Adolescent autonomy development
1
Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., & Collins, W.A. (2003). Autonomy development during adolescence.
In G.R. Adams & M. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of adolescence (pp. 175-204).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
(Text ONLY; Tables available upon request)
Autonomy Development During Adolescence
Throughout the life-span autonomy advances and declines as individuals develop new
competencies, previously acquired skills decline, and changing conditions require altered
behavior (Baltes & Silverberg, 1994). During adolescence autonomy development typically
accelerates because of rapid physical and cognitive changes, expanding social relationships, and
additional rights and responsibilities. Self-reliance and personal decision-making increase, the
self and identity are gradually consolidated, and affect, behavior, and cognition are increasingly
self-regulated. Failures in these tasks can mark a variety of widely recognized problem behaviors
and other difficulties (Adams, Montemayor, & Gullotta, 1996; Allen, Hauser, Bell, & O’Connor,
1994a; Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, Bell, & O’Connor, 1994b; Baltes & Silverberg, 1994; Blos,
1979; Chen & Dornbusch, 1998; Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Erikson, 1969; A. Freud, 1958;
Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995; Silverberg & Gondoli, 1996).
In this chapter, we address the question of how autonomy emerges from this mix of
maturational, social, and psychological changes. The chapter is divided into four parts. In the first
part, we describe the concept of autonomy, its definition, its relation to other aspects of
psychosocial development, and the functional significance of autonomy for behavior and
adjustment. We next review key theoretical perspectives on, and processes in, the development
of autonomy during adolescence. Third, we consider the role of context in the development of
autonomy, focusing particularly on the role and impact of close relationship partners in the
Adolescent autonomy development
2
development of autonomy. Finally, we examine common variations in autonomy and autonomy
development for females and males, and adolescents from differing cultures.
The Meaning and Functions of Autonomy
Defining Autonomy
The term autonomy is often used to refer to a set of psychosocial issues that are of particular
importance during adolescence. Yet, the particular meaning of the term is often difficult to
specify. Moreover, explaining how individuals become autonomous – and why some either do
not or do so only partially—varies, depending upon one’s initial assumptions about the meaning
and significance of autonomy.
Developmental theorists have proposed a variety of definitions, as Table 1 shows. Some view
autonomy as an individual quality of the individual (e.g., actions that are initiated and regulated
by the core self; Ryan, et al., 1995), whereas others define autonomy as a characteristic of an
adolescent’s relationship with others or a response to others (e.g., as disengagement from
parental ties and control; A. Freud, 1958). Likewise, some definitions emphasize freedom from
the constraints of childhood dependence on others, whereas others focus on the freedom to make
choices, pursue goals, and so forth (Collins, Gleason, & Sesma, 1997; Hill & Holmbeck, 1986).
In general, current perspectives incorporate several features of these earlier definitions by
proposing that responsible and optimal autonomous functioning depend on maintaining
connections with social partners, while becoming increasingly self-regulating and independent
(e.g., Collins, Laursen, Mortensen, Luebker, & Ferreira, 1997; Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hill &
Holmbeck, 1986). Definitions generally are complicated, however, by two characteristics of
common ways of thinking about autonomy: the fact that autonomy refers to multiple dimensions
Adolescent autonomy development
3
of thought, action, and emotions; and the overlap between autonomy and other terms that
describe increasing maturity.
Multiple dimensions. Steinberg (1990; Sessa & Steinberg, 1991; Steinberg & Silverberg,
1986) has described three dimensions of autonomy: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional.
Behavioral autonomy has been defined as active, independent functioning including selfgovernance, self-regulation of behavior, and acting on personal decisions (Feldman & Quatman,
1988; Feldman & Rosenthal, 1991; Sessa & Steinberg, 1991). Cognitive autonomy most often
has been defined as a “sense of self-reliance, a belief that one has control over his or her own life,
and subjective feelings of being able to make decisions without excessive social validation
(Sessa & Steinberg, 1991, p. 42; also see Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993;
Greenberger, Josselson, Knerr, & Knerr, 1975). The third dimension, emotional autonomy, has
been defined as a sense of individuation from parents and relinquishing dependence on them.
Emotional autonomy implies changing conceptions of, and relations with, parents including
developing more mature conceptions of parents as people (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986).
Research in which all three constructs have been measured reveals some overlap in these three
dimensions of autonomy, suggesting that they do not develop independently (see Collins &
Repinski, 1994; Youniss & Smollar, 1985).
These three components of autonomy, though conceptually distinct, appear to increase during
adolescence. Seeking and receiving greater independence from parental control increase as
adolescent grow older. Adolescents also increasingly report feeling more autonomous
(Greenberger, 1984; Greenberger & Sorenson, 1974), more individuated, less likely to idealize
parents, and less likely to express childish dependency on them (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986).
Much more information is needed, however, about the nature of the interrelations among
Adolescent autonomy development
4
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional autonomy and whether all three are equally significant
components of adolescent psychosocial development (Collins, Hyson, Zimmer-Gembeck,
Siebenbruner, & Foo, 2000).
Autonomy and other aspects of psychological maturity. Defining autonomy also is
complicated by overlap between autonomy and other psychosocial concepts such as identity,
competence, and control (Baltes & Silverberg, 1994; Skinner, 1996). For example, Baltes and
Silverberg (1994) proposed that healthy autonomy might encompass psychosocial functioning in
many domains, including competence in academic, work, and social domains; emotion regulation
and impulse control; leadership; and positive self-esteem and identity. Recent findings indeed
show considerable overlap between measures of both emotional and behavioral autonomy,
current and earlier measures of social competence, and both early childhood and middle
childhood measures of sociability, initiative, and self-assertion (Collins, Hyson, ZimmerGembeck, Siebenbruner, & Foo, 2000). A key question for the future is whether autonomy can be
defined and measured independent of other aspects of psychosocial maturity, or – to put it
another way – exactly what the concept of autonomy adds to our understanding of psychosocial
maturity (Steinberg, 2000).
Functions of Autonomy
Achieving autonomy is one of the key normative psychosocial developmental issues of
adolescence, and all perspectives on the development of autonomy emphasize the problematic
outcomes that may follow from a lack of appropriate support for autonomy. For example, Blos
(1979) contended that failure to individuate from parents could result in one of two extreme
outcomes: the avoidance of regression marked by “flight into adultomorphic roles” (p. 103), or
continuation of the regressed state. Blos believed that both extremes almost certainly would
Adolescent autonomy development
5
result in emotional illness. Similarly, the ability to act independent of others and a interest in
connecting with others are thought to be associated with physical and psychological well-being,
but an unusual level of independence not tempered by a positive orientation to others can be
psychologically, physically, and socially damaging (Bakan, 1966; Helgeson, 1994).
Much evidence shows that autonomy support provide by others in the social context and
adolescents’ ability to function autonomously and be self-regulating have positive influences on
other aspects of adolescent functioning. For example, as autonomy increases during middle and
late adolescence, parents and peers have less influence on adolescents’ opinions and decisions,
despite generally increasing “peer pressure” during these periods (Brown, Clasen, & Eicher,
1986). Even in early adolescence, those adolescents whose parents gradually increasingly involve
them in decisions that affect them are less likely to be heavily oriented to peer opinions and peer
acceptance than those adolescents whose parents allow less involvement in decision-making
(Fuligni & Eccles, 1993). In short, a balance between independent, self-confident action and
positive relationships with others appears to be optimal for psychological adjustment and
development (Helgeson, 1994; Sessa & Steinberg, 1991).
Theoretical Views of Autonomy Development
Theoretical perspectives on the development or function of autonomy not only imply
differing definitions of autonomy, but also offer different explanations of the origins and
development of autonomy (Reese & Overton, 1970). These varying explanations underscore the
diverse influences and processes that contribute to the development of autonomy. In this section,
we briefly describe three general perspectives on autonomy: organismic-maturational views;
perspectives emphasizing self and motivation; and perspectives emphasizing social influences
and relationships.
Adolescent autonomy development
6
Organismic-Maturational Views
The earliest influential perspective on autonomy and its development, the psychoanalytic
theory of A. Freud (1958), described the development of autonomy as an outgrowth of drives of
the organism that promoted detachment and disengagement from parental ties and controls. In the
psychoanalytic view this loosening of ties with parents is essential to becoming an autonomous
individual capable of being responsible for what he or she thinks, does, believes, feels, decides,
and becomes. A contemporary extension of this view (Blos, 1979) asserted that autonomy relies
not on detachment from parents, but individuation from them. Individuation is a process of
emotional disengagement from the caregivers that first occurs in early childhood (around age 2)
and then reoccurs in adolescence.
The common conviction among these views was the assumption that the detachment and
individuation from caregivers was prompted by development of the organism. Drives, primarily
sexual, were assumed to arise during puberty and are manifested as either behavioral or cognitive
rebelliousness and defiance toward parents or other caregivers. Conflicts with parents result,
stimulating dissolution of ties to parents and reduced parental controls. Therefore, relations
between parents and their adolescents are marked by a “normal conflictual condition” (Blos,
1979, p. 77), and conflict (both external and internal) is a necessary precursor for progressive
individual development. Only through detachment and individuation can young people move
outside the family to find healthy extra-familial adult love and hate objects. In this complex way
“the constancy of self-esteem and of mood become increasingly independent from external
sources or, at best, dependent on external sources of one’s own choosing” (Blos, 1979, p. 143).
Reliance on parents for cognitive and emotional support must significantly decline during
adolescence for the healthy development of young adult autonomy and identity.
Adolescent autonomy development
7
The close relation between detachment from parents and some aspects of autonomy was
evident in a well-known series of papers by Steinberg and his colleagues and Ryan and Lynch.
Influenced by the theory of Blos (1979), Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) operationalized
emotional autonomy as adolescents’ changing perceptions of parents. This measure included four
subscales, including two affective scales of non-dependency and individuation, and two cognitive
scales of perceiving parents as people and deidealization. All four scales were designed to reflect
reductions in childlike dependencies on parents and individuation. For 11- to 14-year-olds, scores
on Steinberg and Silverberg’s (1986) emotional autonomy measure were inversely related to
resistance to peer pressure and to self-reliance. The authors argued that these early adolescents
were in a transitional period in which initial feelings of emotional autonomy left them vulnerable
to peer pressure, but predicted that at later ages emotional autonomy would be positively related
to self-reliance and resistance to peer pressure. Challenging this interpretation, Ryan and Lynch
(1989) contended that emotional autonomy measured detachment from parents rather than
emotional autonomy. They further posited that detachment can result in both positive and
negative experiences. Positive experiences of detachment from parents might include selfreliance and self-regulation, whereas negative experiences might include separation and loss of
valuable supportive connections. These negative experiences potentially lead to additional
adverse outcomes, such as lack of a consolidated identity, a reduced base of support, lower selfesteem, and problem behaviors.
The criticisms of Steinberg and Silverberg’s (1986) measure of emotional autonomy illustrate
the difficulty of measuring autonomy independent of a variety of other indicators of competence,
including degree of distancing from parents. Steinberg and colleagues (Lamborn & Steinberg,
1993) tested both Ryan and Lynch’s proposal and Steinberg and Silverberg’s (1986) speculation
Adolescent autonomy development
8
that middle and late adolescents would not show a negative relation between emotional
autonomy and resistance to peer pressure and self-reliance. They found that a combination of
emotional autonomy and supportive relationships differentiated various subgroups of
adolescents. Consistent with Steinberg and Silverberg’s prediction, 14- to 18- year olds with high
scores on emotional autonomy and high relationship support also scored higher on psychosocial
development and academic competence than their peers. By contrast, consistent with Ryan and
Lynch’s prediction, those adolescents with high emotional autonomy scores and low relationship
support showed problematic adjustment profiles. Similarly, Fuhrman and Holmbeck (1995)
examined the association between emotional autonomy, maternal warmth, parental control,
parent-adolescent conflict, family cohesion, and adolescent adjustment (behavioral problems,
competence, and academic achievement) among adolescents ages 10 to 18. Their results
indicated that in a context of positive parent-adolescent relationships, low emotional autonomy
(conceptualized as detachment from parents) is associated with more positive adolescent
adjustment, but in a context of negative parent-adolescent relationships, high emotional
autonomy appears to promote more positive adjustment. These findings are indications that
autonomy is neither inimical to relationships nor separate from them in an adolescent’s
psychological life.
Views Emphasizing Self and Motivation
Views emphasizing self and motivation attribute autonomy development to internal
processes, as well, but describe different processes of interaction between the individual and the
environment in the emergence of autonomy. Among the views in this category are the selfdetermination theory of Ryan, Deci, and colleagues (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci,
1997; Ryan & Lynch, 1989), Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989, 1997), and a
Adolescent autonomy development
9
motivational theory of psychological needs described by Connell, Skinner and others (Connell,
1990; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Ryan, et al., 1995; Skinner & Edge, 2000; Skinner &
Wellborn, 1994).
A common theme in these theories is that autonomy requires a sense of agency. Ryan et al.
(1995) refer to autonomy as “the extent that one is operating agentically, from one’s core sense of
self…To be autonomous thus means to be self-initiating and self-regulating” (italics in original,
p. 621). In this sense, agency combines features of both cognitive autonomy and behavioral
autonomy. Skinner, Connell, and colleagues (Skinner, 1996; Patrick, Skinner, & Connell, 1993)
have shown that actions and perceptions that fulfill needs for autonomy are separate from those
that fulfill needs for competence. Needs for autonomy are met when one perceives oneself as the
origin of one’s actions (the agent; a perceived internal locus of causality), while the need for
competence is met when one feels effective at causing desirable and preventing undesirable
outcomes (internal locus of control). An internal perceived locus of causality (autonomy) is
evidenced as a perceived freedom to choose one’s own course of action, while control is the
expectation of a contingency between one’s actions and outcomes. Within this perspective, an
individual’s innate need for autonomy energizes and motivates all individuals to seek their own
course of behavior, while a need for relatedness to other simultaneously promotes behaviors that
maintain connections with others. Autonomy is evident in intrinsic motivation to engage in
certain behaviors and joy in choosing to engage in certain behaviors rather than others.
Bandura’s (1989) social-cognitive perspective on agency evolved from social learning theory
and self-efficacy theory. These earlier theories were focused on perceived competence and the
influences of the environment on individuals’ goal-directed actions. In Bandura’s view, agency
implies that actions, beliefs, emotions, and motivations arise from a continuous pattern of
Adolescent autonomy development
10
interaction between individuals and environment. Thus, autonomy is not an innate need of
individuals and the environment does not simply endow individuals with the ability to be
autonomous and self-regulating. Rather, individuals construct the ability to regulate one’s own
cognitions, emotions, and behavior from a history of transactions with the environment.
Individuals must engage in self-regulatory practices to develop autonomous functioning.
All of these perspectives assert that particular forms of relations with others support the
development of a sense of agency. Thus, although these perspectives do not view detachment
from others, individuation, defiance of parents, and conflict with parents as a necessary or even
central event in autonomy development, they do highlight the importance of social interactions in
the development of autonomy. For example, Deci and Ryan (2000) describe the opposite of
autonomy as the experience of being controlled, coerced, compelled or manipulated into actions
that do not freely emerge from the core self (“heteronomy”).
Autonomous actions thus are distinct from those that are deliberate responses to the influence
of others in that they involve individuals’ perceptions of choice and willingness. Because
autonomy is defined apart from the social context, autonomous actions can occur while
dependent on or attached to another. In fact, attachment and emotional bonds that include
interactions that support autonomy (that is, that are not overly coercive and controlling), rather
than detachment from close relationships, promote individuation and autonomous functioning
(Ryan & Lynch, 1989).
Views Emphasizing Social Relationships and Influences
During the 1980s and 1990s, many other developmental scientists challenged classic theories
of the development of autonomy, proposing that autonomy does not necessitate the severing of
childish ties with parental figures (e.g., Allen, et al., 1994a, 1994b; Collins, 1989; Collins &
Adolescent autonomy development
11
Repinski, 1994; Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hill & Holmbeck, 1986; Gilligan, 1982; Ryan &
Lynch, 1989; Steinberg, 1990; Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Instead, these developmental
perspectives proposed that autonomy and connections to others coexist. Responsible autonomous
functioning and self-regulation depend upon continuing, but transformed, attachments and
connections to others (especially caregivers) (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). For example,
adolescents who have supportive, warm, and involved parents and whose parents also provide
appropriate structure and demand mature behavior may be more likely to feel capable of making
independent decisions while seeking appropriate input from others, exploring their environments,
expressing themselves, and engaging in behaviors that reflect their true selves (Steinberg, 1990).
In addition, autonomous functioning may be more likely when exchanges between adolescents
and adults honor and respect the adolescents’ capabilities, and allow and support autonomous
behaviors and decision-making while also maintaining positive emotional connections. The
nature and function of adult-child relationships are adjusted as the young person gains capacity
for independent functioning, and desires more responsibility and autonomy (Collins et al., 1997a;
Collins, et al., 1997b).
Kobak and Cole (1994) portray the development of autonomy as a transaction between the
individual and the interpersonal environment. They describe a process by which early attachment
to parents facilitates or impedes children’s development of “meta-monitoring” defined as the
ability to monitor one’s own models of self and others, reflect on these models, and revise them,
if necessary. The growing capacity for meta-monitoring allows the adolescent to become more
autonomous and to regulate his or her behaviors. Instead of detaching from parents, young people
revise their models of their relationships with their parents as they move into adolescence in
ways that maintain connections, but reflect the increasing autonomy of the adolescent and
Adolescent autonomy development
12
transformations in relationships with their parents (see also Collins, 1990, 1995). Allen and
colleagues (Allen et al., 1994a, 1994b; Allen & Land, 1999) posit a similar process in which
autonomy and relatedness balance each other in well adjusted adolescents. For example, using an
observational coding scheme, these researchers reported that interactions between parents and
their 14-year-old adolescents that were lower in autonomous-relatedness (defined as allowing
disagreement, statements of positions, validation of others’ positions, and attention to others’
statement) were linked to increases in depressed affect among adolescents at age 16 (Allen, et al.,
1994a, 1994b).
Significant social partnerships (most often with parents) that are thought to foster autonomy
are those that allow disagreement and the expression of alternative views while not being
intrusive, overinvolved, or manipulative (e.g., Steinberg, 1990; Lamborn & Steinberg, 1993).
Terminology for describing these relationships vary, as is apparent from the list of terms that
have been used to describe the behaviors of individuals and institutions that influence the
development of autonomy among children and adolescents (see Table 2). Behaviors that
constrain or limit the development of autonomy typically are described as exerting psychological
control, a phenomenon increasingly studied in the field today (e.g., Barber, 1996).
In sum, the three theoretical perspectives summarized here do not necessarily conflict with
one another. Each emphasizes a different aspect of the complex process of autonomy
development, and all three contribute to a comprehensive account of how autonomy emerges
during adolescence. In the next section, we briefly review findings showing the interrelation of
these factors in autonomy development during adolescence.
Adolescent autonomy development
13
Processes in Adolescent Autonomy
The key questions for those seeking to understand adolescents and their development are how
changes in the individual, influences from others, and environmental opportunities, demands, and
constraints combine in the emergence of autonomous functioning. This question is not only a
matter of intellectual curiosity, but one of practical significance. For example, knowing the
essential ingredients of autonomy development may provide a basis for intervening with
adolescents who face difficulties in such areas as self-determination, initiative, planning,
problem-solving, coping with challenges, and problem behaviors (Allen, Philliber, Herrling, &
Kuperminc, 1997; Larson, 2000; Skinner & Edge, 2000).
Autonomy in Social Contexts
Recently, Collins and colleagues (Collins et al., 1997b) discussed how the nature and quality
of social contexts promotes or limits adolescents’ internalization of the desires of others. This
process of internalization results in more or less responsible autonomy and self-regulated action.
They describe the common view of adolescence as a “period of tension between two
developmental tasks: increasing conformity to societal expectations, while attaining autonomy
from the influences of others” (p. 78), and provide evidence that this perspective has been biased
toward intra-individual processes rather than relational processes. They proposed that
internalization and autonomy or self-regulation result from a transactional process of
acknowledging and modifying one’s own needs and desires while maintaining connections to
others, beginning to own socially approved behaviors, and recognizing and resisting unnecessary
or negative influences. In short, the challenge to adolescents is to transform socially sanctioned
values into personal values, while also discarding negative or unnecessary opinions and
evaluations.
Adolescent autonomy development
14
This description of attaining autonomy implies several component achievements. One is the
development of a sense of self as unique and somewhat distinctive from others. Harter (1999)
describes how the development of the self during adolescence is influenced by and emerges from
interactions with others. During early adolescence, young people are quite sensitive to feedback
from others about who they are as persons. Later, during middle adolescence, young people
become quite preoccupied with opinions and expectations of others who are important to them.
During this time, they have difficulties consolidating all of the information they receive about the
self. By late adolescence, young people begin to consolidate their conceptions of self and
internalize some values that may have originally been socialized by significant others. An
implication of Harter’s view is that some preoccupation with the evaluations and opinions of
others during adolescence is normative, but continued preoccupation may indicate difficulties
with autonomy.
A second component attainment is distinguishing between actions based on one’s
individually held principles, rather than on others’ behaviors and expectations. Ryan and Connell
(1989; see also Deci & Ryan, 2000) have proposed a categorization of actions as more or less
autonomous, depending on whether behaviors were dependent on others’ evaluation and
influence. Actions coerced or evoked by others were defined as least autonomous, while actions
arising from the core self were most autonomous. Children’s reasons for completing school
assignments were placed on a continuum according to whether the action was completely
regulated by others (not autonomous) or regulated and valued by the self (autonomous). The
proposed reasons, ranging from least to most autonomous, were labeled external (representing
compliance to others), introjected (adopted from others), identified (behaviors matched to others
with whom one feels similarity or an affinity), and internalized (or integrated) regulation.
Adolescent autonomy development
15
External regulation was evident in actions such as engaging in schoolwork because a parent
would be mad. Introjected regulation was evident in behaviors that were still externally
motivated, but had become more internalized. In this case, for example, actions would be
performed because of the expectation of feelings of shame or guilt that would follow if
schoolwork was not completed. Identified regulation occurs when actions are still externally
motivated, but have become a part of the identity. Internalized (integrated or intrinsic) regulation
was evident when actions were motivated by a real desire by the self to engage in behaviors for
fun or because one believed in, wanted to or enjoyed the behavior. Across ages, children shift
from external to more internal regulation of actions that are desired by the social world.
To date the empirical methods to examine the degree of internalization are still in their
infancy. Yet, there is some evidence that developmental advantages seem to accompany internal
self-regulation. Conversely, feelings of being externally coerced and compelled are accompanied
by developmental disadvantages (Harter, 1999; Higgins, 1991; Ryan, et al., 1995, 1997). In a
study of children of elementary school age, Ryan and Connell (1989) found that more
internalized reasons for behaviors in the achievement domain were associated with mastery
motivation, internal control, positive coping, effort and enjoyment in schoolwork, empathy, and
positive relatedness to mother and teacher. Although the work of Ryan and colleagues (Ryan &
Connell, 1989; Deci & Ryan, 2000) has not been replicated with adolescents, it is likely that the
self-regulation of behavior and cognition based on internalized social standards has even greater
developmental advantages during adolescence and beyond. Harter (1999) states that adolescents
who do not move to the stage of internal standards, but continue to rely on external social
standards and feedback, will be “ . . .at risk, because they have not developed an internalized,
Adolescent autonomy development
16
relatively stable sense of self that will form the basis for subsequent identity development” (p.
188).
Social Networks and Autonomy
Many developmental theorists and researchers have considered what particular behaviors of
parents, peers, and teachers, and what particular interactions and styles of interacting facilitate
the development of autonomous functioning. Terminology and conceptualizations vary when
describing these influential features. Variations among parents’ rearing behaviors provide an
example. Table 2 lists a variety of parental behaviors relevant to autonomy, including
authoritative, authoritarian and permissive parenting styles; intrusive or overinvolved parenting;
autonomy support; coercion; psychological control; psychological autonomy granting; behavioral
control; enabling, constraining, and autonomy promoting; and demands for mature behavior (e.g.,
see Baumrind, 1991a, 1991b; Best, Hauser, & Allen, 1997; Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Gray &
Steinberg, 1999; Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Herman, Dornbusch, Herron, Herting, 1997;
Patrick, et al., 1993; Ryan & Solky, 1996). These descriptive terms encompass specific parenting
behaviors such as directive statements (Eccles, Early, Frasier, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997),
manipulation tactics (e.g., psychological control; Barber, 1996; Barber & Olsen, 1997), and
engaging the child in joint decision-making (Brown et al., 1993) , as well as global parenting
styles in which warmth or involvement, monitoring, and discipline behaviors are combined (e.g.,
authoritative, authoritarian or permissive parenting styles; Baumrind, 1991a, 1991b).
Researchers recently have turned to illuminating the conjoint influence of a number of
parenting behaviors (e.g., composites of multiple dimensions or interaction effects) such as
warmth, connection, involvement, monitoring, and autonomy support (e.g., joint decisionmaking, lack of psychological control, emotional autonomy, autonomy granting or support for
Adolescent autonomy development
17
autonomy) on adolescent behaviors and outcomes (Allen et al., 1994a, 1994b; Barber, 1996;
Barber & Olsen, 1997; Brown et al., 1993; Eccles et al., 1997; Gray & Steinberg, 1999). For
example, Gray and Steinberg (1999) examined independent and joint effects of three aspects of
parenting on adjustment in a cross-sectional study of a diverse sample of 8700 adolescents ages
14 to 18. Aspects of parenting examined were acceptance-involvement, strictness-supervision
(behavioral control), and psychological autonomy granting. Adolescent adjustment outcomes
included behavior problems (antisocial behavior, deviance, drug use, peer conformity),
psychosocial development (work orientation, self-reliance, self-esteem), internal distress
(psychological symptoms, somatic symptoms), and academic competence (academic selfcompetence and grade point average). In general, both individual and joint effects of aspects of
parenting were related to most of the adolescent outcomes. Of primary interest here were the
strong positive curvilinear associations of parental acceptance-involvement and psychological
autonomy granting with psychosocial development. Although there were gains in psychosocial
development as parental acceptance-involvement and psychological autonomy granting increased
from low to high, there were even greater gains as parental acceptance-involvement increased
from low to moderate and as psychological autonomy granting increased from moderate to high.
Behavioral control had a weaker relation with psychosocial development, but there was also a
curvilinear association between behavioral control and psychosocial development. Specifically,
both a moderate level of behavioral control was associated with relatively more positive
adolescent psychosocial functioning. Overall, the examination of joint effects of all three
parenting dimensions on psychosocial development revealed that parental autonomy granting
yields the highest levels of adolescent psychosocial development when parental acceptanceinvolvement and behavioral control are also high.
Adolescent autonomy development
18
In addition to parents, teachers and peers can influence adolescent functioning by behaving in
ways that are either autonomy granting or coercive (Allen, et al., 1997; Barber & Olsen, 1997;
Eccles et al., 1997; Larson, 2000; Skinner & Edge, 2000). However, few researchers have
focused on the direct effects of these extra-familial characteristics on self-reliance, emotional
autonomy, behavioral autonomy, initiative or intrinsic motivation. Instead, most focus on
behaviors that have been associated with autonomy or decision-making such as grade point
average, problem behaviors, self-concept, and depression. In a cross-sectional study of 1387 7th
grade students, Eccles and colleagues (1997) operationalized autonomy support from parents,
siblings, teachers, and peers. For example, autonomy support by teachers was operationalized as
being willing to listen to student suggestions, encouraging choice, and involving students in
decision-making. It was found that connection (warmth and involvement), behavioral regulation,
and autonomy support by parents, within sibling relationships, in school contexts, and in peer
contexts all made significant positive contributions to some aspect of adolescent development.
For example, behavioral regulation by parents, peers and schools were all associated with
relatively lower levels of adolescent problem behaviors. In a similar cross-sectional study with
925 5th and 8th grade students, Barber and Olsen (1997) found that connection, regulation and
psychological control or autonomy support by family and peers were most strongly associated
with outcomes of depression and antisocial behavior. Connection, regulation, and autonomy
support by teachers were most strongly related to achievement. In addition, aspects of the peer
context were more predictive of the functioning of young people with poor family relationships
and were not as predictive of functioning among individuals with more positive relationships
with family.
Adolescent autonomy development
19
Communities and organizations are additional contexts that may promote autonomy
development. Larson (2000) and Allen and colleagues (Allen, Kuperminc, Philliber, & Herre,
1994c; Allen, et al., 1997) discuss the ways that youth organizations, and intervention and
prevention programs might increase autonomy and adaptive functioning by developing
adolescents’ initiative within a context of support from peers and adults. Their suggestions
include encouraging engagement in the environment, personal projects, and goals. This
engagement can be encouraged through such paths as participation in volunteer work or in
structured activities apart from schoolwork such as hobbies, artwork, or sports, and access to a
greater variety of adult role models who are excited about their interests and careers. However, to
date there have been few organizations and programs that have both explicitly stated autonomy
and initiative development as a goal, and evaluated the effectiveness of the program toward
reaching these goals. In addition, most studies evaluating participation in youth development
programs lack random assignment and are cross-sectional so provide weak evidence of
effectiveness (Larson, 2000). Researchers evaluating Teen Outreach, a program designed to
reduce teen pregnancy and school dropout by increasing participation in volunteer activities and
providing structured discussions of future life options, report that youth programs are most
beneficial when adolescents can select the work they will do within limits, they provide an
environment is one within which young people feel safe to discuss their views, listened to, and
respected, and when adults assist adolescents to make choices that result in their feelings of
competence and relatedness to others (Allen, et al., 1994c, 1997). Larson (2000) summarizes
three features of youth organizations that are most likely to facilitate agency and initiative in
youth. These include 1) program administration that is youth based so that the motivation,
direction and goals come from the youth, 2) adults providing structure in the form of specifying
Adolescent autonomy development
20
rules and constraints, while emphasizing the importance of the youth based aspects of the
organization, and 3) structuring organizations around a period of activity followed by the
completion of a project or goal.
Additional work has shown that a single adolescent’s autonomous functioning may vary
across contexts. Harter and colleagues (Harter, 1999; Harter, Waters, & Whitesell, 1997; Harter,
Waters, Whitesell, & Kastelic, 1998) find that adolescents’ level of voice (saying what one is
thinking, expressing opinions) varies depending on the support for voice provided within the
context (e.g., by parents, teachers, male classmates or female classmates). In addition, level of
voice is systematically higher in some contexts than others. For example, voice is highest with
close friends and lowest with classmates of the opposite gender, parents, and teachers (Harter, et
al., 1997, 1998).
Transformations in family relationships and conflict. Other researchers have investigated the
transformations within families as adolescents become more capable of self-regulation and desire
more autonomy. One view of this process comes from Maccoby (1984). She observed that
autonomy appears to follow a three-phase developmental sequence, beginning with parental
regulation of children, to gradually increasing co-regulation between children and parents, to
eventual self-regulation. Middle childhood and early adolescence were depicted as the period
during which co-regulatory processes are especially important to the eventual achievement of
responsible autonomy.
In a similar, but more elaborated model, Collins (1990, 1995) has proposed autonomy results
from successive transformations of dyadic interactions in response to violated expectancies. He
reasoned that the rapid physical, cognitive, and behavioral changes of adolescence and slower,
but notable changes of mid-life for parents result in frequent violations of expectancies about the
Adolescent autonomy development
21
behavior of each member of the pair. Repeated violations stimulate each member of the pair to
alter expectancies, eventually reaching a level appropriate to the interactions of parent and more
adult-like offspring. Therefore, violations of expectancies and the family challenges or conflict
that may result are likely adaptive and can stimulate important changes in family relationships
and individual development (Collins, et al., 1997a; Holmbeck & Hill, 1991; Steinberg, 1990). In
a short-term longitudinal study, Holmbeck and O’Donnell (1991) found that adolescents (ages 10
to 18) and their mothers who had discrepant judgments concerning the locus of decision-making
and the granting of behavioral autonomy at time 1 reported increased conflict and decreased
cohesiveness from time 1 to time 2. These findings suggest that family interactions are perturbed
when mother-adolescent pairs have discrepant perceptions and expectancies regarding adolescent
autonomy. However, these perturbations are likely time-limited and result in realignment of
expectancies, adaptation to the developmental changes of family members, and decreased
conflict affect. Collins & Luebker (1994) reported that the expectancies of parents and
adolescents gradually converge between early and late adolescence, providing support for a key
premise of Collins’s (1995) model. In addition, emotional strains are most prominent during
early adolescence (Steinberg, 1981, 1990; Laursen, Coy & Collins, 1998), but adolescents’
emotional experiences when interacting with family become increasingly positive starting in
early to late high school (Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996).
Culture, Gender, and Autonomy Development
We have described how support provided in different contexts is important to the
development of autonomy within those specific contexts. In this section, we examine two
additional sources of variation in autonomy development: culture and, within cultures, gender.
Cultural Variations in Autonomy and Autonomy Development
Adolescent autonomy development
22
Autonomy, individuality, and personal freedom are strong cultural values in the United States
and in most Western capitalistic societies. Within this tradition, parents generally socialize their
children to make their own decisions, parents will expect young adolescents to begin to
demonstrate autonomy and take on additional responsibility, adolescents will have increasing
desires for individual rights and responsibility, and older adolescents will move out of the home
of origin and attempt to make it on their own. However, these expectations and desires vary
among cultures within and outside of the U.S. For example, within the U.S., some cultures place
higher value on collective support and allegiance to the group and thus value individual
autonomy less highly than European-Americans do (Cooper, 1994; Feldman & Rosenthal, 1990,
1991). These differences in values and norms may affect the development of autonomy during
adolescence and appear as cultural differences in patterns of interactions between adolescents and
others (particularly parents). Nevertheless, even though these generalizations often hold when
describing groups of individual classifed based on predefined cultural categories such as
‘European-American’ or ‘Chinese-American’, there is most likely significant variation among
individuals within each group as well.
Researchers have tended to report general differences between cultures. Fuligni (1998)
compared Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European adolescents residing in the U.S. with
respect to acceptability of disagreements with mothers and fathers, endorsement of parent
authority, expectations for behavioral autonomy (e.g., no longer tell your parents where you are
going, go out on dates), conflict, and cohesion. In contrast to European adolescents, American
adolescents of Mexican and Filipino heritage expressed more respect for parental authority, and
Chinese-American adolescents expected to be granted behavioral autonomy later in life. Fuligni
(1998) found, however, that differences in timetable expectations of behavioral autonomy were
Adolescent autonomy development
23
accounted for by whether parents and/or adolescents were foreign-born or not; he found no
differences among racial/ethnic groups in conflict or cohesion with mothers or fathers.
Using the same measure of behavioral autonomy, Feldman and Rosenthal (1990) also
reported that Chinese-American and Chinese-Australian adolescents had later autonomy
expectations than their European-American and Anglo/Celtic-Australian counterparts did. This
finding applied to both first-generation and second-generation Chinese adolescents. Yet,
Chinese-Australian adolescents were somewhat more similar to Anglo/Celtic-Australian
adolescents than Chinese-American adolescents were to their U.S. counterparts. This crosscultural pattern likely was due to the greater opportunity to maintain cultural norms and values in
the U.S., because of a greater concentration of Chinese in the region of the U.S. (San Francisco)
in which the research was conducted. These findings suggest that racial and ethnic differences in
autonomy striving and autonomy granting by parents may decline or disappear as immigrants
adapt to a new culture. Whether acculturation occurs gradually or more quickly may depend on
initial differences between cultures and the ability to maintain support for traditional cultural
norms and values in the new country.
Besides attitudes regarding timetables for autonomy development, cultural variations also
occur in values and conceptions of the self as independent and autonomous. In these studies, selfconcept often is differentiated as individualistic, independent, autonomous or agentic versus
collectivistic or relational (Feldman & Rosenthal, 1991; Kashima, Yamaguchi, Kim, Choi,
Gelfand & Yuki, 1995; Markus & Kityama, 1991). In a recent study of adults (Kashima et al.,
1995), conceptions of the self were placed on three dimensions - independent (assertive and
agentic self), relational (“self as a relational being”, p. 928), and collectivist (self as a member of
a group with group needs taking priority over individual needs). Adults in Korea, Japan,
Adolescent autonomy development
24
Australia, the United States, and Hawaii differed on independent and collectivist conceptions of
the self, but differed most markedly in independence. Individuals in Korea, Japan, and Hawaii
reported being less agentic and assertive than individuals in the United States and Australia.
Feldman and Rosenthal (1991) conceptualized values of individualism-collectivism as a single
dimension and reported that Australian and U.S. adolescents manifested more individualistic
values than adolescents in Hong Kong. In all three cultures, however, higher levels of
individualistic values were associated with earlier expectations for behavioral autonomy.
The study of autonomy as manifested in diverse cultures is in its infancy. What we know
now, however, is that the frequently heard generalization that autonomy is irrelevant to
development in non-industrialized cultures is misleading. Rather, how much autonomy is optimal
and the particular form of autonomy that fits may vary both between and within cultures. Cultural
variations thus may be more a matter of when and how autonomy is evinced, rather than whether
or not autonomy is relevant to human action and emotion.
Gender and Autonomy
Girls generally have later expectations for behavioral autonomy than boys, regardless of
race/ethnicity (Fuligni, 1998). Yet, gender differences in expectations for behavioral autonomy
appear to be less pronounced today than in the past and gender differences may be greater in
some cultures than in others (Feldman & Rosenthal, 1990). Less is known about why gender
differences occur and whether gender differences occur in other dimensions of autonomy (e.g.,
cognitive autonomy or emotional autonomy).
Gender differences in autonomy may be related to the distinction between agency and
communion. Agency is defined as self-assertive and independent behaviors, which reflect an
individual orientation toward the self. Communion is defined as interpersonal concern, caring,
Adolescent autonomy development
25
and cooperation, and reflects an orientation toward others (Helgeson, 1994; Saragovi, Koestner,
Dio, & Aubé, 1997). Both agency and communion relate to aspects of behavioral, cognitive, and
emotional autonomy. At the same time, agency is considered more characteristic of U.S. males
than females, whereas communion is considered more typical of females than males. Research
findings show that females are more likely to report personality characteristics of communion
and relatedness to others, while males are more likely to have agentic and assertive personality
characteristics (Helgeson, 1994). Not surprisingly, agency and communion commonly are
operationalized as masculine and feminine traits, respectively, in such commonly used measures
as the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (Bem, 1974) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence,
Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974).
Some observers believe gender differences in autonomy expectations partly reflect these
gender differences in agency and communion. Gilligan and colleagues (1982; Brown & Gilligan,
1992; Gilligan, Lyons, & Hanmer, 1989) and others (see Chodorow, 1989; Miller, 1986; Pipher,
1995) have criticized theories that highlight autonomy and independence without recognizing the
important role that relationships and connections play in female development. Gilligan (1982)
and Pipher (1995) further link gender differences in autonomy to what they call a “loss of voice”
that young women experience as they enter adolescence. Loss of voice has been defined as the
suppression of opinions, emotions, thoughts or behaviors of the authentic self. These concepts
also overlap somewhat with conceptualizations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
autonomy. Research findings raise doubts, however, that females and males manifest these
phenomena differently during adolescence. Harter and colleagues (1999) have recently
demonstrated that recognition of false-self behavior escalates during adolescence for both
genders. Average levels of voice for females and for males were similar among middle-school
Adolescent autonomy development
26
and high-school students (Harter et al., 1997, 1998). Most important to the study of autonomy is
Harter and colleagues’ (1999) evidence that adolescents feel more or less authentic when
interacting with different social partners such as fathers, mothers, close friends, teachers, and
romantic partners, and that these variations were more pronounced in some subgroups than in
other subgroups. For example, one group of females (a minority of all females) characterized by
a feminine gender orientation with few masculine characteristics reported lower levels of voice
than males did when interacting with teachers, male classmates, and female classmates (i.e., in
public contexts). By contrast, level of voice did not differ between males and females when in
more private contexts with parents and friends. Apparently, females who report high connection
and caring, but low independence and individualism (a feminine gender orientation), are most
likely to manifest lower levels of voice in public domains.
Among both males and females, extremes of either agency or communality may be inimical
to adjustment. Bakan (1966) proposed that higher levels of agency and communion are
associated with greater physical and psychological well-being, but that agency not tempered by
communion, called unmitigated agency, can be psychologically, physically and socially
damaging. Helgeson (1994) summarized evidence supporting the detrimental correlates of
unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion. Unmitigated agency and unmitigated
communion are both quantitatively and qualitatively different from agency and communion. For
example, as Helgeson (1994) and Saragovi and colleagues (1997) describe, someone who has
markers of unmitigated agency, such as being arrogant, is qualitatively different from someone
who is high in agency in the form of self-assertiveness or self-confidence. An individual who is
high in unmitigated communion is subservient to another by tolerating insults, accepting verbal
Adolescent autonomy development
27
abuse, and repeatedly apologizing. This person is qualitatively different from someone who is
highly interpersonally sensitive.
Helgeson (1994) found that unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion did exist among
adults and were associated with differing physical and mental health functioning of males and
females. Agency was correlated with improved psychological well-being, and communion was
associated with more positive social relationships and social support. Yet, agency was also
associated with Type A behavior, poor health care, and behavioral problems, while communion
was associated with greater psychological distress. Unmitigated agency was associated with
greater hostility, and unmitigated communion was related to psychological distress. It should be
noted that some researchers (e.g., Saragovi et al., 1997) question whether the qualitative
differences are always distinguishable from the simple combination of quantitative levels of
agency and communion.
Although information on agency and communion among adults provides insight into the
possible life course pathways of autonomy development among males and females, information
is still limited on gender similarities or differences in autonomy development during adolescence.
Similarly, much more information is needed regarding possible differences between females and
males in the most beneficial forms of support for autonomy. In addition, no longitudinal research
provides a basis for focusing on intra-individual change in autonomy or level of voice among
males, as compared to females. The evidence that orientations to agency and communion are
correlated with gender, however, implies that the question of how autonomy development
proceeds in both females and males is an important one.
Adolescent autonomy development
28
Conclusions
Autonomy development depends both on the active human organism and the
environment. Theories differ by either proposing that all adolescents experience autonomy in
similar ways or that the development of autonomy is context-specific. Most theoretical
perspectives tend, however, to link the development of autonomy to the development of the self
and changing conceptions of relationships with others. Research findings show the relevance of
all of these observations to adolescent autonomy development and challenge researchers to better
understand the links among them.
In future research on autonomy, several themes require more attention. One is the impact
of relationships with significant others. In what ways do important relationships support or
undermine an individual’s efforts to become autonomous? Another significant future theme is
how relationships and other aspects of the environment operate differently for females and males
and for adolescents from cultures that expect cooperation more than competition in work roles,
athletics, and so forth. Finally, we need to know more about the conditions under which
autonomy contributes to healthy individual development and the conditions under which one can
be either too autonomous or too dependent on others for guidance and support.
Adolescent autonomy development
29
References
Adams, G. R., Montemayor, G. R., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). Psychosocial development
during adolescence: Progress in developmental contextualism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T. Bell, K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994a). Longitudinal assessment
of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego
development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 179-194.
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Eickholt, C., Bell, K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994b). Autonomy
and relatedness in family interactions as predictors of expressions of negative adolescent affect.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 535-552.
Allen, J. P., Kuperminc, G. P., Philliber, S., & Herre, K. (1994c). Programmatic prevention
of adolescent problem behaviors: The role of autonomy, relatedness, and volunteer service in the
Teen Outreach Program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 617-638.
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy, & P.R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: The
Guilford Press, pp. 319-335.
Allen, J. P., Philliber, S., Herring, S., & Kuperminc, G. P. (1997). Preventing teen pregnancy
and academic failure: Experimental evaluation of a developmentally based approach. Child
Development, 64, 729-742.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Baltes, M. M., & Silverberg, S. B. (1994). The dynamics between dependency and autonomy:
Illustrations across the life span. In D. L. Featherman, R. M. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.),
Life-span development and behavior: Vol. 12 (pp. 41-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Adolescent autonomy development
30
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,
1175-1184.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child
Development, 67, 3296-3319.
Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in Context: Connection, regulation, and
autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, and with peers. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 12, 287-315.
Baumrind, D. (1991a). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In. J. Brooks-Gunn, R.
Lerner, & A.C. Peterson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746-758). New York:
Garland.
Baumrind, D. (1991b). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents.
Developmental Psychology, 15, 608-616.
Best, K. M., Hauser, S. T., & Allen, J. P. (1997). Predicting young adult competencies:
Adolescent era parent and individual influences. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 90-112.
Blos, P. (1979). The adolescent passage: Developmental issues. New York: International
Universities Press, Inc.
Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R, & Eicher, S. A. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer
conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents, Developmental
Psychology. 22, 521-530.
Adolescent autonomy development
31
Brown, L., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women’s psychology and girls’
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and
peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482.
Chen, Z., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1998). Relating aspects of adolescent emotional autonomy to
academic achievement and deviant behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 293-319.
Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Collins, W. A. (1989). Parent-child relationships in the transition to adolescence: Continuity
and change in interaction, affect, and cognition. In R. Montemayor, G. Adams, & T. Gullotta
(Eds.). Advances in adolescent development: The transitions from childhood to adolescence
(Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent-child relationships in the transition to adolescence: Continuity
and change in interaction, affect, and cognition. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P.
Gullotta (Eds.), Advances in Adolescent Development: Vol. 2: From Childhood to Adolescent:
A Transitional Period? Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Collins, W. A. (1995). Relationships and development: Family adaptation to individual
change. In S. Shulman (Ed). Close relationships and socioemotional development. Human
development (Vol. 7). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp, pp. 128-154.
Collins, W. A., Gleason, T., & Sesma, Jr., A. (1997b). Internalization, autonomy, and
relationships: Development during adolescence. In J.E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.). Parenting
and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory. New York: Wiley
& Sons.
Adolescent autonomy development
32
Collins, W. A., Hyson, D. M., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Siebenbruner, J, & Foo, G. (July
2000). Middle-childhood correlates of adolescent autonomy: Longitudinal perspectives. Poster
presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral
Development, Beijing, China.
Collins, W. A., Laursen, B., Mortensen, N., Luebker, C., & Ferreira, M. (1997a). Conflict
processes and transitions in parent and peer relationships: Implications for autonomy and
regulation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 178-198.
Collins, W. A., & Luebker, C. (1994). Parent and adolescent expectancies: Individual and
relational significance. In J. G. Smetana (Ed), Beliefs about parenting: Origins and
developmental implications. New directions for child development (Vol. 66). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Inc, pp. 65-80.
Collins, W. A., & Repinski, D. J. (1994). Relationships during adolescence: Continuity and
change in interpersonal perspective. In R. Montemayor, G.R. Adams, & T.P. Gullotta (Eds.).
Personal relationships during adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Connell, J. P. (1990). Context, self, and action: A motivational analysis of self-system
processes across the life span. In D. Cicchetti, & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition:
Infancy to childhood. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 61-97.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar, & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.). The
Minnesota symposia on child development: Vol. 23: Self processes and development: (pp. 4377). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, C. R. (1994). Cultural perspectives on continuity and change in adolescents’
relationships. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships
Adolescent autonomy development
33
during adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crittenden, P. M. (1990). Toward a concept of autonomy in adolescents with disability.
Children’s Health Care, 19, 162-168.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley.
Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of
connection, regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 12, 263-286.
Erikson, E. E. (1969). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Feldman, S. & Quatman, T. (1988). Factors influencing age expectations for adolescent
autonomy: A study of early adolescents and parents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 325-343.
Feldman, S. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1990). The acculturation of autonomy expectations in
Chinese high schoolers residing in two Western nations. International Journal of Psychology, 25,
259-281.
Feldman. S., & Rosenthal, D. (1991). Age expectations of behavioral autonomy in Hong
Kong, Australian, and American youth: The influences of family variables and adolescents’
values. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 1-23.
Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. Psychoanalytic study of the child, 13, 255-278.
Fuligni, A. J. (1998). Authority, autonomy, and parent-adolescent conflict and cohesion: A
study of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, Filipino, and European backgrounds.
Adolescent autonomy development
34
Developmental Psychology, 34, 782-797.
Fuligni, A. J., & Eccles, J. S. (1993). Perceived parent-child relationships and early
adolescents' orientation toward peers. Developmental Psychology, 29, 622-632.
Fuhrman, T., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1995). A contextual-moderator analysis of emotional
autonomy and adjustment in adolescence. Child Development, 66, 793-811.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C., Lyons, N., & Hanmer, T. J. (1989). Making connections. Cambridge, MA;
Harvard University Press.
Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a
multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574-587.
Greenberger, E. (1984). Defining psychosocial maturity in adolescence. Advances in Child
Behavioral Analysis & Therapy, 3, 1-37.
Greenberger, E., Josselson, R., Knerr, C., & Knerr, B. (1975). The measurement and structure
of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 127-143.
Greenberger, E., & Sorenson, A. (1974). Toward a concept of psychosocial maturity. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 329-358.
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The
self-determination theory perspective. In J.E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and
children's internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, pp. 135-161.
Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: A
perspective on individual differences in the development of identity and role-taking skill in
Adolescent autonomy development
35
adolescence. Human Development, 29, 82-100.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Harter, S., Waters, P., & Whitesell, N. R. (1997). False self-behavior and lack of voice
among adolescent males and females. Educational Psychologist, 32, 153-173.
Harter, S., Waters, P. L., Whitesell, N. R; Kastelic, D. (1998). Level of voice among female
and male high school students: Relational context, support, and gender orientation.
Developmental Psychology, 34, 892-901.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and
potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428.
Herman, M. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Herron, M. C., Herting, J. R. (1997). The influence of
family regulation, connection, and psychological autonomy on six measures of adolescent
functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 34-67.
Higgins, E. T. (1991). Development of self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: Costs,
benefits, and tradeoffs. In M.R. Gunnar & L.A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and development:
The Minnesota Symposia on Child Development (Vol. 23, pp. 125-166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. Annals
of child development, 3, 145-189.
Holmbeck, G. N., & O’Donnell, K. (1991). Discrepancies between perceptions of decision
making and behavioral autonomy. In R.L. Paikoff (Ed.), Shared views in the family during
adolescence. Vol. 51: New Directions in Child Development, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp.
51-69.
Holmbeck, G. N., & Hill, J. P. (1991). Conflictive engagement, positive affect, and menarche
Adolescent autonomy development
36
in families with seventh-grade girls. Child Development, 62, 1030-1048.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S., Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture,
gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 69, 925-937.
Kobak, R., & Cole, H. (1994). Attachment and meta-monitoring: Implications for adolescent
autonomy and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & S.L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester Symposium on
Developmental Psychopathology: Vol. 5: Disorders and dysfunctions of the self (pp. 267-297).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Emotional autonomy redux: Revisiting Ryan and
Lynch. Child Development, 64, 483-499.
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55, 170-183.
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, 744-754.
Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., & Collins, W. A. (1998). Reconsidering changes in parent-child
conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 69, 817-832.
Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Socialization and developmental change. Child Development, 55,
317-328.
Markus, H. R. & Kityama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Miller, J. B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.
Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children behavior and
Adolescent autonomy development
37
emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781-791.
Pipher, M. B. (1995). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Reese, H. W., & Overton, W. F. (1970). Models of development and theories of
development. In L. R. Goulet, & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology:
Research and theory. New York: Academic.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
749-761.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self:
Their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti &, D. J. Cohen (Eds.).
Developmental psychopathology: Volume 1: Theory and methods (pp. 618-655). New York:
Wiley.
Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: An organizational view of
social and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development. Development
and Psychopathology, 9, 701-728.
Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, J. H. (1989). Emotional Autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting the
vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 60, 340-356.
Ryan, R. M., & Solky, J. A. (1996). What is supportive about social support? On the
psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness. In G.R. Pierce, B.R. Sarason, & I.G. Sarason
(Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family (pp. 249-267). New York: Plenum Press.
Saragovi, C., Koestner, R., Dio, L. D., & Aubé, J. (1997). Agency, communion, and well-
Adolescent autonomy development
38
being: Extending Helgeson’s (1994) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
593-609.
Sessa, F. M. & Steinberg, L. (1991). Family structure and the development of autonomy
during adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 38-55.
Silverberg, S. B., & Gondoli, D. M. (1996). Autonomy in adolescence: A contextualized
perspective. In G. R. Adams, R. Montemayor, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.). Psychosocial development
during adolescence: Progress in developmental contextualism (pp. 12-61). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549-570.
Skinner, E. A., & Edge, K. (2000). Self-determination, coping, and development.
Unpublished manuscript, Portland State University.
Skinner, E. A., & Wellborn, J. G. (1994). Coping during childhood and adolescence: A
motivational perspective. D.L. Featherman, R.M. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Life-span
Development and Behavior: Vol. 12 (pp. 91-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1975). The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A
measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 4, 43-44.
Steinberg, L. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty. Developmental
Psychology, 17, 833-840.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. S.
Feldman, & G. R. Elliott (Eds.). At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255-276),
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Adolescent autonomy development
39
Steinberg, L. (2000). SRA presentation?
Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence.
Child Development, 57, 841-851.
Turner, R. A., Irwin, C. E, Tschann, J. M., & Millstein, S. G. (1993). Autonomy, relatedness,
and the initiation of health risk behaviors in early adolescence. Health Psychology, 12, 200-208.
Youniss, J. & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.