Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jado

Parenting and adolescent adjustment: The role of parentalreflective function

Naomi Benbassat, Beatriz Priel*

Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University, P.O.B. 653, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel

Keywords:AdolescenceAdolescent adjustmentParentingReflective function

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 3 6423193; faE-mail addresses: naomiben@bgu.ac.il (N. Benba

0140-1971/$ – see front matter � 2011 The Foundadoi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.03.004

a b s t r a c t

Reflective function (RF) is the capacity to reflect on one’s own mental experiences andthose of others. This study examined the relationship between parental RF and adolescentadjustment. One hundred and five adolescents, aged 14–18, and their mothers and fatherswere interviewed and completed questionnaires during home visits. We measuredparental RF, aspects of parenting behavior, and adolescent outcomes. We found thatparental RF correlated with adolescent RF and social competence. Unexpectedly, it alsocorrelated with internalizing problems and less positive self-perception. In addition,parental RF, particularly paternal RF, interacted with aspects of parenting behavior. In thepresence of higher levels of parental RF, these behavioral aspects were associated withmore positive adolescent outcomes. We conclude that (a) parental RF is associated withboth desirable outcomes and possible costs and (b) parental RF, particularly paternal RF, isa significant moderator of the associations between parenting behaviors and adolescentoutcomes.� 2011 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier

Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contemporary theories of socialization view both children and their parents as active agents and emphasize bidirectionalprocesses in parent–child interactions (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). These theories highlight parents’ and children’s capacitiesto reflect on their own behavior and that of others, and to construct meanings and expectations from interactions andrelationships (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Grusec, Goodnow, & Kuczynski, 2000). In the present study, we use Fonagy’sconceptualization of reflective function (Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Moran, & Higgit, 1991; Fonagy & Target, 1997) to explore theassociation between a range of outcomes in adolescents and the reflectivity of their parents.

Reflective function (RF) is defined as the metacognitive ability to think about one’s own thoughts and feelings and those ofothers, as one attempts to understand and predict behavior. It involves attributing mental states (e.g., beliefs, emotions,desires, and needs) to one’s self and others and forms the basis for significant relationships and self-construal (Fonagy et al.,1991; Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist, & Target, 2002). RF encompasses an intrapersonal dimension, (i.e., the capacity for self-awareness and understanding), as well as an interpersonal dimension (i.e., the ability to see others as psychological entities,with thoughts, emotions and needs). In addition, RF involves both a cognitive process, akin to psychological insight orperspective-taking, and an emotional process based on the capacity to hold, regulate, and experience one’s own emotions andthose of others in a nondefensive manner (Slade, 2005).

The concept of RF was developed within the framework of attachment theory. Over the past two decades, the focus ofresearch in this area has shifted from attachment behavior to mental representations of attachment (Slade, Belsky, Aber, &Phelps, 1999). The mental representations of an adult’s early attachment experiences are thought to be reflected in his or

x: þ972 3 6423194.ssat), bpriel@bgu.ac.il (B. Priel).

tion for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174164

her own descriptions of significant past relationships and in his or her ability to articulate a coherent narrative about thequality of those relationships (Main,1991). Main (1991) referred to the coherence of an individual’s narratives about his or herown attachment experiences as “metacognitivemonitoring” (i.e., an ability to think about one’s own thinking). Elaborating onthis concept, Fonagy et al. (1991; 1997; 2002) proposed their theory of RF, which expanded the concept of metacognitivemonitoring to include the ability to think about one’s own thoughts and feelings and those of others.

Several concepts related to RF refer to different aspects of reflectivity. Self-consciousness, self-awareness, emotional intel-ligence, and introspection refer to the understanding of one’s self. Social intelligence, social cognition, mind-mindedness, andempathy refer to one’s ability to understand others. Two other concepts, psychological mindedness and theory-of-mind (TOM),are similar to RF in that they also refer to both the understanding of one’s self and one’s understanding of others. However, RFrefers to a relationship-specific mentalizing ability, as opposed to the general mentalizing ability measured in TOM studies(Humfress, O’Connor, Slaughter, Target, & Fonagy, 2002). The concept of psychological mindedness is used mainly in thecontext of psychotherapy (Farber, 1989).

RF is thought to develop through a child’s experience of how his or her mental states are reflected upon by his or hercaregiver. The child’s capacity to create a coherent image of mind is dependent on an experience of being perceived as a mindby the caregiver, who becomes an attachment figure (Fonagy, Gergely, & Target, 2007). It is the caregiver’s capacity to expressan appreciation of the infant’s emotional state and deal with it that creates a space in which an understanding of mental andemotional life can develop (Bram & Gabbard, 2001). Hence, the significance of the caregivers’ capacity tomentally contain thechild’s emotional experiences, as opposed to a tendency to be defensive about his or her own emotional experiences andthose of the child (Bion, 1962).

There is evidence that parental RF (i.e., a parent’s capacity to reflect on his or her own mental experiences and those of hisor her child) is significant for the development of RF in children. A longitudinal study found that parental RF, measured duringpregnancy, was related to children’s early attachment relationships (Fonagy et al., 1991), which, in turn, were related tochildren’s understandings of emotions (Steele, Steele, Croft, & Fonagy, 1999). Similarly, mothers’ tendency to use mental-stateterms (mind-mindedness) predicted their children’s performance in theory-of-mind tasks (Meins et al., 2002; Meins &Fernyhough, 1999). This is consistent with the view that "any function in the child’s cultural development appears on twoplanes: between people as an inter-psychological category, and then within the child as an intra-psychological category"(Vygotsky, 1981, p. 163).

Research on parental RF has mostly dealt with mothers of infants and young children. However, RF may also be importantduring adolescence. RF may help parents understand the changes that their adolescent children are experiencing, as well astheir own feelings and thoughts in response to these changes. RF may also help adolescents cope with the developmentalchanges that they are experiencing, in general, and with the development of social competence, in particular. Both parentaland adolescent RFmay facilitate dialog and copingwith conflict and negative emotions. Indeed, parental understanding of theadolescent’s self-concept has been shown to be associated with frequent and open communication, as well as high levels ofsatisfaction with the parent–child relationship (Sillars, Koerner, & Fitzpatrick, 2005). Parents who more accurately perceivedtheir adolescents’ thoughts and feelings reported more positive outcomes to conflicts (Hastings & Grusec, 1997). Hence, themain goal of the present study: to explore the role of parental RF during adolescence.

In the present study, we examine the associations between parental RF and certain characteristics of parenting behavior(involvement, warmth, and control), on the one hand, and a range of adolescent outcomes, on the other. The adolescentoutcomes include both markers of positive adolescent adjustment (i.e., RF, social competence, and self-perception) andproblem behaviors (i.e., internalizing and externalizing problems). The existing literature suggests an association betweenparental RF and the quality of young children’s emotional attachments and emotional understanding (Fonagy et al., 1991;Steele et al., 1999), as well as an inverse association between the ability of mothers to predict accurately their children’sresponses (used as a measure of maternal RF) and children’s psychopathology (Sharp, Fonagy, & Goodyer, 2006). In light ofthese findings, we hypothesize that parental RF is positively associated with adolescents’ social competence and under-standing of self and others, and negatively associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems.

Furthermore, the existing literature on parenting behavior suggests that parental warmth and involvement are associatedwith the positive adjustment of adolescents (e.g., Barber, Stoltz, & Olsen, 2005; Heider, Matschinger, Bernert, Alonso, &Angermeyer, 2006). However, reported findings on the influence of parental control on adolescent adjustment have beenless consistent (e.g., Heider et al., 2006; Kerr & Stattin, 2000) and different kinds of control have been reported to be asso-ciated with different outcomes (Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; Goldstein, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2005; Laible & Carlo, 2004). It ispossible that parental RF is an important factor in the association between certain parenting behaviors and adolescentoutcomes. In other words, the same parenting behavior may be associated with different adolescent outcomes when appliedby reflective and nonreflective parents. Parental RF may be particularly important for the fine balance that parents mustmaintain in controlling the behavior of their adolescent children (Goldstein et al., 2005; Smetana, 2000). Therefore, oursecond hypothesis is that parental RF will moderate the associations between parenting behavior variables, particularlyparental controlling behavior, and adolescent outcomes.

The final goal of the present study is to examine whether the fathers’ and mothers’ RF abilities are differentially associatedwith adolescent outcomes. Research suggests that mothers and fathers have different relationships with their children (Lamb& Lewis, 2004). Several studies have suggested that fathers’ involvement in parenting during adolescence is more importantthan maternal involvement (e.g., Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993; Veneziano, 2003) and that fathers assume a unique andsignificant role during adolescence (Shulman & Seiffge-Krenke, 1997). However, fathers are less involved in parenting than

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 165

mothers (Phares, Fields, & Kamboukos, 2009) and they tend to disengage from the emotional lives of their adolescent children(Larson & Richards,1994) and avoid conflict and negative emotions (Hosley &Montemayor,1997; Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007).In light of these findings, RF may be especially important for fathers during adolescence: RF may increase the father’sawareness of the factors that restrict his emotional involvement with his children and family and may help the family copewith conflicts and negative emotions. Therefore, our final hypothesis is that the associations between paternal RF andadolescent outcomes will be stronger than the associations between maternal RF and adolescent outcomes.

Method

Participants

The study population consisted of a convenience sample of 105 Israeli adolescents (64 girls and 41 boys) and their mothersand fathers. The inclusion criteria were (a) adolescents’ age (14–18 years), (b) intact families, (c) proficiency in the Hebrewlanguage, and (d) parental education of at least seven grades. The exclusion criteria were (a) refusal of one or more familymembers to participate in the study and (b) diagnosed mental disorders in the adolescent or either of the parents. The meanages were 15.8 (SD¼ 1.13) years for the adolescents, 46.4 (SD¼ 4.9) years for mothers, and 49.3 (SD¼ 5.5) years for fathers. Allparents were married (M ¼ 23.1 years; SD ¼ 5.1). Fifty-nine percent of the mothers and 50% of the fathers had academicdegrees and 85% of themothers and 97% of the fathers were gainfully employed. The families were from both urban (47%) andrural (53%) areas.

Procedure

The study was approved by both the Ethics Committee of Ben-Gurion University and the regional branch of the IsraelMinistry of Education. Adolescents and their parents were recruited over the telephone, using high school student directories,and by asking families who participated in the study to refer us to other families who might be willing to participate (thesnowball technique). Still other families were recruited by addressing adolescents in their classrooms. The initial approacheswere performed by undergraduate student assistants, who gave a short description of the study and asked for the agreementof both of the parents and the adolescent to participate in the study.

Of the 105 participating families, about 60% were recruited through the snowball technique and the others were recruitedby cold-calling families (using high school student directories) and addressing adolescents in their classrooms. Five familieswere excluded after we visited them: one family due to the adolescent’s severe ADHD, one family due to the adolescent’ssevere depression connected to cystic fibrosis, one family due to insufficient proficiency in the Hebrew language, and twofamilies due to parental education of less than seven grades.

Data were collected during scheduled home visits. During these visits, we first provided the parents and the adolescentwith a brief description of the study and assured confidentiality. All three family members signed an informed consent form.Then, fathers, mothers, and adolescent children were interviewed concurrently by three interviewers in separate rooms andwere asked to complete questionnaires. The interviewers were one of the authors (N.B.) and two undergraduate psychologystudents. Comparability in the administration of the interviews was achieved through training, which included clear andstandard instructions for administration of the interviews, including probing. Finally, the family received a written expla-nation of the study, as well as a book of literary quotations about adolescence, as a token of our appreciation. The interviewswere audio-taped and subsequently transcribed and coded.

Measures

Demographic data included the parents’ ages, employment status, and level of education, and adolescents’ age and gender.Parental educationwas classified into elementary, high school – partial, high school graduates, vocational (nonacademic), firstacademic degree, and second academic degree or higher. The demographic data were derived from a demographic ques-tionnaire that was completed by the fathers and from the Youth Self-Report (YSR) questionnaire that was completed by theadolescents.

Parental RFParental RF was measured using the Parent Development Interview (PDI; Aber, Slade, Berger, Bresgi, & Kaplan, 1985). The

PDI is a semistructured interview designed to examine parents’ representations of themselves as parents and of their chil-dren. We used the Hebrew version of the PDI, which we adapted for parents of adolescents. It included 15 questions thatasked the parent to describe his or her child, herself or himself as a parent, and their relationships. For example: “Could youplease describe (name of child)?”; “What makes (name of child) feel sad or distressed?” and “Can you give an example ofa time when he/she was sad and what happened then?” The average duration of an interviewwas 20.02 (SD ¼ 8.02) minutes.

To assess RF, we used the scoring system developed by Fonagy and colleagues (Fonagy, Target, Steele, & Steele, 1998), asadapted for the PDI (Slade, Bernbach, Grienenberg, Wohlgemath-Levy, & Locker, 2001). Scoring was based on verbatimtranscripts made from audio tapes of the interviews. For each interview, the answers to each question were scored on a scalefrom�1 (negative RF) to 9 (full or exceptional RF). Low-RF answers are characterized by disavowal or concrete, superficial and/

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174166

or banal explanations; whereas high-RF answers are characterized by recognition of mental states of the self and the child andawareness of the nature of mental states, their association with behavior, and their developmental aspects (see examples inthe Appendix). After each of the answers was scored, an overall score was determined for the entire interview, which wasplaced alongside the ratings for individual answers. Each interview was independently scored by two trained coders. Thecorrelation coefficient between judges was .87 for interviews with mothers and .89 for interviews with fathers. Codingdiscrepancies were resolved through discussion. Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .94.

Parenting behaviorParenting behavior was evaluated using the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979), a 25-item,

self-report questionnaire that includes two dimensions: Parental Warmth (i.e., the degree to which the parent is perceived asexpressing care, warmth, and affection) and Parental Control (i.e., the degree to which the parent is perceived as controlling,intrusive, and overprotective). In the present study, the adolescents completed separate forms for each of their parents.Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, was .87 for mothers and .88 for fathers for the Warmthscale, and .80 and .84, respectively, for the Control scale.

Parental involvementLevels of parental involvement were measured using the Child Caregiving Involvement Scale (CCIS; Wood & Repetti,

2004), a 10-item scale that assesses parents’ perceptions of their own and their spouse’s responsibilities for specific child-care activities. The scale assesses both direct involvement (e.g., talking with the child) and indirect involvement (e.g.,attending school meetings). For this study, the wording of several items was adapted to suit parents of adolescents and eachparent’s perceptions of his or her own responsibilities were assessed. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .72 for MaternalInvolvement to .82 for Paternal Involvement.

Adolescent RFAdolescent RF was assessed through a semistructured interview that we developed for the present study. Questions from

several existing interview protocols were used, specifically the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main & Goldwyn,1994), theChild Attachment Interview (CAI; Target, Fonagy, & Shmueli-Goetz, 2003), and the Object Relations Inventory (ORI; Blatt,Chevron, Quinlan, Schaffer, & Wein, 1992). The interview included 19 questions that asked the adolescent to describehimself or herself, his or hermother and father, and their relationships. For example: “Can you describe yourmother/father?”;“Can you tell me about a time when you were sad?” and “Have you ever felt offended by your parents? When? Do you thinkthey understood that you were hurt?” The interview took about 17 min to administer (M ¼ 16.91 min; SD ¼ 8.11).

We determined adolescent RF levels using the same procedure that we used to score the parents’ interviews (see examplesin the Appendix). The correlation coefficient (interrater reliability) for the scores assigned by the different evaluators was .89.Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .94.

Adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems and social competenceInternalizing and externalizing problems and social competence were measured using the Youth Self-Report (YSR;

Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), a self-reported, standardizedmethod for assessing competencies and behavioral and emotionalproblems in adolescents between 11 and 18 years of age. In the present study, the adolescents completed a Hebrew version ofthe questionnaire (Psychtech LTD, 2001) and we analyzed the results of the Social Competence scale and the two broadbandsyndromes of Internalizing and Externalizing Problems. Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .82 forthe Internalizing and Externalizing Problems.

Adolescents’ self-perceptionSelf-perception was measured using the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (SPPA; Harter, 1988). This questionnaire

includes eight age-appropriate domains, as well as a measure of global self-worth. A Hebrew version of the questionnaire wasused, fromwhich the items related to two domains (Job Competence and Athletic Competence) were excluded. A principal-component analysis with varimax rotation for the SPPA domains identified two factors, social and personal, which togetherexplained 54% of the variance (Table 1). The Social Self-Perception factor included four domains: Close Friendship, SocialAcceptance, Romantic Appeal, and Behavioral Conduct. The Personal Self-Perception factor included three domains: Scho-lastic Competence, Physical Appearance, and Global Self-Worth.

Similar results have been reported by Dekovic andMeeus (1997), who identified a “social self-worth” factor and a "generalself-worth" factor. The identification of two higher-order dimensions is consistent with hierarchical theoretical models thatplace global self-perception at their apex (e.g., Waugh, 2001), as well as with the distinction between the social/interpersonaland personal spheres (e.g., Diamond & Blatt, 1994). Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, rangedfrom .74 for the Social Self-Perception factor to .85 for the Personal Self-Perception factor. Each subject was assigned twofactor scores. Higher scores for both factors indicate a more positive self-perception.

Results

We performed two sets of analyses. First, we looked for associations between parental RF and parenting behavior, on theone hand, and adolescent outcomes, on the other. Second, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses to examine how the

Table 1Loading coefficients of the two factors identified in the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents.

Self-Perception

Factor 1: Social Factor 2: Personal

Close Friendship .76 �.36Social Acceptance .68 .20Romantic Appeal .65 .32Behavioral Conduct .56 .21Physical Appearance .05 .80Global Self-Worth .39 .77Scholastic Competence .07 .55

Eigen values 1.92 1.84% of variance explained 27.45 26.29

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 167

parental variables together explain the variance in the adolescent outcomes, and whether parental RF moderates the asso-ciations between parenting behavior variables and the adolescent outcomes.

Parental variables and adolescent outcomes

The correlations between parental variables and adolescent outcomes are presented in Table 2. Maternal and paternal RFwere associated with adolescents’ RF levels and paternal RF was also associated with adolescents’ social competence. Thehigher the level of parental RF, the higher the adolescent’s RF and social competence. Unexpectedly, paternal RF was alsopositively associated with adolescents’ internalizing problems and inversely associated with adolescents’ personal self-perception. Consistent with previous findings, higher levels of parental involvement and warmth and lower levels of parentalcontrol were associated with positive adolescent outcomes (higher levels of self-perception and lower levels of internalizingand externalizing problems). We also found a positive association between parental control and adolescent RF.

Mothers’ and fathers’ levels of education were positively correlated with their RF levels (r ¼ .53, p < .001 for mothers;r ¼ .44, p < .001 for fathers), as well as with their adolescents’ RF levels (r ¼ .24, p < .05 for mothers; r ¼ .34, p < .01, forfathers). The fathers’ level of education was also associated with adolescents’ social competence (r ¼ .25, p < .01).

Multiple-regression analyses

We applied separate, identical three-step hierarchical regression analyses for mothers and fathers (Tables 3–5). Althoughnot a focus of this study, adolescent gender and parental education were entered in the first step. Parental RF and parentingbehavior variablesdwarmth, control, and involvementdwere entered in the second step. In the third step, we entered theinteractions between parental RF and parenting behavior measures, in order to examine any possible moderating effect ofparental RF. Interaction terms were created using centered data and significant interaction terms were examined byregressing the dependent variable (adolescent outcome variable) on the parenting behavior variable, at low (�1 SD) and high(þ1 SD) values of parental RF (Aiken & West, 1991; Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006).

Table 2Pearson correlation coefficients between the Parental Variables and the Adolescents’ Outcomes.

Adolescent Outcomes

ReflectiveFunction

SocialCompetence

PersonalSelf-Perception

SocialSelf-Perception

InternalizingProblems

ExternalizingProblems

M (SD)

Reflective FunctionMothers .45*** .07 �.15 �.15 .14 .06 4.27 (1.40)Fathers .48*** .26** �.30** �.11 .36*** .16 3.80 (1.46)InvolvementMothers �.10 .02 .02 .24* �.23* �.16 42.49 (4.66)Fathers �.11 .09 �.15 �.04 –.04 �.19 35.78 (6.42)WarmthMothers �.19 .06 .12 .20* �.19 �.23* 31.42 (4.66)Fathers �.16 .16 .06 .22* �.18 �.24* 28.96 (5.39)ControlMothers .21* �.12 �.26** �.12 .15 .32** 8.65 (5.27)Fathers .24* �.14 �.15 �.07 .12 .37*** 7.67 (5.47)

M (SD) 3.88 (1.11) 8.71 (1.84) 3.06 (0.44) 3.32 (0.39) 8.81 (5.88) 9.46 (5.78)

Table 3Hierarchical regression analyses predicting adolescents’ Reflective Function and Social Competence (N ¼ 105).

Reflective Function Social Competence

Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

b R2 b R2 b R2 b R2

Step 1Adolescent’s gender .07 .12** .09 .07* .01 .07* .03 .02Parent’s education .33** .24** .27** .15Step 2 .32*** .28*** .14* .03Adolescent’s gender .06 .11 .03 .03Parent’s education .15 .02 .19* .14Parental RF .41*** .44*** .18* .00Parental Warmth �.07 �.10 .10 .02Parental Control .19* .17* �.12 �.10Parental Involvement �.12 �.06 .07 .02Step 3 .36*** .18**Adolescent’s gender .05 .06Parent’s education .17* .20*Parental RF .39*** .17*Parental Warmth �.06 .12Parental Control .23* �.15Parental Involvement �.08 .11Parental RF � Control .22*Parental RF � Involvement .20*

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174168

Adolescents’ RF and social competenceAs shown in Table 3, the paternal and maternal variables accounted for 36% and 28% of the variance in adolescent RF,

respectively. The paternal variables accounted for 18% of the variance in adolescents’ social competence; whereas thematernal variables did not significantly affect adolescents’ social competence. Both maternal and paternal levels of educationcontributed significantly to the variance in adolescents’ RF, and the fathers’ level of education contributed significantly to thevariance in adolescents’ social competence, as well. In the next step, parental RF was shown to contribute significantly to thevariance in adolescent RF and social competence. The higher the fathers’ and mothers’ RF levels, the higher the adolescents’RF. The higher the fathers’ RF, the greater the adolescents’ social competence. In the last step, two interactions between thepaternal RF and paternal behavior variables were shown to be significant. Following up on the interaction effects, simpleslopes were analyzed using the computational tools by Preacher et al. (2006). Paternal involvement was negatively related toadolescent RF only at low levels of paternal RF (b ¼ �.05,t(97) ¼ �2.49, p < .05), but not at high levels of paternal RF (b ¼ .02,

Table 4Hierarchical regression analyses predicting adolescents’ Personal and Social Self-Perception (N ¼ 105).

Self-Perception – Personal Self-Perception - Social

Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

b R2 b R2 b R2 b R2

Step 1 .04 .02 .07* .05Adolescent’s gender �.12 �.13 .24** .23**Parent’s education �.15 �.04 �.12 �.01Step 2 .14* .10 .13* .17**Adolescent’s gender �.10 �.13 .24** .22*Parent’s education �.03 .02 �.09 .08Parental RF �.28** �.16 �.08 �.17*Parental Warmth .06 .02 .23* .16Parental Control �.09 �.24* �.01 �.07Parental Involvement �.15 .02 �.09 .20*Step 3 .24*** .21**Adolescent’s gender .20* .19*Parent’s education �.02 .11Parental RF �.13 �.18*Parental Warmth .38*** .23*Parental Control .06 �.04Parental Involvement �.06 .16Parental RF � Warmth .39*** .22*Parental RF � Control .41***

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Adolescents’ Internalizing and Externalizing Problems (N ¼ 105).

Internalizing problems Externalizing problems

Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

b R2 b R2 b R2 b R2

Step 1 .06* .03 .03 .03Adolescent’s gender .16* .18* �.15 �.15Parent’s education .16* �.01 .10 .07Step 2 .19*** .15* .26*** .17**Adolescent’s gender .17* .19* �.21** �.16*Parent’s education .00 �.11 .05 .11Parental RF .36*** .19* .13 �.01Parental Warmth �.18* �.10 �.04 �.11Parental Control .00 .10 .41*** .30**Parental Involvement �.02 �.22** �.21** �.14Step 3 .23*** .30***Adolescent’s gender .15 �.24**Parent’s education –.01 .04Parental RF .37*** .14Parental Warmth �.20* �.06Parental Control .03 .44***Parental Involvement �.06 �.25**Parental RF � Control �.20* �.20*

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 169

t(97) ¼ .27, p > .05). In addition, paternal control was negatively related to adolescent social competence only at low levels ofpaternal RF (b ¼ �.13,t(97) ¼ �2.64, p < .01), but not at high levels of paternal RF (b ¼ .02, t(97) ¼ .50, p > .05).

Adolescents’ personal and social self-perceptionAs shown in Table 4, the paternal and maternal variables accounted for 24% and 21% of the variance in adolescent social

self-perception, respectively. The paternal variables accounted for 14% of the variance in adolescent personal self-perception;whereas the maternal variables did not significantly affect the variance of this adolescent outcome. Gender contributedsignificantly to the variance in adolescents’ social self-perception, with adolescent girls reporting higher levels of social self-perception than adolescent boys. Both parental RF and parenting behavior explained the variance in adolescents’ personaland social self-perception. The higher the fathers’ RF, the lower the adolescents’ personal self-perception; the higher themothers’ RF, the lower the adolescents’ social self-perception. Maternal RF contributed significantly to the variance inadolescent social self-perception, although it did not correlate significantly with adolescent social self-perception in thebivariate analysis. Three interactions were significant. Both paternal and maternal RF interacted with parental warmth.Simple slopes analyses revealed that parental warmthwas positively related to adolescent social self-perception at high levelsof paternal RF (b ¼ .05, t(96) ¼ 5.19, p < .001) and maternal RF (b ¼ .04, t(97) ¼ 3.71, p < .001), but not among low-RF fathers(b ¼ .00, t(96) ¼ .21, p > .05) and mothers (b ¼ .00, t(97) ¼ .09, p > .05). In addition, the father’s level of controlling behaviorand adolescent social self-perception were positively related among high-RF fathers (b ¼ .03, t(96) ¼ 3.33, p < .01), andnegatively related among low-RF fathers (b ¼ �.03, t(96) ¼ �2.53, p < 05).

Adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problemsAs shown in Table 5, the paternal variables accounted for 23% of the variance in internalizing problems and 30% of the

variance in externalizing problems, whereas the maternal variables explained 15% of the variance in internalizing problemsand 17% of the variance in externalizing problems. Adolescent gender contributed significantly to the variance in bothinternalizing and externalizing problems. Adolescent girls reported higher levels of internalizing problems than boys;whereas adolescent boys reported higher levels of externalizing problems than girls. The fathers’ level of educationcontributed significantly to the variance in adolescents’ internalizing problems, with children of fathers with higher levels ofeducation reporting more internalizing problems. Both parental RF and parenting behavior explained the variance inadolescents’ internalizing problems; whereas only parenting behavior, but not parental RF, explained the variance inadolescents’ externalizing problems. The higher the fathers’ and mothers’ RF levels, the higher the adolescents’ level ofinternalizing problems. Maternal RF contributed significantly to the variance in adolescent internalizing problems, although itdid not correlate significantly with adolescent internalizing problems in the bivariate analysis. Two interactions, betweenpaternal controlling behavior and paternal RF, contributed significantly to the variance in adolescent internalizing andexternalizing problems. Simple slopes analyses revealed significance only in predicting externalizing problems: paternalcontrolling behavior was positively related with adolescent externalizing problems among low-RF fathers (b ¼ .68,t(97) ¼ 4.87, p < .01), but not among high-RF fathers (b ¼ .25, t(97) ¼ 1.78, p > .05).

In summary, our regression analyses indicated that parental RF contributed to the explained variance of all adolescentoutcomes. The contribution of parental RF came in the form of both simple effects and interaction effects. Parental RF

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174170

appeared to be particularly significant for adolescent RF and social competence, as well as adolescents’ self-perception andinternalizing problems. The observed interaction effects indicate that parental RF moderated the association betweenparenting behaviors and adolescent outcomes. Finally, when compared with maternal factors, paternal factors explainedmore of the variability in most of the measured adolescent outcomes.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the role of parental RF in adolescent adjustment. Our findings indicate thatparental RF, particularly paternal RF, is associated with adolescents’ RF and social competence and moderates the associationbetween certain parenting behaviors and adolescent outcomes. Unexpectedly, we also found that parental RF was associatedwith higher levels of adolescent internalizing problems and less positive self-perception. The following sections presenta detailed discussion of the associations between parental RF and adolescent adjustment that emerged from our findings.

Parental RF and adolescent outcomes

We found a strong association between parental RF and adolescent RF. Even though the cross-sectional design of our studyprecludes causal inferences, this finding supports previous conclusions concerning the significance of early relationships, andsocial relationships in general, for the development of an understanding of one’s self and others. For example, longitudinalstudies have indicated that parent’s levels of RF affect their children’s development of understanding of mind (Steele et al.,1999; Meins et al., 2002) and, in a study of behavioral genetics, environmental factors were shown to explain as much as48% of the variance in TOM performance; whereas heredity accounted for only 15% of this variance (Hughes et al., 2005).Finally, there is evidence that social interactions, in general (Carpendale & Lewis, 2004), and parent–infant relationships, inparticular (Fonagy et al., 2007), are significant for the development of an understanding of one’s own mind and the minds ofothers.

Therefore, it may be concluded that the social environment, in general, and parental figures, in particular, affect thedevelopment of reflectivity in children and adolescents. This conclusion does not preclude the possibility of reciprocalrelations between parental RF and adolescent RF and/or other bidirectional processes, whereby parents and children shapeeach other through mutual actions and reactions (Pardini, 2008). Accumulating evidence points to the complex dynamics ofthe parent–child relationships (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). In the present research, we focused on one aspect of these complexdynamics, namely, the associations between parental RF and adolescent outcomes. According to various models, such astransactional theory and social relational theory, RF appears to be a central construct in this dynamic. Hence the importance ofattempts to delineate its role in parent–child relationships.

Our finding that paternal RF is associated with adolescents’ social competence is consistent with those of previous studies.An understanding of one’s self and others has been reported to be associated with social competence among preschoolchildren (Cassidy, Werner, Rourke, Zubernis, & Balaraman, 2003) and preadolescents (Bosacki & Astington, 1999). Maternalperspective-taking and support have also been shown to be associated with adolescents’ perspective-taking and friendshipquality (Soenens, Duriez, Vansteenkiste, & Goossens, 2007); whereas negative and nonsupportive parental responses tochildren’s negative emotions have been associated with children’s lower levels of social and emotional competence(Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinard, 1998).

Most studies of parental RF (e.g., Fonagy et al., 1991; Grienenberger, Kelly, & Slade, 2005) have focused on children’sattachment and social skills and only a few studies (e.g., Sharp et al., 2006) have assessed how reflectivity relates to otherdomains of adjustment, such as emotional problems. This may explain the prevailing view that RF bestows only benefits. Ourunexpected finding that parental RF is associated with more internalizing problems and less positive self-perception amongadolescents challenges this view.

On the one hand, this finding is inconsistent with the reported inverse association between maternal RF and children’spsychopathology symptoms (Sharp et al., 2006). This inconsistency may be related to differences in the methods used toassess parental RF.While we used interviews, Sharp et al. (2006) measured parental RF as the degree of a mother’s accuracy inpredicting her children’s response and compared the mother’s prediction with the child’s self-report. This measure may beinfluenced not only by maternal RF, but also by the child’s ability to accurately report his or her thoughts and feelings.

On the other hand, our finding that parental RF is associated with more internalizing problems and less positive self-perception among adolescent children is consistent with studies on constructs closely related to RF, such as psychologicalmindedness, self-awareness, and self-consciousness. These studies have suggested that reflectivity may be associated withnegative consequences. For example, psychological mindedness has been reported to be associated with lower self-esteem,increased self-criticism, and feelings of anxiety (Farber, 1989). Self-consciousness has been found to be inversely related toself-esteem (Yee & Flanagan, 1985). Social cognitive complexity, a measure of the complexity of positive and negativecognitions of self and other, has been shown to be associated with self-reported depression (Gara, Woolfolk, & Allen, 2002).Finally, high levels of thinking, defined as awareness of feelings and emotions, temporal and conceptual perspective, and self-reflection, have been correlated with depression and anxiety (Pennebaker, Czajka, Cropanzano, & Richards, 1990). Most ofthese studies examined the associations between reflectivity and the studied outcomewithin the same person. However, onestudy examined the association between parental characteristics and adolescent’s outcomes and found that parental

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 171

cognitive resourcefulness (as opposed to confused insensitivity) during the preschool years predicted daughters’ depressivesymptoms during adolescence (Gjerde, Block, & Block, 1991).

Farber (1989) has argued that even though psychological mindedness allows for a better understanding of one’s emotions,attunement to negative emotions may have some less desirable consequences. This argument also evokes the self-absorptionparadox, which states that self-consciousness improves the accuracy of self-knowledge, but at the cost of psychologicaldistress (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999). Trapnell and Campbell (1999) concluded that "[A]ccurate self-perception involves bothcosts and benefits. Removing the rose-colored coating from one’s looking glass is unlikely to enhance self-confidence andoptimism. The interpersonal benefits of accurate self-perceptionmay, however, be substantial" (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999, p.299).

It seems that RF confers a more complex, reality-oriented perception of one’s self and others, including an awareness ofnegative feelings and characteristics. A capacity to acknowledge negative affect in both one’s self and others may be seen asa core requirement for meaningful interactions with others and self-understanding (Steele, Steele, & Johansson, 2002). In theabsence of such a capacity, different aspects of one’s self and others are defensively excluded from the self. Indeed, in a recentstudy, childrenwith higher reflective capacities were more likely to acknowledge their feelings and less prone to underreporttheir symptoms (Ostler, Bahar, & Jessee, 2010). It should be noted that the higher levels of internalizing problems and thelower levels of self-perception that were associated with higher levels of parental RF in the present study were still within thenormal, nonclinical range.

The moderating role of parental RF

We found that parental RF moderates the association between certain parenting behaviors and adolescent outcomes. Highlevels of maternal and paternal warmth were associated with higher levels of adolescent social self-perception only in thepresence of high levels of maternal and paternal RF and high levels of paternal control were associated with lower levels ofadolescent self-perception and social competence, as well as with higher levels of adolescent externalizing problems, only inthe presence of low levels of paternal RF. In other words, parental RF appears to behave as a superordinate dimension thatinfluences the association between parenting behavior and adolescent outcomes. In the presence of higher levels of parentalRF, these parenting behaviors were associated with more positive adolescent outcomes. This finding underscores the need fora shift from a focus on direct links between parenting behaviors and adolescent outcomes to more complex models, whichconsider parental behaviors in the context of other factors (Alink et al., 2009; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Kochanska, Aksan,Knaack, & Rhines, 2004).

The observed moderating role of parental RF may contribute to our understanding of the differences between authori-tarian and authoritative parenting (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritarian parents demand obedience and punish bad behavior.Authoritative parents reason with the child and consider his or her perspective, and this requires RF. Indeed, higher levels ofparental reasoning and perspective-taking have been reported to be related to authoritative patterns of childrearing (Dekovic& Gerris, 1992; Gerris, Dekovic, & Janssens, 1997); whereas an authoritarian parenting style was found to be related to lowerlevels of awareness and sensitivity to children’s signals (Martini, Root, & Jenkins, 2004), as well as negative and distortedattributions (Rudy & Grusec, 2001). Parental RF may facilitate the distinction between adequate control and over- or under-control, and enable parents tomaintain the challenging balance between controlling their adolescent children’s behavior andgranting them some autonomy (Goldstein et al., 2005; Smetana, 2000). Furthermore, parental RF maymoderate the effects ofa child’s characteristics on the behavior of his or her parents. Previous research on bidirectional parent–child effects hasshown that unskilled parents are more likely to be influenced by children’s behavior problems (Patterson, 2002) and thatadolescents’ perceptions of their effectiveness as agents is derived from their parents’ sensitivity and responsiveness to theirneeds (De Mol & Buysse, 2008).

Paternal and maternal RF and adolescent outcomes

While both maternal and paternal RF and parenting behaviors were found to be associated with adolescent outcomes,paternal RF emerged as particularly significant for this sample. This finding is consistent with previously reported obser-vations that paternal variables are more strongly related to adolescent outcomes than maternal variables (e.g., Dekovic &Meeus, 1997; Grossmann et al., 2002; Veneziano, 2003). It has been suggested that, during adolescence, fathers facilitatethe separation-individuation process and the acquisition of autonomy and, for this reason, their role may become moresignificant and pronounced during this period (Shulman & Seiffge-Krenke,1997). Furthermore, an accurate perception of bothone’s self and others, and the capacity to tolerate the negative aspects of this awareness, may be particularly important forfathers. RF may help fathers overcome their tendency to disengage from the emotional lives of their adolescent children and,especially, their tendency to avoid conflict and negative feelings. RF may enable fathers to control their adolescent children ina more appropriate way and move toward an authoritative parenting style, without resorting to permissiveness. According toBronfenbrenner (1985), as the level of stability and structure inWestern society decreases, the relative level of control withinthe family should increase. Hence, the growing significance of RF and adequate parental control in today’s complex and fast-paced society.

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174172

Study limitations and directions for future research

The findings of the present study should be interpreted in the context of its two main limitations. First, most of the familieswho participated in this study were recruited through the snowball technique and all of the participating families included onlymarried parents, thus limiting generalization. Second, the cross-sectional design of our study precludes causal inferences. Onlya longitudinal study of parental RF and adolescent outcomes could provide evidence for causality and help in understandingpossible bidirectional parent–adolescent effects. Future research may further explore the associations between RF, level ofeducation, and intelligence. Third, our finding that parental RF is associated with costs as well as benefits was unexpected. Assuch, it requires confirmation, even though it seems to be supported by previous research. Finally, future researchmay also focuson post-adolescent age groups. It is possible that the significance of parental and adolescent RF will become more apparent inlater years, as adolescents face the complex tasks of adult life, including establishing mature relationships.

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on a doctoral dissertation completed by the first author at the Psychology Department of Ben-GurionUniversity, Beer-Sheva, Israel. Parts of the data were presented at the APA conference in New Orleans in August 2006, and atthe First European Conference on Social, Emotional and Behavior Competence and Difficulties in Children and Young Personsin Malta in September, 2007.

The authors are grateful to the mothers, fathers, and adolescents who participated in this study, and to Lilly Noyfeld, KerenLivni, Lior Pe’er, If’at Bar-Sela, Noga Tzuckert, Efrat Harel, Chen-Li Eshel, Orit Nabriski, Shiri Hoberman, Noa Paz, Gali Bar, andHila Levy for their help with the interviews and with the coding of the transcribed interviews.

Appendix. Examples of high- and low-RF answers

An example of a high-RF answer of the father of a 14-year-old girl:Q: Has S. changed over the last few years?A: I think the changes are more . she feels she should be treated and respected as an older child (attribution of mental

states to child). I guess that, in a way, she is right. We have to undergo changes as well, not only her (envisioning transactionalprocesses between parent and child). She is more assertive, she is more. let’s say argumentative. I’m not sure if it is only forthe sake of winning an argument (the opaqueness of mental states). I mean, it is possible that she is fighting for space(attribution of mental states to child). All of a sudden, her friends seem to be more important to her (envisioning changes ofmental states between past and present). Not that in the past they weren’t, but friends were friends and family was family. But,today, her social life appears to be more important to her (envisioning changes of mental states between past and present). Sheappears to be fully committed and dedicated to her friends. This wasn’t the situation before.

An example of a low-RF answer of the father of a 15-year-old girl:Q: Has N. changed over the last few years?A: No (disavowal).What bothers me is that she gets mad all of a sudden (behavioral account). We have to be gentlewith her,

so we are trying.Q: Has this been happening more frequently over the last few years?A: No, I think may be it’s because she’s a middle child, so. it is typical [behavior for a middle child], this is what I think

(clichéd explanation).Q: Did she change in her social relations or at school?A: No, she is very stable, she knows what is going on and she has good friends (general and superficial account).

An example of a high-RF answer of a 15-year-old girl:Q: Have you ever felt offended by your parents?A: Yes, sure, sure.. It’s always during arguments, when they behave in a wrong way and then I feel offended (association

between mental states and behavior).Q: Can you give me an example?A: If we quarrel and he (i.e., my father) is the one who talks and doesn’t let me answer, or only “shoots”what he has to say,

and the same with my mother, she only “shoots” what she has to say, and doesn’t let me say a word. It is not a realdiscussion; it is only her side of the argument (recognition of diverse perspectives).

Q: Why do you think they behave this way?A: Hmm. I think. let’s say with my mother, she’s at work all the time, her work is a very large part of her life, and petty

children’s issues, such to clean or not to clean and stuff like that.. are petty and annoying things that she doesn’t need now(attribution of mental states to mother), so she loses control (association between mental states and behavior), and she doesnot.. it all amounts to that.

Q: Do you think they understood that you were hurt?A: Yes, yes, several times my mother came and spoke with me afterwards and apologized, and so did my father.

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 173

An example of a low-RF answer of an 18-year-old girl:Q: Have you ever felt offended by your parents?A: Yes, sometimes [I want to] go to the dance club. [My parents say] “No, you go there too often; don’t go now” (direct

quotation), or "There will be no one to take care of your little brother.” Or, since I go quite often, they’ll say, “Nothing willhappen if you give up once” (direct quotation). Do you understand?

Q: I understand. So, in these circumstances, when your dad or mom does not allow you to go out, do you think theyunderstand that you feel hurt?

A: Yes, I immediately start screaming and get mad at them (behavioral description), “No! I want to go!” (direct quotation)and like that. But, after several minutes, they either allow me or I understand them.

Q: What do you mean?A: I understand them, because if they tell me: “Listen, I have no money right now, so I cannot give you any”, then I

understand them (superficial account). I am not going to quarrel with them for money. I am ready to give up, because it’smoney, you understand? But, if I have money [of my own], I’ll take it and go [to the club].

References

Aber, J., Slade, A., Berger, B., Bresgi, I., & Kaplan, M. (1985). The parent development. Unpublished manuscript, The City University of New York.Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for

Children, Youth, & Families.Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Alink, L. R. A., Mesman, J., van Zeijl, J., Stolk, M. N., Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., et al. (2009). Maternal sensitivity moderates the relation between

negative discipline and aggression in early childhood. Social Development, 18(1), 99–120.Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., & Olsen, J. E. (2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: assessing relevance across time, culture, and

method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70(4), 1–137.Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95.Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from experience. London: Heinemann.Blatt, S. J., Chevron, E. S., Quinlan, D. M., Schaffer, C. E., & Wein, S. (1992). The assessment of qualitative and structural dimensions of object representations.

Unpublished manuscript, Yale University at New Haven, CT.Bosacki, S. L., & Astington, J. W. (1999). Theory of mind in preadolescence: relations between social understanding and social competence. Social Devel-

opment, 8(2), 238–255.Bram, A. D., & Gabbard, G. O. (2001). Potential space and reflective functioning. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 82, 685–699.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1985). Freedom and discipline across the decades. In G. Becker, H. Becker, & L. Huber (Eds.), Order and disorder (pp. 326–339).

Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Berlag.Carpendale, J. I. M., & Lewis, C. (2004). Constructing an understanding of mind: the development of children’s social understanding within social inter-

action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(1), 79–96.Cassidy, K. W., Werner, R. S., Rourke, M., Zubernis, L. S., & Balaraman, G. (2003). The relationship between psychological understanding and positive social

behaviors. Social Development, 12(2), 198–221.Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496.De Mol, J., & Buysse, A. (2008). Understanding of children’s influence in parent-child Relationships: a Q-methodological study. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 25(2), 359–379.Dekovic, M., & Gerris, R. M. (1992). Parental reasoning complexity, social class, and child-rearing behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3),

675–785.Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. (1997). Peer relations in adolescence: effects of parenting and adolescents’ self-concept. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 163–176.Diamond, D., & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Internal working models and the representational world in attachment and psychoanalytic theories. In M. B. Sperling, & W.

H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults (pp. 72–97). New York: The Guilford Press.Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273.Farber, B. A. (1989). Psychological mindedness: can there be too much of a good thing? Psychotherapy, 26(2), 210–217.Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E. L., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press.Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., & Target, M. (2007). The parent-infant dyad and the construction of the subjective self. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

48(3–4), 288–328.Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Moran, G. S., & Higgit, A. C. (1991). The capacity for understanding mental states: the reflective self in parent and child and

its significance for security of attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 12(3), 201–218.Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: their role in self- organization. Developmental Psychopathology, 9(4), 679–700.Fonagy, P., Target, M., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1998). Reflective-functioning manual for application to Adult Attachment Interview, Version 5. Unpublished

Manuscript, University College London.Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2),

213–221.Gara, M. A., Woolfolk, R. L., & Allen, L. A. (2002). Social cognitive complexity and depression: cognitive complexity moderates the correlation between

depression self- ratings and global self-evaluation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190(10), 670–676.Gerris, R. M., Dekovic, M., & Janssens, M. A. M. (1997). The relationship between social class and childrearing behaviors: parents’ perspective taking and

value orientations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(4), 834–847.Gjerde, P. F., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1991). The preschool family context of 18 year olds with depressive symptoms: a prospective study. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 1, 63–91.Goldstein, S. E., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents, peers, and problem behavior: a longitudinal investigation of the impact of relationship

perceptions and characteristics on the development of adolescent problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 401–413.Grienenberger, J. F., Kelly, K., & Slade, A. (2005). Maternal reflective functioning, mother- infant affective communication, and infant attachment: Exploring

the link between mental states and observed caregiving behavior in the intergenerational transmission of attachment. Attachment & Human Devel-opment, 7(3), 299–311.

Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship: fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11(3),321–331.

Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: a reconceptualization of current points ofviews. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4–19.

Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Kuczynski, L. (2000). New directions in analyses of parenting contributions to children’s acquisition of values. Child Devel-opment, 71(1), 205–211.

N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174174

Hastings, P., & Grusec, J. E. (1997). Conflict outcome as a function of parental accuracy in perceiving child cognitions and affect. Social Development, 6(1), 76–90.Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescence. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Denver.Heider, D., Matschinger, H., Bernert, S., Alonso, J., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2006). Relationship between parental bonding and mood disorder in six European

countries. Psychiatry Research, 143, 89–98.Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). (pp. 162–178)

New York: John Wiley & Sons.Hughes, C., Jaffee, S. R., Happe, F., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Origins of individual differences in theory of mind: from nature to nurture? Child

Development, 76(2), 356–370.Humfress, H., O’Connor, T. G., Slaughter, J., Target, M., & Fonagy, P. (2002). General and relationship-specific models of social cognition: explaining the

overlap and discrepancies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(7), 873–883.Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of

monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366–380.Klimes-Dougan, B., Brand, A., Zahn-Waxler, C., Usher, B., Hastings, P., Kendziora, K., & Garside, R. (2007). Parental emotion socialization in adolescence:

differences in sex, age and problem status. Social Development, 16(2), 326–342.Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Knaack, A., & Rhines, H. M. (2004). Maternal parenting and children’s conscience: early security as moderator. Child Development,

75(4), 1229–1242.Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, C. M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D.

Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259–283). New York: The Guilford Press.Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and

sympathy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 759–782.Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2004). The development and significance of father-child relationships in two-parent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the

father in child development (4th ed.). (pp. 272–305) New York: John Wiley & Sons.Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York: Basic Books.Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) model of attachment: findings and

directions for future research. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 127–159). New York: RoutledgePublication.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1994). Adult attachment rating and classification system. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.Martini, T. S., Root, C. A., & Jenkins, J. M. (2004). Low and middle income mothers’ regulation of negative emotion: effects of children’s temperament and

situational emotional responses. Social Development, 13(4), 515–530.Meins, E., & Fernyhough, C. (1999). Linguistic acquisitional style and mentalising development: the role of maternal mind-mindedness. Cognitive Devel-

opment, 14, 363–380.Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Wainwright, R., Das Gupta, M., Fradley, E., & Tuckey, M. (2002). Maternal mind-mindedness and attachment security as predictors

of theory of mind understanding. Child Development, 73(6), 1715–1726.Ostler, T., Bahar, O., & Jessee, A. (2010). Mentalization in children exposed to parental methamphetamine abuse: relation to children’s mental health and

behavioral outcomes. Attachment & Human Development, 12(3), 193–207.Pardini, D. A. (2008). Novel insights into longstanding theories of bidirectional parent-child influence: introduction to the special section. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 627–631.Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10.Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early development of coercive family process. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and

adolescents: A developmental analysis and the Oregon model for intervention (pp. 25–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Pennebaker, J. W., Czajka, J. A., Cropanzano, R., & Richards, B. C. (1990). Levels of thinking (with Brumbelow, S., Ferrara, K., Thompson, R., & Thyssen, T.).

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(4), 743–757.Phares, V., Fields, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with their adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 1–9.Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and

latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (2001). Correlates of authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist cultures and implications for understanding the

transmission of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(2), 202–212.Sharp, C., Fonagy, P., & Goodyer, I. M. (2006). Imagining your child’s mind: Psychosocial adjustment and mothers’ ability to predict their children’s attri-

butional response styles. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 197–214.Shulman, S., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1997). Fathers and adolescents: Developmental and clinical perspectives. London: Routledge.Sillars, A., Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2005). Communication and understanding in parent-adolescent relationships. Human Communication Research,

31(1), 102–128.Slade, A. (2005). Parental reflective functioning: an introduction. Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 269–281.Slade, A., Belsky, J., Aber, J. L., & Phelps, J. L. (1999). Mothers’ representations of their relationships with their toddlers: links to adult attachment and

observed mothering. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 611–619.Slade, A., Bernbach, E., Grienenberger, J., Wohlgemath-Levy, D., & Locker, A. (2001). Addendum to reflective functioning scoring manual for use with the

parent development interview. Unpublished manuscript, The City College and Graduate Center of the City University of New York.Smetana, J. G. (2000). Middle-class African-American adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority and parenting practices: a longitudinal

investigation. Child Development, 71(6), 1672–1686.Soenens, B., Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Goossens, L. (2007). The intergenerational transmission of empathy-related responding in adolescence: the role

of maternal support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 299–311.Steele, H., Steele, M., Croft, C., & Fonagy, P. (1999). Infant–mother attachment at one year predicts children’s understanding of mixed emotions at six years.

Social Development, 8(2), 161–178.Steele, M., Steele, H., & Johansson, M. (2002). Maternal predictors of children’s social cognition: an attachment perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 43(7), 861–872.Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Shmueli-Goetz, Y. (2003). Attachment representations in school-age children: the development of the child attachment interview

(CAI). Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29(2), 171–186.Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the Five-Factor model of personality: distinguishing rumination from reflection.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 284–304.Veneziano. (2003). The importance of paternal warmth. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(3), 265–281.Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY:

Sharpe.Waugh, R. F. (2001). Measuring ideal and real self-concept on the same scale, based on multifaceted, hierarchical model of self-concept. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 85–101.Wood, J. J., & Repetti, R. L. (2004). What gets dad involved? A longitudinal study of change in parental child caregiving involvement. Journal of Family

Psychology, 18(1), 237–249.Yee, D. K., & Flanagan, C. (1985). Family environments and self-consciousness in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5(1), 59–68.