Family communication patterns and relationship quality between emerging adults and their parents

Abstract

Few researchers have examined how family communication patterns influence child help-seeking behaviors and child help-providing behaviors in relation to the parent-child relationship during the period of emerging adulthood. In the current study we utilized a latent profile analysis to determine family communication pattern types from two standard communication orientations (i.e., conversation orientation and conformity orientation). We also examined how pattern types were associated with parent-emerging adult relationship quality and help/support seeking/providing behavior within the family during the period of emerging adulthood as reported by emerging adults (n = 129) and one of their parental figures (n = 129). The data supported two family communication types (i.e., protective and pluralistic) created from conversation and conformity orientation scores and we utilized them to differentiate between relationship qualities and help/support seeking/providing behavior when those behaviors were reported by emerging adults but not their parental figures.

Keywords

Conformity conversation emerging adult family communication patterns parent-child relationship quality

Researchers have demonstrated that the way a family communicates during childhood creates communication schemas (or communication patterns) that are utilized throughout the lifespan (High & Scharp, 2015; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002; Shearman & Dumlao, 2008). Specifically, communication schemas are mental representations that include the experiences of family communication and reactions to communication that inform on an individual’s communication behavior with that family member(s). Family Communication Patterns (FCP) Theory posits that the way a family communicates is related to a myriad of family-related variables including family cohesion, parenting styles, family values, informational processing, and behavioral and psychological outcomes of children within the family (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006; Schrodt et al., 2008). Similarly, the way a family communicates impacts the socialization of interpersonal behaviors through conversation and/or conformity communication within the family structure (Schrodt et al., 2008).

Many researchers who examine the association between FCP and outcomes have relied on median splits or moderation analyses, which may not fully capture FCP typologies that actually exist within the data (e.g., pluralistic, protective, laisse-faire, or consensual). Further, researchers have examined the ways that FCP predict interpersonal conflict (Dumlao & Botta, 2000; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997) and disclosure (Afifi & Olson, 2005) behaviors throughout the lifespan. However, few have examined how the perception of FCP influences child help-seeking behaviors and child help-providing behaviors in relation to the parent-child relationship. Examining the influence of FCP on parent-emerging adult relationship quality may shed light on how relationship quality and help/support seeking/providing behavior have been shown to be associated with various physical and mental health outcomes (e.g., Szkody & McKinney, 2019).

The Current Study

Hypothesis 1

We hypothesized that an LPA would identify the group membership for the FCP typologies (i.e., protective, laisse-faire, pluralistic, and consensual) based off the two orientations (i.e., conformity and conversational). The LPA would classify FCP type membership as supported by the data within the sample.

Hypothesis 2

Parenting styles as perceived by emerging adults would be influenced similarly to theorized predictions by Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002). Protective FCP type (i.e., high conformity/low conversation) would be associated with authoritative parenting; pluralistic FCP type (i.e., low conformity/high conversation) would be associated with permissive parenting.

Hypothesis 3

The FCP conformity orientation would be positively associated with conflict, and conversation would be positively associated with help/support seeking/providing and disclosure.

Hypothesis 4

The latent profiles of FCP protective and laisse-faire types would be associated with lower scores on help-seeking, support from parents, and disclosure. Pluralistic and consensual types would be associated with lower scores on conflict.

Hypothesis 5

Conformity would be positively associated with parent-reported conflict.

Hypothesis 6

Conversation would be positively associated with parent-reported help-seeking, perception of available social support, and disclosure.

Hypothesis 7

Parent report of the same relationship qualities (i.e., conflict, social support, help-seeking, and disclosure behaviors) would show the same associations with emerging adult-report of FCP types as those found in the emerging adult-report.

Family communication patterns theory

Studies concerning FCP have examined several parent-child relationship and behavioral outcomes including conflict avoidance, disclosure with parents, parenting styles, discipline messages, and communication satisfaction. Conformity orientation has been associated positively with conflict avoidance (Dumlao & Botta, 2000; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997), authoritarian and permissive parenting style (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), discipline messages (Burleson et al., 1995), and pressure and conflict with fathers (Sillars et al., 2014) and associated negatively with disclosure (Afifi & Olson, 2005) and conflictual independence (i.e., guilt or anxiety toward parents; Orrego & Rodriguez, 2001).

Past researchers have focused on the conformity orientation as a negative familial element, citing definitions that highlight obedience, power hierarchies, and a focus on family values while limiting individual growth (Hesse et al., 2017). However, recent researchers have reconceptualized the conformity orientation (Hesse et al., 2017; Horstman et al., 2018). Newer conceptualizations focus on the positive side of the conformity orientation. Specifically, adherence and competent application of rules and control may promote well-being and confidence among children and young adults (Hesse et al., 2017). New measures were created to examine the multidimensional nature of the conformity orientation that examined both the positive and negative qualities (Hesse et al., 2017; Horstman et al., 2018). These measures examined facets of conformity that were associated with negative outcomes as well as conformity that was associated with control and rulemaking that promoted warmth and support. However, due to limited research on the influence of the conformity orientation on conflict, help/support seeking and providing behaviors, and disclosure, in the current study we utilized the RFCP version of conformity orientation (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002) to be able to compare the current study findings to a larger set of research on emerging adults and their parental relationships.

Conversation orientation has been associated positively with parent-child communication satisfaction (Punyanunt-Carter, 2008; Shearman & Dumlao, 2008), collaborating and confronting parents during conflict (Dumlao & Botta, 2000; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997), authoritative parenting (Hesse et al., 2017), and disclosure to parents (Afifi & Olson, 2005). The conversation orientation often is used as a supportive communication orientation (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006). Thus, individuals whose families score high on the conversation orientation should report more social support from family members. Likewise, help-seeking behaviors have been linked to perceptions of available social support (Mortenson, 2009). Similarly, families high on the conversation orientation may be associated with higher levels of support seeking behavior as the orientation has been associated with disclosure, open communication, and problem solving (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006).

The two orientations have used to create four FCP types in previous literature. Families high on both orientations were labeled as consensual and seek a balance between family values and openness (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006; McLeod & Chaffee, 1972). Families with low conformity scores and high conversation scores were labeled as pluralistic and focus on the parent-child relationship, whereas families with high conformity scores and low conversational scores were labeled protective and focused on obedience and conformity with family values (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006). Lastly, families with low scores on both dimensions were labeled as laisse-faire and represented families that have little to no communication patterns and may have unstable parent-child relationships.

These FCP types also have been associated with parenting styles (i.e., authoritarian, permissive, or authoritative). Conversation orientation, and positive communication in general, has been associated with authoritative parenting (i.e., being supportive and warm while also being demanding and setting boundaries). Perhaps due to the negative view of the conformity orientation, this orientation has been associated with both authoritarian (i.e., demanding with warmth) and permissive (e.g., warmth and undemanding) parenting styles (Hamon & Schrodt, 2012).

Parent-child relationship qualities and help-seeking behaviors

Few researchers have examined the impact of FCP on help-seeking behaviors (High & Scharp, 2015), parent-child relationship qualities, or perception of support from parental figures. In one such study researchers examined FCP and help-seeking behaviors in emerging adults and found that a high family conversation orientation was associated positively with an individual’s ability and motivation to seek social support, whereas the conformity orientation was associated negatively with the ability to seek support (High & Scharp, 2015). It appears that no studies have been used to examine the continued influence of FCP during emerging adulthood on these parent-child factors. Recently, researchers have found that parental figures continue to play an important role in the well-being and support of their emerging adult children (McKinney & Brown, 2017; McKinney et al., 2018). Researchers of the FCP theory in emerging adulthood have mainly focused on the impact of parent-child communication on college adjustment (Orrego & Rodriguez, 2001) and relationships with romantic partners (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). However, few, if any, researchers have examined the facets of disclosure and conflict during this period, nor the additional facets of help-providing behaviors and help-seeking behaviors between parents and their emerging adult children. During emerging adulthood (i.e., ages 18 to 25; Arnett, 2000), emerging adults often move out of the home, begin to enter adulthood, and engage in long-term intimate relationships. This transitional period also signals a time when many emerging adults turn to their parents once more for support in their new adult environment (Pettit et al., 2011). For example, Individuation Theory researchers suggest that adolescents begin to “emerge” and individuate from their family members (Laursen & Collins, 2009), whereas Life Course Theory researchers emphasize how recent cultural changes (e.g., individuals waiting longer to get married or have children) have resulted in a longer period of transition from childhood into adulthood (Hutchison, 2011).

As emerging adults seek support from their parents, it is important to evaluate FCP within this period on parent-child relationship qualities including disclosure, conflict, and help/support seeking/providing behaviors. During emerging adulthood, individuals may rely on parents for key informational and emotional support as they transition to having more responsibility and establishing more autonomy (Arnett, 2000). Furthermore, emerging adults continue to turn to their parents for support and begin to serve as an additional support system for their parents during this transition (Pettit et al., 2011). Emerging adults may be able to begin to provide informational, emotional, and instrumental support to family members as they move into the work force and expand upon their education. During the transition to adulthood, parents and adult children are encouraged to reexamine family dynamics such as communication, as emerging adult children take on more adult responsibilities and develop into adults.

Those with a positive relationship with their parent (e.g., high disclosure, low conflict, and high support seeking behavior) may utilize parents as a base of support more often than an individual with a poor relationship with their parent (e.g., low disclosure, high conflict; Corry & Leavey, 2017). In addition, good relationships with parents are associated with a wide variety of positive health outcomes including better mental and physical overall health (e.g., Szkody & McKinney, 2019). Thus, in the current study we examined the influence of the two FCP orientations and family types (i.e., as assessed through latent profile analysis [LPA]) on these parent-child factors among emerging adults to address the gap in the literature. Understanding how family communication patterns facilitate these relational changes or differences may help to further clarify the pathways that result in poor health outcomes and predict changes in the family environment during emerging adulthood.

Families who have a higher conversational orientation are more skilled at collaborative problem solving and open communication, which can increase perceived levels of support in family relationships, whereas those higher in conformity orientation have a hierarchical structure that may limit the perceived openness between parents and children (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014; Schrodt et al., 2007; Schrodt & Phillips, 2016). Researchers have indicated that parent-child agreement on FCP orientation differs by gender and age. Specifically, in one study researchers found that females and/or mother-child dyads agreed with their parents more on the conversation orientation, whereas males and/or father-child dyads agreed more on the conformity orientations. In addition, parent-child agreement increased with age (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990; Tims & Masland, 1985), suggesting that emerging adults and their parents may agree on the impact of FCP on relationship quality (i.e., disclosure, conflict, and help-seeking/providing behaviors), yet studies have not examined the agreement on these variables with FCP type. Thus, in the current study we examined the association between emerging adult identified FCP and both emerging adult-reported and parent-reported parent-child relationship qualities (i.e., disclosure, conflict, and help-seeking/providing behaviors) to examine both views of the impact of FCP on these variables. In addition, we addressed key gaps in the literature regarding the association between emerging adult perceptions of FCP (i.e., using an LPA to determine FCP types) and help-seeking/providing behaviors between emerging adults and their parents, as well as replicated previous research that examined the role of FCP on parent-child conflict.

Latent profile analysis of FCP

In the past, researchers have utilized the FCP orientations (i.e., conformity and conversation) to create FCP types (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006; Schrodt et al., 2008), often using a median split or moderation analysis. Recognizing problems with the use of a median split strategy to identify FCP group membership, Ritchie and Fitzpatrick (1990) utilized both parent and child reports of FCP in a cluster analysis and identified seven types (i.e., pluralistic, protective, and five mixed groups). Due to the mixed groupings and large sample size needed to produce equal groups for analysis, the cluster analysis approach has been rarely used in FCP research (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Fitzpatrick and Ritchie (1994) also theoretically combined measures of social structure and communication to identify three types (i.e., structural traditionalism, expressiveness, and conflict avoidance) that have since been mapped onto the previous four types, although they are rarely used within the FCP literature (Schrodt et al., 2008). Other researchers have noted that the interaction of the two orientations does indeed identify types, but early literature relied heavily on the median splits of the two orientations to examine their influence on topics of interest (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Later, researchers have examined these interactions using moderation analyses that utilize the two orientations (i.e., conformity and conversation orientation) to create different FCP types (e.g., Hamon & Schrodt, 2012). To address the issue of the median split to identify FCP, we used an LPA in the current study to determine FCP types (according to emerging adult perceptions) to examine the role of FCP types on perceived availability of social support, help-seeking, and parent-child conflict in emerging adulthood. Furthermore, utilizing an LPA allowed for the examination of the naturally occurring FCP types within the data, which may shed light on the family communication environment. Thus, we hypothesized that an LPA would identify the group membership for the FCP typologies (i.e., protective, laisse-faire, pluralistic, and consensual) based off the two orientations (i.e., conformity and conversational). Further, we hypothesized that we would be able to use the FCP types from the LPA to further examine the differences between types across parent-child relationship qualities and parenting styles.

Method

Procedure

Upon approval from the Institutional Review Board, psychology undergraduate students at a large Southern university could view the study through an online research system where they could select a study to participate from a list of psychological studies in exchange for credit. Participants received the option to read through an informed consent document before either proceeding to the survey or withdrawing from the study. Participants received measures in random order and received instructions asking for them to report based on their current perceptions. After completing the survey or withdrawing from the study, participants received a debriefing page. Students received additional credit if their parents completed an additional survey. Parents completed similar survey materials following the same procedure as students. All participants completed the study within the ethical guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association.

Participants

Participants consisted of 129 emerging adults between the ages of 18 to 25 (M = 18.36, SD = 0.93; 56.6% male) and their parents between the ages of 35 to 64 (M = 48.57, SD = 5.49; 33.7% male). Thus, 21 father-son dyads, 11 father-daughter dyads, 43 mother-son dyads, and 54 mother-daughter dyads participated. The emerging adult sample consisted of 76% White, 16.3% Black, 3.1% Asian, and 4.7% Hispanic/Latinx individuals. Emerging adults mostly reported being freshmen (80.6%) and sophomores (11.6%). Emerging adults reported that 17.1% of their mothers completed a high school degree, 17.1% completed a 2-year degree, 38.8% completed a 4-year degree, and 26.4% completed a graduate degree or higher. Emerging adults claimed that 20.2% of their fathers completed a high school degree, 13.2% completed a 2-year degree, 37.2% completed a 4-year degree, and 27.1% completed a graduate degree or higher. Emerging adults reported that 93.8% were raised by their biological father and 97.7% were raised by their biological mother. When reporting on contact with parental figures, 46.5% of emerging adult participants reported daily contact with their mother and 31% reported daily contact with their father.

In addition, 129 parents completed measures. Parents ranged in age from 35 to 64 (M = 48.53, SD = 5.54; 70% female). The parent sample consisted of 80.9% White, 14.8% Black or African American, 1.7% Asian, and 2.6 Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin. Parents reported 40.9% of their mothers completed a high school degree, 13.9% completed a 2-year degree, 25.2% completed a 4-year degree, and 10.4% completed a graduate degree or higher. Parents reported 44.3% of their fathers completed a high school degree, 7.8% completed a 2-year degree, 23.5% completed a 4-year degree, and 13.9% completed a graduate degree or higher.

Measures

Revised family communication patterns (RFCP)

The RFCP (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002) consists of 26 Likert scaled items across two orientations: conversation (e.g., In our family we often talk about our feelings and emotions) and conformity (e.g., In our home, my parents usually have the last word). Emerging adult participants rated each item on a scale from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 5 (Agree strongly). Good construct validity has been established in previous studies (see introduction for studies that have utilized the RFCP) and the internal consistency alphas for the current study ranged from .78 to .91.

Parental authority questionnaire (PAQ)

The Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ; Buri, 1991) contained 30 questions loading onto permissive (e.g., my mother feels that in a well-run home the children should have their way in the family as often as the parents do), authoritarian (e.g., I know what my mother expects of me in the family and she insists that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority), and authoritative (e.g., if my mother makes a decision in the family that hurts me, she is willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit it if she had made a mistake) scales. Emerging adult participants rated each statement according to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Good reliability and convergent and criterion-related validity have been established (Buri, 1991). For the current study, Cronbach alphas ranged from .75. to .90.

Network of relationships inventory (NRI)

The NRI (Furman & Buhrmester, 2009) consists of items on several sub-dimensions of relationship quality pertaining to the emerging adult’s relationship with their mothers and fathers and parents’ ratings for relationship with their child. For each person, participants rated the items on a scale between 1 (Never or hardly at all) and 5 (Always or extremely much). For the current study, the subscales score for conflict (e.g., How often do you and this person disagree and quarrel with each other?), intimate disclosure (e.g., How often do you tell this person things that you don’t want others to know?), seek safe haven (e.g., How much do you seek out this person when you’re upset?), provide safe haven (e.g., How much does this person turn to you for comfort and support when he/she is troubled about something?), seek secure base (e.g., How much does this person show support for your activities?) and provide secure base (e.g., How much do you show support for this person’s activities?) were collected from both emerging adult-report on their relationship with their parents (both mother and father) and a parent’s report on their relationship with their emerging adult child. Seeking secure base and seeking a safe haven subscales were used to examine help/support seeking behaviors, and providing a secure base and providing a safe haven subscales were used to examine help/support providing behaviors. Each subscale consisted of 3 items each. Good construct validity has been established in previous studies and the internal consistency alphas for the current study ranged from .79 to .90.

Data analysis

We conducted Bayesian LPA to determine the family communication typologies using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to obtain likelihood estimates with AMOS 25.0. We calculated family typologies using scores from the conformity orientation and conversation orientation subscales from the emerging adults’ report on the R-FCP. LPA identifies distinct latent profiles based on observed continuous variables (Muthén & Muthén, 2000). We conducted two-group, three-group, and four-group solutions using 55,500 samples to capture the four-group solution originally proposed by Ritchie and Fitzpatrick (1990; i.e. protective, laisse-faire, pluralistic, and consensual). Fit indices provided by AMOS included the Gelman et al. (2004) convergence criteria of <1.10 and posterior predictive p-value of 0.50 as well as Nagin’s (2005) criterion of posterior probabilities of correct class assignment >0.70.

We conducted a MANCOVA with SPSS 25.0 to examine the effects of family communication typologies identified in the LPA across emerging adult-report of parenting style. Covariates included gender, parental education, household structure, and ethnicity. Additional MANCOVA models were run, including one for emerging adult-report of help-seeking, conflict, support from parents, and disclosure to parents and another to account for parent report of the same variables (i.e., one multivariate effect for emerging adult perspective and one multivariate effect for parent perspective). Due to the literature showing that demographic factors affect family environments among the observed variables, covariates included parental education, household structure, parent gender, child gender, parent age, and ethnicity. Partial η² served as the measure of effect size for the MANCOVAs, where values of 0.01 to 0.04, 0.04 to 0.14, and greater than 0.14 are considered small, medium, and large, respectively (Cohen, 1988). We tested Hypotheses 3 and 5 with correlations.

Results

We assessed multicollinearity between emerging adult-reports of conformity or conversation orientation and parent-reported relationship quality variables of help/support seeking/providing behaviors. The variance inflation factors fell within acceptable limits (i.e., <1.2). Only the emerging adult participant reported on FCP, which resulted in a limitation from using a cross-level analysis of the emerging adult and parent report of relationship quality. We added emerging adult-reports of relationships quality to the MANCOVA as covariates to control for their influence on parent-reported variables, but they were not significantly associated with either orientation or FCP type.

Hypothesis 1

In hypothesis one we examined the use of an LPA to identify the four FCP types (i.e., protective, laisse-faire, pluralistic, and consensual) based on the two orientations (i.e., conformity and conversational) and our hypothesis was partially supported. LPA group solutions are shown in Table 1. The four- and three-group solutions resulted in convergence statistics >1.02, which was insufficient for AMOS but less than Gelman and colleagues (2004) convergence criteria of <1.10. Moreover, the three- and four-group solutions did not accurately capture the types suggested by Ritchie and Fitzpatrick (1990). The two-group solution resulted in a convergence statistic of <1.0001 for the LPA, satisfying the Gelman and colleagues (2004) convergence criteria of <1.10 as well as the more conservative convergence criteria of <1.02 used by AMOS, and a posterior predictive p-value of .60, indicating that the solution has a very high likelihood of being reproduced through resampling. Group membership was determined with a posterior predictive value >.70 as suggested by Nagin (2005). Furthermore, the two-group solution was similar to previous analyses which found only the top family communication types (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990) for pluralistic and protective communication types (i.e., high conformity with low conversation or low conformity with high conversation). Thus, the two-group solution was utilized for analysis in the MANCOVA.

Table 1.
LPA group statistics.

Solution (Proportion of Sample) Convergence Statistic Posterior Predictive P-Value Conformity M (SD) Conversation M (SD)

1-Group <1.0001 0.57 3.18 (0.06) 3.52 (0.07)

2-Group <1.0001 0.60

Group 1 (51%) 3.37 (0.64) 2.99 (0.59)

Group 2 (49%) 2.97 (0.65) 4.07 (0.36)

3-Group 1.0210 0.62

Group 1 (37%) 3.08 (0.35) 3.68 (0.24)

Group 2 (43%) 3.55 (0.51) 2.75 (0.16)

Group 3 (20%) 3.31 (0.10) 3.16 (0.16)

4-Group 1.0200 0.64

Group 1 (24%) 3.36 (0.09) 3.13 (0.15)

Group 2 (28%) 3.14 (0.06) 3.54 (0.09)

Group 3 (23%) 3.40 (0.09) 3.13 (0.16)

Group 4 (25%) 3.31 (0.07) 3.33 (0.13)

Note: The 2-Group solution was accepted. Group 1 in the 2-Group solution was identified as the protective FCP typology (i.e., high conformity and low conversation orientation) and Group 2 in the 2-Group solution was identified as the pluralistic FCP typology (i.e., high conversation and low conformity orientation).

Hypothesis 2

In hypothesis 2 we examined the association between parenting styles and FCP types and our hypothesis was partially supported. Results of the MANCOVA using emerging adult-reported family communication types to predict maternal and paternal parenting styles are shown in Table 2. Gender, Wilk’s Λ = .862, F(6, 103) = 2.74, p = .016, partial η² = .138, and biological father in the home, Wilk’s Λ = .849, F(6, 103) = 3.06, p = .009, partial η² = .151, were significant covariates. Family typology (i.e., pluralistic vs. protective) had an effect on emerging adult-reported maternal and paternal parenting styles, Wilk’s Λ = .678, F(6, 103) = 8.14, p < .001, partial η² = .322. Specifically, pluralistic family communication typology coincided with higher levels of maternal permissive parenting, maternal authoritarian parenting, and paternal authoritarian parenting. Similarly, a protective family communication typology coincided with higher levels of paternal authoritative parenting. No other associations were significant.

Table 2.
Family communication typology on emerging adult-report of maternal and paternal parenting styles.

Parenting Style Protective Pluralistic

F partial η² M(SE) M(SE)

Paternal Permissive 3.42 0.03 25.10(0.82) 27.28(0.83)

Paternal Authoritative* 6.06 0.05 35.13(0.97) 31.71(0.97)

Paternal Authoritarian* 25.08 0.19 33.83(0.75) 39.21(0.75)

Maternal Permissive* 6.17 0.05 25.66(0.76) 28.36(0.76)

Maternal Authoritative 0.24 0.00 31.49(0.99) 30.80(0.10)

Maternal Authoritarian* 26.84 0.19 33.79(0.77) 39.51(0.78)

Note: * indicates p < .01.

Hypothesis 3

In hypothesis 3 we examined the correlations between FCP type and emerging adult-reports of conflict, support, help-seeking, and disclosure behaviors. Correlations between observed relationship quality variables are shown in Table 3. Contrary to our hypothesis, conformity orientation and conversation orientation were negatively associated with conflict with either parent (i.e., mother or father). Yet, consistent with Hypothesis 3, conversation orientation was positively associated with all support seeking and providing behaviors to/from either parent as well as disclosure with either parent, whereas conformity orientation was negatively associated with seeking safe haven from mother, seeking secure base from mother, and providing a safe base for mother.

Table 3.
Correlations for emerging adult-report of FCP orientations and relationship qualities.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14

1. Conformity Orientation —

2. Conversation Orientation −.37* —

3. Disclosure—Mother −.26* .54* —

4. Disclosure—Father −.12 .50* .62* —

5. Conflict—Mother −.18* −.22* −.22* −.09 —

6. Conflict—Father −.18* −.24* .12 −.05 .37* —

7. Seek Secure Base—Mother −.19* .51* .41* .17 −.26* −.10 —

8. Seek Secure Base—Father −.12 .54* .29* .43* −.12 −.15 .59* —

9. Seek Safe Haven—Mother −.24* .59* .75* .41* −.16 .09 .55* .37* —

10. Seek Safe Haven—Father −.04 .53* .44* .80* −.10 −.11 .29* .65* .52* —

11. Provide Secure Base—Mother −.07 .39* .39* .40* −.16 −.03 .49* .46* .50* .40* —

12. Provide Secure Base—Father −.05 .49* .33* .53* −.14 −.14 .41* .74* .36* .66* .72* —

13. Provide Safe Haven—Mother −.19* .28* .48* .44* −.05 .10 .24* .22* .45* .35* .53* .38* —

14. Provide Safe Haven—Father −.14 .42* .45* .68* −.12 −.03 .24* .51* .40* .64* .48* .63* .71* —

Note: * indicates p < .05.

Hypothesis 4

In hypothesis 4 we utilized the groups identified in the LPA to examine differences on conflict, help/support seeking/providing, and disclosure behaviors, and the results were consistent with our hypothesis. Table 4 displays the results of the MANCOVA on emerging adult-reported family communication types and their association with social support seeking, providing, disclosure, and conflict with parents. Gender, Wilk’s Λ = .813, F(12, 103) = 1.98, p = .033, partial η² = .187, biological father in the home, Wilk’s Λ = .745, F(12, 103) = 2.93, p = .002, partial η² = .255, and biological mother in the home, Wilk’s Λ = .809, F(12, 103) = 2.03, p = .029, partial η² = .191, were significant covariates. Family typology (i.e., pluralistic vs. protective) had an effect on emerging adult social support seeking, providing, disclosure, and conflict with parents, Wilk’s Λ = .547, F(12, 103) = 7.12, p < .001, partial η² = .453. Specifically, emerging adults from families with the protective family communication style reported significantly lower support seeking from either mother or father, less provision of support to mother or father, less disclosure to mother or father, and more conflict with mother or father than individuals who reported a pluralistic family.

Table 4.
Family communication typology on emerging adult-report of relationships with parents MANCOVA.

Protective Pluralistic

F partial η² M(SE) M(SE)

Seek Base—Father 18.06 0.14 3.97(0.10) 4.57(0.10)

Seek Base—Mother 19.53 0.15 4.12(0.07) 4.60(0.07)

Seek Haven—Father 33.36 0.23 2.79(0.13) 3.88(0.13)

Seek Haven—Mother 47.55 0.29 3.15(0.11) 4.25(0.11)

Provide Base—Father 21.88 0.16 3.46(0.11) 4.22(0.11)

Provide Base—Mother 19.23 0.14 3.71(0.09) 4.31(0.10)

Provide Haven—Father 18.10 0.14 2.36(0.13) 3.18(0.14)

Provide Haven—Mother 10.88 0.09 2.87(0.12) 3.44(0.12)

Disclosure—Father 24.80 0.18 2.18(0.13) 3.09(0.13)

Disclosure—Mother 34.82 0.23 2.51(0.12) 3.56(0.13)

Conflict—Father 12.89 0.10 2.71(0.11) 2.13(0.11)

Conflict—Mother 11.21 0.09 2.89(0.11) 2.35(0.12)

Note. All p < .001.

Hypothesis 5

Table 5 displays correlations between observed relationship quality variables reported by parents and emerging adult-report of FCP orientations. Contrary to Hypothesis 5, conformity orientation was not significantly associated with parent reported conflict.

Table 5.
Correlations for emerging adult-report of FCP orientations and parent-reported relationship qualities.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. Conformity Orientation —

2. Conversation Orientation −.37* —

3. Disclosure—Child −.17 .12 —

4. Conflict—Child .14 −.02 .10 —

5. Seek Secure Base—Child −.10 .11 .55* −.15 —

6. Seek Safe Haven—Child −.13 .12 .82* .02 .58* —

7. Provide Secure Base—Child −.07 .07 .14 −.11 .62* .22* —

18. Provide Safe Haven—Child −.04 .20 .34* .00 .51* .39* .57* —

Note: * indicates p < .05.

Hypothesis 6

Similarly, the conversation orientation was not significantly associated with any relationship quality as reported by parents (i.e., social support, help-seeking, and disclosure behaviors; see Table 5 for results).

Hypothesis 7

Lastly, results of the MANCOVA using emerging adult-reported family communication types to predict parent-reported social support seeking, providing, disclosure, and conflict with their emerging adult child were not significant, Wilk’s Λ = .847, F(6, 69) = 2.08, p = 0.07, partial η² = .153. Covariates of child age, parent and child gender, race, household structure, and parent education also were not significant.

Discussion

In the current study we examined the influence of the two FCP orientations and family types (i.e., as assessed through LPA) on parenting styles and parent-child factors among emerging adults. We extended previous research on FCP in several ways. First, the study utilized an LPA to classify family types according to emerging adult perceptions of FCP within the sample. The LPA identified two FCP types, protective and pluralistic, instead of the four types suggested by Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002). Second, we examined how these two FCP types supported by the data in the current study mapped onto parenting styles as perceived by emerging adult children and found that the two types mapped differently for maternal parenting styles compared to paternal parenting styles. Lastly, we also examined how FCP orientations and the two FCP types supported by the LPA mapped onto various aspects of the parent-child relationship and found mixed support for the differentiation of the conformity and conversation orientations on each relationship quality, depending on the reporter’s role in the family (i.e., if they were the parent or emerging adult child).

Family types and parenting styles

Our results from the use of the two types supported by LPA were consistent with previous research that identified a Southern United States parenting style that is both warm/supportive and authoritarian, sometimes referred to as “strict” (McKinney & Brown, 2017). Pluralistic FCP, which was theorized to be associated with permissive and authoritative parenting, was associated with higher levels of permissive and authoritarian parenting. Southern families report a higher conformity orientation, consistent with more collectivist cultures and contrary to the individualistic culture of much of the United States (Vandello & Cohen, 1999). Collectivist cultures, such as that in the Southern United States, value the family hierarchy, have high respect for their elders, and value family honor. Studies on parenting styles of emerging adult parents in the South have found that authoritarian and authoritative parenting are not inversely related as previously theorized and found in other samples (e.g., Northeast United States, Central Florida, etc.; McKinney & Brown, 2017; McKinney et al., 2018).

Specifically, Southern parents may be using parenting techniques that are characteristic of both parenting styles and that may have positive benefits such as increased support, warmth, or communication. Thus, Southern parents may be exhibiting a parenting style that emphasizes strict rules or social hierarchies to support family honor while also being supportive of their children. It is important to note that the Southern United Stated is relatively individualistic in comparison to primarily collectivistic countries. However, a similar parenting style is evident in other collectivist cultures (e.g., China) where parents utilize strict rules and control over their children with the goal to provide a harmonious family environment but also show love and devotion to their children through guidance and involvement (Chao, 1994). The cultural difference found in these previous studies is supported by the results of the current study, as the authoritarian parenting styles were associated with a pluralistic FCP typology that theory would suggest is more relationship-focused, higher in support, and encourages communication within the family unit. In addition, newer literature has suggested a change in measurement of the conformity orientation to include positive qualities associated with dominance, hierarchies, and rulemaking that promote warmth and support in the family environment (e.g., Hesse et al., 2017).

This change in measurement (i.e., evaluating the conformity orientation to include both positive and negative qualities) may be reflecting differences in cultural values or with perceptions attached to the orientation values. Specifically, the values of the conformity orientation, such as dominance and rulemaking, may be perceived as being supportive and providing structure. For example, having rules put in place or strict guidance may be perceived as helpful and signs that a parent cares for the emerging adult’s well-being and quality of life. Indeed, these findings are in line with literature that suggests that the collectivistic cultures are developing more individualistic values, whereas some individualistic cultures are developing more collectivistic values (Parker et al., 2009), which may indicate a change in past perspectives associated with the conformity orientation. The findings in the current study give further support to the newer evaluation of the conformity orientation that suggests that conformity may not always be a negative concept and may promote healthy family environments.

Furthermore, parenting styles are a philosophy of closely related behaviors enacted by parents to create a socialization environment within the family (Baumrind, 2005). Different FCP orientations and types may be a tool that parents utilize to construct this socialization environment. However, a bi-directional effect may also be at play. For example, FCP may inform on the parenting philosophy and style within the home as well. As both parenting styles and FCP are defined by warmth, rulemaking, and enforcing, and that socialization environment, it would make sense that these variables may be related. Similarly, these two factors may mirror the same constructs, and future work may endeavor to evaluate this overlap in more detail. Due to the bi-directional nature of these variables, temporality and causality may be difficult to determine.

Family types and help-seeking behaviors

The two FCP groups (i.e., pluralistic and protective) significantly differed across support and help-seeking behaviors in the parent-child relationship when reported by emerging adults. Specifically, conformity orientation and thus protective FCP typology were associated with less support and help-seeking behavior, whereas conversation orientation and pluralistic FCP typology were associated with more support and help-seeking behavior. Previous studies also reported similar associations between protective and pluralistic types and support perception. Pluralistic FCP is characterized by open communication and the ability to discuss different viewpoints with parents, whereas protective FCP is characterized by communication that agrees with the parents’ point of view only. Relationships with high conversation orientation (i.e., pluralistic FCP) are more person-centered and thus perceived as more supportive (Burleson et al, 1995; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Relationships with high conformity orientations (i.e., protective) focus more on a harmonious relationship with parents and may result in pressure to maintain the hierarchy, one in which the emerging adult may not be encouraged to express viewpoints or opinions that differ from the parental figure, limiting the amount of perceived support available and limiting help-seeking behaviors (Koerner & Cvancara, 2002).

Discrepancies in the report of the parent-child relationship

A strength of the current study in comparison to previous literature is the inclusion of parent-reported parent-child relationship qualities. Interestingly, when these same behaviors were reported by parents in comparison to emerging adult-reported FCP, no significant relationships were found. Specifically, significant relationships between pluralistic or protective FCP types and conflict, disclosure, or support behaviors were not found. Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002) identified the need for the collection of multiple perspectives on both FCP and relationship variables when analyzing the family unit. A possible explanation of the different associations between FCP and support behaviors may lay in the values placed on different aspects of communication and the goals of the communication itself (Aquilino & Supple, 2001; Zeelenberg et al., 1998). For example, the emerging adult may value the chance for autonomy and a role in decision making within a conversation with the parent figure that may result in feeling that the parent figure may be more open to an exchange of ideas in the future (Aquilino & Supple, 2001). In emerging adulthood, communication patterns change as children enter adulthood and try to establish independence and develop autonomy from their parents. Research on this transitional period has highlighted the importance of the changing dynamic between parents and emerging adults and the emerging adult’s need for autonomy within the relationship (Aquilino & Supple, 2001; Cullaty, 2011). Inversely, a parent figure may value the outcome (e.g., the emerging adult agreeing to complete a task or not complain) and not recognize the autonomy granting communication that may have been interspersed within the conversation and instead assume that the outcome had more of an impact on future support behaviors than the communication itself. Thus, the parent and emerging adult may be focusing on different aspects of the communication and report different associations between FCP and support behaviors.

Similarly, changing power differentials may be at work during children’s transition into emerging adulthood. Emerging adults may be taking on more responsibilities such as a career, paying bills for the first time, or starting a family, but they may also still rely on their parents for support. In addition, emerging adults may be transitioning into a position within the family of providing support for family members in ways that would have been inappropriate/impossible before such as providing guidance/information or providing monetary support. For emerging adults, this may be a way to establish autonomy and they may report higher relationship satisfaction. For the parent, they may feel unprepared or not ready for emerging adults to assert dominance within the relationship by providing help or feel those types of support are not desired from their children (e.g., parents’ refusal to take help from their children due to pride or unwillingness to burden their children). The change in power during this transition may place an additional strain on the relationship that was not fully explored in the current study. Specifically, relationship quality may be strained due to outside factors such as that shift in the power dynamic which was not explored in the current study. Moreover, such power shifts may be navigated differently by cultures who practice “strict” parenting and/or have higher respect for their elders. Our results, and previous studies demonstrating a positive aspect to the conformity orientation, may be hinting at this change in power dynamics. It may be that as emerging adults transition, they may perceive changes in the communication with parents that parents do not, or they may interpret these communication patterns as having a different influence on their behaviors than that of their parents. This may be reflected in the differences found when examining parent and emerging adult-reported relationship qualities. A longitudinal exploration of these topics may help to clarify how these FCP types shift and change during the transition to, and from, emerging adulthood to further examine how these conflicts may arise and influence the relationship. Furthermore, evidence suggests that culture should be considered while investigating this process.

These findings also may be further demonstrating a change in dynamic between emerging adults and their parents as they “individuate” from their family systems and seek to gain equity and power within the parent-child relationship. Instead of a change in the perception of the conformity orientation, these results may indicate a stage of developmental shift between the conformity orientation of their childhood (consistent with an upbringing of relative collectivism in the Southern United States) and an egalitarian conversational orientation of adulthood. Indeed, a longitudinal analysis of these developmental changes from adolescence to adulthood may be warranted. However, the change in the interpretation and measurement of the conformity orientation to include the more positive aspects may also reflect the change in an emerging adult’s perspective on the orientation’s values. For example, in childhood, hierarchy and structure may be more developmentally appropriate, whereas these values may be held in a less positive light when they are maintained through this transitional period and into adulthood (McKinney & Kwan, 2018).

Limitations

Although the current study demonstrated several strengths (e.g., using an LPA to identify FCP types and collecting data from multiple informants), the study was not without its limitations. First, the study was cross-sectional in nature, which did not allow for the examination of FCP between emerging adults and their parents across emerging adulthood. Similarly, the causal nature of FCP perceptions on relationship and parenting style variables could not be determined from this study. Second, the study utilized a relatively small sample of college students in the Southern United States. Although, the literature suggests that a small sample size may not be a deterrent when identifying latent profiles, instead the small number of indicators (i.e., conformity and conversation orientations) and small inter-profile differences (e.g., the difference between pluralistic and consensual, or protective and laisse-faire) may inhibit the LPA from identifying all the FCP types theorized (Tein et al., 2013). Due to small sample sizes, the LPA might not identify low base rate patterns but did identify predominate patterns within the data. Researchers have previously avoided the use of classification strategies such as an LPA to identify FCP types due to the need for a large sample size to classify all four family types (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). The current study found the two groups other researchers found previously with small sample sizes (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Similarly, the sample size within the current study may have been too small to identify the four different FCP types. However, the finding of these two FCP types does suggest an underlying primary communication style (e.g., primarily conformity orientation) may be present between emerging adults and their parents.

Similarly, the use of college students may limit the generalizability of the study’s results to non-college attending emerging adults. Nonetheless, in future studies researchers should attempt to collect a larger, more representative sample to see if an LPA could identify all four FCP types if given a larger sample size and to measure the theorized inter-profile differences between each FCP typology. In addition to the small sample size, the demographic characteristics of a college sample may limit the generalizability of the study’s results to parents and families from a lower income bracket or those whose parents may have lower educational attainment. Further examination of the impact of income may help to clarify results. Similarly, it may be important to get a clearer picture of cultural influences and residence as the current study assumed a “Southern” culture, which may not be accurate for all students in attendance at the recruiting university. Lastly, we did not collect FCP perceptions from the perspective of the parental figure to determine if the relationships between FCP and parenting/support behaviors followed the same trend as those shown within the current study.

Summary and future directions

Regardless of the limitations, we successfully utilized an LPA to identify two FCP types and examined their relationship with parenting styles and parent-child relationship qualities (e.g., conflict, support, and disclosure) in emerging adulthood. In addition, we demonstrated the continued influence of parents and FCP schemas in emerging adulthood as well as identified the distinct parenting styles found by previous research in the Southern United States, possibly elucidating a cultural context related to parenting and parent-child relationships. Future researchers should continue to examine the interplay among these variables in emerging adulthood and in various regions to identify how these communication patterns influence behavior and relationship quality in the Southern United States and elsewhere.

Solution (Proportion of Sample)	Convergence Statistic	Posterior Predictive P-Value	Conformity M (SD)	Conversation M (SD)
1-Group	<1.0001	0.57	3.18 (0.06)	3.52 (0.07)
2-Group	<1.0001	0.60
Group 1 (51%)			3.37 (0.64)	2.99 (0.59)
Group 2 (49%)			2.97 (0.65)	4.07 (0.36)
3-Group	1.0210	0.62
Group 1 (37%)			3.08 (0.35)	3.68 (0.24)
Group 2 (43%)			3.55 (0.51)	2.75 (0.16)
Group 3 (20%)			3.31 (0.10)	3.16 (0.16)
4-Group	1.0200	0.64
Group 1 (24%)			3.36 (0.09)	3.13 (0.15)
Group 2 (28%)			3.14 (0.06)	3.54 (0.09)
Group 3 (23%)			3.40 (0.09)	3.13 (0.16)
Group 4 (25%)			3.31 (0.07)	3.33 (0.13)

Parenting Style			Protective	Pluralistic
Paternal Permissive	3.42	0.03	25.10(0.82)	27.28(0.83)
Paternal Authoritative*	6.06	0.05	35.13(0.97)	31.71(0.97)
Paternal Authoritarian*	25.08	0.19	33.83(0.75)	39.21(0.75)
Maternal Permissive*	6.17	0.05	25.66(0.76)	28.36(0.76)
Maternal Authoritative	0.24	0.00	31.49(0.99)	30.80(0.10)
Maternal Authoritarian*	26.84	0.19	33.79(0.77)	39.51(0.78)

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.	14
1. Conformity Orientation	—
2. Conversation Orientation	−.37*	—
3. Disclosure—Mother	−.26*	.54*	—
4. Disclosure—Father	−.12	.50*	.62*	—
5. Conflict—Mother	−.18*	−.22*	−.22*	−.09	—
6. Conflict—Father	−.18*	−.24*	.12	−.05	.37*	—
7. Seek Secure Base—Mother	−.19*	.51*	.41*	.17	−.26*	−.10	—
8. Seek Secure Base—Father	−.12	.54*	.29*	.43*	−.12	−.15	.59*	—
9. Seek Safe Haven—Mother	−.24*	.59*	.75*	.41*	−.16	.09	.55*	.37*	—
10. Seek Safe Haven—Father	−.04	.53*	.44*	.80*	−.10	−.11	.29*	.65*	.52*	—
11. Provide Secure Base—Mother	−.07	.39*	.39*	.40*	−.16	−.03	.49*	.46*	.50*	.40*	—
12. Provide Secure Base—Father	−.05	.49*	.33*	.53*	−.14	−.14	.41*	.74*	.36*	.66*	.72*	—
13. Provide Safe Haven—Mother	−.19*	.28*	.48*	.44*	−.05	.10	.24*	.22*	.45*	.35*	.53*	.38*	—
14. Provide Safe Haven—Father	−.14	.42*	.45*	.68*	−.12	−.03	.24*	.51*	.40*	.64*	.48*	.63*	.71*	—

			Protective	Pluralistic
Seek Base—Father	18.06	0.14	3.97(0.10)	4.57(0.10)
Seek Base—Mother	19.53	0.15	4.12(0.07)	4.60(0.07)
Seek Haven—Father	33.36	0.23	2.79(0.13)	3.88(0.13)
Seek Haven—Mother	47.55	0.29	3.15(0.11)	4.25(0.11)
Provide Base—Father	21.88	0.16	3.46(0.11)	4.22(0.11)
Provide Base—Mother	19.23	0.14	3.71(0.09)	4.31(0.10)
Provide Haven—Father	18.10	0.14	2.36(0.13)	3.18(0.14)
Provide Haven—Mother	10.88	0.09	2.87(0.12)	3.44(0.12)
Disclosure—Father	24.80	0.18	2.18(0.13)	3.09(0.13)
Disclosure—Mother	34.82	0.23	2.51(0.12)	3.56(0.13)
Conflict—Father	12.89	0.10	2.71(0.11)	2.13(0.11)
Conflict—Mother	11.21	0.09	2.89(0.11)	2.35(0.12)

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.
1. Conformity Orientation	—
2. Conversation Orientation	−.37*	—
3. Disclosure—Child	−.17	.12	—
4. Conflict—Child	.14	−.02	.10	—
5. Seek Secure Base—Child	−.10	.11	.55*	−.15	—
6. Seek Safe Haven—Child	−.13	.12	.82*	.02	.58*	—
7. Provide Secure Base—Child	−.07	.07	.14	−.11	.62*	.22*	—
18. Provide Safe Haven—Child	−.04	.20	.34*	.00	.51*	.39*	.57*	—

Footnotes

Ethical approval

All participants were treated according to APA ethical standards.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Erica Szkody

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available upon request through the corresponding author by emailing EMS669@msstate.edu. The materials used in the research are available upon request through the corresponding author by emailing EMS669@msstate.edu.

References

Afifi

T. D.

Olson

(2005). The chilling effect in families and the pressure to conceal secrets. Communication Monographs, 72, 192–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/0367750500111906

Aquilino

W. S.

Supple

A. J.

(2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during adolescence on well-being outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 22(3), 289–308.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.

Baumrind

(2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 61(108), 61–69.

Buri

J. R.

(1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 110–119.

Burleson

B. R.

Delia

J. G.

Applegate

J. L.

(1995). The socialization of person-centered communication: Parents’ contributions to their children’s social-cognitive and communication skills. In Fitzpatrick

M. A.

Vangelisti

(Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 34–76). SAGE.

Chao

R. K.

(1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting styles: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

Corry

D. A. S.

Leavey

(2017). Adolescent trust and primary care: Help-seeking for emotional and psychological difficulties. Journal of Adolescence, 54, 1–8.

10.

Cullaty

(2011). The role of parental involvement in the autonomy development of traditional-age college students. Journal of College Student Development, 52(4), 425–439.

11.

Dumlao

Botta

R. A.

(2000). Family communication patterns and the conflict styles young adults use with their fathers. Communication Quarterly, 48(2), 174–189.

12.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

Ritchie

L. D.

(1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(3), 275–301.

13.

Furman

Buhrmester

(2009). Methods and measures: The network of relationships inventory: Behavioral systems version. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 470–478.

14.

Gelman

Carlin

J. B.

Stern

H. S.

Rubin

D. B.

(2004). Bayesian data analysis (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.

15.

Hamon

J. D.

Schrodt

(2012). Do parenting styles moderate the association between family conformity orientation and young adults’ mental well-being? Journal of Family Communication, 12, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2011.561149

16.

Hesse

Rauscher

E. A.

Goodman

R. B.

Couvrette

M. A.

(2017). Reconceptualizing the role of conformity behaviors in family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 17(4), 319–337.

17.

High

A. C.

Scharp

K. M.

(2015). Examining family communication patterns and seeking social support direct and indirect effects through ability and motivation. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 459–479.

18.

Horstman

H. K.

Schrodt

Warner

Koerner

Maliski

Hays

Colaner

C. W.

(2018). Expanding the conceptual and empirical boundaries of family communication patterns: The development and validation of an Expanded Conformity Orientation Scale. Communication Monographs, 85(2), 157–180.

19.

Hutchison

E. D.

(2011). Life course theory. In Levesque

R. J. R.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence. Springer.

20.

Koerner

A. F.

Cvancara

K. E.

(2002). The influence of conformity orientation on communication patterns in family conversations. The Journal of Family Communication, 2, 133–152.

21.

Koerner

A. F.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48(1), 59–75

22.

Koerner

A. F.

Fitzpatrick

M. A

. (2006). Family communication patterns theory: A social cognitive approach. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Suter

E. A.

Floyd

(Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 50–65). New Routledge.

23.

Koerner

F. A.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(2002). Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Annals of the International Communication Association, 26(1), 36–65.

24.

Koerner

A. F.

Schrodt

(2014). An introduction to the special issue on family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 14(1), 1–15.

25.

Laursen

Collins

(2009). Parent-child relationships during adolescence: Contextual influences on adolescent development. In Laursen

Collins

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 3–42). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

26.

McKinney

Brown

K. R.

(2017). Parenting and emerging adult internalizing problems: Regional differences suggest Southern parenting factor. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(11), 3156–3166.

27.

McKinney

Kwan

J. W.

(2018). Emerging adult perceptions of and preferences for parenting styles and associated psychological outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 2491–2504.

28.

McKinney

Stearns

Rogers

M. M.

(2018). Perceptions of differential parenting between Southern United States mothers and fathers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(11), 3742–3752.

29.

McLeod

J. M.

Chaffee

S. H

. (1972). The construction of social reality. In Tedeschi

(Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 50–59). Aldine-Atherton.

30.

Mortenson

S. T.

(2009). Interpersonal trust and social skill in seeking social support among Chinese and Americans. Communication Research, 36(1), 32–53.

31.

Muthén

L. K.

(2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 882–891.

32.

Nagin

D. S.

(2005). Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University Press.

33.

Orrego

V. O.

Rodriguez

(2001). Family communication patterns and college adjustment: The effects of communication and conflictual independence on college students. The Journal of Family Communication, 1(3), 175–189.

34.

Parker

R. S.

Haytko

D. L.

Hermans

C. M.

(2009). Individualism and collectivism: Reconsidering old assumptions. Journal of International Business Research, 8(1), 127–140.

35.

Pettit

J. W.

Roberts

R. E.

Lewinsohn

P. M.

Seeley

J. R.

Yaroslavsky

(2011). Developmental relations between perceived social support and depressive symptoms through emerging adulthood: Blood is thicker than water. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(1), 127–136.

36.

Punyanunt-Carter

N. M.

(2008). Father-daughter relationships: Examining family communication patterns and interpersonal communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 25(1), 23–33.

37.

Ritchie

L. D.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523–544.

38.

Schrodt

Ledbetter

A. M.

Ohrt

J. K.

(2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators of family communication patterns and children’s mental well-being. The Journal of Family Communication, 7, 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267430709336667

39.

Schrodt

Phillips

K. E.

(2016). Self-disclosure and relational uncertainty as mediators of family communication patterns and relational outcomes in sibling relationships. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 486–504.

40.

Schrodt

Witt

P. L.

Messersmith

A. S.

(2008). A meta-analytical review of family communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, 75(3), 248–269.

41.

Shearman

S. M.

Dumlao

(2008). A cross-cultural comparison of family communication patterns and conflict between young adults and parents. Journal of Family Communication, 8(3), 186–211.

42.

Sillars

Holman

A. J.

Richards

Jacobs

K. A.

Koerner

Reynolds-Dyk

(2014). Conversation and conformity orientations as predictors of observed conflict tactics in parent-adolescent discussions. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.857327

43.

Szkody

McKinney

(2019). Indirect effects of social support on psychological health through self-esteem in emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 40(17), 2439–2455.

44.

Tein

J. Y.

Coxe

Cham

(2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(4), 640–657.

45.

Tims

A. R.

Masland

J. L.

(1985). Measurement of family communication patterns. Communication Research, 12(1), 35–57.

46.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

(1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 279–292.

47.

Zeelenberg

van Dijk

W. W.

Manstead

A. S. R.

van der Pligt

(1998). The experience of regret and disappointment. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 221–230.

Parenting Style			Protective	Pluralistic
	F	partial η²	M(SE)	M(SE)
Paternal Permissive	3.42	0.03	25.10(0.82)	27.28(0.83)
Paternal Authoritative*	6.06	0.05	35.13(0.97)	31.71(0.97)
Paternal Authoritarian*	25.08	0.19	33.83(0.75)	39.21(0.75)
Maternal Permissive*	6.17	0.05	25.66(0.76)	28.36(0.76)
Maternal Authoritative	0.24	0.00	31.49(0.99)	30.80(0.10)
Maternal Authoritarian*	26.84	0.19	33.79(0.77)	39.51(0.78)