Adolescent ego development: relationship to family cohesion and adaptability

Journal of Adolescence 1989, 12.83-94

Adolescent ego development : relationship to family cohesion and adaptability LINDA

BAKKENa

AND

CHARLES

ROMIG”

Adolescence has been a focus of research for several decades. Recently, a portion of this body of research has addressed the relationship between adolescent development and family functioning. The intent of much of this research has been the attempt to determine how family dynamics influence the developmental processes of adolescents. Adolescents’ perceptions of family cohesion and adaptability, as well as their levels of satisfaction with those perceptions, have been correlated with ego development within a sample of middle adolescents. Adaptability and cohesion were found to be significantly related to ego development, but interactions among the two variables, as well as with family structure were important. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADOLESCENT EGO DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY

Numerous researchers have focused in recent years on the relationship between adolescent ego development and family functioning. Developmental psychologists (assuming that an individual actively creates a worldview while continually interacting with the social and physical environment) have examined the impact of aspects of the family’s processes on adolescent’s emerging development. Other researchers, primarily interested in larger social systems, including the family, think that family processes unidirectionally influence adolescent development (Reiss, Oliveria, and Curd, 1983). A third position advocates that the relationship between adolescent development and family processes is reciprocal (Minuchin, 1985). From a developmental ‘perspective, autonomy and responsibility-the development of an ego strength which prepares the individual for the independence of adulthood-are the primary ego tasks during adolescence. Loevinger (1976) provides a strong, global theory that explains the process of ego development. She suggests that the ego contains elements of a moral style, an interpersonal style, a self-other orientation, and a level of cognitive functioning. Loevinger further indicates that these four functions develop l Reprint requests to Dr Linda Bakken, Educational Psychology Unit, College of Education, The Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 67208, U.S.A. and Dr Charles Rornig, Counseling and School Psychology Unit, College of Education, The Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 67ao8, U.S.A.

OI40-1971/9010&33 + If so3.oolo

8 1989The

Association for the Psychiatric Study of Adolescents

84

L. BAKKEN

AND C. ROMIG

from a simple self-interest stage, to a conformist stage, and then to conscientious and autonomous stages. Each of these stages is a qualitatively complete means of making sense of one’s world. Stage change occurs when the individual cognitively restructures his/her perspective of the social world and only happens when one’s social environment and one’s cognitive perspective of the environment conflict. Although Loevinger suggests that ego development is not dependent on age, adolescence provides a vehicle for stage change in that major changes in cognitive abilities emerge at this time which allow the adolescent to view his/her world in a more complex manner. Because of the changing roles and status of youth, adolescence provides a context for movement into the conscientious and autonomous ego stages. Few studies have addressed gender differences in ego development during adolescence, but some evidence exists to show that females are generally at higher stages than males (Gfellner, 1986). While the adolescent is facing many issues of individual development, with ego development among the most important, the family unit also faces many developmental tasks. The primary task for the family during the adolescent period is one of emancipating the adolescent so that he/she can successfully gain independent, adult status in the world. This “leaving home” process requires a letting-go by other family members and involves a redefinition of the nature of the emotional bonding between members. It also necessitates a change in family rules and roles, since the adolescent will no longer be a critical member in his/her family’s structure and organization. The emancipation of a family member, though culturally expected, can attain crisis proportions if the family does not successfully address the issues necessary to make the transitions. Although Loevinger and Wessler (1970) argue that ego development progresses during early and middle adolescence, few researchers have examined the impact of the adolescent’s family on the process of ego development. Two studies have focused on the influence of the family’s affective climate on adolescent development: (I) Gfellner (1986) found positive correlations between loving and supportive parenting styles and the ego development of early adolescents; and (2) Powers, Hauser, Schwartz, Noam, and Jacobson (1983) found advanced adolescent ego development when parents presented a high amount of non-competitive sharing of perspectives or challenging behaviors within a context of high support and low affective conflict. Other researchers have found that trust, cohesion, and flexibility correlate with the adolescent developmental variables of identity development (Adams and Jones, I 983)) ego-identity (Adams, I 985)) and interpersonal skills (Bell and Bell, 1982). Such research has addressed the relationship between the adolescent’s resources (i.e. ego development) and interpersonal behavior (typically

ADOLESCENT

EGO DEVELOPMENT

85

between the adolescent and an individual parent). Family researchers, on the other hand, have focused on ways parents influence adolescents (usually in a unidirectional fashion), and/or ways parents and adolescents interact as dyads. Some observers have suggested that influences in a family-i.e. among all household members-may be bidirectional, with each member’s behavior contributing to and constraining ongoing family interactions (Powers, et al., 1983; Bell and Bell, 1983). Morever, such interactions occur in fairly constant patterns: (I) each person’s resources (self-esteem, competencies, etc.) affect the attitudes and perceptions of others; (2) these attitudes and perceptions influence interpersonal behavior; and (3) interpersonal behavior affects the way individuals develop and maintain their personal resources (Bell and Bell, 1983). While observations of specific interactions provide insights into the family process, also useful to the researcher and clinician is the ability to identify and categorize family types based on patterns of interpersonal behavior. Such categorizations can be used to identify the rdationships between family types and developmental outcomes in adolescents. Another component deserving of study is the relationship between the adolescent’s perceptions and/or attitudes about the family (as a unit) and the adolescent’s resources. Perceptions and attitudes about the interpersonal behaviors in the family may mediate the effects of interpersonal behaviors on the adolescent’s personal resources (i.e. ego development). Among various models of family functioning that have recently been developed, the Circumplex Model of Family Functioning (CM) is one that researchers and clinicians commonly use. This model, a crystalization of an analysis of prominent models of family therapy and family sociology (Olson, 1979) is based on three variables: cohesion, Sprenkle and Russell, Cohesion consists of the levels of adaptability, and communication. emotional bonding present between members, while adaptability refers to the ability of a family to change its roles and rules when circumstances necessitate doing so. Adolescence is a time of many transitions and requires negotiation between family members on a number of issues to aid smooth transition and avoid the possibility of dysfunctional behaviors. The CM is dynamic in that it assumes families change across time, particularly as families move across the stages of the family life cycle. Two features make the CM a useful model for integrating the global family variables of cohesion and adaptability with family and individual development (Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle, 1983). One distinctive characteristic is its hypothesized curvilinear nature. Extremely high or low levels of cohesion or adaptability are considered problematic, with the healthiest families being those which, across time, show a moderate level of each variable. Another useful feature of the model is its ability to measure satisfaction with family

86

L. BAKKEN AND C. ROMIG

relationships by computing the differences between perceived and desired levels of cohesion and adaptability-an important feature, in as much as satisfaction with perceived levels of cohesion and adaptability may be more important than the actual levels present (Olson, Russell and Sprenkle, 1983). A number of studies using the CM show that families with pathological members are more likely to be extreme on one or both variables, while families without pathological members tend to have more moderate levels on each variable (Carnes, 1985; Garbarino, 1985). However, evidence also exists suggesting that a linear model of both cohesion and adaptability may more accurately describe non-problematic families (Olson, Russell and Sprenkle, 1983). The research reported here addresses the relationships between global perceptions of family cohesion, adaptability and adolescent ego development. The relationships between satisfaction with levels of family cohesion, adaptability, and adolescent ego development are also examined. Specifically, the research addresses the following questions: (I) Are moderate levels of cohesion and adaptability in families related to adolescents having higher levels of ego development, and extreme levels of cohesion and adaptability (either high or 1ow ) associated with lower levels of ego development? ; (2) Are cohesion and adaptability independently related to ego development in adolescents?; (3) Is satisfaction with levels of cohesion and adaptability related to ego development ?; (4) Are there gender differences in ego development? METHOD

Subjects The sample consisted of I 80 students in grades I I and I 2 drawn from intact social science classes at an urban high school in Kansas. The measures were administered on two separate days, participation was voluntary, and anonymity was maintained. Because of absences and unwillingness to participate in both testing sessions, the final sample consisted of 131 adolescents (67 females, 64 males). The school was representative of the diverse socioeconomic and ethnic group of the community. Demographic data indicated the sample consisted of 78 per cent Caucasian, I I per cent black, 3 per cent hispanic, 5 per cent asian, and 3 per cent other. Fifty-three per cent of the sample was Protestant, 26 per cent Catholic, 3 per cent other, and 18 per cent stated no religious preference. Eleven per cent described themselves as “highly religious”, 42 per cent as “somewhat religious”, 38 per cent as “slightly religious”, and 9 per cent as “not at all religious”. The average annual family income was between $25,000 and $30,000, with 21 per cent under $20,000, 30 per cent between $2o,ooo and

ADOLESCENT EGO DEVELOPMENT

87

$30,000, and 49 per cent over $30,000. Data on family structure showed that 52 per cent lived in intact families (with both biological parents), 26 per cent lived in a single-parent family (with 90 per cent being with their mother), 14 per cent in a blended family, and 8 per cent living in some other arrangement (such as a group home, foster home, independently, or with an extended family member).

Measures Ego development was measured using the Loevinger, Wessler, and Redmore (1970) Sentence Completion Test (SCT). This measure consists of 36 sentence stems which the subject completes according to his/her preference. The measure indicates a global ego conceptualization in terms of self, interpersonal skills, cognitive style, and impulse control. Loevinger (1976) categorizes this construct into seven hierarchical stages and three transitions between stages. The measures are rated for each sentence using the scoring manual provided, then each protocol is assigned an overall stage rating (Loevinger et al., 1970). The two primary researchers undertook a rigorous self-training course in scoring the tool and report an inter-rater reliability of 0.95. Levels of family cohesion and adaptability were measured using the Family Adaptability and Cohension Evaluation Scales (FACES III) developed and revised by Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Sarsen, Muxen and Wilson (1985). The measure indicates both: (I) How the member currently sees his/her family (perceived scores) ; and (2) how he/she would like her/his family to be (ideal score). The measure consists of 40 statements (20 perceived, 20 ideal), which are rated on a Lickert scale. Perceived scores are then summed and placed on two axes, from low to high cohesion and low to high adaptability. A “distance from center” score is computed by combining the difference between the perceived levels of cohesion and adaptability from their respective normed means. Distance from center scores can be used as a linear variable. According to the Circumplex Model, the higher the distance from center scores, the more extreme (pathological) the family type. Extreme family types should have a negative impact on the health and development of individual members. The level of satisfaction the respondent has with his/her family can be measured by computing discrepancy scores consisting of the difference between the perceived levels of cohesion and adaptability with the desired or ideal levels (Olson et al. I 985). Since experience with FACES I I I shows that the ideal score is usually higher than the perceived amount, a discrepancy score on each variable is computed simply by subtracting the perceived scores

88

L. BAKKEN AND C. ROMIG

from the ideal scores. A total discrepancy score, combining discrepancy scores of both cohesion and adaptability can also be computed. RESULTS A Pearson correlation was computed between distance from center scores and ego development to test the hypothesis that more balanced family types should have adolescents at higher ego development stages. No support for the curvilinear hypothesis of the Circumplex Model was found. In fact, although the correlation is not statistically significant (Table I), it approaches significance and is the opposite of what is predicted. The correlation is puzzling because it would seem that families tending to be more extreme, according to the CM, may have adolescents with higher levels of ego development. When correlating ego development with family cohesion and adaptability as separate variables, a significant correlation exists between adaptability and ego development, but not between cohesion and ego development. A linear relationship between adaptability and ego development appears to be present, not supporting the curvilinear hypothesis of the CM. Satisfaction with levels of family adaptability was correlated with ego development (Y = 0.15, P = 0.05). The greater the desired increase in adaptability, the lower the ego development. This could mean that adolescents with lower levels of ego development may have unrealistically high expectations regarding desired amounts, or that levels of adaptability are being under-reported. Such under-reporting, matched with high expectations, would result in a high level of dissatisfaction with the family. Satisfaction with perceived levels of cohesion was inversely related to ego development (Y = -o* 19, P = 0.02). Adolescents desiring greater increases of cohesion in their families tended to have higher levels of ego development. Late adolescence is a period of disengagement from one’s family, yet emotional bonding and support seem to remain important to some Table 1. Correlations of ego development

with perceivedfamily

cohesion and adaptability

Ego development Distance from center Satisfaction with cohesion Satisfaction with adaptability Adaptability Cohesion (n = 104) + Significant at P
0.13 -o-19* o.rg* 0.1g* NS

ADOLESCENT

EGO DEVELOPMENT

89

adolescents, particularly those with higher levels of ego development. In a way this is not surprising, since persona with higher levels of ego development have more sensitivity to the complexities of interpersonal relationships and would likely be more capable of negotiating the struggle of maintaining intimacy with parents while gaining autonomy from them. Such a finding seems to fit with the relational aspects of ego development, which involve a progressive movement from viewing relationships in a manipulative, exploitive way, to viewing them in stereotypic and idealistic ways, to recognizing the complexities and contingencies inherent in relationships, a progression which occurs as one moves from lower to higher stages of ego development (Hauser, Powers, Noam, Jacobson, Weiss and Tollansbee, 1984). Since distance from center scores do not indicate the directionality of the scores as they become more extreme, a number of post hoc comparisons were made using family types (Olson& al., 1985). The four types are referred to as quadrants and are formed by using the normed averages of each variable as cut-offs. This creates a high-low categorization on each variable. Two-bytwo combinations create the following four families types: Quadrant I, flexibly-separated families (moderate to high levels of adaptability with moderate to low levels of cohesion) ; Quadrant II, flexibly-connected families (moderate to high levels of adaptability with moderate to high levels of cohesion) ; Quadrant I I I, structurally-separated families (moderate to low levels of adaptability with moderate to low levels of cohesion) ; and Quadrant IV, structurally-connected families (moderate to low levels of adaptability with moderate to high levels of cohesion). Few students described their families as being in Quadrant IV, so no analyses were run using data from that Quadrant. A one-way ANOVA using family type as a main effect indicated no significant differences in ego development. Pearson correlations were computed within each family type to determine if cohesion and adaptability correlated with ego development (see Table 2). This allows for examining the specific directionality of movement from moderate to more extreme levels of cohesion and adaptability, and for addressing possible interactions between levels of cohesion and adaptability. Only correlations in Quadrant I (flexible+eparated family types) were significant. A positive relationship between distance from center scores and ego development existed (r = 0.28, P = O-OS),suggesting that more extreme scores within this family type relate to higher levels of ego development. The correlation between cohesion and ego development is negative, though only approaching significance (Y = -0.24, P = 0.09). It should be noted that adaptability scores in Quadrant I tended to cluster at more moderate levels, with few extremely high scores. The higher the levels of satisfaction with the perceived levels of cohesion, the lower the ego development (Y = -0.34, P =

L. BAKKEN AND C. ROMIG

90

Table 2. Correlations ofego development

with family types (Quadrants)

Quad I Quad III Quad II (flexible) (flexible) (structured) (separated) (connected) (connected)

Cohesion Adaptability Distance from center Satisfaction with cohesion Satisfaction with adaptability

Ego

Ego

-0.24 NS 0.28~ -0.34*

Ego NS NS NS NS

NS NS NS NS

(n Y4)

(n ““,4)

(n “=“,3)

* Significant at PCo.05 level. Table 3. Stepwise

regression values predicting ego development

Mult. R Gender Adapt. Diff. Coh. Diff. Ada. Fam. Type

R2

Beta

0’22

0.05

-0.22

0.27 0’33

0.08 0 II 0’12 0.14

0.17 0.19 -0.15 -0.13

0’35 0’37

F 5.09* 4.07* 4’14* 3.45” 3’14*

Two interpretations seem reasonable based on this data: (I) When adaptability levels are moderate, lower levels of cohesion may create a context allowing for movement to higher levels of ego development ; or (2) dissatisfaction with lower levels of cohesion may be what is really associated with ego development. Adolescents with higher levels of ego development may express more dissatisfaction with low levels of cohesion. It appears that adolescents in flexible-separated families may still value cohesion in their families, at least those with higher ego development. Even though the family’s developmental task at this stage of the family life cycle is to prepare the adolescent for emancipation from the family, cohesion within the family may still be quite important to adolescents and may be related to the process of ego development. A multiple regression was computed to determine the combined amount of variance accounted for using the variables found to be independently significant. Inserting variables hierarchically, a multiple R-square of 12.2 per cent (P = 0.01) using gender, adaptability, satisfaction with cohesion levels

0.02).

ADOLESCENT

EGO DEVELOPMENT

9’

and satisfaction with adaptability levels was obtained (see Table 3). Variables from the CM account for about 7.5 per cent of the variance on ego development, justifying the use of such global family measures when attempting to explain adolescent ego development. Clearly, however, other family measures are necessary to explain the relationship between family processes and adolescent ego development because of the great amount of unexplained variance. Direct observations of family processes, in combination with perception of family processes and satisfaction with those processes would be a more comprehensive approach to addressing the research questions of this study. Another post hoc comparison of interest involves the impact of a family’s structural characteristics on ego development. A one-way ANOVA comparand blended families, revealed no significant ing intact, single-parent, differences in ego development among the adolescents. An interaction effect between family structure and cohesion was significant on ego development (F = 3-55, P = 0-03). An interaction effect between family structure and satisfaction with levels of cohesion was significant (F = 4.58, P = o-01). An interaction effect was also found between family structure and distance from center scores (F = 5.63, P = o*oogj (see Table 4). Pearson correlations were run within each family structure to examine the nature of the interactions. Cohesion correlated with ego development for blended families (r = o-51 ;P = o-02), but not for intact or single-parent families (see Table 5). Adaptability correlated with ego development for intact families, though the correlation only approached significance (Y = 0-20, P = 0.06). Distance from center scores correlated with ego development in intact families (r = 0.21, P = o-ofj), single-parent families (Y = 0.29, P = o-06), and blended families (r = -0.54, P = 0.02). Satisfaction with cohesion correlated with ego development for single-parent families (r = -0.43, P = o-01) and blended families (r = 0.37, P = 0.08). Adolescents of higher ego stages in single-parent families are less satisfied with levels of cohesion and desire greater increases in cohesion. Adolescents of higher ego stages in blended families are more satisfied with existing levels of cohesion and desire lower increases in cohesion than adolescents of lower ego stages. The correlations are intriguing. Blended families seem to fit the curvilinear hypothesis of the Circumplex Model, since lower distance from center scores (representing balancing levels of cohesion and adaptability) correlate with higher ego development. Higher distance from center scores correlate with higher ego development in intact and single-parent families, suggesting that more extreme levels of cohesion and adaptability relate to higher ego development. Cohesion is a highly important variable in blended families, as well as satisfaction with cohesion levels. Adaptability may be important in intact families; however, the relationship is not strong.

Total

Preconformist Conformist Postconformist

Total

Preconformist Conformist Postconformist

Total

Ego level Preconformist Conformist Postconformist

Table 4. Means, standard

8.86 10.99

13 29

5’35 6.23 6.52

34’53 34.62 31.28 15

8 6

N 34’13 34.5 32’4

4.8 4.6 7’4

I Parent M SD 9 2 5

N

2.0 2.0 7.1

5.6 4.5 9.7

8 6 15

4.1 5.6

4’0 2.7 5.4

7.09 7.71 8.95

C. Distance from center

8 6 15

4.7

5’1 5.5 8.4

10.65 6.94 6.24

2 5

5.89 -0.5 2.8

9

9 2 5

30’0 33.5 35’2

1’7 2.5

4.5

3.7 5’0 6.5

5’9 6.4 3’0

Blended M SD

B. Satisfaction with family cohesion

6.9 7’4 7.9

Parents M SD

9.38

2

A. Perceived family cohesion

104

‘04

104

N

9.34

5’4

32.59

M

4.8

7’0

6.8

SD

and sample sizes offMnily cohesion, satisfaction with family cohesion, and distance fm scores of family structure by ego level interactions

17

17 13 29

17 13 29

N

deviations,

center

ADOLESCENT

EGO DEVELOPMENT

93

Table 5. Correlations of ego development with family cohesion and adaptability within three family structures

Family type

Cohesion

Adaptability

Satisfaction with cohesion

NS

0’20

NS

2 Parents

Satisfaction with adaptability 0.18 (P

1 Parent Blended

NS

(P’

0.51

0’02)

(p

z*)

NS

-0.43 (P = 0’01) 0.37 (P = 0.08)

0.09) NS

=

NS

Distance from center 0’21

(P = 0.05) 0’29 (P = 0.06) -0.54 (P = 0’02)

CONCLUSIONS

Extremely high levels of adaptability are important to ego development among middle adolescents and seem to promote abilities which lead to These results do not support the CM’s autonomy and independence. curvilinear hypothesis on adaptability. Levels of family cohesion are also but only in combination with either important in ego development, extremely high or low levels of adaptability. Adolescents from families high in adaptability, but low in cohesion, have higher levels of ego development. Beavers and Voeller (1983) have offered an alternate model of family functioning to the CM, with the major difference being their assertion that adaptability is a linear variable. While the CM would view moderate levels of cohesion and adaptability as the most healthy in a family, the Beaver’s model views high levels of adaptability and moderate levels of cohesion as the most healthy in a family. The present results support the argument that higher adaptability in a family is healthier. The findings regarding family structure suggest, however, that other factors may dictate which model best describes healthy family functioning. A caution which must be raised concerns the use of the FACES III. Since it is a self-report instrument, one must question whether the respondents are accurately portraying actual family processes. Parents’ perceptions of the family would have provided a comparison point. However, direct observation of family processes would be necessary to gain a more objective description of the family processes. FACES III may actually reflect attitudes towards the family and serve to qualify the actual processes which take place. A second caution concerns the interpretations of directionality of causality in the correlations. It is possible that levels of ego development influence perceptions of the family, rather than family processes influencing ego development. A third caution concerns using intact classrooms for sampling. Such a convenience sample is obviously not random.

94

L. BAKKEN

AND C. ROMIG

In summary, perceptions of cohesion and adaptability, satisfaction perceived levels of cohesion and adaptability, and family structure interaction with cohesion and adaptability), all relate to adolescent development. Further research in this area is certainly warranted.

with (in ego

REFERENCES

Adams, G. (1985). Family correlates

of female adolescents’ ego-identity development. Journal of Adolescence 8, 69-82. Adams, G. and Jones, R. (1983). Female adolescents’ identity development: age comparisons and perceived childrearing experience. Developmental Psychology 15, 249-256. Beavers, R. and Voeller, M. (1983). Family models : comparing and contrasting the Olson circumplex model with the Beavers Systems model. Family Process 22, 85-98. Bell, D. C. and Bell, L. G. (1983). Parental validation and support in the development of adolescent daughters. In Adolescent Development in the Family, H. D. Grotevant and C. R. Cooper (Eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Carnes, P. (1985). Counseling Sexual Abusers. Minneapolis: Compcare Publications. Garbarino, J. (1985). Adolescent Development: An Ecological Perspective. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merril Publishing. Gfellner, B. (1986). Changes in ego and moral development: a longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence 9, 281-302. Hauser, S. T., Powers, S. I., Noam, G. C., Jacobson, A. M., Weiss, B. and Tollansbee, D. J. (1984). Familial contexts of adolescent ego development. Child Development 55,195-213. Kraemer, S. (1982). Leaving home and the adolescent family therapist. Journal of Adolescence 5, 5 1-62. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego Development. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass. Loevinger, J. and Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring Ego Deoelopment (Vol. I), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Loevinger, J., Wessler, R. and Redmore, C. (1970). Measuring Ego Development, Vol. II. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development 56, 289-302. Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M. and Wilson, M. (1985). Family Inventories, St. Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S. and Sprenkle, D. H., (1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: VI theoretical update. Family Process 2.2, 6fl3, Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, C. H. and Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process 18 (I), 3-28. Powers, S., Hauser, S., Schwartz, J., Noam, G. and Jacobson, A. (1983). Adolescent ego development and family interaction: a structural-developmental perspective. In Adolescent Development in the Family, Grotevant, H., and Cooper, C. (Eds). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reiss, D., Oliveria, M. E. and Curd, K. (1983). Family paradigm and adolescent social behavior. In Adolescent Development in the Family, H. D. Grotevant and C. R. Cooper (Eds). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.