Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Fam Relat. 2024 Nov 3;74(1):481–499. doi: 10.1111/fare.13095

Parental depressive symptoms and child psychopathology: Indirect effects of parenting-specific emotion regulation and emotion socialization

Violeta J Rodriguez 1, Miriam C Zegarac 2, Taylor S Brumbaugh 2, Dominique L La Barrie 2, Jenna B Terry 2, Anne Shaffer 2
PMCID: PMC12124821  NIHMSID: NIHMS2027888  PMID: 40452872

Abstract

Objective:

The study explores the associations among parental depressive symptoms, child symptoms of psychopathology, emotion socialization (ES), and parenting-specific emotion regulation (ER) using a novel measure, the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale (REPS).

Background:

There is a notable correlation between parental depressive symptoms and symptoms of psychopathology in children. Empirical studies have also observed a correlation in the intergenerational patterns of ER, as well as their relations to ES. Investigating these relations in nonclinical samples is vital for understanding these risk factors and how they relate to child mental health.

Method:

The study sample was comprised of n = 315 mothers and fathers and used a cross-sectional design. Assessments were conducted on parental depressive symptoms, child psychopathology, ES, and parenting-specific ER (REPS).

Results:

Our findings revealed that parental depressive symptoms were significantly associated with all ER strategies in the parenting context. These ER strategies, in turn, were linked to unsupportive ES practices, which were further related to child psychopathology. Parenting-specific ER strategies and parents’ supportive ES had a significant indirect effect on the association between parental depressive symptoms and child psychopathology. However, only indirect effects through unsupportive ES and suppression and rumination were significant, not adaptive ER.

Conclusions:

The study’s cross-sectional correlations provide support for the role of parenting-specific ER as it relates to ES, parental, and child psychopathology.

Implications:

Findings imply that how parents regulate their emotions during parenting significantly affects their ability to engage in supportive ES practices, but replication in a longitudinal framework is warranted.

Keywords: emotion regulation, parental depressive symptoms, parenting

INTRODUCTION

There is a notable correlation between parental depressive symptoms and adverse child health outcomes, including symptoms of psychopathology in children (S. H. Goodman et al., 2011). Empirical studies have also observed a correlation in the intergenerational patterns of emotion dysregulation (Mikkonen et al., 2016; Pilowsky et al., 2014). Investigating these relations in nonclinical samples is vital for understanding the origins of risk factors contributing to potential emotional challenges passed from one generation to the next. Research indicates a correlation between both subclinical and clinical depressive symptoms in parents and their children’s internalizing symptoms, behavioral difficulties, and challenges in emotion regulation (Buckholdt et al., 2014; Conners-Burrow, 2016; Pettit et al., 2008; Suveg et al., 2011). For example, prior studies point to associations between parenting practices and patterns observed in psychopathology (S. H. Goodman, 2020; Lovejoy et al., 2000). However, there is still a need to explore specific parenting factors that play a role in the intergenerational continuity of emotional difficulties.

Empirical evidence suggests that depressive symptoms in parents can impair their ability to engage in supportive parenting, often leading to less positive and more frequent negative interactions with their children. This association highlights the potential for emotional dysregulation to perpetuate negative outcomes across generations, affecting both the emotional and behavioral development of children (Cheung & Theule, 2019; Dix et al., 2004; Lovejoy et al., 2000). By focusing on emotion regulation (ER), defined broadly as the ability to modulate emotional intensity and frequency to meet situational demands (Gross, 1998; R. A. Thompson, 1994), this study investigates how parental ER mediates the effects of parental depression on child outcomes. We specifically examine how parents manage their emotional responses during interactions with their children and how these strategies correlate with both adaptive and maladaptive child outcomes.

By integrating findings from broader emotional regulation research with specific parenting behaviors, this study addresses a crucial gap in the literature by using the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale (REPS) to measure ER within the context of parenting (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). This approach not only clarifies the role of specific ER strategies in parenting but may also provide preliminary evidence for enhancing our understanding of the transmission of emotional challenges from parents to children. Lazarus and Folkman’s (1987) transactional model of stress and coping suggests that an individual’s ability to manage and adapt to difficulties is the result of interactions between the individual and their surrounding environment. This theoretical framing has been used in the extant parenting literature, highlighting how parents’ emotional coping strategies relate to various aspects of parenting (Beighton & Willis, 2019). Coupled with the tripartite model of familial influence (Morris et al., 2007), which refers to how families influence children’s ER through observational learning, emotion socialization, and familial emotional climate, we can better understand the ways through which family dynamics help shape a child’s emotional development. By applying this framing, our study investigates how parents’ ER strategies during interactions with their children—both adaptive and maladaptive—can influence emotion socialization practices and child psychopathology. We expect that findings from this research could provide preliminary evidence to advance the study of the intergenerational transmission of ER and psychopathology, which may ultimately inform interventions aimed at improving parent–child interactions and ultimately child psychopathology outcomes.

Parental depression and child psychopathology

Numerous studies have established a significant link between parental depressive symptoms and various negative outcomes in children, including psychopathology. For example, a meta-analysis by S. H. Goodman et al. (2011) provides evidence for not only the association between maternal symptoms of depression and children’s own internalizing symptoms, but also for the association between maternal symptoms of depression and externalizing problems and general psychopathology, underscoring the effects of parental ER on children’s own symptoms of psychopathology. These studies argue for a greater understanding of how depressive symptoms manifest in parent–child interactions and their broader implications for child well-being, particularly, psychopathology.

