5.1 Parenting Stress: The Key Concept between Emotion Regulation and Child Maltreatment

In the literature, parenting stress encompasses the psychological/emotional reactions arising from attempts to adapt to the demands of parenthood (Deater-Deckard, Reference Deater-Deckard1998, Reference Deater-Deckard2004) and is associated with parenting outcomes and the quality of dyadic parent–child interactions (Camisasca et al., Reference Camisasca, Miragoli and Di Blasio2014; Crnic & Low, Reference Crnic, Low and Boernstein2002; Miragoli et al., Reference Miragoli, Balzarotti, Camisasca and Di Blasio2018). Specifically, parenting stress develops from parents’ evaluations that the demands of the parenting role are currently exceeding their coping abilities. It has been theorized as a multifactor process, which includes both individual and parenting-related sources of distress, ranging from objective life events (e.g. the death of a family member) to the parent’s evaluation of the child’s behavior and to the parent’s subjective feeling of failing in their own parental responsibility (Abidin, Reference Abidin1992, Reference Abidin1995; Deater-Deckard, Reference Deater-Deckard1998). High levels of parenting stress interfere with the caregiver’s ability to effectively cope with parenting-related difficulties (Jackson & Huang, Reference Jackson and Huang2000; Scheel & Rieckmann, Reference Scheel and Rieckmann1998), increasing negative emotions and interactions with children (Coyl et al., Reference Coyl, Roggman and Newland2002), and the use of ineffective disciplinary strategies (Cain & Combs-Orme, Reference Cain and Combs-Orme2005; Crouch & Behl, Reference Crouch and Behl2001). In the field of child maltreatment, several studies have documented that maltreating parents report significantly higher levels of parenting stress and negative affect than non-maltreating parents and that parenting stress is related to increased child maltreatment (e,g., Ethier et al., Reference Ethier, Lacharite and Couture1995; Krahé et al., Reference Krahé, Bondü, Höse and Esser2015; McPherson et al., Reference McPherson, Lewis, Lynn, Haskett and Behrend2009; Whipple & Webster-Stratton, Reference Whipple and Webster-Stratton1991).

In the social information processing (SIP) model (Milner, Reference Milner1993, Reference Milner and Hansen2000, Reference Milner2003), child maltreatment is regarded exclusively as an extreme consequence of parenting problems, resulting from bad cognitive processing of social information and from high levels of emotional distress (Azar, Reference Azar1998, Reference Azar and Bornstein2002; Bugental et al., Reference Bugental, Ellerson, Lin, Rainey, Kokotovic and O’Hara2002). The SIP model (Milner, Reference Milner1993, Reference Milner and Hansen2000, Reference Milner2003) assumes that parenting behaviors are marked by three cognitive processing stages (perceptions of the child’s behavior; interpretations and evaluations of the child’s behavior; and information integration and disciplinary response selection) and a fourth cognitive/behavioral stage consisting of the monitoring process and response implementation. These different processes are theory driven (based on preexisting cognitive schemata and beliefs about children and child-rearing, expectations concerning the child and concerning themselves as parents, including emotional components originating from emotions experienced during previous events involving attachment and parenting) and context driven (affected by situational factors, such as level of stress).

According to this cognitive-behavioral approach, maltreating (or at-risk) parents fail at several steps of the parenting process, leading to a negative characterization of their relationship with the child and increasing levels of stress (Dadds et al., Reference Dadds, Mullens, McAllister and Atkinson2003; Francis & Wolfe, Reference Francis and Wolfe2008; Montes et al., Reference Montes, de Paul and Milner2001). Specifically, they fail to objectively interpret the child’s behavior, which is viewed as more problematic than it actually is (Stage 1 of SIP model; e.g. Crouch et al., Reference Crouch, Skowronski, Milner and Harris2008; Lau et al., Reference Lau, Valeri, McCarty and Weisz2006; Miragoli et al., Reference Miragoli, Balzarotti, Camisasca and Di Blasio2018). Moreover, several studies have linked these negative views of children’s behavior to parental attributions of child-related stable, hostile, and provocative intent, due to automatic accessibility of developmental expectancy biases (Stage 2; e.g. Farc et al., Reference Farc, Crouch, Skowronski and Milner2008; Haskett et al., Reference Haskett, Scott, Grant, Ward and Robinson2003; Mammen et al., Reference Mammen, Kolko and Pilkonis2002). Finally, the use of harsh parenting behaviors, including acts of physical maltreatment (Timmer et al., Reference Timmer, Borrego and Urquiza2002), arises from some marked difficulties with assuming the child’s perspective, which interfere with a parent’s processing of mitigating information in discipline situations (Stage 3; e.g. de Paúl et al., Reference de Paúl, Asla, Pérez-Albéniz and De Cádiz2006; McElroy & Rodriguez, Reference McElroy and Rodriguez2008; Perez-Albeniz & de Paúl, Reference Perez-Albeniz and de Paúl2003). For these reasons, in daily interactions, maltreating (or at-risk) parents experience a lack of efficacy in their own parental skills (in terms of self-efficacy) and their parent–child relationship is impaired by negative mental representations (expectations about their parenting and about their children’s abilities and intent) and feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction, with high levels of parenting stress and emotional reactivity (in terms of sadness, anger, hostility, and fear; Berryhill, Reference Berryhill2016; Crnic & Ross, Reference Crnic, Ross, Deater-Deckard and Panneton2017).

Parenting stress and reactivity to negative emotions are further amplified by the embedded emotional components of the preexisting cognitive schemata (mainly due to previous childhood experiences; Lavi et al., Reference Lavi, Ozer, Katz and Gross2021; Milner, Reference Milner2003), which severely hinders parents’ ability to attend to the child’s needs and increases the risk of child maltreatment (Milner, Reference Milner1993, Reference Milner and Hansen2000, Reference Milner2003). Parents who maltreat their children, or are at risk of doing so, have more inaccurate and biased cognitive preexisting schemata than other parents, involving beliefs and values that influence the way they perceive, evaluate, integrate, and respond to information related to children (e.g. Dadds et al., Reference Dadds, Mullens, McAllister and Atkinson2003; Francis & Wolfe, Reference Francis and Wolfe2008; Montes et al., Reference Montes, de Paul and Milner2001). In addition to ideational components, preexisting schemata include affective/emotional components (e.g. sadness, anger, hostility, anxiety, etc.) that were experienced during previous relational events and that influence how new information is perceived and processed. Maltreating (or at-risk) parents are more likely to use preexisting cognitive schemata if they are experiencing negative affect and/or high levels of emotional distress connected to parenting practice (e.g. Crouch et al., Reference Crouch, Risser, Skowronski, Milner, Farc and Irwin2010; Dadds et al., Reference Dadds, Mullens, McAllister and Atkinson2003; de Paúl et al., Reference de Paúl, Asla, Pérez-Albéniz and De Cádiz2006; Haskett et al., Reference Haskett, Scott, Grant, Ward and Robinson2003).

Although evidence suggests a substantial link between parenting stress and child maltreatment, the underlying emotional mechanisms that could potentially moderate this relationship have been less investigated. Internal appraisals of parenting (perceptions and attributions deriving from preexisting cognitive schemata) and emotional distress may interact and spill over into daily caregiver–child relationships, promoting maltreatment behaviors.

5.2 Emotion Regulation in Child Maltreatment

Emotion regulation is defined as the “processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions” (Gross & Thompson, Reference Gross, Thompson and Gross2007, p. 275). Parental emotion regulation serves several important goals in parenting (see Chapter 2), and, in disciplinary encounters with the child, involves the ability for parents to control and inhibit their avoidant, intrusive, and aggressive actions, when experiencing negative and stressful emotions (Leith & Baumeister, Reference Leith and Baumeister1996).

In contrast to the many investigations of emotions as reliable correlates of parenting behaviors (e.g. Crandall et al., Reference Crandall, Deater-Deckard and Riley2015; Rueger et al., Reference Rueger, Katz, Risser and Lovejoy2011), work on parents’ emotion regulation (ER) and child maltreatment has lagged behind. In the examination of the predictors of child maltreatment, one important focus has been parents’ emotion reactivity and regulation (Lavi et al., Reference Lavi, Ozer, Katz and Gross2021). To date, studies have shown great variability in the magnitude of the relationships between parental emotional processes and the risk of child maltreatment.

In this perspective, Dix’s model (Reference Dix1991) suggests that dysfunctional and ineffective parenting is characterized by inadequate ER, in terms of hyporeactivity (to positive emotions) or hyperreactivity (to negative emotions) or a mismatch of emotions between parent and child (e.g. child expressing happiness and parent expressing disappointment), with deleterious effects on the parent–child relationship. Therefore, according to the model, guided by cognitive preexisting and biased schemata (Milner, Reference Milner1993, Reference Milner and Hansen2000, Reference Milner2003), when faced with urgent negative emotions, maltreating (or at-risk) parents potentially tend to respond to the child with aversive control, avoidance, and emotional cutoff behaviorsFootnote ¹ (Bowen, Reference Bowen1993; Smith, Reference Smith and Titelman2003), in order to find a way to reduce the burden of emotional distress (Mence et al., Reference Mence, Hawes, Wedgwood, Morgan, Barnett, Kohlhoff and Hunt2014). For example, anger is conceptualized in the literature as an emotion leading the parents to react to the child with intrusiveness or disengagement (Crittenden, Reference Crittenden1993), narrowing their attention to the anger-provoking stimuli alone (Gibb et al., Reference Gibb, Johnson, Benas, Uhrlass, Knopik and McGeary2011). This narrowing affects the parents’ cognitive processes and leads them to express anger via impulsive and aggressive actions, with an elevated propensity to child maltreatment (Rodriguez, Reference Rodriguez2018; Rodriquez & Green, Reference Rodriguez and Green1997; Rodriguez & Richardson, Reference Rodriguez and Richardson2007). According to the SIP model (Milner, Reference Milner1993, Reference Milner and Hansen2000, Reference Milner2003), maltreating (or at-risk) parents could be prone to respond aggressively to the perceived provocations of the child, because they feel that aggressive actions will enable them to let off steam and feel less upset and angry (Francis & Wolfe, Reference Francis and Wolfe2008).

Overall, the literature suggests that aggressive and violent behaviors (e.g. child maltreatment, domestic and intimate partner violence) may function to regulate stress and negative emotions (Jakupcak et al., Reference Jakupcak, Lisak and Roemer2002). Aggressive people believe that violence can be a good way of getting rid of their emotional distress and that aggressive behaviors can be undertaken as a good strategy of emotion regulation (Bushman et al., Reference Bushman, Baumeister and Phillips2001). Therefore, during daily caregiver–child interactions, for maltreating (or at-risk) parents, aggressive and violent behaviors could represent not only the inability to manage negative and stressful emotions but also a strategy to cope with this emotional dysregulation (Marziali et al., Reference Marziali, Damianakis and Trocmé2003).

In summary, parental reactivity to negative emotions could become a significant risk factor for child maltreatment, via the path of parental intrusiveness, disengagement, and cognitive narrowing of attention (Bowen, Reference Bowen1993; Crittenden, Reference Crittenden1993; Dix, Reference Dix1991), and this emotion dysregulation could be intended as an outcome of the activation of preexisting cognitive schemata that include previous unresolved relational experiences and unrealistic expectations of self and child (Milner, Reference Milner1993, Reference Milner and Hansen2000, Reference Milner2003).

5.3 Gender Differences

Currently one of the most interesting aspects of the field of child maltreatment is the analysis of possible gender differences to explain dissimilar trajectories of maltreating parenting and also to provide valuable information for intervention and prevention plans. Some studies have investigated general constructs (parenting stress, ER, negative affect, emphatic skills, etc.) and have shown comparable risk profiles for maltreating (or at-risk) fathers and mothers (Asla et al., Reference Asla, de Paúl and Perez-Albeniz2011; Perez-Albeniz & de Paul, Reference Perez-Albeniz and de Paul2004; Smith Slep & O’Leary, Reference Smith Slep and O’Leary2007), although some specific differences have emerged in other studies (e.g. Miragoli et al., Reference Miragoli, Balzarotti, Camisasca and Di Blasio2018; Pittman & Buckley, Reference Pittman and Buckley2006; Schaeffer et al., Reference Schaeffer, Alexander, Bethke and Kretz2005).

Overall, in terms of emotional reactivity and regulation, parents show some significant gender differences, which are attributable to biological factors, in interaction with social roles and ecological conditions (Wood & Eagly, Reference Wood and Eagly2002). In parenthood, social roles and sex-typed goals help define relationships, direct behaviors, and guide decision-making processes (Grusec & Davidov, Reference Grusec, Davidov, Grusec and Hastings2014). Culturally shared beliefs may drive parenting practices of knowledge, expression, and regulation of emotions: mothers are expected to be more emotionally expressive through prosocial and caring parenting actions, whereas fathers are expected to be more pragmatic, detached, and oriented toward achievement (Goodnow & Collins, Reference Goodnow and Collins1990; Sigel et al., Reference Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi and Goodnow1992). Moreover, parenting stress appears to have a greater impact on a mother’s self-assessment of her role as a mother (Berryhill, Reference Berryhill2016; Pearlin et al., Reference Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman and Mullan1981), further contaminating the quality of the caregiver-child relationship more easily.

With a view to identifying possible gender differences in maltreating (or at-risk) parenting, Miragoli and colleagues (Reference Miragoli, Milani, Di Blasio and Camisasca2020) analyzed the ER processes in fathers and mothers. Whereas previous studies had illustrated the role of ER in the risk of child maltreatment, in terms of a unitary construct or the effects of single dimensions (e.g. impulsivity, emotional distress, or anger; e.g. Bushman et al., Reference Bushman, Baumeister and Phillips2001; Dadds et al., Reference Dadds, Mullens, McAllister and Atkinson2003; Francis & Wolfe, Reference Francis and Wolfe2008; Rodriguez & Green, Reference Rodriguez and Green1997), in this study some individual components of ER were evaluated comprehensively (acceptance of emotional responses, ability in distracting and performing alternative behaviors when experiencing negative emotions, confidence in the emotional regulation skills, ability in controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed, recognition of emotions, and emotional awareness). The findings confirmed the important role of ER in the risk of child maltreatment and provided support for gender differences in at-risk fathers and mothers. When at-risk fathers experienced negative and stressful emotions, they showed a significant lack of emotional awareness and difficulties in distracting themselves and using alternative behaviors. By contrast, when distressed about an unsatisfactory relationship with the child, at-risk mothers experienced more nonacceptance of negative emotions, difficulties in distracting themselves and using alternative behaviors, and subsequent difficulties in controlling impulsive/aggressive behaviors toward the child.

Both at-risk fathers and mothers, regardless of gender, when feeling emotional parenting stress, showed difficulty in distracting themselves and using alternative behaviors, resulting in an inability to concentrate or effectively complete their activities, because of emotional arousal and the consequent tendency to focus all attention resources on the negative emotional experience. More precisely, these parents failed to pursue goal-directed behaviors, in which distraction could be a protective factor for stress and predictive of adaptive coping (oriented to problem-solving and emotional acceptance; Reynolds & Wells, Reference Reynolds and Wells1999).

A significant gender difference concerns at-risk fathers, who are more characterized by a lack of awareness in the management of negative emotions. A good level of emotional awareness allows individuals to know what they are feeling and to identify useful coping strategies to cope with the emotions and the demands of the context (Clore et al., Reference Clore, Schwarz and Conway1994). Attention and emotional awareness are specific elements of mindful parenting (Kabat-Zinn & Kabat-Zinn, Reference Kabat-Zinn and Kabat-Zinn1997) and allow parents to communicate acceptance, compassion, and kindness in interactions with their child (Duncan et al., Reference Duncan, Coatsworth and Greenberg2009; Turpyn & Chaplin, Reference Turpyn and Chaplin2016). According to the SIP model (Milner, Reference Milner1993, Reference Milner and Hansen2000, Reference Milner2003), in maltreating (or at-risk) parents a lack of emotional awareness interferes with all the cognitive stages of discipline response processing (perception and interpretation of child behavior, and integration of available information), causing a failure to choose an effective parenting behavior and leading to episodes of maltreatment to release the emotional anxiety. For these reasons, maltreating (or at-risk) fathers often show authoritarian and intrusive parenting, lack of anger and hostility control, and ineffective and coercive discipline (Rodriguez, Reference Rodriguez2010).

By contrast, nonacceptance of emotional responses and difficulties in controlling impulsive behaviors (when distressed) were specific deficits of at-risk mothers. In social contexts, individuals who do not accept their negative emotions appear avoidant and constantly absorbed in suppressing this emotional distress, failing to achieve the social information needed to respond appropriately to others (Brockman et al., Reference Brockman, Ciarrochi, Parker and Kashdan2017). Specifically, nonacceptance and repeated efforts to suppress negative emotions deplete cognitive resources that could otherwise be used for optimal performance in the social context (for example, for parents, for effective behavior in interactions with their children). In the literature, these individuals are described as avoidant and distracted, with negative feelings about the self and a sense of alienation from others, which often impede the development of emotionally satisfying relationships (Purnamaningsih, Reference Purnamaningsih2017). Clinical research has shown that these individuals may not always be healthy or effective: nonacceptance and emotion suppression could have paradoxical effects on adjustment, increasing the severity and frequency of stressful and unwanted internal experiences (Gross & John, Reference Gross and John2003; Hayes et al., Reference Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda and Lillis2006). Therefore, for at-risk mothers, in discipline encounters with their child, non-acceptance and suppression of negative emotions decrease the behavioral expression of those emotions but not the subjective experience (Bailey et al., Reference Bailey, Moran and Pederson2007; Jacobvitz et al., Reference Jacobvitz, Leon and Hazen2006). Thus this emotional strategy does not reduce the subjective experience but contributes to the maintenance and accumulation of unresolved emotions (Gross, Reference Gross1998; Richards & Gross, Reference Richards and Gross1999). In the literature, maltreating mothers show atypical caregiving and are basically unable to accept, monitor, and contain the emotional negative experiences of interaction with their child (e.g. Lyons-Ruth et al., Reference Lyons-Ruth, Connell, Zoll and Stahl1987; Savage et al., Reference Savage, Tarabulsy, Pearson, Collin-Vézina and Gagné2019). At the base of these dysfunctional caregiving behaviors, many authors have identified different traumatic childhood experiences that break into the mother’s mental state and prevent her from being responsive and sensitive with her child (e.g. Hesse & Main, Reference Hesse and Main2006; Lyons-Ruth & Block, Reference Lyons-Ruth and Block1996). Accordingly, in discipline encounters, nonacceptance and suppression of negative emotions could be positively associated with poorer parental functioning (e.g. poorer parental adjustment and compromised discipline practices; Lorber, Reference Lorber2012) and more aggressive parental behaviors, as the capacity to accept negative emotions is a prerequisite for the development of the consequent capacity to maintain control over behavior even in the presence of emotional distress (Gratz & Roemer, Reference Gratz and Roemer2004).

5.4 Clinical Implications

This chapter shows that ER processes must be considered when training programs for maltreating or at-risk parents are designed, to promote, specific adaptive regulative skills and adequate parenting behaviors in stressful conditions (Gratz & Gunderson, Reference Gratz and Gunderson2006).

Overall, treatments that focus on avoidance or control of negative and undesirable emotions may not be useful with maltreating or at-risk parents and may inadvertently reinforce a damaging nonacceptance of negative emotions. Instead, treatments based on learning alternative ways of coping and responding to emotional distress could be more productive in mitigating aggressive parenting behaviors. Emotion coaching and mindfulness may be valuable skills for maltreating or at-risk parents, as they promote the emotional modulation of the arousal caused by negative experiences (rather than emotional detachment) resulting from the relationship with the child (Gratz & Tull, Reference Gratz, Tull and Baer2010). Specifically, for maltreating or at-risk fathers, interventions could focus more on the promotion of emotional awareness, by encouraging fathers to observe and label the negative emotions, facilitating contact with these emotions and differentiating between emotional states. By contrast, for maltreating or at-risk mothers, interventions could be more focused on letting go of evaluations (such as “bad” or “wrong”) and taking a nonjudgmental opinion toward the unwanted emotions, facilitating the acceptance and decreasing the development of secondary emotional responses (e.g. fear, anger, guilt or shame). Therefore, clinical interventions with maltreating or at-risk parents should involve reappraisal and modulation of arousal of the negative experience of emotions (rather than eliminating emotions). For at-risk fathers and mothers, it is important to learn to manage the emotional distress deriving from the relationship with the child, understanding that negative emotions can be tolerated (without necessarily being acted on) and facilitating the ability to control impulsive and aggressive behaviors.

5.5 Conclusions and Future Directions

In conclusion, this chapter set out to illustrate the essential role of emotional processes in underlying a cluster of maltreating behaviors and conditions, with significant practical implications for primary and secondary interventions.

First, it is important to highlight that the relation between ER and child maltreatment is bidirectional (Figure 5.1): (1) previous experiences of child maltreatment lead to parental dysfunctional emotion reactivity/regulation and (2) parental dysfunctional emotion reactivity/regulation leads to a higher propensity to child maltreatment (see Chapter 5).

Figure 5.1 Bidirectional relation between emotion regulation (ER) and child maltreatment

Second, child maltreatment can be understood as the result of a dysfunctional ER strategy, where aggressive, violent, and avoidant parenting behaviors are a way to relieve the pressure of stress and negative emotions associated with interacting with the child.

Finally, although much remains to be done at the intersection of ER and child maltreatment, the most pressing requirements appear to be to explore the possible role of ER as a moderator between parenting stress and child maltreatment (in particular, the question whether stressed parents with good levels of ER are less likely to maltreat or be violent with their children), and to identify precise risk profiles for at-risk fathers and mothers to improve understanding of the emotional processes that guide the intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment.