JSPR
Article
Self-disclosure to parents
in emerging adulthood:
Examining the roles of
perceived parental
responsiveness and
separation–individuation
Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships
1–21
ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0265407516640603
spr.sagepub.com
L. Crystal Jiang1, Ian Ming Yang1, and Chen-Jun Wang1,2
Abstract
The parent–child relationship normally experiences a significant change during the
transition from adolescence to adulthood. However, there is much left to understand
about how this transition affects and is affected by the communication between
parents and emerging adults. A survey conducted among 490 Hong Kong university
students examined their self-disclosure to their parents as an interpersonal process
centered on perceived parental responsiveness and the role of separation–individuation in this self-disclosure process. The results support the idea that perceived
parental responsiveness mediates the link between self-disclosure and relationship
quality in the context of parent–child relationships. Dysfunctional independence
predicts less self-disclosure, perceptions of less parental responsiveness, and poorer
parent–child relationship quality. Significant gender differences were found on dysfunctional independence, self-disclosure, perceived parental responsiveness, and
parent–child relationship quality. Young women with dysfunctional dependence disclosed less positive information, perhaps driven by an excessive need for attention
and care.
1
2
Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
School of Journalism and Communication, Nanjing University, China
Corresponding author:
L. Crystal Jiang, Department of Media and Communication, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong,
Hong Kong.
Email: crystal.jiang@cityu.edu.hk
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
2
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Keywords
Emerging adulthood, parent–child relationship, perceived responsiveness,
self-disclosure, separation–individuation
Introduction
The parent–child relationship in emerging adulthood is often discussed in the context of
separation–individuation—a developmental process whereby young adults increase their
sense of differentiation and independence from their parents and create a unique identity
(Kins, Soenens, & Beyers, 2012; Koepke & Denissen, 2012). Research has identified
separation–individuation as a critical process in the transition to adulthood, connecting it
to a variety of significant personal outcomes including psychological well-being
(McClanahan & Holmbeck, 1992), adjustment to college (Klasner & Pistole, 2003;
Lapsley, Rice, & Shadid, 1989) as well as career development (Blustein, Walbridge,
Friedlander, & Palladino, 1991; Lucas, 1997). However, there has been a lack of research
examining the interpersonal outcomes of separation–individuation. For example, it
remains unclear how separation–individuation may influence the communication
between young adults and parents and ultimately parent–child relationship quality.
This study was designed to examine the role of separation–individuation in parent–
child communication during emerging adulthood by focusing on young adults’ selfdisclosure process. Here, ‘‘emerging adults’’ refer to young adults aged approximately
18–30 who face the developmental tasks of taking responsibility for themselves,
becoming independent in personal decision-making and personal finance (Arnett,
2000). Drawing on the interpersonal process model of intimacy (IPMI; Reis & Shaver,
1988), this study conceptualized self-disclosure as an interpersonal process whereby
both self-disclosure and perceived parental responsiveness jointly affect parent–child
relationship quality. Building on IPMI’s theorization of relational schemas, the study
further proposed dysfunctional separation–individuation as a unique relational schema
in emerging adulthood that could affect young adults’ self-disclosure to parents as
well as their perceptions of parental responsiveness and parent–child relationship
quality (see Figure 1).
Self-disclosure process in parent–child relationships
As one of the most fundamental interpersonal behaviors, self-disclosure involves strategic management of personal information along dimensions such as valence (the social
desirability of the information disclosed), honesty (the extent of accurate and unconcealed self-revelation), amount (the extent of personal information exchange), and
control of depth (the intimacy or privacy level of the information disclosed; Wheeless &
Grotz, 1976). The regulation of self-disclosure is sensitive to the context in various
situations, relationships, and cultures (Dindia, Fitzpatrick, & Kenny, 1997; Petronio,
2002). In parent–child communication, besides making the decision about disclosure
versus nondisclosure, family members may avoid certain topics (e.g., parents and children avoid talking about divorce), conceal information (e.g., a mother hides the father’s
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
3
Jiang et al.
Relational schema
DSIa
- Separation anxiety
- Engulfment anxiety
- Dependency denial
Relationship
quality
SDb
- Amount
- Depth
- Honesty
- Valence
Perceived
responsiveness
-
Intimacy
Relationship
Satisfaction
Figure 1. A conceptual model for emerging adults’ self-disclosure process. aDSI denotes
dysfunctional separation–individuation. bSD denotes self-disclosure.
alcoholism in front of children), provide misinformation (e.g., a child lies about engaging risky behaviors), or selectively disclose the information desired by the other party
(e.g., a child only talks about good news in school). Previous studies have also indicted
that self-disclosure between adolescents and their parents varies in relation to individual
dispositions (Finkenauer, Engels, Branje, & Meeus, 2004), parenting styles (TiltonWeaver, 2013), family structures (Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson, & Baker, 2007;
McManus & Nussbaum, 2013), and topic valence (McManus & Nussbaum, 2013;
Tenzek, Herrman, May, Feiner, & Allen, 2013).
Cultural context is another factor that profoundly affects self-disclosure. While there
is a lack of research examining self-disclosure in the parent–child relationship across
culture, a substantial body of intercultural literature has documented significant societal
differences in self-disclosure (for a review, see Lustig & Koester, 2013). For example,
East Asians tend to disclose less than Westerners in general (for a review, see Schug,
Yuki, & Maddux, 2010), but they are also found to make greater self-disclosure to close
social ties and in-group members (Marshall, 2008). Such differences are further
explained by intercultural differences in individualism–collectivism (Lustig & Koester,
2013), role expectation (Marshall, 2008), relationship mobility (Schug et al., 2010), and
so on. These explanations also account for within-culture differences in self-disclosure.
For instance, Marshall (2008) suggests that Chinese Canadians’ gender-role traditionalism, defined as ideological beliefs about gender roles, contributes to their lower selfdisclosure and intimacy in romantic relationships.
Self-disclosure has been consistently linked to a number of indicators of relationship
quality including intimacy, relationship satisfaction, and liking (Greene, Derlega, &
Mathews, 2006). Self-disclosure and relationship quality are considered ‘‘mutually
transformative’’ since self-disclosure affects the nature of the relationship, which in turns
shapes self-disclosure and its interpretation (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993;
Finkenauer et al., 2004). Most scholars consider self-disclosure to be a dyadic process in
which both the discloser and the recipient affect how the self-disclosure is performed and
understood (Dindia et al., 1997; Reis & Shaver, 1988). The IPMI, for example,
emphasizes the importance of perceived partner responsiveness, which is defined as the
extent to which the partner’s communication is perceived as oriented toward the
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
4
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
discloser’s core needs (Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). The IPMI framework considers
perceived partner responsiveness as a critical mediator between self-disclosure and
relationship quality: A responsive expression from the partner can generate the feelings
of being understood and cared for and is more likely to facilitate the development of
intimacy. A response that expresses disinterest or fails to address the discloser’s needs
may, in contrast, downgrade the discloser’s self-perceptions of worth and promote
subsequent distancing behavior.
The mediating role of perceived partner responsiveness has been empirically validated in a variety of close relationships (for a review, see Jiang & Hancock, 2013;
Laurenceau, Rivera, Schaffer, & Pietromonaco, 2004). In parent–child relationships,
studies have, respectively, associated parental responsiveness to self-disclosure and
parent–child relationship quality. Adolescents disclose more and keep fewer secrets
when they view their parents as supportive (Tilton-Weaver, 2013; Tokić & Pećnik,
2011). Responsive parenting that attends to a child’s needs would be expected to shape
secure attachment and a healthier parent–child interaction (Bowlby, 2008; Karavasilis,
Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003; Reis, 2007). Young adults report greatest satisfaction with
fathers who are perceived as being supportive (Beatty & Dobos, 1992). This study first
tested for any such effect of perceived parental responsiveness by hypothesizing it as a
mediator between young adults’ self-disclosure to their parents and relationship quality.
H1: Perceived parental responsiveness will mediate the effects of young adults’
self-disclosure on their perceptions of parent–child relationship quality.
The IPMI framework theorizes that, in addition to the influence of perceived
responsiveness, the nature of the relationship and two partners’ personalities as well as
relationship dispositions greatly affect the performance and interpretation of selfdisclosure. It categorizes a variety of relational motives, needs, goals, and expectations in terms of relational schemas and posits that they influence the self-disclosure
process by moderating the degree to which interlocutors self-disclose and respond to
partners (Laurenceau et al., 2004). Besides their behavioral effects on self-disclosure and
responsiveness, the relational schemas also function as interpretative filters which
moderate the degree to which and the way in which interlocutors perceive each other’s
behavior. For instance, responsiveness perception is not always consistent with the
actual behavior intended. The discloser may interpret a response in a variety of ways, as
an expression of intimacy, an odd statement, or a casual greeting, depending on whether
he or she seeks connectedness (Laurenceau et al., 2004, p. 65). If the discloser desires
being psychologically closer to the partner, with such an ‘‘intimate’’ schema activated,
he or she is more likely to interpret the partner’s reactions as responsive.
Extensive previous research has shown (not necessarily within the IPMI framework)
that several individual dispositions and relational goals function as relational schemas to
affect self-disclosure and the interpretation of responsiveness. For example, individuals
with different attachment styles differ in their self-disclosure and in perceptions
of intimacy and partner responsiveness (Grabill & Kerns, 2000; Mikulincer & Nachshon,
1991). Relative to self-image goals, compassionate goals increase one’s own responsiveness and lead to greater perceptions of partner responsiveness through both
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
5
Jiang et al.
projection and true reciprocation (Canevello & Crocker, 2010; Crocker & Canevello,
2008). This study proposed separation–individuation as a useful relational schema for
analyzing the parent–child relationship during emerging adulthood and empirically
tested its effects on young adults’ self-disclosure to parents and their perceptions of
parent–child relationship.
Separation–individuation in emerging adulthood
Separation from one’s parents and individuation are considered key and challenging
developmental tasks during late adolescence and early adulthood. They involve forging
an adult identity, developing self-reliance, redefining mutuality and balance of authority
in the parent–child relationship, and obtaining an optimal balance between distance and
closeness (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). Adjustment leads to the emergence of an integrated self-identity that sustains a healthy degree of separation from and closeness to
significant others (Kins, Beyers, & Soenens, 2013; Mayseless & Scharf, 2009).
Kins et al. (2012) have identified two dysfunctional separation–individuation trajectories that fail to achieve an optimal balance between autonomy and positive relatedness. Dysfunctional dependence occurs when autonomy is sacrificed by excessively
seeking for closeness from others, whereas dysfunctional independence reflects a tendency to be strongly preoccupied with individuation at the expense of the need for
relatedness. Dysfunctional dependence and dysfunctional independence are represented
in some scales in the Separation–Individuation Test of Adolescence (SITA; Levine,
Green, & Millon, 1986) that measure problematic separation–individuation. For example, engulfment anxiety (fear for being overwhelmed by intimate relationships) and
dependency denial (rejection of interpersonal needs) are thought to reflect dysfunctional
independence, whereas separation anxiety (fear of losing touch with an attachment
figure) and nurturance seeking (seeking for affection and protection) reflect dysfunctional dependence (Kins et al., 2013; Mayseless & Scharf, 2009).
The distinction between dysfunctional dependence and dysfunctional independence is
further explicated in relation to attachment style and parenting behavior. Attachment
theory (Bowlby, 1969) argues that how individuals react to the event of separation
depends on their working attachment models developed early in life. While individuals
with secure attachment are likely to respond adaptively, those with insecure attachment
experience more threat and may as such fail the developmental task. In particular,
dysfunctional dependence is primarily related to attachment-related anxiety (i.e.,
excessive anxiety regarding separation from home and loss of close relationships) and
dysfunctional independence is primarily related to attachment avoidance (i.e., keeping a
distance from others; Kins et al., 2013; Kruse & Walper, 2008). It has been shown that
both can be driven by parental directiveness that is not responsive to a child’s needs
(Kins et al., 2012; Mayseless & Scharf, 2009). Excessive psychological control to
achieve family dependence and interpersonal closeness can restrict the need for
exploring and expressing individuation, leading to dysfunctional dependence. By contrast, parental psychological control driven by the desire for achievement and perfection
can trigger dysfunctional independence by imposing parental standards and expressing
excessive urging in favor of individual performance (Kins et al., 2012).
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
6
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
These two separation–individuation orientations presumably have different
impacts on parent–child communication and communication in close relationships in
general. In particular, dysfunctional independence is thought to be associated with
restricted self-disclosure. When young adults prioritize the need for individuation
over the need for connectedness, they may cognitively and emotionally set themselves apart from parents and other significant others and purposely restrict social
exchange in order to distance themselves (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). For example,
adolescent research on self-disclosure about sex (Papini, Snell, Belk, & Clark, 2001)
shows that engulfment anxiety and dependency denial, two elements of dysfunctional
independence, were correlated with less willingness to discuss sexual behavior,
values, and preferences with an intimate partner. Dysfunctional independence is
therefore expected to function as a negative schema that reduces young adults’ selfdisclosure to their parents.
H2: Dysfunctional independence among young adults is associated with reduced
self-disclosure to parents.
Dysfunctional independence should also create a distancing interpretive filter when a
young adult interprets parental responses and the overall quality of parent–child relationship. While no empirical evidence directly demonstrating this coloring effect has
been published, Wheeler, Wintre, and Polivy (2003) have shown that young adults
struggling to establish their identity and autonomy tend to perceive less parental reciprocity. Research on perceived responsiveness has consistently demonstrated that
attachment avoidance, the theoretical correlate of dysfunctional independence, can
induce a negative projection of little perceived responsiveness (Clark & Lemay, 2010).
H3: Dysfunctional independence is associated with (a) perceptions of less parental
responsiveness and (b) poor quality of the parent–child relationship, after controlling for self-disclosure effects.
There has been little research on how dysfunctional dependence may affect young
adults’ self-disclosure and the quality of their relationships with their parents. Some
studies have looked the relationship between attachment-related anxiety (the theoretical correlate of dysfunctional dependence) and self-disclosure. Individuals high in
attachment-related anxiety use self-disclosure of problems and distress as a means of
merging with others (Maunder, Lancee, Nolan, Hunter, & Tannenbaum, 2006), but
due to the fear of abandonment, they are more ambivalent about expressing needs,
more sensitive to negative events and tones in close relationships, and less satisfied
with their self-disclosure with their partners (Bauminger, Finzi-Dottan, Chason, &
Har-Even, 2008; Bradford, Feeney, & Campbell, 2002). We speculate that individuals
with dysfunctional dependence may similarly use self-disclosure as a means for
seeking for attention achieving closeness (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). Therefore, this
study empirically examines how dysfunctional dependence is related to selfdisclosure, perceived parental responsiveness, and relationship quality within the
IPMI framework.
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
7
Jiang et al.
Methods
Participants and procedure
Five hundred and five unmarried young adults were recruited from undergraduate and
postgraduate courses in several Hong Kong universities to participate in an online survey
in exchange for extra course credit or a cash coupon that worth 50 Hong Kong dollars,
depending on their choice. They were told that the purpose of the survey was to better
understand how young people communicate with their parents, and that they would be
required to complete an online questionnaire about their personal traits, recent interactions with their primary parent (either father or mother), and parent–child relationship
quality. The research plan was approved by the institutional review board at the university the authors are affiliated with. The survey questions were presented in both
English and Traditional Chinese. A pretest was conducted with 15 students to obtain
constructive comments on the first version of the questionnaire. Modifications in
wording and question presentation were made based on those comments.
After removing 15 participants who were older than 30, the final sample consisted of
490 people (351 females, 128 male, and 11 who did not indicate their gender) whose ages
ranged from 17 to 30 (M ¼ 21 years, SD ¼ 3.26). Most of them are ethnic Chinese (53%
Hong Kong Chinese and 42% Mainland Chinese). Nearly half of them (46%) lived with
their parents; an additional 10% lived apart from their parents in the same city and 44%
lived geographically apart from their parents. About 13% claimed a monthly family
income of less than HK$9,000, 25% between HK$9,000 and 14,999, 50% between
HK$15,000 and 49,999, and 11% above HK$50,000. The majority (85%) of the participants identified their mother and 15% identified their father as the primary parent.
Measures
Self-disclosure. Twelve items from the Revised Self-Disclosure Scale (RSDS; Wheeless &
Grotz, 1976) were used to assess the degree to which a participant had disclosed personal
information and their feelings to the primary parent during the previous month. The
RSDS has demonstrated good reliability and validity for measuring self-disclosure in
both Western and Eastern cultures (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006; Leung, 2002; Ma &
Leung, 2006; Myers, 1998; Myers & Johnson, 2004). Self-disclosure amount (e.g., ‘‘I
usually spend long time when I am discussing myself’’; Cronbach’s a ¼ .71), control of
depth (e.g., ‘‘When I talk to my parent, I often disclose intimate, personal things about
myself without hesitation’’; Cronbach’s a ¼ .76), honesty (e.g., ‘‘I always feel completely sincere when I reveal my own feelings and experiences to my parent’’; Cronbach’s a ¼ .79), and valence (e.g., ‘‘When I talk to my parent, I usually don’t mention
negative things about myself’’; Cronbach’s a ¼ .68) were each measured by 3 items on a
7-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ completely disagree, 7 ¼ completely agree).
Perceived parental responsiveness. The Perceived Responsiveness Scale (4 items; Reis,
Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011) was modified to assess the degree to
which a participant felt their primary parent had been responsive to their self-disclosure
in the previous month. This scale has been successfully applied to study a range of
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
8
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
general relationships such as romantic couples, siblings, friends, coworkers, and leaders
and their subordinates (for a review, see Reis, 2007). The 4 items were, ‘‘On the
whole, in the recent interactions, I get the feeling that my parent really listens to me/
values my abilities and opinions/respects me/is responsive to my needs.’’ Response
was again on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ completely not true, 7 ¼ completely
true; Cronbach’s a ¼ .92).
Intimacy. A shorter version of Miller’s Social Intimacy Scale (7 items; Jiang, Bazarova, &
Hancock, 2011; Miller & Lefcourt, 1982) was used to assess how close the participant
felt to their parent during the interactions (e.g., ‘‘I’d like confide very personal
information to my parent’’) on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ completely not true,
7 ¼ completely true; Cronbach’s a ¼ .87).
Relationship satisfaction. The Marital Opinion Questionnaire (Huston, McHale, & Crouter,
1986) was used to assess the degree to which a participant felt satisfied with their parent–
child relationship using a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼ completely not true, 7 ¼ completely
true; Cronbach’s a ¼ .91). This measure, although originally developed for assessing
marriage satisfaction, has been used and validated (Caughlin & Malis, 2004; Kanter,
Afifi, & Robbins, 2012) to assess the young adults’ relationship satisfaction with their
parent. Eight items were modified to refer to the parent–child relationship (e.g., ‘‘when I
think about my recent relationship with my parent, on the whole my relationship with my
parent is miserable/brings out the best in me/worthwhile’’).
Separation–individuation. The SITA (Levine et al., 1986) was adopted to assess dysfunctional independence and dysfunctional dependence, again using a 7-point Likert
scale (1 ¼ completely disagree, 7 ¼ completely agree). The SITA scale contains nine
subscales and a total of 103 items. In this study, we only used three subscales (engulfment anxiety, dependency denial, and separation anxiety) to reduce the burden on
participants. Dysfunctional independence was assessed in terms of engulfment anxiety
(7 items; e.g. ‘‘Sometimes my parents are so overprotective I feel smothered’’; Cronbach’s a ¼ .83) and dependency denial (12 items; e.g. ‘‘I don’t see the point of most
warm, affectionate relationships’’; Cronbach’s a ¼ .84). Dysfunctional dependence was
operationalized as separation anxiety and measured by 14 items (e.g., ‘‘Being alone is a
very scary idea for me’’; Cronbach’s a ¼ .79).
Analysis
Before testing our hypotheses, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was
conducted on all the measures to identify any significant differences associated with
gender, age, place of residence, coresidence with parents, or the gender of the primary
parent identified.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses (see Table 1 for a
correlation matrix relating all of the variables). Following standard SEM model fitting
procedures, confirmatory factor analysis was first applied to construct a measurement
model for all the latent variables. In structural models, perceived parental responsiveness
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
Table 1. Correlations between self-disclosure dimensions, perceived responsiveness, relationship quality, and separation–individuation.
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
Amount
Valence
Depth
Honesty
Responsiveness
Intimacy
Satisfaction
Separation anxiety
Engulfment anxiety
Dependency denial
Mean
SD
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Amount
Valence
Depth
Honesty
Responsiveness
Intimacy
Satisfaction
Separation
anxiety
Engulfment
anxiety
Dependency
denial
1.00
.31**
.63**
.50**
.36**
.53**
.35**
.01
.20**
.15**
4.02
1.21
1.00
.25**
.10*
.14**
.02
.13**
.15**
.07
.03
4.38
1.21
1.00
.67**
.37**
.60**
.39**
.03
.17**
.11*
4.03
1.34
1.00
.44**
.62**
.51**
.18**
.32**
.26**
4.70
1.28
1.00
.71**
.72**
.12*
.37**
.27**
5.37
1.24
1.00
.79**
.14**
.42**
.31**
4.97
1.08
1.00
.19**
.46**
.39**
5.39
1.05
1.00
.29**
.30**
3.79
0.86
1.00
.41**
3.20
1.14
1.00
2.75
0.87
9
10
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
was first modelled as a mediator between self-disclosure dimensions and parent–child
relationship quality. The two dysfunctional separation–individuation orientations were
then modeled as relational schemas in the parent–child communication as proposed in
the conceptual model of Figure 1. The structural modeling was tested by version 21.0 of
the AMOS software package.
The SEM results were evaluated using several fit indices, including chi-squared
divided by the number of degrees of freedom (w2/df), the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR; Kline, 2011). In order to test for any mediating effect of
perceived parental responsiveness, bootstrapping (3,000 bootstrap samples) was used to
estimate standardized indirect effects.
Results
The MANCOVA analysis revealed some significant differences associated with the
participants’ age, gender, and place of residence. The main effect of age was significant,
F(10, 464) ¼ 2.98, p < .01, partial Z2 ¼ .06. Age has a positive association with selfdisclosure valence, b ¼ .07, SE ¼ .02, t(478) ¼ 3.63, p < .001. Older participants claimed
to make more positive self-disclosure. Although it is not a focus of this study, it is
interesting to note that there was a significant main effect of place of residence,
F(20,922) ¼ 2.46, p < .001, partial Z2 ¼ .12. Participants from mainland China perceived
their primary parents as more responsive, said they felt more intimate with them, and
professed greater satisfaction with the relationship with their parents; all t > 4.08, all
p < .001, partial Z2 * (.03, .08). There was no significant difference between those who
lived with their parents and those who did not, p ¼ .23.
A significant main effect of gender was also found, F(10,464) ¼ 3.30, p < .001, partial
Z2 ¼ .07 (see Table 2 for detailed statistics on the gender differences). Females reported
less engulfment anxiety and dependence denial than males and claimed to make more
frequent, intimate, honest, and non-positive disclosure. They also perceived greater
parental responsiveness and intimacy and claimed to feel greater relationship satisfaction, although the effect sizes were quite small. No significant gender difference was
found with respect to separation anxiety. Due to the pronounced gender differences, in
SEM analysis, we performed tests of measurement invariance and structural invariance
(Kline, 2011) to see if gender further affected the dynamics of self-disclosure process.
Critical ratios for differences between parameters were used to judge whether two
coefficients differed significantly (with Z-scores greater than 1.96 indicating significant
differences).
In SEM, a measurement model was constructed to validate the measures. While most
items loaded on the prespecified constructs, two issues emerged. First, control of depth
and honesty in self-disclosure were highly correlated (r ¼ .67, p < .001) and loaded on
the same factor in principal component analysis. Given that in close relationships,
making honest self-disclosure could also mean having lower control of depth in selfdisclosure, we collapsed the two constructs as control of depth. Second, intimacy and
relationship satisfaction, the two indicators of relationship quality, were also highly
correlated (r ¼ .79, p < .001) but did not load on the same factor in principal component
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
11
Jiang et al.
Table 2. Gender differences in separation–individuation, self-disclosure, and relationship
perceptions.
Male
Variables
Amount
Depth
Honesty
Valence
Responsiveness
Satisfaction
Intimacy
Separation anxiety
Engulfment anxiety
Dependency denial
Female
M
SE
M
SE
F(1, 473)
Partial Z2
3.66
3.79
4.42
4.63
5.14
5.21
4.74
3.72
3.42
2.97
.11
.12
.11
.10
.10
.09
.09
.08
.10
.08
4.14
4.11
4.81
4.29
5.43
5.45
5.05
3.82
3.12
2.68
.06
.07
.07
.06
.06
.05
.06
.05
.06
.05
14.47***
4.98*
8.48**
7.74**
5.89*
5.12*
8.27**
1.31
6.46*
10.84**
.03
.01
.02
.02
.01
.01
.02
.00
.01
.02
Stars indicate significant gender differences (significance level: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001).
analysis. We instead added a latent construct of relationship quality and modeled intimacy and relationship satisfaction as second-order factors for relationship quality (for
intimacy, l ¼ .98; for relationship satisfaction, l ¼ .92). The final measurement model
achieved acceptable model fit: w2 ¼ 2707.52, df ¼ 1,385, w2/df ¼ 1.95; RMSEA ¼ .04,
95% CI [.04, .05]; CFI ¼ .91; SRMR ¼ .07. Factor loadings of latent variables were
invariant across gender (all Z-scores less than 1.96).
Self-disclosure, perceived parental responsiveness, and relationship quality
To validate the IPMI tenets, our structural model first modeled perceived parental
responsiveness as a mediator between three self-disclosure dimensions (amount, control
of depth, and valence) and relationship quality. All the model fit indices were within
acceptable ranges: w2 ¼ 1154.40, df ¼ 411, w2/df ¼ 2.81; RMSEA ¼ .06, 95% CI [.05,
.06]; CFI ¼ .92; SRMR ¼ .08.
We then proceeded to interpret the path coefficients in the models. H1 proposed that
perceptions of parental responsiveness would mediate the relationship between the
young adults’ self-disclosure dimensions and parent–child relationship quality. In support for the mediation hypothesis, amount, control of depth, and valence positively
predicted perceived parental responsiveness, which in turn positively predicted relationship quality (see Figure 2 for path coefficients). The indirect effects of selfdisclosure dimensions were all significant, all p < .01; bamount ¼ .16, SE ¼ .07, 95%
CI [.05, 30]; bdepth ¼ .22, SE ¼ .06, 95% CI [.12, 31]; bvalence ¼ .20, SE ¼ .04, 95% CI
[.13, 27]. The mediation effects were partial as amount, control of depth, and valence
remained as positive predictors for relationship quality while controlling for the effect of
perceived parental responsiveness (see Figure 2 for path coefficients). That is, young
adults who self-disclosed frequently, intimately, and positively perceived greater relationship quality, and such effects also depended on the extent to which they perceived
more positive responses from their parents.
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
12
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Figure 2. A structural model testing perceived parental responsiveness as a mediator between
self-disclosure dimensions and relationship quality. Nonsignificant paths are not presented for
simplicity; path coefficients presented are all significant. *p < .05; **p < .01; **p < .001.
The multigroup comparison suggested that such pattern of mediation held for both
males and females. Significant differences were found for the effect of valence on
responsiveness and the effect of control of depth on relationship quality. Valence showed
a stronger relationship with perceived parental responsiveness among males (b ¼ .58, SE
¼ .16) than among females (b ¼ .27, SE ¼ .07), Z ¼ 2.49. Relative to young women,
young men’s perceptions of parental responsiveness depended more on their positive
self-disclosure. Similarly, control of depth showed a stronger association with relationship quality among males (b ¼ .57, SE ¼ .16) than among females (b ¼ .25, SE ¼
.07), Z ¼ 1.99. Relative to young women, young men’s perceptions of parent–child
relationship quality were more associated with the intimate level of their self-disclosure.
Dysfunctional separation–individuation and self-disclosure
To investigate whether or not dysfunctional separation–individuation serves as a relational schema in parent–child communication, as proposed in Figure 1, the three subconstructs of dysfunctional separation–individuation (engulfment anxiety, dependency
denial, and separation anxiety) were added into the structural model. The model also
demonstrated an acceptable fit: w2 ¼ 3121.07, df ¼ 1,599, w2/df ¼ 1.95; RMSEA ¼ .04,
95% CI [.04, .05]; CFI ¼ .90; SRMR ¼ .07. Adding those variables did not change the
pattern of mediation, so the results are not reported in detail (see Figure 3 for path
coefficients).
H2 proposed that dysfunctional independence should be associated with reduced selfdisclosure. The results showed that engulfment anxiety was indeed negatively associated
with amount (b ¼ .26, SE ¼ .06) and control of depth (b ¼ .28, SE ¼ .06) in selfdisclosure, both significant at the p < .001 level. No significant relationship was found
relating engulfment anxiety and valence (b ¼ .03, SE ¼ .06, p ¼ .70). However,
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
Figure 3. A structural model testing the effects of dysfunctional separation–individuation on the self-disclosure process. Nonsignificant paths are not
presented for simplicity; path coefficients presented are all significant. *p < .05; **p < .01; **p <.001.
13
14
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
dependency denial, the other indicator of dysfunctional independence, was not associated with any self-disclosure dimensions, all p > .08. Thus, H2 was thus only partially
supported, with engulfment anxiety appearing to be an inhibitor for young adults to selfdisclose to their parents.
H3 proposed that dysfunctional independence would be associated with lower perceptions of parental responsiveness and relationship quality. The results showed that
both engulfment anxiety and dependency denial were negative predictors for perceptions
of parental responsiveness (bengulfment anxiety ¼ .22, SE ¼ .05; bdependency denial ¼ .15,
SE ¼ .06) and parent–child relationship quality (bengulfment anxiety ¼ .09, SE ¼ .03;
bdependency denial ¼ .10, SE ¼ .04), all p < .05. Thus, H3 was supported.
Dysfunctional dependence, measured as separation anxiety, did not appear to predict
self-disclosure except that it was associated with reduced positivity in self-disclosure
(b ¼ .20, SE ¼ .10, p < .01). However, this effect significantly differed by gender
(Z ¼ 2.42). Young women with a dysfunctionally dependent orientation were less likely
to make positive self-disclosure to their parents (b ¼ .23, SE ¼ .12, p < .01) but no such
effect was found for young men (p ¼ .63). Dysfunctional dependence did not appear to
be associated with the perceptions of parental responsiveness and relationship quality
(both ps > .33).
Discussion
Drawing on the IPMI (Reis & Shaver, 1988), the present study seeks to achieve a richer
understanding of self-disclosure process in emerging adulthood by examining the role of
perceived parental responsiveness and dysfunctional separation–individuation. The
results confirm the importance of perceived responsiveness in linking self-disclosure and
parent–child relationship quality in young adulthood. Dysfunctional independence has
been identified as a relational schema that discourages young adults from disclosing to
their parents and contributes to lower perceptions of parental responsiveness and
relationship quality. Dysfunctional dependence, measured by separation anxiety, was
associated with less positivity in young women’s self-disclosure. These findings
offer several important theoretical contributions to the understanding maturation and
parent–child relationship.
Perceived responsiveness and communication between parents
and young adults
This study has been the first to empirically examine the role of perceived responsiveness
in the relationship communication between young adults and their parents. The results of
a survey of young adults in Hong Kong mostly support the central prediction that perceived responsiveness mediates the relationship between self-disclosure and relationship
quality. Such results introduce a dyadic understanding of parent–child communication
and highlight that parent–child relationship quality greatly depends on young adults’
perception of their parents as being responsive. It is noteworthy that during late adolescence and emerging adulthood, parents’ caring behavior is not necessarily interpreted
as responding to properly one’s needs. Work by Collins, Laursen, Mortensen, Luebker,
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
15
Jiang et al.
and Ferreira (1997) suggests that parents and young adults have different expectations
with regard to the timing (e.g., leave home for college, get married) and means of
developing independence (e.g., financial independence). What the parent considers an
expression of caring (e.g., offering advice on career choices) can be interpreted as a
privacy violation by the young adult, failing to respond to his or her perceived need for
independence.
This further raises the issue of the accuracy of perceptions of parental responsiveness,
particularly for adolescents and emerging adults. Studies have shown that parents and
children are not very inaccurate in attributing one another’s behaviors and predicting one
another’s responses to hypothetical situations (Sillars & Scott, 1983; Sillars, Smith, &
Koerner, 2010). The findings here suggest that dysfunctional independence, the intensified need for autonomy and individuation, significantly reduces young adults’ perceptions of parental responsiveness and relationship quality. More systematic
examination of perceptual accuracy in these situations is clearly required. Dyadic data
from parents and children or by using a third party to code the actual communication is
required to compare the parties’ perceptions about each other’s responses.
Dysfunctional separation–individuation and self-disclosure in emerging
adulthood
Furthermore, the study contributes to our understanding of self-disclosures in parent–child
communication in several meaningful ways. First, this study adds to this part of research by
examining the population of young adults particularly in relation to separation–individuation, the most defining process in emerging adulthood. These results highlight dysfunctional independence (emphasizing independence over relatedness) as an individual
trait that matters for young adults’ self-disclosure. Individuals who experience dysfunctional independence not only reduce the self-disclosure amount and control of depth when
they communicate with their parents, they also perceive lower parental responsiveness and
lower quality of parent–child relationship. Among two types of dysfunctional independence, engulfment anxiety appeared to be as a stronger factor than dependency denial in
reducing young adults’ self-disclosure to their parents and lowering their relationship
perceptions. We speculate that this pattern may result from a feeling that the loss of the self
(the source of engulfment anxiety) is more threatening than overdependence on significant
others (the source of dependency denial). This reasoning is likely to be culturally
grounded. In collectivist societies like Hong Kong’s, for example, it is socially acceptable
to remain dependent on significant others (Gnaulati & Heine, 2001).
Dysfunctional dependence, the tendency to sacrifice autonomy for relatedness, affects
the self-disclosure valence whereby young women with high separation anxiety are more
likely to disclose negative aspects of themselves to their parents. Because disclosure of
negatives presents a vulnerable image which potentially solicits more attention and care
from parents (Koepke & Denissen, 2012). This finding is also aligned with attachment
literature that attachment-related anxiety motivates individuals to disclose problems and
express negative feelings (Maunder et al., 2006). Other than that, though, no significant
relationship between dysfunctional dependence and self-disclosure or between dysfunctional dependence and relationship perceptions was evident in the data. Future
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
16
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
studies should consider systematically testing other dysfunctional dependent orientations
(e.g., nurture seeking) in relation to self-disclosure to parents.
Some interesting gender differences were observed, although they were not a major
concern of this study. As one may expect, young women reported high-quality parent–
child communication than young men along most of the measures. Young men scored
significantly higher on dysfunctional independence as a result of desired independence
in men’s socialization (Kins et al., 2013). Their study did not find any gender difference
in dysfunctional dependence as expected, probably because separation anxiety is less
likely to occur in a collectivist society where young adults are expected to stay close to
the family (Marshall, 2008; Scharf & Mayseless, 2005).
Limitations and future directions
Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, no strict causality among the constructs
of interest could be established. For example, dysfunctional independence was posited
to affect all the self-disclosure variables, and self-disclosure and perceived parental
responsiveness were suggested to affect relationship quality, but it is also possible that
estranged parent–child relationships inhibit self-disclosure to parents and exacerbate
the dysfunctional separation–individuation. Theoretically, the proposed framework is
self-perpetuating, with a relationship evolving over time. Longitudinal studies are
encouraged to look at the self-disclosure process in emerging adulthood over time to
explicate the causality among these constructs.
The differences observed between the mainland China students and the others, also
mostly Chinese, suggest that the generalizability of these findings may be limited.
Previous scholarly work has amply demonstrated the significant differences in selfdisclosure, separation–individuation, and parent–child communication among cultures
(Derlega et al., 1993; Gnaulati & Heine, 2001; Marshall, 2008). Future research needs
to verify to what extent the self-disclosure process tested in this study operates differently across cultural contexts.
The study advanced our understanding of self-disclosure in parent–child communication by using a multidimensional conceptualization (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976) to
capture the strategic nature of self-disclosure; however, the measurement structure did
not turn out as the original conceptualization intended. The dimensions of honesty and
control of depth loaded on the same factor and were collapsed in the analysis, while in
previous studies that use the same conceptualization in the contexts of friendship and
acquaintanceship, they appear to be distinctive dimensions (Leung, 2002; Myers &
Johnson, 2004). This further leads to the concern of construct validity of multidimensional self-disclosure across relationship types. A possible explanation is in close
relationships like parent–child relationship, the boundaries across honesty, and control of
depth are highly permeable. Future research is clearly needed to test this speculation.
Conclusion
Built on the IPMI, this study examined the roles of perceived parental responsiveness
and separation–individuation in the self-disclosure to parents in emerging adulthood,
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
17
Jiang et al.
using the survey data collected in Hong Kong. Overall, these results extend the dyadic
perspective of close relationships to parent–child communication during emerging
adulthood, providing solid evidence that perceptions about parents’ responsiveness is a
key factor relating self-disclosure to parents with better parent–child relationship quality.
The study has also connected dysfunctional dependence in separation–individuation to
reduced self-disclosure to parents and biased perceptions of parental responsiveness and
parent–child relationship quality. The data also support the gender differences in selfdisclosure, parent–child communication, and separation–individuation documented in
previous research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This study was supported by a research grant (Project No.: 7004482) from City University of
Hong Kong.
References
Afifi, T. D., McManus, T., Hutchinson, S., & Baker, B. (2007). Inappropriate parental divorce
disclosures, the factors that prompt them, and their impact on parents’ and adolescents’ wellbeing. Communication Monographs, 74, 78–102. doi:10.1080/03637750701196870
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Bauminger, N., Finzi-Dottan, R., Chason, S., & Har-Even, D. (2008). Intimacy in adolescent
friendship: The roles of attachment, coherence, and self-disclosure. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 25, 409–428. doi:10.1177/0265407508090866
Beatty, M. J., & Dobos, J. A. (1992). Relationship between sons’ perceptions of fathers’ messages
and satisfaction in adult son-father relationships. Southern Journal of Communication, 57,
277–284.
Blustein, D. L., Walbridge, M. M., Friedlander, M. L., & Palladino, D. E. (1991). Contributions of
psychological separation and parental attachment to the career development process. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 38, 39–50. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.39
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (2008). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Bradford, S. A., Feeney, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2002). Links between attachment orientations and
dispositional and diary–based measures of disclosure in dating couples: A study of actor and
partner effects. Personal Relationships, 9, 491–506. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00031
Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship
quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 78–106.
doi:10.1037/a0018186
Caughlin, J. P., & Malis, R. S. (2004). Demand/withdraw communication between parents and
adolescents as a correlate of relational satisfaction. Communication Reports, 17, 59–71.
doi:10.1080/08934210409389376
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
18
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol 2, 5th ed., pp. 898–940). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Collins, W. A., Laursen, B., Mortensen, N., Luebker, C., & Ferreira, M. (1997). Conflict processes
and transitions in parent and peer relationships: Implications for autonomy and regulation.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 178–198. doi:10.1177/0743554897122003
Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal
relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95, 555–575. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.555
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Dindia, K., Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1997). Self-disclosure in spouse and stranger
interaction: A social relations analysis. Human Communication Research, 23, 388–412.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00402.x
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. (2004). Disclosure and relationship satisfaction in families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 195–209. doi:10.1111/j.
0022-2445.2004.00013.x-i1
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role
of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating.
Communication Research, 33, 152–177. doi:10.1177/0093650205285368
Gnaulati, E., & Heine, B. J. (2001). Separation-individuation in late adolescence: An investigation
of gender and ethnic differences. The Journal of Psychology, 135, 59–70. doi:10.1080/
00223980109603680
Grabill, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Personal
Relationships, 7, 363–378. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00022.x
Greene, K., Derlega, V. J., & Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In
A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships
(pp. 409–427). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Huston, T. L., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (1986). When the honeymoon’s over: Changes in
the marriage relationship over the first year. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), The emerging
field of personal relationships (pp. 109–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jiang, C. L., Bazarova, N. N., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). The disclosure–intimacy link in
computer-mediated communication: An attributional extension of the hyperpersonal
model. Human Communication Research, 37, 58–77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.
01393.x
Jiang, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder:
Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of
Communication, 63, 556–577. doi:10.1111/jcom.12029
Kanter, M., Afifi, T., & Robbins, S. (2012). The impact of parents ‘‘friending’’ their young
adult child on Facebook on perceptions of parental privacy invasions and parent–child
relationship quality. Journal of Communication, 62, 900–917. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.
2012.01669.x
Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A. B., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and
attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 153–164.
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
19
Jiang et al.
Kins, E., Beyers, W., & Soenens, B. (2013). When the separation-individuation process goes awry:
Distinguishing between dysfunctional dependence and dysfunctional independence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 1–12. doi:10.1177/0165025412454027
Kins, E., Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2012). Parental psychological control and dysfunctional
separation–individuation: A tale of two different dynamics. Journal of Adolescence, 35,
1099–1109. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.017
Klasner, L., & Pistole, M. C. (2003). College adjustment in a multiethnic sample: Attachment,
separation-individuation, and ethnic identity. Journal of College Student Development, 44,
92–109. doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0006
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Koepke, S., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2012). Dynamics of identity development and separation–
individuation in parent–child relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood –
A conceptual integration. Developmental Review, 32, 67–88. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.01.001
Kruse, J., & Walper, S. (2008). Types of individuation in relation to parents: Predictors and
outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 390–400. doi:10.1177/
0165025408093657
Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & Shadid, G. E. (1989). Psychological separation and adjustment to
college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 286–294. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.3.286
Laurenceau, J., Rivera, L. M., Schaffer, A. R., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2004). Intimacy as an
interpersonal process: Current status and future directions. In D. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 61–78). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leung, L. (2002). Loneliness, self-disclosure, and ICQ (‘‘I seek you’’) use. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 5, 241–251. doi:10.1089/109493102760147240
Levine, J. B., Green, C. J., & Millon, T. (1986). The separation-individuation test of adolescence.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 123–139.
Lucas, M. (1997). Identity development, career development, and psychological separation from
parents: Similarities and differences between men and women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 123–132. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.44.2.123
Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2013). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication
across cultures. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ma, M. L.-y., & Leung, L. (2006). Unwillingness-to-communicate, perceptions of the Internet and
self-disclosure in ICQ. Telematics and Informatics, 23, 22–37.
McClanahan, G., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1992). Separation-individuation, family functioning, and
psychological adjustment in college students: A construct validity study of the
separation-individuation test of adolescence. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59,
468–485. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5903_4
McManus, T. G., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2013). Topic valence and ambiguity in parent-emerging adult
child postdivorce discussions. Communication Studies, 64, 195–217. doi:10.1080/10510974.
2011.646085
Marshall, T. C. (2008). Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of gender-role ideology
and individualism—collectivism. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25,
143–168. doi:10.1177/0265407507086810
Maunder, R. G., Lancee, W. J., Nolan, R. P., Hunter, J. J., & Tannenbaum, D. W. (2006). The
relationship of attachment insecurity to subjective stress and autonomic function during
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
20
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
standardized acute stress in healthy adults. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 283–290.
doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.08.013
Mayseless, O., & Scharf, M. (2009). Too close for comfort: Inadequate boundaries with parents
and individuation in late adolescent girls. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 191–202.
doi:10.1037/a0015623
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321–331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.321
Miller, R. S., & Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). The assessment of social intimacy. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 46, 514–518.
Myers, S. A. (1998). Sibling communication satisfaction as a function of interpersonal
solidarity, individualized trust, and self-disclosure. Communication Research Reports,
15, 309–317.
Myers, S. A., & Johnson, A. D. (2004). Perceived solidarity, self-disclosure, and trust in organizational peer relationships. Communication Research Reports, 21, 75–83. doi:10.1080/
08824090409359969
Papini, D. R., Snell, W. E. Jr., Belk, S. S., & Clark, S. (2001). Developmental correlates of
women’s and men’s sexual self-disclosures. In J. W. E. Snell (Ed.), New directions in the
psychology of human sexuality: Research and theory. Cape Girardeau, MO: Snell Publication.
Retrieved from http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/wesnell/books/sexuality/chap21.htm
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships, 14,
1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00139.x
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an
organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron
(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity
does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E.
Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory,
research and interventions (pp. 367–389). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Scharf, M., & Mayseless, O. (2005). An Israeli youth: What do they have in their lives? Their
parents, their parents and their parents. In G. Rahav, Y. Wozner, & M. Wander-Schwartz
(Eds.), Youth in Israel (pp. 119–140). Tel Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University.
Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between-and
within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21,
1471–1478. doi:10.1177/0956797610382786
Sillars, A. L., & Scott, M. D. (1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: An integrative
review. Human Communication Research, 10, 153–176. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00009.x
Sillars, A. L., Smith, T., & Koerner, A. (2010). Misattributions contributing to empathic
(in)accuracy during parent-adolescent conflict discussions. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 27, 727–747. doi:10.1177/0265407510373261
Tenzek, K. E., Herrman, A. R., May, A. R., Feiner, B., & Allen, M. (2013). Examining the impact
of parental disclosure of HIV on children: A meta-analysis. Western Journal of Communication, 77, 323–339. doi:10.1080/10570314.2012.719092
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016
21
Jiang et al.
Tilton-Weaver, L. (2013). Adolescents’ information management: Comparing ideas about why
adolescents disclose to or keep secrets from their parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
43, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0008-4
Tokić, A., & Pećnik, N. (2011). Parental behaviors related to adolescents’ self-disclosure: Adolescents’ views. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 201–222. doi:10.1177/
0265407510382320
Wheeler, H. A., Wintre, M. G., & Polivy, J. (2003). The association of low parent-adolescent
reciprocity, a sense of incompetence, and identity confusion with disordered eating. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 18, 405–429. doi:10.1177/0743558403018004005
Wheeless, L. R., & Grotz, J. (1976). Conceptualization and measurement of reported self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 2, 338–346. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00494.x
Downloaded from spr.sagepub.com by guest on April 4, 2016