How do highly sensitive persons parent their adolescent children? The role of sensory processing sensitivity in parenting practices

Abstract

This research examines whether sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) in parents is associated with their parenting practices toward their adolescent children and whether attachment insecurity mediates the associations between SPS and parenting practices. One hundred twenty-one parent–adolescent dyads completed self-report questionnaires assessing parents’ SPS, parents’ adult attachment, and parenting practices. Results showed that SPS was positively associated with inconsistency, psychological intrusiveness, and attachment anxiety. Further, attachment anxiety mediated the association between parents’ SPS and harsh parenting and partially mediated the association between parents’ SPS and parental psychological intrusiveness. There is very little research on how highly sensitive individuals parent their children in general and none regarding the parenting of high-SPS individuals during challenging developmental periods such as their children’s adolescence. Findings suggest that parents high in SPS may experience this period as especially stressful and high SPS might contribute to the use of negative parenting. Interventions focused on regulating high-SPS parents’ stress and on facilitating parents in practicing separating their own and their children’s emotions could promote their use of more positive parenting practices.

Keywords

Adolescence attachment parenting parenting practices sensory processing sensitivity

Individuals perceive and respond to their environment through the processing of sensory information (Aron & Aron, 1997; Aron et al., 2012). Dunn (1997) conceptualized sensory processing using the amount of stimuli needed for the nervous system to notice or react to stimuli (i.e., neurological thresholds) and the individual response in relation to the thresholds (i.e., behavioral responses). Sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) refers to an individual’s tendency to process more strongly and deeply a variety of information, including the arts, other peoples’ moods, hunger, and pain. An individual with a high measure of SPS is considered to be a highly sensitive person (HSP).

Roughly 20–30% of the population is expected to be highly sensitive (Aron & Aron, 1997; Lionetti et al., 2018). People high in SPS tend to process and respond to lower thresholds of information and to better detect subtle differences in the environment. These processing differences are genetically based, present at birth, and located in the central nervous system (Aron & Aron, 1997), and polymorphisms both in the serotonin and in the dopamine systems have been implicated in them (Chen et al., 2011; Homberg et al., 2016). High-SPS individuals tend to be more in tune with their own thoughts and emotions, more aware of the emotions of others, and more responsive to and aware of environmental changes (Nocentini et al., 2018; Slagt et al., 2018). They also are prone to “pause to check” in novel situations, both because of their predisposition to wariness and the amount of information they have to process in new environments (Aron et al., 2010, 2012). People high in SPS are more likely to experience anxiety disorders, such as social phobia (Liss et al., 2008), avoidant personality disorder (Meyer & Carver, 2000), depression (Johnson et al., 2003), and neuroticism (Aron & Aron, 1997).

Although there is empirical evidence regarding the emotional and social characteristics of HSPs, there is very little research regarding how individuals high in SPS parent their children in general and none regarding the parenting of high-SPS individuals during their children’s adolescence. Given that parenting behaviors are influenced by parents’ personalities (Jaffee et al., 2006) and adolescence is a challenging developmental period, this examination might be quite useful.

In Western societies, adolescence is an especially arduous period for adolescents and parents because of major biological, cognitive, and emotional changes the adolescents are undergoing and because of changes in parent–adolescent relationships (Scharf & Shulman, 2006). Adolescents spend increasingly less time with their parents and more time with peers (Lee et al., 2017; Scharf & Shulman, 2006), making it more difficult for parents to consistently keep track of their adolescents’ whereabouts. Moreover, adolescence was found to be the lowest point in parents’ life satisfaction (Steinberg & Steinberg, 1994), in part because of concerns with their own growing midlife needs (Steinberg & Silk, 2002).

It is as important in adolescence as in earlier periods to focus on the child’s needs and to convey that they are valued and are a priority in the lives of their parents (i.e., child centeredness), even though the challenge of supporting adolescents’ growing need for autonomy, individuation, and more egalitarian relationships (Tokić Milaković et al., 2018) may increase parent–adolescent conflict, parental feelings of ineffectiveness, and parental strain (Collins & Laursen, 2006). Therefore, it would be important to explore how the sensory processing of individuals high in SPS (Aron & Aron, 1997) might affect their coping skills and behavior in the context of parenting an adolescent child.

Personality and parenting

There has been substantial research on the relationship between parental personality and parenting. For example, parents high in neuroticism are more intrusive, use more power-assertive discipline, and show less responsiveness (Coplan et al., 2009; Prinzie et al., 2009). The shyness–anxiety dimension was predictive of overprotective parenting and of unsupportive parenting (Root et al., 2016).

Two studies have explored the parenting of parents high in SPS. In a qualitative study, some mothers high in SPS reported feeling overwhelmed and adopted more harsh parenting behavior. In addition, they preferred spending time alone, withdrawing from the child, giving less focus and attention to the child’s needs, and showing more permissive parenting behavior (Turner et al., 2012). These behaviors also might be experienced as inconsistent parenting. Aron et al. (2019) explored the relationship between SPS and parental subjective experience and found that although mothers high in SPS experienced parenting as more difficult, parents (both fathers and mothers) high in SPS were more in attunement with their child (i.e., child centeredness).

There is some evidence that people with high SPS have stronger emotional responses overall and high activation of brain regions involved in awareness, empathy, and self–other processing (Acevedo et al., 2014) and are differentially susceptible to environmental factors (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Studies with children high in SPS showed that high SPS magnifies both the positive effects of nurturing parenting (Jagiellowicz et al., 2016) and the adverse effects of stressful environments (Aron et al., 2005), with their developmental plasticity affecting their integrating experiences, such as their early relationships with their significant others, into their personality (Belsky & Pluess, 2009).

Attachment, parenting, and SPS

Attachment theory has become the most influential framework for understanding emotion regulation and coping strategies (Cassidy & Shaver, 2018; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). In Bowlby’s (1969/1980) terms, the attachment system functions as an inner resource during encounters with stressful events, leading people to maintain or restore proximity to significant others who can provide support in managing distress.

Attachment relationships are typically solidified by the end of infancy and tend to be stable over time when the caregiving environment and experiences are lasting (Bowlby, 1969/1980). Proximity maintenance may alleviate distress and facilitate the development of positive beliefs about the self and about the other, leading people to turn to others when experiencing stress and to use their support effectively and to form an internalized “secure attachment” (Bowlby, 1988). However, when significant others are unavailable or nonresponsive in times of need, proximity maintenance may elicit distress and encourage the formation of insecure attachment (Bowlby, 1988).

Adult attachment has been examined within intimate relationships. Two dimensions that reflect insecurity are avoidance and anxiety. Avoidant attachment individuals tend to feel discomfort with emotional closeness and dependence on intimate partners and use a deactivating strategy of emotion regulation. Anxious attachment individuals tend to be more self-centered, worry about their own attachment needs, feel extremely distressed when other people need their assistance, and adopt a hyperactivating strategy of emotion regulation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016; Mikulincer et al., 2005).

A substantial body of empirical work demonstrates that adult attachment orientations influence many important aspects of adult functioning, such as social information processing, emotion regulation, coping strategies, health, and parenting (Jones et al., 2017; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Parental insecurity may prompt the parent to view the child’s temperamental needs as a threat. These mechanisms may develop into a set of protective mechanisms in the face of threat that include the belief that the best way to maintain safety is by not depending on others or allowing others to depend on them (i.e., avoidant attachment) or alternatively with heightened and distressed response to the child’s temperamental needs (i.e., anxious attachment; Jones et al., 2015). Studies revealed that greater parental insecurity is related to less responsive (Goodman et al., 1997), less consistent (Kilmann et al., 2009), less caring (Feeney, 2002), and more authoritarian (Millings et al., 2013) parenting.

Anxious attached parents are characterized by hyperactivation emotion regulation strategies that keep their caregiving chronically activated until their goal is achieved (Shaver et al., 2010). Thus, their coping strategies are associated with hypervigilance and an exaggerated appraisal of their child’s needs (lower child centeredness), which might be expressed as an inconsistent intrusive parenting that is often asynchronous with the child’s needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Anxious attached parents may also be less close to their children (Rholes et al., 1995), be less compassionate (Moreira et al., 2016), experience parenting stress (Gouveia et al., 2016), and exhibit more hostile behaviors toward their child (Jones & Cassidy, 2014).

Avoidant attached individuals, by contrast, are characterized by deactivation emotion regulation strategies that limit their involvement to avoid the distress caused by failed efforts to cope (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). Therefore, they tend to misinterpret information that signals the child’s needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016) and reveal detachment, less attention, coldness, and harsh parenting (Jones et al., 2014).

Studies that examined childhood experiences of adults with high levels of SPS have found that being a highly sensitive child probably played a role in how they were raised as children. It is possible that those children, being a minority, were likely misunderstood by their parents and thus experienced poor attunement to their special needs (Turner et al., 2012). Experiencing less responsive parenting during their own childhood might have made them more susceptible to the development of attachment insecurity as adults (Branjerdporn et al., 2019; Meredith et al., 2016).

Studies based on the conceptualization of Dunn (1997) regarding sensory sensitivity have found positive associations between SPS and attachment anxiety, sensory avoidance, and attachment avoidance and low registration and avoidant and anxious attachment (Jerome & Liss, 2005; Levit-Binnun et al., 2014). Meyer et al. (2005) have indicated a link between SPS and attachment insecurity, using the Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS; Aron & Aron, 1997). Finally, Meredith et al. (2016), using Dunn (1997) and Aron and Aron (1997) models, have found that attachment anxiety positively correlated with SPS when using both models. Attachment avoidance was correlated only with sensory sensitivity measured using the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (Brown & Dunn, 2002). According to these studies, SPS positively associates with attachment anxiety using the Dunn (1997) and Aron and Aron (1997) models, while attachment avoidance associates with SPS using only Dunn’s model.

Parenting practices are specific behaviors that parents use to socialize their child. Those behaviors are shaped by multiple factors, including individual characteristics of the parent and child as well as sociocultural and contextual factors (Belsky, 1984). Based on the determinants of the parenting model proposed by Belsky (1984; Belsky & Jaffee, 2006), parental personality and parental psychological functioning are considered to be the most important factors in the determinants of parenting because they affect parenting practices and mediate the successfulness of parenting behaviors (Belsky, 1984; Belsky & Jaffee, 2006; Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Revisiting the model, Taraban and Shaw (2018) suggested exploring additional characteristics of parents’ factors.

The current study

The purpose of the current study was to examine the parenting practices of parents high in SPS regarding their adolescent children. Past literature indicates that adolescence is a period rich with parental strain and feelings of ineffectiveness and conflicts (Collins & Laursen, 2006; Steinberg & Steinberg, 1994). This is in part due to parents’ own concerns with midlife needs (Steinberg & Silk, 2002) as well as parental goals of letting their adolescents feel valued and supported in their growing need for autonomy, individuation, and more egalitarian relationships (Tokić Milaković et al., 2018).

We suggested that since people high in SPS are more responsive to and aware of these challenges (Nocentini et al., 2018; Slagt et al., 2018), they might be more overwhelmed and practice ineffective parenting, such as harsh, detached (paying less attention to the child’s needs, i.e., less child centeredness), and sometimes permissive parenting toward their adolescents (Turner et al., 2012).
H1: SPS will be positively associated with psychological intrusiveness, harshness, and permissive parenting practices.

Parents high in SPS have been found to be more in attunement with their child (Aron et al., 2019). Yet individuals high in SPS are likely to experience distress and neuroticism (Aron & Aron, 1997; Meredith et al., 2016), which has been found to be associated with intrusiveness, harsh discipline, and less responsiveness (Coplan et al., 2009; Prinzie et al., 2009).
H2: SPS will be negatively associated with child centeredness.

We also suggested that in line with past research, SPS would be positively correlated with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Branjerdporn et al., 2019; Meredith et al., 2016; Meyer et al., 2005).
H3: SPS will be positively associated with parents’ attachment anxiety and avoidance.

Finally, we explored whether attachment insecurity (anxiety and/or avoidance) mediated the associations between SPS and parenting practices.

Method

Participants

Participants were 121 Israeli parent–adolescent dyads. The parents were 16.5% fathers and 83.5% mothers with a mean age of 44.2 years (SD = 6.75) and an average of 2.91 children per family (SD = 1.31). (No more than one parent–adolescent dyad per family was included.) Of the parents, 84.9% were married and 15.1% were single parents, 87.6% had a graduate/professional degree, and most families (93.4%) reported an average or above average income (average monthly income in Israel is approximately US$2,500; Central Bureau of Statistics, 2019). A large percentage (76%) of participants lived in urban metropolises and the rest in more agricultural areas. Adolescent participants were 42.1% males and 57.9% females, with a mean age of 13.69 years (SD = 2.63); 53% were the eldest child in their family, and 27.4% were the youngest child.

Procedure

Parents and adolescents were invited through social media to participate in an online study presented as “parenting characteristics and parenting adolescents.” After signing informed consent forms, each participant (adolescents and parents) received a separate link and was asked to complete the online questionnaire separately. Parents completed a demographic questionnaire and the self-report HSPS and Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECRS); adolescents completed the Weinberger Parenting Inventory (WPI) regarding their participant parent. Participants were informed that their anonymity would be preserved throughout the study and that they had the right to discontinue participation at any time. There were 23 additional parent–adolescent dyads who initially signed consent forms, but they filled out only a few items—less than 20—on the questionnaires/reports and therefore were dropped from the study, there not being enough data from them to compare with those who completed the questionnaires/reports.

There was no financial incentive for participating, but we offered to share the results of the study with the participants.

Instruments

Background questionnaire

We collected information about participants’ gender (female/male) and age, parents’ marital status and education, family income level, and number of children in the family.

The Highly Sensitive Person Scale (HSPS)

The HSPS (Aron & Aron, 1997) is a 27-item self-report questionnaire that has shown robust reliability and discriminant and convergent validity (Acevedo et al., 2014; Aron & Aron, 1997; Aron et al., 2005; Goldberg et al., 2018; Liss et al., 2005). Participants were asked to respond using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely; e.g., “Do other people’s moods affect you?”). In the present study, the Cronbach’s α was .89.

Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECRS)

The ECRS (Brennan et al., 1998) is a 36-item self-report questionnaire assessing attachment-related avoidance (e.g., “I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down”) and anxiety (e.g., “I worry about being abandoned”), rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much, strongly agree). The scale was found to be highly reliable and valid (Brennan et al., 1998; Mikulincer et al., 2010). In the present study, the Cronbach’s α for the avoidance scale was .90 and for the anxiety scale was .92.

Weinberger Parenting Inventory (WPI)

The WPI is a highly valid (e.g., Scharf et al., 2016) 50-item adolescent-report instrument (Weinberger et al., 1989) that assesses adolescents’ perception of their parenting. This instrument assesses child centeredness (e.g., “He frequently tells me he is proud of me”; α = .87), psychological intrusiveness (e.g., “He tries to manage my life more than he should”; α = .62), permissiveness (e.g., “He thinks it’s okay if I make other children afraid of me”; α = .78), harsh discipline (e.g., “I feel the punishment he gives me is unfair”; α = .71), and inconsistency (e.g., “He tells me one thing and does another”; α = .71). In the current study, perceived parenting practices were reported and assessed with regard to the participant parent.

Data plan analysis

To examine associations between the variables, we conducted partial Pearson correlations controlling for adolescents’ gender and age. Then, we performed regression analyses to examine the contribution of attachment and SPS to parenting practices. Finally, to test the hypotheses regarding the relationships between parent’s SPS and parental practices, while taking into account the role of attachment anxiety and avoidance as mediating variables, we performed structural equation mediation models (SEMs) using analysis moment of structures (AMOS), followed by bootstrap analyses (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Results

There were no differences between parents’ gender, adolescents’ gender, and there were no Gender × Age interactions for any of the research variables. Moreover, no significant correlations were found between demographics and the research variables.

We first performed partial correlations (controlling for adolescents’ gender and age) between the study variables and then a series of regression analyses to examine the contribution of attachment orientations and SPS to parenting practices.

The partial Pearson correlations between the study variables are presented in Table 1. Attachment avoidance was negatively associated with child centeredness, whereas attachment anxiety was positively associated with inconsistency and psychological control. Finally, inconsistency, psychological intrusiveness, and attachment anxiety were associated positively with SPS.

Table 1.
Interrelationships between the study variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Child centeredness — −.12 −.22* .17^† −.35*** −.04 −.23* .08

2. Permissiveness — .68* .39* .21* .27 .08 .15

3. Inconsistency — .53* .51* .40* .08 .24

4. Psychological intrusiveness — .29 .47* .00 .38*

5. Harshness — .21* −.05 −.05

6. Anxiety — .09 .54***

7. Avoidance — .17^†

8. SPS —

Mean 3.88 2.46 2.31 2.63 1.61 3.50 3.54 4.60

SD 0.69 0.73 0.66 0.48 0.59 1.07 1.02 0.89

Note. SPS = sensory processing sensitivity.

^† p < .10; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

To explore the joint and unique association of gender, age, attachment avoidance, attachment anxiety, and SPS with parenting practices, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses. All predictors were centered. In Step 1, gender (boys = 0, girls = 1) and age were entered; in Atep 2, SPS was entered; in Step 3, attachment avoidance and anxiety were entered; and in Step 4, the interactions between attachment anxiety/attachment avoidance and SPS were entered. None of the interactions were significant. Table 2 presents the results of the regression analyses of the first three steps.

Table 2.
Regression analyses: Contribution of attachment dimensions and SPS to parenting practices.

Child Centeredness Permissiveness Inconsistency Psychological Intrusiveness Harshness

β t ΔR ² β t ΔR ² β t ΔR ² β t ΔR ² β t ΔR ²

Step 1 .05 .02 .03 .01 .00

Age −.04 −0.47 .07 0.71 −.14 −1.48 −.00 −0.03 −.02 −0.22

Gender −.21 −2.30* −.14 −1.45 .11 1.15 .09 0.89 .00 0.03

Step 2 .02 .02 .06 .14 .00

Age −.03 −0.29 .10 1.05 −.09 −0.91 .08 0.91 −.03 −0.32

Gender −.22 −2.38* −.16 −1.68 .07 0.78 .03 0.31 .01 0.01

SPS .08 0.80 .16 1.64 .24 2.62 .39 4.34* −.05 −0.05

Step 3 .06 .05 .10 .10 .08

Age −.09 −.93 .15 1.58 −.02 −0.18 .13 1.49 .02 0.16

Gender −.18 −1.90^† −.19 −1.97* −.04 0.44 .01 0.14 −.01 −0.06

SPS .18 1.58 .00 0.02 .03 0.27 .19 1.89^† −.22 −1.98*

Attachment anxiety −.11 −0.99 .27 2.41* .39 3.60* .39 3.82* .35 3.07

Attachment avoidance −.25 −2.63 .06 0.60 .04 0.46 −.07 −0.76 −.05 0.62

Step 4 .03 .00 .00 .00 .02

Age −.09 −0.95 .15 1.57 −.02 −0.18 .13 1.47 .02 0.18

Gender −.18 −1.97 −.19 −1.97 .04 0.44 .01 0.11 .00 0.01

SPS .17 1.54 −.01 −0.12 .03 0.26 .18 1.71 −.21 −1.82^†

Attachment anxiety −.14 −1.27 .28 2.43* .39 3.56* .39 3.69* .37 3.26**

Attachment avoidance −.27 −2.88* .06 0.63 .04 0.45 −.07 −0.80 −.03 −0.27

Interaction HSP × Anxiety .14 1.57 −.04 −0.40 .00 0.03 .02 0.20 −.12 −1.23

Interaction HSP × Avoidance .09 0.93 .04 0.45 .00 0.02 .06 0.72 .12 −1.30

Total R ² .14 .10 .18 .26 .11

F final model F(7,108) = 2.57* F(7,108) = 1.67 F(7,108) = 3.48 F(7,108) = 5.34* F(5,108) = 1.86^†

Note. HSP = highly sensitive person; SPS = sensory processing sensitivity.

^† p < .10; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

The child-centeredness model predicted 12% of the variance, with attachment avoidance being the only predictor. The permissiveness model predicted 9% of the variance, with attachment anxiety being the only significant predictor. The inconsistency model predicted 19% of the variance, with attachment anxiety being the only significant predictor. The psychological intrusiveness model predicted 25% of the variance, with attachment anxiety and SPS (approaching significance) being significant predictors. Finally, the harsh parenting model predicted 8% of the variance, with attachment anxiety and SPS (approaching significance) being significant predictors.

According to the regression results, only psychological intrusiveness and harsh parenting were predicted by parents’ attachment and SPS. Hence, we ran two SEMs to test the hypotheses regarding the relationships between parent SPS and parental psychological intrusiveness and harshness while taking into account the role of attachment anxiety and avoidance as mediating variables. To test the models, we applied SEM using AMOS followed by bootstrap analyses (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). We estimated a regression model that included all direct paths from the predictors (parent SPS) and the mediators (attachment anxiety and avoidance) to the explained construct (perception of harsh parenting and psychological control). We included adolescent gender and age in the model as control variables.

The model for predicting harsh parenting provided a fairly good fit with the data (χ² /df = 1.16, comparative fit index [CFI] = .98, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] = .98, and root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .04; Figure 1) and includes standardized estimates of the parameters in the structural model. Estimation of this model showed that parents’ level of SPS was positively associated with parents’ level of attachment anxiety (β = .57***) and avoidance (β = .23*). However, only parents’ attachment anxiety was significantly and positively correlated with harsh parenting (β = .34**; estimate = .16, p = .002). Moreover, the direct path between parent’s SPS and harsh parenting was not significant. This suggested that attachment anxiety mediated the association between parent SPS and harsh parenting. Results from 1,000 bootstrap sample computations (which were all unstandardized) showed that the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effects did not include 0, indicating that the indirect effect was statistically significant. Specifically, the bias-corrected bootstrap estimate of the indirect effect had a 95% CI of .054, .187. That is, results of the mediation analysis revealed that, based on 1,000 random samples of the data, the indirect effect, that is, the mediation effect, is significant and lies between the values of .054 and .187, with 95% confidence level.

Figure 1.
Relationships between parent SPS and parental harshness, with attachment anxiety and avoidance as mediating variables. Note. All parameters were standardized. Values in parenthesis indicate β values for the correlation before entering the mediators. SPS = sensory processing sensitivity.

Similarly, the model for predicting perceptions of psychological intrusiveness provided a fairly good fit with the data (χ²/df = 1.38, CFI = .97, GFI = .97, and RMSEA = .06; Figure 2). Estimation of this model showed that parents’ SPS was positively associated with level of attachment anxiety (β = .57***) and avoidance (β = .23*). However, only parents’ attachment anxiety was significantly and positively correlated with psychological intrusiveness (β = .35**; estimate = .10, p = .005). Furthermore, the direct path between parent’s SPS and parental psychological intrusiveness correlated significantly (β = .20). This suggested that attachment anxiety partially mediated the correlation between parent SPS and parental psychological intrusiveness. Results from 1,000 bootstrap sample computations (which were all unstandardized) showed that the bias-corrected bootstrap estimate of the indirect effect had a 95% CI of .042, .153. That is, results of the mediation analysis revealed that, based on 1,000 random samples of the data, the indirect effect, that is, the mediation effect, is significant and lies between the values of .042 and .153, with 95% confidence level.

Figure 2.
Relationships between parent SPS and parental intrusiveness, with attachment anxiety and avoidance as mediating variables. Note*. All parameters were standardized. Values in parenthesis indicate β values for the correlation before entering the mediators. SPS = sensory processing sensitivity.

Discussion

In the last two decades, several empirical studies have examined the emotional and social characteristics of highly sensitive individuals (Aron et al., 2005; Jagiellowicz et al., 2016; Liss et al., 2005; Pluess & Belsky, 2013). Yet there is very little research regarding how SPS contributes to how individuals parent their children in general and none regarding challenging developmental periods such as adolescence. We hypothesized that high SPS would be associated with higher levels of inconsistency, psychological intrusiveness, and harshness in parenting practices, as well as with lower levels of child centeredness. We also hypothesized that high SPS would be associated with higher levels of attachment insecurity (anxiety and avoidance). Finally, we examined the contribution of the environment by exploring whether attachment insecurity (anxiety and/or avoidance) mediated the associations between SPS and parenting practices.

We found high SPS to be positively associated with inconsistent parenting behavior and intrusive parenting. These results, compatible with prior research, showed that highly sensitive individuals are prone to more negative emotional states under challenging conditions (e.g., Aron et al., 2005). More specifically, Aron et al. (2019) found that mothers high in SPS experienced parenting as more difficult than mothers low in SPS. That may also be the case in the current study, where the vast majority of the participants were mothers.

Parents with higher SPS may experience parenting an adolescent child as especially challenging and more stressful. Their efforts to cope with their own stress and worries may decrease their ability to respond in a manner suitable to their adolescents’ needs. Previous research indicated an association between high SPS and neuroticism (e.g., Aron & Aron, 1997). The latter was found to be associated with more intrusive, overprotective, and harsh parenting (Prinzie et al., 2009). Thus, like people with high levels of neuroticism, people high in SPS might exhibit less adaptive practices under stressful situations, such as when disagreeing with an adolescent child.

Note that we did not find a significant correlation between SPS and child-centered parenting. Adolescence is a period during which parenting can be challenged by the adolescent’s need for support, autonomy, and understanding (Tokić Milaković et al., 2018) while parents are experiencing midlife changes (Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Individuals high in SPS tend to be overwhelmed by environmental changes (Slagt et al., 2018). Nevertheless, some parents high in SPS might be more aware of the emotions of their adolescent child and might be more empathic and attuned to the adolescent child’s needs (Acevedo et al., 2014; Nocentini et al., 2018), at least in some situations. On the other hand, at times, parents high in SPS might be less sensitive toward their child because of the considerable emotions and stimulus they have to process in this period (Aron et al., 2012). These inconsistent responses might explain the lack of association.

Results also showed that attachment anxiety was positively associated with SPS. This result corresponds with some evidence that people high in SPS experience a high level of attachment anxiety (Meredith et al., 2016). Furthermore, in the context of intimate relationships, individuals high in SPS attend to more threatening cues in their partners’ behaviors, which may increase their predisposition to feel stressed and anxious toward their partner (Aron, 2004).

Attachment anxiety mediated the associations between parents’ SPS and harsh parenting. When highly sensitive parents are characterized by attachment anxiety (Aron, 2004) and are more preoccupied with their own attachment needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016), they might feel distressed when other people, including their own child, need their assistance (Mikulincer et al., 2005) and might use more authoritarian parenting strategies (Jones & Cassidy, 2014; Millings et al., 2013). Anxiously attached individuals experience higher parenting stress (Gouveia et al., 2016) and use hyperactivating strategies to regulate their distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). This may reduce their compassion toward their adolescent child (Moreira et al., 2016) and eventually instigate harsh and hostile behaviors (Jones & Cassidy, 2014).

Finally, attachment anxiety partially mediated the association between parents’ SPS and parents’ use of psychological intrusiveness. Anxiously attached people tend to exaggerate the appraisal of their child’s needs and their distress. By using hyperactivation strategies, they do not synchronize with the child’s realistic needs and may employ intrusive parenting (Shaver et al., 2010). Highly sensitive individuals are highly aware of others’ emotions as well as their own (Aron et al., 2012). Being highly attentive toward their adolescent child, they may identify with the adolescent’s thoughts, emotions, and distress. Their preoccupation with their child and their own stress might increase their use of psychological intrusiveness. Indeed, parents who were sensitive to hurt or disapproving of negative emotion were more likely to apply psychologically controlling strategies toward their preschool-aged child (Walling et al., 2007). Similarly, parental anxiety about their adolescent’s distancing has been associated with higher levels of their own attachment anxiety and with higher levels of psychologically controlling parenting (Kivenson-Baron & Scharf, 2015).

Conclusions

Results indicated that parenting the adolescent is highly challenging for the highly sensitive parent and that it is associated with negative parenting practices. Furthermore, partialing out attachment anxiety indicated a more accurate representation of what SPS is. Therefore, targeting highly sensitive parents’ special vulnerabilities could assist them during this challenging period. It might be that interventions focused on regulating parents’ high-SPS-related stress and on facilitating parents in practicing separating their own and their children’s emotions could promote their use of more positive and effective parenting practices and alleviate their own stress, thereby improving their well-being. This may be especially impactful, as research shows that those who are HSPs tend to benefit more from interventions (Pluess & Boniwell, 2015).

Limitations and future studies

The current study employed a cross-sectional design. Hence, it is impossible to disentangle whether parenting practices are the result of the parent’s personality or whether challenged parenting increases the SPS levels of parents. Furthermore, the HSP measure has many negative items and thus might be biased. That is, to some extent, the association between SPS and anxious attachment, which is strongly related to negative affectivity (e.g., neurosis), may be an artifact of the structure of the measure.

It is essential to bear in mind that adolescents’ evaluations may be overly critical of the parenting they experience and also may be influenced by their own attachment relationship experiences. Furthermore, parental stress and perceived difficulties in the parent–adolescent relationships were not assessed and should be addressed in future research, especially after a turning point within adolescence (e.g., when the adolescent child leaves home for college). Finally, due to the small number of fathers in the current study, any conclusions regarding fathers need further exploration. Future research should examine a large sample of both mothers and fathers to better understand the similarities and differences between them.

Future research should also address other aspects of parenting (e.g., parenting style and parental competence), examine adolescents’ adjustment and its association with having parents who are highly sensitive, and include different methods of assessment (e.g., interviews, observations). Finally, similarly to previous studies, the current study focused on adolescents from a Western society that emphasizes competition and toughness as valued and desirable qualities needed for successful adjustment (Aron, 2013). Therefore, generalization of the results to other cultural contexts might be impeded.

Ethical approval

Data were collected in a manner consistent with ethical standards for the treatment of human subjects, and all participants signed informed consent forms to confirm their participation.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Child centeredness	—	−.12	−.22*	.17^†	−.35***	−.04	−.23*	.08
2. Permissiveness		—	.68***	.39***	.21*	.27**	.08	.15
3. Inconsistency			—	.53***	.51***	.40***	.08	.24**
4. Psychological intrusiveness				—	.29**	.47***	.00	.38***
5. Harshness					—	.21*	−.05	−.05
6. Anxiety						—	.09	.54***
7. Avoidance							—	.17^†
8. SPS								—
Mean	3.88	2.46	2.31	2.63	1.61	3.50	3.54	4.60
SD	0.69	0.73	0.66	0.48	0.59	1.07	1.02	0.89

	Child Centeredness	Permissiveness	Inconsistency	Psychological Intrusiveness	Harshness
Step 1			.05			.02			.03			.01			.00
Age	−.04	−0.47		.07	0.71		−.14	−1.48		−.00	−0.03		−.02	−0.22
Gender	−.21	−2.30*		−.14	−1.45		.11	1.15		.09	0.89		.00	0.03
Step 2			.02			.02			.06			.14			.00
Age	−.03	−0.29		.10	1.05		−.09	−0.91		.08	0.91		−.03	−0.32
Gender	−.22	−2.38*		−.16	−1.68		.07	0.78		.03	0.31		.01	0.01
SPS	.08	0.80		.16	1.64		.24	2.62**		.39	4.34***		−.05	−0.05
Step 3			.06			.05			.10			.10			.08
Age	−.09	−.93		.15	1.58		−.02	−0.18		.13	1.49		.02	0.16
Gender	−.18	−1.90^†		−.19	−1.97*		−.04	0.44		.01	0.14		−.01	−0.06
SPS	.18	1.58		.00	0.02		.03	0.27		.19	1.89^†		−.22	−1.98*
Attachment anxiety	−.11	−0.99		.27	2.41*		.39	3.60***		.39	3.82***		.35	3.07**
Attachment avoidance	−.25	−2.63**		.06	0.60		.04	0.46		−.07	−0.76		−.05	0.62
Step 4			.03			.00			.00			.00			.02
Age	−.09	−0.95		.15	1.57		−.02	−0.18		.13	1.47		.02	0.18
Gender	−.18	−1.97		−.19	−1.97		.04	0.44		.01	0.11		.00	0.01
SPS	.17	1.54		−.01	−0.12		.03	0.26		.18	1.71		−.21	−1.82^†
Attachment anxiety	−.14	−1.27		.28	2.43*		.39	3.56***		.39	3.69***		.37	3.26**
Attachment avoidance	−.27	−2.88*		.06	0.63		.04	0.45		−.07	−0.80		−.03	−0.27
Interaction HSP × Anxiety	.14	1.57		−.04	−0.40		.00	0.03		.02	0.20		−.12	−1.23
Interaction HSP × Avoidance	.09	0.93		.04	0.45		.00	0.02		.06	0.72		.12	−1.30
Total R ²			.14			.10			.18			.26			.11
F final model	F(7,108) = 2.57*	F(7,108) = 1.67	F(7,108) = 3.48**	F(7,108) = 5.34***	F(5,108) = 1.86^†

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Alon Goldberg

Open research statement

This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research are not available.

References

Acevedo

B. P.

Aron

E. N.

Aron

Sangster

M.-D.

Collins

Brown

L. L.

(2014). The highly sensitive brain: An fMRI study of sensory processing sensitivity and response to others’ emotions. Brain and Behavior, 4(4), 580–594. http://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.242

Aron

E. N.

(2004). The impact of adult temperament on closeness and intimacy. In Mashek

D. J.

Aron

(Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 267–283). Psychology Press.

Aron

E. N.

(2013). The highly sensitive person: How to thrive when the world overwhelms you. Kensington.

Aron

E. N.

Aron

(1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345

Aron

E. N.

Aron

Davies

K. M.

(2005). Adult shyness: The interaction of temperamental sensitivity and an adverse childhood environment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 181–197. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271419

Aron

E. N.

Aron

Jagiellowicz

(2012). Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 262–282. http://doi.org/10.1177/1088868311434213

Aron

E. N.

Aron

Nardone

Zhou

(2019). Sensory processing sensitivity and the subjective experience of parenting: An exploratory study. Family Relations. http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12370

Aron

Ketay

Hedden

Aron

E. N.

Rose Markus

Gabrieli

J. D. E.

(2010). Temperament trait of sensory processing sensitivity moderates cultural differences in neural response. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(2–3), 219–226. http://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq028

Belsky

(1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55(1), 83–96. http://doi.org/10.2307/1129836

10.

Belsky

Jaffee

S. R.

(2006). The multiple determinants of parenting. In Cicchetti

Cohen

D. J.

(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., pp. 38–85). John Wiley.

11.

Belsky

Pluess

(2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017376

12.

Bowlby

(1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)

13.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Routledge.

14.

Branjerdporn

Meredith

Strong

Green

(2019). Sensory sensitivity and its relationship with adult attachment and parenting styles. PloS One, 14(1), e0209555. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209555

15.

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford.

16.

Brown

Dunn

(2002). The adult sensory profile. Psychological Corporation.

17.

Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.). (2018). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. Guilford.

18.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2019). Average monthly wages June 2019. https://www.cbs.gov.il/EN/pages/default.aspx

19.

Chen

Moyzis

Stern

Zhu

Dong

(2011). Contributions of dopamine-related genes and environmental factors to highly sensitive personality: A multi-step neuronal system-level approach. PloS One, 6(7), e21636. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021636

20.

Collins

W. A.

Laursen

(2006). Parent-adolescent relationships. In Noller

Feeney

J. A.

(Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms and processes (pp. 111–125). Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

21.

Coplan

R. J.

Reichel

Rowan

(2009). Exploring the associations between maternal personality, child temperament and parenting: A focus on emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 241–246. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.011

22.

Darling

Steinberg

(1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487.

23.

Dunn

(1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their families: A conceptual model. Infants and Young Children, 9, 23–35. http://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-199704000-00005

24.

Feeney

J. A.

(2002). Attachment, marital interaction, and relationship satisfaction: A diary study. Personal Relationships, 9(1), 39–55. http://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00003

25.

Goldberg

Ebraheem

Freiberg

Ferarro

Chai

Gottfried

O. D.

(2018). Sweet and sensitive: Sensory processing sensitivity and type 1 diabetes. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 38, 35–38. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.10.015

26.

Goodman

G. S.

Quas

J. A.

Batterman-Faunce

J. M.

Riddlesberger

M. M.

Kuhn

(1997). Children’s reactions to and memory for a stressful event: Influences of age, anatomical dolls, knowledge, and parental attachment. Applied Developmental Science, 1(2), 54–75. http://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0102_1

27.

Gouveia

M. J.

Carona

Canavarro

M. C.

Moreira

(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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0507-y

28.

Homberg

J. R.

Schubert

Asan

Aron

E. N.

(2016). Sensory processing sensitivity and serotonin gene variance: Insights into mechanisms shaping environmental sensitivity. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 472–483. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.029

29.

Jaffee

S. R.

Belsky

Harrington

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

(2006). When parents have a history of conduct disorder: How is the caregiving environment affected? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 309–319. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.309

30.

Jagiellowicz

Aron

E. N.

(2016). Relationship between the temperament trait of sensory processing sensitivity and emotional reactivity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(2), 185–199. http://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.2.185

31.

Jerome

E. M.

Liss

(2005). Relationships between sensory processing style, adult attachment, and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1341–1352. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.016

32.

Johnson

S. L.

Turner

R. J.

Iwata

(2003). BIS/BAS levels and psychiatric disorder: An epidemiological study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 25(1), 25–36. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022247919288

33.

Jones

J. D.

Brett

B. E.

Ehrlich

K. B.

Lejuez

C. W.

Cassidy

(2014). Maternal attachment style and responses to adolescents’ negative emotions: The mediating role of maternal emotion regulation. Parenting, 14(3–4), 235–257. http://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2014.972760

34.

Jones

J. D.

Cassidy

(2014). Parental attachment style: Examination of links with parent secure base provision and adolescent secure base use. Attachment & Human Development, 16(5), 437–461. http://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2014.921718

35.

Jones

J. D.

Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(2015). Parents’ self-reported attachment styles: A review of links with parenting behaviors, emotions, and cognitions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 44–76. http://doi.org/10.1177%2F1088868314541858

36.

Jones

J. D.

Ehrlich

K. B.

Brett

B. E.

Gross

J. T.

Mohr

J. J.

Hopper

E. A.

Dinh

J. V.

Malanchuk

Peck

S. C.

Brodish

A. B.

Adam

E. K.

Eccles

J. S.

Kemeny

M. E.

Cassidy

(2017). Perceptions of parental secure base support in African American adolescents and young adults: A preliminary study of predictive links to adult C-reactive protein. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(8), 1168–1185. http://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407516670532

37.

Kilmann

P. R.

Vendemia

Parnell

M. M.

Urbaniak

G. C.

(2009). Parent characteristics linked with daughters’ attachment styles. Adolescence, 44(175), 557–568.

38.

Kivenson-Baron

Scharf

(2015). “We’d better stay together”: Separation anxiety in parents of adolescent daughters. In Rivera

(Ed.), Separation anxiety: Risk factors, prevalence and clinical management (pp. 39–66). Nova.

39.

Lee

C. T.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Memmott-Elison

M. K.

(2017). The role of parents and peers on adolescents’ prosocial behavior and substance use. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(7), 1053–1069. http://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407516665928

40.

Levit-Binnun

Szepsenwol

Stern-Ellran

Engel-Yeger

(2014). The relationship between sensory responsiveness profiles, attachment orientations, and anxiety symptoms. Australian Journal of Psychology, 66(4), 233–240. http://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12064

41.

Lionetti

Aron

E. N.

Burns

G. L.

Jagiellowicz

Pluess

(2018). Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium-sensitive and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry, 8(1), 24. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-017-0090-6

42.

Liss

Mailloux

Erchull

M. J.

(2008). The relationships between sensory processing sensitivity, alexithymia, autism, depression, and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 255–259. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.009

43.

Liss

Timmel

Baxley

Killingsworth

(2005). Sensory processing sensitivity and its relation to parental bonding, anxiety, and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(8), 1429–1439. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.007

44.

Meredith

P. J.

Bailey

K. J.

Strong

Rappel

(2016). Adult attachment, sensory processing, and distress in healthy adults. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(1), 7001250010p1–7001250010p8. http://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.017376

45.

Meyer

Ajchenbrenner

Bowles

D. P.

(2005). Sensory sensitivity, attachment experiences, and rejection responses among adults with borderline and avoidant features. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(6), 641–658. http://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2005.19.6.641

46.

Meyer

Carver

C. S.

(2000). Negative childhood accounts, sensitivity, and pessimism: A study of avoidant personality disorder features in college students. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14(3), 233–248. http://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2000.14.3.233

47.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2012). Adult attachment orientations and relationship processes. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(4), 259–274. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00142.x

48.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford.

49.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Bar-On

Ein-Dor

(2010). The pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities and relational ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 450–468. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017366

50.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Gillath

Nitzberg

R. A.

(2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 817–839. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.817

51.

Millings

Walsh

Hepper

O’Brien

(2013). Good partner, good parent: Responsiveness mediates the link between romantic attachment and parenting style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 170–180. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212468333

52.

Moreira

Carona

Silva

Nunes

Canavarro

M. C.

(2016). Exploring the link between maternal attachment-related anxiety and avoidance and mindful parenting: The mediating role of self-compassion. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 89(4), 369–384. http://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12082

53.

Nocentini

Menesini

Pluess

(2018). The personality trait of environmental sensitivity predicts children’s positive response to school-based antibullying intervention. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(6), 848–859. http://doi.org/10.1177%2F2167702618782194

54.

Pluess

Belsky

(2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 901–916. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030196

55.

Pluess

Boniwell

(2015). Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence of vantage sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 40–45. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.011

56.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. http://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

57.

Prinzie

Stams

G. J. J.

Deković

Reijntjes

A. H.

Belsky

(2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 351. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015823

58.

Rholes

W. S.

Simpson

J. A.

Blakely

B. S.

(1995). Adult attachment styles and mothers’ relationships with their young children. Personal Relationships, 2(1), 35–54. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00076.x

59.

Root

A. E.

Hastings

P. D.

Rubin

K. H.

(2016). The parenting behaviors of shy–anxious mothers: The moderating role of vagal tone. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(4), 1325–1333. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0296-2

60.

Scharf

Mayseless

Rousseau

(2016). When somatization is not the only thing you suffer from: Examining comorbid syndromes using latent profile analysis, parenting practices and adolescent functioning. Psychiatry Research, 244, 10–18. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.07.015

61.

Scharf

Shulman

(2006). Intergenerational transmission of experiences in adolescence: The challenges in parenting adolescents. In Mayseless

(Ed.), Parenting representations: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 319–351). Cambridge University Press.

62.

Shaver

P. R.

Mikulincer

Shemesh-Iron

(2010). A behavioral-systems perspective on prosocial behavior. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 73–91). American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/12061-004

63.

Slagt

Dubas

J. S.

van Aken

M. A. G.

Ellis

B. J.

Deković

(2018). Sensory processing sensitivity as a marker of differential susceptibility to parenting. Developmental Psychology, 54(3), 543–558. http://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000431

64.

Steinberg

Silk

J. S.

(2002). Parenting adolescents. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 1: Children and parenting (pp. 103–133). Lawrence Erlbaum.

65.

Steinberg

(1994). Crossing paths: How your child’s adolescence triggers your own crisis. Simon & Schuster.

66.

Taraban

Shaw

D. S.

(2018). Parenting in context: Revisiting Belsky’s classic process of parenting model in early childhood. Developmental Review, 48, 55–81. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.03.006

67.

Tokić Milaković

Glatz

Pećnik

(2018). How do parents facilitate or inhibit adolescent disclosure? The role of adolescents’ psychological needs satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(8), 1118–1138. http://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407517705228

68.

Turner

K. A.

Cohn

E. S.

Koomar

(2012). Mothering when mothers and children both have sensory processing challenges. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(10), 449–455. http://doi.org/10.4276%2F030802212X13496921049626

69.

Walling

B. R.

Mills

R. L.

Freeman

W. S.

(2007). Parenting cognitions associated with the use of psychological control. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(5), 642–659. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9113-2

70.

Weinberger

D. A.

Feldman

S. S.

Ford

M. E.

(1989). Validation of the Weinberger Parenting Inventory for preadolescents and their parents. Unpublished manuscript.

	Child Centeredness			Permissiveness			Inconsistency			Psychological Intrusiveness			Harshness
	β	t	ΔR ²	β	t	ΔR ²	β	t	ΔR ²	β	t	ΔR ²	β	t	ΔR ²
Step 1			.05			.02			.03			.01			.00
Age	−.04	−0.47		.07	0.71		−.14	−1.48		−.00	−0.03		−.02	−0.22
Gender	−.21	−2.30*		−.14	−1.45		.11	1.15		.09	0.89		.00	0.03
Step 2			.02			.02			.06			.14			.00
Age	−.03	−0.29		.10	1.05		−.09	−0.91		.08	0.91		−.03	−0.32
Gender	−.22	−2.38*		−.16	−1.68		.07	0.78		.03	0.31		.01	0.01
SPS	.08	0.80		.16	1.64		.24	2.62**		.39	4.34***		−.05	−0.05
Step 3			.06			.05			.10			.10			.08
Age	−.09	−.93		.15	1.58		−.02	−0.18		.13	1.49		.02	0.16
Gender	−.18	−1.90^†		−.19	−1.97*		−.04	0.44		.01	0.14		−.01	−0.06
SPS	.18	1.58		.00	0.02		.03	0.27		.19	1.89^†		−.22	−1.98*
Attachment anxiety	−.11	−0.99		.27	2.41*		.39	3.60***		.39	3.82***		.35	3.07**
Attachment avoidance	−.25	−2.63**		.06	0.60		.04	0.46		−.07	−0.76		−.05	0.62
Step 4			.03			.00			.00			.00			.02
Age	−.09	−0.95		.15	1.57		−.02	−0.18		.13	1.47		.02	0.18
Gender	−.18	−1.97		−.19	−1.97		.04	0.44		.01	0.11		.00	0.01
SPS	.17	1.54		−.01	−0.12		.03	0.26		.18	1.71		−.21	−1.82^†
Attachment anxiety	−.14	−1.27		.28	2.43*		.39	3.56***		.39	3.69***		.37	3.26**
Attachment avoidance	−.27	−2.88*		.06	0.63		.04	0.45		−.07	−0.80		−.03	−0.27
Interaction HSP × Anxiety	.14	1.57		−.04	−0.40		.00	0.03		.02	0.20		−.12	−1.23
Interaction HSP × Avoidance	.09	0.93		.04	0.45		.00	0.02		.06	0.72		.12	−1.30
Total R ²			.14			.10			.18			.26			.11
F final model	F(7,108) = 2.57*			F(7,108) = 1.67			F(7,108) = 3.48**			F(7,108) = 5.34***			F(5,108) = 1.86^†