Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Parents' attunement: relation to adolescent problem behavior and the moderating role of marital conflict
(USC Thesis Other)
Parents' attunement: relation to adolescent problem behavior and the moderating role of marital conflict
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
PARENTS’ ATTUNEMENT: RELATION TO ADOLESCENT PROBLEM
BEHAVIOR AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF MARITAL CONFLICT
by
Sarah Duman Serrano
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2010
Copyright 2010 Sarah Duman Serrano
ii
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my family, to whom I am infinitely grateful. My
husband and son, Derek and Diego Serrano, inspire and fortify me. Derek has
consistently believed in me and in the work I do, helping me to keep my spirits up and
my eyes on the degree. Diego motivates me and makes every moment one to cherish.
My parents, Thomas and Susan Duman, encouraged inquiry, taught me work ethic, and
understood when I needed analyze data during every family visit. The patience and
sacrifice of all of my family members literally made it possible for me to complete this
work. I thank all of them, along with my siblings Martha, Tom, and Mark, and my
extended family, for their support. I also thank Liliana Alfaro for her loving care of
Diego.
iii
Acknowledgments
I am incredibly fortunate to have Dr. Gayla Margolin as a mentor. She
demonstrates respect for the people with whom she works, and for the work itself. I
thank her for her guidance and her support in my attempts to simultaneously research
parenting and to learn how to be a parent myself. I also thank my committee members,
Drs. Jerry Davison, Ferol Mennen, Marian Williams, Frank Manis, and Brian Lickel, for
their feedback over the years.
The type of research undertaken by our lab is feasible only because of the
dedicated and collaborative approach of the Family Studies Project team, including Drs.
Michelle Ramos, Deborah Chien Liu, Pamella Oliver, Elana Gordis, Angele Fauchier,
Laura Proctor and Brian Baucom, and soon-to-be Drs. Katrina Vickerman, Lauren Spies,
Esti Iturralde, and Aubrey Rodriguez. I cherish the friendships of these colleagues, as
well as the lessons I learned from them regarding quality research methods, statistics, and
work ethic. I am grateful to the diligent and thoughtful team of coders in our lab,
including Elyse Guran, Sarah Russell, Caroline Manis, Rachel Rice, and Cyrus Mirza,
and to my supportive classmates, including Dr. Yolanda Cespedes, Kristopher Stevens,
and Drew Mullane.
Finally, I thank the families who make this research possible. Our participants are
generous with their time and willing to share details of their lives in hopes that the
process can help other families. It is my sincere desire that this project serves as a partial
fulfillment of that hope.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Parenting and Adolescent Outcomes 2
Attunement 3
Attunement and Adolescent Outcomes 7
Marital Conflict as a Moderator 9
Separate and Combined Effects of Maternal and Paternal Attunement 11
The Present Study 13
Hypotheses 15
Chapter 2: Method 16
Participants 16
Procedures 19
Measures 22
Chapter 3: Results 33
Correlations Among Marital Conflict, Attunement, and
Adolescent Outcomes 33
Hierarchical Regressions Examining the Separate Effects of Maternal
and Paternal Attunement and Interactions with a History of
Marital Conflict 34
Analysis of Variance Examining Mean Level of Outcomes by Specific
Combinations of Parental Attunement 37
Hierarchical Regression Equations Examining the Effects of Differences
Between Maternal and Paternal Attunement 39
Chapter 4: Discussion 43
Attunement 44
Marital Conflict 51
Attunement as a Construct: Measurement 55
Reciprocal Effects 60
Limitations of the Current Study 56
Strengths of the Current Study 62
v
Next Steps 62
Clinical Implications 63
Summary and Conclusions 64
References 66
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary of Atttunement-Based Interventions 79
Appendix B: Questionnaires 82
Appendix C: Intercorrelations Among Demographics, Predictor 115
Variables and Outcome Variables.
Appendix D: Graphical Representation of Interaction Using 118
Hypothetical Values
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographics 18
Table 2: Measures 23
Table 3: Code Definitions and Examples 25
Table 4. Descriptives and T-test Results for Child’s View Items for Each Parent 27
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency 32
Table 6: Intercorrelations Among Predictor and Outcome Variables 36
Table 7: Multiple Regressions Using Two-Way Interactions Between Marital
Conflict and Attunement to Predict Adolescent Risk-Taking 36
Table 8: Multiple Regressions Using Two-Way Interactions Between Marital
Conflict and Attunement to Predict Adolescent Aggression 34
Table 9: ANOVA Comparisons of Two, One, or No Attuned Parents on
Adolescent Risky Behavior and Aggression. 38
Table 10: Multiple Regression Analyses Using Mean of Maternal and Paternal
Attunement and the Difference Between Maternal and Paternal
Attunement to Predict Adolescent Outcomes 42
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Scatterplots of Correlation Between Attunement Scores, as Reported
on Child’s View and Observed During Discussion 30
Figure 2. Plots of Observed Paternal Attunement and Aggression for Low and
High Marital Conflict. . 37
viii
Abstract
Parental attunement involves understanding a child’s thoughts and feelings and
adjusting parenting behavior in response to those thoughts and feelings. This project
explores whether attunement is associated with adolescent risky behaviors and
aggression, and examines whether marital conflict moderates that association. Seventy-
three ethnically diverse community families with an adolescent child reported on marital
conflict, parents’ attunement, and adolescent outcomes. They then participated in a
conflictual triadic discussion, during which trained observers coded attuned behavior.
The study is strengthened by using both observations and adolescent report to
measure attunement. Validity of the measures is supported by significant positive
correlations with adolescents’ global report of feeling understood during the discussion.
Both measures are related to adolescent outcomes, and each measure contributes unique
information on parental attunement.
In hierarchical regressions, higher maternal and paternal attunement, according to
observations and adolescents’ report, is consistently related to lower reported risk taking
behaviors. Higher adolescent-reported maternal and paternal attunement is related to
lower reported aggression, but observed attunement is not related to aggression. A
significant interaction exists between marital conflict and observed paternal attunement.
The negative relation between attunement and aggression holds only in families with low
levels of marital conflict.
In ANOVAs, adolescents in families with two highly attuned parents engaged in
significantly fewer risk taking and aggressive behaviors than adolescents in families with
ix
no highly attuned parents. Adolescents in families with two highly attuned parents also
engaged in significantly fewer risk taking behaviors than adolescents in families with
only one highly attuned parent. Follow-up regressions examining difference scores did
not indicate that mothers’ vs. fathers’ attunement had a differential impact.
These findings complement outcome literature on parent-training intervention
programs. The results reported here underscore the importance of
prevention/intervention work in a family format, as marital interactions and parent-
adolescent interactions can be important influences on adolescent aggression and risk
taking. The measures used in this study could inform assessments of parent-adolescent
interactions.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The presence or absence of positive parenting dimensions has implications for
problematic adolescent behaviors, such as aggression and risk-taking (Borkowski,
Ramey, & Bristol-Power, 2002; Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein,
2000; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). The
current study clarifies a specific parenting dimension, parents’ attunement, which has not
received sufficient empirical examination in isolation from more general positive
parenting. Treatment literature highlights the importance of attunement, yet attuned
behaviors have not been thoroughly examined in isolation from other treatment elements
(Duman Serrano & Margolin, in preparation). This study measures attunement through
youth report about their parents, and through observations of a family discussion
involving both parents and their adolescent child. Attunement could potentially have an
impact on aggression and risky behavior (e.g., substance use, unprotected sex). Such
behaviors in adolescence have implications for individual physical and mental well-
being, for interpersonal relationships, and for social structures. Aggression and risky
behavior can interrupt academic work and lead to legal trouble, substance abuse, conduct
disorder (Loeber, Stouthamer-Loebver, Van Kammen, & Farrington, 1991), pregnancy,
sexually transmitted infections, injury to self and others, and even death (Eaton et al.,
2008). The current study examines whether attuned parenting is related to lower levels of
adolescent risk-taking and aggression. Maternal and paternal attunement is first
examined separately and then in combination. The study also examines the effects of
parental attunement on outcomes at high and low levels of marital conflict.
2
Parenting and Adolescent Outcomes
Quality of parenting remains relevant even as children move through adolescence,
and even when the influence of genetics and peers are also considered (Hair et al, 2006;
Collins, et al, 2000; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Adolescents rely on parents for advice,
support, and emotional closeness (Lamb & Lewis, 2004). Effective parenting helps
adolescents to successfully navigate the social, emotional, and academic challenges they
face (Baumrind, 1991a, Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006; Steinberg & Morris)
and influences wide-ranging outcomes, including mental and physical health and success
in the transition to adulthood (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2003; Belsky, 1984; Borkowski,
Ramey, & Bristol-Power, 2002). Studies are inconsistent, however, in the degree of
specificity with which “parenting” is defined, and examine a variety of parenting
behaviors (Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990; Krishnakumar & Buehler,
2000).
It is well established that negative parenting behaviors toward adolescent children
influence the development of externalizing problems (Hood, 2001; Hutchings & Lane,
2005; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Melby, 1990). The presence or absence of positive
parenting dimensions have been examined less than negative parenting dimensions.
Positive parenting dimensions directed toward adolescents also have implications for
externalizing outcomes (Hair, Jager, & Garrett, 2001; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998;
Neighbors et al., 1997; Steinberg, et al., 1992), including aggression and risky behavior
(Barber & Rollins, 1990; Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Branstetter, 2005; Crossman, 2007;
Miller, Cowan, Cowan, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1993; Regnerus & Luchies, 2006;
3
Teitelman, Ratcliffe, & Cederbaum, 2008). Attunement may be one specific positive
parenting dimension that influences youth aggression and risky behavior, but this
dimension has not received sufficient empirical examination, especially regarding
adolescents.
Attunement
Clinicians and researchers from a variety of theoretical backgrounds describe
attunement as an important parenting dimension (Margolin, Oliver, & Medina, 2001;
Holigrocki, Kaminski, & Frieswyk, 1999; Stern, 1985; Strand, 2000) and theorize about
attunement’s relevance to outcomes in children of all ages. There is not a uniform
definition of attunement, however, and the definitions have not been tested in regards to
parenting adolescents. With infants and school-aged children, attunement is described as
parents’ capacity to understand their child’s thoughts and feelings and to behave in a way
that is related to this perception (Holigrocki, et al.; Kohut, Stepansky, & Goldberg, 1984;
Stern, 1985). Holigrocki and colleagues write that “the attuned parent not only
understands what the child is thinking and feeling but also adjusts his or her behavior in
concert with the child’s developmental needs and limitations” (pg. 419). Understanding
and adjusting are likely to be important regardless of the child’s age, but are likely to be
increasingly expressed through verbal communication as children age. Studying
attunement involves a certain amount of interpretation of behavior that is hard to
measure. The current study employs multiple perspectives in order to capture the
complexities of attunement. The study seeks to first operationalize attunement through
two attuned behaviors: validating and responsive behaviors. These observable
4
communication behaviors are evidence of a parent’s capacity to understand and adjust to
their adolescent’s expressed thoughts, feelings, needs, and interests. It is likely to be
difficult to observe “understanding” itself. Thus, the current study operationalizes the
“understanding” aspect of attunement though adolescent report on their parents’
understanding, as well as on parents’ validation and responsiveness.
Attunement involves the ability to understand one’s child in particular, to act on
that understanding and to adjust to that child’s needs. Thus, attunement is related to, but
distinct from, warmth, empathy and attachment. Warmth and empathy likely facilitate
attunement, but attunement is more specific than warmth and empathy. Attunement can
facilitate a healthy attachment relationship between parent and child, but it is a quality of
the individual parent that is expressed in specific parenting behaviors (Holigrocki et al.,
1999; Stern, 1985).
Clinical wisdom offers a compelling case for attuned behaviors. Attunement has
been subject to more theorizing than empirical investigation, but the theories imply that
this parenting dimension is worthy of study. Holigrocki and colleagues (1999) consider
attunement to be a “central ingredient of effective parenting” (p. 419) because it should
help parents to meet the child’s needs and engage in developmentally appropriate
interactions. They observe that lack of attunement seems to be associated with increased
child aggression. Stern (1985) describes a case study in which a lack of attunement was
“disastrous” for a child (p. 207). Ginnot (1975) theorized that showing understanding of
and accepting an adolescent’s feelings helps them to behave appropriately. Faber and
Mazlish extend this idea by adding that validating and responsive behaviors show that
5
parents understand their adolescent children’s feelings, which in turns helps the
adolescent to regulate those feelings and then focus on finding their own solution (Faber
& Mazlish, 2005). Failure to validate feelings, on the other hand, can frustrate
adolescents and can teach them to not trust or recognize their feelings (Faber & Mazlish,
1980). Thus, Faber and Mazlish state that “teenagers need to be able to express their
doubts, confide their fears, and explore options with a grown-up who will listen to them
nonjudgmentally and help them make responsible decisions” (Faber & Mazlish, 2005, pg.
xvii). Faber and Mazlish recommend using validating and responsive behaviors. Their
recommendations, though highly compelling, have not been empirically tested. As will
be detailed below, empirical investigations of the above theories have occurred mainly in
the context of parenting interventions that include parenting behaviors that fit the
definition of attunement (many of these interventions are based on Patterson’s work, i.e,
Dishion & Kavanaugh, 2003; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Wolchik et al., 1993), along
with other effective parenting behaviors (Forgatch & Patterson, 1989). Thus, this study is
designed to isolate attunement behaviors from other elements of the treatment in order to
examine whether attunement itself has an impact on adolescent problem behavior.
The current study includes both observations and adolescents’ report of
attunement in order to capture the complexities of this construct. Observations are
independent and objective measures of concrete behaviors, measures that provide
valuable information on the richness and complexity of family interactions (Jacobson,
1985; Margolin et al., 1998). Observations are useful in the study of attunement because
they provide information about whether parents are using attuned behaviors in response
6
to identifiable stimuli from the youth (i.e., expressed thoughts, opinions, or emotions).
This study also measures attunement through adolescents’ reports on whether parents
exhibit validating and responsive behaviors, and whether the adolescent feels that their
parent understands them. Adolescent reactions to parenting behaviors are important to
determining whether parents are successful in their efforts to understand and adjust. For
instance, adolescents themselves are the best reporters on whether they feel validated
after a parent says “I can see why you’re angry”. Adolescent report may be especially
useful in assessing the subtleties of attunement, which may be more difficult than other
parenting behaviors for observers to recognize during a parent-child interaction.
Adolescents are able to report on whether they perceive their parents to understand them,
be successfully attuned across situations, and whether their parent is using a range of
attuned behaviors that may not be captured in the formal discussion setting.
Adolescents’ report may not be as objective as observations, but the adolescent’s
perceptions of parenting behaviors are still extremely relevant to adolescent outcomes
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; DeCato et al, 2003; Hair et al, 2006). Adolescent decisions and
behaviors are based on their perceptions, and may be more influenced by their overall
impressions of attunement than by specific interactions.
Observations and adolescents’ report each offer a unique perspective on
attunement. Neither measure has yet been used to assess attunement, specifically, with
adolescents. Observations provide information on whether, in a discussion setting,
parents are using specific behaviors that demonstrate adjustment and a capacity to
understand. Validating and responsive behaviors should help the adolescent to feel
7
understood, but adolescents’ reports may provide crucial information on whether those
behaviors actually demonstrate an understanding of that particular adolescent.
Adolescent report also provides information on whether teens perceive their parents to be
using a range of attunement behaviors in day to day life. The use of both measures will
provide information on whether a measure that focuses on validating and responsive
behaviors provides a pattern of results that is similar to a measure that includes
assessment of the adolescent’s reaction to attuned behaviors in general.
Attunement and Adolescent Outcomes
Data that parents’ attunement is related to adolescent externalizing behavior
(including specific risky and aggressive behaviors) derive from treatment literature. A
growing number of successful prevention and intervention programs include a focus on
building parents’ attunement to their child as a means of reducing externalizing behavior
problems (Duman Serrano & Margolin, in preparation). Though these treatment programs
do not necessarily label the behaviors “attunement”, the interventions that inform the
present discussion of attunement include a focus on helping the parent to recognize and
respond to the child’s needs. Treatment programs such as Adolescent Training Program
(ATP; Dishion & Kavanaugh, 2003), Parenting Through Change (Forgatch, 1995) and
New Beginnings (Weiss & Wolchik, 1998) improve parenting behavior, which in turn
prevents the onset of, and leads to reductions in, existing adolescent risky behavior,
aggression, and other externalizing problems (Dishion & Andrews, 1995; Dishion,
Andrews, Kavanaugh, & Soberman, 1996; Dishion, Kavanagh, Schneider, Nelson, &
Kaufman, 2002; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Irvine, Biglan, Smolkowski, Metzler, &
8
Ary, 1999; Wolchik et al, 1993; Wolchik et al., 2000). These treatment studies offer
statistical evidence that parents’ attunement influences externalizing behavior. Parenting
(including attunement behaviors) was the only mediator through which the New
Beginnings program reduced adolescent externalizing behavior (Wolchik et al., 1993;
Wolchik et al., 2000). These interventions are summarized in Appendix A, along with
other empirically-supported interventions that focus on younger children (i.e., Parent-
Child Attunement Therapy; Dombrowski et al., 2004)
Parental communication and adolescent disclosure of information often protect
against adolescent aggression and risky behavior (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr,
2000). For example, maintaining high rapport and respectful parent-child interactions
protects against adolescent substance use, in a longitudinal study (Cohen & Rice, 1995).
Parental involvement and family cohesion also predict lower levels of substance use in a
longitudinal study (Purcell, 2008). Adolescents’ disclosures about their activities mediate
the link between these qualities of parent-child interactions and substance abuse (Purcell,
2008). Open communication about sexual pressure and decisions making is related to a
greater likelihood that teens practice safe sex (Teitelman, Ratcliffe, & Cederbaum, 2008).
It would be helpful to know more about which specific parental behaviors enhance
communication and encourage adolescent disclosure of information. The behaviors that
comprise attunement are specific communication skills that help adolescents feel
understood and thus could contribute to adolescent disclosure. The present study
combines observations of these communication skills with adolescents’ reports on
9
whether they feel understood when their parents use the behaviors, and examines both in
relation to adolescent aggression and risky behavior.
Marital Conflict as a Moderator
Distressed families often function differently from non-distressed families
(Forgatch & Patterson,1989; Margolin, Christensen, & John, 1996; Margolin, Gordis, &
Oliver, 2004). Marital conflict is a common and serious stressor for adolescents (Amato,
2000; Cummings & Davies, 1994) that may alter the connections between parenting
behaviors (such as attunement) and adolescent behavior. Family systems theory
(Minuchin, 1974) indicates that the association between attunement and adolescent
problem behavior may be different in the presence of marital conflict versus in the
absence of marital conflict. Family subsystems are interdependent and mutually
influenced by one another (Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993). Thus, change or stress in
one family subsystem affects other family subsystems (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2003). The
marital subsystem often influences other interactions in the system (Belsky, 1981; Erel &
Burman, 1995; Margolin, 1981; Patterson, 1982).
The risk and resilience literature (for reviews, see Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker,
2000 and Margolin, Oliver , & Medina, 2001) provides a model for conceptualizing the
possible ways that marital conflict could interact with attunement. Marital conflict
creates a risk for the whole system that could change the protective nature of parents’
attunement. It is possible that marital conflict could have a moderating effect such that
attunement is less protective in the face of high levels of marital conflict than it is at low
levels of marital conflict. This type of interaction is a variation of the “protective-
10
reactive” interaction described by Luthar and colleagues. The difference between
Luthar and colleagues’ description of the interaction and the interaction hypothesized in
the current study is that protective factors are discussed mainly as moderators of the
relation between risk and competence, whereas the current study conceptualizes marital
conflict as the moderator of the relation between attunement and outcomes. Another
possibility for the moderating effect of marital conflict is that parents’ attunement might
be more protective at high levels of this risk than it is at lower levels of the risk.
Margolin and colleagues point out that some protective variables (such as positive parent-
adolescent interactions) have both interactive effects and main effects. Attunement may
be one such variable that has interactive effects and a direct “protective” effect that
operates at both high and low levels of risk (Luthar et al., pg. 548; Margolin et al).
Physical marital aggression has been shown to have a moderating effect on the
relation between negative parenting behaviors and concurrent child behavior. Using
observations of a triadic family discussion, Gordis and colleagues (Gordis, Margolin, &
John, 1997) found that a history of marital aggression moderated the association between
parent-to-child hostility and boys’ behavior. In families with a history of physical marital
conflict, parent-to-child hostility was associated with boys’ anxious and distracting
behavior (but not withdrawal). In families with no physical marital conflict, parent-to-
child hostility was associated with boys’ withdrawal (but not anxiety or distraction).
Using observations of a parent-child play task, Margolin and colleagues (Margolin, John,
Ghosh, & Gordis, 1996) found that marital aggression moderated the association between
observed paternal authoritarianism and child behavior. When fathers had a history of
11
physical marital conflict, their authoritarian behavior was significantly more correlated
with child participation in the play task than when fathers did not have a history of
physical marital conflict. Additionally, when fathers had a history of physical marital
conflict, their authoritarian behaviors were associated with lower levels of girls’ positive
affect. Margolin and colleagues (1996) also found fathers’ physical marital aggression to
have a moderating effect on some positive aspects of father’s parenting. The present
study builds on Margolin and colleagues’ and Gordis’ and colleagues (1997) studies by
examining other aspects of positive parenting, and examining them in relation to
adolescents.
Separate and Combined Effects of Maternal and Paternal Attunement
Attuned behaviors, in isolation from other positive parenting behaviors, have
undergone little empirical examination, so it is important to consider the possibility that
the effect of maternal attunement on adolescent outcomes could be different than the
effect of paternal attunement. Steinberg and Silk (2002) note that adolescents often have
very different interactions with each parent. Whereas some evidence suggests that
father-teen closeness, rather than mother-teen closeness protects against teen problem
behavior (i.e., risky sexual behavior; Regnerus & Luchies, 2006), other studies find that
maternal parenting is related to teen externalizing behavior whereas paternal parenting is
not (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005; Baumrind, 1991; Repinski & Shonk, 2002). Still other
studies suggest that mother-teen interactions and father-teen interactions both have
effects on teen externalizing problems, but with different patterns of effects (Fanti,
Henrich, Brookmeyer, & Kuperminc, 2008) or stronger effects for mothers vs. fathers
12
(Baumrind, 1991a). In general, however, most parenting behaviors and qualities of the
parent-child relationship have similar effects on adolescents whether they are a quality of
mothers’ or fathers’ parenting (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2003; Belsky & Vondra, 1985;
Bowlby, 1988; Hutchings & Lane, 2005; Lamb & Tamis-Lemonda, 2004; Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998; Mccarty, Zimmerman, Digiuseppe, & Christakis, 2005; Rosenzweig,
2000; Steinberg et al, 1992). This study will first consider parents separately when
examining the relation among marital conflict, parents’ attunement, and adolescent
outcomes, in order to determine a) if maternal attunement and paternal attunement both
have direct effects on adolescent outcomes and b) whether the effects of maternal
attunement and paternal attunement are both moderated by marital conflict.
The parents will then be considered as a combined parenting unit, by comparing
levels of adolescent aggression and risky behavior in families where both parents are
highly attuned, only one parent is highly attuned, or neither parent is highly attuned. This
comparison will clarify whether the effect of parents’ attunement is different if an
adolescent has two attuned parents vs. only one, and whether there is a linear effect from
having no highly attuned parent, to having one, to having both parents highly attuned.
Some research suggests that having two parents who use positive parenting
behaviors leads to better adolescent outcomes than having only one parent who uses the
behaviors. Reviews conclude that when the father is highly involved in youths’ lives
(i.e., engaged, accessible, and fulfilling parental responsibilities), in addition to the
mother, their children fare better psychologically, cognitively, and socially (Amato, 1994;
Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001; Lamb & Lewis, 2004; Pleck, 1997). In Harris and
13
colleagues’ (Harris, Furstenberg, & Marmer, 1998) longitudinal study, having two
highly involved parents predicted lower psychological distress in their children as the
children entered adulthood. Another study that followed children for 36 years found that
having two parents who were warm and affectionate was associated with psychological
health and successful coping (Franz, McClelland, Weinberger, & Peterson, 1994).
Research on divorced families provides another means of examining the behaviors of
parents separately vs. in combination. When children have meaningful, emotionally
close interactions with both parents, and when both parents maintain an authoritative role,
youth fare better psychologically and academically, at all ages and into adulthood (Amato
& Gilbreth, 1999; Amato & Sobolewski, 2004; Kelly, 2000).
Other research suggests that having even one parent who is using positive
parenting behaviors is protective. Children who are abused by one parent fare better
when they have supportive interactions with the non-abusive parent (Margolin, 1998;
Margolin, et al., 2001). Adolescents who are reared by one authoritative parent perform
better academically than adolescents reared by two non-authoritative parents (Fletcher,
Steinberg, & Williams, 1999). In a longitudinal study, having two parents who were not
highly involved in their child’s life predicted lower educational success and higher
delinquency (Harris, et al., 1998).
The Present Study
In sum, the present study is designed to better understand the role of attunement
as a parenting dimension that may be related to lower levels of problem behavior in
adolescents. The study examines a specific set of positive behaviors, in an effort to build
14
upon studies that assess more generalized constructs, and more negative constructs, to
describe parenting. Attunement has undergone little empirical examination as an isolated
construct, especially in regards to parenting adolescents, despite attunement’s relevance
for interventions that aim to reduce adolescent externalizing behavior. In those
interventions, improving attunement behaviors is part of a larger treatment package. This
study seeks to isolate attunement behaviors in order to examine whether they do indeed
impact adolescent aggression and risk behaviors. The present study examines these
specific outcomes because aggression and risky behaviors in adolescence have
implications for physical and mental well-being, for interpersonal relationships, and for
social structures, both at the time the behavior occurs and into adult life.
The study is strengthened by using multiple measures of attunement.
Adolescents report on their parents’ behaviors, and observers identify attuned behaviors
during a 15-minute triadic discussion. Adolescent perception of parental attunement is a
crucial consideration and provides a measure of general attunement, across situations.
The use of observational data is less common, especially observations of discussions that
involve both parents and an adolescent child. This methodology allows for observation
of maternal and paternal attunement in regards to the same stimulus from their child, and
in each other’s presence. In comparison with studies that assess only one parent’s
(typically the mother’s) parenting, or studies that examine the separate effects of each
parent’s behaviors, the effects of maternal and paternal attunement are first examined
separately, and then in combination as a parenting unit, providing detailed information
15
about the family system. The study also examines attunement in families with higher
and lower levels of marital conflict.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses to be tested are:
1. Attunement is related to lower levels of adolescent aggression and risky
behaviors.
2. As indicated by family systems theory, marital conflict alters the relation between
parents’ attunement and adolescent aggression and risky behaviors.
3. Having two attuned parents is related to low levels of adolescent aggression and
risky behavior and is more beneficial than having only one attuned parent, or
none.
16
Chapter 2: Method
Participants
The 73 participating families were part of the longitudinal USC Family Studies
Project. For the current project, marital conflict data were first collected. Approximately
three years later, triadic discussions, participant reports on parents’ attunement, and
adolescents’ report on aggression and risky behavior were collected. Participants
volunteered for the study by responding to newspaper advertisements and/or fliers at
community organizations. Recruitment materials invited families to “help us learn how
families deal with stress and conflict in family and community relationships”. Data
collection involved a 3-4 hour laboratory meeting. Each family was compensated $150
for reporting on marital conflict (plus other measures for the umbrella study) and $175
for reporting on attunement and adolescent outcomes and participating in the discussion
(plus other measures for the umbrella study).
Out of 107 families who were invited to participate, a total of 73 families
provided data for all of the constructs examined in the current study. Eleven families
provided limited data, which did not include all of the constructs examined here, making
them ineligible for the current study. Twenty-three families did not participate at all for
the following reasons: 1) 9 families refused further participation; 2) 12 families failed to
respond to repeated efforts to contact them; 3) 1 family had a child living out of state; 4)
1 family’s questionnaires were lost in the mail.
17
Of the 73 participating families, 55 families had both parents present for the
discussion
1
. Only families with both parents present for the discussion were included in
analyses involving coded data. For the substantive analyses involving questionnaire-
based data, child report was used. Two families had coded data but were missing youth-
reported attunement due to computer malfunction, resulting in a total of 71 families in the
analyses involving reported attunement. Separated and divorced families were
encouraged to participate, and nine separated or divorced families participated in the
current study. All nine of these families are included in the analyses involving reported
attunement. Only one divorced family participated with both parents present for the
discussion, so eight divorced families are among those that are not included in the
analyses involving observed attunement.
T-tests were conducted to examine whether scores on marital conflict, adolescent-
reported attunement, adolescent externalizing problems on the Child Behavior Checklist,
or family income differed for non-participating families vs. a) the 55 participating
families who had two-parent discussions and b) the 73 participating families who had
adolescent-reported attunement data. There were no significant differences on these
variables (p values < .05) in either comparison. T-tests were also conducted to examine
whether participating families’ scores on marital conflict and attunement differed for a)
intact families vs. divorced/separated families and b) families with a discussion and
1
The reasons that families did not have a valid discussion include having only one parent present in lab (13
families), participating by mail (3 families), no consent for taping (1 family) and equipment malfunction (1
family).
18
families who had one-parent discussions or missing discussions. There were no
differences on marital conflict or attunement, according to any reporter (p’s > .05).
Table 1 summarizes the demographics. Each family member reported on their
own race and their ethnicity (Latino/a or non-Latino/a). Caucasians are the largest racial
group, one fifth of the sample is African American and over one third of the sample is
ethnically Latina/o. The families represent a range of incomes.
2
Table 1. Demographics.
Mother
Father
Adolescent
Age in Years (Mean)
(SD)
(Range)
44.7
5.4
32.0-58.9
46.7
6.2
35.1 – 61.8
15.2
.63
13.8-17.1
Education (Mode)
(Mean)
College Degree
Some College
College Degree
Some College
Racial Background
And Ethnicity
Mother
% of Total Sample
Father
% of Total Sample
Adolescent
% of Total Sample
Caucasian 31 42 29
African American 25 18 19
Asian/Pacific Islander/
Native American
10 12 11
Multi-Ethnic 18 14 33
Unknown 16 14 8
Ethnically Latino/a 34 33 40
Income Reported by Couple
(Median)
(Range)
(% < $50,000)
(% $50,000 - $100,000)
(% > $100,000)
$93,000
$0 - $450,000
22%
36%
42%
2
For four families whose income data was missing, regression substitution was used with family income
from the prior wave of data collection to calculate income.
19
Procedures
In line with consent procedures that Margolin et al. (2005) recommend, the three
family members were jointly involved in the consent procedures and in the decision to
participate. Following consent procedures, family members completed individual
batteries of questionnaires that were administered on separate computers in separate
rooms. One graduate student experimenter interviewed the parents while the second
graduate student interviewed the adolescent. A third experimenter (undergraduate or
post-baccalaureate) was present to assist with data collection and priming interviews.
Each parent independently completed the Domestic Conflict Index (Margolin, Burman,
John, & O’Brien, 1990). Three years later, adolescents completed the Child’s View
Attunement Scale (Margolin, 2000a), the Post-Discussion Rating of Attunement, the
Youth Risky Behavior Survey (Grunbaum, et al., 2004), and the Child Behavior
Checklist (Achenbach, 1991b).
Triadic Discussion Procedures. The triadic family discussion focused on topics of
conflict among the family members and was conducted in the middle of the second visit
to the lab. The topics for the triadic discussion were chosen with the help of a priming
procedure. First, each family member individually completed a Family Issues
Questionnaire (Margolin, 2000d; Appendix B), on which she or he rated 20 potential
conflict topics in terms of amount of conflict with the other participating family members
and extent of upset experienced in response to the topic. These topics were common
issues for adolescents (i.e., dating, sleeping habits, use of computer, allowance).
20
Each family member then participated in a private, 5-minute priming interview
with an experimenter, during which s/he was asked to talk about the topics that s/he had
rated as most conflictual and most upsetting. The interview served dual purposes. First,
it enabled interviewers to identify relevant topics for all three family members to discuss.
Second, it was intended to “prime” family members to express their feelings and opinions
on these topics. Interviewers worked from the following script during the interview:
“From what you said here, it looks like (topic A) and (topic B) are topics
that create conflict between you and your (parents or child). It would be
great if you could help me understand what is upsetting about these topics.
What would you say is the most upsetting for you right now? Is it a
current issue? How often is this an issue? What is the thing that really
bothers you about this right now, in your own words? (Optional questions
to help participant articulate thoughts and feelings: Is this something that
makes you upset, even when you are just thinking of it? Why is this an
issue? Can you give me an example of when you were really upset by this
issue? Is this an issue that you are willing to discuss in the family
discussion here today?). This is really important. Keep these thoughts
and continue thinking about how you’d like to express these to your
family members during the discussion.”
The experimenters then conferred to choose the three topics that were most
important to all family members. In making this choice, the experimenters were to select
three topics that were each “hot topics” for at least two family members, and to ensure
that each participant was getting to discuss at least one of her or his “hot topics”. The
adolescents’ topics were given priority, with one of the adolescents’ topics listed first,
and efforts made to include other topics that were endorsed by the adolescent.
The family was asked to address these topics in the 15-minute discussion, with the
following instructions:
21
Now we would like the three of you to have a family discussion about things that
cause conflict in your family. We will be videotaping this discussion. We
have identified 3 topics that seem to be problematic for one or more of
you. Those topics are (Topic A), (Topic B), or (Topic C). Is there any on
of these topics that you absolutely do not want to discuss as we videotape?
I want any of you to tell me if you don’t want to discuss any of these
topics (Pause to look at each family member). We’d like you to start with
(topic with the highest conflict and upset scores). Although we know that
this room does not look like your home, we are interested in how families
really talk about or fight about problem areas. All of the families who
come here have disagreements and we find that these frequently are not
calm discussions. Some of these discussions get quite heated. Our
purpose in having you do this discussion is to understand family
disagreements and family members’ different points of view. So please
make sure that each of you gets your points across. You will have 15
minutes to discuss one or more of these topics. You can spend as much or
as little time on the different topics. Remember, we’d like you to start
with (Topic A); and the other two topics are (Topic B) and (Topic C).
Periodically, we will check in behind the mirror. Don’t begin until you
hear us knock on the window. We will knock a second time when your 15
minutes are up. Any questions?
The video recording included the simultaneous recordings of four cameras. One
camera recorded a close-up of each family member while the fourth camera recorded the
full scene. This setup allows for the observation of subtle facial expressions as well as
body movements. The digital video recording was linked to Noldus Observer XT
software. This software allows the coder to precisely identify the presence or absence of
a discrete behavior in the digital video recording.
Four undergraduate and B.A.-level research assistants studied the code definitions
and met weekly for training, following training procedures described by Margolin and
colleagues (Margolin et al.,1998). Similar discussions from a previous study were used
for training, until sufficient reliability was achieved. The discussions were coded on a
molecular level (coding events each time that they occur). Coders were given the
22
following instructions “Give each relevant code only once per speaker turn (ie, you can
code validate and behavior responsive, but not two validations)”. Coders first viewed
each discussion continuously, without assigning codes. They then re-viewed the entire
discussion and indicated the occurrence of attuned behavior for one spouse. They viewed
the discussion a third time to indicate the occurrence of attuned behavior for the other
spouse.
Two research assistants coded each discussion, with discussions assigned to
ensure that agreement between various pairs of codes could be monitored. Intraclass
Correlation Coefficients (ICCs; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) were calculated weekly so that
reliability problems could be addressed in on-going meetings throughout the coding
process (Margolin et al., 1998). Every discussion was double-coded (the final score
represent the mean of the two coders), 100% of the codes were checked for reliability,
and 20% of the data were checked for accuracy of data entry.
Measures
Table 2 summarizes the measures. A copy of each questionnaire is found in
Appendix B. Table 5 presents descriptive statistics on the measures. Mean substitution
was used to account for item-level missing data. For example, for a scale with 20 items,
the mean of the 20 items was calculated, then this score was multiplied by 20 to account
for item-level missing data. Values that were larger than three standard deviations were
trimmed (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).
23
Table 2. Measures.
Construct Measure Reporter
Marital Conflict Domestic Conflict Index Mother, Father
Attunement Triadic Discussion: Observed Attunement Observer
Child’s View Adolescent
Adolescent Risky Behavior Youth Risky Behavior Survey Adolescent
Adolescent Aggression Child Behavior Checklist – Youth Self Report Adolescent
Recent History of Marital Conflict
The present study assesses both spouses’ reports of husband-to-wife and wife-to-
husband marital aggression during the previous year. The DCI (Margolin, Burman, John,
& O’Brien, 1990), revised in 2000, is a 61-item questionnaire that includes items from
the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)
and also includes items that explore other kinds of conflict and abuse. As detailed in
Appendix B, it assesses physical abuse (15 items), emotional abuse (11 items), and
general conflict and anger (12 items). The 52-item total conflict score, excluding
prosocial items and sexual coercion items, was used for this study. Margolin and
colleagues (1990) reported on the internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Two-
week test-retest reliability is .63-.70. In the current study, the DCI was filled out three
years prior to the collection of other measures. Each spouse completed the DCI twice;
once for his or her own behavior and once for the spouse’s behavior. For each item, the
respondent reported whether the spouse or self has ever engaged in the behavior. For the
endorsed items, he or she reported how many times the behavior occurred during the past
year by checking one of six frequency ranges: none (0), 1 per year (1), 2 to 5 per year
(2), 6 to 12 per year (3), 2 to 4 per month (4), more than once per week (5). We handled
disagreements between self-reports and spouse reports on specific behaviors by using the
24
maximum of the two reporters’ ratings for item, for each spouse. This solution is based
on data that marital aggression tends to be under-reported (Langhinrichen-Rohling &
Vivian, 1994). The final score represents the sum of scores for husbands and wives.
Attunement
Attunement was measured through observations during the triadic discussion, and
total scores for each parent on the Child’s View (Margolin, 2000b), an adolescent-report
measure of general attunement.
Observed Attunement During Triadic Discussions.
The coding system, developed for the current study, required observers to indicate
each instance of attuned behavior during the discussion. Attuned behavior was composed
of two codes: validation of the adolescent’s thoughts and feelings, and behavior
responsive to the adolescent’s thoughts and feelings. Table 3 presents code definitions
and examples of validating and responsive behavior. Validation is a response to the
adolescent’s specific thoughts or feelings, whereas Responsiveness code is included in
order to capture more generalized behavior. These target behaviors are chosen as
important observable aspects of attunement based on the descriptions of attunement in
theoretical literature (Holigrocki et al, 1999; Stern, 1985) and interventions (Brinkmeyer
& Eyberg, 2003; Dishion & Kavanaugh, 2003; Faber & Mazlish, 2005; Forgatch &
Patterson, 1989).
Each coder’s count of “validating” behaviors was summed with their count of
“responsive” behaviors. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient for the summary
attunement code is .55 for mothers and .54 for fathers. The mean across coders was used
25
as the official score for each code. All parents displayed some degree of attuned
behavior.
Table 3. Code Definitions and Examples.
Definition Example
Validation Statements or gestures that express an acceptance of
why the adolescent feels or thinks the way they do, or
an acceptance of the feelings themselves. The parent
does not have to agree with the adolescent’s opinion
in order to validate their feelings about the situation.
May include an awareness of the demands on the
adolescent’s life, such as homework, jobs, or chores
A) “You’re upset about this”
B) “I can see why you would feel
that way”.
C) Sympathetic facial expression.
Responsive Behavior that is an appropriate response to the
emotions being expressed by the adolescent, or a plan
to change behavior after the discussion because of the
adolescent’s feelings. Includes responses that have
an emotional quality or intensity that is within range
of the adolescent’s emotional expression. It may
include a general acknowledgement of the child’s
experience of a situation, or of their
age/developmental expectations.
A) Mother puts her hand on her
adolescent’s knee in a comforting
gesture, as the adolescent cries. B)
Father softens his voice as his son
slumps in his seat. C) Parents make
a plan to cut down on their cigarette
smoking after their son expresses
concern about their health.
Child’s View Attunement Scale. The Child’s View, designed for the umbrella
study, assesses the adolescent’s perceptions of family processes. The attunement scale
consists of 20 statements to which the adolescent responds by indicating how true each
statement is for him/her on a 0-4 scale where 0 represents “never”, 1 represents “rarely”,
2 represents “sometimes”, 3 represents “usually”, and 4 represents “always”. Items are
summed so that higher scores indicate higher levels of the construct. The adolescent
responded to each of the 20 statements once for his or her mother, and once for his or her
father. Validation and responsiveness, the two behaviors targeted in the coding system,
are reflected in a number of the items on the Child’s View. The youth are also able to
report on a range of attunement behaviors beyond validation and responsiveness. Items
include three types of behaviors: 1) fairly discrete instances of behaviors in response to
26
adolescent stimuli such as “My dad/mom shows interest in my hobbies and activities”
and “My dad/mom notices if I’m upset about something”, 2) more general behaviors such
as “My dad respects my feelings” and 3) items that assess the degree to which the
adolescent feels understood by the parent, such as “My dad doesn’t understand what I’m
going through these days” and “My dad tries to understand what I’m going through, even
if he isn’t always successful”. Taken as a whole, the items assess general attunement
across situations. Some of these items were adapted from the Parent Attachment
Questionnaire (PPA; Greenberg, Seigel, & Leitch, 1983). The remaining items were
created by the author of the current study, after an extensive literature review, including a
review of clinical interventions that involve attuned behavior (Duman Serrano &
Margolin, in preparation).
To obtain the final score for each parent, the scale sum score was divided by 4 to
retain the original scaling. Coefficient alphas for Child’s View Attunement scale were
.91 for ratings of mothers and .94 for ratings of fathers, above the criterion level of .70
for “acceptability” (Gregory, 2004). Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for each
Child’s View item, for mothers and fathers separately. T-tests were conducted to
compare the means of mothers’ score on each item to the means of fathers’ scores. The
adolescents’ mean rating of maternal attunement was significantly different from
adolescents’ mean rating of paternal attunement on 9 of the 20 items. Mothers were rated
more attuned than fathers on all nine items. These items tended to assess discrete
instances of day-to-day behaviors, while parents’ scores were not significantly different
on items that assessed adolescents’ feeling understood and respected by their parents.
27
T-tests within reporters were used to examine whether each reporter’s rating of
maternal attunement differed from their rating of paternal attunement. Adolescents’
report of maternal attunement were significantly higher than adolescents’ report of
paternal attunement (t = 4.26, p < .01). Observed counts of maternal attunement were not
significantly different than observed counts of paternal attunement.
Table 4. Descriptives and T-test Results for Adolescents’ Reports of Attunement for
Mothers and Fathers.
Mothers Fathers
Item M (SD) M (SD) T
My mom/dad praises me if I do something nice around the house 2.72 .91 2.3 1.03 4.39**
My mom/dad notices if I'm upset about something 2.87 .96 2.16 1.04 5.61**
My mom/dad talks to me about my day at school 2.94 1.0 2.34 1.18 5.18**
I can talk to my mom/dad about something important when I want to 2.96 1.12 2.23 1.23 4.93**
My mom/dad embarrasses me in front of my friends 1.17 1.01 .97 1.04 1.425
My mom/dad knows if I am not feeling well physically 2.97 .89 2.30 1.05 5.24**
My mom/dad knows how to cheer me up 2.69 .99 2.31 1.21 2.63**
My mom/dad gives me enough privacy 2.83 1.03 3.0 1.09 1.14
My mom/dad listens when I talk to her/him 3.18 .96 2.81 1.11 2.72**
My mom/dad is so embarrassing that I prefer not to have friends
come over
.61 1.04 .64 .99 .10
I get the love and attention that I need from my mom/dad 3.46 .86 2.91 1.09 4.47**
My mom/dad shows interest in my hobbies and activities. 3.21 1.01 3.03 1.18 1.49
I get upset more than my mom/dad knows 1.58 1.14 1.59 1.16 .00
My mom/dad understands me. 2.73 .96 2.60 1.08 .94
My mom/dad doesn’t understand what I’m going through 1.55 1.11 1.84 1.00 2.07*
My mom/dad knows when to give me space 2.61 1.01 2.67 1.02 -.52
My mom/dad respects my feelings 3.11 .95 2.93 1.05 1.44
Talking over problems with my mom/dad makes me feel ashamed .83 .97 1.09 1.13 1.89
My mom/dad respects my opinion 2.97 .93 2.80 1.07 1.49
My mom/dad tries to understand me even if s/he’s not successful 3.03 1.01 2.79 1.10 1.83
Note: ** p < .01; * p < .05.
Post Discussion Questionnaire. Immediately following the discussion, each
family member filled out this questionnaire that included two validity checks. As a
validity check for the discussions themselves, family members were asked “How typical
was this discussion of other family discussions that you have had?” Answer choices
ranged from 0 to 4, where 0 represents “not at all”, 1 represents “slightly”, 2 represents
28
“somewhat”, 3 represents “fairly”, and 4 represents “very typical”. The post-discussion
question regarding typicality supports the validity of the lab-based discussions. Mothers,
fathers, and children, on average, reported that the lab-based discussions were “somewhat
to fairly typical” relative to their usual family discussions (M = 2.8 for mothers, 2.8 for
fathers, and 2.5 for adolescents). As a validity check for the observations and
adolescents’ report of attunement, the adolescents were asked to give a global rating:
“How much do you think your mother understood how you were feeling and what you
were thinking?”. The question was repeated regarding fathers. Each question was
answered using a 0-4 scale where 0 represents “not at all”, 1 represents “rarely”, 2
represents “sometimes”, 3 represents “usually”, and 4 represents “a lot”. Adolescent
ratings of the extent to which they felt understood by their parents across the entire
discussion ranged between feeling “somewhat understood” and “usually understood” (M
= 2.6 for each parent). This rating provides information specific to the discussion, in
contrast to the more general report of attunement on the Child’s View. This rating
provides information on the discussion as a whole, but does not provide information on
specific behaviors, as do the observed counts of attuned behavior. Adolescent reported
attunement on the Child’s View is included in all substantive analyses, and the post-
discussion global rating is only used as a validity check.
Validity. The post-discussion question regarding typicality supports the validity of
the lab-based discussions, as detailed above. Pearson correlations were conducted to
examine the agreement among adolescents’ global post-discussion ratings of feeling
understood by their parents and a) adolescents’ report on the Child’s View Attunement
29
Scale and b) observed attunement. Adolescents’ report of paternal attunement were
significantly correlated with adolescent global reports of feeling understood by fathers
during the discussion (r = .34, p < .007), but parallel reports on mothers were not
significantly correlated. Observations of parents’ specific attunement behaviors during
the discussion also correlated significantly and positively with adolescent global ratings
of feeling understood during the discussion (r = .26, p < .03 for mothers; r = .36, p < .004
for fathers), supporting the validity of the observed counts of discrete behaviors. One-
tailed P values are reported, as reporters were expected to agree to some extent.
Interrater Agreement. Adolescents’ report of maternal attunement on the Child’s
View Questionnaire were not significantly correlated with observed maternal attunement,
whereas adolescent-observer agreement on paternal attunement approached significance
(r = .20, p < .079). To investigate the lack of correlation between reporters, the pattern
of results was examined through scatter-plots. Figure 1 presents scatter-plots of the
correlation between reported and observed attunement. In some families, adolescents
report that their parents were highly attuned, yet parents exhibited low levels of the
specific attuned behaviors in the triadic discussions. There are not, however, families
where adolescents report that parents’ attunement is low, despite the parents exhibiting
high levels of attuned behaviors in the discussions.
30
Figure 1. Scatterplots of Correlation Between Attunement Scores, as Reported on
Child’s View and Observed During Discussion
Mothers
4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00
Reported Maternal Attunement
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Observed Maternal Attunement
Fathers
4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
Reported Paternal Attunement
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Observed Paternal Attunement
31
Adolescent Outcomes
Risky Behavior: Center for Disease Control (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Survey
(YRBS). The YRBS (Grunbaum et al., 2004) was designed by the CDC to assess
behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among
adolescents. The target behaviors fall into the following categories of health-risk
behaviors: behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries; tobacco use; alcohol and
other drug use; and sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy and STDs
(Eaton et al., 2008). The original YRBS was normed on 15,214 9
th
-12
th
graders in all 50
states.
For this study, an adaptation of the YRBS was used. Participants in the current
study responded to a total of 53 items. For the purposes of this study, only the 18
questions (alpha = .83) that assess behavior in the past year were used.
3
These items
assess skipping school (1 item), cheating on tests (1 item), stealing (2 items), alcohol use
(2 items), use of alcohol together with motor vehicles (2 items), cigarette use (1 item),
other drug use (4 items), use of a weapon (1 item), physical fights (1 item), and risky
sexual behavior (3 items). In response to each item, adolescents reported on how often
they had engaged in the behavior. Six answer choices are provided for each question,
with A representing “0 Times”, B representing “1 Time ”, C through E representing
counts of behavior that are ranged appropriately according to the question’s subject
3
Three items that assess victimization (from physical or sexual assault) in the past year are not included.
Other changes from the original YRBS as are follows: 1) Items relating to diet and physical inactivity from
the original questionnaire were omitted, as is allowed by the CDC procedures (Eaton et al, 2008); 2) 9
items (relating to cheating on tests, skipping school, stealing, using ecstasy, using prescription drugs to get
high, and frequency of sex) were added; 3) 8 items from the original YRBS were re-worded to assess
behavior in the “past year”, rather than in the “past 30 days” or “lifetime”.
32
matter, and F representing more times than the maximum provided. For data analysis,
the lettered answer choices were converted to a 0-5 scale and summed.
Adolescent Aggression: Youth Self-Report of the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL). This study uses the 19-item aggression subscale of this questionnaire
(Achenbach, 1991). The internal consistency in this sample (.82) is comparable to the
internal consistency in the national norming sample (.86 for both boys and girls). One-
week test-retest reliability averages in the norming sample are .78 for adolescents aged
11-14 and .87 for adolescents aged 15-18. Validity is evident in high correlations with
other behavior checklists, and in discrimination between clinic-referred and non-referred
adolescents. Raw scores were used as T scores do not exist for the aggression subscale.
The use of raw scores is acceptable because this is a community sample, and because
using raw scores preserves the range of scores in the lower levels of symptomatology. T
scores for externalizing behavior scales have more restricted range at the sub-clinical
level.
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency.
N Mean Median SD Range % of Participants
Reporting Behavior
Internal
Consistency
Marital Conflict 73 63.3 53.0 38.9 5-156 100% α = .92
Observed Maternal
Attunement
55 9.8 9.5 6.1 1-
27.5
100% r = .49**
Observed Paternal
Attunement
55 10.0 8.2 7.5 .5-3 100% r = .41**
Reported Maternal
Attunement (Child’s
View)
71 2.9 3.0 .61 1.4-
4.0
100% α =.91
Reported Paternal
Attunement (Child’s
View)
70 2.7 2.7 .70 .90-
4.0
100% α =.94
Risky Behavior 73 3.3 2.0 3.5 0-10.6 78.1% α =.83
Aggression 73 7.3 7.0 4.5 0-15 94.5% α =.82
Notes: r refers to the correlation between validation code and responsive code; α = Scale Alpha; ** p < .01.
33
Chapter 3: Results
Correlations Among Marital Conflict, Attunement, and Adolescent Outcomes
Pearson correlations among the main predictor and outcome variables are
presented in Table 6. Adolescents’ report and observations of each parent’s attunement
have moderate, significant, negative correlations with adolescent risky behavior.
Adolescent-reported attunement is also moderately, significantly, and negatively
correlated with adolescent aggression. Observations of paternal attunement are
significantly negatively correlated with adolescent aggression. Contrary to expectations,
Observations of maternal attunement are not correlated with aggression.
Adolescent risky behavior and adolescent aggression are moderately, significantly
positively correlated. Marital conflict is significantly negatively correlated with
adolescent-reported attunement. Marital conflict is not significantly correlated with
observed attunement or adolescent outcomes.
Correlations with demographic variables are presented in Appendix C, Table C1.
The only significant correlations involve parents’ education, which is moderately
positively correlated with observed maternal attunement, and moderately negatively
correlated with adolescent risky behavior. Parents’ education is not significantly
correlated with the other predictor or outcome variables. Adolescent age and family
income are not significantly correlated with any of the predictor or outcome variables.
Correlations split by adolescent sex are presented in Appendix C, Tables C2 and C3.
Parents’ education continues to be moderately positively correlated with certain
34
attunement variables in families with both male and female adolescents. The negative
correlation between parents’ education and adolescent risky behavior holds for girls, but
not for boys. In families with female adolescents, family income is positively correlated
with observed parents’ attunement and negatively correlated with adolescent risky
behavior. In families with female adolescents, adolescent age is negatively correlated
with observations of paternal attunement and with adolescent global post-discussion
ratings of paternal attunement.
Table 6. Intercorrelations Among Predictor and Outcome Variables.
1
(71)
2
(55)
3
(70)
4
(55)
5
(73)
6
(73)
1. Reported Maternal Attunement
a
--
2. Observed Maternal Attunement
b
.12
3. Reported Paternal Attunement
a
.67** -.12
4. Observed Paternal Attunement
b
.20 .24*
.20
5. Adolescent Risky Behavior -.34** -.30* -.28* -.27*
6. Adolescent Aggression -.31** .03 -.43** -.27* .44**
7. Marital Conflict
c
-.30** -.05 -.26* -.09 .02 .11
Notes: N for each variable is indicated in parentheses at top of column.
a
Adolescent report, 20-item scale;
b
Only including families where both parents were present for the discussion;
c
Sum of maternal
and paternal conflict; One-tailed ** p < .01; * p < .05.
Hierarchical Regressions Examining the Separate Effects of Maternal and Paternal
Attunement and Interactions with a History of Marital Conflict
Hierarchical regression was next used to test hypothesis one, that attunement is
related to lower levels of adolescent aggression and risky behaviors, and hypothesis 2,
that marital conflict alters the relation between parents’ attunement and adolescent
aggression and risky behaviors. Separate and parallel equations were conducted using
the main predictor variables: marital conflict and either 1) adolescent report of parents’
attunement or 2) observed parents’ attunement. Separate equations were conducted for
each of the two outcome variables: 1) adolescent risky behavior or 2) adolescent
35
aggression. Main effects were entered in the first step and 2-way interactions in the
second step. All predictor variables were centered and the product of the centered
variables was used to test interactions (Aiken & West, 1991). Tables 8 and 9 present
summaries of the main effects and interaction effects in these regressions.
The hypothesized main effect of attunement on outcomes was evident in six of the
eight regression equations. Adolescents’ report of maternal and paternal attunement each
have main effects, accounting for significant variance in risk taking and aggression. As
depicted in Table 7, higher adolescent-reported mother and father attunement predicts
lower risk taking. Observed paternal attunement also accounts for a nearly significant
amount of variance in risk taking (p < .052). As depicted in Table 8, higher adolescent-
reported mother and father attunement also predicts lower aggression. Observed parental
attunement does not have main effects on adolescent aggression.
4
Hypothesis two, that marital conflict moderates the relation between attunement
and outcomes, was supported in one of the eight equations. For fathers, the interaction
between marital conflict and observed attunement accounted for significant variance in
adolescent aggression. Figure 2 presents the slopes of the relations between observed
paternal attuned behavior and adolescent aggression at low versus high levels of marital
conflict. Marital conflict was split at the median, due to the non-normal distribution of
the data. Figure 2 uses the actual data, rather than hypothetical values at plus and minus
one standard deviation. For a depiction of the interaction using hypothetical values,
please refer to Appendix D. As Figure 2 illustrates, in families with low marital
4
Parallel analyses with the sample split by adolescent sex yielded the same pattern of findings, as did
analyses using untrimmed data.
36
conflict, there is a moderate negative correlation between fathers’ observed attunement
and aggression (r = -.54, p < .01). At high levels of marital conflict, there is no relation
(r = -.07) between fathers’ observed attunement and aggression. Thus, the expected
effect of paternal attunement holds only at low levels of marital conflict.
Table 7. Multiple Regressions Using Two-Way Interactions Between Marital Conflict
and Attunement to Predict Adolescent Risk-Taking.
Table 8. Multiple Regressions Using Two-Way Interactions Between Marital Conflict
and Attunement to Predict Adolescent Aggression.
Notes: Reported N = 71 Mothers; 70 Fathers. Observed N = 55 Families.
**p < .01; * p < .05.
Notes: Reported N = 71 Mothers; 70 Fathers. Observed N = 55 Families.
**p < .01; * p < .05,
a
p , .06,
b
p < .07.
Reported Attunement Observed Attunement
Predictor β t ∆R
2
∆F
df β t ∆R
2
∆F
df
Mothers
Step 1: Main Effects .13 4.96** 2,68 .10 2.83
b
2,52
Marital Conflict -.10 -.83 .12 .87
Attunement -.37 -3.15** -.29 -2.16*
Step 2: Interaction .01 .85 1,67 .01 .74 1,51
Conflict X Attunement .11 .92 .12 .86
Fathers
Step 1:Main Effects .08 2.97
a
2,67 .09 2.46 2,52
Marital Conflict -.06 -.50 .11 .80
Attunement -.30 -2.43* -.27 -1.99
a
Step 2:Interaction .02 1.69 1,66 .01 .70 1,51
Conflict X Attunement .15 1.30 .11 .84
Reported Attunement Observed Attunement
Predictor β t ∆R
2
∆F
df β t ∆R
2
∆F
df
Mothers
Step 1: Main Effects .10 3.72* 2,68 .01 .19 2,52
Marital Conflict -.03 -.21 .08 .58
Attunement -.32 -2.66** .03 .22
Step 2: Interaction .00 .00 1,67 .01 .52 1,51
Conflict X Attunement .01 .07 .10 .72
Fathers
Step 1:Main Effects .19 7.77** 2,67 .08 2.15 2,52
Marital Conflict -.04 -.36 .05 .41
Attunement -.44 -3.89** -.27 -1.99
Step 2:Interaction .00 .06 1,66 .10 7.37* 1,51
Conflict X Attunement -.03 -.25 .32 2.52*
37
Figure 2. Plots of Observed Paternal Attunement and Adolescent Aggression for Low
and High Marital Conflict. .
N = 26 N = 29
Analysis of Variance Examining Mean Level of Outcomes by Specific Combination of
Parents’ Attunement
One-way ANOVAS were conducted to test hypothesis three, that having two
attuned parents is related to low levels of adolescent aggression and risky behavior, and is
more beneficial that having only one attuned parent, or none. The ANOVAs examined
whether the mean level of risk taking and aggression differed according to whether the
combination of maternal and paternal attunement followed one of three patterns: 1) both
parents are highly attuned; 2) only one parent is highly attuned; and 3) neither parent is
highly attuned. The analyses were conducted once using child report of attunement and
once using observed attunement. The groupings were based on a median split for each
the four attunement variables (mother/father and youth/observer). When the ANOVAs
0 10 20 30
Paternal Attunement
0
5
10
15
Aggression
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
Low Marital Conflict
0 10 20 30
Paternal Attunement
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W W
W
W
W
W
High Marital Conflict
38
indicated a significant F value, post hoc analyses were performed to determine which
groups differed significantly from one another. The mean levels of adolescent risky
behavior and adolescent aggression for each group are depicted in Table 9.
Table 9. ANOVA Comparisons of Two, One, or No Attuned Parents on Adolescent
Risky Behavior and Aggression.
Note: Matching letters (a,b,c,d) indicate which groups differ significantly from one another, according to
post hoc analyses. * = p < .05; ** = p < .01 .
As depicted in Table 9, ANOVA analyses indicated that there were significant
group effects on adolescent risky behavior scores according to adolescent report of
attunement. Post hoc group comparisons indicate that in families where the adolescent
reported that both parents exhibited high attunement, adolescent risky behavior scores
were significantly lower than in families where the adolescent reported that both parents
exhibited low attunement (p < .005). In families where the adolescents reported that both
parents exhibited high attunement, adolescent risky behavior was also significantly lower
Group
High Mom/
High Dad
One Parent Low /
One Parent High
Low Mom/
Low Dad
F df
Reported Attunement
N 25 21 24
Risky Behavior M
(SD)
1.32
a,b
(1.73)
4.50
b
(4.05)
4.15
a
(3.68)
6.83** 2,67
Aggression M
(SD)
4.94
c
(3.54)
7.62
(5.06)
9.17
c
(4.02)
6.34** 2,67
Observed Attunement
N 16 21 18
Risky Behavior M
(SD)
.96
d, e
(.95)
3.17
e
(2.96)
4.86
d
(4.02)
7.25** 2,52
Aggression M
(SD)
5.39
(4.16)
8.95
(4.64)
7.56
(4.22)
3.03 2,52
39
than in families where the adolescents reported that one parent exhibited high attunement
and one parent exhibited low attunement (p < .007).
There were significant group effects on adolescent risky behavior according to
pairs on observed attunement, parallel to the pattern for reported attunement. Post hoc
group comparisons indicate that in families where both parents were observed to exhibit
high attunement, the adolescents had significantly lower risky behavior scores than in
families where both parents were observed to exhibit low attunement (p < .002), or in
families where one parent exhibited high attunement and one parent exhibited low
attunement (p < .011).
Finally, there were significant group effects on adolescent aggression scores
according to adolescent report of attunement. Post hoc group comparisons indicate that
in families where the adolescents reported both parents to exhibit high attunement, the
adolescent’s aggression score was significantly lower than in families where the
adolescents reported both parents to exhibit low attunement (p < .001). The ANOVA for
adolescent aggression according to couple pairs on observed attunement approached
statistical significance.
Hierarchical Regression Equations Examining the Effects of Differences between
Maternal and Paternal Attunement
Given the results of the ANOVAs, it is prudent to consider the potential effects of
differences in the level of attunement exhibited by mothers vs. fathers. Two possibilities
were considered. First, that a difference between the levels of maternal and paternal
attunement accounts for variance in adolescent outcomes above and beyond the effect of
40
mean parents’ attunement and second, that it matters which parent exhibits higher
attunement. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the main effects of 1)
the couple’s mean level of attunement, and 2) the absolute value of the difference
between maternal and paternal attunement (i.e., the magnitude of the difference between
parents’ attunement levels, regardless of which parent is higher). A parallel set of four
regression equations was used to examine the main effects of 1) the couple’s mean level
of attunement, and 2) the signed value of the difference between maternal and paternal
attunement. The directional difference variable indicates whose attunement score is
higher, with a positive value indicating that maternal attunement is higher and a negative
score indicating that paternal attunement is higher.
Parents’ attunement was combined by taking the mean of adolescent-reported
maternal attunement and paternal attunement. For adolescent-reported attunement, the
mean was calculated at the item level. After the mean of maternal and paternal
attunement was calculated for each of the 20 items on the Child’s View Attunement
Scale, the 20 scores were summed. The sum of 20 scores was divided by 20 in order to
return to the 0-4 scale and to account for mean substitution for missing items. For
observer-rated attunement, the mean was calculated by summing observed maternal
attunement and observed paternal attunement and dividing by two. The absolute value of
the difference was calculated by using the “absolute value” function in SPSS. The
directional difference was calculated by subtracting paternal attunement from maternal
attunement.
41
Analyses were run to separately examine adolescent report and observed parents’
attunement. Thus, the first equation contained the mean of adolescent-reported parents’
attunement and the absolute value of the difference between reported maternal and
paternal attunement. The second equation contained the mean of adolescent-reported
parents’ attunement and the directional difference between reported maternal and paternal
attunement. The third equation contained the mean of observer-rated parents’ attunement
and the absolute value of the difference between observed maternal and paternal
attunement. The fourth equation contained the mean of observer-rated parents’
attunement and the directional difference between observed maternal and paternal
attunement. Equations were separately conducted for aggression and risk taking, for a
total of eight regression equations.
Table 10 presents the results for these regression equations. The mean level of
parents’ attunement has a significant main effect on adolescent risk taking, regardless of
whether adolescents or observers are reporting on attunement. Higher mean levels of
attunement predict lower risk taking, according to adolescents’ report and observations.
Higher mean levels of parents’ attunement also significantly predict lower levels of
adolescent aggression, according to adolescents’ report. The mean level of observed
attunement does not account for a significant amount of variance in adolescent
aggression. A difference between maternal and paternal attunement does not account for
a significant amount of variance in adolescent risk taking or aggression.
42
Table 10. Multiple Regression Analyses Using Mean of Maternal and Paternal
Attunement and the Difference Between Maternal and Paternal Attunement to Predict
Adolescent Outcomes.
Reported Attunement
a
Observed Attunement
b
Predictor β t ∆R
2
∆F β t ∆R
2
∆F
Risk-Taking
Absolute Value of Difference
.12 4.37* .13 3.85*
Mean -.34 -2.82** -.37 -2.56*
Difference -.00 -.03 .03 .23
Directional Difference
.12 4.70* .13 3.88*
Mean -.36 -3.06** -.37 -2.77**
Difference -.09 -.76 -.04 -.33
Aggression
Absolute Value of Difference
.21 8.74** .06 1.58
Mean -.35 -3.03** -.26 -1.71
Difference .20 1.78 .18 1.21
Directional Difference
.19 7.74** .08 2.34
Mean -.39 -3.48** -.13 -.93
Difference .14 1.23 .23 1.70
Notes:
a
N = 71;
b
N = 55. **p < .01; * p < .05.
43
Chapter 4: Discussion
This study contributes information about a specific parenting practice, parental
attunement, and its relation to adolescent problem behavior. This study’s attempt to
isolate specific attunement behaviors was inspired by two bodies of literature: 1)
literature on the beneficial effects of positive parenting practices and 2) literature on
treatments that target specific positive parenting behaviors. Some parenting constructs
described in the extant literature are more general than others (Fauber, et al., 1990;
Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). In the clinical setting, some interventions (i.e., ATP;
Dishion & Kavanaugh, 2003) have found success by including training in specific
attunement behaviors in programs for parents of adolescents who exhibit aggression and
risky behavior. The treatment outcome literature provides some evidence that attunement
is “teachable”, as programs such as Parenting Through Change (Forgatch & DeGarmo,
1999) and New Beginnings (Weiss & Wolchik, 1998) result in quantifiable
improvements in parents’ behavior. Attunement in regards to adolescents has not
undergone sufficient empirical examination outside of the treatment literature. Thus, this
study attempted to isolate attunement behaviors from other elements of the treatment in
order to examine whether attunement itself has an impact on adolescent problem
behavior.
Higher parental attunement is related to lower adolescent risk taking and
aggression. Higher maternal and paternal attunement is related to lower risk taking,
regardless of reporter. Higher adolescent-reported maternal and paternal attunement is
also related to lower aggression. Adolescents in families where both parents are highly
44
attuned engage in significantly less risky behavior and aggression than do adolescents in
families where neither parent is highly attuned, and in significantly less risky behavior
than do adolescents in families where only one parent is highly attuned. There was
partial support for the hypothesis that marital conflict would alter the relation between
parental attunement and adolescent outcomes. A significant interaction exists between
marital conflict and observed paternal attunement such that the negative relation between
attunement and aggression holds only in families with low levels of marital conflict.
Marital conflict did not alter the relation between observed maternal attunement, or
adolescent-reported maternal or paternal attunement, and adolescent outcomes. These
data generally support the theory that attunement is potentially a “protective” parenting
mechanism, as defined by Luthar and colleagues (2000), in that it generally has the same
relation to outcomes at both high and low levels of risk from marital conflict.
Attunement was related to lower aggression and risk-taking regardless of the level of risk
in six of eight possible interactions between attunement and marital conflict.
Attunement in the Context of Extant Parenting Literature.
A debate exists in the field of psychology concerning whether parenting is still
relevant in adolescence. Harris (2002) argues that peers have more influence over
adolescent behavior than do parents, whose primary influence is through genetics.
Researchers have responded to this contention with studies indicating that though
genetics, peers, and other environmental factors explain substantial variance in adolescent
behavior, parenting remains relevant to adolescent outcomes (Borkowski et al., 2002;
Collins, et al., 2000; Steinberg & Morris 2001). The current results indicate that attuned
45
parenting appears to be an aspect of the environment that could influence adolescent
outcomes. It is possible that there could be a common genetic risk that manifests in
problem behaviors in adolescence and less attunement in parenthood. The contributions
of attunement relative to genetics, peers, and other adolescent personality variables would
be clarified by a study design that included these multiple sources of influence.
The pattern of results in the current study, with attunement having a consistent
negative relation to adolescent aggression and risky behavior, is similar to the literature
on other parenting dimensions that are negatively related to problem behavior in
adolescents. Parenting research increasingly examines the relation of positive parenting
to problem behaviors, in addition to negative parenting. A number of positive parenting
dimensions have substantial empirical evidence of beneficial main effects on adolescent
aggression and risky behavior, including dimensions such as parental involvement,
support, acceptance, warmth, authoritativeness, effective discipline, and monitoring
(Baumrind, 1991a; Barber & Rollins, 1990; Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Branstetter, 2005;
Cohen & Rice, 1995; Lamb & Tamis-Lemonda, 2004; Regnerus & Luchies, 2006;
Rollins & Thomas, 1979; Teitelman, et al. 2008). Attunement is likely to be related to
these other positive parenting constructs, all of which are important elements of effective
parenting. The current study provides information on a specific subset of positive
behaviors. The data suggest that is worthwhile to consider including attunement
behaviors as a part of the array of effective behaviors recommended to parents of
adolescents. A next step in research would be to compare attunement to other, more-
studied, parenting practices in order to gain a better understanding of how these practices
46
relate to each other, how much they are unique from each other, and of their relative
impact on adolescent outcomes.
Why is attunement potentially a protective parenting practice? Attunement could
encourage adolescent disclosure of information and/or enhance the parent-adolescent
relationship. Some of the items from the Child’s View Attunement Scale address the
adolescent’s comfort discussing problems with their parents (i.e., “Talking over problems
with my mom makes me feel ashamed”). If attunement helps youth to feel more
comfortable approaching their parents with their problems, they may also feel
comfortable sharing details about their activities. Parents then have the opportunity to
help the adolescent generate constructive solutions to the challenges they face. This type
of adolescent disclosure is related to lower levels of problem behaviors, and some
research indicates that disclosure accounts for the protective effect of parental monitoring
on youth problem behavior (Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Faber and
Mazlish’s rationale for attuned behaviors relates to disclosure and to problem-solving:
they hypothesize that parental validation of feelings helps adolescents to deal with those
feelings and find appropriate solutions, feeling comfortable discussing options with their
parent. Monitoring and disclosure can also be related to parent-adolescent relationship
quality. Branstetter (2006) found that attachment (one definition of relationship quality)
increases monitoring, which in turn has a direct influence on reducing substance abuse.
Good relationships also have direct effects on adolescent risky behavior (Brody &
Forehand, 1993). Future research should directly assess relationship quality and
adolescent disclosure, measure whether higher attunement is related to better relationship
47
quality and/or higher adolescent disclosure, and examine whether relationship quality
and/or disclosure mediate the relation between attunement and outcomes.
Alternative conceptualizations of attunement as a moderator or mediator. The
significant interaction between marital conflict and observed paternal attunement expands
on other studies where marital conflict moderates the relation between parenting and
youth outcomes (Gordis, Margolin, & John, 1997; Margolin, John, Ghosh, & Gordis,
1996). In these studies, physical marital aggression was the moderating factor, and the
current study adds findings on general marital conflict, including verbal and emotional
aggression. These studies also had a greater focus on negative parenting of younger
children, while the current study adds information on positive parenting with adolescents.
Unlike the previous studies, in which the outcome was child behavior as observed during
the parent-child interaction, the current study uses adolescent self-report of behaviors
outside of the parent-adolescent interaction. The current model of marital conflict as a
moderator is less common than a model of parenting as moderator of the relation between
marital conflict and youth outcomes. Some parenting dimensions that have been found to
interact with marital conflict to affect outcomes are supportiveness (Margolin et al,
2001), involvement, and interest in education (Zimmerman & Arunkumar, 1994). As
with attunement in the current study, positive parent-adolescent relationships influence
adolescent outcomes directly and through interactions with marital conflict, in the same
data set (Forehand et al., 1991). Other parenting dimensions (i.e., supportiveness,
involvement) are implicated as having both main effects and interactive effects across
different studies. The current study contributes one piece of information on specific
48
attuned behaviors to the larger body of literature on the complex relations among marital
conflict, parenting, and adolescent problem behaviors.
The main effects of attunement, and moderation by marital conflict, are in
contrast to alternative models of parenting as mediator of the relation between marital
conflict and adolescent problem behavior. A body of research supports a model wherein
parenting qualities including appropriate discipline, warmth, support, emotional
availability, acceptance vs. rejection, negativity, or intrusiveness are mediators between
interparental conflict and youth outcomes such as aggression and risky behavior
(Cummings & Davies, 2002; Fauber et al, 1990; Harold, Fincham, Osborne, & Conger,
1997; Kelly, 2000; Mann & MacKenzie, 1996; Margolin & John, 1997; Margolin et al.,
2001; Miller et al., 1993; Patterson, 1982; Stoker & Youngblade, 1999). In meta-
analyses, marital conflict had an average effect size of d = .44 on negative parenting (Erel
& Burman, 1995) and d = -.62 on global parenting quality (Krishnakumar & Buehler,
2000). It is reasonable to think that marital conflict would affect attunement in the same
way that it affects the parenting factors examined thus far. In this study, however, marital
conflict was not related to observed attunement or to adolescent outcomes. Even parents
from high-conflict families used validating and responsive behaviors. This is one case
where marital conflict did not erode positive parenting behaviors, in contrast to the body
of literature where marital conflict does lead to fewer positive parenting behaviors and a
greater number of negative parenting behaviors. More research has examined the
mediational model with younger children than with adolescents. Parents spend more
time in direct interaction with younger children, as opposed to adolescents (Lamb, 2004)
49
and the demands of parenting change as children age (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2003;
Baumrind, 1991). For these reasons, it is possible that the mediational model is more
likely in regards to parenting younger children.
Maternal and Paternal Attunement. Similar to other studies that have found that
adolescents believe that their mothers, compared to fathers, generally know them better
and are more responsive to and aware of adolescent problem behaviors and emotions
(Baumrind, 1991a; Lamb & Lewis, 2004), adolescents in the present study report that
mothers are more highly attuned than fathers. In the present data, an item-level
comparison of youth ratings of maternal and paternal attunement reveals that a number of
the items that were scored more highly for mothers involved concrete, every- day
interactions such as “my mom talks to me about my day at school”. A substantial body
of research indicates that mothers are more involved than fathers in routine family tasks
(Lamb & Lewis, 2004; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004), so mothers may have more
opportunity to use some of these types of attunement behaviors. In comparison, for
nearly all of the items that involve feeling understood by parents, youth do not rate
mothers more highly than fathers, or vice versa. It is important to note that the Child’s
View Attunement scale has high internal consistency for adolescents’ reports on mothers
and their reports on fathers. High internal consistency indicates that the variety of
attunement behaviors assessed all contribute to the overall score. Additionally, it is
important to note that adolescent ratings of paternal attunement, though lower, have the
same relation to youth outcomes as do adolescent ratings of maternal attunement.
50
There are a number of consistencies in the pattern of results for maternal
attunement and paternal attunement. The relations between attunement and outcomes are
similar for both mothers and fathers (with the exception of one interaction which will be
discussed below). Adolescents with two highly attuned parents reported significantly
lower levels of risk taking and aggression than adolescents with two parents who exhibit
low attunement. Adolescents with two highly attuned parents also reported lower levels
of risk taking and aggression than adolescents with only one highly-attuned parent
(significant in the case of risky behavior, approaching significance in the case of
aggression). These consistencies in the pattern of relations for maternal and paternal
attunement complement much of the extant literature on parenting, where having two
involved, warm, and authoritative parents is more beneficial than one, and where
effective parenting practices have similar effects on adolescents whether they are a
quality of mothers’ or fathers’ parenting. The lack of significant differences in problem
behavior between adolescents who have one highly attuned parent and adolescents who
have no highly attuned parents should not lead to the conclusion that attunement is
helpful only when it is coming from both parents. Future studies with a larger sample
size could revisit this question. Regressions that examined difference scores indicate that
in general it does not matter which parent is more attuned, or how much more attuned
one parent is than the other. This is in contrast to studies that examine broader parenting
qualities and find that mothers’ warm, supportive, or hostile behavior was more related to
adolescent problem behavior (including aggression and risky behavior) than was fathers’
behavior (Repinski & Shonk, 2002), or that fathers’ effective parenting was more related
51
than mothers’ effective parenting to sons’ self restraint, which in turn predicted
delinquent behavior (Feldman & Weinberger, 1994).
Marital Conflict
A recent history of marital conflict had neither a main effect on, nor significant
correlations with, adolescent risky behavior or aggression. These results are unexpected
in light of previous literature on the association between marital conflict and youth
problem behavior, including aggression and risky behavior (Cummings & Davies, 2002;
Doumas, Margolin, & John, 1994; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Hetherington & Stanley-
Hagen, 1999; Margolin, et al., 2001; Miller et al., 1993). In a meta-analysis, however,
the effect sizes of marital conflict on youth problem behavior were only modest, with an
average effect size of d = .32 (Buehler, Anthony, Krishnakumar, & Stone, 1997). Gordis
(1999) also found that interparental hostility only had an effect on youth behavior when
considered in an interaction with parenting behavior. In the Gordis study and the current
study, participants were from community samples mainly comprised of two-parent
families. It is possible that in community samples or two-parent families there is a
different relation between marital conflict and child problems than is observed in clinical
or divorced samples (Grych & Fincham, 1990). Buehler and colleagues’ meta-analysis
addressed this point to some extent; they tested for variability in effect size according to
parents’ marital status, and found no difference in effect size for married, divorced, or
separated families.
In this study, marital conflict became relevant when considered as a moderator of
observed paternal attunement, in one out of eight possible interactions (despite sufficient
52
power to detect potential interactions in the other regression equations). Marital conflict
moderated the relation between observed paternal attunement and adolescent aggression.
In families with low marital conflict, the anticipated main effect of attunement was
maintained. For a subset of fathers in families with high conflict, that effect did not hold.
This interaction is similar to the “protective-but-reactive” interactions described by
Luthar and colleagues (2000, pp. 547), where a protective factor confers less benefit
under conditions of high risk.
It is important to note that higher marital conflict was not related to lower
observed attunement. Fathers still demonstrate attunement in these high conflict families,
but that attunement does not have the same relation to better adolescent outcomes. There
was not a significant difference in the mean level of paternal attunement at high vs. low
levels of marital conflict, nor are there significant correlations between marital conflict
and observed attunement. This is in contrast to a substantial body of literature where
marital conflict has a stronger negative relationship with fathers’ positive parenting than
with mothers’ positive parenting (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). The lack of relation
to adolescent outcomes may be because the adolescent has a different response to the
fathers’ attunement as part of a reaction to stress in the marital subsystem, as suggested
by family systems theory (Minuchin, 1974; Margolin, et al, 2004). In family systems
theory, each individual is considered to be one of the subsystems (Minuchin, 1974), a
subsystem that could be affected by stress in another family subsystem (Anderson &
Sabatelli, 2003). It is possible that marital conflict negatively affects the adolescent’s
perception of parent-adolescent interactions, so the adolescent disregards positive
53
parenting behaviors or attaches a different meaning to them. Negative representations of
parent-child interactions are related more to conflict in the marital subsystem than to
actual parenting behaviors (Cummings & Davies, 2002). In future research it would be
helpful, especially in families with high levels of marital conflict, to assess whether
adolescents recognize the attuned behaviors that the coders observe in the discussions,
and to assess the meaning that adolescents attach to attuned behaviors from each parent.
Why Does the Interaction Involve Fathers and Not Mothers? In this study,
adolescents’ reactions to their fathers’ attuned behavior are more affected by prior marital
conflict than are their reactions to their mothers’ attuned behavior. The score for prior
marital conflict was comprised of maternal and paternal behavior, and t-tests reveal no
significant difference in the amount of negative conflict behaviors used by mothers and
fathers.
Even though mothers’ and fathers’ total amount of conflict is comparable, fathers’
negative behaviors, especially verbal and physical aggression, may be more salient to
their children because men tend to have greater size, strength, and potential to injure.
Goodman and colleagues (Goodman, Barfoot, Frye, & Belli, 1999) suggest that fathers’
aggressive conflict tactics are more arousing and threatening than mothers’.
Additionally, fathers who have a history of marital conflict might also be negative toward
their adolescent children, even if they are also using attuned behaviors. Previous research
with younger children indicates that marital conflict is related more to fathers’ negative
parenting than to mothers’ negative parenting (Jouriles & Farris, 1992; Krishnakumar &
Buehler, 2000; Margolin et al., 1996). Participants were aware that the family
54
discussions were designed to tap into existing family conflict, including marital conflict.
If adolescents in high-conflict families anticipated or experienced more marital conflict
and father-to-child negativity in the discussion, or if they generally feel uncomfortable
around or threatened by their fathers, their fathers’ positive behaviors may not have the
same impact as in families with low marital conflict. Higher adolescent distress and
father-to-adolescent negativity could affect the relation of paternal attunement to
outcomes in high-conflict families. Observers noted that marital hostility and parent-to-
child negativity did occur in the present discussions, and adolescents reported that they
experienced some degree of distress during the discussion (Spies, Margolin, & Duman
Serrano, in preparation). Future research could more closely examine the relations
between attunement, father-to-adolescent negativity and mother-to-adolescent negativity
in families with high conflict, and investigate whether adolescents are more distressed by
their fathers’ marital aggression than by their mothers’ marital aggression.
Why Does the Interaction Involve Aggression and Not Risky Behavior? In high
conflict families, paternal attunement is not related to aggression but maintains a
protective relation to risky behaviors. Risky behaviors encompass a wider variety of
problem behaviors, whereas aggression is a more specific type of problem behavior that
is more closely related to marital aggression. The measure of marital conflict used in the
current study (the DCI) and the measure of adolescent aggression (the CBCL YSR) both
include verbal, psychological, and physical aggression. Attunement is not related to
adolescent use of the same behaviors that they observe parents using. It is possible that
the adolescents are modeling the aggressive tactics that they see their fathers use. Social
55
learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that parents are powerful models. Adolescents
in high-conflict households are given models of aggressive behavior, models that are
likely to be accompanied by messages condoning aggression (Margolin et al., 2001).
Younger children who are exposed to negative marital conflict behaviors may imitate the
behaviors when interacting with their peers (Duman & Margolin, 2007; Margolin 1981;
Margolin, Christensen, & John 1996).
Why is Observed Attunement Involved in the Interaction and Not Adolescent-
Reported Attunement? The specific validating and responsive behaviors observed in the
discussions are not related to adolescent outcomes in high-conflict families, but the
broader array of attunement behaviors reported by the adolescents maintain a relation to
outcomes even at higher risk levels. It could be that adolescents give less credence to
these particular positive communication behaviors because those behaviors are in direct
contrast to the negative marital communication behaviors their fathers use. Adolescents
may be more responsive to the other ways that their fathers show them attunement.
Attunement as a Construct: Measurement
This study used adolescents’ report on parents’ attunement as well as observations
of parents’ attunement in an effort to capture the complexities of attunement though
multiple perspectives on multiple contexts. Internal consistency for adolescents’ report
was good and inter-rater reliability for observations was acceptable. Participant reports
that discussions were “somewhat to moderately typical” provided information on the
validity of the discussion format for observing attunement.
56
The lack of correlation between adolescents’ report and observed attuned
behaviors is not surprising, given that the two measures are designed to tap into different
aspects of attunement. This lack of correlation appears to be because some adolescents
perceive their parents to be highly attuned in general, despite the fact that those same
parents exhibited low levels of specific attuned behavior during a single discussion. In
the families where youth-reported attunement is high and observed attunement is low,
adolescents give their parents consistently high ratings on nearly every Child’s View
item. There are at least two explanations for this particular discrepancy.
One interpretation is that the discrepancy in reports emphasizes the unique
contribution of each type of reporter in regards to attunement. Independent observations
are valuable measures because observers are presumably impartial and consistent across
families. They can see the full interaction, including the adolescents’ expressed thoughts
and feelings that elicit the coded parental response. Observations, however, are not the
only useful source of information on a given behavior (Hair, et al., 2006; Jacobson,
1985). Observations provide information on whether parents are demonstrating specific
behaviors that are hypothesized to contribute to attunement, but observations are limited
to more overt behaviors and are situation-specific (in this case, specific to an important
situation: formal discussions of conflictual topics). Youth report may pick up on more
subtle elements of attunement and a variety of ways of expressing attunement across
situations. In this study, adolescents appear to perceive a general attunement that is
demonstrated across situations, including informal interactions, even if parents are not
demonstrating specific attuned behaviors in the observed discussions. It may be that
57
some parents have more trouble with the difficult task of remaining attuned during
conflictual discussions, and yet these same parents are generally attuned during calmer,
day-to-day situations. These parents would generate lower scores on the observed
attunement measures, but their children might still perceive them to be attuned in general.
Thus, it is possible that each report is accurate, in terms of what it is able to measure.
Adolescents’ report and observations generate a parallel pattern of results in relation to
adolescent outcomes. The opposite source of a lack of correlation (where adolescents
perceive their parents to be un-attuned despite parental demonstration of attuned
behaviors during the discussion) would be a larger concern for validity.
The other possible source of discrepancy in reports stems from a potential for
reporting biases in the youth report because adolescents are not independent, impartial
reporters. They may be reluctant to report negatively on their parents, or they may not be
aware of the full range of attunement in the way that the observers are. Their experiences
with parenting are limited mainly to their own family. Yet, even if we assume that
adolescent report is not completely objective, the adolescent’s perception of parenting
can be important to our understanding of how parenting relates to outcomes
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; DeCato et al, 2003; Glasgow, Dornbusch, Troyer, Steinberg, &
Ritter, 1997; Hair, et al, 2006)
Another way we examined validity of adolescents’ report and of observations was
by comparing adolescent global post-discussion ratings of “feeling understood” by each
parent to counts of observed attuned behaviors during the discussion, and to adolescents’
report of general attunement. The significant positive correlations between global ratings
58
of “feeling understood” and observed counts of specific attuned behaviors indicate that
adolescents and observers agreed, to some extent, on what was occurring in the specific
discussion situation. The significant positive correlations between ratings of “feeling
understood” and adolescents’ report of general attunement indicate that there is some
degree of consistency in adolescent reports. The potential relevance of each type of
measure is suggested by these correlations, and by the fairly consistent pattern of findings
across the two reporters, despite the lower power in analyses involving observations.
Parallel findings despite lack of inter-rater agreement is not unprecedented. Dornbusch
and colleagues (Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Mont-Reynaud, & Chen, 1990) also found
that even when adolescent report of family interactions disagreed with another reporter
(in this case, parent report), parallel patterns of relations existed between family
interactions and adolescent outcomes.
This study represents an initial attempt to measure attunement. Additional work
would clarify whether there is a purer measure of attunement than those employed here.
The specific behaviors identified in the observations are likely to be validating, but there
are still suppositions involved. Adolescent post-discussion ratings of feeling understood
provide a global rating for the whole discussion, but it is difficult to tell exactly how an
adolescent feels immediately after his or her parent uses a target behavior. In the current
study, adolescent report of general attunement on the Child’s View also provides
information about whether parents are successfully attuned. In future research, it would
be useful to use sequential coding to measure the adolescent’s response to a parent’s
behavior. Such research would make it possible to confirm whether the coded parent
59
behaviors are truly validating and responsive. Such research would also facilitate an
investigation of whether the immediate impact on the youth is relevant to outcomes, or
whether the impact of an accumulation of attuned behaviors is more relevant.
Reciprocal Effects
Reciprocal effects are a consideration in research on the relation between
parenting and child outcomes (Bell & Chapman, 1986; Sameroff & MacKenzie, 2003).
In the current study, attunement and adolescent problem behaviors are correlated
concurrently, preventing conclusions about the directionality of effects. Adolescent
problem behaviors could impact parental attunement by making it more difficult for
parents to be attuned, especially when adolescents are purposely trying to hide their
activities. Previous longitudinal studies have found bidirectional effects between
adolescent externalizing behaviors and parenting behaviors (Jang & Smith, 1997; Laird,
Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003). Youth who are engaging in problem behaviors may be
less likely to disclose their behaviors or feelings to their parents, making it more difficult
for parents to be attuned. These youth may also have a reporting bias such that they are
more likely to feel that their parents do not “get” them, regardless of what behaviors their
parents are using. Baumrind (1991a, p. 116) observes that substance abuse “typically
causes serious mutual estrangement between adolescents and their parents”. Some of the
more highly endorsed risk behavior items in this sample involved substance use. Future
research that assesses youth behavior at a later time-point, after parental attunement is
assessed, would help to clarify the direction of effects. Outcome studies from the
intervention literature that inspired this study indicate that improving parent attunement
60
behaviors leads to improvement in adolescent problem behaviors (Martinez & Forgatch,
2001; Wolchick et al., 1993; Wolchick et al., 2000). Pleck and Masciadrelli (2004) note
that such findings in intervention outcome studies offer valuable evidence regarding
directionality of effects.
Limitations of the Current Study
As discussed above, two limitations of the current study are the difficulties in
measuring attunement and the concurrent measurement of attunement and adolescent
outcomes. Another limitation is that the analyses do not consider psychological factors,
such as depression or ADHD, that could affect adolescent problem behavior or
adolescents’ report on parenting. Aggression and some problem behaviors have a high
rate of comorbidity with ADHD (Barkley, Edwards, Laneri, Fletcher, & Metevia, 2001).
Youth with ADHD have been found to perceive their parents to be more power-assertive
than comparison children, and youth with more depressive symptoms perceive their
parents to be less warm and more power assertive (Gerdes et al, 2007). This reporting
tendency in the outside literature could be due to a bias in adolescent report, or it could be
because parents of adolescents with ADHD or depressive symptoms actually do behave
differently toward their children. The use of observer-reported attunement measures
helps to account for the potential bias in adolescent reporting, by providing a comparison
measure of attunement that has less potential for bias.
Attrition between collection of marital conflict data and attunement data, and the
resulting smaller sample size, is another limitation. Attrition particularly affected the
sample size in analyses involving observational data. Power was still sufficient to detect
61
the main effects and the moderating effect in regressions. It appears that power was not
sufficient in the ANOVA that tested differences in aggression according to observed
attunement, which approached significance. As a result of attrition, the sample size
prevented analyses that consider youth sex or family ethnicity. Other studies have found
that parent-adolescent interactions have different, or larger main effects on adolescent
outcomes, depending on youth sex (Crossman, 2007; Fanti et al., 2008, Regnerus &
Luchies, 2006). Regarding moderating effects, Gordis and colleagues (1997) observed
moderating effects of marital conflict for sons, but not for daughters. Ethnicity could
affect which parenting behaviors are most valued or the manner in which parenting
behaviors are expressed (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2003). It is possible that the lack of
correlation between observations and adolescents’ report is related to a difference in the
way attunement is expressed in various ethnic groups. The adolescents may recognize
their parents’ attunement, but the behaviors specified in the coding system may not be
equally relevant for all ethnic groups. Future research would be strengthened by seeking
the involvement of individuals from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Two useful points for
involvement would be a) to ask families in various ethnic groups about how they
understand and express parental attunement, and 2) to involve a more diverse team of
coders.
Other limitations of the coding system are that youth behavioral reactions to
parental attuned behaviors were not coded, and the observations only provide information
on triadic interactions. As discussed above, a coding system that included sequential
coding of adolescent reactions to parent behaviors would provide information on whether
62
those behaviors have the assumed validating effect, and whether the adolescent’s
immediate reaction to parent behaviors is relevant to problem behavior. Future research
could also compare parent-adolescent interactions in triadic settings to their interactions
in dyadic settings. Observed parent adolescent interactions have been found to differ
depending on whether the other parent is present (Gjerde, 1986).
Strengths of the Current Study
The use of a multi-ethnic, community sample increases generalizability of the
findings. Observational data provide rich, objective information on actual family
processes, and adolescent report is increasingly recognized as a crucial perspective on
family life. The context for the observational data was a conflictual family discussion. A
parent’s ability to be attuned in in the midst of a conflictual discussion is especially
meaningful. Considering the separate relations of maternal and paternal attunement to
adolescent problem behavior, as well as the relations of the parenting unit to problem
behavior, provides a more detailed understanding of attuned parenting. The data provide
information on concrete parenting behaviors that, as part of an array of effective
parenting, could potentially help to protect against aggression and risk-taking, two
common concerns at this developmental stage. Therefore, the data have relevance for
interventions.
Next Steps
An important next step in this line of research is to use longitudinal data to
examine the relation of attunement and adolescent outcomes. The direction of influence
will be clarified if attunement is related to outcomes that are measured at a later time
63
point. As detailed above, a more nuanced understanding of parents’ attunement would be
achieved through research that examines the expression of and meaning of attunement in
specific ethnic groups, and the relation among attunement, adolescent behavior and
marital conflict for boys vs. girls and for intact families vs. divorced families. It would
also be helpful to learn more about the mechanisms by which attunement protects, such
as relationship quality or adolescent disclosure of information.
Clinical Implications
This study was inspired by clinical literature, especially literature regarding the
prevention of and intervention in externalizing behavior such as risk taking and
aggression. The findings are potentially relevant to the format of therapy. Adolescents
are often seen in individual therapy formats. The results reported here underscore the
importance of prevention/intervention work in a family format, as marital interactions
and parent-adolescent interactions can be important influences on adolescent aggression
and risk taking. Attunement is potentially protective, from either mothers or fathers. If
possible, it would be ideal to involve both parents in treatment, as adolescents with two
highly attuned parents reported lower levels of risk taking than adolescents with one
highly attuned parent.
As Forehand and Kotchick note, “to effectively treat problem behavior in children
and adolescents, clinicians must first conduct a careful assessment of the family climate”
(pg. 378). Parental attunement could be a worthwhile topic as part of a thorough
assessment of individual and family factors related to the presenting problem. Ideally,
clinicians can use both observation and adolescent report to learn about attunement in the
64
family. If the parents are not participating in therapy, it could still be useful to learn
about the adolescent’s perceptions of attunement, as their perceptions are related to
problem behavior.
The results may also be relevant to the behaviors targeted in sessions, when it is
possible for parents to attend. The data in this study were designed to isolate attunement
behaviors that are taught as components of existing intervention and prevention programs
(i.e., Dishion & Kavanaugh, 2003). The results complement the results of clinical
effectiveness studies (i.e., Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999; Martinez & Forgatch, 2001;
Weiss & Wolchik, 1998; Wolchik et al., 1993; Wolchik et al., 2000) that support the
inclusion of these behaviors in intervention and prevention programs. As indicated in the
manuals for some existing family therapies and parent-training programs (Dishion &
Kavanaugh, 2003; Forgatch, 1995; Wolchik, Sandler, Weiss, & Winslow, 2007),
clinicians can observe parent-adolescent interactions for validating and responsive
behavior. They can coach parents in how to use these communication behaviors, along
with the behaviors described in the Child’s View questionnaire, when talking to their
children. The results also indicate that even if parents are demonstrating attuned
behavior, a history of marital conflict may disrupt the benefits of that attunement. This is
one reason why a referral for marital therapy could help to improve adolescent behavior
(Forehand & Kotchick, 2002).
Summary and Conclusions
This project contributed to the parenting literature by focusing on parents’
attunement to their adolescent children. The current findings are consistent with previous
65
research that documents the negative relation between positive parenting practices and
youth problem behavior, with research on parenting constructs where there are
consistencies in the pattern of results for maternal and paternal attunement, and research
that finds differences in adolescent problem behavior in families with two highly attuned
parents vs. one or none. The findings extend the literature by examining a specific set of
parenting behaviors that had undergone little empirical examination in regards to
parenting adolescents. The study did not find evidence that mothers’ versus fathers’
attunement had a differential impact, with one important exception. The negative relation
between observed paternal attunement and aggression holds only in families with low
levels of marital conflict, a finding that expands upon previous research regarding the
impact of physical marital aggression on the relation between negative parenting directed
at younger children. In general, however, attunement is negatively related to adolescent
problem behaviors in families with high or low levels of marital conflict. These findings
complement outcome literature on parent-training intervention programs.
66
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile.
Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Amato, P.R. (1994). Father-child relations, mother-child relations, and offspring
psychological well-being in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 56, 1031-1042.
Amato, P. R. & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 61, 557-573.
Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269-1287.
Amato, P. R. & Sobolewski, J. M. (2004). The effects of divorce on fathers and children:
Nonresidential fathers and stepfathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The Role of the
Father in Child Development, 4
th
Ed. (pp. 341-367) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Anderson, S. A. & Sabatelli, R. M. (2003). Family Interaction: A Multigenerational
Developmental Perspective. Boston: A and B.
Aunola, K. & Nurmi, J. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem
behavior. Child Development, 76, 1144-1159.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Barber, B.K. & Rollins, B. C. (1990). Parent-Adolescent Relationships. Lanham, MD,
England: University Press of America.
Barnes, G. M. & Farrell, M. P. (1992). Parental support and control as predictors of
adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 54, 763-776.
Barkley, R. A., Edwards, G., Laneri, M., Fletcher, K., & Metevia, L. (2001). The
efficacy of problem-solving communication training alone, behavior management
training alone, and their combination for parent-adolescent conflict in teenagers
with ADHD and ODD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 926-
941.
67
Baumrind, D. (1991a). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In P.A.
Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions, (pp. 111-165). Hillsdale,
NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or brief
longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology, 22, 595-603.
Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental
Psychology, 17, 3-23.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development,
55, 83-96.
Belsky, J. & Vondra, J. (1985). Characteristics, consequences, and determinants of
parenting. In L. L’Abate (Ed.) The handbook of family psychology and therapy
(pp. 523-556). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Borkowski, J., Ramey, S., & Bristol-Power, M. (Eds.). (2002). Parenting and the child’s
world: Influences on intellectual, and social-emotional development. Mahway,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.
Branstetter, S. A. (2006). Parent-adolescent attachment, relationship qualities, and
monitoring: The influence on substance use and consequences (Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Denver, 2006).
Brener, N. D., Kann, L., McManus, T., Kinchen, S. A., Sundberg, E. C., & Ross, J. G.
(2002). Reliability of the 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey questionnaire.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 336-342.
Brinkmeyer, M. Y., & Eyberg, S. M. (2003). Parent-child interaction therapy for
oppositional children. In A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-based
psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 204-223)., New York: Guilford
Press.
Brody, G. H. & Forehand, R. (1993). Prospective associates among family form, family
processes, and adolescents’ alcohol and drug use. Behavioral Research Therapy,
31, 587-593.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
68
Buehler, C., Anthony, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Gerard, J., & Pemberton, S.
(1997). Interparental conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 233-247.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S., (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/
Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3
rd
Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Cohen, D. A. & Rice, J. C. (1995). A parent-targeted intervention for adolescent
substance use prevention: Lessons learned. Evaluation Review, 19, 159-180.
Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent-child relationship in the transition to adolescence:
Continuity and change in interaction, affect, and cognition. In R. Montemayor, G.
R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Advances in adolescent development: Vol 2.
From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 85-106). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H.
(2000). Contemporary parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American
Psychologist, 55, , 218-232.
Crossman, A. F. (2007). The parent-child relationship and substance use: A test of the
long-term mediating effects of self-esteem using data from the national
longitudinal study of adolescent health (Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State
University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences 68(4-A), 1675.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Children and marital conflict. New York:
Guilford.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent
advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 31-63.
Davies, P. T. & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An
emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411.
DeCato, N., Murphy, L., Donohue, B., Azrin, N.H., Teichner, G.A. & Crum, T. (2003).
Adolescents and their parents: A critical review of measures to assess their
satisfaction with one another. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 129-170.
Dishion, T. J., & Andrews, D. W. (1995). Preventing escalation in problem behaviors
with high-risk young adolescents: Immediate and 1-year outcomes. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 538-548.
69
Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., Kavanagh, K., & Soberman, L. H. (1996). Preventive
interventions for high-risk youth: The Adolescent Transitions Program. In B.
McMahon & R. D. Peters (Eds), Parenting and the child’s world: Influences on
intellectual, academic, and social-emotional development (pp. 231-249).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dishion, T.J., & Kavanagh, K. (2002). The Adolescent Transitions Program: A family-
centered prevention strategy for schools. In J. B. Reid, J. J. Snyder, & G. R.
Patterson (Eds), The Oregon model: Understanding and altering the delinquency
trajectory (pp. 257-272). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dishion, T. J., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). Intervening in adolescent problem behavior: A
Family-centered approach. New York: Guilford.
Dombrowski, S. C., Timmer, S. G., Blacker, S. G., & Urquiza, A. J. (2005). A positive
behavioural intervention for toddlers: Parent-Child Attunement Therapy. Child
Abuse Review, 14, 132-151.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P., Leiderman, P., Mont-Reynaud, R., & Chen, Z. (1990).
Family decision making and academic performance in a diverse high school
population. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 143-160.
Doumas, D., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1994). The intergenerational transmission of
aggression across three generations. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 157-175.
Duman, S. & Margolin, G. (2007). Parents’ aggressive influences and children’s
aggressive problem solutions with peers. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 36, 42-55.
Duman Serrano, S. & Margolin, G. (in preparation). Behavioral Parent Training that
Includes Relationship-Facilitating Techniques: Promising but Preliminary.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Eaton, et al. (2007). Youth risk behavior surveillance – United States, 2001. Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, 57, 1-131.
Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child
relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108-132.
Faber, A., & Mazlish, E. (1980). How to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will
talk. New York: Avon
70
Faber, A., & Mazlish, E. (2005). How to talk so teens will listen and listen so teens will
talk. New York: Collins.
Fanti, K. A., Henrich, C. C., Brookmeyer, K. A., & Kuperminc, G. P. (2008). Toward a
transactional model of parent-adolescent relationship quality and adolescent
psychological adjustment. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 252-276.
Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of
the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced
families: The role of disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123.
Feldman, S. S. & Weinberger, D. A. (1994). Self-restraint as a mediator of family
influences on boys’ delinquent behavior: A longitudinal study. Child
Development, 65, 195-211.
Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L., & Williams, M. (2004). Parental influences on adolescent
problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and Kerr. Child Development, 75, 781-796.
Forehand, R. & Kotchick, B. A. (2002). Behavioral parent training: Current challenges
and potential solutions. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 377-384.
Forehand, R., Wierson, M., Thomas, A. M., Armistead, L., Kempton, T., & Neighbors,
B. (1991). The role of family stressors and parent relationship on adolescent
functioning. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 30, 316-322.
Forgatch, M. S. (1995). Parenting through change. Eugene: Oregon Social Learning
Center.
Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (1999). Parenting through change: An effective
prevention program for single mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 67, 711-724.
Forgatch, M. & Patterson, G. (1989). Parents and adolescents living together part 2:
Family problem solving. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Franz, C. E., McClelland, D. C., Weinberger, J., & Peterson, C. (1994). Parenting
antecedents of adult adjustment: A longitudinal study. In C. Perris, W. A.
Arrindell, & M. Eisemann (Eds.), Parenting and Psychopathology (pp. 127-144).
New York: Wiley.
71
Gerdes, A. C., Hoza, B., Arnold, L. E., Hinshaw, S. P., Wells, K., Hechtman, L., et al.
(2007). Child and parent predictors of perceptions of parent-child relationship
quality. Journal of Attention Disorders, 11, 37-48.
Ginsberg, B. G. (1995). Parent-Adolescent Relationship Program (PARD): Relationship
enhancement therapy with adolescents and their families (fathers and sons).
Psychotherapy, 32, 108-112.
Ginnot, H. G. (1975). Between parent and teenager. New York: Avon.
Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The interpersonal structure of family interaction settings: Parent-
adolescent relations in dyads and triads. Developmental Psychology, 22, 297-304.
Glasgow, K. L., Dornbusch, S. M., Troyer, L., Steinberg, L., et al. (1997). Parenting
styles, adolescents’ attributions, and educational outcomes in nine heterogeneous
high schools. Child Development, 68, 507-529.
Goodman, S. H., Barfoot, B., Frye, A. A., & Belli, A. M. (1999). Dimensions of marital
conflict and children’s social problem-solving skills. Journal of Family
Psychology, 13, 33-45.
Gordis, E. B. (1999). Observed dyadic marital and triadic family conflict and child
internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60(2-B), 0854.
Gordis, E. B., Margolin, G., John, R. S. (1997). Marital aggression, observed parental
hostility, and child behavior during triadic family interaction. Journal of Family
Psychology, 11, 76-89.
Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leitch, C. J. (1983). The nature and importance of
attachment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 12, 373-386.
Gregory, R. J. (2004). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications.
Needham Heights, MA, US: Allyn & Bacon.
Grych, J. H. & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A
cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.
Grunbaum, J. A, et al. (2004, May 21). Youth Risk Behavior surveillance – United
States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53, SS-2, 1-119.
72
Guerney, B. G. (1991). Relationship enhancement program manual. Bethesda, MD:
National Institute of Relationship Enhancement.
Hair, E. C., Jager, J., & Garrett, S. B. (2002). Background for community-level work on
social competency: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors. Washington,
DC: Child Trends.
Hair, E. C., Moore, K., A., Garrett, S. B., Kinukawa, A., Lippman, L., & Michelson, E.
(2006). The Parent-Adolescent Relationship Scale. Adolescent & Family Health,
4, 12-25.
Harold, G. T., Fincham, F. D., Osborne, L. N., & Conger R. D. (1997). Mom and Dad
are at it again: Adolescent perceptions of marital conflict and adolescent
psychological distress. Developmental Psychology, 33, 333-350.
Harris, J. R. (2002). Beyond the nurture assumption: Testing hypotheses about the
child’s environment. In J. G. Borkowski, S. L. Ramey, & M. Rristol-Power (Eds.)
Parenting and the Child’s World: Influences on Academic, Intellectual, and
Social-Emotional Development. Monographs in parenting (pp 3-20). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harris, K. H., Furstenberg, F. F., & Marmer, J. K. (1998). Paternal involvement with
adolescents in intact families: The influence of fathers over the life course.
Demography, 35, 201-216.
Hetherington, M. A. & Stanley-Hagen, M. M. (1999). The effects of divorce and custody
arrangements on childresn’ behavior, development, and adjustment. In M. E.
Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development in “nontraditional” families (pp.
295-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Holigrocki, R. J., Kaminski, P. L. & Frieswyk, S. H. (1999). Introduction to the Parent-
Child Interaction Assessment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic. Special
Integrating Outcome Measurement with Clinical Practice: The FACE Recording
and Measurement System, 63, 413-428.
Hood, C. L. (2001). Antisocial behavior in youth: Influences and recommendations.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,
61(11-A), 4549.
Hutchings, J., & Lane, E. (2005). Parenting and the development and prevention of
child mental health problems. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18, 386-391.
73
Irvine, A. B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., Metzler, C. W., & Ary, D. V. (1999). The
effectiveness of a parenting skills program for parents of middle school students
in small communities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 811-
825.
Jacobson, N. (1985). Uses versus abuses of observational measures. Behavioral
Assessment, 7, 323-330.
Jang, S. J., & Smith, C. A. (1997). A test of reciprocal causal relationships among parent
supervision, affective ties, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 34, 307-336.
Jouriles, E. N., & Farris, A. M. (1992). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent parent-
son interactions. Behavior Therapy, 23, 355-374.
Jouriles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., Farris, A. M., Smith, D. A., et al. (1991). Marital
adjustment, parental disagreements about child rearing, and behavior problems in
boys: Increasing the specificity of the marital assessment. Child Development,
62, 1424-1433.
Kelly, J. B. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade
of review of research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 39, 963-973.
Kerr, M. & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they nknow it, and several forms
of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 366-380.
Kohut, H., Stepansky, P. E., & Goldberg, A. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Krishnakumar, A., & Buehler, C. (2000). Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors:
A meta-analytic review. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied
Family Studies, 49, 25-44.
Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents’ monitoring-
relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated
developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752-
768.
Lamb, M. E. & Lewis, C. (2004). The development and significance of father-child
relationships in two-parent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The Role of the Father
in Child Development, 4
th
Ed. (pp. 272-306) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
74
Lamb, M. E. & Tamis-Lemonda, C., S. (2004). The role of the father: An Introduction.
In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The Role of the Father in Child Development, 4
th
Ed. (pp.1-
31) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Langhinrichen-Rohling, J., & Vivan, D. (1994). The correlates of spouses’ incongruent
reports of marital aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 265-284.
Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loebver, M., Van Kammen, W. B., Farrington, D. P. (1991).
Initiation, escalation, desistance in justice offending and their correlates. The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 36-82.
Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562.
Mann, B. J., & MacKenzie, E. P. (1996). Pathways among marital functioning, parental
behaviors, and child behavior problems in school-age boys. Journal of Family
Psychology, 25, 183-191.
Margolin, G. (1981). The reciprocal relationship between marital and child problems. In
J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in Family Intervention, Assessment and Theory:
Vol. 2. (pp. 131-182). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Margolin, G. (1998). Effects of domestic violence on children. In P.K. Trickett & C. J.
Schellenbach (Eds.) Violence against children in the family and the community
(pp. 57-101) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Margolin, G. (2000a). Child’s View. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Margolin, G. (2000c). Family Issues Questionnaire. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California.
Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O’Brien, M. (1990). The Domestic Conflict
Index. Unpublished instrument, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Margolin, G., Chien, D., Duman, S. E., Fauchier, A., Gordis, E. B., Oliver, P. H., et al.
(2005). Ethical issues in couple and family research. Journal of Family
Psychology, 19, 157-167.
Margolin, G., Christensen, A., & John, R. S. (1996). The continuance and spillover of
everyday tensions in distressed and nondistressed families. Journal of Family
Psychology, 10, 304-321.
75
Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & Oliver, P. H. (2004). Links between marital and parent-
child interactions: Moderating role of husband-to-wife aggression. Development
and Psychopathology, 16, 753-771.
Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1997). Children’s exposure to marital aggression: Direct
and mediated effects. In G. K. Kantor & J. L. Jasinski (Eds.) Out of darkness:
Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 90-104). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Margolin, G., John, R. S., Ghosh, C., & Gordis, E. B. (1996). Family interaction process:
An essential tool for exploring abusive relations. In D. D. Cahn & S. A. Lloyd
(Eds.) Family violence from a communication perspective. (pp. 37-58).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Margolin, G., Oliver, P. H., Gordis, E. B., Garcia O’Hearn, H., Medina, A. M., Ghosh, C.
M., & Morland, L. (1998). The nuts and bolts of behavioral observation of
marital and family interaction. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1,
195-213.
Margolin, G., Oliver, P. H., & Medina, A. M. (2001). Conceptual issues in
understanding the relation between interparental conflict and child adjustment:
Integrating developmental psychopathology and risk/resilience perspectives. In J.
H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (2001). Interparental conflict and child development:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 9-38). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Martinez, C. R., & Forgatch, M. S. (2001). Preventing problems with boys’
noncompliance: Effects of a parent training intervention for divorcing mothers.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 416-528.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable
and unfavorable environments: Lessons learned from research on successful
children. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220.
Mccarty, C. A., Zimmerman, F. J., Digiuseppe, D. L., & Christakis, D. A. (2005).
Parental emotional support and subsequent internalizing and externalizing
problems among children. Developmental and behavioral pediatrics, 26, 267-
275.
McMahon, R., J., & Forehand, R. (2003). Helping the Noncompliant Child: Family-
based treatment for oppositional behavior (2
nd
ed.). New York: Guilford.
76
Miller, N. B., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W.
(1993). Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study
replication of a family model. Developmental Psychology, 29, 3-18.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Neighbors, B. D., Forehand, R., & Bau, J. (1997). Interparental conflict and relations
with parents as predictors of young adult functioning. Development and
Psychopathology, 9, 169-187.
Patterson, G. (1982). Coercive Family Processes. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Pleck, J. H. (1997). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E.
Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3
rd
ed., pp. 66-103).
New York: Wiley.
Pleck, J. H. & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential
fathers: Levels, Sources, and Consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.) The Role of the
Father in Child Development, 4
th
Ed. (pp. 222-271) Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Purcell, S. E. (2008). The parent-adolescent relationship, adolescents’ disclosure to
parents, and adolescent substance use (Doctoral Dissertation, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B:
The Sciences and Engineering, 68(7-B), 4842.
Regnerus, M. D. & Luchies, L. B. (2006). The parent-child relationship and
opportunities for adolescents’ first sex. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 159-183.
Repinski, D. J., & Shonk, S. M. (2002). Mothers’ and fathers’ behavior, adolescents’ self
representations,and adolescents’ adjustment: A mediational model. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 22(4), 357-383.
Rosenzweig, C. (2000). An analysis of parenting and school success: The role of parents
in promoting students’ academic performance. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61, 1636.
Sameroff, A. J. & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing
transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development
and Psychopathology. Special Issue: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical
issues in developmental psychopathology: A special issue in honor of Paul E.
Meehl, 15, 613-640.
77
Shrout, P. E. & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater
reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Melby, J. N. (1990). Husband and wife
differences in determinants of parenting: A social learning and exchange model of
parental behavior. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 52, 375-392.
Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in
interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-284.
Spies, L., Margolin, G., & Duman Serrano, S. (in preparation). Family aggression and
sensitization of cortisol reactivity to a conflictual family discussion.
Stattin, H. & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child
Development, 71, 1072-1085.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Dornbusch, S., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school
involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Steinberg, L. & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent Development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 83-110.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting: Vol. I: Children and parenting (2
nd
ed., pp. 103-133).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant. New York: Basic Books.
Stocker, C. M., & Youngblade, L. (1999). Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links
with children’s sibling and peer relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 13,
598-609.
Strand, P. S. (2000). Responsive parenting and child socialization: Integrating two
contexts of family life. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 269-281.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data.
Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
78
Teitelman, A. M., Ratcliffe, S. J., & Cederbaum, J. A. (2008). Parent-adolescent
communication about sexual pressure, maternal norms about relationship power,
and STI/HIV protective behaviors of minority urban girls. Journal of the
American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 14, 50-60.
Weiss, L., & Wolchik, S. (1998). New Beginnings: An empirically-based intervention
program for divorced mothers to help their children adjust to divorce. In J.
Briesmeister & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), Handbook of Parent Training: Parents as
co-therapists for children’s behavior problems, 2
nd
Ed. New York: Wiley.
Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In P.G. Boss, W.J.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of
family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 325-355). New York:
Plenum.
Westerman, M. A. (1990). Coordination of maternal directive with preschoolers’
behavior in compliance-problem and healthy dyads. Developmental Psychology,
26, 621-630.
Wolchik, S., Sandler, I., Weiss, L., & Winslow, E. (2007). New Beginnings: An
empirically-based program to help divorced mothers promote resilience in their
children. In J. M. Briemeister & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.) Handbook of parent
training: Helping parents prevent and solve problem behaviors, 3
rd
ed (pp. 25-
62). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wolchik, S., West, S., Sandler, I., Tein, J., Coatsworth, D., Lengua, L., et al. (2000). An
experimental evaluation of theory-based mother-child programs for children of
divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 843-856.
Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Westover, S., Sandler, I. N., Martin, A., Lustig, J., Tein, J.,
& Fisher, J. (1993). The Children of Divorce Parenting Intervention: Outcome
evaluation of an empirically based program. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 21, 293-331.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Arunkumar, R. (1994). Resiliency research: Implications for
schools and policy. Social Policy Report: Society for Research in Child
Development, 8, 1-18.
79
Appendix A. Summary of Attunement-Based Interventions
Intervention
(Authors)
Target Age
Group
Target Behaviors Methods Attunement Highlights Results of Outcome Studies
Adolescent
Training
Programs (ATP:
Dishion &
Kavanaugh, 2003)
Adolescents Prevention/ Intervention for
Risky/ Problem Behaviors
Tiers of Intervention
(school level, family
consults, short-term and
long-term family therapy,
parenting groups,
referral). Parenting
groups especially feature
attunement.
Rebuilds positive relationships
through techniques that enhance
parents’ awareness of their child’s
inner states; parents encouraged to
be more aware of their child’s overt
behaviors; In group sessions the
parents work on improving
relationship skills through
videotaped interactions and
feedback.
Parenting groups lead to a) reduction
in coercive interactions,
(independent observations & family
report) b) reduction on CBCL
externalizing (teacher report), c)
reduction in substance abuse. Groups
effective for preventing early-onset
substance use by high school for
typically-developing & high-risk
students. No variation in effects by
ethnicity or gender.
New Beginnings
(Weiss &
Wolchik, 1998)
8-15 year-olds
in outcome
study; can be
applied to all
ages.
Negative child outcomes
associated w/ divorce
10 weekly group
sessions and 2
individual sessions.
Children do not attend.
Five sessions devoted to
relationship enhancement through
enhancing listening skills, using
techniques from Relationship
Enhancement Therapy and
Forehand & McMahon’s (2003)
program, “Helping the
Noncompliant Child” designing
positive family activities and
reserving quality time with each
child.
Greater Parenting Competence,
discipline.
Increased communication quality,
positive routines, acceptance, and
decreased rejection.
Positive effects on children’s
mental health outcomes “Changes in
m-c relationship quality partially
mediated effects on children’s
mental health outcomes.”
Parenting
Through Change
(Forgatch, 2005)
Evaluated with
6-10 yrs olds
Applied with
All Ages,
including
Adolescents
Problem behaviors &
relationship problems in wake
of divorce (also prevention for
negative divorce-related
outcomes).
Parent Group, children
not present.
Includes sessions on
communicating with children and
recognizing their emotions;
homework includes positive time
doing crafts together, practicing
active listening, and talking to
children about their feelings.
Reduced coercive parenting,
prevented decay in positive
parenting relative to control (whose
positive parenting decreased and
coercive parenting increased), and
improved effective parenting.
Indirectly benefits child outcomes
through improved parenting.
Children were less aggressive and
distressed, increased school adaptive
functioning and reading level.
80
Appendix A, Continued
Intervention
(Authors)
Target Age
Group
Target Behaviors Methods Attunement Highlights Outcome Studies
“Parents and
Adolescents
Living Together”
(Forgatch &
Patterson, 1989).
Adolescents Prevention/ Intervention for
Risky Behaviors (Specifically
those that result in substance
abuse, academic problems,
teen pregnancy)
For use by clinicians or
for Parental Self-Help.
Enhancing parent-child
relationship &
communication, family
management, family
problem-solving.
Parents coached to a) listen
carefully b) ask clarifying questions
c) validate expressions d) try to
understand the adolescent’s
perspective & emotional state e)
match that emotional state, unless it
is hostile & f) show the adolescent
that they understand
Intervention is based on a body of
empirical work, but the self-help
book has not been evaluated in
outcome studies.
“How to Talk so
Teens Will Listen
and Listen so
Teens Will Talk”
(Faber and
Mazlish, 1980)
Adolescents Oppositional Behavior,
Parent-Child Arguments
Parental self-help,
parenting groups, or
clinicians who work with
individual parents
Parents coached on how to a)
understand & demonstrate
acceptance of youth’s feelings b)
listen to youth c) understand
youth’s experience d) acknowledge
feelings e) respond appropriately to
feelings, using the same range of
intensity as youth’s emotions f)
help youth feel understood.
Recent empirical work by Gottman
(2001) support’s Ginnot’s theories
about accepting emotions.
Relationship
Enhancement
Therapy (RE;
Accordino &
Guerney, 2001;
Guerney, 1991)
Adolescents
*also used for
adults and
couples
Prevention/ Intervention for
Risk Behaviors
* also used for adolescents w/
mental illness, substance
abuse
Therapy for individual
families
Goal: To create, strengthen, and
maintain interpersonal
relationships. 1st core skill is
“empathy” but goes beyond:
“helping others feel understood,
safe, and involved enough to
communicate openly, candidly, and
less defensively, while
simultaneously increasing
understanding of other people,
particularly their thoughts, feelings,
and wishes”
Case study with adolescent. Shown
effective w/ adult clients
81
Appendix A, Continued
Intervention
(Authors)
Target Age
Group
Target Behaviors Methods Attunement Highlights Outcome Studies
Parent-Adolescent
Relationship
Program (PARD;
Ginsberg, 1995)
Junior High,
High School
Prevention … Groups comprised of
parent-child pairs
Parents & adolescents learn more
effective ways of relating to each
other. Skills involve making the
best effort possible to understand
“the meaning and motivation of the
other person’s expression” & trying
to find ways to demonstrate
understanding & creating “an
atmosphere of trust and acceptance”
Case study
Parent-Child
Interaction
Therapy (PCIT,
Brinkmeyer &
Eyberg, 2003)
Preschoolers
(Also
successful w/
older children)
Disruptive/Oppositional
Behavior
Bug in parents’ ear
during play sessions;
Review of videotape and
feedback w/ parent
Goal of Stage 1: To create a secure
attachment by coaching parents to
be attuned; to “recognize and
respond warmly to (children’s)
emotional needs”
Program related to a) improvements
in child behavior when compared to
controls b) positive changes in
parents’ behavior including
reflective listening. Improvements
generalize to school and untreated
sibling in ethnically diverse client
population.
Parent-Child
Attunement
Therapy (PCAT;
Dombrowski et
al., 2004)
Toddlers Prevention of child behavior
problems and child abuse;
Intervention for weak parent-
child relationship.
Bug in parents’ ear
during play sessions;
Review of videotape and
feedback w/ parent
Goals: To a) strengthen caregiver’s
relationship with child, b) help the
caregiver learn appropriate ways to
deal with the child & c) make the
caregiver more accessible to child
Case study: Treatment enhanced
parental attunement.
82
Appendix B. Questionnaires
Family Issues Forms (Margolin, 2000c)
FAMILY ISSUES—Time 4 (YOUTH)
For each issue listed below, first indicate the amount of conflict you have with your mom, and then how much conflict you have with
your dad. For issues with a conflict rating other than ‘0’, please indicate how upset or bothered you are by the way your family deals
with this issue.
Issue Conflict with Mom Conflict with Dad Upset related to Issue
None Some A Lot None Some A Lot None Some A Lot
Family rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Spending time together as a family 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Use of phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Having meals together . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Eating habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Sleeping habits . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Being rude/talking back . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Work or schoolwork . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Keeping the house clean. . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Chores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Being late . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Disobeying . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
TV watching (choice of shows,
amount of time) . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Going out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Spending money. . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Annoying habits . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Videogames . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
83
Appendix B, Continued
Embarrassing one another . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Use of computer . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Issue Conflict with Mom Conflict with Dad Upset related to Issue
None Some A Lot None Some A Lot None Some A Lot
Not listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Disregard for others’ belongings . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Coming home late . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Need for privacy . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Appearance and clothes . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Use of car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Bad moods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Alcohol or drugs . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Smoking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Health habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Other ________________ . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
84
Appendix B, Continued
FAMILY ISSUES—Time 4 (Adult): For each issue listed below, first indicate the amount of conflict you have with your child, and
then how much conflict you and your spouse have about this issue with your child. For issues with a ‘conflict with child’ rating other
than ‘0’, please indicate how upset or bothered you are by this issue.
Conflict between You & Spouse
Conflict with Child About Issue with Child Upset related to Issue
None Some A Lot None Some A Lot None Some A Lot
Family rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Spending time together as a family 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Use of phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Having meals together . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Eating habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Sleeping habits . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Being rude/talking back . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Work or schoolwork . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Keeping the house clean. . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Conflict between You & Spouse
Conflict with Child About Issue with Child Upset related to Issue
Chores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Being late . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Disobeying . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
TV watching (choice of shows,
amount of time) . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Dating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Going out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Spending money. . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Annoying habits . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Videogames . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
85
Appendix B, Continued
Embarrassing one another . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Use of computer . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Conflict between You & Spouse
Conflict with Child About Issue with Child Upset related to Issue
None Some A Lot None Some A Lot None Some A Lot
Not listening . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Disregard for others’ belongings . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Coming home late . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Need for privacy . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Appearance and clothes . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Use of car . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Bad moods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Alcohol or drugs . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Smoking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Health habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Other ________________ . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
86
Appendix B, Continued
Domestic Conflict Index (Margolin, Burman, John, & O’Brien, 1990)
Domestic Conflict Index – 4
th
Year (9.04.02)
Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O’ Brien, M. (1990)
University of Southern California
No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree on major decisions, get annoyed
about something the other person does, or just have spats or fights because they’re in a bad mood, or tired, or
for some other reason. People have many different ways of expressing frustration, annoyance, or hostility with
one another. Attached you will find a list of some things that you and your partner may have done. You will find
that some of these items apply, while others do not. Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem
extreme.
Please indicate how frequently each behavior occurred within the last year. If a behavior occurred within the last year, indicate whether or not it
happened in front of your child (to the best of your knowledge).
From one year ago until today...
Have you: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per year 2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
1. screamed or yelled at your spouse
2. insulted or swore at your spouse
3. damaged a household item, or some part of your home, out of anger
towards your spouse
4. withheld affection from your spouse
5. deliberately disposed of or hid an important item of your spouse’s
6. sulked or refused to talk about an issue
7. monitored your spouse’s time and made him or her account for where
he/she was
8. made plans that left your spouse feeling excluded
87
Appendix B, Continued
9. left your spouse and were unsure whether you were going to return
10. been angry if your spouse told you that you were using too much alcohol
or drugs
11. been very upset if dinner, housework, or home repair work was not done
when you thought it should be
12. done or said something to spite your spouse
13. been jealous and suspicious of your spouse’s friends
14. purposely hurt your spouse’s pet
15. purposely damaged or destroyed your spouse’s clothes, car, and/or other
personal possessions
From one year ago until today...
Have you: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
16. insulted or shamed your spouse in front of others
17. locked your spouse out of the house
18. told your spouse that he/she could not work, go to school, or go to other
self-improvement activities
19. tried to prevent your spouse from seeing/talking to family or friends
20. had an extramarital affair
21. restricted your spouse’s use of the car or telephone
22. made threats to leave the relationship
23. blamed your spouse for your problems
24. tried to turn family, friends, or children against your spouse
25. ordered your spouse around
26. been insensitive to your spouse’s feelings
27. frightened your spouse
88
Appendix B, Continued
From one year ago until today...
Have you: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
28. treated your spouse like he/she was stupid
29. given your spouse the silent treatment/cold shoulder
30. criticized your spouse
31. called your spouse names
32. stomped out of the room, house, or yard
33. stayed away from the house
34. ridiculed your spouse
35. physically twisted your spouse’s arm
36. threatened to hit your spouse or throw something at him/her in anger
37. pushed, grabbed, or shoved your spouse
38. slapped your spouse
39. physically forced sex on your spouse
40. burned your spouse
41. shaken your spouse
42. thrown, smashed, hit, or kicked something
From one year ago until today...
Have you: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
43. prevented your spouse from getting medical care that
he/she needed
44. thrown or tried to throw your spouse bodily
45. thrown an object at your spouse
46. choked or strangled your spouse
47. kicked, bit or hit your spouse with a fist
48. hit your spouse, or tried to hit your spouse, with something
49. beat up your spouse (multiple blows)
50. threatened your spouse with a knife or gun
89
Appendix B, Continued
51. used a knife or a gun on your spouse
52. used humiliation to make your spouse have sex
53. used threats to make your spouse have sex
54. coerced your spouse to engage in sexual practices he/she did not want
55. slammed your spouse against the wall
56. physically prevented your spouse from leaving an argument or blocked
his/her exit
57. showed your spouse that you cared even though the two of you disagreed
58. showed respect for your partner’s feelings about an issue
59. suggested a compromise to a disagreement
60. agreed to a solution your partner suggested
61. took responsibility for your part in a problem
Spouse Report – 3
rd
Year
In this section, you will answer the same types of questions about your spouse. Again, you will find that some of these items apply, while others
do not. Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem extreme.
From one year ago until today...
Has your spouse: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per year 2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
1. screamed or yelled at you
2. insulted or swore at you
3. damaged a household item, or some part of your home, out of anger towards
you
4. withheld affection from you
5. deliberately disposed of or hid an important item of yours
6. sulked or refused to talk about an issue
90
Appendix B, Continued
From one year ago
until today...
Has your spouse: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per year 2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
7. monitored your time and made you account for where you were
8. made plans that left you feeling excluded
9. left you and (you) were unsure whether he/she was going to
return
10. been angry when you told him/her that he/she was using too
much alcohol or drugs
11. been very upset if dinner, housework, or home repair work was
not done when he/she thought it should be
12. done or said something to spite you
13. been jealous and suspicious of your friends
14. purposely hurt your pet
15. purposely damaged or destroyed your clothes, car, and/or other
personal possessions
16. insulted or shamed you in front of others
18. told you that you could not work, go to school, or go to other
self-improvement activities
19. tried to prevent you from seeing/talking to family or friends
20. had an extramarital affair
21. restricted your use of the car or telephone
22. made threats to leave the relationship
23. blamed you for his/her problems
24. tried to turn family, friends, or children against you
25. ordered you around
91
Appendix B, Continued
From one year ago
until today...
Has your spouse: 0 per
year
1 per
year
2-5 per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4 per
month
>1 per
week
26. been insensitive to your feelings
27. frightened you
28. treated you like you were stupid
29. given you the silent treatment/cold shoulder
30. criticized you
31. called you names
32. stomped out of the room, house, or yard
33. stayed away from the house
34. ridiculed you
35. physically twisted your arm
36. threatened to hit you, or throw something at you, in anger
37. pushed, grabbed, or shoved you
38. slapped you
39. physically forced sex on you
40. burned you
41. shaken you
42. thrown, smashed, hit, or kicked something
43. prevented you from getting medical care that you needed
44. thrown, or tried to throw you, bodily
45. thrown an object at you
92
Appendix B, Continued
Has your spouse: 0 per
year
1
per
year
2-5
per
year
6-12 per
year
2-4
per
month
>1
per
week
46. choked or strangled you
47. kicked, bit or hit you with a fist
48. hit you, or tried to hit you, with something
49. beat you up (multiple blows)
50. threatened you with a knife or gun
51. used a knife or a gun on you
52. used humiliation to make you have sex
53. used threats to make you have sex
54. coerced you to engage in sexual practices you did not want
55. slammed you against the wall
56. physically prevented you from leaving an argument or blocked your exit
57. showed you that he/she cared even though the two of you disagreed
58. showed respect for your feelings about an issue
59. suggested a compromise to a disagreement
60. agreed to a solution you suggested
61. took responsibility for his/her part in a problem
93
Appendix B, Continued
Child’s View (Margolin, 2000a)
Gayla Margolin, Ph.D.
USC Family Studies Project
@ 2000 All rights reserved
ID#_________ Child's View (Attunement) Report on Mom- Year 4
Never Rarely Sometimes UsuallyAlways
1. My mom praises me if I do something nice around the house
2. My mom notices if I'm upset about something
3. My mom talks to me about my day at school
4. I can talk to my mom about something important when I want to
5. My mom embarrasses me in front of my friends
6. My mom knows if I am not feeling well physically
7. My mom knows how to cheer me up
8. My mom gives me enough privacy
9. My mom listens when I talk to her
10. My mom is so embarrassing that I prefer not to have friends come
over
11. I get the love and attention that I need from my mom
12. My mom shows interest in my hobbies and activities.
13. I get upset more than my mom knows
14. My mom understands me.
15. My mom doesn’t understand what I’m going through
16. My mom knows when to give me space
94
Appendix B, Continued
17. My mom respects my feelings
18. Talking over problems with my mom makes me feel ashamed
19. My mom respects my opinion
20. My mom tries to understand me even if she’s not successful
3.2006
95
Appendix B, Continued
Gayla Margolin, Ph.D.
USC Family Studies Project
@ 2000 All rights reserved
ID#_________ Child’s View (Attunement) Report on Dad- Year 4
Never Rarely Sometimes UsuallyAlways
1. My dad praises me if I do something nice around the house
2. My dad notices if I'm upset about something
3. My dad talks to me about my day at school
4. I can talk to my dad about something important when I want to
5. My dad embarrasses me in front of my friends
6. My dad knows if I am not feeling well physically
7. My dad knows how to cheer me up
8. My dad gives me enough privacy
9. My dad listens when I talk to him
10. My dad is so embarrassing that I prefer not to have friends come over
11. I get the love and attention that I need from my dad
12. My dad shows interest in my hobbies and activities.
13. I get upset more than my dad knows
14. My dad understands me.
15. My dad doesn’t understand what I’m going through
16. My dad knows when to give me space
96
Appendix B, Continued
Never Rarely Sometimes UsuallyAlways
17. My dad respects my feelings
18. Talking over problems with my dad makes me feel ashamed
19 My dad respects my opinion
20 My dad tries to understand me even if he’s not successful
97
Appendix B, Continued
Parent’s View (Margolin, 2000b)
Gayla Margolin, Ph.D.
USC Family Studies Project
@ 2000 All rights reserved
ID#_________ Parent’s View- Attunement Scale
1. I praise my child if she/he does something nice around the house Never Rarely Sometimes UsuallyAlways
2. I notice if my child is upset about something
3. I talk to my child about her/his day at school
4. My child can talk to me about something important when
she/he wants to
5. I embarrass my child in front of her/his friends
6. I know if my child is not feeling well physically
7. I (and/or my spouse) know how to cheer up my child
8. I give my child enough privacy
9. I listen when my child talks to me
10. My child is so embarrassed by our family that she/he doesn’t
want to have friends come over
11. My child gets the love and attention s/he needs from the family.
12. I get involved in my child’s hobbies and activities.
98
Appendix B, Continued
Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Grunbaum et al., 2004)
Note: Items in bold were used in the calculation of the scale score for the current study.
A. How do you describe your health in general?
A. Excellent
B. Very good
C. Good
D. Fair
E. Poor
F. Very Poor
2. How many times have you EVER skipped class, classes, or a whole day of school without your parent’s permission?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
3. In the past year, how many times did you skip class, classes, or a whole day of school without your parent’s permission?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
4. How many times have you EVER cheated on tests?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
99
Appendix B, Continued
5. In the past year, how many times did you cheat on tests?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
6. How many times have you EVER purposely taken something from a store without paying?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
7. In the past year, how many times did you purposely take something from a store without paying?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
8. How many times have you EVER taken things without asking, from other kids, teachers, or other adults at school?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
100
Appendix B, Continued
9. In the past year, how many times did you take things without asking, from other kids, teachers or other adults at school?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
10. How often do you wear a seat belt when riding in a car driven by someone else?
A. Never
B. Rarely
C. Occasionally
D. Sometimes
E. Most of the time
F. Always
11. Have you EVER ridden in a car or other vehicle driven by a friend or acquaintance who had been drinking alcohol?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 5 Times
E. 6 to 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
12. If you answered more than 0 for the previous question, in the past year, how many times did you ride in a car or other vehicle driven
by a friend or acquaintance who had been drinking alcohol?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 5 Times
E. 6 to 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
101
Appendix B, Continued
13. Have you EVER driven a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 5 Times
E. 6 to 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
14. If you answered more than 0 for the previous question, in the past year, how many times did you drive a car or other vehicle when
you had been drinking alcohol?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 5 Times
E. 6 to 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
15. During your life, on how many days have you had at least one drink of alcohol?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 10 to 19 days
E. 20 to 39 days
F. 40 or more days
16. If you answered more than 0 for the previous question, in the last year, on how many days have you had at least one drink of
alcohol?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 10 to 19 days
E. 20 to 39 days
F. 40 or more days
102
Appendix B, Continued
17. In the last 30 days, on how many days have you had at least one drink of alcohol?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 6 to 9 days
E. 10 to 19 days
F. 20 to 29 days
G. All 30 days
18. How old were you when you had your first drink of alcohol other than a few sips?
A. I have never had a drink of alcohol other than a few sips
B. 8 years old or younger
C. 9 or 10 years old
D. 11 or 12 years old
E. 13 or 14 years old
F. 15 or 16 years old
G. 17 years or older
19. On how many days have you EVER had 5 or more drinks of alcohol in one day?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 10 to 19 days
E. 20 to 39 days
F. 40 or more days
20. If you answered more than 0 days for the previous question, during the past year, on how many days did you have 5 or more drinks
of alcohol in one day?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 10 to 19 days
E. 20 to 39 days
F. 40 or more days
103
Appendix B, Continued
21. Have you EVER tried cigarette smoking, even one or two puffs?
A. Yes
B. No
22. On how many days have you EVER smoked at least one cigarette?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 10 to 19 days
E. 20 to 39 days
F. 40 or more days
23. In the last year, on how many days did you smoke at least one cigarette?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 10 to 19 days
E. 20 to 39 days
F. 40 or more days
24. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 5 days
D. 6 to 9 days
E. 10 to 19 days
F. 20 to 29 days
G. All 30 days
104
Appendix B, Continued
25. On how many days have you EVER used chewing tobacco, snuff, or dip, such a Redman, Levi Garrett, Beechnut, Skoal, Skoal Bandits, or
Copenhagen?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 10 to 19 days
E. 20 to 39 days
F. 40 or more days
26. On how many days have you EVER smoked cigars, cigarillos, or little cigars?
A. 0 days
B. 1 or 2 days
C. 3 to 9 days
D. 10 to 19 days
E. 20 to 39 days
F. 40 or more days
The next 4 questions ask about marijuana use. Marijuana is also called grass, pot, or weed.
27. During your life, how many times have EVER you used marijuana?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 to 99 Times
G. 100 or more times
28. How old were you when you tried marijuana for the first time?
A. I have never tried marijuana
B. 8 years old or younger
C. 9 or 10 years old
D. 11 or 12 years old
E. 13 or 14 years old
F. 15 or 16 years old
G. 17 years or older
105
Appendix B, Continued
29. If you have used marijuana in the past, in the past year, how many times did you use marijuana?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
30. If you answered more than 0 Times for the previous question, during the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana?
A. 0 Times
B.1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
31. During your life, how many times have you EVER used ecstasy (also called MDMA)?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
32. If you answered more than 0 times for the previous question. during the past year, how many times have you used ecstasy?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
106
Appendix B, Continued
33. If you answered more than 0 Times for the previous question, during the past 30 days, how many times have you used ecstasy?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
` F. 40 or more Times
34. During your life, how many times have you used any other illegal drugs, including any form of cocaine (powder, crack, freebase, etc.), sniffing
glue, heroin (aka smack, junk, or China white), methamphetamines ( aka speed, crystal, crack, or ice), and steroid pills or shots?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
35. How many times have you EVER taken prescription drugs to get high (not for medical purposes)?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
107
Appendix B, Continued
36. If you answered more than 0 times for the previous question, in the past year, how many times have you taken prescription drugs
(not for medical purposes) to get high?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
37. How many times have you EVER taken prescription drugs (not for medical purposes) along with alcohol or other drugs to get high?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 or more Times
38. If you answered more than 0 times for the previous question, in the past year, how many times have you taken prescription drugs
(not for medical purposes) along with alcohol or other drugs to get high?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 or 2 Times
C. 3 to 9 Times
D. 10 to 19 Times
E. 20 to 39 Times
F. 40 ore more Times
39. On how many days have you EVER carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club?
A. 0 days
B. 1 day
C. 2 or 3 days
D. 4 or 5 days
E. 6-10 days
F. More than 10 days
108
Appendix B, Continued
40. If you answered more than 0 days for the previous question, on how many days, in the past year, have you carried a weapon such as
a gun, knife, or club?
A. 0 days
B. 1 day
C. 2 or 3 days
D. 4 or 5 days
E. 6-10 days
F. More than 10 days
41. How many times have you EVER been in a physical fight?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 to 4 Times
D. 5 to 10 Times
E. 11 to 20 Times
F. More than 20 Times
42. If you answered more than 0 times for the previous question, in the past year, how many times have you been in a physical fight?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 to 4 Times
D. 5 to 10 Times
E. 11 to 20 Times
F. More than 20 Times
43. During the past 12 months, how many times has a boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or physically hurt you on purpose?
A. Haven’t had a boyfriend or girlfriend
B. 0 Times
C. 1 Time
D. 2 to 4 Times
E. 5 to 10 Times
F. 11 to 20 Times
G. More than 20 Times
109
Appendix B, Continued
44. During your life, how many times has a person EVER initiated unwanted sexual advances towards you?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 to 6 Times
E. 7 to 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
45. If you answered more than 0 Times to the previous question, during the last year, how many times has a person initiated unwanted sexual
advances towards you?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 6 Times
E. 7 to 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
46. During your life, how many times has a person EVER forced you to do anything sexual you did not want to do?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 6 Times
E. 7 to 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
47. If you answered more than 0 Times for the previous question, during the last year, how many times has a person forced you to do anything
sexual you did not want to do?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 6 Times
E. 7 or 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
110
Appendix B, Continued
48. During your life, with how many people have you had sexual intercourse (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex)?
A. None
B. 1 person
C. 2 persons
D. 3 persons
E. 4 to 5 persons
F. 6 or more persons
49. If you answered more than ‘None’ for the previous question, during the last year, with you many people have you had sexual
intercourse (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex)?
A. None
B. 1 person
C. 2 persons
D. 3 persons
E. 4 to 5 persons
F. 6 or more persons
50. During your life, how many times have you EVER used alcohol or drugs before you had sexual intercourse (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex)?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 6 Times
E. 7 or 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
51. If you answered more than 0 Times for the previous questions, during the last year, how many times did you use alcohol or drugs
before you had sexual intercourse (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex)?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 6 Times
E. 7 or 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
111
Appendix B, Continued
52. During your life, how many times have you EVER had sex (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex) without using a male condom?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 6 Times
E. 7 or 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
53. If you answered more than 0 Times for the previous question, during the last year, how many times have you had sex (intercourse,
oral sex, anal sex) without using a male condom?
A. 0 Times
B. 1 Time
C. 2 or 3 Times
D. 4 or 6 Times
E. 7 or 10 Times
F. More than 10 Times
112
Appendix B, Continued
Youth Self Report of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991)
Note: Items in bold were used in the calculation of the scale score for the current study.
Below is a list of items that describe kids. For each item that describes you now or within the past 6 months, please circle the 2 if the item is very
true or often true of you. Circle 1 if the item is somewhat or sometimes true of you. If the item is not true of you, circle 0.
0= Not True 1= Somewhat or Sometimes True 2= Very True of Often True
0 1 2 1. I act too young for my age 0 1 2 40. I hear sounds or voices that other people
think aren’t there (describe):
_______________________________
0 1 2 2. I have an allergy:
Describe:________________
0 1 2 41. I act without stopping to think
0 1 2 3. I argue a lot 0 1 2 42. I would rather be alone than with others
0 1 2 4. I have asthma 0 1 2 43. I lie or cheat
0 1 2 5. I act like the opposite sex 0 1 2 44. I bite my fingernails
0 1 2 6. I like animals 0 1 2 45. I am nervous or tense
0 1 2 7. I brag a lot 0 1 2 46. Parts of my body twitch or make nervous
movements (describe): _________________
0 1 2 8. I have trouble concentrating or paying
attention
0 1 2 47. I have nightmares
0 1 2 9. I can’t get my mind off certain thoughts
(describe): _________________________
0 1 2 48. I am not liked by other kids
0 1 2 10. I have trouble sitting still 0 1 2 49. I can do certain things better than most
kids
0 1 2 11. I’m too dependent on adults 0 1 2 50. I am too fearful or anxious
0 1 2 12. I feel lonely 0 1 2 51. I feel dizzy
0 1 2 13. I feel confused or in a fog 0 1 2 52. I feel too guilty
0 1 2 14. I cry a lot 0 1 2 53. I eat too much
0 1 2 15. I am pretty honest 0 1 2 54. I feel overtired
0 1 2 16. I am mean to others 0 1 2 55. I am overweight
0 1 2 17. I daydream a lot 56. Physical problems without known medical
cause
0 1 2 19. I try to get a lot of attention 0 1 2 a. Aches or pains (not stomach or headache)
0 1 2 20. I destroy my own things 0 1 2 b. Headaches
0 1 2 21. I destroy things belonging to others 0 1 2 c. Nausea, feel sick
113
Appendix B, Continued
0 1 2 22. I disobey my parents 0 1 2 d. Problems with eyes (not if corrected by
glasses) (describe): ____________________
0 1 2 23. I disobey at school 0 1 2 e. Rashes or other skin problems
0 1 2 24. I don’t eat as well as I should 0 1 2 f. Stomachaches or cramps
0 1 2 25. I don’t get along with other kids 0 1 2 g. Vomiting, throwing up
0 1 2 26. I don’t feel guilty after doing something I
shouldn’t
0 1 2 h. Other (describe): ____________________
0 1 2 27. I am jealous of others 0 1 2 57. I physically attack people
0 1 2 28. I am willing to help others when they need
help
0 1 2 58. I pick my skin or other parts of my body
(describe): ___________________________
0 1 2 29. I am afraid of certain animals, situations,
or places, other than school
(describe):____________
0 1 2 59. I can be pretty friendly
0 1 2 30. I am afraid of going to school 0 1 2 60. I like to try new things
0 1 2 31. I am afraid I might think or do something
bad
0 1 2 61. My school work is poor
0 1 2 32. I feel that I have to be perfect 0 1 2 62. I am poorly coordinated or clumsy
0 1 2 33. I feel that no one loves me 0 1 2 63. I would rather be with older kids than with
kids my own age
0 1 2 34. I feel that others are out to get me 0 1 2 64. I would rather be with younger kids than
with kids my own age
0 1 2 35. I feel worthless or inferior 0 1 2 65. I refuse to talk
0 1 2 36. I accidentally get hurt a lot 0 1 2 66. I repeat certain acts over and over
(describe):__________________________
0 1 2 37. I get in many fights 0 1 2 67. I run away from home
0 1 2 38. I get teased a lot 0 1 2 68. I scream a lot
0 1 2 39. I hang around with kids who get in trouble 0 1 2 69. I am secretive or keep things to myself
0 1 2 70. I see things that other people think aren’t
there (describe):_______________________
0 1 2 92. I like to make others laugh
0 1 2 71. I am self conscious or easily embarrassed 0 1 2 93. I talk too much
0 1 2 72. I set fires 0 1 2 94. I tease others a lot
0 1 2 73. I can work well with my hands 0 1 2 95. I have a hot temper
0 1 2 74. I show off or clown 0 1 2 96. I think about sex too much
0 1 2 75. I am shy 0 1 2 97. I threaten to hurt people
114
Appendix B, Continued
0 1 2 76. I sleep less than most kids 0 1 2 98. I like to help others
0 1 2 77. I sleep more than most kids during day
and or night (describe): _________________
0 1 2 99. I am too concerned about being neat or
clean
0 1 2 78. I have a good imagination 0 1 2 100. I have trouble sleeping (describe):
____________________________________
0 1 2 79. I have a speech problem (describe):
____________________________________
0 1 2 101. I cut classes or skip school
0 1 2 80. I stand up for my rights 0 1 2 102. I don’t have much energy
0 1 2 81. I steal at home 0 1 2 103. I am unhappy, sad, or depressed
0 1 2 82. I steal from places other than home 0 1 2 104. I am louder than other kids
0 1 2 83. I store up things I don’t need (describe):
____________________________________
0 1 2 105. I use alcohol or drugs for nonmedical
purposes (describe): ____________________
0 1 2 84. I do things other people thing are strange
(describe): ___________________________
0 1 2 106. I try to be fair to others
0 1 2 85. I have thoughts that other people would
think are strange (describe): _____________
____________________________________
0 1 2 107. I enjoy a good joke
0 1 2 86. I am stubborn 0 1 2 108. I like to take life easy
0 1 2 87. My moods or feelings change suddenly 0 1 2 109. I try to help other people when I can
0 1 2 88. I enjoy being with other people 0 1 2 110. I wish I were of the opposite sex
0 1 2 89. I am suspicious 0 1 2 111. I keep from getting involved with others
0 1 2 90. I swear or use dirty language 0 1 2 112. I worry a lot
115
Appendix C: Intercorrelations Among Demographics, Predictor Variables and Outcome Variables.
Table C1: Intercorrelations among demographics, predictor variables and outcome variables, girls and boys combined.
1
(73)
2
(71)
3
(55)
4
(54)
5
(70)
6
(55)
7
(54)
8
(73)
9
(73)
10
(73)
11
(69)
12
(68)
1. Marital Conflict --
2. Reported Maternal
Attunement (A)
-.30**
3. Observed Maternal
Attunement (O)
-.05
.12
4. Post-Discussion:
Feeling Understood by
Mother (A)
-.25*
.18
.26*
5. Reported Paternal
Attunement (A)
-.26*
.67**
-.12
.08
6. Observed Paternal
Attunement (O)
-.09
.20
.24*
-.21
b
.20
7. Post-Discussion:
Feeling Understood by
Father (A)
-.06
.23a
.16
.31*
.34**
.36**
8. Adolescent Risky
Behavior (A)
.02
-.34**
-.30*
-.08
-.27*
-.27*
-.34**
9. Adolescent
Aggression (A)
.11
-.31** .03 -.04
-.43** -.27*
-.15
.44**
10. Adolescent Age -.18
b
-.06 -.14 .01 -.06 -.10 -.27* .15 .09
11. Mother Education .19
a
-.03 .32** .07 .07 -.07 .10 -.28* -.07 -.07
12. Father Education .05
.07
.35*
.17
.15
.12
.26*
-.29** -.17 -.03 .56**
13. Family Income .21* -.18 .19 -.20 -.09 .14 .01 -.06 .16 -.04 .40** .53**
Notes:. N for each variable is indicated in parentheses at top of column. A = Adolescent Report, O= Observations. Correlations involving
observed attunement and adolescent ratings of in-discussion attunement only include the 55 families who had both parents present for the triadic
discussion. Cells in bold type indicate correlations among reporters on the same parent. Adolescent report is based on 20 items; Parent report is
based on 12 items. One-tailed ** p < .01; * p < .05;
a
p < .06;
b
p < .07
116
Appendix C, Continued
Table C2. Intercorrelations among demographics, predictor variables and outcome variables for girls.
1
(34)
2
(33)
3
(26)
4
(25)
5
(32)
6
(26)
7
(25)
8
(34)
9
(34)
10
(34)
11
(33)
12
(32)
1. Marital Conflict --
2. Reported Maternal
Attunement (A)
-.22
3. Observed Maternal
Attunement (O)
.10
-.03
4. Post-Discussion:
Feeling Understood
by Mother (A)
-.23
-.21
.22
5. Reported Paternal
Attunement (A)
-.28
.68**
-.24
-.03
6. Observed Paternal
Attunement (O)
.04
.31b
.18
-.28
.21
7. Post-Discussion:
Feeling Understood
by Father (A)
.13
.12
-.09
.24
.33
.28
8.Adolescent Risky
Behavior (A)
.04
-.44**
-.38*
-.05
-.18
-.30
b
-.15
9. .Adolescent
Aggression (A)
.19 -.41** -.07 .04 -.45** -.20 .03
10. Adolescent Age -.03 -.17 .05 .09 -.16 -.52** -.37** .06
11. Mother Education .06 .18 .35* .02 .20 -.07 .20 -.39* -.22 -.02
12. Father Education .04 .27 .33 .29 .30
a
.16 .35* -.41* -.22 -.08 .57**
13. Family Income .21 .25 .36* -.11 .10 .38* .13 -.39* -.16 -.34* .41** .72**
Notes: N for each variable is indicated in parentheses at top of each column. A = Adolescent Report, O = Observations. Correlations involving
observed attunement and adolescent ratings of in-discussion attunement only include the 26 families who had both parents present for the triadic
discussion. Cells in bold type indicate correlations among reporters on the same parent. Adolescent report is based on 20 items; Parent report is
based on 12 items. One-tailed ** p < .01; * p < .05;
a
p < .06;
b
p < .07.
117
Appendix C, Continued
Table C3. Intercorrelations among demographics, predictor variables and outcome variables for boys.
1
(39)
2
(38)
3
(29)
4
(29)
5
(38)
6
(29)
7
(29)
8
(39)
9
(39)
10
(39)
11
(36)
12
(36)
1. Marital Conflict --
2. Reported Maternal
Attunement (A)
-.35*
3. Observed Maternal
Attunement (O)
-.25
.18
4. Post-Discussion:
Feeling Understood
by Mother (A)
-.27
.35*
.28
b
5. Reported Paternal
Attunement (A)
-.23
.68**
.02
.17
6. Observed Paternal
Attunement (O)
-.25
.09
.24
-.18
.18
7. Post-Discussion:
Feeling Understood
by Father (A)
-.22
.26
.37*
.34*
.37*
.42*
8. Adolescent Risky
Behavior (A)
.00
-.27*
-.27
-.14
.36*
-.31
a
-.58**
9. Adolescent
Aggression (A)
.05
-.28*
.06
-.12
-.44**
-.40*
-.30
a
.44**
10. Adolescent Age -.28*
-.02
-.32*
-.04
-.01
.18
-.23
.20
.00
11. Mother Education .37*
-.29*
.27
.13
-.13
-.09
.00
-.17
.07
-.13
12. Father Education .06
-.17
.36*
.05
-.06
.03
.17
-.15
-.14
.01
.53**
13. Family Income .21
-.45**
-.06
-.25
-.24
-.04
-.07
.13
.35*
.10
.42**
.40**
Notes: N for each variable is indicated in parentheses at top of column. A = Adolescent Report, O= Observations. Correlations involving observed
attunement and adolescent ratings of in-discussion attunement only include the 29 families who had both parents present for the triadic
discussion. Cells in bold type indicate correlations among reporters on the same parent. Adolescent report is based on 20 items; Parent report is
based on 12 items. One-tailed ** p < .01; * p < .05;
a
p < .06.
118
Appendix D. Graphical Representation of Interaction Using Hypothetical Values.
Figure 5. Marital conflict as moderator of link between observed paternal attunement and adolescent aggression, using hypothetical
values.
7.4
7.45
7.5
7.55
7.6
7.65
7.7
7.75
7.8
-1 0 1
Father Attunement,
SD from Mean
Youth YSR Aggression Raw
Higher Interparental Conflict
Lower Interparental Conflict
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Parental attunement involves understanding a child’s thoughts and feelings and adjusting parenting behavior in response to those thoughts and feelings. This project explores whether attunement is associated with adolescent risky behaviors and aggression, and examines whether marital conflict moderates that association. Seventy-three ethnically diverse community families with an adolescent child reported on marital conflict, parents’ attunement, and adolescent outcomes. They then participated in a conflictual triadic discussion, during which trained observers coded attuned behavior.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Emotion regulation as a mechanism linking parents’ marital aggression to adolescent behavioral problems: a longitudinal analysis
PDF
Marital conflict and parenting: moderating effects of ethnicity and parent sex
PDF
Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents
PDF
Couples’ neuroendocrine activity in response to family conflict discussions: the role of self-reported anger and previous marital aggression
PDF
Risky behaviors, interpersonal conflict, and their relation to fluctuations in adolescents’ diurnal HPA rhythms
PDF
The link between maternal depression and adolescent daughters' risk behavior: the mediating and moderating role of family
PDF
You always say that: physical aggression perpetration, linguistic behavior, and conflict intensity in young adult dating couples
PDF
Family conflict, negative mood, and adolescents' daily problems in school
PDF
Reframing parental psychological control: the role of insecure attachment
PDF
How parental psychological control is related to adolescent anger and aggression
PDF
Untangling the developmental relations between depression and externalizing behavior among maltreated adolescents
PDF
Parenting practices among non-offending mothers of sexually abused girls and its impact on the abused girls' behavioral adjustment: perspectives from a multigenerational, longitudinal study
PDF
A network analysis of online and offline social influence processes in relation to adolescent smoking and alcohol use
PDF
Adolescent conduct problems and substance use: an examination of the risk pathway across the transition to high school
PDF
Friendship network position on adolescent behaviors: an examination of a broker position and the likelihood of alcohol and cigarette use
PDF
Assessing the psychological correlates of belief strength: contributing factors and role in behavior
PDF
The development of electrodermal fear conditioning from ages 3 to 8 years and relationships with antisocial behavior at age 8 years
PDF
The acute relationship between affective states and physiological stress response, and the moderating role of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
Asset Metadata
Creator
Duman Serrano, Sarah
(author)
Core Title
Parents' attunement: relation to adolescent problem behavior and the moderating role of marital conflict
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publication Date
05/04/2010
Defense Date
08/13/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Adolescent,aggression,OAI-PMH Harvest,parent-child relationship,Parenting,psychological intervention,risky behavior,teen sex
Place Name
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Margolin, Gayla (
committee chair
), Davison, Gerald C. (
committee member
), Manis, Franklin R. (
committee member
), Mennen, Ferol E. (
committee member
), Williams, Marian (
committee member
)
Creator Email
duman@usc.edu,sarah.duman.phd@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3001
Unique identifier
UC1255851
Identifier
etd-Serrano-3470 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-333309 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3001 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Serrano-3470.pdf
Dmrecord
333309
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Duman Serrano, Sarah
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
aggression
parent-child relationship
psychological intervention
risky behavior
teen sex