Introduction Method Results Conclusions Participants Parents completed surveys of perceptions of: Family functioning (Self-Report Family Inventory, v

Introduction Method Results Conclusions Participants Parents completed surveys of perceptions of: •Family functioning (Self-Report Family Inventory, v. 2) •Their marital relationships •Satisfaction (Hendricks, 1988) •Closeness (Bersheid et al., 1989) •Parent-adolescent relationships •Parents of Adolescents Separation Anxiety Scale Parents were asked to record any rules they had for their adolescents’ dating behavior. Rules were coded in terms of: 1) Rule type (84.2% inter-rater agreement) Supervisory: requesting information about dating activities Restrictive: restricting dating behaviors Proscriptive: proscribing parent-preferred dating behaviors Measures Most parents (69.7%) set rules about dating. 5% 37% 29% 29% M other & Father P arent(s)& A dolescent M others alone Fathers alone Parents were more likely to set rules that aided supervision or restricted behavior: 42% 43% 15% Proscriptive Supervisory R estrictive Do parents have different dating- specific rules for sons and daughters? Do parents try to regulate the dating behavior of their adolescents? Is parental regulation of dating behavior linked to family dynamics? Family Functioning: Families who more strongly regulate dating behavior have: •greater overall competence, r = .13, p < .10 •more family leadership, r = .13, p <.10 •higher levels of expressiveness, r = .23, p <.01 Parents’ Marital Relationship: Parents who rely more on proscriptive rules to regulate dating report: •Less closeness (r = -.22, p < .01) and less satisfaction (r = -.17, p < .05) in their marital relationships Parent-Adolescent Relationship: Parents who have good relationships with their adolescents (i.e. are comfortable with their secure base roles): •Regulate their adolescents’ dating behavior more, r = .27, p < .001 •Employ a greater number of supervisory rules, r = .18, p < .05 •Parents regulate daughters’ (M=2.48, SD=1.24 ) dating behavior more than sons’ (M=1.91, SD=1.03), p<.01 •Specifically, parents have more supervisory rules for daughters (M=1.19, SD=1.61) than for sons (M=.64, SD=1.26 ), p = .01 •Parents are marginally more likely to create proscriptive rules for sons (M=.39, SD=.78) than for daughters (M=.27, SD=.39 ), p < .10 •The majority of parents in our sample actively regulated their late adolescents’ dating behavior through the use of dating-specific rules •Parents were more likely to regulate their daughters’ dating behavior than their sons’ •The use of dating-specific rules appears to be part of a constellation of positive family dynamics •Future research will explore how parental regulation of dating behavior Most individuals begin dating while they are adolescents and still under their parents’ care. Parents may try to control their children’s dating experiences through the use of dating-specific rules; however, research to date has revealed little about the existence of such rules. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the imposition of extensive dating rules represents a psychologically healthy avenue for parents to protect adolescents from the potential perils of dating, or rather reflects a constellation of less than optimal family dynamics. Our research explores the prevalence of dating- specific rules in late adolescence, as well as how such rules fit in the larger system of family dynamics. Parents (N=169) of students entering their 1st year of college 118 Mothers: 39 sons & 79 daughters 51 Fathers: 27 sons & 24 daughters 87% Caucasian, 9.5% African-American , 3% Other Parental Rules About Adolescent Dating Practices: Incidence, Gender Differences, & Implications Stephanie Madsen, Jennifer Broderick, Cara Jacobson, and Meghan Reid McDaniel College, Westminster, MD

Documents

Introduction Method Results Conclusions Participants Parents completed surveys of perceptions of: Family functioning (Self-Report Family Inventory, v