STRESS Parenting Stress

Current Perspectives in Psychology
Parenting
Stress
Kirby Deater-Deckard
YA L E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S N E W H AV E N A N D L O N D O N
Excerpt in Chapter  from How to Be Good by Nick Hornby,
copyright © by Nick Hornby. Used by permission of Riverhead Books,
an imprint of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
Copyright ©  by Kirby Deater-Deckard.

All rights reserved.
This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations,
in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections  and  of the
U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press),
without written permission from the publishers.
Set in Garamond type by The Composing Room of Michigan, Inc.
Printed in the United States of America.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Deater-Deckard, Kirby.
Parenting stress / Kirby Deater-Deckard
ISBN: ---X (cloth: alk. paper)
LC Control Number: 
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of
the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the
Council on Library Resources.
         
For my parents, Loren and Mary Jane Deckard
Contents
Series Foreword Alan E. Kazdin ix

Acknowledgments xi
CHAPTER 1
Hello Baby, Hello Stress: Introduction and Overview 1
CHAPTER 2
Parenting Stress and the Parent 27
CHAPTER 3
Parenting Stress and the Child 55
CHAPTER 4
Parenting Behavior and the Parent-Child Relationship 74
CHAPTER 5
Parent and Child Effects 95
CHAPTER 6
Family, Culture, Community 115
CHAPTER 7
Coping and Intervention 139
APPENDIX
Selected Studies 165
References 167
Index 202
▪ vii ▪
Series Foreword
Current Perspectives in Psychology presents the latest discoveries

and developments across the spectrum of the psychological and behav-
ioral sciences. The series explores such important topics as learning, in-
telligence, trauma, stress, brain development and behavior, anxiety, in-
terpersonal relationships, education, child rearing, divorce and marital
discord, and child, adolescent, and adult development. Each book fo-
cuses on critical advances in research, theory, methods, and applica-
tions and is designed to be accessible and informative to nonspecialists
and specialists alike.
The focus of this book is on the stress that parents experience in
raising children. Parenting stress is influenced fundamentally by who it
is that has primary care responsibility for child rearing (e.g., mother,
father, relatives), as well as parental employment, parent mental health,
and child social, cognitive, and physical development. The book
moves systematically from the concept of parenting stress to the im-
pact of these and other influences on parent mental health, child be-
havior and functioning, and family relations. Interestingly, parenting
stress is both an antecedent and consequence of many influences in
everyday life. For example, parent or child illness, disability, and psy-
chiatric disorder affect the stress that parents experience, but parent
stress also influences parent and child adjustment. Apart from charting
parenting stress and how it operates, the book directs us to what can be
done to alleviate stress and to controvert its potential deleterious influ-
ences. Influences in everyday life such as the role of family supports, in-
terventions for parents that train coping responses, and social policies
that can relieve some of the stresses of parenting, particularly maternity
and paternity leave policies, are also presented.
Parenting is of broad interest for the obvious reason that most of
us have been a parent or at least have known one or two while we were
growing up. Interest in parenting is heightened by the many other fas-
cinating topics that are directly related, including marital relation-
ships, child-rearing practices, differences among siblings raised in the
▪ ix ▪
x Series Foreword
same home, and the impact of genetics and culture on parenting. Par-
ent and child health adjustment and functioning are greatly influenced
by the stress that parents experience. This brings parenting into the
health domain, and the author addresses questions of what might be
done to ease parenting and improve health and well-being on a large
scale.
Dr. Deater-Deckard has integrated the research findings from
many areas to provide an authoritative, scholarly, and highly readable
book on parenting. The book is without peer in bringing to us scien-
tific advances that directly inform everyday life. We are fortunate to
have the benefit of the author’s many years of scholarly work on par-
enting and his ability to apply and translate research in a concrete way
to key challenges of child rearing.
Alan E. Kazdin
Series Editor
Acknowledgments
Thanks to my family—Keirsten, Anna, and our new baby,

Helen—for making parenthood so fun and fulfilling, in big and little
ways every day. I am grateful to the parents and children who have par-
ticipated in the research projects that are described in this book. Much
appreciation goes to my mentors, colleagues, and graduate and under-
graduate research assistants, whose collaborations and friendships have
contributed to my enthusiasm for the research described here. While
working on this project, my research was supported by funds from the
National Science Foundation (BCS-), the National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development (R-HD– A),
and the Kathryn Rudolph Memorial Research Fund of the University
of Oregon Foundation. Last but not least, caffeine and moral support
were provided by the cheerful staff and regulars at the “L and L Mar-
ket” in Eugene, Oregon.
▪ xi ▪
1
Hello Baby, Hello Stress
Introduction and Overview
In his novel How to Be Good (), Nick Hornby describes a

mother of two who is struggling to keep her family together. Although
the emphasis of the novel is on Katie’s dissolving marriage, Hornby
also offers the following incisive passage as evidence of Katie’s insights
about her deteriorating relationships with her children: “It hurts me
and worries me to say it, but I have become less fond of Tom and
Molly. I have been aware of this for a while, and have always presumed
that this was perfectly normal—how could I feel the same about this
quiet, occasionally surly boy as I did about his smiling, miraculous,
two-year-old counterpart? But now I’m not so sure. Now I’m begin-
ning to wonder whether he should not, in fact, be more lovable than he
is, and whether the shortfall in lovability is due to something unattrac-
tive in him, or something unmaternal in me” (p. ).
There is more to Katie’s story. The novel makes clear that her oc-
casionally hostile feelings toward her children go well beyond a mere
lack of fondness. At the same time, this passage encapsulates the im-
portant aspects of what I will define and describe in this book as par-
enting stress. Parenting stress includes subjective experiences of distress
such as emotional pain and anxiety. It also includes parents’ thoughts,
beliefs, and attributions—expectations about what is “normal,” per-
▪1▪
2 Hello Baby, Hello Stress
ceived lack of control and violations of those expectations, and self-

doubt. And it includes roles for parents and children as contributing
members of enduring and emotionally powerful relationships. How-
ever, the other message of Hornby’s novel that is not captured by this
brief passage is that the struggle of facing family difficulties large and
small is worthwhile, and there is happiness in succeeding.
Parenthood, stress, and joy are distinct concepts that at the same
time are connected in the experiences of parents around the world. As
behavioral models, teachers, socializing agents, and providers for chil-
dren’s many fundamental and idiosyncratic needs, parents are critical
to the health and development of their children. Parenthood and
“good” parenting can mean very different things to different people,
but nearly everyone can agree on this: Parenting is hard work, it is of-
ten stressful, and success (in the moment, over several days, or over
years) requires adaptation. At the very least, successful parenting in-
volves rearing children who themselves rear children. However, this
survival goal is only one of the many goals of parenthood. We strive
for many kinds of success for our children, including self-control, self-
determination, and other psychological attainments. To reach these
goals, our bodies and our cultures have put in place the complex ma-
chinery that maximizes the likelihood that we will be successful—no
matter what the environment may throw at us.
The same biological and psychological mechanisms that have
evolved to maximize our chances of survival as a species—vigilance,
emotional reactivity, and physiological arousal, to name a few—can
put some parents at risk for distress in their roles as caregivers. Parent-
ing stress can create or exacerbate physical and psychological vulnera-
bilities, whereby the distress that arises from the day-to-day strain of
caregiving becomes a crucial aspect of the mental health and function-
ing of parents and children themselves, and the functioning of their re-
lationships with each other. The connection between more extreme
but rare forms of parenting stress and adults’ problems in functioning
is only part of the story. In fact, modestly to moderately stressful expe-
riences in parenthood are very common. Yet another part of the story
is about individual differences between parents in the subjective expe-
riences they have, in the way in which parents respond to and cope
Hello Baby, Hello Stress 3
with parenting stress, and in the way children are affected by parenting
stress and parental behavior.
The causes and effects of parenting stress are usually referred to in
this book as parenting stress mechanisms or processes. These can be mea-
sured at different levels, ranging from the physiological activity of or-
gan systems within a single individual to population-wide rates of
child abuse for a community, state, or nation. I emphasize psychologi-
cal parenting stress and coping mechanisms at the level of the individ-
ual parent and child, and links between the individuals and their rela-
tionships with each other, other family members, and the community
and broader culture. Although it is not highlighted, the role of biolog-
ical factors also is described.
Defining Parenting Stress

What is parenting stress?
Evelyn could tell you. She is a single mother of three-year-old
identical twins. Although to outsiders the twin boys seem virtually in-
distinguishable, they are two very different children to Evelyn. One
misbehaves constantly and seems to intentionally push her buttons,
while his brother is almost always compliant. Although she has am-
bivalent feelings about using physical punishment, her more trouble-
some son gets spanked several times a week, when he hurts his brother
or when he persists in dangerous behavior like trying to push over a
dresser or crawling beneath their neighbor’s truck. By comparison, she
has rarely even thought of spanking his brother, who usually needs lit-
tle more than a frown and mild scolding to stop misbehaving. Evelyn
is a busy working mother, and although she enjoys being a parent at
times, she is usually exhausted and frustrated. She is always behind at
work, and feels badly about not spending more time with her children.
She also feels guilty about the growing disparity in her relationships
with her sons. On one occasion that she will never forget, she bruised
her son’s arms by grabbing him and shaking him. Sometimes, she finds
herself becoming so livid that she fears she will one day completely lose
control.
Bo could also tell you a thing or two about parenting stress. He is
a father of three school-age children. His job involves operating heavy

machinery at locations that keep him away from home for up to two
weeks at a time, with rest periods at home from three to five days be-
tween new locations. His wife always wanted to be at home with the
children while they were growing up, but although Bo’s job pays pretty
well, she must work part-time for them to make ends meet. Bo enjoys
fatherhood, but worries every day about the possible negative effects of
his work schedule on his children and marriage, especially when he is
away from his family. There is not much relief during his rest periods
though. His weeklong stints at home have made him realize how diffi-
cult and tedious daily life with three children can be. Their seemingly
constant demands for his attention tire him out and annoy him nearly
every day. He is particularly concerned about his youngest child, who
is doing very poorly at school and has been tested for a learning dis-
ability. Although Bo wants to be at home with his family, when he is
there he finds himself wanting to go back to work within a day or so. In
addition, he and his wife argue when he is at home. She needs time to
herself after he has been away for a week or two, but he resists because
he also wants to get out of the house. Their whole situation has put a
very serious strain on their marriage.
Evelyn and Bo are only two parents, but their experiences are like
those of many others. Parents face a multitude of different circum-
stances. Some parents are wealthy and some are poor; some have help,
and some are on their own. Yet all of them experience parenting stress
to some extent at one time or another, and some are chronically dis-
tressed.
Scientists have known for decades that the well-being of adults
and children alike is linked to the kinds and degrees of stressful cir-
cumstances that they face in their daily lives. Those who experience
more stressful events are more likely to suffer from depression and
other problems in mental and physical health (Brown and Harris,
; Goodyer, ). We also are coming to realize that stress in the
parenting role is distinct from the stress arising from other roles and ex-
periences—from the workplace, unfortunate events or experiences,
and interpersonal relationships with other family members and
friends. That is, stress is probably specific to particular roles.
It is likely that parenting stress more strongly affects parenting
behavior and children’s development than does stress in other domains

of life, such as work-related stress (Creasey and Reese, ; Quittner,
Glueckauf, and Jackson, ). This is exemplified in two distinct
studies of families facing multiple difficulties and problems. In one
study that followed the development of a group of children (some who
had chronic illnesses), parenting stress was the strongest predictor of
children’s emotional and behavioral problems at four years of age
(Goldberg et al., ). In another, researchers studied a group of home-
less families who were at risk for problems in mental and physical
health due to the many sources of stress that they faced in their daily
lives (Gorzka, ). Among these families, it was those parents with
the highest levels of parenting stress that had children with the highest
levels of problems in their cognitive and social development (Danseco
and Holden, ). Parenting stress may be particularly powerful as a
cause and consequence of the variation that is found in parenting be-
haviors and children’s outcomes across different families. However,
stress in the parenting role is not completely independent from stress
in other roles and from other experiences; there is likely to be overlap
or spillover in the stress that we experience in these different roles (Bar-
nett, Marshall, and Singer, ; Creasey and Reese, ).
A core feature in any theory of parenting stress is the idea of a bal-
ancing act between the parent’s perceptions of the demands of this role
and access to available resources for meeting these demands. Indeed,
this balance between demands and resources is central to most theories
of human stress and coping (Hobfoll, ; Lazarus, ). Accord-
ingly, parenting stress arises when the parent’s expectations about the
resources needed to meet the demands of parenting are not matched
by available resources (Goldstein, ).
As will be explored in this chapter, the demands of parenting are
many and varied, and involve adapting to the child’s unique attributes
as well as the social role of parenthood. The demands include meeting
children’s needs for survival like feeding, sheltering, and protection,
but also include psychological demands for attention, affection, and
help in controlling or regulating emotions. Parents’ perceptions of
their children’s behaviors (including attributions about why the child
is behaving in a particular way), and perceptions of their own compe-
tence as parents, are also critical in most theories (Mash and Johnston,
). Resources for parents are similarly diverse, and include a host of
mental and physical factors such as adequate protection for survival
(e.g., sufficient housing, food, and income), knowledge, feelings of
competence, and instrumental and emotional support from others
(Deater-Deckard and Scarr, ). Parenting stress can and does arise
for parents who in absolute terms have everything they should need to
live a life free of stress, such as adequate income, housing, and social re-
sources. Certainly, individual differences in parenting stress arise in
part due to concrete, absolute differences between parents in access to
these resources. However, parenting stress also has much to do with the
subjective experience of childrearing. One parent’s “overactive, de-
manding” child may be another parent’s “energetic, assertive” child.
Much of the research on parenting stress has focused on families
seeking help from mental health professionals for such problems as
parental depression or child attention deficits. However, there also are
many studies that have examined families selected from the broader
communities in which they live. All parents, regardless of their mental
health or social and economic resources, experience parenting stress to
some degree. Furthermore, the mundane day-in, day-out hassles of
parenting contribute just as much, if not more, to parenting stress as
do major stressors such as serious mental or physical health problems,
divorce, or sudden loss of income (Creasey and Reese, ; Crnic and
Greenberg, ; Crnic and Low, ).
Parenting stress can be defined succinctly as a set of processes that
lead to aversive psychological and physiological reactions arising from at-
tempts to adapt to the demands of parenthood. This often is experienced
as negative feelings and beliefs toward and about the self and the child.
By definition, these negative feelings arise directly from the parenting
role. Although helpful in its precision, this simple definition should
not detract from the fact that parenting stress involves a broad set of
complex, dynamic processes linking the child and her behaviors, per-
ceived demands of parenting, parenting resources, physiological reac-
tion to the demands of parenting, qualities of the parent’s relationships
with the child and other family members, and links with other people
and institutions outside of the home. In addition, as I describe
throughout this book, the stress process also is about coping—success-
ful adaptation to the demands of being a parent. For many, the de-
mands are manageable, and although the job of parenthood may be

hard at times, it is also very rewarding. Even in families that face very
serious and chronic difficulties such as child or parent illness, many if
not most parents adjust to these challenges successfully. These experi-
ences of meeting challenges and coping with stress are critical to the
development of resiliency in the face of severe adversity when it occurs,
for parents and children alike (Rutter, ).
Causes and Effects: Theories of Parenting Stress

Although parenting stress has been conceptualized in a number of
ways (e.g., Abidin, ; Belsky, ; Crnic and Low, ; Webster-
Stratton, ), there are two predominant approaches to assessing
and testing its causes and effects. These include what I call parent-
child-relationship (P-C-R ) theory, and daily hassles theory. These are
not opposing or competing theories, but instead are alternative and
complementary perspectives about the nature of parenting stress, its
causes, and its consequences.
Parent-Child-Relationship (P-C-R) Stress

The most widely tested theory of parenting stress posits three separate
components: a “parent” domain (P those aspects of parenting stress
that arise from within the parent), a “child” domain (C those aspects
of parenting stress that arise from the child’s behavior), and a “parent-
child relationship” domain (R those aspects of parenting stress that
arise within the parent-child relationship). According to P-C-R theory,
elevations in parent-, child-, and relationship-domain stress will be
found in families in which parenting stress is high, and problems in
parenting and children’s development will be more prevalent (Abidin,
; ; ).
Parent domain stress is most strongly associated with problems in
the parent’s own functioning (e.g., depression, anxiety), child domain
stress is most strongly linked with attributes of the child (e.g., behav-
ioral problems), and the parent-child dysfunction domain is tied pri-
marily to the degree of conflict in the parent-child relationship (Ben-
dell, Stone, Field, and Goldstein, ; Eyberg, Boggs, and Rodriguez,
). These three domains of parenting stress, in turn, cause decre-

ments or deteriorations in many aspects of the quality and effective-
ness of parenting behavior. These could include decreases in expres-
sions of warmth and affection, increases in harsh methods of discipline
and expressions of hostility toward the child, less consistency in par-
enting behavior, or complete withdrawal from the parenting role. In
turn, these deteriorations in the quality of parenting (in the most ex-
treme instances, defined as child maltreatment and abuse) promote
further increases in child emotional and behavioral problems, such as
aggression, noncompliance, anxiety, and chronic sadness.
P-C-R theory predicts that there are bi-directional parent effects
on the child, and child effects on the parent. Accordingly, if a child’s
emotional and behavioral difficulties increase over time, parenting
stress is likely to increase, the result being a promulgation of problems
in parenting and child well-being. At the same time, the parent’s own
difficulties in mental health and functioning (e.g., depression, anxiety,
substance abuse) can lead to problems in parenting and resulting in-
creases in child emotional and behavioral problems, which in turn can
further increase levels of parenting stress. Although this parenting
stress mechanism unfolds over time and involves both the parent and
the child, the adult’s stress reaction to the demands of parenting is a key
causal factor that propels the process forward. Accordingly, as parent-
ing stress increases, the quality of parenting will deteriorate and the
child’s emotional and behavioral problems will increase. As parenting
stress decreases, parenting will improve and so will the child’s social-
emotional well-being.
The results from many studies testing various mechanisms in-
cluded in P-C-R theory are described in more detail in subsequent
chapters, although a general comment regarding the utility of this the-
ory is worth noting here. P-C-R theory has received strong support,
based on many studies conducted over the past several decades. At the
same time, this broad conclusion is based on a huge research literature
that consists almost entirely of correlational studies (as opposed to ex-
periments) in which parents’ self-reports often serve as the sole source
of data. More research is needed that uses experimental designs and
multiple sources of data collected at multiple levels of measurement in-
cluding partners’ reports, observations, and assessments of the biolog-
ical components (i.e., psychophysiology) of the stress response (Deater-

Deckard, ).
Daily Hassles (DH) Theory

Most of the research on parenting stress focuses on the consequences of
stressful circumstances or life events such as child illness or economic
hardship (Webster-Stratton, ). In the majority of studies that have
invoked or tested P-C-R theory, researchers have relied on samples of
parents or children who have been diagnosed with emotional or be-
havioral disorders (e.g., depression, conduct disorder). However, there
is a critical distinction between the ideas of parenting stress as disorder
and parenting stress as typical or normal. The factors that can lead
some parents to become so distressed that they become depressed or
chronically anxious are likely to be the same factors that account for
typical differences between parents that are found in the wider popula-
tion of adults who are not suffering from emotional or behavioral dis-
orders. It is interesting that the most widely used measure of parenting
stress (Parenting Stress Index; Abidin, ) is almost always used in
studies of clinically referred parents (e.g., depressed mothers), al-
though this instrument was developed using large community samples
of parents and children—most of whom were not experiencing serious
problems in mental health or functioning.
Understanding how parenting stress develops over time, how it
influences parenting and child development, and how it affects the
parent’s psychological and physical health requires consideration of the
typical stress that arises for most parents on a daily or weekly basis.
This is the thrust of daily hassles theory, and what makes it distinct
from the more general P-C-R theory (Crnic and Greenberg, ;
Crnic and Low, ). Parents must learn to cope with the day-to-day
stressors of child rearing. Adaptation is part of the job, and it is so im-
portant to family and child functioning that it is arguably tantamount
to the very definition of success in parenting. Thinking of parenting
stress only as an indication of mental illness or pathology in the family
ignores what we already know from decades of psychological research.
Parenting stress occurs nearly every day. Thankfully, for most parents,
the daily doses of stress are usually small. However, when coping is in-
effective, the effects of minor daily stressors on the parent and child
can become persistent and powerful.
Researchers who study parenting and child development have
come to recognize the importance of these daily sources of parenting
stress. As a result, there is a growing research literature focusing on
daily stress and its impact on the family system (Crnic and Greenberg,
; Crnic and Low, ). Daily hassles theory does not contradict
P-C-R theory; it complements and extends those ideas by helping to
explain typical parenting stress as it occurs for most parents. This work
has shown that the parenting stress that occurs most frequently and
that may have the greatest impact on parenting and children’s develop-
ment is the broad array of daily hassles.
Daily parenting hassles are not major stressors when considered
in isolation, as compared to divorce or loss of employment. Instead,
these are minor stressful events that occur in most families, sometimes
daily, and their effects can build over time. These include the typical
stress that arises when having to deal with a child’s minor misbehavior
or problems, when carrying out the many mundane tasks of childcare,
and when navigating the complicated and usually conflicting sched-
ules of work and family life. This idea of low-level, chronic parenting
stress stems from earlier work demonstrating a similar pattern of re-
sults for stress and adult psychological health. Thus, for most adults, it
is the accumulation of minor stressful events that arise from day-to-
day existence that may matter most in the prediction of problems in
mental health and well-being (Kohn, ).
At the same time, parenting stress must be distinguished from
daily annoyances experienced by all parents. In order for daily hassles
truly to be part of a parenting stress process (and not merely annoying),
their effects must be serious in their more extreme forms and must cre-
ate a potential threat to the parent’s identity or role (Wheaton, ).
This distinction between annoying and stress-inducing hassles is com-
plex, when you consider that the features of a daily hassle may mean
very different things to different parents. For example, consider the
common situation of a child’s frequent unwillingness to wear what her
mother wants her to wear. To one mother, this behavior may be seen as
a sign of her daughter’s stubbornness and strongly held personal pref-
erences, but is not connected to the mother’s perception of her own

ability to parent her daughter effectively. To another mother, this non-
compliance may be perceived as just one of many indicators of her
daughter’s lack of respect and intentional desire to undermine the
mother’s parental authority. It is for the latter mother that this and
other daily hassles are more likely to feed into parenting stress. For the
former mother, the momentary annoyance is far more likely to pass
quickly.
Stability and Change

Adults differ from each other in the amount of parenting stress they ex-
perience, as well as the factors that go along with those levels of stress
(e.g., emotional social support from others). These individual differ-
ences appear to be fairly stable over time. A parent who experiences a
high degree of parenting stress when her child is young is likely to con-
tinue to show higher levels of parenting stress (compared to other par-
ents) several months or several years later. In our own research, we ex-
amined whether parenting stress would remain stable or change
dramatically among mothers whose children were making the transi-
tion from preschool childcare to kindergarten or grade school (Child
Care and Family Project or CCFP, described in detail in chapter ;
Deater-Deckard, Pinkerton, and Scarr, ). We found moderate sta-
bility in the individual differences in parenting stress over a four-year
period. Thus mothers who were highest in parenting stress at the first
assessment were likely to be the most distressed mothers at the second
assessment (and the least distressed mothers were likely to remain so).
Other researchers have documented similar results in their studies
(Abidin, ; Dyson, ; Hauser-Cram, Warfield, Shonkoff, and
Krauss, ), suggesting that these individual differences really are
stable over time.
Although several studies show moderate stability in parenting
stress, the same studies show that a number of parents change over
time—sometimes dramatically. For a moment, consider the transition
to parenthood. Although the seeds of parenting stress may be germi-
nating prior to and during pregnancy, the transition to parenthood is a
remarkably powerful one, and centers on a single discrete event—the

birth of the child. Typically, pregnancy is a highly stressful life event
(Holmes and Rahe, ). It is not surprising to find that expectant
parents who are approaching parenthood with as many resources and
as few potential problems as one could hope for end up having an ex-
tremely difficult time after the child is born for a variety of reasons.
However, it also is true that some who are experiencing fairly serious
stress and problems in adjustment prior to the child’s birth may come
to flourish in the parenting role after delivery. Examination of changes
in parenting stress requires consideration of the changes in individual
family and parent circumstances that may be specific to each family or
parent.
Perception, Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology

To understand the components of the complex systems of causes and
consequences of parenting stress (i.e., P-C-R theory), a broader frame-
work is needed that addresses human perception, emotion, thinking,
and biological mechanisms. These components are interconnected,
and operate in transactions that include bi-directional influences be-
tween the person and the environment, between the person and her or
his attempts to cope with stress, and between the environment and
these coping strategies (Aldwin, ).
According to this framework, stress arises from an ongoing pro-
cess involving at least four components (Lazarus, ; Levy-Shiff,
). There must be an external causal event or agent or stressor that
the individual perceives. The original source of stress originates from
outside of the individual. In the case of parenting stress, the agent is
the child or children, but the events can be many and varied. Second,
once the individual notices this event or agent, she or he makes a cog-
nitive appraisal to determine whether it is potentially aversive or nox-
ious. Third, the individual then engages coping mechanisms, in an at-
tempt to reduce the negative experience surrounding this event.
Fourth, there are consequential effects on the mind and body, known
simply as the stress reaction. Importantly, there is feedback between
these various components. For example, appraisals are involved in the
initiation, maintenance, and evaluation of coping mechanisms, and
emotional distress can itself become a stressor (Aspinwall, ; Laza-

rus, ).
The Child and the Parenting Role as Causes of Stress

All kinds of human stress can be described as processes involving
thoughts and emotions, physiology, behavior, and experiences. So
what makes parenting stress different from stress arising from work,
romantic relationships, or illness? Theories about the causes and con-
sequences of parenting stress are distinct from other theories of human
stress because they posit the external causal event as “parenthood,” or
the causal agent as the child or children for whom the parent has ulti-
mate responsibility. It is easy to take for granted how intensely depen-
dent children (and especially infants) are on their parents. This depen-
dency represents an immediate, constant, and sometimes aversive set
of demands on parents (for example, cries for food, comfort, and at-
tention) that they have not experienced before the arrival of the child.
Sometimes, these causal events are farther removed from the child’s
immediate survival needs, but instead are tied to the particular social-
emotional attributes of that child. These attributes might include op-
positional or noncompliant behavior, hyperactivity and distractibility,
or hostility and moodiness. They may also include chronic illness and
medical conditions.
These demands on the parent are stress inducing; they must be in
order for the infant or child to survive (“the squeaky wheel gets the
grease”). These demands work, in that they usually lead to physiologi-
cal arousal (including emotion) in parents, which in turn motivates
parents to attend to and care for the child in order to eliminate the de-
mand. When the parent-child pair is functioning in a healthy and
adaptive way, the child’s demanding behaviors are a highly effective
means of getting needs met long before the child is able to help her-
self—as long as the parent can respond appropriately and not become
distressed. The child is more likely to be noticed, and the parent is
more likely to be motivated to meet the child’s needs in order to reduce
or eliminate noxious behaviors.
Although children’s abilities to care for themselves develop in
time, this process takes years. Old demands are replaced with new ones
that continue to present potentially stressful experiences for parents. In

addition, these potentially stress-inducing events surrounding a child’s
attributes and behaviors typically are not rare and acute, but instead
occur on a daily basis (or even more frequently), and are modest or
moderate in their seriousness. As noted above, these chronic daily has-
sles are the nuts and bolts of parenting stress, in addition to less fre-
quent but very serious stressful events that arise for many parents (Cr-
nic and Low, ). Furthermore, attributes of the parent including
temperament, personality, emotions, beliefs, and physiology also con-
tribute in powerful ways to the types and severity of stressors that are
experienced. In addition, stressors typically co-occur either by coinci-
dence or because some aspect of the individual parent or child serves to
create additional stressors (Lepore and Evans, ).
The parenting role itself can be a source of distress. That is, par-
enting stress can also arise from social stressors. These include threats
to the parent’s identity, mental health, or general well-being, “over de-
mand” (e.g., burnout), or “under-demand” leading to boredom and
abandonment of the parenting role. Also structural constraints on the
social environment can lead to physical and psychological isolation;
low reward, the complexity of daily life, uncertainty, interpersonal
conflict, restricted choices, and deprived personal resources are all fac-
tors to be contended with (Wheaton, ). Parenthood constitutes a
social role that exists inside and outside of the family (Alexander and
Higgins, ). Parents must be able to meet their own needs and those
of their children, while also meeting the demands placed on them by
other family members (including spouses or partners), the commu-
nity, and broader society. Social roles tend to be valued highly by most
members of the society, and are very stable across situations and time.
Thus parenting stress arising from feelings of failure to meet the expec-
tations of others is likely to be persistent or chronic for some parents
(Lepore, ).
As members of a larger community (whether we have children or
not), all of us depend on other adults to make the required investment
in the care, nurturing, and child rearing of the next generation of our
society. These societal expectations lie at the heart of a broad array of is-
sues surrounding families, parenting, marriage, and child health and
development. Should parents (and especially women) with young chil-
dren work outside the home? Who is responsible for contributing to

the cost of caring for children inside and outside of their homes?
Should keeping a family together take precedence over the happiness
of the parents, in families where the parents do not get along with each
other and would prefer to separate or divorce? Should fathers be more
involved in child rearing? All parents sometimes feel the pressure of
their children’s demands, but there also are pressures from outside of
the family that influence parenting stress and coping.
Appraisal: Is This a Stressor or Not?

Given the external agents and events described above as stressors (e.g.,
child behaviors, social role of parenthood), there is wide variation
across people in how these experiences are defined and evaluated. In
order for a stress reaction to follow from a causal agent or event, the
parent not only must notice the stressor, but also must consider it to be
a threatening or aversive experience to be stopped if at all possible. To
accomplish this, a cognitive appraisal is made. Appraisal of a stressor
involves at least six dimensions: valence (how aversive is it?), controlla-
bility (can I modify it or make it go away?), changeability (will it go
away on its own?), ambiguity (what is going to happen?), the likeli-
hood that the stressor will reoccur, and familiarity with the stressful sit-
uation or circumstance (Perrez and Reichert, , cited by Boekaerts,
).
Parental attributions about the causes of a child’s difficult behav-
iors are a critical part of the appraisals involved in parenting stress (Bu-
gental and Johnston, ). Parents who tend to view crying, whining,
and misbehavior as arising from their children’s willful intentions are
more likely to hold their children responsible for those noxious behav-
iors and to have a more pronounced stress reaction. In contrast, other
parents may view their children’s noxious behaviors as arising from
temporary states or circumstances (for example, “He’s not feeling well
today”), and in turn are less likely to hold their children responsible for
these actions or to view these events as being difficult to handle. In ad-
dition to these individual differences in parents’ appraisals of their chil-
dren’s behaviors, there are cultural differences in what parents view as
appropriate or aversive.
Although a parent’s attributions and appraisals of his or her chil-

dren’s noxious behaviors are critical, this does not mean that parenting
stress is simply “in the mind” of the parent. For example, nearly all
adults find certain types of infant cries to be incredibly aversive and
stressful to hear (Frodi and Lamb, ; Zeskind, Sale, Maio, Hunt-
ington, and Weiseman, ). Nonetheless, individual variation in par-
ents’ appraisals about what is and is not regarded as a stressor is a very
important part of the parenting stress process. It is this individual vari-
ation in parents’ thinking about whether a child’s behavior is stressful
and why that behavior is occurring that may tell us why certain parents
cope well with the demands of parenting, whereas others do not.
Coping: What Do I Do Now?

Up to this point, I have described the source of stress and how the par-
ent appraises the stressor. Once an event has been deemed to be poten-
tially stressful, there are a number of cognitive, emotional, and behav-
ioral strategies that parents can use to minimize the likely resulting
stress reaction. These various coping mechanisms are as much a part of
the psychology of parenting stress as are the child’s difficult behaviors
or situations and the parent’s appraisals. Parents in the same situation
cope in different ways, and some cope better than others. This helps
explain why some parents who struggle for years with chronic child
problems (e.g., illness, conduct disorder) show only mild stress reac-
tions but others are affected profoundly. These coping mechanisms are
described here briefly, and in greater detail in chapter .
Some coping mechanisms operate in a preventative way. That is,
they work to reduce the stress reaction by minimizing the frequency
and intensity of causal events and by maximizing material, behavioral,
cognitive, and emotional resources that can be used when stressful
events do occur. One example of this is preparation and planning for
becoming a parent. Adults who report that they were prepared for be-
coming parents and that their pregnancies were planned show lower
levels of parenting stress, compared to those who report that becoming
a parent was unexpected or unintentional. Similarly, a distinction can
be made between adults who do or do not feel ready and well prepared
emotionally, physically, and materially for the new and stressful job of
caring for children. It is not surprising that parents who feel prepared
and confident about their parenting abilities (i.e., parenting self-effi-
cacy) are more likely to be effective and satisfied in the parenting role
(Coleman and Karraker, ; Sommer et al., ).
Other coping strategies are utilized in the heat of the moment,
when a stressful event is occurring or is being thought about (perhaps
after the fact) and must be addressed. In the face of difficult life circum-
stances, certain ways of thinking about the experience can strongly in-
fluence the persistence and severity of the emotional turmoil that fol-
lows (Beck, ). Adults who rely on passive, emotionally focused
coping strategies also are more likely to experience parenting stress
(Barnett, Hall, and Bramlett, ; Miller, Gordon, Daniele, and Dil-
ler, ). Emotion-focused ways of thinking about stressful experiences
in which the person views herself or himself as a passive recipient of ex-
periences, or that focus on the denial of or preoccupation with aversive
emotions such as fear or sadness, are linked with symptoms of emo-
tional problems, including anxiety and depression.
In contrast, problem-focused strategies are more likely to promote
problem solving; unlike emotion-focused approaches, problem-focused
strategies do not involve attention to the negative emotions arising
from the stress reaction. Problem-focused coping can be highly effec-
tive at reducing parenting stress in many situations. Stress is lower
among adults who feel confident in their abilities to be supportive par-
ents, and who navigate through stressful situations with their children
by focusing on identifying the sources of problems and on generating
solutions to those problems (Frey, Greenberg, and Fewell, ; Miller
et al., ).
Adaptive, problem-focused coping strategies have their positive
influences not only on the reduction of stress reactions arising from
stressful experiences but also on dampening the deleterious effects of
stress on the parent’s behavior toward the child. As I describe in chap-
ter , there remains little doubt that the quality of parenting behavior
suffers when parenting stress increases. However, the link between par-
enting stress and parenting behavior may be broken if the parent is able
to continue to use effective coping strategies in the face of stressors. For
example, one study found that there were fewer problems in infant-
mother attachment relationships (e.g., emotional security, acceptance)
in families in which the parents avoided using emotion-focused coping

strategies (Jarvis and Creasey, ). Thus these coping mechanisms
serve not only to reduce the stress reaction itself, but also may be oper-
ating to reduce the consequences of a stress reaction on parenting and
the parent-child relationship.
There is a caveat to the general conclusion that problem-focused
coping is more adaptive in the face of parenting stress. Any particular
approach to coping with a stressor may be effective at reducing stress
only for certain individuals (depending on their resources, personali-
ties, and cognitions) and only under certain circumstances (Lazarus,
). There is not a “one size fits all” coping mechanism that will re-
duce parenting stress for all parents in all situations. For example, in
those situations in which the individual believes that he or she has
some control over the circumstances surrounding a stressful experi-
ence, problem-focused coping would probably be a successful ap-
proach to staving off distress and the mental and physical health prob-
lems that could arise. In contrast, problem-focused coping strategies
may not be effective in those situations in which the individual has lit-
tle or no personal control over the stressor; in those instances, emo-
tion-focused coping may be effective (Aldwin, ; Kohn, ).
The perception of control over the sources of stress for parents—
and children’s behaviors in particular—may well be tied to parents’ ap-
praisals of whether particular instances of child behavior are aversive or
not. Parents vary widely in the extent to which they view difficult child
behaviors (e.g., aggression, hostility) as being under the child’s control
versus arising from situational circumstances outside of the child’s con-
trol. There also are individual differences in parents’ attributions about
their own power over controlling their children’s behaviors. In general,
research has shown that parents are more likely to be harsh and puni-
tive in their treatment of their children if they believe that misbehav-
iors arise from children’s intentional desires to anger or upset their par-
ents or to get what they want (Bugental and Johnston, ). Such
parents are less likely to believe that they have control over their chil-
dren’s behaviors, and problem-focused coping may not be an effective
way for them to reduce parenting stress because they have so little per-
ceived control over the source of their stress. In contrast, parents who
look to the details of the situation, and what they can control in that
situation, are more likely to utilize coping strategies that focus on iden-
tifying the problem and solving it.
Elaboration of several mechanisms. There are recent advances in
theory and research methods for studying the ways in which people
process social information (e.g., appraisals, including evaluation of
coping strategies) that further clarify stress and coping mechanisms.
One theory articulates a multiple-step information processing model
that has a number of feedback loops linking many of the steps (Aspin-
wall and Taylor, ).
The first step involves a goal of gathering and accumulation of re-
sources. This idea follows from conservation of resources theory (Hob-
foll, ), which posits that we are inherently motivated to gather and
keep resources—those things that we value most. There are four basic
categories of resources: objects (material goods), conditions (status, so-
cial capital), personal attributes (personality, e.g., optimism), and en-
ergy (money, knowledge). Accordingly, stressors lead to psychological
distress when these valued resources are placed in jeopardy, are lost, or
are not gained or amplified when such resource accumulations are an-
ticipated. We then counteract this loss by utilizing resources to regain
and ideally increase our resources (Hobfoll, Freedy, Green, and Solo-
mon, ). Thus stress arises when a goal has been threatened. Beliefs
about why the goal is threatened and whether the threat persists be-
come integral to the ways in which we approach dealing with the
stressor.
The second step involves attention to and recognition of events
that may threaten the goal of maintaining resources. Humans have re-
markable abilities to monitor their environments for these potential
threats; this attention to the environment involves both conscious and
unconscious evaluation of perceptual information from various sen-
sory systems (e.g., hearing, sight, touch). The specific goals that we
have can influence the nature of what it is that we notice and experi-
ence. For example, consider a situation involving a parent who is dis-
tressed because his two year old has begun throwing temper tantrums
of remarkable ferocity, and the tantrums are becoming more frequent
and severe. Given the same situation, one father may form an approach
goal, such as striving to increase the amount of time that his toddler
spends in a happy mood and reducing the amount of time that the tod-
dler is in a nasty mood. This father will be attending to and noticing

instances when his child is behaving well, and will experience these
positive mood episodes as evidence of his own success at obtaining his
goal. In contrast, another father might form an avoidance goal such as
seeking to minimize or avoid tantrums. For this father, the evidence
that his goal is being attained means that he will need to pay attention
to all of the child’s tantrums, with little attention to the toddler’s happy
moods and appropriate behaviors. Variations in goal definition and at-
tainment have strong implications for appraisal and coping with stress-
ors (Aspinwall, ).
In the third step, once a potential stressor has been perceived, an
initial or primary appraisal is formulated. As noted previously, if this
potential stressor is appraised to be an actual stressor, emotional
arousal involving fear or anger ensues. This negative emotional arousal
is unpleasant, and motivates the individual to regulate that emotion
and, if possible, think and act in a way that will remove the stressor. In
the fourth step, the individual will consider and implement some kind
of coping strategy, as described above. This involves secondary appraisal
(Lazarus, ). The fifth and final step includes the eliciting and in-
terpretation of feedback regarding how things are going. The individ-
ual investigates whether or not the coping strategies that have been im-
plemented are effective. If not, then modifications in coping strategies
can be made. When functioning well, this cycle of attention, emotion,
appraisal, coping, and evaluation is remarkably effective at reducing
stressful psychological reactions. When not functioning well, these
processes can instantiate chronic stress in the individual, with deleteri-
ous effects on physical and psychological health.
These cognitive and emotional factors operate in cycles of fore-
thought, intentional behavior, and self-reflection. Forethought in-
cludes an analysis of the task at hand and what lies ahead (e.g., setting
goals, planning), as well as beliefs (e.g., expectations about likely out-
comes, value placed on desired outcome, self-efficacy). Intentional be-
havior includes attempts at self-control (e.g., self-instruction, imagin-
ing, focusing of attention) and self-observations (e.g., consciously
attending to, noticing, and recording how the self is responding to a
stressor). Self-reflection involves judgments (evaluating yourself
against some standard) and reactions (the ensuing satisfaction or dis-
satisfaction based on those judgments, e.g., shame, anger, happiness).

This is followed by adaptive or defensive inferences about ways to pro-
ceed. Adaptive inferences involve highly effective alterations of goals or
strategies of self-control, whereas defensive inferences involve focusing
on the avoidance of future dissatisfaction or aversive emotions. These
inferences then feed back into forethoughts (Zimmerman, ).
Although the social cognitive models of appraisal and coping de-
scribed above are well articulated and have been tested repeatedly,
these theories have limitations. Social cognitions certainly matter, but
they can arise as reflections on feelings and behaviors only after those
feelings and behaviors have occurred. In other words, some of our be-
haviors precede unconscious activity, conscious thoughts, and subjec-
tive feelings. Social cognitive theories alone cannot account for all of
the processes that link causal events and the psychological and biolog-
ical stress reaction (Kuhl, ).
The Stress Reaction

Now that I have described stressors, appraisals, and attempts at coping,
I turn to the stress reaction itself. The stress reaction includes a large set
of physiological and psychological events and experiences that arise
following a stressor. This stress reaction can be observed readily in par-
ents’ behaviors, cognitions, and emotions. Most of the research con-
ducted on parenting stress has emphasized the observable links be-
tween the stress reaction and parenting behaviors (e.g., parental
discipline, maltreatment and abuse), social cognitions (e.g., attitudes
about and feelings toward the child), and psychopathology (e.g., de-
pression, anxiety). These links are described in greater detail in subse-
quent chapters. Before delving into these details, I consider briefly the
physiology of the human stress response.
Through the psychophysiology of the stress reaction, biology
provides us with an elaborate armory of weapons of offense and de-
fense against potential risks to our survival. Given our remarkable abil-
ity as a species to manipulate our environments, some might be
tempted to conclude that our biology remains only as a reminder of
our distant evolutionary past—that we do not need these defenses for
protecting our children and ourselves from dangers because we no
longer live “in the wild.” Yet the reality is that we continue to be neu-
rologically wired to attend to our environments, to detect potential
sources of risk to our own survival and survival of our young, and to re-
act when those risks become critical. These functions continue to pro-
mote our survival.
If you are a parent, think about the first time you thought you
had lost your toddler in the shopping mall or grocery store. Chances
are, your heart skipped a beat and then began to fire rapidly as panic set
in and motivated you to stop what you were doing and find your child.
This physiological reactivity provides a foundation for maintaining
vigilance in the day-to-day protection and care of ourselves and our
offspring. However, there is a price to be paid. The weapons of aware-
ness, vigilance, and rapid reactivity to perceived danger in the environ-
ment are blunt instruments that require heavy use of physical and psy-
chological resources. Thus, in its efforts to keep us safe and sound, the
physiological stress reaction presents potential risks to physical and
mental health.
The psychophysiology of the stress response is well understood,
based on a century of empirical research with humans and other
species (Aldwin, ; Cannon, ; Selye, ; Lazarus, ; Whea-
ton, ). Although the emphasis of this book is not on biology, some
general information about the biological mechanisms of the stress re-
sponse can be very useful for understanding the emergence of parent-
ing stress and its effects on parents and children. The autonomic ner-
vous system (ANS) is involved in the control of many biological
systems, including the cardiovascular, muscular-skeletal, gastrointesti-
nal, endocrinological, and immune systems—our lungs, heart, blood
vessels, muscles, gut, and glands. The ANS does not require conscious
effort to do its work, which is to maintain the functioning of these sys-
tems in a way that produces homeostasis. This homeostasis is a balance
between gearing up the body and mind to respond to or cope with a
stressor (the sympathetic nervous system), and slowing it down to re-
turn to baseline or normal functioning after a threat has passed (the
parasympathetic nervous system).
Striking this balance is critical to the health and well-being of the
individual. A physiology that is constantly behaving as though it were
reacting to a potentially threatening event (even when there are no
such stressors in the environment) can wreak havoc with the mental
and physical health of that individual. At the same time, a physiology
that does not react to stressful stimuli can put the individual at risk,
particularly in the face of an actual life-threatening event. When our
physiology is activated in reaction to a stressor, it costs us in calories
(immediately) as well as in physical health and psychological well-be-
ing (intermediate and long term). Thus, the ANS must do a suffi-
ciently good job of obtaining homeostasis so that risks to the individ-
ual are minimized, while resources for coping with current and future
stressors are maximized.
A number of biochemicals, including neurotransmitters and
hormones, are involved in maintaining or disrupting the homeostasis
between arousal and soothing. Messages regarding potential stressors
travel along sensory neural pathways to the brain’s limbic system and
on to the hypothalamus. Some of these connections travel through the
cortex before reaching the hypothalamus, which controls the sympa-
thetic nervous system using the neurotransmitter norepinephrine. Mes-
sages to various glands (thyroid, adrenal, pituitary) lead to the release
or production of ACTH (adrenocorticotrophic hormone), cortisol,
thyroxin, oxytocin, vassopressin, epinephrine, and norepinephrine, all of
which are involved in the stress response. These create changes in a va-
riety of the body’s systems, including strength and tension in muscles,
constriction of blood vessels, increases in heart rate and respiration,
and the shutting down of digestion, to name just a few of the many re-
sulting changes in physiology. The rate of metabolism of calories from
sugars stored in fat and muscles increases dramatically in order to fuel
these changes in the body. As the threat to the individual dissipates, or
as she or he begins to cope effectively with a stressor, the parasympa-
thetic system gradually returns these physiological systems back to
normal functioning. This can happen quickly or can take some time,
depending in part on the nature and severity of the stressor and in part
on individual differences in reactivity to and coping with the stressors
that arise.
To summarize, the individual components of the stress process
are best thought of as parts of a whole mechanism or as a set of mecha-
nisms that operate in real time, are dynamic, and that connect ex-
periences, sensations, cognitions, and emotions (Wheaton, ). The
stress process includes internal states, stressors, and transactions be-

tween the person and the environment. Internal states combine bio-
logical, cognitive, and emotional experiences (e.g., arousal, fear). Stres-
sors involve content (e.g., a stressful life event such as losing a job)
and temporal components (i.e., rapidity and duration of the stressor).
Person-environment transactions involve cognitive appraisals (e.g.,
threat, loss) that vary in their intensity and clarity. Coping mecha-
nisms are invoked to aid in removing a stressor, and ameliorating its ef-
fects (Aldwin, ; Mason, ). Theories of stress described above
overlap with contemporary theories about how it is we come to control
our own feelings, thoughts, and behaviors.
Self-Regulation: Controlling Thoughts,

Emotions, and Behaviors
From early infancy on, we gain the ability to control or regulate our
own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. This is commonly referred to as
the development of self-regulation (Matthews, Schwean, Campbell,
Saklofske, and Mohamed, ). Self-regulation goes hand in hand
with the development of self-understanding. Together they distinguish
humans from other species in providing a set of skills and an astound-
ingly broad and flexible array of strategies for surviving and potentially
thriving in the face of the widest variety of environmental conditions
(Demetriou, ). There are various types of self-regulation, includ-
ing the observation and modification of our own behaviors, internal
states (e.g., attention, thoughts, emotions), and environments (Zim-
merman, ).
Our ability to self-regulate and plan continues to develop
throughout childhood, adolescence, and very likely into adulthood.
There are wide-ranging individual differences in self-regulation and
planning that are fairly stable over time. Much remains to be learned
about the development of such planning behavior, but it is likely that
individuals who are better at regulating their attention and thoughts,
impulse control, reasoning, and planning are also better at performing
perceptual and cognitive tasks and regulating their emotions and be-
haviors. These aspects of reactivity and regulation are key components
of temperament in infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.
They are also central to the ways in which parents respond to and cope
with the mild to severe stressors that arise (Boekaerts, Pintrich, and
Zeidner, ; Rothbart and Bates, ).
A note regarding changes in demands. Thriving as a parent is not
about simply being a “good,” as opposed to a “bad,” parent. It is about
adaptation to often changing demands on resources. The resources are
concrete instrumental ones like money and time, as well as more ab-
stract psychological ones like motivation and energy. The shifts in de-
mands occur throughout the day, the year, and over the years of direct
parental involvement in a relationship with the child. This happens as
a result of accumulating parenting experience and changes in the
child’s competencies, behaviors, and circumstances that arise from de-
velopment. A mother who by all accounts seems to pass happily
through her child’s infancy and toddler years may stumble in her at-
tempts to communicate with that same child twelve years later when
adolescence arrives. A father and teenage son with a warm and sup-
portive relationship may have gone through many battles to arrive
there and only after years of distress, because the father could not tol-
erate his son’s crying in infancy or whining in middle childhood. These
are examples of typical parents and children, not disordered or dys-
functional relationships. Certainly, many parents have additional
problems that must be addressed. Perhaps they struggle with depres-
sion or poor self-control, or their children have serious behavioral or
physical disorders. Regardless of the circumstances for any particular
parent, the need for adaptation to parenting stress is much the same for
all parents. The demands of the role are a constant presence in daily
life, but these demands change.
Typical age-based changes in cognitive skills, social behaviors,
and emotions in early- and mid-adulthood also should be considered.
Adults do not emerge from adolescence as fixed or finished social,
emotional, biological, and psychological entities. Theories and re-
search on adult development over the entire lifespan have documented
remarkable changes that can and do occur as adults mature physically
and psychologically (Baltes, ). Experientially, we accrue more re-
sources as we get older. These accumulating resources include social
support in stable relationships, stable social roles (i.e., occupation),
stable income, and knowledge from experience, to name a few. Biolog-
ically, there is some evidence from animal studies that the prefrontal
cortex of the brain continues to develop into adulthood. This area of
the brain includes systems responsible for executive functions that as-
sist in the self-regulation of attention, emotions, cognitions, and be-
haviors (e.g., Gould, Reeves, Graziano, and Gross, ). Thus a par-
ent who has her first child in her early twenties may be better equipped
to control her own cognitions and emotions once the child is older, in
part from learning “on the job” but also in part from her own continu-
ing maturation involving neural systems that underlie this self-regula-
tion. By the same token, among those adults who experience chronic
parenting stress as well as stress in other domains, the harmful conse-
quences of these difficulties may accumulate, leading to growth and
spreading of problems in multiple domains of health and functioning
(e.g., physical and mental illness, job loss, relationship difficulties).
2
Parenting Stress and the Parent
Who of us is mature enough for offspring before the offspring them-
selves arrive? The value of marriage is not that adults produce children
but that children produce adults.
Peter De Vries, Tunnel of Love
Becoming a parent thrusts you into a new world of great respon-

sibility, many challenges, and fantastic potential for personal growth.
Whether or not it is true that parenthood makes us “grow up,” there is
no doubt that parenthood brings a mixture of rewards and difficulties
that are at times extraordinary. For some, parenthood is a rocky road
that involves concerns about their children, changes in relationships
with partners, and declines and improvements in physical and mental
health that affect functioning at home and at work.
In the opening chapter, I presented theories that define parenting
stress as being part of an interconnected system of people and relation-
ships (e.g., couples, parent-child relationships) within each family. In
this sense, it is difficult to consider parenting stress and its effects on
parents as being separable from its effects on children and parent-child
relationships. At the same time, such a separation is warranted, be-
cause the attributes of each of the individuals in any given family are
distinct. Furthermore, it is at the level of the individual parent and
child that parenting stress operates as a psychological process.
In this chapter, the connection between parenting stress and the
health and functioning of the parent is described. But even here, social
relationships with others cannot be completely ignored or separated
▪ 27 ▪
28 Parenting Stress and the Parent
from the functioning of the individual. For instance, how well a parent
copes with chronic parenting stress involves the presence of emotional
and instrumental social support from other people in her or his life.
Thus the role of social support is critical.
The Transition to Parenthood

The transition to parenthood can be joyful, exciting, and stressful. The
child arrives and is dependent on parents for survival and well-being.
The infant, and later the child or adolescent, presents an ever changing
bundle of demands for attention and care. These demands and their
dynamic nature can result in stress for the parent. In addition, the
sense of responsibility (to the child, to the family, and to the larger
community) that accompanies parenthood is itself a source of stress for
some. This is particularly true for those who do not wish to be parents
before or after the child is born. Parents who report that the pregnancy
was unplanned or unwanted are more likely to be harsh and negative in
their parenting of that child, sometimes even years following the
child’s birth (Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, and Zelli, ).
Another example comes from recent cross-cultural research on parent-
ing stress and discipline practices among grandmothers caring for their
grandchildren who have become orphans as a result of AIDS. The roles
of “parent” and “grandparent” are usually distinct—for example, par-
ents are disciplinarians and grandparents spoil and enjoy their grand-
children. However, because of their circumstances, the roles of parent
and grandparent are in direct conflict for these aging women, which it-
self creates a great deal of stress. In one such study, Kenyan grand-
mothers reported using frequent and sometimes severe forms of phys-
ical punishment. The interviews with these “parenting” grandmothers
suggested that they were doing this in order to demonstrate in an obvi-
ous way to others that they were fulfilling their communities’ expecta-
tions that they fill the disciplinarian role of the parent. Not surpris-
ingly, given all of these stressors, these grandmothers reported high
levels of parenting stress as a group (Oburu, ).
Yet the transition to parenthood is stressful for nearly every par-
ent and family, regardless of whether or not child rearing was planned.
This transition often involves dramatic shifts in feelings and thinking,
behavior, relationships, and lifestyle. These arise in part from the ac-
tual demands of caring for a child but also from having a new role in
the family and society (Lepore, ). Fortunately, for most parents,
this transition is fulfilling and a positive experience overall. A number
of longitudinal studies (i.e., studies in which the same parents and chil-
dren are studied repeatedly over time, to examine stability and change)
have shown that as the months pass after a child’s birth, mothers typi-
cally feel warmer toward and more positive about their infants (Flem-
ing, Ruble, Flett, and Van Wagner, ; Moss, Bolland, Foxman, and
Owen, ).
Nonetheless, the transition to parenthood is marked by increases
in distress for some parents. This is particularly true for parents who
are at greater risk for having problems in the parenting role, such as
teenage mothers or adult victims of child abuse (Taylor and Kemper,
). For  percent to  percent of new mothers and fathers, serious
postnatal depression can arise out of the comparatively common mood
fluctuations that occur in the weeks or months following birth. In ad-
dition, most parents experience more conflict in their marital relation-
ships following this transition (Ballard and Davis, ; Fleming et al.,
; Lavee, Sharlin, and Katz, ; O’Hara and Swain,  ).
Stress early in parenthood also has been found to arise from prob-
lems in functioning prior to the birth of the child (Crnic and Low,
). A number of studies that have examined stress and adult psycho-
logical health prior to and after the birth of the child have shown that
for some soon-to-be parents, the seeds of parenting stress already have
been planted. Parents’ developing beliefs about their young infants’ per-
sonalities and behaviors are being formed before the infants are even
born. For instance, pregnant mothers who think about and describe
their soon-to-arrive infants as unique individuals show better adapta-
tion in the parenting role, whereby their mother-infant relationships
are more likely to be secure and emotionally rewarding (Benoit, Parker,
and Zeanah, ). Signs of depression in the mother or father prior to
the birth of the child are the best predictors of a parent’s symptoms of
depression and distress postnatally, and are known to be associated
strongly with parenting stress. In addition, difficulties in the marriage
or partnership prior to the birth can predispose both parents to greater
distress once the baby arrives (Colpin, DeMunter, Nys, and Vande-
meulebroecke, ; Deater-Deckard, Pickering, Dunn, and Gold-

ing, ; Hyde, Essex, Clark, and Klein, ; Soliday, McCluskey-
Fawcett, and O’Brien, ; Vicary and Corneal, ).
Next, I turn to a discussion of some of the factors that are
thought to influence and be influenced by stress and coping, during
the transition to parenthood and beyond.
Parent Age and Gender

Age
Parenting stress does not appear to increase or decrease systematically
with parental age. There may be a curvilinear relation between parent
age and parenting stress, with distress in the parenting role greatest
among mothers who are either very young or very old (in comparison
to the typical age range for parenthood). In industrial societies, young
teenage mothers do not have the resources that they need to take care
of their children on their own—resources such as psychological matu-
rity, education, job skills, and steady sources of income. By compari-
son, most adults in their twenties and thirties who are having children
for the first time have acquired the psychological and social resources
that are necessary to be successful. Thus it is not surprising that teenage
parents are more likely to experience greater distress in parenting com-
pared to adult parents (e.g., Richardson, Barbour, and Bubenzer,
). All other factors considered, waiting until our twenties or thir-
ties to have children bodes well for adaptation and coping in the par-
enting role.
At the other end of the age continuum are those who become
parents in their late thirties or after. On average, older first-time par-
ents are more likely to face health issues and physical problems, since
the younger body rebounds from pregnancy and delivery and adapts to
the physical rigors of parenthood more easily. Consistent with this idea
is research showing that older mothers report higher amounts of par-
enting stress, in comparison to mothers in their twenties (Ostberg and
Hagekull, ). There also are biological and psychological changes
that are still occurring in our twenties and thirties that may have im-
plications for stress and coping in parenthood. For example, among
healthy males, those who become fathers in their thirties are more
likely to have higher self-esteem than are those who become fathers in
their twenties (Rimmerman and Sheran, ). It may also be the case
that we continue to show improvements in our abilities to control our
own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors into adulthood, due to con-
tinuing development of brain regions and continued learning of strate-
gies that contribute to these aspects of self-control.
Not all studies find straightforward effects of parental age on
greater parenting stress, however (e.g., Garrison, Blalock, Zarski, and
Merritt, ). There are a number of circumstances that may matter
more than parent age per se. For instance, mothers who become preg-
nant using in vitro fertilization (IVF) are less distressed compared to
other mothers, although they are considerably older than the popula-
tion of women who become pregnant without fertility intervention
(Hahn, ; Hahn and DiPietro, ). This may be because none of
the IVF pregnancies is unplanned, and few if any of the resulting ba-
bies are unwanted when they are born. Another consideration is that it
is easy to inadvertently confuse the effects of parent age with the effects
of marital or partner relationship stability. There is a distinction be-
tween becoming a parent in your thirties or forties within the context
of a supportive decade-old relationship, versus doing so after having
gone through several turbulent long-term relationship transitions.
Having more partners and changes in partners via serial marriages or
cohabitations is associated with more symptoms of emotional prob-
lems and difficulties in parenting (Capaldi and Patterson, ; Dunn,
Davies, O’Connor, and Sturgess, ). Thus studies that examine
only stable marriages may find particular effects for parent age,
whereas studies that examine nondivorced as well as divorced and re-
married parents may find different effects. In addition, parent age is
confounded with child age (on average, older parents have older chil-
dren). Overall, there does not appear to be a systematic effect of child
age on parenting stress.
Aside from the timing of when someone becomes a parent, age
also matters if parenthood is considered as an experience that covers
the entire lifespan. Parents do not stop influencing or being influenced
by their children once the children are adults and living on their own.
For example, it is unlikely that a parent who was highly distressed by a
teenager’s emotional difficulties will become less distressed when that
adolescent becomes an adult, simply because the child no longer lives

at home. Consider for a moment the parents of children or adolescents
with serious and lasting health or psychological problems such as de-
pression, or parents whose children develop serious problems in func-
tioning just as they are making the transition to adulthood, as is often
the case with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (Greenberg, Green-
ley, McKee, Brown, and Griffin-Francell, ). For some, parenting
stress may even increase when they no longer have the ability to moni-
tor and exercise some degree of control over their children’s daily lives.
For these parents, the distress is not likely to dissipate, and it is not
transient. Instead, the effects of chronic distress in the parenting role
may continue to persist or accumulate even into old age.
Little is known about parenting stress among middle-aged and
older parents specifically, although we do know that older people cope
with stress no better or worse than younger people, on average (Strack
and Feifel, ). However, especially inasmuch as the parenting role
continues even after the child has moved out of the home, biological
changes that accompany aging also must be considered. As we get
older, we face more health problems and decreases in energy, and many
of us also have to care for our aging parents. However, we also improve
with age in other ways. With accrued experience, we learn more about
what we can and cannot control, about what works and does not work
in terms of coping, and about separating the challenges that we face
from who we are as individuals (Aldwin, )—all of which can be
used to adapt to the continuing demands of parenthood.
Gender
Another attribute to consider is the parent’s gender. Adults’ and chil-
dren’s gender roles have changed rapidly in many societies over the past
century, and over the past few decades in particular. It is now more
common for men and women to share household duties, ranging from
producing income to making dinner to changing diapers. Options
have multiplied for women and men alike. Women now have more op-
portunities to pursue advanced education and have careers while also
having a family. Men now have more opportunities to spend time with
their children and become involved in the day-to-day management of
the household, while also pursuing their educational and occupational

goals. From several decades of psychological research on both “father-
ing” and “mothering,” we know that even though biological sex con-
strains who can carry and deliver babies, it need not constrain who it is
that nurtures and cares for children (Lamb, ).
In the prototypical American family of the s, the father went
to work and spent little time with his children outside of leisure that
might occur after work or on the weekends. Men were not involved in
the daily routines of childcare. Mothers spent much more time with
their children, and were responsible for their daily care and mainte-
nance of the household. Educational and career opportunities for
women were more limited. Although it is not wise to view the s
household as the way things always used to be, the prototype serves as
an informative contrast to the contemporary family in many industrial
nations.
Today, it is the norm for both the mother and father to work out-
side the home and to contribute to child rearing. In decades past, there
was less social pressure for men to be involved with their children and
for women to pursue college educations and to work outside the home.
Now there are social pressures for men to be involved with their chil-
dren, and for women to have academic credentials and careers. Fur-
thermore, there are predictable differences between men in the degree
to which they are “involved” fathers. Men who are more involved with
their children also tend to be happier in their careers or jobs, to have
better relationships with their own fathers, and to value within them-
selves both “masculine” traits like strength and bravery and “feminine”
traits like nurturance and warmth. These shifts in attitudes and behav-
iors are not fads; they have been documented in a number of studies. It
also is clear that men and women alike are perfectly capable of nurtur-
ing and caring for their children. For instance, most infants form
strong and secure attachment relationships with their fathers as well as
their mothers, because men are as capable as women of providing the
sensitive, responsive attention that children require (Lamb, ;
Pleck, ).
Yet gender differences in opportunities and practices remain. A
gender gap persists in employment, particularly with respect to salaries
and childcare. In the vast majority of two-parent households where
both parents work outside the home, the mother continues to be the
primary caregiver who is responsible for the majority of daily child
rearing. In addition, there are gender differences in the ways in which
men and women interact with their children. For instance, from stud-
ies of fathers in the United States, we know that men tend to be playful
and physical in more of their interactions with their children. This
stands in contrast to the more verbal and nurturing interactions seen
between mothers and their children. Note, however, that this gender
difference is a matter of degree, not kind; men and women alike show
both types of interactive behaviors with their children (Levy-Shiff,
; Parke, ).
Gender differences or similarities? What are the implications of
gender differences in work and family life, in terms of possible gender
differences in parenting stress? Furthermore, what are the implications
of biological sex differences?
There is behavioral and physiological evidence from human and
animal studies suggesting several possible differences in the biochemi-
cal pathways of stress and coping. For women, oxytocin is implicated
in the initial increased nurturing response to a stressor, whereas andro-
gens are more strongly implicated for men. This reflects a more basic
distinction between genders in prototypical responses to and coping
following a stressor. For men, stress and coping may be best repre-
sented as “fight or flight,” whereas for women this process may be best
described as “tend and befriend.” Accordingly, mothers are more likely
to respond to stressors by increasing their focus on nurturing and car-
ing for their children, thereby reducing their offspring’s vulnerabilities
to the effects of those stressors. Women also are more likely to respond
to stress by seeking out stronger ties with other individuals or groups.
When functioning well, this system of tending to the child and
strengthening networks of support in the face of stress operates as part
of the enduring and emotionally rewarding relationship between par-
ent and child (Taylor, Klein, Lewis, Gruenewald, Gurung, and Upde-
graff, ).
What is not clear from the research on gender similarities and
differences in stress is whether and how parent gender is linked to par-
enting stress in particular. As the primary caregivers in most house-
holds, do women tend to bear the brunt of the stress of the parenting
role? Or as the less frequent caregivers of their children, are fathers at

greater risk of showing stress in the parenting role? A number of stud-
ies have addressed this question. Their findings converge to suggest that
if there are gender differences in parenting stress, the differences are
small. Some studies show that mothers report slightly higher levels of
parenting stress than fathers, whereas other studies show no gender
difference at all (Baker, ; Creasey and Reese, ; Deater-Deck-
ard and Scarr, ; Hauenstein, ; Krauss, ; Perry, Sarlo-
McGarvey, and Factor, ; but see Beckman, ).
My colleagues and I attempted to answer the question as to
whether there are gender differences in parenting stress using data
from the Child Care and Family Project or CCFP, a study of over five
hundred married dual-earner couples with at least one child under the
age of five (Deater-Deckard, Scarr, McCartney, and Eisenberg, ;
Deater-Deckard and Scarr, ). The parents in this study were se-
lected because both parents worked outside the home (they were
mostly highly educated and earned good incomes), and they all paid
out of pocket for full-time center-based childcare. Mothers and fathers
completed a number of questionnaires, including the Parenting Stress
Index (Abidin, ). In addition, parents rated their own feelings of
anxiety about daily separations from their children, and husbands
rated their perceptions of their wives’ separation anxieties. Parents also
completed questionnaires regarding marital satisfaction and levels of
instrumental support (e.g., help with housework) and emotional sup-
port (e.g., listening and encouragement) from spouses; they also re-
sponded to a checklist of stressful life events that might have occurred
in the prior twelve months (e.g., moving, job change or loss, divorce).
We also assessed parents’ child-rearing attitudes (e.g., degree of em-
phasis on authority and obedience)and harshness of discipline (e.g.,
physical punishment with little or no reasoning and explanation). Fi-
nally, we measured children’s social and emotional development using
parents’ and childcare center caregivers’ ratings of child emotionality
and irritability as well as child behavioral and emotional problems
(e.g., aggression, noncompliance, anxiety).
We had anticipated that mothers would be more anxious about
separations, and higher in parenting stress. We were wrong. In fact, the
men and women in these middle-class, dual-earning couples were vir-
tually indistinguishable in their parenting stress and separation anxi-

eties. The average parenting stress score was . for women (on a scale
of  very low stress to  very high stress), and . for men. The
standard deviation of the parenting stress scale (an estimate of the de-
gree of variation in scores across people) was nearly identical for
women and men. For the parental separation anxiety score, the average
score for women was . and for men was .; and the standard de-
viations for both groups were again very similar. Thus mothers and fa-
thers in this study were comparable in their average levels of parenting
stress, and there was as much variability in stress from one woman to
another as there was from one man to another.
Just as striking were the gender similarities in the links between
the parenting stress and anxiety scores and other aspects of parent
functioning and the family environment. For mothers and fathers
alike, distress in the parenting role was more severe for those who had
less income and education, less social support from their spouses, un-
happier marriages, more stressful life events, harsher styles of child dis-
cipline, more traditional child-rearing attitudes that emphasized child
obedience to authority, and children with more behavioral problems.
We also found that within each married couple the husband and
wife had somewhat comparable levels of parenting stress and anxiety
about separations from their child. Although it was not possible to de-
lineate why and how spouses start out or become similar to one an-
other in their parenting stress, we did discover one fascinating pattern
in the data based on the husbands’ reports of their wives’ and their own
anxieties. First, nearly every one of the men in the study reported that
their wives were more anxious than themselves, even though their
wives’ self-reports of their own separation anxieties indicated that this
was not the case. Second, men were not accurate in rating their wives’
separation anxiety; it was not possible to predict a mother’s self-
reported separation anxiety from her husband’s rating of his wife’s anx-
iety. Third, there was a very strong tendency for men to report a high
degree of similarity between their own separation anxieties and the
separation anxieties of their wives.
Thus, in the families in our study, the fathers’ perceptions of their
own anxieties about leaving their children during the day were strongly
tied to their perceptions of their wives’ anxieties. This result, when
considered with the other findings from the study described above,
suggests that many men experience levels of parenting stress that are
similar to those experienced by women. Furthermore, in any given
family, it is difficult to predict whether it is the mother or the father
who experiences more distress in the parenting role. In addition, the
fact that married partners’ parenting stress levels are similar within
each family indicates that on average a child who has one highly anx-
ious and distressed parent is more likely to have two anxious and dis-
tressed parents. This partner similarity has implications for the quality
of the marital relationship.
Although women and men display similar levels of parenting
stress on average, it remains to be seen whether parenting stress actu-
ally operates in the same way for both parents. As noted above, in our
own as well as others’ studies (e.g., Lavee et al., ), the links between
parenting stress and other parenting and family environment factors
were similar for men and women. However, other research suggests
that the mechanisms linking parenting stress, parenting behavior, and
children’s adjustment may in fact be quite distinct for mothers and fa-
thers.
Consideration of several studies illustrates why it can be difficult
for scientists to elucidate gender differences in parenting stress. One
study found that mothers became concerned about minor indications
of behavioral and emotional problems in their children, whereas fa-
thers became concerned only after the problems became more serious.
This was true even though mothers and fathers were equally adept at
noticing their children’s behaviors and emotions (Baker and Heller,
). In another study, researchers followed a group of expectant
mothers and fathers over time as they became first-time parents. A dif-
ferent pattern of links between parenting stress and behavior was
found for men and women. Among fathers, difficulties in their inter-
actions and relationships with their babies could be predicted from
their own prior expectations and beliefs about the likelihood of par-
enting stress and their own lack of ability and power in the parenting
role. In contrast, these same aspects of beliefs about competence were
not linked systematically to parenting behavior for mothers (Noppe,
Noppe, and Hughes, ). Yet another example comes from several
studies of children with disabilities. These studies have shown that the
type and severity of the disability may be linked with higher levels
of parenting stress, and that this connection is stronger for fathers
than for mothers (Frey et al., ; Margalit, Shulman, and Stuchiner,
).
Further complexity is seen when gender differences in suscepti-
bility to and coping with stress are considered. Such gender differences
would appear only in studies that measure directly the specific suscep-
tibility factor or coping strategy in question. As described in more de-
tail later in this chapter, depression and anxiety are strongly associated
with parenting stress. Females are more likely than males to experience
depression, suggesting that mothers also may be at greater risk for par-
enting stress. In terms of coping strategies, different types of strategies
may be more effective for women and men. On average, women are
more likely to perceive causal events as threats and stressors, to believe
that they have less control, to utilize emotionally focused coping
strategies, and as noted above, to seek social support when distressed.
In contrast, men are more likely to view a stressor as being under their
personal control and to engage problem-focused coping strategies.
Nonetheless, these are only average group differences. Bear in mind
that there is wide variation in these patterns of responses to stress
within groups of women and within groups of men (Levy-Shiff, ).
One illustrative example of gender similarities and differences in
coping comes from a recent ten-year longitudinal study of parents and
their disabled children. Some parents (regardless of gender) showed in-
creases in parenting stress over the ten-year period, whereas others did
not become more distressed in their parenting roles. What differed for
these mothers and fathers were the coping strategies that were most
effective. For the mothers, parenting stress did not increase if they
had accessible and effective social support from others. For the fathers,
parenting stress did not increase if they used problem-focused coping
strategies (Hauser-Cram et al., ). Although this study suggests
that different coping strategies work better for women or for men,
other research demonstrates that emotional support from partners,
friends, and family members is comparable for women and men in its
effect on minimizing parenting stress (Deater-Deckard and Scarr,
).
Apparently contradictory findings can arise within a single study.
Consider as an example a study of first-time mothers and fathers in

which a group of parents was followed through the first year of their
children’s lives (Levy-Shiff, ). There were some gender similarities
in parenting stress and coping, but also a number of differences. For
men and women alike, better adjustment (i.e., less exhaustion and dis-
tress) followed for those parents who viewed the new role as a chal-
lenge, as opposed to a source of difficulties. In contrast, viewing par-
enthood as stressful was linked to problems in adjustment. In addition,
mothers’ and fathers’ emotion-focused coping was associated with
poorer adjustment and less involvement with the infant, although this
effect was stronger for women than men. Yet there were also a number
of gender differences. As others have found, the men were simply less
affected by parenthood. Compared to their female partners, they
viewed it as less of a challenge, less stressful, less threatening, less con-
trollable, and they were less likely to use coping strategies or experience
“burnout.” In addition, the same coping strategy had different effects
for men and women, a pattern of results that was like those reported by
Hauser-Cram et al. (; described above). For the new fathers who
were experiencing high levels of parenting stress, greater use of prob-
lem-focused coping was associated with lower levels of exhaustion. In
contrast, problem-focused coping had no effect for mothers. Instead,
among mothers who were highly distressed, having more social sup-
port was associated with higher observed levels of soothing and hold-
ing their infants—in contrast to fathers, for whom social support had
no effect.
In sum, the research on gender differences in parenting stress
shows mixed results. This may be because all of the research has fo-
cused on biological sex status—being “female” or “male,” based on
typical and obvious physical characteristics. In contrast, few studies
have examined the psychological dimensions of gender. Doing so
would require assessment of parents’ gender beliefs and self-concepts,
as well as personality and behavioral attributes such as masculinity and
femininity. Variation across individuals in these different components
of gender role identity may be more important in their contributions
to parenting stress than biological sex per se. There are known sex dif-
ferences in the physiological stress reaction (Taylor et al., ), but
some of this may be accounted for by individual differences in sex-role
orientation and gender-typed patterns of thought and behavior (Fran-

kenhaeuser, ; Polefrone and Manuck, ). For instance, new
mothers who are gender “typical” (predominantly feminine) or androg-
ynous (moderately masculine and feminine) may show the best mental
health and adjustment to parenthood, compared to cross-typed or gen-
der “atypical” (predominantly masculine) women (Dimitrovsky, Levy-
Shiff, and Perl, ). It is likely that individual differences in gender
beliefs, behaviors, and self-concepts also account for variation in fa-
thers’ parenting stress. Assessing and testing the effects of these indica-
tors of gender role behavior and attitudes is a potentially fruitful direc-
tion for future research. Doing so may clarify parent gender differences
and similarities in parenting stress in an area of research that has thus far
yielded complicated results that are difficult to interpret.
Individual Differences
The emphasis so far in this chapter has been on groups of parents (e.g.,
mothers and fathers) and the potential differences between them.
Group differences aside, there also are influential individual differ-
ences to consider. Parents differ from each other in what it is they bring
to the major or minor stressors of parenthood. They also differ in how
they respond to these stressors. Understanding individual differences
between parents is essential when examining connections between dis-
tress in the parenting role and adult health and functioning. Parents
differ from one another in the degree to which they are prone to stress,
which itself stems from biological and environmental influences. Al-
though there are numerous aspects of individual variation that could
be considered, I will concentrate on those that have received the most
attention in psychological theory and research.
Depression and Psychopathology

There is a bridge between adult well-being and parenting stress, with
influences traveling in both directions. From the mundane to the rare
and severe, the stressors that arise in parenthood can lead to chronic
stress that causes, and is caused by, serious problems in mental and
physical health. Some people enter into parenting with relatively few
difficulties in adjustment, but may start showing signs of psycho-

pathology as a result of chronic, serious parenting stress. Others come
into the parenting role already at risk for becoming deeply distressed,
because of prior histories that may include problems in mental health.
It is worth bearing in mind that the connections between parent-
ing stress and problems in mental health, although no doubt present,
are by no means deterministic. The majority of the adults who face sig-
nificant stressors in parenthood do not become seriously ill or truly
dysfunctional in their thoughts, emotions, or behaviors. In addition,
some parents who have had to cope with serious difficulties in their
own mental health in the past can actually benefit from the experience
of a happy parenthood and successful navigation through its chal-
lenges.
Parenting stress and other problems that can arise are strongly
tied to the mother’s and father’s psychological health and well-being.
In addition, psychopathology in the parent can exacerbate the effects
of stressful circumstances (e.g., job loss or marital problems) on par-
enting stress (Gelfand, Teti, and Fox, ). This is clearest in the con-
nection between parenting stress and parental depression. Prolonged
feelings of sadness and despair, loss of appetite and enjoyment, leth-
argy, and thoughts about suicide are indicative of depression. These
symptoms often co-occur with anxiety as well as other forms of psy-
chopathology and antisocial behavior, such as drug and alcohol misuse
and aggression. Depression is fairly common, with about  percent of
women and  percent of men likely to experience it at least once in
their lifetimes. The majority of affected individuals are likely to experi-
ence depression more than once. For some, it will be essentially
chronic, yet the childbearing years can be a time of greater risk for still
others. Others go through periods of depression that are transient and
not severe enough to merit a diagnosis of depression per se, but the
symptoms nonetheless remain influential in parenting stress and cop-
ing processes (Gotlib and Goodman, ).
Regarding timing, parenting stress may precede and contribute
to the emergence of depression or anxiety for some adults, but depres-
sion or anxiety may precede and cause distress in the parenting role for
others. Regardless of the temporal sequence, parenting stress and psy-
chopathology typically co-occur as part of an integrated stress and cop-
ing process that involves social cognitions (e.g., attitudes, self-esteem),

emotions, and behaviors, all of which influence the parent-child rela-
tionship (Abidin, , ; Anastopoulos, Guevremont, Shelton,
and DuPaul, ; Deater-Deckard et al., ; Downey and Coyne,
; Gelfand et al., ; Hammen, ; Ostberg, Hagekull, and
Wettergren, ).
Depression disrupts the parent’s ability to regulate her or his own
emotions, and interferes with various aspects of parent-child interac-
tion and parenting behavior. One of the key indicators of depression is
prolonged periods of sadness and despair, and being unable to pull out
of this negative emotional state. This has implications for parent-child
interactions. From early in infancy, children develop expectations
about a number of properties of parent-child interaction. Children’s
cognitive and social-emotional development is optimized when par-
ent-child interactions are well organized, coherent, and mutually re-
warding. These interactions form a foundation for the development of
the parent-child attachment relationship, and the skills that are ac-
quired and practiced can later be generalized and applied to other so-
cial interactions and relationships (Cohn and Tronick, ; Hammen,
; Jaffe, Beebe, Feldstein, Crown, and Jasnow, ).
If a parent is struggling with his or her own emotion regulation,
it is that much more difficult (although still possible) to enter into and
sustain coherent, contingent, and responsive interactions with a child.
Parents with depression may withdraw or may be more emotionally la-
bile and reactive, and their relationships with their children are likely
to be less rewarding and are more conflicted, thereby feeding back into
feelings of distress (Goodman and Gotlib, ).
Depression and the transition to parenthood. The transition to par-
enthood is particularly important, given that the foundations of the
parent-child relationship and patterns of interaction are being formed
early in the child’s life. Brief periods of sadness and moodiness are
common for most women after childbirth; this is often referred to as
the “baby blues.” For most, these less severe symptoms of emotional
distress pass after a month or two; although not pleasant, the baby
blues do not appear to be associated with problems in infant develop-
ment, unless the symptoms become more serious and persistent. Post-
natal depression is a serious concern for a number of parents, and its
presence can affect parenting at a time when the child’s attachment re-
lationships and skills for controlling emotions and behaviors are being
established (Field, ; Lyons-Ruth, Lybuchik, Wolfe, and Bronfman,
).
My colleagues and I examined some of the connections between
parental depression and parenting stress in a diverse group of families
in England, before and after their children’s births. The Avon Longitu-
dinal Study of Parents and Children, or ALSPAC, includes over ten
thousand children and their parents (Golding, ). These families
were recruited from a two-year period of births, so that they represent
a nearly exhaustive sample of families in western England. The parents
periodically completed a number of mailed survey instruments before
and after the target children’s births, including a brief measure of their
symptoms of depression (see chapter  for more details on the ALSPAC
study).
We found that the rates of depression in this large community
sample of parents did not increase after birth for the majority of moth-
ers and fathers (Deater-Deckard et al., ; O’Connor et al., ).
The best predictor of a parent’s level of depression symptoms following
birth was her or his level of symptoms prior to the birth. This was true
for women and men alike. These results are consistent with other stud-
ies that have found that individual differences in depression symptoms
are generally stable over time, even over the course of major life transi-
tions like pregnancy and childbirth (e.g., Soliday et al., ). Further-
more, for both mothers and fathers, we found that one parent’s depres-
sion was a good predictor of the spouse’s or partner’s depression.
Partner similarity in depression symptoms could occur because
each partner influences the other through their behaviors, or it could
be a by-product of how it is that people select their romantic part-
ners—birds of a similarly depressed feather flocking together. There
is evidence supporting both explanations, and it is likely that both
mechanisms work together to account for this husband-wife similar-
ity in depressive symptoms. Regardless of why the similarity arises, it
has implications for the children in the family as well as the parents.
Children who live with two depressed parents, compared to those
with only one depressed parent, are more likely to show more signs of
problems in their development (Goodman and Gotlib, ; Ham-
men, ; Phares, Duhig, and Watkins, ). This effect could re-
flect environmental as well as genetic influences on children’s social-
emotional development and mental health outcomes.
In addition to studying parental depression symptoms in the
ALSPAC study, we focused on marital transitions (e.g., divorce, single
parenthood, remarriage) as family contexts or settings for change in
depression symptoms prior to and following the birth of a child. For
mothers as well as fathers, those who had experienced more transitions
or changes in their adult romantic relationships were more likely to be
depressed. This effect held regardless of whether the relationships were
formal marriages and divorces, or nonmarital cohabitating relation-
ships. The effect could arise because exposure to the difficulties of rela-
tionship transitions makes the adults more prone to depression. Alter-
nately, it could be that those who already are prone to depression are
more likely to break up when their relationships hit rough patches. Re-
gardless of the direction of the effect, it is clear that depression accu-
mulates within some families, and often is piled on top of a number of
other difficulties that accompany the breaking up and reformulation
of households (Deater-Deckard et al., ; O’Connor et al., ; also
see chapter ).
We also found in the ALSPAC study that individual differences
in mothers’ and fathers’ depression and stressful life circumstances
were connected with various indicators of parenting stress and prob-
lems in the parent-child relationship. Mothers who experienced higher
levels of depression symptoms when their children were infants were
likely to report higher levels of parenting stress a year later, when their
children were toddlers. They also reported that their children had
more behavioral problems (e.g., aggression) at four years of age, even
after controlling for earlier behavioral problems. These connections
between depression, parenting stress, and child behavior problems
were accounted for, in part, by mothers’ feelings of hostility and nega-
tivity toward their young children (Deater-Deckard and ALSPAC Re-
search Team, ).
Drug and alcohol use. Although depression has received most of
the attention of researchers, there also are connections between parent-
ing stress and drug use and addiction. There have been a number of
studies examining parenting stress and coping among mothers who are
drug addicted or are recovering addicts. As a group, addicted and re-

covering mothers have elevated parenting stress and symptoms of de-
pression and anxiety. This effect is due, in part, to their own child-rear-
ing histories, which often include trauma such as past or current
domestic violence victimization. For these mothers, family relation-
ships and interactions are more likely to be troubled and to include
high levels of conflict and anger. In addition, among those adults who
want help to overcome their addictions, there is fear that seeking aid
will put them in contact with authorities who may want to separate
them from their children (Harmer, Sanderson, and Mertin, ; Kel-
ley, ; Powis, Gossop, Bury, Payne, and Griffiths, ). However,
even among currently addicted mothers (for example, those who are in
methadone replacement treatment programs), there can be large dif-
ferences between mothers in how much parenting stress they experi-
ence. These individual differences are connected in expected ways with
difficulties in parenting. Although the effect is robust, it is a small ef-
fect, probably because there is less variation in mental health and par-
enting stress in the population of drug-addicted mothers, compared to
the broader community of parents (Suchman and Luthar, ).
There is a similar connection between parenting stress and alco-
hol use. In other respects, alcohol addiction and its effects are more in-
sidious, in the sense that its effects impact far more families than illicit
drug use. This is because of alcohol’s availability, low expense, and so-
cial acceptability. Adults who enter into parenthood with existing
drinking and drug problems are more likely to experience problems
and distress in the parenting role. It also is likely that parents use sub-
stances as a means of coping with parenting stress (Pelham and Lang,
). For instance, in one experiment, researchers found that college
males who were exposed to noxious infant cries (compared to a nox-
ious smoke alarm) were not only more likely to rate the infant cries as
more aversive, but were more likely to drink more alcohol in response
to exposure to infant cries (Stasiewicz and Lisman, ). Over time,
chronic substance abuse and addiction can lead to a dramatic deterio-
ration in the functioning and quality of family relationships, which in
turn leads to increases in children’s behavioral and emotional problems
(Roosa, Dumka, and Tein, ).
Parental aggression and antisocial behavior (e.g., criminality), as
well as physical health, also are worth considering. The connection be-
tween parenting stress and parental anger is considered in detail in the
next chapter. As for physical illness, there is little in the way of research
that has examined associations with parenting stress. Although specu-
lative, it stands to reason that for some adults distress arising from the
demands and difficulties of parenthood will predispose them to illness.
At the same time, for those who are or become ill, parenting stress may
work to further the negative effects of the illness and co-occurring de-
pression, through its impact on parenting behavior and the parent-
child relationship.
The majority of parents do not suffer from these problems in
mental health and functioning. Far more relevant for all parents are the
individual differences seen in adults’ temperaments and personalities,
the topic of the next section.
Temperament and Personality

There is a huge range of individual variation in people’s reactivity to
stressful events, as well as whether and how well they are able to control
those reactions after a stressor has occurred (i.e., regulation). Individ-
ual differences in reactivity and regulation, which are believed to in-
clude biological bases, serve as the backbone of temperament, and also
are key components of personality and psychopathology. Tempera-
ment includes components of physical activity, emotions, and atten-
tion that work together to produce part of the foundation of self-
regulation (Posner and Rothbart, ; Rothbart and Bates, ).
Temperament and self-regulation are involved in parenting stress and
coping mechanisms.
To illustrate in a simple way the notion of reactivity and regula-
tion, consider an example of a potentially threatening event, like a
friend who is upset with you. His face begins to flush as he raises his
voice and points his finger at you while punctuating his speech, even as
he is telling you that although he is angry he will get over it eventually.
Because he is a friend and someone you trust and know well, you do
not consciously think that he is going to leap and physically harm you.
However, if you appraise the event as potentially threatening (a process
that involves some very rapid automatic and unconscious thinking, as
well as slower conscious thoughts), a physiological stress reaction will

occur.
Some people are more likely than others to have immediate and
strong reactions to an experience like this. They rapidly become fearful
and anxious, even though they may quickly realize that they are not ac-
tually being threatened. In contrast, other people have a reaction that
is less severe, and still others may have little or no reaction to such an
event. Now consider what happens after the friend has calmed down
and returned to a normal conversation with you. Your body is still
preparing for potential threats to survival, particularly if the reaction to
this event was a strong one. Once the threatening experience has
passed, your body needs to return to a state of normal functioning.
Again, there are individual differences in the degree to which we can
do this on our own, and do it quickly. Some who experience a typical
reaction to such an event may find that it takes only a few minutes to
return to a more normal physiological and psychological state, whereas
others may remain distressed and agitated for hours if not a day or two.
Reactivity and regulation aside, temperament includes specific
perceptual, emotional, and behavioral content. There are several di-
mensions of individual differences to be considered, in addition to the
temporal aspects of self-regulation just described. Rothbart’s theory
emphasizes several dimensions that develop over infancy, childhood,
adolescence, and into adulthood. These are stable attributes that are
organized and expressed based on biological as well as environmental
influences. In early and middle childhood, these dimensions include
the following: extraversion/surgency (including sensation seeking, ac-
tivity, less shyness, positive affect, and enjoyment of anticipation), neg-
ative affectivity (sadness, anger, discomfort, and difficulty in soothing),
and effortful control (enjoyment of low-intensity stimulation, more
sensitive perception, and better control of impulses and attention). In
adulthood, an additional dimension of orienting sensitivity is found, a
more elaborate and complex construct representing perceptual sensi-
tivity to internal states (e.g., feelings) as well as external stimuli (e.g.,
sounds, odors).
Rothbart’s theory and the research data point to two findings
that are most relevant to the current discussion. First, individuals who
are higher in effortful control are lower in negative affectivity, suggest-
ing a link between cognitive and attentional components of self-con-

trol, and the frequency of negative emotional states. That is, people
who are higher in negative affectivity tend to focus their attention and
thoughts on things that promote feelings of fear, anxiety, or sadness,
and have a more difficult time disengaging from this pattern (Derry-
berry and Reed, ). This may well extend to indicators of parenting
stress, with more distressed parents having less effortful control and
more negative affectivity. Second, there are likely to be strong connec-
tions between these dimensions of temperament and dimensions of
personality described in detail next—between surgency and extraver-
sion, negative affectivity and neuroticism, effortful control and lower
neuroticism as well as higher conscientiousness, and orienting sensitiv-
ity and intellect/openness (Rothbart, Ahadi, and Evans, ).
Personality. Personality theorists emphasize individuals’ stable
traits as central to stress and coping processes. This notion is captured
well by the statement that “there is no categorical difference between
ineffective coping and psychological maladjustment” (Costa, Somer-
field, and McCrae, , p. ). Personality attributes may operate by
increasing or decreasing the likelihood that stressors are experienced in
the first place, by influencing the cognitive and emotional experiences
surrounding stress, by contributing to or depleting stores of resources
needed for future coping, and by constraining the types of coping
strategies that can be implemented.
The dominant theory of personality distinguishes five dimen-
sions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and consci-
entiousness (commonly referred to as “the big five”) (McCrae and
John, ). These are thought to represent the fairly stable aspects of
personality that individuals carry with them across most situations and
over time. Neuroticism refers to the prevalence of negative affective
states (e.g., fear, anxiety) and moodiness or irritability. Extraversion in-
cludes positive mood, assertiveness, and being outgoing. Openness
refers to willingness to explore new experiences, imaginativeness, artis-
tic qualities, and curiosity. Agreeableness refers to generosity, kindness,
and trustworthiness. Conscientiousness includes efficiency, organiza-
tion, planning, and reliability.
There is a well-documented connection between neuroticism,
being prone to stress, and ineffective coping. Neuroticism is most in-
fluential in its systematic effects on self-regulation. These effects oper-

ate on the stress process in multiple ways, including influences on goal
setting, beliefs, and appraisals (Matthews et al., ). Thus, among
parents facing a serious stressor, those who are highest in neuroticism
are more likely to experience increases in parenting stress. For exam-
ple, one recent study of parents of children with cancer showed that
adult trait anxiety (a construct that is closely related to neuroticism)
was the best predictor of both mothers’ and fathers’ distress (Hoek-
stra-Weebers, Jasper, Kamps, and Klip, ).
Links between stress and other aspects of personality are less
clear, in part because they have not been studied nearly as often (Costa
et al., ). Costa and colleagues speculate that individuals who are
high in openness will be most willing to try new strategies, which is
likely to be effective when current strategies are not working; that con-
scientious individuals will be more likely to use well-planned problem-
focused strategies and actually attempt to carry them out; that agree-
able individuals will be more effective at having access to and utilizing
social support from others; and that extraverted individuals will be
particularly adept at using forms of coping involving relationships
(e.g., social support).
Another way to conceptualize dispositions or traits is in terms of
two independent dimensions—intolerance of uncertainty and intoler-
ance of arousal. Both require active unconscious and conscious moni-
toring of psychological and physiological systems. As uncertainty in-
creases in the environment, individuals who are less tolerant of
ambiguity will become more vigilant by attending to those things go-
ing on around them. In the most extreme case, hypervigilance arises in
those individuals who are unable to ever “let their guard down,” in fear
that something potentially bad might happen. In contrast, individuals
who are less able to tolerate the physiological arousal that accompanies
a stressful experience are more likely to force themselves to not think
about the stressor (i.e., cognitive avoidance).
Those who are intolerant of both ambiguity and arousal are most
likely to show heightened anxiety, and to use ineffective “fluctuating”
coping. In contrast, those who are tolerant of uncertainty and arousal
are the most likely to use effective “flexible” coping, and not to be anx-
ious (Krohne, ). An example of this is found in research examining
parents’ coping with their children’s brain cancer illnesses and treat-
ments. One study showed that parents of cancer-stricken children dif-
fered from one another in their levels of parenting distress. More to the
point, those who were most affected were the parents who perceived
the greatest degree of uncertainty about the illness and treatments that
lay ahead (Fuemmeler, Mullins, and Marx, ).
Thus various components of individual differences between par-
ents are systematically related to differences in parents’ experiences
with their children. Certain aspects of temperament and personality
may predispose parents to experience more stress and increase their
vulnerability to the demands of parenthood through their impact on
coping and mental health. There is little doubt that temperament and
personality are implicated. However, individual differences in parents’
thoughts and beliefs regarding their own attributes also are important.
I turn next to a description of some of these self-referent social cogni-
tions.
Self-referent Social Cognitions

Self-referent social cognitions include personal dispositions pertaining to
the typical content of a parent’s thoughts regarding self and others, as
well as the style or way of thinking about self and others. These include
self-efficacy (belief that “I” can accomplish the goals that I set) and self-
esteem (belief that “I” am worthwhile and valuable to others), as well as
optimism or pessimism (positive versus negative expected outcomes).
Other relevant attributes include self-consciousness (extent of think-
ing about self ), metacognitive style (typical types of self-appraisals
such as those regarding controllability of behaviors and emotions), and
worrying (Matthews et al., ).
From the beginning of the book, I have emphasized the impor-
tance of the parents’ thinking to mechanisms underlying parenting
stress and coping. Social cognitions ranging from appraisals to atti-
tudes are as critical as other external factors like child illness or finan-
cial difficulties. For parenting stress, the social cognitions that matter
most are likely to be those that involve the parenting self-concept—
whether “I am a good parent” and whether “I am thoughtful and in
control” in this very important relationship and role. The self-concept
evolves from our tendency as humans to make comparisons between

how we see ourselves (the “real”) and the standards that we have based
on our perceptions of others or how we wish ourselves to be (the
“ideal”) (Dibble and Cohen, ).
Self-efficacy involves a coherent self-concept representing a set of
beliefs such as “I am in control” and “I am a capable parent.” Closely
related to this is self-esteem, a set of beliefs involving self-worth such as
“I am a good person” who is worthy of others’ acceptance and love. We
now understand that the connections between self-perceptions and
beliefs about how one should be functioning as a parent are intimately
tied to parenting stress and adaptation. Regardless of the circum-
stances or difficulties faced by the family, adults who see themselves as
failing by comparison to how they think they ought to be functioning
are more likely to be distressed. Parents who set and try to meet unat-
tainably high standards in their personal lives (i.e., perfectionism) can-
not possibly do so. The result is less self-efficacy and more parenting
stress (Flett, Hewitt, Oliver, and Macdonald, ; Mitchelson and
Burns, ).
Parenting stress is minimized for those parents who are high in
self-esteem and self-efficacy, even in the face of chronic and serious ad-
versity (Aunola, Nurmi, Onatsu-Arvilommi, and Pulkkinen, ;
Scheel and Rieckmann, ). For example, among single African
American mothers living in poverty, or mothers of children with seri-
ous behavioral disorders, higher levels of parenting self-efficacy or con-
trol can break the link between parenting stress and depression and the
link between parenting stress and children’s behavioral and emotional
problems (Harrison and Sofronoff, ; Jackson and Huang, ).
In addition, the connection between parenting stress and depression
operates in part through parents’ thoughts of and feelings about being
trapped by and having little control over the demands of the parenting
role (Willner and Goldstein, ).
The links between parental distress and self-efficacy are well ex-
emplified in a classic study of maternal depression and self-concept
(Dibble and Cohen, ). These researchers examined mothers’ “real-
ideal mother” comparisons and their mental health. Mothers com-
pleted a questionnaire that listed parenting behaviors that included
discipline strategies as well as other aspects of the parent-child rela-
tionship, such as affection. Mothers first reported whether each behav-

ior or strategy was true for themselves, and then reported whether each
was typical for an ideal mother. The researchers then computed a dif-
ference score representing the size of the discrepancy between “real”
and “ideal” for each mother. Mothers with the largest discrepancies be-
tween their idealized prototypes and their self-perceptions had the
lowest self-esteem and were most prone to depression.
There are other self-referent social cognitions, such as optimism
and pessimism, that also matter. Individuals who are consistently pes-
simistic accumulate effects of stress in a downward spiral of events,
thoughts, emotions, and physiological states. They are more likely to
create stressful circumstances for themselves and others, and to lose re-
sources by causing others to respond negatively to them and by making
poor decisions that expose them to more stressors. In stark contrast is
the process of coping with stress among those who are largely opti-
mistic in their outlooks. These individuals manage to conserve
resources and minimize exposure to new stressors, resulting in an up-
ward spiral of coping (Aspinwall, ; Hobfoll et al., ). For ex-
ample, one study of parents of children with cancer found that moth-
ers and fathers who did not expect a good outcome were highly
distressed. In contrast, those parents who remained optimistic about
possible outcomes were more protected against stress, even in often
dire circumstances over which the parents had little control (Grooten-
huis and Last, ).
But the typical parent is both optimistic and pessimistic at times,
depending on the particular circumstances. Resilient coping in the
face of parenting stress is more about the balance of optimistic versus
pessimistic thinking—that is, whether the parent is predominantly
encouraged or discouraged about the future. This is exemplified in a
recent study of parents of children with developmental disabilities—
children who require a great deal of care for many years (Trute and
Hiebert-Murphy, ). This situation presents a number of chal-
lenges that undoubtedly influence parents’ self-perceptions and beliefs
about their situations. However, the parents do not focus only on the
down side of their children’s limitations or problems in their families
(e.g., “My situation is horrible,” “This is my fault”). Many also are
mindful of their children’s strengths and skills, and are proud of what
their children and families have accomplished. These parents show

that real psychological strength and happiness can come from succeed-
ing in the face of challenges and adversity. In contrast, parenting stress
is most likely to grow when parents’ negative views about themselves
and their situations outweigh the positive views.
In sum, self-referent social cognitions, including esteem, efficacy,
and optimism, play critically important roles in parents’ minimization
of stress and its effects. Most parents recognize this in the way they
think about themselves, their children, and their families. Parents have
articulated sets of beliefs about what they do and do not have control
over, what they are and are not good at, and what they feel good about
and do not feel good about. The adults who are most likely to cope well
in parenthood are those who believe that they are effective and ac-
cepted by others (spouses or partners and children in particular) and
who are more hopeful than not about the future.
Conclusion
For most parents, some level of distress in their roles as caregivers is
seen as part of the job. Although this is true, people differ markedly in
their susceptibility to and coping with parenting stress and its effects.
Age and gender may matter, though their effects are complex and re-
search findings are mixed. More consistent is the evidence supporting
a connection between various individual differences and parenting
stress. Parents who are less reactive and more able to regulate their
thoughts, emotions, and behaviors are able to adapt more readily in
the face of minor or major parenting stressors. Given this link, it is not
surprising that those suffering from serious disruptions in or disorders
of psychological functioning (e.g., depression) are far more likely to be
distressed as parents.
Adaptation is tied to a host of individual differences in beliefs
and ways of thinking, including self-referent social cognitions such as
self-efficacy and self-esteem. Social cognitive comparisons between an
idealized self and perceptions of the real or actual self arise as a result of
ongoing cycles of forethought, behavior, and self-reflection. At the
same time, being highly proactive in terms of goal setting, planning,
and evaluating the effectiveness of one’s own coping strategies is linked
with better self-regulation, which is adaptive for parents and children

alike. In contrast, problems in adjustment are more likely if the parent
does not set goals, does not plan, does not evaluate the effectiveness of
attempts at coping, and instead relies on reactive self-other compar-
isons when making judgments about perceived distress. There are a
number of factors that can contribute to these problems in regulation,
including biological influences (e.g., temperament), lack of experience
and motivation, serious disruptions in emotion systems and mood
(e.g., depression, anxiety), and cognitive-perceptual impairments or
biases (e.g., memory, attention). For any given parent who is not cop-
ing well with parenting stress, one, some, or all of these factors may be
implicated (Zimmerman, ).
Moving now from the parent’s own functioning, in the next two
chapters I discuss the bridge between parenting stress and the child.
This includes a focus on children’s physical, cognitive, and social-
emotional development (chapter ), as well as parenting behaviors and
parent-child relationship quality (chapter ).
3
Parenting Stress and the Child
Parental distress can affect children in powerful ways. These are

described as “parent effects” on children’s behavior and development.
At the same time, some children are more difficult to care for than oth-
ers, and the “child effect” on parents and their parenting stress can be
equally strong. Parenting stress and children’s development are con-
nected through these bi-directional processes (parent influencing child,
child influencing parent). Bi-directional processes evolve over time as
the parent-child relationship develops; they are not always systematic,
nor do they lend themselves to being easily observed. Children and
parents alike can respond to others’ distress in a wide variety of ways
that are sometimes adaptive and sometimes maladaptive. Much of the
evidence that I will describe points to a link between parenting stress
and problems in children’s development. However, it is important to
bear in mind that many children of highly distressed parents show
great resilience. Similarly, many parents of children who are facing se-
vere difficulties manage to cope without becoming chronically dis-
tressed.
▪ 55 ▪
56 Parenting Stress and the Child
Prematurity and Low Birth Weight

The transition to parenthood is a challenge that involves new stressors,
changes in family and marital relationships, and shifts in household
management practices and division of labor, to name a just a few of the
changes. Based on several decades of research, we know that adapting
to this new role may be particularly hard for parents of preterm, low-
birth-weight babies. Many of these infants are born after difficult preg-
nancies and deliveries, and some of the children show lasting effects
in their development, ranging from mild impairments to severe and
chronic disabilities.
The severity of medical complications prior to, during, and fol-
lowing birth does not operate alone in predicting the severity of chil-
dren’s deficits and disabilities. Rather, these medical complications ap-
pear to work in tandem with parental attributes in their effects on
children’s outcomes. As a group, medically compromised infants who
have enriching home environments and who live with parents who are
not distressed or ill themselves are least affected and often “catch up” to
their more typical peers over the course of several years. In contrast,
medically at-risk infants who live with distressed parents and who are
in a family environment filled with conflict, rejection, and turmoil are
more likely to show larger and longer lasting deleterious effects in their
social-emotional and cognitive development (Pasamanick and Kno-
bloch, ; Werner and Smith, ).
Mothers of premature, low-birth-weight infants—especially
those who have very serious life-threatening medical problems at
birth—continue to show higher levels of depressive and anxious
symptoms following delivery, an effect that probably operates for fa-
thers as well (Moran and Pederson, ; Rimmerman and Sheran,
; Singer et al., ). At the same time, individual differences in
parenting stress are stable even for this group of parents of high-risk in-
fants. In other words, mothers who are highly distressed in the days
following birth are likely to be more distressed two and four months
later, compared to less distressed mothers (Busch-Rossnagal, Peters,
and Daly, ; Thompson, Oehler, Catlett, and Johndrow, ). As
for the long-term impact of a high-risk birth, some parents return to
more typical levels of parenting stress as they adapt to the parenting
role and the child’s health improves. However, long-lasting effects on

parenting stress have been found in those families in which the child
shows lasting and serious impairments, or where there are fewer so-
cioeconomic resources (Cronin, Shapiro, Casiro, and Cheang, ;
Patteson and Barnard, ; Stjernqvist, ; Tobey and Schraeder,
).
The connection between problems in development arising from
the child’s difficult early start in life, and subsequent psychological and
health outcomes, is probably determined in part by the impact of these
difficult circumstances on parenting stress and the quality of the par-
ent-child relationship. On average, those children who have a more
difficult time acquiring cognitive, motor, behavioral, and social skills
are more likely to have parents who are more distressed, less warm and
affectionate, and less stimulating (Miceli et al., ; Ong, Boo, and
Chandran, ; Ong, Chandran, and Boo, ; Robson, ).
When birth weight and term effects on mother-infant interac-
tions are found, they generally favor full-term infant-mother pairs.
Studies of medically at-risk infants and their mothers have shown that
for some pairs the infants have less optimal interactions with their
mothers. The most common problematic interaction patterns include
maternal behavior that is less responsive and more intrusive or disrup-
tive, and infant behaviors that include excessive fussiness, withdrawal,
and distractibility. Over time, these mother-child pairs may develop
lasting patterns of interaction involving irritability, poor control of
emotions and behaviors, and intrusive or overcontrolling behaviors.
This is particularly true for extremely low birth weight children and
those who are chronically ill. This is unfortunate, because sensitive,
warm, responsive parenting is optimal for children’s social, emotional,
and cognitive development, particularly if the infants are born preterm
and low birth weight (Beckwith and Rodning, ; Field, ;
Lester, Hoffman, and Brazelton, ; Mitchell, ).
One of the reasons that problematic patterns of interaction can
become entrenched is that some parents develop biased views of their
infants that predispose the parents to higher levels of parenting distress
(i.e., vulnerable child syndrome). This can happen even if their infants
are adapting well and the likelihood of death or lasting impairment is
low. This effect is not limited to parents. Biased attitudes about and
perceptions of premature, low-birth-weight infants’ abilities to inter-

act “normally” extend to other adults, including parents of full-term
healthy infants and even nonparents (Boyce, ; Estroff, Yando,
Burke, and Synder, ; Gennaro and Stringer, ; Stern and Hilde-
brandt, ).
There can be lingering effects of problems or disruptions in par-
ent-child interactions and relationships in the longer term for med-
ically compromised infants. The link between insensitive, nonrespon-
sive, harsh, or neglectful parent behavior and a child’s emotional and
behavioral difficulties may persist into the preschool and school-age
years, even after the effects of the infant’s prior or ongoing medical
problems are considered. Similar results have been found for children’s
cognitive skills (Landry et al., ; Landry, Smith, Miller-Loncar, and
Swank, ; Leonard et al., ; Magill-Evans and Harrison, ;
Moore, Saylor, and Boyce, ).
In sum, how well parents adapt to stress and care for their med-
ically at-risk infants can influence those children’s outcomes. Although
she or he is likely to face many challenges, a child who is born small
and early can “catch up” in health and development, a result that can
be influenced by parental involvement and sensitivity to the infant’s
needs. Interventions designed to improve outcomes for high-risk new-
borns are most effective when parenting is sensitive and responsive.
They are least effective when the parents are distressed and their par-
enting behavior is rejecting and inappropriate, given their children’s
particular needs. Thus greater distress can be tied to a poorer prognosis
for some of these infants, in part because of the impact of parenting
stress on parenting behavior. However, this happens for some but by
no means all of these families. In many instances, parental distress and
behavior has little to do with the child’s progress and development. Re-
gardless of any particular parent and child’s situation, it is important
that recognition of a developmental process involving parenting stress
and behavior not be equated with, or considered justification for,
blaming parents for their medically at-risk children’s outcomes. On the
contrary, the impetus should be to identify parents who most need as-
sistance and provide services and support to them in a way that pro-
motes coping and positive parenting experiences (Deater-Deckard and
Bulkley, ).
Child Illness
Of the possible life events or circumstances that an adult can experi-
ence, losing a close family member, and a child in particular, ranks
among the most difficult (Holmes and Rahe, ). Learning to cope
as a parent of an ill or dying child is unlike any other stressful experi-
ence. It not only disrupts the daily lives of family members but threat-
ens the most basic foundation of adults’ beliefs about their children
and families—that they can protect their children from harm, that
their family relationships will have years to grow and flourish, and that
they will not outlive their own children. The connection between par-
enting stress and child illness extends well beyond infancy and early
childhood, and it includes a variety of child illnesses and impairments
(Hauenstein, ).
Compared to parents of healthy children, those of children who
are disabled, impaired, or critically ill are far more likely to be acutely
or chronically distressed. Many studies have been conducted and the
findings are not surprising. A selection of examples is provided in table
. (and see the Appendix for an annotated bibliography of relevant
studies). Although one of the needs for conducting research of this
kind is to describe the impact of a child’s illness on parents, the research
also is useful for developing an understanding of how a child’s disease
or disability influences parental functioning and well-being, which in
turn can feed back powerfully into the child’s improvements or decre-
ments in health.
Many illnesses and disabilities require lengthy if not lifelong
therapies and medical procedures. One reason that it is difficult to
cope when a child is ill or severely disabled is that the parent has little
or no control over the symptoms or severity of the condition. The
daunting prospects of coping in the long term with a child’s illness are
compounded when they are accompanied by a parent’s own depres-
sion, anxiety, or chronic marital conflict. Furthermore, these experi-
ences may be different for mothers and fathers. On average, women
may be more susceptible to the maladaptive effects of coping with an
ill child (Frank et al., ; Hauenstein, ; Mastroyannopoulou,
Stallard, Lewis, and Lenton, ).
The conventional wisdom is that parents who cope well will nec-
Table 3.1. An Overview of the child illnesses, disabilities, and

disorders that have been linked with higher levels of parenting
stress
Illness/Condition Disability Behavioral/Emotional Problems
Asthma Developmental disability Attention-deficit hyperactivity

disorder
Cancer Physical disability Autism, pervasive developmental
disorder
Cerebral palsy Conduct disorder (externalizing
problems)
Congenital disease Depression, anxiety (internalizing
(heart disease) problems)
Diabetes Sleep problems and disorders
Epilepsy Substance use
HIV/AIDS
Physical disability
Spina bifida
Note: See the Appendix for an annotated bibliography of research studies on these topics.
essarily contribute only in positive ways to their children’s outcomes,

and those who cope poorly may actually make their children’s illnesses
worse. Whether this is true or not depends on the specific circum-
stances of the illness, the parents, and the family. There has been little
in the way of systematic study of the temporal sequence of symptoms
and parenting stress, diagnosis, treatment, and long-term outcomes,
making it difficult to draw broad conclusions.
For those illnesses or conditions that are not strongly influenced
by parenting and the home environment, it is unlikely that parental
stress and behavior have causal effects on the child’s symptoms or the
effectiveness of medical treatment. Consider the example of childhood
cancer. There are effective treatments available for many types of can-
cer, but most people realize that if the treatments are successful the
odds are still better than even that the child will develop cancer again at
some point in the future. In addition, there are many different types of
cancer, and these diseases often are unpredictable in their response to
known treatments. Parents have little at their disposal in terms of af-
fecting the outcome of treatment—it usually occurs in hospitals, often
requires surgery and extended periods of recovery, and severely dis-

rupts daily life. Nonetheless, the parents are expected (by themselves
and by others) to do their best to remain hopeful and to work with
medical professionals to minimize the negative impact of treatment
and maximize the child’s quality of life during and after treatment. It is
no surprise that some parents remain highly distressed during their
children’s cancer treatments. This predicts longer-term problems in
parents’ own well-being, including higher levels of depression and anx-
iety (Kazak and Barakat, ).
In contrast, consider a disease like childhood diabetes, the treat-
ment of which depends heavily on parental involvement and behavior.
Although it can be a devastating diagnosis to receive, most patients re-
spond well to effective treatments that are widely available. Typically,
the treatments involve careful monitoring and supervision of the
child’s diet, blood sugar levels, and administration of insulin. Success-
ful treatment that will last a lifetime requires family routines, parental
supervision, and widely supported socialization of the child, who must
learn to live with and treat her or his own diabetes. In those families in
which stress and difficult circumstances escalate either in reaction to
the illness or for other reasons, problems in family relationships and
parenting can disrupt some or all of these components of treatment.
Thus high levels of parenting stress and family difficulties are associ-
ated with greater dysfunction in diabetic children’s metabolism and
immunology (Sepa, Frodi, and Ludvigsson, ; Viner, McGrath,
and Trudinger, ).
There also have been studies pointing to the lack of a connection,
or mixed evidence for a connection, between parenting stress and child
illness or disability (e.g., Phipps and Drotar, ; Tarbell and Kos-
mach, ). For example, although there are some data suggesting a
link between parental distress and children’s sensory and communica-
tion impairments, conclusive evidence has not yet been established
(Chaffee, Cunningham, Secord-Gilbert, Elbard, and Richards, ;
Hanson and Hanline, ; Horsch, Weber, Bertram, and Detrois,
; Meadow-Orlans, ). Another more recent example is from a
longitudinal study of epileptic children’s symptoms following dietary
intervention, which showed that the treatment was effective at reduc-
ing dramatically the frequency and severity of seizures. However, over
the year in which these children were followed, parenting stress did not
change (Pulsifer, Gordon, Vining, and Freeman, ). These exam-
ples aside, a further consideration is that for some families of children
with illnesses or disabilities parenting stress may be tied most strongly
to financial difficulties and the lack of social support, rather than the
child’s disability per se (Smith, Oliver, and Innocenti, ).
To conclude, the link between parenting stress and child illness
or disability is likely to depend on the specific pattern of symptoms or
difficulties that the child and parents face. Therefore, straightforward
associations between child impairment and parental distress may
emerge in some but not all studies, because the effects may depend on
the specific illness in question. Furthermore, child illness can be linked
to increases in children’s problem behaviors (e.g., aggression, sleep dis-
ruption), but this is not always the case. The severity of a child’s illness
and symptoms may be strongly associated with parents’ distress if the
child also shows emotional disturbances or problems in self-control,
but the illness may have less of an impact if the child otherwise is ad-
justing well and showing typical development (Goldberg et al., ).
Most of the existing studies, though very important in the foundation
that they provide, lack the detailed data required to test these possibil-
ities. Research has relied on measures of parental stress and coping that
do not address the specific stressors linked to children’s particular
symptoms. Some attempts have been made to create new assessment
tools that are more precise in identifying the specific aspects of the
child’s illness or treatment that impact parenting stress. Such efforts
will lead to better prediction of parents’ likely experiences and well-
being (Streisand, Braniecki, Tercyak, and Kazak, ).
Developmental Disabilities and Disorders

Developmental disabilities and disorders are identified when a child
shows a lack of typical progression in acquisition of skills and compe-
tencies, or regression in skills and abilities. Examples include cognitive
deficits and delays, autism, and pervasive developmental disorder. For
any given child, problems often are found in multiple domains of
functioning, ranging from the cognitive to the physical to the social-
behavioral to the emotional. Children who are diagnosed with one of
these disabilities show moderate to severe impairment, and many of

them require supervision in daily living. At the same time, many chil-
dren respond well to a variety of interventions such as life skills train-
ing and intensive educational and occupational therapies.
There are a number of types of developmental disabilities and
disorders, and the severity and breadth of impairment varies widely
from one child to the next (see table ., and the Appendix for anno-
tated bibliography). Likewise, parents’ success at coping with the dis-
tress that arises from children’s impairments varies widely from one
family to the next, as well as within the same family. In general, parents
of children who have more disabling conditions that persist for longer
periods of time show more signs of severe, chronic parenting stress.
However, even among the subgroup of children with severe impair-
ments or problems in development, parents often differ markedly
from one another in their parenting stress, a point to which I return
later.
Individual differences in parents’ distress and successful coping
are moderately stable over time. Just like parents of children who do
not have developmental disabilities, the parents of disabled children
who are more effective in their coping and less distressed when their
children are young continue to show this pattern of adaptation later
(Atkinson et al., ; Hatton, Knussen, Sloper, and Turner, ).
However, there is a caveat to this general conclusion. Although this
may be true on average, some parents experience remarkable decreases
in distress over time as they discover new and more effective ways of
coping. In contrast, others who begin the journey of parenthood by
coping well come to find themselves highly distressed years later.
There have been few longitudinal studies on parental adaptation
in families with developmentally disabled children, let alone in fami-
lies with typically developing children. One noteworthy exception is
the ongoing research conducted by Hauser-Cram, Warfield, Shonkoff,
and Krauss (). This team of researchers recently completed ten
years of study involving the same group of mothers and fathers of chil-
dren with Down syndrome or other forms of serious developmental
delay. The research has provided insights that inform us not only about
the nature and course of parental adaptation but also about some of the
ways that others can help support families with developmentally de-
layed or disabled children. It remains to be seen whether the same

kinds of changes in and consequences of parenting stress are found in
families with children who do not have disabilities.
As time passed for the families in the study, there were increases
in both child-domain and parent-domain areas of parenting stress.
That is, over time, parents became gradually more distressed about
their children’s development as well as their own health and function-
ing. In addition, child-domain stress was higher than parent-domain
stress, even though both tended to increase over time. Furthermore,
partners were similar in their patterns of change in parenting stress. On
average, if the mother showed a steep increase in stress, so did the fa-
ther. The researchers also found gender similarities as well as differ-
ences in patterns of adaptation. For example, although mothers and fa-
thers showed increases in parenting stress over time, and the overall
levels of stress were similar for men and women, increases in distress
tended to occur most rapidly for fathers when their children were
young, whereas increases were more gradual across the ten-year period
for mothers. In addition, social support was most useful for coping
among mothers, whereas problem-focused coping appeared to be most
useful for fathers.
The same study revealed another very clear finding. Children
with more behavioral and emotional problems displayed at home or
school had parents who reported greater distress. This result replicates
one of the most consistent effects found in the research literature on
parenting, and is the focus of the next section.
Behavioral and Emotional Problems

Externalizing Problems
Although the impact of child illness and developmental disabilities on
parental adaptation is important, the majority of the research on child
development and parenting stress has focused on children’s externaliz-
ing behaviors (i.e., distractibility and attention difficulties, aggression,
conduct problems, and delinquency). This focus on externalizing
problems is justified, given that the link with parenting stress appears
to be strongest for this group of child problems. For some children, the
persistence and severity of behavioral problems results in a diagnosis of
conduct disorder (CD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), or at-

tention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Behavioral problems
in childhood are fairly common; the prevalence of psychiatric disor-
ders in childhood and adolescence varies from around  percent to as
high as  percent, depending on the sampling and measurement ap-
proach that is used. Behavior problems can emerge early in develop-
ment, and their presence is fairly stable within individuals over time.
As children enter adolescence, aggressive behavioral problems become
less common, and covert delinquent activities (e.g., stealing, drug use)
become more common. These behavioral problems are not indepen-
dent of children’s internalizing or emotional problems (i.e., anxiety, de-
pression); children with more behavioral problems tend to have more
emotional problems as well (Kazdin, ; Koot, ; Verhulst, ).
There have been many studies on parenting stress and child be-
havioral and emotional problems; a selection of these is presented in
table .. The connection between behavior problems and parenting
stress can emerge as early as toddlerhood, and is firmly in place by three
to four years of age, among those children who show early signs of ex-
ternalizing problems (e.g., Breen and Barkley, ; Briggs-Gowan,
Carter, Skuban, and Horwitz, ; Creasey and Jarvis, ; Wak-
schlag and Keenan, ). Furthermore, the overall severity of prob-
lem behavior matters. It is not the presence or absence of a behavioral
disorder per se but the overall level of dysfunction or impairment that
is associated with the degree of parenting stress found in the family.
Even when the problems are not severe enough to result in a diagnosis,
children with more severe externalizing problems tend to have parents
who are more distressed.
Among children who are referred to clinics for assessment and
treatment, or who have received a diagnosis in the past, there is varia-
tion in parenting stress that is tied to severity of child symptoms. For
instance, in families with children diagnosed with ADHD, parenting
stress is greater if there is a larger disparity between the children’s po-
tential achievement and adjustment (e.g., based on tests of cognitive
performance) and actual achievement and adjustment (e.g., based on
school grades). Also, among youth with conduct disorder symptoms
(e.g., fighting, stealing), parenting stress and family dysfunction is
greatest in those families in which the child or adolescent shows more
extreme problems, such as physically assaulting other family members

(Barkley et al., ; Nock and Kazdin, ). This variability in par-
enting stress within the population of families of children with behav-
ioral disorders has implications for whether and how well children and
parents respond to interventions that are designed to reduce problem
behaviors. The effectiveness of treatment can be seriously compro-
mised in families in which parenting stress is high (see chapter  for
more on interventions and parenting stress).
Children’s behavior difficulties that impact parenting stress and
are themselves affected by parenting need not be limited to the realm
of externalizing problems as just described. For example, consider chil-
dren with severe sleep problems. Although many children with exter-
nalizing behavior problems also show problems in sleeping, there are
children with sleep difficulties who show few if any signs of aggression
or conduct problems. Children who resist going to bed and staying
there, who are light sleepers and wake during the night, or have fre-
quent nightmares or night terrors have parents who are more dis-
tressed. For these families, parenting stress can be reduced, and parent-
child relationships can improve, with effective interventions that
reduce or eliminate sleep difficulties (Gelman and King, ; Reid,
Walter, and O’Leary, ).
Internalizing Problems
Internalizing problems are distinct from externalizing problems, with
an emphasis on disruptions or disturbance in emotions and moods. In-
ternalizing problems include symptoms of anxiety, depression, and so-
matic complaints (e.g., body aches and pains). Though these problems
are distinct from externalizing symptoms, many of the children who
show signs of emotional difficulties also show signs of behavioral diffi-
culties. Compared to behavior problems, the prevalence of anxiety and
depression among children and adolescents is more difficult to ascer-
tain, because these symptoms reflect children’s internal states, which
cannot be easily detected or interpreted by others. A child can mask
feelings of fear or despair so that parents, teachers, and mental health
professionals have a more difficult time discerning that something is
wrong. Nevertheless, epidemiological research indicates that internal-
izing disorders are found in two to five percent of the population of

children, with the prevalence increasing and gender differences emerg-
ing (females more so than males) in adolescence and into adulthood.
Whereas there is a well-established link between parenting stress
and children’s externalizing problems, there have been few studies of
children’s internalizing symptoms that also have included assessments
of parenting stress specifically. However, the research that does exist
suggests that parenting stress is higher in families with children who
have more symptoms of anxiety and depression (Goldberg et al., ;
Mesman and Koot, ; Walker, ).
A much larger research literature exists on the bridge between
maternal and child depression. Few of the studies of parent and child
internalizing problems have assessed directly parents’ self-reported
perceptions of their distress in the parenting role. Nonetheless, there is
a well-established connection between adult depression and parenting
stress. The research on this varies in terms of the methods that were
used (e.g. observations, questionnaires, clinical interviews) and the
characteristics of the samples of study participants (e.g., children’s
ages, socioeconomic factors, severity of parental depression). Even
with this diversity in methods, these studies converge and show a link
between parent and child internalizing problems that is accounted for,
in part, by disruptions in parenting behaviors. For example, depressed
parents are more likely to be reactive and hostile as well as overly intru-
sive and controlling in their interactions with their children. Others
may avoid or withdraw from their family relationships altogether
(Downey and Coyne, ; Langrock, Compas, Keller, Merchant, and
Copeland, ; Goodman and Gotlib, ).
Parenting stress plays a critical role in the link between parents’
symptoms of depression and children’s development. This was exam-
ined using data from the ongoing ALSPAC study, which includes a
sample of over ten thousand women in western England and their chil-
dren born during a twenty-one-month period. In the ALSPAC study,
data were collected using mothers’ ratings in mailed questionnaires.
Postnatal depression was assessed two months following the birth, par-
enting stress was measured at twenty-one months, and the child’s be-
havioral and emotional problems (e.g., aggression, anxiety) were as-
sessed at four years of age. This study revealed that mothers who had
more symptoms of postnatal depression also were higher in parenting

stress nearly two years later, and had children who they rated four years
later as higher in behavior problems. This link between postnatal de-
pression symptoms and child behavior problems at age four was ac-
counted for in part by the mothers’ parenting stress when the child was
a toddler. This suggests that parenting stress may play a role in the
mechanism that connects maternal depression to problems in chil-
dren’s social and emotional development (Deater-Deckard and the
ALSPAC Research Team, ).
Diagnosis, Stigma, and Blame

My emphasis in the current chapter thus far has been on parenting
stress and specific types of children’s illnesses, disabilities, and behav-
ioral disorders. However, the connection between children’s problems
or limitations and parenting stress is not restricted to those families in
which disability or disorder occurs. Individual differences over a wide
range of children’s cognitive, language, and social-behavioral skills are
associated with parental distress, with greater child skill and ability as-
sociated with less stress (Magill-Evans and Harrison, ). The same
effect is found within families in which diagnosed disabilities are
found, whereby greater child impairment is accompanied by more par-
enting stress. For example, among children with physical disabilities,
those with more severe motor impairments have parents who are more
distressed. Also, among children with mental retardation, those with
lower IQ scores have parents who are more distressed (O’Neil, Pal-
isano, and Westcott, ; Ong, Chandran, and Peng, ). What
matters most is the overall functioning of a particular child, regardless
of disability “status.” At the same time, parenting a child with serious
delays or disabilities (along with the tests, diagnoses, and treatments
that accompany the experience) introduces additional stressors be-
yond those that arise from the child’s behavioral, emotional, or cogni-
tive impairments and attributes.
Testing prenatally or postnatally for child diseases, illnesses, syn-
dromes, disabilities, and disorders is not taken lightly by anyone, in
part because of its implications for stress and coping for parents. Par-
enting stress is likely to be acute at the time when assessment and diag-
nosis are occurring, with parental adjustment improving over time for
most (Mastroyannopoulou et al., ). The decisions regarding
whether to have tests or assessments done, and how to interpret the re-
sults, ideally are made in collaboration with medical and psychological
health professionals who can provide accurate information. This infor-
mation allows parents to make correct and timely decisions at a time
when they are highly distressed. But even under ideal conditions for
such a stressful situation, there are risks. Few tests have perfect accu-
racy, so there is always the possibility of a misdiagnosis. This is a major
concern, particularly if the intervention that is called for involves med-
ication or surgery. In addition, there are risks attached to diagnosing a
disease or disorder before the child is showing any symptoms. Such
early diagnosis or misdiagnosis contributes to parenting stress in its
own way, above and beyond the effects of the child’s illness or impair-
ment (Baroni, Anderson, and Mischler, ).
The impact of testing and diagnosis on parental stress and coping
interacts with parents’ expectations about and explanations for the
most likely outcomes. Consider for a moment the families of children
who have serious, chronic illnesses or disabilities over which the par-
ents have no control. For them, accepting the diagnosis is associated
with better parental adjustment, whereas resistance to or denial of the
diagnosis is more likely to result in greater distress in the long term. At
the same time, when a misdiagnosis occurs, the parents must cope with
this mistake, in addition to any illness or impairment that follows. In
these situations, distress is more likely to persist if the parent blames
someone else for the mistake. And regardless of the accuracy of diag-
nosis, parents often perceive a stigma attached to having a child with a
disability or disorder. Parents’ expectations and experiences involving
perceived and actual stigmatization of their children also are crucial
(Hall, Bobrow, and Marteau, , ; Sheeran, Marvin, and Pi-
anta, ).
Stigmatization influences how the research, intervention, and so-
cial communities think about and attempt to help and support fami-
lies. Rather than blaming parents, the realization that parental well-
being is an integral part of a child’s long-term healthy outcome should
spur us on to provide access to effective interventions for the families
who need them. Some parents manage to cope well, but they all need
support and help from time to time—help from medical professionals

and therapists, from family, friends, and neighbors, and from the com-
munity. Parental functioning will most likely improve when the out-
come of testing and diagnosis results in increased access to resources,
ranging from information to social support to effective intervention
and therapy. Ultimately, the goals of diagnosis and intervention are to
accurately assess what needs to be done to minimize or eliminate dele-
terious effects, and to provide resources (including but not limited to
treatments) that are necessary to achieve the desired outcomes for par-
ents and children alike. When assessment and intervention work, it is
in part because they meet the needs of the parents and family as well as
those of the child.
Temperament
I turn now to a discussion of typical individual differences between
children that are associated with parenting stress. There are a number
of dimensions of individual differences in children’s reactivity and self-
regulation in different environments. These are referred to collectively
as temperament. Differences between children in the extent to and ways
in which they respond to their environments and experiences are de-
tectable from early in life; these are fairly stable and are influenced by
biological as well as environmental factors. Among young children,
temperament includes predominant mood—both positive (e.g., plea-
sure, joy) and negative (e.g., fear, anger)—and the extent to which the
individual exercises self-control, such as persisting with a task, regulat-
ing attention, and planning thoughts and actions (Rothbart and Bates,
).
Infants and children who are in a fearful or angry mood more of-
ten than not, who are quick to react negatively and strongly and have
difficulty calming down, and who have poor self-control are more
likely to have parents that report higher levels of parenting stress
(Beebe, Casey, and Pinto-Martin, ; Ostberg and Hagekull, ).
This effect may be particularly pronounced for mothers who are strug-
gling with depression (Gelfand et al., ), or for those with infants
who are suffering from the lasting effects of severe birth complications
(Field, ; Stiefel, Plunkett, and Meisels, ; Washington, Minde,
and Goldberg, ). Consistent with a Parent-Child-Relationship or

P-C-R theory of parenting stress, the link with child temperament is
strongest for the child domain, which involves the degree to which the
parent views the child as being overly demanding and hard to manage.
However, the connection between child temperament and par-
enting stress is complex. Child temperament certainly matters, but its
effects on subsequent child behavior and parenting stress depend in
part on how parents respond to their children’s personal attributes
(Bates, Pettit, Dodge, and Ridge, ). Consider for example the tem-
perament and the development of conscience and self-control or regu-
lation in early childhood (Kochanska, a). Fearful children are
more likely to show optimal self-control and conscience (e.g., pa-
tience, resistance to temptation) if their mothers respond to misbehav-
iors using gentle discipline methods, rather than methods that are
punitive and potentially frightening to the child. Among children who
are bold and fearless, self-control and conscience are best promoted by
warmth and closeness in the parent-child relationship rather than a
softening of discipline.
Furthermore, although certain child behaviors (e.g., poor self-
control, anger, fearfulness, fearlessness) may be more difficult for many
parents to cope with and manage, parents react in different ways to the
same characteristics. There are individual differences in parents’ own
attributes that may make it easier or more difficult for them to adapt to
a child who is behaviorally challenging. There also are cultural differ-
ences in parents’ attitudes about and interpretations of children’s be-
haviors (as I describe later in chapter ). In addition, the same parent
can change over time in how she or he responds to the same child attri-
butes. For children with temperaments that can put them at risk for
behavioral and emotional problems (e.g., emotionally reactive, anx-
ious, inattentive), the best outcomes are most likely to emerge in fam-
ilies in which the parent-child relationships are warm and supportive
and the parents are effective and influential socializing agents.
Gender and Age

When the goal has been to predict parenting stress from child charac-
teristics, researchers have found that the child’s individual attributes,
skills, limitations, and problems are far more influential than child age
or gender. There does not appear to be a straightforward or robust as-
sociation between parenting stress and child age. A number of studies
focusing on parents of pre-adolescent children have reported more
parenting stress among parents of younger children (e.g., Deater-
Deckard and Scarr, ; Mash and Johnston, ; Tarbell and Kos-
mach, ). But not all studies show an association between child age
and parenting stress, and when an effect is found it usually is small in
magnitude or not linear (e.g., Orr, Cameron, Dobson, and Day, ).
One of the few longitudinal studies of parenting stress in families of
toddlers and preschoolers showed no changes over time in average lev-
els of parenting stress, and individual differences in parenting stress
were highly stable (Dyson, ).
Nonetheless, child age matters enormously in terms of what it is
that children do, and how those behaviors influence parental distress.
Parents’ expectations for child compliance and self-control become
more prominent as the child gets older, because they are aware of the
child’s developing capabilities. This has implications for the kinds of
appraisals that parents make about their children’s behaviors, which in
turn can influence parental distress. In addition, the effects of age on
parenting stress may lie not in a child’s chronological age per se but in
the discrepancy between a child’s age and her or his cognitive, emo-
tional, and behavioral maturity. An example of this is deficits in cogni-
tive abilities. As already described, parenting stress is higher for those
with children who are cognitively delayed or who have permanent
deficits in cognitive skills that make their abilities to solve problems
atypical compared to other children of the same age.
With regard to child gender, there is evidence from many studies
that parents behave differently toward their sons and daughters, par-
ticularly with respect to gender-stereotyped activities and the use of
physical discipline (Lytton and Romney, ; Maccoby and Martin,
). Some studies have shown that parents of boys report more par-
enting stress (e.g., Tarbell and Kosmach, ). However, this does not
necessarily imply that it is the child’s biological sex per se that is
causally influencing parental distress. A more likely explanation is that
this gender difference arises because boys are more likely than girls to
exhibit behavioral problems (e.g., noncompliance, aggression, hyper-

activity).
Not all studies show robust child gender effects. In studies that
rely on large samples of families drawn from their communities, child
gender differences in parenting stress are rarely found. In addition,
longitudinal studies have shown that child gender effects on parenting
stress that may exist when children are young can dissipate over time
(e.g., Hauser-Cram et al., ). Finally, the discrepancy between a
child’s biological sex and her or his gender-typical behavior may be im-
portant. It could be that in some families parents become distressed
when their children show gender atypical behaviors. This remains a
question to be answered in future research.
Conclusion
Children influence, and are influenced by, their parents’ distress and
difficulties in parenting. The evidence from the studies reviewed in this
and the previous chapter converges in several ways. Children who
come into the world or acquire over time difficulties or problems in
their health and development (physical or psychological in nature)
have parents who are more distressed. In addition, parenting stress is
greater in families with children who are more reactive and have poorer
self-control, who are more aggressive and noncompliant, who are inat-
tentive and hyperactive, and who are anxious or depressed. These as-
pects of children’s cognitions, emotions, and behaviors are not inde-
pendent. Some children show problems in multiple domains of
development, and their parents are likely to be the most distressed.
Thus there remains little doubt regarding the “whether and what”—
the existence of associations between parenting stress, parenting be-
havior, and parent and child adaptation. What does remain is the
“how”—understanding the causal mechanisms that underlie these as-
sociations between parent and child adaptation. This question sets the
stage for the next two chapters.
4
Parenting Behavior and the
Parent-Child Relationship
The way parents feel about themselves, their situations, and their
children goes hand in hand with the way parents behave toward their
children. Several decades of research have shown a very consistent pat-
tern of results. Stressful life circumstances and individual differences
can operate to constrain parents’ opportunities to enjoy and be effec-
tive in their caregiving roles. The majority of the research has focused
on distal, general indicators of stressors in the family, such as inade-
quate income or marital discord. However, more studies over the past
few decades have begun to include assessments of the proximal psy-
chological experiences pertaining to parents’ thoughts and feelings
about their own parenting and about their children. Although parent-
ing stress is assessed in different ways in these studies, the findings con-
verge. Parents who report higher levels of stress in the parenting role
are more likely to be harsher and more authoritarian in their parenting
behavior, and to feel less involved in their children’s lives. Distressed
parents also are less likely to provide the necessary stimulation that
promotes their children’s optimal social-emotional and cognitive de-
velopment (Adamakos, Ryan, Ullman, Pascoe, et al., ; Belsky,
Woodworth, and Crnic, ; Conger, Patterson, and Ge, ; Crnic
and Low, ; Deater-Deckard, ; McBride and Mills, ;
Rodgers, ; Stoiber and Houghton, ).
▪ 74 ▪
Parenting stress disrupts some of the psychological mechanisms

that link parenting and children’s development. These disruptions af-
fect emotional aspects of the parent-child relationship, the practices
that parents use to socialize and teach their children, and parents’
thought processes (i.e., social cognitions). Parenting stress becomes a
critical public health issue when it is severe enough to put the child at
risk of being harmed.
The Parent-Child Relationship

Humans have a basic need to feel accepted by their caregivers, and to
feel safe and protected. Although parents may behave in very different
ways when compared across families, communities, cultures, and na-
tions, children’s perceptions and interpretations of their parents’ be-
haviors likely work in much the same way around the world. If the
child feels rejected by her or his parents, that child is more likely to
show problems in development and signs of maladjustment (Bowlby,
; Rohner, ).
Parent-Child “Co-regulation”
The psychological mechanisms that link the emotions and behaviors
of the child and parent play important functions in survival and adap-
tation by serving to optimize the physical, social, emotional, and cog-
nitive development of the child. This set of mechanisms involves
arousal and distress on the part of both the parent and the child. Par-
enting stress is a part of these systems.
Adaptive parenting is a balancing act between the child and the
parent. This does not always require conscious awareness but almost
always involves emotions. Both the parent and child are motivated to
maintain their own positive emotional states, but they differ in an im-
portant way. The child is not self-sufficient and requires assistance
from the parent to have her own needs met. Younger children are
highly dependent on their parents for meeting their own needs, in-
cluding getting assistance with returning to a positive emotional state
following some frustrating or upsetting experience. If you are an infant
and you are frightened, hungry, cold, or angry, you can cry. If you are a
76 Parenting Behavior and the Parent-Child Relationship
four year old and your parent is busy but you want her attention, you
can whine. If you are fourteen and you want your parents to know that
they do not understand you, you can shout. In these instances, the par-
ent may be striving to maintain his or her own positive emotional state
(e.g., relaxation, contentment), but the child’s bids for attention inter-
rupt and create new emotional states for the parent that are aversive
(e.g., annoyance, anger, fear). The parent is motivated then to respond
to the child’s bids for attention in some way, in order to reduce or elim-
inate these aversive emotions and return to a more comfortable emo-
tional state. The parent is not being selfish, just as the child’s some-
times noxious behaviors typically are not intended to upset the parent.
One of the reasons that dependency on caregivers is so prolonged
is that our brains are complex. Brain growth takes time, and healthy
functioning depends heavily on experience and stimulation. Preg-
nancy lasts long enough for the infant’s brain and other organ systems
to be “ready enough” to face the world, without lasting so long that it
destroys the mother’s body. Newborn infants are ill equipped for con-
trolling their own environments in order to reduce or increase stimula-
tion, avoid frightening or frustrating experiences, or soothe themselves
when distressed. Parents are met with the task of responding to their
infants’ changing emotions and behaviors within moments after the
baby is born. Just as a child needs her parent to help her regulate or
control her own emotional states, the parent needs for the child to be-
come good at self-regulating these emotional states, because the vigi-
lance and caregiving that is required is so demanding. If ten, fifteen,
and twenty year olds needed as much soothing as two year olds, par-
enting as we know it would be wildly unpopular (and we would be in
trouble as a species).
The co-regulation (i.e., shared control) of emotional states be-
tween parent and child is a critical part of the parent-child relationship
and the child’s social-emotional development (Field, ; Schore,
). In development, human interaction in predictable, long-lasting
interpersonal relationships is an essential part of the implementation
of psychological systems of self-control. As infants and young children,
we have shared experiences with our parents and other people during
these dyadic interactions. These experiences involve many aspects of
the external world and aspects of our internal, mental world (i.e., ob-
jects and events, attention, memory, knowledge, emotions). These are

intersubjective experiences shared between parent and child, involving
joint attention to the same experience, as well as joint thoughts, beliefs,
and emotions. These experiences of shared or co-regulated internal
states in the parent-child relationship have an impact beyond the mo-
ment. Over time, we come to internalize beliefs, rules, standards, and
expectations, based in part on our understanding of what our parents
think and feel (Demetriou, ).
Attachment and acceptance. The clearest example of co-regulation
in the family is the parent-child attachment system. Attachment pro-
motes survival through the establishment and maintenance of an en-
during emotional bond between the child and the parent. A parent
must be attuned to the child’s needs in order to provide an optimal en-
vironment for that child’s health and development. The parent must
be able to perceive when the child is in need, and must respond in a
timely and appropriate way; this requires sensitivity and responsive-
ness. To do so, the parent must also be motivated to care for the child;
this is the important role of love and warmth felt toward the child. The
child’s needs are many and varied, including a need for soothing due to
fear or some other negative emotion, for interaction and engagement,
for food, and for protection. In turn, as the child comes to have her
needs met in a consistent way, she will develop expectations and beliefs
that other people are trustworthy and dependable—a secure “internal
working model” of relationships. This is an essential developmental
task not only for the child but for the parent-child dyad (Bowlby,
).
Although nearly all children develop attachment relationships
with their parents, the security of those attachment relationships dif-
fers widely within families as well as between families. Researchers are
able to get some idea of the security of attachment within a parent-
child dyad by observing interactions between the child and parent
when they are reunited after a brief separation. Most young children
become frightened and upset when separated from a parent, but most
are relieved and easily soothed when reunited with the parent. How-
ever, a significant minority of young children shows behaviors that are
indicative of an insecure attachment relationship. They may or may
not become upset when separated from a parent, they may ignore or
avoid the parent upon reunion, or they may be inconsolable even after
the parent has attempted to soothe them. Still others may show incon-
sistent and unpredictable patterns of reactions to separation and re-
union, suggesting more serious disruptions in their attachment rela-
tionships (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall, ).
The emerging consensus based on many studies of attachment in
infancy and early childhood is that security of attachment is important
to the development of healthy, adaptive emotions and social behaviors.
Parental sensitivity and responsiveness are important components of
the attachment relationship, along with children’s attributes. Parenting
stress increases the likelihood of disruptions in parental sensitivity and
responsiveness, and the young child is more likely to show signs of in-
security in the attachment relationship. This link between parenting
stress and insecure attachment is strongest in families in which the par-
ent faces a number of other challenges, such as living in poverty or cop-
ing with family histories of violence, abuse, or neglect (Coyle, Rog-
gman, and Newland, ; Crnic and Low, ; Douglas, ;
Harmer et al., ; Jarvis and Creasey, ; Ostberg, ; Phelps,
Belsky, and Crnic, ; Scher and Mayseless, ; Teti, Nakagawa,
Das, and Wirth, ).
By comparison, studies of more severely disrupted or disorga-
nized attachment and maternal depression (one of the strongest corre-
lates of parenting stress) have not been as conclusive. This is because
there are subgroups of highly distressed parent-child pairs that show
distinct patterns of interaction that may have different implications for
parenting stress and children’s outcomes. For instance, some depressed
mothers have a tendency to be hostile and harsh in their caregiving be-
havior, whereas others tend to exhibit fearful and helpless behaviors
while interacting with their children. At the same time, some of the
children of depressed mothers show behaviors indicative of an insecure
attachment, whereas others may seem secure. This variability makes it
more difficult to identify systematic effects linking parental distress
and mental health with infant attachment security (Lyons-Ruth et al.,
).
The parent and child each have a job to do in the attachment re-
lationship in order for it to function well. The child must express needs
to the parent in a comprehensible and predictable way, and the parent
must determine, attend to, and fulfill the child’s needs in a compre-
hensible and predictable way. At the same time, the parent must be
able to allow the child to function on her own and to explore the world
around her so that she can develop normally. This system works well
for the majority of families because the child is able to place demands
on the parent and the parent is able to detect and respond to those de-
mands so that the child’s needs are met. This system works, in part, be-
cause of stress processes.
To illustrate this idea, consider the role of crying in infancy.
When an infant becomes frightened or hungry, he will cry; he does not
yet have a spoken language to communicate his distress, but he does
not need language for this purpose. Crying is very arousing and poten-
tially distressing to those who hear it. The acoustic features of infant
cries—particularly if the infants are at risk for problems in health and
development—lead to a physiological stress reaction in adults. Crying
works because it leads to arousal in parents. This emotional response
provides the motivation for parents to meet the infant’s needs and thus
improve chances of survival. Studies of adults’ subjective experiences
of listening to crying infants have demonstrated that we are aware that
listening to the cry is an unpleasant and potentially distressing experi-
ence (Zeskind et al., ). It is likely that for some parents persistent
infant crying leads to longer lasting parenting stress.
The role of infant crying in parent-infant communication is just
one example of the numerous experiences in the daily lives of parents
that can contribute to the development of parenting stress. Stress
mechanisms are emotional mechanisms, and are a fundamental part of
parenting and the parent-child relationship because they have been
and continue to be fundamental to our survival. Thus individual dif-
ferences in coping with parenting stress have been and continue to be a
critical part of adjustment to child rearing.
Child-rearing Practices
Warmth toward and acceptance of a child is conveyed through parents’
child-rearing practices. Parents who are themselves distressed and who
report greater stress in the parenting role are more likely to be punitive,
hostile, harsh, and rejecting in their behavior toward their children
(Baker, Heller, and Henker, ; Calam, Bolton, and Roberts, ;
Lovejoy, Weis, O’Hare, and Rubin, ; Peris and Baker, ). A
number of studies across a variety of cultures and age groups point to a
straightforward conclusion—children who interpret their parents’ be-
haviors as emotionally rejecting are at greater risk for developing be-
havioral and emotional problems, including various forms of psycho-
pathology such as conduct disorder, substance abuse, and depression
(Rohner and Britner, ).
The day-to-day interactions between parents and their children
convey messages about how those children are regarded by their par-
ents. Daily stressors in the lives of families are known to disrupt patterns
of parent-child interaction. With more parenting stress comes a host of
planned and reactive parenting behaviors and practices that are harsher
and less consistent, compared to the parenting seen in families in which
stress is low. These hostile exchanges between parents and their children
are especially common in families in which parenting stress is high and
the children are showing early signs of escalations in aggressive behav-
ioral problems (Crnic and Low, ; Patterson, ).
Parenting style. Research spanning five decades has established a
connection between parenting behaviors and children’s developmental
outcomes (e.g., emotions, social behaviors, cognitive skills). These
studies have relied on a variety of types of samples, ranging from large
community samples to small samples of children and parents who use
mental health clinics. This research has shown that children and ado-
lescents who are more socially competent and emotionally well-
adjusted live in homes in which their parents are involved, supportive,
consistent, and not harsh and reactive.
Authoritative parenting is defined as supportive behavior coupled
with firm and consistent establishment and enforcement of rules and
standards of behavior. It has been linked to the most positive outcomes
in the cognitive and social-emotional domains of human develop-
ment. This happens, in part, because children of warm, involved par-
ents are more likely to be open to their parents’ socialization influ-
ences, and because their parents model self-controlled and responsive
ways of solving problems and interacting with others. In addition,
children whose parents are invested, consistent, and caring are more
likely to interpret their parents’ behaviors as being indicative of love
and acceptance. Parenting that is more reactive and overly harsh (i.e.,
authoritarian) is more likely to be interpreted by children as rejection.
It also teaches children problematic approaches to problem solving
and social interaction (Baumrind, ; Maccoby and Martin, ;
Rothbaum and Weisz, ; Patterson, ; Rohner, ).
Authoritative parenting is, by definition, active engagement in
the parenting role. This includes showing concern for and warmth to-
ward the child, but also includes clearly communicating and frequently
reinforcing expectations about how the child should behave. Thus,
when the child does misbehave, there are consequences. However, au-
thoritative parents also are quick to reward and reinforce their chil-
dren’s appropriate and competent behaviors. In contrast, authoritarian
parenting is typified by harsh, reactive, and sometimes inconsistent
child-rearing practices. On average, parents who show authoritative ap-
proaches to child rearing have the least parenting stress, whereas those
showing elevated levels of distress tend to be more authoritarian in their
parenting behaviors (Aunola, Nurmi, Onatsu-Arvilommi, and Pulk-
kinen, ; Emery and Tuer, ; Ohan, Leung, and Johnston, ;
Reitman, Currier, Hupp, Rhode, Murphy, and O’Callaghan, ).
Although the findings just described are robust, it is noteworthy
that there are likely cultural differences in the connections between
parenting behavior and children’s developmental outcomes. The vast
majority of the studies that have been done have focused on middle-
class European Americans; a similarly large research literature on non-
white families might yield different results. Furthermore, parenting
practices interact with children’s own attributes (e.g., temperament) in
causing the differences in children’s social, emotional, behavioral, and
cognitive outcomes that we see. It is important to consider these trans-
actions between cultural contexts, parenting environments, and chil-
dren’s individual differences.
Discipline practices. Much of the research on parents’ behaviors
with their young children has focused on discipline. Discipline in-
cludes parenting behaviors that are used to punish a child for misbe-
having and to reward a child for behaving appropriately. Although
most research and theory have focused on the effectiveness of the vari-
ous ways in which parents respond to child misbehavior, the impor-
tance of proactive parenting must also be considered. Proactive or pre-
emptive strategies include parenting behaviors that are used before a

child misbehaves, in order to reduce the likelihood of future misbe-
havior and maximize the likelihood of future appropriate behavior.
Some parents carefully monitor the environment and attempt to cir-
cumvent potential child misbehavior by redirecting the child’s behav-
ior and attention before the misbehavior can occur. Parents who do
this tend to have children who are more self-controlled and well ad-
justed (Dishion and McMahon, ; Gardner, Sonuga-Barke, and
Sayal, ; Kerr and Stattin, ).
Timing of parental behaviors is important. To be effective, the
proactive or reactive parenting behavior must occur in a way that makes
clear to the child the contingent association between the behavior and
the consequences. Discipline can be thought of as a planful set of strate-
gies, but it also includes behaviors that represent parents’ unplanned re-
actions to their children’s actions. For example, a parent may respond to
a child’s misbehavior by shouting first and then doing something else
such as giving a “time out” or spanking. Or a parent may inadvertently
laugh or smile at first when the child misbehaves, before stepping in to
redirect or punish the child. Parents’ responses to children’s behaviors
do not have to be planfully carried out in order to operate as powerful
punishers or reinforcers. For instance, in families in which children
show persistent or increasing levels of aggression and noncompliance,
parent-child interactions typically include highly reactive parenting
that is inconsistent and intermittently permissive and harsh. In addi-
tion, it is when parents react in anger and without self-control that
physical abuse is most likely to occur—even if that intense reaction oc-
curs as part of a planned response to a child’s behavior. Timing is im-
portant, but so are the parent’s emotions at the time that discipline is
delivered (Deater-Deckard and Dodge, ; Patterson, ).
As children mature, gain competencies, and become more au-
tonomous, the strategies that most parents use to redirect or punish
misbehavior become more verbal, with greater emphasis on reasoning
and explanation. There are also big differences between parents in the
types of proactive strategies and discipline methods they use, based on
the parents’ values and beliefs, their knowledge about their children,
and the information that they have about the effectiveness of various
strategies (Holden, ; Kuczynski, Kochanska, Radke-Yarow, and

Girnius-Brown, ).
Of the many methods of child discipline, physical punishment
has received the greatest attention because of its links with parental dis-
tress, child abuse potential, and child adjustment problems. Various
forms of physical discipline (e.g., spanking, swatting, paddling) and
restraint are most common during the toddler years. Physical punish-
ment is widely used by parents, and the majority of adults in the
United States believe that it is acceptable parenting behavior. Most
parents in this country use physical punishment at least on occasion,
and many of these do so on a regular basis (Milburn and Conrad, ;
Socolar and Stein, ). A number of studies have demonstrated that
physical punishment is used more frequently by African American par-
ents compared to European American parents. However, the nature
and consequences of this ethnic group difference remain largely unex-
plored, compared to the much larger body of research on discipline
practices in middle-class European American households (e.g., Kelley,
Power, and Wimbush, ).
Some of our collaborative research has examined the links be-
tween stressful family circumstances, physical punishment, and chil-
dren’s behavioral problems, with an emphasis on the exploration of
ethnic group similarities and differences. We have investigated these
processes as being part of multiple risks for aggressive behavior prob-
lems, ranging from children’s individual attributes (e.g., temperament)
to peer environments, to family socioeconomic resources to parenting
practices. Within this broader framework, we have focused specifically
on identifying whether and how parental use of harsh physical disci-
pline connects with the development of children’s aggression and con-
duct problems in middle childhood and adolescence (Deater-Deckard
and Dodge, ; Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, and Pet-
tit, in press).
This research has been based on data from the ongoing Child
Development Project or CDP, a longitudinal study of about six hun-
dred youth and their families (Dodge, Pettit, and Bates, ). The
study began when the children were four years old; they are now young
adults. Prior to or during the first year of kindergarten, the children’s
mothers were interviewed about a wide variety of potential risk factors

for their children’s social and emotional development. Part of this in-
terview included questions pertaining to the mother’s use of physical
punishment and its frequency and severity. Mothers also answered
questions regarding the child’s history of experiencing physical abuse.
In addition to completing the interviews, mothers provided ratings on
a number of questionnaires assessing their discipline behaviors and
their children’s behavioral and emotional problems. In the school set-
ting, teachers and peers provided reports of children’s social-emotional
adjustment, and once the children were older, their own self-reported
problems were gathered.
The CDP study showed that children who were spanked more of-
ten and more severely were more likely to be rated by mothers, teachers,
and other children as having more conduct problems and as being more
aggressive. This finding is consistent with many prior studies (Gershoff,
; Straus, ). The magnitude of this effect was modest when the
entire sample of children was considered. A different story emerged
when we studied the African American and European American chil-
dren separately. We found that among the African American families,
children’s externalizing behavior problems and physical punishment
were unrelated. In contrast, we found that more spanking was associ-
ated with more child behavior problems for European American chil-
dren. This finding was consistent from middle childhood to late adoles-
cence, and we have since found the same result in a different sample of
African American and European American families.
Others have found the same pattern for African American and
European American families (for a review, see Deater-Deckard, Dodge,
and Sorbring, in press). The most recent replication comes from the
longitudinal Pittsburgh Youth Study (Farrington, Loeber, and Stout-
hamer-Loeber, ). In that study,  percent of the European Amer-
ican boys who were spanked showed violent behavior later, compared
to  percent of the European American boys who were not spanked. In
contrast, the prevalence of violent behavior among African American
boys did not vary as a function of whether or not they had been
spanked in childhood ( percent if spanked, versus  percent if not
spanked). This pattern of ethnic group differences is not limited to
parental physical punishment and children’s behavior problems. For
instance, authoritative parents’ behaviors (e.g., encouraging achieve-

ment, using reasoning) may not be related to achievement motivation
and academic success in the same ways for ethnic majority and minor-
ity children and adolescents (Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of
the National Advisory Mental Health Council, ; Whaley, ).
There are meaningful cultural group differences in the standards
and beliefs that people hold regarding appropriate parenting practices.
These norms influence what a child construes from his or her parents’
behaviors. Accordingly, it is the meaning that a child applies to physi-
cal discipline that is important in explaining the influences that this
discipline strategy has on the child (Deater-Deckard and Dodge,
). If a child views this behavior as harsh and rejecting, then the be-
havior is more likely to have negative consequences for the child. It is
when children perceive their parents’ discipline behaviors as harsh and
rejecting that we find higher levels of child behavioral and emotional
problems (Rohner, Kean, and Cournoyer, ).
The emotional tone or quality of the parent-child relationship is
a critical part of how children interpret their parents’ discipline behav-
iors. In the CDP study, higher amounts of physical punishment were
linked with higher levels of child aggressive behavior only in those
families in which mothers were observed to lack warmth in their inter-
actions with their children. This was true regardless of ethnicity. The
same result has been obtained in several other studies (e.g., McLoyd
and Smith, ). It is likely that it is the combination of physical pun-
ishment and cold or harsh emotion that leads children to interpret
such parental behavior as “rejection.” Consistent with this interpreta-
tion are data from several studies, including the CDP, showing that
there are not ethnic group differences in the links between physical
abuse and children’s behavioral problems. It is likely that abusive par-
enting is interpreted in much the same way across cultures, and is
viewed by children around the world as indicative of parental rejection
(Deater-Deckard et al., in press).
A skeptic could argue that these findings are an artifact, whereby
the most common measures of “positive” and “harsh” parenting are
based on European middle-class views (Kelley et al., ), or that
there are not any meaningful cultural group differences within the
United States in the links between parenting and child behavior
(Rowe, Vazsonyi, and Flannery, ). The answer is not yet clear;
more research focusing on cultural variations in children’s perceptions
of parenting behavior is needed before stronger conclusions can be
drawn.
Child abuse. Even though parents are given leeway in deciding
how to rear their own children, communities and societies generally do
not tolerate parents’ committing abuse or maltreatment. There is little
tolerance for abusive parenting because the stakes are so high; chil-
dren’s psychological and physical well-being are severely compro-
mised. Abuse can result in disfigurement, long-lasting or permanent
psychological damage, or death. Rather than reiterate the findings
from the large literature on child maltreatment (see Cicchetti, Toth,
and Maughan, ), I will instead focus on a few salient points re-
garding parenting stress specifically.
Physical abuse involves restraining, striking, or otherwise punish-
ing the child in a way that leads to physical harm. Authorities respon-
sible for monitoring and preventing child abuse in their communities
typically rely on evidence such as lasting bruises and abrasions,
wounds, or broken bones, in addition to accounts from perpetrators,
victims, and eyewitnesses. By comparison, psychological abuse is more
widespread, though more difficult to detect. Whereas its effects are not
as obvious, they may be more insidious than neglect or physical abuse.
Sexual abuse is defined as any kind of sexual contact with a minor, re-
gardless of whether it is accompanied by coercion or force (Gershater-
Molko, Lutzker, and Sherman, ). Parents or caregivers are some-
times the abusers, but this is not always the case. Furthermore, abuse
comes in different forms, although many children who experience one
form of abuse experience multiple forms because these different abu-
sive behaviors often co-occur within the same family. For example,
many children who are abused also are neglected, whereby their basic
needs of comfort, shelter, food, and supervision are not met.
Parenting stress is implicated as one of many factors leading up to
incidents of abuse and maltreatment of children (Chan, ; Holden
and Banez, ; Mash and Johnston, ). Parents who experience
persistent negative emotions (e.g., fear, anger, sadness) and who have a
difficult time controlling those negative emotions are at greater risk for
carrying out child abuse when parenting stress is elevated. This con-
nection between reactive anger, parenting stress, and child abuse has
been found in a number of studies examining children of different ages
and living in different cultures (Balge and Milner, ; Lam, ;
Mammen, Kolko, and Pilkonis, ; Rodriguez and Green, ).
Although parenting stress is usually present when an adult abuses
a child, it is important to realize that stress is not a necessary precipi-
tating factor on its own. Most parents experience parenting stress, but
they do not abuse their children. On the other hand, child maltreat-
ment can occur when the parent believes that what he or she is doing is
appropriate and effective. The parent may have strongly held attitudes
about how children should be treated and disciplined. Sometimes
these values conflict with the prevailing beliefs of a culture, society, or
community; such values sometimes include endorsement of practices
that most regard as abusive. It is when beliefs about the appropriate-
ness of harsh parenting practices are coupled with reactive anger and
parenting stress that the likelihood of abuse is maximized (Crouch and
Behl, ). Thus, reducing the incidence of child abuse is not only a
matter of reducing parental distress. It also requires changes in parental
attitudes and beliefs, and education about alternative methods of dis-
cipline.
Parents’ Social Cognitions

Just as significant as the link between parenting stress and behavior is
the parent’s perceptions, attitudes, and appraisals of possible responses
to stressors (be they controlled or involuntary). Cognitions are an es-
sential element of the parenting stress process, and they provide part of
the foundation of the bridge between stress and parenting behavior.
Much of the research on parents’ social cognitions emphasizes
two related levels of thinking. The first is schematic or implicit cog-
nition, which operates outside of conscious awareness. The second
is event-dependent or explicit cognition, which works at the level of
conscious awareness and involves reflection and manipulation of
thoughts. A variety of types of cognitions are present at each level, such
as the parent’s perceptions of her or his experiences, causal explana-
tions for why things happen (e.g., attributions), and evaluations of
whether things are as they should or could be (e.g., self-efficacy be-
liefs). Individual differences in social cognitions have implications for

the way parents respond to children’s behaviors and think about their
own feelings about their children (Bugental and Johnston, ).
Knowledge, Goals, Attributions

In parenting, knowledge really is power. Most parents accumulate this
knowledge and apply it every day in their parenting, without being
aware of it. Effective parenting that meets the needs of the child and
leads to optimal developmental outcomes (e.g., social competence,
mental health) is most likely to occur when the parent has detailed
knowledge and understanding of his or her child’s attributes. Under-
standing a child also involves knowledge about the situations that are
most likely to create problems for the child or parent, including an ap-
preciation of how the child will react under particular conditions. Un-
derlying knowledge about the child and the way in which that knowl-
edge is applied as the parent responds to a child’s needs or difficulties
may be as important as the types of parenting behaviors a parent shows
(Grusec, Goodnow, and Kuczynski, ; Hastings and Grusec, ).
Knowing about and understanding a particular child’s tenden-
cies is no doubt informed by the parent’s more general knowledge
about what is and is not “typical” for children of the same gender and
age. Being well-prepared and being knowledgeable about parenthood
and children’s development are linked with lower levels of hostile reac-
tive parenting and better child social-emotional and cognitive out-
comes. The impact of knowledge and preparation on effective parent-
ing may be even stronger among groups of parents who are at
heightened risk for experiencing parenting stress, such as teenage
mothers (Dukewich, Borkowski, and Whitman, ; Miller, Miceli,
Whitman, and Borkowski, ).
Parents use knowledge about a child when they are noticing and
making appraisals about a child’s behavior. Recall from the first chap-
ter the description of the cognitive stress model (Lazarus, ), in
which the individual must notice a potential stressor, use existing
knowledge to ascertain whether this stressor is threatening or disturb-
ing, and then invoke, evaluate, and modify coping strategies if a stress
reaction occurs. Part of the appraisal process involves the formation of
goals and assessment of whether attainment of those goals is being

thwarted. For a parent, this goal may be a very specific one in the heat
of the moment (e.g., “I’m going to get this child to stop crying”), or
may be a very global one that unfolds over a long period of time (e.g.,
“I want my child to grow up to be happy and self-sufficient”). Does the
parent form a goal that emphasizes the parent’s own needs, the child’s
needs, or the need of maintaining a positive relationship with the
child? The goal that is formed can strongly determine how it is that a
parent responds to a child’s behavior (Hastings and Grusec, ).
Distress can work to limit the individual’s ability to effectively
control attention and conscious processing of information that is part
and parcel of goal formation, appraisal, and regulation of the stress re-
action (Aspinwall, ). Chronic parenting stress can constrain or
bias a parent’s access to knowledge, thereby making it harder for the
parent to accurately identify the cause of a stressor or to evaluate
whether his or her attempts at coping are working. In addition, dis-
tressed parents are more likely to attend to and think about the stress-
or itself, as well as the upsetting emotions that accompany the stressor.
They are more likely to place blame on their children or themselves
when making attributions about why their children behave the way
they do. Importantly, children of distressed parents also show these
patterns in their social cognitions. For example, depressed parents may
be modeling all sorts of counterproductive thought processes for their
children, and their interactions with their children tend to be more
conflicted and unpredictable—all of which may promote similar bi-
ases in their children’s ways of thinking about their worlds (Garber and
Martin, ). There also may be genetic influences on social cogni-
tions that are transmitted across generations, through biological con-
straints on attention and memory mechanisms.
The most widely studied bias in parent thinking is the tendency
to view children’s annoying or inappropriate behaviors as arising from
within the children themselves. Over the course of a difficult interac-
tion with their children, parents are more likely to infer that the chil-
dren’s annoying behaviors are caused by a willful intention to misbe-
have. Parents who make such attributions are more likely to get angry
and to use more reactive and harsh discipline strategies. They also may
be more likely to have an external locus of control, whereby they view
other people and events as being primarily responsible for the things
that happen to them. In general, this research suggests that parents
who rely on these types of thoughts (and particularly those who easily
become angry) tend to be more harsh and reactive. They are less likely
to ponder the possible situational factors (e.g., illness, tiredness) that
could be causing their children’s noxious behaviors. They also are more
likely to feel powerless as parents, a component of self-concept that can
further promulgate negative feelings and harsh reactive parenting (Bu-
gental and Johnston, ; Dix, , ; Gondoli and Silverberg,
; Slep and O’Leary, ). The connection between parents’ be-
liefs about their own effectiveness and attributions about the causes of
their children’s misbehaviors arises in part from the parents’ own child-
hood experiences. Adults’ memories of how conflict was resolved when
they were children and the security of their attachment relationships
may be particularly salient (Grusec and Mammone, ).
Data from the  children in the Child Development Project
have been informative. These data have shown that family stress (mea-
sured broadly, including sociodemographic factors like single parent-
hood and stressful life events) accounted for the well-established link
between low socioeconomic status (lower income, less education) and
use of harsher discipline practices (Pinderhughes et al., ). More to
the point, the connection between family stress and harsh parenting
was explained by parents’ thoughts and emotions, including their hos-
tile attributions about and perceptions of the child’s behavior (e.g.,
“Children misbehave to make their parents angry”) and their emo-
tional distress. Parents with less education, less income, and fewer so-
cial resources tended to use harsher methods of discipline, in part be-
cause they experienced higher levels of chronic stress. Furthermore,
this chronic stress contributed to negative emotions that, when ac-
companied by hostile beliefs about their children’s misbehaviors, pro-
moted harsher parenting. The data from the CDP study demonstrate
that stressors, emotions, social cognitions, and behaviors operate to-
gether in the parenting processes underlying the development of chil-
dren’s problem behaviors.
The link between low parental distress and optimal parenting be-
havior probably has its roots in maternal social cognitions that exist
prior to the child’s birth. The way in which a parent thinks about the
baby before birth is integral to the formation of a responsive and sensi-

tive parent-child relationship. During the pregnancy, some parents
think little about the individuality of the fetus or about the new rela-
tionship that is being formed with the child before birth. In contrast,
some parents think of the fetus as someone who will arrive with her or
his own distinctive attributes and characteristics. As it turns out, there
is wide variation in the extent to which expectant mothers engage in
thinking about the individuality of their babies. Furthermore, preg-
nant mothers who have concepts of their infants’ individualities are
more likely to be sensitive and responsive in their caregiving, and to
have infants with secure attachment relationships (Benoit, Parker, and
Zeanah, ). A speculative hypothesis is that maternal distress dur-
ing pregnancy interferes with the mother’s developing beliefs about her
baby—interference that may increase the likelihood of problems aris-
ing in the mother-infant relationship after the baby is born.
To sum up, harsh and punitive parenting behavior is more likely
to occur when parenting stress is elevated. Distressed parents who also
tend to become angry quickly and with little provocation are at greater
risk of perpetrating child abuse, particularly if they endorse and fre-
quently use harsh methods of discipline. Parenting stress is more likely
to arise for parents who lack knowledge about child rearing, including
the particular details about their children’s common and idiosyncratic
needs and tendencies. In addition, parents who are distressed are more
likely to believe that their children’s noxious behaviors are intentional,
which further increases the likelihood that harsh parenting behavior
will occur.
Biological Factors
In this chapter, I have described the connection between parenting
stress, child rearing, and children’s development by emphasizing some
of the psychological aspects of family life—specifically, parents’ behav-
iors and social cognitions. Biological components also should be con-
sidered. Two areas of research that touch on some of the biological
mechanisms involved in the link between parenting stress, parental
functioning, and child adjustment and health are psychophysiology
and genetic factors.
Psychophysiology
Recall from the first chapter the physiological aspects of the stress reac-
tion. The autonomic nervous system or ANS ensures that we react to
potentially dangerous or otherwise threatening information in a way
that gets our attention and causes us to react to the stressor. The activ-
ity of the ANS can be represented in many ways, because numerous
physiological systems (e.g., cardiovascular, endocrine) are involved. By
way of illustration, I will focus on one area of research that I have de-
scribed in some detail in this chapter—depression and parenting be-
havior.
People who have more severe symptoms of depression are more
likely to show greater brain activity in the right frontal lobe of the cere-
bral cortex, relative to the activity in the left frontal lobe. This is a part
of the brain that is involved in negative emotions (such as fear and sad-
ness), which are linked to social withdrawal and inhibition. In con-
trast, people who are not experiencing symptoms of depression show
more activity in the left frontal lobe, that part of the brain involved in
controlling motivation to approach new things and people. More gen-
erally, these frontal regions of the brain include neural systems that are
involved in the control of perceptions, cognitions, emotions, and be-
haviors. These systems are thought to develop in part based on experi-
ence, whereby environmental influences constrain the connections be-
tween neurons. These connections probably become less malleable as
we grow older (Ashman and Dawson, ).
On average, depressed parents are less able to optimally model
emotional expression and ways of regulating emotions. This is espe-
cially apparent in their interactions with their children. In studies ex-
amining the face-to-face interactions between mothers and their in-
fants, researchers have found that depressive symptoms can disrupt
typical interpersonal dynamics. The parent is more likely to show neg-
ative emotions, to withdraw from interaction, to be overly intrusive
and stimulating, and to be less predictable and responsive to the infant.
The infant is more likely to be irritable, to withdraw from the interac-
tion, and to soothe herself even though self-soothing strategies are not
well developed at this young age. Disruptions in interactions help ac-
count for mother-infant similarity in patterns of brain activity and
physiological stress response. Thus children with highly distressed par-

ents may be more likely to be exposed to parenting environments that
are not optimal for the child’s developing physiological systems in-
volved in the self-regulation of emotions, cognitions, and behaviors
(Ashman and Dawson, ; Field, ).
As important as parent-infant interaction influences may be, the
physiological underpinnings of distress and self-regulation begin oper-
ating when the infant is still developing in the womb. In the short
term, newborns of depressed mothers show signs of heightened psy-
chophysiological stress reactivity (e.g., higher cortisol, lower vagal
tone) that are similar to the same indicators in their mothers prior to
delivery, in the second and third trimesters of their pregnancies. In ad-
dition, while in the womb, the babies of depressed expectant mothers
are more physically active and reactive, perhaps because maternal
stress-related biochemistry acts to create a lower threshold for stimula-
tion in the infants. The mechanisms are not well understood yet, but
this research suggests that maternal distress during pregnancy may
have influences on the developing infant and thereby increase the
baby’s vulnerability to stress after birth and later in childhood (Field,
).
Mother-infant similarity in physiological systems also implicates
genetic factors. The connections between parenting stress, parenting
behaviors, and child behaviors emerge in part as a function of the par-
ent’s individual attributes. As discussed in chapter , the individual at-
tributes that pertain most directly to parenting stress, such as self-reg-
ulation, depressive symptoms, and personality traits, are associated
with parenting behavior in predictable ways. As described in the cur-
rent chapter, parents who have poorer self-regulation, who experience
more frequent and reactive negative emotions, and who have a ten-
dency to become depressed or hostile when distressed are more likely
to be withdrawn or reactive in their parenting. Several decades of be-
havioral genetics research (based on studies of humans and animals)
provides clear evidence of genetic influences on these and other aspects
of individuality (Plomin, ), as do several more recent studies that
examined specific parenting behaviors such as warmth, hostility, and
approaches to controlling children (Kendler, ; Losoya, Callor,
Rowe, and Goldsmith, ; Neiderheiser et al., ).
In most families, parents and children share genes as well as envi-

ronments. These genetic influences operate in conjunction with envi-
ronmental factors to produce the wide variation that we see in chil-
dren’s stable and changeable characteristics. Recognizing that genes
and family environments are confounded and that genes and environ-
ments interact to produce these individual differences has implications
for the way that scientists think about the bridge between parental dis-
tress and child functioning, as will be considered in detail in the next
chapter.
Conclusion
Parenting behavior and the stress of parenthood influence each other.
When parenting stress is high, parental cognitions and behaviors
change and problems in parenting and the parent-child relationship
can arise or grow. In turn, these difficulties (such as harsh and reactive
or cold and withdrawn parenting) can create more stressors for the par-
ent and family.
Parenting is often thought of as the behavior that a parent directs
toward a child and that the child “receives.” However, parenting is not
that simple, because children influence the feelings, thoughts, and be-
haviors of their parents as well (Bell and Chapman, ). Through
daily exchanges and interactions with a child, a parent learns how it is
that the child is likely to respond to various parenting behaviors, in
much the same way that a child gradually learns about his or her par-
ents. In the next chapter, I focus in more detail on the bi-directional
parent-to-child and child-to-parent effects that operate within parent-
child relationships and interactions.
5
Parent and Child Effects
The thing that impresses me most about America is the way parents
obey their children.
King Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor), March , ,
in Look magazine
Most of the past theorizing and empirical research on parenting

has emphasized the impact of parents on their children. However, chil-
dren also influence their parents, as the Duke of Windsor observed
whimsically nearly fifty years ago (though I doubt that this is a
uniquely American phenomenon). Parenting stress is a process, and it
develops and changes over time within an enduring parent-child rela-
tionship—a relationship in which the parent and child are co-contrib-
utors. Youngsters are not passive recipients of their experiences or of
their own development. The connection between parents’ and chil-
dren’s behaviors is bi-directional, with each partner influencing the
other (Bell and Chapman, ).
The idea of co-occurring parent and child effects is integral to
current theories. A comprehensive framework for defining parenting
stress and examining its causes and consequences is provided by Par-
ent-Child-Relationship or P-C-R theory, which includes at least three
separate domains that operate together (Abidin, ; see chapter ).
The parent domain comprises those aspects of parental distress that are
tied to the parent’s own self-concept, emotions, and experiences, and
includes low self-worth and feelings of depression and anxiety that
▪ 95 ▪
96 Parent and Child Effects
arise from or are linked to the parenting role. The child domain in-
cludes attributes of the child (from illness to disabilities to behavioral
and emotional difficulties) that contribute to parental distress. Child
effects may become more pronounced and predictable as children and
their parent-child relationships develop. This is because children’s tem-
peraments and personalities, strengths and weaknesses, and aversions
and preferences all are becoming more stable and clearer to their par-
ents, at the same time that the children are gaining autonomy and
competencies (Maccoby, ; Scarr and McCartney, ). The third
domain of P-C-R theory, parent-child dysfunction, represents problems
in the parent-child relationship and their interactions, and includes
conflict and hostility, as well as beliefs that the relationship is unre-
warding and not meeting expectations. The parent, child, and parent-
child relationship domains operate together as part of a stress and
coping process within a broader family system of individuals and rela-
tionships.
Bi-directionality and Causality

Up to this point, I have described theories and research findings per-
taining to parenting stress and its connections with parental function-
ing, child functioning, and the parent-child relationship. Theories
about the determinants of parenting behavior usually include the ex-
plicit statement that parents who are more distressed are more likely to
be less effective, if not downright inept, in their parenting behaviors.
This deterioration in the quality of parenting behavior leads to prob-
lems in children’s emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and physical devel-
opment. At the same time, parenting stress arises, in part, in response to
children’s attributes and behaviors (Abidin, ; Belsky, ; Deater-
Deckard, ).
Does the way that parents behave toward their children form the
causal link from parenting stress to children’s developmental out-
comes? And do children’s behaviors causally influence the experiences
of parenthood for their parents? Nearly all of the evidence pertaining
to the nature, causes, and consequences of parenting stress is based on
correlational data, in which patterns of associations, but not causation,
can be discerned. These research findings demonstrate that there are
indeed associations between parenting stress, parenting behavior, and

children’s developmental outcomes. Correlational evidence is impor-
tant and noteworthy, because it informs us about how things may be
operating in the real world. However, on their own, correlational data
cannot provide conclusive evidence of causal, bi-directional parent
and child effects. In the current chapter, I review tests of potential
causal influences, based on longitudinal studies (in which the tempo-
ral order of effects can be tested), experiments, and quasi-experimental
designs.
Longitudinal Studies
Longitudinal studies involve repeated assessments of the same factors
for the same individuals over time. By reassessing children’s attributes
and indicators of parents’ distress and coping, it is possible to examine
whether child effects at an initial time point predict later parenting
stress, or whether prior parenting stress predicts later child behavioral
or emotional difficulties.
Parent effects. Longitudinal research has provided evidence that
prior levels of parenting stress predict subsequent increases in chil-
dren’s behavioral and emotional problems (i.e., parent effects). In the
four-year Child Care and Family Project, or CCFP, we examined
whether several indicators of parenting stress and lack of social support
were associated with school-age children’s behavioral and emotional
problems, as reported by mothers and teachers. Parenting stress at the
time of the first assessment was one of the strongest predictors of in-
creases in mothers’ reports of their children’s externalizing problems
(e.g., aggression, conduct problems) and internalizing problems (e.g.,
depressive and anxious symptoms) over the four-year period. In con-
trast, parenting stress was only modestly associated with teachers’ rat-
ings of children’s adjustment problems (Deater-Deckard et al., ).
It should not be too surprising that parenting stress (which is a
component of the child’s home environment) was unrelated to the
child’s behavioral and emotional problems at daycare or school. These
are different settings. A mother’s and a teacher’s report of the same
child captures different aspects of that child’s behavioral and emo-
tional development. Most researchers find only modest agreement be-
tween parents’ and teachers’ ratings of the same children. This happens
for at least two reasons. First, children behave differently in different
settings and situations. Second, parents and teachers have different ref-
erence groups in mind when they complete their ratings of children’s
behaviors and emotions. A childcare provider or teacher often has
spent years interacting with children of a certain age, and has a differ-
ent understanding of what is “typical” compared to most parents. By
comparison, a parent usually has less experience interacting with and
observing many children, but knows her or his children very well, hav-
ing watched them grow up and change over a number of years.
Though they capture different information, both mothers’ and
teachers’ ratings are reliable and valid representations of children’s de-
velopment and well-being. Over the four-year period of the CCFP
study, individual differences in mothers’ and teachers’ reports of chil-
dren’s behavioral and emotional difficulties were comparably stable.
Furthermore, mothers’ reports of their children’s problem behaviors at
the time of the initial assessment were predictive of teachers’ reports of
the same children’s behaviors four years later. In addition, the overall
strength of the statistical prediction of children’s behavioral and emo-
tional problems, from indicators of the family environment such as so-
cioeconomic status and parents’ use of harsh discipline, was similar for
mothers’ and teachers’ reports. It is noteworthy that there was any sta-
bility in or statistical prediction of teachers’ ratings over the four-year
period, given that all of the children had changed schools (from
preschool to elementary), were rated by different teachers, and that
four years had passed.
Another lesson from the results just described is that the most
important psychological experience pertaining to parents’ distress may
well be parents’ interpretations of their children’s behaviors and attri-
butes. It is the way that the parent perceives the child’s behavior (“He’s
aggressive” or “He’s docile”) and the way those perceptions of child be-
havior are interpreted (“She’s a typical toddler” or “She’s a terror”) that
matter most to our understanding of why it is that a parent becomes
chronically distressed in the parenting role. Interestingly, parents can
and typically do hold in mind different appraisals of their sibling chil-
dren; they do not simply view all of their children in the same way.
Child effects. Longitudinal studies also have provided evidence
that children’s attributes, assessed at a particular point in time, influ-

ence subsequent increases in parenting stress. In one study, scientists
examined the impact of preschoolers’ behavior problems on changes in
subsequent levels of parenting stress for mothers and fathers of a di-
verse group of children, some of whom had developmental delays or
Down syndrome (Hauser-Cram et al., ). In families in which
mothers reported that their three-year-old children were high in be-
havior problems (e.g., aggression, noncompliance), child-domain par-
enting stress continuously increased over the following six years of the
study for both mothers and fathers. In contrast, there were no increases
in child-domain parenting stress among parents of children who were
low in behavioral problems at three years. The same pattern was found
for mothers’ parent-domain stress when preschool caregivers’ reports
of child behavior problems at three years of age were examined. This
result was obtained even after controlling statistically for effects of the
parents’ own attributes and coping strategies, including education,
marital status, problem-focused coping skills, effectiveness of social
support, and measures of problems and strengths in family relation-
ships. It also is noteworthy that the patterns of change in adults’ par-
ent-domain parenting stress scores were different from those found for
their child-domain stress scores, lending further credence to the dis-
tinction between these two domains of parenting stress.
Other longitudinal studies demonstrate how parent and child ef-
fects work in combination. This is exemplified in studies that highlight
the moment-to-moment sequences of behaviors that occur during
parent-child interactions. Although this approach has not been used to
examine parenting stress per se, it has been used extensively to examine
parent and child effects on various aspects and qualities of the parent-
child relationship that are known to be related to parenting stress
(Abidin, ). There is evidence from these types of studies of chil-
dren’s influences on parental behavior and parents’ influences on chil-
dren’s behavior, from early in children’s lives.
Before turning to the research literature, however, consider as an
example the sequential parent-child behaviors found in face-to-face
playful interactions between a parent and his or her infant. In these in-
teractions, the parent often will place the baby in her lap, and get close
to the baby’s face. Each partner in this exchange will take turns making
smiles, silly and surprising facial expressions, playful frowns, and fre-
quent vocalizations. In many cases, the infant already seems to know
that a parent is a fun playmate who will respond and mimic faces and
sounds. The parent also realizes that her part in this game not only in-
volves making faces and sounds, but also requires paying close atten-
tion to what her baby is doing and then responding in kind. If the baby
becomes upset, the parent usually realizes that it is time to try some-
thing else.
Scientists who have studied face-to-face exchanges between in-
fants and their mothers have discovered that these interactions are an
important part of their developing relationships (Cohn and Tronick,
; Jaffe et al., ). When the parent does not attend to or respond
sensitively to the infant’s behavioral suggestions (e.g., smiling, fussing,
looking away to avoid eye contact), the interaction is not as rewarding
for either partner and may cause both to feel distressed. Parent effects
are demonstrated most powerfully in the “still face” procedure, in
which the parent freezes and stops interacting with the infant. This
tends to quickly distress even very young infants (Field, ).
Some infants are not responsive to their parents’ attempts to in-
teract. Such infant behavior can result in interactions that are viewed
by the parent as unrewarding. For example, infants who have medical
problems or are recovering from problems at birth are less able to en-
gage in these coherent face-to-face interactions. Thus, for some parent-
child pairs, there is a lack of organization in the structure of their inter-
actions that arises from both parent and child effects. These difficulties
in interaction are associated with a number of factors, including ma-
ternal depression, premature birth, and low birth weight (Lester, Hoff-
man, and Brazelton, ; Lundy, Field, and Pickens, ).
Experiments
Longitudinal studies are useful because they allow researchers to exam-
ine changes in parenting stress and children’s developmental outcomes
over time, and then test whether temporal sequences involving
changes in parents’ and children’s attributes are predictable. However,
in order to draw stronger conclusions about likely causality, experi-
mental designs are needed in which specific factors or variables are in-
tentionally manipulated in order to see how these changes affect a

specified outcome.
Parent effects. The experimental design has been instrumental in
demonstrating parent effects on children. A number of studies con-
ducted decades ago exemplify this. In these experiments, children were
given the opportunity to see or play with novel and engaging toys, but
then were prohibited by an adult from touching or playing with the
toys while the adult left the room. Although there was considerable
variation in the extent to which children were able to comply with this
request (due to temperament and other factors), these studies showed
that the firmness and extent of restrictive control shown by the adult
before leaving the room had a demonstrable impact on whether chil-
dren complied or misbehaved and played with the toy. Thus experi-
mental manipulation of what the adults said and did influenced chil-
dren’s behavior in this tempting situation. Previous research also has
shown that children readily model adults’ aggressive behaviors (Mac-
coby and Martin, ).
More recently, parenting intervention studies have provided
compelling evidence of parent effects on children. Some interventions
change parents with respect to the way they think and feel about, and
behave toward, their children—and these changes in parenting pro-
duce changes in children’s behaviors. These intervention studies are
described in detail in Chapter .
Child effects. With respect to evidence for child effects, laboratory
experiments have shown that various aspects of children’s behavior
(e.g., dependence, attentiveness, and activity level) reliably predict
how parents or other adults will behave during interactions with them.
One example involved a “round robin” procedure whereby boys were
observed interacting with their own as well as other boys’ mothers.
Some of the boys were aggressive and oppositional, but others were
more typically prosocial in their behavior. Observations showed that it
was the child’s conduct-problem status that predicted antagonism in
the adult-child interactions, not the status of the mother (i.e., being a
mother of son with or without a behavioral disorder). This study was
taken as evidence that the higher levels of conflict that occur in parent-
child interactions of antisocial youth are causally influenced by the
child (Anderson, Lytton, and Romney, ).
Intervention studies also can be interpreted as showing evidence

of child effects on parents. Many of the interventions that have been
designed to reduce children’s behavioral and emotional problems tar-
get the children with a variety of therapies (e.g., drugs, education, and
social skills training). Interestingly, these interventions, when effective,
lead not only to reductions in children’s difficult behaviors such as hy-
peractivity and inattention, but cause the parents to become less dis-
tressed and show less harsh, reactive parenting. This can happen even
when parenting behavior is not the target of the intervention (e.g.,
Hinshaw et al., ; Wells et al., ). When experimentally in-
duced improvements in children’s behaviors are shown to promote im-
provements in parenting, this is strong evidence of a causal child effect.
Quasi-experimental Designs
Just as there are limitations to longitudinal studies, there are limita-
tions to experiments. Many of the questions being addressed in psy-
chological research do not lend themselves readily to experimental ma-
nipulation. By virtue of the fact that we are studying people, there are
moral and ethical constraints to what we can do in terms of experi-
mentation. Thank goodness. (Imagine randomly assigning newborn
children to parents!) Ecological validity is a less obvious but similarly
problematic concern. Although experimentally altering the research
participant’s experience is very useful for making inferences about
causality, often these manipulations do not represent what happens in
the real world, or it may be impossible to discern whether the manipu-
lation mimics a real world experience. For these reasons, quasi-experi-
mental research designs are another useful tool for examining bi-direc-
tional parent and child effects as they occur in families.
Quasi-experimental designs tend to utilize real-world or natural-
istic settings and experiences, and do not involve intentional manipu-
lation of variables by the experimenter. These designs make use of nat-
ural experiments involving factors that are thought to be of causal
importance. They have some of the advantages and limitations of ex-
perimental designs, and some of the advantages and limitations of cor-
relational and longitudinal designs. For example, behavioral genetic
studies (e.g., adoption and twin studies) constitute an area of quasi-
experimental research that has been used to identify potential bi-direc-

tional mechanisms in parent-child relationships. Not only is this ex-
ample useful for demonstrating quasi-experimental research designs,
but it also addresses the question of how it is that biology and environ-
ment work together in children’s development.
Sibling and behavioral genetic studies. Although still correlational
in nature, sibling studies are informative because they allow for the
testing of potential child effects in a way that is not permitted by tradi-
tional family studies, which include only one child per family. If it is
true that sibling differences in children’s attributes are associated with
differences in parenting stress within the same parent, then this would
be evidence that children’s behaviors or situations may be causally im-
pacting parenting. On the other hand, if parenting stress is much the
same for a parent regardless of which child in the family is being con-
sidered, then this suggests that child effects may not be all that impor-
tant in the link between parenting stress and children’s developmental
outcomes.
Most families include multiple children. In spite of living to-
gether and sharing the same parent or parents, siblings differ from each
other in their characteristics and behaviors. Furthermore, sibling dif-
ferences are associated with differences in the children’s relationships
with the same parent. Thus, within the same family, the child who is
better adjusted, does better in school, and who is more socially and
emotionally competent tends to have a warmer and more supportive
parent-child relationship. In addition, behavioral genetic studies indi-
cate that most environmental influences are nonshared. Nonshared en-
vironmental influences are those that cause sibling differences in chil-
dren’s attributes, rather than sibling similarities (Dunn and Plomin,
).
This raises an intriguing question. Do parents have different lev-
els of distress associated with different children within the same fam-
ily? This is a real possibility, in light of a P-C-R theory (Abidin, )
that highlights separate domains of distress that are tied to the parent’s
own attributes (e.g., depression, anxiety) and the child’s attributes or
situation (e.g., behavior problems, disability). It also is an interesting
question in light of theory and research regarding the role of parents’
social cognitions in parenting stress and behavior—specifically, the
types of attributions that parents make regarding how their child-rear-

ing practices influence their children’s behaviors and experiences. Par-
ents who have only one child (who therefore are not able to see first-
hand how remarkably different siblings can be) are more likely to
believe that their parenting practices are responsible for how their chil-
dren behave, think, and feel (Himelstein, Graham, and Weiner, ).
In our research, we examine some of the ways in which sibling
differences in children’s characteristics or behaviors map onto sibling
differences in parenting environments by using several types of study
designs. Typically, we assess a number of aspects of the parent-child re-
lationship through parents’ reports and our own observations, as well
as measuring each child’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral devel-
opment. In all of these studies, we attempt to isolate those aspects of
the parenting environment that are specific to each child in the same
family. For example, we interview parents of sibling children about
their use of various discipline strategies, and whether those strategies
differ for their two children. Recall Evelyn, the mother I described in
the opening chapter. She felt torn because she knew that her two chil-
dren required very different forms of discipline, even though it made
her feel terrible because she believed that treating her sons so differ-
ently was unfair. Clearly, her sons were having different experiences
with their mother. Assessing these “child specific” parenting environ-
ments within families has been a challenge, because most existing pro-
cedures and measures were not designed to be sensitive to within-fam-
ily differences in parenting, let alone child-specific components of
parenting stress within the head of the same parent.
A parent holds in mind perceptions of his or her children’s attri-
butes and behaviors, and these perceptions can be very different de-
pending on the particular child in question. When given the opportu-
nity to talk or write about their children’s personalities, behaviors, or
skills, parents readily describe what they see as differences in their chil-
dren. At the same time, there is wide variation across parents in the ex-
tent to which they see their sibling children as being different from one
another. These perceptions of sibling differences in behaviors are
strongly and consistently associated with differences in those same par-
ents’ feelings about their children. A parent who sees one of her chil-
dren as being far more demanding, intrusive, aggressive, or emotion-

ally unpredictable compared to that child’s sibling also is likely to feel
warmer and closer to the more “well-behaved” child.
Although differences in feelings about sibling children often
translate into differences in the parent’s behavior toward those chil-
dren, there is by no means a one-to-one correspondence. Certain com-
ponents of parenting behavior appear to be readily differentiated and
linked to a particular child in the family. However, the degree of differ-
entiation depends on the specific aspect of parenting in question. This
is illustrated in the results of the Childcare and Family Project (CCFP).
In the second wave of this four-year study, we visited the homes of
about one hundred families with two or more children who were be-
tween four and ten years of age, and interviewed the mothers and fa-
thers about their discipline strategies, as well as their perceptions of
and feelings about each child.
Parents reported that their children differed in behaviors such as
aggression and activity level, as well as predominant emotions such as
fearfulness and irritability. More to the point, we found that parents
were making a link between their sibling children’s differences in be-
haviors and attributes and differences in their own feelings about their
children. In general, the child who was regarded by the parent as being
more cooperative and less aggressive or happier and less irritable also
was regarded with more warmth and less negativity than his or her sib-
ling. This effect was found for the parent-child dysfunction scale of the
Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, ), suggesting that certain aspects
of parenting stress do differ within the mind of the same parent
(Deater-Deckard, ).
It is important to emphasize that the associations between sibling
differences in attributes and sibling differences in parenting environ-
ments were weaker when we examined indicators of parents’ strategies
for managing or punishing their children’s misbehaviors (i.e., parental
control strategies, including discipline). If a parent reported that she
tended to rely on physical punishment and restraint when disciplining
one child, she was more likely to do so with the other child, even if she
perceived the children to be quite different from one another. In other
words, indicators of parents’ warmth and hostility toward their sibling
children were more likely to be differentiated than were measures of

parental control of those children, a pattern that has been found in
other studies (Plomin, ).
There is no need to rely exclusively on parents to tell us about dif-
ferences in their sibling children’s behaviors, or differences in the ways
that parents behave toward their children. These differences also can be
easily observed. In a series of studies in-home assessments of parent-
child interactions and relationships were conducted using a simple pro-
cedure. The mother and child sit together in a comfortable place, and
they are given a game or task to complete. They are filmed (the camera
is in full view), but they are left for a while (typically about fifteen min-
utes in total). The same parent is filmed twice, interacting once with
each child. Even under these circumstances, where it is clear that they
are being observed, parents behave differently with their two children.
In the first study, we viewed archived films from the s and
s of mother-child interactions in about one hundred families who
were participants in the ongoing Colorado Adoption Project, or CAP
(Plomin and DeFries, ). The parents had two children in the study
who were two years apart in age on average. About half of these were
adoptive parents who were not related to either of their two children,
and the siblings were not biologically related to each other. The other
half of the sample of families included nonadoptive biological parents
who were related to both of their children (i.e., full siblings). During
the visit to the home, the mother was observed playing with each child
when that child was three years old. Thus, for any given family, the ob-
servations of each child were conducted about two years apart, because
the siblings were usually about two years apart in age. The mother and
child were given several things to do, including using modeling clay to
make a dog and playing together with a toy picnic set. These observa-
tions were brief, typically lasting from eight to twelve minutes in total
(Dunn and Plomin, ).
In a second and more recent study called TRACKS, we filmed
twenty minutes of mother-child interaction in the homes of  moth-
ers of .-year-old twins (Deater-Deckard et al., ). Half were ge-
netically identical twins and half were same-sex fraternal twins. Unlike
the CAP study described above, the mothers were observed interacting
separately with their twins on the same day. For about ten minutes, the
mother and child were filmed playing with a toy or game that they
chose. During the second ten-minute segment, they were asked to co-
operate to draw some pictures using an Etch-A-Sketch drawing toy.
Following filming, we derived data from the observed interac-
tions using the Parent-Child Interaction System or PARCHISY, a cod-
ing system that we developed for these studies. We assessed several
aspects of the child’s behavior, including the prevalence of noncompli-
ance (e.g., refusing to do what he is told), negative affect (e.g., anger),
positive affect (e.g., joy), independence, “on task” behavior and persis-
tence, verbosity, and responsiveness to the mother. Similarly, we as-
sessed the mother’s negative and positive affect, persistence, verbosity,
and responsiveness to the child, as well as her use of positive or sup-
portive control strategies (e.g., encouragement and praise of child) and
negative or restrictive control strategies (e.g., criticism, physical re-
straint, or manipulation). In addition, we measured conflict and coop-
eration, as well as the overall level of emotional reciprocity (shared pos-
itive affect, eye contact, well-integrated interaction).
We focused on the reciprocal, responsive exchange between the
mother and child. We called this dyadic mutuality (based on previous
research by Kochanska, b). We found that the same mother
showed different levels of mutuality with each of her two children, and
this was closely tied to the child’s responsiveness to the mother. Fur-
thermore, some of this child effect on mother-child interaction was
due to genetically influenced child attributes. On a related point, in
more recent research we have found that the dyadic mutuality between
mother and child is easily observed in families with older children, in
father-child as well as mother-child dyads, in poorer and more affluent
households, and in different ethnic groups (Deater-Deckard, Atzaba-
Poria, and Pike, in press).
Evocative gene-environment correlation. Behavioral genetic sibling
studies permit the examination of transactions between genetic and
environmental factors. In so doing, they also go further toward provid-
ing evidence of bi-directional parent-child effects. Decades of behav-
ioral genetics research (e.g., twin and adoption studies) have provided
clear evidence that siblings who are more similar genetically tend to be
more similar in their behaviors, emotions, cognitive skills, and mental
health outcomes. This has implications for the relationships that chil-
dren have with their parents, and that parents have with their children.
Children can behave in ways that elicit particular responses from their
parents and from other people inside and outside of the home. To the
extent that these eliciting behaviors are genetically influenced, this is
said to represent evocative gene-environment correlation, whereby a ge-
netic influence on behavior also influences the environments to which
the individual is exposed. When detected through a child genetic de-
sign in which families differ in the degree of sibling genetic similarity
(e.g., comparing identical and fraternal twins), genetic influences on
the way a parent behaves toward the sibling children is evidence of a
child effect (Plomin, ).
In the studies just described, we have found such evidence for a
variety of dimensions of parenting and the mother-child relationship
(Deater-Deckard and O’Connor, ). For mothers’ reports of their
own warmth toward their sibling children, as well as for objective ob-
servers’ ratings of mother-child dyadic mutuality, it is clear that the
more similar the siblings are to each other genetically, the more similar
are their experiences with the same mother. Identical twins had very
similar levels of dyadic mutuality with the same mother. In contrast,
fraternal twins and non-twin full siblings (who share some genes but
are not genetically identical) were moderately similar in their dyadic
mutuality with the same mother. Perhaps most striking was the finding
for the genetically unrelated adoptive siblings, who showed no similar-
ity whatsoever in their dyadic mutuality with the same adoptive
mother. Sibling genetic similarity accounted for sibling similarity in
responsiveness and emotional reciprocity with the same mother, which
itself was associated with sibling similarity in mother-child responsive-
ness and emotional reciprocity. Similar results have been obtained us-
ing both parents’ reports and observers’ ratings, based on samples of
school-age children as well as adolescents (e.g., Leve, Winebarger,
Fagot, Reid, and Goldsmith, ; Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hetherington,
and Plomin, ).
Nonshared environment. Siblings can have very different relation-
ships with the same parent, even after age, gender, and genetic effects
are controlled. This is referred to as a nonshared environmental influ-
ence, one that leads to the development of sibling differences above
and beyond differences that arise from genetic factors (Plomin, ).
We have explored potential nonshared environmental influences by

comparing genetically identical twins in the twin study described
above. This approach is particularly useful because differences between
identical twins must have some environmental source. If identical twin
differences can be measured, it is plausible to identify those aspects of
the environment that account for these differences.
Using ratings based on the observations of mother-child interac-
tions described above, as well as various parents’ self-reports and inter-
viewer ratings, we derived two sets of scores representing differences
between identical twins by subtracting the second-born twin’s score
from the first-born twin’s score. First, we computed identical twin dif-
ferences in behaviors of the twins themselves, such as differences in
their behavioral and emotional problems, and differences in their neg-
ative affect (e.g., anger), noncompliant behavior, positive affect (e.g.,
happiness), and “on task” behavior (e.g., persistence). Second, we
computed identical twin differences in the parenting to which they
were exposed, such as interviewers’ ratings of maternal harsh physical
discipline and observers’ ratings of the mother’s negative and positive
affect and positive and supportive control strategies (e.g., encourage-
ment, praise). Then we computed estimates of the strength of associa-
tion between these difference scores.
We found differences in the same mother’s feelings and behaviors
toward her identical twin children. It was clear that the mother had a
different relationship with each of her twins; she regarded each as a dis-
tinct individual and behaved differently when interacting with them
separately. In addition, within each family, one identical twin typically
showed more signs of behavioral and emotional difficulties, and more
negative and less positive affect, compared to her or his sibling. These
twin differences were very small for some pairs, moderate for others,
and quite large for still others.
More importantly, we found that within each family identical
twin differences in behaviors and emotions were associated with differ-
ences in their relationships with the same mother, in predictable ways.
The twin who was exposed to higher levels of maternal negative emo-
tions and harsh discipline, and lower levels of maternal warmth and
supportive control strategies, tended to show more behavioral and
emotional problems, more negative affect and less positive affect, more
noncompliance, and less “on task” persistent behavior. These links ul-
timately must be influenced via the environment, because differences
between identical twins are not due to differences in genes. However,
the data are not conclusive regarding causality; these differentiation ef-
fects may be due to child effects, parent effects, or both.
Passive gene-environment correlation. Up to this point, I have de-
scribed several ways in which genetic and environmental influences
may work together and influence the parent-child relationship and
parenting stress. However, there is another possibility. Simply by shar-
ing some of their genes, a parent and child are likely to resemble each
other in their behaviors, emotions, and cognitions.
Consider the host of adult individual attributes that are likely to
influence, and be influenced by, the adult’s parenting behaviors and ex-
periences. These might include skills and abilities (e.g., cognitive
skills), physical and mental health, temperament, and personality (to
name a few). Decades of research have led scientists to the conclusion
that there are often clear connections between adults’ individual attri-
butes and their parenting behaviors. Parents who experience fewer
anxiety and depressive symptoms, who are less reactive emotionally,
and who are better at planning and regulating their own thoughts,
emotions, and behaviors, are more likely to be parents that are more
patient, warm, and supportive and less reactive, harsh, or withdrawn in
their interactions with their children (Gotlib and Goodman, ;
Patterson, ).
Experiences influence these adult attributes, but biology also
matters. A number of twin and adoption studies have demonstrated
that there are genetic influences on personality, mental health, and
cognitive skills, and molecular geneticists are striving to identify spe-
cific genes that are associated with a variety of complex human traits in
adults and children alike. Genetic influences also play a role in parent-
ing behaviors and qualities of the parent-child relationship. Parent-
child similarity in attributes and behaviors toward each other corre-
sponds with parent-child genetic similarity. In most families, parents
pass on their genes as well as provide a home environment to their
children. This is referred to as passive gene-environment correlation (Plo-
min, ).
Accordingly, what may appear to be environmentally transmit-
ted from parent to child or vice versa may in fact be transmitted in part
or even entirely through shared genetic influences. For example, con-
sider a family where both parents have relatively poor self-control and
are often irritable and hostile toward others. One or both parents may
be experiencing serious symptoms of depression or anxiety. As noted
above, these personal attributes are influenced in part by genetic fac-
tors. Compared to other parents, these are more likely to be reactive
and harsh in their parenting and to have children who show poor self-
regulation and problems in social-emotional adjustment. The parents
and children share relationships, but they also share genes. The genes
that are influencing these aspects of emotion and behavior in the par-
ents also are likely to be influencing similar aspects of emotion and be-
havior in the children.
In the CAP and TRACKS studies described above, we found
some evidence of passive gene-environment correlation in the observa-
tions of mothers and children working together on some games and
tasks. For this analysis, we focused on the child’s and mother’s engage-
ment and involvement with the tasks. Parenting stress is known to be
greater among parents of children who themselves are more easily dis-
tressed, including youngsters who tend to be distractible and overac-
tive (i.e., frequently “off task”). This connection between parent and
child behavior could be due in part to overlapping genes in parents and
children (Fischer, ). In the CAP and TRACKS observational stud-
ies, the mother and child were genetically related in most of the fami-
lies. In the adoptive families, the parent and child were not even bio-
logical relatives.
We were not surprised to find that, overall, mothers who were
more involved in and engaged with the tasks (i.e., verbose, construc-
tive in their guidance, responsive to the child’s questions and requests)
had children who were more involved in and engaged with the tasks.
We found the strongest evidence of parent-child similarity in task en-
gagement in the genetically related mother-child pairs. In contrast,
adoptive mothers and children showed no similarity in their individual
engagement with the tasks. This suggests that shared genes between
parents and children helped account for some of the parent-child sim-
ilarity that we observed in task engagement (Deater-Deckard, Petrill,
Hwang, Cutting, and Plomin, ).
The same sort of passive gene-environment genetic mechanisms

are likely to be operating for many of the various components of indi-
vidual adaptation and parent-child interaction described throughout
this book. For example, part of the connection between parents’ levels
of distress and their children’s levels of distress appears to operate via
parental modeling of maladaptive thought processes (e.g., self-blame).
However, what may appear to be modeled ways of thinking by chil-
dren may in fact reflect parent-child genetic similarity in those genes
that influence cognitive mechanisms (Garber and Martin, ).
Few studies have rigorously tested for passive gene-environment
correlation effects, but some progress is being made through research
involving adoptive parents and children. These studies provide infor-
mation about how parenting and children’s behaviors are linked, aside
from effects that arise due to parent-child genetic similarity. Such con-
nections are referred to as shared environmental mechanisms, environ-
mental influences that lead to family member similarity in outcomes,
after genetic similarity has been controlled.
For example, consider research on parent-child attachment in
adoptive and fostering families. Recent studies suggest that the secu-
rity of mother-infant attachment includes moderate to substantial
shared environmental influences. Dozier and colleagues demonstrated
that there was similarity between foster mother and foster infant or
toddler attachment security, an effect that could not be attributed to
shared genetic influences because the foster mothers and children were
genetically unrelated (Dozier, Stovall, Albus, and Bates, ). This
finding is consistent with data from the TRACKS twin study (O’Con-
nor and Croft, ). Furthermore, there is evidence that adopted
children’s attachment security is associated with their adoptive parents’
parenting stress (Chisholm, ). These findings converge to suggest
that the connection between parenting stress and child attachment se-
curity that is often found in studies of biologically related parents and
children does not merely reflect passive gene-environment correlation
effects.
In closing, it is important to bear in mind the limitations of
quasi-experiment designs. The data are still correlational, and the re-
searcher is not able to manipulate the factors that are expected to be
causally important to the emergence of parenting distress and behav-
ior. In addition, because quasi-experimental designs do not use ran-

dom assignment of participants to different conditions, and special
populations are used (e.g., twins, adoptees), questions arise regarding
how broadly we can apply results obtained from these studies to fami-
lies in general. Quasi-experimental approaches are best used as com-
plementary tools, to be included along with experimental and correla-
tional methods, when evaluating the evidence for causal parent and
child effects.
Conclusion
Imagine a healthy, happy child who is suddenly and without warning
immersed in a world of hospitalizations, surgeries, and prolonged re-
cuperation because she is struck by a car while riding her bicycle on the
sidewalk. Consider the many effects of this single event on the child’s
parents, who beforehand were content and coping well with the day-
to-day stressors that life was throwing at them. Instantly, and for
months or years after, the parents are probably going to experience par-
enting stress arising not only from the accident itself but also its lasting
effects on their child’s health and well-being. It is easy to understand
that this awful event and its effects on the child caused the increase in
parenting stress.
Now imagine a hundred children and their parents who experi-
ence the same type of event. Before the accident, the adults already dif-
fer in the extent to which they are distressed in the parenting role. In
addition, the parents respond differently to the accident. Some adapt
well, but others do not. Some might even become ill and depressed.
The differences in parenting stress before and after the accident may or
may not influence the children’s outcomes. Even for what seems like a
straightforward example of a single event that has little or nothing to
do with the attributes of the parents or children involved, there are
complex causal effects linking how parents, children, and the entire
family cope and adapt. Consider how much more complex these bi-
directional influences are when the stressors are not single events but
many events stemming from many sources, including the child and
the parent.
Parents who are distressed are more likely to have children facing
minor to very serious challenges—challenges in their behaviors and

emotions, skills and competencies, and physical and mental health.
On average, the parent-child relationships in these families show signs
of, and further contribute to, distress and difficulties for parents and
children alike. Parents and children influence each other and their re-
lationships via bi-directional parent and child effects. Through these
interpersonal transactions, genetic and environmental influences work
together in complex ways to produce the wide range of individual vari-
ations in stress and adaptation that we see in families.
6
Family, Culture, Community
Parenting does not occur in a vacuum, and as a result some im-

portant questions arise regarding the connection between the family
and the larger community. To what extent should individuals and in-
stitutions outside of the family be directly or indirectly involved in
supporting or controlling adults in their roles as parents? How does
parenting stress operate within each parent, in light of the fact that
each parent lives in a family, community, and broader culture?
The family exists within an ever-changing social, political, eco-
nomic, and cultural milieu, all of which influence child rearing. The
importance of considering these other influences when studying the
family, parenting, and child development, cannot be overstated. This
“socioecological” framework places the individual child at the center of
an extended series of concentric spheres of influences. The microsystem
includes those domains of influence with which the child has direct
contact, such as parents, siblings, and peers. The mesosystem represents
the bridges between the environments that directly affect the child,
such as the links between home, school, and the child’s network of
friends. Macrosystem influences include environments or contexts that
influence the child indirectly through the parents, siblings, or friends.
▪ 115 ▪
116 Family, Culture, Community
Stress in the parent’s workplace and its effects on parenting are an ex-
ample. Further out in the layers of contextual influences are exosystem
factors that arise from the cultural group, nation, socioeconomic situ-
ation, and political system into which the child is born and raised. Fi-
nally, the chronosystem represents the idea that these contextual influ-
ences and all of the complex connections between them are changing
over time (Bronfenbrenner, ).
Multiple, co-occurring stressors across the different layers of en-
vironments accumulate and can work to further propagate problems
in the parenting role. At the same time, these other contexts provide
many potential resources for coping with stress in parenting. Resilient
parenting in the face of many distressing circumstances involves par-
ents’ individual attributes as well as access to and use of support from
other people in the family and community. Furthermore, families dif-
fer in their structures and cultures, as do communities and political en-
tities. All of these factors may matter in determining how parenting
stress unfolds over time, and how it can be minimized (Hammen,
).
Parents as Partners
The quality of a parent’s relationship with her or his partner is a key as-
pect of parenting stress and coping. For most parents, this relationship
serves as a primary source of comfort and support in facing the daily
challenges of child rearing. Lower levels of parenting stress are found
for women and men who report greater satisfaction in their marriages.
On the other hand, a marital or cohabiting relationship also serves as a
major source of distress if there is disagreement, conflict, or disengage-
ment. Relationship satisfaction not only has direct effects on parenting
stress, but also helps to protect the parent-child relationship against
some of the deleterious effects of parental distress (Belsky, Rovine, and
Fish, ; Goldberg, ; Grych and Clark, ; Kazui, ). These
effects appear to operate within the typical range of interpartner con-
flict, as well as in households in which the conflict between partners
is extreme and involves domestic violence (Levendosky and Graham-
Bermann, ).
Partner similarity in child-rearing attitudes and behaviors is an-

other consideration. Parents who are more similar in their child-rear-
ing philosophies and parenting behaviors have more satisfying and less
conflicted marital relationships, have less parenting stress, are more re-
sponsive in their parenting, and have children who are more socially
competent. This agreement in child-rearing philosophies and practices
likely arises in part from selection of partners who share some attri-
butes, and in part from consensus building through effective commu-
nication. Such communication is most common in partnerships that
are warm and supportive (Harvey, ; Lindsey and Mize, ).
However, partner similarity also can create problems for parents
and children. Recall from chapter  that spouses tend to be similar in
their levels of parenting stress and depressive symptoms. This means
that a highly distressed parent is less likely than a well-adjusted parent
to have access to a supportive, nondistressed partner. It also means that
in two-parent households, if children have one parent who is highly
distressed, they are likely to have two parents who are distressed. It is
easy to see how problems in the parents’ relationship with each other
and difficulties in parenting might feed into each other and create
stress throughout the family (Deater-Deckard and Scarr, ; Good-
man and Gotlib, ; Hauser-Cram et al., ).
Parents’ relationships with each other also can be challenged by
child-domain parenting stress arising from their children’s attributes or
situations (e.g., illness, disability). For example, children with behav-
ioral disorders tend to have parents with more distressed marriages
(Johnston and Mash, ). Although the evidence from most studies
is not conclusive regarding the causal influence of the child’s behav-
ioral difficulty on the marriage, evidence from intervention studies
suggests that when children’s behavior problems are reduced, family re-
lationships (including marriages) improve (Kazdin and Wassell, ;
see chapter ).
Marital relationships also can be affected when children face seri-
ous illnesses. One study showed that parents’ marriages suffered dur-
ing the first year following diagnosis and initiation of treatment. The
impact of their children’s illnesses on marital relationship quality, in
turn, was associated with poorer parental mental health and adjust-
ment for mothers and fathers alike. Marital difficulties were greatest in
those pairs who showed the largest differences in their reactions to
their children’s illnesses (Hoekstra-Weebers et al., ).
Parent Gender
Examination of parenting stress and marriage also requires considera-
tion of parent gender differences. Men may be more likely than
women to withdraw from family relationships or to become more re-
active and negative when faced with parenting or family stress arising
from serious child illness or marital difficulties. In contrast, women
may be more likely to try to compensate in their parenting when their
marriages are distressed, in an effort to minimize the effects of marital
discord on their children. Thus among highly conflicted couples the
connection between parenting stress and harsh parenting may be
stronger for fathers and weaker for mothers. It also may be the case that
men’s parenting stress is tied most strongly to their satisfaction in their
partnerships, whereas women’s parenting stress is tied most strongly to
the attributes of their children (Deater-Deckard and Scarr, ; Frank
et al., ; Gable, Belsky, and Crnic, ; Stoneman, Brody, and
Burke, ). This is consistent with current theories of gender differ-
ences in stress and coping. Women may be more likely than men to re-
spond to distressing circumstances by turning toward rather than away
from their social networks, including relationships with children and
other family members (Taylor et al., ).
Gender differences and marital relations impact parenting stress
in conjunction with work and career stressors. In two-career families,
child rearing and household tasks are still largely the responsibility of
the mother, even if she works full-time outside the home. Although
men are becoming more involved in child rearing and household
chores, fathers still tend to experience less conflict between demands of
work and family, and less distress as a result, when compared to work-
ing mothers. Although fathers, on average, work more hours than
working mothers, men are more likely to have higher-status jobs over
which they have more control. These factors contribute to a more dif-
ficult balancing of demands of work and family for many women.
Also, conflict over household division of labor is common and is tied

strongly to marital relationship satisfaction. Thus contentment with
the household division of labor in the transition to parenthood and
throughout the child-rearing period is a key to adult adaptation and
coping (Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, ; Wicki, ).
These effects are stronger for women because they face more am-
biguity in their roles in the workplace. One longitudinal study of
middle-class European American families that included mothers who
did and did not work outside the home showed clear links between role
overload for mothers (i.e., having too much to do at home and work)
and dissatisfaction with their marriages. Role overload was defined as
having to work more hours outside the home and being unhappy with
the current state of affairs in the household in terms of division of labor
between spouses. However, new working mothers who had just had
their first children were less satisfied with their marriages if they were
worried about their childcare arrangements; role overload was not as
important to them, compared to working mothers of multiple chil-
dren. This suggests that the worries and stressors of parenthood, and
their impact on the marriage, depend in part on previous parenting ex-
perience and the number of children in the household (Hyde et al.,
). However, more generally, marital satisfaction, parent-child
warmth, and well-balanced work and family roles appear to go hand in
hand for most working parents (Marks, Huston, Johnson, and Mac-
Dermid, ).
Parents’ romantic relationships sometimes do not last, leading to
periods of single parenthood and new relationships. These changes of-
ten lead to the formation of families that include children from previ-
ous relationships. At the same time, there are many different kinds of
family structures that have little or nothing to do with partner conflict,
or divorce and remarriage.
Family Structures and Types

There are different family structures and types of families, including
single-parent and stepparent families, gay or lesbian parent families,
adoptive and foster families, and families with grandparents as parents.
There are likely to be some similarities and some differences between

different family types, in terms of how and when parenting stress de-
velops and influences children’s development.
Family structure and marital transitions. Single and remarried par-
ents are more likely to report having problems in their own adjustment
and well-being, and to have more difficulties in their personal relation-
ships with their partners and children (Buchanan, Maccoby, and
Dornbusch, ; Hetherington and Clingempeel, ). This is
shown most dramatically in data on the rates of assaults on children
and infanticide, which are markedly higher in stepfather families com-
pared to other types of families (Daly and Wilson, ). However,
most studies of divorce and remarriage have not examined parenting
stress specifically, or the impact of family structure on parenting stress.
Do parents who have experienced these partner transitions have
higher rates of parenting stress? We tried to answer this question using
data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children
(ALSPAC), an ongoing study that began with about thirteen thousand
women who had live births in Avon County, England, in –
(Golding, ). Five family types were identified at the time of the
child’s birth: “intact” couple families having their first child (prima-
parous; n ,  percent of sample) or with multiple children
(multiparous; n ,  percent); two kinds of stepfamilies, includ-
ing stepfather families (n ,  percent), stepmother families (n
,  percent), and single-mother families (n ,  percent).
The mothers completed mailed surveys prior to and following
the birth of the child. When the child was nearly two years old, moth-
ers completed a questionnaire regarding their distress and enjoyment
of the parenting role. We found these two scores to be only modestly
associated with each other. This means that many of the women re-
porting moderate or even high levels of parenting stress also reported
finding at least some enjoyment in parenting, and many women re-
porting low amounts of enjoyment of parenting also reported low lev-
els of parenting stress. Single mothers had the highest levels of parent-
ing stress and the lowest levels of parenting enjoyment, compared to
the women with resident partners (married or cohabiting). They also
had the lowest incomes, fewest years of education, and highest number
of stressful life events (e.g., job loss, moving, divorce) as a group. In ad-
dition, single mothers and their nonresident romantic partners had the
highest levels of depressive symptoms compared to married or cohab-
iting mothers, followed by stepmothers. Symptoms of depression,
stressful life events, and fewer socioeconomic resources were linked
with higher levels of parenting stress and lower levels of enjoyment of
parenting. These links with parenting stress and enjoyment operated
in the same way in the different family structures that we examined
(Deater-Deckard and ALSPAC Research Team, ). These results
are consistent with other recent studies of stress and coping in remar-
ried and single-parent families (e.g., Hilton and Desrochers, ;
Hilton, Desrochers, and Devall, ; O’Brien and DeLongis, ).
Thus, regardless of family structure or parents’ histories of changes in
their relationships, parenting stress is associated with the same factors
in the same ways.
Although most of us tend to think of family structure in a cate-
gorical way, things are not that simple. Consider single-mother fami-
lies as an example. Some single mothers have partners, and some of
these partners live in the households some of the time. Still other single
mothers do not have any romantic partners but have other adults liv-
ing with them who share the tasks of child rearing. The same kind of
variation in situations is found in stepfamily households, some of
which include parents who are co-parenting with their ex-partners and
some of which include parents with no contact with their ex-partners.
It is likely that what matters most, in terms of predicting lower parent-
ing stress and better child outcomes, are the same aspects of partner
communication and support in parenting that promote optimal out-
comes for children in nondivorced families. Parents and children alike
benefit from good communication and loving, involved parenting,
whether the parents are co-resident, married or cohabiting, divorced,
remarried, or single. At the same time, having two resident parents,
or having contact with a nonresident father or mother, can result in
more distress and poorer child outcomes, if it means that the parent
and child are exposed to more conflict or other risk factors (Arditti and
Madden-Derdich, ; Jackson, ; O’Leary, Franzoni, Brack, and
Zirps, ).
Nearly all of the research on parenting stress has focused on tra-
ditional two-parent or single-parent households. However, there are
many different kinds of families, including divorced and remarried

parent families, adoptive families, and gay or lesbian parent families.
There has been little research on parenting stress in the many types of
families that exist, so it is difficult to draw anything but a speculative
conclusion at this time. The few studies that have been done suggest
that parenting stress and the factors that reduce and increase it oper-
ate in much the same way in many alternative family structures (Chan,
Raboy, and Patterson, ; Colpin et al., ; Mainemer, Gilman,
and Ames, ; McCarty, Waterman, Burge, and Edelstein, ;
McGlone, Santos, Kazama, Fong, and Mueller, ; Tasker and Go-
lombok, ).
Grandparents as Parents
In some families, grandparents are the primary caregivers, usually be-
cause the children’s parents have passed away or are not able to care for
their children. There has not been much research examining parenting
stress in this population of caregivers, but that is changing as more sci-
entists recognize the importance of grandparents in the lives of chil-
dren around the world. The impact of distress arising from this role is
most powerful in those families in which grandparents are the sole and
primary caregivers of their grandchildren.
Overall, the processes connecting grandparents’ resources, chil-
dren’s attributes and situations, and grandparent distress appear to op-
erate in much the same way as they do for parents. Nearly all of the re-
search has focused on grandmothers, whose child-rearing stress is
highest when accompanied by lower income and poorer housing, less
social support, and more depressive symptoms and health problems.
Also consistent with research on parents is the finding that greater
grandmother child-rearing distress is linked with more child behav-
ioral and emotional problems, and more difficulties in caregiving such
as harsh, reactive discipline (Bowers and Myers, ; Daly and Glen-
wick, ; Emick and Hayslip, ; Hayslip, Emick, Henderson,
and Elias, ; Kelley, Whitley, Sipe, and Yorker, ; Musil, ;
Rodgers-Farmer, ).
In chapter , I briefly described a study examining parenting
stress among two groups of grandmothers in Kenya (Oburu, ). In
one group, the grandmothers were caring for their own grandchildren
because the children’s parents had died of AIDS. This group of grand-
mothers was compared to a group of nonfostering grandmothers. The
participants were a diverse group of women; half of the grandmothers
had received schooling, half were or had been in polygamous mar-
riages, and half were widowed. The fostering grandmothers were dis-
tressed by the demanding role of caring for their grandchildren. They
had concerns about restrictions in their roles because they were now
parenting their grandchildren (thus ruling out typical grandparent-
grandchild relationships). In addition, the grandmothers were con-
cerned that they would not be able to carry out their parenting duties.
They would often use severe forms of physical punishment to disci-
pline the children, in part to demonstrate to the children, the extended
family, and the community that they were taking the parenting role se-
riously. This Kenyan study also highlights a more general point about
grandparents as caregivers. There can be distress that arises from the
daily care of grandchildren, but there also can be distress arising from
bereavement or concern about the grandchildren’s parents’ deaths, ill-
nesses, or personal difficulties. Parenting stress does not necessarily end
when children grow up and move out of the home; it can be part of a
parent’s experience until the end of her or his own life.
Community as Culture
The family’s cultural context is an element of the community that ex-
ists inside and outside of the home. Cultural influences can operate in
a number of ways in the stress process. Socialized values and conven-
tional norms for child-rearing beliefs and behaviors (e.g., what is ac-
ceptable as a discipline strategy) can affect the kinds of stressful cir-
cumstances that parents face, the appraisals that parents make about
stressors, and the resources that parents bring to bear in their attempts
to cope (Aldwin, ).
One of the most common distinctions made between cultural
groups is the relative importance of collectivism (i.e., orientation of the
individual toward the needs of the family and community) versus indi-
vidualism (i.e., orientation of the individual toward self-maximization
and autonomy from others). Beyond the collectivist-individualist di-
mension, there are differences between and within cultural groups in the
links between parents’ child-rearing practices, their attitudes and attri-
butions about parenting and their children, and children’s developmen-
tal outcomes. For example, in some cultures parents who are more con-
trolling with their young children are also less warm, whereas in other
cultures, control and warmth are connected in a different way (Jose,
Huntsinger, Huntsinger, and Liaw, ; Rudy and Grusec, ).
There also are cultural differences in parents’ expectations about
what constitutes developmentally appropriate child behaviors and
skills. For example, there are cultural differences in adults’ beliefs re-
garding when children should be able to feed and clothe themselves,
when they should be able to control their emotions, and whether and
when certain behaviors (such as assertiveness) or emotions (such as
anger) should be expressed (Joshi and MacLean, ; Olson, Kashi-
wagi, and Crystal, ; Schulze, Harwood, and Schoelmerich, ).
Furthermore, cultural groups vary in the extent to which parents view
their children, themselves, or their situations as being most influential
in determining how it is that children behave. For instance, Chinese
mothers are more likely to attribute children’s prosocial and compliant
behaviors to situational causes, compared to mothers in the United
States, who are more likely to regard these appropriate behaviors as
arising from children’s temperaments or dispositions. Chinese mothers
also are more likely than U.S. mothers to view themselves as being pri-
marily responsible for their children’s academic achievement (Chao,
; Chiang, Caplovitz-Barrett, and Nunez, ).
Possible cultural differences in the connections between the fam-
ily and institutions in the community also are worth considering. For
example, the bridge between parenting stress and workplace stress may
operate differently across cultural groups. One recent study found that
European Americans reported higher levels of work-family role strain
(i.e., conflict between the demands of work and demands of family)
compared to African Americans and Hispanics. This was true even
though the European American workers had higher incomes, more
help with childcare, and more control over and flexibility in their jobs
(Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, ). Other institutions and fac-
tors matter as well, such as access to and use of same- or different-cul-
ture schools, as well as language use. Their effects can be seen in stud-
ies of parenting stress and acculturation among nonwhite immigrant

families in the United States. There is some evidence that more accul-
turation in the United States (e.g., use of English, having more En-
glish-speaking friends) among Spanish-speaking parents is associated
with less parental distress (Blacher, Shapiro, Lopez, and Diaz, ).
However, these acculturation effects are complex and depend on the
specific situations in question (e.g., culture of origin, family structure).
This complexity is exemplified in one study of Puerto Rican adolescent
mothers that showed that social support from the teens’ own mothers
(i.e., the infant’s grandmother) was associated with lower parenting
stress. This was not surprising. What was surprising was that this posi-
tive link with social support was limited to families that were less ac-
culturated, suggesting different mechanisms linking stress and support
depending on the degree to which family members have assimilated
the predominant culture (Contreras, Lopez, Rivera-Mosquera, Ray-
mond-Smith, and Rothstein, ).
In sum, the links between parenting stress and culture are com-
plex. Consideration of cultural group similarities and differences in the
structure, causes, and effects of parenting stress requires evidence that
parenting stress is the same thing in different groups, and that it can be
measured in the same way (Prelow, Tein, Roosa, and Wood, ). We
need more research examining cultural group equivalence in the in-
struments that social scientists use to assess parenting stress. There is
some work suggesting that it can be measured in the same way in dif-
ferent cultural groups, using the Parenting Stress Index in particular.
Also, a growing body of research indicates that the factors influencing
parenting stress (including poverty, child behavioral problems, and
role overload and strain) are similar in a number of cultural groups
(see the relevant studies in the Appendix). Nonetheless, more research
needs to be conducted before strong conclusions can be made about
whether parenting stress processes are generally similar or different
across cultural contexts.
Community as Workplace
One of the most dramatic changes in family life in many cultural
groups and nations over the past century (and the past four decades in
particular) is in the bridge between work and family life. This includes
shifts in the composition of the labor force, with more women and par-
ents of young children working; shifts in the kinds of jobs and work
available; fewer extended families living in close proximity; dramatic
changes in who is working, with only modest changes in gender and
family role attitudes and division of labor in child-rearing tasks; and
changes in neighborhoods and communities.
There are about seventy million American parents with children
under eighteen years of age, and about  percent of these are em-
ployed at least part-time, so that working parents make up close to half
of all paid workers in the United States. We have witnessed, especially
in the s and s, dramatic increases in the number of mothers of
young children (those under five years old) who work outside the home.
Today the majority of mothers return to work within the first year fol-
lowing their children’s births. The fastest growing segment of employ-
ment for working mothers includes part-time and temporary jobs. Al-
though these types of jobs may suit many families who are seeking
flexibility in employment for one or both parents, these types of po-
sitions generally pay less and have fewer (if any) benefits such as in-
surance or pension plans. More importantly, regardless of the type of
employment or career path chosen, there is almost always tension be-
tween meeting the competing demands of work and parenthood. Al-
though there are clear economic and psychological benefits to families
when mothers work outside the home, there also are a host of potential
risks to individual well-being, parenting, and family functioning (Fred-
riksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, ).
Working women who also are mothers show more signs of dis-
tress than do those who are childless. This suggests probable additive
or interactive work-family role conflict and stress “spillover” effects for
working mothers, arising from stressors that are not as prevalent for
women without children. Spillover of stress is common and operates in
both directions (from family to work, and work to family). It can in-
clude ongoing global stressors, such as having a job or marriage that
the parent wishes to end, as well as the daily problems—for instance,
having an argument with a supervisor at work, or having an argument
with a partner or a child after work. Problems (e.g., stress, workload)
and interpersonal conflicts in one arena influence the likelihood of
having interpersonal conflicts in the other arena (Bolger, DeLongis,

Kessler, and Wethington, ; Kazui, ; Marks et al., ; Ost-
berg and Hagekull, ; Warfield, ).
There are other demands that have more to do with the strain or
conflict between the adult’s roles as parent and worker. For instance,
many working mothers at times wonder whether their career pursuits
interfere with or actually harm their relationships with their children,
or whether having a family is holding them back from opportunities
for advancement and personal fulfillment at work. Although there are
role conflicts and work-family spillover effects for men as well as
women, these effects tend to be larger and more consistent for women,
regardless of whether they are in blue- or white-collar jobs (Bromet,
Dew, and Parkinson, ; Eckenrode and Gore, ).
A number of studies conducted in the s and s suggested
that on average mothers who did not work outside the home were apt
to have more symptoms of depression and anxiety. However, this pat-
tern was not found in every study, and the effect may be dissipating as
more women with young children continue to enter the work force.
Another pattern found in past studies that also may be changing is that
fathers whose wives work outside the home are more likely to be dis-
tressed compared to men whose wives do not work. This appears to be
particularly true for men who have traditional, gender-stereotyped sex
role attitudes. Men are less likely than women to divulge to their part-
ners the concerns that they are having about problems at work. The
idea that a man should “keep work at the office” still rings true as a goal
for many working fathers. This means that they must find other means
of coping with day-to-day stressors at work and home, in order to min-
imize the spillover of stress between roles and settings (Weiss, ).
There have been a variety of theoretical approaches used to an-
swer the question of how balancing the demands of parenthood and
work influences the health and functioning of the family, the individ-
ual parent and child, and colleagues in the workplace. Most recently, a
demand and resource framework has been proposed in order to integrate
these perspectives (Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, ). This
framework incorporates various factors, including individual and fam-
ily background characteristics (e.g., education level), the specific de-
mands of work and family (e.g., time required, stressors experienced
such as child illness or other problems), the specific resources in the

workplace and home (e.g., social support, control over and flexibility
of work), and accommodations made by the parent to strike the work-
family balance (e.g., missing work, spending less time with family/
spouse). Higher levels of work and family-related stress are found for
women compared to men for those in clerical positions, those who
have poor health, those with younger children, those who experience
problems with finding reliable childcare, and those who work more
hours in jobs where there is constant pressure to produce and perform.
At the same time, research demonstrates that stress is lower for those
with more instrumental and social support from colleagues and bosses
and for those with more personal control over their jobs.
One of the most powerful ways in which work-related stress can
spill over and influence parenting and children is through its effects on
parent-child interaction. This is exemplified in a study of dual-earner
married couples that showed that mothers responded to higher levels
of work-related stress by being less available to their children when
they came home (Repetti and Wood, ). The mothers were more
likely to withdraw from their children and use other strategies for min-
imizing interaction. In an analysis of brief ten-minute observations of
mother-child interaction, these researchers found that the children re-
sponded to their mothers’ withdrawal by decreasing their aversive be-
haviors (e.g., whining, misbehaving) and increasing their bids for at-
tention from their mothers. There also were signs that the children
became less happy over the course of the ten-minute interactions.
However, these working mothers also responded to their children’s dis-
sipating positive moods by increasing their own positive emotions and
statements directed at their children, in attempts to increase engage-
ment. By responding in this way, the mothers were inadvertently ter-
minating their coping strategy—the minimization of social interac-
tion after a hard day at work (a strategy that is typically associated with
stressed working fathers).
The authors of that study suggest that for working mothers with-
drawing from interacting with their children is a preemptive coping
strategy. They are attempting to avoid interactions because they find
that doing so reduces the odds that their children will become increas-
ingly annoying to them late in the day and early in the evening. How-
ever, this strategy competes with mothers’ needs to regulate their own
negative feelings following their difficult workdays. Over time, for
those mothers who withdraw more and more as work-related stress
continues, their children are likely to engage in behaviors that cause
more and more conflict in family interactions. Although effective in
the short term, behavioral withdrawal may actually create more prob-
lems over time by leading to increases in parenting stress and marital
conflict (Repetti and Wood, ).
Another influential factor is the impact of maternal employment
on division of labor in the household, and the internal and interper-
sonal conflict that can arise from this. On average, fathers in dual-
earner households (compared to those in single-earner households) do
not do much more of the household chores, mundane child-rearing
tasks, and taking responsibility for their children’s appointments. This
is usually interpreted as indicating that working fathers are being prag-
matic (“As long as it gets done by someone I don’t care who does it”), or
that they simply do not think about household tasks very much. It also
is possible that in some households women are maintaining control in
part because they hold very high standards and expectations about
how things should be done. If unrelenting high standards are coupled
with the belief that “I can do it all” (the “superwoman” mindset; Em-
mons, Biernat, Tiedje, Lang, and Wortman, ), working mothers
are more likely to become distressed. This is not surprising, given that
several studies show higher parenting stress and poorer coping among
mothers who are perfectionists (Flett et al., ; Mitchelson and
Burns, ).
It also is important to consider the individual parent’s personality
when examining the connection between stress and coping in one do-
main such as work, with stress and coping in another domain such as
parenting and family life. The majority of the studies on work-family
stress spillover and role conflict have used correlational data, from
which cause and effect cannot be determined. Nonetheless, these stud-
ies usually are interpreted to suggest either (a) that stressors in the
home cause difficulties and distress at work to increase, or (b) stressors
at work cause increases in difficulties at home. In contrast, few studies
have tested the possibility that individuals who are predisposed to dis-
tress have personality attributes that increase the likelihood that they
will experience problems in most of their roles—at home, at work, and

elsewhere (Bolger et al., ).
In sum, the good news is that many families are able to balance
the demands and rewards of simultaneous employment and child rear-
ing, and men and women alike typically enjoy some benefits of work-
ing and raising children. However, doing so can be difficult; the best
intentions and a concerted effort do not guarantee happy results. Strik-
ing it rich when seeking personal fulfillment at home and at work also
requires having reliable and satisfying relationships with partners, chil-
dren, and colleagues, as well as having at least some control over work
and family demands. There is no perfect solution for the vast majority
of working parents. Most are and will always be faced with conflicting
demands of work and family and must find ways to effectively meet
this challenge. Navigating through these challenges also involves the
employment conditions and social policies that directly influence (of-
ten powerfully) the psychological and material resources in the house-
hold. In the next section, I turn to a discussion of maternity leave and
childcare benefit policies that vary across states and nations.
Community as Nation
Variation in parenting stress across communities is likely to be vast,
because the resources that are known to make life less demanding for
parents (e.g., well-paying and stable jobs, safe housing and neighbor-
hoods, accessible and affordable childcare, economic and public ser-
vices infrastructure) differ from one place to another. For instance,
there are large differences across nations and across states within this
country in the types of instrumental support (usually economic) pro-
vided to households with children. A number of European countries
have laws that are designed to maximize the health of parents and chil-
dren and minimize the risks of distress in parenting. These include
things like publicly funded healthcare, maternity and paternity leave,
and childcare. Such supports are not available in most countries of the
world, because they are so expensive. They require a substantial eco-
nomic base as well as existing structures for mandating and carrying
out redistribution of resources. Variation in these supports to families
is wide even within the subgroup of affluent industrial nations, with
the United States generally having the fewest legally mandated sup-
ports in place (Kamerman, ).
This is exemplified in my own experience as a first-time parent.
My wife Keirsten and I are Americans. For several years we lived and
worked in Britain, where our first daughter was born. Once it was clear
to us and our physician that a baby was on the way, a whole system of
community supports was set in motion that included healthcare and
visits to a prenatal clinic, classes to help us prepare, and a range of
choices for labor and delivery. When our daughter was born, I was able
to take two weeks off using combined paternal leave and vacation time,
and Keirsten had half a year of paid maternity leave. During the first
week or so following the delivery, a nurse midwife visited us at home to
make sure that all was well. As anxious first-time parents, we found this
aspect of the experience to be particularly helpful, especially since we
had no family around to help us. In doing my research for this book, I
was not surprised to learn that home visiting and counseling from
health professionals are related to lower levels of parenting stress (Arm-
strong, Fraser, Dadds, and Morris, ; Davis and Spurr, ).
In addition, we received a monthly allowance from the British
government to help offset the costs of caring for a child. These were
benefits that we received simply because we legally resided in Britain
(none of us was a British citizen)—benefits that we would not have re-
ceived had we lived in the United States when our daughter was born.
There was no question that this allowance and Keirsten’s paid mater-
nity leave made a big difference in our daily lives; it helped offset many
of the costs of having a child and made it feasible for Keirsten to stay at
home with our baby (which was what she preferred to do). Although
we paid nothing out of pocket, as workers we paid taxes that exceeded
what we would have paid in taxes in the United States.
There were a number of things that we did not experience that we
would have if we had been in the United States. Paid parental leave
would not have been available to us, and my paternity leave almost cer-
tainly would have been shorter unless I chose to take an unpaid leave of
absence (a luxury afforded in only a few professions in this country).
There were few visits with a doctor during the pregnancy, and a physi-
cian was not present when our daughter was born. Instead, nurses and
midwives provided nearly all of the care prior to, during, and after the
delivery. Keirsten had very few prenatal tests, but did have frequent
prenatal visits with a health nurse. We did not have a private room;
within an hour of delivery, we were in a new but very basic hospital
ward with eight other mothers and their babies. We did not have access
to an obstetrician or a pediatrician for getting answers to our many
questions, although we were told that we would have had such contact
with doctors if there had been problems. We were strongly encouraged
to go home as soon as we wanted, so we left twenty hours after we ar-
rived.
We noticed during our health nurse appointments and commu-
nity prenatal classes that the very same services were being offered to a
wide variety of people from many different backgrounds. It was clear
that access to prenatal care was widespread and considered by everyone
we met to be part of what the community was supposed to be doing,
and we appreciated that fact. At the same time, the reality of the ex-
pense of such communitywide support systems came home every
month, in the form of large deductions from our paychecks and high
sales taxes on just about everything. Thus the crux of the issue is
whether we as communities choose to provide the most basic supports
to the largest number of people, or greater access to the very best re-
sources to a smaller number of people. The answer in this debate lies in
how it is that the community chooses to redistribute economic re-
sources.
Socioeconomic Resources
Parenting stress is higher among parents who have fewer socioeco-
nomic resources. Families facing the challenges of insufficient or dan-
gerous housing, crowding inside the home and in the neighborhood,
and unfulfilled basic needs due to poverty and lack of education are
more likely to have parents showing signs of chronic stress that directly
influence mental and physical health. Adults in these distressing envi-
ronments also are more likely to show reactive parenting that is less
predictable, more harsh, and less stimulating and supportive of chil-
dren’s health and learning (Baum, Garofalo, and Yali, ; Bradley
and Corwyn, ; Pianta and Egeland, ).
Chronic poverty is particularly detrimental because its effects
accumulate and grow over time. The effects of chronic poverty on chil-
dren’s developmental outcomes operate in part through higher levels of
parenting stress and inept, harsh parenting behavior (Coyle et al.,
; Lyons-Ruth et al., ; Repetti and Wood, ). The connec-
tions between poverty, harsh parenting, and children’s behavioral and
emotional problems function partly through certain aspects of moth-
ers’ social cognitions, including the tendency to view children’s behav-
ior as intentionally hostile and the lack of proactive problem-focused
coping strategies (Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, and Duncan, ; Pin-
derhughes et al., ).
Like their more educated and affluent peers, poor parents want
what is best for their children, and they want to be able to work and
earn enough money to support their families. The mid- to late-s
was a time of remarkable change in the welfare support system for poor
families in the United States. As a result of these changes, many more
poor mothers who previously would have received income while not
working now receive income for going to work. There is and will con-
tinue to be interest in whether and how “welfare to work” programs are
effective in the long term at reducing rates of poverty and reducing
stress for families.
Being employed has mental health benefits for poor parents, as
long as the income is sufficient and the workplace is not dangerous or
highly stressful. Thus it is likely that income support alone is not suffi-
cient for reducing parenting stress and improving outcomes for par-
ents and children; it is the combination of income support and em-
ployment that may be most effective. Nonetheless, the period of
transition surrounding job training and entry into employment is a
stressful time for poor mothers. Furthermore, there are challenges
faced by working poor mothers involving the need for safe and reliable
childcare. All working parents have this concern. However, it is an
acute stressor if you are living and working in a neighborhood that is
unhealthy and dangerous, a more likely scenario for many working
poor parents (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, Smith, and Lee, ; Dumka,
Gonzales, Wood, and Formoso, ; Gyamfi, Brooks-Gunn, and Jack-
son, ).
The bridge between parenting stress and insufficient socioeco-
nomic resources is demonstrated most clearly in longitudinal studies
that examine the impact of real-world events on family income and

parents’ functioning. Such studies are expensive and difficult to con-
duct, if for no other reason than that the timing and severity of stress-
ors are often unpredictable and idiosyncratic. This makes studies of
large samples of families more difficult. Nonetheless, it is possible, and
those who have carried out such research find strong evidence for a
causal connection between deteriorations in economic resources, in-
creases in parenting stress, increases in hostile and inconsistent parent-
ing, and increases in children’s social-emotional maladjustment.
One study followed a group of families in a Midwest farming
community during the collapse of the agricultural industry in the
s (Conger et al., ). As the economic climate changed and
more men lost their sources of income and work roles, family relation-
ships suffered. Marriages crumbled, and fathers became harsher in
their parenting. Their children, in turn, showed deteriorations in so-
cial behavior and emotional well-being, indicated by increases in anti-
social behaviors and symptoms of depression and anxiety. A related
study focused on differences between families in the effects of the du-
ration of fathers’ unemployment (Liem and Liem, ). It showed
that the longer the period of unemployment, the more distress and
more problems in family relationships were found. The couples who
were most affected by the fathers’ unemployment already were show-
ing early signs of marital dissatisfaction and exposure to more stressful
life events. This suggests that parental adaptation in the face of socio-
economic loss follows in part from parental adaptation and coping
prior to the changes in economic and social status.
Poverty and lack of access to education and employment oppor-
tunities are community problems that require solutions involving the
creation and shifting of resources. Changes in industry and technology
have allowed widespread redistribution of socioeconomic resources.
The advent of public education for all and cash assistance to the poor,
both of which emerged on a global scale in the twentieth century, fun-
damentally changed the landscape of daily life in families. More re-
cently, legislative efforts have shifted emphasis to family leave and
childcare policies.
Family leave and childcare. In , the U.S. Family and Medical
Leave Act, or FMLA, was enacted into law. This legislation mandates
up to twelve weeks per annum of unpaid job-protected leave for em-

ployees who must care for babies, children, other family members, or
themselves (in the case of prolonged illness). In addition to protecting
the person’s job, this policy requires that health insurance be main-
tained during the leave. Although without question an essential step
toward providing needed support to families, there are some limita-
tions to the FMLA. First, the policy applies only to businesses with
fifty or more employees. Second, surveys have shown that many work-
ing parents are not aware of this benefit, and many businesses have not
fully implemented the policy. Third, few are able to make full use of
the policy even when they need to, because the family is not able to af-
ford the temporary loss of income associated with the unpaid leave. In
some cases, the parents are legitimately concerned about being seen by
their bosses and coworkers as being less committed or less capable at
work if they take leave. Fourth, the policy does not apply to part-time
and temporary workers, which is the segment of the labor force that in-
cludes by far the largest representation of working mothers (Fredrik-
sen-Goldsen and Scharlach, ). By comparison, most European na-
tions include more extensive family leave that also includes pay while
the parent is not working. The family leave social policy in Europe has
been driven not only by legislators’ concerns about the well-being of
parents and children, but also by concerns about dwindling birth rates
and the long-term effects of this on national and regional economies
(Hwang, ).
Paid leave may one day exist throughout the United States. At the
time I was writing this book, California was planning to initiate the first
paid family leave legislation in the country. This leave is funded from
employee payments into the state’s existing disability insurance system.
The benefit includes up to six weeks of paid leave per year (up to the
lesser amount of  percent of salary or $ per week) to care for a child
or an ailing family member. This would be used as part of the twelve-
week job-protected leave guaranteed by the FMLA. Other states will
follow suit if the test case in California reveals that hidden costs to em-
ployers or families are outweighed by the economic and psychological
benefits to families, and the economic benefit to employers.
How effective is parental leave, with respect to reducing or mini-
mizing parental distress? Research has shown that a mother’s anxiety is
higher the more she works following the birth of her child. However,
studies in the United States have not shown straightforward effects of
longer parental leaves on maternal psychological well-being after deliv-
ery. This is probably because the effects of having some time away from
work depend in large measure on the individual woman’s goals and atti-
tudes. Having a longer leave will not be beneficial if the mother wants to
be at work. Having a shorter leave will be problematic if the mother is
not ready to return to work, or if she or her baby has health problems.
Despite this variation in mothers’ goals and attitudes, the majority of
working mothers believe that their maternity leaves are not long enough,
and financial pressure is one of the most common reasons for returning
to work (Hyde et al., ; Klein, Hyde, Essex, and Clark, ).
A related matter is the provision of more opportunities for a fair
and equitable division of labor in the household. As noted previously,
parents’ conflict over the division of labor in the household is a pri-
mary factor in relationship dissatisfaction in families with young chil-
dren. One approach to reducing conflict over division of labor is to in-
crease incentives and remove disincentives for men to become more
involved in the day-to-day care of their children. Some European na-
tions (e.g., Sweden) have begun to require fathers to take part of the
parental leave offered to each family; if the father does not take his por-
tion of the leave, the family loses that leave time. This specification was
made within the existing family leave law because fathers were not
making use of the parental leave that was being made available to
them. It remains to be seen whether such legislation will have an im-
pact on fathers’ utilization of parental leave, and how increases in pa-
ternity leave use will influence families and parenting stress. It may be
that having more opportunities for choice—in particular, eliminating
some of the financial pressure to return to work when the mother is not
yet ready physically or psychologically—will reduce parenting stress.
Another related matter is access to affordable childcare. In the
United States, most working parents also struggle to find quality child-
care that meets their needs. In addition, childcare arrangements tend
to change, because the turnover rate of employees in childcare settings
is high. Finding good childcare is difficult, but finding good childcare
that is stable is even harder. Not surprisingly, worries about childcare
represent a significant contributing factor to distress among working
parents. The minimum standards for childcare quality (ranging from

caregiver-to-child ratios to training requirements for providers) vary
from state to state, as does enforcement of those standards. Although
the number of available childcare options has increased over the years
(many more families are now choosing center-based childcare), the
cost of high-quality care is high. In most cases, working parents pay
nearly all of the costs, although federal policies (and policies in some
states) provide tax reduction benefits to working parents, welfare-to-
work programs give financial support for purchasing childcare, and
Head Start centers provide subsidized care to millions of low-income
children. This system is different from many European nations, in
which something closer to universally available, public childcare is
provided, along with other benefits such as paid maternal and paternal
leave (Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, ).
So what is the end result of these national variations in supports
to families? Are American parents more or less stressed in their parent-
ing roles, compared to families in industrial and developing nations
elsewhere? There is not a definitive answer to this question, because na-
tional comparisons of objective indicators of parenting stress specifi-
cally have not been conducted. What is clear from the existing research
is that the range of parenting stress is very wide within every popula-
tion that has been studied. This variation in parenting stress within
each community or nation very likely exceeds the differences between
populations in average levels of parenting stress. Nonetheless, some
families clearly do need socioeconomic support, particularly young
families headed by working or unemployed poor parents. The
dilemma for nations like the United States is to develop methods of
supporting families with children without creating disincentives for
existing employers or new economic growth, or implementing policies
that strongly restrict parents’ choices. Whether and how national dif-
ferences in family support policies lead to increases or decreases in par-
enting stress remains a wide-open question for future research.
Conclusion
Socioeconomic and other stressors may be most influential in their im-
pact on individual adaptation during times of rapid social change
(Lazarus, ). Over the past few decades, changes in the structure
and organization of families and neighborhoods have accompanied
changes in the labor market and workplace. More women with young
children are working, so fewer parents are around and in the neighbor-
hood during the day. More families are moving, and they are doing so
more frequently. There is less involvement in civic activities and com-
munity organizations. These changes have been accompanied by
changes in the risk of social isolation and loss of access to parenting re-
sources (Fredriksen-Goldsen and Scharlach, ).
Although national and community social policies powerfully im-
pact the lives of parents, the informal community resources involving
social interaction and instrumental or emotional support are most im-
portant in determining how well parents cope and adjust to the de-
mands of parenthood. Parental distress and harsh parenting are less
prevalent in households in which the parents are not isolated but in-
stead have frequent contact with other people in settings outside of the
home. Providing such community contacts and support to parents in
need (e.g., respite childcare) can work to reduce parenting stress (Chan,
; Cowen, ; Cowen, ; Cowen and Reed, ; Mullins,
Aniol, Boyd, Page, and Chaney, ). Access to and utilization of
these social resources is one of many aspects of coping. Successful cop-
ing, and interventions for parents who need help, are the topics of the
next and final chapter.
Coping and Intervention
7
We are surrounded by messages telling us how to adapt to life’s

challenges—to “just do it” or to “pick ourselves up” (usually by our
bootstraps, and often followed by dusting ourselves off). Ideally, we
should be able to identify what needs to be done to fix a problem and
then go out there and make it right. These messages directly pertain to
how we approach problem solving, including coping with stressful
events or circumstances.
In this book I have described several theories and numerous re-
search studies that address how parenting stress arises and how it af-
fects parenting and children’s development. I now turn to successful
coping, the remaining part of the parenting stress equation. Adapta-
tion and coping with parenting stress involve a number of psychologi-
cal processes. It turns out that for parents in many situations, identify-
ing problems and striving to solve them can be highly effective; in this
sense, picking yourself up and just doing it can work. However, it is
overly simplistic to say that those who use this approach are the most
effective and well-adjusted people. Coping with parenting stress is
more complex than that. Furthermore, sometimes parents and their
children need help to adapt to life’s challenges. A number of interven-
▪ 139 ▪
140 Coping and Intervention
tions (even some that were not intended to affect parenting stress) have
been shown to reduce parent and child distress, to improve family rela-
tionships, and to optimize children’s developmental outcomes.
Parenting stress is as much about coping as it is about distress—
distress that ranges from dealing with persistent daily hassles to facing
serious difficulties that can accompany parenthood. People are not
able to function well if they are constantly distressed. Thus effective
coping is essential to mental and physical health and well-being. Fur-
thermore, we can benefit from managing stress well, even when the cir-
cumstances are intense and severe. Having the experience of facing dis-
tress and successfully coping with it promotes resiliency, so that the
parent is better able to handle stressors that arise in the future. Success-
ful adaptation in the face of stress can also lead to personal growth in
self-esteem and feelings of competence (Holohan, Moos, and Schaefer,
; Sandler and Mistretta, ).
In the fields of behavioral medicine and psychiatry, there is a vast
amount of research on coping with acute and chronic stressors. By
comparison, we know little about the effectiveness of coping with par-
enting stress. However, the research that has been done strongly sug-
gests that the effects of coping found for other domains of stress, such
as work-related stress, illness, or difficult life circumstances, appear to
operate in much the same way with respect to reducing levels of par-
enting stress. My aim in this chapter is to integrate theory and research
on coping with stress, and to connect that work with what we know
about parenting stress specifically.
Successful coping emerges from a broad and diverse repertoire of
strategies used to reduce or eliminate altogether the negative conse-
quences of the stresses of parenting. The more strategies a parent has,
and the more able he or she is to apply those strategies efficiently and
appropriately, the more likely it is that coping will be successful. There
are many personal, cultural, and situational constraints on the reper-
toire of possible strategies, such as personality, social conventions (e.g.,
cultural norms regarding the acceptability of talking about emotions),
and the nature of the stressors (e.g., severity, chronicity). In addition,
at times a parent’s own approaches to coping are not sufficient, and in-
tervention is needed.
What Is Coping?
Following decades of research in many fields of biology and psychology,
there is an evolving consensus regarding the criteria used to determine
whether a particular coping strategy is effective at reducing distress.
These include: whether the stressor is removed, whether the physiolog-
ical stress reaction or subjective experience of distress is reduced or elim-
inated, whether the individual is able to function normally (based in
part on social norms of behavior, thoughts, and emotions), whether ac-
tivities that are interrupted by the stressor are resumed, whether physi-
cal and subjective well-being improve, whether self-esteem is main-
tained, and whether coping is deemed effective by the individual
(Zeidner and Saklofske, ). While scientists generally agree on what
effective coping looks like, there is less agreement about how best to de-
fine and describe the particular strategies people use, and whether par-
ticular strategies are more effective than others.
Categories of Coping Strategies

The most common definition of coping strategies involves a distinction
between emotion- and problem-focused approaches and between ap-
proach toward or avoidance of the problem or stressor. These are not
mutually exclusive coping strategies; parents often apply multiple types
of strategies simultaneously, and together these can promote adaptation
or make matters worse, depending on the situation. Less common but
just as important is the distinction between effortful and involuntary
responses to stressors. Although nearly all of the research has empha-
sized effortful use of coping strategies, involuntary responses to stress
over which we have little control (e.g., intrusive thoughts) may exert
powerful influences on our abilities to plan and use voluntary strategies
(Compas, Connor, Osowiecki, and Welch, ).
Problem- and emotion-focused coping. The majority of research on
coping has emphasized two particular categories of coping strategies—
emotion-focused and problem-focused (Lazarus, ). Importantly,
these methods can occur simultaneously, and together can promote
adaptation or worsen the effects of stress.
Emotion-focused coping strategies are effective because they al-

ter the emotional experience of stress, rather than altering or eliminat-
ing the source of stress. These strategies are more likely to be invoked if
the individual believes that the stressor is out of her or his own control.
Often, the mechanics of emotion-focused coping operate to regulate
emotions through conscious thought processes. For example, consider
a father who finds life at home with his toddler to be extremely chal-
lenging, because he simply does not like young children’s lack of self-
control. The father may come to believe that his parenting stress is aris-
ing, in good measure, from his dislike of young children—something
he had not realized until he had become a father himself. He is likely to
believe that he has little personal control, because he knows that he
cannot make his two-year-old daughter behave like an eight year old.
He realizes in time that in order to cope he must wait out the situation.
In response, he attempts to reduce his distress by minimizing the time
that he spends with his daughter (to avoid getting angry), by thinking
about the times that she makes him happy, and by striving to force
negative feelings and thoughts about his daughter from his mind.
Problem-focused coping strategies are more likely to be invoked
if the stressor is thought to be under some degree of personal control.
Problem solving is carried out in an attempt to remove the stressor or
somehow alter its effects, through the avenues of personal control that
the person believes she or he has in that situation. For example, a
mother who is attempting to cope with a child whose behavior pre-
sents constant challenges may conduct many assessments of her child’s
behavior throughout each day, in an attempt to circumvent escalations
in problem behaviors. This involves careful observation of the objects,
people, and events that seem to “set off ” the child’s misbehaviors, and
structuring the day in order to reduce the likelihood that the child has
those experiences. This may or may not be effective. The point is that
the parent who uses such problem-focused coping strategies in these
situations believes that she has some personal control and makes at-
tempts to cope with her parenting stress by exercising personal control
in a targeted and more effective way.
Approach vs. avoidant coping. Another distinction is made be-
tween approach and avoidant cognitive and behavioral coping strate-
gies (Holohan et al., ). An example of a cognitive approach strat-
egy is positive reappraisal or reframing. This is when the person thinks

about a stressor or problem in a way that emphasizes the potential pos-
itive aspects or outcomes, and tries to consider the stressor in the grand
scheme of things. Thus a parent may ponder her child’s noxious be-
havior, telling herself that although she often feels annoyed, at least her
child is healthy and happy most of the time. An example of a behav-
ioral approach strategy is strategic problem solving, in which the per-
son makes a plan of action and carries it out in an effort to remove or
minimize the effects of a stressor. For instance, couples can talk and
work together as “co-parents” to derive and carry out strategies to re-
duce the frequency of their child’s misbehaviors and increase the fre-
quency of prosocial behaviors (Russell and Russell, ). Another ex-
ample is found in research on working mothers, who show less
parenting stress when they are able to plan their days and tasks and ef-
fectively delegate to other adults and children some of the household
tasks. This allows them to strike a healthier and more reasonable bal-
ance of demands at home and at work (Emmons et al., ).
In contrast to approach strategies, avoidance strategies involve
withdrawal from the problem. Denial is a cognitive avoidance strategy,
involving active attempts to forget about a stressor. For example, a par-
ent with a terminally ill child may come to cope by trying to forget that
the child is dying, in an attempt to enjoy each day that they have to-
gether. An example of a behavioral avoidance strategy is catharsis or
emotional discharge, in which the parent does something such as
shouting while sitting alone in the car or vigorously exercising in an at-
tempt to reduce distress, anger, or other aversive feelings.
What works? Conclusively labeling the effectiveness of particular
coping strategies is difficult. However, some generalizations can be
made about the typical effectiveness of the various categories. Cogni-
tive and behavioral problem-focused and approach coping strategies
often are associated with better adaptation and healthier outcomes,
particularly when there is some degree of actual and perceived personal
control over the stressful circumstances (Aldwin, ; Kohn, ;
Stansbury and Gunnar, ). For example, research on mothers of
dangerously ill newborns (including premature or low-birth-weight
babies) shows that those who believe that they have some degree of
control over their situations are better able to cope with their distress
(Affleck, Tennen, and Gershman, ; Feldman-Reichman, Miller,

Gordon, and Hendricks-Munoz, ).
Consider some examples from research on the effectiveness of
behavioral approach coping strategies. In a recent longitudinal study
of mothers and fathers of children with developmental disabilities
(e.g., cognitive, communicative, or motor skill deficits), researchers
followed the families over the children’s first decade of life. They dis-
covered that parenting stress gradually increased, on average. However,
those parents who engaged in problem-focused coping strategies, in
which they effectively identified the sources of their stressors and were
able to generate solutions to those problems, were least likely to show
these increases in parenting stress over time. This buffering effect was
particularly salient for fathers (Hauser-Cram et al., ). A second ex-
ample comes from studies of parents of physically disabled children.
For many of these parents, emotion-focused coping is linked with in-
creased distress over time, while problem-focused coping is linked with
decreased distress (Miller et al., ).
Cognitive approach strategies also can be very effective at reduc-
ing parenting stress. Recall that one type of cognitive approach strategy
is positive reappraisal or reframing of a problem. With this strategy, the
parent thinks about the problem at hand in a fundamentally different
way that emphasizes a rewarding goal that can be obtained. The em-
phasis of this coping strategy is on reframing the parent’s own thoughts
about the problem. That is, past and current thoughts are negative and
distressing, so new thoughts that are positive, problem-focused, and
comforting are implemented.
Consider the example of a parent of a child who is very difficult
to manage because he is usually overactive, does not sleep or eat well,
rarely does as he is told without a battle, and performs poorly at school
because he has difficulty concentrating. As we have seen, such children
tend to have parents who experience more parenting stress, and their
parenting tends to be more reactive, harsh, and less effective at gaining
compliance from the child. At the same time, there is wide variation in
parenting stress and contentment among parents of behaviorally diffi-
cult children. Some manage to cope very effectively using positive re-
framing. They think about difficulties as challenges to be overcome,
rather than as sources of anger that originate from the child’s behaviors
over which the parent has little direct control. Consistent with this
idea is research showing that among parents of children diagnosed
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, those who regard par-
enting as a set of challenges that they can and will be able to handle are
the parents who are most content (Podolski and Nigg, ). The use
of positive reappraisal also reduces the likelihood that parenting stress
will disrupt the developing parent-child attachment relationship in
early childhood (Jarvis and Creasey, ). At the same time, approach
strategies like the use of positive reframing are not universally effective.
It is possible that reframing a problem will not work to reduce distress,
or may make the parent more distressed, if the use of this or some other
problem-focused strategy interferes with problem solving or leads to
complete avoidance of negative feelings that invariably arise from time
to time.
The overall effectiveness of problem-focused and approach cop-
ing strategies can be contrasted with the general ineffectiveness of
emotion-focused and avoidant strategies, which are associated with
physical and psychological maladjustment as well as parenting stress
(Barnett et al., ). This appears to be true particularly if these pas-
sive and avoidant coping strategies are accompanied by illness and se-
rious problems in the marriage (Compas et al., ; Holohan et al.,
). Nonetheless, avoidant and emotion-focused coping strategies
can be effective in some circumstances, especially when the individual
truly has no control over the stressors or situation (Aldwin, ;
Kohn, ). For example, parents facing a potentially terminal child
illness over which they have no control often must come to cope with
their distress by invoking more passive coping methods that do not
involve problem-focused strategies (e.g., Douglas, Hulson, and Trom-
peter, ). There is not a “one size fits all” strategy, because people
and the situations they face are simply too variable.
Relationship-focused Coping: Social Support

Successful adaptation in parenting has many ingredients. One of the
most important is the availability and accessibility of instrumental
(i.e., practical) and emotional support from others. Coping rarely re-
sides only within the individual. In addition to problem- and emotion-
focused strategies, there are efforts to cope that involve the use and
preservation of our most important social relationships.
Like problem- and emotion-focused strategies, relationship-
focused strategies are not independent or exclusive of other strategies;
they work in tandem with other coping mechanisms (O’Brien and De-
Longis, ). There is evidence that women are more likely than men
to focus on nurturing their young and strengthening their ties to oth-
ers when faced with stressors, although this does not mean that men do
not do so, or that social support is effective only for women (Taylor et
al., ).
When it is effective, social support operates in a number of ways,
probably at every stage of the stress and coping process. A parent has
his or her own perceptions of available support from others, which
may or may not correspond with the actual support that occurs within
close relationships. These perceptions and the utilization of social sup-
port within close personal relationships stem in part from beliefs about
self-worth and the trustworthiness of others. Broader networks of so-
cial support also are important, such as the collection of intimate as
well as more distant relationships within an immediate or extended
family. Those who believe that social support is accessible and who
have intimate relationships within close and supportive families show
better adaptation to stress. They experience fewer stressors, are able to
engage multiple effective coping strategies, and are more likely to call
on others for support when it is needed (Pierce, Sarason, and Sarason,
).
Emotional support. Imagine a mother and father who are coping
with chronic parenting stress because they have a child with an ongo-
ing life-threatening illness. There is no real escape from the strain that
this experience produces, as long as the child’s life remains in danger.
Nonetheless, if their relationship is strong and supportive, they come
to rely heavily on one another to give and receive help with the day-to-
day care of the child (through instrumental support, described below).
They also talk about their experiences and the emotions surrounding
their shared situation. Although by no means a perfect solution to
their predicament, emotional support of one another can greatly re-
duce the persistence and magnitude of their feelings of fear and sad-
ness.
Emotional support between “co-parents” does not minimize or

eliminate the presence of stressors, but it works to ameliorate some of
the effects of stressors on the parents’ functioning, by altering their
emotional experiences. One of the reasons that happy marriages, lower
parenting stress, more effective and rewarding parent-child relation-
ships, and better child social-emotional adjustment all seem to go to-
gether is that the adults in such families are partners in parenthood.
They frequently discuss, evaluate, and reevaluate their own and each
other’s coping strategies, child-rearing beliefs, and parenting behav-
iors. In supportive families, well-organized stories or “narratives”
about the stress and joy of parenting and family life are built and
shared within those families. These coherent narratives are an impor-
tant (though often overlooked) part of healthy adult functioning
(Fiese et al., ).
Emotional social support reduces aversive emotions that accom-
pany parenting stress. By communicating with others who can under-
stand, a distressed parent can learn that she or he is coping with diffi-
culties faced by many others (Hintermair, ; Kerr and McIntosh,
; Lowes and Lyne, ). This normalizing process is an essential
aspect of adjustment in parenting, because with few exceptions there is
little in the way of prior experience that can prepare anyone for the
stressful demands of parenthood, particularly if those stressors are
chronic or acute.
Emotional support also helps a distressed parent reduce negative
feelings through the sharing of emotions with a trusted friend. For
some parents, it helps to “vent” or “let off steam” by talking to a part-
ner or friend. The process of putting feelings into words has an effect
on the emotional experience surrounding the stress. It can increase or
decrease distress, depending in part on how the listener responds. A
confidant can reassure or help a parent deal with a potentially distress-
ing experience, or can help the parent take others’ perspectives as a
means of generating a wider variety of potential solutions to problems.
Through these emotionally supportive interactions and ongoing rela-
tionships, the provider of support is able to give invaluable informa-
tion to the parent about her or his own competence, and about
whether current and planned coping strategies are effective (Aspin-
wall, ). Conversations and advice (some of it unsolicited and not
welcomed initially) can lead to new realizations about what is and is

not working.
Instrumental support. In contrast to emotional support, instru-
mental support involves practical assistance provided by others in the
family and community. This may or may not accompany emotional
support. Consider the common experience of many parents who re-
ceive instrumental support every day from their spouses and their own
parents. For example, a mother who has ample instrumental support
in caring for her children is able to call on these other trusted adults to
step in and help her. She is able to hand over some caregiving tasks to
her husband and her own parents when she needs a rest or when there
are other demands on her time and attention. In contrast, in the case of
social isolation, a mother may truly have access to no one, or a mother
may not be able to trust the adults who are available to help. All else be-
ing equal, a parent with sufficient instrumental social support will ex-
perience fewer and less serious daily hassles in child rearing, and will be
more able to cope with the stressors that do arise because she or he is
not solely responsible for caring for the children.
The sources of practical support usually are family members,
close friends, and neighbors, although people and institutions out in
the community also can provide instrumental support. This is exem-
plified by the research showing that the availability and use of respite
childcare services for distressed parents are linked with lower parenting
stress and fewer incidences of child maltreatment (Cowen, ). In-
strumental social support works because it reduces the number and in-
tensity of stressors faced by parents. The demands of child rearing are
distributed over a larger number of capable adults who are motivated
to care for the child. Practical social support also allows the parent to
focus more of his or her attention on the parent-child relationship, as
opposed to being occupied by the mundane and less rewarding de-
mands of childcare and maintaining a household.
The importance of empathy. The key to the success of relationship-
focused coping strategies, and emotional support in particular, is em-
pathic coping. This includes perspective taking, social referencing of
emotional states, and emotional communication—perceiving and in-
terpreting accurately others’ emotions and needs for support, and
clearly communicating concern for the individual in need. Empathic
coping can happen between any two people. When it is effective at re-
ducing stress, empathic coping works because it aids the individual by
providing co-regulation (i.e., between two people) of emotional dis-
tress. At times, we all need another person whom we trust who can em-
pathize and soothe us when we are experiencing distress.
To be effective, empathic coping requires accurate empathy. In
order to know how to help, a person who is attempting to provide so-
cial support must be able to read correctly the stressed parent’s emo-
tions and understand the circumstances surrounding the distress.
When empathy is accurate, the supportive partner or friend can pro-
vide instrumental and emotional support in a highly effective way.
However, empathic accuracy comes at a price. It taxes the attention
and thoughts of the empathizer, and focusing on empathy can inter-
fere with the provision of other more instrumental modes of support
(Hodges and Wegner, ). Knowing how much energy to expend
when attempting to accurately perceive and understand another per-
son’s thoughts and feelings requires active perspective taking that con-
sumes most of the empathizer’s conscious effort.
Even though empathic support usually comes from people who
know us well, having shared experiences does not necessarily mean
that empathy will occur or will be accurate. What appears to matter
most is whether the person providing support is sufficiently motivated
to be accurate. This motivation varies widely across individuals and re-
lationships, and can be influenced by past experiences or anticipated
future experiences (Hodges, Klein, and Veach, ).
When empathy between partners or friends is inaccurate, emo-
tional support delivered with the best of intentions can be ineffective or
even damaging, particularly if it leads to conflict in the relationship
(O’Brien and DeLongis, ). An example of this is found in the dy-
namics of shared problem solving in some couples. A parent may di-
vulge to her partner some of the bad feelings and worries that she has
about their child, but her partner may want to solve the problem and
minimize the stressor as soon as possible. Therefore, he will avoid dis-
cussing her feelings about the problem, because that is seen as a distrac-
tion from the more problem-focused approach that is required. This is
sometimes called dismissive problem solving; it is more common among
males in married couples, and is often ineffective (Weiss, ).
What works? There is a clear link between lower levels of parent-

ing stress and access to and use of social support from family members,
friends, and members of the community. Although all parents benefit
from having instrumental and social support that is appropriate and
useful, social support is particularly important for parents who are
more likely to develop problems in parenting. These include parents
who are teenagers, those who have little education and are living in
poverty, those who have babies born too early and weighing too little
or children with chronic or terminal illnesses, or those who are facing
simultaneous stressful life events such as moving, separation or di-
vorce, and job loss (Adamakos et al., ; Deater-Deckard, ;
Frank et al., ; Koeske and Koeske, ; Quittner et al., ;
Richardson et al., ; Roggman, Moe, Hart, and Forthum, ).
When effective, social support not only is associated with lower levels
of parenting stress, it also can break the connection between stress and
the harsh parenting behavior that often accompanies distress (Kazui,
; Hauser-Cram et al., ; Nakagawa, Teti, and Lamb, ;
Rodgers, , ; Uno, Florsheim, and Uchino, ).
However, like problem-focused and approach coping strategies,
social support is not a panacea. There have been studies that show no
link between support and parenting stress (e.g., Farel and Hooper,
; Ostberg and Hagekull, ). In addition, the presence of sup-
port can sometimes make matters worse. For instance, residing with
their own parents may have many advantages for adolescent mothers.
However, it may not always protect these young mothers from distress
in parenting. Greater involvement by their own parents may actually
create problems, if there is conflict over how the babies should be cared
for and treated (Kalil and Danziger, ; Spencer, Kalil, Larson,
Spieker, and Gilchrist, ).
Social support that is not wanted or appropriate for a particular
situation is not helpful, and can be harmful if it leads to further distress
(Lepore, ). This is exemplified in the experiences of some women
following childbirth. Among those women who have uncomplicated
pregnancies and deliveries and whose babies are born full-term and
healthy, having a large network of family and friends who can offer
emotional and instrumental support appears to be welcomed by most
new mothers. This support helps them cope with the normal difficul-
ties surrounding this transition. However, if the infant is born prema-

turely with a very low birth weight, an extensive network of family and
friends can, at times, serve to undermine a mother’s efforts to cope. She
may end up spending too much time talking with well-intended fam-
ily members, many of whom themselves are distressed about the baby’s
health and prognosis (Zarling, Hirsch, and Landry, ). At times, she
may find herself counseling other family members, when it is she who
needs counsel most.
Lastly, understanding the effects of social support on parental
coping is complicated by the fact that stress and coping are dynamic,
and these changes in support over time can differ markedly for parents,
depending on their particular situations. One recent longitudinal
study demonstrated the waxing and waning of support that was of-
fered to and utilized by mothers and fathers of children diagnosed with
cancer. Although social support was high at the time of diagnosis in
nearly every case, it tended to dissipate over time. Although those par-
ents who received more support deemed as appropriate and useful
were coping better early in the cancer diagnosis and treatment process,
growing dissatisfaction with social support was tied to poorer parental
adaptation. Interestingly, this study also revealed no lasting effects of
support on parental adjustment (Hoekstra-Weebers et al., ). In
contrast, another study that investigated support for parents of chron-
ically ill children found that social support increased over the year fol-
lowing diagnosis, and was an important contributor to parental ad-
justment (Patterson, Garwick, Bennett, and Blum, ). Ideally, this
changeable quality arises from flexibility in the parents’ networks of
support, whereby they are able to make use of helpful support when
they need it.
To summarize, perhaps the most important lesson from decades
of research on coping and social support is that empathy is the key. As
members of families and communities in our neighborhoods, at
school, at work, and in our towns and cities, we can provide much-
needed emotional and instrumental help to parents. However, for it to
work well, we need to be able to deliver support in a way that is appro-
priate to those parents’ situations, in terms of its content and timing.
The most effective way to match the support we have to offer to the
needs of parents is to accurately empathize with the parents and to try
to understand their situations. Similarly, as parents who seek support

from others in order to adapt to the stressors of parenthood, the most
effective way to get the support we need is to clearly communicate our
feelings and desires, so that those who want to help can more readily
know what to do and when to do it. This is difficult and it requires ef-
fort (especially when we are already distressed), but when it works, the
effects of social support on parental coping and adaptation are remark-
ably powerful.
How Does Coping Work?

In Chapter , I described a social-cognitive theoretical framework that
has been used to define and explain the effects of coping on reducing
parenting stress. According to this framework, coping strategies are
used, evaluated, and altered as the individual attempts to reduce dis-
tress, conserve resources, and minimize the likelihood that additional
stressors will be encountered. To do this successfully, the parent must
be an efficient and effective processor of social information. This is the
key to parents’ self-control or regulation of their sensations, emotions,
thoughts, and behaviors (Costa, Somerfield, and McCrae, ).
Having a broad array of coping strategies available and knowing
how and when to invoke a particular strategy is only half the battle.
The distressed parent must also be able to figure out when a coping
strategy is not working, in order to replace it with a more effective
strategy. This is most likely to occur when the parent proactively sets
goals and plans actions, and then evaluates and alters them based on
accurate assessments of whether particular coping strategies are work-
ing (Zimmerman, ). These cycles of planning, carrying out, and
evaluating coping strategies involve attention, memory, emotions,
preferences, and beliefs or attitudes (Boekaerts, )—the nuts and
bolts of information processing. The more automatic or streamlined
the information processing is, the more available are cognitive re-
sources (like attention and memory) that can be used for further eval-
uation and implementation of alternative coping strategies (Aspinwall
and Taylor, ).
Unfortunately, the very same distress that a parent is trying to re-
duce or eradicate acts to undermine the effectiveness of her or his in-
formation processing. This is because distress creates global impair-

ments in cognitive resources. For example, fear or anxiety can bias at-
tention in such a way that the individual has a more difficult time not
thinking about the stressor and his or her own shortcomings (Mat-
thews and Wells, ). This “negativity bias” serves to further increase
distress.
Individual differences. Although there may not be a perfect cop-
ing strategy, some parents consistently cope more effectively than oth-
ers. As just described, successfully adapting in the face of parenting
stress has much to do with the particular stressors involved and the par-
ent’s ability to utilize and alter their coping strategies. But stress and
coping is not only about transactions between experiences, thoughts,
and emotions. There are a variety of personal attributes, some of which
can be thought of as stable intrapersonal traits, that can influence cop-
ing mechanisms. These may include goals, attitudes about the self and
about others and the world, and resources that people have access to
and do or do not make use of, such as intelligence, optimism, social
capital, and support from others (Lazarus, ). It is impossible to
think about stable individual differences between parents in the ef-
fectiveness of their coping without simultaneously thinking about sta-
ble individual differences in proneness to distress, as discussed in chap-
ter .
An additional aspect of individual differences in coping is pre-
emptive coping. For many reasons, some parents are more able to cope
with the stressors of parenthood because they come into the role more
prepared (physically and psychologically) for the challenges ahead.
Proactive information gathering and beliefs about the child’s individu-
ality are important. Parents who are knowledgeable about child devel-
opment and parenting have information at their fingertips that is ac-
curate and applicable in their daily lives. In addition, parents who
come to think of their children as individuals with their own charac-
teristics are more likely to have warmer, more rewarding parent-child
relationships (Benoit et al., ). This in turn can serve to minimize
the number and severity of stressors that the parent will have to face.
Having sufficient knowledge about parenthood and about a particular
child (her or his likes and dislikes, temperament, and so forth) can lead
to more accurate and realistic expectations (Grusec et al., ). Hav-
ing this knowledge and being prepared may be particularly important

for those parents who are at greater risk for experiencing acute and
chronic parenting stress, such as teenage mothers (Dukewich et al.,
).
Preemptive coping need not involve the intentional use of a par-
ticular strategy that is designed to reduce parenting stress. Ongoing
lifestyle habits exemplify this. Adults who habitually get sufficient
sleep and appropriate nutrition and who enjoy plenty of physical ac-
tivity are less likely to be distressed when they make the transition to
parenthood (Walker, Fleschler, and Heaman, ). Good health
habits have added benefits to individual and family functioning once
children arrive.
To summarize, there is no single formula for defining effective
coping, because there is not a universally effective coping strategy that
always works. It is inaccurate to think of a distressed parent as someone
with limited coping strategies that are applied in the same way in every
stressful situation. Real coping is more flexible than that, and more
complicated to understand as a result. Coping mechanisms operate as
part of an ongoing process of stress and adaptation. Most people use a
variety of strategies, often simultaneously, in their voluntary and invol-
untary reactions to stressors. When appraisals indicate that coping
strategies are not working, most people are able to change strategies.
Those attempts may or may not be successful. There is not a universally
effective coping strategy, because people, situations, and stress processes
vary so much (Lazarus, ). Sometimes this variation is systematic
and predictable, but sometimes it can be seemingly random.
Whether a coping strategy works at reducing stress depends on
how it is linked to a salient and meaningful outcome, such as the men-
tal health or well-being of the parent or the child. The positive or neg-
ative effects of any given coping strategy are not necessarily robust in
all situations or over time; a strategy’s effectiveness can be sporadic and
unpredictable, because the coping process is so dynamic. In addition,
the types of strategies that people use vary widely across situations and
individuals. Furthermore, people use multiple strategies simultaneously
(consciously and unconsciously), making it difficult at times to discern
the effectiveness of any single strategy.
It also is difficult to determine the effectiveness of a coping strat-
egy based on its apparent features alone (e.g., problem focused or emo-
tion focused). Consider withdrawal from social interaction as an exam-
ple. This is a coping strategy that some parents use when they need to
minimize their own distress during their interactions with their chil-
dren (e.g., Repetti and Wood, ). At first glance, this seems like an
obviously effective strategy for a parent who otherwise would become
more angry and hostile. On the other hand, this can seem like an obvi-
ously ineffective strategy that only delays the inevitable and makes mat-
ters worse by driving a wedge in the relationship between the parent and
the child. Both viewpoints probably are correct. This strategy of avoid-
ing interaction is likely to be effective in the short term at reducing
physiological arousal (e.g., lowering blood pressure and heart rate) and
subjective negative emotions such as annoyance and anger. However, in
the longer term, the establishment of a pattern of withdrawal from so-
cial interaction may lead to entrenched problems in parent-child inter-
action that actually create more stressors for the parent.
Thus the same coping strategy may have both positive and nega-
tive consequences on parenting stress, depending on a number of fac-
tors that vary over time and across parents and families. Although there
is no single universally effective coping strategy, those who have more
strategies at their disposal are more likely to cope well with a wider va-
riety of stressors (Lazarus, ; Strack and Feifel, ; Zeidner and
Saklofske, ).
Intervening to Reduce Parenting Stress

Most parents are able to cope well with the minor to severe stressors
that arise. However, some do not cope well, and they can benefit from
clinical interventions that promote adaptation and reduce distress in
the parenting role. The large research literature on parenting inter-
ventions is beyond the scope of this book; there are many studies con-
sisting of numerous types of treatments and techniques for evaluating
intervention effectiveness. However, common across most of the inter-
ventions is the induction (intentional or not) of changes in the experi-
ence of parenthood. This may involve a variety of intervention meth-
ods, such as expanding and reorienting the repertoire of child-rearing
behaviors (e.g., discipline strategies, displays of emotion, communica-
tion), or teaching new ways for the parent to think about children’s be-
haviors and thus making possible more accurate and effective problem
solving.
High levels of parenting stress can be reduced, in some cases sub-
stantially, through well-designed and well-implemented clinical and
community interventions. Many of these interventions require cogni-
tive and behavioral skills training. This training provides parents with
information and strategies that allow them to think about and behave
toward their children in ways that promote coherently organized and
rewarding interactions (Anastopoulos, Shelton, DuPaul, and Guevre-
mont, ; Cohen, Lojkasek, Muir, Muir, and Parker, ; Dihoff et
al., ; Ducharme, Atkinson, and Poulton, ; Pisterman et al.,
; Telleen, Herzog, and Kilbane, ).
To create long-term effects of reduced distress and increased sat-
isfaction in parenting, the intervention must lead to new ways of
thinking that create a lasting change in the parents’ self-efficacy and
use of effective coping strategies (Matthews and Wells, ). Based on
theories of stress and social information processing, interventions that
work are more likely to involve a number of steps that require the par-
ent to exercise considerable effort and motivation. This might include
teaching the parent to set specific goals, think about the task at hand
and the availability of resources, organize a plan and select strategies,
watch and monitor whether those selected strategies are working,
change strategies when they are not working, and draw some conclu-
sions from the experience that can inform future problem solving (We-
instein, Husman, and Dierking, ). This is a lot of work, particu-
larly for those parents who are not used to thinking about and
planning their parenting behavior, or for those with cognitive skill
deficits. In reality, most interventions target only a few of these com-
ponents, because changing all of these steps at once is not feasible.
In addition, interventions that address the needs and concerns of
the family as a unit (as opposed to focusing only on one child or one
parent) are more likely to be successful. This is exemplified by research
on interventions for mothers of premature or low-birth-weight new-
borns. These interventions can be effective at reducing the potentially
deleterious effects of this experience on maternal stress and health. In
our own review of intervention studies that used random assignment
of mothers to treatment and control groups, we identified twelve pub-

lished papers that reported results pertaining to parenting stress and
behavior. These interventions are effective at reducing maternal dis-
tress, promoting more responsive and sensitive parenting, and helping
build a warm and supportive parent-child relationship. The most suc-
cessful programs involve ongoing contact with the family beyond the
first month or two of the infant’s life, and they are family focused (as
opposed to infant focused). That is, a lasting relationship between the
intervention team (e.g., doctor, clinician, therapist) and the family is
established, and the treatment approach focuses on addressing the
needs of the parents as well as the child (Deater-Deckard and Bulkley,
).
Different Ways to Intervene

Interventions that reduce parenting stress need not target parenting
specifically. According to theories of parenting stress and coping, and
the evidence for these theories described throughout this book, any
number of changes in a family’s situation, a parent’s own health and
functioning, or a child’s behavior could lead to reductions in parenting
stress. This means that there are many potential “targets” for interven-
tion efforts. That being said, the most obvious source of potential
change is the parent. A recent meta-analysis of parenting interventions
that used group treatments designed to improve parenting effective-
ness showed that the interventions also lead to at least short-term re-
ductions in parental distress—and depressive symptoms in particular.
The interventions also lead to improvements in self-esteem and mari-
tal relationships (Barlow, Coren, and Stewart-Brown, ). It is im-
portant to emphasize that because it is so expensive to do so, few of the
intervention studies that have been carried out are able to test for long-
lasting improvements in parents’ experiences and well-being. How-
ever, there is some evidence for long-term effectiveness, and it suggests
that lasting change involves influences on parents’ self-esteem and per-
ceived competence in the parenting role (e.g., Armstrong et al., ,
; Feldman and Werner, ; Schuhmann, Foote, Eyberg, Boggs,
and Algina, ; Tucker, Gross, Fogg, Delaney, and Lapporte, ).
Interventions that create permanent improvements in parents’ feelings
of confidence and effectiveness are more likely to lead to lasting im-

provements in parents’ well-being.
Treatments that target children’s problem behaviors or deficits in
cognitive and social skills also can cause improvements in parents’ cop-
ing and enjoyment of parenting. For example, interventions designed
to treat child and adolescent delinquency, aggression, and attention
problems can enhance parents’ own positive moods and relationships
with their children, as well as reduce parenting stress (e.g., Barkley, Ed-
wards, Laneri, Fletcher, and Metevia, ). Another example comes
from an intervention that led to reductions in children’s sleep prob-
lems, thereby having positive effects on parents’ well-being (Reid, Wal-
ter, and O’Leary, ). In general, the degree of improvement in chil-
dren’s behaviors arising from these child-centered interventions is tied
to the degree of reduction of parenting stress (Kazdin and Wassell,
; Sanders and McFarland, ).
Other interventions serve to reduce parenting stress by increas-
ing the number of opportunities that the parent and child have for
well-organized and enjoyable interactions. For many distressed par-
ents, the happy and playful interactions that occur in families are rare
or absent. Thus treatments that involve teaching parents new ways to
play and interact with their children can promote satisfaction and re-
duce distress in the parenting role (Chau and Landreth, ; Hueb-
ner, ; Jang, ).
Even simple interventions that provide only the most basic in-
strumental support to the family in crisis (very little training is re-
quired) have the potential to reduce parenting stress, sometimes dra-
matically. An example of these kinds of effects is found in studies of
community-based respite care programs. These programs are designed
for parents who face a number of very demanding child-rearing tasks,
such as caring for children with developmental disabilities. Typically,
respite childcare involves a short period of time (from one to several
days) during which childcare providers care for children so that their
parents can have a break. Evaluations of respite caregiving programs
have yielded evidence suggesting that parenting stress is reduced, as are
the rates of child abuse and maltreatment in the distressed families
(Cowen, ; Cowen and Reed, ).
However, there is a caveat to the findings just described. Al-
though there is clear evidence of effectiveness of clinical interventions

based on published evaluation studies, many interventions create only
small, short-term gains (several weeks to months following completion
of treatment), and still others simply fail. Thus the literature on inter-
vention effects includes mixed results with respect to reducing parent-
ing stress (Anastopoulos et al., ; Beckman, ; Fraser, Armstrong,
Morris, and Dadds, ; Hogan, Linden, and Najarian, ; Telleen
et al., ; Winton, ; Warfield, Hauser-Cram, Krauss, Shonkoff,
and Upshur, ). Furthermore, it is difficult to know how many in-
tervention studies actually have been done, given the likely bias toward
disseminating and publishing results that support, rather than refute,
experimental effects. Finally, although intervention may well be essen-
tial for some families, others who receive intervention may very well
have adapted and improved on their own.
Parenting Stress as an Impediment to Intervention

Reducing parenting stress and increasing opportunities for enjoyment
in parenting are worthwhile goals in themselves. In addition, they aid
the effectiveness of interventions designed to create improvements in
children’s developmental outcomes. More precisely, reducing parent-
ing stress can have the added benefit of improving interventions that
are designed to facilitate positive and effective parenting behavior, im-
prove the quality of family relationships, and reduce children’s behav-
ioral and emotional problems. Whether it is by design or not, address-
ing parenting stress is a key part of most clinical interventions that are
designed to produce improvements in children’s emotional, behavioral,
cognitive, or physical outcomes. While there are obvious immediate
benefits to the parent when parenting stress decreases or dissipates,
there are also benefits to the child, via improvements in parenting skills
and the overall quality of the parent-child relationship (Kazdin, ).
Typically, in a group of families who have participated in a clini-
cal intervention some benefit and some do not. A number of studies
have examined subgroups of participants in order to determine which
factors promote or impede effectiveness. These studies have shown
that families with distressed parents and troubled parent-child rela-
tionships are the least likely to benefit from interventions (Hipke,
Wolchik, Sandler, and Braver, ; Hoza et al., ; Kazdin, Hol-
land, Crowley, and Breton, ; Kazdin and Wassell, ; Macias,
Clifford, Saylor, and Kreh, ). Parenting stress can interfere with
interventions in a variety of ways, including practical issues such as
scheduling and attending planned meetings with interventions spe-
cialists (e.g., Calam, Bolton, and Roberts, ). Distressed parents
are more likely to miss their appointments. There also are psychologi-
cal factors to consider. For instance, at the time that an intervention is
being used, a distressed parent may lack the attention, motivation, and
cognitive resources required to learn new ways of coping and interact-
ing with their children (Mabe, Turner, and Josephson, ).
In sum, interventions that focus on the needs of the family and
that strive to create lasting change in the way parents think about and
solve the challenges that arise generally show the most promising ef-
fects. A number of studies have focused on reducing parenting stress in
families that are deemed to be at risk. Examples include those in which
the parents or children have been diagnosed with emotional or behav-
ioral disorders, or where parenting and coping skills are thought to be
ineffective and potentially dangerous. Parenting stress can be an im-
pediment to effective treatment of children’s emotional and behavioral
problems. A parent who is highly distressed may reach a point at which
he or she loses motivation to address the challenges faced by his or her
child and family.
Conclusion
Although throughout this book I have emphasized the problems and
difficulties that can arise in parenting, an equally important part of the
message is that the majority of parents cope well with the day-to-day
demands of child rearing, as well as the infrequent yet more severe
stressful situations that can arise. Parents use a wide variety of cogni-
tive, emotional, and behavioral strategies—often involving other sup-
portive people in the process—and change these strategies over time in
their attempts to cope. Although it appears that some strategies (such
as problem-focused coping) are more effective in many situations,
there is no perfect formula because individuals and their situations are
so remarkably different. Some parents consistently cope better than
others with the demands of parenthood, sometimes by relying on a

host of preemptive coping strategies that are not even intended to min-
imize parenting stress. For those parents and children who may need
help, there are interventions available that can and do work, as long as
parental distress is not so great that it prevents parents and families
from benefiting.
When it does not overwhelm a parent’s ability to cope, success-
fully navigating through stressful times and circumstances can actually
be beneficial. In fact, stress plays an important role in healthy func-
tioning and development throughout the entire lifespan. Stress pro-
cesses strengthen the organism, forcing it to build mechanisms of de-
fense in preparation for those periods when stress may become acute
and severe. There is mounting empirical evidence from studies of
physiological development (e.g., neuroendocrine and immune sys-
tems) suggesting that stress and successful coping promotes optimal
functioning. There is also evidence from studies of psychological well-
being suggesting that individuals reap benefits from coping success-
fully with stressful experiences (Aldwin, ).
Closing Comments
Many of us are fascinated by parenthood, particularly when it goes
wrong. The image or metaphor of the flawed mother and father are
among the most common in art and religion. Imperfect deities are
parents to their mortal children. Ancient folk tales and contemporary
fiction alike depict the sins of fathers and mothers being revisited on
sons and daughters with such frequency that it is surprising that we do
not get bored with the stories. In addition, research on parenting and
lineage—and in particular the impact of problems in parenting on
the next generation—is one of the most common areas of inquiry in
developmental psychology, if not in the social sciences. The field of
psychology that has emerged and evolved over the past century has in-
corporated many theoretical ideas about the seemingly incredible
power of parents to influence their children’s personalities, skills, and
mental health outcomes. And there is the inevitable necessity of par-
ents; they are the key to our very existence and survival as biological
beings.
Parenting stress involves thoughts, emotions, and behaviors, all

of which arise from a combination of environmental and biological
components. Parenting stress is connected to adult functioning, to the
quality of parent-child relationships, and to child health and develop-
ment. Distress in the parenting role is distinct from stress in other roles
and situations; its effects can be measured separately from more global
assessments of stressful circumstances or problems in adjustment. Al-
though parents differ in the attributes and resources that influence
their levels of stress, all experience parenting stress to some degree at
one time or another. Furthermore, there are both parent and child ef-
fects on parenting stress, and the levels of parenting stress differ within
the family as well as between families. Two parents in the same house-
hold can differ in their levels of stress. The same parent can have differ-
ent levels of distress depending on which one of several children in the
family is in question.
Parenthood presents many rewards and challenges that are
unique to the role. The advantages of being a parent seem so obvious to
those who are parents and to those who plan to be parents that few stop
to consider why they or others have children. When I present the ques-
tion to undergraduate students—“Why do we become parents?”—
the conversation turns quickly to the biological necessity of reproduc-
tion. That is, children arrive as a by-product of sex, the motivation for
which most do not need to consider very deeply. The biological advan-
tage of parenthood is fairly straightforward, whereby an individual’s
success is defined by his or her ability to produce offspring who them-
selves live to produce offspring. Related to this are the economics of
parenthood, in which the costs and benefits of having children (in
terms of money as well as many other material or intangible resources)
are weighed against the costs and benefits of not having children.
But we are not simply biological beings who are guided, blindly
or otherwise, by our urges to reproduce and survive. As Dora Russell
wrote in Hypatia (, p. ), “We want better reasons for having chil-
dren than not knowing how to prevent them.” Though not to be con-
sidered independent of the biology or economics of child rearing, the
psychology of parenthood provides additional and essential informa-
tion about the “whys” and “hows” of parenting and children’s develop-
ment. There are many important and meaningful reasons for having
children, some of them universal and some specific to each individual

(describing them would require another book). Parenting stress and its
effects on parents and children should be considered in light of the
wide variety of motivations and experiences—both challenging and
rewarding—that converge in the lives of families.
Appendix: Selected Studies
Child Illnesses, Conditions, and Disabilities (see table .)

Asthma (Carson and Schauer, )
Cancer (Kazak and Barakat, )
Cerebral Palsy (Button, Pianta, and Marvin, )
Congenital diseases, e.g., heart disease, cystic fibrosis (Crist et al., ; Darke
and Goldberg, ; Goldberg et al., ; Quittner, DiGirolamo, Mi-
chel, and Eigen, )
Developmental disability, e.g., mental retardation (Atkinson et al., ; Fuller
and Rankin, ; Hatton, Knussen, Sloper, and Turner, ; Hauser-
Cram et al., ; Innocenti, Huh, and Boyce, ; Orr et al., ; Pear-
son and Chan, ; Singer, Song, Hill, and Jaffe, )
Diabetes (Powers et al., ; Sepa et al., ; Viner et al., )
Epilepsy (Camfield, Breau, and Camfield, )
HIV/AIDS (Wiener, Vasquez, and Battles, )
Physical disability (Beckman, ; Dyson, ; Dyson, Edgar, and Crnic, ;
Miller et al., ; O’Neil et al., )
Spina bifida (Holmbeck et al., )
Behavioral and Emotional Problems and Disorders (see table .)

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (Anastopoulos et al., ; Baker and
McCall, ; Fischer, ; Harrison and Sofronoff, ; Johnston and
Mash, ; Kaplan, Crawford, Fisher, and Dewey, ; Podolski and
Nigg, ; Ross, Blanc, McNeil, Eyberg, and Hembree-Kigin, )
Autism and/or pervasive developmental disorder (Donenberg and Baker, ;
Dumas, Wolf, Fisman, and Culligan, ; Hoppes and Harris, ; To-
bing and Glenwick, )
Conduct disorder and externalizing problems (Briggs-Gowan et al., ; Camp-
bell, ; Creasey and Jarvis, ; Creasey and Reese, ; Deater-
Deckard et al., ; Donenberg and Baker, ; Dumas et al., ; Ey-
berg et al., ; Mesman and Koot, ; Wakschlag and Keenan, )
Depression, anxiety, and internalizing problems (Deater-Deckard et al., ;
Goldberg et al., ; Mesman and Koot, ; Walker, )
Sleep problems (Gelman and King, ; Reid et al., )
Substance use (Donohue, DeCato, Azrin, and Teichner, )
▪ 165 ▪
166 Appendix
Cross-Cultural Research
China: psychometric properties of parenting stress questionnaires (Cheung,
; Yeh, Chen, Li, and Chuang, )
Europe: child cognitive deficits (Sarimski, ); parenting style and self-esteem
(Aunola et al., )
Hong Kong: child abuse and community contact (Chan, ); child behavior
problems and parental role restriction (Kwok and Wong, ); parental
anger (Lam, )
International: child chronic illness (Krulik et al., )
Israel: infant insecure attachment (Scher and Mayseless, ); pre- and peri-
natal risk factors (Rimmerman and Sheran, )
Italy: parental role restriction (Forgays, Ottaway, Guarino, and D’Alessio, )
Japan: parental role restriction and infant attachment (Kazui, )
Malaysia: pre- and peri-natal risk factors (Ong et al., , a, b)
New Zealand: child abuse potential and parental anger (Rodriguez and Green,
)
Nigeria: polygamous family structure and sickle cell disease (Olley, Grieger, and
Olley, )
Sweden: child behavior problems and parental responsiveness (Ostberg, );
child behavior problems and social support (Ostberg and Hagekull,
); psychometric properties of parenting stress questionnaires (Ost-
berg, Hagekull, and Wettergren, )
United States
African Americans: psychometric properties of parenting stress questionnaires
(Reitman, Currier, and Stickle, ); self-efficacy and depression (Jack-
son, ; Jackson and Huang, ); teen pregnancy (Bendell et al.,
); work-family stress spillover (Beale, )
Hispanics: acculturation and psychometric properties of parenting stress ques-
tionnaire (Solis, ; Solis and Abidin, ); poverty (Planos, Zayas,
and Busch-Rossnagel, ; Uno et al., )
References
Abidin, R. R. (). The parenting stress index short form. Lutz, FL: Psychologi-
cal Assessment Resources.
Abidin, R. R. (). The determinants of parenting behavior. Journal of Clini-
cal Child Psychology, , –.
Abidin, R. R. (). The parenting stress index professional manual. Lutz, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., and Howell, C. T. (). Child-ado-
lescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-infor-
mant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, ,
–.
Adamakos, H., Ryan, K., Ullman, D. G., Pascoe, J., Diaz, R., and Chessare, J.
(). Maternal social support as a predictor of mother-child stress and
stimulation. Child Abuse and Neglect, , –.
Affleck, G., Tennen H., and Gershman, K. (). Cognitive adaptations to
high-risk infants: The search for mastery, meaning, and protection from
future harm. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, , – .
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., and Wall, S. (). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Aldwin, C. M. (). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective.
New York: Guilford Press.
Alexander, M. J., and Higgins, E. T. (). Emotional trade-offs of becoming a
parent: How social roles influence self-discrepancy effects. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, , –.
Anastopoulos, A. D., Guevremont, D. C., Shelton, T. L., and DuPaul, G. J.
(). Parenting stress among families of children with attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, , –.
Anastopoulos, A. D., Shelton, T. L., DuPaul, G. J., and Guevremont, D. C.
(). Parent training for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Its im-
pact on parent functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, , –
.
Anderson, K., Lytton, H., and Romney, D. M. (). Mothers’ interactions
with normal and conduct-disordered boys: Who affects whom? Develop-
mental Psychology, , –.
Arditti, J. A., and Madden-Derdich, D. (). Joint and sole custody mothers:
Implications for research and practice. Families in Society, , –.
Armstrong, K. L., Fraser, J. A., Dadds, M. R., and Morris, J. (). A random-
▪ 167 ▪
168 References
ized, controlled trial of nurse home visiting to vulnerable families with

newborns. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, , –.
Armstrong, K. L., Fraser, J. A., Dadds, M. R., and Morris, J. (). Promoting
secure attachment, maternal mood and child health in a vulnerable pop-
ulation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Paediatrics and Child
Health, , –.
Ashman, S. B., and Dawson, G. (). Maternal depression, infant psychobi-
ological development, and risk for depression. In S. Goodman and I. H.
Gotlib (Eds.), Children of depressed parents: Mechanisms of risk and impli-
cations for treatment (pp. –). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Aspinwall, L. G. (). Dealing with adversity: Self-regulation, coping, adap-
tation, and health. In A. Tesser and N. Schwarz (Eds.), Blackwell hand-
book of social psychology: Intraindividual processes (pp. –). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Aspinwall, L. G., and Taylor, S. E. (). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and
proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin, , –.
Atkinson, L., Scott, B., Chisholm, V., Blackwell, J., Dickens, S., Tam, F., and
Goldberg, S. (). Cognitive coping, affective distress, and maternal
sensitivity: Mothers of children with Down syndrome. Developmental
Psychology, ,  –.
Aunola, K., Nurmi, J. E., Onatsu-Arvilommi, T., and Pulkkinen, L. (). The
role of parents’ self-esteem, mastery-orientation and social background in
their parenting styles. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, , –.
Baker, D. B. (). Parenting stress and ADHD: A comparison of mothers and
fathers. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, , –.
Baker, B. L., and Heller, T. L. (). Preschool children with externalizing be-
haviors: Experience of fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, , –.
Baker, B. L., Heller, T. L., and Henker, B. (). Expressed emotion, parenting
stress, and adjustment in mothers of young children with behavior prob-
lems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, , –.
Baker, D. B., and McCall, K. (). Parenting stress in parents of children with
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and parents of children with
learning disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, , –.
Balge, K. A., and Milner, J. S. (). Emotion recognition ability in mothers at
high and low risk for child physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, ,
–.
Ballard, C., and Davis, R. (). Postnatal depression in fathers. International
Review of Psychiatry, , –.
Baltes, P. B. (). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selec-
tion, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental
theory. American Psychologist, , –.
Barkley, R. A., Edwards, G., Laneri, M., Fletcher, K., and Metevia, L. ().
References 169
The efficacy of problem-solving communication training alone, behavior

management training alone, and their combination for parent-adolescent
conflict in teenagers with ADHD and ODD. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, ,  –.
Barkley, R. A., Shelton, T. L., Crosswait, C., Moorehouse, M., Fletcher, K., Bar-
rett, S., Jenkins, L., and Metevia, L. (). Preschool children with dis-
ruptive behavior: Three-year outcome as a function of adaptive disability.
Development and Psychopathology, , –.
Barlow, J., Coren, E., and Stewart-Brown, S. (). Meta-analysis of the effec-
tiveness of parenting programmes in improving maternal psychosocial
health. British Journal of General Practice, , –.
Barnett, D. W., Hall, J. D., and Bramlett, R. K. (). Family factors in pre-
school assessment and intervention: A validity study of parenting stress
and coping measures. Journal of School Psychology, , –.
Barnett, R. C., Marshall, N. L., and Singer, J. D. (). Job experiences over
time, multiple roles, and women’s mental health: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ,  – .
Baroni, M. A., Anderson, Y. E., and Mischler, E. (). Cystic fibrosis newborn
screening: Impact of early screening results on parenting stress. Pediatric
Nursing, , –.
Basic Behavioral Science Task Force of the National Advisory Mental Health
Council (). Basic behavioral science research for mental health: Fam-
ily processes and social networks. American Psychologist, , –.
Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., and Ridge, B. (). Interaction of tem-
peramental resistance to control and restrictive parenting in the develop-
ment of externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, , – .
Baum, A., Garofalo, J. P., and Yali, A. M. (). Socioeconomic status and
chronic stress. Does stress account for SES effects on health? Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, , –.
Baumrind, D. (). The average expectable environment is not good enough:
A response to Scarr. Child Development, , –.
Beale, R. L. (). Multiple familial-worker role strain and psychological well-
being: Moderating effects of coping resources among Black American
parents. In R. J. Taylor, J. S. Jackson (Eds.), Family life in Black America
(pp. –). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beck, A. T. (). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: Interna-
tional Universities Press.
Beckman, P. J. (). Comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of the
effect of young children with and without disabilities. American Journal
on Mental Retardation, , –.
Beckwith, L., and Rodning, C. (). Dyadic processes between mothers and
preterm infants: Development at ages  to  years. Infant Mental Health
Journal, , –.
170 References
Beebe, S. A., Casey, R., Pinto-Martin, J. (). Association of reported infant

crying and maternal parenting stress. Clinical Pediatrics, ,  –.
Bell, R. Q., and Chapman, M. (). Child effects in studies using experimen-
tal or brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psy-
chology, ,  –.
Belsky, J. (). The determinants of parenting. Child Development, ,  –.
Belsky, J., Rovine, M., and Fish, M. (). The developing family system. In
M. R. Gunnarand and E. Thelen (Eds.), Systems and development: The
Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, Vol.  (pp. –). Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., Woodworth, S., and Crnic, K. (). Trouble in the second year:
Three questions about family interaction. Child Development, , –
.
Bendell, R. D., Stone, W. L., Field, T. M., and Goldstein, S. (). Children’s
effects on parenting stress in a low income, minority population. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, , –.
Benoit, D., Parker, K. C. H., and Zeanah, C. H. (). Mothers’ representa-
tions of their infants assessed prenatally: Stability and association with in-
fants’ attachment classifications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try, , –.
Blacher, J., Shapiro, J., Lopez, S., and Diaz, L. (). Depression in Latina
mothers of children with mental retardation: A neglected concern. Amer-
ican Journal on Mental Retardation, , –.
Boekaerts, M. (). Coping with stress in childhood and adolescence. In M.
Zeidner and N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research,
and applications (pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., and Zeidner, M. (). Handbook of self-regula-
tion. New York: Academic Press.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., and Wethington, E. (). The mi-
crostructure of daily role-related stress in married couples. In J. Ecken-
rode and S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp. –). New
York: Plenum.
Bowers, B. F., and Myers, B. J. (). Grandmothers providing care for grand-
children: Consequences of various levels of caregiving. Family Relations,
, –.
Bowlby, J. (). Attachment and loss, Vol. . London: Hogarth.
Boyce, W. T. (). The vulnerable child: New evidence, new approaches. Ad-
vances in Pediatrics, , –.
Bradley, R. H., and Corwyn, R. F. (). Socioeconomic status and child de-
velopment. Annual Review of Psychology, , –.
Breen, M. J., and Barkley, R. A. (). Child psychopathology and parenting
stress in girls and boys having attention deficit disorder with hyperactiv-
ity. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
References 171
Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Carter, A. S., Skuban, E. M., and Horwitz, S. M. ().

Prevalence of social-emotional and behavioral problems in a community
sample of - and -year-old children. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, , –.
Bromet, E. J., Dew, M. A., and Parkinson, D. K. (). Spillover between work
and family: A study of blue-collar working wives. In J. Eckenrode and
S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp.  –). New York:
Plenum.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P., Smith, J. R., and Lee, K. (). Effects of com-
bining public assistance and employment on mothers and their young
children. Women and Health, , –.
Brown, G. W., and Harris, T. O. (). Life events and illness. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., and Dornbusch, S. M. (). Adolescents af-
ter divorce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bugental, D. B., and Johnston, C. (). Parental and child cognitions in the
context of the family. Annual Review of Psychology, ,  –.
Busch-Rossnagel, N. A., Peters, D. L., and Daly, M. J. (). Mothers of vul-
nerable and normal infants: More alike than different. Family Relations:
Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies, , –.
Button, S., Pianta, R. C., and Marvin, R. S. (). Mothers’ representations
of relationships with their children: Relations with parenting behavior,
mother characteristics, and child disability status. Social Development, ,
–.
Calam, R., Bolton, C., and Roberts, J. (). Maternal expressed emotion, at-
tributions and depression and entry into therapy for children with behav-
iour problems. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, , –.
Camfield, C., Breau, L., and Camfield, P. (). Impact of pediatric epilepsy
on the family: A new scale for clinical and research use. Epilepsia, ,  –
.
Campbell, S. B. (). Hard-to-manage preschool boys: Externalizing behav-
ior, social competence, and family context at two-year followup. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, , –.
Cannon, W. B. (). The wisdom of the body (nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Capaldi, D. M., and Patterson, G. R. (). Relation of parental transitions to
boys’ adjustment problems: I. A linear hypothesis. II. Mothers at risk for
transitions and unskilled parenting. Developmental Psychology, , –
.
Carson, D. K., and Schauer, R. W. (). Mothers of children with asthma:
Perceptions of parenting stress and the mother-child relationship. Psycho-
logical Reports, , –.
172 References
Chaffee, C. A., Cunningham, C. E., Secord-Gilbert, M., Elbard, H., and Rich-
ards, J. (). The influence of parenting stress and child behavior prob-
lems on parental estimates of expressive and receptive language develop-
ment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, , –.
Chan, R. W., Raboy, B., and Patterson, C. J. (). Psychosocial adjustment
among children conceived via donor insemination by lesbian and hetero-
sexual mothers. Child Development, , –.
Chan, Y. C. (). Parenting stress and social support of mothers who physi-
cally abuse their children in Hong Kong. Child Abuse and Neglect, ,
–.
Chao, R. K. (). Chinese and European American mothers’ beliefs about the
role of parenting in children’s school success. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, , –.
Chau, I. Y., and Landreth, G. L. (). Filial therapy with Chinese parents: Ef-
fects on parental empathic interactions, parental acceptance of child and
parental stress. International Journal of Play Therapy, , –.
Cheung, S. K. (). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the
Parental Stress Scale (). Psychologia, , –.
Chiang, T., Caplovitz-Barrett, K., and Nunez, N. (). Maternal attributions
of Taiwanese and American toddlers’ misdeeds and accomplishments.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,, –.
Chisholm, K. (). A three year follow-up of attachment and indiscriminate
friendliness in children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Child De-
velopment, , –.
Cicchetti, D., Toth, S. L., and Maughan, A. (). An ecological-transactional
model of child maltreatment. In A. J. Sameroff, M. Lewis, and S. M.
Miller (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychopathology (nd ed.)
(pp. –). New York: Plenum.
Cohen, N. J., Lojkasek, M., Muir, E., Muir, R., and Parker, C. J. (). Six-
month follow-up of two mother-infant psychotherapies: Convergence of
therapeutic outcomes. Infant Mental Health Journal, , –.
Cohn, J. F., and Tronick, E. Z. (). Mother-infant face-to-face interaction:
Influence is bidirectional and unrelated to periodic cycles in either part-
ner’s behavior. Developmental Psychology, , –.
Coleman, P. K., and Karraker, K. H. (). Parenting self-efficacy among
mothers of school-age children: Conceptualization, measurement, and
correlates. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family
Studies, , –.
Colpin, H., DeMunter, A., Nys, K., and Vandemeulebroecke, L. (). Pre-
and post-natal determinants of parenting stress in mothers of one-year-
old twins. Marriage and Family Review, , –.
Compas, B. E., Connor, J., Osowiecki, D., and Welch, A. (). Effortful and
involuntary responses to stress: Implications for coping with chronic
References 173
stress. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.),Coping with chronic stress (pp.  –).

New York: Plenum.
Conger, R., Patterson, G. R., and Ge, X. (). It takes two to replicate: A me-
diational model for the impact of parents’ stress on adolescent adjust-
ment. Child Development, , –.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., and
Whitbeck, L. B. (). A family process model of economic hardship
and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, , –.
Contreras, J. M., Lopez, I. R., Rivera-Mosquera, E. T., Raymond-Smith, L.,
and Rothstein, K.(). Social support and adjustment among Puerto
Rican adolescent mothers: The moderating effect of acculturation. Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, , –.
Costa, P. T., Somerfield, M. R., and McCrae, R. R. (). Personality and cop-
ing: A reconceptualization. In M. Zeidner and N. S. Endler (Eds.), Hand-
book of coping: Theory, research, and applications (pp. –). New York:
Wiley.
Cowen, P. S. (). Crisis child care: An intervention for at-risk families. Issues
in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, , –.
Cowen, P. S. (). Crisis child care: Implications from family interventions.
Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, , –.
Cowen, P. S., and Reed, D. A. (). Effects of respite care for children with
developmental disabilities: Evaluation of an intervention for at risk fami-
lies. Public Health Nursing, , –.
Coyle, D. D., Roggman, L. A., and Newland, L. A. (). Stress, maternal de-
pression, and negative mother-infant interactions in relation to infant at-
tachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, , –.
Creasey, G., and Jarvis, P. A. (). Relationships between parenting stress and
developmental functioning among -year-olds. Infant Behavior and De-
velopment, , –.
Creasey, G., and Reese, M. (). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of parent-
ing hassles: Associations with psychological symptoms, nonparenting
hassles, and child behavior problems. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, , –.
Crist, W., McDonnell, P., Beck, M., Gillespie, C. T., Barret, P., and Matthews,
J. (). Behavior at mealtimes and the young child with cystic fibrosis.
Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, , –.
Crnic, K., and Greenberg, M. T. (). Minor parenting stresses with young
children. Child Development, ,  –.
Crnic, K., and Low, C. (). Everyday stresses and parenting. In M. H. Born-
stein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. : Practical issues in parenting (nd
ed.) (pp. –). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronin, C. M., Shapiro, C. R., Casiro, O. G., and Cheang, M. S. (). The
impact of very low-birth-weight infants on the family is long lasting: A
174 References
matched control study. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, ,

–.
Crouch, J. L., and Behl, L. E. (). Relationships among parental beliefs in
corporal punishment, reported stress, and physical child abuse potential.
Child Abuse and Neglect, , –.
Daly, M., and Wilson, M. I. (). Violence against stepchildren. Current Di-
rections in Psychological Science, , –.
Daly, S. L., and Glenwick, D. S. (). Personal adjustment and perceptions
of grandchild behavior in custodial grandmothers. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, , –.
Danseco, E. R., and Holden, E. W. (). Are there different types of homeless
families? A typology of homeless families based on cluster analysis. Fam-
ily Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, , –
.
Darke, P. R., and Goldberg, S. (). Father-infant interaction and parent
stress with healthy and medically compromised infants. Infant Behavior
and Development, , –.
Davis, H., and Spurr, P. (). Parent counseling: An evaluation of a commu-
nity child mental health service. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try, , –.
Deater-Deckard, K. (). Within-family variability in parental negativity and
control. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, , –.
Deater-Deckard, K. (). Parenting stress and child adjustment: Some old hy-
potheses and new questions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, ,
–.
Deater-Deckard, K., and The ALSPAC Research Team (). Parenting stress
in different family contexts: A population study of intact, remarried, and sin-
gle-mother families. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development, April, Washington D.C.
Deater-Deckard, K., Atzaba-Poria, N., and Pike, A. (in press). Mother-child
and father-child mutuality in Anglo and Indian British families: A link
with lower externalizing problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.
Deater-Deckard, K., and Bulkley, J. (). Parents’ concerns in long-term fol-
low-up. Seminars in Neonatology, , –.
Deater-Deckard, K., and Dodge, K. A. (). Externalizing behavior problems
and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, con-
text, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, , –.
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., and Sorbring, E. (in press). Cultural differ-
ences in the effects of physical punishment. In M. Tienda and M. Rutter
(Eds.), Ethnicity and causal mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Deater-Deckard, K., and O’Connor, T. G. (). Parent-child mutuality in
References 175
early childhood: Two behavioral genetic studies. Developmental Psychol-

ogy, , –.
Deater-Deckard, K., Petrill, S. A., Hwang, J., Cutting, A., and Plomin, R.
(). Passive gene-environment correlation in mother-child task dyadic
task engagement. Unpublished manuscript.
Deater-Deckard, K., Pickering, K., Dunn, J. F., and Golding, J. (). Family
structure, marital status, and depressive symptoms in men preceding and
following the birth of a child. American Journal of Psychiatry, , – .
Deater-Deckard, K., Pike, A., Petrill, S. A., Cutting, A., Hughes, C., and O’-
Connor, T. G. (). Nonshared environmental processes in social-emo-
tional development: An observational study of identical twin differences
in the preschool period. Developmental Science, , F–F.
Deater-Deckard, K., Pinkerton, R., and Scarr, S. (). Childcare quality and
children’s behavioral adjustment: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, , – .
Deater-Deckard, K., and Scarr, S. (). Parenting stress among dual-earner
mothers and fathers: Are there gender differences? Journal of Family Psy-
chology, , –.
Deater-Deckard, K., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., and Eisenberg, M. (). Pater-
nal separation anxiety: Relationships with parenting stress, child-rearing
attitudes, and maternal anxieties. Psychological Science, , –.
Demetriou, A. (). Organization and development of self-understanding
and self-regulation: Toward a general theory. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pin-
trich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.  –).
New York: Academic Press.
Derryberry, D., and Reed, M. (). Anxiety-related attentional biases and
their regulation by attentional control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
, –.
De Vries, P. (). The tunnel of love. New York: Little Brown.
Dibble, E., and Cohen, D. J. (). Companion instruments for measuring
children’s competence and parental style. Archives of General Psychiatry,
, –.
Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Kafer, L. B., McEwan, M., Carpenter, L., Riz-
zuto, G., Farrely, M., Anderson, J., and Bloszinsky, S. (). Efficacy of
part- and full-time early intervention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, ,
–.
Dimitrovsky, L., Levy-Shiff, R., and Perl, G. (). Effect of gender-role ori-
entation of primiparous mothers on their cognitive appraisals, coping
strategies, and mood postpartum. Sex Roles, ,  –.
Dishion, T. J., and McMahon, R. J. (). Parental monitoring and the pre-
vention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and em-
pirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, , –.
176 References
Dix, T. (). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladap-

tive processes. Psychological Bulletin, , –.
Dix, T. (). Attributing dispositions to children: An interactional analysis of
attributions in socialization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, ,
–.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., and Bates, J. E. (). Socialization mediators of the
relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child
Development, ,  –.
Donenberg, G., and Baker, B. L. (). The impact of young children with ex-
ternalizing behaviors on their families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-
ogy, , –.
Donohue, B., DeCato, L. A., Azrin, N. H., and Teichner, G. A. (). Satis-
faction of parents with their conduct-disordered and substance-abusing
youth. Behavior Modification, , –.
Douglas, A. R. (). Reported anxieties concerning intimate parenting in
women sexually abused as children. Child Abuse and Neglect, , –.
Douglas, J. E., Hulson, B., and Trompeter, R. S. (). Psycho-social outcome
of parents and young children after renal transplantation. Child Care,
Health and Development, , –.
Downey, G., and Coyne, J. C. (). Children of depressed parents: An inte-
grative review. Psychological Bulletin, , –.
Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., Albus, K. E., and Bates, B. (). Attachment for in-
fants in foster care: The role of the caregiver state of mind. Child Develop-
ment, , –.
Ducharme, J. M., Atkinson, L., and Poulton, L. (). Success-based, nonco-
ercive treatment of oppositional behavior in children from violent homes.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, ,
–.
Dukewich, T. L., Borkowski, J. G., and Whitman, T. L. (). Adolescent
mothers and child abuse potential: An evaluation of risk factors. Child
Abuse and Neglect, , –.
Dumas, J. E., Wolf, L. C., Fisman, S. N., and Culligan, A. (). Parenting
stress, child behavior problems, and dysphoria in parents of children with
autism, Downs syndrome, behavior disorders, and normal development.
Exceptionality, , –.
Dumka, L. E., Gonzales, N. A., Wood, J. L., and Formoso, D. (). Using
qualitative methods to develop contextually relevant measures and pre-
ventive interventions: An illustration. American Journal of Community
Psychology, , –.
Dunn, J., Davies, L. C., O’Connor, T., and Sturgess, W. (). Parents’ and
partners’ life course and family experiences: Links with parent-child rela-
tionships in different family settings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, ,  –.
References 177
Dunn, J., and Plomin, R. (). Determinants of maternal behaviour towards

-year-old siblings. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, , –
.
Dunn, J., and Plomin, R. (). Separate lives: Why siblings are so different. New
York: Basic Books.
Dyson, L. L. (). Response to the presence of a child with disabilities: Pa-
rental stress and family functioning over time. American Journal on Men-
tal Retardation, , –.
Dyson, L., Edgar, E., and Crnic, K. (). Psychological predictors of adjust-
ment by siblings of developmentally disabled children. American Journal
on Mental Retardation, , –.
Eckenrode, J., and Gore, S. (). Stress between work and family: Summary
and conclusions. In J. Eckenrode and S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work
and family (pp. –). New York: Plenum.
Emery, R. E., and Tuer, M. (). Parenting and the marital relationship. In T.
Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. –
). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Emick, M. A., and Hayslip, B. (). Custodial grandparenting: Stresses, cop-
ing skills, and relationships with grandchildren. International Journal of
Aging and Human Development, ,  – .
Emmons, C., Biernat, M., Tiedje, L. B., Lang, E. L., and Wortman, C. B.
(). Stress, support, and coping among women professionals with
preschool children. In J. Eckenrode and S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between
work and family (pp. –). New York: Plenum.
Estroff, D. B., Yando, R., Burke, K., and Snyder, D. (). Perceptions of
preschoolers’ vulnerability by mothers who had delivered preterm. Jour-
nal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
Eyberg, S. M., Boggs, S. R., and Rodriguez, C. M. (). Relationships be-
tween maternal parenting stress and child disruptive behavior. Child and
Family Behavior Therapy, , –.
Farel, A. M., and Hooper, S. R. (). Relationship between the Maternal So-
cial Support Index and the Parenting Stress Index in mothers of very-low-
birthweight children now age . Psychological Reports, , –.
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (). How can the
relationship between race and violence be explained? In D. F. Hawkins
(Ed.), Violent crimes: Assessing race and ethnic differences (pp. –).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Feldman, M. A., and Werner, S. E. (). Collateral effects of behavioral par-
ent training on families of children with developmental disabilities and
behavior disorders. Behavioral Interventions, , –.
Feldman-Reichman, S. R., Miller, A. C., Gordon, R. M., and Hendricks-
Munoz, K. D. (). Stress appraisal and coping in mothers of NICU
infants. Children’s Health Care, , –.
178 References
Field, T. M. (). Interaction coaching for high-risk infants and their parents.
Prevention in Human Services, , –.
Field, T. M. (). High risk infants “have less fun” during early interactions.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, , –.
Field, T. M. (). Prenatal effects of maternal depression. In S. Goodman and
I. Gotlib (Eds.), Children of depressed parents: Mechanisms of risk and im-
plications for treatment (pp.–). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Fiese, B. H, Sameroff, A. J., Grotevant, H. D., Wamboldt, F. S., Dickstein, S.,
and Fravel, D. L.(). The stories that families tell: Narrative coher-
ence, narrative interaction, and relationship beliefs. Monographs of the So-
ciety for Research in Child Development, () (serial no. ).
Fischer, M. (). Parenting stress and the child with attention deficit hyperac-
tivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, , –.
Fleming, A. S., Ruble, D. N., Flett, G. L., and Van Wagner, V. (). Adjust-
ment in first-time mothers: Changes in mood and mood content during
the early postpartum months. Developmental Psychology, , –.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Oliver, J. M., and Macdonald, S. (). Perfection-
ism in children and their parents: A developmental analysis. In G. L. Flett
and P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment
(pp. –). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Forgays, D. K., Ottaway, S. A., Guarino, A., and D’Alessio, M. (). Parent-
ing stress in employed and at-home mothers in Italy. Journal of Family
and Economic Issues, , –.
Frank, S. J., Olmstead, C. L., Wagner, A. E., Laub, C. C., Freeark, K., Breitzer,
G. M., and Peters, J. M. (). Child illness, the parenting alliance, and
parenting stress. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
Frankenhaeuser, M. (). The psychophysiology of workload, stress, and
health: Comparison between the sexes. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, ,
–.
Fraser, J. A., Armstrong, K. L., Morris, J. P., and Dadds, M. R. (). Home
visiting intervention for vulnerable families with newborns: Follow-up
results of a randomized controlled trial. Child Abuse and Neglect, ,
–.
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., and Scharlach, A. E. (). Families and work: New
directions in the Twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., and Fewell, R. R. (). Stress and coping among
parents of handicapped children: A multidimensional approach. Ameri-
can Journal on Mental Retardation, , –.
Frodi, A. M., and Lamb, M. E. (). Infants at risk for child abuse. Infant
Mental Health Journal, , –.
Fuemmeler, B. F., Mullins, L. L., and Marx, B. P. (). Posttraumatic stress
References 179
and general distress among parents of children surviving a brain tumor.

Children’s Health Care, , –.
Fuller, G. B., and Rankin, R. E. (). Differences in levels of parental stress
among mothers of learning disabled, emotionally impaired, and regular
school children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, , –.
Gable, S., Belsky, J., and Crnic, K. (). Marriage, parenting, and child devel-
opment: Progress and prospects. Special issue: Diversity in contemporary
family psychology. Journal of Family Psychology, , –.
Garber, J., and Martin, N. C. (). Negative cognitions in offspring of de-
pressed parents: Mechanisms of risk. In S. Goodman and I. H. Gotlib
(Eds.), Children of depressed parents: Mechanisms of risk and implications
for treatment (pp. –). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Gardner, F., Sonuga-Barke, E., and Sayal, K. (). Parents anticipating misbe-
haviour: An observational study of strategies parents use to prevent con-
flict with behavior problem children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry, , –.
Garrison, M. E. B., Blalock, L. B., Zarski, J. J., and Merritt, P. B. (). De-
layed parenthood: An exploratory study of family functioning. Family
Relations, , –.
Gelfand, D. M., Teti, D. M., and Fox, C. R. (). Sources of parenting stress
for depressed and nondepressed mothers of infants. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, , –.
Gelman, V. S., and King, N. J. (). Well-being of mothers with children ex-
hibiting sleep disturbance. Australian Journal of Psychology, , –.
Gennaro, S., and Stringer, M. (). Stress and health in low birthweight in-
fants: A longitudinal study. Nursing Research, , –.
Gershater-Molko, R. M., Lutzker, J. R., and Sherman, J. A. (). Interven-
tion in child neglect: An applied behavioral perspective. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, , –.
Gershoff, E. T. (). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child
behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psy-
chological Bulletin, , –.
Goldberg, S., Janus, M., Washington, J., Simmons, R. J., MacLusky, I., and
Fowler, R. S. (). Prediction of preschool behavioral problems in
healthy and pediatric samples. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, , – .
Goldberg, S., Morris, P., Simmons, R. J., Fowler, R. S., and Levison, H. ().
Chronic illness in infancy and parenting stress: A comparison of three
groups of parents. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
Goldberg, W. A. (). Marital quality, parental personality, and spousal agree-
ment about perceptions and expectations for children. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, , –.
180 References
Golding, J. (). Children of the Nineties: A resource for assessing the magni-
tude of long-term effects of prenatal and perinatal effects. Contemporary
Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, , –.
Goldstein, D. S. (). Stress as a scientific idea: A homeostatic theory of stress
and distress. Homeostasis in Health and Disease, , –.
Gondoli, D. M., and Silverberg, S. B. (). Maternal emotional distress and
diminished responsiveness: The mediating role of parenting efficacy and
parental perspective taking. Developmental Psychology, , –.
Goodman, S. H., and Gotlib, I. H. (). Transmission of risk to children of
depressed parents: Integration and conclusions. In S. Goodman and I.
cations for treatment (pp. –). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Goodyer, I. M. (). Annotation: Recent life events and psychiatric disorders
in school age children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, , –
.
Gorzka, P. A. (). Homeless parents’ perceptions of parenting stress. Journal
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, , –.
Gotlib, I. H., and Goodman, S. H. (). Introduction. In S. Goodman and I.
cations for treatment (pp.–). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Gould, E., Reeves, A. J., Graziano, M. S. A., and Gross, C. G. (). Neuroge-
nesis in the neocortex of adult primates. Science, , –.
Greenberg, J. S., Greenley, J. R., McKee, D., Brown, R., and Griffin-Francell,
C. (). Mothers caring for an adult child with schizophrenia: The ef-
fects of subjective burden on maternal health. Family Relations: Interdis-
ciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, , –.
Grootenhuis, M. A., and Last, B. F. (). Predictors of parental emotional ad-
justment to childhood cancer. Psycho-Oncology, , –.
Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., and Kuczynski, L. (). New directions in
analyses of parenting contributions to children’s acquisition of values.
Child Development, , –.
Grusec, J. E., and Mammone, N. (). Features and sources of parents’ attri-
butions about themselves and their children. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), So-
cial development: Review of personality and social psychology, Vol.  (pp. –
). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grych, J. H., and Clark, R. (). Maternal employment and development of
the father-infant relationship in the first year. Developmental Psychology,
, –.
Gyamfi, P., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Jackson, A. P. (). Associations between
employment and financial and parental stress in low-income single black
mothers. Women and Health, , –.
References 181
Hahn, C. S. (). Review: Psychosocial well-being of parents and their chil-

dren born after assisted reproduction. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, ,
–.
Hahn, C. S., and DiPietro, J. A. (). In vitro fertilization and the family:
Quality of parenting, family functioning, and child psychosocial adjust-
ment. Developmental Psychology, , – .
Hall, S., Bobrow, M., and Marteau, T. M. (). Parents’ attributions of blame
for the birth of a child with Down syndrome: A pilot study. Psychology
and Health, , –.
Hall, S., Bobrow, M., and Marteau, T. M. (). Psychological consequences
for parents of false negative results on prenatal screening for Down’s syn-
drome: A retrospective interview study. British Medical Journal, , –
.
Hammen, C. (). Context of stress in families of children with depressed
parents. In S. Goodman and I. Gotlib (Eds.), Children of depressed par-
ents: Mechanisms of risk and implications for treatment (pp.  –).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hanson, M. J., and Hanline, M. F. (). Parenting a child with a disability: A
longitudinal study of parental stress and adaptation. Journal of Early In-
tervention, , –.
Harmer, A. L. M., Sanderson, J., and Mertin, P. (). Influence of negative
childhood experiences on psychological functioning, social support, and
parenting for mothers recovering from addiction. Child Abuse and Ne-
glect, , –.
Harrison, C., and Sofronoff, K. (). ADHD and parental psychological dis-
tress: Role of demographics, child behavioral characteristics, and parental
cognitions. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-
chiatry, , –.
Harvey, E. A. (). Parenting similarity and children with attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, , –.
Hastings, P. D., and Grusec, J. E. (). Conflict outcome as a function of
parental accuracy in perceiving child cognitions and affect. Social Devel-
opment, , –.
Hastings, P. D., and Grusec, J. E. (). Parenting goals as organizers of responses
to parent-child disagreement. Developmental Psychology, , –.
Hatton, C., Knussen, C., Sloper, P., and Turner, S. (). The stability of the
Ways of Coping (Revised) Questionnaire over time in parents of children
with Down’s syndrome: A research note. Psychological Medicine, , –
.
Hauenstein, E. (). The experience of distress in parents of chronically ill
children: Potential or likely outcome. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
, –.
Hauser-Cram, P., Warfield, M. E., Shonkoff, J. P., and Krauss, M. W. ().
182 References
Children with disabilities: A longitudinal study of child development and

parent well-being. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment,  (serial no. ).
Hayslip, B., Emick, M. A., Henderson, C. E., and Elias, K. (). Temporal
variations in the experience of custodial grandparenting: A short-term
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Gerontology, , –.
Hetherington, E. M., and Clingempeel, W. G. (). Coping with marital
transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, (–) (serial no. ).
Hilton, J. M., and Desrochers, S. (). The influence of economic strain,
coping with roles, and parental control on the parenting of custodial sin-
gle mothers and custodial single fathers. Journal of Divorce and Remar-
riage, , –.
Hilton, J. M., Desrochers, S., and Devall, E. L. (). Comparison of role de-
mands, relationships, and child functioning in single-mother, single-fa-
ther, and intact families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, , – .
Himelstein, S., Graham, S., and Weiner, B. (). An attributional analysis of
maternal beliefs about the importance of child-rearing practices. Child
Development, , –.
Hinshaw, S. P., Owens, E. B., Wells, K. C., Kraemer, H. C., Abikoff, H. B.,
Arnold, L. E., Conners, C. K., Elliott, G., Greenhill, L. L., Hechtman, L.,
Hoza, B., Jensen, P. S., March, J. S., Newcorn, J. H., Pelham, W. E.,
Swanson, J. M., Vitiello, B., and Wigal, T. (). Family processes and
treatment outcome in the MTA: Negative/ineffective parenting practices
in relation to multimodal treatment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychol-
ogy, , –.
Hintermair, M. (). Hearing impairment, social networks, and coping: The
need for families with hearing-impaired children to relate to other parents
and to hearing-impaired adults. American Annals of the Deaf, , –.
Hipke, K. N., Wolchik, S. A., Sandler, I. N., and Braver, S. L. (). Predictors
of children’s intervention-induced resilience in a parenting program for
divorced mothers. Family Relations, , –.
Hobfoll, S. E. (). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and philoso-
phy of stress. New York: Plenum.
Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J. R., Green, B. L., and Solomon, S. D. (). Coping
in reaction to extreme stress: The roles of resource loss and resource avail-
ability. In M. Zeidner and N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: The-
ory, research, and applications (pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Hodges, S. D., Klein, K. J. K., and Veach, D. (). You must know how it feels:
Similar experience and empathic understanding. In N. Epley (Chair), Per-
spectives on perspective taking. Symposium conducted at the third meet-
ing of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, January, Savan-
nah, GA.
References 183
Hodges, S. D., and Wegner, D. M. (). Automatic and controlled empathy.

In W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. –). New York: Guilford
Press.
Hoekstra-Weebers, J., Jasper, J., Kamps, W. A., and Klip, E. C. (). Marital
dissatisfaction, psychological distress, and the coping of parents of pedi-
atric cancer patients. Journal of Marriage and the Family, , –.
Hoekstra-Weebers, J., Jasper, J., Kamps, W. A., and Klip, E. C. (). Psycho-
logical adaptation and social support of parents of pediatric cancer pa-
tients: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
, –.
Hogan, B. E., Linden, W., and Najarian, B. (). Social support—do the in-
terventions work? Clinical Psychology Review, , –.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., and Schaefer, J. A. (). Coping, stress resis-
tance, and growth: Conceptualizing adaptive functioning. In M. Zeidner
and N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, and appli-
cations (pp.  –). New York: Wiley.
Holden, E. W., and Banez, G. A. (). Child abuse potential and parenting
stress within maltreating families. Journal of Family Violence, , –.
Holden, G. W. (). Parents and the dynamics of child rearing. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Holmbeck, G. N., Gorey-Ferguson, L., Hudson, T., Seefeldt, T., Shapera, W.,
Turner, T., and Uhler, J. (). Maternal, paternal, and marital function-
ing in families of preadolescents with spina bifida. Journal of Pediatric Psy-
chology, , –.
Holmes, T. H., and Rahe, R. H. (). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, , –.
Hoppes, K., and Harris, S. L. (). Perceptions of child attachment and ma-
ternal gratification in mothers of children with autism and Down syn-
drome. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, , – .
Hornby, N. (). How to Be good. New York: Riverhead Books.
Horsch, U., Weber, C., Bertram, B., and Detrois, P. (). Stress experienced by
parents of children with cochlear implants compared with parents of deaf
children and hearing children. American Journal of Otology, , S–.
Hoza, B., Owens, J. S., Pelham, W. E., Swanson, J. M., Conners, C. K., Hin-
shaw, S. P., Arnold, L. E., and Kraemer, H. C. (). Parent cognitions
as predictors of child treatment response in attention-deficit/hyperactiv-
ity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, ,  –.
Huebner, C. E. (). Promoting toddlers’ language development through
community-based intervention. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy-
chology, ,  –.
Hwang, P. (). The changing role of Swedish fathers. In M. Lamb (Ed.), The
father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. –). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
184 References
Hyde, J. S., Essex, M. J., Clark, R., and Klein, M. H. (). Maternity leave,
women’s employment, and marital incompatibility. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, ,  –.
Innocenti, M. S., Huh, K., and Boyce, G. C. (). Families of children with
disabilities: Normative data and other considerations on parenting stress.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, ,  – .
Jackson, A. P. (). The effects of nonresident father involvement on single
black mothers and their young children. Social Work, , –.
Jackson, A. P. (). Maternal self-efficacy and children’s influence on stress
and parenting among single black mothers in poverty. Journal of Family
Issues, , –.
Jackson, A. P., and Huang, C. C. (). Parenting stress and behavior among
single mothers of preschoolers: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Jour-
nal of Social Service Research, , – .
Jaffe, J., Beebe, B., Feldstein, S., Crown, C. L., and Jasnow, M. D. ().
Rhythms of dialogue in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, () (serial no. ).
Jang, M. (). Effectiveness of filial therapy for Korean parents. International
Journal of Play Therapy, , –.
Jarvis, P. A., and Creasey, G. L. (). Parental stress, coping, and attachment in
families with an -month-old infant. Infant Behavior and Development,
, –.
Johnston, C., and Mash, E. J. (). Families of children with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Review and recommendations for future
research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, , –.
Jose, P. E., Huntsinger, C. S., Huntsinger, P. R., and Liaw, F. (). Parental
values and practices relevant to young children’s social development in
Taiwan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, ,
–.
Joshi, M. S., and MacLean, M. (). Maternal expectations of child develop-
ment in India, Japan, and England. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
, –.
Kalil, A., and Danziger, S. K. (). How teen mothers are faring under wel-
fare reform. Journal of Social Issues, , –.
Kamerman, S. B. (). Parental leave policies: An essential ingredient in early
childhood education and care policies. Social Policy Report of the Society
for Research in Child Development, ().
Kaplan, B. J., Crawford, S. G., Fisher, G. C., and Dewey, D. M. (). Family
dysfunction is more strongly associated with ADHD than with general
school problems. Journal of Attention Disorders, ,  –.
Kazak, A. E., and Barakat, L. P. (). Brief report: Parenting stress and quality
of life during treatment for childhood leukemia predicts child and parent
References 185
adjustment after treatment ends. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –

.
Kazdin, A. E. (). Conduct disorder. In F. C. Verhulst and H. M. Koot
(Eds.), The epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology (pp. –
). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kazdin, A. E., Holland, L., Crowley, M., and Breton, S. (). Barriers to treat-
ment participation scale: Evaluation and validation in the context of child
outpatient treatment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, , –
.
Kazdin, A. E., and Wassell, G. (). Barriers to treatment participation and
therapeutic change among children referred for conduct disorder. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, , –.
Kazdin, A. E., and Wassell, G. (). Therapeutic changes in children, par-
ents, and families resulting from treatment of children with conduct
problems. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-
chiatry, , –.
Kazui, M. (). The influence of cultural expectations on mother-child rela-
tionships in Japan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, , –
.
Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G., and Wimbush, D. D. (). Determinants of dis-
ciplinary practices in low-income Black mothers. Child Development, ,
 –.
Kelley, S. J. (). Stress and coping behaviors of substance-abusing mothers.
Journal of the Society of Pediatric Nurses, , –.
Kelley, S. J., Whitley, D., Sipe, T. A., and Yorker, B. C. (). Psychological
distress in grandmother kinship care providers: The role of resources, so-
cial support, and physical health. Child Abuse and Neglect, , –.
Kendler, K. S. (). Parenting: A genetic-epidemiologic perspective. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychiatry, , –.
Kerr, M., and Stattin, H. (). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reaction?
In A. C. Crouterand and A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family
dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. –). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kerr, S. M., and McIntosh, J. B. (). Coping when a child has a disability:
Exploring the impact of parent-to-parent support. Child Care Health and
Development, , –.
Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Duncan, G. J. (). Does neighbor-
hood and family poverty affect mothers’ parenting, mental health, and
social support? Journal of Marriage and the Family, , –.
Klein, M. H., Hyde, J. S., Essex, M. J., and Clark, R. (). Maternity leave,
role quality, work involvement, and maternal health one year after deliv-
ery. Psychology of Women Quarterly, , –.
186 References
Kochanska, G. (a). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with dif-

ferent temperaments: From toddlerhood to age . Developmental Psychol-
ogy, , –.
Kochanska, G. (b). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and
their young children: Implications for early socialization. Child Develop-
ment, ,  –.
Koeske, G. F., and Koeske, R. D. (). The buffering effect of social support
on parental stress. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, , –.
Kohn, P. M. (). On coping adaptively with daily hassles. In M. Zeidner and
N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Koot, H. M. (). Longitudinal studies of general population and community
samples. In F. C. Verhulst and H. M. Koot (Eds.), The epidemiology of
child and adolescent psychopathology (pp. –). Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Krauss, M. W. (). Child-related and parenting stress: Similarities and differ-
ences between mothers and fathers of children with disabilities. American
Journal on Mental Retardation, , – .
Krohne, H. W. (). Individual differences in coping. In M. Zeidner and N.
S. Endler (Eds.),Handbook of coping: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Krulik, T., Turner-Henson, A., Kanematsu, Y., al-Ma’aitah, R., Swan, J., and
Holaday, B. (). Parenting stress and mothers of young children with
chronic illness: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, ,
–.
Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., and Girnius-Brown, O. ().
A developmental interpretation of young children’s noncompliance. De-
velopmental Psychology, , –.
Kuhl, J. (). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regula-
tion: The dynamics of personality systems and interactions. In M. Boe-
kaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation
(pp. –). New York: Academic Press.
Kwok, S., and Wong, D. (). Mental health of parents with young children
in Hong Kong: The roles of parenting stress and parenting self-efficacy.
Child and Family Social Work, , –.
Lam, D. (). Parenting stress and anger: The Hong Kong experience. Child
and Family Social Work, , –.
Lamb, M. (). The development of father-infant relationships. In M. Lamb
(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp.  –). New York:
Wiley.
Landry, S., Chapieski, M. L., Richardson, M. A., Palmer, J., and Hall, S. ().
The social competence of children born prematurely: Effects of medical
complications and parent behaviors. Child Development, ,  –.
References 187
Landry, S., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., and Swank, P. R. (). The re-
lation of change in maternal interactive styles to the developing social
competence of full-term and preterm children. Child Development, ,
–.
Langrock, A. M., Compas, B. E., Keller, G., Merchant, M. J., and Copeland,
M. E. (). Coping with the stress of parental depression: Parents’ re-
ports of children’s coping, emotional, and behavioral problems. Journal
of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, , – .
Lansford, J. E., Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., and Pettit, G. S.
(in press). Ethnic differences in the link between physical discipline and
later adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry.
Lavee, Y., Sharlin, S., and Katz, R. (). The effect of parenting stress on mar-
ital quality: An integrated mother-father model. Journal of Family Issues,
, –.
Lazarus, R. S. (). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Leonard, C. H., Clyman, R. I., Piecuch, R. E., Juster, R. P., Ballard, R. A., and
Behle, M. B. (). Effect of medical and social risk factors on outcome of
prematurity and very low birth weight. Journal of Pediatrics, , –.
Lepore, S. J. (). Social-environmental influences on the chronic stress
process. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress (pp.  –).
New York: Plenum.
Lepore, S. J., and Evans, G. W. (). Coping with multiple stressors in the en-
vironment. In M. Zeidner and N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping:
Theory, research, and applications (pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Lester, B. M., Hoffman, J., and Brazelton, T. B. (). The rhythmic structure
of mother-infant interaction in term and preterm infants. Child Develop-
ment, ,  –.
Leve, L. D., Winebarger, A. A., Fagot, B. I., Reid, J. B., and Goldsmith, H. H.
(). Environmental and genetic variance in children’s observed and re-
ported maladaptive behavior. Child Development, ,  –.
Levendosky, A. A., and Graham-Bermann, S. A. (). The moderating effects
of parenting stress on children’s adjustment in woman-abusing families.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, , –.
Levy-Shiff, R. (). Fathers’ cognitive appraisals, coping strategies, and sup-
port resources as correlates of adjustment to parenthood. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychology, , –.
Liem, J. H., and Liem, G. R. (). Understanding the individual and family
effects of unemployment. In J. Eckenrode and S. Gore (Eds.), Stress be-
tween work and family (pp.  –). New York: Plenum.
Lindsey, E. W., and Mize, J. (). Interparental agreement, parent-child re-
sponsiveness, and children’s peer competence. Family Relations: Journal of
Applied Family and Child Studies, , –.
188 References
Losoya, S. H., Callor, S., Rowe, D. C., and Goldsmith, H. H. (). Origins of
familial similarity in parenting: A study of twins and adoptive siblings.
Developmental Psychology, , –.
Lovejoy, M. C., Weis, R., O’Hare, E., and Rubin, E. C. (). Development
and initial validation of the Parent Behavior Inventory. Psychological As-
sessment, , –.
Lowes, L., and Lyne, P. (). A normal lifestyle: Parental stress and coping in
childhood diabetes. British Journal of Nursing, , –.
Lundy, B., Field, T., and Pickens, J. (). Newborns of mothers with depres-
sive symptoms are less expressive. Infant Behavior and Development, ,
–.
Lyons-Ruth, K., Lyubchik, A., Wolfe, R., and Bronfman, E. (). Parental
depression and child attachment: Hostile and helpless profiles of parent
and child behavior among families at risk. In S. Goodman and I. Gotlib
(Eds.), Children of depressed parents: Mechanisms of risk and implications
for treatment (pp. –). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-
sociation.
Lytton, H., and Romney, D. M. (). Parents’ differential socialization of boys
and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, , –.
Mabe, P. A., Turner, M. K., and Josephson, A. M. (). Parent management
training. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, ,
–.
Maccoby, E. (). Socialization and developmental change. Child Develop-
ment, , –.
Maccoby, E., and Martin, M. (). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of
Child Psychology, Vol.  (pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Macias, M. M., Clifford, S. C., Saylor, C. F., and Kreh, S. M. (). Predictors
of parenting stress in families of children with spina bifida. Children’s
Health Care, , –.
Magill-Evans, J., and Harrison, M. J. (). Parent-child interactions and de-
velopment of toddlers born preterm. Western Journal of Nursing Research,
, –.
Maggill-Evans, J., and Harrison, M. J. (). Parent-child interactions, parent-
ing stress, and developmental outcomes at  years. Children’s Health Care,
, –.
Mainemer, H., Gilman, L. C., and Ames, E. W. (). Parenting stress in fam-
ilies adopting children from Romanian orphanages. Journal of Family Is-
sues, ,  –.
Mammen, O. K., Kolko, D. J., and Pilkonis, P. A. (). Negative affect and
parental aggression in child physical abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, ,
–.
Margalit, M., Shulman, S., and Stuchiner, N. (). Behavior disorders and
References 189
mental retardation: The family system perspective. Research in Develop-

mental Disabilities, , –.
Marks, S. R., Huston, T. L., Johnson, E. M., and MacDermid, S. M. ().
Role balance among white married couples. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, , –.
Mash, E. J., and Johnston, C. (). Parental perceptions of child behavior
problems, parenting self-esteem, and mothers’ reported stress in younger
and older hyperactive and normal children. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, , –.
Mash, E. J., and Johnston, C. (). Determinants of parenting stress: Illustra-
tions from families of hyperactive children and families of physically
abused children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, ,  –.
Mason, J. W. (). A historical view of the stress field. Journal of Human Stress,
, –.
Mastroyannopoulou, K., Stallard, P., Lewis, M., and Lenton, S. (). The im-
pact of childhood non-malignant life-threatening illness on parents: Gen-
der differences and predictors of parental adjustment. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, , –.
Matthews, G., Schwean, V. L., Campbell, S. E., Saklofske, D. H., and Mo-
hamed, A. A. R. (). Personality, self-regulation, and adaptation: A
cognitive-social framework. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeid-
ner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. –). New York: Academic
Press.
Matthews, G., and Wells, A. (). Attentional processes, dysfunctional cop-
ing, and clinical intervention. In M. Zeidner and N. S. Endler (Eds.),
Handbook of coping: Theory, research, and applications (pp. –). New
York: Wiley.
McBride, B. A., and Mills, G. (). A comparison of mother and father in-
volvement with their preschool age children. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, , –.
McCarty, C., Waterman, J., Burge, D., and Edelstein, S. B. (). Experiences,
concerns, and service needs of families adopting children with prenatal
substance exposure: Summary and recommendations. Child Welfare, ,
– .
McCrae, R. R., and John, O. P. (). An introduction to the five-factor model
and its applications. Journal of Personality, ,  –.
McGlone, K., Santos, L., Kazam, L., Fong, R., and Mueller, C. (). Psycho-
logical stress in adoptive parents of special-needs children. Child Welfare,
, –.
McLoyd, V. C., and Smith, J. (). Physical discipline and behavior problems
in African American, European American, and Hispanic children: Emo-
tional support as a moderator. Journal of Marriage and the Family, , –
.
190 References
Meadow-Orlans, K. (). Stress, support, and deafness: Perceptions of in-

fants’ mothers and fathers. Journal of Early Intervention, , –.
Mesman, J., and Koot, H. M. (). Common and specific correlates of pread-
olescent internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, , –.
Miceli, P. J., Goeke-Morey, M. C., Whitman, T. L., Kolberg, K. S., Miller-
Loncar, C., and White, R. D. (). Brief report: Birth status, medical
complications, and social environment: Individual differences in devel-
opment of preterm, very low birth weight infants. Journal of Pediatric Psy-
chology, , –.
Milburn, M. A., and Conrad, S. D. (). The politics of denial. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Miller, A. C., Gordon, R. M., Daniele, R. J., and Diller, L. (). Stress, ap-
praisal, and coping in mothers of disabled and nondisabled children.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
Miller, C. L., Miceli, P. J., Whitman, T. L., and Borkowski, J. G. (). Cogni-
tive readiness to parent and intellectual-emotional development in chil-
dren of adolescent mothers. Developmental Psychology, ,  –.
Mitchell, D. R. (). Parents’ interactions with their developmentally dis-
abled or at-risk infants: A focus for intervention. Australia and New
Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, , –.
Mitchelson, J. K., and Burns, L. R. (). Career mothers and perfectionism:
Stress at work and at home. Personality and Individual Differences, ,
– .
Moore, J. B., Saylor, C. F., and Boyce, G. C. (). Parent-child interaction and
developmental outcomes in medically fragile, high-risk children. Chil-
dren’s Health Care, , –.
Moran, G., and Pederson, D. R. (). Proneness to distress and ambivalent re-
lationships. Infant Behavior and Development, ,  –.
Moss, P., Bolland, G., Foxman, R., and Owen, C. (). Marital relations dur-
ing the transition to parenthood. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psy-
chology, , –.
Mullins, L. L., Aniol, K., Boyd, M. L., Page, M. C., and Chaney, J. M. ().
The influence of respite care on psychological distress in parents of chil-
dren with developmental disabilities: A longitudinal study. Children’s Ser-
vices: Social Policy, Research and Practice, , –.
Musil, C. (). Health of grandmothers as caregivers: A ten month follow-
up. Journal of Women and Aging, ,  –.
Nakagawa, M., Teti, D. M., and Lamb, M. E. (). An ecological study of
child-mother attachments among Japanese sojourners in the United
States. Developmental Psychology, , –.
Nock, M. K., and Kazdin, A. E. (). Parent-directed physical aggression by
References 191
clinic-referred youths. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,

, –.
Noppe, I. C., Noppe, L. D., and Hughes, F. P. (). Stress as a predictor of the
quality of parent-child interactions. Journal of Genetic Psychology, , –
.
O’Brien, T., and DeLongis, A. (). Coping with chronic stress: An interper-
sonal perspective. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress
(pp. –). New York: Plenum.
Oburu, P. (). Social adjustment of orphaned grandchildren in relation to
parental attitudes, discipline strategies, and perceived life stresses of their fos-
tering grandmothers. Paper presented at the Tenth European Congress on
Developmental Psychology, August –, Uppsala, Sweden.
O’Connor, T. G., and Croft, C. M. (). A twin study of attachment in
preschool children. Child Development, , –.
O’Connor, T. G., Hawkins, N., Dunn, J., Thorpe, K., Golding, J., and
ALSPAC Study Team (). Family type and depression in pregnancy:
Factors mediating risk in a community sample. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, , –.
Ohan, J. L., Leung, D. W., and Johnston, C. (). The parenting sense of
competence scale: Evidence of a stable factor structure and validity.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, , –.
O’Hara, M. W., and Swain, A. M. (). Rates and risk of postpartum depres-
sion: A meta-analysis. International Review of Psychiatry, , –.
O’Leary, M., Franzoni, J., Brack, G., and Zirps, F. (). Divorcing parents:
Factors related to coping and adjustment. Journal of Divorce and Remar-
riage, ,  –.
Olley, L. B., Grieger, W. R., and Olley, B. O. (). Perceived stress factors and
coping mechanisms among mothers of children with sickle cell disease in
Western Nigeria. Health Education Research, , –.
Olson, S. L., Kashiwagi, K., and Crystal, D. (). Concepts of adaptive and
maladaptive child behavior: A comparison of U.S. and Japanese mothers
of preschool-age children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, , –.
O’Neil, M. E., Palisano, R. J., and Westcott, S. L. (). Relationship of ther-
apists’ attitudes, children’s motor ability, and parenting stress to mothers’
perceptions of therapists’ behaviors during early intervention. Physical
Therapy, , –.
Ong, L. C., Boo, N. Y., and Chandran, V. (). Predictors of neurodevelop-
mental outcome of Malaysian very low birthweight children at  years of
age. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, , –.
Ong, L. C., Chandran, V., and Boo, N. Y. (). Comparison of parenting
stress between Malaysian mothers of four-year-old very low birthweight
and normal birthweight children. Acta Paediatrica, , –.
192 References
Ong, L. C., Chandran, V., and Peng, R. (). Stress experienced by mothers
of Malaysian children with mental retardation. Journal of Paediatrics and
Child Health, , –.
Orr, R. R., Cameron, S. J., Dobson, L. A., and Day, D. M. (). Age-related
changes in stress experienced by families with a child who has develop-
mental delays. Mental Retardation, , –.
Ostberg, M. (). Parental stress, psychosocial problems and responsiveness
in help-seeking parents with small (– months old) children. Acta Pae-
diatrica, ,  –.
Ostberg, M., and Hagekull, B. (). A structural modeling approach to the
understanding of parenting stress. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, ,
–.
Ostberg, M., Hagekull, B., and Wettergren, S. (). A measure of parental
stress in mothers with small children: Dimensionality, stability and valid-
ity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, , –.
Parke, R. D. (). Fathers and families. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting, Vol. . (pp. –). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pasamanick, B., and Knobloch, H. (). Epidemiologic studies on the com-
plications of pregnancy and the birth process. In G. Caplan (Ed.), Pre-
vention of mental disorders in children. New York: Basic.
Patteson, D. M., and Barnard, K. E. (). Parenting of low birth weight in-
fants: A review of issues and interventions. Infant Mental Health Journal,
, –.
Patterson, G. R. (). Performance models for parenting: A social interac-
tional perspective. In J. Grusec and L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and
children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory
(pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Patterson, J. M., Garwick, A. W., Bennett, F., and Blum, R. (). Social sup-
port in families of children with chronic conditions: Supportive and non-
supportive behaviors. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,
, –.
Pearson, V., and Chan, T. W. (). The relationship between parenting stress
and social support in mothers of children with learning disabilities: A
Chinese experience. Social Science and Medicine, , –.
Pelham, W. E., and Lang, A. R. (). Can your children drive you to drink?
Stress and parenting in adults interacting with children with ADHD. Al-
cohol Research and Health, , –.
Peris, T. S., and Baker, B. L. (). Applications of the expressed emotion con-
struct to young children with externalizing behavior: Stability and pre-
diction over time. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, , –.
Perrez, M., and Reichert, M. (). Stress, coping, and health. Cambridge, MA:
Hogrefe and Huber.
Perry, A., Sarlo-McGarvey, N., and Factor, D. C. (). Stress and family func-
References 193
tioning in parents of girls with Rett Syndrome. Journal of Autism and De-
velopmental Disorders, , –.
Phares, V., Duhig, A. M., and Watkins, M. M. (). Family context: Fathers
and other supports. In S. Goodman and I. Gotlib (Eds.), Children of de-
pressed parents: Mechanisms of risk and implications for treatment (pp.  –
). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Phelps, J. L., Belsky, J., and Crnic, K. (). Earned security, daily stress, and
parenting: A comparison of five alternative models. Development and Psy-
chopathology, , –.
Phipps, S., and Drotar, D. (). Determinants of parenting stress in home ap-
nea monitoring. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , – .
Pianta, R. C., and Egeland, B. (). Life stress and parenting outcomes in a
disadvantaged sample: Results of the mother-child interaction project.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, , –.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., and Sarason, B. R. (). Coping and social sup-
port. In M. Zeidner and N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory,
research, and applications (pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., and Zelli, A.
(). Discipline responses influences of parents’ socioeconomic status,
ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional pro-
cesses. Journal of Family Psychology, , –.
Pisterman, S., Firestone, P., McGrath, P., Goodman, J. T., Webster, I., Mallory,
R., and Goffin, B. (). The effects of parent training on parenting
stress and sense of competence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,
, –.
Planos, R., Zayas, L. H., and Busch-Rossnagel, N. A. (). Mental health fac-
tors and teaching behaviors among low-income Hispanic mothers. Fam-
ilies in Society, ,  –.
Pleck, J. H. (). Paternal involvement: Levels, sources, and consequences. In
M. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp.  –).
New York: Wiley.
Plomin, R. (). Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and
nurture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Plomin, R., and DeFries, J. C. (). Origins of individual differences in infancy.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Podolski, C. L., and Nigg, J. T. (). Parent stress and coping in relation to
child ADHD severity and associated child disruptive behavior problems.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, , –.
Polefrone, J. M., and Manuck, S. B. (). Gender differences in cardiovascu-
lar and neuroendocrine response to stressors. In R. Barnett, L. Biener, and
G. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. –). New York: Free Press.
Posner, M. I., and Rothbart, M. K. (). Developing mechanisms of self-reg-
ulation. Development and Psychopathology, , –.
194 References
Powers, S. W., Byars, K. C., Mitchell, M. J., Patton, S. R., Standiford, D. A.,
and Dolan, L. M. (). Parent report of mealtime behavior and parent-
ing stress in young children with type  diabetes and in healthy control
subjects. Diabetes Care, ,  –.
Powis, B., Gossop, M., Bury, C., Payne, K., and Griffiths, P. (). Drug-using
mothers: Social, psychological, and substance use problems of women
opiate users with children. Drug and Alcohol Review, , –.
Prelow, H. M., Tein, J., Roosa, M. W., and Wood, J. (). Do coping styles
differ across sociocultural groups? The role of measurement equivalence
in making this judgement. American Journal of Community Psychology, ,
–.
Pulsifer, M. B., Gordon, J. M., Vining, E. P., and Freeman, J. M. (). Effects
of ketogenic diet on development and behavior: Preliminary report of a
prospective study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, , –
.
Quittner, A. L., DiGirolamo, A. M., Michel, M., and Eigen, H. (). Parental
response to cystic fibrosis: A contextual analysis of the diagnosis phase.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
Quittner, A. L., Glueckauf, R. L., and Jackson, D. N. (). Chronic parenting
stress: Moderating versus mediating effects of social support. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, ,  –.
Reid, M. J., Walter, A. L., and O’Leary, S. G. (). Treatment of young chil-
dren’s bedtime refusal and nighttime wakings: A comparison of “stan-
dard” and graduated ignoring procedures. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-
chology, , –.
Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J., Hetherington, E. M., and Plomin, R. (). The re-
lationship code: Deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent de-
velopment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reitman, D., Currier, R. O., Hupp, S. D. A., Rhode, P. C., Murphy, M. A., and
O’Callaghan, P. M. (). Psychometric characteristics of the Parenting
Scale in a Head Start population. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, ,
–.
Reitman, D., Currier, R. O., and Stickle, T. R. (). A critical evaluation of
the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) in a Head Start popula-
tion. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, ,  –.
Repetti, R. L., and Wood, J. (). Families accommodating to chronic stress:
Unintended and unnoticed processes. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping
with chronic stress (pp. –). New York: Plenum.
Richardson, R. A., Barbour, N. E., and Bubenzer, D. L. (). Peer relation-
ships as a source of support for adolescent mothers. Journal of Adolescent
Research, , –.
Rimmerman, A., and Sheran, H. (). The transition of Israeli men to father-
References 195
hood: A comparison between new fathers of pre-term/full-term infants.

Child and Family Social Work, , –.
Robson, A. L. (). Low birth weight and parenting stress during early child-
hood. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
Rodgers, A. Y. (). The assessment of variables related to the parenting be-
havior of mothers with young children. Children and Youth Services Re-
view, , –.
Rodgers, A. Y. (). Multiple sources of stress and parenting behavior. Chil-
dren and Youth Services Review, , –.
Rodgers-Farmer, A. Y. (). Parenting stress, depression, and parenting in
grandmothers raising their grandchildren. Children and Youth Services Re-
view, , –.
Rodriguez, C. M., and Green, A. J. (). Parenting stress and anger expression
as predictors of child abuse potential. Child Abuse and Neglect, , –.
Roggman, L. A., Moe, S. T., Hart, A. D., and Forthum, L. F. (). Family
leisure and social support: Relations with parenting stress and psycholog-
ical well-being in Head Start parents. Special Issue: Head Start. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, , –.
Rohner, R. P. (). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-
rejection theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rohner, R. P., and Britner, P. A. (). Worldwide mental health correlates of
parental acceptance-rejection: Review of cross-cultural and intracultural
evidence. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Sci-
ence, , –.
Rohner, R. P., Kean, K. J., and Cournoyer, D. E. (). Effects of corporal pun-
ishment, perceived caretaker warmth, and cultural beliefs on the psycho-
logical adjustment of children in St. Kitts, West Indies. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, , –.
Roosa, M. W., Dumka, L., and Tein, J. (). Family characteristics as media-
tors of the influence of problem drinking and multiple risk status on child
mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, , –.
Ross, C. N., Blanc, H. M., McNeil, C. B., Eyberg, S. M., and Hembree-Kigin,
T. L. (). Parenting stress in mothers of young children with opposi-
tional defiant disorder and other severe behavior problems. Child Study
Journal, , –.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., and Evans, D. E. (). Temperament and per-
sonality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, , –.
Rothbart, M. K., and Bates, J. E. (). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series
Ed.) and N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. . So-
cial, emotional and personality development (th ed.) (pp. –). New
York: Wiley.
196 References
Rothbaum, F., and Weisz, J. R. (). Parental caregiving and child externaliz-
ing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bul-
letin, , –.
Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., and Flannery, D. J. (). No more than skin
deep: Ethnic and racial similarity in developmental process. Psychological
Review, , –.
Rudy, D., and Grusec, J. (). Correlates of authoritarian parenting in indi-
vidualistic and collectivist cultures and implications for understanding
the transmission of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, , –
.
Russell, A., and Russell, G. (). Coparenting early school-age children: An
examination of mother-father interdependence within families. Develop-
mental Psychology, , –.
Rutter, M. (). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, , –.
Sanders, M. R., and McFarland, M. (). Treatment of depressed mothers
with disruptive children: A controlled evaluation of cognitive behavioral
family intervention. Behavior Therapy, , –.
Sandler, A. G., and Mistretta, L. A. (). Positive adaptation in parents of
adults with disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, ,
–.
Sarimski, K. (). Behavioral phenotypes and family stress in three mental re-
tardation syndromes. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, ,  –.
Scarr, S., and McCartney, K. (). How people make their own environments:
A theory of genotype -> environment effects. Child Development, ,
–.
Scheel, M. J., and Rieckmann, T. (). An empirically derived description of
self-efficacy and empowerment for parents of children identified as psy-
chologically disordered. American Journal of Family Therapy, , –.
Scher, A., and Mayseless, O. (). Mothers of anxious/ambivalent infants:
Maternal characteristics and child-care context. Child Development, ,
 –.
Schore, A. (). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of
emotional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schuhmann, E. M., Foote, R. C., Eyberg, S. M., Boggs, S. R., and Algina, J.
(). Efficacy of parent-child interaction therapy: Interim report of a
randomized trial with short-term maintenance. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, , –.
Schulze, P. A., Harwood, R. L., and Schoelmerich, A. (). Feeding practices
and expectations among middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers of
-month-old infants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, , –.
Selye, H. (). The stress of life. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sepa, A., Frodi, A., and Ludvigsson, J. (). Could parenting stress and lack
References 197
of support/confidence function as mediating mechanisms between cer-

tain environmental factors and the development of autoimmunity in
children? A study within ABIS. Annals of the New York Academy of Sci-
ences, , –.
Sheeran, T., Marvin, R. S., and Pianta, R. C. (). Mothers’ resolution of their
child’s diagnosis and self-reported measures of parenting stress, marital
relations, and social support. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
Singer, L. T., Salvator, A., Guo, S., Collin, M., Lilien, L., and Baley, J. ().
Maternal psychological distress and parenting stress after the birth of a
very low-birth-weight infant. Journal of the American Medical Association,
,  –.
Singer, L. T., Song, L., Hill, B. P., and Jaffe, A. C. (). Stress and depression
in mothers of failure-to-thrive children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, ,
–.
Slep, A., and O’Leary, S. (). The effects of maternal attributions on parent-
ing: An experimental analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, , –.
Smith, T. B., Oliver, M. N., and Innocenti, M. S. (). Parenting stress in
families of children with disabilities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
, –.
Socolar, R. R., and Stein, E. K. (). Spanking infants and toddlers: Maternal
belief and practice. Pediatrics, , –.
Soliday, E., McCluskey-Fawcett, K., and O’Brien, M. (). Postpartum affect
and depressive symptoms in mothers and fathers. American Journal of Or-
thopsychiatry, , –.
Solis, M. L. (). Parent stress: A cross-cultural comparison between Hispanics
and Anglo-Americans. Unpublished dissertation, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA.
Solis, M. L., and Abidin, R. R. (). The Spanish version Parenting Stress In-
dex: A psychometric study. Special section: Disadvantaged children and
their families. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, , –.
Sommer, K., Whitman, T. L., Borkowski, J. G., Schellenbach, C. J., Maxwell, S.
E., and Keogh, D. (). Cognitive readiness and adolescent parenting.
Developmental Psychology, , –.
Spencer, M. S., Kalil, A., Larson, N. C., Spieker, S. J., and Gilchrist, L. D.
(). Multigenerational coresidence and childrearing conflict: Links to
parenting stress in teenage mothers across the first two years postpartum.
Applied Developmental Science, , –.
Stansbury, K., and Gunnar, M. R. (). Adrenocortical activity and emotion
regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
(–) (serial no. ), –.
Stasiewicz, P. R., and Lisman, S. A. (). Effects of infant cries on alcohol con-
sumption in college males at risk for child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect,
, –.
198 References
Stern, M., and Hildebrandt, K. A. (). Prematurity stereotyping: Effects on

mother-infant interaction. Child Development, , –.
Stiefel, G. S., Plunkett, J. W., and Meisels, S. J. (). Affective expression
among preterm infants of varying levels of biological risk. Infant Behavior
and Development, , –.
Stjernqvist, K. (). The birth of an extremely low birth weight infant: Impact
on the family after  and  years. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psy-
chology, , –.
Stoiber, K. C., and Houghton, T. G. (). Adolescent mothers’ cognitions
and behaviors as at-risk indicators. School Psychology Quarterly, , –
.
Stoneman, Z., Brody, G. H., and Burke, M. (). Marital quality, depression,
and inconsistent parenting: Relationship with observed mother-child
conflict. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, ,  –.
Strack, S., and Feifel, H. (). Age differences, coping, and the adult life span.
In M. Zeidnerand and N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory,
research, and applications (pp.–). New York: Wiley.
Straus, M. A. (). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in Amer-
ican families and its effects on children. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Streisand, R., Braniecki, S., Tercyak, K. P., and Kazak, A. E. (). Childhood
illness-related parenting stress: The pediatric inventory for parents. Jour-
nal of Pediatric Psychology, ,  –.
Suchman, N. E., and Luthar, S. S. (). The mediating role of parenting stress
in methadone-maintained mothers’ parenting. Parenting: Science and
Practice, ,  –.
Tarbell, S. E., and Kosmach, B. (). Parental psychosocial outcomes in pedi-
atric liver and/or intestinal transplantation: Pre-transplantation and the
early post-operative period. Liver Transplantation and Surgery, , –
.
Tasker, F., and Golombok, S. (). The role of co-mothers in planned lesbian-
led families. Journal of Lesbian Studies, , –.
Taylor, J. A., and Kemper, K. J. (). Group well-child care for high-risk fam-
ilies: Maternal outcomes. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
, –.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R.,
and Updegraff, J. A. (). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females:
Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, , –
.
Telleen, S., Herzog, A., and Kilbane, T. L. (). Impact of a family support
program on mothers’ social support and parenting stress. American Jour-
nal of Orthopsychiatry,, –.
Teti, D. M., Nakagawa, M., Das, R., and Wirth, O. (). Security of attach-
References 199
ment between preschoolers and their mothers: Relations among social in-
teraction, parenting stress, and mother’s sorts of the Attachment Q-set.
Developmental Psychology, , –.
Thompson, R. J., Oehler, J. M., Catlett, A. T., and Johndrow, D. A. (). Ma-
ternal psychological adjustment to the birth of an infant weighing ,
grams or less. Infant Behavior and Development, , –.
Tobey, G. Y., and Schraeder, B. D. (). Impact of caretaker stress on behav-
ioral adjustment of very low birth weight preschool children. Nursing Re-
search, , –.
Tobing, L. E., and Glenwick, D. S. (). Relation of the Childhood Autism
Rating Scale–Parent version to diagnosis, stress, and age. Research in De-
velopmental Disabilities, , –.
Trute, B., and Hiebert-Murphy, D. (). Family adjustment to childhood de-
velopmental disability: A measure of parent appraisal of family impacts.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, , –.
Tucker, S., Gross, D., Fogg, L., Delaney, K., and Lapporte, R. (). The long-
term efficacy of a behavioral parent training intervention for families with
-year-olds. Research in Nursing and Health, , –.
Uno, D., Florsheim, P., and Uchino, B. N. (). Psychosocial mechanisms un-
derlying quality of parenting among Mexican-American and White ado-
lescent mothers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, ,  –.
Verhulst, F. C. (). A review of community studies. In F. C. Verhulst and H.
M. Koot (Eds.), The epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology
(pp. –). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vicary, J. R., and Corneal, D. A. (). A comparison of young women’s psy-
chosocial status based on age at their first childbirth. Family and Commu-
nity Health, ,  –.
Viner, R., McGrath, M., and Trudinger, P. (). Family stress and metabolic
control in diabetes. Archives of Diseases in Children, , –.
Wakschlag, L. S., and Keenan, K. (). Clinical significance and correlates of
disruptive behavior in environmentally at-risk preschoolers. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, , –.
Walker, C. D. (). Stress in parents of children with ADHD and depression: A
multicultural analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Northern Texas, Denton, TX.
Walker, L. O., Fleschler, R. G., and Heaman, M. (). Is a healthy lifestyle re-
lated to stress, parenting confidence, and health symptoms among new
fathers? Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, , –.
Warfield, M. E. (). Employment, parenting, and well-being among moth-
ers of children with disabilities. Mental Retardation, , –.
Warfield, M. E., Hauser-Cram, P., Krauss, M. W., Shonkoff, J. P., and Upshur,
C. C. (). The effect of early intervention services on maternal well-
being. Early Education and Development, , –.
200 References
Washington, J., Minde, K., and Goldberg, S. (). Temperament in preterm

infants: Style and stability. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psy-
chiatry, , –.
Webster-Stratton, C. (). Stress: A potential disrupter of parent perceptions
and family interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, , – .
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., and Dierking, D. R. (). Self-regulation in-
terventions with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pin-
trich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. –).
New York: Academic Press.
Weiss, R. S. (). Bringing work stress home. In J. Eckenrode and S. Gore
(Eds.), Stress between work and family (pp. – ). New York: Plenum.
Wells, K. C., Epstein, J. N., Hinshaw, S. P., Conners, C. K., Klaric, J., Abikoff,
H. B., Abramowitz, A., Arnold, L. E., Elliott, G., Greenhill, L. L., Hecht-
man, L., Hoza, B., Jensen, P. S., March, J. S., Pelham, W., Pfiffner, L., Se-
vere, J., Swanson, J. M., Vitiello, B., and Wigal, T. (). Parenting and
family stress treatment outcomes in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Dis-
order (ADHD): An empirical analysis in the MTA study. Journal of Ab-
normal Child Psychology, , –.
Werner, E. E., and Smith, R. S. (). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal
study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Whaley, A. L. (). Sociocultural differences in the developmental conse-
quences of the use of physical discipline during childhood for African
Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, , –.
Wheaton, B. (). The nature of chronic stress. In M. Zeidner and N. S. End-
ler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, and applications (pp. –
). New York: Wiley.
Wicki, W. (). The impact of financial resources and satisfaction with divi-
sion of labour on coping and worries after the birth of the first child. In-
ternational Journal of Behavioral Development, , –.
Wiener, L. S., Vasquez, M. P., and Battles, H. B. (). Fathering a child with
HIV/AIDS: Psychosocial adjustment and parenting stress. Journal of Pe-
diatric Psychology, ,  –.
Willner, P., and Goldstein, R. C. (). Mediation of depression by percep-
tions of defeat and entrapment in high-stress mothers. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, , –.
Winton, M. A. (). An evaluation of a support group for parents who have a
sexually abused child. Child Abuse and Neglect, , –.
Yeh, C. H., Chen, M. L., Li, W., and Chuang, H. L. (). The Chinese ver-
sion of the Parenting Stress Index: A psychometric study. Acta Paedi-
atrica, ,  –.
Zarling, C. L., Hirsch, B. J., and Landry, S. (). Maternal social networks
and mother-infant interactions in full-term and very low birthweight,
preterm infants. Child Development, , –.
References 201
Zeidner, M., and Saklofske, D. (). Adaptive and maladaptive coping. In M.

Zeidner and N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research,
and applications (pp. –). New York: Wiley.
Zeskind, P. S., Sale, J., Maio, M. L., Huntington, L., and Weiseman, J. R.
(). Adult perceptions of pain and hunger cries: A synchrony of arousal.
Child Development, , –.
Zimmerman, B. J. (). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspec-
tive. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of
self-regulation (pp. –). New York: Academic Press.
Index
ACTH (adrenocorticotrophic hormone), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

 (ADHD), , , 
adaptation, ,  –,  authority, parental, ,  –
adolescents, , ; age of parents and, ; autism, , 
conduct problems of, ; delinquency autonomic nervous system (ANS), , ,
and, ; internalized problems in, ; 
psychiatric disorders in, ; tempera- aversive behaviors, 
ment and,  avoidance goals, 
adoption, , , , , ,  avoidant coping strategy, – , 
adulthood, , , ,  Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and
African American families, , ,  Children. See ALSPAC study
age: of children, , –; of parents,
–  “baby blues,” 
aggression, , , , , ; child illness behavioral medicine, 
and, ; child-rearing practices and, behavioral problems, , – , , ,
; as externalizing behavior, , ; 
gender differences and, ; interven- bi-directional processes, , ,  –;
tion to treat, ; parental, – , ; causality and,  –; gene-environ-
psychopathology and,  ment correlation and, – ; quasi-
agreeableness, ,  experimental designs and, 
alcohol use, , –  biology, , , , , , ; attention/
ALSPAC study,  – , – ,  memory mechanisms and, ; genetic
anger, , , , , ; cultural differ- factors, –; influence on stress, ;
ences and, ; as negative affect, , psychophysiology, –; self-regula-
; temperament and, ,  tion and, ; temperament and, 
animal studies, , ,  bipolar disorder, 
antisocial behavior, ,  –,  birth weight, low, – , , , , 
anxiety, in children, , , , , ,  boys, –, , 
anxiety, in parents, , , , ; child ill- brain, , , , , 
ness and, ; depression and, ; drug Britain (England), , 
and alcohol use and, ; emotion-fo- “burnout,” 
cused thinking and, ; genetic influ-
ences and, ; mothers not employed California, state of, 
outside home and, ; multiple-chil- cancer,  – 
dren families and, ; negativity bias caregiving, daily stress of, 
and, ; parent domain and,  –; as cerebral cortex, , , 
psychopathology, ; separation anxi- cerebral palsy, 
eties,  –  change, stress and, –, 
appraisal, coping strategies and,  – child abuse, , , – , ; adult victims
arousal, intolerance of,  of, ; physical and psychological, 
assimilation, cultural,  childcare, – , , , –
asthma,  Child Care and Family Project (CCFP),
attachment relationships, –, ,  , –, 
▪ 203 ▪
204 Index
child development, , , , , ; biolog- personality and, ; social support and,
ical factors in, ; changes in demand – ; temperament and, ; work-
and, ; cognitive, ; environmental related stress and,  –
differences and, –; parent-child in- co-regulation, of emotional distress, 
teraction and, ; risk factors for, ; cortisol, , 
social-emotional,  criminality, 
Child Development Project (CDP),  – culture, , –, 
, 
child domain, , ,  daily hassles (DH) theory, –
childhood, ,  daycare environment, 
child-rearing practices, –  delinquency, , , 
children, , , ; adult, – ; attach- demands, , –,  –; changes in,  –
ment relationships with parents, – ; demand and resource framework,
; with cancer, , ; dependency of, –; physiological reaction to, 
, –; developmental disorders denial, as avoidance strategy, 
and, – ; difficult behaviors of,  – depression, in children, , 
, ; with disabilities, , –, , depression, in parents, , , , , ;
, , ; emotional and behavioral adaptation to stress and, ; child be-
problems in, ; gender and, –; havioral problems and, ; child illness
misbehavior of, –, , ; moods and, ; counterproductive modeling
of, –; parents’ gender roles and, ; and, ; drug and alcohol use and, ,
protection of, –; siblings, ,  – – ; emotion-focused thinking and,
; in socioecological framework, – ; face-to-face interaction with infants
. See also adolescents; infants; tod- and, ; gender differences and, ;
dlers genetic influences and, ; individual
Chinese culture,  differences and, – ; as internaliz-
chores, household,  ing problem, ; mothers not em-
chronosystem,  ployed outside home and, ; multi-
cognition, , ,  –, –  ple-children families and, ; parent
cognitive approach coping strategy, – domain and,  –; parenting inter-
,  ventions and, ; postnatal, , –
cognitive avoidance,  ; psychophysiology and, ; self-effi-
cognitive skills, , ,  cacy and, ; socioeconomic downturn
cohabitation, , , ,  and, ; transition to parenthood and,
collectivism,  – 
Colorado Adoption Project (CAP), , developing nations, 
 diabetes, , 
community, , , , ; child abuse diagnosis,  –
and, , ; as culture, –; as na- disabilities, – , , ; developmen-
tion, – ; parenting roles and, ; tal, – , , ; physical, , ,
as workplace, –  ; premature and low-weight births,
conduct disorder or problems, , , , 
 discipline, , , ; child abuse and, ;
conscience, development of,  child-rearing practices and, –;
conscientiousness,  harshness of, , ; methods of, , ;
conservation-of-resources theory,  in multiple-children families, ; par-
coping strategies, , ,  –, , – ; enting role and, ; social cognition
categories of, –; diagnosis and, and, 
; environment and, ; functioning dismissive problem solving, 
of, –; gender differences and, , disorder, stress as, 
– ; optimism versus pessimism, ; distress, , 
Index 205
divorce, , , , ; families and, ; externalizing problems, – , 
parent age and, ; parental depression extraversion/surgency, , , 
and, ; studies of, 
domestic violence,  families, , , ; challenging circum-
Down syndrome, ,  stances and, ; cultural milieu and,
drug use, , –,   –; daily stress and, ; emotional
dyadic mutuality,  support within, ; ethnic back-
dysfunction, in parent-child relationship, ground of, , , , , ; gender
,  roles in, – ; genes and, – ;
homeless, ; socioeconomic resources
education, lack of access to,  and, – ; structures and types of,
education level, , , , , ,  –; two-income, , – , ;
effortful control,  workplace community and, – 
emotion, , , , ; age-based changes Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA),
and, ; brain cortex and, , ; child- – 
rearing practices and, ; coping strate- fathers, – , , ; age of, – ; coping
gies and, ; cultural differences and, strategies of, ; demands of work and
; cultural norms and, ; displays family on, ; dismissive problem solv-
of, ; dysfunctional, ; emotional ing and, ; employment-related stress
problems, – ; genetic factors and, and, ; gender roles and, – ;
; parent-child “co-regulation” and, household chores and, ; postnatal
 – depression in, ; problem-focused
emotional support,  –  coping and, , , ; unemploy-
emotion-focused coping, – ,  ment of, 
empathic coping,  – fear, , , ; brain and, ; emotional
employment: community as workplace, support and, ; negativity bias and,
–; gender gap in,  – ; loss of, ; in parents, , , ; tempera-
, , ,  ment and, , 
English language,  femininity, , – 
environments, , ; family, ; genetics fetus, individuality of, 
and, – ; influence on stress, ; financial difficulties, 
manipulation of, ; monitored for “flexible” coping, –
threats, ; nonshared influences in, “fluctuating” coping, 
,  –; passive genetic correlation folk tales, 
with, ; self-regulation and, ; forethought, , , 
shared influences in, ; temperament foster families, 
and, ; uncertainty in, 
epilepsy, , – 
epinephrine,  gay parents, , 
ethnic background, , ,  gender, – , –, –, 
European American families, , , , genetic studies, – , – , – ,
, ,   –
European countries, public welfare poli- goal setting, , – 
cies in, – , ,  grade school, 
event-dependent cognition,  grandparents, , , –
evocative gene-environment correlation,
– Head Start program, 
exhaustion,  health, , , , , ; European sys-
exosystem,  tem of public healthcare, – ; good
experience, ,  habits and, ; self-esteem and, –.
experiments, laboratory,  – See also mental health
206 Index
heart disease, congenital,  macrosystem, 

Hispanic families,  marriage, , , ; conflict in, , ;
HIV/AIDS,  marital transitions, ,  –; parents
homeostasis, ,  as partners, –; polygamous
hormones,  (Kenya), ; socioeconomic hardship
housing,  and, 
Hypatia (Russell),  masculinity, ,  – 
hyperactivity, ,  maternity leave, , , , 
mental health, , , , ; clinics,
identity, parental, ,  ; of parents, ; professionals, 
illnesses, of children, , ,  – , , mental illness, , 
; coping strategies and, ; life- mental retardation, 
threatening, , ; parents’ marital mesosystem, 
relationships and, –; terminal, metacognitive style, 
,  microsystem, 
illnesses, of parents, , , ,  mood, , 
immune system,  mother-infant attachment, –, 
impulse control,  mother-infant interactions, , – ,
individualism,   –
individuality, of unborn babies,  mothers: addicted, ; African American,
infanticide,  ; Child Development Project (CDP)
infants, , , ; attachment security and, ; child illness and, ; coping
and, , ; attachment to fathers, ; strategies and, – ; cultural image
cries of, , , , ; depressed par- of, ; depression in, , , , –,
ents and, – ; medically compro- – , , ; gender roles and, –
mised, , ; mothers’ face-to-face in- ; premature infants and, ; prenatal
teraction with,  –; as unique social cognitions of, –; role over-
individuals, . See also birth weight, load and, ; schooling and, ; sibling
low; premature infants children and, ; single, , , ; so-
information processing, – cial cognitions of, ; social support
instrumental support,  coping among, ; teenage, , , ,
intentional behaviors,  , ; working outside the home,
internalizing problems, –,   –, , – , 
intervention studies, 
in vitro fertilization (IVF),  negative affectivity, , , 
isolation, social, ,  neglect, parental, 
neuroendocrine system, 
kindergarten, ,  neurons, 
knowledge,  neuroticism, – 
neurotransmitters, 
labor, parental division of, , ,  noncompliant behaviors, , , , ,
language skills, ,  , 
learning disabilities,  norepinephrine, 
lesbian parents, ,  normality, , 
longitudinal studies, , , ; of child nutrition, 
illness, –; on parent and child ef-
fects, –; parents of developmen- openness, , 
tally disabled children, ; of role oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), 
overload, ; on social support, ; optimism, , , 
on socioeconomic resources,  orienting sensitivity, 
Index 207
“over demand,”  ing practices and, – ; “co-parents,”

oxytocin, ,  , ; education level, , , ,
; gender of, –, –; identity
parasympathetic nervous system, ,  (role) of, , ; as partners, –; re-
Parent-Child Interaction System action to infants’ cries, ; social cogni-
(PARCHISY),  tions of, – 
parent-child relationship,  –, , , part-time employment, 
; “co-regulation” and,  –; face- passive gene-environment correlation,
to-face interaction,  –; genetic in-  –
fluences in,  –; laboratory experi- paternity leave, , , , 
ments and,  –; prenatal social perception, , 
cognitions and,  perfectionism, 
parent-child-relationship (P-C-R) stress, permissiveness, 
– , , – ,  personality, , , , – 
parent domain, ,  pessimism, , 
parenthood, , , ; adjustment to, physiology, , , , ; gender differ-
; biological advantage and necessity ences and, – ; social withdrawal
of, , ; goals of, ; intervention to and, ; of stress reaction, ; of stress
reduce stress and, ; preparation for, response, –; successful coping
 –; rewards and difficulties of, ; and, 
single, , ; social role of, ; transi- Pittsburgh Youth Study, 
tion to, –,  –, , – , , planning, , , , 
; workplace demands and,  positive affectivity, , 
parenting self-concept, ,  postnatal depression, – 
parenting stress, –, , , – ; poverty, , – 
behavioral problems and,  – ; preemptive coping, –
bi-directional processes and,  –; pregnancy, –, , ; age of parents
“burnout,” ; child abuse and, – ; and, ; brain development and, ; in
child and parent roles as cause of,  – vitro fertilization and, ; maternal de-
; child illness and, , ; children pression and, ; parents’ social cogni-
and,  –; coping with, – , ; tions during, ; public healthcare and,
definition of, –; developmentally – 
disabled children and, –; diagno- premature infants, –, , , ,
sis and, – ; effects on parents, – 
; emotional support and, ; family prenatal care, –
structures and,  –; gender differ- preschool childcare, 
ences and, –; individual differ- primary appraisal, 
ences and, – ; intervention to re- problem-focused coping, , –, ,
duce,  – ; longitudinal studies and, ; fathers and, , , ; reduction
–; marriage and, ; maternal of stress and, –
depression and, ; mechanisms psychiatry, 
(processes) of, ; premature infants psychology, , 
and,  – ; public healthcare and, psychopathology, , – 
– ; quasi-experimental designs punishment, physical, , , , , , 
and, –; siblings and, ; socioeco-
nomic resources and, –; subjec- quasi-experimental designs, –
tive experience and, ; theories of, – questionnaires, , , 
Parenting Stress Index, , , 
parents: age of, – ; attributes of, ; “real-ideal” mother, –
childhood memories of, ; child-rear- rejection, parental, , , 
208 Index
relationship-focused coping strategies, spanking, , 

– spina bifida, 
remarriage, , , ,  stability, –, , 
resources, conservation of,  stepparents, , 
resources, demands and, ,  stigmatization, 
responsibility, parenthood and, ,  “still face” procedure, 
role overload/strain, , ,  stress: different kinds of, , , ; emotional-
focused coping and, ; “spillover” of,
sadness, , , ; in childhood, ; –, –; subjective experience
chronic, , , ; in parents,  of, , , 
schematic cognition,  stress reaction, , –, ; gender dif-
schizophrenia,  ferences and, – ; infant cries and,
school environment, ,  ; physiological aspects, 
secondary appraisal,  substance abuse, , , 
self-control, , , , , ; discipline suicide, 
practices and, ; in early childhood, support networks, 
; emotion-focused coping and, ; survival strategies, , 
interpersonal relationships and,  Sweden, 
self-efficacy, , , – ,  sympathetic nervous system, , 
self-esteem, , , , , , 
self-referent social cognitions,  –  taxes, public healthcare and, , , 
self-reflection,  –,  teachers, – 
self-regulation, –, , , , ,  temperament, – , ,  –
separation anxieties, , , – temper tantrums, , 
serial marriages,  therapies, , 
sexual abuse,  thyroxin, 
sibling studies,  – “time outs,” 
single parenthood, , , ,  toddlers, –, , , , ; attach-
sleep problems, , , ,  ment security and, ; physical disci-
social behaviors,  pline of, 
social cognitive theories, ,  –  TRACKS study, –, , 
socialization, , ,  trait anxiety, 
social support, , , , ; community twins, , , , , , 
as workplace and, ; coping mecha-
nisms and, ; cultural differences uncertainty, intolerance of, 
and, ; diagnosis and, ; mothers “under demand,” 
and, ; relationship-focused coping, United States,  –, , –, 
– 
social withdrawal,  vagal tone, 
socioeconomic status, , , , –; vassopressin, 
grandparents as parents and, ; harsh- vulnerable child syndrome, 
ness of discipline and, , ; parenting
studies and, ,  worrying, 
Spanish language, 

STRESS Parenting Stress

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

STRESS Parenting Stress

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Current Perspectives in Psychology

Copyright ©  by Kirby Deater-Deckard.

Series Foreword Alan E. Kazdin ix

Current Perspectives in Psychology presents the latest discoveries

Thanks to my family—Keirsten, Anna, and our new baby,

In his novel How to Be Good (), Nick Hornby describes a

ceived lack of control and violations of those expectations, and self-

Deﬁning Parenting Stress

a father of three school-age children. His job involves operating heavy

behavior and children’s development than does stress in other domains

mands are manageable, and although the job of parenthood may be

Causes and Effects: Theories of Parenting Stress

Parent-Child-Relationship (P-C-R) Stress

). These three domains of parenting stress, in turn, cause decre-

ical components (i.e., psychophysiology) of the stress response (Deater-

Daily Hassles (DH) Theory

erences, but is not connected to the mother’s perception of her own

Stability and Change

remarkably powerful one, and centers on a single discrete event—the

Perception, Cognition, Emotion, and Physiology

emotional distress can itself become a stressor (Aspinwall, ; Laza-

The Child and the Parenting Role as Causes of Stress

that continue to present potentially stressful experiences for parents. In

dren work outside the home? Who is responsible for contributing to

Appraisal: Is This a Stressor or Not?

Although a parent’s attributions and appraisals of his or her chil-

Coping: What Do I Do Now?

in families in which the parents avoided using emotion-focused coping

dler is in a nasty mood. This father will be attending to and noticing

satisfaction based on those judgments, e.g., shame, anger, happiness).

The Stress Reaction

stress process includes internal states, stressors, and transactions be-

Self-Regulation: Controlling Thoughts,

Becoming a parent thrusts you into a new world of great respon-

The Transition to Parenthood

meulebroecke, ; Deater-Deckard, Pickering, Dunn, and Gold-

Parent Age and Gender

adolescent becomes an adult, simply because the child no longer lives

the household, while also pursuing their educational and occupational

role? Or as the less frequent caregivers of their children, are fathers at

tually indistinguishable in their parenting stress and separation anxi-

Consider as an example a study of first-time mothers and fathers in

orientation and gender-typed patterns of thought and behavior (Fran-

Depression and Psychopathology

difficulties in adjustment, but may start showing signs of psycho-

ing process that involves social cognitions (e.g., attitudes, self-esteem),

drug addicted or are recovering addicts. As a group, addicted and re-

Temperament and Personality

well as slower conscious thoughts), a physiological stress reaction will

ing a link between cognitive and attentional components of self-con-

fluential in its systematic effects on self-regulation. These effects oper-

Self-referent Social Cognitions

evolves from our tendency as humans to make comparisons between

tionship, such as affection. Mothers first reported whether each behav-

their children and families have accomplished. These parents show

with better self-regulation, which is adaptive for parents and children

Parental distress can affect children in powerful ways. These are

Prematurity and Low Birth Weight

role and the child’s health improves. However, long-lasting effects on

perceptions of premature, low-birth-weight infants’ abilities to inter-

Table 3.1. An Overview of the child illnesses, disabilities, and

Asthma Developmental disability Attention-deﬁcit hyperactivity

essarily contribute only in positive ways to their children’s outcomes,

requires surgery and extended periods of recovery, and severely dis-