Exploring context in parent-adolescent conflict – A comparison between Canada and Sweden Axel Hammarén
Örebro University
Abstract
The research question was whether there are differences in parent-adolescent conflict across the domains of governance transfer between Canada and Sweden. Participants were students in classes 7 – 9, aged 13 – 16 years old. Results show that the amount of conflict differed across cultures, across domains, and across genders. Parent-adolescent conflict is not universal, but instead rather dependent on context. The Swedish adolescents´ reported significantly more conflict-level discussions than the Canadian adolescents´. Regarding the same issue that the Swedish adolescents reported having a lower conflict resolution, suggesting that having a conflict-level discussion makes it harder to reach a conflict resolution. The results of this research suggests that conflict among parent and adolescents is uncommon. What was more common was discussions about issues across the domains of governance transfer.
Keywords: parent-adolescent conflict, discussion, resolution
Mentor: Lauree Tilton-Weaver Bachelor Thesis in Psychology
Axel Hammarén Örebro Universitet
Sammanfattning
Forskningsfrågan var om det fanns skillnader i konflikt mellan föräldrar och ungdomar över domänerna i governance transfer i Kanada och Sverige. Deltagare var studenter i klasserna sju till nio, som var 13 till 16 år gamla. Resultat visade att mängden konflikt varierade över kulturer, över domäner, och mellan könen. Konflikt mellan förälder och ungdom är inte universell, utan istället beroende på kontext. De svenska ungdomarna rapporterade signifikant fler diskussioner på konfliktnivå än de kanadensiska ungdomarna. Rörande samma fråga som de svenska ungdomarna rapporterade färre diskussioner med en konfliktlösning, vilket tyder på att ha en konflikt gör det svårare att nå en konfliktlösning. Resultaten visar att konflikt är ovanligt. Vad som är vanligare är diskussioner om frågor i domänerna av governance transfer.
Nyckelord: förälder ungdom, konflikt, diskussion, upplösning
Handledare: Lauree Tilton-Weaver Psykologi, kandidatkurs
Exploring context in parent-adolescent conflict – A comparison between Canada and Sweden Conflicts between parents and adolescents are common, but if not managed correctly can seriously harm both the relationship and the adolescents´ development. Studies show that parent-adolescent conflicts increase risk for substance abuse, anxiety, and depression (Thomas et al., 2017). Disagreements and hostility in parent-adolescent relationships have a negative effect on youth development and the negative effects of conflict can lead to maladjustment later in life (Weymouth et al., 2016). High levels of parent-adolescent conflict are associated with lower levels of purpose, which is damaging to the development of an positive identity, less agency in pursuit of objectives, less well-being and less adaptive stress reactivity (Hill et al., 2018). Conflict forges change in parent-adolescent relationships (Branje, 2018). Hence, it is important to understand how conflicts develop during adolescence.
Although there is much research that shows what conflict is related to, there are few studies examining parent-adolescent conflict across domains of functioning (see Smetana’s work for exceptions, e.g., Smetana, 1989), and none comparing conflict across domains in different cultural settings. Such a comparison is the focus of this paper.
Adolescence is a time of psychosocial change where one of the developmental tasks is to achieve autonomy (Sanders, 2013). In this study, conflicts are framed within the theoretical model of governance transfer (Tilton-Weaver & Marshall, 2017). The model is an ongoing process that starts early in development and ends in early adulthood, where adolescents develop the ability to behaviorally regulate themselves through transactions with parents. Within these transactions adolescents learn about the boundaries (e.g., laws, norms) that limit individual action in every society. Boundaries differ in what action they encompass, based on the degree of harm actions posed to the individual and to others; the greater the harm, the stronger the boundary. Thus, individual actions can be thought of in terms of domains of regulation. Accordingly, there are four domains: First, the personal domain, for which actions pose no harm to self or others, and where we
find private and personal actions without constraint that cause no harm, such as adolescents’ decisions about their hairstyle, what clothes to wear, and whether or not to and make their own beds. Second, the prudential domain, where actions pose harm mainly to self. The prudential domain is split into prudential low-risk actions such as failing to do homework and being involved in romantic relationships with the risk of getting hurt, and prudential high-risk actions such as substance use and unprotected sex. Third, the conventional domain, including actions posing more harm to others than to self through offending feelings and sensibilities, and is governed by norms and conventions includes behaviors such as waiting in line and doing chores. Fourth, the moral domain, for which actions pose the potential for greater levels of harm to others. The moral domain causes harm primarily towards others and consists of actions with strong boundaries, often codified in law, such as lying and stealing, and including major crimes such as murder (Tilton-Weaver & Marshall, 2017). Studying parent-adolescent conflict across the domains allows for in-depth comprehension (Smetana, 1989). In order to protect and guide adolescents from harming themselves or others, parents understand the constraints and convey these to their children. As children and adolescents show that they understand the boundaries, regulatory authority
(governance) is successively and transactionally transferred from parents to their children. From the governance transfer perspective, conflicts between parents and adolescents can emerge when they disagree about regulatory issues.
The framework of governance transfer is applicable regardless of the cultural context. Boundaries and the limitations they impose on the individual actions differ across cultures where perceived differences in harm to self, compared to others, are larger or smaller depending on the characteristics of the culture (Tilton-Weaver & Marshall, 2017). Such as for example, in an
individualistic culture the individual is to a higher degree solely responsible for any mishaps as well as successes, and less so in more collectivistic culture, where the same is viewed through a more communal lens (Pervin & Cervone, 2010). Therefore, it is important to study parent-adolescent
conflict across the domains in more than one culture. Cultural differences between Canada and Sweden
In this study, I examine parent-adolescent conflict from this domain approach, in two cultural contexts, Canada and Sweden. Hofstede Insights (2020) has developed an effective and valid framework for cultural comparisons among multiple dimensions, in which Canada and Sweden have both similarities and dissimilarities. The dimensions are scored from zero to one-hundred with equal interval:
Individualism versus collectivism
Canada scores slightly higher than Sweden on individualism (scores of 80 and 71,
respectively). As individualism refers to an emphasis on defining self as separate from others and on individual needs and pursuits, this difference suggests that Canada places a bit more emphasis on individual needs than does Sweden. In individualistic cultures, children are given more
opportunities to differentiate themselves from their families, including voicing their own opinions and pursuing their own interests (Hofstede, 2020). In terms of this study, this might mean that Canadian adolescents will be more likely to discuss many of these topics with their parents than Swedish adolescents, particularly where personal issues are concerned.
Indulgence versus restraint
Sweden scores higher on indulgence than does Canada (78 compared to 68). This dimension refers to the degree to which countries allow room for gratification of human needs versus
regulating satisfaction through strict social norms. Hence, both countries provide freedom to gratify needs, without much concern for restricting their desires, but Sweden more so than Canada.
Power distance
Both countries place more emphasis on egalitarianism than hierarchies. Sweden is less focused on power hierarchies than Canada (scores are 31 compared to 39), which makes sense given Swedens strong emphasis on democratic principles. This emphasis is also applied in the
family in Sweden (Trost, 2012), whereas there is less such emphasis in Canada. In stark contrast to relatively strong expectations for competitiveness and striving to be best in Canada, where attaining high standards is essential (Hofstede insights, 2020), the typical Swede has grown up under a long- standing norm emphasizing equality: “Jante’s law” – a social construction meaning that individuals should not believe that they are better than anyone else. This social construct permeates the Swedish mentality, with expectations that individuals will conform to others, avoid conflicts, and treat each other equally (Trost, 2012). Consistent with research showing that North American parents, including Canadians, exert more control over their children than their European counterparts (Endendijk et al., 2016); this suggests that Swedish parents would be more likely than Canadian parents to allow their children to regulate themselves.
Masculinity versus femininity
Canada, which scores moderately high on this dimension (52 and thus, low in femininity), is more likely to emphasize achievements than are Swedes, where the score is lower (5). The Swedish score suggests that there is more emphasis on getting along with others, which relates to the Swede ´s tendencies to focus on consensus and supporting others (Hofstede, 2020). Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct. Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success. Women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life (Andrews University, 2020). In terms of conflict, this might mean that Swedes, in general, will focus more on getting along, thus, avoiding conflict more so than Canadians.
Gender
Gender role expectations are stronger in Canada, and less prominent in Sweden (Hofstede, 2020). Girls are expected to be more concerned about the welfare of others than boys. Girls would also be allowed less freedom than boys, as girls are more controlled in places where gender roles are strong. North American countries have a bigger gender gap in parental control than Western
European countries (Endendijk et al., 2016). So, Canada will have stronger expectations for boys and girls. Boys should conform to the “agentic” role, expecting them to exhibit strength,
dominance, and independence. By comparison, girls would be expected to conform to the “communal” role, behaving in ways that are caring, nurturant, and show a concern for others.
Strongly masculine cultures often also have strong gender roles. As Canadian parents may have strong expectations for boys to conform to the agentic role and for girls to conform to the communal role, we could expect more gender-stereotyped expectations and responses in Canada than in Sweden. These domains pose no risk or low risk. In addition, the personal domain is one that adolescents feel they should govern. This would be more true for adolescents in independent cultures and boys in cultures that emphasize masculine gender roles. In addition, low-risk prudential issues may be contested, as they are frequently viewed as personal issues by adolescents (Smetana & Asquith, 1994). Similarly, adolescents in North American samples (Smetana, 1989; Smetana & Asquith, 1994), do not view conventions the same as their parents. Parents view conventions as norms and expectations for behavior that contributes to societal functioning. Adolescents, by comparison, tend to view them as ambiguous and arbitrary. Thus, these are generally areas with more conflict, and such conflict may be more pronounced in Canada, which is slightly more individualistic than Sweden, and in Canadian boys (compared to Canadian girls), who would be expected to be independent and assertive.
In Canada, boys are more pressured than girls to conform to gender roles and are more likely to experience social sanctions from peers and adults when violating these roles (Sears, 2012). Among Swedish youth, certain activities are stereotypically perceived as feminine; such as keeping a diary, riding horseback and babysitting, or masculine; such as lifting weights, working on cars and watching hockey. Despite these differences, Sweden is comparatively one of the most equal
countries in the world and Swedish girls have many female role models; in the public, as well as their own working mothers (Trost, 2012). This suggests the strongest differences between genders
to be in Canada.
Conflict expectations across the domains of governance transfer
These differences have implications for behavior. Overall, the differences between countries suggest that Canadian adolescents may have more discussions with their parents than Swedish adolescents across all domains. This expectation would be consistent with the emphasis on individualism, that is a bit higher in Canada than in Sweden, as well as the emphasis on agency in Canadian culture.
The slightly greater emphasis on individuality and masculinity may imply that Canadian parents would be more accepting of differing opinions from their children. As a result, Canadian parents and adolescents may have more discussions across domains than Swedish parents and adolescents. However, the emphasis on indulgence and conflict avoidance in Sweden may mean there is less conflict in all issues, perhaps even personal issues, among Swedish parents and adolescents compared to Canadian parents and adolescents.
Given the emphasis on consensus in Sweden, it is possible that there will be more consensus over a number of topics in the Swedish parent- adolescent discussions than in the
Canadian. With more power distance in Canada than in Sweden, and the tendency for parents to be more controlling, discussion resolutions may also tend to be more parent-driven in Canada.
Although there may be more parent- adolescent discussions in Canada than Sweden, if there is disagreement, Canadian parents may be more likely than Swedish parents to assert authority and “end” discussions in a way that satisfies them, but not their adolescents.
Where conflict is concerned, it can be inferred, that Swedish parents and adolescents will be more conflict avoidant than Canadian parents and adolescents. Overall, conflict behaviors—
including the amount of conflict, and whether the conflict is resolved or not—are likely to differ between the two countries. However, there may be greater differences depending on the domain. Conflict Over Personal Issues
For the personal domain, where the emphasis is on individual expression, there may not be differences between countries, because both value individualism and self-expression. In addition, since personal actions should not be an issue of concern for parents (Smetana, 1988; 2004), I do not expect differences in conflict over personal domain issues between the countries.
However, there may be gender differences, at least in Canada, if boys are expected to be more agentic (and thus, more assertive) than girls, when it comes to individual expression. If this is the case, conflict over personal issues would be greater for boys than for girls, and probably more so in Canada.
Conflict Over Conventional Issues
In the conventional domain, I expect differences between both countries and between genders. This expectation was based on the emphasis on the “Jante´s law” in Sweden, where conformity and conflict avoidance is norm (Trost, 2012), whereas in Canada not as much. This implies that there would be more conflict in the conventional domain in Sweden than in Canada.
Where gender differences are concerned, I expect Canadian girls to report less conflict over conventional issues than Canadian boys, as there is pressure for girls in Canada to be concerned with the well-being of others.
Conflict Over Low-Risk Prudential Issues
Predicting differences in the prudential domain is more complicated. First, in studying the prudential domain, adults differentiate between behaviors they view as a posing high levels of harm to adolescents from behaviors that pose less risk of harm to adolescents (Tilton-Weaver & Marshall, 2015; 2017). High-risk behaviors include substance use, such as drinking alcohol and using
marijuana. Comparatively, low-risk actions that are typical of adolescents, are involvement in relationships and contexts that could lead to problematic behaviors (sexual relations, delinquent behaviors). These include romantic relationships and group affiliations. Given the differences in level of risk, conflicts over the issues need to be considered separately.
Concerning the low-risk prudential domain, and specifically within romantic relationships, I predict differences based on the cultural disparities. Behaviors in the low-risk domain are generally viewed by adolescents under their personal jurisdiction (Smetana & Asquith, 1994). That is, they tend to see them as personal issues involving no risk, whereas their parents view them as posing more risk. This is consistent with research on governance transfer, that has shown a similar pattern, where adolescents view low-risk prudential issues as posing less risk than do their parents (Tilton-Weaver & Marshall, 2017). Thus, some conflict over these issues can be expected, perhaps more in Canada than in Sweden, where the emphasis on power differentials are greater. I speculate that romantic relationships will be one of the topics with the greatest cultural and gender differences. Concerns about romantic relationships stem from two potential consequences of involvement (Tilton-Weaver & Marshall, 2015). The first is the belief that adolescents who are involved in romantic relationships will be sexually active. The second is a concern is that they will become too emotionally involved with their partners, risking their emotional and psychological well-being, especially if there is a break-up. The first concern may be more applicable in Canada. Adolescent sex is considered permissible in Sweden (Edgardh, 2002; Trost, 2012), therefore less likely to be a viewed as problem for Swedish parents.
With stronger gender roles in Canada than in Sweden, it is not surprising that in Canadian samples, parents control girls’ behavior more than boys (LaGrange & Silverman, 2006), including activities outside the home. However, similar patterns have been found in Sweden, where parents are more restrictive with girls than boys. In the same study, however, boys appeared to react more negatively to control than did girls (Kakihara, Tilton-Weaver, Kerr, and Stattin, 2009), suggesting that even though there is stronger control of girls, they may accept it more than boys. This may apply to both countries.
To summarize, I expect more conflict over low-risk behaviors in Canada than in Sweden, but also speculate that there might be gender differences in both countries, with boys reporting more
conflict over low-risk prudential behaviors than girls. Conflict Over High Risk Prudential Issues
The main issue for high risk prudential issues in adolescence is substance use. Where this is concerned, Sweden and Canada differ in the norms for substance use; thus, the expectations may differ for adolescents. Sweden has a binge-drinking culture, Canada does not. As a result, even though Canada has a greater number people who drink alcohol than Sweden, the Swedes who drink consume more alcohol than their Canadian counterparts (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). However, alcohol is tightly regulated in Sweden, so it may be less surprising that Canadian adolescents (4%) drink almost as much as Swedish adolescents (5%) (Sher, 2006). Even though the specific ways of alcohol-consumption varies between the countries, parents are still just as likely to be concerned about alcohol use.
The differences between the countries, however, is much stronger for drug use. Sweden has Europe´s lowest use of marijuana among adolescents at 7% (Guttormssson, 2018). By contrast, Canada has a more open and tolerant view of cannabis use: not only is use legal, but use is significantly higher. Research suggest that up to 25% of Canadian adolescents use marijuana (MacDonald & Rotermann, 2017). Statistics from Canada suggest that marijuana and tobacco use is more prevalent among Canadian boys than girls, but a similarity across genders in illicit drug use for Canadian males and females (Leatherdale & Burkhalter, 2012). In contrast, the frequency of substance use in Sweden is twice as high for boys than for girls (Forkby et al., 2013). However, I speculate that there will be less conflict between Swedish parents and adolescents over substance use issues and more conflict in Sweden over alcohol-use issue, compared to the Canadians parents and adolescents.
For gender differences, it is possible that because boys tend to drink alcohol more than girls (and otherwise engage in more problematic behavior), I speculate that there will be more conflict between girls and their parents than between boys and their parents. Whether this difference will be
similar across countries is an empirical question, still. Conflict Over Moral Issues
In the moral domain, the main issue is harm to others. There is differences between the countries in minor delinquency, such as theft and shoplifting, being slightly higher in Canada (59%), than in Sweden (50%). Concerning major delinquencies, the occurrence is rather similar between the countries, and both countries showing higher frequencies of major delinquency for boys than for girls (Sears, 2012; Trost, 2012). Belief is strong in Canada where 68% of adolescents believe in God and has a religious affiliation (Sears, 2012), compared to Sweden, where religion no longer plays a major role in the live of the Swedish citizen (Trost, 2012). With stronger prohibitions against moral transgressions in Canada, it is not unreasonable to expect more conflict in the moral domain in Canada than in Sweden. However, because adolescents are expected to know the difference between right and wrong, the overall levels of conflict should not be high.
Furthermore, I also expect gender differences in the moral domain as: “... some religions norms and traditions can contribute to the formation of gender inequalities and to subordinate the role of women in society” (Klingorová & Havlíček, 2015). I expect, that parents will be more concerned about girls´ moral actions than boys. Moreover, because Canadians do not avoid conflict to the same extent as Swedes, these differences may be more pronounced for Canadian adolescents than Swedish adolescents.
Summary of Expectations
In summary, I expect conflicts to be low, regardless of gender or culture. I expect this to be particularly true for the personal domain, as personal actions should not warrant concern for parents (Smetana, 2004); as well as in the moral domain as adolescents generally know right from wrong. Furthermore, I expect the most conflict to be over topics in the prudential- (greater over low-risk) and conventional domain, which is consistent with the domains that research reports the most amount of conflict in (Smetana, 1994).
Having that said, the differences in conflict will be less pronounced in Sweden than in Canada, because Swedes tend to be more conflict avoidant (Trost, 2012), more consensus seeking, and with greater concern for others, as implied by Sweden´s high score on the femininity dimension (Hofstede, 2020). Nonetheless, I do not expect differences in the countries to be equal between the genders, because of the differences in masculinity and femininity. With more pronounced gender roles and expectations for gender conformity in Canada, most likely there will be gender differences in conflict, especially in the conventional and prudential domain, as research reports that girls are being more monitored than boys (Smetana & Daddis, 2002).
In this study I ask whether there is differences in parent-adolescent conflict behavior, i.e., discussion, conflict, and discussion resolution, between Canada and Sweden, as well as if there is gender differences. I do not expect differences in conflict over personal domain issues between the countries. Conflict over personal issues could be greater for boys than for girls, and perhaps mainly in Canada. I expect more conflict in the conventional domain in Sweden than in Canada. Where gender differences are concerned, I expect them in Canada, but not in Sweden. I expect more conflict over low-risk prudential behaviors in Canada than in Sweden, but also speculate that there might be gender differences in both countries, with boys reporting more conflict over low-risk prudential behaviors than girls. In the high-risk prudential, I speculate that there will be more conflict between girls and their parents than between boys and their parents. Whether this difference would be similar across countries was unclear. I predict conflict over moral domain issues to be greater in Canada, and I also expect that parents would be more concerned about girls´ moral actions than boys. Moreover, because Canadians do not avoid conflict to the same extent as Swedes, these differences may be more pronounced for Canadian adolescents than Swedish adolescents.
Method Participants
Canada n = 220 and in Sweden n = 445, a total n = 665. Of these 336 were boys (50.5%) and 329 were girls (49.5%). There were 108 boys (49%) and 112 girls (51%) from Canada. There were 228 boys (51%) and 217 girls (49%) from Sweden. Both samples were recruited from local schools, through mailings that went to parents.
Measures Discussions
Under conflict over governance transfer adolescents were asked about a total of 24 issues in the Canadian dataset, and a total of 19 issues in the Swedish dataset. Of those issues, 12 were considered equal across the countries. Each issue had three questions. The first question asked if there had been a discussion in the last month. Adolescents could respond with yes (1) or no (2). Their responses were used as measures of discussion frequency. The topics were separated by domain. Personal issues were choosing clothes, choosing friends, and choosing what they could do in their own time. Low-risk prudential issues included having a girl-friend or boy-friend, choosing what to do with friends, engaging in online activities, and behaving in school. High risk prudential issues were represented by drinking alcohol. Conventional issues were waiting your turn and being polite. Finally, moral issues included not teasing others and not stealing. As these items are indexes and examined separately, I did not use Cronbach alphas to assess reliability. However, the validity of their classification in each domain was established by showing high concordance of community adults’ and parents’ estimations of risk to the adolescent and to others (Tilton-Weaver & Marshall, 2017).
Conflict Intensity
If the adolescent indicated there had been a discussion, they were then asked about the intensity of the discussion. They responded to the following possibilities: very calm (1), angry (2), or very angry (3). These responses were recoded such that any discussion that was angry or very angry was recoded to 1, serving as a measure of conflict frequency.
Resolutions
Finally, the adolescents who responded that there was a discussion were asked if it was resolved. The possible responses were: no (1), yes, for them (2), yes, for me (3), or yes, for all. The items was then sorted under domain: personal – 1) choosing clothes, 2) choosing friends, 3) what to do in own time; prudential low-risk – 1) having girl-/boy- friend, 2) what to do with friends, 3) online activities, 4) school behavior; prudential high-risk – 1) drink alcohol; conventional – 1) waiting your turn, 2) being polite; moral – 1) not teasing others, 2) not stealing.
Procedure
The dataset from Sweden was originally collected for a cross-sectional study at Örebro University in Sweden. The Canadian dataset was originally collected as part of a three-wave longitudinal study conducted by Tilton-Weaver and Marshall (2017). In this study, I used the second wave of data to match the age ranges of the Swedish dataset. Before data collection began, each principal investigator received approval from their respective ethics boards (Uppsala Regional Ethics Board in Sweden, the University of British Columbia Ethics Committee, Canada).
Statistical analyses
IBM SPSS was used to conduct analyses. I used chi-square tests to examine differences between Canada and Sweden in all discussions and in conflict frequencies. Chi-square tests were also used to test for gender differences in conflict in Canada, in Sweden, and in total.
Results
The results showed that there were significant differences between the samples from Sweden and Canada in the frequency of discussions for all of the 12 items, with more frequent discussions in the Canadian sample than in Swedish sample (see Table 1). But, when it came to conflict-level discussions, there was only one significant difference, in the prudential high-risk domain, Swedish adolescents reported more conflict-level discussions regarding drinking alcohol than did the Canadian adolescents (see Table 1). It is worth noting that overall, all adolescents
reported discussing the various topics more than they reported arguing about them. Table 1
Discussion and Conflict-level discussion per Domain and Topic in Canada, Sweden, and in Total Domain, topic, discussion, and
discussion-level
Canada Sweden Total χ2
N / % N / % N / % Personal Choice of clothes All discussions 130 / 59.1 144 / 32.4% 274 / 41.2% 43.57*** Conflict-level discussions 5 / 2.3% 12 / 2.7% 17 / 2.6% 3.19 Choice of friends All discussions 126 / 57.3% 146 / 32.8% 272 / 40.9% 41.21*** Conflict-level discussions 2 / 0.9% 11 / 2.4% 13 / 2% .52 Choice of leisure activities
All discussions 141 / 64.1% 197 / 44.3% 338 / 50.8% 23.14*** Conflict-level discussions 14 / 6.4% 32 / 7.1% 46 / 6.9% 3.38 Prudential—low risk
Having boy- or girlfriend
All discussions 141 / 64.1% 156 / 35.1% 297 / 44.7% 51.17*** Conflict-level discussions 5 / 2.3% 12 / 2.7% 17 / 2.6% .06 Activities with friends
All discussions 138 / 62.7% 171 / 38.4% 309 / 46.5% 38.70*** Conflict-level discussions 2 / 0.9% 18 / 4% 20 / 3% 3.79 Online activities All discussions 136 / 61.8% 188 / 42.2% 324 / 48.7% 24.21*** Conflict-level discussions 6 / 2.8% 33 / 7.4% 39 / 5.9% 3.31 School behavior All discussions 156 / 70.9% 173 / 38.9% 329 / 49.5% 60.43*** Conflict-level discussions 5 / 2.3% 18 / 4.1% 23 / 3.5% 3.81 Prudential—high risk Drinking alcohol All discussions 161 / 73.2% 179 / 40.2% 340 / 51.1% 66.52***
Conflict-level discussions 4 / 1.8% 37 / 8.3% 41 / 6.2% 7.18* Conventional
Waiting for their turn
All discussions 117 / 53.2% 142 / 31.9% 259 / 38.9% 35.62*** Conflict-level discussions - 8 / 1.7% 8 / 1.7% .82 Being polite All discussions 175 / 79.5% 153 / 34.4% 328 / 49.3% 121.36*** Conflict-level discussions 3 / 1.4% 12 / 2.7% 15 / 2.3% .27 Moral
Not teasing others
All discussions 160 / 72.7% 145 / 32.6% 305 / 45.9% 97.58*** Conflict-level discussions 2 / 0.9% 24 / 5.3% 26 / 3.9% .75 Not stealing All discussions 165 / 75% 145 / 32.6% 310 / 46.6% 106.54*** Conflict-level discussions 1 / 0.5% 26 / 5.8% 27 / 4.1% .65 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
Regarding conflict resolutions, I found a few significant differences between the countries (see Table 2). The first difference was in the personal domain, for the topic of choosing leisure activities. Discussions concerning leisure activities were more frequently unresolved for parents and adolescents in Sweden than in Canada. Second, in the low-risk prudential domain, I found
significant differences between the countries in both online activities and school behavior.
Regarding online activities, I found higher percentages of unresolved discussions in Sweden, at the same time as I found a higher percentage of resolved discussions for both parent and adolescents in Canada. School behavior discussions were to a higher degree not resolved at all in Sweden, at the same time as school behavior discussions were to a higher degree resolved only for parents in Canada. Third, in the prudential high-risk domain, I found significant differences between the countries in discussion resolution concerning alcohol drinking. I found significantly higher frequencies of unresolved discussions in Sweden, at the same time as I found significantly higher frequencies of discussions resolved for both parents and adolescents in Canada. Fourth, in the
conventional domain, I found a significant difference in discussion resolution involving being polite. Discussions regarding being polite remained significantly higher unresolved for both parents and adolescents in Sweden than in Canada. Fifth, in the moral domain, I found no significant differences between the countries, as seen in Table 2.
Table 2
Discussion Resolution by Domain and Topic in Canada, Sweden and in Total Domain, topic and discussion
resolution
Canada Sweden Total χ2
N / % N / % N / %
Personal
Choice of clothes 7.14
No - 24 / 20.2% 24 / 17%
Yes, for them 5 / 22.7% 22 / 18.5% 27 / 19.1%
Yes, for me 2 / 9.1% 3 / 2.5% 5 / 3.5%
Yes, for all 15 / 68.2% 70 / 58.8% 85 / 60.3%
Choice of friends 1.99
No 4 / 19% 29 / 24% 33 / 23.2%
Yes, for them 1 / 4.8% 17 / 14% 18 / 12.7%
Yes, for me 1 / 4.8% 4 / 3.3% 5 / 3.5%
Yes, for all 15 / 71.4% 71 / 58.7% 86 / 60.6%
Choice of leisure activities 9.56*
No 4 / 8.5% 36 / 25.9% 40 / 21.5%
Yes, for them 8 / 17% 15 / 10.8% 23 / 12.4%
Yes, for me 8 / 17% 10 / 7.2% 18 / 9.7%
Yes, for all 27 / 57.4% 78 / 56.1% 105 / 56.5%
Prudential—low risk
Having boy- or girlfriend 7.78
No 2 / 5% 28 / 23.1% 30 / 18.6%
Yes, for them 9 / 22.5% 18 / 14.9% 27 / 16.8%
Yes, for me 2 / 5% 10 / 8.3% 12 / 7.5%
Activities with friends 6.14
No 3 / 8.1% 31 / 23.3% 34 / 20%
Yes, for them 4 / 10.8% 16 / 12% 20 / 11.8%
Yes, for me 1 / 2.7% 9 / 6.8% 10 / 5.9%
Yes, for all 29 / 78.4% 77 / 57.9% 106 / 62.4%
Online activities 10.47**
No 2 / 4.9% 27 / 20.1% 29 / 16.6%
Yes, for them 4 / 9.8% 21 / 15.7% 25 / 14.3%
Yes, for me 2 / 4.9% 15 / 11.2% 17 / 9.7%
Yes, for all 33 / 80% 71 / 53% 104 / 59.4%
School behavior 15.45**
No 1 / 7.1% 30 / 25.6% 31 / 23.7%
Yes, for them 4 / 28.6% 12 / 10.3% 16 / 12.2%
Yes, for me 2 / 14.3% 1 / 0.9% 3 / 2.3%
Yes, for all 7 / 50% 74 / 63.2% 81 / 61.8%
Prudential—high risk
Drinking alcohol 9.65*
No 2 / 6.3% 27 / 21.4% 29 / 18.4%
Yes, for them - 14 / 11.1% 14 / 8.9%
Yes, for me 2 / 6.3% 9 / 7.1% 11 / 7.0%
Yes, for all 28 / 87.5% 76 / 60.3% 104 / 65.8%
Conventional
Waiting for their turn 3.07
No - 25 / 25.5% 25 / 24.3%
Yes, for them - 11 / 11.2% 11 / 10.7%
Yes, for me - 2 / 2.0% 2 / 1.9%
Yes, for all 5 / 100% 60 / 61.2% 65 / 63.1%
Being polite 16.30***
No - 26 / 23.4% 26 / 20%
Yes, for them 2 / 10.5% 10 / 9% 12 / 9.2%
Yes, for me 3 / 15.8% 1 / 0.9% 4 / 3.1%
Yes, for all 14 / 73.7% 74 / 66.7% 88 / 67.7%
Moral
Not teasing others 2.36
No 1 / 12.5% 20 / 20% 21 / 19.4%
Yes, for me 1 / 12.5% 4 / 4% 5 / 4.6%
Yes, for all 6 / 75% 65 / 65% 71 / 65.7%
Not stealing 4.59
No - 19 / 19.6% 19 / 17.9%
Yes, for them 1 / 11.1% 11 / 11.3% 12 / 11.3%
Yes, for me 2 / 22.2% 6 / 6.2% 8 / 7.5%
Yes, for all 6 / 66.7% 61 / 62.9% 67 / 63.2%
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
Regarding gender differences in conflict level discussions (see table 3), I found a few significant differences. First, in the prudential low-risk domain, specifically when it came to online activity. There was a significant difference between the genders in Sweden, where the boys reported having more conflict than the girls. Second, in the prudential high-risk domain, I found a significant difference between the genders regarding conflict over drinking alcohol in both Sweden and in total, but not in Canada. The girls were more often involved in conflict with their parents regarding alcohol drinking than the boys. Third, in the conventional domain, conflict over waiting in line were significantly more frequent for the boys compared to the girls both in total, and in Sweden. Lastly, in the moral domain, I found a significant difference between the genders in Sweden when it came to conflict over not stealing. Boys were more often involved in conflict than their female
counterparts (see Table 3). Table 3
Gender Differences by Domain and Topic in Canada, Sweden, and in Total Domain, conflict-level topic
and gender
Canada Sweden Total
N / % N / % N / %
Personal
Choice of clothes χ2 2.88 .22 1.50
Boys - 7 / 58.3% 7 / 41.1%
Choice of friends χ2 .91 2.06 2.17
Boys 1 / 50% 6 / 54.5% 7 / 53.8%
Girls 1 / 50% 5 / 45.5% 6 / 46.2%
Choice of leisure activities χ2 .01 .77 1.02
Boys 5 / 35.7% 18 / 56.3% 23 / 50%
Girls 9 / 64.3% 14 / 43.7% 23 / 50%
Prudential—low risk
Having boy- or girlfriend χ2 2.16 .92 2.16
Boys - 5 / 41.6% 5 / 29.4%
Girls 5 / 100% 7 / 58.4% 12 / 70.6%
Activities with friends χ2 1.20 4.1 5.00
Boys - 10 / 55.5% 10 / 50% Girls 2 / 100% 8 / 44.5% 10 / 50% Online activities χ2 1.21 6.33* 4.38 Boys 3 / 50% 24 / 72.7% 27 / 69.2% Girls 3 / 50% 9 / 27.3% 12 / 30.8% School behavior χ2 .28 2.76 2.59 Boys 2 / 66.7% 12 / 66.7% 14 / 60.8% Girls 3 / 33.3% 6 / 33.3% 9 / 39.2% Prudential—high risk Drinking alcohol χ2 .42 7.50* 7.46* Boys 1 / 25% 16 / 43.2% 17 / 41.4% Girls 3 / 75% 21 / 56.8% 24 / 58.6% Conventional
Waiting for their turn χ2 - 6.92* 6.61*
Boys - 8 / 100% 8 / 100% Girls - - Being polite χ2 1.27 3.29 4.46 Boys 2 / 66.7% 9 / 75% 11 / 73.3% Girls 1 / 33.3% 3 / 25% 4 / 26.7% Moral
Not teasing others χ2 2.93 5.53 5.00
Boys - 17 / 70.8% 17 / 60.7%
Girls 2 / 100% 7 / 29.2% 9 / 39.3%
Not stealing χ2 1.2 6.19* 4.84
Girls 1 / 100% 5 / 19.3% 6 / 22.3% *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
To summarize, the frequency of discussions was significantly higher in Canada than in Sweden, in all topics. There was only one significant difference in conflict-level discussions between Canada and Sweden, and that was discussions regarding the topic of alcohol, where conflict-level discussions were more frequently occurring in the Swedish sample compared to the Canadian sample.
Furthermore, regarding discussion resolutions, I found that all of the significant differences (i.e. choice of leisure activities, online activities, school behavior, drinking alcohol and being polite) was to a higher degree unresolved in Sweden. In contrast to significant differences in discussion resolutions in Canada – where online behavior and drinking alcohol were resolved for all, and school behavior resolved only for parents – to a higher degree than in Sweden.
Lastly, I found gender differences in conflict overall and among the Swedish adolescents but not at all among Canadian adolescents. Overall, boys reported more conflict over waiting their turn than did girls. Girls overall, however, reported more conflict with parents over drinking alcohol than did boys. In the Swedish sample, boys had more conflict over online behavior, waiting in line, and not stealing. By comparison, Swedish girls reported more conflict with parents over drinking alcohol. The gender differences found among Swedish adolescents, but not Canadian, suggest that the difference at the full sample level is attributable to the differences across genders in the Swedish sample.
Discussion
Parent-adolescent conflict is not universal, but instead rather dependent on context. The results of this research suggests that conflict is uncommon in early adolescence when comparing two samples from Sweden and Canada. What is more common was discussions about the issues in the model of governance transfer. Moreover, the amount of conflict differed across cultures, across
domains, and across gender. Canadian adolescents reported more discussions across all domains and in every topic than did the Swedish adolescents. Thus, the results confirm my hypothesis that discussions were more frequent in Canada and less frequent in Sweden.
Moreover, there was only one significant difference in parent-adolescent conflict between Canada and Sweden, which concerned drinking alcohol. Thus, even though the amount of alcohol intake in the countries is similar (Ritchie & Roser, 2019), the amount of conflict differs.
Contradicting expectations that the Canadian adolescents would report more conflict overall, the Swedish adolescents reported significantly more conflict-level discussions over alcohol use. Sweden do have a strong tradition of temperance movement advocating abstinence (Ahacic et al., 2012), and it could be that that tradition effect the behavior of parents and their willingness to strike down harder on alcohol related issues. Or, could it be that binge drinking of alcohol warrants concerns for parents, but a somewhat responsible underage drinking does not? Another possible explanation for this could be the legalization of marijuana in Canada. Could it be that parents in Canada is preoccupied with marijuana discussions and alcohol discussions fall in the shadows? Further research is needed to discern if parent-adolescent discussions and conflicts over substance use differ as a function of laws and social acceptance, or if conflicts are tied to use. Unfortunately, a limitation of the study is that information on adolescents’ alcohol and other substance use was not measured.
I found significantly more frequent conflict-level discussions regarding drinking alcohol in Sweden, at the same time as I found a significantly higher discussion resolutions for both parent and adolescents regarding alcohol drinking for all in Canada. Suggesting that having a conflict-level discussion makes it harder to reach a resolution that fits everyone. The emotional climate is of importance for conflict resolution (García-Ruiz et al., 2013). The Swedish alcohol drinking result implies a broad and relatively even spread of discussion resolutions: from unresolved (21.4%); resolved for me (11%); resolved for them (7%); to resolved for everyone (60%), compared to other
topics where I did not find conflict-level discussions. Looking at discussion resolution in Sweden for other topics: the vast majority of discussions is either resolved for everyone, or not resolved at all. On the one hand, those results confirm Swedes conformity – finding solutions that fits everyone and having long discussions until consensus is reached (Hofstede, 2020) – either the Swede has a resolution for everyone or the matter remains unresolved. That ambiguity could be a topic for further studies. As it is important to resolve conflict in order to avoid adolescent delinquency (van Doorn et al., 2008). Suggesting that there is a need in addressing how to solve conflicts within cultural contexts. As a matter of fact, discussions remained unresolved in Sweden to a higher degree in multiple topics ((i.e. choice of leisure activities, online activities, school behavior, drinking alcohol, and being polite), and across multiple domains (i.e. personal, low- and high-risk prudential, and conventional). The Canadians reached conflict resolutions for both parent and adolescents more so than the Swedes in multiple topics and across multiple domains. But as predicted, they did however also have higher frequency of conflict resolution that were resolved only for the parents, in the topic of school behavior.
Furthermore, I expected gender roles to be stronger in Canada, but to my surprise, I found no significant differences in conflict-level discussions between girls and boys in Canada. One explanation could be due to weak power as I simply did not have enough conflict cases in the Canadian sample to accurately perform the statistical analysis, which is a limitation of the study, and something that perhaps could warrant interest in additional studies in the matter. Therefore, I can not conclude that there are no gender differences in Canada with respect to amount of conflict cases in the Canadian sample.
I did though find significant differences between the genders in total, and in the Swedish sample. As expected, the results show higher levels of conflict for boys in the topics of online gaming, waiting in line and not stealing. Given that boys tend to be more delinquent than girls (Sears, 2012; Trost, 2012), the differences in discussions in the moral domain regarding stealing
were expected. In the prudential domain, the girls had higher frequencies of alcohol related conflict-level discussions than the boys, which confirms the idea that girls are regulated harder than boys (Smetana & Daddis, 2002).
Previously mentioned limitation of this study is accompanied by further limitations, such as the time of data collection. The data was collected in 2013, a time in which the social landscape was very different in both Canada and Sweden, with the legalization of marijuana in Canada as an graphic example. Also, the social demographic in Sweden has changed substantially, e.g. the amount of people with foreign background has risen from 20% in 2013 to over 25% in 2020
(Statistiska centralbyrån, 2020). The majority of people coming from middle eastern countries with more masculine cultures (SCB, 2020; Hofstede 2020). Implying that the present day cultural context is different from the one back in 2013. Additional studies of interest would be to make in-country comparisons: how does conflict differ between inner-city –, suburb –, and in-country side adolescents? How does socioeconomic status effect conflict within parent-adolescent relationships? Self report made only by adolescents and their understanding of their parents behavior, not the parents perception is a further limitation. The validity of the measurement can be questioned as well, as adolescents interest and understanding of the questionnaire can vary. I do not know if these behaviors are consistent over time, because the data is a cross-sectional and not longitudinal. The conclusions can only be representative of the adolescents perception.
Having that said, this study has several strengths. First, strength is found in the data. The data has been used in previous studies (Tilton-Weaver & Marshall, 2017). The sample size is large, in particular the Swedish sample. I can confidently draw valid conclusions based reliable statistical analysis. Second, this study has presented a never before seen comparison between countries in parent-adolescent conflict that sheds new light on cultural differences in conflict and conflict resolution between adolescents and parents, as well as gender differences in conflict across the domains of governance transfer. We now have a better understanding on cultural influences on
parent-adolescent conflict. Consequently, adding to the knowledge in parent-adolescent conflict research as the cultural differences allows us to understand the importance of context in parent-adolescent conflict and conflict resolution.
This study has taught us that the cultural context is of importance in how adolescents handle conflict and discussions across the domains of governance transfer. Where reaching autonomy in the domains differs depending on the culture. For instance, in a country with tightly regulated alcohol use and alcohol temperance tradition, there is more conflict in that domain, and in that specific item, compared to a country that has a more loose alcohol-consumption. The same is true for discussions and discussion resolution as well, implying that conflict, discussions and discussions resolutions very much differs in accordance with the culture. The results suggest that by having a discussion, and not letting it escalate to a conflict, allows for higher discussion resolution between parents and their children in early adolescence.
References
Ahacic, K., Kennison, R. F., & Kåreholt, I. (2012). Changes in sobriety in the Swedish population over three decades: Age, period or cohort effects? Addiction, 107(4), 748–755.
https://doi-org.db.ub.oru.se/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03692.x
Andrews University (2020). Hofstede: Masculinity/Femininity. Retrieved April 12, 2020, from https://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/HofstedeMasculinity.html
Branje, S. J. T. (2018). Development of parent–adolescent relationships: conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives, 12, 171–176.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12278.
van Doorn, M. D., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2008). Conflict Resolution in Parent-Adolescent Relationships and Parent-Adolescent Delinquency. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 28(4), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431608317608
Edgardh, Karin. (2002). Adolescent sexual health in Sweden. Sexually transmitted infections. 78. 352-6. 10.1136/sti.78.5.352.
Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Mesman, J. (2016). Gender-differentiated parenting revisited: Meta-analysis reveals very few differences in parental control of boys and girls. PloS one, 11(7), e0159193.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159193
Forkby, T., Olausson, S., & Turner, R. (2013). Cannabisanvändning bland ungdomar: En sammanställning av forskning för en kunskapsbaserad prevention. Göteborgregionens kommunalförbund, FoU i Väst 2013:04. Göteborg: Sandstens. Retrieved March 31, 2020 from https://socialutveckling.goteborg.se/uploads/fou_cannabis_bland_ungdom2.pdf García-Ruiz, M., Rodrigo, M., Hernández-Cabrera, J., Máiquez, M., & Deković, M. (2013).
Resolution of parent–child conflicts in the adolescence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 173-188. 10.1007/s10212-012-0108-7.
Guttormsson, U. (2018, March 10). Cannabisanvändningen I Sverige och övriga Europa. Retrieved June 5, 2020 from http://cannabishjalpen.se/system/files/Ulf%20Guttormsson_0.pdf
Hill, P. L., Schultz, L. H., Jackson, J. J., & Andrews, J. A. (2018). Parent-child conflict during elementary school as a longitudinal predictor of sense of purpose in emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(1), 145-153.
http://dx.doi.org.proxybib.miun.se/10.1007/s10964-018-0912-8
Hofstede Insights. (2020). Country comparison. Retrieved March 31, 2020, from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/canada,sweden
Kakihara, F., Tilton-Weaver, L., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2009). The relationship of parental control to youth adjustment: Do youths’ feelings about their parents play a role? Journal of youth and adolescence, 39, 1442-56. 10.1007/s10964-009-9479-8.
Klingorová, K. & Havlíček, T. (2015). Religion and gender inequality: The status of women in the societies of world religions. Moravian Geographical Reports, 2. 10.1515/mgr-2015-0006. LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self- control and opportunity: Testing the
general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37 , 41- 72.
Leatherdale, S. T., & Burkhalter, R. (2012). The substance use profile of canadian youth: Exploring the prevalence of alcohol, drug and tobacco use by gender and grade. Addictive Behaviors, 37(3), 318-322. http:/ /dx.doi.org.proxybib.miun.se/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.10.007
MacDonald, R., & Rotermann, M. (2017). Experimental estimates of Cannabis Consumptions in Canada, 1960 – 2015. Economic Insights. Retrieved March 31, 2020 from
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2017077-eng.htm
Pervin, L. A. & Cervone, D. (2010). Personality – theory and research. John Wiley & Sons. Hoboken, NJ.
https://ourworldindata.org/alcohol-consumption
Sanders, R. A. (2013). Adolescent psychosocial, social, and cognitive development. Pediatrics in review, 34(8), 354-359. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.34-8-354
Sears, H. A. (2012). Canada. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), Adolescent psychology around the world (pp. 165-179). Psychology Press
Sher, L. (2006). The relationship between the frequency of alcohol use and suicide rates in young people. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 18(1), 81-85.
http://dx.doi.org.proxybib.miun.se/10.1515/IJAMH.2006.18.1.81
Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority. Child Development, 59(2), 321-335. doi:10.2307/1130313
Smetana, J. G. (1989). Adolescents' and parents' reasoning about actual family conflict. Child Development, 60(5), 1052-1067. doi: 10.2307/1130779
Smetana, J. G., & Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority and personal autonomy. Child Development, 65(4), 1147-1162.
http://dx.doi.org.proxybib.miun.se/10.2307/1131311:
Smetana, J. G., & Daddis, C. (2002). Domain-specific antecedents of parental psychological control and monitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child Development, 73(2), 563-580. http://dx.doi.org.proxybib.miun.se/10.1111/1467-8624.00424
Smetana, J. G. (2004, March). The development of parenting behaviors and of parent-child relationships in adolescence: The origins of autonomy. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD
Statistiska centralbyrån (2020). Befolkningsstatistik i sammandrag 1960–2019. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from:
riket/befolkningsstatistik-i-sammandrag/
Thomas, S. A., Wilson, T., Jain, A., Deros, D. E., Um, M., Hurwitz, J., Jacobs, I., Myerberg, L., Ehrlich., K. B., Dunn, E. J., Aldao, A., Stadnik, R., De Los Reyes, A. (2017). Toward developing laboratory-based parent–adolescent conflict discussion tasks that
consistently elicit adolescent conflict-related stress responses: Support from physiology and observed behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(12), 3288-3302.
http://dx.doi.org.proxybib.miun.se/10.1007/s10826-017-0844-z
Tilton-Weaver, L. C. & Marshall, S. K. (2015, March). Exploring governance transfer—A new model of behavioral autonomy and regulation. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Philadelphia, PA.
Tilton-Weaver, L. C, & Marshall, S. K. (2017). Governance transfer: A new perspective on adolescent behavioral autonomy and parental control. In B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, S. Van Petegem (Eds.), Autonomy in Adolescent Development: Towards conceptual clarity (pp.74-93) East Sussex, England: Routledge
Trost, K. (2012). Sweden. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), Adolescent psychology around the world (pp. 335-350). Psychology Press
Weymouth, B. B., Buehler, C., Zhou, N., & Henson, R. A. (2016). A meta- analysis of parent– adolescent conflict: Disagreement, hostility, and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8, 95-112. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12126
