Dyadic Resistance in Parent‐Adolescent Interactions During the Transition to High School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although prior research has examined adolescents' resistance to parental control, the dyadic level of analysis has been overlooked. This study attended to how a Canadian sample of parents and adolescents engaged in resisting one another by observing moment-to-moment actions as they discussed the upcoming transition to high school. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data collected from 2010 to 2012 using the Action-Project Method was conducted. The sample of 27 parent-adolescent dyads (23 mothers; 4 fathers); 13 boys, 14 girls (Mean youth age = 13.3) was recruited from two urban centers. Videorecorded self-directed conversations were immediately followed by open-ended video recall interviews. A novel way of analyzing data at the dyadic level of analysis was developed based on critical reflexive thematic analysis guided by social constructionist theory. RESULTS: Resistance was observed at least once in 23 of the 27 conversations (total = 97, range = 0-9, Mean = 3.63, SD = 2.69). Four distinct themes were developed: Reminding of and then defending the "constant battle" lines, Cautious avoidance, the Nudging match, and No point anymore and minimal responses. Dyads varied in frequency and number of themes in their conversations with 78.56% engaging in more than one theme. Most differences came to a trickling of resistance wherein members did not agree but continued to interact without extending the resistance further. CONCLUSIONS: A dyad-centric approach to analysis was useful for observing how parents and adolescents engaged in resistance together. Our findings suggest that resistance can be seen as a dyadic concept that reflects a personalized relationship history that has implications for parent and youth identity development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".