Family Implicit Rules, Shame, and Adolescent Prosocial and Antisocial Communication Behaviors

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between implicit family process rules and adolescent prosocial and antisocial communication behaviors. Data came from two-parent families in Wave 5 of the Flourishing Families Project which consisted of 322 families (fathers, mothers, and children ages 13–17). Both observational and questionnaire data were used in data collection. Prosocial and antisocial behaviors were assessed using observational codes from the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. Each of the family members’ perceptions was used to assess constraining family rules and facilitative family rules. Findings showed a direct positive relationship between facilitative family process rules and prosocial communication and a negative relationship with antisocial communication for both girls and boys. Constraining family process rules were also positively related to antisocial communication behaviors in adolescents. Shame was a significant mediator of the relationship between facilitative family rules and prosocial behavior as well as between constraining family rules and antisocial behavior.

Effect of Method Bias on the Internal Structure of the Systemic Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Measure of Family Functioning

“…Counselors using SCORE results as a guide for how to evaluate family interventions may be neglecting important areas for intervention that are simply not captured in the SCORE-15 or SCORE-28. For example, multiple studies have demonstrated the relationship between family organization-clearly defined roles and boundaries-and family outcomes, such as parental drinking (Bijttebier & Goethals, 2006), children and adolescents' behavior (Crane et al, 2020;Johnson et al, 1999), children's health (Bates et al, 2018), and adolescent communication (Crane et al, 2020). The role dimension in the original conceptualization of the SCORE represents family organization but is almost entirely missing from the abbreviated versions of the instrument (Table 1).…”

Longitudinal Associations Between Support and Prosocial Behavior Across Adolescence: The Roles of Fathers, Mothers, Siblings, and Friends

“…A cross-sectional study showed that when parents discuss and engage adolescents in prosocial activities, their adolescent children exhibit more prosocial behaviors (Carlo et al, 2007 ). Relatedly, parents who adhered to higher levels of implicit rules (unwritten rules and norms within the family such as “make decisions together as a family,” p. 72, Crane et al, 2020 ) on prosociality in family processes had adolescents who showed more prosocial communication with both parents (Crane et al, 2020 ). Regarding siblings, there is empirical evidence for positive associations between siblings’ prosocial behavior during childhood.…”

Family cohesion, shame-proneness, expressive suppression, and adolescent mental health—A path model approach

“…Specifically, negative parenting, such as rejecting, neglectful, controlling, shaming, or punitive behavior, is associated with children’s shame-proneness ( Loader, 1998 ; Stuewig and McCloskey, 2005 ; Smiley et al, 2020 ). Other dysfunctional aspects of family life, such as boundary disruptions and inflexible family rules, may likewise elicit shame in children ( Talmon and Ginzburg, 2017 ; Crane et al, 2020 ). However, the few available findings on the associations between family cohesion and shame-proneness are mixed.…”