7 Summary and general discussion 205 Table 2 Overview of Found Fixed (Average) Effects at the Within-Family Level in this Dissertation Parenting dimension Time interval Ch. Adolescent functioning Depressive symptoms Anxiety symptoms Negative affect Self-esteem Positive affect r Cross-lagged r Cross-lagged r Cross-lagged r Cross-lagged r Cross-lagged P → A A → P P → A A → P P → A A → P P → A A → P P → A A → P Warmth Day 3 0a 0 a 0 a ++ b ++ b ++ b 5 -b 0 b 0 b 2Wc 3&4 - 0 - - - -- + 0 ++ 3Md 3 --- 0 --- Annuale 3 - 0 0 Biennialf 3 - 0 0 Autonomy support Day 5 - 0 0 + + ++ Behavioral control Day 5 + + 0 - 0 0 Psychological control Day 5 + + 0 - 0 0 2W 4 + + 0 + - --- --- Note. Ch. = chapter. r = correlation. P→A = time-lagged effect from parenting to adolescent functioning. A → P = time-lagged effect from adolescent functioning to parenting. 2W = bi-weekly time interval. 3M = three-monthly time interval. 0 is a non-significant effect. - or + = small effect (r < .30; β lagged < .07). - - or ++ = moderate effect (.30 ≥ r < .50; β lagged .07 ≥ < .12). - - - or +++ = large effect (r ≥ .50; β lagged: ≥ .12). For effect size guidelines for correlations and lagged effects, see Cohen (1992) and Orth et al. (2022), respectively. a Grumpy and Depressed daily dataset (N = 244, t = 7, M age = 13.9, 65% female) b 100 days of my life dataset (N = 159, t = 91, Mage = 13.1, 62% female) c One size does not fit all (N= 256, t = 26, M age = 14.4, 71% female) d Grumpy and Depressed three-monthly dataset (N = 245, t = 3, M age = 13.9, 65% female) e Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (N = 1,664, t = 3, M age = 11.1, 49% female) f Flemish study on Parenting, Personality, and Development (N =503, t = 3, M age = 13.8, 52% female)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw