Chapter 4 132 Figure 4 Distribution of Mean Scores of the Highly Sensitive Child Scale (HSC) for Low-Perceptive and Perceptive Adolescents Note. Low-perceptive adolescents (n = 70) did not perceive bi-weekly changes in parenting (and some also in their psychological functioning). Perceptive adolescents (n = 182) perceived and were affected (in all possible manners) by these changes in parenting. Sensitivity Analyses Multi-informant Model with Parent-Reported Parenting (Preregistered) To replicate main findings (H1-H4) across multiple informants, we conducted the analyses with parent-reported parenting and adolescent-reported psychological functioning (subsample of n = 177; for sample and descriptive statistics see Table E1 in Appendix E). Although, on average, adolescent’s psychological functioning could not be predicted by parent-reported parenting (H1a-d not confirmed, see Table E2), again all lagged effects showed meaningful effect heterogeneity (H2 confirmed; for sample distributions, see Table E3). With respect to the responsivity patterns, we did find all four predicted responsivity patterns, including the unsusceptible pattern (H3 confirmed; see Table E4), in which the group size of the patterns ranged from 9% to 19%. Agreement between responsivity patterns based on parent-reported versus adolescent-reported parenting ranged from 0% (adverse sensitive and unsusceptible patterns) to 36% (unperceptive pattern) (for more details see, Table E5). Similar as in the main analyses, H4 was not confirmed, as adolescents with a differentially susceptible pattern based on parent-reported parenting did not show higher trait levels of environmental sensitivity than the other adolescents, t(172) = -0.04, p = .965.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw