- Email: [email protected]
Peer relations of adolescents from nuclear and separated families
Journal of Adolescence 2001, 24, 535–548 doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0388, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
Peer relations of adolescents from nuclear and separated families PETER NOACK, CHRISTINE KRETTEK AND SABINE WALPER Problems of psychosocial adjustment as a consequence of parental separation have mostly been studied concerning aspects of family relations and individual growth. The present study examined peer relations of young people between the ages of 10 and 20 years old who lived in nuclear families, step-families, and single-parent families. Based on the second questionnaire assessment of a longitudinal study conducted in East and West Germany, reports from a total of 637 boys and girls on deviant and constructive peers in their social network as well as on the quality of their relations with best friends were analysed. Findings suggest that peer relations were affected by parental separation only to a minor extent as compared to, e.g. gender- or age-specific effects. A central aspect of friendship quality, however, namely admiration by friends, clearly suffered from conflict between mothers and fathers. # 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents
Introduction Family and peer relations are important contexts of development and support during adolescence. While adolescents’ relations with parents and peers each have their genuine character which often have been summarized in terms of unilateralness versus egalitarian relationship patterns (Sullivan, 1953; Piaget, 1956; Youniss, 1980), it is widely acknowledged that they do not operate independently of each other. Two basic concepts specifying the association between both types of close relations can be distinguished: Some authors suggest that continuity prevails in the linkage between family and peers and point to various processes of direct and indirect influence resulting in similarities of both relationship types (e.g. Parke et al., 1988; Noack, 1995; Mize and Pettit, 1997; Oswald et al., 1997). Other authors such as protagonists of parent-peer cross-pressure research (Berndt, 1979) underscore the (at least temporary) antagonism of parents and peers. Likewise, research on adolescent problem behaviour is suggestive of a compensatory role of contexts of normviolating peers who, in instances of adolescents’ poor family relations, provide support and gain increasing influence on adolescents’ attitudes and behaviour (Kaplan, 1980; Elliott et al., 1985; Silbereisen and Noack, 1988; Hagan et al., 1998). The continuity hypothesis and the compensation hypothesis are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Associations between family and peer relations might follow a u-shaped pattern where continuity between the quality of family relations and adolescents’ integration among peers prevails and only when relations between adolescents and their parents are particularly strained and conflictual do young people turn to their peers in search of compensation for the problems at home. Findings reported by Henderson et al. (1990) provide some evidence for this view. Reprints requests and correspondence should be addressed to Peter Noack, Department of Psychology, University of Jena, Am Steiger 3/1, 07743 Jena, Germany. 0140-1971/14/040535+14 $3500/0
# 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents
536
P. Noack et al.
Parental separation and also the entry of a step-parent into the family in cases of remarriage may set bonds between adolescents and parents at risk and eventually affect peer relations. Following the terminology of problem behaviour research, the quality of relations with normative peers could then be impaired while relations with deviant peers could be entered or strengthened. The present study examines variations in adolescents’ peer relations depending on the family structure by comparing adolescents‘ from nuclear families, singleparent families, and step-families. With regard to peer relations, the quality of close friendships and the integration into networks of normative as well as deviant peers are considered. Our major interest, however, is not in the family structure per se. Our basic contention is that aspects such as heightened levels of family conflict which can often be observed as concomitants or consequences of parental separation, are the factors responsible for influencing the development of young people’s peer relations. Early research on children and adolescents who have experienced the separation of their biological parents have yielded considerable evidence for problems of these boys and girls in different aspects of their psychosocial adaptation. Comparing children from nuclear families, single-parent families, and step-families, studies suggested that in the latter two groups externalizing and internalizing problems as well as difficulties to master academic demands were more wide-spread than among children living together with both biological parents ¨r Jugend, Familie, Frauen und Gesundheit, 1988; Permien, 1988; Noack, (Bundesminister fu 1992). At first glance, the popular deficit perspective on children after parental separation found extensive support. A closer look at the findings, however, results in a less consistent picture. The consequences of parental separation seem to be moderated by a variety of factors (Hetherington, 1991; Amato, 1993; Walper, 1998). More importantly, evidence from prospective longitudinal studies (Block et al., 1986; Amato and Booth, 1996) points to psychosocial problems of future ‘‘orphans of separation’’, i.e., before their parents split up. Even though an interpretation of marital disruption as a consequence of interactions with a difficult child cannot be easily discarded, the children’s problems have mostly been seen as a result of the continuous and intense conflicts which often preceed the separation of parents. Consequently, it should be expected that children experiencing similar levels of conflict in families where parents do not eventually decide to move apart but stay together despite strong marital problems suffer in a similar way or even more than age-mates who end up in a single-parent family or step-family. Research differentiating between high conflict and other nuclear families (Peterson and Zill, 1986; Amato and Booth, 1996; Walper, 1998) have, in fact, corroborated this assumption. A similar point can be made concerning other concomitants of parental separation. Financial deprivation, for example, is not an atypical consequence when one parent, most often the father, moves out of the household, and may set children’s development at risk. While many studies have focused on various aspects of the psychosocial adaptation of children after parental separation, less is known concerning their integration into the world of peers. There is some indication of higher levels of social isolation among these boys and girls as compared to children in nuclear families (Hetherington et al., 1982; Napp-Peters, 1985; Patterson et al., 1991; Walaper, 1991). This difference is quite plausible given the externalizing and internalizing problems observed in subgroups of children after parental separation and their well-documented consequences for establishing and entertaining satisfying relations with peers (e.g. Rubin et al., 1995; Pettit et al., 1996). Evidence for effects of parental divorce on children’s social competence (Long et al., 1987) are consonant with this interpretation. Many of these findings, however, refer to short-term consequences of
Peers and families
537
divorce. Studies examining longer-term effects do not provide a unanimous picture. While some authors report an improvement of children’s social behaviour and peer integration (Kurdek, 1988; Schmidt-Denter and Beelmann, 1997), others observed continuous problems in the social realm (Devall et al., 1986; cf., Hetherington, 1989). It should be noted that much of the research focuses on children in kindergarten or elementary school age. Still, studies with a particular interest in adolescence also yielded mixed findings on peer relations after parental separation. While the data reported by, for instance, Harper and Ryder (1986) suggest problems in peer acceptance among adolescent children of divorce, other studies provide no evidence for differences in peer relations between adolescents and their age-mates growing up in nuclear families (Watt et al., 1990; Honess and Charman, 1998). Unfortunately, the quality of family and peer relations has hardly been considered in this research. The underlying processes are thus still open to question. In their study, Henderson et al. (1990) assessed aspects of the quality of relations such as connectedness and expressivity as well as the overall quality of friendship relations in nuclear families and families after separation. The authors observed similar patterns of association between family and peer relations in both types of families (cf., Wan et al., 1990). The findings, however, neither shed light on variations in the quality of peer relations as a function of living in a nuclear or separated biological family nor on the role of negative family relations as a possible mediator linking family structure and peer integration. In this analysis, we examine different aspects of adolescents’ peer integration as a function of the type of family they live in. We first compare the quality of friendships as well as the integration into normative and deviant peer contexts of adolescents from nuclear families, single-parent families, and step-families. Drawing on earlier findings that address social competence, acceptance by age-mates, and the quality of peer relations after parental separation, we expect little differences in favour of young people from nuclear families. The complex interplay of potentially influential factors renders clearcut results unlikely. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that peer relations gain increasing independence from family influences in the course of adolescence as compared to the childhood years. We then proceed to a four-group comparison addressing the role of family conflict. We distinguish nuclear families with higher levels of conflict from others and compare these two groups with families after the separation of the biological parents. If family conflict does, indeed, play the suggested role, peer relations of adolescents from high-conflict nuclear families should be in worse shape than those of young people from the other families. In our sample, we consider families from East and West Germany. Studies from the early years after German unification point to some systematic differences concerning parent–child relations in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Western part of the country (cf., Nauck et al., 1995; Oswald, 1998). As little is known, however, about the psychosocial consequences of parental separation in both parts of the country, our investigation is exploratory in this respect. Still, it should be pointed out that parental separation was far more frequent in the GDR than in West Germany ¨r Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 1997). Growing (Bundesministerium fu up in single-parent and step-families could thus be more ‘‘normal’’ in the East and make less of a difference in terms of children’s psychosocial adjustment and their peer relations.
538
P. Noack et al.
Method The data were collected as part of a more comprehensive longitudinal investigation of ‘‘family development after parental separation’’ in East and West Germany which was started in 1996. Based on a survey conducted for screening purposes comparable numbers of nuclear families, step-father families (biological mother co-residing with new partner), and singlemother families (headed by the biological mother) were randomly drawn for the main study. In addition, nuclear families with high levels of conflict were recruited to oversample this particular subgroup. In the course of this second round of sampling, a small number of additional step-families and single-parent families were also included. The present analyses are based on data from the second wave of assessments conducted in 1997.
Participants Our first set of analyses drew on 204 children from nuclear families, 165 children from stepfather families, and 220 children from single-mother families. Children’s ages were evenly distributed over the second decade of life with a slight peak in mid-adolescence (M ¼ 15?3, S.D. ¼ 1?8). Both genders are about equally represented in the sample. The West German and East German families lived in industrial urban areas of the respective part of the country. Given the urban contexts, the considerable share of high-track students (57%) among the children is not surprising, but is still slightly higher than could be expected by chance. In the German school system, after grade 4 (in some states after grade 6), most students attend schools representing one out of two or three tracks. The high-track schools (Gymnasium) offer a college-bound education and have the highest achievement requirements for admission, whereas students attending the other tracks head for unskilled jobs or apprenticeships. It should be noted that the research questions guiding the overall investigation do not address immediate consequences of parental separation. In roughly 80 per cent of the stepfamilies and single-parent families the separation of the biological parents had taken place 5 years ago or earlier, and in only 6 per cent of the cases parental separation dates back only 2 years or less (M ¼ 8?8, S.D. ¼ 4?3). A more detailed report of sample characteristics is given in Table 1. While subsamples of young people from the different types of families did not vary concerning age and gender, high track students were slightly overrepresented in the subsample of nuclear families (w2[2] ¼ 7?00, p50?05). This difference may not come as a surprise for those familiar with the institutionalized tracking in the German school system. The selection into tracks of different academic demand results in a situation where school track can be seen as a rough indicator of families’ socio-economic status (SES). Our finding thus reflects SES differences of the family types considered. Focusing on the family economy, for instance, we found that nuclear families generally fare better, whereas adolescents from single-mother families report the most financial problems (F (2,580) ¼ 10?51, p50?001). In absolute terms, this is true for families from both parts of the country but the difference is significant only among West German families. In line with the design of the study, step-father families and single-mother families were oversampled as compared to national statistics. Due to the higher percentage of parental separation in East Germany, no particular efforts were taken in the recruitment of these families. As a consequence, the distribution of family types in the Western subsample fully corresponds to the original sampling design, while in the East German subsample there is a
Peers and families
Table 1
539
Sample characteristics Type of family
Age M S.D.
Gender Male Female School track High Other Region West East Economic situationa M S.D.
Nuclear
Step
Single-parent
15?1 1?79
15?3 1?86
15?2 1?69
102 102
77 88
107 113
131 73
87 88
116 104
90 114
99 66
140 80
1?68 0?66
1?83 0?76
2?00 0?80
a Three-item scale (e.g. ‘‘Often, we do not have enough money’’; Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0?77). High scores indicate financial problems.
comparably higher share of nuclear families (w2[2] ¼ 17?95, p50?001). The confoundation of family type, on the one hand, and school track as well as region, on the other hand, will be controlled for in the following analyses. A marked difference between the East and West German subsamples should be pointed out. As a consequence of the programmatic efforts in the former GDR aiming at an almost full integration of females in the labor market, the share of working women in East Germany ¨r Familie, Senioren, Frauen und is still far higher than in the West (Bundesministerium fu Jugend, 1997). This situation is reflected in our sample where 63 per cent of the East German mothers indicate they were employed full-time (14% part-time) while only 2 per cent describe themselves as homemakers (West German subsample: 36% full-time employees, 39% part-time employees, 14% homemakers). To examine the role of family conflict, the complete wave-2 sample (n ¼ 637) was considered in the second set of analyses including the additionally recruited families. Within the total group of nuclear families, families with higher levels of parental conflict and others were distinguished by adolescents’ reports on three items of the children’s perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (Grych et al., 1992, cf., Go¨dde and Walper, 1997; e.g ‘‘My parents are mean to each other,’’ ‘‘My parents have arugments;’’ 5-point response scale: 1 ¼ ‘‘never,’’ 5 ¼ ‘‘very often’’) which formed a highly reliable sum scale (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0?84). The cut-off point was defined to contrast families roughly in the upper third of the distribution (‘‘high conflict;’’ 42?33) and the other two thirds (‘‘low to medium conflict;’’ ¼ 52?33). As conflict levels as perceived by adolescents were higher among nuclear families in West Germany, the percentages differed depending on region (high conflict, West: 40?4%; East: 22?2%). For purposes of comparability, we decided to rely on identical cut-off points for families in both parts of the country. Two groups of nuclear families as well as step families and single-parent families were thus considered for analysis. The resulting sample was comprized of 155 low (to medium) conflict nuclear families,
540
P. Noack et al.
91 high conflict nuclear families, 168 step families, and 223 single-parent families. While characteristics of this sample mostly paralleled those of the random sample described above, analyses revealed a significant age-difference as a function of family type (F (3, 636) ¼ 3?59, p50.05). A post-hoc Scheffe test showed that the age-specific variation resulted from a difference between both types of nuclear families, with adolescents from high conflict families being younger (M ¼ 14?9, S.D. ¼ 1?7) than those from low conflict families (M ¼ 15?6, S.D. ¼ 1?7).
Measures Peer network. Two scales addressed the integration of the adolescent sons and daughters into peer networks. A scale comprized of eight items that referred to different kinds of problem behaviours (e.g. ‘‘shop-lifting’’, ‘‘truancy’’, ‘‘beat somebody’’) served to assess the number of deviant peers in the peer network. Adolescents were asked to indicate how many friends in their peer network were involved in a given activity. Responses were given on 4-point rating scales (1 ¼ ‘‘none’’; 4 ¼ ‘‘many’’). The internal consistency of the scale was good (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0?82). Employing a similar format, a second measure tapped adolescents’ integration into networks of constructive peers. The 10 items of the scale addressed various leisure pursuits that, in the light of a normative perspective, could be judged as being in line with societal expectations (e.g. ‘‘playing musical instrument’’, ‘‘learning for tests in school’’, ‘‘political participation’’). Adolescents reported how many of the age-mates in their peer network were more strongly involved in a given leisure activity (1 ¼ ‘‘none’’; 4 ¼ ‘‘many’’). Given the broad range of activities included, the internal consistency of the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0?67). Quality of friendships. Three scales from the Network of Relationship Inventory (e.g. Furman and Buhrmester, 1985) served to assess different aspects of the socio-emotional quality of adolescents’ relationships with their best friend: Admiration (i.e. positive evaluation by best friend), intimacy, and conflict. Each aspect is measured by three items. The quality of relations is indicated on five-point rating scales. With Cronbach’s alphas ranging between 0?74 and 0?85, internal consistencies of the scales in our sample can be considered good.
Results Peer relations depending on family type Peer relations of adolescents from nuclear families, stepfather-families, and single-mother families were examined by ANOVAs with the different peer scales as dependent variables, and type of family, gender, region (East vs. West), school track (high vs. other), and age group (514 years, 14–15 years, 415 years) as independent variables, The cut-off point for the definition of age groups aimed at comparable group sizes. At the same time, we wanted to consider the German legal situation defining a higher level of legal responsibility among minors above age 13 which could be important in our examination of adolescents networks of deviant peers. To avoid statistical problems resulting from small cell sizes, analyses were restricted to main effects and two-way interactions only. Spurious effects due to unequal cell sizes were controlled by employing the regression method (unique sum of squares). Table 2 gives a summary of the findings.
Peers and families
541
Table 2 Findings of ANOVA of adolescents’ peer relations depending on type of family, gender, age-group, school-track, and region; F-values and significance Type of peer relationship
Type of family
Gender
Age group School track Region
0?10 2?70
19?39*** 5?67**
Peer network Deviant peers Constructive peers
1?12 0?78
Quality of friendship Admiration Intimacy
0?05 0?08
1?40 15?52***
0?77
2?76+
Conflict
2?04+ 2?33
0?85 3?00+
0?19 0?71
0?53 1?51
5?72* 5?65*
0?49
0?68
0?01
Interactions
F6R: 3?94* G6S: 3?72+ G6A: F6R: G6A: G6S: G6S:
4?27* 3?56* 5?47** 4?59* 2?90+
Note. F ¼ Type of family, G ¼ Gender, A ¼ Age group, S ¼ School track, R ¼ Region. ***p50?001, **p5 0?01, *p50?05, +p50?10.
Peer network. The analysis of adolescents’ integration in deviant peergroups only yielded two main effects. While variation depending on agegroup was highly significant (F (2,517) ¼ 19?39, p50?001), the effect of school track was only marginally significant (F (1, 517) ¼ 2?94, p50?10). Post-hoc tests pointed to a steady increase of involvement with deviant peers as a function of age with involvement in each subsequent age group being significantly higher than in the respective younger group agegroup (514 years: M ¼ 1?69, S.D. ¼ 0?44; 14–15 years: M ¼ 1?97, S.D. ¼ 55; 415 years: M ¼ 2?17, S.D. ¼ 0?63). Moreover, high track students reported having smaller numbers of deviant peers in their network (M ¼ 1?96, S.D. ¼ 0?55) than did students attending lower school tracks (M ¼ 2?04, S.D. ¼ 0?63). The type of family in which adolescents grew up did not make any difference with regard to deviant peers in their network. The number of constructive peers in the social network, again, differed depending on age (F (2, 567) ¼ 5?67, p50?01) with adolescents of the oldest agegroup reporting having more constructive peers (M ¼ 2?23, S.D. 0?44) than the younger ones (M ¼ 2?05, S.D. ¼ 0?43, and M ¼ 2?09, S.D. ¼ 0?39, respectively). A marginal difference depending on region (F (1,567) ¼ 3?00, p50?10) resulted from a slightly more extensive involvement of young West Germans in networks of peers pursuing constructive leisure activities than was the case for East Germans adolescents. This difference was, however, mainly due to adolescents from nuclear families as shown by a significant family type6region interaction (F (2, 567) ¼ 3?94, p50?05). While these young West Germans indicated a higher involvement with constructive peers than their East German age-mates from nuclear families (M ¼ 2?25, S.D. ¼ 0.39) vs. (M ¼ 2?07, S.D. ¼ 0?42), reports of adolescents from stepfather-families and single-mother families paralleled those of East Germans from nuclear families and did not vary depending on region. Finally, we observed a marginal gender 6 school track interaction effect (F (1,567) ¼ 3?72, p50?10). Post-hoc analyses showed that female students from high track schools had more constructive peers in their social networks (M ¼ 2?23, S.D. ¼ 0?44) than male high track students (M ¼ 2?10, S.D.=0?40) and males as well as females attending lower school tracks (both: M ¼ 2?08, S.D. ¼ 0?42).
