Developmental Psychology 1984, Vol 20, No 6, 1092-1099

In the public domain

Socializing Procedures in Parent-Child and Friendship Relations During Adolescence

Fumiyo Tao Hunter
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland Two patterns of socializing interactions were examined in adolescents' relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. The two patterns were commands based on greater authority and expertise (unilateral) and negotiation and co-construction (mutual). They were examined in the context of parents and friends exerting direct influence on adolescents or adolescents' seeking social verification from them. Subjects of three age levels (N = 180; 12-13, 14-15, 18-20) reported, by a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, the frequencies of these patterns in their own relations. In both contexts, friends were judged to interact more mutually than parents (p < .01) who in tum interacted more unilaterally than friends (p < .01). The dominant form of socializing interactions for parents was unilateral social verification based on greater experience; for friends, it was mutual social verification through co-construction. The results are discussed in terms of different but complementary contributions of parents and friends to adolescent socialization, viewed as a process of social construction.

The influence of significant others in adolescent development is commonly studied in terms of the outcomes of socialization, with less attention paid to the intervening processes. For example, certain parental attributes, for example, power and discipline styles, are examined in relation to adolescent characteristics that are considered to be products of socialization, for example, morality, autonomy, and identity (cf. Enright, Lapsley, Drivas, & Fehr, 1980; Leahy, 1981). Similarity of attitudes and behaviors between adolescents and socializing agents is another frequently used measure (e.g., Acock & Bengtson, 1978; Huba & Bentler, 1980; Krosnick & Judd, 1982; Shah & Zelnik, 1981). Recent reviews (e.g., Bengtson & Troll, 1978; Berndt, 1982; Wright & Keple, 1981) point to the need for future studies to focus on the interplay between the socializing contributions of parents

and peers and the processes involved in socialization. The aim of the present study was to investigate the procedures by which parents and friends contribute toward adolescent socialization and how these procedures may change with increasing age. The basic premise was that social development of children and adolescents involves their actively constructing the rules of social behavior in their interactions with various socializing agents. It was assumed that (a) parents and friends hold various forms of relations with adolescents (cf. Piaget, 1932; Youniss, 1980); (b) interpersonal relations may be characterized in terms of "the content, quality and patterning of interactions" (Hinde, 1979, p. 20); (c) much of socializing influence is mediated through interpersonal interactions; and (d) the parents' and friends' socializing procedures may be inferred from the patterns of interpersonal interactions occurring in these relations. According to Youniss (1981), parent-child relations of childhood and adolescence exemplify the unilateral authority relationship in which parents strive to impart an alreadyconstructed knowledge to their children. They approve or disapprove children's behavior and attitudes based on their nurturant and

This report is based on a PhD dissertation submitted to the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C I am grateful to James Youniss, the major advisor, for his guidance I also thank all students and their teachers who cooperated with this study. Requests for reprints should be sent to Fumiyo Tao Hunter, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Child and Family Research Branch, Bldg 31, Rm. B2BI5, Bethesda, Maryland 20205.

1092

SOCIALIZING PROCEDURES DURING ADOLESCENCE

1093

didactic concerns and greater experience. Friendship, on the other hand, is a form of mutual reciprocity relationship in which both members share equal privileges in expressing divergent opinions, being listened to, and mutually constructing new ideas. The evolution of friendship from early adolescence on is characterized by increasing open communication and mutual understanding (cf. Berndt, 1982; Bigelow, 1977). Thus, in the unilateral authority relationship, children are expected to accept a reality that is imposed upon them, whereas in the mutual reciprocity relationship, they have the right to actively construct and verify their own reality with someone whose ideas can be challenged and tested along with their own. Age-related changes in the forms of these relations have been reported. Interactions representing mutual construction (e.g., talking things out, trying to reach consensus) emerge in late childhood and develop through adolescence in friendship relations (Piaget, 1932; Youniss, 1980). Although mutuality in parent-child relations may increase during adolescence (Volpe, 1981; Youniss, 1980), it seems to remain more unilateral than friendship relations even in late adolescence (Hunter & Youniss, 1982). Previous findings are mixed concerning age changes in the relative potency of parental and peer influence (cf. Coleman, 1978). In cross pressure situations that force adolescents to choose parent or peer conformity, peer influence is generally found to increase with age, whereas parent influence wanes (cf. Berndt, 1979; Bixenstine, DeCorte, & Bixenstine, 1976; Utech & Hoving, 1969). However, parents are reported to remain a major source of advice and guidance throughout adolescence (cf. Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Kandel & Lesser, 1972; Sebald & White, 1980). It appears that parental and peer influences may be affected by the nature of interactional contexts, for example, parents and peers competing for adolescents' conformity or responding to adolescents' request for advice. The present study examined relational and age-related differences in socializing interactions. Parent-adolescent interactions were expected to be more unilateral than mutual, whereas the reverse was expected for interactions with friends. It was expected that the

mutual interactions with friends would increase with age, whereas parents' unilateral interactions would wane and their mutual interactions would increase toward late-adolescence. The unilateral and mutual interactional patterns were examined in two interactional contexts: (a) a direct influence context, in which the other person (e.g., parent, friend) attempts to get the adolescent to do something, and (b) a social verification context, in which the adolescent is uncertain about something and solicits input from parents or friends for the purpose of verification. These interactions, which approximate "seeking advice and guidance" examined in some previous works, represent the active role of adolescents in their own socialization process. Adolescents' interactions with mothers and fathers were analyzed separately because adolescents differentiate their relations with mothers and fathers in areas such as intimacy and providing practical and psychological support (e.g., Kandel & Lesser, 1972; Wright &Keple, 1981). Method Subjects
Data were collected from a total of 180 subjects consisting of 60 students in each of three age groups: early adolescents (12- and 13-year-olds), midadolescents (14- and 15-year-olds), and late adolescents (18-20-yearold college undergraduates). The average ages for these groups were 12.6, 14.6, and 18.9 years, respectively. Males and females were equally represented in each age group. About half of the males and females in all age groups were recruited from public schools (including state universities and community colleges) and the other half from private schools All subjects across age groups, in public and private schools, were Caucasian of middleclass backgrounds and lived with both natural parents in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Material and Procedures

A paper-and-pencil questionnaire was constructed for this study. The interactional patterns were assessed by items describing the other person's behavior (i.e., procedures) in Direct Influence and Social Verification contexts, reasons for the person's attempt at direct influence, and reasons for adolescent's seeking social verification from the person. The items adhered closely to statements spontaneously generated by children and adolescents in previous works dealing with kind and unkind acts by adults and friends, conflict-resolution procedures, and

1094

FUMIYO TAO HUNTER something else. How often does your father (mother, friend) do the following things when he(she) wants you to do something? 2. Why do you think your father (mother, friend) wants you to do those things? How close are the following answers to your father's (mother's, friend's) reasons? Listed under the first question were procedures that other persons (i.e., father, mother, friend) might use when they attempt to influence adolescents' behaviors directly. The Unilateral procedures described the other person demanding or expecting compliance from adolescents. The Mutual procedures were negotiations by requesting, persuading, and offering to exchange favors. For the second question, the Unilateral reasons to justify Direct Influence reflected the other person's greater expertise and didactic concerns The mutual reasons included the other person's need for help, knowledge of shared interests, and desire to share activities with the adolescents. The Social Verification context was presented by the following questions: 1 Think of the times when you feel unsure about important decisions you have to make, or personal problems you might have, or whether your ideas about something are right. How often does your father (mother, friend) do the following things when you talk to him(her) about something you are unsure of? 2. Why do you talk to your father (mother, friend) when you are unsure about something? How close are the following answers to your reasons? The Unilateral procedures m Social Verification context described the other person giving already-formed answers to adolescent's questions and justifying them on the basis of greater experience. The Mutual procedures included the other person's disclosing his or her own uncertainties and trying to clarify the issues with adolescents, while expressing a tentative agreement For the second question, the Unilateral reasons were the other person's greater knowledge, experience, and didactic concerns. The Mutual reasons were the adolescents' knowledge that the other person had similar experiences and therefore would understand the adolescents' problems, without embarrassing them, and would cooperatively figure out the problems. Each procedure item was rated on a 4-point Likerttype scale as follows: Hardly Ever (1), Not Often (2), Often (3), and Very Often (4). The rating categories for each reason item were as follows: Not My Reason At All (1), Little Like My Reason (2), Close To My Reason (3), My Mam Reason (4). A total of 32 statements (eight procedures and eight reasons in each of two contexts) was repeated for the three target persons: father, mother, and friend. To rate the items in the Fnend section, subjects were instructed to select one best (or good) same-sex friend The time required to complete the questionnaire necessitated this restriction on the sex of the friends. For each target person the Direct Influence section was presented first, the Social Verification section second. The ordering of the target persons was counterbalanced The questionnaires were administered to junior and senior high school students in groups of 8 to 25, individually to all college subjects. The purpose of the study and the instructions printed on the questionnaire were explained. The subjects were encouraged to request a clarification of any ambiguity with the questionnaire items or the procedures. No time limit was imposed for completing the questionnaire.

uniqueness of interactions (Youniss, 1980; Volpe, 1981) in parent-adolescent and friendship relations. For each context, there were eight procedure and eight reason items. Half of the procedure and reason statements were designed to portray the unilateral form of interactions; the other half, the mutual form of interactions. The unilateral/mutual designations were checked by nine judges who were familiar with these constructs. The agreement rates between each judge and the experimenter across all 32 items ranged from 75% to 100%, with an average of 92%. Sample items for both interactional patterns and contexts are presented in Table 1. The Direct Influence section was presented with the following questions: 1. Think of the times when your father (mother, friend) wants you to do something when you want to do

Table 1 Sample Questionnaire Items

Direct Influence Procedure Items (Unilateral/Mutual) I My father1 says I'm supposed to do what he tells me to do (U) 2. My father says he expects me to do what he tells me. (U) 3. My father tells me that he would do favors for me at other times if I would go along with him now. (M) 4. My father asks me if I would be willing to do it. (M) Direct Influence Reason Items (Unilateral/Mutual) 1. Because my father wants to teach me to do the right thing. (U) 2. Because my father knows what I should do about some things better than I do. (U) 3. Because my father knows I would want to do what he wants me to do. (M) 4. Because my father wants me to do the same thing he wants to do. (M) Social Verification Procedure Items (Unilateral/Mutual) 1. My father tells me he points out where I'm wrong for my own good. (U) 2. My father tells me that I would realize his ideas are right when I get more experience. (U) 3. My father tries to figure out with me whether or not I'm right (M) 4. My father tells me he wonders about the same thing. (M) Social Verification Reason Items (Unilateral/Mutual) 1. Because my father has taught me a lot of things. (U) 2. Because I respect my father's knowledge about certain things (U) 3. Because my father understands how I feel. (M) 4. Because my father thinks with me about what might be right instead of just telling me what he thinks is right. (M) * This was replaced by mother and friend in the respective sections.

SOCIALIZING PROCEDURES DURING ADOLESCENCE

1095

Results The unilateral and mutual groupings of the questionnaire items were empirically verified by principal component analyses reported in detail elsewhere (Hunter, 1983). Four scale scores were computed for each relation (mother, father, friend) as unweighted averages from the items a priori designated for Unilateral Direct Influence, Mutual Direct Influence, Unilateral, and Mutual Social Verification scales. All scales consisted of eight items (four procedures and four reasons), except for the Unilateral Social Verification scale, which contained 7 items. One of the items for this scale reduced the scale reliability for all relations and was excluded. The internal consistencies of the scales (Cronbach's alpha) for father, mother, and friend were as follows: Unilateral Direct Influence, .76, .71, .74; Mutual Direct Influence, .64, .54, .65; Unilateral Social Verification, .78, .75, .64; Mutual Social Verification, .83, .82, .82. Although the alphas for several scales were low, yielding tentative findings, most of the scales showed adequate reliability as measures of group differences. Analyses of Variance of Interactional Patterns by Age, Sex, and Relationship Each of the four scales was analyzed by a 3 X 2 X 3 (age, sex, relationship) mixed-design factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) with relationship as a repeated measure. The significance of F ratios was tested by the conservative method (cf. Greenhouse & Geisser, cited in Winer, 1971). Significant interaction effects were further tested for simple main effects of the interacting variables, followed by pair-wise comparisons of means using the Tukey method. In addition, possible curvilinear age differences were examined by polynomial regression analyses. For these, father and mother scores for each scale were averaged because few mother-father differences were found in the ANOVAS. Eight regressions were performed for four parent and four friend scores. Unilateral Direct Influence interactions. Relationship accounted for the largest effect, 7=1(1, 174) = 371.31, p < .001. Both father and mother means far exceeded the friend

means, p < .01 (See Figure 1, solid lines). Males reported experiencing more Unilateral Direct Influence (M = 2.09) than females did (M = 1.97), 7=1(1, 174) = 4.60, p < .05. The ANOVA showed a significant main effect for age, 7=1(2, 174) = 3.15, p < .05, with no interaction effect. However, the polynomial regression analyses indicated that parents' Unilateral Direct Influence increased from early to midadolescence, followed by a decrease thereafter, 7=1(1, 176) = 5.86, p < .02, whereas friends' Unilateral Direct Influence remained consistently low. Unilateral Social Verification interactions. The relationship effect was significant, 7=1(1, 174) = 98.76, p < .001. As in the Direct Influence context, fathers and mothers were reported to give social verification based on expertise and didactic concerns more than friends did (p < .01 for both parent-friend comparisons). (See Figure 1, broken lines.) However, the Sex X Relationship interaction was also significant, 7=1(1, 174) = 5.73, p < .05. Males reported a higher level of Unilateral Social Verification by fathers (M = 2.99) than did females (M = 2.79), p < .05. Age showed a significant main effect, 7=1(2, 174) = 3.19, p < .05, with no interaction effect. However, the regression analysis for parents revealed the same curvilinear pattern as for the Unilateral Direct Influence scores, F( 1, 176) = 4.98, p < .03. Friends' Unilateral Social Verification increased, F(2, 176) = 3.58, p < .03, from early to midadolescence. Mutual Direct Influence interactions. The main effect for relationship was significant, 7=1(1, 174) = 41.05, p < .001. Mutual Direct Influence (e.g., negotiation, exchanges) was far more frequent in friendship than in parent-child relations, p < .01 (See Figure 2, solid lines). The age effect was also significant, F(2, 174) = 6.88, p < .01, due to a rise in negotiation procedures from early to midadolescence (j> < .01) across relationships. Mutual Social Verification interactions. In the Social Verification context, mutual interactions differed significantly according to relationship, 7=1(1, 174) = 85.88, p < . 0 0 1 . Friends provided much greater Mutual Social Verification (based on co-construction and mutual understanding) than fathers or mothers, p < .01 (See Figure 2, broken lines). The Sex X Relationship effect was also significant,

1096
Parents 0 Friend Direct Influence Social Verification

FUMIYO TAO HUNTER

.001), but the late adolescents perceived their parents as employing mutual and unilateral procedures equally. On the other hand, parents' social verification was reported to be more unilateral than mutual for all age groups (p < .001 for all three / tests). When children sought socializing input from parents, the parental responses continued to reflect their greater expertise and didactic concerns, with less inclination for mutual construction. Analysis of Context Differences by Age and Relationship The last issue addressed was whether the age and relationship differences in interactional patterns were affected by the contexts. The Unilateral scores for the two contexts were compared by a three-factor mixed-design ANOVA for age, relationship, and contexts, with the last two variables being repeated measures. Another ANOVA with the same design compared the Mutual scores in the two contexts.

Figure 1 Mean unilateral interaction ratings for Direct Influence and Social Verification contexts by age and relationship (Parent means represent averages of mother and father scores.)

Parents 0 Friend Direct Influence Social Verification

F( 1, 174) = 28.19, p < .001. The father mean was higher for males (2.46) than for females (2.21), p < .01, whereas the friend mean was higher for females (3.25) than for males (2.71), p < .001. The age effect, F{2, 174) = 3.63, p < .05, revealed an increase from early to late adolescence (p < .05) in Mutual Social Verification, primarily in friendship relations. Comparisons Between Unilateral and Mutual Interactions With Parents Friends' interactions with adolescents were clearly more mutual than unilateal regardless of age or context. The relative prevalence of Unilateral and Mutual interactions for parents at different ages was examined by a series of correlated t tests. Again, four "parent" scale scores for each subject, formed by averaging mother and father scores, were used. In the Direct Influence context, early and midadolescents reported their parents as acting more unilaterally than mutually (p <

12-13

14-15 Age Group

18-20

Figure 2 Mean mutual interaction ratings for Direct Influence and Social Verification contexts by age and relationship. (Parent means represent averages of mother and father scores.)

SOCIALIZING PROCEDURES DURING ADOLESCENCE

1097

The two analyses produced the same pattern of results. The main effects for age, relationship, and context, and the Relationship X Context interaction were significant. (See Table 2 for a summary of the two ANOVAS.) The main effects for context showed that both the Unilateral and Mutual ratings were greater in the Social Verification context than in the Direct Influence context (p < .001), regardless of age or relationship. The Relationship X Context interaction effects were due to much greater context differences for friends than for parents. Discussion

Table 2 Summary of Analyses of Variance (F ratios) of Unilateral and Mutual Scores by Age. Relationship, and Context
F ratio Effect Age Relationship Context Age X Relationship Age X Context Relationship X Context 2, 1, 1, 2, 2,

df
177 177' 177 177' 177

Unilateral 4.16* 339.83*" 357.68' ns ns 34.47W

Mutual 6.64" 88.71" 89.72"1** ns ns 15.74"*

1, 177*

This study focused on the interplay between parent-child and friendship relations in adolescent socialization assessed in terms of accepted before may be reconsidered as to its interactional procedures. The parental inter- validity, as well as new knowledge. actions were found to remain predominantly The findings suggest that parents and unilateral, whereas friends tended to interact friends provide different forms of input in mutually. Furthermore, both unilateral and social construction. Parents provide a major mutual interactions for parents and friends source of information and advice through the were more prevalent in the Social Verification procedures of unilateral social verification. context than in the Direct Influence context. Statements such as "I respect my parent's The important bases for social influence by knowledge about certain things" were highly parents appeared to be greater knowledge, endorsed for parents. However, adolescents expertise, and nurturant concerns, especially turn to their friends for verifying ideas and when adolescents sought to verify their own feelings for themselves. Friends were identified views against the parents' more experienced by statements such as "My friend takes time views. The socializing interactions with friends to understand in what way I'm uncertain were mostly in the form of mutual social about something" and "My friend tries to verification based on similarity of experience, figure out with me whether or not I'm right." mutual understanding, and willingness to co- In the process of mutual verification, two construct shared knowledge. The sample of friends may strongly disagree, be equally unthis study was restricted to cross-sectional sure, or share similar tentative ideas. Common age groups of the middle-class Caucasian in all these cases, however, is the process of backgrounds. Socializing interactions in par- cooperatively challenging, defending, and ent-child and friendship relations may vary testing out varied views without the conin groups with backgrounds different from straints of having to defer to a priori superior this sample, and as a function of the cohort judgments. The product would be, in prindifferences. The following interpretations of ciple, a knowledge that is more convincing the findings are proposed to be tested further than simply accepted knowledge because the with other samples and designs. adolescents have personally constructed it It was assumed that socialization entails with someone who shares similar life experiprocesses of social construction. During ad- ences. Parents, with their greater life experiences, olescence, along with increases in physical and intellectual abilities, participation in var- rightfully would weigh their own opinions ious adulthood experiences, for example, em- more (cf. Baumrind, 1973) than those of ployment, political involvement, and intimate adolescents. If adolescents challenge their opposite-sex friendship begins. This may be parents' views, parents may not seriously a period of heightened uncertainties and in- reconsider their own ideas. Statements such quisitiveness. Knowledge that had been simply as "My parent tells me that I would realize

Note * p < 05. p < .01. * p < .001. * Degrees of freedom adjusted by the Greenhouse-Geisser method

1098

FUMIYO TAO HUNTER

his(her) ideas are right when I get more experience" were strongly identified with parents. Adolescents, in turn, may be less inclined to challenge the parents' views for fear of parental disappointment or censure (cf. Sullivan, 1953) arising from their necessarily different life experiences. Instead, adolescents look to their parents for information and advice that may provide the structure for coconstruction and verification with friends. Of course, not all parent-child interactions are unilateral. Some mutual interactions by parents were reported by all age groups. Also the patterns of interactions must be affected by the particular contents addressed in the interactions. For example, communication patterns of parents and friends seem to differ according to the contents of discussions (Hunter, 1983). The main aim of this study was to compare the general forms of parents' and friends' socializing interactions. Crosssituational consistency and variations in these interactions need to be clarified in future investigations. The age-group comparisons, though based on a cross-sectional design, seem pertinent to the prior findings that parental influence wanes while peer influence increases in crosspressure contexts (e.g., Bixenstine et al., 1976; Utech & Hoving, 1969), even though parents are also found to maintain their influence as important sources of advice and guidance (e.g., Kandel & Lesser, 1972). The present findings on friends' interactions support the notion that peer influence increases in adolescence. In addition, their common form was found to be negotiation and co-construction. Parents' socializing interactions remained predominantly unilateral and potent. This pattern, coupled with the curvilinear increases in midadolescence, may appear to support the conflictual, alienated model of parent-adolescent relationship (cf. Coleman, 1978). However, consistent with the findings of Kandel and Lesser (1972) and others, much of the unilateral interactions were found to represent adolescents' seeking social verification from parents because of their respect for the parents' greater experience. The curvilinear rise in parents' unilateral interactions in midadolescence may reflect a greater urgency the parents feel to transmit their views to their children, who are increasingly questioning new and old knowledge. The subse-

quent waning may mark the parents' acknowledgement of adolescents' greater independence and capabilities. Unlike this study, most of the previous studies specified the contents involved in interactions with parents and peers (e.g., whether or not to go to a party). The decline of parental influence found in the crosspressure studies may partly reflect their focus on the cross pressure, direct-influence contexts and the particular contents of interactions specified (cf. Brittain, 1963; Larson, 1972). In some of these contexts, negotiations by friends may become a stronger basis for choices of action than commands by parents for older adolescents. However, in other socializing contexts, parents seem to sustain their influence, which is actively solicited by adolescents themselves. Previously, mothers were found to provide more practical and psychological support (Hunter & Youniss, 1982; Kandel & Lesser, 1972; Wright & Keple, 1981) for adolescents than fathers. Contrary to expectations based on these findings, the interactional patterns of mothers and fathers differed minimally in this study. The questionnaire directed subjects to describe what parents and friends do given a certain context. This may have obscured any difference in the actual frequencies of various procedures, as well as possible differences in the contents addressed in the interactions (e.g., advice on interpersonal problems vs. advice on future career plans). Two patterns of sex differences were found. First, the differences between parents' and friends' mutual interactions were greater for females than for males. This was consistent with other reports that female same-sex friendship involves greater intimacy and intensity than male same-sex friendship (e.g., Fischer, 1981; Kandel & Lesser, 1972; Wright & Keple, 1981). Second, males reported their fathers to engage in social verification more than females did, which concurred with previous findings (Kandel & Lesser, 1972; Volpe, 1981; Wright & Keple, 1981). The similarity of sex-specific experiences for same-sex parent and child (cf. Wright & Keple, 1981) cannot fully explain this phenomenon, because there was virtually no difference in males' and females' reports of mothers' interactions. Clearer understanding of mother-father and sex differences would require additional in-

SOCIALIZING PROCEDURES DURING ADOLESCENCE

1099

vestigations of interactional patterns, including the contents and the frequencies of occurrence, for same-sex and cross-sex parentchild and friendship relations. This study addressed some of the central issues concerning adolescent socialization by focusing on the forms of interpersonal relationships and the characteristic interactive procedures. Thefindingspoint to the separate but complementary contributions of parents and friends (cf. Hunter & Youniss, 1982) as well as how they change in potency during adolescence. The study also demonstrates that analyzing relationships and procedural patterns offers an alternative avenue for further inquiries concerning adolescent social development. References
Acock, A. C , & Bengtson, V. L..(1978). On the relative influence of mothers and fathers: A covanance analysis of political and religious socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40. 519-530. Baumnnd, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In A. D. Pick (Ed ), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol 7, pp. 3-46). Minneapolis. The University of Minnesota Press. Bengtson', V. L., & TroU, L. (1978). Youth and their parents: Feedback and intergenerational influence on socialization. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on marital and family interaction A life-span perspective (pp. 215-240). New York: Academic Press. Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15. 608-616. Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in early adolescence. Child Development, 53. 14471460. Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children's friendship expectations: A cognitive-developmental study. Child Development, 48, 246-253. Bixenstine, V. E., DeCorte, M. S., & Bixenstine, B. A. (1976). Conformity to peer-sponsored misconduct at four age levels. Developmental Psychology. 12, 226236. Brittain, C. V. (1963). Adolescent choices and parentpeer cross-pressures. American Sociological Review, 28, 385-391. Coleman, J. C (1978). Current contradictions in adolescent theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 1-11. Douvan, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York: Wiley. Enright, R. D., Lapsley, D. K., Drivas, A. E., & Fehr, L. A. (1980). Parental influences on the development of adolescent autonomy and identity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 529-545. Fischer, J. L. (1981). Transitions in relationship style

from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 10, 11-23. Hinde, R. A. (1979). Towards understanding relationships New York: Academic Press Huba, G. J., & Bentler, P. M. (1980). The role of peer and adult models for drug taking at different stages in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 449465. Hunter, F T. (1983). Procedures of socializing influence in adolescents' relationships with mothers, fathers, and friends (Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3750B-3751B. (University Microfilms No. DA8306544) Hunter, F. T, & Youniss, J. (1982) Changes in functions of three relations during adolescence Developmental Psychology, 18, 806-811. Kandel, D B., & Lesser, G. S. (1972). Youth in two worlds US and Denmark. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. Krosnick, J A., & Judd, C M. (1982). Transitions in social influence at adolescence: Who induces cigarette smoking? Developmental Psychology, 18. 359-368. Larson, L. E. (1972). The influence of parents and peers during adolescence: The situation hypothesis revisited. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34, 67-74. Leahy, R L. (1981). Parental practices and the development of moral judgment and self-image disparity during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 17, 580594 Piaget, J (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge Kegan Paul. Sebald, H, & White, B. (1980). Teenagers' divided reference groups: Uneven alignment with parents and peers. Adolescence. 15, 979-984. Shah, F., & Zelnik, M. (1981). Parent and peer influence on sexual behavior, contraceptive use, and pregnancy experience of young women. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 43. 339-348. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry New York- Norton. Utech, D. A , & Hoving, K. L. (1969). Parents and peers as competing influences in the decisions of children of differing ages. The Journal of Social Psychology, 78. 267-274. Volpe, J. S. (1981). The development of concepts of parent-child and friend relations and of self within these relations (Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41. 4314B-4753B. (University Microfilms No. 8111648) Winer, B. J. (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design New York: McGraw-Hill. Wright, P H., & Keple, T. W. (1981). Friends and parents of a sample of high school juniors: An exploratory study of relationship intensity and interpersonal rewards. Journal of Marriage and the Familv. 43, 559570. \buniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers in social development. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press Youniss J. (1981). Moral development through a theory of social construction' An analysis. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 27, 385-403.

Received April 4, 1983 Revision received June 22, 1983