This article was downloaded by: [Debra Dunstan]On: 26 May 2015, At: 14:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Early Education and DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Reliability of the Emotion-RelatedParenting Styles Scale Across Gender andParent Status GroupsDebra A. Dunstana, Donnah L. Andersonb & Anthony D. G. Marksa

a Discipline of Psychology, School of Behavioural, Cognitive andSocial Sciences, University of New Englandb Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross UniversityPublished online: 26 May 2015.

To cite this article: Debra A. Dunstan, Donnah L. Anderson & Anthony D. G. Marks (2015): Reliabilityof the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale Across Gender and Parent Status Groups, EarlyEducation and Development, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2015.1039435

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1039435

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

Early Education and Development, 0: 1–17Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1040-9289 print/1556-6935 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10409289.2015.1039435

Reliability of the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles ScaleAcross Gender and Parent Status Groups

Debra A. Dunstan

Discipline of Psychology, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences,University of New England

Donnah L. Anderson

Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University

Anthony D. G. Marks

Discipline of Psychology, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences,University of New England

Research Findings: Emotional and social competence are critical to a child’s current and futurewell-being. A. D. Paterson et al. (2012) studied a sample of mothers and proposed that an adult’sapproach to the socialization of a child’s emotions can be summarized in his or her parentingstyle as measured by the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles (ERPS) scale. These styles areemotion approving, emotion disapproving, active socialization, and uncertain/ineffective socia-lization of negative emotions. This study aimed to determine whether the ERPS scale is areliable measure of the emotion socialization styles of parents and non-parents of both genders.Participants were 521 undergraduate students—males (n¼ 76), females (n¼ 445), parents(n¼ 290), non-parents (n¼ 231)—with a mean age of 32.26 years (SD¼ 9.92, range¼ 18–61years). There were no significant differences between the ERPS subscale scores of parentsand non-parents, but males and younger adults showed higher disapproving and uncertainresponses. The factor structure of the ERPS was confirmed for females. One factor was foundto be unreliable for males. Practice or Policy: The ERPS is a reliable measure of the emotionsocialization styles of females. Further research is required to establish the scale’s reliabilitywith males.

Parenting involves the care and upbringing of a child to facilitate optimal development (Reder,Duncan, & Lucey, 2003). Although diverse biopsychosocial factors affect child growth(Sameroff, 2010), the development of emotional and social competence has been shown tobe critical to a child’s current and future mental health and well-being (Aunola & Nurmi,2005; Eley et al., 2003). Therefore, important qualities of a parent are the capacities toempathize with and socialize emotions (Denham, 1998).

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Debra A. Dunstan, Discipline of Psychology, Schoolof Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale NSW, 2351, Australia. E-mail:ddunstan@une.edu.au

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

GENDER, EMOTION, AND EXPRESSION

Although varying with culture, with context, and between individuals, males and females havebeen noted to differ in their expression of and response to emotions; this includes type and rangeas well as verbal and nonverbal intensity (Brody & Hall, 2000). Although some inconsistentfindings have been reported (e.g., McClure, 2000), the effects sizes of gender differences inthe following studies (calculated using estimates suggested by Ferguson, 2009) are mediumto large. These studies indicate that women rate themselves as more emotionally expressive thanmen (Gross & John, 1998) and have been observed to be more verbally and nonverballyexpressive of positive and negative emotions, with the exception of anger (Dimberg &Lundquist, 1990). Females have also been found to have greater sensitivity to emotions andbe superior to males at identifying emotions from verbal and nonverbal cues (Biele &Grabowska, 2006).

The observed and measured gender differences in emotional expression are attributed tointrapersonal (biological) and interpersonal (social) processes (Grossman & Wood, 1993).Specifically, studies of emotion have demonstrated sex differences in emotion regulation(Domes et al., 2010), the accompanying physiological responses (Kring & Gordon, 1998),and areas of brain activation (Wager, Phan, Liberzon, & Taylor, 2003). Evolutionary psy-chology and social role theories ascribe these differences to adaptation and gender roles(Archer, 1996; Grossman & Wood, 1993). Specifically, it is proposed that the traditional femalecaretaker role requires sensitivity to the needs of others and the display of emotions to fosteraffiliation and intimacy. In contrast, males’ limited outward expression of emotions (with theexception of anger) serves to maintain independence, status, and control.

GENDER AND PARENTING STYLE

In line with responses to emotions, gender differences in parenting style have also beenreported, but with limited and mixed findings. Most research has examined aspects of parentalaffect and discipline represented in four parenting styles—authoritative, authoritarian, indul-gent, and uninvolved—and has either assessed mothers only or averaged the scores of mothersand fathers under the assumption that both genders parent in the same way (Simons & Conger,2007). A quarter of a century ago, Baumrind (1991) opined that there are gender differences inparenting styles and that it is common for mothers to be more nurturing (authoritative) thancontrolling (authoritarian) and for fathers to more demanding (authoritarian) than responsive(authoritative). This assertion has received partial support.

Research conducted in diverse cultural settings has demonstrated gender differences in par-enting styles. For example, in a study of 451 intact Euro-American families, it was found thatmothers were more likely than fathers to parent in an authoritative manner (i.e., setting limitsand responding to emotional needs; Simons & Conger, 2007). However, there were no signifi-cant differences in other parenting styles. In a Pakistani study (Kausar & Shafique, 2008) simi-lar findings emerged, but an interaction between (a) child and parent gender and (b) parentingstyle was noted. Involving 60 adolescents and equal numbers of each gender, the study foundthat girls perceived their fathers as significantly more permissive and authoritative comparedto boys. In contrast, boys perceived their mothers as more authoritative compared to girls.

2 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

There were no differences in the perception of either parent as authoritarian. Although theselatter results were thought to reflect the relative strictness of mothers toward daughters andfathers toward sons in Pakistani culture, they are consistent with findings from Western studies.

Several studies have demonstrated parental-contingent responses to boys’ and girls’expression of emotions (e.g., Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998; Fivush, Brotman, Buck-ner, & Goodman, 2000). A U.S. study of 60 preschool children (Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-Waxler,2005) clarified the interaction effect by demonstrating differences in responses by fathers (butnot mothers) to the expression of particular emotions. Specifically, fathers were observed toattend more to girls’ expressions of sadness or anxiety (submissive emotions) and boys’expression of anger (disruptive emotions). Combined with other studies, these findings supportthe positions that (a) results from the study of mothers cannot be generalized to fathers; and (b)in at least some aspects of parenting, there are gender differences in parenting styles.

META-EMOTION PHILOSOPHY

It has been proposed that within the genders, it is parents’ meta-emotion philosophy—theirthoughts and feelings about their own emotions and those of their children—that ultimatelyinfluences their responses to children’s emotions, particularly negative emotions such as sad-ness, fear, and anger (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996). This may be one explanation for thefinding that older parents tend to raise more socially adjusted children (Mayer, 2002). Althougha higher income and extra resources are likely to support positive outcomes (Mayer, 2002),older parents demonstrate and report less stress, use better coping strategies, and engage in morepositive emotional interactions with their children (Auyeung, Burdidge, & Minnes, 2011). Thus,it may be that age and gender moderate meta-emotion philosophy, which in turn influencesparental responses.

Gottman, Katz, and Hooven (1997) have identified four meta-emotion parenting styles.Ranging from most to least adaptive, these are emotion coaching, laissez-faire, dismissing,and disapproving. Gottman et al. (1997) posited that the emotion coaching parenting styleaccepts a child’s feelings; provides empathy and validation; and teaches the child how to label,process, and regulate negative emotions. The laissez-faire parenting style also accepts andvalidates the child’s emotional expression but provides no limits on behavior or guidance onhow to manage strong emotional responses. In contrast to these two styles, a dismissingparenting style is not accepting of a child’s emotions and makes light of the child’s emotionalexperience by disregarding, trivializing, or ignoring emotional expressions. The disapprovingparenting style goes one step further and rejects the expression of negative emotions by judging,criticizing, reprimanding, or punishing the child. Research suggests that meta-emotion parent-ing styles are temporarily stable in adults (Hakim-Larson, Parker, Lee, Goodwin, & Voelker,2006) and are linked with differing social, physiological, and behavioral outcomes in children(Katz, Maliken, & Stettler, 2012; Katz & Windecker-Nelson, 2004).

PARENTING EDUCATION

Although it is known that parenting style is important to children’s outcomes, the amountof specific education received by parents is often variable and minimal (Ateah, 2003).

EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

This is despite parent education being associated with a change in knowledge and attitudesrelated to parenting (Mann, Pearl, & Behle, 2004) and increased sensitivity to infant cues(Magill-Evans, Harrison, Benzies, Gierl, & Kimak, 2007). In the 1970s, and in response tothe changing structure of family composition, Bronfenbrenner (1978) advocated for a publichealth approach to parenting education. He proposed that education not be limited to parentsalone but be provided to any non-parent adults “who by decision or default, find themselvesresponsible for the well-being and nurturance of the next generation” (p. 785). In his view,teachers, child care workers, health professionals, and the like should know how to facilitatea child’s emotional development. Almost 40 years later, and with increasing numbers of youngchildren being placed in early child care (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010) or served by thechild welfare system (Department of Social Services, 2011), it could be considered critical thatpolicymakers and educational institutions ensure that adults working in child services aretrained in the socialization of children’s emotions. On a related note, a reliable measure ofadults’ associated parenting skills should be developed and validated. In the late 1990s,Gottman and colleagues began to address the latter need through the development of anobjective assessment of meta-emotion parenting styles.

MEASURING META-EMOTION PARENTING STYLES

From an original hour-long videotaped interview, Gottman et al. (1997) devised an 81-itemself-test scale whose items were constructed to measure the four meta-emotion parenting stylesin a true/false response format. Hakim-Larson and colleagues (2006) later named this theEmotion-Related Parenting Styles Self Test (ERPSST-T/F) and used a sample of 89 mothersand 11 fathers to examine its psychometric properties. Gender differences in responses werenoted, specifically that mothers had “higher emotion coaching and laissez-faire scores” and“fathers report(ed) higher scores” on the dismissing parenting style and showed “higherpunitive reactions” (p. 242).

Based on participant feedback, Hakim-Larson et al. (2006) altered the ERPSST-T/F to allowfor dimensional responses on a 5-point Likert-type scale (ERPSST-Likert; Hakim-Larson et al.,2006). In another study reported in the same article and using a sample of 21 mothers and 10fathers, these researchers concluded that although the ERPSST-Likert held “some promise as areliable and valid tool,… further study and refinement” was required (p. 245). In particular,they proposed that rather than measuring four categorical parenting styles, the ERPSST mayinstead measure dimensional responses: approval–disapproval of emotional expression (i.e.,emotion coaching and laissez-faire vs. dismissing and disapproving) and active–passivesocializing of emotional expression (i.e., emotion coaching and disapproving vs. dismissingand laissez-faire).

With a sample of 214 mothers only, Paterson et al. (2012) explored Hakim-Larson et al.’s(2006) notion of dimensional parenting responses and subsequently developed the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles (ERPS) scale, a 20-item short form of the ERPSST-Likert. Factoranalyses of scores by mothers of typically developing children (n¼ 107, ages 3–8 years), com-bined with those of mothers of children with a developmental disability (n¼ 107, ages 3–12years), led to the extraction of four factors: Parental Acceptance (PA); Parental Rejection(PR); Emotion Coaching (EC) or active socialization; and, Uncertain/Ineffective (UI) or passive

4 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

socialization of negative emotions. Together, these four factors explained 47.0% of the vari-ance. The items retained for the ERPS scale were those that had a strong loading on the samefactor in both samples, plus items that were added or removed to achieve five items per factor.

In their psychometric evaluation of the ERPS scale, Paterson et al. (2012) found Cronbach’salpha coefficients ranging from .70 (PR subscale) to .80 (EC subscale). Evidence of validity wasshown though comparisons of the ERPS subscale scores with the subscale scores of theERPSST-Likert, behavioral indicators of empathy, emotion discussions, and standardizedmeasures of coping socialization and emotional expressiveness (i.e., the Self-Expressivenessin the Family Questionnaire [Halberstadt, Cassidy, Stifter, Parke, & Fox, 1995], Coping withChildren’s Negative Emotions Scale [Fabes, Poulin, Eisenberg, & Madden-Derdich, 2002],and Parent Attitude Towards Children’s Expressiveness Scale [Saarni, 1985]). Paterson andcolleagues (2012) concluded that “the ERPS appears to be a valid measure of emotion-relatedparenting styles… suitable for use with parents of children of varying genders, ages and levelsof socio-emotional development” (p. 597). However, because they had studied mothers only,and with research suggesting that there are gender differences in parents’ responses to chil-dren’s emotions, testing of the ERPS in a sample of males was required. Furthermore, asrecommended by the authors, the factor structure of the ERPS scale needed to be confirmed.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

In light of Bronfenbrenner’s (1978) call for a public health approach to parenting education, andthe first and third authors’ institution’s offering of a 13-week parenting class open to non-parentsas well as parents (PSYC103 Psychology in Society: Effective Parenting; University of NewEngland, 2011), we wanted a tool to assess the impact of parenting education on parenting style.The ERPS scale was identified as a potentially suitable instrument, but first we needed to deter-mine whether it was reliable for measuring the emotion-related parenting styles of males as wellas females and of non-parents as well as parents. If this were the case, then the scale could be usedas a screening tool or assessment measure in various contexts, including preservice training.

In the absence of specific education, there was no theoretical reason to suggest that adult non-parents’ responses to children’s emotions would be different from those of parents. Therefore, weanticipated no difference in the predominant emotion-related parenting style of each group. However,as parents may benefit from experience, we explored the data for group differences. Based on exist-ing empirical findings, we hypothesized that females and older adults would showmore nurturing oraccepting responses to children’s emotions than males and younger adults. Conversely, males andyounger adults would show more demanding or rejecting responses than females and older adults.

Finally, to further extend previous research, we wanted to explore the factor structure of theERPS scale by gender and confirm this structure in mothers and non-mothers.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 521 undergraduate students enrolled in first-year psychology units (classes)undertaken via online teaching modules. All students (n¼ 182) in the Psychology in

EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

Society: Effective Parenting class and 63% (n¼ 339) in the Introductory Psychology classparticipated. The total sample had the following demographic features: male (n¼ 76), female(n¼ 445), mean age¼ 32.26 years (SD¼ 9.92, range¼ 18–61 years), parents (n¼ 290; males¼ 32,females¼ 258,), non-parents (n¼ 231; males¼ 44, females¼ 187). The university was a regionalAustralian university and attracted a different demographic from metropolitan institutions, and thesample was representative of the total student body: 73% studying externally (online), 66% female,and 72% age 25 years or older (University of New England, 2014). Consistent with the generalpopulation, parents were significantly older (M¼ 37.55 years, SD¼ 8.03) than non-parents(M¼ 25.64 years, SD¼ 7.87), t(519)¼ 16.97, p< .001; on average, they had 2.3 children. Consist-ent with the university student body, the sample was well educated, with 38.1% of parents and35.1% of non-parents already having a university degree or diploma. Data on ethnicity were limitedto those collected by the university and showed that 20 participants (3.8% of the sample) identifiedas Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Parent status was not related to ethnicity (p¼ .198).

Measures

The following measures were completed via an online survey.

Demographic information questionnaire. Items elicited details about gender, age, parentor non-parent status, number of children, level of education, and ethnicity (Aboriginal or TorresStrait Islander or not).

ERPS scale (Paterson et al., 2012). This 20-item scale, based on meta-emotion theory(Gottman et al., 1997), contains four subscales, each measuring a different emotion-relatedparenting style—that is, PA (parental acceptance of negative emotions [emotion approving]),PR (parental rejection of negative emotions [emotion disapproving]), EC (emotion coaching ofnegative emotions [active socialization), and UI (uncertain/ineffective socialization of negativeemotions [passive socialization]). Each subscale has five gender-neutral items. Examples includethe following: PA (“I want my child to experience sadness”), PR (“Children acting sad are usuallyjust trying to get adults to feel sorry for them”), EC (“When my child is angry, it’s time toproblem solve”), and UI (“When my child is sad, I’m not quite sure what he or she wants meto do”). Responses are rated along a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (always false) to 5 (alwaystrue). Total subscale scores are calculated by summing the items of each subscale. High scoresrepresent endorsement of the associated parenting style. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients formale and female parents and non-parents in this study are shown in Table 1. Internal consistencywas good for all subscales except PR, for which it was particularly low for male parents.

The instructions for the ERPS were adapted slightly to make it applicable for use with non-parents (viz., “If you do not have children, try to imagine how you would feel and act. You maylike to inform your answers by thinking about your reactions to children you know”).

Procedure

Subsequent to approval by the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee, informationabout the study was provided online to students taking two first-year classes in psychology.

6 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

Given our desire to see whether the scale had utility across adults irrespective of parent status,both parents and non-parents were invited to participate. The demographic informationquestionnaire and the ERPS scale were completed online in Week 1 of the trimester, at thecommencement of classes. Participation was voluntary, but students received course creditfor participation. Activation of a force response feature in the online survey meant that therewere no missing data.

RESULTS

ERPS Descriptive Statistics

The means and standard deviations for males’ and females’ and for parents’ and non-parents’(N¼ 521) total scores and Cronbach’s alphas for each ERPS subscale are displayed in Table 1.As shown in Table 1, good internal consistency was noted for all subscales except PR, for whichit was poor for males. To retain the integrity of the ERPS, we utilized the whole scale for the pro-posed analyses but were cognizant of the limitations in the reliability of the PR subscale for men.

ERPS Differences Among Mothers, Non-Mothers, Fathers, and Non-Fathers

Emotion coaching, or active socialization of negative emotions, was the predominant parentingresponse (as indicated by the subscale with the highest total score) among both parents and non-parents of each gender: mothers (n¼ 214, 83%), fathers (n¼ 23, 74%), non-mothers (n¼ 146,79%), and non-fathers (n¼ 30, 68%).

To investigate differences in parenting styles among mothers, non-mothers, fathers, and non-fathers, we conducted a 2 × 2 multivariate analysis of covariance with total scores on the fourERPS subscales as dependent variables, parental status (parent vs. non-parent) and gender (males

TABLE 1Means (SD) for Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale Total Scores and Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s

Alphas) by Gender and Parental Status for the Study Sample (N¼ 521)

Subscale

Males (n¼ 76) Females (n¼ 445)

Parent(n¼ 32)

Non-parent(n¼ 44)

Parent(n¼ 258)

Non-parent(n¼ 187)

Parental Acceptance Total score 17.18 (3.69) 17.61 (3.91) 18.08 (3.49) 18.19 (3.22)Cronbach’s α .83 .78 .77 .76

Parental Rejection Total score 13.06 (2.42) 14.36 (2.89) 11.69 (2.93) 13.48 (3.07)Cronbach’s α .28 .46 .56 .65

Emotion Coaching Total score 20.06 (3.06) 20.20 (3.29) 21.78 (2.53) 21.26 (2.79)Cronbach’s α .83 .84 .74 .82

Uncertain/Ineffective Total score 13.71 (3.09) 13.59 (3.31) 12.29 (3.48) 12.73 (3.25)Cronbach’s α .76 .77 .75 .80

The potential total score range per subscale is 5 (always false) to 25 (always true).

EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

vs. female) as the independent variables, and parental age as a covariate. As shown by Wilks’slambda, there was a significant main effect for gender on the combined dependent variables(λ¼ .95), F(4, 513)¼ 6.67, p< .001, η2p ¼ :05. Neither the multivariate main effect for parentstatus (p¼ .241) nor the interaction effect (p¼ .825) were significant. However, age significantlypredicted the combined dependent variables (λ¼ .94), F(4, 513)¼ 7.60, p< .001, η2p ¼ :06.

As shown in Table 2, follow-up analyses of covariance for gender differences across the fourparenting styles separately showed that females (M¼ 21.57, SD¼ 2.65) scored significantlyhigher than males (M¼ 20.14, SD¼ 3.18) on emotion coaching/approval of emotions, but males(M¼ 13.82, SD¼ 2.77) scored significantly higher than females (M¼ 12.45, SD¼ 3.11) on par-ental rejection/dismissal of negative emotions. Males (M¼ 13.64, SD¼ 3.21) also scored sig-nificantly higher than females (M¼ 12.48, SD¼ 3.40) on uncertain/ineffective socializationof negative emotions. There were no significant differences between males (M¼ 17.43, SD¼ 3.80) and females (M¼ 18.13, SD¼ 3.38) on parental acceptance of negative emotions.The effect sizes for all three significant results were small (Cohen, 1988). Also shown in Table2 is that older parents were significantly less likely to endorse parental rejection and uncertain/ineffective socialization, but age was not significantly associated with the emotion coaching orparental acceptance parenting styles: parental rejection, r (519)¼�.34, p< .001; uncertain/ineffective socialization, r(519)¼�.13, p¼ .002.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of the ERPS Scale by Gender

As development of the ERPS scale by Paterson et al. (2012) had involved mothers only, and ourresults showed a significant effect for gender but not parent status, we explored the factor struc-ture of the ERPS across genders.

Females. A principal component analysis was conducted on the 20-item ERPS for females(n¼ 445). Sampling adequacy was verified by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure ¼.77 andBartlett’s test of sphericity, which was significant (p< .001). Although five factors had eigen-values over 1.0 (59% of the variance explained), the most meaningful analysis to interpret had

TABLE 2Follow-Up Univariate Analyses of Covariance on Gender Differences Across Parenting Styles,

Controlling for Age

Parenting Style F p η2p

GenderEmotion coaching 16.382† <.001 .031Parental rejection 9.976† .002 .019Uncertain/ineffective socialization 7.508† .006 .014Parental acceptance 2.895 .089 .006

AgeEmotion coaching 0.002 .969 <.001Parental rejection 25.983† <.001 .048Uncertain/ineffective socialization 7.479† .006 .014Parental acceptance 0.099 .753 <.001

†p< .0125, Bonferroni-adjusted alpha for four comparisons.

8 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

four factors (52.5% of the variance explained) in line with the scree plot; a direct obliminrotation procedure provided the clearest interpretation of loadings. Factor loadings are displayedin Table 3. All items loaded onto the same factors as reported by Paterson et al. (2012), namely,PA, PR, EC, and UI.

Males. Although the male sample size (n¼ 76) was relatively small for principal componentanalysis, more than four of the loadings were above .60; thus, the solution can be consideredreliable regardless of sample size (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). The sampling adequacy wasverified by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure at .65 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which

TABLE 3Factor Loadings for the 20-Item Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale: Females (n¼445)

ItemNo./Scale Item

Uncertain/Ineffective

(UI)

EmotionCoaching(EC)

ParentalAcceptance

(PA)

ParentalRejection(PR)

7/UI When my child is angry, I’m not quite sure what heor she wants me to do

.76

17/UI When my child is sad, I’m not quite sure what he orshe wants me to do

.72

20/UI When my child gets angry, I think, “Why can’t he orshe accept things as they are”

.64

13/UI When my child gets angry, I think, “If only he orshe could just learn to roll with the punches”

.63

18/UI When my child gets angry with me, I think, “I don’twant to hear this”

.63

15/EC When my child is sad, I try to help him or her figureout why the feeling is there

.83

3/EC When my child is sad, we sit down and talk over thesadness

.76

6/EC It’s important to help the child find out what causedthe child’s anger

.70

8/EC When my child is sad, I try to help the child explorewhat is making him or her sad

.69

19/EC When my child is angry, it’s time to solve a problem .642/PA I want my child to experience anger .9016/PA I think it’s good for kids to feel angry sometimes .845/PA I want my child to experience sadness .779/PA Children have a right to feel angry .4612/PA A child’s anger is important .464/PR Children often act sad to get their way .711/PR Children acting sad are usually just trying to get

adults to feel sorry for them.66

10/PR I don’t mind dealing with a child’s sadness, so longas it doesn’t last too long

.64

11/PR When my child gets sad, I warn him or her about notdeveloping a bad character

.55

14/PR When my child gets angry, my goal is to get him orher to stop

.45

Note. Item loadings above .40 are shown.

EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

was significant (p< .001). Seven factors had eigenvalues over 1.0, explaining 74.3% of thevariance. The scree plot indicated four factors, explaining 56.3% of the variance. As the com-ponents were only weakly correlated, the most meaningful analysis to interpret had four factorswith a varimax rotation. Factor loadings are displayed in Table 4 and were different from thoseof the female participants. Although the PA, PR, and EC loadings largely corresponded to thosereported by Paterson et al. (2012) and found in our female sample, three UI items—all having todo with the expression of anger—loaded onto the PR scale, leaving the UI scale with two itemsonly (for ease of identification, these three are marked in Table 4 along with the PR anger itemthat loaded onto the EC scale).

TABLE 4Factor Loadings for the 20-Item Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale: Males (n¼76)

ItemNo./Scale Item

Uncertain/Ineffective

(UI)

EmotionCoaching(EC)

ParentalAcceptance

(PA)

ParentalRejection(PR)

17/UI When my child is sad, I’m not quite sure what he orshe wants me to do

.88

7/UI When my child is angry, I’m not quite sure what heor she wants me to do

.88

3/EC When my child is sad, we sit down and talk over thesadness

.86

19/EC When my child is angry, it’s time to solve a problem .826/EC It’s important to help the child find out what caused

the child’s anger.75

15/EC When my child is sad, I try to help him or her figureout why the feeling is there

.72

8/EC When my child is sad, I try to help the child explorewhat is making him or her sad

.61 �.46

14/PR When my child gets angry, my goal is to get him orher to stop

.44a

16/PA I think it’s good for kids to feel angry sometimes .862/PA I want my child to experience anger .8112/PA A child’s anger is important .755/PA I want my child to experience sadness .729/PA Children have a right to feel angry .4418/UI When my child gets angry with me, I think, “I don’t

want to hear this”.81a

20/UI When my child gets angry, I think, “Why can’t he orshe accept things as they are”

.76a

13/UI When my child gets angry, I think, “If only he orshe could just learn to roll with the punches”

.75a

4/PR Children often act sad to get their way .5911/PR When my child gets sad, I warn him or her about not

developing a bad character.43

10/PR I don’t mind dealing with a child’s sadness, so longas it doesn’t last too long

.43

Note. Item loadings above .40 are shown. Item 1 (from the PR subscale), “Children acting sad are usually just tryingto get adults to feel sorry for them,” did not load above .40 on any factors; its strongest loading was .26 on Factor 4, PR.

aFactor loading is different from that of females.

10 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the ERPS Scale

To continue our examination of gender and parent status differences in ERPS scores, we con-ducted confirmatory factor analysis using Amos 20 (Arbuckle, 2011) on the total mixed-gendersample, then on subsamples of (a) all females (mothers and non-mothers) and (b) non-mothersonly. Our aim was to verify the construct validity of the four-factor model of the ERPS scale asspecified by Paterson et al. (2012). From the total sample (N¼ 521), 10 multivariate outliers(three female parents, three female non-parents, one male parent, and three male non-parents)were identified using Mahalanobis distance scores at p< .001. These cases were deleted. As aconsequence, multivariate normality was within the limit specified by Kline (2005) of absolutekurtosis index < 10.0.

Mixed-gender sample. To assess model fit, we followed the recommendations of Byrne(2013) and Kline (2005) of χ2/df< 3.0, goodness-of-fit index (GFI)> .90, comparative fit index(CFI)> .90, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)< .06, and standardizedroot-mean-square residual (SRMR)< .08. The initial analysis, including data from males andfemales (n¼ 511), showed that the model failed to fit the data, χ2(170)¼ 856.37, p< .001,χ2/df¼ 5.04, GFI¼ .86, CFI¼ .79, RMSEA¼ .09, SRMR¼ .13. This was not surprising giventhat Paterson et al. (2012) used data from mothers only, and our EFA produced different resultsfor males and females.

