Developmental Antecedents of Proactive and Reactive Rebelliousness: The Role of Parenting Style, Childhood Adversity, and Attachment

Adolescence is a time of developmental transition that for one in five young people is characterised by feelings of oppositionality, rebellion, and negativism. Despite the prevalent experience of teen turbulence and despite its significance within the phenomenological framework provided by reversal theory (RT), the childhood antecedents of rebelliousness in adolescence and adulthood have not been given extensive empirical attention within RT, although such work has been carried out using other constructs and theories. We examined recalled parenting style, childhood adversity, and attachment style in adulthood as correlates of proactive and reactive rebelliousness in a sample of 80 participants, aged 18 to 50 years. Each participant responded to a questionnaire package containing the revised Adult Attachment Scale, the Parental Bonding Instrument, the Childhood Experience of Care and Abuse Questionnaire, and the Negativism Dominance Scale. We found that paternal abusive parenting, followed by paternal parenting style, paternal neglect, and paternal antipathy were independently predictive of scores on proactive rebelliousness, the sensation-seeking form. Maternal and paternal indifferent parenting styles each were found to equivalently and independently predict scores on reactive rebelliousness, the interpersonal disaffection form. The results of this study suggest these two forms of rebelliousness may have distinctly different antecedents. A longitudinal study is needed to examine the potentially causal pathways that are suggested by the results of this cross-sectional research. We consider reversal theory explanations of these results and contrast them with complementary theoretical frameworks.

Personal statement in PhD applications: Gatekeepers' evaluative perspectives

This paper explores academic readers’ views of the doctoral Personal Statements (PSs) written by student applicants across institutional contexts. The analysis was based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with 19 faculty members involved in evaluating the PhD applications within Education at one UK-based and one US-based university. Data were coded by NVivo software and then analysed using methods drawn from critical discourse analysis and conversation analysis to unravel participant intended meaning. Results suggest that the situated knowledge of institutional settings where these academics are based will affect the ways in which they act and think in relation to particular forms of discourse. Specifically, the UK and US academics’ interpretations of PSs and its associated evaluation practices are related to their conceptual understanding of the culture of doctoral level study and the structure of the admissions process in their own particular academic community. The paper concludes with some pedagogical implications and a discussion of potential areas for further study to investigate the ‘academic’ and ‘rhetorical’ aspects of the PS and to understand the different and often implicit features of the PS across different disciplines, programmes, and institutional contexts.