Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Tuning in to teens: Improving parental responses to anger and

reducing youth externalizing behavior problems
Sophie S. Havighurst*, Christiane E. Kehoe, Ann E. Harley
Mindful: Centre for Training and Research in Developmental Health, University of Melbourne, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 25 May 2015

Parent emotion socialization plays an important role in shaping emotional and behavioral
development during adolescence. The Tuning in to Teens (TINT) program aims to improve
parents' responses to young people's emotions with a focus on teaching emotion coaching.
This study examined the efcacy of the TINT program in improving emotion socialization
practices in parents and whether this reduced family conict and youth externalizing
difculties. Schools were randomized into intervention and control conditions and 225
primary caregiving parents and 224 youth took part in the study. Self-report data was
collected from parents and youth during the young person's nal year of elementary
school and again in their rst year of secondary school. Multilevel analyses showed signicant improvements in parent's impulse control difculties and emotion socialization, as
well as signicant reductions in family conict and youth externalizing difculties. This
study provides support for the TINT program in reducing youth externalizing behavior
problems.
2015 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Externalizing behavior problems
Emotion socialization
Adolescence
Parenting intervention
Prevention

The transition to secondary school is a time of developmental change in the young person and a shift in the parenteadolescent relationship (e.g., Steinberg, 2000). Although the majority of families go through this period relatively unscathed, adolescence can be difcult for many. Up to 13% of young people develop oppositional and antisocial behaviors
(Roisman, Monahan, Campbell, Steinberg, & Cauffman, 2010), with onset typically occurring around age 11 or 12 years (Nock,
Kazdin, Hiripi, & Kessler, 2006). These problems, often referred to as externalizing behavior problems, have a substantial cost
to the individual and society on both a social and economic level (Belfer, 2008). They can be related to a range of psychological
difculties, including risk taking, peer and school problems, substance abuse and juvenile crime (Thompson et al., 2011).
Causal factors for adolescent-onset externalizing problems are multi-determined and include difculties for the young
person in emotion regulation (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010; Silk, Steinberg, & Shefeld Morris, 2003; Thompson et al.,
2011). In addition, family-related risk factors include higher levels of emotionally dismissive and critical parenting, parental
anger and family conict (Katz & Hunter, 2007; Steinberg, 2000). Preventative interventions that target these risk factors,
especially during the transition to secondary school when difculties often begin, are essential (Sandler, Schoenfelder,
Wolchik, & MacKinnon, 2011; Steinberg, 2000). Currently, there are a limited number of evidence-based programs available for parents of adolescents and many of these are plagued by low retention rates, depend on parent report data which is

* Corresponding author. Mindful: Centre for Training and Research in Developmental Health, University of Melbourne, Building C, 50 Flemington Street,
Flemington, Melbourne 3031, Australia. Tel.: 61 3 9371 0200; fax: 61 3 9371 0250.
E-mail address: sophie.h@unimelb.edu.au (S.S. Havighurst).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.005
0140-1971/ 2015 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

149

subject to expectancy bias, and often have poor outcomes (Sandler et al., 2011). Programs that specically target the emotion
socialization practices of parents (namely the way parents model emotion expression, their reactions to the young person's
emotions, and their ability to coach their adolescent about emotions) may be effective in targeting a number of risk factors
related to the development of adolescent externalizing behaviors. Research with parents of younger children suggests that
programs targeting family emotional communication (i.e., active listening and teaching parents to help the child identify and
express emotions) are successful in improving child emotional and behavioral functioning (e.g., Havighurst et al., 2013;
Havighurst, Wilson, Harley, Prior, & Kehoe, 2010). The current study examined whether a prevention program targeting
the emotion socialization practices of parents of early adolescents would reduce externalizing behavior problems in the
young person during the transition to secondary school.
Theoretical background
The biological, psychological, and social role changes that occur during adolescence are often emotionally challenging for
young people and their families (Steinberg, 2000). Many parents experience their adolescent's striving for autonomy as
rejection and may become reactive themselves (Grolnick, 2003; Sedlar & Hansen, 2001). In addition, the transition to secondary school can be emotionally stressful (Masten, 2004). An increased focus on peer-related social interactions, coupled
with greater mood variability, more intense negative emotionality and a decrease in the experience of positive emotions can
make this a time of vulnerability for emotional and behavioral problems (Allen & Sheeber, 2009; Rosenblum & Lewis, 2003).
Adolescent emotional competence and behavior
The capacity to appropriately express and regulate emotions, as well as to understand emotions in oneself and others
(components of emotion competence) are important for healthy development (Pons, Harris, & de Rosnay, 2004; Rosenblum &
Lewis, 2003). These skills are associated with better frustration tolerance, less anger in response to problems and greater
likelihood of accessing social support when emotionally challenged (Mavroveli, Petrides, Rieffe, & Bakker, 2007). Adolescents
with behavior problems have been found to have decits in the ability to perceive, understand or manage emotions
(Eisenberg et al., 2005) and often experience greater levels of anger (Rosenblum & Lewis, 2003). Helping adolescents practice
and develop a repertoire of adaptive emotion regulation strategies may be particularly important during this developmental
period (Lougheed & Hollenstein, 2012).
Parent emotion socialization
The way parents respond to emotions inuences the development of adolescent emotion competence (Morris, Silk,
Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007). Parenting that is less neglecting or punishing, and more accepting and supportive of
emotions (often called emotion coaching) has been found to be related to better emotion regulation and less externalizing
behavior in children and youth (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997; Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007; O'Neal & Magai, 2005; Stocker,
Richmond, Rhoades, & Kiang, 2007). To support adolescents to develop autonomy and independence parents often need to
reduce their level of control, offer support, accept feelings, and adjust boundaries as the young person moves towards
adulthood.
Some parents, however, engage in less positive emotion socialization, experience increased negative affect, and react more
punitively and angrily to their adolescent (Morris et al., 2007; O'Neal & Magai, 2005). This can have long-lasting and
detrimental effects on the young person, the parents and the wider family system (Shortt, Stoolmiller, Smith-Shine, Eddy, &
Sheeber, 2010). Parents' difculty regulating their own emotions has been found to increase the likelihood they will engage in
punishing or neglecting responses, which, in turn, has been found to negatively impact youth emotion regulation and
behavior (Buckholdt, Parra, & Jobe-Shields, 2014). Parenting that is critical, punitive, or emotionally dismissive in response to
an adolescent's emotions may exacerbate the young person's distress, communicate that emotions are unacceptable and
increase family conict (Morris et al., 2007; Schwartz et al., 2012).
Family conict has been found to peak during early adolescence, when young people begin to view their relationship with
their parents less positively (Smetana, 2011). Higher levels of family conict have been found to be related to externalizing
difculties, including conduct disorders, substance abuse, and attention-decit disorder (Formoso, Gonzales, & Aiken, 2000;
Henderson, Dakof, Schwartz, & Liddle, 2006). However, the harmful consequences of conict have been found to be attenuated if the adolescent feels secure and accepted, and conict is followed by constructive communication and engagement
(Collins & Madsen, 2003).
Parents' difculties with their own regulation of emotions may prevent them from being able to engage in supportive and
constructive communication at times where there is conict. Impulse control difculties in parents have been linked to lower
acceptance of emotions, limited access to emotion regulation strategies (Bardeen, Stevens, Murdock, & Lovejoy, 2013; Gratz &
Roemer, 2004) and a greater likelihood that parents will respond with over-reactive or lax discipline (Lorber & Smith Slep,
2005). Finally, parents' difculties with emotion regulation have been found to limit receptiveness to parenting programs
(Assemany & McIntosh, 2002; McMahon, Wells, & Kotler, 2006). Therefore, programs that teach parents skills in emotion
awareness and regulation may help reduce their arousal during stressful interactions with their teen, making it more likely
that parents respond supportively (Maliken & Katz, 2013).

150

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

Parenting interventions targeting adolescent functioning

Interventions to prevent, reduce or treat behavior problems in adolescents include multi-systemic approaches (Henggeler
& Sheidow, 2012), problem solving communication training and parent management training (Barkley, Edwards, Laneri,
Fletcher, & Metevia, 2001). Of the existing universally-offered programs for parents of adolescents, most are based on social learning principles that focus on helping parents manage their adolescent's difcult behavior or substance misuse
(Kumpfer, Alvarado, & Whiteside, 2003; Maughan, Christiansen, Jenson, Olympia, & Clark, 2005; Ralph & Sanders, 2006).
Triple P for teens taught parents to reward desirable behavior, use directed discussion for minor problem behavior, make clear
calm requests, draw up behavior contracts and back up instructions with logical consequences. The program was evaluated
with 37 parents of early adolescents, 26 of whom completed the program (Ralph & Sanders, 2006). Although outcomes were
promising, with changes in family conict and parenting, youth behavior problems were not assessed quantitatively. The 7session Iowa Strengthening Families Program, targeting parents and their Grade six child, was evaluated with 325 parents of
adolescents (Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 2000). Four years post intervention, intervention youth had lower youth-reported and
observed aggressive and hostile behaviors compared to controls.
While behavioral approaches to parenting interventions show promise, they do not take into consideration recent
theoretical developments in understanding the role of parent emotion socialization practices and its impact on adolescents'
emotion competencies and externalizing behavior problems. Some behavioral programs, such as the ABCD program for
parents of adolescents, have incorporated acceptance-based strategies into the program content (e.g., Mindfulness) to address
this limitation (Burke, Brennan, & Cann, 2012). Evaluation of the ABCD program with a community sample showed postprogram parents reported lowered stress, life restriction, social isolation, guilt and incompetence and youth conduct problems. These outcomes were, however, only from parent report, attrition was high, there were small effect sizes and these did
not hold in intention to treat analyses. The ndings do, however, provide some support for parenting approaches that focus on
acceptance of the young person's emotional expression.
Acceptance of adolescent emotion and teaching parents' emotion coaching skills are key components of the recently
developed and evaluated Tuning in to Teens (TINT) program (Havighurst, Harley, Kehoe, & Pizarro, 2012). This emotion socialization parenting program is a modied version of the Tuning in to Kids (TIK) program which was developed and tested for
efcacy and effectiveness with parents of preschool children with and without behavior problems (Havighurst et al., 2010,
2013). TIK has been found to produce signicant improvements in parent emotion socialization, child emotion competence and behavior. TINT has been designed as a universally-offered prevention program, focusing on teaching parents to
respond to their adolescent's emotions in ways that validate and accept the young person's emotional experience, promote
emotional autonomy and help them develop skills for regulating their emotional arousal. Parents are taught the ve steps of
emotion coaching outlined by Gottman and DeClaire (1997) that include noticing emotions; viewing these as a time to
connect and teach; reecting and naming emotions; showing acceptance and empathy; and if necessary assisting with
problem solving and/or limit setting. Parents learn to manage their own experiences of rejection when teens push away and
to extend the offer of connection when the young person is ready to talk. Emphasis is placed on simple reection of emotions
using language that is open ended (i.e., I wonder if you are a little worried about ) so that the young person remains in
control of naming their emotions. Problem solving and limit setting occur less frequently than with younger children, in
keeping with the developmental needs of the young person for increased autonomy. The program also targets parents' own
emotion awareness and regulation, especially skills in managing impulsive, angry reactions in order to reduce parenteadolescent conict and decrease the need for the young person to externalize their emotions. The program has been found
to be efcacious in improving parents' emotion awareness and regulation, reducing their internalizing difculties and
emotion dismissing parenting, as well as lessening youth internalizing difculties (Kehoe, Havighurst, & Harley, 2014, in
press). The current study used the same sample to examine the program impact on parents' regulation of anger, family
conict and youth externalizing behavior.
Aims and hypotheses
This study examined whether the Tuning in to Teens parenting program was efcacious in reducing externalizing behavior
problems in early adolescents during the transition to secondary school. It was hypothesized that the intervention would lead
to improvements in parents' impulse control abilities (anger reactiveness) and increase parents' supportive responses to their
adolescent's emotions (specically a decrease in emotion dismissing and an increase in emotion coaching). It was also hypothesized that the intervention would result in reduced family conict and lead to fewer difculties with externalizing
behavior problems in the young person.
Method
Participants
Two hundred and twenty ve primary caregivers (200 mothers, 25 fathers; Mage 44.1, SD 5.13) and 224 grade six
youth (nal year of elementary school) aged 10e13 years (M 12.01, SD .42; 49% boys) were recruited from schools in
metropolitan Melbourne. Fathers were retained in the study because, 1) fathers were primary caregivers, 2) fathers' levels of

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

151

emotion dismissing did not differ by group (intervention, control), and 3) fathers have generally been found to be more
dismissing of emotion with their children, but fathers' responses to their adolescents' emotions have been found to be
important for healthy development of emotional competence (Brand & Klimes-Dougan, 2010). One parent did not consent to
their young person completing the questionnaires prior to questionnaire completion. Education, employment and income
levels of respondents were consistent with the typical distribution for Melbourne (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). The
majority of parents were married/defacto (82.7%), and the remainder had re-partnered (n 28; 12.4%), or were sole parents
(n 5; 2.2%). Five parents (2.7%) had not reported their relationship status. Most parents had completed high school (75.6%),
38.2% had completed a non-university qualication and 43.5% had completed a bachelor degree or higher. Parents were
predominantly Caucasian (89.7%), with only a minority of parents reporting Asian (8.1%) or African (2.2%) background. The
majority of parents were in paid employment [80.4%; mean number of hours worked per week was 29.5 (SD 11.0)] and
reported gross annual combined family incomes of less than $40,000 (9.8%), $40,000e$59,999 (15.1%), $60,000e$99,999
(32.0%) and $100,000 or more (38.7%). Ten parents declined to report their income (4.4%). Youth externalizing difculties,
measured with the Strengths and Difculties Questionnaire, were representative of the normal population, with 13.8% of youth
reporting conduct problems in the clinical range (score of 4 or greater), and 8.0% of youth reporting hyperactivity in the
clinical range (score of 7 or greater).
Procedure
One hundred and twenty schools were chosen from lower-to middle-class socioeconomic regions of Melbourne and
randomized (using a computer randomizer) into intervention (TINT) or control conditions. Group randomization minimizes
contamination and is preferred for investigations of intervention effects when interventions are delivered to identiable
groups such as school communities (Murray, 1998). Schools were approached after randomization and 55 schools (45%; 28
intervention; 27 control) agreed to take part in the study (see Fig. 1 for participant ow). Schools who declined participation
did so due to a) the predominance of non-English speaking students, and b) a commitment to other research or pre-existing
parenting/transition programs. Information and consent forms were distributed in school newsletters to all grade six students
(N 3359). The information form for intervention schools invited parents and youth to take part in a research project where
parents could attend a free parenting program and youth would receive a $30 CD voucher at study completion. Control school
parents and youth were invited to take part in a research study about the relations between parenting and adolescent
adjustment and the young person was offered a $30 CD voucher on study completion. Consent forms and expression of
interest slips were signed and returned by 323 parenteyouth dyads. This constitutes a 9.6% response rate (9.7% for intervention schools; 9.5% for control schools) comparable to other universally-offered parenting program recruitment for parents
of adolescents (Ralph & Sanders, 2006). Survey packages were sent directly to interested parenteyouth dyads, who were
instructed to complete questionnaires separately. A return envelope for the young person's questionnaire was included
ensuring their response would remain condential. Questionnaires were returned by 121 intervention and 104 control
parenteyouth dyads. After completing baseline questionnaires, intervention parents participated in the TINT program.
Follow-up data was conducted on average 10.5 months (SD .74; range 10e12 months) post baseline, when youth were at
secondary school (7th Grade). The study was approved by the relevant human ethics committees and all participants gave
informed parental consent and adolescent assent.
Measures
Impulse control difculties (parent report only)
The Impulse Control subscale from the Difculties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) was used to
assess parents' own difculties with impulse control. This subscale comprises ve items (e.g., when I'm upset I become out of
control) rated from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Scores were summed, with higher scores indicating greater difculties in impulse control. The DERS has demonstrated good internal consistency, testeretest reliability and predictive validity (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). In the current study, Guttman's lambda was .87 (baseline) and .86 (follow-up).
Parent emotion socialization (parent and youth report)
The Emotions as a Child Scales (EAC; Magai, 1996; Magai & O'Neal, 1997) measures parents' responses to their young
person's emotions. The EAC consists of 45 items each rated on a 5-point Likert scale with a similar version for youth and
parent report, varying only according to the framing of the question towards the youth or parent's perspective. Parental
responses to each emotion (sadness, anger, anxiety) are grouped according to Magai's ve global emotional response categories (three items per emotion): Encourage, Punish, Neglect, Magnify and Override. Exemplars for these subscales include:
parental Encourage (e.g., When my child was angry/sad/fearful, I asked my child what made her/him mad/sad/fearful);
Punish (e.g., When my child was angry/sad/fearful, I told my child that s/he was acting younger than his/her age); Neglect
(e.g., When my child was angry/sad/fearful, I did not pay attention to her/his being angry/sad/fearful); Magnify (e.g., When
my child was angry/sad/fearful, I got very angry/sad/fearful); and Override (e.g., When my child was angry/sad/fearful, I told
her/him to cheer up). For the purpose of the current study we combined the ve subscales for each emotion to reduce
multiple comparisons and measure parental responses specic to sadness, anger and anxiety (15 items each) with the
Encourage subscale reverse coded. Scores were averaged and the combined subscale ranged from 1 emotion coaching (low

152

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

Fig. 1. Participant ow.

scores) to 5 emotion dismissing (high scores), giving an emotion dismissing subscale for each emotion. A number of studies
have reported acceptable reliability and validity statistics for various versions of the EAC with both adolescent and adult
samples (e.g., O'Neal & Magai, 2005; Silk et al., 2011). In the present study Guttman's lambda for the combined subscales of
both the parent and youth versions respectively were: dismissing sadness (baseline: .80 and .72; follow-up: .82 and .81);
dismissing anger (baseline: .82 and .77; follow-up .84 and .84); and dismissing anxiety (baseline: .83 and .67; follow-up .86
and .73).
Family conict (parent and youth report)
Family conict was measured with the Family Conict Scale (FCS; Arthur, Hawkins, Pollard, Catalano, & Baglioni, 2002)
which is comprised of three items rated on a 4-point scale (0 NO!, 1 no, 2 yes, 3 YES!). Items are People in my family

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

153

have serious arguments, People in my family often insult or yell at each other and We argue about the same things in my
family over and over. Scores were summed, with higher scores indicating more frequent family conict. The FCS has shown
good internal reliability and has been used in other parent program evaluations (Arthur et al., 2002). In the current study for
parent- and youth-report respectively, Guttman's lambda was .83 and. 83 at baseline, and .78 and .85 at follow up.
Youth externalizing behavior problems (parent and youth report)
The Conduct Problems and the Hyperactivity-Inattention subscales (ve items in each) from the Strengths and Difculties
Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) were used to provide a measure of externalizing behavior. Parents and youth indicate the
extent to which items were true descriptions of the young person's behavior on a 3-point Likert scale. The psychometric
properties of the SDQ are well-established (Goodman, 2001; Palmieri & Smith, 2007). The Conduct Problems and the
Hyperactivity-Inattention subscales were combined (10 items were summed; possible score range 0e20) because studies
have established that the combination provides a robust measure of externalizing behavior problems in community samples
(Goodman, Lamping, & Ploubidis, 2010; Niclasen, Skovgaard, Nybo-Andersen, Smhovd, & Obel, 2013). Guttman's lambda for
the Externalizing Behavior subscale for parent and youth-report respectively was .84 and .79 at baseline, and .82 and .80 at
follow-up.
Intervention
Tuning in to Teens is a 6-session group parenting program that teaches parents how to respond to their teen's emotions in
ways that aim to increase communication and connection while helping the adolescent to understand their emotions. Parents
were taught strategies for understanding and managing their own emotions and were educated about adolescent emotional
development. The intervention was delivered through didactic teaching, role plays, exercises, home activities, and a DVD
(given to each participating parent). Parenting groups were conducted during 2008 and 2009 (six groups per year), when
children were in their nal year of elementary school (grade six). Group sizes ranged between 6 and 13 parents. Two-hour
sessions were delivered by two facilitators one evening per week for two hours at a local community center. Primary facilitators were the second and third authors while co-facilitators were volunteer mental health professionals or psychology
graduates who had taken part in the Tuning in to Kids training. A structured TINT manual was used (Havighurst et al., 2012)
and after each session facilitators completed delity checklists; these checklists showed that 100% of the program was
delivered.
Of the 121 parents in the intervention condition, 102 (84%) completed four to six sessions of the program, 10 (8.3%)
attended 3 sessions, 5 (4.1%) attended 2 sessions and 4 (3.3%) attended one session. If parents were unable to attend, they
were sent session materials and called by the facilitator. Four parents attended only one session due to work, childcare or
family crises.
Results
Analytic strategy
Preliminary analyses included examination and treatment of missing values, normality and outliers. Pearson-mean
imputation was used to replace missing items with mean values given that missing data were minimal and considered
missing completely at random (Bono, Ried, Kimberlin, & Vogel, 2007). Covariates were determined by conducting t-tests and
chi-square analyses that investigated baseline group differences and relationships between demographic and outcome
variables (Pocock, Assmann, Enos, & Kasten, 2002).
Due to the multi-stage sampling strategy, where schools were sampled rst, followed by recruitment of students within
these schools, intra-class correlations were computed and ranged from .000 to .087, which suggests up to 8.7% of variance in
some of the baseline outcome measures could be explained by school membership (Heck, Thomas, & Tabata, 2010). Multilevel
analyses using SPSS (Version 18) Mixed Models were therefore used to examine the xed effect of condition on outcome
variables, while controlling for baseline differences and the random effect of school (Peugh & Enders, 2005). A baseline
random intercept model (i.e., youth nested within schools) was initially constructed for each outcome measure. Best model t
for the null model (Step 1) was determined via examination of Akaike information criterion (AIC) index, and achieved using
maximum likelihood and a variance components covariance structure, with intercept and school as a random effect and time
as xed (Heck et al., 2010). At Step 2, key variables (condition and time; each dummy coded 0 and 1) were added into the
model, followed by covariates at Step 3. As indicated by chi square statistics for the change in 2 Log Likelihood, adding
covariates signicantly improved the model (p .01) for all outcomes of interest (Field, 2009). A signicant interaction
between time and condition indicates the change over time varies signicantly according to condition membership. Main
effects of time and condition will only be reported if the interaction is not signicant. Finally, multilevel analyses were
repeated using the last-point-carried-forward method to take into account intention to treat, using data from all participants
initially enrolled in the study.
Effect sizes were calculated using the difference between the estimated means of the slopes (unstandardized b-value) of
the two groups (intervention and control over time) divided by the baseline standard deviation of raw scores (equivalent to
the square root of the mean squared error from ANOVA), obtained from a one-way ANOVA with school as the group variable

154

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

(Feingold, 2009). Effect sizes (d) greater than .8 are generally considered large, while those equal to .5 are moderate and .2 are
small (Cohen, 1988). Effect sizes are reported in Table 1.
Preliminary analyses
Logarithmic transformations were applied to the parent Impulse Control Difculties subscale which showed that parents
perceived low difculties on this scale. Analyses with the transformed variable yielded equivalent outcomes to analyses
conducted with untransformed variables. Hence, for ease of interpretation, untransformed analyses are presented. Time 3
questionnaires were returned by 210 parenteyouth dyads (111 intervention; 99 controls) resulting in a 93.3% response rate
(see Fig. 1 for participant ow). There was no signicant difference between parents failing to return questionnaires at followup (n 15; p > .05) and the rest of the sample on any of the measures and there was no signicant difference in questionnaire
return rate between the intervention and control group.
Group comparison of demographic characteristics showed youth in the intervention condition were slightly younger,
t(223) 6.24, p < .001 (mean difference in months .36), and there were more boys, (n 67, 55.4%), compared with the
control condition, (n 42, 40.4%), c2 (1, N 225) 4.48, p .035, phi .15. It is possible that age differed due to signicantly
more baseline data being collected for control participants in the second half (term 2, 3 & 4) of the grade six school year,
whereas data was collected throughout the year (term 1e4) for the intervention participants, c2 (3, N 225) 57.34, p < .001,
phi .51. When follow-up data was collected, participants enrolled in the study in term 1 (n 31) were followed up slightly
later, (Mmonths 12.00, SD .00) when compared with participants enrolled in the study in term 2, 3 or 4, (Mmonths 10.3,
SD .46); t(179) 50.06, p < .001, 95% CI: 1.6, 1.8. Hence, gender, the young person's age, and baseline term of enrollment
were all included as covariates in further analyses.
Examination of baseline group differences revealed intervention parents reported higher baseline impulse control difculties, [t(220) 2.20; p .029], and rated their youth having signicantly more externalizing behavior problems,
[t(222) 2.14; p .033] when compared with control parents. Therefore, we controlled for baseline levels of parent impulse
control difculties and parent-rated externalizing behavior problems in all analyses.
Intervention outcomes
Table 1 shows intervention outcomes for all variables, including signicance gures for the interaction between time and
condition. Multilevel mixed effects analyses revealed a signicant interaction between time and condition, which showed
intervention parents reported reductions in impulse control difculties at follow-up, compared with control parents who

Table 1
Multi-level mixed effects modeling: intervention outcomes.
Rater

Measures

Baseline

Parent impulse control difcultiesb

Parent dismissing sadness (P)
Parent dismissing anger (P)
Parent dismissing fear (P)
Parent dismissing sadness (Y)
Parent dismissing anger (Y)
Parent dismissing fear (Y)
Youth externalizing problemsb (P)
Youth externalizing problems (Y)
Family Conict (P)b
Family Conict (Y)

Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control
Intervention
Control

Adjusted meana

Test of interaction

Follow-up

Mean

SE

Mean

SE

10.21
9.11
2.05
2.08
2.24
2.20
1.81
1.89
2.06
2.18
2.29
2.27
2.10
2.13
4.60
4.04
5.23
5.08
3.40
2.59
2.72
2.63

.38
.41
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.05
.04
.04
.30
.32
.30
.32
.19
.21
.19
.20

9.33
9.20
1.80
2.13
1.95
2.24
1.61
1.96
1.99
2.16
2.13
2.31
1.94
2.10
.3.49
4.02
4.18
4.95
2.85
2.73
2.22
2.66

.39
.41
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.05
.05
.04
.04
.30
.32
.30
.32
.20
.21
.19
.20

95CI%

SE

df

.97

.42

209.95

2.32

.30

.05

213.30

6.33

<.001

.39, .21

.73

.33

.06

217.29

5.47

<.001

.45, .21

.73

.28

.05

212.11

5.56

<.001

.37, .18

.68

.05

.06

216.56

.82

.409

.17, .07

.13

.21

.07

214.58

3.12

.002

.34, .08

.49

.12

.06

214.24

2.16

.032

.23, .01

.34

1.09

.36

215.57

3.04

.003

1.79, .38

.31

.92

.42

214.90

2.18

.030

1.74, .09

.28

.69

.24

213.19

2.88

.004

1.16, .22

.32

.54

.27

211.93

1.98

.049

1.09, .002

.25

Note. (P) parent-report; (Y) youth-report.

a
All analyses adjusted for school, gender, age and term of enrollment as well as variables with a baseline difference.
b
Signicant baseline between groups difference.

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

155

reported no change. In addition, signicant interactions between time and condition showed intervention parents reported
they were less dismissing of youth sadness, anger and anxiety compared to control parents. Intervention youth also reported
signicant reductions in parents' dismissing anger and anxiety, compared to control youth who reported no change. Both
intervention and control youth reported no change in parents' dismissing sadness. Further, signicant interactions between
time and condition showed that both parents and youth from the intervention condition reported a signicant reduction in
family conict at follow-up, compared with control participants who reported no change. Finally, signicant interactions
between time and condition were found for parent- and youth-reported youth externalizing behavior problems, indicating
greater reductions for the intervention group.
Intention to treat
We repeated the multilevel analyses using missing participants (n 15) baseline data for their follow-up scores (lastpoint-carried-forward method) to take into account intention to treat. The ndings (including effect sizes) held for all variables, except the interaction between time and condition became non-signicant for youth-reported family conict,
(p .062), and youth-reported parent dismissing anxiety, (p .065).

Discussion
This study examined whether Tuning in to Teens (TINT) delivered as a universally-offered prevention program to parents of
youth in the nal year of elementary school would be efcacious in reducing young people's externalizing behavior problems
when followed-up in secondary school. To our knowledge, this is the rst study examining the efcacy of an emotion socialization parenting program for preventing externalizing behavior problems with a large community sample, using a
control comparison group, long term follow-up and parent and youth reported outcomes. Overall, there were signicant
reductions in parents' impulse control difculties, parents' dismissing responses to adolescent emotions, family conict and
youth externalizing difculties compared to control participants. Effect sizes were medium to large for parent-reported
outcomes, and small to medium for youth-reported outcomes.
The TINT program aimed to help parents understand, empathize and accept the emotions underlying anger, important
emotion socialization skills that have been associated with better emotion regulation and behavior in youth (Klimes-Dougan
et al., 2007; Morris et al., 2007). Parents can be constantly challenged by the changes occurring in the developing adolescent
and their behavior and emotion expression can often elicit defensive or hostile responses; therefore, parents may be required
to alter their parenting to respond to the changing needs of their adolescent. TINT taught parents to understand the reasons
youth might react with hostility or withdrawal and provided them with skills to manage their own automatic angry reactions.
When parents refrain from automatic, angry responses to their adolescent, this often prevents the escalation of emotions and
allows the young person to remain in a connected relationship with their parent. Then, when everyone is calmer, communication about the issue is likely to be more constructive. In addition, parents were taught empathy skills to help them shift
their perspective from one of being in opposition with their teen to instead walking alongside the young person and understanding the (often emotionally driven) reasons for their behavior.
Reducing parents' emotionally dismissive responses to young people's emotions is an important outcome of our study.
Less emotion dismissing in parents has been found to be associated with better emotional and mental health outcomes in
youth (Yap, Schwartz, Byrne, Simmons, & Allen, 2010). Acceptance of emotions comes with conveying understanding, care,
support and respect when responding to the young person as they experience and express emotions. Our results showed for
intervention participants, parents and youth both reported reductions in parents' dismissiveness of anger and fear, and there
was signicantly less family conict than for controls. It may be that improving parents' responses to anger is important, but
also helping parents respond to emotions underlying anger, namely fears and worries, may reduce anger in the young person
leading to less parenteadolescent conict.
Parents reported signicant reductions in their dismissive responses to the young person's sadness; however, youth did
not. It is possible that there were greater reductions in parents' dismissing of anger and anxiety because these received more
attention in the program. Fear and worry often occur in the lead up to secondary school and helping parents understand,
support and assist their young person manage these emotions are key program components. It may also be that sadness is an
easier emotion to conceal. Parents may have perceived a reduction in sadness (and therefore rated themselves as less emotion
dismissing of this emotion) but this may not have been the experience of their adolescents.
Externalizing behavior is a robust indicator of poor outcomes for children and youth (Steinberg, 2008). The reduction in
parent and youth reported externalizing behavior problems is, therefore, an important prevention outcome. While the effect
sizes for these changes were small to medium, this is not uncommon in a universally-delivered self-selecting community
sample. In addition, parents of young people are often hard to engage in parenting programs (Brown, 2008) and the high
levels of parent engagement and attendance in TINT was an important endorsement of program acceptability. This may have
been because this sample were motivated by concerns for their young person's wellbeing but were not faced with a large
number of other family stressors that are seen in a clinical sample. It may also be that aspects of the program which allow
parents to feel that they can choose the skills that t with their values and parenting style means they were more open to
learning about ways of interacting with their adolescent.

156

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

Limitations and further research

This study was limited in using a relatively middle class sample from homogenous ethnic backgrounds who self-selected
to participate. Universally-offered, self-selecting parenting programs are very difcult to evaluate with lower socioeconomic status populations because these are typically parents who are not willing to participate in research. Further
evaluation of TINT using a more culturally and socio-economically diverse population would be desirable. As emotion
socialization is inextricably linked to cultural norms, it is possible that the relationships between the variables under
investigation vary according to culture and require further study. The use of objective measures, such as the interview
versions of the Emotions as a Child scale, an observation of parenteyouth interaction, or teacher reports would strengthen
the measurement of change and address the biases that may be found with parent-report measures. Finally, it is unclear
whether the emotion socialization intervention impacted externalizing behavior via youth emotion competence without
measures of this construct.
Conclusion
Managing the changing nature of parenting of an adolescent is a signicant challenge for many parents, and feelings of
rejection and heightened anger are common. The Tuning in to Teens program involved assisting parents to understand and
regulate their own emotions when parenting; they were also taught ways of responding to their young person that were less
emotionally dismissive and more supportive and emotion coaching. Outcomes of the study showed that parents in the
intervention condition reported signicantly fewer impulse control difculties and were less dismissive of their young
person's anger as well as their anxiety and sadness. Further, parents and adolescents reported less conict between them, and
that the young person had fewer difculties with externalizing behaviors compared to control families who reported no
change. These outcomes provide support for an emotion socialization parenting program that emphasizes building parenteadolescent relationships and emotional communication as a way of preventing behavioral difculties in youth.
Conict of interest
The authors wish to disclose a conict of interest because they disseminate the Tuning in to Teens parenting program.
Acknowledgments
This study has been a partnership between The University of Melbourne and ParentsLink at MacKillop Family Services. We
thank the staff from ParentsLink as well as Dr Paul Dudgeon, Lara Silkoff, Elliot Teperman and Dr Katherine Wilson. We also
wish to thank the parents and young people who participated in this study.
References
Allen, N. B., & Sheeber, L. B. (Eds.). (2009). The importance of affective development for the emergence of depressive disorders during adolescence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and
other adolescent problem behaviors. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575.
Assemany, A. E., & McIntosh, D. E. (2002). Negative treatment outcomes of behavioral parent training programs. Psychology in the Schools, 39(2), 209. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.10032.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Melbourne: A social Atlas. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Bardeen, J. R., Stevens, E. N., Murdock, K. W., & Lovejoy, M. C. (2013). A preliminary investigation of sex differences in associations between emotion
regulation difculties and higher-order cognitive abilities. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 70e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.003.
Barkley, R. A., Edwards, G., Laneri, M., Fletcher, K., & Metevia, L. (2001). The efcacy of problem-solving communication training alone, behavior management training alone, and their combination for parent-adolescent conict in teenagers with ADHD and ODD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 69(6), 926e941.
Belfer, M. L. (2008). Child and adolescent mental disorders: the magnitude of the problem across the globe. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49(3),
226e236.
Bono, C., Ried, L. D., Kimberlin, C., & Vogel, B. (2007). Missing data on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: a comparison of 4 imputation
techniques. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 3(1), 1e27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2006.04.001.
Brand, A. E., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2010). Emotion socialization in adolescence: the roles of mothers and fathers. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 128, 85e100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cd.270.
Brown, J. (2008). We don't need your help, but can you please x our children? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 29(2), 61e69.
Buckholdt, K. E., Parra, G. R., & Jobe-Shields, L. (2014). Intergenerational transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions:
implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 324e332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10826-013-9768-4.
Burke, K., Brennan, L., & Cann, W. (2012). Promoting protective factors for young adolescents: ABCD Parenting Young Adolescents Program randomized
controlled trial. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1315e1328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.05.002.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, W. A., & Madsen, S. D. (2003). Developmental change in parenting interactions. In L. Kuczinski (Ed.), Handbook of dynamics in parent-child relations.
London: Sage Publications.
Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Losoya, S. H., Valiente, C., et al. (2005). The relations of problem behavior status to children's negative
emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 193e211.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children's maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 6(1), 495e525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208.

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

157

Feingold, A. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials in the same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological Methods,
14(1), 43e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014699.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Formoso, D., Gonzales, N. A., & Aiken, L. S. (2000). Family conict and children's internalizing and externalizing behavior: protective factors. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 28(2), 175e200.
Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difculties questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581e586. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difculties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(11), 1337e1345.
Goodman, A., Lamping, D. L., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2010). When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised ve
subscales on the Strengths and Difculties Questionnaire (SDQ): data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
38, 1179e1191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x.
Gottman, J. M., & DeClaire, J. (1997). The heart of parenting: How to raise an emotionally intelligent child. London: Bloomsbury.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difculties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41e54.
Grolnick, W. S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: How well-meant parenting backres. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Havighurst, S. S., Harley, A. E., Kehoe, C., & Pizarro, E. (2012). Tuning in to Teens: Emotionally intelligent parenting. Program manual. Melbourne: The University
of Melbourne.
Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., Kehoe, C., Efron, D., & Prior, M. R. (2013). Tuning into Kids: reducing young children's behavior
problems using an emotion coaching parenting program. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44(2), 247e264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10578-012-0322-1.
Havighurst, S. S., Wilson, K. R., Harley, A. E., Prior, M. R., & Kehoe, C. E. (2010). Tuning in to Kids: improving emotion socialization practices in parents of
preschool children e ndings from a community trial. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 51(12), 1342e1350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.
2010.02303.x.
Heck, R. H., Thomas, S. L., & Tabata, L. N. (2010). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling with IBM SPSS: Quantitative methodology series. New York: Rutledge.
Henderson, C. E., Dakof, G. A., Schwartz, S. J., & Liddle, H. A. (2006). Family functioning, self-concept, and severity of adolescent externalizing problems.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, V15(6), 719e729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9045-x.
Henggeler, S. W., & Sheidow, A. J. (2012). Empirically supported family-based treatments for conduct disorder and delinquency in adolescents. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 30e58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00244.x.
Katz, L. F., & Hunter, E. C. (2007). Maternal meta-emotion philosophy and adolescent depressive symptomatology. Social Development, 16(2), 343e360.
Kehoe, C. E., Havighurst, S. S., & Harley, A. E. (2014). Tuning in to Teens: improving parent emotion socialization to reduce youth internalizing difculties.
Social Development, 23(2), 413e431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sode.12060.
Kehoe, C. E., Havighurst, S. S., & Harley, A. E. (2015). Somatic complaints in early adolescence: the role of parents' emotion socialization. Journal of Early
Adolescence (in press).
Klimes-Dougan, B., Brand, A. E., Zahn-Waxler, C., Usher, B. A., Hastings, P. D., Kendziora, K. T., et al. (2007). Parental emotion socialization in adolescence:
differences in sex, age and problem status. Social Development, 16(2), 326e342.
Kumpfer, K., Alvarado, R., & Whiteside, H. O. (2003). Family-based interventions for substance use and misuse prevention. Substance Use & Misuse,
38(11e13), 1759e1787.
Lorber, M. F., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2005). Mothers' emotion dynamics and their relations with harsh and lax discipline: Microsocial Time Series Analyses.
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34(3), 559e568.
Lougheed, J. P., & Hollenstein, T. (2012). A limited repertoire of emotion regulation strategies is associated with internalizing problems in adolescence. Social
Development, 21(4), 704e721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00663.x.
Magai, C. (1996). Emotions as a child. New York: Long Island University.
Magai, C., & O'Neal, C. R. (1997). Emotions as a child (child version). Brooklyn: Long Island University.
Maliken, A. C., & Katz, L. F. (2013). Exploring the impact of parental psychopathology and emotion regulation on evidence-based parenting interventions: a
transdiagnostic approach to improving treatment effectiveness. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16(2), 173e186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10567-013-0132-4.
Masten, A. S. (2004). Regulatory processes, risk, and resilience in adolescent development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2021, 310e319.
Maughan, D. R., Christiansen, E., Jenson, W. R., Olympia, D., & Clark, E. (2005). Behavioral parent training as a treatment for externalizing behaviors and
disruptive behavior disorders: a meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 267e286.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Rieffe, C., & Bakker, F. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence, psychological well-being and peer-rated social competence in
adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 263e275.
McMahon, R. J., Wells, K. C., & Kotler, J. S. (Eds.). (2006). Conduct problems (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
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 emotion regulation. Social
Development, 16(2), 361e388.
Murray, D. M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York: Oxford University Press.
Niclasen, J., Skovgaard, A. M., Nybo-Andersen, A. M., Smhovd, M. J., & Obel, C. (2013). A conrmatory approach to examining the factor structure of the
Strengths and Difculties Questionnaire (SDQ): a large scale cohort study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 355e365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10802-012-9683-y.
Nock, M. K., Kazdin, A. E., Hiripi, E., & Kessler, R. C. (2006). Prevalence, subtypes, and correlates of DSM-IV conduct disorder in the national comorbidity
survey replication. Psychological Medicine, 36, 699e710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706007082.
O'Neal, C. R., & Magai, C. (2005). Do parents respond in different ways when children feel different emotions? The emotional context of parenting.
Development and Psychopathology, 17, 467e487.
Palmieri, P., & Smith, G. C. (2007). Examining the structural validity of the Strengths and Difculties Questionnaire (SDQ) in a U.S. sample of custodial
grandmothers. Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 189e198.
Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2005). Using the SPSS mixed procedure to t cross-sectional and longitudinal multilevel models. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 65(5), 717e741. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405278558.
Pocock, S. J., Assmann, S. E., Enos, L. E., & Kasten, L. E. (2002). Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting:
current practice and problems. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 2917e2930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1296.
Pons, F., Harris, P. L., & de Rosnay, M. (2004). Emotion comprehension between 3 and 11 years: developmental periods and hierarchical organization.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 127e152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405620344000022.
Ralph, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2006). The 'Teen Triple P'Positive parenting program: a preliminary evaluation. Youth Studies Australia, 25(2), 41e48.
Roisman, G. I., Monahan, K. C., Campbell, S. B., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2010). Is adolescence-onset antisocial behavior developmentally normative?
Development and Psychopathology, 22(2), 295e311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0954579410000076.
Rosenblum, G. D., & Lewis, M. (2003). Emotional development in adolescence. In G. R. Adams, & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence
(pp. 269e289). Blackwell Publishing.
Sandler, I. N., Schoenfelder, E. N., Wolchik, S. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). Long-term impact of prevention programs to promote effective parenting: lasting
effects but uncertain processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 299e329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131619.

158

S.S. Havighurst et al. / Journal of Adolescence 42 (2015) 148e158

Schwartz, O. S., Dudgeon, P., Sheeber, L. B., Yap, M. B. H., Simmons, J. G., & Allen, N. B. (2012). Parental behaviors during family interactions predict changes in
depression and anxiety symptoms during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(1), 59e71.
Sedlar, G., & Hansen, D. J. (2001). Anger, child behavior, and family distress: further evaluation of the parental anger inventory. Journal of Family Violence,
16(4), 361e373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012220809344.
Shortt, J. W., Stoolmiller, M., Smith-Shine, J. N., Eddy, J. M., & Sheeber, L. B. (2010). Maternal emotion coaching, adolescent anger regulation, and siblings'
externalizing symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 51(7), 799e808.
Silk, J. S., Shaw, D. S., Prout, J. T., O'Rourke, F., Lane, T. J., & Kov
acs, M. (2011). Socialization of emotion and offspring internalizing symptoms in mothers with
childhood-onset depression. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 127e136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.02.001.
Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Shefeld Morris, A. (2003). Adolescents' emotion regulation in daily life: links to depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child
Development, 74(6), 1869e1880.
Smetana, J. G. (2011). Adolescents, families, and social development: How teens construct their worlds. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2000). Reducing adolescents' aggressive and hostile behaviors: randomized trial effects of a brief family intervention 4
years past baseline. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 154(12), 1248e1257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.154.12.1248.
Steinberg, L. (2000). The family at adolescence: transition and transformation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 170e178.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78e106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.
08.002.
Stocker, C. M., Richmond, M. K., Rhoades, G. K., & Kiang, L. (2007). Family emotional processes and adolescents' adjustment. Social Development, 16(2),
310e325.
Thompson, R., Jiyoung, K. T., Litrownik, A. J., Briggs, E. C., Hussey, J. M., English, D. J., et al. (2011). Early adolescent risk behavior outcomes of childhood
externalizing behavioral trajectories. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(2), 234e257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431609361203.
Yap, M. B. H., Schwartz, O. S., Byrne, M. L., Simmons, J. G., & Allen, N. B. (2010). Maternal positive and negative interaction behaviors and early adolescents'
depressive symptoms: adolescent emotion regulation as a mediator. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(4), 1014e1043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1532-7795.2010.00665.x.