Interactive Contribution of Observed Mother-Youth Emotional Climate and Youth Physiology: A Biopsychosocial Approach to Understanding Youth Coping With Peer Stress

Abstract

We examined the prospective associations between two indicators of mother-youth emotional climate (i.e., maternal affect, dyadic cohesiveness) during a peer problem discussion and youth coping with peer stress following entry into middle school. We also investigated youth baseline respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) as a moderator of these associations given its role in physiological stress regulation. Participants were 100 mother-youth dyads (53% boys; M_age = 11.05 years; 43% ethnic minorities). More positive maternal affect at Time 1 (spring of 5th grade) was associated with more primary and secondary control engagement coping and advice-seeking at Time 2 (fall of 6th grade); greater dyadic cohesiveness was prospectively linked with more advice-seeking only. Further, the positive association between maternal affect and primary control coping was only evident for youth who showed lower (not higher) baseline RSA. We discuss implications for jointly considering the mother-youth relational context and youth physiological regulatory capacity towards understanding coping socialization.

Keywords

coping stress emotional climate parasympathetic nervous system respiratory sinus arrhythmia early adolescence

The transition to middle school, marked by changes in youths’ peer groups and social environment, often introduces new or heightens existing peer problems and can be demanding for youth to navigate (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008). Further, these ecological changes are situated in the broader context of early adolescence characterized by rapid biological, psychological, and social development. Amidst such developmental and environmental turbulence, youth are encouraged or socialized to manage peer challenges with increasing capability and autonomy (Wray-Lake et al., 2010) while adapting to the novel (and usually stressful) peer experiences associated with pubertal maturation (Pfeifer & Allen, 2021). Effectively coping with peer challenges can protect youth against maladjustment (for a meta-analytic review, see Compas et al., 2017), warranting more understanding of how youth acquire and utilize coping abilities during this unique developmental period.

Mothers are important agents in socializing youth coping. Mounting evidence points to the beneficial role of parental coping suggestions (specific strategies for how to deal with the stressor; Kliewer et al., 1994, 1996). In contrast, the emotional climate (e.g., expression of affect, cohesiveness) during mother-youth discussions about youths’ peer challenges has received less attention but may contribute uniquely to socialization outcomes as it reflects the quality of the day-to-day mother-youth relational context in which direct socialization practices occur (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Moreover, biopsychosocial perspectives (e.g., Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Ellis et al., 2011; Zuckerman, 1999) highlight individual’s physiological stress response system functioning and its interaction with the parenting environment to influence youth functioning. Accordingly, the extent to which mother-youth emotional climate promotes youths’ adaptive coping may depend on youths’ physiological regulatory capacity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to examine how (a) indicators of mother-youth emotional climate observed during a discussion about a youth peer problem and (b) youth physiological regulatory capacity may independently and interactively contribute to youth coping with peer stress across the transition to middle school in a sample of typically developing youth.

Coping With Peer Stress in Early Adolescence

Coping is defined as “conscious volitional efforts to regulate emotion, cognition, behavior, physiology, and the environment in response to stressful events or circumstances” (Compas et al., 2001, p. 89). A main aim of the peer stress and coping literature is to identify coping strategies that can help to reduce negative peer experiences and the negative effects of peer stress. Specifically, peer stress has been conceptualized as “negative experiences with peers or friends that evoke emotional, physical, and psychological arousal and exert significant pressure on an individual’s ability to function adaptively” (Sontag et al., 2008, p. 1161). There is growing evidence about the potential benefits of engagement coping (i.e., responses directed towards the stressor or one’s reaction to the stressor; Connor-Smith et al., 2000). Specifically, engagement coping responses allow youth to approach the stressor in a goal-oriented manner and closely attend to their stress responses, and thus may lay a foundation of better adjustment in general (e.g., fewer behavioral and emotional problems, greater social competence; Compas et al., 2017). Engagement coping can be further categorized into primary and secondary control engagement coping (Connor-Smith et al., 2000). Although both represent efforts to assert control in response to stress, primary control engagement coping allows youth to directly act on and alter the stressor or one’s reaction to the stressor by analyzing the situation, identifying manageable aspects, generating constructive solutions, and regulating negative emotions, whereas secondary control engagement coping facilitates adaptation and accommodation to the stressor via cognitive reappraisal and forming positive cognitions about the stressor or self (Connor-Smith et al., 2000). Nonetheless, both primary and secondary control engagement coping with peer stress have been linked with fewer symptoms of psychopathology among children and adolescents (e.g., Compas et al., 2017; Jaser et al., 2007).

In addition, seeking advice from parents about how to handle peer problems is a strategy distinct from engagement coping responses involving interpersonal versus intrapersonal processes and, for that reason, may be unique in supporting youths’ coping approaches. Although not directly associated with lower levels of psychopathology (Compas et al., 2017), seeking support from social networks (e.g., parents) may help to expand opportunities for youth to acquire appropriate coping strategies, mitigate the effects of current stressors, and prepare for future challenges, thereby contributing to successful coping with stress (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1993; Rueger et al., 2016). Therefore, it is vital to understand contributing factors to youths’ acquisition and utilization of engagement coping and advice-seeking from parents given their relatively well-established associations with youth adjustment and well-being reviewed above.

Contributions of Observed Mother-Youth Emotional Climate

Among a variety of ways through which mothers contribute to the development of coping (Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2016), what youth are taught (i.e., mothers’ suggestions on what to do or how to think in the face of a peer problem) has received far more attention than how youth are taught (i.e., the context or emotional climate in which these discussions occur). In the broader literature on parental socialization, emotional climate reflects a constellation of parental attitudes, affect, and beliefs toward the youth that constitutes the context of socialization (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Kliewer et al., 1994). Accordingly, emotional climate is considered conceptually independent of concrete, goal-directed coaching practices in contributing to youth coping and can set the stage for growth in peer competence in general by altering adolescent receptivity (e.g., Gregson et al., 2016; Mize & Pettit, 1997). Therefore, how emotional climate contributes to coping with peer stress merits investigation. Further, we focus on mothers’ expression of affect (namely maternal affect) and dyads’ flow of communication or coordination that characterizes their closeness (namely dyadic cohesiveness)––two of the most salient aspects of mother-youth socialization conversations that are conveyed through verbal and nonverbal behaviors and can be examined directly through observations (Gardner, 2000). Taking a novel perspective by observing mother-youth discussions about youths’ peer problems, we consider these two indicators as related but distinct aspects of emotional climate.

First, maternal affect is conceptualized as the degree of positive affect (e.g., pleasure, enjoyment) and negativity (e.g., frustration, irritation) displayed by the mother towards the youth (Lindahl & Malik, 2001; Morris et al., 2017). Theories propose that maternal emotional expressions may contribute to youth coping by setting the tone or affective environment of mother-youth daily conversations in which they discuss and generate solutions for the youth’s peer challenges, as well as altering the effectiveness of the mother’s coping suggestions by influencing the youth’s openness to socialization (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Eisenberg et al., 1998). Indeed, empirical evidence has revealed that more frequent mother-reported positive reactions (e.g., smile, encouragement) to youths’ negative emotions were concurrently associated with a greater proportion of youth-reported engagement coping (Valiente et al., 2009). Conversely, mother-reported negativity (e.g., anger, hostility) predicted, on average, a smaller proportion of youth-reported engagement coping responses to stressful events during a 2-week period (Valiente et al., 2004). These findings correspond with various theoretical propositions (Dix, 1991; Eisenberg et al., 1998) that suggest mothers who are positive towards youth might help them experience optimal levels of arousal during interactions and gradually facilitate the acquisition of engagement coping responses. Conversely, mothers who communicate negative affect might undermine youths’ learning of engagement coping by contributing to thoughts of disapproval or hesitancy to disclose feelings to parents.

Second, dyadic cohesiveness, which refers to the sense of unity, togetherness, closeness, and coordination of communication between dyad members, also denotes the emotional climate of mother-youth interactions (Lindahl & Malik, 2001; Morris et al., 2017). Stemming from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982; Kerns & Brumariu, 2016), youth who share strong interpersonal connections and mutual appreciation during interactions with mothers may view mothers as available to meet safety needs for managing life challenges. In contrast, distance, disengagement, and awkwardness during interactions with mothers might discourage youth from actively discussing or approaching challenges that they encounter, resulting in more avoidant or disorganized behaviors when youth feel threatened by stressful events. Yet, the role of dyadic cohesiveness as an indicator of parent-youth interaction quality has been understudied in relation to the development of coping. Nonetheless, evidence linking self-reported parent-youth relationship quality with youth coping may shed light on such an association. For example, youth who perceived more positive relationships with parents concurrently reported greater use of more active coping strategies in response to problems at school (Kliewer et al., 1996; Zimmer-Gembeck & Locke, 2007). Somewhat relatedly, higher youth-reported family cohesion was concurrently linked with more adaptive coping (Lohman & Jarvis, 2000). Taken together, dyadic cohesiveness also appears to be linked with youth coping.

Most importantly, the studies reviewed above rely heavily (if not entirely) on mothers’ or youths’ self-reports of emotional climate. However, direct observations of mother-youth interactions provide a more ecologically valid and objective assessment of expressions (e.g., frequency, intensity) of maternal affect and the flow/quality of mother-youth communication (Cummings et al., 2005; Gardner, 2000). Further, compared with other commonly adopted mother-youth discussion tasks (e.g., about conflict topics such as completing house chores), discussions about youth peer problems provide a unique and relevant opportunity to capture the emotional climate during socialization of coping. Centering our examination on observing mother-youth peer problem-solving conversations may allow for a more contextualized, fine-grained understanding of how youth coping with peer stress is socialized in a day-to-day relational context.

The Moderating Role of Youth Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia

Although mother-youth emotional climate contributes to youth coping, associations may not be the same across all youth and may depend on youth's responsiveness to experiential or contextual influence. From a biopsychosocial perspective, research has centered on the moderating role of parasympathetic functioning in the association between parenting and child adjustment more broadly. According to Polyvagal Theory (Porges, 2007), as part of the autonomic nervous system, the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) promotes rest, repair, and relaxation of the body through modulating physiological responses to environmental demands (e.g., decreased heart rate and blood pressure) controlled by vagal nerves (Beauchaine, 2001). An objective marker of the PNS is respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA), which refers to variations in heart rate during a breathing cycle. RSA measured at rest (i.e., baseline RSA) represents the functioning of PNS in allocating bodily resources and maintaining homeostasis under non-stressful circumstances (Porges, 2007), underlying an individual’s self-regulatory capacity (Beauchaine, 2001). Accordingly, high baseline RSA has been theorized to represent an individual’s greater capacity to modulate physiological activity in response to environmental challenges (Beauchaine, 2009; Porges, 2007) and has been linked with greater effortful control and lower levels of aggression (Beauchaine, 2001; Chapman et al., 2010). In contrast, low baseline RSA is considered to reflect limited physiological regulatory capacity and has been associated with negative emotion reactivity, difficult temperament, and child maladjustment such as internalizing and externalizing problems (Beauchaine, 2001; Demaree & Everhart, 2004).

Empirical studies generally support the role of baseline RSA as a salient physiological index of environmental responsiveness that moderates the links between aspects of family environment and child adjustment (Obradović, 2012). Several studies consistently revealed stronger parenting-adjustment links among youth exhibiting low baseline RSA. For instance, more negative or less positive parenting behaviors, including more psychological control and less supportive and authoritative parenting predicted more internalizing and externalizing symptoms among youth with low baseline RSA (Mezulis et al., 2015; and only for boys in Cai & Tu, 2020; Dyer et al., 2016). In contrast, higher baseline RSA attenuated these associations (but see Van der Graaff et al., 2016 for mixed findings). Similarly, higher autonomy-supportive parenting contributed to greater general satisfaction of needs (competence, autonomy, relatedness) for adolescents with lower compared with higher levels of baseline RSA (Liu et al., 2019). Further, among these studies, some found patterns of associations consistent with the propositions of the diathesis stress model (Zuckerman, 1999) that individual differences in physiological functioning may render some people (in this case, youth with lower baseline RSA) more vulnerable to adverse environmental influence (Dyer et al., 2016; Mezulis et al., 2015). Yet, other studies found patterns that are in line with the differential susceptibility and biological sensitivity to context frameworks (Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Ellis et al., 2011), suggesting that youth characterized by lower baseline RSA may be susceptible or sensitive to both negative and positive parenting context, thus yielding worse and better outcomes, respectively, compared with their counterparts with higher baseline RSA (Cai & Tu, 2020; Liu et al., 2019). Overall, there is evidence to support baseline RSA as a moderator of the parenting-adjustment link, and youth with lower baseline RSA appear to be at greater risk for maladjustment in the context of negative parenting but may have the most to gain from positive parenting. However, these studies focused on specific parenting behaviors (e.g., control, support) with no known studies examining whether other aspects of the parent-youth relational context, namely emotional climate, on youth coping are moderated by RSA.

The Current Study

Addressing aforementioned gaps in the literature, and using a community sample, we investigated the prospective association between indicators of mother-youth emotional climate observed during a peer problem-solving conversation and youth reports of coping strategies in response to peer stress. We focused on mothers given some evidence of their higher involvement in youths’ social lives (e.g., more time spent, more knowledgeable), potentially providing more socialization opportunities (e.g., Updegraff et al., 2001). Given their respective roles in promoting an optimal level of arousal and creating a safe space, we hypothesized that more positive maternal affect and greater dyadic cohesiveness would predict higher levels of youths’ primary and secondary control engagement coping and advice-seeking.

Further, incorporating biopsychosocial perspectives, we tested whether the prospective associations between emotional climate and coping depend on levels of youths’ baseline RSA. Based on the conceptualization of lower baseline RSA as indicative of poor regulatory capacity (e.g., Beauchaine, 2001) and empirical evidence that youth exhibiting lower baseline RSA benefitted more from positive parenting (e.g., Cai & Tu, 2020; Dyer et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2019; Mezulis et al., 2015), we hypothesized that the positive association between emotional climate indicators and coping outcomes would be stronger among youth with lower (vs. higher) levels of baseline RSA. In addition, in line with diathesis stress and differential susceptibility frameworks, we expected that youth characterized by lower compared with higher baseline RSA would “fare worse” by reporting less engagement coping and advice-seeking in the context of a more negative emotional climate (i.e., less positive or more negative maternal affect, less cohesive dyadic interaction). However, given the scarcity of consistent evidence supporting one theoretical framework over the other regarding the role of baseline RSA, we had no a priori hypothesis about whether, in the context of a more positive emotional climate (i.e., more positive or less negative maternal affect, more cohesive dyadic interaction), youth characterized by lower baseline RSA would “fare better” than their counterparts with higher baseline RSA.

Finally, we examined our study aims after accounting for youth age, gender, and race/ethnicity given documented associations and/or group differences in relation to coping. For instance, although theoretically speaking, older youth would be more capable of utilizing coping strategies that require more abstract thinking and effortful control (Skinner et al., 2016), one study has found stability (or no increase) in the use of problem-focused strategies (problem-solving, support seeking, positive self-instruction) after late childhood (Hampel & Petermann, 2005). Further, with respect to gender, adolescent girls are thought to be more likely to talk about problems and to seek emotional and instrumental support than boys (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Finally, racial/ethnic differences in the use of coping strategies have also emerged in earlier literature (e.g., more support-seeking reported by Hispanic-American adolescents compared with their European-American peers; Copeland & Hess, 1995), although contemporary work has begun to place more emphasis on examining culturally-relevant coping and/or variations in coping strategies within specifical racial/ethnic groups (e.g., Latino/a and Black youth; Grant et al., 2000; Santiago et al., 2016). Of note, differences in coping by demographic characteristics are usually small, and evidence has been mixed overall; but we opted to take a more conservative approach in testing our aims by including them as covariates.

Method

Participants

At Time 1 (T1; spring of 5th grade), participants included 100 youth (53% boys; M age = 11.05 years, SD = 0.33) and their mothers (96% biological; M age = 41.21 years, SD = 6.25) from a Midwestern county in the United States. At Time 2 (T2; fall of 6th grade), 89 families (M youth age = 11.65, SD = 0.34) returned for a follow-up visit after the middle school transition. At T1, the racial/ethnic composition of youth and mother (as reported by mothers), respectively, included 57 and 69% European American, 10 and 8% African American, 13 and 10% Hispanic/Latino, 6 and 8% Asian, and 14 and 4% other (e.g., Native American, mixed-race). Approximately 19% of families reported a total annual household income below $50,000; 19% between $50,000 and $75,000; and 63% above $75,000. Further, 75% of mothers had a bachelor’s degree or higher, 79% were currently employed, and 77% were married.

Procedure

All study procedures and instruments were reviewed and approved by the university’s institutional review board, and only pertinent procedures are discussed. Participants were recruited from local schools across two consecutive cohorts, spaced 1 year apart (Cohort 1 [n = 52] data collected in 2017, Cohort 2 [n = 48] in 2018; recruitment procedures detailed in Tu et al., 2019; Tu & Ravindran, 2020). Families participated in two waves, approximately 7.40 months apart (SD = 0.88), as youth transitioned from elementary school to middle school.

At T1 (spring of 5th grade), dyads were invited to participate in a laboratory protocol (approximately 2.5-hour visit). Consent and assent were obtained separately from mothers and youth, respectively, at the beginning of the visit. The protocol included acquisition of youth physiological activity, a mother-youth conversation task, and a battery of questionnaires. First, following a 5-minute acclimation period, youth RSA was assessed during a 3-minute baseline period (i.e., while watching a slideshow of nature pictures on a laptop). Data acquisition for RSA followed standard guidelines using a Bioamp data acquisition system (MindWare Technologies, Inc, Gahanna, OH). Electrocardiography (ECG) data were collected using a modified lead-II configuration through disposable silver/silver-chloride (Ag-AgCl) electrodes (1½” foam sensor, 7% chloride gel) placed on youths’ right clavicle and left and right rib (Berntson et al., 1997). Then, mothers and youth completed a 5-minute conversation task that was designed for the dyad to discuss a recent peer problem that the youth had experienced. Prior to the laboratory protocol, mothers and youth independently completed a 9-item checklist of common challenges (with space to report other experiences; n = 4) regarding youths’ recent peer experiences (e.g., being around kids who are rude, having problems with a friend; Connor-Smith et al., 2000) and rated the level of stress and frequency of each checked experience. Two to four challenges that were checked by both the youth and mother and reported by the youth as being more stressful and/or frequent were provided as topic options for the conversation. At the beginning of the conversation task, dyads were told, “Work together to select one topic to discuss for 5 minutes and approach the conversation just as you normally would.” The conversation was video recorded for behavioral coding. This protocol was adapted from established procedures (e.g., family interaction tasks, Parent-Youth Interaction Task; Melby & Conger, 2001), but focused on youth peer problems rather than their conflict with parents. The three most common topics discussed were: being around kids who are rude (n = 36); having problems with a friend (n = 16); and feeling pressured to do something (n = 11). Corresponding stress ratings for the selected peer problem topics were moderate (M = 2.42, SD = 0.94; rating scale of 1 = not at all to 4 = very much). Following the conversation task, youth completed questionnaires.

At T2 (fall of 6th grade), families returned to the lab where they completed the same checklist forms about youth’s peer problems in middle school and a similar set of questionnaires. At each wave, families received monetary compensation at the end of the visit for their participation.

Measures

Observed emotional climate (T1)

Three codes (i.e., maternal positive affect, maternal negativity, mother-youth dyadic cohesiveness) under the broader construct of emotional climate were observed during the mother-youth peer problem conversation task. The current study used a coding system developed and modified by the authors based on System for Coding Interactions and Family Functioning (SCIFF; Lindahl & Malik, 2001) and observations of mother-youth interactions from the current dataset. The SCIFF was initially developed with Hispanic American families and has been used to investigate parent-youth interactions among multiple ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanic, European American, and African American) across a wide range of socioeconomic statuses (Lindahl & Malik, 2001; Ruberry et al., 2018; Waller et al., 2019). Each indicator was rated on a 5-point scale based on frequency and intensity, with 0 = absence of behavior, 1 = one or two low-level behaviors, 2 = one or two moderate-level or three or more low-level behaviors, 3 = one or two high-level or three or more moderate-level behaviors, and 4 = three or more high-level or continuous moderate/low-level behaviors. Prior to the official coding, coders were trained using a subset of videos of actual participants on this coding system, where reliability was established (ICC = .70). All video recordings were then double-coded by two trained graduate research assistants who independently assigned a global score for the entire 5-minute conversation for each indicator. Reliability for each code was monitored throughout (i.e., every 8–10 videos). All videos were reviewed and discussed after each coder rated the videos. When a dyad went off-task (n = 4; e.g., finished early, sat silently, discussed irrelevant topics such as the lab equipment) for longer than a consecutive minute, only the period during which the dyad was on task was included in the coding. Discrepancies were resolved through discussions between the coders, and consensus scores were assigned.

Maternal affect

Maternal affect is comprised of two aspects––positive affect and negativity. Positive affect involves the mother exhibiting verbal or non-verbal expressions of affection and enjoyment with or toward of youth during their conversation. Low-level positive affect was indicated by slight smiles, small chuckles, or a positive tone of voice. High-level positive affect was indicated by more intense expressions of smiles and laughter and verbal expressions of affection. Negativity involves expressions of negative affect such as tension, frustration, irritability, and/or dismissing attitude towards the youth. Low-level negativity was indicated by brief, low-intensity displays of negative affect directed at the youth, minor instances of talking over the youth, use of an annoyed or sarcastic tone, and/or minor put-downs. Moderate-level negativity was indicated by harsher interruptions of youth, and/or turning away from the youth. High-level negativity was indicated by overtly rejecting the youth’s viewpoint, harsh criticism, or being condescending towards the youth. Interrater reliability calculated through intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha of the coders’ scores were high for positive affect (ICC = .87, $α$ = .93) and negativity (ICC = .81, $α$ = .90). Positive affect and negativity were not correlated (r = −.05, p = .657) in the current dataset. Of note, only 15% of mothers showed any signs of negativity, suggesting that our task was less likely to elicit negativity towards the youth (as opposed to about the topic of discussion). Nonetheless, based on the conceptualization of maternal affect that includes both positive affect and negativity, and as a remedy for the low frequency of negativity, the two ratings were averaged to create an overall maternal affect score. Maternal negativity scores were reverse-coded before averaging so that higher scores on the composite reflected more positive maternal affect.

Dyadic cohesiveness

Dyadic cohesiveness reflects the extent to which mothers and youth are united, close, and coordinated during the conversation. Low cohesiveness was characterized by a sense of distance or awkwardness during the interaction, or displays of disengagement or disconnection. Conversely, high cohesiveness was characterized by a sense of mutual appreciation and harmony within dyads as the mother and youth worked together towards a common goal comfortably and matched or mirrored emotional responses (e.g., happy, upset). Reliability was acceptable for dyadic cohesiveness (ICC = .63, $α$ = .77). Dyadic cohesiveness was positively associated with maternal affect (r = .47, p < .001), indicating shared but distinct contributions to emotional climate.

Youth baseline RSA (T1)

Youth baseline RSA was obtained from the 3-minute baseline task. RSA scores were quantified in 1-minute intervals with MindWare Technologies HRV analysis software, which uses the spectral analysis method (Berntson et al., 1997), and averaged across the task. An HR/RSA band of 0.24–1.0 Hz was recommended for youth at this age (Quigley & Stifter, 2006; Shader et al., 2018) and was utilized in the current study. Prior to the quantification, the analysis software identified R peaks from the ECG data. Trained research assistants conducted visual checks of all identifications, corrected data points that were misidentified as R peaks, and inserted correct R peaks points to ensure the continuity of data, consistent with standard procedures (Berntson et al., 1997).

Youth-reported engagement coping (T1 and T2)

Youth completed the Responses to Stress Questionnaire––Social Stress (Connor-Smith et al., 2000). We focused on engagement coping which is reflected in two subscales, namely Primary and Secondary Control (Connor-Smith et al., 2000). The Primary Control Engagement Coping scale (9 items; 3 per subscale) includes problem-solving (e.g., “I try to think of different ways to change the problem or fix the situation.”), emotion regulation (e.g., “I do something to calm myself down when I’m having problems with other kids.”), and emotional expression (e.g., “I let someone or something know how I feel.”); $α$ _T1 = .82, $α$ _T2 = .83. The Secondary Control Engagement Coping scale (9 items; 3 per subscale) includes positive thinking (e.g., “I tell myself that I can get through this, or that I’ll do better next time.”), cognitive restructuring (e.g., “I think about the things I’m learning from the situation, or something good that will come from it.”), and acceptance (e.g., “I decide I’m okay the way I am, even though I’m not perfect.”); $α$ _T1 = .76, $α$ _T2 = .74. Items were rated on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all to 4 = a lot).

Youth-reported advice-seeking from parents (T1 and T2)

Youth reported the degree to which they sought advice from parents about peer problems using five items (e.g., “When I am having a problem with a friend, I can ask my parent for help in solving it.”) from the Parental Management of Peers Inventory (Mounts, 2000). Items were rated on an adapted 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) and were reliable ( $α$ _T1 = .82, $α$ _T2 = .77).

Covariates (T1)

Youth age, gender, and race/ethnicity, as well as study cohort and frequency and level of peer stress, were included as covariates. Following recommended practices of handling demographic variables to obtain a more inclusive interpretation of predictors’ coefficients (Mayhew & Simonoff, 2015), effect coding was used for gender (girl = −1, boy = 1), cohort (cohort 1 = −1, cohort 2 = 1), and race/ethnicity. Specifically, inspired by calls for and efforts towards overcoming limitations and biases that may have been introduced by traditional research practices (Roberts et al., 2020) such as collapsing across minority subgroups, we retained the racial and ethnic categories as they were collected in the questionnaire to ensure that any potential race/ethnicity-related differences are represented in an accurate and inclusive way. Specifically, five race/ethnicity categories were created into four “contrast variables” with each of the four major groups (i.e., African American, Asian, European American, and Hispanic/Latino) contrasted with the “other” group (e.g., mixed-race). For each variable, the selected major group was coded as 1, the “other” group as −1, and the remaining three groups as 0. We also accounted for youth-reported frequency (1 = once or twice to 4 = all the time) and level of peer stress (1 = not at all to 4 = very much) from the checklist of recent peer challenges at T2 (Conner-Smith et al., 2000) given potential links with their coping at T2 (e.g., more stress, more coping). The frequency of stressors was summed, and the level of stress was averaged across the items (stressors) that youth reported experiencing on the checklist.

Data Analytic Plan

To address the study aims, we fitted separate stepwise regression models for each coping outcome at T2. All continuous predictors were mean centered before creating interaction terms. Covariates were entered in step 1, including T1 levels of the respective T2 coping outcomes because coping is thought to be moderately to highly stable across time. The main effects of T1 maternal affect and dyadic cohesiveness were entered together in step 2 to account for the others’ association when examining the association of each index on T2 youth coping. The main effect of T1 youth baseline RSA was entered in step 3. Separate interaction terms (i.e., maternal affect $\times$ RSA, dyadic cohesiveness $\times$ RSA) were created and entered in step 4. To probe significant interaction effects, simple slopes for emotional climate were tested and plotted at $\pm$ 1 SD of the mean on baseline RSA (Aiken & West, 1991; Preacher et al., 2006). To offer additional clarity on the interaction patterns and help distinguish the interaction patterns with respect to the diathesis stress and differential susceptibility frameworks, we also calculated regions of significance to obtain (a) values of baseline RSA at which the difference between the simple slopes for emotional climate on coping became significant, as well as (b) values of emotional climate at which the association between baseline RSA and coping started to differ significantly (Preacher et al., 2006).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28.0) to examine descriptive statistics of and bivariate correlations among study variables. Data were checked for outliers, skewness, and missingness. One score for T2 frequency of stressors was winsorized and recoded as the next highest observed value within 4 SDs (i.e., 3.01 SD) to reduce outlier effects (Wilcox, 2012). Missing data were primarily due to attrition (11 dyads did not return at T2). No significant differences were found in primary study variables at T1 between dyads who did and did not participate at T2. Across the three observational measures, 13% of the data were missing because permission was not given to video record the dyad (n = 9; both mother and dyadic codes were missing) or the youth (n = 3; only the dyadic code was missing), or the dyad was off-task (n = 3; e.g., discussed topics unrelated to peer problems), resulting in 12 cases missing for maternal affect and 15 for dyadic cohesiveness. No differences in other study variables were found between dyads with and without observational data. One baseline RSA score was missing due to technical difficulties during the collection of heart rate data. Finally, for data missing on the frequency of stressors and the level of stress at T2, 12 out of 89 (13%) youth who returned at T2 reported no events on the checklist. Independent samples t-tests indicated that these youth (M = 4.52, SD = 0.82) reported higher advice-seeking at T2 compared with those who reported at least one event (M = 3.96, SD = 0.91), t (87) = 1.99, p = .049, but no other differences emerged.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among key study variables are reported in Table 1. All indices of youth coping were relatively stable over time. Youth age was positively associated with greater use of engagement coping strategies at T2. T1 maternal affect was positively associated with T2 advice-seeking; T1 dyadic cohesiveness was positively correlated with primary control engagement coping and advice-seeking at both times. Emotional climate indicators were not associated with baseline RSA. Greater levels of stress at T2 were associated with greater frequency of stressors and more primary control engagement coping at T2.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistic and Correlations Among Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Time 1
1. Youth age (years)	––
2. Maternal affect	.03	––
3. Dyadic cohesiveness	.05	.47***	––
4. Baseline RSA	.03	.21	−.08	––
5. Primary control	.10	.004	.29**	−.06	––
6. Secondary control	.05	−.08	.12	−.08	.53***	––
7. Advice-seeking	.12	.01	.25*	.07	.48***	.32**	––
Time 2
8. Primary control	.23*	.17	.30**	.01	.60***	.33**	.42***	––
9. Secondary control	.26*	.18	.16	.04	.34**	.43***	.19	.45***	––
10. Advice-seeking	.20	.24*	.40***	−.10	.36***	.23*	.43***	.43***	.28**	––
11. Frequency of stressors	−.10	−.14	−.15	.03	−.04	−.18	−.05	−.08	.03	.14	––
12. Level of stress	.06	.03	.03	.04	.19	.04	.07	.30**	.15	.13	.28*	––
Mean	11.05	5.67	2.87	6.56	2.89	2.86	4.39	2.80	2.77	4.04	4.92	2.17
SD	0.33	1.34	1.10	1.14	0.60	0.54	1.07	0.59	0.51	0.91	3.54	0.76
Minimum	10.08	2.00	.00	3.84	1.00	1.44	1.80	1.00	1.44	1.80	1.00	1.00
Maximum	12.17	8.00	4.00	8.95	4.00	3.89	6.00	4.00	3.89	6.00	17.00	4.00
N	100	88	85	99	100	100	100	89	89	89	77	77

*p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.

Further, independent samples t-tests revealed that girls compared with boys demonstrated slightly lower levels of baseline RSA, M _girls = 6.23, SD = 1.15; M _boys = 6.85, SD = 1.07; t (97) = −2.78, p = .007; as well as reported more primary control engagement coping at T2, M _girls = 2.93, SD = 0.54; M _boys = 2.67, SD = 0.61; t (87) = 2.15, p = .034; more advice-seeking behaviors at T1, M _girls = 4.61, SD = 0.85; M _boys = 4.18, SD = 1.21; t (93) = 2.07, p = .041; and more advice-seeking at T2, M _girls = 4.23, SD = 0.84; M _boys = 3.85, SD = 0.95; t (87) = 2.00, p = .049. Moreover, compared those in Cohort 1 (M = 4.18, SD = 1.16), youth in Cohort 2 (M = 4.60, SD = 0.92) reported more advice-seeking at T1, t (96) = −2.01, p = .048. Finally, one-way ANOVAs testing differences in study variables across youth race/ethnicity indicated a significant overall difference in maternal affect, F(4) = 2.61, p = .042. The Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed that dyads with African American youth showed more positive maternal affect than dyads with Asian youth, M _difference = 2.30, SE = .74, p = .020.

Main Model Tests

To address the study aims, step-wise longitudinal regression analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Amos (Version 28.0), which uses full information maximum likelihood estimation to handle missing data (Acock, 2005). Results from the last step of the stepwise regression analyses are presented in Table 2. Coefficients from earlier steps were essentially identical to the last step.

Table 2.

Regression Coefficients for Models of Time 1 (T1) Emotional Climate Indicators and Baseline RSA Predicting T2 Youth Coping.

	T2 Primary ControlEngagement Coping				T2 Secondary ControlEngagement Coping				T2 Advice-Seeking from Parents
Effects	β	B	SE	p	β	B	SE	p	β	B	SE	p
Covariates
T1 youth age	.16	.29	.13	.028	.19	.31	.13	.018	.19	.51	.22	.019
Youth gender	−.04	−.03	.04	.554	−.05	−.03	.04	.517	−.10	−.09	.07	.224
African American	−.21	−.25	.09	.005	−.21	−.23	.09	.010	.11	.20	.15	.174
Asian	.20	.26	.10	.008	−.12	−.14	.10	.138	.12	.25	.16	.120
European American	−.06	−.05	.06	.418	.05	.03	.06	.586	−.03	−.04	.10	.714
Hispanic/Latino	.15	.17	.08	.040	.25	.25	.08	.003	.02	.04	.14	.770
Study cohort	−.01	.00	.04	.908	.06	.03	.04	.441	−.02	−.02	.07	.800
T1 youth coping	.47	.45	.07	<.001	.40	.39	.08	<.001	.39	.33	.07	<.001
T2 frequency of stressors	−.09	−.01	.01	.235	.13	.02	.01	.138	.23	.05	.02	.006
T2 level of stress	.24	.18	.06	.003	.07	.05	.06	.433	.04	.04	.10	.656
Main predictors
T1 maternal affect (MA)	.20	.09	.03	.012	.22	.09	.03	.011	.22	.15	.06	.007
T1 dyad cohesiveness (CO)	.10	.05	.04	.223	−.01	.00	.04	.926	.31	.25	.07	<.001
Moderator
T1 baseline RSA	.04	.02	.04	.602	.03	.01	.04	.747	−.18	−.14	.06	.028
Two-way interactions
MA × RSA	−.17	−.07	.03	.034	−.10	−.04	.03	.241	−.09	−.06	.05	.260
CO × RSA	−.13	−.06	.04	.116	.01	.00	.04	.938	.02	.01	.06	.836
R ²	52.0%				40.8%				46.1%

Note. Effect coding was used for youth gender, youth race/ethnicity, and study cohort (see Covariates section in Measures for coding). Race/ethnicity was entered as four contrast variables (i.e., each major group contrasted with the “other” group). T1 youth coping corresponds to T1 levels of the respective T2 outcome in each model. Higher MA scores indicate more positive/less negative MA.

Primary control engagement coping

Youth age, primary control at T1, and stress levels at T2 were positively associated with primary control coping at T2. Asian and Hispanic youth reported higher use of primary control compared to the average across all racial groups, whereas African American youth reported less-than-average primary control. Further, maternal affect (but not dyadic cohesiveness) at T1 was positively associated with primary control at T2; main effects together explained 2.2% of the unique variance. Although no main effect emerged, T1 youth baseline RSA significantly moderated the association between T1 maternal affect and T2 primary control; no interaction emerged with dyadic cohesiveness. The interaction terms together accounted for an additional 7.7% of the unique variance.

As shown in Figure 1, simple slopes tests revealed that more positive maternal affect at T1 predicted more primary control coping at T2 for youth who showed lower (−1 SD) baseline RSA (B = 0.17, SE = 0.05, p = .002); no significant association emerged for higher (+1 SD) baseline RSA (B = 0.01, SE = 0.05, p = .906). To further clarify the interaction pattern, the regions of significance analysis with respect to the moderator (i.e., RSA) revealed that the positive association between maternal affect and primary control was significant when the RSA value was lower than 0.21 SD above the mean of baseline RSA (44% of the sample youth; the dark-gray-shaded area). Finally, the regions of significance analysis with respect to the main predictor (i.e., maternal affect) showed that the positive association between RSA and primary control reached statistical significance when the value of maternal affect was lower than 1.09 SDs below the mean of maternal affect (13% of the sample; the light-gray-shaded area).

Figure 1.

Youth baseline RSA as a moderator of the associations between maternal affect and youth primary control engagement coping. Associations reported controlled for covariates. The dark-gray-shaded area (44% of the sample youth) around lower baseline RSA (−1 SD) refers to the region of significance analysis with respect to baseline RSA. The light-gray-shaded area (13% of the sample youth) represents the region of significance analysis with respect to maternal affect. Of note, the upper bounds of both analyses (i.e., 17.10 SDs and 4.48 SDs above the mean of baseline RSA and maternal affect, respectively) were far outside the observed value in sample data and thus were not presented in the figure.

Secondary control engagement coping

Youth age and secondary control at T1 were positively associated with secondary control coping at T2. Hispanic and African American youth reported more and less use of secondary control at T2, respectively, compared to the average across all racial groups. Further, more positive maternal affect (but not dyadic cohesiveness) was associated with greater use of secondary control; main effects together explained 4.5% of the unique variance. However, no main or moderating effects of T1 baseline RSA were found.

Advice-seeking from parents

Advice-seeking from parents was modestly stable over time. Youth who were older and who reported more frequent experiences of peer stressors at T2 also reported more advice-seeking at T2. As hypothesized, more positive maternal affect and greater dyadic cohesiveness at T1 were both associated with more youth-reported advice-seeking at T2, together explaining 14.4% of the unique variance. Lower baseline RSA at T1 was associated with more advice-seeking at T2, accounting for an additional 2.5% of the unique variance. Yet, RSA did not moderate the association between the emotional climate indices and advice-seeking.

Discussion

Focusing on the development of coping during early adolescence and the transition to middle school, we aimed to advance existing conceptual frameworks in the socialization of coping literature (e.g., Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Kliewer et al., 1994) by investigating the emotional climate of mother-youth interactions observed during peer problem-solving conversations. Our findings revealed the prospective associations from pre-to post-transition (over a 7-month period) between two related but distinct indicators of the observed emotional climate (namely maternal affect and mother-youth cohesiveness) and youth-reported engagement coping and advice-seeking. Specifically, more positive maternal affect was associated with greater use of engagement coping strategies that either directly alter (i.e., primary control) or subsequently accommodate to (i.e., secondary control) peer problems and stress, as well as more advice-seeking from parents about peer problems. Greater dyadic cohesiveness, on the other hand, was only associated with more advice-seeking. Applying biopsychosocial frameworks (i.e., Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Ellis et al., 2011), we also found that the positive association between maternal affect and primary control was moderated by youth baseline RSA, such that greater maternal affect was only linked with primary control for youth with lower (but not higher) baseline RSA. Lastly, some evidence emerged for links between demographic covariates and coping and are discussed below.

Emotionally positive interactions observed among mother-youth dyads were associated with, on average, more frequent use of primary (e.g., problem-solving, emotion regulation) and secondary (e.g., positive thinking, cognitive restructuring) control engagement coping strategies and advice-seeking behaviors as reported by youth. In contrast, more emotionally negative interactions appeared to discourage such coping. Consistent with existing theories, a more positive emotional climate of mother-youth interactions might facilitate the use of engagement coping by creating an optimal level of emotional arousal (Eisenberg et al., 1998), which in turn may increase youths’ openness to parents’ coping suggestions (Darling & Steinberg, 1993) and foster a secure base for youth to manage interpersonal challenges in the peer context (Kliewer et al., 1996). Conversely, in a more negative emotional climate, youth might be discouraged from sharing their thoughts and feelings and refrain from coping with peer challenges in an approach-oriented manner (Dix, 1991; Eisenberg et al., 1998). This finding also corresponds to evidence that observed parental expressions of more positive or less negative emotion during an interaction task (i.e., puzzle-solving) benefit children’s regulatory abilities (e.g., inhibitory control) reported by both parents and teachers (Chen et al., 2015). With a sample of emerging adolescents, our current investigation refines such evidence on the link between parental affect and child coping by observing mother-youth emotional climate during peer (vs. non-interpersonal) problem-solving conversations, as well as assessing the use of coping strategies specific to peer problems. Additionally, cohesive rather than disconnected interactions uniquely facilitate more advice-seeking over time. Because advice-seeking assessed in this study is a relational strategy that involves turning to parents for support, the observed relationship quality between parent and youth (as indicated by dyadic cohesiveness) may be especially informative for this specific coping strategy (i.e., advice-seeking) compared with other strategies (i.e., engagement coping).

Further, consistent with our hypothesis regarding the moderating role of baseline RSA, a positive association between maternal affect and primary control emerged among youth who showed lower but not higher baseline RSA. Additional probes of the interaction patterns indicated that youth who showed lower (compared with higher) baseline RSA reported less primary control when maternal affect was less positive, whereas no association was found in the context of more positive maternal affect. These findings largely corroborate the diathesis stress model (e.g., Zuckerman, 1999) and a conceptualization of lower baseline RSA as indicating greater vulnerability to a parental socialization context marked by relatively negative (or more accurately, lack of positive) affective cues, particularly when it comes to primary control. Because lower baseline RSA putatively reflects limited regulatory capacity at the physiological level (Beauchaine, 2001), such an emotional climate may fail to support an optimal learning context for these youth and thereby undermines youths’ ability to intervene with the stressor or modify stress reactions at the behavioral level.

Although findings from the current sample were consistent with diathesis stress rather than differential susceptibility framework (i.e., no difference in primary control between lower and higher baseline RSA at higher levels of positive maternal affect), whether support emerges for one framework over the other may still depend on the mother-youth relational context being examined. We examined emotional climate during a conversation about youths’ moderately stressful peer experiences. On one hand, our task was less likely to capture a highly positive emotional climate (e.g., enthusiasm, frequent shared laughter), as compared with other types of mother-youth tasks (e.g., discussing exciting events, joint play) that are more positive in nature where evidence for differential susceptibility could emerge. On the other hand, compared with discussions about conflicts within the family or dyad, the focus on youths’ peer problems may elicit less tension and fewer opportunities to observe high levels of maternal negativity towards youths. Nonetheless, our task captures meaningful differences in mother-youth emotional climate that would be considered typical of a day-to-day socialization conversation.

In contrast to primary control, the association between more positive maternal affect and greater secondary control coping was not contingent on youths’ baseline RSA. Because secondary control coping focuses more on cognitive skills (e.g., positive thinking) that help youth to subsequently accommodate and adapt to the stressor, contextual factors (e.g., affective cues, relationship dynamics) that promote the learning or use of cognitive strategies may serve a salient role that is independent of one’s physiological regulatory capacity. Furthermore, youths’ baseline RSA did not moderate the positive association between indices of emotional climate and advice-seeking, although a main effect of RSA indicated that youth who showed lower baseline RSA were more likely to report advice-seeking. Because lower baseline RSA may reflect poorer physiological regulation capacity (Beauchaine, 2001; Porges, 2007), these youth may be more in need of parental support in general (e.g., Tu et al., 2017) regardless of the nature of the mother-youth relational context, hence the independent associations of emotional climate indicators and youth physiology on advice-seeking. Yet, more research is needed to replicate these findings and unpack mechanisms underlying the different patterns of associations that emerged for youth baseline RSA.

Lastly, some evidence for demographic differences in coping is worth noting. Older youth reported more frequent use of all three kinds of coping strategies at T2 after controlling for respective T1 levels, supporting the idea that youth are increasingly able to use engagement and advice-seeking coping strategies perhaps as a result of normative development in their cognitive and emotional abilities (Zimmer-Gembeck & Skinner, 2011). Consistent with prior literature, mean-level gender differences in coping at each wave largely correspond to prior evidence that girls report more engagement and advice-seeking coping than boys (Rose & Rudolph, 2006), although we did not find any gender difference in coping at T2 above and beyond T1, suggesting that such difference likely does not exaggerate or diminish over time. Contrary to prior evidence showing that Hispanic-American adolescents reported more support-seeking compared with their European-American peers (Copeland & Hess, 1995), no group reported more advice-seeking than the average across all groups. Because youth in our sample reported high levels of advice-seeking in general (perhaps since transitioning to middle school introduced more opportunities/need for advice-seeking), small between-group differences could be washed out. However, findings for engagement coping seem to suggest that each group may exhibit a unique repertoire of coping. Compared with the average across all groups, Hispanic/Latino and African American youth reported more and less engagement coping, respectively. A more systemic, contextualized perspective may shed light on these patterns. For example, greater emphasis on familism has been found to promote engagement coping responses among Latino adolescents (Santiago et al., 2016). Moreover, less use of engagement strategies among African American youth may be culturally congruent and potentially protective against negative consequences associated with chronic and severe stressors (e.g., discrimination, violence) in their day-to-day living environment (Grant et al., 2000). Interestingly, Asian adolescents reported greater-than-average levels of primary but not secondary control engagement coping. However, we caution against drawing strong conclusions based on our limited sample sizes for some of our racial/ethnic subgroups and suggest additional work in this area with larger racial/ethnic subgroups.

The current study has several limitations. First, our participants represent a community sample characterized by moderately high family income and maternal education; therefore, our conclusions cannot be generalized to at-risk youth or more economically diverse populations. Second, only mothers were invited to participate in the laboratory protocol. Yet, other studies have shown unique socialization processes for fathers (Ravindran et al., 2020), highlighting the need to examine both maternal and paternal socialization processes in relation to coping. Third, although our sample included 43–37% of non-European American youth and mothers, respectively, the number in each minority group was relatively small and our race/ethnicity list was not exhaustive, limiting the generalizability of findings to these and other racial/ethnic groups. More representative samples, across diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic status, are needed to gain a deeper, more contextualized understanding of youth coping and maternal socialization. Finally, we examined data collected at two waves across the middle school transition. To further investigate the longer-term implications of differential change in youth coping and applicability to different developmental periods, studies with multiple assessments of youth socio-emotional and mental health outcomes beyond early adolescence are needed.

Nevertheless, to our knowledge, this study is the first to examine prospective associations linking observed emotional climate of mother-youth conversations about peer problems with youth-reported coping behaviors across the transition to middle school, as well as how the associations vary by youths’ physiological functioning. During this unique time in which youth are navigating multiple development and ecological changes and accompanying salient peer experiences, parents and youth are prone to have more opportunities to discuss peer problems. Thus, our study informs practical work related to parent education and family intervention. Given the general benefits of engagement coping on subsequent youth adjustment (Compas et al., 2017), our findings underlie the promotion of positive, reciprocal, and close mother-youth communication as a way to facilitate youths’ development and use of these coping strategies, as well as youths’ physiological functioning as a potential vulnerability factor in such associations. By advancing conceptual frameworks highlighting the relational context of parental socialization of coping, the present study provides new evidence that the emotional climate of mother-youth interactions during the late elementary school years is a noteworthy contributor to changes in youth’s coping with peer stress after the middle school transition.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the families and teachers for their participation in this study. We would also like to thank the school administrators for their assistance in recruitment. Lastly, we would like to acknowledge the project staff for their hard work in data collection and analysis/cleaning.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project (ILLU-793-344) awarded to Kelly M. Tu.

ORCID iDs

Xiaomei Li

Kelly M. Tu

Nancy L. McElwain

Author Biographies

Xiaomei Li is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is advancing the understanding of parental influence on the development of self-regulation from infancy to adolescence. She examines how parent-child relationships and interaction dynamics shape behavioral, physiological, and neural processes underlying adolescents’ flexible and effective response to and regulation with stress. Her work will inform broader efforts to promote parent-child relationships and children’s psychological well-being.

Dr. Kelly M. Tu is an Associate Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research advances understanding of adaptive stress responses among children and adolescents. She investigates youths’ physiological and behavioral responses to stress and parents’ role in helping youth navigate and manage challenges. Her work will inform broader efforts to promote positive youth development and well-being.

Dr. Nancy L. McElwain is a Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, a Part-time Faculty at Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, and a Faculty Affiliate in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research advances understanding of the dynamic early-life interactions between parents and children that shape children’s developing abilities to regulate stress. She adopts an interdisciplinary approach that combines neuroscience, psychophysiology, linguistics, and developmental psychology. Through investigating stress regulation during early development, she aims to promote healthy parent-child relationships and children’s long-term social and emotional well-being.

References

Acock

A. C.

(2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Medicinal Food, 67(4), 1012–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00191.x

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Interactions between continuous predictors in multiple regression. In: Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions ( pp. 9–27) Sage.

Beauchaine

(2001). Vagal tone, development, and gray’s motivational theory: Toward an integrated model of autonomic nervous system functioning in psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 13(2), 183–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579401002012

Beauchaine

T. P.

(2009). Some difficulties in interpreting psychophysiological research with children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 74(1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2009.00509.x

Belsky

Pluess

(2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017376

Berntson

G. G.

Bigger

J. T.

Eckberg

D. L.

Grossman

Kaufmann

P. G.

Malik

Nagaraja

H. N.

Porges

S. W.

Saul

J. P.

Stone

P. H.

Van der Molen

M. W.

(1997). Heart rate variability: Origins, method, and interpretive caveats. Psychophysiology, 34(6), 623–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02140.x

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment Basic Books.

Cai

K. M.

(2020). Linking parental monitoring and psychological control with internalizing symptoms in early adolescence: the moderating role of vagal tone. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48(6), 809–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00631-w

Chapman

H. A.

Woltering

Lamm

Lewis

M. D.

(2010). Hearts and minds: Coordination of neurocognitive and cardiovascular regulation in children and adolescents. Biological Psychology, 84(2), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.03.001

10.

Chen

S. H.

Zhou

Main

Lee

E. H.

(2015). Chinese American immigrant parents’ emotional expression in the family: Relations with parents’ cultural orientations and children’s emotion-related regulation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(4), 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000013

11.

Compas

B. E.

Connor-Smith

J. K.

Saltzman

Thomsen

A. H.

Wadsworth

M. E.

(2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87

12.

Compas

B. E.

Jaser

S. S.

Bettis

A. H.

Watson

K. H.

Gruhn

M. A.

Dunbar

J. P.

Williams

Thigpen

J. C.

(2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 939–991. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000110

13.

Connor-Smith

J. K.

Compas

B. E.

Wadsworth

M. E.

Thomsen

A. H.

Saltzman

(2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 976–992. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.976

14.

Copeland

E. P.

Hess

R. S.

(1995). Differences in young adolescents’ coping strategies based on gender and ethnicity. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431695015002002

15.

Cummings

E. M.

Keller

P. S.

Davies

P. T.

(2005). Towards a family process model of maternal and paternal depressive symptoms: Exploring multiple relations with child and family functioning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(5), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00368.x

16.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487

17.

Demaree

H. A.

Everhart

D. E.

(2004). Healthy high-hostiles: Reduced parasympathetic activity and decreased sympathovagal flexibility during negative emotional processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00109-0

18.

Dix

(1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptative processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.3

19.

Dyer

W. J.

Blocker

D. J.

Day

R. D.

Bean

R. A.

(2016). Parenting style and adolescent externalizing behaviors: the moderating role of respiratory sinus arrhythmia. Journal of Medicinal Food, 78(4): 1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12316

20.

Eisenberg

Cumberland

Spinrad

T. L.

(1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1

21.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Bernzweig

Karbon

Poulin

Hanish

(1993). The relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers’ social skills and sociometric status. Child Development, 64(5), 1418–1438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131543

22.

Ellis

B. J.

Boyce

W. T.

Belsky

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(2011). Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 23(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000611

23.

Gardner

(2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent-child interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants?. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(3), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009503409699

24.

Gestsdottir

Lerner

R. M.

(2008). Positive development in adolescence: The development and role of intentional self-regulation. Human Development, 51(3), 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000135757

25.

Grant

K. E.

O’koon

J. H.

Davis

T. H.

Roache

N. A.

Poindexter

L. M.

Armstrong

M. L.

Minden

J. A.

, & McIntosh

J. M.

(2000). Protective factors affecting low-income urban African American youth exposed to stress. Journal of Early Adolescence, 20(4), 388–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431600020004002

26.

Gregson

K. D.

Erath

S. A.

Pettit

G. S.

K. M.

(2016). Are they listening? Parental social coaching and parenting emotional climate predict adolescent receptivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(4), 738–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12222

27.

Hampel

Petermann

(2005). Age and gender effects on coping in children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-3207-9

28.

Jaser

S. S.

Champion

J. E.

Reeslund

K. L.

Keller

Merchant

M. J.

Benson

Compas

B. E.

(2007). Cross-situational coping with peer and family stressors in adolescent offspring of depressed parents. Journal of Adolescence, 30(6), 917–932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.11.010

29.

Kerns

K. A.

Brumariu

L. E.

(2016). Attachment in middle childhood. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 349–365). The Guilford Press.

30.

Kliewer

Fearnow

M. D.

Miller

P. A.

(1996). Coping socialization in middle childhood: Tests of maternal and paternal influences. Child Development, 67(5), 2339–2357. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131627

31.

Kliewer

Sandler

Wolchik

(1994). 16. Family socialization of threat appraisal and coping: coaching, modeling, and family context. In Nestmann

Hurrelmann

(Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence (pp. 279–291). DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866377.271

32.

Lindahl

K. M.

Malik

N. M.

(2001). The system for coding interactions and family functioning. In Kerig

P. K.

Lindahl

K. M.

(Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research (pp. 77–91). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

33.

Liu

Wang

Yang

Zhang

Lin

(2019). Perceived autonomy-supportive parenting and internet addiction: respiratory sinus arrhythmia moderated the mediating effect of basic psychological need satisfaction. Current Psychology, 40(9), 4255–4264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00485-6

34.

Lohman

B. J.

Jarvis

P. A.

(2000). Adolescent stressors, coping strategies, and psychological health studied in the family context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(1), 15–43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005117020812

35.

Mayhew

M. J.

Simonoff

J. S.

(2015). Non-white, no more: Effect coding as an alternative to dummy coding with implications for higher education researchers. Journal of College Student Development, 56(2), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0019

36.

Melby

J. N.

Conger

R. D.

(2001). The Iowa family interaction rating scales: Instrument summary. In Kerig

P. K.

Lindahl

K. M.

(Eds.), Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research (pp. 33–58). Psychology Press.

37.

Mezulis

A. H.

Crystal

S. I.

Ahles

J. J.

Crowell

S. E.

(2015). Examining biological vulnerability in environmental context: Parenting moderates effects of low resting respiratory sinus arrhythmia on adolescent depressive symptoms. Developmental Psychobiology, 57(8), 974–983. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21347

38.

Mize

Pettit

G. S.

(1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother-child relationship style, and children’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development, 68(2), 312–332. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131852

39.

Morris

A. S.

Criss

M. M.

Silk

J. S.

Houltberg

B. J.

(2017). The impact of parenting on emotion regulation during childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 11(4), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12238

40.

Mounts

N. S.

(2000). Parental management of adolescent peer relationships: What are its effects on friend selection?. In Kerns

K. A.

Contreras

J. M.

Neal-Barnett

A. M.

(Eds.), Praeger series in applied psychology. Family and peers: Linking two social worlds (pp. 169–193). Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.

41.

Obradović

(2012). How can the study of physiological reactivity contribute to our understanding of adversity and resilience processes in development? Development and Psychopathology, 24(2), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000053

42.

Pfeifer

J. H.

Allen

N. B.

(2021). Puberty initiates cascading relationships between neurodevelopmental, social, and internalizing processes across adolescence. Biological Psychiatry, 89(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2020.09.002

43.

Porges

S. W.

(2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 116–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.009

44.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437

45.

Quigley

K. S.

Stifter

C. A.

(2006). A comparative validation of sympathetic reactivity in children and adults. Psychophysiology, 43(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00405.x

46.

Ravindran

McElwain

N. L.

Telzer

E. H.

(2020). Dynamics of mother–adolescent and father–adolescent autonomy and control during a conflict discussion task. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(3), 312–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000588

47.

Roberts

S. O.

Bareket-Shavit

Dollins

F. A.

Goldie

P. D.

Mortenson

(2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709

48.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98

49.

Ruberry

E. J.

Klein

M. R.

Kiff

C. J.

Thompson

S. F.

Lengua

L. J.

(2018). Parenting as a moderator of the effects of cumulative risk on children’s social–emotional adjustment and academic readiness. Infant and Child Development, 27(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2071

50.

Rueger

S. Y.

Malecki

C. K.

Pyun

Aycock

Coyle

(2016). A meta-analytic review of the association between perceived social support and depression in childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(10), 1017–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000058

51.

Santiago

C. D.

Torres

S. A.

Brewer

S. K.

Fuller

A. K.

Lennon

J. M.

(2016). The effect of cultural factors on daily coping and involuntary responses to stress among low-income Latino adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(7), 872–887. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21814

52.

Shader

T. M.

Gatzke-Kopp

L. M.

Crowell

S. E.

Jamila Reid

Thayer

J. F.

Vasey

M. W.

Webster-Stratton

, Bell

, & Beauchaine

T. P.

(2018). Quantifying respiratory sinus arrhythmia: Effects of misspecifying breathing frequencies across development. Development and Psychopathology, 30(1), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000669

53.

Skinner

E. A.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2016). Parenting, family stress, developmental ascades, and the differential development of coping the development of coping: Stress, neurophysiology, social relationships, and resilience during childhood and adolescence. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41740-0_12

54.

Skinner

E. A.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Skinner

E. A.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2016). Development of coping during adolescence: Heightened reactivity, pro-active regulation, and increased coping flexibility the development of coping. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41740-0_10

55.

Sontag

L. M.

Graber

J. A.

Brooks-Gunn

Warren

M. P.

(2008). Coping with social stress: Implications for psychopathology in young adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(8), 1159–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9239-3

56.

K. M.

Erath

S. A.

El-Sheikh

(2017). Parental management of peers and autonomic nervous system reactivity in predicting adolescent peer relationships. Developmental Psychology, 53(3), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000248

57.

K. M.

Cohen

J. R.

(2019). The “Heart” of depression during early adolescence. Developmental Psychobiology, 61(8), 1168–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21862

58.

K. M.

Ravindran

(2020). Getting under the skin: Maternal social coaching and adolescent peer adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 66(November 2019), 101091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101091

59.

Updegraff

K. A.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

Kupanoff

(2001). Parents’ involvement in adolescents’ peer relationships: A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ roles. Journal of Medicinal Food, 63(3), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00655.x

60.

Valiente

Fabes

R. A

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

(2004). The relations of parental expressivity and support to children’s coping with daily stress. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.97

61.

Valiente

Lemery-Chalfant

Swanson

(2009). Children’s responses to daily social stressors: Relations with parenting, children’s effortful control, and adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 50(6), 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02019.x

62.

Van der Graaff

Meeus

de Wied

van Boxtel

van Lier

Branje

(2016). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia moderates the relation between parent-adolescent relationship quality and adolescents’ social adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(2), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-9989-7

63.

Waller

Gard

A. M.

Monk

C. S.

Mitchell

Bazzi

Sypher

Brooks-Gunn

, McLanahan

, & Hyde

L. W.

(2019). The system for coding interactions and family functioning (SCIFF) in low-income and urban adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 31(8), 974–984. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000719

64.

Wilcox

R. R.

(2012). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing (3rd ed.). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-67044-1

65.

Wray-Lake

Crouter

A. C.

McHale

S. M.

(2010). Developmental patterns in decision-making autonomy across middle childhood and adolescence: European American parents’ perspectives. Child Development, 81(2), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01420.x

66.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Locke

E. M.

(2007). The socialization of adolescentrative review and critique of research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410384923

67.

Zuckerman

(1999). Diathesis-stress models. In Zuckerman

(Ed.), Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocial model (pp. 3–23). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10316-001