Adolescents’ Scripts 1
Life with Fathers and Mother: Adolescents’ Scripts
For Their Relationships with Parents and Stepfathers
William V. Fabricius
Arizona State University
Amy A. Weimer
University of Texas - Pan American
Jeffrey T. Cookston
San Francisco State University
Delia Saenz
Arizona State University
Ross D. Parke
University of California, Riverside
Scott L. Coltrane
University of California, Riverside
Sandford L. Braver
Arizona State University
Running Head: Adolescents’ Scripts
Adolescents’ Scripts 2
Abstract
When asked to “describe your relationship with your [parent],” young adolescents
(7th grade) produced scripts of what generally happens in that relationship, spontaneously
evaluated what happens rather than simply described it, and uniformly chose the same set
of dimensions on which to evaluate what happens. The three primary dimensions
reflected the amount of time the parent spends in interaction with the child, the emotional
quality of the relationship, and the reliability of the parent’s responsiveness. The
dimensional structure was similar for four types of parents (resident biological mothers,
resident biological fathers, resident stepfathers, and non-resident biological fathers), and
for European American and Mexican American boys and girls. This suggests that these
young adolescents shared a common schema of what a good parent does. The coding
scheme developed to analyze these scripts had good inter-rater reliability, and
demonstrated construct and predictive validity. Measures derived from the scripts
characterized the specific parent-child relationship and specific aspects of the
relationship, and were significantly related to parent and teacher reports of adolescents’
internalizing and externalizing problems, parent reports of adolescents’ positive
behaviors, and adolescent self-reports of delinquent behavior (smoking, substance use,
and sexual activity).
Adolescents’ Scripts 3
Life with Fathers and Mother: Young Adolescents’ Scripts
For Their Relationships with Parents and Stepfathers
There is currently some debate about what constitutes good parenting, and in
particular whether good parenting in middle-class, Western families is similar to good
parenting in other cultural and socio-economic groups (Parke & Buriel, 2006). However,
any consensus that does exist is largely founded on research that examines mothering,
and commentators have pointed out that “much greater consensus exists about ‘good
mothers’ than about ‘good fathers’.” (Marsiglio, Day, Braver, Evans, Lamb, & Peters,
1998, p. 109). Popular notions about “good fathers” are a reflection of the traditional and
contemporary role demands on fathers. Among those role demands are to work, to spend
time with their children, to show support for the mother, to provide guidance and
discipline, to plan for and arrange to meet the child’s social, educational, and medical
needs, and to set an example for their children of what a good father does. But what does
a good father do? We know comparatively little, especially during adolescence, about
what constitutes good fathering even in middle-class, Western families (Marsiglio, et el.,
1998).
In the present study we developed a new measure designed to reveal the child’s
point of view about what it means to be a good father. The child’s point of view is likely
to be important, because if children think that their fathers are acting as good fathers they
are likely to feel loved, respected, and secure, and that is likely to benefit them. We
focused on the period of early adolescence because that is likely to be an important time
to study the child’s view of parenting. During the transition to adolescence, earlier
parenting behaviors and the meanings children attach to these behaviors might undergo
Adolescents’ Scripts 4
revision, and children’s perspectives might thus become more conscious and available for
study. For example, how much the parents are able and willing to provide financially
during the teen years, or their willingness to re-negotiate old rules and impose new ones
might carry new meanings for adolescents about how important they feel to their parents,
and how much they think their parents accept, respect, and trust them. Early adolescence
also might be a time when boys and girls expect different things from mothers and
fathers, and when different behaviors come to convey good mothering versus good
fathering. For comparative purposes, we applied our new measure to parents in four
different roles: resident biological fathers, resident step-fathers, non-resident biological
fathers, and resident biological mothers. Half of the children lived with their biological
mothers and fathers, and the other half lived in step-father families. Finally, because we
know little about cultural similarities and differences in adolescents’ views of good
parenting, we recruited European American and Mexican American families representing
a range of socio-economic levels.
The measure we developed was open-ended because we wanted to capture parent
behaviors that adolescents might see as uniquely important for fathers, and that might not
be captured by existing measures. Existing measures of older children’s perceptions of
parenting assess pre-determined categories of parent and child behaviors derived from
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982; 1973, 1980), the typology of parenting styles
suggested by Baumrind (1971) and Maccoby and Martin (1983), or relationship schema
theory (Baldwin, 1992). While some of these measures have shown no differences
between mothers and fathers (Kenny, 1987; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and
Adolescents’ Scripts 5
Dornbusch; 1991; see also Baumrind, 1991), it is unknown whether existing measures
overlook important behaviors unique to fathers.
With minimal prompting and direction, we asked young adolescents to describe
their relationships with their mother and resident father (biological father or step-father),
and also, if applicable, their relationship with their non-resident biological father (see
Appendix). Children described the typical things they and their parents do, invariably
using the present tense (e.g., “He’s always saying, ‘Let’s go to Castles and Coasters, or
let’s play a game.” “He tries not to ignore me.” “She treats me nice.” “I get mad at her
when she doesn’t listen to me.” “He wants me to get good grades to have a better life.”
“We like to be together.” “Most of the time if I ask for something and if I’ve been good,
he gets it for me.”). They seldom made statements about specific events marked by the
past tense (e.g., “Last Christmas we went to see his family.” “He got me a dog a couple
of weeks ago.”). Thus children’s descriptions resembled scripts (Nelson, 1986) for “what
happens in my relationship with my [parent].” We focused on the behaviors they chose to
include in their scripts, under the assumption that they considered those behaviors to be
the important and meaningful things their parent do with them.
One part of our coding scheme involved classifying these behaviors. The basis of
classification was how the child framed the behavior. In the example given above, “Most
of the time if I ask for something and if I’ve been good, he gets it for me,” the child
frames the behavior as how reliably (in terms of frequency and under what conditions)
the parent responds to the child’s requests. If the child had prefaced this remark by
saying, “Dad tries to get me to be good, so most of the time if I ask…” then that would
indicate the child also framed it as discipline behavior. Our focus was on children’s
Adolescents’ Scripts 6
framing or interpretation of what the behavior represented. We did not attempt to classify
the parents’ behaviors from our point of view. The coding scheme allowed us to identify
the common frames, or dimensions (such as responsiveness and discipline), that
adolescents chose to focus on.
A second part of our coding scheme involved rating the child’s evaluation of the
adequacy and quality of these parent behaviors. We did not attempt to evaluate them
from our point of view. We were able to ascertain the child’s evaluation because, as
suggested by the examples above, children almost always used language that expressed
one or more of the following: evaluation (e.g., nice), generalization (e.g., always),
attribution of causality {if I ask and if I’ve been good), and attribution of mental states
such as motives (to have a better life), intentions (tries), emotions, (mad), desires (like
to), etc. Children’s use of these expressions revealed their evaluations of the adequacy
and quality of the parent’s behavior. For example, one child might express satisfaction
with going bowling with his father on Saturdays, while another might express
dissatisfaction with only seeing him on Saturdays. One child might express understanding
that her mother is strict when she needs to be, while another might feel her mother is too
strict. Children seldom made purely factual statements (e.g., “He makes me go to bed at
8:00.” “I see him in the morning.” “We play ball.”) that did not convey their evaluations
of the adequacy or quality of the parent’s behavior.
We wanted to determine how adolescent boys and girls from European American
and Mexican American families might differ in their views about what it means to be a
good mother, father, stepfather, and non-residential father. To do so we tested for gender,
family-type, and parent-status differences in the dimensions adolescents focused on, and
Adolescents’ Scripts 7
in the relative emphasis they placed on those dimensions. The coding scheme also
allowed us to obtain scores of how well adolescents thought their parents were doing on
each dimension and, by averaging over dimensions, how well they thought their parents
were doing overall. We tested for similar differences on these scores. Finally, we
assessed the validity of the instrument by examining the relations between script scores
and other measures of adolescents’ relationships with their parents, their internalizing and
externalizing problems, positive behaviors, and delinquent behaviors.
Method
Participants
Participants were part of a five-year, three-wave, two-site (Phoenix, AZ and
Riverside, CA) longitudinal investigation of the role of fathers in adolescent
development. Data for the present study were collected during the first wave of the
project. Approximately equal numbers of participants came from each location, and
included 392 (48% boys) self-identified European American (n = 199) and Mexican
American (n = 193) adolescents, ages 11 to 14 years (M =12.93 years), and their resident
parents. Data were collected in the Spring (n = 200) and Fall (n = 192) semesters of
children’s 7th grade school year. All three family members were of the same, selfidentified ethnicity. Approximately half (n = 217) of the children were living in intact
families, the rest (n = 175) were in step-father families. For purposes of recruitment, stepfather families were defined as families in which the target child’s biological mother had
been living for at least the past year with a man who was not the child’s biological father,
and in which the target child lived with the mother more than half time. All participants
were interviewed individually in their language of preference (369 English- and 23
Adolescents’ Scripts 8
Spanish-speaking adolescents; 204 English- and 108 Spanish-speaking mothers; 280
English- and 112 Spanish-speaking resident fathers).
Recruitment of families. Recruitment strategies varied between sites due to
differing laws and school district policies. In Arizona, adolescents were recruited from
eight ethnically diverse schools in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Teachers administered
a short survey to all 7th graders asking about the students’ ethnic background and family
composition, in return for a small donation of equipment (scanner, fax machines) to the
school. A total of 2,459 families appeared eligible. A staff member at each school was
employed by the research project to telephone families according to a random selection
scheme to ascertain eligibility, explain the project, and ask for consent to have research
staff call the family. A total of 640 families were contacted. Research staff then called
families to explain the details of the project, offer a monetary reward for participation,
and obtain consent as per university Institutional Review Board procedures. In Arizona,
204 families were both eligible and initially agreed to participate.
In California, families were recruited from two school districts. School staff used
emergency contact cards and enrollment data to determine families that appeared eligible.
They then contacted these families to explain the project and screen for eligibility. If the
families agreed to participate and met eligibility requirements, research staff called
families to explain the details of the project, offer a monetary reward for participation,
and obtain consent as per university Institutional Review Board procedures. In California,
a total of 540 families were contacted, and of these 192 were both eligible and initially
agreed to participate.
Adolescents’ Scripts 9
Recruitment of teachers. Children were asked to provide the names of two
teachers that research staff could contact. At both sites, a letter describing the project and
a copy of the written consent from the parents were mailed to each teacher requesting that
he or she complete the enclosed questionnaire about the adolescent’s behavior. In
Arizona, an incentive of $5 cash, and a pre-paid envelope were enclosed along with the
letter, and if necessary teachers were reminded by follow-up phone calls from research
staff. In Arizona, 387 (97%) were completed by teachers; 197 (98%) adolescents had a
questionnaire from at least one teacher, and 190 (95%) had questionnaires from both
teachers. The procedure in California was similar, except that a non-monetary incentive
was used in place of cash (e.g., movie gift certificates), and no follow-up phone calls
were placed, due to state policies. In California 261 (68%) were completed by teachers;
169 (88%) adolescents had a questionnaire from at least one teacher, and 92 (48%) had
questionnaires from both teachers.
Procedures
In Arizona, all three family members were interviewed in the home during one
visit by three trained research staff members. The interviews were conducted
concurrently in different rooms of the house so that privacy could be maintained.
Interviewers were instructed to ensure that no participant could overhear the responses
from any other participant. In California, the family traveled to the research site and all
members were similarly interviewed in separate rooms. The interviews lasted
approximately 2 ½ hours. As part of the larger battery, interviewers presented all the
measurers analyzed here verbally to family members, except the delinquent behavior
Adolescents’ Scripts 10
items. The delinquent behavior items were presented to adolescents in a selfadministered, paper-and-pencil questionnaire mid-way through the interview.
Measures
Relationship Scripts. Children were asked to describe their relationships with their
residential fathers, mothers, and if applicable, non-residential fathers. The requests
always came in this order, and they were spaced widely apart during the interview. In the
case of non-residential fathers, children were first asked if they were comfortable
providing a description of their relationship with him “like we did with your mom and
step-dad.” Children had to have a relationship with their biological fathers in order to
describe it, and we were concerned that some children might not feel able to talk about
their relationship with him if they had not seen him for a long period of time. Those
children who had indicated that their biological fathers were no longer alive were not
asked to describe their relationships with them. Children were asked four questions (see
Appendix) to elicit their descriptions of their relationship with each parent. The questions
were designed to be as generic, conversational, and open-ended as possible. Interviewers’
questions and children’s responses were audio-recorded and transcribed. Coding was
done on the transcriptions. The 23 scripts that were produced in Spanish were translated
into English by trained coders who were bi-lingual, and coding was done on the English
transcriptions.
The coding scheme was initially developed by three of the authors working from
the responses of 18 children who were part of a pilot project for the study. The first two
authors then refined and clarified details of the scheme and developed the coder training
Adolescents’ Scripts 11
method over the course of training two cohorts of pilot coders on the study data. A third
cohort of six coders was then trained to reliability, and all data were coded by them.
The coding procedure involved three steps. First the coder divided the child’s
monologue into individual “meaning statements.” These are statements that expressed
children’s evaluations of their parents’ behavior, their generalizations about the
frequency or predictability of their parents’ behavior, their causal explanations of their
parents’ behavior, their own and their parents’ thoughts or feelings about the relationship,
and references to helping or talking with each other. Three types of statements were not
counted as meaning statements: statements about the relationship that were purely factual
(i.e., those that did not contain any of these elements of meaning), statements that were
not about the relationship (e.g., about the parent’s work, hobbies, extended family, etc.),
and statements about specific parent behaviors in the past (e.g., “He got me a cat a couple
of weeks ago.”)
Second, each meaning statement was categorized into one or more of the
following four dimensions, or into none of the following: (1) Interaction, which refers to
the amount of time the parent spends doing things with the child (e.g., "She does a lot
with us." “He also likes to stay home and play cards with my sister and mom and me.”
“He sometimes lets me tag along with him to the store and stuff.” “Everyday when he
comes home we play.” “Most of the time we really don’t spend time with each other.”
“Sometimes I ask him if he’ll take me out to a basketball court, so sometimes he’ll do
that.”), (2) Emotional Quality, which refers to the positive or negative emotions in the
relationship (e.g., "She's nice but she can be mean." "She's very good to us." “Well, he’s
human so he does lose his patience once in a while.” “He can make me feel better.” “She
Adolescents’ Scripts 12
encourages me in what I want to do.” “He understands me.”), (3) Responsiveness, which
refers to the reliability of the parent’s responsiveness to the child's requests or needs,
including talking with or helping the child (e.g., "She's always there for me." "He tries
not to ignore me." “I can talk to her.” “He helps me with my homework.”), and (4)
Provisioning, which refers to how well the parent financially supports the child (e.g.,
“She always buys me stuff for school.” “He tries to buy me everything I want
sometimes.”). The basis for classification was how the child framed the behavior. For
example, “He helps me with my homework” logically entails spending time together, and
probably also connotes positive emotions, but for that statement to also be classified as
Interaction the child would have to say something like, “He spends a lot of time helping
me with my homework.” For it to also be classified as Emotional Quality the child would
have to say something like, “We have fun when he helps me with my homework.”
In developing the coding scheme, we discovered that fewer than 5% of meaning
statements referred to discipline (e.g., “He doesn’t have too many rules.”), parent
monitoring of children’s behavior (e.g., “She always asks where I’m going, who I’m
with.”), or parent goals for children (e.g., “He wants me to go to college.”). We dropped
these categories, and such statements were left uncategorized; however, if the child
conveyed an evaluation of, or an emotional reaction to the goals, discipline, or
monitoring (e.g., “He wants me to get good grades, but he pushes me too hard
sometimes.”), then the statement was categorized as Emotional Quality.
Finally, each meaning statement was assigned a score on each dimension that it
had been categorized into on a 3-point scale. The scale for Interaction, Responsiveness,
and Provisioning was "low," “medium,” and "high," and for Emotional Quality was
Adolescents’ Scripts 13
"negative," “partly negative/partly positive,” and "positive." The middle-level scores
were given if the statement included any qualifiers (e.g., “Sometimes he plays with me.”
"She's nice but she can be mean." "He tries not to ignore me."). Codes of “high” or
“positive” were given when the child explicitly tagged something as good (e.g., “When I
need help he always helps me.”) or simply described something that was good with no
qualification (e.g., “When I need help he helps me.”). The reverse applied to codes of
“low” or “negative,” (e.g., “I never see him. He’s always at work.” “She doesn’t listen to
me.”). The coding manual is available from the first author.
Interrater Reliability. We assessed reliability by having all six coders code the
same 60 scripts, which were composed of 26 resident father scripts (13 biological fathers
and 13 step-fathers), 26 mother scripts, and 8 non-resident father scripts. These ratios
reflected the ratios of resident parents to non-resident fathers in the data set. Each of the
60 scripts was chosen from a different family. As part of the final revision of the coding
manual, the first two authors had previously independently coded these 60 scripts, and
then discussed them and came to agreement on any initial disagreements.
We assessed reliability at the level of the final variables that went into the
analyses. The variables that went into the validity analyses were the mean scores for each
dimension. To assess reliability for these variables, we calculated each coder’s mean
score of the statements in each dimension in each of the 60 scripts, and correlated each
coder’s mean scores with the authors’ mean scores separately for each dimension. The
average of the six coders’ reliabilities on each dimension was high: Interaction M = .89,
range .85 - .93, Emotional Quality M = .94, range .92 - .97, Responsiveness M = .85,
Adolescents’ Scripts 14
range .77 - .90. All but one of the reliabilities were > .84. There were too few meaning
statements classified as Provisioning to assess reliability for the mean score.
Variables that were used in descriptive analyses included the total number of
meaning statements, and the number of meaning statements in each dimension. The
averages of the six coders’ reliabilities were as follows: total number of meaning
statements M = .93, range .89 - .97, number of Interaction statements M = .84, range .74
- .93, number of Emotional Quality M = .94, range .89 - .96, number of Responsiveness
M = .84, range .76 - .91, number of Provisioning M = .66, range .54 - .74.
Each coder coded only one parent script per child. Throughout the coding process
the authors conducted periodic checks of approximately 10% of each coder’s scripts, and
provided feedback where necessary. The authors randomly selected one coder’s ratings of
each of the 60 reliability assessment scripts to be used in the analyses, under the
constraint that the coder had not already coded another script by that child.
Mattering. For each parent (mother, residential biological or step father, nonresidential father), adolescents completed a 7-item scale developed for this project based
on items used by Rosenberg and McCullough’s (1981). Items assessed adolescents’
perceptions of feeling important, loved, and valued by each parent. Items were rated on a
five point scale from “1”= “strongly agree,” to “5” = “strongly disagree.” Higher scores
reflect higher perceived levels of mattering to the target parent. Sample items include, “I
believe I really matter to my dad/mom,” and “I am one of the most important things in
the world to my dad/mom.” Cronbach’s alphas for mothers, resident fathers, and
nonresident fathers were .77, .86, and .95.
Adolescents’ Scripts 15
Child Report of Parent Behavior Index (CRPBI). Adolescents were asked about
their perceptions of their parents’ behavior toward them in the last 3 months. Thus
children had to have seen their non-resident fathers within the last 3 months. One child
who reported he had not seen his non-residential father in the last 3 months was
inadvertently asked these questions. His data are included here. The original CRPBI was
developed by Schaefer (1965) and later revised by Teleki et al. (1982), and has been used
with Latino samples in the past (e.g., Knight & Hill 1998; Knight, Virdin, & Roosa,
1994). The present study used the revised version, which included three subscales:
Acceptance, Rejection, and Consistency of Discipline. Ten items were used for
acceptance, ten for rejection, and eight for consistent discipline. Each subscale was
analyzed separately. Alphas for each subscale (acceptance, rejection, discipline) were as
follows: resident father: .88, .77, and .71, respectively; mother: .87, .81, and .71; nonresident father: .91, .82, and .67.
Internalizing and Externalizing Problems. Mother and resident father reports of
child internalizing problems were measured using the 10-item internalizing problems
subscale of the Behavior Problem Index that includes anxious/depressed and withdrawn
behaviors (BPI; Peterson & Zill, 1986). Teachers were asked to report internalizing
problems using the 10-item internalizing problems subscale of BPI that was modified for
teacher report. When both teachers gave reports we averaged their ratings; when only one
reported we used that teacher’s ratings. Alphas for mothers, resident fathers and teachers
were .74, .72, and .89 respectively. Mothers and resident fathers also completed the 18item BPI externalizing problems subscale that includes aggressive and problem social
behavior. Teachers were asked to report externalizing problems using the 18-item
Adolescents’ Scripts 16
externalizing problems subscale of the BPI modified for teacher report. Alphas for
mothers, resident fathers, and teachers were .86, .88, and .96, respectively. Children’s
rates of internalizing and externalizing problems were highly correlated within each
reporter (rs > .74), and for this reason we used their total BPI score. We formed one
composite total BPI score from all three reports (mother, resident father, teacher).
Positive Behaviors. We selected 10 of the original 25 items of the Positive
Behavior Scale developed and validated by Quint et al. (1997). Items assess parents’
perceptions of the child’s ability to engage in positive social and adaptive behaviors. We
formed a composite score from mothers’ ( = .79) and resident fathers’ ( = .78) reports
of the child’s positive behaviors. Sample items included, “Thinking about (child) during
the past 3 months, please tell me how often was (child) cheerful or happy,” and “how
often (child) did careful work.”
Delinquent Behaviors. We formed a composite score from four sets of items
assessing the child’s self-reported smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug use, and sexual
behavior. These data were collected with a paper-and-pencil questionnaire so as to avoid
embarrassing the child and to encourage honest responses. These items were adapted
from the 1993 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), a large-scale national study
conducted by the Centers for Disease Control which has been validated in subsequent
research (Brener, Kann, McManus, Kinchen, Sundberg, & Ross, 2002). Items about
substance use were selected from the “Monitoring the Future Scale.” We asked
adolescents about their use of the following substances: cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana,
cocaine (in its various forms), and, in one general question, all other forms of illegal
drugs (e.g., heroine, mushrooms). For each substance, we elected to ask about age of
Adolescents’ Scripts 17
onset of use, and use within the last 30 days (smoking  = .93, alcohol use  = .78, and
illicit drug use  = .87). Items about sexual behavior also were selected from the YRBS
(1993). Adolescents were asked, “Have you ever had sexual intercourse (made love, gone
all the way)?” and if they answered affirmatively, questions about the age of first
intercourse, number of partners, use of contraceptives, and pregnancy followed. Thus,
higher scores on this scale reflect having had sexual intercourse, having had it at a
younger age, with more partners, and with riskier contraceptive behavior ( = .92).
Results
Descriptive analyses
From the total of 392 children, we obtained 383 audible descriptions about
resident fathers, and 377 about mothers. The missing cases were due to recording
equipment failure. From the 175 children living in step-father families, we obtained 98
audible descriptions about non-resident fathers. Of the 77 missing descriptions about nonresident fathers, seven were due to equipment failure. The 70 remaining children
declined to talk about their non-resident fathers, and among them 12 reported he was not
living, 40 had not seen him in the past three years,1 five had not seen him in the past year,
and 13 had seen him in the past year. Among the 97 who did talk about their non-resident
fathers, 12 had not seen him in the past three years, 6 had not seen him in the past year,
and 79 had seen him in the past year. Table 1 shows the number of children who provided
scripts in each cell of the design.
The mean number of child words in their descriptions of their resident fathers,
mothers, and non-resident fathers were 199 (SD = 153), 151 (SD = 127), and 162 (SD =
132), respectively. On average, coders discerned 12 (SD = 6.3) meaning statements in
Adolescents’ Scripts 18
scripts about resident fathers, 11 (SD = 6.0) in scripts about mothers, and 10 (SD = 5.0) in
scripts about non-resident fathers. We first determined how many children referred to
each dimension. Averaged across scripts, 98% of children per script referred to the
emotional quality of the relationship, 84% referred to the amount of time the parent spent
in activities with the child, 75% referred to their parent’s responsiveness, and 25%
referred to the monetary provisioning they received from the parent.2 Averaged across
scripts, over 60% of children referred to all three of the most frequent dimensions
(Interaction, Emotional Quality, Responsiveness), and over 90% referred to at least two
of these three dimensions.
We next determined whether the structure of the scripts differed depending on
family ethnicity, family structure (intact or stepfamily), gender of the child, or target
parent. We examined two aspects of structure. First we examined the proportion of
meaning statements that could not be categorized into any one of the four dimensions.
There were very few uncategorized statements. Overall in the scripts about resident
fathers, mothers, and non-resident fathers, 96%, 97%, and 98% of meaning statements
were captured by at least one of the four dimensions. Analyses revealed several
significant differences, but because the rates of categorization were so high these
differences seemed unimportant in practical terms. For example, for children from intact
families, 96% of their statements about their parents were captured by at least one of the
four dimensions versus 98% for children from step families.
Second we examined the weight or importance children gave to each dimension
by calculating the percentage of references to each dimension. A meaning statement
could be categorized into one of the four dimensions, more than one, or none. For each
Adolescents’ Scripts 19
script we calculated the number of meaning statements that were categorized into each
dimension. We then determined the percentage of references to each dimension out of
the sum of the statements that were categorized into each dimension plus the statements
that were not categorized into any dimension. In scripts about mothers and resident
fathers, children talked about Interaction 24% of the time, Responsiveness 21% of the
time, Emotional Quality 50% of the time, and Provisioning only 3% of the time. There
were several significant differences in analyses of the percentage of references to each
dimension, but what was most striking was the similarity between family types and
family members. For example, children tended to talk only slightly more about
Interaction when talking about their resident fathers (26%) than their mothers (22%), and
only slightly more about Emotional Quality when talking about their mothers (52%) than
their fathers (48%). Scripts about non-resident fathers were similar to scripts about
resident parents. For non-resident fathers the means for Interaction, Responsiveness,
Emotional Quality, and Provisioning were 30%, 15%, 50%, and 4%, respectively. There
were no significant differences in these percentages for non-resident fathers among
European and Mexican American boys and girls.3
We next examined whether the scripts revealed group differences in how children
perceived the quality of their relationships with their parents. After each meaning
statement was assigned to one or more dimensions, it was rated on a three-point ordinal
scale (1 = low or negative, 2 = medium or partly negative / partly positive, 3 = high or
positive). A 2 (Ethnicity) X 2 (Family type: intact, step) X 2 (Child gender) X 2 (Parent
target: resident father, mother) X 3 (Dimension) repeated measures ANOVA on the mean
ratings on the three primary dimensions (Interaction, Emotional Quality, Responsiveness)
Adolescents’ Scripts 20
revealed only an ethnicity by dimension interaction, F (2, 320) = 7.89, p < .001,
illustrated in Figure 1. The primary difference between European and Mexican American
adolescents was on Interaction, where Mexican Americans described their resident
fathers and mothers less often in positive terms than did European Americans. There was
less of a difference on Responsiveness, and no difference on Emotional Quality. For
European Americans there were no differences among the three dimensions, but there
were for Mexican Americans, F (2, 138) = 15.87, p < .001, who described their parents
less positively in terms of Interaction than Emotional Quality (p < .001) and
Responsiveness (p < .001), which did not differ. Interestingly, there were no interactions
involving dimension and parent; thus, adolescents did not describe mothers more
positively than resident fathers on some dimensions, or vice versa.
There were only 168 children in the above analysis due to the requirement that
each child had to refer to all three dimensions for each parent. In order to include as many
children as possible, we computed an overall script score, which was the child’s overall
mean of whichever of the three primary dimension means the child provided. We
analyzed these overall means in a 2 (Ethnicity) X 2 (Family type) X 2 (Child gender) X 2
(Parent target) repeated measures ANOVA. This analysis revealed only an effect due to
parent, F (1, 367) = 11.66, p < .001. Overall, mothers were seen in more positive terms
(M = 2.73) than resident fathers (2.66).
We also examined non-resident fathers for group differences in the perceived
quality of relationships. First, a 2 (Ethnicity) X 2 (Child gender) X 3 (Dimension)
repeated measures ANOVA on the mean ratings on the three primary dimensions for
non-resident fathers revealed only an effect of Dimension, F (2, 106) = 4.24, p < .05.
Adolescents’ Scripts 21
Adolescents described their non-resident fathers less positively in terms of Interaction (M
= 2.35) than in terms of Emotional Quality (2.59, p < .05). Descriptions of
Responsiveness (2.50) did not differ from the other two dimensions. This analysis
included only 57 adolescents. Computing the overall script score for non-resident fathers
allowed us to include all 98 adolescents in a 2 (Ethnicity) X 2 (Child gender) ANOVA,
which yielded no significant effects. Finally, we compared the three parents in the stepfamilies in a 2 (Ethnicity) X 2 (Child gender) X 3 (Parent) repeated measures ANOVA
on the overall mean ratings, and this revealed only an effect of parent, F (2, 186) = 10.69,
p < .001. Adolescents described their non-resident fathers (M = 2.39) less positively than
both their mothers (2.71) and their step-fathers (2.66, p’s < .05). In this smaller analysis
mothers and stepfathers did not differ.
Summary. Children spontaneously evaluated their relationships with their parents
on three primary dimensions (Interaction, Emotional Quality, and Responsiveness). Each
dimension was referred to by 75% or more of children per script. Every child referred to
at least one of the three primary dimensions in each script he or she produced, and
averaged across scripts over 90% referred to two or all three dimensions. Moreover, only
a small percentage of the evaluative statements children made about their relationships
with their parents were not captured by these three dimensions plus Provisioning. There
was substantial similarity across family types and family members in terms of the weight
children gave to the dimensions; that is, 25% to 30% of statements evaluated the
relationship in terms of Interaction, 15% to 20% in terms of Responsiveness, 50% in
terms of Emotional Quality, and 3% to 4% in terms of Provisioning. Mexican American
resident parents were described less positively in terms of Interaction than European
Adolescents’ Scripts 22
American resident parents, but as similar in Responsiveness and identical in Emotional
Quality. Children from both ethnic groups described non-resident fathers less positively
on Interaction than Emotional Quality. The dimensions were not gender-typed in
children’s eyes. Mothers were not seen as doing better on some dimensions and fathers
on others, but overall mothers were evaluated more positively than resident fathers, and
in step families mothers and step fathers were evaluated more positively than nonresident fathers.
Validity analyses
Children appeared to focus on the specific parent relationship they were asked
about. They provided details about that parent, and they seldom slipped into talking about
another parent. If their scripts are a valid measure of the construct of specific parent-child
relationships, then the correlations between scripts for different parents should be
moderate at best. Overall script scores for mothers and resident fathers correlated
moderately (r = .24, n = 375, p < .001), and neither correlated significantly with nonresident fathers (r = -.05, n = 97, p = .63 and r = -.11, n = 98, p = .29, respectively). This
was reflected in each of the four family types (European American intact and step, and
Mexican American intact and step): the correlations between mothers and resident fathers
were r = .25 (n = 107, p < .05), r = .45 (n = 84, p < .01), r = .10 (n = 102, p = .31), and r
= .19 (n = 82, p = .08), respectively, and in the two step-family groups none of the
correlations involving non-resident fathers was significant.
Additional evidence of construct validity came from the finding that correlations
between overall script scores and children’s ratings of how much they felt they mattered
to each parent were stronger within parents than across parents. Table 2 shows the
Adolescents’ Scripts 23
correlations. It is clear that the script score for each parent was most closely related to the
mattering score for that parent. This pattern was repeated in each of the four family types
(not shown).
We examined whether the dimensions of Interaction, Emotional Quality, and
Responsiveness reflected distinguishable aspects of the parent-child relationship. It is
conceivable that some dimensions could be independent of each other. For example,
children’s evaluation of the amount of time parents spend interacting with them might be
weakly related, if at all, to their perception of the emotional quality of the relationship.
However, parent responsiveness and emotional quality are likely to be related because
lack of responsiveness promotes negative affect, and vice versa. Table 3 shows the
correlations among the three primary dimensions for each parent. None of the dimensions
was unrelated to the others. For both residential fathers and mothers, Responsiveness and
Emotional Quality correlated moderately, but so did Interaction and Emotional Quality.
The relation between Interaction and Responsiveness was the weakest of the three. Thus
if children perceived their resident parents as either responsive or spending time with
them they were likely to also feel the relationship was emotionally positive, but they were
not as likely to see responsive parents as also those who spent time with them. For nonresidential fathers, the same pattern held, although the relations were stronger. The
relation between Interaction and Emotional Quality was especially strong (r = .78),
perhaps reflecting the fact that Interaction ratings of “low” for non-resident fathers could
reflect his absence or near absence. Finally, the correlations between dimensions were
similar in each of the four family types (not shown).
Adolescents’ Scripts 24
We used a second approach to test if dimensions reflected distinguishable aspects
of the relationship. Because discipline was not one of the dimensions, we should expect
that script scores would correlate more strongly with the child’s view of the relationship
as captured by the parental acceptance and rejection scales of the CRPBI than by the
consistent discipline scale. Table 4 shows the correlations between each of the primary
dimensions and the scales of the CRPBI for the same parent. Also included are
correlations with the overall script score. It is clear that in every case script scores were
more closely related to the acceptance and rejection scales than to the consistent
discipline scale. The same pattern was present in each of the four family types (not
shown). For example, the acceptance and rejection scales correlated significantly with the
overall script scores for each parent in each family type, and correlations with the
consistent discipline scale were lower and in half the cases were insignificant. Table 4
also shows the standardized beta coefficients from regressions of all three dimensions
onto each CRPBI scale. For resident fathers each dimension contributed independently to
perceived parental acceptance (adjusted r2 = .27), and Interaction and Emotional Quality
contributed independently to rejection (adjusted r2 = .13). For mothers Interaction and
Emotional Quality contributed independently to acceptance (adjusted r2 = .27), and each
dimension contributed independently to rejection (adjusted r2 = .18). For non-resident
fathers Emotional Quality and Responsiveness contributed independently to acceptance
(adjusted r2 = .74), and to rejection (adjusted r2 = .39). The lack of independent
contribution from Interaction reflects the high correlation (r = .78) between Interaction
and Emotional Quality for non-resident fathers.
Adolescents’ Scripts 25
Finally, in terms of predictive validity, relationship script scores should correlate
with measures of child adjustment. Table 5 shows the correlations between each of the
primary dimensions and three different measures of child adjustment. Also included are
correlations with the overall script score. Internalizing and externalizing related to all
three dimensions for all parents. Positive child behaviors related to Interaction and
Emotional Quality for resident fathers and Emotional Quality for non-resident fathers.
Delinquent behaviors related to Emotional Quality and Responsiveness for mothers. The
overall script scores reflect these relationships. Each parent’s overall score related to
internalizing and externalizing problems, resident and non-resident fathers’ overall scores
related to positive behaviors, and mothers’ scores related to delinquent behaviors.4
Table 5 also shows the standardized beta coefficients from regressions of all three
dimensions onto adjustment outcomes. For resident fathers, Interaction and Emotional
Quality contributed independently to internalizing and externalizing problems (adjusted
R2 = .07), and only Interaction contributed independently to positive behaviors (adjusted
R2 = .04). For mothers only Interaction contributed independently to internalizing and
externalizing problems (adjusted R2 = .04), and only Emotional Quality contributed
independently to delinquent behaviors (adjusted R2 = .03). For non-resident fathers only
Emotional Quality contributed independently to internalizing and externalizing problems
(adjusted R2 = .25), and to positive behaviors (adjusted R2 = .05).
Table 6 shows the correlations between overall scores and child adjustment for
each family type. Given the previous findings, we used a one-tailed criterion here due to
the reduced sample sizes. In each family type, at least one parent’s script score predicted
internalizing and externalizing problems. Either resident or non-resident fathers’ scores
Adolescents’ Scripts 26
predicted positive behaviors in three out of the four family types. In addition, mothers’
scores predicted positive behaviors in the European American intact group. Delinquent
behaviors were predicted by mothers’ scores only in the Mexican American intact group.
Summary. The scripts reflected the child’s evaluation of specific parent-child
relationships. Script scores for the two resident parents were only moderately correlated,
and neither was correlated with non-resident father. In addition, script scores correlated
most strongly with how much the child felt he or she mattered to that parent rather than to
another parent. The three primary dimensions appeared to reflect distinguishable aspects
of the parent-child relationship. The pattern of correlations among dimension scores
suggested that if children perceived their parents as either responsive or spending time
with them they were likely to also feel the relationship was emotionally positive, but they
were not as likely to see responsive parents as also those who spent time with them.
Further, the dimension scores were more closely related to the acceptance and rejection
scales of the CRPBI than to the consistent discipline scale (all of the above findings
applied equally well to each of the four family types), and for each parent either two or
all three of the dimensions were independently related to children’s perceptions of
parental acceptance and rejection. Finally, predictive validity was indicated by significant
associations with three measures of child adjustment. Internalizing and externalizing
problems were specifically related to Interaction and Emotional Quality for resident
fathers, to Interaction for mothers, and to Emotional Quality for non-resident fathers;
positive behaviors were specifically related to Interaction for resident fathers and to
Emotional Quality for non-resident fathers; delinquent behaviors were specifically related
Adolescents’ Scripts 27
to Emotional Quality for mothers. There were significant relations between overall script
scores and child adjustment in each of the four family types.
Discussion
When asked to “describe your relationship with your [parent],” young adolescents
produced scripts of what generally happens in that relationship. They used the present
tense to describe the typical behaviors that occur with the parent, and the emotions,
motives, intentions, desires, etc. on both their parts that accompany those behaviors. As
part of these scripts, they spontaneously evaluated what happens rather than simply
described it, and they uniformly chose the same set of dimensions on which to evaluate
what happens. The three primary dimensions reflected the amount of time the parent
spends in interaction with the child, the emotional quality of the relationship, and the
reliability of the parent’s responsiveness. The fourth dimension reflected the adequacy of
the parent’s financial provisioning. Measures derived from the scripts characterized the
specific parent-child relationship and specific aspects of the relationship. The individual
dimension scores correlated only moderately (for resident parents), and they
independently predicted parent and teacher reports of internalizing and externalizing
problems, parent reports of positive behavior, and adolescent self-reports of delinquent
behavior. This is a rich measure that makes contact at several points with research on
children’s representations of relationships.
First, this measure has the potential to fill a gap in the research on children’s
representations of their relationships with their parents, because “surprisingly, no
procedures have been developed to directly assess children’s expectations for the
behavior of their attachment figures in familiar situations or their scripts for social
Adolescents’ Scripts 28
interaction with their attachment figures” (Thompson, 2006, p. 66). Our method is in line
with recent proposals for theory and measurement development in this area that have
suggested using script theory and recruiting constructive memory to capture how children
understand people and social events, construct the self, and interpret their relational
experiences (Bretherton, 1990; 1991; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). The scripts
adolescents produced appeared to be embedded in schemas for their relationships with
their parents. Relationship schemas include representations of the self and other, and an
interpersonal script for expected behaviors on both actors’ parts along with
accompanying feelings and wishes (Baldwin, 1992; Waldinger, Diguer, Guastella,
Lefebvre, Allen, Luborsky, & Hauser, 2002). Relationship schemas are held together by
explicit or implicit causal explanations and evaluations, in this case explanations for
“why my parent relates to me in these typical ways,” and judgments about whether those
ways are good or not. For example, even one of the shortest scripts we obtained (“I never
see him. He never calls. I don’t want a relationship with him.”) is held together by an
implicit attribution of the father’s lack of caring as the reason for his absence, and the
adolescent’s resulting anger and avoidance. The hypothesis that these relatively short
scripts reflected adolescents’ presumably stable schemas would explain why they
correlated with independent observers’ judgments of adolescents’ positive and problem
behaviors, and their self-reported delinquent behavior.
Second, the commonality of the dimensions of parent behavior on which
adolescents chose to evaluate their individual parents suggests that young European
American and Mexican American adolescents shared a common schema for “a good
parent.” Over 90% referred to two or all three of the primary dimensions in their scripts,
Adolescents’ Scripts 29
and the dimensional structure was similar for four types of parents (resident biological
mothers, resident biological fathers, resident stepfathers, and non-resident biological
fathers). These three dimensions include most of the dimensions in the existing measures
of older children’s perceptions of parenting derived from the theoretical frameworks of
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982; 1973, 1980), the construct of authoritative
parenting (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983), or relationship schema theory
(Baldwin, 1992). Table 7 shows the dimensions of these previous measures which have
items that overlap conceptually with the three primary dimensions of the Relationship
Scripts measure.
Measures derived from attachment theory by Kenny (1987), Kerns, Klepac, &
Cole (1996), and Armsden and Greenberg (1987) are based on the notion that although
early childhood attachment behaviors decline with age, the attachment relationship itself,
along with internal models of self and parent, are continually relied upon, reevaluated,
and modified during parent-child interactions and self-reflection into adolescence and
probably beyond (Ainsworth, 1990; Bowlby, 1979; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). All
these researchers have conceptualized attachment at older ages by relying upon
Ainsworth, Blehar, Walters, & Wall’s (1978) central construct that attachment provides a
secure base for the infant’s independent exploration and mastery of the environment.
Kerns, et al. (1996) further relied on Bowlby’s view (1987, cited in Ainsworth, 1990) that
during middle childhood the set goal of the child’s attachment system begins to reorient
from maintaining physical proximity to the secure base, to maintaining availability, and
that availability is operationalized as the parent’s physical accessibility, responsiveness
when called upon, and openness to communication. Kerns, et al.’s 15-item Security Scale
Adolescents’ Scripts 30
(SS) is composed of items that reflect responsiveness/accessibility (e.g., whether the child
worries that the parent will be there when needed), openness to communication, and the
child’s self-reported tendency to seek out the parent in times of stress. The scale yields a
single score on a continuous dimension of security.
Kenny (1987) constructed items to tap college students’ perceptions of their
parents as a secure base during the stressful time of leaving home for college. She
subsequently removed some of the original items to form the 55-item Parental
Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ) to be used with early adolescents (Kenny, Moilanen,
Lomax, & Brabeck, 1993). The PAQ is composed of three factors which are highly intercorrelated: parents’ support and guidance during problems or important decisions
(Support), the child’s emotions during recent visits home or time spent together (Affect),
and parents’ encouragement of the child’s independence and individuality (Autonomy).
Armsden and Greenberg (1987) based their Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment (IPPA) on college students’ emotions regarding their parents. They
subsequently used the measure with young adolescents (Armsden, McCauley, Greenberg,
Burke, & Mitchell, 1990). They designed items to assess trust resulting from parents’
consistent accessibility and responsiveness (characteristic of secure attachment), anger
resulting from inconsistency (characteristic of ambivalent attachment), and hopelessness
or withdrawal resulting from unavailability and unresponsiveness (characteristic of
avoidant attachment). The items factored partially along these lines, with one factor
suggesting trust that parents would be understanding and supportive (Trust), one
suggesting a combination of anger at and withdrawal from parents (Alienation), and a
Adolescents’ Scripts 31
third suggesting ability to communicate about feelings with parents (Communication).
The three factors were highly inter-correlated, however.
Lamborn, et al. (1991) based their Authoritative Parenting Measure (APM) on
three components of authoritative parenting in adolescence: acceptance/involvement,
strictness/supervision, and autonomy granting. Several different types of items occur on
the Involvement factor: two items about how often the family spends time just talking
(this would overlap with Interaction and Responsiveness), and doing fun things together
(Interaction and Emotional Quality), two items about parents’ help with school and
problems (both Responsiveness), one about parents giving reasons (“When he wants me
to do something he explains why;” Responsiveness), two about parents’ responses to
grades (encouragement to try harder in response to poor grade, praise for good grade;
Emotional Quality), two items about pushing adolescents to think independently and do
their best, and one about whether parents know the adolescent’s friends. The Strictness
factor involves setting curfews and knowing the child’s whereabouts, and the Autonomy
factor involves using democratic discipline and encouraging the child to express
individuality (Responsiveness and Emotional Quality). Involvement correlates
moderately with Strictness and Autonomy, which do not correlate with each other
(Purdie, Carroll, & Roche, 2004).
Lynch & Cicchetti (1997) and Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey (2002)
assessed parent-child relationship schemas. Lynch & Cicchetti (1997) used the
Relatedness Questionnaire (RQ) with 7- to 15-year-olds. It yields two factors: Emotional
Quality, which includes items asking about a range of positive and negative emotions the
child experiences when with the parents (e.g., relaxed, bored, important, scared), and
Adolescents’ Scripts 32
Psychological Proximity-Seeking, which includes items about the child’s wishes for more
closeness and interaction (e.g., wanting to spend more time together, wishing the parent
knew him or her better). Five groups (two secure, three insecure) cluster on the basis of
patterns of high or low scores on each dimension. For example, high positive emotions
and high satisfaction with degree of closeness signals an optimally secure relationship.
Furman, et al. (2002) used the Behavioral Systems Questionnaire (BSQ) with
high school students. It assesses the style in which children approach Attachment (i.e.,
seeking support from parents), Affiliation (i.e., maintaining contact with parents), and
Caretaking (i.e., providing support to parents). It assesses both the frequency of
prototypical behaviors, and the child’s feelings about dependency, investment, and
responsibility. For example, indications of a secure relationship style include seeking
support from parents in times of stress and not worrying about being too dependent
(Attachment), making frequent efforts to spend time with parents and feeling that the
efforts are mutual (Affiliation), and.feeling comfortable with the responsibility of caring
for parents but not getting over-involved (Caretaking).
A limitation of cross-study comparisons such as in Table 7 is that categorizing
dimensions from different measures (e.g., categorizing Communication [IPPA],
Involvement [APM], and Autonomy [PAQ] as all overlapping with Responsiveness) may
blur important distinctions among them. Although many of the dimensions do tend to be
intercorrelated within studies, it is important to keep in mind that dimensions that share
features are not necessarily interchangable. A similar limitation applies to our coding
scheme. That is, there may be distinguishable and potentially important subscales present
in each of our three primary categories. For example, “he encourages me to do well in
Adolescents’ Scripts 33
school” versus “he encourage me in the things I want to do” are both coded as Emotional
Quality in our scheme, but they differ in that one involves instilling values and the other
promoting personal growth. We chose to code for the higher-level features that almost all
children referenced, because too many dimensions would have resulted in missing data
for children who did not talk about those particular issues. As a result our scheme does
not allow us to determine if the content and context of parents’ affect, responsiveness,
and interaction are important.
Table 7 reveals that Responsiveness and Emotional Quality are represented in
measures derived from all three theoretical frameworks. Interaction, however, is not
present in measures derived from attachment theory (SS, PAQ, IPPA). In the typology of
parenting styles based on parental warmth versus control (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby &
Martin, 1983), originally warmth did not include quantity of involvement or interaction,
although Lamborn, et al. (1991) include Interaction items (APM). The two measures
reflecting relationship schema theory (RQ, BSQ), in their emphasis on assessing
children’s wishes regarding the relationship, do include children’s representations of the
amount of time spent in interaction with their parents. Furman et al. (2002) clearly locate
Interaction in the affiliation system, and Responsiveness in the attachment system. The
current findings show that young adolescents view both systems as important in their
relationships with their parents.
In conclusion, young adolescents’ schema for “a good parent” is remarkably in
line with modern theoretical views about parenting. Additionally, their schemas for their
relationships with their individual parents are related to their psychological and
behavioral adaptation. The Relationship Scripts measure appears to be a useful new tool
Adolescents’ Scripts 34
for investigating individual, cultural, and developmental differences in children’s
relationship schemas.
Adolescents’ Scripts 35
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1990). Epilogue: Some considerations regarding theory and
assessment relevant to attachment beyond infancy. In M. T. Greenberg, D.
Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 463
– 488). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Walters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer
attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological wellbeing in adolescence. Journal of Youth and adolescence, 16, 427 – 454.
Armsden, G. C.,, McCauley, E., Greenberg, M. T., Burke, P. M., & Mitchell, J. R.
(1990). Parent and peer attachment in early adolescent depression. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 683 – 697.
Baldwin, M. W. (1991). Relational schemas and the processing of social information.
Psychological Bulletin, 11, 461 – 484.
Raumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology
Monograph, 4(1), part 2.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56 – 85.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books, New
York
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 2: Separation. Basic Books, New York.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London, Tavistock.
Adolescents’ Scripts 36
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 3: Loss. Basic Books, New York
Bretherton, I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models: Their role in
the development of attachment relationships. In Thompson, Ross A. (Ed).
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1988: Socioemotional development. Current
theory and research in motivation, Vol. 36 (pp. 57-113). Lincoln, NE: University
of Nebraska Press.
Bretherton, I. (1991). Pouring new wine into old bottles: The social self as internal
working model. In M. Gunnar & L. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposia on child
Psychology: Vol. 23. Self processes and development (pp. 1-41). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy, & P.R. Shaver (Eds). Handbook
of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. (pp. 89-111). NY: The
Guilford Press
Brener, N.D., Kann, L., McManus, T.,Kinchen, S.A., Sundberg, E.C., & Ross, J.G.
(2002). Reliability of the 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Questionnaire.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 336-342.
Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ working
models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners.
Child Development, 73, 241 – 255.
Kenny, M. E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year
college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 17 – 29.
Adolescents’ Scripts 37
Kenny, M. E., Moilanen, D. L., Lomax, R., & Brabeck, M. M. (1993). Contributions of
parental attachments to view of selk and depressive symptoms among early
adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 408 – 430.
Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. K. (1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents’
perceptions of security on the mother-child relationship. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 457 – 466.
Knight, G. P., & Hill, N. (1998). Measurement equivalence in research involving
minority adolescents. In V. McLoyd & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Research on minority
adolescents: Conceptual, methodological and theoretical issues (pp. 183 – 210).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Knight, G. P., Virdin, L., & Roosa, M. (1994). Socialization and family correlates of
mental health outcomes among Hispanic and Anglo-American families. Child
Development, 65, 212-224
Lambom, S., Mounts, N., Steinberg, L., & Dombusch, S. (1991). Patterns of competence
and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent,
and neglectful homes. Child Development, 62, 1049- 1065.
Lynch, M. & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Children’s relationships with adults and peers: An
examination of elementary and junior high school students. Journal of School
Psychology, 35, 81 – 99.
Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context ofthe family: Parent-child
interaction. In E. M. Heatherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp.
1-101). New York: Wiley.
Adolescents’ Scripts 38
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985).Security in infancy, childhood and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for
research in Child Development, 50(Serial No. 209).
Marsiglio, W., Day, R., Braver, S. L., Evans, V. J. Lamb, & Peters, E. (1998). Social
fatherhood and paternal involvement: Conceptual, data, and policymaking issues.
In Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, Nurturing
Fatherhood: Improving data and research on male fertility, family formation,
and fatherhood (pp. 99 – 174).
Nelson, K. (1986). Event knowledge and cognitive development. In K. Nelson, (Ed.),
Event knowledge: Structure and function in development. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and
behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 295-307.
Parke, R. D. & Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological
perspectives. In N. Eisenberg (Ed), W. Damom & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3 Social, emotional, and personality
development. (pp. 429 - 504). New York: Wiley.
Purdie, N., Carroll, A., & Roche, L. (2004). Parenting and adolescent self-regulation.
Journal of Adolescence, 27, 663 – 676.
Quint, J.C., Bos, J. M., & Polit, D. F. (1997). New chance: Final report on a
comprehensive program for young mothers in poverty and their children.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Adolescents’ Scripts 39
Rosenberg, M. & McCullough, C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred significance and mental
health among adolescents. Research in Community and Mental Health, 2, 163182.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s report of parental behavior: An inventory. Child
Development, 36, 413-424.
Teleki, J.K., Powell, J.A., & Dodder, R.A. (1982). Factor analysis of reports of parental
behavior by children living in divorced and married families. The Journal of
Psychology, 112, 295-302.
Thompson, R. A. (2006). The development of the person: Social understanding,
relationships, conscience, self. In N. Eisenberg (Ed), W. Damom & R. M. Lerner
(Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3 Social, emotional, and
personality development. (pp. 24 - 98). New York: Wiley.
Waldinger, R. J., Diguer; L., Guastella; F., Lefebvre, R., Allen, J. P., Luborsky, L.,
Houser, S. T. (2002). The same old song? Stability and change in relationship
schemas from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 31, 17 – 29.
Adolescents’ Scripts 40
Table 1
Number of Children Who Provided Scripts about Their Relationships
with Each Parent in Each Cell of the Design
________________________________________________________________________
Parent
_________________________________
Resident
Ethnicity Family type Child gender
Father
Non-resident
Mother
Father
________________________________________________________________________
Anglo
Anglo
Mexican
Mexican
Intact
Step
Intact
Step
Male
54
53
--
Female
54
54
--
Male
40
38
26
Female
46
46
33
Male
50
49
--
Female
55
55
--
Male
40
40
18
Female
44
42
21
________________________________________________________________________
Adolescents’ Scripts 41
Table 2
Correlations between Overall Script Scores
and Children’s Ratings of How Much They Felt They Mattered to Each Parent
________________________________________________________________________
Mattering
__________________________________________________
Script
Resident father
Mother
Non-resident father
________________________________________________________________________
Resident father
.49**
(n = 383)
.12*
(n = 383)
.06
(n = 134)
Mother
.20**
(n = 376)
.41**
(n = 376)
-.01
(n = 130)
Non-resident father
-.11
(n = 98)
-.07
(n = 98)
.73**
(n = 96)
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05 ** p < .001
Adolescents’ Scripts 42
Table 3
Correlations between Dimension Scores in Scripts for Each Parent
________________________________________________________________________
Resident father
Mother
Non-resident father
______________________________________________________
Dimension
EQ
RE
EQ
RE
EQ
RE
________________________________________________________________________
IN
EQ
.41**
.25**
.38**
.24**
.78**
.58**
(n = 327) (n = 254)
(n = 297) (n = 241)
(n = 79)
(n = 58)
--
--
--
.69**
.41**
(n=295)
.37**
(n = 298)
(n = 66)
________________________________________________________________________
IN = Interaction; EQ = Emotional Quality; RE = Responsiveness
** p < .001
Adolescents’ Scripts 43
Table 4
Correlations (r) between Dimension Scores and Overall Script Scores
and Scale Scores on the CRPBI for Each Parent, and Standardized Betas (b) from
Simultaneous Regressions of All Three Dimensions onto Scale Scores
________________________________________________________________________
Scale
__________________________________________________
Script
Acceptance
Rejection
Discipline
___________________________________________________
r
b
r
b
r
b
________________________________________________________________________
Resident father
IN (n = 334)
.41**
.26**
-.28**
-.17*
.09
.03
EQ (n = 375)
.49**
.26**
-.44**
-.25**
.28**
.19*
RE (n = 297)
.41**
.19*
-.25**
-.07
.11
-.01
Overall (n = 383)
.54**
-.42**
.21**
Mother
IN (n = 301)
.45**
.33**
-.30**
-.26**
.19*
.19*
EQ (n = 372)
.45**
.26**
-.38**
-.18*
.12*
.01
RE (n = 301)
.25**
.08
-.25**
-.13*
.12*
.08
Overall (n = 376)
.49**
-.39**
.18*
Non-resident father
IN (n = 51)
.57**
.00
-.51**
-.01
.18
-.13
EQ (n = 58)
.64**
.68**
-.66**
-.35*
.31*
.24
RE (n = 39)
.50**
.41**
-.42**
-.44*
.22
.24
Overall (n = 58)
.70**
-.68**
.30*
________________________________________________________________________
* p < .05 ** p < .001
Adolescents’ Scripts 44
Table 5
Correlations (r) between Dimension Scores and Overall Script Scores
and Measures of Children’s Adjustment, and Standardized Betas (b) from Simultaneous
Regressions of All Three Dimensions onto Adjustment
________________________________________________________________________
Internalizing
Positive
Delinquent
Script
and externalizinga
behaviorsb
behaviorsc
______________________________________________________
r
b
r
b
r
b
________________________________________________________________________
Resident father
IN (n = 334)
-.20**
-.18*
.20**
.14*
-.07
--
EQ (n = 375)
-.19**
-.15*
.17**
.13
-.03
--
RE (n = 297)
-.12*
-.04
.07
.01
.07
--
Overall (n = 383)
-.20**
.18**
-.02
Mother
IN (n = 301)
-.14*
-.14*
.02
--
-.09
.03
EQ (n = 372)
-.14*
-.05
.09
--
-.11*
-.20*
RE (n = 301)
-.13*
-.10
.10
--
-.11+
-.06
Overall (n = 376)
-.16*
.07
-.11*
Non-resident father
IN (n = 83)
-.19+
.18
.16
-.31
.04
--
EQ (n = 94)
-.39**
-.76**
.35**
.48*
-.03
--
RE (n = 67)
-.25*
.20
.13
-.09
.09
--
Overall (n = 98)
-.25*
.27*
.05
________________________________________________________________________
a
Behavior Problems Index, mean of mother, resident father, and teachers’ reports.
b
Mean of mother and resident father’s reports.
c
Mean of child’s report of smoking, alcohol use, drug use, and sexual activity.
+ p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .001
Adolescents’ Scripts 45
Table 6
Correlations between Overall Script Scores for Each Parent
and Measures of Children’s Adjustment for Each Family Type
________________________________________________________________________
Internalizing
Positive
Delinquent
Family type
and externalizinga
behaviorsb
behaviorsc
________________________________________________________________________
Anglo intact
Resident father (n = 108)
-.08
.19*
-.06
Mother (n = 107)
-.17+
.19*
-.11
Resident father (n = 86)
-.13
.10
-.04
Mother (n = 84)
-.24*
.13
-.12
Non-resident father (n = 59)
-.41**
.40**
.02
-.33**
.27*
-.05
.05
-.18
-.20*
Resident father (n = 84)
-.21+
.16
.08
Mother (n = 82)
-.33**
.15
-.04
.00
.10
.08
Anglo step
Mexican intact
Resident father (n = 105)
Mother (n = 103)
Mexican step
Non-resident father (n = 39)
________________________________________________________________________
a
Behavior Problems Index, mean of mother, resident father, and teachers’ reports.
b
Mean of mother and resident father’s reports.
c
Mean of child’s report of smoking, alcohol use, drug use, and sexual activity.
+ p < .05, one-tailed * p < .05, two-tailed ** p < .01, two-tailed
Table 7
Dimensions of Parent-Child Relationships in Previous Measures Which Have Item Overlap With the Relationship Scripts Dimensions
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Previous Measures
________________________________________________________________________________________
Relationship Scripts
SS
PAQ
IPPA
APM
RQ
BSQ
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Responsiveness
Responsiveness/Accessibility Support
Seeking out when stressed
Communication
Autonomy
Involvement
Attachment
Autonomy
Communication
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Emotional Quality
Autonomy Trust
Involvement Emotional Quality affective
Affect
Autonomy
Alienation
Proximity-Seeking aspect of each
dimension
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interaction
Involvement Proximity-Seeking Affiliation
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SS = Security Scale (Kerns, et al., 1987); PAQ = Parental Attachment Questionnaire (Kenney, 1987); IPPA = Inventory of Parent and
Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987); APM = Authorative Parenting Measure (Lamborn, et al., 1991); RQ = Relationship
Questionnaire (Lynch & Cicchetti, 1997); BSQ = Behavioral Systems Questionnaire (Furman, et al., 2002).
Note: Two dimensions are not related to any other dimensions: behavioral aspect of Caretaking (BSQ) and Strictness (APM).
Adolescents’ Scripts 47
3
European
Americans
rating
2.5
Mexican
Americans
2
1.5
1
Interaction
Emotional
Quality
Responsiveness
Dimensions
Figure 1
Ethnicity by Dimension Interaction on Dimension Ratings
Adolescents’ Scripts 48
Appendix
Question #1. I'd like you to take a few moments to think more about your (target parent).
Tell me everything you can think of about your (target parent). Think of anything you
want to say about who he is, what he likes to do, his work, anything like that. Say
whatever comes to your mind.
Question #2. Now, think of your relationship with your (target parent): how he treats you,
what he does for you, how he talks to you, and about the time he spends with you. Tell
me what kind of person he is and how you two get along together. Try to think of all of
those things and think of it as the story of your (target parent) and your relationship with
him.
Question #3. What else can you tell me about your (target parent) and your relationship
with him?
Question #4. Think now of any changes in your relationship with your (target parent), or
if the relationship has changed over the past few years. Tell me about that, and if the
changes have been good ones or bad ones.
Adolescents’ Scripts 49
Author Note
William V. Fabricius, Sandford L. Braver, and Delia Saenz, Department of
Psychology, Arizona State University; Amy A. Weimer, Department of Psychology and
Anthropology, University of Texas - Pan American; Jeffrey T. Cookston, Department of
Psychology, San Francisco State University; Ross D. Parke, Department of Psychology,
University of California, Riverside, Scott L. Coltraine, Department of Sociology,
University of California, Riverside.
This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental
Health, RO1 MH64829 to Sandford L. Braver and Scott L. Coltrane. Deep appreciation is
expressed to those students who assisted with development of the coding scheme, Xeniia
Astachkina, Matt Bress, Sharon Candappa, Brittany Craddock, Maureen Curtin, Anuj
Desai, Deanna Garr, Luke Lapinski, Jonathan Lee, Kerryn Moore, Arcelia Navarro,
Ashlee O'Neil, Regina Robison, Monica Rodriguez, Yolanda Touchin, Melanie Tsosie,
Jillian Chambers, Adam Fleischaker, Dolly Haddad, Paul Hurrle, Ivana Ilic, Dayanita
Kaiser, Meghan Marcum, Megan Monaghan, Claire Puckey, Daniel Stipp, Charles
Sullivan; and to those who conducted the final coding, Andrea Clayton, Matthew
Huelsenbeck, Scott Kerr, Jessica Mason, Hannah Walters, and Melissa Wilcox.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to William V.
Fabricius, Department of Psychology, Box 871104, Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ, 85287-1104. Electronic mail may be sent to William.Fabricius@asu.edu.
Preliminary findings were presented at the 2005 biennial meetings of the Society
for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
Adolescents’ Scripts 50
Footnotes
Of these 40 children, 18 did not know if he was living or not.
2
32% referred to monetary provisioning in their descriptions about resident
father, 18% in descriptions about mother, and 24% in descriptions about non-resident
father.
3
Upon reflection, we wondered if what we said in the second prompt (e.g., “how
he treats you, what he does for you, how he talks to you, and about the time he spends
with you,” see Appendix) might have inadvertently primed children to talk about parent
interaction, emotional quality, and responsiveness. To check, we randomly selected 50
resident father scripts, counted only those meaning statements that the child produced in
response to the first prompt (“Think of anything you want to say about who he is, what he
likes to do, his work, anything like that.”), and recalculated the weight given to each
dimension, as indicated by the percentage of meaning statements classified into each
dimension. We used resident father scripts because they were the first that children
produced. Six of the 50 children did not produce any meaning statements in response to
the first prompt, but instead talked about the father’s work, hobbies, etc. The rest
averaged 5 meaning statements each, and among them the weights they gave to each
dimension (Interaction = 20%, Emotional Quality = 56%, Responsiveness = 18%,
Provisioning = 4%) were virtually identical to the percentages in the total sample of
mother and resident father scripts (24%, 50%, 21%, 3%, respectively).
4
We also explored whether prediction of child adjustment could be increased if
we took into account how much children had to say, either positively or negatively, about
the parent. Having a greater number of consistently positive things to say would not
Adolescents’ Scripts 51
change the child’s overall script score, but it might signal that the child held the parent in
especially high regard, and vice versa. We re-ran the regressions for each measure of
child adjustment using as predictors the overall script score, the total number of meaning
statements the child made in the three dimensions, and the interaction of these two
variables. Only in the case of mothers’ scripts and child internalizing and externalizing
did the overall script score and the number of statements make significant independent
contributions, betas = -.16 and -.11, respectively, p’s < .05. Adding the number of
statements increased the adjusted R2 from .022 to .032. The interaction term was never
significant.