Parent-emerging adult text interactions and emerging adult perceived parental support of autonomy

Abstract

Parents play an important role in scaffolding autonomy and independence as their children transition to adulthood. In the digital age, mobile phones allow for increased connection at this important developmental transition, but we know little about the extent to which digital connection may help (i.e., through developmentally appropriate support) or hinder (i.e., through intrusiveness or helicopter parenting) emerging adult (EA) autonomy development. We tested whether digital parent-EA interactions tapping engagement, monitoring, and responsiveness were associated with EA perceptions of parental autonomy support in a sample of 238 college students (M_age = 19.85) who contributed all text messages exchanged with their parents over 2 weeks. Results indicate that many dimensions of parent-EA text message interactions are unrelated to perceived parental autonomy support, but those that did emerge point towards a potentially maladaptive role of overparenting in associations with less perceived parental autonomy support. Results underscore that, for most EAs, parental text messaging is not likely to be perceived as autonomy inhibiting, but that for a small minority of parent-EA dyads, intense levels of digital connection with parents may be associated with perceived autonomy inhibition.

Keywords

Text messaging emerging adulthood parenting parent-child relationship mobile phones autonomy

Introduction

Emerging adulthood (ages 18–25; Arnett, 2000) is a unique life stage at the intersection of adolescence and adulthood. This time is characterized by multiple transitions, new experiences, and increasing independence and self-reliance (Soenens et al., 2007). Emerging adult theory suggests that gaining autonomy from parents is necessary for the health of emerging adults (henceforth “EA”s) as well as a healthy transition into adulthood (Arnett, 2000). Many EAs strive to strike a balance between increasing independence in how they think and act and maintaining an emotional connection with their parents (Van Petegam et al., 2013). Although considerable empirical evidence supports the importance of parental influences on children and adolescents, fewer studies examine whether and how parental behaviors remain influential into emerging adulthood (Nelson et al., 2010).

Monitoring in emerging adulthood

Parents who are striving to support EA autonomy must navigate and balance how (and how much) to engage in traditional tasks of parenting such as provision of responsive, warm caregiving and monitoring and guidance of their child’s behavior. This balance is best captured as the distinction between parental responsiveness and parental demandingness, which are often considered the two main dimensions of parenting (Bornstein, 2019).

Among the constructs that define parental demandingness is parental monitoring. Traditionally, parental monitoring encompassed parental behaviors intended to keep tabs on children such as attending to children’s locations, friends, and activities (Dishion & McMahon, 1998). Today, consistent with Stattin and Kerr’s (2000) reconceptualization, scholars (and this study’s operationalization of monitoring) recognize monitoring as more than a one-sided endeavor, comprising distinct parent behaviors like asking questions (solicitations) and enforcing rules (control) alongside distinct youth behaviors like disclosures of information about their whereabouts and activities. Studies with adolescents suggest that youth disclosures may contribute more to parental knowledge than parental monitoring behaviors (Kerr et al., 2010). Thus here, we conceptualize parental monitoring as a dyadic process that includes parental solicitation, parental control, and EA disclosures.

For the most part, parental monitoring tends to be associated with positive adjustment in adolescents (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Yap et al., 2014), but less is known about monitoring in EAs. In adolescence, lower levels of parental monitoring are a strong predictor of more adolescent externalizing (Lopez-Tamayo et al., 2016) and internalizing (Pinquart, 2017b) symptoms. Among EA samples, there is some evidence to suggest that disclosures to fathers (though interestingly, not mothers) may protect against delinquency and depression (Son & Padilla-Walker, 2021). High parental control (a component of monitoring), in contrast, may be linked with more internalizing and externalizing problems in emerging adulthood (Padilla-Walker et al., 2021). Evidence suggests that more parental solicitations are associated with higher levels of deviant behaviors (Pesola et al., 2015), and that EAs may perceive online solicitations as intrusive (Hessel et al., 2017). Overall, parental control and solicitations do not seem to be beneficial for psychosocial adjustment in EAs, whereas the results for disclosure are a bit more mixed.

Such mixed findings may reflect a curvilinear effect of parental monitoring, suggesting that a good thing may be best in moderation. Despite the generally protective nature of parental monitoring in adolescence, over monitoring or harsh monitoring can become intrusive and thus hinder psychosocial development (especially as EAs strive for increased independence; Barber et al., 2005). Parents who are high in control may display intrusive behaviors, use coercion to invalidate children’s perspectives, undermine their individuality, and overall deny adolescents’ independence (Soenens et al., 2010). Harsh parental monitoring can negatively affect children’s emotional wellbeing as it is associated with externalizing and internalizing behaviors during adolescence and can predict these behaviors over time (Pinquart, 2017a, 2017b). Findings seem to generalize to emerging adulthood, as those EAs who perceive their parents as more psychologically and behaviorally controlling report greater psychological distress and less psychological well-being (García Mendoza et al., 2019). It may be that parental monitoring behaviors in emerging adulthood lead to the highest EA perceived levels of parental autonomy support when delivered at moderate levels that are neither excessively low nor excessively high.

Responsiveness in emerging adulthood

Parents must also decide how (and how much) to provide warm, nurturant responsiveness to their children during the transition to emerging adulthood. Responsiveness often encompasses warm and supportive parenting-EA interactions that are physically and emotionally affectionate, approving, loving, and caring (Openshaw et al., 1984). Warmth provides numerous benefits for well-being in childhood and adolescence (Tubman & Lerner, 1994) which seem to extend into emerging adulthood (Inguglia et al., 2015). A large body of research shows that adolescents whose parents express low levels of warmth and support are more likely to exhibit internalizing and externalizing symptoms and less likely to report life satisfaction (Parra et al., 2015).

Scholars have identified three distinct forms of parental support: emotional support, advice (or informational) support, and instrumental (or tangible) support (House, 1981). Parental emotional support is characterized by care, concern, and listening (House, 1981). Advice-giving from a parent can help a child cope with personal and environmental problems (House, 1981). Instrumental support includes provision of assistance through methods such as labor, money, or time (House, 1981). Adolescents who perceive more parental support tend to also experience more positive psychosocial outcomes (Auerbach et al., 2011). Conversely, a lack of support has been linked to greater depression and more relationship strain in emerging adulthood (Gomez & McLaren, 2006). For EAs, parental financial and residential support seem to provide necessary scaffolds as the adolescent transitions into adulthood (Mortimer, 2012). Like monitoring, social support in parent-EA relationships is best conceptualized as a dyadic process in which EAs both seek and receive support (Wills & Shinar, 2000).

The idea that all good things are best in moderation may also apply to parental responsiveness, especially in emerging adulthood. There is rising concern around “overparenting” or “helicopter parenting,” which is characterized by a developmentally inappropriate amount of responsiveness (Segrin et al., 2013) and can include behaviors such as excessive advice giving, problem solving and tangible aid (Segrin et al., 2012). Some studies suggest that overparenting in emerging adulthood may be linked with poorer psychosocial outcomes such as depression, anxiety, and perceived stress (Schiffrin et al., 2014; Segrin et al., 2013 though see Kwon et al., 2016). Overparenting is also associated with increased levels of maladaptive traits relevant to autonomy for EAs, such as entitlement and narcissism (Segrin et al., 2012). Here, we expand the usual conceptualization of the responsive side of parenting to include the dyadic process of warmth conveyance (by EAs and parents), support provision (by parents) and support seeking (by EAs) in domains of emotional, advice, and instrumental supports.

Self-determination theory, autonomy, and emerging adulthood

The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is critical in understanding the importance of EAs perceptions of parental autonomy support in emerging adulthood. SDT posits that there are three universal psychological human needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and highlights the importance of the social context, specifically focusing on the role of caregivers, who can either facilitate or undermine a child’s progress towards autonomy development (Ryan & Deci, 2006). EAs fulfilling these needs is necessary for EAs personal and social development, and their overall well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Given that increasing independence and autonomy are key developmental tasks of the EA period (Arnett, 2000), the ways in which parents can support effective autonomy development are of great interest (Kouros & Garber, 2014). Broadly, parental autonomy support is defined as the parent’s active support of the child’s capacity to be self-initiating and independent (Ryan & Deci, 2006).

Based mostly on research involving children and young adolescents, autonomy support has been operationalized to include parental behaviors such as providing rationale and explanation for behavioral requests, recognizing the feelings and perspective of the child, offering choices, encouraging initiative, and minimizing the use of controlling techniques (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Parental behaviors that could impede autonomy include fostering an environment where children feel reliant and dependent on their parents for a developmentally inappropriate amount of support (Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Thus, it is important to attend to how and how much parents are providing support to their EA child and to consider amounts of support, out of proportion to the developmental needs of the child, might be inhibiting EA’s perception of parental autonomy support.

Responsiveness, monitoring and parental autonomy support in emerging adulthood

It is not yet clear the extent to which parent-child interactions may help or hinder perceptions of parental autonomy support as adolescents become EAs. There are few studies that consider that importance of parental support autonomy support in emerging adulthood and even fewer concerned with how perceptions of parental autonomy support are related with other parenting dimensions (Padilla-Walker & Nelson, 2019). The current understanding of autonomy support and parental control are that they are not mutually exclusive (Benito-Gomez et al., 2020; Soenens et al., 2009). Parents who are low in autonomy granting are not necessarily exhibiting higher levels of behavioral control, while the absence of control does not imply autonomy granting behavior. Thus, parents can be engaging in controlling and autonomy supportive behaviors simultaneously. However, levels of parental monitoring that are too low or too high could both be detrimental to EA perceptions of autonomy support and related constructs (LeMoyne & Buchanan, 2011). In adolescent samples, higher levels of parental control were negatively associated with perceptions of parental autonomy support (Soenens et al., 2009). Thus, developmentally appropriate, moderate amounts of monitoring may help scaffold youth autonomy development (another instance of a potential “best in moderation” effect; Karabanova & Poskrebysheva, 2013).

Parental autonomy support and responsiveness often co-occur within healthy parent-child relationships (Soenens et al., 2009) and we have some evidence that parental responsiveness may also be best in moderation when it comes to autonomy development. In adolescent samples, authoritative parents (who are high in responsiveness) were viewed as more supportive of their children’s autonomy (Baumrind, 1991). When parental responsiveness is too high however, emerging-adult children report higher levels of entitlement (Segrin et al., 2012), and lower self-efficacy (Bradley-Geist & Olson-Buchanan, 2014). Further, EAs with “helicopter parents” are found to have lower levels of competence and to perceive their parents as less supportive of their autonomy (Schiffrin et al., 2014). Therefore, like monitoring, moderate amount of digital responsivness may be the most benefical for perceptions of parental autonomy support for EAs development (aligned with a potential “best in moderation” effect).

Importance of digital communication

Many EAs leave their family homes for the first time during this period, and thus the use of digital communication as a form of parent-EA contact at a distance is common. Over 90% of parents report using text messages to communicate with their adolescents (Rudi et al., 2015), though young people communicate far more with peers than parents via text (Ehrenreich et al., 2020). Adolescents use calls and text messages to engage in managerial communications with their parents as well as to connect emotionally (Fletcher et al., 2018), and many parents report that the mobile phone is a useful tool for achieving parenting goals and ultimately makes parenting easier (Lauricella et al., 2016). There is also initial evidence that parents utilize digital communication to stay connected with their EA children (Miller-Ott et al., 2014) but we still know little about what role digital devices play in the maintenance and evolution of EA-parent relationships.

Co-construction theory asserts that online and offline behaviors often mirror and impact each other (Subrahmanyam et al., 2006), which is likely the case for digital and face-to-face parenting. Although there are few studies of digital parenting, those that do exist suggest that parenting practices remain consistent, whether face-to-face or digital. For instance, those parents who engage in the most offline monitoring also report higher digital monitoring of their children (Rudi & Dworkin, 2018). We assume that the literature on traditional parenting practices reviewed above is likely still highly relevant to the online parenting environment, and thus test whether our hypotheses based on face-to-face parenting studies hold true for digitally enacted parent-EA interactions using the rich content of digital communications that offer a unique window through which naturalistic parent-EA interactions can be observed.

Studies suggest that more frequent parent-child digital interactions are associated with positive parent-child relationship quality, less parent-child conflict, and greater perceived parental support (Weisskirch, 2011). New research, including in this same sample, suggests that parent-youth phone contact can serve as a conduit for both the transmission of responsive, warm parenting-EA interactions (Jensen, George, et al., 2021; Fletcher et al., 2018; Weisskirch, 2011) as well for remote monitoring of youth (Jensen, George, et al., 2021). Although some research suggests that the use of the phone in these ways can help parents provide support and guidance in-the-moment for youth who need it (Jensen, George, et al., 2021), the omnipresence of the mobile phone also opens the door to potentially intrusive parent contact at any hour of the day or night. Indeed, some EAs point out that their parent’s use of the mobile phone to monitor and control their behaviors yields access to what was once considered personal time and space (Williams & Williams, 2005), which is associated with feelings of intrusiveness and privacy invasion (Racz et al., 2017). More recent findings in the same sample used here have suggested that EAs who text more with their mothers (though not fathers) perceive higher levels of intrusiveness and pressure around contact with parents by phone or online (Jensen, Hussong, & Haston, 2021). It is important to consider both the ways in which the mobile phone may serve as a vital lifeline to positive parent-youth interactions in emerging adulthood as well as the ways in which it may serve as a mechanism for potentially intrusive boundary crossings that are perceived as restricting youth autonomy.

Present study

The present study leverages 2 weeks of observed parent-EA text message conversations (coded for traditional features of monitoring and responsiveness) to examine how parent-EA text message interactions are associated with EA perceptions of parental autonomy support. Specifically, we tested whether parent-EA 1) texting frequency, 2) digital responsiveness, and 3) digital monitoring were associated with higher or lower EA perceived parental support for autonomy. First, we tested linear and quadratic (a “best in moderation” hypothesis) associations between parent-EA texting frequency and perceived parental autonomy support; analyses were conducted separately for mother- and father-EA dyads. We hypothesized—consistent with past studies suggesting that parent mobile phone contacts can be intrusive (Williams & Williams, 2005), but also literature which suggests that both very low and very high amounts of parental engagement (including digital) can be unsupportive of EA autonomy development (Jensen, George, et al., 2021)—that overall more frequent mother- and father-EA texting frequency would be tied with lower perceived parental autonomy support (a negative linear hypothesis), but also that those EAs who texted with their mothers and fathers at moderate frequency would perceive their parents as more supportive of their autonomy (relative to those whose parents texted them only infrequently or at very high frequency).

Second, we tested linear and quadradic associations between indicators of mother- and father-EA digital responsiveness and EA perceptions of mother and father autonomy support, over and above (potential) associations with mother- and father-EA texting frequency (separately for mother- and father-EA dyads). We hypothesized both an overall positive linear association—based on research that suggests that low parental responsiveness is detrimental to EA autonomy development (Gomez & McLaren, 2006)—and a quadratic “best in moderation” association—consistent with literature that suggests that helicopter parenting and overparenting can undermine EA autonomy development (Schiffrin et al., 2014)—such that those EAs whose mothers and fathers exhibited moderate levels of digital responsiveness would perceive the highest levels of parental autonomy support relative to those whose parents exhibited very low levels of digital responsiveness and very high levels of digital responsiveness.

Third, we tested linear and quadradic associations between indicators of mother- and father-EA digital monitoring and EA perceptions of mother and father autonomy support, controlling for potential associations with parent texting frequency (separately for mother- and father-EA dyads). We again hypothesized both an overall negative linear association—consistent with research that parent mobile phone contacts for monitoring can be intrusive (Hessel et al., 2017)—and a quadratic “best in moderation” association consistent with literature that both low monitoring and over monitoring can be harmful for autonomy development (García Mendoza et al., 2019).

Methods

Sample and procedures

The present study uses an existing sample of alcohol-using college students at a southeastern university from 2014 to 2015 (described in detail in Jensen, Hussong, & Haston, 2021), focusing on a subsample of the larger study (N = 854), who consented to and provided 2 weeks of their text-message communications (including those exchanged with identified mothers and fathers; N = 238). The larger study included two lab visits (including quantitative surveys) for which participants were compensated $20 for the first lab visit and $25 for the second lab visit, after which participants were invited to participate in the Text Messaging Study if they met the eligibility criteria of having an Android or an iPhone with them. Participants consented to the secure wired download of all text messages (no images) exchanged over the past 2 weeks with all communicants; consistent with state law (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 15A-287), the IRB waived consent for these communicants. Group messages were captured but excluded from the present study on dyadic parent-EA communication. Text message study participants were entered in a drawing for four $100 cash prizes. Phone numbers and contact names were automatically stripped and replaced with unique identifiers based on student designations (e.g., Mother, Father). All study procedures for the larger study and the text message study were IRB approved. Of the 238 participants that contributed to the parent-EA text message sample, there were 215 mother-EA dyads (exchanging 21,381 texts) and 182 father-EA dyads (who exchanged 6358 texts). Detailed sample characteristics can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics of Sample.

Demographics	% of sample	Mean (SD)
Age		19.85 (1.39)
Gender
Male	39.06
Female	60.94
Race
Black	21.01
White (not hispanic/Latinx)	56.72
Hispanic/Latinx	7.14
American Indian, Alaska Native	.84
Asian	5.46
Pacific Islander	0
Multiracial	2.94
Parental education		4.73 (1.36)
Less than high school (1)	1.26
High school graduate (2)	4.2
Some college of technical school (3)	14.71
College graduate (4)	28.15
Some graduate, medical, or professional school (5)	3.78
Completed gradate, medical, or professional school (6)	47.9

Measures

Demographic covariates

All participants in the sample (N = 238; n = 215 for mother-EA dyads, n = 182 father-EA dyads) reported on their gender, age, and parent education computed as the highest of the mother’s or the father’s education. These covariates were chosen because decades of research have suggested that parenting-EA interactions (including responsiveness and monitoring) and parental autonomy support vary based on the age of the child (Inguglia et al., 2015), family socioeconomic status (Roubinov & Boyce, 2017), and gender (Bumpus et al., 2001).

Perceptions of parental autonomy support

One purpose of the larger study was to test data harmonization techniques, and thus participants were randomly assigned to one of two surveys (X or Y) that contained overlapping but not identical subsets of measures. Relevant here, 126 participants were randomly assigned to receive our measure of EA perceived parental autonomy support (the psychological autonomy granting scale; Steinberg et al., 1992), yielding 105 mother-child dyads and 94 father-child dyads randomized to be administered the outcome of interest in the parent text-message sample. Six items asked how often each parent (mother and father separately) encouraged or discouraged the expression of their ideas or individuality, on a 0–4 scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘very often'. A confirmatory factor analysis of these six items in the larger study initially yielded poor fit for both mothers (χ2 (9) = 115.132, p < .001; RMSEA = .174 [.147 to .203]; SRMR = .060) and fathers (χ2 (9) = 90.405, p < .001; RMSEA = .155 [.127 to .185]; SRMR = .049). Item 6 (“If you did something she/he didn’t like, how often did your mother/father react by not being in contact with you for a while?”) appeared to contribute to misfit, and indeed the fit was acceptable once this item was removed for both mothers (χ2 (5) = 12.260, p = .031; RMSEA = .061 [.017 to .105]; SRMR = .021; standardized λs .675 to .822) and fathers (χ2 (6) = 10.850, p = .054; RMSEA = .056 [<.001 to 0.102]; SRMR = .021; standardized λs .745–.807). Thus, mother and father support for autonomy are modeled here as latent variables with five indicators.

Text-analysis measures

Texting frequency

The number of text messages exchanged between parents and EAs over 2 weeks was computed directly from each dyad’s captured sent and received text messages (descriptive statistics found in Table 2). As would be expected and consistent with the reciprocal nature of text messaging, the correlations were very high between sent and received messages (r_{Mother Dyads} = .97 r_{Father Dyads} = .94), and thus we use the total number of texts exchanged (sent + received) with mothers and fathers (separately) in all analyses here.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Coded PCTICs Domains.

	Mother-emerging adult dyads (N = 215)			Father-emerging adult dyads (N = 182)
	M	SD	Range	M	SD	Range
Parent-EA texting frequency	102.84	139.52	0–1012	34.93	49.19	0–501
Digital responsiveness
Parent advice provision	2.50	5.88	0–49	.79	2.11	0–13
EA advice seeking	1.22	3.07	0–24	.44	1.37	0–12
Parent instrumental support provision	2.59	4.18	0–31	.74	1.58	0–11
EA instrumental support seeking	1.60	2.97	0–26	.65	1.40	0–8
Parent emotional/esteem support provision	2.09	5.93	0–58	.38	1.41	0–10
EA emotional/esteem support seeking	1.88	5.84	0–47	.30	0.92	0–70
Parent warmth	6.51	10.49	0–83	2.22	4.79	0–41
EA warmth	3.13	5.43	0–47	1.21	3.17	0–32
Digital monitoring
Parent control	2.98	6.20	0–49	.95	2.55	0–15
Parent solicitation	8.53	13.03	0–118	2.29	2.93	0–17
EA disclosure	19.33	27.84	0–177	5.57	6.57	0–29

Note. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and range reported across dyads over the 2-week study period.

Coded digital responsiveness and monitoring

All parent-EA text messages were coded using the Parent-Child Text Interaction Coding Scheme (Jensen, Hussong, & Haston, 2021). Micro-codes were assigned by an undergraduate primary coder and a postdoctoral master coder and codebook developer at the level of the text message and were neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. The primary coder was trained to an acceptable inter-rater reliability (κ > .80) with the master coder, with 20% of all messages double coded to monitor coder drift and reliability. Here the codes are a frequency of how many times the digital interaction occurred over the 2-week period; means, standard deviations, and ranges can be found in Table 2, with detailed code definitions found in supplemental Table S1. The present study utilizes parent-EA codes reflective of responsiveness including parent and EA warmth alongside EA seeking and parent provision of emotional support, instrumental support, and advice. Parent-EA monitoring is captured by three discrete codes: parent solicitation, parent control, and EA disclosure.

Analytic approach

We sought to answer study questions in a series of structural equation models in Mplus version 8.2 (Muthen & Muthen, 2017) with the MLR estimator, which is robust to non-normality through adjustment of standard errors. Predictors in curvilinear interaction terms were mean centered. Missing data were handled with FIML given that the substantial missingness on the primary outcome of interest is missing completely at random (MCAR).

To test our first hypothesis, we regressed EA perceptions of parental autonomy support on parent-EA texting frequency (linear and quadratic terms), controlling for demographic covariates (age, gender, parent education), with separate models for mother- and father-EA dyads. Non-significant quadratic terms were trimmed. To test our second and third hypotheses, we expanded this initial model to include each indicator of parent-EA digital responsiveness and monitoring (linear and quadratic terms, alongside parent-EA texting frequency and covariates); non-significant quadratic terms were trimmed.

Results

EA perceptions of mother and father support for autonomy were not significantly associated with covariates of age (b_mothers = .086, SE_mothers = .069, p_mothers = .209; b_fathers = .003, SE_fathers = .065, p_fathers = .966), gender (b_mothers = −.213, SE_mothers = .255, p_mothers = .344; b_fathers = −.278, SE_fathers = .243, p_{fathers =} .253), and parental education (b_mothers = .117, SE_mothers = .095, p_mothers = .218; b_fathers = .105, SE_fathers = .100, p_fathers = .293) but were nonetheless controlled for in all models.

Parent-EA texting frequency

As seen in Table 2, and inconsistent with our hypotheses, parent-EA texting frequency was not associated with EA perceived parental autonomy support (linearly or curvilinearly) for mothers or fathers. However, adopting a conservative approach, the linear term was included as a covariate in all subsequent analyses.

Parent-EA digital responsiveness

Table 3 also conveys a summary of associations between parent-EA digital responsiveness and EA perceived mother (left side) and father (right side) autonomy support, controlling for covariates and the (non-significant) linear association between parent-EA texting frequency. Quadratic associations are depicted in Figure 1. Most indices of digital responsiveness were not significantly associated with perceived parental autonomy support among mother-EA or father-EA dyads, with a few exceptions. Parent emotional/esteem support provision was associated with perceived mother and father autonomy support, though in different directions. For fathers, those who engaged in more frequent digital emotional/esteem support provision were perceived as more supportive of EA autonomy (a significant linear association in support of our hypothesis). Among mothers, in contrast, a significant quadratic term revealed that, as mothers engaged in more digital emotional/esteem support provision, their EA children tended to report perceiving them as less supportive of their autonomy, with this association growing stronger at higher levels of digital mother emotional/esteem support provision. A similar significant quadratic association emerged between EA emotional/esteem support seeking from mother and perceived mother autonomy support, such that the association between EA digital emotional/esteem support seeking and perceived mother autonomy support grew more strongly negative at higher levels of mother digital emotional/esteem support seeking. For mother-EA dyads (but not father-EA-dyads) digital parental advice provision was linearly associated with perceived parental autonomy support, where those EAs who received higher levels of digital advice provision tended to report perceiving less mother autonomy support. Among father-EA dyads, there were also significant linear and quadratic associations between father instrumental support provision and perceived father support for autonomy, such that the association between father digital instrumental support frequency and perceived father autonomy support grew more strongly negative at higher levels of father digital instrumental support frequency. Notably, across virtually the entire range of father digital instrumental support provision the confidence intervals span zero, and thus, despite the apparent curve of the line (suggesting that the size of the association varies across levels of father digital instrumental support provision), we cannot be sure that these associations ever differ from zero at a level that could not have occurred by chance.

Table 3.

Associations between EA Perceived Parental Autonomy Support and Digital Parent-EA Interactions.

Figure 1.

Quadratic regions of significance plots depict the slope of the coefficient for parent-EA digital interactions (dark solid line) predicting EA perceived parent autonomy support (Y-axis) across the entire observed range of each parent-EA digital interactions (X-axis). Dashed lines represent bounds of the 95% confidence interval. The light grey and dark grey shading represent the range within which most of the data fall (the 95th and 99th percentiles, respectively).

Parent-EA digital monitoring

The bottom portion of Table 3 conveys results of tests of our third hypothesis about associations between parent-EA digital monitoring and EA perceived parental autonomy support, controlling for covariates and the (non-significant) linear association with parent-EA texting frequency. The frequency of parental digital solicitations was not significantly associated with EA perceived autonomy support among mother- or father-EA dyads. Digital parental control in mother-EA dyads was not significantly associated with perceived autonomy support, however for father-EA dyads there was a negative linear association between father digital control and perceived autonomy support; those EAs whose fathers enacted more digital control tended to perceive their fathers as less supportive of their autonomy. Among mother-EA dyads, although there was not a significant linear association between EA disclosure to mothers and perceived mother support for autonomy, there was a quadratic association (depicted in Figure 1), such that the association between the frequency of EA digital disclosures to mothers and perceived mother autonomy support grew more strongly negative at higher frequencies of EA disclosures to mother, with those EAs who engage in the most frequent disclosures to mothers perceiving their mothers as the least supportive of their autonomy.

Sensitivity analysis: Parent-EA digital interactions behaviors and winsorized texting frequency

As seen in wide ranges and large standard deviations for many of our coded parent-EA digital interactions, there was considerable variability across parent-EA dyads, and the plots of quadratic associations highlight that many associations seemed to be driven by dyads at the extremes of digital responsiveness and monitoring. The potential impact of these outliers was explored by winsorizing outlying cases that fell three or more standard deviations above the mean. Winsorization lowers the influence of outliers by assigning an outlier a lower weight (Dixon & Tukey, 1968).

As seen in Table S2, in winsorized analyses parent-EA texting frequency and all indicators of parent-EA digital responsiveness were not significantly associated with EA perceived parental autonomy support for mothers or fathers. For mother-EA dyads, there were significant linear and quadratic association between parent solicitation and EA perceived parental autonomy support such that the association between the frequency of mother solicitation and perceived mother autonomy support grew more strongly negative at higher frequencies of mother solicitations (as depicted in Supplemental Figure S1). Also, there was a quadratic (but no linear) association for EAs’ disclosure to mothers, where EA perceived their mother as more supportive of their autonomy at higher frequencies of disclosures (Supplemental Figure S1). Of note, for both quadratic associations, across virtually the entire range of the digital interactions the confidence intervals span zero, and thus we cannot be sure that these associations ever differ from zero at a level that could not have occurred by chance. Thus, our discussion below balances the fact that primary results appear to be heavily influenced by the dyads who evidence the highest frequencies of parent-EA digital interactions, but also the fact that outlying values here are real data (objectively collected and thus not subject to self-reporting biases or exaggeration that sometimes drive outlying survey responses) and there may be something important about these very high digital interaction dyads that is worthy of attention and interpretation.

Discussion

In the current study, we examined the role of parent-EA digital relationships in EA perceptions of parental autonomy support. As EAs seek to balance increased independence and maintaining emotional connections with their parents, parents can engage in behaviors that inhibit or promote autonomy development. Here we found that, for the most part, neither the quantity nor the quality of parent-EA digital interactions was consistently associated with EA perceptions of parental autonomy support. Moreover, we saw little evidence consistent with our “best in moderation” hypothesis, in that results suggest that low and moderate levels of most digital interactions impart little risk for low perceived autonomy support, and that any risks seem to lie at the extremes of parent-EA digital interactions.

Overparenting

Rather, those significant associations that did emerge tended to support an overparenting/helicopter parenting hypothesis (consistent with self-determination theory’s emphasis on the important balance of relatedness and autonomy) wherein high levels of some digital parent-EA interactions could potentially be perceived as unsupportive of EA autonomy. Specifically, EAs who experienced more mother advice provision and father control via text message tended to perceive their parents as less supportive of their autonomy. Those quadratic associations which emerged largely supported this same pattern, as seen in findings wherein those EAs who sought and received more mother emotional/esteem support via text message and who engaged in more digital disclosures to their mothers tended to perceive their mothers as less supportive of their autonomy.

Overall, most findings here are inconsistent with traditional parenting literatures (largely based on adolescence) that have suggested mostly linear protections conveyed by responsiveness and monitoring behaviors for adolescent autonomy development (Auerbach et al., 2011) and inconsistent with previous findings suggesting that moderate levels of parental behaviors are most beneficial for EA autonomy development (Karabanova & Poskrebysheva, 2013). These findings are also somewhat inconsistent with the co-construction theory which suggests that the impacts of digital parent-EA interactions should mirror those seen in face-to-face interactions. Rather, we see a pattern here in which those associations that did emerge tended to point towards a potentially maladaptive role of over-responsiveness and over-monitoring in inhibiting autonomy (but seemingly only once over responsiveness and over monitoring reached very high levels), which is somewhat aligned with the overparenting and helicopter parenting literatures that suggest that high levels of parental behaviors can negatively impact the psychosocial adjustment of EAs (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012). These findings contribute to and extend our understanding of overparenting and helicopter parenting by offering support for the hypothesis that high levels of digital parent-EA interactions can be perceived as inhibiting of EA autonomy development.

The dyadic nature of overparenting

Some findings here highlight the role of the EA in co-constructing a parent-EA dynamic around autonomy. In primary analyses, two EA-driven behaviors (EA disclosure and emotional/esteem support seeking) were linked with perceived lack of parental support for autonomy; those EAs who engaged in the most frequent disclosures and emotional/esteem support seeking perceived their mothers as the least supportive of their autonomy. This intriguingly suggests that a portion of “overparenting” may potentially be driven by the EA child rather than intrusive parent-driven behaviors in isolation. Although overparenting is usually thought of as something that parents inflict upon their unreceptive EA children, these results suggest that overparenting may have a dyadic component in which the EA takes a more active role in contributing to highly engaged parent-EA relationships that may be thought of as indicative of an overparenting dynamic. Future overparenting research should take a more nuanced approach to understanding the EA’s role in these interactions.

Of note, the negative quadratic disclosure association seen in the primary analyses changed directions in the winsorized sensitivity analyses where EAs who disclosed at higher frequencies seemed to perceive their mothers as more supportive of their autonomy (though as seen in Figure S1 the confidence interval on this was very wide, and thus perhaps unreliable). This suggests that there may be something unique about those very heavy disclosing EA-mother dyads that needs exploration in future research. Indeed, it may be that, for most parent-EA dyads, more EA disclosures could be indicative of a more autonomy-supportive dynamic, but that those extremely heavy disclosers may have a unique parent-EA dynamic around autonomy.

Emotional/esteem support from mothers versus fathers

One exception to this overall overparenting pattern of findings was that those fathers who provided higher levels of emotional/esteem support via text message tended to be perceived as more supportive of EA autonomy whereas mothers who conveyed more emotional/esteem support via text message were perceived as less autonomy supportive. Our results are partially aligned with findings from a differing sample (Miller-Ott et al., 2014), which also uncovered differences between EAs’ perceptions of mother and father cell phone communications (though the direction of association differed, uncovering an association between mother’s violating cell phone rules and boundaries and poorer perceptions of the relationship (somewhat consistent with an overparenting hypothesis), though no such association emerged for fathers).

We offer several possible explanations for this finding. One, it is important to note that mothers and fathers are enacting emotional/esteem support at considerably different absolute levels; the maximum frequency of emotional/esteem support provision over the 2-week span for mothers was 58 (M = 2.09, SD = 5.93; 60 percent of mothers never texted to convey emotional/esteem support), whereas the maximum frequency for fathers was 10 (M = .38, SD = 1.41; 87 percent of fathers never texted to convey emotional/esteem support). Thus, it is possible that objectively higher levels of emotional/esteem support could lead EA children to perceive the emotional/esteem support from their mothers as a threat to their autonomy development, but to perceive these same types of emotionally supportive texts (albeit in lower quantities) as autonomy promoting when they come from fathers.

Another related explanation concerns traditional gender roles, as mothers are often expected to be more emotionally supportive, whereas fathers are rarely prescribed the role of emotional support person. As a result, EAs may perceive fathers who provide emotional support as more remarkable, and even as supporting their autonomy. It is also worth noting that, as emotional/esteem support is not a common text message behavior amongst most dyads, there could be some other unmeasured distinguishing factor (such as higher levels of enmeshment) about those dyads that do engage in emotion supportive conversations via text that is driving observed associations here. Future research is needed to help to illuminate what process may be driving EA’s differing perceptions of emotion/esteem support from their mothers versus their fathers.

Limitations, future directions and conclusions

The present study used novel methods to examine intersections between parent-EA digital interactions and EA perceptions of parental support for autonomy. Some limitations nonetheless merit consideration. First, it is important to note that some features of the dataset may limit the generalizability of the findings. The sample was comprised of college students (M = 19.85), many of whom lived on their college campus, and during a specific macro temporal moment (Navarro & Tudge, 2022) in 2014–2015; thus, it is possible that the findings here would not generalize to non-college going EAs or to college students in the post-COVID-19 world (which seems to have shifted patterns of college going; Hoover, 2020). Additionally, participants were not asked about sexuality nor disability status, which limits our ability to understand these dimensions of diversity in this sample. Second and importantly, the cross-sectional data makes it impossible to determine whether parent-EA digital interactions shape EA perceptions of parental autonomy support, if EA perceptions of parental autonomy support in some way shape parental-EA digital interactions, or if there is some third variable driving both. Nonetheless, we can learn much from this study and use it to inform future longitudinal, experimental, or quasi-experimental research (in which causation can be better inferred) in more diverse samples in the post-pandemic landscape.

Third, the study assumed a mother-father family structure in the survey prompts and text message designations, and we cannot know what other types of family structures are represented in our data. EAs that come from single parent homes, have same sex parents, or who were raised by other family members were not fully captured in this study’s design and may have different norms or cultural values that shape perceptions of their family’s digital interactions. Future studies should comprehensively assess family structure to better understand implications for parental autonomy support. Finally, it is possible that, instead of individual digital parent-EA digital interactions having the most impact on EA perceived autonomy support, it could instead be that the interplay amongst parental-EA digital behaviors shapes perceptions of autonomy support. Examining profiles of digital parenting-EA behaviors is an important direction for future research.

The present study helped to answer the question of how parents may be supporting or undermining EA autonomy development via mobile phone, with implications for future research and practice. Methodologically, this study suggests that it is valuable to move beyond self-report data to methods that offer a window into naturalistic parent-EA interactions. Ultimately, it seems that virtual parent-EA connections are increasingly normative and being integrated into the daily context of family life. Given that results suggested that most dimensions of parent-EA digital interactions were not strongly linked to EA perceptions of parental autonomy support, parents should feel encouraged that text messaging with their child at low to moderate levels is unlikely to be perceived as autonomy inhibiting. However, some results did suggest that there were some types of digital parent-EA interactions which were tied to less perceived parental support for autonomy, especially among a small minority of parent-EA dyads which saw very high levels of certain types of texts. Thus, we might encourage those parents who are very highly engaged with their EA child via text message to convey control or extreme levels of support to possibly consider tempering this type of interaction or consider alternate methods of communication. Importantly, most dyads were not enacting these behaviors at such high levels, and thus we must also consider that other special features in these dyads (e.g., pre-existing parent-EA dynamics) might be driving observed associations.

Findings also have clear implications for clinicians and higher educational professionals who seek to better understand the interplay between parent-EA digital engagement and EA perceptions of parental autonomy support. For example, parental education programs would do well to extend beyond adolescence into the college period to emphasize the key role that parents continue to play for their EA children. Programs could potentially highlight that for only a small minority of families does high digital engagement lead to EA perceptions of autonomy-limiting parenting behaviors. Results further suggest that clinicians and higher education professionals might benefit from the recognition that digital overparenting may not be very relevant to most EAs with whom they work, though a small minority might warrant additional support to help facilitate developmentally appropriate parent-EA connections during the transition from adolescence to adulthood.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Parent-Emerging Adult Text Interactions and Emerging Adult Perceived Parental Support of Autonomy

Supplemental Material for Parent-Emerging Adult Text Interactions and Emerging Adult Perceived Parental Support of Autonomy by Morgan Taylor Brown, Michaeline R. Jensen, Andrea M. Hussong in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research reported in this article was supported the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health under award number 1R01DA034636-01A1, and by a postdoctoral fellowship provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32- HD07376) through the Center for Developmental Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, to Michaeline Jensen.

ORCID iDs

Morgan T. Brown

Michaeline Jensen

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 not available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: mtbrown4@uncg.edu.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Auerbach

R. P.

Bigda-Peyton

J. S.

Eberhart

N. K.

Webb

C. A.

M. H. R.

(2011). Conceptualizing the prospective relationship between social support, stress, and depressive symptoms among adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39(4), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9479-x

Barber

B. K.

Stolz

H. E.

Olsen

J. A.

(2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70(4), 1–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2005.00365.x

Benito‐Gomez

Williams

K. N.

McCurdy

Fletcher

A. C.

(2020). Autonomy‐supportive parenting in adolescence: Cultural variability in the contemporary United States. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 12(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12362

Bornstein

(2019). Handbook on parenting:children and parenting. Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440847

Bumpus

M. F.

Crouter

A. C.

McHale

S. M.

(2001). Parental autonomy granting during adolescence: Exploring gender differences in context. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.163

C Bradley-Geist

B Olson-Buchanan

(2014). Helicopter parents: An examination of the correlates of over-parenting of college students. Education + Training, 56(4), 314–328. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/ET-10-2012-0096

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Dishion

T. J.

McMahon

R. J.

(1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021800432380

10.

Dixon

W. J.

Tukey

J. W.

(1968). Approximate behavior of the distribution of winsorized t (Trimming/Winsorization 2). Technometrics, 10(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1266226

11.

Ehrenreich

S. E.

Beron

K. J.

Burnell

Meter

D. J.

Underwood

M. K.

(2020). How adolescents use text messaging through their high school years. Journal of Research on Adolescence: The Official Journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence, 30(2), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12541

12.

Fletcher

A. C.

Benito-Gomez

Blair

B. L.

(2018). Adolescent cell phone communications with mothers and fathers: Content, patterns, and preferences. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(7), 2125–2137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1054-z

13.

García Mendoza

M. D. C.

Sánchez Queija

Parra Jiménez

Á.

(2019). The role of parents in emerging adults' psychological well-being: A person-oriented approach. Family Process, 58(4), 954–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12388

14.

Gomez

McLaren

(2006). The association of avoidance coping style, and perceived mother and father support with anxiety/depression among late adolescents: Applicability of resiliency models. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1165–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.009

15.

Hall

(2012). Avtar brah's cartographies: Moment, method, meaning. Feminist Review, 100(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2011.65

16.

Hessel

Dworkin

(2017). Paternal monitoring: The relationship between online and in-person solicitation and youth outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0490-6

17.

Hoover

(2020). The real Covid-19 enrollment crisis: Fewer low-income students went straight to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

18.

House

(1981). Work, stress, and social support. Addison-Wesley.

19.

Inguglia

Ingoglia

Liga

Lo Coco

Lo Cricchio

M. G.

(2015). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Relationships with parental support and psychological distress. Journal of Adult Development, 22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-014-9196-8

20.

Jensen

George

M. J.

Russell

M. A.

Lippold

M. A.

Odgers

C. L.

(2021). Daily parent-adolescent digital exchanges. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 49(9), 1125–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00765-x

21.

Jensen

Hussong

A. M.

Haston

(2021). Digital parenting of emerging adults in the 21^st century. Social Sciences, 10(12), 482. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10120482

22.

Karabanova

O. A.

Poskrebysheva

N. N.

(2013). Adolescent autonomy in parent-child relations. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 86(1877–0428), 621–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.624

23.

Kerr

Stattin

Burk

W. J.

(2010). A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00623.x

24.

Kouros

Garber

(2014). Trajectories of individual depressive symptoms in adolescents: Gender and family relationships as predictors. Developmental Psychology, 50(12), 2633–2643. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038190

25.

Kwon

K. A.

Yoo

Bingham

G. E.

(2016). Helicopter parenting in emerging adulthood: Support or barrier for Korean college students’ psychological adjustment? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(1), 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0195-6

26.

Lauricella

A. R.

Cingel

D. P.

Beaudoin-Ryan

Robb

M. B.

Saphir

Wartella

E. A.

(2016). The Common Sense census: Plugged-in parents of tweens and teens. Common Sense Media.

27.

LeMoyne

Buchanan

(2011). Does “hovering” matter? Helicopter parenting and its effect on well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 31(4), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2011.574038

28.

Lopez-Tamayo

LaVome Robinson

Lambert

S. F.

Jason

L. A.

Ialongo

N. S.

(2016). Parental monitoring, association with externalized behavior, and academic outcomes in urban african-American youth: A moderated mediation analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57(3–4), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12056

29.

Miller-Ott

A. E.

Kelly

Duran

R. L.

(2014). Cell phone usage expectations, closeness, and relationship satisfaction between parents and their emerging adults in college. Emerging Adulthood, 2(4), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814550195

30.

Mortimer

J. T.

(2012). Transition to adulthood, parental support, and early adult well-being: Recent findings from the youth development study. In Booth

Brown

S. L.

Landale

N. S.

Manning

W. D.

McHale

S. M.

(Eds), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 27–34). : Springer.

31.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th Ed). Muthén and Muthén.

32.

Navarro

J. L.

Tudge

J. R. H.

(2022). Technologizing bronfenbrenner: Neo-ecological theory. Current Psychology, 41(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02738-3

33.

Nelson

L. J.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Christensen

K. J.

Evans

C. A.

Carroll

J. S.

(2011). Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination of parenting clusters and correlates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(6), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9584-8

34.

Openshaw

D. K.

Thomas

D. L.

Rollins

B. C.

(1984). Parental influences of adolescent self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 4(3), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431684043010

35.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Son

Nelson

L. J.

(2021). Profiles of helicopter parenting, parental warmth, and psychological control during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 9(2), 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818823626

36.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Nelson

L. J.

(2012). Black hawk down?: Establishing helicopter parenting as a distinct construct from other forms of parental control during emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1177–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.03.007

37.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Nelson

L. J.

(2019). Parenting emerging adults. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed), Handbook of parenting: Children and parenting (pp. 168–190). Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440847-5

38.

Parra

Oliva

Sánchez-Queija

(2015). Development of emotional autonomy from adolescence to young adulthood in Spain. Journal of Adolescence, 38(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.11.003

39.

Pesola

Shelton

K. H.

Heron

Munafo

Hickman

van den Bree

M. B. M.

(2015). The developmental relationship between depressive symptoms in adolescence and harmful drinking in emerging adulthood: The role of peers and parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(9), 1752–1766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0295-z

40.

Pinquart

(2017a). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000295

41.

Pinquart

(2017b). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internalizing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Marriage and Family Review, 53(7), 613–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1247761

42.

Racz

S. J.

Johnson

S. L.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Cheng

T. L.

(2017). Parenting in the digital age: Urban Black youth's perceptions about technology-based communication with parents. Journal of Family Studies, 23(2), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2015.1108858

43.

Roubinov

D. S.

Boyce

W. T.

(2017). Parenting and SES: Relative values or enduring principles? Current Opinion in Psychology, 15(2352), 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.001

44.

Rudi

Dworkin

(2018). Is technology-mediated parental monitoring related to adolescent substance use? Substance Use and Misuse, 53(8), 1331–1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2017.1408653

45.

Rudi

Dworkin

Walker

Doty

(2015). Parents' use of information and communications technologies for family communication: Differences by age of children. Information, Communication and Society, 18(1), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.934390

46.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557–1585. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x

47.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

48.

Schiffrin

H. H.

Liss

Miles-McLean

Geary

K. A.

Erchull

M. J.

Tashner

(2014). Helping or hovering? The effects of helicopter parenting on college students’ well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(3), 548–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9716-3

49.

Segrin

Woszidlo

Givertz

Bauer

Taylor Murphy

(2012). The association between overparenting, parent–child communication, and entitlement and adaptive traits in adult children. Family Relations, 61(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00689.x

50.

Segrin

Woszidlo

Givertz

Montgomery

(2013). Parent and child traits associated with overparenting. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32(6), 569–595. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2013.32.6.569

51.

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

Lens

Luyckx

Goossens

Beyers

Ryan

R. M.

(2007). Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promotion of independence versus promotion of volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.633

52.

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

Luyten

(2010). Toward a domain-specific approach to the study of parental psychological control: Distinguishing between dependency-oriented and achievement-oriented psychological control. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 217–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00614.x

53.

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

Sierens

(2009). How are parental psychological control and autonomy-support related? A cluster-analytic approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00589.x

54.

Son

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

(2021). Whereabouts and secrets: A person-centered approach to emerging adults’ routine and self-disclosure to parents. Emerging Adulthood, 9(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696819842718

55.

Stattin

Kerr

(2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71(4), 1072–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00210

56.

Steinberg

Lamborn

S. D.

Dornbusch

S. M.

Darling

(1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63(5), 1266–1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01694.x

57.

Steinberg

Silk

J. S.

(2002). Parenting adolescents. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed), Handbook of parenting: Children and parenting (pp. 103–133). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

58.

Subrahmanyam

Smahel

Greenfield

(2006). Connecting developmental constructions to the internet: Identity presentation and sexual exploration in online teen chat rooms. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.395

59.

Tubman

J. G.

Lerner

R. M.

(1994). Continuity and discontinuity in the affective experiences of parents and children: Evidence from the New York longitudinal study. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64(1), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079488

60.

Van Petegem

Vansteenkiste

Beyers

(2013). The jingle-jangle fallacy in adolescent autonomy in the family: In search of an underlying structure. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 994–1014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9847-7

61.

Weisskirch

R. S.

(2011). No crossed wires: Cell phone communication in parent-adolescent relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(7–8), 447–451. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0455

62.

Williams

(2005). Space invaders: The negotiation of teenage boundaries through the mobile phone. The Sociological Review, 53(2), 314–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00516.x

63.

Wills

T. A.

Shinar

(2000). Measuring perceived and received social support. In Cohen

Underwood

L. G.

Gottlieb

B. H.

(Eds), Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 86–135). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med:psych/9780195126709.003.0004

64.

Yap

M. B. H.

Pilkington

P. D.

Ryan

S. M.

Jorm

A. F.

(2014). Parental factors associated with depression and anxiety in young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 156(165–327), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.11.007

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.63 MB