The Effects of Parental Nurturance,Harsh Discipline,and Inter-Parental Conflict on Empathy Development in Early Adolescence

Abstract

Parents play an important role in adolescents’ development of empathy. However, less understood is what dimensions of parental behavior predict changes in empathy during early adolescence and whether effects of parental behavior are moderated by pubertal timing or differ by sex. This study used data from an ethnically diverse sample of 704 youth who reported on their parents’ nurturance, harsh discipline, and inter-parental conflict at age 11; on their own empathy at ages 11 and 13; and on their pubertal timing at age 13. The results showed that only parental nurturance uniquely predicted more empathy at age 13 and that this effect was stronger in females. Harsh discipline and inter-parental conflict were only concurrently associated with lower empathy at age 11. Pubertal timing did not moderate the links between parental nurturance, harsh discipline, or inter-parental conflict at age 11 and empathy at age 13.

Keywords

parental behavior (family,interparental)empathy pubertal timing early adolescence

Introduction

Aspects of parental behavior have been linked to empathy development during both childhood and adolescence (Sroufe, 2005; Van Lissa et al., 2015). Given that empathy during adolescence is related to a variety of positive outcomes, including prosocial behavior and lower aggression, in both adolescence and adulthood (Eisenberg et al., 2002; Laible et al., 2004), it is critical to identify what aspects of parental behavior predict adolescents’ empathy development during early adolescence. Thus, the main aim of the present study was to identify which parental behaviors predict empathy development between the ages of 11 and 13, focusing on parental nurturance, harsh discipline, and inter-parental conflict. With the onset of puberty in early adolescence, time with family is replaced by more time spent with peers, who become more important socialization agents, which may weaken the effects of parental behaviors on empathy development (Meeus, 2016). Therefore, the second aim was to examine whether earlier pubertal timing would attenuate parental effects on empathy development. Given developmental differences between males and females in empathy development during early adolescence (Van der Graaff et al., 2014), the third aim was to examine sex differences in the main effects of parental behaviors and potential interactive effects of parental behaviors and pubertal timing on empathy development. The present study examined these questions in a pre-dominantly Black sample of early adolescents.

Empathy Development in Early Adolescence

Empathy is comprised of both cognitive and affective processes that involve understanding and directly experiencing the feelings of others (Singer, 2006). These processes enable individuals to understand other people’s internal states and respond supportively (Van Lissa et al., 2014). Early adolescence has been identified as an especially critical period for empathy development due to the rapid development of brain regions involved in empathy, such as the medial prefrontal cortex (Blakemore, 2008; Crone & Dahl, 2012). Moreover, during early adolescence around the age of 12, youth develop formal operational thinking, which increases their ability to take the perspective and understand feelings of others (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958). While parents are still transmitting values and social skills to their children including cognitive empathy (Van Lissa et al., 2014), early adolescents begin to show increasing individuation from parents and peer relationships become a more prominent influence in adolescents’ socialization process (Meeus, 2016). With the onset of formal operational thinking around age 12, adolescents are also able to take a more objective perspective and evaluate their parents more critically (Allen, 2008), which may change adolescents’ receptiveness of parental influences on their empathy development. Adolescents’ perceptions of parenting and inter-parental conflict appear more relevant for how parental influences are internalized and experienced than parents’ reports or observed parental behavior, and may therefore be more important in developing empathy and broader psychosocial adjustment (Barry et al., 2008). Therefore, this study focuses on the effects of adolescents’ perceptions of parental behaviors, specifically parental nurturance, parents’ use of harsh discipline, and inter-parental conflict on empathy development over this critical period from age 11 to 13.

Parental Nurturance and Adolescents’ Empathy

A number of studies have found links between parental nurturance in form of warmth and support and higher empathy throughout childhood, which has been explained by a number of major psychological theories including social learning theory and attachment theory (Eisenberg & Valiente, 2002). According to social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1977), parents function as role models for their children, with affectionate parenting being internalized by the child through social learning and therefore promoting empathic concern (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Adolescents who experience empathic parenting in form of parental warmth and support are able to mirror these attitudes and behaviors and become more empathic themselves. Additionally, children’s perceptions of parental nurturance may indicate secure attachment, which has been linked with higher empathy (Xu et al., 2022). Securely attached children have fewer unsatisfied emotional needs, develop positive internal working models, and therefore have more capacity to take others’ perspectives and show empathic concern (Mark et al., 2002). When feeling a sense of security in inter-personal relationships through secure attachment that involves parental nurturance, adolescents may be able to invest more mental capacity into understanding others’ feelings. Additionally, showing empathy towards the attachment figure may be associated with rewarding positive responses. Although less research has investigated the role of parental nurturance in empathy development during adolescence (Miklikowska et al., 2011), several cross-sectional studies involving middle and late adolescents linked perceived parental support with greater empathic concern and perspective taking abilities (Laible & Carlo, 2004; Soenens et al., 2007). Additionally, observed parental support was concurrently related to higher empathy during childhood and predictive of increased empathy during early adolescence (Zhou et al., 2002). Finally, parental nurturance in early adolescence predicted higher empathy in middle adolescence (Miklikowska et al., 2011).

Harsh Discipline and Adolescents’ Empathy

According to Hoffman’s theory of moral internalization (Hoffman, 2001), the use of harsh discipline in response to antisocial behavior creates a moral orientation that is based on fear of punishment, which is a self-oriented emotion that may interfere with children’s development of empathy. Conversely, inductive parenting strategies that involve reflections on behaviors (e.g., imagine how the other child feels) are other-oriented and thus promote perspective taking and empathic concern in both children and early adolescents (Strayer & Roberts, 2004). In one cross-sectional study of early adolescents, parental use of power assertions and punitive discipline was associated with lower empathy (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). However, in a longitudinal study involving early adolescents, parental discipline through power assertions did not predict changes in adolescents’ empathy from age 10 to age 12 years (Chaparro & Grusec, 2016).

Inter-Parental Conflict and Adolescents’ Empathy

Several studies have found links between inter-parental conflict and adjustment problems in children and adolescents (Jouriles et al., 2016; van Eldik et al., 2020). For example, direct observations of inter-parental conflict have been linked to increased aggressive behavior in 14–18 year old adolescents (Davis et al., 1998). Additionally, early adolescents who frequently observed verbal and/or violent conflicts between their parents showed less prosocial behavior (Brummert Lennings & Bussey, 2017). One study found that inter-parental conflict predicts adjustment problems more strongly when parents are not showing empathy when communicating with their children about the conflict (Brown et al., 2007). When witnessing inter-parental conflicts in which parents show poor conflict resolution skills and low empathy for each other, children may internalize these behaviors and develop lower empathy themselves (Eisenberg & Valiente, 2002). Moreover, inter-parental conflict has been linked with emotional insecurity during adolescence (Davies et al., 2012; Grych et al., 2004), which may result in emotional self-preoccupation and interfere with empathy development (Davies et al., 2016). Fewer studies have examined the relationship of inter-parental conflict and adolescents’ empathy development specifically. One prior study suggested that witnessing inter-parental conflict is linked with moral disengagement in adolescence (Yang et al., 2018). Additionally, another study found that inter-parental conflict is associated with lower empathy in mothers towards their child’s needs (Sturge-Apple et al., 2012), which may in turn lead to lower empathy in the child.

The Role of Pubertal Timing

Early pubertal timing has been consistently linked to more externalizing and internalizing problems (Negriff & Susman., 2011), but it has also been related to higher empathy during adolescence (Centifanti et al., 2018). Over the course of early adolescence and with the onset of puberty, the dynamics of the parent-adolescent relationship change in several ways. In adolescence, youth begin to spend more time away from their parents and peer relationships become increasingly important in developing social skills, including empathy (Meeus, 2016). Especially when beginning puberty, adolescents strive for greater autonomy from their parents (Branje, 2018). A key task during early adolescence is individuation and separation from parents in which adolescents move away from viewing their parents as idealized role models (Allen, 2008). As noted above, the pubertal transition has been associated with higher internalizing and externalizing problems in various populations, including Black early adolescents (Ge et al., 2006). These emotional and behavioral problems may in turn lead to more volatile interactions with parents involving more conflict and less support (Buist et al., 2017), which may then reduce the influence of parents on adolescents’ empathy development. Thus, youth with earlier pubertal timing may be less receptive and susceptible to both positive and negative effects of parental behavior on their development of empathy due to greater independence from parents.

However, previous research on links between pubertal timing and parent-child relationships has not yielded consistent results. Some previous studies suggest that early pubertal timing is linked with more conflict and less closeness in the parent child relationship (Collins & Laursen, 2004), whereas others suggest no effect of pubertal timing on a decline in closeness of the parent-child relationship (Marceau et al., 2015). Several studies examined the interactive effects of parenting and pubertal timing on adolescents’ adjustment, suggesting that early maturing youth are more sensitive to the detrimental effects of harsh discipline and low parental nurturance on externalizing problems (Ge et al., 2002; Mrug et al., 2008). However, little is known about possible interactive effects of pubertal timing and parental behavior on empathy development.

Sex Differences

Previous research has shown sex differences in empathy development during early adolescence, with boys experiencing a temporary decline in empathy and girls showing more stable empathy levels (Van der Graaff et al., 2014). Parental nurturance has been linked with higher empathy in both males and females (Miklikowska et al., 2011). However, negative emotional reactions to inter-parental conflict were stronger in males compared to females (David & Murphy, 2004). While males experience more harsh discipline than females, the effects of harsh discipline on adolescent adjustment did not vary by sex (Lysenko et al., 2013). However, little research has examined sex differences in the links between parental behavior and empathy development.

Covariates

Adolescents’ age at Wave 2 was included as a covariate as empathy levels increase with age from early to middle adolescence (Van der Graaff et al., 2014). Since this study focuses on parenting behaviors and inter-parental conflict, it was also controlled for whether adolescents live with both biological parents in the household. Family income and being from a racial/ethnic minority were also included as covariates as lower family income and being from an ethnic racial minority has been associated with higher risk for chronic stress (Jones et al., 2020; Vliegenthart et al., 2016), which in turn has been linked with lower empathy (Levy et al., 2019).

Current Study

This study examined the unique effects of parental nurturance, parental harsh discipline, and inter-parental conflict on empathy development during early adolescence. Because parenting and empathy vary across child sex, age, race/ethnicity, and family income and structure these variables were included as covariates. This study also examined whether the effects of these parenting behaviors are moderated by the adolescents’ pubertal timing; and whether these effects differ by sex. It was hypothesized that parental nurturance at age 11 would predict higher empathy at age 13, whereas harsh discipline and inter-parental conflict at age 11 would predict lower empathy at age 13. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that youth that matured early would be less susceptible to parental influences and that early pubertal timing would therefore attenuate the effects of parental behavior on empathy development. Due to limited research examining sex differences in the relationships between parental behavior and empathy development, no specific hypotheses were formulated for this question.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

Participants in this study were 704 adolescents (52% male, 76% Black 22% Non-Hispanic White, 2% other ethnicities) and their caregivers who took part in Waves 1 and 2 of the Birmingham Youth Violence Study. The adolescents were initially recruited from 5^th grade classrooms in 17 schools in Birmingham, Alabama, USA. The schools were randomly selected to recruit a representative sample of all students attending public schools in the Birmingham area in terms of racial/ethnic, biological sex, and socioeconomic composition. All 5^th grade students at the selected schools were invited to participate, with 42% enrolling in the study and completing the Wave 1 assessment (N = 704). The adolescents and their primary caregivers completed individual interviews at average child ages 11.8 years (Wave 1) and 13.2 (Wave 2). From the initial sample at Wave 1, 603 caregiver-child dyads (86%) also completed Wave 2 interviews. Although the sample was heterogeneous in terms of socioeconomic characteristics, adolescents of lower socioeconomic background were overrepresented (72% of adolescents were recruited from inner city schools that serve predominantly low-income, racially segregated communities; 28% were recruited from more affluent suburban areas). The annual income of participating families ranged from below $5000 to over $90,000, with a median in the $25,000 to $30,000 range.

At each assessment, the adolescents provided written assent or informed consent and adolescents’ caregivers provided informed consent. All individual interviews were conducted in private spaces by trained personnel using Computer-Assisted-Personal-Interviews, with sensitive questions being completed by the participants on their own through Audio-Computer-Assisted-Self-Interviews (ACASIs). The participants received monetary compensation for their time at each assessment. All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Measures

Parental Nurturance

At Wave 1, adolescents reported their perceptions of their parents’ warmth and support using a five-item Parental Nurturance scale (Barnes & Windle, 1987). The five items addressed physical affection (e.g., “How often do your parents give you a hug or kiss?“) as well as emotional support (e.g., “How often do your parents give you praise and encouragement?“). Adolescents responded to these items on a three-point scale with response options ranging from almost never (0) to almost always (2). Responses were averaged with higher scores indicating more parental nurturance. Internal reliability was relatively low in the present sample (α = .67) but previous studies reported better internal reliability estimates (α = .76) (Windle et al., 2010).

Inter-Parental Conflict

At Wave 1, the adolescent participants also reported on whether they observed conflicts between their parents or their parent with a partner or other adults in their household so that youth from single parent household could still report witnessed conflicts. The measure comprised seven items from the Children’s Perception of Interpersonal Conflict Scale and the Conflict Tactics Scale (Grych et al., 1992; Straus, 1979). The individual items addressed verbal conflicts between the parents (e.g., “When my parents have an argument, they say mean things to each other.”) as well as physical violence between parents (e.g., “My parents have pushed or shoved each other during an argument.”). The adolescents responded to the items using a three-point scale (0 – ‘False’, 1 – ‘Sort of True’, 2 – ‘True’). Scores were averaged with higher scores indicating more inter-parental conflict. The scale had acceptable internal reliability in the present sample (α = .78). About 92% of adolescents completed this questionnaire; 8% of youth did not complete it because it was not applicable to their family (i.e., there were no multiple caregivers or parent’s partners). As explained under Data Analysis, these and other missing data were handled by Full Information Maximum Likelihood in the main analyses to reduce possible bias due to systematic missing data (Cham et al., 2017).

Harsh Discipline

At Wave 1, the adolescents also reported on their experiences of parental harsh discipline using a three-item scale addressing how often their parents lose their temper and yell, spank or slap, and hit with a belt, paddle, or other item (Ge et al., 1994). Youth reported on the frequency of each form of harsh discipline on a five-point scale from 0 (Never) to 4 (Always). The responses were averaged with higher scores indicating more harsh discipline. Internal reliability of the scale was relatively low in the present sample (α = .67) compared to previous studies that have shown higher internal reliability (α = .78) (Kim & Ge, 2000).

Pubertal Timing

At Wave 2, adolescents were administered two sets of five sex-specific line drawings depicting the five Tanner stages of breast and pubic hair development for girls and genital and pubic hair development for boys (Taylor et al., 2001). Participants selected one of each set of sex-specific images that most accurately reflected their own physical development. The ratings for the two selected images on genital and pubic hair development were moderately correlated in males (r = .46, p < .001). Similarly, the ratings for the two selected images on breast and pubic hair development were moderately correlated in females (r = .39, p < .001). Therefore, the two sets of ratings were averaged, with higher numbers indicating more mature pubertal status. As expected, older youth had more advanced pubertal status (r = .38, p < .001). To account for these age differences, the averaged pubertal status scores were regressed on adolescents’ age at the time of the Wave 2 interview and the resulting residuals were used as indicators of pubertal timing, with higher scores indicating earlier pubertal timing (Summer et al., 2019).

Adolescents’ Empathy

At both Waves 1 and 2, adolescents reported on their empathy using the nine-item Social-Emotional Competence Empathy subscale from the student version of the Social Skills Rating System (Demaray et al., 1995; Gresham & Elliot, 1990). The individual items addressed both the cognitive and affective dimension of empathy (e.g., “How often do you try to understand how your friends feel”, “How often do you feel sorry for others when bad things happen to them?”). Exploratory factor analyses supported the unidimensionality of the scale based on scree plots and eigenvalues greater than one at both Wave 1 and Wave 2. Therefore, the analyses did not differentiate between cognitive and affective empathy. The adolescents rated their responses on a three-point scale (0 – ‘Never’, 1 – ‘Sometimes’, 2 – ‘Very often’). The responses were averaged with higher scores indicating more empathy. The scale had acceptable internal reliability in the present sample (α = .79 and .71 at Waves 1 and 2). The validity of the scale was supported by negative correlations with aggressive behavior and delinquency in the present sample (Goering & Mrug, 2021; Su et al., 2010) and an increase after social competence training in a different study (Barrera et al., 2018).

Sociodemographic Covariates

At Wave 1, adolescents reported on their biological sex. Caregivers reported on the adolescents’ race/ethnicity, date of birth, and household composition. From these responses a dichotomous variable was computed indicating whether adolescents lived with both biological parents or not. At Waves 1 and 2, caregivers also reported their annual family income before taxes using a 13-point scale with response options ranging from ‘below $5000’ to ‘above $90,000’. Missing responses on family income at Wave 2 were substituted by family income at Wave 1. Adolescents’ age was computed at each wave from the adolescents’ date of birth and date of the interview. Since most adolescents (98%) were of either Black or Non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, race/ethnicity was coded as a dichotomous variable (racial/ethnic minority vs. Non-Hispanic White).

Data Analyses

Prior to the main analyses, the amount of missing data was examined and χ² and t-tests of independence were performed to examine whether cases with any missing data differed from cases with complete data on any variables included in the analyses. Descriptive statistics were obtained and bivariate correlations between the variables included in the analyses were examined. The assumptions of linear regression were tested. Specifically, normality was evaluated with normal probability plots and skewness and kurtosis of the residuals, independence of errors was tested with the Durbin–Watson test, and homogeneity of variance was evaluated with a plot of predicted values versus residuals.

The main analyses involved a hierarchical regression model with three steps conducted in Mplus 8.1 using maximum likelihood estimation. In Step 1, adolescents’ empathy at Wave 2 was predicted by the covariates – biological sex, racial/ethnic minority, age and family income at Wave 2, whether adolescents lived with both parents at Wave 1, and adolescents’ empathy at Wave 1. Step 2 added Wave 1 parental nurturance, inter-parental conflict, harsh discipline, and Wave 2 pubertal timing. Finally, Step 3 added interactions of pubertal timing with the three parental variables of interest (i.e., parental nurturance, inter-parental conflict, harsh discipline) to examine whether the effects of these parental variables on empathy differ across adolescents’ pubertal timing. Missing data were handled with Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML), which preserves the overall sample size and minimizes bias for data missing at random (Cham et al., 2017). Thus, the total sample size for the main analyses was equivalent to the full sample at Wave 1 (N = 704).

Sex differences in the main and interactive effects of the parental behavior variables and pubertal timing were examined using multigroup modeling. First, a likelihood ratio test was used to compare the fit of a model in which all paths and covariances were constrained to be equal for males and females to the fit of an unconstrained model, in which all paths and covariances were allowed to differ by sex. A significant difference in model fit between the constrained and the free model was followed up by individual likelihood ratio tests comparing unconstrained individual paths of interest. If the model fit improved when allowing a path to vary by sex, it was concluded that this path varied by sex and the individual effects for males and females were interpreted.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Due to some missing data points, 540 participants or 90% of participants that returned at Wave 2 had complete data on all variables that were included in the analyses. Among the total 704 participants, about 6% of data points were missing. The results from the missing data analyses showed that, compared to participants with complete data, those with missing data on any variables had higher annual family income at Wave 1 (M = 7.11 vs. M = 6.30, t (700) = −2.37, p = .018) and were more likely to be Non-Hispanic White (32% vs. 19%, χ²₍₁₎ = 13.08, p < .001). Participants with any missing data did not differ from participants with complete data in levels of empathy, parental nurturance, harsh discipline, inter-parental conflict, pubertal timing, biological sex or whether adolescents lived with both biological parents.

Descriptive statistics by sex are presented in Table 1. Bivariate correlations among the variables included in the analyses are reported in Table 2. The correlations indicated that parental nurturance was associated with lower harsh discipline and lower inter-parental conflict at Wave 1. Parental nurturance was related to higher empathy at both waves; harsh discipline and inter-parental conflict were associated with lower concurrent empathy at Wave 1 but not related to empathy at Wave 2. Early pubertal timing was associated with more harsh discipline and lower family income but unrelated to parental nurturance, inter-parental conflict, or empathy. Adolescents with higher family income reported higher concurrent parental nurturance, higher empathy, and lower inter-parental conflict. Compared to males, females reported more inter-parental conflict and higher empathy. Older adolescents reported higher inter-parental conflict and lower empathy levels and had lower annual family income at Wave 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics on all Variables Included in the Analyses and Socio-Demographic Variables by Sex.

	Females			Males			Sex Diff
	M(SD)	Min, Max	Skew, Kurtosis	M(SD)	Min, Max	Skew/Kurtosis	t/χ² (p value)
Parental nurturance (W1)	1.57 (0.40)	0.20, 2.00	−1.07, 0.98	1.53 (0.38)	0.20, 2.00	−0.81, 0.21	1.32 (.189)
Parental harsh discipline (W1)	0.87 (0.81)	0.00, 4.00	1.32, 2.02	0.90 (0.79)	0.00, 4.00	1.09, 0.82	−0.49 (.625)
Inter-parental conflict (W1)	0.34 (0.42)	0.00, 2.00	1.41, 1.51	0.27 (0.37)	0.00, 1.71	1.61, 2.21	2.06 (.040)
Adolescents’ empathy (W1)	1.67 (0.33)	0.22, 2.00	−1.16, 1.20	1.58 (0.35)	0.00, 2.00	−1.04, 1.88	3.51 (<.001)
Adolescents’ empathy (W2)	1.62 (0.28)	0.67, 2.00	−0.61, −0.26	1.54 (0.31)	0.22, 2.00	−0.80, 1.10	3.32 (<.001)
Early pubertal timing (W2)	0.02 (0.87)	−2.02, 1.93	−0.02, −0.75	−0.01 (0.84)	−2.67, 2.18	−0.16, −0.15	0.57 (.569)
Adolescents’ age (W2)	13.11 (0.84)	10.70, 15.57	0.36, −0.03	13.20 (0.96)	11.62, 16.62	0.45, −0.37	−1.27 (.206)
Adolescents’ family income (W2)	6.23 (3.75)	1.00, 13.00	0.32, −1.16	6.75 (4.00)	1.00, 13.00	0.19, −1.33	−1.76 (.079)
Racial/Ethnic minority (W1)	82.4%	—	—	73.7%	—	—	7.66 (.006)
Caregiver married (W1)	40.3%	—	—	47.3%	—	—	3.38 (.066)
Living with both parents (W1)	25.4%	—	—	32.5%	—	—	4.73 (.030)

Note. W1 – Wave 1, W2 – Wave 2, Sex Diff. – Mean Difference between Males and Females.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations between all Variables included in the Analyses.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Parental nurturance (W1)	1.00
2. Parental harsh discipline (W1)	−.12**	1.00
3. Inter-parental conflict (W1)	−.15**	.29**	1.00
4. Adolescents’ empathy (W1)	.38**	−.10**	−.14**	1.00
5. Adolescents’ empathy (W2)	.30**	−.07	−.07	.49**	1.00
6. Early pubertal timing (W2)	−.08	.10*	−.01	−.02	.01	1.00
7. Female	.05	−.02	.08*	.13**	.13**	.02	1.00
8. Racial/Ethnic minority	−.06	.14**	.09*	−.17**	−.14**	.25**	.10**	1.00
9. Adolescents’ age (W2)	−.08	−.01	.10*	−.17**	−.16**	.00	−.05	.30**	1.00
10. Adolescents’ family income (W2)	.09*	.05	−.08*	.13**	.15**	−.14**	−.07	−.34**	−.31**	1.00
11. Living with both parents (W2)	.06	.02	−.07	.04	.07	−.14**	−.08*	−.27**	−.19**	.46**

Note. W1 – Wave 1, W2 – Wave 2; *p < .05, **p < .01.

Main Analyses

Results from the hierarchical regression model are presented in Table 3. In line with the hypotheses, parental nurturance at the age of 11 uniquely predicted higher empathy at the age of 13. Contrary to the hypotheses, reports of inter-parental conflict and harsh discipline at the age of 11 did not uniquely predict changes in empathy from age 11 to age 13. Pubertal timing at age 13 was not associated with adolescents’ empathy levels at age 13. The results suggested no interaction effects of pubertal timing and parental nurturance, pubertal timing and inter-parental conflict, or pubertal timing and harsh discipline on empathy development. Compared to males, females developed higher empathy from age 11 to age 13, as indicated by the main effect of sex after adjusting for Wave 1 empathy, which reflects the unique variance in change in empathy from age 11 to age 13 explained by being female. Age, family income, race/ethnicity, and whether adolescents lived with both parents did not uniquely predict empathy at Wave 2. Empathy levels were moderately stable from age 11 to age 13. The assumptions of linear regression were met (i.e., normality, independence of errors, homogeneity of variance).

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Empathy at wave 2

Variable	β	ΔR²
Step 1		0.26***
Female	0.09**
Racial/Ethnic minority	−0.05
Adolescents’ age (W2)	−0.04
Adolescents’ family income (W2)	0.06
Living with both parents (W1)	0.02
Adolescents’ empathy (W1)	0.46***
Step 2		0.02***
Parental nurturance (W1)	0.14***
Harsh discipline (W1)	−0.01
Inter-parental conflict (W1)	0.01
Early pubertal timing (W2)	0.05
Step 3		0.00
Parental nurturance X early PT	−0.05
Harsh discipline X early PT	−0.02
Parental conflict X early PT	0.01

Note. W1 – Wave 1, W2 – Wave 2, Early PT – Early Pubertal Timing; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Sex Differences

Results from the multigroup analyses are presented in Table 4. The results showed overall sex differences in Step 2 of the hierarchical regression model (Δχ²₍₄₄₎ = 66.50, p = .016). Follow up analyses revealed that the effect of parental nurturance at Wave 1 on empathy at Wave 2 differed by sex (Δχ²₍₁₎ = 5.69, p = .017) with parental nurturance predicting higher empathy more strongly in females (β = 0.16, p < .001) compared to males (β = 0.11, p = .003). Follow up analyses showed no sex differences in the effect of Wave 1 harsh discipline on Wave 2 empathy (Δχ²₍₁₎ = 1.13, p = .288), the effect of Wave 1 inter-parental conflict on Wave 2 empathy (Δχ²₍₁₎ = 0.50, p = .480), and the relationship between Wave 2 pubertal timing and Wave 2 empathy (Δχ²₍₁₎ = 0.48, p = .488).

Table 4.

Results from the Multi-Group Modeling to Examine Sex Differences in the Effects of Interest.

Effect on Adolescents’ Empathy at Wave 2	Constrained Model Fit χ² (df), p	Unconstrained Model Fit χ² (df), p	Likelihood-Ratio test: Δχ² (df), p
Step 2	105.90 (54), <.001	39.40 (10), <.001	66.50 (44), .016
Parental nurturance (W1)	105.90 (54), <.001	100.21 (53), <.001	5.69 (1), .017
Harsh discipline (W1)	105.90 (54), <.001	104.77 (53), <.001	1.13 (1), .288
Inter-parental conflict (W1)	105.90 (54), <.001	105.40 (53), <.001	0.50 (1), .480
Early pubertal timing (W2)	105.90 (54), <.001	104.42 (53), <.001	0.48 (1), .488
Step 3	186.74 (90), <.001	41.87 (13), <.001	144.87 (77), <.001
Parental nurturance X PT	186.74 (90), <.001	185.37 (89), <.001	1.37 (1), .241
Harsh discipline X PT	186.74 (90), <.001	186.73 (89), <.001	0.01 (1), .920
Inter-parental conflict X PT	186.74 (90), <.001	186.15 (89), <.001	0.59 (1), .442

Note. W1 – Wave 1, W2 – Wave 2, PT – Early Pubertal Timing.

Results from the multigroup analyses also revealed overall sex differences in Step 3 of the hierarchical regression model (Δχ²₍₇₇₎ = 144.87, p < .001). However, follow up analyses showed that neither the interaction effect of harsh discipline and pubertal timing (Δχ²₍₁₎ = 0.01, p = .920), nor the interaction effect of inter-parental conflict and pubertal timing (Δχ²₍₁₎ = 0.59, p = .442), nor the interaction effect of parental nurturance and pubertal timing (Δχ²₍₁₎ = 1.37, p = .241) differed by sex.

Sensitivity Analysis

To better understand the relative effects of the three parental behaviors on adolescents’ empathy over time versus at the same time, a sensitivity analysis was conducted with Wave 2 parental nurturance, harsh discipline, and inter-parental conflict predicting Wave 2 adolescents’ empathy, while controlling for adolescents’ empathy at Wave 1 and the covariates from the main analyses. The results showed that only parental nurturance was uniquely associated with higher empathy (β = 0.26, p < .001), whereas empathy had no unique associations with Wave 2 harsh discipline (β = .03, p = .448) or Wave 2 inter-parental conflict (β = −0.07, p = .079).

Discussion

Previous research has shown that parental behavior is critical for empathy development during adolescence. While parental nurturance has been related to empathy both concurrently and longitudinally during both childhood and adolescence (Mark et al., 2002; Miklikowska et al., 2011), links between harsh discipline and empathy only emerged in cross-sectional but not in longitudinal studies (Chaparro & Grusec, 2016; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996) and few prior studies examined links between inter-parental conflict and empathy development. Additionally, less understood is whether the effects of parental behavior on adolescents’ empathy development differ by adolescents’ pubertal timing. This study utilized a two-wave longitudinal design to examine prospective effects of parental nurturance, harsh discipline, and inter-parental conflict on empathy development and investigated whether adolescents’ pubertal timing moderates any prospective effects in a sample of pre-dominantly low-income Black early adolescents. The results supported the hypothesis of concurrent and longitudinal effects of parental nurturance on empathy with this effect being stronger in females compared to males. Harsh discipline and inter-parental conflict were only concurrently associated with adolescents’ empathy. The results showed no moderating effect of pubertal timing, which suggests that the effects of parental behavior on adolescents’ empathy are independent of pubertal timing.

Parental Behavior and Empathy Development

The present findings are consistent with previous research linking parental nurturance with greater empathy both concurrently and over time during early adolescence (Laible & Carlo, 2004; Miklikowska et al., 2011). The longitudinal effect was independent of pubertal timing suggesting that receiving parental warmth and support is a critical factor for empathy development during early adolescence in youth regardless of pubertal timing (i.e., early, on-time, or late). This suggests that parents remain important agents for socialization in early adolescence and that internalizing parental warmth and support promotes empathy during this developmental period. While parental nurturance predicted higher empathy in both sex groups, the effect was stronger in females underlying the importance of parental nurturance for empathy development in females specifically. Previous research has shown that while paternal nurturance predicted empathy similarly in boys and girls, maternal nurturance predicted empathy more strongly in girls than in boys (Miklikowska et al., 2011). Since the vast majority (89%) of adolescents in the present sample lived with their biological mother but only about a third of youth (32%) lived together with their biological fathers, youth reports of parental nurturance reflect primarily their relationships with mothers, which may explain the stronger links of parental nurturance and empathy in females compared to males.

The present findings also suggest that harsh discipline is linked with lower concurrent empathy at age 11, which replicates previous findings of cross-sectional relationships of harsh discipline and lower empathy (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). Contrary to the hypothesis, the present results suggest that harsh discipline does not predict changes in empathy between age 11 and age 13 regardless of adolescents’ pubertal timing (i.e., early, on-time, late) and biological sex. These results are similar to one prior study that found no longitudinal effects of harsh discipline on changes in empathy from age 10 to age 12 (Chaparro & Grusec, 2016). Associations between harsh discipline and lower empathy have previously been explained by harsh discipline leading to self-oriented emotions (e.g., fear of punishment), which may overshadow other-oriented emotions including empathy (Hoffman, 2001). Since fear of punishment decreases over the course of early adolescence (Westenberg et al., 2007), it is possible that harsh discipline is less likely to suppress other-oriented emotions by age of 13 compared to younger ages. Future studies should test this hypothesis by comparing early adolescents with younger children.

The present results also suggest that adolescents who perceive frequent conflicts between adults in their household show lower concurrent levels of empathy at age 11. These findings align with previous reports of links between inter-parental conflict and moral disengagement in adolescence (Yang et al., 2018). These findings also extend previous research linking inter-parental conflicts with poorer social skills (Brummert Lennings & Bussey, 2017), by specifically focusing on adolescents’ empathy. Based on social learning theory, it is possible that adolescents who frequently experience inter-parental conflicts internalize poorer conflict resolution skills in form of less perspective taking and empathic concern (Eisenberg & Valiente, 2002). However, the present findings suggest that inter-parental conflict does not affect adolescents’ empathy development over time from age 11 to age 13 in either males or females and independent of adolescents’ pubertal timing. One explanation may be that during early adolescence (and regardless of pubertal timing), youth become more susceptible to peer socialization and less susceptible to parental influences (Meeus, 2016). Moreover, with the development of formal operational thinking during early adolescence, youth begin evaluating their parents more critically and no longer perceive them as idealized role models (Allen, 2008). With formal operational thinking beginning to develop around age 12 (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958), 13-year olds may therefore be less prone to internalize experiences of inter-parental conflict.

In summary, this study showed that only parental nurturance had a longitudinal effect on empathy development from age 11 to age 13. This may suggest that positive parenting remains important in adolescents’ development of empathy, whereas negative parental behaviors such as harsh discipline and inter-parental conflict become less relevant for empathy development during early adolescence when adolescents begin to evaluate caregivers more critically and shift from parental socialization to peer socialization (Allen, 2008; Meeus, 2016). This is further supported by the results from the sensitivity analyses, which found no unique concurrent associations between adolescents’ empathy and parental use of harsh discipline or inter-parental conflict at age 13.

Contrary to the hypotheses, pubertal timing did not moderate any effects of parental behavior on empathy. Since pubertal timing was only measured at age 13, most adolescents (95%) have already started pubertal maturation, and the present study may not have captured differences in the timing of pubertal changes that occur at younger ages, such as hormonal processes during adrenarche (Whittle et al., 2015). Future research should continue investigating the effects of pubertal timing and parental behavior on social emotional development by assessing pubertal timing at multiple time points starting in pre-adolescence.

Strengths and Limitations

One key strength of the present study is its two-wave design, which enabled the examination of parental behavior in relation to empathy development over the period of early adolescence. Another strength is the inclusion of an understudied population of predominantly Black early adolescents from lower family SES and inclusion of similar numbers of males and females. Despite these strengths, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the study’s findings. First, the study was limited by reliance on adolescents’ self-reports, which may have led to inflated associations among the variables due to shared method variance. Nevertheless, self-reports of empathy are commonly used as empathy is not easily observable in its behavioral manifestations and self-report measures of empathy have previously shown high validity (Jolliffe et al., 2003). Additionally, youth’s perceptions of parenting and inter-parental conflict appear particularly relevant for how parental influences are internalized and relate to empathy development (Barry et al., 2008).

Another limitation is the attrition occurring from Wave 1 to Wave 2 and the resulting missing data. Although the bias of selective attrition was minimized with the use of Full Information Maximum Likelihood in the main analyses, the findings on prospective effects between parental behavior and empathy may be less generalizable to Non-Hispanic White and higher SES youth who were more likely to drop out from the study. Another limitation was that pubertal timing was only assessed at Wave 2 at the average age of 13, which did not allow examination of pubertal tempo and may also not have captured pubertal changes that occur earlier, especially in females (Marceau et al., 2015). While only 7.8% of adolescents reported that they completed their pubertal maturation at the time of assessment and there was sufficient variability in the Tanner stage scores to detect differences in pubertal status (SD = 0.93), future studies should consider assessing pubertal timing at multiple time points starting at younger ages. Finally, the present study was not able to distinguish between cognitive and affective components of empathy as well as between mothers’ behavior and fathers’ behavior that have previously shown differential relationships with adolescents’ empathy (Miklikowska et al., 2011).

Conclusion

Parental nurturance has been established as a stable predictor of empathy development in adolescence but less understood is whether other parental dimensions specifically harsh discipline and inter-parental conflict have unique effects on empathy development in early adolescence and whether parental behavior effects differ based on adolescents’ pubertal timing. To better understand concurrent and prospective links between these parental dimensions and empathy development and potential differences in effects of parental behavior across pubertal timing, the present study examined prospective effects of parental nurturance, harsh discipline, and inter-parental conflict at age 11 on empathy at age 13 as well as whether pubertal timing moderates any of these relationships in pre-dominantly Black and low-income early adolescents. The results suggest that adolescents who experience more parental nurturance develop more empathy from age 11 to 13, whereas harsh discipline and inter-parental conflict were only concurrently related to lower empathy at age 11. Adolescents’ pubertal timing at age 13 did not moderate any links between parental behavior and empathy development. These findings highlight the important role of parental nurturance in empathy development in low-income and pre-dominantly Black youth during early adolescence over and above other parental behaviors, independent of adolescents’ pubertal timing, and especially in females.

Footnotes

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: This work was supported by the Centers for disease control and prevention, R49-CCR418569.

ORCID iDs

Marlon Goering

Sylvie Mrug

Author Biographies

Marlon Goering is a PhD student in the Department of Psychology at University of Alabama at Birmingham. His research focuses on the effects of parenting and pubertal timing on moral development and behavioral problems in adolescence.

Sylvie Mrug is a University Professor in the Department of Psychology at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Her research examines the interplay of risk and protective factors in the development of behavioral and emotional problems in adolescence as well as long-term effects of adolescent stress on health outcomes in adulthood.

References

Allen

J. P.

(2008). The attachment system in adolescence. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 419–435). The Guilford Press.

Bandura

Walters

R. H.

(1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice-Hall.

Barnes

Windle

(1987). Family factors in adolescent alcohol and drug abuse. Pediatrician, 14(1–2), 13–18. PMID: 3615298.

Barrera

Atenafu

E. G.

Sung

Bartels

Schulte

Chung

Cataudella

Hancock

Janzen

Saleh

Strother

Downie

Zelcer

Hukin

McConnell

(2018). A randomized control intervention trial to improve social skills and quality of life in pediatric brain tumor survivors. Psycho-oncology, 27(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4385

Barry

C. T.

Frick

P. J.

Grafeman

S. J.

(2008). Child versus parent reports of parenting practices: Implications for the conceptualization of child behavioral and emotional problems. Assessment, 15(3), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107312212

Blakemore

S. J.

(2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(4), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2353

Branje

(2018). Development of parent-adolescent relationships: Conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12278

Brown

A. M.

Fitzgerald

M. M.

Shipman

Schneider

(2007). Children’s expectations of parent–child communication following interparental conflict: Do parents talk to children about conflict? Journal of Family Violence, 22(6), 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9095-x

Brummert Lennings

H. I.

Bussey

(2017). The mediating role of coping self‐efficacy beliefs on the relationship between parental conflict and child psychological adjustment. Social Development, 26(4), 753–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12241

10.

Buist

K. L.

Verhoeven

Hoksbergen

ter Laak

Watve

Paranjpe

(2017). Associations of perceived sibling and parent-child relationship quality with internalizing and externalizing problems: Comparing Indian and dutch early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 37(8), 1163–1190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431616653473

11.

Centifanti

L. C. M.

Boydston

Wee

Demetriou

MacLellan

Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous

(2018). Pubertal timing and callous-unemotional traits in girls: Associations across two samples from the UK and Cyprus. Journal of Adolescence, 69(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.08.010

12.

Cham

Reshetnyak

Rosenfeld

Breitbart

(2017). Full information maximum likelihood estimation for latent variable interactions with incomplete indicators. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1245600

13.

Chaparro

M. P.

Grusec

J. E.

(2016). Neuroticism moderates the relation between parenting and empathy and between empathy and prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982), 62(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.62.2.0105

14.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

(2004). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 2(11), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471726746.ch11

15.

Crone

E. A.

Dahl

R. E.

(2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(9), 636–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3313

16.

David

K. M.

Murphy

B. C.

(2004). Interparental conflict and late adolescents’ sensitization to conflict: The moderating effects of emotional functioning and gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:joyo.0000025318.26238.40

17.

Davies

P. T.

Hentges

R. F.

Coe

J. L.

Martin

M. J.

Sturge-Apple

M. L.

Cummings

E. M.

(2016). The multiple faces of interparental conflict: Implications for cascades of children’s insecurity and externalizing problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(5), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000170

18.

Davies

P. T.

Martin

M. J.

Cicchetti

(2012). Delineating the sequelae of destructive and constructive interparental conflict for children within an evolutionary framework. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 939–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025899

19.

Davis

B. T.

Hops

Alpert

Sheeber

(1998). Child responses to parental conflict and their effect on adjustment: A study of triadic relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.12.2.163

20.

Demaray

M. K.

Ruffalo

S. L.

Carlson

Busse

R. T.

Olson

A. E.

McManus

S. M.

Leventhal

(1995). Social skills assessment: A comparative evaluation of six published rating scales. School Psychology Review, 24(4), 648–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1995.12085793

21.

Eisenberg

Guthrie

I. K.

Cumberland

Murphy

B. C.

Shepard

S. A.

Zhou

Carlo

(2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 993–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.993

22.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Sadovsky

(2006). Empathy-related responding in children. In Killen

Smetana

J. G.

(Eds.). Handbook of moral development (pp. 517–549). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

23.

Eisenberg

Valiente

(2002). Parenting and children’s prosocial and moral development. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.). Handbook of parenting: Practical issues in parenting (pp. 111–142). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

24.

Brody

G. H.

Conger

R. D.

Simons

R. L.

(2006). Pubertal maturation and African American children’s internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(4), 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9046-5

25.

Brody

G. H.

Conger

R. D.

Simons

R. L.

Murry

V. M.

(2002). Contextual amplification of pubertal transition effects on deviant peer affiliation and externalizing behavior among African American children. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.1.42

26.

Conger

R. D.

Lorenz

F. O.

Simons

R. L.

(1994). Parents’ stressful life events and adolescent depressed mood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137333

27.

Goering

Mrug

(2021). Empathy as a mediator of the relationship between authoritative parenting and delinquent behavior in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(7), 1308–1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01445-9

28.

Gresham

F. M.

Elliot

S. N.

(1990). The social skills rating system. American Guidance Service.

29.

Grych

J. H.

Raynor

S. R.

Fosco

G. M.

(2004). Family processes that shape the impact of interparental conflict on adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 16(3), 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579404004717

30.

Grych

J. H.

Seid

Fincham

F. D.

(1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63(3), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131346

31.

Hoffman

M. L.

(2001). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.

32.

Inhelder

Piaget

(1958) The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: an essay on the construction of formal operational structures (Vol. 22). Psychology Press.

33.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

Hawkins

J. D.

Catalano

R. F.

Hill

K. G.

Kosterman

(2003). Predictive, concurrent, prospective and retrospective validity of self‐reported delinquency. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13(3), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.541

34.

Jones

S. C.

Anderson

R. E.

Gaskin-Wasson

A. L.

Sawyer

B. A.

Applewhite

Metzger

I. W.

(2020). From “crib to coffin”: Navigating coping from racism-related stress throughout the lifespan of Black Americans. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000430

35.

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

Kouros

C. D.

(2016). Interparental conflict and child adjustment. In Cicchetti

(Ed.). Developmental psychopathology: Risk, resilience, and intervention (pp. 608–659). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

36.

Kim

S. Y.

(2000). Parenting practices and adolescent depressive symptoms in Chinese American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(3), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.420

37.

Krevans

Gibbs

J. C.

(1996). Parents’ use of inductive discipline: Relations to children’s empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67(6), 3263–3277. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131778

38.

Laible

D. J.

Carlo

(2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 759–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403260094

39.

Laible

D. J.

Carlo

Roesch

S. C.

(2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 27(6), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.005

40.

Levy

Yirmiya

Goldstein

Feldman

(2019). The neural basis of empathy and empathic behavior in the context of chronic trauma. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 562. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00562

41.

Lysenko

L. J.

Barker

E. D.

Jaffee

S. R.

(2013). Sex differences in the relationship between harsh discipline and conduct problems. Social Development, 22(1), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12002

42.

Marceau

Ram

Susman

E. J.

(2015). Development and lability in the parent–child relationship during adolescence: Associations with pubertal timing and tempo. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(3), 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12139

43.

Mark

I. L. V. D.

IJzendoorn

M. H. V.

Bakermans‐Kranenburg

M. J.

(2002). Development of empathy in girls during the second year of life: Associations with parenting, attachment, and temperament. Social Development, 11(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00210

44.

Meeus

(2016). Adolescent psychosocial development: A review of longitudinal models and research. Developmental Psychology, 52(12), 1969–1993. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000243

45.

Miklikowska

Duriez

Soenens

(2011). Family roots of empathy-related characteristics: The role of perceived maternal and paternal need support in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1342–1352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024726

46.

Mrug

Elliott

Gilliland

M. J.

Grunbaum

J. A.

Tortolero

S. R.

Cuccaro

Schuster

(2008). Positive parenting and early puberty in girls: Protective effects against aggressive behavior. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 162(8), 781–786. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.162.8.781

47.

Negriff

Susman

E. J.

(2011). Pubertal timing, depression, and externalizing problems: A framework, review, and examination of gender differences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 717–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00708.x

48.

Singer

(2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(6), 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.011

49.

Soenens

Duriez

Vansteenkiste

Goossens

(2007). The intergenerational transmission of empathy-related responding in adolescence: The role of maternal support. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296300

50.

Sroufe

(2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment & Human Development, 7(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500365928

51.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily violence and conflict: The conflict tactics (CT) scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/351733

52.

Strayer

Roberts

(2004). Children’s anger, emotional expressiveness, and empathy: Relations with parents’ empathy, emotional expressiveness, and parenting practices. Social Development, 13(2), 229–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.000265.x

53.

Sturge-Apple

M. L.

Cicchetti

Davies

P. T.

Suor

J. H.

(2012). Differential susceptibility in spillover between interparental conflict and maternal parenting practices: Evidence for OXTR and 5-HTT genes. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028302

54.

Mrug

Windle

(2010). Social cognitive and emotional mediators link violence exposure and parental nurturance to adolescent aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39(6), 814–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2010.517163

55.

Summer

J. A.

Colich

N. L.

Uddin

Armstrong

McLaughlin

K. A.

(2019). Early experiences of threat, but not deprivation, are associated with accelerated biological aging in children and adolescents. Biological Psychiatry, 85(3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.09.008

56.

Taylor

S. J. C.

Whincup

P. H.

Hindmarsh

P. C.

Lampe

Odoki

Cook

D. G.

(2001). Performance of a new pubertal self-assessment questionnaire: A preliminary study. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 15(1), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3016.2001.00317.x

57.

Van der Graaff

Branje

De Wied

Hawk

Van Lier

Meeus

(2014). Perspective taking and empathic concern in adolescence: Gender differences in developmental changes. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 881–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034325

58.

van Eldik

W. M.

de Haan

A. D.

Parry

L. Q.

Davies

P. T.

Luijk

M. P.

Arends

L. R.

Prinzie

(2020). The interparental relationship: Meta-analytic associations with children’s maladjustment and responses to interparental conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 146(7), 553–594. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000233

59.

Van Lissa

Hawk

Branje

Koot

Van Lier

Meeus

(2015). Divergence between adolescent and parental perceptions of conflict in relationship to adolescent empathy development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0152-5

60.

Van Lissa

Hawk

De Wied

Koot

Van Lier

Meeus

(2014). The longitudinal interplay of affective and cognitive empathy within and between adolescents and mothers. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1219–1225. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035050

61.

Vliegenthart

Noppe

Van Rossum

E. F. C.

Koper

J. W.

Raat

Van den Akker

E. L. T.

(2016). Socioeconomic status in children is associated with hair cortisol levels as a biological measure of chronic stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 65, 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.11.022

62.

Westenberg

P. M.

Gullone

Bokhorst

C. L.

Heyne

D. A.

King

N. J.

(2007). Social evaluation fear in childhood and adolescence: Normative developmental course and continuity of individual differences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 471–483. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151006x173099

63.

Whittle

Simmons

J. G.

Byrne

M. L.

Strikwerda-Brown

Kerestes

Seal

M. L.

Olsson

C. A.

Dudgeon

Mundy

L. K.

Patton

G. C.

Allen

N. B.

(2015). Associations between early adrenarche, affective brain function and mental health in children. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(9), 1282–1290. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv014

64.

Windle

Brener

Cuccaro

Dittus

Kanouse

D. E.

Murray

Wallander

Schuster

M. A.

(2010). Parenting predictors of early-adolescents’ health behaviors: Simultaneous group comparisons across sex and ethnic groups. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39(6), 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9414-z

65.

Liu

Gong

(2022). The relationship between empathy and attachment in children and adolescents: Three-level meta-analyses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1391. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031391

66.

Yang

Wang

Chen

Liu

(2018). Cyberbullying perpetration among Chinese adolescents: The role of interparental conflict, moral disengagement, and moral identity. Children and Youth Services Review, 86, 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.003

67.

Zhou

Eisenberg

Losoya

S. H.

Fabes

R. A.

Reiser

Guthrie

I. K.

Murphy

B. C.

Cumberland

A. J.

Shepard

S. A.

(2002). The relations of parental warmth and positive expressiveness to children’s empathy‐related responding and social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(3), 893–915. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00446