The relationship of recalled adverse parenting styles with maladaptive schemas, trait anger, and symptoms of depression and anxiety

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Affective Disorders journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jad

Research paper

The relationship of recalled adverse parenting styles with maladaptive schemas, trait anger, and symptoms of depression and anxiety

T

Rosalyn Shutea, , Monica Maudb, Angus McLachlanc ⁎

a

College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, PO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, South Australia Private Psychology Practice, Victoria, Australia c Federation University, Victoria, Australia b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Anger Anxiety Depression Parenting styles Maladaptive schemas

Background: Young's contention that early maladaptive schemas mediate the relationship between adverse parenting and later emotional difficulties has been lrttle tested. Also, most relevant research focuses only on depression, and on maternal parenting. Methods: One hundred and fifty-five non-clinical adults completed the Young Parenting Inventory (YPI) regarding both their mothers and fathers, Young's Schema Questionnaire (YSQ), the State/Trait Anger Scale (STAS) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Results: Young's suggested 17-factor YPI structure was not supported. Rather, participants differentiated between recalled paternal and maternal parenting, with rejecting and controlling components emerging for each parent. There was an indirect effect of rejecting fathering on symptoms of depression, via the social isolation schema, in support of Young's theory. However, despite some significant relationships between parenting and schemas, and schemas and emotions, most effects of parenting on emotions were direct. Rejecting fathering had a direct positive effect on trait anger, and controlling mothering on symptoms of depression and anxiety. Controlling fathering had a negative effect on anxiety symptoms. Limitations: The study was cross-sectional, limited to participants in a single city, and had a preponderance of female respondents. Conclusions: Most effects of adverse parenting seem to be direct rather than operating through schemas. Prevention through early parenting programs, and adult cognitive therapies that draw on a broad range of schemas, seem to be called for.

1. Introduction

family violence (e.g., Deffenbacher et al., 1996; Wolf and Foshee, 2003). Understanding how such emotional difficulties arise is crucial for prevention and intervention efforts. Building upon Beck's (1976) cognitive model of psychopathology, Young (1990) theorized that such emotional difficulties originate in childhood experiences of ‘toxic’ parenting that lead to the development of early maladaptive schemas (EMS) that act as a negative blueprint for later perceptions of the world. These schemas were proposed to arise ‘from an interaction of the child's innate temperament with dysfunctional developmental experiences with family members or caregivers’ (Young et al., 2001, p. 270), and to in turn give rise to disordered affective and personality states (Young, 1990; Young et al., 2001). Although not fully elaborating his model, Young implied that schemas play a mediating role in the relationship between parenting style experienced and later emotional difficulties. He surmised that

1.1. Background Depression, anxiety, and trait anger are emotional difficulties that constitute serious problems for individuals and communities. Depression and anxiety are high incidence mental health problems. For example, 6.7% of US adults had at least one major depressive episode in 2016 (NIMH, 2017a), while almost a third experience an anxiety disorder at some stage (NIMH, 2017b). The economic impact of major depression alone is estimated at $210.5 billion per year (Greenberg et al., 2015). Trait anger – a tendency toward expressing anger in uncontrolled and non-constructive ways – does not attract a diagnosis of mental ill health. However, it results in frequent negative consequences and plays an important role in societal problems such as

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Shute), [email protected] (A. McLachlan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.048 Received 25 February 2019; Received in revised form 26 June 2019; Accepted 17 August 2019 Available online 19 August 2019 0165-0327/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

may lead to personality disorder in adulthood (Johnson et al., 2006). Studies have also shown relationships between cognitions and depression or anxiety (e.g., Beck, 1976; Cole et al., 2001; Gerlsma et al., 1990; Golin et al., 1981; Ingram and Ritter, 2000; Maud et al., 2012). Reviewing the literature that has focused specifically on Young's theory, Oei and Baranoff (2007) concluded that depression, in particular, has been shown to be linked to numbers of Young's proposed maladaptive schemas, including insufficient self-control and social alienation. Only one previous study has examined all three emotional difficulties of interest here, in relation to Young's schemas. Maud et al. (2012) found that depression was associated with the schemas of social alienation and enmeshment. Anxiety was associated with vulnerability, which is in accord with Beck's (1976) view of anxiety as concerning imminent harm or loss. Trait anger showed greater complexity, being associated with schemas of mistrust/abuse, entitlement, abandonment, subjugation and insufficient self-control. No other studies have examined anger in relation to Young's schemas, A few studies do suggest a mediating role for some schemas, for example, in the relationship between recalled parenting and eating pathology (Sheffield et al., 2009), and in that between both parental care and overprotection, and depression (Harris and Curtain, 2002). Haugh et al. (2017) identified a handful of other studies providing support for schema mediation, particularly in the relationship between mothers’ parenting and offspring depression (e.g., Lumley and Harkness, 2007). Young and collaborators recently identified certain schemas as mediating the relationship between aspects of recalled parenting and feelings of vulnerability in adulthood (Bach et al., 2018). Their findings suggest that remembered adverse parenting might well be linked to certain maladaptive schemas which in turn are related to current specific emotional difficulties in adults. The Haugh et al. (2017) study is the only one to date to include all aspects of Young's model, including not only schemas as mediators of the relationship between recalled (maternal) parenting and depression, but also offspring temperament as a moderator of this relationship. They found that schemas concerned with disconnection/rejection and impaired autonomy mediated the relationship between recalled parenting and current depression, but only weak evidence that temperament acts as a moderator. The potential mediating role of maladaptive schemas in the relationship between recalled parenting and a broader range of current emotional difficulties has not been examined previously, and is the subject of the present study. An additional feature of the present study is that we examined recalled parenting by fathers, as well as mothers. Bach et al. (2018) did so in their mediation study, but did not report any major differences. Haugh et al. (2017) examined mothers’ parenting only, suggesting that it would be useful in future to examine the role of recalled fathers’ parenting when they had been the primary caregivers. However, it is not necessary for a parent to be a primary caregiver to affect offspring outcomes. For example, low contact coupled with low father support after divorce is associated with later offspring internalizing and externalizing problems (Elam et al., 2015). Retrospective parenting style studies show effects that may be similar between mothers and fathers in some respects, but different in others (Olivari et al. (2018), so it is important to examine both. In practical terms, a greater understanding of fathers’ parenting styles may be valuable for therapy with their children (Balottin et al., 2017).

Table 1 Young's proposed parenting styles and corresponding maladaptive schemas. Young Parenting Inventory styles

Young maladaptive schemas

———– emotional deprivation abandonment mistrust/abuse vulnerability to harm defectiveness/shame failure to achieve subjugation self-sacrifice dependence/incompetence unrelenting standards entitlement insufficient self-control enmeshment emotional inhibition punitiveness negativity/pessimism approval-seeking

social isolation emotional deprivation abandonment mistrust/abuse vulnerability to harm defectiveness/shame failure to achieve subjugation self-sacrifice functional dependence unrelenting standards entitlement insufficient self-control enmeshment emotional inhibition punitiveness ———– ———–

each maladaptive schema arises from a particular style of adverse parenting that fails to meet a child's emotional needs. For example, children of critical parents may become overly sensitive to failure, while those of rejecting parents may become overly sensitive to abandonment (Young, 1990). Based on his clinical experience with adults, Young developed a retrospective questionnaire, the Young Parenting Inventory, or YPI, about adverse parenting experienced while growing up. In keeping with his maladaptive schemas, Young proposed 17 parenting factors characterized by, for example, emotional deprivation, abandonment, mistrust/abuse, vulnerability to harm and defectiveness/shame (see Table 1 for a complete list). However, a factor analysis of this instrument found only nine styles, common to both parents: emotionally depriving; overprotective; belittling; perfectionist; pessimistic/fearful; controlling; emotionally inhibited; punitive; and conditional/narcissistic (Sheffield et al., 2005). Even with nine parenting styles, Young's approach contrasts with the main body of developmental research on how parenting affects psychosocial outcomes for children. Much research supports the existence of only four parenting styles, the less optimal, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved styles, and the optimal, authoritative style, (Baumrind, 1991), with effects that extend into adulthood (e.g., Gersho, 1999). Given the complexity of the structure of Young's parenting questionnaire, this was explored in the present study prior to utilizing it in further analyses. The YPI factors Young proposed broadly paralleled those of his Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ) (Young, 1990) that assessed 15 (later, 16) schemas, again derived from his clinical work with adults (Table 1). He also devised a form of therapy (schema therapy, seen as a form of ‘limited re-parenting’) for personality disordered individuals, aimed at changing any unhelpful core beliefs (Bach et al., 2018). Although there is preliminary evidence for the efficacy of the therapy for mood and anxiety disorders (Hawke and Provencher, 2011) and borderline personality disorder (Farrell et al., 2009), the underlying theory – that particular styles of adverse parenting give rise to specific schemas which in turn predispose the individual to pathology – has been little examined. Many studies, taken together, are suggestive that schemas may mediate the relationship between parenting experienced and emotional outcomes, but most only examine parts of the suggested process. For example, there are relationships between parenting and offspring emotions (Baumrind, 1971, 1989; Neuharth, 1998), and between childhood experiences and adult depression or anxiety (Beck, 1976; Gerlsma et al., 1990; Ingram and Ritter, 2000; Koeningsberg et al., 2000; Novaco and Chemtob, 2002; Persons and Rao, 1985; Riggs et al., 1992). Longitudinal research has shown that adverse parenting styles

1.2. Aims A To explore the psychometric properties of the Young Parenting Inventory (YPI). B To confirm the structure of the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ). C To examine the relationship between YPI styles and YSQ schemas. D To examine the interrelationships between adverse parenting styles and current emotional difficulties. E To test whether maladaptive schemas mediate the relationship 338

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

Table 2 Items loading on the four parenting style principal components (factors). Parenting Style 1.

2.

1.

2.

Mother Factors Rejecting Mother (24 items: M22, M24, M1, M23, M28, M11, M67, M2, M27, M9, M3, M13, M4, M29, M30, M21, M11, M12, M25, M5, M8. M68, M52, M7)

Controlling Mother (24 items: M60, M43, M39, M54, M42, M71, M46, M20, M41, M53, M18, M17, M57, M19, M31, M32, M40, M65, M59, M62, M70, M58, M69, M16)

Father Factors Rejecting Father (33 Items: F22, F1, F3, F30, F4, F2, F29, F28, F67, F25, F9, F26, F23, F21, F48, F24, F5, F7, F47, F27, F11, F68, F57, F10, F49, F52, F40, F51, F13, F8, F12, F59, F38, F54).,

Controlling Father (21 Items: F41, F60, F43, F39, F31, F42, F18, F17, F65, F32. F20, F46, F71, F70, F15, F66, F69, F19, F14, F72, F53)

Description

Example Items

Mother was rejecting and abusive.

22. Made me feel unloved or rejected. 24. Made me ashamed of myself in important details. 1. Loved me, treated me as someone special. (Reverse scored) 23. Treated me as if there was something wrong with me28. Expected me to be a failure in life. 11. Abused me physically, emotionally, or sexually.

Mother was demanding and controlling.

60. Had to have everything under control. 43. Placed more importance on doing things well than on having fun or relaxing. 39. Was a perfectionist in many areas; things had to be ‘just so.’ 54. I felt that I didn't have my own sense of direction while I was growing up.

Father did not show love to child or rejected his child.

22. Made me feel unloved or rejected. 1. Loved me, treated me as someone special. (Reverse scored) 3. Gave me helpful guidance and direction. (Reverse scored) 30. Did what he/she wanted, regardless of my needs. 4. Listened to me, understood me, shared feelings with me. (Reverse scored) 2. Spent time with me and paid attention to me. (Reverse scored)

Father was strict and controlling and impatient and task oriented.

41. Had strict, rigid rules of right and wrong. 60. Had to have everything under control. 43. Placed more importance on doing things well than on having fun or relaxing. 39. Was a perfectionist in many areas; things had to be ‘just so.’

between recalled adverse parenting styles and current emotional difficulties.

Irrespective of the outcome of the exploration of the structure of the YPI, it was predicted that the relationship between adverse parenting styles, generally, and the three current emotional difficulties would be mediated by specific maladaptive schemas as follows (Maud et al., 2012):

1.3. Hypotheses (labelled to correspond with aims) A. As there is very little (and conflicting) information about the structure and complexity of the YPI, an exploratory approach will be taken rather than a confirmatory one, and therefore no hypothesis is made about its structure. B.1. A 16-factor structure of the YSQ will be confirmed (i.e., the original 15 factors plus the newer Punitiveness scale). C.1. In the event that the YPI factor structure emerges as Young proposed, each factor will be significantly and positively correlated with the corresponding YSQ factor (see Table 1). Provided Hypothesis C.1 is confirmed (that the YPI factors match those of the YSQ factors), it was expected that the associations between the three emotional difficulties and maladaptive schemas identified by Maud et al. (2012) in a similar community sample would also hold for the YPI factors. Therefore: D.1. Depressive symptoms will be positively associated with YPI social alienation and enmeshment. D.2. Anxiety symptoms will be positively associated with YPI vulnerability. D.3. Trait anger will be positively associated with YPI mistrust/ abuse, entitlement, abandonment, insufficient self-control and subjugation.

E.1. YSQ social alienation and enmeshment will mediate the relationship between recalled adverse parenting styles and depressive symptoms. E.2. YSQ vulnerability will mediate the relationship between recalled adverse parenting styles and anxiety symptoms. E.3. YSQ mistrust/abuse, entitlement, abandonment, subjugation and insufficient self-control will mediate the relationship between recalled adverse parenting styles and trait anger. 2. Method 2.1. Participants These were non-clinical adults drawn from university students and the wider community in a provincial city in Australia, with a population of 100,000. The sample was sought in non-clinical settings as recommended by Garber and Hollon (1991). There were 155 adult participants: 37 men (24%), 110 women (74%), and 8 who did not report their gender. Participants were approached individually in public settings: shops, libraries, canteens, offices, workplaces, tertiary 339

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

institutions, and in a soup kitchen (for homeless/ disadvantaged people). Their ages ranged from 18 – 50 and over, with a median age of 40 years. Twelve indicated that their father had left the family home permanently during their childhood, and two that their mother had done so, but all nevertheless completed the YPI for both parents. Thirty percent reported seeking help in the past for depression, and ten percent for anxiety.

concurrent validity (Spielberger et al., 1985), and internal consistency (Corcoran and Fischer, 2000). Trait Anger reliability in the present sample was 0.86 (Cronbach's alpha). 2.2.3.2. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). The DASS-21 (Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995) has three 4-point Likert scales to measure symptoms of Depression (e.g., ‘Over the past week, I felt downhearted and blue’) and Anxiety (e.g., ‘Over the past week, I felt scared without any good reason’), responses ranging from ‘did not apply to me at all’ to ‘applied to me very much, or most of the time’. Stress was not a variable of interest in the study, therefore those items were omitted. Psychometrically, the scale is valid and reliable (Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995), with adequate convergent and discriminant validity (Crawford and Henry, 2003). In the present sample, Cronbach's alpha was 0.87 for Depression and 0.73 for Anxiety.

2.2. Materials 2.2.1. Parenting measure: Young Parenting Inventory (YPI) This inventory is scored on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘completely untrue’ to ‘describes him/her perfectly’. The 72 items are identical for both parents, and some sample items are shown in Table 2. Young (1990) identified 17 styles of recalled adverse parenting and related these to the YSQ schemas to which he thought the parenting gave rise (Table 1). For example, he thought that if parents abandon a child, either by not being available, or by leaving home, the child will be likely to develop an Abandonment Schema. Young named the YPI parenting styles almost identically to the YSQ schemas, though he omitted Social Isolation and added Negativity and Approval Seeking. A later factor analysis did not find Young's 17 factors, but only 9 adverse parenting styles (Sheffield et al., 2005).

2.3. Procedure After ethics permission was granted by the relevant university authority (institutional review board), participants were approached individually in public settings and invited to be involved in a study of emotions. They were provided with written information to assist them in giving informed consent. Those who agreed to participate were offered a low-value ‘Scratch-and-win’ lottery ticket in acknowledgement of their effort. They were asked to complete the questionnaire in private and return it anonymously in a supplied stamped addressed envelope.

2.2.2. Schema measure: Young's Schema Questionnaire (YSQ-S1) This self-report instrument assesses maladaptive schemas derived from clinical experience with adults (Young, 1990). Although such schemas normally operate at an unconscious level, it is assumed that they can be accessed via self-report (Welburn et al., 2002). The 75-item short version, scored on a 6-point Likert scale, was used. An example is, ‘I worry that people I feel close to will leave or abandon me’. Responses range from ‘completely untrue of me’ to ‘describes me perfectly’. The YSQ has adequate test-retest reliability (Lee et al., 2000; Schmidt et al., 1995; Stein and Young, 1992) and convergent and discriminant validity (Schmidt et al., 1995), and good internal consistency (Lee et al., 2000). Factor analysis of the long (205-item) version has yielded 15 factors (Lee et al., 2000; Schmidt et al., 1995; Stein, and Young, 1992), as has the 75-item short form (Welburn et al., 2002) (see Table 1). The short form is factorially ‘purer’, comprising the five highest loading items for each factor. The importance of the Dependence and Enmeshment schemas has been questioned, at least with student samples (Baranoff et al., 2006; Oei and Baranoff, 2007), and some variability of factor structure between samples has been observed (Calvete et al., 2005; Maud et al., 2012). Some researchers (e.g., Calvete et al., 2005) have identified higher-order clusters of schemas (domains), but these have not been consistently identified, remain subject to change (e.g., Bach et al., 2018), and cause confusion in the literature (Maud et al., 2012). Therefore, the original, more specific, schemas were used in this study. This enabled comparison with the findings of Maud et al. (2012), whose study addressed all three emotional difficulties in a similar (community) sample. As several studies have supported the 15-factor model, we sought to confirm this structure through a factor analysis, with the addition of the Punitiveness scale that Young later proposed (i.e., 16 factors in all).

2.4. Data analyses Initially, the structure of the YPI was explored using Principal Components Analysis (PCA), as there was not a strong enough basis in the literature to undertake a confirmatory analysis. By contrast, the structure of the better-established YSQ was examined through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Descriptive statistics for the STAS (Trait Anger) and DASS (Depressive and Anxiety symptoms) were calculated. Finally, path analyses were used to examine pathways between adverse parenting styles and each of the three emotional outcomes, to test whether schemas acted as mediators in the manner hypothesized. Data were analyzed using SPSS 23 and AMOS Graphics (Arbuckle, 2014). 3. Results 3.1. Principal Components Analysis of YPI Initially, the PCA utilized all responses for both parents (144 items), using Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization (eigenvalues ≥ 1). This method seeks to minimize the number of variables which load highly on each factor (Coakes and Steed, 1999). The model converged in 26 iterations, producing 15 components with uneven item spread. Most items loaded on the first five components (scree test). The KaiserMeyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was very low (0.19), indicating that components should not be sought (Coakes and Steed, 1999). One of the first two components consisted entirely of items regarding the mother, and the other comprised only items concerning the father. It was therefore decided to analyze mothers’ and fathers’ data separately. Using Varimax rotation as before, both analyses converged in three iterations, providing 15 components. The KMO measure for mothers’ scores was 0.87, and for fathers’ scores 0.89, both ‘meritorious’ levels of sampling adequacy (Coakes and Steed, 1999). Again, most items loaded onto the first five factors (especially the first two), numerous lower-order factors consisting of just one item. Considering the sample size, we decided to retain only two principal components for each parent, even though this meant losing some of the data on specificity (i.e., some differences between parents). In addition, we

2.2.3. Outcome measures 2.2.3.1. State Trait Anger Scale (STAS). The STAS (Spielberger et al. 1970, in Corcoran and Fischer (2000)) includes two 15-item self-report 4-point Likert scales to measure both enduring tendencies (Trait Anger) and temporal and situational variations in anger (State Anger). Trait Anger was of interest here, as a potential long-term consequence of adverse parenting; questions are about how the respondent generally feels, for example, ‘I am a hot-headed person’. Responses range from ‘almost never’ to ‘almost always’. The scale has good convergent validity (Corcoran and Fischer, 2000; Riley and Treiber, 1989), discriminant validity (Deffenbacher, 1992; Riley and Treiber, 1989), 340

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

Table 3 Characteristics of the four adverse parenting styles, derived from YPI items clustering together in the Principal Components Analysis (‘common themes’ refers to characteristics shared with at least one other parenting style).

previously identified for the 75-item version (Welburn et al., 2002). There were no prior grounds for selecting any particular two items from the previously untested Punitiveness scale, so we arbitrarily reduced the 14 items to 7 by selecting every other item (even numbers). For this model, RMSEA = 0.06 and CFI = 0.90, and this was regarded as an acceptable fit, especially as the RMSEA is particularly relevant in confirmatory contexts (Rigdon, 2009). Hypothesis B.1 was therefore supported. Schema scores were calculated based on the items in this model and used in further analyses.

removed all items with weaker extraction scores (below 0.40). With 18 items removed for mother's parenting, the KMO was 0.92. With 15 items removed for father's parenting, it was 0.93. The PCAs were repeated, seeking two components. For both parents, the two components could be characterized as Rejecting and Controlling (Table 2), with many items in common across parents (see Table 3). There were subtle differences, however, as indicated by the items that loaded on each. Rejecting Mothers were seen as rejecting and abusive and tending to see their children as defective, whereas Rejecting Fathers did not show love to, or actively rejected, the child. Controlling Mothers, while seen as demanding and controlling, were also negative, whereas Controlling Fathers were seen as strict, controlling, impatient and task oriented, as well as anxious and judgmental. The four newlyidentified parenting factors (Rejecting and Controlling for each parent) were used as exogenous factors in the path analyses examining mediation. As Young's posited parenting styles did not emerge, Hypothesis C.1., that corresponding YPI and YSQ factors would be correlated, was not supported. Furthermore, Hypotheses D.1, 2, and 3 were not supported, as these concerned associations between Young's YPI factors and specific maladaptive schemas.

3.3. Descriptive statistics for STAS and DASS (N = 155) Total scores were calculated. Trait Anger M = 23.38, SD = 5.78, skewness = 1.6, possible range = 15–60, actual range = 15–39. Depressive symptoms M = 3.22, SD = 3.42, skewness = 1.4, possible range = 0–20, actual range = 0–16. Anxiety symptoms M = 2.08, SD = 2.43, skewness = 1.9, possible range = 0–20, actual range = 0 = 11. Transformations of the data to address skewness had no appreciable effects on the distributions, so the original scores were used in further analyses.

3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis of YSQ

3.4. Path analyses

Before utilizing the YSQ in the analyses, AMOS was used to confirm Young's 16-schema model with this sample (see Table 1 for the list of proposed factors). Many authorities have developed fit indices, and recommendations vary, but the RMSEA and CFI are commonly used (Rigdon, 2009). The RMSEA was borderline at 0.08 (0.06 is preferred), while the fit was very poor as indicated by the CFI of 0.69 (0.9 is acceptable, and 0.95 preferred). Item reduction has been shown to yield a better fit for the YSQ (Maud et al., 2012), therefore an alternative model was tested based on the strongest two items per schema as

The relationships between adverse parenting styles, maladaptive schemas and emotional difficulties were examined using path analyses. Three recursive path models were developed, one for each emotional difficulty: Anxiety symptoms, Depressive symptoms, and Trait Anger. Each model had four exogenous variables, comprising the two mother (Rejecting and Controlling) and two father (Rejecting and Controlling) components identified in the PCAs of the YPI. Only four linkages were possible between these four exogenous variables, because the two 341

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

Fig. 1. Paths from adverse parenting and schemas to Trait Anger Note: Significant beta values are shown. * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001 Dashed line shows weak indirect effect. Heavy line shows significant direct effect of parenting. The other significant links do not reflect pathways from parenting to Trait Anger.

mother components were orthogonal, as were the two father components. There was a significant correlation between Controlling Father and Controlling Mother (r = 0.44), and between Rejecting Father and Rejecting Mother (r = 0.67). The schemas identified previously for a similar community sample as significant predictors of each emotional difficulty (Maud et al., 2012) were selected as potentially endogenous/mediating variables. The predictor variables were the four identified adverse parenting styles and maladaptive schemas; the criterion variables were offspring Trait Anger, Depressive symptoms, or Anxiety symptoms. All path analyses are reported in terms of standardized scores to make units comparable across variables (Klem, 1995). The path models supported by the analyses are shown in Figs. 1–3. Bach et al. (2018) controlled for participant gender in their analyses as they observed some significant associations between gender and schemas, but in the present sample such relations were not apparent, therefore gender was not included.

emotion. Rejecting Father was the only type to be associated with all three emotional difficulties. 3.4.2. Adverse parenting styles in relation to specific emotional difficulties The three path analyses also explored the relationships between mothers’ and fathers’ adverse parenting styles and each emotional difficulty (Table 5). Rejecting Father positively predicted Trait Anger, while Controlling Father (negatively) and, more strongly, Controlling Mother (positively), predicted Anxiety symptoms. Controlling Mother positively predicted Depressive symptoms. 3.4.3. Maladaptive schemas in relation to emotional difficulties Social Isolation, but not Enmeshment, positively predicted Depressive symptoms, partially supporting Hypothesis E.1. Hypothesis E.2 was supported, in that Vulnerability positively predicted Anxiety symptoms. Three of the five schemas expected to be positive predictors of Trait Anger (Mistrust/Abuse, Insufficient Self-control and Entitlement) were confirmed to be so, while Abandonment and Subjugation were not (Table 6); this partially supported Hypothesis E.3.

3.4.1. Adverse parenting styles in relation to maladaptive schemas The direct effects of recalled adverse parenting on schemas, as determined by the path analyses, are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that all parenting styles except Controlling Father directly affected at least some of the schemas previously found to be associated with each

3.4.4. Adverse parenting styles in relation to emotional difficulties: total, direct and indirect effects The various associations between recalled parenting styles and 342

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

Fig. 2. Paths from adverse parenting and schemas to Depressive symptoms Note: Significant beta values are shown. * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001 Heavy dashed line shows significant indirect effect. Heavy solid line shows significant direct effect. The other significant links do not reflect paths from parenting to Depressive symptoms.

Fig. 3. Paths from adverse parenting and schemas to Anxiety symptoms Note: Heavy line shows direct predictor. Although Rejecting Father is a significant contributor to Vulnerability, this translates to only a weak, non-significant indirect effect on Anxiety (dashed line). The effect of Controlling Father is negative and direct.

343

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

emotional difficulties are shown in Table 7, in terms of the direct, the indirect or mediated effects, and the total effects of parenting on Trait Anger, Depressive symptoms, and Anxiety symptoms. These figures represent the unique contributions of each parenting style to each of the emotional outcomes, taking all schemas of interest together in any one model. Bootstrapping was used to estimate the significance of the various effects (number of bootstrap samples obtained was 500 for Trait Anger and Depressive symptoms and 200 for Anxiety symptoms). For Trait Anger, the only indirect effect was from Rejecting Mother (through the schema of Insufficient Self-control) but it was weak and overall there was no effect of Rejecting Mother. By contrast, there was an effect of Rejecting Father on Trait Anger that was mainly direct. For Depressive symptoms, both Controlling Mother and Rejecting Father had a significant effect, though this was direct in the case of Controlling Mother and indirect in the case of Rejecting Father (through the Social Isolation schema). For Anxiety symptoms, Controlling Mother and Rejecting Father were again significant predictors. The stronger effect was from Controlling Mother, and this was positive and direct, while for Rejecting Father there was a direct, but negative, effect. The total effect of parenting and schemas accounted for 21% of the variance in relation to offspring Trait Anger, 30% in relation to Depressive symptoms, and 34% in relation to Anxiety symptoms.

Table 4 Direct Effects of Parenting on Schemas: Standardized Regression Weights. YSQ Schemas Relating to Emotions Trait Ange Mistrust/Abuse Insuff. Selfcontrol Abandonment Entitlement Subjugation Depressive symptoms Social Isolation Enmeshment Anxiety symptoms Vulnerability

Rejecting Mother

Controlling Mother

Rejecting Father

Controlling Father

.18 .21*

.05 .07

.23* .08

.15 .01

.17 .20 .21*

.16 .03 .21*

.23* .00 .12

.00 .18 .05

.05 .00

.21* .43***

.44*** .03

−0.02 −0.11

.12

.09

.34***

.08

N = 155; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001. Table 5 Direct Effects of Parenting on Emotions: Unstandardized and Standardized Regression Weights. Mother and Father YPI Components Trait Anger Rejecting Mother Controlling Mother Rejecting Father Controlling Father Depressive symptoms Rejecting Mother Controlling Mother Rejecting Father Controlling Father Anxiety symptoms Rejecting Mother Controlling Mother Rejecting Father Controlling Father

B

SE B

β

−0.81 −0.15 1.44 .16

.60 .48 .59 .48

−0.14 −0.03 .26* .03

4. Discussion

−0.12 .59 .20 −0.29

.31 .29 .34 .26

−0.04 .17* .06 −0.09

.15 .82 .12 −0.41

.22 .18 .23 .18

.06 .34*** .05 −0.17*

This study has added to the very limited literature that tests Young's theory that maladaptive schemas play a mediating role in the relationship between recalled adverse parenting styles and emotional difficulties in adulthood. Pathways to depression have been given some previous attention (Harris and Curtain, 2002; Haugh et al., 2017), but we expanded the range of emotions to also include anxiety and trait anger, which also have a significant impact on individuals and communities. We found relatively little evidence for a mediational process, but rather for direct effects of parenting on emotions. Our findings highlight the importance of considering adverse parenting by fathers, as well as by mothers. We also added to the sparse body of available psychometric information on the Young Parenting Inventory (YPI). In the following discussion, the qualities of the YPI inventory and the styles of parenting it discerned are first examined. Then the interrelationships between adverse parenting styles, maladaptive schemas and emotional outcomes are explored. Finally, there is some discussion of Young's overall model and implications for early emotional development and clinical practice.

4.1. Overview

N = 155; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001. Table 6 Total Effect of Schemas on Trait Anger and Depressive and Anxiety symptoms: Standardized Regression Weights. YSQ schema

Trait Anger

Mistrust/Abuse Insuff. Self-control Abandonment Entitlement Subjugation Social Isolation Enmeshment Vulnerability

.22* .17* .05 .17* .01

Depressive symptoms

Anxiety symptoms

4.2. Young's Parenting Inventory

.48*** .00

Young's 17-factor model of parenting styles did not emerge. Rather, participants distinguished between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting, with two main components obtained for each: Rejecting Mother and Controlling Mother, and Rejecting Father and Controlling Father.

.43***

N = 155; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001.

Table 7 Total, Direct and Indirect (Total minus Direct) Effects of Parenting on Emotional difficulties: Standardized Regression Weights. Variable Exogenous Variables

Trait Anger Total

Direct

Indirect

Depressive symptoms Total

Direct

Indirect

Anxiety symptoms Total

Direct

Indirect

Rejecting Mother Controlling Mother Rejecting Father Controlling Father

−0.03 0.01 0.33** 0.09

−0.15 −0.03 0.26* 0.03

0.12* 0.04 0.08 0.06

−0.01 0.27** 0.27** −0.09

−0.04 0.17* 0.10 0.06 −0.09

0.03 0.38** 0.21** −0.01

0.12 0.34* 0.20* −0.13

0.06 0.04 0.05 −0.17*

0.06

N = 115; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001.

344

0.15 0.04

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

A general feature of all the adverse parenting styles, as indicated by the associated YPI items, was that their children saw them as critical and selfish. Rejecting parents were seen as abusive, cruel, blaming, and judgmental or, more moderately, as unaffectionate, dismissive, unloving and not interested in their children, and did not want to spend time with them. Rejecting parents were also described in terms of attributes such as laxity, moodiness, unpredictability, and being caught up in their own emotions. In addition, rejecting fathers were seen as unsupportive, remote, exploitative, and undisciplined, and rejecting mothers as hurtful, self-absorbed, neglectful, and cold. The low warmth, responsiveness and control of these parents is reminiscent of Baumrind's (1989) category of uninvolved or neglecting/rejecting parents. Controlling parents were seen as demanding, controlling and impatient, as well as undermining, fearful, competitive, and statusseeking. In addition, controlling fathers were seen as angry, impatient, punitive and enmeshed, and controlling mothers as overpowering, pessimistic and conservative. Both shared some of the characteristics of Baumrind's (1989) authoritarian parents. They were, further, perceived as somewhat anxious and fearful, which could explain their strong need for control. For instance, controlling fathers were overprotective, perhaps fearing their children would not manage alone, or might get hurt, and also feared that their children might reflect badly on them. Controlling parents were seen as concerned about whether they were ‘good enough’, suggesting that their need for control arose from anxiety, particularly regarding their relationships with others. Such anxious behavior appears similar to that found in some categories of Neuharth's (1998) controlling parents. Neuharth's observation that controlling families are run to please or protect one or both parents, rather than to foster children's optimal development, may be pertinent. While there were a few shared characteristics between rejecting and controlling parents, rejecting fathers and controlling mothers were characteristically recalled as negative and overpowering, and these parenting styles seem to be especially powerful in terms of their children's emotional difficulties.

the two major dimensions underlying interpersonal behaviors and traits, including autobiographical memory and psychological problems (e.g., Locke, 2003). These themes are also evident in analyses of society more broadly, most prominently in Durkheim's notions of power and solidarity (see, for example, Rueschemeyer, 1994). The present findings on recalled parenting can therefore be theoretically linked to a large and diverse body of previous research. The only other indirect effect was a weak effect of rejecting mothering on trait anger, through the schema of insufficient self-control. However, this was offset by a nonsignificant direct effect such that, overall, rejecting mothering did not contribute to trait anger. Although the mediating effects suggested by Young's theory were largely absent from this study, we did confirm that recalled adverse parenting is associated with numbers of schemas previously found to be associated with emotional difficulties (Maud et al., 2012). Recalling a father as rejecting was associated with a sense of mistrust, abandonment, social isolation and vulnerability, while recalling a controlling mother was associated with subjugation, social isolation and enmeshment. A rejecting mother tended to be associated with subjugation and insufficient self-control. Although the parenting styles are not those nominated by Young, these results are consistent with Young's claim that different styles of parenting affect offspring cognitive development differentially. Furthermore, numbers of schemas were predictive of emotional difficulties. In the case of trait anger, these were mistrust, insufficient self-control and a sense of entitlement. Depressive symptoms were strongly predicted by social isolation and anxiety by vulnerability, as found in previous studies. However, with one exception, these schemas did not act as clear mediators of the relationship between parenting and emotions. Rather, several direct effects of parenting emerged: recalling a mother as controlling and, to a lesser extent, recalling a father as low in control was predictive of anxiety symptoms; recalling a father as rejecting was predictive of trait anger; and recalling a mother as controlling was predictive of depressive symptoms. Controlling parenting had opposing maternal and paternal effects on anxiety. Maternal over-control may often be a form of over-protection, resulting from maternal anxiety; anxious mothers tend to have inhibited and anxious children (e.g., Manassis et al., 1995); the childreported anxiety and pessimism of these mothers in the present study may have set up their children to expect the worst. By contrast, overcontrol by fathers had a slight negative effect on offspring anxiety. These effects are perhaps explicable by stereotypical parenting roles and children's expectations. Possibly by the age of four (Weinraub et al., 1984), and certainly by seven, most children are aware of social roles, such as the ‘mother role’ and the ‘father role,’ either through stories, play, the media, or experience of other families (Goldman and Goldman, 1983; Weinraub et al., 1984). Children are acculturated to expect mothers to provide nurturance, and fathers to provide control. As mothers typically take the primary caring role, their overcontrol may have a strong inhibitory effect on children's confidence, while a father's overcontrol may be a signal to the child that their father is at least involved and protective of them. This suggests the involvement of schemas about parenting that do not form part of Young's system. Previous studies have shown a link between controlling parents and anger. For example, Tronick et al. (1982) showed that mothers who were overly controlling of their infants and persistently engaged with them, produced stressed offspring who showed insecure-resistant attachment patterns and, when in separation situations, were angry and rejecting of their mothers, but there was no evidence for such an association in the present study. Rather, it was recalling a father as rejecting that was associated with anger. A rejecting mother did not have this effect, perhaps because expressing anger toward the parent on whom one depends most directly is counterproductive in driving her further away; while the child is likely to experience subjugation in the face of a mother who is either rejecting or controlling, this did not translate to emotional difficulties in adulthood, in this study. The

4.3. Parenting styles in relation to schemas and emotions Adverse parenting styles and maladaptive schemas together accounted for a considerable amount of variance in all three offspring emotions, and both parenting and schemas made significant contributions. Perhaps paradoxically, however, there was relatively little evidence that specific schemas mediated between recalled parenting and offspring emotions, as Young's theory implies. This finding indicates the importance of testing the theory as a whole (parenting, schemas and emotional difficulties), as demonstrations of strong links between parenting and schemas, or between schemas and emotions, do not in themselves amount to support for the theorized developmental processes that underlie schema therapy. There is one finding of this study that offers some support for Young's theory, and that is in the case of symptoms of depression, the emotional difficulty subject to most attention in previous research, and found to be predicted by controlling parenting (e.g., Epkins and Heckler, 2011; Soenens et al., 2005). In the present study, while controlling mothering had a direct effect on depressive symptoms, the effect of fathering was indirect, via the schema concerned with social isolation, and it was rejecting, not controlling, fathering that had this effect. As we have noted, these two parenting styles do share the features of being critical and overpowering. Haugh et al. (2017) found that the higher-order schema domains of disconnection/rejection and impaired autonomy mediated between three selected parenting (mothering) styles and offspring depression. Although that study and the present one did not take the same approach to examining either parenting or schemas, themes of social disconnection and lack of autonomy are common to both. Called by various names, these themes of connectedness and power have been identified in a great deal of research as 345

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

finding of distinctive effects of mothers’ and fathers’ adverse parenting was not suggested by Young, but is consistent with previous research showing that mothers exert specific influences on their 6-year old children's cognitive behavior and school performance (Coates and Lewis, 1984), and that fathers have specific effects on children's emotional and cognitive behavior (Elam et al., 2015; Hannum, 2004).

As for the possible early direct influences of adverse parenting on emotional difficulties, prevention seems to be the key here. An effective intervention to promote more sensitive parenting in the early years is the bug-in-the-ear system, whereby the therapist watches parent and child interact from behind a one-way screen, and guides the parent, via a small speaker in the ear, to notice and respond appropriately to the child's behavior (e.g., Thomas and Herschell, 2013). The present results suggest that it would be important to include fathers as well as mothers in such programs. Dynamic systems theory suggests that, as a parent becomes more responsive and more able to elicit rewarding behaviors from their small child, a more positive developmental cascade could be set in motion.

4.4. Explaining the effects of adverse parenting styles If, as this study suggests, the effects of adverse parenting on emotional difficulties (in the case of anxiety symptoms and trait anger) and of mothering on offspring depressive symptoms, are not mediated through the schemas, as Young suggested they are, how are we to account for the direct effects of parenting on emotions? One possibility is that the reduced numbers of items in the schemas, while representative of the constructs as based on previous research and the confirmatory factor analysis, may have eliminated some items of particular relevance to mediation. Furthermore, the schemas examined in this study were deliberately limited to those previously found to be associated with the three emotional difficulties in a similar community sample (Maud et al., 2012), and there may be others of Young's schemas, or other schemas such as those about parenting roles, as mentioned previously, that could potentially act as mediators. Alternatively, the direct effects of parenting could be the result of preverbal (classical) conditioning (Young et al., 2003) of emotional responses in the face of an overpowering parent's tone or volume of voice, facial expressions, or other body language (Wehrenberg and Prinz, 2007), such that later encounters with these behaviors trigger the emotion in the absence of intervening cognitions. Another way of looking at the early establishment of emotional repertoires is in terms of dynamic systems theory (Thelen and Smith, 1994). This places emphasis on the ongoing interactions between the child, parent and other aspects of the environment, in an iterative fashion. Infants show a range of proto-emotional expressions, but negative emotions are not differentiated, and sensitive parents use general indicators of distress in combination with contextual clues to work out how to soothe an infant and address their needs (Mesman et al., 2012). Overpowering parents would lack this sensitivity, not playing well their part in the ongoing infant-parent ‘dance’ that would soothe an infant experiencing distress and help them to learn self-regulation of emotions. Under this theory, while the child may later develop certain schemas related to the adverse parenting they receive, these may not be a necessary part of the path to emotional difficulties, as the framework for these has already been laid down. At this stage of development the physiological structure of the developing brain is likely to be heavily influenced by experiences (Schore, 2003; Schuengel et al., 1999), in accord with a neurocontructivist perspective (Karmiloff-Smith, 2012). Perhaps high stress levels resulting from frequent rejecting and controlling parental behaviors result in long-term effects with clear changes in structure which are not subsequently modified — changes such as parcelation when particular neurons in a child's brain are destroyed by stressful experiences (LeDoux, 1996).

4.6. Limitations and future research An important methodological issue was how to assess parenting retrospectively. This is a perennial problem because there can be differences in what parents and offspring report, particularly on the issue of whether or not parents used physical aggression toward their children (Jouriles et al., 1997). However, as in most time limited studies, where a longitudinal design is impractical, the main means available for exploring the legacy of parenting on adult children are retrospective and taken from a single reporter, as done, for example, by Bach et al. (2018) and by Olivari et al. (2018). The models examined in such studies are ‘causal’ based on theoretical grounds. This entails the possibility that some of the effects result from hindsight, or are the product of state dependent memory (Weston, 1999), perhaps favoring depressing, anxiety-provoking or anger-arousing memories. Likewise, current adult expectations about fathers’ and mothers’ roles could restrict what memories a study participant accesses (Carlson, 1984). Nevertheless, cross-sectional studies are a useful first stage for testing theoretical models (Disabato, 2016), and Young's model has been little examined. Furthermore, a cross-sectional study approach is consistent with Young's clinical work with adults, which specifically draws upon their memories and perceptions of their upbringing. A further limitation of the study is that directional models, such as Young's, fail to acknowledge that offspring may impact on parents, in accord with studies of temperament (e.g., Kochanska, 1993) and with dynamic systems theory. This was a non-clinical sample, and levels of emotional difficulties were relatively low. It would therefore be useful to replicate the present study with a clinical sample. Futhermore, the sample was based in a single city and had a greater number of female participants (males were more likely to reject the invitation to participate). A larger sample would allow a fuller testing of the YPI. Future research could also compare it formally with other parenting measures such as those of Baumrind and Neuharth. We can also note that Young and colleagues’ recently published study with a mixed clinical/nonclinical sample (Bach et al., 2018) did find mediation effects, but there were many methodological differences from Young's earlier work and the present study. As well as adding two further schemas, they used higher-order schema domains, or clusters, a reduced number of parenting styles from Young's original formulation, and an unusual generic outcome measure (‘the vulnerable child’). It is difficult to relate such a measure to the broader literature based on well-established measures of emotional difficulties, as was done in the present study. Theory in this area is therefore evolving, and further psychometric work is required on the associated instruments.

4.5. Clinical implications The present findings suggest that schema therapy would often be best focused on schemas shown to be directly associated with emotional difficulties, rather than assuming a causal role for early parenting in the development of the relevant schemas. The majority of variance in emotional difficulties remains unaccounted for by either Young's schemas or adverse parenting, and non-parental influences, such as from peers, other adults and the media, come to influence schemas in childhood and adolescence. For example, gendered schemas about the self in relation to others account for half the variance in adolescent girls’ depression (Tolman et al., 2006), so exploration of a wider range of influences on emotion-related schemas is important.

5. Conclusions While our results are consistent with the notion that recalled adverse parenting affects offspring schemas, and schemas affect emotional difficulties, we found little mediating role for schemas with respect to anxiety symptoms, or for the effect of mothering on depressive symptoms, although rejecting fathering had its effect on depressive 346

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al.

symptoms via the social isolation schema, and rejecting mothering had a very minor mediated role in trait anger. Effects of adverse parenting on children's current emotions were mainly direct. Our findings also suggest that Young's parenting scale (the YPI) may be more parsimoniously seen as identifying two types of adverse parenting (Controlling and Rejecting), rather than 17, though further psychometric analyses would be valuable. Our results show that it is important not to neglect the role of fathers in children's psychological development. Indeed, the only adverse parenting style to have an effect on all three emotional difficulties was rejecting fathering. Dynamic systems theory and neuroconstructivism may help to account for how adverse early parenting can lead to later emotional difficulties, but a wider range of influences on emotions also needs to be considered.

predictors or school performance and cognitive behavior in six-year-olds. Child. Dev. 55, 1219–1230. Cole, D.A., Jacquez, F., Maschman, T.L., 2001. Social origins of depressive cognitions: a longitudinal study of self-perceived competence in children. Cognit. Ther. Res. 25, 377–395. Corcoran, K., Fischer, D., 2000. Measures For Clinical practice: A sourcebook Vol. 2, 3 ed. Free Press, New York. Crawford, J.R., Henry, J.D., 2003. The depression anxiety stress scale (DASS): normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 42, 111–131. Deffenbacher, J.L., 1992. Trait anger: theory, findings, and implications. In: Spielberger, C.D., Butcher, J.N. (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment 9. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 151–172. Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R., Thwaites, G.A., Lynch, R.S., Baker, D.A., Stark, R.S., …, Eiswerth-Cox, L., 1996. State-trait anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale. J. Couns. Psychol. 48 (2), 131–148. Disabato, D. (2016). The double standard against cross-sectional mediation. Accessed 03. 10.2018 athttp://www.daviddisabato.com/blog/2016/5/22/the-double-standardagainst-cross-sectional-mediation. Elam, K.K., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., Tein, J., 2015. Non-residential father involvement with their children, interparental conflict and the mental health of children following divorce: a person-focused approach. J. Youth Adolesc. 45, 581. Epkins, C.C., Heckler, D.R., 2011. Integrating etiological models of social anxiety and depression in youth: evidence for a cumulative interpersonal risk model. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 14, 329–376. Farrell, J.M., Shaw, I.A., Webber, M.A., 2009. A schema-focused approach to group psychotherapy for outpatients with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 40 (2), 317–328. Garber, J., Hollon, S.D., 1991. What can specificity designs say about causality in psychopathology research? Psychol. Bull. 110, 129–136. Gerlsma, C., Emmelkamp, P.M.G., Arrindell, W.A., 1990. Anxiety, depression, and perception of early parenting: a meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251–277. Gersho, B.F., 1999. Recalled parental authority and marital quality. Diss. Abstr. Int. Sect. B: Physi. Sci. Engi. 60 (5–B), 2408. Goldman, J.D.G., Goldman, R.J., 1983. Children's perceptions of parents and their roles: a cross-national study in Australia, England, North America, and Sweden. Sex Roles 9 (7), 791–812. Golin, S., Sweeny, P.D., Schaeffer, D.E., 1981. The causality of causal attributions in depression: a cross-lagged panel correlation analysis. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 90, 14–22. Greenberg, P.E., Fournier, A.A., Sisitsky, T., Pike, C.T., Kessler, R.C., 2015. The economic burden of adults with major depressive disorder in the United States (2005 and 2010). J. Clin. Psychiatry 76, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.14m09298. Hannum, J.W., 2004. Effects of family conflict, divorce, and attachment patterns on the psychological distress and social adjustment of college freshmen. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 45, 27–42. Harris, A.E., Curtain, L., 2002. Parental perceptions, early maladaptive schemas, and depressive symptoms in young adults. Cognit. Ther. Res. 26 (3), 405–416. Haugh, J.A., Miceli, M., DeLorme, J., 2017. Maladaptive parenting, temperament, early maladaptive schemas, and depression: a moderated mediation analysis. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 39, 103–116. Hawke, L.D., Provencher, M.D., 2011. Schema theory and schema therapy in mood and anxiety disorders: a review. J. Cogn. Psychother. 25 (4), 257–276. Ingram, R.E., Ritter, J., 2000. Vulnerability to depression: cognitive reactivity and parental bonding in high-risk individuals. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 109, 588–596. Johnson, J.G., Cohen, P., Chen, H., Kasen, S., Brook, J.S., 2006. Parenting behaviors associated with risk for personality disorder during adulthood. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 63, 579–587. Jouriles, E.N., Meta, P., McDonald, R., Francis, D.J., 1997. Psychometric properties of family members’ reports of parental physical aggression toward clinic-referred children. J. Clin. Consult. Psychol. 65 (2), 309–318. Karmiloff-Smith, A., 2012. Perspectives on the dynamic development of cognitive capacities: insights from Williams syndrome. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 25, 106–111. Klem, L., 1995. Path analysis. In: Grimm, L.G., Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.), Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Kochanska, G., 1993. Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in early development of conscience. Child. Dev. 64, 325–347. Koeningsberg, H.W., Kernberg, O.F., Stone, M.H., Appelbaum, A.H., Yeomans, P.E., Diamond, D., 2000. Borderline patients: Extending the Limits of Treatability. Basic Books, New York. LeDoux, J.E., 1996. The Emotional Brain. Touchstone, New York. Lee, C.W., Taylor, G., Dunn, J., 2000. Factor Structure of Schema Questionnaire in a Large Clinical Sample. Workshop handout, Melbourne, Australia. Locke, K.D., 2003. Status and solidarity in social comparison: agentic and communal values and vertical and horizontal directions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84 (3), 619–631. Lovibond, P.E., Lovibond, S.H., 1995. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of depression, anxiety and stress scales with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behav. Res. Ther. 33, 335–342. Lumley, M.N., Harkness, K.L., 2007. Specificity in the relations among childhood adversity, early maladaptive schemas, and symptom profiles in adolescent depression. Cog. Ther. Res. 31 (5), 639–657. Manassis, K., Bradley, S., Goldberg, S., Hood, J., Swinson, R.P., 1995. Behavioural inhibition, attachment and anxiety in children of mothers with anxiety disorders. Can. J. Psychiatry 40 (2), 87–92. Maud, M., Shute, R., McLachlan, A., 2012. Cognitive specificity in trait anger, in relation to depression and anxiety in a community sample. Aust. Psychol. 47, 254–261.

Role of funding This study was unfunded. CRediT authorship contribution statement Rosalyn Shute: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Monica Maud: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Project administration. Angus McLachlan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgement We are very grateful to all participants for taking the time to assist with this study. Compliance with ethical standards Ethical approval: All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the institutional review board. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. References Arbuckle, J.L., 2014. Amos (Version 23.0). [Computer program]. Chicago: IBM SPSS Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Develop. Psychol. Monogr. 4 (1, pt. 2), 1–103. Bach, B., Lockwood, G., Young, J., 2018. A new look at the schema therapy model: organization and role of early maladaptive schemas. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 47 (4), 328–349. Balottin, L., Mannarini, S., Mensi, M.M., Chiapeddi, M., Gatta, M., 2017. Triadic interactions in families of adolescents with anorexia nervosa and families of adolescents with internalizing disorders. Front. Psychol. 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016. 02046. Baranoff, J., Oei, T.P.S., Kwon, S., Cho, S., 2006. Factor structure and internal consistency of the Young schema questionnaire (Short form) in Korean and Australian samples. J. Affect. Disord. 93, 133–140. Baumrind, D., 1971. Current patterns of parental authority. Develop. Psychol. Monogr. 4. Baumrind, D., 1989. Rearing competent children. In: Eamon, W. (Ed.), Child Development Today and Tomorrow. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 378–439. Baumrind, D., 1991. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. J. Early Adolesc. 11, 56–95. Beck, A.T., 1976. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. Penguin, Reading, UK. Calvete, E., Estevez, A., Lopez de Arroyabe, E., Ruiz, P., 2005. The schema questionnaire Short Form: structure and relationship with automatic thoughts and symptoms of affective disorders. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 21 (2), 90–99. Carlson, B.E., 1984. The father's contribution to child care: effects on children's perception of parental roles. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr. 45, 123–136. Coakes, S.T., Steed, L.G., 1999. SPSS: Analysis Without anguish: Version 7.0, 7.5, 8.0 For Windows. John Wiley, Brisbane. Coates, T., Lewis, M., 1984. Early mother-infant interaction and infant cognitive status as

347

Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

R. Shute, et al. Mesman, J., Oster, H., Camras, L., 2012. Parental sensitivity to infant distress: what do discrete negative emotions have to do with it. Attach. Hum. Dev. 14 (4), 337–348. National Institute of Mental Health, Mental health information, Statistics, Major depression, 2017a, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression. shtml, accessed 17.09.2018. National Institute of Mental Health, Mental health information, Statistics, Any anxiety disorder, 2017b, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/any-anxiety-disorder. shtml, accessed 17.09.2018. Neuharth, D., 1998. If You Had Controlling parents: How to Make Peace With Your Past and Take Your Place in the World. Harper Collins, New York. Novaco, R.W., Chemtob, C.M., 2002. Anger and combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. J. Trauma. Stress. 15 (2), 123–152. Oei, T.P.S., Baranoff, J., 2007. Young schema questionnaire: review of psychometric and measurement issues. Aust. J. Psychol. 59 (2), 78–86. Olivari, M.G., Cuccì, G., Bonanomi, A., Tagliabue, S., Confalonieri, E., 2018. Retrospective paternal and maternal parenting styles, regulatory self-efficacy and adolescent risk taking. Marriage Fam. Rev. 54 (3), 282–295. Persons, J.B., Rao, P.A., 1985. Longitudinal study of cognitions, life events, and depression in psychiatric patients. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 94, 51–63. Rigdon, E.E., 2009. CFI versus RMSEA: a comparison of two fit indices for structural equation modeling. Str. Eq. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 3 (4), 369–379. Riggs, D.S., Dancu, C.V., Gershuny, B.S., Greenberg, D., Foa, E.B., 1992. Anger and posttraumatic stress disorder in female crime victims. J. Trauma Stress 5, 613–625. Riley, W.T., Treiber, F.A., 1989. The validity of multidimensional self-report anger and hostility measures. J. Clin. Psychol. 45 (3), 397–404. Rueschemeyer, D., 1994. Variations on two themes in Durkheim's division du travail: power, solidarity and meaning in division of labour. Sociol. Forum 9 (1), 59–71. Schmidt, N.B., Joiner Jr., T.E., Young, J.E., Telch, M.J., 1995. The schema questionnaire: investigation of psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure of maladaptive schemas. Cognit. Ther. Res. 19 (3), 295–321. Schore, A., 2003. The human unconscious: the development of the right brain and its role in early emotional life. In: Green, V. (Ed.), Emotional Development in psychoanalysis, Attachment Theory and Neuroscience. Bruner-Routledge, Hove, UK. Schuengel, C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Van Ijzendoorn, M.H., 1999. Frightening maternal behaviour linking unresolved loss and disorganized infant attachment. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 67, 54–63. Sheffield, A., Waller, G., Emanuelli, F., Murray, J., Meyer, C., 2005. Links between parenting and core beliefs: preliminary psychometric validation of the young parenting inventory. Cognit. Ther. Res. 29 (6), 787–802. Sheffield, A., Waller, G., Emanuelli, F., Murray, J., Meyer, C., 2009. Do schema processes mediate links between parenting and eating pathology? Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 17 (4), 290–300. Soenens, B., Elliot, A.J., Goossens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., 2005. The

intergenerational transmission of perfectionism: parents’ psychological control as an intervening variable. J. Fam. Psychol. 19, 358–366. Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R.E., 1970. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Spielberger, C.D., Johnson, E.J., Russell, S.F., Crane, R.J., Jacobs, G.A., Wordern, T.J., 1985. The experience and expression of anger: construction and validation of an anger expression scale. In: Chensey, M.A., Rosenman, R.H. (Eds.), Anger and Hostility in Cardiovascular and Behavioral Disorders. Hemisphere, Washington, USA. Stein, D.J., Young, J.E., 1992. Schema approach to personality disorders. In: Woolfolk, R.L., Lehrer, P.M. (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Stress Management. Guilford, London, UK. Thelen, E., Smith, L.B., 1994. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Thomas, R., Herschell, A.D., 2013. Parent-child interaction therapy: a manualized intervention for the therapeutic child welfare sector. Child Abuse Negl. 37 (8), 578–584. Tolman, D.L., Impett, E.A., Tracy, A.J., Michale, A., 2006. Looking good, sounding good: femininity ideology and adolescent girls’ mental health. Psychol. Women Q. 30, 85–95. Tronick, E.Z., Ricks, M., Cohn, J., 1982. Maternal and infant affective interchange: patterns of adaptation. In: Field, T., Fogel, A. (Eds.), Emotion and Early Interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 57–82. Wehrenberg, M., Prinz, S.M., 2007. The Anxious brain: The neurobiological Basis of Anxiety Disorders and How to Effectively Treat them. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. Weinraub, M., Clemens, L.P., Sockloff, A., Etheridge, T., Gracely, E.J., Myers, B., 1984. The development of sex role stereotypes in the third year: relationships to gender labeling, gender identity, sex typed toy preference and family characteristics. Child Dev. 55, 1493–1503. Welburn, K., Coristine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., Jordan, S., 2002. The schema questionnaire-short form: factor analysis and relationship between schemas and symptoms. Cognit. Ther. Res. 26, 519–530. Weston, D., 1999. Psychology, mind, Brain and Culture. John Wiley, New York. Wolf, K.A., Foshee, V.A., 2003. Family violence, anger expression styles, and adolescent dating violence. J. Fam. Viol. 18 (6), 309–316. Young, J., 1990. Cognitive Therapy For Personality disorders: A schema Focused Approach. Professional Resource Exchange, Inc, Sarasota, FL. Young, J.E., Klosko, J.S., Weishaar, M.E., 2003. Schema Therapy: A practitioners’ Guide. Guilford, New York. Young, J.E., Weinberger, A.D., Beck, A.T., 2001. Cognitive therapy for depression. In: Barlow, D.H. (Ed.), Clinical Handbook of Psychological disorders: A step-By-Step Treatment Manual, 3 ed. Guilford, New York, pp. 264–308.

348