Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2022 Mar 28;36(6):815–826. doi: 10.1037/fam0000985

Resilience in Mothers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Lauren B Jones 1, Elizabeth J Kiel 1, Aaron M Luebbe 1, M Cameron Hay 1
PMCID: PMC9703466  NIHMSID: NIHMS1847851  PMID: 35343734

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought immense psychological pressure and disruptions to daily life for all individuals, and particularly children, parents, and families. Despite these difficulties, parents are able to show resilience through adaptive coping and positive parenting behaviors. Although there is robust research on resilience in children, very little research has tested predictors of parental resilience. The current study presents descriptive information about mothers’ pandemic-related stressors and positive changes and then tests whether pre-pandemic maternal well-being and child effortful control predicted mothers’ resilient parental outcomes (positive behavior and coping) through the mediators of maternal self-compassion, adherence to family routines, and child coping. The sample comprised 95 mothers (95.38% European American, 3.2% African American, and 1.1% Asian American) with a mean age of 38.21 years (SD = 5.71 years, Range = 25.72 to 51.60 years) and education ranging from a high school to an advanced degree (M = 16.26 years, SD = 2.28 years, Range = 12 to 21 years). Results revealed that pre-pandemic maternal well-being predicted adaptive coping both directly and indirectly through self-compassion. Children’s effortful control predicted maternal adaptive coping indirectly through children’s own adaptive coping, and predicted mothers’ positive parenting behaviors directly. Post-hoc models revealed adherence to routines to be a correlate and outcome, rather than predictor, of positive parenting and bidirectional relations between parent and child coping. This study provides evidence for parent, child, and family-level factors related to parental resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords: parental resilience, COVID-19 pandemic, family-functioning, adaptive coping, positive parenting

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought immense psychological pressure that is affecting mental health worldwide (Paudel, 2021). Despite the universality of the COVID-19 crisis, parents are presumably experiencing individual differences in psychological and behavioral consequences of the pandemic. Given that parents are the gateway to broader family functioning during stress and uncertainty (Gavidia-Payne et al., 2015), it is critical to understand parents’ individual needs and existing sources of resilience. Research suggests that during the COVID-19 pandemic, mothers took on more of the responsibility for caregiving and its associated stress during lockdown conditions, making it important to test resilience factors in this population (Yamamura & Tsustsui, 2021). Rather than just the absence of negative outcomes, resilience is the capacity for positive adaptation under stressful conditions (Masten, 2018). Despite the challenges of COVID-19, mothers could show resilience by engaging in positive parenting practices and adaptive coping that can assist children in navigating this crisis. To understand the current experiences of families, the current study provided descriptive information about mothers’ pandemic-related stressors and positive changes. Then the current longitudinal study tested predictors and mechanisms of resilience in mothers, as indicated by the use of positive parenting and adaptive coping during COVID-19.

Parental Resilience Outcomes

Previous research on resilience has mostly focused on children. Masten’s (2001) pivotal theory of youth resilience asserts that resilience is common, because children have multiple human adaptational systems that support their development. Masten’s (2001) argument supports a positive outlook on children’s abilities to adapt despite challenging circumstances and suggests promising points for intervention to support these adaptive systems. Although research demonstrates that effective caregiving supports child resilience, little research examines resilience in parents themselves. To address this need, Gavidia-Payne et al. (2015) created a theoretical model of resilient parenting, which takes a developmental approach to contextualizing resilience in parents. Gavidia-Payne et al. (2015) defined resilient parenting as the ability to provide competent and quality parenting to children despite significant stress or adverse circumstances. The model identifies resilient parenting outcomes (i.e., quality parenting), which are predicted directly and indirectly by individual factors (e.g., personal characteristics of mental and emotional wellbeing, subjective experiences of stress, and parental self-efficacy), and external factors (e.g., family functioning, child and family characteristics). The current study used this framework and a longitudinal design to test two predictors of resilient outcomes during a universal threat to typical life. Outcomes included one measure of parents’ individual resilience (i.e., adaptive coping) and one measure of parenting resilience (i.e., positive parenting).

Positive parenting behaviors are important for child development (e.g., Chorpita & Barlow, 1998). Parent and Forehand (2017) defined positive parenting as comprising proactive parenting (i.e., child-centered responses to anticipated difficulties), positive reinforcement (i.e., responding to positive behavior with praise or rewards), warmth (i.e., displays of affection), and supportiveness (i.e., encouraging positive communication, showing interest, and being open to child’s ideas). These facets of positive parenting are associated with positive child outcomes, such as lower levels of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Parent & Forehand, 2017) and, in aggregate, served as a resilience outcome in the current study.

Adaptive coping is another important outcome that can indicate resilience in mothers. Coping is defined as the ability to regulate one’s emotions and behavior during times of stress (Compas et al., 2001) and is understood as a controlled, effortful process that includes both engagement (i.e., approach-oriented) responses and disengagement (i.e., avoidance-oriented) responses (Tobin et al., 1989). Within engagement responses, primary control coping strategies are aimed at changing the objective conditions (e.g., problem solving, emotion regulation), and secondary control coping strategies are aimed at adapting to the problem (e.g., acceptance, cognitive restructuring). Primary and secondary control coping relate to positive outcomes for individuals in times of crisis and, in parents, can help support children’s positive outcomes and healthier familial functioning (Raviv & Wadsworth, 2010). When external events cannot be altered, as in the case of COVID-19, mothers’ engagement coping can protect children from the potential deleterious effects of external events on family functioning (Compas et al., 2001). Thus, maternal engagement coping is a key aspect of resilience in mothers.

Predictors of Parental Resilience Outcomes

Parental well-being encompasses parents’ subjective sense of emotional health, quality of life, and social support (McConkey, 2020). In line with Gavidia-Payne et al.’s (2015) theoretical model, we operationalized parental well-being as low emotional distress (i.e., mood and anxiety symptoms), high parenting sense of competence, and high social support. Each of these elements have been linked to resilience in parents. For instance, Conger and Conger (2002) found that parents with relatively lower emotional distress showed greater parenting competence, whereas poor psychological well-being has been linked to impaired ability to provide adaptive parenting (Smith, 2004). Parental beliefs about one’s ability to parent competently, or parenting sense of competence (PSOC), is also associated with more adaptive parenting (Jones & Prinz, 2005) and has been linked to family resilience more broadly (Fernandez et al., 2013). Finally, social support has been shown to serve a protective role during stressful events (Cohen & Wills, 1985) and has been linked to quality parenting (Hess et al., 2002). This may be because the support provided from close relationships can lead to reduced stress in parents (Hess et al., 2002). We therefore expected pre-pandemic parental well-being (low distress, high PSOC, high social support) to predict parental resilience during the pandemic.

Of course, parenting occurs in dialectical interactions within the family. Specifically, parenting theory suggests that the emotional valence of interactions with children influences parenting behaviors (Dix, 1991). Child temperament, defined as biologically-based individual differences in reactivity and regulation (Rothbart, 1986), may serve as a longitudinal predictor of resilience for mothers. In line with goodness of fit models (Chess & Thomas, 2013), optimal outcomes are predicted to occur when the environmental expectations match the individual’s temperament. Thus, temperamental traits that match parents’ expectations may lead to positive outcomes. Effortful control (EC), defined as the ability to voluntarily inhibit behavioral responses and use attentional resources to regulate emotions and behaviors (Rothbart et al., 1994), is the temperamental trait specifically emphasized in child resilience research (Obradović, 2010) and may bi-directionally support parent resilience due to goodness of fit. If parents expect high self-regulatory abilities, children high in EC may be more likely to elicit positive reactions in their parents. Indeed, EC is related to positive outcomes in children (Obradović, 2010) and their parents (Tiberio et al., 2016). EC may predict positive parenting behaviors and parental coping by decreasing stress associated with managing children’s regulation.

Mediators of the Model of Parental Resilience

Resilience is a process that unfolds and changes across development, resulting in positive adaptation during significant adversity (Gavidia-Payne et al., 2015; Masten, 2001). Therefore, we tested how maternal and family functioning in the early period of COVID-19 linked pre-pandemic maternal well-being and child EC to mothers’ positive parenting and coping later in the pandemic. Identifying mechanisms of resilience evident during the commonly experienced adversity of the pandemic could shape parent resilience theory and parent-focused interventions.

Children’s adaptive coping during the pandemic may serve as a mediator in the current model. We expected our pre-pandemic factors (i.e., EC and maternal well-being) to predict child adaptive coping, as EC is positively associated with coping processes (Thompson et al., 2014), and parental well-being supports children’s overall well-being (Newland, 2015) which may support their coping. Additionally, research suggests that child and parent coping are interdependent (Aisenberg & Ell, 2005). Thus, adaptive child coping would likely support adaptive coping for mothers. Children’s coping may also reduce stress for parents (Cappa et al., 2011), making it easier for mothers to use positive parenting (Putnick et al., 2008). However, mothers’ coping likely also predicts children’s coping, suggesting a bi-directional relationship. The current study included analyses assessing directionality between these variables.

Mothers’ self-compassion may also serve as a mediator in this model. Self-compassion is understood as compassion directed inward and is associated with responding to oneself in an adaptive way during difficult circumstances (Neff, 2003). Specifically, self-compassion consists of the three core elements of self-kindness, mindfulness, and a sense of common humanity (Neff, 2003). Mothers with higher levels of pre-pandemic well-being may begin with a higher capacity for self-compassion during the pandemic, as there are strong links between individuals’ psychological well-being and self-compassion (Neff, 2003). Additionally, having a child with higher EC may make it easier for mothers to be self-compassionate, as children with high EC generally elicit lower levels of negative feelings in parents (Belsky et al., 2007). Self-compassion may then predict parental resilience, as self-compassion has been shown to relate to adaptive parenting (Gouveia et al., 2016) and adaptive coping (Allen & Leary, 2010).

Finally, adherence to family routines may serve as a mediator in the current model. Across numerous stressors, sustaining everyday routines is theorized to be a path to child and family resilience (McCubbin & McCubbin, 2005; Peek, 2008). Mothers who have higher levels of well-being or who have a child with high EC may more easily adhere to routines during the pandemic, as they have less parenting stress and more emotional resources to maintain a routine during times of disruption. Further, adherence to routines in the early stages of COVID-19, when disruption was highest, may predict resilient outcomes later in the pandemic. Research suggests that the maintenance of routines during times of stress and difficulty can lead to adaptive coping (McCubbin & McCubbin, 2005; Peek, 2008). Additionally, maintaining routines may predict positive parenting behaviors, as adhering to routines conserves energy and preserves the resources needed to be effective in other areas of living (Dunn, 2000), such as parenting.

Despite a focus on predictors of resilience in mothers, it must be acknowledged that positive parenting and adaptive coping are also likely affected by the many stressful experiences brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, which will vary by family. Therefore, we tested the relations in the current model above and beyond family-specific stressors.

Current Study

Given the sweeping effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on families’ adjustment, it is important to determine relevant supports for maternal resilience. We first provide descriptive information about mothers’ pandemic-related stressors and positive changes (Aim 1). Then, the current study tested a mediation model of resilience in mothers (Aim 2). We hypothesized that maternal self-compassion, child coping, and family adherence to routines during the pandemic would mediate relations between the pre-pandemic characteristics of maternal well-being and child EC and later-pandemic resilient outcomes of positive parenting and adaptive coping, above and beyond pandemic-related stressors and relevant sociodemographic variables.

Method

Participants

Participants included 95 mothers (M age = 38.21 years, SD = 5.71 years, Range = 25.72 to 51.60 years) with children (43 female, 52 male) aged 4.37 to 9.75 years (Mean age = 7.23 years, SD = 1.53 years), who had already been participating in an ongoing longitudinal study. IRB approvals were obtained from (Miami University, protocol #01026r). The study originally recruited families from a local Women, Infants, and Children’s program, pediatricians’ offices, parenting groups, community events and establishments, and direct mailings. Families lived in diverse socioeconomic and geographic environments within or surrounding a mid-sized city in the Midwest. The larger study involved assessments at child ages 1, 2, 3, 4, and pre-kindergarten (~5–6) years. Eligibility included participating in at least one assessment since child age 3 (collectively, Time 1). Families were excluded if their child was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or another developmental disability. Of the 139 eligible families, 95 (68%) participated in an “early pandemic” (Time 2) survey. Both mothers and fathers (if available) were invited to complete the survey, but we focused on mothers herein. Mothers who did not participate, even after several attempts to contact them by email and phone, had reported lower household income (t[46.20] = −2.62, p = .010, Cohen’s d = −0.53) and education (t(121] = −3.00, p = .003, Cohen’s d = −0.61) earlier in the study than families who participated. No differences existed between families who did versus did not participate based on number of children in the family, child biological sex, or marital status (all ps > .10). Mothers were European American (n = 91; 95.38%), African American (n = 3, 3.2%), and Asian American (n = 1; 1.1%). Mothers’ education ranged from having a high school degree to having an advanced degree (M = 16.26 years, SD = 2.28 years, Range = 12 to 21 years). At their most recent in person visit, mothers were employed full time (n = 48, 50.5%), part-time (n = 22, 23.2%), not employed (n = 20, 21.1%), or did not answer the question (n = 5; 5.3%). At time 2 data collection children were in-person (n = 42; 44.2%), virtual (n = 28; 29.5%), some in-person and some virtual (n = 3; 3.2%), homeschooled (n = 6; 6.3%), had their preschool program cancelled (n = 1; 1.1%), or did not answer the question (n = 15; 15.8%). Eighty mothers (84.2% of the 95) participated in a follow-up “mid-pandemic” (Time 3) survey. Mothers who participated in the Time 2 but not the Time 3 survey did not differ from one another on demographic, pre-pandemic, or Time 2 variables.

Procedure

When children were age 3, age 4, and pre-kindergarten (~5–6 years-old), mothers completed identical questionnaires as part of the larger study. At each time point, mothers were mailed a consent form and questionnaires. They brought these to a laboratory visit where mother-child dyads participated in a variety of tasks, which are not included in the current study. Not all children aged into the pre-kindergarten (age 5–6) visit by the onset of the pandemic, so those data are only used for those who completed it. Ages 3 and 4 data collection was complete at the time of the Time 2 survey. To best use existing data and minimize missing values, variables were averaged across the three visits to create composites of parental well-being and child EC that served as our pre-pandemic (Time 1) variables. Then, in the late spring through the summer of 2020 (i.e., Time 2), interested mothers were sent a link to an online consent form and survey. Decisions regarding measures and subscales to be included in the survey were made a priori, according to resilience theories (Gavidia-Payne et al., 2015; Masten, 2018). In the late fall through the early winter of 2020–2021 (i.e., Time 3) mothers who had completed the Time 2 survey were invited to participate in a follow-up survey. After expressing interest, mothers were again sent a link to an online consent form and survey. The study was not pre-registered. We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study. Data have been made publicly available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be accessed at https://osf.io/xa7qe/?view_only=691f9e4f853d4f59a8373b170c0d0771 (Jones et al., 2022).

Time 1 Measures

Maternal Well-Being

Mothers completed the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), rating how often each statement applied to their experience in the past week using a 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much) scale. Only the anxiety scale (7 items; αs = .64 to .75; e.g., “I felt I was close to panic”) and the depression scale (7 items; αs = .79 to .85; e.g., “I felt that I had nothing to look forward to”) were used due to our focus on emotional distress rather than stress/tension. Items for each subscale were summed and multiplied by 2 per standard scoring procedures (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995); subscale scores were reversed. The DASS has shown adequate construct validity and test-retest reliability (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). On the 12-item Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL; Cohen et al., 1985), mothers rated how true each statement (e.g., “If I were sick, I could easily find someone to help me with my daily chores”) was for them on a 1 (definitely false) to 4 (definitely true) scale. A total score was calculated by creating a sum of all items (αs = .86 to .87). On the 17-item Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (PSOC; Gibaud-Wallston & Wandersman, 1978), mothers indicated how much they agreed with each statement (e.g., “Being a parent is manageable, and any problems are easily solved”) on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly) scale. A total score was calculated by creating a sum of all items (αs = .82 to .85). A composite among standardized scores of anxiety (reversed), depression (reversed), social support, and PSOC was created at Time 1. Bivariate correlations are shown in the Online Supplement. Although we also measured parental well-being at Time 2 we do not report it here.

Child Effortful Control

Mothers completed the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire – Short Form (CBQ-SF), a child temperament measure that functions similarly to the full-length CBQ (Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). The CBQ-SF includes 94 items and 15 scales that can be combined into three factor scores (i.e., surgency, negative affectivity, and EC). Only the EC factor was used, due to EC’s relation to child resilience (Masten, 2018; Obradović, 2010) which includes an average of the scale scores of Attention Focusing, Inhibitory Control, Low-Intensity Pleasure, and Perceptual Sensitivity. On the CBQ-SF, mothers rated how true various behaviors are of their children on a 1 (extremely untrue of your child) to 7 (extremely true of your child) scale. Example items include “can wait before entering into new activities if s/he is asked to” and “when drawing or coloring in a book, shows strong concentration.” Child EC was calculated by first calculating a mean of relevant items for each of the four included subscales (i.e., Attention Focusing, Inhibitory Control, Low-Intensity Pleasure, and Perceptual Sensitivity) and then calculating the mean of all subscales. Internal consistencies were good (αs = .81 to .84).

Demographic Variables

Parents provided information about income, education, and family structure (i.e., number of siblings and marital status).

Time 2 and Time 3 Measures

COVID-19 Stressors and Positive Changes

The first 15 questions of the COVID-19 version of the Responses to Stress Questionnaire (RSQ-COVID19; Connor-Smith et al., 2000; Compas, 2020) lists circumstances that people may find stressful. At Time 2, mothers were asked to indicate how stressful each item (e.g., “uncertainty about when COVID-19 will end or what will happen in the future”) has been for them over the last 6 months on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (very). A total score was calculated by creating a sum of all 15 items. We also examined this measure in additional ways (e.g., item averages, proportion of endorsements) in the Results. Additionally, mothers completed the Positive Change scale of the Epidemic-Pandemic Impacts Inventory (EPII; Grasso et al., 2020) as an assessment of positive changes that have occurred since the onset of the pandemic. This scale comprises 19 items (e.g., improved interpersonal relationships, more time doing meaningful or enjoyable activities, more attention given to health) answered on a “yes” or “no” basis. The EPII is a newly developed measure created specifically to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on personal, social, and family domains. Therefore, there is no determined optimal scoring procedure and no psychometric properties yet available. We averaged scores (yes = 1, no = 0), such that higher values reflect higher proportion of positive changes.

Child Adaptive Coping

Mothers completed the 57 item Parent Report on Child version of the RSQ-COVID19 (Connor-Smith et al., 2000; Compas, 2020) as a measure of their child’s engaged coping. The RSQ is a measure that consists of five factors (i.e., primary control coping, secondary control coping, disengagement coping, involuntary engagement, and involuntary disengagement) and has shown strong psychometric properties (Connor-Smith et al., 2000). The RSQ-COVID19 is an adaptation by Compas (2020) to fit the COVID-19 pandemic. Mothers rated how much their children engaged in each coping behavior from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). However, only the Primary Control Coping (α = .77; e.g., “He/she tries to think of different ways to change or fix the situation”) and Secondary Control Coping (α = .77; e.g., “He/she realizes that he/she just has to live with things the way they are”) scales were used due to our focus on resilience rather than risk. Proportion scores were calculated by dividing each scale score by the total score as a way to control for base rate differences in endorsement of coping items. Child primary and secondary coping variables were not related to one another, so a composite was not justifiable (Table 1). To reduce the number of variables in the model and be consistent with the type of coping in which 4–9-year-olds may be most likely to engage, we only analyzed child primary coping.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. T1 Child EC -- .20† −.18† .01 .14 .06 .26* −.02 .05 .21* .24* .11 .05 .38**
2. T1 Maternal well-being -- −.29** .11 .39*** .09 .28** .03 .40*** .11 −.12 .14 .53*** .14
3. T2 COVID-related stressors -- .09 −.31** −.19† −.11 −.30** −.36*** .07 −.19† −.15 −.30** −.09
4. T2 Positive changes -- .21* .20† .02 .06 .13 .03 .07 .09 .11 −.04
5. T2 Maternal self-compassion -- .01 .09 .19† .55*** .04 .06 .15 .56*** .10
6. T2 Adherence to routines -- .14 .22* .02 .29** .53*** .07 .02 .14
7. T2 Child primary coping -- .04 .20† .17 .14 .41*** .33** .24*
8. T2 Child secondary coping -- .33** .18† .11 .30** .22† .14
9. T2 Maternal adaptive coping -- .10 .01 .40*** .73*** .05
10. T2 Maternal positive parenting -- .39*** .16 .09 .77***
11. T3 Adherence to routines -- .02 −.10 .48***
12. T3 Child primary coping -- .51*** .20†
13. T3 Maternal adaptive coping -- .09
14. T3 Maternal positive parenting --
Mean 5.31 −0.00 37.11 10.52 3.19 11.80 0.20 0.28 0.24 4.38 11.28 0.22 0.25 4.39
SD 0.63 0.78 6.77 3.61 0.61 3.16 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.34 3.12 0.04 0.03 0.38
Min 3.60 −3.63 21.43 1.00 2.00 4.00 0.11 0.14 0.15 3.52 4.00 0.14 0.16 3.63
Max 6.29 1.20 53.57 19.00 4.83 16.00 0.29 0.39 0.30 5.00 16.00 0.29 0.35 4.92
Open in a new tab

Note. Sample sizes varied from n = 77 to n = 95 based on missingness. Maternal well-being was the average of z-scores. COVID-related stressors represent the sum of ratings (1–4) across items. Positive changes represented the proportion of items endorsed.

†

p < .10

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001.

Self-Compassion

At Time 2, Mothers completed the 12-item short form of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS-SF; Raes et al., 2011). Two items represented each of the six primary subscales of self-compassion (i.e., self-kindness, common humanity, mindfulness, self-judgement, isolation, and over-identification). Mothers indicated the extent to which they experience self-kindness, a sense of common humanity, and mindfulness (e.g., “when something painful happens I try to take a balanced view of the situation”) as opposed to (reverse-scored) self-criticism, isolation, and over-identification (e.g., “I am disapproving and judgmental about my own flaws and inadequacies”) on a scale of 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). A total score was calculated by averaging all items, reversed as necessary (α = .84). Raes et al. (2011) found that the total score on the SCS-SF was strongly correlated with the total score on the original SCS (Neff, 2003).

Adherence to Family Routines

Mothers completed the 4-item Maintain Routines subscale of the Parent Trauma Response Questionnaire (PTRQ; Williamson et al., 2018) as a measure of family maintenance of pre-existing routines. Mothers were instructed to rate how much they have engaged in behaviors (e.g., “I’ve tried not to change my child’s usual routine”) on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 3 (a lot). The PTRQ has shown adequate validity and reliability (Williamson et al., 2018). A total score was calculated by summing the scores of the four items (α = .82).

Positive Parenting

Mothers completed the positive parenting subscales of the 34-item Multidimensional Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS; Parent & Forehand, 2017). These subscales included proactive parenting (6 items; α = .75; e.g., “I avoid struggles with my child by giving clear choices”), positive reinforcement (4 items; α = .75; e.g., “if my child cleans his room, I will tell him/her how proud I am”), warmth (3 items; α = .75; e.g., “my child and I hug and/or kiss each other”), and supportiveness (3 items; α = .69; e.g., “I show respect for my child’s opinions by encouraging him/her to express them”). Mothers rated the frequency with which statements described their parenting behavior on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). We re-worded the instructions so that parents were cued to report on parenting specifically during the pandemic. The MAPS has previously demonstrated strong reliability and validity (Parent & Forehand, 2017). We calculated a mean score for each subscale and then averaged these subscale scores together to create a total mean score (α = .84), yielding the final positive parenting dimension. For bivariate correlations among subscales, see Supplemental Table 2.

Parent Adaptive Coping

At Times 2 and 3, mothers completed the 57-item Adult Self-Report version of the RSQ-COVID19 (Connor-Smith et al., 2000; Compas, 2020) to yield a measure of adaptive coping. Mothers responded to the measure as they did for their children, except items were in the first person (“I” instead of “My Child”). Primary Control (alpha = .70) and Secondary Control (alpha = 80) scores were calculated in the same manner as the child measure and averaged.

Analysis Plan

Preliminary analyses (descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations) and Aim 1 analyses (frequencies of stressors, positive changes) were analyzed in IBM SPSS version 25. Aim 2 (direct and indirect relations among pre-pandemic parent and child characteristics, early-pandemic parent and child functioning, and mid-pandemic resilient outcomes) was analyzed in a path model in Mplus verison 7.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2014). Each of the pre-pandemic (Time 1) and early-pandemic (Time 2) variables were modeled as predictors of Time 3 positive parenting and adaptive coping. We allowed Time 2 variables (putative early-pandemic mediators of maternal self-compassion, routines, and child coping as well as Time 2 maternal adaptive coping and positive parenting) and Time 3 outcomes (maternal adaptive coping and maternal positive parenting) to covary. Paths predicting positive parenting and adaptive coping controlled for shared variance among predictors, earlier time points of the respective outcome, and identified covariates (including COVID-related stress), yielding estimates of the unique contribution of each measure to predicting parenting outcomes. An a priori power analysis suggested minimum power of .80 could be achieved in models with up to 8 predictors, alpha = .05, and medium effects (f2 ≥ .18) with a sample size of 92 participants (actual n = 95). Positive parenting and adaptive coping, as outcomes, were assessed simultaneously to minimize the probability of Type I error. Adequate model fit was indicated by a non-significant chi-square test, RMSEA and SRMR < .08, and CFI and TLI > .90. We tested indirect effects within 95% confidence intervals (CIs) resulting from 5000 bias-corrected bootstrapped samples; a significant indirect effect occurred in intervals that did not span from a negative to a positive value.

Results

Missing Data

Several of the 95 mothers were missing values on Time 2 measures including positive parenting behavior (n = 3), child coping (n = 4), self-compassion (n = 4), and routines (n = 4). Missing values occurred for Time 1 child EC (n = 1) and maternal well-being (n = 2) and Time 3 parent coping (n = 1). The pattern of missingness across Times 1, 2, and 3, considering both primary variables and demographic characteristics (child sex, child and maternal age, maternal education, household income, marital status), was not significantly different from a missing completely at random pattern (Little’s MCAR χ2[206] = 188.69, p = .801). Missing data were handled with Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation.

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics for primary variables can be found in Table 1. Primary variables were within normal limits of skew (< |2.00|) and kurtosis (< |4.00|). We examined sociodemographic variables in relation to maternal positive parenting and adaptive coping to identify potential covariates for the path analysis. Fewer number of siblings of the target child related to Time 3 positive parenting behavior (r[77] = −.24, p = .036), as did more time, in months, since the family’s last in-person visit to the laboratory (r[78] = .29, p = .009); they were included in the path model as covariates for both outcomes to be consistent. Positive parenting and adaptive coping did not relate to other demographic variables (child age, maternal age, child sex, household income, or marital status), so they were not considered further.

Aim 1: Description of Stressors and Positive Changes during the Pandemic

On average, mothers reported 7.11 (SD = 2.81, observed range = 1 to 14) of the 15 possible stressful circumstances being at least “somewhat” (rating of 3 on the 1 to 4 scale) stressful. The most frequently reported stressors were uncertainty surrounding the pandemic, being unable to participate in normal activities, and having to change or cancel plans. On average, mothers reported 10.52 of the possible 19 positive changes (SD = 3.61, observed range = 1–19). The most common positive changes (Table 2) included increased quality time with loved ones, having greater appreciation for things taken for granted, spending more times outdoors and/or in nature, and spending increased time on enjoyable activities. The extent of stress (sum of stress items) and proportion of positive changes endorsed were independent of one another (r[93] = .08, p = .430), consistent with the idea from resilience theory that individuals can experience positive changes across different experiences of stressors and challenges.

Table 2.

Pandemic stressors and positive changes

Pandemic related positive changes % endorsed Endorsement of pandemic related stressors Average rating
More quality time with children 94.7 Uncertainty about the future 3.34
Gratitude for things usually taken for granted 90.4 Inability to participate in normal activities 3.26
More quality time with loved ones 88.3 Changes or cancellations of plans 3.17
More time in nature/outdoors 83.2 Inability to spend time with loved ones 3.13
More time for enjoyable activities 76.6 Distress surrounding news reports 3.02
More quality time with partner/spouse 73.9 Greater family responsibilities 2.77
More attention to personal health 64.2 Challenges/conflicts at home 2.57
Improved relationships with family/friends 58.9 Uncertainty about COVID contagion/status 2.38
Increased exercise/physical activity 52.6 Inability to complete work responsibilities remotely 2.08
Healthier eating habits 50.5 Barriers to completing work or education 1.99
More attention to preventing injury 49.5 Financial problems 1.94
New sources of social support 44.2 Symptoms/diagnosis of COVID 1.86
Greater meaning in work/employment/school 43.2 Difficulty obtaining groceries/supplies 1.73
Developed new hobbies 41.1 Difficulty obtaining medical care 1.61
Donations of time/goods for pandemic-related causes 40.4
Volunteering to help people in need 33.0
More efficient/productive in work/employment/school 30.5
Less screen time outside of work 22.1
Lower alcohol/substance intake 20.7
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 95. Positive change items were endorsed as “yes” or “no.” Items are paraphrased from the measure. Average scores of stressors on the RSQ-COVID19 (Compas, 2020). Items were rated as 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = somewhat, 4 = very. Items are paraphrased from original measure.

Aim 2: Direct and Indirect Prediction of Maternal Parenting Resilience

The path model of relations among pre-pandemic, early-pandemic, and mid-pandemic variables demonstrated good fit (χ2[17] = 18.13, p = .381, RMSEA = .026, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, SRMR = .067). All paths are reported in Table 3 and significant paths, for parsimony, are depicted in Figure 1. Pre-pandemic maternal well-being and early-pandemic maternal self-compassion and child coping each uniquely predicted the outcome of mid-pandemic maternal adaptive coping. Maternal self-compassion (95% CI [0.000, 0.007]) and child primary coping (95% CI [0.000, 0.005]) mediated the relation between pre-pandemic maternal well-being and mid-pandemic maternal adaptive coping. Maternal well-being retained a significant direct effect. Children’s pre-pandemic EC predicted children’s adaptive coping, which mediated the relation between pre-pandemic EC and the outcome of mid-pandemic maternal adaptive coping (95% CI [0.000, 0.006]). Children’s EC directly predicted mid-pandemic maternal positive parenting. Thus, pre-pandemic maternal well-being specifically predicted maternal adaptive coping, both directly and indirectly. Pre-pandemic child EC predicted change in maternal adaptive coping indirectly and change in maternal positive parenting directly.

Table 3.

Path Model Coefficients

Variable b (SE) β t p 95% CI
DV = Early Pandemic (Time 2) Maternal Self-Compassion (R2 = .16)
Time 1 maternal well-being 0.30 (0.07) 0.39 4.15 <.001 [0.16, 0.45]
Time 1 child EC 0.05 (0.10) 0.06 0.54 .558 [−0.14, 0.26]
DV = Early Pandemic (Time 2) Routines (R2 = .01)
Time 1 maternal well-being 0.33 (0.44) 0.08 0.74 .458 [−0.51, 1.24]
Time 1 child EC 0.18 (0.50) 0.04 0.37 .714 [−0.85, 1.13]
DV = Early Pandemic (Time 2) Child Primary Coping (R2 = .12)
Time 1 maternal well-being 0.01 (0.004) 0.23 2.32 .020 [0.003, 0.021]
Time 1 child EC 0.01 (0.005) 0.21 2.21 .027 [0.001, 0.021]
DV = Mid-Pandemic (Time 3) Maternal Positive (Engaged) Coping (R2 = .66)
Number of siblings of child −0.004 (0.002) −0.15 −1.72 .085 [−0.01, 0.00]
Time since last laboratory visit −0.00 (0.00) −0.07 −0.87 .384 [0.00, 0.00]
COVID stressors −0.00 (0.00) −0.01 −0.15 .877 [−0.00, 0.01]
Time 1 maternal well-being 0.01 (0.004) 0.28 2.676 .007 [0.004, 0.021]
Time 1 child EC −0.006 (0.004) −0.13 −1.50 .133 [−0.02, 0.002]
Time 2 maternal self-compassion 0.011 (0.006) 0.21 1.96 .050 [0.000, 0.022]
Time 2 routines −0.00 (0.00) −0.04 −0.48 .634 [−0.00, 0.00]
Time 2 child primary coping 0.18 (0.07) 0.19 2.74 .006 [0.04, 0.30]
Time 2 maternal adaptive coping 0.45 (0.10) 0.44 4.53 <.001 [0.26, 0.66]
DV = Mid-Pandemic (Time 3) Maternal Positive Parenting Behavior (R2 = .68)
Number of siblings of child 0.01 (0.03) 0.02 0.23 .822 [−0.05, 0.08]
Time since last laboratory visit 0.003 (0.002) 0.10 1.56 .118 [−0.00, 0.01]
COVID stressors −0.008 (0.004) −0.14 −1.91 .056 [−0.02, 0.001]
Time 1 maternal well-being −0.02 (0.05) −0.04 −0.39 .694 [−0.10, 0.08]
Time 1 child EC 0.11 (0.05) 0.19 2.21 .027 [0.01, 0.20]
Time 2 maternal self-compassion −0.00 (0.05) −0.01 −0.06 .951 [−0.09, 0.09]
Time 2 routines −0.02 (0.01) −0.13 1.48 .138 [−0.04, 0.003]
Time 2 child primary coping 0.80 (0.63) 0.07 1.26 .208 [−0.50, 1.99]
Time 2 maternal positive parenting 0.82 (0.09) 0.78 9.63 <.001 [0.65, 0.99]
Open in a new tab

Note. N = 95. The overall model demonstrated good fit (RMSEA = .026, CFI = .995, TLI = .986, SRMR = .067; χ2[17] = 18.13, p = .381). Also modeled were residual correlations among early pandemic (Time 2) mediators, maternal adaptive coping, and maternal positive behavior, with significant correlations occurring between routines and positive behaviors (r = .36, p < .001) and between self-compassion and adaptive coping (r = .39, p < .001); and the residual correlation between mid-pandemic (Time 3) maternal adaptive coping and maternal positive behavior, which was not significant.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Path Model of Parental Resilience

Note. N = 95. Significant standardized regression coefficients shown. See Table 3 for all paths. Number of siblings and extent of COVID-related stressors were modeled as covariates of adaptive coping and positive parenting but not shown. Also modeled but not shown were correlations between concurrent (Time 2) maternal well-being and self-compassion, routines, and stressors. †p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Post-Hoc Analyses

Significant bivariate correlations among T2 and T3 adherence to routines and T2 and T3 positive parenting, in combination with non-significant paths for adherence to routines in the primary path model, led us to think that we mis-specified routines as a predictor, rather than a correlate or outcome, of positive parenting behavior. To test this idea, we examined a cross-lagged model of routines and positive parenting across T2 and T3 (Figure 2). Above and beyond stability in each construct and concurrent correlations between constructs, T2 positive parenting predicted T3 adherence to routines, while the reverse direction was not significant.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Post-Hoc Cross-Lagged Models

Note. N = 95. Paths represent standardized regression coefficients. Post-hoc models indicate directionality from positive parenting behavior to adherence to routines (Panel A) and bidirectional relations between maternal and child adaptive coping (Panel B). Gray path was not significant. †p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

In the primary model, we specified children’s adaptive coping as a predictor of maternal adaptive coping, but it is reasonable that mothers’ coping would also predict children’s coping. Thus, we ran a second cross-lagged model to assess directionality between these constructs across T2 and T3 (Figure 2). Above and beyond stability within and concurrent correlations between constructs, we found both child-to-parent and parent-to-child paths to be significant.

Discussion

Insights into the nature, extent, and predictors of maternal resilience can inform interventions to assist parents in managing the challenges caused by the pandemic, as well as add to theory of maternal resilience that can be applied to other stressors going forward. As expected, mothers reported experiencing a number of stressors related to the pandemic. A sizable fraction of families faced tangible changes to finances and resources. The most common stressors involved feelings of uncertainty and isolation, which are known correlates of risk and maladaptive outcomes for individuals, broadly (Wang et al., 2018), and parents, specifically (Sanchez et al., 2016). Increasing tolerance of uncertainty and flexibility in seeking social support (e.g., virtually or in other socially-distanced manners) may be brief and fast-acting means to combat these stressors. Despite these stressors, all mothers reported at least one positive change, with many mothers experiencing a wide number, including increased quality time with loved ones and increased self-care experiences. Thus, mothers not only adapted, but also exceeded previous functioning with these positive changes. In line with Masten’s (2001) theory for children, resilience in mothers may be “ordinary” rather than “extraordinary.”

Primary results of our study revealed that pre-pandemic maternal well-being (i.e., low maternal anxiety and depression, high social support, high PSOC) indirectly predicted adaptive coping through self-compassion. Thus, when mothers had greater well-being prior to the pandemic, they were able to be more self-compassionate during the pandemic, which predicted more adaptive coping later on. This is in line with research finding strong links between individuals’ psychological well-being and their level of self-compassion (Neff, 2003). Further, self-compassion has been shown to relate to adaptive coping (Allen & Leary, 2010) and has been linked to positive outcomes in parents, specifically (Gouveia et al., 2016). Results also revealed that pre-pandemic maternal well-being directly predicted adaptive coping, further highlighting the importance of baseline levels of well-being in promoting positive outcomes during stress.

Our results also revealed that children’s EC indirectly predicted mothers’ adaptive coping through children’s own adaptive coping. As a temperamental trait, EC serves as an internal resource for regulation, which allows children to effectively manage uncertainty and stress. It stands to reason, therefore, that EC would predict children’s voluntary and engaged coping that is itself characterized by regulation of emotions, cognitions, behavior, and physiology, as well as active problem-solving (Compas et al., 2001). Children’s adaptive coping in times of stress in turn supports parents’ abilities to effectively cope. This finding was in line with previous research showing that parent coping and child coping seem to fluctuate together (Raviv & Wadsworth, 2010). Additionally, our post-hoc findings support this work, as we found bidirectional relations between mother and child coping. Finally, children’s EC also directly predicted positive parenting behaviors. This finding is in line with studies showing that higher child EC elicits positive parenting behaviors (e.g., Belsky et al., 2007). Importantly, child EC emerged as the only significant predictor of positive parenting behavior, supporting an emphasis on child-elicited effects, potentially over parental traits, on the parenting they receive.

Importantly, each of the mediators identified as being significant in the current study (i.e., child coping and self-compassion) are amenable to intervention. Numerous interventions have been developed and found to be effective for self-compassion (Ferrari, et al. 2019) and child coping (Pincus & Friedman, 2004). Further, our findings that pre-pandemic well-being and child EC directly predicted parental resilience outcomes years later during an unanticipated pandemic suggest that general efforts to maintain well-being and child EC may spillover into generalized resilience in parents. Our measure of well-being comprised low depression and anxiety symptoms, high social support, and parenting sense of competence. Therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy have been found to be effective treatments for anxiety and depression (Cuijpers et al., 2016; Hofman et al., 2010) and can target social support. Other social support interventions include increasing the size of social networks, changing perceived support, and improving social skills to facilitate relationship building (for review see Hogan et al., 2002). Parenting sense of competence has also shown improvement through interventions (Katsikitis et al., 2013). Finally, although child EC is typically understood to be a trait-level factor, it is also amenable to intervention (Chang et al., 2015). Family-focused practitioners who aim to increase resilience in parents may specifically work to increase capacities for maternal well-being, child EC, child coping, and maternal self-compassion.

Although maintenance of routines did not emerge as a significant mediator in our model, as was hypothesized, post-hoc analyses revealed it to be a correlate and outcome, rather than predictor, of positive parenting. This finding provides information on the directionality of the relation between routines and positive parenting and supports theory suggesting that adhering to daily routines may be an extension of positive parenting behaviors (Koblinsky et al., 2006). More engaged parents may be better able to establish structured routines for their children. Alternatively, it is possible that as the pandemic progressed and families adjusted to a new way of life, mothers were better able to implement new routines. Regardless of the directionality of routines and positive parenting, routines have been identified as a source of family resilience in the face of life stressors (Masten, 2001). The establishment and maintenance of family routines, as shaped by familial and cultural values, may be a promising brief and no-cost intervention.

Limitations and Future Directions

It is important to acknowledge several limitations. We only focused on mothers. Going forward, it will be important to understand resilience in fathers and other caregivers and to determine how the coping and parenting behaviors of one parent impact the other. Our sample is limited in generalizability because we had a majority middle-class and White sample. COVID-19 is disproportionately impacting minoritized and low-income populations (Kikuchi et al., 2021; Trammell et al., 2021). Thus, it is necessary to increase the representativeness of samples to understand resilience across contexts defined by the interaction between individual identities and societal structures and policies. Replication of our study for individuals with lower education levels may be difficult given the high number of questionnaires used. We suggest using shorter versions of measures when available and only using necessary subscales. Our sample was also limited to one geographic area of the United States. The extent of restrictions and rates of COVID-19 varied across and within states. Ohio, the location of the study, did experience a number of restrictions, including being the first in the U.S. to shut down schools and daycares statewide, but it is important to understand resilience factors across different areas of the U.S. and in other countries. Further, mothers reported on all measures, so results may have capitalized on shared method variance. Future research should include data from multiple methods (e.g., observation, child report, diagnostic interview). Other important factors related to the pandemic, not tested in the current study, may be impacting families. For instance, although we described common stressors, we were unable to test differences in outcomes based on specific stressors (e.g., job loss). Mothers did report a number of stressors, which is required for resilience, but we were not able to judge the functional or clinical significance of these stressors. Thus, results should be interpreted with some caution. Finally, children in this sample spanned developmental stages (i.e., pre-K to 4th grade) and thus had varying levels of independence. Older children likely have higher self-regulation and are able to work and play more independently. Future studies should test the varying effects of COVID-19 on parenting based on child age.

Conclusion

To best support families during stressful periods, including universal crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it is necessary to understand factors that contribute to maternal resilience. This research points to areas for intervention that can help mothers to deal with the immense stress brought on by COVID-19 and can inform interventions for future universal social stressors, as well, potentially, for the ordinary stressors of family crisis. Resilient outcomes predicted by both maternal well-being and children’s EC, and mothers’ self-compassion and children’s coping appear to be unique mechanisms of these relations. Thus, well-being, child EC, child coping, and self-compassion may be important areas for intervention. Going forward, it is important to determine how to best support parents, children, and families during times of stress.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material

Footnotes

Author Note: Portions of this manuscript were presented as a poster at the 2021 Society for Research in Child Development biennial meeting. This study was not preregistered. Data have been made publicly available at the Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be accessed at https://osf.io/xa7qe/?view_only=691f9e4f853d4f59a8373b170c0d0771. Data collection and the time to work on this paper was supported by funds from Miami University and an R15 area award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2R15 HD076158) of the National Institutes of Health, granted to Elizabeth Kiel.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. We would like to express our appreciation to the families who participated in this project.

References

  1. Aisenberg E, & Ell K (2005). Contextualizing community violence and its effects: an ecological model of parent-child interdependent coping. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(7), 855–71. https://doi.org/bzh2mh [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen AB, & Leary MR (2010). Self-Compassion, stress, and coping. Social and personality psychology compass, 4(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/b7db7w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Belsky J, Fearon RMP, Bell B (2007). Parenting, attention, and externalizing problems: Testing mediation longitudinally, repeatedly and reciprocally. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1233–1242. https://doi.org/fm5ptr [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cappa KA, Begle AM, Conger JC, Dumas JE, & Conger AJ (2011). Bidirectional relationships between parenting stress and child coping competence: findings from the Pace Study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(3), 334–342. https://doi.org/d8493x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang H, Shaw DS, Dishion TJ, Gardner F, & Wilson MN (2015). Proactive parenting and children’s effortful control: Mediating role of language and indirect intervention effects. Social Development, 24(1), 206–223. 10.1111/sode.12069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chess S, & Thomas A (2013). Goodness of fit: Clinical applications, from infancy through adult life. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chorpita BF, & Barlow DH (1998). The development of anxiety: The role of control in the early environment. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/bvx6hx [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen S, Mermelstein R, Kamarck T, & Hoberman HM (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. Social Support: Theory, Research, and Applications, 24, 73–94. [Google Scholar]
  9. Compas BE, Connor-Smith JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH, & Wadsworth ME (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological bulletin, 127(1), 87–127. https://doi.org/b7qwk2 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Compas B (2020a). Responses to Stress Questionnaire – COVID 19: Adult self-report Unpublished measure. Retrieved from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/stressandcoping/rsq/
  11. Compas B (2020b). Responses to Stress Questionnaire – COVID 19: Parent report on child Unpublished measure. Retrieved from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/stressandcoping/rsq/
  12. Conger RD, & Conger KJ (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 361–373. https://doi.org/br8nk8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Connor-Smith JK, Compas BE, Wadsworth ME, Thomsen AH, & Saltzman H (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 976–992. https://doi.org/cc7fgv [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cuijpers P, Cristea IA, Karyotaki E, Reijnders M, & Huibers MJ (2016). How effective are cognitive behavior therapies for major depression and anxiety disorders? A meta-analytic update of the evidence. World psychiatry, 15(3), 245–258. https://doi.org/gfxb76 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dix T (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 3–25. https://doi.org/c6z7x2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dunn WW (2000). Habit: What’s the brain got to do with it?. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/gb9m [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernandez IT, Schwartz JP, Chun H, & Dickson G (2013). Family resilience and parenting. In Handbook of family resilience (pp. 119–136). Springer, New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrari M, Hunt C, Harrysunker A, Abbott MJ, Beath AP, & Einstein DA (2019). Self-compassion interventions and psychosocial outcomes: A meta-analysis of RCTs. Mindfulness, 10(8), 1455–1473. https://doi.org/ggsw9s [Google Scholar]
  19. Gavidia-Payne S, Denny B, Davis K, Francis A, & Jackson M (2015). Parental resilience: A neglected construct in resilience research. Clinical Psychologist, 19, 111–121. https://doi.org/gb2v [Google Scholar]
  20. Gibaud-Wallston J, & Wandersman LP (1978). Development and utility of the parenting sense of competence scale. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gouveia MJ, Carona C, Canavarro MC, & Moreira H (2016). Self-compassion and dispositional mindfulness are associated with parenting styles and parenting stress: the mediating role of mindful parenting. Mindfulness, 7(3), 700–712. https://doi.org/f84dcf [Google Scholar]
  22. Grasso DJ, Briggs-Gowan MJ, Ford JD, & Carter AS (2020). The Epidemic – Pandemic Impacts Inventory (EPII). Unpublished measure. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Hess CR, Papas MA, & Black MM (2002). Resilience among African American adolescent mothers: Predictors of positive parenting in early infancy. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(7), 619–629. https://doi.org/fh5zvj [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hofmann SG, Sawyer AT, Witt AA, & Oh D (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 169–183. https://doi.org/fnx5wt [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hogan BE, Linden W, & Najarian B (2002). Social support interventions: Do they work? Clinical Psychology Review, 22(3), 381–440. https://doi.org/b68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jones TL, & Prinz RJ (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: a review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(3), 341–63. https://doi.org/bgtsdz [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Katsikitis M, Bignell K, Rooskov N, Elms L, & Davidson GR (2013). The Family Strengthening Program: Influences on parental mood, parental sense of competence and family functioning. Advances in Mental Health, 11(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/f9jw [Google Scholar]
  28. Jones L, Kiel EJ, Luebbe AM, & Hay MC (2022, February 16). Resilience in Mothers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Retrieved from osf.io/xa7qe [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Kikuchi H, Machida M, Nakamura I, Saito R, Odagiri Y, Kojima T, Watanabe H, & Inoue S (2021). Development of severe psychological distress among low-income individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal study. BJPsych Open, 7. 10.1192/bjo.2021.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Koblinsky SA, Kuvalanka KA, & Randolph SM (2006). Social skills and behavior problems of urban, African American preschoolers: Role of parenting practices, family conflict, and maternal depression. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lovibond SH, & Lovibond PF (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. Sydney: The Psychology Foundation of Australia. [Google Scholar]
  32. Masten AS (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/bv32cz [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Masten AS (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: Past, present, and promise. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 10, 12–31. https://doi.org/gc6wxj [Google Scholar]
  34. McConkey R (2020). A brief measure of parental wellbeing for use in evaluations of family-centered interventions for children with developmental disabilities. Children, 7(9), 120. 10.3390/children7090120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. McCubbin LD, & McCubbin HI (2005). Culture and ethnic identity in family resilience. Handbook for working with children and youth: Pathways to resilience across cultures and contexts, 27–44. https://doi.org/gb3c [Google Scholar]
  36. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  37. Neff KD (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. https://doi.org/d7z3xt [Google Scholar]
  38. Newland LA (2015). Family well-being, parenting, and child well-being: Pathways to healthy adjustment. Clinical Psychologist, 19(1), 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  39. Obradović J (2010). Effortful Control and adaptive functioning of homeless children: Variable- and person-focused analyses. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 31(2), 109–117. 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.09.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Parent J, & Forehand R (2017). The Multidimensional Assessment of Parenting Scale (MAPS): Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26, 2136–2151. https://doi.org/gbqf33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Paudel J (2021). Home Alone: Implications of COVID-19 for mental health. Social Science & Medicine, 285. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Peek L (2008). Children and disasters: Understanding vulnerability, developing capacities, and promoting resilience—An introduction. Children Youth and Environments, 18(1), 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  43. Pincus DB, & Friedman AG (2004). Improving children’s coping with everyday stress: Transporting treatment interventions to the school setting. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7(4), 223–240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Putnam SP, & Rothbart MK (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 102–112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Putnick DL, Bornstein MH, Hendricks C, Painter KM, Suwalsky JTD, & Collins WA (2008). Parenting stress, perceived parenting behaviors, and adolescent self-concept in European American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(5), 752–762. https://doi.org/fbgd3z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Raes F, Pommier E, Neff KD, & Van Gucht D (2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 18, 250–255. https://doi.org/ch5jw2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Raviv T, & Wadsworth ME (2010). The efficacy of a pilot program for children and caregivers coping with economic strain. Cognitive Therapy Research, 34, 216–228. [Google Scholar]
  48. Rothbart MK (1986). Longitudinal observation of infant temperament. Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 356–365. https://doi.org/fdvt6c [Google Scholar]
  49. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, & Hershey KL (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40(1), 21–39. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sanchez AL, Kendall PC, & Comer JS (2016). Evaluating the intergenerational link between maternal and child intolerance of uncertainty: A preliminary cross-sectional examination. Cognitive Therapy Research, 40, 532–539. https://doi.org/f8wnqn [Google Scholar]
  51. Smith M (2004). Parental mental health: Disruptions to parenting and outcomes for children. Child & Family Social Work, 9(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/fkb2qq [Google Scholar]
  52. Tiberio SS, Capaldi DM, Kerr DC, Bertrand M, Pears KC, & Owen L (2016). Parenting and the development of effortful control from early childhood to early adolescence: A transactional developmental model. Development and psychopathology, 28(3), 837–853. 10.1017/S0954579416000341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Tobin DL, Holroyd KA, Reynolds RV, & Wigal JK (1989). The hierarchical factor structure of the Coping Strategies Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13(4), 343–361. https://doi.org/fg9bk4 [Google Scholar]
  54. Thompson SF, Zalewski M, & Lengua LJ (2014). Appraisal and coping styles account for the effects of temperament on preadolescent adjustment. Australian journal of psychology, 66(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/gg2h6m [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Trammell PJP, Joseph PNT, & Harriger PJA (2021). Racial and ethnic minority disparities in covid-19 related health, health beliefs and behaviors, and well-being among students. Journal of American College Health. https://doi.org/g3d2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Wang J, Mann F, Lloyd-Evans B, Ma R, & Johnson S (2018). Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, 18(156), 1–16. https://doi.org/gdpqcf [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Williamson V, Hiller RM, Meiser-Stedman R, Creswell C, Dalgleish T, Fearon P, Goodall B, McKinnon A, Smith P, Wright I, & Halligan SL (2018). The Parent Trauma Response Questionnaire (PTRQ): development and preliminary validation. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 9(1), 1478583. https://doi.org/gdrs33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Yamamura E, Tsustsui Y (2021). The impact of closing schools on working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence using panel data from Japan. Rev Econ Household, 19, 41–60. https://doi.org/ghzs6p [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.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material
NIHMS1847851-supplement-Supplemental_Material.pdf (75.6KB, pdf)

RESOURCES