Poster #159 - Youth Negative Affect as a Mediator of the Association between Parenting and Impulse Control

• In Event: 1-169 - Poster Session 04
  In Poster Session: PS 04 Section - Parenting & Parent-Child Relationships

Integrative Statement

Objective: Impulse control is linked to a myriad of positive outcomes in adolescence, including high academic achievement and low substance use. While different parenting styles are known to contribute to the development of impulse control, the mechanisms through which this occurs are largely unknown. Existing research shows that emotional arousal can compromise youths’ ability to inhibit unwanted impulses. In the present study, we examined longitudinal associations between coercive and autonomy supportive parenting and impulse control. We hypothesized that autonomy supportive parenting would facilitate the development of impulse control, while coercive parenting would dampen it. Additionally, we hypothesized that youth negative affect would mediate the associations of autonomy supportive and coercive parenting with impulse control.
Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of a longitudinal dataset designed to examine predictors and outcomes of decision making involvement in youth with a chronic illness. Participants included 117 youth (ages 8-16 years) with type 1 diabetes and their parents. Youth and parents were assessed five times over two years. Using a cohort sequential design, we estimated the growth trajectory of self-reported impulse control from age 8 to 18. Youths’ perception of parental coercion and autonomy support were used as predictors of change in impulse control. Youth negative affect (measured using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale) was tested as a mediator using multilevel modeling in Mplus.
Results: The best fitting growth model for impulse control had a significant intercept and linear slope, and significant within- (level 1) and between-person (level 2; around intercept) variance. Coercive parenting was negatively associated with impulse control at both level 1 (β= -0.30, p< 0.001) and level 2 (β= -0.03, p< 0.01). Coercive parenting was also associated with higher negative affect in youth at level 1 (β=0.27, p<0.001) and level 2 (β =0.26, p<0.01). Higher youth negative affect was, in turn, associated with lower impulse control, both within- and between individuals. Youth negative affect mediated the link between coercive parenting and impulse control at both level 1 (indirect effect: β= -0.07, p< 0.01) and level 2 (β= -0.13, p< 0.05). Autonomy supportive parenting was positively associated with impulse control at level 2 only (β= 0.54, p< 0.01), but was not associated with youth negative affect at level 2. Thus, youth negative affect was not a significant mediator in the association between autonomy supportive parenting and impulse control.
Conclusion: In general, youth who perceived their parents as more autonomy supportive had higher overall impulse control. In contrast, youth who perceived their parents as more coercive had lower overall impulse control, and on occasions when youth perceived their parents as more coercive than usual, they exhibited lower impulse control than would be predicted by the age-related trajectory. These effects appeared to be mediated via more negative affect in youth. These findings suggest that youth affect may be a mechanism through which coercive parenting negatively impacts the development of impulse control. Interventions designed to help youth cope with negative emotions may buffer the unfavorable effects of coercive parenting on impulse control.

Authors

• Karol Silva, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
  Presenting Author

• Victoria Miller, children's hospital of philadelphia
  Non-Presenting Author