Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jul 11.
Published in final edited form as: New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2012 Spring;2012(135):83–103. doi: 10.1002/cd.20005

Guided Cognitive Reframing of Adolescent-Father Conflict: Who Mexican American and European Adolescents Seek and Why

Jeffrey T Cookston 1, Andres F Olide 2, Michele Adams 3, William V Fabricius 4, Sanford L Braver 5, Ross D Parke 6
PMCID: PMC3708966  NIHMSID: NIHMS478483  PMID: 22407883

Abstract

Adolescents may seek to understand family conflict by seeking out confidants. However, little is known about whom adolescents seek, whether and how such support helps youth, and the factors that predict which sources are sought. This chapter offers a conceptual model of guided cognitive reframing that emphasizes the behavioral, cognitive, and affective implications of confidant support as well as individual, family, and cultural factors linked to support seeking. We present empirical data from 392 families of 7th graders of Mexican and European ancestry to predict whether adolescents seek mothers, co-resident fathers, and other sources and provide directions for subsequent research.

Keywords: guided cognitive reframing, family conflict, father-adolescent relationships, adolescence

Conflict between adolescents and their parents is an important predictor of adolescent adjustment (Gonzales, Deardorff, Formoso, Barr, & Barrera, 2006), and seeking social support to cope with conflict is healthy for adolescents (Nomaguchi, 2008). However, little is known about the psychological experience that social support plays in the lives of adolescents and what explains whether adolescents seek different sources of support. The choice to seek out others for support, the information sources provide, and the emotional consequences of those interactions are important to adolescents as they attempt to understand conflict interactions in their lives. We term this process guided cognitive reframing. In this chapter, we first offer a behavioral-cognitive-affective conceptual model for guided cognitive reframing that links seeking out a source of support, engaging in cognitive reframing of the conflict, and the affective experiences that result from reframing. Next, we review the literature on the confidants that adolescents seek (and the relative advantage of seeking each source). Finally, because the majority of the extant research has focused on adolescents in European American families, we examine cultural context, family, and individual factors that explain who is sought out to discuss family conflict among a diverse sample of Mexican American and European American 7th graders.

An Overview of Guided Cognitive Reframing: A Model for Understanding Coping and Support of Parent-Adolescent Conflict

Whereas middle childhood tends to be comparatively conflict-free, early adolescence is a time of increasing parent-child conflict (Granic, Dishion & Hollenstein, 2003). However, despite evidence for the apparent links between high levels of parent-adolescent conflict and adolescent adjustment (Barber & Delfabbro, 2000; Chung, Flook, & Fuligni, 2009; Juang et al., current volume; Updegraff et al., current volume), less is known about how adolescents make sense of the conflict they have with their parents. Although responses to stress are diverse, the coping literature suggests two common ways of managing reactions to a stressful event (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000). Active-approach coping involves engaging a stressor event (e.g., problem solving) and has been linked to more desirable adjustment (DeCarlo, Santiago & Wadsworth, 2009; Rogers & Holmbeck, 1997). A second approach, namely disengaging from a stressor event (e.g., denying, avoiding), has been linked to more risky outcomes (Ohannessian, Bradley, Waninger, Ruddy, Hepp, & Hesselbrock, 2010; Wadsworth, Raviv, Compas, & Connor-Smith, 2005).

Although the coping literature delineates styles of coping, the cognitive-motivational-relational theory of Lazarus (1991) provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding the effects of variations in seeking out different sources to discuss family conflict. According to this theory, an emotion-evoking situation results in a cognitive appraisal that is evaluated for self-relevance. If an event is seen as self-relevant, other appraisals determine whether the situation threatens one’s status and whether one is to blame for the event which, in turn, leads to the planning of a behavioral response. Lazarus’ model of appraisals in relationships offers a perspective on how guided cognitive reframing might be adaptive for adolescents. Specifically, according to Lazarus (1991) and the coping literature, an active coping strategy like seeking out a source for support should result in changed cognitions about the conflict partner (e.g., the reason for the conflict, whether the conflict partner is to blame for the event). Additionally, these reinterpreted cognitive explanations should explain how the adolescent feels after seeking a reframing agent (e.g., better self-evaluations and evaluations of the conflict partner).

According to our conceptualization of guided cognitive reframing (Figure 1), we anticipate that cognitions associated with more frequent reframing events will explain changes in affective evaluations and will be uniquely linked to child adjustment. In our conceptualization, we anticipate that talking with others about conflict will be related to changes in cognitive interpretations of the conflict because adolescents will gain a better understanding of a) the reason for the conflict and b) whether the adolescent is responsible for the conflict. These cognitions, in turn, should be related to affective evaluations of the self and the conflict partner. In this light, we view guided cognitive reframing as an active coping response to conflict that relies on social support and assists adolescents in reinterpreting or reappraising conflict situations. However, it is likely that the cognitive experience of reframing will depend on who is sought to provide the information. In other work (Cookston et al., under review), we test the latter part of this conceptual model of cognitive reframing; and in the current chapter we focus on the left side of the model to instead examine who adolescents talk to about father-adolescent conflict and specifically test the individual, family, and cultural-level factors that predict seeking out different sources. Next, we review whom adolescents turn to for support and the determinants of this support seeking.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual model of guided cognitive reframing.

Coping with stress: To whom do adolescents turn?

Adolescents seek out different sources of social support over time and for different reasons. In middle childhood, parents tend to be the main sources of support for children; by the 7th grade, however, peers and parents play an approximately equal supportive role, and by 10th grade peers largely provide support (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). During early adolescence, mothers still tend to be the primary confidants of youth (Nomaguchi, 2008; Reid, Landerman, Treder, & Jaccard, 1989). Nominated less often than mothers are fathers, peers, siblings, romantic partners (Nomaguchi, 2008), and adults outside of the family (Beam, Chen, & Greenberger, 2003). In addition to relying on parents less, the topics that parents and peers are sought out to support tend to be different, with peers sought for interpersonal issues and parents for school and career counseling (Youniss, & Smollar, 1985). However, on average, adolescents tend to show worse functioning when they rely predominantly on their peers and not parents as confidants (Nomaguchi, 2008). One possible explanation for this is that peers appear to be more likely to defend the behavior of their age-mates rather than challenge one another towards changing behavior (Chen, Greenberger, Lester, Dong, & Guo, 1998). On the other hand, nonparent adult sources of support, also referred to as Very Important Persons (VIPs), may be well positioned to provide counsel to adolescents because they can offer support with the wisdom that adulthood provides (Chen, Greenberger, Farrugia, Bush & Dong, 2003) without seeming explicitly biased in favor of the parents (Greenberger, Chen, & Beam, 1998). According to our guided cognitive reframing model, a host of factors--individual, family, and cultural—will predict who adolescents seek out.

Individual, family, and cultural predictors of support seeking

Although seeking support to discuss stressful events can be advantageous for youth, little is known about how adolescents decide who to talk with and why certain confidants are sought for consultation or support. A number of individual and family-level qualities have been linked to whether adolescents are more likely to seek out parents or peers. At the individual level, younger adolescents (12–14 year olds) tend to seek their parents more often than do older (15–17 year olds) adolescents (Nomaguchi, 2008); similarly, females rely on parents more than do males (Windle, Miller-Tutzauer, Barnes, & Welte, 1991). Additionally, adolescents who demonstrate more risk behavior are less likely to report parents as confidants compared to those who show fewer risk behaviors (Nomaguchi, 2008). Transactional views of human development (Sameroff, 2010) suggest that younger adolescents, females, and adolescents with fewer problem behaviors might seek out their parents for support, providing evidence of the vital role adolescents play in shaping their own development.

In addition to qualities of the adolescent, existing research among primarily European American families suggests that parent-adolescent relationships and family structure are associated with use of parents as confidants. Adolescents who report better quality parent-adolescent relationships tend to seek their parents out more often as confidants than those who report lower quality relationships (Freeman & Brown, 2001), and children in married families tend to consult more with their parents than children in divorced families (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992). Given that parent-child relationships may be poorer in stepfamilies than intact families (Coleman & Ganong, 1997), one would expect lower levels of consultation with parents in stepfamilies than in intact families. In support of this expectation, adolescents in stepfamilies confide less in both mothers and fathers than adolescents in intact families (Dunn, Davies, O’Connor & Sturgess, 2001). It is also likely that families experiencing high levels of interparental conflict may indirectly discourage children from discussing their own concerns with one parent for fear that it may cause more conflict between the parents (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991).

In addition to individual and family-level factors, according to our guided cognitive reframing model, the cultural context may promote or discourage adolescents from seeking counsel about their parents’ behaviors. If socialization goals place an emphasis on values of accepting authority, promoting interpersonal harmony, or striving for group success, seeking counsel about conflict with an authority figure may be considered disrespectful and, thus, may be discouraged (Hofstede, 1980). Adolescents in Mexican American families are encouraged to be respectful of authority figures (Keefe & Padilla, 1987), which might explain why Mexican American adolescents feel they are prevented from engaging in open communication about their parents’ behavior (Cooper, Baker, Polichar, & Welsh, 1993). For example, Mexican American children show less eye contact with their parents than do European American children, presumably as a sign of respect for parental authority (Schofield, Castenada, Parke, & Coltrane, 2008).

However, individuals differ in their respective rates of acculturation to a host culture, exposure to socialization of traditional cultural values, and adherence to traditional family values: therefore, to understand confidant support requires attention to within-culture individual differences. For instance, when Mexican American adolescents show a more familistic orientation they also tend to use more active and solution-oriented conflict strategies for conflict resolution, regardless of whether the conflict partner was a sibling (Killoren, Thayer, & Updegraff, 2008) or friend (Thayer, Updegraff, & Delgado, 2008). In this case, it appears that the internalization of the cultural value of placing the family above the individual is associated with a behavioral approach to managing conflict. The findings of Killoren et al. (2008) & Thayer et al. (2008) portray Mexican American adolescents as active in conflict resolution and seem to contradict the Schofield et al. (2008) finding that Mexican American adolescents are less likely to use direct eye contact with their parents. Rather it is possible that expressions of conflict behavior may differ based on the adolescent’s relationship to the conflict partner (sibling versus parent), thus, having different cultural meanings and consequences for how conflict is resolved within families. These questions are, therefore, worthy of further study.

In the current chapter we begin to fill the lacuna between the benefits of seeking others for support and the sparse evidence regarding how individual, family, and cultural factors explain seeking sources of social support. Specifically, we examined a series of constructs as predictors of whether mothers, resident fathers/stepfathers, and/or other sources were sought out as confidants by adolescents to discuss conflict with the resident father/stepfather. Although the father is only one of many possible conflict agents, the father is an appropriate target for initial consideration because mother-child relationships tend to be more consistent and culturally mandated (Leite & McKenry, 2002). By comparison, father-child relationships tend to be more variable in terms of the quality of the relationships as well as the quantity of time fathers spend with their children. Further, fathering tends to be less culturally prescribed, especially for stepfathers, relative to mothers. Thus, adolescents might seek support about fathers (especially stepfathers) because they are actively trying to make sense of those relationships. For the purposes of this chapter, “fathers” refer to the co-resident men who, in our sample, are either biological fathers or stepfathers. Because our sample is diverse both in terms of family structure and ethnicity, we give close consideration to these two family demographic characteristics in our analyses and the discussion of our findings.

An analysis of cultural context and seeking support to understand conflict with fathers

To predict how often adolescents reported seeking support from their mothers, fathers, and other sources we used characteristics of parents, marital relations, parenting, and family demographics as predictors, and we drew on a sample of 392 families. Our sample (see Schenck et al., 2009 for a description of the sample & Leidy et al., 2011 for information on measures and constructs) included 7th grade adolescents (M age = 12.5, SD = .59, 52.3% female), and was approximately evenly divided between families of Mexican (49%) and European ancestry, and between stepfather (44.5%) and biological father families. Of the Mexican American families, most of the mothers (64%) and fathers (68%) were born in Mexico, compared to only 19% of adolescents.

Assessment of the source of support

Within a longer interview, adolescents were asked to provide yes/no responses to the following question about their residential father, “When you are upset with your (dad/step-dad) or about your relationship with him, do you ever talk to…”: (1) mom, (2) co-resident dad/step-dad, and (3) anyone else. The responses to these questions served as our three dichotomous dependent variables.

Predictors of sources of support

To predict whether adolescents sought out their mother, father, and other sources, we relied on a number of constructs that accounted for aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship, marital relationship, parent and adolescent adjustment, the cultural context, and family demographics.

For our parent-adolescent relationship constructs we relied on composites of monitoring of adolescent behavior according to Stattin and Kerr’s (2001) revised interpretation of (a) mother monitoring (r = .18 for mother and adolescent report) and (b) father monitoring (r = .31 for father and adolescent report). Quality of the parent-adolescent relationship with father was assessed with measures that included single item indicators of (a) overall relationship with father (r = .47 for mother and adolescent report) and (b) adolescent reports of time spent with father. As described in Schenck et al. (2009) we also assessed a construct we refer to as mattering through separate constructs for adolescents’ perceptions of the extent to which they were important figures in the lives of their mothers and fathers (separately).

To assess characteristics of the marital relationship, we created composites between combinations of mother, father, and adolescent reports of (a) marital conflict from the Children’s Perceptions of Interparental Conflict Scale (Grych, Seid, & Fincham, 1992; composite of mother, father, and adolescent report, r = .57 for mother and father report, r = .42 for mother and adolescent report, r = .36 for father and adolescent report) and (b) coparenting from a 13-item measure of coparenting (Dumka & Roosa, 1995; r = .38 for mother and father report).

For parent behavior we gathered information on mothers and fathers/stepfathers using adolescent reports from the Children’s Report of Parent Behavior Inventory (Schaefer, 1965) of mother and father acceptance (alpha = .87 for mothers and .88 for fathers, 10 items), consistent discipline (alpha = .71 for mothers and .71 for fathers, 8 items), and rejection (alpha = .81 for mothers and .79 for fathers, 10 items).

To assess individual differences among parents, parent-level constructs were created for mother and father psychopathology based on composites of mother report of anxiety and depression (r = .78) and father report of anxiety and depression (r = .68) from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Derogatis, 1974). Mothers and fathers also self-reported their age.

To assess information about cultural orientation, we used items from the Mexican American Cultural Values Scale (Knight et al., 2010) and created scores for (a) parent reports of familism (r = .35 for composite of mother and father report), (b) gender values (composite of mother, father, and adolescent report, r = .29 for mother and father report, r = .19 for mother and adolescent report, r = .23 for father and adolescent report), (c) parent endorsement of individualistic values (r = .31 for mother and father report), (d) adolescent endorsement of individualistic values, (e) parent-adolescent acculturation gap (i.e., the difference between parent and adolescent individualistic values), and (f) an interaction between adolescent and parent individualistic values. Additionally, we assessed whether mothers and fathers were born in Mexico.

Adolescent characteristics assessed included gender (1 = male, 2 = female; 52.3% of the sample was female), adolescent age (M = 12.5, SD = .59), and a composite of mother and father reports of the adolescent’s total behavior problems using the Behavior Problem Inventory (Peterson & Zill, 1986; r = .47 for mother and father report).

Our analyses involved a two-step process. First, within the full sample of 392 families (and also separately by ethnic group) we estimated bivariate relations between each of the constructs in our model (see Table 1). Second, for each of the statistically significant bivariate associations, we conducted logistic regression models to separately predict whether mothers, fathers, and other sources were sought out, exploring whether ethnicity moderated these predictions. This method of forced entry of constructs based on bivariate associations reduces capitalizing on chance and overestimating confidence intervals (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).

Table 1.

Correlations Among Reframing, Parent Relationship and Behaviors, Acculturative Processes and Demographics.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
1. Seek out mother (0 = no, 1 = yes) 1.00 0.28 0.01 −0.05 −0.15 0.02 0.03 −0.07 −0.10 −0.07 −0.06 −0.26 0.00 0.10 −0.11 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.08 0.03 −0.02 0.08 - - 0.07 −0.09 −0.07 −0.11 0.02 0.04
2. Seek out father (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0.29 1.00 −0.02 −0.27 −0.23 −0.12 0.09 −0.08 −0.21 0.09 −0.11 −0.16 −0.11 0.09 −0.29 −0.09 0.18 −0.02 0.08 −0.12 −0.02 −0.01 0.07 0.07 0.06 - - 0.11 −0.06 −0.09 0.01 −0.02 0.26
3. Seek out other (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0.05 −0.09 1.00 0.18 0.16 0.23 0.17 0.15 0.22 −0.14 0.13 0.22 0.14 −0.15 0.27 0.17 −0.21 −0.15 −0.02 −0.09 −0.02 −0.02 −0.01 0.00 −0.02 - - −0.05 −0.14 −0.01 −0.03 −0.03 −0.15
4. Father monitoring (D, A) 0.11 0.28 −0.02 1.00 0.41 0.55 0.09 0.14 0.57 −0.15 0.38 0.13 0.24 −0.18 0.57 0.31 −0.36 −0.19 −0.29 0.14 −0.03 −0.06 0.03 0.06 −0.01 - - −0.34 0.11 0.00 0.04 −0.17 −0.30
5. Mother monitoring (M, A) 0.19 0.16 0.04 0.48 1.00 0.41 0.55 0.09 0.14 0.57 −0.15 0.38 0.13 0.24 −0.18 0.57 0.31 −0.36 −0.19 0.04 0.14 −0.03 −0.09 −0.03 −0.12 - - −0.01 −0.34 0.15 0.17 0.11 −0.17
6. Relationship with father (M, A) 0.07 0.28 −0.10 0.43 0.31 1.00 0.22 0.09 0.54 −0.32 0.56 0.17 0.25 −0.16 0.66 0.34 −0.51 −0.27 −0.32 0.09 0.06 −0.10 −0.02 0.04 −0.07 - - −0.43 0.12 −0.05 −0.03 −0.17 −0.19
7. Time spent with father (A) 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.15 0.17 0.26 1.00 0.01 0.14 −0.13 0.20 0.16 0.15 −0.08 0.16 0.12 −0.14 −0.09 −0.10 0.08 0.19 −0.01 0.13 0.12 0.09 - - 0.03 0.04 0.00 −0.02 −0.05 −0.02
8. Mattering to mother (A) 0.19 0.11 0.02 0.26 0.33 0.20 0.11 1.00 0.39 −0.18 0.10 0.49 0.40 −0.54 0.14 0.27 −0.30 −0.04 −0.16 −0.13 −0.11 −0.08 0.04 0.09 −0.02 - - −0.12 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 −0.01 0.03
9. Mattering to father (A) 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.55 0.45 0.53 0.22 0.46 1.00 −0.21 0.33 0.22 0.29 −0.27 0.66 0.41 −0.57 −0.11 −0.25 0.14 0.02 −0.19 −0.01 0.11 −0.11 - - −0.24 0.14 0.04 0.13 −0.22 −0.34
10. Interparental conflict (M, D, A) −0.18 −0.25 0.10 −0.15 −0.17 −0.32 −0.03 −0.05 −0.12 1.00 −0.54 −0.12 −0.36 0.24 −0.24 −0.34 0.29 0.42 0.42 0.03 −0.01 0.28 0.04 −0.14 0.19 - - 0.27 −0.05 −0.14 −0.01 0.05 0.17
11. Coparenting (M, D) 0.15 0.15 −0.01 0.31 0.23 0.51 0.12 0.15 0.27 −0.38 1.00 0.09 0.28 −0.18 0.33 0.26 −0.35 −0.46 −0.39 0.10 0.00 −0.28 −0.03 0.15 −0.17 - - −0.38 0.09 0.06 0.00 −0.06 −0.20
12. Mother acceptance (A) 0.30 0.28 −0.02 0.28 0.39 0.17 0.14 0.60 0.38 −0.16 0.15 1.00 0.28 −0.49 0.38 0.19 −0.23 0.00 −0.08 −0.03 −0.02 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.07 - - −0.08 0.03 −0.05 −0.10 −0.03 0.02
13. Mother discipline (A) −0.01 0.05 −0.07 0.25 0.37 0.11 0.05 0.33 0.35 −0.05 0.06 0.18 1.00 −0.67 0.24 0.53 −0.53 −0.18 −0.14 0.15 0.12 −0.23 −0.06 0.09 −0.18 - - −0.31 0.01 0.12 0.12 −0.07 −0.26
14. Mom rejection (A) −0.12 −0.11 0.06 −0.38 −0.48 −0.13 −0.10 −0.54 −0.44 0.14 −0.06 −0.46 −0.65 1.00 −0.21 −0.40 0.59 0.11 0.11 −0.01 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.24 - - 0.28 −0.05 −0.03 −0.04 0.07 0.20
15. Father acceptance (A) 0.19 0.38 −0.03 0.53 0.40 0.61 0.22 0.28 0.66 −0.20 0.36 0.55 0.13 −0.27 1.00 0.28 −0.50 −0.10 −0.22 0.12 0.05 −0.08 0.06 0.11 0.00 - - −0.24 0.08 0.02 0.03 −0.22 −0.27
16. Father discipline (A) 0.00 −0.02 −0.07 0.24 0.31 0.28 0.15 0.19 0.36 −0.13 0.06 0.08 0.65 −0.55 0.15 1.00 −0.59 −0.24 −0.16 0.08 −0.04 −0.16 −0.08 0.03 −0.15 - - −0.28 0.03 0.05 0.07 −0.15 −0.21
17. Father rejection (A) −0.06 −0.16 0.14 −0.31 −0.35 −0.46 −0.27 −0.14 −0.49 0.17 −0.05 −0.16 −0.44 0.55 −0.46 −0.59 1.00 0.24 0.22 −0.07 −0.02 0.16 0.10 −0.01 0.17 - - 0.27 −0.10 −0.01 −0.11 0.18 0.25
18. Mother anxiety & depression (M) −0.08 −0.13 0.03 −0.07 −0.22 −0.29 −0.09 −0.08 −0.15 0.24 −0.30 0.00 −0.04 0.05 −0.13 −0.05 0.06 1.00 0.26 0.01 0.09 0.14 0.04 −0.05 0.11 - - 0.42 −0.04 −0.21 −0.05 0.06 0.12
19. Father anxiety & depression (D) 0.03 −0.02 −0.07 −0.08 −0.01 −0.06 0.01 −0.02 0.00 0.22 −0.36 −0.08 0.12 −0.06 −0.02 0.13 −0.12 0.16 1.00 −0.09 −0.08 0.12 0.03 −0.05 0.09 - - 0.31 −0.13 −0.08 −0.06 −0.03 −0.01
20. Familism (M, D) 0.04 0.02 −0.04 −0.06 0.24 0.04 0.07 0.02 −0.06 −0.15 0.24 0.00 0.07 −0.03 0.01 −0.02 −0.02 0.01 −0.12 1.00 0.67 0.17 0.03 −0.08 0.12 - - −0.11 −0.02 −0.13 −0.09 −0.08 −0.12
21. Gender values (M, D, A) 0.02 0.00 −0.08 −0.06 0.10 0.01 −0.01 0.00 −0.08 −0.05 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 −0.07 0.04 0.04 −0.14 0.68 1.00 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.10 - - 0.00 −0.01 0.01 −0.04 0.02 −0.08
22. Parent individualism (M, D) −0.01 0.01 −0.09 −0.10 0.13 −0.06 −0.12 −0.03 −0.13 −0.12 0.07 0.02 0.00 −0.05 −0.06 −0.05 0.04 0.05 −0.02 0.67 0.57 1.00 0.18 −0.47 0.68 - - 0.17 0.00 −0.07 −0.04 0.05 0.19
23. Adolescent individualism (A) −0.02 −0.06 0.10 0.07 −0.02 0.06 −0.07 0.09 0.04 0.00 −0.04 0.04 −0.23 0.14 0.11 −0.14 0.10 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.13 1.00 0.78 0.84 - - 0.11 −0.12 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.13
24. Individualism gap ([M+D/2]−A) −0.02 −0.04 0.02 0.13 −0.11 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.12 0.08 −0.08 0.02 −0.18 0.15 0.13 −0.08 0.05 0.07 0.07 −0.41 −0.35 −0.59 0.72 1.00 0.32 - - −0.01 −0.11 0.04 0.04 0.04 −0.01
25. Parent by child individualism 0.01 −0.05 0.13 0.02 0.07 0.01 −0.11 0.06 −0.03 −0.06 0.01 0.05 −0.14 0.06 0.05 −0.11 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.45 0.39 0.69 0.80 0.17 1.00 - - 0.18 −0.10 −0.04 −0.02 0.08 0.20
26. Mother born in Mexico (M) −0.03 −0.08 0.12 0.10 0.16 −0.10 −0.07 0.12 0.05 −0.08 0.12 0.11 0.19 −0.22 0.05 0.06 −0.10 0.00 0.07 0.36 0.17 0.39 0.10 −0.19 0.31 1.00 - - - - - - -
27. Father born in Mexico (D) −0.08 −0.10 0.18 −0.01 0.09 −0.19 −0.04 −0.03 −0.11 −0.10 0.02 0.13 −0.01 −0.09 −0.02 −0.06 −0.03 0.09 −0.09 0.30 0.20 0.43 −0.02 −0.31 0.25 0.59 1.00 - - - - - -
28. Child behavior problems (M, D) −0.02 −0.21 −0.09 −0.31 −0.33 −0.28 −0.07 −0.19 −0.30 0.09 −0.23 −0.09 −0.20 0.24 −0.19 −0.10 0.20 0.30 0.18 −0.07 −0.05 0.00 0.18 0.14 0.13 −0.14 −0.05 1.00 −0.10 −0.06 −0.05 0.11 0.16
29. Child gender (male=1; female=2) 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.07 0.28 0.11 −0.04 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.17 0.08 0.20 −0.17 0.10 0.26 −0.24 −0.09 0.01 0.02 0.00 −0.02 −0.04 −0.02 −0.04 0.13 0.00 −0.16 1.00 0.02 −0.02 −0.20 0.05
30. Mother age (M) −0.08 0.06 0.05 −0.02 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.09 −0.10 0.06 0.04 0.06 −0.12 −0.08 0.11 −0.02 0.03 0.00 −0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 −0.03 −0.07 −0.03 1.00 0.58 −0.05 −0.29
31. Father age (D) −0.11 −0.07 0.07 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.12 0.21 −0.10 0.12 0.16 0.19 −0.21 0.10 0.19 −0.12 −0.08 0.06 −0.06 −0.07 −0.04 0.01 0.03 −0.02 0.09 0.04 −0.12 0.01 0.68 1.00 −0.06 −0.21
32. Child age (A) −0.07 −0.01 −0.05 −0.12 −0.18 0.04 0.01 −0.12 −0.12 0.00 0.04 −0.15 −0.10 0.24 −0.12 −0.02 0.13 0.03 −0.01 0.00 0.00 −0.04 −0.04 0.00 −0.05 −0.20 −0.16 0.03 −0.14 0.01 0.02 1.00 0.08
33. Father status (intact=1; step=2) −0.04 0.03 −0.02 −0.29 −0.11 −0.16 −0.08 −0.06 −0.32 0.07 −0.18 −0.04 −0.14 0.15 −0.14 −0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 −0.04 −0.06 −0.05 0.03 0.05 −0.01 −0.16 −0.10 0.19 0.00 −0.33 −0.29 0.11 1.00
Open in a new tab

Note: Listwise n = 180 European American (above diagonal), n = 183 Mexican origin (below diagonal); M = mother report, D = father report, A = adolescent report; Correlations are significant at p = .05 when r = .147, p = .01 at r = .190, p = .001 at r = .235

Bivariate associations

Our bivariate associations appear in Table 1 with European American families above the diagonal and Mexican American families below the diagonal.

Mothers

Adolescents more frequently sought out mother as a source of support when mothers monitored more, adolescents felt they mattered more to both parents, mother and father acceptance was high, mother rejection was low, and when fathers were older. None of the indices of cultural orientation related to seeking out mother.

Fathers

Adolescents more frequently sought out father as a source of support when parents monitored more, adolescents felt they mattered more to both parents, coparenting was higher, interparental conflict was lower (and this association differed by ethnicity with r = −.08, p = .26 for EA and r = −.23, p = .001 for MA adolescents), and the quality of the relationship with father was higher. Additionally, five of the six parenting behaviors were associated with seeking the father (only father discipline was not related). Also linked to seeking father as a source of support were higher levels of mother and father acceptance, lower levels of mother and father rejection, and higher mother consistent discipline. One element of the adolescent was linked with seeking out father for reframing: lower levels of adolescent behavior problems. Also, adolescents in intact families (χ2 = 6.833, p = .009) and European American families were more likely to seek out father support (χ2 = 6.41, p = .011) than adolescents in either stepfather families or in Mexican American households. No indices of cultural orientation were related to reports of seeking out father.

Other sources

Adolescents sought other sources more when parents monitored less, the overall relationship with father was low, time shared with the father was low (r = .19, p = .005 for EA and r = .02, p = .82 for MA adolescents), and the adolescent reported low levels of mattering to the father (r = −.21, p = .003 for EA and r = .01, p = .881 for MA adolescents) and mother (r = −.15, p = .035 for EA and r = .02, p = .774 for MA adolescents). At the adolescent level, more adolescent anxiety and depression was associated with seeking other sources. With respect to the marital relationship, higher levels of interparental conflict were related to seeking out other sources. When all six parenting behaviors were less adaptive, other sources were sought more often: low mother and father acceptance, low mother and father discipline, and high levels of mother and father rejection. Also, boys were less likely than girls to seek out another source (χ2 = 13.89, p < .001). Seeking out other sources was associated with only one indicator of cultural orientation; among the Mexican American adolescents, other sources were sought more often when either the mother or father was born in Mexico.

Logistic regression

In our final analysis we sought to understand which of the individual and family level constructs predicted who was sought out to discuss conflict with fathers. Rather than predict each of our dependent variables separately, we estimated a multiple group path analysis logistic regression model in Mplus v6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Such an analysis is parsimonious because it allows for the estimation of a single model (versus three separate models) and accounts for the relations among the three dependent variables. Although data-driven, we dropped predictors of each dependent variable from the final model if the construct was not associated at the bivariate level for the full sample at p < .01, or at p < .05 for either ethnicity group. For paths that appeared to operate differently for the adolescents of Mexican and European ancestry, we allowed the path between a predictor and outcome to vary for the two groups to address the moderating role of ethnicity. When the difference in an association appeared to be negligible, we fixed the path to be equal between groups. Differences in chisquare estimates for the models were explored before accepting the final model.

Fit was adequate in the final model (χ2 = 71.65, df = 77, p = .42, Weighted Root Mean Square Residual = 1.096). We were able to fix the association between the two ethnicities for associations among the dependent variables. Results showed seeking out mother was associated with seeking out father (b = .53, p < .001), but seeking the other source was unrelated to seeking father (r = .02, p = .835) or mother (r = −.14, p = .108). It is not surprising that the participants in our sample who sought out one parent also tended to seek out the other parent, however, it was unclear why seeking parents and other sources was unrelated.

Mother

In predicting seeking out mother, we included coparenting, mattering to mother and father, paternal age, maternal monitoring, maternal acceptance and rejection, and paternal acceptance (see Figure 2 for final model). For all seven constructs, we were able to fix the paths between the two ethnic groups suggesting common patterns between the two groups. When the block of predictors was included, coparenting and maternal acceptance were the two constructs that predicted seeking mother such that higher coparenting – the perception that parents work together as a team – and more maternal acceptance were associated with seeking out mothers. In the case of acceptance, adolescents may seek their mother when she can provide support and likely will not seek the mother when the adolescent perceives the parents do not agree on parenting strategies as in the case of low coparenting. These results further demonstrate the links between parent characteristics, marital processes, and support that have been observed within families of young children (Stright & Bales, 2003), and our findings extend these associations to adolescence.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Unstandardized estimates for significant predictors of whether mothers, co-resident fathers/stepfathers, and anyone else were sought out to discuss conflict with a co-resident father. Child gender male = 1, female = 2; Father status intact family = 1, stepfather = 2; Paths with single values were fixed between Mexican American (MA) and European American (EA) families. Paths with two numbers report differences between groups where italicized values are for the EA families and bold values are from the MA subgroup.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Father

In predicting seeking out father, we included coparenting and interparental conflict, maternal and paternal monitoring, adolescent behavior problems, overall relationship with father, stepfamily status, mattering to mother and father, mother acceptance and rejection, and father acceptance. In the final model we allowed separate paths between ethnic groups for only interparental conflict. For Mexican American families only, lower interparental conflict was associated with seeking out father. For both ethnic groups, higher levels of father monitoring and acceptance predicted seeking out father. It appears that like mothers, the father’s acceptance level explains whether adolescents seek him out. Furthermore, that father monitoring is linked to seeking out father provides support for the notion that parental monitoring is adolescent-directed through disclosure on behalf of the adolescent (Kerr, Stattin, & Pakaliniskiene, 2008).

Other sources

In predicting seeking out other sources, we included interparental conflict, maternal and paternal monitoring, overall relationship with father, time spent with father, adolescent gender, mattering to mother and father, and mother and father acceptance, rejection, and discipline. Although significant at the bivariate level among the Mexican American families, parent nativity was not included in the logistic regression because it was a constant for the European American families (i.e., all were born in the United States). Of the 14 paths predicting seeking the other source, 6 were estimated separately for the two groups (maternal and paternal monitoring, time spent with father, mattering to mother, and mother and father acceptance). Consistent with past research (Windle et al., 1991), among both ethnic groups, girls were more likely to seek another source than were boys. Estimated separately for the two ethnic groups, time spent with father was unrelated to seeking out other sources among the Mexican American families, while less time spent with father was associated with seeking out other sources in the European American families.

Predictors of Sources of Support Sought: A Summary

Because father-adolescent relationships tend to be more variable than mother-adolescent relationships, adolescents may require more support in navigating this important family relationship; however, seeking support about conflict with father is clearly situated within qualities of the family context. Our results compliment past evidence on the experience of young adolescents by demonstrating that the adaptive behavior of seeking out parents to reframe conflict with father is associated with qualities of the parent (i.e., accepting parenting, monitoring) and qualities of the family context (i.e., interparental conflict and coparenting). For example, mothers were sought out when they were more accepting and fathers were sought out more when they were involved in monitoring the adolescent’s behavior. And while girls were more likely to report seeking other sources, gender was not important in explaining whether mothers and fathers were sought.

We also found that ethnicity did not add considerable variability to the patterns of seeking out sources of support among adolescents (only 8 of 30 paths demonstrated significantly different patterns of association and many of these were negligible). Rather, the links between parenting and family context were approximately equal for the two ethnicities suggesting the normative and common nature of these processes between groups. As we have demonstrated by comparing the extant literature and evidence from families of Mexican American and European American origin, there was a compelling trend in favor of common processes associated with patterns of seeking out sources of support. Qualities of the parents themselves (i.e., monitoring for fathers and acceptance for both parents) explained whether they were sought out. Furthermore, adolescents tended to seek mothers more when levels of coparenting were higher, possibly to avoid creating further conflict in the interparental relationship. Surprisingly, where prior research on the cultural traditions of Mexican American families has emphasized elements of heightened familism and deference to parental authority, our results suggested these patterns were unrelated to seeking out father or father-figures as confidants. In the results we reported here, the only differential link between ethnicity and support seeking occurred for seeking out fathers and interparental conflict. Mexican American (but not the European American) adolescents were less likely to seek father when conflict levels were high. Our analyses and review of the literature suggest that cultural factors played a less important role in seeking out mothers, fathers, and other sources for support. Rather, when parents tended to be accepting, adolescents would seek them out, suggesting the important transactional nature of parent-adolescent relationships.

These findings support many aspects of the guided cognitive reframing model, namely, the factors that influence the targets chosen by adolescents for support in the face of conflict. In support of an active coping strategy interpretation of guided cognitive reframing, the empirical results we reported suggest adolescents select parents for reframing based on qualities of the adolescent, parent-adolescent relationship, and family context. Specifically, both mothers and fathers are selected when they are more accepting of the adolescent. Fathers, on the other hand, are also sought when adolescents already tend to disclose information to them. Clearly, adolescents seek parents when those sources tend to be open to conversations about parent-adolescent relationships. Additionally, in terms of the family context, mothers are also sought when parents tend to agree in their parenting strategies. However, while we found support for whom adolescents seek out to provide counsel and why they chose those sources, the fact that the cultural variables did not play a significant role in this process suggests an important direction for future research to examine.

Conclusions and future directions

While the current review and analyses highlight the factors that influence whether sources are sought for guided cognitive reframing, there are a number of topics that require further consideration. First, virtually nothing is known about the social context of guided cognitive reframing in the lives of adolescents. Regular conversations about sexual health and behavior with parents tend to make future conversations easier (Coffelt, 2010); however, it is unclear whether daily negotiations of social support seeking in families work similarly. The results we provided suggest that a history of open communication between parents likely is associated with parents being sought for conversations about conflict with the father. Rather than social support occurring on a daily basis, it is possible that social support is negotiated on an instance-by-instance basis with support sought at the time of a conflict. Alternatively, social support may be sought only after a number of conflict situations have occurred. Future research should attempt to understand how frequently support is sought as a function of the regularity of conflict. Second, it will be important to explore whether certain conflict topics are more likely to result in seeking support while others are less likely. Consider, for example, the distinction between the everyday conflict that occurs within families and the acculturation-based conflict that occurs within immigrant families (Juang et al., this volume). An adolescent may be less likely to seek support to understand “everyday” sources of conflict from parents (e.g., conflict about clothing and chores) but may be more likely to seek out a peer. On the other hand, for acculturative conflict a different pattern may emerge because parents may acculturate at different rates given unique vocational demands (Parke, Vega, Cookston, Perez-Brena, & Coltrane, 2008). For example, if one parent works outside the home and the other does not, the parent who works outside the home may acculturate more quickly. Alternatively, if one parent works in a more ethnically homogeneous workplace, that parent may acculturate more slowly. It is, thus, possible that adolescents may be more likely to seek support regarding arguments with one parent about culturally prescribed behaviors and values as these values may vary by the acculturation of parents. Furthermore, support regarding culturally based conflict may be especially beneficial if reframed by another person who has a dual frame of reference (e.g., an older sibling who may be less acculturated, but has more experience with U.S. cultural norms than a parent).

It is also possible that multiple sources are sought out to assist with reframing the same conflict situation. After an argument with his mother over a family rule, a son might seek out the father to understand the reason for the mother’s behavior, might ask the mother for an apology, and might ask whether a friend is subject to a similar rule. By seeking multiple sources to obtain unique perspectives on a common event, an adolescent might end up feeling better suited to face similar conflict situations in the future. While our results did not address whether different sources are sought, it does appear that similar qualities of parents, namely, accepting parenting, and healthier marital relationships may explain whether parents are sought. Relatedly, in addition to not addressing whether multiple sources were sought to address the same conflict event, a key limitation of the current analyses is that we did not address who the other sources were and what might explain going to different sources. In our earlier review we addressed how both peers and VIPs might be sought. It is likely that there are differences in individual, family, and cultural explanations for when sources are sought and this is an area that merits future study.

Finally, a theme that cuts across each of these areas of future study concerns the stability, function, and benefits of seeking support over time in the lives of adolescents. Just as adolescents make the transition to age-mates as confidants, it is also possible that sources of guided cognitive reframing are also changing regularly as friendships fade, as individuals prove to be unsatisfactory counsel, and as romantic relationships increase in importance for teens. Additionally, changes in decision-making during adolescence (Steinberg, 2010) may afford adolescents an opportunity to understand the benefits of seeking out sources for guided cognitive reframing as well as change the kind of information sought and the expected benefits of seeking support. As poet Elbert Hubbard noted, “We find what we expect to find, and we receive what we ask for” (Hubbard, 1922, p.41), but further research on guided cognitive reframing may also make it possible to change what is expected and received.

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the families who participated in this study, the National Institute of Mental Health grant 5R01MH064829, and our many colleagues on the project.

Contributor Information

Jeffrey T Cookston, Psychology, San Francisco State University.

Andres F. Olide, Psychology, San Francisco State University

Michele Adams, Tulane University.

William V. Fabricius, Psychology, Arizona State University

Sanford L. Braver, Psychology, Arizona State University

Ross D. Parke, University of California, Riverside

References

  1. Beam M, Chen C, Greenberger E. The nature of adolescents' relationships with their 'very important' nonparental adults. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2002;30(2):305–325. doi: 10.1023/A:1014641213440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barber JG, Delfabbro P. Predictors of adolescent adjustment: Parent-peer relationships and parent-child conflict. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2000;17(4):275–288. [Google Scholar]
  3. Branje S, van Doorn M, van der Valk I, Meeus W. Parent-adolescent conflicts, conflict resolution types, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2009;30(2):195–204. [Google Scholar]
  4. Buchanan CM, Maccoby EE, Dornbusch SM. Caught between parents: Adolescents' experience in divorced homes. Child Development. 1991;62(5):1008–1029. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01586.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen C, Greenberger E, Farruggia S, Bush K, Dong Q. Beyond parents and peers: The role of important non-parental adults (VIPS) in adolescent development in China and the United States. Psychology in the Schools. 2003;40:35–50. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen C, Greenberger E, Lester J, Dong Q, Guo M. A cross-cultural study of family and peer correlates of adolescent misconduct. Developmental Psychology. 1998;34(4):770–781. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.34.4.770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chung G, Flook L, Fuligni A. Daily family conflict and emotional distress among adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology. 2009;45(5):1406–1415. doi: 10.1037/a0014163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Coffelt TA. Is sexual communication challenging between mothers and daughters? Journal of Family Communication. 2010;10(2):116–130. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences. 3rd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  10. Coleman M, Ganong LH. Stepfamilies from the stepfamily’s perspective. Marriage and Family Review. 1997;26:107–121. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cookston JT, Olide A, Braver SL, Fabricius WV, Saenz D. He said what! Guided cognitive reframing about the father-adolescent relationship. Submitted for review at. Journal of Family Psychology. under review [Google Scholar]
  12. Cooper CR, Baker H, Polichar D, Welsh M. Values and communication of Chinese, Filipino, European, Mexican, and Vietnamese American adolescents with their families and friends. In: Shulman S, Collins AW, Shulman S, Collins AW, editors. Father–adolescent relationships. San Francisco, CA US: Jossey-Bass; 1993. pp. 73–89. [Google Scholar]
  13. DeCarlo Santiago C, Wadsworth ME. Coping with family conflict: What’s helpful and what’s not for low-income adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2009;18(2):192–202. [Google Scholar]
  14. Derogatis LR. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral-Science. 1974;19(1):1–15. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830190102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dumka LE, Roosa MW. The role of stress and family relationships in mediating problem drinking and fathers' personal adjustment. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1995;56(5):528–537. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1995.56.528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dunn J, Davies LC, O'Connor TG, Sturgess W. Family lives and friendships: the perspectives of children in step-, single-parent, and nonstep families. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001;15(2):272–287. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Freeman H, Brown B. Primary attachment to parents and peers during adolescence: Differences by attachment style. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2001;30(6):653–674. [Google Scholar]
  18. Furman W, Buhrmester D. Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development. 1992;63(1):103–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb03599.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gonzales N, Deardorff J, Formoso D, Barr A, Barrera M. Family mediators of the relation between acculturation and adolescent mental health. Family Relations. 2006;55(3):318–330. [Google Scholar]
  20. Granic I, Hollenstein T, Dishion TJ, Patterson GR. Longitudinal analysis of flexibility and reorganization in early adolescence: A dynamic systems study of family interactions. Developmental Psychology. 2003;39(3):606–617. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Greenberger E, Chen C, Beam MR. The role of 'very important' nonparental adults in adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1998;27(3):321–343. [Google Scholar]
  22. Grych JH, Seid M, Fincham FD. Assessing marital conflict from the child's perspective: The children's perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development. 1992;63:558–572. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01646.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hetherington E, Clingempeel W. Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1992;57(2–3):1–242. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hubbard FE. The Elect: Elbert Hubbard’s Selected Writings Part 5. Roycrofters; 1922. [Google Scholar]
  25. Keefe SE, Padilla AM. Chicano ethnicity. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kerr M, Stattin H, Pakaliniskiene V. Parents react to adolescent problem behaviors by worrying more and monitoring less. In: Kerr M, Stattin H, Engels R, editors. What can parents do?: New insights into the role of parents in adolescent problem behavior. London: Wiley; 2008. pp. 91–112. [Google Scholar]
  27. Killoren S, Thayer S, Updegraff K. Conflict resolution between Mexican origin adolescent siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008;70(5):1200–1212. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00560.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Knight GP, Gonzales NA, Saenz DS, Bonds DD, Germán M, Deardorff J, Updegraff KA. The Mexican American Cultural Values Scale for adolescents and adults. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2010;30(3):444–481. doi: 10.1177/0272431609338178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kovacs M. Children’s Depression Inventory. New York: Multi-Health Systems; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lazarus RS. Emotion and Adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  31. Leidy M, Schofield T, Miller M, Parke RD, Coltrane S, Cookston J, Braver S, Fabricius W, Saenez D, Adams M. Fathering and adolescent adjustment: Variations by family structure and ethnic background. Fathering. 2011;9:44–68. doi: 10.3149/fth.0901.44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Leite RW, McKenry PC. Aspects of father status and postdivorce father involvement with children. Journal of Family Issues. 2002;23(5):601–623. [Google Scholar]
  33. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ohannessian C, Bradley J, Waninger K, Ruddy K, Hepp B, Hesselbrock V. An examination of adolescent coping typologies and young adult alcohol use in a high-risk sample. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies. 2010;5(1):52–65. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nomaguchi K. Gender, family structure, and adolescents' primary confidants. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008;70(5):1213–1227. [Google Scholar]
  36. Parke RD, Vega E, Cookston JT, Perez-Brena N, Coltrane . Imagining the future of immigrant fathers. In: Chuang SS, Moreno RP, editors. On New Shores: Understanding Immigrant Fathers in North America. New York: Lexington Books; 2008. pp. 289–318. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pasch LA, Deardorff J, Tschann JM, Flores E, Penilla C, Pantoja P. Acculturation, parent-adolescent conflict, and adolescent adjustment in Mexican American families. Family Process. 2006;45:75–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00081.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Peterson JL, Zill N. Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1986;48:295–307. [Google Scholar]
  39. Reid M, Landesman S, Treder R, Jaccard J. 'My family and friends': Six- to twelve-year-old children's perceptions of social support. Child Development. 1989;60(4):896–910. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Reynolds CR, Paget KD. The factor analysis of the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale for Blacks, Whites, males, and females with a national normative sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1981;49:352–359. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.49.3.352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rogers MJ, Holmbeck GN. Effects of interparental aggression on children’s adjustment: The moderating role of cognitive appraisal and coping. Journal of Family Psychology. 1997;11:125–130. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sameroff A. A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development. 2010;81(1):6–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Schaefer ES. Children's report of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development. 1965;36:413–424. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Schenck CE, Braver SL, Wolchik SA, Saenz D, Cookston JT, Fabricius WV. Relations between mattering to step- and non-residential fathers and adolescent mental health. Fathering. 2009;7(1):70–90. doi: 10.3149/fth.0701.70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schofield T, Castenada E, Parke RD, Coltrane S. Eye contact in Mexican American and European American parent-child dyads. Journal of Nonverbal behavior. 2008;17:171–186. [Google Scholar]
  46. Schofield TJ, Parke RD, Kim Y, Coltrane S. Bridging the acculturation gap: Parent-child relationship quality as a moderator in Mexican American families. Developmental Psychology. 2008;44:1190–1194. doi: 10.1037/a0012529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Stattin H, Kerr M. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development. 2000;71(4):1072–1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Steinberg L. A behavioral scientist looks at the science of adolescent brain development. Brain and Cognition. 2010;72(1):160–164. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.11.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stright A, Bales S. Coparenting quality: Contributions of child and parent characteristics. Family Relations. 2003;52(3):232–240. [Google Scholar]
  50. Thayer S, Updegraff K, Delgado M. Conflict resolution in Mexican American adolescents' friendships: Links with culture, gender and friendship quality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2008;37(7):783–797. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9253-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wadsworth ME, Raviv T, Compas BE, Connor-Smith JK. Parent and adolescent responses to poverty-related stress: Tests of mediated and moderated coping models. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2005;14:283–298. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wijsbroek S, Hale W, Van Doorn M, Raaijmakers Q, Meeus W. Is the resolution style ‘exiting statements’ related to adolescent problem behavior? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2010;31(1):60–69. [Google Scholar]
  53. Windle M, Miller-Tutzauer C, Barnes GM, Welte J. Adolescent perceptions of help-seeking resources for substance abuse. Child Development. 1991;62(1):179–189. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01523.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Youniss J, Smollar J. Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Ipswich, MA: 1985. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES