F. Christy McFarland, Melinda Schmidt, and Sally Kaufmann University of Virginia

1. F. Christy McFarland, Melinda Schmidt, and Sally Kaufmann University of Virginia Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, Fl, April, 2003. The authors can be reached at the Department of Psychology, PO Box 400400, 102 Gilmer Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400 or, fcm7a@virginia.edu We would like to thank the National Institute of Health for funding provided to Joseph Allen, Principal Investigator, for the conduct and write-up of this study.

2. Abstract • This study examines relationships between observational assessments of mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationships and adolescent popularity. Negative autonomy and relatedness aspects of both mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationships were related to concurrent peer sociometric ratings of popularity. Positive aspects of the mother-adolescent relationship, as assessed during a supportive behavior task, were also related to concurrent peer sociometric ratings of popularity. Only positive autonomy and relatedness aspects of father-adolescent relationships were related to changes in peer sociometric ratings of popularity from age 13 to age 14.

3. Introduction • Promoting Autonomy and Relatedness in interactions with parents has been linked to both increased social competence and better close friendships in adolescence (Allen et al., 1994) • Being able to promote autonomy while maintaining relatedness in close relationships is a critical developmental task of adolescence. One way that adolescents may learn the skills necessary to do this is from their parents. • Other important qualities of popular kids are their abilities to accurately perceive and respond to the needs of others (Steinberg 1999). These skills make them particularly sensitive to others’ needs and able to be supportive towards others. Adolescents may learn these behaviors from their parents; first by learning to seek support, then by learning to give support (Crowell et. al, 2002).

4. Introduction (cont.) • Popularity is an important index of an adolescent’s functioning in their broad peer culture – distinct from their functioning within specific friendships (Bukowski et al., 1996). • Popularity in adolescence has been linked to both positive and negative adolescent outcomes. Popular adolescents are more likely to have close friends and more likely to be selected for positions of student leadership (Franzoi, Davis, & Vasquez-Suson, 1994) Popularity has also been linked to adolescent tobacco use (Alexander et al. 2001), and eating disorders (Lieberman, Gauvin, Bukowski, & White, 2001).

5. Method • Participants Multi-method, multi-reporter data were collected from a sample of 176 adolescents (82 males, 94 females), their mothers (n=168) and their fathers (n=77). Adolescents were recruited through a public middle school in the Southeastern United States (mean age at wave 1 = 13.4 [sd 0.65], mean age at wave 2 = 14.3 [sd 0.77]; 51.9% male, 38% minority, mean family income $30,000-39,000/yr). • Measures Supportive Behavior Task Coding System (SBTCS). Mothers’ and teens’ behaviors were assessed during a structured six-minute interaction task in which teens described a problem with which they needed help. Interactions were coded using the SBTCS, developed by Allen, Hall, Insabella, Land, Marsh, and Porter (2001). • The dyadic intimacy scale captures intimate disclosure and discussion between mother and teen, as well as calls for empathy or comfort by the teen and support and emotional availability on the part of the mother.

6. Method (cont.) SBTCS (cont.) • The dyadic warmth scale captures reciprocated warmth, caring, connectedness and attentiveness between mother and teen, as well as the teen’s level of satisfaction with the interaction and the mother’s success at interpreting the teen’s problem. Popularity Adolescent popularity was assessed using a limited nomination sociometric measure, following the procedure described in Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli (1982). 420 adolescents (43% of the school) completed like and dislike ratings naming up to 10 people in their grade with whom they would most like to spend time on a Saturday night and up to another 10 people in their grade with whom they would least like to spend time. These ratings were compiled by grade and z-scores for the like ratings were used to form the adolescents’ popularity scores.

7. Method (cont.) Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System (ARCS). Mothers’, fathers’ and teens’ undermining and promotion of their own autonomy and relatedness were evaluated by applying the previously validated ARCS to ten minute mother-teen discussions in a disagreement task (Allen et al., 1995). • The undermining of autonomy scale was based upon the use of behaviors which do not allow each party to comfortably express opposing views about the disagreement, including pressuring behaviors, focusing on personal characteristics rather than reasons, and placating or recanting during the discussion. • The undermining of relatedness scale was based upon ignoring, distracting, or hostile behaviors which could leave the other person feeling worse about themselves, the speaker, or the relationship.

8. Method (cont.) ARCS (cont.) • The scale for promotion of autonomy was based upon the use of confident and reasoned arguments during the discussion. • The promotion of relatedness scale captures the degree to which the speaker engages with, listens to, and validates the other person during the disagreement. Each occurrence of promotion or undermining of autonomy or relatedness was coded on a scale from zero to four, and scores were combined to provide overall scores for mother’s undermining of autonomy and relatedness, teen’s undermining of autonomy and relatedness (combined to make a dyadic mother-teen score); father’s undermining of his own autonomy and relatedness, and father’s promotion of his own autonomy and relatedness.

9. Results • Table 1 provides simple correlations between variables. • Tables 2 & 3 present results of cross-sectional hierarchical regressions demonstrating significantly higher teen popularity at age 13 predicted by dyadic mother-teen warmth (DR2 =.05, p <.0001), and dyadic mother-teen intimacy (DR2=.05, p <.0001), observed in the Supportive Behavior Task.1 1 All regression equations accounted for minority status. Income was excluded due to its high correlation with minority status. Gender was excluded because it did not factor significantly into any of the analyses.

10. Results (cont.) • Tables 4 & 5 depict results of cross-sectional hierarchical regressions demonstrating significantly lower teen popularity at age 13 predicted by dyadic mother-teen undermining of autonomy and relatedness (DR2=.06, p <.0001), and father-teen undermining of autonomy and relatedness (DR2=.06, p <.01), observed in the Autonomy-Relatedness Task. • Table 6 denotes results of hierarchical regressions demonstrating change over time. After controlling for teen’s popularity at age 13, father-teen promoting of autonomy and relatedness at age 13 predicts increased teen popularity at age 14 (DR2=.04, p <.0001), observed in the Autonomy-Relatedness Task.

11. Table 1. Variable Correlations

12. Tables 2 & 3. Cross-sectional Regressions: Supportive Behavior Task

13. Tables 4 & 5. Cross-sectional Regressions: Autonomy-Relatedness Task

14. Table 6. Change Over Time: Autonomy-Relatedness Task

15. Conclusions • Certain aspects of relationships with both parents were related to concurrent adolescent popularity: • Positive mother to teen and teen to mother behaviors during a supportive behavior task are associated with adolescents who are more popular at age 13 • Fathers undermining autonomous-relatedness with their adolescents is related to teens being less popular at age 13 • Teen/mother dyads who undermine autonomous-relatedness are associated with teens being less popular at age 13 • Only father’s behavior towards the adolescent was related to changes in adolescent popularity over the next year: • Fathers who promoted autonomous-relatedness with their teens were associated with teens who became more popular over the next year

16. Future Directions • When the data on the supportive behavior task with fathers is available, we will use similar regression analyses to determine whether it is related to concurrent popularity, like the mother supportive behavior task data, or to longitudinal popularity, like the father autonomous-relatedness task data. • Extend the current research as the teens continue through adolescence. • In the future, we may consider including additional time points to better characterize the nuances of the development of adolescents’ supportive behavior and autonomous-relatedness.

17. References • Alexander, C., Piazza, M., Mekos, D., & Valente, T. (2001). Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(1), 22-30. • Allen, J.P., Hall, F.H., Insabella, G., Land, D., Marsh, P.A., & Porter, M.R. (2001). The supportive behavior task coding system. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. • Allen, J.P., Hauser, S.T., Bell, K.L, McElhaney, K.B & Tate, D.C. (1995). The autonomy and relatedness coding system: A scoring manual. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. • Allen, J.P., Hauser, S.T., Bell, K.L & O’Connor, T.G. (1994). Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65(1), 179-194. • Bukowski, W. M., Pizzamiglio, M. T., Newcomb, A. F., & Hoza, B. (1996).  Popularity as an  affordance for friendship: The link between group and dyadic experience. Social Development, 5(2), 190-202. • Coie, J.D., Dodge, K.A. & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570. • Crowell, J.A., Treboux, D., Gao, Y., Fyffe, C., Pan, H. & Waters, E. (2002). Assessing secure base behavior in adulthood: Development of a measure, links to adult attachment representations, and relations to couples’ communication and reports of relationships. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 679-693. • Franzoi, S. , Davis, M. & Vasquez-Suson, K. (1994). Two social worlds: Social correlates and stability of adolescent status groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 462-473. • Lieberman, M., Gauvin, L., Bukowski, W. M., & White, D. R. (2001). Interpersonal influence and disordered eating behaviors in adolescent girls: The role of peer modeling, social reinforcement, and body-related teasing. Eating Behaviors, 2(3), 215-236. • Steinberg, L. (1999). Adolescence. 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA. pg 177.