(PS8-B41) Indirect Effect of Parents' Childhood Emotional Abuse on Parental Sensitivity via Impulsive Emotional Responding

Parental sensitivity means correctly interpreting and responding to a child’s behaviors while providing a developmentally appropriate balance of support and autonomy (DePasquale & Gunnar, 2020). Given the impact of parental sensitivity on domains of child development such as emotion regulation (Salo, et. al., 2020; Park, 2022) and prosocial behavior (Newton et. al., 2014), it is a primary treatment target in parent management training to improve behavioral outcomes for young children (Kazdin, 2009). Prior studies have found that parents’ childhood experiences affect later parenting behavior (Bailey et. al., 2012). Parents who were maltreated as children tend to be less sensitive with their own children (Lyons-Ruth & Block, 1996). Given that parents’ childhood experiences of maltreatment cannot be altered, it is important for clinicians to understand the mechanism(s) in which childhood maltreatment (CM) impacts parenting to guide parenting interventions. 

This study aimed to determine if parents’ emotion dysregulation is a mechanism through which parents’ CM indirectly impacts parental sensitivity. Caregivers (N = 191, 88.6% biological mothers, 72.3% Black/African American) and their preschool-aged children participated in a longitudinal study of resilience in the context of chronic adversity and poverty. Parental emotion dysregulation was assessed utilizing the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS, Gratz and Roemer, 2004) at the first study time point (T1). Information regarding parents’ CM was gathered utilizing a study-created measure assessing various types of childhood adversity at T1. Parental sensitivity was coded using the Interaction Rating Scales (Brady-Smith et. al., 2000) from semi-structured play interactions between parents and their children six months later (T2).

Frequency of parents’ childhood emotional abuse (EA) was correlated with the Impulse Control Difficulties subscale of the DERS (r = .121, p = .030); other forms of CM were not related to DERS subscales. Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS was used to estimate a model with Y = T2 parental sensitivity, X = T1 parents’ childhood EA, and M = T1 DERS Impulse Control Difficulties. The overall model was significant (F(2, 188) = 4.114, R² = .031, p = .018). There was a significant indirect effect of parental childhood emotional abuse on parental sensitivity via impulse control difficulties, 95% CI [-.0958, -.0002]. There were significant direct effects of EA on impulse control difficulties (b = .088, t = 2.477, p = .014), and of impulse control difficulties on parenting sensitivity (b = -.407, t = -2.656, p = .009). There was not a significant direct effect of EA on parenting sensitivity, 95% CI [-.033, .267]. Future research should explore additional mechanisms by which EA indirectly impacts parenting sensitivity. These findings have clinical implications for working with parents who have experienced childhood emotional abuse, indicating the importance of building parents’ ability to inhibit their emotional responses in the service of sensitive responses to their children.