Communication: Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Parent-Child Interaction

Parent–Child Interaction
Communication: Oxford Research Encyclopedias

Haley Kranstuber Horstman, Alexie Hays, and Ryan Maliski
Subject: Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies), Health and Risk
Communication, Interpersonal Communication
Online Publication Date: Aug 2016 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.278
Summary and Keywords
The parent–child relationship is one of the most influential, important, and meaningful
relationships in an individual’s life. The communication between parents and children
fuels their bond and functions to socialize children (i.e., gender, career and work,
relationship values and skills, and health behaviors), provide social support, show
affection, make sense of their life experiences, engage in conflict, manage private
information, and create a family communication environment. How parents and children
manage these functions changes over time as their relationship adapts over the
developmental periods of their lives. Mothers and fathers may also respond differently to
the changing needs of their children, given the unique relational cultures that typically
exist in mother–child versus father–child relationships.
Although research on parent–child communication is vast and thorough, the constant

changes faced by families in the 21st century—including more diverse family structures—
provides ample avenues for future research on this complex relationship. Parent–child
communication in diverse families (e.g., divorced/stepfamilies, adoptive, multiracial,
LGBTQ, and military families) must account for the complexity of identities and
experiences in these families. Further, changes in society such as advances in technology,
the aging population, and differing parenting practices are also transforming the parent–
child relationship. Because this relationship is a vital social resource for both parents and
children throughout their lives, researchers will undoubtedly continue to seek to
understand the complexities of this important family dyad.
Keywords: parent–child communication, parent–child relationships, family communication, mother, father, life
span communication, diverse families
Page 1 of 30
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, COMMUNICATION (communication.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford
University Press USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited. Please see
applicable Privacy Policy and Legal Notice (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Introduction
The parent–child relationship is one of the most influential relationships in a person’s life.
Young children rely on their parent(s) to provide them with basic needs, and parents
provide for their children in order to sustain them and build toward future generations
(Floyd & Morman, 2014). In accordance with evolutionary psychology, humans’ motivation
to love, protect, and provide for their children has evolved from the principles of natural
selection (Floyd & Morman, 2014). Most parents invest in their children through providing
resources such as time, affection, finances, education, and health care. This investment
and subsequent interdependence fuels an important interpersonal bond between parents
and children, socializes them into adulthood, and molds their communication skills (i.e.,
Afifi, Granger, Denes, Joseph, & Aldeis, 2011).
Because of the life-long attachment between parents and children, this dyad has received
much attention from scholars and still has ample room for future research. Fingerman
and Hay’s (2002) meta-analysis of articles published in family and relationship journals
between 1994 and 1999 reported that 25.6% of articles focused on relationships with
young children, and only 16.6% of the articles studied relationships with parents.
Further, in their content analysis of communication-focused family relationship research
between 1990 and 2003, Baxter and Braithwaite (2006) found that 35.6% of scholars
focused on parent–child communication. Yet, children (i.e., those younger than 18 years
old) are not often studied in family communication research and deserve more scholarly
attention (Miller-Day, Pezalla, & Chestnut, 2013). Thus, there is a strong body of research
parent–child communication that scholars can build upon when investigating the of the
ever-changing landscape of parenting in the 21st century.
Adjusting to the many changes experienced by the parent–child dyad over the life course
requires communication. As such, this entry will explicate past research on parent–child
communication in the United States as well as call for future research on many facets of
parent–child communication. In so doing, this article explores: (1) the functions of
parent–child communication, (2) parent–child communication in the life cycle, (3)
communication in particular types of parent–child dyads, and (4) current topics in
communication between parents and children.
Page 2 of 30

Functions of Parent–Child Communication

Communication researchers are interested in the way communication functions in any
given relationship. Seven functions of parent–child communication emerge as important
in past and current research—socialization, social support, affection, communicated
sense-making, conflict, privacy management, and family communication patterns. The
following section will highlight the foundational and current literature on these functions,
with special attention to communication-specific research.
Socialization
One of the most influential and frequently studied functions of parent–child

communication is socialization. In general, socialization is the process of exchanging
values, behaviors, and worldviews (Giddens, 1979). Parents’ influence on children is
particularly pervasive and long-lasting because there are many opportunities for
socialization throughout a child’s life and the repeated exposure to particular
socialization messages is quite powerful (see Bandura, 1961). Parents socialize children
toward values such as religion (i.e., Soliz & Colaner, 2015), finances (Thorson &
Kranstuber Horstman, 2014), and morals (Waldron, Kloeber, Goman, Piemonte, &
Danaher, 2014). Parent–child socialization occurs through communicative processes such
as storytelling (Stone, 2004), modeling (Ebersole, Miller-Day, & Raup-Krieger, 2014),
creating and enforcing rules (Ndiaye et al., 2013), conversing (Holman & Koenig Kellas,
2015), and providing memorable messages—or critical messages that individuals “pull
forward” to influence their decisions and behaviors (Medved, Brogan, McClanahan,
Morris, & Shepherd, 2006). The contexts of parent–child socialization that are most studied
in communication research include—but are not limited to—socializing children’s gender,
careers and work, and health.
Gender Socialization
Research shows that a child’s understanding of gender begins to develop at an early age
and the same-sexed parent is the child’s primary source of gender socialization (Marks,
Lam, & McHale, 2009). Gender socialization occurs through parents’ attitudes regarding
gender-specific toys, reactions toward characteristics stereotyped for boys/girls,
encouragement of helping at home, and values about education and marriage (Blakemore
& Hill, 2008). In addition to parents’ communicative behaviors, their own gender
ideologies may also mirror their gender socialization efforts. For example, feminist
parents report showing their children their gender ideologies through their behaviors and
Page 3 of 30

talk (Colaner & Rittenour, 2015). These parents often alter “normative” parenting to
reflect their feminist values. Feminist parents report intentionally demonstrating their
feminist ideals about work by discussing women’s place in the world as well as
maintaining their position in the workforce after having children (Mack-Canty & Wright,
2004). As a whole, this vast body of literature on gender socialization highlights the
important role of parents’ communication in molding children’s understanding and
performance of gender.
Socialization of Career and Work

Parents also exert substantial influence on children’s expectations for work. Through
both indirect and direct communication, parents deliver important messages to their
children about their potential future careers (Lucas, 2011; Medved et al., 2006). For
example, college students perceive that a majority of memorable messages about college
came from their parents and that these messages directly influence their behavior in
college (Kranstuber, Carr, & Hosek, 2012). These memorable messages include ideas such
as “work hard and/or play hard” and “college is necessary” (e.g., “My dad told me, ‘The
best thing you can do is get as much education as you can because that opens doors and
allows you to do many different things,’” Kranstuber et al., 2012, p. 54). Young adults
report using memorable parental messages from their childhood to make decisions in
their adulthood.
In addition to being foundational influencers in the career and work realm, parents also
influence their children regarding their balance of work and family life (Kirby, Golden,
Medved, Jorgenson, & Buzzanell, 2003; Medved et al., 2006). Men and women receive
similar messages from parents about the role that work and family should play in adult
life (e.g., “Your work defines you—it makes you who you are”; Medved et al., 2006, p. 162);
however, women receive significantly different messages than men about choosing
particular careers and exiting the paid labor force in relation to anticipated family
obligations (e.g., “It’s important to establish yourself in a career before you raise a
family”; p. 162). These findings demonstrate gendered notions of work and how parental
communication may fuel these expectations in ways that influence young adults’ career
decisions.
Health Socialization
Finally, parents socialize their children toward particular attitudes, values, beliefs, and
practices regarding health behaviors. Researchers have studied parental communication
with regard to alcohol and drug use (Ebersole et al., 2014), sex (Holman & Koenig Kellas,
2015), dementia (Alemán & Helfrich, 2010), nutrition (Ndiaye et al., 2013), organ donation
(Pitts, Raup-Krieger, Kundrat, & Nussbaum, 2009), breast cancer (Fisher, 2014), and
intimate partner violence (Babin & Palazzolo, 2012). Parents try to select the most
Page 4 of 30

effective methods for socializing their children based on the context and family
communicative environment. For example, in their study on low-income parents’
socialization about nutrition, Ndiaye et al. (2013) found that children could not recall
specific memorable messages or stories their parents told them about food, but they
could readily recall rules about eating (e.g., “clean your plate”).
Research has also found that the parent–child communication environment is an essential
component of influencing children’s health behaviors (Babin & Palazzolo, 2012; Miller-Day,
2008).
For example, adolescents’ perceptions of parental overall communication
competence and effectiveness in teaching children about sex have been found to be the
strongest negative predictors of adolescents’ permissive sexual attitudes and sexual risk
taking (Holman & Koenig Kellas, 2015). In other words, children best learn from and
change their behaviors when they view their parents as knowledgeable and able to
competently discuss health behaviors. In sum, research on parental socialization provides
researchers with a rich understanding of the power of parental communication in guiding
their children’s understanding of appropriate ways to operate within the world. The next
section will explore parents’ abilities to provide support for their children during life’s
difficult experiences.
Social Support
Across the life course, one of the most important sites for social support is the parental
relationship. Social support is studied in a variety of fields and contexts, but
communication scholars focus on social support as “responsiveness to another’s needs
and more specifically as acts that communicate caring” (Cutrona, 1996, p. 10). The
enactment of social support in close relationships—particularly parent–child relationships
—predicts many individual and relational health outcomes (see Burleson & MacGeorge,
2002; Goldsmith, 2004). People expect to receive support from their parents and turn to
their parents quite frequently for comfort (Griffith, 1985). This social support is imperative,
given that young adults who perceive their parents as supportive are more likely to
experience greater individual and relational well-being than those whose parents are
rated as non-supportive (e.g., Burleson & Kunkel, 2002). Adolescents regard their mothers
as a particularly important source of support (Hunter & Youniss, 1982) and feel closer to
their mothers because of their social support (Morman & Whitely, 2012).
Although parents are largely the support provider in the parent–child relationship,
research shows that support can be transactional. For example, in times of divorce, a
child may become a confidant to a parent (Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson, & Baker, 2007).
Similarly, in later life, parents may call upon children to provide instrumental support
Page 5 of 30

(Silverstein, Parrott, & Bengtson, 1995). Sex differences emerge in the motivation of a
middle-aged child to provide instrumental support for an aging parent such that
daughters are motivated by a sense of affection for their parent, whereas sons are
motivated by a sense of familial obligation (Silverstein et al., 1995). Research demonstrates
that the enactment and reception of social support is often transactional in the parent–
child relationship and predicts their individual and relational health.
Affection
Affection, or any verbal or nonverbal message that implies a deep sense of caring for
another, is often commonplace in the parent–child relationship. According to affection
exchange theory, affection conveys a commitment to and emotional investment in the
relationship (Floyd, 2006). This neo-Darwinian theory proposes that individuals are
innately driven to perpetuate their own genetic lineage and thus favor giving affection to
genetic offspring. Floyd and Morman (2001) examined fathers with genetically linked sons
and fathers with a non-genetic son (e.g., adopted or step-son) and found that fathers of
genetically linked sons express significantly more verbal and nonverbal affection
compared to fathers of non–genetically linked sons.
Affection exchange research has also established that the expression and reception of
affection have positive health outcomes (Floyd, Pauley, & Hesse, 2010). Researchers have
found that the more affectionate communication relational partners share, the better able
they are to manage life stressors (Floyd, 2006). Regarding the parent–child dyad, the need
for authentic affection is ubiquitous in children (Harlow, 1958). Wismer Fries, Shirtcliff,
and Pollack (2008) found evidence that the deprivation of affectionate interactions early in
life can have a prolonged negative impact on a child’s well-being. In short, affection is an
evolutionarily adaptive communicative behavior that can cultivate a sense of belonging
and has implications for the individual and relational health of a parent and child.
Communicated Sense-Making
The process of communicated sense-making (CSM) involves telling stories and using
story-like devices (e.g., memorable messages, attributions, accounts, and communicated
perspective taking) to organize and process one’s life experiences, identities, and
relationships (Koenig Kellas & Kranstuber Horstman, 2015). CSM is particularly salient in
parent–child relationships because it is a context in which life experiences, identities, and
relationships are formed and re-formed. Given their characteristically high rates of
relational closeness and emotional support (Floyd & Morman, 2014; Miller-Day, 2004),
Page 6 of 30

parents and children often use stories and storytelling to cope with difficulty and to
manage identities.
Narrative theorizing suggests that parents and children cope with difficulty by organizing
their experiences into stories, which helps them process and cope with those experiences
(Koenig Kellas & Kranstuber Horstman, 2015). When telling a story of difficulty together,
the more parents and children take each other’s perspective and are able to create a
coherent story, the more cohesive and supportive the family environment (Trees &
Koenig Kellas, 2009). Similarly, mothers’ and daughters’ CSM behaviors predict daughters’
abilities to more positively make sense of their difficulties over time (Horstman et al.,
2015). These findings show that parents and children who attend to each other’s
viewpoints, solicit and listen to each other’s ideas, and incorporate family members’
perspectives into their own stories enjoy greater facilitate individual and family well-
being than those who do not.
Parent–child storytelling also has important implications for identity work. For example,
the content and process of telling “adoption entrance narratives”—or the story of how a
child came to be placed for adoption, how s/he came to the adoptive family, and what it
means to be an adoptee—helps to build the child’s identity (Krusiewicz & Wood, 2001). The
content of adoptive parents’ adoption entrance narratives contributes to the adopted
child’s well-being (Kranstuber & Koenig Kellas, 2011) as well as sets a foundation for the
relationship with birth parents in open adoptive families (Hays, Horstman, Colaner, &
Nelson, 2015). As a whole, research shows that CSM facilitates coping and identity work
within the parent–child dyad and provides an opportunity to relate to one another.
Conflict
Researchers note that conflict may arise in any meaningful relationship and is
particularly commonplace for the parent–child dyad (Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). For
example, mothers and toddlers are thought to experience roughly one conflict every five
minutes on average (Eisenberg, 1992). Although conflict is common in this dyad,
researchers have found that parents and children perceive their conflict conversations
quite differently. During conflict, parents tend to focus more on the dynamics of the
conversation, whereas children take a more literal approach to understanding the content
of the conversation (Sillars, Smith, & Koerner, 2010). Parents and children lack an
awareness of one another’s differences in perceiving conflict, as parents tend to
overattribute negative and avoidant thoughts to their children and children overattribute
controlling thoughts to parents.
Page 7 of 30

In addition to routine conflict in the parent–child dyad, stressful life events—such as

parental divorce—can also ignite conflict in the relationship. Afifi, Merrill, and Davis
(2014) note that how conflict is managed during a divorce is central to the child’s
adjustment. Importantly, parents’ communication skills are essential to how children
respond to the divorce. For example, children who perceive their parents as more
communicatively skilled (i.e., more communicatively competent, socially supportive) felt
less caught between their parents and were better able to recover physiologically from
the interaction (Afifi et al., 2011).
Unfortunately, in some situations, parent–child conflict takes the form of abuse. Wilson
and colleagues’ studies on parent–child abuse risk have found that mothers’ verbal
aggressiveness (i.e., an attempt to challenge another person’s perception of self)
positively predicted her risk for committing child abuse (Wilson, Hayes, Bylund, Rack, &
Herman, 2006). Children of mothers who are “high-risk” to abuse showed less pro-social
and positive behaviors during play (Wilson, Morgan, Hayes, Bylund, & Herman, 2004).
These research findings highlight the important role of communication in conflict
between the parent and child.
Privacy Management
Throughout the life cycle, parents and children must work to manage their privacy in
ways that build a functional and satisfying relationship (Petronio, 2010). Communication
privacy management theory (Petronio, 2002) is built on five principles of private
information management: (a) ownership of information, (b) control, (c) regulation
through privacy rules, (d) co-ownership or guardianship of another’s private information,
and (e) turbulences or regulation of privacy breakdowns (Petronio, 2010). When individuals
mutually own some information, as in the case of parents and children, privacy is jointly
managed, thus requiring parents to explain to children the family’s privacy rules.
Parents and family members are often the first teachers of the concept of privacy
(Petronio, 2002, 2010). Parents are responsible for communicating to children the societal
expectations of privacy in terms of information, bodily privacy, and physical/
environmental privacy (Morr Serewicz, 2013). In early adolescence, mothers often play a
significant role in teaching their daughters what secrecy means. Mothers teach their
teenage daughters that secrets can be valuable within a social structure (Merten, 1999). As
children develop their own secrets, they may decide to keep certain topics private from
their parents if they perceive that their parents will be unreceptive to the disclosure
(Guerrero & Afifi, 1995). As young adult children experience developmental changes of
adulthood including launching a career, forming romantic relationships, marriage, and
Page 8 of 30

parenthood, their communication and privacy with their family of origin evolves.
Particularly with parenthood, parents and their children must communicatively
renegotiate their privacy boundaries as the child works to maintain harmony with both
their family of origin and their own new family (Morr Serewicz, 2013). Ultimately,
managing privacy between parents and children is a life-long and constant negotiation
process.
Family Communication Patterns
Over time, parent–child communication becomes patterned and creates an overall family
communication environment characterized by family communication patterns (FCP;
Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994). FCP theorizing explores how families create a co-orientation
(i.e., a shared understanding) of their family communication environment. Theorizing and
research have illuminated two orientations of FCP: conformity and conversation.
Conformity orientation is the extent to which the family communication climate either
stresses homogeneity of attitudes, values, and beliefs or emphasizes the importance of
individual beliefs and opinions (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Conversation orientation is
the extent to which the family communication climate either encourages all family
members to participate freely in interaction about numerous topics or is characterized by
less frequent interaction about a variety of topics (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). These
orientations can be blended to create four family types: pluralistic (i.e., low conformity,
high conversation), protective (i.e., high conformity, low conversation), consensual (i.e.,
high conformity, high conversation), and laissez-faire (i.e., low conformity, low
conversation) (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Several studies have revealed that (a)
conversation and conformity orientations are inversely associated with each other, (b)
conversation orientation tends to produce positive outcomes in families and in individual
family members, and (c) the influence of conformity is less clear and more dependent on
the subtle nuances of authority that are enacted within the family (see Schrodt, Witt, &
Messersmith, 2008, for review).
FCP researchers investigate how the family communication environment predicts

children’s information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes (Schrodt et al.,
2008). Studies related to children’s behaviors find that, in general, children from families
high in conversation are more competent and flexible communicators in a variety of
contexts (Schrodt, Ledbetter & Ohrt, 2007). When parents create a climate in which all
family members are encouraged to participate in unrestrained interactions about a
variety of topics, children develop greater self-esteem, report less perceived stress, and
exhibit fewer mental health issues. Through investigations of FCP, researchers further
the understanding of the various ways in which the family communication environment
Page 9 of 30

facilitates family functioning and ultimately contributes to children’s well-being (Schrodt

et al., 2008).
Parent–Child Communication Over the Course

of the Life Cycle
The second section of this article explores research on important developmental periods
in parent–child communication. It first investigates the dynamism of parent–child
communication, beginning with parenting infants and young children, then moves into
adolescence, and ends with emerging adulthood/adulthood.
Parenting Infants and Young Children
The relationship between parents and children begins in utero and continues into infancy.
Immediately following the birth of the child, scholars recognize that initial parent–
newborn interactions provide a critical foundation for emotional, cognitive, and social
development (Van Egeren & Barratt, 2004). The communicative interactions that take
place between the newborn and caregiver lay the foundation for the child’s ability to
function as an effective communicator in subsequent settings, tasks, and relationships.
Despite their neurological immaturity, newborns notice their parents’ signals and parents
are intuitively expert at providing signals that capture the infant’s attention, thus laying
the groundwork for the parent–child communicative relationship (Van Egeren & Barratt,
2004).
Throughout infancy, a life-long attachment between the parent and child is built around
parents’ care for and interaction with the child. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1958, 1969)
asserts that humans are dependent on care providers during the early years of their lives.
Each person’s attachment style can be determined by his or her response when separated
from his or her caregiver during infancy. Infants are classified as secure when their
separation distress is effectively relieved upon their caregiver’s return; insecure if they
either ignore their primary caregiver upon reunion (i.e., insecure-avoidant) or
simultaneously seek, yet resist, their caregiver upon reunion (i.e., insecure-resistant); or
disorganized when they exhibit momentary breakdowns of one of these organized
strategies (Main & Solomon, 1990). The quality of a child’s attachment relationship with
his or her primary caregiver is theorized to shape the kind of attachment the child
develops and carries through life (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). Parental
communication reinforces this attachment; for example, children who perceived that
Page 10 of 30

their parents were significantly lower in verbal aggression and higher in responsiveness
tend to have a secure attachment style (Roberto, Carlyle, Goodall, & Castle, 2009).
Adolescent Children
As children move into adolescence, parent–child encounters become more complex as

conflict increases, peers become more influential, and exploration of risky behavior takes
hold (e.g., Holman & Koenig Kellas, 2015; Sillars et al., 2010). Scholars have found that
adolescents are more likely to confide in mothers, as opposed to fathers, regarding a host
of issues including those related to sexuality (Afifi, Joseph, & Aldeis, 2008) and substance
use (Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004). Additionally, the family communication environment shapes
adolescents’ communicative development and their likelihood of successfully rejecting
peers’ requests to partake in risky behavior. Koesten and Anderson (2004) found that
adolescents from families that stress a communication climate of challenge and
expression of opinions develop certain interpersonal skills that are important to creating
productive peer relationships and managing some risky behaviors. Scholars explore how
certain messages are interpreted, how that impacts the child’s behaviors, and the
implications of that talk for the parent–child bond (Holman & Koenig Kellas, 2015). As a
whole, communication between parents and adolescents, although tricky and fraught
with complexity, greatly affects adolescents and their ability to develop successful and
healthy communicative behaviors with their peers.
Emerging Adults and Adult Children
Emerging adulthood is a distinct developmental time period between late teen years and
late 20s that greatly impacts the parent–child relationship (Tanner & Arnett, 2011). During
this time, young adult/adult children undergo numerous life changes including
renegotiating one’s identity, gaining independence in college,1 and falling in love (Miller-
Day, Fisher, & Stube, 2014). Often when young adults first fall in love, parents monitor
carefully and attempt to control their child’s decisions regarding mate choices (Buunk,
Park, & Dubbs, 2008). Parents sometimes give unsolicited advice regarding their child’s
romantic relationship, yet this advice is less likely to be accepted than advice directed
toward other types of relationships (e.g., friends, family, co-workers; Carlson, 2014).
Carlson speculates that the acceptance of parental advice might depend on the relational
history and interpersonal communication within the parent–child relationship. In testing
Carlson’s speculation, Hays and Metts (2015) found that emerging adults who feel
supported by their parents were more likely to accept their parents’ unsolicited advice
Page 11 of 30

regarding the termination of their romantic relationship, regardless of how close they
were with their parents.
Later in life children shift into a caregiver role, and this marks one of the final
interactional stages in the parent–child relationship. The health of the aging parent
becomes important, given that older parents’ health may affect their ability to interact
with their children (Nussbaum, Baringer, & Kundrat, 2003). Studies have found that strong
family relationships are significant predictors of mental and physical health of older
adults (Nussbaum et al., 2003). As many adult children—particularly daughters—become
caregivers for their aging parents, parent–child roles are re-negotiated (Harwood,
Rittenour, & Lin, 2013; Pecchioni & Nussbaum, 2001). Although this time period is fraught
with complexity and difficult conversations, it is also characterized by benefits such as
increased closeness with the parent (Koerner, Kenyon, & Shirai, 2009). The strains of
caregiving—such as emotional stress, financial loss, threats to occupation, time away
from family/spouse, and ethical dilemmas in providing support for parents instead of own
children (Koenig, 2004)—receive greater attention in the research. These strains, although
common, can be reduced with improvements to communication between parents, the
child, and the surrounding family system (Harwood et al., 2013). At the intersection of
changing roles, decision-making, and health, the context of aging parents and their adult
children is an area ripe for future research on parent–child communication.
Unique Communication Considerations of

Mothers and Fathers
Mothers and fathers have different relational cultures and communication tendencies
with their children. Recent research has focused on the unique influences of mother–child
and father–child relationships on children, as well as the changing cultures of
motherhood and fatherhood. This section focuses on the specific differences in mothers’
and fathers’ communication with their children.
Mother–Child Communication
The mother–child relationship is a particularly important source of support, identity work,

emotional development, and socialization in a person’s life (Colaner & Rittenour, 2015;
Fisher, 2014; Miller-Day, 2004; Morman & Whitely, 2012). The quality of the mother–child
relationship is consequential for both boys and girls. Compared to fathers, mothers often
develop closer relationships with their children (Lawton, Silverstein, & Bengtson, 1994)
Page 12 of 30

and disclose more frequently and with more emotionality to their children (Mathews,
Derlega, & Morrow, 2006). Following is a review of research on communication in mother–
daughter and mother–son relationships.
Mother–Daughter Communication
The mother–daughter relationship is one of the most influential, emotionally connected,
interdependent, and dynamic relationships in a woman’s lifetime (Miller-Day, 2004; Miller-
Day, Fisher, & Stube, 2014). The mother–daughter relationship develops and re-develops
over time, changing with the differing roles and identities of the women. The intensity of
this bond may be due to their frequency of involvement, females’ focus on relationships,
and identification as women (Chodorow, 1974). The mother–daughter relationship,
although important, is also complex and often contradictory (Miller-Day et al., 2014). These
relationships can be characterized by tensions between competing expectations and/or
desires (i.e., “dialectics”), including dialectics of stability and change, connection and
separation, and openness and privacy (Miller-Day, 2004). Illustrating these dialectics,
Miller-Day found that women rely on their mothers and grandmothers for advice,
support, and help with child care, but also find them controlling or stifling. Penington
(2004) reported that African American mothers and daughters more often emphasized
connection in their mother–daughter relationship (e.g. “daughter as best friend”),
whereas European American mothers and daughters valued autonomy.
How mothers and daughters communicate about health issues and decisions also has
implications for women’s mental and physical health, including issues of breast cancer
(Fisher, 2014), disordered eating patterns (Prescott & LePoire, 2002), caregiving decisions
(Pecchioni & Nussbaum, 2001), and gynecological health (Browne & Chan, 2012). After a
breast cancer diagnosis, women often report that validating communication in their
mother–daughter relationship is a vital source of support for them (Fisher, 2014). The
importance of this validating communication is shown in the conversations of
gynecological health as well (e.g., Browne & Chan, 2012). Mothers and daughters are more
influential on each other’s decisions to get mammograms if they value and engage in
bidirectional—rather than mono-directional—conversation. These findings demonstrate
the importance of the mother–daughter relationship on women’s physical and mental
health.
Mother–Son Communication
Mothers have a considerable influence on sons’ communication skills (see Morman &
Whitely, 2012 for a review) and patterns of behavior and well-being (Morman & Floyd,
2006A, 2006B).
For example, Heller, Robinson, Henry, and Plunkett (2006) found that
openness in the mother–son relationship significantly predicted the development of sons’
empathic concern. Theorizing on gender socialization also points to the role mothers play
Page 13 of 30

in molding their son’s masculinity (Diamond, 2006). Diamond posits that men’s formation
of a healthy masculine identity relies, in part, on his mother’s “recognition and
affirmation of her son’s maleness” (2006, p. 1099). Interdisciplinary research on mothers
and sons demonstrates the importance of the relationship, and communication scholars
are currently teasing out the communicative dynamics characterizing this relationship
(Mormon & Whitely, 2012).
Answering calls for researchers to investigate the nature of communication in mother–

son dyads, Morman and Whitely (2012) explored mothers’ and sons’ perceptions of the
most important times in mother–son relationships. Mothers and young adult sons
described incidents of social support, conflict, and the son marrying as among the most
important events affecting closeness in the mother–son relationship. Specifically,
following a son’s marriage, the mother and son report a decrease in relational closeness.
This finding supports theorizing that men rely first on their mothers and then on their
spouses as their primary form of social support (MacGeorge, Clarke, & Gillihan, 2002).
These results highlight the dynamism of the mother–son relationship in its responses to
life changes over time.
Father–Child Communication
Compared to the literature on mother–child communication, there is considerably less

work on father–child communication. Yet, in the current “changing culture of
fatherhood,” men are beginning to be more highly involved, affectionate, and emotive
with their children (Johansson, 2011; Morman & Floyd, 2006B). Present-day fathers report
more closeness, relational satisfaction, and affection with their sons than they had with
their fathers (Morman & Floyd, 2002). Modern fathers are working to make sense of and
construct their identities as more involved, affectionate, and dedicated fathers (Golden,
2007). In Golden’s study on the “masculine concept of caregiving,” fathers often describe
their childrearing tasks as “work,” which highlights their masculinity by demonstrating
their ability to plan, execute, and control events in a typically masculine way.
The shift in the master narrative of fatherhood is important because the father–child
relationship plays a vital role in child development. Morman and Floyd (2006A) found that
both fathers and sons describe “good” fathers as loving, available, good listeners,
affectionate, involved, and supportive. Also, the more positive and frequent general
father–child communication, the more likely it is that fathers and children will discuss
difficult topics such as sex (Wright, 2009). Wright found that fathers are more likely to
discuss sex with their sons than their daughters, and that black and Latino fathers are
more likely to discuss sex with their children than white or Asian fathers. These findings
Page 14 of 30

are important given that father–child sex talk predicts children’s sexual attitudes,
particularly regarding premarital sex and condoms (Wright, 2009).
Another line of research in father communication has centered on the mechanisms

behind fathers’ intergenerational transmission (or lack thereof) of communication
behaviors. Floyd and Morman (2000) proposed that fathers either uphold the modeling
hypothesis (i.e., fathers match the behaviors of their fathers for their sons) or the
compensation hypothesis (i.e., fathers reject their fathers’ modeling and enact opposite
behaviors for their sons). They found support for both the modeling and compensation
hypotheses regarding affectionate communication such that those fathers who highly
identified with their father were more likely to engage in modeling, whereas those fathers
who did not identify with their father were more likely to follow the compensation path.
Later, Odenweller, Rittenour, Myers, and Brann (2013) found that sons are likely to model
their fathers’ conformity orientation but not their conversation orientation. Odenweller et
al. (2013) surmised that fathers mimic their own fathers’ disciplinary tactics, criticism, or
controlling behaviors because it is easier than reflecting upon and creating new tactics
for handling sons’ defiance.
Most father–child research focuses upon fathers’ influence on children but fails to
account for children’s influence on parents. Yet there is evidence that the father–son
relationship also affects fathers. Floyd and Morman (2000) claim that the father–son
relationship is the most influential same-sex relationship in both men’s lives. Odenweller
et al. (2013) proposed that men may learn skills of emotional expression, affection, and
nurturing from their mothers and then “teach” their fathers those skills. Fathers may,
then, enact those communication skills in order to gain approval from their sons (Mormon
& Floyd, 2006A). This reciprocality of the father–son relationship deserves more scholarly
attention in order to better understand the nature of this complex relationship.
Current Topics in Parent–Child Communication

To conclude the exploration of parent–child communication research, this article
addresses the current state of parent–child relationships in the United States and
corresponding research on these dyads. In light of these changes, the article first briefly
surveys parent–child research in diverse families and then explores potential future
research about this important dyad.
Page 15 of 30

Communication in Diverse Parent–Child Dyads
Because of changing expectations, discourse, and laws surrounding families, the

American family—and parent–child relationships in particular—is rapidly becoming more
diverse and “discourse dependent” (i.e., reliant upon communication to make sense of
and create a family identity; Galvin, 2006). Families are being created through complex
biological, legal, and social avenues and challenging society’s conception of a “normal”
family (Floyd, Mikkelson, & Judd, 2006). Communication research has focused on
relationships in diverse families including, but not limited to bilingual and multi-language
families (Guntzviller, 2015), families created through reproductive technology (e.g.,
Harrigan & Miller-Ott, 2013), families with a child with a disability (Canary, 2012), foster
families (e.g., Suter, Baxter, Seurer, & Thomas, 2014), grandparent-headed households
(Alemán, 2014), interfaith families (Colaner, Soliz, & Nelson, 2014), multiracial/ethnic
families (Nuru & Soliz, 2014), and single-parent households (Afifi et al., 2014).
To date, most of the research on diverse families has centered on four family types:
divorced/stepfamilies, adoptive families, LGBTQ families, and military families, all of
which hold specific challenges in parent–child communication. First, parents undergoing
divorce are responsible for tactfully discussing the divorce/or remarriage with their child
(Afifi, McManus, Hutchinson, & Baker, 2007), creating new family rituals (Braithwaite,
Baxter, & Harper, 1998), and managing their child’s competing understandings of the
divorce (Baxter, Braithwaite, Bryant, & Wagner, 2004). As a whole, parents’
communication during divorce and remarriage is an important predictor of child well-
being following the transition (Afifi et al., 2014).
Second, adoptive parents and children communicate to make sense of their family and
grapple with questions about adoptees’ “layers of difference” (Dunbar & Grotevant, 2004;
Galvin, 2003). Adoptive parent–child communication is essential for establishing a
supportive family environment that addresses adoptees’ questions of difference (Colaner
& Kranstuber, 2010), creates and tells stories of the adoption (Hays et al., 2015; Kranstuber
& Koenig Kellas, 2011), addresses outsiders’ questions and comments (Suter & Ballard,
2009), and helps adoptees build functional adoptive identities (Colaner & Soliz, 2015).
Third, although same-sex parented families are becoming more visible and accepted in
the United States, these families continue to face societal pressures that deem them
“discourse dependent” (Breshears & Braithwaite, 2014; Suter, 2015). Lesbian mothers, for
example, report encountering four main challenges to their legitimacy as parents:
comparison questions (e.g., making comparisons to biological mothers), direct questions
(e.g., rebuking the lesbian family form), nonverbal challenges (e.g., nonverbally hostile
Page 16 of 30

behaviors), and master narrative challenges (e.g., citing conservative religious qualms
with homosexuality). These and other types of challenging questions affect the tenor of
and communication within their family (Koenig Kellas & Suter, 2012).
Fourth, given the visibility of the military family post-9/11 and the significant challenges
faced by military members and their families, research on this family structure has
surged within family communication (Sahlstein Parcell, 2014). The topics of stress and
coping are among the most significant areas within the field. Here, communication
scholars are working to identify the stressors military family members experience as well
as how they manage them (e.g., Maguire & Sahlstein, 2012). How family members
maintain their relationship in the face of separation (e.g., Wilson, Chernichky, Wilkum, &
Owlett, 2014) as well as how they manage conversational topics (e.g., Knobloch, Theiss, &
Wehrman, 2014) are also common lines of research in military families. Because of their
unique challenges and dependence upon communication in their families (Galvin, 2006),
diverse families will continue to be an area ripe for parent–child communication
researchers.
Current Issues and Future Research in Parent–

Child Communication
The parent–child relationship is transforming rapidly with changes in legal, social, and
cultural expectations (Galvin, 2006). Current issues of concern in parent–child
relationships include parent–Millennial children communication, particularly involving
“helicopter parents” (Givertz & Segrin, 2014). In their exploration of “overinvolved
parenting,” Givertz and Segrin found that helicopter parenting is associated with young
adults’ beliefs that they are unable to accomplish difficult tasks. Yet, helicopter parenting
is also associated with young adults’ belief that they deserve favorable outcomes. Future
research should continue to investigate the changing nature of parenting, particularly
considering young adult Millennial children.
The influence of technology on parent–child relationships is also an area apt for

exploration. For example, parent–child communication may predict a child’s preferences
for communicating online. Ledbetter (2010) found that conformity orientation positively
predicted young adult children’s likelihood to prefer self-disclosure online rather than
face-to-face. He surmised that because conformity orientation is often associated with
decreased ability to interpret messages (Schrodt et al., 2008), the asynchronous
communication offered online might be appealing to children of high-conformity families.
Parents also use social media to connect with their children. Young adults generally
Page 17 of 30

accept their parents’ Facebook friend requests and make few restrictive privacy rule
adjustments for their parents (Child & Westermann, 2013). As social media expands and
changes, so too will the ways parents and children connect through this medium, and
researchers are called upon to keep up with understanding these changing trends.
Finally, parent and child health will continue to be an important topic of research. As
explored above, shifting demographics toward an older American society will affect
parent–child relationships in myriad ways (Nussbaum et al., 2003). Also, with increased
diagnoses of disabilities such as autism spectrum disorder and learning disabilities,
scholars are becoming more interested in studying parent–child communication in the
context of child disability (Canary, 2012). Parents of a child with a disability communicate
to manage contradictions during and after the diagnosis of the disability. For example,
after a child is diagnosed with autism, parents use both internal and external discourse
strategies to communicatively construct their family’s identity as a “normal family” (Hays
& Colaner, 2016). Such findings provide important insight into the ways in which a
childhood disability greatly impacts the parent–child relationship.
This article provides an overview of current research on communication in the parent–

child dyad. It highlights the functions of parent–child communication, the dynamism of
parent–child interactions throughout the life cycle, unique qualities of mother and father
relationships, and current topics of study. Given that the parent–child relationship is one
of the most prominent and foundational relationships in an individual’s life, this dyad will
inevitably continue to serve as an important topic of study in communication research.
Further Reading
Affection
Floyd, K., & Bowman, J. M. (2006). Closeness and affection in father-son relationship. In
V. H. Bedford & B. F. Turner (Eds.), Men in relationships: A new look from a life course
perspective (pp. 147–163). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Mansson, D. H., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2011). . Southern Communication Journal, 76,

424–442.
Communicated Sense-Making
McLaren, R. M., & Sillars, A. (2014). . Communication Monographs, 81, 359–385.
Page 18 of 30

Trees, A. R., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2009). . Western Journal of Communication, 73, 91–111.
Communication in Diverse Parent–Child Dyads
Bergen, K. M., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). . Journal of Family Communication, 6,
201–220.
Erbert, L. A., & Aleman, M. W. (2008). . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25,
671–695.
Conflict
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). . Communication Studies, 53, 234–251.
Wilson, S. R., Norris, A. M., Shi, X., & Rack, J. J. (2010). . Communication Monographs,
77, 540–575.
Current Issues and Future Research in Parent–Child Communication
Faw, M. H., & Leustek, J. (2015). . Southern Communication Journal, 80, 404–415.
Galvin, K. (2013). The family of the future: What do we face? In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The
handbook of family communication (2d ed., pp. 531–545). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Family Communication Patterns
Baxter, L., & Akkoor, C. (2011). . Journal of Family Communication, 11, 1–20.
Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., Jernberg, K. A., Larson, L., Brown, N., & Glonek, K. (2009).
. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 853–874.
Parent–Child Communication Over the Course of the Life Cycle
Ainsworth, M. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality

development. American Psychologist, 46, 333.
Arnett, J. J. (2007). . Child Development Perspectives, 1, 68–73.
Page 19 of 30

Johansson, T. (2011). . Journal of Family Communication, 11, 165–180.
Mathews, A., Derlega, V. J., & Morrow, J. (2006). . Communication Research Reports, 23,
85–92.
Sillars, A., Koerner, A., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2005). . Human Communication Research,
31(1), 107–128.
Privacy Management
Petronio, S. (2013). . Journal of Family Communication, 13, 6–14.
Petronio, S., Sargent, J., Andea, L., Reganis, P., & Chichocki, D. (2004). . Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 21, 33–52.
Social Support
Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (2002). . Journal of Family Communication, 2, 79–97.
Trees, A. R. (2000). . Communication Monographs, 67, 239–261.
Socialization
Wang, T. R. (2014). . Journal of Family Communication, 14, 270–290.
Unique Communication Considerations of Mothers and Fathers
Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2008). . Communication Research Reports, 25, 23–33.
Warren-Jeanpiere, L., Miller, K. S., & Warren, A. M. (2010). . Journal of Family

Communication, 10, 81–98.
References
Afifi, T. D., Granger, D. A., Denes, A., Joseph, A., & Aldeis, D. (2011). . Communication
Monographs, 78, 273–295.
Afifi, T. D., Joseph, A., & Aldeis, D. (2008). . Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 689–721.
Page 20 of 30

Afifi, T. D., McManus, T., Hutchinson, S., & Baker, B. (2007). . Communication
Monographs, 74, 78–102.
Afifi, T. D., Merrill, A., & Davis, S. (2014). Widening the understanding of post-divorce
families. In K. Floyd & M. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle: New research on
family communication (2d ed., pp. 151–170). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Alemán, M. W. (2014). “I’m the parent and the grandparent”: Constructing the
grandfamily. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 85–102). New
York: Peter Lang.
Alemán, M. W., & Helfrich, K. W. (2010). . Journal of Family Communication, 10, 7–23.
Babin, E. A., & Palazzolo, K. E. (2012). . Journal of Family Communication, 12, 4–21.
Bandura, A. (1961). . Psychological Bulletin, 58, 143–159.
Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Introduction: Meta-theory and theory in family
communication research. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in
family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Bryant, L., & Wagner, A. (2004). . Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 21, 447–467.
Blakemore, J. E. O., & Hill, C. A. (2008). . Sex Roles, 58, 192–207.
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 39, 350–371.
Bowlby J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Braithwaite, D. O., Baxter, L. A., & Harper, A. M. (1998). . Communication Studies, 48,
101–120.
Breshears, D., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2014). . Journal of Family Communication, 14, 189–
207.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment

relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 89–114). New York: Guilford
Press.
Browne, J., & Chan, A. Y. C. (2012). . Journal of Family Communication, 12, 129–150.
Page 21 of 30

Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. (2002). . Journal of Family Communication, 2, 79–97.
Burleson, B. R., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp &

J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3d ed., pp. 374–424).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Buunk, A. P., Park, J. H., & Dubbs, S. L. (2008). . Review of General Psychology, 12, 47–
62.
Canary, H. E. (2012). Children with invisible disabilities: Communicating to manage

family contradiction. In L. M. Webb & F. C. Dickson (Eds.), Effective family
communication for coping with crises (pp. 155–177). New York: Peter Lang.
Carlson, C. (2014). . Emerging Adulthood, 2, 257–269.
Child, J. T., & Westermann, D. A. (2013). . Journal of Family Communication, 13, 46–59.
Chodorow, N. (1974). Family structure and feminine personality. In M. Z. Rosaldo & L.

Lamphere (Eds.), Women, culture, and society (pp. 43–66). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Colaner, C. W., & Kranstuber, H. (2010). . Journal of Family Communication, 10, 236–255.
Colaner, C. W., & Rittenour, C. E. (2015). . Communication Quarterly, 63, 81–98.
Colaner, C. W., & Soliz, J. (2015). . Communication Research [online publication first].
Colaner, C. W., Soliz, J., & Nelson, L. R. (2014). . Journal of Family Communication, 14,
310–327.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support in couples: Marriage as a resource in times of

stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Diamond, M. J. (2006). . Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 54, 1099–

1130.
Dunbar, N., & Grotevant, H. D. (2004). Adoption narratives: The construction of adoptive
identity during adolescence. In M. W. Pratt & B. H. Fiese (Eds.), Family stories and the
life course: Across time and generations (pp. 135–161). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ebersole, D., Miller-Day, M., & Raup-Krieger, J. (2014). . Journal of Family

Page 22 of 30

Eisenberg, A. R. (1992). Conflicts between mothers and their young children. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 38, 21–43.
Fingerman, K., & Hay, E. L. (2002). . Personal Relationships, 9, 415–433.
Fisher, C. L. (2014). Coping together, side by side. New York: Hampton Press.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). . Human Communication Research, 20, 275–
301.
Floyd, K. (2006). Communication affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context.

New York: Cambridge University Press.
Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Judd, J. (2006). Defining the family through relationships.
In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 21–42).
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2000) . Communication Monographs, 67, 347–361.
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2001). . Communication Quarterly, 49, 310–327.
Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2014). Introduction: On the breadth of the family experience.
In K. Floyd & M. T. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle: New research on family
communication (2d ed., pp. xiii–xix). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Floyd, K., Pauley, P. M., & Hesse, C. (2010). . Communication Monographs, 77, 618–636.
Galvin, K. (2003). . Journal of Family Communication, 3, 237–253.
Galvin, K. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family: Discourse-dependence and

identity. In L. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–21).
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction
in analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Givertz, M., & Segrin, C. (2014). . Communication Research, 41, 1111–1136.
Golden, A. G. (2007). . Journal of Family Communication, 7, 265–285.
Goldsmith, D. (2004). Communicating social support. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

University Press.
Page 23 of 30

Griffith, J. (1985). Social support providers: Who are they? Where are they met? And the
relationship of network characteristics to psychological distress. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 6, 41–60.
Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1995). What parents don’t know: Topic avoidance in
parent-child relationships. Communication Quarterly, 43, 219–245.
Guntzviller, L. M. (2015). . Communication Research [online publication first].
Harlow, H. F. (1958). . American Psychologist, 13, 673–685.
Harrigan, M. M., & Miller-Ott, A. E. (2013). . Journal of Family Communication, 13, 114–
131.
Harwood, J., Rittenour, C. E., & Lin, M.-C. (2013). Family communication in later life. In
A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (pp. 112–126).
New York: Routledge.
Hays, A., & Colaner, C. W. (2016). . Journal of Family Communication [online publication
first].
Hays, A., & Horstman, H.K., Colaner, C. W., & Nelson, L.R. (2015). . Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships [online publication first].
Hays, A., & Metts, S. (2015). Support, closeness, and influence tactics as predictors of
young adults’ acceptance of unsolicited parental advice regarding a romantic
relationship. Ohio Journal of Communication, 53, 62–69.
Heller, S. R., Robinson, L. C., Henry, C. S., & Plunkett, S. W. (2006). . Marriage and
Family Review, 40, 103–122.
Holman, A., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2015). . Southern Communication Journal, 80, 1–15.
Horstman, H.K., Maliski, R., Hays, A., Cox, J., Enderle, A., & Nelson, L.R. (2015). .
Communication Monographs [online publication first].
Hunter, F. T., & Youniss, J. (1982). . Developmental Psychology, 18, 806–811.
Johansson, T. (2011). . Journal of Family Communication, 11, 165–180.
Kirby, E. L., Golden, A.G., Medved, C. M., Jorgenson, J., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2003). An
organizational communication challenge to the discourse of work and family research:
Page 24 of 30

From problematic to empowerment. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 27

(pp. 1–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Knobloch, L. K., Theiss, J. K., & Wehrman, E. C. (2014). Communication of military

couples during deployment: Topic avoidance and relational uncertainty. In E. Sahlstein
Parcell & L. M. Webb (Eds.), A communication perspective on the military: Messages,
strategies, meanings. New York: Peter Lang
Koenig, T. (2004). . Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 85,
236–242.
Koenig Kellas, J., & Kranstuber Horstman, H. (2015). Communicated narrative sense-
making: Understanding family narratives, storytelling, and the construction of meaning
through a communicative lens. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
family communication (2d ed., pp. 76–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Koenig Kellas, J., & Suter, E. (2012). . Communication Monographs, 79, 475–498.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Understanding family communication patterns

and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation.
In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.) Communication yearbook, 26 (pp. 37–69). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koerner, S. S., Kenyon, D. B., & Shirai, Y. (2009). . Archives of Gerontology and
Geriatrics, 48, 238–245.
Koesten, J., & Anderson, K. (2004). . The Journal of Family Communication, 4, 99–121.
Kranstuber, H., Carr, K., & Hosek, A. (2012). . Communication Education, 61, 44–66.
Kranstuber, H., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2011). . Communication Quarterly, 59, 179–199.
Krusiewicz, E. S., & Wood, J. T. (2001). . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18,
785–803.
Lamb, M. E., & Tamis-Lemonda, C. S. (2004). The role of the father. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.),
The role of the father in child development (pp. 1–31). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Lawton, L., Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. (1994). . Journal of Marriage and Family, 56,
57–68.
Ledbetter, A. M. (2010). . Journal of Family Communication, 10, 99–115.
Lucas, K. (2011). . Western Journal of Communication, 75, 95–121.
Page 25 of 30

MacGeorge, E. L., Clark, R. A., & Gillihan, S. J. (2002). . Communication Reports, 15, 17–
28.
Mack-Canty, C., & Wright, S. (2004). . Journal of Family Issues, 25, 851–880.
Maguire, K., & Sahlstein, E. (2012). In the line of fire: Family management of acute stress
during wartime deployment. In F. Dickson & L. Webb (Eds.), Communication for families
in crisis: Theories, research, strategies (pp. 103–127). New York: Peter Lang.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/
disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, &
E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and
intervention, (pp. 121–160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marks, J. L., Lam, C. B., & McHale, S. M. (2009). . Sex Roles, 61, 221–234.
Mathews, A., Derlega, V. J., & Morrow, J. (2006). . Communication Research Reports, 23,
85–92.
Medved, C. E., Brogan, S. M., McClanahan, M. A., Morris, J. F., & Shepherd, G. J. (2006).
. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 161–180.
Merten, D. E. (1999). . Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28, 107–137.
Miller-Day, M. (2004). Communication among grandmothers, mothers, and adult

daughters: A qualitative study of maternal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Miller-Day, M. (2008). . Family Relations, 57, 1–12.
Miller-Day, M., & Dodd, A. H. (2004). . Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21,
69–91.
Miller-Day, M., Fisher, C. L., & Stube, J. (2014). Looking back and moving forward:
Toward an understanding of mother-daughter and mother-son relationships. In K. Floyd
& M. T. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle: New research on family
communication (2d ed., pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Miller-Day, M., Pezalla, A., & Chestnut, R. (2013). . Journal of Family Communication, 13,
150–165.
Morman, M.T.,& Floyd, K. (2002). . Western Journal of Communication, 66, 395–411.
Morman, M. T., & Floyd, K. (2006a). . Fathering, 4, 113–136.
Page 26 of 30

Morman, M. T., & Floyd, K. (2006b). The good son: Men’s perceptions of the
characteristics of sonhood. In K. Floyd & M. Morman (Eds.), Widening the family circle:
New research on family communication (pp. 151–170). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Morman, M. T., & Whitely, M. (2012). . Journal of Family Communication, 12, 22–39.
Morr Serewicz, C. M. (2013). . Journal of Family Communication, 13, 2–5.
Ndiaye, K., Silk, K., Anderson, J., Kranstuber Horstman, H., Carpenter, A., Hurley, A. L.,
et al. (2013). . Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 253–274.
Nuru, A. K., & Soliz, J. (2014). . Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 15, 1–8.
Nussbaum, J. F., Baringer, D., & Kundrat, A. (2003). . Health Communication, 15, 185–
192.
Odenweller, K. G., Rittenour, C. E., Myers, S. A., & Brann, M. (2013). . Journal of Family
Pecchioni, L., & Nussbaum, L. L. (2001). . Journal of Family Communication, 1, 133–150.
Penington, B. A. (2004). . Journal of Family Communication, 4, 3–34.
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. New York: State

University of New York Press.
Petronio, S. (2010). . Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 175–196.
Pitts, M. J., Raup-Krieger, J. L., Kundrat, A., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2009). . Health
Prescott, M. E., & Le Poire, B. A. (2002). . Journal of Family Communication, 2, 59–78.
Roberto, A. J., Carlyle, K. E., Goodall, C. E., & Castle, J. D. (2009). . Journal of Family
Sahlstein Parcell, E. (2014). Military families: Remaking shared residence, traditional

marriage, and future communication research. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family”
communicatively (pp. 195–210). New York: Peter Lang.
Schrodt, P. (2015). Communication in postdivorce and stepfamily relationships. In L. H.

Turner & R. West (Eds.), The Sage handbook of family communication (2d ed., pp. 248–
263). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Page 27 of 30

Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., Jernberg, K. A., Larson, L., Brown, N., & Glonek, K. (2009).
. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 853–874.
Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., & Ohrt, J. K. (2007). . Journal of Family Communication, 7,
23–46.
Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Messersmith, A. S. (2008). . Communication Monographs, 75,
248–269.
Sillars, A., Canary, D. J., & Tafoya, M. (2004). Communication, conflict, and the quality of
family relationship. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 413–
446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sillars, A., Smith, T., & Koerner, A. (2010). . Journal of Social & Personal Relationships,
27, 727–747.
Silverstein, M., Parrott, T. M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1995). . Journal of Marriage and Family,
57, 465–475.
Soliz, J., & Colaner, C. W. (2015). Familial solidarity and religious identity. In L. H.
Turner & R. West (Eds.), The Sage handbook of family communication (2d ed., pp. 401–
417), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stone, E. (2004). Black sheep and kissing cousins: Hour our family stories shape us. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Suter, E. A. (2015). Communication in lesbian and gay families. In L. H. Turner & R. West
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of family communication (2d ed., pp. 235–247). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Suter, E. A., & Ballard, R. L. (2009). . Journal of Family Communication, 9, 107–125.
Suter, E. A., Baxter, L. A., Seurer, L., & Thomas, L. (2014). . Communication Monographs,
81, 59–78.
Tanner, J. L., & Arnett, J. J. (2011). Presenting “emerging adulthood”: What makes it
developmentally distinctive? In J. J. Arnett, M. Kloep, L. B. Hendry, & J. L. Tanner (Eds.),
Debating emerging adulthood: Stage or process? (pp. 13–30). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Thorson, A. R., & Kranstuber Horstman, H. (2014). . Journal of Family Communication,

14, 53–71.
Trees, A. R., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2009). . Western Journal of Communication, 73, 91–111.
Page 28 of 30

Van Egeren, L. A., & Barratt, M. S. (2004). The developmental origins of communication:
Interactional systems in infancy. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family
communication (pp. 287–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Waldron, V. R., Kloeber, D., Goman, C., Piemonte, N., & Danaher, J. (2014). . Journal of
Family Communication, 14, 374–397.
Wilson, S. R., Chernichky, S. M., Wilkum, K., & Owlett, J. S. (2014). . Journal of Family
Wilson, S. R., Hayes, J., Bylund, C., Rack, J. J., & Herman, A. P. (2006). . Journal of Family
Wilson, S. R., Morgan, W. M., Hayes, J., Bylund, C., & Herman, A. (2004). .
Communication Monographs, 71, 395–421.
Wismer Fries, A. B., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Pollak, S. D. (2008). . Developmental

Psychobiology, 50, 588–599.
Wright, P. J. (2009). . Journal of Family Communication, 9, 233–250.
Notes:
(1.) Notably, much of the parent–emerging adult child communication research has
focused on college students and their parents, resulting in relatively non-representative
samples. As explored in the Communication in Diverse Parent–Child Dyads section,
current scholars are working to understand diverse family relationships in an effort to
expand scholarly attention to a wider range of family experiences.
Haley Kranstuber Horstman

Department of Communication, University of Missouri
Alexie Hays
Ryan Maliski
Page 29 of 30

Page 30 of 30

Communication: Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Parent-Child Interaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communication: Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Parent-Child Interaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communication: Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Parent-Child Interaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parent–Child Interaction

Communication: Oxford Research Encyclopedias

Summary and Keywords

Although research on parent–child communication is vast and thorough, the constant

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Functions of Parent–Child Communication

One of the most influential and frequently studied functions of parent–child

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Socialization of Career and Work

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

In addition to routine conflict in the parent–child dyad, stressful life events—such as

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Family Communication Patterns

FCP researchers investigate how the family communication environment predicts

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

facilitates family functioning and ultimately contributes to children’s well-being (Schrodt

Parent–Child Communication Over the Course

Parenting Infants and Young Children

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

As children move into adolescence, parent–child encounters become more complex as

Emerging Adults and Adult Children

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Unique Communication Considerations of

The mother–child relationship is a particularly important source of support, identity work,

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Answering calls for researchers to investigate the nature of communication in mother–

Compared to the literature on mother–child communication, there is considerably less

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Another line of research in father communication has centered on the mechanisms

Current Topics in Parent–Child Communication

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Communication in Diverse Parent–Child Dyads

Because of changing expectations, discourse, and laws surrounding families, the

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Current Issues and Future Research in Parent–

The influence of technology on parent–child relationships is also an area apt for

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

This article provides an overview of current research on communication in the parent–

Mansson, D. H., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2011). . Southern Communication Journal, 76,

McLaren, R. M., & Sillars, A. (2014). . Communication Monographs, 81, 359–385.

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Communication in Diverse Parent–Child Dyads

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). . Communication Studies, 53, 234–251.

Current Issues and Future Research in Parent–Child Communication

Family Communication Patterns

Parent–Child Communication Over the Course of the Life Cycle

Ainsworth, M. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality

Arnett, J. J. (2007). . Child Development Perspectives, 1, 68–73.

Subscriber: University of Missouri - Columbia; date: 12 September 2016

Johansson, T. (2011). . Journal of Family Communication, 11, 165–180.

Petronio, S. (2013). . Journal of Family Communication, 13, 6–14.

Burleson, B. R., & Kunkel, A. W. (2002). . Journal of Family Communication, 2, 79–97.

Trees, A. R. (2000). . Communication Monographs, 67, 239–261.

Wang, T. R. (2014). . Journal of Family Communication, 14, 270–290.