FUTURE COMMUNICATION 1

The Effects of Parental Conflict and Siblings on Future Communication

David Mohler

Gabriella Alexis

Jourdain Cole

Paige Barcant

University of Florida
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
2
Abstract

The purpose of this report was to investigate how parental conflict in the household affects the

future communication styles of a child. The researchers also wanted to determine whether or not

the presence of siblings in the household would alter this outcome of future communication

styles of a child. A survey was created which asked participants various demographic

information, how many siblings they have, a number of questions related to parental conflict in

their household, and a series of questions to determine their communication styles. Participants

were asked about the frequency of occurrence of various indicators of parental conflict for the

questions related to parental conflict. Participants were asked about the frequency of occurrence

of various indicators of positive and negative communication styles in their own lives for

questions related to communication styles. The results for this study were insignificant which

proved the hypothesis to be null as there was no effect of parental conflict on the future

communication styles of a child. Testing the hypothesis of whether or not the presence of

siblings made a difference in the results also proved to be insignificant. The insignificance in the

results of this study could be attributed to a lack of representativeness in the sample as the

participants were of a similar background.

Keywords​: parental conflict, communication styles, siblings

Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
3
The Effects of Parental Conflict and Siblings on Future Communication

Communication is an aspect of society that impacts every individual in one way or

another. In this study, the researchers aimed to discover the relationship between parental

conflict and future communication styles and their effectiveness. The possibilities of things that

affect communication and aspects that likely do not affect it were explored through the results of

this study. In addition, the researchers consider the possibility of siblings playing a role in future

communication. The researchers are able to discover various findings on future communication

effectiveness by looking at prior research and analysing the results of this study.

The literature on this topic suggests that there is an association between conflict in the

household and a child’s behaviour, mental health, and overall well being. This study shows the

need for further research to discover what impacts future communication the most after

examining previous studies and combining it with current data. Various potential explanations

for the results of this research are explored as the conclusions were deemed insignificant.

Literature Review

Parental Conflict as the Independent Variable

Previous research shows that parental conflict in the household has been linked to many

negative outcomes. Conflict is a regular occurrence throughout human history. Parental conflict,

however, can be considered as disagreements which result in a greater or lesser communication

of the parents in a family (Barthassat, 2014). Cummings and Davies highlighted that parental

conflicts can have negative effects on childrens’ adjustment, which can cause unfavourable

social, cognitive, educational, as well as psycho-biological functions (2002). Evidently, parental

conflict therefore has adverse effects on child wellbeing. The major characteristics of parental
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
4
conflict include “intensity, content, duration and resolution” (Barthassat, 2014). Thus, if parental

conflict that a child witnesses is lengthy in duration, intense, and left unresolved, the family or

the marriage can be very stressful for the child (Grych and Fincham, 1990). Additionally, a

similar study on parental conflict and strategies for resolution highlighted that there is a need for

mental health professionals to provide parents with more awareness on the adverse outcomes of

resolving conflict in an aggressive manner on adolescents’ behaviour (Kwan, McKinney &

Walker, 2020). Based on this study, it can be said that another theme of parental conflict is its

effect on childrens’ behaviour. Another theme that can be linked to parental conflict is childrens’

mental health. A study on parental conflict and children’s emotional wellbeing suggests that

parental conflict results in persistent negative outcomes on child anxiety and depression in the

years to follow (Jekielek, 1998). In this study, parental conflict has been conceptualized as

negative interactions that disrupt the home.

Parental Conflict and Child Wellbeing

According to Grych and Fincham, a child sees parental conflict as a stressor (1990). The

authors explain that the conflict can influence the relationship between parent and child,

depending on the child’s response to the conflict, as well as their temperament. The child’s

wellbeing is also dependent on emotional security. Barthassat explains that the child’s perception

of and response to the parental conflict determines whether his or her emotional security is high

or low. Subsequently, this affects the child’s wellbeing (2014). Similar work by Susan Jekielek

points out that children who stay in environments with high conflict generally show lower levels

of wellbeing (1998).
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
5
Parental Conflict and Childrens’ Mental Health

Previous research shows that a stressful home environment leads to an increase in anxiety

which can affect childrens’ concentration in school as well as their relations with peers (Jekielek,

1998). According to Jekielek, parental conflict in the household greatly increases the possibility

of anxiety and depression in children (1998). Similar research found that anxiety in adolescents

is significantly affected when parents avoid resolution of their conflict (Atkinson, Blums, Dadds,

Lendich and Turner, 1999). Grych and Fincham also highlighted that adolescents are likely to

blame themselves for their parents’ conflict (1993). Self-blame is identified by Akhtar, Saha, and

Shahinuzzaman to be a main predictor of psychological distress among children (2016). It can

also be said that a high level of self-blame can be linked to more severe and longer depressive

episodes (Beck, 1963).

Parental Conflict and Childrens’ Behaviour

The works of Amato (1993), Grych and Fincham (1990), and Peterson and Zill (1986)

suggest that parental conflict may be linked to child behaviour problems as the conflict can have

adverse effects on the relationships between parent and child. It is also shown that behavioural

problems seen in children after their parents divorce are a direct result of the parental conflict

that occurs before or after the divorce, and not from the divorce itself (Amato, 1993). It was also

emphasized that how a child perceives the threat to self by the conflict, their level of confidence

in their coping abilities, as well as the causes of the conflict are seen as essential in shaping the

child’s behavioural response (Grych and Fincham, 1990). These authors also highlighted that

parental conflict can have a negative effect on an adolescent’s behaviour. Lastly, Barthassat

highlights that children’s behaviour can vary from positive to negative depending on the manner
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
6
of parental conflict, meaning that conflict that results in physical abuse can have more negative

outcomes than conflict that does not (2014). This shows that there is a correlation between

parental conflict and a child’s behaviour.

Communication Styles as the Dependent Variable

Nearly all literature involving the dependent variable break positive communication

down into the presence of positive qualities or lack thereof. The research shows that a significant

amount of work has been done to outline what is deemed as positive communication styles and

negative communication styles. It can be seen through these studies that the ability to give

attention and work to understand another’s viewpoint is unanimously accepted as a positive

communication technique (Hawkins, Weisberg, and Ray 1977, 480). On the other hand,

techniques that involve close-mindedness and confrontational behavior are two overarching

themes of negative communication techniques. Secondly, it can be seen that those who the

subjects interact with affects the outcome of the studies. Communication is measured in

personality more often than direct tactics when dealing with intimate relationships. This means

that the type of relationship present determines what skills can be deemed positive or negative.

Interactions Between People with an Intimate Relationship

When discussing future relationship communication styles, the researchers realized that

the literature is often split between intimate relationships and non-intimate relationships. Each of

these looked into how communication styles positively or negatively affected the satisfaction of

married couples. A study conducted by Hawkins, Weisberg, and Ray (1977, p.489) analyzes the

communication styles between a married couple as falling into one of four categories:

conventional, controlling, speculative, and contactful. In this study, the four styles are separated
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
7
into two categories, closed or open. Conventional and controlling communication are described

as closed styles. Closed communication style is described as being disrespectful or closed off to

the internal realities of your spouse. Speculative and contactful are therefore posed as being the

opposite, or open styles, this means that the person actively acknowledges and seeks to

understand the other person’s views. The study also categorizes these communication styles into

high disclosure and low disclosure. Low disclosure means that the spouse is not quick to share

what they believe, this can be seen in the conventional and speculative approaches. High

disclosure refers to being controlling and contactful. This combination creates a matrix

explaining that a spouse falls somewhere on a scale of being closed to open minded about the

other’s opinion and can also be categorized as being willing to share their own openly or not.

This study particularly assessed which combination of these things was most and least successful

about communication on money issues. In another study conducted by ​Amiri, M., Farhoodi, F.,

Abdolvand, N., & Bidakhavidi, A. R. (2011, p.688)​, the researchers measured the effect of what

they referred to as the five big personalities on marital satisfaction. These five personality traits

are neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness. The study found

that the presence of neuroticism had a directly negative correlation with marital satisfaction,

while the presence of the other four traits had a clearly positive correlation (Amiri et al., 2011, p.

688). This study directly supports the concept that positive communication styles as represented

by the presence or lack of specific personality traits will result in higher relationship satisfaction.

Interactions Not Involving a Spouse

Previous research showed the interactions which were not limited to married couples, but

were broader spectrums that dealt with anyone that the subjects might communicate with as well.
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
8
In a study done by Feinberg and Willer (2019, para 9), researchers hypothesized that the

presence of five techniques should be included in every persuasive conversation to ensure

thoughtful dialogue​: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. This study particularly studies

moral reframing, the idea that controversial concepts will be better received if they are framed in

a way that prioritizes the issue to the other person. The authors discovered that the ability to

frame the issue at hand into a mindset that the other person will understand is much more likely

to end with a mutual understanding rather than an argument. A second valuable source when

understanding positive communication styles comes from the book by Harris, Johnson and Olsen

(2014): ​Balancing Work and Family in the Real World.​ This book proposes nine communication

techniques important for all relationships. There are four techniques to avoid which are as

follows; ​criticism​ - attacking someone’s personality or character, ​contempt​- intentional insulting

or name-calling, ​defensiveness-​ feeling victimized by others in response to contempt, and

stonewalling​ - withdrawing from interactions and refusing to communicate at all. The presence

of these four traits is categorized as negative. Five of these nine skills are positive and should be

practiced, they are as follows; ​calm down-​ disengage from an interaction before it becomes

hurtful, ​complaint-​ bringing up a complaint about a specific issue before it becomes an argument,

speak non-defensively​- speaking with a soft voice and using “I feel..” statements, ​validate- l​ isten

by giving full attention and showing emotion, and ​overlearning skills​- constantly practicing the

eight above skills. Lastly, the researchers looked at an article that was evaluated by their patients

for their communication skills ​(2014, p.72-74)​. A study by ​Kirca and Bademli (2019, para 12)

explored the idea that good communication was founded in kindness, sincerity, and courtesy.
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
9
Their work showed that patients considered nurses better communicators with these traits present

(Kirca & Bademli, 2019).

Communication Styles

The literature to date shows that those involved in the conversation and what qualifies as

productive and unproductive are essential in understanding the outcomes of the study. In the

study, the eight techniques posed by Harris et al (2014, p.72-74) were used as the researchers

believed that these eight summarize the works that were studied in a well-rounded manner. The

researchers believed that this study also helped to paint clear boundaries for what positive and

negative communication techniques have been reduced to in research, while being able to adapt

to whichever type of relationship the subject interprets the questions as representing.

Method

Participants

A total of 137 undergraduate students responded to this study. The researchers chose to

do a frequency distribution and mode for gender. Mode was the measure of central tendency

because gender in the data set is a nominal variable. In the data, two responses were missing.

14% of the respondents were male and 81.3% of respondents were female. The median for the

age range was 21 with 26.6% of respondents being 20, 30.9% of respondents being 21, and

12.9% of respondents being 22. Race was measured in the data set as a nominal variable. The

data was missing two responses. From the data collected, 59.7% of respondents identified as

white, which is the mode. The data also shows that two people, or 1.4% identified their race as

“other.”

Median was used to measure year in school because the variable was ordinal. The median
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
10
of the data set was 3.00, meaning that the median data was third year students. 10.8% (15) of

respondents were first year students, 16.5% (23) were second year students, 44.6% (62) were

third year students, 19.4% (27) were fourth year students, and 5.8% (8) were fifth or more year

students.

Mode was used to measure central tendency because religion in the data set is a nominal

variable. As a result, the value derived for mode was 2, meaning that Christianity was the most

common religion that the respondents practice. 19.4% (27) of respondents were not religious,

70.5% (98) were Christian, 5.0%(7) were Judaism, .7%(1) were Hinduism, .7% (1) were Islam,

and 2.2% (3) identified with “other.”

The researchers chose to use the median as the measure of central tendency for age as it

is a ratio measure. The majority of respondents ranged from age 19-22, with 14.4% (20) being

19, 26.6% (37) being 20, 30.9% (43) being 21, and 12.9% (18) being 22. The median age was 21

years old.

The researchers chose to use mode to measure central tendency because household

composition in the data set was a nominal variable. 68.3% (95) of the respondents live in a

two-parent household, which is the mode. 14.4% (20) lived in a single parent household and

10.8% (15) had one biological parent and one step parent. As previously stated, a few people did

not respond to the question pertaining to this variable in this instance.

Instrumentation

The researchers included six demographic variables in the survey which were gender,

age, race, family composition, religion, and school year. The independent variable, parental

conflict, was conceptualized as negative interactions that disrupt the home between primary
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
11
caregivers of the home. Conflict in the home was operationalized by the presence or absence of

the following: physical abuse, yelling, the use of demeaning language, throwing of objects,

slamming doors, leaving for extended periods of time. Six questions were asked that were

answered on a Likert scale with 1= Never, 2= Rarely, 3= Sometimes, 4= Frequently, and 5= All

of the time. The minimum possible score for this composite variable was six and the maximum

possible score for the independent, composite variable was thirty. A high score indicated a high

level of parental conflict in the home, while a low score indicated a low level of parental conflict

in the home. A composite score was created for this variable, the level of measurement for this

variable was interval because there is a known and exact difference between participants.

The presence or absence of siblings in the household was the second independent

variable. It was conceptualized by whether there were the siblings living within the household at

the time of participants’ childhood. It was operationalized by the presence or absence of siblings.

This variable was measured at a nominal level which was indicated by an answer range of no

siblings to four or more siblings.

The dependent variable was the child's​ future relationship communication styles​. The

instrument used to measure the dependent variable was Dr. Harris, V. W., Johnson, A. C., &

Olsen, K. M. (2010), ​Balancing work & family in the real world: a look at couple relationships,

finances, and parenting.​ ​ Plymouth, MI: Hayden-McNeil Pub. ​The dependent variable was

conceptualized by measuring unproductive and productive communication styles based on the

nine important skills for every relationship by Dr. Victor Harris. These measures include

criticism: attacking someone’s personality, contempt: intention insulting, name calling,

defensiveness: feeling victimized by others in response to contempt, stonewalling: withdrawing

Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
12
and refusing to communicate at all, calm down: disengaging from an interaction before

something hurtful is said, complaint: talking about a behavior in a healthy manner, speak

non-defensively: speaking with a soft voice, using “I feel” statements and validate: listening to

needs being expressed and make an effort to understand them. This variable was operationalized

by the presence or absence of the indicators mentioned above. Twelve questions were asked that

were answered on a Likert scale with 1= Extremely unlikely, 2= Somewhat unlikely, 3= Neither

likely nor unlikely, 4= Somewhat likely, 5= Extremely likely. The positive indicators of

communication were reverse scored so that the overall composite score for the dependent

variable could indicate a positive or negative future communication style. For the dependent

variable of future communication style, the minimum score was twelve and the maximum score

was sixty. A high score indicated a negative future communication style, while a low score

indicated a positive future communication style. With a composite score, the variable was

measured at an interval level because there is a known and exact difference between participants.

Sampling & Data Collection Procedures

The participants were sampled through a survey that was distributed to different sections

of the Applied Research Methods course at the University of Florida for Family, Youth and

Community Sciences majors. This was distributed through their emails and the students were

given a grade for filling out all of the surveys.

Data Analysis Procedures

The hypothesis for the primary research question looked at how parental conflict affects

future communication styles and whether or not high parental conflict results in negative future

communication styles. The Pearson's ​r​ Correlation Test was used as the researchers were trying
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
13
to determine whether or not there was a correlation between the two variables. The Pearson’s ​r

Correlation Test was used because both variables were measured at an interval level.

The second research question asked whether the presence of siblings in the household

affects future communication style. The researchers analyzed whether or not having siblings in

the household will result in more productive future communication styles than children raised in

homes without siblings. The independent t-test was used as the researchers were comparing two

means. Additionally, an independent t-test was used because the researchers were measuring two

uncorrelated groups: people who have siblings versus people who do not have siblings.

Additional cross tabulation analyses were run to examine how the participants of each

group compared for the second hypothesis. These demographic variables included race, gender,

religion, family composition and school year.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

When studying the independent variable on parental conflict, the researchers found that

the standard deviation was 5.349, the mean was 12.21, the skewness was .778 with a standard

error of .207, and the kurtosis was -.179 with a standard error of .411. The minimum observed

score was six which represented a low presence of parental conflict and a maximum of thirty

which represented the highest possible presence of parental conflict. The highest percent was

observed at the minimum of six, which was the lowest presence of parental conflict at 15.8%.

Mode was used as the measure of central tendency for the second independent variable

because siblings in the data set was a nominal variable. As a result, the value for mode was two,

which means that having siblings was more common amongst respondents. When looking at the
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
14
percent, it is 11.5% (16) that do not have siblings while 88.3% (121) have siblings.

The researchers chose to test the mean of the dependent variable because it was measured

at an interval level. 17 was the lowest score observed using positive techniques and 47 was the

highest observed score for presence of negative effects. The mean was 29.03, and the variable

was reverse scored with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 60. The standard deviation was

6.26, skewness was .210 with a standard error of .208, the kurtosis was -.241 with a standard

error .413, and the mode was 28.

In the cross tabulation of siblings and gender, it was found that of the people who have

and do not have siblings, few were male. In comparison, of the people who do and do not have

siblings, the majority were female. In the cross tabulation of siblings and race, it can be said that

of the respondents who do and do not have siblings, the majority were white. In the cross

tabulation of siblings and religion, it was found that of the respondents, whether they have

siblings or not, a great majority of them practice Catholicism/Christianity. Of those who do not

have siblings, none identified with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or other. Of those who do have

siblings, very few practice Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and other. In the cross tabulation of

siblings and family composition, it was found that of the respondents who do not have siblings,

about half of them came from a two-parent household. Of those who have siblings, the majority

of them came from a two-parent household. Very few of those who have siblings came from a

single-parent household, whereas of the respondents who do not have siblings, about one third of

them came from a single-parent household. In the cross tabulation of siblings and school year, it

was found that for the respondents in their first, third, and fourth year, the percentage of people

with and without siblings were very similar. Respondents who were in their second year were the
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
15
exception, with a percentage of people not having siblings in their second year being a quarter,

while the percentage of people with siblings in their second year was less. No participants were

in their fifth year or more without siblings. On the other hand, those who had siblings that were

in their fifth year or more were very few.

Pearson’s ​r​ Spearman Correlation

The researchers used Pearson’s ​r​ Correlation Test because both of the variables were

measured at an interval level. This test was used because the researchers were trying to

determine if there was a correlation between the two variables. They were exploring the

relationship between parental conflict and future communication styles. With a p-value of .122,

the researchers failed to reject the null hypothesis. This meant that there was not a statistically

significant relationship between parental conflict and future communication styles. The degrees

of freedom r=136, r(136) = .133, p = .122 )

Independent Samples t-test.

An independent t-test was used in order to compare the means. The researchers chose the

independent test in order to test two groups that are not correlated with each other which were

those who have siblings versus those who do not. They explored the relationship between future

communication and the presence of siblings. There was no statistical difference between future

communication for people that have siblings and do not have siblings. The mean for those with

siblings was 29.3 and those without siblings was 26.8. When looking at the Levene’s Test for

Equality of Variances, equal variances were assumed as the significance value of .684 indicates

that the researchers must fail to reject the null. The p-value of the t-test was .131 meaning that

the researchers failed to reject the null hypothesis, t(1) = -1.519, p=.131.
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
16
Discussion

After analyzing the results, the researchers found that there was not a statistically

significant relationship between parental conflict and future communication. They also looked at

the relationship between siblings and the child’s future communication style. This test also

resulted in no statistically significant results. They are able to get closer to finding a relationship

between other variables because the research is able to inform what is not a significant

relationship. The researchers began to explore the meaning and importance of the findings in

light of the results after discovering that the results were not significant.

The researchers began to explore other explanations for the conclusions because the

results were insignificant. The lack in correlation between parental conflict and future

communication led the researchers to believe that children are more independent and resilient

than previously realized. Based on this study, their parents’ conflict does not affect their future

ability to communicate in a direct way. A similar theme of resilience was discovered when

looking at a study that researched the effects that divorce had on children. The journal states that

“it is clear that the outcome of divorce for most children is not risk but resilience,” (Haggerty,

Sherrod, Garmezy & Rutter, 1996, p. 65). Logically, a major contributor to divorce is parental

conflict, so it is interesting to see how this affects children and ultimately influences their

communication. It seems as if children are able to use the period of parental conflict to develop

resilience, rather than hurting their future communication. This research is important to use as a

platform in order to discover what has the biggest impact on one’s ability to communicate

effectively in the future. If parental conflict is not a significant factor, then it is important to

explore what might impact this area the most.

Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
17
In conducting the research, the researchers learned much about parental conflict. They

were able to see that parental conflict is perceived by the children as present in nearly every

home in the sample, despite the insignificance of the findings. This data on parental conflict can

inform conversations regarding domestic abuse, the effect witnessing abuse has on children, and

simply how to have productive conflict in the home. It is evident that conflict is present in the

homes of the sample population, and because of this, it is important to learn how to make

conflict productive and positive.

The alternative research question looked at the relationship between the presence or

absence of siblings and future communication style. The researchers believe this to be a topic

that has not been studied before, based on the previous research. The researchers found that the

relationship between siblings and future communication style is insignificant as well. This

continues to inform the assumption that communication effectiveness is learned from elsewhere.

Similar Studies

Some of the key findings in the research conducted by Grych and Fincham (1990) were

that parental conflict is a stressor in the life of a child or adolescent. Based on this research, the

researchers knew that parental conflict could have a negative effect on a child’s mental health

and it was a stressor in the short-term life of the child. The dependent variable, future

communication style, emerged from this research. They wanted to understand how

communication was affected long-term as a result of the parent’s conflict. In contrast to the

previous study, the research looked at the long term effects of conflict on communication. The

researchers surveyed college students and looked at their current communication ability in hopes

to draw a correlation from the parental conflict in their childhood. These key findings were
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
18
related because the Grych and Fincham study chose to look at the short term, while the research

focused on the long-term (1990). While the short-term supported the idea that parental conflict

results in a stressor to the child, the results in regards to future communication came to be

insignificant. The results seem to suggest that the effects of conflict dissipated with time. This

could be due to a variety of protective factors that influenced the individual’s life as they grew

up and distanced from the parental conflict. Protective factors could include but are not limited

to: social connections, concrete support in times of need, and social-emotional competence of

children (Protective Factors Approaches in Child Welfare, 2014, p. 2). These protective factors

that may be present could help explain the lack of significance between parental conflict and the

future communication effectiveness of the individual. The key findings of these studies are

beneficial in discussing that parental conflict is a common stressor in families’ households in a

short-term aspect and the long-term effects need further research.

Key findings from other research stated that behavioral problems commonly result from

parental conflict (Kwan, McKinney & Walker, 2020) and peer relationship are negatively

affected with an increase in parental conflict (Jekielek, 1998). The later study suggested that

parental conflict negatively affected peer-to-peer communication in the present. This discovery

could relate to the findings in that there is a possibility that parental conflict does not affect

future communication, but rather has a greater impact on the current communication ability of

the child. Although the Swan, McKinney & Walker study discovered a significant relationship

between parental conflict and behavioral problems (2020), it does not predict any effects on

long-term communication. This could help explain the insignificance of the results.

Communication may be affected by parental conflict in the child, but by the time the individual
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
19
matures, they are able to develop their own style of communication. Behavioral problems are

measured in this study, while the study focuses on communication effectiveness. Despite the

similarity, the difference in the time that the results are collected may have led to the difference

in discoveries.

The other independent variable looked at the presence or absence of siblings in the

household and how it affects future communication style. The basis of the knowledge on this

topic came primarily from personal experience. Each of the researchers had grown up with

siblings in their households, and believed that they are now more effective communicators

because of it. Growing up with an older sibling has led to ​language and cognitive development,

and a child’s understanding of other people's emotions and perspectives (Brody, 2004)​. For these

reasons, they believed that having siblings would result in more positive future communication

abilities. When the results of this question also proved to be insignificant, it allowed them to

re-evaluate this hypothesis. A possible explanation for these results is that it may not be one

particular relationship that affects future communication but is likely a combination of many

points of socialization. Peer groups are a vital part to a child’s development (Takacs, 2015).

While siblings in the household may contribute to this socialization, it can also be found outside

of the home. An article titled ​Agents of Socialization​ defined a peer group as, “people of roughly

the same age (same stage of development and maturity), similar social identity, and close social

proximity,” (Urban). The influence of a peer group becomes increasingly important as the

individual reaches adolescence, when it may become more important than the family (Agents of

Socialization). This research gives an explanation to the results. Siblings may not be a main

contributor to the socialization and communication effectiveness of individuals, peer groups

Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
20
might have a larger impact.

Lastly, the researchers were able to compare the dependent variable with the key findings

of Dr. Harris’ results of communication styles (2019). The researchers chose to use the

characteristics of effective and ineffective communication that Dr. Harris teaches. Previous

research that was referred to operationalized communication style in a similar way, and they

chose to use Dr. Harris’ points as a basis for the measurement. The researchers hoped to find

similarities in this study and Dr. Harris’ research on communication, but were led to insignificant

results. Dr. Harris used indicators to examine communication and showed the individuation of

communication (2019). This may be used to explain that communication is based more on the

values and social-emotional competence of the individual rather than a reflection of the parental

conflict.

Although the research concluded with insignificant results, there are alternative

explanations for the findings aside from the simple lack of correlation between parental conflict

and the child’s future communication style. For one, there could be a wide range of protective

factors that vary from individual to individual that impact the effectiveness of their future

communication (Hurd, Zimmerman & Xue, 2009). Peers, teachers, neighbors, and many other

relationships may have a positive impact on a child’s communication that may overpower the

negative effects of parental conflict in the home. If positive communication skills are learned

outside of the home, parental conflict might not have a long-term impact on the child. When

there is a positive role model or marriage being modeled for the child, they are potentially able to

pick up on those skills despite what they see exemplified from their biological parents (Hurd,

Zimmerman & Xue, 2009). Another alternative explanation to the results is that while there may
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
21
be conflict amongst the parents, it is healthy conflict. Every home in this study reported some

level of parental conflict, however the researchers did not measure if the conflict was “good” or

“bad” in the family. In a high-functioning home, parental conflict is experienced in combination

with communication, apologies, and forgiveness (Schellenberg, 1996). A high-functioning

household is not defined by the lack of conflict, but rather the “love and caring for other family

members; providing security and a sense of belonging; open communication; making each

person within the family feel important, valued, respected and esteemed,” (Normal Functioning

Family, 2015). The lack of correlation between the variables could be due to not knowing the

result of the parental conflict – if the conflict resolution was modeled in a positive or negative

way. In cases where conflict was resolved well, there may be high levels of conflict but also

highly effective future communication modeled for the child. In contrast, there may be an

avoidance of conflict in the home that could result in low levels of parental conflict but no

modeling of what effective future communication looks like. Both of these scenarios could lead

to the results being insignificant as the researchers are unable to measure the impression that the

parental conflict left on the family system as a whole.

This research may be useful for anyone who works with youth or young adults and is

specifically interested in communication. Parents, child psychologists, school counselors, and

family therapists alike could benefit from the knowledge of this study. Because the results were

insignificant, these individuals could focus less on the outside factors of parental conflict, and

more on the act of communicating. It would be reasonable to assume that these intervening

individuals want to discover what “caused” the child or young adult to be a poor communicator,

so this information is helpful in eliminating parental conflict as a reason. School counselors and
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
22
family therapists may use this information to inform how they speak to parents, and the advice

that they give them regarding their child. They may shy away from advice that addresses parental

conflict but instead make suggestions on how to improve overall communication in the home.

Even though the results are not significant, they can still inform educators and counselors who

work with families on what does not result in effective future communication.

In the future, the researchers would like to explore other areas regarding communication.

It would be interesting to discover if parental conflict affects present communication of the child,

or if the child models what they see as parental conflict in other relationships in their life. Future

research could deepen the study on parental conflict, and look at if negative, unresolved conflict

has a different impact than positive, resolved conflict. Another aspect that could be further

researched in the future is in regards to siblings. There needs to be more research on how siblings

affect communication. Problem solving and empathy are two dependent variables that could be

measured as a result of having or not having siblings growing up.

Conclusion

In conclusion, much can be discovered from the study even though the results are

insignificant. The researchers found that while parental conflict does not directly affect the

child’s future communication style, it can inform many other areas of the family dynamic.

Looking into the presence or absence of siblings in the household is a relatively untouched

subject matter, and one that involves much of the population. While those results were also

insignificant, future studies on the area could reveal the ways in which siblings have a long-term

impact on one’s life. Based on the findings, the researchers recommend placing a higher

emphasis on overall communication in the home rather than just on the parents and their conflict.
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
23
Limitations

This research was conducted as a part of a class project through the Applied Social

Research Methods course at the University of Florida as a requirement for the Family, Youth and

Community Sciences major. Due to this, the sample was a convenience sample and contained

only college students who were a part of the course who took the survey for class credit. The

majority of their respondents were white females. The sample population may have a variety of

protective factors that contribute to more effective communication despite the presence of

parental conflict in the home. This in turn makes the sample not random and not representative

of the theoretical population which was emerging adults. Therefore no generalizations can be

made from this study due to the lack of external validity.

Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
24
References

Amato, Paul R. 1993. "Children's adjustment to divorce: theories, hypotheses, and empirical

support​.​" Journal of Marriage and the Family 55:23

Amiri, M., Farhoodi, F., Abdolvand, N., & Bidakhavidi, A. R. (2011). A study of the relationship

between big-five personality traits and communication styles with marital satisfaction of

married students majoring in public universities of Tehran. ​Procedia-social and

behavioral sciences, 30​ , 685-689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.132

Barthassat, J. (2014). Positive and negative effects of parental conflicts on children’s condition

and behaviour. ​Journal of European Psychology Students, 5(​ 1), 10–18. DOI:

http://doi.org/10.5334/jeps.bm

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., and Brown, G. (1963). Dysfunctional attitudes and suicidal ideation in

psychiatric outpatients. ​Suicide and life-threatening behavior, 23,​ 11-20.

Brody, G. H. (2004). Siblings direct and indirect contributions to child development. ​Current

Directions in Psychological Science,​ ​13(​ 3), 124–126. doi:

10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00289.x

Cummings, E. M. and Davies, P. T. (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent

advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. ​Journal of Child Psychology

& Psychiatry 43(​ 1): 31–63, DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00003

Dadds, M. R., Atkinson, E., Turner, C., Blums, G. J., and Lendich, B. (1999). Family conflict

and child adjustment: Evidence for a cognitive-contextual model of intergenerational

transmission​.​ ​Journal of Family Psychology, 13,​ 194-208.

Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
25
Feinberg, M, Willer, R. (2019) Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive

communication across political divides. Soc Personal PsycholCompass. ; 13:e12501.

https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12501

Grych, J. H. & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive

contextual framework. ​Psychological Bulletin 108​(2),​ 2​ 67–290​.​ DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.108.2.267

Haggerty, R. J., Sherrod, L. R., Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (2000). Stress, risk, and resilience in

children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions. ​Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Harris, V.R. Johnson, A.C. Olsen, K.M. (2014) Balancing the # Cs: communication, Conflict

Resolution, and Commitment. Balancing Work and Family in the Real

World.Hayden-McNeil Publishing.

Hawkins, J.L., Weisberg, C., Ray, D.L. (1977). Marital communication style and social class.

Journal of Marriage and Family, 39(​ 3), 479-490. doi: https://doi-

org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/10.2307/350903

Hurd, N.M., Zimmerman, M.A. & Xue, Y. (2009). Negative adult influences and the protective

effects of role models: A study with urban adolescents​. J Youth Adolescence​ 38, 777

(2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9296-5

Jekielek, S. M. (1998). Parental conflict, marital disruption and children's emotional well-being.

Social Forces, 76(​ 3), 905-936. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/76.3.905

Kirca, N, Bademli, K. (2019) Relationship between communication skills and care behaviors of

nurses. ​Perspect PsychiatrCare. ; 55​: 624- 631. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12381

Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
26
McKinney, C., Walker, C. S., & Kwan, J. W. (2020). Mother–father dyad conflict strategy

clusters: Implications for emerging adults. ​Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35​(1–2),

319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516683177

Normal Functioning Family. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/Pages/Normal-Fam

ily-Functioning.aspx

Peterson, James L., and Nicholas Zill. 1986. "Marital disruption, parent-child relationships,

and behavior problems in children." ​Journal of Marriage and the Family 49:​ 295-3

Protective Factors Approaches in Child Welfare. (2014, February). Retrieved from

https://www.childwelfare.gov/

Schellenberg, J. A. (1996). Conflict resolution : Theory, research, and practice. ​State

University of New York Press.

Takacs, G. (2015, January 6). Importance of Peer Groups. Retrieved from

https://ceou.org/2015/01/06/importance-of-peer-groups/

Urban, D. (n.d.). Agents of socialization. Retrieved from https://www.drurban.info/

Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
27
Appendix

Demographic Variables:

1. What gender do you identify as? 6. What is your year in school?

a. Male a. First year
b. Female b. Second year
c. Other
c. Third year
2. What is your age? d. Fourth year
a. (fill in 2 numbers) e. Fifth year or more

3. Please specify your race. Research Questions:

a. Asian
b. Black or African American 1. During your childhood, How often
c. Hispanic/Latino
d. Native Hawaiin or Other do you remember your parental
Pacific Islander figures using demeaning language in
e. Non-Resident Alien arguments with each other?
f. Two or more races a. Never
g. Unknown Race and Ethnicity b. Once a month or less
h. American Indian or Alaska c. Once a week
Native
d. 2-3 times a week
i. White
e. Almost everyday
4. For the majority of your childhood, f. Multiple times a day
who was present in the household?
a. Two parental figures 2. During your childhood, How often
b. Single parental figure do you remember your parental
c. Extended family
figures yelling while in an argument
5. Please specify your religion. with each other.
a. Not religious a. Never
b. Catholicism/Christianity b. Once a month or less
c. Judaism c. Once a week
d. Islam d. 2-3 times a week
e. Buddhism e. Almost everyday
f. Hinduism
g. Other f. Multiple times a day
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
28
3. During your childhood, How often 7. How many siblings were in your
do you remember your parental household for the majority of your
figures Physically abusing one childhood?
another during an argument? a. None
a. Never b. 1
b. Once a month or less c. 2
c. Once a week d. 3
d. 2-3 times a week e. 4 or more
e. Almost everyday
f. Multiple times a day 8. When in an argument, how likely
are you to attack the other person’s
4. During your childhood, How often character in order to win the
do you remember your parental argument?
figures Storming out during an a. Very likely
argument with one another? b. Likely
a. Never c. As likely as not
b. Once a month or less d. Unlikely
c. Once a week e. Very unlikely
d. 2-3 times a week
e. Almost everyday 9. When in an argument, how likely are
f. Multiple times a day you to roll your eyes if someone says
something you don’t agree with?
5. During your childhood, How often a. Very likely
do you remember your parental b. Likely
figures Slamming doors during an c. As likely as not
argument with one another? d. Unlikely
a. Never e. Very unlikely
b. Once a month or less
c. Once a week 10. When in an argument, how likely are
d. 2-3 times a week you to insult the other person?
e. Almost everyday a. Very likely
f. Multiple times a day b. Likely
c. As likely as not
6. During your childhood, how often do d. Unlikely
you remember your parental figures e. Very unlikely
throwing objects during an argument
with one another? 11. When in an argument, how likely are
a. Never you to take ownership of what you
b. Once a month or less
have done wrong?
c. Once a week
d. 2-3 times a week a. Very likely
e. Almost everyday b. Likely
f. Multiple times a day c. As likely as not
d. Unlikely
e. Very unlikely
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
29
12. When in an argument, how likely are 16. When in an argument, how often do
you to stop talking and refuse to you express your feelings with “I
communicate? feel…” statements?
a. Very likely a. Very likely
b. Likely b. Likely
c. As likely as not c. As likely as not
d. Unlikely d. Unlikely
e. Very unlikely e. Very unlikely

13. When in an argument, how likely are 17. When in an argument, how likely are
you to feel victimized? you to understand the needs of the
a. Very likely other person?
b. Likely a. Very likely
c. As likely as not b. Likely
d. Unlikely c. As likely as not
e. Very unlikely d. Unlikely
e. Very unlikely
14. When in an argument, how likely are
you to stop yourself from saying 18. When in an argument, how likely are
something harmful? you to give the person you are
a. Very likely arguing with your full attention?
b. Likely a. Very likely
c. As likely as not b. Likely
d. Unlikely c. As likely as not
e. Very unlikely d. Unlikely
e. Very unlikely
15. When in an argument, how likely are
you to disengage rather than 19. When in an argument, How Likely
continue the argument? are you to bring up a relational issue
a. Very likely and discuss it, without it becoming
b. Likely an argument?
c. As likely as not a. Very likely
d. Unlikely b. Likely
e. Very unlikely c. As likely as not
d. Unlikely
e. Very unlikely
Running Head: FUTURE COMMUNICATION
30
20. When in an argument, How likely
are you to think about what you plan
rather than what the other person is
saying?
a. Very likely
b. Likely
c. As likely as not
d. Unlikely
e. Very unlikely