(PS12-14) Balancing Emotion Socialization Responses to Positive Affect Reported by Indian Adolescents Are Also Found in the U.S. and Are Linked to Less Generalized Anxiety Symptoms

Positive affect (PA) is disrupted in adolescents with internalizing symptoms (Anderson & Hope, 2008). Caregivers communicate rules for expressing PA through emotion socialization (ES), including by responding to PA (Eisenberg et al., 1998). Responses may enhance (e.g., capitalize, increase engagement) or dampen (e.g., minimize, punish; Katz et al., 2014) PA. A study with adolescents in Bangalore, India also found balancing responses to PA (e.g., moderating emotional responses; Wick, 2022). This response type has not been examined with U.S. adolescents, which may be a crucial omission to understanding caregiver PA ES. Further, PA ES has been tested in relation to depression primarily, despite evidence that some forms of anxiety (i.e., social) are characterized by disrupted PA whereas others are not (e.g., generalized; Brown et al., 1998). Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we tested if a three-factor structure of PA ES behaviors in the U.S. replicated findings from India (Aim1). We then tested if ensuing PA ES factors uniquely related to depressive, generalized anxiety, and social anxiety symptoms (Aim2).

Undergraduate students (n=605, Mage=19.07±1.2, 64.5% Women, 85.0% White, 94.9% Non-Hispanic/Latinx) at a public Midwestern university completed an online survey during the 2021-2022 academic year. Participants retrospectively reported on caregiver ES responses to PA during adolescence (adapted Responding to Adolescents’ Happy Affect Scale; Katz et al., 2014), and current depressive (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), generalized anxiety (Penn State Worry Questionnaire; Meyer et al., 1990), and social anxiety (Social Interaction Anxiety Scale; Mattick & Clarke, 1998) symptoms.

A CFA indicated the 3-factor ES model found in Bangalore (enhancing, dampening, and balancing factors) was reasonably replicated in the current sample (RMSEA=.057, CFI=.881, SRMR=.079). In contrast to the India sample, which found a small positive correlation of balancing to both enhancing and dampening, we found a small, but significant, inverse correlation between enhancing and balancing (r=-.29) and a large positive correlation between dampening and balancing (r=.79). Given this, we tested if a 2-factor model fit significantly worse than the 3 factor model, finding that it did (Satorra-Bentler scaled Δχ2(2)=43.65, p< .001). Linear regression results indicated that enhancing responses predicted less depressive symptoms (β=-1.033, p< .001) and less social anxiety symptoms (β=-2.417, p< .001), while balancing responses predicted less generalized anxiety symptoms (β=-1.642, p=.022).

Although results supported a 3-factor model of PA ES behaviors as was found in India, the relations among factors suggest culturally-relevant variations, particularly in how balancing behaviors are interpreted by youth. PA ES related to symptoms, consistent with the updated tripartite theory (Brown et al., 1998) suggesting that enhancing responses may buffer depressive and social anxiety symptoms. A novel contribution was that balancing responses appear to buffer generalized anxiety symptoms. Intervention during adolescence to increase caregiver enhancing and balancing responses may reduce later symptoms.