EARA keynote 2016

Loes Keijsers

When one size doesn't fit all.  Heterogeneity in the dynamics between parenting and adolescent adaptation.

TEXTBOOK ADVICE

“My advice to parents, then, is straightforward:

Be warm. Be Firm. And be supportive” (p140)

Easier said than done [a mother’s report]

“Attempting to start a conversation resulted in eye rolling, emotional outbursts, and thoughts of running away.”

“And that was just me.”

Als de individuele dynamiek is ontrafeltGepersonaliseerde interventie

Interventie

‘Uni

vers

al p

aren

ting

advi

ce’

Non-effective

Effective

Biopsychosocial Ecological Models(Transactions: Child and Context Shape Each other]

From: Sameroff (2010)

From: Pluess (2015)

Transactional Parenting Processes[interactions]

OPEN THEORETICAL QUESTIONS• In how many families do general parenting

principles apply? • In how many families do other, perhaps even

opposing, parenting processes operate?• What are the characteristics of and (real-life)

processes in families in which the general principles do not apply?

How can we tailor advice to the individual family?

Are these really open questions?

Bringing the person back in psychology (Molenaar, 2003)• Mathematically, processes that

are studied at the between person level, may not be linked, nor representative for what happens within persons • Even when an identical process

takes place within each person • This discrepancy is especially likely

when individuals differ (i.e., heterogeneity) and the ‘system’ is in flux (i.e., non-stationary)

10

Studying the general laws [of dice]

In this example:Cross-sectional = LongitudinalBetween-dice = Within-dice

1 2 3 4 green 6 4 5 2 4.3purple 1 5 4 6 4.0red 1 1 3 4 2.3blue 3 4 6 4 4.3 2.8 3.5 4.5 4.0

11

What if homogeneity principle is violated?

1 2 3 4green 40 0 60 80 45.0purple 16 13 11 135 43.8red 40 20 60 -80 10.0blue 3 4 6 4 4.3

24.8 9.3 34.3 34.8

12

What if stationairity principle is violated?

1 2 3 4green 40 20 60 135 63.8purple 13 5 4 16 9.5red 0 -80 60 40 5.0blue 3 60 80 4 36.8

14.0 1.3 51.0 48.8

13

Homogeneous stationary units?

Analysing the between-person correlation [as is often done in epidemiological (longitudinal] approaches]

CONCLUSIONFaster typists make fewer errors compared to slower typists

Typing speed

Erro

rs

beginner

professional

Within-person processThe beginner

Typing speed

Erro

rs

CONCLUSIONThis typist makes fewer errors when she is slower

Within-person processThe professional

Erro

rs

Typing speed

CONCLUSIONThis typist makes fewer errors when he is slower

Ecological fallacyWithin-person process cannot be derived frombetween person-level analyses in this example

Erro

rs

beginner

professional

Typing speed

WRONG CONCLUSION:Typists make fewer errors when they speed up.

Within- vs. Between-Person Level Different question, different answer

Erro

rsbeginner

professional

Typing speed

Longitudinal data needed

THEORY-METHOD ASSUMPTIONS

- If parenting processes takes place at level of individual family- Isolating how parenting and adaptation are linked within-family may • Yield more accurate estimates of within-family process • Help to quantify heterogeneity in parenting processes

(without a need to a priori define moderators/sub-groups)

Other way of looking at it….• All stable confounding variables controlled for (e.g., personality traits,

parenting styles, SES)

Mountain or Molehill?[Are correlations / SEM okay for understanding parenting processes?]

Externalizing problems

Parenting & Adolescent MaladaptationBetween-family

(WHO IS AT RISK?)

Parenting styles(Baumrind; Steinberg)

• Adolescents with more authoritative parents (compared to their peers) engage in less delinquency (compared to peers)

Within-family(WHAT IS THE PROCESS?)

Reactance / Maturity gap(Brehm 1966; Moffit, 1993; Soenens et al)

• Adolescents engage in more delinquency in periods when their parents are stricter (compared to periods when their own parents are less strict)

Coercive cycles / Monitoring(Patterson; Dishion & McMahon, Stattin & Kerr)

• Adolescents engage in less delinquency in (or following) periods when their parents are stricter

Parenting & Adolescent Maladaptation

Hypothesis 1Parenting practices identified at between-family level may function differentially at within-person level

(e.g., Parenting style - monitoring literature vs. Reactance theory)

Mal

adap

tatio

n

Parenting practices (e.g., control)

Parenting & Adolescent Maladaptation

Hypothesis 2Within-family processes may be heterogeneous(e.g.,differential susceptibility accounts)

Hypothesis 3Heterogeneity is non-random: e.g., more positive effects of parenting with higher quality relationships(e.g., interaction between parenting style and practice; Darling & Steinberg, 1993)

Mal

adap

tatio

n

Parenting practices (e.g., control)

The level of the individual family unit

Cross-Lagged Panel Model [Keijsers, 2015]

Disclosure 1 Disclosure 2 Disclosure 3 Disclosure 4

Delinq 1 Delinq 2 Delinq 3 Delinq 4

27

Random Intercept-CLPM (Keijsers, 2015, model of Hamaker et al, 2015)

σ2 within persons

σ2 within persons

σ2 within persons

σ2 within persons

Delinq 1 Delinq 2 Delinq 3 Delinq 4

σ2 within persons

σ2 within persons

σ2 within persons

σ2 within persons

σ2 between persons

σ2 between persons

Disclosure 1 Disclosure 2 Disclosure 3 Disclosure 4

doi: 10.1177/0165025415592515

Heterogeneity in effects

Disclosure as Source of Maternal knowledge (Stattin & Kerr, 2000)

Unpeeling the layersBETWEEN-PERSON Disclosure Solicitation Control

One estimate .620 .098 .016

WITHIN PERSON Disclosure Solicitation Control

Average effect .253 .071 -.005

HETEROGENEITY Disclosure Solicitation Control

r > .50 6.1

.30 < r < .50 30.4 1.3 2.6

.10 < r < .30 49.1 19.3 17.6

-.10 < r < -.30 0.2 2.4 15.7

-.30 < r < -.50 0.2 5.6

BETWEEN-PERSON Disclosure Solicitation Control

One estimate .620 .098 .016

WITHIN PERSON Disclosure Solicitation Control

Average effect .253 .071 -.005

HETEROGENEITY Disclosure Solicitation Control

r > .50

.30 < r < .50

.10 < r < .30

-.10 < r < -.30

-.30 < r < -.50

BETWEEN-PERSON Disclosure Solicitation Control

One estimate .620 .098 .016

WITHIN PERSON Disclosure Solicitation Control

Average effect

HETEROGENEITY Disclosure Solicitation Control

r > .50

.30 < r < .50

.10 < r < .30

-.10 < r < -.30

-.30 < r < -.50 Keijsers, L., Voelkle, M., et al (in press). What drives developmental change in adolescent disclosure and maternal knowledge? Heterogeneity in within-family processes. Developmental Psychology

Internalizing problems

Grumpy or depressed?2013-2016

Parental support and depressive symptoms (between-person correlation, n = 225)

r =-.25

The level of the individual family unit

Parental support & depressed feeling (daily interval: n = 225, t = 21 -> 1822 observations)

Multilevel model (outcome = day-depression)

Value SE DF p (Intercept) 1.341 0.048 1596 0.000Support (fixed) -0.051 0.016 1596 0.002

Smaller

Parenting & Adolescent Maladaptation

Hypothesis 2Within-family processes may be heterogeneous(e.g.,differential susceptibility accounts; diathesis stress)De

pres

sive

feel

ings

Parental warmth

H2. Parental support & depressed feeling (daily diaries: n = 225, t = 21 -> 1822 observations)

Multilevel model (outcome = day-depression)

Value SE DF p

(Intercept) 1.341 0.048 1596 0.000Support (average) -0.051 0.016 1596 0.002Variance around .098 (SD)Effect Support

Variance

H2. Parental support and depressed feeling(daily diaries: n = 225 (15 shown); t = 21)

Text book example

What’s going on?

Real-time: t = 56 (7 d x 8); n = 1; ‘Textbook example’ Family 40

Real-time: t = 56 (7 d x 8); n = 1 Family 20 shown

Als de individuele dynamiek is ontrafeltGepersonaliseerde interventie

Interventie

‘Uni

vers

al p

aren

ting

advi

ce’

Non-effective

Effective

Points of Action

Theory

Method Practice

‘Mind the gap’

Pers

onal

ized

pare

nting

adv

ice

Und

erst

andi

ng fa

mily

-spe

cific

pro

cess

Tailoring care for depressed youth [first steps on a long road ahead]

Challenge 1. Early identification (Hiemstra, Keijsers, et al)

Week 1IDENTIFYING RISK

Grumpy Depressed

Daily stress

Challenging Coping(solve problem, seek support, find distraction)

Week 2-5INCREASING STRENGTH

Week 6IDENTIFYING RISK

Challenge 2. Early Intervention[Keijsers, Hillegers, et al]

Future directionsTHEORY• Addressing the ‘uniformity myth’

METHODS • Promises of a new research paradigm

PRACTICE• Will this approach help to build

theories or algorithms needed to personalize interventions in practice?

COLLABORATE? Loes.keijsers@uvt.nl