Parenting / Families
Interactive effects of parental warmth and emotion reactivity on adolescent emotion reactivity
Leah D. Church, B.A.
Graduate Student
University of Delaware
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Ruby Smith, B.A.
Research Assistant
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware, United States
Nadia Bounoua, Ph.D.
Assistant Research Professor
University of Maryland- College Park
Columbia, Maryland, United States
Julia Merker, B.S.
Graduate Student
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware, United States
Jeffrey M. Spielberg, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware, United States
Background: Heightened emotional reactivity is a key transdiagnostic factor for the development of anxiety and depression. Theoretical frameworks suggest that the general family environment, and parents’ own reactivity, impacts the development of kids' emotional reactivity. Yet, there remains a paucity of research exploring the potential interactive effects between parents’ own reactivity and parenting practices (e.g., warmth) on the development of adolescent emotional reactivity. Advancing our understanding of such factors is critical, given that heightened reactivity, potentially due to weaker regulation, is known to be a risk factor for anxiety and depression. Moreover, this vulnerability may be particularly impactful for youth living in harsher family environments. The present study addressed these gaps in the literature by testing whether parental warmth moderated the relationship between parental emotional reactivity and adolescent emotional reactivity.
Methods: Data were collected from 136 adolescent-parent dyads (youth M/SDage= 11.79/.69; 58.1% female; 98.5% biological mothers). Parents and adolescents completed the Emotion Reactivity Scale to assess individuals’ experience of emotion reactivity. Parents also completed the Parenting Practices Questionnaire to assess global parenting dimensions (i.e., authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive). Hierarchical linear regression analyses were conducted to test the study hypothesis.
Results: There was no main effect of parental emotional reactivity predicting adolescent emotional reactivity. However, analyses revealed a significant 2-way interaction between parental warmth and parental emotional reactivity predicting adolescent emotional reactivity (𝜷 = -2.06, t(130) = -2.11, p = .04). Specifically, in those with higher levels of parental emotional reactivity, higher parental warmth appeared to blunt adolescent emotional reactivity.
Conclusion: Although a growing field of research has examined the role of parents in youth emotion regulation development, less is known about parents’ role in their child’s emotional reactivity, particularly in adolescence. Our results showed that, in a sample of early adolescents, parental warmth moderated the relationship between parental emotional reactivity and youth emotional reactivity. One possible interpretation of this finding is that parental warmth may be a protective factor against alterations in emotional reactivity in adolescence, even among parents with heightened emotional reactivity. Results from the present study add to the literature by examining the role of parental traits and family factors on emotional reactivity in adolescence, a developmental period typically associated with decreased warmth and support in the parent-child relationship. These findings provide unique clinical implications by suggesting that increasing or maintaining parental warmth in the transition into adolescence may serve to decrease risk for psychopathology.