Faculty Mentor: Marissa Diener (Family & Consumer Studies, University of Utah)

 

Description

Parents’ emotional expressions toward their children have been extensively studied to understand their impact. Parenting often involves experiencing a broader range and greater intensity of both positive and negative emotions (Kerr et al., 2021). Research shows that children whose parents frequently express positive emotions tend to be happier, more socially skilled, and exhibit fewer behavioral problems, a pattern consistent across diverse racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups (Cole, 2011). Conversely, children exposed to negative emotions, such as anger, begin to recognize and react to these expressions as early as one year of age, often responding with distress (Cummings et al., 1981). Repeated exposure to such emotions has been linked to lower-quality play and exploration, a tendency to interpret neutral emotional expressions as negative (Jenkins et al., 1995), and an increased risk of conduct problems, particularly in boys (Cole et al., 2003). However, the extent to which parental negative emotion expressions pose a risk to children’s social development may be nuanced. For instance, while excessive negative emotional expression is generally associated to lower levels of sympathy, some degree of exposure to negative emotions at home may promote prosocial behaviors (Michalik et al., 2007), thus suggesting that the presence or absence of negative affect may not provide the full picture of how parents’ emotions influence children social development.

One framework for understanding parents’ emotional expressions is their role in directly socializing children’s emotional reactions, a process known as emotion-related socialization behaviors (ERSBs). Originally introduced by Eisenberg and colleagues, ERSBs encompass various parental practices, including responses to children’s emotions, parental emotional expressions, and emotion-focused discussions. These behaviors influence children’s social and emotional competencies, with their effectiveness depending on factors such as parental stress levels, regulation abilities, and overall emotionality (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Morris et al., 2007, 2017; Eisenberg, 2020). A key aspect of ERSBs is engaging in an open communication about emotions, which helps children and adolescents understand, experience, express, and manage their emotions, shaping their social behavior. This process also cultivates feelings of support and emotional security, allowing children to express emotions freely (Eisenberg et al., 1998). In general, supportive ERSBs, such as comforting reactions to children’s emotions, positive emotional expressions, and sensitivity during emotional discussions, are particularly effective in fostering healthy emotional development and adaptive social responses (Morris et al., 2007; Hurrell et al., 2015; Edler & Valentino, 2024). In contrast, unsupportive ERSBs, such as punitive reactions, negative emotional expressions, and dismissive attitudes during emotional discussions, can hinder emotional development and contribute to adverse outcomes, including higher levels of internalizing and externalizing problems in children. Moreover, such unsupportive ERSBs have been linked to long-term effects, such as increased trait anxiety in adulthood (Cabecinha- Alati et al., 2019; Edler & Valentino, 2024; Frogley et al., 2023; Hurrell et al., 2015).

With a growing body of literature demonstrating the link between parental emotion socialization and children’s emotional competence, there is increasing interest in identifying the determinants of parental emotion socialization behaviors. Research suggests that parents’ own ER skills, anxiety, and stress significantly shape their ERSBs. One study found that maternal anxiety uniquely predicted distress reactions, punitive responses, and minimizing responses (Hofmann, 2007). The tendency to minimize a child’s emotional expression in response to anxiety can, in part, be explained by parents’ efforts to avoid distress associated with emotional experiences (Mennin et al., 2005). This finding aligns with research contextualizing parental anxiety within the association between children’s negative affect and parents’ discouragement of emotional expression, a pattern indicative of unsupportive ERSBs (Arellano et al., 2018). Similarly, another study found that maternal anxiety predicted distress reactions and punitive responses to child worry, reinforcing the notion that parental anxiety impacts supportiveness of ERSBs (Kiel et al., 2020).

Parental stress and perceived stress also significantly influence parents’ capacity to support their children’s emotional development. Parents who reported higher levels of parenting stress were more likely to endorse parent-centered emotion socialization beliefs, namely, the expectation that children should regulate their negative emotions independently, and to engage in unsupportive ERSBs (Nelson et al., 2023). Similarly, mothers who expressed high dissatisfaction with their parent-child relationship and had less inhibited children reported the lowest levels of supportive responses to their children’s expressions of fear. Other studies, while not exclusively focused on emotion socialization, have also found that parenting stress impacts perceived parenting behaviors, such as perceived acceptance and psychological control. Specifically, mothers were more affected by stress attributed to their children, whereas fathers were more influenced by their own distress and relationship-related stress (Putnick et al., 2008). Notably, another study found that parents’ general perceived life stress, distinct from parenting-specific stress, was associated with increased negative affect and reduced involvement with their children. Interestingly, while perceived stress and parenting stress were significantly correlated, only perceived stress predicted reduced parental supportiveness, suggesting that these stress domains may have distinct influences on supportiveness in parenting (Barreto et al., 2024).

When parents struggle to regulate their own emotional responses (particularly under conditions of high stress) their ability to parent effectively and support their children’s emotional development may be compromised (Havighurst & Kehoe, 2017). Research has shown that stronger parental emotion regulation (ER) skills and greater adaptiveness in ER strategy are associated with more supportive ERSBs. For instance, mothers of toddlers (aged 12–38 months) who demonstrated higher cognitive reappraisal abilities were more likely to engage in emotion- focused and problem-focused responses to their children’s emotions (Arikan & Kumru, 2023). Other similar studies, though not specific to emotion socialization, have reported comparable findings. Lee et al. (2023) found that maternal difficulties in trait ER were moderately associated with lower levels of supportive responses to preschoolers’ (aged 36–60 months) negative emotions. Likewise, among mothers of children in middle childhood (8–12 years), frequent use of cognitive reappraisal and higher ER skills were linked to increased use of supportive strategies, such as helping children employ emotion- and problem-focused coping, and decreased use of unsupportive responses, even when controlling for maternal personality traits (Cabecinha- Alati et al., 2020). Conversely, the use of expressive suppression, defined as the inhibition of emotional expression and linked to greater negative affect and diminished positive affect (Gross & John, 2003), has been associated with reduced supportive and increased unsupportive responses to children’s negative emotions (Hughes & Gullone, 2010; Meyer et al., 2014).

Current Study

Current study aims to examine parents’ ER capacities, stress levels, and anxieties as predictors of their supportive or unsupportive ERSBs towards children in an ecologically valid setting: their home environment. This study is unique because most previous studies on ERSBs have have relied on questionnaires based on hypothetical scenarios (e.g., Coping with Children’s/Toddler’s Negative Emotions Scales; CCNES) derived from recalled experiences. In contrast, this study utilizes Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA), which allows for the examination of real-time emotional experiences rather than retrospective accounts. EMA is considered a valuable tool for capturing nuanced variations in parents’ emotional experiences within caregiving contexts (Park et al., 2022). By assessing emotions as they naturally occur, EMA enhances the ecological validity of research findings and provides a more interactive and dynamic perspective on the mother-toddler relationship. We expect this approach to offer greater generalizability of the associations that may foster or hinder supportive and unsupportive emotion socialization behaviors, compared to traditional lab-based studies. By focusing on non- external parental traits, we aim to provide a clearer understanding of the internal mechanisms that drive positive parenting efforts.

Hypotheses

• Greater supportiveness of ERSB will be associated with increased expression of positive emotions (i.e., joy).
• Lower supportiveness of ERSB will be associated with increased expression of negative emotions (e.g., anger).
• Lower levels of stress and anxiety will be associated with greater supportiveness of ERSBs.
• Higher levels of stress and anxiety will be associated with lower supportiveness of ERSBs.
• Poor ER capacities and greater use of expressive suppression will be associated with lower supportiveness of ERSBs.
• Strong ER capacities and greater use of cognitive reappraisal will be associated with greater supportiveness of ERSBs.

Participants

The final sample consisted of 158 valid participants, all of whom completed the initial entry survey. While some daily EMA prompts were missed throughout the study period, all participants provided at least partial data for the EMA phase.

The majority of respondents were biological mothers (n = 154) and biological fathers (n = 2), with two additional caregivers identifying as a stepmother (n = 1) and an aunt (n = 1). The average age of mothers was 31.16 years (SD = 5.75), and the average age of fathers was 32.49 years (SD = 6.37). Participants reported having an average of 2.04 children (SD = 1.12). The focal children in the study were between the ages of 1 and 6 years. Specifically, 56.3% were between 1–3 years, 42.4% were between 4–6 years, and 1.3% were outside the target range. Of the focal children, 57% were female and 43% were male. Parents’ ethnicity and household income are listed on the table below:

Table 1.Demographic characteristics of participating parents

Mothers’ Race/Ethnicity (%)
White/non-Hispanic	75.30

Hispanic/Latino/Latinx	10.80
Asian	4.40
African American	3.20
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	1.90
American Indian or Alaskan Native	1.90
Other	2.50
Fathers’ Race/Ethnicity (%)
White/non-Hispanic	71.50
Hispanic/Latino/Latinx	12.0
Asian	3.80
African American	5.10
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	1.90
American Indian or Alaskan Native	0.60
Other	1.3
Not reported or multiple	3.80
Household income (%)
$0–24,999	9.50
$25,000–49,999	18.40
$50,000–74,999	22.80
$75,000–99,999	16.50
$100,000–124,999	15.20
$125,000–149,999	6.30
$150,000 or more	11.4

Procedure

Participants were recruited through multiple channels, including the University of Utah research study locator (a public-facing website where research opportunities are posted) and snowball sampling methods. Interested parents were directed to an online screening survey, which included multiple questions designed to identify and exclude fraudulent responses.

Eligible participants were parents of children aged 1 to 6 years. Those who passed the screening were contacted by research staff and provided with detailed study information. Verbal consent was obtained over the phone, and participants also viewed an electronic consent form before beginning the study. By proceeding with participation, parents provided implied consent in accordance with procedures approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board (IRB #00165890).

The study consisted of a 14-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) protocol. Participants received a link to an online survey hosted on Qualtrics. Upon entry, they completed a brief baseline questionnaire and began the first 7-day EMA phase, during which they received twice- daily prompts on their smartphones to report on their emotional experiences and expressions in interactions with their child.

At the end of the first 7-day period, participants completed a weekly survey (Weekly 1), after which they proceeded to the second 7-day EMA phase. This was followed by a second weekly survey (Weekly 2), completing the 14-day EMA sequence.

In total, the current study analyzes 4,092 EMA survey responses from 158 parents, each of whom completed twice-daily EMAs over a 14-day period regarding their emotional experiences and expressions toward their young children.

Measures Variables

Emotion Expression

From the EMA survey, the expression of joy and anger was measured as a dummy variable (0 = not expressed, 1 = expressed).

Anxiety

The GAD-2 consists of two items (“Feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge” and “Not being able to stop or control worrying”) rated on a 4-point scale (0=“Not at all” to 3=“Nearly every day”). It is a very brief screener for anxiety (α ≈ 0.80, r = 0.81; Seens et al., 2022)

Parenting Stress

The Parenting Stress Index–Short Form (PSI-SF) was used, following a 5-factor model (Faldowski, 2009). In this model, two narrower subscales were examined: a 5-item Parenting Stress subscale, capturing parents’ negative perceptions of their child’s behavior (similar to the Difficult Child domain; α ≈ .55), and a 6-item Dyadic Interaction subscale, capturing stress within the parent–child relationship (similar to the PCDI domain; α ≈ .59). A subset of items from the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), designed to measure individuals’ perceived stress in various situations, was used (Cohen et al., 1983).

Emotion Regulation

Emotion regulation strategies were measured using the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003), a 10-item self-report measure assessing individuals’ habitual use of two strategies: cognitive reappraisal (6 items; altering one’s thoughts to change the emotional impact of a situation) and expressive suppression (4 items; inhibiting the outward expression of emotions). From the EMA survey, participants reported the extent to which they tried to hide their emotions (i.e., suppressivity) using a slider scale (from 0 to 100).

Supportiveness of Emotion-Related Socialization Behavior

From the EMA survey, participants reported, for a specific emotion expressed to their child, the extent to which they (1) tried to teach or guide their child (teaching effort), (2) controlled their emotional expression (control of emotion expression), and (3) expressed their emotions automatically or unintentionally (automaticity of emotion expression), each assessed using a slider scale (from 0 to 100). Additionally, participants indicated the presence or absence of teaching intent for a specific emotion expressed to their child, measured as a binary variable (0 = not expressed, 1 = expressed).

Analysis Plan

Indices

The creation of indices will involve two steps: an initial exploratory analysis followed by a predefined analysis. In the exploratory step, individual EMA responses will be examined to identify patterns of associations among variables. To create the index of supportiveness of ERSBs, variables that are significantly correlated with the teaching effort scale will be combined and averaged to form a composite score. Following this, EMA data collected over the 14-day period will be aggregated to generate a single score representing each participant. Additionally, the mean score of the dummy-coded teaching intent variable will be calculated as a separate indicator of supportiveness of ERSBs. In the predefined analysis, composite scores will be created for the utilization of expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal strategies from the ERQ, overall parental anxiety from the GAD-2, and overall parenting stress from the PSI-SF and PSS. Internal consistency for each scale will be assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.

Stopping Plan

Analyses will be conducted with whatever data are available as of the submission of this preregistration. Estimated sample size is expected to be 158 participants and 4,092 EMA survey responses.

Excluded Data

Participants who dropped out of the study, did not complete entry survey and/or first weekly survey, were not eligible for the study (with regards to children age), or completed less than 5 EMA surveys were excluded.

Missing Data

The sample size will be based on the availability of the following: caregiver ERQ data, caregiver PSI data, caregiver GAD-2 anxiety data, and caregiver EMA socialization effort data. Missing data will be handled using listwise deletion.

Inference Criteria

For all intended analyses, we will use p < .05 (two-tailed test) criteria for determining if the overall associations suggest that the results are significantly different from those expected if the null hypotheses were correct.

Statistical Models

Preliminary analyses will be conducted to examine the descriptive statistics and assess the correlations among all focal variables. Then, to assess the hypotheses, we will conduct a linear regression with parenting and perceived stress, anxiety, and ER as predictors and their ERSBs as outcomes. Additionally, we will analyze if the mean score of the teaching intent variable will be associated with frequencies of positive and negative emotion expressions. Descriptive variables including child age, child gender, caregivers’ ethnicity, and household income will be explored as potential covariates. If these variables show significant associations with focal variables in preliminary analyses, they will be included as controls in hypothesis- testing models.

Results

During expressions of joy, cognitive reappraisal was weakly correlated with both automaticity (r = .252, p < .01) and control of emotion expression (r = .193, p < .05), while expressive suppression was not significantly associated with any in-the-moment ER measure.

Discussion

The results indicated that trait-level parental anxiety, parenting stress, perceived stress, and emotion regulation strategies were not associated with in-the-moment supportiveness of ERSBs, whereas in-the-moment emotion regulation capacities significantly predicted supportiveness. Although the null findings for trait-level measures were unexpected, the contrasting patterns between the pre-EMA and EMA measures may have important implications. Specifically, these findings suggest that momentary, context-bound expressive tendencies, such as automaticity, control, and efforts to hide emotions, may serve as more proximal and influential predictors of how caregivers respond emotionally in real-time interactions.

When expressing anger, greater automaticity (β = 0.39) and stronger efforts to hide the emotion (β = 0.205) positively predicted caregivers’ attempts to explain the emotion to their child. These findings contradict our initial prediction that lower regulatory capacity and a tendency toward expressive suppression would correspond with less supportive ERSBs. One possible explanation is that caregivers who experience less controlled, more automatic emotional responses, or who actively suppress their emotions, may compensate by providing additional verbal guidance to help their child understand the emotional context. Such caregivers might be more conscious of the potential impact of their emotional displays and attempt to offset this through explanation.

Another finding revealed a positive relationship between caregivers’ efforts to explain the emotion expressed and the automaticity of joyful expression (β = 0.325), controllability of the expression (β = 0.222), and the effort to hide the emotion (β = 0.350). These results suggest that, within caregiving contexts, emotion regulation efforts such as controlling or hiding emotions may not indicate emotional disengagement or maladaptive suppression. Rather, they could reflect intentional, socially attuned regulation strategies, particularly when accompanied by greater efforts to explain emotions to the child. This pattern implies that ERSBs may be more closely linked to context-sensitive expressive behaviors than to global trait-level ER measures, and that suppressive behaviors in caregiving may sometimes represent deliberate regulatory efforts rather than emotional avoidance.

Limitations

To better understand why the findings were confined to momentary measures and did not generalize to trait-level characteristics, several methodological limitations should be considered. First, relying on a single-item measure for ERSB, specifically “how much did you try to explain,” may not fully capture the broader constructs of supportiveness and emotion socialization. This item could reflect caregivers’ momentary need to explain a specific emotional expression rather than indicating a stable, generalizable pattern of supportive socialization. Furthermore, it is unclear whether such intentions to explain align with the concept of socialization efforts commonly measured by tools such as the CCNES, raising concerns about construct validity.

In addition, averaging 28 EMA signals collected over two weeks may present within- person reliability issues. Each EMA prompt likely captures varying situational contexts and momentary needs, which are not controlled for in this design. As a result, the aggregated scores may not accurately reflect a consistent tendency toward supportiveness or socialization at the trait level.

Finally, subjective self-reports of “being supportive” were not objectively coded or evaluated against a standardized framework. This could introduce individual differences in how caregivers interpret and assess their own supportiveness, creating potential across-person reliability concerns. These limitations regarding the generalizability and consistency of EMA responses may help explain why trait-level characteristics were not associated with EMA-derived measures, while EMA responses themselves were significantly related.

Implications for future research

This study contributes to the existing literature on ERSBs and parenting by utilizing EMA to examine which parental psychological factors, both at the trait level and in the moment, influence caregivers’ (primarily mothers’) real-time emotional experiences and socialization efforts. The findings reveal significant associations between momentary regulatory efforts and emotional socialization behaviors; however, these associations did not extend to trait-level regulatory capacity, anxiety, or stress.

On one hand, these results suggest that emotion-related socialization behaviors may be shaped more by caregivers’ immediate emotional states and regulatory efforts within specific parent–child interactions, rather than by their broader, trait-like emotion regulation tendencies across contexts. This accentuates the importance of fostering moment-to-moment regulatory skills and strategies to support positive parent–child relationships. On the other hand, these findings may highlight the limited generalizability of momentary measures across broader contexts. This understanding derives from the notion that, while momentary assessments capture immediate emotional processes, they may not reflect stable patterns across different situations. Conversely, this also could mean that trait-level measures, such as the ERQ, are designed to assess general tendencies but may fail to capture the situational goals or social motivations that uniquely shape parental emotion regulation in caregiving interactions.

Future research employing EMA methods might address these implications in two key ways. First, studies could refine their designs by controlling for the circumstances under which participants respond, improving aggregation methods, diversifying items to more accurately capture key constructs, and applying more objective standards for evaluating emotional experiences and regulatory efforts. Second, researchers can leverage the strengths of EMA in capturing contextual factors by focusing more deliberately on specific caregiving contexts. This approach would enable more nuanced investigations into parent–child interactions that extend beyond what traditional survey methods can offer.

Bibliography

Arellano, B., Gramszlo, C., & Woodruff-Borden, J. (2018). Parental reactions to children’s negative affect: The moderating role of parental GAD. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 53, 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2017.10.006

Arikan, G., & Kumru, A. (2023). A person-based approach to emotion socialization in toddlerhood: Individual differences in maternal emotion regulation, mental-health and parental sense of competence. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 13606–13610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40850-x

Barreto, S., Wang, S., Guarnaccia, U., Fogelman, N., Sinha, R., & Chaplin, T. M. (2024). Parent stress and observed parenting in a parent-child interaction task in a predominantly minority and low-income sample. Archives of Pediatrics (Lisle), 9(1), 308. https://doi.org/10.29011/2575-825x.100308​:contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}

Berger, A., Kofman, O., Livneh, U., & Henik, A. (2007). Multidisciplinary perspectives on attention and the development of self-regulation. Prog- ress in Neurobiology, 82, 256 –286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .pneurobio.2007.06.004

Bertie, L.-A., Johnston, K., & Lill, S. (2021). Parental emotion socialisation of young children and the mediating role of emotion regulation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1884001

Bridgett, D. J., Burt, N. M., Edwards, E. S., Deater-Deckard, K., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Intergenerational Transmission of Self-Regulation: A Multidisciplinary Review and Integrative Conceptual Framework. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 602–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038662

Cabecinha-Alati, S., O’Hara, G., Kennedy, H., & Montreuil, T. (2020). Parental Emotion Socialization and Adult Outcomes: The Relationships Between Parental Supportiveness, Emotion Regulation, and Trait Anxiety. Journal of Adult Development, 27(4), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-019-09340-1

Cabecinha‐Alati, S., Malikin, H., & Montreuil, T. C. (2020). Emotion Regulation and Personality as Predictors of Mothers’ Emotion Socialization Practices. Family Relations, 69(5), 1055–1072. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12501

Cao, M., Powers, A., Cross, D., Bradley, B., & Jovanovic, T. (2017). Maternal emotion dysregulation, parenting stress, and child physiological anxiety during dark‐enhanced startle. Developmental Psychobiology, 59(8), 1021–1030. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21574

Cisler, J. M., & Olatunji, B. O. (2012). Emotion Regulation and Anxiety Disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 14(3), 182–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-012-0262-2

Coelho, H. F., Murray, L., Royal-Lawson, M., & Cooper, P. J. (2011). Antenatal anxiety disorder as a predictor of postnatal depression: A longitudinal study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 129(1), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.08.002

Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion Regulation as a Scientific Construct: Methodological Challenges and Directions for Child Development Research. Child Development, 75(2), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00673.x

Cole, P. M., Teti, L. O., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2003). Mutual emotion regulation and the stability of conduct problems be- tween preschool and early school age. Development and Psycho- pathology, 15, 1–18. doi:10.1017/S0954579403000014

Cornish, A. M., McMahon, C. A., Ungerer, J. A., Barnett, B., Kowalenko, N., & Tennant, C. (2006). Maternal depression and the experience of parenting in the second postnatal year. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 24(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830600644021

Crandall, A., Deater-Deckard, K., & Riley, A. W. (2015). Maternal emotion and cognitive control capacities and parenting: A conceptual framework. Developmental Review, 36, 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.01.004

Cummings, E. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1981). Young children’s responses to expressions of anger and affection by others in the family. Child Development, 52, 1274–1282. doi:10.2307/1129516

Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Filion, D. L. (2016). The Electrodermal System. In Handbook of Psychophysiology (pp. 217–243). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415782.010

Deater-Deckard, K., Sewell, M. D., Petrill, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (2010). Maternal Working Memory and Reactive Negativity in Parenting. Psychological Science, 21(1), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354073

Dryman, M. T., & Heimberg, R. G. (2018). Emotion regulation in social anxiety and depression: a systematic review of expressive suppression and cognitive reappraisal. Clinical Psychology Review, 65, 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.004

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241-273. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Eggum, N. D., Cannon, T., NolenHoeksema, S., & Widiger, T. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208

Epifanio, M. S., Genna, V., De Luca, C., Roccella, M., & La Grutta, S. (2015). Paternal and maternal transition to parenthood: The risk of postpartum depression and parenting stress. Pediatric Reports, 7(2), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.4081/pr.2015.5872

Feldman, R. (2007). Parent-infant synchrony: Biological foundations and developmental outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 340–345.

Fowles, D. C. (2024). Arousal, Gray’s theory of anxiety, and the etiology of psychopathy. Biological Psychology, 188, 108772–108772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2024.108772

Frogley, W. J., King, G. L., & Westrupp, E. M. (2023). Profiles of parent emotion socialization: Longitudinal associations with child emotional outcomes. Mental Health & Prevention, 30, 200274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2023.200274

Gordon, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J. F., & Feldman, R. (2010). Oxytocin and the development of parenting in humans. Biological Psychiatry, 68(4), 377–382.

Green, S., & Baker, B. (2011). Parents’ emotion expression as a predictor of child’s social competence: children with or without intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 55(3), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01363.x

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

Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion Regulation: Conceptual Foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). The Guilford Press.

Haskett, M. E., Smith Scott, S., & Sabourin Ward, C. (2004). Subgroups of Physically Abusive Parents Based on Cluster Analysis of Parenting Behavior and Affect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(4), 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.74.4.436

Havighurst, S. S., Kehoe, C. E. (2017). The Role of Parental Emotion Regulation in Parent Emotion Socialization: Implications for Intervention. In Parental Stress and Early Child Development: Adaptive and Maladaptive Outcomes (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55376-4

Hughes, E. K., & Gullone, E. (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

Hurrell, K. E., Hudson, J. L., & Schniering, C. A. (2015). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relationships with emotion regulation in children with an anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 29, 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.10.008

Iswinarti, Jadmiko, G. T., & Hasanati, N. (2020). Cognitive emotion regulation: Its relationship to parenting stress. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(2), 204–222.

Jenkins, J. M., Franco, F., Dolins, F., & Sewell, A. (1995). Toddlers’ reactions to negative emotion displays: Forming models of relationships. Infant Behavior and Development, 18, 273–281. doi:10.1016/0163-6383(95)90016-0

Kerr, M. L., Rasmussen, H. F., Buttitta, K. V., Smiley, P. A., Borelli, J. L., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2021). Exploring the Complexity of Mothers’ Real-Time Emotions While Caregiving. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 21(3), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000719

Kiel, E. J., Price, N. N., & Buss, K. A. (2021). Maternal anxiety and toddler inhibited temperament predict maternal socialization of worry. Social Development (Oxford, England), 30(1), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12476

Kim, P., Leckman, J. F., Mayes, L. C., Newman, M. A., Feldman, R., & Swain, J. E. (2010). Perceived quality of maternal care in childhood and structure and function of mothers’ brain. Developmental Science, 13(4), 662–673.

Lee, A. H., O’Brien, J. R., Binion, G., Lewis, J. K., & Zalewski, M. (2023). Supportive Emotion Socialization Mitigates Risk Between Maternal Emotion Regulation Difficulties and Preschooler Emotion Regulation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32(3), 824–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02404-z

Leerkes, E. M., Supple, A. J., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., Haltigan, J. D., Wong, M. S., & Fortuna, K. (2015). Antecedents of Maternal Sensitivity During Distressing Tasks: Integrating Attachment, Social Information Processing, and Psychobiological Perspectives. Child Development, 86(1), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12288

McPherson, A. V., Lewis, K. M., Lynn, A. E., Haskett, M. E., & Behrend, T. S. (2009). Predictors of Parenting Stress for Abusive and Nonabusive Mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9207-0

Mennin DS, Heimberg RG, Turk CL, Fresco DM. Preliminary evidence for an emotion dysregulation model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2005;43(10):1281–310.

Meyer, S., Raikes, H. A., Virmani, E. A., Waters, S., & Thompson, R. A. (2014). Parent emotion representations and the socialization of emotion regulation in the family. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413519014

Mennin, D. S., Heimberg, R. G., Turk, C. L., & Fresco, D. M. (2005). Preliminary evidence for an emotion dysregulation model of generalized anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(10), 1281–1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.08.008

Michalik N. M., Eisenberg N., Spinrad T. L., Ladd B., Thompson M. & Valiente C. (2007) Longitudinal rela- tions among parental emotional expressivity and sympa- thy and prosocial behavior in adolescence. Social Development 16, 286–309.

Mochcovitch, M. D., da Rocha Freire, R. C., Garcia, R. F., & Nardi, A. E. (2014). A systematic review of fMRI studies in generalized anxiety disorder: Evaluating its neural and cognitive basis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 167, 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.06.041

Morris, A. S., Criss, M. M., Silk, J. S., & Houltberg, B. J. (2017). The Impact of Parenting on Emotion Regulation During Childhood and Adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 11(4), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12238

Nelson, J. A., Aguas, A. B., & Katz, J. M. (2024). “Work through it on your own”: parent‐ centered emotion socialization beliefs and parenting stress. Family Process, 63(3), 1521– 1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12939

Pereira, A. I., Barros, L., Mendonça, D., & Muris, P. (2014). The Relationships Among Parental Anxiety, Parenting, and Children’s Anxiety: The Mediating Effects of Children’s Cognitive Vulnerabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9767-5

Porges, S. W., Doussard-Roosevelt, J. A., & Maiti, A. K. (1994). Vagal tone and the physiological regulation of emotion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb01283.x

Premo, J. E., Kiel, E. J., & Fiese, B. H. (2016). Maternal Depressive Symptoms, Toddler Emotion Regulation, and Subsequent Emotion Socialization. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(2), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000165

Root, A. E., & Rasmussen, K. E. (2015). Maternal emotion socialization: The contribution of inhibited behaviour and mothers’ dissatisfaction with the parent–child relationship. Infant and Child Development, 24(5), 501–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1955

Roskam, I., Gross, James J, & Mikolajczak, Moïra. (2024). Emotion regulation and parenting (First edition..).

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

Sidor, A., Kunz, E., Schweyer, D., Eickhorst, A., & Cierpka, M. (2011). Links between maternal postpartum depressive symptoms, maternal distress, infant gender and sensitivity in a high-risk population. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 5(1), 7–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-5-7

Speck, B., Isenhour, J., Gao, M., Conradt, E., Crowell, S. E., & Raby, K. L. (2023). Pregnant Women’s Autonomic Responses to an Infant Cry Predict Young Infants’ Behavioral Avoidance During the Still-Face Paradigm. Developmental Psychology, 59(12), 2237– 2247. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001632

Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 59(2–3), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb01276.x.

Vismara, L., Rollè, L., Agostini, F., Sechi, C., Fenaroli, V., Molgora, S., Neri, E., Prino, L. E., Odorisio, F., Trovato, A., Polizzi, C., Brustia, P., Lucarelli, L., Monti, F., Saita, E., & Tambelli, R. (2016). Perinatal parenting stress, anxiety, and depression outcomes in first- time mothers and fathers: A 3-to 6-months postpartum follow-up study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 938–938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00938

Wee, K. Y., Skouteris, H., Richardson, B., Mcphie, S., and Hill, B. (2015). The inter-relationship between depressive, anxiety and stress symptoms in fathers during the antenatal period. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 33, 359–373. doi: 10.1080/02646838.2015.1048199

Wirtz, C. M., Hofmann, S. G., Riper, H., & Berking, M. (2014). Emotion regulation predicts anxiety over a five-year interval: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Research Article: Emotion Regulation and Anxiety. Depression and Anxiety, 31(1), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22198

Zimmermann, P., & Iwanski, A. (2014). Emotion regulation from early adolescence to emerging adulthood and middle adulthood: Age differences, gender differences, and emotion- specific developmental variations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413515405

Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Hendricks, C., Painter, K. M., Suwalsky, J. T. D., & Collins, W. A. (2008). Parenting stress, perceived parenting behaviors, and adolescent self- concept in European American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(5), 752–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013177PMC