623 326 Children of Abuse and Neglect Kim, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion regulation, peer relations, and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 51(6), 706–7 16. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7 610.2009.02202.x Kim-Spoon, J., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2013). A longitudinal study of emotion regulation, emotion lability-negativity, and internalizing symptomatology in maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Development, 84(2), 512–5 27. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8 624.2012.01857.x Klevens, J., & Leeb, R. T. (2010). Child maltreatment fatalities in children under 5: Findings from the National Violence Death Reporting System. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4), 262–266. doi:10.1016/ j.chiabu.2009.07.005 Kolla, N. J., Malcolm, C., Attard, S., Arenovich, T., Blackwood, N., & Hodgins, S. (2013). Childhood maltreatment and aggressive behaviour in violent offenders with psychopathy. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 58(8), 487–4 94. Retrieved from http://e uropepmc.org/ abstract/m ed/23972111 Krause, E. D., Mendelson, T., & Lynch, T. R. (2003). Childhood emotional invalidation and adult psychological distress: the mediating role of emotional inhibition. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(2), 199– 213. doi:10.1016/S 0145-2134(02)00536-7/ Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. Lancet, 360(9339), 1083–1088. doi:10.1016/S0140-6 736(02)11133-0 Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent Peer Status, Aggression, and School Adjustment as Predictors of Externalizing Problems in Adolescence. Child Development, 61(5), 1350. doi:10.2307/1130747 Ladd, G. W., & Troop-Gordon, W. (2003). The Role of Chronic Peer Difficulties in the Development of Children’s Psychological Adjustment Problems. Child Development, 74(5), 1344–1367. doi:10.1111/ 1467-8624.00611 Lang, S., af Klinteberg, B., & Alm, P.-O . (2002). Adult psychopathy and violent behavior in males with early neglect and abuse. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 106(s412), 93–100. doi:10.1034/j .1600-0 447.106. s412.20.x Lansford, J. E., Miller-J ohnson, S., Berlin, L. J., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2007). Early physical abuse and later violent delinquency: a prospective longitudinal study. Child Maltreatment, 12(3), 233–245. doi:10.1177/1 077559507301841 Larrance, D. T., & Twentyman, C. T. (1983). Maternal attributions and child abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92(4), 449–4 57. doi:10.1037//0 021-8 43X.92.4.449 Louwers, E. C. F. M., Korfage, I. J., Affourtit, M. J., Scheewe, D. J. H., van de Merwe, M. H., Vooijs- Moulaert, A.-F. S. R., … de Koning, H. J. (2012). Effects of systematic screening and detection of child abuse in emergency departments. Pediatrics, 130(3), 457–4 64. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-3 527 Lunkenheimer, E. S., Shields, A. M., & Cortina, K. S. (2007). Parental Emotion Coaching and Dismissing in Family Interaction. Social Development, 16(2), 232–248. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00382.x Macfie, J., Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2001). Dissociation in maltreated versus nonmaltreated preschool- aged children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(9), 1253–1 267. doi:10.1016/S 0145-2 134(01)00266-6 Maier, M. E., & di Pellegrino, G. (2012). Impaired conflict adaptation in an emotional task context following rostral anterior cingulate cortex lesions in humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(10), 2070–2079. doi:10.1162/j ocn_a_00266 Manly, J. T., Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1994). The impact of subtype, frequency, chronicity, and severity of child maltreatment on social competence and behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 6(1), 121–143. doi:10.1017/S0954579400005915 Marusak, H. A., Martin, K. R., Etkin, A., & Thomason, M. E. (2015). Childhood trauma exposure disrupts the automatic regulation of emotional processing. Neuropsychopharmacology : Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 40(5), 1250–1258. doi:10.1038/ npp.2014.311 Masten, C. L., Guyer, A. E., Hodgdon, H. B., McClure, E. B., Charney, D. S., Ernst, M., … Monk, C. S. (2008). Recognition of facial emotions among maltreated children with high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(1), 139–153. doi:10.1016/j .chiabu.2007.09.006
723 Conclusion 327 Maszk, P., Eisenberg, N., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999). Relations of Children’s Social Status to Their Emotionality and Regulation: A Short-Term Longitudinal Study. Merrill-P almer Quarterly, 45(3), 468–492. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/? id=EJ599896 Maughan, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Impact of Child Maltreatment and Interadult Violence on Children’s Emotion Regulation Abilities and Socioemotional Adjustment. Child Development, 73(5), 1525–1542. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00488 McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The Impact of Economic Hardship on Black Families and Children: Psychological Distress, Parenting, and Socioemotional Development. Child Development, 61(2), 311–3 46. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8 624.1990.tb02781.x Milner, J. S., & Robertson, K. R. (1990). Comparison of Physical Child Abusers, Intrafamilial Sexual Child Abusers, and Child Neglecters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(1), 37–48. doi:10.1177/ 088626090005001003 Molnar, B. E., Buka, S. L., & Kessler, R. C. (2001). Child sexual abuse and subsequent psychopathology: results from the National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 91(5), 753–760. Retrieved from http://w ww.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/a rticlerender.fcgi?artid=1446666&t ool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Morris, M. D. S., Steinberg, L., Aucoin, K. J., & Keyes, A. W. (2011). The influence of mother-child emotion regulation strategies on children’s expression of anger and sadness. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 213–2 25. doi:10.1037/a0021021 Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The Role of the Family Context in the Development of Emotion Regulation. Social Development (Oxford, England), 16(2), 361–3 88. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x Noll, J. G., Horowitz, L. A., Bonanno, G. A., Trickett, P. K., & Putnam, F. W. (2003). Revictimization and self-harm in females who experienced childhood sexual abuse: results from a prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(12), 1452–1471. doi:10.1177/0 886260503258035 Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–2 49. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.010 Oral, R., Blum, K. L., & Johnson, C. (2003). Fractures in young children: are physicians in the emergency department and orthopedic clinics adequately screening for possible abuse? Pediatric Emergency Care, 19(3), 148–153. doi:10.1097/01.pec.0000081234.20228.33 Oshri, A., Sutton, T. E., Clay-Warner, J., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Child maltreatment types and risk behaviors: Associations with attachment style and emotion regulation dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 127–133. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.015 Palazzi, S., de Girolamo, G., & Liverani, T. (2005). Observational study of suspected maltreatment in Italian paediatric emergency departments. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90(4), 406–4 10. doi:10.1136/adc.2003.040790 Pham, T. H., & Philippot, P. (2010). Decoding of facial expression of emotion in criminal psychopaths. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24(4), 445–459. doi:10.1521/pedi.2010.24.4.445 Pollak, S. D. (2008). Mechanisms Linking Early Experience and the Emergence of Emotions: Illustrations From the Study of Maltreated Children. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 370–375. doi:10.1111/j .1467-8 721.2008.00608.x Pollak, S. D., Cicchetti, D., Hornung, K., & Reed, A. (2000). Recognizing emotion in faces: Developmental effects of child abuse and neglect. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 679–688. doi:10.1037/ 0012-1649.36.5.679 Pollak, S. D., Klorman, R., Thatcher, J. E., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). P3b reflects maltreated children’s reactions to facial displays of emotion. Psychophysiology, 38(2), 267–2 74. doi:10.1111/1 469-8 986.3820267 Pollak, S. D., & Sinha, P. (2002). Effects of early experience on children’s recognition of facial displays of emotion. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 784–791. doi:10.1037//0012-1 649.38.5.784 Pollak, S. D., Vardi, S., Putzer Bechner, A. M., & Curtin, J. J. (2005). Physically abused children’s regulation of attention in response to hostility. Child Development, 76(5), 968–977. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2005.00890.x
823 328 Children of Abuse and Neglect Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., Howat, N., & Collishaw, S. (2011). Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK Today. London: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Retrieved from http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/6022/1 /c hild_a buse_neglect_r esearch_PDF_ wdf84181.pdf Rieder, C., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). Organizational Perspective on Cognitive Control Functioning and Cognitive-Affective Balance in Maltreated Children. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 382–393. Retrieved from http://e ric.ed.gov/? id=EJ392566 Robinson, L. R., Morris, A. S., Heller, S. S., Scheeringa, M. S., Boris, N. W., & Smyke, A. T. (2008). Relations Between Emotion Regulation, Parenting, and Psychopathology in Young Maltreated Children in Out of Home Care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(4), 421–434. doi:10.1007/ s10826-008-9 246-6 Rogosch, F. A., Cicchetti, D., & Aber, J. L. (1995). The role of child maltreatment in early deviations in cognitive and affective processing abilities and later peer relationship problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7(4), 591–609. doi:10.1017/S 0954579400006738 Rogosch, F. A., Cicchetti, D., Shields, A., & Toth, S. L. (1995). Parenting dysfunction in child maltreatment. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 4: Applied and practical (pp. 127–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ross, S. M. (1996). Risk of physical abuse to children of spouse abusing parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(7), 589–598. doi:10.1016/0145-2 134(96)00046-4 Runyan, D. K., Hunter, W. M., Socolar, R. R. S., Amaya-Jackson, L., English, D., Landsverk, J., … Mathew, R. M. (1998). Children Who Prosper in Unfavorable Environments: The Relationship to Social Capital. Pediatrics, 101(1), 12–18. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ content/101/1/12.short Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Hammer, M., & Rosario, M. (1993). The Effects of Physical Abuse on Children’s Social Relationships. Child Development, 64(1), 169–187. doi:10.1111/j .1467-8 624.1993. tb02902.x Schnitzer, P. G., & Ewigman, B. G. (2005). Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries: household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. Pediatrics, 116(5), e687–e693. doi:10.1542/ peds.2005-0296 Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence exposure and children’s social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 670–683. doi:10.1037/0 022-0 06X.68.4.670 Seifert, D., Krohn, J., Larson, M., Lambe, A., Püschel, K., & Kurth, H. (2010). Violence against children: further evidence suggesting a relationship between burns, scalds, and the additional injuries. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 124(1), 49–5 4. doi:10.1007/s 00414-009-0347-6 Shackman, J. E., & Pollak, S. D. (2014). Impact of physical maltreatment on the regulation of negative affect and aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 26(4 Pt 1), 1021–1033. doi:10.1017/ S0954579414000546 Shackman, J. E., Shackman, A. J., & Pollak, S. D. (2007). Physical abuse amplifies attention to threat and increases anxiety in children. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 7(4), 838–852. doi:10.1037/ 1528-3 542.7.4.838 Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: the contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(4), 381–395. doi:10.1207/ s15374424jccp2704_2 Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(3), 349–363. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_7 Shields, A. M., Cicchetti, D., & Ryan, R. M. (1994). The development of emotional and behavioral self-regulation and social competence among maltreated school-age children. Development and Psychopathology, 6(1), 57–75. doi:10.1017/S0954579400005885
923 Conclusion 329 Shipman, K., Edwards, A., Brown, A., Swisher, L., & Jennings, E. (2005). Managing emotion in a maltreating context: a pilot study examining child neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(9), 1015–1 029. doi:10.1016/j .chiabu.2005.01.006 Shipman, K. L., Schneider, R., Fitzgerald, M. M., Sims, C., Swisher, L., & Edwards, A. (2007). Maternal Emotion Socialization in Maltreating and Non-maltreating Families: Implications for Children’s Emotion Regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 268–2 85. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9 507.2007.00384.x Shipman, K. L., & Zeman, J. (2001). Socialization of children’s emotion regulation in mother-c hild dyads: a developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 13(2), 317–3 36. Retrieved from http://e uropepmc.org/abstract/m ed/11393649 Shipman, K., Zeman, J., Penza, S., & Champion, K. (2000). Emotion management skills in sexually maltreated and nonmaltreated girls: a developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 12(1), 47–62. Retrieved from http://europepmc.org/a bstract/m ed/1 0774595 Silverman, A. B., Reinherz, H. Z., & Giaconia, R. M. (1996). The long-term sequelae of child and adolescent abuse: A longitudinal community study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(8), 709–723. doi:10.1016/ 0145-2 134(96)00059-2 Sinha, R., Fox, H. C., Hong, K. A., Bergquist, K., Bhagwagar, Z., & Siedlarz, K. M. (2009). Enhanced negative emotion and alcohol craving, and altered physiological responses following stress and cue exposure in alcohol dependent individuals. Neuropsychopharmacology : Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 34(5), 1198–1 208. doi:10.1038/n pp.2008.78 Slack, K. S., Berger, L. M., DuMont, K., Yang, M.-Y ., Kim, B., Ehrhard-D ietzel, S., & Holl, J. L. (2011). Risk and protective factors for child neglect during early childhood: A cross-s tudy comparison. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(8), 1354–1 363. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.024 Springer, K. W., Sheridan, J., Kuo, D., & Carnes, M. (2007). Long-term physical and mental health consequences of childhood physical abuse: Results from a large population-b ased sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(5), 517–530. doi:10.1016/j .chiabu.2007.01.003 Stevens, N. R., Gerhart, J., Goldsmith, R. E., Heath, N. M., Chesney, S. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2013). Emotion regulation difficulties, low social support, and interpersonal violence mediate the link between childhood abuse and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Behavior Therapy, 44(1), 152–161. doi:10.1016/ j.beth.2012.09.003 Stuhrmann, A., Suslow, T., & Dannlowski, U. (2011). Facial emotion processing in major depression: a systematic review of neuroimaging findings. Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders, 1(10). doi:10.1186/ 2045-5 380-1 -10 Suveg, C., Morelen, D., Brewer, G. A., & Thomassin, K. (2010). The Emotion Dysregulation Model of Anxiety: a preliminary path analytic examination. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 24(8), 924–9 30. doi:10.1016/j .janxdis.2010.06.018 Suveg, C., & Zeman, J. (2004). Emotion regulation in children with anxiety disorders. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology : The Official Journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53, 33(4), 750–759. doi:10.1207/ s15374424jccp3304_1 0 Tarullo, A. R., & Gunnar, M. R. (2006). Child maltreatment and the developing HPA axis. Hormones and Behavior, 50(4), 632–639. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.06.010 Ten Bensel, R. W., Rheinberger, M. M., & Radbill, S. X. (1997). Children in a world of violence: The roots of child maltreatment. In R. E. Helfer, R. Kempe, & D. Krugman (Eds.), The battered child (pp. 3–2 8). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Theodore, A. D., & Runyan, D. K. (1999). A Medical Research Agenda for Child Maltreatment: Negotiating the Next Steps. Pediatrics, 104(1), 168–1 77. Retrieved from http://p ediatrics.aappublications.org/ content/104/S upplement_1/168.short Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3), 25–52. doi:10.1111/j .1540-5834.1994.tb01276.x
03 330 Children of Abuse and Neglect Thompson, R. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1996). The double-edged sword: Emotional regulation for children at risk. Development and Psychopathology, 8(1), 163–182. Thompson, R. A., & Meyer, S. (2007). Socialization of Emotion Regulation in the Family. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 249–268). New York: Guilford Press. Thornberry, T. P., & Henry, K. L. (2013). Intergenerational continuity in maltreatment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(4), 555–5 69. doi:10.1007/s 10802-012-9697-5 Tull, M. T., Barrett, H. M., McMillan, E. S., & Roemer, L. (2007). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between emotion regulation difficulties and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Behavior Therapy, 38(3), 303–313. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006.10.001 Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2006). Parenting and Children’s Adjustment: The Role of Children’s Emotion Regulation. In J. N. Snyder, Douglas K; Simpson, Jeffry; Hughes (Ed.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 123–142). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Van der Kolk, B. A., & Fisler, R. E. (1994). Childhood abuse and neglect and loss of self-regulation. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 58(2), 145–1 68. Retrieved from http://e uropepmc.org/abstract/m ed/7 519094 Vuilleumier, P., Armony, J. L., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2001). Effects of Attention and Emotion on Face Processing in the Human Brain. Neuron, 30(3), 829–8 41. doi:10.1016/S0896-6 273(01)00328-2 Weiler, B. L., & Widom, C. S. (1996). Psychopathy and violent behaviour in abused and neglected young adults. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 6(3), 253–271. doi:10.1002/c bm.99 Whipple, E. E., & Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). The role of parental stress in physically abusive families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15(3), 279–291. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(91)90072-L Widom, C. S., Marmorstein, N. R., & White, H. R. (2006). Childhood victimization and illicit drug use in middle adulthood. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors : Journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 20(4), 394–4 03. doi:10.1037/0 893-164X.20.4.394 Williamson, J. M., Borduin, C. M., & Howe, B. A. (1991). The ecology of adolescent maltreatment: A multilevel examination of adolescent physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(3), 449–4 57. doi:10.1037//0022-0 06X.59.3.449 Wilson, H. W., & Widom, C. S. (2011). Pathways from childhood abuse and neglect to HIV-r isk sexual behavior in middle adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(2), 236–2 46. doi:10.1037/a0022915 Wupperman, P., Marlatt, G. A., Cunningham, A., Bowen, S., Berking, M., Mulvihill-R ivera, N., & Easton, C. (2012). Mindfulness and modification therapy for behavioral dysregulation: results from a pilot study targeting alcohol use and aggression in women. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(1), 50–6 6. doi:10.1002/j clp.20830 Zeanah, C. H., Scheeringa, M., Boris, N. W., Heller, S. S., Smyke, A. T., & Trapani, J. (2004). Reactive attachment disorder in maltreated toddlers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(8), 877–888. doi:10.1016/ j.chiabu.2004.01.010 Zuravin, S. J., & DiBlasio, F. A. (1996). The correlates of child physical abuse and neglect by adolescent mothers. Journal of Family Violence, 11(2), 149–166. doi:10.1007/BF02336667
Chapter 16 Children of Divorce Maria Caridad H. Tarroja, Ma. Araceli Balajadia-A╉ lcala, & Maria Aurora Assumpta D. Catipon Effects of divorce Parental separation and divorce significantly impacts children’s development. Many books and articles have been written on the experiences of children whose parents separated and how the parental separation affected them throughout their development, from childhood into adulthood. The majority of studies report that compared to children from intact families, children of divorce are at a higher risk for behavior and adjustment problems which may manifest in different facets of their lives (e.g., academic performance, self-e╉ steem, social relations, expression of emotions, and psychological wellbeing) (Alubokin & Akyina, 2015; Boring, Velez, Sandler, Tein, & Horan, 2015; Schick, 2002). The terms parental separation and parental divorce are often interchanged, perhaps because the impact of this event on children’s and families’ lives are similar. Regardless of the term used, the importance of harmonious relationships between the divorcing/âs•‰ eparating couples remains imparative (Lee & Bax, 2000). Studies on children of divorce show inconsistent results. On one hand, some studies suggest the after-e╉ ffects of divorce are short-ât•‰erm and that adjustment improves over time. On the other hand, some longitudinal studies show that long-t╉erm effects on the children are undeniable and are emphasized to bring attention to the phenomenology of children of divorce so that other steps to preserve their best interests can be pursued. Likewise, findings from the 25 year study of Wallerstein and Lewis (2004) demonstrate that the lives of children of divorce are forever changed or transformed. Thus, divorce is not simply an acute stressor from which a child bounces back because challenges throughout their life course and the shifting relationships therein, continu- ously demand a series of adjustments from the child, who needs to deal with the many losses associated with separation and divorce. Hence, the challenge is to develop interventions that may enable children of divorce to maintain hope, develop a positive view of relationships, and carry this perception into succeeding relationships they may have. This chapter describes children of divorce, its prevalence, experiences, behavior and adjust- ment issues, and interventions that have been identified in the literature that are helpful given their needs. In addition, the role of emotion regulation in the manifestation of their psychological problems and as a protective factor in their adjustment process, is discussed. Prevalence of divorce The Social Trends Institute (2012) reported that generally high rates of marriage in Asia and the Middle East and low rates of cohabitation suggest that marriage is important in the life path of adults, especially in these regions. However, it has less of a dominant role in Africa, the Americas, Europe, and Oceania, where cohabitation or non-m╉ arriage is a common practice. Thus,
23 332 Children of Divorce termination of partnerships, or separation of parents, is not reported and included in marriage and divorce statistics. Excluding separations that happen in the context of cohabitation or non-╉ marriage, plus the non-âp•‰ ractice of divorce in some countries, a crude divorce rate (percentage for every population of 1,000 individuals) of 1.9% is seen across the globe (UN Demographic Report, 2012), with Europe and the Americas registering the highest rates (Divorcescience.org, 2015). While crude divorce rates in excess of 1% have been predominant in Western countries, divorce became comparatively common in most countries in 1985. Considerable variations in divorce trends are still noted within regions. Currently, the divorce rates in most developed countries exceed 2%. By 1995, the divorce rates in East Asian countries became similar to other industrial- ized countries. Divorce rates, on the other hand, were noted to decline in 1995 in New Zealand, Australia, and other countries in Europe and North America, which further narrowed the divorce-╉ rate gap between countries across the world (Social Trends Institute, 2012). It was noted that the observed peaks in England and Wales in the early 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and the increase in 2010 before the slight drop in 2011, coincided with the economic recession. These statistics may suggest a tendency for marriages to succumb under financial pressure (Sedghi & Rodgers, 2014). Although 50% of marriages in the US end in divorce, the NY Times (December 2014) reported a decline over the last three decades after its peak in the 1970s and early 1980s. Much of the trend may be attributed to changing gender roles, especially among women, and the fact that fewer people are getting married. Some of the other many reasons for the drop in divorce include later marriages, birth control and the rise of so-âc•‰ alled love marriages (referring to marrying for love as opposed to the idea of arranged marriages). Perhaps one of the biggest upheavals that divorce creates is the break-u╉ p of the household. When a couple divorces or separates, the process also involves dividing up their lives. Children unfortunately, also find themselves included in this procedure, regardless of their readiness to do so. Living alternatively and equally with both parents after a parental separation has become more common in the past 20 years for children in the Western world (Melli & Brown, 2008; Spruijt & Duindam, 2010). Through most of twentieth-c╉ entury America, mothers were routinely granted sole custody of their children. Research from the University of Wisconsin–M╉ adison sug- gests a dramatic shift away from mother-âo•‰ nly custody in favor of shared custody as mother-âo•‰ nly custody agreements dropped from 80% in 1986 to 74% in 1994. An analysis of nearly 10,000 Wisconsin divorce cases showed that the trend toward joint custody gained momentum since then (i.e., mother-o╉ nly custody decreased to 42% in 2008, while shared custody increased from 8% to 45%). On the other hand, father-o╉ nly custody remains low and largely unchanged (Cancian, 2014). As shall be discussed in various sections of this chapter, there are several factors to consider in examining the adjustment and well-b╉ eing of children of divorce, including parent factors, child factors, and environmental context. In addition, the role of family processes and functioning is also highlighted in this section. Impact of parental separation on children of divorce Children’s reactions to their parents’ divorce or separation depend on several factors including individual characteristics (i.e., temperament, personality characteristics, support network etc.), parent characteristics, family processes and functioning, and the environmental context. Some of these reactions may include internalizing behaviors (e.g., blame and guilt, depression or sad- ness) or externalizing behaviors (e.g., anger and hostility). The majority of the research on the differences between children of divorce and children from intact families has established that children of divorce are at a higher risk for adjustment problems than children from intact fami- lies (Schick, 2002). This is significant, as long term effects may manifest in different stages of
3 Impact of parental separation on children of divorce 333 development, especially in adulthood. Schick (2002) also found that significant differences in levels of social withdrawal, behavior problems and academic difficulties occur between children coming from intact families and children whose parents had been separated for a maximum of two-a nd-a -half years. However, it is important to note that recent literature has shown that children who enjoy a joint-c ustody arrangement are generally better adjusted than those from single-custody homes (Bauserman, 2002). Thus, when marriage cannot be salvaged joint custody may be a more viable option, in addition to other critical factors, such as individual difference, the parents maintain- ing a positive relationship with healthy, transparent communication and ensuring the child has a sound support network to name a few. Amidst the negative outcomes in children of divorce, it is worthwhile to reiterate that a few studies indicated psychological problems of these children existed even before marital separation, and may not be attributable to divorce per se (Furstenberg & Teitler, 1994). Other findings have suggested that the negative effects of parental separation and divorce had only a short term impact on children’s well-b eing that was likely to disappear over time (Allison & Furstenberg, 1989; Ambert, 1984). Moreover, a 2000 APA overview of the psy- chological literature on the outcomes of divorce on children showed that the differences between children of divorce and children from intact families is smaller and less pronounced than often- times indicated i.e., the majority of children fall within the normal range of standard measures of adjustment (Amato, 1994). Hetherington and Kelly (2002) concluded that 80% of the children from divorced homes become reasonably well adjusted and insist that, this event is not a form of developmental predestination. In sum, these studies (Bauserman, 2002; Schick, 2002) invite us to re-appraise the individual experience of each child so that the long term impact of divorce, not just on the individual child, but on society as well, can be attenuated. Some scholars have examined specific effects of divorce on various intra and interpersonal vari- ables, a specific area of interest has been academic achievement. Kim (2011) found that children of divorce, specifically those within the first to third grade levels, showed significant delays in their math test scores during and after the divorce of their parents. No such setback was seen in this group in reading test scores when compared with children from intact families. However, a more recent article has demonstrated that reading test scores and particularly children’s reading comprehension scores are affected pre-and post-divorce. The problems appear to precede divorce and even follow it. Specifically, it was seen that reading test scores are most affected in seven to 14 year old children, two to four years prior to the family disruption. For reading comprehension, negative effects tended to persist and in fact, even intensify with the passage of time (Arkes, 2015). Whereas, some studies posit that poor academic achievement directly results from the divorce experience (Alubokin & Akyina, 2015), others qualify, that social class or socio-e conomic status plays an important role in the eventual academic outcome of children from divorced families (Grätz, 2015), as has been pointed out in an earlier section of this chapter. Children belonging to higher social classes may have more financial resources and social support to overcome academic problems brought about by the parents’ separation. Potter (2010) found that elementary school children who experience parental divorce imme- diately begin performing worse academically than their peers from intact families. According to Schick (2002), inconsistent academic performance of children of divorce may be brought about by the consumption of energy required to cope with the loss and re-adjust to their new situation (Schick, 2002). Gruber (2004) also showed that children exposed to unilateral divorce are less educated by adulthood. Another area that can be affected by parents’ separation is social relationships. For example, in a 25 year follow-u p study conducted on a white, middle-class, divorced population from California, USA, Wallerstein and Lewis (2004) maintained that divorce appears to affect the social relationships of people at virtually every stage of development, from childhood to adolescence to
43 334 Children of Divorce adulthood. Instead of these children overcoming the impact of divorce when they reach adult- hood, this is the time when they may be impacted significantly as long-hidden emotional prob- lems stemming from parental divorce may suddenly emerge during young adult life (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989). According to Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1989) without clear inner images of stable relationships they may struggle more than adults from intact families, to attain love, sexual intimacy, and lasting commitment. Thus, 60% of the participants in the 25-year landmark study had trouble with social relationships. They tended to expect failure in their lives, have a lingering fear of loss due to childhood fears of abandonment, and experienced strong fear of change. In addition, they feared betrayal and being alone, which was associated with self-d estructive choices in relationships. Relationships between the child and their parents were not just affected in the short-term, but also in the long-term, especially for fathers. De Graaf and Fokkema (2007) found that cus- tody arrangements during divorce affect subsequent contact of fathers with their adult children. Bouchard and Doucet (2010) examined the transition into parenthood of adults who were chil- dren of divorce using the family systems theory. They looked into interaction and dynamics among family members in explaining how far-fetching the impact of divorce is on relationships within the family. They determined that in their sample of couples who experienced parental divorce or separation growing up, and were expecting their first child, the quality of relation- ship with the father continued to affect their relationship as adults. However, more importantly, it was found that support coming from the gender-matched parent (women with their mothers, and men with their fathers) predicted the level of positive adjustment of couples as they went through this significant life transition. Moreover, it is significant to note that a more recent article has emerged examining the effect of parental separation/d ivorce on relationships of children of divorce in later life. Fergusson, McLeod and Horwood (2014) presented findings from a 30 year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of over 1000 children in New Zealand, in 1977, stating that parental divorces/separations alone was not sufficient to account for relationship outcomes of children coming from these families. Instead, there are a host of different contextual factors that contribute to this outcome, including parent factors (history of illicit drug use and criminality, conflict and violence between couples), child abuse (sexual, physical maltreatment), and fam- ily socioeconomic status at birth of the child. The presence of conduct problems in childhood (from ages seven to nine) was also one of the covariates mentioned. This latter factor may be related to challenges that children have in regulating their emotions which may lead to behavioral difficulties. Parents who divorce may have fewer resources to effectively maintain the stability of social rela- tionships that their child sorely needs, as they themselves have trouble maintaining close ties with their own families of origin. This is known as the “negative divorce effect” which states that adult children who are divorced have even less frequent contact with their parents compared to their never-m arried siblings (Kalmijn, 2014). This puts divorced individuals at risk for disconnection from extended relatives at a time when they may need the support the most. Children’s psychological well-b eing is another facet that may be affected by the parents’ separa- tion. For example, several researches say that children of divorced parents generally score lower on indicators or measures of well-being than children from intact families (Amato, 1991; Clarke- Stewart, Vandell, McCartney, Owen, & Booth, 2000; Kurtz, 1994; Weaver & Schofield, 2014). Thus, compared to children in intact, two-parent families, children of divorce show more symp- toms of psychological maladjustment (e.g., exhibiting more conduct problems such as aggressive, impulsive, and antisocial behaviors and more problems in their relationships with their moth- ers and fathers (Amato, 1994; Hetherington, Stanley-Hagan, 1999), lower academic achievement (Amato, 1994; Hethereington & Stanley-Hagan,1999; Wallerstein, 1991), more social difficulties
53 Impact of parental separation on children of divorce 335 and a reduced self-c oncept (Amato, 1994; Kurtz & Derevensky, 1993). Children may regress, dis- play anxiety and depressive symptoms, appear more irritable, become demanding and noncom- pliant, and experience problems in social relationships and academic performance. Not only in the US has the negative effect of divorce been demonstrated, but in Europe as well. Dronkers (1999) found that the presence of increased parental conflict during and after divorce was strongly linked to a lower sense of well-b eing in secondary school pupils. Given this link between children experiencing parental divorce and problems facing psychological maladjustment in children, divorce has been identified as a stressor among health professionals as being potentially respon- sible for maladjusted neuropsychological responses and for a decline in children’s physical health (Nunes-C osta, Lamela, Figueiredo, 2009) as well as for the experience of pain symptomatology (Lee, 2000). From the period of 1996 to 2009, a birth cohort of approximately 35,000 Chinese adolescents was tracked for changes in self-e steem. A decline in self-e steem rates were seen in that decade, and one of the key factors seemingly contributing to this was the increasing divorce rate, which led to decreased familial connections. Findings like these demonstrate that the impact of divorce can be particularly troubling especially as self-esteem is generally found to be stable over time in the general populace (Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins, 2003). Marquardt (2006) further noted that children of divorce experience early pressure to create their own moral systems, as they cannot fully endorse the rules of two different households. Such resulting behaviors and symptoms may indicate emotion suppression, which refers to consciously inhibiting the ongoing expression of emotion-related behavior (Gross & John, 2003), as the com- mon form of emotion regulation used by children of divorce. Moreover, a repressive style may have adverse effects not only on subjective well-being, but also on physical health (John & Gross, 2004). In an interview with over 400 divorced adults over 20 years who grew up in divorced homes, Brooks (2010) found two dominant traits in most children of divorce, i.e., fear of abandonment and fear of not being good enough to be loved. While adult children of divorce are consciously aware of these fears, the underlying processes and underpinning beliefs often operate on a sub- conscious level and it may be difficult to link back to limiting behavioral patterns. Brooks’ study captured a pattern of four destructive relationship behaviors that both male and female adult children of divorce engage in: 1) Trying to constantly please one’s partner and suppressing one’s own needs for fear of rejection or in other words, being a martyr to please one’s partner to main- tain the relationship, 2) looking for a relationship, sometimes taking on the first person who gives attention and not wanting to be alone, 3) fixing a partner—falling for a person who needs help and love to fix all their problems, and being convinced that love is the solution to everything, 4) shutting down emotionally for fear of getting divorced and settling for superficial relationships with no real commitment. Simons (2009) noted that children of divorcing parents tend to be good actors as they put on different masks to fit into their parents’ different worlds. This is further noted by Marquardt’s (2006), who discusses the split existence of children of divorce. The children reported that they felt like different people with each of their parents and that they believe their parents were polar opposites (even when they were not). In addition, they felt they needed to keep more secrets from their parents than other kids do, and that they did not want to resemble one of their parents too much, as this may lead to alienation from the other parent. Development of coping skills may be influenced by the stability or the lack of it in parents’ relationship. At best, research has consistently shown that children from divorced families exhibit less stereotyped sex behavior, greater maturity, and greater independence (Emery & Coiro, 1995). Such positive characteristics may reflect the children’s coping attempts, which in turn, suggests active regulation of emotions that allow them to function or compensate for the weaknesses