542
P. Noack et al.
Quality of friendships. Our first set analysis focusing on adolescents’ friendships addressed the extent to which young people experienced admiration by their friends. We found a main effect of region (F (1, 561) ¼ 5?72, p50?05), as young West Germans reported higher levels of recognition on the part of their friends (M ¼ 3?91, S.D. ¼ 0?72) than did adolescents from the East. A significant gender6age group interaction effect (F (1, 561) ¼ 4?27, p50?05) was due to opposite age-graded patterns of perceived admiration among males and females. Whereas mean level differences suggest a decline of admiration in the former group (514 years: M ¼ 3?91, S.D. ¼ 0?74; 14–15 years: M ¼ 3?77, S.D. ¼ 0?75; 15 years: M ¼ 3?73, S.D. ¼ 0?80), admiration as reported by females showed an increase with age (514 years: M ¼ 3?75, S.D. ¼ 0?70; 14–15 years: M ¼ 3?88, S.D. ¼ 0?77; 415 years: M ¼ 4?07, S.D. ¼ 0?65) resulting in a significant gender difference among the oldest adolescents. Findings of the analysis of intimacy in adolescents’ friendships also pointed to a more positive quality of friendship relations in West Germany (main effect of region: (F (1, 570) ¼ 5?65, p50?05). Means for young West Germans (3?65 (1?06)) were higher than for East German adolescents (3?50 (1?09)). The regional variation mainly resulted from a difference among young people living in step-father families (family type6region interaction: F (2, 570) ¼ 3?56, p50?05). Whereas West German adolescents from step-father families were the subgroup with the highest score (3?77(0?99)), young East Germans with the same family background reported lower friendship intimacy than all other adolescents (3?33 (1?08)). The difference of intimacy in male and female adolescents’ friendships was highly significant (F (2, 1570) ¼ 15?52, p50?001). As could be expected, young females reported on higher levels of intimacy with their friends (M ¼ 3?79, S.D. ¼ 1?01) than males (M ¼ 3?36, S.D. ¼ 1?11). Gender-specific variation did not become salient before age 14 and could be observed in both older age-groups (gender6agegroup interaction: F (2, 570) ¼ 5?47, p50?01). A post hoc analysis of age-graded patterns showed that intimacy among girls reached a higher level in mid-adolescence, while mean levels for boys remained stable. Moreover, the observed gender difference was stronger in the subsample of students attending high track schools as suggested by an examination of a gender6school track interaction effect (F (1, 570) ¼ 4?59, p50?05). Analyses of conflict in adolescents’ friendships only yielded marginal effects related to gender. Besides this main effect of gender (F (1, 570) ¼ 2?76, p50?10) with boys reporting higher conflict rates than girls, a gender6school track interaction effect (F (1, 570) ¼ 2?90, p50?10) suggests that friendships of boys who do not attend a high track school were the most conflictual. The role of family conflict The role of family conflict was explored by comparing adolescents from four groups of families, namely, high-conflict nuclear families, low-conflict nuclear families, step-father families and single-mother families. Gender, region, school track and age group were included as further independent variables in the ANOVAs. As before, our five measures of peer relations served as dependent variables. Only main effects and two-way interactions were analysed. As the sample included in these analyses only differed slightly from the one considered in the preceeding analyses, findings confined to gender, region, school track and age group were basically replicated. For the sake of brevity, the following report only focuses on effects involving the type of family.
Peers and families
543
Peer network. While family background did not play a role concerning deviant peers, this was different in the case of involvement with constructive peers. As before, the variation of the reported numbers of peers with constructive leisure pursuits depending on the type of family was moderated by region (family type6region interaction: F (3, 613) ¼ 2?67, p50?05). Post-hoc analyses showed that the previous findings were also substantively replicated. Adolescents from both high-conflict and low-conflict nuclear families in the West reported a more extensive network of constructive peers (M ¼ 27?23, S.D. ¼ 0?39, and M ¼ 2?25, S.D. ¼ 0?37, respectively) than young West Germans from the other types of families, while findings for East Germany did not vary. The regional difference was only significant in the case of nuclear families. Quality of friendships. Adolescents with different family background also reported different levels of admiration on the part of their friends (F (3, 605) ¼ 2?79, p50?05). While no two family groups were significantly different in the post-hoc test, an examination of means pointed to the lowest level of experiences of admiration among adolescents from highconflict nuclear families (M ¼ 3?68, S.D. ¼ 0?84) and little difference between the other subgroups (low-conflict nuclear family: M=3?89, S.D. ¼ 0?74; step-father family: M ¼ 3?90, S.D. ¼ 0?67; single-mother family: M ¼ 3?87, S.D. ¼ 0?75). Analyses of intimacy and conflict in adolescents’ friendships did not yield any significant effects related to the type of family in which young people grew up. The family type6region interaction effect on friendship intimacy observed in the first set of analyses, namely the regional variation among sons and daughters from step-families resulting from higher intimacy in friendships of West German adolescents, faded in the more differentiated comparison of four types of families (F (3, 617) ¼ 1?83, p ¼ 0?14).
Discussion In the present study, we set out to explore peer relations of adolescents in nuclear families and families after parental separation. To this aim, sons and daughters from nuclear families, step-families, and single-parent families were compared with regard to the deviant or constructive character of their peer network as well as to the quality of the relations with their best friends. The data base included reports from young people living in East and West Germany. Despite unification, the relative frequencies of non-nuclear families markedly differs between both parts of the country with possible consequences for the meaning of growing up in a single-parent or step family. In East Germany, non-traditional families are more frequent and the family background might thus matter less which should be considered in any analysis. Moreover, we wanted to further elucidate the role of parental conflict which has been suggested as a possible mediator linking family background and adolescent psychosocial adjustment (Walper, 1998). Even though earlier research suggested some association of family background and psychosocial problems, effects are comparably small and complex in nature (cf., Amato and Keith, 1991). Consequently, we did not expect massive differences concerning adolescents’ integration into the world of peers which can be expected to be more indirectly affected by parental separation than, for instance, young people’s self-esteem or involvement in problem behaviour, In a nutshell, our findings suggest that adolescents’ peer relations are, in fact, influenced by the parental separation to a small extent. Even though we found several
544
P. Noack et al.
instances of effects of family background, they are of clearly lesser importance than, for instance, age- or gender-specific variations. Analyses yielded only one main effect of family background which referred to perceived admiration by best friends. Interestingly, it was not adolescents from nuclear families as compared to those who had experienced parental separation who reported higher levels of recognition by their friends. The least favourable reports were given by young people from high conflict nuclear families. Earlier research shows that conflictuous relationships of fathers and mothers affect various aspects of family relations (Walper, 1998) as well as adolescent psychosocial adjustment (Peterson and Zill, 1986). When interpreting this finding, it has to be kept in mind that for the vast majority of the non-traditional families in our sample, parental separation was not a recent event. Consequently, interparental problems can be assumed to have calmed down (cf., Klein-Allermann and Schaller, 1992). In fact, conflict rates in high-conflict nuclear families were higher than in any other subgroup. The only exception were single-mother families who participated in the study during the first two years after the separation from the nuclear father. In this group which accounted for about 15 per cent of the single-mother families, conflict rates paralleled those among high-conflict nuclear families. This finding suggests that conflict related to parental separation does not have longterm effects on adolescents’ peer relations. Our finding concerning intimacy among best friends is less straightforward: whereas sons and daughters from step-father families in West Germany described their friendships as particularly intimate, the opposite was true of their age-mates growing up in East German step-father families. If the pattern observed among the young West Germans points to a compensatory role of their best friends in that the friendship context provides an arena for self disclosure as compared to limited opportunities at home, it is open to question why intimacy is particularly low in the group of East German adolescents with the same family background. We expected similar means for young East Germans from different family types as a consequence of the statistically more normal character of step-father families in the East. Could little intimacy in friendships of East German adolescents from step-father families be indicative of another strategy of withdrawal, namely avoiding high levels of intimacy in close relations altogether? In this case, our findings would point to certain problems in friendships of step-children which, however, have region-specific consequences. The interpretation is rather speculative at this point. Moreover, it has been kept in mind that the within-region differences depending on family background failed to reach significance. In the light of earlier findings on the particular situation of children in step-families (cf., Ferri, 1984; Steinberg, 1987; Walper, 1998), it still seems worthwhile pursuing these considerations in future research. Another family background effect moderated by region was yielded by our analysis of adolescents’ integration in a network of constructive peers. While young West Germans from nuclear families entertained relations with more peers involved in constructive leisure activities than those from non-traditional families, the type of family did not make a difference in the constructive peer network of East German adolescents. As this finding held regardless of the level of conflict in nuclear families it can probably not be attributed to particular psychosocial strain experienced in West German single-parent or step-families. When interpreting the effect, it seems more promising to think of it considering what parents can offer their children in terms of, for instance, financial resources, practical help, and stimulating experiences. Differences in young people’s opportunity landscape are the likely consequence.
Peers and families
545
In the first place, numerous constructive activities involve costs as do—in an indirect way—contacts with constructive peers. The description of our sample showed that West German nuclear families were those who reported the most favorable financial situation (cf., ¨r Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 1997). Moreover, engagement Bundesministerium fu in such activities is likely to benefit from practical support on the part of parents. Monitoring activities, being around at home, or driving sons and daughters to some place might lose its importance in the course of adolescence (cf., Noack, 1990), but many a constructive activity dates back to earlier years or has its childhood precursors. In any case, mothers who are homemakers can be assumed to have less problems to provide such practical support than working mothers. Again, the number of homemaker mothers is highest in West German nuclear families. Admittedly, the suggested reasons for our finding may sound quite mundane and are certainly speculative at this point. From our perspective, however, it seems instructive to pursue objective aspects of everyday life which might make a difference for different types of families in addition to the investigation of psychosocial factors that impact on the adjustment of adolescents from non-traditional families and particularly on their integration into the world of peers. We do not want to discuss our findings on variations in peer relations depending on gender, age and school track in detail here. Suffice to say that the patterning of differences which mostly corresponds to evidence from earlier studies strengthens our confidence concerning the validity of our main results. Cases in point are the age-graded increase of the numbers of deviant and constructive peers in adolescents social networks, concomitants of the attendance of high track schools, and gender-related as well regional differences in the quality of friendships (Oswald, 1992; Noack, 1995, 2000; Zinnecker and Strzoda, 1996). Still, several limitations of our study have to be kept in mind. Due to the age-range of about 10 years covered by our sample, sizes of subgroups are rather small. This is particularly true when it comes to our analyses including high-conflict nuclear families. Moreover, among the non-traditional families, the time since the separation of the biological parents varies to a considerable extent. It also has to be kept in mind that the data base for the present analyses is cross-sectional. Even though it seems not plausible to assume that associations between type of family and adolescents’ peer relations result from effects of peers on the family, the reverse interpretation is not the only one possible. Genetic sources of parental influence have repeatedly been pointed out with reference not only to aspects such as perceived childrearing practices but also to temperamental features shared by parents and their children (cf., Plomin, 1989). Consequently, the possibility cannot easily be discarded that parents with a difficult temperament and a higher likelihood to separate than others have sons and daughters who also have more problems in their close relations.
Acknowledgement The paper is based on a joint study which is conducted by research teams at the University of Munich and University of Jena and supported by the German Research Council. The authors wish to thank Mechthild Goedde, Beate Schwarz, and Kathrin Gerhard for their assistance in the planning phase and data collection. We are also grateful for the efforts, Linda Juang put into language editing.
546
P. Noack et al.
References Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: theories, hypotheses, and empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23–38. Amato, P. R. and Booth, A. (1996). A prospective study of divorce and parent–child relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 356–365. Berndt, T. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15, 608–616. Block, J. H., Block, J. and Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: a prospective study. Child Development, 57, 827–840. ¨r Jugend, Familie, Frauen und Gesundheit (1988). Alleinerziehende Mu¨tter und Bundesminister fu Va¨ter—Eine Analyse der Gesamtsituation (Single-parent mothers and fathers—a comprehensive analysis of their situation). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ¨r Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (1997). Die Familie im Spiegel der Bundesministerium fu amtlichen Statistik (The family in the light of public statistics). Bonn: BMFSFJ. Devall, E., Stoneman, Z. and Brody, G. H. (1986). The impact of divorce and maternal employment on pre-adolescent children. Family Relations, 35, 153–159. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D. and Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Ferri, E. (1984). Stepchildren: A National Study. Windsor: Nelson. Furman, W. and Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016–1024. Go¨dde, M. and Walper, S. (1997). Befunde zur deutschen Kurzversion der ‘‘Children’s Perception of ¨te und deskriptive Gruppenvergleiche (Analyses of the Interparental Conflict Scale’’: Skalengu German short version of the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale: Reliabilities and descriptive findings). Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe ‘‘Familienentwicklung nach der Trennung’’, 20/97. University of Munich. Grych, J. H., Seid, M. and Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict: the children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572. Hagan, J., Hefler, G., Classen, G., Boehnke, K. and Merkens, H. (1998). Subterranean sources of subcultural delinquency beyond the American Dream. Criminology, 36, 309–341. Harper, J. F. and Ryder, J. M. (1986). Parental bonding, self-esteem and peer acceptance in father absent male adolescents. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage and Family, 7, 17–26. Henderson, S. H., Kahn, C. and Youniss, J. (1990). Adolescents’ Friendships in Intact and Divorced Families. Poster presented at the Third Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence. Atlanta, GA, March. Hetherington, E. M.(1991). The role of individual differences and family relationships in children’s coping with divorce and remarriage. In Family Transitions, Cowan, P. A. and Hetherington, E. M. (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 165–194. Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1–14. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M. J. and Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In Nontraditional Families, Lamb, M. (Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 233–288. Honess, T. M. and Charman, E. E. (1998). Adolescent adjustment, social systems, and parental separation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 557–567. Kaplan, H. B. (1980). Deviant Behavior in Defense of Self. New York: Academic Press. Klein-Allermann, E. and Schaller, S. (1992). Scheidung—Ende oder Vera¨nderung familialer Beziehungen? (Divorce—End-point of family relations or starting point of changes? In Familienbeziehungen (Family relations) Hofer, M., Klein-Allermann E. and Noack, P. (Eds). Go¨ttingen: Hogrefe, 266–288. Kurdek, L. A. (1988). A 1-year follow-up study of children’s divorce adjustment, custodial mothers’ divorce adjustment, and postdivorce parenting. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9, 315–328. Long, N., Forehand, R., Fauber, R. and Brody, G. H. (1987). Self-perceived and independently observed competence of young adolescents as a function of parental marital conflict and recent divorce. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 15–27.
Peers and families
547
Mize, J. and Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother–child relationship style, and children’s peer competence: is the medium the message? Child Development, 68, 312–332. Nauck, B., Schneider, N. and To¨lke, A. (l995). Familie und Lebensverlauf im gesellschaftlichen Umbruch (Family and life course in social change). Stuttgart: Enke. Noack, P. (1992): Allein zu zweit: Ein-Elternteil-Familien [Two alone: Single-parent families]. In Familienbeziehungen [Family relations] Hofer, M., Klein-Allermatnn, E. and Noack, P. (Eds). Go¨ttingen: Hogrefe, pp. 289–310. Noack, P. (1995). Entwicklung naher Beziehungen im Jugendalter [Development of close relations during adolescence]. Unpublished habilitation thesis, University of Mannheim. Noack, P. (2000). Adolescent peer relations in times of social change. In Negotiating adolescence in times of social change, Crockett, L. J. and Silbereisen, R. K. (Eds). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–156. Oswald, H. (1992). Beziehungen zu Gleichaltrigen [Peer relations] In Jugend ’92 Jugendwerk der Deutschen Shell (Ed.). Vol. 2 [Youth 1992]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 319–332. Oswald, H. (1998). Young people and the family. In Social transformation and the family in post-communist Germany, Kolinsky, E. (Ed.). London: Macmillan. Oswald, H., Uhlendorff, H. and Krappmann, L. (1997). Familie in Ost- und West-Berlin— Erziehungseinstellungen und Kinderfreundschaften [The family in East and West Berlin— Attitudes towards parenting and children’s friendships]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 43, 35–53. Parke, R., MacDonald, K., Beitel, A. and Bhavnagri, N. (1988). The role of the family in the development of peer relationships. In Marriage and Families, Peters, R. and MacMahon, R. (Eds). New York: Brunner-Mazel, pp. 17–44. Patterson, C. J., Vaden, N. A. and Kupersmidt, J. B. (1991). Family background, recent life events and peer rejection during childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 347–361. Permien, H. (1988). Zwischen Existenzno¨ten und Emanzipation—Alleinerziehende Eltern [Between existential problems and emancipation—Single parents]. In Wie geht’s der Familie? Deutsches ¨nchen: Ko¨sel, pp. 89–97. Jugendinstitut (Ed.). [How is the family?] Mu Peterson, J. L. and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent–child relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 295–307. Pettit, G. S., Clawson, M. A., Dodge, K. A. and Bates, J. E. (1996). Stability and change in peerrejected status: the role of child behavior, parenting, and family ecology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 267–294. ¨rich: Rascher. Piaget, J. (1956). Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde [Moral judgment of the child]. Zu Plomin, R. (1989). Nature and nurture in the family. In Family Systems and Life-span Development, Kreppner, K. and Lerner, R. M. (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 129–148. Rubin, K. H., Stewart, S. H. and Coplan, R. J. (1995). Social withdrawal in childhood: conceptual and empirical perspectives. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 17, 157–196. Schmidt-Denter, U. and Beelmann, W. (1997). Kindliche Symptombelastungen in der Zeit nach einer ehelichen Trennung—eine differentielle und la¨ngsschnittliche Betrachtung [Children’s problems following parental separation: a differential and longitudinal approach]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Entwicklungspsychologie und Pa¨dagogische Psychologie, 29, 26–42. Silbereisen, R. K. and Noack, P. (1988). On the constructive role of problem behavior in adolescence. In Person in Context, Bolger, N., Caspi, A., Downey, G. and Moorehous, M. (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–180. Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child Development, 58, 269–275. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton. Walper, S. (1991). Trennung der Eltern und neue Partnerschaft: Auswirkungen auf das Selbstkonzept und die Sozialentwicklung der Kinder [Parental separation and new relationships: effects of children’s self-concept and social development]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie, 50, 34–47. Walper, S. (1998). Die Individuation in Beziehungen zu beiden Eltern bei Kindern und Jugendlichen aus konfliktbelasteten Kern- und Trennungsfamilien [Individuation in relation to both parents: a comparison of children and adolescents from conflicted nuclear and separated families]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 18, 134–151.
548
P. Noack et al.
Watt, N. F., Moorehead-Slaughter, O., Japzon, D. M. and Keller, G. G. (1990). Children’s adjustment to parental divorce: self-image, social relations, and school performance. In Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Psychopathology, Rolf, J. E. and Masten, A. S. (Eds). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 281–303. Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and Peers in Social Development: A Sullivan-Piaget Perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Zinnecker, J. and Strzoda, C. (1996). Freundschaft und Clique. Das informelle Netzwerk der Gleichaltrigen [Friendship and clique. The informal network of age-mates]. In Kindheit in Deutschland [Childhood in Gemany] Zinnecker, J. and Silbereisen, R. K. (Eds). Weinheim, Germany: Juventa, pp. 81–97.
Peer relations of adolescents from nuclear and separated families PETER NOACK, CHRISTINE KRETTEK AND SABINE WALPER Problems of psychosocial adjustment as a consequence of parental separation have mostly been studied concerning aspects of family relations and individual growth. The present study examined peer relations of young people between the ages of 10 and 20 years old who lived in nuclear families, step-families, and single-parent families. Based on the second questionnaire assessment of a longitudinal study conducted in East and West Germany, reports from a total of 637 boys and girls on deviant and constructive peers in their social network as well as on the quality of their relations with best friends were analysed. Findings suggest that peer relations were affected by parental separation only to a minor extent as compared to, e.g. gender- or age-specific effects. A central aspect of friendship quality, however, namely admiration by friends, clearly suffered from conflict between mothers and fathers. # 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents
Introduction Family and peer relations are important contexts of development and support during adolescence. While adolescents’ relations with parents and peers each have their genuine character which often have been summarized in terms of unilateralness versus egalitarian relationship patterns (Sullivan, 1953; Piaget, 1956; Youniss, 1980), it is widely acknowledged that they do not operate independently of each other. Two basic concepts specifying the association between both types of close relations can be distinguished: Some authors suggest that continuity prevails in the linkage between family and peers and point to various processes of direct and indirect influence resulting in similarities of both relationship types (e.g. Parke et al., 1988; Noack, 1995; Mize and Pettit, 1997; Oswald et al., 1997). Other authors such as protagonists of parent-peer cross-pressure research (Berndt, 1979) underscore the (at least temporary) antagonism of parents and peers. Likewise, research on adolescent problem behaviour is suggestive of a compensatory role of contexts of normviolating peers who, in instances of adolescents’ poor family relations, provide support and gain increasing influence on adolescents’ attitudes and behaviour (Kaplan, 1980; Elliott et al., 1985; Silbereisen and Noack, 1988; Hagan et al., 1998). The continuity hypothesis and the compensation hypothesis are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Associations between family and peer relations might follow a u-shaped pattern where continuity between the quality of family relations and adolescents’ integration among peers prevails and only when relations between adolescents and their parents are particularly strained and conflictual do young people turn to their peers in search of compensation for the problems at home. Findings reported by Henderson et al. (1990) provide some evidence for this view. Reprints requests and correspondence should be addressed to Peter Noack, Department of Psychology, University of Jena, Am Steiger 3/1, 07743 Jena, Germany. 0140-1971/14/040535+14 $3500/0
# 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents
536
P. Noack et al.
Parental separation and also the entry of a step-parent into the family in cases of remarriage may set bonds between adolescents and parents at risk and eventually affect peer relations. Following the terminology of problem behaviour research, the quality of relations with normative peers could then be impaired while relations with deviant peers could be entered or strengthened. The present study examines variations in adolescents’ peer relations depending on the family structure by comparing adolescents‘ from nuclear families, singleparent families, and step-families. With regard to peer relations, the quality of close friendships and the integration into networks of normative as well as deviant peers are considered. Our major interest, however, is not in the family structure per se. Our basic contention is that aspects such as heightened levels of family conflict which can often be observed as concomitants or consequences of parental separation, are the factors responsible for influencing the development of young people’s peer relations. Early research on children and adolescents who have experienced the separation of their biological parents have yielded considerable evidence for problems of these boys and girls in different aspects of their psychosocial adaptation. Comparing children from nuclear families, single-parent families, and step-families, studies suggested that in the latter two groups externalizing and internalizing problems as well as difficulties to master academic demands were more wide-spread than among children living together with both biological parents ¨r Jugend, Familie, Frauen und Gesundheit, 1988; Permien, 1988; Noack, (Bundesminister fu 1992). At first glance, the popular deficit perspective on children after parental separation found extensive support. A closer look at the findings, however, results in a less consistent picture. The consequences of parental separation seem to be moderated by a variety of factors (Hetherington, 1991; Amato, 1993; Walper, 1998). More importantly, evidence from prospective longitudinal studies (Block et al., 1986; Amato and Booth, 1996) points to psychosocial problems of future ‘‘orphans of separation’’, i.e., before their parents split up. Even though an interpretation of marital disruption as a consequence of interactions with a difficult child cannot be easily discarded, the children’s problems have mostly been seen as a result of the continuous and intense conflicts which often preceed the separation of parents. Consequently, it should be expected that children experiencing similar levels of conflict in families where parents do not eventually decide to move apart but stay together despite strong marital problems suffer in a similar way or even more than age-mates who end up in a single-parent family or step-family. Research differentiating between high conflict and other nuclear families (Peterson and Zill, 1986; Amato and Booth, 1996; Walper, 1998) have, in fact, corroborated this assumption. A similar point can be made concerning other concomitants of parental separation. Financial deprivation, for example, is not an atypical consequence when one parent, most often the father, moves out of the household, and may set children’s development at risk. While many studies have focused on various aspects of the psychosocial adaptation of children after parental separation, less is known concerning their integration into the world of peers. There is some indication of higher levels of social isolation among these boys and girls as compared to children in nuclear families (Hetherington et al., 1982; Napp-Peters, 1985; Patterson et al., 1991; Walaper, 1991). This difference is quite plausible given the externalizing and internalizing problems observed in subgroups of children after parental separation and their well-documented consequences for establishing and entertaining satisfying relations with peers (e.g. Rubin et al., 1995; Pettit et al., 1996). Evidence for effects of parental divorce on children’s social competence (Long et al., 1987) are consonant with this interpretation. Many of these findings, however, refer to short-term consequences of
Peers and families
537
divorce. Studies examining longer-term effects do not provide a unanimous picture. While some authors report an improvement of children’s social behaviour and peer integration (Kurdek, 1988; Schmidt-Denter and Beelmann, 1997), others observed continuous problems in the social realm (Devall et al., 1986; cf., Hetherington, 1989). It should be noted that much of the research focuses on children in kindergarten or elementary school age. Still, studies with a particular interest in adolescence also yielded mixed findings on peer relations after parental separation. While the data reported by, for instance, Harper and Ryder (1986) suggest problems in peer acceptance among adolescent children of divorce, other studies provide no evidence for differences in peer relations between adolescents and their age-mates growing up in nuclear families (Watt et al., 1990; Honess and Charman, 1998). Unfortunately, the quality of family and peer relations has hardly been considered in this research. The underlying processes are thus still open to question. In their study, Henderson et al. (1990) assessed aspects of the quality of relations such as connectedness and expressivity as well as the overall quality of friendship relations in nuclear families and families after separation. The authors observed similar patterns of association between family and peer relations in both types of families (cf., Wan et al., 1990). The findings, however, neither shed light on variations in the quality of peer relations as a function of living in a nuclear or separated biological family nor on the role of negative family relations as a possible mediator linking family structure and peer integration. In this analysis, we examine different aspects of adolescents’ peer integration as a function of the type of family they live in. We first compare the quality of friendships as well as the integration into normative and deviant peer contexts of adolescents from nuclear families, single-parent families, and step-families. Drawing on earlier findings that address social competence, acceptance by age-mates, and the quality of peer relations after parental separation, we expect little differences in favour of young people from nuclear families. The complex interplay of potentially influential factors renders clearcut results unlikely. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that peer relations gain increasing independence from family influences in the course of adolescence as compared to the childhood years. We then proceed to a four-group comparison addressing the role of family conflict. We distinguish nuclear families with higher levels of conflict from others and compare these two groups with families after the separation of the biological parents. If family conflict does, indeed, play the suggested role, peer relations of adolescents from high-conflict nuclear families should be in worse shape than those of young people from the other families. In our sample, we consider families from East and West Germany. Studies from the early years after German unification point to some systematic differences concerning parent–child relations in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Western part of the country (cf., Nauck et al., 1995; Oswald, 1998). As little is known, however, about the psychosocial consequences of parental separation in both parts of the country, our investigation is exploratory in this respect. Still, it should be pointed out that parental separation was far more frequent in the GDR than in West Germany ¨r Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 1997). Growing (Bundesministerium fu up in single-parent and step-families could thus be more ‘‘normal’’ in the East and make less of a difference in terms of children’s psychosocial adjustment and their peer relations.
538
P. Noack et al.
Method The data were collected as part of a more comprehensive longitudinal investigation of ‘‘family development after parental separation’’ in East and West Germany which was started in 1996. Based on a survey conducted for screening purposes comparable numbers of nuclear families, step-father families (biological mother co-residing with new partner), and singlemother families (headed by the biological mother) were randomly drawn for the main study. In addition, nuclear families with high levels of conflict were recruited to oversample this particular subgroup. In the course of this second round of sampling, a small number of additional step-families and single-parent families were also included. The present analyses are based on data from the second wave of assessments conducted in 1997.
Participants Our first set of analyses drew on 204 children from nuclear families, 165 children from stepfather families, and 220 children from single-mother families. Children’s ages were evenly distributed over the second decade of life with a slight peak in mid-adolescence (M ¼ 15?3, S.D. ¼ 1?8). Both genders are about equally represented in the sample. The West German and East German families lived in industrial urban areas of the respective part of the country. Given the urban contexts, the considerable share of high-track students (57%) among the children is not surprising, but is still slightly higher than could be expected by chance. In the German school system, after grade 4 (in some states after grade 6), most students attend schools representing one out of two or three tracks. The high-track schools (Gymnasium) offer a college-bound education and have the highest achievement requirements for admission, whereas students attending the other tracks head for unskilled jobs or apprenticeships. It should be noted that the research questions guiding the overall investigation do not address immediate consequences of parental separation. In roughly 80 per cent of the stepfamilies and single-parent families the separation of the biological parents had taken place 5 years ago or earlier, and in only 6 per cent of the cases parental separation dates back only 2 years or less (M ¼ 8?8, S.D. ¼ 4?3). A more detailed report of sample characteristics is given in Table 1. While subsamples of young people from the different types of families did not vary concerning age and gender, high track students were slightly overrepresented in the subsample of nuclear families (w2[2] ¼ 7?00, p50?05). This difference may not come as a surprise for those familiar with the institutionalized tracking in the German school system. The selection into tracks of different academic demand results in a situation where school track can be seen as a rough indicator of families’ socio-economic status (SES). Our finding thus reflects SES differences of the family types considered. Focusing on the family economy, for instance, we found that nuclear families generally fare better, whereas adolescents from single-mother families report the most financial problems (F (2,580) ¼ 10?51, p50?001). In absolute terms, this is true for families from both parts of the country but the difference is significant only among West German families. In line with the design of the study, step-father families and single-mother families were oversampled as compared to national statistics. Due to the higher percentage of parental separation in East Germany, no particular efforts were taken in the recruitment of these families. As a consequence, the distribution of family types in the Western subsample fully corresponds to the original sampling design, while in the East German subsample there is a
Peers and families
Table 1
539
Sample characteristics Type of family
Age M S.D.
Gender Male Female School track High Other Region West East Economic situationa M S.D.
Nuclear
Step
Single-parent
15?1 1?79
15?3 1?86
15?2 1?69
102 102
77 88
107 113
131 73
87 88
116 104
90 114
99 66
140 80
1?68 0?66
1?83 0?76
2?00 0?80
a Three-item scale (e.g. ‘‘Often, we do not have enough money’’; Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0?77). High scores indicate financial problems.
comparably higher share of nuclear families (w2[2] ¼ 17?95, p50?001). The confoundation of family type, on the one hand, and school track as well as region, on the other hand, will be controlled for in the following analyses. A marked difference between the East and West German subsamples should be pointed out. As a consequence of the programmatic efforts in the former GDR aiming at an almost full integration of females in the labor market, the share of working women in East Germany ¨r Familie, Senioren, Frauen und is still far higher than in the West (Bundesministerium fu Jugend, 1997). This situation is reflected in our sample where 63 per cent of the East German mothers indicate they were employed full-time (14% part-time) while only 2 per cent describe themselves as homemakers (West German subsample: 36% full-time employees, 39% part-time employees, 14% homemakers). To examine the role of family conflict, the complete wave-2 sample (n ¼ 637) was considered in the second set of analyses including the additionally recruited families. Within the total group of nuclear families, families with higher levels of parental conflict and others were distinguished by adolescents’ reports on three items of the children’s perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (Grych et al., 1992, cf., Go¨dde and Walper, 1997; e.g ‘‘My parents are mean to each other,’’ ‘‘My parents have arugments;’’ 5-point response scale: 1 ¼ ‘‘never,’’ 5 ¼ ‘‘very often’’) which formed a highly reliable sum scale (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0?84). The cut-off point was defined to contrast families roughly in the upper third of the distribution (‘‘high conflict;’’ 42?33) and the other two thirds (‘‘low to medium conflict;’’ ¼ 52?33). As conflict levels as perceived by adolescents were higher among nuclear families in West Germany, the percentages differed depending on region (high conflict, West: 40?4%; East: 22?2%). For purposes of comparability, we decided to rely on identical cut-off points for families in both parts of the country. Two groups of nuclear families as well as step families and single-parent families were thus considered for analysis. The resulting sample was comprized of 155 low (to medium) conflict nuclear families,
540
P. Noack et al.
91 high conflict nuclear families, 168 step families, and 223 single-parent families. While characteristics of this sample mostly paralleled those of the random sample described above, analyses revealed a significant age-difference as a function of family type (F (3, 636) ¼ 3?59, p50.05). A post-hoc Scheffe test showed that the age-specific variation resulted from a difference between both types of nuclear families, with adolescents from high conflict families being younger (M ¼ 14?9, S.D. ¼ 1?7) than those from low conflict families (M ¼ 15?6, S.D. ¼ 1?7).
Measures Peer network. Two scales addressed the integration of the adolescent sons and daughters into peer networks. A scale comprized of eight items that referred to different kinds of problem behaviours (e.g. ‘‘shop-lifting’’, ‘‘truancy’’, ‘‘beat somebody’’) served to assess the number of deviant peers in the peer network. Adolescents were asked to indicate how many friends in their peer network were involved in a given activity. Responses were given on 4-point rating scales (1 ¼ ‘‘none’’; 4 ¼ ‘‘many’’). The internal consistency of the scale was good (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0?82). Employing a similar format, a second measure tapped adolescents’ integration into networks of constructive peers. The 10 items of the scale addressed various leisure pursuits that, in the light of a normative perspective, could be judged as being in line with societal expectations (e.g. ‘‘playing musical instrument’’, ‘‘learning for tests in school’’, ‘‘political participation’’). Adolescents reported how many of the age-mates in their peer network were more strongly involved in a given leisure activity (1 ¼ ‘‘none’’; 4 ¼ ‘‘many’’). Given the broad range of activities included, the internal consistency of the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0?67). Quality of friendships. Three scales from the Network of Relationship Inventory (e.g. Furman and Buhrmester, 1985) served to assess different aspects of the socio-emotional quality of adolescents’ relationships with their best friend: Admiration (i.e. positive evaluation by best friend), intimacy, and conflict. Each aspect is measured by three items. The quality of relations is indicated on five-point rating scales. With Cronbach’s alphas ranging between 0?74 and 0?85, internal consistencies of the scales in our sample can be considered good.
Results Peer relations depending on family type Peer relations of adolescents from nuclear families, stepfather-families, and single-mother families were examined by ANOVAs with the different peer scales as dependent variables, and type of family, gender, region (East vs. West), school track (high vs. other), and age group (514 years, 14–15 years, 415 years) as independent variables, The cut-off point for the definition of age groups aimed at comparable group sizes. At the same time, we wanted to consider the German legal situation defining a higher level of legal responsibility among minors above age 13 which could be important in our examination of adolescents networks of deviant peers. To avoid statistical problems resulting from small cell sizes, analyses were restricted to main effects and two-way interactions only. Spurious effects due to unequal cell sizes were controlled by employing the regression method (unique sum of squares). Table 2 gives a summary of the findings.
Peers and families
541
Table 2 Findings of ANOVA of adolescents’ peer relations depending on type of family, gender, age-group, school-track, and region; F-values and significance Type of peer relationship
Type of family
Gender
Age group School track Region
0?10 2?70
19?39*** 5?67**
Peer network Deviant peers Constructive peers
1?12 0?78
Quality of friendship Admiration Intimacy
0?05 0?08
1?40 15?52***
0?77
2?76+
Conflict
2?04+ 2?33
0?85 3?00+
0?19 0?71
0?53 1?51
5?72* 5?65*
0?49
0?68
0?01
Interactions
F6R: 3?94* G6S: 3?72+ G6A: F6R: G6A: G6S: G6S:
4?27* 3?56* 5?47** 4?59* 2?90+
Note. F ¼ Type of family, G ¼ Gender, A ¼ Age group, S ¼ School track, R ¼ Region. ***p50?001, **p5 0?01, *p50?05, +p50?10.
Peer network. The analysis of adolescents’ integration in deviant peergroups only yielded two main effects. While variation depending on agegroup was highly significant (F (2,517) ¼ 19?39, p50?001), the effect of school track was only marginally significant (F (1, 517) ¼ 2?94, p50?10). Post-hoc tests pointed to a steady increase of involvement with deviant peers as a function of age with involvement in each subsequent age group being significantly higher than in the respective younger group agegroup (514 years: M ¼ 1?69, S.D. ¼ 0?44; 14–15 years: M ¼ 1?97, S.D. ¼ 55; 415 years: M ¼ 2?17, S.D. ¼ 0?63). Moreover, high track students reported having smaller numbers of deviant peers in their network (M ¼ 1?96, S.D. ¼ 0?55) than did students attending lower school tracks (M ¼ 2?04, S.D. ¼ 0?63). The type of family in which adolescents grew up did not make any difference with regard to deviant peers in their network. The number of constructive peers in the social network, again, differed depending on age (F (2, 567) ¼ 5?67, p50?01) with adolescents of the oldest agegroup reporting having more constructive peers (M ¼ 2?23, S.D. 0?44) than the younger ones (M ¼ 2?05, S.D. ¼ 0?43, and M ¼ 2?09, S.D. ¼ 0?39, respectively). A marginal difference depending on region (F (1,567) ¼ 3?00, p50?10) resulted from a slightly more extensive involvement of young West Germans in networks of peers pursuing constructive leisure activities than was the case for East Germans adolescents. This difference was, however, mainly due to adolescents from nuclear families as shown by a significant family type6region interaction (F (2, 567) ¼ 3?94, p50?05). While these young West Germans indicated a higher involvement with constructive peers than their East German age-mates from nuclear families (M ¼ 2?25, S.D. ¼ 0.39) vs. (M ¼ 2?07, S.D. ¼ 0?42), reports of adolescents from stepfather-families and single-mother families paralleled those of East Germans from nuclear families and did not vary depending on region. Finally, we observed a marginal gender 6 school track interaction effect (F (1,567) ¼ 3?72, p50?10). Post-hoc analyses showed that female students from high track schools had more constructive peers in their social networks (M ¼ 2?23, S.D. ¼ 0?44) than male high track students (M ¼ 2?10, S.D.=0?40) and males as well as females attending lower school tracks (both: M ¼ 2?08, S.D. ¼ 0?42).
542
P. Noack et al.
Quality of friendships. Our first set analysis focusing on adolescents’ friendships addressed the extent to which young people experienced admiration by their friends. We found a main effect of region (F (1, 561) ¼ 5?72, p50?05), as young West Germans reported higher levels of recognition on the part of their friends (M ¼ 3?91, S.D. ¼ 0?72) than did adolescents from the East. A significant gender6age group interaction effect (F (1, 561) ¼ 4?27, p50?05) was due to opposite age-graded patterns of perceived admiration among males and females. Whereas mean level differences suggest a decline of admiration in the former group (514 years: M ¼ 3?91, S.D. ¼ 0?74; 14–15 years: M ¼ 3?77, S.D. ¼ 0?75; 15 years: M ¼ 3?73, S.D. ¼ 0?80), admiration as reported by females showed an increase with age (514 years: M ¼ 3?75, S.D. ¼ 0?70; 14–15 years: M ¼ 3?88, S.D. ¼ 0?77; 415 years: M ¼ 4?07, S.D. ¼ 0?65) resulting in a significant gender difference among the oldest adolescents. Findings of the analysis of intimacy in adolescents’ friendships also pointed to a more positive quality of friendship relations in West Germany (main effect of region: (F (1, 570) ¼ 5?65, p50?05). Means for young West Germans (3?65 (1?06)) were higher than for East German adolescents (3?50 (1?09)). The regional variation mainly resulted from a difference among young people living in step-father families (family type6region interaction: F (2, 570) ¼ 3?56, p50?05). Whereas West German adolescents from step-father families were the subgroup with the highest score (3?77(0?99)), young East Germans with the same family background reported lower friendship intimacy than all other adolescents (3?33 (1?08)). The difference of intimacy in male and female adolescents’ friendships was highly significant (F (2, 1570) ¼ 15?52, p50?001). As could be expected, young females reported on higher levels of intimacy with their friends (M ¼ 3?79, S.D. ¼ 1?01) than males (M ¼ 3?36, S.D. ¼ 1?11). Gender-specific variation did not become salient before age 14 and could be observed in both older age-groups (gender6agegroup interaction: F (2, 570) ¼ 5?47, p50?01). A post hoc analysis of age-graded patterns showed that intimacy among girls reached a higher level in mid-adolescence, while mean levels for boys remained stable. Moreover, the observed gender difference was stronger in the subsample of students attending high track schools as suggested by an examination of a gender6school track interaction effect (F (1, 570) ¼ 4?59, p50?05). Analyses of conflict in adolescents’ friendships only yielded marginal effects related to gender. Besides this main effect of gender (F (1, 570) ¼ 2?76, p50?10) with boys reporting higher conflict rates than girls, a gender6school track interaction effect (F (1, 570) ¼ 2?90, p50?10) suggests that friendships of boys who do not attend a high track school were the most conflictual. The role of family conflict The role of family conflict was explored by comparing adolescents from four groups of families, namely, high-conflict nuclear families, low-conflict nuclear families, step-father families and single-mother families. Gender, region, school track and age group were included as further independent variables in the ANOVAs. As before, our five measures of peer relations served as dependent variables. Only main effects and two-way interactions were analysed. As the sample included in these analyses only differed slightly from the one considered in the preceeding analyses, findings confined to gender, region, school track and age group were basically replicated. For the sake of brevity, the following report only focuses on effects involving the type of family.
Peers and families
543
Peer network. While family background did not play a role concerning deviant peers, this was different in the case of involvement with constructive peers. As before, the variation of the reported numbers of peers with constructive leisure pursuits depending on the type of family was moderated by region (family type6region interaction: F (3, 613) ¼ 2?67, p50?05). Post-hoc analyses showed that the previous findings were also substantively replicated. Adolescents from both high-conflict and low-conflict nuclear families in the West reported a more extensive network of constructive peers (M ¼ 27?23, S.D. ¼ 0?39, and M ¼ 2?25, S.D. ¼ 0?37, respectively) than young West Germans from the other types of families, while findings for East Germany did not vary. The regional difference was only significant in the case of nuclear families. Quality of friendships. Adolescents with different family background also reported different levels of admiration on the part of their friends (F (3, 605) ¼ 2?79, p50?05). While no two family groups were significantly different in the post-hoc test, an examination of means pointed to the lowest level of experiences of admiration among adolescents from highconflict nuclear families (M ¼ 3?68, S.D. ¼ 0?84) and little difference between the other subgroups (low-conflict nuclear family: M=3?89, S.D. ¼ 0?74; step-father family: M ¼ 3?90, S.D. ¼ 0?67; single-mother family: M ¼ 3?87, S.D. ¼ 0?75). Analyses of intimacy and conflict in adolescents’ friendships did not yield any significant effects related to the type of family in which young people grew up. The family type6region interaction effect on friendship intimacy observed in the first set of analyses, namely the regional variation among sons and daughters from step-families resulting from higher intimacy in friendships of West German adolescents, faded in the more differentiated comparison of four types of families (F (3, 617) ¼ 1?83, p ¼ 0?14).
Discussion In the present study, we set out to explore peer relations of adolescents in nuclear families and families after parental separation. To this aim, sons and daughters from nuclear families, step-families, and single-parent families were compared with regard to the deviant or constructive character of their peer network as well as to the quality of the relations with their best friends. The data base included reports from young people living in East and West Germany. Despite unification, the relative frequencies of non-nuclear families markedly differs between both parts of the country with possible consequences for the meaning of growing up in a single-parent or step family. In East Germany, non-traditional families are more frequent and the family background might thus matter less which should be considered in any analysis. Moreover, we wanted to further elucidate the role of parental conflict which has been suggested as a possible mediator linking family background and adolescent psychosocial adjustment (Walper, 1998). Even though earlier research suggested some association of family background and psychosocial problems, effects are comparably small and complex in nature (cf., Amato and Keith, 1991). Consequently, we did not expect massive differences concerning adolescents’ integration into the world of peers which can be expected to be more indirectly affected by parental separation than, for instance, young people’s self-esteem or involvement in problem behaviour, In a nutshell, our findings suggest that adolescents’ peer relations are, in fact, influenced by the parental separation to a small extent. Even though we found several
544
P. Noack et al.
instances of effects of family background, they are of clearly lesser importance than, for instance, age- or gender-specific variations. Analyses yielded only one main effect of family background which referred to perceived admiration by best friends. Interestingly, it was not adolescents from nuclear families as compared to those who had experienced parental separation who reported higher levels of recognition by their friends. The least favourable reports were given by young people from high conflict nuclear families. Earlier research shows that conflictuous relationships of fathers and mothers affect various aspects of family relations (Walper, 1998) as well as adolescent psychosocial adjustment (Peterson and Zill, 1986). When interpreting this finding, it has to be kept in mind that for the vast majority of the non-traditional families in our sample, parental separation was not a recent event. Consequently, interparental problems can be assumed to have calmed down (cf., Klein-Allermann and Schaller, 1992). In fact, conflict rates in high-conflict nuclear families were higher than in any other subgroup. The only exception were single-mother families who participated in the study during the first two years after the separation from the nuclear father. In this group which accounted for about 15 per cent of the single-mother families, conflict rates paralleled those among high-conflict nuclear families. This finding suggests that conflict related to parental separation does not have longterm effects on adolescents’ peer relations. Our finding concerning intimacy among best friends is less straightforward: whereas sons and daughters from step-father families in West Germany described their friendships as particularly intimate, the opposite was true of their age-mates growing up in East German step-father families. If the pattern observed among the young West Germans points to a compensatory role of their best friends in that the friendship context provides an arena for self disclosure as compared to limited opportunities at home, it is open to question why intimacy is particularly low in the group of East German adolescents with the same family background. We expected similar means for young East Germans from different family types as a consequence of the statistically more normal character of step-father families in the East. Could little intimacy in friendships of East German adolescents from step-father families be indicative of another strategy of withdrawal, namely avoiding high levels of intimacy in close relations altogether? In this case, our findings would point to certain problems in friendships of step-children which, however, have region-specific consequences. The interpretation is rather speculative at this point. Moreover, it has been kept in mind that the within-region differences depending on family background failed to reach significance. In the light of earlier findings on the particular situation of children in step-families (cf., Ferri, 1984; Steinberg, 1987; Walper, 1998), it still seems worthwhile pursuing these considerations in future research. Another family background effect moderated by region was yielded by our analysis of adolescents’ integration in a network of constructive peers. While young West Germans from nuclear families entertained relations with more peers involved in constructive leisure activities than those from non-traditional families, the type of family did not make a difference in the constructive peer network of East German adolescents. As this finding held regardless of the level of conflict in nuclear families it can probably not be attributed to particular psychosocial strain experienced in West German single-parent or step-families. When interpreting the effect, it seems more promising to think of it considering what parents can offer their children in terms of, for instance, financial resources, practical help, and stimulating experiences. Differences in young people’s opportunity landscape are the likely consequence.
Peers and families
545
In the first place, numerous constructive activities involve costs as do—in an indirect way—contacts with constructive peers. The description of our sample showed that West German nuclear families were those who reported the most favorable financial situation (cf., ¨r Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 1997). Moreover, engagement Bundesministerium fu in such activities is likely to benefit from practical support on the part of parents. Monitoring activities, being around at home, or driving sons and daughters to some place might lose its importance in the course of adolescence (cf., Noack, 1990), but many a constructive activity dates back to earlier years or has its childhood precursors. In any case, mothers who are homemakers can be assumed to have less problems to provide such practical support than working mothers. Again, the number of homemaker mothers is highest in West German nuclear families. Admittedly, the suggested reasons for our finding may sound quite mundane and are certainly speculative at this point. From our perspective, however, it seems instructive to pursue objective aspects of everyday life which might make a difference for different types of families in addition to the investigation of psychosocial factors that impact on the adjustment of adolescents from non-traditional families and particularly on their integration into the world of peers. We do not want to discuss our findings on variations in peer relations depending on gender, age and school track in detail here. Suffice to say that the patterning of differences which mostly corresponds to evidence from earlier studies strengthens our confidence concerning the validity of our main results. Cases in point are the age-graded increase of the numbers of deviant and constructive peers in adolescents social networks, concomitants of the attendance of high track schools, and gender-related as well regional differences in the quality of friendships (Oswald, 1992; Noack, 1995, 2000; Zinnecker and Strzoda, 1996). Still, several limitations of our study have to be kept in mind. Due to the age-range of about 10 years covered by our sample, sizes of subgroups are rather small. This is particularly true when it comes to our analyses including high-conflict nuclear families. Moreover, among the non-traditional families, the time since the separation of the biological parents varies to a considerable extent. It also has to be kept in mind that the data base for the present analyses is cross-sectional. Even though it seems not plausible to assume that associations between type of family and adolescents’ peer relations result from effects of peers on the family, the reverse interpretation is not the only one possible. Genetic sources of parental influence have repeatedly been pointed out with reference not only to aspects such as perceived childrearing practices but also to temperamental features shared by parents and their children (cf., Plomin, 1989). Consequently, the possibility cannot easily be discarded that parents with a difficult temperament and a higher likelihood to separate than others have sons and daughters who also have more problems in their close relations.
Acknowledgement The paper is based on a joint study which is conducted by research teams at the University of Munich and University of Jena and supported by the German Research Council. The authors wish to thank Mechthild Goedde, Beate Schwarz, and Kathrin Gerhard for their assistance in the planning phase and data collection. We are also grateful for the efforts, Linda Juang put into language editing.
546
P. Noack et al.
References Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: theories, hypotheses, and empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23–38. Amato, P. R. and Booth, A. (1996). A prospective study of divorce and parent–child relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 356–365. Berndt, T. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15, 608–616. Block, J. H., Block, J. and Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: a prospective study. Child Development, 57, 827–840. ¨r Jugend, Familie, Frauen und Gesundheit (1988). Alleinerziehende Mu¨tter und Bundesminister fu Va¨ter—Eine Analyse der Gesamtsituation (Single-parent mothers and fathers—a comprehensive analysis of their situation). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ¨r Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (1997). Die Familie im Spiegel der Bundesministerium fu amtlichen Statistik (The family in the light of public statistics). Bonn: BMFSFJ. Devall, E., Stoneman, Z. and Brody, G. H. (1986). The impact of divorce and maternal employment on pre-adolescent children. Family Relations, 35, 153–159. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D. and Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Ferri, E. (1984). Stepchildren: A National Study. Windsor: Nelson. Furman, W. and Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016–1024. Go¨dde, M. and Walper, S. (1997). Befunde zur deutschen Kurzversion der ‘‘Children’s Perception of ¨te und deskriptive Gruppenvergleiche (Analyses of the Interparental Conflict Scale’’: Skalengu German short version of the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale: Reliabilities and descriptive findings). Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe ‘‘Familienentwicklung nach der Trennung’’, 20/97. University of Munich. Grych, J. H., Seid, M. and Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict: the children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63, 558–572. Hagan, J., Hefler, G., Classen, G., Boehnke, K. and Merkens, H. (1998). Subterranean sources of subcultural delinquency beyond the American Dream. Criminology, 36, 309–341. Harper, J. F. and Ryder, J. M. (1986). Parental bonding, self-esteem and peer acceptance in father absent male adolescents. Australian Journal of Sex, Marriage and Family, 7, 17–26. Henderson, S. H., Kahn, C. and Youniss, J. (1990). Adolescents’ Friendships in Intact and Divorced Families. Poster presented at the Third Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence. Atlanta, GA, March. Hetherington, E. M.(1991). The role of individual differences and family relationships in children’s coping with divorce and remarriage. In Family Transitions, Cowan, P. A. and Hetherington, E. M. (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 165–194. Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1–14. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M. J. and Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents and children. In Nontraditional Families, Lamb, M. (Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 233–288. Honess, T. M. and Charman, E. E. (1998). Adolescent adjustment, social systems, and parental separation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13, 557–567. Kaplan, H. B. (1980). Deviant Behavior in Defense of Self. New York: Academic Press. Klein-Allermann, E. and Schaller, S. (1992). Scheidung—Ende oder Vera¨nderung familialer Beziehungen? (Divorce—End-point of family relations or starting point of changes? In Familienbeziehungen (Family relations) Hofer, M., Klein-Allermann E. and Noack, P. (Eds). Go¨ttingen: Hogrefe, 266–288. Kurdek, L. A. (1988). A 1-year follow-up study of children’s divorce adjustment, custodial mothers’ divorce adjustment, and postdivorce parenting. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9, 315–328. Long, N., Forehand, R., Fauber, R. and Brody, G. H. (1987). Self-perceived and independently observed competence of young adolescents as a function of parental marital conflict and recent divorce. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 15–27.
Peers and families
547
Mize, J. and Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother–child relationship style, and children’s peer competence: is the medium the message? Child Development, 68, 312–332. Nauck, B., Schneider, N. and To¨lke, A. (l995). Familie und Lebensverlauf im gesellschaftlichen Umbruch (Family and life course in social change). Stuttgart: Enke. Noack, P. (1992): Allein zu zweit: Ein-Elternteil-Familien [Two alone: Single-parent families]. In Familienbeziehungen [Family relations] Hofer, M., Klein-Allermatnn, E. and Noack, P. (Eds). Go¨ttingen: Hogrefe, pp. 289–310. Noack, P. (1995). Entwicklung naher Beziehungen im Jugendalter [Development of close relations during adolescence]. Unpublished habilitation thesis, University of Mannheim. Noack, P. (2000). Adolescent peer relations in times of social change. In Negotiating adolescence in times of social change, Crockett, L. J. and Silbereisen, R. K. (Eds). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–156. Oswald, H. (1992). Beziehungen zu Gleichaltrigen [Peer relations] In Jugend ’92 Jugendwerk der Deutschen Shell (Ed.). Vol. 2 [Youth 1992]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, pp. 319–332. Oswald, H. (1998). Young people and the family. In Social transformation and the family in post-communist Germany, Kolinsky, E. (Ed.). London: Macmillan. Oswald, H., Uhlendorff, H. and Krappmann, L. (1997). Familie in Ost- und West-Berlin— Erziehungseinstellungen und Kinderfreundschaften [The family in East and West Berlin— Attitudes towards parenting and children’s friendships]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 43, 35–53. Parke, R., MacDonald, K., Beitel, A. and Bhavnagri, N. (1988). The role of the family in the development of peer relationships. In Marriage and Families, Peters, R. and MacMahon, R. (Eds). New York: Brunner-Mazel, pp. 17–44. Patterson, C. J., Vaden, N. A. and Kupersmidt, J. B. (1991). Family background, recent life events and peer rejection during childhood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 347–361. Permien, H. (1988). Zwischen Existenzno¨ten und Emanzipation—Alleinerziehende Eltern [Between existential problems and emancipation—Single parents]. In Wie geht’s der Familie? Deutsches ¨nchen: Ko¨sel, pp. 89–97. Jugendinstitut (Ed.). [How is the family?] Mu Peterson, J. L. and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent–child relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 295–307. Pettit, G. S., Clawson, M. A., Dodge, K. A. and Bates, J. E. (1996). Stability and change in peerrejected status: the role of child behavior, parenting, and family ecology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42, 267–294. ¨rich: Rascher. Piaget, J. (1956). Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde [Moral judgment of the child]. Zu Plomin, R. (1989). Nature and nurture in the family. In Family Systems and Life-span Development, Kreppner, K. and Lerner, R. M. (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 129–148. Rubin, K. H., Stewart, S. H. and Coplan, R. J. (1995). Social withdrawal in childhood: conceptual and empirical perspectives. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 17, 157–196. Schmidt-Denter, U. and Beelmann, W. (1997). Kindliche Symptombelastungen in der Zeit nach einer ehelichen Trennung—eine differentielle und la¨ngsschnittliche Betrachtung [Children’s problems following parental separation: a differential and longitudinal approach]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Entwicklungspsychologie und Pa¨dagogische Psychologie, 29, 26–42. Silbereisen, R. K. and Noack, P. (1988). On the constructive role of problem behavior in adolescence. In Person in Context, Bolger, N., Caspi, A., Downey, G. and Moorehous, M. (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152–180. Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child Development, 58, 269–275. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton. Walper, S. (1991). Trennung der Eltern und neue Partnerschaft: Auswirkungen auf das Selbstkonzept und die Sozialentwicklung der Kinder [Parental separation and new relationships: effects of children’s self-concept and social development]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie, 50, 34–47. Walper, S. (1998). Die Individuation in Beziehungen zu beiden Eltern bei Kindern und Jugendlichen aus konfliktbelasteten Kern- und Trennungsfamilien [Individuation in relation to both parents: a comparison of children and adolescents from conflicted nuclear and separated families]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 18, 134–151.
548
P. Noack et al.
Watt, N. F., Moorehead-Slaughter, O., Japzon, D. M. and Keller, G. G. (1990). Children’s adjustment to parental divorce: self-image, social relations, and school performance. In Risk and Protective Factors in the Development of Psychopathology, Rolf, J. E. and Masten, A. S. (Eds). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 281–303. Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and Peers in Social Development: A Sullivan-Piaget Perspective. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Zinnecker, J. and Strzoda, C. (1996). Freundschaft und Clique. Das informelle Netzwerk der Gleichaltrigen [Friendship and clique. The informal network of age-mates]. In Kindheit in Deutschland [Childhood in Gemany] Zinnecker, J. and Silbereisen, R. K. (Eds). Weinheim, Germany: Juventa, pp. 81–97.