Greg Fosco
Human Development and Family Studies
Greg Fosco
Grace Mak
Mengya Xia
A Brief
Introduction
Well-Being
The Family Science of
Well-Being
FamilyCentered
Intervention
Basic Family
Process
Research
Frequent,
Intense,
Unresolved,
IPC
Threat,
Coping
Child
Psychopathology
Self-Blame
Fosco & Grych (2008)
Fosco & Feinberg (In Press)
Schlomer, Fosco, Cleveland, Feinberg, & Vandenberg (In Press)
Family Context
Interparental
Conflict
Self-Blame
Threat,
Coping
Child
Psychopathology
Parent-child Relationships linked with appraisals and adjustment
• Grych, Raynor, & Fosco (2004). Development and Psychopathology
• Fosco & Grych (2010). Journal of Marriage and Family
Warm, Sensitive Parenting linked with appraisals and adjustment
• DeBoard, Fosco et al. (2010). Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology
Sibling Relationships linked with appraisals of parental conflict, well-being
(beyond parent-child relationships
• Grych, Raynor, & Fosco (2004). Development and Psychopathology
Family Emotional Climate: Positive and Negative Expressiveness linked with
appraisals of parental conflict, well-being
• Fosco & Grych (2007). Journal of Family Psychology
Chronic,
Poorly Resolved
Child Involvement
In Conflict:
Relationship
Distress
Parental
Conflict
For Parents:
Triangulation
Diversion from
Conflict
(Bell et al., 2001)
Disrupted
Development
• Internalizing and Externalizing Problems
• Unique mediator accounting for distress,
threat, and blame
• Impacts cognitive evaluations of IPC
linked with risk outcomes
• ↑ parent-adolescent conflict
• ↓ parent-adolescent closeness
• ↑ adolescent hostility
• ↑ positive conflict resolution
• ↑ verbal aggression
Psychological
Maladjustment
Self-Blaming
Attributions
Disrupted Family
Relationships
Romantic
Competence
Grych, Raynor, & Fosco (2004) Fosco & Grych (2008)
Fosco & Grych (2010) Fosco, Lippold, & Feinberg (2014) Fosco, Xia, & Grych (In Press)
Emotional
Climate
SelfRegulation
Interparental
Conflict
Parental
Warmth,
Sensitivity
Fosco & Grych (2013). Journal of Family Issues
Parenting
Modules
Parenting
Information
Initial
Contact
Family
Assess
Feedback
Session
Parent
Groups
Community
Resources
What family processes account for long-term
outcomes and maintenance of intervention
benefits?
Participant motivation to change and
engagement in interventions: patterns and
implications.
Gr. 6
Substance Use
Path
“B”
Cigarette
-.30*
Alcohol
-.22*
Marijuana
-.39*
Gr. 7
s
i
B
Gr. 6 SelfRegulation
Gr. 7 SelfRegulation
.08*
Gr. 8
Problem
Behavior
Path
“B”
Antisocial Beh.
-.12*
Deviant Peer
Affiliation
-.18*
FCU Group
Fosco, Frank, Stormshak, & Dishion (2013), Journal of School Psych.
Gr. 6
Gr. 7
Family
Conflict
i
FCU
Intervention
Gr. 8
Family
Conflict
s
Depression
Antisocial
Grade
Grade 99
Depression
Antisocial
Grade
Grade 66
Fosco, Van Ryzin, Stormshak, & Dishion (2014), Development & Psychopathology
Fosco, Van Ryzin, Connell, & Stormshak (Under Review)
Work with K. Bamberger & D. Coatsworth
Fosco, Van Ryzin, Stormshak, & Dishion (2014), Development & Psychopathology
1. Subjective Well-Being
2. Family, SWB, and Beyond
3. Daily Family Process Models of SWB
Affective: Frequent positive affect and
infrequent negative affect
Cognitive: The evaluation of one’s life as good
Life Satisfaction
Defined as distinct from Depression:
i.e. a “reverse-scored” depression scale ≠ SWB
↓ Risky
Sexual Beh.
↑Healthy
↓Violence
Lifestyle
Donohue et al., 2003
Suldo & Huebner, 2004
Valois et al., 2001
Valois et al., 2002
Valois et al., 2004
Valois et al., 2006
Zullig et al., 2005
SWB
↓ Obesity
↓Depression
↓Subst. Use
↓ Anxiety
Longitudinal research on
adolescent SWB is generally
lacking (Proctor, Linley, &
Maltby, 2009)
SWB
Psychopathology
Low
High
Average
to High
Low
“Positive Mental
Health” 67%
“Vulnerable”
8%
“Symptomatic
but Content”
17%
“Troubled”
8%
At equivalent risk for low GPA, and problematic teacher-student relationships
(From: Antaramian, Huebner, Hills, & Valois, 2010)
Keyes (2002; 2005; 2006) raised the question
“Flourishing” based on criteria for subjective
and psychological well-being
Prevalence, Etiology, Course…
N = 1234 Youth in the CDSII
of the PSID
Flourishing:
1 of 3 Hedonic Sx.
5 of 9 Psyc or Social WB Sx.
Languishing:
Low score on 1 Hedonic Sx.
Low score on 5 Psyc/Social SX
60
54.5
48.8
50
45.2
39.9
40
30
20
10
6
5.6
0
12 to 14 Year Olds
Languishing
15 to 18 Year Olds
Moderately Mentally Healthy
Fourishing
From Keyes (2006)
Quality of Life
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
Sample
11
12
13
14
Adolescent Age
15
16
(Goldbeck et al., 2007)
Quality of Life
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
Male
Female
Sample
11
12
13
14
Adolescent Age
15
16
(Goldbeck et al., 2007)
Mean i = 5.44*
s = - .04*
Std. s = -.30
Sample and Estimated Means
VAR: i = 0.62*
s = - .02*
Individual Estimated Curves
Unconditional LGCM: χ2(5) = 4.938, p<.42; CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00
Mean i = 5.02*
s = - .07*
Sample and Estimated Means
VAR: i = 0.40*
s= - .04*
Individual Estimated Curves
Unconditional LGCM: χ2(5) = 8.503, p<.13; CFI = 1.00, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .03
Appears to be distinct from mental health
indices in terms of risk
Unique risk group – low symptoms and low SWB
Developmental Trends:
Decreasing during early adolescence
Considerable individual differences in trajectories
Unique pathways to SWB (accounting for
maladjustment)
Long-term benefits of SWB for adolescents
Family
Factor
A
Psychopathology
Family
Factor
B
SWB
Family
Factor
C
Self Regulation
Age 22
Family Functioning
Age 17
C
O
F
M
Family
Conflict
Family
Cohesion
EC
Young Adult Adaptation
Age 23
Aggression
Depression
O
C
F
M
SWB
Fosco, Caruthers, & Dishion (2012). Journal of Family Psychology
Fosco & Feinberg (In Press). Development and Psychopathology
Yes! Common risk/promotive factors
Lingering question…. Are there unique family
factors for SWB?
Parent
Engagement
with Adolescent
Adolescent
Affect &
Evaluation of
Life
Psychological
Adjustment
Problems
Emotional Distress
Problem Behaviors
Do developmental trajectories of SWB
correspond to parent-adolescent engagement?
Is this a reciprocal process?
Drawn from a community implementation of the
PROSPER intervention delivery system in rural
Iowa and Pennsylvania.
Sample = 970 early adolescents and caregivers
49.5% Female, 84% Caucasian
Five Waves: Fall 6th, Spring 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th Grades
Adolescent, mother, father data from in-home
assessments
Parent Hostile Engagement: negative affective quality scale
(Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 1998)
Life Satisfaction Scale: Mental Health Inventory-38 (Viet &
Ware, 1983), enjoyment of life, feeling happy and hopeful about
the future.
Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999),
general happy mood and disposition.
Emotional Distress: Depressed/Anxious Scale, YSR
Problem Behavior: Externalizing Scale, CBCL/YSR
Unconditional Growth Models
Bivariate Growth Models
Parent engagement and adolescent SWB: changing
in related manner?
Hybrid Models – capturing latent trajectories
and bidirectional associations
Direction of effects
Timing of effects
Mean i = 5.44*
s = - .04*
Std. s = -.30
Sample and Estimated Means
VAR: i = 0.62*
s = - .02*
Individual Estimated Curves
Unconditional LGCM: χ2(5) = 4.938, p<.42; CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00
Mean i = 5.02*
s = - .07*
Sample and Estimated Means
VAR: i = 0.40*
s= - .04*
Individual Estimated Curves
Unconditional LGCM: χ2(5) = 8.503, p<.13; CFI = 1.00, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .03
Model Fit: χ2(5) = 81.97, p<.01; CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .03
Means: i = 2.498 (p<.01), s = -.11 (p<.05)
Variance: i=.50, p<.01; s=.01, p<.01
Bivariate Growth Models: Sample
W1 Adol.
Happiness
W2 Adol.
Happiness
Initial
Level
W3 Adol.
Happiness
W4 Adol.
Happiness
Slope
Are initial levels correlated?
Are rates of change (slope) correlated?
Initial
Level
W1 P-C
Neg. Eng.
W2 P-C
Neg. Eng.
Slope
W3 P-C
Neg. Eng.
W4P-C
Neg. Eng.
Bivariate Growth Models: Are the
Trajectories Related?
Model
Correlation
Intercepts
Correlation
Slopes
PC Negative Engagement
and Adol. Happiness
-.46**
-.37**
PC Negative Engagement
and Adol. Life Satisfaction
-.49**
-.40**
Initial
Level
Slope
W1 Parent W2 Parent W3 Parent W4 Parent
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
W1 Adol.
Happiness
Model Fit:
χ2(13) = 17.03, p<.20
CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .02, SRMR .02
-.06*
-.06*
-.08*
χ2(1) = 0.74 p = ns
-.03
-.09*
-.14*
χ2(1) = 5.46 p < .02
W3 Adol.
Happiness
W4 Adol.
Happiness
W2 Adol.
Happiness
Initial
Level
Slope
Initial
Level
Slope
W1 Parent W2 Parent W3 Parent W4 Parent
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
-.05*
-.06*
-.08*
χ2(1) = 3.45 p = ns
-.03*
-.15*
-.22*
χ2(1) = 14.35 p < .01
W1 Adol. W2 Adol. W3 Adol. W4 Adol.
Life Sat. Life Sat. Life Sat. Life Sat.
Model Fit:
χ2(13) = 24.64, p<.05
CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .03, SRMR .02
Initial
Level
Slope
Happiness Model: Predicting Adjustment
Initial
Level
W1 Behavior
Problems
Slope
.14* .15*
W1 Parent W2 Parent W3 Parent W4 Parent
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
W1 Adol.
Happiness
Model Fit:
χ2(31) = 57.11, p<.05
CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .03, SRMR .02
W2 Adol.
Happiness
W3 Adol.
Happiness
W5 Behavior
Problems
W4 Adol.
Happiness
W5 Distress
-.20*
Initial
Level
-.30*
Slope
W1 Distress
Happiness Model: Predicting Adjustment
Initial
Level
W1 Behavior
Problems
Slope
.34*
W1 Parent W2 Parent W3 Parent W4 Parent
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
W1 Adol.
Happiness
Model Fit:
χ2(31) = 57.11, p<.05
CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .03, SRMR .02
W2 Adol.
Happiness
Initial
Level
W3 Adol.
Happiness
W4 Adol.
Happiness
.05
W5 Behavior
Problems
W5 Distress
Slope
W1 Distress
Happiness Model: Predicting Adjustment
Initial
Level
W1 Behavior
Problems
Slope
W1 Parent W2 Parent W3 Parent W4 Parent
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
W1 Adol.
Happiness
W2 Adol.
Happiness
W3 Adol.
Happiness
W4 Adol.
Happiness
W5 Behavior
Problems
-.17*
W5 Distress
-.47*
Model Fit:
χ2(31) = 57.11, p<.05
CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .03, SRMR .02
Initial
Level
Slope
W1 Distress
Happiness Model: Predicting Adjustment
Initial
Level
W1 Behavior
Problems
Slope
.34*..14* .15*
W1 Parent W2 Parent W3 Parent W4 Parent
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
W1 Adol.
Happiness
Model Fit:
χ2(31) = 57.11, p<.05
CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .03, SRMR .02
-.06*
-.09*
-.13*
-.05*
-.17*
-.25*
W3 Adol.
Happiness
W4 Adol.
Happiness
W2 Adol.
Happiness
W5 Behavior
Problems
.05
-.17*
-.47* -.30*
-.20*
Initial
Level
.57*
W5 Distress
.21*
Slope
W1 Distress
Life Satisfaction Model
Initial
Level
W1 Behavior
Problems
Slope
.32*..17* .20*
W1 Parent W2 Parent W3 Parent W4 Parent
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
Hostility
W1 Adol.
Life Sat.
Model Fit:
χ2(31) = 57.11, p<.05
CFI = .99, TLI = .99,
RMSEA = .03, SRMR .02
-.06*
-.07*
-.10*
-.04*
-.17*
-.25*
W2 Adol.
Life Sat.
W3 Adol.
Life Sat.
W4 Adol.
Life Sat.
W5 Behavior
Problems
.01
-.22*
-.39* -.26*
-.12*
Initial
Level
.61*
W5 Distress
.23*
Slope
W1 Distress
Substance use trajectories: might SWB have
unique implications beyond maladjustment?
Overall, negatively correlated (cross-sectional)
Interesting: some findings for SWB and increases in
alcohol use
Secondary Data Analysis Grant with PROSPER
Timing of
Substance
Use Initiation
Whole Family
Conflict,
Cohesion
Adolescent SWB
Maladjustment
Interparental
Conflict
Effective
Parenting &
Involvement
Middle School,
Grades 6-8
Substance
Use Problems
Adjustment
Problems
High Risk
High-Risk
HighSexual Beh
Beh.
Grade 9
Early
Adulthood
Family Relationships
Parent-Adolescent
Daily Mood,
Satisfaction
Reactivity: the magnitude of emotional arousal
in response to an event
E.g., comparing negative affect on days when
conflicts occur vs. no-conflict days
Residue: the degree to which arousal persists
beyond the conflict event
E.g., negative affect on subsequent days,
An opening into the family processes that elicit
and maintain positive affect on a daily basis
E.g., Positive affect reactivity and residue to
parental support
Support reactivity to child positive affect
Mapping daily reactivity and residue to longterm indicators of adjustment
Evaluating family contextual factors for
reactivity and residue
Global Contextual Factors
FamilyParentLevel
Adolescent
Functioning Rel. Qual.
Parent
WellBeing
SocioEconomic
Disadvantage
Global Indicators
Emotional Distress
Family Rels.
Parent-Adol.
Positive
Reactivity,
Residue
Problem Behaviors
Social Competence
Academic
Achievement
gmf19@psu.edu
gregfosco.weebly.com