nonverbal communication between parents and …baljones/nonverbal communication.pdf · nonverbal...

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PARENTS AND ADOLESCENTS: A STUDY OF APPROACH AND AVOIDANCE BEHAVIORS

Patricia E. Kahlbaugh and Jeannette M. Haviland

ABSTRACT: This study investigated nonverbal approach and avoidance behaviors exhibited by 30 families with a target child between 7 and 16 years old during a family interaction task. It was hypothesized that avoidance in the form of shame and contempt would be displayed more frequently by early and mid-adolescents than by younger pre-adolescents. It was also expected that approach behaviors would not differ across these age groups. Results provided evidence for increased avoidance and stability of approach behaviors in the parent-child dyad from pre- adolescence to mid-adolescence. Compared to pre-adolescent children (7-10), early adolescents (11-13) displayed more avoidance behaviors toward their parents, particularly shame. Both older adolescents (14-16) and their parents displayed increased avoidance in the form of reciprocated contempt. Despite increased avoidance in adolescence, no age group differences emerged in the amount of approach displayed between mothers, fathers, and children. This dynamic of attachment and separation occurred in both mother-child and father-child dyads, suggesting that both parents play an important role in the adolescent's developing autonomy.

Two dominant issues related to parents and adolescents' socio-emotional development are those of attachment and conflict. Translated into nonverbal terms, these are issues of approach and avoidance. By approach, we mean that issues related to affiliation, acceptance, interest, enjoyment, closeness, and so forth may be expressed nonverbally in behaviors that invite continued or closer involvement. For example, smiling, gazing, flashing interest with brows, sitting in an open position, or aligning one's body with the companion's are all signals of approach. By avoid-

This research is based on the doctoral dissertation of Patricia E. Kahlbaugh under the direction of Jeannette M. Haviland at the Graduate School at Rutgers University. We thank the families who gave of their time to participate in this project and the individuals who helped in data recruitment, collection, and coding.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricia E. Kahlbaugh, Neuropsychiatric Institute, 68-237, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90024.

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 18H), Spring 1994 �9 /994 Human Sciences Press. Inc. 91

92

JOURNAL OF NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

ance, we mean that issues related to hostility, separation, distancing, conflict, and shame may be expressed nonverbally in behaviors that signal desire to avoid a closer or continued relationship. For example, facial expressions of anger, contempt, disgust, or shame would qualify as signals of avoidance, as well as body movements such as crossed arms, head and body moved up and back, face covered or down and away. With such nonverbal movements, people both express their emotional states and regulate their interactions.

Theories that emphasize the importance of avoidant behavior in adolescence have their roots in psychodynamic views of development. Ac- cording to A. Freud (I 958), the process of individuation in adolescence is facilitated by the child's rapid physical and sexual maturation during puberty. The pubertal development initiates the re-emergence of Oedipal issues, and it is the unacceptableness of these Oedipal needs that creates conflict between parent and adolescent and the desire on the part of both to separate. Separation, distance, or avoidance within the family, then, is a defensive reaction and a normal consequence of pubertal development (Brandt, 1977).

Psychological avoidance, although seen as a healthy response in the Freudian system, produces conflict and a sense of loss (Blos, 1962). The adolescent's avoidance may take the form of various defense mechanisms. For example, the "reversal of affect" defense leads one to predict that, over the course of adolescence, the previously attached child will become distant and hostile toward the parent and also more self-conscious about sexual separation issues. Such views lead one to expect an increase in both hostile nonverbal behavior as well as more hiding, covering, and shame behavior. Parents are presumed to react to the adolescent with hostility, either in response to the child's behavior or in response to his or her own incestuous feelings.

Several studies have addressed parent-adolescent issues from the hostile-avoidant perspective. An early observational study by Jacob (1974) de- scribed patterns of dominance and conflict between parents and their sons. Comparing children aged 11 and 16, Jacob found that fathers and sons become more aligned, while mothers and sons become more involved in a struggle for "second place" in the family's hierarchy of power. Evidence for this power struggle between mother and son was also found in a series of studies conducted by Steinberg (1981; Steinberg & Hill, 1978). Steinberg concluded that the midpubertal period is a time of increased conflict, particularly between mother and son. Further, the family conflict diminishes in the post apex pubertal period because mothers yield to sons, while fathers maintain a dominant position. Similar results were also reported by Gjerde (I 986).

93

PATRICIA E. KAHLBAUGH, JEANNETI'E M. HAVILAND

In these studies, the focus was on dominance and hostility, power and conflict, rather than affiliation or approach. It is possible, however, that the relationship between approach and avoidance behaviors has not been fully considered. For example, increases in interruptions have been interpreted as bids for power (Steinberg, 1981); however, increased rate of interrupting could indicate that two people, who are increasingly involved with each other, tend to overlap in their conversations. Increased interruptions could thus imply connectedness instead of hostility. One should examine avoidance behaviors in th~ context of approach behaviors and explore the func- tional significance of both "positive" and "negative" behaviors. Not all negative expressions are hostile nor are they dysfunctional. Sadness and shame, for example, while considered negative, are not usually hostile, and may serve important intra- and interpersonal functions (Schneider, 1977). Contempt, while often considered hostile, may serve an important role in the establishment of self and self-boundaries. Thus, not only should both avoidant and approach types of behaviors be considered, but the multiple functions of signals should be sensitively explored.

Although most theories accept that some avoidance occurs between parent and child during adolescence, those working within the approach perspective emphasize the importance of maintaining attachments during adolescence and across the lifespan (Bell, Avery, Jenkins, Feld, & Shoen- rock, 1985; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985, 1986; Kenny, 1987). According to the approach perspective, the maintenance of attachments ensures continued psychological growth and well-being (Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1983; Hauser et al., 1984; Kenny, 1987; Papini, Sebby, & Clark, 1989). Any avoidance that occurs between parent and child during adolescence is seen as a renegotiation of roles and expectations (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985, 1986) that can only be achieved in the context of a close relationship. In more extreme interpretations, avoidant behaviors of adolescents and parents are viewed as symptoms of defensive or dysfunctional interactions. In such instances, the avoidant behavior is to be minimized (Hauser et al., 1984).

Theoretical underpinnings of the approach/affiliative position can be found in the literature on attachment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985, 1986). The approach perspective main- tains that it is the attachments between individuals that allow the adolescent to become increasingly more independent (Vaillant, 1985). Families which are able to maintain a balance between separation and closeness are most effective in encouraging the growth and individuation of adolescents (Sabatelli & Mazor, 1985; Papini et al., 1989), and promoting autonomy without detachment (Allen, Abet, & Leadbeater, 1990).

In Grotevant and Cooper's (1985) pivotal study of approach and

94


avoidance needs during adolescence, adolescents (aged 17) and parents seemed to create a gradual renegotiation of their relationship--moving from unilateral authority to mutuality. Males' identity exploration was most related to their ability to express direct disagreement and direct suggestions to their fathers. Females' identity exploration was most related to their fathers' direct disagreements with them.

Similarly, Hauser et al. (1984) were concerned with familial influences on adolescent development and found that adolescents (aged 14-15) directed more constraining (e.g., distracting and withholding) verbal speeches to father than to mother and that this constraining behavior was negatively related to adolescents' self-esteem.

These two studies are important because they include both approach and avoidance categories in their analysis of family conversations; however, they are limited in three important ways. First, the researchers direct the type of conversations the families are to have by creating tasks that are either cooperative or confrontational. We do not know what type of conversations families would naturally become engaged in or what approach/ avoidance behaviors would be displayed. Second, although these are developmental studies, there is no information on pre-adolescent behavior to serve as a baseline for adolescent changes. Finally, these studies have re- lied on the analysis of verbal exchanges and paralinsuistic features of lan- guage, which not only involves rather complex judgments in coding of behavior (e.g., "indifference," "permeable," or "withholding"), but which also misses the richness of emotionally expressive nonverbal behaviors.

In addition, although the analysis of verbal data (e.g., questionnaires or conversations) has contributed greatly to what is known about adolescent development, in family research, where individuals typically function at different cognitive and social-cognitive levels (Kramer, 1983; Selman, 1980), reliance on self-report methodologies can be inextricably con- founded by the individual's understanding of a given item or situation. Analysis of nonverbal behavior allows one to examine socio-emotional development in the family with greater independence from cognitive and verbal ability, and to focus on emotion expression and emotional development.

The present study addresses these three concerns by (a) asking families to discuss topics of their own choice, (b) including a broad age range of children with their parents, ranging from pre-adolescents to mid-adolescents, and (c) analyzing nonverbal behaviors of approach and avoidance. Although this study is largely exploratory, there are three central hypoth- eses. First, we expect that the nonverbal behaviors of approach and avoidance are not in competition, and that both can occur at high rates within

95

PATRICIA E. KAHLBAUGH, JEANNE'rI-E M. HAVILAND

the same dyad. Second, according to the a.voidant (power/hostility) position we expect to find that older, more physically mature children and their parents display more avoidant behaviors than younger, less physically mature children and their parents. Given previous research (e.g., Stein- berg, 1981), the effect may be particularly pronounced in the mother-son dyad. Also, it is expected that increased avoidance may appear in the form of self-consciousness and shame (Elkind & Bowen, 1979), particularly when comparing the early adolescent group to the pre-adolescent group. Third, according to the approach position, we should find that there are no differences across the pre-adolescent to mid-adolescent age groups in the approach (attachment/affiliation) behaviors of children or their parents. How the parents respond to each other in this situation, avoidance or approach, and the effect of the child's age or pubertal status on their interaction are open to exploration.

Method

Subjects

The subjects in this study were members of 30 middle- to upper-middle class families each with a target child between the ages of 7 and 16. All families were intact, controlling for possible variations in family communication due to divorce and remarriage (see Anderson, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1989; Smetana, Yau, Restrepo, & Braeges, 1991). Sixty percent of the target children were first bores, 30 percent were second borns (i.e., either middle or youngest children), and 10 percent were third or later borns. Families were predominantly white (96.6%). NineW-three percent of the fathers and 83.3 percent of the mothers had completed at least some college. Mother's modal level of education was BA/BS college degree, while father's modal level of education was MA/MS graduate degree.

The sample was evenly divided into three age groups, with families having a target child between the ages of: 7-10 (boys, M = 8.0 years; girls, M = 8.4 years), 11-13 (boys, M = 12.4 years; girls, M = 11.6 years), and 14-16 (boys, M = 14.6 years; girls, M = 15.6 years). There were equal numbers of boys and girls in each group.

Families were contacted in three ways: (a) advertisements in church parishes within an upstate New York diocese (53.3%); (b) flyers/word of mouth (30%); and (c) advertisements in New Jersey newspapers (16.6%). In return for their participation, 43.3 percent of the families (n = 13) were entered into a raffle for a $50.00 savings bond to be awarded to their child. Three children were randomly selected from this pool and received

96


a savings bond. Other families (56.6%, n = 17) were paid for their participation. Chi-square analysis indicated that payment type was evenly distrib- uted over age and gender of the target child.

The average age of mothers and fathers was 40.6 and 42.5 years, respectively. A 2 (gender) x 3 (age group) analysis of variance of mothers' and fathers' ages indicated that parents participating in the study with a child in the older age groups were significantly older than those participating with a child between 7-10 (for mothers, F(2, 24) = 3.91, p < .05; for fathers, F(2, 24) = 4.42, p < .02).

Procedure

Families were asked to meet the experimenter at a convenient location (e.g., parish hall, classroom at a local university). While family members were oriented to the procedures of the study and given consent forms, the experimenter assessed the child's pubertal status using a five-point scale of pubertal development used in previous research of this kind (Hill et al., 1985; Steinberg, 1981 ; 1987; 1988).'

Families were asked to discuss any topic of interest to them. They were encouraged to think about something they might discuss at home around the dinner table or at bedtime. Chairs were set up along one wall, and the experimenter instructed the family members to "use those chairs and to feel free to move them around however you would like in order to be comfortable." The experimenter adjusted the video equipment, and then left the room while the family discussion was videotaped. After 15 minutes, the experimenter returned to the room and signaled that this part of the study was completed. After the family discussion was videotaped, family members completed several questionnaires, the data from which are reported in Kahlbaugh (1992).

Measures of Nonverbal Behavior

The categories presented below are frequently occurring behaviors that can be coded in real time, remaining visible for a second or more and involving movements easily visible to any attentive coder. These behaviors were chosen based on their apparent face validity with respect to the categories of nonverbal approach and avoidance.

Nonverbal approach. Approach behaviors were assessed by summing the frequency of seven specific nonverbal behaviors. These nonverbal behaviors were smiling, face orientation, head nod, eyebrow flash, touch,

97

PATRICIA E. KAHLBAUGH, JEANNEI-rE M. HAVlLAND

symmetry, and body orientation. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was .83 for this approach scale.

Nonverbal avoidance. Avoidance behaviors were assessed by summing the frequency of eight specific nonverbal behaviors. These nonverbal behaviors were covering face, gaze avert, self-manipulation, self-inspection, contempt (face and body), disgust face, closed arms, and backward lean. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was .82 for the avoidance scale. A shamecsubscale was created that consisted of the following nonverbal avoidance behaviors: Covering face, gaze avert, self-manipulation, and self-inspection. 2 A contempt subscale was created that consisted of: Contempt (face and body), disgust face, closed arms, and backward lean. The items comprising these subscales were chosen based on theoretical considerations. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients were .77 for the shame subscale and .86 for the contempt subscale. These subscales were not correlated with each other. For a more detailed description of these behaviors see the Appendix.

Nonverbal balance. A nonverbal index of approach relative to avoidance was created by subtracting avoidant scores from approach scores plus a constant (balance). For example, approach - avoidance + 100 represents the relationship between approach and avoidance, such that a score of 100 indicates that these behaviors are balanced. Scores that are higher or lower than 100 indicate that these behaviors are imbalanced. For example, a score where x > 100 indicates that relatively more approach behaviors were displayed, while a score where x < 100 indicates that relatively more avoidance behaviors were displayed. Importantly, a high score is not conceived as better than a low score as both represent a deviation from a situation where approach and avoidance behaviors are balanced.

Coding. Each of these behaviors was recorded with respect to the sender and the receiver of the behavior. The occurrence of a behavior was coded for each of the following six dyads: Child to mother, mother to child, child to father, father to child, mother to father, and father to mother. An example of how these dyadic behaviors are labeled is CM- SMILE, a designation referring to the number of times child smiled at mother. Similarly, MC-SMILE refers to the number of times mother smiled at child.

Nonverbal behaviors were coded for 30 sec every 2 to 3 rain of each 15-rain videotape. Coding began after the first three-min segment to allow the family to become comfortable with the task. This created five samples

98


totaling 21/2 rain of coded interaction. Each 30-sec episode was broken down into six 5-sec intervals. Every behavior was coded as present or ab- sent during that 5-sec time period. In the few cases where the direction of the nonverbal communication was ambiguous, the behavior was coded as directed toward both of the other interactants.

All behaviors were observed with respect to the frequency of their occurrence within a total of thirty 5-sec intervals (i.e., 21/2 minutes = thirty 5-sec intervals), and thus could range from a score of 0 to 30. Exceptions to this are the behaviors of symmetry, body orientation, closed arms, and backward lean. We found that individuals typically adopted a particular body position and maintained it throughout the interaction. This created a situation where some individuals would get a score of 30, while others a score of 0. We felt that this overestimated the importance of these behaviors relative to behaviors which showed less variation among individuals. In order to adjust the relative importance of these behaviors, these behaviors were given a score of 1 for every 30-sec episode in which they occurred, and thus could range from 0 to 5. 3

Coding reliability. Tapes were coded by five trained coders. The primary investigator coded 36 percent of the tapes and four other coders coded 16 percent each. Chi-square analyses demonstrated that coders received a comparable number of videotapes from each age group, gender, and pubertal category. During each coder's training, ten 30-sec samples of interactions were taken and coded. After coders reached 85 - 90 percent agreement on all behaviors, they were allowed to code the interactions independently~ When all tapes had been coded, ten percent of the interactions coded by the four other coders were coded by the primary investigator. Agreement between the primary investigator and the other coders was 91.8 percent for approach behaviors, and 91.5 percent agreement for avoidance behaviors.

Results

Three repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for each of the behavior scores (avoidance, approach, shame, contempt, and balance). One of these ANOVAs was for child's behavior, with target (mother/father) as the repeated measure; the second was for mother, with target (child/father) as the repeated measure; and the third was for father, with target (child/mother) as the repeated measure. 4 In each, between-subjects factors were child's age group and child's gender. All post hoc an-

99

PATRICIA E. KAHLBAUGH, JEANNETTE M. HAVILAND

alyses were Tukey and set at alpha = .05 level of significance. In the case of interactions, simple main effect tests were conducted with an alpha = .05 level of significance.

The results of this study are presented in three sections. In the first two sections, the findings concerning age group effects on avoidant and approach behaviors are reported. In the third, the results of analysis of the constructed variable balance are reported.

. (

Parent-Child Avoidance

Children. In the first ANOVA, child's avoidant behavior was examined by age group, child's gender, and target of the behavior (i.e., mother vs. father). A main effect of age group was found for the child's avoidant behavior toward both mother and father, F(2, 24) = 7.63, p < .005. Post hoc analysis of this main effect indicated that 11-13 year olds displayed a greater number of avoidance behaviors toward both parents compared to 7-I0 year olds, but not compared to 14-I 6 year olds.

In the two follow-up ANOVAs, child's shame and contempt behavior were examined by age group, child's gender, and by the target of the behavior (i.e., mother vs. father). A main effect of age group was found for shame, F(2, 24) = 11.76, p < .001. Post hoc analysis of this main effect indicated that 11-13 year olds displayed significantly more shame behavior toward both parents when compared to their older and younger counter- parts (see Table I). A main effect of age group was also found for the contempt subscale, F(2, 24) = 3.55, p < .05. Although no age group differences at the .05 level were found in the post hoc analysis, an examination of the means indicates that the 14-I 6 year olds displayed the greatest number of contempt behaviors to both parents than the 1 I-I 3 and 7-I0 year olds (see Table I).

Parents. Parents' avoidant behaviors toward children and toward each other were compared by child's age group and gender. A main effect was found for fathers, which indicated that fathers displayed a significantly greater number of avoidant behaviors toward their children than toward their wives, F(I, 24) = 5.45, p < .05. No effects were found for mothers' avoidant behavior.

Additional ANOVAs focused on parents' shame and contempt toward children and toward each other by child's age group and gender. In the analysis of fathers, a main effect of the target of interaction was found for contempt, F(I, 24) = 8.95, p < .01, indicating that fathers displayed significantly more contempt toward their children than toward their wives.

100


TABLE 1

Mean Number (and Standard Deviations) of Child's Avoidance and Approach Displays Toward Parents

Age group Shame Contempt Approach

7-10 44.7 (14.5) 13.1 (4.7) 61.1 (18.3) 11-13 86,3 (33.3)* 13.7 (8.7) 67.7 (25.1) 14-I 6 59.9 (I 7.0) 22.9 (I 2.2) 58.9 (26.7)

Note. All ns = I0. Shame and contempt are the avoidance subscales. Mean scores reflect the number of events per 21/2 minutes of coded interaction. Standard deviations are reported in parentheses. *p<.001

Thus the main effect above for fathers' greater avoidance behaviors toward their children compared to their wives was primarily due to contempt, not shame. Further, the amount of contempt displayed toward the child was dependent on the child's age, F(2, 24) = 6.06, p < .01. Post hoc analysis indicated that fathers interacting with 14-16 year olds displayed significantly more contempt toward them than fathers interacting with their younger children. A similar main effect of age group was found for mothers' contempt behaviors, F(2, 24) = 9.50, p < .001. Post hoc analysis indicated that mothers interacting with a 14-16 year old displayed more contempt behaviors toward both husband and child than mothers interacting with children in the younger age groups (see Table 2).

Parent-Child Approach

Children. In this ANOVA, children's approach behaviors toward father and mother by child's age group and gender were examined. A main effect of the target of interaction demonstrated that children displayed more approach behaviors to mother than to father, F(1, 24) = 6.65, p < .05. An Age Group x Gender interaction was also demonstrated, F(2, 24) = 3.92, p < .05. Simple main effects analyses showed a main effect of gender in the 14-16 year old age group, F(1, 24) = 6.26, p < .02, such that boys who were 14-16 years old displayed significantly fewer approach behaviors when compared to girls who were 14-16 years old.

Parents. In the two ANOVAs examining parents' approach behaviors toward each other and toward the child by child's age group and gender,

101


TABLE 2

Mean Number (and Standard Deviations) of Parent's Avoidance and Approach Displays Toward Children

Age group Shame Contempt Approach

Mothers 7-10 19.4 (13.2) 4.5 (3.5) 50.0 (11.2) 11-13 ~0.7 (11.6) 4.0 (4.2) 40.4 (13.6) 14-16 21.0 (13.3) 11.3 (6.3)** 37.7 (9.4)

Fathers 7-10 18.4 (8.9) 5.8 (3.6) 40.9 (6.9) 11-13 23.1 (11.0) 5.7 (4.9) 37.7 (19.6) 14-16 25.1 (7.9) 13.8 (7.0)* 39.3 (9.0)

Note. All ns= 10. Shame and contempt are the avoidance subscales. Mean scores reflect the number of events per 2~/~ minutes of coded interaction. Standard deviations are reported in parentheses. *p<.01 **p<.001

a main effect of the target of interaction was demonstrated in the analysis comparing fathers' approach toward child and toward mother. Fathers displayed greater approach to child than to mother, F(1, 24) = 12.27, p < .005.

Similar to fathers, mothers displayed significantly more approach behaviors to their children than to their husband, F(1, 24) = 34.06, p < .0001. Target of Interaction x Gender interaction was also found, F(1, 24) = 8.34, p < .01. Simple main effects analysis indicated that mothers showed significantly more approach toward child than father, if the child participating in the interaction was a girl. Mothers demonstrated significantly more approach toward father if the child participating in the interaction was a boy (see Figure 1).

Balance of Approach and Avoidance Behavior

Three analyses of variance with repeated measures were conducted with the constructed balance variable (i.e., approach - avoid + 100) as the dependent variable. Child's age and gender were the between-subject variables and the repeated measure was the target of the interaction. An Age Group x Gender interaction was found for child's balance scores,

102


45-

"~ 35- r

r n

o

o o. 25-

�9 Boys [ ] Gids

I 15 Mother-Child Mother-Husband

Dyad Dyad

Figure 1. Mothers' approach behavior toward their children versus their husbands.

F(2, 24) = 4.97, p < .05. Simple main effects analysis indicated that when interacting with either mother or father, 11-13 year old girls displayed significantly more avoidant behavior relative to their approach behavior compared to 11-13 year old boys (see Figure 2).

No significant effects were found of age group or gender on fathers' balance scores; however, a main effect was found for mothers' balance scores,

110-

"~, 95-

r Q3

r r

80- m

65

�9 Boys 0 Girls

"~6' b

I I I

7-10 11-13 14-16 Age Group

Figure 2. Children's nonverbal balance behavior (approach - avoidance + 100) toward their parents.

103


F(1, 24) = 14.78, p < .001, such that mothers displayed more approach relative to avoidance behavior toward their children than toward their husbands.

Discussion

The present study has extended the work on parent-adolescent interactions in three ways. First, ~t is important to have families set the emotional tone of their interactions without any formal instructions or task. Second, the inclusion of a pre-adolescent group enables one to assess changes occurring in adolescence proper, and third, the examination of nonverbal behavior of approach and avoidance, and shame and contempt, provides new tools to assess family dynamics.

The study's findings suggest that nonverbal communication among parents and their adolescents differs as a function of children's age and gender. In general, we found that the children and parents in this study display a fairly stable rate of approach behaviors across the three age groups and that both mothers and fathers display more approach behaviors toward the child than they do toward each other. Mothers also exhibit a greater degree of approach relative to avoidance toward their children re- gardless of the child's age. In contrast to the mothers' affiliative orientation to the child, fathers display more contempt toward the child than toward their wives. Thus, the mother-child dyadic interactions appear to be more purely affiliative than the father-child.

Despite the stability of the approach dimension, differences between the age groups did emerge in avoidance. Compared to the pre-adolescent group, early adolescent boys and girls display a heightened amount of avoidance toward parents. In fact, early adolescents display more shame than either the younger or older age groups. In mid-adolescence, boys and girls seem to display a heightened amount of contempt toward both parents. This heightened contempt is reciprocated by the parents and carries over to the contempt expressed between husbands and wives.

In our discussion, these findings are organized under three headings: (a) children's avoidance of parents in early adolescence; (b) reciprocal contempt in mid-adolescence; and (c) gender differences in nonverbal behavior.

Avoidance toward Parents in Early Adolescence

In comparison to the way pre-adolescent children interact with their parents, early adolescents (11-13) display more avoidant behaviors, partic-

104


ularly more behavioral displays of shame. Shame has been argued to represent an intrapersonal reaction to the loss of a valued sense of self as well as a response to the loss of a valued relationship (Schneider, 1977). Thus, increased shame in early adolescence could signal a changing adolescent and a changing relationship with parents, reflecting the adolescent's loss of an earlier self-definition and loss of a valued dependency. Supporting this interpretation of shame for adolescents, Musgrove (1964, cited in Cole- man, 1974) found that the critical change in wanting a parent as a companion on an outing occurred between the ages of 11 and 13. While a majority of 11 -year olds desired the company of a parent, very few 13-year olds had a similar desire.

Behavioral evidence of shame during early adolescence also supports research on adolescent self-consciousness and egocentrism (Elkind & Bowen, 1979). In our study, early adolescents display many more shame behaviors while being videotaped than older and younger children, suggesting that early adolescence is a time during which children are particularly vulnerable to others' examination of them.

Despite this increased avoidance and shame demonstrated by the early adolescent, there are no significant age differences in the amount of approach behaviors displayed toward mother or father. By including approach behaviors, we come to appreciate that although the early adolescent is more distant and shameful, he or she remains quite affiliative. Thus, it does seem that greater involvement allows the early adolescent the secu- rity of feeling intimate, which in turn, allows him or her to express needs for separateness (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986).

Reciprocal Contempt between Family Members in Mid-Adolescence

In addition to avoidance in the form of shame, the results of the present study indicate that fathers are more avoidant and contemptuous toward their children than toward their wives, and display more contempt toward children who are 14-16 years old than those who are younger. Similarly, mothers display more contempt toward their 14-16 year olds and toward their husbands when a 14-16 year old is present in the interaction. This contempt is reciprocated by the 14-16 year olds. These findings suggest that when the adolescent is 14-16, parents and adolescent become engaged in reciprocated contempt, manifested by such behaviors as leaning away from each other, crossing their arms across their chests, sneering, and rolling tlleir eyes.

The reciprocal contempt between family members can, of course, be viewed in many ways, both positively and negatively. On the positive side,

105

PATRICIA E. KAHLBAUGH, JEANNE'I-rE M. HAVILAND

parental contempt may provide a safe environment for the adolescent's own self-assertion--a mutual "puffing of chests," so to speak. Bearing in mind that contempt behaviors are theorized to be clear signs of one's supe- riority and one's need to show the power of one's selfhood (Tomkins, 1963), parental displays of contempt may be showing the adolescent that self-assertion is acceptable, particularly in relationships where levels of affiliation are stable. Because parents and adolescents are engaged in reciprocal contempt, these displays may show there are limits to the adolescent's self-assertions,~that is, that the adolescent's displayed feelings of contempt have certain social consequences. There may be different mean- ings when only one member of a dyad uses contempt (for further discussion, see Haviland & Kahlbaugh, 1993).

This positive interpretation of reciprocated contempt is advanced in light of the fact that these families were sampled from nonclinical popula- tions. Mutually increased contempt, evidenced in a normal sample, suggests that in mid-adolescence, adolescents express themselves in more powerful ways and that, because parents reciprocate this power display, contempt may be kept within boundaries. Adolescents may learn how contempt can be used to provide information about needs for acknowledg- ment of individual differences without leading to an actual severing of relationships. This interpretation is supported by Grotevant & Cooper's (1985) finding that direct disagreements and suggestions with the father were related to adolescent's identity exploration.

Support for this interpretation is also provided by the finding that parents' and children's approach behavior remains stable from pre- to mid- adolescence. Both mother and father demonstrated more approach behavior toward their child than toward each other, and the level of this approach was not different between the three age groups. Likewise, although children tended to interact more affiliatively with mothers compared to fathers, there were no age group differences in the amount of approach behaviors demonstrated by the child toward parents. It is hypothesized that the stability of the affiliation allows the adolescent to begin to explore his or her own separateness. In this case, parents' contempt may actually represent appropriate affect attunement and tolerance, and may facilitate the development of self-esteem and emotion regulation (Schave & Schave, 1989). Of course, to test this, future work should assess individual differences in affiliation in pre-adolescence and observe the affective quality of parent-adolescent relationships in mid- and late adolescence, and the relationships between contempt and self-esteem, autonomy, and identity formation.

An example of how this "secure base for exploration" may be operat-

106


ing here between parent and adolescent is captured in the following interaction. In this family interaction, the son was making a determined plea for dog ownership, but his parents were opposed on many grounds. During this discussion the son and his father sat with their legs crossed in similar fashion with the result that their thighs were touching and they continued to brush each others' arms. At the same time the son tilted back his chair thus elevating his chin, even though it was high to begin with. The son punctuated his remarks with eye rolls and occasional backward leans with arms crossed behind his head, leaning even farther away, but always the legs were in complete alignment with father's and touching. A combination of parental tolerance and mirroring of the adolescent's derision and the simple statement of attraction made by the continuous touching be- came for us a symbol of the adolescent-parent nonverbal negotiation.

In contrast to this positive interpretation of contempt behavior, it may be that reciprocal contempt between parents and their 14-16 year olds represents dysfunctional or defensive elements in the relationship. For ex-

ample, research has found that high levels of stress and conflict in the parent-adolescent relationship is related to externalizing behaviors such as delinquency, drug use, and premarital sexual relations (Montemayor, 1986). Situations in which stress and conflict are not as extreme have been associated with lower self-esteem and depression (Montemayor, 1986). If parental support is inconsistent and unreliable, the child may experience overwhelming and hence poorly regulated negative affect (Lindahl & Mark- man, 1990). In this case, the contempt displayed by the adolescent could be a result of experiencing the parent as unsupportive. Contempt could then represent a way to deflect the negative emotions aroused by parental hostility, e.g., deflecting others' anger by becoming angry oneself (Bloom, 1980; Retzinger, 1987).

Whether a positive or negative phenomenon, this reciprocated contempt points to the fact that the present evidence does not support a singu- lar view of the adolescent as avoidant. Previous research has suggested that it is the adolescent who becomes more assertive and pushes against the family order. Our findings suggest that when that occurs, it occurs in a context wherein parents participate in this change. Unlike previous research, which has found power assertion between mothers and sons (Jacob, 1974; Steinberg, 1981), the present study's findings suggest that fathers are also pivotal in the development of adolescents' expression of separation and individuation.

Interestingly, mothers display more contempt toward their husbands when interacting with an older (14-16) child. Again, the problem of interpretation arises. On the negative side, it could be that the adolescent's

107

PATRICIA E. KAHLBAUGH, JEANNEI-rE M. HAVILAND

development poses a threat to the marital relationship (Silverberg & Stein- berg, 1987), which in our study is particular to the mother's relationship with her husband. According to Lindahl and Markman (1990), in cases where there is discord between parents, there is an increase in negative emotions expressed as well as a decreased ability to regulate this negative affect successfully. Unreciprocated contempt (i.e., mothers' contempt toward husbands) may be a sign of this stress and concomitant decrease in ability to regulate negative affect. The regulation of negative affect is cru- cial for successful marital and parent-child relationships (Lindahl & Mark- man, 1990). Further research could investigate relationships between mothers' contempt toward their husbands, and reports of marital satisfac- tion and emotion.

On the other hand, rather than reflecting the status of the marital relationship per se, mothers may use contempt toward their husbands as a way to maintain a position of power within the family's hierarchy, or may use contempt toward their husbands as a way of helping their children contain the fathers' contempt. It even may be that contempt becomes a "conta- gious" interactive mode used to regulate more volatile feelings within the family. Unlike previous work, we find that mothers, rather than trying to keep the son in his "place," may maintain status by asserting their influence against their husbands. Our findings suggest that with older children interactions become more volatile and the need for appropriate affect attunement and regulation come to the forefront.

Gender Differences in Nonverbal Behavior

Although, in general, daughters' and sons' nonverbal approach and avoidance are strikingly similar, daughters' and sons' nonverbal behavior differ in two ways. First, sons aged 14-16 demonstrate far fewer approach behaviors toward parents than daughters of the same age, and second, daughters aged 11-13 demonstrate a much higher level of avoidance relative to approach.

One noticeable trend in these gender differences is that of timing. From these results, a parent of a daughter may expect that the time of greatest difficulty would be during the 1 I- I 3 age period, while a parent of a son may expect that the time of greatest difficulty would be during the 14-I 6 age period. At 11 -I 3, girls display greater levels of avoidance compared to their approach behaviors; however, by 14-16, girls exhibit more approach particularly in contrast to the approach exhibited by boys. In contrast to the girls' pattern, boys aged 14-16 exhibit significantly fewer approach behaviors than girls. Further work examining older adolescent

108


boys could determine if this decrease in sons' approach compared to daughters continues or whether it rebounds at a later age.

These patterns also point to the possibility that daughters have a greater emotional expressiveness in interactions with their parents. In the approach category, older girls interacted more with parents than older boys, a finding that could reflect a tendency for women to be more emotionally expressive and more facilitative than men (Brody & Hall, 1993; Hall, 1984, Hauser et al. 1987). For example, Hauser et al. (1987) found that adolescent girls expressed more understanding toward fathers, and spoke more frequently to fathers, than adolescent boys. Furthermore, although there were no gender differences in the avoidant category at any age, girls did demonstrate a greater contrast between their avoidant and approach behaviors during early adolescence. It could be argued that this sharper differentiation between avoidance and approach indicates a greater degree of expressive sophistication.

The argument for a gender difference in expressivity, particularly seen in the comparison of the difference between 14-16 year old boys' and girls' approach behaviors, lends some support to the "gender intensification hy- pothesis," or the intensification of gender-specific behavior during adolescence. Adolescent girl s may exaggerate a role of facilitation and initiation of emotional expression, while boys may exaggerate a role of decreased affiliation and involvement. Interestingly, mothers' own approach behaviors toward the child were heightened if the child in the interaction was a girl. This greater approach toward daughters over husbands supports the idea that more approach and more expressiveness may be part of the fe- male child's socialization.

It is also evident from our findings that 11-13 year old girls become predominantly more avoidant relative to approach toward parents than boys of that age, and thus for girls early puberty appears to be a time of pulling back from closeness with parents. According to Steinberg (1988), decreased closeness between mothers and daughters actually may be necessary for pubertal development to proceed. Our findings correspond with this observation; however, in the present study early adolescent girls become more avoidant (relative to approach) toward both mothers and fathers, rather than less affiliative.

Summary

The examination of nonverbal behaviors associated with individuation during adolescence has indicated that early adolescence is a time of an initial shift away from parents in the form of shame and self-consciousness. This shame suggests that the early adolescent is particularly sensitive to

109


others' examination, and may be indicative of the adolescent's changing relationship with his/her parents. In addition to increased shame, the early adolescent is still affiliative, a combination which points to the complexity of approach and avoidance at this time. Feelings of avoidance and affiliation may work in conjunction as adolescents' emotional lives become more elaborated.

During mid-adolescence, family interactions become more contemptuous, a behavior pattern having both positive and negative implications. Reciprocated conterr~rpt could indicate self-assertions which are appro- priately regulated by various family members or could indicate a system that has become increasingly strained and threatened, possibly by the adolescent's own development. The mother's relationship with her husband, in particular, may become more strained at this time.

Fathers, rather than being non-participants during their children's adolescence, continue to be affiliative toward their children, as do mothers. Both parents, while maintaining affiliative interactions, are more contemptuous toward mid-adolescents. These findings point to the paradoxical relationship between separation and attachment captured by Ainsworth's (I 978) "secure base for exploration." When this phenomenon is applied to adolescence, we see that parents and adolescents maintain affiliative interactions, while expressing themselves in more avoidant ways.

Our results do not lead one to discount the negative effects of hostile or abusive family interaction. On the other hand, our results give new meaning to the patterns of change in attachment. Attachment does not imply only agreement, only empathy, only approach. Attachment involves a weaving of empathic mirroring and acceptance with clear expression of boundaries and differences. Some types of expressive or emotional displays that are often interpreted as negative, such as shame and contempt, may have a dual role. They may be used in a hostile manner, no doubt, but they may also be used as subtle cues of boundaries, difference, and controlled avoidance. In the adolescent's repertoire, these behaviors are emerging to supplement the older approach behaviors. The adolescent may be awkward at first in expressing these avoidance cues, but it is likely that the task of adolescence is to learn how to accommodate adult separateness with adult intimacy.

Notes

1. Because age and pubertal status were highly correlated lr(28) = .87, p < .0011, all analyses were conducted with age group as the independent variable.

2. These behaviors are referred to as shame; however, we do not distinguish shame from embarrassment or self-consciousness. In addition, by using the term shame we do not

110


mean to imply any emotional processes outside of those expected in normal development (see Izard, 1977).

3. We recognize that this adjustment decreases the contribution of these behaviors to the total scores of their respective scales.

4. Analyses conducted were designed to determine the effect of target of the interaction on nonverbal behavior (e.g., child's approach behavior toward mother versus father) and thus, approach and avoidance toward a particular individual were not directly compared. The comparison of approach and avoidance behaviors directed toward a particular individual was made via analysis of variance for nonverbal balance, with target of interaction as a repeated measure.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Allen, J. P., Abet, J. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1990). Adolescent problem behaviors: The influence of attachment and autonomy. The psychiatric clinics of North America, 13, 455-467.

Anderson, E. R., Hetherinston, E. M., & Clinsempeel, W. G. (1989). Transformations in family relations at puberty: Effects of family context. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9, 310-334.

Bell, N. J., Avery, A. W., Jenkins, D., Feld, J., & Shoenrock, C. J. (1985). Family relationships and social competence during late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 109-119.

Bloom, M. V. (1980). Adolescent-parental separation. New York: Gardner Press. Blos, P. (1962). On adolescence. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc. Brandt, D. E. (1977). Separation and identity in adolescence: Erikson and Mahler-some sim-

ilarities. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 13, 507-518. Brocly, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (1993). Gender and emotion. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.),

Handbook of emotions (pp. 447-460). New York: Guilford Press. Coleman, J. C. (1974). Relationships in adolescence. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Elkind, D., & Bowen, R. (1979). Imaginary audience behavior in children and adolescents.

Developmental Psychology, 15, 38-44. Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. The psychoanalytic study of the child, 13, 244-278. Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The interpersonal structure of family interaction settings: Parent-adoles-

cent relations in dyads and triads. Developmental Psychology, 22, 297-304. Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leitch, C. J. (1983). The nature and importance of attach-

ment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Ioumal of Youth and Adoles- cence, 12, 373-386.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-428.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: A perspective on individual differences in the development of identity and role-taking skill in adolescence. Human Development, 29, 82-100.

Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hauser, S. T., Book, B. K., Houlihan, J., Powers, S., Weiss-Perry, B., Follansbee, D., Jacob- son, M., .& Noam, G. (1987). Sex differences within the family: Studies of adolescent and parent family interactions. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 199-220.

Hauser, S. T., Powers, S. I., Noam, G. G., Jacobson, A. M., Weiss, B., & Follansbee, D. (1984). Familial contexts of adolescent ego development. Child Development, 55, 195-213.

111


Haviland, I. M., & Kahlbaugh, P. E. (1993). Emotion and identity. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 327-339). New York: Guilford Press.

Jacob, T. (1974). Patterns of family conflict and dominance as a function of child age and social class. Developmental Psychology, 10, I-12.

Kahlbaugh, P. E. (1992). Adolescence: A study of parent-child interactions and emotional development (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts In- ternational, 53, 3180B.

Kenny, M. E. (I 987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 17-29.

Kramer, D. A. (1983). Post-formal operations? A need for further conceptualization. Human Development, 26, 91-105.

Lindahl, K. M., & Markma~n, H. J. (1990). Communication and negative affect regulation in the family. In E. A. Blechman (Ed.), Emotions and the family (pp. 99-115). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Montemayor, R. (1986). Family variation in parent-adolescent storm and stress. Journal of Adolescent Research, I, 15-31.

Musgrove, F. (1964). Youth and the social order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Papini, D. R., Sebby, R. A., & Clark, S. (1989). Affective quality of family relations and

adolescent identity exploration. Adolescence, 24, 457-466. Relzinger, S. R. (1987). Resenlment and laughter: Video studies oflbe shame-rage spiral. In H. B.

Lewis (Ed.), The role d shame in symptom formation (pp. 151-181). Hiilsdale, NJ: Ertbaum. Sabatelli, R. M., & Mazor, A. (1985). Differentiation, individuation, and identity formation:

The integration of family system and individual developmental perspectives. Adoles- cence, 20, 619-633.

Schave, D., & Schave, B. (1989). Early adolescence and the search for self: A developmental perspective. New York: Praeger.

Schneider, C. D. (1977). Shame, exposure and privacy. Boston: Beacon Press. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Academic Press. Silverberg, 5. B., & Steinberg, L. D. (1987). Adolescent autonomy, parent-adolescent con-

flict, and parental well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 293-312. Smetana, J. G., Yau, J., Restrepo, A., & Braeges, J. L. (1991). Adolescent-parent conflict in

married and divorced families. Developmental Psychology, 27, 1000-1010. Steinberg, L. D. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty. Developmental Psy-

chology, 17, 833-840. Steinberg, L. D. (1987). Impact of puberty on family relations: Effects of pubertal status and

pubertal timing. Developmental Psychology, 23, 451-460. Steinberg, L. D. (1988). Reciprocal relations between parent-child distance and pubertal mat-

uration. Developmental Psychology, 24, 122-I 28. Steinberg, L. D., & Hill, J. P. (1978). Patterns of family interaction as a function of age, the

onset of puberty and formal thinking. Developmental Psychology, 14, 683-684. Tomkins; S. (1963). Affect, imagery, and consciousness: The negative affects (Vol. 11). New

York: Springer. Vaillant, G. E. (1985). Loss as a metaphor for attachment. The American Journal of Psycho-

analysis, 45, 59-67.

Appendix

Description of Coded Behaviors

Approach behaviors. The following is a description of the behaviors.

1. Smile. Slight and full smile.

seven approach

112


2. Face oriented in direction of other. Face is directed toward other with eyes apparently directed toward other and not toward camera or floor. If eyes are obscured, but subject appears to be facially oriented toward other, count but mark with " * " to indicate obscured. If you cannot distinguish person toward whom subject is oriented, code as oriented to both. At times, you may use vocal cues to help identify target of the communication.

3. Head nod. In this case, only the upward-downward, or affirmative, head nod is indicated. Side to side movement, or negation, is coded loosely as a disgust/ contempt motion in that it indicates differentiation and distance. Further, head moved upward with no accompanying downward motion is coded under the contempt category as "head up."

4. Eyebrow flash. Raising of the eyebrows, as if in interest is coded as eyebrow flash. Note, this motion is fairly rapid. If eyebrows are raised and held for more than 1-2 seconds, then this behavior is coded as contempt as it may show a questioning of other's integrity or truthfulness, or indicating a disbelief borne of superior knowledge.

5. Symmetry in body position. Symmetry was determined if upper part of body matched another's upper body or if lower body matched another's lower body. Matching was determined largely on the basis of an open versus closed dimension, such that if two participants had arms crossed, they would be coded as having symmetry. Similarly, if two participants had legs crossed at ankle, they would be coded as having symmetry. It was not necessary to be symmetrical in both upper and lower body to receive a code of symmetry.

6. Body oriented toward other. Body orientation was based on the orientation of the shoulders. If only head was oriented toward one person and shoulders were oriented toward camera, the participant would not be coded as having body oriented toward other.

7. Touching. Touching was coded when any part of one person's body or face touched any part of another's body or face. This includes situations where a participant's pant leg touched another's. The pressure exerted was impossible to determine and so it was assumed that the quality of touching existed.

Avoidance behav io rs . The following is a description of the eight avoidance behaviors.

1. Covering face with hand. This behavior includes full face cover and resting head on hand with some parts of the fingers covering the face. Nose and eye scratches were coded if behavior continued for at least two seconds.

2. Averting face. Face averts to side or down-side were coded. Face averts upward and outwai~d were coded under contempt.

3. Self-manipulation. Touching parts of the body, clothes, hair, and jewelry without looking at the object of manipulation were considered self-manipulatory behaviors. In addition, any rhythmic motion of feet up and down (e.g., tapping or bouncing) or together (e.g., rubbing)was considered to be self-manipulative in that these behaviors were seen as attempts to soothe or regulate the self. No code was

113

PATRICIA E. KAHLBAUGH, JEANNEI-rE M. HAVILAND

given to gestural use of the hands as in the explanation or emphasis of a story or point.

4. Self-inspection. Touching parts of the body, clothes, hair, and jewelry while simultaneously examining them. If it was unclear if subject was actually looking at the object, it was coded as a self-manipulation and a gaze pattern (e.g., self-manipulation and gaze aversion).

5. Contempt (face and body). Eye roll was indicated by the exaggerated roll of the eye in an upward direction. Body roll was indicated by a lifting up and back of shoulders. Also included in this category were head throws or tosses, coded when subject threw head bae~. This behavior pattern was included under contempt because it created a situation where subject looked down his/her nose at other participants, a characteristic contempt movement. Head shakes "no" and shoulder shrugs were also coded as contempt displays.

6. Disgust face. Disgust face was indicated by the characteristic nose wrinkle as well as constricted mouth (corners pulled back and then released) and looks of skepticism (e.g., eyebrow raised for extended period).

7. Closed arm position. Closed arms were indicated if arms were tightly folded across chest. This was not coded for arms crossed loosely at wrist.

8. Backward lean. Backward lean was indicated if subject was leaning at an angle in his/her chair. Indications of body position can be ascertained by observing changes in position (forward and/or backward leans) or by observing body position relative to the chair.

nonverbal communication between parents and …baljones/nonverbal communication.pdf · nonverbal...

Documents