2013. Vol.4, No.3A, 232-237
Published Online March 2013 in SciRes (
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Diversity in Family Structure—Diversity in Communication
between Family Members?
Piia M. Björn1*, Minna Kyttälä2
1Department of Education/Special Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
2University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Email: *
Received November 17th, 2012; revised December 18th, 2012; accepted January 16th, 2013
This study aims at investigating the parent-adolescent communication of Finnish families from a multi-
informant perspective. Thirteen- and fourteen-year-old adolescents (n = 171) and their parents were asked
to complete a questionnaire examining positive and problematic communication between the two parties.
Information about their family structure was collected. The results indicated an interrelationship between
parental and adolescent assessments, particularly regarding negative aspects of communication. The boys
assessed their communication with parents as more positive than did the girls. The results showed that the
mothers still are the synchronizing hearts of communication in modern families, whereas the fathers’ roles
in family communication were more modest suggesting that the stereotypical roles in Finnish families
persist even today.
Keywords: Parent-Adolescent Communication; Positivecommunication; Problems in Communication;
Family Structure
The children enter the school system from a variety of dif-
ferent kinds of families every day. Thus, the present study adds
to existing literature by looking into the communicative atmos-
pheres in contemporary families: Are the communicative roles
the same they used to be or has there been some kind of change
as the family structures certainly have changed? Nuclear family
with two married parents and their children used to be the ex-
pected family structure in Finland and elsewhere. However, as
divorce rates are quite high and diversity in family structure
(one-parent families, families with parents of the same sex, par-
ents with new spouses and children from earlier marriages) is
becoming customary (Jallinoja & Widmer, 2011), it might be
expected that the communication patterns in families between
its’ members also show discrepancy (White, 1996). Faber and
others (2003) have suggested that well-functioning communi-
cation between parents and children includes the emotional
security needed to express negative issues without fear of em-
barrassment, for example (see also Campione-Barr & Smetana,
2004; De Los Reyes, 2010; Kim et al., 2001; Smetana et al.,
2006). It has alsobeen suggested that the possibility to freely
and reciprocally express opinions and thoughts (Smith & Ker-
pelman, 2002), along with a mutual willingness to address pro-
blematic episodes at the time of disagreement (Perosa & Perosa,
1993; Perosa, Perosa, & Tam, 1996), are present in open par-
ent-adolescent communication.
Adolescent, maternal, and paternal views of their communi-
cative interactions with each other have been found to differ to
some extent, regardless of the family structure (Callan & Noller,
1986). Overall, adolescents have been shown to view their in-
teraction with family members in a more negative light than
their parents do (Callan & Noller, 1986; Epstein & Ward, 2011;
Xiao et al., 2011). Teenagers have been said to more often ex-
perience openness in communication with their mothers than
with their fathers (Noller & Bagi, 1985; White, 1996). More-
over, family members have been usually found to interact in ac-
cordance with more or less stereotypical role-taking traditions
(Noller & Callan, 1988).
There also is evidence on gender-based differences in how
positive or negative the family communication is assessed to be.
Mothers are usually considered as having more open interrela-
tionship with their children in comparison to fathers. For exam-
ple, Olson and others (1983) observed that mothers often con-
sidered themselves as having more satisfying interactions with
their adolescent children than fathers did. Also recently, Ros-
nati, Iafrate and Scabini (2011) reported that mothers experi-
enced a more open communication with their children than did
fathers in diverse family groups (foster, inter-country adoptive
and biological Italian families).
The Current Study
The modern family systems are in constant change in the
sense of multiple structures. This change might reflect on the
way family members evaluate their communication. Thus, the
present study seeks to investigate, whether the modern (Finnish)
families still confirm the traditional roles assuming that 1) the
mothers are the central communicators in the family; 2) the
fathers do not have such a strong role in the communication;
and 3) there might also be gender differences between the ado-
lescent participants of the family primarily due to their differing
developmental phases. The girls might be expected to report
less openness in their family communication due to their earlier
entrance into puberty (see also Olson et al., 1983).
The triadic association between parent-adolescent communi-
cation as assessed by the adolescents and their mothers and
*Corresponding author.
fathers was the core of the analysis. Furthermore, the adoles-
cent’s gender and family structure were taken into account.
Adolescents. The present study is part of the MASA research
project (Mathematical learning difficulties and Sociocultural
factors among Finnish Adolescents; see Kyttälä & Björn, 2010;
Björn & Kyttälä, 2011). Data were collected from two cities in
Central and Southern Finland. The main sample comprised 171
eighth-graders (94 male and 77 female), born in 1993 (aged 13
or 14 years). The sample was homogeneous in terms of ethnic
and cultural background, and all the children spoke Finnish as
their native language.
The adolescents were asked to fill in the Barnes and Olson
(1982) questionnaire about parent-adolescent communication.
All of the questionnaires were returned, as they were asked to
fill in the questionnaire during a normal school day. Back-
ground information about their individual educational levels, as
well as family structure, was gathered from the parents along
with the Parent-Adolescent Communication Questionnaire. 128
questionnaires for the parents were first sent to homes by the
children’s schools. 43 families did not participate this part of
the study. Return percentage was 41%. Parental assessments of
their parent-adolescent communication were available from 83
mothers and 71 fathers. Moreover, both the mother and father
filled in the questionnaire in 65 families (60 co-habiting parents)
in the study. There were 23 cases—18 mothers and 5 fathers—
in which only one parent completed the questionnaire. A total
of 60 families were composed of two parents (either married or
engaged) and their own children; eight families consisted of the
mother or the father living with a new spouse and their children;
and 20 families had a single parent (mother or father). The fam-
ily structure variable was then dichotomyzed for further analy-
sis (2 = two-parent intact family, 1 = other; see also Turner et
al., 2004). The sample was representative compared to the dis-
tribution among the structure of Finnish families (Finnish sta-
tistical centre, 2011).
The Questionnaire
Parent-Adolescent Communication Questionnaire. The views
of parents and adolescents on their communication were as-
sessed using 25-point Likert scale items, adapted to Finnish
from Barnes and Olson’s Parent-Adolescent Communication
Scale (1982). The scale measures communication between
teenagers and their parents. The questionnaire contains two sub-
scales: one subscale—comprising items 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14,
16, and 17—measures Positive aspects of communication (e.g.,
“I can discuss my beliefs with my child/parent without feeling
restrained or embarrassed”); and the other—items 2, 4, 5, 10,
11, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 20—measures problems in communica-
tion (e.g., “Sometimes I have trouble believing everything my
child/parent tells me”). Response choices ranged from 1 = “I
strongly disagree” to 5 = “I strongly agree”. The scoring was
reversed for the Negative aspects of the communication sub-
scale, in which high scores indicate low negativity in com-
The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were notated such that the
first figure in parentheses indicates the mothers’ scales, the
second the fathers’ scales and the third the adolescents’ scales.
They were (.77, .78, and .84) for the total scale; (.69, .59,
and .68) for the problems in communication; and (.70, .74,
and .86) for the Positive aspects of communication. According
to Sabatelli, Anderson and LaMotte (2005), the alpha coeffi-
cients have been found to be in the .78 to .92 range in both
subscales as well as the total scale. Means and standard devia-
tions of the main variables by family structure are presented in
Table 1.
Analysis Strategy
The statistical analyses were carried out in the following
steps. First, covariance models were calculated including ado-
lescent, maternal, and paternal assessments of Parent-Adoles-
cent Communication separately for girls and boys to investigate
whether the assessments on family communication are in ac-
cordance between its members and also, to see whether the
models are different for girls and boys. For this the total sum
scores was used for both Problems in communication (scoring
reversed) and Positive aspects of communication subscales.
Table 1.
Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), t-tests and Intra-Class Correlations between Family Structure and assessments on Parent-Adolescent
Variable Biological two-parent family Other Family Structure
M (SD) M (SD) t-value Intra-Class Correlation
Pos. Communication/Girls 35.92 (8.97) 34.21 (7.73) .67 .21
Pos. Communication/Boys 37.32 (5.91) 36.54 (7.67) .18 .21
Probl. Communication/Girls¹ 33.48 (4.63) 30.32 (5.58) 2.10* .44
Probl. Communication/Boys¹ 34.76 (6.00) 33.68 (5.46) .59 .07
Pos. Communication/Mothers 40.21 (5.01) 41.07 (4.03) .80 .00
Probl. Communication/Mothers¹ 40.96 (4.67) 38.07 (5.65) 2.51** .12
Pos. Communication/Fathers 38.67 (4.53) 38.25 (5.67) .33 .03
Probl. Communication/Fathers¹ 38.78 (4.56) 38.40 (5.19) .30 .03
Note. 1 = Scoring reversed: higher the scores the less negativity in communication. *p =< 0.05, **p =< 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Family Structure was dichotomised as 1 =
Other than biological two-parent family; 2 = Biological two-parent family.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 233
Hence, a low total sum score along the Problems in communi-
cation subscale represented quite negative family communica-
tion, whereas a high total sum score represented more positive
family communication.Second, intra-class correlations were
calculated to investigate the extent to which family structure-
accounts for the adolescent and parental assessments of the
Positive aspects and Problems—the two separate subscales—in
their communication. For this, the family structure variable was
dichotomized, with the two-biological-parent family being con-
sidered one group and all the other family types being consid-
ered the other group. As completing analyses independent sam-
ples t-tests were applied. The covariance analyses were carried
out with the AMOS statistical package (version 19.0; Arbuckle,
2011). Goodness-of-fit was evaluated using χ2/df. This particu-
lar index is sufficient when using simple covariance modeling.
Other analyses were done using IBM Statistical Package SPSS
version 19.0 (Arbuckle, 2011). To calculate the intra-class cor-
relations a formula of [ρ = variance component estimate/(vari-
ance component estimate + variance component error)] was ap-
plied. Intra-class correlations give information about the pro-
portion (transferable into percentages by multiplying the corre-
lation coefficient with 100) which a certain variable’s variance
(usually categorical variable) accounts for another variable’s
(usually continuous variable) variance.
To examine whether the assessments of parent-adolescent
communication between adolescents and their mothers and
fathers were interrelated, analyses of covariance was calculated.
In Figure 1, schematic representation of the models is shown.
First, the girls’ model (Figure 2) for Positive family communi-
cation was calculated. The model was just-identified suggesting
that there was no need to use fit-indexes. Inspection of the co-
variances showed an interrelation only between maternal and
Figure 1.
Schematic representation of the covariance models.
M = 40.66
SD = 4.22
M = 38.34
SD = 5.42
Figure 2.
Significant interrelationships in the girls’ model for positive
paternal (Cov = 0.38, p < .05) assessments. Thus, there was no
statistically significant interrelation between the assessments by
the girls and the parents. However, the girls’ model (Figure 3)
for Negative aspects of family communication included the
whole triad: the assessments between girls, mothers and fathers
were interrelated, suggesting that there was a common view on
possible problems—or lack of them—between girls and their
The boys’ model (Figure 4) regarding Positive family com-
munication [model just-identified] included statistically signi-
ficant covariation between the boys’ and maternal assessments
(Cov = 0.46, p < .05). The boys’ model [χ2(1) = .815, p = .37]
regarding Negative aspects of communication (Figure 5) was
very similar to the girls’ model, but with one exception: the pa-
ternal assessments were not associated with the maternal as-
These results suggested that, in particular, the assessments of
Negative aspects of parent-adolescent communication by ado-
lescents and mothers and by mothers and fathers covariated—
that is, shared a common change to a statistically significant
extent. These results further showed that while a relatively
common view was held by all family members concerning the
problems in family communication, their views on positive
family communication were not so unified. Also, the girls’ and
boys’ assessments of family communication were different.
On average, mothers reported the fewest problems in com-
munication with adolescents (M = 39.92) and also the most
positive communication (M = 40.51) in general. The adoles-
cents reported the most problems in communication (M = 33.02)
and the least positive communication with their parents (M =
35.11). However, the differences between means were not sta-
tistically significant. Furthermore, an additional t-test suggested
that the boys’ assessments of items along the Problems in
communication subscale in particular differed from the girls’
assessment to a statistically significant degree [t = .614, p
< .05], suggesting that the girls (M = 31.92, SD = 5.22) viewed
their communication with their preferred parent as being more
negative than did the boys (M = 33.92, SD = 6.71).
Next, the extent to which family structure (two-biological-
parent intact family vs. other) contributes to assessments of
parent-adolescent communication was examined. The intra-
class correlations are presented in Table 1. The results showed
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
M = 31.92
SD = 5.22
M = 38.31
SD = 4.96
.44* Negative
M = 38.43
SD = 4.22
Figure 3.
Significant interrelationships in the girls’ model for negative
M = 35.43
SD = 7.21
M = 40.35
SD = 5.20
Figure 4.
Significant interrelationships in the boys’ model for positive
M = 39.03
SD = 4.49
M = 33.92
SD = 6.71
.25* M = 40.58
SD = 4.40
Figure 5.
Significant interrelationships in the boys’ model for nega-
tive communication.
that family structure accounted for the girls’ and boys’ assess-
ments of parent-adolescent communication (ρ:s ranged from .21
to .44), suggesting that adolescents from families with a two-
biological-parent intact structure had evaluated their communi-
cation as being more positive, according to this data, than did
those with other types of families. T-tests confirmed that par-
ticularly the girls coming from two-parent intact families
viewed their communication as being statistically significantly
more positive [t = 2.10, p < .05]. For girls, the family structure
accounted for 44% of the variation in the assessments of Posi-
tive communication. In general, all the adolescent assessments
of family communication were at least mean-wise more posi-
tive among adolescents coming from two-parent intact families.
The intra-class correlations for parents were very small: they
ranged from only 0.00 to 0.12. The mothers in nuclear-family
structures reported their family communication as being sta-
tistically significantly less Negative: [t = 2.51, p < .01], where-
as the mothers from other types of families reported slightly
more Positive aspects of communication in their families (M =
41.07 vs. M = 40.21).
The aim of this study was to investigate the triadic interrela-
tions between positive and negative aspects of Finnish par-
ent-adolescent communication from the perspectives of parents
and adolescents. The results revealed that especially adolescent,
maternal and paternal assessments of negative aspects of com-
munication shared a common change—suggesting that family
members are mutually aware of whether or not there are prob-
lems in trust and communication within the family. This find-
ing is in line with the results reported by White (1996), as well
as Xiao and others (2011). Further, a common finding has been
that family members communication patterns are quite complex
and, above all, the quality of communication between family
members may be interpreted differently in different time points
at least to some extent (see, De Los Reyes et al., 2010). In the
present study, the girls’ and boys’ assessments on family com-
munication differed to some extent. In all of the models the
mothers’ assessments on communication was interrelated with
the assessments of other family members, whereas the paternal
assessments were not interrelated with the others’ assessments
in the same way. This result might be due to the previous re-
sults according to which the teenagers have been said to more
often experience openness in communication with their mothers
than with their fathers (Noller & Bagi, 1985; White, 1996).
Gender certainly appears to play a multi-faceted and intriguing
role in parent-adolescent communication. For example, Heller
and others (2006) found an adolescent’s gender to be a statisti-
cally significant predictor of adolescent-assessed openness in
both mother- and father-adolescent communication, whereas
Hauser et al. (1987) found, among other factors, that the par-
ent’s gender explained perceived differences in the interactions
with the adolescent offspring. A study by Kawaguchi and oth-
ers (1998), which showed parent and particularly mother tem-
perament to account for the gender differences in parent-ado-
lescent communication and adolescent-parent relationships.
Further, the mothers have been the communicative par- ties in
the families over the decades in light of the members’ stereo-
typical roles (Noller & Bagi, 1985, Noller & Callan, 1988) and
thus, more openness was expected from their assessments. In
contrast, the girls might be expected to report less positivity in
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 235
their family communication due to their earlier entrance into
puberty (see also Olson et al., 1983). Especially mothers and
adolescents shared an understanding of their communication
problems (see also Smith & Kerpelman, 2002). The results also
suggested,that in contrast to fathers, mothers evaluated com-
munication with their adolescent children as being very positive
(see also Campione-Barr & Smetana, 2004; Olson et al., 1983;
Schwartz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). In turn, as was
posited, the highest amount of Negative communication in
general and the lowest amount of Positive communication with
their parents was reported by the adolescents (see also Noller &
Bagi, 1985). In addition, the girls reported more negativity in
their parent-adolescent communication than did the boys. The
mothers’ presence in all of the models tells something about
modern families: the mothers remain at the communicative core
of the families. In other words, although the fathers are present
in family activities much more than they used to be, the mater-
nal role as a communicative bridge between family members
has sustained.
Secondly, the extent to which family structure is related to
adolescent, maternal and paternal views on communication was
examined. As expected, the results showed that family structure
accounted for adolescent assessment of parent-adolescent com-
munication in particular: adolescents and notably girls from
families with two-parent intact structure had evaluated their
communication as more positive according to this data than did
those adolescents with other types of families. This result sug-
gests that belonging to a family with two parents is a privilege
in the sense of expecting more open family communication
(Smith & Kerpelman, 2002; Perosa & Tam, 2006). The stability
of family structure has been observed to be related to perceived
maternal and paternal support in earlier studies, as well. For
example, Turner et al. (2004) found that children with two-
parent intact families perceived more maternal and paternal
support than the children from single-parent families. Family
structures other than two-parent families have often been ob-
served to be related to issues such as fewer economic resources
or behavior problems in adolescence (Perosa & Perosa, 1993;
Perosa et al., 1996). Feedback the individuals get from one’s
actions (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993) either helps or constrains a
family member in finding his or her place within a family sys-
tem. This might give an explanation to the question why the
modern families still seek to communicate according to very
traditional roles: it might be the only way to search for some
kind of stability between its members (Epstein & Ward, 2011).
Overall, the results of the present study revealed that the
modern families in Finland still communicate according to very
traditional roles.Moreover, this finding appears to be in line
with recent findings across a variety of cultures (see, Rosnati et
al., 2011; Xiao et al., 2011) and in a variety of research settings.
Further, there was an agreement on family communication
between the adolescent and adult members regarding problems
in communication in the current data. The communication was
interpreted as being more positive in nuclear families than in
other types of families. This suggests that stability in family
structure yields positive communication outcomes in adole-
scence. However, the result does not indicate that diverse
families in the sense of their structures would not be able to
manage positive communication between its members. Instead,
with enough time, also families in change can create their own
traditions and ways to communicate.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2010). A mos 18.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. L. (1982). Parent-adolescent communi-
cation scale. In D. H. Olson et al. (Eds.), Family inventories: Inven-
tories used in a national survey of families across the family life cy-
cle (pp. 33-48). St Paul: Family Social Science, University of Min-
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. L. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication
and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56, 438-447.
Björn, P. M., & Kyttälä, M. (2011). Family structure and academic
skills among Finnish adolescents. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 26, 465-477. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0058-5
Callan, V. J., & Noller, P. (1986). Perceptions of communicative rela-
tionships in families with adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 48, 813-820. doi:10.2307/352574
Campione-Barr, N., & Smetana, J. G. (2004). In the eye of the beholder:
Subjective and observer ratings of middle-class African-American
mother-adolescent interactions. Developmental Psychology, 40, 927-
947. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.927
De Los Reyes, A., Goodman, K. L., Kliewer, W., & Reid-Qiñ Ones, K.
R. (2010). The longitudinal concistency of mother-child reporting
discrepancies of parental monitoring and their ability to predict child
delinquent behavior two years later. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 39, 1417-1430. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9496-7
Epstein, M., & Ward, L. (2011). Exploring parent-adolescent commu-
nication about gender: Results from adolescent and emerging adult
samples. Sex Roles, 65, 108-118. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9975-7
Faber, A. J., Edwards, A. E., Bauer, K. S., & Wetchler, J. L. (2003).
Family structure: Its effects on adolescent attachment and identity
formation. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 243-255.
Finnish statistical centre (2011).
Hauser, S. T., Book, B. K., Houlihan, J., Powers, S., Weiss-Perry, B.,
Follansbee, & Noam, G. G. (1987). Sex differences within the family:
Studies of adolescent and parent-family interactions. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 3, 199-220. doi:10.1007/BF02139091
Heller, S. R., Robinson, L. C., Henry, C. S., & Plunkett, S. W. (2006).
Gender differences in adolescent perceptions of parent-adolescent
openness in communication and adolescent empathy. Marriage &
Family Review, 40, 103-122. doi:10.1300/J002v40n04_06
Jallinoja, R., & Widmer, E. D. (2011). Families and kinship in con-
temporary Europe: Rules and practices of relatedness. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230307452
Kim, K. J., Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., & Elder Jr., G. (2001). Parent-
adolescent reciprocity in negative affect and its relation to early
adult social development. Developmental Psychology, 37, 775-790.
Kyttälä, M., & Björn, P. M. (2010). Prior mathematics achievement,
cognitive appraisals and anxiety as predictors of Finnish students’
later mathematics performance and career orientation. Educational
Psychology, 4, 431-448. doi:10.1080/01443411003724491
LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D. C. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and fa-
mily studies. In P. G. Doherty, W. J. LaRossa, R. Schumm., & S. K.
Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods. New
York: Plenum Press, 135-163. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85764-0_6
Noller, P., & Bagi, S. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication. Jour-
nal of Adolescence, 8, 125-144. doi:10.1016/S0140-1971(85)80042-7
Noller, P., & Callan, V. (1988). Understanding parent-adolescent inter-
actions: Perceptions of family members and outsiders. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 24, 707-714. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.5.707
Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H. L., Larsen, A. S., Muxen, M.
J., & Wilson, M. A. (1983). Families: What makes them work. Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 237
Perosa, S. L., & Perosa, L. M. (1993). Relationships among Minuchin’s
structural family model, identity achievement, and coping style. Jour-
nal of Counseling Psychology, 4 0, 479-489.
Perosa, L. M., Perosa, S. L., & Tam, H. P. (1996).The contribution of
family structure and differentiation to identity development in fe-
males. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 817-837.
Rosnati, R., Iafrate, R., & Scabini, E. (2011). Parent-adolescent com-
munication in foster, inter-country adoptive, and biological Italian
families: Gender and generational differences. International Journal
of Psychology, 42, 36-45. doi:10.1080/00207590500412128
Sabatelli, R. M., Anderson, S. A., & LaMotte, V. A. (2005). Assessing
outcomes in child and youth programs: A practical handbook. Uni-
versity of Connecticut and State of Connecticut.
Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., Gettman, D. C., & Campione-Barr, N.
(2006). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent-parent relationships.
Child Development, 77 , 201-217.
Smith, S., & Kerpelman, J. L. (2002). Adjudicated adolescent girls and
their mothers: Examining relationship quality and communication
styles. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 23, 15-29.
Turner, S. L., Steward, J. C., & Lapan, R. T. (2004). Family factors
associated with sixth-grade adolescents’ math and science career in-
terests. The Career Development Quarterly, 53, 41-53.
White, F. A. (1996). Parent-adolescent communication and adolescent
decision-making. J ou rn a l of Family Studies, 1, 41-56.
Xiao, Z., Xiaoming, L., & Stanton, B. (2011). Perceptions of parent-
adolescent communication: It is a matter of perspective. Psychology,
Health & Medicine, 16, 56-65. doi:10.1080/13548506.2010.521563