Difficulties in emotion regulation in child abuse potential: Gender differences in parents
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)
- et al.
Emotion recognition in fathers and mothers at high-risk for child physical abuse
Child Abuse & Neglect
(2011) - et al.
What hemodynamic (fNIRS), electrophysiological (EEG) and autonomic integrated measures can tell us about emotional processing
Brain and Cognition
(2015) - et al.
Dynamic prediction characteristics of the child abuse potential inventory
Child Abuse & Neglect
(2003) - et al.
Solving the puzzle of deliberate self harm: The experiential avoidance model
Behaviour Research and Therapy
(2006) - et al.
Attributions, affect, and behavior in abuse-risk mothers: A laboratory study
Child Abuse & Neglect
(2003) - et al.
Impact of child noncompliance on stress appraisals, attributions, and disciplinary choices in mothers at high and low risk for child physical abuse
Child Abuse & Neglect
(2000) Where’s Dad? A need to understand father’s role in child maltreatment
Child Abuse & Neglect
(2006)- et al.
Hostility ratings by parents at risk for child abuse: Impact of chronic and temporary schema activation
Child Abuse & Neglect
(2008) - et al.
Is meditation associated with altered brain structure? A systematic review and meta-analysis of morphometric neuroimaging in meditation practitioners
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
(2014) - et al.
Cognitive and emotional differences between abusive and non-abusive fathers
Child Abuse & Neglect
(2008)