BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Latent Profile Analysis of Parent Emotion Socialization

Sat, March 25, 3:15 to 4:45pm, Salt Palace Convention Center, Floor: 3, Meeting Room 355 D

Abstract

Background: Gottman et al.’s (1996) seminal meta-emotion theory classifies parents according to two distinct patterns of parent emotion socialization processes: emotion coaching versus emotion dismissing parenting. While findings from variable-centered studies have provided support for a two-factor model of parent emotion socialization, to-date the model has not been validated via a person-centered approach, such as latent profile analysis (LPA). The current study aimed to conduct an LPA of parents’ emotion-related parenting practices, parents’ emotion regulation, and parents’ beliefs about children’s emotions. We predicted the LPA would extract one or more profiles that align with emotion coaching and emotion dismissing parenting. Secondly, we aimed to examine construct validity and reliability of the profiles.

Methods: The current study conducted secondary data analysis using data collected from an age-stratified longitudinal cohort study, name of study retracted (weblink retracted). Participants were parents of children aged 4-10 years (N = 869), residing in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, and Canada. We conducted an LPA of parents’ emotion socialization using Mplus. Thirteen indicators in total were included, which originated from the Short-Form Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, and Parents’ Beliefs about Children’s Emotions Questionnaire. Next, we conducted measurement invariance testing of the final model for (1) parents of children in early childhood versus mid-childhood, and (2) fathers versus mothers; following steps proposed by Morin et al. (2016). Finally, we examined concurrent associations between several criterion constructs and parents’ emotion socialization profile membership.
Results: A three-profile model was selected as the best-fitting model, with the following profiles extracted: 1) Emotion coaching, consisting of low levels of emotion dismissing beliefs, emotion dysregulation, and emotion dismissing parenting practices, and high levels of emotion coaching parenting practices; 2) Emotion dismissing, consisting of high levels of emotion dismissing beliefs and emotion dysregulation, very high levels of emotion dismissing parenting practices, and low levels of emotion coaching parenting practices; 3) Disengaged parenting, consisting of moderate levels of emotion dismissing beliefs, emotion dysregulation, and emotion dismissing parenting practices, and low levels of emotion coaching parenting practices. There was strong support for reliability and construct validity of the profiles. The profiles were invariant for parent gender and child age groups, and several criterion constructs were associated with the profiles. For instance, parental reflective functioning and being a cis female were positively associated with the emotion coaching profile, and being a cis male and interparental conflict were positively associated with the emotion dismissing and disengaged profiles.

Conclusion: Current findings provide empirical support for distinct constructs for emotion coaching parenting and emotion dismissing parenting aligned with Gottman et al.’s (1996) meta-emotion theory. However, our findings suggest a third ‘disengaged’ classification, describing parents with moderate levels of emotion dismissing and low levels of emotion coaching parenting. Clinicians and parenting interventions may be able to tailor their services for parents with a disengaged pattern of emotion socialization; thus potentially improve treatment efficacy and retention rates of parents, and subsequent child development outcomes.

Authors