Next Article in Journal
Factors Affecting Balance Performance in Adolescents
Next Article in Special Issue
Validity, Reliability, Accessibility, and Applicability of Young Children’s Developmental Screening and Assessment Tools across Different Demographics: A Realist Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Use of Non-Prescribed Medicines in Infants from Birth to Six Months in Rural Areas of Polokwane Municipality—Limpopo Province, South Africa
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Factorial Structure, Psychometric Properties and Sensitivity to Change of the Distress Tolerance Scale for Children with Emotional Disorders
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/children11040435
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Parenting and Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties in a General Population Sample of Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Emotional Dysregulation

by
Martina Smorti
1,
Annarita Milone
2,*,
Luisa Fanciullacci
1,
Alessia Ciaravolo
1 and
Carmen Berrocal
1,3
1
Department of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy
2
IRCCS Fondazione Stella Maris, Scientific Institute of Child Neurology and Psychiatry, 56128 Calambrone, Italy
3
International Lab of Clinical Measurements, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini, 6, 50139 Florence, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2024, 11(4), 435; https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040435
Submission received: 14 February 2024 / Revised: 14 March 2024 / Accepted: 28 March 2024 / Published: 5 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Emotional and Behavioral Problems in Children and Adolescents: Assessment and Intervention)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Research has shown that both parenting and emotional dysregulation are associated with mental health outcomes in youth. This cross-sectional research was developed to replicate these noted findings and explore the mediating role of emotional dysregulation to explain the relationship between parenting and emotional and behavioral difficulties (internalizing and externalizing problems) in adolescents. A total of 104 adolescents (61.5% females; M = 15.62 yrs., SD = 1.38) participated in the study. Participants completed the Parental Bonding Instrument (measuring care, promotion of autonomy, and overprotection) referring to both the mother and father, the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, and the Youth Self-Report. The results showed that difficulties in emotion regulation fully mediated the relationship between overprotection (in both parents) and low maternal care with internalizing problems, on the one hand, and the relationship between maternal overprotection and low care (in both parents) with externalizing problems, on the other hand. Furthermore, emotional dysregulation partially mediated the effect of paternal care on internalizing problems. These findings help to clarify one of the mechanisms through which parenting can affect mental health in youth. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed.

1. Introduction

Adolescence, the transitional period between childhood and young adulthood, is a natural phase of learning and adjustment [1], in which individuals need to explore their identity to reach a subjective feeling of self-sameness across different times and contexts [2,3]. During this development phase, individuals are called to rebalance their social relationships by achieving a growing independence from their parents, while integrating themselves into the peer group [4]. All these changes can constitute stressors that lead adolescents to experience more intense and frequent negative emotions and higher mood swings [5,6], which in turn may increase the risk of poor mental health outcomes in terms of emotional/behavioral difficulties up to internalizing (i.e., anxiety/depression, somatic complaints, and withdrawn) and externalizing (i.e., delinquent and aggressive behavior) disorders [7,8]. Both an impairment in emotion regulation strategies and parenting have emerged as important predictors of emotional and behavioral difficulties among adolescents.
Emotion regulation is usually defined as an automatic process involved in “monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal features, to accomplish one’s goals” [9] (pp. 27–28). Emotion regulation can occur in different ways on the cognitive (e.g., attempting to solve the problem or ruminating on the causes of emotions) or behavioral (e.g., attempting to completely distract oneself from the emotion or conversely adopting a withdrawal mode) level [10,11]. When they have to deal with unpleasant feelings and thoughts, individuals with emotional self-regulation abilities tend to use reappraisal, problem-solving, and acceptance, which are considered adaptive strategies since they increase emotional well-being [12]. On the contrary, individuals with a deficit in emotional self-regulation may be prone, when they experience unpleasant emotions, to use more maladaptive strategies such as rumination (that increases the risk for internalizing problems), avoidance, or impulsive and aggressive behavior (increasing the risk for externalizing problems) [13,14,15,16,17].
On the other hand, the family is one of the main daily living contexts of adolescents and, even though further longitudinal and prospective evidence is needed [18], the literature suggests that experienced parenting practices can influence the development of emotional and behavioral difficulties in terms of internalizing and externalizing disorders [19,20,21,22]. Parenting has been defined by three main dimensions as follows: care, overprotection, and promotion of autonomy [23]. Care refers to the parental ability to understand the emotional needs of their offspring [23,24]. It reflects a continuum from supportive, warm, affectionate, and empathetic style (high levels of care) to cold, neglectful, and unresponsive parental style (low levels) [23,24,25,26].
Overprotection refers to the measure in which parents tend to make the offspring dependent [23,27]. High levels of overprotection describe excessive levels of protection, considering the developmental level of the child up to parental intrusion. On the other hand, low levels of overprotection refer to the appropriate parental protection expressed by the attitudes of guiding offspring’s behavior toward acceptable standards. Finally, the promotion of autonomy regards the degree of parental support to autonomous choice by offspring [25]. High levels in this factor define the parental encouragement of the offspring’s possibility to decide in autonomy and a respectful attitude toward the child’s independence, while low levels indicate the discouragement of autonomous choice by offspring.
Parenting characterized by high care, high promotion of autonomy, and low overprotection tends to promote higher psychological well-being [28] and lower externalizing and internalizing problems [19,29,30,31,32]. On the other hand, high parental overprotection and low care and autonomy promotion are associated with emotional problems and internalizing disorders during adolescence [26,31,32,33,34,35,36].
Although parenting seems to be an important predictor of mental health outcomes in youth, further research is needed to better understand the processes through which parenting may affect mental health. Several factors have been proposed as mediators between parenting and emotional/behavioral problems such as low self-esteem [37], attentional deficits [38], and difficulties in emotion recognition in terms of alexithymia [36,37,38,39]. For example, previous related work on clinical populations showed that overprotective and careless parenting increases adolescents’ difficulty in identifying and describing emotional experiences due to an elevated level of alexithymia increasing internalizing problems [36,39].
Thus, warm parenting characterized by emotional validation of shared emotions by adolescents seems to promote the development of adequate emotional self-regulation from childhood to adulthood [40,41,42], which in turn may foster high psychological and social well-being in offspring [43,44,45]. On the contrary, a cold, neglectful, unresponsive, or invalidating parental style can increase youth’s distress and teach offspring that emotions are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by their parents, thus limiting the opportunities to learn more effective ways of dealing with unpleasant emotions [46]. Moreover, parenting practices associated with control, intrusion, and over-protection predict emotion dysregulation both in children and adolescents [47,48,49,50,51].
Overall, the previous literature showed that (a) both emotional regulation deficits and parenting predict adolescents’ emotional and behavioral difficulties up to internalizing and externalizing disorders and (b) parenting practices influence the ability to self-regulate emotion. Given the impact of parenting on emotional dysregulation, and the role of the latter on internalizing and externalizing disorders, it is reasonable to hypothesize that emotional dysregulation may act as a mediator between parenting and internalizing/externalizing problems. Previous work on this issue is scarce, focused only on some parenting dimensions, and somewhat inconsistent. One study showed that adolescents’ difficulties in emotion regulation mediated the link between fathers’ psychological control and emotional symptoms in a sample of clinical adolescents with anorexia nervosa [52]. Walton et al. [53] found that adaptive emotional regulation strategies mediated the effect of maternal warmth on behavioral problems in a community sample of adolescents. However, Boullion et al. [54] found that warmth predicted internalizing but not externalizing disorders and that this effect was mediated by emotional regulation in a general population sample of adolescents.
According to the above considerations, the present study aimed to examine whether emotional dysregulation mediates the relationship between parenting (i.e., care, overprotection, and promotion of autonomy) and internalizing and externalizing problems in a non-clinical sample of adolescents. Consistent with the above past research, it was expected that the contribution of parenting to predicting internalizing/externalizing problems and emotional dysregulation would be statistically significant. Further, in line with the literature [52,53,54], it was hypothesized that emotional dysregulation would mediate the relationship between parenting and internalizing/externalizing problems. It is worth noting that in line with other studies, e.g., [26,36], we aimed to examine adolescents’ perceptions of both their mothers’ and fathers’ parenting, while most research has focused only on one parent’ parenting (mainly maternal, e.g., [32,35,53,55], despite some exceptions [52]), hence neglecting the potential effect of both parents’ parenting.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

This study used a cross-sectional design and a convenience sample of adolescents. This study was approved by the Bioethical Committee of the University of Pisa (Italy) (nr. 13/2022). Participants were recruited from students attending high schools in Pisa. Inclusion criteria were (a) age between 14 and 18 years; (b) fluent in the Italian language; and, (c) informed written consent from the participant (and from the parents or guardians if the participant was under the age of 18).
The adolescents were informed about the objectives and procedures of this study and signed the consent form before participation. Adolescents who agreed to participate in this study completed a questionnaire packet consisting of the measures described below (see Section 2.2). Data were collected anonymously, participation in this study was voluntary, and no incentive was offered to respondents. A total of 104 participants aged 14–19 years (61.5% females, n = 64; mean age = 15.62 years; SD = 1.38) were included in this study.

2.2. Measures and Instruments

Participants filled out a form to collect socio-demographic data (i.e., sex, age) and the battery of self-report questionnaires described below.
In order to measure participants’ perceptions of their relationship with their parents, the Italian adaptation [56] of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) [57] was used. This self-report questionnaire consists of two parallel versions for measuring self-perceived relationships separately for each parent. Each version consists of 21 items that assess the following three dimensions of parenting: care, promotion of autonomy, and overprotection. Participants were asked to indicate the degree of agreement with the item statement using a 4-point Likert scale (from 0 to 3). Higher scores in the PBI dimensions indicate high levels of care, encouragement toward autonomy, and overprotection. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.92 and 0.89 for the paternal and maternal care dimensions, respectively; 0.88 and 0.81 for the paternal and maternal autonomy factors, respectively; and 0.64 for both the paternal and maternal overprotection domains.
The Italian Adaptation [58] of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale—Short Form (DERS-SF) [59] was used to measure emotional regulation strategies. The DERS-SF is composed of 20 items assessing difficulties within the following six different dimensions: (a) poor awareness of emotional responses, (b) lower levels of emotional clarity, (c) non-acceptance of emotional responses, (d) limited access to emotion regulation strategies perceived as effective, (e) impulsivity when experiencing unpleasant emotions, and (f) difficulties engaging in goal-directed behaviors when experiencing unpleasant emotions. DERS-SF items are rated on a 5-point scale (from 1 to 5), with higher total scores indicating higher levels of emotional dysregulation. For the purposes of this study, only the DERS-SF total score was used. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.84 for the DERS-SF total score.
The Italian version (ASEBA) of the Youth Self Report (YSR/11-18) [60] was used to measure emotional and behavioral problems. The YSR contains 112 items rated on a 3-point scale (from 0 to 2). The YSR consists of five narrow-band scales that are grouped into the following two broadband scales: the internalizing (withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed scales) and the externalizing (delinquent and aggressive behavior scales) scales. For the purpose of this study, only the two broadband scales were used. Alpha coefficients were 0.89 and 0.84 for the Internalizing and the Externalizing scales, respectively, in our sample.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

The statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. Preliminary analyses included correlations between the main variables of the study as well as Harman’s single-factor test to examine potential common method biases. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the mediational models. According to Baron and Kenny [61], support for mediational hypotheses is provided if (a) PBI dimensions are significant predictors of internalizing and externalizing problems; (b) PBI dimensions significantly predict the hypothesized mediator (i.e., difficulties in emotion regulation); and (c) difficulties in emotion regulation significantly predict internalizing and externalizing problems, while PBI dimensions do not remain significant predictors of externalizing and internalizing disorders once the mediator is entered into the model.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

The descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the main variables in this study are presented in Table 1. The results from Harman’s test showed that the amount of variance explained by the first factor was 13.92%, which is far less than the recommended cut-off of 50% [62], hence indicating that common method variance did not affect the dataset.
Correlations between socio-demographic variables (i.e., age and gender) and behavioral and emotional problems were explored to identify potential confounders. Age was significantly and negatively associated with externalizing problems. In addition, gender significantly correlated with both internalizing and externalizing problems. Females showed higher internalizing problems (M = 24.25, SD = 10.36) than males (M = 18.65, SD = 9.36) (t = −2.78, p = 0.006), while males showed higher externalizing problems (M = 16.32, SD = 8.46) than females (M = 12.00, SD = 6.26) (t = 2.79, p = 0.007). Hence, age and gender were included as covariates in the subsequent regression analyses.

3.2. Regression Analyses for Testing the Mediational Models

Table 2 shows the results from regression analyses conducted to explore whether parenting styles significantly predict internalizing and externalizing problems. Age and gender were included as covariates in the first step of each equation, and each PBI dimension was entered as the independent variable. All the final models to predict internalizing and externalizing problems were significant. Except for the promotion of autonomy dimension for both parents, all the PBI factors (i.e., high care and low overprotection) emerged as significant predictors of internalizing problems in the last step of each equation, and they accounted for an additional 4 to 16 percent of the variance in internalizing problems. Regarding the externalizing problems, high maternal overprotection, and low maternal/paternal care emerged as significant predictors in the last step of each equation. These dimensions accounted for an additional 3 to 7 percent of the variance in externalizing symptomatology.
Regarding socio-demographic variables, in the first step of each model gender and age accounted significantly for 5% (for internalizing problems; F = 3.43; p < 0.05) to 10% (for externalizing problems; F = 6.87; p ≤ 0.01) of the variance in the outcome measures. In the last step of each equation, gender was a significant predictor of internalizing and externalizing problems, with males showing higher levels of externalizing difficulties and females internalizing problems. Age was a significant predictor of only externalizing problems, with younger participants showing higher levels of externalizing difficulties.
Next, regression analyses were conducted to examine whether PBI dimensions significantly predict difficulties in emotion regulation (see Table 3). As before, each PBI dimension was entered as the independent variable, while socio-demographics were included as covariates in the first step. Except for models that included the promotion of autonomy dimension, all final models were statistically significant, with care and overprotection dimensions accounting for an additional 7% to 16% of the variance in emotional dysregulation. Both the care and overprotection dimensions emerged as significant predictors of difficulties in emotion regulation after controlling for the effect of socio-demographic variables.
To test the final step of the mediational models, difficulties in emotion regulation and each PBI dimension were entered together in the second block of each equation (with age and gender included as covariates in the first block). These analyses were conducted only for those PBI dimensions that in prior analyses proved to significantly predict emotional dysregulation as well as internalizing and/or externalizing problems (see Table 4). All final models predicting internalizing and externalizing scores were statistically significant, with difficulties in emotion regulation and parenting dimensions accounting for an additional 41 to 44 percent of the variance in internalizing problems, and an additional 15% of the variance in externalizing difficulties. As expected, difficulties in emotion regulation emerged as a significant predictor of internalizing and externalizing disorders in all equations. Moreover, as hypothesized, the overprotection (in both parents) and maternal care dimensions did not remain as significant predictors of internalizing disorders when DERS scores were included in the models, supporting the mediational model for these parenting styles. The effect of paternal care on internalizing difficulties was reduced when DERS scores were included in the model, hence suggesting a partial mediation to explain the effect of paternal low care on internalizing difficulties. Furthermore, care (in both parents) and maternal overprotection did not predict externalizing problems when DERS scores were included in the models, hence supporting the mediational hypotheses also for these problems.
The results from the Sobel test, conducted to examine the statistical significance of the mediation effect, supported that difficulties in emotion regulation fully mediated the relationship between overprotection (z = 2.56, p = 0.01 for maternal scores; z = 2.84 for paternal scores) and low care (z = −3.04, p < 0.01 for maternal scores; z = −3.78 for paternal scores) with internalizing problems, on one hand, and the relationship between low care (z = −2.45, p = 0.01 for maternal scores; z = −2.66, p < 0.01 for paternal scores) and maternal overprotection (z = 2.20, p < 0.05) with externalizing problems, on the other hand.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the mediator role of emotion dysregulation to explain the previously demonstrated relationship between parenting and internalizing/externalizing problems. In line with the literature, emotion dysregulation emerged as a significant predictor of internalizing/externalizing problems [13,14,15,16,17]. Difficulties in managing negative emotions may influence both the persistence of sad feelings and subsequent depressive and anxious symptoms (internalizing problems) and the impulsivity that increases the risk for externalizing problems [63]. Overall, these results also provide further support for emotion regulation as a cross-disorder factor predicting quality of life and treatment duration in child psychopathology [64].
Consistent with previous research [26,33,34,35,36], both maternal and paternal high overprotection and low care were significant predictors of internalizing problems. It is worth noting that we explored adolescents’ perceptions of both their mothers’ and fathers’ parenting, while most studies examining parenting have focused only on mothers, e.g., [35,53,55]. Although the choice to focus on maternal parenting may be justified by the fact that fathers, compared with mothers, report less involvement and more punitive and less sensitive reactions to children’s emotions [65], neglecting the father’s role in emotional dysregulation may potentially reinforce implicit messages that mothers are to blame for their offspring’s developmental difficulties [66].
Interestingly, while both maternal and paternal care dimensions were significant predictors for externalizing problems, only maternal overprotection proved to be a significant predictor of externalizing difficulties in this study. The results concerning the effect of low parental care on adolescents’ difficulties are in line with previous findings, e.g., [24,31,34]. Indeed, previous studies suggested that a lack of affection may interfere with offspring’s ability to regulate arousal [24] and may increase adolescents’ engagement in aggressive behavior to obtain attention [67], hence leading to a subsequent increase in externalizing problems.
The results on maternal overprotection also confirm previous findings showing that maternal overprotective parenting is related to greater externalizing problems [32]. Indeed, mothers’ overprotection may be perceived as intrusive parenting that may induce adolescents to reject authority and engage in oppositional and rule-breaking behavior [68]. Interestingly, unlike maternal overprotection, paternal overprotection did not predict externalizing problems. These findings warrant further research attention. Social expectations associated with maternal and paternal roles might affect how parental behaviors of overprotection are perceived and, hence, how they affect offspring development [31].
On the other hand, our study confirmed that parenting practices significantly predicted difficulties in emotion regulation [47,48,49,50,51], except for the dimension related to the promotion of autonomy. Overall, the role of the autonomy dimension in the development of psychopathology appears to be poor. Indeed, the promotion of the autonomy dimension did not predict either externalizing or internalizing difficulties in this study. These results are in contrast with some previous findings showing that low autonomy support predicts negative psychological outcomes—e.g., [31,34,35]. The limited contribution of the autonomy dimension to the development of psychopathology may be due to the measurement instrument. Although some studies on the psychometric properties of the PBI suggested that autonomy promotion and overprotection are two different factors [56], Parker et al. [23] identified overprotection and autonomy promotion as two opposite poles of a single factor.
This study also extends knowledge from previous research by suggesting additional mechanisms that may play a significant role in the relationship between parenting and internalizing/externalizing problems [19,20,21,22,69]. Specifically, and consistent with our hypotheses, the results indicate that the relationship between high overprotection and low maternal care with internalizing problems is fully mediated by difficulties in emotion regulation. Furthermore, emotional dysregulation partially mediated the relationship between paternal care and internalizing problems. These results are consistent with previous studies showing that parental care and affection significantly predict lower levels of internalizing problems and that this effect is explained by adolescents’ emotional regulation in the general population [54] and clinical [52] samples of adolescents.
Our results also suggest that emotion dysregulation is the mechanism through which low parental care and high maternal overprotection increase the levels of externalizing problems among adolescents. These results are in line with findings reported by Walton et al. [53] but in contrast with those by Boullion et al. [54], who found that parental warmth did not predict externalizing disorders. Important methodological differences across the studies (e.g., in the research design and assessment tools) could explain these divergences which, hence, deserve further attention in future studies.
Overall, according to the above findings and in line with the literature, it is possible to hypothesize that adolescents who perceive their parents as warm and less intrusive (overprotective) may feel easier to disclosure their feelings and emotions using emotional regulation strategies that allow them to positively cope with stressors [70], thus reducing the risk for internalizing and externalizing problems. In particular, these parenting styles seem to promote adaptive ways of relating to unpleasant emotions, including acceptance responses, the ability to discriminate and identify different emotions, and the ability to control behavior and pursue meaningful activities even when coping with unpleasant internal events [59].
Thus, preventive programs aimed at increasing parental care and promoting an adequate age-related level of protection may lead to the development of adaptive ways of responding to emotions [47,48,49,50,51], which in turn may reduce the risk of youth maladjustment [71]. For instance, the CONNECT parent group program [72] could be useful to help parents to face common challenges in the parent–adolescent relationship. Previous studies showed that this program is effective in reducing adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems up to the 4-month follow-up [73].
Moreover, there are promising psychological interventions aimed at promoting adaptive emotional regulation strategies in both parents and adolescents, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) [74,75]. ACT-based interventions focus on helping people develop useful abilities to relate to unpleasant thoughts and feelings, such as acceptance, cognitive fusion, or flexible present-focused attention.
Although interesting, this study presents some limitations. Firstly, the sample size was small and consisted of voluntary students; future research with larger and both community and clinical samples is needed to enhance the generalizability of our findings.
Second, we relied solely on self-reported emotional regulation skills, parenting, and behavioral problems. While widely used, self-report measures are subject to limitations such as social desirability and lack of awareness, which can underestimate what actual responses are. Future research on this topic could include measures of these confounds and explore mediational mechanisms using a multimethod assessment approach (i.e., measuring variables through different informants, such as parents and/or teachers, in a variety of contexts, and using a variety of tools, including interviews and observations).
Third, future studies could also address whether the indirect effect of parenting on adolescents’ mental health remains when controlling for potential confounders such as parental distress or high adolescent negative emotionality, which have been shown to significantly predict dysfunctional parenting styles and negative psychological outcomes in childhood and adolescence [76,77].
Finally, this is a cross-sectional study and, therefore, our results are not sufficient to support temporal relationships among the variables. Prospective and longitudinal studies are needed to further examine the mediational role of emotion dysregulation in the relationship between parenting and emotional/behavioral problems in adolescents. Research on mediation is particularly important in testing theoretical models since mediation constitutes the basis of most theories. Furthermore, the findings from mediation studies may be useful to enhance the effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing and treating psychological disorders since interventions are designed to change the outcome of interest by targeting mediating variables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M. and M.S.; methodology, C.B. and L.F.; formal analysis, C.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S., L.F., and A.C.; writing—review and editing, A.M.; supervision, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Ricerca Corrente (RC2780120), the 5 × 1000 voluntary contributions, Italian Ministry of Health.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki, and the University of Pisa Ethics Committee approved this study (code n.13/2022; approval date 1 June 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from the participant(s).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the individuals for their participation in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Crone, E.A.; Dahl, R.E. Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13, 636–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Klimstra, T.A.; Kuppens, P.; Luyckx, K.; Branje, S.; Hale, W.W., III; Oosterwegel, A.; Koot, H.M.; Meeus, W.H. Daily dynamics of adolescent mood and identity. J. Res. Adolesc. 2016, 26, 459–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Branje, S. Adolescent identity development in context. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022, 45, 101286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Luyckx, K.; Missotten, L.; Goossens, E.; Moons, P.; i-DETACH Investigators. Individual and contextual determinants of quality of life in adolescents with congenital heart disease. J. Adolesc. Health 2012, 51, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Maciejewski, D.F.; van Lier, P.A.; Branje, S.J.; Meeus, W.H.; Koot, H.M. A 5-Year Longitudinal Study on Mood Variability Across Adolescence Using Daily Diaries. Child Dev. 2015, 86, 1908–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Silk, J.; Steinberg, L.; Morris, A. Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in Daily Life: Links to Depressive Symptoms and Problem Behavior. Child Dev. 2003, 74, 1869–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Achenbach, T.M.; Edelbrock, C.S. Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 1981, 46, 1–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Krueger, R.F.; Markon, K.E. Reinterpreting comorbidity: A model-based approach to understanding and classifying psychopathology. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2006, 2, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Thompson, R.A. Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 1994, 59, 25–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cole, P.M.; Ram, N.; English, M.S. Toward a unifying model of self-regulation: A developmental approach. Child Dev. Perspect. 2019, 13, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Naragon-Gainey, K.; McMahon, T.P.; Chacko, T.P. The structure of common emotion regulation strategies: A meta-analytic examination. Psychol. Bull. 2017, 143, 384–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Aldao, A.; Nolen-Hoeksema, S.; Schweizer, S. Emotion-regulation strategies across psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 30, 217–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Brinke, L.T.; Menting, A.; Schuiringa, H.D.; Zeman, J.; Deković, M. The structure of emotion regulation strategies in adolescence: Differential links to internalizing and externalizing problems. Soc. Dev. 2020, 30, 536–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Riediger, M.; Klipker, K. Emotion regulation in adolescence. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation, 2nd ed.; Gross, J.J., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 187–202. [Google Scholar]
  15. Schäfer, J.O.; Naumann, E.; Holmes, E.A.; Tuschen-Caffier, B.; Samson, A.C. Emotion Regulation Strategies in Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Youth: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Youth Adolesc. 2017, 46, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. McLaughlin, K.A.; Nolen-Hoeksema, S. Rumination as a transdiagnostic factor in depression and anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 2011, 49, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Weissman, D.G.; Bitran, D.; Miller, A.B.; Schaefer, J.D.; Sheridan, M.A.; McLaughlin, K.A. Difficulties with emotion regulation as a transdiagnostic mechanism linking child maltreatment with the emergence of psychopathology. Dev. Psychopathol. 2019, 31, 899–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Clayborne, Z.M.; Kingsbury, M.; Sampasa-Kinyaga, H.; Sikora, L.; Lalande, K.M.; Colman, I. Parenting practices in childhood and depression, anxiety, and internalizing symptoms in adolescence: A systematic review. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2021, 56, 619–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Tani, F.; Ponti, L.; Smorti, M. Shyness and Psychological Adjustment During Adolescence: The Moderating Role of Parenting Style. Open. Psychol. J. 2014, 7, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Smorti, M.; Guarnieri, S. The parental bond and alcohol use among adolescents: The mediating role of drinking motives. Subst. Use Misuse 2015, 50, 1560–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cutrín, O.; Maneiro, L.; Sobral, J.; Gómez-Fraguela, J.A. Longitudinal Effects of Parenting Mediated by Deviant Peers on Violent and Non-Violent Antisocial Behaviour and Substance Use in Adolescence. Eur. J. Psychol. Appl. Leg. Context 2019, 11, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rothenberg, W.A.; Lansford, J.E.; Bornstein, M.H.; Chang, L.; Deater-Deckard, K.; Di Giunta, L.; Dodge, K.A.; Malone, P.S.; Oburu, P.; Pastorelli, C.; et al. Effects of Parental Warmth and Behavioral Control on Adolescent Externalizing and Internalizing Trajectories Across Cultures. J. Res. Adolesc. 2020, 30, 835–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Parker, G.; Tupling, H.; Brown, L.B. A parental bonding Instrument. Br. J. Med. Psychol. 1979, 52, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. McKee, L.; Colletti, C.; Rakow, A.; Jones, D.J.; Forehand, R. Parenting and child externalizing behaviors: Are the associations specific or diffuse? Aggress. Violent Behav. 2008, 13, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Parker, G. The Parental Bonding Instrument: A decade of research. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 1990, 25, 281–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kullberg, M.L.; Maciejewski, D.; van Schie, C.C.; Penninx, B.W.; Elzinga, B.M. Parental bonding: Psychometric properties and association with lifetime depression and anxiety disorders. Psychol. Assess. 2020, 32, 780–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Parker, G. Parental Over Protection: A Risk Factor in Psychocial Development; Grune and Stratton Inc: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  28. Costa, S.; Soenens, B.; Gugliandolo, M.C.; Cuzzocrea, F.; Larcan, R. The mediating role of experiences of need satisfaction in associations between parental psychological control and internalizing problems: A study among Italian college students. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015, 24, 1106–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McKinney, C.; Donnelly, R.; Renk, K. Perceived parenting, positive and negative perceptions of parents, and late adolescent emotional adjustment. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2008, 13, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kocayörük, E.; Tutkun, T.; Gozu, H.; Şimşek, O.F.; Altıntaş, E. An Examination of the Relationships Between Parenting Behaviors and Adolescents Well-being: A Cross-cultural Comparision. Turk. Psychol. Couns. Guid. J. 2021, 11, 487–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rothenberg, W.A.; Lansford, J.E.; Alampay, L.P.; Al-Hassan, S.M.; Bacchini, D.; Bornstein, M.H.; Chang, L.; Deater-Deckard, K.; Di Giunta, L.; Dodge, K.A.; et al. Examining effects of mother and father warmth and control on child externalizing and internalizing problems from age 8 to 13 in nine countries. Dev. Psychopathol. 2019, 32, 1113–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Van Petegem, S.; Antonietti, J.P.; Nunes, C.E.; Kins, E.; Soenens, B. The Relationship between Maternal Overprotection, Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Problems, and Psychological Need Frustration: A Multi-Informant Study Using Response Surface Analysis. J. Youth Adolesc. 2020, 49, 162–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Martin, G.; Bergen, H.A.; Roeger, L.; Allison, S. Depression in young adolescents: Investigations using 2 and 3 factor versions of the parental bonding instrument. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 2004, 192, 650–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Young, R.; Lennie, S.; Minnis, H. Children’s perceptions of parental emotional neglect and control and psychopathology. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2011, 52, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hudson, J.L.; Rapee, R.M. Parent–child interactions and anxiety disorders: An observational study. Behav. Res. Ther. 2001, 39, 1411–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Manuele, S.J.; Yap, M.B.; Lin, S.C.; Pozzi, E.; Whittle, S. Associations between paternal versus maternal parenting behaviors and child and adolescent internalizing problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2023, 105, 102339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. O’Neill, A.C.; Kuhlmeier, V.A.; Craig, W.M. Examining the association between parenting and psychosomatic problems: Self-esteem as a mediator across ages in early adolescence. Int. J. Adolesc. Youth 2019, 24, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Belsky, J.; Pasco Fearon, R.M.; Bell, B. Parenting, attention and externalizing problems: Testing mediation longitudinally, repeatedly and reciprocally. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2007, 48, 1233–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mannarini, S.; Balottin, L.; Palmieri, A.; Carotenuto, F. Emotion regulation and parental bonding in families of adolescents with internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Jaffe, M.; Gullone, E.; Hughes, E.K. The roles of temperamental dispositions and perceived parenting behaviors in the use of two emotion regulation strategies in late childhood. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2009, 31, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Morris, A.S.; Silk, J.S.; Steinberg, L.; Myers, S.S.; Robinson, L.R. The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Soc. Dev. 2007, 16, 361–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tani, F.; Pascuzzi, D.; Raffagnino, R. The Relationship Between Perceived Parenting Style and Emotion Regulation Abilities in Adulthood. J. Adult Dev. 2018, 25, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Farrell, M.P.; Barnes, G.M. Family systems and social support: A test of the effects of cohesion and adaptability on the functioning of parents and adolescents. J. Marriage Fam. 1993, 55, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Scabini, E. Psicologia Sociale Della Famiglia [The Social Psychology of the Family]; Bollati Boringhieri: Torino, Italy, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  45. Flouri, E.; Buchanan, A. What predicts good relationships with parents in adolescence and partners in adult life: Findings from the 1958 British birth cohort. J. Fam. Psychol. 2002, 16, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jones, S.; Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A.; MacKinnon, D.P. Parents’ reactions to elementary school children’s negative emotions: Relations to social and emotional functioning at school. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2002, 48, 133–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. McDowell, D.J.; Kim, M.; O’neil, R.; Parke, R.D. Children’s Emotional Regulation and Social Competence in Middle Childhood: The Role of Maternal and Paternal Interactive Style. Marriage Fam. Rev. 2002, 34, 345–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moilanen, K.L. The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory: The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire of Short-Term and Long-Term Self-Regulation. J. Youth Adolesc. 2007, 36, 835–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Strayer, J.; Roberts, W. Children’s anger, emotional expressiveness, and empathy: Relations with parents’ empathy, emotional expressiveness, and parenting practices. Soc. Dev. 2004, 13, 229–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hemm, C.; Dagnan, D.; Meyer, T.D. Social anxiety and parental overprotection in young adults with and without intellectual disabilities. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 2018, 31, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Muratori, P.; Levantini, V.; Maggi, S.; Pisano, S.; Cassibba, R.; Iacobellis, B.; Semeraro, C.; Coppola, G. Parenting practices and dysregulation profile in a sample of Italian children. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 301, 268–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. McEwen, C.; Flouri, E. Fathers’ parenting, adverse life events, and adolescents’ emotional and eating disorder symptoms: The role of emotion regulation. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2009, 18, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Walton, A.; Flouri, E. Contextual risk, maternal parenting and adolescent externalizing behaviour problems: The role of emotion regulation. Child: Care Health Dev. 2010, 36, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Boullion, A.; Linde-Krieger, L.B.; Doan, S.N.; Yates, T.M. Parental warmth, adolescent emotion regulation, and adolescents’ mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1216502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Dumas, J.E.; LaFreniere, P.J.; Serketich, W.J. “Balance of power”: A transactional analysis of control in three groups of mother-child dyads involving socially competent, aggressive, and anxious children. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1995, 104, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Bonaiuto, M.; Perucchini, P.; Pierro, A. L’adolescente e i membri significativi della sua rete sociale. [Adolescent and significant members of his social network]. Età Evol. 1997, 57, 40–56. [Google Scholar]
  57. Parker, G. The parental bonding instrument: Psychometric properties reviewed. Psychiatr. Dev. 1989, 4, 317–335. [Google Scholar]
  58. Lausi, G.; Quaglieri, A.; Burrai, J.; Mari, E.; Giannini, A.M. Development of the DERS-20 among the Italian population: A study for a short form of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Mediterr. J. Clin. Psychol. 2020, 8, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dan-Glauser, E.S.; Scherer, K.R. The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS): Factor structure and consistency of a French translation. Swiss J. Psychol. 2013, 72, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Achenbach, T.M.; Rescorla, L.A. Manual for the ASEBA School–Age Forms and Profiles: An Integrated System of Multi-Informant Assessment; University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families: Burlington, VT, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  61. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Buckholdt, K.E.; Parra, G.R.; Jobe-Shields, L. Intergenerational transmission of emotion dysregulation through parental invalidation of emotions: Implications for adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2014, 23, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bierens, M.; Hartman, C.A.; Klip, H.; Deckers, S.; Buitelaar, J.; Rommelse, N. Emotion dysregulation as cross-disorder trait in child psychiatry predicting quality of life and required treatment duration. Front. Psychiatry 2023, 14, 1101226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Eisenberg, N.; Cumberland, A.; Spinrad, T.L. Parental socialization of emotion. Psychol. Inq. 1998, 9, 241–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Frascarolo, F.; Feinberg, M.; Albert Sznitman, G.; Favez, N. Professional gatekeeping toward fathers: A powerful influence on family and child development. Infant Ment. Health J. 2016, 26, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rothenberg, W.A.; Hussong, A.M.; Chassin, L. Intergenerational transmission of high-conflict family environments. Dev. Psychopathol. 2016, 28, 293–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Van Petegem, S.; Soenens, B.; Vansteenkiste, M.; Beyers, W. Rebels with a cause? Adolescent defiance from the perspective of reactance theory and self-determination theory. Child Dev. 2015, 86, 903–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Smorti, M.; Inguaggiato, E.; Vezzosi, L.; Milone, A. Parenting and sibling relationship in family with Disruptive Behavior Disorders. Are non-clinical siblings more vulnerable for emotional and behavioral problems? Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Cameron, L.D.; Overall, N.C. Suppression and expression as distinct emotion-regulation processes in daily interactions: Longitudinal and meta-analyses. Emotion 2018, 18, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yap, M.B.; Pilkington, P.D.; Ryan, S.M.; Jorm, A.F. Parental factors associated with depression and anxiety in young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 156, 8–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Moretti, M.M.; Obsuth, I. Effectiveness of an attachment-focused manualized intervention for parents of teens at risk for aggressive behaviour: The Connect Program. J. Adolesc. 2009, 32, 1347–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Barone, L.; Carone, N.; Costantino, A.; Genschow, J.; Merelli, S.; Milone, A.; Polidori, L.; Ruglioni, L.; Moretti, M.M. Effect of a parenting intervention on decreasing adolescents’ behavioral problems via reduction in attachment insecurity: A longitudinal, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. J. Adolesc. 2021, 91, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Flujas-Contreras, J.M.; García-Palacios, A.; Castilla, D.; Gómez, I. Internet-based versus face-to-face Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for parental psychological flexibility. Curr. Psychol. 2023, 43, 9854–9866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Harris, E.; Samuel, V. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A systematic literature review of prevention and intervention programs for mental health difficulties in children and young people. J. Cogn. Psychother. 2020, 34, 280–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Lunetti, C.; Iselin, A.R.; Di Giunta, L.; Lansford, J.E.; Eisenberg, N.; Pastorelli, C.; Bacchini, D.; Uribe Tirado, L.M.; Thartori, E.; Basili, E.; et al. Development of internalizing symptoms during adolescence in three countries: The role of temperament and parenting behaviors. Eur. Child. Adolesc. Psychiatry 2022, 31, 947–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Uddin, J.; Alharbi, N.; Uddin, H.; Hossain, M.B.; Hatipoğlu, S.S.; Long, D.L.; Carson, A.P. Parenting stress and family resilience affect the association of adverse childhood experiences with children’s mental health and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 1, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the main variables in this study (N = 104).
Table 1. Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the main variables in this study (N = 104).
Variables1234567891011
1.
Gender +
-
2.
Age
0.07-
3.
Paternal care
0.00−0.02-
4.
Paternal promotion of autonomy
0.080.180.36 ***-
5.
Paternal overprotection
0.05−0.05−0.39 ***−0.58 ***-
6.
Maternal care
−0.080.040.39 ***0.15−0.07-
7.
Maternal promotion of autonomy
0.080.35 ***0.26 **0.57 ***−0.190.29 **-
8.
Maternal overprotection
−0.13−0.11−0.32 ***−0.30 **0.35 ***−0.40 ***−0.46 ***-
9.
Difficulties in emotion regulation
0.04−0.16−0.40 ***−0.190.30 **−0.32 ***−0.22 *0.27 **-
10.
Internalizing problems
0.27 **−0.06−0.40 ***−0.170.28 **−0.28 **−0.100.160.66 ***-
11.
Externalizing problems
−0.28 **−0.22 *−0.25 **−0.150.15−0.21 *−0.24 **0.24 *0.39 ***0.24 *-
Mean-15.6221.7613.102.9525.2512.463.2750.6222.1013.66
SD-1.388.133.862.605.943.402.5314.6610.317.45
Range-14–180–330–180–119–331–180–1226–923–501–37
* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001. + Dummy variable: 0 = male; 1 = female.
Table 2. Regression analyses to explore whether parenting dimensions predict internalizing and externalizing problems +.
Table 2. Regression analyses to explore whether parenting dimensions predict internalizing and externalizing problems +.
PredictorDependent Variable βtAdjusted
R2		F△R2F Change
Maternal careInternalizing −0.25−2.68 **0.135.84 ***0.067.19 **
Maternal autonomyInternalizing−0.10−0.940.073.54 *0.010.88
Maternal overprotectionInternalizing 0.192.01 *0.109.32 **0.044.03 *
Paternal careInternalizing −0.40−4.45 ***0.209.32 ***0.1619.79 ***
Paternal autonomyInternalizing−0.19−1.890.073.54 *0.033.57
Paternal overprotectionInternalizing 0.262.78 **0.115.02 **0.077.73 **
Maternal careExternalizing −0.22−2.40 *0.156.73 ***0.055.78 *
Maternal autonomyExternalizing −0.16−1.650.125.56 ***0.022.71
Maternal overprotectionExternalizing0.191.97 *0.136.00 ***0.033.86 *
Paternal careExternalizing −0.26−2.82 **0.177.73 ***0.077.98 **
Paternal autonomyExternalizing−0.10−1.010.115.07 **0.011.01
Paternal overprotectionExternalizing0.151.620.125.69 ***0.022.61
+ F for the final model; β and t values for the last step. * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Table 3. Regression analyses to explore whether parenting dimensions predict difficulties in emotion regulation +.
Table 3. Regression analyses to explore whether parenting dimensions predict difficulties in emotion regulation +.
PredictorβtAdjusted
R2		F△R2F Change
Maternal care−0.31−3.27 ***0.104.71 **0.1010.69 ***
Maternal promotion of autonomy−0.19−1.830.032.190.033.37
Maternal overprotection0.262.69 **0.073.51 *0.077.21 **
Paternal care−0.40−4.41 ***0.167.46 ***0.1619.42 ***
Paternal promotion of autonomy−0.17−1.700.021.810.032.88
Paternal overprotection0.293.03 **0.083.96 **0.089.19 **
+ F for the final model; β and t values for the last step. * p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001.
Table 4. Regression analyses examining the last step for testing emotion regulation as a mediator in the relationship between parenting styles and internalizing/externalizing problems +.
Table 4. Regression analyses examining the last step for testing emotion regulation as a mediator in the relationship between parenting styles and internalizing/externalizing problems +.
PredictorDependent Variable βtAdjusted
R2		F△R2F Change
Maternal careInternalizing −0.05−0.710.4824.55 ***0.4140.36 ***
Difficulties in emotion regulation 0.638.28 ***
Maternal overprotection Internalizing 0.020.320.4824.34 ***0.4139.98 ***
Difficulties in emotion regulation 0.658.54 ***
Paternal careInternalizing −0.16−2.05 *0.4824.31 ***0.4442.33 ***
Difficulties in emotion regulation 0.597.36 ***
Paternal overprotection Internalizing 0.081.050.4622.82 ***0.4239.53 ***
Difficulties in emotion regulation 0.638.14 ***
Maternal care
Difficulties in emotion regulation		Externalizing−0.12
0.34		−1.27
3.68 ***		0.249.08 ***0.1510.04 ***
Maternal overprotection Externalizing0.091.020.248.89 ***0.159.69 ***
Difficulties in emotion regulation 0.353.87 ***
Paternal careExternalizing −0.13−1.360.249.14 ***0.159.89 ***
Difficulties in emotion regulation 0.323.32 ***
+ F for the final model; β and t values for the last step. * p ≤ 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Smorti, M.; Milone, A.; Fanciullacci, L.; Ciaravolo, A.; Berrocal, C. Parenting and Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties in a General Population Sample of Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Emotional Dysregulation. Children 2024, 11, 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040435

AMA Style

Smorti M, Milone A, Fanciullacci L, Ciaravolo A, Berrocal C. Parenting and Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties in a General Population Sample of Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Emotional Dysregulation. Children. 2024; 11(4):435. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040435

Chicago/Turabian Style

Smorti, Martina, Annarita Milone, Luisa Fanciullacci, Alessia Ciaravolo, and Carmen Berrocal. 2024. "Parenting and Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties in a General Population Sample of Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Emotional Dysregulation" Children 11, no. 4: 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040435

APA Style

Smorti, M., Milone, A., Fanciullacci, L., Ciaravolo, A., & Berrocal, C. (2024). Parenting and Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties in a General Population Sample of Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Emotional Dysregulation. Children, 11(4), 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11040435

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop