Felicia J. Tuggle Auburn University

Jennifer L. Kerpelman Auburn University∗

Joe F. Pittman Auburn University∗∗

Parental Support, Psychological Control, and Early

Adolescents’ Relationships with Friends and

Dating Partners

Interdependence and social exchange theorieswere used to explore parent – adolescentrelationship quality and early adolescents’relationships with close friends and datingpartners. Associations among adolescents’perceptions of parental support and psycho-logical control, peer relationship experiences(communication, emotional support, and pos-sessiveness), and peer relationship satisfactionwere examined using a test-replication design.Our largely African American and femalesamples ranged from age 11 to 15. Resultsindicated the parenting variables were directlyrelated to peer relationship experiences, which,in turn, predicted relationship satisfaction.The association between parental support andrelationship satisfaction was mediated by peer

Department of Human Development and Family Studies,203 Spidle Hall, Auburn, AL 36849.∗College of Human Sciences, 203 Spidle Hall, Auburn, AL36849 E-mail: jkerpelman@auburn.edu.∗∗Department of Human Development Family Studies, 203Spidle Hall, Auburn, AL 36849.

Key Words: early adolescence, parental psychological con-trol, parental support, close friendships, dating relation-ships, communication, emotional support, possessiveness,relationship satisfaction, interdependence theory, socialexchange theory.

communication and emotional support. Limitedmoderation by gender and relationship type wasfound. Parental psychological control matteredmore for female and parental support morefor male adolescents’ close peer relationships.Dating partner possessiveness was most detri-mental for females’ relationship satisfaction,whereas communication influenced relation-ship satisfaction most for females reporting onfriends and males reporting on dating partners.

Adolescents’ relationships with parents andclose peers play an important role in shaping thegeneral course of development during adoles-cence (Collins, 2003; Laursen & Collins, 2009;Pittman, Keiley, Kerpelman, & Vaughn, 2011;Repinski & Zook, 2005). For early adolescents(ages 10 – 14) the literature addressing closepeer relationships is still in its infancy. Pastresearch has focused primarily on high schooland college samples (Auslander, Short, Succop,& Rosenthal, 2009; Hand & Furman, 2009;Levesque, 1993; Pagano & Hirsch, 2007); littleis known about early adolescents’ close relation-ships, particularly romantic relationships andthe possible functions these relationships serve(Collins, 2003). Yet recent research shows thatmany early adolescents are reporting experiencewith romantic relationships (Simon, Miller,

496 Family Relations 63 (October 2014): 496 – 512DOI:10.1111/fare.12080

Parenting and Early Adolescents’ Peer Relationships 497

Gorman-Smith, Orpinas, & Sullivan, 2010). Inthis study we add to the literature by addressingassociations among parent – child relationshipquality, early adolescents’ relationship experi-ences with close peers (i.e., friends and datingpartners), and their relationship satisfaction withthese peers.

Conceptual Framework

Interdependence and social exchange theoriesare commonly used frameworks for studyingclose relationships. The philosophical underpin-nings of these theories rest on the fundamentalassumption that relationships take place withina historical and personal context. Interdepen-dence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) suggeststhat close others (e.g., parents, friends, roman-tic partners) influence how individuals makedecisions and evaluate their relationships inthe moment. The core idea of social exchangetheory is that individuals are driven by efforts tomaximize rewards (e.g., receiving support froma partner, being able to communicate easily witha partner) and minimize costs (e.g., being therecipient of controlling behaviors from a part-ner, having an unsupportive relationship witha partner) (Homans, 1958). Collectively, thesetheories posit that interaction behaviors (whatone gives and gets within the relationship) affectrelationship satisfaction and are strongly influ-enced by individual history and expectationsabout what a relationship should be like.Researchers have only recently begun using

interdependence and social exchange models intheir research on adolescents’ close relationships(Hand & Furman, 2009); in general, empiricalstudies of relationship satisfaction among ado-lescents are scant. Collins (2003) suggested thatcharacterizing relationships in any life periodrequires considering the distinctive emotionalresponses, expectancies, and schemata relevantduring that time in development. The schemataadolescents bring to their peer relationships arein large part influenced by the quality of rela-tionships they have with their parents. Guided byinterdependence and social exchange theories,this investigation explored the role of adoles-cents’ perceptions of the quality of their relation-ships with parents; the communication, emotionsupport, and possessiveness occurring withintheir close peer relationships (i.e., close friendsor dating partners); and adolescents’ reports ofsatisfaction with these peer relationships.

Relationship Satisfaction

According to social exchange theory, relation-ship satisfaction addresses the extent to whichindividuals perceive a relationship (whether it iswith a romantic partner, friend, or family mem-ber) to be higher on rewards and lower on costs.Evaluating relationship satisfaction requiresthat one compare perceived outcomes to a cer-tain standard of what one thinks one deserves(Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), where greater sat-isfaction results from meeting or exceedingone’s expectations (Bradbury & Karney, 2010).Relationship satisfaction is important to assessbecause relationship experiences that conformto idealized scripts heighten positive emotions(Collins, 2003), and satisfying relationshipsprovide a secure base for identity exploration, acentral developmental task during adolescence(Pittman et al., 2011), whereas relationshipexperiences that are unsatisfying are sourcesof frustration, anger, hurt, and disappointment(Collins, 2003).Relationship experiences refer to the differ-

ent cognitive and emotional aspects of whatone gives and gets from a relationship. Priorrelationship experiences, such as those adoles-cents have with their parents, are important toassess because emotions and cognitions devel-oped from previous relationships are closelyintertwined in present relationships (Collins,2003) and play a major role in determiningrelationship satisfaction. By understanding howrelationship experiences such as communica-tion, emotional support, and possessiveness pre-dict relationship satisfaction, we can learn howthese experiences matter for adolescents’ earli-est intimate relationships with their peers.

The Parent – Child Relationship as a Historicaland Concurrent Context

Parent – child relationships offer one of the mostrelevant contexts for adolescents to learn aboutthe nature and quality of close relationshipsand have been shown to be important influ-ences on adolescents’ relationships with peers(Auslander et al., 2009; Collins, 2003; Sarason,Pierce, & Sarason, 1990). According to Sara-son, Pierce, Bannerman, and Sarason (1993) andSarason and Sarason (2009), general percep-tions of available support may have their roots inearly childhood relationships, particularly thosewith parents. Parental support includes parental

498 Family Relations

behaviors such as caring, warmth, and accep-tance that contribute to the well-being and nur-turance of the adolescent (Adams & Laursen,2007; Rodgers, 1999). Longitudinal prospectivestudies and retrospective research have shownthat the quality of parent – adolescent relation-ships is related to the quality of adolescent andyoung adult relationships. For example, Aus-lander et al. (2009) found that parental accep-tance and involvement and parental strictnessand supervisionwere significantly and positivelyrelated to relationship satisfaction with adoles-cent romantic partners in a sample of 14- to21-year-old females. Furthermore, Conger, Cui,Bryant, and Elder (2000) reported that the earlyparent – child interactions were reflected in thelater interactions of these children as youngadults with their romantic partners, which wererelated to satisfaction and commitment in theyoung adults’ romantic relationships. Finally,Collins and colleagues (Collins, 2003; Collins& Sroufe, 1999) consistently noted that parentalsupport during childhood and early adolescencesignificantly predicted the stability and qualityof adolescent relationships outside the family.In contrast to parental support, parental psy-

chological control (parental attempts to controlthe child’s thoughts, feelings, or beliefs that havepotential to stifle the adolescent’s social and psy-chological maturation; Adams & Laursen, 2007;Barber, Maughan, & Olsen, 2005) is thoughtto create a vulnerability to maladjustment atany age period, but children may be particularlysensitive to intrusive parenting during adoles-cence (Barber, 1996; Hill & Holmbeck, 1986).In a sample of predominantly White early ado-lescents, Loukas, Paulos, and Robinson (2005)found a positive association between mater-nal psychological control and relational aggres-sion. Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Duriez,and Niemiec (2008) also found that psycho-logical control positively predicted adolescents’self-reported relational aggression that, in turn,negatively predicted friendship quality and posi-tively predicted loneliness. Interestingly, neitherof these studies reported significant differencesbetween girls and boys in the effects of parentalpsychological control and relational aggression.Overall, these studies suggest that parent-

ing affects the quality of adolescent peer rela-tionships. The findings from these studies fitwith interdependence and social exchange theo-ries that suggest that close others influence howindividuals make decisions and evaluate their

relationships. This study expands the literatureby exploring associations among parental sup-port and parental psychological control and earlyadolescents’ experience of costs and rewardswithin relationships with close friends and dat-ing partners that in turn have implications forsatisfaction within these relationships.

Types of Adolescent Peer Relationships

Adolescent relationships with close friends anddating partners can be described as ongoingmutually acknowledged voluntary interactions(Collins, 2003). Close friendships and romanticrelationships are characterized by intimacy andcontain elements of communication, emotionalsupport, and possessiveness (Hand & Furman,2009; Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1993).Because early adolescents’ close relationshipswith peers have received little attention, wedo not know whether friendships and romanticrelationships serve similar or different functionsduring this developmental period.We know fromolder adolescent and adult samples that theserelationships show overlap and differentiationin their functions (Collins, Welsh, & Furman,2009; Furman & Collins, 2009; Levesque, 1993;Young, Furman, & Laursen, 2011). Becauseearly adolescence is a time when first romanticrelationships emerge, this is an important timeto begin investigating romantic relationshipsand to compare these relationships with closefriendships in processes and outcomes known tooccur in both types of relationships (i.e., com-munication, emotional support, possessiveness,and satisfaction). Limited but recent researchhas shown that the benefits of relationshipsvary by gender and type of close relationship(Hand & Furman, 2009; Pagano & Hirsch,2007). Among high school students in grades9 through 12, Pagano and Hirsch (2007) foundthat in close friendships, girls reported higherlevels of mutual support and self-disclosure thandid boys. Furthermore, compared to boys, girlsreported significantly higher levels of hurtfulconflict in romantic relationships than in closefriendships. Interestingly, boys reported theopposite pattern (i.e., more hurtful conflict withclose friends than with romantic partners).In another study, Hand and Furman (2009)

assessed the rewards and costs of adolescents’relationships with close peers. They found forfriendships that girls were more likely than boysto identify intimacy as a reward and boys were

Parenting and Early Adolescents’ Peer Relationships 499

more likely than girls to identify compatibilityas a reward. When reporting on romantic rela-tionships, boys were more likely than girls tolist intimacy as a reward and girls were morelikely than boys to identify compatibility as areward. When asked about the costs of relation-ships, girls were more likely than boys to listjealousy as a cost of friendships. In romanticrelationships, girls and boys were equally likelyto identify jealousy as a cost. Boys and girls alsowere equally likely to identify negative inter-actions as a cost of friendships. Collectively,the findings across these studies underscore theimportance of assessing the relationship context(i.e., gender, type of relationship, and theirinteraction) of adolescent peer relationships andhow this context may moderate associationsamong parent – child relationship experiences,peer relationship experiences, and satisfactionwith close peer relationships.

Relationship Experiences and Satisfactionwithin Peer Relationships

Quality of communication and emotionalsupport are two relationship experiences thatconsistently show positive associations withrelationship satisfaction in samples of ado-lescents and adults (Berscheid & Reis, 1998;Levesque, 1993). Communication refers to theself-disclosure and personal expressions indi-viduals make to relationship partners (Levesque,1993). Communication provides pertinent andnecessary exchanges that allow the relationshipto deepen (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Basedon assumptions of social exchange and inter-dependence theories, we propose that youngadolescents will appraise the exchange of posi-tive communication as a positive contributor toa satisfying relationship. Although, in a sam-ple of high school students, Levesque (1993)found that communication predicted relation-ship satisfaction for boys but not for girls, otherstudies focusing on samples of male and femalecollege-age students (Cramer, 2004) and adultsbetween ages 18 and 49 (Gilbert, Murphy, &Ávalos, 2011) consistently found that commu-nication and emotional support were associatedpositively with relationship satisfaction acrossgender.Whereas communication is the exchange of

information, emotional support refers to affec-tionate feelings, responsiveness to another’sneeds, and the ability to support a relationship

partner through difficult times and has beenfound to be a predictor of relationship satis-faction for boys and girls (Levesque, 1993).Research shows that men and women valueemotional support in their close relationships(Burleson, 2003). We expect that even inearly adolescents’ peer relationships, consistentaffectionate feelings and responsiveness to one’semotional needs will be positively associatedwith relationship satisfaction.Finally, possessiveness refers to jealousy,

dependency, fear of loss and rejection, lackof trust, and awareness of competition in therelationship (Levesque, 1993). Possessivenesscan be directed toward a partner (possessivenessgiving, where one behaves in a controlling man-ner toward a partner), but it also can be receivedfrom a partner (possessiveness getting, whereone is the recipient of controlling behaviors froma partner). This directionality of possessivenessmay be interpreted differently in terms of rewardor cost. Typically, however, these features ofpossessiveness have been thought to constrainrelationship satisfaction. Levesque found in asample of high school students that posses-siveness was not a predictor of relationshipsatisfaction for boys or girls. However, otherstudies of middle school adolescents suggestthat girls are more likely than boys to desirecloseness and dependency and to worry aboutabandonment, loneliness, hurting others, andloss of relationships as a result of expressinganger (Henrich, Blatt, Kuperminc, Zohar, &Leadbeater, 2001; Kuperminc, Blatt, & Lead-beater, 1997). Thus, we thought it important toexplore whether possessiveness differed accord-ing to gender in its association with relationshipsatisfaction among young adolescents. How ado-lescents interact in their close peer relationshipsis expected to be associated with how they aretreated in their relationships with their parents.Further, it is expected that interactions withinclose peer relationships may be most proxi-mal to their satisfaction in these relationshipsand mediate associations between parent – childrelationship quality and adolescents’ satisfactionwith their peer relationships. Taken together,the extent to which young adolescents’ relation-ship satisfaction with close friends and datingpartners is influenced by the parent – child rela-tionship, close peer relationship experiences,the adolescent’s gender, or the type of peer rela-tionship remains relatively unknown. What isknown pertains largely to older adolescents and

500 Family Relations

young adults rather than early adolescents. Tobest understand the empirical variations in ado-lescent peer relationships with close friends anddating partners, researchers must consider theparent – child relationship and the experiencesreported within these peer relationships.

The Current Study

Adolescents’ relationships with their parentsmatter for adolescents’ expectations for closepeer relationships. Furthermore, interdepen-dence and social exchange theories suggest thatrelationship partners try to maximize benefitsthrough the exchange of social goods such aspositive communication and emotional support.We expected parental support and parentalpsychological control to predict adolescents’peer relationship experiences and reports ofrelationship satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). Inturn, we expected relationship experiences to

(a) directly predict relationship satisfaction(Hypothesis 2) and (b) mediate the associationsamong the parenting variables and relation-ship satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). Finally, weexpected associations among the parenting vari-ables, relationship experiences, and relationshipsatisfaction to be moderated by relationship typeand gender (Hypothesis 4). Figure 1 outlines ourhypothesized model and the directions of theexpected associations among the factors in themodel. We fit this model with two samples (testand replication) to increase our confidence in thepatterns observed. This approach is particularlyvaluable as this is the first study to examine theseassociations in a sample of early adolescents.

Method

Participants and Procedures

The data for this study was collected during thespring and fall of 2010 from sixth-, seventh-,

Figure 1. Hypothesized Model Predicting Relationship Satisfaction by Parent Adolescent Variables andRelationship Experiences.

Note: Gender and type of relationship will be assessed as moderators of all associations in the model. Not shown in themodel are covariances between the two parental variables and between the four relationship process variables. The signs onthe paths indicate the expected direction of association. Where both signs are provided, the direction of association was nothypothesized.

Parenting and Early Adolescents’ Peer Relationships 501

and eighth-grade students attending 38 publicschools distributed across a southern state.Although the larger project was an interven-tion study evaluating a relationships educationcurriculum, this study was not part of thatevaluation. Rather, data for this study werecross-sectional, pretest data collected prior toeducational programming. The data for springand fall cohorts were compared using indepen-dent samples t tests. No significant differenceswere found on any study variables; the two datasets were combined for analysis. This combinedsample consisted of 2,147 middle school stu-dents. Thirteen cases were excluded due to obvi-ous response set problems (i.e., same responseacross sets of survey items and alphabetical orgraphic patterns), leaving 2,134 participants.Immediately prior to being asked the rela-

tionship satisfaction, communication, emotionalsupport, and possessiveness questions, partici-pants were given a choice to think about a closefriend or a dating partner when responding tothese items (the gender of the friend or datingpartner as well as the sexual orientation ofthe responding adolescent were not assessed).The analysis sample was reduced further toinclude only those adolescents who specifiedthe relationship type about which they reported(N = 1,680). This reduced sample was thensplit (using a 50% random split in SPSS 21)into two data sets to create test and replicationsamples. This test and replication procedureenhances confidence in findings when replicatedin both subsamples. The sample size was 873for the test data set and 807 for the replicationdata set. The average age of participants was12.85 years (SD= .98) in the test sample, and12.86 years (SD= 1.00) in the replication sam-ple. The participants ranged in age from 11 to 15years. Across the samples 41% (test) and 40%(replication) of the participants were in eighthgrade, 47% (test) and 46% (replication) were inseventh grade, and 12% (test) and 14% (replica-tion) were in sixth grade. The test sample was67% female and the replication sample was 64%female. Seventy percent of participants in thetest and replication samples self-identified asAfrican American, 22% (test) and 23% (replica-tion) self-identified asWhite, with the remainingparticipants identified as other (Hispanic/Latino,Asian American, or Native American). For thetest sample, 458 reported on a relationship witha close friend and 415 reported on a relationshipwith a current dating partner. For the replication

sample, 442 reported on a relationship with aclose friend and 365 reported on a relationshipwith a current dating partner.

Measures

Relationship Satisfaction. To assess relation-ship satisfaction in friendships and datingrelationships, the 4-item satisfaction subscaleof the Relationship Experience Measure (REM;Levesque 1993), was used. This scale wasdesigned to assess quality of satisfaction that iscore to any close relationship. Respondents useda 5-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly dis-agree, 5= strongly agree) to indicate the extentto which the adolescent felt positively aboutbeing in the dating relationship or friendship(𝛼 = .85 [test] 𝛼 = .83 [replication]); a samplestatement is, “In general I am satisfied withour relationship.” The four items were used asindicators of the relationship satisfaction latentconstruct.

Relationship Experiences. The communica-tion, emotional support, and possessivenesssubscales of the REM (Levesque, 1993) wereused to assess relationship experiences com-mon to friendships and dating relationships.These subscales measure a persons’ relationshipquality by focusing on what they give and getfrom the relationship. Communication wasmeasured with five items, emotional supportwas measured with six items, and possessive-ness with five items; each set of items servedas indicators of the respective latent construct.Correlation analysis showed that giving andgetting possessiveness (i.e., behaving in a con-trolling manner toward the partner or being therecipient of a partner’s controlling behavior)operated differently such that giving possessive-ness was positively associated with relationshipsatisfaction while getting possessiveness wasnegatively associated with relationship satisfac-tion, and thus we decided to distinguish thesetwo constructs (three items were indicators ofpossessiveness giving [i.e., being possessive ofthe partner] and two items indicated posses-siveness getting [i.e., being the recipient of thepartner’s possessiveness]). Sample statementsfor communication and for emotional supportare, “This person listens to me when I needsomeone to talk to,” “This person comfortsme when I need comforting,” respectively. Asample possessiveness giving statement is “I get

502 Family Relations

upset when this person shows interest in otherpeople,” and a sample possessiveness gettingstatement is “This person is jealous of myrelationship with other people.” Respondentsused a 5-point Likert-type scale (1= stronglydisagree, 5= strongly agree). Cronbach’s alphafor these measures indicated good reliability forcommunication (𝛼 = .79 for test and replication)and for emotional support (𝛼 = .85 [test], 𝛼 = .87[replication]); and adequate internal consistencyfor possessiveness giving (𝛼 = .67 [test], 𝛼 = .65[replication]). For possessiveness getting thecorrelation between the two items was moderate(r = .42 [test], r = .49 [replication]).

Parental Support. The Quality of RelationshipsInventory (QRI; Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason,1991) was used to assess relationship-specificperceptions of available social support within theparent – adolescent relationship. Parental sup-port was measured with five items that served asindicators for this latent construct. Respondentsused a 4-point Likert-type scale (1= not at all,4= very much like me) to indicate the extent towhich each itemwas descriptive of them (𝛼 = .89[test], 𝛼 = .90 [replication]). A sample questionis, “How comfortable are you turning to a parentfigure for help with problems?”

Parent Psychological Control. To assess parentalpsychological control, the Psychological Con-trol Scale –Youth Report Scale (Barber, 1996)was used. This measure comprises five itemsthat served as indicators of the psychologicalcontrol latent construct. Respondents used a3-point Likert-type scale (1= not like them,3= a lot like them) to indicate the extent towhich each item was descriptive of their parent(𝛼 = .73 for test and replication samples). Asample statement is, “My parent figure wouldlike to be able to tell me how to feel or thinkabout things all the time.”

Gender and Relationship Type. Gender was adichotomous variable (female= 1, male= 0).Relationship type also was a dichotomous vari-able (dating relationship= 1, friendship= 0).

Results

Examination of the descriptive statistics indi-cated that all means and standard deviations forthe test and replication samples were similar andthe means were in the expected range (high for

relationship satisfaction, communication, andemotional support; low for parental psychologi-cal control and possessiveness getting; and mod-erate for parental support and possessivenessgiving). A table with the means, standard devia-tions, and bivariate correlations for all indicatorsis available from the first author. Demographiccomparisons (not shown) indicated that males,African Americans, and eighth graders wereequally likely to report on a relationship with aclose friend or dating partner, whereas females,Whites, and sixth and seventh graders weremore likely to report on a relationship with aclose friend. Adolescents who reported on arelationship with a current dating partner weresignificantly but modestly older than adolescentsreporting on a relationship with a close friend(mean age= 12.99 [SD= .96] for dating partner;mean age= 12.73 [SD= 1.0] for closest friend).Adolescent age was controlled in all analyses.The primary analyses were performed using

structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus(Muthén & Muthén, 1998 – 2010). SEM allowsfor the creation of unobserved latent constructsusing measured variables as multiple indicators.This modeling strategy corrects for the atten-uation in structural regression coefficients bytaking into account the measurement error ofobserved variables, thereby yielding more accu-rate regression coefficients (Muthén & Muthén,1998 – 2010). To make use of all available data,and account for missing and incomplete data,full information maximum likelihood (FIML)was used.First, a measurement model that took into

account associations among the seven latentfactors was fit in each sample using confirma-tory factor analysis (CFA) with all constructs fitsimultaneously (parental support, parental psy-chological control, communication, emotionalsupport, possessiveness giving, possessivenessgetting, and relationship satisfaction). Overall,CFA results indicated that the factor loadingsfor each of the measured indicators were statis-tically significant on their respective constructs,ranging from .40 to .84. To evaluate measure-ment model fit, we used the chi-square statistic:test sample= 1094.94 (df = 384); replicationsample= 1001.70 (df = 384); p< .001. Accord-ing to Kline (2011), a chi square/df ratio< 3is an additional indicator of good model fit. Inthis study, the chi square/df ratio was 2.8 for thetest sample and 2.6 for the replication sample.We also assessed fit with the Tucker-Lewis

Parenting and Early Adolescents’ Peer Relationships 503

Table 1. Estimated Means and Standard Deviations for the Latent Constructs in the Full Sample and Estimated

Discrepancies by Gender, Relationship Type, and the Interaction of Gender and Relationship Type.

Full

sample

Mean (SD)

Male to

femalea

Friend

to

datinga

Femalea

dating to

female

frienda

Femaleb

dating to

male

datinga

Femaleb

dating to

male

frienda

Femaleb

friend to

male

datinga

Femaleb

friend to

Male

frienda

Maleb

dating to

Male

frienda

Parent Variables

Support 2.60 (.93) .17** −.00 .07 −.07 −.19* −.14 −.26** −.12Psychological control 1.76 (.43) −.01 .07** −.10** −.05 −.05 .13 .05 −.01Relationship characteristics

Communication 3.41 (1.04) .28*** .27*** −.08* −.03 −.37** .04 −.31*** −.35***Emotional support 3.84 (.94) .24*** .21*** −.15* −.11 −.50*** .03 −.37*** −.39***Possessiveness giving 2.91 (1.01) .30*** 1.04*** −1.11*** −.45*** −1.44*** .58*** −.31** −.86***Possessiveness getting 2.64 (.93) .09 .37*** −.43*** −.19* −.47*** .22* −.05 −.25**

Outcome

Relationship satisfaction 3.82 (.93) −.06 −.07 −.13* .00 −.26* .04 −.7 −.13aNumbers in the table are discrepancies between the two categories being compared. A positive number indicates the second category is

greater than the first, and a negative indicates the opposite. bSix pairs make all possible comparisons between females reporting on dating

partners, females reporting on friends, males reporting on dating partners, and males reporting on friends. *p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

index (TLI; test sample= .93; replication sam-ple= .94), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; testsample= .94; replication sample= .95) and theRoot Mean Square Error of Approximation(RMSEA; = .04, ns for test and replicationsamples). According to Hu and Bentler (1999),values greater than .90 and close to .95 for CFIand TLI and a nonsignificant RMSEA with avalue of approximately .06 or smaller indicategood model fit. Overall, the CFA models for thetest and replication samples fit the data well.Estimated means and standard deviations for

the constructs and group differences accordingto gender, relationship type, and the interactionof gender and relationship type can be foundin Table 1. Females compared to males, ignor-ing the relationship type about which they arereporting, appear to perceive their parents asmore supportive and their relationship character-istics as more positive (see Table 1). Adolescentsreporting about dating relationships compared tofriendships, ignoring the gender of the reporter,indicated their parents are more psychologicallycontrolling. However, they also describe theirdating relationships as more intense in termsof each relationship characteristic (higher onall four characteristics). Interestingly, however,neither gender nor relationship type predicteda mean difference in relationship satisfaction.Looking across the gender by relationshiptype comparisons in Table 1, the standoutsubgroup is the males reporting on friends. Inthis group, descriptions of relationship charac-teristics reveal lower means in virtually every

comparison to males reporting on dating rela-tionships and females reporting on either typeof relationship. These males, who reportedon friendships, also perceived less parentalsupport than females regardless of the type ofrelationship they described.

Parental Influences, Relationship Processes,and Relationship Satisfaction

We posed three hypotheses pertaining to therelations between parental support and psy-chological control, and adolescent relationshipexperiences and satisfaction. We initially testthem ignoring participant gender and the type ofrelationship described. For our fourth and finalhypothesis, we examine whether the associa-tions identified in our first three hypotheses varyby gender and relationship type.The first hypothesis addressed whether

parental support and parental psychologicalcontrol had direct effects on adolescents’relationship experiences and relationship satis-faction. In a model including only the parentingconstructs and relationship satisfaction, parentalsupport was directly and positively related toadolescents’ reports of relationship satisfac-tion, but parental psychological control wasassociated with relationship satisfaction onlyin the test sample (see Panel A of Table 2). Itappears, therefore, that more parental support isassociated with more relationship satisfaction,but there is less support for the conclusion that

504 Family Relations

Table 2. Direct Associations among Parenting and Relationship Satisfaction (Panel A); Parenting and Relationship

Experiences (Panel B); and Relationship Experiences and Relationship Satisfaction (Panel C).

Test Sample (N = 873) Replication Sample (N = 807)

b (SE) 𝛽 b (SE) 𝛽

Panel A

Relationship Satisfaction on:Parental support .12 (.04) .12** .14 (.05) .14**Parental psychological control −.21 (.10) −.10* .12 (.10) .06

Fit StatisticsChi-square (df ) 327.88*** (85) 332.64*** (85)CFI .94 .94TLI .93 .93RMSEA .06* .06*

Panel B

Communication on:Parental support .11 (.03) .17*** .07 (.03) .12**Parental psychological control −.12 (.07) −.09 .00 (.06) .00

Emotional Support on:Parental support .23 (.05) .22*** .13 (.04) .13**Parental psychological control −.17 (.10) −.07 .04 (.10) .02

Possessiveness Giving on:Parental support −.03 (.06) −.02 .05 (.05) .05Parental psychological control .36 (.14) .13** .37 (.12) .16**

Possessiveness Getting on:Parental support −.03 (.05) −.03 −.05 (.05) −.05Parental psychological control .55 (.12) .27*** .25 (.12) .11*

Fit StatisticsChi-Square (df ) 885.96*** (304) 883.75*** (304)CFI .93 .93TLI .92 .92RMSEA .05(ns) .05(ns)

Panel C

Relationship Satisfaction on:Communication .44 (.17) .28** .42 (.20) .25*Emotional support .47 (.10) .48*** .51 (.13) .50***Possessiveness giving .09 (.04) .12* .01 (.05) .01Possessiveness getting −.13 (.06) −.13* −.17 (.05) −.17***

Fit StatisticsChi-square (df ) 556.75*** (175) 581.37*** (175)CFI .95 .94TLI .94 .93RMSEA .05(ns) .05(ns)

CFI=Comparative Fit Index; TLI=Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA= root mean squared error of approximation.*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

more parental psychological control predictsless relationship satisfaction.In a second model we examined only the

associations between parenting variables andthe relationship experiences of adolescents.Here, parental support had the expected direct,

positive associations with communication andemotional support in the test and replicationsamples. Greater parental support predictedmore communication and emotional support inadolescent close peer relationships. For parentalpsychological control we found the expected

Parenting and Early Adolescents’ Peer Relationships 505

direct, positive associations with possessivenessgiving and getting. More parental psycholog-ical control predicted more possessiveness inclose adolescent peer relationships. Parentalpsychological control was not associated withcommunication or emotional support; parentalsupport was not associated with possessiveness(see Panel B of Table 2). The results of thesetwo models provide general support for the firsthypothesis.A third model tested the second hypothesis,

which posed a direct association for relationshipexperiences with adolescent relationship satis-faction. The results indicated significant directassociations for communication, emotionalsupport, and possessiveness getting in test andreplication samples. Better communication andemotional support predicted more relationshipsatisfaction, and greater possessiveness gettingpredicted less relationship satisfaction (seePanel C of Table 2). The size of associationsranged from modest to moderately strong.Although possessiveness giving was associatedwith relationship satisfaction in the test sam-ple, that finding was not replicated. Model 3generally supported the second hypothesis.

Examining Relationship Experiencesas Mediators

Our third hypothesis predicted a mediationmodel whereby relationship experiences medi-ate the effects of parenting variables on ado-lescent relationship satisfaction. Our analysishas been structured to this point to address theelements of such a mediation test as outlinedby Baron and Kenny (1986). We found in thetest and replication samples that the associa-tion between parental support and relationshipsatisfaction met the criteria for potential media-tion. Specifically, we documented that parentalsupport was associated significantly withrelationship satisfaction (the outcome) andwith the potential mediators (communicationand emotional support). We also documentedthat communication and emotional supportwere significantly associated with relationshipsatisfaction.The next step in the confirmation of medi-

ation was to determine whether the formerlysignificant direct associations between parentalsupport (the mediated variable) and relation-ship satisfaction (the dependent variable)became nonsignificant or attenuated when

communication and emotional support (themediators) were included in the model. Figure 2shows the full model with the fully mediatedassociations for the test and replication samples.Here it can be seen that the direct associationbetween parental support and relationship satis-faction is nonsignificant for the test and replica-tion samples. The final step in confirming medi-ation requires a delta chi-square test (Δ𝜒2) todetermine whether constraining the potentiallymediated path to zero significantly reduced thefit of the model. These tests showed nonsignif-icant changes in the chi-square value (1.176,p= n.s., for the test sample; 1.103, p= n.s., forthe replication sample) and indicated the pathfrom parental support to adolescent relationshipsatisfaction was essentially zero, confirmingfull mediation. Thus, our third hypothesis wasconfirmed, but only for the association betweenparental support and relationship satisfaction.

Examining Gender and Relationship Typeas Moderators

To address our fourth hypothesis, we first exam-ined the potential moderating influences of gen-der and relationship type separately and thenexamined the moderating effect of the inter-action between gender and relationship type.Because our preliminary analysis and our resultsrevealed very few and small differences betweenthe test and replication samples, and becausetests of interaction effects can require additionalstatistical power (Krantz & Shinn, 1988), mod-eration analyses were tested in the full sample.

Moderation by Gender. We first conducted deltaΔ𝜒2 tests to determine whether the measure-ment models were equal across males (n= 558)and females (n= 1,095). Test results supportedequality because the constrained model did notshow a significant reduction in fit. Next, multi-group analyses and Δ𝜒2 tests were conducted.One at a time, each path in the model was con-strained to be equal across the gender groups.For each constraint, we examined change inthe chi-square to determine whether the criticalvalue for one degree of freedom 𝜒2(1)= 3.84was exceeded. If the critical value was exceeded,it indicated that the imposed constraint suffi-ciently damaged model fit to consider the con-strained path different between the groups. Four-teen paths were tested and twowere significantlydifferent. First, the path from possessiveness

506 Family Relations

Figure 2. Fitted Model (Standardized Coefficients) Predicting Relationship Satisfaction by Parenting andRelationship Experiences Variables in Test Sample (N = 873) and Replication Sample (N = 807).

Note: Coefficients for the test sample are on the left and for the replication sample are on the right. Not shown in the modelare covariances between the two parental variables and between the four relationship process variables. Test sample fit statistics:𝜒2 = 1166.50, df = 408, p< .001; CFI= .92, TLI= .91; RMSEA= .05, ns. Replication sample fit statistics: 𝜒2 = 1140.26,df = 408, p< .001; CFI= .93, TLI= .92, RMSEA= .05, ns.

getting to relationship satisfaction (Δ𝜒2 = 3.96)was stronger for females (Males: 𝛽 =−.06;Females: 𝛽 =−.20; p< .001). Second, the pathfrom parental support to emotional support(Δ𝜒2 = 4.94) was significant and positive formales and females but was stronger for males(Males: 𝛽 = .24; Females: 𝛽 = .14; p< .001).

Moderation by Relationship Type. To examinethe moderating effects of relationship type(n= 900 reporting on a closest friend; n= 780reporting on a dating partner), we followedthe same procedures used for gender. Again,we found the measurement models to be equalacross groups. Of the 14 paths tested, resultsindicated that only one path differed signifi-cantly. The path from parental psychologicalcontrol to relationship satisfaction (Δ𝜒2 = 5.63)was stronger for adolescents reporting on

relationships with dating partners (𝛽 = .10;p< .05) than for adolescents reporting onrelationships with close friends (𝛽 =−.04).

Moderation by the Interaction of Genderand Relationship Type. To examine moderatingeffects of the interaction between gender andrelationship, we created four groups (femalesreporting on dating partners [n= 484], femalesreporting on friends [n= 611], males reportingon dating partners [n= 287], males reporting onfriends [n= 271]) and confirmed the measure-ment models were equal across the four groups.To statistically test whether the interaction ofGender x Relationship moderated the paths inthe model,Δ𝜒2 tests were conducted to comparethe four groups simultaneously. One at a time,the 14 paths were constrained and change in thechi-square examined to determine whether the

Parenting and Early Adolescents’ Peer Relationships 507

critical value (7.82) for three degrees of freedomwas exceeded, and indicated that the imposedconstraint sufficiently damaged the fit to con-sider the constrained path to be different in oneor more of the four groups being compared.Three paths were moderated by the inter-

action of gender and relationship type. Thesewere the paths between communication andrelationship satisfaction (Δ𝜒2 = 10.77), the pathbetween possessiveness getting and relationshipsatisfaction (Δ𝜒2 = 8.32), and the path betweenparental psychological control and emotionalsupport (Δ𝜒2 = 8.17). To see which specificgroups differed from each other, additionalmultigroup analyses were conducted where wecompared each possible pair, thus producinga total of six comparisons per path using acritical value for 𝜒2(1)= 3.84. Results indi-cated that the path from communication torelationship satisfaction significantly differed(Δ𝜒2 = 6.47) for females reporting on friends(𝛽 = .34; p< .001) and females reporting ondating partners (𝛽 = .20). Communication madea significant positive contribution to relation-ship satisfaction among females reporting onfriendships but not among females reporting ondating partners. Among males, the pattern wasreversed (Δ𝜒2 = 9.02). For males, communica-tion made a significant positive contribution torelationship satisfaction in dating relationships(𝛽 = .64; p< .05) but not in relationships withclose friends (𝛽 = .05). For the path from pos-sessiveness getting to relationship satisfactionthe Δ𝜒2 test revealed females reporting onfriends and females reporting on dating partnerswere different (Δ𝜒2 = 4.19). Specifically, pos-sessiveness getting was a significant negativecontributor to females’ relationship satisfactionwith dating partners (𝛽 =−.34; p< .001) but notfor females’ friendships (𝛽 =−.09).The delta chi-square test for the path from

parental psychological control to emotionalsupport revealed females reporting on friendsand females reporting on dating partners weredifferent (Δ𝜒2 = 3.84). Specifically, parentalpsychological control was a significant neg-ative predictor of females emotional supportwith dating partners (𝛽 =−.16; p< .01) butnot for friendships (𝛽 =−.06). Taken together,few interactions for gender, relationship type,or their combination were found (indicatinglimited support for our fourth hypothesis), how-ever, the group differences identified suggestedmeaningful variability.

Although the subgroups do not differ inimportant ways on the predictor variables, aninteresting pattern of difference is noted amongsubgroups for relationship satisfaction. Varianceexplained in relationship satisfaction was 57%for girls and 66% for boys; 62% for relation-ships with friends and 61% for relationshipswith dating partners. When looking at the inter-action of relationship type by gender, we findthe least variance explained for boys reportingon friends (54%) and girls reporting on datingpartners (55%), the most for boys reporting ondating partners (87%), and in the middle aregirls reporting on friends (63%).

Discussion

This study extends the literature by assessingthe influences of parent – adolescent and peerrelationship experiences on peer relationshipsatisfaction of young adolescents. Across ourtest and replication samples, we found thatparental support (a relationship reward) andparental psychological control (a relationshipcost) had direct effects on adolescents’ experi-ences of rewards and costs in their close peerrelationships, which in turn directly influencedrelationship satisfaction in these relationships.Overall, our findings largely supported our firsttwo hypotheses and partially supported our third(mediation) hypothesis. Specifically, strongerparental support was associated with bettercommunication and emotional support withinadolescents’ close peer relationships, whereasgreater parental psychological control was asso-ciatedwith greater possessiveness within adoles-cents’ close peer relationships. Furthermore, theinfluence of parental support on relationship sat-isfaction was fully mediated through peer com-munication and emotional support. Collectively,these findings are consistent with prospectiveand retrospective research showing that a warm,supportive, and caring parent – adolescent rela-tionship is predictive of relationship quality andsatisfaction in close relationships from ado-lescence through young adulthood (Auslanderet al., 2009; Collins & Sroufe, 1999; Madsen &Collins, 2011). Similar to Soenens et al. (2008)and Loukas et al., (2005), who found parentalpsychological control to be positively relatedto adolescent reports of relational aggression,we found that parental psychological controlpositively predicted adolescent’s self-reportedcontrolling behavior in relationships (i.e.,

508 Family Relations

possessiveness giving and getting), regardlessof gender or relationship type, providing furtherevidence that relationships with close othersinfluence how individuals make decisions andevaluate their relationships. Our findings areconsistent with interdependence theory thatsuggests relationship outcomes for individualsare affected not only by their own behaviorbut also by their perceptions of their partners’behavior and the associated costs and rewardsthey are experiencing in the relationship.

Similarities and Differences Across Genderand Relationship Type

Although unexpected, it is noteworthy that sofew differences were found in the associationsamong the variables in our model according togender, relationship type, and the interactionof relationship type and gender. Despite themodel similarity across gender and relationshiptype, the moderated paths we found are worthyof discussion. For relationship type, only onepath was significantly different (parental psy-chological control to relationship satisfaction).Parental psychological control mattered onlyfor relationship satisfaction with dating part-ners but not with friends, and the associationwas positive. There may be several reasonsfor this association. Possibly, because parentsmight have reasonable concerns about theiryoung adolescents’ romantic involvement, suchparental control might be viewed as parentalinvestment or protection by the young adoles-cent in a dating relationship. Alternately, higherlevels of parental psychological control mightcreate an “early” transition to more adult-likeroles, including early engagement in datingrelationships, where adolescents see the fact thatthey are in a dating relationship as satisfying ingeneral. Furthermore, adolescents with psycho-logically controlling parents may turn to theirromantic partners for the freedom to be whothey are, and thus experience more relationshipsatisfaction with their dating partners. Finally, itmay be that parents engage in more psycholog-ically controlling behavior in response to theiradolescents’ drawing a great deal of satisfactionfrom their relationships with the dating partners.Only two paths were significantly different

for males and females. The path from parentalsupport to emotional support was positiveand significant across gender, but stronger formales. Although parental support matters for

females’ emotional support within their peerrelationships, for males this support may beparticularly important given differences ingender socialization in expressive versus instru-mental support. Females more generally areencouraged to value emotional care in relation-ships, whereas traditional socialization of malesemphasizes instrumental support more thanexpressive support (Bengston, Acock, Allen,Dilworth-Anderson, & Klein, 2005; Frazier &Easterly, 1990). However, when males directlyexperience warmth and support within theparent – child relationship this may facilitatemale adolescents’ capacities to express andappreciate such support within their closerelationships.It also was found that the path from posses-

siveness getting to relationship satisfaction wasstronger for females. However, this finding wasfurther qualified by the interaction of genderand relationship type, which indicated thatthe association was stronger only for femalesreporting on their relationships with their datingpartners compared to those reporting on closestfriends. The finding indicated that female ado-lescents’ were more satisfied when their datingpartners were less possessive, and greater pos-sessiveness on the part of the dating partner maybe particularly costly to the relationship. Thissuggests that even at a young age when adoles-cent females are beginning to explore romanticrelationships, excessive neediness and controlon the part of the dating partner appear to crosssome boundary of satisfactory interpersonalfunctioning and may diminish the quality ofthe relationship. Interestingly, during this sameperiod of adolescent development, males do notseem to be affected by excessive neediness andcontrol in early romantic relationships. Thesefindings are partially consistent with Henrichet al. (2001) and Kupermic et al. (1997) whofound that excessive neediness among a sampleof sixth- and seventh-grade male and female stu-dents compromised school-based interpersonalrelationships.A second finding for the interaction of gen-

der by relationship type was for the path fromcommunication to relationship satisfaction. Forfemale adolescents, this associationwas strongerfor relationships with close friends than for rela-tionships with dating partners. But for maleadolescents, it was stronger for relationshipswith dating partners compared to relationshipswith close friends. This finding suggests that

Parenting and Early Adolescents’ Peer Relationships 509

the reward of being in a satisfying relationshipmay also result from maximizing opportuni-ties to give and receive honest and support-ive communication. Although we did not askthe gender of the dating partner or friend, weassume that the vast majority of the early ado-lescents were reporting on dating relationshipswith an opposite-sex peer, and friendships witha same-sex peer. Therefore, female adolescentsreporting on relationships with close friends andmale adolescents reporting on relationships withdating partners were most likely reporting on arelationship with a female peer; whereas maleadolescents reporting on friends and femaleadolescents reporting on dating partners weremost likely focusing on a male peer. If ourassumptions are correct, communication may bemore important to satisfaction (i.e., particularlyrewarding) when one is in a relationship with afemale peer.Finally, it was found that the path from

parental psychological control to emotionalsupport was stronger for females reporting ondating relationships compared to females report-ing on friendships. When parental psychologicalcontrol was greater, females reported less emo-tional support within their dating relationships.Parental psychological control models for ado-lescents the absence of emotional support; theirfeelings and ideas are negated when they do notfit with parental views (Adams& Laursen, 2007;Barber et al., 2005) and may cost young ado-lescents the opportunity to engage in satisfyingromantic relationships. Possibly, females whoexperience higher levels of parental psycholog-ical control are more likely to become involvedwith dating partners who are not emotionallysupportive. Alternately, it may be that thesefemale adolescents are less skilled in providingemotional support or capable of recognizing itin their relationships. Our findings are partiallyconsistent with other research showing thatparental psychological control was negativelyassociated with friendship quality (Soenenset al., 2008).Looking across gender and relationship type

we find the relationship characteristics examinedin this study are important to early adolescents’peer relationship satisfaction. It is interesting,however, that the model accounted for the mostvariance for the boys with dating partners andthe least variance for boys with friends andgirls with dating partners. Although girls talkingabout relationships with dating partners reported

the highest relationship qualities, these qualitiesdid not in turn account for greater satisfaction.Alternatively, for boys talking about relation-ships with dating partners, the model wasexceptionally powerful. This could suggest thatthe relationship satisfaction among boys describ-ing dating relationships benefits from greaterpartner social skills and could be an early hint ofthe lifelong tendency of males to rely for socialsupport from their intimate relationship partnerswhereas girls look to their partners and friends.This study contributes in several ways to the

scarce literature on early adolescent romanticrelationships. First, this is one of few studiescontrasting gender differences among earlyadolescents’ relationships with close friendsand dating partners. Second, this study providesa path model, using a test-replication design,for conceptualizing how young adolescents’relationships with parents affect peer relation-ship experiences and how the integration ofparent and peer relationship experiences affectassessments of satisfying relationships withclose friends and dating partners. Third, ourfindings show that rewards in the parent – childrelationship link to rewards in close peer rela-tionships where we find that parental supportis positively related to young adolescents’reports of communication, emotional support,and thus relationship satisfaction within theirclose peer relationships. In contrast, costsin the parent – child relationship are associ-ated with costs in close peer relationships inthat we find parental psychological control ispositively associated with both giving and get-ting possessiveness, and thus less relationshipsatisfaction.

Limitations and Future Directions for Researchand Practice

Several limitations should be noted for thisstudy. First, self-report measures were usedto assess all constructs. Second, the data arecross-sectional; direction of effects could not bedirectly tested. Third, respondents only reportedon one type of relationship (closest friend or cur-rent dating partner) and were allowed to choosethe type rather than being randomly assigned toone condition or the other. An alternativemethodwhereby participants report on both types ofrelationship would be an option, but it couldintroduce a bias as respondents compare onerelationship type to the other. Fourth, we could

510 Family Relations

not distinguish between same-sex and other-sexpeers since the gender of the close friend ordating partner was not reported. Findings fromHand and Furman (2009) indicated that highschool students differed in their experiencesof other sex friendships and that same-sex andother-sex relationships had different rewards andcosts, and recent research suggests that friendsmay be more influential than parents in shapingstandards of acceptable relationship behaviorsduring adolescence (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004).Despite the study limitations, our findings are

consistent (with a few exceptions) across maleand female adolescents’ relationships with closefriends and dating partners. Our confidence inthe results is strengthened by the consistencyin patterns seen across our test and replicationsamples. The associations between relationshipexperiences and relationship satisfaction are par-ticularly important because they highlight rela-tionship cognitions and emotions in a raciallydiverse sample of young adolescents and suggestthat some relationship experiences (i.e., com-munication and emotional support) contribute tothe rewards of having satisfying relationships,whereas other relationship experiences (gettingpossessiveness) are costs that hinder relation-ship quality. Importantly, our results support theimportant role that parent – adolescent relation-ships play in early adolescents’ friendships andromantic relationships.During adolescence, young people are learn-

ing the skills needed to form positive, healthy,and satisfying relationships with others. This isan ideal time to promote healthy relationshipsand prevent negative behavior patterns thatcan extend into adulthood. Previous studiesevaluating the effectiveness of youth-focusedrelationship education curricula have shownadolescents who receive this programming arebetter able to identify unhealthy relationshippatterns, endorse fewer faulty relationshipbeliefs, and report lower rates of verbal aggres-sion than their peers who have not receivedsuch education (Adler-Baeder, Kerpelman,Schramm, & Higgenbotham, 2007; Kerpelman,Pittman, Adler-Baeder, Eryigit, & Paulk, 2009).Given that communication and emotional sup-port were found to mediate the relationshipbetween parental support and relationship satis-faction and that parental psychological controlwas associated with possessiveness, programsshould incorporate ways to help parents talkwith their young adolescents about healthy

relationships. When possible, these programsshould bring parents and teens together and havethem communicate with each other to assist theadolescents with making healthy and respon-sible decisions (Pearson, Muller, & Frisco,2006; Sillars, Koerner, & Fitzpatrick, 2005). Forexample, prevention and intervention programscan involve parents in the conversation (throughactivities that encourage youth to communicatewith parents) to help parents clarify the valuesthey wish to convey to their children. They canalso provide structured opportunities (interac-tive formats) for young people and their parentsto practice communication skills. Session topicscould focus on increasing parents’ knowledgeand awareness of adolescent development andrisk-taking behaviors. By strengthening parents’capacities to talk with their adolescents aboutrelationships, this will support any educationalprograms addressing relationship issues thatyouth receive in school and community settings.

Acknowledgments

Support of this research was provided by the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion Hatch Grant (AES ALA042-1-08035).

References

Adams, R. E., & Laursen, B. (2007). The correlates ofconflict: Disagreement is not necessarily detrimen-tal. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 445 – 458.doi:10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.445

Adler-Baeder, F., Kerpelman, J. L., Schramm, D.G., Higginbotham, B., & Paulk, A. (2007). Theimpact of relationship education on adolescentsof diverse backgrounds. Family Relations, 56,291 – 303. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00460.x

Altman, I., & Taylor, D., (1973). Social penetration:The development of interpersonal relationships.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adoles-cent dating violence: Do adolescents follow intheir friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? Journalof Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162 – 184. doi:10.1177/0886260503260247

Auslander, B. A., Short, M. B., Succop, P. A., &Rosenthal, S. L. (2009). Associations between par-enting behaviors and adolescent romantic relation-ships. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 98 – 101.doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.12.014

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control:Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Develop-ment, 67, 3296 – 3319. doi:10.2307/1131780

Parenting and Early Adolescents’ Peer Relationships 511

Barber, B., Maughan, S., & Olsen, J., (2005). Pat-terns of parenting across adolescence. New Direc-tions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108,5 – 16. doi:10.1002/cd.124

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Themoderator –mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual,strategic, and statistical considerations. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173 – 1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bengston, V. L., Acock, A. C., Allen, K. R.,Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Klein, D. M. (2005).Sourcebook of family theory and research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction andclose relationships. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Handbookof social psychology (4th ed., pp. 193 – 281). NewYork: Addison-Wesley.

Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2010). Intimaterelationships. New York: W. W. Norton.

Burleson, B. R. (2003). The experience and effects ofemotional support: What the study of cultural andgender differences can tell us about close relation-ships, emotion, and interpersonal communication.Personal Relationships, 10, 1 – 23.

Collins,W. (2003).More thanmyth: The developmen-tal significance of romantic relationships duringadolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence,13, 1 – 24. doi:10.1111/1532-7795.1301001

Collins, W., & Sroufe, L. (1999). Capacity for inti-mate relationships: A developmental construction.In W. Furman, B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), Thedevelopment of romantic relationships in adoles-cence (pp. 125 – 147). New York: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Collins, W., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Ado-lescent romantic relationships. Annual Review ofPsychology, 60, 631 – 652. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459

Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H.(2001). Competence in early adult romantic rela-tionships: A developmental perspective on fam-ily influences. Prevention and Treatment, 4, 1 – 25.doi:10.1037/1522-3736.4.1.411a

Cramer, D. (2004). Emotional support, conflict,depression, and relationship satisfaction in aromantic partner. Journal of Psychology, 138,532 – 542. doi:10.3200/JRLP.138.6.532-542

Frazier, P. A., & Easterly, E. (1990). Correlates ofrelationship beliefs: Gender, relationship expe-rience and relationship satisfaction. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 7, 331 – 352.

Furman,W., &Collins,W. (2009). Adolescent roman-tic relationships and experiences. In K. H. Rubin,W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbookof peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp.341 – 360). New York: Guilford.

Gilbert, R. L., Murphy, N. A., & Ávalos, M.(2011). Communication patterns and satisfac-tion levels in three-dimensional versus real-lifeintimate relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behav-ior, and Social Networking, 14, 585 – 589.doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0468

Hand, L., & Furman, W. (2009). Rewards andcosts in adolescent other-sex friendships:Comparisons to same-sex friendships andromantic relationships. Social Development,18, 270 – 287. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00499.x

Henrich, C. C., Blatt, S. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Zohar,A., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2001). Levels of inter-personal concerns and social functioning in earlyadolescent boys and girls. Journal of Personal-ity Assessment, 76, 48 – 67. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7601_3

Hill, J., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1986). Attachment andautonomy during adolescence. In G. Whitehurst(Ed.), Annals of child development, Vol. 3 (pp.145 – 189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange.American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597 – 606.doi:10.1086/222355

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fitindexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-tional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling, 6, 1 – 55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., Adler-Baeder, F.,Eryigit, S., & Paulk, A. (2009). Evaluation ofa statewide youth-focused relationships educa-tion curriculum. Journal of Adolescence, 32,1359 – 1370. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.006

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of struc-tural equation modeling (3rd ed.). NewYork: Guil-ford.

Krantz, D. H., & Shinn, M. (1988). Theoreticallyinteresting interactions are hard to detect. Unpub-lished manuscript, Columbia University.

Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Leadbeater, B. J.(1997). Relatedness, self-definition, and earlyadolescent adjustment. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 21, 301 – 320. doi:10.1023/A:1021826500037

Laursen, B., & Collins, W. (2009). Parent – child rela-tionships during adolescence. In R. M. Lerner &L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psy-chology, Vol 2: Contextual influences on adoles-cent development (3rd ed., pp. 3 – 42). Hoboken,NJ: Wiley.

Lempers, J. D., & Clark-Lempers, D. S. (1993).A functional comparison of same-sex and oppo-site sex friendships during adolescence. Journalof Adolescent Research, 8, 89 – 108. doi:10.1177/074355489381007

512 Family Relations

Levesque, R. J. (1993). The romantic experienceof adolescents in satisfying love relationships.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 219 – 251.doi:10.1007/BF01537790

Loukas, A., Paulos, S. K., & Robinson, S. (2005).Early adolescent social and overt aggression:Examining the roles of social anxiety and mater-nal psychological control. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 34, 335 – 345. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-5757-2

Madsen, S. D., & Collins, W. (2011). The salienceof adolescent romantic experiences for romanticrelationship qualities in young adulthood. Jour-nal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 789 – 801.doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00737.x

Muthén, L. K., &Muthén, B. O. (1998 – 2010).Mplususer’s guide. (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Pagano, M. E., & Hirsch, B. J. (2007). Friendshipsand romantic relationships of black and white ado-lescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16,347 – 357. doi:10.1007/s10826-006-9090-5

Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Frisco, M. L. (2006).Parental involvement, family structure, and ado-lescent sexual decision making. SociologicalPerspectives, 49, 67 – 90. doi:10.1525/sop.2006.49.1.67

Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R.(1991). General and relationship-based percep-tions of social support: Are two constructs bet-ter than one? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 61, 1028 – 1039. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.1028

Pittman, J. F., Keiley, M. K., Kerpelman, J. L.,& Vaughn, B. E. (2011). Attachment, identity,and intimacy parallels between Bowlby’s andErikson’s paradigms. Journal of Family Theoryand Review, 3, 32 – 46. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00079.x

Repinski, D. J., & Zook, J. M. (2005). Three measuresof closeness in adolescents’ relationships with par-ents and friends: Variations and developmentalsignificance. Personal Relationships, 12, 79 – 102.doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00103.x

Rodgers, K. (1999). Parenting processes related tosexual risk-taking behaviors of adolescent malesand females. Journal of Marriage and the Family,61, 99 – 109. doi:10.2307/353886

Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., Bannerman, A., & Sara-son, I. G. (1993). Investigating the antecedents ofperceived social support: Parents’ views of andbehavior toward their children. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 65, 1071 – 1085.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1071

Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990).Social support: The sense of acceptance and therole of relationships. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sara-son, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: Aninteractional view (pp. 97 – 128). Oxford, UK:John Wiley & Sons.

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (2009). Social sup-port: Mapping the construct. Journal of Socialand Personal Relationships, 26, 113 – 120. doi:10.1177/0265407509105526

Sillars, A., Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M.(2005). Communication and understanding inparent-adolescent relationships. Human Commu-nication Research, 31, 102 – 128. doi:10.1093/hcr/31.1.102

Simon, T. R., Miller, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Orpinas,P., & Sullivan, T. (2010). Physical dating violencenorms and behavior among sixth-grade studentsfrom four U.S. sites. Journal of Early Adolescence,30, 395 – 409. doi:10.1177/0272431609333301

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Duriez,B., & Niemiec, C. P. (2008). The intervening roleof relational aggression between psychologicalcontrol and friendship quality. Social Devel-opment, 17, 661 – 681. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00454.x

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The socialpsychology of groups. Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

Young, B. J., Furman,W., & Laursen, B. (2011).Mod-els of change and continuity in romantic experi-ences. In F. D. Fincham&M. Cui (Eds.), Romanticrelationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 44 – 66).New York: Cambridge University Press.