Masaryk University
Faculty of Arts
Family as a context for healthy and risky
development in adolescence
Habilitation thesis
2020 Mgr. Mária Bačíková, PhD
2
I declare that I wrote this habilitation thesis myself using the sources listed in the literature.
Date: Signature:
3
Content
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Socialization in adolescence............................................................................................. 5
1.2 Parents and family as socialization context...................................................................... 6
2. Present habilitation thesis..................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Indicators of health and risk behaviour used within studies........................................... 14
Study 1.................................................................................................................................. 17
Study 2.................................................................................................................................. 19
Study 3.................................................................................................................................. 21
Study 4.................................................................................................................................. 23
Study 5.................................................................................................................................. 24
Study 6.................................................................................................................................. 26
Study 7.................................................................................................................................. 28
Study 8.................................................................................................................................. 30
Study 9 ................................................................................................................................. 33
Study 10 ............................................................................................................................... 34
3. General discussion................................................................................................................ 35
3.1 Gender differences.......................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Cultural and socio-economic context ............................................................................. 39
3.3 Future research ............................................................................................................... 43
3.4 Implications for practice................................................................................................. 45
4. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 48
References ................................................................................................................................ 49
4
Abstract
This habilitation thesis aims to study several family factors and parenting behaviours and their
association with adolescents’ health and risk behaviour. The thesis is a collection of 10 studies
that have been published over the last 10 years. The studies reflect the consecutive shift in the
author’s research interests from studying the effects of parental unemployment to focusing on
a broader range of family factors to a more nuanced research on parenting with a particular
interest in parental control. Study 1 describes changes the in family processes during early
adolescence; studies 2 and 3 aim to explore the effect of parental unemployment on several
family processes as well as adolescents’ health; study 4 focuses on several family factors
including family structure in relation to adolescent risk behaviour; study 5 explores the
mediating process of parental substance use approval between parental and adolescents’ risk
behaviour; study 6 studies the role of parents in risk behaviour prevention and together with
study 7 explores the discrepancies in parental and adolescent perceptions; study 8 uses a person
oriented approach to explore the effect of parental control and knowledge on adolescent selfesteem
and self-efficacy. Finally, studies 9 and 10 focus on parental control and its various
forms in relation to adolescent risk behaviour and self-esteem. The thesis ends with a general
discussion, where the studies are discussed within two broad topics: gender differences in
family processes and cultural /socio-economical context. The implications for practice and
future research are provided.
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Socialization in adolescence
Socialization is a dynamic process in which individuals acquire skills, values, behavioural
patterns that help them to function well and competent in society. Child acquires social skills,
social understandings, and emotional maturity that are needed for interpersonal interactions
(Maccoby, 2007). A process of socialization occurs within various context. The relative
importance of the effect of the particular context differs by a developmental stage in which
individual occurs. In adolescence, the context of peers becomes important. Adolescents spend
more time with peers (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, 2014; Larson et al., 1996) and friends become
the most important sources of social support (Snopek, & Hublová, 2008). This raises a question
whether family context and parents are still important socialization figures.
Research in recent 30 years widely shows that family environment and parental
behaviour matter in many aspects of adolescent development. New peer relationships seem to
be complementary to parent-adolescent relationship not a substitute to them (Smetana,
Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006). Values, preferences or interests, that adolescents share with
their peers are to a greater extent established before adolescents are in more intensive contact
with their peers (Darling, & Cumsille, 2003; Steinberg, 2001). Steinberg (2001) stress that in
the situation when adolescents are exposed to external peer and institutional influences, parents
are particularly important as they may provide a secure base where adolescents return in
situations that are too stressful for them. Therefore, the focus on family, parent-adolescent
relationship and many other family processes remains important through the course of
adolescent development.
Among the most widely used theoretical frameworks for studying individuals in the
context is Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Bronfenbrenner was among the first who focused on the fact that individuals develop in their
natural environment and thus pointed out the contextual variation in individual development.
6
According to his theory, the environment contexts are nested structures that are interrelated. At
the innermost level is individual’s microsystem, followed by mesosystem, exosystem and
macrosystem. Bronfenbrenner stated that the more proximal the environment (i.e.
microsystem), the greater is the influence on youth functioning. During adolescence the number
of microsystems increases (to various peer groups) and meaning and relative importance of
each microsystem changes. When applied to the family research, Bronfenbrenner (1986)
suggests that beside intrafamilial processes there are several external systems that affect the
functioning of the family. To the mesosystems influences such as school or peer group can be
included; exosystem is referred to parental work conditions or parental support network;
chronosystem refers to developmental changes not only with regard to development of an
individual but also developmental stage of the family as whole. Macrosystem is represented by
a broader social context, such as culture or socio-economic status of the family.
1.2 Parents and family as socialization context
A socialization in family and parenting has undergone many changes during the 20th
century.
These have been reflected in viewpoints that have guided the research on family and parenting
(Maccoby, 2007). Until the mid-20th
century socialization in family was perceived as a process
of learning good habits. Well socialized child was the one who learns all necessary well
manners habits (such as how to behave at the table, how to speak with older people). Parents
were advised to use behaviouristic ideas – to reinforce desired behaviour and to punish
undesired behaviour. The second idea behind parenting in more or less the same time period
was psychoanalysis that focused on socialization as regulation of impulses, as a process going
from external control to self-control. Later on in 60ties, an influential work of Diana Baumrind
introduced the typology of parenting styles showing that parents differ in the way how they
socialize their children. According to her typology, the most effective parenting style is
characterised by high level of parental control and at the same time high level of parental
responsiveness to child’s needs (i.e. authoritative parenting style). Baumrind stressed the role
of a parent as a leader in socialization process within family - parenting is a process that goes
7
from parent to a “passive” child. In 60’s also Bowlby introduces his attachment theory.
Baumrind together with Bowlby shifted the attention of researchers from parenting as rules
setting and direct shaping of child behaviour to parenting as emotional process. Recent 30 years
of research made a further shift. A more complex models of parenting have been proposed that
take into account the role of a child in socialization and individual differences in children, as
well as the overall context in which socialization occurs.
Nowadays, most researchers accept the view on the family as a system. According to
Family system theory (Cox, & Paley, 1997), family is a hierarchically organized system that
comprises of smaller subsystems (e.g. parental, marital, and sibling) but is also embedded
within larger systems (e.g. the community). Thus, mothers, fathers and children influence each
other both directly and indirectly. From a family system perspective, changes in the condition
of one family member or in the patterns of relationships among family subsystems may affect
the functioning of the others.
Family factors that are related to adolescent development could be categorized into three
main groups: family structure (e.g. single parent families, stepparent families, same-sex parent
families), family events (stressful normative or non-normative events, such as divorce, parental
unemployment, financial strain, death in the family, etc.) and family processes (parenting,
parent-adolescent relationship, conflicts, etc.). In a subsequent text the current state of research
related to these factors will be briefly introduced.
Research on family structure and its relation to adolescent development focuses mainly
on the comparisons of adolescents who live with both biological parents compared to those
living in other family compositions such as single parent, step parent, extended families etc.
Family structure is linked with adolescent outcomes thought three primary mechanisms
(Langton, & Berger, 2011): (1) the family's access to resources, (2) the quality of parenting and
the home environments to which children are exposed, and (3) family stress and parental
psychological well-being. From this point of view, two-parent families have some important
advantages over the other family structures. Overall, children from stable two-parent families
benefit from better economic resources, higher quality parenting, closer emotional ties to
8
parents, and fewer stressful events than do children exposed to other family structures or to
family structure transitions (Langton, Berger, 2011).
Results from previous studies showed, that adolescents in other family types have poorer
outcomes than those living with both of their biological parents (Brown, & Rinelli, 2010;
Langton, & Berger, 2011; Tomčíková et al., 2015; Turner et al., 2014). Several studies however
suggest that this might be valid mainly with regard to adolescent externalizing problems, such
as risk behaviour but not well-being. Phillips (2012) stated that when both family structure and
family processes are considered in one model, it is family process that matters more with regard
to adolescent health and well-being. Moreover, parenting behaviours seems not to be related to
family structure (Turner et al., 2014).
In the present thesis we include one study (study 4) that focuses (beside other family
factors) on family structure in relation to adolescent health risk behaviour.
Among the family events both normative and non-normative events can be included.
Normative family (life) events are characterized by typical developmental patterns such as
child’s puberty or transition from primary to secondary school, or typical family changes, such
as sibling birth. Non-normative transitions refer to major life events that are out of the person’s
control, such as job loss, parental divorce, or the death of a family member. Both normative and
non-normative events in family context cause stress which can result in maladaptive functioning
among family members (Walsh, 2012). Stressful events affect the overall quality of home
environment, may hinder parental abilities for good parenting, may increase parental
depression, what can lead to inter-marital conflicts and further decrease in parenting quality
(Chapel, Suldo, & Ogg, 2014; Walsh, 2012). It has been repeatedly shown that family life
events are associated with poor child functioning (Camacho-Thompson et al., 2016; Chapel,
Suldo, & Ogg, 2014; Fröjd et al., 2009).
In the present thesis the attention is payed to parental unemployment /non-employment
as a non-normative family event (studies 2 and 3) that is associated with worse adolescents’
health and worse quality of family processes.
9
The broadest family category, both in the context of international research and as a main
focus of our research, is family processes that are present in families with adolescents. In studies
focusing on family processes, many different terms have been used. Some studies focused on
parenting styles (often using a classic Baumrind’s (1966) typology), others on parent-child
relationship or on particular parenting practices (e.g. the way how control is asserted). In our
work we use term family processes, that captures many aspects of mutual parent-child
interaction that does not always reflect a process aspect (Brown, & Rinelli, 2010; Conger,
Conger, & Martin, 2010; Mack, Peck, & Leiber, 2015). Family processes include both parental
behaviour (parenting style, parenting practices, parental control, monitoring, solicitation,
parental warmth, support, interest) and interaction in parent-child relationship (e.g. quality and
frequency of communication, conflicts, companionship) (Padilla-Walker, Harper, & Bean,
2011; Vazsonyi, Hibbert, & Blake Snider, 2003).
High quality of family processes is crucial for optimal adolescent development, what
has been confirmed by many studies in many diverse age and cultural samples. The question
raises however when asking “What is the high quality of family processes?” Since the Bowlby’s
first work on attachment theory (Bowlby, 1980) it has been widely accepted and empirically
supported that parental love, support, closeness and interest are a key ingredients of parenting
and can be seen as “a universal feature of human beings independent of developmental context”
(Vazsonyi, & Belliston, 2006, p. 491). We can generally say that these are high quality family
processes. However, a recent trend in so called helicopter parenting (i.e over-involvement of
parents in their children's lives; Odenweller, Booth-Butterfield, & Weber, 2014; PadillaWalker,
& Nelsson, 2012) shows that parenting behaviour that is characterized by parental love,
support and interest may turn into a maladaptive parenting strategy and result in overparenting
with some negative consequences for adolescents. Moreover, very intensive and close parentadolescent
relationship may lead to loose boundaries between parental and child subsystems
(Mayseless, & Scharf, 2009).
Even more complicated is to define the high quality in processes such as parental
control. Certain level of parental control (monitoring, rules setting, structure providing) is
highly important for child development (Fosco et al. 2012; Gentile et al. 2014; Lipperman-
10
Kreda et al. 2017). However, if the control is too intense it may be associated with feelings of
overcontroll or incompetence (Kakihara, & Tilton-Weaver, 2009; Kapetanovic et al., 2017) and
thus not bring desired outcomes. If the control is asserted in the way that is not appropriate
(such as psychological control, harsh parenting, verbal aggression, physical punishment, etc.)
it again does not lead to positive development. The same situation seems to be when control is
asserted in the domains that are perceived as personal by adolescents (Smetana, Crean, &
Campione‐Barr, 2005).
Research in recent years therefore focuses intensively on the possibility to define, what
the “high quality family process” are. There are several theoretical approaches that lead the
research and help to understand what is the optimal level or high quality level of family
processes.
Stage-environment fit theory stresses the importance of the environment (Eccless et al.,
1993). According to this theory, opportunities given by environment and needs of an individual
should to be in concordance in order to ensure an optimal development. In the context of
parenting, parents have to adjust their behaviour according to their offspring needs in a
particular developmental stage. This is particularly needed in early adolescence when
adolescents need for autonomy is increasing and many aspects of family processes undergo
changes (De Goede, Branje, & Meeus, 2009).
The second very influential theory in studying family processes is Self-determination
theory (SDT; Ryan, & Deci, 2000). The central topic of SDT is autonomy as a primary
psychological need of each individual. SDT theorists do not perceive autonomy as
independence (as is very often defined in developmental books). According to this theory
autonomy reflects individual’s feeling that his/her behaviour is fully internally motivated not a
result of external factors. Autonomy need satisfaction is perceived as the most important for
healthy development of an individual. Beside autonomy SDT stress the other two psychological
needs: relatedness and competence. In this sense a high quality family processes would be those
that help adolescent to satisfy all three basic psychological needs with the particular focus on
autonomy.
11
A new direction in family processes research has been proposed by Judith Smetana
(Smetana, 2010; Smetana, Crean, & Campione‐Barr, 2005) who pointed out the importance of
particular situation in which family processes take place. According to her Social domain theory
(Smetana, 2010), individuals construct their social environment in four basic social domains:
moral, conventional, prudential and personal domain. These domains differ in how important
are for the individual. For example, in adolescence, the importance of having control over a
personal domain issues raises. Adolescents want to decide how will they act in situations such
as bedroom cleaning, hair style or selection of friends. Parents, on the contrary, usually prefer
to set limits also in personal domain issues. This increases the probability of parent-adolescent
conflicts and lowers the quality of parent-adolescent relationship. Parental over-involvement
and overcontrol in personal issues might therefore not be considered as appropriate.
12
2. Present habilitation thesis
The aim of this habilitation thesis is to present authors’ work on family and family processes in
families with adolescents. The habilitation thesis includes a selection of 10 papers that have
been published over the last 10 years.
The studies are the selection of authors’ work that reflects the consecutive shift in the
author’s research interests from studying the effects of parental unemployment to focusing on
a broader range of family factors to a more nuanced research on parenting with a particular
interest in parental control. Separate studies are the result of several research projects in which
the author has participated (APVV 15-0662; APVV-0253-11; APVT –20–028802; APVT –20-
003602) or was a principal investigator (VEGA 1/0623/17). Therefore, adolescents of several
age groups are included, ranging from early adolescence (study 1, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10), through
middle (study 3 and 4) to late adolescence (study 2 and 7).
The central dependent variables in most of the included studies are indicators of
adolescents’ health and risk behaviour. However, the primary aim of the studies was not to
explore health or risk behaviour and its’ antecedents. Rather, we aimed to study how various
family factors are associated with adolescent development and indicators of health or risk
behaviour were chosen as some of many possible outcomes in adolescent development. Very
basic overview of associations that have been explored within the studies are presented in
Figure 1.
13
Figure 1 Basic overview of associations explored within studies included in the thesis.
14
2.1 Indicators of health and risk behaviour used within studies
Family context is important in most aspects of adolescent development. In the studies included
within this thesis we have focused on two of the aspects: health and health risk behaviour.
The developmental period of adolescence is a critical period with long-term implications
for the health and well-being of each individual. It also is a time of experimentation and identity
exploration therefore a prevalence of health risk behaviour is relatively high in this age group.
It is also a crucial time for establishing healthy habits and thus promoting both physical and
mental health. In adolescence, social factors belong to most important determinants of health
and health risk behaviour (Dahlgren, & Whitehead, 1991; Sawyer, 2012).
2.1.1 Health
Health is a multidimensional construct that includes broad range of indicators ranging from
objective assessments of physical health and subjective perceptions of general health, through
various mental health indicators to many indicators of well-being. According to WHO
definition, health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely
as the absence of disease or infirmity (World Health Organization, 1946). The aim of the studies
included in the present thesis was not to study health in its broad conceptualization. Rather, the
focus of the studies was more on family processes that are associated with health. Therefore,
only several aspects of perceived physical health (self-rated health and health complaints) and
several indicators of mental health (vitality, mental health, long-term well-being, self-esteem,
and self-efficacy) have been included in the studies.
Although physical health in adolescence is in general very good, the subjective
perception might differ and stress the small nuances in adolescent health status. Subjective
perception of health in adolescence takes place in many studies. Within our studies two aspect
of perceived physical health are considered: self-rated health (study 2 and 3) and health
complaints (study 2). Self-rated health is a one-item scale asking respondents to rate their health
in general that is widely used in health studies. It is generally accepted as a good predictor of
15
mortality and morbidity (Larsson et al., 2002). Health complaints included problems that
adolescents have experienced in the previous month, such as stomach or had aches, dizziness
or pains. In general, subjective assessment of ones’ health is based on individuals’ perception
that is, whether consciously or not, done by comparing by age related peers (Bjorner et al.,
1996).
With regard to mental health, a particular attention is payed to self-esteem (studies 8, 9
and 10). We focus on global self-esteem that has been defined as individuals’ positive or
negative attitude toward the self as a totality (Rosenberg et al., 1995, p. 141) and is an important
component of mental health. Adolescence is perceived as a critical time for self-esteem
development (Rosenberg et al., 1995). The development of self-esteem in adolescence depends
on a wide range of intra-individual and societal factors, where parents play crucial role. Parental
approval, support and love are among the most important for the optimal development of the
self (Mann et al., 2004). Parents may serve as a secure base for experimentation in early
adolescence while positive parenting expresses warmth and support that may be internalized
and thus increase the overall perception of adolescents’ self (Chen et al., 2004).
Further, a measure of vitality and mental health (Ware, & Sherbourne, 1992) has been
included in two studies (study 2 and 3). The vitality scale consists of items focusing on energy
and fatigue; mental health focuses on psychological distress and well-being. In both indicators,
respondents evaluate their feelings during the previous month.
Long-term well-being has been assessed using one item measure in study 2. The
measure assesses respondents’ feelings about their life in the previous year. It is represented by
a seven-point scale consisting of stylised faces. This simple scale may provide a better
representation of respondents’ feelings than would similar verbal scales (Andrews, 1996).
The final mental health measure used within our studies has been general self-efficacy
(study 8). General self-efficacy is referred to as a general confidence in one’s abilities to
achieve the desired results across numerous domains, to cope with stressful life events or to
manage new life situations (Bandura, 1977; Schwarzer et al., 1997).
16
2.1.2 Health risk behaviour
Adolescent risk behaviour is a category that consists of various types, such as delinquency,
substance use, risk driving or risky sexual behaviour. As risk behaviour we consider a behaviour
that brings some health risks to individual. Among the most prevalent forms of risk behaviour
in adolescence are smoking and alcohol consumption.
In European countries included in the ESPAD study (ESPAD, 2015), the trend between
1995 and 2015 shows the decrease in substance use among adolescents. However, in Slovakia
this decrease is not present. In 2015 Slovakia belonged to the countries with highest prevalence
of smoking experience (62% of adolescents reported having tried a cigarette at least once in a
life). Also the lifetime prevalence of alcohol use in Slovakia was much higher than the
countries’ average was (91% in Slovakia versus 80% average).
In the present studies we focus both on lifetime prevalence and 30-day prevalence of
risk behaviour with a particular attention to smoking and alcohol consumption or drunkenness
(studies 4, 5 and 6). In Study 4 also experience with marihuana has been included as a form of
risk behaviour, although its incidence in our sample was rather low. According to Jessor’s
Theory of risk behaviour (Jessor, 1991) various types of risky behaviour co-occur and may be
explained by similar mechanisms. Therefore, in Studies 9 and 10 we do not pay attention to
separate forms of risk behaviour, rather we work with cumulative index of risk behaviour where
both smoking and alcohol consumption have been included.
17
Study 1
Bačíková, M., Hricová, L., Orosová, O. (2018). Zmeny a stabilita v rodinných procesoch
v priebehu skorej adolescencie (Changes and stability in family processes during early
adolescence). Československá psychologie, 62, 3, 197-211.
Adolescence is a period characterized by huge changes in most aspects of adolescents’
development. In many developmental psychology text books (e.g. Thorová, 2015; Vágnerová
2000) we can read about the changes in the relationship between parents and their children that
occur in the beginning of adolescence, what is usually attributed to increased need for autonomy
and identity formation of adolescent. In Slovakia this has however not been empirically tested
yet. In this paper we have studied several family processes that have been composed in two
dimensions: emotional dimension and the dimension of control. Previous studies in different
cultural contexts have reported decrease in emotional dimension of family processes: perceived
parental support, quality of attachment, or parental warmth (De Goede, Branje, & Meeus, 2009;
Furman, & Buhrmester, 1992; van Eijck et al., 2012). Further, there is an increase in intensity
and frequency of conflicts (De Goede, Branje, & Meeus, 2009; Hadiwijaya et al., 2017). The
results regarding dimension of control are mixed (Keijsers, & Poulin, 2013; Nilsson, 2016;
Lippold, Greenberg, & Collins, 2013). However, neither of the previously published studies
focused on a short period of early adolescence.
The aim of this study was to analyse data from 5 waves of data collection during a time
period of one and a half year (497 adolescents; T1 mean age 11.52; T5 mean age 13.09; 59.4%
of girls) in order to identify changes in perceived family processes in both emotional and control
dimension. The results of Linear mixed models show that in the beginning of adolescence
within one and a half year there is a significant decrease in satisfaction with relationship with
mother and father and in perceived supportive relationship in family (caring relationships;
opportunities for meaningful participation) with no interaction effect of gender. On the other
hand, no time changes in control dimension were identified. Despite of linear decrease in the
18
quality of several family processes, the decrease is relatively low. Together with relatively low
percentage of explained variance, our results are in line with the current view of parentadolescent
relationship. This has shifted from earlier ideas that parent-adolescent relationships
are characterised by “storm and stress” to current view that in families that had functioned well
before adolescence, the parent-adolescent relationship remains good (Laursen, & Colins, 2009;
Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006). The relationship undergoes changes from vertical
to more horizontal relationship (Meeus, 2016).
Author´s contribution: 70%
	 Výzkumné studie	 / 197
Československá psychologie 2018 / ročník LXII / číslo 3
Výzkumné studie
Teoretické východiská
Vzájomné vzťahy a interakcie medzi rodičmi a ich deťmi patria medzi najštudovanejšie
oblasti vývinu v období dospievania. Hoci význam vplyvu rovesníkov s nástupom
adolescencie stúpa (Furman, Buhrmester, 1992; Gaertner, Fite, Colder, 2010), rodičia
zostávajú dôležitým faktorom socializácie a individuácie adolescentov, o čom svedčia
mnohé výskumné zistenia.
Učebnice vývinovej psychológie (Thorová, 2015; Vágnerová, 2000) zhodne uvádzajú,
že na začiatku adolescencie dochádza k zmenám vo vzťahu medzi deťmi a ich
rodičmi, ktoré súvisia so zvýšenou potrebou autonómie a s formovaním identity dospievajúceho.
V slovenských podmienkach však táto téma ešte nebola predmetom výskumu.
ZMENY A STABILITA V RODINNÝCH PROCESOCH
V PRIEBEHU SKOREJ ADOLESCENCIE
MÁRIA BAČÍKOVÁ, LUCIA HRICOVÁ, OĽGA OROSOVÁ
Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia, FF UPJŠ v Košiciach
Došlo: 18. 5. 2017; M. B., Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a  psychológie zdravia, FF UPJŠ
v Košiciach, Moyzesova 9, 040 01 Košice, Slovenská republika; e-mail: maria.bacikova@upjs.sk
Štúdia bola podporená Vedeckou grantovou agentúrou Ministerstva školstva VEGA 1/0623/17 a
Agentúrou pre vedu a výskum APVV-15-0662 a APVV-0253-11.
Autorky ďakujú Jozefovi Janovskému za konzultácie k štatistickým analýzam.
ABSTRACT
Changes and stability in family
processes in early adolescence
M. Bačíková, L. Hricová, O. Orosová
Objectives. Adolescence is a period characterized
by huge changes in most aspects of adolescents’
development. However, research on the
changes in family processes and parent-adolescent
relationships has not been very frequent.
Moreover, a closer look at the developmental
changes within the specific period of early adolescence
is needed.
Sample. A five wave longitudinal study was
performed with 497 adolescents (T1 mean age
11.52; T5 mean age 13.09; 59.4% of girls).
Hypotheses. This study aims to examine the
changes in several family processes in adolescents
between the ages of 11.5 and 13. A decrease
in the emotional dimension of family
processes and in parental knowledge and an increase
in behavioural control is expected.
Statistical analysis. The changes in family processes
were studied using Linear mixed models
(LMM) in SPSS.
Results. The LMM with longitudinal data revealed
the following results: a significant decrease
in satisfaction with the relationship
with mother (F=14.15, p≤.000), father (F=4.6,
p≤.01), caring relationships (F=6.01, p≤.01)
and opportunities for meaningful participation
(F=8.04, p≤.001) with no interaction effect of
gender.
Limits. The study only focuses on partial aspects
of family processes as perceived by adolescents.
A focus on other family processes as well as
data received from parents would be interesting.
key words:
early adolescence,
family processes,
developmental changes
kľúčové slová:
skorá adolescencia,
rodinné procesy,
vývinové zmeny
198 /	 Výzkumné studie
V predkladanom texte bude používaný pojem „rodinné procesy”, ktorý je operacionalizovaný
ako spoločné pomenovanie rôznych aspektov interakcie adolescent –
rodič (napr. Brown, Rinelli, 2010; Conger, Conger, Martin, 2010; Mack, Peck, Leiber,
2015), a nie vždy nevyhnutne reflektuje procesuálny aspekt. V súlade s Dimenzionálnym
a  komponentovým modelom výchovy (Čáp, Boschek, 1994; Gillernová,
2009), budú rodinné procesy reflektované v dvoch dimenziách. Prvou je dimenzia
emocionálneho vzťahu (napr. kvalita vzťahu dieťa – rodič, blízkosť, opora, kvalita
a frekvencia komunikácie, konfliktovosť), druhou dimenzia riadenia (napr. behaviorálna
a psychologická kontrola, monitorovanie aktivít dieťaťa, podpora autonómie,
stanovovanie pravidiel) (Padilla-Walker, Harper, Bean, 2011; Vazsonyi, Hibbert, Blake
Snider, 2003).
Vývinové zmeny v emocionálnej dimenzii
Emocionálna dimenzia rodinných procesov je charakterizovaná mierou blízkosti,
emocionálnej vrelosti či opory, ktorú rodičia poskytujú deťom. Mnohé štúdie konzistentne
ukazujú, že v priebehu adolescencie dochádza k poklesu percipovanej sociálnej
opory, kvality vnímanej vzťahovej väzby či vrelosti zo strany rodičov. Zdá sa, že k poklesu
dochádza najmä medzi skorou a strednou adolescenciou (De Goede, Branje,
Meeus, 2009; Furman, Buhrmester, 1992; McGue et al., 2005; Shanahan et al., 2007;
van Eijck et al., 2012), zatiaľ čo v období neskorej adolescencie sa percipovanie sociálnej
opory zo strany rodičov stabilizuje (De Goede, Branje, Meeus, 2009; Furman,
Buhrmester, 1992), hoci existujú dôkazy aj o ďalšom poklese kvality vzťahov v neskorej
adolescencii (Tsai, Telzer, Fuligni, 2013).
Podobne, intenzita a frekvencia konfliktov medzi dospievajúcimi a rodičmi významne
vzrástla medzi skorou a strednou adolescenciou (De Goede, Branje, Meeus,
2009; Hadiwijaya et al., 2017; McGue et al., 2005), ale opäť klesla medzi strednou
a neskorou adolescenciou (De Goede, Branje, Meeus, 2009; Hadiwijaya et al., 2017).
Metaanalýza štúdií publikovaných medzi rokmi 1926 až 1994 (Laursen, Coy, Collins,
1998) však poukázala na to, že vzťah medzi konfliktovosťou medzi dospievajúcim
a rodičmi a rastúcim vekom je skôr lineárneho charakteru. Podľa autorov frekvencia
konfliktov s rodičmi s rastúcim vekom adolescenta klesá, avšak stúpa ich afektívna
intenzita (Laursen, Coy, Collins, 1998). To, že niektorí autori uvádzajú skôr pokles
konfliktovosti v neskorej adolescencii, môže súvisieť s faktom, že s rastúcim vekom
stúpa aj ochota riešiť konflikty s matkou (nie však s otcom) konštruktívne pomocou
kompromisov a diskusie (Van Doorn, Branje, Meeus, 2011). Zároveň sa s rastúcim
vekom mení obsah konfliktov. Adolescenti prestávajú vnímať zásahy svojich rodičov
do osobnej sféry (napr. oblečenie, hudba, ktorú počúvajú) ako legitímne, čo sa stáva
novým zdrojom konfliktov (Smetana, Daddis, 2002).
Vývinové zmeny v dimenzii riadenia
Dimenzia riadenia je charakterizovaná mierou, s akou rodičia riadia, monitorujú či
štruktúrujú aktivity dospievajúceho (Barber, Maughan, Olsen 2005; Criss et al., 2015;
Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyten, 2010), a s nimi súvisiace poznanie, informovanosť
rodiča o aktivitách svojho dieťaťa (Stattin, Kerr, 2000). Medzi výskumníkmi nepanuje
jednoznačná zhoda v tom, či a  akým spôsobom dochádza k zmenám v rodinných
procesoch v dimenzii riadenia. S nástupom adolescencie trávia dospievajúci stále viac
času s rovesníkmi (Lam, McHale, Crouter, 2014; Larson et al., 1996), preto môžeme
predpokladať, že sa zvyšuje snaha rodičov monitorovať aktivity a voľný čas svojho
dieťaťa. Na druhej strane, zvýšenú mieru kontroly zo strany rodičov môžu adolescenti
vnímať ako neprimerane zasahujúcu do ich autonómie a snahy o nezávislosť (Kakiha-
	 Výzkumné studie	 / 199
ra, Tilton-Weaver, 2009). To môže súvisieť so zvýšeným utajovaním informácií pred
rodičmi (Keijsers et al., 2009; Keijsers et al., 2010), čo vedie k zníženiu množstva informácií,
ktoré rodič o voľnočasových aktivitách adolescenta má. Podľa Nilssonovej
(2016) k poklesu informovanosti dochádza medzi 12–16 rokom a medzi 16–17 rokom
opäť mierne narastá. Iný výskum uvádza pokles medzi 12 a 19 rokom s mierne stabilným
obdobím u dievčat v období strednej adolescencie (Keijsers, Poulin, 2013). Lippold
a kolegovia (Lippold, Greenberg, Collins, 2013) uvádzajú, že k zmenám v monitoringu
v priebehu adolescencie nedochádza. Najmä tí dospievajúci, ktorí boli málo
monitorovaní vo veku 12 rokov, zostávajú málo monitorovaní i vo veku 14 rokov.
Naopak, štúdie zamerané na starších adolescentov poukazujú na pokles behaviorálnej
kontroly zo strany rodičov (Keijsers, Poulin, 2013; Keijsers et al., 2009).
Z uvedeného sa zdá, že k najväčšej zmene v rodinných procesoch dochádza v období
skorej adolescencie, zmeny v ďalšom období sú už miernejšie, prípadne žiadne.
Proces zmeny zároveň neprebieha v jednotlivých rodinných procesoch nezávisle, ale
zmena v jednom z procesov úzko súvisí so zmenami v iných. De Goede, Branje a Meeus
(2009) napr. uvádzajú, že väčší pokles vo vnímanej opore matky a otca súvisel
s vyšším nárastom konfliktovosti.
Zdá sa však, že v dobre fungujúcich rodinách sú zmeny dočasné a vedú od zvýšenej
konfliktovosti, poklesu v sociálnej opore a rodičom riadeného vzťahu k vyrovnanejšiemu,
harmonickejšiemu partnerskému vzťahu medzi dospievajúcim a rodičom okolo
18teho roku života (Meeus, 2016).
Rodové rozdiely
Socializácia chlapcov a  dievčat v  rodine prebieha rozdielne (Smetana, Robinson,
Rote, 2015). Je preto predpoklad, že i zmeny v rodinných procesoch v adolescencii
budú prebiehať rozdielne vzhľadom na rod adolescenta. Doterajšie poznanie však nie
je jednoznačné. Zdá sa, že rodové rozdiely v zmenách v rodinných procesoch súvisia
s vekom. Výsledky štúdií naznačujú, že zmeny v rodinných procesoch medzi skorou
a strednou adolescenciou prebiehajú rovnako pre chlapcov i dievčatá (De Goede,
Keijsers, 2009; Furman, Buhmester, 1992; Keijsers 2013), hoci McGue et al. (2005)
uvádzajú, že k väčšiemu nárastu konfliktovosti a poklesu rodičovskej vrelosti percipovanej
adolescentom dochádza u dievčat ako u chlapcov. V období medzi strednou
a neskorou adolescenciou sa objavujú niektoré rodové rozdiely. Rodičovská opora
medzi strednou a neskorou adolescenciou bola u chlapcov stabilná, zatiaľ čo u dievčat
narástla (De Goede, Branje, Meeus, 2009; Furman, Buhrmester, 1992), zároveň
otvorená komunikácia chlapcov s rodičmi po prvotnom poklese zostáva v strednej
adolescencii stabilne nižšia, u dievčat však opäť stúpa (Keijsers, Poulin, 2013).
Cieľ
Väčšina z doteraz publikovaných štúdií sa zameriavala na dlhšie časové obdobie od
začiatku po koniec adolescencie. Hlavným cieľom našej štúdie je sledovať zmeny
(prípadne stabilitu) v rodinných procesoch (v emocionálnej dimenzii a dimenzii riadenia)
tak, ako ich percipujú adolescenti na začiatku dospievania, približne medzi 11tym
a 13tym rokom života. Základné výskumné otázky zneli: Ako sa menia jednotlivé rodinné
procesy z pohľadu adolescenta v priebehu času? Sú trajektórie zmeny rozdielne
vzhľadom na rod adolescenta? Na základe predchádzajúcich výskumov očakávame
pokles v emocionálnej dimenzii a v informovanosti rodičov, a naopak zvýšenie miery
behaviorálnej kontroly zo strany rodičov. Očakávame, že tieto zmeny nebudú závisieť
od rodu respondentov.
200 /	 Výzkumné studie
METODA
Výskumný súbor
V prezentovanej štúdii sú analyzované údaje získané z piatich vĺn zberu. Prvá vlna
zberu bola realizovaná v  septembri 2013, na reprezentatívnej vzorke žiakov zo
60 základných škôl na Slovensku. Školy boli vyberané využitím stratifikovaného náhodného
výberu na základe kritérií – kraj (východné, stredné a západné Slovensko)
a veľkosť mesta/obce z hľadiska počtu obyvateľov. V každej zo škôl bola vybraná
jedna trieda šiesteho ročníka. Výskum bol realizovaný so súhlasom Etickej komisie
UPJŠ v Košiciach a s podporou Ministerstva školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu Slovenskej
republiky. Účasť žiakov vo výskume bola podmienená súhlasom ich rodičov.
Prvej vlny zberu údajov sa zúčastnilo 1298 žiakov (53,3 % dievčat, priemerný
vek = 11,52, SD = 0,61). Nasledujúce 4 vlny zberu boli uskutočnené vždy dva mesiace
pred koncom polroka, teda v decembri 2013, apríli 2014, decembri 2014 a apríli
2015. Žiaci vyplňovali papierovú formu dotazníka počas dvoch vyučovacích hodín.
Zber realizoval zaškolený asistent bez prítomnosti učiteľa. Z celkového pôvodného
súboru sa všetkých piatich vĺn zberu zúčastnilo 497 žiakov. Redukciou výskumného
súboru sa len mierne zmenila stratifikácia. Východoslovenský kraj bol zastúpený
signifikantne častejšie (41 % oproti pôvodným 37 %; χ = 6,32; p ≤ 0,05), dievčat bolo
signifikantne viac (59,5 % oproti pôvodným 53,3 %; χ = 12,84; p ≤ 0,001), zastúpenie
respondentov podľa veľkosti obce zostalo nezmenené. Finálny výskumný súbor prezentovanej
štúdie teda pozostával zo 497 žiakov (40,5 % tvorili chlapci).
Metodiky
V štúdii boli použité metodiky na sledovanie emocionálnej dimenzie rodinných procesov
a dimenzie riadenia. Prezentované výsledky sú súčasťou širšie koncipovanej
štúdie primárne zameranej na rizikové správanie dospievajúcich a jeho prediktory.
Vzhľadom na to, že ide o pomerne rozsiahlu štúdiu, prostredníctvom ktorej bolo získaných
mnoho cenných údajov, pristúpili sme k sekundárnej analýze longitudinálnych
dát a spracovali dostupné informácie o rodinných procesoch. Použité metodiky
boli zaradené do jednej z dvoch dimenzií rodinných procesov, nie sú však reprezentatívnym
výberom.
Emocionálna dimenzia rodinných procesov
Spokojnosť so vzťahom s matkou/otcom bola zisťovaná pomocou dvoch jednopoložkových
škál: Ako si obvykle spokojný so svojim vzťahom s otcom (so svojim
vzťahom s matkou)? Možnosti odpovede boli od 1 veľmi nespokojný po 5 veľmi
spokojný. Obe položky boli v rámci analýz spracovávané samostatne. Položky boli
použité v medzinárodnej štúdii ESPAD (Hibbel et al., 2012). V kontexte celkovej
spokojnosti so životom je však využívanie jednopoložkových škál časté (Lucas,
Donnellan, 2012). Štúdie porovnávajúce tieto jednopoložkové škály so známou metodikou
SWLS (Satisfaction with Life Scale; Diener et al., 1985) uvádzajú dobrú
konštruktovú validitu u dospelých (Cheung, Lucas, 2014) aj adolescentov (Jovanovic,
2016). Preto predpokladáme, že i  jednopoložková škála zameraná špecificky na
jednu oblasť spokojnosti so životom (vzťah s rodičmi) môže byť akceptovaná ako
validný výskumný nástroj.
Podporné vzťahy a zmysluplná participácia. Obe premenné sú súčasťou dotazníka
RYDM (Resilience and youth development module; Constantine, Benard, 2001), ktorý
meria vnútorné i vonkajšie zdroje reziliencie. Pre analýzy, prezentované v tomto
príspevku, boli zvolené premenné sledujúce niektoré aspekty emocionálnej dimen-
	 Výzkumné studie	 / 201
zie rodinných procesov. Obe subškály boli merané pomocou troch otázok: podporné
vzťahy (napr. „U mňa doma je rodič, ktorý sa so mnou rozpráva o mojich problémoch.“);
zmysluplná participácia na rodinných aktivitách, rozhodnutiach („Doma
robím zábavné veci alebo chodím na zábavné miesta s mojimi rodičmi.“). Hodnota
Cronbachovho alfa poukazuje na dobrú reliabilitu škál (podporné vzťahy v čase T1
α = 0,860; zmysluplná participácia v T1 α = 0,800).
Dimenzia riadenia
Rodičovská behaviorálna kontrola. Behaviorálna kontrola v našej štúdii bola operacionalizovaná
ako stanovovanie pravidiel správania rodičmi. Sledovaná bola pomocou
dvoch položiek: „Moji rodičia určia záväzné pravidlá toho, čo smiem robiť
doma.“ „Moji rodičia určia záväzné pravidlá toho, čo smiem robiť mimo domu.“ Respondenti
odpovedali na 5bodovej škále Likertoveho typu 1 nikdy – 5 skoro vždy.
Skóre pre obe otázky bolo sčítané a tak vytvorená premenná – behaviorálna kontrola.
Čím vyššie skóre respondenti uvádzali, tým častejšia bola rodičovská behaviorálna
kontrola. Reliabilita v čase T1 vypočítaná pomocou Spearman-Brownovho
koeficientu je ρ = 0,692. Validitu metodiky sme overili na inom výskumnom súbore.
145 adolescentov (priemerný vek 13,98, SD 0,74) vyplnilo vo výskume často používanú
škálu behaviorálnej kontroly navrhnutú Stattinom a Kerrovou (2000) ako i nami
použitú dvojpoložkovú metodiku. Pearsonov korelačný koeficient medzi oboma škálami
bol r = 0,719, čo naznačuje vysokú mieru zhody.
Rodičovská informovanosť. Podobne, ako v predchádzajúcej premennej, rodičovská
informovanosť bola sledovaná pomocou dvoch položiek s rovnakými možnosťami
odpovedí: „Moji rodičia vedia, s kým som po večeroch.“ „Moji rodičia vedia, kde
som po večeroch.“ Vyššie sumárne skóre indikuje vyššiu mieru rodičovskej informovanosti.
Spearman-Brown koeficient reliability ρ = 0,869. Položky sledujúce behaviorálnu
kontrolu ako i rodičovskú informovanosť boli prevzaté zo štúdie ESPAD
(Hibbel et al., 2012).
Vysoké očakávania. Premenná sledujúca mieru očakávaní, ktoré majú rodičia voči
deťom je takisto súčasťou dotazníka RYDM (Constantine, Benard, 2001). Sledovaná
bola pomocou troch položiek, napr. „U mňa doma je rodič, ktorému záleží na tom, aby
som stále pracoval najlepšie ako viem“. Táto premenná je prekladaná i ako vkladanie
nádeje (Berinšterová, Orosová, Miovský, 2016). Reliabilita subškály v čase T1 je
α = 0,825.
Štatistická analýza
Údaje prezentované v článku boli spracované pomocou štatistického softwaru IBM
SPSS 21. Na sledovanie zmien v priebehu času sme využili metódu lineárnych zmiešaných
modelov (linear mixed models). Táto metóda využíva techniku mnohostupňového
(hierarchického) modelovania na analýzu longitudinálnych údajov. Na rozdiel
od tradičných modelov opakovaných meraní (napr. repeated measures ANOVA),
umožňujú lineárne zmiešané modely sledovať zmenu na dvoch úrovniach. Prvá úroveň
modelu umožňuje sledovať, ako sa premenná mení v čase u jednotlivých ľudí
vo výskumnom súbore (within-person change), druhá úroveň modelu popisuje, ako
tieto zmeny variujú medzi jednotlivými respondentmi (between person differences)
(Singer, Willet, 2003). Ďalšou z výhod lineárnych zmiešaných modelov je možnosť
pracovať aj s prípadnými chýbajúcimi údajmi v niektorej z vĺn zberu údajov (West,
2009). Z toho dôvodu prípadne chýbajúce údaje v niektorej zo sledovaných  premenných
neboli v analýzach nahrádzané.
202 /	 Výzkumné studie
Analýzy boli realizované v dvoch krokoch (Shek, Ma, 2011; Singer, Willet, 2003).
V  prvom kroku bol odhadnutý model nepodmienených priemerov (unconditional
mean model), ktorý slúži na overenie interindividuálnej variancie v závislej premennej
bez ohľadu na ďalšie premenné, v tomto prípade čas (vypočítaním medzitriedneho
korelačného koeficientu – intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC). V druhom kroku
bol do modelu pridaný ako prediktor čas a rod respondentov a ich interakcie.
Kontrola distribúcie reziduí ukázala mierne zošikmenie vo väčšine premenných,
avšak distribúcie nevykazovali extrémny rozptyl ani extrémne hodnoty a boli unimodálne.
Pre overenie prezentovaných výsledkov boli ešte odhadnuté modely, ktoré
nestoja na parametrických predpokladoch a závislé premenné sú dichotomizované
(použitím Generalized mixed models v SPSS). Výsledky týchto modelov sú v zhode
s výsledkami lineárnych zmiešaných modelov.
Výsledky
V tab. 1 sú prezentované deskriptívne údaje pre jednotlivé premenné v čase zberu
údajov T1 až T5 pre chlapcov a dievčatá osobitne.
Tab. 1 Deskriptívne charakteristiky sledovaných rodinných procesov v jednotlivých vlnách zberu
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Priemer
(SD)
Priemer
(SD)
Priemer
(SD)
Priemer
(SD)
Priemer
(SD)
chlapci
spokojnosť s matkou (1–5) 4,63 (0,81) 4,70 (0,63) 4,56 (0,85) 4,52 (0,81) 4,56 (0,80)
spokojnosť s otcom (1–5) 4,47 (0,98) 4,43 (1,01) 4,41 (1,00) 4,36 (1,00) 4,37 (1,03)
behaviorálna kontrola (2–10) 5,97 (2,33) 5,91 (2,37) 5,63 (2,35) 5,73 (2,35) 5,67 (2,35)
informovanosť (2–10) 7,47 (2,85) 7,23 (3,03) 7,30 (2,82) 7,29 (2,88) 7,35 (2,76)
vysoké očakávania (3–12) 9,97 (2,40) 9,37 (2,79) 9,63 (2,45) 9,07 (2,83) 9,51 (2,72)
podporné vzťahy (3–12) 10,16 (2,35) 9,35 (2,92) 9,65(2,50) 9,28 (2,30) 9,66 (2,60)
zmysluplná participácia (3–12) 9,71 (2,15) 8,83 (2,78) 9,33 (2,50) 9,06 (2,67) 8,96 (2,50)
dievčatá
spokojnosť s matkou (1–5) 4,62 (0,82) 4,47 (0,97) 4,44 (0,95) 4,39 (1,04) 4,39 (0,96)
spokojnosť s otcom (1–5) 4,40 (1,08) 4,32 (1,05) 4,27 (1,14) 4,28 (1,07) 4,27 (1,09)
behaviorálna kontrola (2–10) 5,83 (2,08) 5,63 (2,29) 5,83 (2,19) 5,83 (2,29) 5,67 (2,29)
informovanosť (2–10) 8,19 (2,65) 8,24 (2,61) 8,34 (2,44) 8,48 (2,37) 8,42 (2,37)
vysoké očakávania (3–12) 10,05 (2,27) 10,01 (2,09) 9,73 (2,51) 9,81 (2,40) 9,98 (2,31)
podporné vzťahy (3–12) 10,25 (2,30) 9,99 (2,35) 9,87 (2,61) 9,79 (2,62) 9,91 (2,49)
zmysluplná participácia (3–12) 9,42 (2,66) 9,17 (2,72) 9,42 (2,66) 9,17 (2,72) 9,50 (2,68)
Zmeny v čase
V rámci lineárnych zmiešaných modelov sme sledovali interakciu (moderačnú úlohu)
rodu a zmien v jednotlivých rodinných procesoch v čase. Ani v jednom zo sledovaných
rodinných procesov nebola interakcia medzi rodom a časom zberu štatisticky významná,
teda zmeny prebiehali rovnako u chlapcov a dievčat. Grafické znázornenie rodových
	 Výzkumné studie	 / 203
Grafy 1–7 Vzťah medzi jednotlivými rodinnými procesmi a vlnou zberu vzhľadom
na rod respondenta
rozdielov je uvedené v grafoch 1 až 7. Pre jednoduchšiu interpretáciu výsledkov sme
modely analyzovali znova, kontrolované pre rod respondentov, ale bez interakčných
efektov rodu s časom. Tieto výsledky prezentujeme v nasledujúcom texte a tabuľkách.
V prvom kroku analýz boli vytvorené modely nepodmienených priemerov pre
jednotlivé premenné a následne vypočítaný medzitriedny korelačný koeficient (ICC),
ktorý slúži na overenie interindividuálnej variancie v závislej premennej bez ohľadu
na ďalšie premenné, v tomto prípade čas. Hodnoty ICC pre jednotlivé premenné sú
nasledujúce: spokojnosť so vzťahom s matkou ICC = 0,306; spokojnosť so vzťahom
s otcom ICC = 0,445; behaviorálna kontrola ICC = 0,436; informovanosť ICC =
= 0,463; vysoké očakávania ICC = 0,346; podporné vzťahy ICC = 0,378 a zmysluplná
participácia ICC = 0,378. To naznačuje, že v jednotlivých premenných 30 %, 45 %,
44 %, 46 %, 34 %, 38 % a 38 % variancie je vysvetlenej interindividuálnymi rozdiel-
mi.
Tab. 2 uvádza výsledky prvej úrovne modelu, teda to, ako sa jednotlivé procesy
menia v čase (within-person change) kontrolujúc modely pre rod respondentov.
204 /	 Výzkumné studie
V priebehu 5 vĺn zberu údajov došlo k štatisticky významnému (p ≤ 0,001) poklesu
spokojnosti so vzťahom s matkou. Priemerný pokles spokojnosti bol o 0,04 bodu medzi
jednotlivými vlnami. Dievčatá uvádzali štatisticky významne nižšiu spokojnosť
so vzťahom s matkou ako chlapci. Rodové rozdiely v spokojnosti s otcom zaznameTab.
2 Zmeny v jednotlivých rodinných procesoch, výsledky zmiešaných lineárnych modelov
odhad
regresného
koeficientu
št. chyba
(S.E.)
stupne voľnosti
(D.F.)
sig
spokojnosť s matkou
konštanta (intercept) 4,83 0,09 586 < 0,001
rod -0,11 0,05 488 0,039
čas -0,04 0,01 476 < 0,001
spokojnosť s otcom
konštanta (intercept) 4,59 0,13 563 < 0,001
rod -0,11 0,07 489 0,123
čas -0,03 0,01 458 0,032
podporné vzťahy
konštanta (intercept) 9,57 0,29 593 < 0,001
rod 0,32 0,17 491 0,055
čas -0,09 0,03 420 0,015
zmysluplná participácia
konštanta (intercept) 9,19 0,29 580 0,001
rod 0,30 0,17 495 0,079
čas -0,09 0,03 432 0,005
behaviorálna kontrola
konštanta (intercept) 5,83 0,27 572 0,001
rod 0,01 0,15 496 0,946
čas -0,03 0,03 459 0,265
rodičovská informovanosť
konštanta (intercept) 6,08 0,32 591 < 0,001
rod 1,05 0,18 463 0,001
čas 0,05 0,03 481 0,157
vysoké očakávania
konštanta (intercept) 9,26 0,28 587 0,001
rod 0,40 0,16 483 0,012
čas -0,06 0,03 425 0,113
	 Výzkumné studie	 / 205
Tab.3Druháúroveňlineárnehozmiešanéhomodelu,mieravariabilitymedzirespondentmi
spokojnosť
smatkou
spokojnosť
s otcom
podporné
vzťahy
zmysluplná
participácia
behaviorálna
kontrola
rodičovská
informovanosť
vysoké
očakávania
odhad(S.E.)
sig
odhad(S.E.)
sig
odhad(S.E.)
sig
odhad(S.E.)
sig
odhad(S.E.)
sig
odhad(S.E.)
sig
odhad(S.E.)
sig
varianciareziduí0,48(0,02)***0,58(0,02)***3,84(0,16)***3,99(0,16)***2,72(0,10)***3,40(0,13)***3,73(0,15)***
varianciakonštantya
0,23(0,06)***0,53(0,08)***2,68(0,56)***1,61(0,49)***2,46(0,39)***5,12(0,63)***2,40(0,53)***
varianciav čase
(sklon)b0,02(0,01)***0,01(0,01)**0,09(0,04)*0,04(0,04)0,08(0,03)**0,20(0,04)***0,12(0,42)**
kovarianciačasu
a konštantyc-0,02(0,01)-0,03(0,02)-0,18(0,14)0,08(0,12)-0,15(0,09)-0,62(0,14)***-0,22(0,13)
a
Varianciakonštanty–rozptylv premennejv časeT1
b
Varianciav čase–nakoľkosazmenylíšiamedzijednotlivýmisubjektami
c
Kovariancia–doakejmierysalíšiazmenyv časevzhľadomnapočiatočnúúroveňpremenne
206 /	 Výzkumné studie
nané neboli, avšak podobne ako v predchádzajúcej premennej došlo k poklesu spokojnosti
so vzťahom s otcom (p ≤ 0,05; priemerný pokles o 0,03 bodu).
Štatisticky významný pokles bol zistený aj v  premenných podporné vzťahy
(p ≤ 0,05) a zmysluplná participácia (p ≤ 0,05). Priemerný pokles v podporných vzťahoch,
ako i v zmysluplnej participácii bol o 0,09 bodu medzi jednotlivými vlnami zberu.
V premenných behaviorálna kontrola, rodičovská informovanosť a vysoké očakávania
neboli zaznamenané štatisticky významné zmeny v čase. Zaznamenané však
boli rodové rozdiely. Dievčatá uvádzali štatisticky významne vyššiu mieru očakávaní
zo strany rodičov aj rodičovskej informovanosti.
Údaje v tab. 3 reprezentujú výsledky druhej úrovne lineárneho zmiešaného modelu,
teda mieru variability medzi jednotlivými respondentami (between-person differences).
Variancia konštanty hovorí o tom, aký je rozptyl v závislej premennej v čase
1. Variancia času udáva, nakoľko sa zmeny v čase líšia medzi jednotlivými subjektami
(rozptyl v sklone). Kovariancia konštanty a času udáva do akej miery sa líši vývin
v čase vzhľadom na počiatočnú úroveň závislej premennej.
Variancia reziduí vo všetkých prezentovaných modeloch je relatívne veľká voči ostatným
varianciám, čo naznačuje, že veľká časť variancie v závislej premennej zostáva
modelom nevysvetlená. Konštanta v našom výskume variuje medzi jednotlivými
subjektami vo všetkých sledovaných premenných (na úrovni štatistickej významnosti
p ≤ 0,001), čo znamená, že percipovanie jednotlivých rodinných procesov v čase T1
je u jednotlivých respondentov rozdielne. Variancia v čase bola štatisticky významná
takmer vo všetkých sledovaných rodinných procesoch s výnimkou zmysluplnej participácie.
Tento výsledok naznačuje, že miera zmien v jednotlivých procesoch je rozdielna
u každého respondenta. Výnimku tvorí premenná zmysluplná participácia, kde
k štatisticky významnému poklesu (tab. 2) došlo rovnomerne u väčšiny respondentov.
Kovariancia je takmer vo všetkých sledovaných rodinných procesoch štatisticky
nevýznamná. Znamená to, že miera zmeny hodnotenia rodinných procesov bola rovnaká
bez ohľadu na počiatočný stav. Výnimkou je premenná rodičovská informovanosť.
Signifikantná negatívna kovariancia (-0,62; p ≤ 0,001) naznačuje, že čím vyššia
bola počiatočná miera informovanosti rodičov, tým menší bol nárast informovanosti.
Diskusia
Hlavným cieľom štúdie bolo sledovať zmeny v rodinných procesoch v priebehu skorej
adolescencie. Výsledky poukazujú na pokles v kvalite niektorých z rodinných procesov.
Na začiatku dospievania v priebehu jeden a pol roka došlo k poklesu miery
spokojnosti so vzťahom s matkou a s otcom a percipovaných podporných vzťahov
v  rodine. Tieto výsledky korešpondujú s  predchádzajúcimi zisteniami (De Goede,
Branje, Meeus, 2009; Furman, Buhrmester, 1992; Laursen, DeLay, Adams, 2010;
Shanahan et al., 2007) o poklese v kvalite rôznych rodinných procesov v rámci emocionálnej
dimenzie. Výsledky prezentovanej štúdie pridávajú informáciu, že k tomuto
poklesu dochádza už v relatívne krátkom časovom horizonte na začiatku dospievania.
Jedným z dôvodov tohto poklesu môže byť rastúca tendencia dospievajúcich prijímať
sociálnu oporu od priateľov. Furman a Buhrmester (1992) zistili, že vo veku 9 rokov
boli najvýznamnejším zdrojom sociálnej opory ešte rodičia, avšak vo veku 12 rokov
to už boli priatelia rovnakého pohlavia. Podobne, Snopek a Hublová (2008) uvádzajú,
že najvýznamnejším zdrojom sociálnej opory deviatakov sú priatelia, až potom nasledujú
rodičia a spolužiaci.
Napriek zistenému lineárnemu poklesu v kvalite rodinných procesov, v absolútnej
hodnote bol tento pokles relatívne malý. Aj hodnota reziduálnej variancie naznačuje,
že pomerne veľká variancia v sledovaných premenných zostáva nevysvetlená vývino-
	 Výzkumné studie	 / 207
vými zmenami. Percipovanie emocionálnej dimenzie rodinných procesov adolescentami
zostáva na vysokej úrovni. Naše zistenie tak podporuje súčasný pohľad na vývin
vzťahov medzi dospievajúcimi a rodičmi. Ten sa presunul od pôvodného vnímania
dospievania ako turbulentného obdobia plného konfliktov, rebélie či aktívneho odmietania
hodnôt rodičov k súčasnému pohľadu vyzdvihujúcemu skôr zmenu spôsobu,
akým je vzťah dospievajúceho a rodiča definovaný, nie zhoršenie jeho kvality (Laursen,
Colins, 2009; Smetana, Campione-Barr, Metzger, 2006).
V dimenzii riadenia (v miere behaviorálnej kontroly, rodičovskej informovanosti
a vysokých očakávaniach) sme nezaznamenali zmeny v čase. Tieto výsledky sú do
istej miery v rozpore z predchádzajúcimi zisteniami. Viacerí autori (Keijsers, Poulin,
2013; Masche, 2010; Nilsson, 2016) uvádzajú pokles v rodičovskej informovanosti
počas adolescencie. V citovaných štúdiách však autori sledovali dlhšie časové obdobie.
Je možné, že začiatkom adolescencie sa pokles v množstve vedomostí, ktoré
rodičia o aktivitách svojich detí majú, ešte neprejavuje. Dospievajúci v tomto období
stále trávia pomerne veľké množstvo času v škole a doma, takže rodičia sú ešte stále
dobre informovaní o ich voľnočasových aktivitách. Druhým faktorom môže byť použitá
metodika. V prezentovanom výskume respondenti odpovedali na otázky, či ich
rodičia vedia, kde a s kým sú po večeroch. Výsledky by mohli byť iné, ak by sme sa
pýtali na to, či rodičia poznajú ich kamarátov, vedia, aké mávajú domáce úlohy, či ako
trávia čas medzi školou a príchodom domov.
Ďalšie výsledky prezentovanej štúdie naznačujú, že k zmenám (či stabilite) dochádza
bez ohľadu na rod adolescenta, čo je v súlade s našimi predpokladmi aj mnohými
predchádzajúcimi zisteniami z obdobia skorej adolescencie (De Goede, Branje, Meeus,
2009; Keijsers, Poulin, 2013).
Rod respondenta je však významným vo vzťahu k niektorým rodinným procesom.
Naše výsledky ukazujú signifikantne nižšiu spokojnosť so vzťahom s matkou u dievčat
ako u chlapcov. Vzťahy medzi matkou a dcérou sú vo všeobecnosti komplikovanejšie
a konfliktnejšie ako iné vzťahy rodič – adolescent (Laursen, Coy, Collins,
1998). Zároveň u dievčat nastupuje puberta skôr ako u chlapcov. Fyzické, kognitívne
a sociálne zmeny súvisiace s pubertou majú potenciál destabilizovať vzťah medzi
dospievajúcim a rodičmi, a teda priamo provokovať zmeny v rodinných procesoch
(Laursen, Collins, 2009); nástup puberty súvisí s vyšším výskytom konfliktov medzi
dospievajúcimi a rodičmi (Coakley et al., 2002). Skorší nástup puberty u dievčat
môže súvisieť so skoršou turbulenciou vo vzťahu medzi matkou a dcérou, zvýšenou
konfliktovosťou, čo môže následne súvisieť s nižšou spokojnosťou so vzťahom s matkou
u dievčat v období skorej adolescencie. U chlapcov sa táto nespokojnosť môže
objaviť neskôr.
Naopak chlapci v  prezentovanom výskume uvádzali nižšiu mieru rodičovskej
informovanosti a vysokých očakávaní zo strany rodičov. To, že rodičia vedia menej
o aktivitách chlapcov, korešponduje so zisteniami iných autorov (napr. Smetana,
Daddis, 2002; Waizenhoffer, Buchanan, Jackson-Newsom, 2004). Ukazuje sa, že
chlapci v období adolescencie skrývajú pred rodičmi viac súkromných informácií ako
dievčatá (Smetana, Campione-Barr, Metzger, 2006) a zároveň sa dievčatá častejšie
spontánne zverujú rodičom (Waizenhoffer, Buchanan, Jackson-Newsom, 2004). Oba
tieto fakty úzko súvisia s vyššou mierou informovanosti rodičov o aktivitách dievčat
v porovnaní s chlapcami.
Výsledky štúdie ukazujú, že miera zmien v jednotlivých procesoch je rozdielna
u každého respondenta. Podľa teórie súladu medzi vývinovým obdobím a podmienkami
prostredia (stage-environment fit theory; Eccles et al., 1993) sú niektoré negatívne
zmeny v rodinných procesoch v priebehu adolescencie dôsledkom nesúladu medzi
208 /	 Výzkumné studie
novými potrebami adolescenta (napríklad zvýšená potreba autonómie) a možnosťami,
ktoré im ich prostredie ponúka. Rodičia nemusia dostatočne flexibilne reagovať na
nové požiadavky a potreby dospievajúceho, neposkytujú mu prostredie, ktoré umožní
naplnenie jeho potrieb, čo môže súvisieť so zhoršenou kvalitou ich vzťahu. Interindividuálna
variabilita v zmenách by mohla byť v súlade s touto teóriou vysvetlená
rozdielnou schopnosťou rodičov prispôsobiť sa novým požiadavkam adolescenta.
Výsledky prezentovanej štúdie ukazujú pokles v  kvalite niektorých rodinných
procesov v emocionálnej dimenzii v priebehu skorej adolescencie. Hoci je pokles
štatisticky významný naprieč reprezentatívnym súborom dospievajúcich, v absolútnej
hodnote nie je veľký a poukazuje na pretrvávajúce, skôr pozitívne vzťahy medzi
dospievajúcimi a ich rodičmi.
Na záver je potrebné uviesť niekoľko obmedzení prezentovaného výskumu. Predkladaná
štúdia spracováva čiastkové výsledky rozsiahlejšieho projektu zameraného
na faktory rizikového správania dospievajúcich. Rozsah sledovaných rodinných procesov
je preto obmedzený a  nezahŕňa všetky podstatné aspekty ako emocionálnej
dimenzie, tak dimenzie riadenia. Keďže sa však v kontexte slovenského a českého
výskumu jedná o prvú štúdiu zameranú na sledovanie zmien v rodinných procesoch,
veríme, že napriek uvedenej limitácii prinášajú výsledky štúdie čitateľom dôležité
informácie a môžu slúžiť ako podklad pre ďalší výskum v tejto oblasti. Obohatením
by zároveň mohlo byť získanie údajov od rodičov, keďže mnohé štúdie naznačujú, že
mnohé z rodinných procesov vnímajú adolescenti a ich rodičia rozdielne (Bačíková,
Čarná, 2011; De Los Reyes, Ohannessian, 2016).
Limitáciou je i  výber použitých metodík, ktorý opäť súvisí s  ich dostupnosťou
v rámci rozsiahlejšieho výskumu.
Jednou z metodík je jednopoložková škála sledujúca spokojnosť so vzťahom s rodičmi.
V kontexte celkovej spokojnosti so životom je však využívanie jednopoložkových
škál časté (Lucas, Donnellan, 2012). Štúdie porovnávajúce tieto jednopoložkové
škály so známou metodikou SWLS (Satisfaction with Life Scale; Diener et al., 1985)
uvádzajú dobrú konštruktovú validitu u dospelých (Cheung, Lucas, 2014) aj adolescentov
(Jovanovic, 2016). Preto predpokladáme, že i  jednopoložková škála zameraná
špecificky na jednu oblasť spokojnosti so životom (vzťah s rodičmi) môže byť akceptovaná
ako validný výskumný nástroj.
Validitu ďalšej z metodík – stanovovanie pravidiel ako forma behaviorálnej kontroly
– sme overili na inom výskumnom súbore. 145 adolescentov (priemerný vek:
13,98, SD: 0,74) vyplnilo vo výskume často používanú škálu behaviorálnej kontroly
navrhnutú Stattinom a Kerrovou (2000) ako i nami použitú dvojpoložkovú metodiku.
Pearsonov korelačný koeficient medzi oboma škálami bol r = 0,719, čo naznačuje
vysokú mieru zhody.
ZÁVER
Výsledky prezentovanej štúdie ukazujú pokles v kvalite niektorých rodinných procesov
v emocionálnej dimenzii v priebehu skorej adolescencie. Hoci je pokles štatisticky
významný naprieč reprezentatívnym súborom dospievajúcich, v absolútnej
hodnote nie je veľký a poukazuje na pretrvávajúce, skôr pozitívne vzťahy medzi dospievajúcimi
a ich rodičmi.
LITERATÚRA
Bačíková, M., Čarná, L. (2011): Rodinné
procesy z  pohľadu adolescenta a  rodiča.
In: Sociální procesy a  osobnost. Člověk na
cestě životem: Křižovatky a mosty. Sborník
příspěvků. Brno, Psychologický ústav
Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity,
13-16.
	 Výzkumné studie	 / 209
Barber, B. K., Maughan, S. L., Olsen,
J. A. (2005): Patterns of parenting across ado-
lescence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 108, 5-16.
Berinšterová, M., Orosová, O., Miovský,
M. (2016): Vkladanie nádeje významných
dospelých a užívanie alkoholu a tabakových
cigariet medzi dospievajúcimi: mediačný
efekt sebakontroly. Československá psychol-
ogie, 60, 2, 106-119.
Brown, S. L., Rinelli, L. N. (2010): Family
structure, family processes, and adolescent
smoking and drinking. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 20, 2, 259-273.
Coakley, R. M., Holmbeck, G. N.,
Friedman, D., Greenley, R. N., Thill,
A. W. (2002): A longitudinal study of pubertal
timing, parent-child conflict, and cohesion in
families of young adolescents with spina bi-
fida. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 5,
461-473.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Martin,
M. J. (2010): Socioeconomic status, family
processes, and individual development. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 72, 3, 685-704.
Constantine, N. A., Benard, B. (2001):
California healthy kids survey resilience assessment
module: Technical report. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 28, 2, 122-140.
Criss, M. M., Lee, T. K., Morris, A. S.,
Cui, L., Bosler, C. D., Shreffler, K. M.
et al. (2015): Link between monitoring behavior
and adolescent adjustment: An analysis of
direct and indirect effects.  Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 24, 3, 668-678.
Čáp, J., Boschek, P. (1994): Dotazník
pro zjišťování způsobu výchovy
v  rodině.  Příručka. Bratislava, Brno, Psychodiagnostika,
s. r. o.
De Goede, I. H., Branje, S. J., Meeus,
W. H. (2009): Developmental changes in
adolescents’ perceptions of relationships with
their parents.  Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 38, 1, 75-88.
De Los Reyes, A., Ohannessian, C. M.
(2016): Introduction to the special issue:
Discrepancies in adolescent–parent perceptions
of the family and adolescent adjustment.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 10,
1957-1972.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen,
R. J., Griffin, S. (1985): The Satisfaction
With Life Scale.  Journal of Personality As-
sessment, 49, 1, 71-75.
Furman, W., Buhrmester, D. (1992): Age
and sex differences in perceptions of networks
of personal relationships. Child Devel-
opment, 63, 1, 103-115.
Gaertner, A. E., Fite, P. J., Colder, C.
R. (2010): Parenting and friendship quality as
predictors of internalizing and externalizing
symptoms in early adolescence.  Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 19, 1, 101-108.
Gillernová, I. (2009): Edukační interakce
rodičů a dětí a její proměny v reflexi dospívajících.
Československá psychologie,  53, 3,
209-223.
Hadiwijaya, H., Klimstra, T. A., Vermunt,
J. K., Branje, S. J., Meeus, W.
H. (2017): On the development of harmony,
turbulence, and independence in parent–adolescent
relationships: A five-wave longitudinal
study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1-17.
Cheung, F., Lucas, R. E. (2014): Assessing
the validity of single-item life satisfaction
measures: Results from three large
samples.  Quality of Life Research,  23, 10,
2809-2818.
Jovanović, V. (2016): The validity of the Satisfaction
with Life Scale in adolescents and
a  comparison with single-item life satisfaction
measures: a preliminary study. Quality of
Life Research, 25, 12, 3173-3180.
Kakihara, F., Tilton-Weaver, L. (2009):
Adolescents’ interpretations of parental control:
Differentiated by domain and types of
control. Child Development,  80, 6, 1722-
1738.
Keijsers, L., Poulin, F. (2013): Developmental
changes in parent–child communication
throughout adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 49, 12, 2301-2308.
Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J., Frijns, T.,
Finkenauer, C., Meeus, W. (2010): Gender
differences in keeping secrets from parents
in adolescence. Developmental Psycho-
logy, 46, 1, 293-298.
Keijsers, L., Frijns, T., Branje, S. J.,
Meeus, W. (2009): Developmental links of
adolescent disclosure, parental solicitation,
and control with delinquency: moderation
by parental support. Developmental Psycho-
logy, 45, 5, 1314-1327.
Lam, C. B., McHale, S. M., Crouter,
A. C. (2014): Time with peers from middle
childhood to late adolescence: Developmental
course and adjustment correlates. Child
Development, 85, 4, 1677-1693.
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta,
G., Holmbeck, G., Duckett, E.
(1996): Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions
with their families from ages 10 to 18:
Disengagement and transformation. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 4, 744-754.
Laursen, B., Collins, W. A. (2009): Parent–child
relationships during adoles-
cence. Handbook of adolescent psychology.
In: R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.),
Handbook of adolescent psychology, Vol 2:
Contextual influences on adolescent develop-
210 /	 Výzkumné studie
ment (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley &
Sons, 3-42.
Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., Collins, W.
A. (1998): Reconsidering changes in parentchild
conflict across adolescence: a  meta-
analysis. Child Development, 69, 3, 817-832.
Laursen, B., DeLay, D., Adams, R. E.
(2010): Trajectories of perceived support in
mother–adolescent relationships: The poor
(quality) get poorer. Developmental Psycho-
logy, 46, 6, 1792-1798.
Lippold, M. A., Greenberg, M. T., Collins,
L. M. (2013): Parental knowledge and
youth risky behavior: A person oriented ap-
proach. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 42,
11, 1732-1744.
Lucas, R. E., Donnellan, M. B. (2012):
Estimating the reliability of single-item life
satisfaction measures: Results from four national
panel studies. Social Indicators Re-
search, 105, 3, 323-331.
Mack, K. Y., Peck, J. H., Leiber, M. J.
(2015): The effects of family structure and
family processes on externalizing and internalizing
behaviors of male and female youth:
A longitudinal examination. Deviant Behav-
ior, 36, 9, 740-764.
Masche, J. G. (2010): Explanation of normative
declines in parents’ knowledge about
their adolescent children. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 33, 2, 271-284.
McGue, M., Elkins, I., Walden, B.,
Iacono, W. G. (2005): Perceptions of the
parent-adolescent relationship: a longitudinal
investigation. Developmental Psychology, 41,
6, 971-984.
Meeus, W. (2016): Adolescent psychosocial
development: A review of longitudinal models
and research. Developmental Psycho-
logy, 52, 12, 1969-1993.
Nilsson, E. L. (2016): Parents’ monitoringrelevant
knowledge, involvement with deviant
peers and substance use: time-variant and
long-term associations among adolescents
aged 12-17.  International Journal of Social
Science Studies, 4, 10, 91-100.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Harper, J. M.,
Bean, R. A. (2011): Pathways to parental
knowledge: The role of family process and
family structure. The Journal of Early Adoles-
cence, 31, 4, 604-627.
Shanahan, L., McHale, S. M., Osgood,
D. W., Crouter, A. C. (2007): Conflict frequency
with mothers and fathers from middle
childhood to late adolescence: Within- and
between-families comparisons. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 3, 539-550.
Shek, D. T., Ma, C. (2011): Longitudinal data
analyses using linear mixed models in SPSS:
concepts, procedures and illustrations.  The
Scientific World Journal, 11, 42-76.
Singer, J. D., Willett, J. B. (2003): Applied
longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change
and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N.,
Metzger, A. (2006): Adolescent development
in interpersonal and societal con-
texts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255-
284.
Smetana, J. G., Robinson, J., Rote, W.
M. (2015). Socialization in adolescence. In: J.
E. Grusec, P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook
of socialization: Theory and research. New
York, Guilford, 60-84.
Smetana, J. G., Daddis, C. (2002): Domain-specific
antecedents of parental psychological
control and monitoring: The role of
parenting beliefs and practices. Child Devel-
opment, 73, 2, 563-580.
Snopek, M., Hublová, V. (2008): Sociální
opora a  její vztah k  životní spokojenosti,
sebehodnocení a  osobnosti u  adolescentů:
rodové rozdíly.  Československá psycholo-
gie, 52, 5, 500-509.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M.,
Luyten, P. (2010): Towards a  domain-specific
approach to the study of parental psychological
control: Distinguishing between dependency-oriented
and achievement-oriented
psychological control. Journal of Personality,
78, 217-256.
Stattin, H., Kerr, M. (2000): Parental monitoring:
A  reinterpretation. Child Develop-
ment, 71, 4, 1072-1085.
Thorová, K. (2015): Vývojová psychologie:
proměny lidské psychiky od početí po smrt.
Portál, Praha.
Tsai, K. M., Telzer, E. H., Fuligni, A.
J. (2013): Continuity and discontinuity in
perceptions of family relationships from adolescence
to young adulthood. Child Develop-
ment, 84, 2, 471-484.
Vágnerová, M. (2000): Vývojová psychologie:
dětství, dospělost, stáří. Portál, Praha.
Van Doorn, M. D., Branje, S. J., Meeus,
W. H. (2011). Developmental changes in
conflict resolution styles in parent–adolescent
relationships: A  four-wave longitudinal
study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40,
1, 97-107.
van Eijck, F. E., Branje, S. J., Hale III,
W. W., Meeus, W. H. (2012): Longitudinal
associations between perceived parentadolescent
attachment relationship quality
and generalized anxiety disorder symptoms in
adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-
chology, 40, 6, 871-883.
	 Výzkumné studie	 / 211
Vazsonyi, A. T., Hibbert, J. R., Blake
Snider, J. (2003): Exotic enterprise no
more? Adolescent reports of family and parenting
processes from youth in four coun-
tries. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13,
2, 129-160.
Waizenhofer, R. N., Buchanan, C. M.,
Jackson-Newsom, J. (2004): Mothers’ and
fathers’ knowledge of adolescents’ daily activities:
its sources and its links with adolescent
adjustment. Journal of Family Psychol-
ogy, 18, 2, 348-360.
SÚHRN
Teoretické východiská. Adolescencia je charakterizovaná
významnými zmenami v  mnohých
aspektoch vývinu dospievajúcich. Štúdie
zamerané na zmeny v  rodinných procesoch
a  vzťahy medzi adolescentom a  rodičmi však
nie sú časté. Zároveň sa javí byť dôležité zamerať
pozornosť podrobnejšie na obdobie skorej
adolescencie.
Výskumný súbor. Päť vĺn zberu údajov bolo
uskutočnených medzi 497 adolescentmi (priemerný
vek v  T1 11,52 rokov, priemerný vek
v T5 13,09 rokov; 59,4 % dievčat).
Hypotéza. Hlavným cieľom práce bolo sledovať
zmeny v niektorých rodinných procesoch z pohľadu
adolescentov medzi 11,5tym a 13tym rokom.
Očakávané bolo zhoršenie v emocionálnej
dimenzii rodinných procesov a  v  rodičovskej
informovanosti, a  naopak zvýšenie percipova-
nej behaviorálnej kontroly rodičov.
Štatistické analýzy. Zmeny v priebehu 5 vĺn zberu
boli sledované pomocou lineárnych zmiešaných
modelov .
Výsledky. Výsledky lineárnych zmiešaných
modelov poukazujú na signifikantný pokles
v spokojnosti so vzťahom s matkou (F = 14,15;
p ≤ 0,001), otcom (F = 4,6; p ≤ 0,01), podporných
vzťahoch (F = 6,01; p ≤ 0,01) a  zmysluplnej
participácii (F = 8,04; p ≤ 0,001), bez
interakčného efektu s rodom. V ostatných premenných
nebola zaznamenaná štatisticky významná
zmena.
Limity. Štúdia je zameraná len na čiastkové aspekty
rodinných procesov tak, ako ich vnímajú
adolescenti. Zaujímavým by bolo zamerať sa na
ďalšie rodinné procesy, ako i  získať údaje od
rodičov.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
Study 2
Bacikova-Sleskova, M., Madarasova Geckova, A., van Dijk, J.P., Groothoff, J.W.,
Reijneveld, S.A. (2011). Parental support and adolescents’ health in the context of
parental employment status. Journal of Adolescence. 34, 141–149.
Parents may affect their child’s healthy and risky development by many means. Among them
family stressors, such as parental unemployment, are of high importance. Unemployment is
often followed by financial loss, loss of social contacts, loss of structure in the daily routine as
well as a decrease in social status (Christoffersen, 2000). All these consequences cause stress
which the unemployed individual has to cope with. As a result of this stress, unemployment can
negatively affect parental behaviour as well as the support which parents give to their children.
We assumed that parental unemployment can affect support given to adolescent children in two
ways: (a) as a decrease in parental support as perceived by the adolescents and (b) as a decrease
in the health-protective effect of parental support.
Women experience their unemployment as less stressful than men do, and the effect of
mother’s unemployment on adolescents is lower than that of father’s unemployment
(Christoffersen, 2000; Sleskova et al., 2006). Moreover, women have been found to have a
greater sensitivity to the needs of others, which leads to a greater capacity for providing support
(Flaherty, & Richman,1989). Therefore, special attention is paid to mother’s and father’s social
support separately in this study.
The aim of the present study was to explore the effect of perceived parental social
support on adolescents’ subjective health (general health, vitality, mental health, well-being and
physical complaints) in the context of parental unemployment. The study was conducted among
1992 adolescents (mean age 16.9). Results show, that the quality of perceived social support is
lower in the case of unemployment of father but not mother. Regression analyses revealed that
both mother’s and father’s support was protective for adolescents’ health when analysed
separately. However, when the adjusted effect of mother’s and father’s support was analysed,
20
the positive influence of mother’s support decreased or even disappeared for some outcomes.
Forehand and Nousiainen (1993) suggested that although a father’s acceptance of an adolescent
occurs more seldom than a mother’s, when it does occur it may actually play a more important
role in the adolescent’s life than the mother’s acceptance. Our findings seem to be in line with
this hypothesis. Father’s support was generally perceived as lower than the mother’s, but when
it was high it played a greater protective role in adolescents’ health than high mother’s support.
When both parents were employed, higher levels of father’s support were mainly protective for
the health of their children. However, if the father was unemployed, his social support had
hardly any association with adolescents’ health, but support from the mother had such an
association. Overall, our results suggest that in the case of an unemployment of one parent,
support from the other parent is important.
Author´s contribution: 60%
Parental support and adolescents’ health in the context of parental
employment status
Maria Bacikova-Sleskova a,*, Andrea Madarasova Geckova a
, Jitse P. van Dijk a,b
,
Johan W. Groothoff b
, Sijmen A. Reijneveld b
a
Department of Pedagogical Psychology and Psychology of Health, Faculty of Arts, PJ Safarik University, Moyzesova 16, 040 01 Kosice, Slovakia
b
Department of Social Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, A. Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands
Keywords:
Parental unemployment
Adolescence
Health
Parental support
Well-being
a b s t r a c t
Parental employment status is an important and often overlooked contextual factor that
may influence parent–adolescent relationships. The aim of this study is to examine the
effect of parental support on adolescents’ health within the context of parental employment
status. Data on perceived mother’s and father’s support, mother’s and father’s
employment status and adolescents’ perceived health were collected among 1992
adolescents (mean age 16.9) and analysed using chi-square and logistic regression. Father’s
support was significantly more often perceived as low when the father was unemployed,
while the perception of mother’s support did not differ in regards to the mother’s
employment. Among those with an unemployed father, mother’s support appeared
protective for adolescents’ health, while when a mother was unemployed, father’s support
was more strongly associated with good health. Our results suggest that in the case of
unemployment of one parent, support from the other parent may be more important for
children.
Ó 2010 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
A well-known family system theory (Cox & Paley, 1997) views family as a hierarchically organized system comprised of
smaller subsystems (e.g. parental, marital, and sibling) but also embedded within larger systems (e.g. the community). Thus,
mothers, fathers and children influence each other both directly and indirectly. From a family system perspective, changes
in the condition of one family member or in the patterns of relationships among family subsystems may affect the
functioning of the others. One such change is parental unemployment. Losing employment is a very stressful event. It is
often followed by financial loss, loss of social contacts, loss of structure in the daily routine as well as a decrease in social
status (Christoffersen, 2000). All these consequences of unemployment cause stress which the unemployed individual has
to cope with. As a result of this stress, unemployment can negatively affect parental behaviour as well as the support which
parents give to their children. We assume that parental unemployment can affect support for adolescent children in two
ways: (a) as a decrease in parental support as perceived by the adolescents and (b) as a decrease in the health-protective
effect of parental support.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ421 55 62 221 21.
E-mail addresses: maria.bacikova@upjs.sk (M. Bacikova-Sleskova), geckova@upjs.sk (A. Madarasova Geckova), j.p.van.dijk@med.umcg.nl (J.P. van
Dijk), j.w.groothoff@med.umcg.nl (J.W. Groothoff), s.a.reijneveld@med.umcg.nl (S.A. Reijneveld).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
0140-1971/$ – see front matter Ó 2010 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01.003
Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149
It has been found that financial strain, which is usually related to unemployment, increases the risk of emotional distress,
which in turn increases the risk of marital conflict and subsequent marital distress (Conger, Rueter, & Elder, 1999). According
to Robila and Krishnakumar (2005), financial strain is associated with higher levels of marital conflicts directly and also
indirectly through increased maternal depression and lowered social support. Not only financial problems, but also stressful
life events experienced by parents, as stated by Ge, Conger, Lorenz, and Simons (1994), are related to parental depressed
moods, which disrupt skillful parenting practices. Parental unemployment, as a possible source of stress and financial strain,
can thus negatively influence the amount of support given to adolescents by their parents.
The positive effect of good perceived social support on various aspects of an individual’s life is well established
(e.g. Amlund Hagen, Myers, & Mackintosh, 2005; Baruch-Feldman, Brondolo, Ben-Davan, & Schwarz, 2002; Leinonen,
Solantaus, & Punama¨ki, 2003). Geckova, van Dijk, Stewart, Groothoff, and Post (2003) found that social support has a strong
influence on many aspects of adolescents’ health. Piko (2000) reported that a low level of perceived father’s support increased
the risk of substance use among secondary school students, whereas mother’s support did not appear to be such a strong
predictor. Wicrama, Lorenz, and Conger (1997) found that through adolescent perception of parental support, changes in
parental supportive behaviour are connected with changes in an adolescent’s physical health status. On the contrary, a lack of
perceived parental support was highly related to depressive symptoms in adolescents (Patten et al., 1997). In this paper we
study the protective effect of parental support on self-perceived adolescents’ health.
The protective effect of parental support on adolescents’ health could be affected by parental unemployment. Based on
their finding that parent–adolescent conflicts are related to adolescents’ problem behaviour only in families with alcoholic
fathers but not in alcoholic-free families, Barrera and Stice (1998) stressed the need to understand parent–adolescent
relationships within the context of family background characteristics. In our study, parental employment status is considered
as one of these family background characteristics. We expect the protective effect of parental support on the health of their
adolescent children to be lower in the event of parental unemployment. Generally speaking, women have been found to have
a greater sensitivity to the needs of others, which leads to a greater capacity for providing support (Flaherty & Richman,1989).
Therefore, special attention is paid to mother’s and father’s social support separately in this study. As has been found in
previous research, women experience their unemployment as less stressful than men do, and the effect of mother’s
unemployment on adolescents is lower than that of father’s unemployment (Christoffersen, 2000; Sleskova, Salonna, et al.,
2006). In line with these results, we also expect the effect of mother’s support on adolescents’ health to be influenced less by
mother’s unemployment than the effect of father’s support by father’s unemployment.
To summarise: previous research examining the effect of parental support on children’s health has overlooked ways in
which parental employment status moderates the influence of parental support on children’s health. The main aim of the
present paper is, therefore, to explore the effect of parental support on adolescents’ health, taking into account parental
employment status. Firstly, we aim to compare levels of support received from mothers and fathers between employed,
short-term unemployed and long-term unemployed mothers and fathers. We expect that those adolescents with unemployed
parents will report lower levels of parental support.
Secondly, the effect of high levels of parental support on adolescents’ health stratified by parental employment status will
be studied. We expect the protective effect of parental support on health to be lower in the groups of adolescents with
unemployed parents.
Methods
Sample and procedure
Our sample consisted of 1992 secondary school students from 24 secondary schools in the Kosice region in Slovakia
(Sleskova, Salonna, Madarasova Geckova, van Dijk, & Groothoff, 2005). The Slovakian school system is as follows: After leaving
elementary school (9 years attendance), Slovak adolescents aged around 15 enter one of four types of secondary schools: 1)
a four-year grammar school providing general education and preparation for university study. 2) a four-year specialised
secondary school providing usually technical education, after which it is also possible to study at university; however this is
a lower level of education than grammar school. 3) a four-year apprentice school providing education for manual occupations.
4) a three or two-year apprentice school providing only basic education for manual occupations.
Data were collected in the winter of 2002. The sample was stratified by type of school and gender (46.5% male, 53.5%
female). The age of respondents ranged from 14 to 19 years; the mean age was 16.8 (standard deviation 1.1). Only a small
minority of the sample comprised the ages 14 (N ¼ 18; 0.9%) and 19 years (N ¼ 22; 1.0%). All respondents lived with at least
one parent. Respondents completed a questionnaire at school during a 45 min class period on a voluntary and anonymous
basis in the absence of their teachers. A response rate of 97.5% was achieved, non-response was due to the illness or other type
of the school absence.
Measures
Employment status of parents
Respondents were asked to indicate whether their mother and father were employed or unemployed and the duration of
their unemployment, if applicable. This was then coded into the following categories: employed/unemployed less than one
M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al. / Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149142
year/unemployed more than one year. Unemployment longer than one year is usually considered as long-term unemployment,
while shorter than one year is short-term unemployment.
It is necessary to explain the employment situation in Slovakia, mainly with respect to females. Although being
a housewife is common in many West European countries, this type of employment status among females is virtually
non-existent in Slovakia (Sleskova, Tuinstra, et al., 2006) – most women have or would like to have full-time employment.
Our previous analyses showed no differences between housewives and unemployed women with regard to their
effect on the health of adolescents (Sleskova, Tuinstra, et al., 2006). Therefore, in this study we use only the category
‘unemployed’.
Health
We used five self-reported measures covering both physical and mental health. All measures were dichotomised in such
a way that approximately 30% of respondents reporting worse health are considered as having ‘bad health’ and the rest as
having ‘good health’.
Self-rated health is a single-item scale widely used in health studies, because it is generally accepted as a good predictor of
mortality and morbidity (Idler & Angel, 1990; Larsson, Hemmingsson, Allebeck, & Lundberg, 2002). Respondents assessed
their health using a five-point scale. ‘Excellent’ and ‘very good’ health ratings were combined into one group and considered
as ‘good health’, and ‘good’, ‘fairly good’ and ‘bad’ ratings were consolidated into a second group.
Vitality and mental health are two scales of the 36-item RAND questionnaire (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). The vitality
scale consists of four items focusing on energy and fatigue. Mental health is a five-item scale focusing on psychological
distress and well-being. In both indicators, respondents were asked to evaluate their feelings during the previous four
weeks using five-point Likert scales. Sum scores were then transformed into scales with a possible range from 0 (worst)
to 100 (best). The Cronbach alphas for these scales were 0.71 for vitality and 0.78 for mental health, respectively. They
were dichotomised at the cut-off point 45/46 or more in order for approximately 30% of the respondents to have ‘bad
health’.
Long-term well-being was measured on a seven-point scale consisting of stylised faces. Respondents rated their feelings
about their life in the previous year. The faces were coded into numbers with number 1 meaning the best well-being and
number 7 the worst. The scale was used to assess socio-emotional health in addition to the global and physical health
measured by other indicators. This simple scale may provide a better representation of respondents’ feelings than would
similar verbal scales (Andrews, 1996). Those respondents who rated their well-being with the numbers 1–3 were considered
as having ‘good health’.
Health complaints experienced during the previous month were recorded using the Slovak version of the Dutch
questionnaire VOEG (Geckova et al., 2001); (Jansen & Sikkel,1994). This shortened version consisted of 13 items. A three-point
scale (never, less than three times, three and more times) was used in response to each item in our study. The Cronbach alpha
for this scale was 0.78. In this study the occurrence ‘three and more times’ was considered as having a particular health
complaint and to have none to three health complaints was considered as ‘good health’.
Parental support
Parental support was measured using a 12-item questionnaire. The questionnaire was derived from Measures of Perceived
Social Support (Turner & Marino, 1994). We separately assessed the level of support each respondent experienced from his or
her mother and father. Items focused on closeness to a parent, time to talk with a parent, the feeling of being a worthwhile
person, being relaxed and myself in the presence of a parent, the feeling that a parent is always here and the feeling of
a parent’s confidence in the adolescent. Each item has a four-point response scale, with a sum score ranging from 6 to 24
separately for mother’s and father’s support. The internal consistency of the scale was highly satisfactory. Cronbach alphas are
0.87 for the mother and 0.92 for the father, respectively. In this study, sum scores were recoded into tertiles (high, medium
and low support) separately for mothers and fathers. For mother’s support, scores of 6–7 were considered as high support
(30.2% of respondents), scores of 8–10 as medium support (33.1%), and scores of 11–24 as low support (36.7%). For father’s
support, scores of 6–9 were considered as high support (33.2% of respondents), scores of 10–12 as medium support (30.0%),
and scores of 13–24 as low support (36.8%). This different grouping of mother’s and father’s support was chosen to obtain
a similar distribution of high and low social support for both parents. Father’s support is generally lower than mother’s. If we
used an equal grouping for both parents, the ‘‘high support’’ group would contain only those fathers who give extremely high
support to their children when compared to most fathers, whereas the ‘‘low support’’ group would also include those father’s
who, in the context of parental support, give medium support to their children.
Statistical analyses
First, we examined differences in parental support between employed, short-term and long-term unemployed parents
using chi-square statistics. Next, we examined the relative effect of medium and high levels of mother’s and father’s support
on the occurrence of good health among adolescents using logistic regression. We repeated these analyses with adjustment
for the support received from the other parent to determine the effects of support from either the mother or the father.
Finally, we repeated similar analyses in each parental employment status category. Given the possibility that the analysed
relationships could be gender specific, all models were adjusted for gender.
M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al. / Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149 143
Results
Table 1 gives the descriptive information about adolescents’ perception of mothers’ and fathers’ support by father’s and
mother’s employment status (employed, short-term unemployed and long-term unemployed). Results indicate that only
a father’s support depends on the father’s employment status. From those respondents whose father was short-term or
long-term unemployed, 49% and 46% respectively reported receiving low support from him compared to 34% of those whose
father was employed. Father’s support did not differ by mother’s employment status. Mother’s support did not differ by either
father’s or mother’s employment status.
Next we explored the crude and adjusted effects of mother’s and father’s support on adolescents’ health. As can be
seen from Table 2, when the crude effect of mother’s and father’s support was analysed, medium and high levels of their
support were protective for adolescents’ health in all measured aspects of health. The only exception was self-rated
health, where a medium level of mother’s support was not protective for adolescents’ health. In the adjusted model
(Table 2) the effect of mother’s support on some health indicators disappeared. The effect of a high level of mother’s
support on self-rated health, a medium level of support on vitality and a medium level of mother’s support on the
occurrence of health complaints became insignificant. The effect of mother’s support on the other aspects of adolescents’
health remained significant, but the odds ratios decreased after adjusting for father’s support. The effect of father’s
support on adolescents’ health also remained highly statistically significant (p  0.001) after adjusting for the effect of
mother’s support.
In the next step, the group of respondents was divided into categories by father’s and mother’s employment status
separately. We compared analyses with three (employed, short-term unemployed and long-term unemployed) and two
(employed and unemployed) employment categories. Because more detailed categorisation of employment did not add to the
model with statistical significance (p > 0.05), we present data only for two categories: employed and unemployed parents.
Logistic regression models were run in each category to examine the adjusted effect of mother’s and father’s support on
several aspects of adolescents’ health with respect to parental employment status.
Firstly, the crude effect of mother’s and father’s support on health was analysed. Afterwards, the effect of mother’s support
was adjusted for father’s support and vice versa. Because the pattern of this adjustment was very similar to that presented for
all respondents in Table 2 (after adjusting the protective effect of mother’s support decreased), we only present adjusted
effects in Tables 3 and 4.
Father’s employment status
The protective effect of parental support on adolescents’ health among groups divided by father’s employment status is
presented in Table 3. Among those with employed fathers, medium and high levels of father’s support had significant positive
effect on adolescents’ health in all five health indicators used in our study (Table 3). The odds ratios ranged from 1.65 to 2.49.
The effect of mother’s support on health when fathers were employed was much lower. Medium and high levels of mother’s
support (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07–1.95 and OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.17–2.28, respectively) were protective for adolescents’ mental health,
and high level of social support positively influenced the occurrence of health complaints (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00–1.83). Among
those with unemployed fathers, a medium level of father’s support was protective only for vitality (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.14–4.92)
among respondents. All other associations between father’s support and adolescents’ health were insignificant when the
father was unemployed. On the other hand, mother’s high support was protective for adolescents’ health in four out of five
health indicators (vitality, mental health, long-term well-being and occurrence of health complaints) among those with
unemployed fathers. Good long-term well-being was also predicted by a medium level of mother’s support (OR 2.22, 95% CI
1.05–4.71).
Table 1
Father’s and mother’s support, comparison of groups with parents employed, unemployed <1 year, and unemployed >1 year.
Father’s employment status Mother’s employment status
Employed Unempl. <1 year Unempl. >1 year Employed Unempl. <1 year Unempl. >1 year
% (N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
Father’s support
High 34.6 (565) 24.1 (20) 25.0 (37) 32.9 (505) 33.3 (30) 34.2 (83)
Medium 30.7 (501) 26.5 (22) 28.4 (42) 29.9 (460) 23.3 (21) 33.7 (82)
Low 34.7 (567) 49.4 (41) 46.6 (69) 37.2 (572) 43.3 (39) 32.1 (78)
Chi-square 16.02** 5.14 n.s
Mother’s support
High 30.6 (503) 33.3 (27) 29.1 (48) 30.4 (488) 32.3 (31) 28.9 (76)
Medium 33.3 (546) 28.4 (23) 30.9 (51) 33.2 (533) 31.3 (30) 33.1 (87)
Low 36.1 (593) 38.3 (31) 40.0 (66) 36.3 (583) 36.5 (35) 38.0 (100)
Chi-square 1.77 n.s 0.59 n.s
**p < 0.01.
M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al. / Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149144
Mother’s employment status
Among those with employed mothers, father’s support primarily had a protective effect on adolescents’ health (Table 4).
Medium and high levels of father’s support positively affected the health of adolescents in all health indicators used (odds
ratios ranged from 1.60 to 2.34). High levels of mother’s support were important predictors of good health in four out of five
health indicators (vitality, mental health, long-term well-being and health complaints) (odds ratios ranged from 1.51 to 1.99).
Medium levels of mother’s support had no effect on health, with the exception of mental health (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.19–2.18).
Among those with unemployed mothers, only father’s support affected health. Medium levels of support from the father
positively influenced health in all of the health indicators used (ORs ranging from 1.89 to 3.23). High levels of father’s support
were important predictors of good self-rated health, vitality, mental health and long-term well-being (ORs ranging from 2.13
to 2.89).
Discussion
This study of the effect of parental support on the health of adolescents with respect to the employment status of parents
produced several interesting results. Firstly, we expected less support from both the mother and father during their
unemployment. However, our results showed that only perceived father’s support was lower when the father himself was
unemployed. Perceived mother’s support did not seem to be affected either by a father’s or by a mother’s unemployment. This
could be explained by different experience of unemployment by men and women. According to Conger, Lorenz, Elder, Simons,
and Ge (1993), men are more likely than women to report being distressed by work-related and financial events. Furthermore
women experience their own unemployment as less stressful than men do (Artazcoz, Benach, Borrel, & Cortes, 2004; Waters
Table 2
Crude and adjusted effects of parental support on good health of adolescents.
Crude effect Adjusted effecta
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Self-rated health
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.02 (0.82–1.27) 0.83 (0.65–1.05)
High 1.54 (1.21–1.95) 1.18 (0.90–1.54)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.83 (1.44–2.32) 1.90 (1.49–2.42)
High 2.14 (1.69–2.70) 2.11 (1.63–2.73)
Vitality
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.34 (1.07–1.68) 1.12 (0.88–1.43)
High 1.94 (1.53–2.48) 1.57 (1.20–2.07)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.71 (1.35–2.17) 1.65 (1.30–2.11)
High 2.32 (1.82–2.96) 1.95 (1.50–2.53)
Mental health
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.75 (1.35–2.25) 1.46 (1.10–1.92)
High 2.19 (1.66–2.89) 1.78 (1.31–2.42)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 2.29 (1.74–3.02) 2.14 (1.61–2.82)
High 2.72 (2.06–3.60) 2.16 (1.60–2.92)
Long-term well-being
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.76 (1.34–2.30) 1.39 (1.04–1.86)
High 2.17 (1.62–2.90) 1.63 (1.17–2.27)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 2.09 (1.56–2.79) 2.00 (1.49–2.68)
High 2.89 (2.13–3.92) 2.35 (1.69–3.27)
Health complaints
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.47 (1.17–1.86) 1.28 (0.99–1.65)
High 1.86 (1.45–2.38) 1.54 (1.17–2.03)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 2.09 (1.63–2.69) 2.05 (1.59–2.65)
High 2.23 (1.74–2.85) 1.90 (1.45–2.48)
Both models are adjusted for gender.
Statistically significant effect is in bold.
a
‘Adjusted’ – adjusted for the support of the other parent.
M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al. / Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149 145
& Moore, 2002). Unemployment, therefore, probably does not change women’s behaviour towards their children, and
adolescents do not perceive the support of their mother as worse if she is unemployed. On the other hand, stress caused by
unemployment probably decreases the father’s support given to children. Our results, however, do not give a satisfactory
answer to the question about family processes under the situation of job loss of one of the parents. Furthermore, the parental
support measure used in our study is based on the adolescents’ perception of parental support and not on objective parental
behaviour towards children. Additional research would therefore be needed for a better understanding of family processes
during parental unemployment.
As a second step, the effect of parental support on adolescents’ health was explored. We found that both mother’s and
father’s support was protective for adolescents’ health when analysed separately. However, when the adjusted effect of
mother’s and father’s support was analysed, the positive influence of mother’s support decreased or even disappeared for
some outcomes. Forehand and Nousiainen (1993) suggested that although a father’s acceptance of an adolescent occurs more
seldom than a mother’s, when it does occur it may actually play a more important role in the adolescent’s life than the
mother’s acceptance. Our findings seem to be in line with this hypothesis. Father’s support was generally perceived as lower
than the mother’s, but when it was high it played a greater protective role in adolescents’ health than high mother’s support.
Thirdly, we explored the protective effect on adolescents’ health with regard to the employment status of their parents.
When both parents were employed, higher levels of father’s support were mainly protective for the health of their children.
However, if the father was unemployed, his social support had hardly any association with adolescents’ health, but support
from the mother had such an association. An explanation may be that when the father is without a paid job and has to cope
with many stressors, the influence of his support subsides in both a positive as well as negative sense. In this situation the
mother is more important than the father for the health and well-being of adolescent children, in contrast to the situation
when the father is employed. On the other hand, when the mother was unemployed it was not her support, but more the
father’s that was associated with better health. A general explanation may be that in the case of unemployment of one parent,
Table 3
The effect of parental support on good health of adolescents health by father’s employment status. Results are adjusted for gender of the respondents and for
social support of the other parent.
Father’s employment status Employed n ¼ 1655 Unemployed n ¼ 251
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Self-rated health
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 0.80 (0.61–1.04) 0.95 (0.49–1.82)
High 1.10 (0.82–1.47) 1.94 (0.97–3.88)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.92 (1.48–2.51) 1.70 (0.89–3.25)
High 2.21 (1.67–2.94) 1.58 (0.77–3.22)
Vitality
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.03 (0.79–1.34) 1.64 (0.82–3.28)
High 1.30 (0.97–1.75) 5.06 (2.29–11.20)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.65 (1.27–2.14) 2.37 (1.14–4.92)
High 2.27 (1.70–3.03) 0.81 (0.38–1.73)
Mental health
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.45 (1.07–1.95) 1.44 (0.66–3.13)
High 1.63 (1.17–2.28) 2.88 (1.21–6.87)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 2.16 (1.60–2.92) 2.21 (0.98–5.00)
High 2.29 (1.65–3.17) 1.85 (0.74–4.60)
Long-term well-being
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.28 (0.92–1.76) 2.22 (1.05–4.71)
High 1.37 (0.95–1.97) 4.21 (1.78–9.96)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 2.11 (1.52–2.93) 1.53 (0.73–3.32)
High 2.49 (1.65–3.58) 1.82 (0.73–4.52)
Health complaints
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.30 (0.98–1.70) 1.12 (0.56–2.24)
High 1.35 (1.00–1.83) 2.85 (1.29–6.27)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 2.25 (1.71–2.96) 1.54 (0.75–3.13)
High 2.14 (1.60–2.86) 1.17 (0.53–2.55)
Statistically significant (p < 0.05) effect is in bold.
M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al. / Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149146
the second parent becomes more important for the children. High levels of his/her support are protective for the children, and
low levels of support threaten the children, while support from the unemployed parent loses its importance for adolescents.
One explanation is that adolescents feel the stress of an unemployed parent and therefore try to gain support from the other
parent. When this support is high, it protects them, and when it is low, it harms them; but in any case it seems to be
important. Another explanation is that the unemployed parent has more conflicts with the adolescent as a result of job loss,
and then the other parent is very important as a mediator of the relationship between the unemployed parent and adolescent.
It would be interesting to explore deeply the mechanism of parental support within the family with an unemployed parent.
A longitudinal study in particular could give answers to the question of what happens when a parent becomes unemployed.
When looking at parental support with regard to employment status one more interesting result was found. In the case of
mother’s support, mainly high levels were protective for their children, while in the case of father’s support, only medium
support was enough to protect children’s health. This finding again supports the idea that, although father’s support is lower
than mother’s, it could play a more important role for children.
We found that the protective effect of parental support on adolescents’ health can work differently under different life
conditions, particularly regarding parental employment status. However, in a similar study concerning different socioeconomic
groups (measured by parental education and parental occupational group), Geckova et al. (2003) did not confirm any
differences in the effect of social support on health among socioeconomic groups of 15-year-old Slovak adolescents. These
different findings suggest that although parental unemployment means a decrease in socioeconomic status, it cannot be
simplified to low socioeconomic status, mainly when its effects on children are measured. It probably causes more complex
changes in the family system, which can have different effects on children than low socioeconomic status as such. Helping
unemployed adults to cope with their situation cannot therefore be restricted to increasing their socioeconomic status
(via state unemployment benefits) but should be oriented also towards the counselling process. Working with the whole
family system and increasing the level of support which parents give to their children even in the situation when they have to
Table 4
The effect of parental support on good health adolescents health with regard to mother’s employment status. Results are adjusted for gender of the
respondents and for social support of the other parent.
Mother’s employment status Employed n ¼ 1610 Unemployed n ¼ 361
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Self-rated health
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 0.83 (0.63–1.09) 0.72 (0.41–1.26)
High 1.14 (0.85–1.54) 1.23 (0.66–2.29)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.84 (1.41–2.42) 2.30 (1.30–4.08)
High 2.08 (1.55–2.77) 2.43 (1.34–4.40)
Vitality
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.14 (0.87–1.50) 1.03 (0.58–1.81)
High 1.51 (1.11–2.03) 1.86 (0.98–3.55)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.60 (1.20–2.05) 2.12 (1.18–3.80)
High 1.96 (1.46–2.63) 2.13 (1.16–3.92)
Mental health
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.62 (1.19–2.18) 0.84 (0.52–1.71)
High 1.99 (1.42–2.79) 0.99 (0.45–2.16)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.98 (1.46–2.68) 3.23 (1.51–6.90)
High 2.08 (1.49–2.91) 2.84 (1.34–6.01)
Long-term well-being
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.27 (0.92–1.75) 1.98 (0.97–4.05)
High 1.53 (1.06–2.21) 2.19 (0.98–4.89)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.97 (1.42–2.73) 2.23 (1.09–4.55)
High 2.34 (1.62–3.37) 2.89 (1.30–6.41)
Health complaints
Mother’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 1.30 (0.98–1.72) 1.22 (0.68–2.20)
High 1.60 (1.17–2.18) 1.29 (0.69–2.42)
Father’s support Low 1.00 1.00
Medium 2.10 (1.58–2.78) 1.89 (1.04–3.44)
High 2.01 (1.49–2.72) 1.56 (0.85–2.86)
Statistically significant (p < 0.05) effect is in bold.
M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al. / Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149 147
cope with their own unemployment could help to prevent many undesirable effects of parental unemployment on children’s
health.
Strengths and limitations of the study
The present paper has several strengths and limitations. The main strength is that it focuses on the effect of parental
support on adolescent’s health under different life circumstances, in this case different employment status of parents, which
is often overlooked or sidelined in the literature. Furthermore we have used five health indicators, which comprised several
aspects of adolescents’ health – general health, psychological health as well as physical health. The focus on father’s and
mother’s employment status separately belongs among the strengths as well as the limitations of the present study. The
positive aspect is that we can see how differently parental support influences health when the father is unemployed in
comparison with the situation when the mother is unemployed. However, there is evidence that having both parents
unemployed has even more negative consequences for children than having only one parent unemployed (Kaltiala-Heino,
Rimpela, Rantanen, & Laippala, 2001; Sleskova, Salonna, et al., 2006). When interpreting results, the sample size in separate
groups should also be taken into account. Some of the differences in odds ratios could be due to the fact that the groups of
unemployed fathers and mothers were much smaller than those of employed parents. This study is based on self-reported
data obtained from a single informant d an adolescent at one measurement point d which is considered as a third limitation
of the study. Studies with a longitudinal design with data on parent–child relationships obtained also from parents would be
useful for deeper analyses of the parent–child relationship in the situation of parental unemployment. The fact that we have
included in our study also those respondents who did not live with or did not have one parent might be also seen as
a limitation. However, the number of adolescents living with both biological parents in the eastern part of Slovakia (where the
data collection was done) is generally very high (in our newer sample collected in December 2006 it was 87%). Despite these
limitations, the present article adds new information to the knowledge about parental unemployment and can be considered
as an important suggestion for further research.
This study is one of a relatively small number investigating an important contextual variable d parental unemployment
d when examining relationships between parental support and adolescents’ functioning. To conclude our results, it seems to
be that parental unemployment influences the parental support given to adolescent in both ways studied: as a decrease in the
parental support perceived by the adolescents and as a decrease in the health-protective effect of parental support. However,
more research would be needed for a deeper understanding of the role of unemployment in the family system. Particularly,
a culture-oriented approach is needed, as the percentage of employed and unemployed parents, especially mothers, is
different in every country. For example, in Slovakia being a housewife is very rare, while in the Netherlands it is much more
common (Sleskova, Tuinstra, et al., 2006); thus the effect of parental support on adolescents’ health may be also different in
different cultural settings.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Slovak Science and Technology Assistance Agency under Contracts No. APVT-20-028802,
APVV 20-038205 and APVV 20-003602.
The authors thank David McLean for the language proof.
References
Amlund Hagen, K., Myers, B. J., & Mackintosh, V. H. (2005). Hope, social support and behavioural problems in at-risk children. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 75(2), 211–219.
Andrews, F. (1996). Four single-item indicators of well-being. In I. McDowell, & C. Newell (Eds.), Measuring health – A guide to rating scales and
questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.
Artazcoz, L., Benach, J., Borrel, C., & Cortes, I. (2004). Unemployment and mental health: understanding the interactions among gender, family roles and
social class. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 82–88.
Barrera, M., Jr., & Stice, E. (1998). Parent-adolescent conflict in the context of parental support: families with alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of
Family Psychology, 12(2), 195–208.
Baruch-Feldman, C., Brondolo, E., Ben-Davan, D., & Schwarz, J. (2002). Sources of social support and burnout, job satisfaction and productivity. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 7(1), 84–93.
Christoffersen, M. N. (2000). Growing up with unemployment: a study of parental unemployment and children’s risk of abuse and neglect based on
national longitudinal 1973 birth cohorts in Denmark. Childhood, 7, 421–438.
Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., Elder, G. H., Jr., Simons, R. L., & Ge, X. (1993). Husband and wife differences in response to undesirable life events. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 34(1), 71–88.
Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 54–71.
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267.
Flaherty, J., & Richman, J. (1989). Gender differences in the perception and utilization of social support: theoretical perspectives and an empirical test. Social
Science & Medicine, 28(12), 1221–1228.
Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: critical dimensions in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2),
213–221.
Ge, X., Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Parents’ stressful life events and adolescent depressed mood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
35(1), 28–44.
Geckova, A., Tuinstra, J., Pudelsky, M., Kovarova, M., van Dijk, J. P., Groothoff, J. W., et al. (2001). Self reported health problems of Slovak adolescents. Journal
of Adolescence, 24, 635–645.
M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al. / Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149148
Geckova, A., van Dijk, J. P., Stewart, R., Groothoff, J. W., & Post, D. (2003). Influence of social support on health among gender and socio-economic groups of
adolescents. European Journal of Public Health, 13(1), 44–50.
Idler, E. L., & Angel, R. J. (1990). Self-rated health and mortality in the NHANES-I epidemiologic. Follow-up study. American Journal of Public Health, 80,
446–452.
Jansen, M. E., & Sikkel, D. (1994). Verkorte versie van de Statistiek Langdurige aandoeningen bij de bevolking. [Shortened version of the chronic disease
Statistics]. 1991, 1992. Vademecum of health statistics of The Netherlands. Den Haag: Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P., & Laippala, P. (2001). Adolescent depression: the role of discontinuities in life course and social support. Journal
of Affective Disorders, 64, 155–166.
Larsson, D., Hemmingsson, T., Allebeck, P., & Lundberg, I. (2002). Self-rated health and mortality among young men: what is the relation and how may it be
explained? Scandinavian Jourlnal of Public Health, 30, 259–266.
Leinonen, J. A., Solantaus, T. S., & Punama¨ki, R. L. (2003). Social support and the quality of parenting under economic pressure and workload in Finland: the
role of family structure and parental gender. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 409–418.
Patten, C. A., Gillin, J. C., Farkas, A. J., Gilpin, E. A., Berry, C. C., & Pierce, J. P. (1997). Depressive symptoms in California adolescents: family structure and
parental support. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20(4), 271–278.
Piko, B. (2000). Perceived social support from parents and peers: which is the stronger predictor of adolescent substance use? Substance Use and Misuse,
35(4), 617–630.
Robila, M., & Krishnakumar, A. (2005). Effects of economic pressure on marital conflict in Romania. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 246–251.
Sleskova, M., Salonna, F., Madarasova Geckova, A., van Dijk, J. P., & Groothoff, J. W. (2005). Health status among young people in Slovakia: comparisons on
the basis of age, gender and education. Social Science & Medicine, 61(12), 2521–2527.
Sleskova, M., Salonna, F., Madarasova Geckova, A., Nagyova, I., Stewart, R., van Dijk, J. P., et al. (2006). Does parental unemployment affect adolescents’
health? Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(5), 527–535.
Sleskova, M., Tuinstra, J., Madarasova Geckova, A., van Dijk, J. P., Salonna, F., Groothoff, J., et al. (2006). Influence of parental employment status on Dutch and
Slovak adolescents’ health. BMC Public Health, 6, 250.
Turner, R. J., & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: a descriptive epidemiology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35(3), 193–212.
Ware, J. J., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30,
473–483.
Waters, L. E., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Predicting self-esteem during unemployment: the effect of gender, financial deprivation, alternate roles and social
support. Journal of Employment Counseling, 39, 171–189.
Wicrama, K. A., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (1997). Parental support and adolescent physical health status: a latent growth-curve analysis. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 38, 149–163.
M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al. / Journal of Adolescence 34 (2011) 141–149 149
21
Study 3
Bacikova-Sleskova, M., Benka, J., & Orosova, O. (2015). Parental employment status and
adolescents’ health: The role of financial situation, parent-adolescent relationship and
adolescents’ resilience. Psychology & Health, 30(4), 400-422.
Studies addressing the impact of parental unemployment on children’s and adolescents’
psychological functioning and health have been scarce. Those that have been published,
however, have mostly put emphasis on the economic or sociological context leaving the broader
psychological level of relationships and personal resources for coping with parental
unemployment understudied. Furthermore, only a few studies have distinguished between the
paternal and maternal employment status. Indeed, the findings of the reviewed studies have
shown different, although not fully consistent, patterns of the associations between father’s and
mother’s employment status and adolescents’ outcomes. Therefore, in this study we have
distinguished between maternal and paternal employment status.
In our previous study (Sleskova et al., 2006) we have confirmed the relationship
between paternal unemployment and worse perceived adolescent health (general health,
vitality, mental health). There are several factors that are hypothesised to account for this
relationship. (1) Worse financial situation after a job loss; (2) worse parent-adolescent
relationship quality (as a result of dealing with father’s own stressor, or a result of marital
conflicts); (3) lack of adolescent resilience. In the present study we have explored how
adolescents differ in perceived financial strain, parent–adolescent relationship and resilience
according to their parents’ employment status. Secondly, the association between parental
employment status and several aspects of adolescents’ subjective health were examined.
Thirdly, the paper sought to explore whether the relationship between parental
unemployment/non-employment and adolescents’ health is robust to control for financial strain,
parent–adolescent relationship and resilience. Finally, the moderating effect of resilience on the
relationship was studied.
22
The study was conducted among 2799 adolescents (mean age 14,3, 50% males). As had
been expected, financial strain was the highest when the father as well as mother was
unemployed. With regards to the parent–adolescent relationship, the findings showed contrary
to our expectations that adolescents with unemployed parents did not report significantly lower
closeness, support, monitoring, communication or higher conflict with their parents than those
with employed parents. This was found to be the case for both mothers and fathers. While there
were no differences in the perception of parenting processes among adolescents with
unemployed and employed parents, adolescents showed stronger negative feelings towards
their parents if unemployed. It had been hypothesised that adolescents with unemployed parents
would be less resilient. However, this was only true for the resilience factor represented by the
perception of the future. One suggestion is that due to higher financial strain during parental
unemployment, adolescents might perceive their future as insecure with plans that might not be
fulfilled. Based on our findings, resilience does not seem to be affected by parental
unemployment. There has been a discussion of the possibility of strengthening resilience
through exposure to adversity (Olsson et al., 2003). While for some adolescents, parental
unemployment decreases resilience, for others, it might be an opportunity to strengthen their
resilience.
The main result of the study showed that the studied factors were not sufficient to reduce
the negative effect of the father’s unemployment or non-employment on adolescents’ self-rated
health, vitality or mental health. Therefore, the question what is the psychological mechanism
between parental employment status and worse adolescent health remains unanswered.
Interaction effect of resilience and the father’s unemployment was significant; however, the
result was unexpected. High resilience was related more to better adolescents’ vitality and
mental health among those with an employed father than those with an unemployed one. In
other words, resilience did not work as a buffer against the negative impact of a fathers’
unemployment on adolescents’ health.
Author´s contribution: 70%
This article was downloaded by: [Pavol Jozef Safarik University in Kosice]
On: 17 February 2015, At: 01:13
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Psychology & Health
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpsh20
Parental employment status and
adolescents’ health: The role of
financial situation, parent-adolescent
relationship and adolescents’ resilience
Maria Bacikova-Sleskova
a
, Jozef Benka
a
& Olga Orosova
a
a
Faculty of Arts, Department of Educational Psychology and
Psychology of Health, P.J. Safarik University, Kosice, Slovak
Republic
Accepted author version posted online: 17 Oct 2014.Published
online: 04 Nov 2014.
To cite this article: Maria Bacikova-Sleskova, Jozef Benka & Olga Orosova (2015) Parental
employment status and adolescents’ health: The role of financial situation, parentadolescent
relationship and adolescents’ resilience, Psychology & Health, 30:4, 400-422, DOI:
10.1080/08870446.2014.976645
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2014.976645
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Parental employment status and adolescents’ health: The role of
financial situation, parent-adolescent relationship and adolescents’
resilience
Maria Bacikova-Sleskova*, Jozef Benka and Olga Orosova
Faculty of Arts, Department of Educational Psychology and Psychology of Health, P.J. Safarik
University, Kosice, Slovak Republic
(Received 6 January 2014; accepted 9 October 2014)
The paper deals with parental employment status and its relationship to adolescents’
self-reported health. It studies the role of the financial situation,
parent–adolescent relationship and adolescent resilience in the relationship
between parental employment status and adolescents’ self-rated health, vitality
and mental health. Multiple regression analyses were used to analyse questionnaire
data obtained from 2799 adolescents (mean age 14.3) in 2006. The
results show a negative association of the father’s, but not mother’s unemployment
or non-employment with adolescents’ health. Regression analyses
showed that neither financial strain nor a poor parent–adolescent relationship
or a low score in resilience accounted for the relationship between the father’s
unemployment or non-employment and poorer adolescent health. Furthermore,
resilience did not work as a buffer against the negative impact of fathers’
unemployment on adolescents’ health.
Keywords: parental employment status; adolescence; self-reported health;
financial strain; parent–adolescent relationship; resilience
Introduction
Since the seminal research study on unemployment consequences (Jahoda, Lazarsfield, &
Zeisel, 1933), it has repeatedly been shown that not having a paid job not only affects the
unemployed individual but has a wider social, economic and psychological impact on
their social environment and on children in particular.
Parental unemployment might, thus, take on the role of a stressor which is relevant
to the health and well-being of adolescents. In spite of the relevance of this topic, there
still seems to be a lack of research regarding this issue.
So far, studies addressing the impact of parental unemployment on children’s and
adolescents’ psychological functioning and health have been scarce. Those that have
been published, however (for a review on the impact of unemployment on family functioning
see Strom, 2003), have mostly put emphasis on the economic or sociological
context leaving the broader psychological level of relationships and personal resources
for coping with parental unemployment understudied.
*Corresponding author. Email: maria.bacikova@upjs.sk
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Psychology & Health, 2015
Vol. 30, No. 4, 400–422, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2014.976645
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Existing research has shown that having one or both parents without a paid job has
generally been associated with poorer physical or mental health (Bacikova-Sleskova,
Madarasova Geckova, van Dijk, Groothoff, & Reijneveld, 2011; Koivusilta, Rimpela,
Rantanen, & Kautiainen, 2006; Reinhardt Pedersen, Madsen, & Kohler, 2005; Siponen,
Ahonen, Savolainen, & Hameen-Anttila, 2011; Sleskova et al., 2006a, 2006b), the
occurrence of behavioural problems (Harland, Reijneveld, Brugman, Verloove-Vanhorick,
& Verhulst, 2002; Isaranurug, Nitirat, Chauytong, & Wongarsa, 2001), poorer academic
achievement (Stevens & Schaller, 2011), depression (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Rantanen,
& Laippala, 2001; Sund, Larsson, & Wichstrom, 2003) and a higher probability of
smoking (Unger, Hamilton, & Sussman, 2004).
Furthermore, it has been shown that the negative effect of long-term unemployment
on health seems to be stronger than short-term unemployment (Harland et al., 2002;
Sleskova et al., 2006a). Also, the causal effect of paternal unemployment has been confirmed
in a longitudinal design using the fixed effects ordered logit method in respect
to children’s schooling ambitions (Andersen, 2013).
It is important to note that only a few studies have distinguished between the paternal
and maternal employment status (e.g. Magklara et al., 2010; Piko & Fitzpatrick,
2007; Sleskova et al., 2006a). Indeed, the findings of the reviewed studies have shown
different, although not fully consistent, patterns of the associations between father’s and
mother’s employment status and adolescents’ outcomes.
Unemployment is generally defined as a situation when an individual is involuntary
in not having paid employment and is available for work (McKee-Ryan, Song,
Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005). However, the situation of not having a paid job includes
not only unemployment but also retirement, long-term sickness or disability. For
women, maternity leave or being a housewife is frequent. Although some researchers
do not distinguish between the different reasons for not being in paid employment (e.g.
Reinhardt Pedersen et al., 2005) there is evidence that parents in other employment statuses
should not be put together in one group with unemployed parents when studying
parental unemployment consequences for adolescents (Harland et al., 2002; Magklara
et al., 2010; Piko & Fitzpatrick, 2007; Sleskova et al., 2006b). Therefore, in this study,
we will use the term non-employment when referring to parents in other employment
statuses.
Adolescents’ resilience
Several personal and environmental resources that buffer the effect of stressful life
events have been identified as important factors for maintaining good health. Among
them, resilience can be seen as a ‘conceptual umbrella’ (Hjemdal, Friborg, Stiles,
Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2006, p. 85) for both internal (competence, social skills,
self-efficacy, etc.) and external (parental support, peer influences, community resources,
etc.) resources. The concept of resilience can be seen more as a complex process rather
than a static individual trait (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).
Resilience is understood as a more generic resource which implies the ability to
maintain normal functioning and normal development under or after experiencing stressful
conditions. It is believed to be closely related to the outcome – status following a
stressful period (Friborg, Hjemdal, Martinussen, & Rosenvinge, 2009). Thus, resilience
is highly relevant in the context of an unemployed parent or parents.
Psychology & Health 401
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
The relationship between parental employment status and adolescents’ resilience can
be seen from two perspectives. Firstly, a supportive environment (family as well as
external support system) is important for high resilience (Hjemdal et al., 2006). As
unemployed fathers have been found to be less supportive for adolescents than
employed ones (Bacikova-Sleskova et al., 2011), it can be supposed that there would
be a decrease in adolescents’ resilience during their father’s unemployment. Secondly,
resilience factors have been shown to work as buffers in coping with many stressful life
events among children and adolescents (Fincham, Altes, Stein, & Seedat, 2009;
Martinez-Torteya, Bogat, von Eye, & Levendosky, 2009; Wu, 2011). Therefore, it is
expected that resilience will moderate the relationship between parental unemployment
and adolescent’s poorer health status.
Parental unemployment as a source of stress might act through various pathways to
affect health. There are several possible factors that could account for the relationship
between parental unemployment and adolescents’ health. This study will particularly
focus on the financial strain and the parent–adolescent relationship.
Financial strain
A significant decrease or a complete loss of income is one of the obvious and most
serious consequences of job loss and unemployment. Both economic hardship
(Hagquist, 1998) as well as the objective family financial situation represented by
parental income (Pettersen, 2009) have been found to be related to poor self-evaluated
health in adolescents. Alternatively, it has been suggested that economic pressure may
increase the probability of experiencing emotional distress within a partnership resulting
in conflicts between parents (Conger, Reuter, & Elder, 1999). This mechanism may
have an indirect effect on adolescents’ health.
In previous research, the family economic situation or subjective financial strain has
been studied in connection to parental unemployment and their negative outcomes for
adolescents (Reinhard Pedersen et al., 2005; Sleskova et al., 2006a). However, these
studies have not confirmed the assumption that financial stress explains the association
between parental unemployment and adolescent’s health.
Parent–adolescent relationship
Unemployment may lead to decreased social status, disruption of existing social roles,
decreased life satisfaction and create a feeling of personal failure (Booth & van Ours,
2008; Christoffersen, 2000). In addition to the effect on an individual, unemployment
often affects the quality of a partnership. It has been found that couples with an unemployed
husband were more likely to divorce (Doiron & Mendolia, 2012). In families
with children, parents experiencing such problems may be less supportive or sensitive
to their children’s needs. Parental effectiveness may be weakened by the stress load
triggered by the unemployment. Cui and Conger (2008) have shown that parental distress
negatively affects adolescents as a result of parenting behaviour. Unemployment,
as a possible source of financial strain, stress, marital conflict and family problems, can,
thus, negatively affect the parenting practices towards adolescents which can be associated
with adolescents’ poorer health.
402 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Aims of the study
The aims of the present study are as follows. Firstly, this study will explore how
adolescents differ in perceived financial strain, parent–adolescent relationship and resilience
according to their parents’ employment status. Based on previous findings, it is
expected to find higher financial strain, a poorer parent–adolescent relationship and
lower resilience among adolescents with unemployed and/or non-employed parents
compared with employed parents. Secondly, the association between parental employment
status and several aspects of adolescents’ subjective health will be examined.
Thirdly, this paper seeks to explore whether the relationship between parental unemployment/
non-employment and adolescents’ health is robust to control for financial
strain, parent–adolescent relationship and resilience. Finally, the moderating effect of
resilience on the relationship will be studied.
Methods
Sample
Data were collected in 2006 among 3725 adolescents from the eighth and ninth grades
of primary schools (primary school attendance is 9 years) in Slovakia by a team of
trained researchers and their assistants. The study obtained local university ethic committee
approval and parental approval for the child to be included in the study. The
schools and classes within the schools were randomly selected. Respondents filled in
questionnaires during two regular school lessons (45 min each) on a voluntary and
anonymous basis without the presence of a teacher. An overall response rate of 93.5%
was achieved. The non-response rate was mainly due to illness or another type of
school absence. For the purpose of the present study, only those respondents living with
both biological parents were included in the analyses (N = 2799; 75% of whole research
sample). The gender in the sample was evenly distributed (50% male). The age of
respondents ranged from 11 to 17 years, mean age was 14.3 (SD ± .65). However, only
a minority of the sample was in the age category between 11 and 12 (7 respondents) as
well as between 16 and 17 (15 respondents).
Measures
All the scales used within this study have been translated into Slovak.
Parental employment status
Respondents indicatedtheir parents’ employment status: employed, unemployed less
than one year, unemployed 1–5 years, unemployed more than five years, disabled,
retired, maternity leave (mothers only), housewife (mother only), other. In the analysis,
the respondents were divided into three parental employment categories – employed
(father 95%, mother 88%), unemployed (father 3%, mother 5%) and non-employed
(father 2%, mother 7%). For fathers, the non-employed category included mainly disabled
(1.3%) while for mothers, it mainly comprised of mothers on maternity leave
(3.1%) and housewives (2.9%).
Psychology & Health 403
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Financial strain
Measuring financial strain was inspired by the instrument used by Hagquist (1998). The
adolescents were asked to indicate if they had wanted to do certain activities in the preceding
year but had been unable to do them because of a lack of money. Four items,
namely, not having enough money to go to the cinema or attend a concert, to do sports, to
buy special clothes or to go out with friends, were used with possible answers on a fivepoint
scale ranging from very often to never. The sum score was computed and reversed
with a higher score indicating greater financial strain. Cronbach’s alpha was .813.
Family characteristics
The adolescent family process measure. This measure was developed by Vazsonyi, Hibbert,
and Snider (2003) and consists of 25 items in six subscales: closeness, support, monitoring,
communication, conflict and peer approval. The direction of one subscale (support)
was reversed. The subscales were rated on a five-point Likert scale. For each subscale, a
higher score indicated better family processes, with one exception – conflict – where a
higher score indicated more conflict. The respondents answered the questions firstly with
regard to their mother and then for their father separately. Unfortunately, during the printing
process of the questionnaires, the peer approval subscale question was missed out. As
the subscale without this question comprised of only two items and Cronbach’s alpha was
low (.491 and .532 for mothers and fathers, respectively) it was decided to omit this
subscale in all the analyses. The Cronbach’s alphas for the other five subscales were as
follows: closeness .632 for mothers and .703 for fathers; support .665 for mothers and
.671 for fathers; monitoring .726 for mothers and .785 for fathers; communication .790 for
mothers and .835 for fathers; conflict .788 for mothers and .802 for fathers.
Perception of parents. This measure was developed by Phares and Renk (1998). The
measure includes 15 items in two factors: positive affect (10 items) and negative affect
(five items). Items were answered using a six-point scale ranging from 1-not at all or
never to 6-extremely or always for mother and father separately. Higher scores indicated
a stronger positive affect and stronger negative affect. This instrument, as compared to
the previous one, reflects adolescents’ feelings rather than parental behaviour and is,
therefore, complementary to the adolescent family process (AFP) measure. The reliability
of this measure for the positive affect was α = .893 for mothers and α = .923 for
fathers; the negative affect was α = .719 for mothers and α = .734 for fathers.
Resilience
The Resilience Scale (Friborg, Barlaug, Martinussen, Rosenvinge, & Martinussen,
2005) used in this study consisted of 33 items. This instrument used a five-point semantic
scale format in which each item had a positive and negative attribute at either end
of the scale continuum. The measurement consisted of the six resilience factors: personal
strength/ perception of self (six items), personal strength/perception of future (four
items), structured style (four items), social competence (six items), family cohesion (six
items) and social resources (seven items). Each factor was analysed separately. A higher
score indicated higher resilience. The Cronbach alphas in the sample were .63, .77, .60,
.69, .74 and .83, respectively.
404 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Health indicators
Three scales (self-rated health, vitality and mental health) from the 36-item version of
the RAND questionnaire (SF 36) (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992) were used to assess adolescents’
subjective health status.
Self-rated health. Self-rated health is a one-item scale widely used in health studies. It
is generally accepted as a good predictor of mortality and morbidity (Larsson,
Hemmingsson, Allebeck, & Lundberg, 2002). Respondents answer the question ‘In general,
how would you rate your health?’ using a five-point answer scale. For the purposes
of the statistical analysis, the responses are usually dichotomised. In the present
study, the ‘excellent’ and ‘very good’ health ratings were combined to present ‘good
health’, and ‘good’, ‘fairly good’ and ‘bad’ ratings were considered as ‘poor health’. As
young people are generally in good health, it was decidedto include the ‘good’ rating in
the category of ‘poor health’ which is in line with some previous studies
(Bacikova-Sleskova et al., 2011; Le, Roux, & Morgenster, 2013; Madarasova Geckova,
Tavel, van Dijk, Abel, & Reijneveld, 2010).
Vitality and mental health. The vitality scale consists of four items focusing on energy
and fatigue. Mental health is a five-item scale focusing on psychological distress and
well-being. In both indicators, respondents were asked to evaluate their feelings during
the previous four weeks using five-point Likert scales. The Cronbachs alphas for these
scales were .71 and .78 for vitality and mental health, respectively.
Statistical analyses
All the data in the present study were analysed using statistical software package IBM
SPSS Statistics, version 21.
Firstly, respondents were compared regarding their parents’ employment status in
several characteristics using one-way ANOVA and Sheffe post hoc tests. Subsequently,
regressions were used to analyse the associations of several predictor variables with
adolescents’ health. All predictor variables were significantly correlated with the health
indicators indicating their suitability for inclusion. Furthermore, all the models were
adjusted for the gender of the respondents. The age of the respondents was not correlated
with the dependent variables and was therefore not included.
Due to the large number of missing data points (ranging from 6.5% to 18.2% for
particular independent variables, which could subsequently lead to a listwise deletion of
approximately 1000 cases in multivariate models), a multiple imputation was used to
impute data for parent–adolescent relationship scales and resilience subscales before
running the regression analyses.
In order to identify the pattern of missing data in the database, a missing value analysis
was performed to identify patterns that could be relevant in the context of the main
research variables. This analysis showed no influence in terms of the geographical differences
regarding the number of omitted items. However, in the case of gender, it
revealed that in general, boys were more likely to omit items than girls. A more
detailed look revealed that the pattern of missing values regarding the scale measuring
the parent–adolescent relationship showed that the items referring to the father contained
more missing values than those referring to the mother.
Psychology & Health 405
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
The problem of missing data has been tackled by the multiple imputation method
which to our knowledge was the best way to estimate the missing data for the purposes
of this analysis. There is no reason to believe that the data were missing completely at
random and a simple case-deletion would likely introduce biases (Little & Rubin,
1987). Multiple imputation has recently become a standard method to analyse missing
data and particularly data missing at random. It uses multivariate probabilistic distributions
for imputation which creates several data-sets with different imputed values for
the missing data points. Any statistical analysis is then run on each of those data-sets
separately and rules for combining outputs of these analyses are used to calculate
pooled estimates. These pooled results are generally more accurate than those provided
by simpler imputation methods.
Multiple logistic regression was used with self-rated health as a dichotomous variable.
For the purposes of logistic regression, all continuous predictor variables were
recoded into terciles enabling each group to include approximately 33% of the respondents.
Odds ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated. General
Linear Models were used with vitality and mental health as continuous dependent variables.
As each model included several subscales of a particular measurement, the correlations
between the subscales were checked. For the parent–adolescent relationship the
correlations ranged between −.017 and .621; for the resilience subscales the correlations
ranged between −.101 and .598. To avoid multi collinearity in the regression models,
the predictors were centred (transformed into z scores).
Results
The description (range, mean and standard deviations) of the independent variables and
dependent health indicators is shown in Table 1.
A simple comparison of mean values of all independent variables according to the
father’s and mother’s employment status, together with the post hoc tests, is shown in
Table 2. With regards to financial strain, adolescents reported significantly higher strain if
their fathers were either unemployed or non-employed compared to those with employed
fathers and when their mothers were unemployed compared to employed mothers.
With respect to the AFP, adolescents with employed fathers seemed to be closer to
and have a higher frequency of communication with their fathers than those with
non-employed fathers. Interestingly, also maternal processes (namely, closeness and
communication) were better when the father was employed compared to those with
non-employed fathers. In addition, the highest frequency of communication with the
mother was reported in the case of an unemployed father. Adolescents with an
employed mother were monitored less than those with an unemployed or non-employed
mother.
Regarding the perception of parents, adolescents with an employed father experienced
a significantly higher positive affect towards him in comparison to those with
non-employed fathers and a significantly less negative affect than those with unemployed
fathers. Interestingly, the negative affect towards the mother was significantly
lower when the adolescent had an employed father than it was in the case of an unemployed
father. With regard to the mother’s employment status, those with an employed
mother had a significantly lower negative affect towards their mother than those with
an unemployed mother.
406 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Three factors of adolescent resilience were associated with the paternal employment
status while none of them were associated with the maternal employment status. Adolescents
with an employed father reported a significantly better perception of self and a
better perception of the future and family cohesion than those with an unemployed and/
or non-employed father.
Regression analyses were used to assess the effect of parental employment status on
several health indicators. The results showed no associations of maternal employment
status with the health indicators used in this study. Therefore, it was decided to omit
the mother’s employment status from further analyses and to focus only on the father’s
employment status.
After analysing the crude effect of paternal employment status, several blocks of
independent variables that could account for the relationship between the father’s
employment status and adolescents’ health were added. Table 3 shows the results of the
Table 1. Description of studied variables.
Range Mean SD %
Self-rated health
Excellent 24.1
Very good 43.4
Good 26.9
Fairly good 4.6
Poor .9
Vitality 4–16 8.8 2.6
Mental health 5–20 11.0 2.1
Financial strain 4–20 6.3 2.9
Adolescent family process – father
Closeness 6–30 21.7 4.3
Support 4–20 14.6 3.5
Monitoring 4–20 12.2 3.9
Communication 5–25 14.2 4.6
Conflict 3–15 7.8 2.8
Adolescent family process – mother
Closeness 6–30 22.8 3.9
Support 4–20 14.4 3.5
Monitoring 4–20 13.6 3.7
Communication 5–25 16.6 4.1
Conflict 3–15 8.0 2.6
Perception of parents – father
Positive affect 10–60 44.7 10.6
Negative affect 5–30 12.6 5.3
Perception of parents – mother
Positive affect 10–60 46.3 9.7
Negative affect 5–30 12.1 5.0
Resilience
Perception of self 6–30 22.0 3.8
Perception of future 4–20 14.9 3.5
Structured style 4–20 12.6 3.0
Social competence 6–30 22.9 4.6
Family cohesion 6–30 21.8 4.5
Social resources 7–35 28.5 5.0
Psychology & Health 407
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Table2.Comparisonsofstudiedvariablesaccordingtofathers’andmothers’employmentstatus.
FatherMother
Employed
(mean)
Unemployed
(mean)
Non-
employed
(mean)F
Sheffe
posthoc
Employed
(mean)
Unemployed
(mean)
Non-
employed
(mean)F
Sheffe
posthoc
Financialstrain6.37.57.511.6***E<U.E<N6.37.16.54.9**E<U
Adolescentfamilyprocess–father
Closeness21.720.819.410.4***E>N21.221.621.21.2
Support14.613.614.23.014.614.714.5.1
Monitoring12.212.311.31.312.112.712.31.4
Communication14.313.711.97.9***E>N14.214.014.2.1
Conflict7.88.18.3.97.97.67.7.7
Adolescentfamilyprocess–mother
Closeness22.922.621.25.3**E>N22.922.522.32.8
Support14.414.313.7.914.414.214.0.9
Monitoring13.613.512.72.013.514.014.23.2*
Communication16.617.215.24.0*E>N.U>N16.616.516.5.1
Conflict8.07.47.72.28.08.08.2.4
Perceptionofparents–father
Positiveaffect44.843.840.05.9**E>N44.744.644.7.0
Negativeaffect12.514.813.58.1***E<U12.513.212.91.8
Perceptionofparents–mother
Positiveaffect46.247.844.32.046.246.046.3.1
Negativeaffect12.014.1113.07.0***E<U12.013.512.56.3**E<U
Resilience
Perceptionof
self
22.021.021.04.1*22.021.922.0.0
Perceptionof
future
15.013.813.58.0***E>U.E>N14.914.714.9.2
Structuredstyle12.612.712.5.112.612.512.31.7
Social
competence
23.022.221.83.022.922.822.9.1
408 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Family
cohesion
21.820.819.49.0***E>N21.821.121.71.4
Social
resources
28.527.926.93.028.428.728.9.8
Note:E–Employed,U–Unemployed,N–Nonemployed.
*p≤.05;**p≤.01;***p≤.001.
Psychology & Health 409
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Table3.Multiplelogisticregressionwithpoorself-ratedhealthasdependentvariable.Allmodelsarecontrolledforgender.
Step1Step2Step3Step4Step5Step6
OR95%CIOR95%CIOR95%CIOR95%CIOR95%CIOR95%CI
FatherESEmployed1.001.001.001.001.001.00
Unemployed2.731.72–4.342.551.60–4.072.671.66–4.292.651.65–4.242.621.62–4.232.471.52–4.03
Non-employed2.541.51–4.262.351.39–3.962.341.38–3.992.441.44–4.142.281.32–3.922.171.26–3.75
FinancialstrainLow1.001.00
Medium1.571.26–1.961.381.10–1.72
High2.081.68–2.571.621.30–2.03
ClosenessHigh1.001.00
Medium1.401.11–1.771.26.99–1.60
Low1.601.26–2.041.351.05–1.73
SupportHigh1.001.00
Medium1.25.99–1.571.07.85–1.36
Low1.751.35–2.271.351.02–1.78
MonitoringHigh1.001.00
Medium.93.75–1.15.85.68–1.06
Low.87.70–1.08.80.64–1.01
Communicationhigh1.001.00
Medium.99.80–1.22.85.66–1.12
Low1.09.86–1.38.86.68–1.07
Conflicthigh1.001.00
Medium.85.68–1.06.88.70–1.10
Low.83.67–1.02.92.74–1.16
PositiveaffectStrongaffect1.001.00
Medium1.341.08–1.661.20.96–1.49
Low1.631.32–2.001.21.94–1.54
NegativeaffectLow1.001.00
Medium1.471.16–1.861.19.94–1.50
Strongaffect1.791.42–2.251.20.94–1.54
PerceptionofselfHigh1.001.00
Medium1.25.99–1.581.19.94–1.51
410 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Low1.871.45–2.411.701.31–2.21
PerceptionoffutureHigh1.001.00
Medium1.17.93–1.461.11.89–1.39
Low1.18.91–1.491.12.87–1.44
StructuredstyleHigh1.001.00
Medium1.01.78–1.301.04.80–1.36
Low1.27.99–1.621.281.00–1.65
SocialcompetenceHigh1.001.00
Medium1.09.86–1.361.09.86–1.38
Low1.18.93–1.151.22.94–1.58
FamilycohesionHigh1.001.00
Medium1.371.09–1.741.22.95–1.57
Low1.531.19–1.971.25.95–1.65
SocialresourcesHigh1.001.00
Medium1.281.02–1.611.22.96–1.56
Low1.351.02–1.771.27.95–1.69
Note:OR–Oddsratio;CI–Confidenceintervals.
Significantassociationsareinbold.
Psychology & Health 411
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
multiple logistic regression with poor self-rated health as the dependent variable. In
Step 1, the father’s employment status was considered as a possible predictor of poor
health with employed fathers as the reference group. Adolescents with an unemployed
father had odds of being in poor health approximately 2.73 times higher than those with
an employed father. Similarly, having a non-employed father increased the odds of poor
health more than two and a half times (OR 2.54). The presence of medium or high
financial strain (Step 2) significantly increased the risk of poor self-rated health (OR
1.57 for medium strain, 2.08 for high strain). In the third step, parent–adolescent relationships
(but not financial strain) were included in the model. Medium and low closeness
with the father and low support increased the risk for being in poor health.
However, the parent–adolescent relationship did not account for the negative effect of a
father’s unemployment on self-rated health. In the fourth step, adolescents’ perception
of parents was included in the model. Both medium and low positive affect and medium
and strong negative affect towards the father, had a negative effect on self-rated
health. The role of resilience factors was studied in Step 5. From all six resilience
factors, only a low level of perception of self and medium and low levels of family
cohesion and social resources were associated with poor health. The effect of paternal
unemployment and non-employment remained significant.
In the last step of the analysis, all the studied variables were included in one model
(Step 6). The negative effect of paternal unemployment and non-employment remained
significant.
As the indicators of vitality and mental health were continuous variables, general
linear models were used to identify possible associations between the predictor variables
and adolescents’ health.
Table 4 summarises the multiple regression analyses with vitality as the dependent
health indicator. The father’s unemployment was associated with lower vitality among
adolescents (Step 1). When financial strain was added into the model (Step 2), this
association remained significant. Financial strain itself was significantly associated with
lower vitality. Parenting processes (Step 3) did not fully account for the association of
the father’s unemployment with lower vitality. However, the lack of fathers’ support,
communication and higher frequency of conflicts were associated with lower vitality in
adolescents. In Step 4, the perception of parents was included in the model. Both a lack
of positive affect and strong negative affect were associated with lower vitality. In the
fifth step, the effect of resilience factors was examined with father’s employment status
in one model. While poor perception of self, a lack of social competence and poor
family cohesion were connected to lower vitality, the effect of paternal unemployment
remained significant.
In the last step of the analysis, entering all the predictor variables into one model
explained associations between paternal unemployment and adolescents’ lower vitality.
Significant negative associations with worse vitality remained for financial strain, lack
of support, negative affect, poor perception of self and a lack of social competence.
When mental health was studied as the dependent health indicator (Table 5), the
father’s unemployment was not associated with poorer health although the father’s nonemployment
was. This association disappeared only after adding resilience factors into
the model (Step 5). In Step 2, higher financial strain was associated with poorer mental.
The association between the father’s non-employment and poorer mental health remained
significant. In Step 3, when the parent–adolescent relationship was included, a lack of
412 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Table4.Multipleregressionanalyzeswithvitalityasdependentvariable.Allmodelsarecontrolledforgender.
Step1Step2Step3Step4Step5Step6
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
FatherESEmployed
Unemployed1.45**.481.21*.471.25**.451.19*.471.10*.46.87.46
Non-
employed
.60.53.36.53.27.53.27.52.17.52.01.51
Financialstrain.20***.03.10***.03
Closeness−.12.10.02.10
Support−.47***.09−.23**.09
Monitoring.02.09.04.08
Communication−.35***.09−.16.09
Conflict.21*.09.09.09
Positiveaffect−.47***.09−.16.10
Negativeaffect.61***.08.26**.09
Perceptionof
self
−.78***.10−.69***.10
Perceptionof
future
−.14.09−.11.09
Structuredstyle−.09.08−.08.08
Social
competence
−.25*.10−.27**.10
Family
cohesion
−.29**.09−.02.10
Social
resources
.05.11.10.11
Degreesof
freedom
268225082677268026762495
*p≤.05;**p≤.01;***p≤.001.
Psychology & Health 413
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Table5.Multipleregressionanalyzeswithmentalhealthasdependentvariable.Allmodelsarecontrolledforgender.
Step1Step2Step3Step4Step5Step6
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
Parameter
estimateStd.error
FatherESEmployed
Unemployed.35.44.08.43.06.42.05.42−.18.40−.39.39
Non-
employed
1.41**0.481.16*.471.08*.461.04*.46.79.44.70.43
Financialstrain.21***.03.09***.03
Closeness−.08.09.09.09
Support−.65***.08−.38***.08
Monitoring−.05.08−.03.07
Communication−.28***.08−.07.08
Conflict.39***.08.28***.08
Positiveaffect−.55***.08−.13.09
Negativeaffect.70***.07.17*.08
Perceptionof
self
−.97***.08−.89***.08
Perceptionof
future
−.28***.08−.25**.08
Structuredstyle.04.07.05.07
Social
competence
−.13.08−.18*.08
Family
cohesion
−.52***.08−.22*.09
Social
resources
.10.09.15.09
Degreesof
freedom
259724312592259525912418
*p≤.05;**p≤.01;***p≤.001.
414 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Table6.Moderatingeffectofresiliencesumscoreontherelationshipbetweenfather’semploymentstatusandadolescent’shealth.Regressionmodels
withhealthindicator.Logisticregressionwasusedwithpoorself-ratedhealthandGLMmodelswithvitalityandmentalhealth.Allmodelsare
controlledforgender.
Poorself-ratedhealthVitalityMentalhealth
OR95%CIParameterestimatesStd.errorParameterestimatesStd.error
FatherESEmployedRefRefRef
Unemployed2.09*1.15–3.77−7.314.19−8.72*3.83
Non-employed2.33**1.23–4.426.573.463.613.09
Resilience-sumscore.55***.49–.61−.07***.01−.08***.01
Unemployed*resilience1.85.98–3.48.07*.04.07*.03
Non-employed*resilience1.21.68–2.14−.05.03−.03.03
*p≤.05;**p≤.01;***p≤.001.
Psychology & Health 415
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
paternal support, communication and higher frequency of conflicts were associated with
poorer mental health. In Step 4, the perception of parents was added into the model; a
lack of positive affect and strong negative affect were associated with poorer mental
health. The negative effect of paternal non-employment remained significant. Step 5
studied resilience factors where low perception of self, perception of future and family
cohesion seemed to sufficiently account for the relationship between a father’s nonemployment
and adolescents’ mental health. The final model showed that the strongest
predictors of adolescents’ poorer mental health were financial strain, lack of father’s
support, frequency of conflicts, poor perception of self and perception of future.
In the last set of analyses, the potential moderating role of resilience on the relationship
between paternal employment status and adolescents’ health was studied (Table 6).
Since there is no priori reason to believe that different dimensions of resilience have
different moderation roles, they were merged into a single variable (using a simple summation).
This has the benefit of increasing the degrees of freedom of the model and
hence, increasing its statistical power. As Table 6 shows, there is no moderation effect
of resilience on the relationship between parental employment status and self-rated
health. Moderation effects were found between parental unemployment (vs. employment)
and resilience on vitality and mental health. Interestingly, high resilience was
related to higher adolescents’ vitality and mental health more among those with an
employed father than those with unemployed.
Discussion
The comparisons between the groups of adolescents with employed, unemployed and
non-employed parents revealed the following. As had been expected, financial strain
was the highest when the father as well as mother was unemployed. With regards to
the parent–adolescent relationship, the findings showed and contrary to our expectations
that adolescents with unemployed parents did not report significantly lower closeness,
support, monitoring, communication or higher conflict with their parents than those with
employed parents. This was found to be the case for both mothers and fathers. While
there were no differences in the perception of parenting processes among adolescents
with unemployed and employed parents, adolescents showed stronger negative feelings
towards their parents if unemployed. Several explanations for this result should be considered.
Firstly, as well as the decrease of social status of an unemployed individual
(Christoffersen, 2000), the social status of adolescent’s with an unemployed parent may
also decrease. It has been shown that adolescents have strong tendency to blame their
unemployed fathers for the changes in their lifestyle (Elder, 1974). According to Ortiz
and Farrell (1993), economic deprivation subsequent to the father’s job loss has a negative
impact on the parent–adolescent relationship, represented by communication, affection,
parental guidance and adolescents’ view of their parents as desirable role models.
Secondly, the social stigma of unemployment may play an important role when it creates
feelings of social embarrassment and shame about having an unemployed parent
(Madge, 1983). Both of these factors could eventually lead to feelings of anger as well
as other negative feelings towards the unemployed parent. However, these studies which
focused on adolescents’ perception of their parents’ unemployment were done more
than 30 years ago and therefore further work on this topic would be of interest.
416 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
It had been hypothesised that adolescents with unemployed parents would be less
resilient. However, this was only true for the resilience factor represented by the perception
of the future. One suggestion is that due to higher financial strain during parental
unemployment, adolescents might perceive their future as insecure with plans that might
not be fulfilled. However, it was found in this study, that the level of resilience in all
factors was similar among those with employed, unemployed or non-employed parents.
Based on this finding, resilience does not seem to be affected by parental unemployment.
There has been a discussion of the possibility of strengthening resilience through
exposure to adversity (Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodrick, & Sawyer, 2003). While
for some adolescents, parental unemployment decreases resilience, for others, it might
be an opportunity to strengthen their resilience. Thus, the differences in resilience
between those with employed and unemployed parents may not be seen.
Paternal unemployment and adolescents’ health
The next aim of the present study was to analyse the association between parental
unemployment and adolescents’ health. The results showed a negative association of
fathers’ but not mothers’ unemployment with some aspects of adolescents’ health.
There is more or less consistent evidence that females experience unemployment better
than males and taking care of a family can buffer the negative effect of unemployment
(Artazcoz, Benach, Borrel, & Cortes, 2004). Therefore, maternal unemployment might
have fewer consequences for adolescents. Research has shown that women are likely to
turn to an alternative role such as the role of a housewife after losing their job (Waters
& Moore, 2002). In this current research, mothers on maternity leave or housewives
were included in the non-employed group. However, it can sometimes be difficult to
clearly distinguish where the exact line is between being unemployed and being a
housewife. Further research where maternal unemployment is operationalised in terms
of actual job loss would help to distinguish the line and enable the examination of the
effect on adolescents’ outcomes more precisely.
The third goal of this study was to study several factors that link paternal unemployment/
non-employment to poorer adolescent health. In this study, the focus was on
financial strain, the parent–adolescent relationship as reported by adolescents and adolescent
resilience. The results showed that the studied factors were not sufficient to
reduce the negative effect of the father’s unemployment or non-employment on adolescents’
self-rated health, vitality or mental health. One exception was found with regard
to adolescents’ mental health. The combination of all the studied variables accounted
for the relationship between the father’s unemployment and adolescents’ mental health.
Similar results have been obtained in previous studies which tried to find an explanation
for the negative consequences of parental unemployment. Generally, subjective
financial strain or an objective lack of finances, although strongly associated with job
loss or unemployment, was not found to be a sufficient reason for poorer adolescents’
health or other negative consequences (Andersen, 2013; Powdthavee & Vernoit, 2013;
Reinhardt Pedersen et al., 2005; Sleskova et al., 2006a). The same result was found in
the present study. With regards to the parent–adolescent relationship, only the frequency
and/or quality of communication with the parents have been previously studied in the
context of negative outcomes of parental unemployment (Andersen, 2013; Powdthavee
& Vernoit, 2013; Unger et al., 2004). This paper adds to the existing knowledge by
Psychology & Health 417
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
studying parenting processes as well as recognising the importance of adolescents’ feelings
towards their parents and their contribution to the relationship between parental
employment status and adolescent’s health. The current results show that the
parent–adolescent relationship variables did not reduce the negative effect of unemployment/
non-employment which is in line with the results on communication with parents
(Andersen, 2013; Powdthavee & Vernoit, 2013; Unger et al., 2004).
Resilience
Finally, resilience has been studied as a possible moderator of the relationship between
the father’s employment status and adolescents’ health. Although the interaction effect
of resilience and the father’s unemployment was significant, the result was unexpected.
High resilience in the current research was related to better adolescents’ vitality and
mental health among those with an employed father than those with an unemployed
one. In other words, resilience did not work as a buffer against the negative impact of a
fathers’ unemployment on adolescents’ health. As to our knowledge, this has been the
first study concerning adolescents’ resilience in the context of parental unemployment.
Therefore, this result needs further verification.
Limitations of the study
The potential shortcomings and limitations of the present study need to be addressed.
The most important seems to be the information bias. The study is based on selfreported
data and therefore does not necessarily reflect the objective situation about
parental employment status or parent–adolescent relationship. The validity of such
information could be questioned. However, previous research has shown that although
adolescents’ self-reported data may differ from their parents’ or from an objective
situation, they matter for adolescents (Hagquist, 1998; McElhaney, Porter, Wrenn
Thompson, & Allen, 2008; Pelton & Forehand, 2001; Vazsonyi et al., 2003). By this,
the subjective perception of the family’s financial situation is more meaningful for adolescents
than objective income loss (Hagquist, 1998). Moreover, when studying the
association between mother–adolescent conflict and adolescent’s adjustment, only
adolescents’ and not the mother’s perception of conflict was associated with adolescents’
perceptions of their adjustment (Pelton & Forehand, 2001). Therefore,
adolescents’ self-reports may be considered valid.
Furthermore, while standard measures were used, the reliability calculated by the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient showed rather low values in some cases in spite of using
a relatively large sample. This might have had a certain influence on the results and
must be acknowledged as a limitation of this study.
Implications
In order to maintain the health of adolescents during paternal unemployment, several
factors seem to be important. As well as increasing financial resources (via unemployment
benefits and/or financial management advices for the family) counselling work on
parenting, strengthening family resilience (Walsh, 1996) and decreasing adolescents’
negative feelings towards their unemployed fathers seem to be of interest.
418 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Conclusions
Despite the recognised limitations, this study contributes to the existing literature on
parental unemployment and adolescents’ health. Besides the more or less known role of
financial strain, several aspects of the parent–adolescent relationships were explored.
Furthermore, the possible moderating role of resilience was examined in the relationship
between paternal unemployment and adolescents’ self-perceived health that had not
been explored before.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the
contract No. APVV-0253-11. A special thanks to MSc. Jozef Janovský for his advice
on the statistical analyses of data.
References
Andersen, S. H. (2013). Common genes or exogenous shock? Disentangling the causal effect of
paternal unemployment on children’s schooling efforts. European Sociological Review, 29,
477–488. doi:10.1093/esr/jcr088
Artazcoz, L., Benach, J., Borrell, C., & Cortès, I. (2004). Unemployment and mental health:
Understanding the interactions among gender, family roles and social class. American Journal
of Public Health, 94, 82–88. doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.1.82
Bacikova-Sleskova, M., Madarasova Geckova, A., van Dijk, J. P., Groothoff, J. W., & Reijneveld,
S. A. (2011). Parental support and adolescents’ health in the context of parental employment
status. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 141–149. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01.003
Booth, A. L., & Van Ours, J. C. (2008). Job satisfaction and family happiness: The part-time
work puzzle. The Economic Journal, 118, F77–F99. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02117.x
Christoffersen, M. N. (2000). Growing up with unemployment: A study of parental unemployment
and children’s risk of abuse and neglect based on national longitudinal 1973 birth
cohorts in Denmark. Childhood, 7, 421–438. doi:10.1177/0907568200007004003
Conger, R. D., Rueter, M. A., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1999). Couple resilience to economic pressure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 54–71. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.54
Cui, M., & Conger, R. D. (2008). Parenting behavior as mediator and moderator of the association
between marital and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18,
261–284. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00560.x
Doiron, D., & Mendolia, S. (2012). The impact of job loss on family dissolution. Journal of PopularEconomy,
25, 367–398. doi:10.1007/s00148-010-0353-5
Elder, G. (1974). Children of the Great Depression. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding
healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399–419.
doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357
Fincham, D. S., Altes, L. K., Stein, D. J., & Seedat, S. (2009). Posttraumatic stress disorder
symptoms in adolescents: Risk factors versus resilience moderation. Comprehensive Psychiatry,
50, 193–199. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2008.09.001
Friborg, O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Hjemdal, O. (2005). Resilience
in relation to personality and intelligence. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric
Research, 14, 29–42. doi:10.1002/mpr.15
Psychology & Health 419
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Martinussen, M., & Rosenvinge, J. H. (2009). Empirical support for
resilience as more than the counterpart and absence of vulnerability and symptoms of mental
disorder. Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 138. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.138
Hagquist, C. E. I. (1998). Economic stress and perceived health among adolescents in Sweden.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 22, 250–257. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00168-7
Harland, P., Reijneveld, S. A., Brugman, E., Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P., & Verhulst, F. C. (2002).
Family factors and life events as risk factors for behavioural and emotional problems in children.
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 11, 176–184. doi:10.1007/s00787-002-0277-z
Hjemdal, O., Friborg, O., Stiles, T. C., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2006). Resilience
predicting psychiatric symptoms: A prospective study of protective factors and their role in
adjustment to stressful life events. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 194–201.
doi:10.1002/cpp.488
Isaranurug, S., Nitirat, P., Chauytong, P., & Wongarsa, C. (2001). Factors relating to the aggressive
behavior of primary caregiver toward a child. Journal of the Medical Association of
Thailand, 84, 1481–1489.
Jahoda, M., Lazarsfield, P. F., & Zeisel, H. (1933). Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed
community. (English Translation 1972). London: Tavistock.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Laippala, P. (2001). Adolescent depression: The
role of discontinuities in life course and social support. Journal of Affective Disorders, 64,
155–166. doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00233-0
Koivusilta, L. K., Rimpela, A. H., & Kautiainen, S. M. (2006). Health inequality in adolescence.
Does stratification occur by familial social background, family affluence, or personal social
position? BMC Public Health, 6, 110. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-110
Larsson, D., Hemmingsson, T., Allebeck, P., & Lundberg, I. (2002). Self-rated health and
mortality among young men: What is the relation and how may it be explained. Scandinavian
Journal of Mental Health., 30, 259–266. doi:10.1080/14034940210133997
Lê, F., Diez Roux, A. D., & Morgenstern, H. (2013). Effects of child and adolescent health on
educational progress. Social Science and Medicine, 76, 57–66. doi:10.1016/j.socsci-
med.2012.10.005
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: J.
Wiley & Sons.
Madarasova Geckova, A., Tavel, P., van Dijk, J. P., Abel, T., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2010). Factors
associated with educational aspirations among adolescents: Cues to counteract socioeconomic
differences? BMC Public Health, 10, 154. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-154
Madge, N. (1983). Unemployment and its effects on children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 24, 311–319. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1983.tb00579.x
Magklara, K., Skapinakis, P., Niakas, D., Bellos, S., Zissi, A., Stylianidis, S., & Mavreas, V.
(2010). Socioeconomic inequalities in general and psychological health among adolescents: A
cross-sectional study in senior high schools in Greece. International Journal for Equity in
Health, 9, 3. doi:10.1186/1475-9276-9-3
Martinez-Torteya, C., Anne Bogat, G. A., Von Eye, A., & Levendosky, A. A. (2009). Resilience
among children exposed to domestic violence: The role of risk and protective factors. Child
Development, 80, 562–577. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01279.x
McElhaney, K. B., Porter, M. R., Thompson, L., & Allen, J. P. (2008). Apples and oranges.
Divergent meanings of parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parental influence. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 206–229. doi:10.1177/0272431607312768
McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Psychological and physical
well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 53. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.53
420 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Olsson, C. A., Bond, L., Burns, J. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., & Sawyer, S. M. (2003). Adolescent
resilience: A concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 1–11. doi:10.1016/S0140-
1971(02)00118-5
Ortiz, L. P., & Farrell, M. P. (1993). Father’s unemployment and adolescent’s self-concept.
Adolescence, 28, 937–949.
Pelton, J., & Forehand, R. (2001). Discrepancy between mother and child perceptions of their
relationship I. Consequences for adolescents considered within the context of parental divorce.
Journal of Family Violence, 16, 1–15. doi:10.1023/A:1026527008239
Pettersen, I. (2009). Parental income and risk behaviour as determinants of adolescent health.
Norwegian Univestity of Science and Technology (Working paper series No. 10/2009).
Retrieved from http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iso/wp/2009/10_WP_paper_UH_IP.pdf
Phares, V., & Renk, K. (1998). Perceptions of parents: A measure of adolescents’ feelings about
their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 646 –1259. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/353535
Piko, B. F., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (2007). Socioeconomic status, psychosocial health and health
behaviours among Hungarian adolescents. European Journal of Public Health, 17, 353–360.
doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckl257
Powdthavee, N., & Vernoit, J. (2013). Parental unemployment and children’s happiness: A longitudinal
study of young people’s well-being in unemployed households. Labour Economics,
24, 253–263. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2013.09.008
Reinhardt Pedersen, Ch, Madsen, M., & Kohler, L. (2005). Does financial strain explain the association
between children’s morbidity and parental non-employment? Journal of Epidemiology
and Community Health, 59, 316–321. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.013839
Siponen, S. M., Ahonen, R. S., Savolainen, P. H., & Hameen-Anttila, K. P. (2011). Children’s
health and parental socioeconomic factors: A population-based survey in Finland. BMC
Public Health, 11, 457. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-457.
Sleskova, M., Salonna, F., Geckova, A., Nagyova, I., Stewart, R., van Dijk, J. P., & Groothoff, J.
W. (2006a). Does parental unemployment affect adolescents’ health? Journal of Adolescent
Health, 38, 527–535. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.03.021
Sleskova, M., Tuinstra, J., Madarasova Geckova, A., van Dijk, J. P., Salonna, F., Groothoff, J., &
Reijneveld, S. A. (2006b). Influence of parental employment status on Dutch and Slovak adolescents’
health. BMC Public Health, 6, 250. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-250
Stevens, A. H., & Schaller, J. (2011). Short-run effects of parental job loss on children’s academic
achievement. Economics of Education Review, 30, 289–299. doi:10.1016/j.econedu-
rev.2010.10.002
StrömS. (2003). Unemployment and families. A review of research. Social Service Review, 77,
399–430. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/375791
Sund, A. M., Larsson, B., & Wichstrom, L. (2003). Psychosocial correlates of depressive
symptoms among 12–14-year-old Norwegian adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 44, 588–597. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00147
Unger, J. B., Hamilton, J. E., & Sussman, S. A. (2004). Family member’s job loss as a risk factor
for smoking among adolescents. Health Psychology, 23, 308–313. doi:10.1037/0278-
6133.23.3.308
Vazsonyi, A. T., Hibbert, J. R., & Blake Snider, J. (2003). Exotic enterprise no more? Adolescent
reports of family and parenting processes from youth in four countries. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 13, 129–160. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.1302001
Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process, 35,
261–281. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1996.00261.x
Ware, J. J., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I.
Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/3765916
Psychology & Health 421
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
Waters, L. E., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Predicting self-esteem during unemployment: The effect
of gender, financial deprivation, alternate roles, and social support. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 39, 171–189. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1920.2002.tb00848.x
Wu, H. (2011). The protective effects of resilience and hope on quality of life of the families coping
with the criminal traumatisation of one of its members. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20,
1906–1915. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03664.x
422 M. Bacikova-Sleskova et al.
Downloadedby[PavolJozefSafarikUniversityinKosice]at01:1317February2015
23
Study 4
Bacikova-Sleskova, M. (2009). Family and its role in adolescent health risk behaviour. In:
Orosová, O. et al. Health related behaviour among adolescents and young adults.
Equilibria, 2009. 269s.
This monograph aimed to study adolescent risk behaviour from several points of view. The
current chapter focuses on family as an important factor in adolescent risk behaviour. In the
chapter we have integrated in the models four main factors in family that may be associated
with adolescent behaviour: family structure (living with two biological parents versus other),
family life events (such as a divorce, death in the family, serious illness, etc.); particular family
processes (parental monitoring, communication, conflicts and support) and positive and
negative affect toward parents. These aspects were studied in the context of smoking, alcohol
consumption, drunkenness and marihuana use in middle adolescence (3725 adolescents, 51%
girls, mean age 14.3; SD 0.65). The analyses have been done with respect to parental and
adolescent gender. Overall, some of our findings were consistent with other studies, while some
results seemed to be contradictory. The results show that family structure is more strongly
associated with smoking behaviour and marihuana use than with alcohol consumption. Girls in
our research seemed to be more vulnerable to other than biological parents family structure.
Further analyses revealed, to some extent, different results for maternal and paternal process,
boys and girls, and for different family processes. Thus, it is difficult to make any general
conclusions. Generally, however, results show that maternal process affect adolescent’s risk
behaviour to a higher extent than paternal. This is in agreement with findings reported in recent
papers about the importance of mother’s influence in adolescents’ lives. Furthermore, results in
general show stronger relationship between family characteristics/processes and risk behaviour
among girls than boys. The study shows the importance of taking into account the gender of
both adolescent and parent when analysing family processes. It further shows the importance
of paying a particular attention on each family factor/family process separately in more depth
as they are differently linked with adolescent risk behaviour.
Author´s contribution: 100%
Health-related behaviour among
adolescents and young adults
Olga Orosova, Beata Gajdosova,
Maria Bacikova-Sleskova,
Ferdinand Salonna, Rene Sebena
Equilibria
2009
Health-related behaviour among adolescents and young adults
© Authors:
Assoc. Prof. Olga Orosova, PhD
Beata Gajdosova, PhD
Maria Bacikova-Sleskova, PhD
Ferdinand Salonna MSc
PJ Šafárik University in Košice
Faculty of Arts
Department of Educational Psychology and Health Psychology
Slovak Republic
Rene Sebena MSc
PJ Šafárik University in Košice
Faculty of Arts
Department of Psychology
Slovak Republic
Dr. Med. Rafael Mikolajczyk, MSc Epid.
Department of Public Health Medicine, School of Public Health,
Bielefeld University, Germany
This monograph was supported by the Slovak Research and
Development Agency under the contract No. APVV-20-038205 and
The Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of Slovak
Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences under Contract No.
VEGA 1/4518/07.
ISBN 978-80-89284-36-8
EAN: 9788089284368
Reviewed by:
Assoc. Prof. Eva Ziakova, PhD
Assoc. Prof. Miroslav Frankovsky, PhD
Printed by: Equilibria, s.r.o., Kosice, Slovak Republic
Book cover and interior design: Stanislav Bacik
Language proof: Silvia Orosova BA
CHAPTER 4
Family and its role
in adolescent’s health risk behaviour
Maria Bacikova-Sleskova
Introduction
Family and its significance in adolescents' development
Adolescence is characterised by the dramatic physical growth and
physiological changes. These changes are combined with many
individual, cognitive, social and contextual transitions. Collins et al.
(2000) view this period as ideal to study the interaction of different
developmental systems.
In childhood, family is perceived as one of the most important
contexts and determinants of child's development with a great
protective effect (e.g. Eiden et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2008; Hughes et
al., 2008; etc.). However, during the adolescent period, young people
become more vulnerable to extrafamiliar influences. They spend
increasingly more time in the company of their peers compared with
the time spent with their family. As many researchers show, for the
adolescents’ development peer group (Goldstein & Davis-Kean,
2005), school mates (Barth et al., 2004), and pupil-teacher
relationships (Muray & Greenberg, 2000; Crosnoe et al., 2004)
become very important.
This may suggest that family influences loose significance during
the period of adolescence. However, as Steinberg (2001) stated in his
review of parent-adolescent relationships that while many topics in the
research of adolescence have come and gone, research on parental
influences has maintained constant since the 1970s. We fully agree
with his opinion saying, “I do feel that it is this very exposure of our
adolescents to the influences of so many individuals, institutions and
forces outside the family that makes parents more important today
than ever before” (Steinberg, 2001, p. 16). Our past research
(Sleskova, 2006) has also confirmed that even at the age of 15 to 19,
parental influences are still very important determinants of
adolescents’ mental and physical health. In the international research,
Smetana et al. (2006) found that the tendency to view other social
149
CHAPTER 4
relationships as complementary to, rather than supplanting, the
relationships with parents. There is an evidence that peers influence
adolescent especially in day-to-day activities while parental influences
seem to be strong especially in areas involving values and long-term
goals (Darling & Cumsille, 2003). Parents may act as gatekeepers and
monitors of adolescents’ social choice-making and social contacts
(Mounts, 2000).
With regard to family influences on adolescents' development, two
major sets of questions have occurred in the research in the past 25
years (Steinberg, 2001). The first set concerns the ways in which
family relationships change during adolescence (e.g. How can we best
characterize normative family relationships during adolescence? How
and why do relationships change as the child moves into and through
adolescence? What is the extent of individual differences in this
process of transformation? What do these changes mean for parents
and teenagers?). The second set concerns the impact of the family on
adolescent development and mental health (e.g. How do variations in
parent-child relationships affect the developing adolescent? Are some
types of parenting “better” for the adolescent than others? Are there
factors in the nonfamily environment that impinge on the parent-child
relationship in ways that enhance or attenuate parental influence?). In
our research, the second set of questions is essential. In this paper we
will provide a reader with a brief overview of several family factors and
their effect on health risk behaviour of Slovak adolescents. Firstly,
however, we would like to present the state of the international
research on the family and adolescents.
Parental and adolescents' views of family situation
When studying family influences on adolescents, researchers and
clinicians must take into consideration which family member is the
main informant about the family situation. Did adolescents report their
relationships with parents? Was it mother or father? Did the study use
both adolescents' and parents' reports?
In general, studies examining concordance between parental and
adolescents’ reports on parenting constructs have indicated quite low
levels of agreement (Jessop, 1981, Krohn et al. 1992, McElhaney et
al., 2008). Although parents and their children report on the same
relationship (situation), they experience different stressors, social
environments and expectations; thus, they would be expected to
perceive their relationships somewhat differently (Pelton & Forehand,
2001), which could be the reason for such low agreement.
Very interesting and wide research on this issue was performed by
Pelton & Forehand (2001, Pelton et al., 2001). In their research of 11
to 15 years old adolescents and their mothers, they found only
150
moderate correlation between mothers’ and adolescents’ reports of
the quality of their relationship. They also found larger discrepancy in
divorced families than in the intact families. Authors explain this result
by the tendency of parents and adolescents to perceive their
relationships differently in the stressful situation. This may be due to
the mother’s and adolescent’s decreased ability to be attentive to the
relationship when a family stressor such as divorce is present. Very
similar results had been reported in earlier years by Tein et al. (1994).
Families with few risk factors in their research had higher concordance
rates on mother and child reports of parenting. Authors stated that
children who grew up in high-risk families may have had distorted
perceptions of their parents’ behaviours. It is also possible that with a
multitude of family stressors, parents and adolescents are less
attentive to their relationship and thereby are less aware of the
manner in which they interact with each other.
Using a Family System Test (clinically derived figure placement
technique to access family cohesion and hierarchy) Gehring et al.
(1994) found that children saw their family less balanced than their
mothers and fathers. Fathers' views of their family were the most
optimistic. Authors suggested that fathers were less engaged in
everyday conflict issues and; therefore, they had more idealistic family
constructs than their spouses and children (Gehring et al., 1994).
Similarly, in Paulson and Sputa (1996) research, adolescents
perceived their parents lower on parenting than both mothers and
fathers did.
Even less agreement between adolescents' and parental reports
was found among 270 American families with regard to parental
monitoring (Cottrell et al., 2003). The authors found no relationship
between parental and adolescents' perceptions of parental monitoring.
In their sample, around 75% of parents reported that they always
knew where their adolescents were after school, at night and so on,
while only about 58% of adolescents reported their parents knew so.
The fact that adolescents and their parents perceive their
relationships differently (as mentioned before) could have been
expected. However, this discrepancy was visible even in such
a characteristic as family structure. In her research, Sweeting (2001)
found that 6 per cent of their child-parent pairs disagreed on the
number of persons in the household. Sweeting suggested that, for
example, a parent may have had omitted to mention a cohabitant
when the child had noted their presence.
With regard to age, a decrease was found in initially large
discrepancies between adolescents' and their parents' perceptions of
family cohesion, support, and expressiveness with increasing age of
adolescents (Seiffge-Krenke, 1999).
151
CHAPTER 4
Now when we know about this discrepancy, a new question
emerges. Whose reports are more valid when studying the effect of
parent-child relationship on adolescents' outcomes? Vazsonyi et al.
(2003) sees adolescents' self-reports as meaningfully contributing to
the understanding of family process and this may be independent of
what could be learned from parental reports. In the previously
mentioned Pelton's and Forehand's (2001) research, association
between mother’s perception of conflict and her perception of the
adolescent’s adjustment and association between adolescents’
perception of conflict and their perception of their own adjustment
were reported. However, mothers’ reports on conflict were not
associated with adolescents’ reports on their adjustment and vice
versa, adolescents’ reports on conflict were not associated with
mother’s report on adolescent adjustment. On the other hand, Cottrell
et al. (2003) found that both parental and adolescents' report on
parental monitoring were negatively correlated with adolescents'
smoking and drinking, however only adolescents', not parental,
reports were correlated with marijuana use and sexual activity.
Based on theresults mentioned above, we may accept
adolescents' reports on parent-child relationships to be at least as
valid and important as the parental reports. In the present study, only
adolescents' reports on family characteristics will be used.
Differences between maternal and paternal influence
In the past research, attention has been paid particularly to the
maternal influence on adolescent development. Paternal influence has
been often overlooked. In the recent years the situation is changing.
Father's influence has become an important issue in the parentadolescent
relationship research. Interestingly however, although
researchers accept paternal influence on adolescents' outcomes, they
still very often use in their research parental data without
distinguishing between mother's and father's influence. Only about
one third of the research in the past 10 years studies gender specific
relationships between parents and their adolescent children. As
Phares and her colleagues (2005) state, based on extensive
published research review, paediatric psychology research lags in
including fathers in research designs and analyzing for maternal and
paternal effects separately. Thus, a clear picture of such relationships
is still not available.
McKinney and Renk (2008) talk about three theories explaining
differences between maternal and paternal parenting (psychoanalytic
theory, sex role theory and role theory). Regardless of the theory, one
chooses to use, all of them expect mothers and fathers to adopt
different approaches to parenting their children and adolescents
(McKinney & Renk, 2008).
Although the role of mother and father in the parenting process is
152
still not clear, several findings have been published in the recent
research. First, fathers spend less time taking care of their children
compared to mothers (Renk et al., 2003, Lewis & Lamb, 2003) or
mothers spend more time in direct care (preparing food, caring for ill
children, etc.), while fathers spend more time with their children in play
activities (McBride & Mills, 1993). Secondly, the father-adolescent
relationship is characterized by physical and emotional distance,
mother-adolescent relationship by attachment and intimacy (Sim,
2003). Thirdly, mothers are more likely to utilize an authoritative
parenting style (combines high levels of democracy, warmth, and
demandingness), while fathers were perceived as adopting an
authoritarian style (high in control, but lacking in warmth) (Conrade
& Ho, 2001).
In Vazsonyi et al.’s (2003) research, maternal and paternal
processes were associated similarly with measures of both
internalizing (anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and low well-being)
and externalizing (alcohol use, drug use and school misconduct)
behaviours. On the other hand, Bosco et al. (2003) found that mothers
and fathers each play unique roles in adolescents' internalizing and
externalizing behaviour. They also reported very interesting gender
related results. In their study of 11 to 18 years old adolescents,
daughters’ behaviour was significantly related to their perceptions of
their father’s behaviour, while sons showed a more complicated
pattern with both mothers and fathers playing some role in their
internalizing and externalizing behaviour. In our previous research on
the effect of parental unemployment on adolescents' health outcomes
(Sleskova et al., 2006a), father's but not mother's unemployment
negatively affected adolescents' health. When we compared this effect
between Slovak and Dutch adolescents (Sleskova et al., 2006b), only
the Slovak ones were affected. On the other hand, among Dutch
adolescents, mother’s employment status was important for their
health and well-being. Webb and his colleagues (2002) reported
opposite gender related results when studying the effect of parental
monitoring on adolescents' alcohol use using structural equation
modelling. In their study perceived maternal monitoring was
significantly related to alcohol use; whereas, perceived paternal
monitoring was not. Leinonen et al. (2003) found no differences in
parenting under economic hardship between mothers and fathers.
Both mothers and fathers in their research endorsed more punitive
parenting when under economic hardship. In Laible and Carlo’s (2004)
research, high levels of maternal support and low levels of maternal
rigid control influenced adolescents’ reports of sympathy, social
competence and self-worth, while fathers’ support and control were
unrelated. In other research (Paulson & Sputa, 1996), both
adolescents and their parents perceived mothers as more involved in
parenting than fathers.
153
CHAPTER 4
One very interesting review of research on mother-son, motherdaughter,
father-son and father-daughter dyads was carried out by
Russel and Saebel (1997). Reviewing previous literature, authors
came to an interesting conclusion, saying that despite the
expectations of four different parent-child dyads and their theoretical
support, the research evidence, they had examined, did not show any
clear existence of such differences, in general. Their concluded that
possible differences in relationships among the four dyads were small
and unreliable. They stated that many different factors may had
influenced parenting and parent-child relationships, and gender was
only one of them. Hence,it is questionable, whether it is necessary to
create distinct relationships for the individual dyads.
As it could be seen in the previous paragraph, the separate roles
of mother and father in the adolescents' development is not clear and;
therefore, more research in this field is needed. In order to add to
a better understanding of mother's and father's roles in adolescent
functioning, this study explores the adolescents' perceptions of both
mothers and fathers in relation to adolescents' health risk behaviours.
Family and its effect on adolescents' outcomes
As we have mentioned earlier, family plays a crucial role in
adolescents' lives. Well known family system theory (Cox & Paley,
1997) views family as hierarchically organized system, comprised of
smaller subsystems (e.g. parental, marital, and sibling) but also as
embedded within larger systems (e.g. the community). Thus, mothers,
fathers and children influence each other both directly and indirectly.
From a family system perspective, changes in the condition of one of
the family members or in the patterns of relationships among family
subsystems may affect the functioning of the others. In this paper, we
review one part of the subsystems, namely parent-child relationships
but only in terms of the influence that parents have on their adolescent
children.
There are several ways how family and parents can influence
adolescents' development. We will pay attention to three of them.
First, family structure (if adolescent lives with both biological parents,
in step household or in other circumstances) and its effect on an
adolescent's development is one of the best studied family topics.
Secondly, many negative family events (such as parental divorce,
unemployment, death) have been found to have undesirable effect on
adolescents. Thirdly, parent-adolescent relationships (for example,
parental monitoring, communication, conflicts, support etc.) are
essential for the correct development of adolescents. The previous
research results will be addressed in more depth bellow.
154
Family structure
Living with both biological parents has been found to be a protective
factor in adolescents' development. Previous studies have compared
mainly adolescents with biological parents with those living in
one- parent families, in mixed families (one own parent and one
stepparent) or in stepfamilies. Analysing data from seven European
countries, Griesbach et al. (2003) reported the lowest prevalence of
smoking among adolescents (15 years old) from intact families and
the highest among those living in stepfamilies. Adolescents living with
both biological parents engaged less frequently in heavy alcohol use
(Bjarnason et al., 2003), were less delinquent (Demuth & Brown 2004)
and reported lower levels of depressive symptoms (Barett & Turner,
2005). Those who experienced a family structure transition reported
decreased well-being compared to those in stable, two-biologicalparent
families (Brown, 2006).
Family events
Many families undergo changes, which are perceived as very
stressful. Such family events are often important proofs of family
resilience. Parents, whilst trying to cope with their problems, may
change their behaviour towards the child, lose their sensitivity and
decrease the support they would normally givetheir child. Stressful life
events experienced by parents, as stated by Ge et al. (1994), are
related to parental depressive moods, which may disrupt skilful
parenting practices. In turn, the absence of skilful parenting practices
increases the risk of developing depressive symptoms among
adolescents. Therefore, stressful family events may have very
negative consequences for adolescents too.
One of the most stressful changes in family life is parental divorce.
Children and adolescents in divorced families exhibit more
externalizing (e.g. antisocial and aggressive behaviour, substance
use) and internalizing (e.g. anxiety, depression) problems compared
with those in intact families (Harland et al., 2002; Hoffmann, 2006).
Moreover, problems occurring in adolescence, although many years
after a divorce, can have their roots in earlier ages (Storksen et al.,
2006)
Job loss of one or both parents also affects adolescents'
development in a negative way. Parental unemployment has been
found to have negative consequences for the health of adolescents
(Sleskova et al., 2006a), behavioural problems in children (Isaranurug
et al., 2001; Harland et al., 2002), poorer self-esteem (Christoffersen,
1994), increased probability of binge drinking (Lundborg, 2002),
depression (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 2001; Sund et al., 2003), increased
smoking (Unger et al., 2003), as well as a higher occurrence of
155
CHAPTER 4
physical abuse of children (Christoffersen, 2000; Lindell & Svedin,
2001).
Among others negative family events, which have been confirmed
to influence adolescents' development, belong death of a parent
(Thompson et al., 1998), serious illness like a parental cancer
(Huizinga et al., 2005), and others.
In Dmitrieva’s et al. (2004) research, conducted among 17 years
old adolescents in four different countries (United States, Czech
Republic, China and Korea) several family-related negative life events
(exposure to death of a family member, parental divorce, conflict
between the parents and family financial difficulties) were included in
the analyses. Family events were related to lower levels of perceived
parental involvement and higher rates of parent-adolescent conflict.
The association between family-related life events and adolescent
problem behaviours was mediated by perceived parental involvement,
parent-adolescent conflict, and perceived parental sanctions of
adolescent misconduct. In general, we can say that exposure to
relatively minor stressful family events may have only a short-tem
impact on adolescent well-being, while more serious negative
circumstances may have long-term effect (Dmitrieva et al., 2004).
Parent-adolescent relationship
The quality of parent-adolescent relationships is highly important for
healthy adolescent development. It can be characterised by many
factors. Some of them will be addressed below.
Undoubtedly, parental monitoring belongs to the most often
discussed topics in parent-adolescent relationship research in the
recent years. Parental monitoring has been defined as “a set of
correlated parenting behaviours involving attention to and tracking of
the child's whereabouts, activities and adaptations” (Dishion
& McMahon, 1998, p. 61).
Parental monitoring of adolescent behaviour is studied especially
in connection to adolescents’ problem behaviour. Bray (2001),
reviewing past research, sees parental monitoring as a central factor
that influences the occurrence of problem behaviour in adolescence.
Webb et al. (2002) suggested that perceived parental monitoring
is especially relevant to female adolescent alcohol use because
females in that age were likely to associate with older males who had
greater access to alcohol than their peers. In their study, females
reported that mothers monitored their behaviour more than fathers did.
Furthermore, maternal monitoring, but not paternal, mediated the
relationship between gender and alcohol use, not only with regard to
differences in levels of drinking, but also in changes in drinking over
time.
156
Blokland et al. (2007) reported higher levels of parental control
(monitoring) to be associated with lower probability of adolescent
smoking initiation but not adolescents' subsequent transition to
increase in smoking.
In the longitudinal research among 15 years old adolescents in the
United States, Fletcher et al. (2006) found that adolescents were less
likely to engage in substance use (cigarette and marihuana smoking,
alcohol drinking, binge drinking) when their parents were warm and
involved in their lives, sought to obtain information concerning their
children’s activities, and provided higher levels of control over these
activities. Furthermore, they reported parental monitoring to be
associated with lower substance use in the present time but not
longitudinally. The explanation for this result was that parents probably
monitored those adolescents who are using illicit substances more,
but such monitoring did not increase or decrease the likelihood of their
risk behaviour in the future.
Two Swedish authors, Kerr and Stattin (2000), came with a very
interesting idea regarding parental monitoring Swedish authors Kerr
and Stattin (2000, Stattin & Kerr, 2000). They stated that although
parental monitoring and parental knowledge were positively
associated, they were not the same thing. Authors argued that it was
not the parental monitoring itself that predicted many positive
adolescent outcomes, but the adolescents’ willingness to express
information to their parents spontaneously. They distinguished
between parental solicitation and child disclosure. Parental solicitation
reflects the extent to which parents actively seek information
concerning children's whereabouts (something what other authors call
parental monitoring). On the other hand, child disclosure is defined as
the extent to which children spontaneously disclose information to
their parents. Although these two aspects are related, when analysing
their effect on adolescent involvement in problem behaviour, stronger
effect was found for disclosure (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Furthermore,
they distinguish between adolescents reports of being controlled and
parental control per se. Adolescents feelings were linked with poor
adjustment (involvement in problem behaviour and school problems),
while parental control was associated with positive adjustment.
The other factor of parent-adolescent relationships is their
communication and the frequency of conflicts they have. Before the
1970s, parent-adolescent conflicts were seen as normative because
of the adolescents' need to detach emotionally from parents or
parental figures. However, more recent research has shown that
conflicts are normative in the clinical samples but not in the general
population (Steinberg, 2001). The pattern of parent-child conflict
seems to have a reversed U shape with regard to the age of the child
(Montemayor, 1983). Some worsening of parent-child relationship
157
CHAPTER 4
occurs during early adolescence, remains reasonably stable during
middle adolescence and then the frequency of conflicts decreases
after about the of age 18.
Several interesting results have been found with regard to parentadolescent
conflicts (Montemayor, 1983). First, that parents and their
adolescents mostly argue about normal everyday family matters such
as school, social life, friends, home duties, but only rarely about “hot”
topics such as sex, drugs or politics. Secondly, over the years, very
little has changed in what parents and adolescents argue about.
Although this remark was published in the 1980s, it remains valid.
Parent-child communication process seems to be a key
mechanism in preventing health-risk behaviour (Riesch et al., 2006).
Such communication process is characterized by open expression of
ideas and feelings, satisfaction with the family system, family caring
and ability to manage conflict. Parent-child communication and high
occurrence of conflicts also influence other aspects of adolescents’
lives. Adolescent mental health was found to be better in families with
close, non-conflictive, parent-child relationships (Steinberg, 2001).
Parent-adolescent relationship is characterised also by parental
support. The effect of parental support on children’s development has
been studied. Lack of perceived parental support has been highly
related to depressive symptoms in adolescents (Patten et al., 1997).
Geckova et al. (2003) found a strong influence of social support on
many aspects of adolescents’ health. Piko (2000) reported that a low
level of perceived father’s support increased the risk of substance use
by secondary school pupils, whereas mother’s support did not appear
to be such a strong predictor. Wicrama et al. (1997) found that through
adolescent perception of parental support, changes in parental
supportive behaviour were connected with changes in adolescent
physical health status.
Blokland et al. (2007), in contrast to the previous research, did not
report the effect of parental support on adolescent smoking. They
explained the result by finding that Dutch parents, in their sample,
were generally judged as very supportive.
Parent-adolescent relationship is very often studied in terms of
adolescents’ perception of parental behaviour toward adolescent. The
above mentioned characteristics (parental monitoring of adolescent
behaviour, support received from a parent or parent-adolescent
communication (or conflict)) are the examples of parent-adolescent
interactions. Much less is known about the feelings, which
adolescents have towards their parents. This is surprising as
adolescents’ feeling towards parents may have much stronger
influence on many outcomes than parental behaviour towards
158
adolescents. When adolescents have strong positive feelings towards
their parents, they will probably do their best to avoid g engaging in
risk behaviour. On the other hand, many negative feelings towards
parents may be strong predictors of risk behaviour as a kind of
rebellion. To explore these assumptions,a questionnaire, developed
by Phares and Renk (1998), was used in our study (see methods
section for more information).
Mediators and moderators in the relationship between family
characteristics and adolescent’s outcomes
Family acts in adolescents’ lives in many different ways. Family
characteristics and parent-adolescent relationships per se can
influence many adolescents’ outcomes (as mentioned before).
Secondly, these relationships also can be mediated (variables that
explain the relationships) and moderated (variables that change the
relationships) by many other variables. Thirdly, family can acts as
a mediator and moderator in the relations between other
characteristics and adolescents’ outcomes. In this place we will
provide a reader with some results from previous studies on the latter
two assumptions.
Generally, there are many factors that influence parenting quality
and parent-child relationships and its effect on adolescents’
development. These factors can be grouped into three broad
categories: first, individual child characteristics (such as age, sex,
temperament, social competence), secondly, individual parent
characteristics (such as personality, social competence, sex, beliefs
and values), and thirdly, social-contextual factors (marital relationship,
sources of stress, social networks, levels of support) (Russell
& Saebel, 1997).
Previous research has shown that higher level of depressive
symptoms reported by those from stepfamilies and single parent
families can be partially explained by socioeconomic resources, family
processes and social stress (Barrett & Turner, 2005); self-efficacy
mediates the relationship between parental monitoring and lower
alcohol use among 15 years olds (Watkins et al., 2006); father’s
involvement highly mediates the connection between family structure
(living only with a mother) and adolescents’ behavioural outcomes
(Carlson, 2006); family relationships can mediate potentially negative
effect of family events on an adolescents’ adjustment (Dmitrieva et al.,
2004); and that family characteristics (youth perception of warmth and
autonomy) are not related directly to a problem behaviour, but predict
a risky peer context, which, in turn, predicts the problem behaviour
(Goldstein & Davis-Kean, 2005). Adolescents’ self-control partially
mediated the link between parenting behaviour and adolescent
emotional and behavioural problems (Finkenauer et al., 2005). Family
159
CHAPTER 4
environment indirectly influences adolescent alcohol use through peer
influence, self-efficacy and stress (Nash et al., 2005).
Family as a mediator and moderator in the relationship between
other characteristics and adolescent’s outcomes
Family very often acts as a factor that can change or influence the
negative effects of many circumstances on adolescents’ development.
Family factors buffer or decrease the negative impact of stress (Bray
et al., 2001). The association between family-related life events
(exposure to death of a family member, parental divorce, conflict
between the parents, and family financial difficulties) and adolescent
problem behaviours was mediated by perceived parental involvement,
parent-adolescent conflict, and perceived parental sanctions of
adolescent misbehaviour (Dmitrieva et al., 2004). Perceived maternal
monitoring mediated the relations between gender and alcohol use
(Webb et al., 2002). Family harmony was a mediator between the low
academic achievement and depression and tobacco and alcohol use
in China adolescents (Trinidad et al., 2003). Parent-child
communication process (such as openness, satisfaction with the
family system, caring and conflict resolution ability) may reduce the
negative effect of many individual, family and environmental factors on
adolescents’ health risk behaviour (Riesch et al., 2006). Economic
stress was indirectly linked to adolescents’ adjustment though parental
behaviour. It increased the risk of emotional distress, which, in turn,
increased the risk of marital conflict and marital distress, which
negatively influenced adolescents’ positive adjustment (represented
by school performance, positive peer relations and self-confidence)
(Conger et al., 1992).
Family as a factor of health risk behaviour
As mentioned on the previous pages, many family characteristics
have strong effect on adolescents’ development, many internal and
external outcomes. In the present study we pay our attention to one
set of external behaviour which is represented by health risk
behaviour (namely cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption and
marihuana use). Adolescence is the developmental process that
includes individuation, autonomy, intimacy and identity formation.
Experimentation with cigarettes, alcohol and other substances
appears to be related to these adolescent developmental processes
(Bray et al., 2001). In the following part we will present briefly the state
of international research regarding family and its influence on
adolescents’ health risk behaviour.
In their literature review, Riesch et al. (2006) have mentioned
three main groups of risk factors for health risk behaviour – individual
(biological, cognitive and psychosocial), environmental (school,
160
neighbourhood and community) and family factors. According to their
study, parental demographic characteristics (marital status, education,
occupation, income, health behaviour practices) and parenting
practices (quality of parent-child relationship, monitoring, family
connectedness) belong among family risk factors. Some of them will
be further studied in the present work.
Previous research has shown that parenting is one of the key
factors that help prevent adolescents from engaging in problem
behaviours (Bray et al., 2001). Furthermore, the opposite influence
has been confirmed. Some negative family characteristics, such as
bad relationships with parents, low support from parents, parent-child
and marital conflicts and many others, increase the probability of
engaging in risk behaviours (e.g. Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Bjarnason et
al., 2003; Unger et al., 2003; Vazsonyi et al., 2003).
The aim
In this study, we aim to give a picture of basic relations between
different family characteristics and adolescents' health risk behaviours
(smoking, alcohol drinking and marihuana use), among adolescents in
Slovakia. Since the previous research has shown the possibility of
gender specific parent-child relationships (mother-daughter, motherson,
father-daughter, father-son), we will analyse our data separately
for males and females, as well as with regard to the parental gender.
Furthermore, we will give some suggestion for the future ways of
analysing our data and the future research.
Methods
The research sample and health risk behaviour indicators used in our
study are described in the first chapter.
Measures
Family characteristics
Family structure. To define respondents' family structure we asked
them to answer the question: “Which of the following people live in the
same household with you? (Mark all that apply)” with possible
answers (1) I live alone, (2) father, (3) stepfather, (4) mother,
(5) stepmother, (6) brother(s) or sister(s), (7) grandparent(s), (8) other
relative(s), (9) non-relative(s). This simple question (used also by
Brook et al. 1990; Petraitis et al., 1995) enable us to divide
respondents in many family structure groups based on various
combinations of their answers. In the present study, five groups were
created: 1 – both own parents, 2 – one own parent, one stepparent,
161
CHAPTER 4
3 – only one parent (own or stepparent), 4 – stepparents, 5 – others
(only siblings, only grandparents, etc.). As the last two groups were
very small (16 respondents living with stepparents and 38 living with
others, see Table 1), we decided to exclude them from further
analysis.
Negative family events. Respondents were asked to indicate every
situation, which had occurred during the past year in their families.
The possible situations were as follows: (1) moving to another city,
(2) sibling birth, (3) parental divorce, (4) one or both parents have lost
an employment, (5) death of someone close to you, (6) serious illness
(yours or of someone close to you), (7) other serious event that
touched your feelings. The measure was inspired by the one used by
Harland et al. (2002). For the analysis in the present study, those, who
mentioned at least one of these events, were considered to be
experiencing negative family events.
Family process was measured by The Adolescent Family Process
(AFP) measure. This six subscale measure was developed by
Vazsonyi et al. (2003). The authors based their work on previous
summarising investigation of Steinberg and Silk (2002), who identified
three distinct domains of parenting dimensions, namely harmony,
autonomy and conflict. Harmony describes dimensions that assess
the affective relationship between parents and adolescents. Autonomy
describes dimensions that are directed at encouraging a balance
between growth and independence, while providing boundaries for
youth. Conflict describes the common tension between adolescents
and their parents. Vazsonyi's et al.’s (2003) questionnaire included six
dimensions that reflected the three domains described by Steinberg
and Silk (2002): closeness and communication (harmony), support,
monitoring and peer approval (autonomy) and conflict (conflict). The
final questionnaire includes 25 items in six subscales. Direction of one
subscale (support) was reversed. The first three subscales were rated
on the 5-point Likert scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree,
3= neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree. The other
three subscales were rated on different 5-point Likert scale: 1=never,
2=occasionally, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often. For each
subscale, a higher score indicates better family process, with one
exception – conflict – where higher score indicates more conflicts.
Respondents answered the questions first with regard to their mother,
and secondly with regard to their father. This allows examining the
independent effects of both maternal and paternal family process. The
scale was used also in the investigation of the effect of parent
religiosity on parenting process conducted by Snider et al.(2004) and
the research on interpersonal identity of African American Adolescents
(Kerpelman & White, 2006). Unfortunately, during the printing process
of questionnaires, one question, representing the approval subscale,
was missed out. As the subscale without this question comprised only
162
two items and Cronbach alpha was very low (for mothers 0.50 and
0.52 for males and females respectively; for fathers 0.55 and 0.57) we
decided to skip this subscale in all the analyses.
Perception of parents. This measure was developed by Phares
and Renk (1998). It was first established with retrospective reports of
perception of parents by older adolescents; and after that,
confirmatory analysis of the measure was conducted with both older
and younger adolescents (Phares & Renk, 1998; Bosco et al., 2003).
Using this process, a final 15-item instrument was developed to
measure adolescents' cognitive and emotional representations of their
biological mothers and fathers. Factor analysis revealed two factors.
Ten items characterised positive affect towards the parent (respect
toward the parent, happy when thinking about the parent, love towards
the parent, grateful for the parent, proud of the parent, caring toward
the parent, comforted when thinking about the parent, closeness
towards the parent, appreciative of the parent, and positive feelings
towards the parent), and five items characterised negative affect
towards the parent (anger towards the parent, confused or puzzled by
the parent, disappointed or let down by the parent, upset when
thinking about the parent, anxious or nervous about the parent). Items
were completed using a 6-point scale ranging from 1-not at all or
never to 6-extremely or always. Similar to the previous measurement,
respondents answered the questions with regard to both, their mother
and father. Higher score indicated more positive and more negative
feelings.
Statistical analyses
All the data in the present study were analysed using statistical
software package SPSS version 14.1. First, we compared males and
females in basic characteristic using the independent sample t-test
(for continuous dependent variables) and chi-square statistics (for
categorical dependent variables). Secondly, Pearson's correlation
coefficient (r) was used to correlate some continuous measures.
Thirdly, logistic regression analyses were used to assess the effects of
several family characteristics on adolescents' health risk behaviour.
Odds ratios (OR), 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) and Nagelkerke
R Square are presented. Furthermore, c statistic was calculated. The
c statistic is a measure of the discriminative power of the logistic
equation. It varies from .5 (50%, the model's predictions are no better
than chance) to 1.0 (100%, very good prediction). In social sciences’
research, a value of .7 is usually considered a good model power.
163
CHAPTER 4
Results
Sample description
Before analysing the data, we provide the reader with some
descriptive characteristics of our sample. Tables 1 and 2 describe the
sample with regard to several family characteristics (family structure,
family events, Adolescent Family Process measure and Perception of
Parents) separately for males and females; as well as, they show
differences between males and females in the mentioned
characteristics.
As it could have been expected, there are no significant gender
differences in family structure (Table 1). However, we found statistical
differences (p<.001) in reporting occurrence of negative family events
during the last year unfavourable for females (67% compared to 55%
for males).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (number of cases and the percentage) for family
structure and family events, separately for males and females. Significance
values of the comparisons between males and females in these measures
(using chi-square).
males females
p value
(χ²)N % N %
family structure
both own parents 1358 76.2 1362 73.7
one own and
one stepparent
116 6.5 151 8.2
only one parent
(own or step)
264 14.8 293 15.8
stepparents 6 0.3 10 0.5
others (only siblings,
only grandparents, other
familiars, etc.)
17 1.0 21 1.1 .205
family events (last year)
no 801 45.0 616 33.3
yes 980 55.0 1233 66.7 .001
* significant differences are in bold
As for Adolescent Family Process and Perception of Parents
measures, we found statistical gender differences in almost all scales
(Table 2). However, the direction of these differences varied by the
164
scale. Females reported significantly higher intensity of closeness,
monitoring, communication and higher frequency of conflicts with
mother and more support, monitoring and conflicts with father. On the
other hand, males reported higher frequency of communication with
father.
With regard to the Perception of Parents, females in our sample
reported more positive affects towards mother (p<.001) and more
negative affects towards father (p<.033).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics (possible score range, mean and standard
deviation SD) for Adolescent Family Process and Perception of Parents
measures separately for males and females. Significance values of the
comparisons between males and females in separated scales (using t-test).
score
range*
males females p value
(t-test)mean SD mean SD
Adolescent Family
Process
mother's closeness 6-30 22.4 3.9 23.0 4.1 .001
mother's support 4-20 14.1 3.5 14.3 3.7 .309
mother's monitoring 4-20 12.9 3.8 14.3 3.5 .001
mother's
communication
5-25 16.2 4.0 17.0 4.3 .001
mother's conflict 3-15 7.8 2.6 8.4 2.7 .001
father's closeness 6-30 21.5 4.4 21.4 4.7 .594
father's support 4-20 14.4 3.4 14.7 3.7 .030
father's monitoring 4-20 11.7 4.0 12.1 4.1 .006
father's
communication
5-25 14.7 4.5 13.6 4.8 .001
father's conflict 3-15 7.7 2.8 8.0 3.0 .006
Perception of
Parents
positive affect toward
mother
10-60 45.3 10.3 47.0 9.7 .001
negative affect
toward mother
5-50 12.2 5.1 12.3 5.2 .686
positive affect toward
father
10-60 43.4 11.8 43.4 12.0 .925
negative affect
toward father
5-50 12.6 5.4 13.0 5.5 .033
* higher score means better closeness, support, more monitoring, better
communication, more conflict, more positive affects and more negative
affects.
* significant differences are in bold
165
CHAPTER 4
Correlation between measures' scales
As a second step of the present study, we analysed the relations
between separate scales of used measures. We have used two
measures of family process (Adolescent Family Process measure and
Perception of Parents). Because both measures assessed parental
behaviour and adolescents' feelings towards their parents, separately
for mothers and fathers, we were first interested in the
intercorrelations between adolescents' views of their mothers and their
fathers. Pearson's correlation coefficients can be seen in the Table 3
for males and females separately. The correlations between mother's
and father's scales were highly significant for both measures and all
scales and were higher for males. The lowest, but still statistically
significant, correlation can be seen between the frequency of motherfemale
and father-female conflicts (r=.352).
Table 3. Correlations between perception of mother and father for males and
females
males females
r r
Adolescent Family Process
closeness .666 .451
support .626 .496
monitoring .666 .522
communication .616 .464
conflict .533 .352
Perception of Parents
positive affect .670 .468
negative affect .729 .608
*All the correlations are significant on the level p<.001
The following two tables show intercorrelations between scales of
Adolescent Family Process measure for mother (Table 4) and father
(Table 5). Results for males are presented in the upper right corner,
and in the lower left corner, results are presented for females.
Intercorrelations are generally high, although they are lower than
correlations between mother's and father's scales (previous Table 3)
and not all of them are statistically significant.
With regard to mother's measures (Table 4), for males, intensity of
closeness with mother is highly correlated with communication
(r=.442), intensity of mother's support is negatively correlated with the
frequency of conflict with her (r=-.531). The frequency of mother-
166
males conflict is not associated with the intensity of monitoring, neither
with the frequency of communication with mother. For females, the
highest positive correlation can be seen between communication with
mother and the intensity of closeness (r=.578) and the highest
negative correlation is, similarly to males, between the intensity of
mother's support and the frequency of conflicts with her (r=-.591). The
only non-significant correlation for females is reported between
mother's monitoring and her support.
Table 4. Adolescent Family Process - mother, upper right corner males, lower
left corner females
Mother closen. supp. monit. comm. conflict
closeness .280 .378 .442 -.222
support .485 -.068 .171 -.531
monitoring .357 .046 .275 .005
communication .578 .339 .313 -.048
conflict -.441 -.591 -.096 -0.31
*significant correlations are in bold
With regard to father's measures (Table 5), for males, the most
important relation is between the frequency of communication with
father and the intensity of closeness with him (r=.502); and negatively,
between the frequency of conflict and father's support (r=-.531). Nonsignificant
correlation is between monitoring and conflict.
For females, all the correlations are significant. The highest one is
between closeness and communication (r-.609), and similarly to
males, strong negative relations can be seen between father's support
and father-females conflicts (r=-.556).
Table 5. Adolescent Family Process - father, upper right corner males, lower
left corner females
Father closen. supp. monit. comm. conflict
closeness .297 .412 .502 -.261
support .448 -.103 .094 -.531
monitoring .459 .054 .394 .002
communication .609 .248 .414 -.091
conflict -.424 -.556 -.086 -.229
*significant correlations are in bold
167
CHAPTER 4
The second measure we have used is the Perception of Parents
measure with two subscales (positive and negative affect). As in the
previous measure, first, we compared mother's and father's scales,
and secondly, we compared the two subscales for mother and father,
respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficients for both analyses are
reported in Table 6. When compared mother's and father's scales, the
results are very similar to those in the previous measure. Positive, as
well as negative affects towards mother were highly correlated with
those toward father. These correlations were higher for males. On the
other hand, positive and negative affects were much higher correlated
among females than males, both for mother (r=-.257) and father
(r=-.389).
Table 6. Correlations of Perception of Parents measure for males and
females
for males for females
positive affect toward mother versus toward father .670 .468
negative affect toward mother versus toward father .729 .608
positive versus negative affect toward mother -.106 -.257
positive versus negative affect toward father -.177 -0.39
*All the correlations are significant on the level p<.001
As the last step in this section, we correlated subscales from
Adolescent Family Process measure and Perception of Parents
measure. The questions in Adolescent Family Process measure were
oriented more on parental behaviour toward adolescent while
questions in the Perception of Parents measure reflected more
adolescents' feeling towards their parents. Therefore, we were
interested whether parental behaviour and adolescents' feelings
toward them were intercorrelated. We conducted this analysis again,
separately for mothers (Table 7) and fathers (Table 8), and for males
and females.
In mothers' measures (Table 7), all the studied variables were
significantly correlated apart from mother's monitoring, which was not
related to negative affect among males. The correlations were higher
for females.
In father's measures (Table 8), the results were very similar to
those in mother's measures, but the correlations were generally higher
for both males and females.The relationship between father's
monitoring and males negative affects towards father was not
significant.
168
Table 7. Correlations between Adolescent Family Process factors and
Perception of Parents factors among males and females for mothers
Mother for males for females
Perception of Parents
positive
affect
negative
affect
positive
affect
negative
affect
Adolescent Family Process
closeness .403 -.253 .582 -.392
support .305 -.395 .390 -.469
monitoring .225 -.043 .234 -.116
communication .374 -.115 .516 -.271
conflict -.327 .379 -.409 0.44
*significant correlations are in bold
Table 8. Correlations between Adolescent Family Process factors and
Perception of Parents factors among males and females for fathers
Father for males for females
Perception of Parents
positive
affect
negative
affect
positive
affect
negative
affect
Adolescent Family Process
closeness .543 -.275 .680 -.413
support .278 -.393 .419 -.479
monitoring .268 -.054 .379 -.158
communication .436 -.159 .546 -.300
conflict -.374 .471 -.417 .467
*significant correlations are in bold
The effect of family measures on health risk behaviour.
The third aim of the present study was to analyse the effect of several
family characteristics on adolescents’ health risk behaviour. For these
analyses, logistic regression models were used. We included each of
the characteristics separately in the model. When the measurement
was composed by subscales, all the subscales were included in one
model. In the following tables (Tables 9 to 14), results of such models
are presented separately for males and females, each table
representing one type of risk behaviour as a dependent variable. For
each model, odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI),
Nagelkerke R square and c statistic value are presented.
169
CHAPTER 4
The first risk behaviour indicator used in the present study was
smoking (Table 9). Living with one own and one stepparent increased
the risk for being a smoker among both males (OR 1.64) and females
(OR 2.22), while living only with one parent increased this risk only for
females (OR 1.56). Those boys, but not girls, who experienced at
least one negative family event in the past year, had higher probability
of being a smoker. Analysing Adolescent Family Process measure
subscales, we found that more maternal support among girls and
more maternal monitoring among boys decreased the probability of
being a smoker, while many conflicts with mother increased this
probability. As for fathers, girls who had more support from father
were less often smokers and those with more conflicts with father
were smokers more often. Positive feelings towards both mother and
father decreased, whereas negative feelings towards parents
increased the probability of boys’ and girls’ smoking. In this health risk
behaviour indicator, the strongest power (c statistic) had the model
with AFP measure for mothers and females (c=.663).
Table 9. The effect of separate family characteristics on the probability of
being a smoker
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
Family structurea
one own,
one stepparent
1.64 (1.07-2.53) 2.22 (1.55-3.18)
only one parent 1.14 (0.82-1.58) .528 1.56 (1.17-2.09) .564
Family eventsb
At least one event 1.33 (1.05-1.69) .534 1.22 (0.96-1.55) .522
AFP-motherc
closeness 0.97 (0.93-1.02) 0.98 (0.94-1.02)
support 0.97 (0.92-1.01) 0.96 (0.92-0.99)
monitoring 0.96 (0.92-0.99) 0.97 (0.93-1.01)
communication 1.03 (0.99-1.07) 1.01 (0.98-1.05)
conflict 1.07 (1.01-1.14) .590 1.15 (1.09-1.22) .663
AFP-fatherc
closeness 0.97 (0.92-1.01) 0.98 (0.94-1.03)
support 1.01 (0.96-1.07) 0.95 (0.91-0.99)
monitoring 0.98 (0.94-1.03) 0.97 (0.94-1.01)
communication 1.03 (0.98-1.07) 0.99 (0.96-1.03)
conflict 1.05 (0.98-1.12) .562 1.07 (1.01-1.13) .628
170
POP – motherc
positive feelings 0.98 (0.97-0.99) 0.97 (0.96-0.99)
negative feelings 1.07 (1.04-1.10) .616 1.04 (1.02-1.07) .603
POP – fatherc
positive feelings 0.99 (0.97-0.99) 0.98 (0.97-0.99)
negative feelings 1.05 (1.03-1.08) .601 1.03 (1.00-1.05) .604
*all significant effects are in bold
OR – odds ratio, 95% CI – confidence intervals, c – c statistics
AFP – The Adolescent Family Process, POP – Perception of Parents
a
both parents as reference group; b
no family events as reference group; c
all
subscales included in one model.
Table 10 shows the effect of family characteristics on the
probability of being a regular smoker. Family structure (living with one
own and one stepparent, as well as living with only one parent) was
a significant predictor of regular smoking, both among boys and girls.
However, the OR, as well as the model power (c= .622) are higher
among girls. Experiencing negative family events seems to influence
only girls too (OR=1.55). With regard to subscales of Adolescent
Family Process measure, mainly mother’s behaviour influenced the
probability of being a regular smoker. Interestingly, boys were affected
by different subscales than girls. More support and monitoring from
mother decreased the probability of being a regular smoker among
boys, while higher closeness and less conflict decreased such
probability among girls. Very interesting result, however, was obtained
for the effect of communication with mother on girls’ regular smoking –
more frequent communication with mother increased the probability of
being a regular smoker. As for fathers, only better closeness among
girls was associated with less regular smoking (OR=0.93). The
probability of being a regular smoker decreased with more positive
feelings (in Perception of Parents measure) both towards mother and
father in both genders, and increased with more negative feelings
towards mother and father among boys, and towards mother among
girls. Again, the model with AFP for mothers and females had the
strongest model power (c=.703).
171
CHAPTER 4
Table 10. The effect of separate family characteristics on the probability of
being a regular smoker
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
Family structurea
one own,
one stepparent
1.81 (1.03-3.19) 3.83 (2.44-6.01)
only one parent 1.63 (1.08-2.46) .555 2.14 (1.42-3.22) .622
Family eventsb
At least one event 1.27 (0.91-1.76) .529 1.55 (1.07-2.25) .545
AFP-motherc
closeness 0.95 (0.89-1.01) 0.94 (0.89-0.99)
support 0.92 (0.86-0.99) 0.98 (0.92-1.04)
monitoring 0.94 (0.89-0.99) 0.95 (0.90-1.01)
communication 1.05 (0.99-1.11) 1.10 (1.04-1.16)
conflict 1.06 (0.97-1.15) .632 1.22 (1.12-1.33) .703
AFP-fatherc
closeness 0.97 (0.90-1.04) 0.93 (0.87-0.99)
support 0.96 (0.88-1.05) 0.97 (0.91-1.04)
monitoring 1.00 (0.93-1.08) 0.99 (0.93-1.05)
communication 1.04 (0.97-1.11) 1.04 (0.98-1.10)
conflict 1.02 (0.92-1.13) .566 1.07 (0.99-1.17) .645
POP – motherc
positive feelings 0.98 (0.96-0.99) 0.97 (0.95-0.99)
negative feelings 1.06 (1.03-1.10) .606 1.06 (1.02-1.09) .620
POP – fatherc
positive feelings 0.98 (0.97-0.99) 0.97 (0.96-0.98)
negative feelings 1.06 (1.02-1.09) .622 1.02 (0.99-1.06) .621
*all significant effects are in bold
OR – odds ratio, 95% CI – confidence intervals, c – c statistics
AFP – The Adolescent Family Process, POP – Perception of Parents
a both parents as reference group; bno family events as reference group; c all
subscales included in one model.
Three measures of alcohol consumption were used in our study.
Logistic regression analyses with the first one (having ever tried
alcohol) are presented in the Table 11. Living with a stepparent, but
172
not only with one parent, is a risk factor for trying alcohol for both boys
(OR=2.40) and girls (OR=2.18). Contrary to the previous measure of
regular smoking, experiencing negative family events increased the
probability of trying alcohol among boys but not girls. All the other
family characteristics were insignificant for trying alcohol among boys.
For girls, higher monitoring from mother and positive feelings towards
father had protective effect on trying alcohol, while having more
conflicts with both mother and father had negative effect. Model with
the strongest but quite low power in this dependent variable was the
AFP for father and females (c=.634).
Table 11. The effect of separate family characteristics on the probability of
having ever tried alcohol
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
Family structurea
one own,
one stepparent
2.40 (1.04-5.57) 2.18 (1.12-4.21)
only one parent 1.22 (0.78-1.88) .532 1.41 (0.93-2.13) .547
Family eventsb
At least one event 1.43 (1.06-1.93) .545 1.24 (0.93-1.66) .524
AFP-motherc
closeness 1.01 (0.95-1.08) 1.03 (0.97-1.08)
support 0.98 (0.91-1.04) 0.97 (0.92-1.03)
monitoring 0.97 (0.92-1.03) 0.90 (0.86-0.95)
communication 1.03 (0.97-1.08) 0.99 (0.94-1.03)
conflict 1.07 (0.98-1.17) .577 1.10 (1.02-1.19) .625
AFP-fatherc
closeness 1.01 (0.95-1.07) 1.00 (0.94-1.06)
support 1.04 (0.96-1.12) 0.98 (0.91-1.05)
monitoring 0.97 (0.91-1.03) 0.94 (0.90-0.99)
communication 1.03 (0.97-1.09) 0.99 (0.94-1.04)
conflict 1.05 (0.96-1.15) .564 1.12 (1.03-1.21) .634
POP – motherc
positive feelings 0.99 (0.98-1.01) 0.99 (0.97-1.01)
negative feelings 1.02 (0.99-1.06) .536 1.02 (0.99-1.05) .534
173
CHAPTER 4
POP – fatherc
positive feelings 1.00 (0.98-1.01) 0.98 (0.96-0.99)
negative feelings 1.02 (0.99-1.06) .531 1.01 (0.98-1.05) .577
*all significant effects are in bold
OR – odds ratio, 95% CI – confidence intervals, c – c statistics
AFP – The Adolescent Family Process, POP – Perception of Parents
a
both parents as reference group; b
no family events as reference group; c
all
subscales included in one model.
The second measurement of alcohol consumption was drinking in
the last 4 weeks (Table 12). Girls living with one own and one
stepparent had higher probability (OR 1.62) of drinking in previous
month than those living with both parents. Experiencing negative
family events influenced drinking among boys (OR 1.22). The
occurrence of this risk behaviour was influenced also by lower
mother’s support and monitoring, and by more conflicts with mother
for both girls and boys. Father’s monitoring was negatively associated
with drinking among boys. Interestingly more frequent communication
with father predicted drinking during the the last four weeks among
boys (OR 1.06). Positive feelings towards mother (among boys and
girls) and father (girls only) decreased the probability of drinking in the
past month; however, negative feeling towards both parents increased
this probability. Adolescent Family Process mother for boys had the
strongest model power (c=.605).
Table 12. The effect of separate family characteristics on the probability of
drinking alcohol during the previous 4 weeks
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
Family structurea
one own,
one stepparent
1.34 (0.91-1.98) 1.62 (1.15-2.27)
only one parent 1.13 (0.86-1.48) .522 1.04 (0.81-1.35) .524
Family eventsb
At least one event 1.22 (1.00-1.47) .524 1.07 (0.88-1.30) .507
174
AFP-motherc
closeness 0.98 (0.94-1.01) 1.01 (0.98-1.05)
support 0.96 (0.92-0.99) 0.96 (0.92-0.99)
monitoring 0.95 (0.92-0.98) 0.96 (0.93-0.99)
communication 1.03 (0.99-1.06) 1.00 (0.97-1.03)
conflict 1.08 (1.02-1.14) .605 1.08 (1.03-1.14) .600
AFP-fatherc
closeness 0.98 (0.95-1.02) 0.99 (0.95-1.02)
support 0.98 (0.93-1.02) 0.98 (0.94-1.02)
monitoring 0.93 (0.89-0.97) 0.98 (0.94-1.01)
communication 1.06 (1.02-1.10) 1.02 (0.98-1.05)
conflict 1.03 (0.97-1.09) .588 1.05 (0.99-1.10) .577
POP – motherc
positive feelings 0.99 (0.98-1.00) 0.98 (0.97-0.99)
negative feelings 1.04 (1.01-1.06) .559 1.02 (1.00-1.05) .567
POP – fatherc
positive feelings 0.99 (0.98-1.01) 0.99 (0.98-0.99)
negative feelings 1.04 (1.02-1.06) .568 1.02 (1.00-1.05) .564
*all significant effects are in bold
OR – odds ratio, 95% CI – confidence intervals, c – c statistics
AFP – The Adolescent Family Process, POP – Perception of Parents
a
both parents as reference group; b
no family events as reference group; c
all
subscales included in one model.
Thirdly, we analysed the probability of being drunk (binge drinking)
during the past four weeks (Table 13). Family structure, other than
living with both parents, seems to influence binge drinking among girls
only. This risk behaviour indicator was not affected by negative family
events. More closeness with mother (boys only), better support from
mother, and more monitoring from mother, as well as more closeness
with father (boys only) increased the probability of binge drinking
during the past month. Higher frequency of communication with both
mother and father (boys only), and more conflicts with mother and
father (girls only) decreased such probability. The probability of being
drunk decreased with more positive feelings towards both parents and
increased with more negative feelings towards both of them. Similar to
previous risk behaviours, in this case, Adolescent Family Process had
the strongest model power had for mothers and girls (c=.645).
175
CHAPTER 4
Table 13. The effect of separate family characteristics on the probability of
being drunk during the past s 4 weeks
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
Family structurea
one own,
one stepparent
1.54 (0.98-2.42) 2.29 (1.56-3.38)
only one parent 1.05 (0.74-1.48) .525 1.68 (1.23-2.31) .527
Family eventsb
At least one event 1.25 (0.98-1.60) .527 1.28 (0.97-1.67) .526
AFP-motherc
closeness 0.95 (0.91-0.99) 0.99 (0.95-1.04)
support 0.95 (0.90-0.99) 0.95 (0.91-1.00)
monitoring 0.95 (0.91-0.99) 0.93 (0.89-0.97)
communication 1.04 (1.00-1.08) 1.02 (0.98-1.06)
conflict 1.06 (0.99-1.13) .615 1.12 (1.04-1.19) .645
AFP-fatherc
closeness 0.95 (0.90-0.99) 0.96 (0.92-1.01)
support 0.97 (0.92-1.03) 0.98 (0.93-1.03)
monitoring 0.96 (0.91-1.01) 0.97 (0.93-1.01)
communication 1.10 (1.05-1.15) 1.03 (0.99-1.07)
conflict 1.04 (0.97-1.11) .608 1.08 (1.01-1.45) .626
POP – motherc
positive feelings 0.98 (0.97-0.99) 0.98 (0.97-0.99)
negative feelings 1.04 (1.02-1.07) .588 1.04 (1.01-1.07) .587
POP – fatherc
positive feelings 0.99 (0.97-0.99) 0.98 (0.97-0.99)
negative feelings 1.04 (1.02-1.07) .593 1.04 (1.01-1.06) .610
*all significant effects are in bold
OR – odds ratio, 95% CI – confidence intervals, c – c statistics
AFP – The Adolescent Family Process, POP – Perception of Parents
a
both parents as reference group; b
no family events as reference group; c
all
subscales included in one model.
176
The last health risk indicator used in the previous study was
marihuana/hash consumption (Table 14). Living with one own and one
stepparent seemed to be strongly linked to marihuana use among
both boys and girls, while living with only one parent only among girls.
Experiencing a negative family event increased the probability of
marihuana use among both genders (OR 1.32 and 1.41 for males and
females, respectively). From Family Process subscales, mainly
mother’s measures were important for adolescents’ marihuana use.
Higher closeness and monitoring decreased the use among boys,
more frequent communication (boys only) and conflicts led to an
increase. More positive feelings towards parents were protective for
both boys and girls (OR=0.98), more negative feelings towards mother
were risky for girls (OR=1.04).
Table 14. The effect of separate family characteristics on the probability of
having tried marihuana or hash
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
Family structurea
one own,
one stepparent
1.73 (1.12-2.69) 2.87 (1.88-4.39)
only one parent 1.35 (0.98-1.86) .539 1.51 (1.03-2.21) .577
Family eventsb
At least one event 1.32 (1.03-1.67) .533 1.41 (1.02-1.96) .536
AFP-motherc
closeness 0.95 (0.91-0.99) 0.96 (0.91-1.01)
support 0.97 (0.93-1.02) 0.96 (0.91-1.02)
monitoring 0.94 (0.90-0.98) 0.96 (0.91-1.01)
communication 1.04 (1.00-1.08) 1.04 (0.99-1.09)
conflict 1.07 (1.01-1.14) .619 1.15 (1.06-1.24) .662
AFP-fatherc
closeness 0.97 (0.93-1.02) 0.97 (0.92-1.03)
support 0.98 (0.93-1.04) 0.96 (0.90-1.03)
monitoring 0.96 (0.93-1.01) 0.97 (0.92-1.02)
communication 1.03 (0.99-1.07) 1.04 (0.97-1.09)
conflict 1.03 (0.96-1.10) .568 1.10 (1.02-1.19) .637
177
CHAPTER 4
POP – motherc
positive feelings 0.98 (0.97-1.00) 0.98 (0.96-0.99)
negative feelings 1.02 (0.99-1.05) .555 1.04 (1.01-1.08) .595
POP – fatherc
positive feelings 0.98 (0.97-0.99) 0.98 (0.97-0.99)
negative feelings 1.02 (0.99-1.04) .581 1.03 (0.99-1.06) .594
*all significant effects are in bold
OR – odds ratio, 95% CI – confidence intervals, c – c statistics
AFP – The Adolescent Family Process, POP – Perception of Parents
a
both parents as reference group; b
no family events as reference group; c
all
subscales included in one model.
The effects of Adolescent Family Process and Perception of Parents
on risk behaviour
As mentioned in the introduction, two aspects of parent-adolescent
relationships were measured in the present study: parental behaviour
towards a child (Adolescent Family Process) and adolescents’ feelings
towards their parents (Perception of Parents). In the previous
analyses, adolescents’ feelings towards parents seemed to influence
their risk behaviour more than parental behaviour did. We wanted to
verify this result by further analyses. Both measures were included in
one model in logistic regression analyses, separately for mothers and
fathers. Following six tables present the results for six types of health
risk behaviour used in the present study.
Table 15 presents the adjusted effects of Adolescent Family
Process measure and Perception of Parents on adolescents’ smoking
behaviour. The effects, in most subscales, were not significant, with
several exceptions for both measures. The results differed from the
one where each measure had been used separately in the analyses
(Table 9). Mainly, the previous effect of Perception of Parents
disappeared.
178
Table 15. The effects of Adolescent Family Process measure and Perception
of Parents on the probability of being a smoker, all mother’s subscales in one
model, all father’s subscales in the other model.
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
AFP-mother
closeness 0.96 (0.91-1.01) 0.98 (0.94-1.03)
support 0.97 (0.92-1.03) 0.96 (0.91-1.00)
monitoring 0.96 (0.92-1.01) 0.96 (0.93-1.00)
communication 1.03 (0.98-1.07) 1.02 (0.98-1.06)
conflict 1.04 (0.97-1.12) 1.15 (1.07-1.22)
POP – mother
positive feelings 0.99 (0.98-1.01) 1.00 (0.98-1.01)
negative feelings 1.04 (1.01-1.07) .619 1.00 (0.97-1.03) .663
AFP-father
closeness 0.98 (0.93-1.03) 0.99 (0.94-1.04)
support 1.03 (0.97-1.10) 0.95 (0.90-1.00)
monitoring 0.97 (0.93-1.03) 0.98 (0.94-1.02)
communication 1.05 (1.00-1.10) 1.00 (0.96-1.04)
conflict 0.98 (0.90-1.06) 1.08 (1.01-1.15)
POP – father
positive feelings 0.98 (0.96-1.00) 0.99 (0.98-1.01)
negative feelings 1.06 (1.02-1.10) .607 1.00 (0.97-1.03) .638
* significant effects are in bold
When studying the probability of being a regular smoker
(Table 16), some of the mothers’ Adolescent Family Process
subscales had significant effects on the probability, whilst the effect of
Perception of Parents had disappeared. Similar, but not so visible,
result was found also for fathers.
179
CHAPTER 4
Table 16. The effects of Adolescent Family Process measure and Perception
of Parents on the probability of being a regular smoker, all mothers’ subscales
in one model, all fathers’ subscales in the other model.
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
AFP-mother
closeness 0.92 (0.86-0.99) 0.96 (0.90-1.03)
support 0.93 (0.86-0.99) 0.98 (0.92-1.05)
monitoring 0.95 (0.89-1.02) 0.94 (0.89-0.99)
communication 1.05 (0.98-1.12) 1.11 (1.05-1.18)
conflict 1.04 (0.94-1.16) 1.20 (1.09-1.32)
POP – mother
positive feelings 1.00 (0.97-1.02) 0.98 (0.95-1.01)
negative feelings 1.00 (0.96-1.06) .650 1.00 (0.96-1.05) .708
AFP-father
closeness 0.98 (0.91-1.07) 0.95 (0.88-1.02)
support 0.97 (0.88-1.06) 0.97 (0.90-1.05)
monitoring 1.00 (0.93-1.08) 0.99 (0.93-1.06)
communication 1.04 (0.97-1.16) 1.07 (1.01-1.14)
conflict 0.98 (0.87-1.11) 1.07 (0.98-1.18)
POP – father
positive feelings 0.99 (0.96-1.02) 0.97 (0.95-0.99)
negative feelings 1.03 (0.97-1.09) .564 0.99 (0.95-1.04) .684
* significant effects are in bold
Having ever tried alcohol was influenced by parent-adolescent
relationships only to a very small extent (Table 17). Compared with
the previous separate analyses (Table 11), the effect of Adolescent
Family Process remained more or less similar (particularly for girls)
but the effect of Perception of Parents has disappeared in the
adjusted model.
180
Table 17. The effects of Adolescent Family Process measure and Perception
of Parents on the probability of having ever tried alcohol, all mothers’
subscales in one model, all fathers’ subscales in the other model.
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
AFP-mother
closeness 0.92 (0.86-0.99) 0.96 (0.90-1.03)
support 0.93 (0.86-0.99) 0.98 (0.92-1.05)
monitoring 0.95 (0.89-1.02) 0.94 (0.89-0.99)
communication 1.05 (0.98-1.12) 1.11 (1.05-1.18)
conflict 1.04 (0.94-1.16) 1.20 (1.09-1.32)
POP – mother
positive feelings 1.00 (0.97-1.02) 0.98 (0.95-1.01)
negative feelings 1.00 (0.96-1.06) .650 1.00 (0.96-1.05) .708
AFP-father
closeness 0.98 (0.91-1.07) 0.95 (0.88-1.02)
support 0.97 (0.88-1.06) 0.97 (0.90-1.05)
monitoring 1.00 (0.93-1.08) 0.99 (0.93-1.06)
communication 1.04 (0.97-1.16) 1.07 (1.01-1.14)
conflict 0.98 (0.87-1.11) 1.07 (0.98-1.18)
POP – father
positive feelings 0.99 (0.96-1.02) 0.97 (0.95-0.99)
negative feelings 1.03 (0.97-1.09) .564 0.99 (0.95-1.04) .684
* significant effects are in bold
Table 18 shows the studied effects on the probability of drinking
alcohol in the past four weeks. As in the previous measure, the effect
of Adolescent Family Process on risk behaviour remained similar after
adjustment for Perception of Parents, while the effect of Perception of
Parents had disappeared (compared with Table 12) for both males
and females, as well as for mother and father measures, with one
exception. Negative feelings towards father increased the probability
of drinking alcohol among males.
181
CHAPTER 4
Table 18. The effects of Adolescent Family Process measure and Perception
of Parents on the probability of drinking alcohol in the past 4 weeks, all
mothers’ subscales in one model, all fathers’ subscales in the other model.
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
AFP-mother
closeness 0.97 (0.93-1.01) 1.00 (0.96-1.04)
support 0.96 (0.92-1.00) 0.95 (0.92-0.99)
monitoring 0.95 (0.91-0.98) 0.95 (0.92-0.99)
communication 1.02 (0.99-1.06) 1.01 (0.99-1.04)
conflict 1.07 (1.01-1.34) 1.06 (1.01-1.12)
POP – mother
positive feelings 1.01 (0.99-1.02) 1.00 (0.98-1.01)
negative feelings 1.01 (0.98-1.03) .608 1.00 (0.98-1.03) .603
AFP-father
closeness 0.99 (0.94-1.03) 0.98 (0.94-1.02)
support 0.99 (0.94-1.04) 0.98 (0.94-1.03)
monitoring 0.94 (0.90-0.98) 0.97 (0.93-1.00)
communication 1.06 (1.02-1.10) 1.03 (0.99-1.06)
conflict 1.00 (0.93-1.07) 1.04 (0.99-1.10)
POP – father
positive feelings 1.00 (0.98-1.02) 1.00 (0.99-1.02)
negative feelings 1.04 (1.01-1.08) .596 1.02 (0.99-1.05) .592
* significant effects are in bold
With regard to the drunkenness, some of the Adolescent Family
Process subscales’ effects remained significant; some of them
occurred or disappeared in comparison to the unadjusted model
(Table 13).However, in all cases, the effect of Perception of Parents
subscales had disappeared (Table 19).
182
Table 19. The effects of Adolescent Family Process measure and Perception
of Parents on the probability of being drunk in the past 4 weeks, all mothers’
subscales in one model, all fathers’ subscales in the other model.
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
AFP-mother
closeness 0.94 (0.89-0.99) 1.00 (0.95-1.05)
support 0.94 (0.89-0.99) 0.94 (0.90-0.99)
monitoring 0.96 (0.92-1.00) 0.92 (0.88-0.96)
communication 1.04 (0.99-1.09) 1.02 (0.98-1.06)
conflict 1.03 (0.96-1.11) 1.08 (1.01-1.16)
POP – mother
positive feelings 0.99 (0.97-1.01) 1.00 (0.98-1.02)
negative feelings 1.00 (0.96-1.03) .627 1.02 (0.99-1.05) .656
AFP-father
closeness 0.96 (0.91-1.02) 0.97 (0.92-1.02)
support 0.97 (0.91-1.03) 0.98 (0.92-1.03)
monitoring 0.96 (0.91-1.01) 0.97 (0.92-1.01)
communication 1.10 (1.05-1.16) 1.03 (0.98-1.08)
conflict 0.95 (0.88-1.04) 1.06 (0.99-1.13)
POP – father
positive feelings 0.98 (0.96-1.01) 1.00 (0.98-1.02)
negative feelings 1.03 (0.99-1.07) .618 1.02 (0.99-1.06) .646
* significant effects are in bold
The last health risk behaviour, studied in the present research, is
marihuana or hash consumption. In this measure, the pattern of the
adjusted effect of parent-adolescent relationships on risk behaviour
(Table 20) is very similar to those in previous measures. The effect of
Adolescent Family Process subscales is similar as in the unadjusted
model (Table 14) but the effect of Perception of Parents subscales
disappears completely.
183
CHAPTER 4
Table 20. The effects of Adolescent Family Process measure and Perception
of Parents on the probability of having ever tried marihuana or hash, all
mothers’ subscales in one model, all fathers’ subscales in the other model.
males females
OR (95%CI) c OR (95%CI) c
AFP-mother
closeness 0.94 (0.89-0.99) 0.96 (0.90-1.01)
support 0.96 (0.91-1.01) 0.96 (0.90-1.02)
monitoring 0.95 (0.90-0.99) 0.95 (0.90-0.99)
communication 1.04 (0.99-1.08) 1.05 (0.99-1.10)
conflict 1.09 (1.01-1.16) 1.13 (1.04-1.23)
POP – mother
positive feelings 1.01 (0.99-1.02) 1.00 (0.97-1.02)
negative feelings 0.98 (0.95-1.02) .627 1.00 (0.95-1.03) .664
AFP-father
closeness 0.97 (0.92-1.03) 1.01 (0.94-1.07)
support 0.99 (0.93-1.05) 0.98 (0.91-1.05)
monitoring 0.96 (0.92-1.01) 0.97 (0.91-1.02)
communication 1.03 (0.99-1.08) 1.05 (0.99-1.11)
conflict 0.98 (0.90-1.06) 1.09 (0.99-1.18)
POP – father
positive feelings 0.99 (0.97-1.01) 0.98 (0.96-1.01)
negative feelings 1.02 (0.98-1.06) .577 1.02 (0.97-1.06) .644
* significant effects are in bold
Discussion
Family, as a factor influencing adolescents’ health risk behaviour, was
the main topic of the present paper. In the set of analyses, we
explored relationships among several family characteristics, between
maternal and paternal characteristics and the effect of family
characteristics on adolescents’ cigarette smoking behaviour, alcohol
consumption, and marihuana use. This study provides broad
information on such relationships among 11 to 17 years old Slovak
adolescents. In the following section, some of the results will be
discussed in a broader context and compared with the previous
184
studies. Moreover, ideas for further analyses and future research will
be suggested.
Intercorrelations among studied variables
In the first set of analyses, we studied gender differences in family
characteristics used. This comparison revealed several expected, as
well as several interesting results. As expected, there were no gender
differences in family structure. However, as for family events, girls
reported having experienced at least one negative family event during
the past year more often than boys did. We cannot expect that
families with adolescent girls experience more negative family events
than families with adolescent boys. Rather than that, we can assume
that girls are more vulnerable to such events; and therefore, they are
more likely to “remember” them and report them.
With regard to Adolescent Family Process measure, females had
higher score in most of the subscales with the exception of
communication with father, where males reported having more
frequent communication with their fathers. Similarly, Starrels (1994)
stated that fathers were much more involved with sons than with
daughters.
In the second set of analyses, correlations were carried out
between studied variables. As expected in both, the Adolescent
Family Process measure and Perception of Parents, mother and
father characteristics were highly correlated. However, these
correlations were higher among adolescent males. This could have
been due to differences in father-son, father-daughter, and motherson,
mother-daughter relationships. Fathers usually have closer
relationships with their sons than they do with daughters, while
mothers tend to be equally supportive to both sons and daughters
(Starrels, 1994). This could mean that the discrepancy between
mother-son and father-son relationships is lower than between
mother-daughter and father-daughter relationships.
In his research among 15 to 20 years old adolescents, Vazsonyi et
al. (2003) carried out similar correlations without considering gender.
In his study, all the Adolescent Family Process measure subscales
were significantly correlated with a slightly higher association. This
result could have been obtained only by chance but it could have also
related to the age of respondents. It appears probable that
adolescents’ relationships with their parents become more consistent
as they grow older.
From the other obtained results, mainly those regarding
monitoring from parents were interesting. Neither mother's nor father's
monitoring were associated with conflict among boys; however, they
were correlated among girls. In a recent study (Webb et al., 2002),
185
CHAPTER 4
girls reported that mothers monitored their behaviour more than boys
did. Similar results were obtained in the present study with regard to
both mother and father monitoring. Regardless whether it was really
the case or only the girls' perception (they felt more vulnerable to
parental monitoring), such monitoring could be associated with more
conflicts with parents among girls who felt that they should have been
monitored less.
Another interesting result, with regard to parental monitoring, is
that the higher he support from father boys perceived, the lower the
father's monitoring; whilst for girls, higher support from father was
correlated with more father's monitoring. Very similar associations,
although not insignificant, were obtained for mothers too. We are not
aware of any similar result in other studies. Therefore, several
questions appear. Does high support from parents mean that they
take more care about their adolescent children? When they take more
care, do they trust boys more but feel more fear for the girls? If they
trust their adolescent sons, do they monitor them less? If they feel
more fear for their adolescent daughters, do they monitor them more?
When correlated Adolescent Family Process measure (parental
behaviour toward the adolescent) and Perception of Parents
(adolescent’s feelings toward the parent), all the subscales ,apart from
the monitoring and negative affects for boys, were significantly
associated. This result is related to the previously mentioned one that
parental monitoring was associated with conflicts with parents, but
only among girls. Boys may be encouraged to be more independent
than daughters (McKinney & Renk, 2008). They are not monitored so
often; and therefore, they do not have negative feelings towards
parents when monitoring occurs.
The effect of family characteristics on health risk behaviour
After studying correlations among the used variables, we continued by
analyzing the effects of family characteristics on adolescents’ risk
behaviour. Here, we will discuss some of the results.
Family structure has greater influence on smoking behaviour and
marihuana use than on alcohol consumption. This association is even
stronger among girls and those living with one own or one stepparent.
It also has a stronger negative effect on risk behaviour than living in
one parent family does. These results are in line with previous studies
(Griesbach et al., 2003; Bjarnason et al., 2003) but they add
information on the gender specific effect. Girls in our research seemed
to be more vulnerable to other than biological parents family structure
and reacted more negatively in terms of risk behaviour than boys.
The second family characteristic explored in the present study was
the experience of a negative family event in the last year.
186
Experiencing such an event had only a minor effect on adolescents’
risk behaviour. Moreover, the gender pattern of this characteristic is
unclear. From our results we cannot suggest whether experiencing
parental divorce, parental unemployment, death of the relative, sibling
birth, home town change or other negative family event influences the
occurrence of risk behaviour more for boys or girls as it varies with
regard to the used measure.
We can say that separate aspects of family process (in our case
closeness, support, monitoring, communication and conflict) have
some effect on adolescents’ risk behaviour. However, analyses
employing the Adolescent Family Process measure revealed, to some
extent, different results for maternal and paternal process, boys and
girls, and for different subscales. Thus, it is difficult to make any
general conclusions. Our results show that maternal process affects
adolescent’s risk behaviour to a higher extent than fathers. This is in
agreement with findings reported in recent papers about the
importance of mother’s influence in adolescents’ lives. This, however,
does not mean that father’s influence is not important. In this paper,
we explored father’s influence per se. Some evidence (Sim, 2003;
Parke, 2004) suggests considering paternal parenting in the context of
maternal parenting. Father mediates and moderates mother-child
relationship and vice versa. (Parke, 2004). Fathers may have indirect
impact on mother-child relationships by modifying and moderating
mother-child interactions or by their relationships with the wives. Sim
(2003) reported that father characteristics moderate links between
mother characteristics and adolescent attributes. For example, the link
between mother’s responsiveness and adolescent’s sense of selfworth
became stronger as father’s responsiveness increased.
By looking closely at our findings about parenting process, we see
some results, which are consistent with other studies, while some
results seem contradictory. Vazsonyi et al. (2003) reported most of the
paternal and maternal factors of the family process to be correlated
with higher alcohol and drug use what is in accordance with our
results. In line with Kerr and Stattin’s (2000) result, monitoring was
related to higher risk behaviour. On the other hand, Shek et al. (1998)
reported father-adolescent conflict to be more strongly related to
adolescent psychological well-being than mother-adolescent conflict.
Our results, with regard to health risk behaviour, are the opposite.
Mother-adolescent conflict seems to be more strongly related to
a higher occurrence of adolescent risk behaviour than fatheradolescent
conflict. With regard to parent-adolescent conflicts,
Steinberg’s (2001) opinion is very interesting. The author states that
parents are often more influenced by parent-adolescent conflicts than
adolescents themselves are. Teenagers may recover from such
conflicts much quicker because of their different view of the conflicts.
While parents perceive the day-to-day conflicts with their adolescent
187
CHAPTER 4
children as moral debates, adolescents' rejection of basic values that
they have tried to instil in the teenager, for the adolescents, such
conflicts carry far less meaning (Steinberg, 2001).
In some cases, more frequent communication with parents
increased the risk for risk behaviour among boys and/ or girls. This
result is rather unexpected and in contrast with previous studies
(Riesch et al., 2006). One possible explanation was considered.
Adolescents, who communicate more frequently with their parents,
may develop their communication skills very well. If their
communication skills are good, they probably feel well in the company
of their peers and spend plenty of time with them. As peers have been
found to influence adolescents’ risk behaviour (Wang et al., 1995,
Maxwell, 2002), this could explain our unexpected result. However,
such explanation should be investigated in the further research.
Generally, although some of the studied family characteristics in
this paper affected adolescents’ health risk behaviour, many of them,
even negative family events, such as not having parents or conflictual
relationship with parents, did not influence adolescents’ behaviour in
a negative way. The models' power expressed by c-coeficient was not
very high either. Does this mean that family is not important in
adolescents’ lives anymore? Or is it not important with regard to
adolescents’ risk behaviour only? Alternatively, it is important, but not
directly. Instead, is the indirect influence of family characteristics
present? Darling and Cumsille (2003) say that triggering events for
risk behaviour can be internal to an adolescent (for example
personality characteristics) or caused by external (for example peer
pressure) factors. However, family characteristics can influence
(positively or negatively) the probability that the triggering events take
place (Darling & Cumsille, 2003). This statement should be
considered in the future research.
One reason, why negative family circumstances not always
influence adolescents negatively, is so called family resilience. Some
studies have shown that despite of many family troubles during the
childhood and adolescence, there are some children, who develop
into competent, caring and confident young adults (Walsh, 2003). This
is explained not only by personal resilience (the ability to withstand
and rebound from disruptive life challenges), but also by family
resilience. According to the author, the focus on parental pathology
may blind one to the family resources that could be found and
strengthened; even where a parent’s functioning is seriously impaired.
The family characteristics, we have measured (mainly family process)
were not oriented on general family situation; but rather, they reported
on momentary parent-adolescent relationships. Thus, potentially poor
relationships may be only a sign of temporary crisis, not the
permanent family situation. Walsh (2003) says that a crisis can be
188
a “wake-up call”. It can become an opportunity for reappraisal of
priorities and stimulating greater investment in meaningful
relationships.
In the last set of analyses, the Adolescent Family Process
measure and Perception of Parents were included in a regression
model to obtain information as to which of the mentioned
characteristics of parent-adolescent relationships (whether parental
behaviour towards an adolescent – AFP measure, or adolescents’
feelings towards parents – PoP) had a stronger effect on adolescents’
health risk behaviour. Although we expected adolescents’ feelings
towards parents to be more strongly related to their risk behaviour,
generally, we found that parental behaviour toward an adolescent had
an effect on adolescents’ risk behaviour, while the effect of
adolescents’ feelings disappeared. We are not aware of any previous
study of this kind, so these findings should be further explored in more
depth. For now, these results suggest that parental monitoring,
support, communication and lack of parent-adolescent conflict are still
very important in terms of the probability of engaging in risk behaviour.
Suggestions for further research
This study provided us with broad information on basic interrelations
among several family characteristics and relationships between family
characteristics and adolescents' health risk behaviour. As the
analyses used were simple, obtained results present only the first step
in further investigation. In the following section, we will offer several
ideas for further data analysis and research.
As mentioned in the introduction, the role of gender (parental, as
well as adolescents’) in parent-adolescent relationships is not clear
yet. In this study of Slovak adolescents and their parents, we added
some knowledge to this topic. However, as the data are still not
sufficient, much more analyses are required. For example, analyses
with regard to parent-adolescent gender dyads would be very useful.
When interpreting the family influences on adolescents’ risk
behaviour, the age of a child has to be taken into account. The same
parental behaviour may have different characteristics in different child
age. For example, strict parental supervision, which is appropriate for
a younger child, might be confronted with hostility and rebellion in
adolescence. Poor parental monitoring, which has only modest
consequences in childhood, may become problematic during
adolescence, when deviant behaviours become more normative
(Darling & Cumsille, 2003).
There is also a question about the national context, in which the
parent-child relationships are studied. Earlier research (1962-1971)
189
CHAPTER 4
found that youths from different national contexts reported different
levels of parenting and different levels of behavioural standards
(Vazsonyi et al., 2003). Because of different cultural or societal ideals,
there are differences in the parenting process among cultures. For
example, in some countries (or even regions) parents monitor their
adolescent children because of more risky environment (e.g. in big
cities), while in other countries, much less monitoring is required.
However Vazsonyi et al. (2003) found that the parenting process also
differs between cultures; the extent to which parenting process
influences different adolescents' outcomes (in their case the
association between monitoring and deviance) is similar across
different cultures. Dmitrieva et al. (2004) revealed similar results. They
found similarities in the relations between negative family events,
parental processes, and adolescent problem behaviour across four
different cultures. On the other hand, our previous research showed
the importance of national context with regard to the influence of
parental unemployment on adolescents’ health (Sleskova et al.,
2006b). Therefore, when interpreting findings about parent-adolescent
relationships and about the family influence on adolescents’
outcomes, national and cultural context should be considered. It is
possible that it will not play an important role, but it should not be
omitted.
The current results show only a moderate effect of family
characteristics and family processes on adolescents’ engaging in risk
behaviour. This, however, does not mean that family is not an
important factor in adolescents’ smoking, alcohol consumption and
marihuana use. Instead, as mentioned earlier, family can be viewed
as a factor mediating the relationships between other influences and
adolescents’ risk behaviour. Darling and Cumsille (2003) propose the
following questions to be answered: How do families influence the
nature of other contexts to which adolescents are exposed? How do
they influence the processes that occur in those other contexts? In the
data set, available in our research, we have some valuable data on
adolescent personality, which could act as a mediator or moderator
between family characteristics and risk behaviour.Furthermore, the
link between personality characteristics and risk behaviour (Burt et al.,
2000, Schoor et al., 2008) could be mediated by family characteristics.
Moreover, aggressive behaviour, peer relationships, and other social
relations could act in a similar way.
The differences between paternal and maternal influences should
be explored in more depth. One very interesting aspect of these
differences is the discrepancy between paternal and maternal
influence. What is adolescent’s involvement in risk behaviour like, if
their relationship with mother is very good but the one with father is
very bad, or vice versa? Does this discrepancy in the quality of the
relationships influence potential risk behaviour of the adolescents? We
190
are not aware of any study exploring such relationships,; however,
one paper by Pelton and Forehand (2001) was focused on the
discrepancy between parental and adolescents’ views. The authors
reported that one possible source of parent-adolescent conflict were
the discrepant ways, in which they perceived their relationships. One
reason for such result could be the nature of misunderstanding and
frustration. We can expect very similar results with regard to the
discrepancy between adolescents’ relationship with their mothers and
fathers.
Implications for practice
Although generaly family characteristic did not have a very strong
influence on adolescents' smoking, alcohol and marihuana
consumption in this study, it can not be said they are not important
with regard to adolescents' risk behaviour. Mainly improving the
relationship with mother could help to protect adolescents. This issue
sould be implemented in prevention programmes that take place on
many schools in Slovakia. Furthermore, as having a stepparent
appeared to be a risk factor, mainly in terms of smoking and
marihuana consumption, this group of adolescents should be
identified and a special attention needs to be paid on them.
Conclusion
Even though family therapy is quite well established and used very
often, little knowledge about the family influences comes from
research, particularly, in the Central Europe (Sobotkova, 2001).
Psychological prevention of undesirable effects of adverse family
circumstances is even less developed. “Family” is a topic, where
people often feel to be experts because of their own long-term
experiences. However, this study shows that family relationships are
far too complicated and much more research on this topic is required
to understand them better. Particular attention should be paid to
parents’ and children’s gender, as well as to the huge number of
possible mediators and moderators of family-relationships. It is also
vital to examine the multiple interactions among different contexts
such as family, schools, neighborhoods (Smetana et al., 2006). As
soon as we understand this issue in depth, it will be possible to
identify risk families and effective prevention programs can be created
to prevent many of the undesirable outcomes.
References
Barrett, A.E., & Turner, R.J. (2005). Family structure and mental
health: The mediating effects of socioeconomic status, family process,
and social stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46,
191
CHAPTER 4
156 – 169.
Barth, J. M, Dunlap, S. T., Dane, H., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C.
(2004). Classroom environment influences on aggression, peer
relations, and academic focus. Journal of School Psychology, 42,
115 – 133.
Bjarnason, T., Andersson, B., Choquet, M., Elekes, Z., Morgan, M.,
& Rapinett, G. (2003). Alcohol culture, family structure and adolescent
alcohol use: multilevel modelling of frequency of heavy drinking
among 15-16 year old students in 11 European countries. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 64 (2), 200 - 208.
Bosco, G.L., Renk, K., Dinger, T.M., Epstein, M.K., & Phares, V.
(2003). The connections between adolescents' perceptions of parents,
parental psychological symptoms, and adolescent functioning. Applied
Developmental Psychology, 24, 179 - 200.
Bray, J.H., Adams, G.J., Getz, J.G., & Stovall, T. (2001). Interactive
effects of individuation, family factors, and stress on adolescent
alcohol use. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71 (4), 436 - 449.
Blokland, E.A.W.D., Hale, W.W., Meeus, W., & Engels, R.C.M.E.
(2007). Parental support and control and early adolescent smoking:
A longitudinal study. Substance Use & Missuse, 42 (14), 2223 - 2232.
Brook, J.S., Brook, D.W., Gordon, A.S., Whiteman, M., & Cohen, P.
(1990). The psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family
interactional approach. Genetic, Social and General Psychology
Monographs, 116, 111 - 267.
Brown, S.L. (2006). Family Structure Transitions and Adolescent Wellbeing.
Demography, 43, 3, 447 - 461.
Burt, R.D., Dinh, K.T., Peterson, Jr., A.V., & Sarason, I.G. (2000).
Predicting adolescent smoking: A prospective study of personality
variables. Preventive Medicine, 30 (2), 115 – 125.
Carlson, M.J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and
adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68
(1), 137 – 154.
Christoffersen, M.N. (1994). A follow-up study of long-term effects of
unemployment on children: Loss of self-esteem and self-destructive
behaviour among adolescents. Childhood, 2, 212 - 220.
Christoffersen, M.N. (2000). Growing up with unemployment: A study
of parental unemployment and children’s risk of abuse and neglect
based on national longitudinal 1973 birth cohorts in Denmark.
Childhood, 7, 421 - 438.
Collins, W.A., Maccoby, E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E.M.,
& Bornstein, M. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting:
the case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218 - 232.
Conger, R.D., Conger, K.J., Elder, G.H.Jr., Lorenz, F.O., Simons,
R.L., & Whitbeck, L.B. (1992). A family process model of economic
192
hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child
Development, 63, 526 – 541.
Conrade, G., & Ho, R. (2001). Differential parenting styles for fathers
and mothers: Differential treatment for sons and daughters. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 53, 29 - 35.
Cottrell, L., Li, X., Harris, C., D'Alessandri, D., Atkins, M., Richardson,
B., & Stanton, B. (2003). Parent and adolescent perceptions of
parental monitoring and adolescent risk involvement. Parenting:
Science and Practice, 3 (3), 179 - 195.
Cox, M.J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of
Psychology, 48, 243 - 267.
Crosnoe, R., Kirkpatrick Johnson, M., & Elder, G.H.Jr. (2004).
Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioural and contextual
correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77
(1), 60 - 81.
Darling, N., & Cumsille, P. (2003). Theory, measurement, and
methods in the study of family influences on adolescent smoking.
Addiction, 99, 21 - 36.
Demuth, S., & Brown, S.L. (2004). Family structure, family processes,
and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence
versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 41, 1, 58 - 81.
Dishion, T.J., & McMahon, R.J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the
prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual
and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 1, 61 - 75.
Dmitrieva, J., Chen, Ch., Greenberger, E., & Gil-Rivas, V. (2004).
Family relationships and adolescent psychosocial outcomes:
Converging findings from Eastern and Western cultures. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 14 (4), 425 - 447.
Eiden, R.D., Edwards, E.P., & Leonard, K.E. (2007). A conceptual
model for the development of externalizing behavior problems among
kindergarten children of alcoholic families: Role of parenting and
children's self-regulation. Developmental Psychology, 43 (5), 1187 -
1201.
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R.C.M.E., & Baumeister, R.F. (2005).
Parenting behaviour and adolescent behavioural and emotional
problems: The role of self-control. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 29 (1), 58 – 69.
Fletcher, A.C., Steinberg, L., & Williams-Wheeler, M. (2006). Parental
influences on adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and
Kerr. Child Development, 75 (3), 781 - 796.
Ge, X., Conger, R.D., Lorenz, F.O., & Simons, R.L. (1994). Parents’
stressful life events and adolescent depressed mood. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 35 (1), 28 - 44.
193
CHAPTER 4
Geckova, A., van Dijk, J.P., Stewart, R., Groothoff, J.W., & Post, D.
(2003). Influence of social support on health among gender and
socio-economic groups of adolescents. European Journal of Public
Health, 13 (1), 44 – 50.
Gehring, T.M., Marti, D., & Sidler, A. (1994). Family system test
(FAST): Are parents' and children's family constructs either different or
similar, or both? Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25 (2),
125 - 138.
Goldstein, S.E., & Davis-Kean, P.E. (2005). Parents, peers, and
problem behavior: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of
relationship perceptions and characteristics on the development of
adolescent problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 41 (2), 401
- 413.
Griesbach, D., Amos, A., & Currie, C. (2003). Adolescent smoking and
family structure in Europe. Social Science and Medicine, 56 (1),
41 - 52.
Harland, P., Reijneveld, S.A., Brugman, E., Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P.,
& Verhulst, F.C. (2002). Family factors and life events as risk factors
for behavioural and emotional problems in children. European Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 11, 176 - 184.
Hoffmann, J.P. (2006). Family structure, community context, and
adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35,
867 - 880.
Hughes, A., Hedtke, K.S., & Kendall, P.C. (2008). Family functioning
in families of children with anxiety disorders. Journal of Family
Psychology, 22 (2), 325 - 328.
Huizinga, G., Visser, A., van der Graaf, W., Hoekstra, H., Klip, E.,
Pras, E., & Hoekstra-Weebers, J. (2005). Stress response symptoms
in adolescent and young adult children of parents diagnosed with
cancer. European Journal of Cancer , 41 (2), 288 – 295.
Isaranurug, S., Nitirat, P., Chauytong, P., & Wongarsa, C. (2001).
Factors relating to the aggressive behavior of primary caregiver
toward a child. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 84,
1481 – 1489.
Jessop, D.J. (1981). Family relationships as viewed by parents and
adolescents: A specification. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43,
95 – 107.
Jones, D.J., Forehand, R., Rakow, A., Colletti, Ch.J.M., McKee, L.,
& Zalot, A. (2008). The specificity of maternal parenting behavior and
child adjustment difficulties: A study of inner-city African American
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22 (2), 181 - 192.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Rantanen, P., & Laippala, P. (2001).
Adolescent depression: the role of discontinuities in life course and
social support. Journal of Affective Disorders, 64, 155 - 166.
Kerpelman, J., & White, L. (2006). Interpersonal identity and social
194
capital: The importance of commitment for low income, rural, African
American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 32 (2), 219 - 242.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it,
and several forms of aodlescent adjustment: Further support for
a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36 (3),
366 – 380.
Krohn, M.D., Stern, S.B., Thornberry, T.P., & Jang, S.J. (1992). The
measurement of family process variables: The effect of adolescent
and parent perceptions of family life on delinquent behavior. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 8, 287 - 315.
Laible, D.J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal
and paternal support and control to adolescent social competence,
self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19 (6),
759 – 782.
Leinonen, J.A., Solantaus, T.S., & Punamaki, R.L. (2003). Social
support and the quality of parenting under economic pressure and
workload in Finland: The role of family structure and parental gender.
Journal of Family Psychology, 17 (3), 409 – 418.
Lewis, C., & Lamb, M.E. (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s
development: The evidence from two-parent families. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 211 - 227.
Lindell, C., & Svedin, C.G. (2001). Physical child abuse in Sweden:
a study of police reports between 1986 and 1996. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 36, 150 - 157.
Lundborg, P. (2002). Young people and alcohol: an econometric
analysis. Addiction, 97, 1573 - 1582.
Maxwell, K.A. (2002). Friends: The role of peer influence across
adolescent risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31 (4),
267 – 277.
McBride, B.A., & Mills, G. (1993). A comparison of mother and father
involvement with their preschool age children. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 8, 457 – 477.
McElhaney, K.B., Porter, M.R., Wrenn Thompson, L., & Allen, J.P.
(2008). Apples and Oranges. Divergent Meanings of Parents' and
Adolescents' Perceptions of Parental Influence. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 28 (2), 206 – 229.
McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2008). Multivariate models of parent-late
adolescent gender dyads: The importance of parenting processes in
predicting adjustment. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39,
147 - 170.
Montemayor, R. (1983). Parents and adolescents in conflict. Journal
of Early Adolescence, 3, 83 – 103.
Mounts, N.S. (2000). Parental management of adolescent peer
relationships. What are its effects on friend selection? In: Kerns, K.A.
195
CHAPTER 4
et al. (ed.) Family and Peers: Linking Two Social Worlds, Westport,
CT: Praeger, 169 – 194.
Murray, Ch., & Greenberg, M.T. (2000). Children's Relationship with
Teachers and Bonds with School An Investigation of Patterns and
Correlates in Middle Childhood. Journal of School Psychology, 38 (5),
423 - 445.
Nash, S.G., McQueen, A., & Bray, J.H. (2005). Pathways to
adolescent alcohol use: family environment, peer influence, and
parental expectations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37,
19 – 28.
Parke, R.D. (2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 365 – 399.
Patten, C.A., Gillin, J.C., Farkas, A.J., Gilpin, E.A., Berry, C.C.,
& Pierce, J.P. (1997). Depressive symptoms in California adolescents:
family structure and parental support. Journal of Adolescent Health,
20 (4), 271 - 278.
Paulson, S.E., & Sputa, Ch.L. (1996). Patterns of parenting during
adolescence: perceptions of adolescents and parents. Adolescence,
31 (122), 369 – 381.
Pelton, J., & Forehand, R. (2001). Discrepancy between mother and
child perceptions of their relationship I. Consequences for adolescents
considered within the context of parental divorce. Journal of Family
Violence, 16 (1), 1 - 16.
Pelton, J., Steele, R.G., Chance M.W., Forehand, R., & The Family
Health Project Research Group. (2001). Discrepancy between mother
and child perceptions of their relationship: II. Consequences for
children considered within the context of maternal physical illness.
Journal of Family Violence, 16 (1), 17 – 35.
Petraitis, J., Flay, B.R., & Miller, T.Q. (1995). Reviewing theories of
adolescent substance use: Organising pieces in the puzzle.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 67 - 96.
Phares, V., & Renk, K. (1998). Perceptions of parents: A measure of
adolescents' feelings about their parents. Journal of marriage and the
family, 60, 646 - 659.
Phares, V., Lopez, E., Sherecce, F., Kamboukos, D. & Duhig, A.M.
(2005). Are fathers involved in pediatric psychology research and
treatment? Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 30 (8), 631 - 643.
Piko, B. (2000). Perceived social support from parents and peers:
which is the stronger predictor of adolescent substance use?
Substance Use and Misuse, 35 (4), 617 – 630.
Renk, K., Roberts, R., Roddenberry, A., Luick, M., Hillhouse, S.,
Meehan, C., Oliveros, A., & Phares, V. (2003). Mothers, fathers,
gender role, and time parents spend with their children. Sex Roles, 48
(7/8), 305 - 315.
196
Riesch, S.K., Anderson, L.S., & Krueger, H.A. (2006). Parent-child
communication processes: Preventing children's health risk behaviour.
Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 11 (1), 41 - 56.
Russell, A., & Saebel, J. (1997). Mother-son, mother-daughter,
father-son, and father-daughter: Are thy distinct relationships?
Developmental Review, 17, 111 – 147.
Schoor, van, G., Bot, S.M., & Engels, R.C.M.E. (2008). Alcohol
drinking in young adults: The predictive value of personality when
peers come around. European Addiction Research, 14 (3), 125 – 133.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1999). Families with Daughters, Families with
Sons: Different Challenges for Family Relationships and Marital
Satisfaction? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28 (3), 325 – 342.
Shek, D.T.L., Lee, T.Y., & Chan, L.K. (1998). Perceptions of parenting
styles and parent-adolescent conflict in adolescents with low
academic achievement in Hong Kong. Social Behavior & Personality,
26, 89 – 99.
Sim, T.N. (2003). The father-adolescent relationship in the context of
the mother-adolescent relationship: Exploring moderating linkages in
a late-adolescent sample in Singapore. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 18 (4), 383 – 404.
Sleskova, M., Salonna, F., Madarasova Geckova, A., Nagyova, I.,
Stewart, R., van Dijk, J.P., & Groothoff, J.W. (2006a). Does parental
unemployment affect adolescents’ health? Journal of Adolescent
Health, 38 (5), 527 - 535.
Sleskova, M., Tuinstra, J., Madarasova Geckova, A., van Dijk J.P,
Salonna, F., Groothoff, J., & Reijneveld, S.A. (2006b). Influence of
parental employment status on Dutch and Slovak adolescents’ health.
BMC Public Health, 6:250.
Sleskova, M. (2006). Unemployment and the health of Slovak
adolescents. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, dissertation work.
Smetana, J.G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent
development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57, 255 - 284.
Snider, J.B., Clements, A., & Vazsonyi, A.T. (2004). Late adolescent
perceptions of parent religiosity and parenting processes. Family
Process, 43 (4), 489 - 502.
Sobotkova, I. (2001). Psychologie rodiny (Family psychology). Portal,
Praha.
Starrels, M.E. (1994). Gender differences in parent-child relations.
Journal of Family Issues, 15 (1), 148 – 165.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation.
Child Development, 71, 1072 – 1086.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent
Relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on
197
CHAPTER 4
Adolescence, 11(1), 1 – 19.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J.S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In
M.H.Bornstein (Ed.). Handbook of parenting (Vol.1, pp.103 - 133)
Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Storksen, I., Roysamb, E., Holmen, T.L., & Tambs, K. (2006).
Adolescent adjustment and well-being: Effects of parental divorce and
distress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 75 - 84.
Sund, A.M., Larsson, B., & Wichstrom, L. (2003). Psychosocial
correlates of depressive symptoms among 12-14-year-old Norwegian
adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44,
588 - 597.
Sweeting, H. (2001). Our family, whose perspective? And
investigation of children's family life and health. Journal of
Adolescence, 24, 229 – 250.
Tein, J.Y., Roosa, M.W., & Michaels, M. (1994). Agreement between
parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 56, 341 - 355.
Thompson, M.P., Kaslow, N, J, Kingree, J.B., King, M., Bryant, L. Jr,
& Rey, M. (1998). Psychological symptomatology following parental
death in a predominantly minority sample of children and adolescents.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27 (4), 434 - 441.
Trinidad, D.R., Chou, Ch.P., Unger, J.B., Anderson Johnson, C.,
& Li, Y. (2003). Family harmony as a protective factor against
adolescent tobacco and alcohol use in Wuhan, China. Substance Use
& Misuse, 38 (8), 1159 – 1171.
Unger, J.B., Hamilton, J.E., & Sussman, S. (2003). A family member's
job loss as a risk factor for smoking among adolescents. Health
Psychology, 23 (3), 308 - 313.
Vazsonyi, A.T., Hibbert, J.R., & Snider, B. (2003). Exotic enterprise no
more? Adolescent reports of family and parenting processes from
youth in four countries. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13 (2),
129 – 160.
Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice.
Family Process, 42 (1), 1 - 18.
Wang, M.Q., Fitzhugh, E.C., Westerfield, R.C., & Eddy, J.M. (1995).
Family and peer influences on smoking behavior among American
adolescents: an age trend. Journal of Adolescent Health, 16 (3),
200 – 203.
Watkins, J.A., Howard-Barr, E.M., Moore, M.J., & Werch, Ch.C.
(2006). The mediating role of adolescent self-efficacy in the
relationship between parental practices and adolescent alcohol use.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 448 – 450.
Webb, J.A., Bray, J.H., Getz, J.G., & Adams, G. (2002). Gender,
perceived parental monitoring and behavioral adjustment: Influences
198
on adolescent alcohol use. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72
(3), 392 - 400.
Wicrama, K.A., Lorenz, F.O., & Conger, R.D. (1997). Parental support
and adolescent physical health status: a latent growth-curve analysis.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 149 – 163.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Research and Development Support Agency
under the Contract No. APVV-20-038 205.
199
24
Study 5
Bačíková, M. (2015). Parental health-related behaviour and health related behaviour
among schoolchildren. In: Berinšterová, M. a kol. Health-related behavior among
schoolchildren. Unplugged - Drug use prevention program in Slovakia. Košice: Univerzita
Pavla Jozefa Šafárika v Košiciach, 2015.
Generally, it has been found that both parental smoking and alcohol use are associated with
adolescents’ substance use (Abar, Abar, & Turrisi, 2009; Latendresse et al., 2008; Mak, Ho, &
Day, 2012). This association can be explained by Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). In
line with this theory, for an adolescent parental behaviour can become a model behaviour by
observing it. However, there is a need to go beyond modelling. The direct modelling effect can
also be mediated via other factors. Three main mediating factors have been theoretically
proposed and verified within this study: perceived parental approval of substance use, estimated
number of using friends, parental rules setting and parental knowledge of adolescent’s
whereabouts and parental support (for drinking behaviour only). In the study, we expected that
parents that behave risky are less strict to their offspring’s risky behaviour and adolescents do
not perceive their negative attitude toward such behaviour. Further, adolescents who see risky
behaviour among their parents tend to affiliate with risky friends. In case of parental alcohol
consumption, we expected their parenting practices to be less efficient and thus mediate the link
between their alcohol consumption and adolescent alcohol consumption. In previous studies,
attention has been paid mainly to parental heavy drinking behaviour (Vermeulen-Smit et al.,
2012). Therefore, we have focused also on parental occasional drinking (at least once a weak).
The aim of the study thus was to explore the associations between parental health related
behaviour (as perceived by adolescents: smoking, weekly alcohol consumption and
drunkenness) and health related behaviour of their children. Further, we tested the possible
indirect associations via several mediators. The study has been conducted among 1098
adolescents (54% girls, mean age 11.7, SD 0.67).
25
Results show (1) relationship between parental risk behaviour and adolescent risk
behaviour, (2) relationship between parental risk behaviour and higher level of perceived
parental approval, (3) relationship between parental risk behaviour and higher number of risky
friend. Mediational analyses showed that both paternal and maternal smoking was associated
with adolescents’ smoking directly and indirectly via perceived paternal and maternal approval
of adolescents’ smoking and via affiliating with smoking friends as mediating variables. As for
parental weekly drinking, the strong direct association with adolescents’ drinking was fully
mediated by the perceived approval of beer drinking and partially mediated by the number of
drinking friends. Parenting variables did not mediate the relationship between paternal and
adolescents’ drinking. Paternal drunkenness was not directly associated with adolescents’
drunkenness, but an indirect effect via perceived approval and estimated number of drunk
friends was found. On the other hand, maternal drunkenness was associated with adolescents’
drunkenness. This relationship was explained by perceived approval of drinking and lack of
parental knowledge. However, the indirect effect of parental support has not been confirmed.
Our study showed that modelling of parental risk behaviour occurs among early adolescents
with an exception of paternal drunkenness. Parents however, influence their children’s
behaviour also indirectly via perceived parental approval of risk behaviour, affiliating with
friends that behave riskily.
Author´s contribution: 100%
PAVOL JOZEF ŠAFÁRIK UNIVERSITY IN KOŠICE
Faculty of Arts
Department of Educational Psychology
and Psychology of Health
Health-related behavior
among schoolchildren
Unplugged – Drug use prevention program in Slovakia
Košice 2015
Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
Unplugged – Drug use prevention program in Slovakia
© 2015 Authors:
Marianna Berinšterová, PhD.
Anna Janovská, PhD.
Beáta Gajdošová, PhD.
Ondrej Kalina, PhD.
Mária Bačíková, PhD.
Department of Educational Psychology and Health Psychology
P.J. Šafárik University in Košice, Faculty of Arts
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication
may be made without written permission.
This work was supported by Research and Development support Agency
under the contract No. APVV-0253-11.
Scientific editor:
Assoc. Prof. Miroslav Frankovský, PhD.
Reviewed by:
Assoc. Prof. Beáta Ráczová, PhD.
Denisa Fedáková, PhD.
Book cover and design: Stanislav Bačík
ISBN 978-80-8152-368-7
75
Parental health-related behavior and health
related behavior among schoolchildren
The role of parental health related behavior in adolescent
behavior has been the topic of many previous studies. In
particular, attention has been paid to smoking and alcohol
consumption. Generally, it has been found that both parental
smoking and alcohol use are associated with adolescents’
substance use (Engels, Knibe, Vries et al., 1999; Mak, Ho, Day 2012;
Flay et al., 1994; Hung, Yen, Wu, 2009; Latendresse et al., 2008;
Abar, Abar, Turrisi, 2009). Bahr Hoffmann and Yang (2005)
introduce Sutherland’s differential associations’ theory which
proposes that “learning takes place according to the frequency,
duration, intensity, and priority of social interactions.
Adolescents are likely to acquire attitudes favorable to drug use if
they associate frequently with others who use drugs and have
favorable attitudes toward drug use. If those interactions occur
over a long period of time, internalization of pro-drug attitudes
and behaviors is more likely than if the duration of interactions is
over a short period of time. Learning is more likely to occur when
interactions are intense as opposed to casual and superficial”
(Bahr, Hoffmann, Yang, 2005; p. 530). In this sense, early
adolescents have long and intense interactions primarily with
their parents. Therefore, we may still consider parents as
important models for risk behaviors in early adolescence. The
examination of early adolescence specifically as a time of first
experimenting with smoking and alcohol consumption is of high
importance because of the possibility of early implementation of
prevention strategies.
The first impulse for studying the impact of parental risk
behavior on the risk behavior of their offspring can be found in
the Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). In line with this
theory, for an adolescent parental behavior can become a model
behavior by observing it. This modelling is effective in particular
if the behavior is observed on regular basis and if the relationship
with the model is good. Although, while the Social learning
theory offers an important framework for understanding the
influence of parental behavior on adolescents’ behavior, there is
a need to go beyond modelling. The direct modelling effect can
INTRODUCTION
76 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
also be mediated via other factors. In the following chapter,
attention will be paid to the possible mediators of the effect of
parental risk behavior on their offspring’s behavior. As this link
seems to differ according to the substance that is used, the effects
of parental smoking and parental alcohol use will be presented in
separate sections.
Parental smoking behavior
Parental smoking has been associated with adolescents’ smoking
both directly and indirectly. A direct effect has been found among
13 to 18 years old in Hong Kong (Mak, Ho, Day, 2012), among
approximately 17 year olds in The Netherlands (Engels, Knibbe,
Vries et al., 1999), ten to fourteen years old in The Netherlands
(Harakeh, Scholte, Vermulst, et al., 2004), adolescents in Southern
California (Flay et al., 1994) or 15 years old in Slovakia
(Madarasová-Gecková et al., 2005). The direct effect is usually
attributed to the previously discussed social learning theory and
adolescents’ modelling behavior. However, somewhat different
results have been presented by Engels, Vitaro, Blokland et al.
(2004) who found this direct association only cross-sectionally but
not longitudinally.
Besides the direct effect of parental smoking on adolescent
smoking behavior, parental smoking can be associated with
several factors (mediating variables) that in turn are connected to
adolescents’ smoking. In the previous research, the role of several
possible mediators has been studied.
Flay et al. (1994) found that parental smoking was associated with
their offspring’s smoking initiation as well as smoking escalation
only indirectly via perceived parental approval, negative outcome
expectations and smoking intentions.
The indirect effect has been found also in the work of Harakeh,
Scholte, and Vermulst, et al. (2004). The case of having smoking
parents increased the probability of smoking both directly and
indirectly via adolescents’ attitudes toward smoking and their
smoking intentions.
Several other papers have been published on the topic of parental
smoking status. While the authors of these papers did not
explicitly study the indirect effect of parental smoking, the
results of their studies, however, did suggest the possibility of this
effect. Blokland et al. (2007) found that smoking and non-smoking
77
parents differ in the way they control adolescents. In the group of
adolescents with non-smoking parents, the parental control was
associated with a higher probability of quitting smoking as
compared to the group with smoking parents. The authors
suggest that it is not parental smoking per se but the way they
exert control that affects adolescents’ smoking. Engels, Vitaro,
Blokland et al. (2004) studied the effect of parental smoking on
the probability of choosing a smoking friend. The results of their
longitudinal study confirmed that children of smoking parents
were more likely to find a smoking peer when establishing a new
friendship. Furthermore, they found the effect of peer smoking
on adolescents smoking; therefore the possible indirect influence
of parental smoking status on adolescents’ smoking via choosing
smoking friends can be expected.
Another possibility of the indirect effect discussed by Engels and
Bot (2006) is via smoking specific parenting. Smoking parents are
less likely to be engaged in smoking-specific prevention practices
as a result of expected inconsistency between their attitudes and
behaviors. In line with this, Kodl and Memestein (2004) found that
parents with a history of smoking were less efficacious, held
weaker anti-smoking beliefs, and less often reported household
smoking rules.
Parental alcohol use
In a similar way to smoking, parental alcohol use has been found
to be positively associated with adolescents’ alcohol use. Parental
alcohol consumption increased the risk of drinking behavior of
early adolescents (Hung, Yen, Wu, 2009), middle adolescents
(Latendresse et al., 2008) as well as university students (Abar,
Abar, Turrisi, 2009)
With respect to alcohol consumption there is a need to
distinguish between occasional, social drinking and heavy or
episodic binge drinking. This implies both for parents and
adolescents. In previous studies, attention has been paid mainly
to parental heavy drinking behavior (Vermeulen-Smit et al.,
2012). Lieb et al. (2002) studied the association between maternal
and paternal alcohol use disorders and non-problematical, social
drinking in offspring. They found this association to be minimal,
but there was a strong effect for the transition to hazardous use
and for alcohol abuse of adolescents.
78 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
The possible mediators of the link between parental smoking and
adolescents’ smoking have been examined so far in this chapter.
With regard to parental alcohol use, one more mediator should be
considered. There is evidence that parental drinking, in contrast
to smoking, may affect parenting practices and this in turn
increases adolescents’ alcohol use. Parental alcoholism was
associated with parental behavioral undercontrol (King, Chassin
2004) and parental alcohol consumption with less parental
monitoring of adolescents’ activities (Latendresse et al., 2008).
Although, no evidence was found for lower levels of parental
support among alcoholic parents (King, Chassin 2004) nor among
problematic drinkers (Van Zundert et al., 2006). Among early
adolescents, parental alcohol use had a significant effect on first
alcohol use even after controlling for parental support and family
conflict (Hung, Yen, Wu, 2009). Therefore, several parenting
variables will be considered as possible mediators of the
associations between parental and adolescents’ alcohol
consumption within the present study.
Further mediators that will be considered are perceived parental
approval of drinking and number of drinking friends. Mares, Van
Der Vorst, Engels et al. (2011) found that benevolent parental
attitudes about alcohol were related to more excessive drinking
in adolescents.
One very interesting finding has been presented by Latendresse
et al. (2008). Their research showed that the mediating role of
parenting decreases between early and later adolescence, despite
the increasing influence that parents alcohol related behaviors
have on their adolescents drinking behaviors.
Although we were not aware of any study exploring the effect of
parental alcohol use on the selection of drinking peers, based on
the previous results on smoking this association was also
expected.
To conclude, the main aim of the present study is to explore the
associations between parental health related behavior (smoking,
weekly alcohol consumption and drunkenness) and health related
behavior of their children. Further, we will test the possible
indirect effect via several mediators proposed within the
introduction (for smoking: perceived parental approval of
substance use, estimated number of using friends, for drinking
also parental rules setting, parental knowledge of adolescent’s
whereabouts and parental support were added in the analyses).
AIM
79
The sample for the study consisted of 1292 respondents. Data
were collected in Slovakia in 2011. The sampling used a list of
primary schools retrieved from the Institute of Information and
Prognosis of Education (total 2,202 schools). Using a cluster
randomized sampling, 60 schools were selected for the study.
In each school, a single class of six graders was involved in this
research. Those respondents who had more than 40% of missing
values were excluded from the analyses. The total sample of
respondents for this study than consisted of 1098 respondents,
54.4% females, mean age 11.52 years (SD 0.61).
The following measures, used within this study, were drawn from
the international study ESPAD 2011 (Substance use among
students in 36 European countries) (Hibell et al., 2012).
Adolescents’ health related behavior was measured using single
items for each type of behavior. Smoking: „On how many
occasions (if any) during your lifetime have you smoked
cigarettes?“; alcohol use: „On how many occasions (if any) have
you had any alcoholic beverage to drink in your lifetime?”;
drunkenness: “On how many occasions (if any) in your lifetime
have you been intoxicated from drinking alcoholic beverages for
example staggered when walking, not being able to speak
properly, throwing up or not remembering what happened?“
Possible answers to each question were on 7 point scale ranging
from “0” to “40 times and more”.
Subsequent dichotomization was made for each type of health
related behavior – experience versus non experience. As the
research sample consisted of 11 year old early adolescents, any
experience with such behavior was considered as unwanted.
Therefore, the dichotomization (no experience versus 1 and more
times) was very strict. The only exception was alcohol
consumption where those who had 1 to 2 experiences with
alcohol were considered as „non-drinkers“.
Using friends. Respondents indicated the estimated number of
friends that use particular substance. Three separate questions
were used: “How many of your friends would you estimate smoke
cigarettes? How many of your friends would you estimate drink
alcoholic beverages? How many of your friends would you
estimate get drunk?“ The possible answers for each question were
on a 5 point Likert scale: none; a few; some; most; all.
SAMPLE
MEASURES
80 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
Perceived parental approval. Questions used to measure perceived
parental approval of adolescents’ risk behavior were modified.
Four questions were asked regarding the approval of smoking and
beer drinking for father and mother separately. “Do you think
that your father/ your mother would allow you to smoke/ drink
beer/drink wine/ drink spirits?“ Four possible answers were
used: Would allow me to do so, Would allow me but not at home,
Wouldn’t allow at all, I don’t know. Those who responded „I don’t
know“ were excluded from analyses. The answers were
dichotomised into would allow versus wouldn’t allow. For the
approval of drinking behavior the question about approval of
beer has been used.
Beside measures adapted from the ESPAD study, parental risk
behavior and other parenting variables were also asked about.
Parental smoking and alcohol consumption were assessed asking:
“Does your mother/ father smoke cigarettes every day?” “Does
your mother/ father drink alcoholic beverages at least once
a week?” “Does your mother/ father get drunk at least once
a month?” with possible answers yes, no, don’t know. Those
answering “don’t know” were excluded from analyses.
Parental support. Parental support was measured using one
subscale of the Resilience and Youth Development Module
(Hanson, Kim, 2007). The subscale consists of six statements about
the support that (at least) one parent gives the adolescent
(e.g. Your parent listens when you have something to say. Your
parent believes that you can do a good job.) Respondents agreed
or disagreed with a statement on a 4-point scale ranging from
1 definitely false to 4 definitely true. The sum score was
computed, in that the higher score means better support from
parents.
Parental rules setting. Two questions were used to determine
parental rules setting: „My parents set definite rules about what
I can do at home.“ „My parents set definite rules about what I can
do outside the home.“ Respondents had 5 possible answers
ranging from 1 almost always to 5 almost never. The sum score
for the two questions was computed and reversed so that a higher
score means more rules setting.
Parental knowledge. In a similar way to the previous measure,
parental knowledge was assessed using two questions: „My
parents know whom I am with in the evenings.“ „My parents
81
know where I am in the evenings.“ The sum score was then
computed and reversed, so that a higher score means better
parental knowledge.
Both, parental rules setting and parental knowledge measures
were used in the ESPAD study (Hibell et al., 2012).
All the data in the present study were analyzed using the
statistical software package IBM SPSS Statistics, version 21.
Firstly, differences between the perceived parental approval of
risk behavior between boys and girls were analyzed using
chi-square. Secondly, regressions were used to analyze the
associations of parental risk behavior (smoking, alcohol
consumption, drunkenness) and several possible mediators.
Subsequently, logistic regression was run to assess the effect of
parental risk behavior on adolescents‘ risk behavior.. In the next
step, mediational analyses were run using the procedure
described by Baron and Kenny (1986). The significance of the
indirect effect (mediating effect) was tested using the Sobel test
(Z). As some of the mediators and all outcome variables were
dichotomous, it was necessary to make the regression coefficients
comparable across equations. This was done using the method
proposed by MacKinnon and Dwyer (1993) (see also Herr, 2011) by
multiplying each coefficient by the standard deviation of the
predictor variable in the equation and then dividing by the
standard deviation of the outcome variable.
Descriptive statistics
Table 23 shows the prevalence of adolescent’s risk behavior.
15.5% of 11 years old adolescents have smoked in their life, 18.10%
have drunk alcohol more than two times in their lifetime and
5.6% have been drunk.
Table 23 Percentage of respondents reporting risk behavior
never yes never, 1to2 times more than 3 times
N % N % N % N %
smoking ever 927 84.4 170 15.50
drinking alcohol ever 887 80.8 199 18.1
being drunk ever 1028 93.6 62 5.6
STATISTICAL
ANALYSES
RESULTS
82 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
Table 24 presents the prevalence of parental risk behavior. Nearly
29% of fathers and 17% of mothers were considered by their
offspring as daily smokers, about 37% of fathers and 20% of
mothers as consuming alcohol at least once a week and
adolescents reported 11% of their fathers and 3% of their mothers
to be drunk at least once a month.
Table 24 Parental risk behavior as reported by adolescents
father mother
yes no don't know yes no don't know
daily smoking 28.7 67.5 3.7 17.3 79.1 3.6
weekly drinking 37.7 50.6 11.8 19.9 70.9 9.2
monthly drunkeness 11.3 79.9 8.8 3.1 92.7 4.2
Perceived parental approval of adolescents’ risk behavior is
presented in Table 23. Adolescents were asked whether their
parents would approve of their smoking, beer, wine and spirit
drinking. Adolescents’ perception of approval of beer drinking
was used in subsequent analyses. Generally, adolescents
perceived their parents as not approving of smoking and spirit
drinking while the perceived approval of beer drinking was
relatively high (16.5% and 11.5% for boys and girls respectively).
No significant differences between boys and girls were found with
an exception of perceived father’s approval of beer drinking
where boys perceived their fathers as more approving outside
beer drinking than girls (χ2
= 16.76, p≤ 0.001).
Mediating variables
The main aim of this study was to assess possible mediators of the
relationship between parental and adolescents’ risk behavior. To
fulfill this aim, the effect of parental risk behaviors on possible
mediators was studied in this study. The results of the regression
analyses can be seen in Table 25. All analyses have been adjusted
for the gender of adolescents.
With regard to father’s risk behavior, paternal smoking was
associated with a higher probability of paternal approval of
adolescents’ smoking (p≤0.01) and increased number of smoking
friends (p≤0.001).
Table 25 Percentage of perceived parental approval of adolescents‘ risk behavior
smoking beer whine spirit
boys girls χ2
boys girls χ2
boys girls χ2
boys girls χ2
father
would agree 1.3 1.3 10.5 9.9 4.8 3.6 0.9 0.4
would agree but not at home 0.4 0.5 6.2 1.6 2.4 0.9 1.3 0.2
definitely wouldn‘t agree 82.4 85.4 58.5 64.1 71 74.6 82.8 88.2
I don‘t know 15.8 12.8 2.49ns 24.5 24.4 16.76*** 21.8 20.8 5.93ns 15 11.3 7.12ns
mother
would agree 0.9 2 6.3 9.1 3.5 3.4 0.4 0.4
would agree but not at home 0.4 0.5 4.6 2.7 2.6 1.4 0.7 0
definitely wouldn‘t agree 86.1 89.4 69.4 69.2 74.7 79.4 85.1 90
I don‘t know 12.6 8.1 2.78ns 19.7 19 5.4ns 19.2 15.7 3.16ns 13.8 9.6 5.05ns
ns – not significant
84 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
Adolescents with fathers that consumed alcohol at least once a
week perceived their fathers as approving of drinking beer
(p≤0.001), had more drinking friends (p≤0.001) and perceived
their parents to set fewer rules (p≤0.05). The level of parental
support and parental knowledge were not significantly associated
with paternal alcohol consumption. Having a father who is drunk
at least once a month increased the probability of perceived beer
drinking approval (p≤0.001) and higher number of drunk fiends
(p≤0.001) but was not associated with any of the parenting
variables.
With regard to mother’s risk behavior the results were similar.
Maternal smoking increased the risk of perceived mother’s
approval of smoking (p≤0.05) and higher number of smoking
friends (p≤0.001). Drinking alcohol at least once a week was
associated with both perceived approval of beer drinking and
number of drinking friends (p≤0.000), but was not associated with
any of the parenting variables. On the other hand, having mother
drunk at least once a month increased the probability of
perceived approval (p≤0.001) but not the number of drunk
friends. Maternal drunkenness was associated with less parental
knowledge (p≤05) and less parental support (p≤0.001), but not
with rule setting.
Those variables that were associated with parental risk behavior
have been subsequently used as possible mediators in the
analyses. The results of logistic regression analyses together with
the results of a Sobel test of the indirect effect (mediation) are
presented in Tables 26, 27 and 28. All analyses have been adjusted
for the gender of the adolescents.
Parental smoking
Both paternal and maternal smoking was strongly associated with
increased risk of adolescents’ smoking (p≤0.001) (Table 26). With
regard to a mediating effect of perceived parental approval of
smoking and number of smoking friends, the results were similar
for fathers and mothers. Both, perceived paternal and maternal
approval and number of friends were highly associated with
adolescents’ smoking (p≤0.001). Although the direct effect of
parental smoking on adolescents’ smoking remained significant,
a partial mediating effect of these variables was confirmed by
a Sobel test (Z=2.18 and Z=1.83 for approval, Z=3.98 and Z=3.67 for
friends, for fathers and mothers respectively).
85
Table 26 The effect of parental risk behavior on possible mediators. The results of
regression analysis. All analyses were adjusted for gender of respondents.
B S.E. p
father smokes on approval 1.29 0.481 0.008
father smokes on friends 0.232 0.053 0.000
father drinks on approval 1.06 0.204 0.000
father drinks on friends 0.215 0.05 0.000
father drinks on rules -0.368 0.157 0.019
father drinks on support 0.22 0.35 0.531
father drinks on knowledge -0.33 0.196 0.094
father drunk on approval 0.069 0.265 0.000
father drunk on friends 0.216 0.05 0.000
father drunk on rules -0.388 0.231 0.093
father drunk on knowledge -0.362 0.289 0.211
father drunk on support -0.629 0.516 0.223
mother smokes on approval 1.014 0.479 0.034
mother smokes on friends 0.251 0.063 0.000
mother drinks on approval 1.01 0.233 0.000
mother drinks on friends 0.222 0.059 0.000
mother drinks on rules -0.204 0.184 0.269
mother drinks on support -0.247 0.41 0.547
mother drinks on knowledge -0.212 0.231 0.359
mother drunk on approval 1.56 0.448 0.000
mother drunk on friends 0.174 0.09 0.054
mother drunk on rules -0.795 0.418 0.058
mother drunk on knowledge -1.32 0.522 0.012
mother drunk on support -3.416 0.924 0.000
Parental alcohol consumption
Both paternal and maternal weekly alcohol consumption was
associated with an increased risk of adolescents’ drinking
experience (p≤0.001) (Table 27). After adding perceived parental
approval into the model, the effect of both paternal and maternal
alcohol disappeared and was fully mediated by perceived parental
86 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
approval (Z=4.52; Z=3.77 for mother and father respectively).
The number of drinking friends mediated the association partially
(Z=3.92; Z=3.39 for mother and father respectively). When
studying the effect of parental alcohol consumption, also several
parenting variables were considered as possible mediators. In
previous analyses (Table 25), only setting rules was associated
with father’s alcohol consumption. Although lack of setting rules
was associated with adolescents’ alcohol consumption (p≤0.05) it
did not mediate the effect of paternal alcohol consumption on
adolescents’ consumption (Z=1.63).
Table 27 The effect of parental smoking on adolescents smoking
Sobel test
father B S.E. OR sig Z S.E. sig
model 1 father smokes 0.882 0.191 2.41 0.000
model 2 father smokes 0.724 0.226 2.06 0.001
father’s approval 1.910 0.503 6.74 0.000 2.18 0.02 0.030
model 3 father smokes 0.688 0.207 2.00 0.001
smoking friends 1.101 0.124 3.00 0.000 3.98 0.01 0.000
mother B S.E. OR sig Z S.E. sig
model 1 mother smokes 0.921 0.209 2.51 0.000
model 2 mother smokes 1.000 0.229 2.72 0.000
mothers‘ approval 1.782 0.485 5.94 0.000 1.83 0.02 0.070
model 3 mother smokes 0.713 0.229 2.04 0.002
smoking friends 1.015 0.121 2.81 0.000 3.67 0.01 0.000
Model 1 represents the direct effect of parental smoking on adolescents smoking. Models 2 and 3 reflect the
indirect effect via mediating variable. Results of Sobel test are presented. Results of logistic regression are
adjusted for gender of respondents.
Parental drunkenness
Only maternal drunkenness (at least once a month) was
associated with adolescents’ drunkenness (p≤0.05) (Table 28).
However, as a recent approach on meditational analyses (Kenny,
Jude, 2013) showed that the direct effect of an independent
variable is not essential for a possible mediating role of other
variables, the study continued with examining the possible
indirect effect of parental drunkenness via paternal approval,
87
maternal approval, parental support and knowledge (variables
that had been associated with both parental drunkenness (see
Table 25) and adolescents’ drunkenness) for both parents.
Table 28 The effect of parental weekly alcohol consumption on adolescents alcohol
experiences
Sobel test
B S.E. OR sig Z S.E. sig
model 1 father drinks 0.580 0.179 1.79 0.001
model 2 father drinks 0.271 0.231 1.31 0.241
father’s approval 2.101 0.237 8.15 0.000 4.52 0.03 0.000
model 3 father drinks 0.409 0.193 1.506 0.004
drinking friends 1.064 0.126 2.91 0.000 3.92 0.01 0.000
model 4 father drinks 0.523 0.184 1.69 0.005
rules setting -0.093 0.041 0.91 0.024 1.63 0.01 0.103
mother B S.E. OR sig Z S.E. sig
model 1 mother drinks 0.701 0.197 2.01 0.001
model 2 mother drinks 0.374 0.252 1.45 0.138
approval 1.894 0.252 6.65 0.000 3.77 0.02 0.000
model 3 mother drinks 0.502 0.213 1.65 0.018
friends 1.152 0.129 3.17 0 3.39 0.01 0.000
Model 1 represents the direct effect of parental alcohol consumption on adolescents’ drinking. Models 2, 3 and 4
reflect the indirect effect via mediating variable. Results of Sobel test are presented. Results of logistic regression
are adjusted for gender of respondents.
For paternal drunkenness, the indirect effect via perceived
paternal approval of beer drinking (Z=2.46) and number of drunk
friends (Z=3.5) was confirmed. The effect of maternal
drunkenness was mediated by perceived maternal approval of
beer drinking (Z=2.62) and the lack parental knowledge (Z=2.03);
surprisingly however, it was not mediated by parental support
(Z=1.61) (Table 29).
88 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
Table 29 The effect of parental drunkenness on adolescents’ drunkenness
Sobel test
father B S.E. OR sig Z S.E. sig
model 1 father drunk 0.637 0.388 1.89 0.101
model 2 father drunk 0.601 0.434 1.82 0.166
father’s approval 1.210 0.363 3.35 0.001 2.46 0.02 0.014
model 3 father drunk 0.272 0.437 1.30 0.533
drunk friends 1.610 0.271 5.01 0.000 3.51 0.01 0.000
mother B S.E. OR sig Z S.E. sig
model 1 mother drunk 1.097 0.559 2.99 0.050
model 2 mother drunk 1.16 0.612 3.20 0.058
mother’s approval 1.43 0.361 4.17 0.000 2.62 0.02 0.009
model 3 mother drunk 0.934 0.662 2.54 0.158
parental support -0.061 0.034 0.94 0.068 1.61 0.03 0.107
model 4 mother drunk 0.927 0.572 2.53 0.105
parental knowledge -0.171 0.051 0.84 0.001 2.03 0.02 0.040
Model 1 represents the direct effect of parental drunkenness on adolescents’ drunkenness. Models 2, 3 and 4
reflect the indirect effect via mediating variable. Results of Sobel test are presented. Results of logistic regression
are adjusted for gender of respondents.
The main aim of this study was to explore whether parental risk
behavior is associated with adolescents’ behavior and whether
this association can be explained by potential mediating
variables. In general, both paternal and maternal smoking was
associated with adolescents’ smoking directly and indirectly via
perceived paternal and maternal approval of adolescents’
smoking and via affiliating with smoking friends as mediating
variables. As for parental weekly drinking, the strong direct
association with adolescents’ drinking was fully mediated by the
perceived approval of beer drinking and partially mediated by the
number of drinking friends. Although increased rule setting was
associated with paternal drinking, it did not mediate the
relationship between paternal and adolescents’ drinking. Paternal
drunkenness was not directly associated with adolescents’
drunkenness, but an indirect effect via perceived approval and
estimated number of drunk friends was found. On the other hand,
maternal drunkenness was associated with adolescents’
drunkenness. This relationship was explained by perceived
DISCUSSION
89
approval of drinking and lack of parental knowledge. However,
the indirect effect of parental support has not been confirmed.
Several researchers suggest that risk behavior in adolescence is
more or less normative (Engels, Bot, 2006). In early adolescence
(around 11 years), however, smoking and alcohol consumption
cannot be considered as normative behavior yet. Therefore, in
this study experimentation with cigarettes and alcohol (not only
regular use) were considered as risk behaviors.
When studying the effects of parental drinking on adolescents,
the possibility of lower levels of some parenting characteristics
due to parental alcohol consumption was considered. The current
results are more or less consistent with those published earlier
(van der Zwaluwm et al., 2008; King Chassin, 2004; Van Zundert,
Van der Vorst, Vermulst et al., 2006). These report that parental
alcohol consumption is in general not associated with parenting
or that this association is only weak.
Consistently within this research, parental risk behavior was
associated with an increased number of risky friends. This could
be attributed to two factors. Firstly, adolescents with parents that
smoke or drink alcohol on a regular basis may perceive this type
of risk behavior as the norm, and thus not avoid peers that
behave riskily. Secondly, parenting behavior toward risky friends
approval (such as strict substance specific rules setting, parental
control, rules about leisure time activities, explicit risky friends
disapproval) might be weakened (lessened) when parents smoke
or drink alcohol themselves and this might be associated with the
affiliation with risky friends.
The results further show that both parental smoking and drinking
behavior are directly associated with adolescents smoking and
drinking respectively. This direct association could be attributed
to adolescents’ modeling of parental behavior proposed by social
learning theory. This modeling effect seems to be stronger with
regard to parental smoking as neither perceived parental
approval of smoking nor estimated number of smoking friends
fully mediated the association.
The results further indicate, that smoking parents tend to be
perceived as more permissive in terms of smoking and
adolescents of smoking parents have more smoking friends which
in turn affects adolescents’ smoking experience. Sargent and
Dalton (2001) in their study found the effect of perceived parental
90 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
disapproval of smoking to be even stronger than the effect of
parental smoking. The effect of parental disapproval was the
same for smoking and non-smoking parents. Engels and Bot
(2006) discuss the possibility that smoking parents do not apply
strong anti-smoking attitudes as they feel incongruence between
their attitudes and their behavior. Sargent and Dalton’s (2001)
research, however, shows that parental disapproval of smoking is
efficient regardless parents smoke or not. They further suggest
that parents’ disapproval makes adolescents more resistant to the
influence of peer smoking. The current results together with the
results of Sargent and Dalton (2001) suggest that adolescents who
perceive that their parents would not allow them to smoke are
less likely to smoke.
The direct effect of parental alcohol consumption on adolescents’
experiences with alcohol was fully mediated by perceived
parental approval of beer consumption. In line with these results,
Yu (2003) presented that the extent to which parents prohibit
children from using alcohol at home tends to reduce children’s
alcohol involvement. These results seem to be highly relevant
particularly with regard to prevention. Parental weekly alcohol
consumption is often perceived as normative (having a glass of
wine or beer after dinner or in the evenings). Within prevention,
it will probably not be able to change parental behavior regarding
alcohol consumption. What can be changed, however, are
parental attitudes toward strict prohibition of alcohol
consumption of their children. In particular, at the age of 11,
alcohol consumption is strongly unacceptable as early alcohol
consumption is associated with the development of early alcohol
dependence and abuse (Gruber, DiClemente, Anderson et al., 1996;
DeWit, Adlaf, Offord, et al., 2014).
Parenting behavior explained the association between parental
drinking and adolescent’s drinking only partially. Similarly,
White, Johnson, Buyske et al. (2000) presented that parent
drinking rather than parenting behavior predicted heavy
drinking in their offspring.
Within this study, parental risk behavior as a possible
independent variable associated with adolescents’ risk behavior
was conceptualized. Besides this, there is another way how
parental risk behavior could be connected to the behavior of their
offspring. It can serve as a buffer (moderator) between the third
variable and adolescents’ risk behavior. Li et al. (2002) reported
FUTURE
RESEARCH
91
that non-using parents had a buffering effect on friends’
influences to use substances, such that friends’ use did not affect
adolescent use when parents were non-users. There is also
a possibility that rule setting, substance specific rules in
particular, is effective only among non-using parents. This
possible moderating role of parental risk behavior should be
verified in further research.
Secondly, in terms of parenting, substance specific parenting
(such as substance specific rules setting, substance specific
monitoring, etc.) would be useful in the context of adolescents’
risk behavior. Similarly, the increased availability of cigarettes
and alcohol at home among adolescents with smoking and
drinking parents may be associated with their risk behavior.
Further research is needed on this topic.
Several limitations of the present study should be mentioned.
Firstly, all the data were collected among single informants –
adolescents. Adolescents reported not only their own behavior,
but also their parents’ behavior. Further, adolescents stated what
they think their parents would do. Using adolescents as single
informants can lead to obtaining different data than would be
obtained from parents. In research among 270 American families,
Cottrell et al. (2003) found no relationship between parental and
adolescents’ perceptions of parental monitoring. In their sample,
around 75% of parents reported that they always knew where
their adolescents were after school, at night and so on, while only
about 58% of adolescents reported their parents knew so. The
reason for such discrepancy might be that although parents and
their children report on the same relationship (or situation), they
experience different stressors, social environments and
expectations. Thus, they would be expected to perceive their
relationships somewhat differently (Pelton, Forehand, 2001).
However, further research shows that although there is
a discrepancy between adolescents’ and parental reports, mainly
adolescents’ but not parental reports are associated with diverse
outcomes. Abar, Jackson, Colby et al. (2014) for example found
that only adolescents’ reports on parental monitoring are
associated with adolescents’ alcohol use. In another study, only
adolescents’ and not the mother’s perception of motheradolescent
conflict was associated with adolescents’ perceptions
of their adjustment (Pelton, Forehand, 2001). Therefore, it can be
assumed, that despite the possible discrepancy between
adolescents’ report on parental risk behavior and the actual
LIMITATIONS
92 - Health-related behavior among schoolchildren
situation, adolescents self-reports are valid in the context of
adolescents’ risk behavior.
Secondly, the data on parenting behavior are not gender specific.
Respondents were asked to indicate parental knowledge, rules
setting and support in general not for the particular parent. This
could influence the results regarding the mediating effect of
parenting.
Thirdly, the design of the study was cross sectional and thus does
not allow causal conclusions to be made. These days, however,
a one year follow up data collection is in process and the data
presented within this study will be further analyzed
longitudinally.
Within adolescents’ risk behavior prevention it is often
problematic (and sometimes not realistic) to force parents to
change their habits regarding their smoking and alcohol
consumption to protect their children from unwanted risk
behavior. It is also very difficult to change or to influence general
parenting style (Chassin et al., 2005). Therefore, it is important to
look at small steps such as changes that parents can do to protect
their children. In line with the present results, there is
a possibility to encourage parents to improve their anti-smoking
and anti-drinking attitudes and make them clear to adolescents to
decrease the probability in them engaging in risk behavior. This
seems to be highly relevant particularly for parents that drink
alcohol on a non-problematic weekly basis and their attitudes
toward adolescents’ beer consumption.
There is a need to prevent adolescents’ risk behavior very early,
even before the first experimentation with a substance, as there
is evidence that children form memory associations related to
alcohol before they ever drink alcohol themselves. Parental
drinking is related to these associations which in turn predict
adolescent alcohol use a year later (van der Vorst et al., 2013).
Despite the mentioned limitations, the present study contributes
to the knowledge on the effect of parental risk behavior on
adolescent risk behavior. It shows that modelling of parental risk
behavior occurs among early adolescents with an exception of
paternal drunkenness. Parents, influence their children’s
behavior also indirectly via perceived parental approval of risk
behavior, affiliating with friends that behave riskily and for
alcohol consumption also via several parenting characteristics.
IMPLICATION
FOR PRACTICE
CONCLUSIONS
26
Study 6
Bačíková, M., Janovská, A., & Orosová, O. (2019). Rodičia v prevencii rizikového
správania sa dospievajúcich. E-psychologie, 13(4), 23-36.
During the early adolescence period the parental behaviour belongs to one of the most important
factors that may help to avoid adolescent risk behaviour. Among the most often studied ways
how parents may foster adolescent non-risk behaviour are: monitoring of adolescent behaviour
and rules setting; substance use specific communication about negative consequences of such
behaviour; parental support and time spent with adolescent; parental own risk behaviour and
attitude that parents have toward adolescent risk behaviour. This study had two main aims. The
first aim of was to explore discrepancies between parental and adolescent perceptions of several
factors related to risk behaviour (perception of adolescent risk behaviour, parental risk
behaviour as well as family processes). The second aim of the study was to explore relationship
between about mentioned parental behaviour regarding risk behaviour (as perceived by
adolescents) and adolescents’ smoking and alcohol consumption.
Research sample consisted of 580 adolescents (mean age 12.51), 217 mothers and 150
fathers. In all studied variables, significant differences between the perception of adolescents
and their mothers /fathers were found with an exception of parental companionship (time spent
together doing interesting things). Parents think that their children behave less risky than do
report adolescents; they also report less of their own risk behaviour than do children perceive.
Parents report more substance-specific communication and more monitoring. Results of logistic
regression show that the most important factor that is associated with probability of smoking
and drinking in early adolescence is perceived parental approval of such behaviour. With regard
to smoking, also mother´s monitoring decreased the probability of smoking experience.
Regarding alcohol consumption, it was maternal occasional drinking that was linked to
experience with alcohol consumption. It seems to be, that regardless of the way how parents try
to prevent adolescents risk behaviour, the most important is to show clear and consistent
27
disapproval of such behaviour. Our results may be applied also for teachers and significant
others that are in contact with adolescents.
Author´s contribution: 70%
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
23
RODIČIA V PREVENCII RIZIKOVÉHO SPRÁVANIA SA DOSPIEVAJÚCICH
Mária Bačíková, Anna Janovská, & Oľga Orosová
Abstrakt
V období ranej adolescencie patria rodičia a ich správanie k významným faktorom, ktoré môžu
napomôcť predchádzaniu rizikovému správaniu dospievajúcich. K najčastejším formám rizikového
správania v tomto období patrí fajčenie a konzumácia alkoholu. Prvým cieľom štúdie je sledovať
rozdiely v percepcii s rizikovým správaním súvisiacich faktorov medzi adolescentmi a ich matkami/
otcami. Druhým cieľom je sledovať vzťah medzi premennými súvisiacimi so správaním rodičov
(percipované adolescentom) a fajčením a užívaním alkoholu u dospievajúcich. Výskumnú vzorku
tvorilo 580 dospievajúcich (priemerný vek 12,51; SD = 0,59; 51,1 % dievčat), 217 matiek a 150 otcov.
Vo všetkých sledovaných premenných, s výnimkou trávenia spoločného času, boli identifikované
významné rozdiely medzi percepciou dospievajúcich a rodičov. Výsledky logistickej regresie ukazujú,
že najvýznamnejším faktorom súvisiacim s pravdepodobnosťou fajčenia a pitia alkoholu je percipované
schvaľovanie takéhoto správania zo strany rodičov. Zdá sa, že bez ohľadu na to, akým spôsobom sa
rodičia snažia ovplyvňovať rizikové správanie dospievajúcich, najdôležitejšie je zabezpečiť, aby
adolescenti skutočne vnímali postoj rodičov voči alkoholu/cigaretám ako nesúhlasný. Získané výsledky
by mohli byť aplikovateľné aj pre učiteľov a iných významných dospelých, ktorí sú v pravidelnom
kontakte s dospievajúcimi.
Kľúčové slová: percepcia rizikového správania, diskrepancie rodičia-adolescenti, fajčenie,
konzumácia alkoholu, prevencia
PARENTS IN PREVENTION OF RISK BEHAVIOUR OF ADOLESCENTS
Abstract
During the early adolescence period the parental behaviour belongs to one of the most important factors
that may help to avoid adolescent risk behaviour. Among the most prevalent forms of risk behaviour in
early adolescence are smoking and alcohol consumption. The first aim of this study is to explore
discrepancies between parental and adolescent perceptions of several factors related to risk behaviour.
The second aim of the study is to explore relationship between parental behaviour (as perceived by
adolescents) and adolescents smoking and alcohol consumption. Research sample consisted of 580
adolescents (mean age 12.51, SD=0.59; 51.1% girls), 217 mothers and 150 fathers. In all studied all
variables but spending free time, showed, significant differences between the perception of adolescents
and their mothers /fathers were found with an exception of parental companionship. Results of logistic
regression show that the most important factor that is associated with probability of smoking and
drinking in early adolescence is perceived parental approval of such behaviour. It seems to be, that
regardless of the way how parents try to prevent adolescents risk behaviour, the most important is to
show clear and consistent disapproval of such behaviour. Our results may be applied also for teachers
and significant others that are in contact with adolescents.
Keywords: risk behaviour perception, discrepancies in parent-adolescent dyad, smoking, alcohol
consumption, prevention
_____________________
Došlo: 10. 7. 2019
Schváleno: 14. 11. 2019
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
24
Úvod
Adolescencia je obdobím, v ktorom významná časť dospievajúcich experimentuje s alkoholom
a cigaretami, prípadne nelegálnymi drogami. Ak sú rôzne preventívne stratégie uplatňované na
začiatku tohto obdobia, ich efektívnosť môže byť pomerne vysoká (Koning et al., 2009).
Rodičia na začiatku dospievania hrajú významnú úlohu v prevencii rizikového správania.
Zabezpečiť, aby sa ich dospievajúce deti tomuto rizikovému správaniu vyhli, oddialili jeho
nástup, prípadne aby dôsledky takéhoto správania boli pre ich nasledujúci život čo najmenšie,
patrí k základným výchovným cieľom. Existujú viaceré spôsoby, ktorými sa rodičia môžu
pokúsiť dosiahnuť tieto výchovné ciele. V predkladanom príspevku sa zameriame na niekoľko
najvýznamnejších z nich, menovite: monitoring správania dospievajúceho a stanovovanie
pravidiel ohľadom správania; komunikácia rodičov s dospievajúcimi špecificky zameraná na
dôsledky rizikového správania; poskytovaná opora a čas spolu trávený; vlastný príklad rodičov
a postoj, ktorý rodičia voči prípadnému rizikovému správaniu dospievajúceho zaujmú. Zároveň
budeme sledovať rozdiely v percepcii týchto premenných ako i rizikového správania
dospievajúcich a rodičov medzi adolescentmi a ich rodičmi.
Jedným z efektívnych spôsobov, ktoré môžu rodičia v rámci prevencie uplatniť, sa javí
monitoring dospievajúceho. Monitoring je charakterizovaný aktívnym správaním rodiča
zameraným na sledovanie aktivít dospievajúceho, ktoré sa deje mimo priameho kontaktu
s rodičom. Monitoring môže prebiehať prostredníctvom stanovovania pravidiel ohľadom
správania sa, aktívnym kladením otázok a vyjadrovaním záujmu, ako i systematickou kontrolou
dospievajúcich, ich priateľov a toho, ako a s kým trávia čas mimo domova (Dishion, &
McMahon, 1998). Mnohé štúdie konzistentne ukazujú, že takto realizovaný monitoring súvisí
s nižšou mierou rizikového a problémového správania. Špecificky sa ukazuje, že monitoring
znižuje pravdepodobnosť začiatku fajčenia u dospievajúcich (Wellman et al., 2016) a zároveň
súvisí s nižšou pravdepodobnosťou užívania alkoholu (Bacikova-Sleskova, 2009; Abar et al.,
2014).
Druhým z možných spôsobov prevencie rizikového správania je kontrola zameraná špecificky
na rizikové správanie. Táto kontrola spočíva zvyčajne v stanovovaní konkrétnych, vývinovo
primeraných pravidiel ohľadom fajčenia a užívania alkoholu, ako i v komunikácií o možných
rizikách takéhoto správania a negatívnych dôsledkoch, ktoré so sebou prináša. Rodičmi stanovené
striktné pravidlá ohľadom rizikového správania súvisí s nižšou pravdepodobnosťou
užívania alkoholu dospievajúcimi a neskorším nástupom experimentovania s alkoholom
(Janssen et al., 2014; van der Vorst et al., 2006) a s nižšou pravdepodobnosťou fajčenia
(Hiemstra et al., 2017). Podobne i na alkohol zameraná komunikácia súvisí s nižšou mierou
nárazového pitia alkoholu a s alkoholom spojených problémov (Spijkerman, van den Eijnden
& Huiberts, 2008). Súvislosť s fajčením sa zdá byť rozdielna. Hiemstra a kol. (2017) realizovali
systematickú analýzu štúdií sledujúcich efekt na fajčenie zameranej komunikácie a ich
výsledky naznačujú, že pre prevenciu začiatku fajčenia je dôležitejšia kvalita komunikácie než
jej frekvencia. Kvalitnou komunikáciou sa rozumie konštruktívne informovanie o rizikách
spojených s takýmto správaním, spôsob, ktorý rešpektuje dieťa a jeho postoje. Nekvalitnou
komunikáciou je napr. vyhrážanie sa („Ak ťa uvidím fajčiť, vyhodím ťa z domu!“), strašenie
alebo znevažovanie dieťaťa.
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
25
Ďalšou z významných preventívnych stratégií zo strany rodičov je vlastný príklad. Na základe
teórie sociálneho učenia (Bandura, & Walters, 1977) je rodičovské správanie modelom, ktorý
dospievajúci pozoruje a napodobňuje. Vo všeobecnosti, ako fajčenie, tak užívanie alkoholu
rodičmi úzko súvisí s fajčením a užívaním alkoholu dospievajúcich (Kandel, Griesler, & Hu,
2015; Latendresse et al., 2008; Mak, Ho, & Day, 2012; Mays et al., 2014). Zároveň však môže
byť rizikové správanie rodiča spojené so správaním dieťaťa aj prostredníctvom viacerých
mediujúcich premenných. Príkladom môžu byť odlišnosti v tom, do akej miery rodičia, ako
fajčiari, tak aj nefajčiari stanovujú pravidlá a kontrolujú dospievajúcich. Rodičia, ktorí fajčia,
zvyčajne kontrolujú menej dôsledne, ich stratégie sú menej konzistentné a zároveň menej
efektívne pre prevenciu fajčenia dospievajúcich (Engels et al., 2004; Engels, & Bot, 2006; den
Exter Blokland et al., 2007).
S vlastným príkladom súvisí i postoj, ktorý rodičia voči prípadnému rizikovému správaniu
dospievajúceho zaujmú. Viaceré predchádzajúce štúdie potvrdili súvis medzi percipovaným
nesúhlasom rodičov s fajčením či užívaním alkoholu a nižším výskytom takéhoto správania
u dospievajúcich (Kong et al., 2012; Mrug, & McCay, 2013; Nash, McQueen, & Bray, 2005;
Sargent, & Dalton, 2001; Wood et al., 2004).
Nevyhnutnou podmienkou optimálneho vývinu dospievajúceho a teda i jeho vyhýbania sa
rizikovému správaniu, je pozitívny vzťah medzi adolescentom a rodičom. Poskytovaná
emocionálna opora zo strany rodičov, vrelosť či spoločne strávený čas priamo súvisia s nižším
výskytom fajčenia či užívania alkoholu (Brown, & Rinelli, 2010; den Exter Blokland et al.,
2006; Ryan, Jorm, & Lubman, 2010). Najmä v období na začiatku dospievania, kedy vplyv
rovesníkov na správanie adolescenta významne rastie (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, 2014), je
kvalitný vzťah medzi dospievajúcim a rodičom dôležitým predpokladom pre oddialenie prvého
experimentovania s návykovými látkami.
Dospievajúci a rodičia zvyčajne nepercipujú situáciu v rodine rovnako. Mnohé výskumné
zistenia ukazujú, že v rodinách existujú významné diskrepancie v percipovaní rôznych
rodinných procesov, napr. opora, monitoring, konflikt (Bačíková, 2019; De los Reyes et al.,
2010; Korelitz, & Garber 2016), medzi jednotlivými členmi rodiny, najmä potom medzi
dieťaťom a rodičom. Rozdielna percepcia sa však netýka len ich vzájomného vzťahu, ale
i iných faktorov. Rodičia napr. podhodnocujú mieru prežívaného šťastia svojich adolescentných
detí (López-Pérez, & Wilson, 2015), podhodnocujú ich skúsenosti s návykovými
látkami (Yang et al., 2006) či celkové emocionálne a behaviorálne problémy adolescentov (Van
Roy et al., 2010).
Ciele
Hlavným cieľom predkladanej štúdie je skúmať vzťah medzi premennými súvisiacimi so
správaním rodičov (percipované adolescentmi) a výskytom rizikového správania (fajčenia
a pitia alkoholu) u dospievajúcich v období skorej adolescencie. Zároveň sa štúdia zameriava
na to, ako sa líši vnímanie týchto premenných (fajčenie adolescenta, celoživotná prevalencia
konzumácie alkoholu, komunikácia o cigaretách, komunikácia o alkohole, fajčenie rodiča,
konzumácia alkoholu rodičom, monitoring, trávenie spoločného času) medzi dospievajúcimi,
ich matkami a otcami.
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
26
Metódy
Výskumný súbor
Zber údajov bol realizovaný prostredníctvom dotazníkov medzi žiakmi siedmich ročníkov
základných škôl na Slovensku a ich rodičmi v septembri/októbri 2017. Do zberu bolo
zaradených 12 škôl v rámci celého Slovenska s dôrazom na zastúpenie škôl z rôznych krajov a
z obcí rôznych veľkostí. V každej škole sa výskumu zúčastnili žiaci všetkých tried siedmeho
ročníka. Každý žiak po vyplnení dotazníka dostal dve (prípadne jednu) obálky s dotazníkmi
určenými pre oboch rodičov. Vypĺňanie dotazníkov bolo anonymné. Dotazníky pre žiakov
i rodičov obsahovali položky, ktoré umožnili vytvoriť identifikačný kód, na základe ktorého
boli následne odpovede detí a rodičov spárované. Projekt štúdie bol schválený etickou komisiou
Filozofickej fakulty UPJŠ. Každá zúčastnená škola zabezpečila súhlas rodičov s účasťou ich
detí na výskume.
Finálny výskumný súbor tvorilo 580 dospievajúcich (priemerný vek 12,51; SD = 0,59; 51,1 %
dievčat; 75,3 % žije s oboma vlastnými rodičmi), 217 matiek (priemerný vek 40,5; SD = 4,64)
a 150 otcov (priemerný vek 42,71; SD = 5,33).
Metodiky
Metodiky použité v tejto štúdii boli identické pre adolescentov aj ich rodičov. Zmena bola len
v spôsobe formulácie pre rodičov (napr. „Z toho, čo viete, fajčilo Vaše dieťa niekedy cigaretu,
aj keď len jednu doteraz?“). Rizikové správanie dospievajúcich a ich rodičov bolo sledované
prostredníctvom jednopoložkových otázok, ktoré bývajú štandardne využívané pri sebaposudzujúcich
dotazníkoch rizikového správania (napr. Fidler et al., 2008; den Exter Blokland
et al., 2009).
Rizikové správanie adolescentov. Adolescenti odpovedali na otázky týkajúce sa celoživotnej
prevalencie fajčenia a užívania alkoholu „Fajčil si už niekedy cigaretu, aj keď len jednu
doteraz?“ s možnosťami odpovede (1) nie nikdy, (2) už som to skúsil, (3) v minulosti som
fajčil, ale úplne som prestal, (4) sem tam fajčím, ale nie denne, (5) teraz fajčím denne. „Pil si
už niekedy alkohol?“ S možnosťami odpovede (1) nie nikdy, (2) už som to skúšal, (3) pil som
ho viackrát, (4) pijem alkohol pravidelne aspoň raz za mesiac, (5) pijem alkohol pravidelne
aspoň raz za týždeň.
Odpovede boli následne dichotomizované. Vzhľadom na nízky vek respondentov bola
akákoľvek skúsenosť s fajčením a viac ako jedna skúsenosť s alkoholom považovaná za
rizikové správanie: aspoň raz skúsili fajčiť (21 %); pili alkohol viac ako jedenkrát (11,9 %).
Na rizikové správanie zameraná komunikácia. Adolescenti i rodičia zodpovedali dve otázky
týkajúce sa komunikácie špecificky zameranej na alkohol a fajčenie. „Moji rodičia sa so mnou
rozprávajú o pití alkoholu a s ním súvisiacich rizikách/škodlivých dopadoch.“ „Moji rodičia
sa so mnou rozprávajú o fajčení a s ním súvisiacich rizikách/škodlivých dopadoch.“
S možnosťami odpovedí (1) nikdy, (2) občas, (3) často, (4) stále. Odpovede boli následne
dichotomizované: nikdy verzus ostatné odpovede.
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
27
Percipované schvaľovanie fajčenia/pitia alkoholu. Táto premenná bola v predchádzajúcich
štúdiách operacionalizovaná rôznymi spôsobmi, napr. „Pre mojich rodičov je dôležité, aby som
nefajčil“ (Kong et al., 2012), alebo „Moji rodičia by nesúhlasili, ak by som fajčil (Mrug, &
McCay, 2013). V predkladanom príspevku je percipované schvaľovanie rizikového správania
rodičmi operacionalizované v súlade so štúdiou Sargenta a Daltona (2001). Adolescenti
odpovedali na otázku „Ako veľmi by sa Tvoji rodičia hnevali, ak by si pil alkohol/ak by si
fajčil?“ s možnosťami odpovedí (1) vôbec by sa nehnevali, (5) veľmi by sa hnevali. Položka
bola pre účely analýz dichotomizovaná – tí, ktorí by sa veľmi hnevali verzus ostatné odpovede.
Monitoring. Monitoring bol sledovaný pomocou 8 položkovej škály Parental monitoring of
Behavior Scale (Barber, 2002 in Soenens et al., 2006). Táto škála zahŕňa položky týkajúce sa
monitorovania správania dospievajúceho prostredníctvom pýtania sa, dohliadania,
stanovovania pravidiel (napr. Moja mama/môj otec mi pripomína pravidlá, ktoré mi stanovil/a.
Moja mama/môj otec sa snaží vedieť, kto sú moji priatelia a kde trávim voľný čas.). Dve
z položiek boli reverzne prevrátené. V analýzach pracujeme s priemerným skóre škály. Škála
monitoringu vykazuje dostatočnú vnútornú konzistenciu: matka α = 0,67; otec α = 0,76.
Trávenie spoločného času bolo hodnotené prostredníctvom subškály dotazníka The Network
of Relationships Social Provision Version (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985). Subškála obsahuje 3
položky (napr. „Ako často spolu s mamou/otcom navštevujete rôzne miesta, robíte zábavné
veci?“) s možnosťami odpovedí na 5-bodovej škále Likertoveho typu ((1) vôbec alebo málo,
(5) väčšinu/väčšinou). V analýzach pracujeme s priemerným skóre škály. Vnútorná
konzistencia metodiky je adekvátna: matka α = 0,70, otec α = 0,74.
Rizikové správanie rodičov. Percipované rizikové správanie matky a otca bolo zisťované
pomocou dvoch otázok: „Fajčí tvoja mama/tvoj otec každý deň cigarety?“ „Pije tvoja
mama/tvoj otec aspoň raz za týždeň alkoholické nápoje?“ S možnosťami odpovede áno – nie.
Štatistické analýzy
Údaje boli analyzované v štatistickom programe IBM SPSS 21 využitím párového McNemar
testu a párového t-testu pre porovnanie údajov od dospievajúcich a ich rodičov a logistickej
regresie. V prvej časti analýz, kde boli porovnávané údaje získané od adolescentov a ich matiek
a/alebo otcov, sme zahrnuli len tých adolescentov, ktorých matka alebo otec vyplnili dotazník,
preto je ich počet redukovaný.
Výsledky
Rozdiely v percepcii medzi matkami a adolescentmi a otcami a adolescentmi
V prvom kroku analýz sme skúmali rozdiely v percepcii nami sledovaných premenných medzi
matkou a adolescentom a otcom a adolescentom. Výsledky párového McNemar testu, párového
t-testu a deskriptívne údaje sú uvedené v tabuľke 1 (údaje o schvaľovaní alkoholu/fajčenia sme
od rodičov nezbierali, preto v tabuľke nie sú uvedené). Výsledky ukazujú, že vo všetkých
sledovaných premenných, s výnimkou trávenia spoločného času, sú rozdiely medzi
dospievajúcim a rodičom na úrovni štatistickej významnosti. Adolescenti častejšie uvádzali
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
28
rizikové správanie v porovnaní s tým, čo uvádzali ich rodičia; viac adolescentov uvádzalo, že
nikdy s rodičmi nehovoria o škodlivosti alkoholu a cigariet. Zaujímavé je, že adolescenti
častejšie uvádzali i výskyt rizikového správania rodiča, ako uviedli samotní rodičia. Rodičia
percipovali ich monitoring ako intenzívnejší v porovnaní s percepciou adolescentov. Štatisticky
významné rozdiely v percepcii spoločne tráveného času medzi adolescentmi a ich rodičmi
zistené neboli.
Tabuľka 1 Rozdiely v percipovaní sledovaných premenných medzi adolescentmi
a ich matkami/otcami
adolescent matka otec
N % % %
p
(McNemar test)
skúsenosť s fajčením
adolescenta
216 18,40 % 8,80 0,000
149 18,70 % 9,30 % 0,000
skúsenosť s alkoholom
adolescenta viac ako 1x
216 12,00 % 0,50 % 0,000
150 9,30 % 1,30 % 0,004
komunikácia o cigaretách
(nikdy)
202 29,70 % 2,80 % 0,000
137 31,70 % 6,10 % 0,000
komunikácia o alkohole
(nikdy)
203 31,50 % 2,80 % 0,000
136 30,20 % 6,20 % 0,000
denné fajčenie rodiča
233 29,50 % 23,50 % 0,000
163 34,00 % 29,50 % 0,000
príležitostné pitie rodiča
231 30,00 % 23,50 % 0,004
163 46,70 % 42,50 % 0,024
adolescent matka otec
N
mean
(SD)
mean
(SD) mean (SD) p (t test)
monitoring
214 3,7 (0,6) 4,3 (0,5) 0,000 (-10,8)
124 3,5 (0,7) 4,1 (0,5) 0,000 (-9,2)
trávenie spoločného času
210 3,4 (0,9) 3,3 (0,8) 0,484 (0,70)
129 3,2 (0,8) 3,2 (0,9) 0,580 (0,56)
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
29
Regresné analýzy
Hlavným cieľom štúdie bolo overiť, ktorá zo sledovaných premenných súvisiacich
s rodičovským správaním najsilnejšie súvisí s pravdepodobnosťou výskytu rizikového
správania (fajčenia a pitia alkoholu) dospievajúcich. Výsledky logistickej regresie sú uvedené
v tabuľke 2 (fajčenie) a tabuľke 3 (alkohol). Do regresného modelu sme zaradili údaje získané
od dospievajúcich. Regresný model pre premennú fajčenie (-2 Log likelihood = 373,9;
R2
= -0,06) vysvetľuje pomerne nízke percento variancie (6 %). Najsilnejšou vysvetľujúcou
premennou súvisiacou s fajčením je percipované schvaľovanie fajčenia rodičmi. Adolescenti,
ktorí uviedli, že ich rodičia by sa nehnevali, ak by fajčili, mali 4,11-krát vyššiu
pravdepodobnosť skúsenosti s fajčením ako ostatní adolescenti. Zároveň je štatisticky
významným faktorom i úroveň monitoringu matky. Nižšia miera monitoringu zo strany matky
súvisí s nižšou pravdepodobnosťou výskytu fajčenia (OR 0,52). Ostatné sledované premenné
neboli štatisticky významné vo vzťahu k fajčeniu dospievajúcich.
Tabuľka 2 Faktory súvisiace s pravdepodobnosťou skúsenosti s fajčením u dospievajúcich
B S.E. OR 95 % CI
rod -0,041 0,261 0,96 (0,58-1,60)
komunikácia o fajčení -0,007 0,298 0,99 (0,55-1,78)
percipované schvaľovanie fajčenia 1,410 0,396 4,11*** (1,89-8,93)
monitoring matka -0,66 0,318 0,52* (0,28-0,96)
monitoring otec 0,369 0,291 1,45 (0,82-2,56)
trávenie spoločného času matka 0,092 0,191 1,10 (0,75-1,59)
trávenie spoločného času otec -0,062 0,184 0,94 (0,66-1,35)
denné fajčenie matka -0,403 0,322 1,50 (0,79-2,81)
denné fajčenie otec -0,378 0,314 1,46 (0,79-2,70)
* p≤0,05; ***p≤0,001
V súvislosti s výskytom užívania alkoholu vysvetľuje regresný model (tabuľka 3; -2 Log
likelihood 223,2; R2
= 0,13) o niečo vyššie percento variancie (13 %). Zo sledovaných
premenných, dve štatisticky významne zvyšujú pravdepodobnosť výskytu užívania alkoholu
u dospievajúcich. Opäť je najsilnejším faktorom percipované schvaľovanie alkoholu (OR 5,34).
Druhým významným faktorom je príležitostné pitie alkoholu matkou. Adolescenti, ktorých
matky pijú alkohol aspoň raz za týždeň (percipované adolescentami), majú 3,43-krát vyššiu
pravdepodobnosť skúsenosti s alkoholom ako ostatní dospievajúci. Ostatné sledované
premenné neboli štatisticky významné vo vzťahu k skúsenosti s alkoholom u dospievajúcich.
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
30
Tabuľka 3 Faktory súvisiace s pravdepodobnosťou skúsenosti s alkoholom (viac ako 1x)
u dospievajúcich
B S.E. OR 95 % CI
rod 0,379 0,367 1,46 (0,71-3,00)
komunikácia o alkohole -0,419 0,368 0,66 (0,32-1,35)
percipované schvaľovanie alkoholu 1,680 0,366 5,34*** (2,61-10,9)
monitoring matka -0,165 0,389 0,85 (0,40-1,82)
monitoring otec -0,061 0,338 0,94 (0,49-1,83)
trávenie spoločného času matka -0,289 0,259 0,75 (0,45-1,24)
trávenie spoločného času otec -0,218 0,249 0,8 (0,49-1,31)
príležitostné pitie matka 1,230 ,460 3,43** (1,39-8,45)
príležitostné pitie otec -0,555 0,476 0,57 (0,23-1,46)
Diskusia
V predkladanej štúdii sme sa zamerali na dva hlavné ciele. Prvým bolo identifikovanie
rozdielov v tom, ako dospievajúci a ich rodičia percipujú rizikové správanie adolescenta
a rodičov, mieru komunikácie o škodlivosti fajčenia a užívania alkoholu, rodičovský
monitoring a spoločne trávený čas. Druhým cieľom bolo identifikovať, ako jednotlivé stratégie
rodičov súvisiace s možnosťami prevencie rizikového správania dospievajúcich súvisia so
skúsenosťou s cigaretami a alkoholom dospievajúcich v období skorej adolescencie.
Výsledky našich analýz poukazujú na pomerne konzistentné rozdiely v percepcii jednotlivých
premenných medzi dospievajúcimi a ich rodičmi. V súlade s našimi očakávaniami dospievajúci
uvádzali vyššiu mieru rizikového správania, ako si mysleli ich rodičia. Adolescenti trávia stále
viac času s rovesníkmi a mimo priamy dohľad rodičov (Lam, McHale, & Crouter, 2014),
zároveň významne stúpa miera tajenia osobných informácii a svojich voľnočasových aktivít
pred rodičmi (Keijsers et al., 2010). Nie je preto prekvapujúce, že rodičia o ich rizikovom
správaní nie sú informovaní. V súvislosti s našim výsledkom je zaujímavá štúdia Yanga a kol.
(2006), podľa ktorej najviac podceňovali mieru rizikového správania svojich detí rodičia,
ktorých deti boli lepší žiaci a celkovo sa javili ako menej problémoví. Signifikantne vyššiu
mieru rizikového správania rodičov uvádzali adolescenti v porovnaní s matkou/otcom, čo môže
súvisieť s tendenciou rodičov hodnotiť svoje správanie v spoločensky žiaducejšom svetle
(Korelitz, & Garber, 2016). Zaujímavým je pomerne veľký nesúlad v percepcii frekvencie
komunikácie o škodlivosti návykových látok. Hoci až takmer tretina adolescentov uviedla, že
sa s rodičmi nikdy nerozprávajú o alkohole a cigaretách, túto odpoveď označilo len malé
percento rodičov. Diskrepancie v miere percipovaného monitoringu rodičov sú v súlade
s predchádzajúcimi zisteniami (De los Reyes et al., 2010; Korelitz, & Garber 2016). V kontexte
interpretovania získaných výsledkov je dôležité brať do úvahy, kto podáva informáciu
o rodinnej situácii. Viaceré štúdie ukazujú, že hoci pohľad adolescenta nemusí vždy vypovedať
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
31
o objektívnej situácii, je pre jeho vývin relevantnejší ako pohľad rodiča (Bačíková, 2019;
Maurizi, Gershoff, & Aber, 2012). Z tohto dôvodu v nasledujúcom kroku boli do analýz
zahrnuté len údaje získané od dospievajúcich.
Hlavným cieľom predkladanej štúdie bolo sledovať, ako rôzne faktory súvisiace so správaním
rodičov súvisia s pravdepodobnosťou skúsenosti s fajčením a alkoholom u dospievajúcich.
Najsilnejší vzťah bol potvrdený medzi percipovaným schvaľovaním fajčenia i konzumácie
alkoholu zo strany rodičov a výskytom daného správania sa u adolescentov. Adolescenti, ktorí
uvádzali, že ich rodičia by za istých okolností schvaľovali fajčenie či pitie alkoholu, mali vyššiu
pravdepodobnosť skúsenosti s rizikovým správaním. V oblastiach, ktoré sú adolescentmi
vnímané ako oblasti týkajúce sa bezpečia (ku ktorým rizikové správanie nepochybne patrí),
majú dospievajúci tendenciu akceptovať pravidlá rodiča a správať sa v súlade s týmito
pravidlami (Smetana, 2010). Vyjadrenie jasného nesúhlasu s takýmto správaním môže byť
preto efektívnym spôsobom, ako mu zabrániť. Postoj rodiča k rizikovému správaniu môže byť
zároveň chápaný i ako akési nepriame modelovanie správania (Wood et al., 2004).
V súvislosti s konzumáciou alkoholu adolescentmi sa javí byť rizikovým i príležitostné pitie
matky. Popri možnosti modelovania správania rodiča je možné brať do úvahy aj fakt, že rodičia,
ktorí sa sami správajú rizikovo, majú benevolentnejší postoj voči rizikovému správaniu vo všeobecnosti
a môžu mať preto ťažkosti v presviedčaní detí, že by nemali fajčiť či piť alkohol
(Engels, & Bot, 2006; den Exter Blokland et al., 2006). Príležitostné pitie alkoholu sa
v dospelosti považuje za normatívne (pohár vína k večeri či pivo v teplom dni). V rámci
prevencie by pravdepodobne bolo náročné zmeniť správanie rodiča, čo však môže byť
zmenené, je postoj, ktorý rodič voči prípadnej konzumácii alkoholu adolescentom komunikuje.
Monitoring rodičov je vo všeobecnosti považovaný za efektívny spôsob ako zabezpečiť menej
problémového a rizikového správania dospievajúcich (Abar et al., 2014; Bacikova-Sleskova,
2009; Wellman et al., 2016). V prezentovanej štúdii, kde sú v modeloch brané do úvahy aj rôzne
ďalšie premenné, sa monitoring javí byť efektívny len v súvislosti s fajčením dospievajúcich.
Ukazuje sa však, že príliš intenzívny monitoring môže byť dospievajúcimi interpretovaný ako
zdôrazňovanie ich nekompetentnosti, zasahovanie do ich osobnej sféry či vyjadrovanie
nedôvery voči adolescentovi (Kakihara, & Tilton-Weaver, 2009; Pomerantz, & Eaton, 2000;
Smetana, Crean, & Campione‐Barr, 2005). Takto interpretovaný monitoring neznižuje, naopak
často zvyšuje rizikové či problémové správanie. Adolescent, ktorý sa cíti príliš obmedzovaný
nadmernou kontrolou zo strany rodičov, môže reagovať práve naopak, ako je od neho
očakávané, rebéliou a neuposlúchnutím pravidiel (Van Petegem et al., 2017).
Limity štúdie
Predkladaná štúdia má niekoľko limitov. Prvým je menej ako polovičná účasť rodičov na
výskume, čo bolo jedným z dôvodov, prečo sme v regresných analýzach pracovali len s dátami
od adolescentov. Druhou limitáciou je prierezový dizajn štúdie, ktorý neumožňuje vyvodzovať
kauzálne závery. Treťou limitáciou štúdie je použitie jednopoložkových metodík na meranie
úrovne komunikácie o rizikovom správaní a schvaľovaní rizikového správania rodičmi.
Premenná nazvaná „percipované schvaľovanie rizikového správania“ býva v rôznych štúdiách
operacionalizovaná rôznymi spôsobmi (napr. Kong et al., 2012; Mrug, & McCay, 2013; Nash,
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
32
McQueen, & Bray, 2005). Jej operacionalizácia zvyčajne zahŕňa percipované reakcie rodičov
na rizikové správanie dieťaťa, rodičovské normy, dôležitosť nerizikového správania či priame
vyjadrenie nesúhlasu s takýmto správaním. V predkladanej štúdii bola táto premenná chápaná
pomerne úzko ako miera hnevu rodičov, ktorú by vyjadrili, ak by sa adolescent správal rizikovo.
Hnev je však len jedna z foriem vyjadrenia rodičovského nesúhlasu. Vzhľadom na to, že takto
vyjadrený nesúhlas bol najsilnejším faktorom súvisiacim s rizikovým správaním, bolo by
vhodné zamerať ďalšie štúdie na širšiu operacionalizáciu percipovaného rodičovského súhlasu,
resp. nesúhlasu.
Aplikácia pre prax
Na začiatku dospievania sú rodičia významným faktorom, ktorý ovplyvňuje budúce rizikové
správanie dospievajúcich. Pri porovnaní vplyvu rodičov a rovesníkov sa ukazuje, že v skorej
adolescencii je viac variancie v rizikovom správaní vysvetlenej faktormi súvisiacimi s rodičmi
ako faktormi súvisiacimi s priateľmi (Cleveland et al., 2008). Je preto veľmi dôležité zahrnúť
do rôznych prevenčných programov i rodičov. Intervencia zameraná v kombinácii na
dospievajúcich a ich rodičov bola napríklad najefektívnejšou v prevencii užívania alkoholu
(Koning et al., 2009).
Častou námietkou je, že rodičia nejavia záujem o účasť na aktivitách organizovaných školou
a je nereálne očakávať ich účasť na prevenčných programoch. Výsledky štúdie Koning a kol.
(2009) však ukazujú, že efektívny prevenčný program môže byť i veľmi jednoduchý a krátky.
Autori realizovali jedno stretnutie s rodičmi na začiatku školského roka, v rámci štandardného
rodičovského združenia spravili krátku prezentáciu zameranú na negatívne dôsledky užívania
alkoholu a na dôležitosť vytvárania pravidiel týkajúcich sa pitia alkoholu. Následne boli rodičia
vyzvaní, aby spoločne vytvorili zoznam pravidiel, ktoré budú platné pre všetky deti v rámci
danej triedy. To zvýšilo možnosť rodičov efektívne kontrolovať dodržiavanie pravidiel
a znížilo sociálny tlak spolužiakov na dospievajúceho („Ale všetci moji spolužiaci to majú
dovolené!“). V súlade s výsledkami predkladanej štúdie sa preto zdá byť jednou z možností
efektívnej prevencie prostredníctvom rodičov ich oboznámenie s dôležitosťou ich vyjadrovaného
postoja voči rizikovému správaniu dospievajúcich. V kontexte prevencie rizikového
správania je zároveň dôležitá konzistentnosť hodnotovo-normatívneho rámca správania
dospievajúcich v školskom a rodinnom prostredí.
Záver
Zdá sa, že bez ohľadu na to, akým spôsobom sa rodičia snažia ovplyvňovať rizikové správanie
dospievajúcich, najdôležitejšie je zabezpečiť, aby adolescenti skutočne vnímali postoj rodičov
voči alkoholu/cigaretám ako nesúhlasný. Získané výsledky by však mohli byť aplikovateľné aj
pre učiteľov a iných významných dospelých, ktorí sú v pravidelnom kontakte s dospievajúcimi.
Poďakovanie
Štúdia bola podporená Vedeckou grantovou agentúrou Ministerstva školstva VEGA 1/0623/17
a Agentúrou pre vedu a výskum APVV-15-0662.
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
33
Literatúra
Abar, C. C., Jackson, K. M., Colby, S. M., & Barnett, N. P. (2014). Common and unique
parenting predictors of adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Addictive behaviors, 39(10),
1528-1532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.06.003
Bacikova-Sleskova, M. (2009). Family and its role in adolescent’s health risk behaviour. In O.
Orosová, B. Gajdosova, M. Bacikova-Sleskova, F. Salonna, R. Sebena, Health-related
behaviour among adolescents and young adults. Košice: Equilibria.
Bačíková, M. (2019). Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní. Košice: Univerzita P. J.
Šafárika v Košiciach.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory. Vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Brown, S. L., & Rinelli, L. N. (2010). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent
smoking and drinking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 259-273.
Cleveland, M. J., Feinberg, M. E., Bontempo, D. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2008). The role of
risk and protective factors in substance use across adolescence. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 43(2), 157-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.01.015
De Los Reyes, A., Goodman, K. L., Kliewer, W., & Reid-Quinones, K. (2010). The
longitudinal consistency of mother–child reporting discrepancies of parental monitoring
and their ability to predict child delinquent behaviors two years later. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39(12), 1417-1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9496-7
den Exter Blokland, E. A., Hale III, W. W., Meeus, W., & Engels, R.C.M.E. (2007). Parental
support and control and early adolescent smoking: A longitudinal study. Substance Use &
Misuse, 42(14), 2223-2232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080701690664
den Exter Blokland, E.A., Hale III, W.W., Meeus, W. & Engels, R.C.M.E. (2006). Parental
anti-smoking socialization: Associations between parental anti-smoking socialization
practices and early adolescent smoking initiation. European Addiction Research, 12(1), 25-
32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000088580
Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and
adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021800432380
Engels, R. C. M. E., & Bot, S. M. (2006). Social influences on adolescent substance use:
Insights into how parents and peers affect adolescent's smoking and drinking behavior. In
D. T. D. de Ridder, & J. B. F. de Wit (eds.), Self-regulation in Health Behavior (pp 71-95).
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713150.ch4
Engels, R. C., Vitaro, F., den Exter Blokland, E., de Kemp, R., & Scholte, R. H. (2004).
Influence and selection processes in friendships and adolescent smoking behavior: The role
of parental smoking. Journal of Adolescence, 27(5), 531-544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.006
Fidler, J. A., West, R., Van Jaarsveld, C. H., Jarvis, M. J., & Wardle, J. (2008). Smoking
status of step‐parents as a risk factor for smoking in adolescence. Addiction, 103(3), 496-
501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02086.x
Furman, W. & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children's perceptions of the personal relationships in
their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1016-1022.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
34
Hiemstra, M., de Leeuw, R. N., Engels, R. C., & Otten, R. (2017). What parents can do to
keep their children from smoking: A systematic review on smoking-specific parenting
strategies and smoking onset. Addictive Behaviors, 70, 107-128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.02.003
Janssen, T., Larsen, H., Peeters, M., Pronk, T., Vollebergh, W. A., & Wiers, R. W. (2014).
Interactions between parental alcohol-specific rules and risk personalities in the prediction
of adolescent alcohol use. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 49(5), 579-585.
https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agu039
Kakihara, F., & Tilton‐Weaver, L. (2009). Adolescents’ interpretations of parental control:
Differentiated by domain and types of control. Child Development, 80(6), 1722-1738.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01364.x
Kandel, D. B., Griesler, P. C., & Hu, M. C. (2015). Intergenerational patterns of smoking and
nicotine dependence among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11),
e63-e72. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302775
Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J., VanderValk, I. E., & Meeus, W. (2010). Reciprocal effects between
parental solicitation, parental control, adolescent disclosure, and adolescent delinquency.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(1), 88-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2009.00631.x
Kong, G., Camenga, D., Cavallo, D., Connell, C. M., Pflieger, J. C., & Krishnan‐Sarin, S.
(2012). The role of ethnic pride and parental disapproval of smoking on smoking behaviors
among minority and White adolescents in a suburban high school. The American Journal
on Addictions, 21(5), 424-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1521-0391.2012.00266.x
Koning, I. M., Vollebergh, W. A., Smit, F., Verdurmen, J. E., Van Den Eijnden, R. J., Ter
Bogt, T. F., & Engels, R. C. (2009). Preventing heavy alcohol use in adolescents (PAS):
cluster randomized trial of a parent and student intervention offered separately and
simultaneously. Addiction, 104(10), 1669-1678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-
0443.2009.02677.x
Korelitz, K. E., & Garber, J. (2016). Congruence of parents’ and children’s perceptions of
parenting: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 1973-1995.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0524-0
Lam, C. B., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2014). Time with peers from middle childhood
to late adolescence: Developmental course and adjustment correlates. Child Development,
85(4), 1677-1693. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12235
Latendresse, S. J., Rose, R. J., Viken, R. J., Pulkkinen, L., Kaprio, J., & Dick, D. M. (2008).
Parenting mechanisms in links between parents’ and adolescents’ alcohol use behaviors.
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(2), 322-330.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00583.x
López-Pérez, B., & Wilson, E. L. (2015). Parent–child discrepancies in the assessment of
children’s and adolescents’ happiness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139,
249-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.006
Mak, K. K., Ho, S. Y., & Day, J. R. (2012). Smoking of parents and best friend—independent
and combined effects on adolescent smoking and intention to initiate and quit smoking.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 14(9), 1057-1064. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts008
Maurizi, L. K., Gershoff, E. T., & Aber, J. L. (2012). Item-level discordance in parent and
adolescent reports of parenting behavior and its implications for adolescents’ mental health
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
35
and relationships with their parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(8), 1035-1052.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9741-8
Mays, D., Gilman, S. E., Rende, R., Luta, G., Tercyak, K. P., & Niaura, R. S. (2014). Parental
smoking exposure and adolescent smoking trajectories. Pediatrics, 133(6), 983-991.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3003
Mrug, S., & McCay, R. (2013). Parental and peer disapproval of alcohol use and its
relationship to adolescent drinking: Age, gender, and racial differences. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 604-614. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031064
Nash, S. G., McQueen, A., & Bray, J. H. (2005). Pathways to adolescent alcohol use: Family
environment, peer influence, and parental expectations. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 37(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.06.004
Pomerantz, E. M., & Eaton, M. M. (2000). Developmental differences in children's
conceptions of parental control: "They love me, but they make me feel incompetent".
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(1), 140-167. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093346
Ryan, S. M., Jorm, A. F., & Lubman, D. I. (2010). Parenting factors associated with reduced
adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(9), 774-783.
https://doi.org10.1080/00048674.2010.501759
Sargent, J. D., & Dalton, M. (2001). Does parental disapproval of smoking prevent
adolescents from becoming established smokers? Pediatrics, 108(6), 1256-1262.
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.108.6.1256
Smetana, J. G. (2010). Adolescents, families, and social development: How teens construct
their worlds. John Wiley & Sons.
Smetana, J., Crean, H. F., & Campione‐Barr, N. (2005). Adolescents' and parents' changing
conceptions of parental authority. New directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
2005(108), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.126
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., & Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and adolescent
problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived
parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 305-318.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.305.
Spijkerman, R., van den Eijnden, R. J., & Huiberts, A. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in
alcohol-specific parenting practices and adolescents’ drinking patterns. European
Addiction Research, 14(1), 26-37. https://doi.org/10.1159/000110408
van der Vorst, H., Engels, R. C., Meeus, W., & Deković, M. (2006). The impact of alcohol‐
specific rules, parental norms about early drinking and parental alcohol use on adolescents’
drinking behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(12), 1299-1306.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01680.x
Van Petegem, S., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Brenning, K.,
Mabbe, E., Vanhalst, J. & Zimmermann, G. (2017). Does general parenting context modify
adolescents' appraisals and coping with a situation of parental regulation? The case of
autonomy-supportive parenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(9), 2623-2639.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0758-9
2019, roč. 13, č. 4
Výzkumné studie
36
Van Roy, B., Groholt, B., Heyerdahl, S., & Clench-Aas, J. (2010). Understanding
discrepancies in parent-child reporting of emotional and behavioural problems: Effects of
relational and socio-demographic factors. BMC Psychiatry, 10: 56.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-10-56
Wellman, R. J., Dugas, E. N., Dutczak, H., O’Loughlin, E. K., Datta, G. D., Lauzon, B., &
O’Loughlin, J. (2016). Predictors of the onset of cigarette smoking: a systematic review of
longitudinal population-based studies in youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
51(5), 767-778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.04.003
Wood, M. D., Read, J. P., Mitchell, R. E., & Brand, N. H. (2004). Do parents still matter?
Parent and peer influences on alcohol involvement among recent high school
graduates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-
164X.18.1.19
Yang, H., Stanton, B., Cottrel, L., Kaljee, L., Galbraith, J., Li, X., & Wu, Y. (2006). Parental
awareness of adolescent risk involvement: Implications of overestimates and
underestimates. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(3), 353-361.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.12.008
Údaje o autorkách
Mgr. Mária Bačíková, PhD. je odbornou asistentkou na Katedre pedagogickej psychológie
a psychológie zdravia Univerzity P.J.Šafárika v Košiciach. Výskumne sa zameriava na
rodinné procesy, rodičovskú kontrolu a ich vzťah k rôznym aspektom vývinu dospievajúcich.
Kontakt:
Adresa: Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia, FF UPJŠ, Moyzesova 9
040 01 Košice
Email: maria.bacikova@upjs.sk
PhDr. Anna Janovská, PhD. je odbornou asistentkou na Katedre pedagogickej psychológie
a psychológie zdravia Univerzity P.J.Šafárika v Košiciach. Venuje sa problematike rizikového
a problémového správania dospievajúcich.
Prof. PhDr. Oľga Orosová, CSc. je profesorkou na Katedre pedagogickej psychológie
a psychológie zdravia Univerzity P.J.Šafárika v Košiciach. Výskumne sa venuje problematike
prevencie rizikového správania a implementácii programov prevencie v školských
podmienkach.
________________
Bačíková, M., Janovská, A., & Orosová, O. (2019). Rodičia v prevencii rizikového správania sa
dospievajúcich. E-psychologie, 13(4), 23-36. https://doi.org./10.29364/epsy.357
28
Study 7
Bačíková, M., Čarná, L. (2011). Rodinné procesy z pohľadu adolescenta a rodiča. In:
Sociální procesy a osobnost 2011. Člověk na cestě životem: Křižovatky a mosty: Kroměříž
14.-16.9.2011: sborník příspěvků. - Brno: Psychologický ústav Filozofické fakulty
Masarykovy univerzity, Tribun EU, 2011. s. 13-16.
Many previous studies show only small agreement between parental and adolescent perceptions
of family processes (Korelitz, & Garber, 2016; McElhaney et al., 2008; Maurizi, Gershoff, &
Aber, 2012; Pelton, & Forehand, 2001,). In this short study we explored, how several family
processes are perceived by parents and their adolescent children in two dyads: mother-daughter
and father-son. A sample comprised of 60 parent-adolescent dyads (adolescent mean age 16.9
years). Six family processes were studied: closeness, communication, parental support,
monitoring, peer approval and conflicts.
Unlike in previous studies, we have found only several significant differences in
parental and adolescent views. For both parent-adolescent dyads, statistically significant
discrepancies were found only in monitoring – parents perceived their monitoring as more
intensive than adolescents did. In mother-daughter dyad disagreements were identified in
conflicts (daughters reported more conflicts) and in peer approval (mothers reported to approve
daughter’s peers more than did daughters).
Overall, discrepancies were found only in processes that are generally perceived as
problematic during adolescence - primarily in mother-daughter dyad. Those processes that
represent emotional climate and harmony in the relationship (i.e. closeness, parental support,
communication) were perceived similarly by parent and adolescent. These results are in line
with the results reported in study 1 and support current trend to see adolescence as a period that
in normal situation is not a time of worsening of parent-adolescent relationship, but its
transformation to more egalitarian form.
29
For the future research it is important to note, that usually not the way how family
processes are perceived by parents but adolescent perceptions are more relevant in explaining
adolescent outcomes (Abar et al., 2015; Laird, Weems, 2011).
Author´s contribution: 90%
Sociální procesy a osobnost
Člověk na cestě životem: Křižovatky a mosty
Kroměříž 14. – 16. 9. 2011
Sborník příspěvků
Conference Proceedings
Kateřina Bartošová – Michal Čerňák – Pavel Humpolíček
Markéta Kukaňová – Alena Slezáčková
(Eds.)
Tribun EU
Brno 2011
Sborník příspěvků 14. ročníku konference na téma Sociální procesy
a osobnost: Člověk na cestě životem: Křižovatky a mosty.
Pořádající instituce:
Psychologický ústav Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity, Psychologický ústav Akademie věd ČR, Ústav
experimentálnej psychológie SAV v Bratislavě, Spoločenskovedný ústav SAV v Košicích
Vědecký výbor:
Mojmír Svoboda, Pavel Humpolíček, Alena Slezáčková
Organizační výbor:
Iva Burešová, Pavel Humpolíček, Alena Slezáčková
Realizační tým:
Kateřina Bartošová, Michal Čerňák, Markéta Kukaňová
Grafika:
Dalibor Kučera
Editoři:
Kateřina Bartošová, Michal Čerňák, Pavel Humpolíček, Markéta Kukaňová, Alena Slezáčková
Publikace neprošla jazykovou korekturou.
© Psychologický ústav Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity, 2011
This edition © Tribun EU, 2011
ISBN 978-80-263-0029-8
Editorial
Rád bych pozdravil všechny účastníky konference i čtenáře tohoto sborníku.
Před čtrnácti lety se sešlo v malé posluchárně Psychologického ústavu Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy
univerzity kolem 25 psychologů, majících pocit, že v našem prostoru chybí platforma pro setkávání těch, kteří
se zajímají o základní výzkum. Tehdy se v České republice konala řada konferencí, věnovaných nejrůznějším
oblastem aplikované psychologie, pracovníci ústavů Akademie věd a univerzitních pracovišť však neměli své
fórum.
Úspěch setkání vedl nejprve k nezávaznému opakování příští rok na stejném místě, postupně se do
pořádání zapojili kolegové ze Slovenska. Tak můžeme být svědky současné, dnes již čtrnácté mezinárodní
konference, pořádané pod názvem Sociální procesy a osobnost. Konference se koná střídavě v České
republice (přesněji řečeno na Moravě) a na Slovensku. V organizaci se střídají rotačním způsobem čtyři
pracoviště, a to Psychologický ústav FF MU v Brně (jako zakladatele jej uvádím nejprve), Ústav
společenského vedomia v Košicích, Ústav experimentálnej psychológie SAV v Bratislavě a Psychologický
ústav Akademie věd v Brně.
Jak bývá v našich zemích obvyklé, plné texty příspěvků odevzdávali autoři až několik týdnů po
ukončení konference a Sborník byl k dispozici většinou na konferenci další, konané v následujícím roce.
Tentokrát jsme se rozhodli přikročit k zásadní změně: texty jsme požadovali od autorů již předem s tím, že
kompletní sborník bude k dispozici při zahájení konference. Protože tento editorial píši v předstihu, teprve
letošní září ukáže, zda jsme byli ukáznění a dochvilní.
Konference je rozložena do tří dnů s tím, že první den proběhne plenární zasedání na kterém zazní
vyžádané přednášky představitelů čtyř pořádajících ústavů a některých hostů, v jeho druhé části se koná
symposium na téma Osobnost, motivace a cíle.
Druhý den probíhají sekce Metodologie (testování a diagnostika) a Sociální psychologie a paralelně
další sekce Psychologie práce a Školní psychologie. Třetí den je věnován jednak sekcím Psychologie zdraví a
coping a rovněž sekci Klinická psychologie. Paralelně probíhá sekce Vývojová psychologie a Varia.
Mimo orální prezentace je bohatě obsazena posterová sekce, v níž zejména mladí kolegové z řad
doktorandů z celé bývalé federace představují výsledky svých bádání.
Obvykle bývá editorial zakončen hodnocením proběhlé akce, vzhledem k „obrácenému gardu“ mohu
uzavřít svoji poznámku přáním zdaru celé konference, přáním všeho dobrého pro všechny účastníky a přáním
úspěchů další konference, pořádané na Slovensku.
Mojmír Svoboda
vedoucí Psychologického ústavu FF MU v Brně
Obsah
Peter Babinčák
Prosocial Tendencies Measure–Revised (PTM-R) - prvá skúsenosť s krátkou metodikou na meranie prosociálneho
správania.......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Mária Bačíková, Lucia Čarná
Rodinné procesy z pohľadu adolescenta a rodiča. ......................................................................................................... 13
Viera Bačová
Hľadanie štandartov usudzovania a rozhodvania ........................................................................................................... 17
František Baumgartner, Eva Karaffová
Porovnanie dvoch nástrojov merania emočnej inteligencie ako črty ............................................................................... 21
Jozef Benka, Oľga Orosová
Životná perspektíva z pohľadu Seba-determinačnej teórie ............................................................................................. 26
Zuzana Birknerová, Miroslav Frankovský
Možnosti zisťovania sociálnej inteligencie ako výkonovej komponenty........................................................................... 30
Marek Blatný, Tomáš Kepák, Veronika Sobotková, Martin Jelínek, Alena Slezáčková, Kateřina Bartošová, Kristína
Tóthová
Vliv závažnosti pozdních následků protinádorové terapie na subjektivní kvalitu života dětských onkologických pacientů35
Michaela Borovanská, Markéta Jankovská
Užívání neutralizačních technik u nekriminální populace v souvislosti s postojem ke konvenčním normám a
sebekonceptem.............................................................................................................................................................. 39
Šárka Březinová, Čeněk Šašinka
Interindividuální rozdíly ve způsobu sebelokalizace v neznámém prostředí: terénní výzkum.......................................... 46
Iva Burešová, Veronika Hrubá
„Vždyť to dělaj všichni“…jen my o tom nevíme: Výskyt sebepoškozujícího jednání mezi dětmi staršího školního věku.
Předběžné výsledky pilotní studie. ................................................................................................................................. 52
Daniela Čechová
Štýl rodičovstva a reziliencia adolescentov..................................................................................................................... 60
Jaroslava Dosedlová, Helena Klimusová, Zuzana Slováčková, Vladimír Kebza
Optimismus a chování vztahující se ke zdraví ................................................................................................................ 65
Denisa Fedáková
Negatívne aspekty prelínania prostredia práce a rodiny. Čo sa meria a ako?................................................................. 70
Lucia Gálová, Tomáš Sollár
Miera (ne)zdieľania sociálnej klímy triedy žiakmi ............................................................................................................ 73
Marta Gašparíková
Možnosti mapovania self-conceptu vo vzťahu k osobnostným charakteristikám u vysokoškolských študentov (pilotná
sonda)............................................................................................................................................................................ 79
Ilona Gillernová
Možnosti a efekty podpory emocionálního a sociálního vývoje dětí předškolního věku .................................................. 84
Jana Marie Havigerová
Otázky a otazníky........................................................................................................................................................... 89
Bibiána Kováčová Holevová
Vplyv hrania vs. sledovania násilnej videohry na agresiu a inhibíciu agresie.................................................................. 95
Martina Hřebíčková, Eva Cholastová
Regionální stereotypy: posuzování osobnostních charakteristik typického Čecha, Moravana a Slezana...................... 104
Markéta Jankovská, Mojmír Tyrlík, Čeněk Šašinka, Katarina Millová, Pavel Tůma
Atribuční charakteristiky ve vztahu ke zvládání stresu a sebehodnocení (poster)......................................................... 109
13
Rodinné procesy z pohľadu adolescenta a rodiča.
Adolescents' and parents' perceptions of family processes
Mária Bačíková, Lucia Čarná
Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia, FF, UPJŠ v Košiciach
maria.bacikova@upjs.sk
Práca bola podporená Agentúrov na podporu výskumu a vývoja číslo APVV-20-038205.
Abstrakt:
Väčšina výskumov zameraných na vzťah adolescent - rodič sledovala tieto vzťahy z pohľadu adolescenta (napr. frekventovane používaná
metodika ADOR – Adolescent o rodičoch). Mnohé zahraničné štúdie však ukazujú, že pohľad dieťaťa sa môže od pohľadu rodiča líšiť. Cieľom
nášho príspevku je priniesť informácie o vnímaní rodinných procesov rodičmi a ich deťmi a ich prípadných rozdieloch na Slovensku. Intenzitu
alebo kvalitu šiestich rodinných procesov (blízkosť, komunikácia, opora, monitoring, konflikt, odsúhlasenie priateľov) hodnotili stredoškoláci (N=60,
priemerný vek 16,9) a ich rodičia rovnakého pohlavia (N=60) pomocou dotazníka The Adolescent Family Process Measure (Vazsonyi a kol., 2003).
V súlade s našimi očakávaniami sme zistili rozdiely vo vnímaní niektorých rodinných procesov medzi adolescentmi a ich rodičmi. Dievčatá uvádzali
signifikantne viac konfliktov s matkou ako ich matky. Naopak, adolescenti uvádzali menšiu mieru monitoringu a odsúhlasovania priateľov ako ich
rodičia.
Klíčová slova:
rodinné procesy, vzťah adolescent-rodič
Abstract:
The majority of researches studying parent-adolescent relationships were oriented on adolescents’ views of the situation (e.g. very
frequently used questionnaire ADOR – based on CRPBI questionnaire). However, many studies showed different perception of the relationships
from parental and adolescents’ points of view. The aim of this presentation is to describe the perception of several family processes by parents and
their adolescent children in Slovakia. The intensity or quality of six family processes (namely closeness, communication, support, monitoring,
conflict, peer approval) assessed secondary school students (N = 60, mean age 16.9) and their parents of the same sex (N=60). We used The
Adolescent Family Process Measure (Vazsonyi a kol., 2003). In line with our expectations we found differences in the perception of some of the
processes between adolescents and their parents. Girls reported significantly more conflicts with their mothers than their mothers did. On the other
side, adolescents reported less monitoring and peer approval than their parents did.
Keywords:
monitoring, family processes, parent-adolescent relationship, monitoring
Úvod
Napriek vzrastajúcemu záujmu adolescenta o rovesnícke skupiny, rodina nepochybne stále patrí medzi základné
socializačné jednotky človeka v tomto období. Vzťah rodičov a ich detí v období adolescencie je laickou verejnosťou
vnímaný zväčša ako problémový, plný hádok a konfliktov. Výskumy v poslednom desaťročí však ukazujú, že vzťah plný
konfliktov je skôr prejavom patológie ako normy (Steinberg, 2001). J. Smetanová (2011) považuje adolescenciu za
obdobie zmeny vzťahov rodič – dieťa, ktoré však nemusí byť nevyhnutne problémovým. V harmonickom rodinnom
prostredí môže byť konflikt pozitívnou súčasťou procesu individuácie, zatiaľ čo v problémových rodinách môže konflikt
prispievať k ešte vážnejším problémom (Steinberg, Silk, 2002).
Ako hovorí Judith Smetanová, k najskúmanejším témam obdobia adolescencie stále patrí povaha a kvalita
vzťahov adolescentov s rodičmi (Smetana, 2006). Nie je prekvapujúce, že rodičia a ich deti majú na vzájomné vzťahy
rozdielnepohľady.Napriektomu,väčšinavýskumov k tejto problematike bolo realizovaných z pohľadu adolescenta.
Rozdielom vo vnímaní rôznych rodinných procesov a vzťahov medzi rodičmi a ich deťmi sa venovalo niekoľko
zaujímavých štúdií. Vo všeobecnosti môžeme povedať, že zhoda medzi pohľadom zo strany rodiča a zo strany dieťaťa
je relatívne nízka (Jessop, 1981; Krohn et al. 1992; Mc Elhaney et al., 2008).
Veľmi zaujímavý a rozsiahly výskum realizovali Pelton a Forehand (2001; Pelton et al., 2001). V rámci štúdie
realizovanej medzi 11 až 15 ročnými adolescentmi a ich matkami, v ktorej sledovali kvalitu ich vzájomného vzťahu, zistili
len miernu koreláciu medzi informáciami uvádzanými adolescentmi a tými, ktoré uvádzali ich matky. Ešte menšia bola
táto korelácia v prípade rozvedených rodín v porovnaní s úplnými rodinami. Autori toto zistenie vysvetľujú tendenciou
rodičov a ich adolescentných detí vnímať ich vzájomný vzťah rozdielne najmä v stresujúcich situáciách (akou rozvod
nepochybne je). Môže to byť spôsobené napríklad zníženou schopnosťou ako matiek tak i adolescentov byť v
stresujúcich situáciách k vzájomnému vzťahu vnímavý. K veľmi podobných výsledkom dospeli ešte o pár rokov skôr
Tein a kolektív (1994). V ich výskume, v rodinách s menším počtom rizikových faktorov boli informácie od matiek a ich
detí omnoho podobnejšie ako to bolo v prípade rizikových rodín. Autori tvrdia, že deti vyrastajúce vo vysoko rizikových
rodinách môžu správanie rodičov vnímať skreslene. Možné takisto je, že so vzrastajúcim počtom rodinných stresorov, sa
rodičia a adolescenti stávajú menej pozornými k ich vzťahu a zároveň sú si menej vedomí spôsobu akým spolu
interagujú.
Použitím projektívnej metodiky Family System Test (klinicky používaná metodika sledujúca rodinnú kohéziu a
hierarchiu, v ktorej klient umiestňuje na plochu figúrky reprezentujúce členov rodiny)zistil Gehring a kolektív (1994), že
deti (neklinický súbor) vnímajú svoju rodinu ako menej harmonickú v porovnaní s ich matkami a otcami. Pohľad otcov na
rodinnú situáciu bol najoptimistickejší. Podľa autorov bola dôvodom zriedkavejšia angažovanosť otcov v každodenných
malých konfliktov a preto i idealistickejší pohľad na rodinu než mali ich manželky a deti (Gehring a kol., 1994). Podobne i
v práci Paulsona a Sputa (1996) adolescenti vnímali matku i otca ako menej angažovaných vo výchove (napr. školské
výsledky) i menej vyžadujúcich si v porovnaní s tým ako sa vnímali samotní rodičia.
Ešte menší súhlas medzi informáciami získavanými od rodičov a ich adolescentných detí bol zistený v 270
rodinách v USA v súvislosti s rodičovským monitoringom (Cottrell a kol., 2003). Autori nezistili žiadny vzťah medzi
14
odpoveďami rodičov a adolescentov. Okolo 75% rodičov uvádzalo, že vždy vedia kde sa ich deti nachádzajú po škole, v
noci a podobne, zatiaľ čo to isté tvrdilo len okolo 58% adolescentov.
Kuriózny nesúlad medzi rodičmi a deťmi uvádza Helen Sweeting (2001). V autorkinom výskume 6% párov
adolescent-rodič uviedlo rozdielny počet osôb žijúcich v jednej domácnosti. Sweeting to vysvetľuje prítomnosťou nejakej
osoby, ktorú adolescent vníma ako člena domácnosti zatiaľ čo rodič ho opomenul.
Seiffge-Krenke (1999) sledovala súvis veku dieťaťa s týmto nerovnakým pohľadom na rodinnú situáciu. Výsledky
jej longitudinálneho výskumu poukazujú na klesajúci nesúlad vo vnímaní rodinnej kohézie, opory a expresivite s
rastúcim vekom adolescenta (od 14 do 18 rokov).
V našich podmienkach sme sa s podobným výskumom stretli len v rámci diplomovej práce P. Ikhardta (2005).
Autor použil dotazníky Škála rodinného prostredia autorov Hargašovej a Kollárika (1986) a ADOR (Matějček, Říčan,
1983). Zaujímavým bolo zistenie, že pohľady adolescentov a rodičov sa líšia len v dimenzii orientácia na vzťahy, zatiaľ
čo v dimenziách osobnostný rast a udržiavanie rodinného systému neboli zistené signifikantné rozdiely. Adolescentom
sa, podľa autora, javia vzťahy medzi členmi rodiny menej súdržné, menej expresívne a konfliktnejšie. Pri použití
dotazníka ADOR sa významné rozdiely prejavili len v dimenzii direktivity, kde sa otcovia ako i matky vnímali ako
direktívnejší v porovnaní s pohľadom adolescentov.
V našom príspevku budeme sledovať rozdiely vo vnímaní šiestich rodinných procesov (blízkosť, komunikácia,
opora, konflikt, monitoring a súhlas s priateľmi) tak ako ich definovali Vazsonyi a kol. (2003).
Výskumný súbor
Výskum bol realizovaný vo februári 2010. Výskumný súbor tvorilo 120 respondentov. Polovicu respondentov
tvorili dievčatá (N=30) a ich matky, druhú polovicu chlapci (N=30) a ich otcovia. Zber údajov od adolescentov prebiehal
na vyučovacej hodine, rodičia vypĺňali dotazníky doma. Vek študentov sa pohyboval v rozpätí od 15 do 19 rokov
(priemer 16,8; SD 0,9), vek rodičov bol od 29 do 60 rokov (priemer 44,3; SD 5,1). Počet členov domácnosti sa
pohyboval od 3 do 11 (modus 4 členovia), 42,5 % rodičov malo ukončené stredoškolské vzdelanie s maturitou a 22%
vysokoškolské vzdelanie.
Metodika
Dotazník Rodinných Procesov
Napriek tomu, že na slovenskú populáciu je adaptovaných niekoľko dotazníkov zameraných na adolescentov a
ich rodičov, pre účely nášho výskumu sme si zvolili zahraničný dotazník The Adolescent Family Process measure (AFP,
Dotazník Rodinných procesov adolescenta). Táto metodika bola zvolená pre svoj krátky rozsah ale zároveň bohatý
obsah – sleduje 6 rôznych dimenzií rodinných procesov.
Metodika AFP, zložená zo šiestich subškál, bola vytvorená Vazsonyim a kol. (2003) . Autori vyvinuli metodiku na
základe predchádzajúcich výskumov Steinberga a Silka (2002), ktorí vo svojej práci identifikovali tri rozdielne oblasti
rodičovstva: harmónia (teda emocionálny vzťah medzi rodičmi a adolescentami), autonómia (aktivity, ktoré povzbudzujú
rovnováhu medzi rastom a nezávislosťou a súčastne určujú mladým hranice) a konfliktovosť (bežná tenzia medzi
rodičmi a adolescentmi). Dotazník Rodinných procesov obsahuje teda šesť subškál (dimenzií), ktoré reflektujú
spomínané oblasti: blízkosť, komunikácia (oblasť harmónie), opora, monitoring a súhlas s priateľmi (oblasť autonómie) a
konflikt (oblasť konfliktov).
Dotazník obsahuje 25 položiek (napr. Je na mňa pyšný, keď skončím niečo, na čom som tvrdo pracoval. Ako
často sa spolu rozprávate o tvojich pracovných a študijných plánoch v budúcnosti?). Respondenti odpovedali na otázky
pomocou 5 bodovej Likertovej škály. Na prvé tri subškály boli možnosti odpovedí od 1- vôbec nesúhlasím po 5 – úplne
súhlasím, na ďalšie tri odpovede od 1- nikdy po 5 – veľmi často. V piatich subškálach vyššie skóre indikuje lepší rodinný
proces, v prípade konfliktovosti vyššie skóre znamená viac konfliktov.
Súbor otázok zadaný dievčatám sa týkal matky, súbor otázok pre chlapcov otca. Dotazník pre rodičov bol mierne
upravený tak, aby otázky v ňom vyjadrovali postoj, prípadne reakciu rodiča k dieťaťu rovnakého pohlavia.
Analýzy
Údaje boli spracované pomocou štatistického programu SPSS 16.0. Rozdiely v odpovediach medzi adolescentmi
a ich rodičmi sme analyzovali pomocou párového t-testu osobitne pre dyády matka – dcéra a otec – syn.
15
Výsledky
Priemerné skóre jednotlivých rodinných procesov pre matky, dcéry, otcov a synov ako i rozdiely medzi nimi sú
uvedené v Tabuľke 1. Zo šiestich sledovaných procesov sme zistili signifikantné rozdiely medzi adolescentmi a ich
rodičmi rovnakého pohlavia v troch procesoch: monitoring, konflikt a súhlas s priateľmi. Matky i otcovia sa domnievali, že
monitorujú správanie svojich detí viac ako to hodnotili ich dcéry a synovia (p<0,05 pre dyádu dcéra – matka, p<0,01 pre
dyádu syn – otec). V ďalších dvoch procesoch sme štatisticky významné rozdiely zistili len pre dyádu dcéra – matka.
Dcéry udávali častejšiu prítomnosť konfliktov ako ich matky, zároveň sa domnievali, že matky menej často schvaľujú ich
priateľov ako to tvrdili matky.
Tab. 1: Rodinné procesy z pohľadu adolescenta a rodiča.
Rodinný proces (min-max) priemer SD t-test p
Blízkosť (6-30) dcéra 24,1 3,4
matka 24,0 2,4 0,15 ,884
syn 22,1 3,5
otec 23,0 2,8 -1,79 ,085
Opora (4-20) dcéra 14,6 3,2
matka 14,2 3,1 0,77 ,463
syn 13,7 3,5
otec 13,0 2,7 1,00 ,324
Monitoring (4-20) dcéra 15,1 2,4
matka 16,0 1,3 -2,21 ,035
syn 13,6 3,0
otec 15,0 2,4 -3,19 ,003
Komunikácia (5-25) dcéra 17,6 3,8
matka 17,2 2,0 0,60 ,551
syn 14,7 3,4
otec 15,7 2,6 -1,79 ,084
Konflikt (3-15) dcéra 10,7 2,1
matka 9,4 1,5 3,47 ,002
syn 10,7 2,6
otec 10,2 1,9 1,07 ,293
Súhlas (3-15) dcéra 9,4 2,6
matka 10,4 1,7 -2,75 ,010
syn 9,4 2,4
otec 9,9 2,0 -1,28 ,211
Diskusia
V súlade s našimi očakávaniami, adolescenti a rodičia sa nezhodnú v pohľade na všetky sledované rodinné
procesy. Rozdiely sme zaznamenali v oblasti monitoringu, schvaľovania priateľov a vo frekvencii konfliktov.
Tak chlapci ako i dievčatá si myslia, že rodičia monitorujú ich aktivity do menšej miery ako to vidia ich rodičia.
V posledných rokoch sa v odbornej verejnosti objavila diskusia o tom, čo vlastne monitoring znamená. Dlhú dobu bol
monitoring chápaný ako „Súbor aktivít rodiča, ktoré zahŕňajú pozornosť (záujem) a sledovanie miesta pobytu a aktivít
dieťaťa.“ (Dishion a McMahon, 1998, str. 61). Švédski autori Kerr a Stattin (2000) však tvrdia, že rodičovský monitoring,
tak ako bol doteraz skúmaný, zahŕňa dva aspekty. Prvým je aktivita rodiča – do akej miery rodič od adolescenta žiada
(parental solicitation) informácie o tom kde, ako a s kým trávi čas. Druhým aspektom je však aktivita adolescenta – do
akej miery on rodičom o svojich aktivitách rozpráva (child disclosure). V ďalšej štúdii spomínaných autorov (Stattin, Kerr,
2000) bola práve aktivita adolescenta najsilnejším prediktorom rodičovského monitoringu (tak ako bol vo všeobecnosti
chápaný). Ak by sme vnímali monitoring ako aktivitu adolescenta, naše výsledky by neboli ničím prekvapivým – rodičia
by sa domnievali, že vedia o aktivitách adolescenta viac ako im adolescent v skutočnosti povie. V nami použitom
dotazníku sa však 3 z piatich položiek jednoznačne sústreďujú na aktivitu rodiča (chce vedieť kde...), dve položky sa
pýtajú na to, či rodič vie (toto vedenie môže byť z časti vďaka aktivite adolescenta, z časti aktivite rodiča). Preto je naše
zistenie do istej miery prekvapujúce. Majú rodičia pocit, že sa zaujímajú o aktivity svojho dieťaťa viac ako to vidia ich
deti? Nechcú ich príliš obmedzovať, sledovať, vypytovať sa ich?
Téme konfliktov medzi adolescentmi a ich rodičmi bola venovaná značná pozornosť. V našom výskume matky
udávali menej časté konflikty so svojimi dcérami ako uvádzali ich dcéry. Rozdiely medzi otcami a synmi sme
nezaznamenali. Vo všeobecnosti sú konflikty medzi matkou a adolescentom (obzvlášť matkou a dcérou) intenzívnejšie
16
a častejšie ako medzi otcom a adolescentom (Fang a kol., 2003; Steinberg, Silk, 2002). Naše výsledky ukazujú, že
dievčatá ich vnímajú ešte frekventovanejšie ako matky.
Dôvodom pre istý nesúlad vo vnímaní rodinných procesov môže byť fakt, že hoci rodičia i ich deti hovoria o
rovnakom vzťahu (situácii a podobne), v skutočnosti na nich pôsobí rozdielne sociálne prostredie, zažívajú rôzne
stresory a zároveň sa líšia ich očakávania (Pelton & Forehand, 2001).
Optimistickým zistením iste je, že nesúlad medzi rodičmi a deťmi sa ukázal len v procesoch, ktoré môžeme
považovať za typicky konfliktné v období adolescencie – a to kontrola rodičov, čo ich dieťa robí vo svojom voľnom čase
a mimo domova, akceptovanie alebo neakceptovanie ich priateľov a partnerov a frekvencia bežných hádok a konfliktov.
V procesoch, ktoré reprezentujú skôr mieru harmónie vo vzťahu adolescent – rodič (blízkosť, opora zo strany rodiča a
frekvencia komunikácie), sme zistili zhodu. Tieto výsledky podporujú už v úvode spomínaný postoj J. Smetanovej
(2011), že adolescencia za normálnych okolností nie je obdobím narušenia vzťahu dieťa – rodič.
Ako už bolo spomenuté, väčšina výskumov sledujúcich problematiku vzťahu adolescentov s rodičmi je
realizovaná z pohľadu adolescenta. Vzhľadom na rozdiely, ktoré boli v tejto oblasti zistené, sa objavuje otázka: Čia
„realita“ viac súvisí s rôznymi oblasťami života adolescenta? Čie informácie o rodinnej situácii sú teda pre výskum
vhodnejšie? Peltonová a Forehand (2001) sledovali rozdiely vo frekvencii konfliktov medzi matkami a adolescentnými
deťmi a ich vplyv na depresívne symptómy a problémové správanie adolescentov. Zistili, že to ako vnímajú konflikty
matky nemá žiadny vplyv na depresívne symptómy a problémové správanie adolescentov, zatiaľ čo vnímanie konfliktov
adolescentmi tento vplyv má. Aj Vazsonyi a kolektív (2003) považujú sebahodnotenie adolescentov za zmysluplný
príspevok k porozumeniu rodinnej situácii.
Literatura:
Cottrell, L., Li, X., Harris, C., D'Alessandri, D., Atkins, M., Richardson, B., & Stanton, B. (2003). Parent and adolescent perceptions of
parental monitoring and adolescent risk involvement. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3 (3), 179 - 195.
Dishion, T.J., & McMahon, R.J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual
and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61 - 75.
Fang, X., Zhang, J., & Liu, Z. (2003). Parent-adolescent conflict. Psychological Development and Education, 2003 – 03.
Gehring, T.M., Marti, D., & Sidler, A. (1994). Family system test (FAST): Are parents' and children's family constructs either different or
similar, or both?. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 25 (2), 125 - 138.
Hargašová, M., & Kollárik, T. (1986). Škála rodinného prostredia: Príručka. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a didaktické testy, n.p.
Ikhardt, P. (2005). Súčasné predstavy o rodine adolescentov a ich rodičov. (Diplomová práca). Univerzita Komenského. Pedagogická
fakulta, Katedra psychológie a patopsychológie.
Jessop, D.J. (1981). Family relationships as viewed by parents and adolescents: A specification. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43,
95 – 107.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a
reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36 (3), 366 – 380.
Krohn, M.D., Stern, S.B., Thornberry, T.P., & Jang, S.J. (1992). The measurement of family process variables: The effect of adolescent
and parent perceptions of family life on delinquent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 287 - 315.
Matějček, Z., & Říčan, P. (1983). ADOR: Dotazník rodičovského jednání a postojú pro adolescenty. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a
didaktické testy, n.p.
McElhaney, K.B., Porter, M.R., Wrenn Thompson, L., & Allen, J.P. (2008). Apples and Oranges: Divergent Meanings of Parents' and
Adolescents' Perceptions of Parental Influence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28 (2), 206 – 229.
Paulson, S.E., & Sputa, Ch.L. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence: Perceptions of adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31
(122), 369 – 381.
Pelton, J., & Forehand, R. (2001). Discrepancy between mother and child perceptions of their relationship: I. Consequences for
adolescents considered within the context of parental divorce. Journal of Family Violence, 16 (1), 1 - 16.
Pelton, J., Steele, R.G., Chance M.W., Forehand, R., & The Family Health Project Research Group. (2001). Discrepancy between mother
and child perceptions of their relationship: II. Consequences for children considered within the context of maternal physical illness. Journal
of Family Violence, 16 (1), 17 – 35.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1999). Families with Daughters, Families with Sons: Different Challenges for Family Relationships and Marital
Satisfaction? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(3), 325 – 342.
Smetana, J.G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review
of Psychology, 57, 255 - 284.
Smetana, J.G. (2011). Adolescents, Families and Social Development: How Teens Construct Their Worlds. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford press.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072 – 1086.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know som things: Parent-adolescent relations in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
11, 1-19.
Steinberg, L., & Silk, J.S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M.H.Bornstein (Ed.). Handbook of parenting (Vol.1, pp.103 - 133) Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Sweeting, H. (2001). Our family, whose perspective? And investigation of children's family life and health. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 229
– 250.
Tein, J.Y., Roosa, M.W., & Michaels, M. (1994). Agreement between parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 56, 341 - 355.
Vazsonyi, A.T., Hibbert, J.R., & Snider, B. (2003). Exotic enterprise no more? Adolescent reports of family and parenting processes from
youth in four countries. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13 (2), 129 – 160.
30
Study 8
Bacikova-Sleskova, M., Benka, J., Orosova, O. (2019). Parental behavioural control and
knowledge in early adolescence. A person-oriented approach. Current Psychology.
Advanced online publication.
In recent years, research shows that parenting practices tend to naturally co-occur. In order to
identify such parenting styles, a person oriented approach is often used in parenting research
(Lippold et al., 2014; Soenens, & Vansteenkiste, 2010; Yan, & Ansari, 2016). A personoriented
approach can bring a new insight into the process of parenting and its association with
various outcomes in adolescence.
In the present study we focused on two aspects of parenting: parental behavioural
control and parental knowledge. These aspects tend to be correlated (behavioural control is one
of the sources of parental knowledge, e.g. Stattin, & Kerr, 2000). However, this is not
necessarily true for all adolescents what the person-oriented approach might help to reveal.
When parental control is intensive, some adolescents may feel over-controlled (Kakihara, &
Tilton-Weaver 2009; Kakihara et al., 2010) and as a result may become more secretive about
their whereabouts and activities and decrease parental knowledge. Yet, other adolescents may
keep their parents informed about their whereabouts even without any active parental
behavioural control (Stattin, & Kerr, 2000). Thus, in this study we have used the person oriented
approach to identify subgroups of adolescents based on the different levels of perceived parental
behaviour control and perceived parental knowledge. Further, previous research has linked
these aspects of parenting primarily with externalizing behaviour (Branstetter, & Furman 2013;
Kiesner et al., 2010; Kapetanovic et al., 2017). Few studies, however, have paid attention to its
association with the positive aspects of adolescents’ development. Therefore, in this study we
focused on self-esteem and self-efficacy as important aspects of adolescents’ positive
development.
31
This study aimed to answer three main research questions. (1) What combinations of
perceived parental behavioural control and knowledge do early adolescents demonstrate? (2)
Are certain combinations associated with adolescents’ gender and other characteristics of the
parent-adolescent relationship that illustrate the overall emotional climate? (3) Can these
combinations of perceived parental control and knowledge predict the level of adolescents’ selfesteem
and self-efficacy one year later?
Data were collected using questionnaires within two waves. The study sample
comprised of 845 early adolescents (43% males; baseline mean age 11.52). Cluster analyses
identified three subgroups based on adolescents’ perceived parental behavioural control and
knowledge: controlling parents (high levels of both parental control and knowledge; 31.5% of
the sample), not controlling parents (below average level of control but above average level of
knowledge, 54.3%), and uninvolved parents (low levels of both control and knowledge, 12.8%).
Those with controlling parents reported the most positive parent-adolescent relationship.
Secondly, cluster membership was associated with positive self-esteem and self-efficacy in the
follow-up when controlling for levels at the baseline in the sense that adolescents with
uninvolved parents reported lower levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy than adolescents from
the other clusters.
Results of this study also suggest, that although parental behavioural control may be
interpreted as intrusive for adolescents’ need of autonomy and thus decrease their self-esteem
and self-efficacy (as reported in previous studies), when it is introduced together with high
parental knowledge, it may bring positive outcomes.
Author´s contribution: 70%
Parental behavioural control and knowledge in early adolescence.
A person-oriented approach
Maria Bacikova-Sleskova1
& Jozef Benka1
& Olga Orosova1
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
The main aim of this study is to identify subgroups of adolescents according to levels of their parental knowledge and behavioural
control and how belonging to a particular subgroup is associated with some aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship, as well as selfesteem
and self-efficacy one year later. Data were collected using questionnaires within two waves. Stratified random sampling was
used to include schools from all regions and city sizes. The study sample comprised of 845 early adolescents (43% males; baseline
mean age 11.52). Cluster analyses idenified three subgroups based on adolescents’ information on parental behavioural control and
knowledge: controling parents (high levels of both parental control and knowledge; 31.5% of the sample), not controlling parents
(below average level of control but above average level of knowledge, 54.3%), and uninvolved parents (low levels of both control and
knowledge, 12.8%). Those with controlling parents reported the most positive parent-adolescent relationship. Secondly, cluster
membership was associated with positive self-esteem and self-efficacy in the follow-up when controlling for levels at the baseline in
the sense that adolescents with uninvolved parents reported lower levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy than adolescents from the other
clusters. The results show that parental control can play an important positive role in the development of the self of early adolescents
when accompanied by perceived parental knowledge.
Keywords Adolescence . Parental behavioural control . Parental knowledge . Self-esteem . Self-efficacy
Introduction
Early adolescence is characterised by a decrease in the
quality of some family processes (De Goede et al. 2009)
although parenting still remains an important determinant
of healthy adolescent development. In the present study,
we will focus on the role of some aspects of parenting in
early adolescents´ self-esteem and self-efficacy. In particular,
by adapting the person-oriented approach we will
focus on parental behavioural control and parental knowledge
and study their relationship with adolescents’ selfesteem
and self-efficacy prospectively.
Baumrind (1966) suggested that parenting is a complex
construct that includes a set of parenting practices that tend
to co-occur and form parenting styles or profiles. This idea has
been widely supported in further studies. In recent years,
researchers have aimed to go further in terms of defining parenting
styles by identifying naturally co-occurring parenting
practices in particular datasets. In order to do so, a personoriented
approach is often used in parenting research
(Latendresse et al. 2009; Lippold et al. 2014; Soenens et al.
2009; Soenens and Vansteenkiste 2010; Yan and Ansari 2016;
Zheng et al. 2017). A person-oriented approach can bring a
new insight into the process of parenting and its association
with various outcomes in adolescence. The main aim of the
traditional variable-oriented approach is typically to identify
which of the addressed variables is the strongest predictor of
the studied outcome, whereas the goal of the person-oriented
approach is to identify the characteristic patterns i.e. the combinations
of several variables and the way in which these are
associated with adolescent outcomes. A combined pattern of
influence makes them typologically unique and different from
groups showing different patterns. While these two approaches
differ they are not essentially contradictory. Rather,
they complement each other and provide researchers with different
but necessary information in order to address the different
aspects of the studied phenomenon (von Eye et al. 2006).
In the present study, we will focus on two aspects of parenting:
parental behavioural control and parental knowledge.
* Maria Bacikova-Sleskova
maria.bacikova@upjs.sk
1
Department of Educational Psychology and Psychology of Health,
Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice,
Moyzesova 9, 040 01 Košice, Slovak Republic
Current Psychology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00214-z
Parental behavioural control has been characterized by the
proactive behaviour of parents such as supervision, rule and
limit setting as well as the monitoring of adolescents’ whereabouts
(Barber et al. 1994), with a positive effect on adolescent
externalizing behaviour (e.g. Branstetter and Furman
2013; Harris-McKoy and Cui 2013; Kapetanovic et al.
2017; Kiesner et al. 2010). Parents assert behavioural control
in several ways. By setting rules about certain behaviours,
parents provide structure to adolescents’ life and/or they solicit
information about their children’s whereabouts either directly
from them or from people around them such as teachers,
friends, their friend’s parents, etc. (Kapetanovic et al. 2017;
Stattin and Kerr 2000). The information that parents actually
have about their children’s whereabouts (school performance,
leisure time activities, friends, money spending, etc.) has been
labelled as parental knowledge.
The concept of parental knowledge has been introduced relatively
recently into the research on parenting as a reaction to the
existing confusion or misinterpretation of the term parental
monitoring in the literature (Stattin and Kerr 2000). As these
authors have stated, parental monitoring in previously published
studies had often been interpreted rather imprecisely as the active
surveillance of adolescents’ activities by the parents.
Indeed, the questionnaires used in these studies, had only measured
the level of parental knowledge and not the active form of
parenting behaviour. Active parental behavioural control should
be understood as only one of the sources of parental knowledge.
This is especially due to the fact that a spontaneous disclosure
by the adolescent to her/his parent has been found to be a stronger
predictor of knowledge than other means (Kapetanovic et al.
2017; Stattin and Kerr 2000). Therefore, parental behavioural
control/monitoring as an active parenting behaviour should be
clearly distinguished from parental knowledge. On the other
hand, they also tend to be correlated (behavioural control is
one of the sources of parental knowledge e.g. Stattin and Kerr
2000; Webb et al. 2002). However, this is not necessarily true
for all adolescents and which the person-oriented approach
might help to reveal. When parental control is intensive, some
adolescents may feel over-controlled (Kakihara and TiltonWeaver
2009; Kakihara et al. 2010) and as a result may become
more reluctant to disclose information to their parents; become
more secretive about their whereabouts and activities and decrease
parental knowledge. Yet, other adolescents may keep
their parents informed about their whereabouts even without
any active parental behavioural control (Stattin and Kerr
2000). This is mainly present in families where strong emotional
support is available (Webb et al. 2002). Thus, the personoriented
approach will be used to identify subgroups of adolescents
based on the different levels of perceived parental behaviour
control and perceived parental knowledge. Four
groups of adolescents are expected to emerge; those with
high levels of both perceived behavioural control and perceived
parental knowledge; those with low levels of both;
those with high level of behavioural control but low level
of knowledge (those being secretive as a result of high
control); and finally those with a high level of knowledge
but low level of behavioural control (those disclosing to
parents without direct parental behavioural control).
Self Esteem and Self Efficacy
So far, the studies on parental behavioural control and knowledge
have mainly focused on its protective effect on adolescents’
externalizing problems such as lower substance use
(Branstetter and Furman 2013; den Exter Blokland et al.
2007; Kiesner et al. 2010), lower delinquency (HarrisMcKoy
and Cui 2013; Kapetanovic et al. 2017) and bullying
behaviour (Kapetanovic et al. 2017). Few studies, however,
have paid attention to its association with the positive aspects
of adolescents’ development. In the present study we will
focus on self-esteem and self-efficacy as important aspects
of adolescents’ positive development.
Global self-esteem has been defined as Bindividuals’ positive
or negative attitude toward the self as a totality^
(Rosenberg et al. 1995, p. 141). General self-efficacy is referred
to as a general confidence in one’s abilities to achieve
the desired results across numerous domains, to cope with
stressful life events or to manage new life situations
(Bandura 1977; Schwarzer et al. 1997). Self-esteem and selfefficacy
tend to be highly correlated and some scholars have
even suggested that they might represent a single construct
(Judge et al. 2002). However, there is strong empirical and
theoretical ground to see them as different constructs (Chen
et al. 2004; Gardner and Pierce 1998). One of the important
differences between self-esteem and general self-efficacy
is the level of the relative emphasis put on motivational
versus affective components. While general self-efficacy
represents more of a cognitive component (a belief of
one’s capability), self-esteem reflects with much greater
intensity the affective component of the self (one’s affective
evaluation of the self) (Chen et al. 2004).
The development of self-esteem and self-efficacy in
adolescence depends on a wide range of intra-individual
and societal factors. Parental approval, support and love
are among the most important for the optimal development
of the self (Mann et al. 2004). Parents may serve
as a secure base for experimentation in early adolescence
while positive parenting expresses warmth and support
that may be internalized and thus increase the overall perception
of adolescents’ self (Chen et al. 2004).
In general, positive and supportive parenting has been
shown to contribute to adolescents’ positive self-esteem
(Bulanda and Majumdar 2009; Milevsky et al. 2007), as well
as encouraging their self-efficacy (Schunk and Meece 2006).
Few papers, however, have studied these characteristics in
Curr Psychol
connection with behavioural control and parental knowledge.
Perceived parental knowledge has been found to be
associated with higher self-esteem among middle adolescents
(Bean et al. 2003; Parker and Benson 2004) and
higher self-efficacy in some cultures among mixed-aged
adolescents (Chen et al. 2004). On the other hand, with
objective measures of parental knowledge such as daily
telephone interviews with both parents and adolescents
containing questions about adolescents’ whereabouts, no
significant effect of parental knowledge on adolescents’
self-esteem was observed (Waizenhofer et al. 2004).
Regarding parental behaviour control, evidence supports a
different pattern. The few published studies which have found
parental control to be related to higher self-esteem have, in
fact, conceptually measured parental knowledge rather than
control (Bean et al. 2003; Hunter et al. 2015; Parker and
Benson 2004). The results of the studies that have explored
active parental control have shown that parental behaviour
control has either no effect or has a negative effect on adolescents’
self-esteem. This can be explained within the framework
of self-determination theory which suggests that a controlling
environment (parental over-control) may hinder optimal
development of the self by thwarting the need for competence
and autonomy (Ryan and Deci 2000). High levels of
perceived parental control may thus result in feelings of incompetence
in making life decisions which undermine selfefficacy
in different areas and overall negatively affect selfesteem
(Kerr and Stattin 2000). It has been shown that having
more parental rules regarding adolescents’ free time activities
decreased self-esteem among adolescents (Kakihara et al.
2010). On the other hand, the subjective perception seems to
be crucial and parental behavioural control may often be
interpreted by adolescents as a sign of parental interest
(Pomerantz and Eaton 2000). In such a case, it is likely to be
associated with higher self-esteem and self-efficacy of adolescents
especially in early adolescence. These varying
associations between parental control and optimal selfdevelopment
might account for the inconsistent existing
findings. Using a person-oriented approach and combining
different levels of behavioural control with knowledge
may help to clarify this issue.
Present Study
To summarise, this article extends prior studies by specifically
focusing on early adolescents, by studying perceived parental
behavioural control and parental knowledge which are clearly
differentiated and explores their association with aspects of
adolescents’ self (self-esteem and self-efficacy in particular)
by applying the person-oriented approach. This study aims to
answer three main research questions. (1) What combinations
of perceived parental behavioural control and knowledge do
early adolescents demonstrate? (2) Are certain combinations
associated with adolescents’ gender and other characteristics
of the parent-adolescent relationship that illustrate the overall
emotional climate? (3) Can these combinations of perceived
parental control and knowledge predict the level of adolescents’
self-esteem and self-efficacy one year later?
Methods
Sample
The data for the study were collected in Slovakia in 2013. The
sampling used a list of primary schools retrieved from the
Institute of Information and Prognosis of Education (2202
schools in total). By using stratified randomized sampling
(region and the town population size as sampling criteria),
60 schools were selected for the study. In each school, a single
class of six graders was involved in this research. The data
were collected by a team of trained researchers and assistants.
The respondents filled in questionnaires during regular school
lessons on a voluntary and anonymous basis without the presence
of a teacher. The parents of all participating adolescents
signed an informed agreement. The study obtained local university
ethic committee approval and parental approval for the
child to be included in the study. The study was designed as a
5-wave longitudinal study. Within this study, the data from the
baseline and from the one year follow up are analysed.
Participation in the research was confidential.
Respondents generated the identification code based on
some data (e.g. the first letter of their mother’s name).
This code was used to pair respondents within the separate
waves. Due to some errors in the identification codes
(and thus the inability to make pairs) as well as absences
due to sickness of some respondents during the follow up
and some parental disagreements with participation at the
follow up, the total research sample for the present study
comprised of 845 adolescents (baseline mean age 11.52,
SD 0.61; 43% males). A comparison of the research sample
with those who only participated in the first wave of
the data collection (presented in the results section of this
paper) showed no significant differences with the exception
of gender.
Measures
Parental Behavioural Control The questions for both parental
behavioural control and parental knowledge were previously
used in the ESPAD study (Hibell et al. 2009). Parental behavioural
control was operationalized as parental rule setting.
Two questions were used to determine parental rule setting:
My parents set definite rules about what I can do at home. My
parents set definite rules about what I can do outside of home.
Curr Psychol
Respondents had 5 response options ranging from 1 (almost
always) to 5 (almost never). The sum score for the two questions
was computed and reversed so that a higher score meant
more parental control. The internal consistency of the twoitems
was assessed using the Spearman-Brown formula
(Eisinga et al. 2013) and reached 0.69.
Parental Knowledge In a similar way to the previous measure,
parental knowledge was assessed using two questions:
My parents know whom I am with in the evenings.
My parents know where I am in the evenings. The sum
score was then computed and reversed, so that a higher
score meant greater parental knowledge. The SpearmanBrown
formula reached 0.87.
Self-Esteem To assess adolescents’ self-esteem, the SelfLiking/Self-Competence
Scale (SLSCS) (Tafarodi and
Swann 2001) was used. The original measure assesses selfesteem
as a two-dimensional concept consisting of self-liking
and self-competence subscales. The internal consistency of
these subscales in our samples was very low (Cronbach alpha
ranged from 0.292 to 0.691). Therefore, factor analyses were
conducted to identify the factor structure of the measure
(Berinšterová 2015). These analyses revealed two clear factors
that supported the existence of positive and negative selfesteem
factors. Therefore, in this paper, we will refer to positive
and negative self-esteem instead of the original selfliking
and self-competence dimensions. Each factor included
8 statements, e.g. BI have done well in life so far.^ BI focus on
my strengths.^ for positive self-esteem and BI don’t succeed at
much.^ BI feel worthless at times.^ for negative self-esteem.
The respondents indicated the degree of agreement with statements
on a 5-point Likert type scale. The sum scores for each
subscale were computed with higher scores indicating higher
positive self-esteem and higher negative self-esteem. The two
factors showed adequate internal consistency. The Cronbach
alphas for positive self-esteem were 0.814 at T1 and 0.862 at
T2. For negative self-esteem the Cronbach alpha was 0.728 at
T1 and 0.790 at T2.
Self-Efficacy In our study, self-efficacy was measured by the
General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer et al. 1997; Slovak
version Košč et al. 1993). The scale assesses optimistic selfbeliefs
in coping with a variety of difficult demands in life
with statements such as BI can always manage to solve difficult
problems if I try hard enoughB. The respondents indicated
their agreement about 10 statements using a 4-point Likert
type scale. A higher sum score indicated higher general selfefficacy.
Cronbach alphas were 0.890 at T1 and 0.911 at T2.
Parent-Adolescent Relationships In order to illustrate the overall
parent-adolescent relationship climate that seems to be relevant
when clustering parental control and knowledge, several
measures have been used. The first three measures were three
subscales from the RYDM questionnaire (Constantine et al.
1999; Furlong et al. 2009). Nine questions were grouped into
three aspects of parent-adolescent relationships: perceptions
of caring relationships (e.g. BAt home there is a parent that
cares about my school^.), high expectations (e.g. BAt home
there is a parent that wants me to work as hard as I can^.), and
opportunities for meaningful participation at home (e.g. BAt
home I participate in decision making with my family^). The
separate aspects at T1 yielded an internal consistency of
0.851, 0.813 and 0.775, respectively.
Satisfaction with the relationship with parents was measured
using a single question „How satisfied are you usually
with your relationship with your mother/father? Bfor mother
and father separately. The possible answers ranged from 1
very dissatisfied to 5 very satisfied. This single item question
has been found to be highly correlated with more complex
multi-item measures of relationship satisfaction (Jaccard
et al. 2000) showing good construct validity.
Analyses
All the data in the present study were analysed using the
statistical software package IBM SPSS Statistics, version
21. The respondents who did not participate in T2 and
those who had more than 50% missing data at T1 and
T2 (27 respondents) were removed from the research sample.
All other missing data were replaced using a series of
means. The data were analysed in three stages. Firstly, the
respondents who participated in the follow up were compared
with those who did not in order to conduct a missing
data analysis. Secondly, a two-step cluster analysis
was performed in order to identify the subgroups of respondents
based on the levels of their parents’ behavioural
control and knowledge. The clusters were subsequently
compared with regard to gender and several aspects of the
parent-adolescent relationship.
Thirdly, the assumption that cluster membership can be
associated with self-esteem and self-efficacy one year later
(T2) was verified using General Linear Models. Each model
was adjusted for gender and the level of target variable at T1.
In order to identify the clusters, a two-step cluster analyses
in SPSS was used. The method consists of pre-clustering cases
in order to reduce the size of the matrix that contains distances
between all possible pairs of cases (Norusis 2008). In the
second step, it uses the standard hierarchical clustering
methods. Following the methodology suggested by Norusis
(2008), the results were validated in three steps. Firstly, the
model fit was evaluated by the silhouette coefficient which
measures the cohesion and separation of clusters, i.e. validity
of the within- and between-cluster distances. Secondly,
ANOVA was applied to confirm that the clusters vary
Curr Psychol
significantly across the clustering variables. Thirdly, the
dataset was randomly split in half and the same statistical
procedure was run. The obtained results were in concordance
with the result for the whole sample.
Results
Missing Data Analyses
The basic comparisons of the adolescents who participated in
the one-year follow-up and those who did not for all measures
used in the study at T1 were done using t-test and chi square
statistics. Only one significant difference was found. Nonrespondents
were more likely to be boys (×2
= 12.05; p ≤
.001). No significant differences in parental knowledge (t =
1.57; p = 0.118), parental behavioural control (t = −1.17; p =
0.243), self-efficacy (t = 0.60; p = 0.547), positive self-esteem
(t = 0.258; p = 0.796), negative self-esteem (t = 0.248; p =
0.804), caring relationships (t = 1.59; p = 0.112), high expectations
(t = 1.162; p = 0.246), meaningful participation (t =
1.226; p = 0.221), satisfaction with father (t = 1.585; p =
0.113) or satisfaction with mother (t = 1.173; p = 0.241) were
found between the respondents and the non-respondents.
Descriptive
The descriptive characteristics of the measured variables can
be found in Tables 1 and 2.
Cluster Analyses
In the present study, two step cluster analyses were used
to identify subgroups of the respondents based on the
level of parental behavioural control and parental knowledge.
A Log-likelihood distance measure using both the
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and Akaike’s
Information Criterion (AIC) was used to determine cluster
membership. The number of clusters was set to a maximum
of 10 clusters. Both indices identified a three-cluster
solution with 12 outlier cases (1.4% of the sample) as best
fitting the data. The average silhouette measure of cohesion
and separation S(i) = 0.50 indicated good cluster
quality, i.e. good cohesion and separation between the
data points based on these clusters (Rousseeuw 1987).
Both clustering variables were very good predictors of
cluster membership (predictor importance 1.00 for parental
knowledge and 0.95 for parental behavioural control).
Besides fitting the data the best, the three- cluster solution
had clear conceptual clarity and was therefore considered
as appropriate for the data. The clusters were appropriately
balanced in size (Henry et al. 2005).
In the next step, ANOVA was used to compare the
clusters on clustering variables to identify the distinct features
of each group. Table 1 presents the means and standard
deviations of the clustering variables for each cluster
and the overall sample. The results of ANOVA showed
statistically significant differences in both parental behavioural
control (F = 553.1) and parental knowledge (F =
661.8) between the three clusters (significance level p ≤
0.001), with subsequent confirmation of Sheffe and LSD
post hoc tests.
Separate clusters were labelled according to the levels of
parental behavioural control and knowledge as follows:
Bcontrolling parents^ (high levels of both control and knowledge,
31.5% of the sample), Bnot controlling parents^ (below
average level of control but above average level of knowledge,
54.3%), and Buninvolved parents^ (low levels of both
control and knowledge, 12.8%).
A chi-square analysis was conducted to identify cluster
differences regarding gender. Significantly fewer boys were
clustered in the controlling parents’ subgroup (50.8% of boys
versus 58.3% of girls) and significantly more boys in the uninvolved
parents’ subgroup (16.5% of boys versus 10.3% of
girls) (×2
= 8.17, p ≤ 0.05).
As the next step, we examined the associations among
the cluster membership and several aspects of the parentadolescent
characteristics. Tables 3 and 4 shows the results
of the cluster comparisons using ANOVA and
Scheffe post hoc tests (and Kruskal Wallis test for ordinal
variables). Adolescents with controlling parents and those
with not controlling parents had significantly higher levels
of caring relationships, high expectations, meaningful participation
and greater satisfaction with father and mother
than those with uninvolved parents. No significant differences
in these variables between those with controlling
and not controlling parents were found (Table 4).
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for studied variables
min max mean SD
T1 positive self-esteem 8 40 27.19 5.29
T2 positive self-esteem 8 40 26.66 5.86
T1 negative self-esteem 8 40 22.85 4.86
T2 negative self-esteem 8 40 22.08 5.18
T1 self-efficacy 10 40 28.13 5.86
T2 self-efficacy 10 40 27.85 6.1
T1 knowledge 2 10 7.94 2.52
T1 behavioural control 2 10 5.83 2.11
T1 caring relationships 3 12 10 2.22
T1 high expectations 3 12 9.8 2.2
T1 meaningful participation 3 12 9.75 2.04
T1 satisfaction with father 1 5 4.58 0.83
T1 satisfaction with mother 1 5 4.42 0.98
The higher score, the higher level of the variable
Curr Psychol
Clusters as Predictors of Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy
General linear models (GLM) were performed to verify the
assumption that cluster membership is associated with selfesteem
and self-efficacy one year later. Self-esteem and selfefficacy
at T2 were studied as dependent variables and gender,
target variable at T1 and cluster membership as independent
variables (Table 5). The findings from previous studies have
suggested that low levels of parental knowledge and control
are risky for adolescents’ development so the Buninvolved
parents^ group was chosen as the reference group for all analyses.
In model 2, the interaction effect between cluster membership
and gender was added in order to study the moderating
role of gender on the relationship. The results of the GLM
showed that even after controlling for the level of self-esteem
and self-efficacy at the baseline (T1), cluster membership
was associated with positive self-esteem and self-efficacy,
but not negative self-esteem, one year later (T2).
Adolescents in the Bnot controlling parents^ group had
higher levels of positive self-esteem (t = 3.19; p ≤ 0.001)
and self-efficacy (t = 3.14; p ≤ 0.01) at T2 compared to
those in the Buninvolved^ group. Similarly, those in the
Bcontrolling^ group had higher levels of positive selfesteem
(t = 4.27; p ≤ 0.000), and self-efficacy (t = 4.53;
p ≤ 0.001) at T2 compared to those in the Buninvolved^
group. The interaction of cluster membership and gender
was not significant in any of studied dependent variables.
Discussion
This study has focused on perceived parental behavioural control
and parental knowledge among early adolescents and their
associations with adolescents´ self-esteem and self-efficacy.
By using cluster analyses, three groups of early adolescents
based on the level of perceived parental control and knowledge
were identified. These groups manifested the following
distinct characteristics: adolescents with high levels of both
parental behavioural control and knowledge; those with below
average level of control and above average level of knowledge
and those with low levels of both control and knowledge. In
order to assign labels to these groups, we considered the perceived
level of behavioural control as the key factor.
Therefore, the group of adolescents who perceived their parents
as exerting behavioural control as well as having good
knowledge about their leisure time activities were labelled as
Bcontrolling parents^. The group where the perceived behavioural
control was lower than the average, but respondents still
referred to their parents as having good levels of knowledge
was labelled as Bnot controlling parents^. The last group of
respondents who reported both low levels of control and
knowledge was labelled as having Buninvolved parents^.
Parental knowledge has been found to be associated with perceived
parental warmth, acceptance and support (Garthe et al.
2015; Yun et al. 2016). Thus, parents who do not control their
adolescent children and at the same time have low levels of
Table 3 Clusters descriptive
Overall mean Controlling parents Not controlling parents Uninvolved parents
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Parental beh. Control 5.84 2.11 8.23 1.04 4.86 1.25 3.81 1.53
Parental knowledge 7.94 2.52 9.09 1.29 8.63 1.49 2.85 1.14
Cluster size N/%* 266/31.5% 459/54.3% 108/12.8%
*Sum percentage is not 100% due to 12 outlier cases
Table 2 Correlations between variables in T1 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Positive self-esteem 1
2. Negative self-esteem 0.30*** 1
3. Self-efficacy 0.40*** 0.05 1
4. Knowledge 0.15*** −0.02 0.17*** 1
5. Behavioural control 0.07* 0.05 0.09** 0.26*** 1
6. Caring relationships 0.27*** 0.06 0.27*** 0.14*** 0.05 1
7. High expectations 0.23*** 0.05 0.26*** 0.17*** 0.13*** 0.81*** 1
8. Meaningful participation 0.29*** 0.05 0.34*** 0.13*** 0.05 0.77*** 0.66*** 1
9. Satisfaction with father 0.08* −0.08* 0.12*** 0.14*** 0.10** 0.10** 0.07 0.13*** 1
10. Satisfaction with mother 0.09** 0.01 0.16*** 0.17*** 0.09** 0.10** 0.08* 0.15*** 0.57***
*p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001
Curr Psychol
knowledge about their leisure time activities may not be sufficiently
involved in their lives. This also seems to be in line
with our other result which showed that being in the uninvolved
parent group was associated with a lower quality
parent-adolescent relationship. This included adolescents’ satisfaction
with their relationship with their mother and father,
perceptions of caring relationships with their parents, high
expectations that parents have on their performance and
finally the feelings of meaningful participation in family
issues. In line with these results, Stattin et al. (2011) have
found that the level of parental knowledge was highest in
families characterized by both parental and adolescent openness
and fair parental treatment. Further, there were no differences
in parent-adolescent relationship variables regarding
groups with controlling and non-controlling parents in our
study. It seems to be that the level of behavioural control is
not the factor that is associated with the quality of parentadolescent
relationship when parental knowledge is taken
into account, particularly in this age group. These partial
results altogether suggest that the measure of parental
knowledge represents the overall emotional climate in
the parent-adolescent relationship.
However, the clusters which were identified in our data
were not fully in line with our expectations. The analyses
did not reveal a separate cluster which would represent those
who perceive their parental behavioural control as high but
knowledge as low (a result of overcontrol). This fact could
be attributed to the age group in which the study was conducted.
Early adolescents may perceive their parents’ authority as
still legitimate or presumably more so than older adolescents
(Darling et al. 2008; Smetana 2000) and therefore may not
keep secrets from their parents in the case they are controlled.
In the present study, significantly more boys than girls were
grouped in the „uninvolved parents Bcluster. This result is in
accordance with previous findings which have suggested that
boys tend to be less controlled by their parents and that parents
tend to have less knowledge about boys’ activities (Laird et al.
2003; Stattin and Kerr 2000; Webb et al. 2002). Parents may
be more likely to view their adolescent girls as being at greater
risk than boys and therefore may pay more attention to their
leisure time activities and exert more behavioural control over
them. However, adolescents in the Buninvolved parents^ cluster
also had the lowest scores in other aspects of the parentadolescent
relationship in our study. Therefore, it seems to be
important for parents to focus more on adolescent boys’ leisure
time activities which may not only help in avoiding risk
behaviour (Borawski et al. 2003) but might also improve the
parent-adolescent relationship in general.
Table 5 Associations between cluster membership and self-esteem and self-efficacy one year later
Dependent variable at T2 Positive self-esteem Negative self-esteem Self-efficacy
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 model 2
F B t F F B t F F B t F
Gender 1.28 0.001 0.99 2.29 1.05 0.001
Target variable at T1 20.79*** 20.64*** 21.83*** 21.67*** 31.05*** 31.41***
Cluster membership T1 9.13*** 9.49*** 0.4 0.47 10.38*** 10.92***
Uninvolved parents ref ref ref
Not-controlling parents 1.96 3.19*** −0.40 −0.72 2.01 3.14**
Controlling parents 2.80 4.27*** −0.53 −0.90 3.09 4.53***
Gender x cluster membership 2.10 1.22 1.48
** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001
Table 4 Comparisons of clusters with regard to several aspects of parent-adolescent relationship
Controlling parents Not controlling parents Uninvolved parents
Range Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F Scheffe post hoc
Caring relationships 3–12 10.2(2.23) 10.02 (2.11) 9.31(2.59) 6.41** 1 > 3; 2 > 3
High expectations 3–12 10.19 (2.15) 9.8 (2.05) 8.83 (2.66) 14.77*** 1 > 3; 2 > 3
Meaningful participation 3–12 9.87 (2.03) 9.77 (1.97) 9.22 (2.27) 4.06* 1 > 3; 2 > 3
Range Mean rank Mean rank Mean rank Chi-square
Satisfaction with father 1–5 453.46 409.45 359.28 18.41***
Satisfaction with mother 1–5 451.03 414.39 344.27 19.58***
*p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001
Curr Psychol
A further aim of this study was to explore whether specific
cluster membership can predict adolescents’ self-esteem and
self-efficacy one year later. Based on our results, perceiving
parents as using a low level of behavioural control and having
low knowledge about their activities (the uninvolved parents
group) seems to be risky for adolescents’ positive self-esteem
and self-efficacy but interestingly not for negative self-esteem.
While parental control in previous studies has not been associated
with the positive development of the self or associated
negatively with it (e.g. Kakihara et al. 2010), our study has
shown that when introduced together with parental knowledge
it might even be beneficial for the development of the self,
represented by positive self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Kakihara et al. (2010) found negative associations of parental
behavioural control with adolescent self-esteem. Although
there is evidence that high levels of behavioural control are
interpreted by adolescents as intrusive to their autonomy
(Galambos et al. 2003; Kakihara and Tilton-Weaver 2009)
and may decrease adolescents’ self-esteem (Kakihara et al.
2010), it seems plausible that when high parental behavioural
control occurs together with good levels of knowledge, it may
be protective for adolescents’ development. In line with the
concept of self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000),
parental control and knowledge may form a structure that
supports the development of good self-esteem as well as
self-efficacy. Similarly, Pomerantz and Eaton (2000) have
suggested that parental behavioural control may be perceived
by adolescents as an indication of parents being involved in
their lives and therefore promotes their psychological development.
Moreover, the beneficial role of perceived parental
behavioural control with high levels of parental knowledge
found in this study may also be associated with early developmental
stages in adolescence. According to the Stageenvironment
fit theory (Eccles et al. 1993), some of the negative
changes in adolescence are the result of a mismatch
between adolescents’ needs and the opportunities that the environment
offers to them. In this sense, it is possible that the
level of control that parents assert in early adolescence is still
perceived as appropriate and therefore associated with positive
aspects of the self. The research on the developments in
adolescence has shown abundantly that a decrease in the perception
of parents as a legitimate authority throughout adolescence
is typical (Cumsille et al. 2006). Thus, in an older group
of respondents and especially in middle or late adolescence,
different results could be obtained.
While some researchers do not support the existence of
two-dimensional self-esteem (positive and negative) and refer
to artificial factors due to positive and negative wording
(Marsh 1996), others see a meaningful distinction between
positive and negative self-esteem due to its different associations
with outcomes (Ang et al. 2006). The results of our
research seem to support the latter idea. Perceiving parents
as having high levels of knowledge and above or under
average levels of behavioural control was found to be associated
with higher levels of positive self-esteem but not with
negative self-esteem.
The limitations of the present study have to be acknowledged.
Parental behavioural control has been operationalized
as rule setting and measured using only a two-item measure
which might have certain implications on the validity of this
scale. However, it has been used in previous research (unpublished
data) and in a different sample of adolescents (n = 145;
mean age 13.98; SD 0.74) this measure was correlated with
the parental behavioural control scale as proposed by Stattin
and Kerr (2000) where the measures were highly correlated
(Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.719). Therefore, we consider
the questions used in our study as relatively good indicators
of parental behavioural control. Nevertheless, rule setting
is only one aspect of behavioural control and this should
be taken into account when interpreting the results.
Another limitation of this study includes the relatively short
period of time during which the data was collected. We have
addressed the changes only within one year. It would be interesting
to study the predictive power of cluster membership
through more adolescent years.
Conclusions
The findings of this study contribute to a better understanding
of the role of perceived parenting by using the person-oriented
approach. In particular, the importance of a clear distinction
between parental knowledge and parental control is stressed.
It further shows that parental behavioural control can play an
important positive role in the development of the self (selfesteem
and self-efficacy) of early adolescents when accompanied
by perceived parental knowledge.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by The Ministry of education,
science, research and sport of the Slovak republic under the contract
VEGA 1/0623/17 and the Slovak Research and Development
Agency under the contracts no. APVV-0253-11 and APVV-15-0662.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval The study obtained local university ethic committee
approval. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants
were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional
and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration
and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from parent of all
individual participants included in the study.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Curr Psychol
References
Ang, R. P., Neubronner, M., Oh, S. A., & Leong, V. (2006).
Dimensionality of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale among normaltechnical
stream students in Singapore. Current Psychology, 25,
120–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-006-1007-3.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Barber, B. K., Olsen, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between
parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized
and externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1120–1136.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child
behavior. Child Development, 37(4), 887–907.
Bean, R. A., Bush, K. R., McKenry, P. C., & Wilson, S. M. (2003). The
impact of parental support, behavioral control, and psychological
control on the academic achievement and self-esteem of African
American and European American adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 18(5), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0743558403255070.
Berinšterová, M. (2015). The effectiveness of the school program
of universal prevention„ UNPLUGGEDB. Unpublished doctoral
theses.
Borawski, E. A., Ievers-Landis, C. E., Lovegreen, L. D., & Trapl, E. S.
(2003). Parental monitoring, negotiated unsupervised time, and parental
trust: The role of perceived parenting practices in adolescent
health risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(2), 60–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00100-9.
Branstetter, S. A., & Furman, W. (2013). Buffering effect of parental
monitoring knowledge and parent-adolescent relationships on consequences
of adolescent substance use. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 22, 192–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9568-2.
Bulanda, R. E., & Majumdar, D. (2009). Perceived parent–child relations
and adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18,
203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9220-3.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and selfesteem:
Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated
self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3),
375–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.251.
Constantine, N. A., Bernard, B., & Diaz, M. (1999). Measuring protective
factors and resilience traits in youth: The healthy kids resilience
assessment. New Orleans: Paper presented at the seventh annual
meeting of the Society for Prevention Research.
Cumsille, P., Darling, N., Flaherty, B. P., & Martínez, M. L. (2006).
Chilean adolescents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority:
Individual and age-related differences. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 30, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0165025406063554.
Darling, N., Cumsille, P., & Martínez, M. L. (2008). Individual differences
in adolescents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority
and their own obligation to obey: A longitudinal investigation.
Child Development, 79(4), 1103–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2008.01178.x.
De Goede, I. H., Branje, S. J., & Meeus, W. H. (2009). Developmental
changes in adolescents’ perceptions of relationships with their parents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 75–88.
den Exter Blokland, E. A., Hale, W. W., III, Meeus, W., & Engels, R. C.
(2007). Parental support and control and early adolescent smoking:
A longitudinal study. Substance Use & Misuse, 42, 2223–2232.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080701690664.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D.,
Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence:
The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents'
experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist,
48(2), 90–101.
Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a
two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or spearman-Brown?
International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642.
Furlong, M. J., Ritchey, K. M., & Brennan, L. M. (2009).
Developing norms for the California resilience youth development
module: Internal assets and school resources subscales.
The California school psychologist, 14, 35–46. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF03340949.
Galambos, N. L., Barker, E. T., & Almeida, D. M. (2003). Parents do
matter: Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing
problems in early adolescence. Child Development, 74(2), 578–
594. https://doi.org/10.2307/3696332.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy
within the organizational context: An empirical examination.
Group & Organization Management, 23(1), 48–70.
Garthe, R. C., Sullivan, T., & Kliewer, W. (2015). Longitudinal
relations between adolescent and parental behaviors, parental
knowledge, and internalizing behaviors among urban adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(4), 819–832.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0112-0.
Harris-McKoy, D., & Cui, M. (2013). Parental control, adolescent
delinquency, and young adult criminal behavior. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 22, 836–843. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10826-012-9641-x.
Henry, D. B., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (2005). Cluster analysis
in family psychology research. Journal of Family Psychology, 19,
121–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.121.
Hibell, B., Guttormsson, U., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnason, T.,
Kokkevi, A., & Kraus, L. (2009). The 2007 ESPAD report.
Substance use among students in 35 European countries, 1–408.
Hunter, S. B., Barber, B. K., & Stolz, H. E. (2015). Extending knowledge
of parents’ role in adolescent development: The effect of self-esteem.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(8), 2474–2484.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0050-1.
Jaccard, J., Dittus, P. J., & Gordon, V. V. (2000). Parent-teen communication
about premarital sex: Factors associated with the extent of
communication. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(2), 187–208.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures
of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized
self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710.
Kakihara, F., & Tilton-Weaver, L. (2009). Adolescents’ interpretations of
parental control: Differentiated by domain and types of control.
Child Development, 80, 1722–1738. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2009.01364.x.
Kakihara, F., Tilton-Weaver, L., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2010). The relationship
of parental control to youth adjustment: Do youths’ feelings
about their parents play a role? Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
39, 1442–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9479-8.
Kapetanovic, S., Bohlin, M., Skoog, T., & Gerdner, A. (2017). Structural
relations between sources of parental knowledge, feelings of being
overly controlled and risk behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of
Family Studies. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13229400.2017.1367713.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and
several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation
of monitoring. Developmental psychology, 36(3), 366–
380.
Kiesner, J., Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2010). Adolescent substance
use with friends: Moderating and mediating effects of
parental monitoring and peer activity contexts. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 56, 529–556.
Košč, M., Heftyová, E., Schwarzer, R., Jerusalem, M. (1993). Slovakian
Adaptation of the General Self- Efficacy Scale [online]. http://
userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/slovak.htm. Acccessed 22 May 2013.
Curr Psychol
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. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-8624.00566.
Latendresse, S. J., Rose, R. J., Viken, R. J., Pulkkinen, L., Kaprio, J., &
Dick, D. M. (2009). Parental socialization and adolescents' alcohol
use behaviors: Predictive disparities in parents' versus adolescents'
perceptions of the parenting environment. Journal of Clinical Child
& Adolescent Psychology, 38, 232–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15374410802698404.
Lippold, M. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Collins, L. M. (2014). Youths’
substance use and changes in parental knowledge-related behaviors
during middle school: A person-oriented approach. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 43, 729–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-
013-0010-x.
Mann, M. M., Hosman, C. M., Schaalma, H. P., & De Vries, N. K. (2004).
Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion.
Health Education Research, 19, 357–372. https://doi.org/10.
1093/her/cyg041.
Marsh, H. W. (1996). Positive and negative global self-esteem: A substantively
meaningful distinction or artifactors? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 810–819.
Milevsky, A., Schlechter, M., Netter, S., & Keehn, D. (2007).
Maternal and paternal parenting styles in adolescents:
Associations with self-esteem, depression and life-satisfaction.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 39–47. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10826-006-9066-5.
Norusis, M. J. (2008). SPSS 16.0 guide to data analysis (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddlr River: Prentice Hall.
Parker, J. S., & Benson, M. J. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and
adolescent functioning: Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency.
Adolescence, 39, 519–530.
Pomerantz, E. M., & Eaton, M. M. (2000). Developmental differences in
children's conceptions of parental control:" they love me, but they
make me feel incompetent". Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 140–167.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995).
Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different
outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60, 141–156.
Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation
and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and
Applied Mathematics, 20, 53–65.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in
adolescence. In: Pajares, F., Urdan, T. (eds.) Self-efficacy beliefs
of adolescents, 71–96.
Schwarzer, R., Bäßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X.
(1997). The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: Comparison of
the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general selfefficacy
scale. Applied Psychology, 46, 69–88.
Smetana, J. G. (2000). Middle-class African American Adolescents' and
Parents' conceptions of parental authority and parenting practices: A
longitudinal investigation. Child Development, 71(6), 1672–1686.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00257.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the
concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights
on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review,
30(1), 74–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Sierens, E. (2009). How are parental
psychological control and autonomy-support related? A clusteranalytic
approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 187–
202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00589.x.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation.
Child Development, 71, 1072–1085.
Stattin, H., Persson, S., Burk, W. J., & Kerr, M. (2011). Adolescents’
perceptions of the democratic functioning in their families.
European Psychologist, 16, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-
9040/a000039.
Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B. (2001). Two-dimensional self-esteem:
Theory and measurement. Personality and Individual Differences,
31, 653–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00169-0.
von Eye, A., Bogat, G. A., & Rhodes, J. E. (2006). Variable-oriented and
person-oriented perspectives of analysis: The example of alcohol
consumption in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 981–
1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.06.007.
Waizenhofer, R. N., Buchanan, C. M., & Jackson-Newsom, J.
(2004). Mothers' and fathers' knowledge of adolescents' daily
activities: Its sources and its links with adolescent adjustment.
Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 348–360. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.348.
Webb, J. A., Bray, J. H., Getz, J. G., & Adams, G. (2002). Gender,
perceived parental monitoring, and behavioral adjustment:
Influences on adolescent alcohol use. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 72, 392–400.
Yan, N., & Ansari, A. (2016). Child adjustment and parent functioning:
Considering the role of child-driven effects. Journal of Family
Psychology, 30(3), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000180.
Yun, H. J., Cui, M., & Blair, B. L. (2016). The mediating roles of adolescent
disclosure and parental knowledge in the association between
parental warmth and delinquency among Korean adolescents.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(8), 2395–2404. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10826-016-0425-6.
Zheng, Y., Pasalich, D. S., Oberth, C., McMahon, R. J., & Pinderhughes,
E. E. (2017). Capturing parenting as a multidimensional and dynamic
construct with a person-oriented approach. Prevention Science,
18(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0665-0.
Curr Psychol
32
Studies 9 and 10
Bačíková, M. (2019). Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní. (The psychology of
parental control in adolescence). Šafárik Press, Košice.
One of an important factors of socialization in family is parental control. Parental control is
parenting behaviour toward a child that aims to shape adolescent behaviour in desired way – to
promote desired behaviour and to avoid undesirable behaviour. The way how parents assert the
control is crucial in terms of adolescent willingness to behave in line with parental expectations.
Recent 20 year of research showed that parental control is a broad construct that needs to be
clearly defined and positive forms of parental control need to be distinguished from its negative
forms.
The study of parental control in adolescence is the topic of authors’ research monograph.
Within this habilitation thesis two studies from the monograph are included. The first study is
oriented on basic associations of parental control with many other variables. The second study
uses a person-oriented approach to study the role of parental control in parenting styles.
33
Study 9
A study called „Parental control in the context of family processes, rules, risk behaviour
and self-esteem of adolescents“ is oriented on three forms of parental control. One of them is
considered as positive form – behavioural control (operationalized as parental monitoring). The
other two are considered as negative forms of parental control - psychological control and
punishment. In the study, both adolescents and parental perceptions of parental control are
included.
The main aim of the study was to study parental control in Slovak context; to study
gender differences in parental control and the relationship between control and other variables.
Several family processes (representing both positive and negative processes), the clarity of
perceived rules, the quality of internalization of rules, oppositional defiance, adolescent selfesteem
(as psychological aspect of development) and adolescent risk behaviour (as behavioural
aspect) were included in the study. The analyses were conducted among 580 early adolescents
(12.5 years, 51% boys) with respect to gender of both parents and adolescents. Overall, the
results show positive role of behavioural control in all studied aspect and negative role of
psychological control and punishment. Behavioural control increases the probability of
perceiving rules as clear, the quality of internalization and decreases oppositional defiance,
while psychological control is associated inversely. With regard to psychological and
behavioural outcomes, behavioural control is associated with increased self-esteem and
decreased probability of risk behaviour. Psychological control and punishment is associated
only with decreased self-esteem, but no association with risk behaviour has been found.
The results are in overall in line with previous studies, however the role of behavioural
control seems to differ in our study. Behavioural control consistently seems to be a positive
factor in adolescent development in our studies what contradicts several previous results from
other countries. The possibility of cultural specifics of Slovakia are discussed.
Author´s contribution: 100%
UNIVERZITA PAVLA JOZEFA ŠAFÁRIKA V KOŠICIACH
Filozofická fakulta
Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Mária Bačíková
Košice 2019
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Vedecká monografia
© Mgr. Mária Bačíková, PhD.
Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia, Filozofická fakulta,
UPJŠ v Košiciach
Vedecká redaktorka:
Prof. PhDr. Oľga Orosová, CSc.
Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia, Filozofická fakulta,
UPJŠ v Košiciach
Recenzenti:
Prof. Peter Halama, PhD.
Centrum spoločenských a psychologických vied SAV, Bratislava
Katedra psychológie, Filozofická fakulta, Trnavská univerzita, Trnava
Doc. Peter Babinčák, PhD.
Inštitút psychológie, Filozofická fakulta, UNIPO v Prešove
Všetky práva vyhradené. Toto dielo ani jeho žiadnu časť nemožno reprodukovať, ukladať
do informačných systémov alebo inak rozširovať bez súhlasu majiteľov práv. Za odbornú
a jazykovú stránku tejto vedeckej monografie zodpovedá autor. Rukopis neprešiel redakčnou
a jazykovou úpravou.
Práca bola podporená Vedeckou grantovou agentúrou Ministerstva školstva
VEGA 1/0623/17 a Agentúrou pre vedu a výskum APVV-15-0662.
Návrh obálky a zalomenie textu: Stanislav Bačík
Umiestnenie: https://unibook.upjs.sk/sk/73-e-publikacie-volne-pristupne
Dostupné od: 1. jún 2019
ISBN 978-80-8152-729-6 (tlačená verzia)
ISBN 978-80-8152-736-4 (elektronická verzia)
8. Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských
dospievajúcich
V teoretickej časti monografie sme vymedzili základné pojmy súvisiace
s problematikou rodičovskej kontroly. Predstavili sme jej rôzne formy
a okolnosti, za ktorých má uplatňovanie kontroly pozitívne behaviorálne
a psychologické dôsledky. V empirickej časti monografie sa pokúsime
podať ucelenejší obraz o rodičovskej kontrole a jej rôznych formách
ako ich percipujú slovenskí dospievajúci a ich rodičia.
Zameriame sa pri tom na tri formy rodičovskej kontroly: na monito-
ring - ako formu kontroly, ktorá je považovaná za pozitívnu v zmysle
jej dôsledkov pre dospievajúceho a na psychologickú kontrolu a trestanie,
ktorých dôsledky sú zvyčajne negatívneho charakteru. Problematiku
rodičovskej kontroly uchopíme v rôznych kontextoch, pričom
použijeme údaje získané od dospievajúcich vo veku skorej adolescencie
a ich matiek a/alebo otcov. V neposlednom rade sa v analýzach
zameriame na efekt rodičovskej kontroly vo vzťahu k rizikovému
správaniu (ako jednému z významných ukazovateľov behaviorálnych
dôsledkov kontroly) a úrovni sebaúcty dospievajúcich (psychologický
dôsledok).
Teoretické poznatky, uvedené v predchádzajúcich častiach monografie,
vychádzajú zo štúdií zameraných na rôzne fázy dospievania zahrňujúce
obdobie od nástupu puberty (približne v 12 roku života) až po koniec
adolescencie (zvyčajne medzi 18-20 rokom života). V nasledujúcej
empirickej časti sa však zameriame len na obdobie skorej adolescencie
a problematiku rodičovskej kontroly budeme analyzovať na vekovo
homogénnej vzorke dospievajúcich (priemerný vek 12,5). Obdobie
skorej adolescencie je z hľadiska skúmania rodičovskej kontroly
kľúčovým, pretože práve v tomto období dochádza k významnému
nesúladu medzi potrebou autonómie dospievajúceho a prevzatia
zodpovednosti za svoje konanie a tendenciou rodiča pokračovať
v riadení, kontrolovaní a monitorovaní dieťaťa (Eccles et al., 1993).
Tento nesúlad môže viesť k zvýšenej konfliktovosti vo vzťahu dospieva-
72
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
júci-rodič a následným negatívnym behaviorálnym či psychologickým
dôsledkom. Pochopenie procesu fungovania rodičovskej kontroly
v tomto období môže napomôcť jej efektívnemu využívaniu s cieľom
predísť nežiaducim dôsledkom nevhodne využívanej kontroly.
Analýzy budú prezentované v troch samostatných štúdiách. (1) V prvej
štúdii sa zameriame na jednotlivé formy kontroly v kontexte ďalších
rodinných procesov, percipovania a internalizácie pravidiel a overíme
vzťah všetkých troch foriem kontroly k rizikovému správaniu a sebaúcte
dospievajúcich. (2) V druhej štúdii využijeme na osobu orientovaný
prístup, ktorý umožní na základe prirodzene sa vyskytujúcich
kombinácií použitých foriem rodičovskej kontroly a úrovne
emocionálneho vzťahu adolescent-rodič identifikovať rôzne výchovné
štýly matiek a otcov. (3) V tretej štúdii sa zameriame na údaje získané
od dospievajúcich, ich matiek a otcov, a budeme analyzovať diskrepancie
v percipovaní kontroly a ich súvis s ďalšími premennými.
8.1 Štúdia 1. Rodičovská kontrola v kontexte
rodinných procesov, pravidiel, rizikového
správania a sebaúcty dospievajúcich
8.1.1 Teoretické východiská
Cieľom výchovného pôsobenia rodiča na dospievajúceho je podporiť
jeho optimálny vývin v súlade so spoločenskými normami a pravidlami
i individuálnymi hodnotami rodičov, ktorého konečným cieľom
by malo byť dosiahnutie vlastnej sebaregulácie správania mladého
človeka. Jedným z najvýznamnejších prostriedkov socializácie, ktorý
majú rodičia k dispozícii, je kontrola. Výskum naznačuje pozitívny
súvis adekvátne uplatňovanej kontroly s mnohými oblasťami
socializácie (Bacikova-Sleskova, 2009; Caroll et al., 2016; Fosco et al.,
2012). Aby bolo možné hovoriť o adekvátne uplatňovanej kontrole,
je nevyhnutné rozlišovať medzi jej dvoma základnými forma-
mi - behaviorálnou a psychologickou kontrolou a dôsledne ich operacionalizovať.
Behaviorálna kontrola je charakterizovaná aktívnym
73
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
správaním rodiča v podobe supervízie, stanovovania pravidiel
a obmedzení, či sledovania správania dieťaťa vo voľnom čase (Barber,
Olsen, Shagle, 1994; Criss et al., 2015). Psychologická kontrola naopak
zahŕňa konanie rodiča prejavujúce sa znevažovaním dieťaťa,
manipuláciou, či vyvolávaním pocitov viny (Barber et al., 2012).
Obdobie dospievania je spájané so zvýšenou tendenciou k rizikovému
správaniu, najmä v podobe experimentovania s fajčením a alkoholom,
preto je rodičovská kontrola často upriamená týmto smerom.
Primeraná behaviorálna kontrola (v podobe stanovovania pravidiel
a monitoringu) sa javí byť protektívnou v zmysle prevencie rizikového
správania dospievajúcich (Abar et al., 2014). Naopak nadmerná,
nevhodná behaviorálna kontrola, či psychologická kontrola efektívne
nie sú, prípadne pravdepodobnosť rizikového správania ešte zvyšujú
(Donovan, Brassard, 2011). Cieľom rodičovskej kontroly však nie je len
dosiahnuť žiaduce správanie, prípadne zabrániť nežiaducemu správaniu,
ale zároveň podporiť optimálny psychický vývin dospievajúcich.
Jednou z psychologických charakteristík, ktoré sa v kontexte výskumu
rodičovskej kontroly javia ako kľúčové, je sebaúcta dospievajúceho.
Sebaúcta je definovaná ako „pozitívny alebo negatívny postoj jednotlivca
k sebe ako celku“ (Rosenberg et al., 1995, p. 141) a je považovaná
za významný komponent duševného zdravia. Vyššia sebaúcta súvisí
s mnohými pozitívnymi aspektami vývinu v podobe spokojnosti
so životom, duševným zdravím, pozitívnymi medziľudskými vzťahmi,
či školskou a pracovnou úspešnosťou. Adolescencia je považovaná
za kritické obdobie formovania sebaúcty (Rosenberg et al., 1995),
pričom sa zdá, že na jej začiatku dochádza k poklesu celkovej úrovne
sebaúcty spôsobenému pravdepodobne pubertálnymi zmenami
a emocionálnou nerovnováhou, ktorá ich sprevádza (Robins et al.,
2002). Vývin sebaúcty v dospievaní závisí od mnohých individuálnych
a sociálnych faktorov. Jedným z najvýznamnejších sociálnych faktorov
je rodičovská výchova. Vo všeobecnosti, výchova charakterizovaná
vrelosťou, emocionálnym putom a prejavovaným záujmom rodičov
významne prispieva k optimálnemu vývinu dospievajúceho a vyššej
sebaúcte (Chen, Gully, Eden, 2004; Mann et al., 2004; Milevsky et al.,
74
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
2007). Výskumy zamerané špecificky na rodičovskú kontrolu ukazujú
rozporuplné výsledky. Informovanosť rodičov o voľnočasových aktivitách
dieťaťa bola vo viacerých štúdiách asociovaná s vyššou sebaúctou
dospievajúcich (napr. Bean et al., 2003; Parker, Benson, 2004).
Naopak, behaviorálna kontrola so sebaúctou dospievajúcich v predchádzajúcich
štúdiách buď nesúvisela, alebo, ak bola jej intenzita nadmerná,
súvisela negatívne (Kerr, Stattin, 2000; Kakihara et al., 2010).
Štúdia realizovaná na vzorke dospievajúcich na Slovensku poukázala
na možnosť, že rodičovská kontrola, pokiaľ sa objavuje spolu s dostatočnou
informovanosťou rodičov, je významným prediktorom vyššej
sebaúcty o rok neskôr (Bacikova-Sleskova, Benka, Orosova, v tlači).
Psychologická kontrola býva zvyčajne konzistentne asociovaná s nižšou
sebaúctou dospievajúcich (Bean et al., 2003; Boudreault-
-Bouchard et al., 2013). Pomerne nekonzistentné výsledky súvisiace
s behaviorálnou kontrolou a sebaúctou si vyžadujú ďalšie skúmanie.
Jedným z dôležitých faktorov, ktoré súvisia s tým, či sa dospievajúci
budú správať v súlade s očakávaniami rodiča je jasnosť pravidiel, ktoré
rodičia stanovujú a jasnosť a primeranosť dôsledkov v prípade ich
neuposlúchnutia. Deti majú tendenciu pravidlá rodiča hodnotiť,
interpretovať a zároveň sa rozhodujú, či sa budú správať v súlade
s nimi (Parkin, Kuczynski, 2012). Pokiaľ sú pravidlá stanovené jasne,
ich rešpektovanie bude pravdepodobne častejšie. Nie je nám však
známy výskum, ktorý by identifikoval, ako jednotlivé formy kontroly
súvisia s percepciou stanovených pravidiel ako jasných.
Ďalším z významných faktorov dodržiavania pravidiel aj bez priamej
kontroly rodičov je kvalita ich internalizácie (Soenens, Vansteenkiste,
Sierens, 2009; Van Petegem et al., 2017a), teda miera do akej
dospievajúci pravidlu rozumie a plne uznáva jeho dôležitosť. V kontexte
Teórie seba-determinácie (Ryan, Deci, 2000) je za najvyššiu kvalitu
internalizácie považované identifikovanie sa s pravidlom. Identifikovanie
sa s pravidlom nie je nevyhnutne sprevádzané správaním
sa v súlade s týmto pravidlom, avšak významne zvyšuje pravdepodobnosť
takéhoto správania. V predkladanej monografii budeme
75
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
sledovať, ako jednotlivé formy rodičovskej kontroly na začiatku dospievania
prispievajú ku kvalite zvnútorňovania pravidiel.
Predchádzajúce štúdie naznačujú existenciu rodových rozdielov
v uplatňovaní rodičovskej kontroly, ako i rozdielny efekt kontroly matky
a otca na rôzne aspekty vývinu. Pomerne konzistentné sú zistenia
týkajúce sa rodu rodičov. Matky vo všeobecnosti využívajú rôzne formy
kontroly častejšie ako otcovia (Dwairi, Achouri, 2009; Shek, 2008;
Barber, Harmon, 2002). Zdá sa, že primeraná kontrola zo strany
matky je efektívnejšia ako kontrola otca, naopak, neprimeraná kontrola
otca má väčší negatívny dôsledok pre dospievajúceho ako neprimeraná
kontrola matky (Keijsers et al., 2010; Soenens et al., 2006;
Verhoeven et al., 2012). V súvislosti s rodom dospievajúcich sú výsledky
menej konzistentné, naznačujúce, že dievčatá percipujú kontrolu
rodičov ako intenzívnejšiu v porovnaní s chlapcami (McKinney,
Brown, Malkin, 2018; Willoughby, Hamza, 2011).
Cieľom prvej prezentovanej štúdie je popísať rôzne formy rodičovskej
kontroly v súvislosti s rodom a v kontexte rôznych premenných. Štúdia
má niekoľko čiastkových cieľov: (1) skúmať rozdiely v percipovaní
rodičovskej kontroly vzhľadom na rod adolescenta a rodiča; (2) analyzovať,
ako jednotlivé formy kontroly súvisia s vnímaním jasnosti stanovených
pravidiel, mierou internalizácie pravidiel a uposlúchnutím
pravidiel; (3) analyzovať, ako jednotlivé formy kontroly súvisia s ďalšími
rodinnými procesmi (konflikt, antagonizmus, vrelosť a spokojnosť
so vzťahom); (4) analyzovať, ako jednotlivé formy kontroly súvisia
s rizikovým správaním a sebaúctou dospievajúcich a nakoľko formy
kontroly vo svojom efekte interagujú.
8.1.2 Výskumný súbor
Zber údajov bol realizovaný pomocou dotazníkov medzi žiakmi siedmich
ročníkov základných škôl na Slovensku a ich rodičmi v septembri/októbri
2017. Do zberu bolo prostredníctvom stratifikovaného
príležitostného výberu zaradených 12 škôl v rámci celého Slovenska.
S cieľom dosiahnuť čo najreprezentatívnejší výskumný súbor bol
kladený dôraz na zastúpenie škôl z rôznych krajov a z obcí rôznych
76
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
veľkostí. V každej škole sa výskumu zúčastnili žiaci všetkých tried siedmeho
ročníka. Dotazníky žiaci vypĺňali počas dvoch vyučovacích hodín
za prítomnosti zaškoleného člena výskumného tímu, bez prítomnosti
učiteľa. Každý žiak po vyplnení dotazníka dostal dve (prípadne jednu)
obálky s dotazníkmi určenými pre oboch rodičov. Rodičia žiakov boli
požiadaní o vyplnenie priložených papierových foriem dotazníka,
v prípade ich preferencie im bola ponúknutá možnosť on-line
dotazníka. Žiaci, žijúci s iným ako vlastným rodičom, boli inštruovaní,
aby dotazník odovzdali tomu, s kým trávia viac času. Dotazníky boli
následne v zalepenej obálke doručené späť do školy učiteľovi
zodpovednému za zber údajov. Vypĺňanie dotazníkov bolo anonymné.
Dotazníky pre žiakov i rodičov obsahovali položky, ktoré umožnili
vytvoriť identifikačný kód (napr. prvé písmeno tvojho mena/prvé
písmeno mena Vášho dieťaťa; tvoj dátum narodenia/dátum narodenia
Vášho dieťaťa), na základe ktorého boli následne odpovede detí
a rodičov spárované.
Finálny výskumný súbor tvorilo 580 dospievajúcich (priemerný vek
12,51; SD = 0,59; 51,1% chlapcov; 75,3% žije s oboma vlastnými
rodičmi), 217 matiek (priemerný vek 40,5; SD = 4,64) a 150 otcov
(priemerný vek 42,71; SD = 5,33); pričom rodičovských párov jedného
dieťaťa bolo 113.
Pre overenie reprezentatívnosti výskumného súboru rodičov sme
porovnali údaje získane od dospievajúcich v súvislosti so základnými
demografickými charakteristikami a sledovanými rodinnými procesmi
medzi žiakmi, ktorých rodičia sa výskumu zúčastnili a tými, ktorí
sa nezúčastnili. Deti matiek, ktoré sa výskumu zúčastnili sa signifikantne
nelíšili od tých, ktorých matky sa výskumu nezúčastnili
v žiadnej zo sledovaných premenných. Dospievajúci otcov, ktorí
vyplnili dotazník, boli signifikantne častejšie dievčatá (χ² = 5,78;
p ≤ 0,05), lepší žiaci (jednotkári a dvojkári) (χ² = 13,2; p ≤ 0,01),
uvádzali vyššiu mieru spokojnosti so vzťahom s otcom (t = 2,68;
p ≤ 0,001) a náklonnosti (t = 2,20; p ≤ 0,05). V úrovni rizikového
správania, sebaúcty a ostatných rodinných procesov nebol zistený
štatisticky významný rozdiel medzi dospievajúcimi, ktorých otcovia
77
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
sa zúčastnili a nezúčastnili výskumu. Podrobnejšie informácie
o základných demografických charakteristikách rodičov uvádzame
v tabuľke 5.
Tabuľka 5 Základné demografické údaje rodičov, ktorí sa zúčastnili
výskumu
matky otcovia
N % N %
vzdelanie základné 6 2,8 4 2,7
stredoškolské 139 64,0 111 75,0
vysokoškolské 72 33,2 35 23,3
počet detí 1 37 17,2 28 19,0
2 128 59,5 85 57,8
viac 50 23,3 34 23,2
zamestnanie zamestnaný/á 190 88,4 140 94,0
iné 25 11,6 9 6,0
partner/ka otec/matka dieťaťa 156 72,2 134 90,0
iný partner/ka 32 14,8 6 4,0
bez partnera/ky 28 13,0 9 6,0
8.1.3 Metodiky
V práci bolo použitých niekoľko zahraničných metodík (publikovaných
v anglickom jazyku). Všetky metodiky boli podrobené procesu obojstranného
prekladu. Prípadné významové nezrovnalosti dvoch
anglických verzií boli posúdené dvoma odborníkmi v oblasti vývinovej
psychológie a slovenská verzia metodík bola podľa nich významovo
upravená.
Dotazníky týkajúce sa rodičovskej kontroly a ďalších rodinných
procesov boli položené dospievajúcim aj ich rodičom. Použité dotazníky
sú primárne určené deťom, položky pre rodičov boli mierne
78
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
upravené tak, aby sa týkali ich správania voči ich deťom. Rodičia boli
inštruovaní, aby na položky odpovedali vzhľadom k dieťaťu, ktoré im
dotazník donieslo (dieťa zúčastňujúce sa výskumu). Adolescenti
odpovedali na všetky položky osobitne v súvislosti matkou a osobitne
v súvislosti s otcom. Rodičia odpovedali na metodiky týkajúce sa rodičovskej
kontroly a rodinných procesov. Ostatné metodiky vypĺňali
len dospievajúci.
Všetky použité metodiky sú skórované tak, aby vyššie skóre
reflektovalo vyššiu úroveň danej premennej (napr. viac psychologickej
kontroly, viac tráveného času, viac sebaúcty, atď.). V štatistických
analýzach pracujeme s priemerným skóre všetkých položiek pre jednotlivé
premenné.
Rodičovská kontrola. V prezentovanej štúdii sme sa zamerali na tri
formy rodičovskej kontroly: monitoring, psychologická kontrola
a trestanie. Na všetky položky nasledujúcich metodík respondenti
odpovedali pomocou 5 stupňovej škály Likertoveho typu (1 vôbec
nesúhlasím - 5 úplne súhlasím).
Monitoring. Monitoring bol sledovaný pomocou 8 položkovej škály
Parental monitoring of Behavior Scale (Barber, 2002). Táto škála
zahŕňa položky týkajúce sa monitorovania správania dospievajúceho
prostredníctvom pýtania sa, dohliadania, stanovovania pravidiel (napr.
„Moja mama/môj otec mi pripomína pravidlá, ktoré mi stanovil/a.“
„Moja mama/môj otec sa snaží vedieť, kto sú moji priatelia a kde
trávim voľný čas.“) Dve z položiek boli reverzne prevrátené. Škála
monitoringu vykazuje dostatočnú vnútornú konzistenciu: adolescentom
vypĺňaný dotazník týkajúci sa matky α = 0,67; týkajúci sa otca
α = 0,76. Matkou vypĺňaný dotazník α = 0,69; otcom vypĺňaný
dotazník α = 0,70.
Psychologická kontrola. Psychologická kontrola bola
operacionalizovaná ako manipulácia myšlienkami a emóciami dieťaťa
prostredníctvom vyvolávania pocitov viny, odopierania lásky, vytvárania
anxiety a znevažovania pohľadu dospievajúceho. Využitá bola
8-položková škála Psychologickej kontroly (Psychological Control
79
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
Scale - Youth Self-Report, Barber, 1996) (napr. „Moja mama/môj otec
zmení tému vždy, keď chcem niečo povedať.“ „Ak mamu/otca urazím,
prestane so mnou rozprávať, až kým ho/ju zase nejako nepoteším.“)
Vnútorná konzistencia škály je nasledujúca: adolescentom vypĺňaný
dotazník - matka α = 0,75; otec α = 0,76; rodičmi vypĺňaný dota-
zník - matka α = 0,69; otec α = 0,65.
Trestanie. V štúdii sme použili trojpoložkovú subškálu Trestanie
dotazníka The Network of Relationships Social Provision Version
(Furman, Buhrmester, 1985). Trestanie je v tejto metodike chápané
široko, ako používanie trestov vo všeobecnosti, karhanie a verbálna
agresia v podobe nadávok. Cronbachovo alfa pre túto subškálu
je nasledujúce: adolescent matka α = 0,78; otec α = 0,81; rodičia
matka α = 0,59, otec α = 0,63.
Rodinné procesy. Rôzne rodinné procesy boli sledované pomocou
dotazníka The Network of Relationships Social Provision Version
(Furman, Buhrmester, 1985). Dotazník obsahuje 9 subškál. Pre potreby
našej práce sme vybrali päť z nich: trávenie spoločného času,
2 subškály charakterizujúce negatívne rodinné procesy: konflikt, vzájomný
antagonizmus a 2 subškály charakterizujúce pozitívne rodinné
procesy: náklonnosť a spokojnosť so vzťahom. Jednotlivé subškály
pozostávali z troch položiek. Respondenti odpovedali na položky
na 5-bodovej škále Likertoveho typu ((1) vôbec alebo málo,
(5) väčšinu/väčšinou). Príklady položiek pre jednotlivé subškály
sú uvedené v tabuľke 6.
Vnútorná konzistencia jednotlivých subškál je dobrá. Cronbachova
alpha pre položky vypĺňané adolescentom je: trávenie voľného času
matka α = 0,70, otec α = 0,74; konflikt matka α = 0,72, otec α = 0,73;
antagonizmus matka a otec α = 0,71; náklonnosť matka α = 0,75, otec
α = 0,79; spokojnosť so vzťahom matka α = 0,85, otec α = 0,89; pre
položky vypĺňané rodičmi je o niečo nižšia: trávenie voľného času
matka α = 0,67, otec α = 0,73; konflikt matka α = 0,73, otec α = 0,69;
antagonizmus matka α = 0,67, otec α = 0,63, náklonnosť obaja rodičia
α = 0,76; spokojnosť so vzťahom matka α= 0,72, otec α = 0,74.
80
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Tabuľka 6 Príklady položiek subškál dotazníka The Network
of Relationships Social Provision Version (Furman, Buhrmester, 1985)
subškála príklad položky
trávenie
spoločného
času
Ako často spolu s mamou/otcom navštevujete rôzne
miesta, robíte zábavné veci?
konflikt Ako veľmi sa s mamou/ s otcom hádate?
antagonizmus Do akej miery vás s mamou/ s otcom otravuje správanie
toho druhého?
náklonnosť Ako veľmi tvojej mame/ tvojmu otcovi na tebe záleží?
spokojnosť
so vzťahom
Ako si spokojný so svojim vzťahom s mamou/ s otcom?
Pravidlá. Mieru percipovania pravidiel ako jasných sme zisťovali
pomocou jednej položky. Respondenti vyplnili položku: „Pravidlá
v mojej rodine sú jasné.“ S možnosťami odpovede (1) nikdy, (2) občas,
(3) často, (4) stále. Keďže odpovede na otázku nespĺňali kritérium
normálneho rozloženia, položka bola dichotomizovaná: pravidlá nie
sú jasné (nikdy a občas) / pravidlá sú jasné (často a stále). Približne
73% respondentov percipovalo pravidlá v rodine ako jasné.
Na určenie stupňa internalizácie rodičovských pravidiel bol
použitý dotazník Internalization of Parental Rules in the Moral
Domain (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Sierens, 2009). Tento dotazník
sa týkal špecificky matkiných pravidiel. Respondenti dostali nasledujúcu
inštrukciu: „Niekedy tvoja mama určí pravidlá ohľadom toho,
ako sa nemáš správať. Napríklad, mohla Ti už niekedy zakázať
klamať, kradnúť alebo porušiť sľub. Tieto pravidlá sú o správaní,
ktoré väčšina ľudí vníma ako nesprávne. Ty môžeš mať však aj iné
dôvody, prečo tieto pravidlá dodržiavaš. Prosím, uveď nakoľko
súhlasíš s nasledujúcimi dôvodmi, prečo je dôležité dodržiavať
pravidlá, ktoré zaviedla tvoja matka ohľadom zlého správania.
Dodržiavam matkine pravidlá týkajúce sa toho, ako sa nemám
správať, pretože:“ Následne mali na škále od (1) vôbec nesúhlasím
81
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
po (5) úplne súhlasím ohodnotiť 18 rôznych odpovedí, ktoré reflektujú
tri typy regulácie v súlade s teóriou seba-determinácie: externá
regulácia (6 položiek), introjektovaná regulácia (6 položiek) a identifikovaná
regulácia (6 položiek). Externá regulácia je charakterizovaná
uposlúchnutím rodiča s cieľom vyhnúť sa nepríjemným dôsledkom
(„Dodržiavam matkine pravidlá týkajúce sa toho, ako sa nemám
správať, pretože sa bojím, že by som mohol/mohla stratiť vymoženosti,
ktoré mám, ak by som ich nedodržiaval/a.“); introjektovaná
regulácia vyjadruje čiastočnú internalizáciu noriem, avšak uposlúchnutie
rodičovských pravidiel je motivované potrebou vyhnúť sa pocitom
viny a hanby („Dodržiavam matkine pravidlá týkajúce sa toho,
ako sa nemám správať, pretože inak by som mal zo seba zlý pocit.“);
identifikovaná regulácia je charakterizovaná úplným zvnútornením
rodičovských noriem („Dodržiavam matkine pravidlá týkajúce sa
toho, ako sa nemám správať, pretože rozumiem, prečo sú tieto pravidlá
dôležité.“)
Pre jednotlivé typy regulácie bolo vyrátané priemerné skóre.
Na základe odporúčaného postupu autorov metodiky bol následne
vypočítaný Relatívny index internalizácie: 3x skóre identifi-
kácie - skóre introjekcie - 2x skóre externej regulácie. S týmto relatívnym
indexom internalizácie pracujeme v ďalších analýzach. Cronbachova
alfa pre jednotlivé subškály je: identifikovaná α = 0,87; introjektovaná
α = 0,81; externá regulácia α = 0, 72.
Reakciou na stanovené pravidlá môže byť namiesto internalizácie ich
aktívne neuposlúchnutie, konanie opačné, ako pravidlá stanovujú.
Neuposlúchnutie pravidiel bolo merané prostredníctvom štyroch
položiek (Vansteenkiste et al., 2014) (napr. „Robím presný opak toho,
čo odo mňa mama očakáva“, „Je mi jedno, čo mi mama hovorí o zlom
správaní. Robím si sám, čo chcem.“) opäť s možnosťou odpovede
(1) vôbec nesúhlasím, (5) úplne súhlasím. Následne bolo vyrátané
priemerné skóre. Vnútorná konzistencia škály je α = 0,85.
Sebaúcta dospievajúcich bola meraná pomocou 10-položkovej škály
sebaúcty Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1979). Polovica
82
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
položiek tejto škály je negatívne orientovaná. Respondenti odpovedajú
na 4 bodovej škále Likertoveho typu (1-úplne súhlasím, 4-vôbec
nesúhlasím). Skóre bolo následne prepólované tak, aby vyššie skóre
indikovalo vyššiu sebaúctu. Túto metodiku vypĺňali len dospievajúci.
Vnútorná konzistencia škály je α = 0,71. Úroveň sebaúcty chlapcov
a dievčat sa štatisticky významne líši. Chlapci uvádzali vyššiu mieru
sebaúcty (M = 2,80; SD = 0,38) ako dievčatá (M = 2,67; SD = 0,39)
avšak veľkosť efektu bola malá (t = 4,29; p ≤ ,001; d = 0,34).
Rizikové správanie. Adolescenti odpovedali na tri otázky, týkajúce
sa celoživotnej prevalencie fajčenia, užívania alkoholu a opitosti:
„Fajčil si už niekedy cigaretu, aj keď len jednu doteraz?“ (1) nie nikdy,
(2) už som to skúsil, (3) v minulosti som fajčil, ale úplne som prestal,
(4) sem tam fajčím, ale nie denne, (5) teraz fajčím denne. „Pil si už
niekedy alkohol?“ s možnosťami odpovede (1) nie nikdy, (2) už som
to skúšal, (3) pil som ho viackrát, (4) pijem alkohol pravidelne aspoň
raz za mesiac, (5) pijem alkohol pravidelne aspoň raz za týždeň.
„Koľkokrát sa Ti stalo, že si si pitím alkoholických nápojov navodil/a
opitosť, napr. si sa potácal/a, nedokázal/a si poriadne rozprávať,
vracal/a si, alebo si nepamätal/a na to, čo sa stalo včera?“ (1) nikdy,
(2) už sa mi to stalo, (3) stalo sa mi to viackrát, (4) stáva sa mi
to pravidelne aspoň 1x za mesiac, (5) stáva sa mi to pravidelne aspoň
1x za týždeň. Výskyt jednotlivých druhov rizikového správania a rodové
rozdiely uvádzame v tabuľke 7. Chi kvadrát test nepoukázal na rodové
rozdiely v prevalencii rizikového správania.
Vzhľadom na relatívne nízku prevalenciu rizikového správania v tejto
vekovej skupine (viď tabuľka 7) sme vytvorili kumulatívny index
rizikového správania, pričom sme za rizikové správanie považovali
ak adolescent aspoň raz skúsil fajčiť, pil viackrát alkohol a aspoň raz
sa opil. 73,2% respondentov bolo zaradených do skupiny bez skúsenosti
s rizikovým správaním; 18,8% respondentov malo jednu skúsenosť,
6,3% dve skúsenosti a 1,7% tri skúsenosti s rizikovým správaním.
Následne bol tento index dichotomizovaný na žiadna skúsenosť/aspoň
jedna skúsenosť.
83
Tabuľka 7 Prevalencia rizikového správania (fajčenie, pitie alkoholu,
opitosť) u chlapcov a dievčat
chlapci dievčatá
N (%) N (%)
skúsenosť s fajčením
nie, nikdy 229 (77,1%) 229 (80,6%)
už som to skúsil 56 (18,9%) 44 (15,5%)
v minulosti,
ale úplne som prestal
5 (1,7%) 4 (1,5%)
sem tam fajčím, ale nie denne 5 (1,7%) 6 (2,1%)
teraz fajčím denne 2 (0,7%) 0 (0,0%)
χ² = 3,31, p = 0,508
skúsenosť s alkoholom
nie, nikdy 119 (40,1%) 132 (46,5%)
už som to skúsil 134 (45,1%) 125 (44,0%)
pil som alkohol viackrát 40 (13,5%) 26 (9,2%)
pijem alkohol pravidelne,
aspoň raz za mesiac
2 (0,7%) 0 (0,0%)
pijem alkohol pravidelne,
aspoň raz za týždeň
1 (0,3%) 0 (0,0%)
χ² = 6,67, p = 0,155
opitosť
nie, nikdy 280 (94,3%) 275 (96,8%)
už sa mi to stalo 12 (4,0%) 5 (1,8%)
stalo sa mi to viackrát 1 (0,3%) 2 (0,7%)
stáva sa mi to pravidelne,
aspoň raz za mesiac
1 (0,3%) 0 (0,0%)
stáva sa mi to pravidelne,
aspoň raz za týždeň
1 (0,3%) 0 (0,0%)
χ² = 4,97, p = 0,290
84
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
8.1.4 Štatistické analýzy
Údaje boli analyzované prostredníctvom štatistického programu IBM
SPSS 21. Využité boli metódy korelácie, t-testu, párového t-testu,
logistickej a lineárnej regresie. Veľkosť efektu sledovaných rozdielov
sme hodnotili prostredníctvom Cohenovho d. Štandardne používané
hodnoty pre interpretovanie tohto koeficientu sú 0,2-0,5 malý efekt,
0,5-0,8 stredný efekt, viac ako 0,8 veľký efekt.
8.1.5 Výsledky
V tabuľke 8 uvádzame korelácie medzi premennými tak, ako ich percipovali
adolescenti. V prvom kroku sme sa zamerali na vzťah medzi
jednotlivými formami kontroly. Pearsonov korelačný koeficient poukazuje
na silný súvis psychologickej kontroly matky s trestaním (r=0,416
percipované adolescentmi; r=0,279 percipované matkami) a takmer
nulový medzi monitoringom a psychologickou kontrolou matky
(r=-0,025 percipované adolescentmi; r=0,076 matkami) a monitoringom
a trestaním (r=0,099 adolescenti; r=0,019 matky). Podobný vzťah
medzi jednotlivými formami kontroly je i u otcov - silný súvis
psychologickej kontroly a trestania (r=0,483 percipované adolescentmi;
r=0,231 percipované otcami) a takmer nulový medzi monitoringom
a psychologickou kontrolou (r=0,037 adolescenti; r=-0,042 otcovia)
a monitoringom a trestaním (r=-0,031 adolescenti; r=0,056).
Rodové rozdiely v rodičovskej kontrole. Prvým cieľom práce
bolo identifikovať rodové rozdiely v jednotlivých formách rodičovskej
kontroly. Analýzy boli realizované vzhľadom na rod adolescenta a rod
rodiča. Výsledky párového t-testu ukazujú, že matka a otec toho istého
adolescenta percipujú úroveň jednotlivých foriem kontroly rovnako,
s výnimkou trestania. Matky uvádzali trestanie dospievajúcich vo väčšej
miere ako to uvádzali otcovia (tabuľka 9), hoci veľkosť efektu bola
nízka (Cohenovo d=-0,203). Porovnanie matkinej a otcovej kontroly,
tak ako ju percipujú adolescenti, však poukazuje na štatisticky významné
rozdiely v monitoringu. Adolescenti vnímajú mieru monitoringu
matky ako vyššiu v porovnaní s monitoringom otca (tabuľka 9).
85
Tabuľka 8 Korelácie medzi sledovanými premennými z pohľadu adolescenta.3
Pearsonov korelačný koeficient.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
1. behav. kon. M 1
2. behav. kon. O ,697*** 1
3. psychol. kon. M -,025 -,059 1
4. psychol. kon. O ,016 ,037 ,712*** 1
5. trestanie M ,099* ,042 ,416*** ,376*** 1
6. trestanie O ,087 ,073 ,387*** ,483*** ,711*** 1
7. spoločný čas M ,305*** ,272*** -,160*** -,104* -,008 -,018 1
8. spoločný čas O ,213*** ,389*** -,082 -,093 ,005 ,047 ,578*** 1
9. konflikt M -,052 -,065 ,489*** ,313*** ,579*** ,402*** -,036 -,072 1
10. konflikt O -,012 -,063 ,346*** ,466*** ,409*** ,600*** ,022 -,056 ,551*** 1
11. antagon. M -,095* -,125** ,476*** ,368*** ,556*** ,436*** -,100* -,087 ,752*** ,464***
12. antagon. O -,043 -,106* ,396*** ,537*** ,433*** ,588* -,061 -,084 ,461*** ,780***
13. náklonnosť M ,274*** ,179*** -,222*** -,0666 -,013 -,013 ,422*** ,219*** -,125** -,048
14. náklonnosť O ,167*** ,327*** -,166*** -,143** -,065 -,001 ,239*** ,440*** -,097* -,116*
15. spok. vzťah M ,293*** ,247*** -,276*** -,097* -,095* ,045 ,480*** ,237*** -,244*** -,103*
3 behaviorálna kontrola matka/otec, psychologická kontrola, trestanie, trávenie spoločného času, konflikt, antagonizmus, náklonnosť,
spokojnosť so vzťahom, jasnosť pravidiel, internalizácia pravidiel, neuposlúchnutie pravidiel, rizikové správanie, sebaúcta
16. spok. vzťah O ,164*** ,356*** -,199*** -,198*** ,063 -,029 ,269*** ,561*** -,158*** -,223***
17. jasnosť prav. ,309*** ,364*** -0,39 ,023 ,048 ,028 ,196*** ,258*** -,070 -,100*
18. internal. prav. ,232*** ,206*** -,450*** -,329*** -,283*** -,249*** ,299*** ,240*** -,381*** -,255***
19. neuposlúchn. -,264*** -,227*** ,287*** ,199*** ,244*** ,245*** -,240*** -,206*** ,336 ,207***
20. rizikové spr. -,141*** -,127** ,137*** ,101* ,096* ,097* -,085* -,054 ,058 ,106*
21. sebaúcta ,102* ,119* -,241*** -,210*** -,126** -,115* ,252*** ,248*** -,153 -,184***
11. 12 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
11. antagon. M 1
12. antagon. O ,613*** 1
13. náklonnosť M -,102* -,051 1
14. náklonnosť O -,110* -,134** ,642*** 1
15. spok. vzťah M -,266*** -,114* ,687*** ,452*** 1
16. spok. vzťah O -,156*** -,210*** ,478*** ,798*** ,529*** 1
17. jasnosť prav. -,085 -,104* ,094* ,127** ,150*** ,168*** 1
18. internal. prav. -,383*** -,311*** ,222*** ,141** ,291*** ,192*** ,214*** 1
19. neuposlúchn. ,354*** ,315*** -,166*** -,167*** ,304*** -,195*** -,294*** -,398*** 1
20. rizikové spr. ,130** ,158*** -,072 -,016 -,107* -,049 -,093* -,091* ,097* 1
21. sebaúcta -,178*** -,189*** ,185*** ,160*** ,248*** ,228*** ,098* ,256*** -,229* -,091*
* p ≤ 0,05; ** p ≤ 0,01; *** p ≤ 0,001
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
Tabuľka 9 Porovnanie kontroly u rodičovského páru. Výsledky párového
t-testu.
N priemer (SD) t-test p d
percipované rodičmi
monitoring
matka 113 4,23 (0,45) 1,48 ,141 -0,152
otec 4,16 (0,47)
ps.
kontrola
matka 113 2,07 (0,56) 0,47 ,642 -0,057
otec 2,04 (0,49)
trestanie
matka 113 1,95 (0,67) 2,00 ,048 -0,203
otec 1,82 (0,61)
percipované adolescentom
monitoring
matka 104 3,68 (0,60) 5,19 ,000 -0,416
otec 3,42 (0,65)
ps.
kontrola
matka 104 2,43 (0,79) 1,58 ,117 -0,104
otec 2,35 (0,75)
trestanie
matka 101 2,31 (1,02) 0,94 ,351 -0,067
otec 2,25 (0,97)
V tabuľke 10 prezentujeme rodové rozdiely v rodičovskej kontrole
vzhľadom na rod adolescenta. Chlapci uvádzali štatisticky významne
väčšie používanie psychologickej kontroly (t = 2,55; p ≤ ,05;
d = -0,203) a trestania (t = 4,15; p ≤ ,001; d = -0,566) matkami
ako dievčatá. Údaje získane od matiek však poukazujú len na malý rozdiel
v trestaní v neprospech chlapcov (t = 2,02; p ≤ ,05; d = -0,278).
V miere monitoringu sme nezistili štatisticky významné rodové rozdiely.
V súvislosti s kontrolou otca, chlapci uvádzali štatisticky významne
častejšie trestanie (t = 3,87; p ≤ ,001; d = -0,688), avšak z pohľadu
otca neboli zaznamenané žiadne rodové rozdiely.
88
Tabuľka 10 Rodové rozdiely v rodičovskej kontrole tak, ako ich
percipujú adolescenti a ich rodičia.
N priemer (SD) t-test p d
matka - percipované adolescentom
monitoring
chlapec 101 3,76 (0,57) 1,61 ,110 -0,203
dievča 114 3,64 (0,61)
ps. kontrola
chlapec 101 2,66 (0,83) 2,55 ,011 -0,130
dievča 114 2,39 (0,75)
trestanie
chlapec 100 2,62 (0,98) 4,15 ,000 -0,566
dievča 112 2,10 (0,86)
matka - percipované matkou
monitoring
chlapec 101 4,28 (0,44) 0,56 ,575 -0,085
dievča 115 4,24 (0,50)
ps. kontrola
chlapec 101 2,05 (0,60) 0,17 ,869 -0,017
dievča 115 2,04 (0,56)
trestanie
chlapec 101 2,08 (0,72) 2,02 ,044 -0,278
dievča 115 1,89 (0,65)
otec - percipované adolescentom
monitoring
chlapec 56 3,41 (0,66) -0,85 ,398 0,161
dievča 73 3,52 (0,70)
ps. kontrola
chlapec 56 2,36 (0,62) -0,09 ,962 0,027
dievča 73 2,38 (0,82)
trestanie
chlapec 54 2,59 (1,00) 3,87 ,000 -0,688
dievča 76 1,99 (0,77)
otec - percipované otcom
monitoring
chlapec 62 4,12 (0,50) -0,12 ,909 0,020
dievča 82 4,13 (0,49)
ps. kontrola
chlapec 62 2,07 (0,52) -0,41 ,685 0,058
dievča 82 2,10 (0,52)
trestanie
chlapec 64 1,91 (0,67) 0,74 ,458 -0,121
dievča 84 1,83 (0,65)
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
Rodičovská kontrola a jej súvis s percipovaním pravidiel,
internalizáciou a neuposlúchnutím. V ďalšom kroku analýz sme
overovali, do akej miery jednotlivé formy kontroly predikujú to, nakoľko
jasne adolescenti percipujú doma stanovené pravidlá, aká je miera
internalizácie stanovených pravidiel a do akej miery adolescenti
stanovené pravidlá uposlúchnu. Premenná jasnosť pravidiel bola pre
účely analýz dichotomizovaná.
Tabuľka 11 Súvis medzi jednotlivými formami rodičovskej kontroly
a percipovaním pravidiel ako jasných, logistická regresia.
OR 95% CI
model 1: matka
rod (chlapec) 1,07 0,71 1,61
matka monitoring 3,30*** 2,31 4,72
matka ps. kontrola 0,92 0,69 1,23
matka trestanie 1,09 0,86 1,38
model χ² (4): 51,4***
-2 log likelihood: 560,9
pseudo R²: 0,14
model 2: otec
rod (chlapec) 1,39 0,85 2,28
otec monitoring 3,73*** 2,54 5,49
otec ps. kontrola 0,98 0,69 1,41
otec trestanie 0,98 0,74 1,31
model χ² (4): 56,8***
-2 log likelihood: 421,6
pseudo R²: 0,19
*** p ≤ 0,001
90
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Výsledky logistickej regresie (tabuľka 11) ukazujú, že len monitoring
(matky i otca) významne zvyšuje pravdepodobnosť percipovania pravidiel
v rodine ako jasných. Psychologická kontrola, ani trestanie s jasnosťou
pravidiel v rodine nesúvisia.
Nasledujúca tabuľka (tabuľka 12) v prezentovaných regresných modeloch
vyjadruje, do akej miery môžu jednotlivé formy kontroly predikovať
mieru internalizácie pravidiel a naopak, mieru neuposlúchnutia
pravidiel.
Tabuľka 12 Vzťah medzi kontrolou rodičov a internalizáciou pravidiel
a neuposlúchnutím pravidiel.
internalizácia pravidiel neuposlúchnutie
B (SE) β B (SE) β
model 1
rod
(chlapec)
0,376 (0,179) 0,08* 0,069 (0,062) 0,05
matka
monitoring
0,914 (0,146) ,235*** -0,354 (0,050) -,283***
matka
ps. kontrola
-1,184 (0,127) -,381 *** 0,180 (0,044) ,178***
matka
trestanie
-0,342 (0,101) -,140*** 0,167 (0,035) ,207***
F(4) = 49,2***; R² = 0,27 F(4) = 27,9***, R² = 0,17
model 2
rod
(chlapec)
0,207 (0,225) ,042 0,135 (0,073) ,087
otec
monitoring
0,750 (0,160) ,209*** -0,255 (0,051) -,225***
otec
ps. kontrola
-0,855 (0,166) -,265*** 0,125 (0,054) ,121*
otec
trestanie
-0,338 (0,130) -,138** 0,177 (0,042) ,225***
F(4) = 21,7***, R² = 0,16 F(4) = 16,0***, R² = 0,12
** p ≤ 0,01; *** p ≤ 0,001
91
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
Výsledky sú pomerne konzistentné, ukazujúce, že kontrola zo strany
matky vysvetľuje viac variancie (27% a 17%) v sledovaných premenných
ako otcova kontrola (16% a 12%). V súlade s očakávaniami, monitoring
oboch rodičov signifikantne pozitívne predikuje mieru internalizácie
a negatívne neuposlúchnutie pravidiel. Naopak, psychologická
kontrola a trestanie oboch rodičov signifikantne negatívne predikujú
mieru internalizácie a pozitívne neuposlúchnutie pravidiel.
Rodičovská kontrola a jej súvis s ďalšími rodinnými procesmi.
Predpoklad, že používanie rôznych foriem kontroly súvisí s ostatnými
rodinnými procesmi, sme overovali pomocou lineárnej regresie
(tabuľka 13). Rodičovská kontrola vysvetľuje viac variancie (približne
40% pre oboch rodičov) v negatívnych rodinných procesoch (konflikt
a antagonizmus) ako v pozitívnych procesoch (spoločný čas, náklonnosť,
spokojnosť, variancia približne 13%). V súlade s očakávaniami,
monitoring rodičov pozitívne predikuje pozitívne rodinné procesy
a negatívne predikuje negatívne procesy. Naopak je to v prípade
psychologickej kontroly. Trestanie oboch rodičov súvisí len s mierou
konfliktu a antagonizmu, nie s pozitívnymi procesmi.
Rodičovská kontrola a jej súvis s rizikovým správaním
a seba-úctou dospievajúcich. Jedným z hlavných cieľov rodičovskej
kontroly je dosiahnuť u dospievajúcich žiaduce správanie a zároveň
neznižovať sebaúctu dospievajúcich. Jednotlivé formy kontroly
zároveň môžu medzi sebou interagovať. V nasledujúcich tabuľkách
(tabuľka 14 a 15) prezentujeme regresné modely, ktoré boli realizované
v troch krokoch. Model 1 sleduje efekt jednotlivých foriem kontroly
na rizikové správanie (tabuľka 14) a sebaúctu (tabuľka 15). V modely 2
boli pridané interakcie medzi dvoma formami kontroly, v modely 3
interakcia všetkých troch foriem kontroly.
92
Tabuľka 13 Vzťah medzi kontrolou a rodinnými procesmi (lineárna regresia).
spoločný čas náklonnosť spokojnosť konflikt antagonizmus
B (SE) β B (SE) β B (SE) β B (SE) β B (SE) β
model 1: matka
rod 0,110 (0,08) ,060 -0,073 (0,06) -,049 -0,046 (0,07) -,028 0,064 (0,06) ,037 -0,080 (0,06) -,046
monitoring 0,446 (0,06) ,299*** 0,332 (0,05) ,264*** 0,390 (0,05) ,287*** -0,129 (0,05) -,093** -0,192 (0,05) -,134***
ps. kontrola -0,198 (0,05) -,164*** -0,230 (0,04) -,229*** -0,285 (0,05) -,261*** 0,330 (0,04) ,293*** 0,327 (0,04) ,283***
trestanie 0,037 (0,04) ,039 0,044 (0,04) ,055 -0,016 (0,04) -,019 0,418 (0,03) ,471*** 0,401 (0,03) ,441***
F(4) = 18,3***
R² = 0,11
F(4) = 18,6***
R² = 0,12
F(4) = 25,2***
R² = 0,15
F(4) = 94,6***
R² = 0,41
F(4) = 87,7***
R² = 0,39
model 2: otec
rod -0,058 (0,09) -,031 -0,018 (0,08) -,011 -0,047 (0,08) -,025 0,055 (0,07) ,032 0,049 (0,07) ,027
monitoring 0,528 (0,06) ,386*** 0,382 (0,05) ,320*** 0,474 (0,06) ,350*** -0,135 (0,05) -,109** -0,186 (0,05) -,143***
ps. kontrola -0,184 (0,06) -,148** -0,240 (0,06) -,225*** -0,315 (0,06) -,257*** 0,267 (0,05) ,237*** 0,386 (0,05) ,328***
trestanie 0,053 (0,05) ,057 0,070 (0,04) ,086 0,055 (0,05) ,059 0,431 (0,04) ,505*** 0,392 (0,04) ,438***
F(4) = 21,6***
R² = 0,16
F(4) = 17,9***
R² = 0,14
F(4) = 23,2***
R² = 0,17
F(4) = 78,5***
R² = 0,42
F(4) = 87,0***
R² = 0,44
** p ≤ 0,01; *** p ≤ 0,001
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
Pravdepodobnosť výskytu rizikového správania dospievajúcich
(výsledky logistickej regresie, tabuľka 14) je nižšia v prípade vyššieho
monitoringu matky (nie otca). Psychologická kontrola ani trestanie
nesúvisia s výskytom rizikového správania dospievajúcich. Výsledky
zároveň poukazujú na štatisticky významnú interakciu medzi monitoringom
a trestaním v prípade oboch rodičov (model 2). Pre lepšiu
interpretáciu interakcie medzi monitoringom a trestaním sme vytvorili
graf pre matku (graf 1). Zdá sa, že hoci chýbajúci monitoring matky
zostáva sám o sebe rizikovým faktorom rizikového správania, zároveň
kombinácia nízkeho monitoringu a vysokej miery trestania zvyšuje
pravdepodobnosť rizikového správania sa dospievajúcich. Táto interakcia
bola štatisticky signifikantná aj pre otca.
Tabuľka 14 Vzťah medzi rodičovskou kontrolou a rizikovým správaním
dospievajúcich (logistická regresia).
model 1 model 2 model 3
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
matka
rod (chlapec) 1,08 0,73 1,61 1,08 0,73 1,60 1,08 0,73 1,60
monitoring 0,52*** 0,37 0,72 ,264* ,079 0,89 ,445*** 0,28 0,70
ps. kontrola 1,28 0,97 1,70 2,11 ,417 10,68 1,02 0,61 1,72
trestanie 1,22 0,98 1,51 0,27 ,065 1,12 0,97 0,58 1,61
monitoring X
ps. kontrola
,870 ,548 1,38
monitoring X
trestanie
1,51* 1,08 2,10
ps. konrola X
trestanie
1,00 0,78 1,28
monitoring X
ps. kontrola X
trestanie
1,02 0,98 1,07
model χ² 26,0*** 22,8** 26,9***
-2 log likelihood 610,9 486,7 609,9
pseudo R² 0,07 0,07 0,07
94
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
otec
rod (chlapec) 1,16 0,74 1,80 1,19 0,76 1,87 1,16 0,74 1,82
monitoring 0,76 0,56 1,05 0,47 0,18 1,24 0,60* 0,39 0,94
ps. kontrola 1,38 1,00 1,90 2,12 0,50 9,80 1,02 0,61 1,69
trestanie 1,09 0,85 1,40 0,23 0,05 1,06 0,77 0,46 1,30
monitoring X
ps. kontrola
0,84 0,55 1,28
monitoring X
trestanie
1,45* 1,02 2,07
ps. kontrola X
trestanie
1,07 0,84 1,38
monitoring X
ps. kontrola X
trestanie
1,04 0,99 1,08
model χ² 11,2* 15,6* 13,4*
-2 log likelihood 496,7 492,3 494,5
pseudo R² 0,04 0,05 0,04
* p ≤ 0,05; *** p ≤ 0,001
Graf 1 Interakcia medzi monitoringom matky a trestaním vo vzťahu
k rizikovému správaniu.
95
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
V tabuľke 15 prezentujeme podobné modely pre sebaúctu (lineárna
regresia). Vyššia miera monitoringu matky a nižšia miera psychologickej
kontroly predikujú mieru sebaúcty dospievajúcich (model 1),
pričom najsilnejším prediktorom sa javí byť psychologická kontrola.
Po pridaní interakcií medzi jednotlivými formami kontroly do modelu
(model 2) však zostáva významným prediktorom sebaúcty len psychologická
kontrola.
Tabuľka 15 Vzťah medzi rodičovskou kontrolou a sebaúctou dospievajúcich
(lineárna regresia).
model 1 model 2 model 3
B (SE) β B (SE) β B (SE) β
matka
rod (chlapec)
-0,169
(0,032)
-,217***
-0,187
(0,035)
-,243***
-0,187
(0,035)
-,243***
monitoring
0,073
(0,026)
,116**
-0,103
(0,106)
-,162
0,065
(0,032)
,102*
ps. kontrola
-0,113
(0,023)
-,224***
-0,359
(0,154)
-,715*
-0,037
(0,025)
-,210***
trestanie
-0,032
(0,018)
-,081
-0,008
(0,116)
-,012
-0,105
(0,032)
-,094
monitoring X
ps. kontrola
0,072
(0,041)
,604
monitoring X
trestanie
-0,006
(0,030)
-,064
ps. konrola X
trestanie
-0,006
(0,008)
-,059
monitoring X
ps. kontrola X
trestanie
0,000
(0,002)
-,011
F(4) = 18,3***
R² = 0,11
F(6) = 9,7***
R² = 0,12
F(5) = 12,9***
R² = 0,12
96
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
otec
rod (chlapec)
-0,208
(0,036)
-,274***
-0,210
(0,036)
-,276***
-0,208
(0,036)
-,274***
monitoring
0,062
(0,025)
,112*
0,130
(0,078)
,234
0,060
(0,035)
,109
ps. kontrola
-0,095
(0,026)
-,190***
0,053
(0,121)
,106
-0,097
(0,043)
-,195*
trestanie
-0,035
(0,021)
-,091
-0,089
(0,106)
-,233
-0,037
(0,044)
-,098
monitoring X
ps. kontrola
0,017
(0,025)
,123
monitoring X
trestanie
0,015
(0,029)
,165
ps. konrola X
trestanie
-0,043
(0,034)
-,359
monitoring X
ps. kontrola X
trestanie
0,000
(0,004)
,011
F(4) = 15,2***
R² = 0,12
F(6) = 10,4***
R² = 0,12
F(5) = 12,1***
R² = 0,11
* p ≤ 0,05; *** p ≤ 0,001
8.1.6 Diskusia
Prvá štúdia bola zameraná na rôzne formy rodičovskej kontroly a ich
súvis s rodom, percepciou a internalizáciou stanovených pravidiel,
rodinnými procesmi a rizikovým správaním a sebaúctou dospievajúcich.
Výsledky korelačných analýz poukazujú na pomerne úzky vzťah
medzi psychologickou kontrolou a trestaním tak ako ich percipujú
adolescenti. Toto zistenie je v súlade s predchádzajúcimi informáciami
naznačujúcimi, že neprimerané formy behaviorálnej kontroly (v našom
prípade trestanie) sú dospievajúcimi percipované podobne ako
psychologická kontrola (Evans, Simons, Simons, 2012). Naopak, monitoring
s ostatnými formami kontroly nesúvisel, hoci by bolo možné
očakávať medzi týmito formami kontroly negatívnu koreláciu (čím viac
rodičia využívajú monitoring, tým menej budú uplatňovať nevhodné
97
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
formy kontroly). Naše výsledky dopĺňajú názor, že dimenzia kontroly
by mohla byť charakterizovaná dvoma samostatnými faktormi - mierou
behaviorálnej kontroly a mierou psychologickej kontroly (Schaefer,
1965).
Zdá sa, že matka je v každodennom živote dospievajúcich stále angažovaná
viac ako otec (Bornstein, 2015). Aj v prezentovanom výskume
rodové rozdiely v kontrole poukazujú na štatisticky významne vyššiu
mieru monitoringu zo strany matky ako otca. Tento výsledok však bol
potvrdený len ak boli do úvahy brané údaje od dospievajúcich. Rozdiely
v monitoringu tak, ako ho percipujú rodičovské páry, neboli zistené.
Otcovia pri monitoringu vo zvýšenej miere využívajú informácie
od manželiek (Waizenhofer, Buchanan, Jackson-Newsom, 2004).
Môžu preto sami vnímať svoju mieru monitoringu ako vysokú, napriek
tomu, že nie je zameraný priamo na adolescentov. Adolescenti
si nemusia byť vedomí toho, že otcovia sledujú ich aktivity prostredníctvom
matiek a preto vnímať matky ako viac monitorujúce.
Výchovné postupy rodičovského páru sa zvyčajne nelíšia, alebo sa líšia
len málo (Baumrind, 1991). To potvrdzuje i naše zistenie, že rodičovský
pár vníma spôsob a intenzitu používanej kontroly rovnako (s výnimkou
mierneho rodového rozdielu v trestaní). Z doterajšieho stavu poznania
vyplýva, že pre optimálny vývin dospievajúcich je dôležitý práve
rovnaký výchovný prístup oboch rodičov (Harvey, 2000; Simons,
Conger, 2007; Steinberg, 2001).
V súlade s niektorými predchádzajúcimi zisteniami (Blossom et al.,
2016; Luebbe et al., 2014; Shek, 2008), chlapci v našej štúdii uvádzali
významne vyššiu mieru psychologickej kontroly zo strany matky
a trestania zo strany oboch rodičov ako dievčatá. Avšak údaje získané
od rodičov poukazujú len na malý rozdiel v neprospech trestania
chlapcov matkami. Jedným z dôvodov týchto rozdielnych výsledkov
môže byť interpretácia rodičovského správania. Chlapci v dospievaní
očakávajú od rodičov vyššiu mieru autonómie ako dievčatá (Fuligni,
1998), preto môžu prípadnú psychologickú kontrolu a trestanie rodi-
98
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
čov vnímať ako zasahujúce do ich autonómie viac ako to vnímajú
dievčatá.
Ak dospievajúci vnímajú rodičmi stanovené pravidlá ako jasné,
je pravdepodobnejšie, že sa v súlade s nimi budú správať a zároveň
skôr akceptujú dôsledky, ktoré by prípadné neuposlúchnutie pravidiel
so sebou prinieslo (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, 2010). Výsledky našich
regresných analýz poukazujú na to, že jedine monitoring (matky
aj otca) signifikantne zvyšoval pravdepodobnosť, že dospievajúci budú
stanovené pravidlá percipovať ako jasné. Podobný výsledok bol zistený
i v súvislosti s mierou internalizácie pravidiel a neuposlúchnutia pravidiel.
Najsilnejším prediktorom toho, do akej miery dospievajúci stanovené
pravidlá internalizujú sa však javí byť psychologická kontrola.
Vyššia miera psychologickej kontroly predikovala nižšiu mieru
internalizácie. Psychologická kontrola je niektorými autormi chápaná
ako opačný pól podpory autonómie (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Sierens,
2009; Van Petegem et al., 2015), podpora autonómie je zároveň
významným predpokladom zvnútornenia pravidiel (Vansteenkiste
et al., 2014). Najsilnejším prediktorom neuposlúchnutia pravidiel
(prostredníctvom otvoreného vzdoru) sa javí byť nedostatok monitoringu.
Ak monitoring rodičov nie je dostatočný, pravidlá sa javia
ako nejasné (táto štúdia), dospievajúci nevie, aké pravidlá by mal
dodržiavať a aké sú dôsledky nedodržiavania, čo môže následne vyvolať
jeho tendenciu správať sa opačne ako rodičia očakávajú. Tento fakt
je v súlade s  teóriou reaktancie (Miron, Brehm, 2006), bližšie predstavenou
v teoretickej časti.
V ďalšom kroku prvej časti analýz sme overovali, do akej miery rodičovská
kontrola súvisí s ďalšími rodinnými procesmi reflektujúcimi
kvalitu vzťahu adolescent-rodič. Výsledky prezentovaných analýz
poukazujú na pomerne úzky vzťah medzi kontrolou a ostatnými rodinnými
procesmi. Všetky formy rodičovskej kontroly vysvetľujú viac
variancie v negatívnych rodinných procesoch (konflikt a antagonizmus)
ako v pozitívnych procesoch (spoločný čas, náklonnosť, spokojnosť).
To môže byť vysvetlené veľmi významným súvisom trestania
rodičov s konfliktmi a antagonizmom. V súlade s očakávaniami, moni-
99
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
toring rodičov pozitívne predikuje pozitívne rodinné procesy a negatívne
predikuje negatívne procesy. Naopak je to v prípade psychologickej
kontroly. Trestanie oboch rodičov súvisí len s mierou konfliktu
a antagonizmu, nie s pozitívnymi procesmi. Tieto zistenia sú v súlade
s predchádzajúcimi poznatkami o tom, že rodičia viac monitorujú
dospievajúcich v rodinách, ktoré sú charakterizované lepšou kvalitou
vzťahov adolescent - rodič (Keijsers et al., 2009) a že psychologická
kontrola úzko súvisí s nižšou vrelosťou (Güngör, Bornstein, 2010).
Emocionálny kontext, ktorý rodičia svojim prístupom k dospievajúcim
vytvárajú, môže zároveň meniť význam kontroly pre dospievajúceho.
Adolescenti, ktorí majú s rodičmi dobrý vzťah charakterizovaný vrelosťou,
oporou a záujmom môžu i vyššiu mieru riadenia vnímať ako primeranú
a stanovené pravidlá ako nápomocné (Čáp, Boschek, 1994;
Smetana, Crean, Campione Barr, 2005; Sorkhabi, Middaugh, 2014 ).‐
Tretím cieľom prvej štúdie bolo overiť súvis rodičovskej kontroly
s behaviorálnymi (rizikovým správaním) a psychologickými (sebaúctou)
faktormi u dospievajúcich. V súlade s predchádzajúcimi zisteniami
(Parker, Benson, 2004; Wellman et al., 2016) vyšší monitoring
matky súvisí s nižšou pravdepodobnosťou výskytu rizikového správania
v skorej adolescencii. Psychologická kontrola v podobe manipulácie
prostredníctvom výčitiek, či vyvolávania pocitov viny, ani samotné
trestanie, sa nejavia byť protektívnymi faktormi rizikového správania,
ale zároveň ani nezvyšujú pravdepodobnosť jeho výskytu. Zaujímavým
zistením je však existencia interakcie medzi monitoringom
a trestaním u oboch rodičov. Kombinácia nízkeho monitoringu
a vysokej miery trestania matky a otca súvisí s vyššou pravdepodobnosťou
rizikového správania sa dospievajúcich.
V súlade s našimi očakávaniami i predchádzajúcimi štúdiami (napr.
Boudreault-Bouchard et al., 2013), psychologická kontrola matky
i otca negatívne súvisela so sebaúctou dospievajúcich. Vyššia miera
monitoringu oboch rodičov súvisela naopak s vyššou sebaúctou. Hoci
sila tohto efektu nebola veľmi vysoká, výsledok je v súlade s našou
predchádzajúcou štúdiou na vzorke 11-ročných dospievajúcich,
ukazujúcou pozitívny vzťah medzi behaviorálnou kontrolou a seba-
100
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
úctou (Bacikova-Sleskova, Benka, Orosova, v tlači) avšak zároveň
v rozpore so štúdiami z iných krajín (napr. Kerr, Stattin, 2000). Tento
výsledok naznačuje možnosť, že v Slovenskom kontexte (ako bolo
diskutované v teoretickej časti tejto monografie) je behaviorálna
kontrola rodičov percipovaná adolescentmi pozitívne a má pozitívne
psychologické dôsledky.
8.2 Štúdia 2. Rodičovská kontrola ako súčasť
výchovných štýlov
8.2.1 Teoretické východiská
Jedným z trendov v súčasnom výskume rodinných procesov je použitie
tzv. na osobu orientovaného prístupu (person-oriented approach)
(napr. Lippold, Greenberg, Collins, 2013; Soenens, Vansteenkiste,
Sierens, 2009; Yan, Ansari, 2016). Tento prístup využíva rôzne
techniky zhlukovej analýzy na identifikáciu podskupín jednotlivcov,
ktorí sú nositeľmi určitých kombinácií konkrétnych charakteristík.
Rôzne výchovné praktiky rodičov majú tendenciu sa vyskytovať v určitých
kombináciách a vytvárať tak akési „výchovné profily“ (Soenens,
Vansteenkiste, 2010; Yan, Ansari, 2016). Na osobu orientovaný prístup
v súčasnosti do istej miery nahrádza tradičný prístup k problematike
výchovných štýlov, pretože výchovné štýly vopred nedefinuje, ale identifikuje
na základe získaných údajov.
Tradičný, na premennú zameraný prístup (variable-oriented
approach) sleduje, ako jednotlivé aspekty rodinných procesov súvisia
s rôznymi dôsledkami pre dospievajúceho. Na druhej strane, na osobu
zameraná analýza umožňuje identifikovanie prirodzene sa zhlukujúcich
aspektov rodinných procesov a sledovať, ako táto špecifická
kombinácia viacerých procesov súvisí s dôsledkami pre adolescenta.
Konkrétna kombinácia rodinných procesov odlišuje jednu skupinu
dospievajúcich od iných skupín. Oba tieto prístupy si však nie sú protirečiace,
ale navzájom sa doplňujúce (von Eye, Bogat and Rhodes
2006), umožňujú získať rozdielne avšak v oboch prípadoch užitočné
informácie pre lepšie pochopenie fungovania rodinných procesov.
101
34
Study 10
The second study published within a monograph is „Parental control as a part of parenting
styles“.
According to Schaefer (1965), parenting style can be defined as a combination of parenting
behaviours in three main dimensions: emotionality/ warmth, behavioural control and
psychological control. In this study we again apply a person-oriented approach. We aimed to
identify parenting styles based on the level of parental behaviour in these dimensions as
perceived by adolescents. The dataset for the study was the same as in study 8. Results show 5
parenting styles for mothers (distant/ neglecting; controlling/ manipulating; monitoring;
authoritative; permissive), and 4 parenting styles for fathers (distant/ neglecting; controlling/
manipulating; monitoring; supportive).
Controlling/ manipulating style of father, unlike mother, was characterised by higher
level of monitoring together with higher level of psychological control. This result suggests that
in some fathers monitoring (as positive form of control) and psychological control (negative
form) do not contradict.
In the next step of analyses, we have explored to what extent these parenting styles are
associated with risk behaviour and self-esteem of adolescents. The most optimal maternal styles
for both behavioural and psychological development seem to be monitoring (high monitoring,
below average psychological control and warmth) and authoritative style (high monitoring and
warmth, low psychological control). Monitoring style seems to be more suitable for avoiding
risk behaviour, while authoritative for protecting self-esteem (with still quite low risk
behaviour). On the other hand, the least optimal style is distant/ neglectful style. With regard to
paternal styles, the most optimal style is supportive both for risk behaviour and self-esteem.
Author´s contribution: 100%
UNIVERZITA PAVLA JOZEFA ŠAFÁRIKA V KOŠICIACH
Filozofická fakulta
Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Mária Bačíková
Košice 2019
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Vedecká monografia
© Mgr. Mária Bačíková, PhD.
Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia, Filozofická fakulta,
UPJŠ v Košiciach
Vedecká redaktorka:
Prof. PhDr. Oľga Orosová, CSc.
Katedra pedagogickej psychológie a psychológie zdravia, Filozofická fakulta,
UPJŠ v Košiciach
Recenzenti:
Prof. Peter Halama, PhD.
Centrum spoločenských a psychologických vied SAV, Bratislava
Katedra psychológie, Filozofická fakulta, Trnavská univerzita, Trnava
Doc. Peter Babinčák, PhD.
Inštitút psychológie, Filozofická fakulta, UNIPO v Prešove
Všetky práva vyhradené. Toto dielo ani jeho žiadnu časť nemožno reprodukovať, ukladať
do informačných systémov alebo inak rozširovať bez súhlasu majiteľov práv. Za odbornú
a jazykovú stránku tejto vedeckej monografie zodpovedá autor. Rukopis neprešiel redakčnou
a jazykovou úpravou.
Práca bola podporená Vedeckou grantovou agentúrou Ministerstva školstva
VEGA 1/0623/17 a Agentúrou pre vedu a výskum APVV-15-0662.
Návrh obálky a zalomenie textu: Stanislav Bačík
Umiestnenie: https://unibook.upjs.sk/sk/73-e-publikacie-volne-pristupne
Dostupné od: 1. jún 2019
ISBN 978-80-8152-729-6 (tlačená verzia)
ISBN 978-80-8152-736-4 (elektronická verzia)
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
úctou (Bacikova-Sleskova, Benka, Orosova, v tlači) avšak zároveň
v rozpore so štúdiami z iných krajín (napr. Kerr, Stattin, 2000). Tento
výsledok naznačuje možnosť, že v Slovenskom kontexte (ako bolo
diskutované v teoretickej časti tejto monografie) je behaviorálna
kontrola rodičov percipovaná adolescentmi pozitívne a má pozitívne
psychologické dôsledky.
8.2 Štúdia 2. Rodičovská kontrola ako súčasť
výchovných štýlov
8.2.1 Teoretické východiská
Jedným z trendov v súčasnom výskume rodinných procesov je použitie
tzv. na osobu orientovaného prístupu (person-oriented approach)
(napr. Lippold, Greenberg, Collins, 2013; Soenens, Vansteenkiste,
Sierens, 2009; Yan, Ansari, 2016). Tento prístup využíva rôzne
techniky zhlukovej analýzy na identifikáciu podskupín jednotlivcov,
ktorí sú nositeľmi určitých kombinácií konkrétnych charakteristík.
Rôzne výchovné praktiky rodičov majú tendenciu sa vyskytovať v určitých
kombináciách a vytvárať tak akési „výchovné profily“ (Soenens,
Vansteenkiste, 2010; Yan, Ansari, 2016). Na osobu orientovaný prístup
v súčasnosti do istej miery nahrádza tradičný prístup k problematike
výchovných štýlov, pretože výchovné štýly vopred nedefinuje, ale identifikuje
na základe získaných údajov.
Tradičný, na premennú zameraný prístup (variable-oriented
approach) sleduje, ako jednotlivé aspekty rodinných procesov súvisia
s rôznymi dôsledkami pre dospievajúceho. Na druhej strane, na osobu
zameraná analýza umožňuje identifikovanie prirodzene sa zhlukujúcich
aspektov rodinných procesov a sledovať, ako táto špecifická
kombinácia viacerých procesov súvisí s dôsledkami pre adolescenta.
Konkrétna kombinácia rodinných procesov odlišuje jednu skupinu
dospievajúcich od iných skupín. Oba tieto prístupy si však nie sú protirečiace,
ale navzájom sa doplňujúce (von Eye, Bogat and Rhodes
2006), umožňujú získať rozdielne avšak v oboch prípadoch užitočné
informácie pre lepšie pochopenie fungovania rodinných procesov.
101
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
Hlavným cieľom druhej výskumnej časti predkladanej monografie
je preto využitím na osobu orientovaného prístupu identifikovať
aké výchovné štýly (tak, ako ich percipujú dospievajúci) sa v našom
výskumnom súbore prirodzene vyskytujú. Budeme pritom vychádzať
z predpokladu existencie troch základných dimenzií výchovných
štýlov - behaviorálna kontrola (špecificky úroveň monitoringu),
psychologická kontrola a emocionálna opora (špecificky miera percipovanej
náklonnosti). Zároveň overíme, ako identifikované výchovné
štýly súvisia s rizikovým správaním a sebaúctou dospievajúcich.
8.2.2 Výskumný súbor, metodiky a štatistické
analýzy
Analýzy v druhej časti práce boli realizované na rovnakom výskumnom
súbore ako v predchádzajúcej časti, s použitím údajov len od dospievajúcich
(N=580). V rámci výskumných metodík sme na identifikáciu
výchovných štýlov použili informácie o úrovni monitoringu, psychologickej
kontroly a náklonnosti (referované dospievajúcimi); ďalej sme
pracovali s úrovňou sebaúcty a skúsenosťou s rizikovým správaním
(kumulatívny index). Všetky použité metodiky sú popísané v prvej
štúdii.
V druhej štúdii bola použitá metóda dvojkrokovej klastrovej
(zhlukovej) analýzy (two-step cluster analyses) použitím štatistického
softwaru SPSS. Klastrová analýza je exploratívna metóda, ktorá slúži
na identifikáciu štruktúry v dátach. Pomocou nej je možné identifikovať
homogénne skupiny jednotlivcov (zhluky), ktorí majú podobné
charakteristiky a zároveň sa odlišujú od jednotlivcov v iných skupinách
(Kaufman, Rousseeuw 2009). V tejto štúdii použitá metóda pozostáva
z dvoch krokov. V prvom kroku sa na základe vzdialenosti medzi
jednotlivými prípadmi vytvoria tzv. podzhluky, ktoré pomáhajú redukovať
veľký počet prípadov. V druhom kroku nasleduje štandardná
hierarchická zhluková analýza. Analýzy boli realizované osobitne pre
matku a otca. Počet klastrov bol determinovaný na základe hodnoty
BIC (Bayessian information criterion). Na základe uvedeného kritéria
bolo vybrané riešenie s piatimi klastrami pre matku a štyrmi klastrami
102
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
pre otca, ktoré okrem optimálnej hodnoty použitých kritérií,
sú zároveň konceptuálne jasné a logické.
V druhom kroku analýz sme použili chi kvadrátový test na sledovanie
rozdielov v rizikovom správaní vzhľadom na príslušnosť k identifikovanému
klastru a ANOVA pre sledovanie rozdielov v miere sebaúcty.
Veľkosť efektu v týchto analýzach bola overovaná prostredníctvom
Cramerovho V (pre chí kvadrát) a hodnoty eta squared (pre ANOVA).
Hodnota Cramerovho V môže nadobúdať číslo 0-1, pričom čím vyššia
hodnota, tým vyšší je efekt. Hodnota eta squared je zvyčajne
interpretovaná podľa Cohena (1988) nasledovne: 0,01-0,059 malý
efekt, 0,06-0,137 stredný efekt, od 0,138 veľký efekt.
8.2.3 Výsledky
Použitím dvoj krokovej klastrovej analýzy boli respondenti zaradení
do niekoľkých vzájomne odlišných skupín (zhlukov) podľa toho,
ako percipovali úroveň rodičovského monitoringu, psychologickej
kontroly a náklonnosti zo strany matky a otca. Analýzu sme realizovali
v dvoch podobách: (1) pre matku a otca osobitne a (2) procesy
zo strany oboch rodičov sme zaradili do jedného modelu klastrovej
analýzy. Keďže v prípade analýz pre každého z rodičov osobitne boli
výsledné zhluky informatívnejšie, zachytávajúce práve rozdiely
vo výchove matiek a otcov, prezentujeme v nasledujúcej časti výsledky
samostatne pre matku a otca.
V súvislosti s matkou bolo identifikovaných 5 skupín respondentov.
Traja respondenti neboli zaradení do žiadnej zo skupín (vylúčený
prípad, outlier case). V tabuľke 16 prezentujeme priemerné hodnoty
a štandardné odchýlky rodinných procesov (matka) pre jednotlivé
klastre a zastúpenie respondentov v jednotlivých klastroch. Pre lepšiu
ilustráciu klastrov uvádzame i graf 2, pričom priemerné skóre rodinných
procesov, prezentované v grafe, bolo konvertované na Z-skóre.
Prvý klaster bol pomenovaný dištančný/zanedbávajúci výchovný
štýl (nízka úroveň monitoringu a náklonnosti a priemerná úroveň
psychologickej kontroly, do tejto skupiny bolo zaradených 23,2%
103
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
dospievajúcich); druhý klaster bol pomenovaný kontrolujúci/manipulatívny
(vysoká miera psychologickej kontroly, priemerná
hodnota monitoringu a náklonnosti, 22,5% adolescentov); tretí
klaster bol nazvaný monitorujúci (vysoká miera monitoringu, podpriemerná
miera psychologickej kontroly i náklonnosti, 21,8% respondentov);
štvrtý klaster - autoritatívny (vysoká miera monitoringu
aj náklonnosti a podpriemerná úroveň psychologickej kontroly,
15,3% respondentov); piaty klaster - permisívny (vysoká
miera náklonnosti, nízka miera monitoringu i psychologickej kontroly,
16,6% adolescentov). Je potrebné zdôrazniť, že uvedené hodnoty
(vysoká, priemerná, nízka) sú odvodené od priemerných hodnôt pre
celý výskumný súbor. To znamená, že napr. nízka miera náklonnosti
je nízka len v porovnaní s ostatnými respondentmi, hoci v absolútnej
hodnote môže byť priemerná.
Použitím chi-kvadrát testu sme porovnali percentuálne zastúpenie
chlapcov a dievčat v jednotlivých klastroch. Hodnota testu nepoukazuje
na štatisticky významný rodový rozdiel (χ² = 8,69; p = 0,069).
Tabuľka 16 Priemerné hodnoty rodinných procesov (monitoring,
psychologická kontrola, náklonnosť) pre jednotlivé klastre. Údaje týkajúce
sa matky.
matka
monitoring ps. kontrola náklonnosť
veľkosť
klastra
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) N (%)
1. dištančný/
zanedbávajúci
3,12 (0,42) 2,51 (0,63) 3,31 (0,60) 126 (23,2%)
2. kontrolujúci/
manipulatívny
3,68 (0,35) 3,42 (0,60) 4,17 (0,60) 122 (22,5%)
3. monitorujúci 4,25 (0,38) 2,24 (0,57) 3,88 (0,33) 118 (21,8%)
4. autoritatívny 4,38 (0,29) 2,30 (0,48) 4,95 (0,12) 83 (15,3%)
5. permisívny 3,37 (0,35) 1,96 (0,40) 4,73 (0,27) 90 (16,6%)
vylúčený prípad 3 (0,65%)
priemer 3,73 (0,61) 2,54 (0,75) 4,10 (0,77)
104
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Graf 2 Úroveň monitoringu, psychologickej kontroly a náklonnosti
v jednotlivých klastroch. Údaje týkajúce sa matky.
Analýzou informácií o jednotlivých rodinných procesoch zo strany otca
boli identifikované štyri klastre (tabuľka 17, graf 3). Piati z respondentov
boli identifikovaní ako vylúčený prípad. Respondenti sú
v jednotlivých klastroch rovnomerne zastúpení. Klastre boli pomenované
podobne ako v prípade matky: 1. klaster - dištančný/zanedbávajúci
výchovný štýl (nízka miera monitoringu i náklonnosti,
podpriemerná miera psychologickej kontroly; do tejto skupiny bolo
zaradených 27,4% dospievajúcich); 2. klaster - kontrolujúci/manipulatívny
výchovný štýl (vysoká miera psychologickej kontroly,
nadpriemerná miera monitoringu, priemerná miera náklonnosti,
24,1% adolescentov); 3. klaster - monitorujúci (vysoká miera monitoringu,
nízka úroveň psychologickej kontroly a priemerná
náklonnosť, 20,5%); 4. klaster bol pomenovaný podporujúci výchovný
štýl, pretože, na rozdiel od klastra pre matky, bola v tomto
105
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
prípade prítomná nadpriemerná miera monitoringu (nízka psychologická
kontrola, vysoká náklonnosť, mierne nadpriemerný monitoring,
36,9% dospievajúcich).
Porovnanie (chí kvadrátový test) zastúpenia chlapcov a dievčat
v jednotlivých skupinách výchovných štýlov otca opäť nepoukázalo
na štatisticky významné rozdiely (χ² = 6,46; p = 0,091).
Tabuľka 17 Priemerné hodnoty rodinných procesov (monitoring,
psychologická kontrola, náklonnosť) pre jednotlivé klastre. Údaje týka-
júce sa otca.
otec
monitoring ps. kontrola náklonnosť
veľkosť
klastra
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) N (%)
1. dištančný/
zanedbávajúci
2,91 (0,39) 2,38 (0,65) 3,47 (0,65) 119 (27,4%)
2. kontrolujúci/
manipulatívny
3,77 (0,53) 3,31 (0,53) 4,30 (0,55) 105 (24,1%)
3. monitorujúci 4,04 (0,34) 2,05 (0,39) 3,81 (0,44) 89 (20,5%)
4. podporujúci 3,64 (0,72) 2,01 (0,45) 4,86 (0,20) 117 (36,9%)
vylúčený prípad 5 (1,1%)
priemer 3,54 (0,69) 2,45 (0,76) 4,11 (0,77)
V nasledujúcom kroku sme zisťovali, nakoľko príslušnosť k jednotlivým
klastrom (teda špecifické formy výchovného štýlu) súvisia s rizikovým
správaním a sebaúctou dospievajúcich. V tabuľke 18 prezentujeme
percentuálne zastúpenie tých respondentov, ktorí už majú skúsenosť
s rizikovým správaním a priemerné hodnoty sebaúcty podľa
jednotlivých klastrov pre výchovný štýl matky. Hodnota chi kvadrátu
(χ² = 15,06) poukazuje na štatisticky významný rozdiel v skúsenosti
s rizikovým správaním medzi jednotlivými skupinami.
106
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Graf 3 Úroveň monitoringu, psychologickej kontroly a náklonnosti
v jednotlivých klastroch. Údaje týkajúce sa otca.
Najnižšiu skúsenosť uvádzali respondenti v 3. klastri (autoritársky
výchovný štýl). Naopak, v prvom klastri (dištančný/zanedbávajúci štýl)
viac ako dvojnásobný podiel respondentov mal skúsenosť s rizikovým
správaním. Rozdiely v miere sebaúcty v jednotlivých klastroch boli
overované pomocou ANOVY. V tabuľke 18 sú uvedené priemerné
hodnoty sebaúcty. Výsledky F testu a LSD post hoc testov poukazujú
na štatisticky významné rozdiely v sebaúcte medzi respondentami
v jednotlivých klastroch. Najvyššiu mieru sebaúcty uvádzali respondenti
v 5. klastri (permisívny), ktorí však zároveň uvádzali vysokú
mieru rizikového správania. Najnižšia sebaúcta bola zaznamenaná
medzi adolescentmi v 2. klastri (kontrolujúci/manipulatívny štýl),
ktorí zároveň uvádzali pomerne vysokú skúsenosť s rizikovým správa-
ním.
107
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
Tabuľka 18 Súvis výchovných štýlov matky s rizikovým správaním
a sebaúctou dospievajúcich.
matka
rizikové správanie sebaúcta
% M
1. dištančný/
zanedbávajúci
34,9 2,66
2. kontrolujúci/
manipulatívny
32,0 2,63
3. monitorujúci 15,3 2,76
4. autoritatívny 22,9 2,81
5. permisívny 31,1 2,91
χ² = 15,06** F = 9,18*** ª
V = 0,167 η² = 0,065
** p ≤ 0,01; *** p ≤ 0,001; ª post hoc (LSD) 1<4, 1<5, 2<3, 2<4, 2<5, 3<5, 4<5
Podobné porovnania boli realizované aj pre klastre v súvislosti
s výchovným štýlom otca. Percentuálne zastúpenie adolescentov, ktorí
majú skúsenosť s rizikovým správaním a priemerná hodnota sebaúcty
podľa jednotlivých klastrov je uvedená v tabuľke 19. Aj v prípade
rizikového správania (χ² = 9,54; p ≤ 0,05) aj sebaúcty (F = 8,14;
p ≤ 0,001) sme identifikovali štatisticky významné rozdiely medzi
jednotlivými štýlmi. Najnižšie zastúpenie tých, ktorí majú skúsenosť
s rizikovým správaním je v klastri 3 (autoritársky výchovný štýl).
Veľmi podobné percentuálne zastúpenie je však i v klastri 4 (podporujúci),
v ktorom adolescenti zároveň uvádzali najvyššiu mieru sebaúcty.
108
Psychológia rodičovskej kontroly v dospievaní
Tabuľka 19 Súvis výchovných štýlov otca s rizikovým správaním a sebaúctou
dospievajúcich.
otec
rizikové správanie sebaúcta
% M
1. dištančný/
zanedbávajúci
34,5 2,67
2. kontrolujúci/
manipulatívny
32,5 2,67
3. monitorujúci 19,1 2,77
4. podporujúci 21,4 2,88
χ² = 9,54* F = 8,14*** ª
V = 0,149 η² = 0,054
ª post hoc (LSD) 1<4, 1<3, 2<3, 2<4, 3<4
8.2.4 Diskusia
Cieľom štúdie 2 bolo identifikovať výchovné štýly tak, ako ich percipujú
adolescenti, na základe prirodzene sa zhlukujúcich spôsobov
správania sa rodiča v troch základných dimenziách výchovy (Schaefer,
1965): behaviorálna kontrola, psychologická kontrola a emocionalita.
Prostredníctvom klastrovej analýzy bolo identifikovaných päť výchovných
štýlov pre matku a štyri pre otca.
Identifikované výchovné štýly pre matku (dištančný/zanedbávajúci;
kontrolujúci/manipulatívny; autoritársky; autoritatívny a permisívny)
do značnej miery korešpondujú s teoreticky vymedzenými štýlmi
Diany Baumrindovej (1965), preto, pokiaľ to bolo koncepčne vhodné,
sme pri pomenovaní identifikovaných klastrov vychádzali z jej typológie.
Baumrindová však koncipovala svoju teóriu na základe
predpokladu existencie dvoch základných dimenzií. Pridaním tretej
dimenzie výchovných štýlov (podľa Shaefer, 1965) - úrovne psychologickej
kontroly - bol v našom výskumnom súbore identifikovaný
ďalší výchovný štýl charakterizovaný vysokou úrovňou psychologickej
109
Kapitola 8 - Rodičovská kontrola u slovenských dospievajúcich
kontroly a zároveň priemernou úrovňou monitoringu a náklonnosti,
ktorý sme pomenovali manipulatívny. Tento výchovný štýl matky
súvisí s veľmi vysokou mierou rizikového správania dospievajúcich
a zároveň s nízkou úrovňou sebaúcty. Zaujímavým zistením je, že vysoké
hodnoty psychologickej kontroly sa prirodzene nevyskytovali
v kombinácii s vysokými hodnotami monitoringu ani náklonnosti.
Ako najoptimálnejšie výchovné štýly matky sa v našom výskumnom
súbore javia byť štýl monitorujúci (vysoký monitoring, podpriemerná
psychologická kontrola a náklonnosť) a autoritatívny výchovný štýl
(vysoký monitoring a náklonnosť, podpriemerná psychologická kontrola).
Monitorujúci štýl sa zdá byť vhodnejší v súvislosti s obmedzením
rizikového správania, naopak autoritatívny súvisí s vyššou
sebaúctou pri stále pomerne nižšej úrovni rizikového správania.
Naopak, najmenej vhodný výchovný štýl, ako v súvislosti s rizikovým
správaním tak i so sebaúctou, sa zdá byť štýl dištančný/zanedbávajúci,
čo je v súlade s predchádzajúcimi zisteniami o dôležitosti pozitívneho
emocionálneho vzťahu medzi rodičom a dospievajúcim (napr.
Adalbjarnardottir, Hafsteinsson, 2001; Chassin et al., 2005).
V súvislosti s otcom sme identifikovali len štyri výchovné štýly
(dištančný/zanedbávajúci; kontrolujúci/manipulatívny; monitorujúci
a podporujúci). Len dištančný/zanedbávajúci a monitorujúci štýl
svojimi charakteristikami korešpondovali s výchovnými štýlmi matky.
Kontrolujúci/manipulatívny štýl otca, na rozdiel od matky, je charakterizovaný
i pomerne vyššou mierou monitoringu, čo naznačuje,
že u istej skupiny otcov sa monitoring (ako pozitívna forma kontroly)
a psychologická kontrola nevylučujú. Zatiaľ čo respondenti percipujúci
vysokú náklonnosť matky boli zaradení do dvoch klastrov (tí s vysokým
monitoringom a tí s nízkym monitoringom) v prípade otca analýzy
potvrdili len jeden klaster. Pomenovali sme ho podporujúci výchovný
štýl. Podporujúci výchovný štýl otca sa javí byť najoptimálnejší pre
vyhnutie sa rizikovému správaniu a zároveň udržanie vysokej sebaúcty.
V súvislosti s rizikovým správaním a sebaúctou sa dištančný/zanedbávajúci
a kontrolujúci/manipulatívny štýl zdajú byť ako najmenej
vhodné.
110
35
3. General discussion
In the present thesis we aimed to focus on family situation, parental behaviour and various
family processes and its’ associations with health and health risk behaviour of adolescents.
Within ten published studies we have shown the shift of our research interest from focusing
more on family events (i.e. parental unemployment) on more nuanced aspects of family
processes (e.g. the changes in family processes during adolescence or a closer look at the use
of parental control). In the following paragraph we will briefly summarize our results.
Longitudinal study (Study 1) showed that in early adolescence (within one and a half
year) there is a statistically significant, although not large, decrease in several family processes
reflecting parent-adolescent relationship. Further studies revealed that adverse family events
(father’s unemployment in particular) are associated with worse health (studies 2 and 3) and
with more risk behaviour (study 4). We have found some contradictory results regarding
father’s unemployment and family processes. In study 2 adolescents with unemployed fathers
reported receiving less support than did those with employed father, while in study 3 no
differences in family processes between those with employed and unemployed parents have
been found, although adolescents with unemployed father reported the highest level of negative
emotions toward a father. Family structure (other than two-parent family) seems to be the
strongest predictor of risk behaviour (study 4). The link between parental own risk behaviour
(as perceived by adolescents) and adolescent risk behaviour is mostly mediated by perceived
parental approval of such behaviour and by affiliating with risky peers (study 5). From various
family processes, perceived parental disapproval seems to be the most important factor in
avoiding risk behaviour (study 6). With regard to specific family processes, many were
associated both with adolescent health and risk behaviour. We have reported positive
associations of perceived adolescent health with parental support (studies 2 and 3), frequency
of communication (study 3) or behavioural control (studies 8 and 9) and negative association
with parent-adolescent conflict (study 3) and psychological control (study 9). The importance
of distinguishing between various forms of parental control has also been confirmed (studies 9
36
and 10). We have also confirmed significant discrepancies in parent-adolescent perceptions of
various variables (study 6 and 7).
The results will further be discussed within two large topics that occur in most of the 10
studies: gender differences and cultural and context specifics.
3.1 Gender differences
The question whether the process of socialization in family is distinct for boys and girls and
whether mother and father take different roles in this process is one of the most discussed
questions in developmental psychology. There is a substantial amount of research showing that
parenting differs regarding gender both of a parent and a child and that boys and girls might be
differentially affected by parenting (Bosco et al., 2003; Gryczkowski et al., 2010; Paulson, &
Sputa, 1996; Verhoeven, Bögels, & van der Bruggen, 2012). However, the results are not
consistent enough to give a clear gender specific picture of family processes.
Although the role of mother and father in the parenting process is still not clear, several
trends can be identified from previous studies. Firstly, despite considerable changes in motherfather
roles in recent years, mothers are still more involved in adolescents’ everyday life than
fathers (Bornstein, 2015). They spend more time with their children and are more responsible
for daily care and discipline than fathers (McKinney, & Renk, 2011; Phares, Fields, &
Kamboukos, 2009) as well as are more engaged in their children’s emotional life than fathers
(Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007). Mothers are more informed about their adolescents’ leisure time
activities (Keijsers et al., 2010) and monitor them more (Shek, 2008). Adolescents also tend to
disclose more often to mothers than fathers (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006).
Secondly, the father-adolescent relationship is characterized by physical and emotional
distance, while mother-adolescent relationship by attachment and intimacy (Sim, 2003).
Thirdly, mothers are more likely to adopt more appropriate parenting strategies than fathers
(Conrade, & Ho, 2001; van Lissa et al., 2019).
37
This altogether suggest greater effect of maternal than paternal parenting on
adolescents’ outcomes. However, research is very unclear in this issue. Some studies suggest
that when parenting is positive, parenting of mothers has greater effect on adolescents’
outcomes; while when negative, parenting of fathers has greater effect (Keijsers et al., 2010;
Soenens et al., 2006; Verhoeven et al., 2012). On the other hand, in another research (Vazsonyi
et al., 2003), maternal and paternal processes were associated similarly with measures of both
internalizing (anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and low well-being) and externalizing
(alcohol use, drug use and school misconduct) behaviours. Similarly, the results of our studies
are inconsistent with regard to this issue. In study 2 we have found that the level of perceived
support of father is lower when father is not employed. However, maternal support seems not
to differ by employment status. On the other hand, although father’s support is lower when not
employed, when it is present it seems to have greater effect on health of adolescent than mothers
support. Contrary to this finding, in Study 4 maternal processes were associated with adolescent
risk behaviour to a higher extent than paternal processes. In Study 9, maternal control seems to
be more important for adolescent risk behaviour while both maternal and paternal control is
associated with self-esteem. These results altogether could suggest that when differentiating
between maternal and paternal processes, the studied outcome may be important. Maternal
parenting seems to be more strongly associated with risk behaviour, while both parents
parenting is associated with health.
Although individual studies suggest gender differences, several metaanalyses showed
the differences to be only small. Lytton and Romney (1991) reported on 19 family processes
and found only one significant boy-girl difference in physical punishment. Similarly, Endendijk
et al. (2016) did not confirm gender differences in parental control.
The second pattern of gender-differences suggests that girls are raised in a more
intensive way both with regard to parental control as well as parental warmth and support
(Branje, Laursen, & Collins 2012; Kapetanovic et al., 2017; McKinney, Brown, & Malkin,
2018; Smetana, & Daddis, 2002; van Lissa et al., 2019; Willoughby, & Hamza, 2011). Our
studies confirmed this assumption to some extent. In Study 4 we have confirmed boy-girl
differences in most of studied family processes with an exception of perceived social support
38
from mother. Girls reported to have more warmth and communication with mother, support
from father and more monitoring and conflicts with both parents. Boys reported more
communication with father than did girls. Further, girls seemed to be more vulnerable to other
than biological parent’s family structure. Moreover, results of this study (study 4) in general
showed stronger relationship between family characteristics/ processes and risk behaviour
among girls than boys. On the other hand, when both adolescent and parental reports on parental
control were compared by adolescent gender (study 9), no gender differences have been found
with an exception of punishment. Adolescent boys reported being punished more often that
girls. When looking at changes in family processes (study 1), no gender differences have been
confirmed.
In our recent study (Bacikova-Sleskova, Hricova, & Orosova, submitted) we have
extended our knowledge on gender specific parenting by studying mother-daughter, motherson,
father-daughter, father-son dyads. The aim of the study was to explore the gender-specific
links between perceived parental behavioural and psychological control and adolescents’
psychological adjustment directly and indirectly through the positive and negative aspects of
the parent-adolescent relationship. The participants in the study were 930 early adolescents
(mean age 12.9; 49.9% girls) who filled in questionnaires about their parents’ parenting (for
mothers and fathers respectively) and their psychological adjustment (self-esteem and life
satisfaction). The results of the structural equation modelling showed that the perception of
adolescents regarding their parents’ behavioural and psychological control is significantly
directly and/or indirectly associated with their psychological adjustment (behavioural control
positively and psychological control negatively). Among the boys, for both mothers and fathers,
control is associated with boys’ psychological adjustment only indirectly via the perceived
parent-adolescent relationship. For the girls on the other hand, the link between parental control
and psychological adjustment is direct for father’s control and both direct and indirect for
mother’s control. The link between perceived parental control, the parent-adolescent
relationship and adolescent psychological adjustment shows some gender-specific patterns.
Maternal control was associated with adolescents’ adjustment only indirectly via the quality of
39
the mother-adolescent relationship while among the fathers, more direct associations were
found. This was particularly the case for the father-daughter dyad.
Some evidence (Parke, 2004; Sim, 2003) suggests that parenting of one parent should
be considered in the context of parenting of other parent. In particular, when studying paternal
parenting. Fathers may mediate and moderate mother-child relationship (Parke, 2004). Fathers
may have indirect impact on mother-child relationships by modifying and moderating motherchild
interactions or by their relationships with the wives. Sim (2003) reported that father
characteristics moderate links between mother characteristics and adolescent attributes. For
example, the link between mother’s responsiveness and adolescent’s sense of self-worth has
become stronger as father’s responsiveness increased. In our study (study 2), on the other hand,
when mother’s support studied together with father’s support, the association of mother’s
support with adolescent health decreased.
As can be seen in previous paragraphs, although some gender specific trends in
parenting are visible, any general conclusion cannot be made. Russel and Saebel (1997) suggest
that many different factors may influence parenting and family processes, and gender is only
one of them.
3.2 Cultural and socio-economic context
Within the Bonfenbrenner’s Ecological system approach (1979), the life of individual is shaped
not only by microsystems (such as family), but also mezosystems (such as cultural and socioeconomical
context). Alike, family processes and parent-adolescent relationship are influenced
by larger systems. Cultural specifics of family processes may be seen both in the way how
parents behave and the way how adolescents respond to parental behaviour. Parents in different
cultures vary in their parenting goals and parenting values. Although these might be specific
for each nation, in general they were hypothesised to be related to the level of individualism
and collectivism in each country (Prevoo, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2017). Countries where higher
level of individualism is prevalent appraise individual values such as personal freedom or time
for oneself. On the other hand, in countries that are characterised by higher level of collectivism
40
good interpersonal relations and group benefits are highly valued. Countries therefore differ
also in their “parenting priorities” – whether parents in the particular society endorse child
independence or obedience (Park, Lau, 2016). In individualistic societies parents foster their
child’s independence in order for their children to grow up as autonomous and independent
individuals. On the other hand, parents in collectivistic societies emphasize group harmony and
understand self in relation to one’s context and relationship with others. Thus parents in
individualistic countries use parenting strategies that emphasise independence, such as
autonomy support, while parents in collectivistic countries stress the importance of group goals
and form children to be more obedient (Park, Lau, 2016). Authors in their broad study across
90 different nations found that independence was more popular in nations with greater wealth
and higher percentage of educated populations; obedience was more popular in nations with
less wealth and lower percentages of educated and urban populations.
Research for example shows that although parental warmth seems to be a universally
positive aspect of parenting, interpretations of parental control and the relation between parental
control and perceived parental warmth vary widely across cultural groups (Deater-Deckard et
al., 2011). In collectivistic countries (such as China, Korea, Ghana) parents use more controlling
behaviour toward their children than do parents in individualistic countries (Dwairy, & Achoui,
2010; Richman, & Mandara, 2013). The cultural differences can be also found in the way how
parenting behaviour is perceived and interpreted by adolescents. For example, parental
behaviour that was characterized by guilt induction was perceived more negatively by Belgian
than Chinese adolescents (Chen et al., 2016). Another example can be found in research of
Chao and Aque (2009) who found that Afro-American adolescents perceive parental highly
controlling behaviour as showing parental love and interest. Similarly, in Ghana parental
behaviour that was autonomy supportive characterised by providing choices to adolescents was
perceived as neglecting with a lack of parental interest (Marbell, & Grolnick, 2013).
Slovakia in this context is quite specific country where collectivistic values (brought
from a past) are mixed with individualistic values (typical for present European community).
In our recent study (Bačíková, 2017) we identified more or less similar levels of individualism
and collectivism in a sample of university students. Bašňáková, Brezina and Masaryk (2016)
41
reported that in the context of other European countries people in Slovakia score rather low on
individualism scale. This place Slovakia virtually in the middle of the individualistic –
collectivistic scale.
Of course, cultural specifics are not highlighted only in broad differences between
collectivistic and individualistic countries. Separate countries may differ in what is perceived
as normative with regard to parenting. For example, in some countries, physical punishment
might be perceived as more normative than in others. Similarly, expressing love toward a child
by father may be seen as inappropriate in some cultures. Furthermore, broader cultural
constructions in what is appropriate for adolescents’ development might play a role.
These cultural specifics may account for somewhat different results in several of our
studies when compared to previously published results from other countries. In studies 6, 9 and
10 we consistently reported parental behavioural control (monitoring) to be positively
associated with psychological outcomes (e.g. self-esteem) what contradicts findings from other
cultures. Several previous studies showed that although behavioural control is desirable for
avoiding risk behaviour and externalizing problems, it might also be associated with lower
psychological adjustment (Kakihara et al., 2010; Van Lissa et al., 2019). This association may
be attributed to feelings of overcontrol or incompetence that adolescents often feel when
controlled by parents (Kakihara, & Tilton-Weaver, 2009; Kapetanovic et al., 2017) as well as
to parental control in domains that are perceived as personal by adolescents (Smetana, Crean,
& Campione‐Barr, 2005). In our studies (9 and 10), however, both maternal and paternal
behavioural control was associated with better psychological adjustment both for boys and girls.
It is possible, that in Slovakia, where collectivistic values are endorsed, adolescents perceive
their parents control as a sign of interest rather than intrusiveness to their autonomous
behaviour. Similarly, our previous study showed the importance of national context with regard
to the effect of parental unemployment on adolescents’ health (Sleskova et al., 2006). Fathers
employment status was more important in Slovak sample, while in Dutch sample it was
mother’s employment status.
Beside cultural specifics, an important contextual factor for parenting and other family
processes is overall socio-economic status of family (parental education, parental employment
42
status, objective financial situation as well as subjective financial strain). Higher perceived
financial stress is associated with more conflicts between adolescents and parents, with lower
parental warmth and higher hostility (Conger et al., 1994; Morrison Gutman, McLoyd, &
Tokoyawa, 2005). Family stress model (Conger et al., 1992) suppose that objective economic
strain and unstable work are associated with worse parental emotional well-being and their
behaviour toward adolescent via subjective perception of financial stress. This perceived stress
is further associated with parental depression, what can lead to inter-marital conflicts and
decrease in parenting quality. Moreover, parents from lower socio-economic groups have less
information on adequate forms of parenting. Evans et al. (2005) found that perceived poverty
is associated with chaos and lack of structure in parenting. Leinonen et al. (2003) found that
both mothers and fathers endorse more punitive parenting when they are under economic
hardship.
According to Hoff, Laursen and Tardif (2002) association of parental SES with
parenting can be expressed in three general differences (1) lower SES parents are more
concerned that their children conform to societal expectations, while higher SES parents are
more concerned that their children develop initiative; (2) low SES parents create a home
atmosphere in which it is clear that parents have authority over children, while in high SES
families children are more equal partners; rules are discussed and opposed; (3) low SES parents
are more punitive, in particular physical punishment, but less conversational than are higher
SES parents.
In line with this, a broad international study (Park, & Lau, 2016) showed that at personlevel,
personal socioeconomic status rather than national socioeconomic characteristics
predicted individual parents’ priorities in fostering child’s independence or obedience. Higher
social class predicted greater likelihood of endorsing independence and not endorsing
obedience.
In our studies 2 and 3 we have shown that parental employment status is important with
regard to the quality of family processes as well as adolescents’ health and well-being. In Study
2 we have found that the quality of perceived social support is lower in the case of paternal
unemployment. Similarly, in Study 3 adolescents with employed fathers perceived to be closer
43
to and have a higher frequency of communication with their fathers than those with nonemployed
fathers. Adolescents with an employed mother were monitored less than those with
an unemployed or non-employed mother. Regarding the perception of parents, adolescents with
an employed father experienced a significantly higher positive affect towards him in
comparison to those with non-employed fathers and a significantly less negative affect than
those with unemployed fathers.
3.3 Future research
In past 20 years, research on family processes in families with adolescents has increased
considerably. A huge number of studies has been published bringing many important results.
The shift in research interest has been made from solely focusing on broader family factors
(such as family structure, or general parenting styles) to more nuanced research interest in
separate family processes and parent-adolescent interaction. Several new directions have
occurred in the research that should also be applied in our cultural context.
More longitudinal studies are needed in family research, in particular in Slovak context
where such studies are missing. Longitudinal studies would allow to focus on a specific process
that occurs between parenting practices or family events and the studied outcome in
adolescence. It is important to know what is the role of adolescent in this process. Adolescents
are not passive recipients of parenting efforts, they actively respond and react to parental
behaviour. Their reactions may vary by adolescent personality, their previous experiences, their
parents’ parenting style or the particular situation. These various reactions further differently
influence adolescent behaviour as well as psychological adjustment.
Various family processes and parenting practices tend to co-occur. For example, high
quality communication with parents is associated with good perceived support what is
associated with appropriate use of parental control. On the other hand, use of psychological
control is associated with higher conflicts and further with less perceived support. Using a
person-oriented approach (by any clustering method), we can identify families that resemble in
44
their family processes. Families, where various family processes are positive, adaptive, can be
distinguished from families with generally negative processes or those where the processes are
mixed.
Massive use of smartphones by adolescents opens new ways of data collections. It
makes possible to measure a day to day variations in particular family processes and thus apply
a dynamic approach to parenting research. A recent 7-days study (Mabbe et al., 2018) for
example showed that parental use of autonomy support and psychological control varies
considerably by days and this variation is related to their day to day satisfaction of
psychological needs. When parents’ needs were satisfied they tent to use more adaptive
parenting (i.e. autonomy support). The study of day to day variations may be a challenge in
Slovak context but could bring an important new data on family processes.
A recent developmental trend among adolescents shows a decrease in externalizing
behaviours and an increase in various forms of internalizing behaviours (Bor et al. 2014; de
Looze et al. 2015; Kristjansson et al., 2016). In Slovakia, this trend has not been registered yet
(ESPAD, 2015; Madarasová-Gecková, 2019), however, we can assume that it will be present
in next several years. Therefore, a shift in a research interest should be made to internalizing
problem behaviours (such as anxiety, depression symptoms, low well-being, low self-esteem).
To conclude, question for further research is not whether family is important
socialization factor in adolescence but how the socialization within family occurs. The research
interest should focus on the whole process, on the role of adolescents in this process, the role
of parental values and expectations or the global context in which parenting occurs.
45
3.4 Implications for practice
Practical implications that are offered to parents in many parenting books come primarily from
counselling or clinical psychological practice. However, for a complex view on family factors
that are important for good adolescent development a research conducted on larger
representative samples is needed. Results of our studies have brought several information that
should be spread among parents. Firstly, it seems to be important to show parents what are the
normative changes in parent-adolescent relationship during adolescence (study 1). The increase
in conflicts or decrease in perceived support (“Parents do not understand me”) in the beginning
of adolescence are normal part of the relationship. This change, however, should not be huge
and should lead to a good quality horizontal relationship in later adolescence. Further, it should
be stressed that in family adversity, or in the situation when one parent is not able to give
sufficient support to adolescent, the other parent becomes even more important (study 2).
Parents should also know, that the way how adolescents perceive family processes differs from
the way how the processes are perceived by parent (studies 6, 7). This is particularly true in
domains that are perceived by adolescents as private. With regard to avoiding adolescent risk
behaviour, showing parental disapproval of such behaviours seems to be crucial (study 5).
Furthermore, parents should be taught how to use appropriate forms of control (studies 8, 9 and
10). When controlling adolescent they should create the atmosphere where adolescent would
share information about their life with them (study 8).
It is very difficult, or even impossible to change the overall parenting style of parents
(Chassin et al., 2005). Therefore, with regard to practical implications of research findings, it
is necessary to focus on particular behaviours that could be changed and thus promote positive
changes in adolescent development. Our results suggest two particular parenting behaviours
that may be the subject of a change: parental attitude toward adolescent risk behaviour and the
way how parents assert control over adolescent.
Parental smoking and weekly alcohol consumption was associated with increased
adolescents’ substance use. This association was further mediated by perceived parental
46
approval of substance use (study 5). Similarly, study 6 showed that perceived parental approval
is the only or the strongest predictor of adolescent risk behaviour among several other family
factors and parenting practices (substance specific communication, maternal/paternal
monitoring, maternal/paternal companionship and maternal/paternal substance use). Adult
occasional alcohol consumption is perceived as normative in our culture. Parents who use
substances, may have laxer attitude toward adolescents’ risk behaviour and thus have problems
in showing their disapproval (Engels & Bot, 2006; den Exter Blokland 2006). In terms of
prevention, there is a possibility to encourage parents to improve their anti-smoking and antidrinking
attitudes and make them clear to adolescents to decrease the probability in them
engaging in risk behaviour. This seems to be highly relevant particularly for parents that drink
alcohol on a non-problematic weekly basis and their attitudes toward adolescents’ beer
consumption. Even when parents smoke or drink occasionally, they may set strict rules and
communicate clearly their disapproval of such behaviour of their child, in particular in early
adolescence. When comparing the parental and adolescent influence on risk behaviour in early
adolescence, Cleveland et al. (2008) found that parental factors explain higher percentage of
variance in risk behaviour than peer factors, what makes parental disapproval even more
important.
The second parenting practice that may be subject of intervention is parental control.
Many parents need to change either the form or intensity or both of the control they use when
raising adolescents. This could be made in two steps. The first step in the sense of primary
intervention would be to inform parents about benefits of appropriate parental control for
various aspects of adolescent development. It seems to be important to stress adequate intensity,
that has to respect a developmental needs (Stage-environment fit theory, Eccles et al., 1993) of
a particular adolescent. The second step, that could be a part of intervention programs in
secondary and tertiary prevention, is a sensitation of parents to their own use of control and
subsequent training of effective ways of parental control.
As we have stated in the introduction, psychological prevention of undesirable effects
of adverse family circumstances is not very developed in our cultural context. Research findings
suggest inter-generational transition of parenting and parenting styles (Chen, Kaplan, 2001)
47
thus the change of maladaptive forms of parenting and prevention might have a long-lasting
positive implications for other generations. Individual prevention activities are made by
counselling psychologists or school psychologists, however, parents of vulnerable children who
would benefit the most from such interventions only rarely participate in such activities. Short
one session interventions might therefore be the solution. Such short interventions are rather
easy to implement and it is more probable that parents would attend such program. Moreover,
short interventions seem to be very effective in many areas (Schleider, & Weisz, 2017). As an
example we present a work by Koning et al. (2009). The authors conducted an intervention that
included only one session with parents at the beginning of the school year within a standard
school meeting of parents. They had a short presentation on negative consequences of
adolescents’ alcohol use and on the importance of setting clear rules on alcohol use to
adolescents. After this presentation, parents were asked to work in a group and to agree on a set
of rules that would be used for all children from the particular class. This increased the
possibility of parents to control effectively their child behaviour and decreased a peer pressure
as all children had the same rule. Subsequently, this prevention decreased adolescents’ alcohol
use.
Prevention might be focused not only on parents but also on adolescents, e.g by
changing their normative expectations. Adolescents tend to interpret parental behaviour based
on their comparisons with their peers (Corsaro, & Eder, 1990). Research consistently shows
that perceived social norms (i.e. normative expectations) differ considerably from reality. If
individuals feel that their feelings, attitudes or behaviour differs considerably from feelings,
attitudes and behaviour of most members of their social group, they feel a discomfort and try
to decrease this discrepancy by changing their behaviour in line with the group norm (that is
often misinterpreted). Many prevention programs therefore work with the assumption that by
informing individuals about a real group norm individual would change their behaviour. This
assumption has been confirmed in many previous studies (DeJong et al., 2006; Perkin, Craig,
& Perkins, 2011; Perkins, 2003). Therefore, one of the possibilities for intervention, is to change
normative expectations of adolescents about the other parents’ parenting. To show them that it
is normal to have rules set by parents, and it is normal to behave in line with this rules.
48
4. Conclusion
“Family” is a topic, where people often feel to be experts because of their own long-term
experiences. However, individual experiences are considerably biased and family context for
development is very complex and varies across families. Therefore, there is a need for research
knowledge to be gained and to be spread across the general population.
Perceiving family as a system makes difficult to empirically capture the whole process
and all factors that play a role in this process. Rather, the focus on specific aspects and family
processes is needed. In depth understanding of specific situation, contexts, outcomes, individual
differences, or day to day variations in family processes may, step by step, help to make a
complex picture of socialization in family. As soon as we understand this issue in depth, it will
be possible to identify risk families and effective prevention programs can be created to prevent
many of the undesirable outcomes. In the near future, the role of family and primary caregivers
may be even more important for adolescent socialization. The number of possible model figures
increases and at the same time the quality of such figures is questionable. Parents need to
transfer the values they consider important on their children and should do it in the way that
helps to internalize the norms and values.
49
References
Abar, C. C., Jackson, K. M., Colby, S. M., & Barnett, N. P. (2015). Parent–child discrepancies
in reports of parental monitoring and their relationship to adolescent alcohol-related behaviors.
Journal of youth and adolescence, 44(9), 1688-1701.
Abar, C., Abar, B., & Turrisi, R. (2009). The impact of parental modeling and permissibility on
alcohol use and experienced negative drinking consequences in college. Addictive Behaviors,
34(6), 542-547.
Andrews, F. M. (1996). Psychological well-being: four single-item indicators of well-being.
Measuring health: a guide to raffling scales and questionnaires, 194-198.
Bačíková, M. (2017). Individualism and collectivism in the context of emigration of university
students. In: Orosová, O., Gajdošová, B. (Eds): Emigration intentions and risk behaviour among
university students, Košice: Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika v Košiciach, 2017, s. 167-185
Bacikova-Sleskova, M., Hricová, L., Orosová, O. (submitted). Gender-specific links between
behavioural and psychological control, the parent-adolescent relationship and early
adolescents’ psychological adjustment. Journal of Child and Family Research, submitted.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.
Bašnáková, J., Brezina, I., & Masaryk, R. (2016). Dimensions of culture: the case of Slovakia
as an outlier in Hofstede´s research. Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 60, 13-25.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child
development, 887-907.
Bjorner, J. B. (1996). Self-rated health: A useful concept in research, prevention and clinical
medicine. Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research, Uppsala
Bor, W., Dean, A. J., Najman, J., & Hayatbakhsh, R. (2014). Are child and adolescent mental
health problems increasing in the 21st century? A systematic review. Australian & New Zealand
journal of psychiatry, 48, 606-616.
Bornstein, M. H. (2015). Children’s parents. In M. H. Bornstein & T. Leventhal (Eds.),
Ecological settings and processes in developmental systems. In R. M. Lerner (Editor-in-chief),
Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th edn., Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Bosco, G. L., Renk, K., Dinger, T. M., Epstein, M. K., & Phares, V. (2003). The connections
between adolescents' perceptions of parents, parental psychological symptoms, and adolescent
functioning. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 179-200.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3: Loss, sadness, and depression. Basic, New
York
Branje, S., Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (2012). Parent-child communication during
adolescence. Routledge handbook of family communication, 2, 271-286.
Branstetter, S. A., & Furman, W. (2013). Buffering effect of parental monitoring knowledge
and parent-adolescent relationships on consequences of adolescent substance use. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 22, 192–198
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental psychology, 22(6), 723-742.
Brown, S. L., & Rinelli, L. N. (2010). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent
smoking and drinking. Journal of research on adolescence, 20(2), 259-273.
Camacho-Thompson, D. E., Gillen-O’Neel, C., Gonzales, N. A., & Fuligni, A. J. (2016).
Financial strain, major family life events, and parental academic involvement during
adolescence. Journal of youth and adolescence, 45(6), 1065-1074.
Chao, R. K., & Aque, C. (2009). Interpretations of parental control by Asian immigrant and
European American youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(3), 342.
Chappel, A. M., Suldo, S. M., & Ogg, J. A. (2014). Associations between adolescents’ family
stressors and life satisfaction. Journal of child and family Studies, 23(1), 76-84.
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Rose, J., Sherman, S. J., Davis, M. J., & Gonzalez, J. L. (2005).
Parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices as predictors of adolescent smoking
onset. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 30(4), 333-344.
Chen, B., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Petegem, S., & Beyers, W. (2016). Where do
the cultural differences in dynamics of controlling parenting lie? Adolescents as active agents
in the perception of and coping with parental behavior. Psychologica Belgica, 56(3), 169-192.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self‐efficacy and self‐esteem: Toward
theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self‐evaluations. Journal of
organizational Behavior, 25(3), 375-395.
Chen, Z. Y., & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 17-31.
Christoffersen, M. N. (2000). Growing up with unemployment: a study of parental
unemployment and children’s risk of abuse and neglect based on national longitudinal 1973
birth cohorts in Denmark. Childhood, 7, 421–438.
Cleveland, M. J., Feinberg, M. E., Bontempo, D. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2008). The role of
risk and protective factors in substance use across adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health,
43(2), 157-164.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes,
and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family,72(3), 685-704.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B.
(1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys.
Child development, 63(3), 526-541
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress,
coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child development,
65(2), 541-561.
Conrade, G., & Ho, R. (2001). Differential parenting styles for fathers and mothers: Differential
treatment for sons and daughters. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 29 - 35.
Corsaro, W. A., & Eder, D. (1990). Children's peer cultures. Annual review of sociology, 16(1),
197-220.
51
Cox, M.J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243 -
267.
Dahlgren, G. & Whitehead, M. (1991). Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health.
Stockholm: Institute for Future Studies.
Darling, N., & Cumsille, P. (2003). Theory, measurement, and methods in the study of family
influences on adolescent smoking. Addiction, 99, 21 - 36.
De Goede, I. H., Branje, S. J., Meeus,W. H. (2009): Developmental changes in adolescents’
perceptions of relationships with their parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1, 75-88.
De Looze, M., Raaijmakers, Q., Bogt, T. T., Bendtsen, P., Farhat, T., Ferreira, M., ... & SimonsMorton,
B. (2015). Decreases in adolescent weekly alcohol use in Europe and North America:
evidence from 28 countries from 2002 to 2010. The European Journal of Public Health,
25(suppl_2), 69-72. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv031
Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Alampay, L. P., Sorbring, E., Bacchini, D.,
& Dodge, K. A. (2011). The association between parental warmth and control in thirteen
cultural groups. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 790-794.
DeJong, W., Schneider, S. K., Towvim, L. G., Murphy, M. J., Doerr, E. E., Simonsen, N. R.,
& Scribner, R. A. (2006). A multisite randomized trial of social norms marketing campaigns to
reduce college student drinking. Journal of studies on alcohol, 67(6), 868-879.
den Exter Blokland, E.A., William W. Hale III, Meeus, W. & Engels, R.C.M.E. (2006). Parental
Anti-smoking Socialization: Associations between Parental Anti-smoking Socialization
Practices and Early Adolescent Smoking Initiation. European Addiction Research. 12, 25-32.
Dwairy, M., & Achoui, M. (2010). Parental control: A second cross-cultural research on
parenting and psychological adjustment of children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(1),
16-22.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac
Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on
young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American psychologist, 48(2), 90-
101.
Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Mesman, J. (2016).
Gender-differentiated parenting revisited: meta-analysis reveals very few differences in
parental control of boys and girls. PloS one, 11(7), e0159193.
Engels, R. C. M. E., & Bot, S. M. (2006). Social influences on adolescent substance use:
Insights into how parents and peers affect adolescent's smoking and drinking behavior. Selfregulation
in health behavior, 71-95.
ESPAD Report 2015 (2016). Results from the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and
Other Drugs. (2016). EMCDDA/ESPAD, Lisbon.
Evans, G. W., Gonnella, C., Marcynyszyn, L. A., Gentile, L., & Salpekar, N. (2005). The role
of chaos in poverty and children's socioemotional adjustment. Psychological science, 16(7),
560-565.
Flaherty, J., & Richman, J. (1989). Gender differences in the perception and utilization of social
support: theoretical perspectives and an empirical test. Social Science & Medicine, 28(12),
1221–1228.
52
Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: critical dimensions in
adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2), 213–221.
Fosco, G. M., Stormshak, E. A., Dishion, T. J., & Winter, C. E. (2012). Family relationships
and parental monitoring during middle school as predictors of early adolescent problem
behavior. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41(2), 202-213.
Fröjd, S., Kaltiala-Heino, R., Pelkonen, M., Von Der Pahlen, B., & Marttunen, M. (2009).
Significance of family life events in middle adolescence: A survey on Finnish community
adolescents. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 63(1), 78-86.
Furman, W., Buhrmester, D. (1992): Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of
personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 1, 103-115.
Gentile, D. A., Reimer, R. A., Nathanson, A. I., Walsh, D. A., & Eisenmann, J. C. (2014).
Protective effects of parental monitoring of children’s media use: a prospective study. JAMA
pediatrics, 168(5), 479-484.
Gryczkowski, M. R., Jordan, S. S., & Mercer, S. H. (2010). Differential relations between
mothers’ and fathers’ parenting practices and child externalizing behavior. Journal of child and
Family studies, 19, 539-546.
Hadiwijaya, H., Klimstra, T. A., Vermunt, J. K., Branje, S. J., Meeus, W. H. (2017): On the
development of harmony, turbulence, and independence in parent–adolescent relationships: A
five-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1-17.
Hoff, E., Laursen, B., Tardif, T., & Bornstein, M. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting.
Handbook of parenting Volume 2: Biology and ecology of parenting, 8(2), 231-52.
Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding
and action. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12, 597-605.
Kakihara, F., & Tilton-Weaver, L. (2009). Adolescents’ interpretations of parental control:
Differentiated by domain and types of control. Child Development, 80, 1722–1738.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01364.x.
Kakihara, F., Tilton-Weaver, L., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2010). The relationship of parental
control to youth adjustment: Do youths’ feelings about their parents play a role? Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1442–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9479-8.
Kapetanovic, S., Bohlin, M., Skoog, T., & Gerdner, A. (2017). Structural relations between
sources of parental knowledge, feelings of being overly controlled and risk behaviors in early
adolescence. Journal of Family Studies. Advanced online publication.
Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J., VanderValk, I. E., & Meeus, W. (2010). Reciprocal effects between
parental solicitation, parental control, adolescent disclosure, and adolescent delinquency.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(1), 88-113.
Keijsers, L., Poulin, F. (2013): Developmental changes in parent–child communication
throughout adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 49, 12, 2301-2308.
Kiesner, J., Poulin, F., & Dishion, T. J. (2010). Adolescent substance use with friends:
Moderating and mediating effects of parental monitoring and peer activity contexts. MerrillPalmer
Quarterly, 56, 529–556.
53
Klimes‐Dougan, B., Brand, A. E., Zahn‐Waxler, C., Usher, B., Hastings, P. D., Kendziora, K.,
& Garside, R. B. (2007). Parental emotion socialization in adolescence: Differences in sex, age
and problem status. Social Development, 16, 326-342.
Koning, I. M., Vollebergh, W. A., Smit, F., Verdurmen, J. E., Van Den Eijnden, R. J., Ter Bogt,
T. F., & Engels, R. C. (2009). Preventing heavy alcohol use in adolescents (PAS): cluster
randomized trial of a parent and student intervention offered separately and simultaneously.
Addiction, 104(10), 1669-1678.
Korelitz, K. E., & Garber, J. (2016). Congruence of parents’ and children’s perceptions of
parenting: A meta-analysis. Journal of youth and adolescence, 45(10), 1973-1995.
Kristjansson, A. L., Sigfusdottir, I. D., Thorlindsson, T., Mann, M. J., Sigfusson, J., &
Allegrante, J. P. (2016). Population trends in smoking, alcohol use and primary prevention
variables among adolescents in Iceland, 1997–2014. Addiction, 111, 645-652.
Laird, R. D., & Weems, C. F. (2011). The equivalence of regression models using difference
scores and models using separate scores for each informant: Implications for the study of
informant discrepancies. Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 388-397.
Lam, C. B., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2014). Time with peers from middle childhood
to late adolescence: Developmental course and adjustment correlates. Child development,
85(4), 1677-1693.
Langton, C. E., & Berger, L. M. (2011). Family structure and adolescent physical health,
behaviour and emotional well-being. Social Service Review, 85(3), 323-357.
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1996). Changes in
adolescents' daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengagement and
transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 744- 754.
Larsson, D., Hemmingsson, T., Allebeck, P., & Lundberg, I. (2002). Self-rated health and
mortality among young men: what is the relation and how may it be explained? Scandinavian
Jourlnal of Public Health, 30, 259–266.
Latendresse, S. J., Rose, R. J., Viken, R. J., Pulkkinen, L., Kaprio, J., & Dick, D. M. (2008).
Parenting mechanisms in links between parents’ and adolescents’ alcohol use behaviors.
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(2), 322-330.
Laursen, B., Collins, W. A. (2009): Parent–child relationships during adolescence. Handbook
of adolescent psychology. In: R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology, Vol 2: Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ,
John Wiley & Sons, 3-42.
Leinonen, J.A., Solantaus, T.S., & Punamaki, R.L. (2003). Social support and the quality of
parenting under economic pressure and workload in Finland: The role of family structure and
parental gender. Journal of Family Psychology, 17 (3), 409 – 418.
Lipperman-Kreda, S., Gruenewald, P. J., Bersamin, M., Mair, C. F., & Grube, J. W. (2017).
Adolescent drinking in different contexts: What behaviors do parents control? Addictive
behaviors reports, 6, 39-44.
Lippold, M. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Collins, L. M. (2014). Youths’ substance use and changes
in parental knowledge-related behaviors during middle school: A person-oriented approach.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 729–744.
54
Lippold, M. A., Greenberg, M. T., Collins, L. M. (2013): Parental knowledge and youth risky
behavior: A person oriented approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 11, 1732-1744.
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parents' differential socialization of boys and girls: A
meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 109(2), 267-296.
Mabbe, E., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., & Mouratidis, A. (2018).
Day-to-day variation in autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting: The
role of parents’ daily experiences of need satisfaction and need frustration. Parenting, 18(2),
86-109.
Maccoby, E. E. (2007). Historical overview of socialization research and theory. Handbook of
socialization: Theory and research, 13-41.
Mack, K. Y., Peck, J. H., & Leiber, M. J. (2015). The Effects of Family Structure and Family
Processes on Externalizing and Internalizing Behaviors of Male and Female Youth: A
Longitudinal Examination. Deviant Behavior, 36(9), 740-764.
Madarasová-Gecková, A. (ed.) (2019). Národná správa o zdraví a so zdravím súvisiacom
správaní 11, 13 a 15-ročných školákov na základe prieskumu uskutočneného v roku 2017/2018
v rámci medzinárodného projektu „Health Behaviour in School-aged Children“ (HBSC). Úrad
verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky.
Mak, K. K., Ho, S. Y., & Day, J. R. (2012). Smoking of parents and best friend—independent
and combined effects on adolescent smoking and intention to initiate and quit smoking.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 14(9), 1057-1064.
Mann, M. M., Hosman, C. M., Schaalma, H. P., & De Vries, N. K. (2004). Self-esteem in a
broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion. Health education research, 19, 357-372.
Marbell, K. N., & Grolnick, W. S. (2013). Correlates of parental control and autonomy support
in an interdependent culture: A look at Ghana. Motivation and Emotion, 37(1), 79-92.
Maurizi, L. K., Gershoff, E. T., & Aber, J. L. (2012). Item-level discordance in parent and
adolescent reports of parenting behavior and its implications for adolescents’ mental health and
relationships with their parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(8), 1035-1052.
Mayseless, O., & Scharf, M. (2009). Too close for comfort: Inadequate boundaries with parents
and individuation in late adolescent girls. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(2), 191-
202.
McElhaney, K.B., Porter, M.R., Wrenn Thompson, L., & Allen, J.P. (2008). Apples and
Oranges: Divergent Meanings of Parents' and Adolescents' Perceptions of Parental Influence.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28 (2), 206 – 229.
McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2011). A multivariate model of parent–adolescent relationship
variables in early adolescence. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 42, 442-462.
McKinney, C., Brown, K., & Malkin, M. L. (2018). Parenting Style, Discipline, and Parental
Psychopathology: Gender Dyadic Interactions in Emerging Adults. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 27(1), 290-301.
Meeus, W. (2016): Adolescent psychosocial development: A review of longitudinal models and
research. Developmental Psychology, 52, 12, 1969-1993.
55
Morrison Gutman, L., McLoyd, V. C., & Tokoyawa, T. (2005). Financial strain, neighbourhood
stress, parenting behaviors, and adolescent adjustment in urban African American families.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(4), 425-449.
Nilsson, E. L. (2016): Parents’ monitoring relevant knowledge, involvement with deviant peers
and substance use: time-variant and long-term associations among adolescents aged 12-17.
International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4, 10, 91-100.
Odenweller, K. G., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Weber, K. (2014). Investigating helicopter
parenting, family environments, and relational outcomes for millennials. Communication
Studies, 65(4), 407-425.
Olsson, C. A., Bond, L., Burns, J. M., Vella-Brodrick, D. A., & Sawyer, S. M. (2003).
Adolescent resilience: A concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 1–11
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Nelson, L. J. (2012). Black hawk down? Establishing helicopter
parenting as a distinct construct from other forms of parental control during emerging
adulthood. Journal of adolescence, 35(5), 1177-1190.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., Harper, J. M., & Bean, R. A. (2011). Pathways to parental knowledge:
The role of family process and family structure. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(4), 604-
627.
Park, H., & Lau, A. S. (2016). Socioeconomic status and parenting priorities: Child
independence and obedience around the world. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(1), 43-59.
Parker, J. S., & Benson, M. J. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning:
Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence, 39(155), 519-530.
Paulson, S. E., & Sputa, C. L. (1996). Patterns of parenting during adolescence: Perceptions of
adolescents and parents. Adolescence, 31(122), 369-381.
Pelton, J., & Forehand, R. (2001). Discrepancy between mother and child perceptions of their
relationship: I. Consequences for adolescents considered within the context of parental divorce.
Journal of Family Violence, 16 (1), 1 - 16.
Perkins, H. W. (Ed.). (2003). The social norms approach to preventing school and college age
substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counsellors, and clinicians. San Francisco, CA,
US: Jossey-Bass.
Perkins, H. W., Craig, D. W., & Perkins, J. M. (2011). Using social norms to reduce bullying:
A research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 703-722.
Phares, V., Fields, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with their
adolescents. Journal of child and family studies, 18, 1-9.
Phillips, T. M. (2012). The influence of family structure vs. family climate on adolescent wellbeing.
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29(2), 103-110.
Prevoo, M. J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2017). Parenting and globalization in western
countries: explaining differences in parent–child interactions. Current opinion in psychology,
15, 33-39.
Richman, S. B., & Mandara, J. (2013). Do socialization goals explain differences in parental
control between black and white parents? Family Relations, 62(4), 625-636.
56
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and
specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American sociological review,
141-156.
Russell, A., & Saebel, J. (1997). Mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son, and father-daughter:
Are thy distinct relationships? Developmental Review, 17, 111 – 147.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Sawyer, S. M., Afifi, R. A., Bearinger, L. H., Blakemore, S. J., Dick, B., Ezeh, A. C., Patton,
G. C. (2012). Adolescence: a foundation for future health. Lancet, 379: 1630-1640.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child
development, 413-424.
Schleider, J. L., & Weisz, J. R. (2017). Little treatments, promising effects? Meta-analysis of
single-session interventions for youth psychiatric problems. Journal of the American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(2), 107-115.
Schwarzer, R., Bäßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of
optimistic self‐beliefs: comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general
self‐efficacy scale. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 69-88.
Shek, D. T. (2008). Perceived parental control and parent–child relational qualities in early
adolescents in Hong Kong: Parent gender, child gender and grade differences. Sex Roles, 58(9-
10), 666-681.
Sim, T.N. (2003). The father-adolescent relationship in the context of the mother-adolescent
relationship: Exploring moderating linkages in a late-adolescent sample in Singapore. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 18 (4), 383 – 404.
Sleskova, M., Salonna, F., Madarasova Geckova, A., Nagyova, I., Stewart, R., van Dijk, J. P.,
et al. (2006). Does parental unemployment affect adolescents’ health? Journal of Adolescent
Health, 38(5), 527–535.
Smetana, J. G. (2010). Adolescents, families, and social development: How teens construct
their worlds. John Wiley & Sons.
Smetana, J. G., & Daddis, C. (2002). Domain‐specific antecedents of parental psychological
control and monitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child development, 73(2),
563-580.
Smetana, J.G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in
interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255 - 284.
Snopek, M., & Hublová, V. (2008). Sociální opora a její vztah k životní spokojenosti,
sebehodnocení a osobnosti u adolescentů: rodové rozdíly. Československá psychologie, 52(5),
500-509.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental
psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory.
Developmental Review, 30(1), 74–99.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., & Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and adolescent
problem behaviors: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental
knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology, 42, 305-318.
57
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71,
1072–1085.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and
prospect. Journal of research on adolescence, 11(1), 1-19.
Sweeting, H., & West, P. (1995). Family life and health in adolescence: A role for culture in
the health inequalities debate? Social Science & Medicine, 40, 163-175.
Thorová, K. (2015): Vývojová psychologie: proměny lidské psychiky od početí po smrt. Portál,
Praha.
Tomčíková, Z., Veselská, Z. D., Gecková, A. M., van Dijk, J. P., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2015).
Adolescents’ drinking and drunkenness more likely in one-parent families and due to poor
communication with mother. Cent Eur J Public Health, 23(1), 54-8.
Turner, R. A., Irwin Jr, C. E., & Millstein, S. G. (2014). Family structure, family processes, and
experimenting with substances during adolescence. Risks and problem behaviors in
adolescence, 1(11), 229-247.
Vágnerová, M. (2000): Vývojová psychologie: dětství, dospělost, stáří. Portál, Praha.
van Eijck, F. E., Branje, S. J., Hale III, W. W., Meeus, W. H. (2012): Longitudinal associations
between perceived parentadolescent attachment relationship quality and generalized anxiety
disorder symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 6, 871-883.
Van Lissa, C. J., Keizer, R., Van Lier, P. A., Meeus, W. H., & Branje, S. (2019). The role of
fathers’ versus mothers’ parenting in emotion-regulation development from mid–late
adolescence: Disentangling between-family differences from within-family effects.
Developmental psychology, 55, 377-389.
Vazsonyi, A. T., & Belliston, L. M. (2006). The cultural and developmental significance of
parenting processes in adolescent anxiety and depression symptoms. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 35(4), 491-505.
Vazsonyi, A. T., Hibbert, J. R., & Blake Snider, J. (2003). Exotic enterprise no more?
Adolescent reports of family and parenting processes from youth in four countries. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 13(2), 129-160.
Verhoeven, M., Bögels, S. M., & van der Bruggen, C. C. (2012). Unique roles of mothering
and fathering in child anxiety; moderation by child’s age and gender. Journal of child and family
studies, 21(2), 331-343.
Vermeulen-Smit, E., Koning, I. M., Verdurmen, J. E., Van der Vorst, H., Engels, R. C., &
Vollebergh, W. A. (2012). The influence of paternal and maternal drinking patterns within twopartner
families on the initiation and development of adolescent drinking. Addictive behaviors,
37(11), 1248-1256.
Walsh, F. (Ed.). (2012). Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity. Guilford
Press.
Ware, J.J., & Sherbourne, C.D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I.
Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473-483.
58
Willoughby, T., & Hamza, C. A. (2011). A longitudinal examination of the bidirectional
associations among perceived parenting behaviors, adolescent disclosure and problem behavior
across the high school years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(4), 463-478.
World Health Organization. (1946). Constitution. Geneva: Author
Yan, N., & Ansari, A. (2016). Child adjustment and parent functioning: Considering the role of
child-driven effects. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(3), 297–308