Intergenerational patterns of emotion dysregulation

Parents’ ER is one factor relevant to associations between parental and child psychopathology (Felton et al., 2021; Ip et al., 2021). ER is generally defined as the cognitive or behavioral, internal or external, and conscious or unconscious ability to adjust emotional intensity and frequency to accomplish one’s goals or respond to the environment (Gross, 1998; R. A. Thompson, 1994). ER characterizes how one manages an emotional experience, particularly under challenging interactions, such as parent–child interactions. Prior research has pointed to how emotion dysregulation is transmitted across generations, suggesting that patterns of emotional response learned in childhood can predispose individuals to similar challenges as adults (Mikkonen et al., 2016; Pilowsky et al., 2014). These patterns are particularly pronounced in families in which parents exhibit depressive symptoms, affecting their parenting behaviors and emotional interactions with their children. Difficulties with ER have been considered a transdiagnostic mechanism that is often associated with various forms of psychopathology, including symptoms of depression (Beauchaine & Cicchetti, 2019; Morris et al., 2017). For example, in a study of parents with young children aged 3–10, parents who reported higher depressive symptoms, anxiety, and stress had increased use of expressive suppression and less frequent use of cognitive reappraisal as ER strategies (Bertie et al., 2021). Further, parents who experience challenges with ER can experience difficulties in responding sensitively to their children’s emotions, displaying a healthy range of emotions (i.e., both positive and negative, not overly frightening or depressed), and engaging in positive parent–child interactions, which may be perceived as unsupportive (Rutherford et al., 2015). These factors together can contribute to children’s risk of developing symptoms of psychopathology (Betts et al., 2009; Buckholdt et al., 2014). For example, when parents are not able to model adaptive ER or engage in positive, supportive parenting, children tend to exhibit greater symptoms of psychopathology, including aggressive behavior, hyperactivity, distractibility, difficulties with distress tolerance, and anxiety (Doan et al., 2018; Marcone et al., 2020). In a study by Han and colleagues (2016), parents who reported greater emotional dysregulation tended to report greater internalizing symptoms over time in their children compared with parents who did not have similar ER challenges. Parents’ dysregulated displays of emotion can also create environments of heightened stress and negative emotionality.

Role of ER in parenting and emotion socialization

There is an association between parental symptoms of depression and challenges in ER during parent–child interactions. For example, maternal depressive symptoms have been reported to be associated with less supportive parenting behaviors and more frequent negative responses to children’s behaviors (Cheung & Theule, 2019; Dix et al., 2004; Lovejoy et al., 2000). Depressive symptoms are believed to influence parenting behaviors given that depressive symptoms may reduce child-oriented goals, reduce attention to child input, increase negative appraisals of children and parenting competence, activate low-positive and high-negative emotion, and increase positive evaluations of coercive parenting (Dix & Meunier, 2009; McLeod et al., 2007). Findings suggest a correlation between depression-related impairments and increased negative parent–child interactions (Olino et al., 2016; Sweeney & MacBeth, 2016). For example, children who were exposed to unsupportive parenting in childhood had increased depressive symptoms in adolescence (Trent et al., 2019). As such, understanding parent ER and emotion socialization can help advance parenting research by revealing which adaptive or maladaptive ER strategies are related to unsupportive parenting and how these in turn relate to child symptoms of psychopathology. These studies combined suggest that parent–child interactions among parents experiencing depression may be characterized by fewer positive interactions, which may be explained by decreased ER strategies employed by parents during these interactions.

There also appears to be an association between parents’ limited abilities in modeling adaptive ER strategies and disruptions in the emotion socialization process. Parent emotion socialization (ES) refers to the process by which parents impart their values and beliefs about emotional expression to their children (Fabes et al., 1990). There is a correlation between ER challenges and unsupportive parental ES practices. Specifically, parents who report experiencing greater emotional dysregulation are more likely to engage in unsupportive parenting in response to children’s emotions, such as minimizing and punishing children for expressing negative emotions; these unsupportive tactics are negatively related to children’s use of adaptive ER skills (Morelen et al., 2016). Similarly, research by Are and Shaffer (2016) found that mothers who were more adept at regulating their emotions demonstrated more adaptive ER during interactions with their children. A previous meta-analytic review of 46 studies on maternal depression and parenting concluded that maternal depressive symptoms were positively related to negative parenting, and this association was especially strong in mothers with depression (Lovejoy et al., 2000). Further, a recent meta-analysis (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022) investigating parent ER demonstrated that parents who engage in more adaptive ER are more likely to employ positive parenting (e.g., supportive responses to emotions), and less likely to use negative parenting (e.g., unsupportive reactions to emotions such as minimizing or punishing). Overall, these findings suggest that when parents adaptively regulate their own emotions, they display a greater ability to engage in positive, warm parenting through a wide range of emotional situations with children, thus creating a healthy context in which children’s emotions are validated and children can learn to regulate independently.

Existing gaps in the literature

Although these findings underscore the crucial influence of ER on ES, previous studies predominantly utilized general measures of ER, which may not fully capture the nuances of ER within the parenting context. Such broad measures might overlook specific emotional challenges faced by parents during interactions with their children. The use of general ER tools fails to account for the complex dynamics where parents must balance their children’s needs against various environmental stressors. This oversight is significant as highlighted by the transactional cognitive-relational theory of emotion and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), which suggests that individuals’ responses to stress are profoundly shaped by the specific context of the stressor. Specific measures to the parenting context like the REPS may therefore provide a more accurate assessment by focusing on ER strategies employed specifically in parenting. These context-specific measures have been shown to have stronger correlations with parenting behaviors and child psychopathology (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). By using the REPS, we can gain greater insights into how parents’ ER strategies during parenting may differ from their general ER capabilities. For instance, a parent who typically manages emotions well might struggle under the acute pressures of parenting, and conversely, those who generally have poor ER might not necessarily face the same challenges in parenting interactions. Thus, more specific measures could inform targeted interventions that address specific ER challenges faced by parents, thereby potentially enhancing parenting and improving child outcomes.

Beyond the measurement of ER, another existing gap in the literature is that traditionally, research examining associations between parent ER and child psychopathology has primarily been conducted among mothers, with a paucity of research examining whether these associations hold when fathers are included. Though research among fathers is limited, existing research does suggest that fathers’ depressive symptoms when their child was in infancy had a high father–child conflict at toddlerhood, and children had lower ER skills at school-age (Nath et al., 2016). Additionally, S. H. Goodman et al. (2011) underscored the necessity of including fathers in psychopathology research, highlighting that fathers contribute to the risk of child psychopathology not only through genetic factors but also through creating challenging environments for children.

Current study

Research consistently points to a link between both clinical and subclinical depressive symptoms in parents and various challenges in their children, such as internalizing symptoms, behavioral difficulties, and ER difficulties (Conners-Burrow, 2016; Suveg et al., 2011). However, the specifics of how parental ER strategies during parent–child interactions influence these outcomes require further exploration. This study aims to address this by employing the REPS, a novel measure that assesses ER within the specific context of parenting (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021). By integrating empirical findings on ER with specific parenting behaviors, this research extends the current understanding of the intergenerational transmission of emotional challenges. Based on past research and theory, we hypothesized that ER strategies in the parenting context and unsupportive ES would be related to parent symptoms of depression and child symptoms of psychopathology. More specifically, we expected adaptive ER strategies in the parenting context to be negatively related to unsupportive ES practices. Similarly, we expected a positive association between adaptive ER strategies and supportive ES practices and a negative association between adaptive ER strategies and unsupportive ES practices. By identifying specific ER strategies using a novel measure that may point to adaptive or maladaptive ER strategies within the parenting context, this research lays the groundwork for tailored interventions that can support parents in enhancing their ER.

METHOD

Participants

We selected Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) as our data collection platform due to several factors that align with the objectives of our study. First, MTurk has been validated as an effective tool for academic research in psychology, providing access to a diverse population that is not readily available in traditional university-based samples (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Buhrmester et al., 2018). Second, previous research has shown that data quality from MTurk meets or exceeds the standards of traditional data collection methods, provided that appropriate attention is paid to the design of the study and the implementation of quality control measures. Finally, MTurk facilitates the recruitment of fathers, in whom further research is needed in this particular area of study, as previously noted (Parent et al., 2017). Further, an MTurk sample facilitated the exploration of a novel construct via the REPS, serving as a method to collect preliminary evidence before testing in a clinical population.

Potential candidates were N = 1,145 men and women recruited from Amazon MTurk. Inclusion criteria included (a) having children under the age of 18 years, (b) currently living with their children, and (c) living with their children for more than 1 year. Parents who met the criteria, as described above, were 662 men and women, 61% women (Mage = 36.81 years, SDage = 9.27) recruited from Amazon MTurk to enhance the participation of fathers. Parents completed different versions of the child psychopathology measure used (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) depending on the age of the child. A total of n = 228 reported having children younger than 4 years, n = 315 between the ages of 4 years and 10 years, and n = 254 had a child between the ages of 11 years and 17 years. For this study, parents with children between the ages of 4 years and 10 years, n = 315, were selected to maximize the sample size. In addition, this age range is critical for studying parent–child interactions regarding ER as it encompasses a developmental period when foundational ER skills are actively being shaped (Morris et al., 2007). Children within this age group are refining their ability to understand and respond to emotional cues, making it a pivotal time for assessing the effect of parental ER strategies on their psychopathology. In this subset, as noted and further detailed in Table 1, parents were 39% men and 61% women (Mage = 35.29 years, SDage = 6.59 years).

TABLE 1.

Demographic characteristics of the study participants (n = 315)

Characteristic n (%)
Sex
 Male 124 (39.4%)
 Female 191 (60.6%)
Age (years)
 Mean (SD) 35.29 (6.59)
 Range 19–56
Ethnicity
 Hispanic or Latino 31 (9.8%)
 Not Hispanic or Latino 284 (90.2%)
Race
 American Indian/Native American 4 (1.3%)
 Asian 23 (7.3%)
 Black or African American 41 (13.0%)
 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 3 (1.0%)
 White 231 (73.3%)
 Biracial 4 (1.3%)
 Multiracial 9 (2.9%)
Educational level
 High school or GED 29 (9.2%)
 Some college 95 (30.2%)
 Bachelor’s degree 147 (46.7%)
 Master’s degree 34 (10.8%)
 Doctoral degree 10 (3.2%)
Relationship status
 Single 32 (10.2%)
 Married 237 (75.2%)
 Remarried 5 (1.6%)
 Long-term domestic partnership 28 (8.9%)
 Divorced 12 (3.8%)
 Separated 1 (0.3%)
Annual income
 $0–$5,000 23 (7.3%)
 $5,001–$10,000 12 (3.8%)
 $10,001–$20,000 21 (6.7%)
 $20,001–$30,000 34 (10.8%)
 $30,001–$40,000 42 (13.3%)
 $40,001–$50,000 35 (11.1%)
 $50,001–$60,000 35 (11.1%)
 $60,001–$70,000 29 (9.2%)
 $70,001–$80,000 25 (7.9%)
 $80,000 or more 59 (18.7%)
Open in a new tab

Note. Percentages are based on the total number of participants (n = 315). Valid percentages are reported for each demographic characteristic. Missing data are noted where applicable but are absent in this data set.

Procedure

All measures were completed via Qualtrics survey, which was linked from the MTurk recruitment website. The MTurk recruitment website included a general, “open” advertisement that was used for all MTurk workers who met inclusion criteria. MTurk inclusion criteria included being in the United States and having a worker approval rate ≥95%.

Measures

Parents’ depressive symptoms

Parents completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). The CES-D is a 20-item scale that assesses depressive symptoms over the past week, including items such as “I had crying spells,” “I felt lonely,” and “I felt sad.” Parents responded on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (rarely or none of the time – less than 1 day) to 3 (most or all of the time). The scale in this sample had excellent reliability (α = .93). The CES-D is one of the most widely used scales for depressive symptoms in the general population (Carleton et al., 2013).

Emotional regulation strategies

Participants completed the 20-item REPS (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021), which has been found to have strong evidence of validity and reliability in previous studies. The scale asks participants to rate different ER strategies in the context of parenting and parent–child interactions using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Sample items include “When I’m upset with my child, I put the situation into perspective before I react” or “I think about my mistakes or failures as a parent.” REPS includes subscales for adaptive ER strategies (α = .85), suppression (α = .84), and rumination (α = .77).

Parents’ supportive and unsupportive ES practices

ES was assessed using the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; Fabes et al., 1990). This scale consists of 72 items that assess how likely parents are to respond to their children in particular ways during emotional situations (e.g., “If my child is shy and scared around strangers and consistently becomes teary and wants to stay in his/her bedroom whenever family friends come to visit, I would” as it relates to different emotions (e.g., “tell my child that it is OK to feel nervous”) using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely). The six subscales include Problem-Focused Reactions (α = .85), Emotion-Focused Reactions (α = .89), Expressive Encouragement (α = .91), Punitive Reactions (α = .90), Minimization Reactions (α = .90), and Distress Reactions (α = .74). The CCNES has been found to have strong validity and reliability in previous studies (King et al., 2023).

Child psychopathology

To measure symptoms of child psychopathology and child’s behavior, parents were asked to complete the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; R. Goodman, 1997). This questionnaire is a 25-item behavioral screening questionnaire including subscales of conduct problems, hyperactivity-inattention, emotional symptoms, peer problems, and prosocial behavior on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = not true to 3 = certainly true), and includes items such as “Many worries or often seems worried.” Parents were asked to complete the SDQ for children between the ages of 5 and 10 (α = .70). All subscales, except prosocial behavior, were summed to generate a total difficulties score. The SDQ parent report versions have shown strong validity and reliability in previous studies (Stone et al., 2010).

Statistical analysis

Preprocessing stage

In the preprocessing stage of our data analysis, thorough assessments were conducted to ensure the data quality and appropriateness for the subsequent statistical analyses. These included assessing for outliers as well as skewness and kurtosis. Our criteria for identifying outliers were based on z-score values, with the threshold set at an absolute value greater than 3.5. This stringent criterion was chosen to ensure that only the most extreme cases, which could potentially skew the results, were considered outliers. Upon examination, no z-score values exceeded this threshold, indicating an absence of extreme outliers in our data set. The kurtosis and skewness values for our variables were generally close to 1, suggesting that the distributions did not exhibit significant leptokurtosis or skewness. In multivariate analyses, assumptions such as linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity were assessed. Multicollinearity was checked using variance inflation factor (VIF) scores, with a threshold of VIF > 10 indicating problematic levels of collinearity (C. G. Thompson et al., 2017).

Univariate analyses

Univariate analyses were utilized to explore participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and to assess normality assumptions.

Bivariate analyses

Bivariate analyses explored the association of parent sex with other variables, as it was the only variable considered to potentially correlate with all dependent and independent variables in the model. Similarly, pairwise correlations were examined among variables included in the main analysis.

Path analysis

A path analysis within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework was employed to explore the associations between parental symptoms of depression, ER strategies, unsupportive ES, and child symptoms of psychopathology. The model utilized an MLR (maximum likelihood with robust standard errors) estimator in Mplus 8.4, chosen for its robustness against moderate violations of assumptions, including unmodeled heterogeneity. The fit of the model was evaluated using goodness-of-fit statistics. Specifically, the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) were used (L. T. Hu & Bentler, 1999). Heuristics regarding acceptable levels of goodness-of-fit suggest that the CFI should exceed .95, RMSEA should be less than .10, and SRMR should be less than .08 to be viewed as having a reasonable fit to the data (L. T. Hu & Bentler, 1999). The associations among variables were further explored using bootstrapping (5,000 samples) with 95% confidence intervals to understand the stability of these observed relationships. Lastly, to examine potential sex differences in the model, a multigroup analysis was conducted, allowing for the comparison of model parameters between male and female parents. This analysis facilitated the evaluation of whether the structural paths among parental symptoms of depression, ER, ES, and child symptoms of psychopathology differ across parent sex. Coefficients were considered statistically significant if p < .05.

RESULTS

Covariate selection

First, parent sex was examined as a potential covariate. Specifically, parent depressive symptoms, ER strategies (adaptive strategies, suppression, and rumination) in the parenting context, and parents’ supportive and unsupportive ES were compared by parent sex. Mothers and fathers did not differ in depressive symptoms (t = −0.82, p = .415), adaptive strategies (t = .01, p = .992), or unsupportive ES practices (t = .01, p = .364). However, parents differed in suppression, such that fathers reported greater suppression (M = 8.19, SD = 3.76) than mothers (M = 7.14, SD = 3.60; t = 2.50, p = .013), and mothers (M = 14.10, SD = 3.30) reported greater rumination than fathers (M = 12.94, SD = 3.37; t = 2.50, p = .013). Fathers (M = 24.05, SD = 6.57) also reported higher levels of child symptoms of psychopathology than mothers (M = 22.47, SD = 5.64; t = 2.21, p = .028). Mothers also reported higher levels of supportive reactions (M = 65.71, SD = 10.23) than fathers (M = 59.12, SD = 18.00; t = 3.70, p < .001). Parent sex was not included as a covariate given that it was not associated with depressive symptoms, the only exogenous variable in the model, to reflect a more parsimonious model. However, as previously noted, the final model was tested by parent sex.

Indirect effects through ER and parents’ reactions to children’s emotions

ER strategies (adaptive strategies, suppression, and rumination) and parents’ supportive and unsupportive ES practices were examined as indirect effects of the association between parents’ symptoms of depression and child psychopathology. Pairwise correlations among key variables in the model are provided in Supplemental Table 1, whereas the full model results with standardized coefficients are shown in Figure 1, and greater detail is provided in Table 2. The model demonstrated a strong fit overall, with a CFI = .97, RMSEA = .098, and SRMR = .047. Individual paths were all statistically significant (p < .05), with the exception of the path from adaptive strategies to unsupportive ES (p = .611). Depressive symptoms were significantly related to all ER strategies in the parenting context, and ER strategies were consistently related to supportive and unsupportive ES practices, which were in turn related to child psychopathology. The total direct effect from parent depressive symptoms to child symptoms of psychopathology was statistically significant (B = 0.296, SE = .056, p < .001; not shown in Figure 1 for ease of readability). Similarly, the total indirect effect from parents’ symptoms of depression to child psychopathology was statistically significant (C′ = .157, p < .001). Bootstrap analysis with 5,000 resamples was used to calculate confidence intervals for the indirect effects, providing robustness against potential violations of normality assumptions in the data. The bootstrapping procedure was completed successfully, and confidence intervals derived from this method were integrated into the evaluation of the indirect paths in the model. All three specific indirect effects for parenting context-specific ER strategies (adaptive strategies, suppression, and rumination) and parents’ supportive reactions to children’s emotions as indirect effects of parents’ symptoms of depression to child psychopathology were statistically significant (C′ = .044, 95% confidence interval [CI] [.006, .071], p = .015; C′ = .020, CI [.003, .037], p = .040; C′ = −.025, CI [−.043, −.004], p = .017, respectively). Results for indirect effects through unsupportive ES practices showed that specific indirect effects for suppression and rumination were statistically significant (C′ = .101, CI [.054, .188], p = .004 and C′ = .021, CI [.009, .041], p = .010, respectively). The indirect effect from parent depressive symptoms to child symptoms of psychopathology through adaptive strategies and unsupportive ES practices, however, was not statistically significant (C′ = −.004, CI [−.017, .015], p = .638).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Associations among parent depressive symptoms of depression, ER strategies (adaptive strategies, suppression, and rumination), parents’ reactions to children’s emotions, and child psychopathology

Note. χ2 = 28.09, p < .001, comparative fit index = .97, root-mean-square error of approximation = .098, standardized root-mean-square residual = .047. Standardized coefficients are presented. Direct paths from depressive symptoms to child symptoms of psychopathology were estimated but are not presented for ease of readability. Parent depressive symptoms = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Emotion regulation (ER) strategies in interactions with children = Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale (subscales: adaptive ER strategies, suppression, rumination). Parents’ supportive and unsupportive emotion socialization practices = Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES). Child symptoms of psychopathology = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

*p < .05. ***p <.001.

TABLE 2.

Standardized path coefficients of the structural model examining parental depressive symptoms, emotion regulation, emotion socialization practices, and child psychopathology (n = 315)

Path Estimate SE Est./SE p
Child Psychopathology (SDQ) on
 Unsupportive Emotion Socialization 0.47 0.06 7.92 <.001
 Supportive Emotion Socialization –0.32 0.15 –2.17 .030
 Parental Depressive Symptoms (CES-D) 0.24 0.06 4.26 <.001
Unsupportive Emotion Socialization on
 Adaptive Strategies (REPS) 0.03 0.05 0.51 .611
 Suppression (REPS) 0.59 0.12 5.02 <.001
 Rumination (REPS) 0.15 0.04 4.13 <.001
Supportive Emotion Socialization on
 Adaptive Strategies (REPS) 0.43 0.06 6.87 <.001
 Suppression (REPS) –0.17 0.04 –4.19 <.001
 Rumination (REPS) 0.25 0.06 4.63 <.001
Parental Depressive Symptoms (CES-D) on
 Adaptive Strategies (REPS) –0.32 0.05 –6.49 <.001
 Suppression (REPS) 0.37 0.06 6.48 <.001
 Rumination (REPS) 0.31 0.01 6.03 <.001
Covariances
 Unsupportive Emotion Socialization with Supportive Emotion Socialization 0.54 0.29 1.84 .066
 Rumination (REPS) WITH Suppression (REPS) –0.26 0.06 –4.53 <.001
Open in a new tab

Note. CCNES = Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (Supportive and Unsupportive Emotion Socialization); CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; REPS = Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

As presented in Table 3 (and Supplemental Table 2), the results revealed no significant differences between fathers and mothers in the specific indirect paths from depressive symptoms to child psychopathology. Specifically, the indirect paths from parent depressive symptoms to child psychopathology via ER, and ES did not vary significantly between fathers and mothers. Both groups exhibited similar patterns of association between parental symptoms of depression and child psychopathology.

TABLE 3.

Specific indirect paths from CES-D to child symptoms of psychopathology total effects by parent sex (n = 315)

Group Specific indirect paths Total indirect effect Total direct effect Total effect
Fathers CES-D → CHILDSX 0.190*** 0.214* 0.404***
CES-D → AS → CCNES-SUP → CHILDSX 0.063
CES-D → SUPP → CCNES-SUP → CHILDSX 0.041
CES-D → RUM → CCNES-SUP → CHILDSX –0.035
CES-D → AS → CCNES-UNS → CHILDSX –0.027
CES-D → SUPP → CCNES-UNS → CHILDSX 0.115*
CES-D → RUM → CCNES-UNS → CHILDSX 0.032
Mothers CES-D → CHILDSX 0.157*** 0.240*** 0.397***
CES-D → AS → CCNES-SUP → CHILDSX 0.018
CES-D → SUPP → CCNES-SUP → CHILDSX 0.004
CES-D → RUM → CCNES-SUP → CHILDSX –0.009
CES-D → AS → CCNES-UNS → CHILDSX 0.010
CES-D → SUPP → CCNES-UNS → CHILDSX 0.114*
CES-D → RUM → CCNES-UNS → CHILDSX 0.020
Open in a new tab

Note. AS = adaptive strategies; CCNES = Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (Supportive and Unsupportive Emotion Socialization); CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; CHILDSX = Child Symptoms of Psychopathology (SDQ); REPS = Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale; RUM = rumination; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; SUPP = suppression.

*

p < .05.

***

p <.001.

DISCUSSION

Our study represents a foundational exploration into the associations among a novel measure of parental ER strategies within the parenting context, ES, and how these relate to parent depressive symptoms and child psychopathology. An association was observed between parent depressive symptoms and increased parent-specific suppression and rumination within parent–child interactions, whereas a negative association was found with adaptive ER strategies in the parenting context, as similarly seen in previous research using general ER measures (Kring & Bachorowski, 1999). Adaptive ER strategies in the parenting context were positively related to supportive reactions (i.e., expressive encouragement) as expected, but were not related to unsupportive ES practices (i.e., punitive, minimizing reactions). This observation was contrary to our initial expectations, which anticipated a negative association between adaptive ER strategies in parenting and unsupportive ES. However, this association was not significant. This finding was also contrary to previous research in which reappraisal—assessed by the adaptive strategies factor of the REPS—was negatively associated with hostile parenting practices, including the expression of negative emotions and statements toward their child (Kohlhoff et al., 2016). Further, no differences emerged in the magnitude of associations between mothers and fathers. These findings reveal promising associations and situate these associations in the parenting context.

Traditionally, suppression and rumination, when measured broadly, have been viewed as maladaptive ER strategies that are related to the development of psychopathology, including depressive symptoms (Aldao et al., 2010; Bertie et al., 2021). Maladaptive ER has been related to hostile parenting when these strategies are measured broadly (Crandall et al.,, 2015), as well as child symptoms of psychopathology (Suveg et al., 2011), and fewer responsive parenting behaviors (Shaffer & Obradović, 2017). Another unexpected observation was the correlation between rumination and both supportive and unsupportive ES practices. It was also unexpected that the association between rumination and supportive reactions (B = 0.254) was stronger than the association between rumination and unsupportive ES practices (B = 0.148). Given that the REPS is a new measure, this may reflect a measurement limitation in the development of this new scale. For example, rumination items on the REPS refer to feelings of guilt associated with negative interactions with one’s children, mistakes or failures as a parent, and parents’ desire to have better interactions with their children. These items may need to be revised to reflect an emphasis on negative emotions given that a desire to have better interactions with one’s children may not necessarily reflect rumination—which is traditionally defined as a repetitive, recurrent, and uncontrollable style of thinking surrounding negative events and the potential causes and consequences (Martin & Tesser, 1996). Therefore, future methodological research on the REPS may benefit from differentiating between constructive versus destructive—or unconstructive—ruminative thoughts (e.g., Watkins, 2008). Nevertheless, this unexpected finding highlights the importance of measuring ER specific to the parenting context, given that the associations typically seen with parent ER measured broadly may not apply to parent–child interactions.

As expected, suppression was negatively related to supportive reactions to children’s emotions and positively related to unsupportive ES practices. Also as expected, supportive reactions to children’s emotions were negatively related to children’s symptoms of psychopathology, whereas unsupportive ES, conversely, were positively associated with child psychopathology. This finding aligns with recent work by Choi and colleagues (2024) which suggests that maternal ES plays a crucial role in mediating the impact of maternal depressive symptoms on children’s ER. Similarly, work by J. Hu and colleagues (2024) also demonstrates that parental ES is associated with depressive symptoms in adolescents. The findings point to an association between ER in parenting and child well-being, marked by more unsupportive and less supportive reactions to children’s emotions. For example, suppressing emotions in interactions with their children may be particularly draining for parents, which may result in unsupportive practices and fewer supportive reactions to children’s emotions. Children may then internalize these unsupportive responses and the absence of supportive responses, which may affect their symptoms of psychopathology. This finding is consistent with recent work highlighting that parental suppression moderated the association between child aggression and coercive parenting, suggesting that as parents suppress their emotions, they may in turn engage in unsupportive parenting practices (Tao & Lau, 2023), ultimately impacting various aspects of child emotional development.

This study contributes to the accumulating evidence that suggests a link between parent and child psychopathology. However, these findings warrant replication in both population- and clinic-based samples. Similarly, the mechanisms that underlie these different types of general versus parenting interactions warrant further investigation, particularly in a longitudinal context. Given the preliminary and cross-sectional nature of these findings, there is a compelling case for extending this line of inquiry into longitudinal contexts, which would allow for the examination of how these ER and ES practices evolve and their long-term impact on child development and psychopathology. These findings, particularly around the differential effects of adaptive and maladaptive ER strategies on ES practices, may lay the groundwork for a deeper investigation into the mechanisms that underpin these associations. Such research is crucial for untangling the temporal sequence of these associations and for understanding whether the patterns observed here are consistent, change over time, or have cumulative effects on child outcomes.

Situating our findings within the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), parental ER and ES practices can be viewed through the lens of cognitive appraisal and coping processes. Viewed through Lazarus & Folkman’s theory, parents’ emotional responses and strategies are shaped by their appraisal of parenting interactions, coupled with their perceived capabilities. Parents who perceive their ability to manage stressors around their children as inadequate might opt for maladaptive ER strategies such as suppression and rumination, which are linked to more negative parenting outcomes and child psychopathology. Conversely, those who appraise these challenges as manageable may engage in more adaptive ER strategies, leading to supportive ES practices that foster better developmental outcomes in children. This theoretical perspective might explain why adaptive ER strategies were associated with supportive reactions but not significantly related to unsupportive ES practices, which was contrary to expectations. Such findings underscore the complexity of parental ER in the face of parenting demands and suggest that maladaptive ER strategies could be targeted in interventions to mitigate their impact on both parent and child psychopathology. This aligns with the perspective of the tripartite model (Morris et al., 2007), highlighting how parents and the broader familial environment help shape children’s emotional development. This understanding of ER and ES in the parenting context offers a rich framework for future research and intervention design, emphasizing the dynamic interplay between parents’ internal ER strategies and their external parenting behaviors.

Our findings further demonstrate the utility of the REPS (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021) in advancing the study of parental ER. This scale’s specificity to the parenting context allows for a more accurate assessment of how parents’ ER strategies may influence their interactions with their children and, by extension, how these might influence their children’s emotional and behavioral development. The potential for more precise measurement is instrumental in identifying the specific ER strategies that may be beneficial to target in interventions aimed at improving parenting and child outcomes. Furthermore, the utility of the REPS in capturing the specificity of parental ER in this study suggests its potential as a valuable tool in longitudinal research. By offering a more granular view of how parents regulate their emotions around their children, the REPS enables more precise identification of targets for interventions aimed at supporting parents.

Lastly, our study aimed to explore potential sex differences in the associations among parental symptoms of depression, ER strategies, unsupportive ES, and child symptoms of psychopathology. Our results revealed no significant differences between fathers and mothers in the specific indirect paths from parental depressive symptoms to child psychopathology, nor in the total indirect effects and total direct effects on child psychopathology. This lack of difference suggests that the structural paths between parental depressive symptoms, ER, ES, and child psychopathology are consistent across parent sex in our studied sample. Although no differences emerged, our findings underscore the importance of including mothers and fathers in parenting research. By showing this lack of difference, our study contributes to a better understanding of the role of parent sex in child psychopathology, emphasizing the need for future research and intervention efforts to address common mechanisms underlying parental mental health and child well-being, irrespective of parent sex.

Recommendations for practice and intervention research

Although our findings warrant replications, several practical recommendations can be offered to practitioners or intervention researchers working with parents to enhance ER and ES practices, which are crucial for the well-being of both parents and children. First, it is essential to provide training and resources that help parents identify and modify maladaptive ER strategies such as suppression and rumination, as well as engage in more adaptive ER strategies. Second, parenting interventions may consider the potential for integrating adaptive ER strategies, particularly in challenging parent–child interactions. Techniques such as cognitive reappraisal, which involves reframing a situation to alter its emotional impact, could be beneficial. Practitioners can guide parents through scenarios that might typically elicit a strong emotional response, helping them to reinterpret these situations in a way that fosters supportive parenting. Furthermore, given the complexity of emotions in parenting, it may be helpful for practitioners to consider both individual and contextual factors influencing parents’ emotional and behavioral responses. Practitioners might also benefit from using tools like the REPS (Rodriguez & Shaffer, 2021), as it provides a nuanced view of ER in the parenting context, which may aid in more tailored intervention strategies. Finally, continuous education about the impacts of parental ER on child development should be a priority. Educating parents about the links between their ER, parenting, and the psychological outcomes for their children can motivate engagement with ER strategies and adherence to intervention programs.

Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for understanding the associations between parental depressive symptoms, ER in parenting, and child psychopathology. The results suggest that parental depressive symptoms can be related to maladaptive ER strategies such as suppression and rumination, which negatively impact parents’ ability to engage in supportive ES practices. This, in turn, may contribute to higher levels of psychopathology in children. These insights underscore the importance of addressing parental ER strategies within the context of parenting interventions, as improving these strategies may enhance supportive parenting practices and ultimately reduce the risk of psychopathology in children. Furthermore, the use of a novel, parenting-specific measure of ER (the REPS) highlights the need for context-specific assessments in understanding how parental mental health influences parenting behaviors and child outcomes. These findings pave the way for future research to explore these relationships longitudinally, potentially informing targeted interventions aimed at breaking the cycle of intergenerational transmission of emotional dysregulation and psychopathology.

Limitations and future directions

Some limitations must be noted in interpreting this study’s findings. Notably, it is important to acknowledge that this is not a clinical sample, and the range of symptoms reported may vary in terms of their clinical significance. The study’s participants represent a broad spectrum of symptomatology, from subclinical to clinical, which might have implications for the generalization of our findings to more severely symptomatic samples. Further, the use of a cross-sectional design limits causal inference. In addition, all measures used in this study were based upon parent report. Future studies may benefit from multi-informant reports, including coparent or youth report. A longitudinal design and other measures of child psychopathology may also help disentangle the complex associations among the constructs studied. For example, parent depressive symptoms may predict child symptoms of psychopathology, but it is also possible that parents with symptoms of depression may perceive their children as exhibiting greater symptoms of psychopathology, or that these associations may be bidirectional. Similarly, child symptoms of psychopathology may affect ER in the parenting context, which may, in turn, increase or exacerbate parents’ symptoms of depression, or this association may also be bidirectional. Similarly, this study was limited to parents’ symptoms of depression, as opposed to using a more general measure of parent psychopathology. It is, therefore, unknown whether including parents’ other symptoms of psychopathology, beyond depression, may reflect similar findings. That is, parents’ difficulty regulating emotions in interactions with their children may not be specific to parents with depressive symptoms. However, it is noted that the REPS is a novel measure that has not been used in association with other symptoms of parent psychopathology; this should be explored in future studies.

Recruiting from Amazon MTurk provided several advantages as well as disadvantages. For example, Amazon MTurk samples tend to be more diverse than other internet samples (for a review, see Follmer et al., 2017), and in the present study, utilization of MTurk enhanced the recruitment of fathers, an understudied population in parenting research. Most studies examining parent ER and child psychopathology primarily focused on mothers. Despite the advantage of the inclusion of fathers, recruiting from MTurk potentially limits the participation of racial and ethnically diverse parents and potentially skews the socioeconomic status of participants, which may affect the generalizability of the current findings. As such, these associations should be examined in a more socioeconomically, racially, and ethnically diverse sample.

Conclusion

This study builds upon previous findings, exploring the correlations between ER, ES, and the co-occurrence of parent and child psychopathology in a sample of mothers and fathers, using a novel, multidimensional measure of ER specific to the parenting context. Findings from this study therefore offer greater specificity in understanding parent ER in relation to ES and child symptoms of psychopathology. In addition, findings provide further evidence of validity for the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale, demonstrating the need to assess ER specific to the parenting context. A longitudinal approach would enable a deeper examination of how these associations evolve over time, potentially revealing dynamic patterns and long-term consequences of ER and ES practices in the parenting context. Such research could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the temporal and developmental aspects of these correlations, offering valuable insights into the potential long-term effects of ER specific to the parenting context on child development and well-being.

Supplementary Material

Supnfo1

Funding information

VJR’s work on this study was supported by a Predoctoral Ford Foundation Fellowship, administered by the National Academies of Science; a PEO Scholar Award from the PEO Sisterhood; and grants from the National Institutes of Health, specifically Award R36MH127838 from the National Institute of Mental Health and Award DP5OD036508 from the Office of the Director. The funding agencies did not participate in the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

REFERENCES

  1. Aldao A, Nolen-Hoeksema S, & Schweizer S (2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 217–237. 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Are F, & Shaffer A (2016). Family emotion expressiveness mediates the relations between maternal emotion regulation and child emotion regulation. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 47(5), 708–715. 10.1007/s10578-015-0605-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beauchaine TP, & Cicchetti D (2019). Emotion dysregulation and emerging psychopathology: A transdiagnostic, transdisciplinary perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 31(3), 799–804. 10.1017/S0954579419000671 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beighton C, & Wills J (2019). How parents describe the positive aspects of parenting their child who has intellectual disabilities: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32(5), 1255–1279. 10.1111/jar.12617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bertie L-A, Johnston K, & Lill S (2021). Parental emotion socialisation of young children and the mediating role of emotion regulation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(3), 293–305. 10.1080/00049530.2021.1884001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Betts J, Gullone E, & Allen JS (2009). An examination of emotion regulation, temperament, and parenting style as potential predictors of adolescent depression risk status: A correlational study. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 473–486. 10.1348/026151008X314900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Buckholdt KE, Parra GR, & Jobe-Shields L (2014). Intergenerational transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 324–332. 10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, & Gosling SD (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. 10.1177/1745691610393980 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Buhrmester MD, Talaifar S, & Gosling SD (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 149–154. 10.1177/1745691617706516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carleton RN, Thibodeau MA, Teale MJN, Welch PG, Abrams MP, Robinson T, & Asmundson GJG (2013). The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: A review with a theoretical and empirical examination of item content and factor structure. PLoS One, 8(3), Article e58067. 10.1371/journal.pone.0058067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheung K, & Theule J (2019). Paternal depressive symptoms and parenting behaviors: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(3), 613–626. 10.1007/s10826-018-01316-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi JY, Eoh Y, & Kang JH (2024). Emotion socialization mediates the short-term longitudinal relationship between mothers’ depressive symptoms and children’s emotion regulation. Current Psychology, 43(4), 3599–3606. 10.1007/s12144-023-04528-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Conners-Burrow NA, McKelvey L, Perry D, Whiteside-Mansell L, Kraleti S, Mesman G, Holmes K, & Kyzer A (2016). Low-level symptoms of depression in mothers of young children are associated with behavior problems in middle childhood. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20(3), 516–524. 10.1007/s10995-015-1849-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Crandall A, Deater-Deckard K, & Riley AW (2015). Maternal emotion and cognitive control capacities and parenting: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 36, 105–126. 10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dix T, Gershoff ET, Meunier LN, & Miller PC (2004). The affective structure of supportive parenting: Depressive symptoms, immediate emotions, and child-oriented motivation. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1212–1227. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dix T, & Meunier LN (2009). Depressive symptoms and parenting competence: An analysis of 13 regulatory processes. Developmental Review, 29(1), 45–68. 10.1016/j.dr.2008.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Doan SN, Son H, & Kim LN (2018). Maternal and paternal emotional contributions to children’s distress tolerance: Relations to child depressive symptoms. Psychiatry Research, 267, 215–220. 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fabes RA, Eisenberg N, & Bernzweig J (1990). The Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale: Description and scoring. Department of Family Resources and Human Development, Arizona State University. [Google Scholar]
  19. Felton JW, Schwartz KTG, Oddo LE, Lejuez CW, & Chronis-Tuscano A (2021). Transactional patterns of depressive symptoms between mothers and adolescents: The role of emotion regulation. Depression and Anxiety, 38(12), 1225–1233. 10.1002/da.23225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Follmer DJ, Sperling RA, & Suen HK (2017). The role of MTurk in education research: Advantages, issues, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 329–334. 10.3102/0013189X17725519 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Goodman R (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581–586. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodman SH (2020). Intergenerational transmission of depression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 213–238. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071519-113915 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Goodman SH, Rouse MH, Connell AM, Broth MR, Hall CM, & Heyward D (2011). Maternal depression and child psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14(1), 1–27. 10.1007/s10567-010-0080-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gross JJ (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Han ZR, Lei X, Qian J, Li P, Wang H, & Zhang X (2016). Parent and child psychopathological symptoms: The mediating role of parental emotion dysregulation. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 21(3), 161–168. 10.1111/camh.12169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hu J, Zhou T, & Huang Z (2024). Parental emotion socialization, emotion regulation and depressive symptoms in Chinese adolescence: The role of family cohesion. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 44(3), 281–305. 10.1177/02724316231176955 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit of indexes on covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ip KI, McCrohan M, Morelen D, Fitzgerald K, Muzik M, & Rosenblum K (2021). Maternal emotion regulation difficulties and the intergenerational transmission of risk. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(10), 2367–2378. 10.1007/s10826-021-02019-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. King GL, Kehoe CE, Havighurst SS, Youssef GJ, Macdonald JA, Dunsmore JC, Berkowitz TS, & Westrupp EM (2023). Creation of a short-form and brief short-form version of the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale. Assessment, 30(6), 1947–1968. 10.1177/10731911221126919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kohlhoff J, Hawes DJ, Mence M, Russell AMT, Wedgwood L, & Morgan S (2016). Emotion regulation strategies and parenting practices among parents of children with clinic-referred conduct problems. Parenting: Science and Practice, 16(4), 302–319. 10.1080/15295192.2016.1184942 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kring AM, & Bachorowski J-A (1999). Emotions and psychopathology. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5), 575–599. 10.1080/026999399379195 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lazarus RS, & Folkman S (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169. 10.1002/per.2410010304 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lovejoy MC, Graczyk PA, O’Hare E, & Neuman G (2000). Maternal depression and parenting behavior: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(5), 561–592. 10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00100-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Marcone R, Affuso G, & Borrone A (2020). Parenting styles and children’s internalizing-externalizing behavior: The mediating role of behavioral regulation. Current Psychology, 39(1), 13–24. 10.1007/s12144-017-9757-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Martin LL, & Tesser A (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In Wyer RS Jr. (Ed.), Ruminative thoughts (pp. 1–47). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  36. McLeod BD, Weisz JR, & Wood JJ (2007). Examining the association between parenting and childhood depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(8), 986–1003. 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mikkonen J, Moustgaard H, Remes H, & Martikainen P (2016). Intergenerational transmission of depressive symptoms—The role of gender, socioeconomic circumstances, and the accumulation of parental symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 204, 74–82. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.06.036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Morelen D, Shaffer A, & Suveg C (2016). Maternal emotion regulation: Links to emotion parenting and child emotion regulation. Journal of Family Issues, 37(13), 1891–1916. 10.1177/0192513X14546720 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Morris AS, Criss MM, Silk JS, & Houltberg BJ (2017). The impact of parenting on emotion regulation during childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 11(4), 233–238. 10.1111/cdep.12238 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Morris AS, Silk JS, Steinberg L, Myers SS, & Robinson LR (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Nath S, Russell G, Kuyken W, Psychogiou L, & Ford T (2016). Does father-child conflict mediate the association between fathers’ postnatal depressive symptoms and children’s adjustment problems at 7 years old? Psychological Medicine, 46(8), 1719–1733. 10.1017/S0033291716000234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Olino TM, McMakin DL, Nicely TA, Forbes EE, Dahl RE, & Silk JS (2016). Maternal depression, parenting, and youth depressive symptoms: Mediation and moderation in a short-term longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(3), 279–290. 10.1080/15374416.2014.971456 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Parent J, Forehand R, Pomerantz H, Peisch V, & Seehuus M (2017). Father participation in child psychopathology research. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(7), 1259–1270. 10.1007/s10802-016-0254-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Pettit JW, Olino TM, Roberts RE, Seeley JR, & Lewinsohn PM (2008). Intergenerational transmission of internalizing problems: Effects of parental and grandparental major depressive disorder on child behavior. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37(3), 640–650. 10.1080/15374410802148129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pilowsky DJ, Wickramaratne P, Poh E, Hernandez M, Batten LA, Flament MF, Stewart JW, Blier P, & Weissman MM (2014). Psychopathology and functioning among children of treated depressed fathers and mothers. Journal of Affective Disorders, 164, 107–111. 10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Radloff LS (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. 10.1177/014662167700100306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Rodriguez VJ, & Shaffer A (2021). Validation of the Regulating Emotions in Parenting Scale (REPS): Factor structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(4), 468–477. 10.1037/fam0000808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rutherford HJ, Wallace NS, Laurent HK, & Mayes LC (2015). Emotion regulation in parenthood. Developmental Review, 36, 1–14. 10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Shaffer A, & Obradović J (2017). Unique contributions of emotion regulation and executive functions in predicting the quality of parent–child interaction behaviors. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(2), 150–159. 10.1037/fam0000269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Stone LL, Otten R, Engels RC, Vermulst AA, & Janssens JM (2010). Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: A review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 254–274. 10.1007/s10567-010-0071-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Suveg C, Shaffer A, Morelen D, & Thomassin K (2011). Links between maternal and child psychopathology symptoms: Mediation through child emotion regulation and moderation through maternal behavior. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 42(5), 507–520. 10.1007/s10578-011-0223-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sweeney S, & MacBeth A (2016). The effects of paternal depression on child and adolescent outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 205, 44–59. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Tao S, & Lau EYH (2023). Child aggression and parenting behavior: Understanding the child-driven effects with parents’ emotion regulation as a moderator. Journal of Family Psychology, 37(5), 624–634. 10.1037/fam0001081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Thompson CG, Kim RS, Aloe AM, & Becker BJ (2017). Extracting the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics from typical regression results. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(2), 81–90. 10.1080/01973533.2016.1277529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Thompson RA (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 25–52. 10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb01276.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Trent ES, Viana AG, Raines EM, Woodward EC, Storch EA, & Zvolensky MJ (2019). Parental threats and adolescent depression: The role of emotion dysregulation. Psychiatry Research, 276, 18–24. 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.04.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Watkins E (2008). Constructive and unconstructive repetitive thought. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 163–206. 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Rudolph J, Kerin J, & Bohadana-Brown G (2022). Parent emotional regulation: A meta-analytic review of its association with parenting and child adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(1), 63–82. 10.1177/01650254211051086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supnfo1
NIHMS2027888-supplement-Supnfo1.docx (21.1KB, docx)

RESOURCES