Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022;26(1):94-108.
doi: 10.1080/10888691.2019.1700797. Epub 2019 Dec 18.

Parenting and the Development of Impulse Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: The Mediating Role of Negative Affect

Affiliations

Parenting and the Development of Impulse Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: The Mediating Role of Negative Affect

Karol Silva et al. Appl Dev Sci. 2022.

Abstract

Parents are important for the development and maintenance of regulatory control. The current longitudinal study examined associations between parental coercion and autonomy support and impulse control in 117 youth (ages 8-16; Mage= 12.87, SD=2.53; 44% male) with Type 1 diabetes and explored whether youth negative affect mediated these associations. Parental coercion (but not autonomy support) was concurrently associated with lower impulse control and higher negative affect within individuals. Increases in youth negative affect partially mediated the within-person association between parental coercion and impulse control. These findings suggest that parent-directed interventions to reduce parental coercion may be most beneficial for impulse control if combined with youth-directed interventions to help them regulate negative affect. Replication of the current findings in a larger sample of youth with and without a chronic illness is needed to address the theoretical and empirical importance of negative affect as a potential mechanism through which parental coercion impacts youth impulsivity.

Keywords: adolescence; chronic illness; diabetes; impulse control; multilevel mediation; negative affect; parenting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Adapted conceptual representation of a lower level mediation model (with permission from Pan. Liu, Miao, & Yuan, 2018), depicting the direct and indirect effects of parenting (Xij) on impulse control (Yij) through youth negative affect (Mij) Note: Path a represents the fixed effect of parenting on negative affect; path b represents the fixed effect of negative affect on impulse control; path c represents the direct of parenting on impulse control, adjusted the negative affect.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Estimated growth trajectory of impulse control from ages 8 to 18
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Negative affect partially mediated the within-person effect of coercive parenting on impulse control

Similar articles

References

    1. Aite A, Cassotti M, Linzarini A, Osmont A, Houde O, Borst G (2018). Adolescents’ inhibitory control: Keep it cool or lose control. Developmental Science, 21, e12491. doi: 10.1111/desc.12491 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Belsky J, & Beaver KM (2011). Cumulative genetic plasticity, parenting, and adolescent self-regulation. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 52, 619–626. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blonigen DM, Carlson MD, Hicks BM, Krueger RF, & Iacono WG (2009). Stability and change in personality traits from late adolescence to early adulthood: a longitudinal twin study. Journal of Personality, 76, 229–266. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00485.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brenning K, Soenens B, Van Petegem S, Vansteenkiste. (2015). Perceived maternal autonomy support and early adolescent emotion regulation: A longitudinal study. Social Development, 3, 561–578. doi: 10.1111/sode.12107 - DOI
    1. Brody GH, & Ge X (2001). Linking parenting processes and self- regulation to psychological functioning and alcohol use during adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 82–94. 10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.82 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources