Demand/withdraw communication between parents and adolescents as a correlate of...

The present investigation examined the association between satisfaction in parent-adolescent relationships and demand/withdraw, a pattern of communication in which one person nags or criticizes while the other attempts to avoid the issue. Fifty-seven parent-adolescent dyads participated in a

study that involved both self-report and outsider ratings of demand/withdraw. Frequent demand/withdraw was associated negatively with relational satisfaction for both parents and adolescents. In several instances, this negative association remained even after controlling for the overall amount of conflict in the relationship. These results demonstrate the utility of examining demand/withdraw in parent-adolescent dyads.

**********

Numerous studies have demonstrated that the amount of conflict between parents and adolescents is associated inversely with adolescents' and parents' well-being and their relational satisfaction (e.g., Cole & McPherson, 1993; Crouter, Bumpus, Maguire, & McHale, 1999; Foster & Robin, 1997; Holmbeck, 1996). In addition, certain specific behaviors during conflict are associated with poor adolescent adjustment and distressing parent-adolescent relationships (e.g., Capaldi, Forgatch, & Crosby, 1994; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Rubenstein & Feldman, 1993). For example, Robin and Weiss (1980) found that distressed parent-adolescent dyads were significantly more likely to engage in put downs and significantly less likely to offer compromises than were nondistressed dyads.

Despite the progress in describing variation among parents' and adolescents' experiences with conflict, scholars' understanding of why some parent-adolescent dyads are able to deal with conflict more constructively than are others is still limited (Flannery, Montemayor, Eberly, & Torquati, 1993; Holmbeck, 1996; Steinberg, 1990). Cooper (1988) argued that the functionality of conflict probably depends on other behaviors that co-occur with conflict, yet few studies of parent-adolescent conflict have examined this idea (cf. Barrera & Stice, 1998). Cooper's argument suggests that it would be useful to view parent-adolescent conflict behaviors from a more systemic perspective than is typical in studies of parent-adolescent conflict.

Although family scholars utilizing systems theory usually focus on interconnections among family members (Kantor & Lehr, 1975; Minuchin, 1988), there is also a tradition that examines the systemic properties of communication behaviors within dyads (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Most notably, considerable research on marital conflict has examined the demand/withdraw pattern, which involves one person attempting to avoid an issue while the other complains, criticizes, or nags (e.g., Christensen, 1988; Gottman & Levenson, 2000; Watzlawick et al., 1967). Demand/withdraw is systemic in the sense that demanding and withdrawing behaviors are contingent on each other: Demands tend to elicit withdrawals and withdrawals tend to elicit demands (Christensen & Heavey, 1993; Klinetob & Smith, 1996).

Demand/withdraw typically has been examined within marital dyads, but it is also reasonable to expect that demand/withdraw occurs in some parent-adolescent dyads. For example, adolescents sometimes withdraw from interactions with their parents (Hauser, 1991; Larson & Richards, 1994). Parents may respond by demanding; in fact, parents often increase their efforts at monitoring their children when the children attempt to establish greater personal privacy during adolescence (Petronio, 1994). Conversely, adolescents may respond to overly restrictive parenting by turning to peer relationships and avoiding their parents (Fuligni & Eccles, 1993).

Despite the likelihood that some parents and adolescents engage in demand/withdraw, we are aware of only one previous examination of demand/withdraw in parent-adolescent dyads. Caughlin & Malis (2004) reported that demand/withdraw was associated with generally undesirable outcomes like adolescents having low self-esteem and using drugs. This suggests that demand/withdraw may be an important discriminator of parent-adolescent conflict that is relatively destructive rather than relatively constructive.

Although past research has not directly examined the possibility that demand/withdraw is an important correlate of parents' and adolescents' relational dissatisfaction, there is indirect evidence to support this possibility. Robin and Weiss (1980) found that distressed parent-adolescent dyads were more likely to engage in both commanding and unresponsive behaviors than were nondistressed dyads. Moreover, research on demand/withdraw in marriage has demonstrated that it is inversely associated with marital satisfaction and frequently predicts declines in relational dissatisfaction (Heavey, Christensen, & Malamuth, 1995; Heavey, Layne, & Christensen, 1993; Noller, Feeney, Bonnell, & Callan, 1994; cf. Caughlin, 2002). Given this association in marriage, it is likely that demand/withdraw between parents and adolescents is associated with dissatisfaction. More formally, our first hypothesis was:

H1: Demand/withdraw patterns between parents and adolescents are associated inversely with adolescents' and parents' relational satisfaction.

Even if there is an overall association between demand/withdraw and dissatisfaction, this would not necessarily be a crucial addition to the parent-adolescent conflict literature. As noted above, a connection between the amount of parent-adolescent conflict and dissatisfaction has already been established (Foster & Robin, 1997; Holmbeck, 1996; Robin & Foster, 1989). Because demand/withdraw is a pattern of behaviors that dyads enact when dealing with a conflict issue, occurrences of demand/withdraw are probably associated with the frequency of conflict. Thus, it is important to assess whether demand/withdraw explains variation in satisfaction beyond that explained by the amount of conflict. Research on marriages suggests that demand/withdraw contributes meaningfully to the account of relational satisfaction; for instance, Caughlin and Huston (2002) reported that demand/ withdraw predicted marital dissatisfaction, even after statistically controlling for exchanges of negative affect. Still, because the importance of demand/ withdraw has not been established with parent-adolescent dyads, it was important to pose the following:

H2: Even after controlling for the overall amount of parent adolescent conflict, demand/withdraw between parents and adolescents is associated inversely with adolescents' and parents' relational satisfaction.

METHOD

Participants

Parent-adolescent dyads were recruited through local high schools and youth organizations. The age range for the adolescents recruited was 13 to 16 years because adolescents during this period are likely in the midst of renegotiating their relationships with their parent(s) (Noller, 1995). The average age of adolescents was 14.44 years, and the mean age of parents was 45.52 years (range = 32 to 61 years). The sample consisted of 57 parent-adolescent dyads, including 14 mother-son dyads, 16 mother-daughter dyads, 15 father-son dyads, and 12 father-daughter dyads. Parents' reported on their own ethnic background; 45 individuals were European American, 7 were African American, 3 were Asian Americans, and 2 reported being from another ethnic background. The median household income was between $50,000 and $55,000. Each individual was paid $20 for participating.

Procedure

Participants chose a location for completing the study, usually their home or on campus. Participation involved completing preconversation questionnaires, a conversational task, and postconversation questionnaires. The preconversation questionnaires included two separate packets of questionnaires. The first contained questions about demographics and the extent to which they desired change on potential conflict issues. After participants completed the first packet of questionnaires, a research team member took it and provided the second packet of questionnaires, which took between 20 and 30 minutes to complete.

Directions for the conversations were based on procedures developed by Sillars (1986). Participants were provided with three cards listing the topics they should discuss and the order in which the topics should be discussed, an audio recorder, and the postconversation questionnaires. Dyads were asked to complete the conversation where nobody could overhear them, and they were told to discuss each topic as long as they wished. These instructions were meant to mitigate some of the problems inherent in gathering outside ratings of avoidance behaviors. As Roberts (2000) argued, a typical laboratory procedure, which involves asking dyads to talk for a preset amount of time, "artificially constrains the assessment of withdrawal behaviors" (p. 694). By allowing participants to record themselves and use their own judgment about the length of the conversations, the current study sought to minimize this problem.

Generally, the first two topics were assigned so that one was the adolescent's topic and one was the parent's topic. Assignment of topic was based on the extent to which participants reported desiring change; specifically, the topic labeled as one person's issue was the topic that was highest in terms that person's desired change but not among the five highest in desired change for the other person. This selection criterion could not be used for all the dyads, however. For example, in six dyads no issue could be identified as the adolescents' issue (e.g., because the parent desired great change on all the topics about which their child wanted any change). In such instances, the dyads were given a parent's issue and an alternate topic, but they were excluded from analyses pertaining to adolescents' issues. The order of discussion for the first two topics was random. All dyads discussed "alcohol and drug use among teenagers" as the third topic. Immediately after the conversation task, each participant was asked to rate the extent of demand/withdraw during the conversation. Because these measures were completed while dyads were still in a private location, each individual was given an envelope and told to seal the questionnaire in the envelope after completing the survey.

Measures

Desire for change. Participants rated the extent to which they would like their counterpart to change their attitudes and/or behaviors with regards to 20 issues. The issues were taken from the frequently used Issues Checklist (Prinz, Foster, Kent, & O'Leary, 1979; Robin & Foster, 1989). Given that most parent-adolescent conflicts are about mundane issues (Montemayor, 1983; Smetana & Gaines, 1999), 17 of the items involved common issues like cleaning up the adolescent's bedroom, going on dates, allowance, and coming home on time. The other three topics included desires for change regarding drugs, smoking, and drinking beer or other liquor.

The 20 desire for change items were administered twice during the preconversation session, once in each of the two packets of instruments. The directions were altered slightly between the two instruments, and there were several other questionnaires between the replication of the 20 items. Two-item measures of reliability were calculated for each of the 20 issues. The reliabilities were good (average a = .86 and .85 for parents and adolescents, respectively).

Overall conflict. The amount of parent-adolescent conflict was assessed with four items from the conflict subscale of Braiker and Kelley's (1979) Relationship Questionnaire. Participants were asked to report on the two month period preceding the study. Like all instruments in the current study, items were modified to reflect the specific participants. For instance, a sample item for adolescents who completed the study with their mother was "How often did you and your mother argue with one another?" The response scales ranged from 1 to 7 with higher numbers representing greater conflict (M = 3.28, SD = 1.41, [alpha] = .89 for parents; M = 3.60, SD = 1.52, [alpha] = .90 for adolescents). As with all the scales used in the present analyses, the dimensionality of the conflict scale was examined with principal components analyses. Both parents' and children's eigenvalues and scree plots indicated one factor. As an index of agreement between parents' and adolescents' reports of overall conflict, an intraclass correlation ([r.sub.k]) was calculated: [r.sub.k] = .82.

Demand/withdraw. There were three separate measures of demand/ withdraw. The first was a retrospective self-report based on Christensen's (1988; Christensen & Heavey, 1993; Christensen & Sullaway, 1984) Communication Patterns Questionnaire. The questionnaire was modified to refer to parents and adolescents (e.g., one of the four items was "During a discussion of a problem, how likely is it that you nag or blame while your father withdraws, becomes silent, or refuses to discuss the matter further?"). Responses ranged from 1 to 7 with higher scores indicating greater demand/ withdraw. Participants were asked to report on the two month period preceding the study. There were separate items for reporting on parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw and adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw (M = 3.35, SD = 1.45, [alpha] = .84 for parents' reports of parent-demand/ adolescent-withdraw; M = 2.46, SD = 1.24, [alpha] = .83 for parents' reports of adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw; M = 3.26, SD = 1.46, [alpha] = .79 for adolescents' reports of parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw; and M = 2.84, SD = 1.58, [alpha] = .85 for adolescents' reports of adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw). The intraclass correlations between parents' and children's reports were .72 and .57 for parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw and adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw, respectively.

The postconversation reports of demand/withdraw were similar to the retrospective reports except participants were asked to focus only on the conversation that they had just completed. Again, the response scale ranged from 1 to 7 (M = 1.61, SD = .92, [alpha] = .84 for parents' reports of parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw; M = 1.47, SD = .82, a = .89 for parents' reports of adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw; M = 1.50, SD = 1.05, [alpha] = .92 for adolescents' reports of parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw; M = 1.50, SD = .98, [alpha] = .89 for adolescents' reports of adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw). The intraclass correlations were .06 for parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw and .29 for adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw.

Finally, five individuals rated the audio recordings for demand/withdraw, using items similar to the participant ratings (e.g., "To what extent did the parent criticize while the adolescent tried to avoid?"). The raters were blind to the hypotheses and did not have access to the questionnaire data. This procedure is similar to that developed by Christensen (e.g., Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Heavey et al., 1993; Heavey et al., 1995). For training, the raters were provided with descriptions of typical demanding and withdrawing behaviors, but the researchers stressed that these behaviors were merely examples of the categories--not definitive. The raters practiced with five conversations that were not part of the current data. When the practice sessions suggested that interrater reliability would be acceptable, the data from the current study were assessed with each rater working independently. The intraclass correlations for parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw were .91, .84, and .91 for the parent, adolescent, and alcohol/drug topics, respectively. For the same topics, the intraclass correlations for adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw were .47, .89, and .91.

Relational satisfaction. Satisfaction was measured with a version of the Marital Opinion Questionnaire (Huston, McHale, & Crouter, 1986) that was modified so that it referred to the parent-adolescent relationship. The scale consisted of eight 7-point semantic differential items (e.g., "miserable-enjoyable") and one global item that ranged from "completely dissatisfied" (1) to "completely satisfied" (7). Following the calculation procedure recommended by Huston et al., the eight items were first averaged, then added to the single global item, and this sum was divided by two (M = 5.45, SD) = 1.25 for parents; M = 4.92, SD = 1.38 for adolescents). The reliabilities for the eight items were .93 and .95 for the parents and adolescents, respectively. The reliabilities between the average of the eight items and the single global items were .69 and .80. Parents' and adolescents' satisfaction scores were significantly correlated, r = .48, p < .01.

RESULTS

As summarized in Table 1, Pearson correlations were used to examine the first hypothesis, which predicted inverse associations between demand/ withdraw and relational satisfaction. Consistent with the directional hypothesis, 1-tailed significance tests were used. Several significant correlations were consistent with the first hypothesis. Specifically, based on both parents' and adolescents' retrospective and postconversation reports, parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw was associated inversely with adolescents' satisfaction. According to parents' and adolescents' retrospective reports, parents' and adolescents' postconversation reports, and the outside ratings of the conversations concerning the parents' topic, adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw was associated inversely with adolescents' satisfaction. Also, parents' satisfaction was related negatively to their own and their children's retrospective and postconversation reports of both parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw and adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw.

The second hypothesis, which predicted that demand/withdraw would be associated inversely with relational satisfaction even after controlling for the overall amount of conflict in the parent-adolescent relationship, was examined with a series of hierarchical regressions. In each analysis, participants' satisfaction was regressed on their reports of relational conflict in the first step, and then one of the measures of demand/withdraw was added in the second step. For example, when entered alone, adolescents' reports of overall conflict were significantly associated with their satisfaction, F(1, 54) = 43.53, p < .01, [R.sup.2] = .45, [beta]= -.67. Adding parents' retrospective reports of parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw in the second step did not account for significant additional variation in adolescents' satisfaction, F(1, 53) = 0.55, p = .46, [R.sup.2]-change = .01, [beta] = -.09. This result is summarized in the first row of Table 1. (2)

There were, however, four measures of demand/withdraw that explained significant variance in adolescents' satisfaction above and beyond that explained by overall conflict (see Table 1). First, there was an inverse association between adolescents' satisfaction and adolescents' postconversation reports of parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw. Also, three measures (the adolescents' retrospective reports, adolescents' postconversation reports, and the outside ratings during the parents' topic) indicated a significant inverse association between adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw and adolescents' satisfaction.

For the regressions of parents' satisfaction on conflict and demand/ withdraw, parents' reports of overall conflict were significantly related to satisfaction when entered first, F(1, 54) = 28.33, p < .01, [R.sup.2] = .34, [beta] = -.59. Consistent with the second hypothesis, five associations between demand/withdraw and parents' satisfaction were significant even after accounting for overall conflict. Specifically, parents' satisfaction was inversely related to parents' retrospective reports of parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw, adolescents' retrospective reports of both forms of demand/withdraw, and adolescents' postconverstation reports of both forms of the pattern (see Table 1).

DISCUSSION

The current findings revealed a number of associations between demand/withdraw and relational dissatisfaction among parents and adolescents. Several of these associations were significant even after controlling for the overall amount of conflict in the relationship. These results augment previous research showing that the amount of parent-adolescent conflict is related to dissatisfaction with the relationship (Foster & Robin, 1997; Holmbeck, 1996; Robin & Foster, 1989). In particular, the current investigation suggests that considering demand/withdraw in parent-adolescent relationships provides a more complete account of variation in adolescents' and parents' relational satisfaction than is possible from only examining the amount of conflict. Thus, the research presented here complements previous work with marital dyads, which has already demonstrated that demand/ withdraw is an important predictor of marital dissatisfaction (e.g., Caughlin & Huston, 2002; Heavey et al., 1995; Heavey et al., 1993; Noller et al., 1994).

Despite this general conclusion, the results did not uniformly confirm the hypotheses. In general, the retrospective and postconversation reports of demand/withdraw provided more consistent support for the hypotheses than did the outside ratings. At first glance, one might attribute this trend to the biases involved in self-reports (Huston & Robins, 1982; Reis, 1994). However, many of the significant associations involved one person's report of demand/withdraw and the other person's satisfaction. For instance, adolescents' retrospective and postconversation reports of parent-demand/ adolescent-withdraw were inversely related to parents' satisfaction (even after controlling for parents' reports of overall conflict). Such findings are unlikely to be caused by an intrapersonal subjective bias.

Given that the discrepancies between the participant reports and the outside ratings are unlikely due to participants' reporting biases, other alternatives should be considered. One possible explanation is that parents and adolescents have an intersubjective understanding of the meaning of certain behaviors that is not readily apparent to outsiders (Noller & Feeney, 2004). The possibility of intersubjective understanding is consistent with the high level of agreement between parents and adolescents in their reports of conflict and their retrospective reports (but not postconversation reports) of demand/withdraw.

Another possibility is that the study lacked sufficient power to demonstrate associations with the outside ratings. The power to detect small correlations (defined as r = .10 by Cohen, 1988) was only .18. If the associations between the outside ratings and satisfaction are small, a more powerful study would be needed to detect them. However, the current power for large correlations (i.e., r = .50) was .99, suggesting that if there were large associations between the outside ratings and satisfaction, the present investigation probably would have revealed them.

A third potential explanation of the lack of significant findings with the outside ratings is that there might be something about the measurement technique preventing an accurate assessment of demand/withdraw. Scholars who examine withdrawal in conflict, for example, sometimes focus on nonverbal cues like looking away from the speaker (e.g., Gottman, 1993), which would not be observable with the audiotapes used here. The current study cannot address how, if at all, the current findings would have been different had video recordings been used, and this should be examined in future research. However, the absence of visual data probably cannot completely explain the lack of significant findings with the outside ratings because the typical measures of demand/withdraw (e.g., Christensen & Heavey, 1993; Heavey et al., 1993) focus primarily on verbal behaviors (e.g., changing the topic or delaying the discussion) and paralinguistic features (e.g., becoming silent) that can be assessed with audio recordings and because similar measures evince a connection between demand/withdraw and marital satisfaction (Caughlin, 2002). (3) In short, there are several possible explanations for why the results with the outside ratings differed from the other results, but more research is needed to determine which explanation is best supported.

In addition, it is important to recognize that the present investigation cannot establish causality. Indeed, the marital literature on demand/withdraw suggests that causality may be bidirectional. If demanding and withdrawing occur in response to dissatisfaction with some aspect of a relationship (e.g., Caughlin & Vangelisti, 1999; Christensen & Heavey, 1990), dissatisfaction may lead to demand/withdraw--just as demand/withdraw often predicts declining satisfaction (Heavey et al., 1995; Heavey et al., 1993; Noller et al., 1994).

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the present study has important implications. Whereas much research has shown connections between parent-adolescent conflict and negative outcomes, little has examined which patterns of behaviors differentiate conflict that is destructive from conflict that is not (Cooper, 1988). The current study demonstrates that one predictor of distressing conflict is the demand/withdraw pattern between parents and adolescents. This result is theoretically significant because it suggests that the systemic construct of demand/withdraw provides a more complete portrait of parent-adolescent dyads than does the amount of conflict alone. This result is also practically important: Programs and interventions aimed at enhancing parent-adolescent relationships likely should include material designed to prevent excessive demand/withdraw.

Although the findings presented here cannot determine the specific content of such interventions, the current study does provide some guidance. In particular, the associations between adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw and satisfaction are important. Research on adolescence often focuses on the physical, psychological, and communicative withdrawal of some adolescents from their parents (Fuligni & Eccles, 1993; Larson & Richards, 1994). The notion that parents sometimes withdraw from adolescents while the adolescents seek to demand is largely absent from the parent-adolescent literature, but the present investigation suggests that adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw has important relational implications. Such findings contrast with much advice in public service announcements and prevention programs, which often stresses the importance of the parents communicating their agenda to their children (e.g., Bry, Catalano, Kumpfer, Lochman, & Szapocznik, 1998). The present findings suggest that it is also important to ensure that parents listen to (rather than withdraw from) their adolescents, even if the adolescent is being critical or demanding.

TABLE 1
Summary of Associations between Demand/Withdraw and
Participants' Satisfaction with Their Relationship

                        Adolescents' Satisfaction

                                          [R.sup.2]-
Measure                   r      [beta]     change

Parents'
    Retrospective
    Reports
  PDAW                 -.44 **   -.09         .01
  ADPW                 -.24 *    -.04         .00
Adolescents'
    Retrospective
    Reports
  PDAW                 -.58 **   -.21         .02
  ADPW                 -.58 **   -.27 *       .04 *
Parents'
    Postconversation
    Reports
  PDAW                 -.29 *    -.13         .02
  ADPW                 -.24 *    -.13         .02
Adolescents'
    Postconversation
    Reports
  PDAW                 -.41 **   -.22 *       .04 *
  ADPW                 -.46 **   -.24 *       .05 *
Outside Ratings of
    Parent Topic
  PDAW                 -.07       .13         .02
  ADPW                 -.29 *    -.17 *       .03
Outside Ratings of
    Adolescent
    Topic
  PDAW                 -.16      -.15         .02
  ADPW                 -.04       .22         .04 *
Outside Ratings of
    Drug/Alcohol
  PDAW                 -.08       .04         .00
  ADPW                  .11       .08         .01

                           Parents' Satisfaction

                                          [R.sup.2]-
Measure                   r      [beta]     change

Parents'
    Retrospective
    Reports
  PDAW                 -.56 **   -.29 *       .05
  ADPW                 -.26 *     .01         .00
Adolescents'
    Retrospective
    Reports
  PDAW                 -.55 **   -.32 **      .07 *
  ADPW                 -.53 **   -.29 *       .06 *
Parents'
    Postconversation
    Reports
  PDAW                 -.23 *    -.10         .01
  ADPW                 -.24 *    -.14         .02
Adolescents'
    Postconversation
    Reports
  PDAW                 -.41 **   -.30 **      .09 *
  ADPW                 -.39 **   -.27 **      .07 *
Outside Ratings of
    Parent Topic
  PDAW                  .00       .10         .01
  ADPW                 -.07       .01         .00
Outside Ratings of
    Adolescent
    Topic
  PDAW                 -.07      -.03         .00
  ADPW                  .01       .10         .01
Outside Ratings of
    Drug/Alcohol
  PDAW                 -.03       .05         .00
  ADPW                 -.02      -.11         .01

NOTE: PDAW indicates parent-demand/adolescent-withdraw and ADPW
indicates adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw. The column labeled r
refers to the Pearson correlations. The other columns are regression
Betas and R-square changes that resulted from the addition of the
demand/withdraw measures after participants' reports of overall
conflict had been entered in the first step.

ENDNOTES

(1.) The low reliability for adolescent-demand/parent withdraw when discussing the parent topic can be attributed to low variation rather than disagreement among the raters. In fact, all five of the raters assessed 45 of the dyads as having the lowest possible score on adolescent-demand/parent-withdraw. Thus, this measure was retained, but the restricted variance diminished the chances that this variable would be significantly associated with others.

(2.) In keeping with the directional hypothesis, the significance of the regression coefficients were examined with 1-tailed t-tests. However. the significance of the [R.sup.2]-change values were assessed F-tests, which are inherently nondirectional. Thus, it would be inappropriate to adjust the alpha level of F to simulate a 1-tailed t (Levine & Banas, 2002). As a result, there were several analyses in which the regression coefficients and the [R.sup.2]-change did not match in terms of significance. For instance, as summarized in the top row of Table 1, adding parents' retrospective reports of parent-demand/adolescent withdraw to overall conflict did not account for significant additional variation in parents' satisfaction, [R.sup.2]-change = .05, F(1, 53) = 3.86, p = .06; however, the regression coefficient with a 1-tailed test indicated a significant association, [beta] = .29, t(53) = 1.97, p < .05.

(3.) The rating system used by these researchers includes only one reference to a behavior that requires visual observation, looking away (see Heavey et al., 1993).

REFERENCES

Barrera, M., & Stice, E. (1998). Parent-adolescent conflict in the context of parental support: Families with alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 195-208.

Braiker, H., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.) Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135-168). New York: Academic Press.

Bry, B. H., Catalano, R. F., Kumpfer, K. L., Lochman, J. E., & Szapocznik, J. (1998). Scientific findings from family prevention intervention research. In R. S. Ashery, E. B. Robertson, & K. L. Kumpfer (Eds.), NIDA Research Monograph 177 (pp. 103-129) [Electronic version]. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Capaldi, D. M., Forgatch, M. S., & Crosby, L. (1994). Affective expression in family problem solving discussions with adolescent boys: The association with family structure and function. Journal of Adolescent Research, 9, 28-49.

Caughlin, J. P. (2002). The demand/withdraw pattern of communication as a predictor of marital satisfaction over time: Unresolved issues and future directions. Human Communication Research, 28, 49-85.

Caughlin, J. P., & Huston, T. L. (2002). A contextual analysis of the association between demand/withdraw and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 9, 95-119.

Caughlin, J. P., & Malis, R. S. (2004). Demand/withdraw communication between parents and adolescents: Connections with self-esteem and substance use. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 125-148.

Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1999). Desire for change in one's partner as a predictor of the demand/withdraw pattern of marital communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 66-89.

Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31-52). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73-81.

Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1993). Gender differences in marital conflict: The demand/ withdraw interaction pattern. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 113-141). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Christensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984). Communication patterns questionnaire. Unpublished questionnaire. University of California, Los Angeles.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cole, D. A., & McPherson, A. E. (1993). Relation of family subsystems to adolescent depression: Implementing a new family assessment strategy. Journal of Family Psychology, 7 119-133.

Cooper, C. R. (1988). Conmentary: The role of conflict in adolescent-parent relationships. In M. R. Gunnar & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Development during the transition to adolescence. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (vol. 21, pp. 181-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crouter, A. C., Bumpus, M. F., Maguire, M. C., & McHale, S. M. (1999). Linking parents' work pressure and adolescents' well being: Insights into dynamics in dual earner families. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1453-1461.

Flannery, D. J., Montemayor, R., Eberly, M., & Torquati, J. (1993). Unraveling the ties that bind: Affective expression and perceived conflict in parent-adolescent interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 495-509.

Foster, S. L., & Robin, A. L. (1997). Family conflict and communication in adolescence. In E. J. Mash & L. G. Terdal (Eds.), Assessment of childhood disorders (3rd ed., pp. 627-682). New York: Guilford Press.

Fuligni, A. J., & Eccles, J. (1993). Perceived parent-child relationships and early adolescents' orientations toward peers. Developmental Psychology, 29, 622-632.

Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6-15.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 737-745.

Hauser, S. T. (with Powers, S. I., & Noam, G. G.). (1991). Adolescents and their families: Paths of ego development (pp. 231-243). New York: Free Press.

Heavey, C. L, Christensen A & Malamuth, N. M. (1995). The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 797-801.

Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61. 16-27.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1996). A model of family relational transformations during the transition to adolescence: Parent-adolescent conflict and adaptation. In J. A. Graber, J. Brooks-Gunn, & A. C. Peterson (Eds.), Transitions through adolescence: Interpersonal domains and context (pp. 167-199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Huston, T. L., McHale, S. M., & Crouter. A. C. (1986). When the honeymoon's over: Changes in the marriage relationship over the first year. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.). The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 109-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Huston, T. L., & Robins, E. (1982). Conceptual and methodological issues in studying close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 901-925.

Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. New York: Harper Colophon Books.

Klinetob, N. A., & Smith, D. A. (1996). Demand-withdraw communication in marital interaction: Tests of interspousal contingency and gender role hypotheses. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 501, 945-958.

Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The emotional live of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York: Basic Books.

Levine, T. R. & Banas. J. (2002) One-tailed F-tests in communication research. Communication Monographs, 69, 132-143.

Minuchin, p. (1988). Relationships within the family: A systems perspective on development. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 7-26). New York: Oxford University Press.

Montemayor, R. (1983). Parents and adolescents in conflict: All families some of the time and some families most of the time. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 83-103.

Noller, P. (1995). Parent adolescent relationships. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 77-111). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Noller, P., & Feeney. J. A. (2004). Studying family communication: Multiple methods and multiple sources. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 31-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Noller, P., Feeney, J. A., Bonnell, D., & Callan, V. (1994). A longitudinal study of conflict in early marriage, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 233-252.

Patterson, G. R., Reid. J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Oregon Social Learning Center.

Petronio, S. (1994). Privacy binds in family interactions: The case of parental privacy invasion. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 241-257). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Prinz, R.J., Foster, S., Kent, R. N., & O'Leary, D. K. (1979). Multivariate assessment of conflict in distressed and nondistressed mother-adolescent dyads. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 12, 691-700.

Reis, H. T. (1994). Domains of experience: Investigating relationship processes from three perspectives. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships (pp. 87-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roberts, L. J. (2000). Fire and ice in marital communication: Hostile and distancing behaviors as predictors of marital distress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 693-707.

Robin, A., & Foster, S. (1989). Negotiating parent-adolescent conflict. New York: Guilford Press.

Robin, A., & Weiss, J. G. (1980). Criterion-related validity of behavioral and self-report measures of problem-solving communication skills in distressed and non-distressed parent-adolescent dyads. Behavioral Assessment, 2. 339-352.

Rubenstein, J. L., & Feldman, S. S. (1993). Conflict-resolution behavior in adolescent boys: Antecedents and adaptational correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 41-66.

Sillars, A. L. (1986, April). Procedures for coding interpersonal conflict (revised) (Manual). Missoula: University of Montana, Department of Interpersonal Communication.

Smetana, J., & Gaines, C. (1999). Adolescent-parent conflict in middle-class African American families. Child Development, 70, 1447-1463.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MIA: Harvard University Press.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson. D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.

John Caughlin (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin, 1997) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Rachel Malis (M.A., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2001) is a graduate student in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. This research was supported by a grant from the Research Board at the University of Illinois. Portions of this paper were presented previously at the International Conference on Personal Relationships, Halifax, NS, Canada, July 2002 and the annual convention of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA, May 2003. The authors thank LaToyia Hill, Mary Peternel, Jason Ramsey, Tionya Spriggs, and Angel Spyrou for their assistance with rating the conversations.