Mothers and Fathers Attributions For Ado PDF

NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
J Fam Psychol. 2009 December ; 23(6): 871881. doi:10.1037/a0016758.
Mothers and Fathers Attributions for Adolescent Behavior: An

Examination in Families of Depressed, Subdiagnostic, and Non-
depressed Youth
Lisa B. Sheeber,
Oregon Research Institute
Charlotte Johnston,
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia
Mandy Chen,
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia
Craig Leve,
Hyman Hops, and
Betsy Davis
Abstract
This study examined whether parents of adolescents experiencing depressive symptoms or disorder
make more negative and fewer positive attributions for their adolescents behavior than do parents
of non-depressed adolescents, and whether parental attributions for adolescents behavior contribute
to parenting behavior, above and beyond the adolescents behavior. Parents and adolescents (76 girls
and 48 boys) participated in videotaped problem-solving interactions (PSIs). Each parent
subsequently watched the videotape and offered attributions for their adolescents behavior. In
addition, parent and adolescent behavior during the PSIs was coded. Mothers and fathers in families
of non-depressed adolescents made significantly fewer negative attributions for their childrens
behavior than did parents in families of adolescents with diagnostic or subdiagnostic levels of
depressive symptoms. Moreover, mothers and fathers negative attributions were related to greater
levels of observed aggressive behavior and lower levels of observed facilitative behavior during the
PSIs controlling for both demographic characteristics and the relative level of adolescent aggressive
and facilitative behavior during the PSI.
Keywords
adolescent depression; parental attributions
Correspondence to: Lisa Sheeber, Ph.D., Oregon Research Institute, 1715 Franklin Blvd., Eugene, OR, 97405, lsheeber@ori.org,
541-484-2123 phone, 541-484-1108 fax.
Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting,
fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American
Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript
version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at
www.apa.org/journals/fam
Sheeber et al. Page 2
Reflecting the importance of a social cognitive approach to understanding influences on parent-

child interactions, parental attributions for their childrens behavior have been proposed as
important correlates of parental reactions to these behaviors (Bugental & Johnston, 2000; Rudy
& Grusec, 2006). Parental attributions ascribe meaning to childrens behavior, and as such are
theorized to guide parents behavioral and affective responses to their children. In families of
elementary-school aged children with externalizing behavior problems, when parents see
childrens misbehavior as more intentional or dispositional, these negative or child-blaming
cognitions are associated with harsher, less responsive parenting reactions, whereas positive
attributions such as crediting the childs effort or excusing failures as due to external factors
are linked to more positive parenting reactions (e.g., Dix & Lochman, 1990; Johnston & Leung,
2001; Leung & Slep, 2006; Slep & OLeary, 1998; Wilson, Gardner, Burton, & Leung,
2006). Longitudinal studies conducted with school-aged samples and including nonproblem,
clinic-referred, and children at risk for externalizing problems, suggest reciprocal relations
between parental attributions and these child behavior problems, with parenting often serving
as at least a partial mediator of these relations (e.g., Johnston, Hommersen, & Seipp, 2009;
Snyder, Cramer, Afrank, & Patterson, 2005). Further, consistent with the hypothesis that
parenting behaviors are influenced by parental attributions, preliminary evidence suggests that
therapeutic efforts to reduce child-blaming or negative parental attributions and to increase
positive parental attributions for child behavior are associated with improvements in both
parenting and child outcomes (Bugental et al., 2002; Sanders et al., 2004).
The vast majority of research examining links between parental attributions and parenting
behavior has focused on parents of elementary school-aged children with externalizing
behavior problems (e.g., Dix & Lochman, 1990; Johnston & Freeman, 1997; Nix et al.,
1999; Snyder et al., 2005). It is likely, however, that the nature of parental attributions is related
to childrens developmental status. For example, several studies have indicated that, across the
preschool and elementary-school age range, older child age is associated with parental
attributions of greater child responsibility (Cote & Azar, 1997; Dix, Ruble, Grusec, & Nixon,
1986). Although less is known about parental attributions during adolescence, it is reasonable
to expect that this pattern would continue with age. The situation may be more complicated in
adolescence, however, in that adolescence is characterized, somewhat paradoxically, by
increases both in reasoning skills and in impulsive and reckless behavior (Allen & Sheeber,
2008). Parents are often, therefore, left to reconcile unpredictable variations in the adolescents
behavior. Hence, given the particular significance of attributions in ambiguous situations
(Bugental & Johnston, 2000), and given the greater responsibility that may be attributed to
adolescent children (whose behavior may often seem discordant with their demonstrably more
mature reasoning skills), adolescence may be a particularly important time for examining
parental attributions for child behavior (Heatherington, Tolejko, McDonald, & Funk, 2007).
In addition to possible differences in parental attributions across development, parental

attributions may also vary across types of child problems. Although some studies have
examined differences in the attributions that parents of young, nonproblem children provide
in response to written stimuli describing internalizing versus externalizing child behaviors
(e.g., Mills & Rubin, 1990), to our knowledge, no research has examined parental attributions
in samples of youth experiencing internalizing disorders such as depression. The substantial
differences in symptomatology between externalizing and internalizing disorders, however,
suggest that caution is warranted in assuming that findings regarding parental attributions
would generalize across these populations. Moreover, a number of considerations suggest that
parental attributions for child behavior in samples of adolescents experiencing depressive
symptoms and disorder constitute an important direction for research. In particular, the
parenting environments of adolescents experiencing depressive symptoms and disorder have
been shown to be harsher, more conflictual, and less supportive than those of their non-
depressed peers in both cross-sectional and longitudinal research (e.g., Sheeber, Davis, Leve,

Hops, & Tildesley, 2007; Stice, Ragan, & Randall, 2004). The increase in both parent-child
conflict and depressive symptomatology and disorder during adolescence (Costello, Erkanli,
& Angold, 2006; Steinberg, 2001), renders this a significant period for identifying factors, such
as parental attributions, that may contribute to this harsh and unsupportive parenting. A recent
study reported that parents attributions of adolescents negative behaviors to more global or
pervasive causes were associated with greater levels of parent-adolescent conflict
(Heatherington et al., 2007). However, this study was conducted in an unselected community
sample and was limited by a reliance on questionnaire measures assessing broad aspects of
attributional style and parent-adolescent relationships, rather than attributions for particular
adolescent behaviors or observations of actual parent-adolescent interactions. Nonetheless, the
results hint at the potential importance of parental attributions for understanding parental
behaviors associated with depression in adolescence and support our study of parental
attributions in a sample of adolescents with a range of depressive symptoms.
In examining associations among parental attributions and behaviors, and adolescent

depression, it is important to note that individuals contribute to the environments by which
they are then shaped. Adolescence is characterized by an increase in negative affectivity
(Larson & Sheeber, 2008) that likely contributes to the increase in parent-child conflict.
Moreover, depressed persons, including youth, demonstrate deficits in their interpersonal
behavior (e.g., withdrawal, negativity; Segrin, 2000) that may contribute to a cycle of
increasing interpersonal stress and depressive symptoms (Carter, Garber, Ciesla, & Cole,
2006; Rudolf et al., 2000). Of particular relevance to this study, is evidence from our own
research that depressed adolescents display more angry (Sheeber, Allen, Davis, & Sorensen,
2000; Sheeber, Allen, Leve, Davis, Shortt, & Katz, 2009) and less facilitative behavior
(Sheeber & Sorensen, 1998) during parent-adolescent interactions than do their non-depressed
peers. Given the likelihood that adolescent behavior contributes to the nature of parent
behavior, and that depressed youths evidence different behavior patterns than their non-
depressed peers, it is important to investigate whether parental attributions contribute to
adverse parenting behaviors associated with adolescent depression, above and beyond the
contribution of the adolescents behavior.
Hence, the primary objectives of this study were to examine: 1) whether parents of adolescents
experiencing elevated depressive symptoms or disorder demonstrate more negative and fewer
positive attributions for their adolescents behavior than parents of non-depressed adolescents;
and 2) whether parental attributions predict parenting behavior, controlling not only for
relevant demographic characteristics and youth depressive symptoms, but also for the
adolescents behavior in interaction with the parent. In particular, consistent with earlier
literature, we hypothesized that parents negative or child-blaming attributions would be
associated with harsher parenting behavior and that positive attributions would be associated
with more supportive parenting behavior. We used a sample that included not only adolescents
free of psychopathology, but also adolescents with both subdiagnostic and diagnostic levels
of depressive symptoms. The inclusion of adolescents with subdiagnostic symptoms was based
on evidence that subclinical syndromes are associated with psychosocial impairments,
including stressful family interactions that are similar in nature, if not necessarily in magnitude,
to those associated with depressive disorder (Gotlib, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1995). Both
mothers and fathers were included in the investigation. This is an important advance as much
of the previous literature on parental attributions has focused exclusively on mothers (Bugental
& Johnston, 2000) and, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Slep & OLeary, 2007), the links
between attributions and parenting behavior have seldom been investigated in fathers. In
addition, evidence obtained from the larger investigation from which this sample was drawn
(Sheeber et al., 2007) demonstrated that interactions with both mothers and fathers are
associated with depressive symptoms in adolescents.

An important methodological distinction between the present investigation and much of the
previous research is the use of a more ecologically valid procedure for measuring parental
attributions and behavior. Parents have typically provided ratings of both attributions and
anticipated parenting behaviors in response to standardized vignettes depicting child behavior

(Bugental, Johnston, New, & Silvester, 1998). This approach has the advantage of enhancing
the comparability of responses across parents by controlling the child behaviors that serve as
the stimulus prompts and standardizing the attributional and parenting behavior choices
available to parents. Generalization to in vivo parental attributions and behavior may suffer,
however, for a number of reasons: 1) there may be dissimilarity between the behaviors
portrayed in the stimulus vignettes and those displayed by participants children; 2) the
attributions for the stimulus child are less likely to be informed by the parents understanding
of or experience with their own children; 3) the attributions and parenting behavior choices
provided in rating-scale measures may not be sufficiently inclusive; and finally, 4) the vignettes
and ratings may fail to capture parent attribution-behavior links as they occur in more ongoing,
moment to moment interactions. More naturalistic methods for assessing attributions have been
developed. For example, parents have provided attributions for video-recorded or live
observation of their own childrens behavior (Johnston & Freeman, 1997; Johnston, Chen, &
Ohan, 2006). These approaches enable parents to draw on their understanding of their children
in making attributions. It is still difficult, however, to assess how these attributions would relate
to their parenting behavior in actual interactions.
In the current investigation, we extended the naturalistic methodology further in that parents
attributions for adolescent behavior were elicited in response to a video-mediated recall
procedure in which parents viewed a videotaped problem-solving interaction with their
adolescent immediately after they finished the interaction. Parenting behavior was assessed
during the problem-solving interaction itself. This approach, in which we examined parents
attributions and behaviors within the same context, enabled us to both overcome the limitations
associated with the use of standard stimulus materials and to measure both attributions and
behaviors in a more ongoing, naturalistic context. In addition, because we were also able to
observe the adolescents behavior during the interaction, we could control for the influence of
adolescent behavior in predicting parenting behavior before examining the predictive value of
parental attributions.
Method
Participants and Inclusion Criteria
Participants were 124 adolescents and their parents, selected from a larger sample of families
participating in a study of family processes associated with adolescent depression (N=243;
Sheeber et al., 2007). To be included in the larger investigation, adolescents had to be between
14 and 18 years old, live with a parent or permanent guardian, and meet research criteria for
placement in one of three groups: depressed, subdiagnostic, or non-depressed. Due to resource
limitations, attributional coding could only be completed on a subset of the larger sample.
Because we were interested in examining the relations between attributions and behavior in
both mothers and fathers, we selected, as our sample, two-parent families (92.6% married; 6.6
% cohabitating; .8% separated) in which both parents participated. This approach ensured that
mothers and fathers were making attributions about the same childs behavior. Of families
meeting this inclusion criteria, 21 were excluded because audiotaped attribution data were
unavailable due to problems in taping.
Depressed adolescents (n = 33; 67% female) evidenced elevated scores on the Center for
Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977; see below for description)
and met DSM IV (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994) diagnostic criteria for a
current unipolar depressive disorder. Consistent with guidelines for establishing the offset of

depressive episodes, a diagnosis was considered current if it was ongoing or had an offset
within 2 months preceding the diagnostic interview (APA, 1994). Adolescents in the
subdiagnostic group (n = 45; 53% female) also had elevated CES-D scores but did not meet
diagnostic criteria for current or lifetime affective disorders or current nonaffective disorders.
Non-depressed adolescents (n = 46; 65% female) scored below an adolescent-appropriate cut-
off on the CES-D, had no current or lifetime history of psychopathology, and no history of
mental health treatment. To the extent possible, subdiagnostic and non-depressed participants
were matched to depressed participants on adolescent age, gender, ethnicity, and the
socioeconomic characteristics of their schools. Demographic data are presented in Table 1.
Cut-off scores for selecting potential participants were based on the distribution of scores
obtained in the Oregon Adolescent Epidemiological Depression Project (Lewinsohn, Hops,
Roberts, Seeley, & Andrews, 1993). The cut-offs for the depressed and subdiagnostic groups
were CES-D 26 for males and 30 for females. These relatively high scores were selected
to maximize the positive predictive power of the CES-D in identifying adolescents
experiencing depressive disorder. Approximately 12% of the sample scored above these cut-
offs. The sample pool for the non-depressed group was defined as adolescents with scores less
than SD above the mean score in the epidemiological sample (CES-D < 21 for males and <
24 for females). The mean CES-D scores by group were 39.33 (SD = 6.66), 34.18 (SD =
4.67), and 9.91 (SD = 6.76) for the depressed, subdiagnostic, and non-depressed groups
respectively.
Recruitment and Assessment Procedures

Families were recruited and selected using a two-gate procedure consisting of an in-school
screening and an in-home diagnostic interview. Families meeting the inclusion criteria as
described above were invited to participate in the family assessment. Procedures during all
phases of this study were reviewed and approved by Oregon Research Institutes Institutional
Review Board. A more detailed description of the participant enrollment process is provided
in Sheeber et al., 2007.
School ScreeningStudents from eight area high schools participated in the school
screening which was conducted during class time. To facilitate recruitment of a representative
sample of students, we used a combined passive parental consent and active student consent
procedure to inform families about the project and request their participation in the screening
phase of the study (Biglan & Ary, 1990; Severson & Ary, 1983). Approximately 75% of eligible
students participated and completed the CES-D, a demographic information form, and a contact
form. As described above, CES-D scores were used to identify students with elevated levels
of depressive symptomatology as well as those with low levels of symptomatology.
Information Meeting and Diagnostic AssessmentResearch staff telephoned

families of those adolescents selected based on CES-D scores. The project was briefly
described and families were invited to participate in an informational meeting in their homes.
At these meetings, staff described the project more fully and obtained active informed consent
from the adolescents and their parents. Following the consent procedure, the Schedule of
Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Childrens Version (K- SADS; Orvaschel & Puig-
Antich, 1994) interviews were conducted with the adolescents. Of families invited to
participate in the diagnostic interview, approximately 80% consented. Rates of decline did not
vary as a function of pre-interview group status (i.e., elevated or non-depressed CES-D score),
age, race, or gender.
Family AssessmentSubsequent to the interviews, adolescents who met research criteria

and their parents were invited to participate in a lab-based family assessment. Approximately

94% of families invited to participate chose to do so. Again, the decline rate did not vary as a
function of group status, age, race, gender, or income. In addition to questionnaires, the
assessment included two 10-minute parent-adolescent problem-solving interactions (PSIs), the
second of which provided the measures of parent and adolescent behavior, followed by a video-
mediated recall (VMR) procedure to elicit parental attributions.
In each PSI, the two parents and their adolescent were asked to discuss and try to resolve an
area of conflict among them. Within each family, topics for the interactions were identified
based on parents and adolescents responses on the Issues Checklist (IC; Robin & Weiss,
1980), a list of issues about which parents and adolescents frequently disagree. The two items
having the highest conflict ratings (frequency intensity) averaged across adolescents and
parents reports were chosen. Topics discussed by the depressed and subdiagnostic adolescents
and their parents had overall greater conflict ratings than did those discussed by the non-
depressed dyads, F(2, 121) = 11.41, p < .001.
Immediately after completing the PSIs, the parents participated in a VMR procedure modeled
after that used by Sanders and colleagues (Halford & Sanders, 1988; Sanders, Dadds, Johnston,
& Cash, 1992) and similar to procedures used by other researchers (e.g., Johnston & Freeman,
1997). Parents first received training in the procedure and demonstrated understanding using
a videotape of a mock parent-child interaction created for this purpose. Each parent then
separately watched, and responded privately, to a replay of the second PSI, in which the issue
receiving the highest average conflict rating was discussed. The video was paused every 20
seconds and the parent responded to three questions: 1) What was your adolescent doing?; 2)
Why was he/she doing that?; and 3) How was he/she feeling? Parents were given 20 seconds
to respond verbally to each of the three questions before the next segment of the interaction
was played. The timing and duration of pauses were based on research indicating that longer
pauses produce redundancy in the verbalizations (Halford & Sanders, 1988). Parents responses
were audiotaped. Because parents responses to the questions regarding what was your
adolescent doing? often included attributional statements (e.g., trying to help), answers to the
first two questions were transcribed and used to code parental attributions for adolescent
behavior.
Measures
Depression ScreenerThe CES-D is a widely-used, self-report measure of depressive
symptomatology that has acceptable psychometric properties for use with adolescents (e.g.,
Roberts, Andrews, Lewinsohn, & Hops, 1990; Radloff, 1991). It has a well-established record
of use as a screener for depressive symptomatology in adolescent samples (e.g., Asarnow et
al., 2005; Dierker et al., 2001; Roberts, Lewinsohn, & Seeley, 1991). As described above, the
CES-D was used as the initial gate of a two-stage recruitment and screening procedure.
Diagnostic InterviewThe K-SADS interview was conducted with the adolescents to

obtain current and lifetime diagnoses. Parents did not participate in the diagnostic assessment
because of the already lengthy nature of our assessment and because, as noted by others
(Lewinsohn et al., 1993), the reliability of adolescent report increases and the agreement
between parent and adolescent decreases with age. Additionally, our primary focus was on
depressive symptomatology and we expected that adolescents would have more direct access
to information regarding their depressive moods and behaviors than would their parents. This
procedure has been used successfully in past research (e.g., Lewinsohn et al., 1993; Sheeber
& Sorensen, 1998).
Interviewers participated in a rigorous training program and demonstrated agreement with a

senior interviewer ( .80) on at least two interviews before conducting independent
interviews. Interviewers included bachelor through doctoral level research staff. All interview-

derived diagnoses were confirmed by masters or doctoral level supervisors who reviewed both
item-endorsement and interviewers notes. Questions regarding the accuracy of diagnoses were
resolved based upon discussion with the interviewer and review of the audiotaped interview
as needed. Reliability ratings were obtained on approximately 20% of the interviews, chosen
at random. The average agreement was = .90.
Attribution Coding SystemParental attributions for adolescent behaviors were coded

based on both transcriptions and audiotaped recordings of the VMR responses. The coding
system was developed based on the systems previously used by MacBrayer, Milich, and
Hundley (2003) and Snyder et al. (2005). Consistent with these previous systems, we drew
broad distinctions between positive and negative attributions. This use of a broad categorization
circumvented problems that would have arose due to very small numbers of attributions of
particular types. Positive attributions were defined as those that gave the adolescent credit for
positive behaviors, or excused or removed blame from the adolescent for negative behaviors.
These included attributions that: 1) minimized negative adolescent behavior (e.g., she just got
confused); 2) implied positive intentions or characteristics in the adolescent (e.g., hes trying
to understand our point of view); or 3) invoked external circumstances, the parents own
behaviors, or the adolescents lack of knowledge to explain negative adolescent behaviors (e.g.,
she is still young; he stopped listening because I wasnt clear). Negative attributions were
defined as those that blamed the adolescent for negative behaviors or did not give the adolescent
credit for positive behaviors. These included attributions that: 1) implied negative personality
traits (e.g., she is impatient); 2) suggested the adolescent acted with hostility, indifference,
defiance, or a significant lack of concern (e.g., shes not willing to pay attention); or 3) invoked
external circumstances or the parents own behaviors to explain positive adolescent behaviors
(e.g., hes only listening because thats what hes been told to do). Attributions that could not
be unambiguously classified as either positive or negative were coded as neutral.
For each interval, coders indicated the presence or absence of each type of attribution (positive,
neutral, and negative), or coded the interval as no attribution if the parent did not offer any
causal attributions in their response. To control for differences between the absolute number
of attributions that each parent provided, proportion scores were calculated by dividing the
category total (e.g., total of positive attributions summed across intervals) by the grand total
of attributions (i.e., total of all attributions (positive, negative and neutral) summed across
intervals). We examined the associations between the proportions of positive and negative
attributions in order to ensure that they did not reflect opposite ends on a single dimension. As
shown in Table 2, the correlations, although significant, were modest for both mother and father
data. Hence, the proportions of negative and positive attributions were included as separate
variables in subsequent analyses.
Coders included two of the manuscript authors and a team of senior undergraduate psychology
students. Coders were trained in the use of the manual until inter-rater agreement was
approximately 80%. All coders were blind to the group status of the families. Forty-four percent
of the transcripts were coded independently by two coders to evaluate inter-rater reliability.
Intraclass correlations ranged from .90 .99 across the attribution categories.
Behavioral ObservationsThe Living in Family Environments coding system (LIFE;

Hops, Biglan, Tolman, Arthur, & Longoria, 1995; Hops Davis, & Longoria, 1995) was used
to code parental behavior during the PSIs. The LIFE is an event-based, microanalytic coding
system in which a code is entered each time there is a change in a participants verbal content
or affect. Each entry is comprised of several components which identify the: a) target (i.e.
whose behavior is being coded); b) verbal content; and c) nonverbal (or para-verbal) affect.
Data analysis is done at the level of constructs, which are operationalized as particular
combinations of content and affect codes. Two composite codes, Facilitative and Aggressive,

were used in the present investigation. The Facilitative construct included statements whose
verbal content conveyed approval or served to maintain the conversation, as well as those which
were said with happy or caring affect. The Aggressive construct included statements said with
irritable affect or which expressed disapproval, threat, or argument. Each observational

variable was defined as the proportion of the interaction during which the family member
displayed the behavior. The validity of these constructs to meaningfully represent behavior
derived from parent-adolescent problem-solving interactions has been established in numerous
studies of adolescent depression (e.g., Davis, Sheeber, Hops, & Tildesley, 2000; Katz &
Hunter, 2007; Sheeber, Hops, Andrews, Alpert, & Davis, 1998).
Observers, who were extensively trained research staff, coded the interactions from video using
a software program that enables the retention of temporal information regarding the behavior
(e.g., time of onset; duration). The observers were blind to diagnostic status. Approximately
25% of the PSIs were coded by a second coder to assess inter-rater reliability. Kappas for the
two constructs across participants ranged from .71.78.
Results
Between Group Differences in Parental Attributions
A series of ANOVA models were run to examine whether parents of depressed, subdiagnostic,
and non-depressed adolescents differed from each other in the nature of their attributions for
adolescent behavior. Separate ANOVAs were run for mother and father attributions. As shown
in Table 2, the overall F value associated with the proportion of negative attributions made by
parents differed significantly across groups for both mothers and fathers. The proportion of
positive attributions, however, did not differ. Tests of least significant differences on pair-wise
comparisons indicated that mothers and fathers of non-depressed adolescents were less likely
to make negative attributions about their adolescents behavior than were parents of adolescents
with diagnostic or subdiagnostic depressive symptoms.
Prediction of Parental Behavior from Parental Attributions

In order to test our hypotheses regarding the influence of parent attributions on parenting
behavior, a series of four hierarchical regressions were performed in which the dependent
variables were mother and father aggressive and facilitative behaviors observed during
problem-solving interactions. As adolescent age, gender, and diagnostic status were
significantly associated with the dependent variables (see Table 4), they were included as
covariates in each regression model. Because we were interested in examining the influence
of parental attributions on their behavior above and beyond the influence of adolescent
behavior, we also entered into each regression model an overall indicant of the relative level
of adolescent negative and positive behavior displayed during the interaction. This indicant
was created by taking the ratio of the proportion of adolescent aggressive to the proportion of
facilitative behaviors displayed. As parents are more likely to make negative attributions for
negative than for positive child behaviors (and vice versa; Johnston & Freeman, 1997), the
inclusion of this ratio variable controlled for the potential confounding influence of adolescent
behavior in our examination of the association between parental attributions and parental
behavior. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations amongst variables are provided in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
Variables were entered hierarchically into the four regression models in the following order:
1) demographic variables, 2) diagnostic status, 3) observed adolescent behavior, and 4) positive
and negative attributions of the parent whose behavior was being predicted. Tables 5 and 6
present the results of these regressions. Table 5 presents the standardized and unstandardized
model effects with all predictors entered. Table 6 subsequently presents the stepwise change

in the model F as each hierarchical block of predictors was entered into the model. As can be
seen from these tables, demographic, diagnostic, and adolescent behavior predictors had
significant influence in most models, thereby substantiating their inclusion. Adolescent gender
was significantly related to the display of mother aggressive and facilitative behaviors, with
higher aggressive and lower facilitative behavior being displayed toward girls. Adolescent age
was also inversely related to the display of mother aggressive behavior. Because there were
three diagnostic categories for adolescents (non-depressed, subdiagnostic, or depressed), only
two dummy-coded indicants could be included to represent these categories. Therefore, we
entered two variables that compared the non-depressed participants to each of the other two
depression groups. In the father models, fathers of depressed adolescents displayed lower levels
of facilitative behavior while fathers of subclinical adolescents displayed higher levels of
aggressive behavior, when compared to fathers of non-depressed adolescents. No other
diagnostic group effects were observed. Observed adolescent behavior was significant in both
the mother aggressive and father facilitative models, with higher levels of adolescent
aggressive behavior, when viewed relative to their facilitative behavior, being associated with
higher rates of mother aggressive and lower rates of father facilitative behavior.
With these blocks of covariate behaviors entered into the models, the primary analytic question
related to the unique contribution of parent attributions to parent behavior could be examined.
As can be seen in the tables, both mother and father negative attributions were positively related
to their aggressive behavior and negatively related to their facilitative behavior. Positive parent
attributions were not related to any parent behaviors. 1
Discussion
The current investigation produced two primary findings that extend the available literature on
the relations between parental attributions, parenting behavior, and child psychopathology.
The most novel finding from the study was that negative parental attributions for adolescent
behavior during a problem-solving discussion were associated with harsher parenting as
observed during these same parent-adolescent discussions. In particular, negative attributions
were associated with more aggressive and less facilitative parenting behavior for both mothers
and fathers. These associations emerged after accounting for variability in parenting behavior
associated with the adolescents own behavior during the interaction. That is, parenting
behavior was associated not only with the nature of the adolescents behavior, but also with
the parents causal attributions for the behavior. These findings are consistent with those
observed in families of young children with externalizing behaviors as well as families of
normally developing pre-adolescent children (Bugental & Johnston, 2000), but extend these
earlier findings to parents of adolescents with a range of depressive symptoms. Moreover, the
results demonstrate that the association exists, not just when attributions and parenting behavior
are measured by rating scales, but also when the attributions and parenting behaviors are
assessed in the context of an ongoing parent-adolescent interaction.
We also found that parents of adolescents with elevated depressive symptoms made more
negative attributions for their childrens behavior than did parents of non-depressed
adolescents. Notably, this was the case whether or not the adolescents symptoms were at a
diagnostic level of severity. This finding is consistent with evidence from our larger
investigation (Sheeber et al., 2007) as well as other research (Gotlib et al, 1995) in indicating
that the family environments of adolescents with subthreshold symptoms are similar to those
of adolescents experiencing depressive disorder. These findings are, moreover, consistent with
those of studies comparing parents attributions in younger children with externalizing
1Models which included the interaction of gender by parent attributions were also tested. As this block of variables did not result in
significant changes in R2, these analyses are not presented here.

behavioral disorders to those of normally developing children, and suggest that a range of child
psychopathology is associated with more child-blaming parent explanations for child behavior
(Bugental & Johnston, 2000).
Though the current study substantiates the importance of parent attributions in distinguishing
the family environments of depressed adolescents, the origin of these attributional differences
is unclear. Given the high degree of family concordance for depressive symptoms and disorder,
there is certainly reason to suspect that parents of depressed youth would be more likely than
other parents to evidence negative attributional styles as a function of their own depressive
symptoms (Bolton et al., 2003; White & Barrowclough, 1998). In fact, in an earlier report from
this study (Chen, Johnston, Sheeber, & Leve, 2009), we found that maternal depressive
symptoms were associated with their negative attributions for their daughters behavior, with
the latter partially mediating the association between mothers and daughters depressive
symptoms. Notably, however, these associations were not observed in father data or in the data
of mothers who participated with their sons. Hence, it does not appear that parental depression
fully accounts for the higher levels of negative attributions displayed by parents of depressed
adolescents.
It is also possible that, as discussed by Johnston and Ohan (2005) with regard to the attributions
of parents of children with externalizing behavior, the challenges and frustrations of parenting
an adolescent with depression may, over time, result in more automatic and less sensitive
parental causal explanations for the adolescents behavior. The fact that topics discussed by
families of adolescents with depressive symptoms and disorder had overall greater conflict
ratings than those discussed by families of non-depressed adolescents, suggests that this
possibility may warrant additional consideration. Understanding the relative contribution of
the parents own depression and the history of parent-adolescent interactions as potential
mechanisms underlying the more negative attributions made by parents of depressed
adolescents is an important direction for ongoing research.
In contrast to the relations found for negative attributions, parents of depressed adolescents did
not differ from parents of non-depressed adolescents with regard to the level of positive parent
attributions, nor did positive attributions contribute significantly to parenting behavior.
Because parents typically extend the self-serving bias to their children (Dix & Grusec, 1985),
it is possible that positive attributions are more the norm and therefore less salient or
informative than negative attributions. That is, the default position, or perhaps the socially
desirable stance, may be for parents to offer positive attributions and it is only the less common
negative attributions which are predictive of variations in parenting behavior or adolescent
symptoms. In fact, the literature on parental attributions has largely focused on negative
attributions and, hence, the significance of positive attributions is less established (Bugental
& Johnston, 2000). It is also possible that methodological characteristics of this study may
have diminished the sensitivity of positive attributions. For example, the failure to differentiate
among types of positive attributions (e.g., crediting the child for positive behavior versus
excusing negative behavior) could have obscured the importance of some particular types of
positive attributions in predicting parent behavior. Moreover, there is evidence that the nature
of the interactional task influences behavior displayed (Melby, Ge. Conger, & Warner, 1995;
Margolin et al., 1998), and might well influence the nature of parental attributions. So for
example, if parents engaged with their adolescents in a task designed to elicit nurturing or
supportive behaviors, the quality of parental attributions may have been different as well as
differentially related to parental behaviors. Future research assessing parental attributions in
alternate interactional contexts and using more finely tuned measures of types of attributions
may shed light on these possibilities.

The findings of the present study have implications for both science and practice. Relative to
science, the study benefitted from the inclusion of fathers, who continue to be underrepresented
in studies of child and adolescent development and psychopathology (Phares, Fields,
Kamboukos, & Lopez, 2005). The evidence that fathers of depressed youth held more negative
attributions for their youths behavior and that these attributions were associated with fathers
own parenting behavior highlights the importance of including fathers in research on family
processes associated with adolescent depression. The study also benefitted from the use of a
more ecologically valid procedure for measuring parental attributions than has characterized
much previous research. This procedure, in which attributions were made for behavior during
a parent-child discussion and in which attributions and parenting behavior were measured
within the same problem-solving context, allowed attributions to be informed by parents
understanding of their own child and enabled a more direct assessment of the relations between
parenting attributions and behavior. That attributions gathered in this manner predicted
parenting behavior above and beyond the influence of the adolescents own behavior within
the same interaction suggests the potential utility of this method for ongoing research.
Despite these benefits, aspects of the design which may have influenced the findings should
be noted. In particular, parents provided attributions after the interactions were completed.
Although these attributions are likely to be closer in nature to the ongoing attributions that
parents have during interactions than attributions gathered via rating scales, we acknowledge
their retrospective nature and the fact that they may have been influenced by parenting behavior
during the interaction. Similarly, the problem-solving nature of the interaction may have
elicited more negative behaviors and attributions than is typical and our findings may not
generalize to other types of parent-adolescent interactions.
We should also note that the sample was homogeneous both with regard to parental marital
status and to race and ethnicity of the participants. Hence, replication in more diverse samples
is warranted. Finally, though our findings suggest the importance of examining the relation of
parental attributions, there are obviously other significant contributors to parenting behavior
and adolescent depression. In this initial study, we have not examined the relative contribution
of various predictors or their interactions. Hence, this study serves as only a first step in
understanding how parental attributions fit within the larger realm of family processes relevant
to these outcomes.
As regards practice, the findings of this investigation have potential relevance for the
development of family interventions to address adolescent depression. Harsh parenting and
conflictual parent-child interactions are clearly associated with depressive symptoms and
disorder in adolescence (Sander & McCarty, 2005; Sheeber, Hops, & Davis, 2001). The
evidence that both mothers and fathers of depressed adolescents are more likely to make
negative attributions for adolescent behavior, and that these attributions are associated with
more aggressive parent behavior in the context of parent-adolescent discussions, suggests that
parental attributions may be an important target for intervention. We should note that our results
do not provide any insight into the accuracy of parents attributions and we do not assume that
their attributions are biased. Nonetheless, to the extent that parents generate negative
attributions, they appear to be more likely to respond harshly. Thus, how parents interpret
adolescent behavior adds a unique piece of information to our understanding of parenting
behavior that may be important in family-based interventions for depression. Although still
clearly a research tool, the video-mediated recall procedure used in this investigation may prove
useful as a component of clinical assessments to monitor parental attributions during
intervention.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the University of British Columbia Hampton Research Fund 12R78316 and the
National Institute of Mental Health Grant 57166. We thank the families and schools who participated.
References
Allen, NB.; Sheeber, LB. Adolescent emotional development and the emergence of depressive disorders.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Vol. 4.
Washington, DC: Author; 1994.
Asarnow JR, Jaycox LH, Duan N, LaBorde AP, Rea MM, Murray P, et al. Effectiveness of a quality
improvement intervention for adolescent depression in primary care clinics: A randomized controlled
trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 2005;293:311393. [PubMed: 15657324]
Biglan, A.; Ary, DV. Methodological issues in research on smoking prevention. In: Bell, CS.; Battjes,
R., editors. Prevention research: Deterring drug abuse among children and adolescents. Rockville,
MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1990. (NIDA Research Monograph Series No.
63, pp. 170195)
Bolton C, Calam R, Barrowclough C, Peters S, Roberts J, Wearden A, et al. Expressed emotion,
attributions and depression in mothers of children with problem behaviour. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 2003;44:242254. [PubMed: 12587860]
Bugental DB, Ellerson PC, Lin EK, Rainey B, Kokotovic A, OHara N. A cognitive approach to child
abuse prevention. Journal of Family Psychology 2002;16:243258. [PubMed: 12238408]

Bugental, DB.; Johnston, C. Parental and child cognitions in the context of the family. In: Fiske, ST.;
Schacter, DL.; Zahn-Waxler, C., editors. Annual review of psychology. Vol. 51. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews Inc; 2000. p. 315-344.
Bugental DB, Johnston C, New M, Silvester J. Measuring parental attributions: Conceptual and
methodological issues. Journal of Family Psychology 1998;12:459480.
Carter JS, Garber J, Ciesla JA, Cole DA. Modeling relations between hassles and internalizing and
externalizing symptoms in adolescents: A four-year prospective study. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 2006;115:428442. [PubMed: 16866584]
Chen M, Johnston C, Sheeber L, Leve C. Parent and adolescent depression: The role of parental
attributions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2009;37:119130. [PubMed: 18712594]
Costello EJ, Erkanli A, Angold A. Is there an epidemic of child or adolescent depression? Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2006;47:12631271. [PubMed: 17176381]
Cote LR, Azar ST. Child age, parent and child gender, and domain differences in parents attributions
and responses to childrens outcomes. Sex Roles 1997;36:2350.
Davis B, Sheeber LB, Hops H, Tildesley E. Adolescent responses to depressive parental behaviors in
problem-solving interactions: Implications for depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child
Dierker LC, Albano AM, Clarke GN, Heimberg RG, Kendall PC, Merikangas K, et al. Screening for
anxiety and depression in early adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry 2001;40:929936. [PubMed: 11501693]
Dix, T.; Grusec, JE. Parent attribution process in the socialization of children. In: Sigel, IE., editor.
Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1985.
p. 201-231.
Dix T, Lochman JE. Social cognition and negative reactions in children: A comparison of mothers of
aggressive and nonaggressive boys. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 1990;9:418438.
Dix T, Ruble DN, Grusec JE, Nixon S. Social cognitions in parents: Inferential and affective reactions
to children of three age levels. Child Development 1986;57:879894. [PubMed: 3757607]
Gotlib IH, Lewinsohn PM, Seeley JR. Symptoms versus a diagnosis of depression: Differences in
psychosocial functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1995;63:90100. [PubMed:
7896995]

Halford WK, Sanders MR. Assessment of cognitive self-statements during marital problem solving: A
comparison of two methods. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1988;12:515530.
Heatherington L, Tolejko N, McDonald M, Funk J. Now whyd he do that? The nature and correlates of
mothers attributions about negative teen behavior. Journal of Family Psychology 2007;21:315319.
[PubMed: 17605554]
Hops, H.; Biglan, A.; Tolman, A.; Arthur, J.; Longoria, N. Living in Family Environments (LIFE) coding
system: Reference manual for coders. Eugene, OR: Oregon Research Institute; 1995.
Hops H, Davis B, Longoria N. Methodological issues in direct observation: Illustrations with the Living
in Familial Environments (LIFE) coding system. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 1995;24:193
203.
Johnston C, Chen M, Ohan J. Mothers attributions for behavior in nonproblem boys, boys with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and boys with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and
oppositional-defiant behavior. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 2006;35:6071.
[PubMed: 16390303]
Johnston C, Freeman W. Attributions for child behavior in parents of children without behavior disorders
and children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Johnston C, Hommersen P, Seipp CM. Maternal attributions and child oppositional behavior: A
longitudinal study of boys with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2009;77:189195. [PubMed: 19170464]
Johnston C, Leung DW. Effects of medication, behavioral, and combined treatments on parents and
childrens attributions for the behavior of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2001;69:6776. [PubMed: 11302279]
Johnston C, Ohan JL. The importance of parental attributions in families of children with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 2005;8:167182. [PubMed:
16151616]
Katz LF, Hunter EC. Maternal meta-emotion philosophy and adolescent depressive symptomatology.
Social Development 2007;16:343360.
Larson, RW.; Sheeber, LB. The daily emotional experience of adolescents: Are adolescents more
emotional, why, and how is that related to depression?. In: Allen, NB.; Sheeber, LB., editors.
Adolescent emotional development and the emergence of depressive disorders. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press; 2008. p. 11-32.
Leung DW, Slep AM. Predicting inept discipline: The role of parental depressive symptoms, anger, and
attributions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2006;74:524534. [PubMed: 16822109]
Lewinsohn PM, Hops H, Roberts RE, Seeley JR, Andrews JA. Adolescent psychopathology: I. Prevalence
and incidence of depression and other DSM III R disorders in high school students. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology 1993;102:133144. [PubMed: 8436689]
MacBrayer EK, Milich R, Hundley M. Attributional biases in aggressive children and their mothers.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2003;112:698708. [PubMed: 14674871]
Margolin G, Oliver PH, Gordis EB, OHearn HG, Medina AM, et al. The nuts and bolts of behavioral
observation of marital and family interaction. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
1998;1:195213. [PubMed: 11324091]
Melby JN, Ge X, Conger RD, Warner TD. The importance of task in evaluating positive marital
interactions. Journal of Marriage & the Family 1995;57:981994.
Mills RS, Rubin KH. Parental beliefs about problematic social behaviors in early childhood. Child
Development 1990;61:138151.
Nix RL, Pinderhughes EE, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS, McFadyen-Ketchum SA. The relation between
mothers hostile attribution tendencies and childrens externalizing behavior problems: The
mediating role of mothers harsh discipline practices. Child Development 1999;70:896909.
[PubMed: 10446725]
Orvaschel H, Puig-Antich J. Schedule for Affective Disorder and Schizophrenia for School-Age
Children: Epidemiologic version. 1994 Unpublished manual.
Phares V, Fields S, Kamboukos D, Lopez E. Still looking for poppa. American Psychologist
2005;60:735736. [PubMed: 16221013]

Radloff LS. A CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied
Psychological Measurement 1977;1:385401.
Radloff LS. The use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in adolescents and young
adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 1991;20:149166.

Roberts RE, Andrews JA, Lewinsohn PM, Hops H. Assessment of depression in adolescents using the
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Psychological Assessment 1990;2:122128.
Roberts RE, Lewinsohn PM, Seeley JR. Screening for adolescent depression: A comparison of depression
scales. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1991;30:5866.
[PubMed: 2005065]
Robin AL, Weiss JG. Criterion-related validity of behavioral and self-report measures of problem-solving
communication skills in distressed and non-distressed parent-adolescent dyads. Behavioral
Assessment 1980;2:339352.
Rudolph KD, Hammen C, Burge D, Lindberg N, Herzberg D, Daley SE. Toward an interpersonal life-
stress model of depression: The developmental context of stress generation. Development and
Psychopathology 2000;12:21534. [PubMed: 10847625]
Rudy D, Grusec JE. Authoritarian parenting in individualist and collectivist groups: Associations with
maternal emotion and cognition and childrens self-esteem. Journal of Family Psychology
2006;20:6878. [PubMed: 16569091]
Sander JB, McCarty CA. Youth depression in the family context: Familial risk factors and models of
treatment. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 2005;8:203219. [PubMed: 16151618]
Sanders MR, Dadds MR, Johnston BM, Cash R. Childhood depression and conduct disorder: I.
Behavioral, affective, and cognitive aspects of family problem-solving interactions. Journal of

Sanders MR, Pidgeon AM, Gravestock F, Connors MD, Brown S, Young RW. Does parental attributional
retraining and anger management enhance the effects of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program
with parents at risk of child maltreatment? Behavior Therapy 2004;35:513535.
Segrin C. Social skills deficits associated with depression. Clinical Psychology Review 2000;20:379
403. [PubMed: 10779900]
Severson HH, Ary DV. Sampling bias due to consent procedures with adolescents. Addictive Behaviors
1983;8:433437. [PubMed: 6610283]
Sheeber LB, Allen N, Davis B, Sorensen ED. Regulation of negative affect during mother-child problem-
solving interactions: Adolescent depressive status and family processes. Journal of Abnormal Child
Sheeber LB, Allen N, Leve C, Davis B, Shortt JW, Katz LF. Dynamics of Affective Experience and
Behavior in Depressed Adolescents. 2009 Manuscript submitted for publication.
Sheeber LB, Davis B, Leve C, Hops H, Tildesley E. Adolescents relationships with their mothers and
fathers: Associations with depressive disorder and subdiagnostic symptomatology. Journal of
Sheeber LB, Hops H, Andrews J, Alpert A, Davis B. Interactional processes in families with depressed
and non-depressed adolescents: Reinforcement of depressive behavior. Behavior Research and

Therapy 1998;3:417427.
Sheeber LB, Hops H, Davis B. Family processes in adolescent depression. Clinical Child and Family
Psychology Review 2001;4:1935. [PubMed: 11388562]
Sheeber LB, Sorensen ED. Family relationships of depressed adolescents: A multi-method assessment.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 1998;27:268277. [PubMed: 9789187]
Slep AM, OLeary SG. The effects of maternal attributions on parenting: An experimental analysis.
Journal of Family Psychology 1998;12:234243.
Slep AM, OLeary SG. Multivariate models of mothers and fathers aggression toward their children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2007;75:739751. [PubMed: 17907856]
Snyder J, Cramer A, Afrank J, Patterson GR. The contributions of ineffective discipline and parental
hostile attributions of child misbehavior to the development of conduct problems at home and school.
Developmental Psychology 2005;41:3041. [PubMed: 15656735]
Steinberg L. Presidential address: We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect
and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence 2001;11:119.

Stice E, Ragan J, Randall P. Prospective relations between social support and depression: Differential
direction of effects for parent and peer support? Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2004;113:155
159. [PubMed: 14992668]
White C, Barrowclough C. Depressed and non-depressed mothers with problematic preschoolers:

Attributions for child behaviours. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 1998;37:385398.
[PubMed: 9856292]
Wilson C, Gardner F, Burton J, Leung S. Maternal attributions and young childrens conduct problems:
A longitudinal study. Infant and Child Development 2006;15:109121.

Table 1
Demographic Data
Non-
Depressed (n = Subdiagnostic depressed (n =
Demographic Category 33) (n = 45) 46) Test Statistic
Gender
Male 11 21 16 2 = 1.90, ns
Female 22 24 30
Age
Mean (SD) 16.25 (1.20) 15.84 (1.11) 16.07 (1.18) F = 1.18, ns
Income
Md 47,644 53,500 62,368 2 = 1.17, ns
Range 17,696250,000 12,100200,000 8,400250,000
Race & Ethnicity
Caucasian 28 38 42 2 = 5.35, ns
Latino 2 2 0
African American 0 1 0
Asian 2 2 2
Native American 1 1 1
Other 0 1 1

Table 2
Between Group Differences on Proportion of Parent Attributionsa
Non-depressed Mean (SD) Subdiagnostic Mean (SD) Depressed Mean (SD) F
Mother
Positive Attributions 0.24 (0.16) 0.21 (0.16) 0.22 (0.14) 0.52
Negative Attributions 0.14 (0.12)a 0.23 (0.22)b 0.25 (0.20)b 4.04*
Father
Positive Attributions 0.23 (0.15) 0.25 (0.16) 0.20 (0.17) 0.81
Negative Attributions 0.14 (0.15)a 0.22 (0.20)b 0.24 (0.21)b 3.54*
Note. Means in the same row that do not share superscripts differ at p <.05.
a
df for all models (2, 121).
*
p < .05

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Analysis Variables
Measure Mean Std. Deviation
Mother Observed Aggressive Behaviora 0.17 0.16

Father Observed Aggressive Behaviora 0.13 0.16
Mother Observed Facilitative Behaviora 0.36 0.17
Father Observed Facilitative Behaviora 0.31 0.15
Adolescent Observed
Aggressive/Facilitative Behaviorb 2.17 6.48
Mother Negative Attributionsc 0.20 0.19
Mother Positive Attributionsc 0.22 0.16
Father Negative Attributionsc 0.19 0.19
Father Positive Attributionsc 0.23 0.16
Note. n = 124.
a
Proportion of duration of observed behavior coded with LIFE system.
b
Ratio of proportion of aggressive to facilitative behavior coded with LIFE system.

c
Proportion of attributions from coded transcripts.

NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Table 4
Intercorrelations Between Parent and Child Variables
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Mother Observed Aggressive Behaviora .53*** .58*** .38*** .22* .28** .38*** .41*** .31*** .25** .08
Sheeber et al.
2. Father Observed Aggressive Behaviora .35*** .46*** .01 .13 .22* .36*** .43*** .22* .10
3. Mother Observed Facilitative Behaviora .44*** .23* .11 .33*** .40*** .25** .13 .09
4. Father Observed Facilitative Behaviora .13 .19* .29** .33*** .31*** .09 .20*
5. Adolescent Gender .15 .14 .02 .02 .02 .07
6. Adolescent Age .10 .21* .10 .07 .07
7. Adolescent Observed Aggressive/Facilitative Behaviorb .36*** .14 .25** .08
8. Mother Negative Attributionsc .51*** .24** .22*
9. Father Negative Attributionsc .18* .33***
10. Mother Positive Attributionsc .36***
11. Father Positive Attributionsc
a
Note. Proportion of duration of observed behavior coded with LIFE system.
b
Ratio of proportion of aggressive to facilitative behavior coded with LIFE system.
c
Proportion of attributions from coded transcripts.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

Page 19
Table 5
Standardized and Unstandardized Coefficients for Final Regression Modelsa
Aggressive Facilitative
B SE B B SE B
Sheeber et al.
Mother Models
Child Genderb 0.052 0.025 0.16* 0.070 0.028 0.20*
Child Age 0.028 0.011 0.21* 0.001 0.012 0.01
Diagnostic Groupc
Non-depressed vs. Depressed 0.058 0.031 0.16 0.106 0.035 0.27**
Non-depressed vs. Subclinical 0.041 0.029 0.13 0.059 0.032 0.17
Observed Adolescent Aggressive/Adolescent 0.005 0.002 0.20* 0.004 0.002 0.17
Facilitative
Mother Negative Attributions 0.183 0.072 0.22* 0.246 0.081 0.27**
Mother Positive Attributions 0.155 0.081 0.15 0.003 0.091 0.00
Father Models
Child Gender 0.009 0.026 0.03 0.029 0.026 0.09
Child Genderb 0.006 0.011 0.04 0.017 0.011 0.14
Diagnostic Groupc
Non-depressed vs. Depressed 0.008 0.032 0.02 0.023 0.032 0.07
Non-depressed vs. Subclinical 0.076 0.030 0.24* 0.047 0.030 0.15
Observed Adolescent Aggressive/Adolescent 0.003 0.002 0.12 0.005 0.002 0.20*
Facilitative

Father Negative Attributions 0.320 0.072 0.39*** 0.161 0.071 0.21*
Father Positive Attributions 0.010 0.084 0.01 0.115 0.083 0.12
a
N for all models=124.
b
Child gender coded such that 0=female and 1=male.
c
Groups coded such that non-Non-depressed group=1 and Non-depressed group=0.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
Page 20
Table 6
Change in R-Squared for Sequential Regression Analyses of Parent Behavior
Mother Aggressive (Adjusted R2=. Father Aggressive (Adjusted Mother Facilitative (Adjusted Father Facilitative (Adjusted
30***) R2=.23***) R2=.25***) R2=.17***)
Sheeber et al.
Step df Change R2 F change (df) Change R2 F change Change R2 F change Change R2 F change
1. Adolescent Age & (2,121) .11 7.79** .02 1.09 .06 3.71* .05 3.11*
Adolescent Gender
2. Depressive Status (2,119) .07 4.79* .10 6.34** .12 8.41*** .05 2.96
3. Adolescent (1,118) .09 13.84*** .02 3.29 .06 9.36** .05 6.76*
Observed Aggressive/
Facilitative Behavior
4. Parent Positive and (2,116) .07 6.21** .14 10.70*** .06 4.87** .07 5.20**
Negative Attributions
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

Page 21

Mothers and Fathers Attributions For Ado PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mothers and Fathers Attributions For Ado PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mothers and Fathers Attributions For Ado PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIH Public Access

J Fam Psychol. 2009 December ; 23(6): 871881. doi:10.1037/a0016758.

Mothers and Fathers Attributions for Adolescent Behavior: An

Reflecting the importance of a social cognitive approach to understanding influences on parent-

In addition to possible differences in parental attributions across development, parental

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

In examining associations among parental attributions and behaviors, and adolescent

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

anticipated parenting behaviors in response to standardized vignettes depicting child behavior

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

Recruitment and Assessment Procedures

Information Meeting and Diagnostic AssessmentResearch staff telephoned

Family AssessmentSubsequent to the interviews, adolescents who met research criteria

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

Diagnostic InterviewThe K-SADS interview was conducted with the adolescents to

Interviewers participated in a rigorous training program and demonstrated agreement with a

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

Attribution Coding SystemParental attributions for adolescent behaviors were coded

Behavioral ObservationsThe Living in Family Environments coding system (LIFE;

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

irritable affect or which expressed disapproval, threat, or argument. Each observational

Prediction of Parental Behavior from Parental Attributions

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

attributions were not related to any parent behaviors. 1

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

abuse prevention. Journal of Family Psychology 2002;16:243258. [PubMed: 12238408]

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 1991;20:149166.

Behavioral, affective, and cognitive aspects of family problem-solving interactions. Journal of

and non-depressed adolescents: Reinforcement of depressive behavior. Behavior Research and

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

White C, Barrowclough C. Depressed and non-depressed mothers with problematic preschoolers:

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

Between Group Differences on Proportion of Parent Attributionsa

Non-depressed Mean (SD) Subdiagnostic Mean (SD) Depressed Mean (SD) F

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Analysis Variables

Measure Mean Std. Deviation

Mother Observed Aggressive Behaviora 0.17 0.16

Ratio of proportion of aggressive to facilitative behavior coded with LIFE system.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 December 1.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.