Parental Validating and Invalidating Responses and Adolescent Psychological Functioning: An Observational Study

Abstract

The current study assessed the extent to which parental validating and invalidating behaviors (a) could be reliably measured in parent–adolescent relationships, (b) differed significantly between clinic and nonclinic families, and (c) were associated with measures of adolescent emotion dysregulation, behavior problems, and parent–adolescent relationship satisfaction. Adolescents (N = 29; age range = 12–18; 62% female) and their parents completed a variety of self-report and parent-report measures of adolescent functioning. Ratings of parents’ validating and invalidating responses during video-recorded social support and problem-solving interactions were obtained. Results indicated that parental validating and invalidating behaviors (a) were measured with a high degree of reliability, (b) differed significantly between clinic and nonclinic families, and (c) were correlated, in expected directions, with adolescent emotion dysregulation, externalizing problem behaviors, and adolescent relationship satisfaction. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of both research and potentially improved family interventions.

Full text

http://tfj.sagepub.com/
The Family Journal
http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/22/1/43
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1066480713490900
2014 22: 43 originally published online 20 June 2013The Family Journal
Chad E. Shenk and Alan E. Fruzzetti
Observational Study
Parental Validating and Invalidating Responses and Adolescent Psychological Functioning: An
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors
can be found at:The Family JournalAdditional services and information for
http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://tfj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/22/1/43.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jun 20, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Nov 25, 2013Version of Record >>
at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on August 19, 2014tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on August 19, 2014tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article
Parental Validating and Invalidating
Responses and Adolescent Psychological
Functioning: An Observational Study
Chad E. Shenk
1
and Alan E. Fruzzetti
2
Abstract
The current study assessed the extent to which parental validating and invalidating behaviors (a) could be reliably measured in
parent–adolescent relationships, (b) differed significantly between clinic and nonclinic families, and (c) were associated with measures
of adolescent emotion dysregulation, behavior problems, and parent–adolescent relationship satisfaction. Adolescents (N¼29; age
range ¼12–18; 62% female) and their parents completed a variety of self-report and parent-report measures of adolescent
functioning. Ratings of parents’ validating and invalidating responses during video-recorded social support and problem-solving inter-
actions were obtained. Results indicated that parental validating and invalidating behaviors (a) were measured with a high degree of
reliability, (b) differed significantly between clinic and nonclinic families, and (c) were correlated, in expected directions, with
adolescent emotion dysregulation, externalizing problem behaviors, and adolescent relationship satisfaction. The implications of
these findings are discussed in terms of both research and potentially improved family interventions.
Keywords
validating behaviors, invalidating behaviors, emotion dysregulation, adolescents
Emotion dysregulation, or the difficulty in deploying
behavioral strategies that effectively modulate the form, fre-
quency, or magnitude of an emotional response (Diamond &
Aspinwall, 2003; Gross, 1998), is a process variable associated
with a variety of psychological outcomes in children and ado-
lescents, including higher incidences of externalizing behaviors
(Eisenberg et al., 2001), anxiety (Suveg & Zeman, 2004),
hyperactivity (Walcott & Landau, 2004), depression (Kobak
& Ferenz-Gillies, 1995; Silk, Steinberg, & Morris, 2003), and
suicidal behaviors (Tamas et al., 2007). The relationship
between emotion dysregulation and a variety of child and ado-
lescent clinical outcomes has led to a growing body of research
identifying key determinants of emotion regulation that inform
models of emotional development and clinical intervention.
Much of this research has focused on person-level variables
that affect a child’s ability to regulate emotions, such as physio-
logical reactivity (Beauchaine, Gatzke-Kopp, & Mead, 2007;
Cole, Zahn-Waxler, Fox, Usher, & Welsh, 1996; Shipman
et al., 2007), temperament (Eisenberg et al., 2005; Ellis, Roth-
bart, & Posner, 2004), and specific behavioral strategies
acquired to regulate emotions (Blair, Denham, Kochanoff, &
Whipple, 2004; Hannesdottir & Ollendick, 2007; Zeman, Ship-
man, & Suveg, 2002). In addition to person-level variables,
specific aspects of the family environment are linked to varying
degrees of child and adolescent emotion dysregulation. When
parents respond negatively to a child’s emotional expression, the
child is more likely to react negatively (Eisenberg, Cumberland,
& Spinrad, 1998). More specifically, when a parent responds
with emotional invalidation and minimization of an emotional
expression, the child has more difficulty regulating his or her
emotions (Gottman & Katz, 2002) and is more likely to learn
problematic means of regulating emotions that are linked to clin-
ical outcomes (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010;
Berlin & Cassidy, 2003; Krause, Mendelson, & Lynch, 2003).
In contrast, when parents demonstrate warm, understanding, and
accepting responses to an expressed emotion, children are more
likely to develop understanding of their emotional experience,
accurately express emotions, regulate emotional reactions, and
comply with parental directions (Calkins, Smith, Gill, & John-
son, 1998; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994; Shipman, Zeman, Penza,
& Champion, 2000; Spinrad, Stifter, Donelan-McCall, &
Turner, 2004). The family context then, and in particular par-
ent–child interactions, can play an important role in regulating
a child’s emotions, shaping a child’s ability to learn emotion
1
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA
Corresponding Author:
Chad E. Shenk, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Email: ceshenk@gmail.com
The Family Journal: Counseling and
Therapy for Couples and Families
2014, Vol 22(1) 43-48
ªThe Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1066480713490900
tfj.sagepub.com
at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on August 19, 2014tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

regulation strategies, while serving as an important target in fam-
ily interventions.
Linehan (1993) and colleagues (Fruzzetti, Shenk, &
Hoffman, 2005) assert that emotion dysregulation results from
an ongoing transaction between parents and children, including
vulnerabilities from a child’s temperament, prior learning, and
problematic interactions with parents, which leads to the
development and maintenance of various forms of psycho-
pathology. This model proposes that specific aspects of family
communication, validating and invalidating behaviors, are key
determinants of a child’s ability to regulate emotions. A validat-
ing behavior occurs when a child or adolescent expresses his or
her private experience to a parent and this expression is met with
understanding, legitimacy, and acceptance of this experience
(Linehan, 1997). A validating behavior does not directly seek
to change or alter a child’s emotional experience; instead, it
seeks to highlight the emotional experience in order to facilitate
an individual’s acceptance and experiencing of the emotion.
Validating responses can influence individual emotion regula-
tion in several ways. First, validating behaviors can promote the
learning of skills for regulating emotions because they promote
more disclosures of emotional states which facilitate the experi-
encing of an emotion and consequently its expression and
regulation (Fruzzetti & Shenk, 2008; Fruzzetti & Worrall,
2010). Second, validating behaviors minimize the frequency,
intensity, and duration of an emotional reaction, making regula-
tion more likely. Conversely, an invalidating behavior is ‘‘one in
which communication of private experiences is met by erratic,
inappropriate, and extreme responses. In other words, the
expression of private experiences is not validated; instead it is
often punished or trivialized’’ (Linehan, 1993, p. 49). Such a
response conveys to a child or adolescent that his or her
emotional experience in a given situation is incorrect and attri-
butes that experience to socially unacceptable or undesirable
standards. Parental invalidating behaviors have a significant
impact on emotion dysregulation by worsening a child’s emo-
tional reactivity and by impeding his or her ability to learn and
use skills for regulating emotions. Validating and invalidating
behaviors have demonstrated moderate to large effect size differ-
ences (d¼0.73–1.10) on emotion regulation outcomes, such as
heart rate, skin conductance, and negative affect (Shenk &
Fruzzetti, 2011).
However, there is no research directly examining the rela-
tionship between parental validating and invalidating behaviors
and child and adolescent outcomes. The current study is a pre-
liminary test of parental validating and invalidating behaviors
and their relationship to broad domains of adolescent function-
ing. There were several aims of the current research: (a) deter-
mine whether validating and invalidating behaviors can be
reliably measured in parent–adolescent relationships, (b) test
whether validating and invalidating behaviors discriminate
between clinic and nonclinic families, and (c) examine whether
validating and invalidating behaviors are related to adolescent
emotion dysregulation, externalizing and internalizing beha-
viors, and relationship satisfaction as predicted by biosocial
models of psychopathology (e.g. Linehan, 1993).
Method
Sample
Clinic (n¼14) and nonclinic (n¼15) families were recruited
for participation. Clinic families, defined as an adolescent cur-
rently participating in family-based psychological treatment,
were recruited from local behavioral health clinics. Nonclinic
families, where no family member was currently receiving psy-
chological treatment, were recruited through public service
announcements and advertisements in local newspapers.
Families responding to recruitment efforts contacted the pro-
gram coordinator for the study and scheduled the research
assessment. Inclusion criteria were (a) families with at least one
caregiver with custodial rights, (b) an adolescent child between
the ages of 12 and 18, and (c) a willingness to participate in two
videotaped interaction tasks including one parent and his or her
adolescent child. In the case of two parent homes, each parent
was required to participate in the study in order to be eligible.
The mean age of children in the sample was 14.86 (SD ¼1.55),
the median family income was $40,000–$49,000, 62%of the
children were female, with 93%identifying themselves as
Caucasian. See Table 1 for detailed demographic information
by clinic status membership.
Measures
Validating and Invalidating Behaviors Coding Scale (VIBCS; Fruzzetti,
2001). The VIBCS is an observational rating scale used to mea-
sure levels of validating and invalidating behaviors within fam-
ilies (Fruzzetti, 2001). The VIBCS uses an ordinal rating scale
ranging from 1 to 7 where family members are given a global
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics.
Clinic Nonclinic
(n¼14) (n¼15)
M(SD)ornM(SD)orn
Age 15.00 (1.41) 14.73 (1.71)
Race
Caucasian 14 13
Minority 0 2
Sex
Male 6 5
Female 8 10
Single-parent family
Yes 9 7
No 5 8
LPI 115.43 (39.79) 90.00 (22.32)*
CBCL
Internalizing 60.43 (15.89) 49.67 (9.16)*
Externalizing 64.71 (15.75) 51.33 (8.97)**
AFLSI 22.43 (5.60) 26.93 (5.71)*
Validating behaviors 3.29 (0.99) 4.33 (1.63)*
Invalidating behaviors 4.43 (1.56) 2.33 (1.23)***
Note. AFLSI ¼Adolescent Family Life Satisfaction Index–Parental subscale;
CBCL ¼Child Behavior Checklist; LPI ¼Life Problems Inventory.
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
44 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 22(1)
at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on August 19, 2014tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

rating on validating and invalidating behaviors observed in each
interaction (the coding manual is available upon request from the
second author). The VIBCS has demonstrated good interrater
reliability when rating couples’ interactions in previous research
with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of .77. The con-
current validity of the VIBCS was also examined in prior
research with couples where validating behaviors were associ-
ated with greater relationship satisfaction (r¼.37, p<.001),
invalidating behaviors were associated with greater interpartner
aggression (r¼.39, p< .001), and where moderate to large
effect size differences (Z
2
¼.13 to .20) were observed between
distressed and nondistressed couples (Lowry, Mosco, Shenk, &
Fruzzetti, 2002). The VIBCS was used in this study to establish
the initial reliability of measuring validating and invalidating
behaviors in parent–adolescent relationships. Only parents were
assigned ratings of validating and invalidating behaviors in the
current study. When a two-parent home completed the study, the
highest level of validating and invalidating behaviors on the
VIBCS across the two parents was used for analysis.
Life Problems Inventory (LPI). The LPI is a 60-item self-report
questionnaire measuring adolescent emotion regulation consis-
tent with the biosocial theory of emotion dysregulation (Rathus
& Miller, 1995). Example items include ‘‘When I don’t get my
way, I quickly lose my temper,’’ ‘‘Once I get upset, it takes me a
long time to calm down,’’ and ‘‘Relationships with people I care
about have a lot of ups and downs.’’ Items are rated on a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me)to5(extremely like me).
Reliability of the LPI in the current study is a¼.96. The total
score on the LPI was used in this study and is derived by sum-
ming all 60 items with higher scores indicating greater emotion
dysregulation.
Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 (CBCL). Parents completed the
CBCL, a well-established, comprehensive multiaxial parent
report measure of children’s behavioral functioning with reli-
abilities ranging from a¼.72 to .96 and stability coefficients
ranging from r¼.70 to .74 in prior research (Achenbach,
1991). The CBCL generates standardized scores for broadband
scales of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems.
T-scores derived from the internalizing and externalizing scales
of the CBCL were used in the current study as indicators of
global adolescent problem behaviors. An average score was
used in cases where two parents each provided a score on exter-
nalizing and internalizing behaviors for a single adolescent.
Adolescent Family Life Satisfaction Index—Parental subscale
(AFLSI). The AFLSI is a self-report questionnaire assessing global
family satisfaction as reported by the adolescent (Henry, Ostran-
der, & Lovelace, 1992; Henry & Plunkett, 1995). In prior
research, the AFLSI has demonstrated reliability (a¼.90) and
concurrent validity (r¼.72) with other measures of family satis-
faction (Henry et al., 1992). The AFLSI has a 7-item, Parental
subscale measuring the degree to which an adolescent agrees
with an item assessing how satisfied heor she is with the parental
relationship. Items are ranked on a scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree) with higher scores indi-
cating greater satisfaction. Example items include ‘‘How much
my parents approve of me and the things I do’’ and ‘‘The amount
of freedom my parents give me to make my own choices.’’ The
Parental subscale of the AFLSI was used in this study as an index
of parent–adolescent relationship satisfaction. Reliability and
concurrent validity of the Parental subscale in prior research is
a¼.88 and r¼.78, respectively (Henry et al., 1992). The relia-
bility of the Parental subscale in the current sample is a¼.82.
Procedure
All procedures were approved by the local institutional review
board prior to beginning the study. Upon the family’s arrival
for the research assessment, informed consent and child assent
was reviewed with the parent/parents and adolescent. Follow-
ing consent and assent, each family member was given the
appropriate questionnaires to complete in private. Once the
questionnaires were completed, each parent and adolescent
participated in two, 10-min videotaped interactions. In two-
parent homes, the adolescents participated in two 10-min
videotaped interactions with each of their parents. Each family
was prompted to discuss two topics. The first topic involved a
discussion of an issue that promotes closeness between the ado-
lescent and parent. The second topic involved a discussion of
an issue that the adolescent and parent agreed was a mild to
moderate conflict in their relationship. Families were asked
to discuss each of these topics for 10 min while being
videotaped. Once the family had completed both the question-
naires and the videotaped portions of the assessment, they were
financially compensated for participating in the study.
Graduate and undergraduate students were trained in the
VIBCS prior to coding the videotaped interactions. Training con-
sisted of 10 weekly meetings with each meeting lasting 90 min.
The first five meetings involved an overview of observational rat-
ing systems with families and detailed instruction on the VIBCS,
including the theoretical background, coding structure, content of
each level of validating and invalidating behaviors, and decision
rules for promoting reliability. The final five meetings involved
consensus coding of specified training sessions. After the 10th
meeting, coders rated a new set of training sessions to determine
whether their ratings met a sufficient criterion of reliability. An
ICC of .75 was adopted as the lower bound criterion of reliability
as coefficients of .75 and above indicate excellent reliability
(Fleiss, 1986; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Coders meeting the ICC
¼.75 criterion were permitted to code the interactions. Coders not
meeting this criterion were provided with additional training.
Coder drift was minimized via weekly checks of adherence on
a videotape rated by each coder. All coders were blind to the
family’s clinic status and all other data.
Data Analytic Strategy
The data analytic strategy involved several planned analyses to
establish the preliminary evidence of parental validating and
Shenk and Fruzzetti 45
at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on August 19, 2014tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

invalidating behaviors. First, ICCs were obtained to estimate
the interrater reliability of parental validating and invalidating
behaviors measured in parent–adolescent interactions. Second,
ratings obtained from the VIBCS were analyzed using multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to determine whether
parental validating and invalidating behaviors differed signifi-
cantly between clinic and nonclinic families. Finally, multiple
regression determined whether validating and invalidating
behaviors were related to proposed processes of change (emo-
tion dysregulation) and adolescent outcomes (externalizing
behaviors, internalizing behaviors, and parent–adolescent rela-
tionship satisfaction). Validating and invalidating behaviors
were entered simultaneously as predictors in the regression
models. Regression models were then examined for outliers
and model assumptions.
Results
Preliminary Data Analysis
Demographic and study-related variables were assessed using
chi-square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to detect signif-
icant differences between clinic and nonclinic families. Results
from chi-square tests indicated that clinic and nonclinic fami-
lies did not differ significantly on race, sex of the adolescent,
whether the family was a single-parent or dual parent home,
or family income. The ANOVA revealed significant mean
differences between clinic and nonclinic families on the LPI,
CBCL externalizing, CBCL internalizing, and AFLSI scores
(see Table 1). There were no significant age differences
between clinic and nonclinic families.
Reliability of the VIBCS in Parent–Adolescent Dyadic
Interactions
Four coders provided ratings of validating and invalidating
behaviors observed during the parent–adolescent interactions.
Seventeen percent of the families in the sample were randomly
selected as a means to assess interrater reliability. Interrater
reliability on this subset of families was determined via ICC
using a two-way random effects model with absolute agree-
ment among coders (McGraw & Wong, 1996). Interrater relia-
bility was estimated using a single measure ICC, which is based
on each individual rating across raters, a conservative estimate
of interrater reliability. The resulting estimate was ICC ¼.86,
indicating excellent interrater reliability. The correlation
between parental validating and invalidating behaviors was
r¼.57, p¼.001.
Validating and Invalidating Behaviors in Clinic and
Nonclinic Families
A MANOVA compared ratings of validating and invalidating
behaviors obtained using the VIBCS between clinic and noncli-
nic families. The results of the MANOVA demonstrated signif-
icant between-group differences on levels of validating
behaviors, F(1, 27) ¼4.23, p¼.05, d¼.80, and invalidating
behaviors, F(1, 27) ¼16.27, p< .001, d¼1.55. Specifically,
clinic families had significantly lower levels of validating
behaviors and significantly higher levels of invalidating
behaviors when compared to nonclinic families (see Table 1)
with large effect size differences observed between the groups.
Validating and Invalidating Behaviors and Global
Adolescent Functioning
LPI. The multiple regression model with validating and invali-
dating behaviors as predictors of LPI scores provided a good fit
to the data, F(2, 26) ¼4.77, p¼.02, with validating and inva-
lidating behaviors accounting for 27%of the variance in LPI
scores. Validating behaviors significantly predicted LPI scores,
b¼11.88, p¼.01, indicating that a one-level increase in
ratings of validating behaviors was associated with an approx-
imate 12-point decrease in LPI scores. Invalidating behaviors
were not significantly related to LPI scores.
CBCL. Validating and invalidating behaviors were simultane-
ously estimated as predictors of CBCL externalizing behavior
scores. This model produced a good fit to the data, F(2, 26) ¼
6.62, p¼.01, that accounted for 34%of the variance in externa-
lizing scores. Invalidating behaviors significantly predicted
CBCL externalizing scores, b¼3.83, p¼.01, with a one-
level increase in invalidating behaviors associated with an
almost 4-point increase in externalizing T-scores. Validating
behaviors did not significantly predict externalizing scores after
accounting for invalidating behaviors. This same model was
used to fit CBCL internalizing behavior scores. Results indicated
a poor fit to the model, F(2, 26) ¼1.06, p¼ns, with validating
and invalidating behaviors accounting for only 8%of the
variance in internalizing scores. Neither validating nor invalidat-
ing behaviors significantly predicted internalizing scores.
AFLSI. A final model was fit where validating and invalidating
behaviors were entered as predictors of AFLSI scores. Results
demonstrated a good fit to the model, F(2, 26) ¼8.42, p< .01,
that accounted for 39%of the variance in AFLSI scores. Both
validating behaviors, b¼1.51, p¼.03, and invalidating beha-
viors, b¼1.19, p¼.04, predicted AFLSI scores, indicating
the mutual importance of both variables when assessing adoles-
cent relationship satisfaction.
Discussion
Results provide preliminary support to theoretical models (Dia-
mond & Aspinwall, 2003; Fruzzetti et al., 2005) and prior
research (Shenk & Fruzzetti, 2011) examining the role of
family-level determinants, specifically validating and invali-
dating behaviors, of emotion dysregulation and corresponding
behavioral outcomes. Parental validating and invalidating
behaviors can be measured with a high degree of reliability
using a global observational rating scale. These behaviors
differed significantly between clinic and nonclinic families
where families receiving treatment had significantly lower
46 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 22(1)
at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on August 19, 2014tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

levels of validating behaviors and significantly higher levels of
invalidating behaviors when compared to families who were
not in treatment. Even with a modest sample size, analyses
were sufficiently powered to detect the large effect size differ-
ences between clinic and nonclinic families on ratings of vali-
dating and invalidating behaviors, highlighting the potential
importance of evaluating these behaviors in parent–adolescent
relationships. Validating and invalidating behaviors were also
differentially related to process variables and adolescent
outcomes as predicted. Validating parent behaviors were asso-
ciated with more effective emotion regulation and greater
satisfaction in parent–child relationships. Invalidating parent
behaviors, on the other hand, were associated with higher exter-
nalizing behavior problems and lower relationship satisfaction.
These results support previous research indicating that how
parents react to emotional responses and disclosures is related
to the psychological functioning of their children currently and
later in development (Krause et al., 2003; Spinrad et al., 2004).
It is also important to note that neither validating behaviors nor
invalidating behaviors were associated with internalizing beha-
vior problems. Thus, validating and invalidating behaviors may
be more useful when understanding the development of exter-
nalizing behaviors as opposed to internalizing behaviors,
although future research will be needed to support this claim.
Future longitudinal research will also need to examine the rela-
tionship between validating and invalidating responses and other
ratings of interests (e.g., parent social support or criticality) to
evaluate the predictive utility of various theoretical models.
Overall, the results support existing research while extending the
literature through the identification of specific parenting beha-
viors linked to both processes of change and clinical outcomes.
There are several potential clinical implications based on
findings from this study. The VIBCS is a readily applicable
assessment tool that could be used when conceptualizing clin-
ical cases and developing a family treatment plan. For instance,
if invalidating behaviors are related to clinical outcomes, then
focusing on decreasing invalidating behaviors, and potentially
increasing validating behaviors, may serve as important treat-
ment targets. Based on present outcomes, the extent to which
invalidating behaviors are contributing to individual or
relationship outcomes can be assessed reliably and efficiently
before starting therapy. By rating interaction samples from
clients at various times throughout therapy, clinicians can track
changes in invalidating behaviors as a result of implementing a
treatment plan that includes these behaviors as targets. Also,
because brief interactions can be coded in real time, immediate
in-session feedback can be provided to families in therapy.
Reducing the level of invalidating behaviors in parent–adoles-
cent interactions may help in reducing problem behavior while
removing important barriers to relationship satisfaction
throughout adolescence. In turn, increasing the use of parental
validating behaviors, both in their frequency and intensity, can
be used to facilitate children labeling their emotional experi-
ences, the accurate expression of their emotional states, as well
as their abilities to regulate their emotional reactivity. In this
context, validating behaviors can help improve adolescent
functioning during the course of treatment while promoting
relationship enhancement with parents.
There are also important considerations that limit broad con-
clusions about parental validating and invalidating behaviors
from this study. The sample size is modest (N¼29) and,
although representative in terms of sex and family constellation,
not racially or ethnically diverse. The implication of having a
modest sample size with primarily Caucasian families raises the
possibility that findings may not generalize to the larger popula-
tion of families, although previous research with the VIBCS has
included ethnically and racially diverse samples (Lowry et al.,
2002; Shipman et al., 2007). The research design is cross-
sectional and causal inferences are not appropriate despite sig-
nificant relationships among validating and invalidating beha-
viors, adolescent emotion dysregulation, and clinical
outcomes. Only longitudinal research examining the temporal
relations between these variables can tease out whether adoles-
cent problem behavior develops as stated in biosocial models
of psychopathology. Overall, this study provides a base from
which to launch further research on parental validating and inva-
lidating responses, advancing prior research by identifying spe-
cific parent behaviors contributing to the well-established
connection between parenting and adolescent outcomes (Eisen-
berg et al., 1998). This study also offers theoretically informed
targets for intervention to aid clinicians treating emotion dysre-
gulation concerns with adolescents and their families.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18,
YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont.
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S. (2010). Emotion-
regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic
review. Clinical Psychology Review,30, 217–237.
Beauchaine, T. P., Gatzke-Kopp, L., & Mead, H. K. (2007). Polyvagal
theory and developmental psychopathology: Emotion dysregulation
and conduct problems from preschool to adolescence. Biological
Psychology,74, 174–184. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.08.008
Berlin, L. J., & Cassidy, J. (2003). Mothers’ self-reported control of
their preschool children’s emotional expressiveness: A longitudi-
nal study of associations with infant-mother attachment and
children’s emotion regulation. Social Development,12, 477–495.
Blair, K. A., Denham, S. A., Kochanoff, A., & Whipple, B. (2004).
Playing it cool: Temperament, emotion regulation, and social beha-
vior in preschoolers. Journal of School Psychology,42, 419–443.
Calkins, S. D., Smith, C. L., Gill, K. L., & Johnson, M. C. (1998).
Maternal interactive style across contexts: Relations to emotional,
behavioral, and physiological regulation during toddlerhood.
Social Development,7, 350–369.
Shenk and Fruzzetti 47
at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on August 19, 2014tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Fox, N. A., Usher, B. A., & Welsh, J. D.
(1996). Individual differences in emotion regulation and behavior
problems in preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
105, 518–529.
Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emotion regulation
across the life span: An integrative perspective emphasizing
self-regulation, positive affect, and dyadic processes. Motivation
& Emotion,27, 125–156.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental
socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry,9, 241–273.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard,
S. A., & Reiser, M., ...Guthrie, I. K. (2001). The relations of
regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and interna-
lizing problem behavior. Child Development,72, 1112–1134.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1994). Mothers’ reactions to children’s
negative emotions: Relations to children’s temperament and anger
behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,40, 138–156.
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Spinrad, T. L., Valiente, C., Fabes, R. A., &
Liew, J. (2005). Relations among positive parenting, children’s
effortful control, and externalizing problems: A three-wave
longitudinal study. Child Development,76, 1055–1071.
Ellis, L. K., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Individual differ-
ences in executive attention predict self-regulation and adolescent
psychosocial behaviors. Annals of the New York Academy of
Science,1021, 337–340. doi:10.1196/annals.1308.041
Fleiss, J. L. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments.
New York, NY: John Wiley.
Fruzzetti, A. (2001). Validating and invalidating behaviors coding
scale. Reno: University of Nevada.
Fruzzetti, A. E., & Shenk, C. (2008). Fostering validating responses in
families. Social Work in Mental Health,6, 215–227.
Fruzzetti, A. E., Shenk, C., & Hoffman, P. D. (2005). Family interaction
and the development of borderline personality disorder: A transac-
tional model. Development and Psychopathology,17, 1007–1030.
Fruzzetti, A. E., & Worrall, J. M. (2010). Accurate expression and
validating responses: A transactional model for understanding
individual and relationship distress. In K. T. Sullivan & J. Davila
(Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp.
121–150). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (2002). Children’s emotional reactions to
stressful parent-child interactions: The link between emotion
regulation and vagal tone. Marriage & Family Review,34, 265–283.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An
integrative review. Review of General Psychology,2, 271–299.
Hannesdottir, D. K., & Ollendick, T. H. (2007). The role of emotion
regulation in the treatment of child anxiety disorders. Clinical
Child & Family Psychology Review,10, 275–293.
Henry, C. S., Ostrander, D. L., & Lovelace, S. G. (1992). Reliability
and validity of the adolescent family life satisfaction index.
Psychological Reports,70, 1223–1229.
Henry, C. S., & Plunkett, S. W. (1995). Validation of the adolescent
family life satisfaction index: An update. Psychological Reports,
76, 672–674.
Kobak, R., & Ferenz-Gillies, R. (1995). Emotion regulation and
depressive symptoms during adolescence: A functionalist perspec-
tive. Development and Psychopathology,7, 183–192.
Krause,E.D.,Mendelson,T.,&Lynch,T.R.(2003).Childhood
emotional invalidation and adult psychological distress: The
mediating role of emotional inhibition. Child Abuse & Neglect,
27,199–213.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline
personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Linehan, M. M. (1997). Validation and psychotherapy. In A. C. Bohart
& L. S. Greenberg (Eds.), Empathy reconsidered: New directions
in psychotherapy (pp. 353–392). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Lowry, K., Mosco, E., Shenk, C., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2002).
Validating and invalidating behaviors coding scale (VIBCS):
Reliability and validity. Paper presented at the 36th Annual
Convention of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior
Therapy, Reno, NV.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some
intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods,1, 30–46.
Rathus, J. H., & Miller, A. L. (1995). The life problems inventory.
Unpublished manuscript. Long Island University, Brookville, NY.
Shenk, C. E., & Fruzzetti, A. E. (2011). The impact of validating and
invalidating responses on emotional reactivity. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology,30, 163–183.
Shipman, K., Zeman, J., Penza, S., & Champion, K. (2000). Emotion
management skills in sexually maltreated and nonmaltreated girls:
A developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and
Psychopathology,12, 47–62.
Shipman, K. L., Schneider, R., Fitzgerald, M. M., Sims, C., Swisher,
L., & Edwards, A. (2007). Maternal emotion socialization in mal-
treating and non-maltreating families: Implications for children’s
emotion regulation. Social Development,16, 268–285.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses
in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin,86,
420–428.
Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents’ emotion
regulation in daily life: Links to depressive symptoms and problem
behavior. Child Development,74, 1869–1880.
Spinrad, T. L., Stifter, C. A., Donelan-McCall, N., & Turner, L.
(2004). Mothers’ regulation strategies in response to toddlers’
affect: Links to later emotion self-regulation. Social Development,
13, 40–55.
Suveg, C., & Zeman, J. (2004). Emotion regulation in children with
anxiety disorders. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology,33, 750–759.
Tamas, Z., Kovacs, M., Gentzler, A. L., Tepper, P., Gadoros, J., &
Kiss, E., ...Vetro, A. (2007). The relations of temperament and
emotion self-regulation with suicidal behaviors in a clinical sample
of depressed children in Hungary. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology,35, 640–652. doi:10.1007/s10802-007-9119-2
Walcott, C. M., & Landau, S. (2004). The relation between disinhibi-
tion and emotion regulation in boys with attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology,33, 772–782.
Zeman, J., Shipman, K., & Suveg, C. (2002). Anger and sadness regula-
tion: Predictions to internalizingand externalizing symptoms in chil-
dren. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,31,
393–398.
48 The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 22(1)
at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on August 19, 2014tfj.sagepub.comDownloaded from