We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In this chapter, we review theory and research regarding sources and predictors of parental knowledge. Specifically, we focus on adolescents’ information management, parenting and parent–adolescent relationships, parents’ and adolescents’ characteristics, and family context as sources and predictors of parental knowledge of adolescents’ activities, whereabouts, and associations. The findings show that disclosure and secrecy are fundamental sources of parental knowledge and that when parent–adolescent relationships are positive (e.g. warm, trusting, and autonomy supportive), parents are more likely to acquire accurate knowledge about their adolescents’ daily lives. The impact of parental solicitation and rule-setting on parental knowledge often depends on many other factors such as parenting or cultural context. Parental knowledge also differs as a function of parent gender, adolescent age and gender, adolescent well-being, family structure, ethnic background, and cultural values. We provide future directions for research and emphasize the need for theory-driven research.
Coping strategies are important determinants of resilience, however it is often difficult to isolate such processes at the animal level where the underlying neurobiology can be explored. Here we review research indicating that the degree to which an organism can exert control over adverse events, a key element of coping, potently modulates the impact of the event, with uncontrollable stressors producing outcomes that do not occur if the stressor is controllable. The data suggest that the stress-resistance produced by control depends on activation of distinct neural systems involving the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). In addition, the experience of control changes how the mPFC responds to future adverse events, even those that are uncontrollable, thereby providing resilience that is both enduring and trans-situational. We also address sex differences within controllability phenomena, the extent to which other resilience-promoting factors engage similar circuitry, and the clinical implications of these findings.
Mental health disorders commonly co-occur, even between conceptually distinct syndromes, such as internalizing and externalizing disorders. The current study investigated whether phenotypic, genetic, and environmental variance in negative emotionality and behavioral control account for the covariation between major depressive disorder (MDD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD).
Method
A total of 3623 members of a national twin registry were administered structured diagnostic telephone interviews that included assessments of lifetime histories of MDD and AUD, and were mailed self-report personality questionnaires that assessed stress reactivity (SR) and behavioral control (CON). A series of biometric models were fitted to partition the proportion of covariance between MDD and AUD into SR and CON.
Results
A statistically significant proportion of the correlation between MDD and AUD was due to variance specific to SR (men = 0.31, women = 0.27) and CON (men = 0.20, women = 0.19). Further, genetic factors explained a large proportion of this correlation (0.63), with unique environmental factors explaining the rest. SR explained a significant proportion of the genetic (0.33) and environmental (0.23) overlap between MDD and AUD. In contrast, variance specific to CON accounted for genetic overlap (0.32), but not environmental overlap (0.004). In total, SR and CON accounted for approximately 70% of the genetic and 20% of the environmental covariation between MDD and AUD.
Conclusions
This is the first study to demonstrate that negative emotionality and behavioral control confer risk for the co-occurrence of MDD and AUD via genetic factors. These findings are consistent with the aims of NIMH's RDoC proposal to elucidate how transdiagnostic risk factors drive psychopathology.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.