Adolescent identity: Peers, parents, culture and the counselor

Blewitt, Pamela

The search for identity, considered the primary developmental task of the adolescent period, is very much affected by the social world: peers, parents, schools, and neighborhoods. All are in turn influenced by the cultural and historical context in which the adolescent's identity is formed. Counselors and therapists who support adolescents through their explorations and struggles must consider the impact of these multiple, interdependent factors, because no single factor or influence fully explains any developmental outcome. In this article we present one model of the mechanism for social identity development and explore recent research on the influence of peers, parents, schools, leisure, work, and culture on that process. We conclude with a discussion of implications for professionals who work with adolescents.

ADOLESCENT SOCIAL IDENTITY: SELTZER'S MODEL

As a balmy October turned into a frigid November, 12-year-old Tamara's mother repeatedly suggested to her daughter that they go shopping to replace Tamara 's outgrown winter jacket. Tamara refused. She said she wasn't sure what sort of jacket she wanted, admitting that it depended on what the other girls in her class would be wearing. As yet, the key girls had not yet worn jackets to school, despite the cold. They, too, were waiting and watching! Finally, in mid-December, one popular girl in the seventh-grade class capitulated to her mother's demands and made a jacket choice. Tamara and her classmates at last knew what to wear.

Parents and teachers are often perplexed, even dismayed, by the importance of peers to the adolescent. Why would an otherwise sensible young person become so dependent upon the actions and choices of others? What role do parents and other concerned adults play in an adolescent's life when peers become so important? Dependence upon peers is a normal and important developmental process for the young adolescent. As you will see, the search for identity that characterizes the adolescent period takes place largely within the world of peers.

Frameworklessness and Autonomy

Many theorists have noted that one's identity develops within the context of interpersonal interactions (e.g., Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934). Erikson (1968) argued that peers are particularly important in the construction of identity at adolescence. Seltzer (1982) expanded upon Erikson's ideas, providing an explanation for how and why the peer group plays such a central role.

To understand fully the function of peers, consider what happens when a child enters adolescence: The body changes in appearance, adult sexual needs emerge, hormonal shifts may heighten irritability, the capacity to reflect on the future and on the self expands, maturity demands from others increase, and so on. These profound changes produce a state of instability and anxiety, unique to adolescence, that Seltzer calls frameworklessness:

The adolescent is at sea. Previous boundaries and guideposts are no longer functional. In earlier developmental periods, expansion and growth exist within a context of familiar motion and exercise. The adolescent condition is different, however. The adolescent is possessed of new physical and intellectual capabilities that are both mystical and mystifying.... The allure of the adult world calls, and is strong, even as the safety of childhood is close and still beckons. Yet neither fits; the one is outgrown, the other not yet encompassable. (p. 59).

The adolescent's passage to adulthood is in some ways parallel to the infant's passage to childhood status. To exercise their developing skills and to explore the beckoning world, infants must give up the security of the caregiver's continual presence and care. Most attachment theorists believe that toddlers manage the stress of this separation by forming a mental representation of the caregiver that provides feelings of security and makes independent exploration possible.

For adolescents, the task of establishing adult independence requires separating from caregivers on a new plane, a process called the "second individuation" (Blos, 1975). Adolescents rework their views of their parents, de-idealize them, and loosen, somewhat, their emotional dependency (Steinberg & Belsky, 1991). Thus, the mental representation or concept of the parent becomes more peripheral to the adolescent's self system. Nevertheless, a teenager's increasing individuation and sense of autonomy does not come without a price. As adolescents experience a loss in feelings of security, their sense of frameworklessness increases.

The Peer Arena

Paradoxically, as adolescents seek autonomy from their parents, they become more dependent on their peers. Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) asked children, ages 10 to 16, questions about their relationships with parents and agemates. Children between fifth and eighth grades showed a marked increase in agreement on items assessing emotional autonomy, such as, "There are some things about me that my parents don't know" and, "There are things that I would do different from my mother and father when I become a parent."

Yet, when the students in this study were asked, "What would you really do?" if a friend suggests either some antisocial act like cheating, or some neutral act like joining a club, they showed a marked decrease between fifth and ninth grade in their ability to resist peer influence. Roughly between the ages of 11 and 16, children seem to transfer at least some of their emotional dependency from their parents to their peers.

Why do peers become so important? Seltzer (1982) proposes that it is because adolescents share in common the unique state of frameworklessness. She describes nine basic characteristics that define this age group in contemporary society. Among them are similar chronological age and educational status, and shared coping with feelings of aloneness and the loss of past certainties. Research demonstrates that people under stress tend to affiliate with others perceived as having similar experiences, so that adolescents' shared sense of instability makes the peer group a likely target of affiliation. The sometimes difficult movement toward identity can, at least in part, be shared.

Peers are thus a source of support. But Seltzer (1982) argues also that the peer group becomes both the site and the raw material for constructing an identity. Twin processes are at work: The first is social comparison. Children and adults alike evaluate themselves in comparison to others, but for adolescents, the lack of identity makes this process intense and all-consuming.

Second is a process of attribute substitution, which involves both imitation and identification. Adolescents need to borrow and "try on" various behaviors and attributes that they observe in others, because the state of frameworklessness leaves them without clearly defined ways of behaving and thinking.

Peers become an important resource for such borrowing. A formerly quiet boy might imitate the wisecracking style of a pal, a girl may explore the mysteries of Buddhism espoused by a classmate, or a mediocre student might work for hours on a special project, mimicking the approach of a more successful friend. The borrowing goes beyond imitation to partial identification with friends, so that if a boy's friend has a special talent for hockey, the boy might appropriate a sense of accomplishment as a hockey player from his association with the friend. This appropriation of "standin elements" provides relief for the adolescent from the anxiety of being without a stable sense of self.

The twin processes of social comparison and imitation constitute a type of experimentation that is absolutely necessary for mature identity construction. At first, the tryingon process is rapid, intense, and undifferentiated, but toward later adolescence, some features actually become more stable elements that will form the foundation of the young adult's identity. Ideally, the goal of all this effort is the development or construction of a fundamental sense of what fits for the particular adolescent.

In summary, Seltzer (1982) argues that peers in large part provide the arena for identity formation. She also describes the Eriksonian ideal of unrestricted sampling of various "identities" as a normative process, but in reality what adolescents are able to do may be more circumscribed. As we will see in the next section, the structure of the peer culture may constrain the opportunity to try on some characteristics and behaviors.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PEER NETWORK

In a summary of research on adolescent peer groups, Brown (1990) noted that adolescents usually are identified with particular "crowds," which are large "reputation-based collectives of similarly stereotyped individuals who may or may not spend much time together" (p. 177). Once a member, a teen's sampling of elements of behavior will be limited to some extent by the crowd to which the teen belongs. Few would be surprised to find that adolescents are strongly influenced by their closest friends. What is striking about the recent data on peer affiliation is how powerful crowd membership seems to be.

Recent support for the impact of crowds on adolescent behavior is provided in a large-scale study by Steinberg and his associates (e.g., Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Mounts & Steinberg, 1995; Steinberg, 1996; Steinberg, Fegley, & Dornbusch,1993; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). More than 20,000 adolescents and their families from nine public high schools in Wisconsin and Northern California were studied. Students came from ethnically and socioeconomically diverse communities (more than 40% were ethnic minorities) and from a variety of family structures (intact, divorced, and remarried). Student data were collected over a 3-year period from ninth through twelfth grades. Teens answered questions about their emotional adjustment, academic achievement, behavior, the parenting practices of their families, and their peer associations.

Steinberg (1996) identified three levels of peer association from these data, which he describes as concentric circles. One or two best friends, with whom adolescents spend most of their free time, comprise the innermost circle. A larger clique of about six to 10 members forms a less intimate second circle composed of friends who eat lunch or go to class together. The clique's boundaries are somewhat permeable, and the membership may fluctuate. Finally, the third circle is the adolescent's crowd. What crowd members share is not necessarily friendship, but similar interests, attitudes, behaviors, and appearance. Crowds tend to be large, and they reflect the individual's social status.

In typical American high schools, one finds a characteristic crowd structure (Steinberg,1996). Roughly 20% of students belong to popularity-conscious crowds ("populars" and "jocks"), who are moderately achievement-oriented and may engage in some illicit behavior, such as drug use. About 20% belong to "alienated" crowds ("druggies" or "burnouts") who are even less invested in academic success and who may be involved in heavy drug use and delinquent behavior. "Average" crowds, comprising about 30% of students, are not openly hostile to academics but, like the populars, are only moderately concerned about grades.

Some crowds are defined primarily by ethnicity (roughly 10% to 15%, depending on the school) and academic achievement differences exist among these ethnically defined crowds. Less than 5% of high schoolers belong to crowds characterized by high academic achievement. These students are unlikely to use drugs and may form strong ties with teachers.

How teens find a niche among the available crowds is not well understood (Brown, 1990). Steinberg (1996) suggests three determining factors: children's personalities and interests as they enter adolescence, the types of crowds available, and the ways in which parents attempt to manage their children's peer relationships. In fact, Mounts and Steinberg (1995) found that specific parenting practices, such as monitoring and encouraging achievement, were correlated with children's association with more academically oriented peers.

How are adolescents influenced by their crowds? Adults frequently attribute the behavior of adolescents to "peer pressure," which implies that the individual teenager might conform to others' demands, despite his or her better judgment. What Seltzer's (1982) theory suggests, and what research findings support, however, is that adolescents operate according to the principles of group dynamics that govern any social group-namely, active participation in shared norms, roles, and expectations. Teens are willing members of their crowds, influenced by and influencing each other. As Seltzer puts it, they are motivated to borrow from others and they serve as models from whom others borrow.

Steinberg (1996) provides a specific example of the crowd's influence on academic achievement. Recall from the data on teens' distribution among their high school crowds that a relatively small percent are committed to academic excellence (are "A" students). Membership in the largest, most appealing and preferred crowds (populars, jocks, and average) prescribes mediocre academic achievement. Most students in these crowds, representing about 50% of high schoolers, earn "B's" on average.

Could it be that these data simply indicate that students who begin with only moderate academic commitments and abilities gravitate toward groups of similar individuals? Steinberg's (1996) findings suggest otherwise. After tracking for 3 years students who began with similar academic records and behavior profiles, he found that students' crowd affiliation was highly correlated with their later grades and delinquent activities. So crowd membership made a unique contribution to these outcomes over and above early developmental characteristics.

THE ROLE OF PARENTS

Given that peers become so important to young adolescents, what is the role of adults, especially parents, in adolescents' lives? A brief history of perspectives on adolescent development may be useful here. Early psychoanalytic writers described this period as one of conflict between parents and their teens sparked by the reemergence of latent sexual impulses as the child reaches puberty (Freud, 1958). The classic interpretation is that the young adolescent's emotional attachments become sexualized and need to be redirected to agemates. The child's press for autonomy creates conflict with the parents but is seen as normal and necessary.

Neopsychoanalytic views have become more moderate over time (e.g., Blos, 1975) but still assume that the child's cognitive and affective detachment from parents is to be expected in the service of autonomy. Erikson's (1968) view of adolescence as a "normative crisis" supports this as a time of potential upheaval. This tradition framed the typical parent-adolescent relationship as a struggle, with teens trying to pull away from parents to the point of rebellion. Prescriptions for appropriate parental behavior often focused on the child's legitimate need to break away, and the responsibility of parents to "let go" and allow their adolescents to "be themselves." Parents were advised to back off because teens must be free to explore with their peers.

In the 1970s and beyond, studies of adolescence contradicted earlier constructions based on psychoanalytic thought. They indicated that major transformations do occur in family relations as children pass through adolescence, but that becoming more independent and personally responsible is not necessarily accompanied by emotional detachment from parents (e.g., Hill & Holmbeck, 1986). Offer (1969) reported that roughly two-thirds of teens experienced adolescence as a tranquil period or at least experienced only minor conflicts with parents. Montemayor (1983) reported that in typical families, teens and their parents argued on average twice a week, hardly a matter of great concern.

Other studies suggested that disagreements with parents tended to center on mundane issues such as chores and curfews (Barber, 1994), rather than on differences in beliefs about ethics and values (Rutter, Graham, Chadwick, & Yule, 1976). As a result of such findings, it has been argued that the storminess of relations between parents and adolescents has been overstated (Rutter, 1995). Based on this newer view of relative harmony and optimism about long-range outcomes, parenting prescriptions began to include the implicit advice, "Don't worry-things will work out fine."

Elements of both messages-that parents should "let go" and that they should "not worry"-seem to have permeated contemporary U. S. culture. Yet, paradoxically, warning signals that adolescents today face greater pressures and dangers than at any other time in this century are sounding in both the scientific and popular press. The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development in 1996 described the risks facing young adolescents:

Altogether, nearly half of American adolescents are at high or moderate risk of seriously damaging their life chances. The damage may be near term and vivid, or it may be delayed, like a time bomb set in youth. (p. 2)

Increasing risks were identified in physical health, in mental health, and in academic preparedness for children ages 10 to 14. Prevalence indicators from the 1980s and 1990s revealed rising rates of death by firearms; more child abuse and victimization; greater use of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes; higher suicide rates; decreasing age of first intercourse (and thus increasing risk of early pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS); and lower academic achievement, among other worrisome changes.

We have all read statistics like these and often feel a combination of helplessness and desensitization. How can we reconcile our assumptions of what young people need, and what adolescence should be like, with the realities of today? More specifically, how should we parent, how should we educate, how should we counsel and consult to meet the needs of contemporary adolescents?

Research on the family as one supportive context for adolescent development has been growing rapidly. Its theoretical framework rests upon Baumrind's (e.g., 1971, 1978, 1991) studies of parenting styles in which she identified two important dimensions of parental behavior, each of which is predictive of a particular constellation of child characteristics.

First is responsiveness. Responsive parents seem to encourage their children's self-acceptance, confidence, and assertiveness by being warm, involved, and accepting of their children's needs and feelings. They take their children's feelings and expressed needs seriously, and are willing to explain their own actions, particularly when they impose limits on the child.

The second dimension is parental demandingness. Demanding parents apparently foster self-discipline and achievement by making maturity demands on their children. They make and enforce rules, provide consistent supervision, and confront their children when the children's behavior does not measure up.

According to a large body of research by Baumrind and others, the most effective parenting style, authoritative parenting, combines high responsiveness and high demandingness. It is as if the key to parenting effectiveness is to blend the listening skills and empathy of a well trained counselor with the firmness of a watchful vice-principal for discipline. Treating responsiveness and demandingness as two distinct dimensions, three other categories of parenting style can be derived. Besides authoritative, there are authoritarian, indulgent, and disengaged or neglectful styles (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

1. Authoritarian parents are low on responsiveness but high on demandingness.

2. Indulgent parents are high on responsiveness but low on demandingness.

3. Neglectful parents are essentially disengaged, scoring low on both dimensions.

Before we consider how authoritative parenting of adolescents "looks in action" in comparison to other parenting styles, consider the evidence that it can positively influence teen behavior and well-being. Baumrind (e.g., 1991) assessed the behavior of parents and their young adolescents and found that

authoritative parents put out exceptional effort . . . and their adolescents were exceptionally competent (mature, prosocial, high internal locus of control, low internalizing and externalizing problem behavior, low substance use) (1993, p. 1308).

In the large-scale study of 14- to 18-year-olds by Steinberg and his colleagues, parenting style was linked to four aspects of teens' adjustment: psychosocial development, school achievement, internalized distress, and problem behavior. The children of authoritative parents scored best on the majority of these indicators, and those of neglectful parents scored worst (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch, 1991). After 1 year, the adolescents' adjustment status was reassessed. Parenting style was predictive of patterns of change over the year. For example, adolescents from authoritative homes showed increases in self-reliance while other adolescents showed little change or, if they had neglectful parents, actually declined somewhat (Steinberg et al, 1994).

In general, research on parenting styles from as early as the 1940s (e.g., Baldwin, 1948) has produced results that are consistent with the large-scale studies of today, supporting the notion that both responsiveness and demandingness are beneficial. Overall, responsiveness seems more closely tied to adolescents' self-confidence and social competence, and demandingness is more closely associated with "good" behavior and self control.

Recent work indicates that it can be useful to consider responsiveness as comprising separable factors: Acceptance is being affectionate, praising the child, being involved in the child's life and showing concern for the child's needs, and it is correlated with children's self-esteem and social adjustment; democracy is the extent to which parents encourage children's psychological autonomy by soliciting their opinions or encouraging self-expression, and it is most closely linked to children's self-reliance, self-confidence, willingness to work hard and general competence (Steinberg, 1990, 1996).

Whether we construe there to be two or three primary dimensions of parenting style, few would deny that the parenting characteristics they comprise are highly desirable. Relatively speaking, though, how powerful a role can such parental behaviors actually play when the influence of peers has been found to be so great? It is important to recognize that multiple determinants interact to affect outcomes at every developmental stage.

Let's reconsider, for example, school achievement in the teen years. When authoritative parents involve themselves in their adolescents' schooling, by attending school programs, helping with course selection, and monitoring student progress, their children are more likely to achieve (Steinberg et al., 1992). As we have seen, however, an adolescent's crowd affiliation also influences school achievement. Steinberg (1996) found that teens who began with similar academic records showed change over time in school performance consistent with their crowd membership, indicating the importance of peer influence despite parental efforts. But parents can affect crowd membership. First, the child's characteristic behaviors are probably important in determining crowd membership, and a child's behaviors are associated with parenting style.

Steinberg (1996) described parenting as "launching" children on a trajectory through adolescence. That launching may directly affect what crowd a teenager joins. But the availability of crowds is also important. If, for example, all crowds value high academic achievement, or if none do, the child's trajectory with regard to school performance will be much less affected by authoritative parents who value academic excellence than if there is a diversity of crowds.

Here is a clue to other ways in which parenting style may influence behavior. Steinberg proposed that authoritative parents, who are heavily involved in their children's lives, may do things to help structure the child's peer group options and thus affect achievement indirectly by affecting the accessibility of peers. Does the local high school have few, if any, academically oriented students? Parents may arrange for their children to go elsewhere. They might move, or put their children in private schools, or choose to home school. Although this, of course, depends on income and on the availability of options, it also depends on parental involvement. Authoritative parents are invested parents, often making personal sacrifices to maintain their commitment to their view of good parenting (Greenberger & Goldberg, 1989).

The complex interplay of parenting style with peer influences stands out in bold relief when we look at teens in different ethnic groups in the United States. Several researchers have found that for minority youngsters, authoritative parenting is not as strongly associated with positive outcomes as it is for white teens (e.g., Baumrind, 1972; Dornbusch, Ritter, Leiderman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987). Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992) found ethnic differences in their large survey of adolescents, particularly in the likelihood of academic success: Authoritative parenting was not as good a predictor of academic success for teens from Asian-American, Black, and Hispanic families as it was for White teens. Steinberg et al. (1992), however, found some fundamental similarities across all ethnic groups. First, not surprisingly, hard work is linked to academic success regardless of ethnicity; students who put in the most time on homework, for example, are the best school performers. Second, teens across all ethnic groups were equally likely to believe that getting a good education pays off. But the researchers also found some surprising differences in beliefs about the negative consequences of not getting a good education. Asian-American students were most likely to believe that poor academic preparation could limit their job options later, while African-American and Hispanic youngsters were the most optimistic-that is, the least likely to believe that poor academic preparation would hurt their job prospects.

These differences in belief systems were reflected in the extent to which various ethnic peer groups supported academic achievement: Asian crowds were usually highly supportive, whereas Black and Hispanic crowds were not. Unlike White students, minority students often have little choice of which crowd to join; they typically are relegated to one or a few crowds defined primarily by ethnicity. Thus, regardless of their parents' support for academics or parenting style, Asian-American youngsters are likely to join a crowd that supports academics, whereas Black and Hispanic teens are likely to be part of a crowd that does not.

Steinberg et al. (1992) found that, for all ethnic groups, the most successful students were those whose parents and peers supported academics. When peers were at odds with parents, the crowd's support, or lack of it, for homework and hard work was the better predictor of a student's day-to-day school behaviors. Thus, even though Asian-American parents were among the least likely to be authoritative or to be actively involved in their children's schooling, their children tended to be academically successful. As Steinberg (1996) noted, even Asian students of disengaged parents are often "saved from academic failure" by their friends' support of academics (p. 157).

Yet, Black youngsters with authoritative parents often face giving up their academic aspirations to keep their friends, because the crowds they join not only fail to support school effort but may even criticize it as an attempt to "act White" (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). Indeed, at a vulnerable age, many Black adolescents feel compelled to choose low academic standards, greatly limiting their future opportunities, or be ostracized.

The complex interactions between parenting and peer influences also can be seen in the arena of high-risk and deviant behavior. Again, an authoritative approach is the best protection a parent can provide. Lamborn, Dornbusch, and Steinberg (1996) found, for example, that children from permissive or disengaged families were most likely to experiment with alcohol and marijuana, and children from authoritative homes were least likely to do so. But they also found that the peer group had more influence than the parents on whether experimentation would lead to regular use. For example, even the most vulnerable youngsters-those who had experimented with drugs and whose parents were disengaged-were unlikely to become regular users if their peers were not.

As with school achievement, ethnicity and social class are among the predictors of drug use and deviant behavior in America, so that authoritative parenting is less effective for some teens than for others. But interestingly, several studies suggest that even among minority teens from poor neighborhoods, one component of authoritative parenting can be a strong force against deviant behavior and drug use: high levels of parental demandingness or control.

Parents who closely monitor their children have teens who engage less often in delinquent behavior. These are parents who manage to keep track of their children and to place limits on where they spend their time after school and at night. These parents know with whom their children spend their time and what they spend their time doing. In many studies, even when parents were not particularly warm or democratic, that is, when they were more authoritarian than authoritative, high levels of monitoring helped protect their youngsters from high-risk behavior (e.g., Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Smith & Krohn, 1995; GormanSmith, Tolan, Zelli, & Huesmann, 1996; Lamborn et al., 1996).

LEISURE AND WORK

Outside of school, leisure activities occupy about 40 percent of adolescents' waking hours (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). Estimating conservatively, that represents about 40 to 45 hours per week, in comparison to the average 4 hours per week that American teenagers spend on homework! Leisure activities can promote mastery of skills, such as participation in sports, hobbies, and artistic pursuits, or they may be more purely recreational, such as playing video games, watching TV, daydreaming, or hanging out with friends (Fine, Mortimer, & Roberts, 1990). Young people who are involved in extracurricular activities sponsored by their schools and other community organizations-athletics, social service organizations, school newspaper staff, student government, band, and so on-are more likely to be academic achievers and to have other desirable qualities than students who are not involved in sponsored activities (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1996; Steinberg, 1996).

Unfortunately, many adolescents use leisure time to engage in behaviors that are considered delinquent. For example, antisocial behavior escalates sharply during adolescence, peaking around age 17 and dropping off in early adulthood. Among males, fully four-fifths have experienced some police contact for a minor infringement during the adolescent years (Farrington, Ohlin, & Wilson, 1986).

Moffit (1993) indicated that, unlike life-course antisocial behavior that starts early in childhood and continues throughout life, there is a kind of adolescence-limited antisocial behavior that develops in adolescence and ends shortly thereafter. Several researchers have suggested that this behavior can be adaptive in that it serves the instrumental function of relieving the "maturity gap" that afflicts adolescents caught in a time warp between physical and social maturity.

To possess the symbolic trappings of adult status (sexual intimacy, material possessions, autonomy and respect from parents) adolescents mimic the behavior of more advanced and often more antisocial peers, borrowing those elements that elicit peer respect and make a statement of personal independence (Goldstein, 1990). Wilson (1996) argued that some socially deviant behavior of disadvantaged inner-city youth actually represents a situationally adaptive means of coping with ghetto life.

Maggs, Almeida, and Galambos (1995) found that increased risk-taking across adolescence (disobeying parents, school misconduct, substance abuse, antisocial behavior) was associated with a decrease in positive self-image but with increases in peer acceptance. In a longitudinal study of youth from preschool through age 18, Shedler and Block (1990) found that adolescents defined as drug "experimenters," as compared with drug users and drug abstainers, had more healthy psychological profiles (more flexible, more open to new experiences, less impulsive, less overcontrolled) than the other two groups. Engaging in deviant behavior thus represents a paradox that can have both positive and negative aspects for teens.

Today's adolescents also spend a lot of time doing work for pay. Unfortunately, employment, especially if it involves 20 hours or more per week, is linked to a variety of undesirable behaviors and characteristics, such as less involvement in school activities, both curricular and extracurricular, greater drug and alcohol use, less self-reliance, more disengagement from parents, and more delinquent behavior (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1995).

Surely, one might object, many adolescents need to work, to save for college, or even to help ease financial burdens at home. In fact, during the Great Depression, economic hardship did send adolescents into the workplace, and under those conditions, working was apparently linked to more responsible use of money and a more "adult" orientation (Elder, 1974). The broader culture, however, has changed dramatically since then. Whereas in 1940, only about 3 percent of 16-year-olds still in school were employed, by 1980, the government estimated that more than 40 percent were working. Large surveys that depend on students' self-reports rather than government data indicate that the number is actually much higher today, with about 65 percent of teens gainfully employed at any given time during a school year (Fine, Mortimer, & Roberts, 1990).

Middle class teens are more likely to be employed than those from lower socioeconomic groups, and their money is unlikely to be saved or contributed to family expenses. Rather, working teens spend their money on materialistic pursuits: wardrobes, entertainment, drugs, and alcohol (e.g., Steinberg, Fegley and Dornbusch, 1993; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1995). Further, although adolescents who work tend to have more conflicts with parents and to spend less time with them, they do not give up time spent socializing with peers.

Thus, although we tend to expect that teens who work will become less focused on unproductive pursuits, be more responsible, learn to budget, and appreciate the value of money, the reality today is quite different. Steinberg et al. points out that, although the effects seem to be bidirectionalfor example, teens with less school involvement are more likely to seek jobs, and once they are working, teens become less involved in school-none of the effects are demonstrably positive.

The research on adolescent employment helps to illustrate the power of historical and social context to influence adolescents' well-being. Many of the students who seek part-time work today would not have done so in the first half of the 20th century. The urge to earn is apparently spawned by teenagers' wanting the material goods and pleasures advertised and modeled so prominently in today's print media, movies, and television. Ironically, the temporary affluence they gain as a result of working in low-level, parttime jobs actually may diminish their chances of pursuing high paying, education-dependent careers later in their lives (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1995).

THE ROLE OF SCHOOL

As we have seen, the adolescent experience is influenced strongly by parents and peers. In addition, school plays a major part in the psychosocial, intellectual, and vocational development of adolescents. Teachers, curricula, school activities, and school culture all provide raw material that contributes to the adolescent's growing sense of self and increasing base of knowledge and skill.

Much has been written about the problems with American schools (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), and it is beyond the scope and purpose of this article to articulate all aspects of the debate about American educational reform. It is important to note, however, that educational institutions have been increasingly challenged to make changes that support the developmental needs of adolescents (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1996). This movement derives both from the recognition that many contemporary adolescents face a host of social and academic problems that threaten their well-being (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1998) and from the increasing body of evidence demonstrating a stage-environment mismatch between adolescents and their schools (Eccles, Midgley, Wigfield, et al., 1993).

Many researchers and theorists have noted a decline in academic orientation and motivation starting in the early adolescent years (Simmons & Blyth, 1987; Harter, 1981, Parsons & Ruble, 1977), which for some individuals continues throughout high school or culminates in "dropping out." Instructional practices such as whole-group lectures (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988), ability grouping (Oakes & Lipton, 1992), and competitive rather than cooperative activities and assessment (Ward et al., 1982) all occur more frequently in middle and junior high schools than in the elementary grades.

These practices have been linked to low levels of student motivation and heightened social comparison. For example, just as adolescents become exquisitely sensitive to their place in the peer scene, school-based evaluative policies such as "tracked" academic classes may make differences in ability more noticeable to the adolescent's peers and teachers, leading to decreased status for some (Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, et al., 1984).

Compared with elementary schools, junior high schools place a heavier emphasis on discipline and teacher control and provide relatively fewer opportunities for student decision making (Brophy & Evertson, 1976; Midgely, Fedlaufer, & Eccles, 1988). In contrast to this traditional model, longitudinal research by Wentzel (1997) documents the benefits associated with a more personal system of middle and secondary schooling. She found that students who perceived their teachers as caring and supportive were more likely than were students of less nurturing teachers to show greater academic effort and to express more prosocial goals. Interestingly, when students described teachers "who cared," they named characteristics that were quite similar to those of authoritative parents.

The large size of most middle and secondary schools is another factor that detracts from personal, mentoring relationships between students and available adults. Ravitch (1983) wrote that the trade-off for bigger, more "efficient" schools means "impersonality, bureaucratization, diminished contact between faculty and students, formalization of relationships among colleagues, a weakening of the bonds of community" (p.327).

Although large school size, per se, has not been correlated with reductions in standardized test scores (Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979), smaller schools have been shown to promote prosocial behavior among teenagers (Barker & Gump, 1964) and more community activism among their adult graduates (Lindsay, 1984). Calls for smaller counselor-to-student ratios in secondary schools reflect the recognition that critical goals such as curriculum choice and career planning depend upon the student's personal knowledge and a trusting relationship (Herr, 1989). Elkind (1984) asserted that the adolescent's identity formation is enhanced by being surrounded by a relatively small group of adults who know the student well and who, over time, are able to support the movement toward responsible autonomy.

The timing and types of transitions involved in the passage from primary to middle to secondary school are also important. These transitions represent "critical periods" that involve a redefinition of social status (e.g., from middle school "top dog" to senior high "bottom dog" (Entwisle, 1990) and the experience of several simultaneous stressors.

Simmons and Blyth (1987) present evidence for "cumulative stress" theory in a study of the effects of different transition patterns on academic achievement and selfesteem. Investigating the school-related outcomes of students who followed a K-8, 9-12 transition model as compared to those who followed a K-6, 7-9, 10-12 model, the researchers found more negative outcomes related to the latter plan. They interpreted these findings as resulting from an interaction between the stresses of puberty (see Chapter 9) and the cumulative stresses inherent in multiple school changes. For students who might be already at-risk, the cost of these educational practices could be extremely high. Midgley, Fedlaufer, and Eccles (1988) found that low levels of perceived teacher support were particularly harmful for low-achieving students who enter a less supportive classroom after a school transition.

Finally, the level of involvement by parents in the schooling of adolescents also influences achievement outcomes. Despite scientific and government support of parental involvement as a critical ingredient in school success (e.g., U. S. Department of Education, 1990) particularly for poor and minority children (Comer, 1988), the idea of parents becoming involved in the academic life of the adolescent has met with serious resistance.

Consistent with the "hands-off" philosophy described earlier, many adults tend to leave the business of education to teachers or to the adolescents themselves. Involvement declines sharply at the middle and high school levels (Steinberg, 1996; Stevenson & Stigler,1992). Approximately onethird of the students in Steinberg's (1992) study said their parents were uninformed about their school performance, and another one-sixth said that their parents did not care. More than 40% of participants said their parents did not attend any school function or activity.

This parental unresponsiveness seems closely tied to the child's age, and possibly to parental beliefs about adolescents' right to autonomy. Broderick and Mastrilli (1997) found that parents and teachers viewed various dimensions of involvement (for example, monitoring homework and use of time, helping at school, attending meetings and conferences, plus serving as a partner with the school in decision making) as appropriately decreasing once the child has made the transition out of the elementary grades.

THE BROADER CULTURE

Development is affected by the dynamic interaction between the individual and various other forces that extend beyond the friendship circle, the family, and the school. Peer networks, families, and schools operate, as Bronfenbrenner (1979) pointed out, within an even larger context called the exosystem, the level of the culture. The culture's values, laws, politics, and customs directly and indirectly contribute elements and experiences that the adolescent uses to construct a map of the world. Clearly, this influence is reciprocal and multidirectional.

For example, changes in the workplace because of economic forces may put excessive demands on parents who already are suffering from a time-deficit. Because they cannot be available to supervise, these parents then may adopt practices that encourage relatively high levels of independent behavior from their adolescents. The economic market may move in to provide goods and services, such as structured tutoring or television programming attractive to teens, to fill their time. Teen preferences and interests then influence the advertising and marketing of goods (see Hochschild, 1997, or Hewlitt, 1991, for a discussion of workplace effects on children).

Mental health professionals must concern themselves with the effects of cultural forces on adolescent development if they are to take a position that promotes healthy growth and functioning. Jessor (1993) noted that the distal effects of the larger cultural context are rarely taken into consideration when studying development, although "understanding contextual change is as important as understanding individual change" (p. 120). Perhaps the major question to be addressed is: How adolescent-friendly is the society we live in? If family, peers, and teachers are fellow players in the unfolding drama of adolescent identity formation, the culture, with its values and broader institutions, provides the stage upon which that drama is acted out.

Many writers from diverse fields of study have noted a general loss of community and a focus on individualism and material success evident in American culture at this point in its history (Barber, 1992; Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Hewlett & West, 1998; Lasch, 1991). In their discussion of a culture they call "poisonous," Hewlett and West describe punitive economic forces that undermine family stability and negative media forces that shape attitudes and beliefs. Few adults would deny that the exposure to the realities of the adult world that teens have today has been ratcheted up several levels compared to even recent generations. For example, media exposure to violent, sexualized, commercial messages occurs at a more intense level and starts at earlier ages.

Among the troubling cultural trends is that the once parent-friendly entertainment industry has done a turnaround since the 1950s and 1960s, producing more and more models of incompetent or abusive adults. For example, television programs respectful of parents' wisdom, such as "Father Knows Best," were typical in the early days of television, whereas today more and more shows highlighting adult peccadillos, such as "South Park," are becoming familiar television fare.

According to Hewlett and West (1998), blame can be shared jointly by public policies insensitive to families and by the ascendance of "pop psychology." The latter has often focused on reclaiming the wounded "inner child" and has emphasized self-enhancement at the expense of others. Certainly, serious cases of family abuse and dysfunction should be treated with the safety and well-being of the individual victim as the primary focus. Nurturing the self by viewing the adults who may have hurt us as "toxic," however, may be unjustified as a widespread remedy, especially for adolescents who need family support.

We may be risking serious consequences if we assume that adolescents' repeated media exposure to the ideas that adults are buffoons at best and evil at worst, that casual sex and drug taking at an early age is de riguer, and that the world is an exceedingly cynical and materialistic place, will not affect their actual views of themselves and their world. Research indicates that media messages can have powerful effects on teens' beliefs and behavior.

For example, results from a large number of studies, despite variations in methods and participants, document a relationship between teenage aggressive behavior and media portrayals of violence (Roberts, 1993). As the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1996) points out, adolescents are careening down the information superhighway, and electronic conduits (TV, videos, cable, computers, movies, and popular music) "have become strong competitors to the traditional societal institutions in shaping young people's attitudes and values" (p. 41).

How do contemporary cultural conditions interact with the adolescent's struggle for autonomy and self-definition? Consider that experimentation or "trying on" new behaviors is a normal part of the adolescent experience, as we have seen. Recall also that rebellion against adult norms is often expressed through experimentation with deviant Sohaviors and is statistically normative (Barnes, Welte, & Dintcheff, 1992; Jessor, Donovan, & Costa, 1992). Unfortunately, although risky behavior can be normal in adolescence, it also may ensnare teens in situations that can prove quite harmful. In her investigation of adolescents in Virginia, Hersch (1998) describes the escalation of dangerous pursuits as a "normal" part of contemporary adolescence: "Behaviors once at the fringe of adolescent rebelliousness have not only permeated the mainstream culture of high school but are seeping into the fabric of middle school" (p. 156). As Jessica, an eighth grade student interviewed by Hersch said: "This (smoking, using drugs, having sex) is what you are supposed to do.... It's our teenage phase. You are only a kid once" (p. 156).

Moffit (1993) describes modern society as having changed the way adolescence is experienced. The onset of earlier puberty, coupled with the necessity of a longer period of schooling, has extended the moratorium between physical and social maturity. Simultaneously, mothers and fathers alike work longer hours and there are fewer "old heads" around to listen and offer guidance, so teens find themselves trapped in an age-bound ghetto where it becomes increasingly normative to mimic deviant behavior.

Elkind (1994) points out that, given that teens face greater risks than in prior decades of this century, parents need to be available both as models of adult integrity and as monitors of their teens' behavior. Yet, the need to be available to provide teens with values and controls does not necessarily fit with the realities of adult life in contemporary society, when both parents often work to make ends meet and families are frequently in a state of flux. As a result, Elkind argues, many adolescents are not provided with the protective social envelope that characterized teen life as recently as the 1950s and 1960s.

Indeed, surveys of today's teens suggest that 25 percent of American parents across all ethnic groups are best described as having "checked out" of child rearing (Steinberg, 1996). Contemporary adolescents, who in many ways are on their own, actually may have fewer conflicts with their parents than their parents' generation did as teenagers (Elkind, 1994), but they are left unprotected, stressed, and endangered by a confusing and often harsh array of behavioral options.

Unfortunately, even parents, teachers, and other responsible adults who wish to curtail adolescents' exposure to the messages of movies, music, and the internet, or who wish to limit their teens' experimentation, are in a position of having to do battle with the culture. African-American parents, for example, who recognize and support the value of academic achievement report that the music and movies that are made to appeal to their youngsters often explicitly disparage their values (Steinberg, 1996).

THE COUNSELOR: IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS

The findings from the research reviewed in this article strongly support the general benefits of authoritative parenting, supportive yet challenging schools, prosocial and academically oriented peer groups, and a cultural context that allows for autonomy but also provides guidance and limits. Growing evidence indicates that genetically affected interests and skills are also important influences on adolescent personality and social adjustment (see, for example, Elkins, McGue, & Iacono, 1997). But the social-environmental conditions we have described are critical contributors as well, and they are the ones most amenable to intervention.

Because successful negotiation of the adolescent period depends upon the interaction of a number of variablesboth biological/genetic and interpersonal/cultural-a "onesize-fits-all" formula for treatment of troubled teens is not likely to be useful. Moreover, taking an encapsulated perspective on adolescent problems risks ignoring crucial variables that may maintain those problems. Individual counseling, which is often helpful in ameliorating some problems of adolescents, may bring only a temporary resolution to others unless the more systemic roots of the difficulties are also addressed. The fact that so many influential systems touch on adolescents' lives, and that some systems, like the peer network, are so resistant to adult intrusion, makes it critical to use a wide-angle lens when evaluating and treating teenagers.

One way to put the pieces together comes from the work of prevention researchers who have stressed the need to view successful adolescent development as a function of interrelated risk and protective factors (Jessor, 1993). Protective factors are those "personal, social, or institutional resources that can promote successful adolescent development or buffer the risk factors that otherwise might compromise development" (p. 121). The study of the pathways of risk and resilience has helped inform our efforts to conceptualize growth and development from the broadest possible perspective (see Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development, in Jessor, 1993). We can infer that enhancing protective factors or building resilience while attempting to address risk factors represents the most comprehensive strategy. This two-pronged approach is central to the traditions of counseling (VanHesteren & Ivey, 1990).

What are the protective factors that support healthy adolescent development, and how can they be enhanced? In general, advocating for authoritative parenting and providing the information and support parents need to get the job done can have wonderfully beneficial effects on adolescents. Steinberg (1996) asserts that the high rates of parental disengagement in the United States amount to a public health problem that must be remedied by means of parenteducation programs in communities and schools, and through public-service programming. Encouragement and support should be given to adults who are trying to maintain connections with their adolescents despite the difficultiesnamely, "the harrowing balancing act required to lower traditional hierarchical barriers without forfeiting guidance; the anxiety-filled struggle to honor an adolescent's growing autonomy; the sheer fortitude required to resist giving up in the face of repeated setbacks and rejection" (Sandmaier, 1996).

Steinberg (1994) found that parents of adolescents go through their own perilous transition and that 40 percent of them experience strong feelings of powerlessness, rejection, and personal regrets when their children become adolescents. Further, while relating stories of problem behaviors is rather common in parents of younger children, parents of adolescents are often uncomfortable doing so (Sandmaier, 1996). Therefore, in addition to reconnecting adolescents to their families, mental health specialists need to reconnect adults to each other. Parent support or discussion groups, "safe-house" programs, and more informal "phone-tree" arrangements allow parents to communicate with each other.

Taffel ( 1996) describes a group of parents who developed a set of common guidelines regarding their early adolescents' social lives to share in authority and prevent individual teens being ostracized because of parental restrictions. These strategies are best employed in communities that share similar values. In his study of urban Philadelphia communities, Furstenberg (1992) found that in dangerous neighborhoods some parents found it more effective to isolate themselves from other families to protect their adolescents.

Ways to encourage parental involvement in education also should be strongly promoted. Many parents who have had unpleasant school experiences themselves resist dealing with school personnel despite their concern for their children. Sometimes schools present formidable obstacles, either real or perceived, to parents who wish to obtain help or information.

Mental health practitioners can facilitate communication by advocating for parents, by explaining policies and procedures, and by working to develop good relationships with school personnel. Steinberg (1996) found that the most effective parental involvement strategy is to "work the system" on behalf of the student (for example, contacting the school when there is a problem, meeting with teachers or counselors). Encouraging and facilitating this kind of participation instead of viewing it as an intrusion can be helpful to the adolescent.

For difficult teens who are failing in school, coordinating both systems (home and school) creates a powerfully watchful force that signals caring and demandingness. Some schools have created confidential hotlines to allow students to get their friends help if needed. The literature on adolescent development suggests other strategies that could be effective: supporting a wide variety of extracurricular activities that provide positive outlets for teens and encouraging some limitations on the number of hours teens spend in paid employment.

Efforts to change peer networks directly seem to be less realistic. By their very nature, peer groups represent adolescent attempts to establish independent social networks and provide a structure that is an alternative to parental norms (Eckert, 1989). Peer society is influenced by so many factors (individual personalities, availability of types, social context, ethnicity, media, history-graded effects) that proximal interventions are likely to be more difficult. Consequently, a call for changes in the broader societal context and in the more immediate family and school environment is thought to be the best way to exert influence on the chemistry of the peer groups formed. For example, in the matter of achievement, Steinberg (1996) strongly advocates refocusing the American discussion away from the problems of schools to the problem of changing adolescents' and parents' minds (or the collective culture's mind) about what is really important-schooling-and about what is less important-socializing, organized sports, paid employment, and so on.

This is not to suggest that counselors should necessarily leave peer groups alone. Indeed, the school counselor is in a unique position to provide information and a forum for discussion about important topics through developmental guidance programs. Other strategies, such as peer mediation and peer counseling, are useful approaches for teens because they capitalize on the adolescent's dependence upon peers.

Findings that indicate a tendency for teens of all ethnic groups to turn to their peers for advice about educational and vocational decisions rather than to professionals in the schools (Mau, 1995) suggest that it may be useful to use peers in the guidance process as well. In counseling sessions, Taffel (1996) suggests using a genogram of the "second family" or the teen's peer group to allow the therapist to gain some sense of this important constellation. Sometimes, he suggests, peers can be brought into the therapy process.

Pipher (1996), a family therapist who has written about the problems today's adolescents face, has taken therapists to task about the myopic focus of many traditional therapeutic practices. She notes that counseling theories, like the great therapists who developed them, are embedded in historical time and place. Ideas such as intrapsychic causes of distress and even the "dysfunctional family," if emphasized in counseling and diagnosis to the exclusion of culture, history, economics, and politics, ignore critical dimensions affecting adolescents and do a disservice to their alreadystressed families. She has argued that communities as well as families raise the nation's children and that therapists can do more harm than good by misdiagnosing problems and giving simplistic answers to complicated situations without according due consideration to the effects of the culture. She pointedly notes:

In the past when therapists saw troubled teenagers, they could generally assume that the parents had problems. That's because most teenagers were fine. Troubled teens were an exception and required some explaining. Today most teenagers are not fine. At one time we helped kids differentiate from enmeshed families. Now we need to help families differentiate from the culture. (p. 34)"

Pipher (1996) advocates for "protecting" family time by deliberately limiting the encroachment of work and media entertainment and creating family rituals and celebrations to strengthen positive connections. Hewlett and West (1998) called for a national initiative similar to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), called a Parents' Bill of Rights, which would guarantee family-friendly policies such as parenting leave, economic security, help with housing, responsible media, year-round educational programs, and quality schools, to name a few.

Many advocates for adolescents are thus calling for a reexamination of the counselor's role in helping troubled teens. They suggest expanding the focus of intervention from the individual and the family to include initiatives that target the broader contexts in which the adolescent is developing, such as peer networks, schools, and both local and national communities. Counselors who are well-informed about the multiple influences on adolescent functioning are in the best position to create such initiatives.

REFERENCES

Baldwin, A. L. (1948). Socialization and the parent-child relationship. Child Development, 19, 127-136.

Barber, B. R. (1992). An aristocracy of everyone: The politics of education and the future of America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barber, B. K. (1994). Cultural, family and personal contexts of parent-adolescent conflict. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 56, 375-386.

Barker, R.G.,& Gump, P.V. (1964). Big school, small school: High school size and student behavior. Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press.

Barnes, G. M., Welte, J. W., & Dintcheff, B. (1992). Alcohol misuse among college students and other young adults: Findings from a general population study in New York State. International Journal of the Addictions, 27, 917-934.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, Part 2, 4, 1-103.

Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black child children: Some black/white comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261-267.

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth & Society, 9, 239-276.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks, R. Lerner, & A.C. Petesen (Eds.), The encyclopedia on adolescence (pp. 758-772). New York: Garland.

Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response to Scarr. Child Development, 64, 1299-1217.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A. & Tipton, S .M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment.in American life. New York: Harper & Row. Blos, P (1975). The second individuation process of adolescence. In A.Esman (Ed.), The psychology of adolescence. New York: International Universities Press, pp. 156-176. Broderick, P.C., & Mastrilli, T. (1997). Attitudes concerning parental involvement: Parent and teacher perspectives. Pennsylvania Educational Leadership, 16, 30-36. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and by design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brophy, J. E., & Evertson, C. M. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent, pp. 171-196. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1996). Great transitions: Preparing adolescents for a new century. New York: Carnegie Corp..

Comer, J.P. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American, 5, 4248.

Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1984). Being adolescent. New York: Basic Books.

Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P H., Roberts, D. F., & Fraleigh, M. J. (1987). The relation of parenting style of adolescent performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.

Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. J. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press, pp. 283-331. Eckert, P (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and iden

tity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press. Elder, G. (1974). Children of the great depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Elkind, D. (1984). All grown up and no place to go: Teenagers in crisis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Elkind, D. (1994). Ties that Stress: The new family imbalance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Elkins, I. J., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (1977). Genetic and environmental influences on parent-son relationships: Evidence for increasing genetic influence during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 33, 351-363. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Entwisle, D. R. (1990). Schools and the adolescent. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 197-224).

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton. Farrington, D., Ohlin, L. , & Wilson, J. Q. (1986). Understanding

and controlling crime. New York: Springer-Verlag. Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133-156.

Fine, G. A., Mortimer, J. T., & Roberts, D. F. (1990). Leisure, work, and the mass media. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott, At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 225-253). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N. E., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). The company they keep: Relationships of adolescents' adjustment and behavior to their friends' perceptions of authoritative parenting in the social network. Developmental Psychology, 31, 300-310.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the burden of "acting White." Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Freud, A. (1958). "Child observation and prediction of development," in Psychoanalytic study of the child, Vol. 13, New York: International Universities Press, pp. 92-116. Furstenburg,Jr., F. F. (1992, March). Adapting to difficult environments: Neighborhood characteristics and family strategies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Washington, D.C.

Goldstein, A. P (1990). Delinquents on delinquency. Champaign,

IL: Research Press.

Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). The relation of family functioning to violence among inner city youths. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 115-129. Greenberger, E., & Goldberg, W. (1989). Work, parenting, and the socialization of children. Developmental Psychology, 25, 22-35.

Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300-312. Herr, E. L.(1989). Counseling in a dynamic society: Opportunities and challenges. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Hersch, P. (1998). A tribe apart: A journey into the heart of American adolescence. New York: Fawcett Columbine. Hewlett, S. A. (1991). When the bough breaks: The cost of neglecting our children. New York: Basic Books. Hewlett, S. A. & West, C. (1998). The war against parents: What we can do for America's beleaguered moms and dads. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Hill, J., & Holmbeck, G. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. In G. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of child development. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and home becomes work. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings. American Psychologist, 48, 117-126. Jessor, R., Donovan, J. D., & Costa, F. (1992). Beyond adolescence: Problem behavior and young adult development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065.

Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Steinberg, L. (1996). Ethnicity and community context as moderators of the relations between family decision making and adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 67, 283-301.

Lasch, C. (1991). The true and only heaven: Progress and its crit

ics. New York: W.W.Norton & Co.

Lindsay, P. ( 1984). High school size, participation in activities, and young adult social participation: Some enduring effects of schooling. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 6, 73-83.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-100). New York: Wiley. Maggs, J. L., Almeida, D. M., & Galambos, N. L. (1995). Risky business: The paradoxical meaning of problem behavior for young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 344-362.

Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant: Symbiosis and individuation. New York: Basic Books.

Mau, W. (1995). Educational planning and academic achievement of middle school students: A racial and cultural comparison. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 518-526. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Midgely, C., Fedlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). The transition to junior high school: Beliefs of pre and post-transition teachers. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 17, 543-562. Moffit, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 674-701.

Montmayor, R. (1983). Parents and adolescents in conflict: All families some of the time and some families all of the time. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 83-103. Mounts, N. S., & Steinberg, L. (1995). An ecological analysis of peer influence on adolescent grade point average and drug use. Developmental Psychology, 31, 915-922. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Oakes , J., & Lipton, M. (1994). Tracking and ability grouping: A structural barrier to access and achievement. In J. I. Goodlad & P Keating (Eds.). Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation's schools. New York: College Board.

Offer, D. (1969). The psychological world of the teenager. New York: Basic Books.

Parsons, J. E., & Ruble, D. N. (1977). The development of achievement

related expectancies. Child Development, 48, 1975-1979. Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.

Pipher, M. (1996). The shelter of each other: Rebuilding our families. New York: Ballantine Books.

Ravitch, D. (1983). The troubled crusade: American Education,

1945-1980. New York: Basic Books.

Roberts, D. F. (1993). Adolescents and the mass media: From "Leave it to Beaver" to "Beverly Hills 90210." Teachers College Record, 94, 62944.

Rutter, M., Graham, P., Chadwick, O. F., & Yule, W. ( 1976). Adolescent turmoil: Fact or fiction? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 35-56. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. Ouston, J. & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rutter, V (1995). Adolescence: Whose hell is it? Psychology Today, January/ February, 54-60, 62, 64, 66, 68. Sandmaier, M. ( 1996). More than love. Family Therapy Networker, May/June, 21-33.

Schacter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Seltzer, V.C. (1982). Adolescent social development: Dynamic

functional interaction. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Shedler, J., & Block, J. (1990). Adolescent drug use and psychological health: A longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist, 45, 612-630.

Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and school context. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Smith, C., & Krohn, M. D. (1955). Delinquency and family life among male adolescents: The role of ethnicity. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 24, 69-93.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Interdependency in the family: Autonomy, conflict, and harmony. In S. Feldman & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Steinberg, L. (1994). Crossing paths: How your child's adoles

cence triggers your own crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster. Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Steinberg, L., & Belsky, J. (1991). Infancy, childhood, and adolescence: Development in context. New York: McGraw-Hill. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1995). The impact of employment on adolescent development. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development, Vol. I I (pp. 131-166). London: Jessica Kingsley. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729. Steinberg, L., Fegley, S. & Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). The negative impact of part-time work on adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology; 29, 171-180.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Overtime changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281. Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. (1986). The vicissitudes of auton

omy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841-851. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Chinese and Japanese education. New York: Simon & Schuster. Taffel, R. (1996). The second family. Family Therapy Networker, May/June, 36-45.

U.S. Dept. of Education (1990). National goals for education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. VanHesteren, F., & Ivey, A. E. (1990). Counseling and development: Toward a new identity for a profession in transition. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 524-528. Ward, B. A., Mergendoller, J. R., Tikunoff, W. J., Rounds, T. S., Dadey, G. J ., & Mitman, A. L. (1982). Junior high school transition study: Executive summary. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411-419.

Wilson, W. J. ( 1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Random House.

Pamela Blewitt is a member of the Department of Psychology, Villanova University. Patricia Broderick is with the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, West Chester University, Pennsylvania. Excerpted from the forthcoming book entitled Lifespan Development for Helping Professionals, by Pamela Blewitt and Patricia C. Broderick, 2002, to be published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Reprinted by permission.

Copyright Love Publishing Company Apr 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved