Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Nov 2.
Published in final edited form as: Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol. 2024 Sep 3;52(12):1861–1872. doi: 10.1007/s10802-024-01241-6

Adolescent Emotional Reactivity in Family and School Contexts: Prospective Links to Adolescent Psychopathology

Shou-Chun Chiang 1,2, Sunhye Bai 3
PMCID: PMC12579389  NIHMSID: NIHMS2117698  PMID: 39225957

Abstract

Emotional reactivity has been linked to adolescent psychopathology and mental health problems. However, limited research has investigated the distinct associations between emotional reactivity in multiple interpersonal contexts and the development of adolescent psychopathology. The current study examined emotional reactivity to interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, and school problems as predictors of adolescent internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms six months later. The sample included 139 adolescents (54% girls; Mage = 13.30, SDage = 0.73) and their parents who completed 10-day daily reports and 6-month follow-up assessments in Taiwan. Results showed that negative emotional reactivity to interparental conflict was associated with increased internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, after controlling for emotional reactivity to parent-adolescent conflict and school problems, outcomes at baseline, mean negative emotions, and sex. Furthermore, the associations between both positive and negative emotional reactivity to interparental conflict and adolescent anxiety symptoms was stronger for girls than boys. Findings suggested that heightened emotional reactivity to interparental conflict is a risk factor for predicting adolescent psychopathology, especially for girls’ anxiety symptoms. Results highlight the importance of emotional reactivity across multiple interpersonal contexts in adolescence.

Keywords: Emotional Reactivity, Adolescent, Interparental Conflict, School Problems

Introduction

Emotional reactivity has been linked to increased mental health problems, such as depressive symptoms, emotional and behavioral problems, and affective disorders (Bai & Repetti, 2018; Hare et al., 2008; Shapero & Steinberg, 2013). Heightened reactivity to daily stress is conceptualized as acute arousal of emotions that reflect difficulties in regulating emotions. High emotional reactivity is a robust indicator of emotional problems and psychopathology (Compas et al., 2017; McLaughlin et al., 2011; Shapero & Steinberg, 2013). Such maladaptive responses to stress might explain the underlying individual differences in vulnerability to mental health problems. For instance, high-risk adolescents with internalizing and externalizing problems showed greater increases in negative mood and decreases in positive mood following negative events than low-risk adolescents (Schneiders et al., 2006). Greater mood reactivity to daily school problems, operationalized as more negative or less positive mood on high problem days, predicted more child-reported depressive symptoms and parentrated internalizing and externalizing problems three years later (Bai et al., 2020). These studies support the psychological pathways posited by the allostatic process framework in which children’s short-term responses to daily stress may shape their long-term developmental outcomes (Repetti et al., 2011). In other words, an assessment of short-term responses to stressful events may inform our understanding of individual differences in the developmental sequelae of health outcomes. Therefore, emotional reactivity is a risk factor that could predict adolescent vulnerability to mental health problems.

Role of Family and School in Adolescent Emotional Reactivity

Early adolescence is a critical developmental stage when internalizing problems often emerge. Globally, the median age of onset in years is 14 for major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder (Auerbach et al., 2018), and 13 for social anxiety disorder (Solmi et al., 2022). Several unique aspects of adolescent development contribute to the onset of these problems. Puberty drives changes in the adolescent brain, increasing their experience and expression of positive and negative emotions, and sensitivity to social cues from peers (Casey et al., 2019; Crone & Dahl, 2012). Social transitions such as entry into middle and high schools present new and challenging experiences – both social and academic. The parent-child relationship may also experience changes, as the adolescent gains autonomy while striving to remain close to the family and rooted in family values (Fuligni & Tsai, 2015). Conducting a nuanced examination of adolescents’ emotional reactions to daily stressors in and out of the home is critical to understanding risk pathways for internalizing problems in adolescence.

Family and school are important developmental contexts during adolescence, and adolescents are sensitive to conflicts and problems in these two contexts (Chiang et al., 2024). As such, emotional reactivity to daily family and school stress could be an early risk factor for the development of mental health problems. Past research has documented that family conflicts and school problems are associated with adolescent emotional reactivity. On the one hand, emotional security theory posits that family discords increase child and adolescent vulnerability to developmental problems by amplifying their reactivity and distress to subsequent conflicts (Davies & Cummings, 1994; Davies et al., 2006). Consistent with the theory, adolescents exposed to high levels of interparental conflicts may experience elevated emotional reactivity(Buehler et al., 2007; Davies et al., 2012), reflecting an impaired sense of security and safety (Pearson et al., 2023). Recent findings also support that adolescents with a history of high parent-adolescent conflict exhibited greater emotional reactivity to the daily occurrence of parent-adolescent conflicts (Chiang et al., 2023b). Furthermore, research on stress responses suggest that school is an important setting for emotional experiences. Greater school problems, such as school disengagement, poor performance, and peer conflict, were associated with higher negative emotions and lower positive emotions among adolescents (Chiang et al., 2023a; Schneiders et al., 2006; Timmons & Margolin, 2015). Youth experiencing more school problems showed more negative mood and less positive mood on the same day, and those who demonstrated greater negative emotional reactivity to school problems had more depressive symptoms (Bai & Repetti, 2018). These findings suggest that adolescents who are more reactive to daily family conflicts and school problems may be at risk for mental health problems and psychopathology.

Despite the emerging evidence on emotional reactivity, very few studies have examined whether emotional reactivity to family and school stressors may have different implications for adolescent psychopathology. Most studies of daily emotional reactivity are limited to a narrow scope. Past research assessed emotional reactivity to either composite daily stress (Herres et al., 2016; Schneiders et al., 2006) or composite positive and negative life events (Bylsma et al., 2011; Peeters et al., 2010). Although these studies evaluated individuals’ emotional reactivity to daily events, it is unclear in what context these events and stressors occurred. Extant work has focused on the predictive role of emotional reactivity in either the family or school context, such as reactivity to interparental conflict (Cummings & Davies, 2002; Davies et al., 2012), household chaos (Shapero & Steinberg, 2013), and school problems (Bai & Repetti, 2018). However, extant research has yet to examine their incremental effects on later adolescent psychopathology. From a developmental perspective, such evaluations of the predictive value in emotional reactivity across contexts may increase our understanding of what stressors occurring in what contexts are the most influential during adolescence. Thus, we hypothesized that students may react differently to family conflict and school problems, and context-specific emotional reactivity may differently predict adolescent internalizing problems.

The Taiwan Context

Extant research on emotional reactivity has often relied on WEIRD populations (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) (Henrich et al., 2010). For instance, 96% of the samples were from Western industrialized countries (68% from the U.S.) among articles published in six top psychological journals between 2003 and 2007 (Arnett, 2008). Such gaps in the literature suggest the need for more diverse representations based on the non-WEIRD samples. Given that cultural settings in which adolescents live significantly shape their well-being and beliefs, it is critical to examine the implications of emotional reactivity in non-WEIRD cultures such as Chinese societies that emphasize unique cultural values regarding family and school contexts. As a Chinese society, families in Taiwan generally prioritize traditional values of family hierarchy and interpersonal harmony (Chiang et al., 2022; Chuang et al., 2021). As such, past studies have demonstrated that marital and parent-adolescent conflicts were associated with greater adolescent psychological symptoms and psychopathology in Taiwan (Chiu et al., 2017; Lin & Yi, 2019; Chiang et al., 2023). Further, school problems, such as poor peer relationships, poor academic performance, and bullying, were found to be associated with Taiwanese adolescents’ mental health (Chang et al., 2013; Chiang & Chen, 2017; Lin et al., 2008). Past research has shown that interpersonal conflicts had greater negative impacts on psychological distress for East Asians than European Americans (Hashimoto & Yamagishi, 2013). Additionally, school problems also play an important role for adolescents in the Chinese societies that emphasize academic performance and achievement (Chen et al., 2020; Ye et al., 2019). Problems at school may trigger greater emotional reactivity and have adverse consequences for adolescent internalizing problems. As family and school are both critical to adolescents’ daily life, it is crucial to investigate context-specific emotional reactivity across family and school, and their unique contributions to adolescent psychopathology. In sum, our goal was to investigate whether emotional reactivity in family and school contexts would differentially predict symptoms of psychopathology.

Youth Sex Differences

Past research provides some evidence on the emergence of sex differences in emotional reactivity to interpersonal contexts. Studies suggest that adolescent girls experience greater overall emotional reactivity compared to boys (Hampel & Petermann, 2006; Hankin et al., 2007). For example, Charbonneau et al. (2009) found that girls reported higher emotional reactivity to stressful interpersonal events than did boys, and the relationship between stress and depressive symptoms was only significant when emotional reactivity was higher than average. Another study indicated that the association between interparental conflict and emotional reactivity to interparental conflict was higher among girls compared to boys, as well as between close friend conflict and emotional reactivity (Cook et al., 2018). These findings support the stress-vulnerability framework, which posits that affective vulnerability leads girls to be more reactive to interpersonal stress and thus increases their risk for psychopathology such as depression and anxiety (Hyde et al., 2008; Hyde & Mezulis, 2020). Thus, drawing on the previous stress-vulnerability framework and study findings, this study explored the association between emotional reactivity in different contexts and adolescent psychopathology between girls and boys.

The Current Study

This study investigated the unique contributions of emotional reactivity to family conflicts and school problems on adolescent depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and internalizing problems using six-month longitudinal data with daily diary protocols. We first hypothesized that higher interparental and parent-adolescent conflicts, as well as school problems, would be related to greater negative emotions and fewer positive emotions on the same day. Next, we hypothesized that higher emotional reactivity to family conflicts and school problems would be associated with increases in depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and internalizing problems after accounting for the baseline levels of these outcomes. Further, given research indicating that mean levels of emotions have critical values in predicting psychological well-being (Dejonckheere et al., 2019), we also included mean levels of daily positive and negative emotions to examine the important role of emotional reactivity over and beyond one’s emotional intensity. In addition, past research suggests that dynamic characteristics of negative emotions are more closely linked to individual well-being and psychopathology than positive emotions (Houben et al., 2015). Thus, we hypothesized that negative emotional reactivity (NE reactivity) may be more strongly associated with adolescent mental health problems compared to positive emotional reactivity (PE reactivity). Last, this study assessed the sex difference in the association between emotional reactivity and adolescent psychopathology. We hypothesized that the association between emotional reactivity and psychopathology would be stronger for girls than boys.

Method

Participants

Participants were two-parent families with at least one adolescent recruited from middle schools in northern Taiwan. At baseline, 163 adolescents aged 12 to 14 (55% female; Mage = 12.79, SDage= 0.73) and their parents (78% female; Mage = 45.46, SDage = 4.91) participated in the study. All adolescents identified as Taiwanese, and most parents identified as Taiwanese (95%). Parents reported that their education level ranged from below high school degree (3.7%), high school degree (20.2%), college degree (60.7%), and graduate degree (15.3%). Parents reported that their family income range from low-income (3.1%), middle-to-low (2.5%), middle (58.3%), upper-to-middle (35%), and rich (1.2%). All parents were married and identified as a biological mother or father living with the participating adolescent most of the time in the same household. Six months after the completion of daily diary protocols, adolescents were invited to participate in the follow-up surveys. 85% of the adolescents (N = 139; 54% female; Mage = 13.30, SDage = 0.73) completed the follow-up assessments. Adolescents who completed the 6-month follow-up assessment did not differ from those who did not participate regarding sex, age, parent education, family income, interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, school problems, internalizing problems, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and daily ratings of positive and negative emotions. Data collection was conducted between November 2021 and January 2022 at baseline, and between May and June 2022 at follow-up.

Procedure

The research team invited families from two middle schools with the approval of school principals and teachers. Parents and adolescents were required to both participate in the study and meet the following inclusion criteria: (a) participating parent as the primary caregiver, (b) access to the internet and daily surveys, and (c) living together most of the time in the same household. The sample size was based on eligible participants who were interested in the current study and available for completing the baseline, daily diary, and follow-up surveys in the selected schools. From Monday to Friday for two consecutive weeks, participants completed daily diary surveys sent with person-specific links to participants’ preferred communication platforms (e.g., emails, phone apps) twice a day for adolescents in the afternoon and evening, and once a day for parents in the evening. Parents and adolescents were compensated with cash or gift cards after the study: $35 USD for baseline and daily surveys and $20 USD for follow-up surveys. Parents completed informed consent and adolescents completed assent. All procedures were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the National Chengchi University. The compliance rates were high across the assessments. Compliance rates were generally high across the study. Among 139 parent-adolescent dyads, there was no missing data in baseline and follow-up surveys. Adolescents provided afterschool reports (N = 1,378, 99%) and evening reports between 8 and 10 days (N = 1,362, 98%) and parents also provided data between 8 and 10 days (N = 1,376, 99%). During the data collection, school teachers helped remind adolescents to complete baseline, daily diary, and follow-up assessments.

Measures

Daily Measures

Daily Interparental Conflict.

Every evening, parents completed two items about interparental conflict (Fosco & Lydon-Staley, 2019), including “My partner and I were angry or mad at each other today” and “My partner and I argued with each other today.” Items were rated using a slider from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much), and interparental conflict was calculated as the average of the items. In this study, the between-person reliability (RKF) was .95 and within-person reliability (Rc) was .79.

Daily Parent-Adolescent Conflict

Adolescents reported daily parent-adolescent conflict modified from previous daily diary studies in the evening (Bai & Repetti, 2018). Adolescents rated daily parent-adolescent conflict on two items, including “I argued with my parent today” and “My parent and I got mad at each other today.” Items were rated using a slider from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much), and parent-adolescent conflict was calculated as the average of the items. The between-person reliability (RKF) was 0.97 and within-person reliability (Rc) was 0.74.

Daily School Problems

On each afternoon survey, adolescents reported daily school problems modified from previous daily studies (Bai & Repetti, 2018; Repetti, 1996) including academic (3 items) and peer problems (3 items) about how they felt these problems during the school. Adolescents rated school problems using a slider from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much), including “I had troubles in class today,” “I had problems in understanding class content today,” “I did not do well in exams or quizzes today,” “I argued with my friends at school today,” “I had fights with peers at school today,” and “I did not get along with peers in class today.” School problems were calculated as the average of the items. The between-person reliability (RKF) was .99 and within-person reliability (Rc) was .77.

Daily Positive and Negative Emotions

AdolescDaily Positive and Negative Emotionsents reported their daily emotions on eight items adapted from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS, Watson et al., 1988) after school and in the evening. Adolescents reported their positive emotions with two items (i.e., happy, excited), and negative emotions with six items (i.e., distressed and sad). Items were rated on a 0–10 slider ranging from 0 (not at all true) to 10 (very much true). The items of positive emotions and negative emotions were separately averaged to assess emotions at school and at home. For the after-school emotions, the between-person reliability (RKF) for positive emotion and negative emotion was 0.89 and 0.95, respectively. The within-person reliability (Rc) for positive emotion and negative emotion was 0.70 and 0.75, respectively. For the evening emotions, the between-person reliability (RKF) for positive emotion and negative emotion was 0.85 and 0.90, respectively. The within-person reliability (Rc) for positive emotion and negative emotion was 0.76 and 0.82, respectively.

Baseline and Follow-up Measures

Internalizing Problems

Adolescents reported their internalizing on the 5-item Brief Symptom Rating Scale (BSRS-5; Lee et al., 2003). BSRS-5 is commonly used in epidemiological and clinical settings to assess internalizing problems and potential risk for mental health disorders (Chiang & Bai, 2022; Pan et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2016). Adolescents rated internalizing problems in the past week on five items, such as “feeling easily annoyed or irritated” and “having trouble falling asleep.” Items were rated on a five-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely) and averaged to create a single score for adolescent internalizing problems. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 at baseline and 0.88 at the six-month follow-up.

Depressive Symptoms

Adolescents reported their depressive symptoms using the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001) at baseline and follow-up assessments. PHQ-9 is a brief scale measuring depressive symptoms across child and adult populations (Allgaier et al., 2012; Moriarty et al., 2015; Richardson et al., 2010). Adolescents rated depressive symptoms during the past two weeks on nine items, such as “little interest or pleasure in doing things” and “feeling down, depressed, or hopeless.” Items were rated on a four-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day) and averaged to create a single score for adolescent depressive symptoms. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81 at baseline and 0.82 at six-month follow-up.

Anxiety Symptoms

Adolescents reported their anxiety symptoms drawn from the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006) at baseline and follow-up assessments. Past research has shown that GAD-7 is suitable for assessing adolescent anxiety symptoms (Mossman et al., 2017; Tiirikainen et al., 2019). Adolescents rated anxiety symptoms in the past two weeks on seven items, such as “feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge” and “trouble relaxing.” Items were rated on a four-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). Items were averaged to create a single score for adolescent anxiety symptoms. Cronbach alpha’s was 0.85 at baseline and six-month follow-up.

Analytical Plan

All analyses were conducted in R version 4.1.2 (R Core Team, 2021). We first describe our analytical strategies for calculating the indices of emotional reactivity, and then illustrate how we used them in predicting adolescent psychopathology 6 months later. Consistent with most studies on emotional reactivity (Mroczek et al., 2015; Ong et al., 2020; Santee & Starr, 2022), we operationalized emotional reactivity as the within-person association between daily family conflicts or school problems with positive and negative emotions derived from within-person slopes (i.e., empirical Bayes). This approach provides several methodical advantages for assessing emotional reactivity, such as reducing retrospective bias when using one-time administrated questionnaire, allowing researchers to capture emotional responses to domain-specific stressors, and considering individual differences in emotional responses in naturalistic settings (Kim & Fuligni, 2020; Ong & Burrow, 2018; Parrish et al., 2011; Sin et al., 2015).

To calculate indices of emotional reactivity, multilevel modeling was used to estimate the within-person associations of person-centered interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, and school problems with positive and negative emotions. Intercept and slope were allowed to randomly vary across individuals so that we can extract the unique individual-level estimates of intercept and slope (i.e., unstandardized fixed effects) (Bai & Repetti, 2018; Stantee & Starr, 2022). A first-order autoregressive error structure was specified for the dependency of the repeated effect. We used after-school emotions to calculate emotional reactivity to school problems, and evening emotions for emotional reactivity to interparental and parent-adolescent conflicts. For instance, a positive association between school problems and negative emotions reported after school indicates higher negative emotional reactivity to school problems. Higher negative emotional reactivity to interparental conflict indicates greater negative emotions reported in the evening. For positive emotional reactivity, we reverse-coded the scores (multiplying by −1) so that higher positive emotional reactivity refers to greater declines in positive emotional to simplify interpretation (Bai & Repetti, 2018). Given the high compliance rates, the few missing data in daily diary reports were excluded from the multilevel modeling.

Next, we used multiple linear regression to model the association between emotional reactivity and adolescent psychopathology. Specifically, we included the three indices of emotional reactivity to interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, and school problems together in the same regression model to predict each outcome: internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms at the 6-month follow-up assessments. This approach allows us to evaluate the unique contribution of emotional reactivity in one context over and beyond other contexts. In the three regression models, adolescent sex, age, family income, and baseline levels of outcome variables were included as controls. Additionally, we also controlled the mean levels of positive or negative emotion from both afternoon and evening ratings to assess the predictive value of emotional reactivity beyond the overall emotional intensity. All predictors were standardized in the multiple regression models. Effect size was evaluated using adjusted R2 in regression models, with benchmarks for small (0.02), medium (0.13), and large (0.26) effects (Cohen, 1988).

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations of main variables were shown in Table 1. Furthermore, we examined the frequency of family conflict and positive and negative emotions. Among all daily reports, there were 23% of days with no interparental conflict and 28% of days with no parent-adolescent conflict, and 19% of days with less negative emotions and 13% of days with low positive emotions.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. NE
2. PE −0.59***
IPC
3. NE reactivity  0.43*** −0.38***
4. PE reactivity  0.34*** −0.29***  0.55***
PA conflict
5. NE reactivity  0.26*** −0.21**  0.50***  0.30***
6. PE reactivity  0.11 −0.20***  0.14***  0.43***  0.48***
School problems
7. NE reactivity  0.46*** −0.33***  0.20***  0.27***  0.03***  0.00***
8. PE reactivity  0.18* −0.45*** −0.01*** −0.08 −0.05*** −0.04*** 0.55***
Six-month Outcomes
9. Internalizing  0.44*** −0.39***  0.43***  0.20***  0.12*** −0.06*** 0.24*** 0.14***
10. Depressive  0.43*** −0.57***  0.47***  0.19***  0.23***  0.07*** 0.23*** 0.24*** 0.76***
11. Anxiety  0.38*** −0.32***  0.38***  0.08***  0.17*** −0.03*** 0.24*** 0.12*** 0.74*** 0.70***
 Mean  1.26  7.37  0.11  0.03  0.21  0.19 0.17 0.17 0.94 0.78 0.64
 SD  1.36  1.98  0.08  0.07  0.11  0.11 0.14 0.06 0.77 0.64 0.56
Open in a new tab

IPC = interparental conflict; PA conflict = parent-adolescent conflict

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

NE reactivity to interparental conflict was positively correlated with internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms at follow-up, and PE reactivity to interparental conflict was positively correlated with internalizing problems and depressive symptoms. NE reactivity to parent-adolescent conflict was positively correlated with depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms, while PE reactivity to parent-adolescent conflict was not correlated with any outcomes. NE reactivity to school problems was positively correlated with internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, while PE reactivity to school problems was positively correlated with depressive symptoms. Additionally, mean levels of NE and PE were both significantly correlated with all outcomes.

The results of multilevel models showed that, for the average adolescent, greater interparental conflict was associated with lower positive emotions (b = −0.18, p < .001) and higher negative emotions (b = 0.21, p < .001) on that day. Greater parent-adolescent conflict was not associated with positive emotions (b = − 0.05, p = .105) but with higher negative emotions (b = 0.07, p < .01) on that day. Greater school problems were associated with lower positive emotions (b = − 0.16, p < .001) and higher negative emotions (b = 0.17, p < .001) on that day. There was individual variability in PE and NE reactivity to interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, and school problems, indicated by significant likelihood ratio tests of variance components (p < .001). We then extracted these indices to represent the unique association between peer conflict and emotions for each adolescent in regression analyses.

A series of multiple regression models were conducted to examine the prospective associations between emotional reactivity and mental health problems, while controlling for outcomes at baseline, mean levels of emotions, sex, age, and family income. We first described the main effects of NE reactivity to interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, and school problems on follow-up internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. As shown in Table 2, NE reactivity to interparental conflict was associated with increases in internalizing problems (β = 0.26, p < .01), depressive symptoms (β = 0.19, p < .01), and anxiety symptoms (β = 0.12, p < .05). However, NE reactivity to parent-adolescent conflict and school problems was not associated with any outcomes. Next, we described the main effects of PE reactivity to interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, and school problems on internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. As shown in Table 3, PE reactivity to interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, and school problems were not associated with any of the outcomes.

Table 2.

Summary of multiple regression models testing the prospective associations between NE reactivity and adolescent outcomes

Internalizing problems
 Depressive symptoms
 Anxiety symptoms
β SE p β SE p β SE p
Step 1 (R2) (0.37) (0.36) (0.25)
 NE reactivity to IPC  0.26*** 0.08 0.002  0.19*** 0.07 0.008  0.12*** 0.07 0.046
 NE reactivity to PA conflict − 0.07*** 0.06 0.237  0.01*** 0.05 0.780  0.03*** 0.05 0.503
 NE reactivity to school problems − 0.01*** 0.06 0.834  0.00*** 0.05 0.989  0.04*** 0.05 0.386
 Mean NE levels − 0.02*** 0.08 0.759 − 0.02*** 0.07 0.726  0.03*** 0.06 0.668
 Outcomes at baseline  0.39*** 0.07 0.000  0.29*** 0.06 0.000  0.21*** 0.05 0.000
 Sex (girls = 1) − 0.04*** 0.11 0.715  0.12*** 0.09 0.177  0.04*** 0.09 0.676
Step 2 (R2) (0.37) (0.37) (0.27)
 NE reactivity to IPC  0.15*** 0.10 0.273  0.22*** 0.11 0.047 − 0.03*** 0.09 0.747
 NE reactivity to PA conflict − 0.09*** 0.08 0.302  0.00*** 0.07 0.962 − 0.01*** 0.06 0.937
 NE reactivity to school problems  0.05*** 0.08 0.508  0.04*** 0.06 0.518  0.08*** 0.06 0.168
 Mean NE levels − 0.03*** 0.08 0.763 − 0.02*** 0.07 0.820  0.03*** 0.06 0.668
 Outcomes at baseline  0.40*** 0.07 0.000  0.29*** 0.07 0.000  0.22*** 0.05 0.000
 Sex (girls = 1) − 0.03*** 0.12 0.782  0.11*** 0.09 0.222  0.05*** 0.09 0.536
 NE reactivity to IPC x sex  0.14*** 0.15 0.369 − 0.06*** 0.13 0.645  0.19*** 0.12 0.037
 NE reactivity to PA conflict x sex  0.04*** 0.11 0.743  0.06*** 0.10 0.563  0.07*** 0.09 0.480
 NE reactivity to school problems x sex − 0.14*** 0.12 0.215 − 0.13*** 0.10 0.163 − 0.08*** 0.09 0.390
Open in a new tab

IPC = interparental conflict; PA conflict = parent-adolescent conflict. Models controlled for age and family income

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Table 3.

Summary of multiple regression models testing the prospective associations between PE reactivity and adolescent outcomes

Internalizing problems
 Depressive symptoms
 Anxiety symptoms
β SE p β SE p β SE p
Step 1 (R2) (0.35) (0.45) (0.21)
 PE reactivity to IPC  0.10*** 0.07 0.159  0.00*** 0.05 0.974  0.01*** 0.06 0.875
 PE reactivity to PA conflict − 0.11*** 0.06 0.086 − 0.03*** 0.05 0.583 − 0.03*** 0.05 0.585
 PE reactivity to school problems − 0.02*** 0.06 0.713  0.05*** 0.05 0.554  0.00*** 0.05 0.986
 Mean PE levels − 0.14*** 0.07 0.043 − 0.28*** 0.06 0.000 − 0.12*** 0.05 0.024
 Outcomes at baseline  0.39*** 0.06 0.000  0.25*** 0.05 0.000  0.22*** 0.05 0.000
 Sex (girls = 1)  0.01*** 0.11 0.892  0.16*** 0.08 0.065  0.06*** 0.09 0.488
Step 2 (R2) (0.36) (0.45) (0.23)
 PE reactivity to IPC − 0.05*** 0.10 0.602 − 0.04*** 0.08 0.652 − 0.02*** 0.14 0.119
 PE reactivity to PA conflict − 0.16*** 0.08 0.095  0.00*** 0.07 0.976 − 0.17*** 0.10 0.638
 PE reactivity to school problems − 0.03*** 0.09 0.903 − 0.13*** 0.08 0.104  0.11*** 0.09 0.709
 Mean PE levels − 0.15*** 0.06 0.042 − 0.30*** 0.05 0.000 − 0.14*** 0.07 0.011
 Outcomes at baseline  0.21*** 0.07 0.000  0.25*** 0.05 0.000  0.37*** 0.06 0.000
 Sex (girls = 1)  0.09*** 0.09 0.641  0.16*** 0.09 0.065  0.05*** 0.11 0.319
 PE reactivity to IPC x sex  0.19*** 0.14 0.056  0.08*** 0.11 0.474  0.25*** 0.11 0.026
 PE reactivity to PA conflict x sex  0.09*** 0.12 0.678 − 0.05*** 0.10 0.598 − 0.02*** 0.10 0.869
 PE reactivity to school problems x sex − 0.08*** 0.13 0.834  0.15*** 0.09 0.087  0.07*** 0.09 0.479
Open in a new tab

IPC = interparental conflict PA conflict = parent-adolescent conflict. Models controlled for age and family income

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Regarding moderation analyses, a significant moderation effect of sex was found in the association between NE reactivity to interparental conflict and anxiety symptoms (β = 0.19, p < .05). We further conducted simple slopes for investigating the sex differences in the above association. NE reactivity to interparental conflict was positively associated with anxiety symptoms only for girls (b = 0.16, p < .05), but not for boys (b = − 0.03, p = .75). Similarly, another moderation effect was significant between PE reactivity to interparental conflict and anxiety symptoms. PE reactivity to interparental conflict was positively associated with anxiety symptoms only for girls (b = 0.14, p < .05), but not for boys (b = − 0.09, p = .25).

In addition, we conducted sensitivity analyses to differentiate the incremental effects of academic and peer problems. We derived separate estimates of negative emotion reactivity to academic and peer problems and positive emotion reactivity to academic and peer problems. We then entered the four measures of reactivity as predictors (i.e., NE reactivity to academic problems, PE reactivity to academic problems, NE reactivity to peer problems, PE reactivity to peer problems) of internalizing problems, depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms over and above reactivity to interparental conflict and parent-adolescent conflict. Reactivity to peer and academic problems did not uniquely predict outcomes.

Discussion

In the current study, we tested the prospective associations of emotional reactivity to family conflicts and school problems with internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms six months later in a sample of parent-adolescent dyads using both daily diary and longitudinal methodology. We specifically explored the relative effects of emotional reactivity across three contexts (i.e., interparental conflict, parent-adolescent conflict, school problems) in the same models to examine their unique associations with adolescent psychopathology. Results indicate that NE reactivity to interparental conflict, measured by calculating daily estimates from daily diary data, was significantly associated with more internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. These associations were robust even when controlling for baseline levels of outcomes, mean levels of emotions, adolescent sex, age, and family incomes, as well as emotional reactivity to parent-adolescent conflict and school problems. Furthermore, we found that the associations of NE and PE reactivity to interparental conflict with anxiety symptoms were significant only for girls compared to boys. These results underscore the importance of considering context-specific emotional reactivity in adolescents’ daily lives and potential sex differences to better understand the development of adolescent psychopathology.

Findings indicate that NE reactivity to interparental conflict predicted increases in internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Although NE reactivity to parent-adolescent conflict and NE reactivity to school problems were significantly correlated with the outcomes, their predictive values were not significant over and beyond NE reactivity to interparental conflict. Specifically, adolescents who showed more negative emotions on days when interparental conflict occurred were at greater risk for developing psychopathology six months later, even after controlling for their baseline levels. These results support our hypotheses that emotional reactivity is context-specific and differentially linked to psychopathology; specifically, stressors in the family context may be more salient than those in the school context in Chinese cultures. Findings align with the emotional security theory that hypothesized emotional reactivity functions as the bridging mechanism linking interparental conflict and adolescent psychopathology (Davies et al., 2006; Davies & Martin, 2013). Adolescents may feel emotionally insecure (e.g., high arousal of emotions) when they experience hostile interparental conflicts and related negative emotional climate in the family (Cummings & Schatz, 2012; Fosco & Grych, 2007). Repeated exposures to these family characteristics can lead to more intense and prolonged reactions to interparental conflict that impair adolescents’ sense of security and increase difficulties in emotion regulation (Davies et al., 2016). Past studies on emotional reactivity were limited to assessing emotional reactivity in a single context (e.g., interparental conflict) or a general response to a composite stress (e.g., Bai & Repetti, 2018; Bylsma et al., 2011; Davies et al., 2012). Thus, this study addressed the gap in literature by uncovering the unique contributions of context-specific emotional reactivity in predicting the development of psychopathology.

Furthermore, as most research on emotional reactivity was based on WEIRD populations, we considered the cultural relevance of family and school contexts in evaluating the predictive value of emotional reactivity. Given the cultural emphasis on family hierarchy and interpersonal harmony (Chuang et al., 2021), the results show that interparental conflict played a dominant role in shaping adolescents’ developmental psychopathology. Research suggests that Taiwanese families follow Confucian values of family hierarchy and parental authority, highlighting the top-down effect of interparental relationships in impacting other family subsystems (Chiang & Bai, 2022). Therefore, adolescents’ NE reactivity to interparental conflict serves as a strong precursor to multiple psychopathological outcomes. In contrast, NE reactivity to parent-adolescent conflict and school problems has no such predictive paths with these outcomes when considering reactivity to interparental conflict.

Our findings did not support PE reactivity as a predictor for adolescent psychopathology. Consistent with a meta-analysis on short-term emotion dynamics, the dynamic measures of negative emotions, relative to positive emotions, are more closely related to individuals’ psychological well-being, such as depression, anxiety, and externalizing problems (Houben et al., 2015). An empirical study also indicates that, children who showed more negative emotions in response to school problems had higher depressive symptoms, while those who reported fewer positive emotions to school problems did not demonstrate such a difference (Bai & Repetti, 2018). Thus, the present findings underscore the potential utility of assessing NE reactivity to interparental conflict as a target for prevention and intervention programs aimed at reducing adolescent psychopathology.

The results also provided support for the hypotheses of sex differences in the association between emotional reactivity and adolescent psychopathology. The findings of moderation effects indicate that both NE reactivity and PE reactivity were positively associated with more anxiety symptoms only for girls but not boys. These sex differences are in line with past research that hypothesizes girls may be more reactive to stressful events, which in turn increase their risk for developing psychopathology (Hyde & Mezulis, 2020). From this perspective, interparental conflict may signal destructive and unsettling family environments that can heighten children’s level of emotional reactivity (Davies et al., 2006), especially for adolescent girls. Such increased emotional reactivity may trigger feelings of fear and worry as key markers of anxiety symptoms (Behar et al., 2009; Spence et al., 2001), especially for girls who may be more sensitive to interpersonal and family disruptions (Simpson, 2020; van Eldik et al., 2020). As a result, girls who respond to interparental conflict with more negative emotions and fewer positive emotions are at particular risk for developing anxiety symptoms. Past studies that examined emotional reactivity tend to focus solely on negative emotional reactivity in relation to psychological symptoms (e.g., Shapero et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2017). Our results highlight the importance of considering the valence of emotion (i.e., whether the emotion is positive or negative) in evaluating the predictive linkages between emotion reactivity and internalizing problems. Furthermore, the findings support the clinical features of anxiety disorders: anxious individuals are more likely to exhibit hyperarousal and have difficulties in regulating these emotions (Carthy et al., 2010). This vulnerability was especially common in girls who are more sensitive to negative stimuli and life events (Charbonneau et al., 2009; Hyde et al., 2008). To our knowledge, other studies have not examined sex differences in the associations of context-specific PE and NE emotional reactivity with adolescent outcomes. Thus, this study contributes to the current literature by exploring the potential sex differences that inform the role of adverse effects of emotional reactivity to interparental conflict in increasing anxiety symptoms among adolescent girls more than boys.

In terms of prevention and clinical implications, the findings point to several key targets for intervention programs and clinicians working with adolescents and families. First, the present study supports that interparental conflict is a proximal risk factor that leads to increased emotional reactivity in adolescents and escalations in psychopathology. For prevention and intervention programs, the findings highlight the unique role of NE reactivity to interparental conflict as a target of prevention efforts, such as learning emotion regulation strategies and reducing hostile conflicts between parents. Second, our results also suggest that girls who are more emotionally reactive to interparental conflict are at increased risk for developing anxiety symptoms. These findings offer practical guidance to prevention and clinical efforts for determining risk for psychopathology and designing family-based assessments. Last, it is worth noting that mean levels of positive emotions assessed in daily reports predicted increased adolescent psychopathology 6 months later, suggesting that average levels of positive emotions are important factors in shaping adolescent mental health despite often neglected in literature. Preventionists and clinicians should incorporate strategies for promoting adolescent positive emotions in reducing psychopathology.

There are several limitations that should be noted when interpreting the findings. First, we assessed emotional reactivity as the concurrent association between daily events (e.g., interparental conflict) and emotions of adolescents. Although this approach is common in daily diary studies (e.g., Herres et al., 2016; Kim & Fuligni, 2020), some research suggests that measuring emotion dynamics within shorter timescales (e.g., hours, minutes) would provide more nuanced results about how individuals’ emotions respond to life events at the specific moment using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) (McKone & Silk, 2022; Tan et al., 2012). Moreover, other confounding factors may also influence adolescent daily emotions throughout the day. However, we note that our approach of assessing emotional reactivity in after-school reports and evening reports is a statistical improvement in current literature given that most studies only assessed emotional reactivity once per day. Future research should consider the investigation of emotional reactivity as dynamic patterns in relation to psychopathology. Second, the variables were self-reported measures that may be subject to response bias by the participants. Previous research has shown that findings based on the objective measures of emotional reactivity (e.g., physiological response) in laboratory yield very different results from studies of emotional reactivity in daily life (e.g., EMA) (Bylsma, 2021; Bylsma et al., 2011). Thus, it is important for future research to reconcile the differences through assessing both subjective and objective measures of emotional reactivity. Third, the study is based on a primarily community sample of adolescents with relatively low negative emotions, limiting our generalizability to clinical samples. Last, it is important to acknowledge that the time frame between baseline and follow-up assessments was relatively short across six months, although this study is one of the first to test the prospective effects of emotional reactivity measured in daily diaries. This two-wave design prevents us from exploring non-linear patterns of change in mental health symptoms.

In conclusion, the current study investigated the prospective associations between context-specific emotional reactivity in family and school and the development of adolescent internalizing psychopathology, and the moderating role of adolescent sex in these associations. Overall, the findings showed that NE reactivity to interparental conflict predicted the increases in internalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms six months later. Moreover, NE and PE reactivity to interparental conflict were significantly associated with more anxiety symptoms only among girls but not boys, suggesting that girls who exhibited greater responses to interparental conflict are at heightened risk for developing anxiety symptoms. These results provide essential information regarding the times (e.g., on days when interparental conflict was more evident) and targets (adolescents who are more emotionally reactive to interparental conflict) for intervention and prevention efforts aimed at reducing adolescent psychopathology. Further, this study expands the existing literature by describing the unique contributions of context-specific emotional reactivity as an early risk factor in adolescents’ daily lives.

Funding

Data collection was supported by the Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 110-2410-H-004 - 109 -). MOST had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. Shou-Chun Chiang was supported by the Prevention and Methodology Training Program (T32 DA017629; MPIs: J. Maggs & S. Lanza) with funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Allgaier AK, Pietsch K, Frühe B, Sigl-Glöckner J, & Schulte-Körne G (2012). Screening for depression in adolescents: Validity of the patient health questionnaire in pediatric care. Depression and Anxiety, 29(10), 906–913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett JJ (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. 10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Auerbach RP, Mortier P, Bruffaerts R, Alonso J, Benjet C, Cuijpers P, & Kessler RC (2018). WHO world mental health surveys international college student project: Prevalence and distribution of mental disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(7), 623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bai S, & Repetti RL (2018). Negative and positive emotion responses to daily school problems: Links to internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(3), 423–435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bai S, Robles TF, Reynolds BM, & Repetti RL (2020). Daily mood reactivity to stress during childhood predicts internalizing problems three years later. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48, 1063–1075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Behar E, DiMarco ID, Hekler EB, Mohlman J, & Staples AM (2009). Current theoretical models of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): Conceptual review and treatment implications. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(8), 1011–1023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buehler C, Lange G, & Franck KL (2007). Adolescents’ cognitive and emotional responses to marital hostility. Child Development, 78(3), 775–789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bylsma LM (2021). Emotion context insensitivity in depression: Toward an integrated and contextualized approach. Psychophysiology, 58(2), e13715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bylsma LM, Taylor-Clift A, & Rottenberg J (2011). Emotional reactivity to daily events in major and minor depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120(1), 155–167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carthy T, Horesh N, Apter A, & Gross JJ (2010). Patterns of emotional reactivity and regulation in children with anxiety disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 23–36. [Google Scholar]
  11. Casey BJ, Heller AS, Gee DG, & Cohen AO (2019). Development of the emotional brain. Neuroscience Letters, 693, 29–34. 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.11.055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang FC, Lee CM, Chiu CH, Hsi WY, Huang TF, & Pan YC (2013). Relationships among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese adolescents. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 454–462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Charbonneau AM, Mezulis AH, & Hyde JS (2009). Stress and emotional reactivity as explanations for gender differences in adolescents’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1050–1058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen LYA, Wu CY, Lee MB, & Yang LT (2020). Suicide and associated psychosocial correlates among university students in Taiwan: A mixed-methods study. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 119(5), 957–967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chiang SC, & Bai S (2022). Reciprocal influences among marital relationship, parent–adolescent relationship, and youth depressive symptoms. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(4), 962–981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chiang SC, & Chen WC (2017). Economically disadvantaged adolescents’ teacher support, peer support, family cohesion and psychological capital: Analyzing the Taiwan database of children and youth in poverty. Contemporary Educational Research Quarterly, 25(4), 11–50. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chiang SC, Chen WC, & Chou LT (2023a). The prospective association between emotional reactivity and adolescent suicidal ideation. Archives of Suicide Research, 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chiang SC, Chen WC, & Liu TH (2023b). Emotional reactivity to daily family conflicts: Testing the within-person sensitization. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 33(1), 361–368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chiang SC, Chen WC, & Wu PY (2023). Daily association between parent– adolescent relationship and life satisfaction: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Adolescence, 95(6), 1168–1178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Chiang SC, Ting SJ, Hung YF, Sung YH, & Chen WC (2024). The role of family conflict and school problems in adolescent emotion dynamics. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 33(3), 877–887. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chiu YC, Tseng CY, & Lin FG (2017). Gender differences and stage-specific influence of parent–adolescent conflicts on adolescent suicidal ideation. Psychiatry Research, 255, 424–431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Chuang SS, Li X, & Huang CY (2021). Chinese families from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Asian families in Canada and the United States: Implications for mental health and well-being; (pp. 45–63). [Google Scholar]
  23. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. routledge. [Google Scholar]
  24. Compas BE, Jaser SS, Bettis AH, Watson KH, Gruhn MA, Dunbar JP, … & Thigpen JC (2017). Coping, emotion regulation, and psychopathology in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cook EC, Blair BL, & Buehler C (2018). Individual differences in adolescents’ emotional reactivity across relationship contexts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 290–305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Crone EA, & Dahl RE (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(9), 636–650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Cummings EM, & Davies PT (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: Recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(1), 31–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Cummings EM, & Schatz JN (2012). Family conflict, emotional security, and child development: translating research findings into a prevention program for community families. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15, 14–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Davies PT, & Cummings EM (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Davies PT, & Martin MJ (2013). The reformulation of emotional security theory: The role of children’s social defense in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1435–1454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Davies PT, Winter MA, & Cicchetti D (2006). The implications of emotional security theory for understanding and treating childhood psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 18(3), 707–735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Davies PT, Cicchetti D, & Martin MJ (2012). Toward greater specificity in identifying associations among interparental aggression, child emotional reactivity to conflict, and child problems. Child Development, 83(5), 1789–1804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Davies PT, Martin MJ, Sturge-Apple ML, Ripple MT, & Cicchetti D (2016). The distinctive sequelae of children’s coping with interparental conflict: Testing the reformulated emotional security theory. Developmental Psychology, 52(10), 1646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Dejonckheere E, Mestdagh M, Houben M, Rutten I, Sels L, Kuppens P, & Tuerlinckx F (2019). Complex affect dynamics add limited information to the prediction of psychological well-being. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(5), 478–491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Fosco GM, & Grych JH (2007). Emotional expression in the family as a context for children’s appraisals of interparental conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Fosco GM, & Lydon-Staley DM (2019). A within-family examination of interparental conflict, cognitive appraisals, and adolescent mood and well-being. Child Development, 90(4), 421–436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Fuligni AJ, & Tsai KM (2015). Developmental flexibility in the age of globalization: Autonomy and identity development among immigrant adolescents. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 411–431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hampel P, & Petermann F (2006). Perceived stress, coping, and adjustment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(4), 409–415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hankin BL, Mermelstein R, & Roesch L (2007). Sex differences in adolescent depression: Stress exposure and reactivity models. Child Development, 78(1), 279–295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hare TA, Tottenham N, Galvan A, Voss HU, Glover GH, & Casey B (2008). Biological substrates of emotional reactivity and regulation in adolescence during an emotional go-nogo task. Biological Psychiatry, 63(10), 927–934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Hashimoto H, & Yamagishi T (2013). Two faces of interdependence: Harmony seeking and rejection avoidance. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16(2), 142–151. [Google Scholar]
  42. Henrich J, Heine SJ, & Norenzayan A (2010). Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Herres J, Ewing ESK, & Kobak R (2016). Emotional reactivity to negative adult and peer events and the maintenance of adolescent depressive symptoms: A daily diary design. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 471–481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Houben M, Van Den Noortgate W, & Kuppens P (2015). The relation between short-term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(4), 901. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hyde JS, & Mezulis AH (2020). Gender differences in depression: Biological, affective, cognitive, and sociocultural factors. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 4–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Hyde JS, Mezulis AH, & Abramson LY (2008). The ABCs of depression: Integrating affective, biological, and cognitive models to explain the emergence of the gender difference in depression. Psychological Review, 115(2), 291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim JJ, & Fuligni AJ (2020). Psychological reactivity to daily family experiences during adolescence: Individual differences and developmental stability. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(4), 820–834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, & Williams JB (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee MB, Liao SC, Lee YJ, Wu CH, Tseng MC, Gau SF, & Rau CL (2003). Development and verification of validity and reliability of a short screening instrument to identify psychiatric morbidity. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 102(10), 687–694. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Lin WH, & Yi CC (2019). Subjective well-being and family structure during early adolescence: A prospective study. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 39(3), 426–452. [Google Scholar]
  51. Lin HC, Tang TC, Yen JY, Ko CH, Huang CF, Liu SC, & Yen CF (2008). Depression and its association with self-esteem, family, peer and school factors in a population of 9586 adolescents in southern Taiwan. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 62(4), 412–420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. McKone KM, & Silk JS (2022). The emotion dynamics conundrum in developmental psychopathology: Similarities, distinctions, and adaptiveness of affective variability and socioaffective flexibility. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 25(1), 44–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. McLaughlin KA, Hatzenbuehler ML, Mennin DS, & Nolen-Hoeksema S (2011). Emotion dysregulation and adolescent psychopathology: A prospective study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(9), 544–554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Moriarty AS, Gilbody S, McMillan D, & Manea L (2015). Screening and case finding for major depressive disorder using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): A meta-analysis. General Hospital Psychiatry, 37(6), 567–576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mossman SA, Luft MJ, Schroeder HK, Varney ST, Fleck DE, Barzman DH, & Strawn JR (2017). The generalized anxiety disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale in adolescents with generalized anxiety disorder: Signal detection and validation. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 29(4), 227–234. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Mroczek DK, Stawski RS, Turiano NA, Chan W, Almeida DM, Neupert SD, & Spiro III A (2015). Emotional reactivity and mortality: Longitudinal findings from the VA Normative Aging Study. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70(3), 398–406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ong AD, & Burrow AL (2018). Affective reactivity to daily racial discrimination as a prospective predictor of depressive symptoms in African American graduate and postgraduate students. Development and Psychopathology, 30(5), 1649–1659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ong AD, Gardner S, Urganci B, Gunaydin G, & Selcuk E (2020). Affective reactivity, resting heart rate variability, and marital quality: A 10-year longitudinal study of US adults. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(3), 375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Pan CH, Lee MB, Wu CY, Liao SC, Chan CT, & Chen CY (2021). Suicidal ideation, psychopathology, and help-seeking in 15 to 19-year-old adolescents in Taiwan: A population-based study 2015–2019. Journal of Affective Disorders, 282, 846–851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Parrish BP, Cohen LH, & Laurenceau JP (2011). Prospective relationship between negative affective reactivity to daily stress and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30(3), 270–296. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pearson JK, Davies PT, & Sturge-Apple ML (2023). The moderating role of adrenocortical reactivity in the associations between interparental conflict, emotional reactivity, and school adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 35(4), 1878–1890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Peeters F, Berkhof J, Rottenberg J, & Nicolson NA (2010). Ambulatory emotional reactivity to negative daily life events predicts remission from major depressive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(8), 754–760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  64. Repetti RL, Robles TF, & Reynolds B (2011). Allostatic processes in the family. Development and Psychopathology, 23(3), 921–938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Repetti RL (1996). The effects of perceived daily social and academic failure experiences on school-age children’s subsequent interactions with parents. Child Development, 67(4), 1467–1482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Richardson LP, McCauley E, Grossman DC, McCarty CA, Richards J, Russo JE, & Katon W (2010). Evaluation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item for detecting major depression among adolescents. Pediatrics, 126(6), 1117–1123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Santee AC, & Starr LR (2022). Examining linear and nonlinear associations between negative emotional reactivity to daily events and depression among adolescents. Clinical Psychological Science, 10(4), 675–689. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schneiders J, Nicolson NA, Berkhof J, Feron FJ, Van Os J, & Devries MW (2006). Mood reactivity to daily negative events in early adolescence: Relationship to risk for psychopathology. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 543–554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Shapero BG, & Steinberg L (2013). Emotional reactivity and exposure to household stress in childhood predict psychological problems in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1573–1582. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Shapero BG, Farabaugh A, Terechina O, DeCross S, Cheung JC, Fava M, & Holt DJ (2019). Understanding the effects of emotional reactivity on depression and suicidal thoughts and behaviors: Moderating effects of childhood adversity and resilience. Journal of Affective Disorders, 245, 419–427. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Simpson EG (2020). Interparental conflict and adolescent adjustment: A narrative review of bidirectional pathways. Adolescent Research Review, 5(3), 307–316. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sin NL, Graham-Engeland JE, Ong AD, & Almeida DM (2015). Affective reactivity to daily stressors is associated with elevated inflammation. Health Psychology, 34(12), 1154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Smith KE, Hayes NA, Styer DM, & Washburn JJ (2017). Emotional reactivity in a clinical sample of patients with eating disorders and nonsuicidal self-injury. Psychiatry Research, 257, 519–525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Solmi M, Radua J, Olivola M, Croce E, Soardo L, de Salazar G, & Fusar-Poli P (2022). Age at onset of mental disorders worldwide: Large-scale meta-analysis of 192 epidemiological studies. Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 281–295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Spence SH, Rapee R, McDonald C, & Ingram M (2001). The structure of anxiety symptoms among preschoolers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39(11), 1293–1316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, & Löwe B (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Tan PZ, Forbes EE, Dahl RE, Ryan ND, Siegle GJ, Ladouceur CD, & Silk JS (2012). Emotional reactivity and regulation in anxious and nonanxious youth: A cell-phone ecological momentary assessment study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(2), 197–206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Tiirikainen K, Haravuori H, Ranta K, Kaltiala-Heino R, & Marttunen M (2019). Psychometric properties of the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) in a large representative sample of Finnish adolescents. Psychiatry Research, 272, 30–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Timmons AC, & Margolin G (2015). Family conflict, mood, and adolescents’ daily school problems: Moderating roles of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Child Development, 86(1), 241–258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. van Eldik WM, de Haan AD, Parry LQ, Davies PT, Luijk MP, Arends LR, & Prinzie P (2020). The interparental relationship: Meta-analytic associations with children’s maladjustment and responses to interparental conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 146(7), 553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Watson D, Clark LA, & Carey G (1988). Positive and negative affectivity and their relation to anxiety and depressive disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97(3), 346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Wu CY, Lee JI, Lee MB, Liao SC, Chang CM, Chen HC, & Lung FW (2016). Predictive validity of a five-item symptom checklist to screen psychiatric morbidity and suicide ideation in general population and psychiatric settings. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 115(6), 395–403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Ye L, Posada A, & Liu Y (2019). A review on the relationship between Chinese adolescents’ stress and academic achievement. In Liu Y (Ed.), Child and Adolescent Development in China. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 163, 81–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

RESOURCES