Chapter 4 112 INTRODUCTION Raising a happy, confident, and resilient adolescent is not always easy (Putnick et al., 2010; Twenge et al., 2019), as evidenced by the many parenting self-help books on the market (e.g., Steinberg, 2014). Parents experience that general parenting principles described in parenting books may not apply to their own unique adolescent children (e.g., Bülow, Van Roekel, et al., 2022; Mabbe et al., 2019). Environmental sensitivity models explain why children (including adolescents) may be differently affected by the same parenting influences (Greven et al., 2019; Pluess, 2015). That is, some children perceive and process environmental influences more intensely than others, which could make some children more sensitive and responsive to parenting (Belsky et al., 2007; Belsky & Pluess, 2009). However, different models describe different patterns, with responsivity to primarily: (1) adverse parenting (“for worse”; e.g., Monroe & Simons, 1991; Zuckerman, 1999); or (2) supportive parenting (“for better”; Pluess, 2017); or (3) to both (“for better and for worse”; Belsky et al., 2007; Belsky & Pluess, 2009). It has been suggested, but never tested, that these three sensitivity types co-exist (Pluess, 2015), rather than being mutually exclusive. In line with this theorizing, the current study tested whether adolescents responded differently to adverse and supportive parenting. Hence, this study aimed to increase the understanding of heterogeneity in parenting effects, and whether this heterogeneity can be explained by environmental sensitivity models. To achieve this, we took an innovative approach in which individual adolescents, rather than (sub)group averages, are the key unit of observation. For Better, for Worse, or for Both? Environmental sensitivity models assume that humans vary in their ability to perceive, processes, and respond to environmental influences (Pluess, 2015; Tillmann et al., 2021). Currently, three different theories propose different ideas about the type of environmental influences more environmentally sensitive individuals respond more strongly to (see Figure 1). The classic (1) diathesis-stress (or dual-risk) model suggests that some individuals are primarily adverse sensitive and therefore show stronger responsivity to adverse environmental influences (“for worse”; Monroe & Simons, 1991; Zuckerman, 1999). Adverse sensitive children are for instance assumed to suffer more (e.g., internalizing problems) from psychologically controlling parenting (Nelemans et al., 2020; Van Der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2017). In contrast, the (2) vantage sensitivity model emphasizes primarily reactions to positive environmental qualities, such as emotionally supportive parenting (e.g., Han & Grogan-Kaylor, 2013; Lippold, Davis, et al., 2016). This model thus specifies that some individuals benefit more strongly from positive,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw