Daily-Life Social Experiences as a Relationship Between Parenting and Psychopathology in Adolescence
Adolescence is a vulnerable period for psychopathology development, and certain parenting styles are consistent and robust predictors of a broad range of mental health outcomes. The mechanisms through which maladaptive parenting styles affect the development of psychopathology are assumed to be largely social in nature. Yet, the social mechanisms linking parenting to psychopathology are unexplored at arguably the most important level of functioning: daily life. This study aims to identify the associations between three parenting styles, and the experience of daily-life social interactions. Furthermore, we aim to explore the extent to which these parenting styles and altered daily-life social experiences are associated with psychopathology. In this study, we recruited a sample of N = 1,913 adolescents (63.3% girls; mean age = 13.7, age range = 11 to 20) as part of the first wave of the longitudinal cohort study “SIGMA”. Parenting styles (psychological control, responsiveness, and autonomy support) and psychopathology symptoms were assessed using a retrospective questionnaire battery. The experienced quality of social interactions in different types of company was assessed using the experience sampling method, ten times per day for 6 days. Direct associations between parenting styles and general quality of daily-life social experiences were tested using a three-level linear model, revealing significant associations between social experiences and different parenting styles. When interaction effects were added to this model, we found that maternal responsiveness and paternal psychological control mainly related to altered qualities of social interactions with parents, while paternal autonomy support was associated with better experiences of non-family social interactions. Finally, an exploratory path analysis highlighted how both paternal autonomy support and altered quality of non-family interactions are uniquely associated with psychopathology levels. These findings demonstrate the general and pervasive effects of maladaptive parenting styles, as parenting seems to broadly affect adolescents' interactions with different types of social partners in everyday life. Moreover, they illustrate a potential mediated relationship in which altered daily-life social interactions could drive the development of psychopathology. A stronger focus may be required on the role of altered day-to-day social experiences in the prevention and potentially, the treatment, of adolescent psychopathology.
Introduction
Mental health problems are strongly shaped by the specific manners in which children have been raised, as certain parenting dimensions are strong and robust predictors of a broad range of psychopathological symptoms. For example, concurrent and longitudinal evidence has emphasized the maladaptive effects on child and adolescent development of parental psychological control, which is characterized by control that undermines children's emotional experience and expression and involves, e.g., love withdrawal and guilt induction (1). On the other hand, more positive parenting has been described, for example, in terms of parental support or responsiveness, which represents parents' sensitive responses to situations when a child is distressed (2). Parental autonomy support is another type of parenting assumed to be positively related to children's adjustment, and is characterized by, e.g., parents' allowing their children to make their own choices, and acknowledging children's own perspective (3). As such, these positive parenting dimensions are hypothesized to be associated with more adaptive psychosocial development. Ample previous research has highlighted how parental psychological control is a unique risk factor for the development of internalizing psychopathology (4–8), while parental responsiveness and autonomy support are protective against the development of psychiatric symptoms (7, 9, 10).
Understanding the lasting impact of parenting styles on children's development is particularly relevant during adolescence, which represents the period where most psychopathology develops (11). Adolescence is also a period of significant social change, when individuals develop independence as they move away from parents and toward peers (12, 13). As adolescents start interacting more and more with non-family members, however, those with experiences of adaptive parenting styles are expected to be best-equipped to engage with others. An adolescent who has been supported by their parents in the development of their autonomy is expected to feel comfortable seeking out this autonomy in their relations with others (14), and adolescents who have experienced responsive parenting can be expected to enter the social arena with a greater sense of security (2). Conversely, experiences of psychologically controlling parenting are thought to instill a sense of insecurity and negative self-perception, which, in turn, can be expected to spill over into social interactions with others (8, 14). As such, parenting styles help lay the foundation for how adolescents interact with other people as they venture into the world.
Healthy and positive social interactions with both family and non-family members are, in turn, considered as important protective factors for maintaining good mental health. Alternatively, when the described parent-driven socialization goes awry, psychopathology may develop. Fundamentally, the established link between parenting and psychopathology can be considered largely social in nature: parenting more generally affects adolescents' social interactions (15) which, when they are consistently negative, can contribute to the development of mental health problems. However, while the relationship between parenting and psychopathology symptoms is often assumed to be mediated by altered social interactions, this has—to our knowledge—never been comprehensively explored in daily life.
Social correlates of parenting and psychopathology are usually assessed using retrospective self-report questionnaires. Although research that employs retrospective measures can be valuable for assessing general processes, it fails to consider several important aspects of social processes. Naturalistic social interactions are dynamic, context-dependent, fleeting, subtle, involve all senses, and as such, are difficult to capture outside of the real world (16, 17). An alternative method that does allow for the capturing of social interactions in daily life is the Experience Sampling Method (ESM), also referred to as Ecological Momentary Assessment or EMA (18–20). ESM is an intensive longitudinal method in which participants are prompted multiple times per day to report on their momentary experiences, thoughts, feelings, and context as they go about their day-to-day lives. In assessing social processes in context, ESM allows for capturing both the relatively objective characteristics of day-to-day social interactions (i.e., who are you interacting with, and where?) and the associated subjective experience (i.e., how do you feel about the person you're with?).
To some extent, research employing ESM to study social processes has already identified how daily well-being and the quality of daily social interactions are linked to people's parenting experiences (15, 21–23), while there is also increasing evidence for the relationship between psychopathology symptoms and altered experiences of social interactions (22–25). Interestingly, these studies indicate how, generally, both parenting experiences and psychopathology relate more to an altered quality of social interactions (e.g., feeling belonging to current company; preferring to be alone when with others) rather than to changes in the quantity of social behaviors. These findings suggest that the mediating role of social processes in the relationship between parenting and psychopathology can be reliably assessed at the level of daily life, and that this mediating role is likely determined more by altered subjective social experiences than by differences in social behaviors. However, as the results of the studies pertained to all social interactions that participants reported on, these results lack some necessary specificity. Participants in ESM studies engage with different people throughout the sampling period—both with family and with non-family members. Parenting styles are likely differentially associated with social experiences when the associated social interactions pertain to family vs. non-family members. As discussed, to truly understand the impact of parenting on adolescents' socialization, it is imperative to specifically assess how parenting relates to the qualities of social interactions when adolescents interact with people outside of the family.
Therefore, in this study, we aim to test the associations between the parenting styles of psychological control, autonomy support, and responsiveness, and altered daily-life social experiences; and to investigate the specificity of the effects of maternal/paternal parenting styles on daily-life social interactions when participants are with parents vs. when with non-family members. Moreover, in examining these relationships, we will also consider differences in age and gender. As adolescents get older and achieve more independence, the relationship between parenting and psychopathology may weaken. At the same time, previous research has suggested how parenting styles are more strongly associated with psychopathology when they refer to the same-sex parent (26). Accordingly, we will also investigate whether the investigated relationships differ across genders and as a function of age.
1. Perceived parental (maternal and paternal) responsiveness is associated with a more positive social experience in daily life, when also accounting for the proportion of time spent with mother/father.
2. Perceived parental (maternal and paternal) psychological control is associated with a more negative social experience in daily life, when also accounting for the proportion of time spent with mother/father.
3. Perceived parental (maternal and paternal) autonomy support is associated with a more negative social experience in daily life, when also accounting for the proportion of time spent with mother/father.
4. Perceived maternal responsiveness is associated with more positive experiences of mother interactions in daily life, when also accounting for the effects of maternal autonomy support, maternal psychological control, and paternal parenting styles.
4.1 This association is stronger than the association between maternal responsiveness and social experience when with non-family members.
5. Perceived maternal psychological control is associated with a more negative social experience of mother interactions in daily life, when also accounting for the effects of maternal autonomy support, maternal responsiveness, and paternal parenting styles.
5.1 This association is stronger than the association maternal psychological control and social experience when with non-family members.
6. Perceived maternal autonomy support is associated with a more positive social experience of mother interactions in daily life, when also accounting for the effects of maternal psychological control, maternal responsiveness, and paternal parenting styles.
6.1 This association is stronger than the association between maternal autonomy support and social experience when with non-family.
7. Perceived paternal responsiveness is associated with a more positive social experience of father interactions in daily life, when also accounting for the effects of paternal autonomy support, paternal psychological control, and maternal parenting styles.
7.1 This association is stronger than the association between paternal responsiveness and social experience when with non-family members.
8. Perceived paternal psychological control is associated with a more negative social experience of father interactions in daily life, when also accounting for the effects of paternal autonomy support, paternal responsiveness, and maternal parenting styles.
8.1 This association is stronger than the association between paternal psychological control and social experience when with non-family members.
9. Perceived paternal autonomy support is associated with a more positive social experience of father interactions in daily life, when also accounting for the effects of maternal psychological control, maternal responsiveness, and paternal parenting styles.
9.1 This association is stronger than the association between paternal autonomy support and social experience when with non-family members.
10. Perceived maternal and paternal responsiveness are uniquely associated with a more positive social experience of interactions with non-family members, when also accounting for the effects of the effect of maternal/paternal responsiveness and autonomy support.
11. Perceived maternal and paternal psychological control are uniquely associated with a more negative social experience of interactions with non-family members, when also accounting for the effects of maternal/paternal responsiveness and autonomy support.
12. Perceived maternal and paternal autonomy support are uniquely associated with a more positive social experience of interactions with non-family members, when also accounting for the effects of the effect of maternal/paternal responsiveness and psychological control.
13. All reported effects are stronger for younger participants
14. All reported maternal effects are stronger for female participants; all reported paternal effects are stronger for male participants.
Responsiveness and autonomy support are hypothesized to have positive associations with the experience of social interactions, while for psychological control, we expect negative associations. In addition to testing these hypotheses, we conduct exploratory analyses using a comprehensive path model, where general psychopathology levels are associated with both parenting styles and mean social experiences when in company of mother/father/non-family, and where these social experiences in turn are associated with different parenting styles. Although studies with cross-sectional data preclude claims about the temporal sequence of events underlying mediation effects (27, 29), they can be used to illustrate the contemporaneous associations that might form the basis for longitudinal mediation, which can be investigated in future longitudinal research.
Materials and Methods
Participants
A sample of N = 1,913 adolescents were recruited and tested between January 2018 and June 2019 as part of the first wave of the longitudinal cohort study SIGMA (29). Participants were recruited for the SIGMA study through one of 22 participating secondary schools in the Flanders region in Belgium. Potential participants were briefed about the content of the study before they could voluntarily sign up, with permission of at least one parent or caregiver. There were no specific in- or exclusion criteria for this study, apart from the ability to read and understand Dutch.
At the time of testing, all participants were either in the first (roughly aged 12/13), third (aged 14/15), or fifth grade (aged 16/17) of the Flemish secondary education system. As the Flemish school system allows students to repeat school years, and because students who immigrated to Flanders may enter a grade at an older age, a small number of participants included in this study are over 18 (eight 19-year-olds; one 20-year-old). In line with modern definitions of adolescence (30), we retained these participants in the full sample.
No information on ethnic or geographic background, or on racial identity was collected. Asking about ethnic groups or racial identity specifically is relatively uncommon in Belgium, and to our knowledge, no standard ethnicity or racial identity questions/response categories exist in Dutch (within Belgium/the Netherlands). Participants were asked whether they identified with any non-Belgian country, and 186 (26.1% of 713 responses to this question) responded with identifying with at least one country other than Belgium.
Procedure
The SIGMA study consisted of two main parts: Retrospective questionnaires and daily-life measurements. For the first part of the study, participants were administered a self-report questionnaire battery in one 100-min session that they were asked to complete on a provided tablet computer in their own classroom. These questionnaires included, among others, those on parenting style and psychopathology that are used in the current study, but also questionnaires on social support, bullying, trauma, and other factors [for full questionnaire battery, see (29)]. Each participant was asked to start completing the questionnaires at a different specific part of the questionnaire battery—thereby ensuring comparable missing-ness patterns across all questionnaires. When participants did not want to answer any specific item, they were given the option of answering ‘I do not wish to answer this question'.
At the end of this initial 100-min session, participants were instructed about the second, daily-life part of the study. Participants were provided with a smartphone pre-installed with the MobileQ application (31), through which they would receive the ESM questionnaires for the following 6 days. Participants were instructed to go about their daily lives as usual throughout the ESM period, and to answer the random prompts whenever they were notified. They were also guided through the questionnaire by one of the researchers, to ensure that the content of every item was clear.
Each day in the ESM period, at semi-random times between 7.30 a.m. and 10.30 p.m., participants received ten notifications on the provided smartphone asking them to complete a 45-item questionnaire on their mood, thoughts, behaviors, and context . The semi-randomness of this ESM design refers to the prompts being distributed at random times within each of ten 90-min blocks. There was at least 15 min between consecutive prompts, participants had 90 s to respond to each prompt, and participants had 90 s to complete each individual item in the questionnaire. For all participants, the ESM period involved four school days and 2 weekend days. For ESM prompts sent out during class time, participants were given permission by the school and teachers to fill out these daily questionnaires in the classroom. After returning the study material at the end of the ESM period, participants were rewarded with a 10-euro gift voucher.
Measures
Retrospective Questionnaires
Parenting Styles
Questionnaires on parenting styles were adapted from three of the four subscales of the aggregated ‘General Parenting Style' measure, which have been previously used in Dutch-speaking adolescent samples (32). Each participant was asked to complete a maternal and paternal version of the subscales for the most important mother and father figures in their lives. If they indicated having no mother or father figure, participants were instructed to skip those respective subscales.
Parental psychological control (e.g., ‘My mother/father brings up my past mistakes whenever she/he criticizes me') was measured using 8 items from the Psychological Control Scale—Youth Self-Report (1). Parental responsiveness (e.g., ‘My mother/father can make me feel better when I am upset') was measured using 7 items from the Child Report of Parent Behavior Inventory (33, 34). Parental autonomy support (e.g., ‘My mother/father lets me choose what to do, whenever that is possible') was measured using 7 items from the Autonomy Support Scale of the Perceptions of Parents Scale (35).
Psychopathology
Psychopathology was assessed using the Dutch translation of the 53-item Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-53), which has been validated for use in adolescent and adult populations (36–38). The BSI-53 consists of nine subscales on specific past-week psychiatric symptomatology, including somatization, obsessiveness, insecurity in social contact, depressiveness, anxiety, aggression and hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid thinking, and psychoticism symptoms, plus four additional items. Participants were presented with a list of problems of each of these subscales, and were then asked to indicate to what extent, if at all, they had been bothered by each problem throughout the past week (including the day of testing). All items were then scored ranging from ‘0 Not at all' to ‘4 Extremely'. The specific subscale scores were not used in the current study. Instead, as per the BSI-53 manual, a Global Severity Index (GSI) score was calculated by taking the mean across all items. As such, the GSI represents the general presence and severity of psychopathology symptoms, ranging from 0 to 4.
Psychopathology is relatively undifferentiated during adolescence (39)—and this is also reflected in the high inter-correlations between psychopathology dimensions that we found in earlier factor analysis on psychopathology symptoms in the adolescents of this sample (22). In this study, we assess psychopathology levels from a broad spectrum of psychiatric complaints, as an indicator of general psychological distress. The GSI represents all items included in the BSI-53. Previous psychometric investigations of the BSI-53 in adolescents have suggested that it assesses a valid and primarily unidimensional construct of general psychological distress (37, 38).
Experience Sampling
The following items from our daily ESM questionnaire were used to construct all relevant moment-level variables ‘Who am I with?' (non-mutually exclusive answer options: ‘father', ‘mother', ‘other family (from nuclear family)', ‘other family (outside of nuclear family)', ‘friend(s)', ‘other peers', ‘teacher', ‘other (familiar) people', ‘unfamiliar people', ‘no-one'; if participants indicated to be in company, they were also presented with the following four social experience items ‘I feel at ease in this company', ‘I feel appreciated by this company', ‘I feel like I belong', and ‘I would rather be alone' (answer options here ranged from ‘1. Not at all' to ‘7. Very much').
Using the company information, a momentary ‘company type' variable was computed with answer options ‘with mother' (i.e., when in the company of mother but no one else), ‘with father' (i.e., when in the company of father but no one else), ‘with non-family' (i.e., when in the company of any [combination of] non-family members), and ‘mixed social situations' (i.e., all other social situations). Only the first three categories of this variable were used to assess the differential social experience when with different people, as we did not have any specific hypothesis for the ‘mixed' social situations.
Using this information, the variables ‘proportion of social interactions with mother' and ‘proportion of social interactions with father' were constructed by computing the per-person proportion of time spent with either mother or father across all completed ESM questionnaires. These variables indicate the time spent with mother and father per participant and are used as covariates in subsequent analysis.
As main outcome variable, a mean momentary ‘social experience' variable was computed, by taking the average of the four momentary social experience variables (whereby the item ‘I would rather be alone' was reversed). As registered prior to data analysis, we first assessed whether the internal consistency of these variables was sufficient (i.e., between-person Cronbach's alpha > 0.50)—and it was, at 0.75. This variable was also used to compute the three person-level means of ‘mean social experience when with mother', ‘mean social experience when with father', and ‘mean social experience when with non-family members'—all of which were used as variables in the comprehensive path model.
Statistical Analyses
The analyses for this study are 2-fold: First, we tested the specific associations between parenting styles and momentary social experiences using linear multilevel models—both overall, and for different types of company. Second, we explored the possible mediating effects of daily-life social experience in the relationship between parenting styles and general psychopathology a path analysis. In this path analysis, we did not consider the multilevel nature of the data, as—to the best of our knowledge—traditional multilevel mediation models do not allow for the testing of the multiple Level 2 Level 1 Level 2 paths that are included in the model (40).
The major R packages that we used were tidyverse (v.1.3.0) (41) for data manipulation, nlme (v. 3.1-150) (42), and lavaan (v. 0.6-7) (43) for analyses, tidySEM (v. 0.1.8) (44) and ggplot2 (v. 3.3.3) (45) for visualizations, and knitr (v. 1.30) (46) for producing analysis reports.
Multilevel Models Predicting Social Experience From Parenting Styles
To test the effects of parenting style on overall social experience, a three-level linear analysis was conducted using the ‘nlme'-package in R, with moments nested within participants, participants nested in schools, and with random intercepts but fixed slopes. In each model, the time-variant (i.e., moment-level) ‘social experience' variable was predicted by the six time-invariant (i.e., person-level) parenting style variables. Also included in this analysis were the time-variant ‘company' factor variable (without the ‘mixed company' category), and the time-invariant covariates of age, gender, and the ‘proportion of social interactions with mother' and ‘proportion of social interactions with father' variables. Then, to test whether the effect of parental bonding on social experience is different for different types of company, the same multilevel model was tested whereby a number of interaction terms were added simultaneously. These terms included the interaction effects between age and each parenting style, between gender and each parenting style, and between company type and each parenting style. To identify the nature of possible interaction effects, we visualized the estimated social experience in different companies for different levels of the specific parenting style (i.e., −1/+1 standard deviation of the mean).
Exploratory Comprehensive Path Model Predicting Psychopathology From Both Parenting Styles and Mean Social Experiences
For the path model, we estimated one comprehensive path model with all six parenting styles as predictors of the three mean social experience variables (i.e., when with mother, father, and non-family) and of psychopathology. Psychopathology was also separately predicted by the three mean social experience variables in this model. This path model is tested using the ‘lavaan'-package in R.
Power Analysis
In the registration for this study, we described the power analysis that we would perform, following a strategy described by Lafit et al. (47). Power was computed by performing the confirmatory analyses described above on 1000 Monte Carlo-based simulations, for a three-level model with 10 beeps per day for 6 days and an average compliance rate of 50%, aiming to achieve 0.80 power. For each of the 1,000 simulated samples, the power is then estimated as the number of Monte Carlo replicates in which the null hypothesis is rejected.
Parameter estimates to construct the simulated data sets were based on similar data from an adolescent and young adult twin data set described elsewhere (i.e., TwinssCan) (48, 49). Access to this data set only allowed us to test the power of the direct associations between parenting styles and mean daily-life social experience, as participants were not asked in the experience sampling whether they were with mothers/fathers specifically—thereby not allowing for the testing of our described interaction effects. Also, in this TwinssCan data set, all variables were defined differently than, as parenting styles were based on the Parental Bonding Instrument (50), and mean social experience was constructed using slightly different items. In addition, this power analysis did not include the third school level in the multilevel analysis, as participants were not clustered in schools in the TwinssCan data set as they were in the SIGMA data set.
The results of this power analysis revealed >0.99 power for the positive associations between maternal/paternal responsiveness and mean social experience, and very low power (between 0.05 and 0.10) for the associations between the other parenting styles and mean social experience. Note, however, that these latter associations and its accompanying effect size estimates (between psychological control/autonomy support and social experience) had been very weak and non-significant in the estimation of these parameters in the TwinssCan data set. Although power was therefore extremely low for these associations, we still decided to continue with the analyses as planned, as (1) the differentially constructed variables in the TwinssCan might have produced biased parameter estimates, and (2) interaction effects might still be significant, even though main effects are not. Full code for both the parameter estimates and for the power analysis can be found on the OSF-page for this project.
All hypotheses and analyses were registered following data collection, but prior to data access, i.e., a post-registration (51). When performing all analyses for this study.
Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Ethic Committee Research UZ/KU Leuven S61395. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin.
Author Contributions
RA, OK, MS, and IM-G were all involved in the conceptualization of this study. RA and GL designed the methodology. RA performed data analysis. RA, NH, KH, AH, and AL were involved in data collection. RA wrote the original draft of the manuscript. OK, MS, NH, KH, AH, AL, GL, and IM-G were all involved in subsequent review and editing of this manuscript. RA constructed the figures. OK and IM-G supervised the project leading to this research, with OK managing and coordinating the research activity. IM-G acquired the funding for this research. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
The research leading to these results has received funding from a Research Foundation Flanders Odysseus grant to IM-G (FWO G08416N) supporting RA, OK, and IM-G. NH was also supported by a doctoral grant by the German scholarship foundation Cusanuswerk e.V. AL was supported by a Ph.D. studentship from Research Foundation Flanders (FWO; 1104219N). OK was currently supported by a Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship from Research Foundation Flanders (FWO 1257821N). MS was supported by a personal grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No: PZ00P1_174206).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our amazing colleagues, research assistants Tessa Biesemans, Jolien Bynens, and Lore Depraetere, data manager Martien Wampers, research coordinator Silke Apers, and administrative and financial coordinator Martine van Nierop for their invaluable work in making the SIGMA project happen. We would also like to thank all participating schools and the associated contact persons for their essential time and effort, as they have all been incredibly helpful collaborators in the SIGMA project.
1. Barber BK. Parental psychological control: revisiting a neglected construct. Child Dev. (1996) 67:3296–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01915.x
2. Davidov M, Grusec JE. Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Dev. (2006) 77:44–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00855.x
3. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Lens W, Luyckx K, Goossens L, Beyers W, et al. Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: adolescent perceptions of promotion of independence versus promotion of volitional functioning. Dev Psychol. (2007) 43:633–46. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.633
4. Weitkamp K, Seiffge-Krenke I. The association between parental rearing dimensions and adolescent psychopathology: a cross-cultural study. J Youth Adolesc. (2019) 48:469–83. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0928-0
5. Barber BK, Olsen JE, Shagle SC. Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Dev. (1994) 65:1120–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00807.x
6. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Luyten P, Duriez B, Goossens L. Maladaptive perfectionistic self-representations: the mediational link between psychological control and adjustment. Pers Individ Dif . (2005) 38:487–98. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.008
7. Nelemans SA, Keijsers L, Colpin H, van Leeuwen K, Bijttebier P, Verschueren K, et al. Transactional links between social anxiety symptoms and parenting across adolescence: between- and within-person associations. Child Dev. (2019) 91:814–28. doi: 10.1111/cdev.13236
8. Barber BK, Harmon EL. Violating the Self: Parental Psychological Control of Children and Adolescents in: Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents. Washington: American Psychological Association (2004). p. 15–52. doi: 10.1037/10422-002
9. Smetana JG. Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs. Curr Opin Psychol. (2017) 15:19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.012
10. Beyers W, Goossens L. Emotional autonomy, psychosocial adjustment and parenting: Interactions, moderating and mediating effects. J Adolesc. (1999) 22:753–69. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0268
11. Kessler RC, Angermeyer M, Anthony JC, Graaf DE, Demyttenaere K, Gasquet I, et al. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization's World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry. (2007) 6:168–76. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593
12. Steinberg L, Morris AS. Adolescent development. Annu Rev Psychol. (2001) 52:83–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83
13. Smetana JG, Campione-Barr N, Metzger A. Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annu Rev Psychol. (2006) 57:255–84. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190124
14. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M. A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Dev Rev. (2010) 30:74–99. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2009.11.001
15. Grusec JE. Socialization processes in the family: social and emotional development. Annu Rev Psychol. (2011) 62:243–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131650
16. Hermans K, Achterhof R, Myin-Germeys I, Kasanova Z, Kirtley OJ, Schneider M. Improving ecological validity in research on social cognition. In: Lewandowski KE, Moustafa AA, editors. Social Cognition in Psychosis. Academic Press (2019). p. 249–68. Available online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128153154000100
17. Zaki J, Ochsner K. The need for a cognitive neuroscience of naturalistic social cognition. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (2009). 1167:16–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04601.x
18. Myin-Germeys I, Kasanova Z, Vaessen T, Vachon H, Kirtley OJ, Viechtbauer W, et al. Experience sampling methodology in mental health research: new insights and technical developments. World Psychiatry. (2018) 17:123–32. doi: 10.1002/wps.20513
19. Csikszentmihalyi M, Larson R. Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. J Nerv Ment Dis. (1987) 175:526–36. doi: 10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004
20. Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. (2008) 4:1–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415
21. Schacter HL, Margolin G. The interplay of friends and parents in adolescents' daily lives: towards a dynamic view of social support. Soc Dev. (2019) 28:708–24. doi: 10.1111/sode.12363
22. Achterhof R, Kirtley OJ, Schneider M, Hagemann N, Hermans K, Hiekkaranta AP, et al. General psychopathology and its social correlates in the daily lives of youth. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. (2021). doi: 10.31234/osf.io/95afu
23. Barrantes-Vidal N, Chun CA, Myin-Germeys I, Kwapil TR. Psychometric schizotypy predicts psychotic-like, paranoid, and negative symptoms in daily life. J Abnorm Psychol. (2013) 122:1077–87. doi: 10.1037/a0034793
24. Brown LH, Silvia PJ, Myin-Germeys I, Kwapil TR. When the need to belong goes wrong. Psychol Sci. (2007) 18:778–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01978.x
25. Brown LH, Strauman T, Barrantes-Vidal N, Silvia PJ, Kwapil TR. An experience-sampling study of depressive symptoms and their social context. J Nerv Ment Dis. (2011) 199:403–9. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e31821cd24b
26. Eun JD, Paksarian D, He J-P, Merikangas KR. Parenting style and mental disorders in a nationally representative sample of US adolescents. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2017) 53:11–20. doi: 10.1007/s00127-017-1435-4
27. Maxwell SE, Cole DA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychol Methods. (2007) 12:23–44. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23
28. Cole DA, Maxwell SE. Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. J Abnorm Psychol. (2003) 112:558–77. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558
29. Kirtley OJ, Achterhof R, Hagemann N, Hermans KSFM, Hiekkaranta AP, Lecei A, et al. Initial cohort characteristics and protocol for SIGMA: an accelerated longitudinal study of environmental factors, inter- and intrapersonal processes, and mental health in adolescence. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. (2021). doi: 10.31234/osf.io/jp2fk.
30. Sawyer SM, Azzopardi PS, Wickremarathne D, Patton GC. The age of adolescence. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. (2018) 2:223–8. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(18)30022-1.
31. Meers K, Dejonckheere E, Kalokerinos EK, Rummens K, Kuppens P. mobileQ: a free user-friendly application for collecting experience sampling data. Behav Res Methods. (2020) 52:1510–5. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/ynj7e.
32. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Luyckx K, Goossens L. Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: an integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Dev Psychol. (2006) 42:305–18. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.305.
33. Schaefer ES. A configurational analysis of children's reports of parent behavior. J Consult Psychol. (1965) 29:552–7. doi: 10.1037/h0022702.
34. Schludermann E, Schludermann S. Children's Report on Parent Behavior (CRPBI108, CRPBI-30) for Older Children and Adolescents. Winnipeg, MN (1988).
35. Grolnick WS, Ryan RM, Deci EL. Inner resources for school achievement: motivational mediators of children's perceptions of their parents. J Educ Psychol. (1991) 83:508–17. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.508.
36. Derogatis LR, Melisaratos N. The brief symptom inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med. (1983) 13:595–605. doi: 10.1017/S0033291700048017.
37. Piersma HL, Boes JL, Reaume WM. Unidimensionality of the brief symptom inventory (BSI) in adult and adolescent inpatients. J Pers Assess. (1994) 63:338–44. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6302_12.
38. Handal PJ, Gist D, Gilner FH, Searight HR. Preliminary validity for the langner symptom survey and the brief symptom inventory as mass-screening instruments for adolescent adjustment. J Clin Child Psychol. (1993) 22:382–6. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2203_9.
39. McGorry PD, Hartmann JA, Spooner R, Nelson B. Beyond the “at risk mental state” concept: transitioning to transdiagnostic psychiatry. World Psychiatry. (2018) 17:133–42. doi: 10.1002/wps.20514.
40. Preacher KJ, Zyphur MJ, Zhang Z. A General multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychol Methods. (2010) 15:209–33. doi: 10.1037/a0020141.supp.
41. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, et al. Welcome to the {tidyverse}. J Open Source Softw. (2019) 4:1686. doi: 10.21105/joss.01686.
42. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Core Team (2021).
43. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. (2012). 48:1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
44. Van Lissa CJ. tidySEM: A Tidy Workflow for Running, Reporting, and Plotting Structural Equation Models in Lavaan or Mplus. R Package Version 0.1.6. (2019). Available online at: https://github.com/cjvanlissa/tidySEM/
45. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag (2016).
46. Xie Y. knitr: A General-Purpose Package for Dynamic Report Generation in R (2021).
47. Lafit G, Adolf J, Dejonckheere E, Myin-Germeys I, Viechtbauer W, Ceulemans E. Selection of the number of participants in intensive longitudinal studies: a user-friendly shiny app and tutorial to perform power analysis in multilevel regression models that account for temporal dependencies. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci. (2020) 4:1–24. doi: 10.1177/2515245920978738.
48. Achterhof R, Schneider M, Kirtley OJ, Wampers M, Decoster J, Derom C, et al. Be(com)ing social: daily-life social interactions and parental bonding. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. (2020). doi: 10.31234/osf.io/xwkdq.
49. Pries L-K, Snijders C, Menne-Lothmann C, Decoster J, van Winkel R, Collip D, et al. TwinssCan — Gene-environment interaction in psychotic and depressive intermediate phenotypes: risk and protective factors in a general population twin sample. Twin Res Hum Genet. (2019) 22:460–6. doi: 10.1017/thg.2019.96.
50. Parker G, Tupling H, Brown LB. A parental bonding instrument. Br J Med Psychol. (1979) 52:1–10. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x.
51. Benning SD, Bachrach RL, Smith EA, Freeman AJ, Wright AGC. The registration continuum in clinical science: a guide toward transparent practices. J Abnorm Psychol. (2019) 128:528–40. doi: 10.1037/abn0000451.