Latent profiles of parent-child agreement and divergence in parental warmth and correlates with interparental conflict

• In Event: Lost in conceptualization? Seeking new insights by examining the function and context of parenting practices

Abstract

Warm and supportive parenting is key throughout childhood and adolescence for preventing negative developmental outcomes like maladjustment and substance use (Pinquart, 2017). Children’s transition to middle school represents a time of family vulnerability to stress in which warm parenting can be particularly impactful. However, studies using multi-informant designs have documented that parents and children rarely agree in their reports of parenting behaviors, usually showing small or medium correlations (Van Heel et al., 2019). Certain patterns of parent-child divergence and agreement seem to be particularly powerful in predicting negative developmental outcomes. For instance, parent-child agreement about low-quality parenting is predictive of internalizing and externalizing problems, but divergence in parent-child reports of parenting can be equally predictive (De Los Reyes & Ohennessian, 2016). Although studies of multi-informant reports of parenting have been informative in predicting risk for child outcomes, studies typically combined parent reports or examined dyads separately (e.g., mother- and father-child relationships studied separately), ignoring the fact that these dyads exist in the same system. The current study uses latent profile analysis (LPA) to holistically characterize the child’s perceptions of both parents’ warmth and their divergence or agreement with parent reports; associations with child gender and family conflict are examined to better inform targeting of intervention.
The current study utilized a sample of 687 mother-father-child triads (MChildAge = 11.3, SD = 0.5; MFatherAge = 41.2, SD = 6.8; MMotherAge = 38.9, SD = 5.6) to identify patterns of parent-child divergence and agreement in reports of parental warmth. We then examined whether family contextual variables were associated with membership in particular profiles. Indicators of latent profiles were: child report of maternal warmth, child report of paternal warmth, youth-mother discrepancy, and youth-father discrepancy. Discrepancies were calculated by subtracting parent reports from respective child reports; parent self-reports were left out due to redundancy. LPA identified 5 patterns of parent-child agreement and divergence in reports of parental warmth (Figure 1): Positive Youth-Parent Divergence (59%), characterized by high child reports of parental warmth and overestimation of warmth compared to both parents; Negative Youth-Mother Divergence (22%), characterized by low child reports of maternal warmth and underestimation of warmth compared to mothers only; Negative Youth-Parent Divergence (11%), characterized by low child reports of parental warmth and underestimation of warmth compared to both parents; Negative Youth-Father Divergence (5%), characterized by low child reports of paternal warmth and underestimation compared to fathers only; and High-Risk Youth-Parent Divergence (3%), characterized by very low child reports of warmth and significant underestimation of warmth compared to both parents. Using the 3-step method (Vermunt, 2010), interparental conflict (IPC) and child gender were examined as concurrent predictors of profile membership, with Positive Youth-Parent Divergence used as the reference profile. Results (Table 1) indicated that higher child-reported IPC was associated with greater likelihood of membership in the Negative Youth-Parent Divergence, Negative Youth-Father Divergence, and High-Risk Youth-Parent Divergence profiles. Higher father-reported IPC was associated with higher probability of membership in the Negative Youth-Mother Divergence profile. Implications for child development, family science, and prevention science will be discussed.

Authors

• Carlie Sloan, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
  Presenting Author

• Stephanie T. Lanza, Penn State

• Emily Lobraico

• Mark E. Feinberg, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

• Gregory M Fosco, Pennsylvania State University, University Park