Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:12:19.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elaborating on premature adolescent autonomy: Linking variation in daily family processes to developmental risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2019

Gregory M. Fosco  and
Emily J. LoBraico
Gregory M. Fosco*
Affiliation:
Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
Emily J. LoBraico
Affiliation:
Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Gregory M. Fosco, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, 306 Biobehavioral Health Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA or gmf19@psu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study revisits the premature autonomy model by examining parents’ use of positive behavior support (PBS) practices on a daily timescale to better understand underlying processes in developmental changes in family disengagement and the implications for adolescent problem behavior and substance use. This study included 151 9th and 10th grade adolescents (61.5% female) and their caregivers, who participated in a baseline assessment, a 21-day daily diary burst, and a 1-year follow-up assessment. Four key findings emerged: (a) on days when parents used more PBS, adolescents felt more close and connected to their caregivers; (b) adolescents who exhibited a larger-magnitude of change in connectedness with caregivers in relation to variation in positive parenting (termed fragile connectedness) were at higher risk for antisocial behavior, deviant peer involvement, and substance use one year later; (c) individual differences in initial levels of antisocial behavior and effortful control accounted for between-person variation in fragile connectedness; and (d) day-level adolescent anger and parent–adolescent conflict predicted within-family variation in parents’ use of PBS. Implications for the premature autonomy model and intervention science are discussed.

Keywords

adolescent substance useantisocial behaviorfamily processparent-adolescent relationshipspremature adolescent autonomy
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 31 , Special Issue 5: Honoring the Contributions and Legacy of Thomas Dishion , December 2019 , pp. 1741 - 1755
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackard, D. M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Perry, C. (2006). Parent–child connectedness and behavioral and emotional health among adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.013Google Scholar
Ackerman, R. A., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. D. (2011). Positive-engagement behaviors in observed family interactions: A social relations perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 719–730. doi:10.1037/a0025288Google Scholar
Almeida, D. M. (2005). Resilience and vunerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 64–68. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00336.xGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908. doi:10.1037/a0017376Google Scholar
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An Introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Boyce, W., & Ellis, B. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 271–301.Google Scholar
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K., & Carrano, J. (2006). The father-child risk behaviors in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 850–881. doi:10.1177/0192513X05285296Google Scholar
Capaldi, D. M., & Rothbart, M. K. (1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 153–173.Google Scholar
Caruthers, A. S., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2014). Preventing high-risk sexual behavior in early adulthood with family interventions in adolescence: Outcomes and developmental processes. Prevention Science, 15, 59–69. doi:10.1007/s11121-013-0383-9Google Scholar
Charles, S. T., Piazza, J. R., Mogle, J., Sliwinski, M. J., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). The wear and tear of daily stressors on mental health. Psychological Science, 24, 733–741. doi:10.1177/0956797612462222Google Scholar
Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 917–929.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J. (2015). An evolutionary framework for understanding coercion and aggression. In Dishion, T. J. & Snyder, J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics (Vol. 1, pp. 1–27). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324552.013.6Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., Burraston, B., & Li, F. (2003). A multimethod and multitrait analysis of family management practices: Convergent and predictive validity. In Sloboda, Z. & Bukoski, W. J. (Eds.), Handbook for drug abuse prevention theory, science, and practice (pp. 587–607). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Dishion, T., Forgatch, M., & Chamberlain, P. (2016). ScienceDirect the Oregon model of behavior family therapy: From intervention design to promoting large-scale system change. Behavior Therapy, 47, 812–837. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2016.02.002Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61–75.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy: Parent disengagement and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 515–530.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). The Family Check-Up with high-risk adolescents: Preventing early onset substance use by parent monitoring. Behavior Therapy, 34, 553–571.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1999). Model building in developmental psychopathology: A pragmatic approach to understanding and intervention. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 502–512.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., Poulin, F., & Skaggs, N. M. (2000). The ecology of premature autonomy in adolescence: Biological and social influences. In Kerns, K., Contreras, J. M., & Neal-Barnett, A. M. (Eds.), Family and peers: Linking two social worlds (pp. 27–45). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D., Connell, A., Gardner, F., Weaver, C., & Wilson, M. (2008). The Family Check-Up with high-risk indigent families: Preventing problem behavior by increasing parents’ positive behavior support in early childhood. Child Development, 79, 1395–1414. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01195.xGoogle Scholar
Dishion, T. J., & Snyder, J. (2015). Coercion Dynamics. In Dishion, T. J. & Snyder, J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics (Vol. 1, pp. 1–14). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324552.013.29Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2007). Intervening in children's lives: An ecological, family-centered approach to mental health care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., Stormshak, E. A., & Kavanagh, K. (2012). Everyday parenting: A therapist's guide for supporting family management practices. Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
Dishion, T. J., & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 189–214. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. L., Liew, J., Zhou, Q., Losoya, S. H., … Cumberland, A. (2009). Longitudinal relations of children's effortful control, impulsivity, and negative emotionality to their externalizing, internalizing, and co-occurring behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 45, 988–1008. doi:10.1037/a0016213Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Giudice, M. Del, Dishion, T. J., Gray, P., Hawley, P. H., Jacobs, W. J., … Wilson, D. S. (2012). The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science, policy, and practice. Developmental Psychology, 48, 598–623. doi:10.1037/a0026220Google Scholar
Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (1999). Early adolescent temperament questionnaire––Revised. Unpublished instrument. Unpublished instrument. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Fosco, G. M., Frank, J. L., Stormshak, E.A., & Dishion, T. J. (2013). Opening the “Black Box”: Family check-up intervention effects on self-regulation that prevents growth in problem behavior and substance use. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 455–468. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.02.001Google Scholar
Fosco, G. M., & LoBraico, E. J. (2018). A family systems framework for adolescent antisocial behavior: The state of the science and suggestions for the future. In Feise, B. H., Celano, M., Deater-Deckard, K., Jouriles, E., & Whisman, M. (Eds.), APA handbook of contemporary family psychology (pp. 53–68). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Fosco, G. M., & Lydon-Staley, D. M. (2019). A within-family examination of interparental conflict, cognitive appraisals, and adolescent mood and well-being. Child Development, 90, e421–e436. doi:10.1111/cdev.12997Google Scholar
Fosco, G. M., Mak, H. W., Ramos, A., LoBraico, E., & Lippold, M. (2019). Exploring the promise of assessing dynamic characteristics of the family for predicting adolescent risk outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60, 848–856. doi:10.111/jcpp.13052Google Scholar
Fosco, G. M., Stormshak, E. A., Dishion, T. J., & Winter, C. E. (2012). Family relationships and parental monitoring during middle school as predictors of early adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41, 202–213. doi:10.1080/15374416.2012.651989Google Scholar
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.Google Scholar
Johnston, L. D., Miech, R. A., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Patrick, M. E. (2018). Key findings on adolescent drug use. Monitoring the future: national survey results on drug use 1975–2017. Ann Arrbor: Institue for Social Research, The University of Michigan. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004Google Scholar
Josephson, A. M., & AACAP Work Group on Quality Issues. (2007). Practice parameter for the assessment of the family. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 922–937. doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e318054e713Google Scholar
Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., Frijns, T., Finkenauer, C., & Meeus, W. (2010). Gender differences in keeping secrets from parents in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 46, 293–298. doi:10.1037/a0018115Google Scholar
Klostermann, S., Connell, A., & Stormshak, E. A. (2016). Gender differences in the developmental links between conduct problems and depression across early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 76–89. doi:10.1111/jora.12170Google Scholar
Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752–768.Google Scholar
Laurenceau, J. P., & Bolger, N. (2005). Using diary methods to study marital and family processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 86–97. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.86Google Scholar
Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.), The handbook of parenting (pp. 189–225). Mahwah: Laurence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Liew, J. (2012). Effortful control, executive functions, and education: Bringing self-regulatory and social-emotional competencies to the table. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 105–111. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00196.xGoogle Scholar
Lippold, M. A., Fosco, G. M., Hussong, A. M., & Ram, N. (2019). Child effects on lability in parents’ warmth and hostility: The moderating role of parents’ internalizing problems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48, 963–978. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-00983-7.Google Scholar
Lippold, M. A., Fosco, G. M., Ram, N., & Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Knowledge lability: Within-person changes in parental knowledge and their associations with adolescent problem behavior. Prevention Science, 17, 274–283. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0604-5Google Scholar
LoBraico, E. J., Fosco, G. M., Crowley, M. D., Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., & Feinberg, M. E. (2019). Examihning intervention component dosage effects on substance use initiation in the Strengthening Families program: For parents and youth ages 10–14. Prevention Science, 20, 852–862.Google Scholar
Lunkenheimer, E. S., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Connell, A. M., Gardner, F., Wilson, M. N., & Skuban, E. M. (2008). Collateral benefits of the Family Check-Up on early childhood school readiness: Indirect effects of parents’ positive behavior support. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1737–1752. doi:10.1037/a0013858Google Scholar
Lunkenheimer, E., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Hollenstein, T., Kemp, C. J., & Granic, I. (2016). Breaking down the coercive cycle: How parent and child risk factors influence real-time variability in parental responses to child misbehavior. Parenting, 16, 237–256. doi:10.1080/15295192.2016.1184925Google Scholar
Nigg, J. T. (2017). Annual research review: On the relations among self-regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 58, 361–383. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12675Google Scholar
Ong, A. D., & Ram, N. (2017). fragile and enduring positive affect: Implications for adaptive aging. Gerontology, 63, 263–269. doi:10.1159/000453357Google Scholar
Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2010). Cascading effects following intervention, 22, 949–970. doi:10.1017/S0954579410000568Google Scholar
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys: A social interactional approach. Eugene: Castalia Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Piazza, J. R., Charles, S. T., Sliwinski, M. J., Mogle, J., & Almeida, D. M. (2013). Affective reactivity to daily stressors and long-term risk of reporting a chronic physical health condition. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45, 110–120. doi:10.1007/s12160-012-9423-0Google Scholar
Pluess, M. (2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 138–143. doi:10.1111/cdep.12120Google Scholar
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901–916. doi:10.1037/a0030196Google Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 207–213. doi:10.1177/1754073910387943Google Scholar
Shaw, D. S., Forgatch, M. S., Fishbein, D. H., & Sandler, I. N. (2018). Editorial: The life and contributions of Thomas Dishion. Prevention Science, 19, 849–852. doi:10.1007/s11121-018-0934-1Google Scholar
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32. doi:10.1002/9781118384404.ch20Google Scholar
Stormshak, E., DeGarmo, D., Chronister, K., & Caruthers, A. (2018). The impact of family-centered prevention on self-regulation and subsequent long-term risk in emerging adults. Prevention Science, 19, 549–558. doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0852-7Google Scholar
Stormshak, E. A., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2010). Implementing interventions with families in schools to increase youth school engagement: The Family Check-Up model. School Mental Health, 2, 82–92.Google Scholar
Sweitzer, M. M., Halder, I., Flory, J. D., Craig, A. E., Gianaros, P. J., Ferrell, R. E., & Manuck, S. B. (2013). Polymorphic variation in the dopamine D4 receptor predicts delay discounting as a function of childhood socioeconomic status: Evidence for differential susceptibility. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 499–508. doi:10.1093/scan/nss020Google Scholar
Van Ryzin, M. J., & Nowicka, P. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of a family-based intervention in early adolescence on parent-youth relationship quality, late adolescent health, and early adult obesity. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 106–116. doi:10.1037/a0031428Google Scholar
Van Ryzin, M. J., Roseth, C. J., Fosco, G. M., Lee, Y. K., & Chen, I. C. (2016). A component-centered meta-analysis of family-based prevention programs for adolescent substance use. Clinical Psychology Review, 45, 72–80. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.007Google Scholar