Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros29Articles thématiquesDo parents matter? Teens’ time us...

Articles thématiques

Do parents matter? Teens’ time use, academic performance and well-being.

Jiri Zuzanek et Margo Hilbrecht
Traduction(s) :
Emploi du temps, résultats scolaires et bien-être chez les adolescents. Quel rôle pour les parents ? [fr]

Résumés

Cadre de recherche : L'écart générationnel grandissant entre les parents et adolescents a retenu l'attention des chercheurs depuis les années 1920. L'augmentation de cet écart a souvent été attribuée au rôle croissant des médias et des pairs dans la vie des adolescents.
Objectifs de recherche : Les changements dans le rôle joué par les parents, les médias et les pairs dans la vie des adolescents sont examinés à la lumière de leur gestion du temps. Les données sur l'emploi du temps documentent le rôle déclinant des parents, mais montrent également que des stratégies constructives de la gestion du temps peuvent aider les parents à conserver et à renforcer leur rôle dans le développement intellectuel et affectif de leurs adolescents.

Méthodologie : Les données proviennent de l’Enquête sociale générale menée par Statistique Canada (ESM) (1986 à 2005) et de l’Enquête ontarienne sur l’emploi du temps et le bien-être des adolescents de 2003 (OATUS). Les relations entre l'utilisation du temps des adolescents et le bien-être émotionnel sont contrôlées pour l'âge, le sexe et les antécédents familiaux.

Résultats : Malgré l’élargissement de l'écart de communication et d'attitude entre les adolescents et les parents au cours des dernières décennies, la situation n'est pas irrémédiable. Les analyses des données d'OATUS suggèrent que les stratégies indirectes, soulignant l'importance des routines et des relations familiales, ont des impacts plus importants sur les performances scolaires et la qualité de vie des adolescents que les règles domestiques, les interventions verbales ou les contrôles comportementaux sporadiques.
Conclusions : La conservation de l’influence parentale sur les adolescents s’effectue peut-être davantage par « osmose » des valeurs et des habitudes. En effet, le partage des valeurs familiales, des activités communes et la capacité parentale à servir de modèle joue un rôle important dans l'influence des structures de motivation des adolescents.
Contribution : Les résultats de cette recherche appuient le fait que les performances scolaires et le bien-être émotionnel des adolescents sont fondés sur leurs routines comportementales et l'efficacité des interventions des parents.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 "That's enough words for the moment. Now let me see some action!"

Der Worte sind genug gewechselt, laßt mich auch endlich Taten sehen. J.W. Goethe (1808)1

Research problem

1The widening of the generation gap between parents and teens has occupied researchers’ attention since the 1920s (Lynd & Lynd, 1929; Parsons, 1942; Coleman, 1961). The expansion of this gap has been attributed, among other factors, to the growing roles of mass media and peers in the lives of teens. As early as the 1960s, McLuhan and Fiore vividly described the challenge posed by mass and electronic media to the traditional role of parents: "The family circle has widened. The world pool of information fathered by electric media – movies, Telstar, flight – far surpasses any possible influence mom and dad can now bring to bear…Character no longer is shaped by two earnest, fumbling experts. Now all the world's a sage" (2003, p. 14).

2Interest in the generation gap has been revived by the deepening conflict between the norms of ‘youth culture’ and conventional adult society. According to a survey conducted in 2001 by the Pew Research Center, 79% of respondents interviewed in the U.S. stated that there is "a major difference in the point of view of younger people and older people today." This figure was nearly 20 percent higher than in the late 1970s, when a similar question was asked by CBS and The New York Times (Marks, 2009).

3In a widely quoted book, The Nurture Assumption , Judith Harris (2009 [1998]) argued that parents today matter much less in the lives of their children than traditionally assumed. It is the peers, she suggested, that are more important. When asked why people are so adamant about the role of parents, Harris responded that cherished cultural myths are difficult to part with and proposed that what we need is to strengthen the school-based intervention "where teachers have power" (Lehrer, 2009).

4This is not an entirely new problem. More than two and a half millennia ago, in an effort to ensure active and unhindered participation of free-born citizens of Athens in the civic and political life, Plato argued that children’s education should be transferred from the families to the state. Plato’s most famous student and his more realistic follower, Aristotle, responded that nothing can substitute for parents because the removal of the family from the educational process would deprive children of an opportunity to learn virtue (Barker, 1906).

5In this article, changes in the role played by parents, mass media and peers in the lives of teens are examined through the lens of time use. Time use data document the declining role of parents in the lives of teens, but as we will attempt to demonstrate, they also show that constructive time use strategies can help parents to retain and enforce their role in the intellectual and emotional development of children. An argument will be made that teens’ academic performance and emotional well-being are grounded in their behavioural routines rather than opinions, and that the effectiveness of parents’ interventions depends to a large extent on their ability to redress these routines or habits. As suggested by Kellerhals, Montandon & Ritschard, "The child’s education in post-industrial societies seems to be associated as much with the relational processes inside the family as with the family’s social resources" (1992, p. 323).

6In examining parents’ role in teens’ academic and emotional development, this article addresses four issues:

71. How did contact time and emotional ties between parents and teens change over the past decades?

82. How do teens’ time use routines affect their academic performance and emotional well-being?

93. How effective are household rules and parental verbal interventions in influencing adolescents’ time use and academic performance?

104. To what extent do families’ time use practices, parental examples, and adolescents’ choice of peers affect teens’ academic performance and emotional well-being?

Research context

11According to Daly, "The family is the primary forum where the socio-cultural meanings of time are learned. It is within the family that children learn temporal routines, how to order events and how to abide by temporal norms and rules. Time plays a central role in the socialization of children to be social beings" (1996, p. 64).

12In the past, much of youth research focused on socio-economic and psychological determinants of adolescents’ life and well-being. More recently, greater attention began to be paid to the role of family routines and time use practices (Bianchi & Robinson, 1997; Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001; Fiese, 2006; Bianchi, Robinson & Milkie, 2006; Raley, 2006).

13According to Larson (2001), adolescents’ time use re-emerged as an issue of national concern in the 1990s. Hours after school were declared as a time of risk. Prolonged involvement with friends in unstructured activities was held responsible for teens’ problem behaviour (Meeks & Mauldin, 1990; Osgood et al., 1996; Larson, 2001; Bartko & Eccles, 2003). Adolescents’ TV viewing was diagnosed as a solo rather than social activity (Kraut et al., 1998; Saxbe et al., 2011). Time spent watching TV was associated with a decline of social contacts with the family and friends (Bickham & Rich, 2006). Little time allocated to homework was quoted as a reason for the low academic standing of U.S. students compared to students from other countries (Larson & Verma, 1999).

14Although researchers agree that developmental benefits and potential liabilities of time use vary across the users and the uses, concerns have been voiced that adolescents’ preferences for entertaining rather than challenging activities may put them at a "social and psychological disadvantage" (Larson, 2001, p. 163). Under these conditions, parents were confronted with the question of how to react to the new situation?

15The uses and the effectiveness of different parenting styles, as well as their dependency on social and class positioning of the parents, have been examined by Kellerhals et al. (1992), Lareau (2003), and Nelson (2010). Kellerhals et al. suggested that parents in the higher status echelons of the society usually opt for contractualistic rather than authoritarian educational practices and emphasize self-regulation, sensibility, uses of rational methods, and "reliance on verbal exchange between the parent and the adolescents" (1992, p. 318).

16At the practical level, according to Baumrind (1991), parental choices typically alternate between authoritative practices of household rules and verbal admonitions and more subtle indulgent uses of empathy and parental modeling. The indulgent or permissive parenting styles are emotionally more accommodating but carry few behavioural expectations. The authoritative styles are more demanding but their reliance on regimented rules often carries "detrimental effects" (Ennett et al., 2001, p. 60).

17According to Kellerhals et al., "the way in which the child is brought up depends on the type of family dynamics in which he or she grows up" (1992, p. 309). Time spent together as a family has been credited with positive emotional consequences for all its members (Crouter et al., 2004). Family routines affirm the parental role as a behavioural model for children (Bandura, 1977; Brown et al., 1993; Kandel, 1996; Tilton-Weaver & Galambos, 2003). Greater attention has been paid to cognitive stimulation rather than direct controls (Chen et al., 2007; Hsin, 2008; Dishion et al., 1998). As observed by Ennett et al., "What parents communicate nonverbally by what they do is more important than what they say" (2001, p. 60).

18Communication with peers with compatible time use interests and practices carries positive academic and emotional implications as well (Brown, Mounts, Lamborn & Steinberg, 1993). Suggestions have been made that parents, serving as friendly ‘gatekeepers’, could initiate, monitor and facilitate children’s contacts and time use practices by laying out the pool of their children’s potential friends, enrolling kids in sporting or educational programs, and arranging playmates’ visits (Parke et al., 1989; Rubin & Sloman, 1984). According to Nelson (2010), professional middle-class parents try to enrol their children in better schools and encourage them to engage in extracurricular activities to help them "get into good schools down the road" (p. 28).

19Time use and experience sampling data used in this article provide a unique opportunity to examine the role of life-style or behavioural routines and parenting styles in the lives of the teens, their academic performance and well-being.

Method

Data sources

  • 2 OATUS survey was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Ca (...)

20Data reported in this article are taken from the Canadian General Social Surveys (GSS) conducted in 1986, 1992, 1998 and 2005 by Statistics Canada and from the 2001-2003 Ontario Survey of Adolescents’ Time Use and Well-Being (OATUS/ESM) conducted by the Research Group on Leisure and Cultural Development at the University of Waterloo (Canada).2

21Data from the Canadian GSS time use surveys are for full-time students aged 15 to 19 years old living with their parents. Their sample sizes were n= 459 in 1986, n= 437 in 1992, n= 410 in 1998, and n= 712 in 2005. Respondents were asked to report the duration of all activities performed during the diary day, who else was present, and where these activities took place. The GSS also included a number of questions asking respondents how satisfied they were with life in general and its various domains, including the use of time.

22The OATUS/ESM survey combined three data collection methods: (1) a questionnaire and a time diary administered in school; (2) a questionnaire administered at home to a subsample of teens who volunteered to provide more detailed information about their time use and who (3) took part in a follow-up experience sampling survey (see below).

23The time diary part of the survey was administered in 13 Ontario schools from a cross-section of urban neighbourhoods in the Kitchener-Waterloo, Walkerton and greater Metropolitan Toronto areas. Time diaries of the day preceding the survey were filled out in class by 2,113 high school students aged 12 to 18 years. The in school questionnaire included questions about adolescents’ academic performance, life-style preferences, relationship with parents, emotional well-being, and health.

24Two hundred and eight students who participated in the time diary survey and one of their parents formed the samples of a follow-up Experience Sampling Method (ESM) survey. This survey used a data collection technique developed in the mid-1970s by Csikszentmihalyi and associates at the University of Chicago (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987). Each parent-adolescent dyad completed an in home questionnaire. After this, teens and parents were signalled randomly by pre-programmed wrist watches eight times a day from 7:30 am to 11:00 pm for a period of one week. At the time of the beep, respondents filled out short self-reports containing information about what they were doing, where and who they were with, as well as their experiential states such as feeling happy, good, worried, pressed for time, stressed, or wishing to do something else. It took approximately 1.5 to 2 minutes to fill out each self-report. There were 9,731 reports collected from the teens and 10,453 from their parents. The adolescents’ and parents’ response rate was close to 80%.

Operationalization of time use and emotional well-being

Time use

25In GSS and OATUS time diaries, time use was operationalized as a summary duration (in minutes) of all activity episodes reported during the survey day, which were subsequently grouped into larger activity categories (Michelson, 2005).

  • 3 According to ESM self-reports, teens spent 74 minutes doing homework on school days. The correspond (...)

26In the ESM survey, time use was computed as an aggregated frequency (percent) of episodes allocated to different activities during the survey week. ESM data did not cover the entire 24 hours of the day, but only the waking hours. This, however, does not affect significantly the proportionate distribution of the day-time activities, which are of primary interest in this article.3

Emotional well-being

27In the OATUS school-administered questionnaire (n= 2 113), emotional well-being was operationalized as a composite of feeling happy, sociable and non-depressed (α= 0.75; superscripted by a). In the ESM home-based questionnaires (n= 208), it was computed as a composite of feeling good, happy, hopeful of the future, on top of the things, and in control of life (α= 0.75 superscripted by b). In ESM self-reports (n= 9 731), emotional well-being was operationalised as affect or a composite of feeling happy, good and cheerful (α= 0.83; superscripted by c). In most instances, affect scores were aggregated for the entire survey week (superscripted by d). The inter-correlations between measures of emotional well-being reported in the article ranged from r= 0.41 to r= 0.49 (p ≤ 0.05).

28In GSS time use surveys, emotional well-being was computed as being satisfied with life (superscripted by e) or satisfied with the use of time (superscripted by f).

Analyses

29Relationships between teens’ time use and emotional well-being reported in in this article were controlled for teens’ age and gender (standardized β). All reported relationships, unless otherwise specified, are statistically significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level. Due to the relatively small portion of the sample (approximately 10%), for which family’s background information was available, multivariate analyses including controls for family’s income and parental education were conducted only selectively (Table 4, Figures 5, 6 and 7).

30A cautionary comment needs to be made with regard to the strength of the relationships between time use and subjective well-being. Correlations between behavioural (time use) and attitudinal dimensions of well-being, while statistically significant, are often relatively weak (β < 0.15). Part of the reason for this is that these relationships involve two different orders of phenomena. Time use, unlike attitudinal valuations, is guided not only by teens’ social background and personal preferences but also by numerous situational constraints (Zuzanek, 2005).

Findings

Parents lose out to mass media and peers

  • 4 For an earlier analysis of Canadian parents’ use of time see Pronovost (2006)

31Canadian GSS data provide valuable information about changing distribution of time spent by adolescents in contacts with parents, peers and mass media. Adolescent-parent contact time shrunk from 3.2 hours per day in 1986 to 2.5 hours in 1992, 2.1 hours in 1998, and 2.0 hours in 2005 (see Table 1). The amount of contact time with friends, including contacts at school, declined from 6 hours in 1986 to 4.3 hours in 2005. The amount of teens’ face-to-face socialising with friends, on the other hand, increased during this period from approximately 55 minutes per day in 1986 to 71 minutes in 2005.4

Table 1. Changes in teens’ allocation of time and contact preferences. Bad news for parents? (Canadian General Social Surveys 1986, 1992, 1998 and 2005; students aged 15-19)

1986

1992

1998

2005

Time (hours and minutes per day) n=

459

437

410

712

Contact time with parents

3.09

2.32

2.08

1.58

Contact time with friends (including school)

5.58

5.06

5.17

4.17

Socialising with friends*

0.55

0.64

1.20

1.11

Time spent alone

3.14

4.36

4.14

4.55

Time with mass and electronic media 1

2.09

2.11

2.32

2.33

Watching TV and video

2.05

2.02

2.14

1.36

Computer & video games, Internet, surfing the web

0.04

0.09

0.18

0.55

Most enjoyed activity was spent (%)2

With parents

13

13

13

With friends

53

51

43

Alone

23

24

29

* Direct face-to-face socializing, including talking, conversing, playing games at home and at social gatherings
1 TV, video, computer games, Internet
2 Time spent with others is excluded.

32Contrary to the opinion of Harris (2009), the amount of time allocated by teens to mass and electronic media – rather than socialising with peers – presented the biggest challenge to parental contacts with teens. The amount of teens’ time spent with the media increased from 2.1 hours per day in 1986 to 2.5 hours in 1998 and 2005 (see Table 1). The amount of TV viewing declined during this period by almost half an hour, but this was "compensated" by a growing amount of time allocated to playing computer and video games and surfing the web, which were virtually absent in 1986 but occupied almost an hour in 2005.

33An important change in adolescents’ time use involved the growing amount of time being spent alone. In 1986, 15 to 19 year old adolescents attending school reported spending 3.2 hours per day alone. In 2005, this figure rose to almost 5 hours (see Table 1). This was due, in part, to the use of mass and electronic media. According to the 2005 GSS time use survey, past 6:00 pm, teens spent, on average, 2.5 hours per day watching TV, surfing the web or playing computer and video games. Over 70% of the time spent surfing the web or playing computer and video games, and almost 50% of time spent watching TV was spent alone (not reported in the tables).

34According to OATUS, direct personal contacts with parents occupied little time in teens’ lives. These contacts took less than 20 minutes on schooldays and only 15 minutes on Sundays. By comparison, teens’ time with mass and electronic media amounted to 2.3 hours on school days and 3.8 hours on Sundays, and socialising with friends to 1.1 and 2.1 hours respectively (see Table 2).

Table 2. The role of parents, peers and mass media in the lives of teens. Illusions perdues ? (OATUS 2001-2003)

Time spent by teens with parents, peers and media (hours and minutes per day)

Weekday

Sunday

Socialising with parents

0.19

0.15

Socialising with friends

1.09

2.08

Mass and electronic media1

2.17

3.49

Most enjoyed activities (per cent)2

Girls

Boys

All

Socialising with parents

5.5

1.4

3.5

Socialising with friends

54.4

39.8

47.3

Mass and electronic media1

35.2

59.4

46.9

With whom do the teens usually talk about personal matters? (per cent)

Girls

Boys

All

With father

23

38

31

With mother

60

49

55

With friends

83

60

72

Would you like your parents to work less so that they could spend more time with you, even if it meant less money? (per cent)

Girls

Boys

All

Yes

23.5

25.0

24.2

No

76.5

75.0

75.8

1 TV, video, computer games, Internet
2 Per cent listing as first or second most favoured activity

35The same pattern is reflected in the ranking of teens’ most enjoyed activities. According to OATUS, socialising with parents was at the bottom of teens’ favourite pursuits. It was mentioned by fewer than 4% of teens as their first or second favourite activity. The use of mass and electronic media, on the other hand, topped the list of boys’ preferred pastimes. Almost 60% of them listed it as their first or second most favoured activity. Socialising with friends was the girls’ preferred choice, with 54% of them putting it ahead of other activities (see Table 2).

36The GSS data also show that teens’ most enjoyed activities occurred in the presence of friends rather than parents. In 2005, only 12% of the most enjoyed activities were performed in the presence of parents, compared to 43% that were performed in the presence of friends or siblings (not in the tables).

37Although teens were willing to discuss personal problems with parents, in particular with mothers (55%), it was their friends to whom they confided their problems most readily (72%). See Table 2. It should not be surprising, therefore, that when teens were asked whether they would like to see parents reduce their workloads to spend more time with the family (at the cost of a possible decline in income), 76% of them responded negatively (see also Galinsky, 1999: xv).

38Teens saw friends as more influential in their lives than parents, but when it came to the question, whose opinion – friends’ or parents’ – weighed more heavily in making important decisions, they put parents ahead of friends. Thirty-seven per cent of teens stated that in making important decisions they relied on parents’ opinion, compared to 28%, who relied on the opinion of their friends. Even more encouraging was the finding that 65% of the interviewed teens wished to be like one or both of their parents (see Table 3). In spite of the decline of the parents’ presence in the lives of adolescents they retained the role – if not of the ‘sages’ – then certainly of the advisors or arbiters in critical situations.

Table 3. Whose influence weighs more? (OATUS 2001-2003)

Parents’ assessment of who influences the teens (per cent)

Strong influence1

Little or no influence1

School

36.1

44.9

Parents

43.4

46.4

Peers

44.9

24.6

Mass media

60.9

20.3

How important are family, friends, leisure and work to the teens? (per cent rating as extremely important)

Girls

Boys

All

Family

65.3

56.7

60.9

Friends

64.0

53.5

58.6

Leisure

28.3

31.0

29.7

Work

19.1

15.6

17.3

Percent of teens who rely on parents’ and friends’ opinions when making important decisions 2

Girls

Boys

All

Rely on what parents think

42.5

35.5

39.1

Rely on what friends think

27.3

21.3

24.4

Percent of teens who want to be like their parents when they grow up3

Girls

Boys

All

Like father

54.3

60.7

57.6

Like mother

51.1

43.1

47.0

Like one or both parents

63.8

65.7

64.8

1 Strong influence: percentage of parents who ranked 5 to 7 on a 7-point scale; little or no influence: percentage who ranked 1 to 3 on a 7-point scale.
2 Percentage of teens who rated importance of parents’ or teens’ opinion 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.
3 Composite: percentage of teens who wanted to be "quite a bit" or "a lot" like one or both of their parents.

Teens’ time use practices, school performance and emotional well-being

39There is disagreement among researchers about the academic and emotional effects of teens’ time use. The argument that homework contributes to academic accomplishments (Cooper et al., 2006) is countered by Bennett and Kalish (2006), who argue that homework has little effect on children’s academic performance. The proposition that TV viewing is primarily a solo activity for the teens (Saxbe et al., 2011) is questioned by authors who maintain that watching television brings families together (Dempsey, 2005; Pigeron, 2006).

40Time use and ESM data shed light on these issues and show that conflicting conclusions with regard to the effects of time use on teens’ emotional well-being are often caused by measurement differences, such as not taking into account the duration of the performed activities (see below).

41Time use and ESM findings reported in Figure 1 show that of all daily activities, homework affects teens’ school performance most decisively. Standardized coefficients of the relationships between the amounts of teens’ school-day and Sunday homework time and their grade averages ranged from β= 0.09 and 0.17 to β= 0.32. The positive relationship between the amount of time spent doing homework and teens’ school performance is corroborated by ESM self-reports. The standardized coefficient of the relationship between teens’ aggregate weekly measure of homework time and their school performance was β= 0.28.

Figure 1. Relationship between teens’ time use, school performance and emotional well-being (OATUS & GSS 2005; standardized β*)

*Controlled for teens’ age and gender; p ≤ .005
1 OATUS school-administered time diaries (minutes per day)
2 ESM home-based questionnaire
3 ESM self-reports
4
GSS time diaries (minutes per day)
5 For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.

42The effects of homework on teens’ emotional well-being are, however, problematic. Perhaps not surprisingly, none of the teens interviewed in the OATUS and GSS surveys listed homework as their favourite activity. In the 2005 GSS survey, longer hours of homework were associated with lower levels of life satisfaction (β= -0.07) as well as satisfaction with the use of time (β= -0.18). OATUS time diaries and ESM self-reports show similar results. The correlation between homework time reported by the teens in their Sunday time diaries and their emotional well-being was β= -0.06 and a similar relationship was established between homework episodes and affect in the ESM part of the survey (see Figure 1).

43The conflict between the academic and emotional implications of teens’ time use is apparent in the use of free time. Leisure activities top the list of adolescents’ most favourite pursuits. Relationships between teens’ free time, emotional well-being and satisfaction with the use of time are mostly positive (see Figure 1). Prolonged access to free time, however, is associated with lower rather than higher grade averages. Standardized coefficients of teens’ Sunday and school day access to free time and their school performance are β= -0.09 and β= -0.19 respectively (see Figure 1).

44Academic and emotional correlates of most leisure activities are bi-directional (see Figure 2). Socialising with friends and watching television were associated positively or neutrally with teens’ emotional well-being, but correlated negatively with their school performance (β= -0.10 to β= -0.26). Of five large groups of free time activities – watching TV, socialising with friends, participating in sports, surfing the web, and extracurricular activities – only involvement in extracurricular activities was associated with better school performance (β= 0.26) and higher levels of subjective well-being (β= 0.10). Teens’ academic success and life contentment, clearly, do not go hand in hand. OATUS time diary data show that better academic standing is often achieved at the cost of lower satisfaction with the use of time (not reported in the tables).

Figure 2. Academic and emotional connotations of watching TV, socialising with friends, surfing the web, and sporting and extracurricular activities (OATUS; standardized β*)

Figure 2. Academic and emotional connotations of watching TV, socialising with friends, surfing the web, and sporting and extracurricular activities (OATUS; standardized β*)

*Controlled for teens’ age and gender; p ≤ .005
1 OATUS school-administered time diaries
2 ESM home-based questionnaire
3Aggregate weekly ESM self-reports
4Composite of participation in 12 extracurricular activities (OATUS school based questionnaire)
5For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.

45An important observation about the relationship between teens’ time use and their subjective well-being concerns not just the type of the activity performed but rather its duration. Put simply, emotional connotations of the same activities, such as watching TV or socialising with friends, could change from positive to negative if pursued excessively rather than moderately (Zuzanek, 2009). The relationships between time use and subjective well-being are often curvilinear rather than linear and the emotional outcomes of involvement in different activities depend on the relative amount of time allocated to them.

46OATUS teens, who reported having more than 10 hours of free time on Sundays (upper quartile of the sample), or little or no free time at all (lower quartile), felt less happy than teens whose free time ranged from 6 to 10 hours (middle 50% of the sample). A similar observation applies to socialising with friends. Teens who reported socialising in excess of 2 hours on school days or in excess of 5 hours on Sundays, and teens who reported none or minimal socialising, felt less happy than teens reporting moderate levels of socialising (see Zuzanek, 2009).

47Although homework was accompanied, generally, by negative rather than positive feelings, this occurred only when it exceeded 90 minutes on school days. The correlation between homework and feeling happy within the ‘moderate’ bracket of 90 minutes was positive (not reported in the tables). In short, a balanced use of time rather than an exponential growth of activities is at the root of teens’ emotional well-being (Zuzanek, 2009).

48The everlasting dilemma of the ‘ant’ and the ‘grasshopper’, or the emotionally pleasing as opposed to intellectually challenging use of time, is not so much a dilemma about the choice of activities as it is about the proportionate distribution of time allocated to them. This poses a problem for the parents. How can they make teens aware that long- term academic and well-being benefits require behavioural compromises that help balancing academic performance and subjective well-being?

Behavioural controls: ‘nagging’ or ‘dialogue’?

49When parents were asked to assess the influence of the school, the family, the peers, and the media in the lives of their children, they conceded to having lost in this competition. Only 43% of the interviewed parents thought that parents were influential in shaping the personal and emotional development of teens, while 61% attributed such influence to mass media. The school was also seen as having lost influence on teens. Forty-five per cent of parents thought that school exercised little or no influence on teens’ personal development (see Table 3).

50Analyses of ESM data do not support a view, occasionally advanced by school principals and teachers (Finders & Lewis, 1994; Hope, 2013), that parents are not sufficiently interested or informed about their children’s school performance and life outside of the home. OATUS data show that Ontario parents were concerned with the well-being of their children and fairly realistic in assessing their school performance.

51Parents’ estimates of their children’s grade averages correlated strongly with the teens’ actual academic standing (β= 0.55; controlled for parental education). Parents also seemed to be aware of the connection between teens’ time use, school performance and emotional well-being. Their estimates of the amount of time allocated by youth to homework correlated positively with the school performance of the latter (β= 0.32). The question that arises is: How can parents influence teen’s time use, which is at the root of academic success and emotional well-being? Homework rules and behavioural controls are frequently used by parents (Lugaila, 2003; Vandewater et al., 2005), but the effectiveness of these methods has been questioned by researchers (Ennett et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2007).

52Findings reported in Figure 3 support earlier observations. Attempts to confront teens with inquisitive questions about their behavioural choices and academic performance often miss the target. Questioning teens about their whereabouts at night, staying out late, dating, breaking the rules, or engaging in risk behaviour (alcohol, drugs) usually does not alter teens’ behaviour or improve their school performance. According to OATUS findings, relationships of these interventions with academic performance were negative and not statistically significant with emotional well-being (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Effects of family controls on teens’ school performance (OATUS; standardized β*)

Figure 3. Effects of family controls on teens’ school performance (OATUS; standardized β*)

*Controlled for teens’ age and gender; p ≤ .005
1 School-administered questionnaire
2 Home-based ESM questionnaire
3 Home-based ESM questionnaire: composite of questions about sex, drugs, and alcohol (α=.86)
4 For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.

53OATUS findings suggest that homework and curfew rules correlate with lower rather than higher grade averages (β= -0.14 and β= -0.09). Teens in households with homework and curfew rules spent less time doing homework than in the households with no such controls. Controls are often invoked "post factum" and serve as a symptom of academic and emotional problems rather than their cure. Only the rules concerning TV viewing seemed to have some positive impact. They reduced the amount of time spent by teens watching TV on school days redirecting some of it to homework, which resulted in a slightly better performance in school (see Figure 3).

54The effects of ‘talking things over’ with teens depend on the manner in which this is done. It has been suggested that timing and demeanor of the communication are important (Ennett et al., 2001). Unlike fault-finding lecturing, informal talks about broadly conceived life issues – a dialogue rather than nagging – may have positive effect. Asking teens about the amount of time they spent watching TV did not change their viewing habits, but talking with them about TV programs or books they read correlated positively with their school performance (β= 0.12) and subjective well-being (β= 0.09). Asking teens how late they stayed out or what they did with their time did not improve their emotional well-being, but parents’ readiness to discuss important personal and policy issues with their children correlated positively with their school performance and emotional well-being (see Figure 3).

55The borderline between the ‘nagging’ and the ‘dialogue’ is not always clear, but unlike nagging the dialogue demands a shared interest or a common goal. When household regulations and behavioural controls are not integrated into teens’ motivational structure they are perceived as restrictions rather than as a stimulus for behavioural change.

Emotional cohesion and demandingness

56The emotional life of teenagers is rooted in close intra-family relationships. Parents’ readiness to change work schedules to attend teens’ special events, willingness to help each other when needed, compromising when time schedules conflict, trying not to hurt each other’s feelings, getting attention when facing a problem, being loved, accepted, and appreciated correlate positively with teens’ subjective well-being (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Effects of family closeness and demandingness on teens’ school performance and emotional well-being (OATUS, ESM home-based questionnaire; standardized β*)

Figure 4. Effects of family closeness and demandingness on teens’ school performance and emotional well-being (OATUS, ESM home-based questionnaire; standardized β*)

*Controlled for teens’ age and gender; p ≤ .005
1 Composite of feeling appreciated, getting attention and help, being loved, enjoying dinner together, compromising scheduling conflicts, willing to help when needed, trying not to offend or hurt each other (α=.81)
2 For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.

57The standardized coefficient of the relationship between the composite index of family cohesion (composite of being appreciated, loved, willing to help when needed, trying not to offend or hurt each other; α= 0.81) and teens’ emotional well-being was β= 0.39. There was, however, no statistically significant relationship between family cohesion and teens’ school performance (see Figure 4).

58The conflict between the academic and emotional outcomes of families’ closeness corresponds with earlier findings about the relative effectiveness of authoritative versus indulgent parenting styles (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Santrock, 2007). Teens who stated that parents accepted them “as they were”, appreciated them for “who they were” or knew that they were loved “ no matter what happens” felt comfortable emotionally but reported lower grade averages. Correlations of the above three statement with teens’ emotional well-being ranged from β= 0.16 to β= 0.46, but none of these statements was associated with a better school performance.

59The importance attributed by parents to their children’s success in school, their expectations of teens’ educational attainment, along with parents’ educational background, were the strongest predictors of teens’ academic performance (Featherman, 1980; Seginer, 1983; Bianchi & Robinson, 1997; Lareau, 2003).

60Teenagers whose parents wanted them to graduate from university or go further performed much better in school than children of parents who were satisfied with less than a university degree or were indecisive on this issue. The relationship between parental educational aspirations and their teens’ grade average was robust (β= 0.42). See Figure 4. The grade average of teens, whose parents did not encourage them to go beyond high school or community college was 3.2 (along a six-point scale), compared to 4.3 for those whose parents encouraged them to graduate from a university, and 4.6 for teens whose parents wanted them to continue education beyond a bachelor degree (not reported in the tables).

Tell me who your friends are. The knight move.

  • 5 Unlike other chess pieces, the knight moves partly forward and partly sideways.

61Harris (2009) argued that parents could do little vis-à-vis the overpowering influence of ‘peer culture’. There is evidence, however, that parents do retain a substantial measure of influence over teens’ attitudes and activities by influencing their children’s choices of peer group associates (Brown et al., 1993). Parents are aware of the risks of peer pressure. They also know that the criticism of the teenagers’ choice of friends is rarely welcomed. A more effective strategy is to provide teens with a platform where they can socialise with congenial peers. Such an indirect or ‘knight move’5 approach motivates teens and affects their behavioural practices.

62Contacts with socially integrated teens (i.e., ‘good friends’), who are doing well in school, yield positive emotional outcomes, while the opposite is true of having friends who are involved with drugs or are school dropouts, i.e., ‘bad friends’ (see Figure 5; for a definition of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ friends see footnote to Table 4). Contacts with ‘good friends’ were accompanied by higher levels of subjective well-being (β= 0.30), while ties with ‘bad friends’ were accompanied by lower grade averages (β= -0.19) and lower sense of well-being (β=.-0.14). Parental approval of their child’s friends correlated positively with teens’ school performance (β= 0.33) and subjective well-being (β= 0.25). See also Parke & Ladd (1992).

Figure 5 Tell me who your friends are (OATUS; standardized β*)

Figure 5 Tell me who your friends are (OATUS; standardized β*)

*Controlled for teens’ age, gender and parental education; p ≤ .005
Data reported in this Figure are from the home-based ESM questionnaire (
n= 219). For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.
“Good” friends are doing well at school, plan to go to the university and will have good jobs as adults. “Bad” friends have dropped out of school and are involved with drugs and gangs. Italicised figures are marginally significant.

63A supportive peer environment was traditionally provided by families’ networking, which enabled generational transfers of social and cultural values (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Today, parental efforts to secure a supportive intellectual and emotional environment for their children have taken two main forms in Canada, namely selection of the ‘right’ neighbourhood or school and encouraging teens’ involvement in sporting and extracurricular activities. Parents encourage teens to engage in extracurricular activities to stimulate them intellectually and help them retain good physical health, but also because this use of time lowers the likelihood of socialising with the ‘wrong’ peers (Nelson, 2010).

64Parents’ influence on teens’ choice of friends is motivated by academic, well-being and social concerns and helps parents to maintain their share of influence on children (see Table 4).

Table 4. Can parents influence teens’ choice of friends? (standardized β*) (OATUS 2001-2003)

Type of parental influence

Number of ‘good’ friends1

Number of ‘bad’ friends2

Composite of family cohesion 3

.70

-.27

Parental approval of teens’ friends

.37

-.15

Parental encouragement of extracurricular activities

.24

-.10 ns

*Controlled for teens’ age, gender and family income; p ≤ 0.005
1Composite measure based on statements such as: my friends do well at school, plan to go to university, will have good jobs as adults, I trust my friends and can count on them. (α= 0.83)
2 Composite measure based on statements such as: my friends dropped out of school, are involved with drugs or gangs (α= 0.79)
3 Composite of feeling appreciated, getting attention and help, being loved, enjoying dinner together, compromising scheduling conflicts, willing to help when needed, trying not to offend or hurt each other (α=0.81)

Synchronising family behavioural routines - doing things together

65One of the most important instruments in influencing teens’ time use practices are family activities. In the lives of teens, the importance of doing things together is best illustrated by the consistency of positive emotional outcomes of having family meals. Family suppers and joint meals synchronise family life and provide an opportunity for informal face-to-face communication. Keeping this tradition alive in a rapidly ‘desynchronising’ world serves as an instrument of emotional cohesion and contributes to teens’ emotional well-being (see Figure 6). The standardized coefficient of the relationship between having regular family suppers and teens’ subjective well-being in the school-based OATUS questionnaire, when controlled for teens age, gender and family income, was β= 0.30, and between eating meals with parents and emotional well-being in the home-based questionnaire, β= 0.29 (see also Feldman et al., 2007; Offer, 2013). It is symptomatic that having the TV on during the family supper nullified the positive relationship between shared meals and emotional well-being (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Doing things together as a family, teens’ school performance and emotional well-being (OATUS; standardized β*)

Figure 6. Doing things together as a family, teens’ school performance and emotional well-being (OATUS; standardized β*)

*Controlled for teens’ age, gender and family income; p ≤ .005; if italicized marginally significant ≤ 0.06
1 OATUS school-based questionnaire
2 ESM home-based questionnaires
3Aggregate weekly ESM self-reports
4
For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.

66Regular family suppers, joint involvement in sporting and outdoor activities, or joint attendance at cultural events contribute to teens’ sense of feeling good, happy, and cheerful (affect). There is a difference, however, between doing things together or just being in the presence of parents. The feeling of togetherness requires the "minds to meet" and "closeness to be shared" (Larson & Richards, 1994, p. 8). It should not be surprising, therefore, that joining parents for shopping or watching TV carried little or no effect on teens’ emotional well-being (see Figure 6). The difference between physical presence and doing things together resembles the difference between talking and dialogue. Positive emotional outcomes require mutual interest and a common goal rather than just time spent together. If this is not the case, teens prefer to keep their parents at a distance.

67It is worth noting that spending time in the company of parents on Sundays, when opportunities abound but are often perfunctory, was associated by teens in the OATUS study with less positive affect than on weekdays (not reported in the tables). The 1998 GSS data indicate as well that on weekends, one or one and a half hours of contact time with parents made teens feel happy, but beyond that teens’ levels of life satisfaction and happiness declined (Zuzanek, 2009).

One of the luckiest things that can happen to you in life is to have a happy childhood. I had as father and mother two people who loved each other dearly and made a success of their marriage and of parenthood. Agatha Christie, Autobiography (1977)

Influence by way of example (‘social osmosis’)

68The widening generation gap between teens and their parents has received more attention than the carry-over of family values, habits and preferences. In spite of teens’ wishes to be like their parents, research of parent-child relationships often focused on generational conflicts and misunderstandings. As observed by Larson and Richards in Divergent Realities (1994), parents and children sharing the same room often live in different worlds. Yet, when we examine parent-child relationships closely, we find not only confrontation, friction or abstention, but also absorption and assimilation.

69The convergence of teens’ and parental life style preferences is illustrated, among others, by the relationships between teens’ and parents’ time use. Teens’ and parents’ ESM self-reports show that the amounts of time teens spend attending religious services, watching TV, surfing the web, socialising with friends, or engaging in sporting activities correlate positively with the amounts of time spent in these same activities by their parents. The standard coefficients of these relationships, controlled for teens’ age, gender and parent’s education, are β= 0.31 for attending sporting and cultural events, β= 0.27 for religious activities, β= 0.26 for watching TV and videos, β= 0.18 for social activities, and β= 0.13 for sports, outdoors and surfing the Internet (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Similarity of teens’ and parents’ behavioural choices, activity preferences and value orientations: Social “osmosis” (OATUS; standardized β*)

Figure 7. Similarity of teens’ and parents’ behavioural choices, activity preferences and value orientations: Social “osmosis” (OATUS; standardized β*)

*Controlled for teens’ age, gender and parental education; p ≤ .005; italicized is marginally significant p ≤ .06
1 Relationship of teens’ and parents’ frequency of activity episodes (ESM self-reports)
2 Relationships of teens’ and parents’ enjoyment and importance ratings (ESM home-based questionnaires)
3 Relationship of parents’ composite life satisfaction (life, work-family balance, family, time use; α=.83) and teens’ emotional well-being (see Method section).

70Relationships between parental and teens’ enjoyment ratings of most activities show a different pattern. Teens’ and parents’ enjoyment of sporting activities and the outdoors correlate positively: β= .20 and β= .15 (marginally significant), but the enjoyment ratings of other leisure activities do not correlate. The activity where teens’ and parental enjoyment ratings diverge radically is playing computer and video games, with teens assigning it a score of 3.6 on a five-point enjoyment scale, compared to parents’ meagre 1.7 points (not reported in the tables).

71Negative correlations between teens’ school performance, free time, watching TV, and surfing the web are paralleled by negative correlations with their parents’ involvement in these same activities. Elevated levels of parental free time and watching TV correlate with teens’ poorer school performance. Parents’ involvement in sporting activities correlates with teens’ emotional well-being positively, much the same way as teens’ own involvement in sports (not reported in the tables). Teens’ feelings of ‘busyness’ can, arguably, be also traced to the parental roots. Teens in families with busy parents report higher levels of ‘busyness’ (β= .18, when controlled for parent’s education; not reported in the tables).

72There is considerable similarity between teens’ and parents’ assessments of the importance of different aspects of life. The association between teens’ and parents’ valuation of the importance of religion, controlled for parent’s education, is robust (β= .54). Teens’ and parents’ assessments of the importance of leisure and friends also resemble each other (β= .16 and β= .18; see Figure 7). Teens and parents differ, however, in their assessment of the importance of work, family and politics, which are, not unexpectedly, valued as more important by parents. Parental ratings of the importance of family and work are 4.8 and 3.6 along a five-point scale, compared to teens’ 4.4 and 3.2.

73There is also a link between parental and teens’ sense of happiness and life satisfaction. Having happy parents makes for a happy childhood. Findings reported in Figure 7 show that parents’ composite index of life satisfaction (α= .85) correlated positively with teens’ emotional well-being (β= .22).

74Osmosis is usually defined as a gradual and often unconscious process of assimilation or adoption of values, behaviours or skills from the surrounding environment. As such, family osmosis offers a powerful impetus for teens’ academic achievement and success in life. Teenagers who wished to be like their parents reported higher grade averages (β= .14), higher levels of subjective well-being (β= .38), and scored higher on the affect scale (β= .23) than their counterparts who did not share this desire (see Figure 4).

Summary and conclusions

75Canadian time use data suggest that the communication and attitudinal gap between the teens and their parents widened during the past decades. Adolescents spend less time today with parents and are less likely to list interaction with parents as their most enjoyed activity than in the early 1990s. The shift in reference group orientation from the parents to peers and the growing gap between the values of ‘youth culture’ and the conventional adult society became a major concern of parents and the research community in the 1990s. Initial hopes that greater access to mass media will enrich teens’ lives have fallen victim to short-term commercial and advertising interests. McLuhan’s and Fiore (2003) words that electronic media surpass any possible influence of mom and dad and the entire world is a "sage" are probably truer today than when they were written, but only if the word "sage" were to be used ironically.

76 Academic performance, relationships with parents and peers, and emotional well-being are important components of teens’ quality of life. Competition between parents, mass media and peers over the influence on teens’ life styles and well-being centres, to a great extent, on teens’ time use practices. Free time activities top the list of teens’ most enjoyed pursuits, but intensive involvement in these activities correlates with lower rather than higher levels of academic achievement. Students who spend more time doing homework perform better in school, yet are less satisfied with their use of time and experience greater emotional discomfort. In short, instant gratification and long-term well-being benefits do not go hand in hand.

77 Although the influence of parents has declined, the situation is not entirely irremediable. To redress teens’ behavioural practices and improve their emotional well-being, parents use direct or indirect strategies. Direct strategies typically involve household rules and behavioural controls. Indirect strategies aim at synchronising family behavioural routines and building an emotional consensus.

78Analyses of teens’ time diaries and ESM self-reports suggest that teens’ subjective well-being depends on the emotional closeness of the family, but emotional bonds do not guarantee teens’ academic success. Being accepted and loved "no matter what happens" makes teens’ lives emotionally comfortable but does not necessarily motivate them to succeed academically. Emotional embrace should be accompanied by demandingness to secure both a gratifying life-style and a good performance in school. As succinctly articulated by Landry (2010), parental success rests with "pushing without shoving and inspiring without nagging" (p.ii).

79Parents are aware of the important role played by peers in the intellectual and emotional development of their children. By providing an opportunity to socialise with congenial friends they create a platform for a challenging and balanced use of time. Not all parents do this, nor do these strategies always work, but when combined with close emotional bonds they help parents to reduce the risks of teens’ exposure to negative pressures from peers or the media.

80 Analyses of OATUS data suggest that indirect strategies, emphasising the importance of time use routines and habitual inter-family relationships, affect the quality of teens’ lives more profoundly than household regulations, verbal interventions, or sporadic behavioural controls. Doing things together as a family and informal discussions of personal matters presuppose the presence of a common interest that is often missing in formal ‘pep talks’ and ‘nagging’. Making these oblique practices a habit is the key to close and productive parent-teen relationships.

81 Perhaps the most powerful but underestimated leverage that parents have to protect their share of influence on teens is the social ‘osmosis’ of family values and practices. Spending more time in the presence of parents may not bring desired positive outcomes, but a seemingly imperceptible establishment of shared family values, joint activities, and parental ability to serve as a model and an inspiration gradually affect teens’ motivational structures. Parents should be aware that it is not just what they tell their children, but rather what they do or how they act, that influences them the most.

82Simone de Beauvoir (1966) wrote: "It is frightening to think, that you mark your children merely by being yourself." To de Beauvoir this seemed unfair."You can't assume the responsibility for everything you do – or don't do." On this she may not have been right. It has been said that one cannot escape the responsibility for tomorrow by denying it today (attributed to Abraham Lincoln). The best answer to Simone de Beauvoir’s concern may lie in the words from Saint-Exupéry’s ‘The Little Prince’ (1943), a fairy tale that remains one of the most telling manifestos of human empathy. Explaining what constitutes an emotional bond that keeps all living beings together the Fox tells the Little Prince: "People have forgotten this truth, but you mustn’t forget it. You become responsible forever for what you’ve tamed."

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.

Barker, E. 1906. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, Londres, Methuen et Co.

Bartko W. T. et J. S. Eccles. 2003. « Adolescent Participation in Structured and Unstructured Activities, A Person-Oriented Analysis », Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol. 32, No. 4, p. 233-241.

Baumrind, D. 1971. « Current Patterns of Parental Authority », Developmental Psychology Monographs, vol. 4, No. 1, p. 1-103.

Baumrind, D. 1991. « The Inuence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use, Journal of Early Adolescence », vol. 11, No. 1, p. 56-95.

Beauvoir, S. de 1966. Les Belles Images (Fontana, Trans), Paris, FR, Editions Gallimard.

Bennett, S., et N. Kalish. 2006. The Case Against Homework, Bethel, Crown Publishers.

Bianchi, S.M., J.R. Robinson et M.A. Milkie. 2006. Changing Rhythms of American Family Life, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.

Bianchi, S. et J.R. Robinson. 1997. « What Did You Do Today ? Children’s Use of Time, Family Composition, and the Acquisition of Social Capital », Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 59, p. 332-344.

Bickham, D. et M. Rich. 2006. « Is Television Viewing Associated with Social Isolation ? Roles of Exposure Time, Viewing Context, and Violent Content », Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, vol. 160, p. 387-392.

Bourdieu, P. et J.C. Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications.

Brown, B. B., N. Mounts, S.D. Lamborn et L. Steinberg. 1993. « Parenting Practices and Peer Group Affiliation in Adolescence », Child Development, vol. 64, No. 2, p. 467-482.

Chen Z., S. M. Dornbusch et R.X. Liu. 2007. « Direct and Indirect Pathways Between Parental Constructive Behavior and Adolescent Affiliation with Achievement-Oriented Peers », Journal of Child and Family Studies, vol. 16, p. 837-858.

Christie, A. 1977. An Autobiography, Glasgow, William Collins Sons & Co.

Coleman, J. S. 1961. The Adolescent Society, New York, Free Press.

Cooper, H., J. Robinson et E. Patall. 2006. « Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement ? A Synthesis of Research, 1987-2003 », Review of Educational Research, vol. 76, p. 1-62.

Crouter, A, C., M. R. Head, S. M. McHale et C. J. Tucker. 2004. « Family Time and the Psychological Adjustment of Adolescent Siblings and their Parents », Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, p. 147-162.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. et R. Larson. 1987. « Validity and Reliability of the Experience Sampling Method », Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, vol. 175, No. 9, 526-37.

Daly, K. 1996. Families and Time, Keeping Pace in a Hurried Culture, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Dempsey, N. 2005. « Television Use and Communication Within Families with Adolescents », dans Being Together, Working Apart, Dual Career Families and the Work-Family Balance, sous la dir. de B. Schneider et L. Waite, Cambridge, U.K., Cambridge University Press, p. 277-296.

Dishion, T, J. et R. J. McMahon, 1998. « Parental Monitoring and the Prevention of Child and Adolescent Problem Behaviour, A Conceptual and Empirical Formulation », Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, vol. 1, No. 1, p. 61-75.

Ennett, S. T. et K. E. Bauman. 1991. « Mediators to the Relationship Between Parental And Peer Characteristics And Beer Drinking By Early Adolescents », Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 21, p. 1699-1711.

Ennett, S. T., K. E. Bauman, V. A. Foshee, M. Pemberton et K.A. Hicks. 2001. « ParentChild Communication about Adolescent Tobacco and Alcohol Use, What Do Parents Say and Does It Affect Youth Behavior ? », Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 63, p. 48-62.

Feldman, S., M. Eisenberg, D. Neumark-Steiner et M. Sory. 2007. « Association Between Watching TV During Family Meals and Dietary Intake Among Adolescents », Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour, vol. 29, No. 5, p. 257-263.

Featherman, D. L. 1980. « Schooling and Occupational Careers, Constancy and Change in Worldly Success », dans Constancy and Change in Human Development, sous la dir. de O. Brim et J. Kegan, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, p. 675-738.

Fiese, B. H. 2006. Family Routines and Rituals, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.

Finders, M. et C. Lewis. 1994. « Why Some Parents Don’t Come to School », Educating for Diversity, vol. 51, No. 8, p. 50-54.

Galinsky, E. 1999. Ask the Children, What America’s Children Really Think About Working Parents, New York, Morrow.

Harris, J. R. 2009. The Nurture Assumption. Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, New York, Free Press.

Hofferth, S. et Sandberg, J. 2001. « How American Children Spend Their Time », Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 63, No. 2, 295-308.

Hope, J. 2013, May 02. British Parents Ignorant About their Children. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-25189/British-parents-ignorant-children.html

Hsin, A. 2008. « Parents Time with Children, Does Time Matter for Children’s Cognitive Achievement ? » Social Indicators Research, vol. 93, p. 123-126.

Kandel, D. B. 1996. « The Parental and Peer Contexts of Adolescent Advance. An Algebra of Interpersonal Influences », Journal of Drug Issues, vol. 26, p. 289-315.

Kellerhals, J., C. Montandon et G. Ritschard. 1992. « Social Status, Types of Family Interaction and Educational Styles », European Journal of Sociology, vol. 33, No. 2, p. 308-325.

Kraut, R. E., M. Patterson, V. Lundmark, S. Kisler, T. Mukhopadhya et W. Scherlis. 1998. « Internet Paradox, A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being ? », American Psychologist, vol. 53, p. 1017-1032.

Landry, D. N. 2010. The Role of Daily Routines in Adolescents Diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, thèse de doctorat en psychologie, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi ?article =3297&context =gradschool_dissertations

Larson, R. 2001. « How U.S. Children and Adolescents Spend Time, What It Does (And Doesn’t) Tell Us about their Development », American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 29, No. 4, p. 565-597.

Larson, R. et Richards, M. 1994. Divergent realities, The Emotional Lives of Mothers, Fathers, and Adolescents, New York, Basic Books.

Larson, R. et S. Verma. 1999. « How Children and Adolescents Spend Time Across the World. Work, Play, and Developmental Opportunities », Psychological Bulletin, vol. 125, No. 6, p. 701-736.

Lareau, A. 2003. Unequal childhoods, Class, Race, and Family Life, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Lehrer, J. 2009, April 9. « Mind Matters, Do Parents Matter ?” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parents-peers-children/

Lugaila, T. 2003. « A Child’s Day, 2000 (Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being) », Current Population Reports U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-89.pdf

Lynd, R. S. et H. M. Lynd. 1929. Middletown, A Study in Contemporary American Culture, New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Maccoby, E. E. et J. A. Martin. 1983. « Socialisation in the Context of the Family, Parent-Child Interaction », dans Handbook of Child Psychology Vol, 4, Socialisation, Personality, and Social Development (4th ed,), sous la dir. de H. Mussen et E. M. Hetherington, New York, Wiley, p. 1-101.

Marks, T. 2009. Widening Generation Gap Strains Family Relationships. http://markspsychiatry.com/widening-generation-gap-strains-family-relationships

Meeks, C. et T. Mauldin. 1990. « Children’s Time In Structured And Unstructured Leisure Activities », Lifestyles, Family and Economic Issues, vol. 11, No. 3, 257-281.

McLuhan, M. et Q. Fiore. 2003. The Medium Is the Message, an Inventory of Effects. Corte Madera, CA, Gingko Press.

Michelson, W. 2005. Time use, Expanding Explanation of the Social Sciences, Colorado, USA, Paradigm Press.

Nelson, M.K. 2010. Parenting Out of Control : Anxious Parents in Uncertain Times. New York : New York University Press 

Offer, S. 2013. « Assessing the Relationship Between Family Mealtime Communication and Adolescent Emotional Well-Being Using the Experience Sampling Method », Journal of Adolescence, vol. 36, p. 577-585.

Osgood, D. W., J. K. Wilson, J. G. Bachman, P. M. O’Malley et L. D. Johnson. 1996. « Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behaviour », American Sociological Review, vol. 61, p. 635-655.

Parke, R, D. et G. W. Ladd (Eds.). 1992. Family-Peer Relationships, Modes of Linkage, Hillsdale NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Parke R, D., K.B. MacDonald, V. M. Burks, J. Carson, N. P. Bhavnagriv et J. M. Barth. 1989. « Family and Peer Systems, In Search of the linkages », dans Family Systems and Life-Span Development, sous le dir. de K. Kroppner, et R. Lerner, Hillsdale NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., p. 65-92.

Parsons, T. 1942. « Age and Sex in the Social Structure of the United States », American Sociological Review, vol. 7, p. 604-616.

G. S. Pettit, R. D. Laird, K. A. Dodge, J. E. Bates et M. M. Criss. 2001. « Antecedents and Behavior Problem Outcomes of Parental Monitoring and Psychological Control in Early Adolescence », Child Development, vol. 72, 583–598.

Pew Internet & American Life Report. 2001. Teenage Life Online, The Rise of the Instant-Message Generation and the Internet’s Impact on Friendships and Family Relationships. http://www.pewinternet.org/2001/06/21/teenage-life-online/

Pigeron, E. 2006. Learning to be Connected, A Look at Technology Mediated Social World, Unpublished manuscript, Sloan Center on Everyday Lives of Families, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

Plato. 1998. The Republic. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1497

Pronovost. G. 2006. « Trends in Child Care and Parenting in Canada, 1986 to 1998 » dans Changing Rhythms of American Family Life sous la dir. de S.M. Bianchi, J.R. Robinson et M.A. Milkie, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, p. 196-200.

Raley, S. 2006. « Children’s Time Use, Too Busy or Not Busy Enough ? » dans Changing Rhythms of American Family Life, sous la dir. de S.M. Bianchi, J.R. Robinson et M.A. Milkie, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, p. 142-156.

Rubin Z. et J. Sloman. 1984. « How Parents Influence their Children’s Friendships », dans Beyond the Dyad, sous la dir. de M. Lewis, New York, Plenum, p. 115-140.

Saint-Exupéry, A. 1943. The Little Prince. http//www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/frames.html

Santrock, J. W. 2007. A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development, New York, McGraw Hill.

Saxbe D., A. Graesh et M. Alvik. 2011. « Television as a Social or Solo Activity, Understanding Families’ Everyday Television Viewing Patterns », Communication Research Reports, vol. 28, No. 2, p. 180-189.

Seginer, R. 1983. « Parents’ Educational Expectations and Children’s Academic Achievements, A Literature Review », Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, vol. 29, p. 1-23.

Tilton-Weaver, L. C. et N. L. Galambos. 2003. « Adolescents’ Characteristics and Parents’ Beliefs as Predictors of Parents’ Peer Management Behaviours », Journal of Research on Adolescence, vol. 13, p. 269-300.

Vandewater, E. A., S. Park, X. Huang et E. A. Wartella. 2005. « ‘No—You Can’t Watch That’—Parental Rules and Young Children’s Media Use », American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 48, p. 608–623.

Zuzanek, J. 2005. « Adolescent Time Use and Well-Being from a Comparative Perspective », Loisir et Societe / Society and Leisure, vol. 28, No. 2, p. 379-421.

Zuzanek, J. 2009. « Time Use Imbalances. Developmental and Emotional Costs », dans Life Balance, Biological, Psychological and Sociological Perspectives on Lifestyle and Health, sous la dir. de K. Matuska et C. Christiansen, Bethesda, AOTA Press, p. 207-222.

Haut de page

Notes

1 "That's enough words for the moment. Now let me see some action!"

2 OATUS survey was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) and was directed by Jiri Zuzanek (principal investigator) and Roger Mannell.

3 According to ESM self-reports, teens spent 74 minutes doing homework on school days. The corresponding time diary figure was 79 minutes. Helping around the house on Sundays occupied 48 minutes in ESM self-reports, compared to 46 minutes in time diaries. Correlations between time diary and ESM measurements of time use ranged from r = 0.35 to r = 0.45.

4 For an earlier analysis of Canadian parents’ use of time see Pronovost (2006)

5 Unlike other chess pieces, the knight moves partly forward and partly sideways.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Légende *Controlled for teens’ age and gender; p ≤ .0051 OATUS school-administered time diaries (minutes per day) 2 ESM home-based questionnaire 3 ESM self-reports 4 GSS time diaries (minutes per day) 5 For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/efg/docannexe/image/1888/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 52k
Titre Figure 2. Academic and emotional connotations of watching TV, socialising with friends, surfing the web, and sporting and extracurricular activities (OATUS; standardized β*)
Légende *Controlled for teens’ age and gender; p ≤ .0051 OATUS school-administered time diaries 2 ESM home-based questionnaire 3Aggregate weekly ESM self-reports 4Composite of participation in 12 extracurricular activities (OATUS school based questionnaire) 5For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/efg/docannexe/image/1888/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 59k
Titre Figure 3. Effects of family controls on teens’ school performance (OATUS; standardized β*)
Légende *Controlled for teens’ age and gender; p ≤ .0051 School-administered questionnaire 2 Home-based ESM questionnaire 3 Home-based ESM questionnaire: composite of questions about sex, drugs, and alcohol (α=.86) 4 For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/efg/docannexe/image/1888/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 66k
Titre Figure 4. Effects of family closeness and demandingness on teens’ school performance and emotional well-being (OATUS, ESM home-based questionnaire; standardized β*)
Légende *Controlled for teens’ age and gender; p ≤ .0051 Composite of feeling appreciated, getting attention and help, being loved, enjoying dinner together, compromising scheduling conflicts, willing to help when needed, trying not to offend or hurt each other (α=.81) 2 For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/efg/docannexe/image/1888/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 47k
Titre Figure 5 Tell me who your friends are (OATUS; standardized β*)
Légende *Controlled for teens’ age, gender and parental education; p ≤ .005Data reported in this Figure are from the home-based ESM questionnaire (n= 219). For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section. “Good” friends are doing well at school, plan to go to the university and will have good jobs as adults. “Bad” friends have dropped out of school and are involved with drugs and gangs. Italicised figures are marginally significant.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/efg/docannexe/image/1888/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 26k
Titre Figure 6. Doing things together as a family, teens’ school performance and emotional well-being (OATUS; standardized β*)
Légende *Controlled for teens’ age, gender and family income; p ≤ .005; if italicized marginally significant ≤ 0.061 OATUS school-based questionnaire 2 ESM home-based questionnaires 3Aggregate weekly ESM self-reports 4 For the explanation of well-being superscripts see Method section.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/efg/docannexe/image/1888/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 34k
Titre Figure 7. Similarity of teens’ and parents’ behavioural choices, activity preferences and value orientations: Social “osmosis” (OATUS; standardized β*)
Légende *Controlled for teens’ age, gender and parental education; p ≤ .005; italicized is marginally significant p ≤ .061 Relationship of teens’ and parents’ frequency of activity episodes (ESM self-reports) 2 Relationships of teens’ and parents’ enjoyment and importance ratings (ESM home-based questionnaires) 3 Relationship of parents’ composite life satisfaction (life, work-family balance, family, time use; α=.83) and teens’ emotional well-being (see Method section).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/efg/docannexe/image/1888/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 54k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Jiri Zuzanek et Margo Hilbrecht, « Do parents matter? Teens’ time use, academic performance and well-being. »Enfances Familles Générations [En ligne], 29 | 2018, mis en ligne le 15 mai 2018, consulté le 29 mars 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/efg/1888

Haut de page

Auteurs

Jiri Zuzanek

Emeritus Professor, University of Waterloo, Canada, zuzanek@uwaterloo.ca

Margo Hilbrecht

Adjunct Lecturer, University of Waterloo, Canada, margo@greo.ca

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search