then correlated with the raw frequencies of each communication behavior.
Median correlations were .89 for adolescents, .86 for mothers, .84 for fathers, and .83 for siblings.
Thus, on the basis of these analyses, actual frequencies of communication behaviors were judged as
appropriate for the basis of the subsequent analyses.
TABLE 1
MEANS AND RANGES FOR COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS IN FAMILY INTERACTION TASK
Male Female Male Female

Father Mother Adolescent Adolescent Sibling Sibling
Self-assertion:
Direct suggestion:
Mean ........ 3.5 3.5 5.2 4.9 4.1 4.6
Range ....... 0-15 0-17 0-21 0-15 0-12 0-17
Permeability:
Acknowledgment:
Mean ........ 12.6 13.2 8.5 8.3 5.4 5.7
Range ....... 0-43 1-36 0-24 2-22 0-16 0-18
Request for infor-
mation:
Mean ........ 10.7 11.0 8.8 5.8 4.7 5.9
Range ....... 0-39 1-34 1-24 0-30 0-16 0-18
Agreement:
Mean ........ 11.9 12.6 13.1 10.9 9.4 10.8
Range ....... 1-32 2-29 2-26 2-24 0-29 0-27
Relevant comment:
Mean ........ 14.1 11.0 9.5 10.0 6.3 5.9
Range ....... 2-48 1-25 1-29 2-21 0-16 0-19
Compliance with
request for action:
Mean ........ .7 1.0 .8 .7 .6 .5
Range ....... 0-5 0-4 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3
Mutuality:
Indirect suggestion:
Mean ........ 20.4 15.4 15.4 14.8 11.3 11.6
Range ....... 2-60 3-33 3-37 2-31 2-28 1-35
Initiation of com-
promise:
Mean ........ 1.0 .9 1.0 .6 .4 .7
Range ....... 0-5 0-5 0-4 0-3 0-2 0-4
Statement of others'
feelings:
Mean ....... .7 .7 .5 .6 .1 .5
Range ....... 0-8 0-5 0-4 0-4 0-1 0-6
Answer to request
for information:
Mean ........ 6.6 4.8 5.7 7.7 5.8 4.5
Range ....... 0-20 0-18 1-12 1-19 2-15 0-11
Separateness:
Request for action:
Mean ........ 3.5 2.7 2.9 2.1 2.0 1.8
Range ....... 0-17 0-10 0-12 0-10 0-9 0-7
Direct disagreement:
Mean ........ 2.2 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.3 3.9
Range ....... 0-9 0-9 0-9 0-12 0-8 0-18
Indirect disagreement:
Mean ........ 3.8 3.8 4.3 4.9 3.9 3.5
Range ....... 0-15 0-11 0-15 0-22 0-16 0-11
Irrelevant comment:
Mean ........ .2 .4 .5 .2 .2 .4
Range ....... 0-7 0-13 0-6 0-6 0-2 0-3
The second set ofcation variables

analyses and
was designe
series of hierarchica
to examine sex differences, relational d
ences (e.g., between mother-son
gressions and mo
was perform
daughter dyads), and the as
ration possible role o
the depende
adolescent's verbal ability and
gression sociabil
analysis, s
explaining the association between
ability scores comm
were en
TABLE 2
MEANS AND RANGES FOR SEPARATENESS, PERMEABILITY, AND MUTUALITY IN DYADS
SEPARATENESS PERMEABILITY MUTUALITY
DYAD Alla Ma Fa All M F All M F
Adolescent to
mother:
Mean ....... 3.4 4.2 2.7 8.7 7.6 9.6 3.1 3.4 2.9
Range ....... 0-20 0-20 0-8 0-31 0-31 1-25 0-11 0-11 0-10
Mother to
adolescent:
Mean ....... 3.0 3.2 2.8 9.9 10.1 9.7 2.1 1.5 2.6
Range ....... 0-14 0-14 0-11 0-40 0-40 0-26 0-12 0-7 0-12
Adolescent to
father:
Mean ....... 3.2 2.9 3.5 11.8 10.6 12.8 3.1 3.9 2.5
Range ....... 0-21 0-21 0-15 1-40 2-26 1-40 0-13 0-13 0-10
Father to
adolescent:
Mean ....... 3.2 3.5 2.9 10.9 11.7 10.2 2.6 2.2 3.0
Range ....... 0-21 0-17 0-21 1-41 1-36 1-41 0-11 0-11 0-10
Adolescent to
sibling:
Mean ....... 2.6 2.3 2.8 4.8 4.7 4.9 1.7 1.6 1.7
Range....... 0-10 0-6 0-10 0-18 0-18 0-15 0-10 0-9 0-10
Sibling to
adolescent:
Mean ....... 2.8 2.3 3.3 6.0 6.7 5.5 1.2 1.1 1.4
Range ....... 0-18 0-13 0-18 0-19 0-19 0-18 0-5 0-5 0-5
Mother to father:
Mean ....... 2.7 2.7 2.8 13.8 12.7 14.6 2.6 2.7 2.6
Range ....... 0-10 0-8 0-10 2-39 3-22 2-39 0-17 0-17 0-7
Father to mother:
Mean ....... 2.2 2.1 2.3 11.0 11.9 10.2 3.3 3.4 3.2
Range ........ 0-11 0-9 0-11 0-30 1-27 0-30 0-14 0-11 0-14
NOTE.--Separateness = direct disagreements + indirect disagreements + re

requests for information + agreements + acknowledgments; Mutuality = initia
others' feelings + answers to requests for information.
a Sex of adolescent.
tion, F(12,18) = 2.51, p = .038, with

The second step included all directional com-
munication composite scores (separateness, significant beta weights included mutuality
from father to adolescent (beta = .75), sepa-
permeability, and mutuality) for that particu-
lar dyad as well as the following nondirec- rateness from father to adolescent (- .99), and
tional communication behaviors for both separateness from adolescent to father (.97).
members of the dyad: direct suggestions, In addition,
in- adolescent's direct suggestions
direct suggestions, relevant comments, (.39) and father's indirect suggestions (-.42)
and
had moderately high beta weights that ap-
irrelevant comments. The results of the five
regression analyses that accounted for proached statistical significance.
significant proportions of variance in identity
exploration are presented in Tables 4 and 5 For females, communication variables in
for males and females, respectively. all four relationships accounted for significant
proportions of variance in identity exploration
For males, communication variables in after controlling for sociability and verbal
the father-son dyad accounted for 58.4% of ability: adolescent-father = 22.7%; adoles-
the variance in identity exploration after vari-cent-mother = 22.5%; adolescent-sibling =
ance accounted for by sociability and verbal 5.4%; and mother-father = 39.2%.
ability was subtracted. (The adjusted R2 for
the full equation was .376.) In no other rela- In the father-daughter relationship, the
tionship were the communication variablesfinal significant equation, F(8,33) = 2.34, p =
predictive of identity exploration for males. .041, included one predictor with a significant
The predictors in the final significant equa- beta: father's indirect suggestions (beta =
+
Oktn O'-4CI1ZOC = 0c
* 0
* *c
c C I C'
z * I
in m? c
ii i I I I
rA
Z4-1 4-1
vi II I I
cnl
Q~.Q)
CA
CAX <
E
z q 0 m m m CD C 00 co 0 E
CA0
zz
- -
-n z C0)C c c'1'-4lC'1 C
EP
CIR
rQ
4- bl)
c+0
Zi b
z A c- A) Co A) An n I
*
oq o o
TABLE 4
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION ON COMMUNICATION BEHAV

CONTROLLING FOR SOCIABILITY AND VERBAL ABILITY: MALES (N = 31)
FATHER-SON RELATIONSHIP
Cumulative
PREDICTOR R' B Beta OVERALL F
Control variables:
Sociability ............... .037 .004 (.028) .02 1.10
Verbal ability ............ .042 -.029 (.045) -.10 .61
Communication variables:
Mutuality F to A ......... .195 .583 (.175) .75** 2.19
Separateness F to A ...... .256 -.597 (.190) -.99** 2.23
Separateness A to F ...... .319 .577 (.207) .97* 2.34
F irrelevant comment ..... .412 .430 (.512) .23 2.80*
A direct suggestion ....... .515 .243 (.118) .39 3.49*
F indirect suggestion ..... .573 -.098 (.066) -.42 3.69**
A relevant comment ...... .604 .075 (.079) .16 3.56**
A indirect suggestion ..... .613 -.082 (.083) -.26 3.17*
F direct suggestion ....... .620 -.093 (.159) -.13 2.82*
Mutuality A to F ......... .626 .109 (.204) .13 2.51*
NOTE.-Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

F = father; A = adolescent. Variance accounted for by commun
Adjusted R' for full equation = .376.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
-.43). Father's relevant comments (.31) andfathers, and their fathers reciprocated with
adolescent's indirect suggestions (.29) also ap- more expressions of mutuality and less fre-
proached significance. quent expressions of separateness. In con-
trast, daughters rated higher in identity explo-
In the mother-daughter relationship, the
ration were more likely to be expressing their
final significant equation, F(8,33) = 2.31, p =
suggestions indirectly. Their fathers showed
.044, included the following significant pre-
higher frequencies of relevant comments and
dictor: mutuality from adolescent to mother
lower frequencies of indirect suggestions.
(beta = -.36). Adolescent's direct sugges-
tions (-.28) and indirect suggestions (.28) and In the mother-daughter relationship,
mother's direct suggestions (.26) approached identity exploration was negatively associated
significance. with expressions of mutuality from the adoles-
In the adolescent-sibling relationship, cent to her mother. Higher-scoring daughters
the final significant equation, F(3,38) = 2.93, were expressing higher frequencies of indi-
p = .046, included the adolescent's sociabil-rect and lower frequencies of direct sugges-
ity score (beta = -.34). In addition, sepa-tions, whereas their mothers were more likely
rateness expressed from the adolescent to her to express their suggestions directly than indi-
sibling (beta = .23) approached significance. rectly. Finally, higher-scoring daughters were
more likely to express separateness toward
Finally, for the marital relationship, the their siblings.
final significant equation, F(14,27) = 2.14, p
= .044, included the following predictors In the marital relationship of the parents
with significant betas: mutuality from fatherof higher-scoring daughters, fathers expressed
to mother (beta = -.42) and separatenesshigher separateness and lower mutuality to
from father to mother (.40). In addition, their wives as well as higher frequencies of
father's direct suggestions (-.33), mutuality relevant comments and lower frequencies of
from mother to father (.32), and father's rele-direct suggestions. Perhaps in a complemen-
vant comments (.30) approached significance. tary pattern, mothers of the higher-scoring
daughters more frequently expressed mutual-
In sum, adolescents' interactions with ity to their husbands.
their fathers were associated with identity ex-
ploration, but in different ways for sons and Discussion
daughters. Sons scoring higher in identity ex-
ploration were more likely to be expressing On the Family Interaction Task, mea-
direct suggestions and separateness with their sures of all four dimensions of the individua-
TABLE 5
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION ON COMMUNICATION BEHAVIO

CONTROLLING FOR SOCIABILITY AND VERBAL ABILITY: FEMALES (N = 42)
Cumulative
Predictor R12 B Beta Overall F
Father-daughter relationship:
Control variables:
Sociability ................. .131 -.065 (.038) -.25 6.02*
Verbal ability .............. .134 .029 (.038) .11 3.01
F indirect suggestion ....... .174 -.100 (.039) -.43* 2.67
Separateness F to A ........ .239 .199 (.162) .21 2.91*
A indirect suggestion ....... .277 .093 (.051) .29 2.75*
F relevant comment ........ .342 .125 (.066) .31 3.03*
A irrelevant comment....... .352 -.236 (.324) -.11 2.64*
Permeability F to A ........ .361 .040 (.058) .12 2.34*
Mother-daughter relationship:
Control variables:
Sociability ................. .131 - .046 (.040) -.18 6.02*
Verbal ability .............. .134 .004 (.037) .01 3.01
Mutuality A to M ........... .204 -.368 (.160) -.36* 3.24*
A indirect suggestion ....... .266 .090 (.052) .28 3.35*
M direct suggestion ........ .288 .175 (.110) .26 2.91*
A direct suggestion ......... .320 - .171 (.107) -.28 2.75*
M indirect suggestion....... .338 -.066 (.051) -.21 2.48*
Permeability A to M ........ .359 .065 (.063) .17 2.31*
Adolescent-sibling relationship:
Control variables:
Sociability ................. .131 - .087 (.038) -.34* 6.02*
Verbal ability .............. .134 - .021 (.038) .08 3.01
Communication variable:
Separateness A to sib....... .188 .210 (.132) .23 2.93*
Marital relationship:
Control variables:
Sociability ................. .131 -.008 (.042) - .03 6.02*
Verbal ability .............. .134 .010 (.043) .04 3.01
Mutuality F to M ........... .233 -.414 (.163) -.42* 3.84*
Mutuality M to F ........... .277 .397 (.203) .32 3.55*
Permeability F to M ........ .339 -.088 (.060) -.24 3.69**
F direct suggestion ......... .364 -.235 (.117) -.33 3.34**
Separateness F to M ........ .409 .423 (.187) .40* 3.36**
M indirect suggestion ....... .448 -.057 (.048) -.18 3.35**
M direct suggestion ........ .467 .134 (.101) .20 3.12**
F relevant comment ........ .492 .120 (.073) .30 3.00**
Separateness M to F........ .503 -.086 (.155) -.09 2.76*
M relevant comment........ .510 -.065 (.069) -.17 2.51*
F irrelevant comment....... .519 -.846 (1.105) -.12 2.33*
F indirect suggestion ....... .526 -.025 (.040) -.11 2.14*
NOTE.-F = father; M = mother; A = adolescent. Variance accounted for

daughter: .361 - .134 = 22.7%, adjusted R2 for equation = .207; mother-da
for equation = .203; adolescent-sibling: .188 - .134 = 5.4%, adjusted R2 for
39.2%, adjusted R' for equation = .280.
*p < .05.
** p < .01.
tion model of family interaction were found toappear to provide the context for experiencing
be associated with ratings of the breadth andboth individuality and connectedness, al-
though in different forms.
depth of adolescent identity exploration, with
the effects of verbal ability and sociability As a whole, these findings are consistent
controlled. Although positive associations be-with Erikson's (1968) view that identity for-
tween all communication variables and iden-
mation involves the definition of a sense of
tity exploration were initially predicted, the
self as distinctive from others. Our results
results have provided a more differentiated
suggest that in late adolescence, acknowledg-
view of these dimensions, in that some associ-
ment and coordination of such differences in
ations were positive and others negative.
family interactions, as seen in permeability
Communication variables related to identity
and mutuality, offer a context in which ado-
exploration not only differed for males and
lescents may consider and refine options for
females, but also were significant for them in
their identity. In families whose adolescents
different family relationships. For girls, com-
engage in more exploration, these supportive
munication patterns in all four relationships
qualities seem to be expressed primarily from
were associated with identity exploration,
the parents to their adolescents rather than
whereas for boys, only father-son interaction
vice versa. However, current studies of young
patterns were related to exploration ratings.
adults and their parents have documented a
These differences suggest that sources of fam-
developmental trend toward increasing mutu-
ily influence on identity exploration may be
more diverse for female adolescents than for
ality in their relationships (White et al., 1983).
males. Because this is a correlational study, it is
impossible to make claims about the direction
Our data suggest that somewhat different of effects in adolescent identity formation.
family interaction styles are associated with One plausible interpretation is that observing
identity exploration for male and female ado- and participating in family relationships foster
lescents. With their fathers, higher-scoring clarity in the adolescent's developing sense of
males expressed their disagreements as well self. It may be that experience in family rela-
as their suggestions directly. Fathers' com- tionships does indeed give adolescents the
munication patterns complemented those of confidence and skills necessary to explore
their sons by contributing mutuality, which away from the family. At the same time, ado-
can be seen as serving a coordinating function lescents who have had such opportunities for
in interaction, and by disagreeing infre- exploration are likely to gain experience and
quently. These fathers were also less likely expectations which may in turn affect their
than those of lower-scoring males to express communication with family members.
their own ideas, either directly or indirectly,
perhaps in order to allow their sons the oppor- The arguments of the present study re-
tunity to contribute to the family's vacation garding the significance of both individuality
plans. Thus, fathers seem to be encouraging and connectedness are supported by evi-
or at least tolerating their sons' assertiveness dence from a number of recent investigations
and directness in the task. that adolescent maturity is gained in the con-
text of progressive and mutual redefinition of
In contrast, fathers of higher-scoring the parent-child relationship rather than by
daughters expressed higher frequencies of the adolescent simply leaving the relation-
separateness and relevant comments, and ship (Hill & Steinberg, 1976) or else re-
lower frequencies of indirect suggestions. defining it by the solitary use of formal opera-
With their wives, these men expressed higher tional reasoning (Youniss, 1983). Hauser,
separateness, lower mutuality, and lower per- Powers, and their colleagues (e.g., Hauser,
meability. Their wives, in a potentially Powers, Noam, Jacobson, Weiss, & Follans-
mediating pattern, expressed higher mutual- bee, 1984; Powers, Hauser, Schwartz, Noam,
ity to their husbands. The picture in these & Jacobson, 1983) have used both psychoana-
families is of fathers who appear to comment lytic and cognitive approaches to the study of
on others' suggestions rather than express these issues. They have found that adoles-
their own, and who disagree with both their cents' level of ego development was associ-
wives and daughters. That mothers in these ated with patterns of family interaction in-
families were not simply mollifying the fam- volving high amounts of sharing of
ily conflict is indicated by their greater likeli- perspectives, and challenges in the context of
hood of expressing their own ideas directly as support. Likewise, White et al. (1983) re-
well as coordinating the family discussion. ported evidence of the continuing signifi-
Thus, sons' relationships with their fathers cance of individuality and connectedness in
and daughters' relationships with each parent parent-child relationships into young adult-
hood. Although each of these studies is lim-Appendix

ited in terms of its sample and the number of
Conceptual Dimensions and
contexts in which family interaction is ob- Behavioral Indices of Individuation
served, the convergence of conclusions from
these studies is most striking. Self-assertion: Displays awareness of own point of
view and responsibility for communicating it
In addition, the present findings of family
clearly
interaction patterns differentiated by gender 1. Direct suggestion (.63)2
are consistent with other recent reports. a. Something I've always wanted to do, to go
Steinberg (1981) observed greater conflict be- up to the northwest part of the country.
tween young adolescent males and their b. I'd like to go to Italy.
mothers than with their fathers. In addition,
Permeability: Expresses responsiveness to the
Youniss (in press) found that older adoles-
views of others
cents reported differentiated patterns of relat- 1. Acknowledgment (.78).
ing to each parent in everyday social interac- a. You said go to Canada.
b. Oh.
tion. In the present investigation, it should be
c. Uh-huh.
noted that few sex differences in mean fre-
d. OK.
quencies of utterance types were observed for
2. Request for information (.72)
adolescents. However, the patterns of associa- a. In what perspective?
tion between communication variables and b. What is a rail?
identity exploration were very different forc. How far is it from Rome to Athens?
males and females. 3. Agreement (.46)
a. I'd like to go there, too.
In conclusion, the findings of this study b. Yeah, Yellowstone.
support the usefulness of monitoring both in- c. Let's use Kim's idea of Spain and go to
dividuality and connectedness in family rela- Madrid.
tionships as predictors of individual compe- 4. Relevant comment (.39)
tence. Important progress in theoretical and a. So we have two weeks and unlimited
funds.
empirical work on family relationships will
involve further analyses of individual rela- b. Spain is next to France.
c. Rail express (elaborates response)
tionships within the family, developmental
5. Compliance with request for action (.28)
changes in these relationships, and the contri-
a. I'll write that down right now.
bution of development in family members to b. OK.
their relationships. Although the present
study has established a link between indi-Mutuality: Shows sensitivity and respect for
others' views
viduation in relationships and identity explo-
1. Indirect suggestion (.92)
ration in late adolescence, it is likely that the a. Let's go to Canada.
balance between individuality and connec- b. Would either of you like to go back to
tedness will vary over the course of the par- Italy?
ent-child relationship. 2. Initiation of compromise (.41)
a. While Mom's in the antique shop, we can
Because the present sample was rela- hike for a while.
tively small and included only Caucasian, b. We can take Cindy to the Bahamas and
middle-class, two-parent families, and be- then we can go wherever you want to go.
cause family interaction was observed in only 3. Statement of others' feelings (.32)
one context, generalization should be made a. The kids will love to see Disneyworld.
with caution, especially to cultural groups in b. Your mother has always wanted to go to
which power sharing and identity exploration England.
are not valued as highly as they likely were in 4. Answer to request for information (.30)
a. A rail you go by train.
this middle-class sample. In addition, since b. It's about 400 miles.
the characterizations of relationships in these
families have been based on whole-family in-Separateness: Expresses distinctiveness of self
from others
teraction, it will be important to understand
1. Request for action (.51)
how these dyads function independently as
a. Write that down there.
well as when the whole family is together.
b. Wait a minute.
This exploratory study has provided an im- c. Let's vote on it.
portant starting point for differentiating our 2. Direct disagreement (.46)
view of family process as a relational context a. I don't want to go on a train.
for adolescent development. b. No.
2 Factor loading of communication behavior on its primary factor.
3. Indirect disagreement (.29) Dore, J. (1979). Conversational acts and the acquisi-
a. But two or three months? tion of language. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin
b. We don't have time to do all that. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 339-
c. Why would you want to go to that kind of 361). New York: Academic Press.
place?
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., &
4. Irrelevant comment (.33)
a. I'd like some more tea. Derman, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-
b. You know, we're missing my favorite TV referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Edu-
show. cational Testing Service.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New
York: Norton.
References
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis.
Adams, G. R., & Jones, R. M. (1983). Female ado-New York: Norton.
lescents' identity development: Age compari- Fischer, J. L. (1978). A systems theory of dyadic
sons and perceived child-rearing experience. relationships: The case of adolescent friend-
Developmental Psychology, 19, 249-256. ships. Paper presented at the Theory Develop-
Beavers, W. R. (1976). A theoretical basis for familyment and Methodology Workshop, National
evaluation. In J. M. Lewis, W. R. Beavers, J. T. Council of Family Relations Annual Meeting,
Gossett, & V. A. Phillips, No single thread: Philadelphia.
Psychological health in family systems (pp. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experi-
46-82). New York: Brunner/Mazel. mental investigations. New York: Academic
Bell, D. C., & Bell, L. G. (1983). Parental validationPress.
and support in the development of adolescent Grotevant, H. D., & Adams, G. R. (in press). Devel-
daughters. In H. D. Grotevant & C. R. Cooperopment of an objective measure to assess ego
(Eds.), Adolescent development in the family: identity in adolescence: Validation and repli-
New directions for child development (pp. 27- cation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1981). Assessing
Blos, P. (1979). The second individuation process of
adolescent identity in the areas of occupation,
adolescence. In P. Blos, The adolescent pas- religion, politics, friendship, dating, and sex
sage: Developmental issues (pp. 141-170). roles: Manual for administration and coding of
New York: International University Press. the interview. JSAS Catalog of Selected Docu-
Campbell, D. P. (1974). Manual for the Strong- ments in Psychology, 11, 52. (Ms. No. 2295.)
Campbell Interest Inventory T325 (merged Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (in press). Indi-
form). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. viduation in family relationships: A perspec-
Carter, E. A., & McGoldrick, M. (1980). The family tive on individual differences in the develop-
life cycle: A framework for family therapy. ment of identity and role taking skill in
New York: Gardner. adolescence. Human Development.
Condon, S. M., Cooper, C. R., & Grotevant, H. D. Grotevant, H. D., Thorbecke, W. L., & Meyer,
(1984). Manual for the analysis of family dis- M. L. (1982). An extension of Marcia's identity
course, Psychological Documents, 14, 8. (Ms. status interview into the interpersonal domain.
No. 2616.) Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 33-47.
Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., & Condon, S. M. Hauser, S. T., Powers, S. I., Noam, G., Jacobson,
(1982). Methodological challenges of selectiv- A. M., Weiss, B., & Follansbee, D. J. (1984).
ity in family interaction: Assessing temporal Familial contexts of adolescent ego develop-
patterns of individuation. Journal of Marriage ment. Child Development, 55, 195-213.
and the Family, 44, 749-754. Hill, J. P., & Steinberg, L. D. (1976). The develop-
Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., & Condon, S. M. ment of autonomy during adolescence. In Jor-
(1983). Individuality and connectedness in the nadas sobre problematica juventil. Madrid:
family as a context for adolescent identity for- Foundacion Faustino Orbegoza Eizaguerre.
mation and role taking skill. In H. D. Grotevant Jordaan, J. P. (1963). Exploratory behavior: The for-
& C. R. Cooper (Eds.), Adolescent develop- mation of self and occupational concepts. In
ment in the family: New directions for child D. E. Super, R. Starishevsky, N. Matlin, & J. P.
development (pp. 43-59). San Francisco: Jos- Jordaan (Eds.), Career development: Self-
sey-Bass. concept theory (pp. 42-78). Princeton, NJ: Col-
Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse lege Entrance Examination Board.
analysis. Essex: Longman. Karpel, M. (1976). Individuation: From fusion to
Cromwell, R. E., & Olson, D. H. (1975). Power in dialogue. Family Process, 15, 65-82.
families. New York: Halsted. Klein, D. M., & Hill, R. (1979). Determinants of
Cushing, D. C. (1971). Identity status: A develop- family problem-solving effectiveness. In W. R.
mental model as related to parental behaviors. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.),
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State Uni- Contemporary theories about the family (Vol.
versity of New York at Buffalo. 1, pp. 493-548). New York: Free Press.
L'Abate, L. (1976). Understanding and helping the G. G., & Jacobson, A. M. (1983). Adolescent
individual in the family. New York: Grune & ego development and family interaction: A
Stratton. structural-developmental perspective. In H. D.
LaVoie, J. C. (1976). Ego identity formation in mid- Grotevant & C. R. Cooper (Eds.), Adolescent
dle adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adoles- development in the family: New directions for
cence, 5, 145-160. child development (pp. 5-25). San Francisco:
Lewis, J. M., Beavers, W. R., Gossett, J. T., & Phil- Jossey-Bass.
Riskin, J., & Faunce, E. E. (1970). Family interac-
lips, V. A. (1976). No single thread: Psychologi-
cal health in family systems. New York: Brun- tion scales: I. Theoretical framework and
ner/Mazel. method. Archives of General Psychiatry, 22,
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socializa- 504-512.
tion in the context of the family: Parent-childSroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment
interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The
Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psy- roots of maladaptation and competence. In
chology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on
social development (pp. 1-101). New York: child psychology (Vol. 16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
Wiley. baum.
Mahler, M. S. (1979). Thoughts about development Steinberg, L. D. (1981). Transformation in family
and individuation. In M. S. Mahler, The se- relations at puberty. Developmental Psychol-
lected papers of Margaret S. Mahler, M.D.: ogy, 17, 833-840.
Vol. 2. Separation and individuation. New Thorbecke, W., & Grotevant, H. D. (1982). Gender
York: Jason Aronson. differences in adolescent interpersonal identity
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of formation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
ego identity status. Journal of Personality and 11, 479-492.
Social Psychology, 3, 551-558. Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In adolescence to adulthood: An extension of
J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psy- theory and a review of research. Develop-
chology (pp. 159-187). New York: Wiley. mental Psychology, 18, 341-358.
Matteson, D. R. (1977). Exploration and commit- Watzlawick, P. (1966). A structured family inter-
ment: Sex differences and methodological view. Family Process, 5, 256-271.
problems in the use of identity status catego- White, K. M., Speisman, J. C., & Costos, D. (1983).
ries. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6, Young adults and their parents: Individuation
349-370. to mutuality. In H. D. Grotevant & C. R.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy.Cooper (Eds.), Adolescent development in the
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. family: New directions for child development
Mueller, C. W., & Parcel, T. L. (1981). Measures of(pp. 61-76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recom- Youniss, J. (1983). Social construction of adoles-
mendations. Child Development, 52, 13-30. cence by adolescents and parents. In H. D.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. Grotevant & C. R. Cooper (Eds.), Adolescent
(1979). Circumplex model of marital and family development in the family: New directions for
systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimen- child development (pp. 93-109). San Fran-
sions, family types, and clinical applications. cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Family Process, 18, 3-28. Youniss, J. (in press). Adolescents: Their parents and
Powers, S. I., Hauser, S. T., Schwartz, J. M., Noam, friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Patterns of Interaction - Grotevant & Cooper (1985)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Patterns of Interaction - Grotevant & Cooper (1985)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Patterns of Interaction in Family Relationships and the Development of Identity

Harold D. Grotevant and Catherine R. Cooper

GROTEVANT, HAROLD D., and COOPER, CATHERINE R. Patterns of Interaction in Fam

dividuality and connectedness (i.e., an indi-

Family Interaction Task For separateness, modest positive corre-

MEANS AND RANGES FOR COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS IN FAMILY INTERACTION TASK

Male Female Male Female

The second set ofcation variables

MEANS AND RANGES FOR SEPARATENESS, PERMEABILITY, AND MUTUALITY IN DYADS

SEPARATENESS PERMEABILITY MUTUALITY

DYAD Alla Ma Fa All M F All M F

NOTE.--Separateness = direct disagreements + indirect disagreements + re

tion, F(12,18) = 2.51, p = .038, with

STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION ON COMMUNICATION BEHAV

NOTE.-Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF IDENTITY EXPLORATION ON COMMUNICATION BEHAVIO

NOTE.-F = father; M = mother; A = adolescent. Variance accounted for

hood. Although each of these studies is lim-Appendix

2 Factor loading of communication behavior on its primary factor.

You might also like