Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Parenting and adolescent adjustment: The role of parental

reflective function
Naomi Benbassat, Beatriz Priel*
Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University, P.O.B. 653, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Reflective function (RF) is the capacity to reflect on one’s own mental experiences and
Adolescence those of others. This study examined the relationship between parental RF and adolescent
Adolescent adjustment adjustment. One hundred and five adolescents, aged 14–18, and their mothers and fathers
Parenting
were interviewed and completed questionnaires during home visits. We measured
Reflective function
parental RF, aspects of parenting behavior, and adolescent outcomes. We found that
parental RF correlated with adolescent RF and social competence. Unexpectedly, it also
correlated with internalizing problems and less positive self-perception. In addition,
parental RF, particularly paternal RF, interacted with aspects of parenting behavior. In the
presence of higher levels of parental RF, these behavioral aspects were associated with
more positive adolescent outcomes. We conclude that (a) parental RF is associated with
both desirable outcomes and possible costs and (b) parental RF, particularly paternal RF, is
a significant moderator of the associations between parenting behaviors and adolescent
outcomes.
Ó 2011 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contemporary theories of socialization view both children and their parents as active agents and emphasize bidirectional
processes in parent–child interactions (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). These theories highlight parents’ and children’s capacities
to reflect on their own behavior and that of others, and to construct meanings and expectations from interactions and
relationships (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Grusec, Goodnow, & Kuczynski, 2000). In the present study, we use Fonagy’s
conceptualization of reflective function (Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Moran, & Higgit, 1991; Fonagy & Target, 1997) to explore the
association between a range of outcomes in adolescents and the reflectivity of their parents.
Reflective function (RF) is defined as the metacognitive ability to think about one’s own thoughts and feelings and those of
others, as one attempts to understand and predict behavior. It involves attributing mental states (e.g., beliefs, emotions,
desires, and needs) to one’s self and others and forms the basis for significant relationships and self-construal (Fonagy et al.,
1991; Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist, & Target, 2002). RF encompasses an intrapersonal dimension, (i.e., the capacity for self-
awareness and understanding), as well as an interpersonal dimension (i.e., the ability to see others as psychological entities,
with thoughts, emotions and needs). In addition, RF involves both a cognitive process, akin to psychological insight or
perspective-taking, and an emotional process based on the capacity to hold, regulate, and experience one’s own emotions and
those of others in a nondefensive manner (Slade, 2005).
The concept of RF was developed within the framework of attachment theory. Over the past two decades, the focus of
research in this area has shifted from attachment behavior to mental representations of attachment (Slade, Belsky, Aber, &
Phelps, 1999). The mental representations of an adult’s early attachment experiences are thought to be reflected in his or

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 3 6423193; fax: þ972 3 6423194.

E-mail addresses: naomiben@bgu.ac.il (N. Benbassat), bpriel@bgu.ac.il (B. Priel).

0140-1971/$ – see front matter Ó 2011 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.03.004
164 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174

her own descriptions of significant past relationships and in his or her ability to articulate a coherent narrative about the
quality of those relationships (Main, 1991). Main (1991) referred to the coherence of an individual’s narratives about his or her
own attachment experiences as “metacognitive monitoring” (i.e., an ability to think about one’s own thinking). Elaborating on
this concept, Fonagy et al. (1991; 1997; 2002) proposed their theory of RF, which expanded the concept of metacognitive
monitoring to include the ability to think about one’s own thoughts and feelings and those of others.
Several concepts related to RF refer to different aspects of reflectivity. Self-consciousness, self-awareness, emotional intel-
ligence, and introspection refer to the understanding of one’s self. Social intelligence, social cognition, mind-mindedness, and
empathy refer to one’s ability to understand others. Two other concepts, psychological mindedness and theory-of-mind (TOM),
are similar to RF in that they also refer to both the understanding of one’s self and one’s understanding of others. However, RF
refers to a relationship-specific mentalizing ability, as opposed to the general mentalizing ability measured in TOM studies
(Humfress, O’Connor, Slaughter, Target, & Fonagy, 2002). The concept of psychological mindedness is used mainly in the
context of psychotherapy (Farber, 1989).
RF is thought to develop through a child’s experience of how his or her mental states are reflected upon by his or her
caregiver. The child’s capacity to create a coherent image of mind is dependent on an experience of being perceived as a mind
by the caregiver, who becomes an attachment figure (Fonagy, Gergely, & Target, 2007). It is the caregiver’s capacity to express
an appreciation of the infant’s emotional state and deal with it that creates a space in which an understanding of mental and
emotional life can develop (Bram & Gabbard, 2001). Hence, the significance of the caregivers’ capacity to mentally contain the
child’s emotional experiences, as opposed to a tendency to be defensive about his or her own emotional experiences and
those of the child (Bion, 1962).
There is evidence that parental RF (i.e., a parent’s capacity to reflect on his or her own mental experiences and those of his
or her child) is significant for the development of RF in children. A longitudinal study found that parental RF, measured during
pregnancy, was related to children’s early attachment relationships (Fonagy et al., 1991), which, in turn, were related to
children’s understandings of emotions (Steele, Steele, Croft, & Fonagy, 1999). Similarly, mothers’ tendency to use mental-state
terms (mind-mindedness) predicted their children’s performance in theory-of-mind tasks (Meins et al., 2002; Meins &
Fernyhough, 1999). This is consistent with the view that "any function in the child’s cultural development appears on two
planes: between people as an inter-psychological category, and then within the child as an intra-psychological category"
(Vygotsky, 1981, p. 163).
Research on parental RF has mostly dealt with mothers of infants and young children. However, RF may also be important
during adolescence. RF may help parents understand the changes that their adolescent children are experiencing, as well as
their own feelings and thoughts in response to these changes. RF may also help adolescents cope with the developmental
changes that they are experiencing, in general, and with the development of social competence, in particular. Both parental
and adolescent RF may facilitate dialog and coping with conflict and negative emotions. Indeed, parental understanding of the
adolescent’s self-concept has been shown to be associated with frequent and open communication, as well as high levels of
satisfaction with the parent–child relationship (Sillars, Koerner, & Fitzpatrick, 2005). Parents who more accurately perceived
their adolescents’ thoughts and feelings reported more positive outcomes to conflicts (Hastings & Grusec, 1997). Hence, the
main goal of the present study: to explore the role of parental RF during adolescence.
In the present study, we examine the associations between parental RF and certain characteristics of parenting behavior
(involvement, warmth, and control), on the one hand, and a range of adolescent outcomes, on the other. The adolescent
outcomes include both markers of positive adolescent adjustment (i.e., RF, social competence, and self-perception) and
problem behaviors (i.e., internalizing and externalizing problems). The existing literature suggests an association between
parental RF and the quality of young children’s emotional attachments and emotional understanding (Fonagy et al., 1991;
Steele et al., 1999), as well as an inverse association between the ability of mothers to predict accurately their children’s
responses (used as a measure of maternal RF) and children’s psychopathology (Sharp, Fonagy, & Goodyer, 2006). In light of
these findings, we hypothesize that parental RF is positively associated with adolescents’ social competence and under-
standing of self and others, and negatively associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems.
Furthermore, the existing literature on parenting behavior suggests that parental warmth and involvement are associated
with the positive adjustment of adolescents (e.g., Barber, Stoltz, & Olsen, 2005; Heider, Matschinger, Bernert, Alonso, &
Angermeyer, 2006). However, reported findings on the influence of parental control on adolescent adjustment have been
less consistent (e.g., Heider et al., 2006; Kerr & Stattin, 2000) and different kinds of control have been reported to be asso-
ciated with different outcomes (Barber, Stolz, & Olsen, 2005; Goldstein, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2005; Laible & Carlo, 2004). It is
possible that parental RF is an important factor in the association between certain parenting behaviors and adolescent
outcomes. In other words, the same parenting behavior may be associated with different adolescent outcomes when applied
by reflective and nonreflective parents. Parental RF may be particularly important for the fine balance that parents must
maintain in controlling the behavior of their adolescent children (Goldstein et al., 2005; Smetana, 2000). Therefore, our
second hypothesis is that parental RF will moderate the associations between parenting behavior variables, particularly
parental controlling behavior, and adolescent outcomes.
The final goal of the present study is to examine whether the fathers’ and mothers’ RF abilities are differentially associated
with adolescent outcomes. Research suggests that mothers and fathers have different relationships with their children (Lamb
& Lewis, 2004). Several studies have suggested that fathers’ involvement in parenting during adolescence is more important
than maternal involvement (e.g., Forehand & Nousiainen, 1993; Veneziano, 2003) and that fathers assume a unique and
significant role during adolescence (Shulman & Seiffge-Krenke, 1997). However, fathers are less involved in parenting than
 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 165

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

Method

Participants

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

Procedure

The study was approved by both the Ethics Committee of Ben-Gurion University and the regional branch of the Israel
Ministry of Education. Adolescents and their parents were recruited over the telephone, using high school student directories,
and by asking families who participated in the study to refer us to other families who might be willing to participate (the
snowball technique). Still other families were recruited by addressing adolescents in their classrooms. The initial approaches
were performed by undergraduate student assistants, who gave a short description of the study and asked for the agreement
of both of the parents and the adolescent to participate in the study.
Of the 105 participating families, about 60% were recruited through the snowball technique and the others were recruited
by cold-calling families (using high school student directories) and addressing adolescents in their classrooms. Five families
were excluded after we visited them: one family due to the adolescent’s severe ADHD, one family due to the adolescent’s
severe depression connected to cystic fibrosis, one family due to insufficient proficiency in the Hebrew language, and two
families due to parental education of less than seven grades.
Data were collected during scheduled home visits. During these visits, we first provided the parents and the adolescent
with a brief description of the study and assured confidentiality. All three family members signed an informed consent form.
Then, fathers, mothers, and adolescent children were interviewed concurrently by three interviewers in separate rooms and
were asked to complete questionnaires. The interviewers were one of the authors (N.B.) and two undergraduate psychology
students. Comparability in the administration of the interviews was achieved through training, which included clear and
standard instructions for administration of the interviews, including probing. Finally, the family received a written expla-
nation of the study, as well as a book of literary quotations about adolescence, as a token of our appreciation. The interviews
were audio-taped and subsequently transcribed and coded.

Measures

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

Parental RF
Parental RF was measured using the Parent Development Interview (PDI; Aber, Slade, Berger, Bresgi, & Kaplan, 1985). The
PDI is a semistructured interview designed to examine parents’ representations of themselves as parents and of their chil-
dren. We used the Hebrew version of the PDI, which we adapted for parents of adolescents. It included 15 questions that
asked the parent to describe his or her child, herself or himself as a parent, and their relationships. For example: “Could you
please describe (name of child)?”; “What makes (name of child) feel sad or distressed?” and “Can you give an example of
a time when he/she was sad and what happened then?” The average duration of an interview was 20.02 (SD ¼ 8.02) minutes.
To assess RF, we used the scoring system developed by Fonagy and colleagues (Fonagy, Target, Steele, & Steele, 1998), as
adapted for the PDI (Slade, Bernbach, Grienenberg, Wohlgemath-Levy, & Locker, 2001). Scoring was based on verbatim
transcripts made from audio tapes of the interviews. For each interview, the answers to each question were scored on a scale
from 1 (negative RF) to 9 (full or exceptional RF). Low-RF answers are characterized by disavowal or concrete, superficial and/
166 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174

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

Parenting behavior
Parenting behavior was evaluated using the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979), a 25-item,
self-report questionnaire that includes two dimensions: Parental Warmth (i.e., the degree to which the parent is perceived as
expressing care, warmth, and affection) and Parental Control (i.e., the degree to which the parent is perceived as controlling,
intrusive, and overprotective). In the present study, the adolescents completed separate forms for each of their parents.
Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, was .87 for mothers and .88 for fathers for the Warmth
scale, and .80 and .84, respectively, for the Control scale.

Parental involvement
Levels of parental involvement were measured using the Child Caregiving Involvement Scale (CCIS; Wood & Repetti,
2004), a 10-item scale that assesses parents’ perceptions of their own and their spouse’s responsibilities for specific child-
care activities. The scale assesses both direct involvement (e.g., talking with the child) and indirect involvement (e.g.,
attending school meetings). For this study, the wording of several items was adapted to suit parents of adolescents and each
parent’s perceptions of his or her own responsibilities were assessed. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .72 for Maternal
Involvement to .82 for Paternal Involvement.

Adolescent RF
Adolescent RF was assessed through a semistructured interview that we developed for the present study. Questions from
several existing interview protocols were used, specifically the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main & Goldwyn, 1994), the
Child Attachment Interview (CAI; Target, Fonagy, & Shmueli-Goetz, 2003), and the Object Relations Inventory (ORI; Blatt,
Chevron, Quinlan, Schaffer, & Wein, 1992). The interview included 19 questions that asked the adolescent to describe
himself or herself, his or her mother and father, and their relationships. For example: “Can you describe your mother/father?”;
“Can you tell me about a time when you were sad?” and “Have you ever felt offended by your parents? When? Do you think
they understood that you were hurt?” The interview took about 17 min to administer (M ¼ 16.91 min; SD ¼ 8.11).
We determined adolescent RF levels using the same procedure that we used to score the parents’ interviews (see examples
in the Appendix). The correlation coefficient (interrater reliability) for the scores assigned by the different evaluators was .89.
Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .94.

Adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems and social competence

Internalizing and externalizing problems and social competence were measured using the Youth Self-Report (YSR;
Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), a self-reported, standardized method for assessing competencies and behavioral and emotional
problems in adolescents between 11 and 18 years of age. In the present study, the adolescents completed a Hebrew version of
the questionnaire (Psychtech LTD, 2001) and we analyzed the results of the Social Competence scale and the two broadband
syndromes of Internalizing and Externalizing Problems. Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was .82 for
the Internalizing and Externalizing Problems.

Adolescents’ self-perception
Self-perception was measured using the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (SPPA; Harter, 1988). This questionnaire
includes eight age-appropriate domains, as well as a measure of global self-worth. A Hebrew version of the questionnaire was
used, from which the items related to two domains (Job Competence and Athletic Competence) were excluded. A principal-
component analysis with varimax rotation for the SPPA domains identified two factors, social and personal, which together
explained 54% of the variance (Table 1). The Social Self-Perception factor included four domains: Close Friendship, Social
Acceptance, Romantic Appeal, and Behavioral Conduct. The Personal Self-Perception factor included three domains: Scho-
lastic Competence, Physical Appearance, and Global Self-Worth.
Similar results have been reported by Dekovic and Meeus (1997), who identified a “social self-worth” factor and a "general
self-worth" factor. The identification of two higher-order dimensions is consistent with hierarchical theoretical models that
place global self-perception at their apex (e.g., Waugh, 2001), as well as with the distinction between the social/interpersonal
and personal spheres (e.g., Diamond & Blatt, 1994). Internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, ranged
from .74 for the Social Self-Perception factor to .85 for the Personal Self-Perception factor. Each subject was assigned two
factor scores. Higher scores for both factors indicate a more positive self-perception.

Results

We performed two sets of analyses. First, we looked for associations between parental RF and parenting behavior, on the
one hand, and adolescent outcomes, on the other. Second, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses to examine how the
 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 167

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

Self-Perception

Factor 1: Social Factor 2: Personal

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

Eigen values 1.92 1.84

% of variance explained 27.45 26.29

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

Parental variables and adolescent outcomes

The correlations between parental variables and adolescent outcomes are presented in Table 2. Maternal and paternal RF
were associated with adolescents’ RF levels and paternal RF was also associated with adolescents’ social competence. The
higher the level of parental RF, the higher the adolescent’s RF and social competence. Unexpectedly, paternal RF was also
positively associated with adolescents’ internalizing problems and inversely associated with adolescents’ personal self-
perception. Consistent with previous findings, higher levels of parental involvement and warmth and lower levels of parental
control were associated with positive adolescent outcomes (higher levels of self-perception and lower levels of internalizing
and externalizing problems). We also found a positive association between parental control and adolescent RF.
Mothers’ and fathers’ levels of education were positively correlated with their RF levels (r ¼ .53, p < .001 for mothers;
r ¼ .44, p < .001 for fathers), as well as with their adolescents’ RF levels (r ¼ .24, p < .05 for mothers; r ¼ .34, p < .01, for
fathers). The fathers’ level of education was also associated with adolescents’ social competence (r ¼ .25, p < .01).

Multiple-regression analyses

We applied separate, identical three-step hierarchical regression analyses for mothers and fathers (Tables 3–5). Although
not a focus of this study, adolescent gender and parental education were entered in the first step. Parental RF and parenting
behavior variablesdwarmth, control, and involvementdwere entered in the second step. In the third step, we entered the
interactions between parental RF and parenting behavior measures, in order to examine any possible moderating effect of
parental RF. Interaction terms were created using centered data and significant interaction terms were examined by
regressing the dependent variable (adolescent outcome variable) on the parenting behavior variable, at low (1 SD) and high
(þ1 SD) values of parental RF (Aiken & West, 1991; Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006).

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

Adolescent Outcomes

Reflective Social Personal Social Internalizing Externalizing M (SD)

Function Competence Self-Perception Self-Perception Problems Problems
Reflective Function
Mothers .45*** .07 .15 .15 .14 .06 4.27 (1.40)
Fathers .48*** .26** .30** .11 .36*** .16 3.80 (1.46)
Involvement
Mothers .10 .02 .02 .24* .23* .16 42.49 (4.66)
Fathers .11 .09 .15 .04 –.04 .19 35.78 (6.42)
Warmth
Mothers .19 .06 .12 .20* .19 .23* 31.42 (4.66)
Fathers .16 .16 .06 .22* .18 .24* 28.96 (5.39)
Control
Mothers .21* .12 .26** .12 .15 .32** 8.65 (5.27)
Fathers .24* .14 .15 .07 .12 .37*** 7.67 (5.47)

M (SD) 3.88 (1.11) 8.71 (1.84) 3.06 (0.44) 3.32 (0.39) 8.81 (5.88) 9.46 (5.78)
168 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174

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

Reflective Function Social Competence

Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

b R2 b R2 b R2 b R2
Step 1
Adolescent’s gender .07 .12** .09 .07* .01 .07* .03 .02
Parent’s education .33** .24** .27** .15
Step 2 .32*** .28*** .14* .03
Adolescent’s gender .06 .11 .03 .03
Parent’s education .15 .02 .19* .14
Parental RF .41*** .44*** .18* .00
Parental Warmth .07 .10 .10 .02
Parental Control .19* .17* .12 .10
Parental Involvement .12 .06 .07 .02
Step 3 .36*** .18**
Adolescent’s gender .05 .06
Parent’s education .17* .20*
Parental RF .39*** .17*
Parental Warmth .06 .12
Parental Control .23* .15
Parental Involvement .08 .11
Parental RF  Control .22*
Parental RF  Involvement .20*

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

Adolescents’ RF and social competence

As shown in Table 3, the paternal and maternal variables accounted for 36% and 28% of the variance in adolescent RF,
respectively. The paternal variables accounted for 18% of the variance in adolescents’ social competence; whereas the
maternal variables did not significantly affect adolescents’ social competence. Both maternal and paternal levels of education
contributed significantly to the variance in adolescents’ RF, and the fathers’ level of education contributed significantly to the
variance in adolescents’ social competence, as well. In the next step, parental RF was shown to contribute significantly to the
variance in adolescent RF and social competence. The higher the fathers’ and mothers’ RF levels, the higher the adolescents’
RF. The higher the fathers’ RF, the greater the adolescents’ social competence. In the last step, two interactions between the
paternal RF and paternal behavior variables were shown to be significant. Following up on the interaction effects, simple
slopes were analyzed using the computational tools by Preacher et al. (2006). Paternal involvement was negatively related to
adolescent RF only at low levels of paternal RF (b ¼ .05,t(97) ¼ 2.49, p < .05), but not at high levels of paternal RF (b ¼ .02,

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

Self-Perception – Personal Self-Perception - Social

Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

b R 2
b R 2
b R 2
b R2
Step 1 .04 .02 .07* .05
Adolescent’s gender .12 .13 .24** .23**
Parent’s education .15 .04 .12 .01
Step 2 .14* .10 .13* .17**
Adolescent’s gender .10 .13 .24** .22*
Parent’s education .03 .02 .09 .08
Parental RF .28** .16 .08 .17*
Parental Warmth .06 .02 .23* .16
Parental Control .09 .24* .01 .07
Parental Involvement .15 .02 .09 .20*
Step 3 .24*** .21**
Adolescent’s gender .20* .19*
Parent’s education .02 .11
Parental RF .13 .18*
Parental Warmth .38*** .23*
Parental Control .06 .04
Parental Involvement .06 .16
Parental RF  Warmth .39*** .22*
Parental RF  Control .41***

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

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

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

Internalizing problems Externalizing problems

Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

b R2 b R2 b R2 b R2
Step 1 .06* .03 .03 .03
Adolescent’s gender .16* .18* .15 .15
Parent’s education .16* .01 .10 .07
Step 2 .19*** .15* .26*** .17**
Adolescent’s gender .17* .19* .21** .16*
Parent’s education .00 .11 .05 .11
Parental RF .36*** .19* .13 .01
Parental Warmth .18* .10 .04 .11
Parental Control .00 .10 .41*** .30**
Parental Involvement .02 .22** .21** .14
Step 3 .23*** .30***
Adolescent’s gender .15 .24**
Parent’s education –.01 .04
Parental RF .37*** .14
Parental Warmth .20* .06
Parental Control .03 .44***
Parental Involvement .06 .25**
Parental RF  Control .20* .20*

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

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

Adolescents’ personal and social self-perception

As shown in Table 4, the paternal and maternal variables accounted for 24% and 21% of the variance in adolescent social
self-perception, respectively. The paternal variables accounted for 14% of the variance in adolescent personal self-perception;
whereas the maternal variables did not significantly affect the variance of this adolescent outcome. Gender contributed
significantly to the variance in adolescents’ social self-perception, with adolescent girls reporting higher levels of social self-
perception than adolescent boys. Both parental RF and parenting behavior explained the variance in adolescents’ personal
and social self-perception. The higher the fathers’ RF, the lower the adolescents’ personal self-perception; the higher the
mothers’ RF, the lower the adolescents’ social self-perception. Maternal RF contributed significantly to the variance in
adolescent social self-perception, although it did not correlate significantly with adolescent social self-perception in the
bivariate analysis. Three interactions were significant. Both paternal and maternal RF interacted with parental warmth.
Simple slopes analyses revealed that parental warmth was positively related to adolescent social self-perception at high levels
of paternal RF (b ¼ .05, t(96) ¼ 5.19, p < .001) and maternal RF (b ¼ .04, t(97) ¼ 3.71, p < .001), but not among low-RF fathers
(b ¼ .00, t(96) ¼ .21, p > .05) and mothers (b ¼ .00, t(97) ¼ .09, p > .05). In addition, the father’s level of controlling behavior
and adolescent social self-perception were positively related among high-RF fathers (b ¼ .03, t(96) ¼ 3.33, p < .01), and
negatively related among low-RF fathers (b ¼ .03, t(96) ¼ 2.53, p < 05).

Adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems

As shown in Table 5, the paternal variables accounted for 23% of the variance in internalizing problems and 30% of the
variance in externalizing problems, whereas the maternal variables explained 15% of the variance in internalizing problems
and 17% of the variance in externalizing problems. Adolescent gender contributed significantly to the variance in both
internalizing and externalizing problems. Adolescent girls reported higher levels of internalizing problems than boys;
whereas adolescent boys reported higher levels of externalizing problems than girls. The fathers’ level of education
contributed significantly to the variance in adolescents’ internalizing problems, with children of fathers with higher levels of
education reporting more internalizing problems. Both parental RF and parenting behavior explained the variance in
adolescents’ internalizing problems; whereas only parenting behavior, but not parental RF, explained the variance in
adolescents’ externalizing problems. The higher the fathers’ and mothers’ RF levels, the higher the adolescents’ level of
internalizing problems. Maternal RF contributed significantly to the variance in adolescent internalizing problems, although it
did not correlate significantly with adolescent internalizing problems in the bivariate analysis. Two interactions, between
paternal controlling behavior and paternal RF, contributed significantly to the variance in adolescent internalizing and
externalizing problems. Simple slopes analyses revealed significance only in predicting externalizing problems: paternal
controlling behavior was positively related with adolescent externalizing problems among low-RF fathers (b ¼ .68,
t(97) ¼ 4.87, p < .01), but not among high-RF fathers (b ¼ .25, t(97) ¼ 1.78, p > .05).
In summary, our regression analyses indicated that parental RF contributed to the explained variance of all adolescent
outcomes. The contribution of parental RF came in the form of both simple effects and interaction effects. Parental RF
170 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174

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

Discussion

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

Parental RF and adolescent outcomes

We found a strong association between parental RF and adolescent RF. Even though the cross-sectional design of our study
precludes causal inferences, this finding supports previous conclusions concerning the significance of early relationships, and
social relationships in general, for the development of an understanding of one’s self and others. For example, longitudinal
studies have indicated that parent’s levels of RF affect their children’s development of understanding of mind (Steele et al.,
1999; Meins et al., 2002) and, in a study of behavioral genetics, environmental factors were shown to explain as much as
48% of the variance in TOM performance; whereas heredity accounted for only 15% of this variance (Hughes et al., 2005).
Finally, there is evidence that social interactions, in general (Carpendale & Lewis, 2004), and parent–infant relationships, in
particular (Fonagy et al., 2007), are significant for the development of an understanding of one’s own mind and the minds of
others.
Therefore, it may be concluded that the social environment, in general, and parental figures, in particular, affect the
development of reflectivity in children and adolescents. This conclusion does not preclude the possibility of reciprocal
relations between parental RF and adolescent RF and/or other bidirectional processes, whereby parents and children shape
each other through mutual actions and reactions (Pardini, 2008). Accumulating evidence points to the complex dynamics of
the parent–child relationships (Kuczynski & Parkin, 2007). In the present research, we focused on one aspect of these complex
dynamics, namely, the associations between parental RF and adolescent outcomes. According to various models, such as
transactional theory and social relational theory, RF appears to be a central construct in this dynamic. Hence the importance of
attempts to delineate its role in parent–child relationships.
Our finding that paternal RF is associated with adolescents’ social competence is consistent with those of previous studies.
An understanding of one’s self and others has been reported to be associated with social competence among preschool
children (Cassidy, Werner, Rourke, Zubernis, & Balaraman, 2003) and preadolescents (Bosacki & Astington, 1999). Maternal
perspective-taking and support have also been shown to be associated with adolescents’ perspective-taking and friendship
quality (Soenens, Duriez, Vansteenkiste, & Goossens, 2007); whereas negative and nonsupportive parental responses to
children’s negative emotions have been associated with children’s lower levels of social and emotional competence
(Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinard, 1998).
Most studies of parental RF (e.g., Fonagy et al., 1991; Grienenberger, Kelly, & Slade, 2005) have focused on children’s
attachment and social skills and only a few studies (e.g., Sharp et al., 2006) have assessed how reflectivity relates to other
domains of adjustment, such as emotional problems. This may explain the prevailing view that RF bestows only benefits. Our
unexpected finding that parental RF is associated with more internalizing problems and less positive self-perception among
adolescents challenges this view.
On the one hand, this finding is inconsistent with the reported inverse association between maternal RF and children’s
psychopathology symptoms (Sharp et al., 2006). This inconsistency may be related to differences in the methods used to
assess parental RF. While we used interviews, Sharp et al. (2006) measured parental RF as the degree of a mother’s accuracy in
predicting her children’s response and compared the mother’s prediction with the child’s self-report. This measure may be
influenced not only by maternal RF, but also by the child’s ability to accurately report his or her thoughts and feelings.
On the other hand, our finding that parental RF is associated with more internalizing problems and less positive self-
perception among adolescent children is consistent with studies on constructs closely related to RF, such as psychological
mindedness, self-awareness, and self-consciousness. These studies have suggested that reflectivity may be associated with
negative consequences. For example, psychological mindedness has been reported to be associated with lower self-esteem,
increased self-criticism, and feelings of anxiety (Farber, 1989). Self-consciousness has been found to be inversely related to
self-esteem (Yee & Flanagan, 1985). Social cognitive complexity, a measure of the complexity of positive and negative
cognitions of self and other, has been shown to be associated with self-reported depression (Gara, Woolfolk, & Allen, 2002).
Finally, high levels of thinking, defined as awareness of feelings and emotions, temporal and conceptual perspective, and self-
reflection, have been correlated with depression and anxiety (Pennebaker, Czajka, Cropanzano, & Richards, 1990). Most of
these studies examined the associations between reflectivity and the studied outcome within the same person. However, one
study examined the association between parental characteristics and adolescent’s outcomes and found that parental
 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 171

cognitive resourcefulness (as opposed to confused insensitivity) during the preschool years predicted daughters’ depressive
symptoms during adolescence (Gjerde, Block, & Block, 1991).
Farber (1989) has argued that even though psychological mindedness allows for a better understanding of one’s emotions,
attunement to negative emotions may have some less desirable consequences. This argument also evokes the self-absorption
paradox, which states that self-consciousness improves the accuracy of self-knowledge, but at the cost of psychological
distress (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999). Trapnell and Campbell (1999) concluded that "[A]ccurate self-perception involves both
costs and benefits. Removing the rose-colored coating from one’s looking glass is unlikely to enhance self-confidence and
optimism. The interpersonal benefits of accurate self-perception may, however, be substantial" (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999, p.
299).
It seems that RF confers a more complex, reality-oriented perception of one’s self and others, including an awareness of
negative feelings and characteristics. A capacity to acknowledge negative affect in both one’s self and others may be seen as
a core requirement for meaningful interactions with others and self-understanding (Steele, Steele, & Johansson, 2002). In the
absence of such a capacity, different aspects of one’s self and others are defensively excluded from the self. Indeed, in a recent
study, children with higher reflective capacities were more likely to acknowledge their feelings and less prone to underreport
their symptoms (Ostler, Bahar, & Jessee, 2010). It should be noted that the higher levels of internalizing problems and the
lower levels of self-perception that were associated with higher levels of parental RF in the present study were still within the
normal, nonclinical range.

The moderating role of parental RF

We found that parental RF moderates the association between certain parenting behaviors and adolescent outcomes. High
levels of maternal and paternal warmth were associated with higher levels of adolescent social self-perception only in the
presence of high levels of maternal and paternal RF and high levels of paternal control were associated with lower levels of
adolescent self-perception and social competence, as well as with higher levels of adolescent externalizing problems, only in
the presence of low levels of paternal RF. In other words, parental RF appears to behave as a superordinate dimension that
influences the association between parenting behavior and adolescent outcomes. In the presence of higher levels of parental
RF, these parenting behaviors were associated with more positive adolescent outcomes. This finding underscores the need for
a shift from a focus on direct links between parenting behaviors and adolescent outcomes to more complex models, which
consider parental behaviors in the context of other factors (Alink et al., 2009; Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Kochanska, Aksan,
Knaack, & Rhines, 2004).
The observed moderating role of parental RF may contribute to our understanding of the differences between authori-
tarian and authoritative parenting (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritarian parents demand obedience and punish bad behavior.
Authoritative parents reason with the child and consider his or her perspective, and this requires RF. Indeed, higher levels of
parental reasoning and perspective-taking have been reported to be related to authoritative patterns of childrearing (Dekovic
& Gerris, 1992; Gerris, Dekovic, & Janssens, 1997); whereas an authoritarian parenting style was found to be related to lower
levels of awareness and sensitivity to children’s signals (Martini, Root, & Jenkins, 2004), as well as negative and distorted
attributions (Rudy & Grusec, 2001). Parental RF may facilitate the distinction between adequate control and over- or under-
control, and enable parents to maintain the challenging balance between controlling their adolescent children’s behavior and
granting them some autonomy (Goldstein et al., 2005; Smetana, 2000). Furthermore, parental RF may moderate the effects of
a child’s characteristics on the behavior of his or her parents. Previous research on bidirectional parent–child effects has
shown that unskilled parents are more likely to be influenced by children’s behavior problems (Patterson, 2002) and that
adolescents’ perceptions of their effectiveness as agents is derived from their parents’ sensitivity and responsiveness to their
needs (De Mol & Buysse, 2008).

Paternal and maternal RF and adolescent outcomes

While both maternal and paternal RF and parenting behaviors were found to be associated with adolescent outcomes,
paternal RF emerged as particularly significant for this sample. This finding is consistent with previously reported obser-
vations that paternal variables are more strongly related to adolescent outcomes than maternal variables (e.g., Dekovic &
Meeus, 1997; Grossmann et al., 2002; Veneziano, 2003). It has been suggested that, during adolescence, fathers facilitate
the separation-individuation process and the acquisition of autonomy and, for this reason, their role may become more
significant and pronounced during this period (Shulman & Seiffge-Krenke, 1997). Furthermore, an accurate perception of both
one’s self and others, and the capacity to tolerate the negative aspects of this awareness, may be particularly important for
fathers. RF may help fathers overcome their tendency to disengage from the emotional lives of their adolescent children and,
especially, their tendency to avoid conflict and negative feelings. RF may enable fathers to control their adolescent children in
a more appropriate way and move toward an authoritative parenting style, without resorting to permissiveness. According to
Bronfenbrenner (1985), as the level of stability and structure in Western society decreases, the relative level of control within
the family should increase. Hence, the growing significance of RF and adequate parental control in today’s complex and fast-
paced society.
172 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174

Study limitations and directions for future research

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

Acknowledgments

This paper is based on a doctoral dissertation completed by the first author at the Psychology Department of Ben-Gurion
University, Beer-Sheva, Israel. Parts of the data were presented at the APA conference in New Orleans in August 2006, and at
the First European Conference on Social, Emotional and Behavior Competence and Difficulties in Children and Young Persons
in Malta in September, 2007.
The authors are grateful to the mothers, fathers, and adolescents who participated in this study, and to Lilly Noyfeld, Keren
Livni, Lior Pe’er, If’at Bar-Sela, Noga Tzuckert, Efrat Harel, Chen-Li Eshel, Orit Nabriski, Shiri Hoberman, Noa Paz, Gali Bar, and
Hila Levy for their help with the interviews and with the coding of the transcribed interviews.

Appendix. Examples of high- and low-RF answers

An example of a high-RF answer of the father of a 14-year-old girl:

Q: Has S. changed over the last few years?
A: I think the changes are more . she feels she should be treated and respected as an older child (attribution of mental
states to child). I guess that, in a way, she is right. We have to undergo changes as well, not only her (envisioning transactional
processes between parent and child). She is more assertive, she is more. let’s say argumentative. I’m not sure if it is only for
the sake of winning an argument (the opaqueness of mental states). I mean, it is possible that she is fighting for space
(attribution of mental states to child). All of a sudden, her friends seem to be more important to her (envisioning changes of
mental states between past and present). Not that in the past they weren’t, but friends were friends and family was family. But,
today, her social life appears to be more important to her (envisioning changes of mental states between past and present). She
appears to be fully committed and dedicated to her friends. This wasn’t the situation before.

An example of a low-RF answer of the father of a 15-year-old girl:

Q: Has N. changed over the last few years?
A: No (disavowal). What bothers me is that she gets mad all of a sudden (behavioral account). We have to be gentle with her,
so we are trying.
Q: Has this been happening more frequently over the last few years?
A: No, I think may be it’s because she’s a middle child, so. it is typical [behavior for a middle child], this is what I think
(clichéd explanation).
Q: Did she change in her social relations or at school?
A: No, she is very stable, she knows what is going on and she has good friends (general and superficial account).

An example of a high-RF answer of a 15-year-old girl:

Q: Have you ever felt offended by your parents?
A: Yes, sure, sure.. It’s always during arguments, when they behave in a wrong way and then I feel offended (association
between mental states and behavior).
Q: Can you give me an example?
A: If we quarrel and he (i.e., my father) is the one who talks and doesn’t let me answer, or only “shoots” what he has to say,
and the same with my mother, she only “shoots” what she has to say, and doesn’t let me say a word. It is not a real
discussion; it is only her side of the argument (recognition of diverse perspectives).
Q: Why do you think they behave this way?
A: Hmm. I think. let’s say with my mother, she’s at work all the time, her work is a very large part of her life, and petty
children’s issues, such to clean or not to clean and stuff like that.. are petty and annoying things that she doesn’t need now
(attribution of mental states to mother), so she loses control (association between mental states and behavior), and she does
not.. it all amounts to that.
Q: Do you think they understood that you were hurt?
A: Yes, yes, several times my mother came and spoke with me afterwards and apologized, and so did my father.
 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174 173

An example of a low-RF answer of an 18-year-old girl:

Q: Have you ever felt offended by your parents?
A: Yes, sometimes [I want to] go to the dance club. [My parents say] “No, you go there too often; don’t go now” (direct
quotation), or "There will be no one to take care of your little brother.” Or, since I go quite often, they’ll say, “Nothing will
happen if you give up once” (direct quotation). Do you understand?
Q: I understand. So, in these circumstances, when your dad or mom does not allow you to go out, do you think they
understand that you feel hurt?
A: Yes, I immediately start screaming and get mad at them (behavioral description), “No! I want to go!” (direct quotation)
and like that. But, after several minutes, they either allow me or I understand them.
Q: What do you mean?
A: I understand them, because if they tell me: “Listen, I have no money right now, so I cannot give you any”, then I
understand them (superficial account). I am not going to quarrel with them for money. I am ready to give up, because it’s
money, you understand? But, if I have money [of my own], I’ll take it and go [to the club].

References

Aber, J., Slade, A., Berger, B., Bresgi, I., & Kaplan, M. (1985). The parent development. Unpublished manuscript, The City University of New York.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for
Children, Youth, & Families.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Alink, L. R. A., Mesman, J., van Zeijl, J., Stolk, M. N., Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., et al. (2009). Maternal sensitivity moderates the relation between
negative discipline and aggression in early childhood. Social Development, 18(1), 99–120.
Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., & Olsen, J. E. (2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: assessing relevance across time, culture, and
method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 70(4), 1–137.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95.
Bion, W. R. (1962). Learning from experience. London: Heinemann.
Blatt, S. J., Chevron, E. S., Quinlan, D. M., Schaffer, C. E., & Wein, S. (1992). The assessment of qualitative and structural dimensions of object representations.
Unpublished manuscript, Yale University at New Haven, CT.
Bosacki, S. L., & Astington, J. W. (1999). Theory of mind in preadolescence: relations between social understanding and social competence. Social Devel-
opment, 8(2), 238–255.
Bram, A. D., & Gabbard, G. O. (2001). Potential space and reflective functioning. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 82, 685–699.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1985). Freedom and discipline across the decades. In G. Becker, H. Becker, & L. Huber (Eds.), Order and disorder (pp. 326–339).
Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Berlag.
Carpendale, J. I. M., & Lewis, C. (2004). Constructing an understanding of mind: the development of children’s social understanding within social inter-
action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(1), 79–96.
Cassidy, K. W., Werner, R. S., Rourke, M., Zubernis, L. S., & Balaraman, G. (2003). The relationship between psychological understanding and positive social
behaviors. Social Development, 12(2), 198–221.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496.
De Mol, J., & Buysse, A. (2008). Understanding of children’s influence in parent-child Relationships: a Q-methodological study. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 25(2), 359–379.
Dekovic, M., & Gerris, R. M. (1992). Parental reasoning complexity, social class, and child-rearing behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54(3),
675–785.
Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. (1997). Peer relations in adolescence: effects of parenting and adolescents’ self-concept. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 163–176.
Diamond, D., & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Internal working models and the representational world in attachment and psychoanalytic theories. In M. B. Sperling, & W.
H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults (pp. 72–97). New York: The Guilford Press.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273.
Farber, B. A. (1989). Psychological mindedness: can there be too much of a good thing? Psychotherapy, 26(2), 210–217.
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., Jurist, E. L., & Target, M. (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press.
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., & Target, M. (2007). The parent-infant dyad and the construction of the subjective self. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
48(3–4), 288–328.
Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Moran, G. S., & Higgit, A. C. (1991). The capacity for understanding mental states: the reflective self in parent and child and
its significance for security of attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 12(3), 201–218.
Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: their role in self- organization. Developmental Psychopathology, 9(4), 679–700.
Fonagy, P., Target, M., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1998). Reflective-functioning manual for application to Adult Attachment Interview, Version 5. Unpublished
Manuscript, University College London.
Forehand, R., & Nousiainen, S. (1993). Maternal and paternal parenting: Critical dimensions in adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(2),
213–221.
Gara, M. A., Woolfolk, R. L., & Allen, L. A. (2002). Social cognitive complexity and depression: cognitive complexity moderates the correlation between
depression self- ratings and global self-evaluation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190(10), 670–676.
Gerris, R. M., Dekovic, M., & Janssens, M. A. M. (1997). The relationship between social class and childrearing behaviors: parents’ perspective taking and
value orientations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(4), 834–847.
Gjerde, P. F., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1991). The preschool family context of 18 year olds with depressive symptoms: a prospective study. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 1, 63–91.
Goldstein, S. E., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents, peers, and problem behavior: a longitudinal investigation of the impact of relationship
perceptions and characteristics on the development of adolescent problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 41(2), 401–413.
Grienenberger, J. F., Kelly, K., & Slade, A. (2005). Maternal reflective functioning, mother- infant affective communication, and infant attachment: Exploring
the link between mental states and observed caregiving behavior in the intergenerational transmission of attachment. Attachment & Human Devel-
opment, 7(3), 299–311.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child-
father attachment relationship: fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11(3),
321–331.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: a reconceptualization of current points of
views. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 4–19.
Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Kuczynski, L. (2000). New directions in analyses of parenting contributions to children’s acquisition of values. Child Devel-
opment, 71(1), 205–211.
174 N. Benbassat, B. Priel / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 163–174

Hastings, P., & Grusec, J. E. (1997). Conflict outcome as a function of parental accuracy in perceiving child cognitions and affect. Social Development, 6(1), 76–90.
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescence. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Denver.
Heider, D., Matschinger, H., Bernert, S., Alonso, J., & Angermeyer, M. C. (2006). Relationship between parental bonding and mood disorder in six European
countries. Psychiatry Research, 143, 89–98.
Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). (pp. 162–178)
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hughes, C., Jaffee, S. R., Happe, F., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Origins of individual differences in theory of mind: from nature to nurture? Child
Development, 76(2), 356–370.
Humfress, H., O’Connor, T. G., Slaughter, J., Target, M., & Fonagy, P. (2002). General and relationship-specific models of social cognition: explaining the
overlap and discrepancies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(7), 873–883.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of
monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366–380.
Klimes-Dougan, B., Brand, A., Zahn-Waxler, C., Usher, B., Hastings, P., Kendziora, K., & Garside, R. (2007). Parental emotion socialization in adolescence:
differences in sex, age and problem status. Social Development, 16(2), 326–342.
Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Knaack, A., & Rhines, H. M. (2004). Maternal parenting and children’s conscience: early security as moderator. Child Development,
75(4), 1229–1242.
Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, C. M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D.
Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 259–283). New York: The Guilford Press.
Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and
sympathy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 759–782.
Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2004). The development and significance of father-child relationships in two-parent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the
father in child development (4th ed.). (pp. 272–305) New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1994). Divergent realities: The emotional lives of mothers, fathers, and adolescents. New York: Basic Books.
Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) model of attachment: findings and
directions for future research. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 127–159). New York: Routledge
Publication.
Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1994). Adult attachment rating and classification system. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
Martini, T. S., Root, C. A., & Jenkins, J. M. (2004). Low and middle income mothers’ regulation of negative emotion: effects of children’s temperament and
situational emotional responses. Social Development, 13(4), 515–530.
Meins, E., & Fernyhough, C. (1999). Linguistic acquisitional style and mentalising development: the role of maternal mind-mindedness. Cognitive Devel-
opment, 14, 363–380.
Meins, E., Fernyhough, C., Wainwright, R., Das Gupta, M., Fradley, E., & Tuckey, M. (2002). Maternal mind-mindedness and attachment security as predictors
of theory of mind understanding. Child Development, 73(6), 1715–1726.
Ostler, T., Bahar, O., & Jessee, A. (2010). Mentalization in children exposed to parental methamphetamine abuse: relation to children’s mental health and
behavioral outcomes. Attachment & Human Development, 12(3), 193–207.
Pardini, D. A. (2008). Novel insights into longstanding theories of bidirectional parent-child influence: introduction to the special section. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 627–631.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10.
Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early development of coercive family process. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and
adolescents: A developmental analysis and the Oregon model for intervention (pp. 25–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pennebaker, J. W., Czajka, J. A., Cropanzano, R., & Richards, B. C. (1990). Levels of thinking (with Brumbelow, S., Ferrara, K., Thompson, R., & Thyssen, T.).
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(4), 743–757.
Phares, V., Fields, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Fathers’ and mothers’ involvement with their adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 1–9.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and
latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
Rudy, D., & Grusec, J. E. (2001). Correlates of authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist cultures and implications for understanding the
transmission of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(2), 202–212.
Sharp, C., Fonagy, P., & Goodyer, I. M. (2006). Imagining your child’s mind: Psychosocial adjustment and mothers’ ability to predict their children’s attri-
butional response styles. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 197–214.
Shulman, S., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1997). Fathers and adolescents: Developmental and clinical perspectives. London: Routledge.
Sillars, A., Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2005). Communication and understanding in parent-adolescent relationships. Human Communication Research,
31(1), 102–128.
Slade, A. (2005). Parental reflective functioning: an introduction. Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 269–281.
Slade, A., Belsky, J., Aber, J. L., & Phelps, J. L. (1999). Mothers’ representations of their relationships with their toddlers: links to adult attachment and
observed mothering. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 611–619.
Slade, A., Bernbach, E., Grienenberger, J., Wohlgemath-Levy, D., & Locker, A. (2001). Addendum to reflective functioning scoring manual for use with the
parent development interview. Unpublished manuscript, The City College and Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
Smetana, J. G. (2000). Middle-class African-American adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority and parenting practices: a longitudinal
investigation. Child Development, 71(6), 1672–1686.
Soenens, B., Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Goossens, L. (2007). The intergenerational transmission of empathy-related responding in adolescence: the role
of maternal support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 299–311.
Steele, H., Steele, M., Croft, C., & Fonagy, P. (1999). Infant–mother attachment at one year predicts children’s understanding of mixed emotions at six years.
Social Development, 8(2), 161–178.
Steele, M., Steele, H., & Johansson, M. (2002). Maternal predictors of children’s social cognition: an attachment perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 43(7), 861–872.
Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Shmueli-Goetz, Y. (2003). Attachment representations in school-age children: the development of the child attachment interview
(CAI). Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29(2), 171–186.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the Five-Factor model of personality: distinguishing rumination from reflection.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 284–304.
Veneziano. (2003). The importance of paternal warmth. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(3), 265–281.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY:
Sharpe.
Waugh, R. F. (2001). Measuring ideal and real self-concept on the same scale, based on multifaceted, hierarchical model of self-concept. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 61(1), 85–101.
Wood, J. J., & Repetti, R. L. (2004). What gets dad involved? A longitudinal study of change in parental child caregiving involvement. Journal of Family
Psychology, 18(1), 237–249.
Yee, D. K., & Flanagan, C. (1985). Family environments and self-consciousness in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5(1), 59–68.