Parent emotion regulation and parenting self-efficacy: The moderating role of coparenting

Abstract

Successful parenting involves high parenting self-efficacy (PSE)—one’s belief in their ability to parent successfully—and strong parent emotion regulation (ER)—the capacity to evaluate and modify one’s emotional reactions. Additionally, a cooperative, well-coordinated coparenting relationship is an important source of support for parents. This study examined the associations of parent ER with PSE and considered the moderating role of coparenting. Ninety-nine different-sex couples with school-age children participated. Parents completed survey measures of ER, PSE, and coparenting, as well as an observed coparenting task with their seven-year-old children. Actor-Partner Interdependence Models were used to examine relations between parent ER and PSE moderated by coparenting quality. Among mothers, perceived coparenting moderated the associations of both cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression with PSE, with the PSE of mothers perceiving lower-quality coparenting relationships benefitting the most from cognitive reappraisal and the PSE of mothers perceiving higher-quality coparenting relationships suffering the most from expressive suppression. Among fathers, observed coparenting moderated the relation between ER strategy and PSE. Expressive suppression was negatively associated with fathers’ PSE when observed coparenting quality was lower, while cognitive reappraisal was positively associated with fathers’ PSE when coparenting quality was higher. The present study contributes to the growing body of research on the associations of parent ER with parental functioning.

Keywords

Emotion regulation parenting self-efficacy coparenting father vulnerability hypothesis

Introduction

Parenthood is cognitively and emotionally challenging. One critical cognitive component theorized to underpin successful parenting is parenting self-efficacy (PSE)—a parent’s belief in their ability to parent successfully (Jones & Prinz, 2005). In the interpersonal domain, high-quality coparenting relationships, reflecting strong interparental collaboration and coordination, are increasingly recognized as key to successful parenting (Feinberg, 2003). Given that children are undergoing emotional development, parents are responsible for managing their child’s emotions, as well as their own, during emotionally charged situations (Deater-Deckard & Panneton, 2017). Thus, emotion regulation (ER) is key to successful parenting.

Emotion regulation and parenting

Emotion regulation (ER) refers to the processes of monitoring, evaluating, and altering emotional reactions (Thompson, 1991). Although there are many components of ER, one conceptualization focuses on two types of strategies for managing emotion: cognitive reappraisal—re-evaluating a situation to modify its emotional impact, and expressive suppression—inhibition of outward emotionally expressive behavior during an emotional situation (Gross & John, 2003). Utilization of cognitive reappraisal or expressive suppression in any situation depends upon factors like cognitive resources and social context. Expressive suppression occurs more often in social situations, whereas cognitive reappraisal occurs while alone and with others (Paul et al., 2023). Given its short- and long-term effects on social functioning and affective experience, the prevailing view of ER backs reappraisal as a healthier strategy than suppression (John & Gross, 2004). Reappraisal of emotional stimuli is an effective ER strategy (Webb et al., 2012), whereas expressive suppression may not be effective at regulating negative emotions (Ehring et al., 2010). Expressive suppression may even have more dire effects in enduring relational contexts. Paul and colleagues (2023) found that expressive suppression was linked to greater depression symptoms only when used among friends, family, and romantic partners, as unaddressed emotional response may need to be continually suppressed.

Not only is regulating one’s emotion critical for healthy intra- and interpersonal functioning (Thompson, 1991), ER ability is arguably an essential parenting skill due to its impact on family processes and child development (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Hajal & Paley, 2020; Morris et al., 2007), particularly the child’s own ER ability (Buckholdt et al., 2014). Parental expression and regulation of emotion contribute to children’s socioemotional development due to the proximity between parent and child emotion (Hajal & Paley, 2020). Parenting elicits a broad range of positive and negative emotions, providing children numerous opportunities to observe emotions of varying valence and intensity. Parents socialize children to appropriate ways of expressing and regulating emotions through modelling emotional expression and regulation, discussing emotions, and supporting their child during difficult and emotionally intense experiences (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Hajal & Paley, 2020).

According to Belsky’s model of parenting, there are three domains of parental functioning—parent, child, and social context—with the parents’ “personal psychological resources […] the most influential determinant of parenting” (Belsky, 1984, p. 91). Belsky referred to psychological resources as “enduring characteristics”, likely products of the parents’ own developmental history, that influence parenting ability (p. 84). Considering the impact ER has on parenting (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022), ER can be considered an “enduring” psychological resource. Furthermore, in Morris and colleagues' (2007) model of emotion socialization, parent characteristics (e.g., emotional reactivity, individual regulation ability) contribute to child emotional development through modelling, parenting practices, and family climate. Other relevant parental characteristics include parent gender roles, as fathers tend to utilize more expressive suppression than mothers (Bariola et al., 2012; Hughes & Gullone, 2010), although a recent study of U.S. families found no parent gender differences in utilization of cognitive reappraisal (Kuo & Johnson, 2021).

Regarding relations between ER and parenting, cognitive reappraisal was negatively associated with overreactive and lax discipline among U.S. mothers of toddlers (Lorber, 2012), and positively associated with greater praise among Australian parents of toddlers (Kohlhoff et al., 2016). In contrast, Turkish mothers of infants and toddlers who utilized expressive suppression reported greater depression, anxiety, and caregiving helplessness (Töz et al., 2021). A recent meta-analysis linked stronger parental emotion regulation to positive parenting practices (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2022). In sum, prior research has demonstrated how individual differences in ER strategy utilization extend to the domain of parenthood and can affect parenting, family processes, and children’s development.

Little research has considered parental ER strategies during middle childhood (ages 6–12). Most studies of parents with children this age have focused on parental emotion dysregulation (e.g., Han et al., 2015; Li et al., 2019), with other studies only including mothers (e.g., Buckholdt et al., 2014; Morelen et al., 2016). In middle childhood, parental use of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression has been linked to greater child utilization of these strategies (Bariola et al., 2012; Gunzenhauser et al., 2014). To the best of our knowledge, no study has linked parental ER to parenting self-efficacy in families with children this age.

Parenting self-efficacy

Parenting self-efficacy (PSE) is defined as a parent’s belief in their ability to parent successfully (Jones & Prinz, 2005) and is based on Bandura’s (1997) theory of self-efficacy. PSE includes parents’ belief in their ability to positively influence their child’s behavioral and emotional development as well as to adequately support their child in domains such as health, discipline, and academic achievement (Coleman & Karraker, 2000). Greater PSE has been associated with greater maternal warmth in Australian mothers of young children (Sanders & Woolley, 2005) and with overall parent and child wellbeing in a systematic review (Albanese et al., 2019). In a study of Hong Kong families with young children, higher paternal PSE was associated with greater father involvement in childrearing (Kwok et al., 2013).

PSE fluctuates as children age (Glatz & Buchanan, 2015). Middle childhood (ages 6–12) is an important period of neural, physical, and socioemotional development marked by increased independence and neural maturation (Mah & Ford-Jones, 2012). Although PSE during infancy and early childhood has received the most scholarly attention, PSE during middle childhood is important but understudied. During middle childhood, parents are expected to support their children as they navigate new social situations, school environments, and developmental challenges while still managing their children’s personal needs (Coleman & Karraker, 2000). Thus, during middle childhood parents’ parenting abilities are tested in new ways. Fathers’ PSE may also become especially important during middle childhood, as fathers become more involved with their children as children age (Wood & Repetti, 2004).

However, few studies have linked the specific ER strategies of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression to PSE for fathers or mothers during middle childhood. Related studies have been primarily conducted in specific contexts (e.g., in relation to child health issues; Miklosi et al., 2013; Sagui-Henson et al., 2020) with fathers underrepresented (comprising between 10% and 25% of samples of parents). In a study of parents of school-aged children who underwent surgical procedures at a Hungarian hospital, Miklosi and colleagues (2013) found parents with higher PSE experienced less anxiety, and the use of maladaptive cognitive ER strategies (e.g., rumination, catastrophizing) weakened the association of PSE with parental anxiety. Sagui-Henson and colleagues (2020) found in U.S. families of school-aged children, parents’ ability to decrease negative emotions was associated with lower PSE related to child health issues, whereas parents’ ability to increase negative emotions was not associated with PSE related to child health issues. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Partington and colleagues (2022) found U.S. parents who reported greater use of cognitive reappraisal were more likely to be labeled as “Thriving”, a category characterized by greater PSE and lower child emotionality. Although these studies have contributed important information, they focused on specific contexts (e.g., child health issues, COVID-19). Therefore, a broader examination of parent ER and PSE is warranted.

Coparenting

In addition to parent characteristics, Belsky’s (1984) model of parenting also posits that the broader social context can support or undermine parenting, especially the interparental relationship. Coparenting refers to the ways parents collaborate, share responsibilities, and coordinate or fail to coordinate in childrearing (Feinberg, 2002; 2003). According to Feinberg’s (2003) model of coparenting, a high-quality coparenting relationship is characterized by agreement in parenting goals, high mutual supportiveness and low undermining behavior, effective management of family boundaries and relationships, and satisfaction with the division of parenting responsibilities. Whereas higher-quality coparenting relationships benefit children’s emotional and behavioral development, lower-quality coparenting has been linked to child externalizing behavior problems (Schoppe et al., 2001).

As well as direct effects on children’s socioemotional development, Feinberg (2003) outlined the important role of coparenting as a mediator or moderator of relations among individual characteristics, family processes, and child outcomes. Consistent with coparenting’s role as a moderator, Scrimgeour and colleagues (2013) demonstrated that cooperative coparenting and parenting interact to positively contribute to toddlers’ prosocial development, as mothers’ ability to understand her child’s internal experience had a stronger association with children’s prosocial development when coparenting quality was higher. Similarly, in a sample of Chinese families with school-aged children, Yan and colleagues (2021) demonstrated that lower levels of ER difficulties in parents were associated with improved parenting quality, which was associated with children’s lower emotional negativity. However, parenting quality more strongly decreased child emotional negativity in families with higher-quality coparenting relationships. In a sample of Japanese mothers of toddlers and young children, mothers who relied on cognitive reappraisal were more likely to “coach” their children’s emotions (e.g., soothe, validate child’s emotions, provide coping strategies) when mothers reported lower-quality parenting alliances (Bao & Kato, 2020). Thus, while prior research has supported the role of coparenting as a key moderator in the family system, previous studies have not considered its role in associations between parent ER and PSE.

The father-child relationship

As fathers’ involvement in parenting has increased over the past 50–60 years (Dotti Sani & Treas, 2016), research on father-child relationships has been slowly intensifying (Cabrera et al., 2018). Both mother-child and father-child relationships are important to child development (Gao & Cummings, 2019) and research suggests the father-child relationship may uniquely promote child socioemotional adjustment. Instances of father-child interaction such as play (Bocknek et al., 2020) may contribute to children’s regulatory abilities, potentially due to father-child interactions being more arousing than mother-child interactions and requiring the child to employ more regulatory strategies (Feldman, 2003). Due to the role fathers have in child development and their simultaneous underrpresentation in research (Cabrera et al., 2018), it is critical to understand fathers’ parenting and its foundations in fathers’ PSE and ER.

Although high-quality coparenting relationships benefit all family members, research suggests family relations may unequally impact mothers and fathers in the parenting domain. The father vulnerability hypothesis states that fathering and father-child relationships are more vulnerable to familial discord compared to mothering and mother-child relationships (Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2007). Whereas research has suggested that interpersonal relationships more strongly affect women’s mental health compared to men’s mental health (Kendler & Gardner, 2014), the father vulnerability hypothesis specifically describes how paternal parenting behavior (Hess, 2021), father-child interactions (Bi et al., 2018), and paternal familial perceptions (King & Boyd, 2016) are more vulnerable to interparental relations.

Thus, interparental relationships may be particularly important to the development of father-child relationships. In a sample of U.S. new parents, supportive coparenting was asssociated with greater father-infant, but not mother-infant, attachment security (Brown et al., 2010). Additionally, in a study of U.S. parents with toddlers, Murphy and colleagues (2017) found cooperative coparenting was positively associated with fathers’ support of mothers and fathers’ involvement in parental decision-making, but these associations did not extend to mothers. A recent study of U.S. parents with young children found cognitive reappraisal attentuated the effect of marital relationship quality on parent-child relationship quality among fathers but not mothers (Kuo et al., 2022).

However, not all research has supported fathers’ greater vulnerability to coparenting or interparental relationships. For example, Solmeyer and Feinberg (2011) found no differences between U.S. mothers and fathers concerning the interaction between coparenting quality and infant temperament on PSE, parenting stress, and depressive symptoms. Other studies have demonstrated no maternal and paternal differences in the roles of relationship conflict or dissatisfaction in parenting (e.g., Stevenson et al., 2019), although coparenting was not examined directly in this research. Therefore, more research is needed to understand to what extent parents are affected by the coparenting relationship and the nature of any maternal versus paternal differences to paint a full picture of emotion regulation and parenting within the family system.

The present study

We examined associations between parent ER and PSE among mothers and fathers with school-aged children and tested coparenting relationship quality as a moderator of these associations. We hypothesized that parents who utilized greater cognitive reappraisal and less expressive suppression would demonstrate higher PSE. We further hypothesized that positive relations between cognitive reappraisal and PSE would be more pronounced among parents with higher-quality coparenting relationships (Bao & Kato, 2020), whereas negative relations between expressive suppression and PSE would be mitigated among parents with higher-quality coparenting relationships. Additionally, we anticipated the moderating effect of coparenting on relations between parent ER and PSE would be more pronounced in fathers compared to mothers, in accordance with the father vulnerability hypothesis (Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2007). See Figure 1 for hypothesized models.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized models.

We utilized two measures of coparenting (self-report and observation) as family scholars recommend a multi-method approach (Cromwell & Peterson, 1983) and it is important to distinguish between individual- and family-level coparenting processes. Coparenting self-reports enable us to measure how one partner perceives their coparenting relationship and how they perceive their partner’s parenting ability, whereas an observed measure of coparenting taps into family-level coparenting processes through triadic interaction, which is distinct from other subsystems (e.g., parent-child, parent-parent; Cox & Paley, 2003). Through multiple measurements of coparenting, we can assess similarities and differences in the role of individual- and family-level coparenting quality on associations between parent ER and PSE.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from a longitudinal study designed to investigate the development of parent-child and family relationships and children’s socioemotional development. In 2008-2009, 182 dual-earner different-sex couples who had become pregnant for the first time were recruited from Columbus, Ohio (U.S.) and the surrounding area. Participants were followed from the mothers’ third trimester of pregnancy to their first child’s seventh birthday across six waves of data collection. We utilized data collected in 2017-2018 during the child’s seventh year.

At this follow-up (N = 99), mothers (M_age = 37.0, Mdn_age = 37.0, SD_age = 3.90, Range_age = 28.2 – 48.9), fathers (M_age = 38.2, Mdn_age = 38.2, SD_age = 4.19, Range_age = 30.2 – 57.1), and children (M_age = 7.79 years; 60% boys) participated in data collection. A majority of parents identified as White (87% mothers, 88% fathers), with a smaller portion identifying as Black (5% mothers, 5% fathers), mixed race (5% mothers, 1% fathers), Asian (2% mothers, 3% fathers), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (<1% mothers, 1% fathers), or other (1% mothers, 2% fathers). All mothers identified as female and all fathers identified as male, although more specific information on gender identity was not collected. Information on sexual orientation was also not collected. Most parents were employed (80% mothers, 94% fathers) and worked over thirty hours per week (78% mothers, 99% fathers). Average household annual income was over $100,000 (M = $113,298, Mdn = $106,000, SD = $51,041). Most parents had at least a Bachelor’s degree (84% mothers, 73% fathers). The median number of children per family was two, although the follow-up focused on the seven-year-old firstborns.

Procedures

This project was approved by The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board (Study ID: 2007B0228). Parents consented to parent and child data collection before study participation and children provided assent. This phase of data collection asked families to complete in-person assessments, including video recorded tasks, as well as self-report measures. Families were incentivized to participate with cash and small gifts for children. For the present study, we used survey measures completed by parents and a family interaction task completed together by mothers, fathers, and their children.

Measures

Emotion regulation

Mothers’ and fathers’ ER was assessed with the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). The ERQ is a 10-item questionnaire that measures two emotion regulation strategies, cognitive reappraisal (e.g., “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in”; α = .89 for mothers and α = .91 for fathers) and expressive suppression (e.g., “I control my emotions by not expressing them”; α = .79 for mothers and α = .84 for fathers), on a 7-point scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

Parenting self-efficacy

Mothers’ and fathers’ PSE was assessed with the Self-Efficacy for Parenting Tasks Index (SEPTI; Coleman & Karraker, 2000). The SEPTI is a 36-item questionnaire that assesses parenting self-efficacy across five subscales: Achievement, Discipline, Health, Nurturance, and Recreation (α = .89 for mothers and α = .91 for fathers). Example items include “When my child wants to play with a friend, I go out of my way to work it out”, rated on a 6-point scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). The original SEPTI was designed so higher scores indicated lower PSE, but for this study, SEPTI items were appropriately reverse scored so higher scores indicated greater PSE.

Perceived coparenting quality

Mothers’ and fathers’ perceived coparenting quality was assessed with the Coparenting Relationship Scale (CRS; Feinberg et al., 2012). The CRS is a 36-item measure with six subscales: Coparenting Agreement, Coparenting Closeness, Coparenting Support, Coparenting Undermining, Division of Labor, Exposure to Conflict, and Endorsement of Partner’s Parenting. Most items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (Not true of us) to 6 (Very true of us), except the items on the Exposure to Conflict subscale, which are rated on a 7-point scale from 0 (Never) to 6 (Very often or several times a day). Example items include “I believe my child’s other parent is a good parent”. We calculated a summary score by reverse scoring relevant items and averaging across all 36 items so higher scores indicated a more positive coparenting relationship (α = .96 for mothers and α = .93 for fathers).

Observed coparenting quality

The quality of parents’ coparenting behavior was assessed observationally using triadic interactions. Mothers, fathers, and children participated together in a version of the semi-structured Lausanne Trilogue Play (Fivaz-Depeursinge & Corboz-Warnery, 1999). The family played the game “Rush Hour Junior” in four parts: 1) mother and child play with father present, 2) father and child play with mother present, 3) mother and father play with child present, and 4) all three play together. The entire interaction lasted approximately fifteen minutes and was video recorded and manually coded.

Trained research assistants rated the entire interaction using coding scales developed by Cowan and Cowan (1996) and modified by Altenburger and colleagues (2014), including scores that incorporated both mother and father behavior (cooperation and competition) and scores that reflected parents’ individual behaviors (pleasure, warmth, displeasure, and coldness). All behaviors were coded on 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Very Low) to 5 (Very High). Cooperation reflected the degree of emotional and instrumental support between partners, whereas competition captured the degree to which parents interfered with each other’s efforts to interact with the child and/or vied for the child’s attention. Pleasure captured each parent’s expressed enjoyment in collaborating in parenting and warmth captured individual emotional support provided to the partner. Displeasure captured each parent’s display of dislike for the other parent’s style of interacting with or relationship with the child and coldness captured the individual’s expressed disdain for the partner or efforts to distance themselves from the partner.

Among coders, the intraclass correlation was .87 for cooperation, .72 for competition, .80 for maternal warmth, .74 for maternal coldness, .81 for maternal pleasure, .45 for maternal displeasure, .83 for paternal warmth, .88 for paternal coldness, .82 for paternal pleasure, and .71 for paternal displeasure. We attributed the low ICC for maternal displeasure to the low prevalence of maternal displeasure during the task, as maternal displeasure had the lowest mean (M = 1.09, SD = .22) compared to the global mean of coded behaviors (M = 1.89, SD = .60). To calculate a global measure of observed coparenting quality, we summed cooperation, maternal warmth, maternal pleasure, paternal warmth, and paternal pleasure and then subtracted the sum of competition, maternal coldness, maternal displeasure, paternal coldness, and paternal displeasure. Ultimately, both mothers and fathers within the same dyad received the same observed coparenting score.

Analysis plan

We excluded two families due to extensive missingness (more than 95% of study variables missing). Next, subscale scores were calculated for the remaining families (N = 97). For missing data, passive multiple imputation by random forests was conducted using the mice package (van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011) with 15 imputations, 30 iterations per imputation. Passive multiple imputation is an advanced procedure designed to address missing questionnaire data (Heymans & Eekhout, 2019). We tested study hypotheses using four Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005) using a structural equation modelling approach with lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). In the first set of two models, we assessed the associations of parent ER strategies, expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal, with PSE and to what extent perceived coparenting quality moderated these associations. In the second set of two models, we assessed the associations of parent ER strategies with PSE and tested observed coparenting quality as a potential moderator. Moderators were mean centered before analyses. Although APIMs were utilized to assess both actor and partner effects of ER strategy and coparenting on PSE, moderators were only applied within-partner given that our original hypotheses did not include cross-partner interaction effects.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Paired samples t-tests on aggregated data revealed significant parental role differences in ER strategies. Fathers reported using more expressive suppression than mothers (t(96) = 5.88, p < .001). Additionally, mothers endorsed greater use of cognitive reappraisal than fathers (t(96) = −2.20, p = .046). There were significant correlations between mother- and father-perceived coparenting (r = .67, p < .001). Perceived coparenting was significantly correlated with PSE in mothers (r = .25, p = .014) and fathers (r = .39, p < .001). See supplementary materials for more descriptive statistics.

Preliminary regression analyses were conducted to examine relations of demographic variables with key variables of interest. We examined the associations of parental age, education, income, race, and family size (total number of children) with coparenting, PSE, and ER strategies. There was a significant association of family size with perceived coparenting for mothers (β = .30, t(85.97) = 2.62, p = .010) and fathers (β = .16, t(83.10) = 2.11, p = .038). Therefore, subsequent models controlled for family size.

Actor-Partner interdependence models

Baseline models

Before conducting full APIMs, we conducted two baseline models. In the first model, there were both maternal (β = .12, p = .004; R² = .096) and paternal (β = .12, p = .017; R² = .065) actor effects of cognitive reappraisal on PSE. In the second model, there were maternal (β = −.11, p = .005; R² = .112) and paternal (β = −.15, p = .001; R² = .141) actor effects of expressive suppression on PSE.

Interaction models

First, we examined the association between parental cognitive reappraisal and PSE, moderated by perceived coparenting (Table 1). For mothers, there were significant actor effects of maternal cognitive reappraisal (β = .10, p = .040) and maternal perceived coparenting (β = .56, p < .001) on PSE, as well as an interaction between maternal cognitive reappraisal and maternal perceived coparenting (β = −.07, p < .001) when predicting maternal PSE (R² = .745). A simple slopes analysis indicated the association between maternal cognitive reappraisal and PSE was only significant when maternal perceived coparenting was low (β = .18 p = .001) or average (β = .10, p = .040; Figure 2). For fathers, the interaction between paternal cognitive reappraisal and paternal perceived coparenting was also significant (β = .07, p = .026; R² = .232), but the association between paternal cognitive reappraisal and PSE was only significant when paternal perceived coparenting was high (β = .15, p = .016; Figure 3).

Table 1.

Associations between cognitive reappraisal and PSE, moderated by perceived coparenting.

Outcome	Predictor	Beta	SE	p
Maternal PSE	Maternal cognitive reappraisal	0.10	0.05	0.040
Maternal PSE	Mother-reported coparenting	0.56	0.06	0.000
Maternal PSE	Interaction of maternal cognitive reappraisal and mother-reported coparenting	−0.07	0.02	0.000
Maternal PSE	Paternal cognitive reappraisal	−0.06	0.06	0.247
Maternal PSE	Father-reported coparenting	−0.08	0.15	0.606
Maternal PSE	Number of children	0.01	0.07	0.932
Paternal PSE	Paternal cognitive reappraisal	0.09	0.06	0.125
Paternal PSE	Father-reported coparenting	−0.02	0.10	0.816
Paternal PSE	Interaction of paternal cognitive reappraisal and father-reported coparenting	0.07	0.03	0.026
Paternal PSE	Maternal cognitive reappraisal	0.03	0.05	0.547
Paternal PSE	Mother-reported coparenting	0.02	0.09	0.796
Paternal PSE	Number of children	−0.04	0.07	0.515

Figure 2.

Interaction of cognitive reappraisal and perceived coparenting on PSE in mothers.

Figure 3.

The interaction of cognitive reappraisal and perceived coparenting on PSE in fathers.

Second, we examined the association between parental expressive suppression and PSE, moderated by perceived coparenting (Table 2). For mothers, there were significant actor effects of maternal expressive suppression (β = −.12, p = .020) and maternal perceived coparenting (β = .28, p = .001) on maternal PSE, as well as an interaction between maternal expressive suppression and maternal perceived coparenting (β = −.05, p = .002; R² = .387). A simple slopes analysis revealed the association between maternal expressive suppression and PSE was significant when maternal perceived coparenting was average (β = −.12, p = .020) or high (β = −.16, p = .002; Figure 4).

Table 2.

Associations between expressive suppression and PSE, moderated by perceived coparenting.

Outcome	Predictor	Beta	SE	p
Maternal PSE	Maternal expressive suppression	−0.12	0.05	0.020
Maternal PSE	Mother-reported coparenting	0.28	0.09	0.001
Maternal PSE	Interaction of maternal expressive suppression and mother-reported coparenting	−0.05	0.01	0.002
Maternal PSE	Paternal expressive suppression	−0.06	0.05	0.288
Maternal PSE	Father-reported coparenting	−0.12	0.17	0.467
Maternal PSE	Number of children	−0.01	0.07	0.901
Paternal PSE	Paternal expressive suppression	−0.13	0.05	0.012
Paternal PSE	Father-reported coparenting	0.13	0.16	0.425
Paternal PSE	Interaction of paternal expressive suppression and father-reported coparenting	0.04	0.03	0.132
Paternal PSE	Maternal expressive suppression	−0.03	0.05	0.527
Paternal PSE	Mother-reported coparenting	0.01	0.09	0.908
Paternal PSE	Number of children	−0.05	0.07	0.467

Figure 4.

The interaction of expressive suppression and perceived coparenting on PSE in mothers.

Third, we examined the association between parental cognitive reappraisal and PSE, moderated by observed coparenting (Table 3). For fathers, there were significant effects of observed coparenting (β = −.07, p < .001) and an interaction between paternal cognitive reappraisal and observed coparenting (β = .01, p = .001) on paternal PSE (R² = .354), such that the association between paternal cognitive reappraisal and PSE was only significant when observed coparenting quality was high (β = .16, p = .010; Figure 5).

Table 3.

Associations between cognitive reappraisal and PSE, moderated by observed coparenting.

Outcome	Predictor	Beta	SE	p
Maternal PSE	Maternal cognitive reappraisal	0.13	0.05	0.019
Maternal PSE	Observed coparenting	−0.04	0.02	0.055
Maternal PSE	Interaction of maternal cognitive reappraisal and observed coparenting	0.01	0.00	0.088
Maternal PSE	Paternal cognitive reappraisal	−0.04	0.06	0.544
Maternal PSE	Number of children	0.06	0.07	0.422
Paternal PSE	Paternal cognitive reappraisal	0.11	0.06	0.074
Paternal PSE	Observed coparenting	−0.07	0.02	0.000
Paternal PSE	Interaction of paternal cognitive reappraisal and observed coparenting	0.01	0.00	0.001
Paternal PSE	Maternal cognitive reappraisal	0.05	0.06	0.363
Paternal PSE	Number of children	0.02	0.07	0.813

Figure 5.

The interaction of cognitive reappraisal and observed coparenting on PSE in fathers.

Fourth, we examined the association between parental expressive suppression and PSE, moderated by observed coparenting (Table 4). For fathers, paternal expressive suppression (β = −.13, p = .006), observed coparenting (β = −.09, p < .001), and the interaction between paternal expressive suppression and observed coparenting (β = .03, p < .001) were significant predictors of paternal PSE (R² = .522). A simple slopes analysis revealed the association between paternal expressive suppression and PSE was significant when observed coparenting quality was low (β = −.20, p < .001) or average (β = −.13, p = .005; Figure 6).

Table 4.

Associations between expressive suppression and PSE, moderated by observed coparenting.

Outcome	Predictor	Beta	SE	p
Maternal PSE	Maternal expressive suppression	−0.11	0.04	0.011
Maternal PSE	Observed coparenting	0.03	0.02	0.053
Maternal PSE	Interaction of maternal expressive suppression and observed coparenting	−0.01	0.01	0.053
Maternal PSE	Paternal cognitive reappraisal	−0.08	0.05	0.103
Maternal PSE	Number of children	0.03	0.06	0.671
Paternal PSE	Paternal expressive suppression	−0.13	0.05	0.006
Paternal PSE	Observed coparenting	−0.09	0.02	0.000
Paternal PSE	Interaction of paternal expressive suppression and observed coparenting	0.03	0.00	0.000
Paternal PSE	Maternal cognitive reappraisal	−0.04	0.05	0.413
Paternal PSE	Number of children	0.00	0.06	0.938

Figure 6.

The interaction of expressive suppression and observed coparenting on PSE in fathers.

Discussion

Our goal was to expand understanding of the cognitive and emotional foundations of effective parenting by investigating the relations of parent ER with PSE, and the potential moderating role of coparenting. For both mothers and fathers, greater cognitive reappraisal and lower expressive suppression were associated with higher PSE, as anticipated. Interestingly, the moderating role of coparenting differed by parent role and ER strategy. For fathers, consistent with our expectations, higher-quality coparenting enhanced the association between greater cognitive reappraisal and higher PSE, whereas observed lower-quality coparenting exacerbated the associated between greater expressive suppression and lower PSE. For mothers, greater cognitive reappraisal was most strongly related to greater PSE when perceived coparenting quality was low, whereas greater expressive suppression had its most pronounced association with low PSE when perceived coparenting quality was high.

Cognitive reappraisal in fathers versus mothers

Among fathers, consistent with our hypotheses, the association between greater cognitive reappraisal and higher PSE was strongest when coparenting quality (whether perceived by the father or observed during an interaction task) was high. This finding suggests fathers may need a reliable interpersonal foundation of coparenting support for cognitive reappraisal to positively impact PSE. When fathers feel supported and validated in their parenting role, they may be better positioned to capitalize on their tendency to handle emotional situations by re-evaluating them when interacting with their children, which may, in turn, build their PSE. However, this demonstrates fathering’s potential dependence on maternal support, as fathers with lower-quality coparenting relationships were unable to get any “boost” in PSE from their use of cognitive reappraisal.

As expected, mothers who reported greater use of cognitive reappraisal reported higher levels of PSE, but unexpectedly this association was more pronounced when mothers perceived coparenting quality as low. Thus, when mothers perceived their coparenting relationships as relatively lower in quality, maternal cognitive reappraisal appeared to compensate by boosting PSE. Lower perceived coparenting quality may indicate for some mothers, their coparenting relationship involves a heavier burden of responsibilities or difficulties communicating with their partner. One interpretation is when mothers themselves feel less able to rely on their coparents, mothers turn to internal regulation strategies to cope with parenting challenges, and those who can draw upon cognitive reappraisal are best able to preserve high PSE. Notably, this moderation effect was not found when using observed coparenting quality instead of maternal self-report, indicating the mother’s perception of the coparenting relationship is what matters in this case.

Expressive suppression in fathers versus mothers

As hypothesized, across fathers and mothers, greater use of expressive suppression was associated with weaker PSE. However, fathers and mothers demonstrated significant moderation effects by different measures of coparenting. Among fathers—as anticipated—not only did expressive suppression have a negative association with PSE but engaging in expressive suppression “cost more” for fathers whose coparenting relationships were characterized by less positive behavior during an observed coparenting task. This finding suggests lower-quality coparenting is more likely to exacerbate the effect of maladaptive ER strategies on PSE for fathers than for mothers, with paternal perceived coparenting not demonstrating any such moderating effect on PSE.

Among mothers, greater expressive suppression was associated with lower PSE, varying by levels of maternal perceived coparenting. Unexpectedly, when mothers perceived a higher-quality coparenting relationship, the expected negative association of expressive suppression with PSE was more (not less) pronounced. One interpretation is that mothers with a strong coparenting relationship may be more sensitive to how their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors can impact their parenting and thus the knowledge that they are engaging in a maladaptive ER strategy makes them feel less confident in their parenting. This unanticipated and somewhat counterintuitive finding awaits replication in future research.

The middle childhood context

As anticipated, we found cognitive reappraisal appeared to boost PSE, whereas expressive suppression dampened it, which is in line with previous research (Márk-Ribiczey et al., 2016). These findings can be interpreted in the context of middle childhood, when children experience notable socioemotional development and emotion socialization (De Raeymaecker & Dhar, 2022). It is consistent with past literature that parents’ utilization of an adaptive ER strategy like cognitive reappraisal would be connected to greater belief in one’s parenting abilities during a developmental period where parents must aid their children in navigating new social relationships in environments outside of the home (Coleman & Karraker, 2000).

In the present study, only high-quality observed coparenting buffered the negative effects of expressive suppression in fathers. Since the observed coparenting task was triadic, low-quality observed coparenting may indicate fathers had fewer opportunities to experience positive coparenting interactions during a task with their partner and child. This finding may also reflect how the triadic relationship is important to fathers during middle childhood, a time when father involvement is critical to future adolescent behavioral development (Gold et al., 2020).

Parent role patterns

As hypothesized, not only were there were differences in relations among ER strategy use, coparenting, and PSE between fathers and mothers, but these differences resembled patterns described by the father vulnerability hypothesis. Although the father vulnerability hypothesis has emphasized marital conflict (Cummings et al., 2010), the present study suggests a potentially new form of father vulnerability to lower-quality coparenting. Similar to how children learn ER through their family system, masculine norms and gender salient cues may influence fathers’ regulatory responses to stress and may enable maladaptive strategies as fathers face “challenges of living up to their expected gender identity” (Berke et al., 2018, p. 114) which may be in conflict with ideals emphasizing nurturing, involved fathering (Schoppe-Sullivan et al., 2021). Our findings suggest fathers who regulate their emotion consistent with masculine norms (albeit maladaptively; John & Gross, 2004) must rely more heavily on their coparenting relationship to avoid lower PSE.

In contrast, when mothers perceived coparenting quality as relatively low, they relied on the internal strategy of cognitive reappraisal to compensate for their perceived lack of coparent support to protect their PSE. One interpretation of the results for mothers and fathers is that mothers’ PSE may be more affected by ER strategy, but fathers’ PSE may be more affected by coparenting quality—a pattern not inconsistent with the father vulnerability hypothesis. Perhaps when mothers are unable to rely on their coparents for support, mothers turn to internal regulation strategies to facilitate child socialization, but given that fathers are not as expected to engage these behaviors (e.g., emotion coaching, expressive encouragement; Hajal & Paley, 2020) with children, fathers only engage actively in child socialization when coparenting quality is high. Although the present study was not designed to test this hypothesis directly, future research should further examine individual-level versus dyad-level factors on mothers’ and fathers’ PSE.

Limitations

First, the present study was a cross-sectional, correlational study and therefore no causal claims can be made. Although the larger project had multiple waves, we only used data from the most recent follow-up when we first collected data on parents’ ER. Second, the sample was relatively homogenous and well-functioning, so results may not generalize to non-White families, families with lower SES, or families experiencing conflict or instability. In addition, the present study was constrained due to the questionnaires used and the way emotion regulation was measured in the present study. The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003) has been considered the gold standard for self-reported ER, but recent research has criticized self-reports of ER as poor indicators of actual ER use (McMahon & Naragon-Gainey, 2020) and has criticized the “good/bad” binary often applied to cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression (Sheppes, 2020). Moreover, instead of measuring ER strategy, a newer perspective on ER has emphasized the value of emotion regulation flexibility in both selection (the ability to flexibly choose) and implementation (the ability to execute different strategies well when necessary) as important for individual wellbeing and healthy adaptation (Aldao et al., 2015; Sheppes, 2020). Future research should utilize a multimodal approach to measuring ER, like using observational measures and interaction tasks, as well as utilize measures of constructs related to ER like emotion regulation flexibility.

It is also important to note that the ERQ measures ER in general, as opposed to ER within the parenting context. Recently, researchers have argued for greater effort toward measuring ER in the context of parenting (Hajal & Paley, 2020) in light of neurobiological, hormonal, and behavioral changes that occur during the transition to parenthood (Rutherford et al., 2015). There are parent questionnaires that focus more specifically on factors that contribute to how parents regulate their children’s emotions directly, such as the Parent Emotion Regulation Scale (Pereira et al., 2017). Additionally, other measures of ER, such as semi-structured interviews and observed emotion dysregulation during parent-child interaction tasks, provide alternative methods of measuring parent ER (Gottman et al., 1996; Morelen et al., 2016). Assessing ER within the parenting context is a critical direction for future research.

Future directions and conclusions

Our results contribute to a growing literature on ER and parenting. We found coparenting quality moderated the association of parent ER with PSE, although this pattern varied by ER strategy, parent role, and how coparenting was measured. Both mothers’ and fathers’ PSE appeared vulnerable to ER strategy. The patterns of moderation by coparenting were clear for fathers, as greater coparenting relationship quality strengthened the association between ER strategy use and PSE, but were less clear and consistent for mothers. In combination with past research, our findings on parent role effects suggest a father-specific mechanism through which coparenting quality may affect father’s PSE, although the precise nature of such a pattern was difficult to unpack using available data. Future research should embrace dyadic and longitudinal measurement and utilize more tailored questionnaires, specifically ER questionnaires designed for parents, to elucidate how parents regulate their children’s emotions and their own emotion during times of stress, and the consequences for parent, child, and family functioning.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Parent emotion regulation and parenting self-efficacy: The moderating role of coparenting

Supplemental Material - Parent emotion regulation and parenting self-efficacy: The moderating role of coparenting by Julianna R Calabrese and Sarah J Schoppe-Sullivan in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Claire M. Kamp Dush’s invaluable contributions to the design and execution of the New Parents Project.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The New Parents Project was funded by the National Science Foundation (CAREER 0746548, Schoppe-Sullivan), with additional support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD; 1K01HD056238, Kamp Dush), and The Ohio State University’s Institute for Population Research (NICHD P2CHD058484) and program in Human Development and Family Science.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data and materials used in the research can be obtained by contacting Julianna Calabrese via email to: calabrese.75@osu.edu.

ORCID iDs

Julianna R. Calabrese

Sarah J. Schoppe-Sullivan

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Albanese

A. M.

Russo

G. R.

Geller

P. A.

(2019). The role of parental self-efficacy in parent and child well-being: A systematic review of associated outcomes. Child: Care, Health and Development, 45(3), 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12661

Aldao

Sheppes

Gross

J. J.

(2015). Emotion regulation flexibility. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39(3), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9662-4

Altenburger

L. E.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Lang

S. N.

Bower

D. J.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

(2014). Associations between prenatal coparenting behavior and observed coparenting behavior at 9-months postpartum. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000012

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Bao

Kato

(2020). Determinants of maternal emotion socialization: Based on Belsky’s process of parenting model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2044. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02044

Bariola

Hughes

E. K.

Gullone

(2012). Relationships between parent and child emotion regulation strategy use: A brief report. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(3), 443–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9497-5

Belsky

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

Berke

D. S.

Reidy

Zeichner

(2018). Masculinity, emotion regulation, and psychopathology: A critical review and integrated model. Clinical Psychology Review, 66, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.01.004

Haak

E. A.

Gilbert

L. R.

El-Sheikh

Keller

P. S.

(2018). Father attachment, father emotion expression, and children’s attachment to fathers: The role of marital conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000395

10.

Bocknek

E. L.

Richardson

P. A.

McGoron

Raveau

Iruka

I. U.

(2020). Adaptive parenting among low-income Black mothers and toddlers’ regulation of distress. Child Development, 91(6), 2178–2191. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13461

11.

Brown

G. L.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

Neff

(2010). Observed and reported supportive coparenting as predictors of infant–mother and infant–father attachment security. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1–2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903415015

12.

Buckholdt

K. E.

Parra

G. R.

Jobe-Shields

(2014). Intergenerational transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 324–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9768-4

13.

Cabrera

N. J.

Volling

B. L.

Barr

(2018). Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12275

14.

Coleman

P. K.

Karraker

K. H.

(2000). Parenting self-efficacy among mothers of school-age children: Conceptualization, measurement, and correlates. Family Relations, 49(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00013.x

15.

Cook

W. L.

Kenny

D. A.

(2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405

16.

Cowan

C. P.

Cowan

P. A.

(1996). Schoolchildren and their families project: Description of co-parenting style ratings [Unpublished coding scales]. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0885-2006(21)00075-2/sbref0016

17.

Cox

M. J.

Paley

(2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01259

18.

Cromwell

R. E.

Peterson

G. W.

(1983). Multisystem-multimethod family assessment in clinical contexts. Family Process, 22(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1983.00147.x

19.

Cummings

E. M.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Raymond

(2010). Chapter 5: Fathers in family context: Effects of marital quality and marital conflict. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 154–176). Wiley.

20.

Deater-Deckard

Panneton

(2017). Parental stress and early child development. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55376-4

21.

De Raeymaecker

Dhar

(2022). The influence of parents on emotion regulation in middle childhood: A systematic review. Children, 9(8), 1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9081200

22.

Dotti Sani

G. M.

Treas

(2016). Educational gradients in parents' child-care time across countries, 1965-2012: educational gradients in parents' child-care time. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(4), 1083–1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12305

23.

Ehring

Tuschen-Caffier

Schnülle

Fischer

Gross

J. J.

(2010). Emotion regulation and vulnerability to depression: Spontaneous versus instructed use of emotion suppression and reappraisal. Emotion, 10(4), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019010

24.

Eisenberg

Cumberland

Spinrad

T. L.

(1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1

25.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2002). Coparenting and the transition to parenthood: A framework for prevention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(3), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1019695015110

26.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2003). The internal structure and ecological context of coparenting: A framework for research and intervention. Parenting, 3(2), 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327922PAR0302_01

27.

Feinberg

M. E.

Brown

L. D.

Kan

M. L.

(2012). A multi-domain self-report measure of coparenting. Parenting, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.638870

28.

Feldman

(2003). Infant-mother and infant-father synchrony: The coregulation of positive arousal. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10041

29.

Fivaz-Depeursinge

Corboz-Warnery

(1999). The primary triangle: A developmental systems view of mothers, fathers and children (1st ed.). Basic Books. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-08152-000

30.

Gao

Cummings

E. M.

(2019). Understanding parent–child relationship as a developmental process: Fluctuations across days and changes over years. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 1046–1058. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000680

31.

Glatz

Buchanan

C. M.

(2015). Change and predictors of change in parental self-efficacy from early to middle adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 51(10), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000035

32.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Cummings

E. M.

(2007). Impact of father involvement: A closer look at indirect effects models involving marriage and child adjustment. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690701762126

33.

Gold

Edin

K. J.

Nelson

T. J.

(2020). Does time with dad in childhood pay off in adolescence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(5), 1587–1605. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12676

34.

Gottman

J. M.

Katz

L. F.

Hooven

(1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(3), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.243

35.

Gross

J. J.

John

O. P.

(2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348

36.

Gunzenhauser

Fäsche

Friedlmeier

von Suchodoletz

(2014). Face it or hide it: Parental socialization of reappraisal and response suppression. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 992. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00992

37.

Hajal

N. J.

Paley

(2020). Parental emotion and emotion regulation: A critical target of study for research and intervention to promote child emotion socialization. Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000864

38.

Han

Z. R.

Qian

Gao

Dong

(2015). Emotion socialization mechanisms linking Chinese fathers’, mothers’, and children’s emotion regulation: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(12), 3570–3579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0158-y

39.

Hess

(2021). Effects of inter-parental conflict on children’s social well-being and the mediation role of parenting behavior. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(2), 10022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-10022-y

40.

Heymans

M. W.

Eekhout

(2019). Applied missing data analysis in SPSS and (R)Studio. https://bookdown.org/mwheymans/bookmi/

41.

Hughes

E. K.

Gullone

(2010). Parent emotion socialisation practices and their associations with personality and emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 694–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.042

42.

John

O. P.

Gross

J. J.

(2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1301–1334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x

43.

Jones

T. L.

Prinz

R. J.

(2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(3), 341–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004

44.

Kendler

K. S.

Gardner

C. O.

(2014). Sex differences in the pathways to major depression: A study of opposite-sex twin pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(4), 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13101375

45.

King

Boyd

L. M.

(2016). Factors associated with perceptions of family belonging among adolescents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(4), 1114–1130. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12322

46.

Kohlhoff

Hawes

D. J.

Mence

Russell

A. M. T.

Wedgwood

Morgan

(2016). Emotion regulation strategies and parenting practices among parents of children with clinic-referred conduct problems. Parenting, 16(4), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2016.1184942

47.

Kuo

P. X.

Johnson

V. J.

(2021). Whose parenting stress is more vulnerable to marital dissatisfaction? A within-couple approach examining gender, cognitive reappraisal, and parental identity. Family Process, 60(4), 1470–1487. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12642

48.

Kuo

P. X.

Lee

Johnson

V. J.

Starr

E. J.

(2022). Investigating moderators of daily marital to parent–child spillover: Individual and family systems approaches. Family Relations. 12777. Early View https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12777

49.

Kwok

S. Y. C. L.

Ling

C. C. Y.

Leung

C. L. K.

J. C. M.

(2013). Fathering self-efficacy, marital satisfaction and father involvement in Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(8), 1051–1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9666-1

50.

Wang

(2019). Intergenerational transmission of emotion regulation through parents’ reactions to children’s negative emotions: Tests of unique, actor, partner, and mediating effects. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.03.038

51.

Lorber

M. F.

(2012). The role of maternal emotion regulation in overreactive and lax discipline. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 642–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029109

52.

Mah

V. K.

Ford-Jones

E. L.

(2012). Spotlight on middle childhood: Rejuvenating the “forgotten years. Paediatrics & Child Health, 17(2), 81–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/17.2.81

53.

Márk-Ribiczey

Miklósi

Szabó

(2016). Maternal self-efficacy and role satisfaction: The mediating effect of cognitive emotion regulation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(1), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0217-4

54.

McMahon

T. P.

Naragon-Gainey

(2020). Ecological validity of trait emotion regulation strategy measures. Psychological Assessment, 32(8), 796–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000827

55.

Miklosi

Szabo

Martos

Galambosi

Perczel Forintos

(2013). Cognitive emotion regulation strategies moderate the effect of parenting self-efficacy beliefs on parents’ anxiety following their child’s surgery. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(4), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jss174

56.

Morelen

Shaffer

Suveg

(2016). Maternal emotion regulation: Links to emotion parenting and child emotion regulation. Journal of Family Issues, 37(13), 1891–1916. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14546720

57.

Morris

A. S.

Silk

J. S.

Steinberg

Myers

S. S.

Robinson

L. R.

(2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x

58.

Murphy

S. E.

Gallegos

M. I.

Jacobvitz

D. B.

Hazen

N. L.

(2017). Coparenting dynamics: Mothers’ and fathers’ differential support and involvement. Personal Relationships, 24(4), 917–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12221

59.

Partington

L. C.

Mashash

Hastings

P. D.

(2022). Family thriving during COVID-19 and the benefits for children’s well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 879195. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.879195

60.

Paul

Pruessner

Strakosch

A.-M.

Miano

Schulze

Barnow

(2023). Examining the strategy-situation fit of emotion regulation in everyday social contexts. Emotion. Online ahead of print https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001209

61.

Pereira

A. I.

Barros

Roberto

M. S.

Marques

(2017). Development of the parent emotion regulation scale (PERS): Factor structure and psychometric qualities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(12), 3327–3338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0847-9

62.

Rosseel

(2012). Package “lavaan”: Latent variable analysis (0.6-3) [R]. http://lavaan.org

63.

Rutherford

H. J. V.

Wallace

N. S.

Laurent

H. K.

Mayes

L. C.

(2015). Emotion regulation in parenthood. Developmental Review, 36, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.008

64.

Sagui-Henson

S. J.

Armstrong

L. M.

Mitchell

A. D.

Basquin

C. A.

Levens

S. M.

(2020). The effects of parental emotion regulation ability on parenting self-efficacy and child diet. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(8), 2290–2302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01745-x

65.

Sanders

M. R.

Woolley

M. L.

(2005). The relationship between maternal self-efficacy and parenting practices: Implications for parent training: Self-efficacy and parenting practices. Child: Care, Health and Development, 31(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2005.00487.x

66.

Schoppe

S. J.

Mangelsdorf

S. C.

Frosch

C. A.

(2001). Coparenting, family process, and family structure: Implications for preschoolers’ externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 526–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.526

67.

Schoppe-Sullivan

S. J.

Shafer

Olofson

E. L.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

(2021). Fathers’ parenting and coparenting behavior in dual-earner families: Contributions of traditional masculinity, father nurturing role beliefs, and maternal gate closing. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(3), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000336

68.

Scrimgeour

M. B.

Blandon

A. Y.

Stifter

C. A.

Buss

K. A.

(2013). Cooperative coparenting moderates the association between parenting practices and children’s prosocial behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 506–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032893

69.

Sheppes

(2020). Transcending the “good & bad” and “here & now” in emotion regulation: Costs and benefits of strategies across regulatory stages. In Advances in experimental social psychology (61, pp. 185–236). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.09.003

70.

Solmeyer

A. R.

Feinberg

M. E.

(2011). Mother and father adjustment during early parenthood: The roles of infant temperament and coparenting relationship quality. Infant Behavior and Development, 34(4), 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.07.006

71.

Stevenson

M. M.

Volling

B. L.

Gonzalez

(2019). An examination of father vulnerability and coercive family process after the birth of a sibling: A spillover cascade model. Development and Psychopathology, 31(02), 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941800010X

72.

Thompson

R. A.

(1991). Emotional regulation and emotional development. Educational Psychology Review, 3(4), 269–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01319934

73.

Töz

Arikan

Üstündağ-Budak

A. M.

(2021). The role of emotion regulation and maternal symptoms in Turkish mothers’ caregiving helplessness during toddlerhood. Current Psychology, 42(8), 6106–6116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01855-9

74.

van Buuren

Groothuis-Oudshoorn

(2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03

75.

Webb

T. L.

Miles

Sheeran

(2012). Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600

76.

Wood

J. J.

Repetti

R. L.

(2004). What gets dad involved? A longitudinal study of change in parental child caregiving involvement. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.237

77.

Yan

Schoppe-Sullivan

Han

Z. R.

(2021). Associations from parental mindfulness and emotion regulation to child emotion regulation through parenting: The moderating role of coparenting in Chinese families. Mindfulness, 12(6), 1513–1523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-021-01619-3

78.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Rudolph

Kerin

Bohadana-Brown

(2022). Parent emotional regulation: A meta-analytic review of its association with parenting and child adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254211051086

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB