Content uploaded by Sarah Coyne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Coyne on Apr 24, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A Friend Request from Dear Old Dad:
Associations Between Parent–Child Social Networking
and Adolescent Outcomes
Sarah M. Coyne, PhD, Laura M. Padilla-Walker, PhD, Randal D. Day, PhD,
James Harper, PhD, and Laur a Stockd ale, MSc
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between parent–child social networking, connection, and outcomes for
adolescents. Participants (491 adolescents and their parents) completed a number of questionnaires on social
networking use, feelings of connection, and behavioral outcomes. Social networking with parents was associated
with increased connection between parents and adolescents. Feelings of connection then mediated the rela-
tionship between social networking with parents and behavioral outcomes, including higher prosocial behavior
and lower relational aggression and internalizing behavior. Conversely, adolescent social networking use
without parents was associated with negative outcomes, such as increased relational aggression, internalizing
behaviors, delinquency, and decreased feelings of connection. These results indicate that although high levels of
social networking use may be problematic for some individuals, social networking with parents may potentially
strengthen parent–child relationships and then lead to positive outcomes for adolescents.
Happy birthday sweetie! Can I put that on [Facebook] without embarrassing you?
—from www.myparentsjoinedfacebook.com
S
ocial networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook
have become increasingly popular and predominant in
the United States and around the world. For example, Face-
book reported almost a billion accounts in the summer of
2012,
1
while Twitter has nearly 500 million users.
2
While
many adults and college students use social networking sites,
use among adolescents has rapidly increased over the last few
years, with approximately 80% of all teenagers having a
profile on at least one social networking site.
3
Although few would argue the pervasiveness of social
networking sites, the effects of using such sites is less clear.
Some have found that using social networking sites tends to
be associated with positive outcomes, such as strengthening
friendships and increased well-being.
4–6
However, other
studies indicate that high levels of social networking can be
problematic and even addictive, with a number of studies
finding high use to be associated with depression,
7,8
loneli-
ness,
9
alcohol use,
10
and delinquent behaviors.
11
Almost all research on social networking sites has exam-
ined the influence of use on individuals, or on friendships
and/or romantic relationships. However, many adolescents
report using social networking sites with their parents. Ac-
cording to research by Facebook, adolescents are slightly
more likely to ‘‘friend’’ their parents than the reverse, and
much of the communication is positive.
12
However, to our
knowledge, little research has examined outcomes of social
networking between adolescents and parents. Some research
would suggest that it could potentially result in negative
outcomes. For example, Gentzler et al. found that college
students reported more loneliness, more anxious attachment,
and conflict in the parent–child relationship compared to
those who did not use social networking sites with their
parents.
13
Indeed, some adolescents report that they feel their
parents are breaching their privacy when asking to become a
friend on a social networking site,
14
and several adolescents
specifically report that Facebook is for interacting with their
friends and not their parents.
5
However, other research would suggest that such interaction
over social networking sites could be positive for a number of
reasons. For example, parents are able to monitor their chil-
dren’s activity and relationships when connected online.
15
Parental monitoring is generally related to positive adolescent
outcomes,
16
and social networking provides a unique window
for parents to monitor their children’s behavior.
17
School of Family Life, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
C
YBERPSYCHOLOGY,BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
Volume X, Number X, 2013
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0623
1
Social networking between adolescents and parents could
also promote feelings of connection. Indeed, users of social
network sites say the primary motivation for using sites is to
increase connection with family members, including chil-
dren.
18
Family systems theory
19
provides a useful framework
to understand how using social networking sites together as a
family might result in positive outcomes for adolescents. This
theory states that media can be an integral part of family life,
where parents and children interact together, form traditions,
communicate, and strengthen family bonds. However, little
research has examined whether using newer forms of media,
such as social networking sites, can also increase connectivity.
Indeed, certain forms of new media seem to lend themselves
particularly well to increased connectivity, while traditional
forms of media tend to be focused on entertainment. Ac-
cordingly, the current study examines the associations be-
tween parent–child use of social networking sites and
feelings of connection and other adolescent outcomes. Given
that parent–child connection tends to be associated with
positive outcomes in adolescents,
20,21
we predict that
heightened use of social networking sites between parents
and adolescents will be associated with increased feelings of
connection, which would then lead to positive adolescent
outcomes, including decreased aggression, internalizing
and externalizing behaviors, and increased prosocial be-
havior toward family.
Method
Participants
The participants for this study were taken from Wave 4
(data gathered in 2010) of a larger study. The study is of
family life, and the current sample involved families with a
child between the ages of 12 and 17 years (M age = 14.40,
SD = 1.07; 53% female). Participants were randomly selected
from a large Northwestern city in the United States. Partici-
pants were 491 families (child, mother, and father when
available, all co-residential) who were selected from the lar-
ger sample because the adolescents reported using social
networking sites. Regarding ethnicity, 72% of families were
European American, 8% were African American, and 20%
were multi-ethnic. Average annual income was approxima-
tely $60,000 per year, but ranged from less than $20,000 a year
(10% of sample) to more than $100,000 per year (12% of the
sample).
Procedure
Participant families were randomly selected from a na-
tional database and were contacted directly using a multi-
stage recruitment protocol. Of all eligible families (those with
an adolescent between the ages of 11 and 14 years at Time1),
the overall response rate was 61%. At each wave of data
collection, interviewers visited the family’s home and con-
ducted an assessment interview that included videotaped
interactions (not used in current study), as well as question-
naires that were completed in the home.
Measures
Social networking and media use. To assess overall use
of social networking sites, adolescents responded to one item
on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘none’’ to 9 = ‘‘more than 8
hours,’’ asking ‘‘How much time do you spend on social
networking sites in a typical day?’’ To assess social net-
working with family, adolescents, mothers, and fathers re-
sponded to one item asking how they used media or
technology to connect with one another—‘‘How often do you
use social networking sites (such as Facebook) to connect
with your parent/child?’’—on a scale ranging from
1 = ‘‘never’’ to 6 = ‘‘more than once a day.’’ In order to repre-
sent family interactions more accurately rather than the per-
ceptions of one individual,
22
a latent variable was created
using adolescent (factor loading = 0.80), mother (factor load-
ing = 0.43), and father report (factor loading = 0.44) to repre-
sent use of social networking sites with family.
In order to isolate time spent on social networking from
other types of media use, overall adolescent media use was
used as a control variable in the current study, and adoles-
cents responded to four items on a 9-point scale ranging from
1 = ‘‘none’’ to 9 = ‘‘more than 8 hours,’’ asking how much time
in a typical day they spent watching TV, using video games,
using the Internet, or listening to music. These items were
averaged (r = 0.20–0.44) to represent overall adolescent media
use.
Parent–child connection. Adolescents reported on parent–
child connection using the warmth/support subscale (five
items) of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions Questionnaire—
Short Version (PSDQ).
23
Sample items include, ‘‘My parent is
responsive to my feelings and needs’’ and ‘‘My parent and I
have warm and loving times together.’’ Responses range on a
5-point Likert-type scale from 1 = ‘‘never’’ to 5 = ‘‘always,’’ with
higher scores indicating higher levels of adolescent reports of
maternal (a = 0.84, M = 3.78, SD = 0.82) and paternal (a = 0.84,
M = 3.57, SD = 0.87) connection. A latent variable was created
using adolescents’ report of maternal (factor loading = 0.90) and
paternal (factor loading= 0.79) connection to represent overall
parent–child connection.
Internalizing and delinquency. Internalizing behaviors
and delinquency were measured with items assessing de-
pression/anxiety (13 items) and delinquency (9 items), which
have shown adequate validity and reliability in adolescent
samples.
24
Sample items for internalizing include, ‘‘I am un-
happy, sad, or depressed’’; and for delinquency, ‘‘I lie or
cheat.’’ Adolescents were the only reporters of their own in-
ternalizing behavior (a = 0.84), but adolescents (a = 0.77, factor
loading = 0.86), mothers (a = 0.77, factor loading = 0.60), and
fathers (a = 0.66, factor loading = 0.66) answered the delin-
quency items in regard to the adolescents’ behavior on a scale
ranging from 0 = ‘‘not true’’ to 2 = ‘‘very true or often true.’’
Mean scale scores from all three respondents were used to
create a latent variable representing adolescent delinquency.
Relational aggression. Adolescents’ relational aggression
was assessed using four items (a = 0.71).
25
Adolescents reported
on their own behavior on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 = ‘‘never true’’ to 5 = ‘‘almost always true.’’ A sample item in-
cludes, ‘‘When I have been angry at someone, I have tried to
damage that person’s reputation by gossiping about them.’’
Prosocial behavior. Adolescents’ prosocial behavior to-
ward family was measured using a modified version of the
Kindness and Generosity subscale of the Values in Action
2 COYNE ET AL.
Inventory of Strengths.
26
The current study adapted items to
target prosocial behavior toward family members (nine items,
e.g., ‘‘I really enjoy doing small favors for my family’’) on a 5-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘not like me/my child at
all’’ to 5 = ‘‘very much like me/my child.’’ Mean scale scores
of adolescent (a = 0.85, factor loading = 0.89), mother (a = 0.91,
factor loading = 0.51), and father (a = 0.90, factor load-
ing = 0.45) reports were used to create a latent variable re-
presenting adolescents’ prosocial behavior toward family.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations
t Tests were conducted to determine gender differences on
all four social networking variables, and revealed that females
(M = 3.86, SD = 1.72) reported higher overall levels of social
networking than did males (M = 3.48, SD = 1.58; t(479) = 2.49,
p < 0.05). Table 1 includes descriptive statistics and correla-
tions between social networking and all other study variables.
It should be noted that social networking between child and
parent does occur but on a relatively rare basis. Indeed, only
about 50% of adolescents in the current study reported net-
working with their parents, with most reporting only occa-
sional use. However, 19% of adolescents reported social
networking with parents multiple times per month, and 16%
reported using such sites with their parents every day.
Social networking as a predictor of parent–child
connection and adolescent behavior
Latent variables were created for family social networking,
parent–child connection, prosocial behavior, and delin-
quency. A measurement model was examined using struc-
tural equation modeling via AMOS
27
and revealed adequate
model fit (v
2
(21) = 123.39, TLI = 0.93, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA =
0.05). Latent variable invariance using multigroup models
was tested as a function of child gender and revealed that
there was no decrease in model fit when intercepts, factor
loadings, and residual variances were constrained to be
equal, so a single group model was maintained.
Next, a structural model was estimated modeling family
social networking as a predictor of parent–child connection. In
turn, parent–child connection was a predictor of adolescents’
relational aggression, internalizing problems, prosocial be-
havior, and delinquency (see Figure 1). Multigroup models
were again conducted to test for structural invariance as a
function of child gender, and revealed no decrease in model fit
when structural paths were constrained to be equal, so the
model was run as a single group. Adolescents’ overall social
networking, overall media use, age, and gender were used as
control variables, but were not shown in the figure for parsi-
mony. This final model yielded acceptable fit (v
2
(77) = 144.36,
p < 0.001; TLI = 0.93, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04).
Results suggested that family social networking was pos-
itively associated with parent–child connection and nega-
tively associated with adolescent delinquency. In turn,
parent–child connection was negatively associated with ad-
olescents’ relational aggression, internalizing problems, and
delinquency, and positively associated with prosocial be-
havior toward family (see Figure 1). In terms of controls,
adolescents’ overall social networking was negatively asso-
ciated with parent–child connection (b =-0.12, p = 0.04), and
positively associated with adolescents’ relational aggression
(b = 0.15, p = 0.002), internalizing problems (b = 0.14, p = 0.004),
and delinquency (b = 0.21, p < 0.001). Adolescents’ overall
media use was negatively associated with parent–child con-
nection (b =-0.12, p = 0.04), and positively associated with
adolescents’ internalizing problems (b = 0.10, p = 0.04). Ado-
lescent gender (males had the higher coded value) was neg-
atively associated with prosocial behavior (b =-0.15,
p < 0.001) and internalizing problems (b =-0.24, p < 0.001).
Adolescent age was positively associated with adolescents’
delinquency (b = 0.10, p = 0.04) and prosocial behavior
(b = 0.14, p < 0.001).
To examine the indirect effects through parent–child con-
nection, we conducted bootstrapping analyses for indirect
effects based on 2,000 bootstrap resamples and a 95% CI. The
bootstrapping analysis revealed significant indirect effects
between family social networking and prosocial behavior
toward family ( p < 0.05), relational aggression ( p < 0.05), and
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Social Networking and All Study Variables
1234M (SD)
1. Family SN (MR) — 1.90 (1.34)
2. Family SN (FR) 0.28*** — 1.63 (1.15)
3. Family SN (CR) 0.34*** 0.34*** — 2.32 (1.68)
4. Overall SN (CR) 0.09 0.15** 0.24*** — 3.69 (1.67)
5. Child age 0.07 0.03 - 0.06 0.01 14.40 (1.07)
6. Overall media (CR) 0.14** 0.08 0.26*** 0.45*** 3.51 (1.16)
7. Maternal connection - 0.02 0.00 0.07 - 0.13** 3.83 (0.80)
8. Paternal connection - 0.06 0.05 0.14** - 0.05 3.58 (0.87)
9. Relational aggression 0.02 - 0.05 0.05 0.22*** 1.85 (0.67)
10. Internalizing 0.08 0.07 - 0.02 0.22*** 0.40 (0.35)
11. Prosocial behavior (MR) 0.02 - 0.06 0.03 - 0.07 3.50 (0.88)
12. Prosocial behavior (FR) 0.02 0.02 0.03 - 0.04 3.38 (0.82)
13. Prosocial behavior (CR) 0.02 0.05 0.04 - 0.06 3.94 (0.83)
14. Delinquency (MR) - 0.04 - 0.02 0.00 0.16*** 0.13 (0.21)
15. Delinquency (FR) 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.20*** 0.11 (0.18)
16. Delinquency (CR) - 0.02 - 0.03 - 0.07 0.25*** 0.21 (0.27)
Note. SN, social networking; MR, mother report; FR, father report; CR, child report. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
SOCIAL NETWORKING WITH PARENTS 3
a marginally significant indirect effect between family social
networking and internalizing problems ( p = 0.053). The indi-
rect effect between family social networking and delinquency
was not statistically significant ( p = 0.14).
Discussion
The current study examined associations between parent–
child social networking and adolescent outcomes. First, we
found a large range of social networking use between parents
and adolescents. While about half of adolescents who are on
social network sites do connect with their parents over such
sites, the frequency of connection is relatively rare, with less than
20% reporting daily interaction with parents. Despite the lack of
frequent use between parents and teens, these findings confirm
research that reveals that a large proportion of adolescent social
network users are using such sites with their parents.
12,15
We also found that joint use of social networking sites was
associated with heightened connectivity between adolescents
and parents, especially when examined in the overall model.
According to family systems theory,
19,28
media use can be-
come part of family interactions and can strengthen family
bonds in a variety of contexts. Parents and children can cer-
tainly use social networks for increased communication, but
can use them in a multitude of other ways (e.g., playing
games). Parents and adolescents can also show support to
each other by making positive comments on pictures or status
updates, which may add to feelings of connection. In addi-
tion, interacting through social networking sites may help
parents understand their adolescent’s world better, as parents
get a unique glimpse into their adolescent’s social group,
school friends, and personal preferences. All this interaction
can lead to heightened feelings of connectivity, which was
associated with a number of positive outcomes for adoles-
cents, such as higher prosocial behavior toward family and
diminished relational aggression and internalizing problems.
Though social networking with parents was associated
with heightened connectivity, we should note that social
networking is not the only activity, nor is it likely the most
important activity, that parents and adolescents engage in to
promote feelings of connectivity. Indeed, there are a host of
other experiences that parents and adolescents can engage in
to strengthen feelings of connection.
29–33
Social networking
should perhaps be viewed as one of many ‘‘tools’’ that par-
ents can use to feel close to their child and to interact in
meaningful ways.
Conversely, a high level of social networking not with a
parent was associated with negative outcomes for adoles-
cents. Specifically, it was related with increased delinquency,
relational aggression, and decreased parent–child connection.
This supports a number of studies that show that high levels
of social networking can be associated with negative out-
comes.
7,9,10
Though other studies have shown the link with
delinquency
11
and internalizing problems,
7
to our knowledge
this is the first study to show associations with relational
aggression and connection with parents. It is possible that
some adolescents use social networking sites to meet and
associate with delinquent peers their parents may not ap-
prove of, increasing the likelihood of general delinquent and
aggressive behavior. When parents are also on social net-
working sites, they may be more aware of such associations
and may be able to monitor adolescent behavior better and
talk with them about potential issues. Adolescents may also
use social networking sites as a vehicle of harm, for example
by sending mean messages, ‘‘de-friending’’ others, posting
unflattering pictures, or creating online groups for the pur-
pose of excluding or humiliating others. All these behaviors
are types of relational aggression enacted in a virtual for-
mat,
34
and these types of behaviors might be more likely to
occur when parents do not have a presence on an adolescent’s
social networking site. Finally, adolescents may use social
networking sites as a way to isolate or ignore their parents.
They may spend copious amounts of time on such sites and
deign to participate in family activities and discussions.
Though the current study benefited from a large sample
size and multiple informants, the study is not without limi-
tations. Most importantly, the study is cross-sectional, and
causal statements cannot be made. Though it is possible that
Family SN
Parent-Child
Connecon
Relaonal
Aggression
Internalizing
Prosocial
Behavior to
Family
Delinquency
.16*
-.15**
.71***
-.27***
-.20***
-.19**
FIG. 1. Family social net-
working as a predictor of
parent–child connection and
adolescent behavior.
4 COYNE ET AL.
joint social networking use may result in heightened con-
nection, future research should test the possibility that con-
nection may result in increased social networking between
adolescents and parents. There are a few other limitations of
the study, specifically that we only asked one question re-
garding social networking use; we did not ask the degree to
which parents used social networking sites in general, and we
did not ask detailed questions regarding why or why not
families used social networking sites. Certainly, future re-
search could expand upon these topics.
Despite these limitations, the current research is the first to
show positive associations and outcomes for adolescents who
use social networking sites with their parents. Though we
would not suggest that every parent immediately ‘‘friend
request’’ their teenagers, this study shows that social net-
working can certainly be a useful tool in the arsenal of
strategies that parents use to connect with their adolescent.
Since we did find that high levels of social networking
without parents were associated with negative outcomes for
adolescents, we would hope that parents would consider
talking with their adolescent about interacting over social
networking sites. We feel this discussion will be paramount,
as some adolescents may resent their parents being on social
networking sites, especially if the parent is over-commenting
or using it as a way to control their teen’s social life and
experiences.
14
However, we suspect that careful and re-
spectful use of social networking sites with parents may be
good for adolescents. Indeed, it may just be that if parents
‘‘friend’’ their teenager on social networking sites, it may be
one way to increase the possibility that they will really
‘‘connect’’ not only in the virtual but also in the real world.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Family Studies Center at BYU, the School of
Family Life, and the College of Family Home and Social
Science at BYU, and we recognize the generous support of the
many private donors who provided support for this project.
We also thank those families who were willing to spend
valuable hours with our team in interviews, and the many
students who assisted in conducting the interviews.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Facebook. (2012) Key facts. http://newsroom.fb.com/
content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22 (accessed Aug. 17,
2012).
2. Boris C. (2012) Twitter nears the 500 million mark, but how
many have flown the coop? www.marketingpilgrim.com/
2012/01/twitter-nears-the-500-million-mark-but-how-many-
have-flown-the-coop.html (accessed Aug. 17, 2012).
3. Lenhart A, Madden M, Smith A, et al. (2011) Teens, kindness
and cruelty on social network sites. http://pewinternet.org/
Reports/2011/Teens-and-social-media/Part-1/Social-net
work-sites.aspx (accessed Aug. 17, 2012).
4. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook
‘‘friends’’: social capital and college students’ use of online
social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Com-
munication 2007; 12:1143–1168.
5. Madge C, Meek J, Wellens J, et al. Facebook, social inte-
gration and informal learning at university: ‘‘It is more for
socialising and talking to friends about work than for actu-
ally doing work.’’ Learning, Media & Technology 2009;
34:141–155.
6. Valkenburg PM, Peter J, Schouten AP. Friend networking
sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and
social self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2006; 9:584–
590.
7. Pantic I, Damjanovic A, Pantic S, et al. Association between
online social networking and depression in high school
students: behavioral physiology viewpoint. Psychiatria Da-
nubina 2012; 24:90–93.
8. Jelenchick LA, Eickhoff JC, Moreno MA. ‘‘Facebook depres-
sion?’’ Social networking site use and depression in older
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 2013; 52:128–130.
9. Spraggins A. (2011) Problematic use of online social networking
sites for college students: prevalence, predictors, and associa-
tion with well-being. Gainesville, FL: ProQuest Information &
Learning.
10. Wolfe WL. Online drinking: an exploratory study of alcohol
use and intoxication during Internet activity. North Ameri-
can Journal of Psychology 2012; 14:61–76.
11. Mikami AY, Szwedo DE, Allen JP, et al. Adolescent peer
relationships and behavior problems predict young adults’
communication on social networking websites. Develop-
mental Psychology 2010; 46:46–56.
12. Burke M. (2012) How families interact on Facebook. www
.facebook.com/notes/facebook-data-science/how-families-
interact-on-facebook/10151208188528859?utm_source=Lab
notes + Newsletter&utm_campaign=b12bf56f38-Labnotes&
utm_medium=email (accessed Jan. 30, 2013).
13. Gentzler AL, Oberhauswer AM, Westerman D, et al College
students’ use of electronic communication with parents:
links to loneliness, attachment, and relationship quality.
CyberPsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2011;
14:71–74.
14. Klein M. (2012) Teens, parents face off over Facebook. http://
usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-01-22/face
book-parents-teens/52743092/1 (accessed Aug. 17, 2012).
15. Bullguard Internet Security. (2011) More than half of parents
snoop on their children’s online activity. www.bullguard
.com/news/latest-press-releases/press-release-archive/2011-
07-12.aspx (accessed Aug. 17, 2012).
16. Racz SJ, McMahon RJ. The relationship between parental
knowledge and monitoring and child and adolescent con-
duct problems: a 10-year update. Clinical Child & Family
Psychology Review 2011; 14:377–398.
17. Moreno MA, Christakis DA, Egan KG, et al. Associations
between displayed alcohol references on Facebook and
problem drinking among college students. Archives of Pe-
diatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2012; 166:157–163.
18. Smith A. (2011) Why Americans use social media. www
.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Why-Americans-Use-Social-
Media/Main-report.aspx (accessed Aug. 17, 2012).
19. Broderick CB. (1993) Understanding family process: basics of
family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20. Murray KW, Haynie DL, Howard DE, et al. Perceptions
of parenting practices as predictors of aggression in a
low-income,urban,predominately African American
middle school sample. Journal of School Violence 2010;
9:174–193.
21. Padilla-Walker LM, Christensen KJ. Empathy and self-
regulation as mediators between parenting and adolescents’
SOCIAL NETWORKING WITH PARENTS 5
prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family.
Journal of Research on Adolescence 2011; 21:545–551.
22. Cook WL, Goldstein MJ. Multiple perspectives on family
relationships: a latent variables model. Child Development
1993; 64:1377–1388.
23. Robinson, CC, Mandleco B, Olsen SF, et al. (2001) The par-
enting styles and dimensions questionnaire (PSQD). In
Perlmutter BF, Touliatos J, Holden GW, eds. Handbook of
family measurement techniques: Vol. 3. Instruments and index
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 319–321.
24. Barber BK, Stolz HE, Olsen JA, et al. Parental support,
psychological control, and behavioral control: assessing
relevance across time, culture, and method. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development 2005;
70:1–147.
25. Morales JR, Crick NR. Self-report of aggression and social
behavior measure. Unpublished measure, University of
Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, 1998.
26. Peterson C, Seligman MEP. (2004) Character strengths and
virtues: a handbook and classification. Washington, DC: Oxford
University Press.
27. Arbuckle JL. (2010) Amos 19.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS,
Amos Development Corporation.
28. Galvin KM, Dickson FC. Marrow SR. (2006). Systems theory:
patterns and (w)holes in family communication. In
Braithwaite DO, Baxter LA eds. Engaging theories in family
connection: multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
pp. 309–324.
29. Agate JR, Zabriskie RB, Agate ST, et al. Family leisure sat-
isfaction and satisfaction with family life. Journal of Leisure
Research 2009; 41:205–223.
30. Coyne SM, Padilla-Walker LM, Stockdale L, et al. Game
on.girls: associations between co-playing video games and
adolescent behavioral and family outcomes. Journal of
Adolescent Health 2011; 49:160–165.
31. Lehto XY, Choi S, Lin Y, et al. Vacation and family func-
tioning. Annals of Tourism Research 2009; 36:459–479.
32. Musick K, Meier A. Assessing causality and persistence in
associations between family dinners and adolescent well-
being. Journal of Marriage and Family 2012; 74:476–493.
33. Salafia EHBG, Gondoli DM, Grundy AM. The longitudinal
interplay of maternal warmth and adolescents’ self-disclosure
in predicting maternal knowledge. Journal of Research on
Adolescence 2009; 19:654–668.
34. Dempsey AG, Sulkowski ML, Dempsey J, et al. Has cyber
technology produced a new group of peer aggressors? Cyber-
Psychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 2011; 14:297–302.
Address correspondence to:
Dr. Sarah M. Coyne
Brigham Young University
School of Family Life
JFSB 2087
Provo, UT 84602
E-mail: smcoyne@byu.edu
6 COYNE ET AL.
