ehlrich friendships in the context of dual risk

8/12/2019 EHLRICH Friendships in the Context of Dual Risk

1/9


2/9

Self-perceptions and behavioral distress tolerance have beenlinked to a number of important outcomes, including substanceuse, eating disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms(Daughters, Lejuez, Kahler, Strong, & Brown, 2005 ; Vujanovic,Bernstein, & Litz, 2011 ). Most research on distress tolerance hasbeen focused on its role in the development and maintenance of

psychopathology ( Leyro et al., 2010 ). We propose that, in addition,distress tolerance is an important yet understudied capacity forcompetent social relationships, particularly during adolescencewhen individuals spend considerable amounts of time with peersand are likely to encounter experiences that elicit frustration anddistress. Further, distress tolerance may be particularly importantfor the quality of adolescents friendships, because these relation-ships become more emotionally significant across adolescence(Buhrmester & Furman, 1987 ). For instance, adolescents may feeldistressed when facing a conflict with a friend, or they may feelfrustrated when a friend breaks a promise to keep a secret. Whenthese experiences arise, adolescents responses to friends maydepend in part on their abilities to stay calm, despite feeling upsetor hurt (see Crick & Dodge, 1994 ; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000 ). Inother words, adolescents who can persist competently in socialinteractions even when hurt or distressed may have better friend-ships compared to adolescents who become overwhelmed andhave trouble managing their negative emotions when upset.

Parental Response to Distress and Friendship

Eisenberg, Fabes, and Murphy (1996) have speculated thatparents who respond negatively to their childrens emotions ulti-mately increase childrens negative affect and inhibit the develop-ment of competent emotion regulation strategies, thereby dimin-ishing childrens capacities for engaging in socially appropriateinteractions with others. A number of studies have found that

children whose experiences of distress are met with supportive andencouraging responses from parents have better social outcomesthan children whose parents respond to distress with punitive,dismissive, or other negative reactions (see Eisenberg, Cumber-land, & Spinrad, 1998 , for a review). For instance, in a cross-sectional study of children and preadolescents, Eisenberg et al.(1996) found that mothers reports of their minimizing responsesto their childrens distress were negatively associated with thechildrens social competence. Similarly, in a longitudinal study of children starting in preschool, parents minimizing, punitive, anddistress responses to their young childrens distress reliably pre-dicted teacher reports of boys (but not girls) poor social behaviorat ages 1012 ( Eisenberg et al., 1999 ).

Unfortunately, much of this research examining connectionsbetween parents responses to childrens emotions and childrenssocial relationships has been limited to studies with young childrenand preadolescents; much less is known about the ways in whichparents responses might relate to adolescents social relationships(Morris et al., 2007 ). This lack of focus on the role of parentalresponses to adolescents distress is not surprising, given therelatively small amount of time that adolescents spend with theirparents (i.e., fewer than 15% of their waking hours are spent withfamily members; Steinberg, 2008 ). Yet despite this limited timespent with family, adolescents family relationships remain animportant source of emotional support ( Collins & Laursen, 2004 ).Indeed, a central question of development concerns the ways in

which parents continue to play a role in adolescent development,and the present study examined the role of parents in relation toadolescents abilities to manage negative emotions.

The Present Study

We focused on the ways in which adolescent distress toleranceand parental response to adolescent distress might be associatedwith adolescents positive and negative friendship experiences. Todate, research has largely focused on how parental responses tochildrens emotions are associated with childrens social compe-tence or social functioning in the larger peer group (e.g., Abaied &Rudolph, 2011 ; Eisenberg et al., 1999 ; Eisenberg et al., 2000 ), and,to our knowledge, only one study has examined connections toyoung childrens dyadic friendship experiences ( McElwain, Hal-berstadt, & Volling, 2007 ). In contrast to young childrens friend-ships, adolescents friendships are characterized by increased emo-tional support, intimacy, and self-disclosure ( Berndt, 1982 ; Rubinet al., 2006 ). Given the central role of emotions in adolescentfriendships, it may be that adolescents difficulties in regulatingtheir emotions, as well as their experience with parents whorespond to their emotions with punitive and minimizing responses,have important connections to the quality of adolescents closefriendships. Notably, positive and negative friendship qualities areoften only modestly correlated (e.g., Berndt, 1996 ), so we exam-ined the ways in which parental responses to distress and adoles-cent distress tolerance may be differentially related to positive andnegative friendship experiences.

There are several ways that adolescents difficulties in toleratingdistress and parents harsh responses to adolescents emotionscould be related to adolescents best friendship experiences. First,these two risk factors could have unique associations to adoles-cents friendship experiences, thus representing additive sources of

risk for poor quality friendships. A second possibility is that thesetwo factors interact, such that adolescents best friendships can bebest understood by considering the interaction of the two risk factors. In turn, this interaction could manifest itself in severalways. One possibility is that adolescents with high distress toler-ance and parents who do not respond harshly may have better friendships than other adolescents, because they have both thecapacity to manage negative emotions as well as parents whoseacceptance of negative emotions makes the parents available tohelp their adolescents resolve any negative emotions that they doexperience. In other words, these adolescents have two protectivefactors that, together, provide synergistic benefits to adolescentssocial relationships. These adolescents, given their history of in-teractions with parents in which negative emotions were acknowl-edged and resolved within a calm, supportive context, may beparticularly patient and slow to act destructively during the inev-itable difficult times with friends.

Another possible way in which these two factors could interactis that when adolescents have both low distress tolerance andparents who respond punitively to these emotions, they act in waysthat are harmful for the friendship (e.g., a dual-risk model of influence; see Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn,2007). Low distress tolerant adolescents may have the greatestneed for sensitive parents to help them manage their negativeemotions, and, when met with dismissing and punitive parentalresponses, these adolescents may have few resources available to

Thisarticleisintendedsolelyforthepersonaluseoftheindividualuserandisnottobedisseminatedbroadly.

844 EHRLICH, CASSIDY, GORKA, LEJUEZ, AND DAUGHTERS


3/9

regulate their emotions. The present study was designed to explorethe ways in which adolescent distress tolerance and parental re-sponses to adolescent distress uniquely and interactively predictadolescents experiences with their best friends.

Our initial hypotheses relate to main effects of adolescent dis-tress tolerance and harsh parental responses to adolescent distress.

We hypothesized that adolescents who displayed low distresstolerance would be more likely to report poorer friendships, rela-tive to adolescents who had higher distress tolerance. We furtherhypothesized that minimizing and punitive responses from parentswould be negatively associated with the quality of adolescentsfriendship experiences. Finally, we explored the interaction be-tween adolescents distress tolerance and parents harsh responsesto adolescent distress as risk factors for adolescents friendshipqualities. Because of the various ways that adolescents friendshipqualities may depend on the joint influence of harsh parentalresponses and poor regulation of negative emotions, we did notform specific hypotheses about the nature of the interaction. In-stead, we took an exploratory approach to examine whether ado-lescents friendship qualities could be best predicted by the inter-action of harsh parental responses and adolescents emotionregulation.

Method

Participants

Participants included 161 adolescents (age range: 1418 years; M 16.1 years, SD .99; 56% girls) and their primary caregiver(145 mothers, 14 fathers, 2 other), who participated in a largercross-sectional study examining connections between distress tol-erance and adolescent behavior outcomes. Families were recruitedin a large metropolitan area through newspaper advertisements and

mailings sent to guardians in local public high schools. The samplewas racially diverse, matching the community from which it wasdrawn. The majority of adolescents reported that they were AfricanAmerican or Black (54.2%) or White (26.8%), with remainingadolescents classifying themselves as Asian (3.9%), Hispanic(2.0%), Native American (0.6%), or other (12.4%) (includingadolescents who reported more than one race). Just over half of adolescents (54%) lived in a home with both biological parents.The mean annual household income was $86,328 ( SD $47,719).For the current study, adolescents received compensation rangingfrom $25$35, depending on whether they quit the distress toler-ance tasks early. Parents received $40 for their participation in thelarger study.

Measures

Adolescent distress tolerance. Adolescents participated intwo nonsocial distress tolerance tasks, which are designed to tapadolescent persistence in goal-directed behavior in the context of adistressing or frustrating experience. These tasks have been shownto induce temporary affective distress without long-term negativeeffects ( Daughters, Lejuez, Bornovalova, et al., 2005 ). Participantswith high distress tolerance are thought to be better able to with-stand these negative emotions in order to complete the tasks, incontrast to low distress individuals, who quit the tasks earlypresumably to escape the negative affect they experienced during

the task. In the computerized version of the Mirror Tracing Per-sistence Task (MTPT-C; Daughters, Lejuez, Bornovalova, et al.,2005; Quinn, Brandon, & Copeland, 1996 ), adolescents wereasked to trace a red dot along the outline of several shapes usinga computer mouse. The further along the shapes they were able totrace, the more points they earned. However, the mouses typical

operating function was reversed, such that cursor movements tothe left resulted in dot movements on the screen to the right andvice versa, thereby increasing the tasks difficulty. In addition, if aparticipant moved the cursor outside the lines of the shape, or didnot move the mouse for more than 2 s, they heard a loud buzzingsound and the cursor moved back to the starting point. The outlinebecame progressively thinner as participants traced, making thetask virtually impossible to complete. The task included threelevels of increasing difficulty. During the first level, participantswere shown a straight line that was relatively easy to trace. Duringthe second level, participants were asked to trace a right angle,which was considered to be of moderate difficulty. Following abrief rest period, participants completed the third level, which wasa difficult star shape. This level lasted up to 7 min, and participantswere told that they could quit this level at any point by pressing akey on the keyboard. However, participants were told that theirperformance on the task would determine the size of their paymentat the end of the session.

The second distress tolerance task, the computerized PacedAuditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT-C; Diehr, Heaton, Miller,& Grant, 1998 ; Lejuez, Kahler, & Brown, 2003 ), measures per-sistence on a challenging number-addition task that has reliablybeen shown to increase distress levels ( Daughters, Lejuez, Kahler,et al., 2005 ; Daughters, Sargeant, Bornovalova, Gratz, & Lejuez,2008; Daughters et al., 2009 ). During this task, numbers arepresented sequentially on a computer screen, and participants areasked to add the current number on the screen to the previously

presented number, and then to use the computers mouse to click on the correct response (shown on a number line on the screen)before the presentation of the subsequent number. The options forresponding ranged from 120, which reduced the impact of math-ematical skill on task performance. For each correct answer, par-ticipants heard a pleasant bell sound, and one point was added totheir score. For each incorrect answer or when they did not makea response, no point was added to their score and they heard anaversive explosion sound. The task consisted of three levels thatincreased in difficulty. Level 1 was the titration phase (5 min),which was used to determine participants ability levels; thismeasure of performance was used to control for the effects of skillon later trials, thereby increasing the likelihood that the task wasdistressing to all participants. Level 2 was the stress phase (5 min),which was more difficult than Level 1. For the first 4 min of Level2, the trials were presented at the average latency of participantsLevel 1 performance. During the final minute of this phase, thetrials were presented at half the latency of the previous 4 min,making the task much more difficult. Following a brief rest period,participants completed Level 3, which was the distress tolerancephase. This phase lasted up to 7 min, and like the mirror tracingtask, participants had the option to terminate the task early. Duringthe stress phase and the distress tolerance phase, the amount of time between number presentations exceeded the participants skilllevel, thereby forcing task failure and inducing distress. Partici-pants were given the option to terminate the task at any time during


845ADOLESCENT PEER RELATIONSHIPS AND DUAL RISK


4/9

Level 3 by clicking on a quit button in the upper left hand cornerof the screen. However, participants were also told that theirperformance on the task determined the size of their payment at theend of the session. Before participants started the distress tolerancetasks, they rated their baseline level of negative affect (includingtheir anxiety, frustration, difficulty concentrating, physical dis-

comfort, and irritability) on a scale ranging from 1 ( none ) to 100(extreme ). Participants later completed the same scale after thesecond level of the second task, which was then used to create achange in affective distress score. This posttask rating was com-pleted after Level 2, rather than Level 3, to reduce potentialconfounds associated with task duration during the distress toler-ance phase.

Participants performance during the distress tolerance phase of the two tasks was correlated ( r .31, p .001). Interestingly, themajority (78.3%) of participants quit at least one task early. APearson chi-square test indicated that more participants quit theMTPT-C ( n 121, 75.2%) than the PASAT-C ( n 58, 36.0%),

2 (1) 12.78, p .001, suggesting that participants found the

MTPT-C to be more difficult than the PASAT-C.Although distress tolerance can be examined either as a cate-gorical variable (whether participants quit the tasks early) or as acontinuous variable (latency to task termination), examination of participants total time scores across the two tasks revealed that alarge number of participants received the most extreme score onthe distribution (22% of participants persisted the entire time onboth tasks). This distribution pattern suggests that our assessmentof distress tolerance reflects the presence of two groups ( MacCa-llum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002 ; Rugg & Petre, 2007 ). Assuch, we created a dichotomous distress tolerance variable thatseparated participants who persisted on at least one task (highdistress tolerance, n 108) from participants who quit both tasksearly (low distress tolerance, n 53). With this approach, we wereable to examine differences between the least distress-tolerantadolescents and adolescents who demonstrated at least some evi-dence of distress tolerance by persisting to completion on at leastone task.

Parental responses to adolescent distress. Parents com-pleted the Coping with Childrens Negative Emotions Scale Ado-lescent Version (Fabes & Eisenberg, 1998 ). Parents were asked torespond to nine hypothetical situations in which their adolescentmay experience distress (e.g., adolescent becomes angry at afriend). For each situation, parents reported their likelihood of responding in six different ways (e.g., emotionally supportive,minimizing, etc.) using a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 ( veryunlikely ) to 7 (very likely ). Because we were interested in harshparental responses to adolescent distress, we followed the proce-dure by Fabes, Leonard, Kupanoff, and Martin (2001) and calcu-lated a mean Harsh Parental Responses to Adolescent Distresssummary score ( .73) from parents responses on the subscalesfor minimizing responses (e.g., telling the adolescent to stop over-reacting) and punitive responses (e.g., punishing the adolescent forexpressing negative emotion). The correlation for the subscaleswas significant ( r .61, p .001). Previous research with the12-item Child Version of this scale has found it to be reliable, andfound that mothers harsh responses were negatively related toteachers reports of childrens coping and social competence(Fabes et al., 2001 ).

Friendship quality. Adolescents reported about their closestsame-sex friendship using the Network of Relationships Inventory(NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985 ), a 30-item questionnaire thatmeasures perceptions of social support and negative interactions inrelationships. The NRI contains 10 conceptually distinct 5-pointsubscales, which typically load onto three factors, including pos-

itivity, negativity, and relative power, as they did in the presentstudy (subscale factor loadings range across factors: .72.96).Connolly and Konarski (1994) found this scale to have goodinternal consistency and testretest reliability. Furman (1996) re-ported that friends reports on this scale are moderately to highlycorrelated, and that scores are associated with behavioral observa-tions of friend dyads. Because we were only interested in adoles-cents perceptions of positivity and negativity in their friendships,and because there was almost no variability in adolescents per-ceptions of relative power in the friendship (over 80% of theadolescents reported that power in the friendship was evenlybalanced), we did not include relative power as an outcome vari-able in the present study. We created a mean Positivity in Friend-ship score ( .91) from the following subscales: Companion-ship, Nurturance, Instrumental aid, Intimacy, Affection,Admiration, and Reliable alliance (e.g., share secrets and privatefeelings) and a mean Negativity in Friendship score ( .86) byaveraging responses on the Conflict and Antagonism subscales(e.g., hassle or nag one another).

Procedure

Data were collected as part of a larger study for which allprocedures took place during a single 2-hr laboratory visit. Theuniversity institutional review board approved all study materialsand procedures. Parents and adolescents provided written informedconsent and assent, respectively. Questionnaire measures were

completed first, followed by the distress tolerance tasks. The orderof the distress tolerance tasks was randomized across participants.

Results

Data analysis focused on whether adolescent distress toleranceand parental responses to adolescent distress were associated withadolescents best friendship experiences. In addition, we examinedwhether the interaction between adolescent distress tolerance andparental responses was predictive of adolescents friendships. Wepresent descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the studyvariables in Table 1 .

Preliminary AnalysesMissing data. Of the 161 families who participated in the

study, 143 families had complete data. Analyses using Littlesmissing completely at random test indicated that data were missingcompletely at random, 2 (29) 25.89, p .63. Missing valueswere imputed using the expectation maximization algorithm tocreate 40 complete datasets, which were then used to computeestimates of the parameters (see Graham, Olchowski, & Gilreath,2007).

Descriptive statistics. We conducted preliminary analyses toexamine systematic differences in adolescents distress toleranceand parents reports of harsh parental responses to adolescent




5/9

distress and friendship quality. No gender differences emerged foradolescents who quit versus persisted on at least one distresstolerance task ( p .7). To examine potential race differences, wefirst coded adolescents as being either White (self-reported Cau-casian), Black (self-reported African American), or other (Asian,Hispanic, Native American, other, or mixed race). Using this

dummy-coded race variable, we conducted a 3 2 (Race [White,Black, other] Distress Tolerance [high, low]) chi-square test thatrevealed race was related to distress tolerance, 2 (2, n 153)8.14, p .017. Follow-up comparisons revealed that White andBlack adolescents did not differ in their distress tolerance perfor-mance, 2 (1, n 126) 1.94, p .16, but other minorityadolescents were more likely to quit both tasks compared to bothWhite adolescents 2 (1, n 68) 8.05, p .005, and Black adolescents 2 (1, n 112) 3.95, p .047. A paired t testindicated a significant increase in affective distress during thedistress tolerance tasks, t (154) 11.16, p .001, indicatingthat, as expected, adolescents found the tasks to be psychologicallydistressing. Although no gender differences emerged in adoles-cents pre- or postdistress tolerance task ratings of affective dis-tress, girls had a greater change in distress ratings ( M 15.67,SD 16.06) compared to boys ( M 10.83, SD 12.96), t (147)

1.99, p .048. No other differences emerged in distresstolerance task performance.

Parents reports of harsh parental responses differed as a func-tion of adolescent race, F (2, 150) 6.35, p .002. Bonferronipost hoc comparisons of the three race groups (White, Black,other) revealed that parents of White adolescents ( M 2.30), 95%confidence interval (CI) [2.01, 2.59], reported fewer harsh re-sponses than parents of Black adolescents ( M 2.90), 95% CI[2.70, 3.10], p .003, and also fewer harsh responses than parentsof adolescents in the other race group ( M 2.92), 95% CI [2.56,3.27], p .026, but reports from parents of Black adolescents didnot differ from those of the parents of other minority adolescents( p 1.0). Parents responses did not differ as a function of adolescents age or gender ( ps .20), but harsh parental responseswere negatively associated with families total income, r (106)

.23, p .02.Adolescents reported more positivity ( M 3.62, SD .78) than

negativity ( M 1.66, SD .68) in their friendships, t (153) 22.33, p .001. Girls ( M 3.74, SD .80) reported morepositivity in their friendships than boys reported ( M 3.46, SD.74), t (153) 2.09, p .036; girls and boys did not differ in theamount of friendship negativity reported. No racial differences inadolescent reports of friendship quality emerged.

Inclusion of Covariates

No significant relations emerged between adolescents friend-ships and adolescents age, race, or family income; as such, thesedemographic variables were not included in subsequent analyses.Similarly, change in affective distress ratings was unrelated toparticipants distress tolerance, and change in distress ratings andskill during the tasks were unrelated to the outcome variables of interest ( ps .05); as such, these variables were not included ascovariates. Because adolescent boys and girls differed in theirperceptions of friendship positivity, we included gender as a co-variate in this analysis.

Data Analysis Overview

Following Aiken and West (1991) , we mean-centered our con-tinuous predictor variable (harsh parental responses) and usedhierarchical regressions to test for main and interaction effects. Weused a log-transformation to normalize the positively skewed

negative friendship variable.1

We added adolescent gender as acovariate in Step 1, followed by the main predictors (i.e., adoles-cent distress tolerance and harsh parental response to distress) inStep 2. In Step 3, we included the Adolescent Distress Tolerance

Harsh Parental Response to Distress interaction term to examineinteraction effects. We probed interaction effects that were signif-icant at p .05 in two ways. First, we examined distress toleranceas a moderator of the link between parental responses to distressand friendship, and tested whether the simple slopes of the highand low distress tolerance groups differed significantly from zero(Aiken & West, 1991 ). Then, we examined harsh parental re-sponses to distress as a moderator of the link between distresstolerance and friendship using the Johnson Neyman technique

(see Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006 ). This technique for probinginteractions is preferable when the moderator variable is continu-ous because it provides meaningful values of the moderator (re-gions of significance) for which the simple slope of the regressionline is significant. In other words, this technique allowed us toexamine the level of harsh parental responses to distress at whichthe link between distress tolerance and adolescent friendship qual-ity becomes significant.

1 Analyses were also conducted using the nontransformed outcomevariables, and they were virtually identical to the findings using thelog-transformed variables.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables

Variable M SD Range 1 2 3 4 5

1. Adolescent gender 01 .03 .09 .18 .122. Adolescent distress tolerance 01 .13 .10 .15

3. Harsh parental responses 2.75 0.96 1.115.61 .14 .104. Positivity in the friendship 3.62 0.78 1.004.95 .105. Negativity in the friendship 1.66 0.68 1.004.00

Note . Adolescent gender coded as 0 female , 1 male . Adolescent distress tolerance coded as 0 persisted on at least one task , 1 quit both tasks . p .10. p .05.




6/9

Prediction of Adolescent Perceptions of Friendship

Positivity in the friendship. As shown in Table 2 , harshparental responses to adolescent distress were marginally nega-tively associated with reports of positive friendship experiences.However, a significant Adolescent Distress Tolerance HarshParental Response to Adolescent Distress interaction emerged.Probing the interaction revealed that, for adolescents with highdistress tolerance, there was no association between harsh parentalresponses and adolescents perceptions of positivity in their bestfriendships, .01, t (144) 0.09, p .93. For adolescents withlow distress tolerance, however, harsh parental responses werenegatively associated with reports of positivity, .29,t (144) 2.83, p .005 (see Figure 1). Further, for adolescentswhose parents harsh responses to distress were above 3.35 (41.6%of the sample had scores in this range), distress tolerance wasnegatively associated with adolescents reports of positivity in thefriendship.

Negativity in the friendship. No significant main effects orinteractions emerged in the prediction of adolescents negativeperceptions of friendship (see Table 2 ).

Discussion

The goal of the present study was to examine the ways in whichadolescent distress tolerance and parental response to adolescentdistress were associated with adolescents positive and negativefriendship experiences. Findings revealed that neither low distresstolerance nor harsh parental responses to distress were directlyassociated with adolescents positive and negative friendship ex-periences. Only when adolescents had low distress tolerance wereharsh parental responses negatively associated with positive per-ceptions about adolescents best friendships. Further, only whenparents harsh responses were elevated was distress tolerancenegatively associated with positive perceptions of friendship. In-terestingly, however, we did not find support for the notion thatadolescents with high distress tolerance and parents who avoid

harsh responses to adolescent distress would have better friend-ships than other adolescents. Future research should examine otherparentchild relationship qualities and aspects of emotion regula-tion that might be associated with high-quality social relationships.

The capacity to tolerate distress could buffer adolescents fromthe negative friendship characteristics that may otherwise be as-sociated with harsh parental responses, and, similarly, supportiveparental responses may buffer adolescents who have low distresstolerance. For example, when upset or hurt by a best friend, thecapacity to stay calm rather than to become distressed may enableadolescents to discuss their feelings with friends constructively,rather than behave in ways that are destructive to the friendshipeven when adolescents experience harsh parental behaviors in thehome. Yet even adolescents with low distress tolerance, when theyhave parents who avoid harsh responses to their distress, may beable to maintain positive friendships (perhaps through skills theyhave learned within the parentchild relationship). Future work should examine the mechanisms through which supportive re-sponses to distress serve as a buffer for low distress tolerantadolescents friendships.

Interestingly, adolescents perceptions about negativity in thefriendship were not associated with adolescent distress tolerance,parental responses to distress, or the interaction of these twofactors. One reason for the different pattern of results across thetwo friendship quality assessments may be due to relatively lowlevels of negative perceptions in the sample. Because adolescents

Table 2 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Friendship Quality From Adolescent Distress Tolerance and Harsh Parental Responses to Adolescent Distress

Step

Positivity friendship experiences Negativity friendship experiences

b SE R2 b SE R2

Step 1 .03Adolescent gender .26 .13

Step 2 .03 .02HPR .11 .07 .01 .02Adolescent DT .15 .13 .05 .03

Step 3 .03 .00Adolescent DT HPR .28 .13 .00 .03

Note . Unstandardized regressions are from the variables entry into the model. Adolescent distress tolerance coded as 0 persisted on at least one task ,1 quit both tasks . Adolescent gender coded as 0 female , 1 male . HPR harsh parental responses; DT distress tolerance. p .10. p .05. p .01.

Figure 1. Joint effect of harsh parental responses to distress and adoles-cent distress tolerance on adolescent-reported positive friendship experi-ence.




7/9

were reporting about a best friend and not their friendships ingeneral, it is likely that we captured a restricted range of negativefriendship perceptions. Nevertheless, we believe that negativefriendship qualities warrant examination in future studies. Forexample, it may be that adolescent distress tolerance and parentalresponses to distress are associated with subtle differences in

negative behaviors with best friends (e.g., hostility, conflict) thatadolescents do not necessarily recognize when self-reporting aboutthese qualities in their friendships. Indeed, there is evidence thatadolescents report on their friendships in systematically biasedways (Ehrlich, Cassidy, Lejuez, & Daughters, in press ); observa-tions of friend dyads would allow researchers to circumvent lim-itations resulting from informant biases.

We hypothesized that there would be a direct link betweenparental response to distress and adolescents friendship quality.The lack of a direct association between parental responses todistress and friendship quality is consistent with findings from theonly study (to our knowledge) to examine this link in youngchildren ( McElwain et al., 2007 ). In this study, mothers andfathers reports of harsh responses to their preschoolers distresswere unrelated to childrens observed behaviors with friends dur-ing structured laboratory tasks. Future research should examinewhether young childrens emotion regulation abilities interact withharsh parental responses to predict the quality of childrens friend-ships, as we found in our adolescent sample. This research willhelp shed light on questions about continuity (vs. discontinuity)across development in factors associated with friendships.

Although we did not identify direct links between distresstolerance and friendship quality, researchers interested in adoles-cent friendships should consider the ways in which distress toler-ance may be directly related to other aspects of friendship, such aslong-term stability and relationship maintenance. If adolescentswith low distress tolerance have trouble staying calm when upset

with a best friend and therefore come to view their friends as lesssupportive, they may have a reduced capacity to maintain thefriendship over the long term. Our choice of methods for measur-ing distress tolerance and friendship quality might explain the lack of direct links in the present study. Indeed, examination of linksbetween friendship qualities and distress tolerance observed duringa nonsocial computer task may be considered a particularly strin-gent test of our hypotheses about the importance of distress toler-ance for adolescents social relationships. Finally, direct linksbetween adolescents distress tolerance and their friendship expe-riences might emerge in future studies if researchers incorporateother ways of examining friendships, such as friend reports andbehavioral observations.

Study Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The present study extends previous research by providing abroader picture of the ways in which adolescents individual andfamily characteristics are associated with adolescents positive andnegative friendship experiences. This study also extends previousresearch by examining the ways in which adolescent distresstolerance might be associated with other outcomes beyond psy-chopathology and substance use, which have been the primary fociof distress tolerance research to date (e.g., Brown, Lejuez, Kahler,& Strong, 2002 ; Daughters et al., 2008 ; Leyro et al., 2010;MacPherson et al., 2010 ). Future work should examine connec-

tions between adolescent distress tolerance and other indices of adolescents social functioning, such as their observed behaviorswith friends, their social status in the peer group, and their roman-tic relationships.

The racial diversity of the present sample constitutes a signifi-cant extension of previous research examining parental responses

to distress and adolescent distress tolerance. Yet, although we hadsignificant racial diversity, our sample included mainly middle-class families, and future work should examine connections amongadolescent social functioning, distress tolerance, and parent re-sponses to distress in a sample with greater socioeconomic statusdiversity. Such examinations would allow for consideration of therole of environmental factors that could put extra strain on parents,and the ways in which parental stressors may be related to howparents respond to their adolescents distress.

In the present study, we used unique informants to assessparental responses to distress (parents) and friendships (adoles-cents) to minimize the possibility of spurious effects due to singleinformant bias. Nevertheless, for each of these constructs, werelied on single informants (i.e., parents or adolescents) to reportabout their relationship experiences. Given the limitations inherentin informant self-reports (Achenbach, 2006 ), it will be important toextend this research by using other assessments of parent adoles-cent and peer relationships, such as behavioral observations. Infact, we know little about how well parental reports of theirresponses to adolescent distress map on to their actual behavior,and it will be informative to study how closely related these reportsare to observable behavior. Further, our use of a behavioral mea-sure of distress tolerance allowed us to observe what adolescentsdo when they experience negative emotions, rather than rely ontheir reports of how they respond to distressing experiences, whichcan be biased ( Robinson & Clore, 2002 ). An additional opportu-nity for future research will be to incorporate a family systems

perspective to examine how mothers and fathers differentiallyrespond to adolescent distress, and to examine the extent to whichmaternal and paternal behaviors have similar versus unique asso-ciations with adolescent social functioning (e.g., Grotevant, 1998 ;Parke, 2004 ). It may be that one parents responses are morestrongly related to adolescents social functioning, and compari-sons of mothers and fathers responses will allow for examinationof whether parental responses can exert buffering or exacerbatingeffects (e.g., whether a supportive father can offset the negativeinfluence of a harsh mother). Finally, we used a cross-sectionalstudy design in the current study, and longitudinal study de-signsof the sort we are currently conducting in our laboratorywill contribute to an understanding of the ways in which distress

tolerance and parental responses to distress change over time, andwhether changes in individual and parent factors are associatedwith changes in social functioning.

References

Abaied, J. L., & Rudolph, K. D. (2011). Maternal influences on youthresponses to peer stress. Developmental Psychology, 47, 17761785.doi:10.1037/a0025439

Achenbach, T. M. (2006). As others see us: Clinical and research impli-cations of cross-informant correlations for psychopathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 9498. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00414.x


http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025439http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00414.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00414.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00414.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00414.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025439


8/9

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007).For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmentalinfluences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 300304.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x

Berndt, T. J. (1982). The features and effects of friendship in earlyadolescence. Child Development, 53, 14471460. doi:10.2307/1130071

Berndt, T. J. (1996). Exploring the effects of friendship quality on socialdevelopment. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup(Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adoles-cence (pp. 346365). New York, NY: Cambridge University.

Brown, R. A., Lejuez, C. W., Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R. (2002). Distresstolerance and duration of past smoking attempts. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 111, 180185. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.111.1.180

Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companion-ship and intimacy. Child Development, 58, 11011113. doi:10.2307/ 1130550

Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parent-adolescent relationships andinfluences. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of ado-lescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 331361). New York, NY: Wiley.

Connolly, J. A., & Konarski, R. (1994). Peer self-concept in adolescence:Analysis of factor structure and of associations with peer experience. Journa l of Research on Adolescence, 4, 385403. doi:10.1207/ s15327795jra0403_3

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of socialinformation-processing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment.Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74101. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74

Daughters, S. B., Lejuez, C. W., Bornovalova, M. A., Kahler, C. W.,Strong, D. R., & Brown, R. A. (2005). Distress tolerance as a predictorof early treatment dropout in a residential substance abuse treatmentfacility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 729734. doi:10.1037/ 0021-843X.114.4.729

Daughters, S. B., Lejuez, C. W., Kahler, C. W., Strong, D. R., & Brown,R. A. (2005). Psychological distress tolerance and duration of mostrecent abstinence attempt among residential treatment-seeking substanceabusers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 208211. doi:10.1037/ 0893-164X.19.2.208

Daughters, S. B., Reynolds, E. K., MacPherson, L., Kahler, C. W., Dan-ielson, C. K., Zvolensky, M., & Lejuez, C. W. (2009). Distress toleranceand early adolescent externalizing and internalizing symptoms: Themoderating role of gender and ethnicity. Behaviour Research and Ther-apy, 47, 198205. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.12.001

Daughters, S. B., Sargeant, M., Bornovalova, M. A., Gratz, K. L., &Lejuez, C. W. (2008). The relationship between distress tolerance andantisocial personality disorder among male residential treatment seekinginner-city substance users. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 509524. doi:10.1521/pedi.2008.22.5.509

Diehr, M. C., Heaton, R. K., Miller, W., & Grant, I. (1998). The PacedAuditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT): Norms for age, education, andethnicity. Assessment, 5, 375387. doi:10.1177/107319119800500407

Ehrlich, K. B., Cassidy, J., Lejuez, C. W., & Daughters, S. B. (in press).Discrepancies about adolescent relationships as a function of informantattachment and depressive symptoms. Journal of Research on Adoles-cence .

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental social-ization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241273. doi:10.1207/ s15327965pli0904_1

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1994). Mothers reactions to childrensnegative emotions: Relations to childrens temperament and anger be-havior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 138156.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Disposi-tional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of

social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,136157. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.136

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Parents reactions tochildrens negative emotions: Relations to childrens social competenceand comforting behavior. Child Development, 67, 22272247. doi:10.2307/1131620

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C.,& Reiser, M. (1999). Parental reactions to childrens negative emotions:Longitudinal relations to quality of childrens social functioning. Child Development, 70, 513534. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00037

Fabes, R. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1998). The Coping with Childrens Nega-tive Emotions Scale Adolescent Perception Version: Procedures and scoring . Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

Fabes, R. A., Leonard, S. A., Kupanoff, K., & Martin, C. (2001). Parentalcoping with childrens negative emotions: Relations with childrensemotional and social responding. Child Development, 72, 907920.doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00323

Furman, W. (1996). The measurement of friendship perceptions: Concep-tual and methodological issues. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, &W. W. Hartup (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendships in childhood and adolescence (pp. 4165). New York, NY: Cambridge University

Press.Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Childrens perceptions of thepersonal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 21, 10161024. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016

Graham, J. W., Olchowski, A. E., & Gilreath, T. D. (2007). How manyimputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multipleimputation theory. Prevention Science, 8, 206213. doi:10.1007/ s11121-007-0070-9

Grotevant, H. D. (1998). Adolescent development in family contexts. In W.Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol 3:Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 10971149). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lejuez, C. W., Kahler, C. W., & Brown, R. A. (2003). A modifiedcomputer version of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT)as a laboratory-based stressor. The Behavior Therapist, 26, 290293.

Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated model of emotionprocesses and cognition in social information processing. Child Devel-opment, 71, 107118. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00124

Leyro, T. M., Zvolensky, M. J., & Bernstein, A. (2010). Distress toleranceand psychopathological symptoms and disorders: A review of the em-pirical literature among adults. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 576600.doi:10.1037/a0019712

MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). Onthe practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 1940. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19

MacPherson, L., Reynolds, E. K., Daughters, S. B., Wang, F., Cassidy, J.,Mayes, L. C., & Lejuez, C. W. (2010). Positive and negative reinforce-ment underlying risk behavior in early adolescence. Prevention Science,11, 331342. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0172-7

McElwain, N. L., Halberstadt, A. G., & Volling, B. L. (2007). Mother- andfather-reported reactions to childrens negative emotions: Relations toyoung childrens emotional understanding and friendship quality. Child Development, 78, 14071425. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01074.x

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 emotionregulation. Social Development, 16, 361388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x

Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (2004).Concurrent and across time prediction of young adolescents socialfunctioning: The role of emotionality and regulation. Social Develop-ment, 13, 5686. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00257.x

Parke, R. D. (2004). Development in the family. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 55, 365399. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141528


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130071http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.1.180http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130550http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130550http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0403_3http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0403_3http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.729http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.729http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.2.208http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.2.208http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.5.509http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107319119800500407http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.136http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131620http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131620http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00037http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00323http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00124http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019712http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0172-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01074.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00257.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141528http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141528http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.00257.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01074.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0172-7http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019712http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00124http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1016http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00323http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00037http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131620http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131620http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.136http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107319119800500407http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.5.509http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.12.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.2.208http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.2.208http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.729http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.729http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0403_3http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0403_3http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130550http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130550http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.1.180http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130071http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x


9/9

Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Erath, S. A., Wojslawowicz, J. C., & Buskirk,A. A. (2006). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: Adevelopmental psychopathology perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J.Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Vol. 1: Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 419493). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational toolsfor probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevelmodeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behav-ioral Statistics, 31, 437448. doi:10.3102/10769986031004437

Quinn, E. P., Brandon, T. H., & Copeland, A. L. (1996). Is task persistencerelated to smoking and substance abuse? The application of learnedindustriousness theory to addictive behaviors. Experimental and ClinicalPsychopharmacology, 4, 186190. doi:10.1037/1064-1297.4.2.186

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: Evidence foran accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin,128, 934960. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions,relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571645). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Rugg, G., & Petre, M. (2007). A gentle guide to research methods . NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Fabes, R. A., Valiente, C.,Shepard, S. A. . . . Guthrie, I. K. (2006). Relation of emotion-relatedregulation to childrens social competence: A longitudinal study. Emo-tion, 6, 498510. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.498

Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescence (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Vujanovic, A. A., Bernstein, A., & Litz, B. T. (2011). Distress tolerance

and traumatic stress. In M. J. Zvolensky, A. Bernstein, & A. A. Vu- janovic (Eds.), Distress tolerance: Theory, research, and clinical appli-cations (pp. 126148). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zvolensky, M. J., Vujanovic, A. A., Bernstein, A., & Leyro, T. (2010).Distress tolerance: Theory, measurement, and relations to psychopathol-ogy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 406410. doi:10.1177/0963721410388642

Received December 11, 2011Revision received February 22, 2013

Accepted March 5, 2013


http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.4.2.186http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.498http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388642http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388642http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388642http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721410388642http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.498http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.4.2.186http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437

ehlrich friendships in the context of dual risk

Documents