Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Poster #63 - The Role of Parental Distress Tolerance and Parental Distress Reactions in Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms

Thu, March 21, 4:00 to 5:15pm, Baltimore Convention Center, Floor: Level 1, Exhibit Hall B

Integrative Statement

Background: Parents’ negative reactions to children’s experience of distress are linked with negative socioemotional outcomes for children (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Murphy, 1996). This may be particularly true of parents with low distress tolerance (DT). According to a recent study, distress intolerance in parents was associated with higher rates of psychopathology in their children (Morford, Cookston, & Hagan, 2017). However, research examining these variables together in relation to adolescent psychopathology is lacking. The current study examined if (1) parents’ distress reactions to their children’s negative emotions mediated the relation between parental DT and youth emotional reactivity, and (2) parental distress reactions were associated with elevations in youths’ reactions to actual daily stressors which, in turn, led to greater increases in youth internalizing symptoms over time.

Method: Participants for this longitudinal study included 98 adolescents (44% female, Mage = 16.37) and their parents. Parents (86% female) were administered measures of their own DT (Distress Tolerance Scale; Simon and Gaher, 2005), and reactions to their children’s negative emotions (Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale; Fabes, Eisenberg, & Bernzweig, 1990). Adolescents completed a self-report measure of internalizing symptoms (Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale; Chorpita, Yim, Moffitt, Umemoto, & Francis, 2000) and participated in a Cyberball game (a ball-tossing computerized game, measuring affective reactions due to peer ostracization). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule – Children (Laurent et al., 1999) was administered before and after the game and emotional reactivity was computed by assessing change in adolescents’ pre- and post-task negative affect. Adolescents were then asked to complete a measure of life events and event-related perceived distress each day for two weeks (Adolescent Perceived Events Scale; Compas et al., 1987); an index of distress response was calculated by adding ratings of distress and averaging them over the total number of reported life events. Adolescents completed the same internalizing symptoms tool at the end of the two-week period.

Results: First, we examined a parallel multiple mediator model of the relationship between parental DT and their reactions to children’s negative emotions with youths’ emotional reactivity to stress. Parents’ distress reactions linked parental DT and youth’s emotional reactivity to an experimentally-induced stressor (ind. eff. = -.02, bias-corrected 95% CI = -.06 to - .003); i.e. parents with low DT reacted with greater distress to their children’s negative emotions, which in turn was associated with greater emotional reactivity in the child. Next, we examined a mediation model in which parental distress reactions predicted changes in youth psychopathology via increases in youths’ event-related distress over a two-week period. The indirect effect was significant (ind. eff. = 1.66, bias-corrected 95% CI = .20 to – 3.35), indicating that greater parental distress reactions predicted elevations in youths’ distress reactions to daily life events, which, in turn, were associated with increases in adolescent internalizing symptoms.

Conclusion: Findings add to the understanding of the subject matter, throwing light on the intergenerational transmission of emotional expression. The study has clinical implications that underline the importance of examining the role of parental influences while working with adolescents.

Authors