Father- and Youth-Reported Family Affective Expression Differentially Predicts Youth Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms

Abstract

Temperamental approach is associated with adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Negative family affective expression, or problematic communication about emotions, is also associated with youth’s risk for symptoms. However, it is unclear whether negative family affective expression differentially predicts symptoms based on (a) youth’s temperamental approach and (b) informants’ perceptions of negative family affective expression. To address these issues, we explored whether mother-, father-, and youth-reported negative family affective expression moderated the relation between youth temperamental approach and symptoms. Participants were 775 youths (71% male, 76% Caucasian) assessed at ages 10–12 (Time 1) and 12–14 (Time 2). Mothers, fathers, and youths reported on negative family affective expression and youths reported on temperamental approach at Time 1. Teachers reported on youth symptoms at Times 1 and 2. Youth- and father-reported, but not mother-reported, negative family affective expression moderated the relation between youth approach and symptoms. When youths reported higher negative family affective expression, youths lower in approach exhibited higher internalizing symptoms than youths higher in approach. In contrast, when fathers reported lower negative family affective expression, youths lower in approach exhibited higher internalizing and externalizing symptoms than youths higher in approach. Assessments and interventions for youth symptoms should include not only temperamental features, but also multiple informants’ perspectives of family affective expression. Such efforts could promote greater family communication, address problematic family dynamics, and potentially attenuate risk for youth symptoms.

FUNDING

This research was supported in part by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant P50 DA005605 awarded to Ralph E. Tarter.

Notes

^1. The mean scores for youth symptoms did not meet clinical significance (Time 1: girls’ internalizing symptoms M = 4.02, T score = 53, 63rd percentile; boys’ internalizing symptoms M = 5.45, T score = 52, 58th percentile; girls’ externalizing symptoms M = 8.09, T score = 53, 63rd percentile; boys’ externalizing symptoms M = 18.22, T score = 57, 77th percentile; Time 2: girls’ internalizing symptoms M = 4.06, T score = 53, 63rd percentile; boys’ internalizing symptoms M = 5.74, T score = 53, 63rd percentile; girls’ externalizing symptoms M = 11.21, T score = 54, 65th percentile; boys’ externalizing symptoms M = 13.79, T score = 53, 63rd percentile).

^2. We tested whether father diagnostic status moderated the relation between mother-, father-, and youth-reported negative family affective expression and adolescents’ externalizing symptoms. We included Step 1 and Step 2 variables used in the main moderation analyses. The Mother-, Father-, and Youth-Reported Negative Family Affective Expression × Father Diagnostic Status interactions did not predict externalizing symptoms (all βs < .04, all ps > .116). In testing the three-way interactions (Negative Family Affective Expression × Child Approach × Father Diagnostic Status), we included variables from Steps 1 and 2 of the main moderation analyses, in addition to the following two-way interactions: Mother-Reported (or Father- or Youth-Reported) Negative Family Affective Expression × Father Diagnostic Status, and Child Approach × Father Diagnostic Status. Step 3 included 3 three-way interactions: Mother-Reported (or Father- or Youth-Reported) Negative Family Affective Expression × Child Approach × Father Diagnostic Status. None of the three-way interactions predicted externalizing symptoms (βs range = –.15–.00, all ps > .062).

^3. We also ran regressions that included main effects and only one interaction term per model. Father-Reported Negative Family Affective Expression × Child Approach (β = .119, p = .009) and Child-Reported Negative Family Affective Expression × Child Approach (β = –.115, p = .014) predicted internalizing symptoms; the Mother-Reported Negative Family Affective Expression × Child Approach interaction did not (β = –.049, p = .428). The Father-Reported Negative Family Affective Expression × Child Approach (β = .118, p = .004) and Child-Reported Negative Family Affective Expression × Child Approach (β = –.110, p = .009) interaction predicted externalizing symptoms, but the Mother-Reported Negative Family Affective Expression × Child Approach interaction did not (β = .051, p = .255).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported in part by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant P50 DA005605 awarded to Ralph E. Tarter.