Table 5.

Correspondence between Parental and Adolescent Membership in the RPA Framework Categories by Level of Family Global Warming Communication

	Adolescent Groups
Parental Groups	Indifference	Proactive	Avoidance	Responsive
High Global Warming Communicationa,b
Indifference
Low risk, weak efficacy	69.0%	20.7%	0%	10.3%
Proactive
Low risk, strong efficacy	25.0%	50.0%	12.5%	12.5%
Avoidance
High risk, weak efficacy	17.6%	17.6%	17.7%	47.1%
Responsive
High risk, strong efficacy	8.2%	11.0%	11.0%	69.8%
	χ2= 60.35, p < .001
Low Global Warming Communicationa,c
Indifference
Low risk, weak efficacy	57.2%	17.9%	5.5%	19.3%
Proactive
Low risk, strong efficacy	45.6%	20.6%	7.3%	26.5%
Avoidance
High risk, weak efficacy	18.0%	28.0%	22.0%	32.0%
Responsive
High risk, strong efficacy	21.1%	15.0%	9.0%	54.9%
	χ2= 72.63, p < .001

Note Percentages are calculated with parental group membership as the reference. Diagonal entries (in bold) correspond to percentage of adolescents in the same group as their parents. Overall correspondence between parental and adolescent groups was 67.5% for high communication and 41.3% for low communication.

^aLow global warming communication was defined as discussing global warming with each other “never” or “rarely” and high global warming communication was defined as “occasionally” or “often.”

^bN = 127 pairs.

^cN = 396 pairs.