Koh, Bibiana

Rueter, Martha A

English

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

Introduction Results Measures Discussion The Present Study  Building	  on	  previous	  research	  that	  provided	  preliminary	  support	  for	  the	  theore6cal	  construct	  of	  dyadic	  trait	  fit	  (DTF;	  Koh,	  Davis,	  Walkner-­‐Spaan,	  &	  Rueter,	  2014),	  the	  present	  study	  tested	  the	  effect	  of	  dyadic	  trait	  fit	  (DTF)	  on	  a	  communica6ve	  family	  process	  with	  adop6ve	  and	  non-­‐adop6ve	  families.	  LiNle	  is	  known	  about	  how	  both	  parent	  and	  child	  traits	  contribute	  to	  child	  outcomes	  in	  the	  general	  popula6on.	  Moreover,	  examining	  the	  contribu6on	  of	  both	  parent	  and	  child	  traits	  within	  the	  context	  of	  a	  communica6ve	  family	  process	  that	  accounts	  for	  adop6ve	  status	  (i.e.,	  adop6ve	  and	  non-­‐adop6ve	  families)	  is	  a	  novel	  approach;	  this	  study	  takes	  such	  an	  approach.	  	  The	  present	  study	  answers	  two	  research	  ques6ons:	  (1)	  Will	  parent	  aliena6on	  and	  adolescent	  aggression	  independently	  elicit	  a	  response	  in	  the	  other’s	  communica6ve	  behavior	  as	  a	  partner	  effect?	  and,	  	  (2)	  What	  is	  the	  effect	  of	  dyadic	  trait	  fit	  on	  the	  overall	  family	  process?	    Theoretical Frameworks • Goodness of fit theory (Lerner, 1993; Thomas & Chess, 1977) • Person-environment transactional theory (Caspi et al., 1987, 1988; Scarr & McCartney, 1983)  • Family Communications Patterns Theory (FCPT; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a, 2000b, 2004, 2006) • Actor-partner interdependence model (APIM; Kenny & Cook, 1999; Kenny et al., 2006; Kenny & Ledermann, 2010)     	  	  	  	  	  	     Personality Traits 	  • Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen & Waller, 2008) – Mother and father self-reported Aggression and Alienation scales  • Personality Booklet – Youth Abbreviated (PBYA; Tellegen & Waller, 2008) – adolescent reported Aggression and Alienation scales • 4-point scale (1 = definitely false to 4 = definitely true) – high scores reflect high levels	    	  Family Interactions  • Assessed using trained observers’ global ratings of dyadic (e.g. adolescent to mother, father to adolescent, etc.) family interaction tasks from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Rating Scales (SIBRS; adapted from the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales, Melby & Conger, 2001). All SIBRS are based on the following scale: 1 = not at all characteristic to 9 = mainly characteristic.   • Communication (conceptualized as conversation-orientated behavior): factor scores of the Warmth (ICCs:.37 to .72), Listening Responsiveness (ICCs:.34 to .63), and Communication (ICCs:60 to .75) scales • Conflict: observed scores of Hostility (ICCs: 71 to  .73)and Angry/Coercion (ICCs: .65 to .67) scales  •  Adoption status: 1 = adopted, 2 = not adopted •  Sex: 1 = male, 2 = female    •  Overall, findings supported the personality-initiated communicative family process and the study’s central hypothesis.   •  Indeed, the dyadic trait fit (DTF) between adolescent aggression and parent alienation had an effect on a family interactive process that explained variance in adolescent conflict.   •  Statistically significant mother alienation moderating effects lend further support to the notion that DTF played a role in the transactional family process and in influencing adolescent functioning.   •  DTF interaction: Mother alienation moderated the magnitude of the relationship between adolescent aggression and adolescent Conversation (see Figure 2).   •  Specifically, high levels of mother alienation had a dampening effect, or weakened, the strength of the relationship between adolescent aggression and adolescent Conversation (see Figure 2).  Adoption Status • Contributed differently (beyond the proposed process) based on parent-adolescent subsystem. • With respect to the overall family process…  a)  Adolescent conversation was salient for non-adopted parent-adolescent dyads (such that higher levels of conversation were associated with non-adopted dyads) b)   Adolescent conflict was salient for adopted father-adolescent (but not mother-adolescent) dyads   	   Future Directions • Present study was cross sectional; future investigations should establish direction of effects.  • Although Koh, Davis, Walkner-Spaan, & Rueter (2014) suggested preliminary support for DTF, this is the first study to demonstrate support vis-à-vis an adolescent aggression X mother alienation interaction effect.   • Future work should test DTF interaction effects between other contributing personality traits. Participants Data for this study were from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS; McGue et al., 2007). Participating families at intake (N = 617) had at least one parent and two adolescent siblings (M = 14.9 years, SD = 1.9). The present study used data from the mothers (M age = 45.56, SD = 4.23), fathers (M age = 48.23, SD = 4.42), elder (M age = 16.14, SD = 1.5), and younger sibling (M age = 13.8, SD = 1.6). In 384 (308) families, the elder (younger) sibling was adopted [International: n = 253 (208), 67% (65%) Asian]. In 231 (208) families, the elder (younger) sibling was the biological offspring of both parents. Two adoptive families were removed due to ineligibility resulting in a final sample of 615 families.    Dyadic Trait Fit (DTF) in Adoptive & Non-Adoptive Families  Bibiana D. Koh and Martha A. Rueter	  Father-Adolescent Final Step Model Figure 1.  Proposed Conceptual Model  Conceptual Model Figure 2.  DTF Interaction  !b	  =	  -­‐.34*** b	  =	  -­‐.27*** Mother-Adolescent Final Step Model  Note. Non-statistically significant paths are shown in grey; only statistically significant R2 values are shown. Statistically significant associations not pictured: age and (a) adolescent conflict (β = .10, t = 2.12*); sex and (a) adolescent aggression (β = -.39, t = -11.47***), (b) adolescent conversation (β = .14, t = 3.16***); adoption status to (a) mother conversation (β = .11, t = 2.73.**). Model Fit Statistics N = 615 χ2 (df = 79) = 126.52  p =  > .001 CFI = .98   TLI = .98 RMSEA = .03  SRMR = .03  Model Fit Statistics N = 615 χ2 (df = 79) = 113.76  p =  > .001 CFI = .99   TLI = .98 RMSEA = .03  SRMR = .03  Adolescent Communication  Adolescent Conflict  Mother Communication  β	  =	  .12,	  t	  =	  2.46**	  β	  =	  .12,	  t	  =	  2.39*	  β	  =	  .10,	  t	  =	  2.32*	  β	  =	  .16,	  t	  =	  3.78***	  β	  =	  .19,	  t	  =	  3.07**	  *p	  <.05	  **	  p	  <	  .01	  ***p	  <.001	  Adolescent Aggression  Mother  Alienation Adoption  Status β	  =	  .10,	  t	  =	  2.46*	  R2	  =	  .13,	  t	  =2.39*	  R2	  =	  .15,	  t	  =3.81***	  Adolescent Communication  Adolescent Conflict  Father Communication  β	  =	  -­‐.25,	  t	  =	  -­‐4.0***	  β	  =	  .13,	  t	  =	  2.55**	  β	  =	  -­‐.12,	  t	  =	  -­‐2.56**	  *p	  <.05	  **	  p	  <	  .01	  ***p	  <.001	  Adolescent Aggression  Father  Alienation Adoption  Status R2	  =	  .13,	  t	  =4.18***	  R2	  =	  .05,	  t	  =	  2.37*	  R2	  =	  .13,	  t	  =3.78***	  Note. Non-statistically significant paths are shown in grey; only statistically significant R2 values are shown. Statistically significant associations not pictured: age and (a) adolescent conflict (β = .10, t = 2.12*); sex and (a) adolescent aggression (β = -.39, t = -11.47***), (b) adolescent conversation (β = .14, t = 3.16***); adoption status to (a) mother conversation (β = .11, t = 2.73.**). Note. Dyadic Trait Fit (adolescent aggression X mother alienation) interaction was only significant in the mother-adolescent model. Adolescent Conversation  Adolescent Conflict  Parent Conversation  Parent Alienation Adolescent Aggression Note. The dotted lines illustrate moderating effects. Not pictured: adoption status.  

Dyadic Trait Fit in Adoptive Families

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&amp;context=rudd_conf

Dyadic Trait Fit in Adoptive Families

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst