Chapter 4 126 Average Effects of Parenting on Adolescent Psychological Functioning (H1) The results of the ML-VAR(1) models demonstrated that three of the five average parenting effects were significant and small in effect size. H1a and H1b were supported: Increased levels of parental psychological control predicted, on average, decreases in adolescent self-esteem (β = -.13) and increases in depressive symptoms (β = .05; see Table 3). In other words, on average, adolescents reported lower self-esteem and more depressive symptoms after having perceived more parental psychological control 2 weeks earlier. However, parental support did not predict changes in adolescents’ self-esteem (rejecting H1c). H1d was partly supported: Although parental support did not predict adolescent depressive symptoms, it did predict fewer anxiety symptoms (β = -.06). All lagged parenting effects were controlled for the reverse lagged effect from adolescent psychological functioning to parenting (see Table 3). On average, adolescent self-esteem had a significant negative effect on parental psychological control (β = -.12) and a positive effect on parental support (β = .09), and adolescent anxiety symptoms had a significant negative effect on parental support (β = -.07). Effect Heterogeneity: Differences between Families in Parenting Effects (H2) Each of the within-family effects showed meaningful variance as indicated by a standard deviation fixed effect of at least ratio of 0.25 (see Table 3; Bolger et al., 2019). Thus, as expected (H2), adolescents varied substantially in how perceived changes in parenting predicted subsequent changes in their psychological functioning. For example, individual effect sizes of the lagged effect from parental support to depressive symptoms ranged from β = -.48 to .31 across families (see Figure 2). For 21%, this effect was negative (β ≤ -.05), as expected (see H1d). Others (51%) had a null effect (β between -.05 and .05), and 27% had a positive lagged effect (β ≥ .05). This parenting effect heterogeneity is illustrated in Figure 3 and 4, showing that the strength and sign of the effects differed between families. Coexisting Responsivity Patterns (H3) The study’s main hypothesis was that theoretical responsivity patterns (i.e., adverse sensitive, vantage sensitive, differentially susceptible, and unsusceptible pattern) would coexist in the sample and thus apply to different subgroups of adolescents.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw