Table 4 Moderators to explain heterogeneity in absolute effect sizes.

From: The direction of effects between parenting and adolescent affective well-being in everyday life is family specific

Family-specific lagged effect

Mean differences

Correlations

Sex (t-test)

Education (ANOVA)

Age

Environmental sensitivityc

Neuroticism

Psychological control (PC)

PC → PA

− .14

.06*a

.04

.25**

.17*

PA → PC

− .22

.01

− .09

.08

.03

PC → NA

− .04

.00

− .07

− .01

.19*

NA → PC

.02

.00

− .18*

− .03

.13

Behavioral control (BC)

BC → PA

− .10

.06

.13

.16*

.13

PA → BC

− .23

.03

− .14

.08

.11

BC → NA

− .12

.01

.08

.11

.28***

NA → BC

− .29

.01

− .18*

.11

.21**

Autonomy support (AS)

AS → PA

− .29

.03

.02

.14

.22**

PA → AS

.13

.01

− .08

− .18*

− .08

AS → NA

− .31

.02

− .05

.13

.18*

NA → AS

.22

.01

− .14

− .12

.06

Warmth (WA)

WA → PA

− .15

.03

− .04

.16*

− .03

PA → WA

− .06

.02

− .09

.00

− .06

WA → NA

− .04

.04*b

.00

.02

.05

NA → WA

− .24

.00

.01

.13

.29***

  1. Cohen’s d is reported for sex (1 = male, 2 = female). Eta squared is reported for education (1 = low, 2 = moderate, 3 = high). PA = adolescent positive affect. NA = adolescent negative affect.
  2. aAdolescents with a moderate education level showed stronger effects than those with high education levels.
  3. bAdolescents with a low education level showed stronger effects than those with high education levels.
  4. cCorrelations between self-reported environmental sensitivity and the initial family-specific effect sizes are shown in Supplementary Figures S2-S9.
Back to article page