Contextual Influences on Parenting and Adversity: An Examination of Multisystemic Effects

Abstract

The ability of a child to demonstrate resilience is a complex outcome influenced by multiple interconnected social systems. One system important to child resiliency is the family system, specifically parenting and the parent-child relationship. However, less is known about how macrosocial systems may affect the family system and, in turn, resiliency at the individual level. This study explored the effect of warm/responsive parenting and involvement on the association between adversity exposure and child internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Additionally, we examined the role of socioeconomic status (SES) and acculturation on the interaction between parenting, adversity, and child mental health to examine how contextual systems may influence the family-level system. Our sample was comprised of 308 mother-child dyads from racially, ethnically, and economically diverse backgrounds (47.1% had an income falling at or below the 33rd percentile for their county, 79.9% of mothers self-identified as belonging to either a racial or ethnic minoritized group) and included children aged 6–9 (M = 7.74 years, 49.4% male). Results showed that child adversity was associated with increased internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Warm/responsive parenting moderated the link between adversity and externalizing symptoms. When including SES and acculturation as moderators, the associations between adversity, parenting, and child mental health varied in complex ways. Findings highlight the importance of examining factors that promote resiliency across multiple systems and their implications for building interventions with greater relevance, accessibility, and effectiveness for families from diverse backgrounds.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10826-026-03345-7.

Highlights

Adversity exposure was linked to heightened mental health symptoms.

Warm/responsive parenting moderated the link between adversity and symptoms.

The links between adversity, parenting, and mental health varied in complex ways according to SES and US acculturation.

Findings underscore how macro-level environmental factors relate to adversity, parenting, and mental health.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10826-026-03345-7.

Extensive literature links exposure to adversity in childhood to increased risk for physical (e.g., heart disease, obesity) and mental health (e.g., anxiety, depression) problems and risky health behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, sexual risk-taking) in adulthood (Hughes et al., 2017). Additionally, adversity exposure can have immediate negative effects on child functioning, including attention difficulties and increased mental health symptoms (Hunt et al., 2017). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines childhood adversity as potentially traumatic or harmful experiences before age 18, such as abuse, neglect, household dysfunction, serious child health events, peer and community violence or bullying, and discrimination (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2025). Despite this, not all children exposed to adversity experience negative outcomes, and the majority endure well. Decades of research have focused on identifying factors that protect against the negative impacts of adversity (Sameroff, 2010). The science of resiliency focuses on the ability of individuals to adapt to encountered challenges. Recent research highlights the importance of incorporating multisystem perspectives, emphasizing the role of various interacting and nested social systems, from immediate influences like family to broader contexts such as socioeconomic status (SES) and culture (Masten et al., 2021). Although parent-child relationships have been established as a foundational component of child resiliency (Fritz et al., 2018), the specific parenting practices contributing to resilience and their interactions with broader social systems are not as well understood. This is a significant gap, as ecological and multisystemic models underscore that the processes through which children are shielded from risk depend not only on proximal interactions but also on the broader social and cultural contexts in which those interactions occur (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Masten et al., 2021). Parenting behaviors that are typically protective in the face of adversity may vary in their effectiveness depending on the socioeconomic and cultural environment. Investigating the impacts of these intersecting factors could inform intervention efforts to promote well-being in children facing adversity. This study adds to the resilience literature by investigating how broader social systems may influence parents’ roles in fostering child resiliency.

The Role of Parenting in Child Resilience

A stable, close caregiver relationship is an immediately proximal external system associated with child resilience (Fritz et al., 2018). Such a relationship is maintained by parenting practices that support effective regulation of child behavior and provide structure, safety, and warmth. Recent research has shifted away from global conceptualizations of parenting in favor of investigating domain-specific parenting practices (Smetana, 2017). Studying these practices individually could offer deeper insights into their unique impacts on child outcomes. For example, warm/responsive parenting has been associated with decreases in child behavior problems (Fritz et al., 2018; Khaleque, 2013), whereas physical punishment has shown the opposite effect (Lansford et al., 2014). Focusing on domain-specific parenting could therefore yield a more nuanced understanding of resilience by isolating the unique effects of different parenting behaviors. A few studies have investigated the impact of warm/responsive parenting and involvement on the association between adversity and negative child outcomes. For instance, Prevatt (2003) found that negative family factors and harsh/inconsistent parenting practices accounted for variance in child externalizing behavior, and protective factors and warm/responsive parenting practices accounted for adaptive behaviors. Moving beyond dichotomous categorizations of global parenting practices and examining unique parenting constructs and practices could enhance our understanding of resilience promotion.

Adversity and Parenting in Broadened Contexts

Significant gaps remain in understanding how parenting processes operate across diverse populations. Adversity exposure is patterned by social inequality, disproportionately affecting racially minoritized and low-SES communities (Goldstein et al., 2020; Slopen et al., 2016), yet these groups have been historically underrepresented in resilience research. This represents a critical limitation for both scientific accuracy and intervention development, as findings from predominantly white, middle-class samples may not generalize to families facing different structural and cultural realities. Moreover, research examining how macro-level systems (SES, acculturation) moderate the effectiveness of specific parenting practices remains limited. Understanding child resilience within the framework of multisystem theory requires recognizing that individual and family systems are embedded within social structures beyond the immediate home environment (Masten et al., 2021). The effectiveness of parenting strategies may vary depending on a family’s stressors and resources (Dearing, 2004; Prevoo & Tamis-LeMonda, 2017; Roubinov & Boyce, 2017) or the cultural values and norms that shape their meaning (Gershoff et al., 2010; Marsiglia et al., 2014). Beyond shaping the types of strategies parents use, broader contexts such as SES and acculturation may also influence how effective those strategies are in buffering children from adversity. In this way, SES and acculturation are not simply antecedents of parenting, but rather contextual conditions that moderate its protective influence. This study focuses on the complexity that emerges from these interacting systems and social structures, as it more accurately captures the lived experiences of diverse families and provides more nuanced, contextually informed findings to guide intervention development.

Resource Accessibility and Parenting in Adverse Contexts

SES serves as a critical part of the external macrosystem that influences child development as a developmental context that both confers risk directly and conditions the effectiveness of protective processes. By shaping children’s exposure to economic hardships, environmental stressors, and access to protective resources, SES creates conditions that place children at differential risk for maladjustment. Empirical evidence supports this view, as children from lower SES backgrounds consistently exhibit higher rates of internalizing symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depression) and externalizing symptoms (e.g., conduct problems, hyperactivity; Anderson et al., 2022). SES also creates environments that can strengthen or constrain the extent to which parenting behaviors buffer children from adversity by influencing the resources available for children and the stressors that can strain parent-child dynamics (Masarik & Conger, 2017; Prevoo & Tamis-LeMonda, 2017). Families with higher SES typically have more resources to allocate to their children, whether in material goods or time spent together (Roubinov & Boyce, 2017). Conversely, families with limited resources may struggle to meet basic needs, making it difficult to offer additional time or capital to their children (Roubinov & Boyce, 2017). Economic strain is often associated with increased parental distress, which can disrupt parent-child interactions (Masarik & Conger, 2017). Under such conditions, even highly supportive parenting may be less effective in buffering adversity, as the magnitude of adversity may overwhelm the protective influence of parenting alone. Conversely, in higher-SES contexts with fewer chronic stressors and greater access to external supports, positive parenting may exert a stronger protective effect. Together, these differences reflect distinct developmental environments across SES levels, underscoring the need to assess whether parenting practices provide the same protective benefits in each context.

SES may also shape how parenting strategies are interpreted and the degree to which they impact child development outcomes. Although research indicates that families from low SES backgrounds employ more punitive parenting practices (Hoff & Laursen, 2019) and experience greater routine instability (Roubinov & Boyce, 2017), this does not always result in negative child outcomes. For example, even though authoritarian parenting styles are often associated with adverse effects on child development (Baumrind, 1971), Dearing (2004) found that restrictive parenting was correlated with positive academic outcomes in younger children of African American heritage living in resource-limited neighborhoods. In communities facing higher adversity, restrictive parenting could serve as a positive adaptation, providing needed structure and safety for children. This highlights the nuanced, context-dependent relationship between SES, parenting strategies, and child outcomes, emphasizing the importance of considering a range of environmental factors when evaluating resilience and tailoring interventions.

Acculturation and Parenting in Adverse Contexts

Acculturation, the process by which minoritized individuals adapt to, identify with, and/or develop affinity for a more dominant culture (Birman & Simon, 2014), functions as another macro-level developmental context with direct implications for child resilience. Empirical studies of immigrant families demonstrate that higher adolescent acculturative stress, particularly when accompanied by parental acculturative stress or parent-child acculturation gaps, contributes to family conflict and youth mental health problems (Miller & Csizmadia, 2022). These findings suggest that acculturation creates developmental environments marked by unique stressors, underscoring the need to investigate whether parenting practices provide the same protective benefits or serve as risk factors in these contexts. For instance, although research generally finds spanking to be associated with harmful effects across cultures (Lansford et al., 2014), its association with negative mental health outcomes is weaker in cultures where it is considered normative (Gershoff et al., 2010). Thus, the extent to which a family embraces cultural values may explain variability in how certain practices foster resilience. Stressors such as pressure to adopt new cultural values or experiences of cultural mismatch can further shape these environments in ways that constrain parenting’s protective role; research indicates that parental acculturative stress can disrupt family cohesion, increase interparental and parent-child conflict, heighten parental emotional distress, and result in less engaged parenting (Miller & Csizmadia, 2022). Under conditions of acculturative stress, even consistent and supportive parenting may be less effective in buffering youth from internalizing and externalizing problems; however, less research has examined these more positive parenting practices. Another possibility is that acculturation could cause a mismatch in values between the dominant culture in which a parent is raising their child in and the values of their heritage culture. For example, Marsiglia and colleagues (2014) found a negative correlation between caregiver communication and adolescent cigarette use in highly acculturated parents immigrating from Mexico, whereas no effect was observed among parents reporting lower acculturation. The authors theorized that children of parents reporting lower acculturation may be more highly acculturated to dominant United States values than their parents, leading to diminished communication, increased family conflict, and substance use (Marsiglia et al., 2014). Taken together, these findings highlight that acculturation, like SES, represents a broader environmental context that may amplify or weaken the protective influence of parenting. Although existing research has yet to fully explore this relationship, acknowledging the influence of acculturation on parenting practices is essential for designing effective interventions tailored to diverse cultural contexts.

The Current Study

The present study examines associations between an expanded set of adversities and child mental health symptoms in a racially and ethnically diverse, resource-limited sample and tests the moderating effects of specific parenting practices, SES, and acculturation. Drawing from the multisystem theory (Masten et al., 2021), we consider macro-level systems that may influence the frequency and type of stressors that families face and the strength of various risk and protective factors. In this study, SES and acculturation are conceptualized as contextual environments that shape how adversity is experienced and managed, rather than as proxies for adversity itself. Although certain adversities may be more common in low-SES or racially minoritized communities due to structural inequities, there remains substantial within-group heterogeneity. Because context and adversity often intersect but are not equivalent, we modeled SES and acculturation alongside adversity to estimate their unique effects and potential interactions without conflating these constructs. Our analyses, therefore, examine not only the extent to which parenting promotes positive child outcomes but also the contextual conditions, specifically socioeconomic status (SES) and acculturation, that shape the degree to which parenting serves as an effective buffer against adversity. We hypothesize that adversity exposure will be linked to increased internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children (HO1; Fig. 1, Panel A). We further hypothesize that warm/responsive parenting and involvement will buffer the relationship between childhood adversity and increased internalizing and externalizing symptoms (HO2; Fig. 1, Panel B). Additionally, we anticipate that lower SES will weaken the associations described in HO2, as families with limited resources may face different challenges due to constraints on time, environment, and material resources. Conversely, we expect higher SES to strengthen these associations (HO3; Fig. 1, Panel C). Finally, due to potential variations in cultural values, which may impact the meaning and function of parenting practices, we hypothesize that lower levels of acculturation to the dominant US culture will weaken the associations in HO2 (HO4; Fig. 1, Panel D). However, we hypothesize that higher levels of acculturation to the dominant US culture will strengthen the associations.

Fig. 1.

Hypotheses 1 (Panel A), 2 (Panel B), 3 (Panel C), and 4 (Panel D). SES = Socioeconomic Status. US = Acculturation to the United States

Method

Participants

Study participants comprised 308 mother-child dyads with children 6–9 years old from families of diverse racial and ethnic and resource-limited backgrounds. To obtain a diverse and representative sample with an adequate range of endorsement of child mental health symptomology and adversity, families were eligible if they endorsed at least one of the following eligibility criteria: (1) child mental health symptoms at or above the 70th percentile in at least one subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), an emotional and behavioral assessment for children (Goodman, 1997), (2) adjusted family income, calculated by dividing income by the square root of household dependents, at or below the 33rd percentile for their county of residence, or (3) the mother or child identifying as belonging to a racial or ethnic minoritized group. Out of the 308 families that participated, 97.4% had symptoms at or above the 70th percentile in at least one subscale of the SDQ, 47.1% had an adjusted income at or below the 33rd percentile for their county of residence, and 79.9% of mothers self-identified as belonging to either a racial or ethnic minoritized group.

All participants identified as the child’s mother and most as the child’s legal guardian (99.0%). Most mothers identified as female (female = 90.9%; gender neutral = 1.0%; non-binary or gender non-conforming = 1.0%; gender questioning = 1.0%, another gender = 2.0%), with an average age of 39.35 (SD = 5.91). Child gender was approximately evenly distributed across the sample (male = 49.4%; female = 40.3%; gender neutral = 1.0%; non-binary or gender non-conforming = 1.0%, gender questioning = 1.0%, another gender = 2.3%, missing = 5.8%), with an average age of 7.74 (SD = 1.18). On the self-report forms, participants could self-identify with as many races or ethnicities as were relevant, resulting in some participants endorsing multiple races/ethnicities. For mothers, 1.3% identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, 8.1% as Asian, 23.7% as Black or African American, 40.9% as Caucasian and Hispanic or Latine, 6.5% as Caucasian and Non-Hispanic or Latine, and 4.2% as other. For children, 1.0% identified as American Indian or Alaska Native, 4.9% as Asian, 24.0% as Black or African American, 42.5% as Caucasian and Hispanic or Latine, 6.5% as Caucasian and Non-Hispanic or Latine, 1% as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 5.8% as other. Additionally, 72.4% of mothers identified with a non-U.S. ethnic heritage or native cultural background. Our fourth hypothesis examined US acculturation for mothers identifying with a non-U.S. ethnic heritage or native cultural background, resulting in a subset of 223 dyads for that set of analyses. Of these 223 participants, 33.0% of the mothers were born outside the US (n = 73), and the rest of the sample was born in the US but still identified with a non-U.S. native culture or ethnic heritage (62.0% Hispanic or Latine and 38.0% as another native culture). In total, 26.9% of all mothers and 11.7% of children were native Spanish speakers. See the Supplementary Materials (SM) for a breakdown of the participants’ countries of origin (SM Table 1). Participants in our sample reported a median income of $35,355.34 (SD = 30,827.34), adjusted for family size, which was calculated by dividing the total income by the square root of the number of dependents (Chanfreau & Burchardt, 2008). For education, 25.4% did not complete a college bachelor’s degree, 11.7% an associate’s degree, 26.9% a bachelor’s degree, and 36.0% a graduate degree.

Procedure

Families were recruited in Florida through Florida International University (FIU) and in Texas through The University of Texas at Austin (UT) via flyers, word-of-mouth, referrals, and online advertisements. Participants were contacted by an experimenter and completed a phone screening to confirm eligibility. All participants underwent consent procedures approved by FIU and UT's Institutional Review Boards (IRB-20-0100) before study participation, and children provided verbal assent. The present study leveraged data from a larger grant-funded project, which required participants to attend three virtual meetings or two in-person meetings, depending on participant preference, and provide data not relevant to the current study through a smartphone app. Study visits were proctored by research assistants and project coordinators. The data used in this study were collected at the first visit, where participating mothers completed questionnaires assessing their family life and child functioning.

Measures

Adversity Exposure

Exposure to adversity was measured by a 13-item parent-reported questionnaire about community, household, and interpersonal stressors. Our measure included items such as neglect, household mental illness and substance use, and parental separation (Felitti et al., 1998) and an expanded set of items reflecting stressful experiences outside of the household, such as experiencing discrimination or community violence (Cronholm et al., 2015). Due to mandated reporting requirements, we excluded several items assessing child abuse (e.g., “A parent or other adult in the household often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or thrown something at your child”). See SM Table 2 for a complete list of items included in our adversity measure. Children were given a total adversity score by summing all the adversities experienced. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.64.

Parenting Practices

Parenting practices were measured using two subscales of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Frick, 1991). The Positive Parenting subscale (e.g., You praise your child if he/she behaves well) was used to assess warm/responsive parenting and the Involvement subscale (“Your child helps plan family activities”) was used to assess mother involvement. Due to an experimenter error, three items from the positive parenting subscale and six items from the involvement subscale were not administered to a subset of participants (n = 22). Missingness was addressed via mean imputation. Participants rated how often they endorsed a parenting behavior on a 5-point Likert-style scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The score for each parenting practice was calculated by summing individual scores to form a total subscale score. The APQ has demonstrated robust psychometric properties (Essau et al., 2006). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for warm/responsive parenting was 0.72 and 0.80 for involvement.

SES Composite Score

Consistent with the literature on best practices for measuring SES (Diemer et al., 2012), we used a composite score of household income and education level. Adjusted family income was coded on a 9-point Likert-style scale from 1 (less than $10,000) to 9 (more than $200,000). Educational attainment was measured by the highest obtained degree level, assessed on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (less than a high school degree) to 6 (graduate degree). When education data were available for a second caregiver in the household, the highest education level reported in the household was used. Income was rescaled to a 6-point metric so that both indicators were on a common scale, and the two indicators were then combined to form the SES composite. In the present sample, income and education were moderately correlated (r = 0.59), indicating sufficient convergence to justify their combination while also preserving unique variance contributed by each indicator.

United States Acculturation

Acculturation to dominant US culture was assessed by the US acculturation subscale of the Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS; Zea et al., 2003). The US acculturation subscale is made up of three components: language (e.g., “How well do you speak English”), cultural competence (e.g., “How well do you know American history”), and cultural identity (e.g., “I am proud of being U.S. American”). Questions on cultural identity are answered on a 4-point Likert-style scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Questions on cultural competence and language are answered on a 4-point Likert-style scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely well). Items from each subscale were averaged to form a total subscale score, and each of the three subscales was averaged to create a US acculturation score ranging from 1 to 4. The AMAS demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including in parent samples (Urcuyo et al., 2024; Zea et al., 2003). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92.

Child Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms

Internalizing and externalizing symptoms were measured by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 2011). Although the SDQ was used as a brief screening measure to determine study eligibility, the CBCL was used for the primary study analyses because it provides a more comprehensive assessment of child emotional and behavioral functioning. Internalizing symptom scores are calculated by summing the Anxious/Depressed (e.g., “Worries”), Withdrawn/Depressed (e.g., “Too shy or timid”), and Somatic Complaints subscales (e.g., “Nightmares”). Externalizing symptom scores are calculated by summing the Rule-breaking Behavior (e.g., “Sets fires”) and Aggressive Behavior (e.g., “Argues a lot”) subscales. Due to mandated reporting requirements, we excluded item 91 (“Talks about suicide”). Mothers rated each item on a 3-point Likert-style scale from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often true). Following the CBCL scoring protocol, we converted the sums of internalizing and externalizing symptom scores into t-scores (Achenbach, 2011). Possible t-scores for children 6–11 years old ranged from 33 to 97, with a t-score above 60 indicating clinically elevated symptoms. The CBCL has been widely used and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties (Nakamura et al., 2009). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92 for internalizing symptoms and 0.90 for externalizing symptoms.

Overview of Analyses

Power analyses, conducted in R Studio using the “InteractionPoweR” and “pwr” packages, determined sufficient power to detect medium and large effect sizes for two- and three-way interactions for both the original sample (N = 308) and the subsample for the acculturation analyses (n = 223). Analyses were conducted using path analysis in Mplus Version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Skewness and kurtosis values were assessed prior to running analyses, and all variables fell within commonly accepted ranges (See SM Table 3). To examine the potential influence of outliers, we inspected Cook’s distance. Three cases had values between 0.50 and 1.00, indicating possible influence, although none exceeded the conventional cutoff of 1.00. We re-ran the models using maximum likelihood robust standard errors (MLR) with the full sample. The significance, direction, and magnitude of effects were consistent for all findings. When the three elevated-but-acceptable cases were removed entirely, all findings remained the same with one exception: the interaction between warm/responsive parenting, SES, and internalizing behavior was no longer significant. Because these cases did not meet conventional outlier thresholds and the effect was retained when using robust standard errors, we kept the full-sample effect in the manuscript. However, the interaction between warm/responsive parenting, SES, and internalizing behavior should be interpreted with caution. We then ran descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations, and then tested if maternal and child’s age, gender, ethnicity, or race were associated with the main study variables. We next conducted path analysis to test our main hypothesized models. We first ran a linear regression testing the association between adversity exposure and child mental health symptoms (HO1). We then conducted two-way interactions between adversity and parenting (HO2) and three-way interactions between adversity, parenting, and SES (HO3) on child mental health symptoms. Similar models were run to test the effect of US acculturation (HO4). All tests were conducted for both child internalizing and externalizing symptoms, which were run in separate models.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 displays the mean, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for the main study variables among all participating children and mothers. Warm/responsive parenting was positively correlated with involvement and US acculturation and negatively correlated with externalizing symptoms. Involvement was positively correlated with US acculturation and negatively correlated with internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and adversity. SES was negatively correlated with externalizing symptoms and adversity. US acculturation was negatively correlated with internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Internalizing symptoms were positively correlated with externalizing symptoms and adversity. Externalizing symptoms were positively correlated with adversity. Preliminary analyses also tested whether demographic variables, including mother and child age, gender, ethnicity, or race, were significantly associated with the main study variables. Complete results, including the direction of all significant findings, can be found in SM Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Several analyses showed significant associations between the main study variables and race, ethnicity, and age. There were no significant effects for mother or child gender. Based on these preliminary analyses, we included all significant variables as covariates in our hypothesized models.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for main study variables

	Total Sample (N = 308)
	M	SD	Min-Max	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. WRP	27.10	2.62	19.00–30.00	--	0.61**	− 0.04	0.12*	− 0.10	− 0.11*	− 0.09
2. INV	42.70	5.16	17.00–50.00		--	0.11	0.22**	− 0.17**	− 0.16**	− 0.19**
3. SES	7.65	2.10	2.00–11.00			--	0.01	− 0.11	− 0.17**	− 0.31**
4. US	3.46	0.44	1.63–4.00				--	− 0.15**	− 0.12*	− 0.05
5. INT	51.80	12.20	33.00–97.00					--	0.61**	0.46**
6. EXT	52.10	10.60	33.00–82.00						--	0.41**
7. AD	1.23	1.58	0.00–10.00							--

WRP = Warm/responsive Parenting, INV = Involvement, SES = Socioeconomic Status, US = Acculturation to the United States, INT = Internalizing Symptoms, EXT = Externalizing Symptoms, AD = Adversity

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

HO1: Adversity and Child Mental Health Symptoms

Our first hypothesis sought to determine significant relations between adversity exposure and child internalizing and externalizing symptoms. To test this association, we conducted separate regression analyses with adversity predicting internalizing and externalizing symptoms. As hypothesized, adversity exposure was associated with both increased internalizing (b = 3.53, p < 0.001, CI[2.74, 4.31], R² = 0.24) and externalizing (b = 2.81, p < 0.001, CI[2.09, 3.52], R² =0.18) symptoms in children.

HO2: Adversity and Child Mental Health Symptoms Moderated by Parenting Practices

Our second hypothesis examined whether specific parenting practices moderated the association between adversity and child mental health symptoms. To test this association, we tested two-way interactions between adversity exposure and each parenting practice. There was a significant two-way interaction between adversity exposure and warm/responsive parenting for externalizing symptoms (b = 0.29, p = 0.04, CI[0.01, 0.57], R² = 0.20). Adversity exposure was associated with increased externalizing symptoms at both high (WRP M + 1 SD: b = 3.51, p < 0.001) and low levels of warm/responsive parenting (WRP M − 1 SD: b = 1.99, p < 0.001), though the effect was heightened at higher levels of warm/responsive parenting (Fig. 2). Contrary to our hypotheses, none of the other tested two-way interactions significantly predicted internalizing or externalizing symptoms. In the warm/responsive parenting models predicting internalizing symptoms, significant main effects of adversity indicated that greater adversity predicted higher internalizing (b = 3.47, p < 0.001) symptoms. Warm/responsive parenting did not show a significant main effect. In the involvement models, significant main effects of adversity indicated that greater adversity predicted higher internalizing (b = 3.38, p < 0.001) and externalizing (b = 2.71, p < 0.001) symptoms. Involvement did not show a significant main effect. SM Table 10 displays the complete model results and effect sizes for each parenting practice.

Fig. 2.

Adversity and symptoms moderated by warm/responsive parenting (HO2). Values are plotted at one standard deviation above and below the mean. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

HO3: Adversity and Child Mental Health Symptoms Moderated by Parenting Practices and SES

Our third hypothesis examined three-way interactions, testing if parenting and SES moderated the association between adversity exposure and child internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Table 2 displays the complete model results and effect sizes. There was a significant three-way interaction between adversity exposure, warm/responsive parenting, and SES for internalizing symptoms (b = -0.16, p = 0.02, CI[-0.29, -0.03], R² = 0.28). Among families with higher SES (Fig. 3, Panel A), adversity exposure was associated with increased internalizing symptoms at both high (WRP M + 1 SD: b = 4.02, p < 0.001) and low levels of warm/responsive parenting (WRP M − 1 SD: b = 4.73, p < 0.001), though the effect was heightened in families with low parental involvement. In contrast, among families with lower SES (Fig. 3, Panel B), adversity exposure was associated with increased internalizing symptoms at both high (WRP M + 1 SD: b = 4.48, p < 0.001) and low levels of warm/responsive parenting (WRP M − 1 SD: b = 1.67, p = 0.02), though the effect was heightened in families with high parental involvement.

Table 2.

Adversity and internalizing and externalizing symptoms moderated by parenting practices and socioeconomic status

	Internalizing Symptoms					Externalizing Symptoms
	b	SE	p		CI	b	SE	p		CI
Warm/Responsive Parenting
Intercept	59.07	5.81	< 0.001	---	[47.69, 70.46]	61.15	5.34	< 0.001	---	[50.68, 71.63]
Adv	3.73	0.46	< 0.001	---	[2.83, 4.62]	2.88	0.42	< 0.001	---	[2.05, 3.71]
WRP	-0.45	0.25	0.07	---	[-0.93, 0.03]	-0.34	0.23	0.14	---	[-0.78, 0.11]
SES	0.28	0.33	0.38	---	[-0.35, 0.92]	0.25	0.30	0.39	---	[-0.84, 0.33]
WRPAdv	0.20	0.18	0.27	---	[-0.16, 0.55]	0.34	0.17	0.04	---	[0.01, 0.66]
WRPSES	0.18	0.11	0.09	---	[-0.03, 0.40]	0.10	0.10	0.30	---	[-0.09, 0.30]
AdvSES	0.31	0.19	0.10	---	[-0.06, 0.68]	0.22	0.17	0.20	---	[-0.12, 0.56]
	-0.16	0.07	0.02	0.28	[-0.29, -0.03]	-0.03	0.06	0.60	0.21	[-0.15, 0.09]
Involvement
Intercept	58.15	5.84	< 0.001	---	[46.71, 69.60]	59.91	5.36	< 0.001	---	[49.41, 70.41]
Adv	3.63	0.46	< 0.001	---	[2.72, 4.54]	2.75	0.43	< 0.001	---	[1.91, 3.58]
INV	-0.29	0.13	0.03	---	[-0.55, -0.03]	-0.19	0.12	0.12	---	[-0.43, 0.05]
SES	0.27	0.33	0.41	---	[-0.37, 0.91]	-0.28	0.30	0.35	---	[-0.87, 0.31]
INVAdv	0.03	0.09	0.75	---	[-0.15, 0.21]	-0.02	0.09	0.78	---	[-0.19, 0.14]
INVSES	0.03	0.06	0.63	---	[-0.09, 0.15]	0.001	0.05	0.98	---	[-0.11, 0.11]
AdvSES	0.23	0.19	0.21	---	[-0.13, 0.59]	0.18	0.17	0.29	---	[-0.15, 0.52]
	-0.05	0.03	0.12	0.26	[-0.11, 0.01]	-0.03	0.03	0.29	0.19	[-0.09, 0.03]

Note. Bold = significant hypothesized effect. Covariates were included in the models but not listed in the table for parsimony. CI = 95% confidence intervals. Adv = Adversity, WRP = Warm/responsive Parenting, INV = Involvement, SES = Socioeconomic Status

Fig. 3.

The association between adversity and child internalizing symptoms moderated by warm/responsive parenting and SES (HO3). Panel A = Adversity and internalizing symptoms moderated by warm/responsive parenting for families from higher SES backgrounds. Panel B = Adversity and internalizing symptoms moderated by warm/responsive parenting for families from lower SES backgrounds. Values are plotted at one standard deviation above and below the mean. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Findings were non-significant for the three-way interaction between adversity exposure, WRP, and SES for externalizing symptoms. Additionally, neither of the three-way interactions between adversity exposure, involvement, and SES were significant. In the WRP model predicting externalizing symptoms, a significant main effect of adversity indicated that greater adversity was associated with higher externalizing symptoms (b = 2.88, p < 0.001). In the involvement models, a significant main effect of adversity likewise showed that greater adversity predicted higher internalizing (b = 3.63, p < 0.001) and externalizing symptoms (b = 2.75, p < 0.001 ).

HO4: Adversity and Child Mental Health Symptoms Moderated by Parenting Practices and Acculturation

Our fourth hypothesis tested three-way interactions examining if parenting and US acculturation moderated the association between adversity exposure and child mental health symptoms for those mothers holding non-US ethnic heritage or native cultural identities (n = 223). Table 3 displays complete model results and effect sizes. A significant three-way interaction emerged for adversity exposure, involvement, and US acculturation for externalizing symptoms (b = 0.39, p = 0.045, CI[0.01, 0.78], R² = 0.26). Among mothers reporting higher US acculturation (Fig. 4 Panel A), adversity exposure was associated with increased externalizing symptoms at high (INV M + 1 SD: b = 4.70, p < 0.001) levels of involvement. At low levels of involvement (INV M − 1 SD: b = 1.79, p = 0.10), there was no significant relationship between adversity and externalizing symptoms. In contrast, among the mothers reporting lower US acculturation (Fig. 4, Panel B), adversity exposure was associated with increased externalizing symptoms at both high (INV M + 1 SD: b = 2.74, p < 0.001) and low levels of involvement (INV M − 1 SD: b = 3.38, p < 0.001), though the effect was heightened at low levels of involvement.

Table 3.

Adversity and internalizing and externalizing symptoms moderated by parenting practices and United States acculturation

	Internalizing Symptoms					Externalizing Symptoms
	b	SE	p		CI	b	SE	p		CI
Warm/Responsive Parenting
Intercept	56.10	6.36	< 0.001	---	[43.64, 68.57]	59.74	5.99	< 0.001	---	[48.01,71.47]
Adv	4.18	0.49	< 0.001	---	[3.22, 5.14]	3.34	0.46	< 0.001	---	[2.43, 4.24]
WRP	-0.29	0.28	0.31	---	[-0.85, 0.27]	-0.32	0.27	0.23	---	[-0.85, 0.20]
U.S.	-1.58	1.52	0.30	---	[-4.56, 1.39]	-1.62	1.43	0.26	---	[-4.43, 1.18]
WRPAdv	0.29	0.20	0.15	---	[-0.11, 0.68]	0.16	0.19	0.41	---	[-0.21, 0.53]
WRPU.S.	0.54	0.57	0.34	---	[-0.57, 1.66]	0.38	0.54	0.48	---	[-0.67, 1.43]
AdvU.S.	1.23	1.08	0.26	---	[-0.89, 3.34]	-0.46	1.02	0.65	---	[-2.45, 1.53]
	0.51	0.50	0.30	0.31	[-0.46, 1.48]	0.79	0.47	0.09	0.25	[-0.13, 1.70]
Involvement
Intercept	54.64	6.22	< 0.001	---	[42.46, 66.82]	57.66	5.85	< 0.001	---	[46.19, 69.13]
Adv	4.04	0.50	< 0.001	---	[3.06, 5.01]	3.15	0.47	< 0.001	---	[2.24, 4.07]
INV	-0.15	0.14	0.28	---	[-0.42, 0.12]	-0.09	0.13	0.50	---	[-0.34, 0.17]
U.S.	-1.09	1.54	0.48	---	[-4.11, 1.93]	-1.09	1.45	0.45	---	[-3.93, 1.76]
INVAdv	0.12	0.09	0.21	---	[-0.06, 0.30]	0.11	0.09	0.20	---	[-0.06, 0.28]
INVU.S.	0.72	0.30	0.02	---	[0.14, 1.31]	0.56	0.28	0.047	---	[0.01, 1.11]
AdvU.S.	1.73	1.06	0.10	---	[-0.35, 3.80]	0.21	0.99	0.83	---	[-1.74, 2.16]
	0.17	0.21	0.41	0.32	[-0.24, 0.58]	0.39	0.20	0.045	0.26	[0.01, 0.78]

Note. Bold = significant hypothesized effect. Covariates were included in the models but not listed for table parsimony. CI = 95% confidence intervals. Adv = Adversity, WRP = Warm/Responsive Parenting, INV = Involvement, US = Acculturation to the United States

Fig. 4.

Adversity and symptoms moderated by involvement and US acculturation (HO4). Panel A = Adversity and externalizing symptoms moderated by involvement for mothers reporting higher US acculturation. Panel B = Adversity and externalizing symptoms moderated by involvement for mothers reporting lower US acculturation. Values are plotted at one standard deviation above and below the mean. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Findings were non-significant for the three-way interaction between adversity exposure, involvement, and US acculturation for internalizing symptoms. Additionally, neither of the three-way interactions between adversity exposure, warm/responsive parenting, and acculturation were significant. In the involvement model predicting internalizing symptoms, a significant main effect of adversity indicated that greater adversity was associated with higher internalizing symptoms (b = 4.04, p < 0.001). In the warm/responsive parenting models, a significant main effect of adversity likewise showed that greater adversity predicted higher internalizing (b = 4.18, p < 0.001) and externalizing symptoms (b = 3.34, p < 0.001 ).

Discussion

The current study underscores the importance of understanding parenting within the broader contexts in which families live. Although adversity was broadly linked with heightened child mental health symptoms, the ways in which parenting buffered or amplified these effects varied across socioeconomic and cultural settings. Parenting strategies that are typically considered protective, such as involvement or warmth, did not function uniformly. Under conditions of high stress or limited resources, these practices sometimes appeared linked to greater vulnerability. These findings highlight the need for research and interventions that are responsive to families’ socioeconomic and cultural environments, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model of effective parenting. Our findings, though complex, emphasize the critical importance of investigating child resiliency in diverse samples and examining effects at intersecting levels of influence, as the role of parenting in shaping children’s responses to adversity may be highly nuanced and dependent on context.

HO1: Adversity and Child Mental Health Symptoms

Our findings revealed a significant association between adversity and increased risk of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Importantly, we replicated previous results on the impacts of adversity on child mental health in a highly diverse sample (Goldstein et al., 2020; Slopen et al., 2016) while also broadening the range of adversities examined. Notably, 26.9% of participants reported experiencing an adversity not included in the original ACEs questionnaire. One crucial aspect of understanding the impacts of adversity exposure is recognizing that disparities in adversity exposure are driven in part by socioeconomic inequities and the minoritization of racial and ethnic groups (Hunt et al., 2017; Slopen et al., 2016). As developmental psychology increasingly moves toward multisystem and context-sensitive models of risk and resilience, expanding how adversity is conceptualized and assessed may be critical for accurately understanding children’s developmental experiences and mental health outcomes. Expanding research to include more diverse populations and experiences is essential for fully capturing the multifaceted nature of adversity.

HO2: Adversity and Child Mental Health Symptoms Moderated by Parenting Practices

Consistent with the possibility that parenting may strengthen or buffer the impact of adversity on child outcomes, warm/responsive parenting significantly moderated the association between adversity and externalizing symptoms, although this effect emerged in the opposite direction than expected (Prevatt, 2003). Children exposed to higher levels of adversity showed elevated externalizing symptoms across parenting contexts; however, the adversity-externalizing association was stronger, not weaker, when parents reported higher levels of warm/responsive behavior. Although parental warmth is typically conceptualized as protective, the current finding that warmth amplified the association between adversity and externalizing symptoms is consistent with research suggesting that warmth may not uniformly confer benefits across all family contexts. For instance, prior research has demonstrated that when children are embedded in high-conflict or stressful family systems, greater parental warmth can intensify emotional involvement and role confusion, contributing to higher externalizing behavior (Etkin et al., 2014). Within such contexts, warmth may inadvertently heighten children’s sensitivity to parental stress or blur parent-child boundaries, increasing behavioral reactivity rather than regulation (Etkin et al., 2014). From this perspective, high warmth may reflect or reinforce emotional enmeshment when coupled with chronic adversity, helping explain why the relation between adversity and externalizing symptoms was stronger at higher levels of parental responsiveness in the present study. Considering these findings, future research, in addition to examining broader ecological systems, should also consider mid-level family system processes that extend beyond individual parenting practices. Elements such as interparental dynamics, family cohesion, and the overall emotional climate may help explain how and when parenting behaviors function as protective versus risk-promoting factors across contexts of adversity. By contrast, all remaining analyses did not yield significant moderation effects.

HO3: Adversity and Child Mental Health Symptoms Moderated by Parenting Practices and SES

Our analyses showed that the role of warm/responsive parenting in shaping children’s responses to adversity was moderated by SES. Among both SES groups, adversity was consistently associated with greater internalizing symptoms. Consistent with our hypotheses, higher levels of warm/responsive parenting appeared to buffer the effects of adversity on internalizing symptoms among families from higher SES backgrounds. This pattern aligns with prior research indicating that warm and responsive parenting can weaken the impact of stress and adversity on children’s emotional adjustment (Fritz et al., 2018; Prevatt, 2003). In contrast, and contrary to our expectations, for families from lower SES backgrounds, the opposite pattern emerged. While adversity was linked to higher internalizing symptoms at both levels of warm/responsive parenting, the effect was stronger when parental involvement was high. This finding contradicts an established body of literature that consistently demonstrates that warmth promotes positive development (Fritz et al., 2018; Khaleque, 2013). Importantly, however, it suggests that the impact of parenting practices is dependent on context, such as families’ socioeconomic conditions.

It is possible that what counts as warm or responsive parenting differs across contexts, such that the behaviors themselves may vary in their expression and function. Under the umbrella of chronic economic strain, where instability and insecurity are common, these behaviors may take on different meanings as parental warmth becomes shaped by broader environmental demands. First, warmth may become more variable if economic strain undermines parents’ ability to provide consistent emotional availability. Even when caregivers are highly motivated to be supportive, stress can lead to fluctuations between warm interactions and periods of withdrawal or irritability, reducing the stability of caregiving (Lee et al., 2024). This unpredictability may diminish its protective value and, in some cases, exacerbate children’s stress. Second, consistent expressions of warmth may heighten children’s sense of safety at home, which in turn could sharpen the contrast with uncontrollable external environments. This discrepancy may increase children’s awareness of stressors beyond their control, potentially fueling rumination, anxiety, or separation-related distress (Ollendick & Grills, 2016). Finally, warmth may at times be expressed in ways that are not fully genuine if parents themselves are dysregulated. In these cases, children may perceive warmth as masking or strained, further reducing its effectiveness as a protective signal. Importantly, the current study did not directly assess these mechanisms, and future work should examine how the meaning, quality, and consistency of parental warmth may be altered under conditions of chronic socioeconomic strain. However, these findings underscore that parenting cannot be disentangled from its broader socioeconomic context and that supports for parenting may be most effective when paired with broader efforts to reduce socioeconomic stressors.

Taken together, these findings suggest that the role of warm and responsive parenting operates largely as expected in higher-SES contexts, where greater warmth appears to buffer the effects of adversity on children’s adjustment. In families experiencing socioeconomic strain, however, the quality, consistency, and developmental meaning of parenting practices may be altered, constraining their protective potential. In such contexts, programs designed to support families may need to prioritize stress reduction, caregiver regulation, and strategies that are both feasible and sustainable in the face of adversity, as these may represent more immediate and pressing needs. More broadly, the protective effects of parenting strategies may depend not only on their general categorization but also on how they are expressed and experienced within specific contexts. The same construct may carry different features, functions, or developmental consequences across environments, and it may not be appropriate to assume that its meaning is identical across contexts. For example, expressions of warmth that are protective in one setting may take on different qualities or implications under conditions of chronic socioeconomic strain. Although the present study did not directly examine these processes, identifying the factors that shape how parenting practices are expressed across contexts represents an important direction for future research. From a resilience perspective, these findings underscore the need to conceptualize parenting not in isolation, but as embedded within broader systems that can either support or undermine its protective role.

HO4: Adversity and Child Mental Health Symptoms Moderated by Parenting Practices and Acculturation

With respect to the acculturation analyses, an interesting pattern was observed. Results of our three-way interactions examining whether parenting and US acculturation moderated the relationship between adversity exposure and child mental health symptoms showed a significant effect for involvement and mother’s US acculturation. In both groups, greater exposure to adversity was generally linked to higher externalizing symptoms. In the low acculturation group, higher parental involvement appeared to function as a protective factor, buffering the impact of adversity on externalizing symptoms. Interestingly, the opposite effect emerged for the high acculturation group, where greater involvement was associated with increased risk for externalizing symptoms among those exposed to adversity. This pattern was contrary to our expectations, as we initially anticipated that families with higher levels of acculturation would show stronger protective effects of involvement. Consistent with prior research, our findings suggest that retention of heritage cultural values can serve as an important protective factor, especially among individuals exposed to trauma (Raghavan & Sandanapitchai, 2024). In contrast, higher acculturation among families who identify with non-dominant cultural backgrounds may coincide with additional stressors, including the erosion of protective cultural practices and the strain of balancing heritage norms with dominant U.S. expectations (Miller & Csizmadia, 2022). Further, the meaning of involvement itself may be shaped by the broader cultural context. What appears as involvement on the surface may carry different implications under high acculturation, ranging from involvement that reflects parental stress or overcontrol to involvement that communicates pressure to conform. Under these conditions, involvement may function in more risk-like ways, helping explain why it amplified rather than buffered the association between adversity and children’s symptoms. More broadly, these findings suggest that it is important to consider how the cultural meanings attached to parenting practices may shift across contexts and shape children’s adjustment in distinct ways.

Our findings suggest that acculturation plays a critical role in shaping pathways of risk and resilience for children experiencing adversity. Future research should focus on resilience from a culturally sensitive lens, as acculturation and cultural context can significantly influence how individuals cope with adversity and build resilience. For instance, individuals may rely on cultural values, traditions, and community support systems as protective factors (Masten et al., 2021). However, acculturative stress may also introduce unique stressors, especially when families experience a disconnect between their heritage culture and the dominant culture or when their children’s cultural values differ from their parents (Marsiglia et al., 2014; Miller & Csizmadia, 2022). Culturally responsive approaches to promoting resilience in children should recognize the strengths and resources present in diverse communities while addressing the specific challenges that arise from cultural differences and the acculturation process. Such interventions are more likely to be relevant, accessible, and effective in meeting the needs of families from varied cultural backgrounds.

Limitations

Our study contributes to the understanding of parenting-based resiliency factors by providing a nuanced examination of how broader social contexts, such as SES and acculturation, shape parents’ role in mitigating the negative effects of adversity on child mental health in a highly diverse sample. Despite these strengths, our results should be interpreted considering several limitations. First, our study relied on self-report data collected at a single time point, which could have resulted in reporting biases. This limitation is further compounded by the fact that minoritized groups often face systemic discrimination and inequities, which can lead to mistrust and potential underreporting of adversity exposure (Omenka et al., 2020). Additionally, our reliance on maternal report as the sole informant may introduce shared method variance and limit our understanding of how these relationships might vary across different reporters (e.g., fathers, teachers, children themselves). Furthermore, our lack of longitudinal data limits our understanding of the temporal sequencing of factors, raising the possibility that observed parenting practices may result from adversity-symptom relationships rather than symptoms stemming from adversity-parenting dynamics. This study’s linear treatment of adversity also does not account for the differential impacts of various adversities and the established threshold effect of four or more adversities (Hughes et al., 2017). Future research should examine multisystem resilience in the context of specific adversities and assess how associations between parenting, adversity, and mental health change over time. Second, our acculturation analyses focused on a subset of mothers who identified a non-US ethnic heritage or native culture as their primary cultural identity. Although most of these mothers identified their native culture as Hispanic or Latine, culture-of-origin varied across mothers in the sample. Furthermore, even for those mothers identifying a primary culture as Hispanic or Latine, countries in Latin America have a broad and diverse range of cultural values, possibly obscuring effects specific to individual cultural contexts. Third, our adversity measure included items assessing the qualities of the parent-child relationship because deficits in parenting are important potential adversities. However, inclusion of these items may have introduced overlap in the constructs tested. Although a potential limitation, it is important to note that adversities related to the parent-child relationship are not synonymous with the parenting practices investigated here. For example, a parent experiencing mental health problems may still engage in resilience-promoting behaviors, such as warm/responsive parenting. Examining these constructs as separate variables allows us to test whether positive parenting behaviors operate as protective factors even in the context of relational adversity. Fourth, though our power analysis indicated sufficient power to detect medium to large effects for three-way interactions for the full sample and the subsample used for the acculturation analyses (Cohen, 1988), our study was underpowered for detecting small effect sizes. Future research with larger samples may further elucidate smaller interaction effects that contribute to children’s adjustment and resilience following adversity. Finally, our study did not assess child acculturation. It is unclear if children in our sample evidenced the same or different cultural values as their mothers. Future research should assess child acculturation directly, as research suggests that a mismatch between parent and child cultural values may impact family relationships and child functioning (e.g., Marsiglia et al., 2014).

Clinical and Policy Implication

The present findings have important implications for multiple stakeholders. For developmental researchers, our results demonstrate the necessity of examining parenting processes within their broader structural and cultural contexts rather than assuming universal effects. More broadly, these findings suggest that developmental pathways following adversity may be shaped not only by parenting behaviors themselves, but by the socioeconomic and cultural environments in which those behaviors occur. In turn, protective processes may not operate uniformly across contexts, underscoring the importance of multisystem and context-sensitive models of child development and resilience. For clinicians and intervention developers, these findings suggest that parenting programs must be tailored to families’ contextual realities; strategies effective for higher-SES and less acculturated families may be less effective or even counterproductive for families in different circumstances. For policy makers and service providers, this work highlights the need for resource-sensitive approaches that address structural inequalities while building on cultural strengths in line with multisystem frameworks for intervention development (Masten et al., 2021). Rather than implementing universal parenting interventions, our findings support developing flexible, contextually-informed strategies that can be adapted to families’ specific needs and circumstances.

Conclusion

This study examined the intricate dynamics of child resilience through a multisystem lens. Resilience likely emerges from a complex interplay of multiple intersecting systems, rather than being shaped by isolated factors. Previous research has highlighted that resilience can be fostered within the family environment, with parents serving as a critical support system (Fritz et al., 2018). However, our findings highlight the importance of considering broader contextual factors that promote resiliency. Considering our findings, tailoring interventions to align with the cultural and socioeconomic realities of different populations may enhance their effectiveness and relevance. Future research should continue to explore these multifaceted influences to develop more targeted and culturally sensitive strategies that support resilience in children facing adversity.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Author Contribution

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation and analysis were performed by Sierra N. Walters. Data collection was performed by Grace A. Jumonville, Alyssa S. Carrasco, and Daniela N. Romero. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Sierra N. Walters, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. We thank Dr. Emma Wilson Lemoine for her comments on an early version of this manuscript.

Declarations

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This project is based on work supported by NIMH Grant No. R42MH123368 (Timmons, Comer, and Ahle Co-PIs), NSF GRFP Grant No. 1930019 (Timmons, PI), and NSF GRFP Grant No. DGE-0937362 (Timmons, PI). The contents of this paper are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIH or NSF. This article does not contain any studies involving animals performed by any of the authors. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Florida International University and University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Boards and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Competing Interest

Adela C. Timmons and Matthew W. Ahle own intellectual property and stock in Colliga Apps and could benefit financially from the commercialization of related research. Jonathan S.Comer receives textbook royalties from Macmillan Learning and an editorial stipend from the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies for work unrelated to the present study. The remaining authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.