Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2019 Apr 29;33(6):742–752. doi: 10.1037/fam0000534

Re-Examining the “Cycle of Abuse”: Parenting Determinants Among Previously Maltreated, Low-Income Mothers

Louisa C Michl-Petzing 1, Elizabeth D Handley 2, Melissa Sturge-Apple 3, Dante Cicchetti 4, Sheree L Toth 5
PMCID: PMC6706323  NIHMSID: NIHMS1042897  PMID: 31033305

Abstract

Multidomain approaches toward understanding the transmission of harsh caregiving across generations have been largely overlooked in the literature. To address this, the current study examined how maternal and child factors may operate as mediating mechanisms in the association between maternal history of child maltreatment and maternal caregiving behaviors. In particular, we tested the relative roles of maternal depression, maternal efficacy beliefs, and child behavioral difficulties as explanatory variables in these associations. Participants (N = 127) were drawn from a community sample of mother-child dyads from socioeconomically disadvantaged, ethnically diverse backgrounds. Mother-child dyads were assessed at baseline, when the children were approximately 12 months old, with follow-up visits occurring when children were 26 and 37 months of age. Findings did not support a significant direct effect of childhood maltreatment on mothers’ subsequent harsh or responsive parenting behavior. However, analyses demonstrated a significant indirect effect of childhood maltreatment history on later responsive parenting behaviors via maternal depression. Results also supported a significant indirect effect of childhood maltreatment history on later harsh parenting behavior through child behavior problems. Although mothers’ childhood maltreatment history significantly predicted lower levels of maternal efficacy, results did not support a mediating role of maternal efficacy beliefs in the association between maltreatment history and subsequent parenting behaviors. Identifying specific factors that potentially disrupt the intergenerational pattern of maladaptive parenting can serve to guide prevention and intervention efforts aimed at facilitating more positive, responsive parenting strategies within high-risk families.

Keywords: child maltreatment, parenting, maternal depression, maternal efficacy, child behavior problems

Child maltreatment represents negative parenting at its extreme. The complex interplay of parent and child factors over time precludes the existence of any simplistic cause and effect relationship to explain why any parent maltreats a child. The experience of maltreatment in childhood is a frequently cited risk factor for subsequent maladaptive parenting behaviors (Cicchetti & Rizley, 1981; Dixon, Browne, & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005; Thornberry & Henry, 2013). The intergenerational transmission of maltreatment refers to the cycle of abuse in which a parent with a history of maltreatment is at higher risk to subsequently abuse his or her own offspring. Rather than focusing solely on the perpetration of maltreatment among previously maltreated mothers, the current study sought to capture a broader spectrum of parenting. As such, two commonly identified dimensions of parenting were utilized, which research consistently shows exert meaningful influence on child development—harshness and responsiveness. Example behaviors of harsh parenting include verbal and physical hostility, rejection of the child, overly punitive or inconsistent discipline, and psychological coercion (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang, 2003). Early exposure to this type of parenting has been shown to disrupt the development of security, self-worth, and self-regulatory skills in children, all of which aid in the development of positive adjustment across the life span (Bradley & Corwyn, 2007). Responsiveness, on the contrary, encompasses high levels of warmth, praise, sensitivity, and acceptance, as well as responses that are contingently linked to the child’s signals and needs (Baldwin, 1955; Landry et al., 2012). Responsive parenting is crucial in supporting young children’s development (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bornstein & Tamis-LeMonda, 1989; Landry, Smith, Swank, Assel, & Vellet, 2001).

Given the well-established effects of both harsh and responsive parenting on child development, this study investigates how mothers’ own caregiving history impacts their subsequent demonstration of these parenting dimensions and which factors may help explain such a link. Historically, much of the research on parenting determinants has been guided by the work of Jay Belsky (1984). His process model proposes three main sources of influence on parenting—(a) the developmental history of parents and their own psychological makeup, (b) attributes of the child, as well as (c) the broader social context within which the parent-child relationship is embedded. Guided by this model, the current study examined how (a) maternal depression, (b) maternal self-efficacy beliefs, and (c) child behavior problems may operate as underlying mechanisms in the associations between histories of childhood maltreatment and mothers’ use of harsh and responsive parenting with their own children.

Maternal Depression and Parenting

Given the proposed influence of parents’ own psychological makeup on parenting behavior in Belsky’s (1984) model, maternal depression was examined in the current study as a potential mediating variable. The inclusion of maternal depression was a clear choice as maltreated individuals are more likely to develop depression both in childhood (e.g., Cicchetti & Toth, 1995; Toth, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1992; Widom, DuMont, & Czaja, 2007) and into their adult years (Brown, Cohen, Johnson, & Smailes, 1999; Hankin, 2005). Moreover, mothers are more likely to report depressive symptoms than their peers without children (Cowan & Cowan, 1992), with nearly 15% of mothers receiving a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) with peripartum onset (Goodman, 2007). Notably, high prevalence rates of elevated depressive symptoms have been found among minority women and economically disadvantaged women (Kessler et al., 1994, 2003; Segre, O’Hara, Arndt, & Stuart, 2007). Rates of MDD among economically disadvantaged mothers of young children have been reported as high as 25% (Miranda, Schoenbaum, Sherbourne, Duan, & Wells, 2004). Mothers with depression are frequently found to be limited in their ability to parent effectively (Belsky, 1984; Gotlib & Goodman, 1999; Marmorstein, Malone, & Iacono, 2004; Turney, 2011). Depressed mothers are more likely to be to less empathic, more aggressive, and less emotionally responsive to their children compared with their nondepressed peers (Feng, Shaw, Skuban, & Lane, 2007; Lovejoy, Graczyk, O’Hare, & Neuman, 2000). In fact, Choi and colleagues (2019) identified an indirect effect of maternal childhood maltreatment on offspring exposure to maltreatment through postpartum depression. Given this evidence, maternal depression is hypothesized to serve as a significant mediator linking mothers’ maltreatment history to the quality of their own parenting behavior.

Parenting Self-Efficacy and Parenting

Parental self-efficacy, an additional aspect of parents’ psychological makeup, was also hypothesized to exert a mediating impact on harsh and responsive parenting behaviors among previously maltreated mothers. It has been previously suggested that the experience of childhood maltreatment is associated with decreased feelings of efficacy in the maternal role (Michl, Handley, Rogosch, Cicchetti, & Toth, 2015). Prior research also demonstrates that parental efficacy beliefs, or the degree to which parents perceive themselves as able to master the varied tasks associated with this demanding role, are highly associated with positive parenting practices (Ardelt & Eccles, 2001; Izzo, Weiss, Shanahan, & Rodriguez-Brown, 2000). Bandura (1982) theorized that self-efficacy beliefs are central in elucidating the relationship between knowledge and behavior. Thus, while a mother may have the requisite knowledge of how to meet the needs of a distressed child, she may be unable to do so if she is hindered by self-doubt (Teti & Gelfand, 1991). Low levels of parental efficacy may then increase the likelihood of parents controlling child behavior with more forceful techniques such as spanking and/or yelling (Coleman & Karraker, 1998). MacPhee, Fritz, and Miller-Heyl (1996) found that, among a large sample of ethnically diverse low-income parents, parental efficacy beliefs were strongly related to parenting competence as measured by parental limit setting and less harsh disciplinary practices. Studies also show low maternal efficacy beliefs to be associated with more negative maternal interactions with infants (Bohlin & Hagekull, 1987) and lower levels of warmth and control with toddlers (Izzo et al., 2000). Given this evidence, maternal efficacy beliefs were hypothesized to mediate the influence of mothers’ childhood maltreatment history on later parenting behaviors.

Child Characteristics and Parenting

Experiences of child maltreatment are well known to disrupt the developing individual’s working model for relationships, particularly the parent-child relationship (e.g., Pickreign Stronach et al., 2011). Previously maltreated caregivers with unhealthy relationship models are at risk for holding negative attributions about their own children. Patterson’s (1982) social coercion theory suggests that mothers’ judgments of their children’s problem behaviors may forecast their use of harsh or controlling parenting strategies. It follows the premise that mothers who view their children as being difficult, demanding, and/or aggressive would be more likely to develop hostile attitudes about their children, which may subsequently manifest in mothers’ heightened tendency to use harsh or coercive parenting tactics (Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001).

The extant literature shows that child-driven effects must not be ignored when investigating the determinants of parenting. Evidence suggests children’s difficult behavior tends to decrease positive parental behavior and increase more controlling parenting behavior in both young children (Gadeyne, Ghesquière, & Onghena, 2004) and adolescents (Huh, Tristan, Wade, & Stice, 2006). Hipwell and colleagues (2008) found both conduct problems and depressed mood predicted decreases in parental warmth and increases in harsh punishment over time. These findings suggest that both child externalizing and internalizing problems should be considered as having the potential to influence parenting behaviors. Accordingly, the current study utilizes mother-reported child externalizing and internalizing problems with third-party observational measures of parenting behavior to assess how mothers’ perception of their children’s behavioral problems may subsequently impact the quality of parenting behavior. Importantly, the use of a parent-report measure of child behavior problems captures the potential influence of negative maternal perceptions of the child on subsequent parenting behavior.

In summary, the current study aims to better understand how maternal and child factors may mediate the association between maternal history of child maltreatment and harsh and responsive parenting behaviors. Specifically, we tested the relative roles of maternal depression, maternal efficacy beliefs, and child behavioral difficulties as explanatory variables in these associations among a sample of low-income mothers and their toddlers. This early developmental period is under focus, given the heightened significance of the parent-child relationship during this time and the reverberating effects early negative caregiving can have on child development across the life span. It is the hope that further elucidating these processes may provide insight into possibilities for early intervention efforts to disrupt the intergenerational pattern of maladaptive parenting within high-risk families.

Method

Participants

Participants were drawn from a larger randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) for depression among low-income mothers with a 12-month-old infant (see Toth et al., 2013 for inclusion criteria). Informed consent for participation was obtained from mothers prior to the initiation of data collection, and the research was conducted in compliance with the Institutional Review Board at the University of Rochester. To avoid any confounding intervention effects, only data from nondepressed (n = 59) or depressed mothers not receiving the target intervention (n = 68) were included in the current analyses. Mothers in the depressed group scored 19 or higher on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) and met Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM–IV (DIS-IV; Robins, Cottler, Bucholz, & Compton, 1995) criterion for MDD. The depressed group included both women randomized to the enhanced control condition (n = 29) as well as those randomized to the IPT group who did not comply with treatment and received fewer than three sessions (n = 39). As it is unethical to withhold treatment from individuals identified as being depressed, women randomized to the enhanced control condition were referred to services typically available within the community. Of this group, 66.5% elected to engage in services which included medication, support groups, family/marital counseling, and day treatment. In addition, a project staff member provided all women in this group periodic informational newsletters, basic information about MDD, support, and referrals to community mental health centers to assist them in accessing treatment, if requested. Participating mothers were given gift cards for each research visit, starting at a value of $20 and increasing by $5 increments for each subsequent visit.

At baseline, mothers ranged in age from 18–38 (M = 25.03). Over half of the sample identified as Black (n = 79, 62.2%), 21.3% as White (n = 27), and the remaining 16.5% as other (n = 21). In terms of ethnicity, 15% of participating mothers identified themselves as Hispanic (n = 19). To be eligible, all participants in the study had to reside at or below the federal poverty level. Median annual income was approximately $17,000, and the majority of the sample reported having never been married (n = 101;79.5%), while 15% (n = 19) reported being currently married and 5.5% (n = 7) as being either separated or divorced.

Procedures

The current study utilized data from baseline and two follow-up assessments conducted over a series of home-based sessions. Demographic data were collected through a demographic interview administered during an intake session when children were 12 months old. Maternal experience of childhood maltreatment was assessed utilizing the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein et al., 2003), administered at a follow-up home visit when children were 16 months old. Families were followed over the next 2 years when children were approximately 26 (Time 2 [T2]) and 37 months old (Time 3 [T3]). At T2, self-report measures were administered including the Maternal Efficacy Questionnaire (MEQ; Teti & Gelfand, 1991), Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 112 - 5 (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000), and BDI-II (Beck et al., 1996). Due to potential variability in literacy, trained interviewers read all self-report measures aloud while participants followed along and marked their answers. At T3, a trained research assistant videotaped mothers and their children in their homes during a 20-min free-play session, in which they were provided preselected, developmentally appropriate toys. Mothers were requested to interact with their child as they “typically would” and as though the filming research assistant was not there.

Measures

CTQ.

The CTQ (Bernstein et al., 2003) consists of 25 self-report items that assess retrospective accounts of child maltreatment. Participants are asked to rate statements reflecting experiences occurring before the age of 18 on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never true to very often true. Example statements include items such as “When I was growing up, people in my family hit me so hard that it left me with bruises or marks.” Analyses in this study utilized a composite variable indicating the sum of endorsed items. Higher scores, therefore, indicate greater experiences of maltreatment in childhood. The internal consistency of the CTQ was good (α = .86).

In this sample, 65.4% of mothers were classified as having “any maltreatment.” Emotional neglect was the most commonly reported (81.9%), followed by emotional abuse (68.7%), sexual abuse (50.6%), physical abuse (48.2%), and, lastly, physical neglect (38.6%). These categories were not mutually exclusive as 27.7% of previously maltreated mothers had experienced one type of maltreatment, while 15.7%, 14.5%, 25.3%, and 16.9% had experienced two, three, four, and five subtypes of maltreatment, respectively.

MEQ.

The MEQ (Teti & Gelfand, 1991) is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses a mother’s feelings of self-efficacy in relation to the specific demands of the parenting role. The items are designed to tap the mother’s sense of her ability to understand her child’s wants and needs, get her child’s attention, engage in positive interaction with her child, appreciate and respond to the child’s preferences, and take care of the child’s basic needs (e.g., “When your child is upset, fussy or crying, how good are you at soothing him or her?”). Internal consistency for the MEQ is 0.79–0.86 (Teti & Gelfand, 1991) and good construct validity has been demonstrated with the Competence subscale of the Parenting Stress Inventory (0.75). A composite score is generated by summing the scores for each item, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived maternal self-efficacy. The internal consistency of the MEQ in the current study was acceptable (α = .78).

BDI-II.

The BDI-II (Beck et al., 1996) is a 21-item, self-report measure assessing severity of depression. Questions are given in multiple-choice format, to which respondents indicate the statement that best describes how she has felt in the last 2 weeks. Scores of 19 or above indicate levels of depression with clinical significance. For the purpose of the current study, a continuous score reflecting endorsed depressive symptoms was utilized to reflect depression severity. The BDI-II has previously demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .91) and validity (Storch, Roberti, & Roth, 2004). In the current study, the average internal consistency of the BDI-II was α = .93.

CBCL.

The CBCL (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) is a widely used norm-referenced measure that records child emotional behavior problems and competencies as reported by their parent or caregiver. The scale is composed of 99 items, to which the respondent indicates whether each item is 0 (not true), 1 (somewhat or sometimes true), or 2 (very true or often true), now or within the past 2 months. Only the Total Problems scale was required for the current analyses in order to capture a broad sense of child emotional/behavioral difficulties. For this particular scale a T score of ≥60 indicates at least borderline clinically significant problems (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000).

The System for Coding Interactions in Parent-Child Dyads (SCIPD).

The SCIPD (Lindahl & Malik, 1996) is a global rating scale designed to behaviorally assess parent-child interactions during a variety of tasks. Parent behavior codes include those relating to affect regulation (Negative Affect, Positive Affect), as well as those assessing the quality of responses to their child (e.g., Emotional Support, Rejection/Invalidation, Scaffolding, and Coercive Control). All codes in the SCIPD utilize 5-point Likert scale ratings from 1 (very low) to 5 (high), indicating the degree to which the behavior is characteristic of the parent or child in the given interaction. A list of codes selected for the present study and their corresponding definitions is provided in the Appendix. The primary coder, a doctoral student in clinical psychology, reviewed and coded 100% of the parent-child interactions, while a trained member of the research staff with a master’s degree in a relevant field coded 20% for purposes of reliability. Raters were unaware of depressive group and childhood maltreatment status. Interclass correlation (ICC) estimates were calculated using SPSS (Version 24.0) based on a single-measurement, consistency, two-way mixed effects model. Interrater reliability (IRR) is considered poor for ICC values below .40, fair for values between .40 and .59, good for values between .60 and .74, and excellent for values above .75 (Cicchetti, 1994). Excellent IRR was found for the following SCIPD variables: Negative Affect (ICC = .79), Positive Affect (ICC = .84), Emotional Support (ICC [H11005] .82), Rejection/Invalidation (ICC = .84), and Coercive Control (ICC = .81). IRR was considered good for the Scaffolding (ICC = .72) variable.

Analytical Plan

Measurement modeling.

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to determine whether the observational data conforms to the proposed factor structure of two separate parenting dimensions—harsh and responsive parenting. The following maternal variables, taken from the SCIPD, were hypothesized indicators of the latent construct of harsh parenting: Maternal Negative Affect, Rejection/Invalidation, and Coercive Control. Similarly, Maternal Positive Affect, Emotional Support, and Scaffolding were hypothesized to be indicators of responsive parenting. A maximum likelihood estimator with robust standard errors (MLR) was used (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011) and standardized factor loadings of less than .50 were considered for removal. Assessment of model fit was based on the chi-square statistic (χ2), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). CFI values greater than .95, RMSEA values less than .06, SRMR values less than .05, and a nonsignificant chi-square statistic were considered an indication of good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Yu & Muthén, 2002).

Structural equation model specification.

The proposed structural model was tested within a structural equation modeling framework (Kline, 2015) using Mplus (Version 7.3; Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011) software. MLR was used to account for nonnormally distributed endogenous variables (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011). The proposed model is presented in Figure 1. Mothers’ childhood maltreatment history served as the exogenous predictor. All T2 variables (maternal efficacy, child behavior problems, maternal depression) were entered as mediators and residual covariances were modeled. The exogenous variable and proposed mediators were modeled to predict T3 harsh parenting and responsive parenting.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Final path model. Standardized path coefficients presented with standard error in parentheses. Although not depicted, all correlations between contemporaneous variables were modeled. Nonsignificant paths are dotted. CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; SCIPD = System for Coding Interactions in Parent-Child Dyads; pos = SCIPD Positive Affect; emo = SCIPD Emotional Support; scf = SCIPD Scaffolding; Resp = responsive parenting; neg = SCIPD Negative Affect; rej = SCIPD Rejection/Invalidation; crc = SCIPD Coercive Control; Harsh = Harsh Parenting; MEQ = Maternal Efficacy Questionnaire; BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory-II; CBCL = Child Behavior Checklist—Total Problems subscale. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Mediation model.

To understand the mechanisms underlying the effect of childhood maltreatment on subsequent parenting behaviors, analyses examined the existence of an indirect effect. To test whether T2 maternal efficacy beliefs, maternal depression, and/or child behavior problems mediate the relation between mothers’ childhood maltreatment history and their subsequent harsh and responsive parenting quality at T3, the distribution of the product method with 95% asymmetric confidence intervals (CIs) was used via RMediation (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011).

Results

Measurement Modeling

Correlations among all included parent behavior items at both time points are outlined in Table 1. All indicators of the harsh parenting latent construct (Negative Affect, Rejection/Invalidation, Coercive Control) were positively correlated with each other. The same was true of the responsive parenting indicator variables (Positive Affect, Emotional Support, Scaffolding). Significant negative correlations were shown between all harsh parenting indicators and all responsive parenting indicators. The CFA demonstrated the two-dimension (i.e., harsh/responsive) parenting model was an excellent fit to the data (χ2(8) = 4.45, ns; RMSEA = .00; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .02).

Table 1.

Correlations Among SCIPD Parenting Items

Coding item NA PA ES REJ SCF CC
NA
PA −.62**
ES −.73** .84**
REJ .85** −.55** −.67**
SCF −.63** .77** .84** −.58**
CC .79** −.48** −.61** .75** −.51**
Open in a new tab

Note. SCIPD = System for Coding Interactions in Parent-Child Dyads; NA = Negative Affect; P = Positive Affect; E = Emotional Support; REJ = Rejection/Invalidation; SCF = Scaffolding; C = Coercive Control.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Structural Equation Model

Table 2 outlines the bivariate correlations between primary model variables. For ease of interpretation, composite variables were created for harsh and responsive parenting and utilized for the purpose of correlation analyses only. Variables representing total family income, mothers’ current age, and the number of children mothers had reared were considered as potential covariates. None were significant predictors of the mediating or outcome variables, nor did their inclusion change the pattern of results in the model. Therefore, these variables were trimmed for the sake of parsimony.

Table 2.

Correlations Among Primary Model Variables

Model variable CTQ BDI-II CBCL-TP MEQ T3 Harsh T3 Resp
CTQ
BDI-II .45**
CBCL-TP .27** .43**
MEQ −.27** −.37** −.54**
T3 Harsh .11 .24* .33** −.09
T3 Resp −.02 −.33** −.30** .25* −.69**
Open in a new tab

Note. CTQ = Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory-II; CBCL-TP = Child Behavior Checklist—Total Problems subscale; MEQ = Maternal Efficacy Questionnaire; T3 = Time 3; Harsh = harsh parenting composite; Resp = responsive parenting composite.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

The proposed path model (see Figure 1) showed an excellent fit to the data, χ2(24) = 31.52, ns; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .99; SRMR = .03. All path coefficients in the final model are outlined in Table 3. Counter to expectations, childhood maltreatment history did not have a significant direct effect on harsh parenting (b = −.01 (.11), ns) or responsive parenting (b = .19 (.11), ns) at T3. Findings did, however, suggest a significant unique effect of childhood maltreatment on maternal efficacy beliefs (b = −.27 (.09), p = .01), maternal depression (b = .45 (.07), p < .001), and maternal reports of children’s behavior problems (b = .28 (.08), p < .05) at T2 (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Standardized Paths for Final Model

Independent variable → Dependent variable b SE p
Childhood maltreatment → Maternal depression .449 .072 .000
Childhood maltreatment → Maternal efficacy −.268 .088 .002
Childhood maltreatment → Child behavior problems .276 .084 .001
Childhood maltreatment → T3 harsh parenting −.006 .118 .959
Childhood maltreatment → T3 responsive parenting .189 .108 .080
Maternal depression → T3 harsh parenting .153 .120 .203
Maternal depression → T3 responsive parenting −.280 .106 .009
Maternal efficacy → T3 harsh parenting .161 .131 .221
Maternal efficacy → T3 responsive parenting .148 .100 .137
Child behavior problems → T3 harsh parenting .376 .111 .001
Child behavior problems → T3 responsive parenting −.135 .109 .218
Open in a new tab

Next, results indicate that harsh parenting behaviors were uniquely predicted by T2 maternal reports of child behavior problems (b = .38 (.11), p < .01). Maternal efficacy (b = .16 (.13), ns) and maternal depression (b = .15 (.12), ns) were not significant unique predictors of T3 harsh parenting. Likewise, maternal depression exerted significant unique influence on T3 responsive parenting behaviors (b = −.28 (.11), p < .01), yet neither maternal efficacy beliefs (b = .15 (.10), ns) nor child behavior problems (b = −.14 (.11), ns) were significant unique predictors of responsive parenting.

Indirect effects were tested utilizing 95% CIs via RMediation (Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011). Results indicated a significant indirect effect of mothers’ maltreatment history on responsive parenting via maternal depression, 95% CI [−.239, −.028]. Analyses also demonstrated a significant indirect effect of mothers’ maltreatment histories on harsh parenting behaviors via maternalrated child behavior problems, 95% CI [.033, .204].

Discussion

This study utilized a longitudinal, multi-informant design to examine the interplay of parent and child factors influencing the transmission of negative parenting across generations. While individuals’ own caregiving history is cited in the literature as a key determinant of parenting, the data did not support a direct effect of mothers’ maltreatment history on either parenting dimension. This finding suggests that other model variables better predict maternal parenting behaviors. Maternal depression, child behavior problems, and maternal efficacy beliefs were assessed as potential mechanisms through which maltreatment influences later harsh and responsive parenting. Interesting indirect effects emerged to help shed light on contributing determinants of distinct dimensions of parenting behavior. These findings are important, as the identification of specific factors that potentially mediate the intergenerational pattern of maladaptive parenting has critical implications both at the clinical and policy level.

Not surprisingly, results demonstrated that more extensive experiences of maltreatment in childhood predicted more severe maternal depression. This finding is consistent with the established association between childhood maltreatment and depression across the life span (Cicchetti & Toth, 1995; Hankin, 2005; Toth et al., 1992; Widom et al., 2007). The current study also found that higher levels of maternal depression predicted less responsive parenting behavior. Qualitative reviews of the literature have found depressed mothers tend to demonstrate a range of difficulties in parenting behavior (Downey & Coyne, 1990; Rutter, 1990). Lovejoy and colleagues’ (2000) meta-analysis on the effects of maternal depression on parenting found depression was associated most strongly with irritability and hostility toward the child, to a somewhat lesser degree with disengagement from the child, and weakest with rates of play and other active and pleasant social interaction. The association between maternal depression and harsh parenting was not significant in the current sample of previously maltreated mothers.

It is possible that the 1-year time lag between the assessment of maternal depression at T2 and parenting behaviors at T3 in the current study may have varying effects on the different dimensions of parenting behavior. Perhaps the symptoms of depression have a more immediate effect on harsh behaviors while exerting a more prolonged or continued effect on responsive behaviors. A stronger effect of maternal depression on harsh parenting behaviors may have emerged if the assessment time points were closer together. Importantly, timing of depressive episode was not related to the magnitude of the effect size for disengaged or positive parent behavior in Lovejoy and colleagues’ (2000) review, suggesting that interepisodic features of depression (e.g., fatigue, preoccupation, negative cognitions) are associated with the level of involvement and nurturance characterizing the parenting of mothers with a history of depression. In other words, even when their mothers were not currently depressed, infants and toddlers continued to be somewhat deprived of maternal involvement. This may explain why the significant association between maternal depression and decreased responsive parenting held over the 1-year lag between assessments in the current study sample. Understanding the determinants of this low responsivity in parenting is critical due to the vital importance of sensitive, synchronous behavior between mother and child during the infant and toddler developmental periods.

This work provides a novel contribution to the literature by demonstrating that mothers with more extensive maltreatment histories had greater levels of depression, which, in turn, predicted less responsive parenting behavior. These findings are robust, given that child behavior problems and maternal efficacy beliefs were included in the model. These findings are also noteworthy, as few studies to date have utilized a longitudinal design with multimethod, multi-informant data to assess maternal depression as a potential critical pathway through which maternal maltreatment history is linked to decreased sensitivity and responsiveness in parenting.

Child attributes were also examined as a potential factor influencing mothers’ parenting behavior. The Total Problems subscale of the CBCL was hypothesized to have a significant influence on mothers’ demonstrations of harsh and responsive parenting, over and above the influence of maternal depression and maternal efficacy beliefs. Results support prior research, showing that higher maternal reports of child problem behaviors uniquely predicted greater levels of harsh parenting, over and above all other T2 model variables. There was no significant effect of child behavior problems on responsive parenting behavior. This finding supports Patterson’s (1982) social coercion theory, which suggests mothers’ judgments of their children’s problem behaviors may forecast their use of harsh or controlling parenting strategies. It follows the premise that mothers’ who view their children as being difficult, demanding, and/or aggressive would be more likely to develop hostile attitudes about their children, which may subsequently manifest in mothers’ heightened tendency to use harsh or coercive parenting tactics (Pettit et al., 2001).

Interestingly, results also indicated that mothers with a more extensive maltreatment history tended to report significantly greater levels of externalizing and internalizing behaviors in their children. This association may be interpreted in a number of ways. First, as previously mentioned, the experience of maltreatment in childhood is likely to have disrupted mothers’ working models of relationships, which may subsequently have led to a more negative perception of their own offspring’s behaviors. In addition, a significant positive correlation was found between maternal reports of child behavior problems and maternal depression, r = .43, p < .01, showing that mothers with more severe depression rated higher levels of problem behaviors in their children. It is possible that these reports are based on either the actual impact of the caregiver’s functioning on child development or to a potential distortion in the caregivers’ rating of their children related to their current depressive symptoms (Hennigan, O’Keefe, Noether, Rinehart, & Russell, 2006). Depressive symptoms have been linked with persistent negative maternal perceptions of the child by way of unrealistic expectations and critical judgments of the child’s behavior (Forman et al., 2007; Kochanska, Radke-Yarrow, Kuczynski, & Friedman, 1987; Radke-Yarrow, Belmont, Nottelmann, & Bottomly, 1990). However, a notable negative correlation was also found, showing that mothers who rated less confidence in their abilities as a parent also tended to report greater behavior problems in their children. Perhaps mothers tend to rate their children as having more problematic behaviors when they feel they do not possess the ability to manage them as a parent. As results demonstrate that mothers with a history of childhood maltreatment reported lower levels of maternal efficacy, these associations may further explain the higher report of child behavior problems among previously maltreated mothers.

Given the significant links between maternal maltreatment history and child behavior problems and between child behavior problems and subsequent harsh parenting, analyses were run to test for an indirect effect of maternal maltreatment on harsh parenting behavior via maternal reports of child behavior. Such an indirect effect was confirmed, demonstrating that mothers with more extensive childhood maltreatment histories reported greater problem behaviors in their children, which, in turn, lead them to exhibit higher levels of harsh parenting behavior. This finding suggests that the harsh parenting practices often cited among previously maltreated mothers are not necessarily a direct result of the childhood maltreatment experience, but rather a result of a developmental cascade initiated by the experience of such maladaptive caregiving.

Although results indicated that mothers with greater levels of maltreatment experience in childhood reported feeling significantly less confident in their abilities as a mother, there was no significant effect of maternal efficacy beliefs on either harsh or responsive parenting. The lack of indirect effects of maltreatment history on subsequent parenting through maternal efficacy may be due to the significant time lag between assessment time points. One year passed between a participant report of her efficacy beliefs as a mother and when her parenting behaviors were observed when interacting with her child. Thus, the mother was reporting on how competent she felt parenting a 26-month-old, yet her parenting was assessed a full year later when she was parenting a then approximately 37-month-old. As the MEQ is designed to capture how well a mother feels she is able to meet the needs of her child, the mere age difference and contrasting developmental demands of children at each time point raises the question of whether these constructs need to be assessed in closer succession to accurately assess the impact of maternal efficacy on parenting behavior. Moreover, mothers gained a full year of further parenting experience between time points, which may alter both her efficacy beliefs as a mother and her actual parenting skills. While the longitudinal design of the current study is a methodological strength to explore the determinants of parenting behavior in this sample, it is possible that the 1-year time lag prohibits any causal association between efficacy beliefs and behavior from emerging.

Overall, the current study’s findings provide evidence for unique antecedents to distinct dimensions of parenting behavior among previously maltreated mothers. The data suggest that, in this sample, maternal depression was more significantly predictive of less responsive parenting, while mothers’ perceptions of child problem behaviors predicted more harsh parenting behaviors when interacting with their toddler children. Both pathways indicate that the effect of childhood maltreatment on subsequent parenting behaviors may not be a direct one, but rather the result of a cascade of effects that develops across the life span. These findings underscore the notion that the transmission of negative parenting across generations is by no means inevitable. Instead, experiences of maltreatment put a child at higher risk for maladaptive adjustment as they confront each stage-salient task throughout their development. Parenting is one such crucial task as these once maltreated children enter adulthood.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Although the findings of the current study contribute to the extant literature, a number of limitations also must be noted. First, the sample size was relatively small, which affects the power to detect significant associations in the path model. The use of retrospective assessment of mothers’ maltreatment history also is a limitation. There are several potential sources of measurement error with retrospective reports, which are likely to lead to an underreporting of maltreatment (Thornberry, Knight, & Lovegrove, 2012); however, evidence suggests that retrospective reports of childhood maltreatment generally provide valid and reliable estimates of significant past events (Bernstein et al., 1994).

Despite these limitations, this study also has numerous strengths. First, this study utilizes a longitudinal design and observational coding methods to capture parenting behaviors. Behavioral coding techniques not only offer a direct look at parenting behaviors in the natural setting where the behavior of interest occurs (i.e., the home), but also help to quantify parenting in a way that is less likely affected by the personal biases of a parent’s self-report of the same information. Coders were unaware of mothers’ depression and maltreatment status to discourage any potential influence such knowledge may have on coding parent behaviors. Importantly, raters had excellent reliability in coding the parenting behavior items, which is an additional strength of the current study. In this way, the use of observational measures of parenting behavior in this study provides a more valid representation of parent-child processes. In addition, few studies have examined the effect of maternal efficacy beliefs on parenting behaviors over time (Jones & Prinz, 2005). To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the effect of maternal efficacy beliefs on different dimensions of parenting behavior in a sample of mothers with varying histories of childhood maltreatment. Although contrary to expectations, findings did not support a direct effect of maternal self-efficacy beliefs on harsh or responsive parenting behaviors, the contribution of added longitudinal research in this area is important.

Finally, while the focus on a diverse sample of mothers and their offspring from high-risk, socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds may limit the generalizability of the findings, it can also be seen as a significant strength. Countless research endeavors have worked to disentangle the complex web of parent- and child-driven factors that determine why a parent parents the way they do. Yet, many have neglected to consider the context within which these variables are interacting. The chronic stress of poverty is arguably captured in each of the variables assessed within the current model. Poverty impacts rates of childhood maltreatment (Drake & Zuravin, 1998; McGuinness & Schneider, 2007), maternal depression (Kessler et al., 1994, 2003; Segre et al., 2007), child behavior problems (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000), maternal efficacy beliefs (Coleman & Karraker, 1998), and maladaptive parenting behavior (McLoyd, 1990). Studying the influence of these variables in the prediction of parenting within a low-income population has crucial implications for treatment with this population.

There are numerous interesting directions for future research in this area. First, it would be important to address other aspects of parental mental health, beyond depression, that may impact the parenting behaviors of previously maltreated caregivers. A study examining these associations among fathers or other primary caregivers would also be a beneficial addition to the parenting literature. While the current study sourced its data from an intervention trial, there was no assessment of variable change and its impact on parenting outcomes. Future research would do well to address the impact of a given intervention on the hypothesized predictors of parenting in previously maltreated caregivers to identify critical mechanisms of change to ultimately support increased positive parenting practices.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current investigation demonstrates that the transmission of maladaptive parenting practices across generations is not predestined among previously maltreated mothers. Instead, the experience of maltreatment in childhood initiates a cascade of effects across development that places an individual at heightened risk for detrimental outcomes, such as harsh or unresponsive parenting with their own children. Unique antecedents to these distinct dimensions of parenting behavior emerged among mothers with varying histories of childhood maltreatment. Increased perceptions of child problem behaviors and maternal depression predicted increased harsh parenting behaviors and less responsive parenting, respectively, among previously maltreated mothers.

Current findings suggest that prevention and intervention efforts should target maternal depression, given its responsivity to treatment (Miranda et al., 2003), along with emerging evidence that reductions in maternal depression may not only enhance treatment response to parenting interventions, but also indirectly affect child development (Handley, Michl-Petzing, Rogosch, Cicchetti, & Toth, 2017). The high rates of depression among minority, socioeconomically disadvantaged mothers (Kessler et al., 1994, 2003) further suggest that public resources should be directed toward disseminating high-quality, sustainable support to alleviate maternal depression in this population to benefit both the current generation and the next.

Acknowledgments

This data was previously disseminated in its original form as a dissertation that was successfully defended in August of 2017. The dissertation was subsequently published through ProQuest under the title “Explanatory Mechanisms Linking Childhood Maltreatment and Subsequent Parenting Behaviors: A Developmental Psychopathology Perspective.” We acknowledge and greatly appreciate funding support by the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant R01-MH67792) and the Spunk Fund.

Appendix

SCIPD Parent Behavior Codes

Parent codes Description
Negative affect Overall level of negative affect (e.g., frustration, anxiety, tension, and conflict) expressed by the parent through tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language.
Positive affect Overall positive emotional tone expressed through parental expressions of warmth or an upbeat, energetic tone.
Emotional support How sensitive, attuned the parent is to the child’s emotional state, needs, and perspective and how she modifies her behavior accordingly when needed.
Rejection/Invalidation The overall level of rejection and/or invalidation expressed through tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language.
Scaffolding The ability to provide support while at the same time fostering growth. Encouraging child participation and keeping the child on task in a way that feels supportive.
Coercive control The degree to which the parent is domineering or asserts power in an effort to maintain the “upper hand” in the interaction.
Open in a new tab

Note. SCIPD = System for Coding Interactions in Parent-Child Dyads.

Contributor Information

Louisa C. Michl-Petzing, Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester

Elizabeth D Handley, Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester.

Melissa Sturge-Apple, Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester.

Dante Cicchetti, Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester, and Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota.

Sheree L. Toth, Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester.

References

  1. Achenbach TM, & Rescorla LA (2000). Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms and Profiles: An integrated system of multi-informant assessment. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, & Wall S (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ardelt M, & Eccles JS (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies on inner-city youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 944–972. 10.1177/019251301022008001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baldwin AL (1955). Behavior and development in childhood. New York, NY: Dryden Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandura A (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. 10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beck AT, Steer RA, & Brown GK (1996). Manual for the BDI-II.San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  7. Belsky J (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96. 10.2307/1129836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernstein DP, Fink L, Handelsman L, Foote J, Lovejoy M, Wenzel K,…Ruggiero J (1994). Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 1535–1537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bernstein DP, Stein JA, Newcomb MD, Walker E, Pogge D, Ahluvalia T,…Zule W (2003). Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 169–190. 10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00541-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bohlin G, & Hagekull B (1987). “Good mothering”: Maternal attitudes and mother-infant interaction. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8, 352–363. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bornstein MH, & Tamis-LeMonda CS (1989). Maternal responsiveness and cognitive development in children. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1989, 49–61. 10.1002/cd.23219894306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bradley RH, & Corwyn RF (2007). Externalizing problems in fifth grade: Relations with productive activity, maternal sensitivity, and harsh parenting from infancy through middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1390–1401. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1390 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown J, Cohen P, Johnson JG, & Smailes EM (1999). Childhood abuse and neglect: Specificity of effects on adolescent and young adult depression and suicidality. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1490–1496. 10.1097/00004583-199912000-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chang L, Schwartz D, Dodge KA, & McBride-Chang C (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 598–606. 10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Choi KW, Houts R, Arseneault L, Pariante C, Sikkema KJ, & Moffitt TE (2019). Maternal depression in the intergenerational transmission of childhood maltreatment and its sequelae: Testing postpartum effects in a longitudinal birth cohort. Development and Psychopathology, 31, 143–156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cicchetti DV (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessments instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cicchetti D, & Rizley R (1981). Developmental perspectives on the etiology, intergenerational transmission, and sequelae of child maltreatment. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1981, 31–55. 10.1002/cd.23219811104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cicchetti D, & Toth SL (1995). A developmental psychopathology perspective on child abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 541–565. 10.1097/00004583-199505000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Coleman PK, & Karraker KH (1998). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and future applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47–85. 10.1006/drev.1997.0448 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cowan CP, & Cowan PA (1992). When partners become parents: The big life change for couples. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dixon L, Browne K, & Hamilton-Giachritsis C (2005). Risk factors of parents abused as children: A mediational analysis of the intergenerational continuity of child maltreatment (Part I). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 47–57. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00339.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Downey G, & Coyne JC (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 50–76. 10.1037/0033-2909.108.1.50 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Drake B, & Zuravin S (1998). Bias in child maltreatment reporting: Revisiting the myth of classlessness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 295–304. 10.1037/h0080338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Duncan GJ, & Brooks-Gunn J (2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Development, 71, 188–196. 10.1111/1467-8624.00133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Feng X, Shaw DS, Skuban EM, & Lane T (2007). Emotional exchange in mother-child dyads: Stability, mutual influence, and associations with maternal depression and child problem behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 714–725. 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Forman DR, O’Hara MW, Stuart S, Gorman LL, Larsen KE, & Coy KC (2007). Effective treatment for postpartum depression is not sufficient to improve the developing mother-child relationship. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 585–602. 10.1017/S0954579407070289 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gadeyne E, Ghesquière P, & Onghena P (2004). Longitudinal relations between parenting and child adjustment in young children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 347–358. 10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_16 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodman SH (2007). Depression in mothers. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 107–135. 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gotlib IH, & Goodman S (1999). Children of parents with depression In Silverman WK & Ollendick TH (Eds.), Developmental issues in the clinical treatment of children and adolescents (pp. 415–432). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  30. Handley ED, Michl-Petzing LC, Rogosch FA, Cicchetti D, & Toth SL (2017). Developmental cascade effects of interpersonal psychotherapy for depressed mothers: Longitudinal associations with toddler attachment, temperament, and maternal parenting efficacy. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 601–615. 10.1017/S0954579417000219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hankin BL (2005). Childhood maltreatment and psychopathology: Prospective tests of attachment, cognitive vulnerability, and stress as mediating processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 645–671. 10.1007/s10608-005-9631-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hennigan KM, O’Keefe M, Noether CD, Rinehart DJ, & Russell LA (2006). Through a mother’s eyes: Sources of bias when mothers with co-occurring disorders assess their children. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 33, 87–104. 10.1007/s11414-005-9005-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hipwell A, Keenan K, Kasza K, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, & Bean T (2008). Reciprocal influences between girls’ conduct problems and depression, and parental punishment and warmth: A six year prospective analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 663–677. 10.1007/s10802-007-9206-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Huh D, Tristan J, Wade E, & Stice E (2006). Does problem behavior elicit poor parenting?: A prospective study of adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 185–204. 10.1177/0743558405285462 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Izzo C, Weiss L, Shanahan T, & Rodriguez-Brown F (2000). Parental self-efficacy and social support as predictors of parenting practices and children’s socioemotional adjustment in Mexican immigrant families. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 20(1–2), 197–213. 10.1300/J005v20n01_13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jones TL, & Prinz RJ (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341–363. 10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Koretz D, Merikangas KR,…the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. (2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 3095–3105. 10.1001/jama.289.23.3095 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Nelson CB, Hughes M, Swartz M, & Blazer DG (1994). Sex and depression in the National Comorbidity Survey. II: Cohort effects. Journal of Affective Disorders, 30, 15–26. 10.1016/0165-0327(94)90147-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kline RB (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kochanska G, Radke-Yarrow M, Kuczynski L, & Friedman SL (1987). Normal and affectively ill mothers’ beliefs about their children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 345–350. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03543.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, Assel MA, & Vellet S (2001). Does early responsive parenting have a special importance for children’s development or is consistency across early childhood necessary? Developmental Psychology, 37, 387–403. 10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, Zucker T, Crawford AD, & Solari EF (2012). The effects of a responsive parenting intervention on parent-child interactions during shared book reading. Developmental Psychology, 48, 969–986. 10.1037/a0026400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lindahl KM, & Malik NM (1996). System for Coding Interactions in Parent-Child Dyads (SCIPD): A coding system for structured and unstructured parent-child tasks Unpublished manuscript, University of Miami, Miami, FL. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lovejoy MC, Graczyk PA, O’Hare E, & Neuman G (2000). Maternal depression and parenting behavior. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 561–592. 10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00100-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. MacPhee D, Fritz J, & Miller-Heyl J (1996). Ethnic variations in personal social networks and parenting. Child Development, 67, 3278–3295. 10.2307/1131779 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Marmorstein NR, Malone SM, & Iacono WG (2004). Psychiatric disorders among offspring of depressed mothers: Associations with paternal psychopathology. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 1588–1594. 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.9.1588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. McGuinness TM, & Schneider K (2007). Poverty, child maltreatment, and foster care. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 13, 296–303. 10.1177/1078390307308421 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. McLoyd VC (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346. 10.2307/1131096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Michl LC, Handley ED, Rogosch F, Cicchetti D, & Toth SL (2015). Self-criticism as a mechanism linking childhood maltreatment and maternal efficacy beliefs in low-income mothers with and without depression. Child Maltreatment, 20, 291–300. 10.1177/1077559515602095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Miranda J, Chung JY, Green BL, Krupnick J, Siddique J, Revicki DA, & Belin T (2003). Treating depression in predominantly low-income young minority women: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 57–65. 10.1001/jama.290.1.57 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Miranda J, Schoenbaum M, Sherbourne C, Duan N, & Wells K (2004). Effects of primary care depression treatment on minority patients’ clinical status and employment. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 827–834. 10.1001/archpsyc.61.8.827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998–2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author. [Google Scholar]
  54. Patterson GR (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pettit GS, Laird RD, Dodge KA, Bates JE, & Criss MM (2001). Antecedents and behavior-problem outcomes of parental monitoring and psychological control in early adolescence. Child Development, 72, 583–598. 10.1111/1467-8624.00298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Pickreign Stronach EP, Toth SL, Rogosch F, Oshri A, Manly JT, & Cicchetti D (2011). Child maltreatment, attachment security, and internal representations of mother and mother-child relationships. Child Maltreatment, 16, 137–145. 10.1177/1077559511398294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Radke-Yarrow M, Belmont B, Nottelmann E, & Bottomly L (1990). Young children’s self-conceptions: Origins in the natural discourse of depressed and normal mothers and their children In Cicchetti D & Beeghly M (Eds.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 345–361). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  58. Robins LN, Cottler L, Bucholz KK, & Compton W (1995). The Diagnostic Interview Schedule (Version IV). St. Louis, MO: Washington University. [Google Scholar]
  59. Rutter M (1990). Commentary: Some focus and process considerations regarding effects of parental depression on children. Developmental Psychology, 26, 60–67. 10.1037/h0092669 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Segre LS, O’Hara MW, Arndt S, & Stuart S (2007). The prevalence of postpartum depression. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology: The International Journal for Research in Social and Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health Services, 42, 316–321. 10.1007/s00127-007-0168-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Storch EA, Roberti JW, & Roth DA (2004). Factor structure, concurrent validity, and internal consistency of the Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition in a sample of college students. Depression and Anxiety, 19, 187–189. 10.1002/da.20002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Teti DM, & Gelfand DM (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of infants in the first year: The mediational role of maternal self-efficacy. Child Development, 62, 918–929. 10.2307/1131143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Thornberry TP, & Henry KL (2013). Intergenerational continuity in maltreatment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 555–569. 10.1007/s10802-012-9697-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Thornberry TP, Knight KE, & Lovegrove PJ (2012). Does maltreatment beget maltreatment? A systematic review of the intergenerational literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13, 135–152. 10.1177/1524838012447697 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Tofighi D, & MacKinnon DP (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692–700. 10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Toth SL, Manly JT, & Cicchetti D (1992). Child maltreatment and vulnerability to depression. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 97–112. 10.1017/S0954579400005587 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Toth SL, Rogosch FA, Oshri A, Gravener-Davis J, Sturm R, & Morgan-López AA (2013). The efficacy of interpersonal psychotherapy for depression among economically disadvantaged mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 1065–1078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Turney K (2011). Labored love: Examining the link between maternal depression and parenting behaviors. Social Science Research, 40, 399–415. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.09.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Widom CS, DuMont K, & Czaja SJ (2007). A prospective investigation of major depressive disorder and comorbidity in abused and neglected children grown up. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 49–56. 10.1001/archpsyc.64.1.49 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Yu CY, & Muthén B (2002, April). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES