Elsevier

Child Abuse & Neglect

Volume 106, August 2020, 104529
Child Abuse & Neglect

Difficulties in emotion regulation in child abuse potential: Gender differences in parents

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104529Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

The Social Information Processing model (SIP; Milner, 1993, 2000, 2003) suggests that emotion dysregulation can be a moderating factor in Child Abuse Potential (CAP), influencing the processes of perception, interpretation and attribution of child’s behavior.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate comprehensively emotion dysregulation in CAP and to examine gender differences between fathers and mother at risk.

Participants and setting

Participants were 186 mothers and 110 fathers of Italian pupils, aged 6–14 years (M = 9.3; SD = 1.9).

Methods

We analyzed emotion dysregulation in terms of specific dimensions (non-acceptance of emotional responses; difficulty in distracting and performing alternative behaviors; lack of confidence in the emotional regulation skills; difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed; difficulties recognizing emotion; and lack of emotional awareness) and, through correlation and regression analyses, we tested the gender differences.

Results

Overall, parents at risk showed several difficulties in the regulation, from emotional awareness/recognition to impulse control through effective coping strategies. In particular, lack of emotional awareness (β = .20, p =  .026) was a specific deficit of fathers at risk, whereas non-acceptance of emotional responses (β = .30, p =  .001) and difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors (when distressed) (β = .35, p =  .001) of mothers at risk.

Conclusions

Findings confirmed the significant role of emotional dysregulation in CAP with different profiles for fathers and mothers. Clinical implications were discussed.

Introduction

Promoting helpful and positive emotions (such as love, interest, and joy) and managing harmful and negative emotions (such as anger, sadness, and anxiety) is one of the central issue in the field of emotion regulation (e.g., Gross, 2013; Gross et al., 2006; Quoidbach et al., 2010). Emotions are thought to have different internal (i.e., to tailor cognitive style to situational demands, to facilitate decision-making, to promote learning, etc.) and social (i.e., to provide information about behavioral intentions) functions and their regulation is central to the psychological well-being of the individuals (Balzarotti, 2019; Balzarotti et al., 2016; Clore, 1994; Ekman et al., 1972).

In literature there is no consistent or agreed upon definition of emotion regulation (Putnam & Silk, 2005), but in the clinical field increasing attention is given to emotion regulation failure (or dysregulation), considering it as a potentially unifying function of many behavioral and psychological disorders (Gross & Munoz, 1995; Jazaieri, Urry, & Gross, 2013; Mennin et al., 2005). In particular, this clinical approach focuses on adaptive ways of responding to emotional distress (Gratz & Tull, 2010) and defines emotion regulation as a multidimensional construct involving (Gratz & Roemer, 2004): (a) the awareness, understanding, and acceptance of emotions; (b) the ability to engage in goal-directed behaviors (and inhibit impulsive behaviors), when experiencing negative emotions; (c) the flexible use of situationally-appropriate strategies to modulate the intensity and/or duration of emotional responses; and (d) the willingness to experience negative emotions as part of pursuing meaningful activities in life. Conversely, difficulties in any of these areas are considered as indicative of emotion regulation deficits and many individuals who engage in pathological mental states and maladaptive behaviors struggle with their negative and/or stressful emotions (Chapman et al., 2006; Whiteside, Chen, Neighbors, Hunter, Lo, & Larimer, 2007).

From a pragmatic point of view, adaptive emotion regulation essentially involves the ability to control the behaviors (by inhibiting the impulsive actions), when experiencing negative emotions (Leith & Baumeister, 1996; Linehan, 1993). In particular, in literature it has been suggested that aggressive behaviors and the perpetration of violence toward others (e.g., bullying, intimate partner violence and child physical maltreatment) may function to regulate negative emotions (Jakupcak et al., 2002). Specifically, aggressive people believe that to attack can be a good way of getting rid of their emotional distress and that aggression can be undertaken as a good strategy of affect regulation (Bushman et al., 2001).

This explanation may well describe the parenting behaviors of physically abusive parents. In particular, the Social Information Processing (SIP) model (Milner, 1993, 2000, 2003) focuses on inadequate perceptions/attributions of the child’s behaviors and emotional distress as significant risk factors for child physical abuse (e.g., Haskett et al., 2003; Dadds et al., 2003; Mammen et al., 2002; Miragoli et al., 2018; Rodriguez & Green, 1997). Many studies illustrate that maltreating parents, compared to non-maltreating and low-risk parents, fail to perceive and objectively interpret the child’s behaviors (e.g., Asla et al., 2011; Dopke & Milner, 2000; Montes et al., 2001), attributing to them a stable, hostile and provocative intent (Farc et al., 2008; Runyon et al., 2004). Therefore, for maltreating parents daily interactions with the child become highly stressful and are characterized by important negative affect (depression, anger, anxiety, etc.; Holden & Banez, 1996; Rodriguez & Green, 1997; Rodriguez & Richardson, 2007; Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991). In this relational context, basing themselves on pre-existing and dysfunctional cognitive schemas, parents at risk could be prone to respond aggressively to the perceived provocations of the child (Milner, 1993, 2000, 2003), because they believe that aggressive actions will make them feel less angry and upset (Francis & Wolfe, 2008). In maltreating parents emotional dysregulation could represent not only the inability to adjust negative and stressful emotions, but also a strategy to cope with this emotional distress, according to the social context (interactions caregiver-child; Marziali et al., 2003).

Finally, another aspect that the literature on CAP underlines to be further investigated concerns gender differences (e.g., Dubowitz, 2006; Francis & Wolfe, 2008). Overall, the studies have shown comparable risk profiles for maltreating (or at risk) fathers and mothers (e.g., Pittman & Buckley, 2006; Schaeffer et al., 2005; Smith Slep & O’Leary, 2007), even though some significant differences have also emerged (e.g., Asla, de Paul and Perez-Albeniz, 2011; Miragoli et al., 2018; Perez-Albeniz & de Paul, 2004). Although fathers have lower potential risk of becoming child physical abusers than mothers (Romero-Martínez, Figueiredo, & Moya-Albiol, 2014), research has shown that they are involved in more serious cases of maltreatment (Pittman & Buckley, 2006). Many studies illustrate that important gender differences, in terms of emotional socialization and regulation, are the basis of (functional and dysfunctional) parenting behaviors. Specifically, gender influences the methods and strategies of knowledge, expression and regulation of emotions, which are implemented daily in the interactions with the children (Cigala et al., 2018; Saarni, 1999). These gender differences are attributable to biological factors, in interaction with social and ecological conditions (Wood & Eagly, 2002). Emotion socialization and regulation may shape the parental sex-typed goals and parents may subtly alter or selectively express their parenting styles or behaviors (Grusec & Davidov, 2014). Therefore, culturally shared beliefs may drive parenting practices of knowledge, expression and regulation of emotions, and mothers are expected to be more emotionally expressive through prosocial, kind and caring parenting actions, while fathers are expected to be more pragmatic, detached and oriented toward achievement (Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Sigel et al., 1992).

On the basis of the considerations set out above, which highlight the role of emotion regulation in the development of maltreating parenting (e.g., Caliso & Milner 1994; Francis & Wolfe, 2008; Marziali et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2014), the purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess emotion regulation (considering its multidimensional nature, in terms of: non-acceptance of emotional responses; difficulties in distracting and performing alternative behaviors; lack of confidence in the emotional regulation skills; difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed; difficulties recognizing emotion; and lack of emotional awareness) in Child Abuse Potential (CAP; risk of child maltreatment) and to examine the possible gender differences between fathers and mothers at risk.

Indeed, previous studies illustrated the role of emotion regulation in CAP as a unitary construct or the effects of single dimensions (e.g., impulsivity, emotional distress, anger expression; e.g., Bushman et al., 2001; Dadds et al., 2003; Francis & Wolfe, 2008; Rodriguez & Green, 1997). To our knowledge no study has investigated all specific dimensions of emotion regulation in CAP. Furthermore, emotion regulation is always an individual phenomenon, because individuals differ both in the emotions they experience and in the way they regulate these emotions (Balzarotti et al., 2016; Gross, 1999). Therefore, the study of emotion regulatory processes cannot disregard individual differences. Furthermore, according to existing literature, which suggest that risk factors associated with physical maltreating parenting may vary in fathers or mothers (e.g., Perry et al., 1983; Pittman & Buckley, 2006; Schaeffer et al., 2005; Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991), we hypothesized gender differences in parents at risk, that could be reflected in difficulties in different dimensions of emotion regulation. To our knowledge no study has investigated gender differences in the specific dimensions of emotion regulation.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 186 mothers and 110 fathers (110 couple of parents) of Italian pupils (57.8 % boys) aged 6–14 years (M = 9.3; SD = 1.9) and recruited by some primary and secondary public schools, located in Milan. The participants were all Caucasian. A summary of the demographic characteristics of the study sample is illustrated in Table 1.

Procedure

Each parent received a package, including a consent form, a demographic information sheet (i.e., gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital status, level of

Descriptive analyses

For the total sample mean scores and standard deviations are illustrated in Table 2. Using Milner’s cut off score of 215 (1986, p. 12), in the total sample (N = 296), 5.1 % (n = 15) had a score higher than 215 and was to be considered as highly at risk of child physical maltreatment.

Gender differences were not observed with respect to the risk of child maltreatment (CAPI scores) and most of the DERS scores (non-acceptance of emotional responses; difficulty in distracting from emotion and

Discussion

The goals of this study were to comprehensively examine emotion dysregulation in CAP and gender differences in fathers and mothers. As hypothesized, our results confirmed the role of emotion dysregulation in the risk of child physical maltreatment and provided support for gender differences in fathers and mothers at risk.

Overall, both for fathers and mothers, CAP is connected to all the dimensions of emotion dysregulation (non-acceptance of emotional responses; difficulty in distracting and

References (96)

  • K.L. Gratz et al.

    Preliminary data on an acceptance-based emotion regulation group intervention for deliberate self-harm among women with borderline personality disorder

    Behavior Therapy

    (2006)
  • M.E. Haskett et al.

    Child Abuse Potential Inventory and parenting behavior: Relationships with high-risk correlates

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (1995)
  • M.E. Haskett et al.

    Child-related cognitions and affective functioning of physically abusive and comparison parents

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2003)
  • S.C. Hayes et al.

    Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (2006)
  • O.K. Mammen et al.

    Negative affect and parental aggression in child physical abuse

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2002)
  • D.S. Mennin et al.

    Preliminary evidence for an emotion dysregulation model of generalized anxiety disorder

    Behaviour Research and Therapy

    (2005)
  • J.S. Milner

    Social information processing and physical child abuse

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (1993)
  • J.S. Milner

    Assessing physical child abuse risk: The child abuse potential inventory

    Clinical Psychology Review

    (1994)
  • J.S. Milner

    Social information processing in high-risk and physically abusive parents

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2003)
  • S. Miragoli et al.

    Parents’ perception of child behavior, parenting stress, and child abuse potential: Individual and partner influences

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2018)
  • A. Perez-Albeniz et al.

    Gender differences in empathy in parents at high and low risk of child physical abuse

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2004)
  • J.F. Pittman et al.

    Comparing maltreating fathers and mothers in terms of personal distress, interpersonal functioning, and perceptions of family climate

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2006)
  • J. Quoidbach et al.

    Positive emotion regulation and well-being: Comparing the impact of eight savoring and dampening strategies

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2010)
  • C. Rodriguez et al.

    Parenting stress and anger expression as predictors of child abuse potential

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (1997)
  • A. Romero-Martínez et al.

    Childhood history of abuse and child abuse potential: The role of parent’s gender and timing of childhood abuse

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (2014)
  • K. Salters-Pedneault et al.

    The role of avoidance of emotional material in the anxiety disorders

    Applied and Preventive Psychology

    (2004)
  • E.E. Whipple et al.

    The role of parental stress in physically abusive families

    Child Abuse & Neglect

    (1991)
  • U. Whiteside et al.

    Difficulties regulating emotions: Do binge eaters have fewer strategies to modulate and tolerate negative affect?

    Eating Behaviors

    (2007)
  • R.A. Baer

    Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review

    Clinical Psychology Science and Practice

    (2003)
  • M. Balconi et al.

    Effects of technology-mediated mindfulness practice on stress: Psychophysiological and self-report measures

    Stress

    (2019)
  • S. Balzarotti

    The emotion regulation questionnaire: Factor structure and measurement invariance in an Italian sample of community dwelling adults

    Current Psychology

    (2019)
  • S. Balzarotti et al.

    Individual differences in cognitive reappraisal predict emotional experience prior to achievement situations

    Journal of Individual Differences

    (2017)
  • S. Balzarotti et al.

    Individual differences in cognitive emotion regulation: Implications for subjective and psychological well-being

    Journal of Happiness Studies

    (2016)
  • B.J. Bushman et al.

    Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • J.A. Caliso et al.

    Childhood physical abuse, childhood social support, and adult child abuse potential

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (1994)
  • E. Camisasca

    Traumi irrisolti, comportamento genitoriale atipico e attaccamento disorganizzato: una rassegna della letteratura (Unresolved trauma, atypical parenting behavior and disorganized attachment: A review of the literature)

    Maltrattamento e abuso all’infanzia

    (2008)
  • E. Camisasca et al.

    Maternal mind-mindednessas a linking mechanism between childbirth-related post-traumatic stress symptoms and parenting stress

    Health Care for Women International

    (2017)
  • A. Cigala et al.

    Processi di socializzazione emotiva familiare: modelli di funzionamento e rischio psicosociale. Un’analisi della letteratura

    Maltrattamento e abuso all’infanzia

    (2018)
  • G.C. Clore

    Why emotions are felt

  • G.L. Clore et al.

    Cognitive causes and consequences of emotion

    Handbook of social cognition

    (1994)
  • P. Ekman et al.

    Emotion in the human face: Guidelines for research and an integration of findings

    (1972)
  • D.J. Goleman et al.

    Meditation as an intervention in stress reactivity

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (1976)
  • J.J. Goodnow et al.

    Development according to parents: The nature, sources, and consequences of parents’ ideas

    (1990)
  • J.M. Gottman et al.

    The heart of parenting: How to raise an emotionally intelligent child

    (1997)
  • J.M. Gottman et al.

    Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data

    Journal of Family Psychology

    (1996)
  • K.L. Gratz et al.

    Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale

    Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

    (2004)
  • K.L. Gratz et al.

    Emotion regulation as a mechanism of change in acceptance-and mindfulness-based treatments

  • L.S. Greenberg et al.

    The Guilford clinical psychology and psychotherapy series. Emotion in psychotherapy: Affect, cognition, and the process of change

    (1987)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text