Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Res Dev Disabil. 2025 Apr 12;162:105011. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2025.105011

Emotion socialization practices in non-biological parents of children with FASD

C Kautz-Turnbull 1, M Rockhold 1, E Speybroeck 1, J Myers 1, Z Li 1, CLM Petrenko 1
PMCID: PMC12257500  NIHMSID: NIHMS2074324  PMID: 40222243

Abstract

Background:

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) represent highly prevalent neurodevelopmental and physical differences associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. People with FASD have difficulty with emotion regulation and are often living with non-biological parents. Caregiver emotion socialization practices have been robustly associated with child emotion regulation development in other populations. Yet no research to date has examined the impact of caregiver factors such as age, relationship to child, and trauma on emotion socialization practices in children with FASD. This research is especially important in non-biological parents given complex parenting challenges they may face.

Methods:

Eighty-seven children with FASD aged 4–12 and their primary caregivers (all non-biological parents) completed interview, observation, and caregiver-report measures of emotion socialization, caregiver emotion experience, and child emotion regulation and behavior. Emotion socialization included emotion coaching (approaching and encouraging emotion) and emotion dismissing (minimizing and discouraging emotion). Correlational and path analyses were used to understand relationships among caregiver factors and study variables.

Results:

Correlations indicated greater emotion coaching was associated with greater emotion dismissing (p = .009). Older caregivers reported less emotion coaching (p < .001), while caregivers with greater adverse childhood experiences reported greater frequency of child disruptive behavior (p = .01).

Conclusion:

Emotion coaching was associated was positively associated with emotion dismissing, suggesting caregivers use a combination of both. Results suggest age and childhood trauma may be important factors in caregiver emotion socialization practices, while caregiver type was less important in this sample. This emphasizes the challenges faced by non-biological parents of children with FASD.

Keywords: fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, out-of-home care, emotion socialization, kinship care, emotion regulation

Introduction

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are a set of diagnoses associated with prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE). FASD are one of the most common neurodevelopmental disabilities, impacting 1.1–5% of school-age children in the United States, with recent estimates placing the number as high as 8% across North America (Flannigan et al., 2024; May et al., 2018). This range of diagnoses is characterized by heterogeneous patterns of ability in areas such as executive functioning, memory, attention, learning, and adaptive functioning (Mattson et al., 2019; Hoyme et al 2016). Individuals with FASD have many strengths including social motivation, positive personality characteristics, resilience, and individual talents (Flannigan et al., 2021; Kautz-Turnbull et al., 2022). When unsupported, individuals with FASD are at heightened risk for adverse life experiences such as multiple placements, disrupted school experiences, trouble with the law, substance and alcohol misuse, and housing difficulties (McLachlan et al., 2020) and experience high rates of trauma (Kautz-Turnbull et al., 2023, Rockhold et al., 2023). Many individuals with FASD also experience difficulties with emotion regulation that can lead to an increased risk for disruptive behavior without appropriate support (Temple et al., 2019).

Child Emotion Regulation and Caregiver Emotion Socialization

Few studies have examined risk and protective factors contributing to emotion regulation skills in children with FASD, though many have documented significant challenges with self- and emotion regulation (Temple et al., 2019; Mattson et al., 2019). Studies investigating factors contributing to emotion regulation have largely focused on the period of infancy and early childhood and document the importance of responsive caregiving and attachment (Reid, 2017). Research in other populations also emphasizes the importance of parent-child attachment and parent responsiveness in early emotion regulation (Caiozzo et al., 2018; Cooke et al., 2019; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2017). A specific aspect of caregiving, caregiver emotion socialization, has specifically and robustly been implicated in children’s emotion regulation (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Eisenberg, 2020; Havighurst & Kehoe, 2017) though it has not yet been studied in children with FASD.

Caregiver emotion socialization is defined as a caregiver’s ability to respond to their child’s emotions and model emotional expression (Eisenberg et al., 1998). Eisenberg and colleagues have described three main processes in caregiver emotion socialization: caregivers’ expression and regulation of their own emotions, caregivers’ reaction to children’s expression of emotions, and caregivers’ coaching and discussion of their child’s emotion (Eisenberg et al., 1998, Katz et al., 2012). A caregiver’s thoughts and feelings about their own emotions, called parent meta-emotion philosophy (PMEP), is directly related to how they think and feel about their child’s emotions (Katz et al., 2012). Caregivers who can engage in the three main processes associated with caregiver emotion socialization are more likely to engage in emotion coaching, or to view their child’s emotions as an opportunity for closeness, validate and label their child’s emotions, and help their child problem solve in emotional situations. Emotion dismissing, in contrast, involves caregivers minimizing or discouraging emotional expression (Gottman et al., 1996; 1997). Emotion coaching specifically is the most widely studied component of caregiver emotion socialization, due to its positive association with emotion regulation in children (Katz et al., 2012). Emotion socialization varies across caregivers by caregiver characteristics (Katz et al., 2012); thus, it is important to understand the impact of factors related to caregiving, especially those particularly relevant to children with FASD.

Impact of Caregiver Age, Type, and Trauma on Emotion Socialization

Multiple factors may influence a caregiver’s emotion socialization, including their age, relationship to the child, and their own experience with childhood trauma. Some research has demonstrated differences in parenting practices by age, with older parents demonstrating more positive parenting practices (e.g., increased interactive behavior, decreased conflict, decreased punishment; Camberis et al., 2015; Schlomer & Belsky, 2012; Trillingsgaard & Sommer, 2018). However, it should be noted that this research mainly focuses on parents in their late twenties or early thirties at birth of first child, comparing “older” parents (i.e., parents in their thirties) to “younger” parents (i.e., parents in their teens or twenties). Research on parenting practices in middle-aged or older adults is limited. Additionally, the impact of age on emotion socialization has not been well studied, and older adults’ approaches to emotions, as well as generational differences in understanding of emotion, may affect their emotion socialization practices. In general, older adults have been shown to use suppression as an emotion regulation strategy more often than younger adults (Brummer et al., 2014), and use more passive emotion regulation strategies such as denial and avoidance when faced with emotionally salient problem situations (Blanchard-Fields et al., 2004). These types of emotion regulation strategies contrast with an emotion-approach style emphasized in emotion coaching.

Caregiver type has also not been well-studied in emotion socialization but impacts caregiving experience and practices in general. Compared to non-kinship foster caregivers, kinship caregivers are more likely to be single parents, work more hours per week, have less education, be of racial/ethnic minority status, and be older (Berrick et al., 1994; Coleman & Wu, 2016; Cuddeback, 2004; Ehrle & Geen, 2002; Sakai et al., 2011). Kinship caregivers also tend to have less formal parenting training and have greater mental health concerns and stress (Harding et al., 2020). Grandparents raising grandchildren are more likely to experience higher stress levels and depressive symptoms compared to grandparents who are not raising grandchildren (Hayslip et al., 2019; Musil et al., 2010).

Regardless of biological relation, the intergenerational transmission of trauma has shown to play a role in child emotional development and impact caregiving attitudes and behaviors (Perez Grabow et al., 2017; Fenerci et al., 2016). A study conducted by Cabecinha-Alati et al. in 2021 demonstrated that caregivers who have experienced maltreatment as a child have been found to engage in unsupportive emotion socialization (dismissing, ignoring, punishing emotion), which in turn affects the emotional regulation of their child. Some have even suggested negative emotion socialization practices, especially ignoring, and punishing emotions, as a mechanism of intergenerational transmission of trauma (Milan et al., 2021).

Thus, caregiver type, age, and trauma history may impact caregiving practices, including emotion socialization. This is especially relevant for children with FASD, as they are commonly living with non-biological parents (e.g., relative, foster, adoptive; Rangmar et al., 2015) and often experience multiple placements with different caregivers (Koponen et al., 2009). Due to policy changes encouraging family placements, kinship caregivers are considered first priority for placement and kinship placements are increasingly more common (Rubin et al, 2017). Kinship caregivers face complex challenges in caregiving including often being older, having poorer health, and experiencing more stress compared to other caregivers (Gautier et al., 2013), especially when children have disabilities (Kiraly et al., 2020; Kresak et al., 2014).

Yet, to our knowledge, no studies have examined how these caregiver characteristics impact their emotion socialization for children with FASD. Caregiver emotion socialization may be particularly important in FASD as it may also help to understand how caregivers co-regulate emotions with their child. Understanding how caregiver age, trauma history, and relationship influence both child emotion regulation and co-regulation may offer insights into tailored interventions that support both caregivers and children. Emotion socialization has also gained recent interest as a target for caregiver interventions (Havighurst et al., 2020), including for children who have experienced trauma. Notable strengths in social motivation for children with FASD suggest caregiver-mediated interventions may be particularly effective. The first trial of an emotion coaching intervention for FASD has recently concluded (Petrenko et al., under review). Given the complexity of caregiving within the FASD community, understanding what factors may influence emotion coaching, and more broadly emotion socialization, are crucial to understand caregiving practices and inform interventions for this population.

To this end, research questions were as follows:

  1. How are caregiver emotional experience, emotion coaching, and emotion dismissing related to child emotion regulation and disruptive behavior?

  2. How are caregiver age, caregiver type, and caregiver ACEs related to caregiver emotion socialization and child emotion regulation and disruptive behavior?

Methods

Study Design and Procedures

Data analyzed for the current study were from the baseline visit of a clinical trial of an emotion socialization intervention (for full details of the trial, see Petrenko et al., under review). Recruitment and study procedures took place between August 2017 and September 2021. All study procedures were approved by the University Institutional Review Board prior to study initiation. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown, all study procedures were conducted in a testing room at University of Rochester. After the shutdown, all study procedures were virtual in compliance with mandates at the time. Remote data collection included interviews over HIPAA-compliant Zoom and surveys collected with REDCap.

Participants

Participants included children with FASD aged 4–12 and their primary caregivers. Participants were largely recruited from the University FASD Diagnostic Clinic and a database consisting of families who had consented to be contacted about future research studies. Interested families contacted the study team or provided a release to be contacted. Families verbally consented to screening over the phone to determine if they met study eligibility criteria.

Eligibility criteria for the study included: 1) participants had a child between 4 and 12 years with a formal FASD diagnosis based on the Revised 2016 Institute of Medicine Criteria (Hoyme et al., 2016); and 2) children were living with non-biological parents (foster, adoptive, relative), had resided with the primary caregiver for at least a year, and were expected to remain in that placement for at least 6 months (study duration). Diagnosis and prenatal exposure history were confirmed by reviewing clinic records for each child at enrollment. Exclusion criteria included a history of other genetic, neurological, or significant medical conditions, traumatic brain injury, serious psychiatric illness or disability that would preclude data collection, moderate to severe intellectual disability (IQ < 55) for the child (based on caregiver report), or insufficient proficiency in English for the caregiver and/or child.

For eligible participants, informed consent, permission, and assent procedures occurred prior to study participation, either in person at University of Rochester (before onset of COVID-19 pandemic) or through REDCap’s eConsent module (Harris et al., 2009, 2019; after onset of COVID-19 pandemic). Caregivers received $50 and children received $20 or toy equivalent following the visit.

A priori power analyses for multivariate correlation and regression models were conducted using GPOWER software (Faul et al., 2007). Based on attrition rates in prior in-person studies at the University of Rochester, targeted enrollment was 80 families.

Measures

Measures in the current study involved caregiver self-report, caregiver report of child functioning, caregiver interview, and a caregiver-child interaction task.

Caregiver Demographics:

Caregivers completed a demographics questionnaire, which included questions about caregiver and child age, race, and ethnicity, as well as caregiver relationship to child.

Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (ACEs questionnaire, Felitti et al., 1998): a 10-item questionnaire including questions about physical and emotional abuse and neglect, separation from caregiver, etc. Caregivers completed the ACEs questionnaire about their own adverse experiences during their childhood (i.e., caregivers did not complete this questionnaire for children). Items were rated on a yes/no scale. The ACEs total score was computed by summing all “yes” responses, resulting in a sum score ranging from 0–10.

Caregiver Emotion Experience and Emotion Socialization

Parent Meta-Emotion Interview (PMEI; Katz & Gottman, 1986): a semi-structured interview administered to caregivers about their own experience of emotion and their feelings, attitudes, and behaviors toward their children’s emotions. The PMEI includes sections on sadness, anger, and fear; the current study focused on sadness and anger. The PMEI includes 10 subscales for each emotion (5 each for parent and child), resulting in 20 subscales total, including parent awareness of emotions, behavioral strategies, acceptance of emotion, and emotional expression. Interviews are audiotaped and coded using a checklist rating system (Hunter et al., 2006) called the Revised Meta-Emotion Coding System. Coders used a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) to rate each item based on both the content and the way caregivers talk about emotions. The PMEI and associated coding system have been used in numerous studies with caregivers of young children through adolescence (Gottman et al., 1997; Katz & Hunter, 2007; Katz et al., 2012).

A team of 5 coders were trained using the PMEI coding system (Hunter et al., 2006) by a member of the Katz lab. All coders met reliability (r≥.80) on the gold standard codes for a training set of interviews established by Katz et al. During coding for the current study, coders held monthly meetings to discuss reliability and to complete reliability coding on randomly selected PMEIs (13 PMEIs group reliability coded across the larger intervention trial). Additionally, a subset of PMEIs were reliability coded by paired coders (66% of all interviews at baseline) and met reliability on all scales (r≥.80). Internal consistency was fair to good for most subscales with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .61 to .87, with the exception of three subscales which were below .60 (Sadness Acceptance, Sadness Remediation, Anger Regulation).

Parent Emotion Styles Questionnaire (PESQ; Havighurst et al., 2010): The PESQ is a 21-item questionnaire assessing caregivers’ emotion socialization. Items are rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The PESQ contains three subscales: the Emotion Dismissing scale (e.g., “Sadness is something that one has to get over”), the Emotion Coaching scale (e.g., “When my child is sad/angry/scared, I take some time to try to experience this feeling with him/her”), and the Empathy/Connection scale (made up of a subset of items from the Emotion Coaching scale, e.g., “when my child is sad/angry/scared, it’s an opportunity for getting close”). Internal consistency was fair to good, with Cronbach’s alphas of .65 to .82.

Family Narrative Task (FNT; Lunkenheimer et al., 2007): a parent-child interaction task assessing how caregivers communicate about emotions with their children. Caregivers are instructed to engage the child in a conversation about three emotional events in turn (5 minutes each topic): a positive family experience, a difficult family experience, and a time when the child misbehaved. Interactions were videotaped and transcribed verbatim, segmenting utterances by speaker. A coding system was adapted for this study from the Family Emotion Communication Scoring System, Revised (Shields et al., 2002). The system was simplified to focus on key metrics (emotion coaching vs. dismissing) of interest to this study. The proportion of emotion coaching (e.g., “I could tell you were mad because you walked away,” “How did you feel when that happened?”) and dismissing (e.g., “It wasn’t anything to get upset over”) utterances relative to total utterances were calculated, summing across all three emotional events for total scores.

Three coders were trained on the FNT coding system by a study coordinator, and all coders met reliability (r≥.80) on two randomly selected FNTs prior to coding procedures. Coders met in pairs or as a group on a weekly basis to discuss and complete reliability coding on a portion of randomly selected FNTs (43% of all FNTs at baseline). Reliability (r≥.80) was met on all selected FNTs.

Child Behavior and Emotion Regulation

Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC; Shields & Cicchetti, 1997): a 24-item caregiver report questionnaire assessing children’s affect lability (e.g., “exhibits wide mood swings,” “is easily frustrated”) and emotion regulation (e.g., “is empathetic towards others,” “can say when s/he is feeling sad, angry, fearful, or afraid”). Internal consistency was fair to good, with Cronbach’s alphas of .66 (Emotion Regulation) and .83 (Lability/Negativity).

Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI; Eyberg & Pincus, 1999): a widely-used 36-item scale assessing disruptive behaviors in children ages 2–16. It is made up of two subscales: the Intensity scale, or frequency of the disruptive behavior, and the Problem scale, or whether the caregiver believes the behavior is a problem for them. Each of the 36 items is rated twice, once for the Intensity scale and once for the Problem scale. This measure has good psychometric properties with a Cronbach’s alpha of .98 for both subscales in a community sample of children aged 2–12 (Robinson et al., 1980).

Data Analysis

Missing data was examined to determine if data was missing at random. It was determined data was missing not at random (MNAR) as caregivers who participated after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic had significantly more missing data than those who participated before the COVID-19 pandemic (ps < .05). Thus, participation before or after the onset of the pandemic was used as a covariate in all exploratory path analyses. Missing data was handled using full information maximum likelihood (FIML). Because of the large number of comparisons, the Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) method was utilized to minimize the false discovery rate (FDR) while maintaining power (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).

Data reduction.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine the appropriate factor structure for the PMEI in this sample for further analysis. Associations between the resulting PMEI scales and all other study measures were examined to evaluate construct validity and understand relationships between constructs of interest. Criteria for evaluating factor loadings are as follows: (a) Factor loadings greater than or equal to .40 are considered substantial and should be retained; (b) Items with substantial cross-loading (i.e., loading ≥ .40 on two or more factors) are considered cross-loading items (e.g., Gambashidze et al., 2017; Yan et al., 2022).

Correlational and T-test Analysis.

Pearson’s correlations were examined between all variables of interest. T-tests were used to examine differences in variables of interest by child gender.

Exploratory Path Analysis.

Exploratory path analyses were conducted to examine the effects of caregiver demographic variables and ACEs on caregiver emotion socialization, caregiver emotion experience, and child behavior and emotion regulation. Note many families struggled to complete the FNT virtually and so the sample is much smaller compared to other measures which were more amenable to virtual delivery; thus the FNT was excluded from exploratory analyses.

Transparency and Openness.

Determination of sample size and all measures used in the study have been reported. This study follows Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS; Applebaum, et al., 2018). All analysis code, and research materials are available at https://osf.io/9neyd. Data for this study are available by reasonable request. All descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted in SPSS version 28. Exploratory path analyses were conducted in Mplus version 8. This study, including protocol and consent documents, was pre-registered and publicly available on ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03524664].

Results

Participants

Recruitment and screening for the current sample can be seen in Figure 1. Participant demographics for the entire sample (N = 87) can be found in Table 1. No eligible participants were excluded from the current study.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Recruitment of current sample.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics

Caregiver Child
Mean Age (SD) 47.28 (9.92) 8.36 (2.51)
Gender identity n (%)
 Female 85 (97.7) 31 (35.6)
 Male 2 (2.3) 56 (64.4)
Race n (%)
 White 70 (80.5) 48 (55.2)
 Black/African American 10 (11.5) 19 (21.8)
 Asian 0 (0.0) 2 (2.3)
 More than one race 1 (1.1) 10 (11.5)
 Unknown 1 (1.1) 3 (3.4)
Ethnicity n (%)
 Non-Hispanic/Latine 76 (87.4) 65 (74.7)
 Hispanic/Latine 3 (3.4) 8 (9.2)
 Unknown 3 (3.4) 9 (10.3)
Marital Status n (%)
 Married/cohabitating 61 (70.1) N/A
 Separated/divorced 9 (10.3) N/A
 Never married 8 (9.2) N/A
 Widowed 4 (4.6) N/A
Relationship to Child n (%)
 Grandparent 14 (16.1) N/A
 Other relative 5 (5.7) N/A
 Adoptive parent 60 (69.0) N/A
 Foster parent 5 (5.7) N/A
Average income (SD) 94,741 (78,424) N/A
Mean Adverse Childhood Experiences (SD) 2.79 (2.74) N/A
Open in a new tab

Data Reduction

An EFA using principal axis factoring and direct Oblimin rotation yielded a scree plot suggesting 5 factors accounting for 68.71% of the variance. Two scales, Sadness: Child Acceptance and Sadness: Child Behavioral Strategies, loaded above .4 on two factors and so were deemed cross-loaders and removed from the subsequent analysis for clarity of interpretation. The EFA pattern coefficients can be seen in Table 2. The five factors showed good to excellent internal consistency across both timepoints, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .76 to .94.

Table 2.

Pattern Coefficients for Exploratory Factor Analysis for Parent Meta-Emotion Interview (PMEI).

Factor Name Parent Meta-Emotion Interview Scale 1 2 3 4 5
Emotion Coaching Anger: Child Behavioral Strategies 0.928 −0.051 −0.055 −0.037 −0.01
Anger: Child Coaching 0.752 0.054 0.124 −0.019 0.118
Anger: Child Acceptance 0.601 0.361 0.217 −0.052 −0.115
Child Regulation Sadness: Child Regulation −0.084 0.773 −0.003 −0.029 0.078
Anger: Child Regulation 0.101 0.62 0.057 0.051 −0.228
Caregiver Emotional Experience Anger: Expressivity −0.059 −0.041 0.79 0.103 −0.073
Anger: Acceptance 0.019 −0.054 0.71 −0.111 0.077
Sadness: Expressivity −0.015 0.127 0.555 −0.04 0.004
Sadness: Remediation 0.113 0.096 0.539 −0.112 0.084
Anger: Remediation 0.016 0.016 0.524 0.266 0.021
Sadness: Acceptance 0.154 −0.028 0.42 −0.153 0.176
Caregiver Regulation Anger: Regulation 0.112 −0.067 0.138 0.673 −0.197
Sadness: Regulation −0.105 0.057 −0.054 0.651 0.113
Awareness Anger: Awareness −0.15 −0.053 0.09 −0.184 0.775
Sadness: Child Awareness 0.265 −0.034 0.151 0.152 0.649
Anger: Child Awareness 0.303 −0.192 0.137 0.025 0.571
Sadness: Child Coaching 0.347 0.24 0.067 0.156 0.558
Sadness: Awareness −0.063 0.018 0.329 −0.283 0.471
Open in a new tab

Associations between constructs at baseline

PMEI Bivariate Correlations

Correlations among PMEI factors and other measures of emotion socialization and child emotion regulation and behavior at baseline were examined (Table 3). PMEI Child Regulation was significantly negatively correlated with emotional lability/negativity (ERC) and disruptive behavior (ECBI). Correlations among PMEI Caregiver Regulation and PMEI Coaching and other measures of emotion socialization (i.e., PESQ and FNT) were generally in the expected direction but nonsignificant after correction for multiple comparisons. This pattern of correlations suggests weak convergent validity, and likely reflects variation by differences in method (e.g., observation, interview, self-report).

Table 3.

Correlations Among All Study Measures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1. Child Age -
2. Caregiver Age .28 -
3. Biological Relation .00 .49*** -
4. Caregiver ACEs .03 .07 .29 -
5. PMEI Awareness .04 −.31 −.36* −.03 -
6. PMEI Child Regulation .24 .19 .14 −.12 .10 -
7. PMEI Caregiver Emotional Experience .17 −.21 −.11 −.10 .51*** .18 -
8. PMEI Caregiver Regulation .05 .19 .13 −.23 −.11 .11 .01 -
9. PMEI Coaching .04 −.27 −.13 −.14 .56*** .39** .44*** .07 -
10. PESQ Empathy −.16 .04 .03 .08 .11 .00 −.11 .01 .17 -
11. PESQ Coaching −.26 −.01 .03 .08 .10 .02 −.10 −.05 .24 .85*** -
12. PESQ Dismissing −.18 .10 .10 −.03 −.17 −.00 −.12 .26 −.08 .33* .39** -
13. FNT Coaching −.08 −.02 .15 .04 −.10 −.05 .02 −.06 .09 .29 .26 . 21 -
14. FNT Dismissing .10 −.04 −.15 −.23 .16 .08 .17 −.06 .12 .14 .25 .12 .17 -
15. ERC Lability/Negativity −.35* −.11 .00 .21 .04 −.56*** −.18 −.23 −.22 −.04 −.07 .02 .11 .03 -
16. ERC Child Emotion Regulation −.17 .13 −.07 −.04 .21 .13 .07 .08 .04 .16 .27 .03 −.12 .07 −.32 -
17. ECBI Intensity −.28 −.05 −.09 .26 .00 −.41** −.15 −.24 −.13 .05 .07 .00 .07 .05 .68*** −.14 -
18. ECBI Problem −.10 .13 .04 .05 −.13 −.16 −.14 −.02 −.24 −.08 −.13 .15 .00 −.06 .34* −.24 .39**
Open in a new tab

Note. ACEs=Adverse Childhood Experiences; PMEI=Parent Meta-Emotion Interview; PESQ=Parent Emotion Styles Questionnaire; FNT=Family Narrative Task; ERC=Emotion Regulation Checklist; ECBI=Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Numbers in top row correspond to labeled measures.

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001 after correction for multiple comparisons.

Emotion Coaching and Emotion Dismissing

Correlational analyses revealed measures of emotion coaching were positively correlated with measures of emotion dismissing. Specifically, PESQ Emotion Dismissing was significantly positively correlated with PESQ Emotion Coaching and Empathy. Though nonsignificant after correction for multiple comparisons, PESQ Emotion Coaching was also positively associated with FNT Emotion Dismissing. This suggests that rather than exclusively engaging in one style of emotion socialization over the other, caregivers tended to display a mix of both.

Child Emotion Regulation and Behavior

Correlational analyses also showed measures of child behavior and emotion regulation were generally consistent with expected patterns. As stated above, PMEI Child Emotion Regulation was significantly negatively correlated with measures of child disruptive behavior and negative mood, which were significantly positively correlated with each other.

Caregiver Emotion Socialization and Child Emotion Regulation and Behavior

Finally, correlational analyses showed associations between measures of emotion socialization (PMEI Coaching, PESQ Coaching, but not the FNT), and child behavior (ERC, ECBI) at baseline. Though these associations were moderate to weak in magnitude and nonsignificant after correction for multiple comparisons, they were consistent with expectations. Specifically, emotion coaching was generally associated with higher child emotion regulation and lower degree of problem behavior. Measures of caregiver emotional experience (PMEI Caregiver Emotional Experience and PMEI Awareness) were not correlated with other measures of emotion socialization or child behavior. Lastly, caregiver emotion regulation was weakly negatively correlated with disruptive behavior and positively correlated with emotion dismissing (nonsignificant after correction), suggesting they had children with less frequent disruptive behavior and tended to use more dismissive language when addressing their children’s emotions.

Caregiver Demographics

Correlations among caregiver demographics, including caregiver age, caregiver ACEs, and relationship to child, were examined. Caregiver age was positively related to child age (nonsignificant after correction) and significantly associated with relationship to child, in that older caregivers were more likely to be biologically related to the child.

Child Age and Gender

Child age was significantly associated with several measures at baseline. As child age increased, child scores on the ERC Lability/Negativity scale significantly decreased. This suggests that as children age, their mood lability tends to decrease. Correlations between child age and emotion regulation and disruptive behavior (nonsignificant after correction) implied disruptive behavior also tends to decrease while their emotion regulation tends to increase as they age. As child age increased, Emotion Coaching on the PESQ tended to decrease, suggesting caregivers of older children employ less emotion coaching.

No significant differences in any measures of interest were found by gender.

Exploratory Path Analyses

Three models were defined examining the effect of caregiver age, ACEs, and biological relationship to child on emotion socialization and child emotion regulation constructs. All models controlled for child age and participation in the study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Associations between independent variables were not specified in the models but can be found in Table 3.

Caregiver Emotion Experience

An exploratory path analysis was conducted to examine the effect of caregiver age, ACEs, and biological relationship on caregiver emotion experience (Figure 2). After correction for multiple comparisons, no significant associations were found among constructs of interest.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Caregiver Emotional Experience.

Note. Only significant paths are shown. ACEs=Adverse Childhood Experiences; PMEI=Parent Meta Emotion Interview. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 after correction for multiple comparisons.

Caregiver Emotion Coaching and Dismissing

An exploratory path analysis was conducted to examine the effect of caregiver age, ACEs, and biological relationship on caregiver emotion coaching and dismissing (Figure 3). Older caregivers reported less emotion coaching on the PMEI (β = −0.45, SE = 0.116, p < .001).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Caregiver Emotion Socialization.

Note. Only significant paths are shown. ACEs=Adverse Childhood Experiences; PESQ=Parent Emotion Styles Questionnaire; PMEI=Parent Meta Emotion Interview. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 after correction for multiple comparisons.

Child Behavior and Emotion Regulation

An exploratory path analysis was conducted to examine the effect of caregiver age, ACEs, and biological relationship on child behavior and emotion regulation (Figure 4). Caregiver ACEs significantly predicted child intensity of behavior, in that caregivers with higher ACEs reported their children having more frequent behavior problems (β = 0.35, SE = 0.109, p = .001). No other significant relationships were found.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Child Behavior and Emotion Regulation.

Note. Only significant paths are shown. ACEs=Adverse Childhood Experiences; ECBI=Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory; ERC=Emotion Regulation Checklist. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 after correction for multiple comparisons.

Discussion

The current study examined the relationships among caregiver and child demographics and measures of caregiver emotion socialization (caregiver emotion experience, emotion coaching, and emotion dismissing) and child behavior and emotion regulation.

Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) revealed a five-factor structure for the PMEI in this sample, with two scales defined as cross-loading: Acceptance of Child Sadness and Child Sadness Behavioral Strategies. Analysis did not support factors for caregivers’ experience of, attitudes toward, and reactions to sadness and anger separately, with the exception of emotion coaching, which was made up of only child anger-related subscales.

Several significant positive correlations appeared among PMEI Emotion Coaching, Child Regulation, Caregiver Emotional Experience, and Caregiver Awareness, indicating caregivers’ attitudes and experiences of their own sadness and anger influence how they perceive the child’s emotion regulation and their ability to encourage their children’s expression of sadness and anger. Caregivers’ own emotion regulation on the PMEI was distinct from these scales, however, suggesting their own ability to control their emotions may not strongly influence emotion socialization.

Results also suggest emotion coaching and dismissing should not be considered opposing parenting approaches, as they were positively correlated with each other. This is consistent with literature examining emotion coaching and dismissing, which routinely finds small to moderate positive correlations between the two styles (Bølstad et al., 2021; Havighurst et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2012). Importantly, as measured by the current study battery, emotion dismissing still requires the caregiver to recognize and address an emotion as it happens (e.g., “I try to change my child’s worried moods into cheerful ones”, “sadness is something one has to get over”), which may suggest a caregiver more attuned to emotion regardless of how they then choose to address it. It is possible some caregivers are unable to address emotions in either style, whether from lack of recognition or lack of ability. Those caregivers who can address emotions tend to employ a combination of encouraging and dismissing emotions. Early research on emotion coaching suggests best child outcome were associated with use of emotion coaching roughly 30–40% of the time (Gottman et al., 2013; Tuning in to Kids Intervention Manual); crucially, this indicates positive emotion socialization does not necessarily require absence of emotion dismissing. Caregivers also reported less coaching for older children. It is possible this represents a socialization shift away from encouraging emotional reactions as children get older. Some have suggested this may be a product of increased emotional conflict with the onset of adolescence (Laursen et al., 1998), or greater expectations for emotion regulation for older children (Lunkenheimer et al., 2007).

For caregivers of children with FASD more specifically, a combination of emotion coaching and emotion dismissing may be adaptive given significant difficulty with emotion regulation for children with FASD (Temple et al., 2019; Mattson et al., 2019). Caregivers must find a balance between encouraging emotional expression to develop healthy emotion recognition and regulation, while also preventing escalation and meltdowns and maintaining safety. Parenting practices related to emotion dismissing, such as redirection and ignoring, may be adaptive strategies in some situations for children at risk of severe and frequent dysregulation. Recent work on behavior support strategies in FASD suggests planned reaction strategies such as these are effective in reducing problem behavior (Kautz-Turnbull et al., 2024).

Measures of child behavior were significantly negatively associated with measures of child emotion regulation, suggesting child emotion regulation plays an important role in behavior regulation in this population. This is consistent with work by Reid and Petrenko (2018) which applied a multilevel developmental framework to self-regulation for children with FASD and proposed emotional regulation is necessary for the development of behavioral regulation. This suggests improvements in child emotion regulation may translate to improvements in behavior regulation and reductions in adverse life experiences. Additionally, in this sample, older children had reduced lability/negativity. This may indicate children with FASD improve in their ability to regulate emotions as they grow older, whether due to increased emotional maturity or other factors such as therapeutic intervention, medication, or environmental supports. Child age and lability could also be important in understanding the relationship between emotion coaching and dismissing, as child need may decrease leading to differences in parenting practices.

Though generally weak in magnitude, results suggest some relationships between emotion socialization, specifically caregiver regulation and coaching, and child emotion regulation and behavior. Because this study is cross-sectional, it is not certain whether positive emotion-related parenting practices contribute to more positive child behavior, or whether caregivers of children with better emotion regulation and less disruptive behavior have an easier time approaching and regulating emotions. Future work should examine these relationships; randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal methods are optimal ways to understand the directionality of these associations (see Petrenko et al., under review for description of the RCT associated with the current data).

Exploratory path analyses showed limited associations between caregiver demographic variables and emotional experience, emotion coaching and dismissing, and child behavior outcomes. No significant associations by caregiver type were found, suggesting that controlling for all other variables, caregiver type does not have a large impact on emotion socialization in this population. Older caregivers had lower emotion coaching, consistent with literature suggesting older adults rely on more passive emotion regulation strategies such as suppression (Blanchard-Fields et al., 2004; Brummer et al., 2014). Age was not associated with greater dismissing of emotions, but this is not surprising as emotion coaching and dismissing were not found to be opposing styles of parenting. Caregivers with greater ACEs rated their children as having more frequent behavior problems, suggesting these caregivers may have been more distressed by behavior problems in their children. Alternatively, it could be that caregivers with greater childhood trauma were less able to support adaptive behavior in their children, leading to more frequent behavioral dysregulation. This pattern of results suggests different caregiver demographics may be important for different aspects of caregiving; that is, caregiver age may be more important in considering how emotions are discussed in the home, while caregiver trauma may be more important in considering caregiver-child relationship and interactions.

Limitations and Implications

The current study was cross-sectional, meaning no conclusions about directionality of effect can be drawn. For the full results of the intervention study including change over time in the current measures, see Petrenko et al., under review. Correlational analyses showed limited relationships across measurement type. Though this is typical in psychology research (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), the results in the current manuscript should be interpreted with caution, especially when interpreting results across measurement type. Additional limitations come from the current study’s sample, which was mostly Non-Hispanic White, high-income, and married or living with a partner. Results may not generalize to other populations, including biological parents. The sample was also largely recruited from an FASD diagnostic clinic; results may not generalize to the large proportion of children and families who have experienced prenatal alcohol exposure who do not present or have access to a diagnostic clinic. This study is also limited by the measures used; for example, only caregiver childhood trauma was measured, meaning results may differ when taking into account trauma experienced later in life.

This study is the first to examine associations between measures of parent emotion socialization, child behavior and emotion regulation, and caregiver and child demographics in preschool and school-aged children with FASD. The complex and diverse makeup of the population of children with FASD, including high rates of out-of-home care and risk for intergenerational transmission of trauma, means caregivers may need specialized support for both their children’s needs and their own. Results also emphasize the need for trauma-informed care in settings serving children with FASD and their caregivers, especially given the association of caregiver ACEs with child behavior. Additionally, this study suggests promising intervention targets to improve disruptive behavior of children with FASD; specifically, child emotion regulation. Interventions for children with FASD often incorporate a caregiver component (Olson et al., 2023), but many of these are parenting skill-based curricula. Few existing interventions for FASD focus on parent emotion socialization as a potential means of improving child emotion regulation and possibly preventing adverse life experiences. Given notable strengths, particularly in social motivation, in children in FASD (Flannigan et al., 2021; Kautz-Turnbull et al., 2022), caregiver-mediated interventions focused on positive and supportive ways to help children self-regulate should be a focus of intervention research.

What this paper adds:

People with FASD have pronounced difficulty with emotion regulation and are often living with non-biological parents. Caregiver emotion socialization has been shown to be associated with emotion regulation development in children, yet no research to date has examined how caregiver factors impact this in children with FASD. This manuscript describes the relationships between caregiver factors (such as age, relationship to child, and trauma) and measures of caregiver emotion socialization. This research is especially important in non-biological parents given complex parenting challenges they may face. It has implications for intervention and policy work targeting children living with non-biological parents, especially those with developmental disabilities.

Highlights.

  • Emotion socialization is an important way parents teach children about emotions

  • We explored emotion socialization in non-biological parents of children with FASD

  • Emotion coaching was associated with more positive outcomes for children

  • Emotion coaching and emotion dismissing were positively correlated

Acknowledgments

This study is part of a larger intervention trial which was pre-registered, including protocol and consent documents, and publicly available on ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03524664). One manuscript is published using data from this sample (Rockhold et al., 2023). This manuscript applies the threat/deprivation childhood adversity framework to characterize the trauma experiences of children in the current sample. Two additional manuscripts are under review (Petrenko et al., under review; Looney et al., under review) using baseline data from the current dataset. Petrenko et al. describes the results of the full intervention trial. Looney et al. details the development of the Qualitative Emotion Interview (QEI) coding manual, pilot coding, and construct validity for the QEI (a measure which is not included in the current manuscript). Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute On Alcohol Abuse And Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R34AA025717. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Author contributions: CKT: Data curation, formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing; MR: writing – review and editing; ES: writing – review and editing; JM: writing – review and editing; ZL: formal analysis, writing – review and editing; CLMP: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, writing – review and editing.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. All analysis code, and research materials are available at https://osf.io/9neyd/. Data for this study are available by reasonable request.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Appelbaum M, Cooper H, Kline RB, Mayo-Wilson E, Nezu AM, & Rao SM (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Benjamini Y and Hochberg Y (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 57 289–300. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berrick JD, Barth RP, & Needell B (1994). A comparison of kinship foster homes and foster family homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation. Children and youth services review, 16(1–2), 33–63. [Google Scholar]
  4. Blanchard-Fields F, Stein R, & Watson TL (2004). Age differences in emotion-regulation strategies in handling everyday problems. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(6), P261–P269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bølstad E, Havighurst SS, Tamnes CK, Nygaard E, Bjørk RF, Stavrinou M, & Espeseth T (2021). A pilot study of a parent emotion socialization intervention: Impact on parent behavior, child self-regulation, and adjustment. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 730278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brummer L, Stopa L, & Bucks R (2014). The influence of age on emotion regulation strategies and psychological distress. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 42(6), 668–681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cabecinha-Alati S, Langevin R, Kern A, & Montreuil T (2021). Pathways from childhood maltreatment to unsupportive emotion socialization: implications for children’s emotional inhibition. Journal of family violence, 36, 1033–1043. [Google Scholar]
  8. Camberis AL, McMahon CA, Gibson FL, & Boivin J (2015). Maternal age, psychological maturity, parenting cognitions, and mother–infant interaction. Infancy, 21(4), 396–422. [Google Scholar]
  9. Caiozzo CN, Yule K, & Grych J (2018). Caregiver behaviors associated with emotion regulation in high-risk preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(5), 565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coleman KL, & Wu Q (2016). Kinship care and service utilization: A review of predisposing, enabling, and need factors. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 201–210. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cooke JE, Kochendorfer LB, Stuart-Parrigon KL, Koehn AJ, & Kerns KA (2019). Parent–child attachment and children’s experience and regulation of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Emotion, 19(6), 1103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cuddeback GS (2004). Kinship family foster care: A methodological and substantive synthesis of research. Children and youth services review, 26(7), 623–639. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ehrle J, & Geen R (2002). Kin and non-kin foster care—findings from a national survey. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(1–2), 15–35. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisenberg N (2020). Findings, issues, and new directions for research on emotion socialization. Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 664–670. 10.1037/dev0000906 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, & Spinrad TL (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eyberg SM, & Pincus D (1999). Eyberg child behavior inventory and sutter-eyberg student behavior inventory-revised: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]
  17. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, & Buchner A (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2), 175–191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, & Marks JS (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American journal of preventive medicine, 14(4), 245–258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fenerci RL, Chu AT, & DePrince AP (2016). Intergenerational transmission of trauma-related distress: Maternal betrayal trauma, parenting attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(4), 382–399. [Google Scholar]
  20. Flannigan K, Caudaro E, Unsworth K, Harding K, & McFarlane A (2024) The Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Canada: FASD Research Network. [Google Scholar]
  21. Flannigan K, Wrath A, Ritter C, McLachlan K, Harding KD, Campbell A, Reid D and Pei J, 2021. Balancing the story of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: A narrative review of the literature on strengths. Alcoholism: Clinical and experimental research, 45(12), pp.2448–2464. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gambashidze N, Hammer A, Brösterhaus M, & Manser T (2017). Evaluation of psychometric properties of the German Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture and its potential for cross-cultural comparisons: a cross-sectional study. BMJ open, 7(11), e018366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gautier A, Wellard S, & Cardy S (2013). Forgotten children: Children growing up in kinship care. Grandparents Plus. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gottman JM, Katz LF, & Hooven C (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families: theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 243–68. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gottman JM, Katz LF, & Hooven C (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gottman JM, Katz LF, & Hooven C (2013). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  27. Grabow AP, Khurana A, Natsuaki MN, Neiderhiser JM, Harold GT, Shaw DS, … & Leve LD (2017). Using an adoption–biological family design to examine associations between maternal trauma, maternal depressive symptoms, and child internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Development and Psychopathology, 29(5), 1707–1720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Griffin D, & Bartholomew K (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 430–445. [Google Scholar]
  29. Harding L, Murray K, Shakespeare-Finch J, & Frey R (2020). The wellbeing of foster and kin carers: A comparative study. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104566. [Google Scholar]
  30. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J and Duda SN (2019). The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of biomedical informatics, 95, 103208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, & Conde JG (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of biomedical informatics, 42(2), 377–381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Havighurst SS, Wilson KR, Harley AE, & Prior MR (2009). Tuning in to Kids: an emotion-focused parenting program – initial findings from a community trial. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 1008–23. [Google Scholar]
  33. Havighurst SS, Wilson KR, Harley AE, Prior MR, & Kehoe C (2010). Tuning in to Kids: improving emotion socialization practices in parents of preschool children – findings from a community trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 1342–1350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Havighurst S, Kehoe C (2017). The Role of Parental Emotion Regulation in Parent Emotion Socialization: Implications for Intervention. In: Deater-Deckard K, Panneton R (eds) Parental Stress and Early Child Development. Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-319-55376-4_12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Havighurst Sophie S.,; Radovini Alessandra; Hao Brandon; Kehoe Christiane E. Emotion-focused parenting interventions for prevention and treatment of child and adolescent mental health problems: a review of recent literature. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 33(6):p 586–601, November 2020. | DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hayslip B Jr, Fruhauf CA, & Dolbin-MacNab ML (2019). Grandparents raising grandchildren: What have we learned over the past decade?. The Gerontologist, 59(3), e152–e163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoyme HE, Kalberg WO, Elliott AJ, Blankenship J, Buckley D, Marais A-S, et al. (2016). Updated clinical guidelines for diagnosing fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 138, doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hunter EC, Hessler DM, Katz LF Hooven C, & Mittman A (2006). The parent meta-emotion coding system. Unpublished manuscript. University of Washington. [Google Scholar]
  39. Katz LF, & Gottman JM (1986). The meta-emotion interview. Unpublished manual, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle. [Google Scholar]
  40. Katz LF, & Hunter EC (2007). Maternal meta-emotion philosophy and adolescent depressive symptomatology. Social Development, 16, 343–360. [Google Scholar]
  41. Katz LF, Maliken AC, & Stettler NM (2012). Parental meta-emotion philosophy: a review of research and theoretical framework. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 417–422. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kautz-Turnbull C, Adams TR, & Petrenko CL (2022). The strengths and positive influences of children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 127(5), 355–368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kautz-Turnbull C, Kaminsky E, Kuhn M, Wittlin R, Petrenko CLM, & Olson HC (2024). Positive behavior support (PBS) with children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: Characterizing caregivers’ use of PBS using follow-up clinical trial data. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 151, 104773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kautz-Turnbull C, Rockhold M, Handley ED, Olson HC, & Petrenko C (2023). Adverse childhood experiences in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and their effects on behavior. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 47(3), 577–588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kiraly M, Hoadley D, & Humphreys C (2021). The nature and prevalence of kinship care: Focus on young kinship carers. Child & Family Social Work, 26(1), 144–152. [Google Scholar]
  46. Koponen AM, Kalland M, & Autti-Rämö I (2009). Caregiving environment and socio-emotional development of foster-placed FASD-children. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(9), 1049–1056. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.05.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kresak KE, Gallagher PA, & Kelley SJ (2014). Grandmothers raising grandchildren with disabilities: Sources of support and family quality of life. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(1), 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  48. Laursen B, Coy KC, & Collins WA (2017). Reconsidering changes in parent-child conflict across adolescence: A meta-analysis. In Interpersonal development (pp. 171–186). Routledge. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lunkenheimer ES, Shields AM, & Cortina KS (2007). Parental emotion coaching and dismissing in family interaction. Social Development, 16, 232–48. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mattson SN, Bernes GA, & Doyle LR (2019). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: a review of the neurobehavioral deficits associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 43(6), 1046–1062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. May PA, Chambers CD, Kalberg WO, Zellner J, Feldman H, Buckley D, Kopald D, Hasken JM, Xu R, Honerkamp-Smith G and Taras H, 2018. Prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in 4 US communities. Jama, 319(5), pp.474–482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. McLachlan K, Flannigan K, Temple V, Unsworth K, & Cook JL (2020). Difficulties in daily living experienced by adolescents, transition-aged youth, and adults with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 44(8), 1609–1624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Milan S, Carlone C, & Dáu ALB (2021). Emotion socialization in mothers who experienced maltreatment: Mentalizing the past may help the present. Journal of family psychology, 35(6), 851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Musil CM, Gordon NL, Warner CB, Zauszniewski JA, Standing T, & Wykle M (2011). Grandmothers and caregiving to grandchildren: Continuity, change, and outcomes over 24 months. The Gerontologist, 51(1), 86–100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Olson HC, Pruner M, Byington N, & Jirikowic T (2023). FASD-Informed Care and the Future of Intervention. In Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: A Multidisciplinary Approach (pp. 269–362). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rangmar J, Hjern A, Vinnerljung B, Strömland K, Aronson M, & Fahlke C (2015). Psychosocial outcomes of fetal alcohol syndrome in adulthood. Pediatrics, 135(1), e52–e58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Reid N, & Petrenko CL (2018). Applying a Developmental Framework to the Self- Regulatory Difficulties of Young Children with Prenatal Alcohol Exposure: A Review. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 42(6), 987–1005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Reid N (2017). Improving Outcomes for Children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: An Investigation of Self-Regulation as a Potential Mechanism of Change. [Google Scholar]
  59. Robinson EA, Eyberg SM, & Ross AW (1980). The standardization of an inventory of child conduct problem behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 9(1), 22–28. [Google Scholar]
  60. Rockhold MN, Kautz-Turnbull C, Handley ED, & Petrenko CL (2023). The trauma experiences of children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: Developmental outcomes utilizing a threat/deprivation child adversity framework. Alcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rubin D, Springer SH, Zlotnik S, Kang-Yi CD, CARE COF, Szilagyi M, … & Zetley LW (2017). Needs of kinship care families and pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 139(4). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sakai C, Lin H, & Flores G (2011). Health outcomes and family services in kinship care: Analysis of a national sample of children in the child welfare system. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165(2), 159–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Schlomer GL, & Belsky J (2012). Maternal age, investment, and parent–child conflict: A mediational test of the terminal investment hypothesis. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(3), 443–452. 10.1037/a0027859 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Shields AM, Lunkenheimer ES, & Reed-Twiss I (2002). Manual for the family emotion communication scoring system, revised. Ann Arbor, MI.: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  65. Shields A, & Cicchetti D (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906–916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Temple VK, Cook JL, Unsworth K, Rajani H, & Mela M (2019). Mental health and affect regulation impairment in fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD): results from the Canadian national FASD database. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 54(5), 545–550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Trillingsgaard T, & Sommer D (2018). Associations between older maternal age, use of sanctions, and children’s socio-emotional development through 7, 11, and 15 years. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(2), 141–155. DOI: 10.1080/17405629.2016.1266248 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wilson KR, Havighurst SS, & Harley AE (2012). Tuning in to Kids: An effectiveness trial of a parenting program targeting emotion socialization of preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(1), 56–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Yan Q, Li D, Yin X, Jiang N, Sun N, Luo Q, Pang X, Fan L and Gong Y (2022). Development and validation of a maternal anxiety for neonatal jaundice scale in China. BMC psychiatry, 22(1), p.526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, Webb HJ, Pepping CA, Swan K, Merlo O, Skinner EA, … & Dunbar M (2017). Is parent–child attachment a correlate of children’s emotion regulation and coping?. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(1), 74–93. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES