Daughters' Anger towards Mothers and Fathers in Emerging ...

Sex Roles DOI 10.1007/s11199-016-0599-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Daughters’ Anger towards Mothers and Fathers in Emerging Adulthood Ana L. Jaramillo-Sierra 1 & Christine E. Kaestle 2 & Katherine R. Allen 2

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract We examined young women’s anger towards mothers and fathers in emerging adulthood using a qualitative methodology and a feminist theoretical framework. To achieve this objective, we interviewed 16 young women (18–25 years-old) residing in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region about their relationship with fathers and mothers and their anger within these relationships. The qualitative analysis revealed four types of relationships between young adult women and their fathers and mothers: challenging conflictual, challenging mutual, accepting authoritarian, and accepting authoritative. Our analysis also demonstrated that young women relate in two ways to their anger at mothers and fathers: accepting anger or distancing from anger. Furthermore, they express their anger at mothers and fathers following three distinct patterns: non-expression, indirect expression, and direct expression. The distribution of participants within coding sub-categories for anger at fathers and anger at mothers, as well as the reasons provided by young women as to why they related to anger or expressed anger in a particular manner at fathers and mothers suggests: (a) women’s relationships to fathers and mothers are shaped by gender power dynamics in the family and (b) women’s relation to anger and anger expression towards mothers and fathers is influenced by gendered relationships towards fathers and mothers.

* Ana L. Jaramillo-Sierra [email protected]

1

Department of Psychology, Universidad de los Andes, Cra. 1 No. 18ª −10 Edificio Franco G219, Bogotá, DC, Colombia

2

Department of Human Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

Keywords Women’s anger . Parent–child relationships . Gender . Emerging adulthood . Feminist family studies

In the current study, we examined young women’s relationship to their mothers and fathers, young women’s relation to their anger towards mothers and fathers, and young women’s anger expression to mothers and fathers. In order to approach these objectives, we used a feminist theoretical framework and a qualitative methodology to collect and analyze data. The findings of our study contribute to a better understanding of (a) how gender structures daughter-parent relationships in emerging adulthood and (b) how gender shapes anger experience and expression in those relationships. We recruited a sample of mostly young U.S. women (18–25 years-old) from intact two-parent families, therefore our findings are mainly applicable to young women in this country and should be used with caution in research and counseling with women of other ages and cultural backgrounds. Likewise, our review of theoretical and empirical literature is based on studies developed with U.S. samples, unless otherwise noted. In the few cases that non-U.S. samples are referenced, the studies were conducted in westernized countries with many cultural similarities to the United States, but generalization of those results to our sample is potentially more problematic than our U.S. references. Feminist family studies have demonstrated the influence of the larger gender structure on parent–child relationships, focusing mostly on childhood, adolescence, and older adulthood (Walker 1999). Less is known about how gender shapes parent–child relationships in young (or emerging) adulthood. Nonetheless, this is a critical stage in development where individuals make choices about their occupations and relationships and where individuals’ beliefs, behaviors, and interactions are shaped in important ways (Arnett 2014). Thus,

Sex Roles

looking at how gender influences parent-daughter relationships during young adulthood and how gender influences daughters’ anger in such relationships might be useful to counsel, support, and empower young women. Providing young women with a clearer sense of how gender influences their relationships and their anger in relationships would probably help them stop attributing individual causes to relational events and emotions that are more accurately explained by gender power imbalances. As a consequence, a better understanding of relationships and emotions including a gender perspective might empower women in relationships.

Gender Theory and Family Relationships We used gender theory to study daughters’ anger towards mothers and fathers. Gender theory rejects the understanding of gender as an essential characteristic of individuals or as a static social role (Ferree 2010). On the contrary, it proposes that gender is a social structure, such as other macro structures like political and economic systems, that provides greater power and privilege to men than to women (Risman 2004). Understood as a social structure, gender influences institutions, relationships, and individuals in a top-down fashion (Risman 2004). However, gender theory also recognizes the agency of individuals to resist and transform individual, relational, and institutional processes that perpetuate male power and privilege (Lorber 2005). Gender theory suggests that families are a place of tension and ambivalence between structural and agency forces. This means that families are spaces where society’s gendered power distribution is enacted and at the same time, families are spaces where such struggles are resisted and transformed by individuals in relationships (Allen et al. 2009). A traditional concern for feminist scholars who study families has been that of how gender structures power inequalities between women and men within family relationships (for example, between husband and wife; Ferree 2010). However, more recently, feminist scholars have started to acknowledge multiple and intersecting sources of oppression (such as race, class, sexuality, age) that place women and men at different power positions within their social context and within their families (McCall 2005; Shields 2008).

Gendered Parent–Child Relationships In terms of intergenerational relationships within families, studies in the United States show that parent–child relationships display similar power differences between men and women as those found in society at large (Walker 1999). In the last three decades, fathers have increased their involvement with children in terms of childcare tasks and time spent

together, as a result of changing ideals about motherhood and fatherhood as well as socioeconomic changes such as an increase in maternal employment and a number of economic declines (Cabrera et al. 2000; Lewis and Lamb 2003). However, mothers continue to spend more time with their children than do fathers and to do two-thirds of the total load of childcare (Amato et al. 2009). In addition, women continue to view their role as that of primary caregivers for children and to be more invested than fathers are in the parent–child relationship (Bianchi et al. 2006). As sons and daughters grow into adolescence, mothers are a more important attachment figure to their children than fathers are, although there seems to be greater conflict between mothers and daughters during adolescence as well as between fathers and sons (Buist et al. 2002, Dutch sample). In addition, mothers display greater involvement with adolescent children than fathers, regardless of parents’ residence arrangements (being a resident or a non-resident parent), socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and adolescents’ gender (Hawkins et al. 2006). During young adulthood, differences between fathers’ and mothers’ relation to their children persist. Nelson et al. (2011) surveyed 403 young adults and at least one of their parents, and they found that during this stage of development mothers displayed more warmth and involvement with their children than did fathers. The study also demonstrated fathers engaged in more controlling behaviors with their young adult children than did mothers. Parent–child relationships are also gendered at the end of the life course as parents age. According to Bengtson (2001), aging fathers are less attached to their sons and daughters than mothers. In this same direction, Pillemer et al. (2012) demonstrated aging fathers displayed higher levels of ambivalence (i.e., holding positive and negative feelings at the same time) towards adult children than aging mothers. In addition, Pillemer et al. (2012) found fathers displayed lower ambivalence towards daughters than sons, and mothers showed lower ambivalence towards sons than daughters.

Power in Parent–Child Relationships Considering a feminist theoretical perspective, we were interested in how power played out in father-daughter and motherdaughter relationships during emerging adulthood. Within the family context, power is the ability to influence another family member’s ideas, emotions, and actions (Komter 1989, in theoretical paper using research developed in the Netherlands). Traditionally, parents have been assigned greater power than children within the family considering their position one generation above, their role to guide and socialize children, and their age (Minuchin 1985).

Sex Roles

According to Baumrind (1978) parents use their power in the parent–child relationship in three different ways depending on two factors: responsiveness and demandingness. Authoritative parents demand a lot from children and are ready to confront them, at the same time that they are highly responsive to children and promote their psychological autonomy. Authoritarian parents are also highly demanding, but they are not responsive to their children. Authoritarian parents frequently engage in controlling behaviors, arbitrary discipline, and physical punishment. Finally, permissive parents are highly responsive to children’s needs, but they demand little from children. Therefore, permissive parents present themselves as a resource for children, but they do not take the role of guiding children toward acceptable social behaviors. Baumrind’s (1978) typology of parenting styles has been widely used to study the development of children and adolescents. Among others, parenting styles have been found to be associated with children’s problem behaviors (Danzig et al. 2015, U.S. sample; Kaisa and Jari-Erik 2005, Finnish sample) and socioemotional (Razza et al. 2012, U.S. sample; ZarraNezhad et al. 2014, Finnish sample) and cognitive development (Mills-Koonce et al. 2015, U.S. sample; O’Reilly and Peterson 2014, Australian sample). Likewise, parenting styles have been found to be associated with adolescents’ overall well-being in Australian, U.K., and U.S. samples (Driscoll et al. 2008; Shucksmith et al. 1995) and academic achievement in Swedish and U.S. samples (Kaisa et al. 2000; Kramer 2012). Recent studies point to the persistence of a hierarchical parent–child relationship during emerging adulthood. Padilla-Walker et al. (2014) surveyed 438 U.S. undergraduate students and one of their parents on their perceptions about areas where they should have control over their lives and where parents should have control over them. A hierarchical cluster analysis of the data indicated three groups of emerging adults: personal control, shared control, and parental control. Among these groups, shared control was the most common among emerging adults and their parents, with two thirds of the sample indicating answers aligned with this group. Furthermore, parenting styles during emerging adulthood seem to closely resemble those found in childhood and adolescence. Nelson et al. (2011) inquired into parenting styles during emerging adulthood by surveying 403 college students and one of their parents. A cluster analysis of the data indicated four parenting styles. For both parents they found three similar parenting styles: (a) authoritative parenting (low on control and high on responsiveness), (b) controllingindulgent (high on control and low on responsiveness), and (c) uninvolved (low on control and low on responsiveness). For mothers, the study found an inconsistent parenting style, where mothers rated above average on all dimensions of parenting. For fathers, there was an average parenting style,

where fathers obtained average scores on all dimensions of parenting. The few studies on parenting styles during emerging adulthood have rarely included both fathers and mothers, therefore there is little information regarding similarities and differences in parenting styles according to parents’ gender. Nelson et al. (2011) found fathers to engage in more controlling behaviors and mothers to display more responsiveness. These findings are an indication that parenting, and therefore power in parent–child relationships, during emerging adulthood might be different between fathers and daughters and between mothers and daughters. Taking together this evidence and the literature on gendered parent–child relationships, it is reasonable to believe that the context of the parent–child relationship where young women’s anger takes place would display different characteristics according to the gender of the parent. In addition, gender theory would propose that those differences would be marked by social privilege of men over women.

Women’s Relation to Their Anger Qualitative studies on women’s anger provide some indications on how women relate to their anger. Anger as inappropriate and therefore associated with feelings of regret, guilt, and not-self has been a common finding in the narratives of women. For example, Eatough et al. (2008) interviewed five vulnerable inner-city women in the United Kingdom about their feelings of anger and their experiences with aggression. Women in the study were young adults (28–32 years-old), all but one were mothers, and all were married or cohabitated with an intimate partner. In women’s narratives, researchers identified guilt and regret for their actions when angry. Similarly, Thomas et al.’s (1998) qualitative study including interviews with 21 women between 21 and 66 years of age demonstrated women’s perception of anger as an inappropriate emotion. Women in their study reported it was not normal to express anger externally and displayed difficulties owning their anger as they spoke about it during the interviews. According to the authors’ analysis, anger for most of the women in their study was an experience that they wanted to place beyond their own self in a distant phenomenological space.

Women’s Anger Expression Research on emotions differentiates between the experience of an emotion and its expression. The experience has been defined as the subjective feeling or affect related to the emotion, whereas the expression is related to the behaviors (internal or external to the individual) that follow such an experience (Izard 2010; Potegal and Stemmler 2010). Psychological studies have traditionally differentiated between two general

Sex Roles

patterns of anger expression: anger internalization (anger-in) and anger externalization (anger-out; Spielberger et al. 1985). Anger internalization refers to strategies of anger expression intended to keep anger inside the body and mind, and not show it. For example, in the State-Trait Anger Expression Scale (STAXI-2) anger-in is measured by items such as: BWhen angry or furious, I boil inside but don’t show it^ (Spielberger and Reheiser 2010, p. 410). Anger externalization, in contrast, includes all those actions executed by an angry person that can be visibly observed. For example, in the scale previously cited, anger-out is measured by items including: BWhen angry or furious, I slam doors,^ BWhen angry or furious, I argue with others,^ and BWhen angry or furious, I say nasty things^ (Spielberger and Reheiser 2010, p. 410). Quantitative studies comparing the frequency of anger expression according to participants’ gender have concluded there are more similarities than differences between women’s and men’s anger (Fischer and Roseman 2007). On the contrary, studies focused on how women and men express their anger do show significant differences (Fischer and Evers 2010). Men tend to express their anger more frequently through aggressive behaviors, whereas women tend to express their anger through covert and indirect means (Fischer and Evers 2010). Qualitative studies of women’s anger support the claim that women tend to express their anger indirectly and to accumulate it inside their bodies. Thomas et al. (1998) identified anger storage as a common strategy women use to relate to their anger, characterized by the lack of expression of anger and the keeping of the emotion in their bodies in an accumulating manner. Furthermore, Jack’s (2001) study about how women bring anger in or keep it out of their relationships, where 60 women of diverse backgrounds and ages were interviewed, identified indirect anger expression as another common strategy used by women regarding their anger in close relationships. Jack characterized four different ways in which adult women masked their anger: quiet sabotage, hostile distance, deflection, and loss of control. These qualitative studies have also identified that women may resist these gendered rules for anger through open and direct anger expression (Jaramillo-Sierra et al. 2015). Women expressing their anger at the moment, at the target person, and about things that bother them is an exceptional experience described by women when interviewed about their anger (Cox et al. 2004; Jack 2001; Thomas et al. 1998). Women have narrated this experience as one in which they felt empowered and satisfied for being able to restore a relationship’s conflict (Jack 2001; Thomas et al. 1998). From an objective point of view, women who expressed their anger openly and directly displayed lower rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and somatization (Cox et al. 2004).

The Present Study Our study was designed to expand current knowledge on young women’s relationship to their mothers and fathers and on how young women’s experience and expression of anger towards mothers and fathers follows gendered patterns. Thus, our study was guided by the following research questions: (a) How do young women narrate their relationships to mothers and fathers in terms of power?, (b) How do young women relate to their anger towards mothers and fathers?, and (c) How do young women express their anger towards mothers and fathers? To examine these research questions we conducted different rounds of open and axial codings of interview transcripts (Charmaz 2006).

Method Participants The present study was part of a larger qualitative project about young women’s anger, and our findings regarding anger in romantic relationships have been presented elsewhere (Jaramillo-Sierra et al. 2015). Sixteen women between the ages of 18 and 25 participated in the current study (M = 20.50, SD = 1.90). Thirteen (81 %) women were Caucasian, two (13 %) Asian, and one (6 %) reported having more than one racial background. All but one of the women were enrolled at a university at the time of the interview but in different fields of study (e.g., engineering, political science, veterinary medicine). The women were predominantly middle class. All women resided in a rural mid-Atlantic area of the United States at the time of data collection. Regarding family characteristics, all women included in our sample came from two-parent intact families. Participants who reported not having a father or father-figure (for example, a step-father) or having divorced parents were not included in the analysis. Of the 21 young women originally interviewed, five were excluded. Four of them were excluded because they reported not having a father or fatherfigure, and one of them was excluded for having divorced parents. The reason for excluding young women with no father-figure or divorced parents was that data would not be comparable across participants. Although all 16 participants addressed anger in their relationship with mothers, only ten women described experiences of anger in their relationship with fathers. Among the six participants who did not describe experiences of anger with their fathers, three women did not talk about their anger in the father-daughter relationship and three women briefly mentioned their anger in the father-daughter relationship. See Table 1 for demographic characteristics of participants associated with sub-categories from our analysis.

Sex Roles Table 1

Characteristics of participants and coding sub-categories

Pseudonym

Relational Context

Relation to Anger

Anger Expression

Age

Race

Field of Study

Kim

Mother-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Father-daughter: Accepting: Authoritative Mother-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Father-daughter: Challenging: Conflictual Mother-daughter: Challenging: Conflictual Father-daughter: Challenging: Conflictual Mother-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Father-daughter: Accepting: Authoritarian Mother-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Father-daughter: Accepting: Authoritarian Mother-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Father-daughter: Accepting: Authoritative Mother-daughter: Challenging: Conflictual Father-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Mother-daughter: Accepting: Authoritarian Father-daughter: Accepting: Authoritarian Mother-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Father-daughter: Challenging: Conflictual Mother-daughter: Accepting: Authoritative Father-daughter: Accepting: Authoritative Mother-daughter: Accepting:

Mother-daughter: Accepting Father-daughter: Accepting

Mother-daughter: Outwardly and directly Father-daughter: Indirectly

25

Caucasian

Biomedical engineering

Mother-daughter: Distancing Father-daughter: Accepting

Mother-daughter: Keeping anger in Father-daughter: Keeping anger in

21

Caucasian

Accounting


Mother-daughter: Keeping anger in Father-daughter: Keeping anger in Mother-daughter: Outwardly and directly Father-daughter: Keeping anger in

20

Caucasian

Political science; philosophy

20

Caucasian

Biological science; psychology

Layla

Brittany

Haley

Alisha

Jena

Chen

Olivia

Emily

Francesca

Sarah


Mother-daughter: Distancing Father-daughter: Distancing


24

Asian

Mining and mineral engineering

Mother-daughter: Accepting Father-daughter: Distancing

Mother-daughter: Outwardly and directly Father-daughter: Outwardly and directly Mother-daughter: Indirectly Father-daughter: Outwardly and directly

21

Asian and Caucasian

Biology

24

Asian

Civil engineering




23

Caucasian

Veterinary medicine


Mother-daughter: Indirectly Father-daughter: Indirectly

21

Caucasian

Biology



18

Caucasian

Physics; mathematics

Mother-daughter: Distancing

Mother-daughter: Keeping anger

22

Caucasian

Did not report

Sex Roles Table 1 (continued) Pseudonym

Diane

Cindy

Amanda

Rachel

Kelly

Relational Context Authoritative Mother-daughter: Challenging: Conflictual Mother-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Mother-daughter: Challenging: Conflictual Mother-daughter: Challenging: Mutual Mother-daughter: Challenging: Conflictual

Relation to Anger

Mother-daughter: Accepting Mother-daughter: Accepting Mother-daughter: Distancing Mother-daughter: Accepting Mother-daughter: Accepting

Anger Expression in Mother-daughter: Keeping anger in Mother-daughter: Outwardly and directly Mother-daughter: Keeping anger in Mother-daughter: Outwardly and directly Mother-daughter: Outwardly and directly

Procedure and Measures We recruited participants through print flyers posted at bulletin boards in three higher education institutions with different student populations (one major land grant university, one local public university, and one community college). We also posted flyers in shops and buildings in five different towns within one same rural mid-Atlantic area. In addition, we sent electronic flyers to faculty and student organizations advertising the study. We intentionally distributed recruitment information to minority student groups and listserves to recruit a diverse sample of young women in terms of race, culture, country of origin, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation. Potential participants who contacted the first author were contacted back by telephone and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were age between 18 and 25 and current involvement in a romantic relationship with a man for at least 4 months. (Romantic involvement was part of a larger data collection examining young women’s anger towards romantic partners.) Exclusion criteria were (a) marriage, children, hospitalization for a mental health issue within the last 12 months and (b) current involvement as victim or perpetrator in physical or sexual violence in their current romantic relationship. Participants who fit the criteria for the study were interviewed by the first author. During the interview appointment, participants read and signed the Informed Consent, answered questions for the interview, and completed a short demographic questionnaire. Interviews were completed in a private office space and lasted between 45 and 90 min. The first author followed an Interview Guide with questions and probes to conduct each of the in-depth semi-structured interviews with participants. The Interview Guide was piloted with two young women, and adjustments were made based on their

Age

Race

Field of Study

19

Caucasian

Finance and accounting

20

Caucasian

Human development

25

Caucasian

International studies

23

Caucasian

Structural engineering

20

Caucasian

Mathematics

feedback. The first part of the interview asked participants to provide some context and description for each relationship (father-daughter relationship; mother-daughter relationship). In the second part of the interview, participants were asked to tell us about their anger in each relationship, to compare their anger across relationships, and to discuss how they made sense of the differences and similarities between their anger in the different relationships. After the interview, participants completed a Demographic Questionnaire. This questionnaire included questions about participants’ age, race, and ethnicity, attending university, field of study, and year in college or graduate school. The questionnaire also included questions about socio-economic status, such as mothers’ and fathers’ educational level, and family of origin annual income. The first author transcribed the 16 interviews verbatim. We used pseudonyms in transcripts to identify participants. We used pseudonyms from then on to identify participants during the different coding stages. The names that appear in the Results section are pseudonyms for participants. Data Analysis We used open and axial qualitative coding (Charmaz 2006). We first engaged in open coding of the 16 transcripts. The first author coded each of the transcripts in a line-by-line fashion. Then the second and third authors coded the already line-byline coded transcripts and raised questions and comments on the first author’s line-by-line coding. Finally, the first author engaged in a third round of line-by-line coding. After all independent codings of all transcripts were reviewed, we compared and discussed our preliminary findings, selecting and filtering codes into a coherent coding scheme that represented women’s experiences of their anger in the two relationships of interest (relationship to father; relationship to mother).

Sex Roles

Through this process, we discussed different coding schemes, iteratively merging and refining emergent categories until we reached consensus on an initial coding scheme. For example, in our process of defining the sub-categories of hierarchical relational context, at first we proposed three sub-categories: challenging: mutual, challenging: conflictual, and accepting: submissive. However, in the process of comparing and contrasting codes and iteratively applying them to the data, we found that the accepting sub-category was actually encompassing two distinct emerging groups: those whose parents imposed and abused power and those whose parents seemed to be assertive and nurturing. Therefore, for our initial coding scheme we agreed on four sub-categories, where there were two types of accepting relationships: accepting: authoritarian and accepting: authoritative. Ultimately, the initial coding scheme included three categories (relational context for anger, relation to anger, and anger expression) and eight subcategories. Using codes from the initial coding scheme, the first and second author engaged in individual coding of the 16 transcripts. The inter-coder agreement in the first round of axial coding was low, with agreements on only 62 % of the total number of codes. Thus, we reviewed the disagreements and refined the coding definitions for each of the eight sub-categories. For example, we clarified what we meant by the subcategory challenging: conflictual, such that it included both (a) parent-daughter relationships where conflict seemed to predominate in the present and (b) parent-daughter relationships where daughters had decided to distance from parents as a result of conflict in the past. Through this comparative and reflective analysis, we reached consensus on a clarified final coding scheme and code definitions, maintaining but refining the three categories corresponding to the research questions and eight subcategories (see Table 2). Kappa values for the final round of axial coding were .72 for the category Relational Context for Anger, .73 for the category Relation to Anger, and .89 for Anger Expression.

Results Findings provide some support for the idea that daughters’ anger towards fathers and mothers occurs in a relational context where power relations are different. Findings also seem to indicate that general social norms that inhibit women’s anger expression and mandate anger experience as inappropriate for women could be ruling women’s anger regardless of the specific parent–child relationship (father-daughter or motherdaughter) where anger is experienced in the family. Table 2 provides definitions and sample quotes for each sub-category. Below, we provide a brief description of the resulting eight sub-categories within the three broad categories based on our research questions. We also provide the frequency that those

sub-categories appeared in the data for the mother-daughter relationship and the father-daughter relationship. Relational Context for Anger Regarding our first research question, How do young women narrate their relationships to mothers and fathers in terms of power?, we identified four types of relationships young women described with their mothers and fathers in terms of power. In the first sub-category, challenging: mutual, women challenged their parents’ power by placing them at their same level. That is, young women challenged their parents’ position in the family as authority figures, preferring to think of them as friends who are equal to them. In the second sub-category, challenging: conflictual, women challenged their parents’ power by pushing them to a lower level. In the third subcategory women accepted their parents’ power within an authoritarian relationship (accepting: authoritarian). In the fourth sub-category, women accepted their parents’ power within an authoritative relationship (accepting: authoritative). Challenging: Mutual Eight women (8/16; 50 %) placed their mothers at their same level in the narrations through the interview, without recognizing generational positions in the family that tend to provide greater power to parents than to children. Among the ten women who described their anger at fathers, one challenged her father’s power by characterizing her relationship with her father as mutual friendship, thus placing her father at the same position of power as herself (1/10; 10 %). This woman narrated her relationship to her father as one of equals with no limits to what is shared and no difference in what is expected of each person. Challenging: Conflictual Five women (5/16; 31 %) challenged their mothers’ power and position in the family by placing them in a position below themselves. These women’s narrations were of two kinds. Women either spoke of their mothers as being fragile and needing protection, or they criticized and put down their mothers. Chen represents the first kind because she expressed that she avoids sharing her disagreements with her mother because her mother gets very hurt and, from Chen’s perspective, her mother is unable to recover from the pain. Kelly is an example of women putting down their mothers because during the interview Kelly criticizes her mother (for Bnot listening,^ Bhaving an aggressive personality,^ and Btalking bad about relatives^) to the point where Kelly is incapable of recognizing any positive qualities in her mother. Three (3/10; 30 %) women who challenged their fathers’ power attempted throughout their narratives to place their fathers below

Example Quotes

One or more of the following criteria: •Woman narrates relationship to parent as one where her parent and she frequently argue or fight. •Woman describes relationship with parent as conflicting. •Woman expresses that discussions with her parent will not make parent change. •Woman talks about being distant from parent as a result of conflict in the parent-daughter relationship.

Father-daughter relationship: BI normally try not to say anything because he might…I don’t know. He could stop helping me and I don’t want to make him be really mad at me.^ (Olivia) BI don’t do it in a rude manipulative way to get my way. [My father] does. Because he knows he’s right. And he is right all the time. But he needs you to figure out what you did wrong, what you should have done, and what you need to do to fix it.^ (Haley)

Mother-daughter relationship: 1/16 BI don’t want to say things because I don’t want her to punish me or like cut (6 %) me off.^ (Olivia)

Father-daughter relationship: BMy father and I are always at odds so we argue quite a bit. Well, now I’ve just started avoiding contact with him because we argue so much.^ (Layla) BI think a lot of times I’ll get on his nerves with things I do and he’ll get…he handles it very differently. He would get mad and tell me ‘don’t do this’ and yell at me and I would get really upset and I won’t just talk to him.^ (Emily)

5/16 Mother-daughter relationship: (31 %) BWe have very conflicting personalities. She makes me angry when she doesn’t listen or when she speaks badly about other family members…So now that I am out of the house, not leaving at home, and have a different view, I just tell her to leave me out of it.^ (Kelly)

Father-daughter relationship: BI prefer to tell my private life to my father because my father is my closest friend.^ (Chen)

3/10 (30 %)

3/10 (30 %)

1/10 (10 %)

MotherFatherdaughter daughter relationship relationship

Participants

One or more of the following criteria: Mother-daughter relationship: 8/16 •Woman narrates relationship to parent as one of best friends. BMy mother is probably, other than my boyfriend, my best friend. I can talk to (50 %) •Woman emphasizes having more of a friends’ relationship with parent than a her about anything.^ (Rachel) parent–child relationship. BI tell her everything. Absolutely everything. And we are at that point in our •Woman expresses she can talk to parent about everything, specifying no relationship where she tells me a lot of stuff too…I think we are at a point boundaries in communication. in the relationship where we can be, I guess, friends. I think we consider each other friends more than mother and daughter necessarily.^ (Kim)

Accepting: One or more of the following criteria: Authoritarian •Woman talks about parent as controlling or manipulative. •Woman expresses fear of expressing her opinions to parent because parent anger might take away support. •Woman talks about parent as absolute authority (for example, Bhe is right all the time^).

Challenging: Conflictual

Challenging: Mutual

Relational Context for Anger

Defining Criteria for Sub-category

Final coding scheme by sub-categories

Category Sub-category

Table 2

Sex Roles


Accepting anger

Father-daughter relationship: BI give more weight to what he says and so we don’t have those loud arguments. It’s usually like, discussion type things.^ (Jena)

Mother-daughter relationship: BWe don’t really get into a fight. We just kind of start…it’s usually we start spending too much time together. And we get frustrated with each other.^ (Emily)

Father-daughter relationship: BI don’t talk to him as much…but I know that if I ever have a really big problem I can always go to him and I know he’ll always help me.^ (Kim) BI e-mail my dad when he’s over in Iraq and when he’s not, I’ll call him almost as often. I talk to them pretty equally. Our relationship is, I think, really good…So he’s been there through a lot of stress for me and I’ve learned to really rely on him and it’s been nice.^ (Jena)

7/16 (44 %)

Father-daughter relationship: BI would get mad at him for being mad at me. So when I got old enough and I was able to tell him to stop picking on me, he would just get really angry at me.^ (Brittany)

8/10 (80 %)

2/10 (20 %)

3/10 (30 %)


Participants

2/16 Mother-daughter relationship: BWith my mother she is also a little bit like that [sentimental] and a little bit (13 %) like it’s hard for me to get mad at her. Maybe it’s just because she’s older or she is an authority figure.^ (Francesca) BSay she got upset with me about something, she would kind of tell me, and she would feel bad about it, and about an hour later she would come back and like oh, I’m sorry for getting mad at you.^ (Sarah)

Example Quotes

Mother-daughter relationship: 9/16 One or more of the following criteria: (56 %) •Woman replies with a clear affirmative phrase about feeling angry at her parent BOh, yeah I get angry at my mother…with her it’s just one of those things where I’m not afraid to make her mad…I know she’s and this phrase is not followed by a sentence where woman emphasizes my mom, I know she will always be there.^ (Rachel) anger in this relationship is rare or not frequent. •Although woman does not use the words angry or anger in her description, she BI: Are you ever angry at your mother or your father? K: Off course I am.^ Later in the interview: BWhat about with your mother when you are angry uses other equally strong terms such as fighting or being mad to answer at her what happens? K: It is very open (laughs). So she used to be right questions about her anger at parent. down my back about everything making sure that I would stay in the right path, and got into school and whatnot. And I would yell at her all the time ‘just leave me alone.’^ (Kim)

Relation to Anger Distancing One or more of the following criteria: from anger •Woman denies ever feeling angry in the parent–child relationship. •Woman emphasizes in her explanation of anger at parent that anger in this relationship is not frequent. •Woman uses words such as challenging, frustration, being upset to talk about her anger instead of anger, angry or mad. •Woman talks mostly about the process of cooling off when describing her anger at parent.

Accepting: One or more of the following criteria: Authoritative •Woman expresses parent talking to daughter about misunderstandings. •Woman expresses parent is sensitive. •Woman talks about parent as a support at difficult times.


Table 2 (continued)

Sex Roles


One or more of the following criteria: •Woman describes expressing anger indirectly by doing something else that parent would dislike (for example, not going back home for the holidays). •Woman describes expressing anger passively. •-Woman describes using the silent treatment to express her anger.

Mother-daughter relationship: One or more of the following criteria: 6/16 BUsually that’s a yelling out. We usually just start screaming at each other (37 %) •Woman states she yells at parent when angry. type of thing. But I think it’s just because we are so alike…It’s usually like •Woman expresses she talks directly and openly to parent about what makes her angry. we yell and yell and then we are best friends again.^ (Rachel) B[My mother] would yell at me for, ‘Why did you, I don’t know, why did you leave all this garbage out on the kitchen table,’or ‘Why didn’t you clean up after yourself?’ or something. I’ll just yell back at her, ‘This is why I do this,’ and she’s all, ‘Oh, whatever’ and it’s done.^ (Jena)

Expressing anger outwardly and directly

Father-daughter relationship: BSometimes I shout at my father and then my father shouts back to me.^ (Chen)

Father-daughter relationship: BI think I would give him the silent treatment…I think with him is the worse I’ve ever done…that happened a lot if he lost his temper with me and said something…^ (Emily)

2/16 Mother-daughter relationship: BYeah. Well, when I have conflicts with my mother the best way I find is to (13 %) keep away from her eye. And she will become worried about me and she compromise. We never shout at each other. Because when I speak bad words to my mother because she will keep all the words in mind. It really hurt her. So I will never do that.^ (Chen)

Father-daughter relationship: BSo normally I’m fine with that, I’m just ‘whatever you say, I’ll do what you want’…I normally try not to say anything.^ (Olivia)

Expressing anger indirectly

8/16 (50 %)

2/10 (20 %)

2/10 (20 %)

6/10 (60 %)


Participants

Woman describes attempting to not say or do anything to express her anger at parent.

Mother-daughter relationship: BI never really got angry at her and talked to her about it because I realized even though she does not have the best job, she always put so much time and energy into us…^ (Brittany)

Example Quotes

Keeping anger in

Anger Expression


Table 2 (continued)

Sex Roles

Sex Roles

themselves. These three women criticized their fathers repeatedly, especially their fathers’ ways to handle emotions and conflict.

Accepting: Authoritarian Only one of the 16 women (1/16; 6 %) displayed fear towards her mother when she spoke of her mother using an authoritarian parenting style (Baumrind 1978; Baumrind et al. 2010), that is, a style of parenting where control is emphasized and parents do not provide nurturing support to children. In three cases (3/10; 30 %), young women seemed to accept their fathers’ power within an authoritarian relationship.

Accepting Anger Women demonstrated acceptance of their anger in the relationship with their parents when they spoke openly and without restrictions about feeling angry in these relationships. Women in this sub-category did not attempt to minimize their feelings of anger at their parents or to use softer words to substitute for the words angry and anger. Nine of the 16 (9/16; 56 %) women demonstrated accepting their anger towards their mothers and eight of ten women (8/10; 80 %) appeared to be accepting of their anger towards fathers in the way they spoke about this emotion throughout the interviews. Anger Expression

Accepting: Authoritative Of the 16 young women, two (2/16; 13 %) seemed to be engaged with their mothers in a respectful hierarchical relationship where mothers appeared to have an authoritative style of parenting (Baumrind 1978; Baumrind et al. 2010), that is, a style of parenting that combines a clear sense of the parent as an authority figure and as a nurturing support. Three other young women of the ten (3/10; 30 %) included in the daughter-father analysis displayed acceptance of their fathers’ power within what seemed to be a clear, respectful, and nurturing father-daughter relationship.

Relation to Anger In response to our second research question, How do young women relate to their anger towards mothers and fathers?, we found young women demonstrated two types of relation to their anger in the context of their relationship with their parents. Women either attempted to distance from their anger or accepted their anger at mothers and fathers. In the following sections we describe each of this tendencies.

Distancing from Anger Women distanced from their anger in the relationship with their mothers and fathers as they tried to minimize their anger by (a) denying ever feeling anger at parent, (b) emphasizing that anger at parent was not frequent or not too intense, (c) using words such as frustration or feeling upset to describe her feeling at parent when asked about her anger, or (d) describing cooling off more than the experience of anger. Almost half the women displayed distancing from their anger towards their mothers (7/16; 44 %), and two women (2/10; 20 %) evidenced attempts to distance from their anger towards fathers.

Finally, regarding our third research question, How do young women express their anger towards mothers and fathers?, we found most women reported attempting to keep their anger inside their bodies both in the relationship to fathers and the relationship to mothers. We describe the counts and percentages for each of the three anger expression strategies in the following sections. Keeping Anger in Half the women spoke about trying not do or say anything when they felt angry with their mothers (8/16; 50 %). Likewise, most women expressed this pattern of anger expression in their relationships with their fathers (6/10; 60 %). Young women who attempted to keep their anger in generally spoke about avoiding direct confrontation with their mothers about things that made them upset in this relationship. In many cases, avoidance was implied in participants’ narrations. Expressing Anger Indirectly A few women (2/16 or 13 % for the mother-daughter relationship and 2/10 or 20 % for the father-daughter relationship) stated they did not express their anger directly at mother or father, but rather did something that their parent would dislike (e.g., not going back home for the holidays). Women also spoke about using passive ways to express their anger or applying the silent treatment to their mother or father. Expressing Anger Outwardly and Directly Six women in the sample expressed their anger outwardly and directly towards their mothers (6/16; 37 %), and two expressed anger in this way towards their fathers (2/10; 20 %). Young women who talked about expressing their anger outwardly and directly at their parents often spoke about yelling matches. These women also described talking directly

Sex Roles

at parents about what made them angry and having a response from their parents regarding the issue of disagreement.

Discussion Our qualitative analysis indicates that young women’s anger towards mothers and fathers is similar in terms of the range of relational contexts, women’s relations to anger, and their ways of expressing anger. However, the analysis also suggests there are important differences in (a) how frequently young women engage in different relationship types with mothers and fathers (relational context for anger) and (b) why young women attempt to distance or accept their anger and keep their anger in or express their anger towards mothers and fathers. In the following, we describe how these findings relate to and expand the existing literature on parent–child relationships from a gender perspective, as well as the literature on women’s anger. In addition, we describe limitations of our study and directions for future research. Gendered Daughter-Parent Relationships Our study’s findings support the idea that parent-daughter relationships are gendered during emerging adulthood. Our findings on the relational contexts for anger indicate that daughters perceive that their fathers engage more frequently in authoritarian parenting with them during emerging adulthood compared to mothers. These findings are similar to those by Nelson et al. (2011) who found that mothers of emerging adults were more responsive and warm than fathers were and that fathers demonstrated more physical and psychological controlling behaviors towards young adult children than mothers did. Thus, the empirical evidence from their study and ours indicates that, as in other stages of the life course (Starrels 1994; Umberson 1992), mothers and fathers of young adult daughters continue to enact traditional gender roles. These gender roles mandate that mothers are the primary nurturers and those in charge of emotional work in families (Hochschild 1979), whereas they mandate that fathers are providers for the family and disciplinarians for children (Bernard 1981; Ferree 2010). In addition, our findings suggest that daughter-parent relationships in this stage replicate power dynamics throughout society where men have more power and privilege than women (Ferree 2010; Risman 2004). Young women in our study appeared to concede more power and privilege to fathers than to mothers when they more frequently (a) accepted authoritarian relationships with fathers than with mothers, (b) perceived their mothers as fragile and needing protection, and (c) challenged intergenerational boundaries with mothers more than with fathers.

Relationships and Women’s Anger Our findings provide additional insights on how emotional processes of emerging adult women are influenced by parent-daughter gendered relationships, in particular in regards to anger. The literature on women’s anger points to three predominant rules for women’s anger: anger storage, indirect anger expression, and anger as inappropriate (Cox et al. 2004; Eatough et al. 2008; Jack 2001; Jaramillo-Sierra et al. 2015; Thomas et al. 1998). However, this literature also indicates some women resist such rules and engage in direct and open anger expression. Our findings are somewhat consistent with this literature. We found young women relate to anger differently in their relationships towards mothers and fathers because they accepted their anger towards fathers more frequently than their anger towards mothers. However, we also found a predominant pattern of non-expression and indirect expression of anger in both relationships, indicating that resistance to rules for women’s anger expression was uncommon in relationships with parents. In their anger towards both mothers and fathers, women in our sample preferred non-expression and indirect expression to that anger. This tendency may be explained through different perspectives. On one hand, these findings might reflect the strong predominance of gender rules for anger expression regardless of the relationship characteristics and gender of the parent. On the other hand, they might reflect a stronger rule for anger in families provided by generation (to not express anger at parents) that may be stronger than gender rules for anger and gender relations inside the family. However, gender theory might also indicate different driving forces behind the anger expression towards mothers versus fathers if one considers the reasons women stated for why they did not express or indirectly expressed their anger at each parent. In the case of fathers, many women expressed fear of fathers’ reactions. This might suggest that some fathers use their power in daughter-father relationships such that daughters are not allowed, even as emerging adults, to express their disagreements through anger. Regarding indirect expression of anger at fathers, daughters displayed little capacity to influence their fathers, such that indirect means are perceived as necessary. This pattern demonstrates a strong hierarchical relationship between fathers and daughters in emerging adulthood. In the case of mothers, the reasons why young women did not express or indirectly expressed their anger at mothers demonstrated daughters’ perception of mothers as in a lower position in the family than that of daughters. Most women described not expressing anger directly at their mothers for (a) resignation (i.e., my mother is wrong and she is not capable of changing) and (b) protection (i.e., my mother is fragile and I could hurt her with my anger). Although anger was mostly accepted toward parents overall, young women’s relationships to their anger differed

Sex Roles

depending on whether it was a mother-daughter or fatherdaughter relationship. Distancing from anger was more common with mothers than with fathers, whereas accepting or acknowledging it was more common with fathers. The finding that women accepted anger more frequently than they attempted to distance from their anger at fathers contradicts most of the literature on women’s anger (Cox et al. 2004; Eatough et al. 2008; Jack 2001; Jaramillo-Sierra et al. 2015; Thomas et al. 1998). Looking at the reasons provided by women for why they accepted anger or distanced from it with mothers and fathers provides a more nuanced understanding of how gender influences young women’s anger in the family. Our findings indicate that the reasons why women accepted their anger at fathers more frequently than their anger at mothers and why women attempted to distance from their anger at mothers more frequently than from their anger at fathers are shaped by a family context where fathers hold more power and privilege than mothers. Women who attempted to distance from their anger towards mothers minimized their anger when they used different terms to refer to their anger (such as frustration) and declared they were best friends with them. Likewise, women who accepted their anger towards mothers spoke of themselves and their mothers as being at the same level. Therefore, both the women who attempted to distance their anger towards mothers and the women who accepted it did so in the context of insisting on a parent–child relationship where intergenerational boundaries were blurred. Meanwhile women’s narratives that demonstrated an attempt to distance from their anger at fathers did so because of the need for cooling off and keeping calm. Similarly, women who accepted anger towards fathers spoke of challenging and resisting their father’s power in the relationship or in the family as a whole. Thus, young women’s relation to anger towards fathers seemed to reflect a need to follow or resist their role as daughters (the intersection of being a child and a woman in the family). Women who attempted to distance from anger at fathers appeared to reflect the need to follow gendered rules for anger where women and daughters are expected to stay calm. In contrast, women who accepted their anger towards fathers seemed to be struggling to resist fathers’ power in the relationship and the family. Limitations of the Study Although our study contributes to a greater understanding of daughter-parent relationships in emerging adulthood and its influence on the emotional processes of young women from a feminist perspective, its findings must be used with caution considering the characteristics of the sample. Regardless of our efforts to recruit a diverse group of young women, the

final sample did not include any African American women and only one woman who identified as Latina. In addition, most of the women in our sample came from middle class families from a Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Our study is also limited regarding sexual orientation of participants. The sample included only women who selfidentified as heterosexual. The sexual orientation of participants was limited because the larger project specifically attempted to collect data from young women in a current romantic relationship with a man. In addition, the sample was also limited because we could only analyze data from ten participants on women’s anger towards fathers. Regarding our coding, our final Kappa values ranged from .72 to .89. These magnitudes have been described in the literature as substantial agreement and as good-to-excellent, depending on which guidelines are used (Landis and Koch 1977; Fleiss 1981). Several factors may influence Kappa value calculations. In the present case, the complexity of the concepts in this qualitative study may have played a role in not obtaining perfect agreement. Additional factors in Kappa calculations at play in our analysis include the fact that the codes were not equiprobable (i.e., their probabilities varied) and the number of codes for each variable were low. Models have shown that both of these factors can result in lower Kappa values when observer accuracy is kept constant (Bakeman et al. 1997; Sim and Wright 2005).

Directions for Future Research Considering the little research on child–parent relationships in emerging adulthood from a gender perspective, there are a number of research questions that remain unanswered. We indicate a few here. First, in order to continue to understand how parent–child relationships in emerging adulthood are gendered and how this affects the emotional processes of young adults, a study including young men and young women could help us understand how the gender of the emerging adult child affects both processes. Second, in order to better understand if gender or generation are stronger in establishing rules for anger experience and expression in families, it would be useful to include an exploration of anger at siblings (both sisters and brothers) and to collect the perspectives of different family members, not only daughters. Third, a study exploring other emotions (such as sadness or happiness) in the parent– child relationship from a gender perspective could provide a broader perspective on the interconnections among gender, parent–child relationships, and emotions in emerging adulthood. Finally, in order to overcome the diversity limitations of our sample, similar studies should be conducted including a greater diversity of participants in terms of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, physical and intellectual ability, and sexual orientation.

Sex Roles Compliance with Ethical Standards Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent In developing the current study, we followed all ethical standards for research projects with human subjects. Participants in this study provided written Informed Consent before being involved in any procedures for data collection. Conflicts of interest All authors affirm that there were no conflicts of interest in relation to this study. Article Note The present study used data from a larger qualitative study on young women’s anger, which was approved by Virginia Tech’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). No external funding was involved in this research.

References Allen, K. R., Lloyd, S. A., & Few, A. L. (2009). Reclaiming feminist theory, method, and praxis for family studies. In S. A. Lloyd, A. L. Few, & K. R. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of feminist family studies (pp. 3–17). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Amato, P. R., Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., & Rogers, S. J. (2009). Alone together: how marriage in America is changing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: the winding road from the late teens to the twenties (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Bakeman, R., Quera, V., McArthur, D., & Robinson, B. F. (1997). Detecting sequential patterns and determining their reliability with fallible observers. Psychological Methods, 2, 357–370. doi:10.1037/ 1082-989X.2.4.357. Baumrind, D. (1978). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887–907. doi:10.2307/1126611. Baumrind, D., Larzerele, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010). Effects of preschool parents’ power assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 157–201. doi: 10.1080/15295190903290790. Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increased importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x. Bernard, J. (1981). The good-provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 36, 1–12. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.1.1. Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). The changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage. Buist, K. L., Deković, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. A. (2002). Developmental patterns in adolescent attachment to mother, father and sibling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 167–176. doi:10. 1023/A:1015074701280. Cabrera, N. J., Tamis-LeMonda, C., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71, 127–136. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00126. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cox, D. L., Van Velsor, P., & Hulgus, J. F. (2004). Who me, angry? patterns of anger diversion in women. Health Care for Women International, 25, 872–893. doi:10.1080/07399330490493412. Danzig, A. P., Dyson, M. W., Olino, T. M., Laptook, R. S., & Klein, D. N. (2015). Positive parenting interacts with child temperament and negative parenting to predict children’s socially appropriate behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34, 411–435.

Driscoll, A. K., Russell, S. T., & Crockett, L. J. (2008). Parenting styles and youth well-being across immigrant generations. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 185–209. doi:10.1177/0192513X07307843. Eatough, V., Smith, J. A., & Shaw, R. (2008). Women, anger, and aggression: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1767–1799. doi:10.1177/ 0886260508314932. Ferree, M. M. (2010). Filling the glass: Gender perspectives on families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 420–439. doi:10.1111/j.17413737.2010.00711.x. Fischer, A. H., & Evers, C. (2010). Anger in the context of gender. In M. Potegal, G. Stemmler, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), International handbook of anger: Constituent and concomitant biological, psychological, and social processes (pp. 349–360). New York: Springer. Fischer, A. H., & Roseman, I. J. (2007). Beat them or ban them: The characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 103–115. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.93.1.103. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Hawkins, D. N., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2006). Parent‐adolescent involvement: The relative influence of parent gender and residence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 125–136. doi:10.1111/j.17413737.2006.00238.x. Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551–575. doi:10.1086/ 227049. Izard, C. E. (2010). The many meanings/aspects of emotion: Definitions, functions, activation, and regulation. Emotion Review, 2, 363–370. doi:10.1177/1754073910374661. Jack, D. C. (2001). Understanding women’s anger: A description of relational patterns. Health Care for Women International, 22, 385– 400. doi:10.1080%2F07399330121599. Jaramillo-Sierra, A. L., Allen, K. R., & Kaestle, C. E. (2015). Young women’s anger in romantic relationships: Gendered rules and power. Journal of Family Issues, 1–27. doi:10.1177/0192513X15592029. Kaisa, A., & Jari-Erik, N. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76, 1144–1159. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00840.x-i1. Kaisa, A., Hakan, S., & Jari-Erik, N. (2000). Parenting styles and adolescents’ achievement strategies. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 205–222. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0308. Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender and Society, 3, 187–216. doi:10.1177/089124389003002003. Kramer, K. Z. (2012). Parental behavioural control and academic achievement: Striking the balance between control and achievement. Research in Education, 88, 85–98. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. doi:10.2307/ 2529310. Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s development: The evidence from two-parent family. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 211–228. doi:10.1007/ BF03173485. Lorber, J. (2005). Breaking the bowls: Degendering and feminist change. New York: Norton. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1771–1800. doi:10.1086/ 426800. Mills-Koonce, W. R., Willoughby, M. T., Zvara, B., Barnett, M., Gustafsson, H., & Cox, M. J. (2015). Mothers’ and fathers’ sensitivity and children’s cognitive development in low-income, rural families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 38, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2015.01.001.

Sex Roles Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Family Development and the Child, 56, 289–302. doi:10.2307/1129720. Nelson, L. J., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Christensen, K. J., Evans, C. A., & Carroll, J. S. (2011). Parenting in emerging adulthood: An examination of clusters and correlates. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 730–743. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9584-8. O’Reilly, J., & Peterson, C. (2014). Theory of mind at home: Linking authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles to children’s social understanding. Early Child Development and Care, 184, 1934– 1947. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.894034. Padilla-Walker, L. M., Nelson, L. J., & Knapp, D. J. (2014). Because i’m still the parent, that’s why!^ parental legitimate authority during emerging adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 293–313. doi:10.1177/0265407513494949. Pillemer, K., Munsch, C. L., Fuller-Rowell, T., Riffin, C., & Suitor, J. J. (2012). Ambivalence toward adult children: Differences between mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 1101– 1113. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01004.x. Potegal, M., & Stemmler, G. (2010). Cross-disciplinary views of anger: Consensus and controversy. In M. Potegal, G. Stemmler, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), International handbook of anger: constituent and concomitant biological, psychological, and social processes (pp. 3–8). New York: Springer. Razza, R. A., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2012). Anger and children’s socioemotional development: Can parenting elicit a positive side to a negative emotion? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 845–856. Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure. Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18, 429–450. doi:10.1177/ 0891243204265349. Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8. Shucksmith, J., Hendry, L. B., & Glendinning, A. (1995). Models of parenting: Implications for adolescent well-being within different

types of family contexts. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 253–270. doi:10.1006/jado.1995.1018. Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85, 257–268. Spielberger, C. D., & Reheiser, E. C. (2010). The nature and measurement of anger. In M. Potegal, G. Stemmler, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), International handbook of anger: constituent and concomitant biological, psychological, and social processes (pp. 403–412). New York: Springer. Spielberger, C. D., Johnson, E. H., Russell, S. F., Crane, R. J., Jacobs, G. A., & Worden, T. J. (1985). The experience and expression of anger: construction and validation of an anger expression scale. In M. A. Chesney & R. H. Rosenman (Eds.), Anger and hostility in cardiovascular and behavioral disorders (pp. 5–30). New York: Hemisphere/McGraw-Hill. Starrels, M. E. (1994). Gender differences in parent–child relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 15, 148–165. doi:10.1177/ 019251394015001007. Thomas, S., Smucker, C., & Droppleman, P. (1998). It hurts most around the heart: A phenomenological exploration of women’s anger. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 311–322. doi:10.1046/j.13652648.1998.00785.x. Umberson, D. (1992). Relationships between adult children and their parents: Psychological consequences for both generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 664–674. doi:10.2307/353252. Walker, A. J. (1999). Gender and family relationships. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 439–474). New York: Springer. Zarra-Nezhad, M., Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Zarra-Nezhad, M., Ahonen, T., Poikkeus, A-M., … Nurmi, J. E. (2014). Social withdrawal in children moderates the association between parenting styles and the children's own socioemotional development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 1260–1269. doi: 10.1111/jcpp. 12251.