Are puberty status and age interchangeable when examining differences in parental emotion socialization during adolescence?

• In Event: Poster Session 12
  In Poster Session: PS 12 Topic - Social, Emotional, Personality

Abstract

The ways in which parents socialize their children’s emotional expressivity change as a function of their child’s age (Lam et al., 2014; Perry et al., 2020). When documenting developmental differences in parental emotion socialization (ES), studies typically conceptualize development as synonymous with chronological age (Brand & Klimes-Dougan, 2010). Research regarding predictors of psychopathology, however, posit that an adolescent’s pubertal stage may be as important a predictor as age (e.g., Rudolph et al., 2006). Given that emotionality increases with the onset of puberty, ES practices may change in response to pubertal status. Our research investigated whether parental ES responses differed when examined by youth age vs pubertal status. The role of adolescent gender was also investigated.
Participants were 202 adolescents (75.1% White, middle-class, Mage = 12.68 years, 51.7% girls) and their parents (94.7% mothers). Parents completed the Pubertal Development Scale (Petersen et al., 1988). Pubertal stage was defined as early puberty (32.2% of sample), mid puberty (33.3%), and late puberty (34.5%). The age variable was created by using tertiles that represented young (38.5% of sample; Mage = 140.33 months), middle (46.3%; Mage = 155.62) and old (15.1%, Mage = 171.84) groups. Parents also completed the Emotions Expressed as a Child (Magai, 1996) that assesses five parental responses to their child’s anger, sadness, and worry.
The 3 (age group) x 2 (gender) MANOVA revealed a marginally significant interaction for Reward, F(10, 290) = 2.67, p = .07; ηp2 = .04. Examining gender differences within age groups, boys received significantly less validation than girls in the older age group. A main effect of age for Neglect emerged, F(2, 162) = 2.97, p = .05; ηp2 =.04, such that parents ignored the emotions of the middle age group more than the younger age group. The second MANOVA examined ES by pubertal status and gender. There was a significant interaction for Neglect, F(10, 286) = 4.08, p = .02; ηp2= .05, and a marginally significant interaction for Reward, F(10, 286) = 2.83, p = .06; ηp2= .04. When examining gender differences within puberty category, there were no significant gender differences between groups for neglect. However, there was a marginally significant group difference for girls such that parents ignored the emotions in the late than middle puberty group. For Reward, boys received more validation than girls during late puberty. There was a significant group main effect for Magnify, F(2, 159) = 4.03, p = .02; ηp2= .05, such that the early puberty group received significantly less magnification of emotions than the mid puberty group.
Results highlight the need to consider different markers of development when analyzing data. The markers may yield different findings and insights about the mechanisms underlying ES processes.

Authors

• Molly Hale, University of Georgia
  Presenting Author

• Janice L Zeman, William and Mary
  Non-Presenting Author