- Email: [email protected]
Effect of Family Communication Patterns of Resilience among Iranian Adolescents
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
3rd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance (WCPCG-2012)
Effect of family communication patterns of resilience among Iranian adolescents Leaila Noorafshan a *, Bahram Jowkarb, Farideh Sadat Hosseinic a
University Teachers of, Shiraz, Iran
b Department of Educational psychology,University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran c
Department of Educational psychology,University of Persian Gulf, Bushehr , Iran
Abstract The aim of this study was the effect of family communication patterns its components on Resilience among Iranian adolescents. Seven-hundred-high school students (180 girls & 150 boys) were participants of the study. Revised version of family communication patterns Scale and Adult Resilience Scale were used as measures of the study. To examine the reliability of measures, Cranach alpha coefficient, and to determine the validity, factor analysis was used. Results showed that: with bin family communication patterns with Resilience was a significant predictor. (P<0/001). Score Average Resilience on the Consensual patterns & pluralistic patterns high but protective patterns & laissez-fair patterns were Lower (p<0/05). Also Consensual patterns & pluralistic patterns resilience are higher in high of resiliency is higher in boys than girls. Conversation especially in boys than in conformity orientation in family communication, which has more resilience. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.responsibility Selection and of peer review under theUzunboylu responsibility of Dr. Melehat Demirok, Halat Selection and peer-review under Prof. Dr. Huseyin & Dr. Mukaddes Near East University, Cyprus Keywords: family communication patterns, Resilience, . Conversation, conformity
1. Introduction Positive psychology oriented toward seeking treatment for injuries is to improve the quality of life this move followed the strengths of humans to use as a shield against mental illness among the factors Social role in the formation of family Resilience as other more human characteristics have been considered. Swan family of one of the most Social connections and ties its various dimensions, such as The number of family members, education, income, power structure ,Correlation of family members are resilience determinants (Campell ,at el ,2006) Elwood, Schrader (1998) Formation of associations Two types of family orientation: 1- conversation 2- conformity(Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002a) conversation is bias refers to a situation in which family members to participate freely and easy care in handling and Interaction and To encourage conversation in various fields Family members said Thursday, with high node-free, continuous and Spontaneously interact with each other Possible to design a wide range of topics have no time limit. Conformity with this view applies to family relationships is known that members get to the same attitudes, Values and beliefs that Conformity with the families in their interactions with a focus on matching the beliefs and attitudes, Relationship between the two generations in this family, on Obedience to parents and Adults (Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002a) Combining the two types of orientation creates four types of family: 1.
* Corresponding author name. Tel.: +0-917-717-8050 E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu & Dr. Mukaddes Demirok, Near East University, Cyprus doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.670
Leaila Noorafshan et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
901
2Consensual: In such families interested in one hand and open communication is important to explore new beliefs. Parents and children expressed their views with great interest; they decide (Koerner, Maki, 2004) 2. Pluralistic: Conformity with little conversation above. Parents need to control their children or Do not see them making decisions about Children in these families the parents respect Children are the decision maker. 3- protection: Conversation Low - High Conformity Power in the hands of parents with children are not consulted. Parents believe that children should not be explained (Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002a) 4- Laissez-faire: Conformity and conversation are lower, Interactions between family members is low, and all must have the ability to make decisions (Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002a) Figures.1.After this interaction, communication patterns resulting
Conversation + Consensual Pluralistic Conformity
+
Laissez-faire
Protective
Huang (1999) Extensive research outcomes: Personal communication patterns (self-esteem, self-disclosure, selfmonitoring, desirability of control, social desirability, shyness, sociability) be studied and showed that conversation, with positive outcomes, Conformity, with negative consequences. In another study, after conversation with the selfesteem and social support Positive relationship ( Koerner, Maki, 2004) With anxiety, depression, negative relationship (Gudykunst, Nishida, 2001, Vittengl, Holt , 1998, Landman-Peters, 2005, Sarason , Levine, 1983) Conformity with anxiety positively (Sarason at all. 1983) Negative relationship with self-esteem and social support ( Koerner, Maki, 2004, Smith, Triandis , Suinn, 1965) In the present study Effects of family communication patterns, as was the resiliency: 1-The main research questions were of Does the type of orientation in family relationships (Conformity with and with conversation), knowing the impact of resiliency 2-Gender has a moderating variety of the students? The main hypothesis of the dialogue patterns with higher resilience. 2. Methods Participants of the study were 330 high school students (180 girls &150 boys) were selected by multi-stages cluster random sampling; from different high school of Shiraz (a southern city of Iran). 1.1. Measures 2.1.1 Family Communication Patterns scale (FCP) The FCP is a 26 item scale and comprises two subscales . The reliability of the measure examined by internal consistency Chronbach alpha method. Third order head Alpha coefficient for was 0.88 0.84. Validity of the measures investigated by the factor analysis method. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the validity of the measure for use in Iran. 2.2.1 Adult Resilience Scale (ARS) The ARS is a 46 item. The reliability of the measure examined by internal consistency Chronbach alpha method. Third order head Alpha coefficient for Resilience was 0.92. The validity of the measures investigated by the factor analysis method. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the validity of the measure for use in Iran.
902
Leaila Noorafshan et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
3. Results The results comparison of girls and boys between family communication patterns and resilience (Table 1). Table 1. Comparison of girls and boys participants in study variables Specifications
conversation
conformity
resilience
M SD
M SD
M SD
girls
52/ 51 (10/26)
27/66 (8/48)
44/81(14/28)
boys
49/ 07 (10/61)
31/15 (7/65)
48/19 (15/85)
Total
50/ 79 (10/55)
29/40 (8/24)
46/50 (15/14)
Table .2.The mean and standard deviation Pesticides subjects Girls and boys in terms of communication patterns Pattern
Consensual
Pluralistic
Protective
M SD
M SD
M SD
Laissez-faire M SD
Girls
45/00 (12/79)
52/40 (12/73)
36/55 (12/21)
43/16 (18/36)
Boys
54/60 (10/50)
64/40 (12/04)
36/27( 14/32)
36/58 (10/84)
Total
50/66 (12/30)
55/64 (13/51)
36/40 (13/24)
39/31 (14/51)
Table 3. Analysis of communication patterns of resiliency Degrees of freedom
Source communication patterns
P<
F
3 1
19/ 42 2/ 68
0/001
Sex Interaction
3
3/46
0/05
Error
137
Total
144
N.S.
Table 4. The resiliency of different patterns of communication Pattern
Sex
Fi
M
t
Boys
28
54/60
2/57
0/01
45/00 64/40 52/40 36/27 36/55
0/01
-0/06
N.S.
Laissez-faire
Girls Boys
15 28 22 16
2/57
Protective
Girls Boys Girls Boys
22
17 12
36/58 43/16
-1/21
N.S.
Consensual Pluralistic
Girls
P<
Leaila Noorafshan et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
903
4. Discussion As the results show the pluralistic model highest score and the resilience with which models and Conversation low, high or both low Conformity There is a significant difference. Agreement and pluralistic patterns of significant differences in favor of the boys and There were no significant differences in other patterns. Results are consistent with theories of (Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002b) Families with adolescents in decisions to allow, in addition Providing opportunities for youth expression and independence, to Adolescents, to bring the value of family-friendly Social support to families of teenagers feel that the outcome Both conditions increase the family's satisfaction (Brooks, 1997) Communication patterns of teenagers are confident Cause adolescents to freely discuss their feelings and thoughts with family members. Teens who were classified as light-headed families in their pattern significantly less resiliency and pluralistic patterns of agreement reported, Although the level of resiliency model was more protective, but its value was not significant Conformity bias in both form and Conversation to Reaches its lowest level and indicates that it is such chaos in family relationships, not teenagers to take satisfaction in line with these findings and patterns of recent research conducted. In the field of adolescent attachment to the family. Based on these findings (Ryan, 1995, Noom, 1999) autonomy during adolescence, teenagers are not necessarily the emotional dependence to independence, but desire to needy family environment, Able to ensure that it would no longer need to express the dependency is safe. (Alen, Hausser, Bell, O`conner1994, Kenny, Gallacher, 2002) What can be said that the situation of adolescents in total chaos (model without constraint) and how severe the condition of Conformity Conditions that are less resilient than, Conformity with moderate or high Conversation, This also holds true at the community level Seek all despotic societies or chaos, insecurity and unhappiness of life for its members provide. Therefore it is suggested, families, educational models designed to represent each of the extremes in relation to the freedom that teenagers can be avoided. In this study, the pattern of consensus and the pluralistic boys score was higher than that of their families than boys to girls knew from the Conversation. This pattern of emotional connection in the present study May be due to cultural factors as No difference in boys and girls in the family Protecting the family, can be said that the entire family with a defined hierarchy of power, a form of both sexes are affected .This study showed that overall, girls and boys can experience the same resiliency. But it was a significant modulators role in the interaction with the communication patterns. Come to the other families in the patterns of consensus and pluralistic, resiliency boys than girls, but boys were more striking patterns insouciant swing girls and the pattern of protection, there was no difference between the sexes. Considering that this research was conducted with students, their version was used scale communication patterns that suggest future studies to compare the communication patterns of children's and parents 'perceptions of the parents' version of the scale used. References Alen, J. P., Hausser, S. P., Bell, K. L., & , P. (1994). Longitudinal study of autonomy and relatedness in family interaction at predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 179-194. Brooks, J. B. (1997). Parenting (2nd. Ed.). Mountain View: Mayfield. Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms i n young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(4), 585-599. Elwood, T. D., & Schrader, D. C. (1998). Family communication patterns and communication apprehension. Journal of Social Behavior and personality, 13, 493-502. Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (2001). Anxiety, uncertainty, & perceived effectiveness of communication across relationships & cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 55-71. Huang, L. N. (1999). Family communication patterns and personality characteristics. Academic Research Library, 47, 230-244. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick M. A. (2002a). Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Communication Year Book, 28, 36-68. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002b). Toward a theory of Family Communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70-91. Kenny, M. E., & Gallacher, L. A. (2002). Instrumental and social relational correlates of perceived maternal and paternal attachment in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 203-219. Koerner, A. F., & Maki, L. (2004). Family communication patterns & social support in families of origin & adult children subsequent intimate relationships. Paper presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Madison, WI, and July 22-25
904
Leaila Noorafshan et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
Landman-Peters, K., Hartman, C. A., Pompe, G., Boer, J. A., Minderaa, R. B., & Ormel, J. (2005). Gender differences in the relation b etween social support, problems in parent-offspring communication, depression & anxiety. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2549-2559. Noom, M. J. (1999). Adolescence autonomy: Characteristic and correlates. Delft, Netherland: Elburom. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and facilitation of integrative process. Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427 Smith, T. L., Triandis, H., & Suinn, R. M. (1965). A note on identification, self esteem, anxiety, & conformity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 286-286. Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 127-139. Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, C. S. (1998). Positive & negative effect in social interactions as a function of partner familiarity, quality of communication & social anxiety. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 196-209.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
3rd World Conference on Psychology, Counselling and Guidance (WCPCG-2012)
Effect of family communication patterns of resilience among Iranian adolescents Leaila Noorafshan a *, Bahram Jowkarb, Farideh Sadat Hosseinic a
University Teachers of, Shiraz, Iran
b Department of Educational psychology,University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran c
Department of Educational psychology,University of Persian Gulf, Bushehr , Iran
Abstract The aim of this study was the effect of family communication patterns its components on Resilience among Iranian adolescents. Seven-hundred-high school students (180 girls & 150 boys) were participants of the study. Revised version of family communication patterns Scale and Adult Resilience Scale were used as measures of the study. To examine the reliability of measures, Cranach alpha coefficient, and to determine the validity, factor analysis was used. Results showed that: with bin family communication patterns with Resilience was a significant predictor. (P<0/001). Score Average Resilience on the Consensual patterns & pluralistic patterns high but protective patterns & laissez-fair patterns were Lower (p<0/05). Also Consensual patterns & pluralistic patterns resilience are higher in high of resiliency is higher in boys than girls. Conversation especially in boys than in conformity orientation in family communication, which has more resilience. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.responsibility Selection and of peer review under theUzunboylu responsibility of Dr. Melehat Demirok, Halat Selection and peer-review under Prof. Dr. Huseyin & Dr. Mukaddes Near East University, Cyprus Keywords: family communication patterns, Resilience, . Conversation, conformity
1. Introduction Positive psychology oriented toward seeking treatment for injuries is to improve the quality of life this move followed the strengths of humans to use as a shield against mental illness among the factors Social role in the formation of family Resilience as other more human characteristics have been considered. Swan family of one of the most Social connections and ties its various dimensions, such as The number of family members, education, income, power structure ,Correlation of family members are resilience determinants (Campell ,at el ,2006) Elwood, Schrader (1998) Formation of associations Two types of family orientation: 1- conversation 2- conformity(Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002a) conversation is bias refers to a situation in which family members to participate freely and easy care in handling and Interaction and To encourage conversation in various fields Family members said Thursday, with high node-free, continuous and Spontaneously interact with each other Possible to design a wide range of topics have no time limit. Conformity with this view applies to family relationships is known that members get to the same attitudes, Values and beliefs that Conformity with the families in their interactions with a focus on matching the beliefs and attitudes, Relationship between the two generations in this family, on Obedience to parents and Adults (Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002a) Combining the two types of orientation creates four types of family: 1.
* Corresponding author name. Tel.: +0-917-717-8050 E-mail address: [email protected]
1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu & Dr. Mukaddes Demirok, Near East University, Cyprus doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.670
Leaila Noorafshan et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
901
2Consensual: In such families interested in one hand and open communication is important to explore new beliefs. Parents and children expressed their views with great interest; they decide (Koerner, Maki, 2004) 2. Pluralistic: Conformity with little conversation above. Parents need to control their children or Do not see them making decisions about Children in these families the parents respect Children are the decision maker. 3- protection: Conversation Low - High Conformity Power in the hands of parents with children are not consulted. Parents believe that children should not be explained (Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002a) 4- Laissez-faire: Conformity and conversation are lower, Interactions between family members is low, and all must have the ability to make decisions (Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002a) Figures.1.After this interaction, communication patterns resulting
Conversation + Consensual Pluralistic Conformity
+
Laissez-faire
Protective
Huang (1999) Extensive research outcomes: Personal communication patterns (self-esteem, self-disclosure, selfmonitoring, desirability of control, social desirability, shyness, sociability) be studied and showed that conversation, with positive outcomes, Conformity, with negative consequences. In another study, after conversation with the selfesteem and social support Positive relationship ( Koerner, Maki, 2004) With anxiety, depression, negative relationship (Gudykunst, Nishida, 2001, Vittengl, Holt , 1998, Landman-Peters, 2005, Sarason , Levine, 1983) Conformity with anxiety positively (Sarason at all. 1983) Negative relationship with self-esteem and social support ( Koerner, Maki, 2004, Smith, Triandis , Suinn, 1965) In the present study Effects of family communication patterns, as was the resiliency: 1-The main research questions were of Does the type of orientation in family relationships (Conformity with and with conversation), knowing the impact of resiliency 2-Gender has a moderating variety of the students? The main hypothesis of the dialogue patterns with higher resilience. 2. Methods Participants of the study were 330 high school students (180 girls &150 boys) were selected by multi-stages cluster random sampling; from different high school of Shiraz (a southern city of Iran). 1.1. Measures 2.1.1 Family Communication Patterns scale (FCP) The FCP is a 26 item scale and comprises two subscales . The reliability of the measure examined by internal consistency Chronbach alpha method. Third order head Alpha coefficient for was 0.88 0.84. Validity of the measures investigated by the factor analysis method. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the validity of the measure for use in Iran. 2.2.1 Adult Resilience Scale (ARS) The ARS is a 46 item. The reliability of the measure examined by internal consistency Chronbach alpha method. Third order head Alpha coefficient for Resilience was 0.92. The validity of the measures investigated by the factor analysis method. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the validity of the measure for use in Iran.
902
Leaila Noorafshan et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
3. Results The results comparison of girls and boys between family communication patterns and resilience (Table 1). Table 1. Comparison of girls and boys participants in study variables Specifications
conversation
conformity
resilience
M SD
M SD
M SD
girls
52/ 51 (10/26)
27/66 (8/48)
44/81(14/28)
boys
49/ 07 (10/61)
31/15 (7/65)
48/19 (15/85)
Total
50/ 79 (10/55)
29/40 (8/24)
46/50 (15/14)
Table .2.The mean and standard deviation Pesticides subjects Girls and boys in terms of communication patterns Pattern
Consensual
Pluralistic
Protective
M SD
M SD
M SD
Laissez-faire M SD
Girls
45/00 (12/79)
52/40 (12/73)
36/55 (12/21)
43/16 (18/36)
Boys
54/60 (10/50)
64/40 (12/04)
36/27( 14/32)
36/58 (10/84)
Total
50/66 (12/30)
55/64 (13/51)
36/40 (13/24)
39/31 (14/51)
Table 3. Analysis of communication patterns of resiliency Degrees of freedom
Source communication patterns
P<
F
3 1
19/ 42 2/ 68
0/001
Sex Interaction
3
3/46
0/05
Error
137
Total
144
N.S.
Table 4. The resiliency of different patterns of communication Pattern
Sex
Fi
M
t
Boys
28
54/60
2/57
0/01
45/00 64/40 52/40 36/27 36/55
0/01
-0/06
N.S.
Laissez-faire
Girls Boys
15 28 22 16
2/57
Protective
Girls Boys Girls Boys
22
17 12
36/58 43/16
-1/21
N.S.
Consensual Pluralistic
Girls
P<
Leaila Noorafshan et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
903
4. Discussion As the results show the pluralistic model highest score and the resilience with which models and Conversation low, high or both low Conformity There is a significant difference. Agreement and pluralistic patterns of significant differences in favor of the boys and There were no significant differences in other patterns. Results are consistent with theories of (Koerner, Fitzpatrick, 2002b) Families with adolescents in decisions to allow, in addition Providing opportunities for youth expression and independence, to Adolescents, to bring the value of family-friendly Social support to families of teenagers feel that the outcome Both conditions increase the family's satisfaction (Brooks, 1997) Communication patterns of teenagers are confident Cause adolescents to freely discuss their feelings and thoughts with family members. Teens who were classified as light-headed families in their pattern significantly less resiliency and pluralistic patterns of agreement reported, Although the level of resiliency model was more protective, but its value was not significant Conformity bias in both form and Conversation to Reaches its lowest level and indicates that it is such chaos in family relationships, not teenagers to take satisfaction in line with these findings and patterns of recent research conducted. In the field of adolescent attachment to the family. Based on these findings (Ryan, 1995, Noom, 1999) autonomy during adolescence, teenagers are not necessarily the emotional dependence to independence, but desire to needy family environment, Able to ensure that it would no longer need to express the dependency is safe. (Alen, Hausser, Bell, O`conner1994, Kenny, Gallacher, 2002) What can be said that the situation of adolescents in total chaos (model without constraint) and how severe the condition of Conformity Conditions that are less resilient than, Conformity with moderate or high Conversation, This also holds true at the community level Seek all despotic societies or chaos, insecurity and unhappiness of life for its members provide. Therefore it is suggested, families, educational models designed to represent each of the extremes in relation to the freedom that teenagers can be avoided. In this study, the pattern of consensus and the pluralistic boys score was higher than that of their families than boys to girls knew from the Conversation. This pattern of emotional connection in the present study May be due to cultural factors as No difference in boys and girls in the family Protecting the family, can be said that the entire family with a defined hierarchy of power, a form of both sexes are affected .This study showed that overall, girls and boys can experience the same resiliency. But it was a significant modulators role in the interaction with the communication patterns. Come to the other families in the patterns of consensus and pluralistic, resiliency boys than girls, but boys were more striking patterns insouciant swing girls and the pattern of protection, there was no difference between the sexes. Considering that this research was conducted with students, their version was used scale communication patterns that suggest future studies to compare the communication patterns of children's and parents 'perceptions of the parents' version of the scale used. References Alen, J. P., Hausser, S. P., Bell, K. L., & , P. (1994). Longitudinal study of autonomy and relatedness in family interaction at predictors of adolescent ego development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 179-194. Brooks, J. B. (1997). Parenting (2nd. Ed.). Mountain View: Mayfield. Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms i n young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(4), 585-599. Elwood, T. D., & Schrader, D. C. (1998). Family communication patterns and communication apprehension. Journal of Social Behavior and personality, 13, 493-502. Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (2001). Anxiety, uncertainty, & perceived effectiveness of communication across relationships & cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 55-71. Huang, L. N. (1999). Family communication patterns and personality characteristics. Academic Research Library, 47, 230-244. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick M. A. (2002a). Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Communication Year Book, 28, 36-68. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002b). Toward a theory of Family Communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70-91. Kenny, M. E., & Gallacher, L. A. (2002). Instrumental and social relational correlates of perceived maternal and paternal attachment in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 203-219. Koerner, A. F., & Maki, L. (2004). Family communication patterns & social support in families of origin & adult children subsequent intimate relationships. Paper presented at the International Association for Relationship Research Conference, Madison, WI, and July 22-25
904
Leaila Noorafshan et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 84 (2013) 900 – 904
Landman-Peters, K., Hartman, C. A., Pompe, G., Boer, J. A., Minderaa, R. B., & Ormel, J. (2005). Gender differences in the relation b etween social support, problems in parent-offspring communication, depression & anxiety. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2549-2559. Noom, M. J. (1999). Adolescence autonomy: Characteristic and correlates. Delft, Netherland: Elburom. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and facilitation of integrative process. Journal of Personality, 63, 397-427 Smith, T. L., Triandis, H., & Suinn, R. M. (1965). A note on identification, self esteem, anxiety, & conformity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 286-286. Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 44, 127-139. Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, C. S. (1998). Positive & negative effect in social interactions as a function of partner familiarity, quality of communication & social anxiety. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 196-209.