Female sample (mothers and non-mothers). This time we performed the analysisusing data from females only (n¼ 439, comprising n¼ 255 mothers and n¼ 184non-mothers). The model failed to fit the data, χ2(170)¼ 748.19, p< .001, χ2/df¼ 4.40,GFI¼ .85, CFI¼ .79, RMSEA¼ .09, SRMR¼ .12. Modification indices suggested thaterror terms associated with four pairs of items, all within factors, be allowed to covary.These pairs of items involved overlapping item content and are designated withsuperscripts in Table 4. The four latent factors were also allowed to covary. Rerunningthe model with these modifications showed that the four-factor model fit the datawell, χ2(161)¼ 364.97, p< .001, χ2/df¼ 2.27, GFI¼ .93, CFI¼ .93, RMSEA¼ .05, SRMR¼ .07. The standardized regression weights (factor loadings) and bootstrapped standarderrors are shown in Table 5. All items loaded significantly on their respective factors atp< .01, and there were no cross-loadings. Correlations between factors are reported inTable 6.

Non-mothers sample. In this analysis, we were interested to confirm that the four-factormodel as specified would remain invariant across mothers and non-mothers. To test multigroupinvariance we followed the recommendations of Byrne (2013). Goodness-of-fit statistics for themodel comparisons are shown in Table 7. The difference between the baseline model and one inwhich all factor loadings, variances, and covariances were constrained to be equal was not sig-nificant, Δχ2¼ 21.49, Δdf¼ 26, p¼ .72. This supported the proposition that the four-factormodel, as specified by Paterson et al. (2012) and shown in our EFA, remains invariant acrossboth mothers and non-mothers.

EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

TABLE 6Correlations Between Factors of the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale (Female Participants, n¼445)

Factor 1 2 3 4

1. Parental Acceptance —

2. Parental Rejection �.16* —

3. Emotion Coaching .09 �.21** —

4. Uncertain/Ineffective �.16** .45** �.27** —

*p< .05. **p< .01.

TABLE 7Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Tests of Invariance Across Mothers and Non-Mothers

Model Description χ2 df χ2=df GFI CFI RMSEA SRMR

Combined baseline models (mothers and non-mothers) 551.15 322 1.71 .89 .92 .04 .07Factor loadings, variances, and covariances constrained to be equal 572.64 348 1.65 .89 .92 .04 .08

GFI¼ goodness-of-fit index; CFI¼ comparative fit index; RMSEA¼ root mean square error of approximation;SRMR¼ standardized root-mean-square residual.

TABLE 5Standardized Regression Weights (Factor Loadings) and Bootstrapped Standard Errors From the

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale for Female Participants (n¼445)

Factor and Item β SE

Parental AcceptanceI want my child to experience sadness .72 .03I want my child to experience anger .95 .03I think it’s good for kids to feel angry sometimes .70 .03A child’s anger is importanta .31 .05Children have a right to feel angrya .35 .05

Parental RejectionChildren acting sad are usually just trying to get adults to feel sorry for them .65 .05Children often act sad to get their way .75 .04I don’t mind dealing with a child’s sadness, so long as it doesn’t last too long .44 .05When my child gets sad, I warn him or her about not developing a bad character .43 .05When my child gets angry, my goal is to get him or her to stop .40 .06

Emotion CoachingWhen my child is sad, I try to help the child explore what is making him or her sad .66 .04When my child is sad, we sit down and talk over the sadness .80 .03When my child is sad, I try to help him or her figure out why the feeling is there .87 .03When my child is angry, it’s time to solve a problemb .39 .05It’s important to help the child find out what caused the child’s angerb .51 .05

Uncertain/IneffectiveWhen my child is sad, I’m not quite sure what he or she wants me to doc .32 .05When my child is angry, I’m not quite sure what he or she wants me to doc .31 .05When my child gets angry with me, I think, “I don’t want to hear this” .67 .04When my child gets angry, I think, “If only he or she could just learn to roll with the punches” .83 .03When my child gets angry, I think, “Why can’t he or she accept things as the are” .87 .03

Note. All standardized regression weights (factor loadings) were significant at p< .01 based on 1,000 bias-correctedbootstrapped samples. The error terms for the three pairs of items shown with superscripts were allowed to covary in themodel, as were the four latent factors.

12 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to determine whether the ERPS scale (Paterson et al., 2012) is areliable measure of the emotion-related parenting styles of parents and non-parents of both gen-ders. The overall finding was that it is reliable for use with females (mothers and non-mothers),but further developmental research is required to establish its reliability and validity with males.

Predominant Parenting Style

As anticipated, we found that the predominant parenting style of males and females, parents andnon-parents, was not different from each other and was emotion coaching (the active socializa-tion of negative emotions). This finding is consistent with results reported by Hakim-Larson etal. (2006) when using a forerunner version of the ERPS scale (the ERPSST-T/F). Theseresearchers found that 91% of their sample of mothers and fathers (N¼ 100) endorsed theemotion coaching style. Although both sets of findings might be considered an artifact of theparticipants being well educated—a link between socioeconomic status and adaptive parentingstyles being consistently demonstrated in the literature (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardiff, 2002)—theyare also consistent with other large studies that have found that the majority of parents use effec-tive approaches to parenting (e.g., Ryan, Martin, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006 [N¼ 237]; Simons &Conger, 2007 [N¼ 451]).

Gender Differences in Parenting Style

We found no significant difference between the parenting styles of parents and non-parents, butthere were some differences between the genders. Males and females accepted the expression ofnegative emotions but differed in their responses to this expression. Females scored higher onemotion coaching (an active socialization response), and males scored higher on rejection ofnegative emotions (emotion disapproving) and uncertain/ineffective (a passive socializationresponse) styles. Given our finding that the PR scale had poor reliability for males, some cau-tion needs to exercised in accepting these results; however, they are again consistent with thoseof Hakim-Larson et al. (2006) and the known similarities and differences between the gendersin their active response to emotions. That is, although both may accept the expression ofnegative emotions, mothers tend to offer more verbal affirmations, whereas fathers can bedemanding and corrective (Cowan, Cowan, & Kerig, 1993; Kausar & Shafique, 2008; Sabattini& Leaper, 2004).

In a comprehensive review of parental socialization of emotion, Eisenberg and colleagues(1998) concluded, “It is hazardous to assume that the same pattern of findings will be obtainedfor paternal and maternal reactions to children’s negative emotions” (p. 253). Accordingly,research has shown that whereas mothers generally affirm and coach all emotions in childrenof both genders, fathers’ responses are contingent on the gender of the child and the specificemotions expressed (i.e., they are more attentive to anxiety and sadness in girls and to angerand disruptive emotions in boys; Chaplin et al., 2005). According to evolutionary and socialtheory, these differences may support some social-relational functions, such as affiliation, pro-tection, and control (Archer, 1996). Furthermore, Simons and Conger (2007) found that as long

EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

as one parent provides reinforcement and encouragement of the expression of negative emo-tions, children do not suffer negative outcomes. Hence, our findings may reflect a commonand adaptive set of gender-specific response. That said, our findings also suggest that malesmay be more uncertain about how to deal with children’s emotions than females; therefore,it would be important to screen for this feature and offer targeted education to fathers in at-riskfamilies and to men proposing to work in the care and support of children.

Age and Parenting Style

In line with our predictions, we found that older age, independent of parent status, was associa-ted with less uncertain/ineffective parenting responses and rejection of negative emotions.Researchers with similar findings have proposed that this is a function of having older childrenwhose developmentally different behaviors influence parents’ socializing responses, but it mayalso be that with maturity and experience, adults become more confident and less intolerant ofchildren’s emotional expressions (Halpenny, Nixon, & Watson, 2010). As this result includednon-parents in the sample and no effects were found based on parent status, perhaps it givessupport to Bronfenbrenner’s (1978) argument that adults do not need to be parents to gain skillsfrom parenting education. If life experience and maturity alone can reduce maladaptive or inef-fective responses in adults in general, then how much more might be gained from specific edu-cation around helping children to understand, experience, express, and regulate their emotions?

Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the ERPS Scale

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the ERPS confirmed the structure reported byPaterson et al. (2012) for mothers and demonstrated that this was invariant across our sample offemales irrespective of their parent status. This result indicates that the ERPS scale is reliablefor use in the female population and may have applications in the assessment of mothers of chil-dren displaying social or emotional problems and in the early childhood education sector. In thelatter context, in which the capacity to provide emotional support is a key competency, furtherstudies may reveal the utility of the ERPS to screen (the predominantly female) students for thepurpose of early additional training if needed.

Although the factor structure of the ERPS was the same for both gender samples, reliabilitywas not demonstrated for the PR subscale for males. Close examination of the males’ responsesrevealed that in contrast to those of the females, three of the UI items—all eliciting responses toanger (e.g., “When my child gets angry with me, I think, ‘I don’t want to hear this’”)—loadedonto the PR subscale (instead of the UI subscale). This finding is consistent with other research(e.g., Dimberg & Lundquist, 1990) demonstrating males’ differential response to the expressionof anger and indicates that a modified ERPS scale needs to be developed to assess males’emotion-related parenting styles.

Limitations and Conclusions

A key limitation of this study is the potential for bias in our sample of predominantly well-educatedfemales studying undergraduate psychology. Such students are known to be high in emotional

14 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

intelligence (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000), a feature likely to influence emotion-related par-enting style. Therefore, caution should be exercised before generalizing our findings to socioeco-nomically diverse groups. In addition, it should be noted that we interpreted males’ responses onthe ERPS scale, even though only three of the four subscales showed reliability with this gender.

These limitations aside, we have confirmed the reliability of the ERPS scale for use withmothers and shown it to be reliable with females in general. Furthermore, we have demonstratedthat there are gender differences in emotion-related parenting responses and that the ERPS isnot fully reliable for use with males. Our findings also suggest useful goals of future research.These include revisiting the procedures used by Paterson et al. (2012) to develop a male-specificERPS scale and confirming the scale’s factor structure in parents and non-parents.

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). Amos 20. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible?

American Psychologist, 51, 909–917. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.9.909Ateah, C. A. (2003). Disciplinary practices with children: Parental sources of information, attitudes, and educational

needs. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 26(2), 89–101. doi:10.1080/01460860390197853Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76,

1144–1159. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00840.x-i1Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Child care 4102.0—Australian Social Trends, June 2010. Retrieved from http://

www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features50Jun+2010Auyeung, K., Burdidge, J., & Minnes, P. (2011). Perceived parental stress: The relative contributions of child and parent

characteristics. Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17(2), 10–20.Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn R. Lerner, & A. C. Peterson

(Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746–758). New York, NY: Garland.Biele, C., & Grabowska, A. (2006). Sex differences in perception of emotion intensity in dynamic and static facial

expressions. Experimental Brain Research, 171(1), 1–6. doi:10.1007/s00221-005-0254-0Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2000). Gender, emotion and expression. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jone (Eds.),

Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 338–367). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1978). Who needs parent education? Teachers College Record, 79, 767–787.Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd

ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental socialization of emotion expression: Gender

differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5(1), 80–88. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.80Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct.

Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00119-1Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Kerig, P. K. (1993). Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gender differences in family

formation and parenting style. In P. A. Cowan D. Field D. A. Hansen A. Skolnick, & G. E. Swanson (Eds.), Family,self, and society: Toward a new agenda for family research (pp. 165–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Department of Social Services. (2011). An outline of national standards for out-of-home care. Retrieved from https://

www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/publications-articles/an-outline-of-national-standards-for-out-of-home-care-2011?HTML#sec_5

Dimberg, U., & Lundquist, L.-O. (1990). Gender differences in facial reactions to facial expressions. BiologicalPsychology, 30(2), 151–159. doi:10.1016/0301-0511(90)90024-Q

Domes, G., Schulze, L., Böttger, M., Grossmann, A., Hauenstein, K., Wirtz, P. H.,… Herpertz, S. C. (2010). The neuralcorrelates of sex differences in emotional reactivity and emotion regulation. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 758–769.doi:10.1002/hbm.20903

EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4),241–273. doi:10.2307/1449728

Eley, T. C., Bolton, D., O’Connor, T. G., Perrin, S., Smith, P., & Plomin, R. (2003). A twin study of anxiety-related beha-viours in pre-school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 945–960. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00179

Fabes, R. A., Poulin, R. E., Eisenberg, N., & Madden-Derdich, D. A. (2002). The Coping with Children’s NegativeEmotions Scale (CCNES): Psychometric properties and relations with children’s emotional competence. Marriage& Family Review, 34(3–4), 285–310. doi:10.1300/J002v34n03_05

Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 40, 532–538. doi:10.1037/a0015808

Fivush, R., Brotman, M., Buckner, J., & Goodman, S. (2000). Gender differences in parent-child emotion narratives.Sex Roles, 42(3–4), 233–253. doi:10.1023/a:1007091207068

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families:Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(3), 243–268. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.3.243

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 170–191. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.170

Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience: A social role interpretation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1010–1022. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1010

Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. PsychologicalBulletin, 103, 265–275.

Hakim-Larson, J., Parker, A., Lee, C., Goodwin, J., & Voelker, S. (2006). Measuring parental meta-emotion: Psycho-metric properties of the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Self-Test. Early Education & Development, 17, 229–251.doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1702_2

Halberstadt, A. G., Cassidy, J., Stifter, C. A., Parke, R. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Self-expressiveness within the familycontext: Psychometric support for a new measure. Psychological Assessment, 7(1), 93–103. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.1.93

Halpenny, A. M., Nixon, E., & Watson, D. (2010). Parents’ perspectives on parenting styles and disciplining children.Dublin, Ireland: Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.

Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardiff, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook ofparenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 231–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Katz, L. F., Maliken, A. C., & Stettler, N. M. (2012). Parental meta-emotion philosophy: A review of research andtheoretical framework. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 417–422. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00244.x

Katz, L., & Windecker-Nelson, B. (2004). Parental meta-emotion philosophy in families with conduct-problem chil-dren: Links with peer relations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(4), 385–398. doi:10.1023/b:jacp.0000030292.36168.30

Kausar, R., & Shafique, N. (2008). Gender differences in perceived parenting styles and socioemotional adjustment ofadolescents. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 23(3/4), 93–105.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 686–703. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.686Magill-Evans, J., Harrison, M., Benzies, K., Gierl, M., & Kimak, C. (2007). Effects of parenting education on first-time

fathers’ skills in interactions with their infants. Fathering, 5(1), 42–57. doi:10.3149/fth.0501.42Mann, M. B., Pearl, P. T., & Behle, P. D. (2004). Effects of parent education on knowledge and attitudes. Adolescence,

39(154), 355–360.Mayer, S. E. (2002). The influence of parental income on children’s outcomes. Wellington, New Zealand Knowledge

Management Group, Ministry of Social Development, Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora.McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and their development

in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 424–453. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.424Paterson, A. D., Babb, K. A., Camodeca, A., Goodwin, J., Hakim-Larson, J., Voelker, S., & Gragg, M. (2012).

Emotion-Related Parenting Styles (ERPS): A short form for measuring parental meta-emotion philosophy. EarlyEducation & Development, 23, 583–602. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.569316

16 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5

Reder, P., Duncan, S., & Lucey, C. (2003). Studies in the assessment of parenting. London, England: Routledge.Ryan, R. M., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Is one good parent good enough? Patterns of mother and father

parenting and child cognitive outcomes at 24 and 36 months. Parenting, 6(2–3), 211–228. doi:10.1080/15295192.2006.9681306

Saarni, C. (1985). Indirect processes in affect socialization. In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (Eds.), The socialization ofemotions (pp. 187–209). New York, NY: Plenum.

Sabattini, L., & Leaper, C. (2004). The relation between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles and their division oflabor in the home: Young adults’ retrospective reports. Sex Roles, 50(3–4), 217–225. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000015553.82390.f7

Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development,81, 6–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x

Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parentingstyles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28(2), 212–241. doi:10.1177/0192513 × 06294593

University of New England. (2011). Courses and units catalogue: PSYC103 Psychology in Society: Effective Parenting.Retrieved from https://my.une.edu.au/courses/2011/units/PSYC103

University of New England. (2014). 2013 overview: Student demographics in 2013. Retrieved from http://planning.une.edu.au/Statistics/overview/index.htm

Wager, T. D., Phan, K. L., Liberzon, I., & Taylor, S. F. (2003). Valence, gender, and lateralization of functional brainanatomy in emotion: A meta-analysis of findings from neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 19, 513–531. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00078-8

EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Deb

ra D

unst

an]

at 1

4:37

26

May

201

5