Adolescents' Psychological Adjustment during Challenging Times: The Role of Mothers', Fathers', and Adolescents' Ratings of Parental Warmth

Acknowledgement: The analytic plan for this study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework on July 29, 2021 (anonymized link: https://osf.io/s27rt/?view_only=185d52180bc3400d87afbf9ef4a30843). The preregistered project provides additional information, supplemental materials, anonymized data, and syntax.

Adolescence is a challenging time for all family members: Adolescents strive for more personal autonomy and independence, while facing multiple transitions, such as puberty or secondary school transition. Adjusting to these developmental changes can be challenging for adolescents, who often experience an increase in emotional (Graber, 2013) and social problems (Georgiou & Symeou, 2018) over time. Parents, for their part, have to adapt to the changing needs of their offspring and are challenged to guide their children through this developmental period (Branje et al., 2012; Smetana, 2017). This phase is often characterized by a temporary decrease in positive and affirmative interactions between parents and adolescents.

From an ecological perspective, adolescent’s emotional and social development occurs in multiple contexts (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), of which families are seen as one of the most influential. Parenting style, including the dimension of responsiveness and parental warmth among family members, has been shown to be an important resource (see the current meta-analyses of Pinquart, 2017a, 2017b). Thus, high emotional warmth within the family can be predictive of positive development in terms of psychological adjustment throughout late childhood and adolescence (Branje et al., 2012; Keijsers & Poulin, 2013). This study focuses on parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of parental warmth as a precursor for adolescents’ psychological adjustment between the third and sixth grades (age 8 to 12 years). This period is of particular interest because it includes normative developmental processes and multiple transitional experiences (e.g., transition to secondary school, the onset of puberty).

During periods involving multiple challenges, such as adolescence, the (perceived) need for and availability of resources, such as parental warmth, might not always fit. Specially, differences in how family members (e.g., parents and adolescents) perceive the supportiveness and warmth of their relationships may emerge (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005; De Los Reyes et al., 2019). Such differences should not be understood as measurement error but rather as meaningful insights into parent–adolescent relationships (i.e., in within-family adjustment processes; e.g., Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019). In cases of low parental warmth among family members, for instance when parents and adolescents’ report a low degree of affirmative attention and care or perceive their way of interactions differently, young people may lack important family-related resources that could help them to adapt during challenging times.

The present study addresses the following research questions: (a) Do higher levels of parental warmth, as shared perceptions by mothers and adolescents as well as by fathers and adolescents, serve as a resource and, therefore, positively predict change in adolescents’ emotional and social adjustment? (b) Do lower dyadic discrepancy levels in the ratings of parent–adolescent warmth function as a resource and predict changes in emotional and social adjustment, independent of the shared level? (c) Does the direction of discrepancies, specifically, parental versus adolescent overrating, matter?

Coping with multiple changes (i.e., on a cognitive, emotional, and social levels) is crucial for adolescents’ psychological adjustment. It has been suggested that parenting dimensions play a major role in the development and maintenance of adolescents’ emotional and social problems (McLeod et al., 2007a, 2007b). Psychological adjustment represents individuals’ ability to adequately react and adapt to the changing demands and pressures of their social environment or the changing needs within themselves (Gill, 2014). It is typically conceptualized by two broader aspects since the changing demands to which the individual has to react may be either internal (emotional) or external (social). Emotional adjustment is defined as the maintenance of emotional equilibrium in the face of internal and external stressors. Problems with emotional adjustment are reflected in feelings of anxiety, inferiority, and shyness (Sharma & Saini, 2013). Social adjustment, on the other hand, comprises the competence to adequately handle and engage in interpersonal relationships and interactions. Deficits in social adjustment include problems with self-regulation in interactions, noncompliance, and antisocial and aggressive behaviors (Fanti & Henrich, 2010; Gilliom & Shaw, 2004).

Not all adolescents struggle with the transition from late childhood to adolescence in the same way: Whereas some adolescents navigate through the challenges quite smoothly, without great deficits in their psychological adjustment, other adolescents find it difficult to overcome the various challenges, showing smore serious problems both emotionally and socially. To explain these interindividual differences, recent research (Branje, 2022; Law et al., 2013) has reported various buffering effects through multiple contexts (e.g., family, peers, school). Although it has been argued that parental influence decreases as children grow older, there is convincing evidence that parents continue to serve as important socializing agents during adolescence as well (Harter, 2008; Pinquart, 2017b). Consequently, different aspects of parenting, such as parental warmth, can serve as a potential source of resilience for adolescents, helping them to successfully navigate challenging times.

In the parenting literature, there are several approaches, one of which is a dimensional approach that focuses on individual dimensions of parenting behavior, such as responsiveness/warmth and demandingness/control (Baumrind, 2005). With respect to the parenting dimension of responsiveness, high levels of parental warmth can be defined as accepting, nurturing, supportive, empathetic, and warm parental behavior, whereas low levels indicate insensitive, nonresponsive, and dismissive parental behavior (e.g., Lamb & Lewis, 2011). Thus, parental warmth represents the ‘emotional warmth’ or closeness between adolescents and their parents. Parents who show warmth toward their adolescent indicate that the offspring is loved and valued, which, in turn, could promote positive and decrease negative feelings in the adolescent (e.g., Alegre et al., 2014). In contrast, insensitive, unresponsive, and dismissive parental behavior promotes an insecure parent–child relationship, which may lead to perceptions of others as unreliable and hostile (e.g., Michiels et al., 2008), resulting in negative and aggressive behavior. From a motivational perspective, emotional and social problems may occur when parents do not meet adolescents’ needs for autonomy and self-determination (Soenens et al., 2015), which can especially occur when there is low parental warmth among family members.

Two recent meta-analyses, one including 1,435 (Pinquart, 2017a) studies and the other including 1,015 studies (Pinquart, 2017b), showed that higher levels of parental warmth are associated with lower levels of internalizing symptoms (r = −.20), including anxiety and depression (Pinquart, 2017a, p. 622) as well as externalizing (r = −.18) problems such as aggression or antisocial behavior (Pinquart, 2017b, p. 877). Further, a higher level of responsiveness in parenting predicts a slight but significant decrease (r = −.06) in emotional (Pinquart, 2017a, p. 624) and social (r = −.06) problems (Pinquart, 2017b, p. 879). These findings suggest that high levels of supportive, warm, and loving parenting serve as a resource in uncertain and difficult times where they are needed.

However, it is apparent that the different members of a family have differing perceptions of inner-familial functioning and parenting. In terms of the frequency of conflicts and the degree of monitoring, for example, increasing discrepancies have been found between the ratings of mothers, fathers, and adolescents in the period between early– and mid–adolescence (e.g., De Los Reyes et al., 2019; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019). One explanation is that during adolescence, a mismatch between adolescents’ needs and provided environments emerges (Eccles et al., 1993), leading to an increasing discrepancy between parents and adolescents. More precisely, even if there is relatively high overall parental warmth in the family, parents and adolescents may have different views (i.e., a large discrepancy) on the level of parental warmth in their relationship.

Assessing families’ characteristics and processes through multiple raters has become increasingly important. Studies have shown that adolescents and parents perceive familial aspects and processes differently (De Los Reyes & Ohannessian, 2016; Leung et al., 2016; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019, 2020). Low levels of agreement in ratings in this regard cannot be simply attributed to adolescents’ lack of cognitive ability or shyness, as similarly low levels of agreement have been found among adult reporters, such as parents and teachers (Achenbach, 2006; De Los Reyes et al., 2015). Discrepancies in ratings between family members can therefore provide meaningful information about familial functioning, as research has shown that not only the perceptions of parents or adolescents themselves, but also parent–adolescent differences in family members’ ratings are related to adolescents’ psychosocial adjustment (Ksinan & Vazsonyi, 2016; Leung et al., 2016).

However, discrepancies in ratings can be viewed as either adaptive or maladaptive for families and individuals’ functioning (Leung et al., 2016; Ohannessian & De Los Reyes, 2014). Discrepancies are interpreted as maladaptive if they indicate an underlying problem in the relationships within the family (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2006; Ksinan & Vazsonyi, 2016). According to Olson et al.’s (1983) circumplex model, differences in perceived familial processes can be the consequence of stress among members. In addition, cohabitation and interaction among family members may be characterized by disorganization, maladaptive interactions, and a noncohesive atmosphere. Therefore, the discrepancy can be the result of familial maladjustment that negatively affects the psychosocial development of adolescents (Feinberg et al., 2000; Ohannessian et al., 2000; Reidler & Swenson, 2012). That is, the family or individual family members are less able to support young people throughout adolescence adequately as this is a period when additional resources are necessary to provide a buffer against negative developments in emotional and social adjustment.

In contrast, from a developmental perspective, discrepancies can be viewed as adaptive and part of the normative development of families, including parents and adolescents (Branje et al., 2012; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019; Smetana & Rote, 2019). Following this perspective, the discrepancy between parents and adolescents is an expression of a growing individuation of the latter as they strive for more independence, autonomy, and equality (e.g., Grotevant & Cooper, 1986). An additional explanation, referring to the generational stake hypothesis, emphasizes that within-family relationships (e.g., mother–adolescent and father–adolescent) have a different degree of importance among generations, for example, parents versus adolescents (Leung et al., 2016; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019). Specifically, it is assumed that parents put much more effort and investment into creating a supportive familial environment to meet adolescents’ developmental needs, so they consequently evaluate the quality of the relationships within the family as more positive compared with adolescents. Following this developmental perspective on discrepancy, differences in family members’ ratings seem to be normative rather than an indicator of detrimental conflicts or maladaptive processes within the family. This implies that, in general, the family or family members may serve as a supportive resource throughout adolescence, although their perceptions may be discrepant. In fact, Mastrotheodoros and colleagues (2019) showed that although parents and children differed in their ratings of parenting at the beginning of their study (aged 13 years at T1), the evaluations converged over six years.

This study investigates how familial resources, conceptualized as parental warmth among members, affect adolescents’ emotional and social adjustment throughout early adolescence, using reports from mothers, fathers, and adolescents. With respect to the smallest unit within the familial system, familial effects basically occur in dyadic interactions (Parke & Buriel, 2006). Therefore, this study focuses on parental warmth within the family by specifying the dyadic ratings of mothers and adolescents as well as those of fathers and adolescents. By doing this, we extend the previous literature on familial resources and parenting as follows:

First, the multiinformant perspective enables us to directly specify the dyadic perceptions of parental warmth between mothers and adolescents and between fathers and adolescents. Second, with respect to the dyadic mother–adolescent and father–adolescent relationships, we expect both the degree of shared ratings (level of ratings) and the difference (discrepancy between ratings) to be predictive of early adolescents’ social and emotional adjustment between the third and sixth school grades. Here, the level is conceptualized as the shared level or mean ratings of the mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads. The higher the shared level, the more both raters perceive parenting as emotionally warm. From a developmental perspective, a high level in mother–adolescent/father–adolescent ratings should help to buffer against stressful events as it may serve as a familial resource. Thus, we assume that, on average, higher levels of shared ratings of parental warmth within a family are linked to decreases in social and emotional problems, as indicators of psychological adjustment (H1).

The discrepancy in warm parenting represents a low congruence between parents and adolescents’ ratings. The discrepancy is conceptualized as the difference in mother–adolescent as well as father–adolescent ratings. Discrepancies between family members’ ratings may be either maladaptive (e.g., De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2006; Ksinan & Vazsonyi, 2016) or adaptive (e.g., Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019; Smetana & Rote, 2019). Maladaptive developmental trajectories may result from a lack of important familial resources indicating inner-familial problems that persist for a considerable period, resulting in stable and long-term negative effects on adolescents’ psychological adjustment. In contrast, if discrepancy corresponds to a normative development, indicating individuation processes, only temporary or no negative consequences for adolescents’ psychological adjustment could be expected. Thus, we can expect that discrepancies in parent-adolescent ratings affects adolescents’ psychological adjustment (H2). As an exploratory hypothesis, we also investigate whether these discrepancies affect psychological adjustment maladaptively or normatively.

However, we argue that this of discrepancy cannot be investigated independently of the direction of the discrepancy. The effect of the adolescent perceiving parenting more positive (or warmth) than the mother to the extent ‘X’ (adolescent overreporting) might affect the adolescent psychological adjustment differently than the mother perceiving the parenting more positive (or warmth) than the adolescent does to the same extent ‘X’ (maternal overreporting). Thus, some discrepancies might serve as resource, for example, they predict positive developmental trajectories, whereas other discrepancies constitute risk factors, for example, they predict negative developmental trajectories.

Discrepancy can be understood as a continuum. At one end, the adolescent overrates the parenting warmth, while at the other end the parent does. The midpoint indicates congruency. Therefore, a positive effect of parental overrating at the same time means a negative effect of adolescent overrating. A negative effect of parental overrating at the same time means a positive effect of adolescent overrating. To our knowledge, the literature does not allow for specific predictions in this regard. Therefore, we exploratively investigate the differences in the effects of parental versus adolescent overrating on psychological adjustment.

Methodologically, the study represents an important extension of the original discrepancy approach in developmental research on adolescence (e.g., De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2004). In the developmental period between the third and sixth grade, this study focuses on shorter time intervals than earlier research (in contrast, e.g., Ksinan & Vazsonyi, 2016)—namely, the changes between two neighboring school years. This allows for a more detailed investigation of different and specific ‘phases’ in early adolescents’ development (i.e., considering yearly changes). Furthermore, level and discrepancy in parent–adolescent ratings are specified as latent predictors, since both aspects (and not only discrepancy) can provide meaningful information about within-family processes (e.g., Leung et al., 2016). Moreover, effects of level and discrepancy on adolescents’ changes in psychological adjustment are investigated by bringing together different latent approaches, namely the latent congruence model (LCM) and the latent true intraindividual change model (TIC). While the LCM helps to specify interindividual differences in raters’ levels and discrepancies, the TIC makes it possible to model interindividual differences in adolescents’ intraindividual changes in emotional and social problems. Notably, the underlying study was preregistered (2021-07-29; https://osf.io/s27rt/?view_only=185d52180bc3400d87afbf9ef4a30843), this preregistered study provides all analysis scripts as well as additional information and the online supplemental materials.

This study is based on data from a comprehensive project on the Panel Analysis of Intimate Relationships and Family Dynamics (pairfam) in Germany (Huinink et al., 2011). Beginning in 2008, participants, including partners and children, from three cohorts (born 1971–73; born 1981–83; born 1991–93) were surveyed annually over 11 years. As part of specific questionnaire modules, the participants, and their partners and children living in the same household, were asked about family-related topics (Huinink et al., 2011; see https://www.pairfam.de/en/). These analyses focused on information from the perspective of the participant themselves (i.e., the biological mother or father of the adolescent), the biological child of the participant (i.e., the adolescent), and the participant’s partner (i.e., the mother or father of the adolescent, who did not necessarily have to be the biological parent).

As the underlying data followed a multiwave design, the data were restructured according to adolescents’ school grade levels, starting with grade 3. The subsample consisted of 1,817 young adolescents in school grades 3 to 6 with grade-related mean ages of 8.58 (SD = .59), 9.51 (SD = .60), 10.46 (SD = .58), and 11.60 (SD = .63) years, respectively. Parents were predominantly from the first (born: 1971–73) and second (born 1981–83) cohort. At grade 3, mothers were 36.8 (SD = 4.73) and fathers were 40.45 (SD = 6.19) years old.

Table 1 depicts the sample size for each grade, including participants’ gender, migration background (adolescent, one parent, or a grandparent not born in Germany), secondary school track, and achievement (mean German and math grades before and after the school transition), as well as parents’ marital status (married or unmarried). The sample predominantly comprised individuals from a German ethnic background, and both genders were equally represented (see Table 1). After four years of elementary education (grades 1 to 4), formal achievement-based tracking characterizes the organization of secondary schools in Germany, offering three major school tracks, namely, a higher track (‘Gymnasium’), a middle track (‘Realschule’), and a lower track (‘Hauptschule’). Thus, after passing through elementary school after grade 4, adolescents move on to different forms of secondary schooling. Here, less than 50% of the sample attended the highest school track in grades 5 (36.72%) and 6 (29.55%).

Summarizing the complex study design, participants were randomly selected from all individuals living in private households in Germany born into three cohorts: 1991–1993; 1981–1983; and 1971–1973. Computer-aided interviewing was realized by an independent institute (Brüderl et al., 2020). Participants initially received a letter of invitation in which the study design and aims were explained, together with the necessary informed consent. This was followed by a telephone call to make an appointment for the personal interview. Parents and children from the age of 8 years were separately interviewed, if possible.

This study focused only on triadic family data, including both parents and one (biological) child. The children and both parents completed a questionnaire on various topics, such as the perceived quality of parent–child relationships as well as adolescents’ social and emotional adjustment, which took approximately 75 minutes for parents and 20 minutes for adolescents to complete. At the end of the interview, each participant received 15 Euros as a reward for completion (Brüderl et al., 2020).

Adolescents’ psychological adjustment was measured using two scales from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Woerner et al., 2002), a well-established screening instrument for problem behaviors. Notably, the precise item wording is provided in the online supplemental materials (S-T1). Social adjustment was assessed in terms of adolescents’ perceived social problem behaviors (SOC) using three items reflecting difficulties in social interactions and integration within a social group. Adolescents were asked to indicate their agreement on a three-point rating scale (0 = not true to 2 = certainly true). The construct reliability (Omega) was acceptable (grade 3: .61; grade 4: .64; grade 5: .60; and grade 6: .63). Using the same rating scale, emotional adjustment reflected by adolescents’ emotional problem behaviors (EMO), was assessed using three items that addressed emotional problems, such as symptoms of depression and anxiety. The construct reliability was good (grade 3: .73; grade 4: .74; grade 5: .70; and grade 6: .75). Strong invariance across time (grades 3 to 6) for adolescents perceived emotional and social problems was tested in an overall model (structural equation modeling, SEM). This constitutes a strong test of the invariance assumption, including the same factor loadings and manifest intercepts across time. Applying the difference-criterion in the comparative fit index (ΔCFI; criterion of a −.01 change in CFI), the root mean square of approximation difference criterion (ΔRMSEA; criterion of a −.015 change in RMSEA) as well as the standardized root-mean-square residual difference criterion (ΔSRMR; criterion of a −.015 change in SRMR), strong invariance could be shown over time (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Meade et al., 2008). The metric invariance was as follows: ΔCFI = .001, ΔRMSEA = .001, ΔSRMR = −.001; strong invariance was as follows: ΔCFI = .001, ΔRMSEA = .001, and ΔSRMR = −.001. All detailed information on the invariance models for emotional and social problem behavior can be seen in the online supplemental materials (S-T2).

Parental warmth represents the “emotional warmth” or closeness between adolescents and their mothers as well as between adolescents and their fathers. It indicates the degree of affirmative attention and care in parenting and is based on mothers and fathers’ actual parenting behavior (Jaursch, 2003). Adolescents’ perceptions of their mothers’ or fathers’ warmth in parenting, respectively, were measured using three items (for exact item wording, see the online supplemental materials S-T1) on a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often. The construct reliability was good for the adolescents’ rating of the parental warmth of their mother (grade 3: .74; grade 4: .77; and grade 5: .78) and father (grade 3: .85; grade 4: .88; and grade 5: .89). The mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of parental warmth were also captured using three items on the same five-point rating scale. Again, the reliability was good for mothers’ ratings (grade 3: .86; grade 4: .85; and grade 5: .86) and fathers’ ratings (grade 3: .83; grade 4: .84; grade 5: .83). Invariance testing was done simultaneously across time (grades 3 to 5) and perspectives (mother–adolescent and father–adolescent). Both, the adolescent–mother model (metric invariance: ΔCFI = .002, ΔRMSEA = .001, and ΔSRMR = −.002; strong invariance: ΔCFI = .002, ΔRMSEA = −.001, and ΔSRMR = −.001) and the adolescent–father model (metric invariance: ΔCFI = −.005, ΔRMSEA = −.002, and ΔSRMR = −.001; strong invariance: ΔCFI = .002, ΔRMSEA = −.001, and ΔSRMR = −.001) showed strong invariance. Details of the invariance models for the mother–adolescent (S-T3) and father–adolescent (S-T4) models can be found in the online supplemental materials.

Several variables served as control variables to limit the effects of those exogenous variables that were not the primary focus of the underlying analysis. More precisely, because girls are expected to report more emotional problems whereas boys are expected to show more social problems (e.g., Bornstein et al., 2010; Gniewosz & Gniewosz, 2019; Klasen et al., 2016), adolescents’ gender (1 = male and 2 = female) was included. Further, families’ household income (monthly net household income in Euros) was also included because families’ economic situation may affect adolescents’ adjustment as well as parenting (e.g., Masarik & Conger, 2017). Finally, because the organization of secondary schools (beginning in grade 5) in Germany is strongly characterized by a formal achievement orientation (e.g., Hüther & Krücken, 2018), the type of school that adolescents attended starting from grade 5 (1 = lowest school track, 2 = middle school track and 3= highest school track) served as further control variables.

All analyses were conducted using SEM techniques with the R package lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). However, several steps had to be taken to prepare the data before the hypotheses of interest could be tested. First, we tested whether missing values in all variables were random using Little’s (1988) missing completely at random test (MCAR-Test). As the multiwave data were restructured according to adolescents’ grade levels, systematic missing data occurred due to the design of the underlying data. Consequently, all constructs were tested within each grade level. Using the R–package MissMech (Jamshidian et al., 2014), in grades 3 (p = .268), 4 (p = .073), 5 (p = .060) and 6 (p = .177), missing values in all constructs proved to be completely random. Second, missing data were addressed using by multiple imputation (MI), providing unbiased and valid estimates of specified associations based on all available data. More precisely, missing data were imputed based on the distribution of (all) available variables in the dataset, under the missing at random assumption (Schafer & Graham, 2002). For the imputation model, all categorical data (items of psychological adjustment and parental warmth, gender, and school track) were handled as (ordered) factors, using the logistic regression method and the proportional odds model, respectively. The MI with m = 100 was run using the R-package Mice function (van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011), and the resulting imputation model served as basis for all further models. Third, two different models were combined to test the hypotheses of interest within a mother–adolescent and a father–adolescent model: the TIC to model grade-specific changes in emotional and social problems (grades 3 to 6), and the LCM to specify level and discrepancy in the ratings between adolescents and mothers as well as between adolescents and fathers. Here, we emphasized different fit indices to evaluate goodness of fit (e.g., RMSEA, SRMR, TLI, and CFI), but also presented the χ2-test statistic and an evaluation of parameter estimates (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Xia & Yang, 2019). For an acceptable fit, the RMSEA and SRMR had to be <.08, whereas the CFI and TLI had to be >.90.

TIC models were used to capture the changes in psychological adjustment across the five grades (Steyer et al., 1997; Vautier et al., 2008); specifically, interindividual differences in the intraindividual change between two neighboring grade levels were specified. Thus, a latent intercept (e.g., emotional problems at grade 3) represented the general level of the variable (e.g., in emotional problems) and a grade-specific latent change variable (e.g., changes in emotional problems from grades 3 to 4, from grades 4 to 5, and from grades 5 to 6) reflected the true intraindividual change in a grade level in relation to a previous grade. For the model specification, the items (e.g., first item “EMO1.G6” for emotional problems at grade 6) were predicted by an intercept (e.g., the intercept of emotional problems at grade 3), a grade-specific change (e.g., the change in emotional problems from grades 5 to 6), and all previous change variables (e.g., the changes in emotional problems from grades 4 to 5 and from grades 3 to 4). The schematic model for emotional problem behaviors is shown in Figure 1a. The loadings and intercepts for each item were set to be equal across latent variables to secure the same meaning or metric at each grade-level, while the correlations between the intercept and change variables were estimated (not shown in Figure 1a).

LCM models were used to specify the dyadic discrepancy between mother, father, and adolescent ratings of warmth parenting. The goal of LCM models is to examine the congruence between the raters—or, in other words, the degree to which different ratings agree or disagree (Cheung, 2009). Notably, since one focus of the current study is the discrepancy that is inversely related to congruency, the further descriptions (analyses, results, discussion) refer to “discrepancy” (see also, Ksinan & Vazsonyi, 2016).

Basically, the LCM model is a second-order confirmatory factor analysis model with two higher-order latent variables referring to the level of the two raters’ scores (i.e., the mean ratings of the mothers’ and adolescents’ ratings of warmth parenting) and to the discrepancy (i.e., the differences in ratings between the mothers’ and adolescents’ evaluations of warmth parenting). Each first-order variable is a simple latent variable based on the items answered by the different raters (i.e., the items that the mother rated versus the items that the adolescent rated). Level and discrepancy are modeled by the second–order variables (see, Figure 1b, following Cheung, 2009). The predictive paths of the discrepancy variable to the first–order latent variables had fixed factor loadings of −.5 and .5, respectively, while the paths from the level variable had fixed factor loadings of 1. Additionally, the residuals of the first–order factors were set to zero and the two second–order terms were allowed to covary. Furthermore, all intercepts and loadings of the first–order factors were set to be equal across each grade level (3–5) and each perspective (mother or father and adolescent) within the dyadic model (not shown in Figure 1b). The level represents the mean value of ratings within a dyad, where higher values represent a more positive shared rating of warmth parenting. A discrepancy value of “0” represents no discrepancy at all between raters within a dyad; positive discrepancy values represent the extent to which the parental rating exceeds the adolescent rating (parental overrating); and negative values represent the extent to which the adolescent’s rating exceeds the parental rating (adolescent overrating; see Figure 2).

The LCM model was then extended to a full SEM with emotional and social problems as endogenous latent change variables (TIC models) and specific control variables. More precisely, within the mother–adolescent and father–adolescent model, the dependent change variables of emotional (EMO) and social (SOC) problems were predicted using the following: (a) three control variables, namely adolescents’ gender (1 = male and 2 = female), school track at grade 5 (1 = low track, 2 = middle track, and 3 = high track), and net household income; (b) two independent variables in a time-lagged pattern, that is, the parent–adolescent level of warmth in parenting (e.g., the level at grade 3 predicts a change in EMO and SOC between grades 3 and 4) and the parent–adolescent discrepancy in parental warmth (e.g., the discrepancy at grade 3 predicts the change in EMO and SOC between grades 3 and 4). Additionally, the contemporaneous correlations between the variables of EMO, SOC, level, and discrepancy were specified (e.g., the intercept or change EMO at grade 3 correlates with the intercept or change SOC at grade 3, and level at grade 3 correlates with intercept/change EMO at grade 3). Finally, the correlations between the intercepts of EMO/SOC at grade 3 and the control variables were estimated.

The descriptive model without predictions between the latent variables, as well as without covariates, showed an acceptable global fit for the mother–adolescent model, χ2(688, n = 1,817) = 1946.62, p < .001; RMSEA = .032; SRMR = .033; CFI = .928; TLI = .910, and for the father–adolescent model, χ2(688, n = 1,817) = 2548.92, p < .001; RMSEA = .038; SRMR = .040; CFI = .910; TLI = .900. The mean values, variance, and correlations of all latent variables, that is, the intercepts and changes in emotional and social problems, as well as the levels and discrepancies across all grade levels, are shown in Table 2 (for the mother–adolescent dyad) and Table 3 (for the father–adolescent dyad).

Young adolescents’ social problems and emotional problems decreased significantly, although only slightly, as they moved from grade level to grade level (see Table 4). Although the mean values reflected the general trend between grades 3 and 6, the variances in the variables were more interesting: The significant variances in the between-grade changes indicated interindividual differences in the changes in social and emotional problems (see Table 4).

Descriptive information for the parent–adolescent reports on parental warmth is shown in Table 5 for the mother–adolescent dyad and Table 6 for the father–adolescent dyad. Adolescents’ reports on the parental warmth of mothers appeared to be slightly more positive than mothers’ evaluations; this discrepancy was significant only for grade 5. Furthermore, adolescents perceived the parenting of their fathers as more positive or warm than their fathers did; this discrepancy was significant across grades 3 to 5. However, the variances in all mother–adolescent and father–adolescent discrepancy scores were significant, making it worthwhile to investigate the effects of interindividual differences.

The mother–adolescent model showed a good model fit, χ2(830, n = 1,817) = 2277.13, p < .001; RMSEA = .031; SRMR = .040; CFI = .916; TLI = .900. All regression coefficients obtained in the maternal model are reported in Table 7. The effects of the control variables were as follows: Girls showed smaller decreases in social problem behaviors than boys did, but only between grades 3 and 4 (β = .08, p = .048). Furthermore, attending a higher school track corresponded with a greater reduction in social (β = −.11, p = .034) and emotional (β = −.14, p = .001) problems between grades 5 and 6. However, no additional effects of the control variables on the changes in emotional and social problem behaviors were significant.

Predicting the changes in adolescents’ social problems between every neighbored grade level, the following pattern emerged: Mothers’ and adolescents’ shared level of reported parental warmth at grade 3 negatively predicted the change in social problems (β = −.07, p = .001) and emotional problems (β = −.10, p = .001) between grades 3 and 4. That is, the more positively mothers and adolescents rated maternal warmth at grade 3, the more the social and emotional problems decreased between grades 3 and 4.

Concerning the discrepancies in mothers’ and adolescents’ evaluations of maternal warmth, the discrepancy at grade 5 positively predicted the change in emotional problems between grades 5 and 6 (β = .08, p = .045). The extent of the maternal overrating was related to a smaller reduction in adolescents’ emotional problems, indicating a maladaptive developmental trajectory. Similarly, the extent of the adolescents’ overrating was linked to a larger reduction in adolescents’ emotional problems, indicating an adaptive trajectory. However, we did not find any further predictions for the levels or discrepancies of mother–adolescent reported parental warmth on adolescents’ change in social and emotional problems.

To summarize, if the mother and adolescent share a positive perception of the mother’s parenting, it helps to foster the latter’s psychological adjustment (H1). Additionally, the discrepancy in the ratings only at grade 5 positively predicted the changes in emotional, but not social problems. This means that the maternal overrating of parental warmth predicted a poorer psychological adjustment over time (i.e., a smaller reduction in emotional and social problems), pointing to a negative trajectory (H2).

The father–adolescent model showed an acceptable fit, χ2(830, n = 1,817) = 2824.00, p < .001; RMSEA = .036; SRMR = .044; CFI = .904; TLI = .895. All regression coefficients obtained in the paternal model are reported in Table 7. The effects of the control variables were as follows: Adolescents in a higher secondary school track showed a greater decline in social (β = −.12, p = .025) and emotional (β = −.14, p = .002) problems between grades 5 and 6.

Fathers and adolescents’ levels of parental warmth at grade 3 negatively predicted the change in emotional problems between grades 3 and 4 (β = −.06, p = .044). Furthermore, the level at grade 4 negatively predicted the change in emotional (β = −.09, p = .042) and social (β = −.08, p = .017) problems between grades 4 and 5. Finally, the level of parental warmth at grade 5 negatively predicted the change in emotional problems between grades 5 and 6 (β = −.09, p = .014). On average, the higher adolescents and fathers rated their parenting as warmth, the stronger emotional as well as social problems declined.

Regarding the effects of discrepant parenting ratings between fathers and adolescents, positive effects were found with respect to the discrepancy at grade 3 predicting the change in emotional problems between grades 3 and 4 (β = .08, p = .007); the discrepancy at grade 4 predicting the change in emotional (β = .09, p = .007) and social (β = −.12, p = .008) problems between grades 4 and 5; the discrepancy at grade 5 predicting the change in emotional problems between grades 5 and 6 (β = .12, p = .002). The extent of paternal overrating was also related to a smaller reduction in adolescents’ emotional problems, indicating a maladaptive developmental trajectory. Similarly, the extent of adolescents’ overrating was linked to a larger reduction in adolescents’ emotional problems, indicating an adaptive trajectory.

In summary, fathers and adolescents shared positive perceptions of paternal warmth predicted positive psychological adjustment trajectories (H1). Discrepant parenting ratings positively predicted changes in both emotional and social problems between grades 3 and 5, but only in emotional problems between grades 5 and 6. This means that poorer lower psychological adjustment (indicated by a decreased reduction in emotional and social problems) was found if the fathers rated the parenting more positively or warm than did the adolescents (paternal overrating), pointing to a maladaptive trajectory (H2).

Adolescence is a period involving multiple changes on emotional, social, and cognitive levels and represents a challenge for all family members, including mothers, fathers, and adolescents (e.g., Branje, 2018). The main objective of this study was to investigate the effects of mother–adolescent’s and father–adolescent’s level of and discrepancies in reported parental warmth on young adolescents’ psychological adjustment across time, specifically between school grades 3 and 6. Parental warmth is known to be a key dimension of positive parenting (e.g., Alegre et al., 2014) and is expected to serve as a resource to buffer against the negative development of adolescents during times of multiple changes (e.g., Pinquart, 2017a, 2017b). Indeed, our results suggest that parental warmth are relevant for adolescents’ psychological adjustment: Higher levels of parental warmth were linked to a greater decline in adolescents’ emotional and social problems, whereas a discrepancy in family members’ reports of parental warmth is associated with a smaller decline in emotional and social problem behaviors.

Although the literature has indicated that the transition from late childhood to adolescence is relatively stressful for adolescents (for a review, see Evans et al., 2018), our analyses present a more optimistic picture with regard to the general trends in emotional and social adjustment: adolescents’ self–reported social and emotional problems slightly decreased over time (from grades 3 to 6). At least in the German context, this trend is in line with other representative studies focusing on the developmental trajectories of internalizing and externalizing problems through late childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood (Costello et al., 2011; Klasen et al., 2016). However, the developmental phase during adolescence is not equally challenging for all adolescents, as can be seen in the underlying results showing variances in the change variables of emotional and social problems (see Table 4). This suggests differences in the extent of intraindividual changes in adolescents’ psychological adjustment across time and is in line with previous research that has shown that adolescents’ reports about their experiences during adolescence range from being difficult and negative for some students, to straightforward and secure in others (Jindal-Snape & Foggie, 2008; Vaz et al., 2014). Based on these findings, it seems worth investigating explanatory variables, which in the present study included parental warmth.

Dyadic analyses of parental warmth suggest that parents and adolescents differ in their ratings. However, two tendencies are evident: First, parents’ and adolescents’ ratings are less discrepant during late childhood than during early adolescence. For the mother–adolescent dyad, the ratings seem congruent until grade 4; significant discrepancies only emerge at grade 5 (Table 5). For the father–adolescent dyad, the discrepancies between fathers’ and adolescents’ reports are relatively small, but significant across all grade levels (Table 6). These findings may be interpreted in the context of the changing nature of the parent–child relationship between late childhood and adolescence (for a review, see Koepke & Denissen, 2012; Smetana & Rote, 2019): During late childhood, the parent–child relationship is characterized as predominantly hierarchical, with children perceiving their parents’ views as important, whereas early adolescence is marked by increasing individuation processes, including adolescents’ striving for more autonomy and privacy. Consequently, on entering early adolescence, the frequency and intensity of inner-familial interaction (e.g., the way of communication and problem solving) between parents and adolescents change in a way that all family members no longer share a similar basis about what adolescents are involved in and how they deal with everyday situations (e.g., Frijns et al., 2010; Keijsers & Poulin, 2013). Further, with an increase in age, adolescents evaluate the behaviors of their parents differently (i.e., they de-idealize and rate more realistically; Levpušček, 2006). This may explain the increasing discrepancy patterns during early adolescence. However, because this interpretation is based on descriptive information (i.e., means), other models that investigate these topics over longer periods, perhaps continuing until late adolescence or early adulthood, seem necessary (for an example, see Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019).

Additionally, our findings suggest that adolescents rate the parenting style to be generally warmer than parents do. This is not entirely parallel to previous research, which has shown that parents have the tendency to overrate specific aspects of the parent–child relationship, for example, viewing themselves as more supportive (Gaylord et al., 2003) or striving for greater monitoring (Ksinan & Vazsonyi, 2016), than adolescents. Furthermore, adolescents become more critical in evaluating their parents’ behaviors (Pinquart, 2017b) and tend to perceive parents’ control as less legitimate (Smetana et al., 2005). Although it might seem counterintuitive, this finding could also be interpreted in the light of the changing nature of parent–adolescent relationships, which could be broken down into different phases between late childhood and early adolescence, from early to middle adolescence, and middle to late adolescence/young adulthood. Further, adolescents and adults may not realize these developmental processes simultaneously. Focusing on late childhood and early adolescence, parents may be dissatisfied with the reduced level of disclosure of their children and may feel that their adolescents do not accept or appreciate their way of support, resulting in lower parental ratings of parental warmth compared with that their children (Mastrotheodoros et al., 2020). Adolescents strive to maintain their boundaries and, simultaneously, the closeness with their parents, despite their desire for autonomy (Harter, 2008; Koepke & Denissen, 2012), resulting in a more positive evaluation of specific aspects of the parent–adolescent relationship (i.e., parental warmth). However, as shown by the significant variances in the mother–adolescent and father–adolescent discrepancy variables, there is a strong tendency for interindividual differences in the ratings of dyadic parent–adolescent parenting style, suggesting that the discrepancy is larger in some parent–adolescent dyads and smaller in others.

It has been suggested that parenting style plays a functional role in autonomy-related processes in parent–adolescent relationships (Ksinan & Vazsonyi, 2016; Leung et al., 2016). That is, if connectedness and independence are well balanced, the developmental trajectories of young people are more likely to be positive. Therefore, parental warmth may serve as a driver that aids parents and adolescents to “loosen their ties” by maintaining reciprocal trust and sensitivity, especially when support is needed (e.g., Grotevant & Cooper, 1986).

The hypothesized “resource or predictive effect” of parent–adolescents’ level of parental warmth on adolescents’ psychological adjustment was found, supporting H1. The more affirmative attention and care in the parent-adolescent relationship is described by parents and adolescents, the lower adolescents reported levels of social and emotional problems was. Especially through adolescence, parental warmth is the basis for family–related interactions, including the flexibility to change family rules and roles while maintain inner–familial bonding and cohesion (Branje et al., 2010; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2020). Despite the many changes throughout the adolescent years, those families that succeed in interacting lovingly with each other, foster adolescents’ psychological adjustment. Therefore, an overall positive rating of parenting within the family helps to buffer against stressful times, suggesting that families can meet adolescents’ changing needs.

In terms of discrepancies in the ratings of parental warmth, the overall results pattern suggests that discrepancy in the parent–adolescent ratings is relevant in adolescents’ psychological adjustment, supporting H2. As already discussed, discrepancy may be either maladaptive or adaptive, which is reflected in different result patterns with either long-term negative effects or no/temporal negative effects on adolescents’ psychological adjustment. However, the general results pattern is more nuanced, necessitating a consideration of the direction of the discrepancy.

In this study, we considered two different types of discrepancies, namely adolescent overreporting, which means basically the same as parental under–reporting, and the parental overreporting, which, in this case, means the same as adolescent underreporting. Depending on the type of over–reporting, the discrepancy may be normative or, in other words, serve as a resource. However, discrepancy can also be maladaptive and represent a risk factor for negative developmental trajectories. The underlying findings show that the more parental ratings outperform the adolescents’ ratings (parental overreporting), the smaller the decline in social and emotional problems, pointing to a less successful psychological adjustment. Thus, the type of discrepancy seems relevant, as parental overreporting serves as a risk factor affecting adolescents’ psychological adjustment, and therefore, developmental trajectory negatively. Our findings, especially those for paternal overreporting, suggest that some parents seem to be less effective in adapting to the changing needs of adolescents, including their way (e.g., affirmative and warm) of parental behavior. For instance, parents seem to be either less sensitive to their adolescents’ needs or less successful in obtaining information (e.g., about how they feel or in getting them to disclose) from their adolescents (Goodman et al., 2021; Kapetanovic et al., 2019). This lack of information makes it more difficult to provide adequate care and to serve as a resource for adolescents in periods of numerous challenges.

Notably, discrepancies appear on a continuum, with the “midpoint” indicating congruency. Thus, the negative effect of parental overrating simultaneously means the positive effect of adolescent overreporting. Following this, we can conclude that if adolescents overrate their parents, the decline in their social and emotional problems should be larger, indicating a positive trajectory in adolescents’ social and emotional development. Indeed, an (overly) optimistic perception and evaluation could serve as a protective factor for their adolescents’ psychological adjustment and health (for a review, see Rincón Uribe et al., 2021). However, future studies need to investigate the nature and (longitudinal) effects of parent versus adolescent overreporting on adolescents’ psychological adjustment.

In this study, the hypothesized effects of parent–adolescent parental warmth levels and discrepancies were predominantly found in the father–adolescent dyad, pointing to gender-specific or dyadic processes. In the father–adolescent dyad, both the level of and discrepancy in parental warmth predict social adjustment at each grade level. In the mother–adolescent dyad, however, relatively few effects were found (i.e., the level effect at grade 3 and the discrepancy effect at grade 4). Furthermore, whereas in father–adolescent dyads both the level and the discrepancy in parental warmth predicted the emotional adjustment between grades 4 and 5—at a time when most young people face the transition from primary to secondary school—in the mother–adolescent dyad only a level effect was evident at grade 3. Gender–role theory (Marceau et al., 2015; Ravindran et al., 2020) might explain differences in the result –patterns of mother–adolescent vs. father–adolescent dyads. Parenting depends on the gender of the parents, with mothers and fathers playing different roles and initiating and reinforcing different socialization processes (Marceau et al., 2015). For example, mothers are more likely to be involved with their children as well as more sensitive to reciprocating caring and emotional support in adolescents’ daily lives (Kobak et al., 2017; Marceau et al., 2015), so they may be closer to adolescents’ everyday problems. Consequently, positive or maternal warmth may not serve as an “additional” supportive resource during times of transition, as mothers behave according to the role expectations placed on them (e.g., primary caregiver, emotional support). Fathers, who in general might have a somewhat “looser” relationship with their children and not be intensively involved in their children’s daily lives (Brand & Klimes-Dugan, 2010; Lewis & Lamb, 2003), may provide such an additional source of support during challenging times. If fathers are more involved and are, therefore, perceived as behaving more caringly and affirmatively than expected according to their role, the adolescents may perceive this as positive (even more so than the father perceives it themselves), and therefore, this may serve as a protective factor for the adolescent’s development. In this study, this pattern was especially found in the prediction of emotional problem behavior in the father–adolescent dyad. Research positing that high levels of paternal support during stressful events in adolescence can buffer negative emotions (depressive symptoms) and feelings (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2011) may support this argument.

In addition, dyad-specific differences in parenting strategies may also provide a possible explanation for this result, as differences in parenting often include variations in how mothers and fathers behave and communicate. For example, whereas in stressful situations fathers are more problem-oriented, mothers tend to rely more on emotion-focused regulation (Marceau et al., 2015). More precisely, the parental strategy comprises activities to alleviate, modify, or eliminate stress by (jointly) seeking specific solutions, including aspects of problem-solving and negotiation. The maternal strategy focuses on the expression of feelings as a means of strengthening social relationships, achieving intimacy, and relieving stress in challenging situations (Marceau et al., 2015; Simpson et al., 2020). Because adolescence is a time when the way of reciprocal interaction within families changes to a more egalitarian way, the paternal, problem-oriented strategy might be more adaptive than the emotion-focused strategy that mothers prefer, thus better satisfying the needs of their growing children. However, as the differing parenting styles of the mothers and fathers of adolescents were not the focus of this study, future studies should address this aspect.

Some limitations have to be considered when interpreting the results of the study. First, the reliability of the social problems scale was only acceptable. The attempt to represent a “broad” range of different social problem behaviors with just a few items led to less consistent response behavior, as perhaps the respondents perceived only certain aspects as appropriate. A larger number of items, in addition to alternative scales for validation, may provide more reliable measures, which is typically not possible in large longitudinal survey studies for economic reasons.

Second, although the SDQ is a well-established instrument to measure adolescents’ social and emotional adjustment, it could be valuable to include additional facets, such as psychological (e.g., well-being), physical (e.g., concentration problems), or behavioral (e.g., eating habits) indicators in future research to gain a more sophisticated understanding of adolescents’ psychological adjustment throughout this period.

Third, the effect sizes obtained in the current study were relatively small. One reason for this may be the complexity of the model (e.g., longitudinal design, multiple perspectives, change predictions across a short period, the discrepancy measure as a predictor, controlling for important background variables). However, looking at the results of the current research, it might be plausible not to expect strong effect sizes. For instance, the associations between parental warmth and emotional (r = −.06) or social (r = −.06) problems described in meta-analyses are small but significant (i.e., Pinquart, 2017a, 2017b). Moreover, studies that focused on the predictive value of discrepancies between parents and adolescents also showed relatively small effect sizes (e.g., Ksinan & Vazsonyi, 2016: discrepancy in maternal monitoring of adolescents’ delinquency: β = .18). To our knowledge, there is not yet a systematic review or meta-analysis that could indicate what effect sizes to expect between parent–adolescent discrepancies in parental warmth and adolescents’ emotional and social problems.

Fourth, we focused only on the level of and discrepancy in parental warmth between parents and adolescents at each school grade. However, the perceptions of mothers’, fathers’, and adolescents’ parenting styles may also change across time. In addition to the modeling of parental warmth from multiple perspective as (second order) state variables, the specification of latent change variables (e.g., true change models) may be another perspective to consider the effect of ‘change’ in intra–familial parenting on adolescents’ psychological adjustment.

Fifth, in addition to linear regression effects of warmth parenting, interactions or quadratic effects may be worth considering. The assumption of a linear association between the discrepancy and problem behaviors may be challenged. In particular, it may be that extreme discrepancies might be more detrimental to developmental trajectories than moderate ones. Thus, specifying a quadratic term of discrepancy, for example, may be provide additional information about the relation between parenting discrepancy and adolescent’s psychological adjustment.

Finally, we have only focused on mother–adolescent and father–adolescent dyads, focusing specific parent–gender effects in warmth parenting. Following gender–role theory, for example, parenting depends not only on the gender of parents, but also on adolescents’ gender. Especially during adolescence, gender differences become more prevalent as same–gender parent–adolescent dyads differentiate more from opposite–gender parent–adolescent dyads (Keizer et al., 2019; Mastrotheodoros et al., 2019). Because gender differences in the same/opposite–gender parent–adolescent parenting behavior are not well understood, future studies should take a closer look at these inner–familial processes.

Despite the limitations of this study, it provides detailed insights into the developmental mechanisms underlying the processes of adolescents’ social and emotional adjustment throughout adolescence. This 4-year longitudinal study, including a multi–rater perspective, shows that a high level of reported parent–adolescent parental warmth reinforces positive changes in (early) adolescents’ psychological adjustment, while parental overreporting has negative effects thereon. This study emphasizes, first, that the effects of discrepancies on adolescents’ psychological adjustment cannot be interpreted without the direction (parental versus adolescent overreporting and, second, highlights the value of focusing on mother–adolescent and father–adolescent warmth parenting separately. Finally, the findings of this study provide important directions for future studies on psychological adjustment throughout adolescence.

1  In the case of there being more than one child within a family, the first-born child was chosen.

Achenbach, T. M. (2006). As others see us: Clinical and research implications of cross-informant correlations for psychopathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 94–98. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00414.x

Alegre, A., Benson, M. J., & Pérez-Escoda, N. (2014). Maternal warmth and early adolescents’ internalizing symptoms and externalizing behavior: Mediation via emotional insecurity. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(6), 712–735. 10.1177/0272431613501408

Baumrind, D. (2005). Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 61–69. 10.1002/cd.128

Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C.-S., & Haynes, O. M. (2010). Social competence, externalizing, and internalizing behavioral adjustment from early childhood through early adolescence: Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22(4), 717–735. 10.1017/S0954579410000416

Brand, A. E., & Klimes-Dugan, B. (2010). Emotion socialization in adolescence: the roles of mothers and fathers. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 128, 85–100. 10.1002/cd.270

Branje, S. (2018). Development of parent–adolescent relationships: Conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 171–176. 10.1111/cdep.12278

Branje, S. (2022). Adolescent identity development in context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, Article 101286. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.11.006

Branje, S. J., Hale, W. W., III, Frijns, T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). Longitudinal associations between perceived parent-child relationship quality and depressive symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(6), 751–763. 10.1007/s10802-010-9401-6

Branje, S., Keijsers, L. G. M. T., Van Doorn, M. D., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2012). Interpersonal and intrapersonal processes in the development of adolescent relationships. In B.Laursen & W. A.Collins (Eds.), Relationship pathways: From adolescence to young adulthood (pp. 257–276). Sage. 10.4135/9781452240565.n12

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W.Damon & R. M.Lerner (Series Eds.), & R. M.Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). John Wiley.

Brüderl, J., Drobnič, S., Hank, K., Neyer, F. J., Walper, S., Alt, P., Bozoyan, C., Finn, C., Frister, R., Garrett, M., Gonzalez Avilés, T., Greischel, H., Gröpler, N., Hajek, K., Herzig, M., Huyer-May, B., Lenke, R., Minkus, L., Peter, T., . . .Wilhelm, B. (2020). The German Family Panel (pairfam). 10.4232/pairfam.5678.11.0.0

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. 10.1080/10705510701301834

Cheung, G. W. (2009). Introducing the latent congruence model for improving the assessment of similarity, agreement, and fit in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 6–33. 10.1177/1094428107308914

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness–of–fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Costello, E. J., Copeland, W., & Angold, A. (2011). Trends in psychopathology across the adolescent years: What changes when children become adolescents, and when adolescents become adults?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 52(10), 1015–1025. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02446.x

De Los Reyes, A., Augenstein, T. M., Wang, M., Thomas, S. A., Drabick, D. A. G., Burgers, D. E., & Rabinowitz, J. (2015). The validity of the multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 858–900. 10.1037/a0038498

De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2004). Measuring informant discrepancies in clinical child research. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 330–334. 10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.330

De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 483–509. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.483

De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2006). Informant discrepancies in assessing child dysfunction relate to dysfunction within mother–child interactions. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(5), 643–661. 10.1007/s10826-006-9031-3

De Los Reyes, A., & Ohannessian, C. M. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: Discrepancies in adolescent–parent perceptions of the family and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 1957–1972. 10.1007/s10964-016-0533-z

De Los Reyes, A., Ohannessian, C. M., & Racz, S. J. (2019). Discrepancies between adolescent and parent reports about family relationships. Child Development Perspectives, 13(1), 53–58. 10.1111/cdep.12306

Desjardins, T. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2011). Relational victimization and depressive symptoms in adolescence: Moderating effects of mother, father, and peer emotional support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(5), 531–544. 10.1007/s10964-010-9562-1

Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self-and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64(3), 830–847.

Evans, D., Borriello, G. A., & Field, A. P. (2018). A review of the academic and psychological impact of the transition to secondary education. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1482. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01482

Fanti, K. A., & Henrich, C. C. (2010). Trajectories of pure and co-occurring internalizing and externalizing problems from age 2 to age 12: Findings from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1159–1175. 10.1037/a0020659

Feinberg, M. E., Howe, G. W., Reiss, D., & Hetherington, E. M. (2000). Relationship between perceptual differences of parenting and adolescent antisocial behavior and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(4), 531–555. 10.1037/0893-3200.14.4.531

Frijns, T., Keijsers, L., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2010). What parents don’t know and how it may affect their children: Qualifying the disclosure-adjustment link. Journal of Adolescence, 33(2), 261–270. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.010

Gaylord, N. K., Kitzmann, K. M., & Coleman, J. K. (2003). Parents’ and children’s perceptions of parental behavior: Associations with children’s psychosocial adjustment in the classroom. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(1), 23–47. 10.1207/S15327922PAR0301_02

Georgiou, S. N., & Symeou, M. (2018). Parenting practices and the development of internalizing/externalizing problems in adolescence. In L.Benedetto (Ed.), Parenting: Empirical advances and intervention resources (pp. 15–30). IntechOpen. 10.5772/66985

Gill, S. (2014). Emotional, social and educational adjustment of visually handicapped students of special schools students. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(3), 1–4.

Gilliom, M., & Shaw, D. S. (2004). Codevelopment of externalizing and internalizing problems in early childhood. Development and Psychopathology, 16(2), 313–333. 10.1017/S0954579404044530

Gniewosz, G., & Gniewosz, B. (2019). Psychological adjustment during multiple transitions between childhood and adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(4), 566–598. 10.1177/0272431619858422

Goodman, E. S., Ford, C. A., Friedrich, E. A., Ginsburg, K. R., Miller, V. A., & Mirman, J. H. (2021). Frequency of communication about adolescents’ strengths and weaknesses and the parent–adolescent relationship. Applied Developmental Science, 25(3), 260–271. 10.1080/10888691.2019.1594813

Graber, J. A. (2013). Internalizing problems during adolescence. In R. M.Lerner, & L.Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 587–626). Wiley. 10.1002/9780471726746.ch19

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: A perspective on individual differences in the development of identity and role-taking skill in adolescence. Human Development, 29(2), 82–100. 10.1159/000273025

Harter, S. (2008). The developing self. In W.Damon & R. M.Lerner (Eds.), Child and adolescent development: An advanced course (pp. 216–260). Wiley.

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118

Huinink, J., Brüderl, J., Nauck, B., Walper, S., Castiglioni, L., & Feldhaus, M. (2011). Panel analysis of intimate relationships and family dynamics (pairfam): Conceptual framework and design. ZtF. Zeitschrift Für Familienforschung, 23, 77–101. 10.4232/pairfam.5678.6.0.0

Hüther, O., & Krücken, G. (2018). Recent Reforms in the German Higher Education System. Higher education in Germany—Recent developments in an international perspective (pp. 9–37). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-61479-3_2

Jamshidian, M., Jalal, S., & Jansen, C. (2014). MissMech: An R Package for testing homoscedasticity, multivariate normality, and missing completely at random (MCAR). Journal of Statistical Software, 56(6), 1–31. 10.18637/jss.v056.i06

Jaursch, S. (2003). Erinnertes und aktuelles Erziehungsverhalten von Müttern und Vätern: Intergenerationale Zusammenhänge und kontextuelle Faktoren [Remembered and current parenting behaviors of mothers and fathers: Intergenerational relationships and contextual factors]. Friedrich–Alexander–Universität.

Jindal-Snape, D., & Foggie, J. (2008). A holistic approach to primary—secondary transitions. Improving Schools, 11(1), 5–18. 10.1177/1365480207086750

Kapetanovic, S., Boele, S., & Skoog, T. (2019). Parent–adolescent communication and adolescent delinquency: Unraveling within–family processes from between–family differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(9), 1707–1723. 10.1007/s10964-019-01043-w

Keijsers, L., & Poulin, F. (2013). Developmental changes in parent-child communication throughout adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 49(12), 2301–2308. 10.1037/a0032217

Keizer, R., Helmerhorst, K. O. W., & van Rijn-van Gelderen, L. (2019). Perceived quality of the mother–adolescent and father–adolescent attachment relationship and adolescents’ self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(6), 1203–1217. 10.1007/s10964-019-01007-0

Klasen, F., Petermann, F., Meyrose, A.-K., Barkmann, C., Otto, C., Haller, A.-C., Schlack, R., Schulte-Markwort, M., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. (2016). Verlauf psychischer Auffälligkeiten von Kindern und Jugendlichen: Ergebnisse der BELLA-Kohortenstudie [Trajectories of mental health problems in children and adolescents: Results of the BELLA Cohort Study]. Kindheit Und Entwicklung, 25(1), 10–20. 10.1026/0942-5403/a000184

Kobak, R., Abbott, C., Zisk, A., & Bounoua, N. (2017). Adapting to the changing needs of adolescents: Parenting practices and challenges to sensitive attunement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 137–142. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.018

Koepke, S., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2012). Dynamics of identity development and separation–individuation in parent–child relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood: A conceptual integration. Developmental Review, 32(1), 67–88. 10.1016/j.dr.2012.01.001

Ksinan, A. J., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (2016). Longitudinal associations between parental monitoring discrepancy and delinquency: An application of the latent congruency model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(12), 2369–2386. 10.1007/s10964-016-0512-4

Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2011). The role of parent-child relationships in child development. In M. H.Bornstein & M. E.Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (pp. 469–517). Psychology Press.

Law, P. C., Cuskelly, M., & Carroll, A. (2013). Young people’s perceptions of family, peer, and school connectedness and their impact on adjustment. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 23(1), 115–140. 10.1017/jgc.2012.19

Leung, J. T. Y., Shek, D. T. L., & Li, L. (2016). Mother–child discrepancy in perceived family functioning and adolescent developmental outcomes in families experiencing economic disadvantage in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 2036–2048. 10.1007/s10964-016-0469-3

Levpušček, M. P. (2006). Adolescent individuation in relation to parents and friends: Age and gender differences. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(3), 238–264. 10.1080/17405620500463864

Lewis, C., & Lamb, M. E. (2003). Fathers’ influences on children’s development: The evidence from two-parent families. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(2), 211–228. 10.1007/BF03173485

Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

Marceau, K., Zahn-Waxler, C., Shirtcliff, E. A., Schreiber, J. E., Hastings, P., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2015). Adolescents’, mothers’, and fathers’ gendered coping strategies during conflict: Youth and parent influences on conflict resolution and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 27(4, Pt. 1), 1025–1044. 10.1017/S0954579415000668

Masarik, A. S., & Conger, R. D. (2017). Stress and child development: A review of the Family Stress Model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13(2), 85–90. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008

Mastrotheodoros, S., Canário, C., Cristina Gugliandolo, M., Merkas, M., & Keijsers, L. (2020). Family functioning and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems: Disentangling between–, and within–family associations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(4), 804–817. 10.1007/s10964-019-01094-z

Mastrotheodoros, S., Van der Graaff, J., Deković, M., Meeus, W. H. J., & Branje, S. J. T. (2019). Coming closer in adolescence: Convergence in mother, father, and adolescent reports of parenting. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(4), 846–862. 10.1111/jora.12417

McLeod, B. D., Wood, J. J., & Weisz, J. R. (2007a). Examining the association between parenting and childhood anxiety: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(2), 155–172. 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.002

McLeod, B. D., Weisz, J. R., & Wood, J. J. (2007b). Examining the association between parenting and childhood depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(8), 986–1003. 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.001

Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592. 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568

Michiels, D., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., & Kuppens, S. (2008). Parent–child interactions and relational aggression in peer relationships. Developmental Review, 28(4), 522–540. 10.1016/j.dr.2008.08.002

Ohannessian, C. M., & De Los Reyes, A. (2014). Discrepancies in adolescents’ and their mothers’ perceptions of the family and adolescent anxiety symptomatology. Parenting: Science and Practice, 14(1), 1–18. 10.1080/15295192.2014.870009

Ohannessian, C. M., Lerner, J. V., Lerner, R. M., & von Eye, A. (2000). Adolescent–parent discrepancies in perceptions of family functioning and early adolescent self–competence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(3), 362–372. 10.1080/01650250050118358

Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: VI. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22(1), 69–83. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1983.00069.x

Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (Eds.). (2006). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological perspectives (6th ed., Vol. 3). Wiley.

Pinquart, M. (2017a). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 53(5), 873–932. 10.1037/dev0000295

Pinquart, M. (2017b). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with internalizing symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 53(7), 613–640. 10.1080/01494929.2016.1247761

Ravindran, N., Hu, Y., McElwain, N. L., & Telzer, E. H. (2020). Dynamics of mother-adolescent and father-adolescent autonomy and control during a conflict discussion task. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(3), 312–321. 10.1037/fam0000588

Reidler, E. B., & Swenson, L. P. (2012). Discrepancies between youth and mothers’ perceptions of their mother-child relationship quality and self-disclosure: Implications for youth- and mother-reported youth adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(9), 1151–1167. 10.1007/s10964-012-9773-8

Rincón Uribe, F. A., Neira Espejo, C. A., & Pedroso, J. (2021). The role of optimism in adolescent mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Happiness Studies. Advance online publication. 10.1007/s10902-021-00425-x

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147

Sharma, P., & Saini, N. (2013). Health, social and emotional problems of college students. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 14(5), 21–34. 10.9790/1959-1452134

Simpson, E. G., Lincoln, C. R., & Ohannessian, M. C. (2020). Does adolescent anxiety moderate the relationship between adolescent–parent communication and adolescent Coping?Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(1), 237–249. 10.1007/s10826-019-01572-9

Smetana, J. G. (2017). Current research on parenting styles, dimensions, and beliefs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 19–25. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.012

Smetana, J. G., & Rote, W. M. (2019). Adolescent–parent relationships: Progress, processes, and prospects. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 41–68. 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-084903

Smetana, J., Crean, H. F., & Campione-Barr, N. (2005). Adolescents’ and parents’ changing conceptions of parental authority. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 108, 31–46. 10.1002/cd.126

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & van Petegem, S. (2015). Let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater: Applying the principle of universalism without uniformity to autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting. Child Development Perspectives, 9(1), 44–49. 10.1111/cdep.12103

Steyer, R., Eid, M., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1997). Modeling true intraindividual change: True change as a latent variable. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 2(1), 21–33.

van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. 10.18637/jss.v045.i03

Vautier, S., Steyer, R., & Boomsma, A. (2008). The true-change model with individual method effects: Reliability issues. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 61(2), 379–399. 10.1348/000711007X206826

Vaz, S., Falkmer, M., Parsons, R., Passmore, A. E., Parkin, T., & Falkmer, T. (2014). School belongingness and mental health functioning across the primary-secondary transition in a mainstream sample: Multi-group cross-lagged analyses. PLoS ONE, 9(6), Article e99576. 10.1371/journal.pone.0099576

Woerner, W., Becker, A., Friedrich, C., Klasen, H., Goodman, R., & Rothenberger, A. (2002). Normierung und Evaluation der deutschen Elternversion des Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Felderhebung [Standardization and evaluation of the German parent–rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)]. Zeitschrift Für Kinder- Und Jugendpsychiatrie Und Psychotherapie, 30(2), 105–112. 10.1024/1422-4917.30.2.105

Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. 10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2

Submitted: January 16, 2022 Revised: June 30, 2022 Accepted: August 20, 2022