Parenting Style and Adolescent Externalizing Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Respiratory Sinus Arrhythmia

• Published date: 01 August 2016
• Author: Randal D. Day,Daniel J. Blocker,W. Justin Dyer,Roy A. Bean
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12316
• Date: 01 August 2016

W. J D Brigham Young University

D J. B Greenville, NC∗

R D. D Brigham Young University∗∗

R A. B Brigham Young University∗∗∗

Parenting Style and Adolescent Externalizing

Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Respiratory

Sinus Arrhythmia

This longitudinal study was conducted with 262

adolescents (M age =15.3) and their parents to

examine adolescent respiratory sinus arrhyth-

mia (RSA; baseline and reactivity) as a moder-

ator of the relationship between parenting style

and adolescent externalizing behaviors. This

was conceptualized within the differential sus-

ceptibility to the environment framework, which

proposes that children with greater sensitivity

to environmental inuences benet more from

supportive environments but are at greater risk

in averse environments. In this study, low RSA

baseline was associated with greater suscepti-

bility. In conrmation of hypotheses, males with

low RSA baseline had the most externalizing

behaviors when mother or father authoritative

Religious Education, Family Education, 270N JSB,

Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, UT 84602

(wjd@byu.edu).

∗306-G Horseshoe Dr., Greenville, NC 27834.

∗∗Professor Emeritus, School of Family Life, Brigham

YoungUniversity, Provo, UT 84602.

∗∗∗School of Family Life, 258 TLRB, Brigham Young

University,Provo, UT 84602.

KeyWords: adolescents, differential susceptibility,parenting

style, respiratory sinus arrhythmia.

parenting was low or when mother authoritar-

ian parenting was high. Contrary to hypothe-

ses, females with greater RSA reactivity (high

susceptibility) did more poorly when authoritar-

ian parenting was low or authoritative parenting

was high. Differential gender socialization and

the task used to elicit RSA reactivity are sug-

gested reasons for gender differences.

Recent theoretical and empirical work suggests

that children who are more sensitive to the envi-

ronment will thrive in supportive environments

but will struggle in adverse ones. Conversely,

children who are less sensitive to the environ-

ment do not benet as much from supportive

environments but also do not struggle as much

in aversive environments (Ellis & Boyce, 2011;

Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg,

& Van IJzendoorn, 2011). Some have used the

“orchid” and “dandelion” metaphor to describe

this (Boyce & Ellis, 2005); that is, “orchid”

children (i.e., sensitive) ourish in highly

enriching conditions but struggle in adverse

conditions, whereas “dandelion” children (i.e.,

less sensitive) tend to ourish under a variety of

conditions.

This phenomenon is often referred to as dif-

ferential susceptibility to the environment(DSE;

Journal of Marriage and Family 78 (August 2016): 1149–1165 1149

DOI:10.1111/jomf.12316

1150 Journal of Marriage and Family

Ellis, Boyce, et al., 2011). Empirical support for

this can been found across a variety of indicators

of child sensitivity (e.g., temperament, genetic

type, neurophysiologic functioning) as well

a variety of measures of environmental sup-

port and stress (e.g., levels of marital conict,

positive and negative parenting, life stresses;

Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn,

2011; Eisenberg et al., 2012; Obradovi´

c, Bush,

Stamperdahl, Adler, & Boyce, 2010). However,

within this growing research area no studies

have yet examined whether DSE also applies to

the basic parenting dimensions of authoritative

and authoritarian parenting. Although some

studies have examined DSE hypotheses with

other, similar, parenting constructs (Mesman

et al., 2009; Morris et al., 2002; Simons et al.,

2013), the conceptual framework introduced

by Baumrind (1966) has yet to be explicitly

studied with DSE propositions (for inciden-

tal connections, see Ellis, Shirtcliff, Boyce,

Deardorff, & Essex, 2011, and Morris, Cui,

& Steinberg, 2013). This is unfortunate, as

Baumrind’s framework is “widely recognized as

the leading typological approach to parenting”

(Criss & Larzelere, 2013, p. 5) and frequently

is used in the family and parenting literatures.

By explicitly linking the DSE and parenting

styles, both areas will have additional concep-

tual frameworks to draw on in building models

of how parenting inuences child development.

In the current study we investigated whether

the supportive environment of authoritative

parenting beneted high-sensitivity children

more than their low-sensitivity counterparts. We

further examined whether the high-sensitivity

children struggled more under the aversive,

authoritarian parenting style. Within this we

also considered whether the gender of the child

and parent moderates these associations; that is,

we examined whether the inuence of a child’s

sensitivity depends partly on whether the child

is male or female and whether the parent is the

mother or the father.

As with several other DSE studies, parasym-

pathetic nervous system (PNS) activity (both

baseline and reactivity levels) was used as an

index of sensitivity (Belsky & Pluess, 2009;

Kennedy, Rubin, Hastings, & Maisel, 2004;

Obradovi´

c et al., 2010). PNS activity is ideal

for indexing sensitivity because it has a substan-

tial theoretical base regarding its role in human

development (Porges, 1995, 2011). Child exter-

nalizing behaviors were used as the index of

well-being given that literatures on both author-

itative/authoritarian styles and DSE (including

those using PNS activity as the index of suscep-

tibility) have had a strong focus on this outcome.

However,as of yet no research has combined the

parenting styles literature with the DSE litera-

ture in examining externalizing behaviors.

C E B

 P S

Externalizing behaviors are dened as “overt

behaviors that have a negative effect on the

external environment” and can include behav-

iors that are disruptive, hyperactive/impulsive,

and aggressive (White & Renk, 2012). A wealth

of literature has examined numerous correlates

of externalizing behaviors (e.g., Leventhal &

Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Meunier et al., 2011), par-

enting being the most studied correlate and

central to the majority of explanatory models

(Baumrind, 1991; Darling & Steinberg, 1993;

Garcia & Garcia, 2009; Steinberg, 2001).

Baumrind’s (1966, 1967) typology is one of

the most inuential models of parenting style to

date. This typology is based on two dimensions:

(a) parental responsiveness and (b) parental

demandingness. Of interest to us in the current

study were the authoritative and authoritarian

parenting types (i.e., parenting “styles”), which

are at opposite extremes of responsiveness but

are both high on demandingness. Responsive-

ness refers to parents’ emotional warmth and

supportive actions that are attuned to “children’s

vulnerabilities, cognitions, and inputs and …

supportive of children’s individual needs and

plans” (Baumrind, 2013, p. 26). Authoritative

parents are high in responsiveness, whereas

authoritarian parents are low.

Demandingness refers to monitoring, limit

setting, and having consequences for viola-

tions, and it is sometimes simply referred to as

“control” (Barber & Xia, 2013). Although

Baumrind’s typology places both authoritative

and authoritarian parents at the high end of

control, it has been argued that authoritative

and authoritarian parents differ in their methods

used to exert control. Authoritarian parents use

more psychological control, whereas author-

itative parents use more appropriate levels of

behavioral control.

Steinberg and Barber dened psychological

control as attacks on the child’s self by violating

the autonomy of the child, being excessively