J Child Fam Stud DOI 10.1007/s10826-017-0968-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Family Functioning during Adolescence: The Roles of Paternal and Maternal Emotion Dysregulation and Parent–Adolescent Relationships Longfeng Li1 Liu Bai1,2 Xiao Zhang1 Yinghe Chen1 ●

●

●

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Abstract Family functioning significantly impacts family processes. When children enter adolescence the need to develop and maintain a high level of family functioning becomes even more crucial. This study examined whether parents’ individual characteristics contributed to family cohesion/adaptability in families with adolescents. Moreover, the mediating roles that parent–adolescent relationships played in these associations were also examined. Participants were 169 father–mother couples in families with at least one adolescent child in Mainland China. Fathers and mothers reported on difficulties in emotion regulation, perceptions of parent–adolescent closeness and conflict, and family cohesion and adaptability. Results revealed that both paternal and maternal emotion dysregulation were indirectly related to their own and their partner’s perceptions of family cohesion through their own closeness or conflict with the adolescent child. A parent’s emotion dysregulation could be directly and indirectly related to his/ her own perception of family adaptability through his/her own closeness with the adolescent, while another parent’s emotion dysregulation could be indirectly associated with his/her partner’s report of family adaptability through his/ her own conflict with the adolescent. These findings suggested that family functioning during adolescence might be impacted by family factors at the individual parental and parent–adolescent dyadic levels. Additionally, this study

* Yinghe Chen [email protected] 1

Institute of Developmental Psychology, School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

2

Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

indicated fathers and mothers might contribute to the family processes in a similar way. Keywords Family functioning Emotion regulation Parent–adolescent relationships Actor–partner interdependence mediation model Dyadic approaches ●

●

●

●

Introduction Adolescence is a transitional period between childhood and adulthood, during which adolescents experience rapid physical, emotional, cognitive, and social changes. Adolescence is accompanied by “storm and stress” in youths (Hall 1904), increased conflicts between parents and children (Laursen and Collins 2009; Smetana et al. 2006), and low marital satisfaction for parents (Adelmann et al. 1996; Gottman and Levenson 2000). Thus, high quality of family functioning, which could provide a positive family context that protects individual members (Henneberger et al. 2016), parent–child dyads (Shigeto et al. 2014), and parental couples (Campbell and Snow 1992), may be particularly important for families with adolescents. Two dimensions of family functioning are frequently addressed in the literature: cohesion and adaptability. Family cohesion refers to the emotional bonding among family members (e.g., parent–child, wife–husband), whereas family adaptability refers to the capacity of families to modify their rules (e.g., discipline), leadership, and roles in response to challenging situations, such as illness or stress (Birmes et al. 2009; Olson et al. 1983). Previous research has found that poor family functioning, characterized by lower levels of family cohesion and adaptability, could increase adolescents’

J Child Fam Stud

risk for engaging in problem behaviors (Farrell et al. 1995; Henneberger et al. 2016) and harm marital relationships (Campbell and Snow 1992). According to family system theory, the family is an open system that includes subsystems, such as parent–child and parent–parent dyads, as well as individual members (Cox and Paley 1997, 2003). Multiple levels—the entire family, dyads, and individuals—exist in a family; diverse factors at different levels may influence each other (Cox and Paley 1997, 2003). Previous research has suggested that family functioning as a factor at the entire family level may be impacted by family factors at the individual and dyadic levels (Li et al. 2014). For instance, individual factors, such as parental emotion regulation (Crandall et al. 2016) and parenting stress (Mitchell et al. 2016), as well as dyadic factors, such as parent–adolescent relationships (Li et al. 2014; Shek 2001) and marital satisfaction (Mitchell et al. 2016), are found to be related to family cohesion and adaptability. Although various factors have been identified that impact family functioning, less is known about the mechanisms of these influences. For example, we know very little about the interplay of factors at the individual and dyadic levels as a predictor of cohesion and adaptability. Additionally, little is known about the respective roles that fathers and mothers play in family cohesion and adaptability. Family factors at the individual level can impact family functioning. For example, previous studies have suggested that it is difficult to maintain a high quality of family cohesion and adaptability during adolescence (Baer and Schmitz 2007), particularly for parents who have difficulties in regulating their own emotions (Crandall et al. 2016). Emotion regulation involves the processes that impact the emotions one experiences, when one has these emotions, and how one experiences and expresses them (Gross 2013). In contrast, emotion dysregulation indicates an inability to be aware of emotions, accept emotions, control impulsive behaviors in accordance with goals when experiencing negative emotions, or modulate emotions appropriately to meet situational demands or goals (Gratz and Roemer 2004). Typically, youths demand more autonomy and greater influence on family decisions during adolescence (Steinberg and Silk 2002), which may pose a threat or challenge to parents. This may be particularly true in China where cultural norms tend to emphasize children’s absolute obedience to parental authority (Chao 1994). Parents could experience greater stress and more negative emotions during their children’s adolescence when they have problems in emotion regulation (Rutherford et al. 2015). Crandall et al. (2016) found that a lowered maternal ability to regulate emotions was a significant predictor of lower levels of family functioning in early adolescence. Similar effects have been found in families in which one or both parents are diagnosed with mood disorders; the presence of a parental

mood disorder is associated with lower levels of family cohesion and higher levels of family conflicts when compared with healthy families (Esposito-Smythers et al. 2006; Romero et al. 2005). In addition to the roles that parental individual characteristics play on family functioning, factors at dyadic levels—in particular, parent–adolescent relationships—also may prove important for the maintenance of high levels of family functioning during adolescence. Indeed, positive communication between parents and adolescents has shown to be associated with higher levels of family satisfaction, cohesion, and adaptability (Barnes and Olson 1985), while parent–adolescent conflict has been found to be negatively related to family functioning (Li et al. 2014). Additionally, in a longitudinal study from Hong Kong, Shek (2001) found that parent–adolescent relationships were significant predictors of family functioning. Shek further indicated that the father–adolescent relationship was a stronger predictor for family functioning than the mother–adolescent relationship. Although research also found that marital satisfaction was related to family cohesion and adaptability (e.g., Mitchell et al. 2016), parent–adolescent relationships were considered to be more important during adolescence. Parent–adolescent relationships were selected for the focus of this study because their quality tend to decline in the transitional period of adolescence (Laursen and Collins 2009). This fluctuation could account for a change in family functioning during adolescence (Shek 2001). Parent–adolescent dyadic factors also may mediate the links between parental individual factors and family functioning. Pedersen and Revenson (2005) proposed a family ecology framework by demonstrating that parental individual characteristics (i.e., parental illness) had indirect effects on family functioning through family factors, such as the parent–child relationships. Research also has indicated that maternal emotion dysregulation is positively associated with maternal hostility/rejection and negatively related to maternal warmth in their interactions with adolescent children (Sarıtaş et al. 2013). Maternal emotion dysregulation also contributed to poor relationships between parents and adolescents, which impaired family cohesion and adaptability (Demby et al. 2017; Shek 2001). Additionally, a study in China suggested that parent–adolescent conflict mediated the link between filial piety and family functioning (Li et al. 2014). When considering the associations among parental emotion dysregulation, parent–adolescent relationships, and family functioning, it is important to note the different roles played by the father and the mother. Previous research has suggested that adolescents have a better and closer relationship with their mothers than with their fathers (Smetana et al. 2006). Chinese mothers reported greater warmth toward children as well as less approval for authoritarian

J Child Fam Stud

parenting than Chinese fathers (Chen et al. 2017; Putnick et al. 2012). In Chinese culture, fathers are often assigned the role of master of a family. They frequently hold a more powerful and disciplinary position in a family than mothers (Chuang and Su 2009). Consequently, they may be stricter with children (Chen et al. 2017). The saying “yan fu ci mu” (which translates to “strict father, kind mother”) offers a description of the historically different roles that fathers and mothers have played in Chinese families. Therefore, it may be harder for children to develop a close relationship with fathers than with mothers. Additionally, the increased demand by adolescents for a role in family decision-making (Steinberg and Silk 2002) may challenge paternal authority and potentially result in higher levels of stress for fathers. Most studies that have examined the influence of parental individual characteristics on family processes have focused primarily on one parent, frequently mothers (e.g., Crandall et al. 2016; Esposito-Smythers et al. 2006). An understanding of whether or not fathers’ characteristics (i.e., emotion dysregulation) have similar or distinct influences on family processes, such as parent–adolescent relationships and family functioning, is limited. Several studies including fathers have indicated that the father also played an important or even more crucial role in family processes and child development, especially when children are adolescents (e.g., Shek 2001). Other research also suggested that the father and the mother often influence each other in a family. For example, Ponnet et al. (2013) found that fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of parent–adolescent communication were influenced more heavily by their partner’s, rather than their own, depressive symptoms. The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al. 2006) provides a theoretical foundation for understanding mutual effects among fathers and mothers. The model also permits the simultaneous examination of the influence of one’s characteristics on one’s own outcome variables (actor effect) as well as on one’s partner’s outcome variables (partner effect). In order to examine potential mediating effects, researchers additionally have developed the Actor–Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM; Ledermann and Bodenmann 2006; Ledermann et al. 2011), which includes predictors, mediators, and outcome variables in one model. A dyadic approach that treats the couple dyad as the unit of analysis, rather than the individual father or mother, would represent an important contribution because it would provide a more comprehensive understanding of family functioning in households with adolescents. The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of paternal and maternal individual characteristics and parent–adolescent dyadic factors on their perceptions of family functioning. Specifically, three questions have been addressed. First, we investigated whether or not paternal

and maternal emotion dysregulation were associated with the positive and negative characteristics of father– and mother–adolescent relationships (i.e., closeness and conflict). Second, we tested if father– and mother–adolescent closeness and conflict were related to family cohesion and adaptability. Finally, we examined whether father– and mother–adolescent closeness and conflict emerged as mediators in the associations between parents’ emotion dysregulation and perceived family cohesion and adaptability. On the basis of family system theory (Cox and Paley 1997, 2003) and family ecology frameworks (Pedersen and Revenson 2005), we assumed that the parents’ individual characteristics would be indirectly related to the entire family functioning through parent–child closeness and conflict. The proposed conceptual framework is presented in Fig. 1. We expected that paternal and maternal emotion dysregulation would prove negatively associated with their own or their partners’ closeness with adolescents and positively related to the conflict between parents and adolescents. Father– and mother–adolescent closeness would be positively related to fathers’ and mothers’ reports of family cohesion and adaptability, while parental conflicts with adolescents could be negatively associated with their own and partners’ perception of family cohesion and adaptability. Additionally, we anticipated father– and mother–adolescent closeness and conflict mediated the effects of paternal and maternal emotion dysregulation on fathers’ or mothers’ perceptions of family cohesion and adaptability.

Method Participants The study was conducted in October 2015. Parents of adolescents in a middle school located in Shandong Province, China were invited to participate. 248 couples were approached, and 209 participated voluntarily (84.27%). Couples in which any person failed to respond to more than 50% of the questionnaire items of this study were excluded from the analyses. Thus, 39 couples, including couples with only one person who responded to the fathers’ or mothers’ questionnaire and had a missing rate above 50%, were excluded from the final analysis. One additional couple who completed the questionnaires was excluded because they were the grandparents and not the parents. The final sample consisted of 169 couples. The participating couples had at least one child between the ages of 12 and 16 years old (M = 13.82, SD = 0.95; 88 male adolescents). A total of 152 men (89.94%) and 152 women (89.94%) reported that they were the biological

J Child Fam Stud

Fig. 1 Hypothesized Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model

father or mother of the adolescent included in the study; fourteen men and 15 women did not answer this question. The fathers’ ages ranged from 35 to 54 years old with an average age of 41.79 (SD = 3.86), and the mothers’ ages ranged from 34 to 53 years old with an average age of 42.28 (SD = 3.57). Paired-samples t-tests showed that mothers tended to be slightly older than fathers, t (168) = 1.93, p = .055. With respect to education, 6.51% of the fathers had a bachelor’s degree or above, 14.20% had a high school diploma, 52.07% had a middle school diploma, and the rest (27.22%) had less than a middle school diploma. For mothers, 4.73% held a bachelor’s degree or above, 5.33% had a high school diploma, 39.05% had a middle school diploma, and the rest (50.89%) had less than a middle school diploma. Approximately 17.24% of the families had one child, 64.14% had two children, and 18.62% had three children or more. Participants represented a broad range of economic situations. 11.83% families reported living in households with a monthly income of more than 6000 Chinese yuan, 31.36% had 4000 to 6000 Chinese yuan, 39.64% had 2000 to 4000 Chinese yuan, and 17.16% had less than 2000 Chinese yuan. Procedure The research team consulted with the middle school principal to obtain consent to conduct recruitment and survey distribution at the school. Envelopes containing the invitation letters, informed consents, and questionnaires were distributed by the homeroom teachers to the students in their classes. Each student was invited to take home an

envelope. The invitation letters in the envelopes presented a brief introduction to the survey. The questionnaires were clearly labeled to indicate the paternal and maternal versions. Fathers’ and mothers’ questionnaires were the same except for the demographic information part. Fathers only needed to provide demographic information that was closely related to themselves, such as their ages and education. However, mothers were asked to provide more information that included family conditions (e.g., the number of children in their families and the monthly income) and their own ages and education. The fathers and mothers were instructed to complete their questionnaires independently. Upon completion, students returned the questionnaires to their homeroom teachers (about one week). The participating families received a token gift for their participation. Measures Emotion dysregulation The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz and Roemer 2004) was used to measure parental emotion dysregulation. Participants rated 36 items on a 5-point scale based on how often they believed each statement pertained to them, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The scale included six dimensions: Nonacceptance (6 items; e.g., “When I am upset, I become angry with myself for feeling that way”), Goals (5 items; e.g., “When I am upset, I can still get things done” (reversed)), Impulse (6 items; e.g., “When I am upset, I have difficulty controlling my behaviors”), Strategies (8 items; e.g., “When I am upset, I believe

J Child Fam Stud

that wallowing in it is all I can do”), Clarity (5 items; e.g., “I am clear about my feelings” (reversed)), and Awareness (6 items; e.g., “I pay attention to how I feel” (reversed)). Total scores of DERS were generated by calculating the sum of the scores of the six subscales. Higher scores indicated greater difficulties in emotion regulation. The original scale demonstrated good reliability and validity (Gratz and Roemer 2004); the Chinese version of DERS has been utilized in previous research (Bai and Han 2016). The Cronbach’s αs of the DERS were .89 for fathers and .87 for mothers in the current study. Parent–adolescent relationships The Child–Parent Relationship Scale (CPRS; Pianta 1992) was utilized to measure parental perceptions of the parent–child relationships. The original CPRS included 30 items. The Chinese version, with 26 items, has evidenced acceptable reliability and validity (Zhang et al. 2008). Participants rated three aspects of their relationships with the target adolescents using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (always true). Items include dimensions of closeness (10 items; e.g., “I share an affectionate, warm relationship with my child”), conflict (12 items; e.g., “My child easily becomes angry at me”), and dependency (4 items; “My child reacts strongly to separation from me”). The reliability of the dependency subscale was low in a previous study (Zhang et al. 2008) and in the current study (Cronbach’s αs were .38 for fathers and .32 for mothers). Therefore, only the closeness and conflict subscales were used. In this study, Cronbach’s αs of parent–adolescent closeness subscales were .80 for fathers and .73 for mothers. For father’s and mother’s parent–adolescent conflict subscales, Cronbach’s αs were .88 and .85, respectively.

for fathers and .84 for mothers, and the Cronbach’s α of family adaptability subscales was .76 for fathers and .72 for mothers in this study. Data Analyses The rates of item-level missing data were examined for participants’ responses. Approximately 3.25% and 3.79% of data were missing for men and women, respectively. Therefore, missing data were imputed using SPSS 20.0 Expectation Maximization methodology following maximum likelihood procedures (Schafer and Graham 2002). The associations between fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of emotional dysregulation, the parent–adolescent closeness and conflict, and family cohesion and adaptability were examined using Pearson’s correlations in SPSS 20.0. Subsequently, the APIMeM (Ledermann and Bodenmann 2006; Ledermann et al. 2011) was applied to examine the mediating effects of parent–adolescent closeness and conflict on the relation between parental emotion dysregulation and family functioning (cohesion and adaptability, respectively). The APIMeM was examined with structural equation modeling (SEM) using Mplus 7.0 (Muthén and Muthén 1998–2012). As presented in Fig. 1, the APIMeM incorporated paternal and maternal emotion dysregulation simultaneously as predictors, father– and mother–adolescent closeness and conflict as mediators, and fathers’ and mothers’ reports of family cohesion or adaptability as outcome variables, controlling for background factors (i.e., adolescent age and maternal education level). Direct paths in the model included actor and partner effects. Indirect effects in the model were tested using a bootstrapping procedure with 1000 bootstrap samples and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (Preacher and Hayes 2008).

Family cohesion/adaptability

Results The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES-II; Olson et al. 1982) is a 30-item scale that assesses family environment in two dimensions: cohesion (16 items; e.g., “Family members like to spend free time with each other”) and adaptability (14 items; e.g., “Rule changes in our family”). Specifically, family cohesion measures emotional connections, boundaries, coalitions, time spent together, and shared interests and forms of leisure in a family. Family adaptability assesses leadership, negotiation styles, role relationships and rules in a family (Olson et al. 1982; Olson and Gorall 2006). FACES-II has been proven to provide an appropriate measure for a Chinese sample (Phillips et al. 1998). Participants reported their perceptions of the actual situation of the family using a 5point scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Cronbach’s α of family cohesion subscales was .85

Descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables for fathers and mothers are presented in Table 1. Positive correlations were found between fathers’ and mothers’ perceptions of emotion dysregulation, parent–adolescent closeness and conflict, and family cohesion and adaptability, respectively. These results suggested that the dyadic data were non-independent. Additionally, for both fathers’ and mothers’ reports, emotion dysregulation was negatively correlated to their own and their partners’ perceptions of the parent–adolescent closeness and family cohesion and adaptability and was positively related to parent–adolescent conflict. Fathers’ and mothers’ reports of higher levels of parent–adolescent closeness were associated with their own and their partners’ perceptions of better family cohesion and adaptability. On the contrary, higher levels of

3. Father perceived father–adolescent closeness

–

3

.43***

−.35*** −.37*** .56***

7. Father perceived family cohesion

88.56 17.00

M

SD

6.25

36.87 5.39

37.40

−.001

−.11

−.11 .04

−.01

.12

−.06

.10

−.18*

7

−.40*** −.43*** .73***

9.45

28.41

.01

.08

.01

.05

.18*

8.63

28.99

.02

.10

.03

−.07

.17*

−.29*** −.24**

–

9.38

70.86

.13

9

−.05

−.07

−.18*

9.00

70.97

−.03

11

−.09

−.13

.10

−.02

−.17* –

–

10

6.97

48.08

0.5

6.71

48.58

.07

0.95

.57***

–

13

–

14

15

0.50

0.85

4.00

0.94

4.45

1.96

3.46

−.09 −.36*** −.53*** –

.03

.15

–

12

13.82 0.48

−.09

−.24** −.18* .10

−.11

0.01

−.18*

.74*** .66***

.60*** –

−.21** −.17*

−.07

.03

−.16*

.55***

−.27*** −.29*** .77***

8

*p o .05; **p o .01; ***p o .001

Note: Adolescent gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Parental education: 1 = elementary school diploma, 6 = master’s degree or above. Family monthly income: 1 = 0–1999 Chinese yuan or less, 10 = 9999 Chinese yuan or more

16.07

88.87

.09 −.11

.04 −.06

15. Family monthly income

.03

−.03

13. Paternal education

14. Maternal education

−.12

−.05

12. Adolescent gender

−.12

.39***

.20**

.25**

−.30*** −.38*** .36***

10. Mother perceived family adaptability

11. Adolescent age

.51*** .37***

−.41*** −.46*** .45*** −.38*** −.33*** .50***

8. Mother perceived family cohesion

9. Father perceived family adaptability

–

6

−.34*** −.39*** –

−.22** .64***

–

−.12

.42***

−.16*

.50***

6. Mother perceived mother–adolescent conflict

.61***

5

−.06

–

4

5. Father perceived father–adolescent conflict

.47***

−.33*** .66***

−.22**

.70*** −.20**

2. Maternal emotion dysregulation

4. Mother perceived mother–adolescent closeness −.25**

–

–

1. Paternal emotion dysregulation

2

1

Variables

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations between demographic and observed variables (N = 169)

J Child Fam Stud

J Child Fam Stud

parent–adolescent conflict were associated with poorer family cohesion and adaptability. Some of the demographic variables were significantly correlated to the observed variables. Specifically, both fathers and mothers reported higher levels of emotion dysregulation, poorer parent–adolescent relationships, and lower levels of family cohesion and adaptability in families with older rather than younger adolescents. Additionally, higher levels of maternal education were related to lower levels of family cohesion and adaptability reported by fathers and mothers. Thus, adolescent age and maternal education were examined as covariates in the subsequent analyses. Prior to estimating the APIMeM, the omnibus test of distinguishability (Kenny et al. 2006) was used to simultaneously test gender differences in mean, variance, and covariance between fathers’ and mothers’ variables. The results of omnibus tests did not indicate that the participants were statistically distinguished by parental gender: χ2(20) = 28.01, p 4 .05, for the model with family cohesion as outcome variable, and χ2(20) = 30.29, p 4 .05, for the model with family adaptability as outcome variable. Therefore, we tested indistinguishable APIMeM for interchangeable dyads as proposed by Olsen and Kenny (2006), constraining both actor and partner to be equal for dyadic pairs. The indistinguishable APIMeM was estimated to examine the mediating effects of the parent–adolescent closeness and conflict on the associations between parental emotion dysregulation and family cohesion/adaptability (see Fig. 2). When family cohesion was treated as an outcome variable (see Fig. 2a), the model fitted the data, χ2(22) = 23.58, p 4 .05, RMSEA = 0.021, CFI = .997, TLI = .995. Emotion dysregulation had no significant direct effects on a parent’s own (β = −.09, SE = 0.05, p 4 .05) or partner’s (β = −.05, SE = 0.05, p 4 .05) perceptions of family cohesion. One parent’s emotion dysregulation was only associated with his/her own perceptions of parent–adolescent closeness (β = −.19, SE = 0.07, p o .01) and conflict (β = .48, SE = 0.06, p o .001), but not related to partner’s perceptions of parent–adolescent closeness (β = −.09, SE = 0.07, p 4 .05) or conflict (β = .10, SE = 0.06, p 4 .05). However, father– and mother– adolescent closeness were related to their own (β = .38, SE = 0.06, p o .001) and their partner’s (β = .11, SE = 0.05, p o .05) report of family cohesion. Similarly, parent– adolescent conflict was also related to one parent’s own (β = −.13, SE = 0.06, p o .05) as well as his/her partner’s (β = −.17, SE = 0.06, p o .01) report of family cohesion. Mediation analyses (see Table 2) revealed that the association between one parent’s emotion dysregulation and his/her own perception of family cohesion was mediated by the parent’s own report of parent–adolescent closeness (β = −.07, 95%CI = [−0.13, −0.02]) and conflict (β = −.06, 95%CI = [−0.12, −0.01]), but not his/her partner’s closeness (β = −.01, 95%CI = [−0.04, 0.003]) or conflict (β =

−.02, 95%CI = [−0.05, 0.001]) with the adolescent. Additionally, for the partner effect, results revealed that the effect of emotion dysregulation on a partner’s perception of family cohesion was mediated by the parent’s own report of parent–adolescent closeness (β = −.02, 95%CI = [−0.05, −0.003]) and conflict (β = −.08, 95%CI = [−0.15, −0.04]), but not the partner’s perception of parent–adolescent closeness (β = −.03, 95%CI = [−0.08, 0.01]) or conflict (β = −.01, 95%CI = [−0.04, 0.001]). An examination of family adaptability as an outcome variable (see Fig. 2b) revealed that the model fitted the data, χ2(22) = 25.57, p 4 .05, RMSEA = 0.031, CFI = .992, TLI = .987. Emotion dysregulation exhibited significant direct effects on a parent’s own (β = −.23, SE = 0.06, p o .001) perception of family adaptability but not on a parent’s partner’s report of family adaptability (β = .02, SE = 0.06, p 4 .05). Father– and mother–adolescent closeness were only related to their own (β = .31, SE = 0.07, p o .001) but not their partners’ (β = .08, SE = 0.07, p 4 .05) reports of family adaptability. However, parent–adolescent conflict was related to one’s partner’s (β = −.14, SE = 0.07, p o .05) but not one’s own (β = .02, SE = 0.07, p 4 .05) report of family adaptability. Mediation analyses (see Table 2) revealed that the association between one parent’s emotion dysregulation and his/ her own perception of family adaptability was only mediated by the parent’s own report of parent–adolescent closeness (β = −.06, 95% CI = [−0.12, −0.02]), but not their own conflict (β = .01, 95% CI = [−0.05, 0.08]), partner’s closeness (β = −.01, 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.002]), or partner’s conflict (β = −.01, 95% CI = [−0.05, 0.001]) with the adolescent. Additionally, the effect of emotion dysregulation on a partner’s perception of family adaptability was only mediated by the parent’s own report of parent–adolescent conflict (β = −.07, 95% CI = [−0.14, −0.01]), but not their own perception of parent–adolescent closeness (β = −.02, 95% CI = [−0.05, 0.01]) or their partner’s perception of parent–adolescent closeness (β = −.03, 95% CI = [−0.07, 0.01]) or conflict (β = −.002, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.02]). Further analyses revealed that when the magnitude of effect sizes of one parent emotion dysregulation on one’s own perception of parent–adolescent closeness and conflict was constrained to be equal, the model showed a significant decrease in the fit, Δχ (1)2 = 14.82, p o .05, indicating that one’s emotion dysregulation has a greater influence on one’s perception of conflict than closeness with adolescent. Because both actor and partner effects were found in the case of family cohesion, similar tests were performed to compare the effect of parent–adolescent closeness on one’s own and partner’s perception of family functioning with the respective effect of parent–adolescent conflict. Specifically, results revealed that when compared with one parent’s conflict with adolescent, his/her closeness with the

J Child Fam Stud

Fig. 2 Perceived parent–adolescent closeness and conflict as mediators of the associations between parental emotion dysregulation and family cohesion (a) and adaptability (b). Note: Demographic variables that

include adolescent age and maternal education are controlled in the model (not shown). All the coefficients are standardized estimates. Solid bold lines indicate significant paths. *p o .05; **p o .01; ***p o .001

adolescent had a stronger effect on their own perception of family cohesion, Δχ (1)2 = 14.35, p o .05, but had a similar effect on their partner’s perception of family cohesion, Δχ (1)2 = 0.85, p 4 .05. Additionally, the difference between actor effects and partner effects of parent–adolescent relationships on family cohesion were also compared. Results suggested that one parent’s closeness with the adolescent had a greater influence on one’s own perception of family cohesion than on their partner’s,

Δχ (1)2 = 16.52, p o .05. However, similar effects were found between one parent’s conflict with adolescent on their own report of family cohesion and on their partner’s report of family cohesion, Δχ (1)2 = 0.29, p 4 .05.

Discussion Family functioning during adolescence is particularly important for individual members in the family and their

J Child Fam Stud Table 2 Total, direct, and indirect actor and partner effects for actor-partner interdependence mediation models with emotion dysregulation as predictor, parent–adolescent closeness and conflict as mediators, and family cohesion/adaptability as outcome variables (N = 169)

Effect

Family cohesion

Family adaptability

β

β

95%CI

[−.40, −.19]

95%CI

DERS → self-report FACES Total effect

−0.25 [−.35, −.15]

−0.3

Direct effect

−0.09 [−.20, .003]

−0.23 [−.36, −.12]

Total indirect effect

−0.16 [−.24, −.09]

−0.07 [−.15, .01]

DERS → self-report closeness→self-report FACES

−0.07 [−.13, −.02]

−0.06 [−.12, −.02]

DERS → self-report conflict→self-report FACES

−0.06 [−.12, −.01]

0.01 [−.05, .08]

DERS → partner-report closeness→self-report FACES

−0.01 [−.04, .003]

−0.01 [−.04, .002]

DERS → partner-report conflict→self-report FACES

−0.02 [−.05, .001]

--0.01 [−.05, .001]

−0.2

−0.09 [−.19, .01]

DERS → partner-report FACES Total effect

[−.30, −.10]

Direct effect

−0.05 [−.16, .05]

Total indirect effect

−0.15 [−.22, −.07]

DERS→self-report closeness→partner-report FACES

−0.02 [−.05, −.003] −0.02 [−.05, .01]

DERS → self-report conflict → partner-report FACES

−0.08 [−.15, −.04]

DERS → partner-report closeness → partner-report FACES −0.03 [−.08, .01] DERS → partner-report conflict → partner-report FACES

−0.01 [−.04, .001]

0.02 [−.09, .13] −0.11 [−.18, −.03] −0.07 [−.14, −.01] −0.03 [−.07, .01] 0.002 [−.01, .02]

Note: Actor–Partner Interdependence Mediation Model analyses, controlling for adolescent age and maternal education. The standardized coefficients are reported. Results in bold indicate significant coefficients CI confidence interval, DERS Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, FACES Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale

interactions with one another (e.g., Henneberger et al. 2016; Shigeto et al. 2014), emphasizing the need to promote a high quality of family functioning in families with adolescents. This study extended prior research on the relationships among family factors and family functioning by examining the impacts of parental individual characteristics and the mediating effects of parent–adolescent dyadic factors on family cohesion and adaptability. Additionally, by simultaneously testing the roles that the father and the mother played on family cohesion and adaptability, the current study enhances an understanding of family processes during adolescence. The findings that parental difficulties in regulating emotions were related to their own perceptions of poor parent–adolescent relationships provide evidence for the spillover hypothesis by demonstrating the negative transfer from parental individual problems to parent–adolescent relationships (Almeida et al. 1999). Indeed, when parents with emotion dysregulation communicate with their adolescent children, parents are likely to experience increased stress and exhibit more hostile and conflict-ridden or less supportive and warm behaviors in their interactions (Donahue et al. 2014; Hughes and Gullone 2010; Sarıtaş et al. 2013), which could ultimately contribute to less parent–adolescent closeness and more conflict as shown in this study. However, no partner effect was found between parental emotion dysregulation and parent–adolescent

relationship. This finding is consistent with a recent study that reported fathers’ and mothers’ parenting stress were only related to their own parent–adolescent communications (Ponnet et al. 2013). The current study also showed that one parent’s difficulties in regulating emotions tended to influence his/her own interaction with the adolescent, yet did not interfere with their partner’s relationship with the adolescent. Nevertheless, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the variables that are reported by the same person may be more closely related than when reported by different people. The results showed that parent–adolescent relationships had different effects on family cohesion and adaptability. Specifically, fathers’ and mothers’ relationships with adolescents were related to not only their own, but also their partners’ perceptions of family cohesion. However, one parent’s perception of family adaptability was associated with his/her own closeness and his/her partner’s conflict with the adolescent. These discrepancies may indicate the differences between family cohesion and adaptability. Family cohesion, which reflects emotional bonding in a family, is heavily influenced by interpersonal relationships within the family (Olson et al. 1983). Thus, both father–adolescent and mother–adolescent closeness as well as conflict would impact family cohesion, regardless of who reported it. In other words, in a family in which the father or mother has a poor relationship with the adolescent, both

J Child Fam Stud

parents may report lower levels of family cohesion. Family adaptability, on the other hand, reflects a family’s flexibility or ability to change in response to challenging situations (Olson et al. 1983). When a parent has a closer relationship with the adolescent child, this parent could feel that it would be easier to modify family rules, leadership and roles to cope with family difficulties. However, a parent who has witnessed their partner’s conflict with the child may feel that the family is not easy to change when faced with challenges. Moreover, findings from the APIMeM analyses indicated that parental individual characteristics were indirectly related to family functioning through parent–adolescent dyadic factors, providing support for family ecology approaches (Pedersen and Revenson 2005). Specifically, parents who experienced difficulties in emotion regulation also reported less closeness and more conflict with their adolescent children and therefore perceived lower levels of family functioning. Despite these actor effects of one’s emotion dysregulation on his/her own reporting on family functioning, important partner effects also were identified. One parent’s perception of family functioning was indirectly influenced by partner’s emotion dysregulation through decreased closeness and increased conflict in their partner’s relationship with the adolescent. These partner effects provided support for the “crossover process” (Cox and Paley 1997, 2003) by emphasizing that one parent’s emotion dysregulation might be related to another parent’s perceptions of family cohesion and adaptability. Moreover, these actor and partner effects highlighted the need to pay more attention to parental individual characteristics when exploring family processes in adolescence. Adolescence is a difficult life period for most parents as well because it is often accompanied by increased stress and negative emotions (Gottman and Levenson 2000; Steinberg and Silk 2002). These negative emotions may affect different aspects of parents’ lives and the family processes when parents are unable to adequately regulate them. It is also noteworthy that the positive and negative characteristics of a parent–adolescent relationship were found to be differently related to parental emotion dysregulation as well as family cohesion and adaptability. Findings indicated that although both parent–adolescent closeness and conflict would be influenced by parental emotion dysregulation, emotion dysregulation had a stronger influence on conflict than closeness. This may be explained by the strong relation between emotion dysregulation and aggression (Donahue et al. 2014; Roberton et al. 2012). Aggression displayed by parents with emotion dysregulation would have a more salient impact on conflict than closeness in parent–adolescent relationships. Additionally, our results also suggested that one’s parent–adolescent closeness—rather than conflict—had a

greater influence on his/her own perception of family cohesion and adaptability, whereas one’s parent–adolescent conflict had a stronger influence on his/her partner’s perception of family adaptability. These findings indicated that parents who enjoyed a closer relationship with the adolescent were more likely to report better family functioning. However, for a parent who exhibited higher levels of conflict with adolescent, his/her partner would report poorer family adaptability. No difference by gender was identified in this study. This finding is contrary to previous studies that suggested that fathers and mothers behaved differently in parent–child interactions (Chen et al. 2017; Putnick et al. 2012; Smetana et al. 2006; Steinberg and Silk 2002) and that father–adolescent relationship was more related to the entire family functioning than the mother–adolescent relationship (Shek 2001). One possible explanation for these discrepancies could be that because the father and the mother evaluated the cohesion and adaptability of the same family and they reared the same child together, they might have some common views about their family’s functioning and their relationships with their child, as well as the ways in which these were impacted by other family factors. Alternatively, rapid changes in Chinese families during recent decades may account for these similarities across gender. Currently, a growing number of mothers work full-time jobs and fathers share more housework than men would have done previously. Instead of treating the father as a master of a family, the father and the mother are more likely to share equal power in a family today (Jia et al. 2011). Therefore, it is not surprising to find that the father and the mother play similar roles in the family processes. A recent study conducted in Dutch also failed to find gender differences between parents in the associations between parental individual characteristics and parent–adolescent communication (Ponnet et al. 2013), indicating that the similar roles played by the father and the mother in family processes may not be limited to one cultural context. However, more cross–cultural research would be required to explore these differences or similarities.

Limitations Several limitations to this study should be mentioned. First, this study was a cross–sectional study, which may limit the ability to examine whether or not the associations among parental emotion dysregulation, parent–adolescent relationships, and family functioning would be reciprocal over time. Second, although we simultaneously applied perspectives of the father and mother, all variables were measured by pencil and paper responses, which could have contributed to method bias. Additionally, in order to

J Child Fam Stud

compare the effects of one parent’s emotion dysregulation on one’s own and partner’s perceptions of parent–adolescent relationships and family functioning, only parents were asked to report on their relationships with adolescents and perceptions with regard to the entire family’s functioning. Because discrepancies between parents’ and adolescents’ reports have been identified in previous research (Leung et al. 2016; Noller and Callan 1986), the scope of the results from this study should be interpreted with caution. An approach that integrates different measures such as behavioral observations and questionnaires, and different perspectives from both parents and adolescents, could further illuminate these family processes. Third, we only examined the influences of parental emotion dysregulation and parent–adolescent relationships on family functioning without consideration for the effects of the adolescents’ development on family processes. The rapid changes during adolescence may be one of the main factors affecting individual parental characteristics, parent–adolescent interactions, and family functioning (Baer and Schmitz 2007; Rutherford et al. 2015). Thus, Future research could take into account adolescent developmental changes and their impact on family functioning. Finally, only families with two heterosexual parents were included in this study and may only provide a possible interpretation of processes in other types of families. Despite these limitations, this study extended previous research by emphasizing that both paternal and maternal individual factors and parent–adolescent dyadic factors may contribute to the entirety of family functioning during adolescence. Specifically, paternal and maternal emotion dysregulation may negatively influence their own as well as their partner’s perceptions of family functioning through their own closeness or conflict with adolescents. These findings provided empirical support for family ecology frameworks such as that proposed by Pedersen and Revenson (2005) as well as the importance of family system theory. They also highlighted the importance of including both parents simultaneously in the research in order to best capture their mutual influences. The study also has drawn attention to the need to deepen an understanding of the associations between family factors at distinct levels and family functioning during adolescence. Furthermore, the study may provide a direction for future research to help improve the family functioning during the transitional period of adolescence. Fathers and mothers with access to assistance that help them to acquire appropriate strategies to regulate their emotions may better cope with the stress and negative emotions that sometimes accompany children’s adolescence, which would ultimately benefit their relationship with their adolescent and improve family functioning as a whole.

Acknowledgements We thank all the families that participated to the current study. The study was partly funded by Major Project of the National Social Science Foundation of China (14ZDB160) and National Science Foundation of China (31271106). Author Contributions L.L. designed and executed the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. L.B. collaborated with the design and executing of the study and assisted in editing of the final manuscript. X.Z. collaborated with the design and executing of the study. Y. C. collaborated with the design of the study and provided feedback on writing and editing of manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of Interest ing interests.

The authors declare that they have no compet-

Ethical Approval This research involved human subjects and was approved by the Beijing Normal University Institutional Review Board. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References Adelmann, P. K., Chadwick, K., & Baerger, D. R. (1996). Marital quality of Black and White adults over the life course. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(3), 361–384. https://doi. org/10.1177/0265407596133004. Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Chandler, A. L. (1999). Daily transmission of tensions between marital dyads and parent–child dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(1), 49–61. https:// doi.org/10.2307/353882. Baer, J. C., & Schmitz, M. F. (2007). Ethnic differences in trajectories of family cohesion for Mexican American and Non-Hispanic White adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(4), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9177-3. Bai, L., & Han, Z. R. (2016). Emotion dysregulation mediates relations between chinese parents’ histories of childhood emotional abuse and parenting stress: a dyadic data analysis. Parenting, 16 (3), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2016.1158602. Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent–adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56(2), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129732. Birmes, P., Raynaud, J.-P., Daubisse, L., Brunet, A., Arbus, C., Klein, R., & Grandjean, H. (2009). Children’s enduring PTSD symptoms are related to their family’s adaptability and cohesion. Community Mental Health Journal, 45(4), 290–299. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10597-008-9166-3. Campbell, J. L., & Snow, B. M. (1992). Gender role conflict and family environment as predictors of men’s marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 6(1), 84–87. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0893-3200.6.1.84. Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65(4), 1111–1119. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131308. Chen, J. J., Sun, P., & Yu, Z. (2017). A comparative study on parenting of preschool children between the Chinese in China and Chinese

J Child Fam Stud immigrants in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 38(9), 1262–1287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15619460. Chuang, S. S., & Su, Y. (2009). Do we see eye to eye? Chinese mothers’ and fathers’ parenting beliefs and values for toddlers in Canada and China. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(3), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016015. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.48.1.243. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01259. Crandall, A., Ghazarian, S. R., Day, R. D., & Riley, A. W. (2016). Maternal emotion regulation and adolescent behaviors: The mediating role of family functioning and parenting. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(11), 2321–2335. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10964-015-0400-3. Demby, K. P., Riggs, S. A., & Kaminski, P. L. (2017). Attachment and family processes in children’s psychological adjustment in middle childhood. Family Process, 56(1), 234–249. https://doi.org/10. 1111/famp.12145. Donahue, J. J., Goranson, A. C., McClure, K. S., & Van Male, L. M. (2014). Emotion dysregulation, negative affect, and aggression: a moderated, multiple mediator analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 70(6), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2014.06.009. Esposito-Smythers, C., Birmaher, B., Valeri, S., Chiappetta, L., Hunt, J., Ryan, N., & Sindelar, H. (2006). Child comorbidity, maternal mood disorder, and perceptions of family functioning among bipolar youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 45(8), 955–964. https://doi.org/10.1097/ 01.chi.0000222785.11359.04. Farrell, M. P., Barnes, G. M., & Banerjee, S. (1995). Family cohesion as a buffer against the effects of problem-drinking fathers on psychological distress, deviant behavior, and heavy drinking in adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(4), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137326. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(3), 737–745. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x. Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). 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, 26(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:joba. 0000007455.08539.94. Gross, J. J. (Ed.). (2013). Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence. New York, NY: Appleton. Henneberger, A. K., Varga, S. M., Moudy, A., & Tolan, P. H. (2016). Family functioning and high risk adolescents’ aggressive behavior: Examining effects by ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(1), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964014-0222-8. 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. Jia, H., Gong, Y., & Guan, X. (2011). The creation and changes of marriage systems in new China: Law of marriage and the changes of social status of Chinese women in the family. Journal of Hebei University of Science and Technology (Social Sciences), 11(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-1653.2011.01.009. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (2009). Parent–child relationships during adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Vol. 2, Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 3–42). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Ledermann, T., & Bodenmann, G. (2006). Moderator and mediator effects in dyadic research: two extensions of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 37(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.37.1.27. Ledermann, T., Macho, S., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(4), 595–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011. 607099. Leung, J. T., Shek, D. T., & Li, L. (2016). Mother–child discrepancy in perceived family functioning and adolescent developmental outcomes in families experiencing economic disadvantage in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(10), 2036–2048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0469-3. Li, X., Zou, H., Liu, Y., & Zhou, Q. (2014). The relationships of family socioeconomic status, parent–adolescent conflict, and filial piety to adolescents’ family functioning in mainland China. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(1), 29–38. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10826-012-9683-0. Mitchell, D. B., Szczerepa, A., & Hauser-Cram, P. (2016). Spilling over: partner parenting stress as a predictor of family cohesion in parents of adolescents with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 49, 258–267. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ridd.2015.12.007. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén. Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1986). Adolescent and parent perceptions of family cohesion and adaptability. Journal of Adolescence, 9 (1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-1971(86)80030-6. Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.127. Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2006). Faces IV and the Circumplex model. Minneapolis, MN: Life Innovations. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. (1982). FACES II: family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. Minneapolis: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota. Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Vl. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15455300.1983.00069.x. Pedersen, S., & Revenson, T. A. (2005). Parental illness, family functioning, and adolescent well-being: a family ecology framework to guide research. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(3), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.404. Phillips, M. R., West, C. L., Shen, Q., & Zheng, Y. (1998). Comparison of schizophrenic patients’ families and normal families in China, using Chinese versions of FACES-II and the family environment scales. Family Process, 37(1), 95–106. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1998.00095.x. Pianta, R. C. (1992). Child-Parent Relationship Scale (CPRS). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. Ponnet, K., Wouters, E., Mortelmans, D., Pasteels, I., De Backer, C., Van Leeuwen, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2013). The influence of mothers’ and fathers’ parenting stress and depressive symptoms on own and partner’s parent-child communication. Family Process, 52(2), 312–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12001. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879.

J Child Fam Stud Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., DeaterDeckard, K., Di Giunta, L., & Pastorelli, C. (2012). Agreement in mother and father acceptance-rejection, warmth, and hostility/ rejection/neglect of children across nine countries. CrossCultural Research, 46(3), 191–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1069397112440931. Roberton, T., Daffern, M., & Bucks, R. S. (2012). Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.006. Romero, S., DelBello, M. P., Soutullo, C. A., Stanford, K., & Strakowski, S. M. (2005). Family environment in families with versus families without parental bipolar disorder: a preliminary comparison study. Bipolar Disorders, 7(6), 617–622. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2005.00270.x. Rutherford, H. J., 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. Sarıtaş, D., Grusec, J. E., & Gençöz, T. (2013). Warm and harsh parenting as mediators of the relation between maternal and adolescent emotion regulation. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1093–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.015. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https:// doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147.

Shek, D. T. (2001). Paternal and maternal influences on family functioning among Hong Kong Chinese families. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00221320109597881. Shigeto, A., Mangelsdorf, S. C., & Brown, G. L. (2014). Roles of family cohesiveness, marital adjustment, and child temperament in predicting child behavior with mothers and fathers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 200–220. https://doi. org/10.1177/0265407513490586. Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/a nnurev.psych.57.102904.190124. Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1, Children and parenting (pp. 103–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zhang, X., Chen, H., Zhang, G., Zhou, B., & Wu, W. (2008). A longitudinal study of parent-child relationships and problem behaviors in early childhood: transactional model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40(5), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041. 2008.00571.