J Abnorm Child Psychol DOI 10.1007/s10802-013-9838-5
Positive and Negative Family Emotional Climate Differentially Predict Youth Anxiety and Depression via Distinct Affective Pathways Aaron M. Luebbe & Debora J. Bell
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract A socioaffective specificity model was tested in which positive and negative affect differentially mediated relations of family emotional climate to youth internalizing symptoms. Participants were 134 7th-9th grade adolescents (65 girls; 86 % Caucasian) and mothers who completed measures of emotion-related family processes, experienced affect, anxiety, and depression. Results suggested that a family environment characterized by maternal psychological control and family negative emotion expressiveness predicted greater anxiety and depression, and was mediated by experienced negative affect. Conversely, a family emotional environment characterized by low maternal warmth and low positive emotion expressiveness predicted only depression, and was mediated through lowered experienced positive affect. This study synthesizes a theoretical model of typical family emotion socialization with an extant affect-based model of shared and unique aspects of anxiety and depression symptom expression. Keywords Anxiety . Depression . Emotional climate . Emotional expressiveness . Warmth . Psychological control . Adolescent Depressed youth and anxious youth often present clinically with overlapping symptoms. Measures of youth anxious and depressive symptoms typically correlate 0.40–0.50, with
A. M. Luebbe (*) Department of Psychology, Miami University, 100 Psychology Building, 90 N. Patterson Ave, Oxford, OH 45056, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. J. Bell Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri – Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA
comorbidity as high as 60 % for the two disorders (Brady and Kendall 1992). In adults, the tripartite model of anxiety and depression was developed to explain the frequent comorbidity of these two disorders as well as the distinguishing components of each (Clark and Watson 1991). Soon thereafter, the model was applied to youth populations (Joiner et al. 1996). In the tripartite model, anxiety and depression overlap is explained by general negative affect (NA), or feeling “unpleasantly engaged.” Depression, but not anxiety, is posited to be uniquely characterized by low positive affect (PA) or an inability to feel happiness or pleasure. In original writings, anxiety, but not depression, was posited to be uniquely associated with physiological hyperarousal (PH). Later empirical work has suggested, however, that this relation may apply only to certain anxiety disorders (e.g., panic) or that the considerable overlap between PH and NA limits PH’s unique predictive utility (Chorpita et al. 2000). Especially in samples of children and adolescents, the two affective factors (NA and PA) in the tripartite model have been most consistently associated with anxiety and depression, and studies repeatedly support the orthogonality of these factors in both community and clinical samples (Anderson and Hope 2008). To date, the two-factor affect model (i.e., the PA and NA components of the tripartite model) has been limited mainly to describing symptoms of anxiety and depression, rather than to questions of symptom development and maintenance. Expanding this affect framework to also include environmental factors known to contribute to psychological maladjustment is warranted, and doing so may help explain both shared and distinct aspects of these highly comorbid disorders. Recent developmental theory offers a starting point for such an expansion. Morris et al. (2007) proposed a model in which three types of parental emotion socialization behaviors, (a) emotion modeling, (b) specific parenting practices (e.g., emotion coaching), and (c) the family emotional climate are each hypothesized to influence youths’ emotion regulation
J Abnorm Child Psychol
abilities, and in turn, their psychosocial adjustment. Family emotional climate seems like a particularly promising addition to an expanded two-factor affect model because it is an umbrella construct comprised of extensive elements such as parenting style and family emotion expressiveness. The model of Morris and colleagues is limited, however, in that emotional climate is conceptualized broadly without separating positive and negative aspects, and the model does not speak to specificity of relations to certain adjustment outcomes as does the two-factor affect model. Thus, our current study examines a socioaffective specificity model whereby positive and negative family emotional climate are proposed to differentially relate to experienced NA and PA, and by extension, anxiety and depression. Our study aims to synergize the affective components of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression with a potentially explanatory, though untested, environmental model of symptom development. And, although Morris’s model focuses on emotion regulation whereas the two-factor affect model focuses on experienced affect, we adopt a view akin to Campos and colleagues (2004) who argue that experience, expression, and regulation of emotion are interwoven and interacting processes. For this study, however, we test experienced affect, in particular, as a potential mechanism explaining the relation between emotional climate and youth symptomatology. Because we focus on emotional climate, and given that NA and PA, but not PH, have been the most consistently supported components of the tripartite model (Anderson and Hope 2008), our model focuses on potentially explaining only NA and PA pathways. Figure 1 is a schematic representation of our newly-expanded socioaffective specificity model tested in the current studies. Conceptualizing youth anxiety and depression with this expanded model advances the literature in two primary ways. First, our model considers the family environment, a fundamental context given parents’ and children’s direct influence on one another (Repetti et al. 2002), as a differential predictor of certain anxiety and depressive symptoms. Though some links of family relationships to internalizing symptoms have been examined, only one study of which we are aware (Schwartz et al. 2012) has specifically tested the differential prediction of anxious and depressive symptoms that the tripartite model implies. Second, our conceptualization prompts attention to both positive and negative emotional experiences. Despite their potential for differentiating depression and anxiety, and their promise as treatment targets that can promote child and family health, PA processes have been relatively understudied compared to NA processes (Yap et al. 2007). Our model proposes that the family environment contributes to adolescents’ anxiety and depressive symptoms via its specific influence on youths’ PA and NA. As an initial test of this model we examined differential relations of various family processes to youth depression and anxiety, as well as hypothesized mediation of these relations via youth PA and NA.
Emotional Climate of the Family
Negative Emotional Enviro.
(Less) Positive Emotional Enviro.
Experienced Affect
Negative Affect
(Low) Positive Affect
Youth Anxiety
Youth Depression Adjustment
Fig. 1 The newly-created socioaffective specificity model. Constructs in circles correspond to the affective components of the original tripartite model of anxiety and depression (Clark and Watson 1991). As there is tepid empirical support for the role of physiological hyperarousal as a separate and unique predictor of anxiety, this component was not considered in the current study. Constructs in gray boxes (with gray paths) and labeled in italics correspond to Morris and colleagues’ (2007) theoretical mediational model of parental emotion socialization, affect regulation, and youth adjustment. Constructs in hexagons indicate novel components of the combined model. Bolded constructs and pathways represent the hypothesized socioaffective tripartite model to be tested in the current study
Family Emotional Climate’s Common and Differential Prediction of Anxiety and Depression The emotional climate of a given family is determined by several processes including specific parenting behaviors as well as when, how much, and what types of emotions are expressed by members (i.e., emotional expressiveness; Halberstadt and Eaton 2003). Being raised in a family characterized by aversive parenting practices and negative affective interactions socializes negative emotionality (i.e., experienced NA) and fosters increased emotional reactivity (Morris et al. 2007). A two-factor affect conceptualization suggests that a youth’s greater negative emotional experiences should increase risk for the symptoms common to both anxiety and depression (i.e., NA). Indeed, as indicators of a negative family emotional climate, certain aversive parenting behaviors (i.e., psychological control, negative emotion expressiveness) have been shown to be common risks for both youth anxiety and depression. Compared to parents of youth low in internalizing distress, parents of depressed (e.g., Barber 1996; McLeod et al. 2007a,
J Abnorm Child Psychol
b; Soenens et al. 2008) and especially of anxious youth (e.g., Hudson and Rapee 2001; McLeod et al. 2007a, b; Moore et al. 2004; Siqueland et al. 1996) have been found to engage in more psychologically-controlling behavior (e.g., guilt induction, love withdrawal). Psychologically-controlling parents tend to be emotionally coercive, autonomy-limiting, and may model dysregulated affective experiences (Morris et al. 2007). This parenting style limits the development of behavioral competence and may influence affective experiences, in turn contributing to symptomatology (e.g., Nanda et al. 2012). Some evidence also suggests that family emotional expressiveness is related to both anxiety and depression. Broadly, Stocker et al. (2007) found that the degree to which negative emotions are expressed in families was associated with increased symptoms of both youth anxiety and depression, though the study’s use of a combined internalizing scale limits conclusions about joint versus differential risk. Another study found overall expressiveness (i.e., both positive and negative emotions) to be less prevalent in families of anxietydisordered youth than controls (Suveg et al. 2005), but again, conclusions about joint versus differential risk are limited by the lack of a group of depressed youth in this study. The best evidence to date that negative expressiveness is related to both anxiety and depression comes from study of adolescents in which observed parental aggressive affect during a family interaction task predicted increased depression and anxiety over the course of approximately two years (Schwartz et al. 2012). Although psychological control may be conceptually distinct from expressiveness of negative emotions in the family, both involve high levels of expressed criticism and overt attempts to convey displeasure. Further, they have often been considered together as facets of a negative emotional climate (Darling and Steinberg 1993; Morris et al. 2007). Consistent with evidence supporting the broader two-factor affect model, we hypothesized that high parental control and family expressiveness of negative emotions would be common risks for both anxiety and depression by way of increased NA. In contrast to the deleterious effects of living in a negative family emotional climate, being raised in a positive emotional climate is thought to buffer development of youth psychopathology. A supportive and nurturing family can increase youth experiences of PA as well as help children develop the emotion regulation skills necessary to offset the impact of various risks such as biological vulnerabilities or adverse life events (e.g., Silk et al. 2007). Relatively speaking, more work examining youth maladaptive outcomes has focused on the presence of aversive family processes than the absence of supportive relationships within families. Yet, being raised in a family lacking in displays of warmth, joy, happiness, and similar emotions may specifically disrupt socialization of PA and youth’s experiences of positive emotions. Following the logic of the two-factor affect model, such difficulties in experienced PA put youth uniquely at risk for experiencing
depression. Indeed, low levels of parental warmth, usually defined as parental acceptance, responsiveness to the child’s needs, flexibility, and praise, have been consistently associated with greater youth depressive symptoms (e.g., Barrera and Garrison-Jones 1992; Sheeber and Sorensen 1998), but relatively unrelated to anxiety (Gruner, et al. 1999; Siqueland et al. 1996; though see Hudson and Rapee 2001; Pedersen 1994). Further, recent reviews have suggested that the existing evidence base more strongly links negative parental behaviors (such as criticism and hostility) to childhood anxiety than deficits in positive parental behaviors (Ginsburg et al. 2005; McLeod et al. 2007a, b). Parental warmth is often partially operationalized as the verbal expression of PA directed towards the child. As a distinct construct, expressiveness of positive emotions has been under-studied in relation to youth depression or anxiety. One study of college-aged women, however, found depression to be uniquely related to lower positive family expressiveness (Cooley 1992). In adolescents, less reciprocity of positive affective language by family members is associated with increased depressive symptomatology (Yap et al. 2010), and low level of parental expressed positive emotion predicts increased depression over time (Schwartz et al. 2012). Building on the two-factor affect framework, we hypothesized that a family emotional climate comprised of low parental warmth and low expressiveness of positive emotions would be a specific risk for low PA, and in turn, depression. Overall, existing evidence from separate literatures suggests that a family characterized by high levels of negativity is linked to both anxiety and depression, whereas a family low in positive parent–child interactions appears to be uniquely associated with youth depression but not necessarily anxiety. Few studies have simultaneously included both negative and positive parenting behaviors while also assessing both anxiety and depression in order to directly test questions of specificity. The findings from Schwartz and colleagues (2012), cited in piecemeal above, indicated that observed parental aggression in parent-adolescent interactions predicted increases in both anxious and depressive symptoms for youth over the course of 1 year, whereas low observed parental positivity attenuated increases in depression, but not anxiety, over the same time period. Together, findings suggest a need to attend not only to the presence of negative interactions, but also to the absence of positive interactions. The current study addressed this issue by considering positive and negative emotional climate separately in an attempt to explain common and unique relations to youth symptomatology via youths experienced affect.
Experienced Affect as Mediator Theorists have called for empirical work examining affective experience as a mediator through which family processes
J Abnorm Child Psychol
relate to internalizing distress (Morris et al. 2007; Kendall and Ollendick 2004). Though untested directly to date, extant studies support this link. For instance, parent communication that overemphasizes caution and protection has been found to lead to increased youth NA and subsequent anxiety (Barrett et al. 1996). Likewise, children of emotionally-expressive parents are also more likely to express greater levels of similar emotions (Halberstadt et al. 1999). In families that routinely express considerable sadness and fear, youth may be socialized to experience these same emotions (Halberstadt and Eaton 2003), an overabundance of which may confer risk for both anxiety and depression. The current study advances the literature by explicitly testing separate positive and negative emotional pathways from family interactions to youth symptomatology via experienced affect. In our model, an overabundance of negativity within relationships is posited to place youth at risk for developing internalizing symptoms via greater experienced NA. A relative paucity of positivity within relationships is expected to uniquely influence development of depressive symptoms by reducing opportunities for youth to experience positive emotions.
The Current Study The current study synthesizes and extends previous research regarding the role of family processes in the development, maintenance, and differentiation of anxiety and depression symptoms in a sample of early adolescents and their mothers. Early adolescence is an ideal developmental period for an initial investigation of an expanded socioaffective specificity model. Mean age of onset for both youth anxiety disorders and depression fall in this age range (e.g., ages 10–15; though earlier for anxiety than depression), and prevalence of symptoms increase during this developmental period as well (Hammen and Rudolph 2003; Verhulst 2001). Early adolescents still rely on parents for emotional support but may also come into conflict over issues of autonomy (Laursen et al. 1998), making parental warmth and control important at this age. Early adolescents also begin to navigate emotional situations independently using newly-developed, not-yet-honed emotion regulation skills, but still with parental cues (Eisenberg et al. 1998). Disruption in emotional experiences during this time of amplified autonomy may help explain increased onset of anxiety and depression (e.g., Bosquet and Egeland 2006). The study had two aims. First, we examined relations of family emotion-related behaviors to anxious and depressive symptoms. Consistent with a two-factor affect conceptualization, we hypothesized that negative family emotional climate behaviors (i.e., maternal psychological control and family expressiveness of negative emotions) would be nonspecific risk factors for both anxiety and depression. In contrast, low
levels of positive family emotional climate behaviors (i.e., maternal warmth and family expressiveness of positive emotions) were expected to be unique risks for depression, but not anxiety. Second, we investigated whether NA and PA differentially mediated the relations of family variables to internalizing symptoms. We consider this aim to be more exploratory given the cross-sectional nature of our data. Because NA and PA experiences are typically orthogonal, we expected distinct, valenced mediational pathways to emerge. Specifically, we expected negative emotional climate to be associated with increased NA, and subsequently both anxiety and depression symptoms. Conversely, we expected low levels of positivity in the family to be associated with depression via its influence on youths’ experienced PA (see Fig. 1).
Methods Participants Participants were adolescents in 7th–9th grades, and one or two parents, randomly selected from the enrollment roster of a public school district in central Missouri. Parents or legal guardians of potential participants received a letter explaining the study and a phone call requesting their child’s and at least one parent’s participation. Of 492 parents reached by telephone, 147 (30 %) agreed to attend the lab visit. No information (e.g., demographics) was available in order to compare those families who agreed to participate with those who did not. Of participants, 24 were accompanied by two caretakers living in the home, 110 by only the primary female caretaker, and 13 by only the male caretaker. Because family perceptions may differ for maternal and paternal caretakers (Sheeber et al. 2007), only participants whose female caregiver attended the lab session (alone or with the male caregiver) were included in analyses. A total of 134 early adolescents (65 girls), ranging in age from 12 to 15 years old (M=13.60, SD=0.91), were ultimately included. Participants were approximately evenly divided across seventh (34 %), eighth (30 %), and ninth grades (36 %). Boys and girls were equally distributed across grade level, χ2(2)=2.05, p=0.36. Parent-identified race/ethnicity of the youth was mostly Caucasian (86 %; one participant was further identified Hispanic/Latino), with 6 % AfricanAmerican, 3 % Asian/Asian-America, and 4 % Biracial/ Mixed Race. One participant’s ethnicity was listed as “other,” and one participant’s parent declined to answer this item. Female caregivers (referred to as “mothers”) were primarily biological mothers (83.58 %). Two were step-parents, two were adoptive parents, and one was a grandmother. Many respondents (12.69 %) did not indicate their relationship and this high rate of missingness was likely due to confusion on the part of the respondent due to poor placement of this
J Abnorm Child Psychol
question on the demographics form itself. Unfortunately, recognition of this missingness did not occur until after families participated. Recall, however, that living in the home with the adolescent was a primary inclusion criterion for participation. Mothers ranged from 29 to 60 years in age (M=43.82; SD=6.05), and most were married or remarried (i.e., had a spouse in the home; 75 %). Twenty-four mothers (18 %) were divorced and not remarried, three were separated (2 %), and six were never married (4 %). Independent t-tests indicated no differences on any study measure between those children whose mother indicated having a spouse in the home (n=100) versus those without a spouse in the home (n=34; all Bonferroni-corrected ps>0.05). Families were primarily middle- to upper-income, with 20 % of families’ yearly incomes fell below $40,000, 51 % between $40,000 and $100,000, and 29 % over $100,000. Measures Several measures were completed by both youth and their mothers, with additional measures completed by youth only or mothers only. As noted below, wording of measures completed by both adolescents and mothers was altered slightly so that it was clear who was the subject of responding. Mother and Youth Report C h i l d R e p o r t o f P a re n t B e h a v i o r I n v e n t o r y – Acceptance (CRPBI-A; Schaefer 1965). The CRPBI-A is a measure of parental warmth, support, and sensitivity. Respondents indicate the extent to which his or her parent exhibits each of 10 behaviors on a scale of 1 (not like her/him), 2 (somewhat like her/him), or 3 (a lot like her/him). Questions begin with “My mother (father) is a person who…,” followed by behaviors such as “smiles at me often.” Only data about maternal acceptance were used (α=0.90 for adolescents). For mother-reported perceptions of their own parenting, item stems were reworded to begin “I am the type of parent who…” (α=0.83). Scores from youth on the CRPBI – A are internally consistent and stable across time (Schluderman & Schluderman 1970). Scores are related to positive adjustment, to parent and child reports of positive family relations, and to observers’ reports of positive parent–child interactions (Kim Park et al. 2008). Psychological Control Scale (PCS; Barber 1996). This 8-item scale assesses parental levels of psychological control. Questions begin with the stem “My mother (father) is a person who…,” and the adolescent uses a 3-point scale (1=not like her/him, 2=somewhat like her/him, 3=A lot like her/him) to indicate the extent to which his or her parent exhibits intrusive and stifling behaviors (e.g., “often interrupts me” “is always trying to change how I feel or think about things”). Only data
on maternal parenting (adolescent α=0.69) was used. Mothers completed questions that began with the stem “I am the type of parent who…” (α=0.73). The PCS has demonstrated adequate internal consistency in multiple samples (αs=0.80–0.83 across family members) and across gender-concordant and discordant parent–child relationships (e.g., mother-son, father-daughter; Barber 1996). The PCS has been associated with observer-rated psychological control and poorer adjustment outcomes, yet is distinct from behavioral control (e.g., monitoring; Barber 1996). Family Expressiveness Questionnaire (FEQ; Halberstadt 1986). Respondents use a 9-point scale (1 = not at all frequently to 9=very frequently) to endorse how often 40 emotional expressions are demonstrated in the family (e.g., “How often does someone in your family try to cheer up another family member who is sad?”). For the current study, the mean item score for Positive and Negative subscales (20 items each) were used. The FEQ has adequate short-term test-retest reliability (e.g., 0.89 to 0.92) and internal consistency (αs=0.75 to 0.88; Halberstadt 1986). The positive and negative subscales of the FEQ correlate with verbal and nonverbal self-expressiveness of both PA and NA, reported expression of specific emotions, and social interactions (Halberstadt 1986). Coefficient alpha was 0.92 and 0.88 for adolescent- and 0.90 and 0.89 for mother-reported positive and negative expressiveness. Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs 1992). The CDI assesses somatic, cognitive, affective, and behavioral symptoms of youth depression. For each of 27 items, participants endorse one of three statements about their feelings in the past two weeks (e.g., I like myself, I do not like myself, I hate myself). Items are scored from 0–2 and summed to provide a total score; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms. Youth reported on their own symptoms (α=0.90), whereas parents reported their perceptions of their child’s symptoms (α=0.90; see Lobovits and Handal 1985, for evidence of parents as valid reporters of youth depression). Because of Institutional Review Board concern, the suicidal ideation item (item 9) was excluded, and raw scores were used. The CDI has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency across varying samples (Kovacs 1992; Smucker et al. 1986), test-retest reliability over varying lengths of time (Smucker et al. 1986), and has demonstrated good convergent validity with other measures of depression (Hodges 1990). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children – Trait Version (STAIC-T; Spielberger 1973). The STAIC-T assesses multiple aspects of youth trait anxiety. For 20 statements (e.g., “I worry too much”), participants indicate whether each is hardly ever (scored 1), sometimes (2), or often (3) true for them. Youth self-report and mother-report of adolescent
J Abnorm Child Psychol
symptoms were used (see Southam-Gerow et al. 2003, regarding parents as valid reporters of youth anxiety). The STAIC-T has shown internal consistency, moderate test-retest reliability, and good convergent validity (Hodges 1990; Spielberger 1973).
family interactions and adjustment, and (b) contact information for local youth and family mental health services (including free services). Finally, all family members were thanked, paid $10 apiece for participation, and entered into a drawing for a $100 mall gift card (given to one family chosen at random at the project’s completion).
Youth Report Only Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ; Angold et al. 1995). The SMFQ was used as a second measure of adolescent self-reported depressive symptoms. Asked about “recent” feelings, participants indicate how true each of 13 items (e.g., “I felt miserable or unhappy”) is for them using a 3-point scale of 0 (Not True), 1 (Sometimes True), or 2 (True). The SMFQ is valid for use with youth 8–16 years old, correlates strongly with clinical interviews, and discriminates between depressed and non-depressed youth (Angold et al. 1995). Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children – Short Form (MASC-10; March et al. 1997). This 10-item measure of anxiety is appropriate for youth ages 8–19 years old. Youth endorse how often they experience specific anxious symptoms (e.g., “I worry a lot of the time”) on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (often). Items are empiricallyderived from the larger, 39-item MASC. The MASC-10 correlates strongly with the long-form of the MASC. It has shown adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and good convergent and discriminant validity in diverse populations across ages (March et al. 1997; March et al. 1999). Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent et al. 1999). The PANAS-C measured adolescents’ experienced affect. Summed scores for 12 items assessing positive affect (PA subscale; α=0.91) and 15 assessing negative affect (NA subscale; α=0.90) in the past few weeks are calculated separately. For each item, youth rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from very slightly or not at all to extremely) how much they have been experiencing a specific emotional state (e.g., happy, sad). The PANAS-C is reliable and valid for use with adolescents in community settings, and it has demonstrated convergent and discriminate validity with measures of anxiety and depression (Laurent et al. 1999). Procedure At a university-based laboratory, adolescents’ primary caretakers provided written consent for their own and their child’s participation, and youth provided written assent. After any questions regarding consent were answered, parents and youth completed the battery of measures in separate rooms. Following the data collection, all families were given a resource list containing (a) written resources (e.g., books, websites) on
Results Preliminary Analyses Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of adolescent age, sex, and adolescent- and mother-rated family processes, affect, and symptoms are shown in Tables 1 and 2. As might be expected in a community sample, adolescents’ reports of their own depression (CDI and SMFQ; skew=1.79 and 2.28, respectively) and mothers’ reports of adolescents’ depressive symptoms (skew=1.58) were each moderately, positively skewed. Given that skew was small to moderate and to increase interpretability, data were not transformed for analyses. At the bivariate level, two intercorrelation patterns are noteworthy. First, strong associations emerged within reporters. For both mothers and adolescents, positive family processes (i.e., family positive emotion expressiveness and maternal warmth) were moderately to strongly interrelated (rs ranged from 0.49 to 0.61), and maternal psychological control and expression of negative emotions were also positively, though somewhat more modestly, correlated in each group (r=0.39 and 0.36 for mothers and adolescents, respectively). Positive and negative family characteristics were generally inversely related, with one exception regarding family emotion expressiveness. For adolescents, positive and negative emotion expressiveness were related (r=0.19), but for mothers, they were unrelated (r=−0.01). Second, with one exception, there was significant concordance across reporters on identical measures. Concordance was highest for depression and anxiety measures. Only psychological control scores were not significantly correlated across adolescent- and mother–report. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to test for mean differences within demographic variables (i.e., adolescent sex, grade in school, ethnicity, and parental marital status) for all variables. Different-aged youth may be in the same grade (or vice versa), so age was also examined in relation to other study variables. No differences on any variable emerged based on parental marital status, ethnicity, or grade in school. There was a significant correlation between age and adolescents’ perceptions of their mothers’ psychological control (r=0.18, p
Positive and Negative Family Emotional Climate Differentially Predict Youth Anxiety and Depression via Distinct Affective Pathways Aaron M. Luebbe & Debora J. Bell
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract A socioaffective specificity model was tested in which positive and negative affect differentially mediated relations of family emotional climate to youth internalizing symptoms. Participants were 134 7th-9th grade adolescents (65 girls; 86 % Caucasian) and mothers who completed measures of emotion-related family processes, experienced affect, anxiety, and depression. Results suggested that a family environment characterized by maternal psychological control and family negative emotion expressiveness predicted greater anxiety and depression, and was mediated by experienced negative affect. Conversely, a family emotional environment characterized by low maternal warmth and low positive emotion expressiveness predicted only depression, and was mediated through lowered experienced positive affect. This study synthesizes a theoretical model of typical family emotion socialization with an extant affect-based model of shared and unique aspects of anxiety and depression symptom expression. Keywords Anxiety . Depression . Emotional climate . Emotional expressiveness . Warmth . Psychological control . Adolescent Depressed youth and anxious youth often present clinically with overlapping symptoms. Measures of youth anxious and depressive symptoms typically correlate 0.40–0.50, with
A. M. Luebbe (*) Department of Psychology, Miami University, 100 Psychology Building, 90 N. Patterson Ave, Oxford, OH 45056, USA e-mail: [email protected] D. J. Bell Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri – Columbia, Columbia, MO, USA
comorbidity as high as 60 % for the two disorders (Brady and Kendall 1992). In adults, the tripartite model of anxiety and depression was developed to explain the frequent comorbidity of these two disorders as well as the distinguishing components of each (Clark and Watson 1991). Soon thereafter, the model was applied to youth populations (Joiner et al. 1996). In the tripartite model, anxiety and depression overlap is explained by general negative affect (NA), or feeling “unpleasantly engaged.” Depression, but not anxiety, is posited to be uniquely characterized by low positive affect (PA) or an inability to feel happiness or pleasure. In original writings, anxiety, but not depression, was posited to be uniquely associated with physiological hyperarousal (PH). Later empirical work has suggested, however, that this relation may apply only to certain anxiety disorders (e.g., panic) or that the considerable overlap between PH and NA limits PH’s unique predictive utility (Chorpita et al. 2000). Especially in samples of children and adolescents, the two affective factors (NA and PA) in the tripartite model have been most consistently associated with anxiety and depression, and studies repeatedly support the orthogonality of these factors in both community and clinical samples (Anderson and Hope 2008). To date, the two-factor affect model (i.e., the PA and NA components of the tripartite model) has been limited mainly to describing symptoms of anxiety and depression, rather than to questions of symptom development and maintenance. Expanding this affect framework to also include environmental factors known to contribute to psychological maladjustment is warranted, and doing so may help explain both shared and distinct aspects of these highly comorbid disorders. Recent developmental theory offers a starting point for such an expansion. Morris et al. (2007) proposed a model in which three types of parental emotion socialization behaviors, (a) emotion modeling, (b) specific parenting practices (e.g., emotion coaching), and (c) the family emotional climate are each hypothesized to influence youths’ emotion regulation
J Abnorm Child Psychol
abilities, and in turn, their psychosocial adjustment. Family emotional climate seems like a particularly promising addition to an expanded two-factor affect model because it is an umbrella construct comprised of extensive elements such as parenting style and family emotion expressiveness. The model of Morris and colleagues is limited, however, in that emotional climate is conceptualized broadly without separating positive and negative aspects, and the model does not speak to specificity of relations to certain adjustment outcomes as does the two-factor affect model. Thus, our current study examines a socioaffective specificity model whereby positive and negative family emotional climate are proposed to differentially relate to experienced NA and PA, and by extension, anxiety and depression. Our study aims to synergize the affective components of the tripartite model of anxiety and depression with a potentially explanatory, though untested, environmental model of symptom development. And, although Morris’s model focuses on emotion regulation whereas the two-factor affect model focuses on experienced affect, we adopt a view akin to Campos and colleagues (2004) who argue that experience, expression, and regulation of emotion are interwoven and interacting processes. For this study, however, we test experienced affect, in particular, as a potential mechanism explaining the relation between emotional climate and youth symptomatology. Because we focus on emotional climate, and given that NA and PA, but not PH, have been the most consistently supported components of the tripartite model (Anderson and Hope 2008), our model focuses on potentially explaining only NA and PA pathways. Figure 1 is a schematic representation of our newly-expanded socioaffective specificity model tested in the current studies. Conceptualizing youth anxiety and depression with this expanded model advances the literature in two primary ways. First, our model considers the family environment, a fundamental context given parents’ and children’s direct influence on one another (Repetti et al. 2002), as a differential predictor of certain anxiety and depressive symptoms. Though some links of family relationships to internalizing symptoms have been examined, only one study of which we are aware (Schwartz et al. 2012) has specifically tested the differential prediction of anxious and depressive symptoms that the tripartite model implies. Second, our conceptualization prompts attention to both positive and negative emotional experiences. Despite their potential for differentiating depression and anxiety, and their promise as treatment targets that can promote child and family health, PA processes have been relatively understudied compared to NA processes (Yap et al. 2007). Our model proposes that the family environment contributes to adolescents’ anxiety and depressive symptoms via its specific influence on youths’ PA and NA. As an initial test of this model we examined differential relations of various family processes to youth depression and anxiety, as well as hypothesized mediation of these relations via youth PA and NA.
Emotional Climate of the Family
Negative Emotional Enviro.
(Less) Positive Emotional Enviro.
Experienced Affect
Negative Affect
(Low) Positive Affect
Youth Anxiety
Youth Depression Adjustment
Fig. 1 The newly-created socioaffective specificity model. Constructs in circles correspond to the affective components of the original tripartite model of anxiety and depression (Clark and Watson 1991). As there is tepid empirical support for the role of physiological hyperarousal as a separate and unique predictor of anxiety, this component was not considered in the current study. Constructs in gray boxes (with gray paths) and labeled in italics correspond to Morris and colleagues’ (2007) theoretical mediational model of parental emotion socialization, affect regulation, and youth adjustment. Constructs in hexagons indicate novel components of the combined model. Bolded constructs and pathways represent the hypothesized socioaffective tripartite model to be tested in the current study
Family Emotional Climate’s Common and Differential Prediction of Anxiety and Depression The emotional climate of a given family is determined by several processes including specific parenting behaviors as well as when, how much, and what types of emotions are expressed by members (i.e., emotional expressiveness; Halberstadt and Eaton 2003). Being raised in a family characterized by aversive parenting practices and negative affective interactions socializes negative emotionality (i.e., experienced NA) and fosters increased emotional reactivity (Morris et al. 2007). A two-factor affect conceptualization suggests that a youth’s greater negative emotional experiences should increase risk for the symptoms common to both anxiety and depression (i.e., NA). Indeed, as indicators of a negative family emotional climate, certain aversive parenting behaviors (i.e., psychological control, negative emotion expressiveness) have been shown to be common risks for both youth anxiety and depression. Compared to parents of youth low in internalizing distress, parents of depressed (e.g., Barber 1996; McLeod et al. 2007a,
J Abnorm Child Psychol
b; Soenens et al. 2008) and especially of anxious youth (e.g., Hudson and Rapee 2001; McLeod et al. 2007a, b; Moore et al. 2004; Siqueland et al. 1996) have been found to engage in more psychologically-controlling behavior (e.g., guilt induction, love withdrawal). Psychologically-controlling parents tend to be emotionally coercive, autonomy-limiting, and may model dysregulated affective experiences (Morris et al. 2007). This parenting style limits the development of behavioral competence and may influence affective experiences, in turn contributing to symptomatology (e.g., Nanda et al. 2012). Some evidence also suggests that family emotional expressiveness is related to both anxiety and depression. Broadly, Stocker et al. (2007) found that the degree to which negative emotions are expressed in families was associated with increased symptoms of both youth anxiety and depression, though the study’s use of a combined internalizing scale limits conclusions about joint versus differential risk. Another study found overall expressiveness (i.e., both positive and negative emotions) to be less prevalent in families of anxietydisordered youth than controls (Suveg et al. 2005), but again, conclusions about joint versus differential risk are limited by the lack of a group of depressed youth in this study. The best evidence to date that negative expressiveness is related to both anxiety and depression comes from study of adolescents in which observed parental aggressive affect during a family interaction task predicted increased depression and anxiety over the course of approximately two years (Schwartz et al. 2012). Although psychological control may be conceptually distinct from expressiveness of negative emotions in the family, both involve high levels of expressed criticism and overt attempts to convey displeasure. Further, they have often been considered together as facets of a negative emotional climate (Darling and Steinberg 1993; Morris et al. 2007). Consistent with evidence supporting the broader two-factor affect model, we hypothesized that high parental control and family expressiveness of negative emotions would be common risks for both anxiety and depression by way of increased NA. In contrast to the deleterious effects of living in a negative family emotional climate, being raised in a positive emotional climate is thought to buffer development of youth psychopathology. A supportive and nurturing family can increase youth experiences of PA as well as help children develop the emotion regulation skills necessary to offset the impact of various risks such as biological vulnerabilities or adverse life events (e.g., Silk et al. 2007). Relatively speaking, more work examining youth maladaptive outcomes has focused on the presence of aversive family processes than the absence of supportive relationships within families. Yet, being raised in a family lacking in displays of warmth, joy, happiness, and similar emotions may specifically disrupt socialization of PA and youth’s experiences of positive emotions. Following the logic of the two-factor affect model, such difficulties in experienced PA put youth uniquely at risk for experiencing
depression. Indeed, low levels of parental warmth, usually defined as parental acceptance, responsiveness to the child’s needs, flexibility, and praise, have been consistently associated with greater youth depressive symptoms (e.g., Barrera and Garrison-Jones 1992; Sheeber and Sorensen 1998), but relatively unrelated to anxiety (Gruner, et al. 1999; Siqueland et al. 1996; though see Hudson and Rapee 2001; Pedersen 1994). Further, recent reviews have suggested that the existing evidence base more strongly links negative parental behaviors (such as criticism and hostility) to childhood anxiety than deficits in positive parental behaviors (Ginsburg et al. 2005; McLeod et al. 2007a, b). Parental warmth is often partially operationalized as the verbal expression of PA directed towards the child. As a distinct construct, expressiveness of positive emotions has been under-studied in relation to youth depression or anxiety. One study of college-aged women, however, found depression to be uniquely related to lower positive family expressiveness (Cooley 1992). In adolescents, less reciprocity of positive affective language by family members is associated with increased depressive symptomatology (Yap et al. 2010), and low level of parental expressed positive emotion predicts increased depression over time (Schwartz et al. 2012). Building on the two-factor affect framework, we hypothesized that a family emotional climate comprised of low parental warmth and low expressiveness of positive emotions would be a specific risk for low PA, and in turn, depression. Overall, existing evidence from separate literatures suggests that a family characterized by high levels of negativity is linked to both anxiety and depression, whereas a family low in positive parent–child interactions appears to be uniquely associated with youth depression but not necessarily anxiety. Few studies have simultaneously included both negative and positive parenting behaviors while also assessing both anxiety and depression in order to directly test questions of specificity. The findings from Schwartz and colleagues (2012), cited in piecemeal above, indicated that observed parental aggression in parent-adolescent interactions predicted increases in both anxious and depressive symptoms for youth over the course of 1 year, whereas low observed parental positivity attenuated increases in depression, but not anxiety, over the same time period. Together, findings suggest a need to attend not only to the presence of negative interactions, but also to the absence of positive interactions. The current study addressed this issue by considering positive and negative emotional climate separately in an attempt to explain common and unique relations to youth symptomatology via youths experienced affect.
Experienced Affect as Mediator Theorists have called for empirical work examining affective experience as a mediator through which family processes
J Abnorm Child Psychol
relate to internalizing distress (Morris et al. 2007; Kendall and Ollendick 2004). Though untested directly to date, extant studies support this link. For instance, parent communication that overemphasizes caution and protection has been found to lead to increased youth NA and subsequent anxiety (Barrett et al. 1996). Likewise, children of emotionally-expressive parents are also more likely to express greater levels of similar emotions (Halberstadt et al. 1999). In families that routinely express considerable sadness and fear, youth may be socialized to experience these same emotions (Halberstadt and Eaton 2003), an overabundance of which may confer risk for both anxiety and depression. The current study advances the literature by explicitly testing separate positive and negative emotional pathways from family interactions to youth symptomatology via experienced affect. In our model, an overabundance of negativity within relationships is posited to place youth at risk for developing internalizing symptoms via greater experienced NA. A relative paucity of positivity within relationships is expected to uniquely influence development of depressive symptoms by reducing opportunities for youth to experience positive emotions.
The Current Study The current study synthesizes and extends previous research regarding the role of family processes in the development, maintenance, and differentiation of anxiety and depression symptoms in a sample of early adolescents and their mothers. Early adolescence is an ideal developmental period for an initial investigation of an expanded socioaffective specificity model. Mean age of onset for both youth anxiety disorders and depression fall in this age range (e.g., ages 10–15; though earlier for anxiety than depression), and prevalence of symptoms increase during this developmental period as well (Hammen and Rudolph 2003; Verhulst 2001). Early adolescents still rely on parents for emotional support but may also come into conflict over issues of autonomy (Laursen et al. 1998), making parental warmth and control important at this age. Early adolescents also begin to navigate emotional situations independently using newly-developed, not-yet-honed emotion regulation skills, but still with parental cues (Eisenberg et al. 1998). Disruption in emotional experiences during this time of amplified autonomy may help explain increased onset of anxiety and depression (e.g., Bosquet and Egeland 2006). The study had two aims. First, we examined relations of family emotion-related behaviors to anxious and depressive symptoms. Consistent with a two-factor affect conceptualization, we hypothesized that negative family emotional climate behaviors (i.e., maternal psychological control and family expressiveness of negative emotions) would be nonspecific risk factors for both anxiety and depression. In contrast, low
levels of positive family emotional climate behaviors (i.e., maternal warmth and family expressiveness of positive emotions) were expected to be unique risks for depression, but not anxiety. Second, we investigated whether NA and PA differentially mediated the relations of family variables to internalizing symptoms. We consider this aim to be more exploratory given the cross-sectional nature of our data. Because NA and PA experiences are typically orthogonal, we expected distinct, valenced mediational pathways to emerge. Specifically, we expected negative emotional climate to be associated with increased NA, and subsequently both anxiety and depression symptoms. Conversely, we expected low levels of positivity in the family to be associated with depression via its influence on youths’ experienced PA (see Fig. 1).
Methods Participants Participants were adolescents in 7th–9th grades, and one or two parents, randomly selected from the enrollment roster of a public school district in central Missouri. Parents or legal guardians of potential participants received a letter explaining the study and a phone call requesting their child’s and at least one parent’s participation. Of 492 parents reached by telephone, 147 (30 %) agreed to attend the lab visit. No information (e.g., demographics) was available in order to compare those families who agreed to participate with those who did not. Of participants, 24 were accompanied by two caretakers living in the home, 110 by only the primary female caretaker, and 13 by only the male caretaker. Because family perceptions may differ for maternal and paternal caretakers (Sheeber et al. 2007), only participants whose female caregiver attended the lab session (alone or with the male caregiver) were included in analyses. A total of 134 early adolescents (65 girls), ranging in age from 12 to 15 years old (M=13.60, SD=0.91), were ultimately included. Participants were approximately evenly divided across seventh (34 %), eighth (30 %), and ninth grades (36 %). Boys and girls were equally distributed across grade level, χ2(2)=2.05, p=0.36. Parent-identified race/ethnicity of the youth was mostly Caucasian (86 %; one participant was further identified Hispanic/Latino), with 6 % AfricanAmerican, 3 % Asian/Asian-America, and 4 % Biracial/ Mixed Race. One participant’s ethnicity was listed as “other,” and one participant’s parent declined to answer this item. Female caregivers (referred to as “mothers”) were primarily biological mothers (83.58 %). Two were step-parents, two were adoptive parents, and one was a grandmother. Many respondents (12.69 %) did not indicate their relationship and this high rate of missingness was likely due to confusion on the part of the respondent due to poor placement of this
J Abnorm Child Psychol
question on the demographics form itself. Unfortunately, recognition of this missingness did not occur until after families participated. Recall, however, that living in the home with the adolescent was a primary inclusion criterion for participation. Mothers ranged from 29 to 60 years in age (M=43.82; SD=6.05), and most were married or remarried (i.e., had a spouse in the home; 75 %). Twenty-four mothers (18 %) were divorced and not remarried, three were separated (2 %), and six were never married (4 %). Independent t-tests indicated no differences on any study measure between those children whose mother indicated having a spouse in the home (n=100) versus those without a spouse in the home (n=34; all Bonferroni-corrected ps>0.05). Families were primarily middle- to upper-income, with 20 % of families’ yearly incomes fell below $40,000, 51 % between $40,000 and $100,000, and 29 % over $100,000. Measures Several measures were completed by both youth and their mothers, with additional measures completed by youth only or mothers only. As noted below, wording of measures completed by both adolescents and mothers was altered slightly so that it was clear who was the subject of responding. Mother and Youth Report C h i l d R e p o r t o f P a re n t B e h a v i o r I n v e n t o r y – Acceptance (CRPBI-A; Schaefer 1965). The CRPBI-A is a measure of parental warmth, support, and sensitivity. Respondents indicate the extent to which his or her parent exhibits each of 10 behaviors on a scale of 1 (not like her/him), 2 (somewhat like her/him), or 3 (a lot like her/him). Questions begin with “My mother (father) is a person who…,” followed by behaviors such as “smiles at me often.” Only data about maternal acceptance were used (α=0.90 for adolescents). For mother-reported perceptions of their own parenting, item stems were reworded to begin “I am the type of parent who…” (α=0.83). Scores from youth on the CRPBI – A are internally consistent and stable across time (Schluderman & Schluderman 1970). Scores are related to positive adjustment, to parent and child reports of positive family relations, and to observers’ reports of positive parent–child interactions (Kim Park et al. 2008). Psychological Control Scale (PCS; Barber 1996). This 8-item scale assesses parental levels of psychological control. Questions begin with the stem “My mother (father) is a person who…,” and the adolescent uses a 3-point scale (1=not like her/him, 2=somewhat like her/him, 3=A lot like her/him) to indicate the extent to which his or her parent exhibits intrusive and stifling behaviors (e.g., “often interrupts me” “is always trying to change how I feel or think about things”). Only data
on maternal parenting (adolescent α=0.69) was used. Mothers completed questions that began with the stem “I am the type of parent who…” (α=0.73). The PCS has demonstrated adequate internal consistency in multiple samples (αs=0.80–0.83 across family members) and across gender-concordant and discordant parent–child relationships (e.g., mother-son, father-daughter; Barber 1996). The PCS has been associated with observer-rated psychological control and poorer adjustment outcomes, yet is distinct from behavioral control (e.g., monitoring; Barber 1996). Family Expressiveness Questionnaire (FEQ; Halberstadt 1986). Respondents use a 9-point scale (1 = not at all frequently to 9=very frequently) to endorse how often 40 emotional expressions are demonstrated in the family (e.g., “How often does someone in your family try to cheer up another family member who is sad?”). For the current study, the mean item score for Positive and Negative subscales (20 items each) were used. The FEQ has adequate short-term test-retest reliability (e.g., 0.89 to 0.92) and internal consistency (αs=0.75 to 0.88; Halberstadt 1986). The positive and negative subscales of the FEQ correlate with verbal and nonverbal self-expressiveness of both PA and NA, reported expression of specific emotions, and social interactions (Halberstadt 1986). Coefficient alpha was 0.92 and 0.88 for adolescent- and 0.90 and 0.89 for mother-reported positive and negative expressiveness. Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs 1992). The CDI assesses somatic, cognitive, affective, and behavioral symptoms of youth depression. For each of 27 items, participants endorse one of three statements about their feelings in the past two weeks (e.g., I like myself, I do not like myself, I hate myself). Items are scored from 0–2 and summed to provide a total score; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms. Youth reported on their own symptoms (α=0.90), whereas parents reported their perceptions of their child’s symptoms (α=0.90; see Lobovits and Handal 1985, for evidence of parents as valid reporters of youth depression). Because of Institutional Review Board concern, the suicidal ideation item (item 9) was excluded, and raw scores were used. The CDI has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency across varying samples (Kovacs 1992; Smucker et al. 1986), test-retest reliability over varying lengths of time (Smucker et al. 1986), and has demonstrated good convergent validity with other measures of depression (Hodges 1990). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children – Trait Version (STAIC-T; Spielberger 1973). The STAIC-T assesses multiple aspects of youth trait anxiety. For 20 statements (e.g., “I worry too much”), participants indicate whether each is hardly ever (scored 1), sometimes (2), or often (3) true for them. Youth self-report and mother-report of adolescent
J Abnorm Child Psychol
symptoms were used (see Southam-Gerow et al. 2003, regarding parents as valid reporters of youth anxiety). The STAIC-T has shown internal consistency, moderate test-retest reliability, and good convergent validity (Hodges 1990; Spielberger 1973).
family interactions and adjustment, and (b) contact information for local youth and family mental health services (including free services). Finally, all family members were thanked, paid $10 apiece for participation, and entered into a drawing for a $100 mall gift card (given to one family chosen at random at the project’s completion).
Youth Report Only Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ; Angold et al. 1995). The SMFQ was used as a second measure of adolescent self-reported depressive symptoms. Asked about “recent” feelings, participants indicate how true each of 13 items (e.g., “I felt miserable or unhappy”) is for them using a 3-point scale of 0 (Not True), 1 (Sometimes True), or 2 (True). The SMFQ is valid for use with youth 8–16 years old, correlates strongly with clinical interviews, and discriminates between depressed and non-depressed youth (Angold et al. 1995). Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children – Short Form (MASC-10; March et al. 1997). This 10-item measure of anxiety is appropriate for youth ages 8–19 years old. Youth endorse how often they experience specific anxious symptoms (e.g., “I worry a lot of the time”) on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (often). Items are empiricallyderived from the larger, 39-item MASC. The MASC-10 correlates strongly with the long-form of the MASC. It has shown adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and good convergent and discriminant validity in diverse populations across ages (March et al. 1997; March et al. 1999). Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent et al. 1999). The PANAS-C measured adolescents’ experienced affect. Summed scores for 12 items assessing positive affect (PA subscale; α=0.91) and 15 assessing negative affect (NA subscale; α=0.90) in the past few weeks are calculated separately. For each item, youth rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from very slightly or not at all to extremely) how much they have been experiencing a specific emotional state (e.g., happy, sad). The PANAS-C is reliable and valid for use with adolescents in community settings, and it has demonstrated convergent and discriminate validity with measures of anxiety and depression (Laurent et al. 1999). Procedure At a university-based laboratory, adolescents’ primary caretakers provided written consent for their own and their child’s participation, and youth provided written assent. After any questions regarding consent were answered, parents and youth completed the battery of measures in separate rooms. Following the data collection, all families were given a resource list containing (a) written resources (e.g., books, websites) on
Results Preliminary Analyses Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of adolescent age, sex, and adolescent- and mother-rated family processes, affect, and symptoms are shown in Tables 1 and 2. As might be expected in a community sample, adolescents’ reports of their own depression (CDI and SMFQ; skew=1.79 and 2.28, respectively) and mothers’ reports of adolescents’ depressive symptoms (skew=1.58) were each moderately, positively skewed. Given that skew was small to moderate and to increase interpretability, data were not transformed for analyses. At the bivariate level, two intercorrelation patterns are noteworthy. First, strong associations emerged within reporters. For both mothers and adolescents, positive family processes (i.e., family positive emotion expressiveness and maternal warmth) were moderately to strongly interrelated (rs ranged from 0.49 to 0.61), and maternal psychological control and expression of negative emotions were also positively, though somewhat more modestly, correlated in each group (r=0.39 and 0.36 for mothers and adolescents, respectively). Positive and negative family characteristics were generally inversely related, with one exception regarding family emotion expressiveness. For adolescents, positive and negative emotion expressiveness were related (r=0.19), but for mothers, they were unrelated (r=−0.01). Second, with one exception, there was significant concordance across reporters on identical measures. Concordance was highest for depression and anxiety measures. Only psychological control scores were not significantly correlated across adolescent- and mother–report. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to test for mean differences within demographic variables (i.e., adolescent sex, grade in school, ethnicity, and parental marital status) for all variables. Different-aged youth may be in the same grade (or vice versa), so age was also examined in relation to other study variables. No differences on any variable emerged based on parental marital status, ethnicity, or grade in school. There was a significant correlation between age and adolescents’ perceptions of their mothers’ psychological control (r=0.18, p
