Longitudinal pathways from harsh parenting to adolescent depression via internal working models: The moderating role of adolescent trait mindfulness

Abstract

Theoretical and empirical research indicates that insecure attachment with parents may function as a mediator between aversive parenting and adolescent depression. However, no longitudinal research has differentiated the roles of internal representations of parental attachment, especially the roles of the two internal working models (i.e., the self-model and the other model) in the longitudinal relation from harsh parenting to adolescent depression and whether adolescent mindfulness can play a moderating role in such relationships. Six hundred and forty-five school children completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire in school three times with two eight-month intervals (338 girls and 307 boys, mean age = 13.45), and data on harsh parenting, internal working models, and depression were collected at three time points, and mindfulness were collected only at Time 1. Results demonstrated that among adolescents low in mindfulness, harsh parenting could undermine positivity of the self-model, which could further elevate the risk of adolescent depression. In comparison, these predictive relations did not exist among highly mindful adolescents. To our knowledge, this study is the first one to differentiate the roles of the two elements of internal working models in a longitudinal research design, which highlights the significant role of the impaired self-model in the development of adolescent depression in the context of aversive parenting.

Keywords

Depression harsh parenting mindfulness the self-model the other-model

Introduction

Harsh parenting has been demonstrated to be linked with adolescents’ depressive symptoms (Cole et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2018). Although diverse mediating mechanisms such as lower attachment security (Wang et al., 2021) and negative self-cognition (Tang et al., 2018) have been postulated to account for the potential contribution of harsh parenting to adolescent depression, the mediating roles of the two components of internal working models (i.e., the self-model vs. the other-model) have yet to be explored. On the basis of relevant research on the function of internal working models, the self-model and the other-model may differentially mediate the impact of harsh parenting on adolescent depression as is discussed below. Moreover, the detrimental influence of harsh parenting may hinge on individual differences in specific personality characteristics such as trait mindfulness. To fill in these gaps, the present longitudinal research aims to explore the mediating role of internal working models and the moderating role of trait mindfulness in the predictive effect of harsh parenting on adolescent depression.

Internal working models as mediators

The construct of internal working model (IWM) is first proposed by Bowlby (1982) to indicate a schema regarding internal representations of one’s self and others, which can function as blueprints to guide people’s interpersonal functioning (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011). Bartholomew (1990) further refines Bowlby’s concept to conceptualize IWM as comprising two dimensions, namely, the self-model and the other-model, which can be assessed in regard to their positivity or negativity. People with a positive self-model have internalized a sense of relatively high self-worth and expect others to treat them positively while those with a positive other-model generally have expectations for high levels of availability and supportiveness from others (Bowlby, 1982; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994). In contrast, a negative self-model involves representations of the self as ineffective and unworthy and predisposes people to self-blame, whereas a negative other-model involves representations of the other as rejecting and unsupportive and leads people to expect indifference and unavailability from others.

Attachment with significant others plays a pivotal role in molding children’s internal working models (Ammaniti et al., 2000). Therefore, harsh parenting, as a range of physical and verbal aggression toward children (Wang et al., 2018), might hinder the healthy development of internal working models, which in turn exacerbate adolescents’ emotional distress. For example, controlling and punitive parental behaviors have been closely related to negative working models (Otani et al., 2016). Specifically, negative parental treatment can contribute to undesirable self-views in children (Edwards, 2017) and mold their negative self-cognition that they are unworthy of love and care, further eliciting emotional distress such as depression (Tang et al., 2018) and anxiety (Rudy et al., 2012). In particular, harsh parents tend to set strict standards and frequently criticize their children for not fulfilling their expectations, which in the long run would be internalized as self-criticism, one prominent vulnerability factor for depressive symptoms (Barcaccia et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2019). Therefore, harsh parenting may shape a negative self-model, further enhancing the risk of adolescent depression.

Harsh parenting may also induce adolescent depression by shaping a negative other-model characterized by perceptions of others as untrustworthy. Parents cultivate children’s social trust through parent-child interactions (Keel, 2016). When parents regard children as trustworthy and open-minded toward them, children would become more trusting of others (Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012). With high respect for children’s autonomous opinions, democratic parenting is capable of increasing adolescents’ interpersonal trust (Wray-Lake & Flanagan, 2012). If a child repeatedly receives harsh parenting, they would gradually lose trust in their parents. With internal working models as blueprints for extrafamilial interpersonal interactions (Bretherton, 1992), children who have lost trust in their parents due to harsh parenting may gradually lose trust in others and accordingly their interpersonal relationship quality would be compromised, which enhances their risk of depression (Joiner, 2002). Therefore, harsh parenting may predict adolescents’ depression via shaping their negative other-model. Previous research mainly focuses on the role of the self-model, with inadequate attention paid to the role of the other-model. Therefore, the present longitudinal research intends to simultaneously compare the roles of the self-model and the other-model as mediators in the longitudinal associations between harsh parenting and adolescent depression.

Trait mindfulness as a moderator

Mindfulness is a state of focusing attention on one’s ongoing experience in an accepting stance (Bishop et al., 2004; Dolbier et al., 2021), which can be a temporary state or a personality trait in nature (Tomlinson et al., 2018). Trait mindfulness includes multiple facets such as observation, description, action with awareness, nonreacting, and nonjudgment (Baer et al., 2006; Hanley et al., 2017). Mindfulness can function as a resilience factor against stressful or traumatic situations (Beshai & Parmar, 2019; Montero-Martin et al., 2015), and has the capacity to mitigate vulnerability factors such as cognitive reactivity (Raes et al., 2009). The mindfulness-to-meaning theory (MMT) suggests that mindfulness helps people distance themselves from stress, broaden their perspectives, and reevaluate life events in more positive ways (Garland et al., 2015). Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by higher stress, more risky behaviors, and increments in psychopathology (Gilbert, 2012). Mindfulness may provide adolescents with a promising tool to reduce their emotional distress by helping them navigate their environmental challenges (Broderick & Jennings, 2012). Therefore, we expected that mindfulness might buffer the negative influence of harsh parenting on adolescents’ internal working models and their depressive symptoms.

Summary for the present study

This longitudinal study examines the mediating roles of the self-model and the other-model in the predictive impact of harsh parenting on adolescent depression (see Figure 1), as well as the moderating role of trait mindfulness of adolescents. The following hypotheses were proposed and tested:

Figure 1.

Longitudinal associations from harsh parenting to depression of adolescent low in mindfulness (standardized path coefficients). Note. Control variables have been controlled; HP = harsh parenting. SM = self-model. OM = other-model. DE = depression.

Hypothesis 1

Internal working models can longitudinally mediate the predictive effect of harsh parenting on adolescent depression. In other words, the more harsh parenting adolescents have suffered, the more likely they are to develop negative internal working models, and consequently, experience higher levels of depression.

Hypothesis 2

The longitudinal mediating impact of harsh parenting on adolescent depression via internal working models may be greater for adolescents with low mindfulness than for adolescents with high mindfulness.

Method

Participants and procedures

Approval to conduct each round of surveys was obtained from the Ethical Committee for Scientific Research in our institution first. School children were informed in class that their participation was voluntary and thus they were free to withdraw when they wanted. Then trained graduates guided the school children through the survey and collected the completed questionnaires. Each participant was given a pen at the end of each survey as an expression of our gratitude. At the initial time point (October 2021, Time 1), we collected data on harsh parenting, internal working models, depression and trait mindfulness, with all questionnaires were completed in Chinese. At the first follow-up time point (T2), which was approximately eight months after T1, we measured harsh parenting and internal working models and depression. And at the second follow-up time point (T3), also approximately eight months after T2, we assessed harsh parenting and internal working models and depression.

Participants were 645 sixth and seventh graders from two public middle schools located in Jinan of China who are all of the Chinese Han ethnicity. When school children have lived their middle school life for about two months (T1), 751 school children completed the first investigation. At T2, the remaining 694 school children finish this survey. And at T3, the remaining 645 school children (338 girls and 307 boys, mean age = 13.45, SD = 0.63) finished the final wave of survey. Based on calculations using G*Power 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2009), we determined that a sample size of at least 280 participants is necessary to test our hypothetical model. This sample size allows us to achieve a medium effect size (w = 0.30) with a power (1–β error probability) exceeding 0.95 and an α error probability of 0.05. Therefore, our current sample size is adequate for testing the proposed model. Only participants who were present at all three waves were included, and missing data were treated for them with multiple imputation (Royston, 2004). Given that our data were identified as Missing Completely at Random (MCAR), we chose the Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) approach. The attribution analyses indicated that participants remained and those excluded did not differ on key demographics and the main variables.

Measures

Harsh parenting

To assess harsh parenting, participants completed the Chinese version four-item harsh parenting questionnaire (Wang et al., 2021), which has been used in Chinese participants and shown favorable reliability and validity (Wang et al., 2018, 2021). Participants rated items such as “when I do something wrong or make my parents angry, they would hit me with objects” on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Average values were calculated for all items, with higher scores indicating higher levels of harsh parenting, with satisfactory Cronbach’s αs at T1 (0.83), T2 (0.85), and T3 (0.79).

Internal working models

Following procedures to assess internal working models by Griffin and Bartholomew (1994), school children rated themselves using the Chinese version of the Self-report Attachment Style Prototypes, which has been used in Chinese participants (Li et al., 2008). School children were provided with four paragraphs, each corresponding to one of the four attachment styles (i.e., secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful). They were asked to rate how well each paragraph describes them on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = unlike me to 9 = like me. The self-model is computed by summing the ratings for the secure and dismissing styles that involve positive self-models, and subtracting the ratings of the preoccupied and fearful styles that involve negative self-models. The other-model is computed by summing the ratings for the secure and preoccupied models that involve positive other-models, and subtracting the ratings for the dismissing and fearful styles that involve negative other-models.

Depression

To assess depression, participants completed the depression scale in the Brief Symptom Inventory (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983), which has been used in Chinese participants and shown satisfactory reliability and validity (Tang et al., 2017). Participants rated items such as “I feel hopeless about the future” and “my feelings are easily hurt” on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Means were calculated for all items, with higher means indicating higher levels of depression with satisfactory Cronbach’s αs at T1 (0.87), T2 (0.83), and T3 (0.88).

Trait mindfulness

To assess trait mindfulness, participants completed the Chinese version 10-item Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM; Greco et al., 2011), which has been used in Chinese participants and shown satisfactory reliability and validity (Chen & Zhu, 2022). Participants rated items such as “I keep myself busy so I don’t notice my thoughts or feelings” and “I stop myself from having feelings that I don’t like” on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never true to 5 = always true. Scores were computed by averaging all item responses, where higher scores indicate a higher level of mindfulness, with Cronbach’s α was 0.81 at T1.

Control variables

Control variables include school children’ age, sex, and their parents’ educational level that is divided into four levels from 1 = equal to or below junior high school to 4 = graduate-level education or above).

Statistical analyses

The primary statistics of the main variables (i.e., means, standard deviations and correlations) were first calculated. Then we standardized the research variables in order to decrease multicollinearity as recommend by Dearing and Hamilton (2006). Based on the standardized scores of trait mindfulness at T1, participants were divided into two groups. Multi-group SEM analyses were performed with Amos 23 to test the moderating role of mindfulness in the predictive link from harsh parenting to adolescent depression via the internal working models (i.e. both the self-model and the other-model).

Results

Correlations for the main variables

As displayed in Table 1, each of the four main variables were positively correlated across the three time points, indicating that each of them was relatively stable across measurement occasions. Harsh parenting at T1 was negatively associated with both the self-model and the other-model at T1 and T2, which was also existent for the association between harsh parenting at T2 and the two internal working models at T3. Moreover, both the self-model and the other-model at T1 were negatively associated with adolescent depression measured at T2, which were also existent between the two internal working models at T2 and depression at T3. These associations provided initial support for our hypothesized model.

Table 1.

The zero-order correlations between the main variables across the three measurements.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1.HP(T1)	—
2.SM(T1)	−.29***	—
3.OM(T1)	−.21***	.18***	—
4.DE(T1)	.35***	−.38***	−.21***	—
5.HP(T2)	.58***	−.20***	−.19***	.34***	—
6.SM(T2)	−.22***	.44***	.13**	−.35***	−.20***	—
7.OM(T2)	−.13**	.06	.42***	−.17***	−.16**	.11*	—
8.DE(T2)	.32***	−.37***	−.25***	.70***	.40***	−.36***	−.16***	—
9.HP(T3)	.51***	−.20***	−.14**	.23***	.53***	−.12**	−.17***	.22***	—
10.SM(T3)	−.21***	.43***	.12**	−.38***	−.24***	.41***	.08	−.37***	−.19***	—
11.OM(T3)	−.10*	.22***	.39***	−.22***	−.15**	.14**	.29***	−.25***	−.07	.20***	—
12.DE(T3)	.31***	−.39***	−.23***	.58***	.29***	−.34***	−.12**	.67***	.41***	−.44***	−.23***
13.MF(T1)
Mean	3.62	.74	2.55	1.98	3.54	.85	2.32	2.15	3.62	.81	2.22
SD	.93	.67	.42	.71	.88	.52	.98	.58	.94	.91	.85

Note. HP = harsh parenting. SM = self-model. OM = other-model. DE = depression. ***p < .001, **p < .01, and *p < .05.

Multi-group analyses of the hypothesized model

Given that both harsh parenting and depression were multiple-item constructs, we conducted longitudinal invariance analyses across measurement waves. The metric model was not significant different from the configural model (Δχ²/Δdf = 1.52, p > .05, ΔCFI = 0.003, ΔSRMR = 0.004) and the scalar model was also not significant different from the metric model (Δχ²/Δdf = 1.461, p > .05, ΔCFI = 0.001, ΔSRMR = 0.001). These results supported the time invariance of the variables. Then following the approach of previous research (Wang & Qiao, 2022), all the participants were divided into two groups based on the mean value of the trait mindfulness scores, with those below the mean being the low mindfulness group and those above the mean being the high mindfulness group. To improve model fit, the residual variances of the variables measured at the same wave were allowed to covary. The whole model fit the data satisfactorily: χ²/df = 3.693, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.074, CFI = 0.924, SRMR = 0.062. Multi-group results demonstrated that both harsh parenting and depression were relatively stable across time, much more so than the stability of the self-model and the other-model. For adolescents with lower levels of trait mindfulness, harsh parenting negatively predicted the self-model measured about eight months later. However, harsh parenting could not predict the other-model longitudinally (ps > .05).

The self-model negatively predicted adolescent depression from T1 to T2 and from T2 to T3. The predictive effect of the other-model on adolescent depression was unstable, which was only existent from T1 to T2. For adolescents with higher levels of trait mindfulness, harsh parenting did not predict both the self-model and the other model. Therefore, only the self-model mediated the predictive effect of harsh parenting on adolescent depression among adolescents low in mindfulness. The predictive relations for high-mindfulness adolescents were displayed in Figure 2. As with the low-mindfulness adolescents, harsh parenting was still not predictive of the other model for adolescents with high mindfulness. However, harsh parenting also became nonpredictive of the self-model, which indicates the moderating role of mindfulness. Wald’s chi-square test was further conducted to evaluate which paths differed by levels of mindfulness. The results showed that the negative prediction of harsh fathering at T1 on adolescent self-model at T2 was greater for the group with low mindfulness (Wald χ² (1) = 3.938, p = .047; β _high = −0.02, p _high = 0.608 vs. β _low = −0.15, p _low = 0.009), further supported the moderating role of mindfulness.

Figure 2.

Longitudinal associations from harsh parenting to depression of adolescent high in mindfulness (standardized path coefficients). Note. Control variables have been controlled; HP = harsh parenting. SM = self-model. OM = other-model. DE = depression.

Discussion

Although attachment theories implicate the negative role of aversive parenting in the development of internal working models, no research to date has explored the predictive effect of harsh parenting on the two distinct elements of internal working models (i.e., the self-model and the other-model), as well as the moderating role of personality factors such as trait mindfulness. We found that harsh parenting negatively predicted the self-model but not the other-model and the self-model further negatively predicted adolescent depression. Moreover, these results were only existent for adolescent with lower levels of mindfulness, demonstrating that trait mindfulness may buffer the negative impact of harsh parenting on adolescents’ self-model.

We found that harsh parenting was concurrently and longitudinally associated with adolescent depression, indicating that harsh parenting is a familial risk factor for adolescent depression. Harsh parenting can enhance cognitive reactivity (Wang et al., 2022), which is a prominent vulnerability factor for depression. Researchers have proposed that children being harshly treated may repeat the episodes of maltreatment in their minds, triggering and maintaining depressive symptoms such as worry and hopelessness (Tang et al., 2018). Although much research has supported the potential contribution of harsh parenting to adolescent depression, and cognitive reactivity is often cited as a key mediator (Wang et al., 2022), the role of the two distinct internal working models as potential longitudinal mediators was only examined in our study.

Our findings indicated that harsh parenting could predict a more negative self-model but not a more negative other-model. Children suffering from parental maltreatment are more prone to self-blame (Swannell et al., 2012), which is also a risk factor for depression (Tilghman-Osborne et al., 2008). Moreover, harsh parenting destroys children’s attachment with their parents, leading children to form negative self-cognitions (Tang et al., 2018). Negative self-cognitions such as dysfunctional self-attributions and negative expectations were all risk factors for depression (Beck, 2002). According to the hopelessness theory of depression (Abramson et al., 1989), people who tend to attribute negative events to internal factors are more prone to depressive symptoms.

Attachment theories hold that insecure attachment with parents may lead children to form negative representations of their parents as unavailable and untrustworthy, which may be further generalized to interpersonal interactions outside the home (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008). However, we did not find the predictive influence of harsh parenting on adolescents’ other-model. This may be because of the role of peer interaction in adolescents’ healthy development. During adolescence, individuals spend more and more time interacting with peers compared to childhood (Brown, 2004). Therefore, adolescents’ perceptions of others are much more influenced by peers during adolescence than before, which may buffer the negative influence of harsh parenting on adolescents’ other-model. To untangle these relationships, future research could simultaneously examine the effects of adolescents’ interactions with parents and peers on adolescents’ other-model. The predictive path from the other-model to adolescent depression is also nonsignificant, which is consistent with the role of negative self-perception in the development of depression (Reis & Grenyer, 2002). Conceivably, a negative other-model may be associated with social anxiety rather than depression in that people with negative other-models may regard others as untrustworthy and thus expect negative evaluations from others, which are risk factors of social anxiety (Carleton et al., 2011). Future work can examine the relationship of internal work model with anxiety and depression to verify the above inferences. Therefore, only the self-model could function as a mediator in the longitudinal impact of harsh parenting on adolescent depression.

Harsh parenting has profound effects on a child’s development. Although at times, harsh parenting aims to correct or discipline a child’s negative behavior, it is essential to recognize that this approach is not an appropriate response to the child’s misbehavior. We found that trait mindfulness could buffer the negative impact of harsh parenting on the self-model. With higher levels of mindfulness, people are better at reflecting on the consequences of their misdeeds (Faraji et al., 2019) and others’ perspectives (Van Doesum et al., 2013). Therefore, when highly mindful adolescents think in this way, they would feel less depressive (Ma & Fang, 2019). In addition, high mindfulness prevents individuals from ruminations over distressful events (Kearns et al., 2015). One recent research study indicates that adolescents high in mindfulness are less vulnerable to peer rejection (Wang & Qi, 2023). Therefore, high mindfulness may protect adolescents of harsh parents from developing negative other-models and depressive symptoms.

One limitation needs to be pointed out. We did not distinguish fathers from mothers in gathering data of harsh parenting and so we could not differentiate the different roles of harsh fathering from harsh mothering in affecting the self-model. Despite this shortcoming, our findings have important theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, no previous research has distinguished the distinct roles of the two types of internal working models, especially with a longitudinal design. Moreover, our research established the self-model but not the other-model as one indirect linkage from harsh parenting to adolescent depression, especially the role of trait mindfulness in buffering the influence of harsh parenting on the self-model. Practically, our findings warn parents against harsh discipline tactics which may destroy children’s self-model and put them at greater risk for depression. Moreover, it would be constructive to foster students’ mindfulness because it can enhance their resilience against distressful experiences such as being harshly parented.

Footnotes

Funding

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

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 used in this study was available. The data can be obtained by emailing: xuelitao328@126.com. The materials used in this research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: xuelitao328@126.com.

ORCID iDs

Mingzhong Wang

Xueli Deng

References

Abramson

L. Y.

Metalsky

G. I.

Alloy

L. B.

(1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96(2), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.96.2.358

Ammaniti

Van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

Speranza

A. M.

Tambelli

(2000). Internal working models of attachment during late childhood and early adolescence: An exploration of stability and change. Attachment & Human Development, 2(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730010001587

Baer

R. A.

Smith

G. T.

Hopkins

Krietemeyer

Toney

(2006). Using Self-Report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504

Barcaccia

Salvati

Pallini

Baiocco

Curcio

Mancini

Vecchio

G. M.

(2020). Interpersonal forgiveness and adolescent depression. The mediational role of self-reassurance and self-criticism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(2), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01550-1

Bartholomew

(1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590072001

Beck

A. T.

(2002). Cognitive models of depression. In Leahy

R. L.

Dowd

E. T.

(Eds.), Clinical advances in cognitive psychotherapy: Theory and application (pp. 29–61). Springer.

Beshai

Parmar

(2019). Trait mindfulness may buffer against the deleterious effects of childhood abuse in recurrent depression: A retrospective exploratory study. Clinical Psychologist, 23(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12147

Bishop

S. R.

Lau

Shapiro

Carlson

Anderson

N. D.

Carmody

Segal

Z. V.

Abbey

Speca

Velting

Devins

(2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

10.

Bretherton

(1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759

11.

Bretherton

Munholland

K. A.

(2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 102–127). The Guilford Press.

12.

Broderick

P. C.

Jennings

P. A.

(2012). Mindfulness for adolescents: A promising approach to supporting emotion regulation and preventing risky behavior. New Directions for Youth Development, 2012(136), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20042

13.

Brown

B. B.

(2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 363–394). John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Carleton

R. N.

Collimore

K. C.

McCabe

R. E.

Antony

M. M.

(2011). Addressing revisions to the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale: Measuring fear of negative evaluation across anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25(6), 822–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.04.002

15.

Chen

Zhu

(2022). The roles of gratitude and mindfulness between cyberbullying perpetration and depression among children in rural China: A moderated mediation model. Health and Social Care in the Community, 30(6), e5811–e5818. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.14012

16.

Cole

D. A.

Sinclair-McBride

K. R.

Zelkowitz

Bilsk

S. A.

Roeder

Spinelli

(2016). Peer victimization and harsh parenting predict cognitive diatheses for depression in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 45(5), 668–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1004679

17.

Dearing

Hamilton

L. C.

(2006). Best practices in quantitative methods for developmentalists: V. Contemporary advances and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71(3), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00406.x

18.

Derogatis

L. R.

Melisaratos

(1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700048017

19.

Dolbier

C. L.

Haley

E. N.

Conder

Guiler

(2021). Adverse childhood experiences and adult psychopathological symptoms: The moderating role of dispositional mindfulness. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 21(3), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.06.001

20.

Dykas

M. J.

Cassidy

(2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021367

21.

Edwards

(2017). Parental attachment and child adjustment: The role of parenting stress and self-compassion. Ball State University.

22.

Faraji

Talepasand

Boogar

I. R.

(2019). Effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for child on bullying behaviors among children. International Archives of Health Sciences, 6(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.4103/iahs.iahs_54_18

23.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149

24.

Garland

E. L.

Farb

N. a. S.

Goldin

P. R.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2015). The mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Extensions, applications, and challenges at the Attention–Appraisal–Emotion Interface. Psychological Inquiry, 26(4), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2015.1092493

25.

Gilbert

K. E.

(2012). The neglected role of positive emotion in adolescent psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.05.005

26.

Greco

L. A.

Baer

R. A.

Smith

G. T.

(2011). Assessing mindfulness in children and adolescents: Development and validation of the Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM). Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 606–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022819

27.

Griffin

D. W.

Bartholomew

(1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.430

28.

Hanley

A. W.

Garland

E. L.

Tedeschi

R. G.

(2017). Relating dispositional mindfulness, contemplative practice, and positive reappraisal with posttraumatic cognitive coping, stress, and growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(5), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000208

29.

Joiner

T. E.

(2002). Depression in its interpersonal context. In Gotlib

I. H.

Hammen

C. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of depression (pp. 295–314): Guilford Press.

30.

Kearns

N. P.

Shawyer

Brooker

J. E.

Graham

A. L.

Enticott

J. C.

Martin

P. R.

Meadows

G. N.

(2015). Does rumination mediate the relationship between mindfulness and depressive relapse? Psychology and Psychotherapy, 89(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12064

31.

Keel

(2016). Socialization: Parent-child interaction in everyday life. Routledge.

32.

Dai

(2008). Adult attachment, social support, and depression level of poststroke patients. Social Behavior and Personality: International Journal, 36(10), 1341–1351. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.10.1341

33.

Fang

(2019). Adolescents’ mindfulness and psychological distress: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1358. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01358

34.

Montero-Marin

Tops

Manzanera

Piva Demarzo

M. M.

Álvarez de Mon

García-Campayo

(2015). Mindfulness, resilience, and burnout subtypes in primary care physicians: The possible mediating role of positive and negative affect. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1895. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01895

35.

Otani

Suzuki

Matsumoto

Enokido

Shirata

(2016). Effects of perceived affectionless control parenting on working models of the self and other. Psychiatry Research, 242, 315–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.05.018

36.

Raes

Dewulf

Van Heeringen

Williams

J. M. G.

(2009). Mindfulness and reduced cognitive reactivity to sad mood: Evidence from a correlational study and a non-randomized waiting list controlled study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(7), 623–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.03.007

37.

Reis

Grenyer

B. F.

(2002). Pathways to anaclitic and introjective depression. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 75(Pt 4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608302321151934

38.

Royston

(2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. STATA Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 4(3), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0400400301

39.

Rudy

B. M.

Davis

T. E.

Matthews

R. A.

(2012). The relationship among self-efficacy, negative self-referent cognitions, and social anxiety in children: A multiple mediator model. Behavior Therapy, 43(3), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.11.003

40.

Swannell

Martin

Page

Hasking

Hazell

Taylor

Protani

M. M.

(2012). Child maltreatment, subsequent non-suicidal self-injury and the mediating roles of dissociation, alexithymia and self-blame. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(7-8), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.05.005

41.

Tang

A. M.

Deng

X. L.

X. X.

Wang

M. Z.

(2018). Harsh parenting and adolescent depression: Mediation by negative self-cognition and moderation by peer acceptance. School Psychology International, 39(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034317709066

42.

Tilghman-Osborne

Cole

D. A.

Felton

J. W.

Ciesla

J. A.

(2008). Relation of guilt, shame, behavioral and characterological self-blame to depressive symptoms in adolescents over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(8), 809–842. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.8.809

43.

Tomlinson

E. R.

Yousaf

Vittersø

A. D.

Jones

(2018). Dispositional mindfulness and psychological health: A systematic review. Mindfulness, 9(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0762-6

44.

Van Doesum

N. J.

Van Lange

D. A. W.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

(2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032540

45.

Wang

Deng

(2018). Harsh parenting and academic achievement in Chinese adolescents: Potential mediating roles of effortful control and classroom engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.09.002

46.

Wang

Zhou

(2022). Cognitive reactivity and emotional dysregulation mediate the relation of paternal and maternal harsh parenting to adolescent social anxiety. Child Abuse & Neglect, 129, Article 105621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105621

47.

Wang

(2021). Paternal and maternal harsh parenting and Chinese adolescents’ social anxiety: The different mediating roles of attachment insecurity with fathers and mothers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21-22), 9904–9923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519881531

48.

Wang

(2023). Mindfulness may buffer the longitudinal influence of peer rejection on adolescents’ prosocial behavior: A cross-lagged study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(9), 3051–3064. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231167550

49.

Wang

Qiao

(2022). Parental Phubbing, self-esteem, and suicidal ideation among Chinese adolescents: A longitudinal mediational analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(11), 2248–2260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01655-9

50.

Wray-Lake

Flanagan

C. A.

(2012). Parenting practices and the development of adolescents’ social trust. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.09.006

51.

Hou

Chen

You

(2019). Peer acceptance and nonsuicidal self-injury among Chinese adolescents: A longitudinal moderated mediation model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(9), 1806–1817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01093-0