Advertisement

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

, Volume 48, Issue 11, pp 2179–2189 | Cite as

Does Negative Emotional Reactivity Moderate the Relation between Contextual Cohesion and Adolescent Well-Being?

  • Lindsay B. MyerbergEmail author
  • Jill A. Rabinowitz
  • Maureen D. Reynolds
  • Deborah A. G. Drabick
Empirical Research
  • 103 Downloads

Abstract

Although well-being is a chief indicator of positive mental health, much research has neglected to consider individual-specific and contextual factors that may promote this important outcome among youth. To address this gap, we examined whether neighborhood and family social cohesion are associated with well-being among youth varying in negative emotional reactivity, and whether findings were consistent with the diathesis-stress or differential susceptibility hypothesis. Participants were assessed at 3 time points: Time 1 (N = 775, M age = 10.95 ± 0.88 years; 71% male); Time 2 (n = 660, M age = 12.99 ± 0.95 years); and Time 3 (n = 633, M age = 15.50 ± 0.56 years). At Time 1, caregivers reported on family and neighborhood cohesion. Youth reported on their negative emotional reactivity at Time 2 and well-being at Time 3. Negative emotional reactivity moderated the relation between family cohesion and well-being. Among youth higher in negative emotional reactivity, lower family cohesion was associated with lower levels of well-being compared to higher family cohesion. Youth higher and lower in emotional reactivity evidenced similar levels of well-being when exposed to higher family cohesion. The findings thus support the diathesis-stress model, suggesting that less cohesive families may contribute to reduced happiness and well-being, particularly among youth with higher negative emotional reactivity.

Keywords

Negative emotional reactivity Family cohesion Neighborhood social cohesion Diathesis-stress model Differential susceptibility Well-being 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all study participants, in addition to Dr. Ralph Tarter, the Principal Investigator of the project, Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research (CEDAR), from which these data were drawn. We also thank the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) for funding for this work (2 P50 DA05605).

Authors’ Contributions

L.B.M. participated in the design and coordination of the study and drafted the manuscript; J.A.R. performed the statistical analyses, participated in interpretation of the data, and helped to draft the manuscript; M.D.R. participated in the design of the study; D.A.G.D. helped draft and revise the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Grant number 2 P50 DA05605).

Data Sharing and Declaration

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and are not publicly available. However, data are available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Pittsburgh’s Institutional Review Board (Protocol IRB0107007) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Achenbach, T. M., Ivanova, M. Y., Rescorla, L. A., Turner, L. V., & Althoff, R. R. (2016). Internalizing/externalizing problems: Review and recommendations for clinical and research applications. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55, 647–656.Google Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van-IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for worse: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 300–304.Google Scholar
  4. Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Belsky, J., Pluess, M., & Widaman, K. F. (2013). Confirmatory and competitive evaluation of alternative gene‐environment interaction hypotheses. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 1135–1143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Belsky, J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015). What works for whom? Genetic moderation of intervention efficacy. Development and Psychopathology, 27, 1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bojanowska, A., & Zalewska, A. M. (2017). Happy temperament? Four types of stimulation control linked to four types of subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1403–1423.Google Scholar
  8. Bolier, L., Haverman, M., Westerhof, G. J., Riper, H., Smit, F., & Bohlmeijer, E. (2013). Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BioMed Central Public Health, 13, 119–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonds, D. D., & Gondoli, D. M. (2007). Examining the process by which marital adjustmentaffects maternal warmth: the role of coparenting support as a mediator. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 288–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 271–301.Google Scholar
  11. Boyd, C. P., Gullone, E., Needleman, G. L., & Burt, T. (1997). The Family Environment Scale: Reliability and normative data for an adolescent sample. Family Process, 36, 369–373.Google Scholar
  12. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2008). Infant temperament, parenting, and externalizing behavior in first grade: A test of the differential susceptibility hypothesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 124–131.Google Scholar
  13. Brody, G. H., Conger, R., Gibbons, F. X., Ge, X., McBride Murry, V., Gerrard, M., & Simons, R. L. (2001). The influence of neighborhood disadvantage, collective socialization, and parenting on African American children's affiliation with deviant peers. Child Development, 72, 1231–1246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nuture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, S. L. (2006). Family structure transitions and adolescent well-being. Demography, 43, 447–461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771–791.Google Scholar
  17. Caprara, G. V., Cinanni, V., D'Imperio, G., Passerini, S., Renzi, P., & Travaglia, G. (1985). Indicators of impulsive aggression: Present status of research on irritability and emotional susceptibility scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 665–674.Google Scholar
  18. Chen, D., Drabick, D. A., & Burgers, D. E. (2015). A developmental perspective on peer rejection, deviant peer affiliation, and conduct problems among youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 46, 823–838.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Cicognani, E., Zani, B., & Albanesi, C. (2008). Sense of community in adolescence. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 3, 118–125.Google Scholar
  20. Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Bettis, A. H., Watson, K. H., Gruhn, M. A., Dunbar, J. P., & Thigpen, J. C. (2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 939–991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Criss, M. M., Smith, A. M., Morris, A. S., Liu, C., & Hubbard, R. L. (2017). Parents and peers as protective factors among adolescents exposed to neighborhood risk. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 53, 127–138.Google Scholar
  22. Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Cummings, E. M., Shelton, K. H., & Rasi, J. A. (2002). Relations between interparental conflict, child emotional security, and adjustment in the context of cognitive appraisals. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67, 41–62.Google Scholar
  23. De Los Reyes, A., Goodman, K. L., Kliewer, W., & Reid-Quinones, K. (2010). The longitudinal consistency of mother–child reporting discrepancies of parental monitoring and their ability to predict child delinquent behaviors two years later. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1417–1430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.Google Scholar
  25. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Drabick, D. A. G., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Developmental psychopathology In B. B. Brown & M. J. Prinstein (Eds.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (Vol. 3, pp. 136–142). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Enders, C. K. (2001). The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data. Psychological Methods, 6, 352–370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Forgas, J. P. (2013). Don’t worry, be sad! on the cognitive, motivational, and interpersonal benefits of negative mood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 225–232.Google Scholar
  29. Fowler, P. J., Henry, D. B., & Marcal, K. E. (2015). Family and housing instability: longitudinal impact on adolescent emotional and behavioral well-being. Social Science Research, 53, 364–374.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41, 625–635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenspoon, P. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (2001). Toward an integration of subjective well-being and psychopathology. Social Indicators Research, 54, 81–108.Google Scholar
  33. Harcourt, K. T., Adler-Baeder, F., Erath, S., & Pettit, G. S. (2015). Examining family structure and half-sibling influence on adolescent well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 250–272.Google Scholar
  34. Henderson, C. E., Dakof, G. A., Schwartz, S. J., & Liddle, H. A. (2006). Family functioning, self-concept, and severity of adolescent externalizing problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 721–731.Google Scholar
  35. IBM (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 24.0) [Computer software]. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  36. Joronen, K., & Åstedt‐Kurki, P. (2005). Familial contribution to adolescent subjective well being. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 11, 125–133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kim, S., & Kochanska, G. (2012). Child temperament moderates effects of parent–child mutuality on self‐regulation: A relationship‐based path for emotionally negative infants. Child Development, 83, 1275–1289.Google Scholar
  39. King, V., Boyd, L. M., & Pragg, B. (2018). Parent–adolescent closeness, family belonging, and adolescent well-being across family structures. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 2007–2036.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., & Joy, M. E. (2007). Children’s fearfulness as a moderator of parenting in early socialization: two longitudinal studies. Developmental Psychology, 43, 222–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 49–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Layous, K., Chancellor, J., Lyubomirsky, S., Wang, L., & Doraiswamy, P. M. (2011). Delivering happiness: translating positive psychology intervention research for treating major and minor depressive disorders. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 17, 675–683.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, C. T., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Memmott-Elison, M. K. (2017). The role of parents and peers on adolescents’ prosocial behavior and substance use. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 1053–1069.Google Scholar
  44. Li, C. H., Hsu, P. H., & Hsu, S. Y. (2011). Assessing the application of the neighborhood cohesion instrument to community research in East Asia. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 1031–1039.Google Scholar
  45. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analyses with missing data (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well-being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 876–893.Google Scholar
  47. Melendez‐Torres, G. J., Tancred, T., Fletcher, A., Thomas, J., Campbell, R., & Bonell, C. (2018). Does integrated academic and health education prevent substance use? Systematic review and meta-analyses. Child Care, Health and Development, 44, 516–530.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 406–425.Google Scholar
  49. Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1974). Family environment scale manual: Development, applications, and research (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
  50. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  51. Newman, D. A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 328–362.Google Scholar
  52. Oliver, J. M., Handal, P. J., Enos, D. M., & May, M. J. (1988). Factor structure of the Family Environment Scale: Factors based on items and subscales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 469–477.Google Scholar
  53. Park, N. (2004). The role of subjective well-being in positive youth development. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 25–39.Google Scholar
  54. Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14, 150–163.Google Scholar
  55. Pluess, M. (2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 138–143.Google Scholar
  56. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.Google Scholar
  57. Rabinowitz, J. A., Drabick, D. A., & Reynolds, M. D. (2016a). Family conflict moderates the relation between negative mood and youth internalizing and externalizingsymptoms. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 3574–3583.Google Scholar
  58. Rabinowitz, J. A., Drabick, D. A., & Reynolds, M. D. (2016b). Youth withdrawal moderates the relationship between neighborhood factors and internalizing symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 427–439.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Rabinowitz, J. A., Osigwe, I., Drabick, D. A., & Reynolds, M. D. (2016c). Negative emotional reactivity moderates the relations between family cohesion and internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 116–126.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Rask, K., Åstedt-Kurki, P., Paavilainen, E., & Laippala, P. (2003). Adolescent subjective well being and family dynamics. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 17, 129–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Riina, E. M., Martin, A., Gardner, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2013). Context matters: links between neighborhood discrimination, neighborhood cohesion and African American adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 136–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Ritchwood, T. D., Ford, H., DeCoster, J., Sutton, M., & Lochman, J. E. (2015). Risky sexual behavior and substance use among adolescents: a meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 52, 74–88.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Roisman, G. I., Newman, D. A., Fraley, R. C., Haltigan, J. D., Groh, A. M., & Haydon, K. C. (2012). Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 389–409.Google Scholar
  64. Saha, R., Huebner, E. S., Suldo, S. M., & Valois, R. F. (2010). A longitudinal study of adolescent life satisfaction and parenting. Child Indicators Research, 3, 149–165.Google Scholar
  65. Sanford, K., Bingham, C. R., & Zucker, R. A. (1999). Validity issues with the Family Environment Scale: Psychometric resolution and research application with alcoholic families. Psychological Assessment, 11, 315–325.Google Scholar
  66. Smeekens, S., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & van Bakel, H. J. (2007). Multiple determinants of externalizing behavior in 5-year-olds: a longitudinal model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 347–361.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Stuart, J., & Jose, P. E. (2014). The protective influence of family connectedness, ethnic identity, and ethnic engagement for New Zealand Ma̅ori adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1817–1826.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Suldo, S. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Is extremely high life satisfaction during adolescence advantageous? Social Indicators Research, 78, 179–203.Google Scholar
  69. Sun, Y. (2001). Family environment and adolescents’ well-being before and after parents’ marital disruption: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 697–713.Google Scholar
  70. Tarter, R. E., & Vanyukov, M. M. (2001). Introduction: theoretical and operational framework for research into the etiology of substance use disorders. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 10, 1–12.Google Scholar
  71. Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  72. Wilkinson, D. (2007). The multidimensional nature of social cohesion: Psychological sense of community, attraction, and neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 214–229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Zuckerman, M. (1999). Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocial model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology at Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Bloomberg’s School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.University of Pittsburgh School of PharmacyPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations