PMC

Solid-line arrows represent theorized influence from influence agents on socialization or resocialization through influence orientations. Dashed-line arrows represent theoretically plausible reciprocal feedback loops.

Theoretical Models of (a) Parent-directed effects, (b) Adolescent-directed effects, and (c) Reciprocal effects (Parent-directed + Adolescent-directed). Dotted lines indicate stabilities over time and cross-lagged effects between anger regulation, internalizing, and externalizing problems. Continuous lines indicate parent-directed effects of emotion socialization. Dashed lines indicate adolescent-directed effects

Standardized estimates of cross-lag model testing family ethnic socialization and adolescent ethnic identity for (a) the total sample (N = 178) and (b) family nativity status groups (N = 177). P3 = Phase 3; P4 = Phase 4.* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Family SES and adolescent gender were added in as controls on FES P4 and adolescent ethnic identity P4.

An illustration of the model of motivational and emotional development suggested by the ideas of Hebb, Bruch and Buck. Initially, there is little or no differentiation of emotional and alimentary needs. Over time, via reciprocal processes of feedback and socialization (social biofeedback) with a caregiver or caregivers who is/are attentive to infant cues and respond(s) differentially to emotional and alimentary needs, the infant or child learns to discriminate these needs as distinct and to behave differentially in response to them. The end result is an individual who can accurately identify and appropriately satisfy emotional and alimentary needs. Numerous factors not illustrated here (e.g., culture, historical circumstances, caregiver pathology, infant temperament) can affect the caregiver and/or infant side of the social biofeedback system, potentially resulting in poor awareness, discrimination and/or differentiation of emotional and alimentary needs.