![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Using Communication Privacy Management theory, the study argues parents' ambiguity during divorce-related stressor conversations influence parents' and young adult children's relational closeness, satisfaction, and communication satisfaction. Thirty-nine parent–young adult child dyads discussed a divorce-related stressor and reported their thoughts. Hierarchical regression models indicated children's perceptions of parents' ambiguity predicted lower communication satisfaction; however, parents' use of ambiguity was unrelated to relational closeness, satisfaction, or communication satisfaction. Tolerance for ambiguity did not moderate the relationships. Results suggest that offspring may not want detailed information; perceiving parents to use minimal ambiguity may contribute to lower communication satisfaction after discussing divorce-related stressors.
Acknowledgments
This study is a part of the first author's dissertation directed by Jon Nussbaum at Penn State. The dissertation was conducted with the support of the Sparks Fellowship awarded by the College of the Liberal Arts at Penn State. The authors would like to thank the first author's dissertation committee: Michelle Miller-Day, Denise Solomon, and Paul Amato, and our reviewers for their useful feedback.
Notes
†p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.
Note. All variables are centered around the mean.
† p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.
Note. All variables are centered around the mean.
†p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.
The quotes incorporated are from the conversations parents and young adult children had while participating in the study.
Ambiguity was assessed along four dimensions via 26 items. Content ambiguity consisted of 6 items: My (parent's) statements had only one possible meaning (R); My (parent's) message had multiple meanings; I contradicted (My parent seemed to contradict) my (him/herself) when we talked; I was (My parent seemed) evasive in our conversation; I (My parent) tried to change the subject during our conversation; I (My parent) tried to avoid my questions. Source ambiguity consisted of 9 items: I (My parent) was vague about whether I (s/he) was expressing my (his/her) own opinions; I (My parent) clearly articulated whose position I (s/he) expressed (R); I (My parent) was not clear about who was responsible for the ideas I (s/he) expressed; I (My parent) was unclear about whether I (s/he) agreed with the statements I (s/he) made; I (My parent) said “I believe…”, “I think…”, and “I feel … to show that the ideas were my (his/her) own (R); I (My parent) was clear about my (his/her) own position (R); I (My parent) was vague about what my (his/her) own thoughts were; I (My parent) was honest about my (his/her) thoughts and feelings (R); I (My parent) very clearly stated my (his/her) own thoughts (R). Five items were used to assess receiver ambiguity: I (My parent) was clearly talking to my child (me) (R); I (My parent) sounded like I (s/he) might be talking to someone else; I (My parent) sounded like I (s/he) was talking to me, but looked as though I (s/he) was talking to someone else; I (My parent) was looking at my child (me), but I (s/he) did not sound like I (s/he) was talking to my child (me); I (My parent) clearly addressed this message to my child (me) (R). Context ambiguity was assessed via 5 items: My (parent's) statements made sense with what we were discussing (R); Overall, my (parent's) ideas fit together, making me (him/her) easy to understand (R); My (parent's) responses were “way” off from the statement or question that came before it; My (parent's) statements sometimes did not seem connected with what we were talking about; My (parent's) statements fit into the discussion we were having (R). Items followed by (R) were reverse coded so that higher scores reflected greater perceived ambiguity.