Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Adolesc. 2024 Mar 11;96(5):1012–1021. doi: 10.1002/jad.12312

The Role of Parental Maladaptive Emotion Socialization in the Risk Process for Negative Urgency and Drinking Behavior in Adolescence

Emily A Atkinson 1, Leo A Miller 2, Gregory T Smith 1
PMCID: PMC11586849  NIHMSID: NIHMS1973121  PMID: 38467519

Abstract

Introduction

Negative urgency (the tendency to act rashly when experiencing negative emotions) is a robust risk factor for a number of problem behaviors, including early adolescent drinking. Little is known about the factors that precede the development of negative urgency, and hence the full etiology of this component of risk. The current study aimed to investigate the possibility that facets of childhood maladaptive emotion socialization (the tendency for children’s expressions of emotions to be met with punishment, minimized, or invoke a reaction of distress from their parents/caretakers) increases risk for the development of negative urgency and drinking behavior.

Method

Self-report measures of negative urgency, sub-facets of maladaptive emotion socialization, and drinking behavior were collected during the 2021–2022 academic year from a sample of 428 high school students (mean age = 14.7, SD =.09, 44% female), assessed twice over the course of a semester, reflecting a four-month longitudinal window.

Results

Distress emotion socialization predicted increases in negative urgency, minimizing predicted decreases in negative urgency, and punitive did not provide significant prediction. Additionally, results found that higher levels of both negative urgency and distress emotion socialization increased adolescents’ likelihood of having tried alcohol. These processes were invariant across race and gender.

Conclusions

The present study may inform the future creation of prevention and intervention efforts aimed at reducing maladaptive emotion socialization and increasing adaptive emotion socialization. Successful reductions in negative urgency as a consequence of increased adaptive emotion socialization may then lead to decreases in adolescent drinking and other impulsigenic behaviors.

Introduction

Negative Urgency and Risk for Problem Drinking

Negative urgency (the tendency to act rashly when experiencing intense negative emotions) is a well-established risk factor for a number of maladaptive behaviors, in both adults and adolescents, including problem drinking, binge eating, smoking, and self-harm (Smith & Cyders, 2016). Urgency theory posits that individuals high in negative urgency are more disposed than others to act in impulsive, ill-advised ways to alleviate unwanted emotional states (Cyders & Smith, 2008; Smith & Cyders, 2016). In the problem drinking risk literature, the focus has been primarily on longitudinal prediction from negative urgency to drinking behaviors (Smith & Cyders, 2016). Interestingly, the relationship between problem drinking and negative urgency appears reciprocal such that each increases risk for the other (Riley et al., 2016). That is, negative urgency predicts problem drinking which then predicts subsequent increases in negative urgency. This is a critical point, given that negative urgency increases risk for other forms of dysfunction (Smith & Cyders, 2016).

Negative urgency is understood to increase risk for problem drinking in the following way. It is hypothesized that individuals often drink alcohol to experience its anxiety reducing effects and to alleviate unwanted emotional states (Cappell & Herman, 1972; Sher & Levenson, 1982), though this appears to be driven more so by depression than anxiety in adolescents (Hussong et al., 2017). Successful reductions in unwanted emotions, as a result of drinking, then reinforce drinking behavior and cause individuals to be more likely to drink in response to unwanted emotions in the future (Baker et al., 2004). In adulthood, emotion-based risk models have received robust empirical support: heightened emotional states, regardless of valence, predict problem drinking at both the state and trait level (Atkinson et al., 2019). While much is known about the process by which negative urgency predicts engagement in maladaptive behaviors, such as those listed above, much less is known about the etiology of negative urgency itself.

Adolescence is a particularly critical period for the development of negative urgency and subsequent engagement in maladaptive behaviors. Studies have shown that increases in negative urgency and reciprocal prediction between urgency and problem drinking are observable as early as middle and high school (Riley et al., 2015; Peterson et al., 2018). The beginning of high school, in particular, is a time of significant developmental changes, increasing independence, and greater access to alcohol and other drugs (Burdzovic Andreas & Jackson, 2015). As a result, this time period is associated with significant increases in alcohol and drug use, as well as other maladaptive behaviors, such as binging and purging (Brown et al., 2008; Pearson & Smith, 2015; Riley et al., 2016). By age 17, approximately 46% of adolescents report having tried alcohol (SAMHSA, 2020) and earlier age of first drink is associated with binge drinking behavior, alcohol use disorder symptomology in adulthood, and even early death (DeWit et al., 2000; Hingson et al., 2006, Levola et al., 2020). Given that many hazardous behaviors with significant long term negative consequences associated with negative urgency are apparent in adolescence, it makes sense that efforts to identify risk processes for negative urgency be focused on this developmental period.

A Developmental Model of Negative Urgency

Cyders and Smith (2008) proposed a developmental model of urgency (illustrated in Figure 1.) which suggests that temperament and environmental factors jointly predict the development of negative urgency. To date, there has been some investigation of temperament factors. One longitudinal study found that children higher in anger reactivity were more likely to develop negative urgency in adolescence (Waddell et al., 2021). The same study found that family history of alcohol use disorder (AUD), a strong predictor of drinking behavior, did not appear to directly influence the development of negative urgency (Waddell et al., 2021). By contrast, there has been very little investigation of environmental risk factors for elevated negative urgency.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

A developmental model of urgency and subsequent dysfunction.

Note: The above model illustrates a developmental model for the development of urgency and subsequent maladaptive behaviors such as problem drinking, as first described in Cyders & Smith, 2008. The pathways with bold lines indicate the presence of longitudinal evidence to support the predictive association. The pathway from environmental risk to negative urgency is thus the focus of the current study.

Though both temperament and environmental factors may be important antecedents to the development of negative urgency, specific environmental risk factors may be more useful targets for intervention and prevention efforts given the stable constitutional nature of temperament (Cyders & Smith, 2008). Among the few environmental studies, child-perceived positive parenting was associated with less negative urgency in adolescents (Bui, 2022). One additional line of research on environmental risk has focused on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). An example is the childhood experience of emotional abuse and neglect, which appears to confer risk for the development of negative urgency (Shin et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2016; Valderrama & Miranda, 2017). Adults high in negative urgency are more likely to have experienced ACEs, with higher levels of negative urgency associated with greater number of ACEs (Carver et al., 2011; McMullin et al., 2021; Shin et al., 2018). This body of work is quite important, although its contributions to date may be limited in two ways. First, investigations of the link between ACEs and development of negative urgency are primarily cross sectional in nature and focused on retrospective reports from adults. Second, although this work identifies important and traumatic events associated with elevations in negative urgency, it does not investigate the process by which such events might lead to subsequent elevations in negative urgency.

An additional consideration is that some environmental predictors of negative urgency may be sex dependent. One study found that parental educational attainment appeared to be negatively related to negative urgency in female children (Assari, 2021) and another found that, in men, parental instrumental support (i.e., monetary support, guidance on how to take care of adult responsibilities, etc.) may be associated with lower levels of negative urgency in emerging adulthood (Szkody et al., 2020).

When considering prediction from negative urgency to risky behaviors, it should be noted that each predictive pathway studied appears invariant across race and gender. At the same time, important between-group differences have been observed for alcohol use and drinking-related problems. For example, compared to Black and Hispanic adolescents, white adolescents are more likely to drink during junior high and high school and experience more accepting peer norms related to drinking (Weaver et al., 2011). Over a one-year predictive window from 5th grade to 6th grade, for White and Hispanic youth, depression in 5th grade predicted increased drinking or drinking onset in 6th grade. For Black youth, the opposite was true: drinking in 5th grade predicted increased depression in 6th grade (Birkley et al, 2015). Regarding gender, though adult men drink more and have a higher prevalence of AUD when compared to adult women, this discrepancy does not appear to exist for adolescents (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2017; Schulte et al., 2010). Continued investigations of risk in relation to race and gender are clearly needed.

The Role of Maladaptive Emotion Socialization

A small number of studies have identified maladaptive emotion socialization as a possible environmental antecedent to the development of negative urgency. Maladaptive emotion socialization occurs when children learn to view their emotions as inappropriate or aversive through parental/caretaker responses to emotional expressions. Existing measures of emotion socialization assess six distinct sub-facets, three of which are understood to be maladaptive: punitive (punishing a child in response to the child’s negative affect), distress (becoming distressed or upset when a child expresses negative affect), and minimizing (dismissing or trivializing a child’s negative affect; Fabes et al., 2002; Krause et al., 2003; Sauer & Baer, 2010). Hersh and Hussong (2009) identified a significant relationship between maladaptive emotion socialization and increased substance use in adolescence and, in our own work, we have found cross-sectional associations consistent with the possibility that negative urgency mediates the predictive influence of maladaptive emotion socialization on problem drinking in adults (Atkinson et al., 2022). To date, no studies have examined the effect of each individual facet of maladaptive emotion socialization on prediction of negative urgency and problem drinking or drinker status.

It stands to reason that each sub-facet of maladaptive emotion socialization may increase risk for the development of negative urgency in the following way: children who are socialized by their parents or caretakers to view their emotions as negative or inappropriate (via punitive, distress, or minimizing responses), learn to experience them as aversive. Given this, they may attempt to avoid experiencing their emotions by engaging in ill-advised, negatively reinforcing behaviors as they get older (examples of such behaviors include heavy or problem drinking, the focus of the current study, as well as other substance use, binge eating and purging, and self-harm (Smith & Cyders, 2016). Successful reductions in unwanted emotions as a result of such behaviors then reinforce the tendency to engage in such ill-advised actions, thus strengthening negative urgency.

The Current Study

Using a two-wave longitudinal design, the current study examined negative urgency, facets of maladaptive emotion socialization (punitive, distress, and minimizing), and drinker status (whether an individual had ever tried alcohol, more than just a sip), across a four-month longitudinal window, at a large urban high school. This study had several aims. First, to investigate the influence of maladaptive emotion socialization on the development of negative urgency. We hypothesized that punitive, distress, and minimizing emotion socialization at wave 1 would predict increases in negative urgency at wave 2, beyond prediction from negative urgency at wave 1. We also sought to examine, in the same model, whether higher levels each sub-facet of maladaptive emotion socialization at wave 1 would predict increases in the likelihood that and individual had tried alcohol at wave 2. Lastly, we investigated whether the predictive pathway from each maladaptive emotion socialization sub-facet to negative urgency and drinker status is invariant by race and gender. Given the dearth of existing studies examining racial and gender differences in the relationship between sub-facets of maladaptive emotion socialization and negative urgency, we offer no a priori hypotheses related to the third aim.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 428 high school students aged with a mean age of 14.7 (sd = 0.9) years at the time of wave 1 data collection. They identified as 50% male, 44% female, 2% non-binary, and 4% preferred not to answer or did not specify. Participants also identified as 38% Black, 26% Hispanic, 18% Multiracial, 15% White, and 4% Other/Unknown.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire

Participants reported demographic information such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity.

Negative Urgency

Negative urgency was assessed via the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale – Child Version (Zapolski et al., 2010). The measure includes 40 Likert-type items (on a scale from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree) which assess five facets of impulsivity: negative and positive urgency, premeditation, perseverance, and sensation seeking. Validity evidence for the negative urgency scale, for both adults and children, includes convergent and discriminant validity across assessment methods, replicated longitudinal prediction of numerous rash impulsive behaviors, and multiple meta-analyses documenting concurrent prediction consistent with urgency theory (review by Smith & Cyders, 2016). Psychometric properties of negative urgency in the current sample are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptives of key study variables for both waves (N = 428).

Wave 1 Wave 2
Variable
(Range)		 M(SD) Alpha Skew M(SD) Alpha Skew
Age
(13–18)		 14.7
(0.9)		 15.0
(0.9)
NU
(8–32)		 19.6
(5.2)		 .81 −.06 19.7
(5.1)		 .83 −.05
Punitive
(6–42)		 19.0
(7.8)		 .77 .68 20.3
(7.9)		 .80 .46
Distress
(6–42)		 19.7
(5.8)		 .66 .32 20.0
(5.6)		 .65 .25
Minimizing
(6–42)		 19.0
(7.8)		 .75 .57 19.8
(7.5)		 .76 .46
Open in a new tab

Childhood Punitive, Distress, and Minimizing Emotion Socialization

Childhood maladaptive emotion socialization was assessed via the Socialization of Emotion Scale-Short Form (SES; Sauer & Baer, 2010), a measure adapted from the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; Fabes et al., 2002; Krause et al., 2003). Six items assess children’s perceptions of their parents’ or caretakers’ typical responses to displays of negative emotions in common situations that may have occurred during participants’ childhood (example item: “If I was panicky and couldn’t go to sleep after watching a scary TV show, my caretaker would: (a) encourage me to talk about what scared me (b) get upset with me for being silly (c) tell me I was over-reacting (d) help me think of something to do so that I could get to sleep (e) tell me to go to bed or I wouldn’t be allowed to watch any more TV (f) do something fun with me to help me forget about what scared me”). Participants were asked to respond with the degree to which each parent/caretaker reaction was likely when participants were aged 12 years or younger on a scale from 1 = Very Unlikely to 7 = Very Likely. Scores for punitive, distress, and minimizing emotion socialization were calculated by summing the scores for each punitive, distress, and minimizing response for each item. Psychometric properties for each sub-facet are provided in Table 1.

Drinking Behavior

Drinker status was assessed via a single binary (yes =1, no = 0) item which read, “Have you ever drank alcohol (more than just a sip)?”

Procedure

Students at a large urban high school in the midwestern United States were approached through a required, semester-long health course and invited to participate in the study. Parental permission was obtained using passive consent procedures, in accordance with the school’s policy and preference. The passive consent process was as follows: Parents whose children were enrolled in a health course were informed that their child would be invited to participate in a study on drinking behavior, impulsivity, and emotions. Parents were given access to the questionnaires, in advance, and were informed that they could decline their child’s participation by emailing or calling a member of the study team or contacting a member of the school’s administrative team.

At each study visit, members of the study team attended every available health course, visiting approximately eight classes over the course of several days. Each student enrolled in a health class was assigned a random code number, created by a random number generator. A packet of questionnaires was prepared for each possible participant (i.e., every student in each class). Questionnaires were placed in an envelope labeled with (1) potential participants’ names, written on a removable label and (2) participants’ code numbers, written directly on the envelope.

Students whose parents did not decline their participation were invited to take part in the study, during their designated health class period. Of the 580 students enrolled in a health class, 3 student’s parents declined their participation, and 149 declined to assent. Those who did wish to participate completed an assent form and were given the questionnaire packet labeled with their name and code number. Prior to beginning the survey, students were asked to remove the label with their name from the envelope, in order to ensure participant responses were unidentifiable. This procedure was approved by the University of Kentucky IRB (#70062).

Data collection took place at the beginning and end of both the Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 semesters for a total two waves across two cohorts. A different group of participants were assessed each semester and updated class lists were provided by the school prior to each wave of data collection.

Data Analytic Method

Model variables were first assessed for missingness, normality of distributions, absence of outliers, multicollinearity and singularity, and independence of errors. Descriptive statistics, frequencies, and correlations of key study variables were also obtained.

No significant differences were observed between cohorts on any key study variables. Additionally, those who participated in only a single wave did not differ from those who completed both waves on any key study variables, established via independent samples t-tests. As such, data were assumed to be missing at random and estimation maximization was used to impute values for all missing numerical values. This allowed the use of the full sample for analysis (N = 428).

Longitudinal structural equation modeling was conducted to test the primary aims of the study, using the MLR estimation procedure (maximum likelihood, robust to violations of normality). To address the first and second aim, we examined a model which assessed for (1) prediction of wave 2 negative urgency from wave 1 punitive, minimizing, and distress emotion socialization, controlling for wave 1 negative urgency and drinker status and (2) prediction of wave 2 drinker status from wave 1 punitive, minimizing, distress, and negative urgency, controlling for drinker status at wave 1.

To address the third aim, we examined whether the above predictive pathways were invariant across race and gender. The same model was specified for the two groups being compared. We began by constraining all predictive pathways to be equal across groups. If that specification indicated a drop in model fit, thus variance across groups, we planned to investigate the source of model difference by relaxing the equality constraint for specific, individual paths.

Given that an insufficient number of participants identified as white, or any other race, only differences between Black and Hispanic participants were assessed. The same was true for non-binary and genderqueer participants and thus, only differences between male- and female-identified participants were assessed.

For each model, fit was assessed using two relative fit indices, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-Lewis index (TFI), and two absolute fit indices, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Guidelines for these indices vary. Using the most stringent guidelines, CFI and TFI values of .95 or higher are described as representing good fit. RMSEA values less than .05 indicate a close fit and SRMR values of .09 or lower tend to indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The model chi-square is also reported. A significant drop in model fit would be determined by significant increases in model chi-square and meaningful decreases in relative fit indices (TLI and CFI), defined as a decrease of .01 or more.

Results

Descriptives

Retention between waves 1 and 2 was 74%. As stated above, participants were aged, on average, 14.7 years at wave 1 and 15.0 years at wave 2. Additionally, 27% of participants at wave 1 and 23% of participants at wave 2 reported having ever tried alcohol (more than just a sip). Table 1 presents scale alphas, skewness values, and descriptive data for negative urgency and the three sub-facets of maladaptive emotion socialization (punitive, distress, and minimizing emotion socialization). Table 2 presents a correlation matrix of these variables at each wave of the study.

Table 2.

Correlation matrix of key study variables across both waves (N = 428).

Drink1 NU1 Dis1 Pun1 Min1 Drink2 NU2 Dis2 Pun2
NU1 .12 - - - - - - - -
Dis1 .02 .17 - - - - - - -
Pun1 .07 .30 .55 - - - - - -
Min1 .05 .24 .53 .77 - - - - -
Drink2 .52 .15 .14 .09 .10 - - - -
NU2 .06 .58 .17 .17 .09 .17 - - -
Dis2 −.06 .02 .54 .43 .40 .05 .19 - -
Pun2 −.04 .17 .46 .59 .47 .05 .23 .60 -
Min2 −.02 .05 .43 .58 .59 .00 .24 .58 .78
Open in a new tab

Note: Bold text indicates p<.05. Drink = drinker status, NU = negative urgency, Dis = distress emotion socialization, Pun = punitive emotion socialization, Min = minimizing emotion socialization. Numbers correspond to wave of data collection.

Prediction of Negative Urgency

The primary predictive model, which included negative urgency, punitive, distress, and minimizing emotion socialization, and drinker status, fit the data well: Χ2 (1) = 0.96; p = .33; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00 (CI: .00 to .01). SRMR = .003. Results were partially consistent with the hypothesis that wave 1 punitive, distress, and minimizing emotion socialization would predict increases in wave 2 negative urgency. Distress emotion socialization at wave 1 predicted increases in negative urgency at wave 2 (β = .12, p < .01), while punitive did not provide significant prediction (β = .03, p = .35). Contrary to our hypothesis, minimizing emotion socialization at wave 1 predicted decreases in negative urgency at wave 2 (β = −.13, p < .05). The three sub-facets of maladaptive emotion socialization were entered together; thus, the above predictive paths reflect, for example, that the variance in minimizing that is not shared with the punitive or distress scales predicted a decline in negative urgency across the longitudinal window.

Prediction of Drinker Status

Results also showed that distress emotion socialization at wave 1 predicted increased odds that an adolescent had ever tried alcohol at wave 2 (β = .14, p < .05), and the same was true for wave 1 negative urgency (β = .08, p < .05). Neither punitive nor minimizing emotion socialization were predictive of drinker status.

We then reproduced the above SEM prediction using binary logistic regression in SPSS in order to obtain odds ratios for pathways predicting drinker status. These results showed that, holding all else constant, for each unit increase in negative urgency at W1, the likelihood of having tried alcohol at W2 increased by 5.5%, controlling for drinker status at W1. In the same model, each unit increase in distress emotional socialization at W1 increased the likelihood of having tried alcohol at W2 by 7.8%.

Invariance Testing by Gender

To assess whether the above model (Figure 2) was invariant across gender, the model in which all paths were constrained to be equal fit the model fit the data well: Χ2 (9) = 6.93; p = .64; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00 (CI: .00 to .07). SRMR = .03. Given that the model Chi-Square was not significantly different from zero and the value for both the TLI and CFI (relative fit indices) were equal to 1.0, by definition, this model could not have fit worse than a model with no equality constraints and led to the conclusion that the model was invariant across gender, defined as male and female.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Statistically significant time-lagged pathways predicting negative urgency and drinker status.

Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, CFI=1.00; TLI=1.00; RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR =0.003. Significant predictive pathways are denoted with solid arrows; non-significant predictive pathways are denoted with dashed lines.

Invariance Testing by Race

To investigate possible differences in the prediction of negative urgency and drinker status as a function of race, we again found that when all paths were constrained to be equal the model fit the data well: Χ2 (9) = 7.96; p = .54; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.0; RMSEA = .00 (CI: .00 to .09). SRMR = .04. As with the above invariance testing for gender, the current model assessing invariance across race yielded a model Chi-Square was not significantly different from zero and a value of 1.0 for both the TLI and CFI. By definition, this model could not fit worse than a model without equality constraints. The tested model appeared invariant across race, defined here as Black and Hispanic.

Discussion

A large body of research suggests that negative urgency is an important predictor of a number of maladaptive behaviors, including underage drinking, in adolescents. While much of the existing literature is focused on negative urgency as a risk factor, less is known about factors that influence the development of negative urgency itself. Urgency theory posits that temperament and environmental factors interact to increase risk for the development of negative urgency. A few studies have investigated the role of temperament and environmental risk factors, such as positive parenting and maladaptive emotion socialization, in the risk process for negative urgency (Atkinson et al., 2022; Bui, 2020; Wadell et al., 2021). The current study aimed to build on the existing body of literature by further investigating the role of specific maladaptive emotion socialization sub-facets in the risk process for negative urgency in a sample of adolescents. Specifically, we used a two-wave longitudinal design to examine (1) whether punitive, distress, and minimizing emotion socialization predicts future increases in negative urgency, (2) whether these sub-facets of maladaptive emotion socialization predict increases in the likelihood that an adolescent has tried alcohol, and (3) whether the predictive pathways from maladaptive emotion socialization sub-facets to negative urgency and drinker status are invariant by race and gender, in a sample of high school students.

Results were partially consistent with the hypothesis that sub-facets of maladaptive emotion socialization predict significant increases in negative urgency. When examining each facet of maladaptive emotion socialization, with each controlled for its overlap with the other two facets, distress emotion socialization at wave 1 predicted increases in negative urgency at wave 2. However, distress was the only facet of maladaptive emotion socialization that predicted increases in negative urgency across waves. Conversely, minimizing emotion socialization predicted decreases in negative urgency and wave 1 punitive emotion socialization did not predict negative urgency.

The negative prediction from minimizing to negative urgency runs counter to our hypothesis. Clearly, replication of this unanticipated effect is necessary before confident inferences can be drawn. We do offer the following hypothesis regarding this effect, should it be replicated. Perhaps variance in minimizing emotion socialization that is not shared by distress and punitive emotion socialization may actually be protective. Whatever component of minimizing that does not involve punitive or overly distressed responses may help protect against the development of negative urgency. Again, as noted, variance in distress emotion socialization that is unrelated to minimizing and punitive appears to confer risk for negative urgency. This speculative possibility suggests the influence of parental reactions to emotional expressions in children may be more nuanced than previously appreciated. Perhaps when parents minimize emotional reactions only by contextualizing them and guiding children toward adaptive responses, risk for subsequent emotion-based ill-advised rash action is reduced. Perhaps heightened parental emotional reactivity to their children’s emotions is the key contributor to an increased disposition to act rashly when distressed.

Additionally, results showed that adolescents high in distress emotion socialization at wave 1 were more likely to report having tried alcohol at wave 2. This is significant for several reasons. As mentioned above, age of first drink, and early initiation of alcohol use, predicts a number of negative outcomes later in life such as increased risk for alcohol use disorder symptomology and additional psychiatric diagnoses, among many others (DeWit et al., 2000; Hingson et al., 2006). Further, future studies of risk for early onset drinking may benefit from including sub-facets of maladaptive emotion socialization, and distress emotion socialization in particular, in their models.

Last, the current study investigated whether the above risk pathways differed as a function of race and gender. Interestingly, no invariance was detected across gender (male-female) and race (Black-Hispanic) in prediction of change in negative urgency and drinker status from the three maladaptive emotion socialization sub-facets. The findings of the current study thus suggest that the observed longitudinal predictions, and perhaps the risk process they imply, operates in similar ways across the groups studied to date.

Future tests of this model should continue to investigate invariance as a function of race, gender, and other possible covariates such as socioeconomic status. Additionally, such tests should aim to include a larger sample of groups we were unable to use in our invariance testing, such as white and genderqueer individuals. It is important that future work continue to examine each group individually as collapsing across groups precludes identifying differences in risk processes that may be relevant for the development of successful intervention efforts.

It is also important to note that, though the above tested hypotheses are supported by well-established theory, many of the previous studies investigating risk for the development of negative urgency include samples that are predominantly, or almost entirely, white. It is plausible that patterns of emotion socialization differ, or have different downstream consequences, as a function of race, ethnicity, and cultural background. Future studies should aim to include representative samples of racial and ethnic groups beyond those identifying as Black or Hispanic, in order to assess these differences more accurately.

The above results should be considered in the light of several limitations. First, the longitudinal measurement period was confined to two time points over a single semester. Though studies have previously shown that changes in negative urgency and problem drinking can be observed over a similar length of time (Atkinson et al., 2021; Riley et al., 2016), it is quite possible that additional data collection time points, across a longer longitudinal window, would yield more robust findings. A crucial limitation of the current study is that pertaining to the measurement of maladaptive emotion socialization. In particular, responses to the scenarios presented in the Socialization of Emotion Scale (SES) may vary as a function of race, culture, and socioeconomic status. For example, the SES item “If I was about to appear in a recital or sports activity and became visibly nervous about people watching me, my parents /caretakers would…” assumes that all respondents have the time, interest, and financial ability to participate in such activities. In addition to evaluating and possibly refining the SES, future studies might consider additional measures and reporters (such as parents/caretakers).

With these limitations in mind, the present findings provide support for the predictive role of distress emotion socialization in the risk process for the development of negative urgency in adolescents. The current longitudinal findings support further investigation of the current model across an extended measurement period, with additional timepoints. An important next step includes investigating the possibility that negative urgency mediates the relationship between maladaptive emotion socialization and drinking behavior. Further investigation of this model, and identification of additional environmental risk factors for negative urgency, may inform the creation of interventions aimed at reducing or preventing the development of negative urgency, thus decreasing risk for a number of maladaptive behaviors and improving the public health.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [F31AA030172] and the Lipman Foundation. Declarations of interest: none.

References

  1. Assari S (2021). Association between parental educational attainment and children’s negative urgency: Sex differences. International Journal of Epidemiologic Research, 8(1), 14–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Atkinson EA, Ortiz AM, & Smith GT (2019). Affective risk for problem drinking: Reciprocal influences among negative urgency, affective lability, and rumination. Current Drug Research Reviews, 12(1), 42–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkinson EA, Miller LA, & Smith GT (2022). Maladaptive emotion socialization as a risk factor for the development of urgency and subsequent problem drinking. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 57(6), 749–754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinson EA, Peterson SJ, & Smith GT (2021). How people experience and respond to their distress predicts problem drinking more than does the amount of distress. Addictive Behaviors, 120, 106959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Babor TF & Grant M (1989). From clinical research to secondary prevention: International collaboration in the development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Alcohol Health and Research World, 13(3), 71–74. [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker TB, Piper ME, McCarthy DE, Majeskie MR, & Fiore MC (2004). Addiction motivation reformulated: An affective processing model of negative reinforcement. Psychological Review, 111(1), 33–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Berg JM, Latzman RD, Bliwise NG, & Lilienfeld SO (2015). Parsing the heterogeneity of impulsivity: A meta-analytic review of the behavioral implications of the UPPS for psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1129–1146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Birkley EL, Zapolski TC, & Smith GT (2015). Racial differences in the transactional relationship between depression and alcohol use from elementary school to middle school. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76(5), 799–808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bui L (2022) Examining parents’ personality within a five factor model predictive negative and positive urgency in their adolescent children. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing 28651838.
  10. Burdzovic Andreas J, & Jackson KM (2015). Adolescent alcohol use before and after the high school transition. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 39(6), 1034–1041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown SA, McGue M, Maggs J, Schulenberg J, Hingson R, Swartzwelder S, Martin C, Chung T, Tapert SF, Sher K, Winters KC, Lowman C, & Murphy S (2008). A developmental perspective on alcohol and youths 16 to 20 years of age. Pediatrics, 121(Suppl 4), S290–S310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cappell H, & Herman P (1972). Alcohol and tension reduction. The Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 33, 33–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Underage drinking. Alcohol and Public Health. https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm
  14. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2017). Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. [Google Scholar]
  15. Coskunpinar A, Dir AL, & Cyders MA (2013) Multidimensionality in impulsivity and alcohol use: A meta-analysis using the UPPS model of impulsivity. Alcohol and Clinical and Experimental Research, 37, 1441–1450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cyders MA, & Smith GT (2008). Emotion-based dispositions to rash action: Positive and negative urgency. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 807–828. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. DeWit DJ, Adlaf E, Offord DR, & Ogborne AC (2000). Age at first alcohol use: a risk factor for the development of alcohol disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 745–750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Donovan JE, & Molina BS (2011). Childhood risk factors for early-onset drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(5), 741–751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fabes R, Poulin R, Eisenberg E, & Madden-Derdich (2002). The coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES): Psychometric properties and relations with children’s emotional competence. Marriage & Family Review, 34, 285–310 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gottfredson NC, & Hussong AM (2011). Parental involvement protects against self-medication behaviors during the high school transition. Addictive Behaviors, 36(12), 1246–1252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hersh MA, & Hussong AM (2009). The associated between observed parental emotion socialization and adolescent self-medication. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(4), 493–506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hingson RW, Heeren T, & Winter MR (2006). Age at drinking onset and alcohol dependence - age at onset, duration, and severity. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 160, 739–746 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hingson RW, & Zha W (2009). Age of drinking onset, alcohol use disorders, frequent heavy drinking, and unintentionally injuring oneself and others after drinking. Pediatrics, 123(6), 1477–1484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hussong AM, Ennett W, Cox M, & Haroon M (2017). A systematic review of the unique prospective association of negative affect symptoms and substance use controlling for externalizing symptoms. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 31(2), 137–147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kitzmann KM (2012). Learning about emotion: Cultural and family contexts of emotion socialization. Global Studies of Childhood, 2, 82–84. [Google Scholar]
  27. Krause E, Mendelson T, & Lynch T (2003). Childhood emotional invalidation and adult psychological distress: The mediating role of emotional inhibition. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 199–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Levola J, Rose RJ, Mustonen A, Sarala M, Miettunen J, Koskela J, Niemelä AE, & Niemelä S (2020). Association of age at first drink and first alcohol intoxication as predictors of mortality: a birth cohort study. European Journal of Public Health, 30(6), 1189–1193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lees B, Meredith LR, Kirkland AE, Bryant BE, & Squeglia LM (2020). Effect of alcohol use on the adolescent brain and behavior. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior, 192, 172906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McMullin SD, Shields GS, Slavich GM, & Buchanan TW (2021). Cumulative lifetime stress exposure predicts greater impulsivity and addictive behaviors. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(14), 2921–2936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mirabile SP, Oertwig D, & Halberstadt AG (2016). Parent emotion socialization and children’s socioemotional adjustment: When is supportiveness no longer supportive? Social Development, 27, 466–481. [Google Scholar]
  32. Muthén LK & Muthén BO (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition.Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pearson CM, & Smith GT (2015). Bulimic symptom onset in young girls: A longitudinal trajectory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(4), 1003–1013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Peterson SJ, Davis HA, & Smith GT (2018). Personality and learning predictors of adolescent alcohol consumption trajectories. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(5), 482–495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Premo JE, & Kiel EJ (2016). Maternal depressive symptoms, toddler emotion regulation, and subsequent emotion socialization. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 276–285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Riley EN, Rukavina M, & Smith GT (2016). The reciprocal predictive relationship between high-risk personality and drinking: An 8-wave longitudinal study in early adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(6), 798–804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, & Evans DE (2000). Temperament and personality: origins and outcomes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(1), 122–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sauer SE, & Baer RA (2010). Validation of measures of biosocial precursors to borderline personality disorder: Childhood emotional vulnerability and environmental invalidation. Assessment, 17(4), 454–466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schulte MT, Ramo D, & Brown SA (2009). Gender differences in factors influencing alcohol use and drinking progression among adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 535–547. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sher KJ, & Levenson RW (1982). Risk for alcoholism and individual differences in the stress-response-dampening effect of alcohol. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91(5), 350–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Shin SH, Cook AK, Morris NA, McDougle R, & Groves LP (2016). The different faces of impulsivity as links between childhood maltreatment and young adult crime. Preventive Medicine, 88, 210–217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Shin SH, Lee S, Jeon S-M, & Wills TA (2015). Childhood emotional abuse, negative emotion-driven impulsivity, and alcohol use in young adulthood. Child Abuse and Neglect, 50, 94–10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Stautz K, & Cooper A (2013). Impulsivity-related personality traits and adolescent alcohol use: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(4), 574–592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Smith GT, & Cyders MA (2016). Integrating affect and impulsivity: The role of positive and negative urgency in substance use risk. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 163 (Suppl 1), S3–S12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (SAMHSA; 2020). Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. Detailed Table 2.6B
  46. Szkody E, Rogers MM, & McKinney C (2020). The role of emotional and instrumental support from parents on facets of emerging adult impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110261. [Google Scholar]
  47. Valderrama J, & Miranda R (2017). Early life stress predicts negative urgency through brooding, depending on 5-HTTLPR genotype: A pilot study with 6-month follow-up examining suicide ideation. Psychiatry research, 258, 481–487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Weaver SR, Cheong J, MacKinnon DP, & Pentz MA (2011). Investigating ethnic differences in adolescent alcohol use and peer norms using semi-continuous latent growth models. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 46(5), 620–626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zapolski TC, Pedersen SL, McCarthy DM, & Smith GT (2014). Less drinking, yet more problems: understanding African American drinking and related problems. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 188–223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zapolski TC, Stairs AM, Settles RF, Combs JL, & Smith GT (2010). The measurement of dispositions to rash action in children. Assessment, 17(1), 116–125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES