Australian adolescents' perceptions of their parents: an analysis of parenting styles, communication & feelings towards parents.

Researchers have begun to acknowledge the importance of asking young people about their experience of parenting, yet critical gaps still exist in this area of knowledge. The current study compared styles of parenting with how Australian adolescents' perceived parent-adolescent communication and how they felt about their parents. The results suggest there are some marked differences between the four parenting styles in terms of how Australian adolescents perceive parental communication quality and how they feel towards their parents.

Researchers have often assumed that parents' reports provide an indication of what young people think and feel about family life. Yet, research reveals that parents and young people can hold quite divergent perceptions of parenting (Smetana 1995). The finding that children's perceptions of parenting are better predictors of their behaviour and psychosocial development than parents' reports (Buri 1989; Paulson 1994) highlights the need for more research into young people's views. Research findings of this nature suggest that parental behaviours may affect children predominantly through the way in which these behaviours are perceived by children (Aunola, Stattin & Nurmi 2000).

Clearly, more information on children's feelings about, and interpretation and evaluation of, parental behaviours will provide further insight into the relation between children's perceptions of parenting and children's behaviour and development (Sternberg et al. 1994). Although self-reports from both parents and young people are invaluable, the current study concentrates on the perceptions of young people in order to gain a greater understanding of their views on their mothers and fathers. Research on the perceptions of young people is lacking in a number of important areas of Australian family research. To address limitations in the literature, three variables important to young people's experience of their parents will be considered: parenting style, parent-adolescent communication and young peoples' feelings towards parents.

Parenting style

Parenting style has received much research attention in the past few decades, but the reports of young Australian's perceptions of their mothers' and, particularly, fathers' parenting is still in its infancy. Earlier parenting research divided parents into three groups: those who were supportive yet firm were deemed "authoritative"; those who were harsh and punitive were deemed "authoritarian"; and those who were lenient with minimal boundaries were deemed "permissive" (Baumrind 1971).

A more contemporary model of parenting style commonly employed in parenting research is the "four-fold" model, which was validated using adolescents' reports on their parents' behaviours (Maccoby & Martin 1983; Lamborn et al. 1991). Parents are categorised into four parenting-style groups (authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and rejecting-neglecting), according to scores their adolescent children award them on two dimensions: responsiveness (supportive, accepting and attuned) and demandingness (demand maturity, enforce discipline and encourage responsible behaviour) (Lamborn et al. 1991).

Research has shown that distinctly different child-related outcomes correspond to each of these four parenting styles. In 1991, a study by Lamborn et al. (N = 4,100, aged 14 to 18 years) showed adolescents of authoritative-rated parents (parents perceived to be highly demanding and responsive) had the greatest school competence, adjustment and academic self-conceptions and the lowest levels of misconduct and somatic distress. Adolescents from authoritarian homes (high demandingness, low responsiveness) had lower self-confidence and higher internalised distress. Adolescents from indulgent homes (high responsiveness, low demandingness) were more confident and socially competent, but were less engaged with their school, were involved in more school misconduct and reported more substance abuse. In contrast, rejected-neglected adolescents (low demandingness and low responsiveness) were the lowest on measures of social competence, social adjustment, and psychological and behavioural functioning. A study by Steinberg et al. (1994) showed that negative outcomes for neglected adolescents became even more pronounced over a one-year time frame (N = 2,300, aged 14 to 18 years).

While the adolescents in all these studies completed questionnaires on parenting style and outcome-measures, these measures did not reveal how they felt about the parenting they reported.

When earlier models of parenting style surfaced in the literature, it was common practice to expand the understanding of parenting styles by exploring how parenting-style categories relate to other parent characteristics (e.g. Baumrind 1967, 1971). However, information on related parent characteristics was typically gathered from parents or observational methods and not from adolescents' perceptions.

Since the development of the four-fold model, research has focused on the relationship between these parenting-style categories and adolescent functioning. Researchers have not explored how these four parenting-style categories are reflected in interrelated parenting domains; however, some researchers have highlighted the need to identify how the four parenting styles relate to other characteristics, such as parental communication (Pratt et al. 1992).

To date, no study has expanded on the four-fold parenting style categories in terms of how they relate to other parent characteristics, as perceived by their adolescents. Currently, researchers and workers in the youth and family sector can only speculate on how parents from the four parenting style groups communicate with their adolescents or, moreover, how adolescents perceive communication with these parents. Gaining insight into adolescents' views and experiences is seen as critical by many workers in the field.

This notion has also been supported by a number of researchers and theorists who have argued that regardless of whether adolescents' views are factually correct, adolescents' perceptions hold psychological reality for them and it is this reality to which they respond (Aunola, Stattin & Nurmi 2000; Smetana 1994; Sternberg et al. 1994). Thus, it is critical that workers in the youth field are able to have a broad and more comprehensive understanding of parenting styles and additional corresponding parent characteristics, from adolescents' viewpoints, to help guide their inquiry into and understanding of the adolescent's experience.

Parent-adolescent communication

Communication has featured in much research surrounding parenting styles, and has surfaced as an important aspect of parenting and overall parenting style (e.g. Baumrind 1971; Brody, Arias & Fincham 1996; Kernis, Brown & Brody 2000). Communication appears to affect many aspects of the family environment, including the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship (Marta 1997), family expressiveness and childrearing behaviour (Hill 1995).

Earlier family research indicated that "traditional" parenting-style categories related to distinctly different parental communication styles (e.g. authoritative parents were open in their communication, while authoritarian parents demonstrated closed communication) (Baumrind 1967, 1971). However, when the four-fold model was developed, with the separation of the permissive parenting style into indulgent and rejecting-neglecting, parenting categories were measured and operationalised in ways different to those used in Baumrind's early research (Baumrind 1967, 1971). In addition, communication in Baumrind's research was based on observational measures and parents reports, whereas the current study seeks to understand how young people perceive their mother and father's communication styles.

Inspection of the literature reveals that the communication styles used by parents in the four parenting-style categories under consideration in this study are largely unknown. Any further information gained on how different patterns of parental communication correspond to the four parenting styles will enhance existing knowledge on the four styles and shed further light on how parents of various parenting styles are perceived by adolescents. Because this study is investigating questions not yet addressed by research, adolescents' views on the overall global quality of communication with parents will be recorded.

Communication and parenting styles

Earlier research provides an indication of how adolescents' might rate parent-adolescent communication for the four parenting-style groups. Many of these studies (using observational and/or parents' reports) have consistently revealed that "authoritarian" parents engage in largely ineffective and directive communication with their children (Baumrind 1971; Brody et al. 1996; Pratt et al. 1992). They discourage verbal give and take, do not allow their views to be challenged and are detached in communication with their children (Baumrind 1971). In comparison, "authoritative" parents engage in open, effective and responsive communication with their children, encourage verbal give and take, and reason with their children (Baumrind 1971; Brody et al. 1996).

Studies into the two more recently developed "permissive" styles of parenting (indulgent and rejecting-neglecting) in relation to communication are less abundant. The existing literature does, however, reveal that families deemed neglectful by child protection laws have low rates of positive communication and high rates of negative interaction (e.g. Aragona & Eyberg 1981).

A recent study adds further insight into how permissive parents might be perceived. In their study, Aunola, Stattin and Nurmi (2000) asked 354 Finnish adolescents (age = 14 years) to complete reports on their parents. Indulgent parenting levels for child disclosure, parental trust and engagement were second only to authoritative parents. These results are particularly significant in relation to the current study, as findings were based on adolescents' perceptions, and the four parenting styles, although not identical, are reminiscent of the four parenting styles investigated in the current study. Additionally, the Finnish adolescents reported on both parenting style and aspects of communication with their parents (e.g. disclosure). Despite the possibility of cultural differences between Finnish and Australian adolescents, the results give an indication of communicative environments that might coincide with the four styles of parenting under investigation in this study.

Feelings towards parents

Adolescents are rarely asked to give their opinions and feelings about the parenting they experience. In the research that does use adolescents' reports, measures tend to be objective behavioural reports aimed at reducing bias, which prevent adolescents from giving their views and interpretations of what they report to experience (Steinberg et al. 1994).

In the current study, gaining subjective views is highly desirable for a number of reasons. Recording adolescents' feelings towards their parents will allow the research community to gain a greater understanding of how adolescents perceive and feel about the style of parenting they experience. Moreover, this data may help to explain how different perceived styles of parenting relate to highly divergent child outcomes, as discussed earlier. It is possible that adolescents may have distinctly different feelings towards the various parenting styles. If so, these different personal feelings may help to show how adolescents are experiencing and responding differently to the parenting they receive.

In the current study, adolescents will also complete objective behavioural reports that assess levels of parent-adolescent communication quality and the four parenting styles (Steinberg et al. 1994). Analysis of adolescents' feelings towards their parents, in conjunction with more behavioural measures, will allow adolescents' feelings about parenting behaviour to be gauged. Given the uniqueness of this study, a broad measure of adolescents' feelings towards parents will be used (positive and negative affect).

Feelings towards parents and parenting styles

Although research into children's feelings and evaluations of parenting are scarce, some studies do provide a basis for considering how adolescents feel about different styles of parenting. Research has suggested that the authoritative parenting style may not only be the most effective style (Baumrind 1971), but may also be the preferred style of parenting, from children's point of view. Siegal and Cowen (1984) found that children aged from 5 to 18 years preferred their mothers to exhibit the firmness and flexibility of authoritative parenting rather than other styles of parenting (fathers were not included). Parish and McCluskey (1992) found parents were rated more highly by their college-age children if they were seen to be warm and permissive, rather than restrictive and hostile (age, M = 20.9 years). It is therefore reasonable to assume that adolescents in the current study will feel negatively towards authoritarian parents and most positively towards authoritative parents.

Indulgent parents are also warm and responsive towards their children, so positive feelings from adolescents could be expected. Yet, it is conceivable that some adolescents might find a lack of boundaries and structure to be problematic. However, the permissive and responsive nature of this style of parenting could result in fairly favourable responses from the adolescent. Rejecting-neglecting parents, however, are detached, indifferent or rejecting, and have little involvement in childrearing. Adolescents raised by this type of parent appear to have the highest level of psychosocial problems (Lamborn et al. 1991). It is possible that these parents will be perceived more negatively than other parenting styles, given their complete disengagement from the adolescent.

Gender differences in parents

Gender differences are not a major focus of this study; however, differences in perceptions of mothers' versus fathers' communication quality were investigated because of the mixed findings in the literature on gender differences (see Leaper, Anderson & Sanders 1998). However, no gender differences for parents were found on communication measures so this variable will not be discussed further, given space constraints.

This study seeks to answer several important questions:

a) How will adolescents' perceptions of parent-adolescent communication correspond to perceived parenting styles?

b) How will adolescents' feelings towards parents correspond to perceived parenting styles?

c) If Australian adolescents report distinctly different parental communication styles and feelings towards parents between each parenting-style group, how will each of the parenting style groups differ on these measures?

d) Will adolescents' feelings towards their parents, and their reports on communication quality, reflect prior research that has been conducted predominantly on parents' reports--or will adolescents tell us a different story?

Hypotheses

From adolescents' reports, it is anticipated that parenting styles will be separated by the combination of adolescents' scores for parents on measures of communication quality, and positive affect and negative affect (in a negative direction). It is therefore predicted that each of the parenting styles will differ significantly from each other on communication quality, positive affect and negative affect. Authoritative-rated parenting is expected to be associated with reports of the highest communication quality, the highest positive affect and the lowest negative affect towards their parents. Indulgent-rated parenting is expected to rank second behind authoritative-rated parents on these measures, followed by authoritarian and then rejecting-neglecting parenting.

Method

Participants

One hundred and five Year 11 students (males, n = 56; females, n = 49) participated in the study. Ages ranged from 15 to 18 years, with a mean age of 16.06 years (SD = .43). All adolescents attended a Brisbane state school in Queensland, Australia.

Measures

Measures included the Parenting Style Scale (PSS) (Lamborn et al. 1991), the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (PACS) (Barnes & Olson 1982), the Perceptions of Parents Scale (POPS) (Phares & Renk 1998) and a demographic questionnaire.

In this line of research, parents are often classified into parenting-style groups on the basis of their scores on dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness. Mid-range parents, who score in the middle tertile on either dimension, are usually removed from samples prior to classification, to enhance group-separation and internal validity (Lamborn et al. 1991; Steinberg et al. 1994). As the current authors were interested in general parenting group trends, removal of mid-range parents was implemented, but with more sample-friendly cut-off points. Parents within 45th to 55th percentiles of either dimension were removed, with the procedure being applied to mothers' and fathers' data separately. Adolescents' reports of 14 mothers and 16 fathers were then removed from the study (reports on 85 fathers and 91 mothers remained). Remaining parents were then categorised into parenting styles, with comparable numbers of mothers and fathers placed in each group.

Procedure

Parents and students were advised of the study through school newsletters and posted letters. As noted by several researchers in the field, when parents are required to return signed consent slips, the procedure can unnecessarily eliminate young people with less responsive parents (Lamborn et al. 1991; Steinberg et al. 1994). Thus, passive consent was used and parents were asked to respond before a due date if they did not consent to their child's participation. Active consent was then sought from students whose parents permitted their participation. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was assured. The State Education Department, school and Queensland University of Technology's Ethics Committee approved of the study and consent procedures.

Results

To address the research questions, a range of statistical analyses were conducted on the data. Due to the scope of this paper, detailed information on these analyses will not be published here, but is available from the authors upon request. Instead, the significance of the main analyses will be reported on and summarised in this paper.

Descriptive data can be viewed in Table 1. In order to test whether the linear combination of communication and affect characteristics could be used to separate the four parenting-style groups, discriminant analyses were performed on fathers' and mothers' data separately. (1) Results showed the spread of group means to be similar for mothers and fathers, with authoritative and indulgent styles clearly discriminated from authoritarian and rejecting-neglecting styles (Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

For fathers, one-way ANOVAs revealed that each variable (parent-adolescent communication, positive affect and negative affect) represented significant differences between parenting style groups. Post hoc significance tests revealed authoritative fathers are perceived to be significantly different from authoritarian fathers and rejecting-neglecting fathers on communication quality, negative affect and positive affect measures. Indulgent fathers are perceived to be significantly different from authoritarian and rejecting-neglecting fathers (but not authoritative fathers) on measures of communication quality and adolescents' positive affect and negative affect. Authoritarian fathers are reported to be significantly different from authoritative and indulgent fathers (but not rejecting-neglecting fathers) on measures of positive and negative affect. Additionally, authoritarian fathers are viewed to be significantly different from all three other parenting styles on measures of communication quality. In addition, rejecting-neglecting fathers are seen as significantly different from the other three parenting styles on the communication quality scale. Reports on rejecting-neglecting fathers are also significantly different from reports on authoritative and indulgent parents (but not authoritarian fathers) for the positive and negative affect variables.

One-way ANOVAs could not be performed in the same way for data on mothers, due to a statistical issue. (2) Thus, it cannot be ascertained whether the predictor variables are individually significant in discriminating between parenting groups for mothers. However, the separation of parenting style groups indicates that the pattern for mothers was somewhat similar although not as clear as that of fathers (Figure 1).

Discussion

The research supports the hypothesis that there are some marked differences between the four parenting styles in terms of how Australian adolescents perceive communication and feel towards their parents. However, only a moderately accurate separation can be made between all four parenting styles on the basis of a combination of these variables. Authoritative and indulgent parents were clearly separated from authoritarian and rejecting-neglecting parents (for both mothers and fathers). However, it was not possible to accurately separate authoritative and indulgent parenting nor authoritarian and rejecting-neglecting parenting on the basis of combined communication and affect scores (for both mothers and fathers).

It was also proposed that the parenting styles would differ significantly from each other on the basis of communication quality, positive affect and negative affect. This hypothesis was also moderately supported, with significant differences reported between some parenting style groups on communication and affect measures for fathers.

Some of the differences found between parenting styles on communication measures reflect results presented by Baumrind (1971, 1978). In her model, she found that parents who adopted an authoritative parenting style implemented more effective communication strategies and were more likely to engage in open, bi-directional communication with their children than authoritarian parents. The results of the present study reveal that adolescents also perceive authoritative fathers to engage in communication of a significantly higher quality than authoritarian fathers.

The findings of the current study also add credence to the results presented by Aunola, Stattin and Nurmi (2000) in which adolescents of authoritative families reported significantly more child disclosure, parental trust and parental engagement than adolescents from neglectful, indulgent and authoritarian families. Adolescents of indulgent parents reported the next highest scores, followed by scores given for authoritarian parents. Scores for neglectful parents on these measures were lowest.

In the current study, Australian adolescents' reports of communication quality for each parenting style were similar to those of the Finnish adolescents. However, the Finnish study isolated differences between all four parenting style groups. The absence of this finding in the current study may reflect cultural distinctions or differences in communication measures and parent classification procedures.

Additional findings of the current study were that, for fathers, the category of indulgent parenting differed significantly from authoritarian parents, and the category of rejecting-neglecting parenting differed significantly from authoritative parenting, on communication measures.

Also, it appears that adolescents perceive few differences between the quality of communication for authoritative and indulgent fathers. Both authoritative and indulgent parents were categorised into parenting styles by high scores in the responsiveness dimension. It may therefore be the case that the more responsive a parent is perceived to be in attending to their adolescent's needs, the higher the quality of communication with that parent is perceived to be (or vice versa, as the direction of effect is unknown).

Steinberg et al. (1994) and Lamborn et al. (1991) found each of the four parenting styles corresponded to quite different psychosocial outcomes for adolescents. Therefore, it is interesting to note that, despite differences in observed behaviours between all four parenting styles, the difference in adolescents' feelings was not significant between all four parenting styles but are between authoritative-indulgent and authoritarian-rejecting/neglecting.

A question that now remains is, why are indulgent parenting and authoritative parenting styles on the one hand, and rejecting-neglecting parenting and authoritarian parenting on the other hand, not clearly separated by adolescents even though they result in such different psychosocial child-related outcomes? It must be remembered, however, that studies that have investigated child-outcomes in relation to the four parenting styles have not asked adolescents to rate their feelings towards parents. Thus, it is not known, for example, whether positive outcomes for authoritative parenting coincided with positive personal feelings of adolescents towards authoritative parents.

Investigating psychosocial outcomes for adolescents was not part of the scope of the current study but should be considered in future research. Additionally, future researchers in this area might be interested in considering whether certain parenting styles "suit" or are "preferred by" some young people more than others. For example, Crosbie-Burnett and Giles-Sims (1994) found the optimal style of parenting for stepparents was the "supportive style" (high support, low control), similar to the indulgent style utilised in this study.

Some adolescents who perceive that they are being raised indulgently, but have positive feelings towards their parents, may demonstrate more positive outcomes than their peers who have negative feelings towards their indulgently-perceived parents. Some young people may crave boundaries, whereas their peers may enjoy greater personal responsibility. It is critical to workers in the youth and family field that possible variations in adolescents' responses to parenting styles are investigated.

Other researchers have raised similar questions. Darling and Steinberg (1993) argued that it is possible for some children to experience significant verbal and/or physical discipline yet still feel love and affection in their parents' behaviour, in which case no damage is caused. Likewise, they argued that it is also possible for parents to rear their children in the "technically correct" way without the children feeling any warmth or affection in their parents' actions (p.488). Thus, future parenting-style research needs to consider young people's feelings towards their parents in conjunction with adolescent psychosocial outcomes to assess how the style of parenting and feelings towards parents relate to the child's functioning.

Additionally, it is possible that young people's feelings towards parenting styles may change over the course of their development (for example, young people may desire more structure and boundaries at a certain age). It would be interesting to follow the cohort of this study and identify whether their perceptions change with age.

This study has revealed a number of findings of significance to workers in the youth and family sector. The results provide a picture of how young people's reports of their mothers' and fathers' parenting behaviours correspond to young people's perceptions of communication quality with their parents, and feelings towards their parents. The data suggest that for responsive and demanding parenting behaviours, a young person's feelings towards their parents, and reports on communication quality, provide a fair representation of the style of parenting reported by the adolescent.

Interestingly, young people's feelings towards their parents were not dissimilar for indulgent and authoritative fathers, and preliminary results suggest that the same pattern may also have occurred for mothers. Although a greater separation between these parenting styles was expected in terms of how adolescents feel towards the styles, the results do support theories regarding adolescent development and their desire for independence, personal freedom and autonomy at this developmental stage.

Also of significance is the finding that rejecting-neglecting fathers, who presumably interact less with their children, were not rated as poorly on communication measures as authoritarian fathers, a style of parenting often viewed as the "traditional" or "stereotypical" role for fathers. However, in regard to fathers, adolescents felt about the same degree of negativity and positivity toward these two styles of parenting. These adolescents may have similar feelings about both types of parent but view the communication and interaction with strict, harsh and punitive authoritarian fathers to be poorer than that with disengaged and lenient rejecting-neglecting fathers.

A limitation of the study was the removal of mid-range parents to enhance internal validity at the expense of external validity and loss of a substantial amount of data. An alternative for future studies might instead involve the use of dichotomous variables. Also, a larger sample size would have ensured greater robustness to violations of assumptions and would have enhanced the researchers' ability to detect significant differences.

Conclusion

These findings highlight the importance of researching adolescents' perceptions of the parenting they receive. The significance of including fathers in research is apparent, given the results obtained. The current study suggests that reporting on adolescents' feelings towards parents, in addition to documenting actual parenting behaviours, is a worthwhile endeavour. After all, what adolescents think and what parents think are often quite different (Smetana 1995).

Even though researchers have regarded the authoritative parenting style as the preferred or ideal style, it is possible that adolescents may be telling us a different story. This raises the question of whether practitioners should be carrying out more research that involves listening to adolescents' voices. Prior research suggests we should, as it is to their own perceptions and interpretations of parenting that adolescents respond. Our understanding of family and parenting will be significantly improved if we obtain a more comprehensive picture of how patterns of perceived parenting correspond to the communication and feelings experienced by Australian adolescents.

Table 1: Means, medians & standard deviations for predictor
variables according to parenting styles

                                       Mothers (a)
Predictor variable
                                  M      Mdn (c)    SD

Authoritative

Communication quality (d)       82.17    82.50     15.93

Positive affect                 55.82    58.00     5.66

Negative affect (e)             8.07     8.00      3.34
                                (2.79)   (2.82)    (.54)

Indulgent

Communication quality (d)       78.06    79.50     13.23

Positive affect                 50.00    49.50     9.07

Negative affect (e)             11.00    9.00      5.25
                                (3.22)   (3.00)    (.80)

Authoritarian

Communication quality (d)       46.70    48.00     15.24

Positive affect                 32.70    35.00     14.49

Negative affect (e)             19.52    18.00     7.93
                                (4.32)   (4.24)    (.92)

Rejecting-neglecting

Communication quality (d)       48.44    47.00     12.60

Positive affect                 32.48    32.00     14.87

Negative affect (e)             16.79    16.00     5.74
                                (4.03)   (4.00)    (.72)

                                       Fathers (b)
Predictor variable
                                  M      Mdn (c)    SD

Authoritative

Communication quality (d)       79.75    77.50     16.16
                                (8.88)   (8.80)    (.91)

Positive affect                 54.03    57.00     6.93

Negative affect (e)             8.46     6.00      4.22

Indulgent

Communication quality (d)       68.14    65.00     10.56
                                (8.23)   (8.05)    (.63)

Positive affect                 47.14    48.00     8.76

Negative affect (e)             11.50    10.50     4.91

Authoritarian

Communication quality (d)       36.56    33.00     8.29
                                (6.01)   (5.74)    (.63)

Positive affect                 22.56    20.00     7.20

Negative affect (e)             22.56    25.50     6.76

Rejecting-neglecting

Communication quality (d)       46.64    42.00     12.70
                                (6.77)   (6.48)    (.89)

Positive affect                 26.25    25.00     10.46

Negative affect (e)             19.80    20.00     5.43

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent means, medians and
standard deviations after variable transformation.

(a:) N = 90. (b:) N = 83. (c:) Medians reported due to the presence of
transformed data. (d:) Predictor variables that have been transformed
for fathers. (e:) Predictor variables that have been transformed for
mothers. Untransformed scores on communication quality range from 29
to 100. Untransformed scores on positive affect range from 10 to 60.
Untransformed scores on negative affect range from 5 to 30.

(1.)Three discriminant functions were calculated for both fathers (with a combined c2 (9, N = 83) = 113.002, p < .001) and mothers (with a combined c2 (9, N = 90) = 85.186, p < .001).After removal of the first function, no further functions displayed significant association between groups and predictors for both mothers and fathers. Similarly, discriminant function one for fathers accounted for 98.3% of the total between group variability while for mothers the function accounted for 93.7% of between group variablity. Due to the significance of the first function only for both mothers and fathers, the remaining functions were excluded from further interpretation.

(2.) Homogeneity of covariance matrices was breached for mothers (F (18, 15232.468) = 4.052, p < .001).This indicates that the covariance matrices of the variables were heterogenous across the groups. F-tests are not robust to breaches of homogeneity when sample sizes are unequal and small (Maxwell & Delaney 1990).

References

Aragona, J.A. & Eyberg, S.M. 1981, 'Neglected children: Mothers' reports of child behaviour problems and observed verbal behaviour', Child Development, v.52, pp.596-602.

Aunola, K., Stattin, H. & Nurmi, J. 2000, 'Parenting styles and adolescents' achievement strategies', Journal of Adolescence, v.23, pp.205-22.

Barnes, H.L. & Olson, D.H. 1982, 'Parent-adolescent communication', in Family inventories, eds D.H. Olson, H.I. McCubbin, H. Barnes, A. Larsen, M. Huxen & M. Wilson, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Ma, pp.29-44.

Baumrind, D. 1967, 'Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior', Genetic Psychology Monograph, v.75, pp.43-88.

--1971, 'Current patterns of parental authority', Developmental Psychology Monographs, v.4, n.1, pp.1-103.

--1978, 'Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children' Youth and Society, v.9, pp.239-76.

Brody, G.H., Arias, I. & Fincham, F.D. 1996, 'Linking marital and child attributions to family processes and parent-child relationships, Journal of Family Psychology, v.10, n.4, pp.408-21.

Buri, J.R. 1989, 'Self esteem and appraisals of parental behaviour', Journal of Adolescent Research, v.4, pp.33-49.

Crosbie-Burnett, M. & Giles-Sims, J. 1994, 'Adolescent adjustment and stepparenting styles', Family Relations: Interdisciplinary journal of applied family studies, v.43, pp.394-99.

Darling, N. & Steinberg, L. 1993, 'Parenting style as context: An integrative model', Psychological Bulletin, v.113, pp.487-96.

Hill, N.E. 1995, 'The relationship between family environment and parenting style: A preliminary study of African American families', Journal of Black Psychology, v.21, pp.408-23.

Kernis, M.H., Brown, A.C. & Brody, G. 2000, 'Fragile self-esteem and its association with perceived patterns of parent-child communication', Journal of Personality, v.68, pp.225-52.

Lamborn, S.D., Steinberg, L., Mounts, N.S. & Dornbusch, S.M. 1991, 'Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families', Child Development, v.62, p.1049-65.

Leaper, C., Anderson, K.J. & Sanders, P. 1998, 'Moderators of gender effects on parents' talk to their children: A meta-analysis', Developmental Psychology, v.34, pp.3-27.

Maccoby, E.E. & Martin, J.A. 1983, 'Socialisation in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction', in Handbook of child psychology: Socialisation, personality, and social development Vol.4, eds P.H. Mussen & E.M. Hetherington, Wiley, New York, pp.1-101.

Marta, E. 1997, 'Parent-adolescent interactions and psychosocial risk in adolescence: An analysis of communication, support, and gender', Journal of Adolescence, v.20, pp.106-20.

Maxwell, S.E. & Delaney, H.D. 1990, Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective, Brooks-Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA.

Parish, T.S. & McCluskey, J.J. 1992, 'The relationship between parenting styles and young adults' self-concepts and evaluations of parents', Adolescence, v.27, pp.915-18.

Paulson, S.E. 1994, 'Relations of parenting style and parental involvement with ninth-grade students' achievement, Journal of Early Adolescence, v.14, pp.250-68.

Phares, V. & Renk, K. 1998, 'Perceptions of parents: A measure of adolescents' feelings about their parents' Journal of Marriage and the Family, v.60, pp.646-59.

Pratt, M.W., Kerig, K., Cowan, P.A. & Cowan, C.P. 1992, 'Family worlds: Couple satisfaction, parenting style and mothers' and fathers' speech to young children' Merrill Palmer Quarterly, v.38, n.2, pp.245-68.

Siegal, M. & Cowen, J. 1984, 'Appraisals of intervention: The mother's versus the culprit's behavior as determinants of children's evaluations of discipline techniques', Child Development, v.55, pp.1760-66.

Smetana, J.G. 1994, 'Parenting styles and beliefs about parental authority', in Beliefs about parenting: Origins and developmental implications, ed. J.G. Smetana, Jossey-Bass, London, pp.21-36.

--1995, 'Parenting style and conceptions of parental authority during adolescence', Child Development, v.66, pp.299-316.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S.D., Darling, N., Mounts, N.S. & Dornbusch, S.M. 1994, 'Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families' Child Development, v.656, pp.754-70.

Sternberg, K.J., Lamb, M.E., Greenbaum, C., Dawud, S., Cortes, R. & Lorey, F. 1994, 'The effects of domestic violence on children's perceptions of their perpetrating and nonperpetrating parents', International Journal of Behavioral Development, v.17, pp.779-95.

Renae Endicott is probationary psychologist and a PhD scholar at the Queensland University of Technology. She has worked extensively with 'at-risk' young people and their families in early intervention settings and is currently working for the Mater Child and Youth Mental Health Service in the Kids in Mind Research Unit.

Poppy Liossis is a psychologist and lecturer with the Queensland University of Technology. She is also runs a private consultancy practice in which she works with organisations and individuals on improving the mental health of families.