Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 May 10;82(2):1421–1429. doi: 10.1111/jan.17034

Parenting in Armed Political Conflict: Relationships Between Parental Efficacy, Reflective Functioning, and Age Among War‐Displaced Families

Yael Enav 1,✉, Yael Mayer 1
PMCID: PMC12810657  PMID: 40349111

ABSTRACT

Aim

This study examines the relationships between parental efficacy, parental reflective functioning, and parental age among a unique population of internally displaced Israeli parents. Parents were specifically examined to understand the interplay of parental efficacy, parental reflective functioning, and age as protective factors among displaced children. Through examining these variables, we seek to better understand how to buffer the negative effects of war and displacement on families with young children.

Design

A cross‐sectional design was employed to gather data pertaining to parents. This research was part of a larger parent–child dyadic intervention. The data presented here were gathered prior to the intervention from January 2024 to June 2024.

Methods

In all, 97 displaced parents were met in person by the research team. Data pertaining to basic demographics, exposure to war, parental reflective functioning, parental efficacy, and the parent–child relationship were gathered. Information was gathered through online questionnaires using Qualtrics. One participant's responses were excluded due to missing data.

Results

Younger parents (aged 27–35) exhibited reduced efficacy under high war exposure conditions, while older parents (aged 46–52) demonstrated increased efficacy. These decreases in efficacy became less pronounced in relation to higher age. This association was found to be insignificant for parents aged 35–46. Parental reflective functioning emerged as a protective factor against declining parental efficacy, buffering the effects of low and moderate war exposure, but diminished under high‐stress conditions. Lastly, closer parent–child relationships were found to be associated with higher levels of parental efficacy regardless of war exposure levels.

Conclusion

These results underscore the conditional nature of the impact of war on parenting, emphasising the importance of tailored interventions to support parents across different life stages and reflective capacities. This study highlights the need for targeted strategies to enhance parental efficacy and resilience, fostering better outcomes for families affected by conflict and displacement.

Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care

Age‐appropriate considerations and interventions focusing on parental reflective functioning are imperative when working with parents of different ages affected by war and displacement.

Impact

This study focused on parenting in wartime, specifically parental efficacy, reflective functioning, and parental age. We found younger parents demonstrate reduced efficacy under conditions of high war exposure, while older parents demonstrate increased efficacy under the same conditions. Additionally, parental reflective functioning buffers the negative effects of reduced parental efficacy among parents of all ages, but only under conditions of low war exposure. These findings are relevant to displaced families around the globe, in addition to families affected by exposure to war.

Reporting Method

We adhered to the STROBE guidelines for reporting cross‐sectional studies in this manuscript.

Patient or Public Contribution

No patient or public contribution.

Keywords: displaced families, internal displacement, parental age, parental efficacy, parental reflective functioning, war exposure

Summary.

  • What does this paper contribute to the wider global clinical community?
    • ○
      This study provides valuable insights for the global nursing and clinical community by highlighting the impact of conflict and displacement on parenting.
    • ○
      It emphasises the potential protective role of parental reflective functioning in buffering the effects of war‐related stress on families, while also identifying age‐specific differences in parental efficacy.
    • ○
      Younger parents are more vulnerable to stress and may benefit from targeted interventions to strengthen their coping mechanisms, while older parents demonstrate greater resilience.
    • ○
      These findings have global relevance, offering a framework for developing culturally adaptable, trauma‐informed interventions to support displaced families in crises such as war, poverty, or natural disasters.
    • ○
      The study reinforces the importance of integrating parental mental health and strengthening parent–child relationships into care strategies, ultimately improving outcomes for both parents and children.
  • What is known?
    • ○
      Exposure to war and displacement can negatively affect parenting, including parental efficacy and mental health.
    • ○
      Parental reflective functioning (PRF) is a known protective factor that supports emotional regulation and healthy parent–child relationships during times of stress.
    • ○
      Age is often associated with resilience, with older parents typically exhibiting greater emotional regulation and coping skills.
  • What does this paper add?
    • ○
      This study found that younger parents (aged 27–35) experience a significant decline in parental efficacy under conditions of high war exposure, while older parents (aged 46–52) report increased efficacy under similar conditions.
    • ○
      Parental reflective functioning buffered the negative effect of war exposure on efficacy, but only under low to moderate exposure; it was less effective under high exposure conditions.
    • ○
      Stronger parent–child relationships were consistently associated with higher levels of parental efficacy, regardless of war exposure.
  • Implications for practice/policy
    • ○
      Interventions should be tailored by parental age, as younger parents may require more support in maintaining efficacy during conflict and displacement.
    • ○
      Enhancing PRF skills may be a useful target for clinical programmes supporting families exposed to war and trauma, though such skills may not be sufficient under severe stress.
    • ○
      Programs designed for displaced families should incorporate strategies to strengthen parent–child relationships as a buffer against the psychological impact of war.

1. Introduction

The Israel–Hamas conflict escalated dramatically on 7 October 2023 following an unprecedented attack by Hamas, causing widespread trauma and displacement across Israel (Peleg and Gendelman 2023). According to data available from November 2023, approximately 253,000 Israelis were internally displaced, either voluntarily or following government orders, affecting families in both the northern and southern regions of Israel (Lerer 2024).

Displacement is recognised as a highly traumatic experience that disrupts the financial health, safety, and psychological and emotional well‐being of individuals, especially parents and children (Joshi and Fayyad 2015; Sim et al. 2018). Internally displaced populations often experience economic instability, loss of social support, and exposure to violence and trauma, all of which lead to a significantly higher risk of mental health issues such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety (Siriwardhana and Stewart 2013; Virgincar et al. 2016). A systematic review built upon data obtained from the World Health Organisation estimates that one in five displaced individuals live with a severe mental health disorder (Charlson et al. 2019), with children being particularly vulnerable to developmental delays and maladaptive psychological responses (Hazer and Gredebäck 2023). Parents can help buffer against these detrimental effects. This issue carries clear international relevance, as millions of families worldwide are affected by armed conflict and displacement. Understanding how parent‐level factors can buffer children from war‐related trauma can inform global mental health interventions in conflict.

2. Background

Parenting during periods of war presents distinct challenges that can severely compromise the emotional availability, confidence, and responsiveness of caregivers.

Therefore, we sought to examine characteristics inherent to parenting: parental efficacy, parental reflective functioning (PRF), and parental age—an element often tied to life experience. These variables, save for parental age, are critical to promote during wartime as they tend to erode in the face of severe stress and conflict (Akesson and Sousa 2020; Moreira and Fonseca 2023), resulting in greater child stress and emotional difficulties (Schultheis et al. 2019). These skills impact both parents and children and the promotion of these skills can support healthy functioning during war. Younger parents are especially vulnerable to maintaining these skills as they tend to struggle under pressure more than older parents (Glatz and Buchanan 2015; Schultheis et al. 2019). Understanding the interplay between parental age and parenting practices, particularly in high‐stress or traumatic environments, is essential for supporting parental efficacy and promoting positive family outcomes.

Parental efficacy, or a parent's belief in his or her ability to positively attend to his or her child's needs, is linked to adaptive parenting practices, greater parental involvement with children, and better psychological outcomes for children, including the development of resilience and emotion regulation (Eltanamly et al. 2021; Pagorek‐Eshel and Dekel 2015). The stress of war can cause individuals to shift into survival mode, weakening parents' sense of control and capacity to engage in positive parenting behaviours (El‐Khani et al. 2017), in turn leading to children potentially developing externalising behaviours like aggression or internalising issues such as anxiety (Mouton et al. 2018).

PRF refers to a parent's ability to understand and interpret their child's thoughts, emotions, and behaviours (Luyten et al. 2017). This skill is especially crucial during times of trauma and conflict as it enables parents to provide emotional support that is aligned with their child's needs and helps children to make sense of distressing events (Luyten et al. 2017; Schultheis et al. 2019). In the current study, PRF was assessed using a self‐report questionnaire, which captures the parent's self‐perceived reflective capacity rather than an objective evaluation of their actual ability to interpret the child's internal states.

The high stress and emotional toll of conflict often diminishes a parent's ability to accurately perceive and respond to their child's mental states (Moreira and Fonseca 2023). However, parents with strong PRF skills can buffer the psychological effects of war on their children by creating a supportive environment that helps them to navigate the chaos. Strong PRF skills have been linked to healthier parent–child relationships and better psychological outcomes for children, particularly in high‐stress contexts like war (Decarli et al. 2023; Luyten et al. 2017).

Lastly, parental age is a critical factor that can influence parenting practices, parental efficacy, and overall family dynamics (Kestler‐Peleg et al. 2023). Younger parents, while potentially having more energy and physical resilience, may lack the emotional resources or life experience to manage the complex demands of effective parenting (Duncan et al. 2018), especially during high‐stress situations. Alternatively, older parents often bring more life experience, emotional maturity, and financial stability to their parenting roles, which can contribute to greater confidence and competence in navigating the challenges of raising children (Boivin et al. 2009; Jadva et al. 2022). Older parents may have a more developed capacity for problem‐solving and emotional regulation, traits that enhance their ability to foster secure attachment and provide a supportive environment for their children (Kestler‐Peleg et al. 2023). Research suggests that older parents are often more reflective and intentional in their parenting approaches, which aligns with demonstrating higher levels of parental efficacy (Kestler‐Peleg et al. 2023; Sleed et al. 2020).

2.1. The Current Study

General exposure to war‐related trauma, particularly displacement, can significantly affect the mental health of both parents and children (Hazer and Gredebäck 2023). Using a cross‐sectional research design, this study aimed to examine how displacement‐related exposure to war impacts parental efficacy among internally displaced parents during the Israel–Hamas war. Specifically, we investigated whether two factors—parental reflective functioning (PRF) and parental age—serve as protective moderators of this relationship. Prior literature suggests that higher PRF and older parental age are associated with greater emotional resilience, more effective coping strategies, and improved outcomes for both parents and children (Duncan et al. 2018; Jadva et al. 2022; Menon et al. 2020). In line with this, we hypothesised that parents with higher self‐rated PRF and those of older age would report higher parental efficacy despite exposure to war‐related stressors. We also accounted for the quality of the parent–child relationship, given prior evidence that higher levels of parental efficacy are strongly associated with more responsive and supportive parenting practices (Corapci and Wachs 2002; Fang et al. 2021).

3. Methods

3.1. Participants

Our data were drawn from a sample of 97 parents. Demographic information is provided in Table 1 (one respondent was excluded due to missing data). The majority of participating parents were female (87.5%) while the children's reported gender distribution was more balanced, with 58.3% boys and 41.7% girls. Participants were evacuated almost equally from the South (49.0%) and the North (51.0%). The mean age of the children was 4.69 years (SD = 1.14), and the mean age of the parents was 39.00 years (SD = 4.53).

TABLE 1.

Descriptive statistics of respondents' background characteristics.

Count Percent
All 96 100.0
Parent's gender
Male 12 12· 5
Female 84 87· 5
Child's gender
Male 56 58· 3
Female 40 41· 7
Income categories
Below average 31 32· 3
Average 22 22· 9
Above average 43 44· 8
Residential location
North 49 51· 0
South 47 49· 0
Parent education
High school 18 18· 8
BA 45 46· 9
MA+ 33 34· 4
Mean SD
Child age 4· 69 1· 14
Parent age 39· 00 4· 53
Open in a new tab

3.2. Procedure

Parents in displaced communities were contacted and offered to participate in an intervention study. The research team met with displaced families in person prior to data collection to build rapport and gain a sense of the contextual background of participants. Following the meeting, participants answered questionnaires concerning their parental abilities and parental and child mental health. The questionnaires were facilitated by the online Qualtrics survey program. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring participants were fully aware of the study's aims and procedures. Participant confidentiality was maintained by assigning unique identifiers and securely storing data in password‐protected files.

This study was part of a larger study that involves a dyadic intervention for displaced parents and children. The data for this study were collected prior to the intervention, between January and June 2025, and the study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Haifa (approval number 003/24). Anonymised data are available upon request to the authors.

3.3. Measures

3.3.1. Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic details including age, gender, marital status, education level, financial status, and religiosity were collected to describe the parents' profiles. The latter was collected as all participants are Jewish and we wished to assess heterogeneity within the sample. Information related to displacement, such as the family's original residence, current location, and the duration of displacement, was also gathered. Children's demographic information such as age, gender, birth order, and general health status was assessed.

3.3.2. Exposure to War‐Related Events Questionnaire

The questionnaire used was adapted from the Political Life Events Questionnaire (PLE; Slone et al. 1997) and included questions about exposure to war‐related events. The PLE was developed in Hebrew (Slone et al. 1997; Slone and Shoshani 2014) and we adapted the original scale to encompass current political events. For example, items like ‘experience with parental military service’ or ‘encounters with terrorists at home’ were added. Participants rated sample items, including exposure to explosions or gunfire, sirens and time spent in bomb shelters, and experiences of personal injury using a 5‐point Likert scale. The scale ranged from 1 = ‘I was not exposed’ to 5 = ‘I was exposed and it was extremely stressful’. Reliability data are not applicable to this scale, as the items do not necessarily intercorrelate. The mean for this study is 2.87 with an SD of 1.74.

3.3.3. Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (PRFQ)

The Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (PRFQ; Luyten et al. 2017) was used to assess parental reflective functioning. The Interest and Curiosity subscales, which are associated with parental emotional availability, were closely examined (Luyten et al. 2017). A sample item from this subscale is, ‘I am often curious to find out how my child feels’. Parents rated each item on a Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘Strongly Disagree’ to 7 = ‘Strongly Agree’. The scores for each item were averaged to produce a PRF score, with higher scores associated with greater reflective functioning skills and lower skills associated with lower reflective functioning skills. It is important to note that the PRFQ measures the parent's self‐perceived reflective functioning, rather than an objective assessment of their ability to accurately interpret their child's internal experiences. The PRFQ demonstrated good internal consistency, with an alpha coefficient of 0.88 with mean score of 5.97 (SD = 1.01). The Hebrew version of the PRFQ was validated in previous studies (Shai and Belsky 2017) and utilised in this study.

3.3.4. Brief Parental Self Efficacy Scale (BPSES)

The Brief Parental Self Efficacy Scale (BPSES; Wittkowski et al. 2017) is a five‐item questionnaire used to assess parental efficacy (e.g., ‘I can make an important difference to my child’). Participants rated items on a five‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘Strongly Disagree’ to 5 = ‘Strongly Agree’. For the current study, the alpha coefficient was 0.82, with a mean score of 4.12 (SD = 0.49). Following a rigorous process to ensure accuracy and cultural relevance, this questionnaire was translated from English to Hebrew. Reverse translation to English was implemented in order to verify the reliability and consistency of the translation. Any discrepancies in the Hebrew translation were reviewed and collaboratively resolved to maintain the integrity of the original content.

3.3.5. Child–Parent Relationship Scale‐Short Form (CPRS‐SF)

The Child–Parent Relationship Scale‐Short Form (CPRS‐SF; Driscoll and Pianta 2011) is a 15‐item questionnaire designed to measure the parent–child relationship (e.g., ‘It is easy to be in tune with what my child is feeling’). Each item is rated on a five‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = ‘Definitely Does Not Apply’ to 5 = ‘Definitely Applies’. In the current study, the alpha coefficient was 0.80, with a mean score of 3.71 (SD = 0.18). Like the BPSES, this questionnaire was also translated into Hebrew. Reverse translation back into English was executed to ensure the reliability and consistency of the translation. Any inconsistencies in the Hebrew translation were addressed by the research team and collaboratively resolved to preserve the integrity of the original questionnaire.

3.4. Data Analysis and Modelling Strategy

All data were analysed using SPSS version 27. We examined how exposure to war relates to parental efficacy and whether this relationship is influenced by parents' age and reflectivity levels. A conditional model was developed to assess the effect of exposure on parental efficacy during wartime, with parental age and reflectivity added as potential moderators. By conditional, we mean that combinations of age and reflectivity levels influenced the impact of exposure on efficacy. Parent–child relationship was added in step 2 as a main effect, but no conditional assumption was made on this additional effect. As shown in Figure 1, parameters W1 and W2 represent the moderation of the direct effect between exposure and efficacy. These parameters correspond to the interaction terms: age X exposure and reflectivity X exposure, beyond their direct effects on efficacy. Parent gender, child age, and original residential location (South vs. North) were included as control variables that may influence the development of parental efficacy.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

A schematic illustration of the theoretical model.

The regression model was executed in three steps following the hierarchical regression approach (Petrocelli 2003). First, personal characteristics such as the parent's age were entered. Second, key research measures including exposure, reflectivity, and the parent–child relationship were incorporated. Finally, the interaction terms, such as age × exposure and reflectivity × exposure, were added. We applied the PROCESS procedure (Hayes 2018) to assess the conditional effects of the combined age and reflectivity levels on the exposure–efficacy association.

4. Results

During step 1, we found that parental age was positively associated with parental efficacy (β = 0.26, p < 0.05), while other factors did not impact efficacy. In other words, older parents were associated with higher levels of parental efficacy, and younger parents were associated with lower levels. During step 2, we found that both PRF and quality of the parent–child relationship were effective in explaining parental efficacy (β = 0.31, p < 0.001; β = 0.52, p < 0.001; respectively) but war exposure had no direct main (unconditional) effect on parental efficacy. Step 2 added a significant amount of explanatory power to the model by adding the research variables (ΔR2 = 0.35, p < 0.001). Step 3 was performed separately for each interaction term. In step 3a, we found the age × exposure interaction to be significant in contributing to the main effects (ΔR2 = 0.05, p < 0.01), and the effect was positive (β = 0.23, p < 0.01). Similarly, the second interaction was found to contribute to the total explanatory power of the model (ΔR2 = 0.03, p < 0.05), yet the interaction effect was negative (β = −0.19, p < 0.05). For clarification, regression results are also presented in Figure 2 based on the schematic illustration of the theoretical model.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Moderation model results, standardised and unstandardised regression estimates.

It is important to note that the small sample size may affect the stability and generalisability of the regression coefficients. With only 96 participants, the model may be underpowered to detect subtle effects, and parameter estimates may be more sensitive to outliers or sample‐specific variability.

A follow‐up interaction decomposition is shown in Figure 3a,b. In the upper part of each interaction analysis, regression lines subject to different values of the moderator are shown (Low = mean minus 1SD; Medium = mean; High = mean plus 1SD). Among younger parents, the exposure–efficacy association was negative (b = −0.08, p = 0.02), meaning greater war exposure was associated with lower parental efficacy. In contrast, this association was positive (b = 0.05, p = 0.04) among older parents, while the middle age group was found to have an insignificant association between exposure and efficacy. In the lower part of Figure 3a, a finer analysis of the interaction effect using the Johnson–Neyman procedure (D'Alonzo 2004) is presented. This procedure resulted in two regions wherein the simple slopes were significant: (1) From age 27–35, the effect of war exposure on parental efficacy was negative but decreased in age; (2) from the age of 46–52, this association was positive and increased by age; (3) the association was found to be insignificant in the age group between the aforementioned groups. As for the conditional effect of exposure on efficacy subject to reflectivity levels shown on the bottom of Figure 3b, the Johnson–Neyman procedure yielded different effects. Specifically, only at the positive end (reflectivity function = 7) did the exposure effect meet significance (p = 0.056) at p < 0.10 rejection criterion. The simple slopes, regardless of their significance levels, started at the value of 0.21 and ended at the value of −0.068. At almost all points, that is, simple slopes, these were found to be insignificantly different from 0. See Table 2 for more information regarding regression results.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

(a, b): Interaction decomposition on parent efficacy.

TABLE 2.

Regression analysis results, main effects and interactions to explain parental efficacy.

b SE β t
Step 1
Parent age 0.03 0.01 0.26 2.37*
Child age 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.26
Parent gender 0.10 0.15 0.07 0.62
Residence south vs. north 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.23
F(4,90) 1.71
R2 0.07
Step 2
Subjective exposure −0.02 0.03 −0.06 −0.57
Parental reflective function 0.15 0.04 0.31 3.71***
Parent child relationship 0.52 0.09 0.52 5.55***
F(7,87) 8.94***
ΔR2 0.35***
R2 0.42***
Step3a
Subjective exposure × age

0.02

 0.01** 0.23 2.92**
F(8,86) 9.57***
ΔR2 0.05**
R2 0.47***
Step3b
Subjective exposure × reflective function −0.05 0.02* −0.19 −2.20*
F(8,86) 8.78***
ΔR2 0.03*
R2 0.45***
Open in a new tab

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ~p < 0.10.

5. Discussion

The current study examined the intricate relationship between parental war exposure and parental efficacy, focusing on the moderating effects of parental age and reflective functioning. Our findings suggest that this relationship is not straightforward but conditional, underscoring the need for models that account for these moderating factors to understand how war‐related stress impacts parenting.

Contrary to prior research (Eltanamly et al. 2021), we found no direct link between parental exposure to war and parental efficacy. Instead, parental age emerged as a critical moderator, revealing significant variability in how war exposure influences efficacy across different life stages. Younger parents, often less experienced in managing the dual challenges of parenting and war, demonstrated reduced efficacy under high‐exposure conditions. This aligns with broader findings that younger parents are more vulnerable to stress and may require additional resources and support to mitigate these effects (Menon et al. 2020).

In contrast, older parents exhibited a unique pattern: higher exposure to war was associated with increased parental efficacy. This finding may reflect their accumulated life experiences, which could foster greater self‐efficacy and resilience in the face of adversity. Older parents likely draw on established coping mechanisms and pre‐existing resources such as emotional regulation, problem‐solving skills, social support networks, and financial stability, enabling them to maintain a sense of control despite chaotic circumstances. These findings highlight the dynamic interplay between age and war exposure, with potential implications for tailored interventions to support parents at different life stages.

Another aspect to consider is the population sample. As our sample focuses on displaced Israeli parents, it is extremely likely that these individuals have been exposed to war and terrorism in the past. In line with the inoculation hypothesis, it is believed older adults' possession of effective coping mechanisms through life experience helps to buffer the negative effects of trauma, resulting in lower psychopathology compared to younger adults (Shrira and Palgi 2024). Similarly, older parents' life experiences of living through war and trauma may be an advantage that allows them to better protect their children against the negative effects of war.

Additionally, PRF, a well‐documented protective factor in parenting (Luyten et al. 2017; Schultheis et al. 2019), also moderated the relationship between war exposure and efficacy albeit in a nuanced manner. PRF buffered against declines in parental efficacy when war exposure was low or moderate. Under these conditions, reflective functioning likely enhances parents' abilities to interpret and respond to their children's emotional needs and subsequently foster adaptive parenting. However, at high levels of war exposure, PRF appeared insufficient to counteract the overwhelming stress, leading to declines in efficacy regardless of reflective capacities. This finding aligns with evidence that extreme stress can disrupt reflective processes as immediate survival needs take precedence (Wilkie 2018).

Taken together, our results emphasise the complex mechanisms underlying the interplay between subjective war exposure, parental efficacy, and moderating factors such as age and PRF. Older parents' resilience and coping resources may explain their enhanced efficacy under high‐stress conditions, while younger parents' limited experience and vulnerability highlight the need for age‐targeted interventions. Similarly, the protective role of PRF appears contingent on the intensity of war exposure, suggesting that even strong reflective capacities may falter under extreme stress. Future research should explore specific coping strategies and interventions to support parents across age groups and exposure levels, fostering resilience in the face of adversity.

Our findings also reinforced the well‐established notion that the quality of the parent–child relationship is closely associated with parental efficacy (Albanese et al. 2019). Parents who reported stronger, healthier relationships with their children were more likely to maintain higher levels of efficacy irrespective of their exposure levels. However, this can be difficult to maintain as parents tend to perceive their parenting responsibilities as more burdensome during wartime owing to the extra effort necessary to meet their children's needs (Mijalevich‐Soker and Taubman‐Ben‐Ari 2025). This emphasises the importance of fostering strong emotional bonds as a resilience factor, especially during times of war and crisis.

This study adds to the limited but growing research on parenthood during war, an area often overshadowed by the sole focus on children's vulnerability in conflict settings (Hazer and Gredebäck 2023; Murphy et al. 2017). While children's susceptibility during developmental transitions is well documented, neglecting the experiences of parents overlooks critical opportunities for intervention that can protect both parents and children. Given the strong link between parental and child mental health (Hazer and Gredebäck 2023), addressing parents' needs is essential for supporting family resilience. By highlighting the challenges faced by displaced parents, this study underscores the necessity of integrating parental mental health into interventions for war‐affected populations.

Though centred on Israeli parents displaced during the Israel–Hamas conflict, these findings have global implications. Displaced parents around the world face similar stressors including disrupted social networks, financial instability, and exposure to violence. As our findings demonstrate, protective factors like PRF and age‐related resilience may also apply to this global population. Age‐appropriate tailored interventions enhancing reflective capacities could benefit refugee populations, such as those in Syrian camps or conflict zones in sub‐Saharan Africa. However, cultural differences in parenting and stress responses must be considered when applying these findings. Future studies should examine how contextual factors, including cultural norms and resource availability, influence resilience and the moderating effects identified in this research.

In terms of practical implications, our study sheds light on key populations that may benefit from targeted interventions. Younger parents and those with lower reflective functioning abilities seem particularly vulnerable to reductions in parental efficacy under conditions of extreme war‐related stress. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at enhancing reflective functioning and providing support to younger parents could mitigate the negative effects of war exposure on their parenting capacities. Strengthening parental self‐efficacy through focused training or therapeutic programmes may be particularly beneficial in such contexts.

6. Limitations

The study's reliance on a limited sample and on self‐report measures introduces the possibility of response bias, which could affect the interpretation of the moderating effects of PRF and parental age. The small sample size is attributed to the unique population of displaced parents, who are experiencing significant stress and are challenging to effectively survey. These data were difficult to collect owing to ethical concerns—the research team did not want to further distress the parents or exacerbate any traumatic experiences they had. Furthermore, the small sample size may compromise the stability of the regression estimates and limit the generalisability of the findings. While significant effects were found, they should be interpreted with caution as smaller samples increase the risk of both Type I and Type II errors. This limitation underscores the importance of interpreting the findings as preliminary and in need of replication with a more representative and randomly selected sample.

In addition, the cross‐sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships, particularly regarding the dynamic interactions between war exposure, PRF, and parental efficacy over time. These limitations suggest that future research should incorporate objective measures, such as observed parent–child interactions, and adopt longitudinal approaches to capture changes in efficacy and PRF under varying exposure conditions.

7. Conclusion and Future Directions

This study highlights the urgent need for mental health and social support systems to address the nuanced challenges faced by displaced parents during armed conflict. The conditional nature of parental efficacy—moderated by parental age and reflective functioning—demonstrates that effective interventions must be tailored, age‐sensitive, and contextually grounded. Policymakers and practitioners should prioritise the early identification of at‐risk parents, particularly younger caregivers, and implement programmes aimed at strengthening reflective capacities. Embedding such interventions within existing community and displacement infrastructure may create scalable, culturally appropriate pathways to bolster family resilience in times of war.

Building on these findings, future research should investigate the effectiveness of interventions designed to enhance parental reflective functioning and efficacy, particularly in displaced and high‐risk populations. Longitudinal designs would allow for the examination of how these protective factors develop and interact with varying degrees of war exposure over time. Given that women—especially mothers—are often primary caregivers and may experience heightened vulnerability in high‐stress contexts like war and displacement, future research should explore the specific psychological burdens they carry. This includes not only their own emotional regulation and caregiving under duress but also how broader sociopolitical conditions, such as the militarisation of children, compound maternal stress. The militarisation of childhood is a global phenomenon with profound emotional and psychological implications for mothers and caregivers, and future studies should consider its impact on parenting and mental health. Expanding this line of inquiry to diverse global conflict settings and culturally specific caregiving roles would support a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of family dynamics in times of crisis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank FAR Fund for supporting this study. The authors thank the participants and their families for their time and effort involved in this study. The authors also thank Aliza Weiss for her help with the manuscript.

Enav, Y. , and Mayer Y.. 2026. “Parenting in Armed Political Conflict: Relationships Between Parental Efficacy, Reflective Functioning, and Age Among War‐Displaced Families.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 82, no. 2: 1421–1429. 10.1111/jan.17034.

Funding: This work was supported by the FAR Fund.

Contributor Information

Yael Enav, Email: yaelenav12@gmail.com.

Yael Mayer, Email: yael.mayer@edu.haifa.ac.il.

Data Availability Statement

Anonymized data is available upon request to the authors.

References

  1. Akesson, B. , and Sousa C.. 2020. “Parental Suffering and Resilience Among Recently Displaced Syrian Refugees in Lebanon.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 29: 1264–1273. 10.1007/s10826-019-01664-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albanese, A. M. , Russo G. R., and Geller P. A.. 2019. “The Role of Parental Self‐Efficacy in Parent and Child Well‐Being: A Systematic Review of Associated Outcomes.” Child: Care, Health and Development 45, no. 3: 333–363. 10.1111/cch.12661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boivin, J. , Rice F., Hay D., et al. 2009. “Associations Between Maternal Older Age, Family Environment and Parent and Child Wellbeing in Families Using Assisted Reproductive Techniques to Conceive.” Social Science & Medicine 68, no. 11: 1948–1955. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Charlson, F. , van Ommeren M., Flaxman A., Cornett J., Whiteford H., and Saxena S.. 2019. “New WHO Prevalence Estimates of Mental Disorders in Conflict Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Lancet 394, no. 10194: 240–248. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30934-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Corapci, F. , and Wachs T. D.. 2002. “Does Parental Mood or Efficacy Mediate the Influence of Environmental Chaos Upon Parenting Behavior?” Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly (1982‐) 48, no. 2: 182–201. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23093762. [Google Scholar]
  6. D'Alonzo, K. T. 2004. “The Johnson‐Neyman Procedure as an Alternative to ANCOVA.” Western Journal of Nursing Research 26, no. 7: 804–812. 10.1177/0193945904266733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Decarli, A. , Schulz A., Pierrehumbert B., and Vögele C.. 2023. “Mothers' and Fathers' Reflective Functioning and Its Association with Parenting Behaviors and Cortisol Reactivity During a Conflict Interaction with Their Adolescent Children.” Emotion 23, no. 4: 1160–1174. 10.1037/emo0001113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Driscoll, K. , and Pianta R. C.. 2011. “Mothers' and Fathers' Perceptions of Conflict and Closeness in Parent‐Child Relationships During Early Childhood.” Journal of Early Childhood & Infant Psychology 7: 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  9. Duncan, G. J. , Lee K. T., Rosales‐Rueda M., and Kalil A.. 2018. “Maternal Age and Child Development.” Demography 55: 2229–2255. 10.1007/s13524-018-0730-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. El‐Khani, A. , Ulph F., Peters S., and Calam R.. 2017. “Syria: Coping Mechanisms Utilised by Displaced Refugee Parents Caring for Their Children in Pre‐Resettlement Contexts.” Intervention 15, no. 1: 34–50. 10.1097/WTF.0000000000000136. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eltanamly, H. , Leijten P., Jak S., and Overbeek G.. 2021. “Parenting in Times of War: A Meta‐Analysis and Qualitative Synthesis of War Exposure, Parenting, and Child Adjustment.” Trauma, Violence & Abuse 22, no. 1: 147–160. 10.1177/1524838019833001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fang, Y. , Boelens M., Windhorst D. A., Raat H., and van Grieken A.. 2021. “Factors Associated With Parenting Self‐Efficacy: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 77, no. 6: 2641–2661. 10.1111/jan.14767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Glatz, T. , and Buchanan C. M.. 2015. “Change and Predictors of Change in Parental Self‐Efficacy from Early to Middle Adolescence.” Developmental Psychology 51, no. 10: 1367–1379. 10.1037/dev0000035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hayes, A. F. 2018. “Partial, Conditional, and Moderated Moderated Mediation: Quantification, Inference, and Interpretation.” Communication Monographs 85, no. 1: 4–40. 10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hazer, L. , and Gredebäck G.. 2023. “The Effects of War, Displacement, and Trauma on Child Development.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10, no. 1: 1–19. 10.1057/s41599-023-02438-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jadva, V. , Lysons J., Imrie S., and Golombok S.. 2022. “An Exploration of Parental Age in Relation to Parents' Psychological Health, Child Adjustment and Experiences of Being an Older Parent in Families Formed Through Egg Donation.” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 45, no. 2: 401–409. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.03.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Joshi, P. T. , and Fayyad J. A.. 2015. “Displaced Children: The Psychological Implications.” Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics 24, no. 4: 715–730. 10.1016/j.chc.2015.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kestler‐Peleg, M. , Greenblatt‐Kimron L., Even‐Zohar A., and Lavenda O.. 2023. “Parental Self‐Efficacy Among Israeli Older Adults.” Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue Canadienne du Vieillissement 42, no. 4: 631–641. 10.1017/S0714980823000144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lerer, M. 2024. תכניות לפינוי אוכלוסייה – חלק ב': מפרוץ מלחמת חרבות ברזל [Population Evacuation Plans ‐ Part II: Outbreak of the Iron Swords War]. National Emergency Management Authority (NEMA). https://fs.knesset.gov.il/25/Committees/25_cs_mmm_3558908.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  20. Luyten, P. , Mayes L. C., Nijssens L., and Fonagy P.. 2017. “The Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire: Development and Preliminary Validation.” PLoS One 12, no. 5: e0176218. 10.1371/journal.pone.0176218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Menon, M. , Fauth R. C., and Easterbrooks M. A.. 2020. “Exploring Trajectories of Young Mothers' Parenting Stress in Early Childhood: Associations with Protective Factors and Psychological Vulnerabilities.” Parenting 20, no. 3: 200–228. 10.1080/15295192.2020.1715683. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mijalevich‐Soker, E. , and Taubman‐Ben‐Ari O.. 2025. “Parents' Experience During Wartime: Vulnerability, Complexity, and Parental Functioning.” Journal of Loss and Trauma: 1–25. 10.1080/15325024.2025.2465388. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Moreira, H. , and Fonseca A.. 2023. “Measuring Parental Reflective Functioning: Further Validation of the Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire in Portuguese Mothers of Infants and Young Children.” Child Psychiatry & Human Development 54, no. 4: 1042–1054. 10.1007/s10578-021-01288-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mouton, B. , Loop L., Stievenart M., and Roskam I.. 2018. “Parenting Programs to Reduce Young Children's Externalizing Behavior: A Meta‐Analytic Review of Their Behavioral or Cognitive Orientation.” Child & Family Behavior Therapy 40, no. 2: 115–147. 10.1080/07317107.2018.1477348. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Murphy, K. M. , Rodrigues K., Costigan J., and Annan J.. 2017. “Raising Children in Conflict: An Integrative Model of Parenting in War.” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 23, no. 1: 46–57. 10.1037/pac0000195. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pagorek‐Eshel, S. , and Dekel R.. 2015. “Parental Self‐Efficacy and Paternal Involvement in the Context of Political Violence.” Clinical Social Work Journal 43: 388–397. 10.1007/s10615-015-0516-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Peleg, O. , and Gendelman L.. 2023. “Internally Displaced People Amidst War: The Israeli Narrative.” Lancet 402, no. 10417: 2071–2072. 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02521-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Petrocelli, J. V. 2003. “Factor Validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: Evidence for a Short Version.” Journal of Social Psychology 143, no. 4: 405–413. 10.1080/00224540309598453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Schultheis, A. M. , Mayes L. C., and Rutherford H. J.. 2019. “Associations Between Emotion Regulation and Parental Reflective Functioning.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 28: 1094–1104. 10.1007/s10826-018-01326-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Shai, D. , and Belsky J.. 2017. “Parental Embodied Mentalizing: How the Nonverbal Dance Between Parents and Infants Predicts Children's Socio‐Emotional Functioning.” Attachment & Human Development 19, no. 2: 191–219. 10.1080/14616734.2016.1255653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Shrira, A. , and Palgi Y.. 2024. “Age Differences in Acute Stress and PTSD Symptoms During the 2023 Israel‐Hamas War: Preliminary Findings.” Journal of Psychiatric Research 173: 111–114. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sim, A. , Fazel M., Bowes L., and Gardner F.. 2018. “Pathways Linking War and Displacement to Parenting and Child Adjustment: A Qualitative Study With Syrian Refugees in Lebanon.” Social Science & Medicine 200: 19–26. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Siriwardhana, C. , and Stewart R.. 2013. “Forced Migration and Mental Health: Prolonged Internal Displacement, Return Migration and Resilience.” International Health 5, no. 1: 19–23. 10.1093/inthealth/ihs014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sleed, M. , Slade A., and Fonagy P.. 2020. “Reflective Functioning on the Parent Development Interview: Validity and Reliability in Relation to Socio‐Demographic Factors.” Attachment & Human Development 22, no. 3: 310–331. 10.1080/14616734.2018.1555603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Slone, M. , Durrheim K., and Kaminer D.. 1997. Construction of a Political Life Events Scale. Unpublished manuscript. Tel Aviv University. [Google Scholar]
  36. Slone, M. , and Shoshani A.. 2014. “Psychiatric Effects of Protracted Conflict and Political Life Events Exposure Among Adolescents in Israel: 1998–2011.” Journal of Traumatic Stress 27, no. 3: 353–360. 10.1002/jts.21918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Virgincar, A. , Doherty S., and Siriwardhana C.. 2016. “The Impact of Forced Migration on the Mental Health of the Elderly: A Scoping Review.” International Psychogeriatrics 28, no. 6: 889–896. 10.1017/S1041610216000193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilkie, M. 2018. Parents of War: A Grounded Theory Study of the Experience of Parenting Through the War Experience Doctoral diss., Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences – Department of Conflict Resolution Studies. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/shss_dcar_etd/116.
  39. Wittkowski, A. , Garrett C., Calam R., and Weisberg D.. 2017. “Self‐Report Measures of Parental Self‐Efficacy: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 26: 2960–2978. 10.1007/s10826-017-0830-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

Anonymized data is available upon request to the authors.

Articles from Journal of Advanced Nursing are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES