Arts and Social Sciences, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)
Psychology, Department of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Keskin, Gizem
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Adolescence is a transitional period in which the risk of internalizing symptoms –anxious and depressive symptoms– is high. Emotional processes happen in the context of social relationships and parent-adolescent relationships are a key factor to predict both parental and adolescent internalizing symptoms. To date, the literature has well-documented the between-family differences in parent-adolescent interactions and internalizing symptoms while paying less attention to the within-family processes of parent-adolescent interactions and internalizing symptoms at different time scales (e.g., moment-to-moment and day-to-day). In my dissertation, I examined how parent-adolescent interactions contribute to – or protect against – both short-term and long-term parental and adolescent internalizing symptoms at different time scales in three studies. The first study explored whether moment-to-moment interaction patterns in parent-adolescent conflicts explained the development of internalizing symptoms among adolescents and parents. The second study explored how daily parent-adolescent conflict and their internalizing mood (i.e., sad and anxious mood) were associated with each other. The third study examined the mediating role of parenting practices (i.e., autonomy support and psychological control) between parental psychological needs and adolescent internalizing mood in daily life. Taken together, the findings from these three studies showed that (1) momentary parent-adolescent conflict interactions are associated with their internalizing problems, (2) parent-adolescent conflicts and internalizing symptoms are likely to co-occur in everyday life, and (3) parents’ own daily psychological needs should be met first to promote adolescents’ emotional well-being through parenting practices in parent-adolescent dyads’ daily lives.
PARENT-ADOLESCENT DYNAMICS AND INTERNALIZING SYMPTOMS AT MULTIPLE TIME SCALES by Gizem Keskin B.Sc. (Hons.), Middle East Technical University, 2017 M.Sc., Utrecht University, 2019 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) July 2024 © Gizem Keskin, 2024 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, dissertation entitled: PARENT-ADOLESCENT DYNAMICS AND INTERNALIZING SYMPTOMS AT MULTIPLE TIME SCALES submitted by Gizem Keskin in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Dr. Jessica Lougheed, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisor Dr. Leanne ten Brinke, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Jamie Piercy, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Elizabeth Keys, Faculty of Health and Social Development University Examiner Dr. Marlene Moretti, Simon Fraser University External Examiner iii Abstract Adolescence is a transitional period in which the risk of internalizing symptoms –anxious and depressive symptoms– is high. Emotional processes happen in the context of social relationships and parent-adolescent relationships are a key factor to predict both parental and adolescent internalizing symptoms. To date, the literature has well-documented the between-family differences in parent-adolescent interactions and internalizing symptoms while paying less attention to the within-family processes of parent-adolescent interactions and internalizing symptoms at different time scales (e.g., moment-to-moment and day-to-day). In my dissertation, I examined how parent-adolescent interactions contribute to – or protect against – both short-term and long-term parental and adolescent internalizing symptoms at different time scales in three studies. The first study explored whether moment-to-moment interaction patterns in parent-adolescent conflicts explained the development of internalizing symptoms among adolescents and parents. The second study explored how daily parent-adolescent conflict and their internalizing mood (i.e., sad and anxious mood) were associated with each other. The third study examined the mediating role of parenting practices (i.e., autonomy support and psychological control) between parental psychological needs and adolescent internalizing mood in daily life. Taken together, the findings from these three studies showed that (1) momentary parent-adolescent conflict interactions are associated with their internalizing problems, (2) parent-adolescent conflicts and internalizing symptoms are likely to co-occur in everyday life, and (3) parents’ own daily psychological needs should be met first to promote adolescents’ emotional well-being through parenting practices in parent-adolescent dyads’ daily lives. iv Lay Summary Adolescence is a sensitive period regarding the development of mental health difficulties. Youth experience more intense negative feelings in adolescence than in earlier ages. Parents’ and adolescents’ anxious and sad feelings and their positive and negative interactions can mutually affect each other. To date, researchers mostly asked parents and adolescents to complete one-time surveys to explore those effects. To better understand the link between parent-adolescent relationships and well-being, video records of parent-adolescent interactions as well as parents’ and adolescents’ daily diary reports over weeks were used in this dissertation. Results showed that anxious and sad feelings of parents and adolescents can affect their emotional interactions; parent-adolescent conflicts and their anxious and sad feelings are likely to accompany each other; and when parents' psychological needs are met, they show more supportive behaviors and less controlling behaviors to their adolescents, and in return, adolescents feel less anxious and sad. v Preface Gizem Keskin contributed to the formulation of the research questions, review of the theoretical basis of the studies, data analyses, and manuscript writing in all three studies in collaboration with Dr. Jessica Lougheed. Dr. Tom Hollenstein and Dr. Jessica Lougheed designed and supported the data collection for Chapter 2 and provided feedback for manuscript preparation. Gizem Keskin, Dr. Jessica Lougheed, and Dr. Nancy Sin designed and supported the data collection for Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, and Dr. Jessica Lougheed and Dr. Nancy Sin provided feedback for the manuscript preparation for Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. The supervisory committee offered their feedback for the initial proposal for the studies and their feedback was integrated. Dr. Jessica Lougheed provided feedback for drafts of the individual manuscripts and the complete dissertation. No generative AI was used in any stage of writing of this dissertation. Ethical approval for the study in Chapter 2 was received from Queen’s University Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board (HSREB: approval number TRAQ #6018560) and was supported by an award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Tom Hollenstein (Grant number: 6022000) and by a Michael Smith Health Research BC Scholar Award to Jessica P. Lougheed (SCH-2023-3044). Chapter 2 was submitted to the Journal of Emotion and Psychopathology on February 24, 2024. Ethical approval for the studies in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 was received from University of British Columbia Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB: approval number H21-01599) and was supported by funding awarded to Jessica P. Lougheed and Nancy L. Sin from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Insight Development Grant (430-2021-00435), and by funding awarded to Jessica P. Lougheed from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (40825) and the Michael Smith Health Research BC Scholar award (SCH-2023-3044). Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 were submitted to Emotion on April 17, 2024, and to the Journal of Family Psychology on April 18, 2024, respectively. vi All three manuscripts from the current dissertation were led by Gizem Keskin under the supervision of Dr. Jessica Lougheed. Except for the design and the data collection of the study in Chapter 2, Gizem Keskin significantly contributed to the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, and preparation of all three studies and manuscripts. Due to her senior role, Dr. Jessica Lougheed was included as the last co-author of all three studies. Dr. Tom Hollenstein provided feedback on the final draft of the manuscript in Chapter 2 and was listed as the second co-author. Dr. Nancy Sin provided feedback for the final drafts of the studies in Chapters 3 and 4 and was listed as the second co-author in both manuscripts. vii Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ........................................................................................................................... iv Preface ....................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. x List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. xiii Dedication ............................................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1: General Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 General Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Developmental Psychology Theories on the Parent-Adolescent Emotional Development ... 1 Family Systems Theory ................................................................................................... 2 Self-Determination Theory ............................................................................................... 2 Dynamic Systems Approach and the Question of Time Scale ......................................... 3 The Current Dissertation ..................................................................................................... 6 Study 1: Moment-to-Moment Conflict Interactions and Parent-Adolescent Internalizing Problems ......................................................................................................................... 6 Study 2: Parent-Adolescent Daily Conflict and Internalizing Mood ................................... 7 viii Study 3: Daily Parental Psychological Needs, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood ........................................................................................................... 8 References ............................................................................................................................10 Chapter 2: Sequences of Moment-to-Moment Emotion Dynamics during Mother-Adolescent Conflicts and Prospective Associations with Internalizing Problems ............17 Abstract .................................................................................................................................17 Methods ................................................................................................................................23 Results ..................................................................................................................................31 Discussion .............................................................................................................................38 References ............................................................................................................................45 Chapter 3: Conflict Interactions and Internalizing Mood in Parent-Adolescent Dyads’ Daily Lives ...............................................................................................................................55 Abstract .................................................................................................................................55 Methods ................................................................................................................................59 Results ..................................................................................................................................65 Discussion .............................................................................................................................68 References ............................................................................................................................73 Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................80 Chapter 4: Parental Psychological Needs, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood in Daily Life ............................................................................................ 106 Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 106 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 112 ix Results ................................................................................................................................ 118 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 121 References .......................................................................................................................... 125 Figures and Tables .............................................................................................................. 132 Chapter 5: General Discussion ............................................................................................ 142 General Discussion ............................................................................................................. 142 Momentary Parent-Adolescent Conflict Interactions and Internalizing Symptoms ............ 142 Daily Parent-Adolescent Dynamics and Internalizing Symptoms ...................................... 143 Limitations and Future Directions ..................................................................................... 145 General Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 146 References .......................................................................................................................... 148 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 153 APPENDIX A: Beck Anxiety Inventory ................................................................................. 153 APPENDIX B: Children’s Depression Inventory ................................................................... 155 APPENDIX C: Beck Depression Inventory-II ....................................................................... 160 APPENDIX D: Issues Checklist ........................................................................................... 165 APPENDIX E: A Brief Explanation of SPAFF5 Coding Categories ...................................... 168 APPENDIX F: Parental Psychological Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration ................... 170 x List of Tables Table 2.1 Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................................................32 Table 2.3 Inter-dyad Differences in Interaction Patterns: Description of Sequence Dimensions34 Table 3.1 Bivariate Correlations between Mean Levels of Parent and Adolescent Conflict, Sad Mood, and Anxious Mood ..........................................................................................................81 Table 3.2 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models of Sad Mood and Anxious Mood, and Conflict with Lagged Variables ...............................................................................................................82 Table 3.3 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models of Same-Day Sad Mood and Anxious Mood, and Conflict ...............................................................................................................................88 Supplementary Table 3.1 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models of Sad Mood and Anxious Mood, and Conflict: Controlling for Gender ...............................................................................94 Supplementary Table 3.2 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models of Sad Mood and Anxious Mood, and Conflict: Controlling for School Year ...................................................................... 100 Table 4.1 Bivariate Correlations between Mean Level Variables ............................................. 133 Table 4.2 Multilevel Mediation Analysis of Parent Psychological Need, Parent Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood ......................................................................... 134 Supplementary Table 4.1 Multilevel Mediation Analysis of Parent Psychological Need, Parent Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood: Gender as a Covariate for Outcome Variables ................................................................................................................................. 138 xi List of Figures Figure 2.1 Grid Sequence Analysis Steps ................................................................................28 Figure 2.2 Dyadic Emotional States in Temporal Order ............................................................29 Figure 2.3 Pearson Chi-Square Test of the Most Discriminating Subsequences ......................33 Figure 2.4 Illustration of Two Subsequences Representing Dimensions on a Grid ...................35 Figure 2.5 Structural Equation Model of Grid Sequence Analysis and Depressive Symptoms ...37 Figure 2.6 Structural Equation Model of Grid Sequence Analysis and Anxiety Symptoms ........38 Figure 3.1 Longitudinal Actor-Partner Interdependence Model of Parent-Adolescent Daily Dynamics ..................................................................................................................................80 Figure 4.1 Multilevel Mediation Analysis of Parental Psychological Needs, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood.......................................................................................... 132 xii List of Abbreviations LCS Longest common subsequence MDS Multidimensional scaling MLR Maximum likelihood with robust standard errors L-APIM Longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model DSEM Dynamic structural equation modeling SPAFF5 Specific affect code, 5-code version xiii Acknowledgments Dissertation writing is a wild roller coaster ride with many ups and downs. I have been so privileged to be surrounded by supportive people at and beyond my department. Above all, I am grateful for my amazing supervisor Dr. Jessica Lougheed for teaching me not just how to become a researcher with high ethical and professional standards but also how to be flexible and creative in difficult times to flourish academically. Any doctoral training requires curiosity, hard work, persistence, and collaboration. However, thanks to you for being a supervisor whom I cannot ask for better, I could stay resilient when life happens. Along with offering many great opportunities, my doctoral training also involved transferring between programs, multiple intercontinental moves, a pandemic, multiple natural disasters, and very recently discovering my neurodivergent brain. Thank you so much for generously supporting my academic development, no matter how challenging the circumstances were. This dissertation marks the start of a new chapter, and I am already looking forward to future collaborations with you to explore, create, and innovate together. I am grateful to my advisory committee members Dr. Leanne ten Brinke and Dr. Jamie Piercy for sharing their wisdom for the development of research ideas and for shaping this dissertation into its final form. I am also grateful to my external examiner Dr. Marlene Moretti and my university examiner Dr. Elizabeth Keys for their contributions to this dissertation by providing their valuable insights. I would like to thank Dr. Tom Hollenstein and Dr. Nancy Sin for offering their highly valuable and helpful feedback on the manuscripts. Thanks to Dr. Tom Hollenstein and his lab, I was able to explore the moment-to-moment conflict interactions between parents and adolescents, and thanks to collaborations with Dr. Nancy Sin, I examined the daily parent-adolescent dynamics in this dissertation. xiv I would like to thank my former and current lab mates –Alyssa Truong, Colin Loveridge, Marcus Gottlieb, Magpie Winslow, and Sean Morgan– for their emotional and research-related support, which also happens to be one of the important factors in writing of this dissertation. I am fortunate to have their friendship and the opportunity to collaborate with them. I also would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Lesley Lutes for paving the path for all graduate students, especially for international students and women as well as for her guidance in showing me what kind of meaningful contributions I can make out of my comfort zone. I am grateful to Dr. Anthony Ong for supporting me to become a Friedman scholar, and for being an incredibly supportive mentor during my time at Cornell University and beyond. I wish to thank Dr. Elena Nicoladis and Dr. Paul Davies for their generous support and leadership for my success in this PhD program. I wish to thank Dr. Leanne ten Brinke one more time for her dedication as the program coordinator to make graduate students feel seen and supported. I would like to thank Dr. Shirley Hutchinson for her generous support in my graduate teaching experience. I also wish to thank Kim Snyder and Marla MacDonald for their kind support and patiently answering my indefinite number of questions. Last but not least, I cannot thank enough my family and friends for being there for me with their endless support. Special thanks to my friends Ekin Çakır and Rebecca Godard for giving me an academic shoulder for academic cries and laughs, sometimes for both at the same time. xv Dedication To my wonderful families: The one I was born into and the one I chose… 1 Chapter 1: General Introduction General Introduction Adolescence is a transitional period in which many developmental changes occur for both adolescents and their parents. Although there is no consensus in the literature, adolescence is roughly defined as between the ages of 10 and 21 when youth experience drastic changes in developmental milestones (Sawyer et al., 2018). There are developmentally novel experiences in this relationship due to biological, emotional, cognitive, and social changes that adolescents go through (Wigfield et al., 2006). Parent-adolescent relationships are important for the psychological adjustment of both individuals (Morris et al., 2007; Morris et al., 2017). Although adolescents become less dependent on their parents for support in regulating their emotions compared to earlier ages (Morris et al., 2007), the relationship with their parents remains to have an important role in their psychological adjustment (Hair et al., 2008). The parent-adolescent relationship also has an impact on parental psychological adjustment (De Rooij & Gravesteijn, 2017). Adolescents are more likely to affect their parents’ behaviours as the parent-child relationship becomes more egalitarian in adolescence (Meeus, 2016). Also, parents go through their own developmental challenges while adjusting to their evolving relationship with their children (Silverberg & Steinberg, 1990). This dissertation explored the emotional development of parents and adolescents from various developmental perspectives. Developmental Psychology Theories on Parent-Adolescent Emotional Development Developmental psychology theories provide rich perspectives on the emotional development of parents and adolescents. I benefited from three major theories in writing the current dissertation: Family systems theory (Minuchin, 1985), self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2022), and dynamic systems approach (Smith & Thelen, 1993). Each theory provides valuable insights on parent-adolescent dynamics and their emotional well-being. I will first 2 outline how these theories are the backbone of this dissertation exploring the associations between parent-adolescent interactions and their long-term psychological adjustment, which will be followed by the contributions of the three studies to the scientific discourse. Family Systems Theory The family systems theory suggests that any system including families should be examined as a whole due to the interdependence between family members (Minuchin, 1985). Families are regulated through constant feedback from interactions between the family members (Minuchin, 1985). Parent-adolescent interactions affect how individuals in this relationship deal with their emotional experiences in their daily lives (Janssen et al., 2021). Negative interactions, such as conflict, between parents and their adolescents are likely to be associated with negative emotional experiences whereas positive interactions, such as connectedness, are likely to be associated with positive emotional experiences for both individuals (Fosco et al., 2021). At the same time, families show circular causalities rather than linear effects between these behaviours or events (Minuchin, 1985). For example, parent-adolescent interactions and everyday emotional experiences can be both consequences and causes of each other (Fosco et al., 2021; Lobraico et al., 2020). Therefore, parent-adolescent interactions and their emotional well-being are expected to mutually affect each other. Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory suggests that humans have the innate potential for psychological flourishment to function optimally in their lives when basic psychological needs are met (Ryan & Deci, 2022). These basic psychological needs are autonomy, competence, and relatedness: Satisfaction of the autonomy needs is essential for the sense of volition and freedom, competence needs for the sense of achievement and being skillful, and relatedness needs for the sense of connectedness and being cared for (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Self-determination theory is a metatheory with a significant impact on the parenting and adolescent 3 development literature (Costa et al., 2018; Joussemet et al., 2008; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). The role of parenting practices fostering the psychological needs of adolescents in predicting adolescents’ psychological adjustment is well-documented (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). For example, parental autonomy support is a protective factor against adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (Van der Giessen et al., 2014) while parental psychological control is a risk factor for adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (Lansford et al., 2013). Further, parents are more likely to be psychologically available to practice autonomy-supportive parenting when they report a greater level of psychological need satisfaction (Van Der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2019) Hence, parents’ own psychological needs should be met first so they can adopt more autonomy-supportive parenting practices (Van Der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2019). Taken together, parental psychological needs can play an important role in supporting adolescents’ autonomy development, thus, promoting adolescents’ emotional well-being. Dynamic Systems Approach and the Question of Time Scale The dynamic systems approach to development is a metatheory of stability and change in developmental processes and can be applied to different developmental areas, such as biological, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional, at any developmental stage of human life from infancy to late adulthood (Butler, 2011; Granic & Patterson, 2006; Lougheed, 2020; Parker & Srivastava, 2013; Roppolo et al., 2015; Smith & Thelen, 1993). The dynamic systems approach suggests the organization and re-organization of systems and subsystems through iterative processes (Witherington, 2007). I explored parent-adolescent dynamics as the system of interest in this dissertation. Emotional processes (such as emotional experience, expression, and appraisal) happen in the context of social relationships, hence, it is important to consider how individuals in these relationships affect and are affected by the relationship and each other (Lougheed & Keskin, 4 2021). Further, adolescence is a transitional period in which parent-adolescent relationships re-organize based on their evolving interactions (Lougheed, 2020). Parent-adolescent dynamics can become stable patterns through repetition over time, which can then lead to the emergence of longer-standing individual characteristics such as psychological adjustment (e.g., internalizing problems). In turn, these longer-standing characteristics can shape shorter time-scale (i.e., momentary or daily) processes such as parent-adolescent interactions. Thus, parent-adolescent dynamics can predict as well as can be predicted by the psychological development of both parents and adolescents (Lougheed, 2020; Lougheed & Keskin, 2021). For example, internalizing symptoms can shape the emotional tone of parent-adolescent interactions as well as parent-adolescent interaction patterns can predict the development of long-term internalizing symptoms at different levels of time scales from daily to three-monthly (Bülow et al., 2023). From a dynamic systems approach, different patterns of actions and interactions within families can take place at various time scales (Lougheed, 2020; Lougheed & Keskin, 2021). Although similar psychological constructs are studied, those patterns of actions interactions can have different interpretations both qualitatively and quantitatively (Bülow et al., 2023). For example, parent-adolescent conflict interactions and their emotional experiences were examined at the moment-to-moment (Branje, 2018; Henry et al., Van der Giessen et al., 2015), day-to-day (LoBraico et al., 2019; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020), and annual (Lougheed et al., 2022; Nelemans et al., 2022) level of time scales. Studies focusing on momentary interactions showed the link between momentary emotion dynamics and internalizing symptoms (Branje, 2018; Van der Giessen et al., 2015). Studies exploring the daily parent-adolescent dynamics showed the association between parent-adolescent conflict and negative mood while accounting for the between family differences in conflict and negative mood (LoBraico et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2020) and studies examining parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing symptoms at the annual level time scale showed the associations between conflict and internalizing symptoms while controlling for between-family differences through 5 years (Lougheed et al., 2022; Nelemans et al., 2022). This dissertation examined the momentary and daily dynamics of parent-adolescent dyads to better understand the interplay between parent-adolescent dynamics and their emotional well-being at different time scales. These three theories supported my dissertation to explore how parent-adolescent emotion systems and psychological adjustment operate at multiple time scales. In all studies, family systems theory (Minuchin, 1985) guided my research questions in focusing on the parent-adolescent dyads rather than individual family members to better understand the feedback loops between parents and adolescents to predict emotional well-being. The dynamic systems approach (Lougheed 2020; Smith & Thelen, 1993) informed my dissertation studies to examine the associations between parents’ and adolescents’ emotional states and traits at different time scales: In Study 1 (Chapter 2), I examined the concurrent and longitudinal associations between momentary emotion dynamics and internalizing symptoms, and in Studies 2 and 3 (Chapters 3 and 4), I explored the daily dynamics of parent-adolescent dyads’ interactions and psychological adjustment. I benefit from the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2022) to examine the role of basic psychological needs (i.e., relatedness, competence, and autonomy) among parent-adolescent dyads. Studies 1 and 2 (Chapters 2 and 3) focused on parent-adolescent conflicts at the moment-to-moment and daily levels, respectively. Conflicts are an important process for autonomy development in adolescence, and how the conflicts are resolved as well as the intensity of the conflicts are strong predictors of parent and adolescent mental health outcomes (Branje, 2018; Lougheed, 2020). Last but not least, relying on the principles of self-determination theory, in Study 3 (Chapter 4), I tested the daily associations between parental psychological needs, parental autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices, and adolescent emotional well-being in families’ everyday lives. 6 The Current Dissertation In the current dissertation, I focused on parent-adolescent dynamics and internalizing symptoms at momentary and daily levels. Relying on the adolescents’ age range in two different samples analyzed in this study, the parent-adolescent dyads involved adolescents in their early to late adolescence (i.e., 11 to 17 years). First, I examined the moment-to-moment emotion dynamics during conflicts and their association with internalizing symptoms in early adolescence Chapter 2. The following two studies utilized the same dataset in which mid to late adolescents participated in the research study. I investigated day-to-day internalizing mood and conflict processes among parents and adolescents in Chapter 3. Lastly, I explored the mediating role of parenting practices between parental psychological needs and adolescent mood in daily life in Chapter 4. Study 1: Moment-to-Moment Conflict Interactions and Parent-Adolescent Internalizing Problems Conflicts between adolescents and their parents robustly predict adolescent psychological adjustment (Dekovic, 1999; Shek, 1998; Weymouth et al., 2016). At the same time, parent-child relationships become more egalitarian during adolescence, and adolescents can also affect their parents’ behaviours, such as parenting practices and psychological adjustment (Branje, 2018; Laursen & Collins, 1994). Conflict interactions can be opportunities for effective emotion socialization practices between parents and adolescents (Branje, 2018). During a conflict, parents and adolescents may learn alternative interaction patterns to handle disagreements (Granic, 2005; Van der Giessen et al., 2013). Likewise, moment-to-moment interactions may be affected by the psychological adjustment of both parents and adolescents – such as internalizing symptoms. (Lougheed, 2020; Lougheed & Hollenstein, 2016; Van der Giessen et al., 2015). The majority of the previous studies focusing on momentary parent-adolescent emotion dynamics examined parent-adolescent dyads’ ability to switch between 7 emotional states (Lougheed & Hollenstein, 2016; Van der Giessen et al., 2013, 2014, 2015) or the temporal contingencies between two dyadic emotional behaviors during parent-adolescent conflicts (Lougheed, Craig et al., 2016; Lougheed, Hollenstein et al., 2016). However, parent-adolescent interactions involve a complex series of dyadic behaviors. Examining the multiple sequences of dyadic emotional interactions would give us a more complete picture of parent-adolescent dynamics to understand how momentary emotion dynamics can be building blocks for long-term psychological adjustment. Hence, the first study of the dissertation examined the moment-to-moment emotional interaction sequences during parent-adolescent conflicts and whether these sequences of interactions can predict future internalizing symptoms. Study 2: Parent-Adolescent Daily Conflict and Internalizing Mood In adolescence, the increase in parent-adolescent conflict interactions is typical (Branje, 2018). However, frequent and intense conflicts can be still detrimental for both parents and adolescents to develop internalizing symptoms (Weymouth et al., 2016). On the other hand, emotional experiences can color how people perceive the interactions in close relationships (Forgas & Bower, 1987). Indeed, individuals with a greater level of internalizing symptoms are more likely to report a greater level of conflict in social relationships and they may also elicit negative reactions from other individuals in social interactions (Hames et al., 2013). From a family systems perspective, the influence of the interindividual processes between family members is likely to follow a circular causality rather than a linear cause-effect relationship (Minuchin, 1985). For example, parent-adolescent conflict and anger have been shown to mutually affect each other in daily life (LoBraico et al., 2019). The majority of studies investigated the link between daily parent-adolescent conflict and overall negative mood (Bülow et al., 2022; Chiang et al., 2022; Coffey et al., 2020; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2020; Nelemans et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2020). However, the function of emotions differs to inform us about our surroundings (Keltner, & Haidt, 2001). For example, sadness conveys the message of actual or 8 perceived loss while anxiety conveys the message of potential threat to self (Keltner, & Haidt, 2001; Mathews, 1990). Further, people with high levels of internalizing symptoms are more likely to experience sad and anxious emotions (Byrne & Eysenck, 1995; Power & Tarsia, 2007). Thus, in Chapter 3, I explored circular causality between parent-adolescent conflict and their sad and anxious mood in daily life. Study 3: Daily Parental Psychological Needs, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood Autonomy-supportive parenting is essential for positive developmental outcomes for youth while psychological control can have detrimental effects on youths’ development (Vasquez et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2020). Self-determination suggests that human beings have innate psychological needs that are autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Longo et al., 2018). Psychological need satisfaction and psychological need frustration are shown to be distinct constructs (Longo et al., 2018) in predicting autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices in daily life (Mabbe et al., 2018; van der Kaap-Deeder, 2015). When parents’ own psychological needs are met, they are more likely to utilize positive parenting practices and less likely to utilize negative parenting practices (Mabbe et al., 2018; van der Kaap-Deeder, 2015). Autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices are related to adolescents’ internalizing symptoms (Chen et al., 2019 Loukas, 2009; Xu et al., 2020). Most previous studies focused on trait-like characteristics of parenting practices and adolescent internalizing symptoms (Vasquez et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2020). However, state-level fluctuations in daily negative mood and parenting practices and trait-level associations between trait-level negative mood and parenting practices may or may not show similar patterns of associations and should not be interpreted the same way (i.e., autonomy-supportive parenting can boost adolescents’ mood in daily life –state-level association– and long-term characteristics of autonomy-supportive 9 parenting and adolescent mood can be related to each other –trait-level association; van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2023). Although some research to date has explored the associations between parental psychological needs and parenting practices, and between parenting practices and adolescent internalizing symptoms, Chapter 4 of the current dissertation was the first to examine the mediating role of parenting practices between parental psychological needs and adolescent internalizing symptoms. Parental characteristics may directly predict adolescent psychological adjustment (Heaven et al., 2004) and parenting practices can explain the association between caregiver characteristics and adolescent psychological adjustment (Orri et al., 2019). Hence, the study in Chapter 4 provided a more comprehensive picture of how parental psychological needs can affect adolescent internalizing mood through autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices in daily life. These three dissertation studies together showed how different parent-adolescent dynamics are related to internalizing symptoms at different time scales through adolescence. The first study (Chapter 2) focused on emotion dynamics in early adolescence. The second (Chapter 3) and third (Chapter 4) studies used the same dataset from parent-adolescent dyads in which children were in their mid- to late-adolescence. 10 References Branje, S. (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 Butler, E. A. (2011). Temporal interpersonal emotion systems: The “TIES” that form relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 367-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411164 Bülow, A., Boele, S., Lougheed, J. P., Denissen, J. J. A., van Roekel, E., & Keijsers, L. (2023, December 15). A Matter of Timing? Effects of Parent-Adolescent Conflict on Adolescent Ill-being on Six Timescales. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k2d5s Byrne, A., & Eysenck, M. W. (1995). Trait anxiety, anxious mood, and threat detection. Cognition & Emotion, 9(6), 549-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939508408982 Chen, F. M., Lin, H. S., & Li, C. H. (2012). The role of emotion in parent-child relationships: Children’s emotionality, maternal meta-emotion, and children’s attachment security. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(3), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9491-y Chiang, S. C., Chen, W. C., & Wu, P. Y. (2023). Daily association between parent− adolescent relationship and life satisfaction: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Adolescence. 95, 1168–1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12184 Coffey, J. K., Xia, M., & Fosco, G. M. (2022). When do adolescents feel loved? A daily within-person study of parent-adolescent relations. Emotion, 22(5), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000767 Costa, S., Gugliandolo, M. C., Barberis, N., Cuzzocrea, F., & Liga, F. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of parental psychological control and autonomy support: The role of psychological basic needs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1168-1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518756778 11 Dekovic, M. (1999). Parent-adolescent conflict: Possible determinants and consequences. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23(4), 977-1000. doi: 10.1080/016502599383630 De Rooij, I., & Gravesteijn, C. (2018). How the parent-adolescent relationship affects well-being in Dutch parents?. Health Education, 118(3), 198-211. doi: 10.1108/HE-05-2017-0027 Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.53 Fosco, G. M., Brinberg, M., & Ram, N. (2021). Day-to-day changes in parent-adolescent connectedness: Relations with daily subjective well-being and eudaimonia differ for parents and adolescents. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(5), 640-650. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1791945 Granic, I. (2005). Timing is everything: Developmental psychopathology from a dynamic systems perspective. Developmental Review, 25(3-4), 386-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.10.005 Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.101 Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Garrett, S. B., Ling, T., & Cleveland, K. (2008). The continued importance of quality parent-adolescent relationships during late adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(1), 187-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00556.x Hames, J. L., Hagan, C. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2013). Interpersonal processes in depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 355-377. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185553 12 Henry, L. M., Watson, K. H., Cole, D. A., Torres, S., Vreeland, A., Siciliano, R. E., ... & Compas, B. E. (2023). Mean-level correspondence and moment-to-moment synchrony in adolescent and parent affect: Exploring associations with adolescent age and internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 35(2), \ 809-822. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579422000062 Janssen, L. H., Elzinga, B. M., Verkuil, B., Hillegers, M. H., & Keijsers, L. (2021). The link between parental support and adolescent negative mood in daily life: between-person heterogeneity in within-person processes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50(2), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01323-w Joussemet, M., Landry, R., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on parenting. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012754 Lansford, J. E., Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2014). Mothers’ and fathers’ autonomy-relevant parenting: Longitudinal links with adolescents’ externalizing and internalizing behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1877-1889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0079-2 Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.197 LoBraico, E. J., Brinberg, M., Ram, N., & Fosco, G. M. (2020). Exploring processes in day‐to‐day parent-adolescent conflict and angry mood: Evidence for circular causality. Family Process, 59(4), 1706-1721. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12506 Lougheed, J. P. (2020). Parent-adolescent dyads as temporal interpersonal emotion systems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12526 Lougheed, J. P., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., Connolly, J., O’Hara, A., Granic, I., & Hollenstein, T. (2016). Maternal and peer regulation of adolescent emotion: Associations with13 depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(5), 963–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0084-x Lougheed, J. P., & Hollenstein, T. (2016). Socioemotional flexibility in mother-daughter dyads: Riding the emotional rollercoaster across positive and negative contexts. Emotion, 16(5), 620–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000155 Lougheed, J. P., Hollenstein, T., & Lewis, M. D. (2016). Maternal regulation of daughters' emotion during conflicts from early to mid‐adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(3), 610-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12211 Lougheed, J. P., Duncan, R. J., Keskin, G., & Marceau, K. (2022). Longitudinal associations between mother–child conflict and child internalizing problems in mid-childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 34(1), 263-272. \ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420000863 Lougheed, J. P., & Keskin, G. (2021). Parent‐adolescent emotion dynamics at multiple time scales. Child Development Perspectives, 15(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12409 Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2001). Social functions of emotions. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 192–213). The Guilford Press. Mastrotheodoros, S., Van Lissa, C. J., Van der Graaff, J., Deković, M., Meeus, W. H. J., & Branje, S. J. T. (2020). Day-to-day spillover and long-term transmission of interparental conflict to adolescent–mother conflict: The role of mood. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(8), 893–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000649 Mathews, A. (1990). Why worry? The cognitive function of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 455-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90132-3 14 Meeus, W. (2016). Adolescent psychosocial development: A review of longitudinal models and research. Developmental Psychology, 52(12), 1969–1993. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000243 Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289-302. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129720 Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x 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 Nelemans, S. A., Mastrotheodoros, S., Çiftçi, L., Meeus, W., & Branje, S. (2023). Do you see what I see? Longitudinal associations between mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of their relationship and adolescent internalizing symptoms. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 51(2), 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-022-00975-5 Parker, D., & Srivastava, V. (2013). Dynamic systems approaches and levels of analysis in the nervous system. Frontiers in Physiology, 4, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00015 Power, M. J., & Tarsia, M. (2007). Basic and complex emotions in depression and anxiety. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.515 Roppolo, M., Kunnen, E. S., van Geert, P. L., Mulasso, A., & Rabaglietti, E. (2015). A quantitative dynamic systems model of health-related quality of life among older adults. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 10, 1755-1770. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S91605 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. 15 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2022). Self-determination theory. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1-7). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Shek, D. T. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relations between parent-adolescent conflict and adolescent psychological well-being. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221329809596134 Silva, K., Ford, C. A., & Miller, V. A. (2020). Daily parent–teen conflict and parent and adolescent well-being: The moderating role of daily and person-level warmth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(8), 1601-1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01251-9 Silverberg, S. B., & Steinberg, L. (1990). Psychological well-being of parents with early adolescent children. Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.4.658 Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (Eds.). (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development: Applications. The MIT Press. Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30(1), 74-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001 Van der Giessen, D., Branje, S. J., Frijns, T., & Meeus, W. H. (2013). Dyadic variability in mother-adolescent interactions: developmental trajectories and associations with psychosocial functioning. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(1), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9790-7 Van der Giessen, D., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2014). Perceived autonomy support from parents and best friends: Longitudinal associations with adolescents' depressive symptoms. Social Development, 23(3), 537-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12061 Van der Giessen, D., Hollenstein, T., Hale, W. W., Koot, H. M., Meeus, W., & Branje, S. (2015). Emotional variability in mother-adolescent conflict interactions and internalizing16 problems of mothers and adolescents: Dyadic and individual processes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(2), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9910-9 Van Der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens, B., Mabbe, E., Dieleman, L., Mouratidis, A., Campbell, R., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2019). From daily need experiences to autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting via psychological availability and stress. Parenting, 19(3), 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1615791 Weymouth, B. B., Buehler, C., Zhou, N., & Henson, R. A. (2016). A meta‐analysis of parent-adolescent conflict: Disagreement, hostility, and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12126 Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development During Early and Middle Adolescence. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 87–113). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Witherington, D. C. (2007). The dynamic systems approach as metatheory for developmental psychology. Human Development, 50(2-3), 127-153. https://doi.org/10.1159/000100943 17 Chapter 2: Sequences of Moment-to-Moment Emotion Dynamics during Mother-Adolescent Conflicts and Prospective Associations with Internalizing Problems Abstract How emotions unfold during interactions between mothers and adolescents can shape psychosocial adjustment in the long term. We examined moment-to-moment emotion dynamics in mother-adolescent conflicts and their concurrent and longitudinal associations with depressive and anxious symptoms. At Time 1 (2018), 201 dyads were recorded during a 4-minute conflict discussion, and their emotional expressions were coded. At Time 1 and Time 2 (2019), participants reported internalizing problems. We used grid sequence analysis, a data-driven method in which common multi-step sequences of dyadic emotions can be identified, to examine different interaction patterns between mother-adolescent dyads. We used structural equation modeling to test the associations between these patterns and internalizing symptoms. We found two sequence patterns. Mother and adolescent anxious symptoms were not related to interaction sequences; however, the pattern of mutual high positive emotion up-regulation was related to adolescent depressive symptoms concurrently and negatively, and the pattern of mothers’ regulation of adolescents’ externalizing negative emotion was related to maternal depressive symptoms concurrently and negatively. Thus, internalizing problems are associated with the momentary interaction patterns during mother-adolescent conflicts. Keywords: Emotion dynamics, internalizing problems, family interactions 18 Sequences of Moment-to-Moment Emotion Dynamics during Mother-Adolescent Conflicts and Prospective Associations with Internalizing Problems Adolescence is a transitional period in which youth experience various biological, cognitive, and social changes (Sawyer et al., 2018). In typical development, adolescents may experience greater negative emotion and less positive emotion than children at earlier ages (Maciejewski et al., 2017). Emotional experiences that are turned “inward” (e.g., guilt, fear, and worry) include anxious, depressive, and somatic symptoms are referred to as internalizing problems (Silk et al., 2003; Zahn–Waxler et al., 2000). As greater negative emotion is a risk factor for mental health issues, adolescents are more likely to develop internalizing problems than children of younger ages (Durbeej et al., 2019). Adolescence is also a transitional period for parents in which they need to adjust their parenting to their adolescents’ changing needs (Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Although it is typical for parents and adolescents to have more frequent conflict interactions than in earlier developmental periods, individual differences in how they manage those conflicts are related to their psychological adjustment in the long term (Branje, 2018). Hence, the goal of the current study was to examine parent-adolescent moment-to-moment emotional interaction patterns during conflicts, and whether they predict adolescent and maternal anxiety and depression concurrently and longitudinally. Parent-Adolescent Conflict Interactions and Adolescent Internalizing Problems The family context is important for adolescents in learning how to manage their emotions as well as for their psychological adjustment (Morris et al., 2007; McKinney & Renk, 2011). Parent-adolescent relationships contribute to adolescents’ psychological adjustment through emotion socialization practices, for example, parenting practices, reactions to emotions, and modeling (Morris et al., 2007, 2017). Eisenberg and colleagues (1998) model of parental emotion socialization suggests that emotion socialization is a process in which both the emotional context of the family and parents’ specific emotion-related behaviours are central to youths’ emotional development. Parents’ emotion-related socialization behaviours (i.e., 19 reactions to youths’ emotions, discussion of emotions, and emotional expressiveness) are robustly correlated with youths’ self-regulatory capacities (Eisenberg, 2020). Through observational learning, (1) youth can emulate their parents’ reactions to emotional experiences, and (2) this emulation can shape how they react to their own emotions (Eisenberg et al., 1998). Parent-adolescent conflict interactions are an important emotion socialization opportunity in adolescence. Parent-adolescent dyads are more likely to experience conflict interactions than in earlier developmental periods (Dekovic´, 1999). More frequent conflict interactions may be a part of typical development and provide opportunities for the parent-adolescent relationship to re-organize such as through exercising different kinds of emotional experiences (e.g., regulation of anger, sadness, or frustration) while maintaining relationship quality (Branje, 2018). During conflicts, parents may negotiate their authority as adolescents strive for greater autonomy. These interactions may contribute to the positive development of parent-adolescent relationships depending on how supportive the relationship is (Branje, 2018; Smetana & Rote, 2019). Conflict interactions between parents and adolescents are closely related to adolescent psychological adjustment (Branje, 2018; Branje et al., 2009; Hofer et al., 2013; Laursen & Collins, 1994). Although conflicts are inevitable, how parent-adolescent dyads handle their conflict interactions can predict internalizing problems during adolescence (Branje et al., 2009). For example, when adolescents report more negative strategies during conflicts (e.g., conflict engagement, exit, and withdrawal) the negative effect of conflict frequency on adolescent internalizing problems is stronger (Branje et al., 2009). Also, both parents’ and adolescents’ emotional reactions (i.e., positive affect and anger) during conflict are associated with adolescent internalizing problems (Hofer et al., 2013). Hence, not only the frequency or intensity of the parent-adolescent conflicts but also content of those conflicts, such as momentary actions and reactions during the conflict, are important in understanding the role of parent-adolescent conflicts in relation with adolescent internalizing problems. 20 Parent-Adolescent Conflict Interactions and Parent Internalizing Problems Parents experience their own developmental transitions as many parents of adolescents are in their middle adulthood years. Adults in midlife experience their own unique developmental challenges which may include caregiving for their own parents, career developments or changes, or having chronic health conditions (Lanchman, 2020; Steinberg, 2001). Parents are not only adjusting to a new developmental era in their own life but also to the evolving relationship with their adolescents. For example, parents adapt their parenting in accordance with their maturing adolescents’ novel needs (Steinberg & Silk, 2002), and parent-adolescent conflicts tend to be more distressing for parents than adolescents (Steinberg, 2001). Parent-adolescent emotion dynamics during conflicts are not just associated with adolescent psychological adjustment (Hofer et al., 2013; Pineda et al., 2007; Yap et al., 2010, Zhang et al., 2022) but also with parental psychological adjustment (Granic & Patterson, 2006; Lougheed, 2020; van der Giessen et al., 2015). Frequent and intense conflict interactions between parents and adolescents can increase parental internalizing problems (Silverberg & Steinberg, 1987; Steinberg, 2001). Increased parent-adolescent conflict can diminish parent-adolescent closeness, which can be stressful for parents, and re-establishing parent-adolescent closeness depends on how well parent-adolescent dyads handle their conflict interactions (Branje et al., 2012). For example, when parent-adolescent dyads are able to flexibly express a variety of both negative and positive emotional expressions during conflict interactions, both adolescents and parents show lower levels internalizing problems (van der Giessen et al., 2015). Thus, parent-adolescent conflict is also an important factor predicting parental internalizing problems. Moment-to-Moment Emotion Dynamics and Internalizing Problems Parent-adolescent dyads are temporal interpersonal emotion systems (TIES; Lougheed, 2020) in which momentary emotion dynamics are associated with the development of long-term characteristics (e.g., internalizing problems) over time. The development of parent-adolescent 21 psychological adjustment is bidirectional and happens at multiple timescales. Momentary emotion dynamics between parents and adolescents (i.e., experience, expression, and arousal of emotions) predict long-term (e.g., in weeks, months, or years) psychological adjustment. Hence, not only the frequency or intensity of the conflict (Weymouth et al., 2016) but also emotion dynamics during conflict interactions matters for psychological adjustment (Kuppens et al., 2012; van der Giessen et al., 2013, 2014, 2015). Also, long-term psychosocial adjustment characteristics (i.e., internalizing problems) are expected to shape momentary parent-adolescent interactions (Crowell et al., 2017; Lougheed, 2020; Sheeber et al., 2012). It is well-documented that adolescent internalizing problems (Lougheed, Craig et al., 2016; Sheeber et al., 2012; Pineda et al., 2007; Yap et al., 2010) and parental internalizing problems (Connell et al., 2011; van der Giessen et al., 2015) are associated with momentary emotion dynamics during conflict interactions. Also, a limited number of studies found that parent-adolescent emotion dynamics can predict parent and adolescent psychological adjustment longitudinally (Kuppens et al., 2012; van der Giessen et al., 2013, 2014, 2015). Therefore, momentary emotion dynamics can be both shaped by and shape the internalizing problems by both members of the parent-adolescent dyad. Examining Multi-Step Interaction Patterns during Parent-Adolescent Conflicts Previous studies used different methodologies to explore parent-adolescent emotion dynamics during conflicts. Some of the studies described the emotion dynamics between parents and adolescents by summarizing the entire interaction to examine the ability to “switch” between emotions or to not get “stuck” in specific emotional states (i.e., emotional flexibility; Lougheed & Hollenstein, 2016; Van der Giessen et al., 2013, 2014, 2015). Others have looked at social contingencies, i.e., two-step behaviours, such as the likelihood of supportive parenting behaviours given adolescents’ emotional expressions (Lougheed, Craig et al., 2016; Lougheed, Hollenstein et al., 2016). Other studies examined whether the inertia of emotional states (i.e., the effect of previous emotional state on the same current emotional state) during parent-child 22 interactions were related to adolescent depressive symptoms (Kuppen et al., 2012; Sheeber et al., 2012). Further, a limited number of these studies examined not just the concurrent associations between momentary emotion dynamics and psychological adjustment but how momentary emotion dynamics predict long-term parent-adolescent psychological adjustment (van der Giessen et al., 2013, 2014, 2015). Momentary emotion dynamics between parents and adolescents involve a series of reciprocal actions and reactions during conflicts (Eisenberg et al., 1998), and to better understand the interaction patterns between parents and adolescents, multi-step chains of behaviours during conflict interactions should be also examined. To illustrate, an adolescent may express their frustration regarding the conflict subject; the parent may smile and show validation in response to adolescents’ frustration; and the adolescent may smile back to their parent. This is an example of positive up-regulation of adolescents’ emotions. Examining multi-step sequences of parent-adolescent interactions during conflict could further help to capture the complex nature of parent-adolescent conflict interactions and to discover whether specific interaction patterns are more related to psychological adjustment than others. To date, two studies have examined multi-step chains of dyadic emotional expressions between mothers and adolescents during conflicts (Lougheed, Brinberg, et al., 2020; Lougheed, Main, et al., 2020), which showed that some sequences of interpersonal behaviours during conflicts may be associated with adolescent psychological adjustment. Lougheed, Main et al., 2020 showed that some mother-adolescent dyads tended to take turns in validation and interest behaviours whereas other dyads tended to reciprocate negative emotions in their behavioural sequences. Adolescents with greater perspective taking skills were more likely to show mutual validation and interest behaviours with their mothers. Lougheed, Bringberg, et al., 2020 showed that, during a positive interaction, adolescents with greater social anxiety symptoms tended not to reciprocate their mothers’ positive emotional expressions and during a negative interaction, adolescents with lower levels of social anxiety symptoms initiated the expression of positive 23 dyadic emotional states. These studies examined how multi-step sequences of dyadic emotional expressions are associated with psychological adjustment concurrently. In the current study, we examined how multi-step sequences of dyadic emotional expressions between mothers and adolescents are associated with their internalizing problems a year later. The Current Study Our research questions were exploratory. We did not have specific hypotheses regarding interdyad differences in interaction patterns – variation in the multi-step sequences across mother-adolescent dyads – as only two studies utilized this method to examine interaction patterns parent-child interaction patterns. Hence, the current study can help us better understand what kind of interaction patterns or whether similar patterns of interactions can be observed between different samples of parent-adolescent dyads. Then, we investigated how moment-to-moment emotion dynamics during mother-adolescent conflicts were related to mother and adolescent internalizing problems. Specifically, our research questions were: (1) are there are interdyad differences in multi-step sequences of dyadic emotion states during conflicts, and (2) do these interdyad differences predict changes in internalizing problems one year later? Methods Participants Ethical approval for the study was received from MASKED UNIVERSITY. A total of 201 mother-adolescent dyads were recruited utilizing a database of families who were interested in the studies at MASKED UNIVERSITY in the past. Time 1 data were collected between September 2018 and March 2019, and Time 2 from September 2019 to March 2020, with each dyad returning on the same month as the previous year. Only 198 observations of mother-adolescent dyads were included at Time 1. However, because three dyads could not provide observational data: One mother did not consent to video sharing, one dyad could not do the 24 discussion task due to technical difficulties, and one dyad had to leave before the discussion task. At Time 2, participants included 177 mothers and 176 adolescents. Adolescents’ gender distribution was 46% girls (n = 90), 52% boys (n = 103), 1% gender non-binary (n = 2), and 2% of the adolescents (n = 3) preferred not to disclose their gender. English was the first language of most of the adolescents (94%), most adolescents identified as Caucasian (72%), and adolescents’ ages ranged between 11 and 13.25 years (M = 11.99, SD = .60). Most mothers identified as Caucasian (91%), and mothers’ ages ranged between 32.33 and 55.58 years (M = 44.11, SD = 4.51). Most mothers were married (84%) followed by common-law partners (7%), separated (5%), divorced (2%), single (2%), and widowed (1%). Most families reported high or middle income (i.e., 26% reported an annual family income of more than $150,000; 34% reported between $100,000 and $150,000; 21% reported between $75,000 and $100,000; 11% reported between $50,000 and $75,000; 8% reported less than $50,000). Procedures The participants were recruited through a database from the Developmental Area of the Department of Psychology at Queen’s University. Families who signed up for the database were invited to the study. The inclusion criteria for parents included being mothers and speaking English. For adolescents, inclusion criteria were speaking English and being 11 or 12 years old at the time of the recruitment call. The participants visited the laboratory twice as a part of the ongoing 5-year annual Second Decade study and both mothers and adolescents provided consent at each visit. During the laboratory visits, both adolescents and mothers provided their consent. Participants also completed questions about their emotional experiences and psychological adjustment. At both Time 1 and Time 2, mothers and adolescents self-reported anxious and depressive symptoms through a survey completed on the lab computers. At both Time 1 and Time 2, participants were given several topics that parent-adolescent dyads could possibly disagree on and separately asked to rate how upsetting those disagreements. The 25 researchers chose the two most upsetting topics for the 4-minute discussion. Mother and adolescent emotional expressions were coded from the video recordings. Each participant received $15 CAD and adolescents received an additional $5 CAD at the end of the laboratory task at Time 1. Thus, the total amount the mother-adolescent dyads could receive was $35 CAD at Time 1. At Time 2, each participant received $20 CAD, thus, each mother-adolescent dyad received $40 CAD in total at the end of the laboratory task at Time 2. Questionnaire data from Time 1 and Time 2 and Time 1 observational data (i.e., coded video records of conflict interactions) were used in the current study. Measures Anxious Symptoms The Beck Anxiety Inventory (see Appendix A; Beck et al., 1988) was used to measure both adolescents’ and mothers’ anxious symptoms. It is a widely used measure of anxiety among both adults and children (Grant, 2011). The Beck Anxiety Inventory includes 21 items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (from 0 = not at all to 3 = severely – it bothered me a lot). Example items are “unable to relax” and “fear of losing control”. We calculated the mean across the Beck Anxiety Inventory items and the internal consistency of the scale was α = .93 for mothers and α = .94 for adolescents at Time 1 and was α = .91 for mothers and α = .95 for adolescents at Time 2 of the study. Depressive Symptoms Adolescents reported their depressive symptoms with Children’s Depression Inventory (see Appendix B; Kovacs, 1992). This measurement is a 3-point Likert-type scale with 26 items. The example items are “sadness” (responses range from 1 = I am sad once in a while to 3 = I am sad all the time) and “loneliness” (responses range from 1 = I do not feel alone to 3 = I feel alone all the time). We calculated the mean across the Children’s Depression Inventory items and the internal consistency of the scale was α = .87 at Time 1 was α = .90 at Time 2 of the study. 26 Mothers reported their depressive symptoms with Beck Depression Inventory-II (see Appendix C; Beck et al., 1996). The Beck Depression Inventory-II is a 4-point Likert-type scale with 21 items. However, the suicidal ideation item was removed from the questionnaire as requested by the research ethics board. The example items are “crying” (responses range from 0 = I do not cry any more than I used to 3 = I feel like crying, but I cannot) and “guilty feelings” (responses range from 0 = I do not feel particularly guilty to 3 = I feel guilty all the time). We calculated the mean across the Beck Depression Inventory-II items and the internal consistency of the scale was α = .87 at Time 1 and α = .87 at Time 2 of the study. Mother-Adolescent Conflict An adapted version of the Issues Checklist (see Appendix D; Robin & Weiss, 1980) was utilized to decide the conflict discussion topics. The adapted version consisted of 21 items asking the common conflict subjects between parents and adolescents, e.g., not cleaning up or arguing with parents, and the 22nd item asked parents and adolescents to write a conflict subject themselves. Parents and adolescents chose the topics they had conflicts about and they rated how upset currently they are about those topics on a 5-point Likert-type scale (i.e., from 0 = Not an issue to 1 = Not at all upset to 5 = Very upset). Mothers and adolescents were also asked to list their “top 3” conflict topics. Mother-adolescent dyads were given the most and second upsetting topic of those “top 3” topics, and if they finished their first topic, they could move on to the second topic. Observed Emotions Mothers’ and adolescents’ observed emotions were coded from the videotaped conflict discussions using a 5-code version (see Appendix E; Tighe et al., 2014) of the Specific Affect Code (SPAFF; Coan & Gottman, 2007). This coding system captures expressive behaviours within five mutually exclusive categories: (1) Positive Emotions (humor, joy, and affection); (2) Interest; (3) Neutral; (4) Internalizing Negative Emotions (e.g., fear, sadness); and (5) Externalizing Negative Emotions (e.g., contempt, anger). Trained undergraduate research 27 assistants coded mothers’ and adolescents’ emotional expressions separately while both mothers and adolescents were visible in the videos. A real-time coding of events was used, which means that onsets and offsets of behavioural states were coded as they occurred, and then we turned it into 1-second intervals to have equally-spaced time points for analysis. A total of 20% of the videos were coded by two observers to check interrater variability. The interrater reliability was good, with the average percent agreement for frequency-sequence based analyses being 74% and kappa = 0.69, and an average duration-sequence-based percent agreement of 94%. Analytical Approach We used grid sequence analysis (Brinberg et al., 2017) to examine multi-step sequences of dyadic emotions among mothers and adolescents during conflict interactions. Grid sequence analysis (Brinberg et al., 2017, 2018) is based on two different approaches: State space grids (Hollenstein, 2007), and sequence analysis (Kruskal, 1983), which are widely used methods in the fields of developmental psychology and biology, respectively. This approach examines complex multi-step sequences of dyadic behaviour over an entire interpersonal interaction (Lougheed, Brinberg, et al., 2020; Lougheed, Main, et al., 2020). We conducted the analyses in five steps: (1) Creating state space grids (i.e., “gridding”), (2) obtaining sequences of dyadic emotional interactions, (3) analyzing sequences of dyadic emotional interactions, (4) examining interdyad differences in sequences of dyadic emotional interactions, and (5) testing the associations between interdyad differences and internalizing problems using structural equation modeling. Step 1: Gridding We first mapped the trajectories of moment-to-moment mother-adolescent emotional expressions during the conflict discussion on a two-dimensional state space grid. Specifically, we used a grid with mothers’ observed emotions on the x-axis and adolescents’ observed emotions on the y-axis using the base, ggplot2, and reshape2 packages in R (R Core Team, 28 2021; Wickham, 2007, 2016). We obtained a 5 by 5 (25 cells in total) grid for each dyad with all combinations of adolescent and maternal emotional states (see Figure 2.1 A). Plot points on the grids represent each dyadic emotional state, with larger plot points indicating a longer duration of time. The trajectory of dyadic emotional states over time within the interaction is represented by the lines connecting the plot points (Hollenstein, 2007). Figure 2.1 Grid Sequence Analysis Steps 29 Step 2: Obtaining Sequences We labeled each cell with letters from A to Y (see Figure 2.1 A). After labeling each cell, we extracted each dyad’s interaction sequence of dyadic states in temporal order illustrating dyad-level time series for emotional expressions (see Figure 2.1 B). Each row of sequences represents one dyad for 240 seconds (see Figure 2.2). Notes. Each row represents a mother-adolescent dyadic emotion expression state in Figure 2.1 A in temporal order. Colours represent different dyadic emotional states (e.g., green color shows the seconfs when both adolescents and mothers expressed high positive emotion). Step 3: Sequence Analysis We then calculated the dissimilarity (or the distance) between dyadic sequences. The longest common subsequence (LCS; see Figure 2.1 C) is the longest portion of the subsequence that two sequences of dyadic emotional states in temporal order have in common. For example, the longest common subsequence between Sequence 1 and Sequence 2 in Figure 2.1 C is K-M-W, and the length of this subsequence is three. We compared the length of Figure 2.2 Dyadic Emotional States in Temporal Order 30 all possible pairs of sequences to create the matrix of distances. Based on this matrix, we examined the interdyad differences in sequence patterns (Brinberg et al., 2018) with the TraMineR package (Gabadinho et al., 2011). For example, some dyads may show greater similarity in emotion patterns than others based on how long the longest common subsequence is between them (see Figure 2.1 C). Step 4: Inter-dyad Differences in Mother-Adolescent Interaction Patterns Relying on the length of the longest common subsequence between mother-adolescent dyads, we then used multidimensional scaling (MDS; Hout et al., 2013), a statistical method to calculate distances between objects (i.e., subsequences), to examine the dissimilarities between subgroups of sequences (Lougheed, Brinberg, et al., 2020). We fit MDS models on the dissimilarity matrix, which was the length of the longest common subsequence between mother-adolescent dyads as identified in the previous step, with 1 to 10 dimensions. We extracted and plotted measures of “stress”, which indicates the relative misfit between the estimated distance matrix and the observed distance matrix. The stress is calculated using Equation 2: 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 = √∑(𝑑𝑖𝑗−𝑑𝑖?̂?)2∑ 𝑑𝑖𝑗2 (2) where 𝑑𝑖𝑗 and 𝑑𝑖?̂? stands for the observed and estimated distances between sequence i (1 to N) and sequence j (1 to N) using smacof package in R (de Leeuw & Mair, 2009). Stress values were utilized to determine the number of dimensions, eigenvalues are used to determine number of factors in exploratory factor analysis, and the plotted line visualization of the “stress” values to determine the number of dimensions (Hout et al., 2013). Step 5: Associations between Inter-dyad Differences and Internalizing Problems Once we obtained the final number of two dimensions—specific dyadic interaction patterns based on multi-step sequences of dyadic emotions —we tested the associations between these two dimensions and internalizing problems (i.e., depressive and anxious 31 symptoms). We used structural equation modeling to test if the dimensions derived from common subsequences predicted future adolescent and maternal internalizing problems after controlling for concurrent adolescent and maternal internalizing problems. Structural equation modeling allowed us to run complex and comprehensive path analyses, which allowed us to test our research questions in one model while controlling for the effects of other exogenous variables when examining the effect of an exogenous variable on an endogenous variable. This approach also allowed us to control for the correlations between the exogenous variables and endogenous variables, separately. We used two structural equation models (see Figures 2.5 and 2.6) to test the effect of dimensions derived from grid sequence analysis on mother and adolescent internalizing problems: One for anxious symptoms, and one for depressive symptoms. In each structural equation model, we regressed Time 2 adolescent internalizing problems, and Time 2 mother internalizing problems on Time 1 dimensions. We also regressed Time 2 adolescent internalizing problems on Time 1 adolescent internalizing problems, Time 2 mother internalizing problems on Time 1 mother internalizing problems to control for previous measurements of dependent variables. These models allowed us to test if specific patterns of moment-to-moment emotion dynamics during conflicts predict internalizing problems one year later after controlling for Time 1 mother and adolescent internalizing problems. Results The attrition rate was relatively low from Time 1 to Time 2 of the study (11%). Adolescents and mothers showed relatively low levels of anxious and depressive symptoms at both Time 1 and Time 2 of the study (see Table 2.1). 32 Mother-Adolescent Conflict Interactions Patterns The grid sequence analysis resulted in two primary dimensions of interaction patterns. We determined the number of dimensions from the scree plot of the “stress” values, the fit measure (see Equation 2), in which the number of dimensions retained at the “elbow” of the plotted line (Hout et al., 2013). Dimension variables were continuous measures in which each sequence of dyadic emotional states received a score for each of the two dimensions. For example, if a dyad scored high on Dimension 1, that means this dyad was more likely to show the interaction patterns of Dimension 1 during the conflict. Then, we identified the most discriminating multi-step sequences of dyadic emotions at the highest and lowest quartiles of each dimension with the Pearson chi-square test using the seqecmpgroup function of the TraMineR package (Gabadinho et al., 2011). We used these subsequences to characterize the common multi-step sequences that were extracted. Quartiles were determined based on the Table 1.1 Descriptive Statistics Variables N Min Max M SD Adolescent Age in Months at T1 198 132 159 143.89 7.25 Mother Age in Months at T1 198 388 667 539.30 54.18 Adolescent Anxiety at T1 198 0 2.95 .63 .57 Mother Anxiety at T1 198 0 2.38 .60 .47 Adolescent Depression at T1 198 1 2.50 1.27 .23 Mother Depression at T1 198 0 1.59 .43 .33 Adolescent Anxiety at T2 176 0 2.86 .72 .63 Mother Anxiety at T2 177 0 2.14 .56 .42 Adolescent Depression at T2 176 1 2.69 1.32 .28 Mother Depression at T2 177 0 1.68 .43 .35 Note. Depression and anxiety score ranges show the minimum and maximum of mean scores. 33 dimension scores parent-adolescent dyads received. Dyads on the low end received the lowest scores and dyads on the high end received the highest scores (see Figure 2.3). The results showed multi-step sequences that most discriminated the characteristics of each dimension. Because the subsequences were similar to each other within each dimension (e.g., almost identical subsequences except for a difference in a couple of emotional states or the order of the emotional states), we chose one significant most discriminating subsequence Figure 2.3 Pearson Chi-Square Test of the Most Discriminating Subsequences 34 from each dimension that was the least similar to others both in the same dimension and in the other dimension to characterize the patterns captured by each dimension. Table 2.2 shows the characteristics of each dimension. Dimension Most Discriminating Subsequence χ2 p Proportional Frequency Lowest and Highest Quartiles Lowest Highest Dimension 1 (mutual high positive emotion up-regulation) (M>K)-(K>U)-(R>M)-(R-M) 10.21 .001 .00 .22 Dimension 2 (maternal regulation of adolescents’ externalizing negative emotion) (M)-(M>C)-(L>M) 9.00 .003 .04 .28 Note. Transitions between dyadic states are enclosed in parentheses and indicated by > and dashes (–) indicate a time gap in which a state is remained in for some duration of time. Proportional frequency indicates the rates of occurrences of these subsequences among the first (lowest) and fourth (lowest) quartiles. Dimension 1 was characterized by transitions from mutual neutral to mutual positive and back again. Starting at mutual (i.e., co-occurring) neutral (cell letter M as shown in Figure 2.4), dyads moved to adolescent neutral/mother high positive (K), to mutual high positive (U) to adolescent low positive/mother neutral (R), to mutual neutral (M), to adolescent low Table 2.2 Inter-dyad Differences in Interaction Patterns: Description of Sequence Dimensions 35 positive/mother neutral (R), and finally to mutual neutral (M) in temporal order. We described this dimension as “mutual high positive emotion up-regulation” to capture the distinct characteristics of the most discriminating subsequence. Dimension 2 was characterized by mothers’ positive response to the adolescents’ externalizing negative emotion: Mutual neutral (M) to mother neutral/adolescent externalizing (C) to mother low positive/adolescent neutral (L) to mutual neutral (M). We described this dimension as “maternal regulation of adolescents’ externalizing negative emotion (see Figure 2.4). Associations between Interaction Patterns and Internalizing Problems Assumption Testing Figure 2.4 Illustration of Two Subsequences Representing Dimensions on a Grid 36 We tested the assumptions of structural equation modeling (normality of variables, independence of observations, no systematic missing in the data, sufficiently large sample size, and correct model specification; Curran, 2003; Kumar & Kumar, 2015) before conducting the analyses. The correlations between variables of interest showed low to medium effect sizes. Therefore, we concluded that the observations were independent. We used MLR estimation to handle the non-normality of the outcome variables. MLR estimation can correct the standard errors to handle non-normality and can include missing data (Maydeu-Olivares, 2017). We compared adolescents and mothers with missing data at Time 2 with adolescents and mothers with complete data in terms of Time 1 adolescent and maternal anxious and depressive symptoms, respectively. The results showed that the only significant difference was for adolescents’ Time 1 anxious symptoms (t [196] = 2.01, p = .046) in which adolescents with higher anxious symptoms scores at Time 1 were more likely to drop out at Time 2. Missingness was not related to adolescent or maternal age or adolescent gender. Hence, we concluded that missingness may be related to unobserved factors except adolescent anxious symptoms. Model Results To examine the associations between mother-adolescent interaction patterns and internalizing problems, we conducted two separate structural equation models to predict anxious and depressive symptoms from the inter-dyad differences in interaction patterns (i.e., Dimension 1 and Dimension 2; see Figures 2.5 and 2.6). Autoregressive paths showed that both anxious and depressive symptoms were stable between Time 1 and Time 2 for both adolescents and their mothers. The structural equation model predicting anxious symptoms at Time 2 did not show any significant associations concurrently or longitudinally between each interaction pattern and adolescent and mother anxious symptoms (see Figure 2.5). 37 The structural equation model predicting Time 2 depressive symptoms showed that the mutual high positive emotion up-regulation pattern (Dimension 1) was negatively related to adolescent depressive symptoms concurrently (b = -.15, p < .05) but not longitudinally (see Figure 2.6). In addition, maternal regulation of adolescents’ negative externalizing emotion (Dimension 2) was negatively related to maternal depressive symptoms concurrently (b = -.14, p < .05; see Figure 2.6) but not longitudinally. Lastly, significant autoregressive paths showed that both mother and adolescent depressive symptoms were stable between Time 1 and Time 2. Figure 2.5 Structural Equation Model of Grid Sequence Analysis and Depressive Symptoms 38 Discussion Moment-to-moment emotion dynamics within families both reflect family members’ long-standing characteristics and can shape long-term psychological adjustment (Lougheed, 2020). The goals of the current study were to examine whether there are interdyad differences in what kind of interaction patterns occur during mother-adolescent conflict interactions and whether these patterns are associated with anxious and depressive symptoms of mothers and their adolescents. We found two interaction patterns: Mutual high positive emotion up-regulation and maternal regulation of adolescents’ externalizing negative emotion. We did not observe significant associations between these momentary interaction patterns and anxious symptoms, Figure 2.6 Structural Equation Model of Grid Sequence Analysis and Anxiety Symptoms 39 and the correlation between these two interaction patterns was not significant. However, we observed concurrent associations between these patterns and maternal and adolescent depressive symptoms. Momentary Emotion Dynamics and Internalizing Problems Our results showed two interaction patterns among mother-adolescent dyads. Some dyads were more likely to show mutual high positive emotion up-regulation in which adolescents’ positive emotion was followed by mothers’ positive emotion and mothers’ positive emotion was followed by adolescents’ positive emotion. Adolescents’ regulatory skills improve significantly during adolescence (Silvers, 2022), and this improvement could be reflected in our results that the up-regulation was not initiated by only mothers but also by adolescents, even in a conflict discussion. These results are in line with previous studies showing that both mothers and adolescents were able to initiate positive up-regulation during conflict interactions, although previous studies showed that mothers were more likely to initiate positive interactions than adolescents (Fletcher et al., 1996; Van Bommel et al., 2019). These previous studies examined the temporal contingencies between adolescents’ and mothers’ emotional expressions (i.e., whether a specific emotional state of the mother or adolescent is followed by another emotional state), whereas we examined the multi-step chains of dyadic emotions for the entire conflict interaction. Hence, our approach provides a complementary perspective to work examining temporal contingencies with a more detailed picture of mother-adolescent conflict interaction patterns and showed that some dyads showed a pattern of mutual high positive emotion up-regulation. It is typical to show elevated negative emotion in adolescence than younger ages; however, the developmental trajectories of positive emotion experiences has not yet been fully examined (Gilbert, 2012). A limited number of studies show that not only negative emotion regulation but also positive emotion regulation skills and socialization of positive emotions play an important role in the development of depressive symptoms during adolescence (Yap et al., 40 2010; Young et al., 2019). For example, adolescents with higher internalizing symptoms showed less positive emotion than adolescents with lower internalizing symptoms (Sheeber et al., 2009). Further, shared positive emotion is an important component of emotion socialization between mothers and adolescents. For example, our results showed that mothers’ enhancing strategies—e.g., responding positive emotion expression with a positive emotion expression– were associated with lower levels of adolescent internalizing problems. In contrast, mothers’ dampening strategies— down-regulating adolescents’ positive emotion expressions— were associated with greater adolescent internalizing problems (Katz et al., 2014; Nelis et al., 2019). Likewise, we found that the pattern of mutual high positive emotion up-regulation was concurrently related to lower adolescent depression. This result is consistent with previous findings that the co-regulation of positive emotions in parent-adolescent dyads is an important predictor of mental health outcomes (Carl et al., 2013; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2007). The second behavioural pattern we found was characterized by maternal regulation of adolescents’ negative externalizing emotion. In this pattern, both adolescents and mothers showed neutral and positive emotion. However, their positive emotion did not result in positive up-regulation (i.e., their positive emotion expressions did not lead to moments of shared positive emotion), and adolescents occasionally showed externalizing negative emotion (i.e., anger). Thus, for mother-adolescent dyads who scored high on this behavioural pattern, both adolescents and mothers expressed positive emotion, although not synchronously, and mothers were more likely to express neutral emotion while adolescents expressed externalizing negative emotion, then, mothers showed positive emotion and their adolescents moved from negative emotion to neutral emotion. Dyads who scored higher on this “maternal regulation of adolescents’ externalizing negative emotion” interaction pattern may have more emotionally intense conflicts than dyads who scored higher on the “mutual high positive emotion up-regulation” interaction pattern. Although emotional expressions of mother-adolescent dyads who scored higher on this second interaction pattern were less synchronous in their expressions 41 (i.e., they did not show mutual positive expression), they were more expressive in their conflict interactions as this pattern showed more variety in expression of different emotions as they expressed both negative and positive emotions. The pattern characterized by maternal regulation of adolescents’ externalizing negative emotion was related to lower concurrent maternal depressive symptoms. Previous studies showed that parents with higher depressive symptoms are more likely to show negative parenting behaviours including aggression (Lovejoy et al., 2000; Marçal, 2021; Sheeber et al., in press). Mothers with better regulatory skills – such as mothers with lower levels of depressive symptoms – may be better able to stay neutral when their adolescents show externalizing negative emotion and switch to positive emotional expressions when their adolescents do not show externalizing negative emotion. Moment-to-moment emotion dynamics between parents and youth may show different interaction styles in which some parents may reciprocate or up-regulate the externalizing negative emotion of youth, or some parents may react more permissively and express positive emotion when youth show externalizing negative emotion (Granic et al., 2007). This second interaction pattern did not involve mutual hostility or permissive responses to the adolescent externalizing negative emotion. Rather, mothers remained neutral when their adolescents expressed externalizing negative emotion, and they later showed positive emotion when their adolescents showed neutral affect. Previous research suggests that not reciprocating anger, staying calm, and using proactive strategies are optimal parenting practices when youths show anger to socialize effective anger regulation (Denham et al., 2000). Hence, mothers in dyads who scored high on this interaction pattern may be showing adaptive strategies for socializing their adolescent’s externalizing negative emotion. Contrary to our expectations, neither interaction pattern was associated with anxious symptoms, but they were related to depressive symptoms although anxious and depressive symptoms are likely to co-occur (Garber & Weersing, 2010). This result was partially in line with 42 a previous study that showed that positive parental behaviours (i.e., happy and caring behaviours) only predicted depressive symptoms whereas parents’ negative parental behaviours (i.e., expression of aggression) predicted both anxious and depressive symptoms (Schwartz et al., 2012). These different results between anxious and depressive symptoms may also show that anxious and depressive symptoms may develop through different emotion socialization mechanisms although they are likely to co-occur. For example, another study also showed that negative parental emotion socialization practices (i.e., negative emotion expressions by parents or parental derision) were associated with anxiety symptoms among youth (Volbrecht & Goldsmith, 2010). The parent-adolescent interaction patterns in the current study involved positive parenting behaviors, hence, this may explain why depressive symptoms were significantly related to the interaction patterns, not anxious symptoms. Further, our sample consisted of community sample of adolescents in their early adolescence in which they overall showed low levels of internalizing problems. Typically, internalizing symptoms tend to peak during middle and late adolescence (Davis et al., 2015; Korhonen et al., 2018). Hence, this could be another reason for the low variability in internalizing symptoms in the current sample. Yet, positive up-regulation between mothers and adolescents could be a protective factor against depressive symptoms. Limitations and Future Directions The current study is the first study to use grid sequence analysis to examine the longitudinal associations between moment-to-moment patterns in parent-adolescent interactions and mental health. Although there are several strengths of this study, including the relatively large sample size, the behavioural observations during conflict, and longitudinal questionnaire data, there are several caveats to consider in interpreting the results. The current study utilized a community sample of participants with lower internalizing symptoms in comparison with a clinical sample. A sample with more variability in internalizing symptoms, such as a sample including both clinical and non-clinical participants, could better capture the relation between the 43 multi-step sequences of emotional expressions during conflicts and internalizing symptoms. Also, the sample consisted of mostly White and middle-class families and only mothers as adolescents’ parents. Therefore, the study results may not apply to relationships with different types of primary caregivers, cultural backgrounds, and socioeconomic status. Emotion socialization practices are influenced largely by the cultural norms of the community that families belong to (Brown et al., 2015), and it is important to replicate the study results with diverse samples about ethnicity, nationality, family structure, and socioeconomic status. Behavioural patterns were only associated with depressive symptoms concurrently but not longitudinally. Currently, we do not have enough information regarding at what level to expect momentary patterns would predict developmental outcomes. Developmental trajectories may show different patterns based on how frequent the sampling of developmental outcomes is, in other words, how short or long the time interval between the data collection points affects the interpretation of developmental trajectories (Adolph et al., 2008). The time interval between the assessment of interaction patterns and the development of anxious and depressive symptoms was one year in the current study. However, we do not know if one year is the optimal duration to observe the development of anxious and depressive symptoms from momentary interaction patterns. It is possible that a longer or shorter time interval may be required for specific interaction patterns to shape more stable characteristics or a shorter time interval may be required for these interaction patterns’ before their effect on long-term characteristics “fades away.” Hence, future studies should use different time intervals, such as weeks or months, to test the utility of this method in predicting mental health outcomes. Also, internalizing problems were highly stable between time points. Thus, internalizing problems did not show much change to predict through time. Lastly, the relatively young age of adolescents is another limitation, which may also explain the stability of symptoms as internalizing problems tend to increase from early to late adolescence (Zahn-Waxler et al., 2000). Conclusion 44 Taken together, the current study showed that moment-to-moment emotion dynamics may be related to the psychological adjustment of mother-adolescent dyads. Adolescents’ and mothers’ internalizing problems (i.e., depressive symptoms) could be reflected in how they react to each other’s emotions during times of conflict. Future studies should examine different durations of intervals between momentary emotion dynamics and long-term mental health outcomes to better understand the timescale of the effect of different dyadic interaction patterns on mental health outcomes. 45 References Adolph, K. E., Robinson, S. R., Young, J. W., & Gill-Alvarez, F. (2008). What is the shape of developmental change? Psychological Review, 115(3), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.527 Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 893–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.893 Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation, 1(82), 10–1037. Branje, S. (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 Branje, S., Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (2012). Parent–child communication during adolescence. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Routledge handbook of family communication (2nd ed., pp. 271–286). New York: Routledge. Branje, S. J., van Doorn, M., van der Valk, I., & Meeus, W. (2009). Parent–adolescent conflicts, conflict resolution types, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.004 Brinberg, M., Fosco, G. M., & Ram, N. (2017). Examining inter-family differences in intra-family (parent–adolescent) dynamics using grid-sequence analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 994–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000371 Brinberg, M., Ram, N., Hülür, G., Brick, T. R., & Gerstorf, D. (2018). Analyzing dyadic data using grid-sequence analysis: Interdyad differences in intradyad dynamics. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw160 46 Brown, G. L., Craig, A. B., & Halberstadt, A. G. (2015). Parent gender differences in emotion socialization behaviors vary by ethnicity and child gender. Parenting, Science and Practice, 15(3), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2015.1053312 Carl, J. R., Soskin, D. P., Kerns, C., & Barlow, D. H. (2013). Positive emotion regulation in emotional disorders: A theoretical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.003 Connell, A. M., Hughes-Scalise, A., Klostermann, S., & Azem, T. (2011). Maternal depression and the heart of parenting: Respiratory sinus arrhythmia and affective dynamics during parent–adolescent interactions. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(5), 653–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025225 Crowell, S. E., Butner, J. E., Wiltshire, T. J., Munion, A. K., Yaptangco, M., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2017). Evaluating emotional and biological sensitivity to maternal behavior among self-injuring and depressed adolescent girls using nonlinear dynamics. Clinical Psychological Science, 5(2), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617692861 Curran, P. J. (2003). Have multilevel models been structural equation models all along? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(4), 529–569. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3804_5 de Leeuw, J., & Mair, P. (2009). Multidimensional scaling using majorization: SMACOF in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 31(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v031.i03 Davis, S., Votruba‐Drzal, E., & Silk, J. S. (2015). Trajectories of internalizing symptoms from early childhood to adolescence: Associations with temperament and parenting. Social Development, 24(3), 501-520. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12105 Dekovic, M. (1999). Parent-adolescent conflict: Possible determinants and consequences. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23(4), 977-1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502599383630 47 Denham, S. A., Workman, E., Cole, P. M., Weissbrod, C., Kendziora, K. T., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2000). Prediction of externalizing behavior problems from early to middle childhood: The role of parental socialization and emotion expression. Development and Psychopathology, 12(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400001024 Durbeej, N., Sörman, K., Norén Selinus, E., Lundström, S., Lichtenstein, P., Hellner, C., & Halldner, L. (2019). Trends in childhood and adolescent internalizing symptoms: Results from Swedish population based twin cohorts. BMC Psychology, 7(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0326-8 Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1 Eisenberg, N. (2020). Findings, issues, and new directions for research on emotion socialization. Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000906 Fletcher, K. E., Fischer, M., Barkley, R. A., & Smallish, L. (1996). A sequential analysis of the mother-adolescent interactions of ADHD, ADHD/ODD, and normal teenagers during neutral and conflict discussions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24(3), 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01441632 Gabadinho, A., Ritschard, G., Mueller, N. S., & Studer, M. (2011). Analyzing and visualizing state sequences in R with TraMineR. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(4), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i04 Garber, J., & Weersing, V. R. (2010). Comorbidity of anxiety and depression in youth: Implications for treatment and prevention. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 17(4), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2010.01221.x Gilbert, K. E. (2012). The neglected role of positive emotion in adolescent psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.05.005 48 Granic, I., O’Hara, A., Pepler, D., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). A dynamic systems analysis of parent–child changes associated with successful “real-world” interventions for aggressive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(5), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9133-4 Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113, 101–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.101 Grant, M.M. (2011). Beck Anxiety Inventory. In Goldstein, S., Naglieri, J.A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 215–217). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_3159 Hofer, C., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Morris, A. S., Gershoff, E., Valiente, C., ... & Eggum, N. D. (2013). Mother–adolescent conflict: Stability, change, and relations with externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Social Development, 22(2), 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12012 Hollenstein, T. (2007). State space grids: Analyzing dynamics across development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077765 Hollenstein, T. (2013). State space grids: Depicting dynamics across development. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5007-8 Hout, M. C., Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2013). Multidimensional scaling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1203 Katz, L. F., Shortt, J. W., Allen, N. B., Davis, B., Hunter, E., Leve, C., & Sheeber, L. (2014). Parental emotion socialization in clinically depressed adolescents: Enhancing and49 dampening positive affect. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9784-2 Korhonen M., Luoma I., Salmelin R., Siirtola A., Puura K. (2018). The trajectories of internalizing and externalizing problems from early childhood to adolescence and young adult outcome. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2. 6–12. Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s depression inventory. North Tonowanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. Kruskal, J. B. (1983). An overview of sequence comparison: Time warps, string edits, and macromolecules. SIAM Review, 25(2), 201–237. https://doi.org/10.1137/1025045 Kumar, S., & Kumar, S. (2015). Structure equation modeling basic assumptions and concepts: A novices guide. Asian Journal of Management Sciences, 3(07), 25–28. Kuppens, P., Sheeber, L. B., Yap, M. B. H., Whittle, S., Simmons, J. G., & Allen, N. B. (2012). Emotional inertia prospectively predicts the onset of depressive disorder in adolescence. Emotion, 12(2), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025046 Lachman, M. E. (2020). Midlife in the 2020s: Opportunities and challenges. The American Psychologist, 75(4), 470-485. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000591 Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.197 Lougheed, J. P. (2020). Parent–adolescent dyads as temporal interpersonal emotion systems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12526 Lougheed, J. P., Brinberg, M., Ram, N., & Hollenstein, T. (2020). Emotion socialization as a dynamic process across emotion contexts. Developmental Psychology, 56, 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000801 Lougheed, J. P., Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., Connolly, J., O’Hara, A., Granic, I., & Hollenstein, T. (2016). Maternal and peer regulation of adolescent emotion: Associations with50 depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(5), 963–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0084-x Lougheed, J. P., & Hollenstein, T. (2016). Socioemotional flexibility in mother-daughter dyads: Riding the emotional rollercoaster across positive and negative contexts. Emotion, 16(5), 620–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000155 Lougheed, J. P., Hollenstein, T., & Lewis, M. D. (2016). Maternal regulation of daughters' emotion during conflicts from early to mid‐adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(3), 610-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12211 Lougheed, J. P., Main, A., & Helm, J. L. (2020). Mother–adolescent emotion dynamics during conflicts: Associations with perspective taking. Journal of Family Psychology, 34, 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000632 Lovejoy, M. C., Graczyk, P. A., O’Hare, E., & Neuman, G. (2000). Maternal depression and parenting behavior: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(5), 561–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00100-7 Maciejewski, D. F., van Lier, P. A., Branje, S. J., Meeus, W. H., & Koot, H. M. (2017). A daily diary study on adolescent emotional experiences: Measurement invariance and developmental trajectories. Psychological Assessment, 29(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000312 Marçal, K. E. (2021). Pathways to adolescent emotional and behavioral problems: An examination of maternal depression and harsh parenting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 113, 104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104917 Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2017). Maximum likelihood estimation of structural equation models for continuous data: Standard errors and goodness of fit. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1269606 51 McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2011). A multivariate model of parent–adolescent relationship variables in early adolescence. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 42, 442-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-011-0228-3 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 Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x Nelis, S., Bastin, M., Raes, F., & Bijttebier, P. (2019). How do my parents react when I feel happy? Longitudinal associations with adolescent depressive symptoms, anhedonia, and positive affect regulation. Social Development, 28(2), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12318 Pineda, A. Q., Cole, D. A., & Bruce, A. E. (2007). Mother-adolescent interactions and adolescent depressive symptoms: A sequential analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072564 R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ Sawyer, S. M., Azzopardi, P. S., Wickremarathne, D., & Patton, G. C. (2018). The age of adolescence. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2(3), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(18)30022-1 Schwartz, O. S., Dudgeon, P., Sheeber, L. B., Yap, M. B., Simmons, J. G., & Allen, N. B. (2012). Parental behaviors during family interactions predict changes in depression and anxiety symptoms during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9542-2 52 Sheeber, L., Allen, N., Leve, C., Davis, B., Shortt, J., & Katz, L. (2009). Dynamics of affective experience and behavior in depressed adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(11), 1419–1427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02148.x Sheeber, L., Lougheed, J. P., Hollenstein, T., Leve, C., Mudiam, K., & Allen, N. (in press). Maternal aggressive behavior in interactions with adolescent offspring: Proximal social-\ cognitive predictors in depressed and non-depressed mothers. Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science. Sheeber, L. B., Kuppens, P., Shortt, J. W., Katz, L. F., Davis, B., & Allen, N. B. (2012). Depression is associated with the escalation of adolescents' dysphoric behavior during interactions with parents. Emotion, 12(5), 913–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025784 Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents’ emotion regulation in daily life: Links to depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child Development, 74(6), 1869–1880. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00643.x Silverberg, S. B., & Steinberg, L. (1987). Adolescent autonomy, parent-adolescent conflict, and parental well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(3), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02139096 Silvers, J. A. (2022). Adolescence as a pivotal period for emotion regulation development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.023 Smetana, J. G., & Rote, W. M. (2019). Adolescent–parent relationships: Progress, processes, and prospects. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1, 41-68. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-084903 Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00001 53 Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, 103-133. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Tighe, A., Tsui, T., Lougheed, J. P., & Hollenstein, T. (2014). Specific affect coding system manual: 5-code version. Unpublished Manual. Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2007). Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion regulation strategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(3), 311–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9015-4 Van Bommel, D. M. H., Van der Giessen, D., Van der Graaff, J., Meeus, W. H. J., & Branje, S. J. T. (2019). Mother–adolescent conflict interaction sequences: The role of maternal internalizing problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(4), 1001–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12441 Van der Giessen, D., Branje, S. J. T., Frijns, T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2013). Dyadic variability in mother-adolescent interactions: Developmental trajectories and associations with psychosocial functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9790-7 Van der Giessen, D., Branje, S., Keijsers, L., Lier, P. A. C. V., Koot, H. M., & Meeus, W. (2014). Emotional variability during mother–adolescent conflict interactions: Longitudinal links to adolescent disclosure and maternal control. Journal of Adolescence, 37(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.10.007 Van der Giessen, D., Hollenstein, T., Hale, W. W., Koot, H. M., Meeus, W., & Branje, S. (2015). Emotional variability in mother-adolescent conflict interactions and internalizing problems of mothers and adolescents: Dyadic and individual processes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(2), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9910-9 Wickham, H. (2007). Reshaping Data with the reshape Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 21(12), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i12 54 Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org Volbrecht, M. M., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2010). Early temperamental and family predictors of shyness and anxiety. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1192-1205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020616 Weymouth, B. B., Buehler, C., Zhou, N., & Henson, R. A. (2016). A meta‐analysis of parent-adolescent conflict: Disagreement, hostility, and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12126 Yap, M. B. H., Schwartz, O. S., Byrne, M. L., Simmons, J. G., & Allen, N. B. (2010). Maternal positive and negative interaction behaviors and early adolescents’ depressive symptoms: Adolescent emotion regulation as a mediator. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 1014–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00665.x Young, K. S., Sandman, C. F., & Craske, M. G. (2019). Positive and negative emotion egulation in adolescence: Links to anxiety and depression. Brain Sciences, 9(4), 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9040076 Zhang, J., Buchanan, G. J., Piehler, T. F., Gunlicks-Stoessel, M., & Bloomquist, M. L. (2022). The Relationship between parent-adolescent conflict dynamics and adolescent depression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(9), 2535-2544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02318-w Zahn–Waxler, C., Klimes–Dougan, B., & Slattery, M. J. (2000). Internalizing problems of childhood and adolescence: Prospects, pitfalls, and progress in understanding the development of anxiety and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003102 55 Chapter 3: Conflict Interactions and Internalizing Mood in Parent-Adolescent Dyads’ Daily Lives Abstract The effect of parent-adolescent conflict on internalizing problems (depression, anxiety) has been well-documented. Depression and anxiety can manifest themselves as depressive and anxious feelings in daily life. However, daily processes related to conflict and sad and anxious mood have been overlooked. We tested the mutual effects between parent-adolescent conflict, and sad and anxious mood in daily life. A community-sample of parent-adolescent dyads (N = 171) completed daily diaries for 14-21 days to rate anxious and sad mood, and conflict interactions between October 2021 and August 2023. The participants were mostly from families with high socioeconomic status, most of the parents were biological mothers, and over half of the parents were Caucasian. We ran four actor-partner interdependence models in a dynamic structural equation modelling framework. Most of the within-person actor and partner effects from conflict to mood, and from mood to conflict, were positive and significant for both sad and anxious mood. At the between-person level, conflicts reported by parents and adolescents predicted their own mood; and mood reported by parents and adolescents predicted their own conflict, not each others’. Fluctuations in state-level conflict and sad and anxious mood were contagious between parents and adolescents in daily life; however, trait-level characteristics of conflict and sad and anxious mood were not. Thus, how conflict and sad and anxious mood interact within parent-adolescent dyads in daily life showed different patterns than how overall levels of conflict and sad and anxious mood interacted between parent-adolescent dyads. Keywords: Parental-adolescent dynamics, conflict, internalizing mood 56 Conflict Interactions and Internalizing Mood in Parent-Adolescent Dyads’ Daily Lives Conflicts are an inevitable part of the relationships between adolescents and their parents (Branje, 2018). Yet, conflict can have detrimental effects on both parents’ and adolescents’ mental health outcomes (Branje et al., 2009; Deković, 1999; Lougheed et al., 2020). Also, emotional experiences can affect how people perceive their environment. Parents’ and adolescents’ mood can color their perception of parent-adolescent conflict (LoBraico et al., 2020). Thus, we examined the bidirectional associations between internalizing mood – sad and anxious mood–and perceived conflict in the daily lives of adolescents and their parents. Circular Causality between Internalizing Mood and Conflict Interactions in Daily Life The family systems approach considers families as systems that are regulated by circular processes (Minuchin, 1985). From this perspective, the interactions between parents and adolescents form a constant feedback loop that re-organizes their short-term affective states, long-term psychological adjustment, and their relationship characteristics. This circular causality can happen at intrapersonal and interpersonal levels in the short and long terms (Lobraico et al., 2020; Lougheed, 2020; Lougheed & Keskin, 2021). For example, parents’ and adolescents’ stress reactivity (e.g., negative emotional reactions to conflict) was related to their long-term psychological adjustment, which in turn resulted in greater stress reactivity in their daily lives at the intraindividual level and therefore led to more conflict (Hofer et al., 2013). At the interpersonal level, circular causality happens when parents’ and adolescents’ conflict and internalizing moods are both consequences and causes of each other (Lobraico et al., 2020). The positive association between overall conflict and internalizing symptoms (i.e., depressive and anxious symptoms) among parent-adolescent dyads has been well documented (Weymouth et al., 2016). More recent studies also showed that parent-adolescent conflict and mood can mutually affect each other in daily life (Arslan et al., 2024; LoBraico et al., 2020; Timmons & Margolin, 2015). Hence, both overall (trait-level) conflict and internalizing problems, and the daily fluctuations (state-level) in conflict interactions and mood among parent-57 adolescent dyads tend to be related. Effect of Conflict on Internalizing Symptoms Conflicts between youth and their parents tend to increase during adolescence, as adolescents gain more autonomy and are more likely to disagree with their parents (Branje, 2018). However, persistent and intense conflicts can be detrimental to parents’ and adolescents’ well-being. Parents may perceive conflict interactions as personal failure (Branje et al., 2012) and adolescents may feel less supported by their parents (Branje et al., 2012). Previous studies focusing on between-family differences showed that when parent-adolescent dyads reported greater levels of conflict, parents (Lougheed et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2011) and adolescents (Samek et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2019) also showed greater anxious and depressive symptoms. Studies focusing on daily dynamics showed that parent-adolescent interactions can impact emotional experiences in daily life as well (Coffey et al., 2020; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020). For example, if parent-adolescent conflict was high within a day, adolescents were less likely to feel loved on that day (Coffey et al., 2020). Also, high quality parent-adolescent interactions may help improve adolescents’ mood. Specifically, on days when adolescents reported greater quality interactions with their parents, they also reported feeling greater positive mood and lower negative mood (Bülow et al., 2022). Further, daily parent-adolescent conflict may not only affect adolescents’ daily mood but also parents’ daily mood (Silva et al., 2020). For example, a recent study showed that parents experienced lower positive mood on days they reported greater levels of conflict with their adolescents (Silva et al., 2020). Literature focusing on daily dynamics to date mostly explored the link between parent-adolescent interactions and overall depressive and anxious symptoms or daily positive and/or negative mood (Bülow et al., 2022; Chiang et al., 2022; Coffey et al., 2020; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2020; Nelemans et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2020). However, emotions function to inform our interactions with the environment (Keltner, & Haidt, 2001) and different emotions may convey different messages (Niedenthal & Brauer, 2012). Only one study examined the effect of daily 58 parent-adolescent conflict on a specific emotion and found that when parents and adolescents perceived a high level of parent-adolescent conflict in a day, they were more likely to report greater levels of anger the next day (LoBraico et al., 2020). Sadness and anxiety can provide valuable insights into our environment. For example, sadness signals perceived or actual loss whereas anxiety signals the possibility of a threat (Keltner, & Haidt, 2001; Mathews, 1990). Sad and anxious mood are also considered emotional symptoms of internalizing problems in daily experiences (Byrne & Eysenck, 1995; Power & Tarsia, 2007). Hence, this study explored intra- and inter-individual effects of perceived parent-adolescent conflict on internalizing mood (i.e., sad and anxious mood) in daily life. Effect of Internalizing Symptoms on Conflict Internalizing symptoms are defined as disturbances in emotional experiences and include anxious and depressive symptoms (Hughes & Gullone, 2008). Internalizing symptoms are associated with negative perceptions of close relationships and eliciting negative reactions from others (Coyne, 1976a; Coyne, 1976b; Flynn et al., 2010). When individuals report greater internalizing symptoms, they are also more likely to perceive more conflict (Brière et al., 2013). Previous studies showed how emotional experiences can affect the perception of interpersonal interactions (Forgas, 2002). In the context of romantic relationships, positive emotional experiences were associated with a more positive evaluation of the relationship whereas negative emotional experiences were associated with a more negative evaluation of the relationship (Gana et al., 2016). A similar effect was observed in parent-adolescent relationships, in which adolescents who reported greater negative mood in their daily lives also were more likely to report experiencing greater levels of conflict with their parents (Arslan et al., 2024). Another study showed that parents and adolescents who experienced more anger in a day were more likely to perceive greater levels of parent-adolescent conflict the next day (LoBraico et al., 2020). Hence, not only do conflict interactions predict negative mood, but also negative mood can predict conflict interactions in the daily lives of parents and adolescents. 59 The Current Study We examined the daily associations between parent and adolescent perceived conflict, and sad and anxious mood. We disentangled the associations between the trait-level characteristics and associations between state-level fluctuations in conflict and internalizing mood. At the between-person level (trait-level associations), we explored whether a greater mean level conflict was associated with greater sad and anxious mood. At within-person level (state-level associations), we explored if parents and adolescents reported a greater level of conflict than they usually reported in a day, they also experienced a greater level of sad and anxious mood than they usually experienced on the same day (see Figure 3.1). We examined four longitudinal actor-partner interdependence models (L-APIM: Gistelinck & Loeys, 2019). In each model, we had the same APIM at both within- and between-person levels. We explored whether (1) perceived conflict predicted sad mood, (2) sad mood predicted perceived conflict, (3) perceived conflict predicted anxious mood, and (4) anxious mood predicted perceived conflict. We had four hypotheses: 1. Adolescents’ and parents’ perceived conflict would positively predict their sad mood both at the within- and between-person levels (Model 1). 2. Adolescents’ and parents’ sad mood would positively predict their perceived conflict both at the within- and between-person levels (Model 2). 3. Adolescents’ and parents’ perceived conflict would positively predict their anxious mood both at the within- and between-person levels (Model 3). 4. Adolescents’ and parents’ anxious mood would positively predict their perceived conflict both at the within- and between-person levels (Model 4). Methods Participants 60 A community sample of 181 parent-adolescent dyads participated in a daily diary survey for 14 to 21 days between October 2021 and August 2023. This community sample was recruited through physical recruitment flyers posted at local attractions (e.g., a farmers’ market, a school, cafes, churches, and community organizations) and virtual ads shared through online platforms (i.e., Google ads and Instagram). The inclusion criteria were that (1) both an adolescent between the ages of 13 and 17 years old and their primary caregiver participate; (2) participants live in British Columbia, Canada; (3) participants have a smartphone; and (4) participating caregivers and adolescents live in the same household. Parents were mostly women (94%, n = 169), which was followed by men (6%, n = 11) and one parent did not specify their gender. Most parents were biological parents (98%, n = 177); one parent was a foster parent, one was a parent’s cohabiting partner, and one was a non-biological parent. Among parents, 59 (33%) reported having family income above $150,000 per year, 56 (31%) between $100,000 and $150,000 per year, 30 (17%) between $75,000 and $100,000 per year, 15 (8%) between $50,000 and $75,000 per year, and 11 (6%) less than $50,000 per year, and 9 (5%) did not prefer to disclose their income. Parents also reported their formal education and 79 (44%) had a bachelor’s degree, 61 (34%) had a graduate degree, 29 (16%) had some college education but not a degree, 8 (4%) had an associate degree, 3 (2%) had high school degree or equivalent, and one parent did not specify their education level. The age of the parents ranged between 30 and 57 years (M = 45.86, SD = 4.67). Over half of the parents identified their ethnicity as Caucasian (53%), followed by Chinese (8%), South Asian or East Indian (6%), non-White Latin American (6%), Black (3%), Filipino (2%), Japanese (2%), and First Nations (1%) while 1% of participants had other ethnicities and 15% of participants endorsed multiple ethnicities. Among adolescents, 87 identified as girl/woman (48%), 81 identified as boy/man (45%), 8 preferred not to disclose their gender (4%), one identified as gender non-conforming (1%), one as gender non-binary (1%), and one was questioning their gender (1%). Adolescents’ age was ranged between 13 and 17 years (M = 14.37, SD = 1.28). 61 Procedure Data collection was completed per approval from the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board in two parts. In Part 1, parent-adolescent dyads completed a one-time questionnaire about demographic information, their socioemotional well-being, and aspects of their relationship with their participating family members. Once both parents and adolescents completed Part 1, a Zoom call was scheduled with both participants and a project research assistant to review the procedures for Part 2 and to ensure that participants began on the same day. Part 2 was the daily diary portion of this study, where once per day for 14 days, participants reported their sad and anxious mood and perceptions of parent-adolescent conflict. Participants received an honorarium for completing Part 1 and Part 2 of the study. The honorarium amount was revised partway through the study to increase the participation rate. Between October 2021 and mid-July 2022, a 21-day design allowed participants to receive up to $26 per participant. parents and adolescents each received $5 for completing Part 1. For completing Part 2 of the study, parents and adolescents received $1 per prompt. Between mid-July 2022 and September 2022, a 14-day design allowed participants to receive up to $26 per participant. Parents and adolescents each received $5 for completing Part 1 of the study and $1.5 per prompt in Part 2. Between September 2002 and August 2023, a 14-day design allowed participants to receive up to $35 per participant. Parents and adolescents each received $7 for completing Part 1 of the study and $2 per prompt in Part 2. Parent-adolescent dyads were included in the study regardless of the version of the study design. However, dyads who provided data for less than half of the days in Part 2 were excluded from analyses in the current study. High levels of missingness may bias the results as Griffiths and colleagues (2022) recently suggested a 4/7 ratio of data per week (i.e., completing at least 4 days of surveys out of 7 days) to prevent biased results due to missingness in the analyses used. Hence, the final sample size included 171 parent-adolescent dyads. Measures 62 Daily Contact The pre-requisite of parent-adolescent daily conflict was caregiver-adolescent contact on a given day. Daily caregiver-adolescent contact was measured with the question “For how long have you seen or spoken to your caregiver/adolescent today (including online contact)?” (Bülow et al., 2020). The responses to answer this question were a) “0-60 minutes”, b) “1-24 hours”, and c) “You have NOT seen or spoken with your caregiver/adolescent today. Tell us how this was for you.” If participants chose option c, they answered questions regarding their experience with lack of contact with their caregivers/adolescents, and they skipped the Perceived Conflict with Caregiver/Adolescent scale. If participants chose either option a or option b, they continued their daily surveys with the Perceived Conflict with Caregiver/Adolescent scale. The days in which the participants chose option a or b were included in the current study’s sample. Daily Perceived Conflict Perceived caregiver-adolescent conflict was reported by both caregivers and adolescents with the “Perceived Conflict with Caregiver” scale (Coffey et al., 2020). This scale originally targeted adolescents; however, we adapted it to measure parental perceived conflict with adolescents as well. The scale consists of two items: “I was ANGRY or MAD at my caregiver/adolescent today”, and “There was TENSION between my caregiver/adolescent and I today”. The participants rated the items between 0 = Not at all true and 100 = Very true. Daily Anxious Mood Caregivers and adolescents reported how “Anxious” they are on a single Likert-type item from 0 = None of the time to 4 = All of the time. Daily Sad Mood Caregivers and adolescents reported how “Sad” they are on a single Likert-type item from 0 = None of the time to 4 = All of the time. Control Variables Centered Time. We centered the time variable by week (i.e., 0 point is the middle of the 63 week) as suggested by Bolger and Laurenceau (2013) and included it as a control variable at the within-person level. Weekend. We included the weekend variable (0 = weekday; 1 = weekend) as a control variable at the within-person level. Between and Within-Person Level Transformations of Measures Between- and within-person level centered variables were calculated following the guidelines by Bolger and Laurenceau (2013). We first grand mean centered the variables. To calculate the between-person component, we calculated the mean for each individual by taking the mean of their grand mean centered values. We calculated the within-person component by subtracting each individual score from the grand mean centered values. The within-person component of the variables captured each participant’s deviations around their own average whereas the between-person component captured each participant’s deviations from the sample mean. The number of items we measured for each construct did not allow us to calculate the between- within-person reliability of measures, because each construct requires at least three items to calculate a meaningful within-person reliability score (Yang et al., 2022). Analytical Approach Descriptive Statistics We ran bivariate correlations between average levels of parent and adolescent perceived conflict, sad mood, and anxious mood. We conducted t-tests to examine if there were differences between boys and girls, and between school time and summertime on the perceived conflict, sad mood, and anxious mood variables. Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling (DSEM) Analyses To examine the associations between parent and adolescent perceived conflict, sad mood, and anxious mood at both between-person and within-person levels, we ran four L-APIMs (Gistelinck & Loeys, 2019). We used lagged exogenous variables, which allowed us to use a one-day time interval to predict endogenous variables. 64 Figure 3.1 illustrates the longitudinal actor-partner interdependence models. In Model 1, adolescent- and parent-reported sad mood were regressed on the adolescent- and parent-reported conflict at the within- and between-person levels. In Model 2, adolescent- and parent-reported conflict were regressed on adolescent- and parent-reported sad mood at the within- and between-person levels. In Model 3, adolescent- and parent-reported anxious mood were regressed on the adolescent- and parent-reported conflict at the within- and between-person levels. In Model 4, adolescent- and parent-reported conflict were regressed on adolescent- and parent-reported anxious mood at the within- and between-person levels. Exploratory Analyses Same-Day Associations. We explored the effect of the time interval regarding the strength of associations between perceived conflict and sad and anxious mood. The main research questions were answered using lagged variables with a one-day interval. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test same-day associations. Adolescent Gender. We explored differences in key variables by adolescent gender as previous studies showed gender differences in internalizing symptoms (Graber, 2004) and parent-adolescent conflict in which boys and girls may have different kinds of conflict interactions (Lindeman et al., 1997). We controlled for gender at the between-person level when there were differences in the endogenous variables based on gender. We did not examine differences by parent gender given that the vast majority (94%) of participating parents identified as women. Gender (0 = boy; 1 = girl) was dummy coded as a binary variable because the other gender categories (i.e., non-binary, gender non-conforming, and adolescents who prefer not to disclose their gender) were statistically underpowered (n = 11). We included gender as a control variable in the exploratory analyses at the between-person level. School Year. Based on the timing of participant recruitment, we had some families who participated during the school year and some who participated during the summer. Families’ daily routines may show differences during the summer and school year. We included school 65 year (0 = school time; 1 = summertime) as control variables in the exploratory analyses at the between-person level as parent-adolescent interactions may vary based on the time of the year. Transparency and Openness The current study was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) after data collection was completed and before data analysis. The target sample size was to recruit as many participants during the period of data collection. The data and the analysis codes are available upon request. The pre-registration is available through this link: https://osf.io/vay8p. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and all manipulations for this study were performed as described in the pre-registration. Initially, we proposed to include parent and adolescent mood and conflict variables in the same model. It is possible to have this kind of complex model using lagged variables; however, in a DSEM framework, we cannot estimate the same variable as the predictor and outcome variable when exploring same-day associations. The proposed statistical models were revised to achieve consistency between main and exploratory analyses; hence, mood and conflict variables were the only predictor or outcome variables in the same model. Results Descriptive Statistics The bivariate correlations between variables of interest showed that most of them were correlated with each other in the expected directions (see Table 3.1). For example, parent conflict was positively correlated with adolescent conflict, and adolescent and parent sad and anxious mood while adolescent conflict was positively correlated with adolescent sad and anxious mood. Further, t-tests showed that adolescent girls reported greater anxious mood (t[157] = -2.640, d = -.421, p = .009), sad mood (t[157] = -3.457, d = -.552, p < .001), and perceived conflict with parents (t[157] = -2.574, d = -.411, p = .011) than adolescent boys. Also, adolescents reported more perceived conflict with their parents during school time than during summer time (t[170] = 2.678, d = .427, p = .008). 66 Associations between Perceived Conflict and Internalizing Mood Model 1 tested the lagged effects of adolescent- and parent-reported conflict on adolescent and parent sad mood. Model 2 tested the lagged effects of adolescent and parent sad mood on adolescent- and parent-reported conflict. Results showed that only a limited number of hypothesized paths were significant (see Table 3.2) and they were in line with the hypothesized directions. In Model 1, no hypothesized path was significant at the within-person level. However, the correlation between residual variances of adolescent and parent sadness was positive and significant at the within-person level indicating that on the days when adolescents reported a greater level of sad mood than they usually reported, their parents were also more likely to report a greater level of sad mood than they usually reported. At the between-person level, parents’ and adolescents’ own conflict perceptions predicted their own sad mood indicating that when a parent or an adolescent perceived more conflict than other parents or adolescents, they were also more likely to show greater levels of sad mood than other parents or adolescents. In Model 2, the only significant estimate was the positive correlation between the residual variances of adolescent and parent conflict at the within-person level. This correlation indicated that on the days adolescents perceived greater levels of conflict than they usually perceived, their parents were also more likely to perceive greater levels of conflict than they usually perceived. At the between person level, parents’ and adolescents’ own sad mood predicted their own conflict perceptions indicating that when a parent or an adolescent reported greater levels of sad mood than other parents or adolescents, they were also more likely to perceive greater levels of conflict than other parents or adolescents. The between-person level correlation between residual variances of adolescents’ and parents’ conflict reports was also significant and positive indicating that if overall parent-reported conflict was high, overall adolescent-reported conflict was likely to be high. Model 3 tested the lagged effects of adolescent- and parent-reported conflict on adolescent and parent anxious mood. Model 4 tested the lagged effects of adolescent and 67 parent anxious mood on adolescent- and parent-reported conflict. In Model 3, no hypothesized paths were significant at the within-person level. However, the correlation between residual variances of adolescent and parent anxiety was positive and significant at the within-person level, indicating that on the days when adolescents reported a greater level of anxious mood than they usually report, their parents were also more likely to report a greater level of anxious mood than they usually report. At the between-person level, parents’ and adolescents’ own conflict perceptions predicted their own anxious mood indicating that when a parent or an adolescent perceived more conflict than other parents or adolescents, they were also more likely to show greater levels of anxious mood than other parents or adolescents. In Model 4, the only significant estimate of interest was the positive correlation between the residual variances of adolescent and parent conflict at the within-person level. This correlation indicated that on the days when adolescents perceived greater levels of conflict than they usually perceived, their parents were also more likely to perceive greater levels of conflict than they usually perceived. At the between person level, participants’ own anxious mood predicted their own conflict perceptions indicating that when a parent or an adolescent reported greater levels of anxious mood than other parents or adolescents, they were also more likely to perceive greater levels of conflict than other parents or adolescents. The between-person level correlation between residual variances of adolescents’ and parents’ conflict reports was also significant and positive indicating that if overall parent-reported conflict was high, overall adolescent-reported conflict was likely to be high. Exploratory Analyses Same-Day Associations Almost all hypothesized paths were significant and at expected directions when examining associations between conflict and sad and anxious mood within the same day (see Table 3.3). In all four models, at the between-person level, conflicts reported by parents and adolescents predicted their own sad and anxious mood; and sad and anxious mood reported by 68 parents and adolescents predicted their own conflict, but not each others’. That means when adolescents or parents reported greater levels of conflict than other parent-adolescent dyads, they were also more likely to report greater sad or anxious mood and vice versa. At the within-person level, all hypothesized paths were significant and in the expected directions, except the path from adolescent-reported conflict to parent anxious mood. Hence, when adolescents and parents reported a greater level of anxious or sad mood in a day, they were also more likely to report a greater level of conflict than they usually reported on the same day and vice versa except for the effect of adolescent-reported conflict on parent anxious mood. Adolescent Gender We examined the effect of adolescent gender on outcome variables in each model. As Supplementary Table 3.1 shows, adolescent girls reported overall greater sadness (Model S1) and less intense conflicts with their parents (Model S4) compared to adolescent boys. Adding gender as a covariate at the between-person level did not lead to any changes in the significance of hypothesized paths. School Year We explored the effect of school year on the outcome variables in each model. As Supplementary Table 3.2 shows, both adolescents and parents reported less intense conflicts during summer (Model S4). Adding the school year to the analysis as a covariate did not affect the significance level of the hypothesized paths. Discussion We examined the daily associations between parent-adolescent conflict interactions and internalizing mood. The study findings indicated that the state-level perceptions of conflict interactions and sad and anxious mood showed variability in parent-adolescent daily lives. Although parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood were not contagious the next day, they were associated with each other within the same day after accounting for the between-69 family differences of conflict and internalizing mood. Between-family differences also showed a positive association between trait-level conflict interactions and internalizing mood. Parent-Adolescent Conflict and Internalizing Mood in Daily Life Our hypotheses regarding the associations between parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood were partially confirmed as results rejected the within-person level hypotheses while confirming the between-person level hypotheses. Using DSEM, we disentangled the between- and within-person variance and accounted for between-person differences when examining within-person associations to avoid biased interpretations (Asparouhov et al., 2018; Hamaker et al., 2018). Indeed, we observed meaningful differences between hypothesized paths at the within- and between-person levels. At the within-person level, none of the lagged effects from adolescent- and parent-reported conflict and sad and anxious mood were significant, indicating that adolescents’ and parents’ conflict on a day did not predict their sad and anxious mood the next day, and vice versa. This result was not in line with the literature exploring families as non-linear systems that regulate their members’ interactions and psychological adjustment (Minuchin, 1985). Previous studies focusing on parent-adolescent conflict and negative mood in daily life showed that parents and adolescents were likely to report better emotional well-being on the days they reported more positive parent-adolescent interactions (Coffey et al., 2020; Manczak et al., 2019). These non-significant results may be due to the relatively low ratings of conflict and internalizing mood among the parent-adolescent dyads in our sample. Further, although we did not find significant lagged effects between conflict and internalizing mood, we observed significant same-day associations. Hence, a day interval may be too long to find an effect between parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood. Recent studies showed the importance of accounting for the time scales of the associations between parent-adolescent interactions and psychological adjustment as the same psychological constructs may show different patterns of associations and should be interpreted considering the developmental 70 dynamics of the parent-adolescent relationships (Bülow et al., 2023; Lougheed, 2020; Lougheed & Keskin, 2021). For example, when the effect of parent-adolescent conflict on well-being and ill-being was examined at six time scales from daily to three-monthly, temporal dependencies were observed in which the effect of parent-adolescent conflict on well-being and ill-being was found at some time scales but not at others (Bülow et al., 2023). Likewise, when the cross-lagged effects between the annual reports of parent-child conflict and child internalizing problems were studied, no cross-lagged effects were found among year-to-year fluctuations of conflict and internalizing problems while overall levels of conflict and internalizing problems were associated with each other over time (Lougheed et al., 2022). Between-person level findings showed that adolescents’ and parents’ trait-level perceptions of conflict and internalizing mood were associated with their own conflict and mood. This finding was in line with previous studies that intense conflicts are more likely to occur among parent-adolescent dyads with greater levels of depressive and anxious symptoms (Deković, 1999; Kim et al., 2015; Rognli et al., 2020). Further, parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parent-adolescent conflict interactions tend to differ (Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019), which can be one possible explanation for why parents’ and adolescents’ conflict and internalizing mood were associated with their own conflict and mood but not with each others’. Exploring the Same-Day Associations between Conflict and Internalizing Mood All hypothesized findings became significant at the within-person level and showed that fluctuations in the perception of conflict and internalizing mood interacted with each other in the daily lives of parents and adolescents when examining same-day associations. Although conflict perceptions predicted internalizing mood and internalizing mood predicted conflict interactions at the within-person level in different models, the findings should be interpreted with caution due to the cross-sectional nature of the same-day associations. The direction of effect between conflict and internalizing mood cannot be interpreted from the same-day associations; however, these associations provide partial support for the circular causality between conflict and 71 negative mood (LoBraico et al., 2020) as they were likely to co-occur. Hence, parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parent-adolescent interactions and internalizing mood were contagious in daily life. The findings supported the theory of parent-adolescent dyads as temporal interpersonal emotion systems in which repeated patterns of interactions and experiences among parent-adolescent dyads are the key factors to become trait-level characteristics (Lougheed, 2020). Exploring the Effects of Gender and School Year on Conflict and Internalizing Mood We explored gender differences in conflict and internalizing mood. Adolescent girls reported a greater level of sad mood and more intense conflicts than adolescent boys. These results are in line with the previous findings that adolescent girls are more likely to show a greater level of internalizing problems than adolescent boys (Parodi et al., 2022). Further, most of the parents were mothers in the current study, and adolescent girls are more likely to have more intense conflicts with their mothers than adolescent boys (De Goede et al., 2009). We also examined the effect of participating in the study during the school year or summertime on conflict and internalizing mood. Both adolescents and parents reported more intense conflicts during the school year than summertime. Different stressors may play a role in parent-adolescent daily life during the school year and summertime. Academic performance-related issues and monitoring leisure time during the school year may lead to more intense conflicts in school year than in summertime. Constraints on Generality The current study expanded our understanding of daily parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood by including the perspectives of parents and adolescents on conflicts, examining both parents’ and adolescents’ sad and anxious mood, and utilizing the intensive longitudinal methods to understand trait- and state-level associations between parent-adolescent conflict interactions and internalizing mood. However, there are also several caveats to consider regarding the generalizability of the results to different populations and 72 methodologies. First, the sample mostly consisted of high socioeconomic status families and biological mothers. Hence, the results may not generalize to all families with different socioeconomic backgrounds and family structures. Second, parents and adolescents reported low levels of conflict and internalizing mood, and families at risk for negative mental health outcomes may show different patterns of associations between daily conflict and internalizing mood. Therefore, future studies should explore the daily dynamics between conflict and internalizing mood among families with diverse characteristics. Lastly, the findings showed the role of the length of the time interval between participants' reports in the intensive longitudinal studies. For example, parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood were correlated when examining same-day associations while no significant associations were found among lagged associations. These findings showed that associations between parent-adolescent conflict and emotional well-being at a time scale cannot be generalizable to another time scale as different time scale associations between similar psychological constructs would have unique qualitative and quantitative meanings (Bülow et al., 2023). Thus, a multiple burst design (Ram & Diehl, 2014) would allow future studies to better understand the parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood at different time scales. Further, using experience sampling methods with short time intervals would allow future studies to better understand the timing and the context of the effects of parents-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood on each other in daily life. Conclusion Fluctuations in parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of conflict interactions and internalizing mood are contagious in daily life. Parents’ and adolescents’ own trait-level characteristics of conflict and internalizing mood tend to be associated with each other. Future studies should examine the circular causality between parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood at a shorter timescale to better understand the direction of effect between perceived conflict and internalizing mood in parents’ and adolescents’ daily lives. 73 References Arslan, İ. B., Boele, S., Dietvorst, E., Lucassen, N., & Keijsers, L. (2024). Within-family associations of parent-adolescent relationship quality and adolescent affective well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 10.1002/jad.12299. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12299 Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 359-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803 Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford press. Branje, S. (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 Branje, S., Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (2012). Parent–child communication during adolescence. In The Routledge Handbook of Family Communication (pp. 283-298). Routledge. Branje, S. J., van Doorn, M., van der Valk, I., & Meeus, W. (2009). Parent–adolescent conflicts, conflict resolution types, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.004 Brière, F. N., Archambault, K., & Janosz, M. (2013). Reciprocal prospective associations between depressive symptoms and perceived relationship with parents in early adolescence. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 58(3), 169-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371305800307 Byrne, A., & Eysenck, M. W. (1995). Trait anxiety, anxious mood, and threat detection. Cognition and Emotion, 9(6), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939508408982 74 Bülow, A., Keijsers, L., Boele, S., van Roekel, E., & Denissen, J. (2020). 100 days of my life codebook. Bülow, A., Boele, S., Lougheed, J. P., Denissen, J. J. A., van Roekel, E., & Keijsers, L. (2023, December 15). A Matter of Timing? Effects of Parent-Adolescent Conflict on Adolescent Ill-being on Six Timescales. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k2d5s Bülow, A., van Roekel, E., Boele, S., Denissen, J. J., & Keijsers, L. (2022). Parent–adolescent interaction quality and adolescent affect—An experience sampling study on effect heterogeneity. Child Development, 93(3), e315-e331. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13733 Chiang, S. C., Chen, W. C., & Wu, P. Y. (2023). Daily association between parent− adolescent relationship and life satisfaction: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Adolescence. 95, 1168–1178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12184 Coffey, J. K., Xia, M., & Fosco, G. M. (2022). When do adolescents feel loved? A daily within-person study of parent–adolescent relations. Emotion, 22(5), 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000767 Coyne, J. C. (1976a). Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(2), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.85.2.186 Coyne, J. C. (1976b). Toward an interactional description of depression. Psychiatry, 39(1), 28-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1976.11023874 De Goede, I. H., Branje, S. J., & Meeus, W. H. (2009). Developmental changes in adolescents’ perceptions of relationships with their parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9286-7 Deković, M. (1999). Risk and protective factors in the development of problem behavior during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(6), 667-685. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021635516758 Flynn, M., Kecmanovic, J., & Alloy, L. B. (2010). An examination of integrated cognitive75 interpersonal vulnerability to depression: The role of rumination, perceived social support, and interpersonal stress generation. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34, 456-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-010-9300-8 Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1301_01 Gana, K., Saada, Y., Broc, G., Koleck, M., & Cazauvieilh, C. (2016). Dyadic cross-sectional associations between negative mood, marital idealization, and relationship quality. The Journal of Psychology, 150(7), 897-915. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1211982 Gistelinck, F., & Loeys, T. (2019). The actor–partner interdependence model for longitudinal dyadic data: An implementation in the SEM framework. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1527223 Griffiths, P., Williams, A., & Brohan, E. (2022). How do the number of missing daily diary days impact the psychometric properties and meaningful change thresholds arising from a weekly average summary score?. Quality of Life Research, 31(12), 3433-3445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03198-9 Hamaker, E. L., Asparouhov, T., Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., & Muthén, B. (2018). At the frontiers of modeling intensive longitudinal data: Dynamic structural equation models for the affective measurements from the COGITO study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(6), 820-841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1446819 Hofer, C., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Morris, A. S., Gershoff, E., Valiente, C., ... & Eggum, N. D. (2013). Mother–adolescent conflict: Stability, change, and relations with externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Social Development, 22(2), 259-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12012 Hughes, E. K., & Gullone, E. (2008). Internalizing symptoms and disorders in families of76 adolescents: A review of family systems literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(1), 92-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.04.002 Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2001). Social functions of emotions. In T. J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 192–213). The Guilford Press. Kim, J., Thompson, E. A., Walsh, E. M., & Schepp, K. G. (2015). Trajectories of parent-adolescent relationship quality among at-risk youth: Parental depression and adolescent developmental outcomes. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 29(6), 434-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.07.001 Lindeman, M., Harakka, T., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (1997). Age and gender differences in adolescents’ reactions to conflict situations: Aggression, prosociality, and withdrawal. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(3), 339-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-0006-2 LoBraico, E. J., Brinberg, M., Ram, N., & Fosco, G. M. (2020). Exploring processes in day‐to‐day parent-adolescent conflict and angry mood: Evidence for circular causality. Family Process, 59(4), 1706-1721. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12506 Lougheed, J. P. (2020). Parent–adolescent dyads as temporal interpersonal emotion systems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12526 Lougheed, J. P., Duncan, R. J., Keskin, G., & Marceau, K. (2022). Longitudinal associations between mother-child conflict and child internalizing problems in mid-childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 4(1), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420000863 Lougheed, J. P., & Keskin, G. (2021). Parent‐adolescent emotion dynamics at multiple time scales. Child Development Perspectives, 15(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12409 Manczak, E. M., Ham, P. J., Sinard, R. N., & Chen, E. (2019). Beyond positive or negative:77 variability in daily parent-adolescent interaction quality is associated with adolescent emotion dysregulation. Cognition and Emotion, 33(4), 840-847. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1479243 Mastrotheodoros, S., Van der Graaff, J., Deković, M., Meeus, W. H., & Branje, S. (2020). Parent-adolescent conflict across adolescence: Trajectories of informant discrepancies and associations with personality types. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01054-7 Mathews, A. (1990). Why worry? The cognitive function of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 455-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90132-3 Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289-302. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129720 Nelemans, S. A., Mastrotheodoros, S., Çiftçi, L., Meeus, W., & Branje, S. (2022). Do you see what I see? Longitudinal associations between mothers’ and adolescents’ perceptions of their relationship and adolescent internalizing symptoms. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 51(2), 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-022-00975-5 Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2012). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259-285. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131605 Nguyen, P. V., Leung, P., & Cheung, M. (2011). Bridging help-seeking options to Vietnamese Americans with parent–child conflict and depressive symptoms. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 1842-1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.05.009 Parodi, K. B., Holt, M. K., Green, J. G., Porche, M. V., Koenig, B., & Xuan, Z. (2022). Time trends and disparities in anxiety among adolescents, 2012–2018. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 57(1), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02122-9 Power, M. J., & Tarsia, M. (2007). Basic and complex emotions in depression and anxiety.78 Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.515 Ram, N., & Diehl, M. (2014). Multiple-time-scale design and analysis: Pushing toward real-time modeling of complex developmental processes. In Handbook of intraindividual variability across the life span (pp. 308-323). Routledge. Rognli, E. W., Waraan, L., Czajkowski, N. O., Solbakken, O. A., & Aalberg, M. (2020). Conflict with parents in adolescent depression: associations with parental interpersonal problems and depressive symptoms. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 51, 442-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-00955-0 Samek, D. R., Wilson, S., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2018). Genetic and environmental influences on parent–child conflict and child depression through late adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(sup1), S5-S20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1141357 Silva, K., Ford, C. A., & Miller, V. A. (2020). Daily parent–teen conflict and parent and adolescent well-being: The moderating role of daily and person-level warmth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 1601-1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01251-9 Smith, O. A., Nelson, J. A., & Adelson, M. J. (2019). Interparental and parent-child conflict predicting adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(7), 1965-1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01424-6 Timmons, A. C., & Margolin, G. (2015). Family conflict, mood, and adolescents' daily school problems: Moderating roles of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Child Development, 86(1), 241-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12300 Weymouth, B. B., Buehler, C., Zhou, N., & Henson, R. A. (2016). A meta‐analysis of parent-adolescent conflict: Disagreement, hostility, and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.1212 Yang, L. Q., Wang, W., Huang, P. H., & Nguyen, A. (2022). Optimizing measurement reliability79 in within-person research: Guidelines for research design and R shiny web application tools. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(6), 1141-1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09803-5 80 Figures and Tables Figure 3.1 Longitudinal Actor-Partner Interdependence Model of Parent-Adolescent Daily Dynamics 81 Notes. *p < .05, **p < .01. Table 3.1 Bivariate Correlations between Mean Levels of Parent and Adolescent Conflict, Sad Mood, and Anxious Mood M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Parent Conflict 8.89 8.97 - 2. Adolescent Conflict 14.14 14.57 .31** - 3. Parent Sad Mood 0.67 0.57 .39** .14 - 4. Adolescent Sad Mood 0.93 0.58 .18* .35** .14 - 5. Parent Anxious Mood 1.01 0.57 .36** .04 .64** .08 - 6. Adolescent Anxious Mood 1.14 0.66 .16* .34** .14 .76** .17* - 82 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Between-Person Between-Person ADS Intercept 0.971 0.041 < .001 0.883 1.059 ADC Intercept 14.153 1.146 < .001 11.907 16.399 PAS Intercept 0.651 0.041 < .001 0.570 0.732 PAC Intercept 8.393 0.694 < .001 7.032 9.753 PAC → ADS 0.004 0.006 .520 -0.007 0.015 PAS → ADC 1.962 1.241 .334 -2.020 5.945 ADC → ADS 0.016 0.003 < .001 0.010 0.021 ADS → ADC 8.691 2.044 < .001 4.684 12.697 PAC → PAS 0.022 0.005 < .001 0.012 0.032 PAS → PAC 5.909 1.241 < .001 3.477 8.340 ADC → PAS 0.001 0.003 .744 -0.005 0.007 ADS → PAC 1.892 1.252 .131 -0.563 4.346 Within-Person Within-Person Time → ADS -0.077 0.042 .069 -0.160 0.006 Time → ADC -1.058 0.897 .238 -2.817 0.700 Time → PAS 0.018 0.032 .581 -0.045 0.081 Time → PAC -1.045 0.659 .113 -2.338 0.247 Week → ADS -0.135 0.046 .004 -0.225 -0.044 Week → ADC -0.624 0.961 .516 -2.508 1.259 Week → PAS 0.022 0.036 .547 -0.049 0.092 Week → PAC 1.198 0.889 .178 -0.544 2.939 Table 3.2 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models of Sad Mood and Anxious Mood, and Conflict with Lagged Variables 83 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High ADC → ADS 0.001 0.003 .643 -0.005 0.008 ADS → ADC -0.552 0.573 .336 -1.675 0.572 ADC → PAS 0.000 0.001 .762 -0.003 0.002 ADS → PAC -0.801 0.424 .059 -1.632 0.029 PAC → ADS 0.001 0.003 .684 -0.005 0.008 PAS → ADC 1.341 0.769 .081 -0.166 2.849 PAC → PAS 0.001 0.001 .387 -0.001 0.004 PAS → PAC -0.758 0.532 .154 -1.801 0.285 (Co)variances (Co)variances Between-Person Between-Person ADS RV 0.235 0.030 < .001 0.175 0.294 ADC RV 162.922 26.674 < .001 110.641 215.204 PAS RV 0.219 0.039 < .001 0.142 0.296 PAC RV 48.071 10.629 < .001 27.239 68.903 ADS and 0.024 0.024 .311 -0.023 0.071 AD and 26.788 9.956 .007 7.275 46.302 PAS RV PAV RV Within-Person Within-Person ADS RV 0.538 0.057 < .001 0.425 0.650 ADC RV 277.196 30.099 < .001 218.202 336.189 PAS RV 0.440 0.031 < .001 0.380 0.501 PAC RV 208.797 22.708 < .001 164.289 253.305 ADS and PAS 0.037 0.018 .035 0.003 0.072 ADC and PAC 85.072 13.189 < .001 59.221 110.923 RV RV 84 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High SV of ADC → ADS 0.000 0.001 .955 -0.001 0.001 SV of ADS → ADC 0.498 9.664 .959 -18.444 19.439 SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .915 0.000 0.000 SV of ADS 0.470 8.563 .956 -16.314 17.254 → PAS → PAC SV of PAC 0.000 0.004 1.000 -0.009 0.009 SV of PAS 20.690 11.815 .080 -2.468 43.848 → ADS → ADC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .863 0.000 0.000 SV of PAS 0.921 8.391 .913 -15.526 17.368 → PAS → PAC Model 3 Model 4 Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Between-Person Between-Person ADA Intercept 1.168 0.050 < .001 1.069 1.266 ADC Intercept 14.129 1.154 < .001 11.867 16.390 PAA Intercept 1.035 0.044 < .001 0.949 1.121 PAC Intercept 8.414 0.696 < .001 7.051 9.777 PAC → ADA 0.004 0.007 .527 -0.009 0.017 PAA → ADC -0.133 1.762 .940 -3.585 3.320 ADC → ADA 0.016 0.003 < .001 0.010 0.023 ADA → ADC 7.480 1.676 < .001 4.196 10.765 PAC → PAA 0.023 0.006 < .001 0.012 0.034 PAA → PAC 5.206 1.440 < .001 2.384 8.028 85 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High ADC → PAA -0.003 0.003 .284 -0.008 0.002 ADA → PAC 1.164 1.092 .287 -0.976 3.303 Within-Person Within-Person Time → ADA -0.180 0.033 < .001 -0.245 -0.115 Time → ADC -1.010 0.880 .251 -2.735 0.716 Time → PAA -0.086 0.044 < .001 -0.155 -0.017 Time → PAC -1.096 0.655 .095 -2.381 0.189 Week → ADA -0.120 0.040 .003 -0.199 -0.042 Week → ADC -0.565 0.964 .558 -2.454 1.325 Week → PAA -0.160 0.044 < .001 -0.246 -0.075 Week → PAC 1.068 0.882 .226 -0.661 2.797 ADC → ADA 0.002 0.001 .246 -0.001 0.004 ADA → ADC -0.738 0.505 .144 -1.729 0.252 PAC → ADA 0.001 0.001 .229 -0.001 0.003 ADA → PAC -0.083 0.484 .864 -1.031 0.865 PAC → PAA 0.001 0.001 .455 -0.001 0.005 PAA → ADC 0.835 0.611 .172 -0.362 2.032 ADC → PAA 0.000 0.001 .998 -0.002 0.002 PAA → PAC -0.958 0.506 .058 -1.950 0.034 (Co)variances (Co)variances Between-Person Between-Person ADA RV 0.343 0.036 < .001 0.273 0.413 ADC RV 166.387 28.339 < .001 110.842 221.931 PAA RV 0.229 0.032 < .001 0.166 0.292 PAC RV 51.461 10.203 < .001 31.464 71.459 ADA and PAA 0.036 0.028 .201 -0.019 0.092 ADC and PAC 32.074 10.383 .002 11.723 52.425 RV RV 86 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Within-Person Within-Person ADA RV 0.438 0.024 < .001 0.391 0.485 ADC RV 284.829 31.015 < .001 224.039 345.619 PAA RV 0.512 0.026 < .001 0.461 0.564 PAC RV 208.486 22.880 < .001 163.642 253.331 ADA and PAA 0.029 0.013 .029 0.003 0.054 ADC and PAC 85.185 13.319 < .001 59.079 111.291 RV RV SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .034 0.000 0.000 SV of ADA 0.348 11.736 .976 -22.655 23.351 → ADA → ADC SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .388 0.000 0.000 SV of ADA 0.432 5.641 .939 -10.624 11.488 → PAA → PAC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .564 0.000 0.000 SV of PAA 3.378 7.554 .655 -11.428 18.185 → ADA → ADC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .873 0.000 0.000 SV of PAA 1.373 5.503 .803 -9.413 12.159 → PAA → PAC Notes. An arrow indicates the effect of an exogenous variable on an endogenous variable, and “and” statement indicates a correlation between variables. Time variable was within-person centered. Week variable (0 = weekday; 1 = weekend) was dummy-87 coded. Abbreviations: ADS, Adolescent Sadness; ADA, Adolescent Anxiety; ADC, Adolescent Conflict; PAS, Parent Sadness; PAA, Parent Anxiety; PAC, Parent Conflict; RV, Residual Variance; SV, Slope Variance.88 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Between-Person Between-Person ADS Intercept 0.965 0.045 < .001 0.877 1.054 ADC Intercept 13.870 1.075 < .001 11.764 15.977 PAS Intercept 0.679 0.042 < .001 0.597 0.762 PAC Intercept 8.684 0.674 < .001 7.363 10.004 PAC → ADS 0.007 0.006 .231 -0.004 0.018 PAS → ADC 1.951 1.926 .311 -1.824 5.726 ADC → ADS 0.013 0.003 < .001 0.007 0.018 ADS → ADC 8.322 2.029 < .001 4.345 12.298 PAC → PAS 0.022 0.005 < .001 0.013 0.032 PAS → PAC 5.743 1.211 < .001 3.369 8.116 ADC → PAS 0.000 0.003 .915 -0.006 0.006 ADS → PAC 2.174 1.125 .053 -0.032 4.380 Within-Person Within-Person Time → ADS -0.062 0.035 .079 -0.130 0.007 Time → ADC -0.881 0.756 .244 -2.362 0.601 Time → PAS 0.029 0.029 .317 -0.028 0.087 Time → PAC -0.706 0.585 .227 -1.852 0.440 Week → ADS -0.124 0.041 .003 -0.205 -0.043 Week → ADC 0.077 0.797 .923 -1.484 1.639 Table 3.3 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models of Same-Day Sad Mood and Anxious Mood, and Conflict 89 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Week → PAS -0.002 0.034 .960 -0.069 0.065 Week → PAC 0.601 0.787 .445 -0.941 2.143 ADC → ADS 0.007 0.001 < .001 0.005 0.010 ADS → ADC 4.017 0.617 < .001 2.808 5.226 ADC → PAS 0.003 0.001 .013 0.001 0.005 ADS → PAC 2.331 0.544 < .001 1.265 3.398 PAC → ADS 0.004 0.001 .009 0.001 0.006 PAS → ADC 3.250 0.873 < .001 1.538 4.961 PAC → PAS 0.007 0.001 < .001 0.005 0.010 PAS → PAC 3.962 0.732 < .001 2.526 5.398 (Co)variances (Co)variances Between-Person Between-Person ADS RV 0.247 0.029 < .001 ADC RV 156.534 26.322 < .001 104.944 208.124 PAS RV 0.239 0.041 < .001 PAC RV 47.864 9.737 < .001 28.780 66.948 ADS and 0.028 0.024 .242 AD and 21.909 9.162 .017 3.952 39.866 PAS RV PAV RV Within-Person Within-Person ADS RV 0.531 0.032 < .001 0.190 0.303 ADC RV 248.991 23.993 < .001 201.965 296.017 PAS RV 0.411 0.027 < .001 0.159 0.320 PAC RV 192.083 20.260 < .001 152.373 231.793 ADS and PAS 0.017 0.013 .206 -0.019 0.075 ADC and PAC 69.686 10.599 < .001 48.912 90.459 RV RV 90 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .394 0.000 0.000 SV of ADS 13.898 8.281 .093 -2.333 30.129 → ADS → ADC SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .229 0.000 0.000 SV of ADS 5.089 5.745 .376 -6.171 16.349 → PAS → PAC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .712 0.000 0.000 SV of PAS 32.157 21.134 .128 -9.266 73.580 → ADS → ADC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .174 0.000 0.000 SV of PAS 24.873 9.190 .007 6.861 42.885 → PAS → PAC Model 3 Model 4 Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Between-Person Between-Person ADA Intercept 1.161 0.050 < .001 1.063 1.259 ADC Intercept 13.839 1.074 < .001 11.733 15.944 PAA Intercept 1.161 0.044 < .001 0.979 1.151 PAC Intercept 8.582 0.664 < .001 7.281 9.883 PAC → ADA 0.006 0.007 .355 -0.007 0.020 PAA → ADC -0.399 1.665 .810 -3.662 2.864 ADC → ADA 0.014 0.003 < .001 0.008 0.020 ADA → ADC 7.510 1.576 < .001 4.422 10.598 PAC → PAA 0.027 0.005 < .001 0.016 0.037 PAA → PAC 5.351 1.325 < .001 2.754 7.948 91 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High ADC → PAA -0.003 0.002 .277 -0.008 0.002 ADA → PAC 1.410 1.045 .177 -0.638 3.458 Within-Person Within-Person Time → ADA -0.172 0.031 < .001 -0.232 -0.112 Time → ADC -0.575 0.767 .454 -2.077 0.928 Time → PAA -0.044 0.034 .191 -0.111 0.022 Time → PAC -0.601 0.589 .307 -1.755 0.553 Week → ADA -0.125 0.038 .001 -0.200 -0.050 Week → ADC 0.167 0.864 .847 -1.526 1.860 Week → PAA -0.126 0.041 .002 -0.206 -0.045 Week → PAC 0.782 0.812 .336 -0.810 2.373 ADC → ADA 0.004 0.001 .005 0.001 0.006 ADA → ADC 2.438 0.695 < .001 1.075 3.800 PAC → ADA 0.003 0.001 .026 0.000 0.005 ADA → PAC 1.420 0.488 .004 0.464 2.376 PAC → PAA 0.007 0.001 < .001 0.004 0.010 PAA → ADC 1.509 0.549 .006 0.433 2.586 ADC → PAA 0.001 0.001 .338 -0.001 0.003 PAA → PAC 2.819 0.553 < .001 1.736 3.903 (Co)variances (Co)variances Between-Person Between-Person ADA RV 0.332 0.036 < .001 0.261 0.404 ADC RV 154.809 27.601 < .001 100.711 208.907 PAA RV 0.239 0.033 < .001 0.175 0.303 PAC RV 47.084 8.911 < .001 29.619 64.549 ADA and PAA 0.037 0.028 .187 -0.018 0.093 ADC and PAC 24.479 8.747 .005 7.334 41.623 RV RV 92 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Within-Person Within-Person ADA RV 0.463 0.025 < .001 0.415 0.511 ADC RV 275.489 29.443 < .001 217.779 333.198 PAA RV 0.527 0.024 < .001 0.480 0.575 PAC RV 207.844 22.397 < .001 163.947 251.742 ADA and PAA 0.019 0.012 .119 -0.005 0.043 ADC and PAC 85.133 13.463 < .001 58.746 111.520 RV RV SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .175 0.000 0.000 SV of ADA 2.438 0.695 < .001 -3.753 27.713 → ADA → ADC SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .898 0.000 0.000 SV of ADA 1.420 0.488 .004 -18.150 19.129 → PAA → PAC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .944 0.000 0.000 SV of PAA 1.509 0.549 .006 -11.988 13.361 → ADA → ADC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .231 0.000 0.000 SV of PAA 2.819 0.553 < .001 0.011 17.718 → PAA → PAC Notes. An arrow indicates the effect of an exogenous variable on an endogenous variable, and “and” statement indicates a correlation between variables. Time variable was within-person centered. Week variable (0 = weekday; 1 = weekend) was dummy-93 coded. Abbreviations: ADS, Adolescent Sadness; ADA, Adolescent Anxiety; ADC, Adolescent Conflict; PAS, Parent Sadness; PAA, Parent Anxiety; PAC, Parent Conflict; RV, Residual Variance; SV, Slope Variance. 94 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Between-Person Between-Person Gender →ADS 0.262 0.089 .003 0.087 0.437 Gender →ADC 3.405 2.113 .107 -0.738 7.547 Gender → PAS 0.034 0.086 .689 -0.134 0.203 Gender → PAC -2.531 1.364 .064 -5.204 0.143 ADS Intercept 0.834 0.064 < .001 0.709 0.958 ADC Intercept 12.072 1.414 < .001 9.300 14.843 PAS Intercept 0.632 0.051 < .001 0.531 0.732 PAC Intercept 9.816 1.120 < .001 7.620 12.012 PAC → ADS 0.010 0.006 .098 -0.002 0.022 PAS → ADC 1.975 2.009 .326 -1.963 5.914 ADC → ADS 0.012 0.003 < .001 0.006 0.019 ADS → ADC 7.768 2.036 < .001 3.777 11.759 PAC → PAS 0.024 0.005 < .001 0.014 0.034 PAS → PAC 5.963 1.199 < .001 3.612 8.314 ADC → PAS 0.000 0.003 .918 -0.006 0.007 ADS → PAC 3.352 1.316 .011 0.773 5.931 Within-Person Within-Person Time → ADS -0.073 0.044 .102 -0.160 0.014 Time → ADC -1.229 0.933 .188 -3.058 0.601 Supplementary Table 3.1 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models of Sad Mood and Anxious Mood, and Conflict: Controlling for Gender 95 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Time → PAS 0.016 0.033 .626 -0.049 0.081 Time → PAC -1.383 0.661 .037 -2.680 -0.087 Week → ADS -0.131 0.046 .005 -0.222 -0.041 Week → ADC -0.673 1.022 .510 -2.677 1.331 Week → PAS 0.036 0.037 .336 -0.037 0.108 Week → PAC 1.392 0.946 .141 -0.463 3.247 ADC → ADS 0.001 0.004 .704 -0.006 0.009 ADS → ADC -0.427 0.602 .478 -1.606 0.753 ADC → PAS 0.000 0.001 .934 -0.002 0.002 ADS → PAC 1.080 0.787 .170 -1.635 0.154 PAC → ADS 0.002 0.006 .736 -0.009 0.013 PAS → ADC -0.740 0.456 .105 -0.461 2.622 PAC → PAS 0.001 0.001 .290 -0.001 0.004 PAS → PAC -0.996 0.537 .064 -2.049 0.057 (Co)variances (Co)variances Between-Person Between-Person ADS RV 0.211 0.028 < .001 0.157 0.265 ADC RV 149.548 26.486 < .001 97.636 201.461 PAS RV 0.224 0.041 < .001 0.145 0.304 PAC RV 44.697 10.227 < .001 24.652 64.743 ADS and 0.017 0.025 .486 -0.031 0.066 AD and 26.529 8.923 .003 9.040 44.019 PAS RV PAV RV Within-Person Within-Person ADS RV 0.534 0.044 < .001 0.447 0.621 ADC RV 283.321 31.795 < .001 221.003 345.640 PAS RV 0.430 0.031 < .001 0.369 0.491 PAC RV 204.922 23.168 < .001 159.513 250.331 96 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High ADS and PAS 0.029 0.016 .076 -0.003 0.060 ADC and PAC 82.376 13.337 < .001 56.236 108.516 RV RV SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .616 0.000 0.000 SV of ADS 0.537 9.527 .955 -18.136 19.209 → ADS → ADC SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .826 0.000 0.000 SV of ADS 0.576 6.923 .934 -12.993 14.145 → PAS → PAC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .995 -0.001 0.001 SV of PAS 20.704 12.018 .085 -2.851 44.259 → ADS → ADC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .842 0.000 0.000 SV of PAS 0.666 8.639 .939 -16.267 17.600 → PAS → PAC Model 3 Model 4 Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Between-Person Between-Person Gender →ADA 0.198 0.101 .050 0.000 0.395 Gender →ADC 4.167 2.100 .047 0.052 8.282 Gender → PAA -0.041 0.090 .647 -0.219 0.136 Gender → PAC -1.525 1.305 .243 -4.082 1.033 ADA Intercept 1.067 0.075 < .001 0.921 1.214 ADC Intercept 11.595 1.422 < .001 8.808 14.383 97 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High PAA Intercept 1.061 0.065 < .001 0.934 1.188 PAC Intercept 9.297 1.110 < .001 7.120 11.473 PAC → ADA 0.010 0.007 .135 -0.003 0.023 PAA → ADC 0.589 1.602 .713 -2.552 3.730 ADC → ADA 0.013 0.003 < .001 0.006 0.019 ADA → ADC 6.291 1.595 < .001 3.165 9.416 PAC → PAA 0.023 0.006 < .001 0.011 0.034 PAA → PAC 4.770 1.451 .001 1.926 7.614 ADC → PAA -0.002 0.101 .590 -0.007 0.004 ADA → PAC 1.961 1.101 .075 -0.198 4.120 Within-Person Within-Person Time → ADA -0.183 0.034 < .001 -0.248 -0.117 Time → ADC -1.205 0.924 .192 -3.015 0.605 Time → PAA -0.070 0.037 .056 -0.142 0.002 Time → PAC -1.406 0.653 .031 -2.687 -0.126 Week → ADA -0.113 0.041 .006 -0.194 -0.032 Week → ADC -0.542 1.015 .593 -2.532 1.447 Week → PAA -0.156 0.046 .001 -0.247 -0.065 Week → PAC 1.250 0.940 .183 -0.592 3.092 ADC → ADA 0.002 0.001 .236 -0.001 0.004 ADA → ADC -0.476 0.522 .361 -1.499 0.546 PAC → ADA 0.000 0.001 .985 -0.003 0.003 ADA → PAC -0.019 0.498 .970 -0.995 0.957 PAC → PAA 0.002 0.002 .211 -0.001 0.005 PAA → ADC 0.781 0.633 .217 -0.459 2.022 ADC → PAA 0.001 0.001 .275 -0.001 0.004 PAA → PAC -0.789 0.523 .131 -1.814 0.235 (Co)variances (Co)variances Between-Person Between-Person 98 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High ADA RV 0.328 0.037 < .001 0.255 0.402 ADC RV 153.351 28.514 < .001 97.464 209.238 PAA RV 0.239 0.034 < .001 0.172 0.307 PAC RV 51.454 10.438 < .001 30.996 71.913 ADA and PAA 0.040 0.031 .192 -0.020 0.100 ADC and PAC 32.172 10.137 .002 12.304 52.040 RV RV Within-Person Within-Person ADA RV 0.438 0.025 < .001 0.389 0.486 ADC RV 290.617 32.813 < .001 226.304 354.930 PAA RV 0.515 0.027 < .001 0.462 0.569 PAC RV 204.604 23.382 < .001 158.776 250.433 ADA and PAA 0.033 0.014 .016 0.006 0.060 ADC and PAC 81.929 13.409 < .001 55.647 108.210 RV RV SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .032 0.000 0.000 SV of ADA 0.327 14.248 .982 -27.599 28.253 → ADA → ADC SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .359 0.000 0.000 SV of ADA 0.404 5.312 .939 -10.007 10.815 → PAA → PAC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .445 0.000 0.000 SV of PAA 3.112 8.141 .702 -12.845 19.068 → ADA → ADC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .914 0.000 0.000 SV of PAA 1.720 5.949 .772 -9.941 13.381 99 → PAA → PAC Notes. An arrow indicates the effect of an exogenous variable on an endogenous variable, and “and” statement indicates a correlation between variables. Time variable was within-person centered. Week (0 = weekday; 1 = weekend) and Gender (0 = boy; 1 = girl) variables were dummy-coded. Abbreviations: ADS, Adolescent Sadness; ADA, Adolescent Anxiety; ADC, Adolescent Conflict; PAS, Parent Sadness; PAA, Parent Anxiety; PAC, Parent Conflict; RV, Residual Variance; SV, Slope Variance. 100 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Model 1 Model 2 Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Between-Person Between-Person School → ADS -0.033 0.096 .731 -0.221 0.155 School → ADC -5.111 1.921 .008 -8.877 -1.345 School → PAS 0.029 0.085 .735 -0.139 0.196 School → PAC -2.208 1.209 .068 -4.578 0.162 ADS Intercept 0.980 0.053 < .001 0.875 1.085 ADC Intercept 15.599 1.383 < .001 12.888 18.310 PAS Intercept 0.643 0.049 < .001 0.547 0.739 PAC Intercept 9.012 0.844 < .001 7.358 10.666 PAC → ADS 0.003 0.006 .537 -0.007 0.014 PAS → ADC 1.946 1.999 .330 -1.971 5.864 ADC → ADS 0.016 0.003 < .001 0.010 0.022 ADS → ADC 8.204 1.964 < .001 4.354 12.054 PAC → PAS 0.022 0.005 < .001 0.013 0.032 PAS → PAC 5.904 1.234 < .001 3.485 8.322 ADC → PAS 0.001 0.003 .708 -0.005 0.007 ADS → PAC 1.689 1.227 .330 -0.715 4.093 Within-Person Within-Person Time → ADS -0.077 0.043 .070 -0.161 0.006 Time → ADC -1.046 0.897 .243 -2.803 0.712 Supplementary Table 3.2 Actor-Partner Interdependence Models of Sad Mood and Anxious Mood, and Conflict: Controlling for School Year 101 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High Time → PAS 0.018 0.032 .581 -0.045 0.081 Time → PAC -1.039 0.660 .535 -2.333 0.255 Week → ADS -0.134 0.046 .004 -0.225 -0.044 Week → ADC -0.596 0.961 .116 -2.478 1.287 Week → PAS 0.021 0.036 .551 -0.049 0.092 Week → PAC 1.209 0.890 .174 -0.535 2.953 ADC → ADS 0.001 0.003 .634 -0.005 0.008 ADS → ADC -0.546 0.573 .340 -1.668 0.577 ADC → PAS 0.000 0.001 .799 -0.003 0.002 ADS → PAC -0.798 0.423 .059 -1.628 0.032 PAC → ADS 0.001 0.003 .660 -0.005 0.008 PAS → ADC 1.328 0.769 .084 -0.179 2.836 PAC → PAS 0.001 0.002 .537 -0.002 0.005 PAS → PAC -0.762 0.531 .152 -1.803 0.280 (Co)variances (Co)variances Between-Person Between-Person ADS RV 0.234 0.030 < .001 0.175 0.294 ADC RV 157.651 25.886 < .001 106.915 208.387 PAS RV 0.219 0.039 < .001 0.141 0.296 PAC RV 47.120 10.420 < .001 26.696 67.544 ADS and 0.024 0.024 .308 -0.023 0.072 AD and 24.601 10.260 .016 4.491 44.712 PAS RV PAV RV Within-Person Within-Person ADS RV 0.538 0.058 < .001 0.425 0.651 ADC RV 277.175 30.095 < .001 218.189 336.161 PAS RV 0.440 0.031 < .001 0.380 0.501 PAC RV 208.812 22.710 < .001 164.302 253.323 102 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High ADS and PAS 0.037 0.018 .036 0.002 0.072 ADC and PAC 85.074 13.184 < .001 59.233 110.914 RV RV SV of ADC 0.000 0.001 .954 -0.001 0.001 SV of ADS 0.497 9.634 .959 -18.386 19.381 → ADS → ADC SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .985 0.000 0.000 SV of ADS 0.471 8.505 .956 -16.199 17.141 → PAS → PAC SV of PAC 0.000 0.005 1.000 -0.009 0.009 SV of PAS 20.720 11.843 .080 -2.493 43.933 → ADS → ADC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .928 0.000 0.000 SV of PAS 0.918 8.408 .913 -15.561 17.397 → PAS → PAC Model 3 Model 4 Fixed Effects Fixed Effects Between-Person Between-Person School → ADA -0.111 0.110 .312 -0.326 0.104 School → ADC -5.043 1.907 .008 -8.780 -1.306 School → PAA 0.146 0.086 .090 -0.023 0.315 School → PAC -2.900 1.314 .027 -5.476 -0.324 ADA Intercept 1.200 0.059 < .001 1.083 1.316 ADC Intercept 15.553 1.386 < .001 12.836 18.270 103 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High PAA Intercept 0.994 0.052 < .001 0.892 1.095 PAC Intercept 9.229 0.866 < .001 7.531 10.927 PAC → ADA 0.004 0.007 .582 -0.009 0.017 PAA → ADC 0.234 1.717 .892 -3.132 3.599 ADC → ADA 0.016 0.003 < .001 0.009 0.022 ADA → ADC 6.933 1.606 < .001 3.786 10.080 PAC → PAA 0.024 0.006 < .001 0.013 0.035 PAA → PAC 5.419 1.432 < .001 2.613 8.226 ADC → PAA -0.002 0.003 .437 -0.007 0.003 ADA → PAC 0.856 1.084 .430 -1.269 2.981 Within-Person Within-Person Time → ADA -0.180 0.033 < .001 -0.244 -0.115 Time → ADC -0.996 0.880 .252 -2.720 0.728 Time → PAA -0.086 0.035 .015 -0.155 -0.017 Time → PAC -1.087 0.657 .098 -2.374 0.200 Week → ADA -0.120 0.040 .003 -0.198 -0.041 Week → ADC -0.538 0.963 .577 -2.426 1.350 Week → PAA -0.161 0.044 < .001 -0.247 -0.075 Week → PAC 1.082 0.882 .220 -0.648 2.811 ADC → ADA 0.002 0.001 .246 -0.001 0.004 ADA → ADC -0.725 0.505 .151 -1.715 0.265 PAC → ADA 0.000 0.001 .993 -0.001 0.005 ADA → PAC -0.071 0.483 .883 -1.018 0.876 PAC → PAA 0.002 0.001 .231 -0.001 0.003 PAA → ADC 0.825 0.610 .177 -0.371 2.021 ADC → PAA 0.001 0.001 .454 -0.002 0.002 PAA → PAC -0.963 0.506 .057 -1.955 0.028 (Co)variances (Co)variances Between-Person Between-Person 104 B SE p 95 % CI B SE p 95 % CI Low High Low High ADA RV 0.340 0.036 < .001 0.270 0.411 ADC RV 161.427 27.554 < .001 107.422 215.432 PAA RV 0.224 0.032 < .001 0.161 0.288 PAC RV 49.847 9.728 < .001 30.780 68.913 ADA and PAA 0.039 0.028 .155 -0.015 0.094 ADC and PAC 29.315 10.467 .005 8.799 49.830 RV RV Within-Person Within-Person ADA RV 0.512 0.024 < .001 0.391 0.485 ADC RV 284.829 31.017 < .001 224.035 345.623 PAA RV 0.438 0.026 < .001 0.461 0.564 PAC RV 208.516 22.888 < .001 163.654 253.377 ADA and PAA 0.028 0.013 .030 0.003 0.054 ADC and PAC 85.188 13.315 < .001 59.091 111.284 RV RV SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .034 0.000 0.000 SV of ADA 0.350 11.729 .976 -22.639 23.339 → ADA → ADC SV of ADC 0.000 0.000 .387 0.000 0.000 SV of ADA 0.439 5.627 .938 -10.591 11.468 → PAA → PAC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .564 0.000 0.000 SV of PAA 3.320 7.532 .659 -11.443 18.082 → ADA → ADC SV of PAC 0.000 0.000 .875 0.000 0.000 SV of PAA 1.344 5.499 .807 -9.433 12.122 105 → PAA → PAC Notes. An arrow indicates the effect of an exogenous variable on an endogenous variable, and “and” statement indicates a correlation between variables. “Time” variable was within-person centered. Week (0 = weekday; 1 = weekend) and School (0 = school time; 1 = summertime) variables were dummy-coded. Abbreviations: ADS, Adolescent Sadness; ADA, Adolescent Anxiety; ADC, Adolescent Conflict; PAS, Parent Sadness; PAA, Parent Anxiety; PAC, Parent Conflict; RV, Residual Variance; SV, Slope Variance. 106 Chapter 4: Parental Psychological Needs, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood in Daily Life Abstract Autonomy-supportive parenting is essential for positive developmental outcomes for youth whereas psychological control can have detrimental effects. When parents’ psychological needs are met, they are more likely to show autonomy-supportive parenting; and when parents report greater psychological need frustration, they are more likely to parent with psychological control. We explored how parental psychological needs can affect adolescent internalizing mood (i.e., sad and anxious mood) through parenting practices in daily life. Parent-adolescent dyads (N = 171) completed daily diaries between 14-21 days to rate parental psychological needs, parenting practices, and adolescent internalizing mood. We conducted multilevel mediation analyses (i.e., 1-1-1 and 2-2-2 design) to examine the effect of parental psychological needs on adolescent internalizing mood through parenting practices. When parents’ daily psychological needs were met, they practiced more supportive parenting practices in daily life, which in turn was associated with better adolescent mood. Most of these mediation effects were not significant when examining between-dyad differences. Our findings point towards the importance of disentangling the associations between trait-level characteristics and state-level fluctuations in behaviors and experiences in families’ daily lives to better understand family dynamics and adolescents’ emotional well-being. Keywords: Psychological needs, parent-adolescent dynamics, mood 107 Parental Psychological Needs, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood in Daily Life Adolescence is a sensitive period for both detrimental and positive developmental outcomes as adolescents go through various biological, physical, and social transitions (Sisk & Gee, 2022). It is typical to show increased levels of negative mood and internalizing problems (e.g., anxious and depressive symptoms) during adolescence (Zahn-Waxler et al., 2000). It is well-established that both negative (i.e., psychological control) and positive parenting practices (i.e., autonomy support) predict adolescent negative mood and internalizing problems (Chen et al., 2019; van der Giessen et al., 2014). Examining the precursors of these parenting practices can help to promote positive parenting practices and in return, better mental health outcomes in adolescence. When parents’ own psychological needs are met, such as competence, autonomy, and relatedness, they may be more likely to practice positive parenting (Mabbe et al., 2018). We examined whether parent psychological needs predicted autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices and in return, if parenting practices predicted adolescent internalizing mood in daily life. Parenting Practices and Adolescent Internalizing Problems Autonomy is a fundamental psychological need in any developmental period, and adolescents strive for more autonomy than in earlier developmental periods (Zimmer-Gembeck & Collins, 2006). On the one hand, autonomy support – recognizing and accepting children's perceptions and feelings and encouraging their self‐initiated expressions – is essential for youth positive development (Vasquez et al., 2016). On the other hand, psychological control – manipulative parenting practices such as guilt-induction, shaming, and love withdrawal – can have detrimental effects on youths’ development (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Self-determination theory suggests that human beings strive for autonomy, such as a sense of personal choice and freedom in decision-making, to flourish in their lives (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Autonomy-supportive relationships help adolescents achieve a sense of self and develop 108 better self-regulatory skills (Brenning et al., 2015, Keskin & Branje, 2022). Hence, autonomy-supportive parenting supports adolescents to have better mental health outcomes (Kuppens et al., 2013; Vasquez et al., 2016). Previous studies focusing on between-family differences showed that greater parental autonomy support was associated with lower depressive and anxious symptoms whereas lower parental autonomy support was associated with greater depressive and anxious symptoms (Chen et al., 2019; Loukas, 2009). In contrast, parental psychological control had a detrimental effect on adolescent mental health outcomes. When parents intrude on their children’s thoughts and feelings with manipulative parenting tactics, youth are more likely to develop internalizing problems (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). For example, in families with greater parental autonomy support or lower psychological control, adolescents showed lower depressive and anxious symptoms whereas in families with lower parental autonomy support or greater psychological control, adolescents showed greater depressive and anxious symptoms (Chen et al., 2019; Rogers et al., 2020). Beyond trait-level parenting practices and internalizing problems, recent studies also showed the importance of daily autonomy-supportive or controlling parenting practices on adolescents’ daily well-being at the within-family level (van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2023; Xu & Zheng, 2022). Parental autonomy support and psychological control may vary from day to day and adolescents may show fluctuations in their internalizing mood in daily lives. For example, one study found that daily autonomy-supportive parenting increased adolescent positive mood and decreased adolescent negative mood whereas daily parental psychological control decreased adolescent positive mood and increased adolescent negative mood (van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2023). Likewise, adolescents were likely to report greater negative mood on the days they perceived lower parental support (Janssen et al., 2021). Hence, previous studies showed both trait-level characteristics of and state-level fluctuations in parental autonomy support and psychological control played an important role in adolescents’ emotional well-being. Role of Parental Psychological Needs on Parenting 109 Parental well-being is one of the strongest predictors of positive and negative parenting (Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2020; Voydanoff & Donnelly, 2024). Self-determination theory suggests that humans have innate psychological needs: autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Longo et al., 2018). Autonomy is defined as the experience of volition and willingness, relatedness as the experience of feelings of connectedness in warmth and caring relationships with others, and competence as the experience of effectiveness and mastery (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Satisfaction and frustration of these psychological needs predict individuals’ psychological adjustment (Tang et al., 2020). Psychological need frustration is not only a lack of psychological need satisfaction, and a lack of psychological need frustration does not necessarily imply psychological need satisfaction (Longo et al., 2018). Thus, psychological need satisfaction and psychological need frustration are considered distinct constructs. Having their own psychological needs met gives parents the mental resources to practice more optimal parenting practices. Studies examining the role of trait-level parental need satisfaction and frustration in parenting practices have shown that if parents’ psychological needs were not met, they were likely to practice more controlling and less supportive parenting (Costa et al., 2019; Slobodin et al., 2020). Further, experiences of psychological need satisfaction and frustration may also differ based on the environmental influences of daily life (Wang et al., 2020). Parenting is a dynamic process in which parents may adopt different strategies based on the resources available during the day. To the best of our knowledge, only two studies examined the associations between parental psychological needs and parenting in daily life (i.e., daily diary and experience sampling methods: Mabbe et al., 2018; van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2015). Greater parental need satisfaction in a day was associated with greater parental autonomy support whereas greater parental need frustration in a day was associated with greater parental psychological control on the same day (Mabbe et al., 2018). Another study showed that when parental psychological need satisfaction was high in a day, parents were also more likely to show autonomy-supportive parenting practices on the same day (van der Kaap-110 Deeder et al., 2015). Therefore, the literature showed initial evidence for the effect of parental psychological needs on parenting at both trait and state levels. Mediating Role of Parenting between Parental Psychological Needs and Adolescent Internalizing Problems Parents’ psychological adjustment can directly affect adolescents’ psychological adjustment (Lougheed, 20220). Also, parenting practices can mediate the effect of parental psychological adjustment on adolescent psychological adjustment (Orri et al., 2019). Satisfaction of psychological needs is necessary for interpersonal functioning (Costa et al., 2015). Therefore, parental psychological needs should be met first to have enough mental capacity to provide positive parenting for their adolescents (Costa et al., 2019). In return, these positive parenting practices will support adolescents’ emotional well-being (Costa et al., 2019). Previous research has documented the trait-level associations between parental psychological needs and parenting practices (Costa et al., 2019; Slobodin et al., 2020) as well as between autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices and internalizing symptoms (Chen et al., 2019; Loukas, 2009; Rogers et al., 2020). Further, a growing number of studies to date have explored the associations between state-level fluctuations in psychological need satisfaction and parenting (Mabbe et al., 2018; van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2015), and between parenting and adolescent negative mood in daily life (Janssen et al., 2021; van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2023). We provided a more comprehensive picture of how parental psychological needs can affect adolescent internalizing mood through parenting practices in daily life (see Figure 4.1). Exploring the Trait- and State-Level Parent-Adolescent Dynamics Trait-level associations may show different patterns than state-level association in parent-adolescent daily life. Thus, the associations between trait-level parental psychological need satisfaction, autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices, and adolescent internalizing mood may show different patterns than the state-level associations between these 111 variables. For example, it is possible to find that increase in experience of parental psychological need satisfaction in a day results in an increase in autonomy-supportive parenting behaviors on the same day while trait-level parental psychological need satisfaction is not correlated with trait-level parental autonomy support. The goal of the current study was to disentangle the trait- and state-level processes between parental psychological needs, parenting practices, and adolescent internalizing mood. Our research questions were as follows: 1. Do parental psychological need satisfaction and frustration predict autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices? 2. Do autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices predict adolescent internalizing mood? 3. Do parental psychological need satisfaction and frustration predict adolescent internalizing mood? 4. Do autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting mediate the effect of parental psychological need satisfaction and frustration on adolescent internalizing mood? The Current Study We examined daily dynamics between parental need satisfaction and frustration, parental autonomy support and psychological control, and adolescent internalizing mood (i.e., anxious and sad mood). We disentangled the associations between the trait-level characteristics and associations between fluctuations in state-level behaviors or experiences. For example, at the between-person level (i.e., trait-level associations), we explored whether when parents show greater psychological need satisfaction than other parents, they also practice greater autonomy-supportive parenting than other parents. In contrast, at the within-person level (state-level associations), we explored whether a parent experiences greater psychological need satisfaction than they usually experience in a day, they also show greater autonomy-supportive parenting than they usually show on the same day (see Figure 4.1). We had four hypotheses: 112 1. Parental psychological need satisfaction would positively predict parental autonomy support and negatively predict parental psychological control whereas parental psychological need frustration would negatively predict parental autonomy support and positively predict parental psychological control at both within- and between-person levels. 2. Parental autonomy support would negatively predict adolescent internalizing mood whereas parental psychological control would positively predict adolescent internalizing mood at both within- and between-person levels. 3. Parental need satisfaction would negatively predict adolescent internalizing mood and parental need frustration would positively predict adolescent internalizing mood at both within- and between-person levels. 4. Parental autonomy support and psychological control would mediate the association between parental need satisfaction and frustration, and adolescent internalizing mood at both within- and between-person levels. Methods Participants A community sample of 181 parent-adolescent dyads participated in a 14- to 21-day daily diary survey between October 2021 and August 2023. The participants were recruited through physical recruitment flyers posted at local attractions (e.g., a farmers’ market, a school, cafes, churches, and community organizations) and virtual ads shared through online platforms (i.e., Google ads and Instagram). The inclusion criteria included that (1) both adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 years old and their primary caregiver participate; (2) participants live in British Columbia, Canada; (3) participants have a smartphone; and (4) participating caregivers and adolescents live in the same household. 113 Most of the parents (94%, n = 169) were women, which was followed by men (6%, n = 11) and one parent did not specify their gender (0%, n = 1). The parents were mostly biological parents (98%, n = 177); one parent was a foster parent, one was a parent’s cohabiting partner, and one was a non-biological parent. Among parents, 79 (44%) had a bachelor’s degree, 61 (34%) had a graduate degree, 29 (16%) had some college education but not a degree, 8 (4%) had an associate degree, three (2%) had high school degree or equivalent, and one (0%) did not specify their education level. Parents also reported their family income, and 59 (33%) reported having family income above $150,000 per year, 56 (31%) between $100,000 and $150,000 per year, 30 (17%) between $75,000 and $100,000 per year, 15 (8%) between $50,000 and $75,000 per year, and 11 (6%) less than $50,000 per year, and 9 (5%) did not prefer to disclose their income.The age of the parents ranged between 30 and 57 years (M = 45.86, SD = 4.67). Over half of the parents identified their ethnicity as Caucasian (53%), followed by Chinese (8%), South Asian or East Indian (6%), non-White Latin American (6%), Black (3%), Filipino (2%), Japanese (2%), and First Nations (1%) while 1% of participants had other ethnicities and 15% of participants endorsed multiple ethnicities. Among adolescents, 87 identified as girl/woman (48%), 81 identified as boy/man (45%), 8 preferred not to disclose their gender (4%), one identified as gender non-conforming (1%), one as gender non-binary (1%), and one was questioning their gender (1%). Adolescents’ age was ranged between 13 and 17 years (M = 14.37, SD = 1.28). Procedure The ethical approval of the current study was obtained by MASKED UNIVERSITY. Data collection consisted of two parts. In Part 1, parents and their adolescents completed a one-time questionnaire about demographic information, socioemotional well-being, and relationship aspects with their participating family member. Once both parents and adolescents completed Part 1, a Zoom call was scheduled with both participants and a project research assistant to review the procedures for Part 2 and to ensure that participants began on the same day. Part 2 114 was the daily diary portion of this study where parents reported their psychological need satisfaction and frustration, and adolescents reported their internalizing mood and their perceptions of parental autonomy support and psychological control. Participants received an honorarium for completing Part 1 and Part 2 of the study. The honorarium amount was revised partway through the study to increase the participation rate. Between October 2021 and mid-July 2022, a 21-day design allowed participants to receive up to $26 per participant. Parents and adolescents each received $5 for completing Part 1. For completing Part 2 of the study, parents and adolescents received $1 per prompt. Between mid-July 2022 and September 2022, a 14-day design allowed participants to receive up to $26 per participant. Parents and adolescents each received $5 for completing Part 1 of the study. For completing Part 2 of the study, parents and adolescents received $1.5 per prompt. Between September 2002 and August 2023, a 14-day design allowed participants to receive up to $35 per participant. Parents and adolescents each received $7 for completing Part 1 of the study. For completing Part 2 of the study, parents and adolescents received $2 per prompt. Parent-adolescent dyads who provided data for less than half of the days in Part 2 were excluded from analyses in the current study. High levels of missingness may bias the results and Griffiths and colleagues (2022) recently suggested a 4/7 ratio of data per week (i.e., completing at least 4 days of surveys out of 7 days) to prevent biased results due to missingness in the analyses used. Hence, the final sample size included 171 parent-adolescent dyads. Measures Daily Parent Psychological Needs Parental psychological need satisfaction was assessed with three items, one item for each subscale of autonomy satisfaction, competence satisfaction, and relatedness satisfaction; and need frustration was assessed with three items, one item for each subscale of autonomy frustration, competence frustration, and relatedness frustration (see Appendix F; adapted from 115 van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2019). Parents rated the items between 1 = Not true at all to 5 = Completely true. An example item of autonomy satisfaction is “Today, I felt a sense of choice and freedom in the things I undertook.” We took the mean of the autonomy satisfaction, competence satisfaction, and relatedness satisfaction items each day to calculate daily parental psychological need satisfaction; and we took the mean of the autonomy frustration, competence frustration, and relatedness frustration items each day to calculate daily parental psychological need frustration. Daily Adolescent-Reported Parenting Practices Adolescents rated parental autonomy support between 0 = Not at all to 100 = very much with two items: “My caregiver allowed me to make my own plans” and “My caregiver took my point of view into account” (adapted from Der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2017). Adolescents also rated their parental psychological control between 0 = Not at all and 100 = very much with three items: “When I wanted to say something, my caregiver started to talk about something else”, “my caregiver blamed me for the problems at home”, and “my caregiver was less affectionate towards me when I did not see things their way” (adapted from Van Der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2017). We took the mean of autonomy support and psychological control items separately each day to calculate daily adolescent-reported parental autonomy support and psychological control. Adolescent Daily Internalizing Mood Adolescents reported how “Anxious” and “Sad” they felt each day on a single Likert-type item from 0 = None of the time to 4 = All of the time each day. We took the mean of anxious and sad mood items for each day to calculate adolescents’ daily internalizing mood. Between and Within-Person Level Transformations of Measures Between- and within-person level centered predictor variables (parent need satisfaction and frustration, and autonomy support and psychological control) were calculated following the guidelines by Bolger and Laurenceau (2013). We first grand mean centered these predictor variables. To calculate the between-person component, we calculated the mean for each 116 individual by taking the mean of their grand mean centered values. Then, we calculated the within-person component by subtracting each individual score from the grand mean centered values. The within-person component of the variables captured each participant’s deviations around their own average whereas the between-person component captured each participant’s deviations from the sample mean. Each construct requires at least three items to account for within- and between-person variance and to calculate a meaningful within-person reliability score (Yang et al., 2022). Hence, the number of items in our design did not allow us to run within- and between-person reliability analysis of autonomy satisfaction, autonomy frustration, competence satisfaction, competence frustration, relatedness satisfaction, relatedness frustration, autonomy support, psychological control, and adolescent internalizing mood. Analytical Approach Descriptive Statistics We ran bivariate correlations between average parental psychological need satisfaction and frustration, parental autonomy support and psychological control, and adolescent internalizing mood. We also conducted t-tests to examine differences between boys and girls, and between the school year and summertime on parental autonomy support, parental psychological control, and adolescent internalizing mood. Mediation Analyses Using the dynamic structural equation modeling (DSEM) approach (Asparouhov et al., 2017), we ran multilevel mediation analysis with 1-1-1 and 2-2-2 design (i.e., 1-1-1 represents the level 1 mediation analysis with within-person level predictor, outcome, and mediator measures; and 2-2-2 represents the level 2 mediation analysis with between-person level predictor, outcome, and mediator measures; see Figure 4.1). We used maximum likelihood with robust standard errors (MLR) estimator to account for the non-normal distribution of observations. We ran four separate models including a combination of parental psychological 117 need satisfaction and frustration (predictors), parental autonomy support and psychological control (mediators), and adolescent internalizing mood (outcome): 1. Model 1 included the effect of parental psychological need satisfaction on adolescent internalizing mood through parental autonomy support at the within-person and between-person levels. 2. Model 2 included the effect of parental psychological need satisfaction on adolescent internalizing mood through parental psychological control at the within-person and between-person levels. 3. Model 3 included the effect of parental psychological need frustration on adolescent internalizing mood through parental autonomy support at the within-person and between-person levels. 4. Model 4 included the effect of parental psychological need frustration on adolescent internalizing mood through parental psychological control at the within-person and between-person levels. Exploratory Analyses We explored differences in key variables by adolescent gender as previous studies showed gender differences in internalizing symptoms (Graber, 2004). Further, parenting practices may differ by adolescents’ gender – parents are more likely to show autonomy-supportive parenting practices toward adolescent boys than girls (Bumpus et al., 2021). Adolescent gender was dummy-coded as a binary variable (0 = boy; 1 = girl) because the cell size for other gender categories (i.e., non-binary, gender non-conforming, and adolescents who preferred not to disclose their gender; n = 11) was too small to conduct further analysis. Adolescent gender was added as a control variable at the between-person level in exploratory analyses. We did not examine differences by parent gender given that the vast majority (94%) of participating parents identified as women. Transparency and Openness 118 This study was pre-registered on Open Science Framework after the data collection and before the data analysis. We aimed to recruit as many participants during the period of data collection. The pre-registration is available through this link: MASKED LINK. Inclusion/exclusion criteria, manipulations, and analytical strategies were performed as described in the pre-registration. The data and analysis codes are available upon request. Results Descriptive Statistics Table 4.1 shows the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among variables used in our models. The bivariate correlation between parental psychological need satisfaction and parental autonomy support, between parental psychological need frustration and adolescent internalizing mood, and between parental psychological need frustration and parental psychological control were significant and positive (see Table 4.1). Parental autonomy support and adolescent internalizing mood were negatively correlated with each other. Results of t-tests showed that adolescent girls reported lower parental autonomy support (t[157] = 2.723, p = .007), greater parental psychological control (t[157] = -2.568, p = .011), and greater internalizing mood (t[157] = -3.231, p = .002) than adolescent boys. Parent autonomy support, parental psychological control, and adolescent internalizing mood did not differ significantly depending on whether participants completed Part 2 during the school year or in the summer. Effect of Parent Psychological Needs on Adolescent Internalizing Mood through Parenting Practices We examined the associations between parental psychological needs, parenting practices, and adolescent internalizing mood in a total of four multilevel mediation models. Model fit indices indicated a perfect model (due to the estimation of just-identified models [Raykov et al., 2012] because of the estimation of mediation models at both within- and between-person levels). Hence, they were not informative. 119 The results of Model 1 indicated that parental psychological need satisfaction positively predicted parental autonomy support; parental autonomy support negatively predicted adolescent internalizing problems; and parental psychological need satisfaction negatively predicted adolescent internalizing problems at the within-person level (see Table 4.2). Further, the effect of parental psychological need satisfaction on adolescent internalizing mood was mediated through parental autonomy support at the within-person level. Thus, on the days, when parents reported greater psychological need satisfaction than usual, adolescents also reported that their parents showed more autonomy support than usual. In return, adolescents showed lower internalizing mood than usual. At the between-person level, only the negative effect of parental autonomy support on adolescent internalizing mood was significant (see Table 4.2), which means adolescents who reported greater parental autonomy support also reported lower internalizing mood, compared to adolescents who reported lower parental autonomy support. In Model 2, parental psychological need satisfaction negatively predicted parental psychological control; parental psychological control positively predicted adolescent internalizing mood; and parental psychological need satisfaction negatively predicted adolescent internalizing mood at the within-person level. Also, the effect of parental psychological need satisfaction on adolescent internalizing mood was mediated through parental psychological control at the within-person level (see Table 4.2). Specifically, on the days when parents reported greater psychological need satisfaction than usual, adolescents perceived lower parental psychological control than usual and in return, adolescents showed lower internalizing mood than usual. At the between-person level, only the effect of parental psychological control on adolescent internalizing mood was significant and positive (see Table 4.2), indicating that adolescents who perceived more parental psychological control showed more internalizing mood in general, compared to adolescents who perceived lower parental psychological control. 120 In Model 3, parental psychological need frustration positively predicted adolescent internalizing mood, and parental autonomy support negatively predicted adolescent internalizing mood at the within-person level (see Table 4.2). Specifically, on days when parents reported greater psychological need frustration than usual, adolescents showed greater internalizing mood than usual; and on the days when adolescents perceived more parental autonomy support than usual, adolescents showed lower internalizing mood than usual. At the between-person level, all effects were significant: (1) Parental need frustration negatively predicted parental autonomy support; (2) parental autonomy support negatively predicted adolescent internalizing mood; and (3) parental need frustration positively predicted adolescent internalizing mood. Further, the effect of parental need frustration on adolescent internalizing mood was mediated through parental autonomy support (see Table 4.2). When overall parental need frustration was high, adolescents perceived lower parental autonomy support, and in return, adolescents showed greater internalizing mood in general. In Model 4, parental psychological need frustration positively predicted parental psychological control; parental psychological control positively predicted adolescent internalizing mood; and parental psychological need frustration positively predicted adolescent internalizing mood at the within-person level. Further, the effect of parental psychological need frustration on adolescent internalizing mood was mediated through parental psychological control at the within-person level (see Table 4.2). On the days when parents reported greater psychological need frustration than usual, adolescents perceived greater psychological control than usual and in return, adolescents showed greater internalizing mood than usual. At the between-person level, only positive effects of parental psychological control and parental need frustration on adolescent internalizing mood were significant (see Table 4.2). Specifically, when adolescents perceived greater psychological control and parents reported a greater need frustration, adolescents reported greater internalizing mood. Exploratory Analyses 121 Gender We added gender as a control variable at the between-person level by regressing gender on parental autonomy support, parental psychological control, and adolescent internalizing mood in the four models reported above. Gender predicted between-person parental autonomy support and adolescent internalizing mood in Model 1 and Model 3 and predicted between-person parental psychological control and adolescent internalizing mood in Model 2 and Model 4. Adolescent girls reported greater parental psychological control and internalizing mood, and lower parental autonomy support than adolescent boys. However, adding gender as a control variable did not change the significance of other parameters in any of the models (see Supplementary Table 4.1). Discussion We examined the daily dynamics of parental psychological needs, autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting, and adolescent internalizing mood. The findings showed that both at the state and trait levels, autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting predicted adolescent internalizing mood, parental psychological needs predicted autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting, and parental psychological needs predicted adolescent internalizing mood. However, the mediating role of autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting between parental psychological need satisfaction and frustration, and adolescent internalizing mood was observed mostly at the within-person level rather than the between-person level. Dynamics of Parental Psychological Needs, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood We accounted for between-person differences when examining within-person processes in the daily lives of parents and adolescents. Although within- and between-person level associations showed similar patterns in the current study, they provide valuable information at different timescales. The results showed that parenting practices can predict adolescents’ trait- and state-level internalizing mood. Autonomy-supportive parenting was related to lower and 122 controlling parenting was related to greater internalizing mood in adolescents’ daily lives. These results were in line with previous studies that positive parenting practices boost adolescents’ daily mood and negative parenting practices can negatively affect adolescents’ daily mood (Janssen et al., 2021; Silva et al., 2020; van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2023). Further, the importance of autonomy-supportive parenting and the detrimental effects of controlling parenting on adolescent depressive and anxious symptoms are well-established (Pinquart, 2017). Likewise, our results indicated that supportive parenting can improve adolescent mood whereas controlling parenting can be detrimental to adolescent mood over time at the trait level. The results supported the claims of self-determination theory (Mabbe et al., 2018) that on the days when parents’ own psychological needs were met, they were more likely to adopt more autonomy-supportive and less controlling parenting practices as well as parents’ psychological need frustration was negatively associated with their autonomy support overtime at the trait level. Having psychological needs met helps individuals to have a sense of volition to regulate their behaviors following their values and parents are not an exception (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Hence, parents likely have a greater mental capacity to enact more positive parenting practices when their own needs are met (Mabbe et al., 2018; van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2019). Although the effect of daily state-level parental psychological needs on parenting was stronger than the effect of trait-level psychological needs on parenting, these daily dynamics can build long-term psychological adjustment among parents and adolescents (Lougheed, 2020). Parental psychological needs also directly predicted adolescents’ daily and overall internalizing mood. Not only did adolescents show lower internalizing mood on the days their parents reported greater need satisfaction and lower need frustration, but also greater trait-level parental psychological need satisfaction and lower trait-level parental psychological need frustration predicted lower trait-level adolescent internalizing mood across days. These results are in line with the literature that parental characteristics can directly affect children’s 123 psychological adjustment, in fact, not only through genetic transmission but also through environmental influences (Jami et al., 2021). The findings from the current study also supported that parenting practices can be the mechanism to explain the link between parental characteristics and youth psychological adjustment (Morris et al., 2007). Although most of the mediation effects were found at the state level rather than the trait level, these patterns of behaviours can become habits to predict long-term psychological adjustment (Lougheed, 2020). Thus, daily dynamics of parent-adolescent dynamics should be considered to promote positive developmental outcomes among adolescents. Exploring the Role of Gender on Parenting Practices and Adolescent Mood We explored the effect of adolescent gender on parental autonomy support, parental psychological control, and adolescent internalizing mood. The effect of children’s gender on parenting practices supported previous findings that adolescent girls reported lower parental autonomy-supportive and greater controlling parenting practices than adolescent boys (Endendijk et al., 2016). These results showed that parenting can be gendered, and adolescent girls and boys may perceive different parenting practices by their parents. In line with previous studies, adolescent girls also reported greater internalizing symptoms (i.e., anxiety and sadness: Bender et al., 2012). Differential treatment of adolescent girls and boys regarding autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices can explain the gender differences in adolescent internalizing problems as parental autonomy support and psychological control are strong precursors of adolescent internalizing symptoms (Pinquart, 2017). Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions The current study expanded our understanding of the daily dynamics of parental psychological needs, parenting practices, and adolescent internalizing mood by examining both trait- and state-level processes among families. However, there are several limitations to consider in the interpretation of the results. Firstly, most of the parents were biological mothers 124 and from high socioeconomic backgrounds. Future studies should aim to have a more diverse sample of caregivers concerning socioeconomic status, family structure, and gender. Secondly, adolescents reported low levels of internalizing mood in the current study. Hence, the study results may not generalize to families with adolescents experiencing greater sadness and anxiety. Future studies could examine similar research questions with clinically depressed and anxious adolescents to better understand the functions of parental psychological needs and parenting practices on adolescents’ daily internalizing mood. Lastly, although we examined the mediating role of parenting practices between parental psychological needs and adolescent internalizing mood in daily life, the study design is cross-sectional and limits our understanding of the direction of effect. Multiple burst designs (Ram & Diehl, 2014) should be utilized to better understand the temporal contingencies and the direction of effect between parental psychological needs, autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices, and adolescent internalizing mood. Conclusion The current study shows that parental psychological needs are an important factor to consider in family processes with implications for adolescent psychosocial adjustment. A supportive environment for parents to meet their psychological needs would promote positive emotional outcomes for adolescents through more autonomy-supportive and less controlling parenting practices. Therefore, interventions targeting the emotional well-being of adolescents in daily life should also consider improving the satisfaction of daily parental psychological needs. 125 References Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 359-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803 Bender, P. K., Reinholdt-Dunne, M. L., Esbjørn, B. H., & Pons, F. (2012). Emotion dysregulation and anxiety in children and adolescents: Gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3), 284-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.027 Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford press. Brenning, K., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2015). Perceived maternal autonomy support and early adolescent emotion regulation: A longitudinal study. Social Development, 24(3), 561-578. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12107 Bumpus, M. F., Crouter, A. C., & McHale, S. M. (2001). Parental autonomy granting during adolescence: Exploring gender differences in context. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.2.163 Bülow, A., Keijsers, L., Boele, S., van Roekel, E., & Denissen, J. (2020). 100 days of my life codebook. Bülow, A., Neubauer, A. B., Soenens, B., Boele, S., Denissen, J. J., & Keijsers, L. (2022). Universal ingredients to parenting teens: Parental warmth and autonomy support promote adolescent well-being in most families. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 16836. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21071-0 Chen, Y., Li, R., & Liu, X. (2019). The relationships among parental psychological control/autonomy support, self‐trouble, and internalizing problems across adolescent genders. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 60(6), 539-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12573 126 Costa, S., Gugliandolo, M. C., Barberis, N., Cuzzocrea, F., & Liga, F. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of parental psychological control and autonomy support: The role of psychological basic needs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(4), 1168-1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518756778 Costa, S., Ntoumanis, N., & Bartholomew, K. J. (2015). Predicting the brighter and darker sides of interpersonal relationships: Does psychological need thwarting matter?. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9427-0 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Mesman, J. (2016). Gender-differentiated parenting revisited: Meta-analysis reveals very few differences in parental control of boys and girls. PloS One, 11(7), e0159193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159193 Graber, J. A. (2004). Internalizing problems during adolescence. In Richard M. L. and Laurence S. (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed, pp. 587-626). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780471726746.ch19 Griffiths, P., Williams, A., & Brohan, E. (2022). How do the number of missing daily diary days impact the psychometric properties and meaningful change thresholds arising from a weekly average summary score?. Quality of Life Research, 31(12), 3433-3445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03198-9 Jami, E. S., Hammerschlag, A. R., Bartels, M., & Middeldorp, C. M. (2021). Parental characteristics and offspring mental health and related outcomes: A systematic review of genetically informative literature. Translational Psychiatry, 11(1), 197. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01300-2 127 Janssen, L. H., Elzinga, B. M., Verkuil, B., Hillegers, M. H., & Keijsers, L. (2021). The link between parental support and adolescent negative mood in daily life: Between-person heterogeneity in within-person processes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50, 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01323-w Keskin, G., & Branje, S. (2022). Longitudinal relations between maternal and adolescent emotion dysregulation and maternal autonomy support. Journal of Adolescence, 94(6), 811-828. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12065 Kuppens, S., Laurent, L., Heyvaert, M., & Onghena, P. (2013). Associations between parental psychological control and relational aggression in children and adolescents: a multilevel and sequential meta-analysis. Developmental psychology, 49(9), 1697–1712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030740 Longo, Y., Alcaraz-Ibáñez, M., & Sicilia, A. (2018). Evidence supporting need satisfaction and frustration as two distinguishable constructs. Psicothema, 30(1), 74-81. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.367 Lougheed, J. P. (2020). Parent–adolescent dyads as temporal interpersonal emotion systems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12526 Loukas, A. (2009). Examining temporal associations between perceived maternal psychological control and early adolescent internalizing problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1113-1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9335-z Mabbe, E., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., & Mouratidis, A. (2018). Day-to-day variation in autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting: The role of parents’ daily experiences of need satisfaction and need frustration. Parenting, 18(2), 86-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2018.1444131 Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x 128 Nomaguchi, K., & Milkie, M. A. (2020). Parenthood and well‐being: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 198-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12646 Orri, M., Girard, L. C., Pingault, J. B., Rouquette, A., Herba, C., Falissard, B., ... & Berthoz, S. (2019). Harsh parenting practices mediate the association between parent affective profiles and child adjustment outcomes: Differential associations for mothers and fathers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025418769376 Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internalizing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 53(7), 613-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1247761 Ram, N., & Diehl, M. (2014). Multiple-time-scale design and analysis: Pushing toward real-time modeling of complex developmental processes. In Handbook of intraindividual variability across the life span (pp. 308-323). Routledge. Raykov, T., Marcoulides, G. A., & Patelis, T. (2013). Saturated Versus Just Identified Models: A Note on Their Distinction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412457367 Rogers, A. A., Padilla-Walker, L. M., McLean, R. D., & Hurst, J. L. (2020). Trajectories of perceived parental psychological control across adolescence and implications for the development of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49, 136-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01070-7 Sisk, L. M., & Gee, D. G. (2022). Stress and adolescence: vulnerability and opportunity during a sensitive window of development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 286-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.10.005 Slobodin, O., Cohen, R., Arden, A., & Katz, I. (2020). Mothers’ need frustration and controlling parenting: The moderating role of maternal guilt. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29, 1914-1926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01720-6 129 Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30(1), 74-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001 Tang, M., Wang, D., & Guerrien, A. (2020). A systematic review and meta‐analysis on basic psychological need satisfaction, motivation, and well‐being in later life: Contributions of self‐determination theory. PsyCh Journal, 9(1), 5-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.293 van der Giessen, D., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2014). Perceived autonomy support from parents and best friends: Longitudinal associations with adolescents' depressive symptoms. Social Development, 23(3), 537-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12061 van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Bülow, A., Waterschoot, J., Truyen, I., & Keijsers, L. (2023). A moment of autonomy support brightens adolescents' mood: Autonomy support, psychological control and adolescent affect in everyday life. Child Development, 00, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13942 van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens, B., Mabbe, E., Dieleman, L., Mouratidis, A., Campbell, R., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2019). From daily need experiences to autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting via psychological availability and stress. Parenting, 19(3), 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1615791 van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Loeys, T., Mabbe, E., & Gargurevich, R. (2015). Autonomy-supportive parenting and autonomy-supportive sibling interactions: The role of mothers’ and siblings’ psychological need satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1590-1604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215602225 van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Mabbe, E. (2017). Children’s daily well-being: The role of mothers’, teachers’, and siblings’ autonomy support and psychological control. Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000218 130 Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1 Vasquez, A. C., Patall, E. A., Fong, C. J., Corrigan, A. S., & Pine, L. (2016). Parent autonomy support, academic achievement, and psychosocial functioning: A meta-analysis of research. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 605-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9329-z Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1998). Parents' risk and protective factors as predictors of parental well-being and behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 344-355. https://doi.org/10.2307/353853 Wang, Y. L., & Hwang, M. Y. (2020). Daily activities and psychological need satisfaction of elderly adults: the experience sampling method. Educational Gerontology, 46(9), 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2020.1786780 Xu, J., & Zheng, Y. (2022). Links between shared and unique perspectives of parental psychological control and adolescent emotional problems: A dyadic daily diary study. Child Development, 93(6), 1649-1662. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13789 Yang, L. Q., Wang, W., Huang, P. H., & Nguyen, A. (2022). Optimizing measurement reliability in within-person research: Guidelines for research design and R shiny web application tools. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(6), 1141-1156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09803-5 Zahn–Waxler, C., Klimes–Dougan, B., & Slattery, M. J. (2000). Internalizing problems of childhood and adolescence: Prospects, pitfalls, and progress in understanding the development of anxiety and depression. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 443-466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400003102 131 Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2006). Autonomy Development During Adolescence. In G. Adams, & M. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence (pp. 174-204). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756607.ch9 132 Figures and Tables Figure 4.1 Multilevel Mediation Analysis of Parental Psychological Needs, Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood 133 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Parent Psychological Need Satisfaction 3.79 0.67 - 2. Parent Psychological Need Frustration 1.71 0.53 -.71** - 3. Parent Autonomy Support 72.65 19.25 .15* -.16* - 4. Parent Psychological Control 13.37 16.12 -.10 .09 -.56** - 5. Adolescent Internalizing Mood 1.04 0.58 -.11 .21** -.28** .28** - Notes. *p < .05, **p < .01. Table 4.1 Bivariate Correlations between Mean Level Variables 134 Table 4.2 Multilevel Mediation Analysis of Parent Psychological Need, Parent Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood Estimate Standard Error p Estimate Standard Error p Model 1 Model 2 Within-Person Within-Person NS → AS 2.839 1.026 .006 NS → PC -2.519 0.769 .001 AS → IM -0.003 0.001 .001 PC → IM 0.007 0.001 < .001 NS → IM -0.110 0.028 NS → IM -0.101 0.027 < .001 NS → AS → IM (Indirect Effect) -0.009 0.004 .042 NS → PC → IM (Indirect Effect) -0.017 0.006 .004 NS Intercept 0.000 0.000 .483 NS Intercept 0.000 0.000 .577 AS Intercept 0.000 0.000 .511 PC Intercept 0.000 0.000 .261 IM Intercept 0.000 0.000 .248 IM Intercept 0.000 0.000 < .001 NS Variance 0.282 0.016 < .001 NS Variance 0.282 0.016 < .001 AS Residual Variance 261.140 17.204 < .001 PC Residual Variance 133.040 19.516 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.327 0.018 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.323 0.018 < .001 135 Estimate Standard Error p Estimate Standard Error p Between-Person Between-Person NS → AS 3.691 2.345 .116 NS → PC -2.169 1.941 .264 AS → IM -0.008 0.002 < .001 PC → IM 0.010 0.003 < .001 NS → IM -0.072 0.068 .288 NS → IM -0.082 0.066 .213 NS → AS → IM (Indirect Effect) -0.031 0.020 .115 NS → PC → IM (Indirect Effect) -0.021 0.020 .294 NS Intercept -0.010 0.051 .843 NS Intercept -0.010 0.051 .843 AS Intercept 0.359 1.439 .803 PC Intercept 0.347 1.224 .777 IM Intercept 0.006 0.042 .896 IM Intercept -0.001 0.042 .985 NS Variance 0.453 0.046 < .001 NS Variance 0.453 0.046 < .001 AS Residual Variance 356.313 36.344 < .001 PC Residual Variance 256.973 43.227 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.305 0.028 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.307 0.028 <. 001 Model 3 Model 4 Within-Person Within-Person NF → AS -1.755 1.061 .098 NF → PC 1.958 0.830 .018 AS → IM -0.003 0.001 < .001 PC → IM 0.007 0.001 < .001 136 Estimate Standard Error p Estimate Standard Error p NF → IM 0.082 0.026 .001 NF → IM 0.073 0.026 .004 NF → AS → IM (Indirect Effect) 0.006 0.004 .165 NF → PC → IM (Indirect Effect) 0.014 0.006 .023 NF Intercept 0.000 0.000 .313 NF Intercept 0.000 0.000 .533 AS Intercept 0.000 0.000 .458 PC Intercept 0.000 0.000 .576 IM Intercept 0.000 0.000 .207 IM Intercept 0.000 0.000 .286 NS Variance 0.241 0.015 < .001 NS Variance 0.241 0.015 < .001 AS Residual Variance 262.670 17.324 < .001 PC Residual Variance 133.904 19.657 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.328 0.019 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.324 0.018 < .001 Between-Person Between-Person NF → AS -6.410 2.863 .025 NF → PC 2.801 2.482 .259 AS → IM -0.008 0.002 < .001 PC → IM 0.009 0.003 < .001 NF → IM 0.197 0.099 .046 NF → IM 0.221 0.094 .019 NF → AS → IM (Indirect Effect) 0.050 0.024 .035 NF → PC → IM (Indirect Effect) 0.026 0.025 .294 NF Intercept 0.016 0.040 .694 NF Intercept 0.016 0.040 .694 137 Note. Unstandardized estimates are reported. An arrow indicates the effect of an exogenous variable on the endogenous variable. Abbreviations: NS, Need Satisfaction; NF, Need Frustration; AS, Autonomy Support; PC, Psychological Control; IM, Internalizing Mood. Estimate Standard Error p Estimate Standard Error p AS Intercept 0.422 1.428 .768 PC Intercept 0.325 1.229 .791 IM Intercept 0.003 0.041 .943 IM Intercept -0.003 0.041 .936 NF Variance 0.274 0.036 < .001 NF Variance 0.274 0.036 < .001 AS Residual Variance 351.214 35.902 < .001 PC Residual Variance 256.952 43.376 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.297 0.029 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.296 0.027 < .001 138 Supplementary Table 4.1 Multilevel Mediation Analysis of Parent Psychological Need, Parent Parenting Practices, and Adolescent Internalizing Mood: Gender as a Covariate for Outcome Variables Estimate Standard Error p Estimate Standard Error p Model 1 Model 2 Within-Person Within-Person NS → AS 3.023 1.091 .006 NS → PC -2.578 0.823 .002 AS → IM -0.003 0.001 .001 PC → IM 0.007 0.001 < .001 NS → IM -0.104 0.029 < .001 NS → IM -0.097 0.029 .001 NS → AS → IM (Indirect Effect) -0.009 0.005 .042 NS → PC → IM (Indirect Effect) -0.017 0.006 .007 NS Intercept 0.000 0.000 .472 NS Intercept 0.000 0.000 .547 AS Intercept 0.000 0.000 .501 PC Intercept 0.000 0.000 .577 IM Intercept 0.000 0.000 .248 IM Intercept 0.000 0.000 .261 NS Variance 0.281 0.017 < .001 NS Variance .281 0.017 < .001 AS Residual Variance 261.788 17.871 < .001 PC Residual Variance 133.706 20.640 < .001 139 Estimate Standard Error p Estimate Standard Error p IM Residual Variance 0.321 0.018 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.318 0.018 < .001 Between-Person Between-Person Gender → AS -8.018 2.824 .005 Gender → PC 6.130 2.359 .009 Gender → IM 0.243 0.088 .006 Gender → IM 0.248 0.090 .006 NS → AS 4.950 2.192 .024 NS → PC -3.172 1.741 .068 AS → IM -0.006 0.002 .006 PC → IM 0.008 0.003 .013 NS → IM -0.095 0.069 .165 NS → IM -0.103 0.068 .130 NS → AS → IM (Indirect Effect) -0.032 0.018 .077 NS → PC → IM (Indirect Effect) -0.024 0.018 .191 NS Intercept -0.012 0.053 .818 NS Intercept -0.012 0.053 .818 AS Intercept 4.670 1.891 .014 PC Intercept -2.951 1.469 .045 IM Intercept -0.126 0.065 .055 IM Intercept -0.134 0.066 .045 NS Variance 0.448 0.048 < .001 NS Variance 0.448 0.048 < .001 AS Residual Variance 322.728 22.274 < .001 PC Residual Variance 228.231 36.894 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.290 0.030 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.291 0.029 < .001 Model 3 Model 4 140 Estimate Standard Error p Estimate Standard Error p Within-Person Within-Person NF → AS -1.628 1.132 .150 NF → PC 1.847 0.872 .034 AS → IM -0.003 0.001 < .001 PC → IM 0.007 0.001 < .001 NF → IM 0.079 0.026 .003 NF → IM 0.072 0.026 .006 NF → AS → IM (Indirect Effect) 0.005 0.004 .216 NF → PC → IM (Indirect Effect) 0.013 0.006 .041 NF Intercept 0.000 0.000 .324 NF Intercept 0.000 0.000 .529 AS Intercept 0.000 0.000 .601 PC Intercept 0.000 0.000 .581 IM Intercept 0.000 0.000 .216 IM Intercept 0.000 0.000 .287 NS Variance 0.242 0.015 < .001 NS Variance 0.242 0.015 < .001 AS Residual Variance 263.711 18.048 < .001 PC Residual Variance 134.747 20.835 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.323 0.019 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.319 0.019 < .001 Between-Person Between-Person Gender → AS -8.175 2.803 .004 Gender → PC 6.222 2.361 .008 Gender → IM 0.254 0.085 .003 Gender → IM 0.256 0.088 .004 NF → AS -7.294 2.717 .007 NF → PC 3.614 2.461 .142 141 Note. Unstandardized estimates are reported. An arrow indicates the effect of an exogenous variable on the endogenous variable. Abbreviations: NS, Need Satisfaction; NF, Need Frustration; AS, Autonomy Support; PC, Psychological Control; IM, Internalizing Mood. Estimate Standard Error p Estimate Standard Error p AS → IM -0.006 0.002 .012 PC → IM 0.007 0.003 .014 NF → IM 0.252 0.104 .016 NF → IM 0.256 0.088 .004 NF → AS → IM (Indirect Effect) 0.040 0.021 .057 NF → PC → IM (Indirect Effect) 0.025 0.022 .240 NF Intercept 0.021 0.042 .618 NF Intercept 0.021 0.042 .618 AS Intercept 4.843 1.854 .009 PC Intercept -3.036 1.449 .036 IM Intercept -0.136 0.062 .028 IM Intercept -0.142 0.063 .025 NF Variance 0.278 0.038 < .001 NF Variance 0.278 0.038 < .001 AS Residual Variance 318.913 32.911 <. 001 PC Residual Variance 229.110 37.722 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.277 0.031 < .001 IM Residual Variance 0.276 0.029 < .001 142 Chapter 5: General Discussion General Discussion This dissertation examined the momentary and daily parent-adolescent dynamics and emotional well-being in three studies. The results from the three studies were in the hypothesized directions and showed that (1) parents’ and adolescents’ internalizing symptoms and momentary emotion dynamics were related to each other, (2) parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood were contagious in daily life, and (3) autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices was the mechanism explaining the link between parental psychological needs and adolescent internalizing mood in daily life. In the following paragraphs of this section, I will discuss the findings from the study examining momentary emotion dynamics and internalizing symptoms (Chapter 2), results from studies examining daily parent-adolescent dynamics –i.e., conflict interactions, psychological needs, parenting, and internalizing mood (Chapters 3 and 4)–, and limitations of all three studies and the recommendations for future research. Momentary Parent-Adolescent Conflict Interactions and Internalizing Symptoms The first study of this dissertation (Chapter 2) provided valuable insight into how overall depressive of parents and adolescents can have an impact on their emotional interactions during conflict discussions. The negative association between mutual high positive emotion up-regulation and adolescent depressive symptoms showed that adolescents’ mental health outcomes can predict not only the socialization of negative emotions (Hunter et al., 2010; Shortt et al., 2016) but also the socialization of positive emotions (Katz et al., 2014; Nelis et al., 2019; Sheeber et al., 2009) among parent-adolescent dyads. Further, the negative association between maternal regulation of adolescents’ externalizing negative emotion and maternal depressive symptoms can be explained by the fact that parents with better regulatory skills, 143 such as having lower levels of depressive symptoms, are less likely to have intense conflicts with their adolescents (Silverberg & Steinberg, 1987) as well as they are less likely to show negative parenting behaviours (Lovejoy et al., 2000; Marçal, 2021). Although specific interaction patterns showed significant associations with parent or adolescent depressive symptoms, there were no significant associations between interaction patterns and anxious symptoms. This partially may be because of the overall positive parenting behaviors during the conflict interactions as positive parenting behaviours are likely to predict adolescent depressive symptoms while negative parenting behaviours are likely to predict both adolescent depressive and anxious symptoms (Schwartz et al., 2012). In conclusion, from a dynamic systems approach (Smith & Thelen, 1993) perspective, the study showed the interplay between long-term psychological adjustment and momentary emotion dynamics among parents and adolescents. Daily Parent-Adolescent Dynamics and Internalizing Symptoms The second and third studies of the dissertation (Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, respectively) explored the daily parent-adolescent dynamics. The second study showed that conflict perceptions and internalizing mood (sad and anxious mood) were contagious on the same day although there was no effect of previous day experiences on the next day, and when long-term conflict was high, long-term internalizing mood was also likely to be high among parent-adolescent dyads. These findings were in line with the previous studies that daily fluctuations in parent-adolescent conflict and negative mood in daily life (LoBraico et al., 2020), as well as the overall level of parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing symptoms (Dekovic, 1999; Kim et al., 2015; Rongli et al., 2020), are likely to be positively related. Supporting the family systems theory (Minuchin, 1985) and dynamic systems approach (Lougheed, 2020), parent-adolescent relationship system and parent and adolescent subsystems are likely to show bidirectional 144 influences on each other and the state-level fluctuations in conflict interactions and internalizing mood became trait-level characteristics, respectively. The third and final study of the dissertation showed that autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting practices can act as explanatory mechanisms between parental psychological adjustment and adolescent internalizing mood both at the state and trait levels in the daily lives of parent-adolescent dyads. In line with the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017,2022), having their psychological needs met promotes parents’ autonomy supportive parenting by giving them more mental space to practice positive parenting behaviours (Mabbe et al., 2018; van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2019) and subsequently, supporting adolescents’ autonomy needs helped them to boost their mood (Janssen et al., 2021; van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2023). Taken together, these three studies provided significant contributions to our understanding of parent-adolescent momentary and daily dynamics by focusing on the feedback loops between multiple family members (family systems theory: Minuchin, 1985), examining the basic psychological needs and parent-adolescent well-being in daily life and during contexts that promote autonomy development such as parent-adolescent conflicts (self-determination theory: Ryan & Deci, 2017) at multiple time scales (dynamic systems approach: Smith & Thelen, 1993). Further, the findings illustrated the importance of disentangling processes between fluctuations in behaviours and emotional experiences, and between stable characteristics among parent-adolescent dyads (Asparouhov et al., 2018; Janssen et al., 2021). More stable characteristics can influence momentary interactions, also, although some similar effects were observed at the trait and state levels, those effects provided nuanced information about the short-term and long-term dynamics of parent-adolescent dyads, respectively. 145 Limitations and Future Directions The studies made meaningful contributions to the literature on the momentary and daily parent-adolescent dynamics and internalizing symptoms. They showed that mental health outcomes can have an impact on momentary emotional interactions between parents and adolescents as well as parent-adolescent interactions are associated with emotional well-being in everyday life. Hence, not only adolescents but both parents and adolescents should be the target of intervention to improve their emotional well-being. Further, parental well-being is crucial in supporting positive parenting practices and adolescent well-being. Therefore, interventions aiming to improve parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent well-being should also aim to improve parental well-being. There are several caveats to consider when interpreting the findings. Firstly, the participants consisted of mostly biological mothers and families with high socioeconomic status. Family structure and socioeconomic status are important factors in shaping youth’s socioemotional development (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Conger et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2010; Yoshikawa et al., 2012). Thus, future studies should aim for a more representative sample of participants in terms of gender, family structure, and socioeconomic background. Secondly, in all studies, participants reported relatively low rates of internalizing symptoms and negative parent-adolescent interactions. However, parent-adolescent dyads at risk for depression and anxiety may exhibit different patterns of parent-adolescent dynamics (Kim et al., 2015). For example, parental internalizing symptoms are risk factors for both adolescent (Wickersham et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022) and parent internalizing symptoms (Davis et al., 1999) are associated with how they interact during conflict discussions, and depressed parents are less likely to exhibit supportive parenting practices (Lovejoy et al., 2000). Hence, future studies should examine the effect of mental health challenges on the link between parent-adolescent dynamics and internalizing symptoms. Further, the non-significant longitudinal effects from 146 parent-adolescent momentary conflict interactions to internalizing symptoms a year later, as well as non-significant lagged effects between parent-adolescent conflict and internalizing mood when using a day interval can be a result of not utilizing the optimal time intervals between data points to observe meaningful associations. For example, when the associations between parent-adolescent conflict and ill-being (i.e., negative affect and depressive symptoms were examined at six time scales from daily to three-monthly), the strength or the significance of associations varied between time scales (Bülow et al., 2023). Lastly, although I found the significant associations at expected directions, the cross-sectional nature of the associations would not allow me to test the direction of the effect. Thus, future studies should benefit from a multiple burst design (Ram & Diehl, 2014) with varying time intervals of data collection points to better understand the time scale of the interplay between momentary and daily dynamics, and long-term psychological adjustment. General Conclusion Parent-adolescent relationships play a significant role in the psychological adjustment of both parents and adolescents despite the typical decrease in closeness and increase in disagreements between parent-adolescent dyads during adolescence compared to other developmental stages (Branje, 2018; Weymouth et al., 2016). Parent-adolescent interactions contribute to the re-organization of parent-adolescent emotional systems and show bidirectional associations with the long-term psychological adjustment of both parents and adolescents (dynamic systems approach: Butler, 2011; Lougheed, 2020; Smith & Thelen, 1993). These patterns of associations between parents and adolescents are likely to follow a circular rather than linear causality as well as do not only follow the directions from parents to adolescents but also from adolescents to parents (family systems theory: Minuchin, 1985). Satisfaction or frustration of the basic psychological needs within in the parent-adolescent systems contributes to emotional well-being (self-determination theory: Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2022). Taken together, 147 three novel studies in this dissertation expands our understanding of parent-adolescent dynamics and internalizing symptoms at multiple time scales. 148 References Asparouhov, T., Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B. (2018). Dynamic structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3), 359-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1406803 Branje, S. (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 Butler, E. A. (2011). Temporal interpersonal emotion systems: The “TIES” that form relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(4), 367-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411164 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723 Bülow, A., Boele, S., Lougheed, J. P., Denissen, J. J. A., van Roekel, E., & Keijsers, L. (2023, December 15). A Matter of Timing? Effects of Parent-Adolescent Conflict on Adolescent Ill-being on Six Timescales. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k2d5s Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685-704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x Davis, B., Sheeber, L., Hops, H., & Tildesley, E. (2000). Adolescent responses to depressive parental behaviors in problem-solving interactions: Implications for depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 451-465. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005183622729 Deković, M. (1999). Risk and protective factors in the development of problem behavior during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(6), 667-685. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021635516758 149 Hunter, E. C., Katz, L. F., Shortt, J. W., Davis, B., Leve, C., Allen, N. B., & Sheeber, L. B. (2011). How do I feel about feelings? Emotion socialization in families of depressed and healthy adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 428-441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9545-2 Janssen, L. H., Elzinga, B. M., Verkuil, B., Hillegers, M. H., & Keijsers, L. (2021). The link between parental support and adolescent negative mood in daily life: Between-person heterogeneity in within-person processes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50, 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01323-w Katz, L. F., Shortt, J. W., Allen, N. B., Davis, B., Hunter, E., Leve, C., & Sheeber, L. (2014). Parental emotion socialization in clinically depressed adolescents: Enhancing and dampening positive affect. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 205-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9784-2 Kim, J., Thompson, E. A., Walsh, E. M., & Schepp, K. G. (2015). Trajectories of parent-adolescent relationship quality among at-risk youth: Parental depression and adolescent developmental outcomes. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 29(6), 434-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2015.07.001 Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Zimiles, H., & Ladewski, B. (1994). Family Structure and Its Effect on Behavioral and Emotional Problems in Young Adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4(3), 405–437. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0403_4 LoBraico, E. J., Brinberg, M., Ram, N., & Fosco, G. M. (2020). Exploring processes in day‐to‐day parent-adolescent conflict and angry mood: Evidence for circular causality. Family Process, 59(4), 1706-1721. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12506 Lougheed, J. P. (2020). Parent-adolescent dyads as temporal interpersonal emotion systems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12526 150 Lovejoy, M. C., Graczyk, P. A., O'Hare, E., & Neuman, G. (2000). Maternal depression and parenting behavior: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(5), 561-592. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00100-7 Mabbe, E., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., van der Kaap-Deeder, J., & Mouratidis, A. (2018). Day-to-day variation in autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting: The role of parents’ daily experiences of need satisfaction and need frustration. Parenting, 18(2), 86-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2018.1444131 Marçal, K. E. (2021). Pathways to adolescent emotional and behavioral problems: An examination of maternal depression and harsh parenting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 113, 104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104917 Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289-302. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129720 Nelis, S., Bastin, M., Raes, F., & Bijttebier, P. (2019). How do my parents react when I feel happy? Longitudinal associations with adolescent depressive symptoms, anhedonia, and positive affect regulation. Social Development, 28(2), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12318 Ram, N., & Diehl, M. (2014). Multiple-time-scale design and analysis: Pushing toward real-time modeling of complex developmental processes. In Handbook of intraindividual variability across the life span (pp. 308-323). Routledge. Rognli, E. W., Waraan, L., Czajkowski, N. O., Solbakken, O. A., & Aalberg, M. (2020). Conflict with parents in adolescent depression: associations with parental interpersonal problems and depressive symptoms. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 51, 442-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-00955-0 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. 151 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2022). Self-determination theory. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 1-7). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Schwartz, O. S., Dudgeon, P., Sheeber, L. B., Yap, M. B., Simmons, J. G., & Allen, N. B. (2012). Parental behaviors during family interactions predict changes in depression and anxiety symptoms during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(1), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9542-2 Sheeber, L., Allen, N., Leve, C., Davis, B., Shortt, J., & Katz, L. (2009). Dynamics of affective experience and behavior in depressed adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(11), 1419–1427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02148.x Shortt, J. W., Katz, L. F., Allen, N. B., Leve, C., Davis, B., & Sheeber, L. B. (2016). Emotion socialization in the context of risk and psychopathology: Mother and father socialization of anger and sadness in adolescents with depressive disorder. Social Development, 25(1), 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12138 Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (Eds.). (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development: Applications. The MIT Press. Silverberg, S. B., & Steinberg, L. (1987). Adolescent autonomy, parent-adolescent conflict, and parental well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(3), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02139096 van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Bülow, A., Waterschoot, J., Truyen, I., & Keijsers, L. (2023). A moment of autonomy support brightens adolescents' mood: Autonomy support, psychological control and adolescent affect in everyday life. Child Development, 00, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13942 van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Soenens, B., Mabbe, E., Dieleman, L., Mouratidis, A., Campbell, R., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2019). From daily need experiences to autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting via psychological availability and stress. Parenting, 19(3), 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2019.1615791 152 Weymouth, B. B., Buehler, C., Zhou, N., & Henson, R. A. (2016). A meta‐analysis of parent-adolescent conflict: Disagreement, hostility, and youth maladjustment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 95-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12126 Wickersham, A., Leightley, D., Archer, M., & Fear, N. T. (2020). The association between paternal psychopathology and adolescent depression and anxiety: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescence, 79, 232-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.01.007 Yoshikawa, H., Aber, J. L., & Beardslee, W. R. (2012). The effects of poverty on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children and youth: Implications for prevention. American Psychologist, 67(4), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028015 Zhang, J., Buchanan, G. J., Piehler, T. F., Gunlicks-Stoessel, M., & Bloomquist, M. L. (2022). The relationship between parent-adolescent conflict dynamics and adolescent depression. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(9), 2535-2544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02318-w 153 Appendices APPENDIX A: Beck Anxiety Inventory Below is a list of common symptoms of anxiety. Please carefully read each item in the list. Indicate how much you have been bothered by that symptom during the past month, including today, by circling the number in the corresponding space in the column next to each symptom. Not At All Mildly but it didn’t bother me much Moderately - it wasn’t pleasant at times Severely – it bothered me a lot Numbness or tingling □ □ □ □ Feeling hot □ □ □ □ Wobbliness in legs □ □ □ □ Unable to relax □ □ □ □ Fear of worst happening □ □ □ □ Dizzy or lightheaded □ □ □ □ Heart pounding/racing □ □ □ □ Unsteady □ □ □ □ Terrified or afraid □ □ □ □ Nervous □ □ □ □ Feeling of choking □ □ □ □ Hands trembling □ □ □ □ Shaky / unsteady □ □ □ □ Fear of losing control □ □ □ □ Difficulty in breathing □ □ □ □ 154 Fear of dying □ □ □ □ Scared □ □ □ □ Indigestion □ □ □ □ Faint / lightheaded □ □ □ □ Face flushed □ □ □ □ Hot/cold sweats □ □ □ □ 155 APPENDIX B: Children’s Depression Inventory Kids sometimes have different feelings and ideas. This form is about your feelings and ideas. For each group of feelings or ideas, circle the number of the sentence that describes you best for the past two weeks. There is no right or wrong answer, just pick the sentence that best describes the way you have been feeling recently. Remember, for each group pick out the sentence that describes your feelings and ideas in the PAST TWO WEEKS, and click on that number. 1. I am sad once in a while. 1 I am sad many times. 2 I am sad all the time. 3 2. Nothing will ever work out for me. 1 I am not sure if things will work out for me. 2 Things will work out for me OK. 3 3. I do most things OK. 1 I do many things wrong. 2 I do everything wrong. 3 4. I have fun in many things. 1 I have fun in some things. 2 Nothing is fun at all. 3 5. I am bad all the time. 1 I am bad many times. 2 156 I am bad once in a while. 3 6. I think about bad things happening to me once in a while. 1 I worry that bad things will happen to me. 2 I am sure terrible things will happen to me. 3 7. I hate myself. 1 I do not like myself. 2 I like myself. 3 8. All bad things are my fault. 1 Many bad things are my fault. 2 Bad things are not usually my fault. 3 9. I feel like crying every day. 1 I feel like crying many days. 2 I feel like crying once in a while. 3 10. Things bother me all the time. 1 Things bother me many times. 2 Things bother me once in a while. 3 11. I like being with people. 1 I do not like being with people many times. 2 157 I do not want to be with people at all. 3 12. I cannot make up my mind about things. 1 It is hard to make up my mind about things. 2 I make up my mind about things easily. 3 13. I look OK. 1 There are some bad things about my looks. 2 I look ugly. 3 14. I have to push myself all the time to do my schoolwork. 1 I have to push myself many times to do my schoolwork. 2 Doing schoolwork is not a big problem. 3 15. I have trouble sleeping every night. 1 I have trouble sleeping many nights. 2 I sleep pretty well. 3 16. I am tired once in a while. 1 I am tired many days. 2 I am tired all the time. 3 17. Most days I do not feel like eating. 1 Many days I do not feel like eating. 2 I eat pretty well. 3 158 18. I do not worry about aches and pains. 1 I worry about aches and pains many times. 2 I worry about aches and pains all the time. 3 19. I do not feel alone. 1 I feel alone many times. 2 I feel alone all the time. 3 20. I never have fun at school. 1 I have fun at school only once in a while. 2 I have fun at school many times. 3 21. I have plenty of friends. 1 I have some friends but I wish I had more. 2 I do not have any friends. 3 22. My schoolwork is all right. 1 My schoolwork is not as good as before. 2 I do very badly in subjects I used to be good in. 3 23. I can never be as good as other kids. 1 I can be as good as other kids if I want to. 2 I am just as good as other kids. 3 24. Nobody really loves me. 1 159 I am not sure if anybody loves me. 2 I am sure that somebody loves me. 3 25. I usually do what I am told. 1 I do not do what I am told most times. 2 I never do what I am told. 3 26. I get along with people. 1 I get into fights many times. 2 I get into fights all the time. 3 160 APPENDIX C: Beck Depression Inventory-II This questionnaire consists of 20 groups of statements. Please read each group of statements carefully, and then pick out the one statement in each group that best describes the way you have been feeling during the past two weeks, including today. If several statements in the group seem to apply equally well, pick the highest number for that group. 1. Sadness 0 I do not feel sad. 1 I feel sad much of the time. 2 I am sad all the time. 3 I am so sad or unhappy that I can’t stand it. 2. Pessimism 0 I am not discouraged about my future. 1 I feel more discouraged about my future than I used to be. 2 I do not expect things to work out for me. 3 I feel my future is hopeless and will only get worse. 3. Past Failure 0 I do not feel like a failure. 1 I have failed more than I should have. 2 As I look back, I see a lot of failures. 3 I feel I am a total failure as a person. 4. Loss of Pleasure 0 I get as much pleasure as I ever did from the things I enjoy. 1 I don’t enjoy things as much as I used to. 161 2 I get very little pleasure from the things I used to enjoy. 3 I can’t get any pleasure from the things I used to enjoy. 5. Guilty Feelings 0 I don’t feel particularly guilty. 1 I feel guilty over many things I have done or should have done. 2 I feel quite guilty most of the time. 3 I feel guilty all of the time. 6. Punishment Feelings 0 I don’t feel I am being punished. 1 I feel I may be punished. 2 I expect to be punished. 3 I feel I am being punished. 7. Self-Dislike 0 I feel the same about myself as ever. 1 I have lost confidence in myself. 2 I am disappointed in myself. 3 I dislike myself. 8. Self-Criticalness 0 I don’t criticize or blame myself more than usual. 1 I am more critical of myself than I used to be. 2 I criticize myself for all of my faults. 3 I blame myself for everything bad that happens. 162 9. Crying 0 I don’t cry anymore than I used to. 1 I cry more than I used to. 2 I cry over every little thing. 3 I feel like crying, but I can’t. 10. Agitation 0 I am no more restless or wound up than usual. 1 I feel more restless or wound up than usual. 2 I am so restless or agitated that it’s hard to stay still. 3 I am so restless or agitated that I have to keep moving or doing something. 11. Loss of Interest 0 I have not lost interest in other people or activities. 1 I am less interested in other people or things than before. 2 I have lost most of my interest in other people or things. 3 It’s hard to get interested in anything. 12. Indecisiveness 0 I make decisions about as well as ever. 1 I find it more difficult to make decisions than usual. 2 I have much greater difficulty in making decisions than I used to. 3 I have trouble making any decisions. 13. Worthlessness 163 0 I do not feel I am worthless. 1 I don’t consider myself as worthwhile and useful as I used to. 2 I feel more worthless as compared to other people. 3 I feel utterly worthless. 14. Loss of Energy 0 I have as much energy as ever. 1 I have less energy than I used to have. 2 I don’t have enough energy to do very much. 3 don’t have enough energy to do anything. 15. Changes in Sleeping Pattern 0 I have not experienced any change in my sleeping pattern. 1a I sleep somewhat more than usual. 1b I sleep somewhat less than usual. 2a I sleep a lot more than usual. 2b I sleep a lot less than usual. 3a I sleep most of the day. 3b I wake up 1-2 hours early and can’t get back to sleep. 16. Irritability 0 I am no more irritable than usual. 1 I am more irritable than usual. 2 I am much more irritable than usual. 3 I am irritable all the time. 164 17. Changes in Appetite 0 I have not experienced any change in my appetite. 1a My appetite is somewhat less than usual. 1b My appetite is somewhat greater than usual. 2a My appetite is much less than usual. 2b My appetite is much greater than usual. 3a I have no appetite at all. 3b I crave food all the time. 18. Concentration Difficulty 0 I can concentrate as well as ever. 1 I can’t concentrate as well as usual. 2 It’s hard to keep my mind on anything for very long. 3 I find I can’t concentrate on anything. 19. Tiredness or Fatigue 0 I am no more tired or fatigued than usual. 1 I get more tired or fatigued more easily than usual. 2 I am too tired or fatigued to do a lot of the things I used to do. 3 I am too tired or fatigued to do most of the things I used to do. 20. Loss of Interest in Sex 0 I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex. 1 I am less interested in sex than I used to be. 2 I am much less interested in sex now. 3 I have lost interest in sex completely. 165 APPENDIX D: Issues Checklist Parents and their sons or daughters often have arguments or disagreements at home. Most of the time they can come to an agreement or forgive each other, but other times they can’t. Please think about the times when you and your child have argued, and how upset you still feel about these issues. These issues may be about punishment, or something that was unfair, or even something was said that still bothers one or both of you. Read the items below. For each topic, please select whether you have or have not argued about it. If you have argued about a topic, select how upset you still feel about it. Have you and your child ever argued about this? If “YES”, how upset do you feel about it right now? Not At All Very Upset Upset 1. How to spend free time NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 2. What food to eat or mealtimes NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 3. Using cellphone or screen time NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 4. Clothing NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 5. Fighting with brothers and sisters NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 6. Cursing or Swearing NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 166 7. Money, Spending or Allowance NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 8. Drugs or Drinking or Smoking NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 9. Friends NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 10. Getting in trouble at school NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 11. Lying NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 12. Talking back and/or arguing with parents NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 13. Making a mess or not cleaning up NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 14. Stealing NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 15. Bad behavior or attitude NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 16. Divorce or step parents NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 17. Being allowed to do what friends are allowed to do NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 18. Playing video games NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 19. Homework, procrastination or difficulties with school work NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 20. Extracurricular activities/Sports NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 21. Romantic Partner(s) NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 167 22. Other conflict not mentioned in questions 1-21 (specify) ___________________________ NO YES 1 2 3 4 5 23. Write in the question numbers of the top 3 most upsetting arguments that you are still upset about even now. Most upsetting: 1 – _____ Second most upsetting: 2 – _____ Third most upsetting: 3 – _____ 168 APPENDIX E: A Brief Explanation of SPAFF5 Coding Categories All codes in the SPAFF5 are scored based primarily on affect demonstrated. Some codes like Interest/Curiosity rely more heavily on verbal content than others. The gestalt of cues used to score the emotions that are observed will include vocal tone, facial affect and body posture and/or orientation. Priorities: 33 > 11 > 99 > 77 > 55 (99) Positive Affect • Caring/Affection • Laughter/Smiling • Enjoyment • General Positive Affect (77) Interest/Curiosity • Non-Verbal Attentive/Positive Energy • Elaboration/ Clarification Seeking • Opinion question • Paraphrasing • Validation (55) Neutral • Resting Affect • Shock • Surprise 169 (11) Internalizing Negative Affect • Resignation/Passivity • Crying • Feels Hurt • Slow Sighing • Fear/Tension • Fidgeting • Fear Face • Nervous Avoidance • Speech Disturbances • Nervous Laughter (33) Externalizing Negative Affect • Raised Voice • Irritation/Annoyance • Constrained Anger • Physical cues of anger (jerks, twitches) • Physical cues of interpersonal disgust (nose wrinkle) • Invalidation • Lecturing/patronizing • Contempt (m) Missing • Talking to experimenter • Speaking in another language170 APPENDIX F: Parental Psychological Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration The below items measure autonomy satisfaction, autonomy frustration, competence satisfaction, competence frustration, relatedness satisfaction, and relatedness frustration in order. 1 = not true at all 5 = completely true Today, I felt a sense of choice and freedom in the things I undertook. 1 2 3 4 5 Today, I felt forced to do many things I wouldn’t choose to do. 1 2 3 4 5 Today, I felt confident that I could do things well. 1 2 3 4 5 Today, I felt insecure about my abilities. 1 2 3 4 5 Today, I felt connected with people who care for me, and for whom I care. 1 2 3 4 5 Today, I felt excluded from the group I want to belong to. 1 2 3 4 5
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Lougheed, Jessica
Parent-adolescent dynamics and internalizing symptoms at multiple time scales
Text