4 For better, for worse, or both? 137 affected than others. Nonetheless, we also found a distinction between responsive and unresponsive adolescents, which is in line with strong versions. Our findings further illuminate that the unresponsive adolescents in our sample did not perceive any overtime changes in parenting (labeled as unperceptive, e.g., individual B in Figure 5). This unpredicted unperceptive responsivity pattern – not responding because not perceiving – differed from our predicted subgroup of unsusceptible adolescents (for illustration, see Figure 1), who we conceptualized as individuals who not respond to perceived changes in parenting. Hence, our findings indicate that weak and strong versions of environmental models can perhaps be integrated: Whereas a distinct subgroup of individuals do not perceive and therefore not respond to environmental influences, others perceive environmental changes and respond to these environmental influences in varying degrees. Figure 5 Perceived Parenting Fluctuates in Most Families: Data of Four Participants Support Psychological control Note. Time represents a bi-weekly timescale To assess whether the main findings replicate to immediate responsivity, we also explored concurrent associations. In line with previous work (Bülow, Van Roekel, et al., 2022), concurrent associations were less heterogeneous than lagged parenting effects (i.e., from perceived parenting to adolescent functioning). Whereas the concurrent associations provide predominantly evidence for a differential susceptible responsivity pattern (Belsky & Pluess, 2009), the lagged parenting effects were in line with our hypothesis that different responsivity patterns coexist (and thereby possibly different sensitivity types, see Pluess,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw