Better, for worse, or both? Testing environmental sensitivity models with parenting at the level of individual families

26Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

According to environmental sensitivity models, children vary in responsivity to parenting. However, different models propose different patterns, with responsivity to primarily: (1) adverse parenting (adverse sensitive); or (2) supportive parenting (vantage sensitive); or (3) to both (differentially susceptible). This preregistered study tested whether these three responsivity patterns coexist. We used intensive longitudinal data of Dutch adolescents (N = 256, M age = 14.8, 72% female) who bi-weekly reported on adverse and supportive parenting and their psychological functioning (t mean = 17.7, t max = 26). Dynamic Structural Equation Models (DSEM) indeed revealed differential parenting effects. As hypothesized, we found that all three responsivity patterns coexisted in our sample: 5% were adverse sensitive, 3% vantage sensitive, and 26% differentially susceptible. No adolescent appeared unsusceptible, however. Instead, we labeled 28% as unperceptive, because they did not perceive any changes in parenting and scored lower on trait environmental sensitivity than others. Furthermore, unexpected patterns emerged, with 37% responding contrary to parenting theories (e.g., decreased psychological functioning after more parental support). Sensitivity analyses with concurrent effects and parent-reported parenting were performed. Overall, findings indicate that theorized responsivity-to-parenting patterns might coexist in the population, and that there are other, previously undetected patterns that go beyond environmental sensitivity models.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Boele, S., Bülow, A., De Haan, A., Denissen, J. J. A., & Keijsers, L. (2024). Better, for worse, or both? Testing environmental sensitivity models with parenting at the level of individual families. Development and Psychopathology, 36(2), 674–690. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579422001493

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free