Transcript Macek_etal_CommunicationEARA2010x

Starting points

The process of separation and striving for
autonomy of young individuals is strongly based
on the negotiation with their parents.
(e.g.Goosens, 2006; Beyers& Goossens,1999; Noack & Buhl, 2004; Beyers&
Goossens, 2008).

Relationships with parents in the period of
emerging adulthood are no longer asymmetrical
as they were in childhood and adolescence.
(e.g. Kins, Beyers, Soenens,Vansteenkiste, 2009; Buhl, 2007; Seiffke-Krenke, 2009;
Macek, Bejček & Vaníčková, 2007).

In this sense, there is a rise in importance of
direct communication and real negotiation
between emerging adults and their parents.
An open and symmetrical communication
between emerging adults and their parents
contributes to the clarification of mutual
expectations concerning autonomy and
separation (Kenyon & Koerner, 2009).
The perception of parents’ relationships,
including their communication strategies and
patterns, is a strong predictor of behavior and
communication in their children’s partner
relationships (Cui, Finchman, & Pasley, 2008; Simon &
Furman, 2010).
Aims of research
1.
A description of specific aspects (dimensions)
of communication between emerging adults
(EA) and their parents.
2.
Assessment of communication with parents:
Sex differences and gender stereotypes
3.
Assessment of relationships to parents and
between parents (functional/non-functional)
4.
How specific aspects of mother’s and father’s
communication can predict relationships to
parents and between parents
Participants

The sample included 385 young people
(162 male, 223 female) aged 18 to 25.
University students (62%)
 Working full-time(24%)
 Unemployed respondents (13%).

Measures
We start with a qualitative study (emerging adults, n = 25)
An essay about communication with their parents (introduced
with these questions:
„What is beneficial for your communication with parents, what
pleases and satisfies you?“ and, on the contrary:
„What slows the communication down, restricts and harms it?“)
Content and thematic analysis, 29 topics were identified, which
were classified into seven groups.
Group of topics
Frameworks of
communication
Parents’ communication skills
Experiential (emotional) side
of communication
Mutual respect
Demonstration of power and
parental control
Rituals and activities
enhancing cohesion
Future and expectations
Topics
Gender aspects of relationships with parents
Changes of relationships and communication with parents in time
Perception of parents’ mutual relationship and their communication
Influence of broader family and intergenerational transfer
Openness
Listening to others
Comprehensibility
Taboo in communication
Emotional warmth
Possibility of confessing something
Trust
Physical contact
Praise
Sense of humor
Respect on the part of parents
Son/daughter as an equal family member
Possibility of discussing problems
Mutual problem-solving
Respecting privacy
Approach to conflict and its solving
Conception of competences, rights, duties
Role in problem-solving
Shared time
Shared activities
Greetings
Regular phone contact
Addressing and nicknames
Expectations connected to communication with parents in the future
Expectations regarding the respondent’s perspective role of a parent
We compared with:
Measures developed for adolescents’
assessment of parents and for measuring
the quality of family environment
(Schaefer, 1965; Matějček & Říčan, 1983; Hargašová
& Kollárik, 1992; Čáp & Boshek, 1994).
Results regarding the specifics of
communication in the period of emerging
adulthood.
(Arnett, 2004; Konstam, 2007; Macek, Bejček , &
Vaníčková, 2007).
Measures

-
Inventory of communication with parents:
43 items related to
positive communication skills and strategies,
negative communication skills and strategies
autonomy and respect in communication,
demonstration of power,
experiential /emotional expressions of communication (crying,
sadness, humor).
All items were presented separatelly for mother and father, a fourpoint scale (disagreement - agreement).

-
The assessment of quality of the relationship with mother/father/
and between mother and father. The relationship was assessed as:
functional,
more or less neutral,
disturbed,
conflicting.
Results I – Dimensions of communication
A principal axis factor analysis, varimax rotation
Mother
 Trust and
understanding
 Insincerity and
distance
 Destructive and
unpleasant
communication
 Openness and
respect
Father
Trust and support
connected with humor
 Insincerity and hurting
 Communication fouls
and demonstration of
power
 Openness and respect
of individuality

Mother’s trust is more emotional, based
on perceived mutual intimacy; father’s
trust is connected more to acceptation,
understanding and humor.
 Mother’s insincerity is connected with
negative emotional atmosphere, father’s
insincerity is more concrete, connected
with communication fouls.

Results II: Assessment of communication with parents.
Sex differences and gender stereotypes
Males
M
SD
MANOVA
Destructive and unpleasant
communication (M1)
Trust and understanding (M2)
Insincerity and distance (M3)
Openness and mutual respect (M4)
Trust and support connected with
humor (F1)
Insincerity and hurting (F2)
Communication fouls and
demonstration of power (F3)
Openness and respect in a
relationship (F4)
Females
M
SD
F-test
Sig.
5.61a 0.000
2.05
2.76
1.59
0.59
0.49
0.54
2.02
3.00
1.51
0.58
0.54
0.48
0.10 0.749
22.41 0.000
1.76 0.186
3.06
0.57
3.04
0.63
0.05 0.826
2.37
2.00
0.67
0.62
2.36
1.95
0.69
0.64
0.07 0.787
0.50 0.479
1.76
0.75
1.73
0.74
0.05 0.816
2.82
0.68
2.75
0.72
1.61 0.205
Results II: Assessment of communication with parents.
Sex differences and gender stereotypes
4,00
3,50
Females
Males
3,00
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
M1:
M2: Trust and M3: Distance
Destructive understanding and falseness
and unpleasant
Assessment of Mother
M4: Mutual
respect
F1: Trust and
support
F2: Falseness F3: Power and
and hurting
fouls
Assessment of Father
F4: Mutual
respect and
openness
Results II: Assessment of communication with parents.
Sex differences and gender stereotypes
Young women and men present very
similar assessment of parents in
dimensions of communication (with an
exception of trust).
Mother is assessed as more trustworthy
and more respecting her daughter/son
than father.
Result III - The assessment of functionality
The original items regarding assessment of functionality
(mother/father and between mother and father), offered
four options:
- functional,
- more or less neutral,
- disturbed,
- conflicting relationship
A new dichotomic variable was formed: functional / nonfunctional relationship
Results III - The assessment of functionality
80
Functional
70
Non_functional
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Father
Mother
Between parents
Results IV
How specific aspects of mother’s and father’s communication can
predict relationships to parents and between parents
Hierarchical logistic regressions were run to predict :
1.
2.
3.
Functional relationship with mother
Functional relationship with father
Functional relationship between parents
The following independent variables were included:
- respondents’ sex,
- mother’s communication dimensions,
- father’s communication dimensions,
- functional relationship of the other parent (who is not
being assessed at the time).
Mother
Mother’s
communication:
Which aspects
Mother:
Functional
relationhips with her
Mother - Father:
Functional
relationhips between
them
Father’s
communication:
Which aspects
Father:
Functional
relationhips with him
Mother relationship
Sexa
Model 1
Sig
Exp(B)
B
,351
,167
F2: Insincerity
and hurting
F1: Trust and
support with
humor
F3: Comm. Fouls
and
demonstration
of power
F4: Openness
and respect
1,420
B
Model 2
Sig
Exp(B)
B
Model 3
Sig
Exp(B)
B
Model 4
Sig
Exp(B)
,371
,156
1,450
-,011
,975
,989
-0,013
,971
,987
-,048
,842
,953
-,414
,222
,661
-,070
,846
,933
,521
,026
1,683
-,648
,077
,523
-1,157
,004
0,314
-,149
,470
,862
-,317
,275
,728
-,071
,818
,932
,120
,550
1,127
,216
,449
1,241
,209
,489
1,233
-1,022
,002
,366
-1,189
,001
0,305
2,963
,000
19,357
3,041
,000
20,930
-,527
,161
,591
-,733
,069
,481
,280
,387
1,323
,263
,445
1,301
1,815
,000
6,140
,053
,894
1,055
M1:Destructive
and unplesant
M2: Trust and
understanding
M3: Insincerity
and distance
M4: Openness and
mutual respect
Relationship
with father
R. between
Parents
Nagelkerke R2
-2LL
corr.predict
Hosmer-
0,008
381,298
76,8%
0,065
367,677
77,1%
0,512
236,894
85,6%
0,564
242,179
85,3%
10,707 df 8; sig. ,219
9,627 df 8; sig. 0,292
14,292 df 8; sig. 0,074
Mother: predictors of functional relationhips with her
Mother:
Destructive and
unplesant
(negatively)
Trust and
understanding
Father:
Trust and
support with
humor
(negatively)
Mother:
Functional
relationhips with her
Mother - Father:
Functional
relationhips between
them
Father:
Functional
relationhips with him
Functionality of the relationship to mother
Mother’s trust is basic, however, if
relationship with mother is damaged, the
importance of father’s trust rises – it is
likely to fulfill a certain compensatory
role here.
 It is also up to the overall (functional)
relationship with father and it is not so
much dependent on the relationships
between parents.

Father
Mother’s
communication:
Which aspects
Mother:
Functional
relationhips with her
Mother - Father:
Functional
relationhips between
them
Father’s
communication:
Which aspects
Father:
Functional
relationhips with him
Father relationship
sexa
M1Destructive
and unplesant
B
-,101
Model 1
Sig
Exp(B)
,644
,904
M2:Trust and
understanding
M3: Insincerity
and distance
M4: Openness
and mutual
respect
F1: Insincerity
and hurting
F2: Trust and
support with
humor
F3: Comm.
fouls and
demonstration
of power
Model 2
Sig
Model 3
Sig
Exp(B)
Exp(B)
-,177
,440
,838
-,290
,342
,748
-,090
,673
,914
,120
,683
,224
,380
1,251
,058
-,280
,270
,756
-,057
,786
1,059
B
F4: Openness
and respect
Relationships
with mother
Relationships
between parents
Nagelkerke R2
-2LL
corr.predict
HosmerLemeshow
Model 4
Sig
Exp(B)
-,176
,608
,838
1,128
,572
,096
1,771
,887
1,060
-,975
,057
,377
,758
,052
2,135
1,269
,004
3,559
-,150
,626
,860
-,055
,879
,947
-1,300
,000
,272
-1,367
,000
,255
1,980
,000
7,246
2,510
,000
12,306
-1,161
,000
,313
-1,039
,003
0,354
,318
,239
1,375
,077
,809
1,080
2,064
,000
7,874
1,890
,000
6,619
B
B
0,001
0,024
0,558
0,668
486,867
481,801
296,081
242,179
55,1%
57,6%
80,8%
85,6%
6,797; df 8; sig. ,559
12,718 df 8; sig. 0,122
11,613 df 8; sig. 0,169
Father: predictors of functional relationhips with him
Mother: :
Insincerity and
distance
Father:
Insincerity and
hurting (negat.)
Trust with
humor
Com. fouls and
demonstration
of power (neg.)
Mother:
Functional
relationhips with her
Mother - Father:
Functional
relationhips
between them
Father:
Functional
relationhips with him
The functionality of the relationship with father appears to depend, to a certain degree, also on the relationship with mother and o
The functionality of the relationship with
father

It is important for the relationship to father
to be alright in communication with him.

Also, the relationship between parents is
important to be perceived in a positive way.

It depends also on the relationship with
mother and on an intimate communication
with mother. Sincerity on the part of mother
plays a specific role here – if absent, it
makes the functionality of the relationship
to father more likely stronger.
Mother – Father relationship
Mother’s
communication:
Which aspects
Mother
Functional relationhips
with her:
Mother - Father:
Functional
relationhips
Father’s
communication:
Which aspects
Father:
Functional
relationhips with him
Mother –
Father
relationship
Sexa
F:Insincerity
and hurting
F:Trust and
support with
humor
F:Comm.
Fouls and
demonstration
of power
F:Openness
and respect
M: Destructive
and unplesant
Model 1
B
-,244
Sig
,277
Model 2
Exp(B)
B
,783
Sig
Model 3
Exp(B)
B
Sig
Model 4
Exp(B)
Sig
Exp(B)
-,259
,314
,772
-,397
,143
,672
-,390
,179
,677
-,466
,053
,628
-,438
,080
,645
-,148
,571
,862
,592
,010
1,808
,376
,154
1,456
-,122
,679
,886
-,690
,001
,501
-,748
,001
,473
-,549
,024
,577
,609
,003
1,838
,786
,001
2,194
,783
,001
2,189
-,300
,252
,741
-,320
,255
,726
,645
,071
1,906
,596
,128
1,814
-,031
,922
,969
-,147
,666
,863
-,388
,146
,678
-,438
,121
,645
1,685
,000
5,391
,349
,367
1,418
M: Trust and
understanding
M:Insincerity
and distance
M:Openness
and mutual
respect
Relationship
with father
Relationship
with mother
Nagelkerke R2
-2LL
corr.predict
HosmerLemeshow
B
0,005
0,308
0,332
0,421
468,454
378,732
370,816
338,835
62,1%
72,3%
72,3%
76,8%
9,770 df 8; sig. ,282
5,432 df 8; sig. 0,711
4,441 df 8; sig. 0,815
Mother – Father: Predictors of functional relationship
Mother
Functional relationhips
with her:
Mother’s
communication
Mother - Father:
Functional
relationhips
Father’s
communication:
Comm. fouls
and demonstr.
of power (neg.)
Openness and
respect
Father:
Functional
relationhips with him
Mother – Father: Predictors of functional relationship

When assessing the partner relationship
between parents, the specific role of
father/partner becomes evident.

It depends mainly on his behavior whether the
relationship between parents is assessed as
functional or dysfunctional.
Conclusion

The functionality of relationships to
parents is seen as an important factor.
As our results show, family is a complex
system and each parent’s functionality
depends on a certain balance of
communication and quality of mutual
relationships.

Trust, sincerity, and mutual respect are
the basic stones for symetrical
communication
Emerging adult balances his/her boat on
the opened sea of his/her independent
life.
 In regard to positive development of
autonomy, mother represents a safe
home port, father a good wind to sails.
