1 / 35

When children are not genetically related to their parents, What do we really know

When children are not genetically related to their parents, What do we really know about parent-child communication?. Martha A. Rueter Department of Family Social Science University of Minnesota. Presentation overview. Introduction: What we know about family communication. Foundation:

geoff
Download Presentation

When children are not genetically related to their parents, What do we really know

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. When children are not genetically related to their parents, What do we really know about parent-child communication? Martha A. Rueter Department of Family Social Science University of Minnesota

  2. Presentation overview Introduction: What we know about family communication Foundation: Data source: SIBS Guiding theory: Family Communication Patterns Findings: Communication, genetic relatedness, adjustment Communication, genetic relatedness, agreement Future Directions

  3. Introduction Some things we know: Appropriate parental control Clear, positive or neutral messages Listening to one another Warmth Control Messages Listening Warmth Child Adjustment Family Communication

  4. Foundation When children are not genetically related to their parents, What do we know about parent-child communication? Martha A. Rueter Department of Family Social Science Ascan F. Koerner Department of Communication Studies University of Minnesota

  5. Foundation Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS) Research Team Matt McGue, PI Bill Iacano Irene Elkins Meg Keyes Martha Rueter SIBS is funded by grants for the US government: NIMH, NIDA, NIAAA

  6. Foundation Sibling Interaction Behavior Study (SIBS) Participants N = 617 families, each with two participating children. Elder child, M age = 16.01 years. Younger child, M age = 13.69 years. N = 409 families: Child(ren) not genetically related to parents. N = 285 families: Both children adopted. N = 124 families: 1 child adopted, 1 child not adopted. N = 208 families: Children genetically related to parents.

  7. Foundation Family communication and adoption status interact. Family communication and adoption status directly associated? Control Messages Listening Warmth Child Adjustment Family Communication Family Adoption Status (Adoptive or Non-adoptive family) Rueter & Koerner, JMF, 2008 Rueter et al, JFP, in press

  8. Foundation Family Communication Patterns Theory (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004) Optimal family functioning requires that members achieve a shared social reality Shared social reality exists when family members (A) Agree. (B) Accurately perceive their agreement.

  9. Foundation Family Communication Patterns Theory Family Communication Child Adjustment Family Shared Social Reality Child Adjustment Family Communication Parent-child genetic relatedness

  10. Foundation Family Communication Patterns Theory (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004) Shared Social Reality Achieved through reliance on a combination of 2 orientations. Conversation Orientation: Emphasizes discussion to achieve shared social reality. Conformity Orientation: Emphasizes looking to an authority to achieve shared social reality.

  11. Foundation Family Communication Patterns (FCP) High Protective Consensual Conformity Orientation Laissez-Faire Pluralistic Low High Conversation Orientation

  12. O M F O Y M O Y M F Y F O M F Y Findings: Adjustment Measuring Family Communication Patterns Observed Communication ObservedListening ObservedWarmth Observed Control Family Communication Patterns (4 Latent Classes) Older Sex Younger Sex Rueter & Koerner, JMF, 2008

  13. Laissez Faire Rueter & Koerner, JMF, 2008

  14. Findings: Adjustment Family Communication Pattern and adoption status directly associated? Control Communication Listening Warmth Family Communication Pattern Parent-child genetic relatedness (Adoptive or Non-adoptive family)

  15. Dark Bars: Adoptive Light Bars: Non-adoptive Rueter & Koerner, JMF, 2008

  16. Findings: Adjustment Family communication and genetic relatedness interact. Family communication and genetic relatedness directly associated? Control Messages Listening Warmth Child Adjustment Family Communication Pattern Parent-child genetic relatedness (Adoptive or Non-adoptive family)

  17. Findings: Adjustment Family communication and genetic relatedness interact. Control Messages Listening Warmth Child Externalizing Behavior Family Communication Pattern Parent-child genetic relatedness (Adoptive or Non-adoptive family)

  18. Findings: Adjustment Measuring child externalizing behavior ObservedDefiance to Mother ObservedDefiance to Father Diagnosed Symptoms Externalizing Self- Reported Delinquency Teacher Reported Externalizing Older child Externalizing Behavior (2 Latent Classes) Older Sex Older Age Rueter & Koerner, JMF, 2008

  19. Findings: Adjustment Estimate the proportion of children placed in the high externalizing subgroup for each Family Communication Pattern Ext (Teacher) Ext (Symptoms) HS to M HS to F Control Communication Listening Warmth DBI Child Externalizing Behavior Family Communication Pattern

  20. Conformity Orientation Conversation Orientation Findings: Adjustment Hypothesized externalizing levels by Family Communication Pattern Protective Consensual Moderate externalizing Lowest externalizing Laissez-Faire Highest externalizing Pluralistic Moderate externalizing

  21. Findings: Adjustment Family Communication Pattern and genetic relatedness interact. Control Messages Listening Warmth Child Externalizing Behavior Family Communication Pattern Parent-child genetic relatedness (Adoptive or Non-adoptive family)

  22. Conformity Orientation Conversation Orientation Findings: Adjustment Hypothesized externalizing levels by Family Communication Pattern and genetic relatedness Protective Consensual Adopted higher than non-adopted Adopted similar to non-adopted Laissez-Faire Adopted higher than non-adopted Pluralistic Adopted similar to non-adopted

  23. Proportion of Children placed in the High Externalizing Subgroup across Family Communication Patterns by Adoption Status 26.9% 18.5% 16.7% 12.3% 7.8% 2.6% 4.1% 0.0% Rueter & Koerner, JMF, 2008

  24. Family Communication Patterns Theory and parent-child genetic relatedness Family Communication Pattern Child Adjustment Family Shared Social Reality Parent-child genetic relatedness

  25. Findings: Agreement The Role of Shared Social Reality Family Communication Pattern Family Shared Social Reality Parent-child genetic relatedness

  26. Findings: Agreement Sibling Shared Social Alcohol Expectancies Measuring Shared Social Reality Older and younger sibling responses to 6 questions: Q1. Drinking is a good way to celebrate special occasions. Q2. Drinking can help you feel less shy. Q3. Drinking can make you feel more confident. Q4. Drinking with others is a good way to have fun. Q5. Drinking makes parties more fun. Q6. Drinking makes it easier to talk to people at parties. Items from the Alcohol Expectancies Questionnaire (Brown et al., 1987). Rueter & Koerner, ISSBD, 2008

  27. Younger Sex Older Sex Younger Age Older Age Findings: Agreement Statistical Model of Sibling Shared Social Reality Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q4 Q4 Q5 Q5 Q6 Q6 Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Rueter & Koerner, ISSBD, 2008

  28. Findings: Agreement The Role of Shared Social Reality Family Communication Pattern Sibling Shared Social Reality Sibling genetic relatedness

  29. Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Findings: Agreement Direct effect of genetic relatedness Adoptive siblings (N = 409) .07 (t = 1.32) Non-adoptive siblings (N = 208) .44 (t = 3.64) c2(df = 1) = 8.81, P < .05 Rueter & Koerner, ISSBD, 2008

  30. Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Findings: Agreement Direct effect of Family Communication Pattern Family emphasizes conversation (N = 230) .42 (t = 4.27) Family does not emphasize conversation (N = 386) .02 (t = .44) c2(df = 1) = 13.92, P < .05 Rueter & Koerner, ISSBD, 2008

  31. Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Findings: Agreement Interaction between FCP and genetic relatedness: Adoptive siblings Family emphasizes conversation (N = 158) .36 (t = 3.64) Family does not emphasize conversation (N = 250) -.04 (t = -.71) c2(df = 1) = 13.26, P < .05 Rueter & Koerner, ISSBD, 2008

  32. Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Younger Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Older Social Alcohol Expectancies Findings: Agreement Interaction between FCP and genetic relatedness: Non-adoptive siblings Family emphasizes conversation (N = 72) .71 (t = 2.55) Family does not emphasize conversation (N = 136) .35 (t = 2.34) c2(df = 1) = 1.77, P > .05) Rueter & Koerner, ISSBD, 2008

  33. Findings: Agreement The Role of Shared Social Reality Family Communication Pattern Sibling Shared Social Reality Sibling genetic relatedness

  34. Future Directions Family Communication Pattern Child Adjustment Family Shared Social Reality Parent-child genetic relatedness

More Related