Chapter 1 24 functioning are associated on a (semi-)annual timescale (see Chapter 2: Boele et al., 2020). As both theoretical (e.g., Granic et al., 2008) and methodological work (Voelkle et al., 2018) suggest that associations on one timescale may not generalize to other timescales, whether and how the dynamic processes between parenting and adolescent functioning unfold on different timescales remains still an open question. To avoid a galloping horse fallacy – infer results from one timescale to another (Keijsers & Van Roekel, 2018) –, within-family studies on parenting adolescents should consider various timescales: micro-, meso-, and macro-timescales. Micro-timescales include momentary or daily processes, which can be investigated using Experience Sampling methods or daily diary studies (Myin-Germeys & Kuppens, 2022; Repetti et al., 2015). Meso-timescales can include weekly or monthly processes, and macro timescales can include (semi-)annual processes. To start filling the gap in how the dynamic processes between parenting and adolescent functioning unfold on various timescales, this dissertation examined these dynamics at five time intervals: daily (Chapters 3, 5, & 6), bi-weekly (Chapters 3 & 4), three-monthly, annual, and biennial (Chapter 3). 2.3 The third gap: The dynamics of the average family might not apply to (all) individual families A third gap in the parenting literature is that theories propose heterogeneous dynamic processes between parenting and adolescent functioning, while most applied withinfamily methods that model homogeneous processes. That is, most within-family studies on parenting adolescents, thus far, have estimated the average effects within the sample (see Chapter 2: Boele et al., 2020). For example, studies have estimated average sample effects by applying a random-intercept cross lagged panel model (Hamaker et al., 2015; Keijsers, 2016) or fixed effects in a multilevel regression model (Bai et al., 2017; Coley & Medeiros, 2007). Such average sample effects indicate how fluctuations around the family’s typical level of parenting were on average (concurrently or longitudinally) associated with fluctuations around the family’s typical level of adolescent functioning. The potential of this method is to identify ‘general’ parenting processes or the parenting processes in ‘the average family’. Moreover, a benefit of this approach is that existing data from longitudinal panel studies can be used to reanalyze data at the within-family level (e.g., Keijsers, 2016). However, because many theories agree that the dynamic processes between parenting and adolescent functioning are heterogeneous across families (see Figure 1), heterogeneity should be tested to avoid a “one-size-fits-all” fallacy: interpreting average sample effects as homogeneous processes while they are not (Keijsers & Van Roekel, 2018).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw