Self-disclosure to parents in emerging adulthood

Abstract

The parent–child relationship normally experiences a significant change during the transition from adolescence to adulthood. However, there is much left to understand about how this transition affects and is affected by the communication between parents and emerging adults. A survey conducted among 490 Hong Kong university students examined their self-disclosure to their parents as an interpersonal process centered on perceived parental responsiveness and the role of separation–individuation in this self-disclosure process. The results support the idea that perceived parental responsiveness mediates the link between self-disclosure and relationship quality in the context of parent–child relationships. Dysfunctional independence predicts less self-disclosure, perceptions of less parental responsiveness, and poorer parent–child relationship quality. Significant gender differences were found on dysfunctional independence, self-disclosure, perceived parental responsiveness, and parent–child relationship quality. Young women with dysfunctional dependence disclosed less positive information, perhaps driven by an excessive need for attention and care.

Keywords

Emerging adulthood parent–child relationship perceived responsiveness self-disclosure separation–individuation

Introduction

The parent–child relationship in emerging adulthood is often discussed in the context of separation–individuation—a developmental process whereby young adults increase their sense of differentiation and independence from their parents and create a unique identity (Kins, Soenens, & Beyers, 2012; Koepke & Denissen, 2012). Research has identified separation–individuation as a critical process in the transition to adulthood, connecting it to a variety of significant personal outcomes including psychological well-being (McClanahan & Holmbeck, 1992), adjustment to college (Klasner & Pistole, 2003; Lapsley, Rice, & Shadid, 1989) as well as career development (Blustein, Walbridge, Friedlander, & Palladino, 1991; Lucas, 1997). However, there has been a lack of research examining the interpersonal outcomes of separation–individuation. For example, it remains unclear how separation–individuation may influence the communication between young adults and parents and ultimately parent–child relationship quality.

This study was designed to examine the role of separation–individuation in parent–child communication during emerging adulthood by focusing on young adults’ self-disclosure process. Here, “emerging adults” refer to young adults aged approximately 18–30 who face the developmental tasks of taking responsibility for themselves, becoming independent in personal decision-making and personal finance (Arnett, 2000). Drawing on the interpersonal process model of intimacy (IPMI; Reis & Shaver, 1988), this study conceptualized self-disclosure as an interpersonal process whereby both self-disclosure and perceived parental responsiveness jointly affect parent–child relationship quality. Building on IPMI’s theorization of relational schemas, the study further proposed dysfunctional separation–individuation as a unique relational schema in emerging adulthood that could affect young adults’ self-disclosure to parents as well as their perceptions of parental responsiveness and parent–child relationship quality (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A conceptual model for emerging adults’ self-disclosure process. ^aDSI denotes dysfunctional separation–individuation. ^bSD denotes self-disclosure.

Self-disclosure process in parent–child relationships

As one of the most fundamental interpersonal behaviors, self-disclosure involves strategic management of personal information along dimensions such as valence (the social desirability of the information disclosed), honesty (the extent of accurate and unconcealed self-revelation), amount (the extent of personal information exchange), and control of depth (the intimacy or privacy level of the information disclosed; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). The regulation of self-disclosure is sensitive to the context in various situations, relationships, and cultures (Dindia, Fitzpatrick, & Kenny, 1997; Petronio, 2002). In parent–child communication, besides making the decision about disclosure versus nondisclosure, family members may avoid certain topics (e.g., parents and children avoid talking about divorce), conceal information (e.g., a mother hides the father’s alcoholism in front of children), provide misinformation (e.g., a child lies about engaging risky behaviors), or selectively disclose the information desired by the other party (e.g., a child only talks about good news in school). Previous studies have also indicted that self-disclosure between adolescents and their parents varies in relation to individual dispositions (Finkenauer, Engels, Branje, & Meeus, 2004), parenting styles (Tilton-Weaver, 2013), family structures (Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson, & Baker, 2007; McManus & Nussbaum, 2013), and topic valence (McManus & Nussbaum, 2013; Tenzek, Herrman, May, Feiner, & Allen, 2013).

Cultural context is another factor that profoundly affects self-disclosure. While there is a lack of research examining self-disclosure in the parent–child relationship across culture, a substantial body of intercultural literature has documented significant societal differences in self-disclosure (for a review, see Lustig & Koester, 2013). For example, East Asians tend to disclose less than Westerners in general (for a review, see Schug, Yuki, & Maddux, 2010), but they are also found to make greater self-disclosure to close social ties and in-group members (Marshall, 2008). Such differences are further explained by intercultural differences in individualism–collectivism (Lustig & Koester, 2013), role expectation (Marshall, 2008), relationship mobility (Schug et al., 2010), and so on. These explanations also account for within-culture differences in self-disclosure. For instance, Marshall (2008) suggests that Chinese Canadians’ gender-role traditionalism, defined as ideological beliefs about gender roles, contributes to their lower self-disclosure and intimacy in romantic relationships.

Self-disclosure has been consistently linked to a number of indicators of relationship quality including intimacy, relationship satisfaction, and liking (Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006). Self-disclosure and relationship quality are considered “mutually transformative” since self-disclosure affects the nature of the relationship, which in turns shapes self-disclosure and its interpretation (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993; Finkenauer et al., 2004). Most scholars consider self-disclosure to be a dyadic process in which both the discloser and the recipient affect how the self-disclosure is performed and understood (Dindia et al., 1997; Reis & Shaver, 1988). The IPMI, for example, emphasizes the importance of perceived partner responsiveness, which is defined as the extent to which the partner’s communication is perceived as oriented toward the discloser’s core needs (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). The IPMI framework considers perceived partner responsiveness as a critical mediator between self-disclosure and relationship quality: A responsive expression from the partner can generate the feelings of being understood and cared for and is more likely to facilitate the development of intimacy. A response that expresses disinterest or fails to address the discloser’s needs may, in contrast, downgrade the discloser’s self-perceptions of worth and promote subsequent distancing behavior.

The mediating role of perceived partner responsiveness has been empirically validated in a variety of close relationships (for a review, see Jiang & Hancock, 2013; Laurenceau, Rivera, Schaffer, & Pietromonaco, 2004). In parent–child relationships, studies have, respectively, associated parental responsiveness to self-disclosure and parent–child relationship quality. Adolescents disclose more and keep fewer secrets when they view their parents as supportive (Tilton-Weaver, 2013; Tokić & Pećnik, 2011). Responsive parenting that attends to a child’s needs would be expected to shape secure attachment and a healthier parent–child interaction (Bowlby, 2008; Karavasilis, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003; Reis, 2007). Young adults report greatest satisfaction with fathers who are perceived as being supportive (Beatty & Dobos, 1992). This study first tested for any such effect of perceived parental responsiveness by hypothesizing it as a mediator between young adults’ self-disclosure to their parents and relationship quality.

H1: Perceived parental responsiveness will mediate the effects of young adults’ self-disclosure on their perceptions of parent–child relationship quality.

The IPMI framework theorizes that, in addition to the influence of perceived responsiveness, the nature of the relationship and two partners’ personalities as well as relationship dispositions greatly affect the performance and interpretation of self-disclosure. It categorizes a variety of relational motives, needs, goals, and expectations in terms of relational schemas and posits that they influence the self-disclosure process by moderating the degree to which interlocutors self-disclose and respond to partners (Laurenceau et al., 2004). Besides their behavioral effects on self-disclosure and responsiveness, the relational schemas also function as interpretative filters which moderate the degree to which and the way in which interlocutors perceive each other’s behavior. For instance, responsiveness perception is not always consistent with the actual behavior intended. The discloser may interpret a response in a variety of ways, as an expression of intimacy, an odd statement, or a casual greeting, depending on whether he or she seeks connectedness (Laurenceau et al., 2004, p. 65). If the discloser desires being psychologically closer to the partner, with such an “intimate” schema activated, he or she is more likely to interpret the partner’s reactions as responsive.

Extensive previous research has shown (not necessarily within the IPMI framework) that several individual dispositions and relational goals function as relational schemas to affect self-disclosure and the interpretation of responsiveness. For example, individuals with different attachment styles differ in their self-disclosure and in perceptions of intimacy and partner responsiveness (Grabill & Kerns, 2000; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). Relative to self-image goals, compassionate goals increase one’s own responsiveness and lead to greater perceptions of partner responsiveness through both projection and true reciprocation (Canevello & Crocker, 2010; Crocker & Canevello, 2008). This study proposed separation–individuation as a useful relational schema for analyzing the parent–child relationship during emerging adulthood and empirically tested its effects on young adults’ self-disclosure to parents and their perceptions of parent–child relationship.

Separation–individuation in emerging adulthood

Separation from one’s parents and individuation are considered key and challenging developmental tasks during late adolescence and early adulthood. They involve forging an adult identity, developing self-reliance, redefining mutuality and balance of authority in the parent–child relationship, and obtaining an optimal balance between distance and closeness (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). Adjustment leads to the emergence of an integrated self-identity that sustains a healthy degree of separation from and closeness to significant others (Kins, Beyers, & Soenens, 2013; Mayseless & Scharf, 2009).

Kins et al. (2012) have identified two dysfunctional separation–individuation trajectories that fail to achieve an optimal balance between autonomy and positive relatedness. Dysfunctional dependence occurs when autonomy is sacrificed by excessively seeking for closeness from others, whereas dysfunctional independence reflects a tendency to be strongly preoccupied with individuation at the expense of the need for relatedness. Dysfunctional dependence and dysfunctional independence are represented in some scales in the Separation–Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA; Levine, Green, & Millon, 1986) that measure problematic separation–individuation. For example, engulfment anxiety (fear for being overwhelmed by intimate relationships) and dependency denial (rejection of interpersonal needs) are thought to reflect dysfunctional independence, whereas separation anxiety (fear of losing touch with an attachment figure) and nurturance seeking (seeking for affection and protection) reflect dysfunctional dependence (Kins et al., 2013; Mayseless & Scharf, 2009).

The distinction between dysfunctional dependence and dysfunctional independence is further explicated in relation to attachment style and parenting behavior. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) argues that how individuals react to the event of separation depends on their working attachment models developed early in life. While individuals with secure attachment are likely to respond adaptively, those with insecure attachment experience more threat and may as such fail the developmental task. In particular, dysfunctional dependence is primarily related to attachment-related anxiety (i.e., excessive anxiety regarding separation from home and loss of close relationships) and dysfunctional independence is primarily related to attachment avoidance (i.e., keeping a distance from others; Kins et al., 2013; Kruse & Walper, 2008). It has been shown that both can be driven by parental directiveness that is not responsive to a child’s needs (Kins et al., 2012; Mayseless & Scharf, 2009). Excessive psychological control to achieve family dependence and interpersonal closeness can restrict the need for exploring and expressing individuation, leading to dysfunctional dependence. By contrast, parental psychological control driven by the desire for achievement and perfection can trigger dysfunctional independence by imposing parental standards and expressing excessive urging in favor of individual performance (Kins et al., 2012).

These two separation–individuation orientations presumably have different impacts on parent–child communication and communication in close relationships in general. In particular, dysfunctional independence is thought to be associated with restricted self-disclosure. When young adults prioritize the need for individuation over the need for connectedness, they may cognitively and emotionally set themselves apart from parents and other significant others and purposely restrict social exchange in order to distance themselves (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). For example, adolescent research on self-disclosure about sex (Papini, Snell, Belk, & Clark, 2001) shows that engulfment anxiety and dependency denial, two elements of dysfunctional independence, were correlated with less willingness to discuss sexual behavior, values, and preferences with an intimate partner. Dysfunctional independence is therefore expected to function as a negative schema that reduces young adults’ self-disclosure to their parents.

H2: Dysfunctional independence among young adults is associated with reduced self-disclosure to parents.

Dysfunctional independence should also create a distancing interpretive filter when a young adult interprets parental responses and the overall quality of parent–child relationship. While no empirical evidence directly demonstrating this coloring effect has been published, Wheeler, Wintre, and Polivy (2003) have shown that young adults struggling to establish their identity and autonomy tend to perceive less parental reciprocity. Research on perceived responsiveness has consistently demonstrated that attachment avoidance, the theoretical correlate of dysfunctional independence, can induce a negative projection of little perceived responsiveness (Clark & Lemay, 2010).

H3: Dysfunctional independence is associated with (a) perceptions of less parental responsiveness and (b) poor quality of the parent–child relationship, after controlling for self-disclosure effects.

There has been little research on how dysfunctional dependence may affect young adults’ self-disclosure and the quality of their relationships with their parents. Some studies have looked the relationship between attachment-related anxiety (the theoretical correlate of dysfunctional dependence) and self-disclosure. Individuals high in attachment-related anxiety use self-disclosure of problems and distress as a means of merging with others (Maunder, Lancee, Nolan, Hunter, & Tannenbaum, 2006), but due to the fear of abandonment, they are more ambivalent about expressing needs, more sensitive to negative events and tones in close relationships, and less satisfied with their self-disclosure with their partners (Bauminger, Finzi-Dottan, Chason, & Har-Even, 2008; Bradford, Feeney, & Campbell, 2002). We speculate that individuals with dysfunctional dependence may similarly use self-disclosure as a means for seeking for attention achieving closeness (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). Therefore, this study empirically examines how dysfunctional dependence is related to self-disclosure, perceived parental responsiveness, and relationship quality within the IPMI framework.

Methods

Participants and procedure

Five hundred and five unmarried young adults were recruited from undergraduate and postgraduate courses in several Hong Kong universities to participate in an online survey in exchange for extra course credit or a cash coupon that worth 50 Hong Kong dollars, depending on their choice. They were told that the purpose of the survey was to better understand how young people communicate with their parents, and that they would be required to complete an online questionnaire about their personal traits, recent interactions with their primary parent (either father or mother), and parent–child relationship quality. The research plan was approved by the institutional review board at the university the authors are affiliated with. The survey questions were presented in both English and Traditional Chinese. A pretest was conducted with 15 students to obtain constructive comments on the first version of the questionnaire. Modifications in wording and question presentation were made based on those comments.

After removing 15 participants who were older than 30, the final sample consisted of 490 people (351 females, 128 male, and 11 who did not indicate their gender) whose ages ranged from 17 to 30 (M = 21 years, SD = 3.26). Most of them are ethnic Chinese (53% Hong Kong Chinese and 42% Mainland Chinese). Nearly half of them (46%) lived with their parents; an additional 10% lived apart from their parents in the same city and 44% lived geographically apart from their parents. About 13% claimed a monthly family income of less than HK$9,000, 25% between HK$9,000 and 14,999, 50% between HK$15,000 and 49,999, and 11% above HK$50,000. The majority (85%) of the participants identified their mother and 15% identified their father as the primary parent.

Measures

Self-disclosure

Twelve items from the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (RSDS; Wheeless & Grotz, 1976) were used to assess the degree to which a participant had disclosed personal information and their feelings to the primary parent during the previous month. The RSDS has demonstrated good reliability and validity for measuring self-disclosure in both Western and Eastern cultures (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006; Leung, 2002; Ma & Leung, 2006; Myers, 1998; Myers & Johnson, 2004). Self-disclosure amount (e.g., “I usually spend long time when I am discussing myself”; Cronbach’s α = .71), control of depth (e.g., “When I talk to my parent, I often disclose intimate, personal things about myself without hesitation”; Cronbach’s α = .76), honesty (e.g., “I always feel completely sincere when I reveal my own feelings and experiences to my parent”; Cronbach’s α = .79), and valence (e.g., “When I talk to my parent, I usually don’t mention negative things about myself”; Cronbach’s α = .68) were each measured by 3 items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree).

Perceived parental responsiveness

The Perceived Responsiveness Scale (4 items; Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011) was modified to assess the degree to which a participant felt their primary parent had been responsive to their self-disclosure in the previous month. This scale has been successfully applied to study a range of general relationships such as romantic couples, siblings, friends, coworkers, and leaders and their subordinates (for a review, see Reis, 2007). The 4 items were, “On the whole, in the recent interactions, I get the feeling that my parent really listens to me/values my abilities and opinions/respects me/is responsive to my needs.” Response was again on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = completely not true, 7 = completely true; Cronbach’s α = .92).

Intimacy

A shorter version of Miller’s Social Intimacy Scale (7 items; Jiang, Bazarova, & Hancock, 2011; Miller & Lefcourt, 1982) was used to assess how close the participant felt to their parent during the interactions (e.g., “I’d like confide very personal information to my parent”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = completely not true, 7 = completely true; Cronbach’s α = .87).

Relationship satisfaction

The Marital Opinion Questionnaire (Huston, McHale, & Crouter, 1986) was used to assess the degree to which a participant felt satisfied with their parent–child relationship using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = completely not true, 7 = completely true; Cronbach’s α = .91). This measure, although originally developed for assessing marriage satisfaction, has been used and validated (Caughlin & Malis, 2004; Kanter, Afifi, & Robbins, 2012) to assess the young adults’ relationship satisfaction with their parent. Eight items were modified to refer to the parent–child relationship (e.g., “when I think about my recent relationship with my parent, on the whole my relationship with my parent is miserable/brings out the best in me/worthwhile”).

Separation–individuation

The SITA (Levine et al., 1986) was adopted to assess dysfunctional independence and dysfunctional dependence, again using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). The SITA scale contains nine subscales and a total of 103 items. In this study, we only used three subscales (engulfment anxiety, dependency denial, and separation anxiety) to reduce the burden on participants. Dysfunctional independence was assessed in terms of engulfment anxiety (7 items; e.g. “Sometimes my parents are so overprotective I feel smothered”; Cronbach’s α = .83) and dependency denial (12 items; e.g. “I don’t see the point of most warm, affectionate relationships”; Cronbach’s α = .84). Dysfunctional dependence was operationalized as separation anxiety and measured by 14 items (e.g., “Being alone is a very scary idea for me”; Cronbach’s α = .79).

Analysis

Before testing our hypotheses, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted on all the measures to identify any significant differences associated with gender, age, place of residence, coresidence with parents, or the gender of the primary parent identified.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses (see Table 1 for a correlation matrix relating all of the variables). Following standard SEM model fitting procedures, confirmatory factor analysis was first applied to construct a measurement model for all the latent variables. In structural models, perceived parental responsiveness was first modelled as a mediator between self-disclosure dimensions and parent–child relationship quality. The two dysfunctional separation–individuation orientations were then modeled as relational schemas in the parent–child communication as proposed in the conceptual model of Figure 1. The structural modeling was tested by version 21.0 of the AMOS software package.

Table 1.

Correlations between self-disclosure dimensions, perceived responsiveness, relationship quality, and separation–individuation.

	Amount	Valence	Depth	Honesty	Responsiveness	Intimacy	Satisfaction	Separation anxiety	Engulfment anxiety	Dependency denial
Amount	1.00
Valence	−.31**	1.00
Depth	.63**	−.25**	1.00
Honesty	.50**	−.10*	.67**	1.00
Responsiveness	.36**	.14**	.37**	.44**	1.00
Intimacy	.53**	.02	.60**	.62**	.71**	1.00
Satisfaction	.35**	.13**	.39**	.51**	.72**	.79**	1.00
Separation anxiety	−.01	−.15**	−.03	−.18**	−.12*	−.14**	−.19**	1.00
Engulfment anxiety	−.20**	−.07	−.17**	−.32**	−.37**	−.42**	−.46**	.29**	1.00
Dependency denial	−.15**	.03	−.11*	−.26**	−.27**	−.31**	−.39**	.30**	.41**	1.00
Mean	4.02	4.38	4.03	4.70	5.37	4.97	5.39	3.79	3.20	2.75
SD	1.21	1.21	1.34	1.28	1.24	1.08	1.05	0.86	1.14	0.87

*p < .05; **p < .01.

The SEM results were evaluated using several fit indices, including chi-squared divided by the number of degrees of freedom (χ²/df), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Kline, 2011). In order to test for any mediating effect of perceived parental responsiveness, bootstrapping (3,000 bootstrap samples) was used to estimate standardized indirect effects.

Results

The MANCOVA analysis revealed some significant differences associated with the participants’ age, gender, and place of residence. The main effect of age was significant, F(10, 464) = 2.98, p < .01, partial η² = .06. Age has a positive association with self-disclosure valence, β = .07, SE = .02, t(478) = 3.63, p < .001. Older participants claimed to make more positive self-disclosure. Although it is not a focus of this study, it is interesting to note that there was a significant main effect of place of residence, F(20,922) = 2.46, p < .001, partial η² = .12. Participants from mainland China perceived their primary parents as more responsive, said they felt more intimate with them, and professed greater satisfaction with the relationship with their parents; all t > 4.08, all p < .001, partial η² ∼ (.03, .08). There was no significant difference between those who lived with their parents and those who did not, p = .23.

A significant main effect of gender was also found, F(10,464) = 3.30, p < .001, partial η² = .07 (see Table 2 for detailed statistics on the gender differences). Females reported less engulfment anxiety and dependence denial than males and claimed to make more frequent, intimate, honest, and non-positive disclosure. They also perceived greater parental responsiveness and intimacy and claimed to feel greater relationship satisfaction, although the effect sizes were quite small. No significant gender difference was found with respect to separation anxiety. Due to the pronounced gender differences, in SEM analysis, we performed tests of measurement invariance and structural invariance (Kline, 2011) to see if gender further affected the dynamics of self-disclosure process. Critical ratios for differences between parameters were used to judge whether two coefficients differed significantly (with Z-scores greater than 1.96 indicating significant differences).

Table 2.

Gender differences in separation–individuation, self-disclosure, and relationship perceptions.

	Male		Female
Variables	M	SE	M	SE	F(1, 473)	Partial η²
Amount	3.66	.11	4.14	.06	14.47***	.03
Depth	3.79	.12	4.11	.07	4.98*	.01
Honesty	4.42	.11	4.81	.07	8.48**	.02
Valence	4.63	.10	4.29	.06	7.74**	.02
Responsiveness	5.14	.10	5.43	.06	5.89*	.01
Satisfaction	5.21	.09	5.45	.05	5.12*	.01
Intimacy	4.74	.09	5.05	.06	8.27**	.02
Separation anxiety	3.72	.08	3.82	.05	1.31	.00
Engulfment anxiety	3.42	.10	3.12	.06	6.46*	.01
Dependency denial	2.97	.08	2.68	.05	10.84**	.02

Stars indicate significant gender differences (significance level: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001).

In SEM, a measurement model was constructed to validate the measures. While most items loaded on the prespecified constructs, two issues emerged. First, control of depth and honesty in self-disclosure were highly correlated (r = .67, p < .001) and loaded on the same factor in principal component analysis. Given that in close relationships, making honest self-disclosure could also mean having lower control of depth in self-disclosure, we collapsed the two constructs as control of depth. Second, intimacy and relationship satisfaction, the two indicators of relationship quality, were also highly correlated (r = .79, p < .001) but did not load on the same factor in principal component analysis. We instead added a latent construct of relationship quality and modeled intimacy and relationship satisfaction as second-order factors for relationship quality (for intimacy, λ = .98; for relationship satisfaction, λ = .92). The final measurement model achieved acceptable model fit: χ² = 2707.52, df = 1,385, χ²/df = 1.95; RMSEA = .04, 95% CI [.04, .05]; CFI = .91; SRMR = .07. Factor loadings of latent variables were invariant across gender (all Z-scores less than 1.96).

Self-disclosure, perceived parental responsiveness, and relationship quality

To validate the IPMI tenets, our structural model first modeled perceived parental responsiveness as a mediator between three self-disclosure dimensions (amount, control of depth, and valence) and relationship quality. All the model fit indices were within acceptable ranges: χ² = 1154.40, df = 411, χ²/df = 2.81; RMSEA = .06, 95% CI [.05, .06]; CFI = .92; SRMR = .08.

We then proceeded to interpret the path coefficients in the models. H1 proposed that perceptions of parental responsiveness would mediate the relationship between the young adults’ self-disclosure dimensions and parent–child relationship quality. In support for the mediation hypothesis, amount, control of depth, and valence positively predicted perceived parental responsiveness, which in turn positively predicted relationship quality (see Figure 2 for path coefficients). The indirect effects of self-disclosure dimensions were all significant, all p < .01; β_amount = .16, SE = .07, 95% CI [.05, 30]; β_depth = .22, SE = .06, 95% CI [.12, 31]; β_valence = .20, SE = .04, 95% CI [.13, 27]. The mediation effects were partial as amount, control of depth, and valence remained as positive predictors for relationship quality while controlling for the effect of perceived parental responsiveness (see Figure 2 for path coefficients). That is, young adults who self-disclosed frequently, intimately, and positively perceived greater relationship quality, and such effects also depended on the extent to which they perceived more positive responses from their parents.

Figure 2.

A structural model testing perceived parental responsiveness as a mediator between self-disclosure dimensions and relationship quality. Nonsignificant paths are not presented for simplicity; path coefficients presented are all significant. *p < .05; **p < .01; **p < .001.

The multigroup comparison suggested that such pattern of mediation held for both males and females. Significant differences were found for the effect of valence on responsiveness and the effect of control of depth on relationship quality. Valence showed a stronger relationship with perceived parental responsiveness among males (β = .58, SE = .16) than among females (β = .27, SE = .07), Z = 2.49. Relative to young women, young men’s perceptions of parental responsiveness depended more on their positive self-disclosure. Similarly, control of depth showed a stronger association with relationship quality among males (β = .57, SE = .16) than among females (β = .25, SE = .07), Z = 1.99. Relative to young women, young men’s perceptions of parent–child relationship quality were more associated with the intimate level of their self-disclosure.

Dysfunctional separation–individuation and self-disclosure

To investigate whether or not dysfunctional separation–individuation serves as a relational schema in parent–child communication, as proposed in Figure 1, the three sub-constructs of dysfunctional separation–individuation (engulfment anxiety, dependency denial, and separation anxiety) were added into the structural model. The model also demonstrated an acceptable fit: χ² = 3121.07, df = 1,599, χ²/df = 1.95; RMSEA = .04, 95% CI [.04, .05]; CFI = .90; SRMR = .07. Adding those variables did not change the pattern of mediation, so the results are not reported in detail (see Figure 3 for path coefficients).

Figure 3.

A structural model testing the effects of dysfunctional separation–individuation on the self-disclosure process. Nonsignificant paths are not presented for simplicity; path coefficients presented are all significant. *p < .05; **p < .01; **p <.001.

H2 proposed that dysfunctional independence should be associated with reduced self-disclosure. The results showed that engulfment anxiety was indeed negatively associated with amount (β = −.26, SE = .06) and control of depth (β = −.28, SE = .06) in self-disclosure, both significant at the p < .001 level. No significant relationship was found relating engulfment anxiety and valence (β = −.03, SE = .06, p = .70). However, dependency denial, the other indicator of dysfunctional independence, was not associated with any self-disclosure dimensions, all p > .08. Thus, H2 was thus only partially supported, with engulfment anxiety appearing to be an inhibitor for young adults to self-disclose to their parents.

H3 proposed that dysfunctional independence would be associated with lower perceptions of parental responsiveness and relationship quality. The results showed that both engulfment anxiety and dependency denial were negative predictors for perceptions of parental responsiveness (β_{engulfment anxiety} = −.22, SE = .05; β_{dependency denial} = −.15, SE = .06) and parent–child relationship quality (β_{engulfment anxiety} = −.09, SE = .03; β_{dependency denial} = −.10, SE = .04), all p < .05. Thus, H3 was supported.

Dysfunctional dependence, measured as separation anxiety, did not appear to predict self-disclosure except that it was associated with reduced positivity in self-disclosure (β = −.20, SE = .10, p < .01). However, this effect significantly differed by gender (Z = 2.42). Young women with a dysfunctionally dependent orientation were less likely to make positive self-disclosure to their parents (β = −.23, SE = .12, p < .01) but no such effect was found for young men (p = .63). Dysfunctional dependence did not appear to be associated with the perceptions of parental responsiveness and relationship quality (both ps > .33).

Discussion

Drawing on the IPMI (Reis & Shaver, 1988), the present study seeks to achieve a richer understanding of self-disclosure process in emerging adulthood by examining the role of perceived parental responsiveness and dysfunctional separation–individuation. The results confirm the importance of perceived responsiveness in linking self-disclosure and parent–child relationship quality in young adulthood. Dysfunctional independence has been identified as a relational schema that discourages young adults from disclosing to their parents and contributes to lower perceptions of parental responsiveness and relationship quality. Dysfunctional dependence, measured by separation anxiety, was associated with less positivity in young women’s self-disclosure. These findings offer several important theoretical contributions to the understanding maturation and parent–child relationship.

Perceived responsiveness and communication between parents and young adults

This study has been the first to empirically examine the role of perceived responsiveness in the relationship communication between young adults and their parents. The results of a survey of young adults in Hong Kong mostly support the central prediction that perceived responsiveness mediates the relationship between self-disclosure and relationship quality. Such results introduce a dyadic understanding of parent–child communication and highlight that parent–child relationship quality greatly depends on young adults’ perception of their parents as being responsive. It is noteworthy that during late adolescence and emerging adulthood, parents’ caring behavior is not necessarily interpreted as responding to properly one’s needs. Work by Collins, Laursen, Mortensen, Luebker, and Ferreira (1997) suggests that parents and young adults have different expectations with regard to the timing (e.g., leave home for college, get married) and means of developing independence (e.g., financial independence). What the parent considers an expression of caring (e.g., offering advice on career choices) can be interpreted as a privacy violation by the young adult, failing to respond to his or her perceived need for independence.

This further raises the issue of the accuracy of perceptions of parental responsiveness, particularly for adolescents and emerging adults. Studies have shown that parents and children are not very inaccurate in attributing one another’s behaviors and predicting one another’s responses to hypothetical situations (Sillars & Scott, 1983; Sillars, Smith, & Koerner, 2010). The findings here suggest that dysfunctional independence, the intensified need for autonomy and individuation, significantly reduces young adults’ perceptions of parental responsiveness and relationship quality. More systematic examination of perceptual accuracy in these situations is clearly required. Dyadic data from parents and children or by using a third party to code the actual communication is required to compare the parties’ perceptions about each other’s responses.

Dysfunctional separation–individuation and self-disclosure in emerging adulthood

Furthermore, the study contributes to our understanding of self-disclosures in parent–child communication in several meaningful ways. First, this study adds to this part of research by examining the population of young adults particularly in relation to separation–individuation, the most defining process in emerging adulthood. These results highlight dysfunctional independence (emphasizing independence over relatedness) as an individual trait that matters for young adults’ self-disclosure. Individuals who experience dysfunctional independence not only reduce the self-disclosure amount and control of depth when they communicate with their parents, they also perceive lower parental responsiveness and lower quality of parent–child relationship. Among two types of dysfunctional independence, engulfment anxiety appeared to be as a stronger factor than dependency denial in reducing young adults’ self-disclosure to their parents and lowering their relationship perceptions. We speculate that this pattern may result from a feeling that the loss of the self (the source of engulfment anxiety) is more threatening than overdependence on significant others (the source of dependency denial). This reasoning is likely to be culturally grounded. In collectivist societies like Hong Kong’s, for example, it is socially acceptable to remain dependent on significant others (Gnaulati & Heine, 2001).

Dysfunctional dependence, the tendency to sacrifice autonomy for relatedness, affects the self-disclosure valence whereby young women with high separation anxiety are more likely to disclose negative aspects of themselves to their parents. Because disclosure of negatives presents a vulnerable image which potentially solicits more attention and care from parents (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). This finding is also aligned with attachment literature that attachment-related anxiety motivates individuals to disclose problems and express negative feelings (Maunder et al., 2006). Other than that, though, no significant relationship between dysfunctional dependence and self-disclosure or between dysfunctional dependence and relationship perceptions was evident in the data. Future studies should consider systematically testing other dysfunctional dependent orientations (e.g., nurture seeking) in relation to self-disclosure to parents.

Some interesting gender differences were observed, although they were not a major concern of this study. As one may expect, young women reported high-quality parent–child communication than young men along most of the measures. Young men scored significantly higher on dysfunctional independence as a result of desired independence in men’s socialization (Kins et al., 2013). Their study did not find any gender difference in dysfunctional dependence as expected, probably because separation anxiety is less likely to occur in a collectivist society where young adults are expected to stay close to the family (Marshall, 2008; Scharf & Mayseless, 2005).

Limitations and future directions

Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, no strict causality among the constructs of interest could be established. For example, dysfunctional independence was posited to affect all the self-disclosure variables, and self-disclosure and perceived parental responsiveness were suggested to affect relationship quality, but it is also possible that estranged parent–child relationships inhibit self-disclosure to parents and exacerbate the dysfunctional separation–individuation. Theoretically, the proposed framework is self-perpetuating, with a relationship evolving over time. Longitudinal studies are encouraged to look at the self-disclosure process in emerging adulthood over time to explicate the causality among these constructs.

The differences observed between the mainland China students and the others, also mostly Chinese, suggest that the generalizability of these findings may be limited. Previous scholarly work has amply demonstrated the significant differences in self-disclosure, separation–individuation, and parent–child communication among cultures (Derlega et al., 1993; Gnaulati & Heine, 2001; Marshall, 2008). Future research needs to verify to what extent the self-disclosure process tested in this study operates differently across cultural contexts.

The study advanced our understanding of self-disclosure in parent–child communication by using a multidimensional conceptualization (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976) to capture the strategic nature of self-disclosure; however, the measurement structure did not turn out as the original conceptualization intended. The dimensions of honesty and control of depth loaded on the same factor and were collapsed in the analysis, while in previous studies that use the same conceptualization in the contexts of friendship and acquaintanceship, they appear to be distinctive dimensions (Leung, 2002; Myers & Johnson, 2004). This further leads to the concern of construct validity of multidimensional self-disclosure across relationship types. A possible explanation is in close relationships like parent–child relationship, the boundaries across honesty, and control of depth are highly permeable. Future research is clearly needed to test this speculation.

Conclusion

Built on the IPMI, this study examined the roles of perceived parental responsiveness and separation–individuation in the self-disclosure to parents in emerging adulthood, using the survey data collected in Hong Kong. Overall, these results extend the dyadic perspective of close relationships to parent–child communication during emerging adulthood, providing solid evidence that perceptions about parents’ responsiveness is a key factor relating self-disclosure to parents with better parent–child relationship quality. The study has also connected dysfunctional dependence in separation–individuation to reduced self-disclosure to parents and biased perceptions of parental responsiveness and parent–child relationship quality. The data also support the gender differences in self-disclosure, parent–child communication, and separation–individuation documented in previous research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by a research grant (Project No.: 7004482) from City University of Hong Kong.

References

Afifi

T. D.

McManus

Hutchinson

Baker

(2007). Inappropriate parental divorce disclosures, the factors that prompt them, and their impact on parents’ and adolescents’ well-being. Communication Monographs, 74, 78–102. doi:10.1080/03637750701196870

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Bauminger

Finzi-Dottan

Chason

Har-Even

(2008). Intimacy in adolescent friendship: The roles of attachment, coherence, and self-disclosure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 409–428. doi:10.1177/0265407508090866

Beatty

M. J.

Dobos

J. A.

(1992). Relationship between sons’ perceptions of fathers’ messages and satisfaction in adult son-father relationships. Southern Journal of Communication, 57, 277–284.

Blustein

D. L.

Walbridge

M. M.

Friedlander

M. L.

Palladino

D. E.

(1991). Contributions of psychological separation and parental attachment to the career development process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 39–50. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.39

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby

(2008). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bradford

S. A.

Feeney

J. A.

Campbell

(2002). Links between attachment orientations and dispositional and diary–based measures of disclosure in dating couples: A study of actor and partner effects. Personal Relationships, 9, 491–506. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00031

Canevello

Crocker

(2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 78–106. doi:10.1037/a0018186

10.

Caughlin

J. P.

Malis

R. S.

(2004). Demand/withdraw communication between parents and adolescents as a correlate of relational satisfaction. Communication Reports, 17, 59–71. doi:10.1080/08934210409389376

11.

Clark

M. S.

Lemay

E. P.

Jr (2010). Close relationships. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol 2, 5th ed., pp. 898–940). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

12.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

Mortensen

Luebker

Ferreira

(1997). Conflict processes and transitions in parent and peer relationships: Implications for autonomy and regulation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 178–198. doi:10.1177/0743554897122003

13.

Crocker

Canevello

(2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 555–575. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.555

14.

Derlega

V. J.

Metts

Petronio

Margulis

S. T.

(1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Dindia

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

Kenny

D. A.

(1997). Self-disclosure in spouse and stranger interaction: A social relations analysis. Human Communication Research, 23, 388–412. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00402.x

16.

Finkenauer

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Branje

S. J. T.

Meeus

(2004). Disclosure and relationship satisfaction in families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 195–209. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00013.x-i1

17.

Gibbs

J. L.

Ellison

N. B.

Heino

R. D.

(2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33, 152–177. doi:10.1177/0093650205285368

18.

Gnaulati

Heine

B. J.

(2001). Separation-individuation in late adolescence: An investigation of gender and ethnic differences. The Journal of Psychology, 135, 59–70. doi:10.1080/00223980109603680

19.

Grabill

C. M.

Kerns

K. A.

(2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Personal Relationships, 7, 363–378. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00022.x

20.

Greene

Derlega

V. J.

Mathews

(2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Perlman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 409–427). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Huston

T. L.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(1986). When the honeymoon’s over: Changes in the marriage relationship over the first year. In Gilmour

Duck

(Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 109–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

Jiang

C. L.

Bazarova

N. N.

Hancock

J. T.

(2011). The disclosure–intimacy link in computer-mediated communication: An attributional extension of the hyperpersonal model. Human Communication Research, 37, 58–77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01393.x

23.

Jiang

C. L.

Hancock

J. T.

(2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63, 556–577. doi:10.1111/jcom.12029

24.

Kanter

Afifi

Robbins

(2012). The impact of parents “friending” their young adult child on Facebook on perceptions of parental privacy invasions and parent–child relationship quality. Journal of Communication, 62, 900–917. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01669.x

25.

Karavasilis

Doyle

A. B.

Markiewicz

(2003). Associations between parenting style and attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 153–164.

26.

Kins

Beyers

Soenens

(2013). When the separation-individuation process goes awry: Distinguishing between dysfunctional dependence and dysfunctional independence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 1–12. doi:10.1177/0165025412454027

27.

Kins

Soenens

Beyers

(2012). Parental psychological control and dysfunctional separation–individuation: A tale of two different dynamics. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1099–1109. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.017

28.

Klasner

Pistole

M. C.

(2003). College adjustment in a multiethnic sample: Attachment, separation-individuation, and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 92–109. doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0006

29.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30.

Koepke

Denissen

J. J. A.

(2012). Dynamics of identity development and separation–individuation in parent–child relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood – A conceptual integration. Developmental Review, 32, 67–88. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.01.001

31.

Kruse

Walper

(2008). Types of individuation in relation to parents: Predictors and outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 390–400. doi:10.1177/0165025408093657

32.

Lapsley

D. K.

Rice

K. G.

Shadid

G. E.

(1989). Psychological separation and adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 286–294. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.3.286

33.

Laurenceau

Rivera

L. M.

Schaffer

A. R.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

(2004). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: Current status and future directions. In Mashek

Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 61–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

34.

Leung

(2002). Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ (“I seek you”) use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5, 241–251. doi:10.1089/109493102760147240

35.

Levine

J. B.

Green

C. J.

Millon

(1986). The separation-individuation test of adolescence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 123–139.

36.

Lucas

(1997). Identity development, career development, and psychological separation from parents: Similarities and differences between men and women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 123–132. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.44.2.123

37.

Lustig

M. W.

Koester

(2013). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

38.

M. L.-y.

Leung

(2006). Unwillingness-to-communicate, perceptions of the Internet and self-disclosure in ICQ. Telematics and Informatics, 23, 22–37.

39.

McClanahan

Holmbeck

G. N.

(1992). Separation-individuation, family functioning, and psychological adjustment in college students: A construct validity study of the separation-individuation test of adolescence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59, 468–485. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5903_4

40.

McManus

T. G.

Nussbaum

J. F.

(2013). Topic valence and ambiguity in parent-emerging adult child postdivorce discussions. Communication Studies, 64, 195–217. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.646085

41.

Marshall

T. C.

(2008). Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of gender-role ideology and individualism—collectivism. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 143–168. doi:10.1177/0265407507086810

42.

Maunder

R. G.

Lancee

W. J.

Nolan

R. P.

Hunter

J. J.

Tannenbaum

D. W.

(2006). The relationship of attachment insecurity to subjective stress and autonomic function during standardized acute stress in healthy adults. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 283–290. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.08.013

43.

Mayseless

Scharf

(2009). Too close for comfort: Inadequate boundaries with parents and individuation in late adolescent girls. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 191–202. doi:10.1037/a0015623

44.

Mikulincer

Nachshon

(1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321–331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.321

45.

Miller

R. S.

Lefcourt

H. M.

(1982). The assessment of social intimacy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 514–518.

46.

Myers

S. A.

(1998). Sibling communication satisfaction as a function of interpersonal solidarity, individualized trust, and self-disclosure. Communication Research Reports, 15, 309–317.

47.

Myers

S. A.

Johnson

A. D.

(2004). Perceived solidarity, self-disclosure, and trust in organizational peer relationships. Communication Research Reports, 21, 75–83. doi:10.1080/08824090409359969

48.

Papini

D. R.

Snell

W. E.

Jr Belk

S. S.

Clark

(2001). Developmental correlates of women's and men's sexual self-disclosures. In Snell

J. W. E.

(Ed.), New directions in the psychology of human sexuality: Research and theory. Cape Girardeau, MO: Snell Publication. Retrieved from http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/wesnell/books/sexuality/chap21.htm

49.

Petronio

(2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

50.

Reis

H. T.

(2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships, 14, 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00139.x

51.

Reis

H. T.

Clark

M. S.

Holmes

J. G.

(2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In Mashek

D. J.

Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

52.

Reis

H. T.

Maniaci

M. R.

Caprariello

P. A.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557.

53.

Reis

H. T.

Shaver

(1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck

Hay

D. F.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Ickes

Montgomery

B. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

54.

Scharf

Mayseless

(2005). An Israeli youth: What do they have in their lives? Their parents, their parents and their parents. In Rahav

Wozner

Wander-Schwartz

(Eds.), Youth in Israel (pp. 119–140). Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University.

55.

Schug

Yuki

Maddux

(2010). Relational mobility explains between-and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21, 1471–1478. doi:10.1177/0956797610382786

56.

Sillars

A. L.

Scott

M. D.

(1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: An integrative review. Human Communication Research, 10, 153–176. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00009.x

57.

Sillars

A. L.

Smith

Koerner

(2010). Misattributions contributing to empathic (in)accuracy during parent-adolescent conflict discussions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 727–747. doi:10.1177/0265407510373261

58.

Tenzek

K. E.

Herrman

A. R.

May

A. R.

Feiner

Allen

(2013). Examining the impact of parental disclosure of HIV on children: A meta-analysis. Western Journal of Communication, 77, 323–339. doi:10.1080/10570314.2012.719092

59.

Tilton-Weaver

(2013). Adolescents’ information management: Comparing ideas about why adolescents disclose to or keep secrets from their parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0008-4

60.

Tokić

Pećnik

(2011). Parental behaviors related to adolescents’ self-disclosure: Adolescents’ views. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 201–222. doi:10.1177/0265407510382320

61.

Wheeler

H. A.

Wintre

M. G.

Polivy

(2003). The association of low parent-adolescent reciprocity, a sense of incompetence, and identity confusion with disordered eating. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 405–429. doi:10.1177/0743558403018004005

62.

Wheeless

L. R.

Grotz

(1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2, 338–346. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00494.x