63 336 Children of Divorce brought to the family system. However, the fact that they become vulnerable in situations that they are not entirely ready for, e.g., when children leave the parental home earlier and have sex at an earlier age (Amato & Keith, 1991) may suggest that emotions are not regulated enough for self-p╉ rotective purposes (Marquardt, 2005). Mediating factors Researchers agree that interparental conflict, rather than divorce or residential placement, is the single most critical determining factors in children’s adjustment post-╉divorce. For example, Reiter, Hjörleifsson, Breidablik, and Meland (2013) found that the rising prevalence of divorce does not take away the emotional impact of it on adolescents. Rates of anxiety, depression, and psychosomatic complaints continue to be present; however, the damaging effects of divorce can be seen with those children who lose parental contact. The children who succeed after divorce appar- ently are those who have parents who can communicate and work together. This indicates good psychological health of the parents, and augurs well for the parent-c╉ hild relationship. In addition to this, contact and support from nonparental adults, such as extended family or support from other authority figures, was cited as an additional factor in the adjustment of children of divorce (Wolchik et al, 1993). With well managed interparental conflict, plus the continuing supportive presence of the parents and extended family who are able to listen and value the emotions of these children, the children can better learn to regulate themselves (i.e., they may possibly be aware of their feelings, but not be overwhelmed by them). Although divorce occurs in many cultural contexts, there is some evidence that social classes have an effect on the impact of divorce on children. For example, the negative effect of parental separation is concentrated among children from lower class families, but is less evident in higher income families (Grätz, 2015). The decrease in parents income, often caused by having to support two households, directly affects children’s basic needs, e.g., proper nutrition, clothing, and school choices and extra-âc•‰ urricular activities. Some research has shown that while there are long-ât•‰erm negative consequences of divorce, the consequences are more closely linked to fewer opportuni- ties arising from lower educational attainment, rather than divorce per se (APA, 2004). Thus, if educational opportunities are maintained amidst the divorce, the better the guidance the children receive. This in turn can mitigate the after-âe•‰ ffects of the experience of divorce, and facilitate chil- dren’s ability to regulate their emotions. As a result, children of divorce can adjust better after their parents’ separation. Clarke-âS•‰ tewart, Vandell, McCartney, Owen, and Booth (2000) indicate that the children’s psy- chological development was not affected by parental separation per se. Instead stability of the mother was noted, as psychological development was related to the mothers’ income, education, ethnicity, childrearing beliefs, depressive symptoms, and behavior. Results further suggested that what is most important for children in the years following divorce is not family structure or mari- tal status per se, but family process such as family relationships, interaction, and communication. An APA (2004) review of divorce literature summarized the following key factors that con- tribute to healthy adjustment post-d╉ ivorce. These include a healthy family system that enables appropriate parenting, access to the non-âc•‰ ustodial parent, custody arrangements, and low inter- parental conflict. Appropriate parenting refers to the provision of emotional support, monitoring of children’s activities, authoritative discipline, and maintenance of age-a╉ ppropriate expectations. Joint legal custody (which allows access to both parents, and shared decision making between parents) is often associated with more frequent father-c╉hild visits, regular child support pay- ments, and more satisfied and better adjusted children. For example, children of divorced families with fathers who assist with homework, provide emotional support, and listen to their children’s
73 EMOTION REGULATION FOR CHILDREN AT RISK 337 problems have more positive academic achievement and fewer behavioral problems. Likewise, children who alternate time between the parent’s respective homes after a separation experience fewer psychosomatic problems than those living mostly or only with one parent (Bergström, Fransson, Modin, Berlin, Gustafsson, & Hjern, 2015). Such factors mentioned in this section allow children to adjust and cope better with the impact of divorce. The process underlying adjustment, which will later be seen as bolstering the coping capability of children dealing with divorce, is discussed in the next section. Emotion regulation Emotion regulation is critical in children’s development, cognitively, affectively, socially, and psy- chologically. It has been found to be associated with social competence, cognitive performance, and the management of stress (Thompson & Calkins, 1996). Studies have shown that children who are able to effectively regulate their emotions perform well in school, relate positively with others, and cope adaptively with life stressors (Barish, 2012). According to Gross (2002), emotion regulation “refers to the processes by which we influence which emotions we have, when we have them, and how we experience and express them” (p. 282). He further explained that emotion regulation may involve maintaining, increasing, or decreasing negative or positive emotions, occurs on a spectrum from the conscious to subconscious, and is neither inherently good nor bad. A recent study on emotion regulation of mothers of young children concluded that emotion regulation is composed of interrelated domains, which include physiological, cognitive, and temperament aspects (Deater-D╉ eckard, Li, & Bell, 2015). Hence, it is important to consider these elements in understanding emotion regulation processes when analyzing children of separated parents. Emotion regulation for children at risk There are many studies that have investigated the role of emotion regulation in adjustment and behaviors of children at risk. Thompson and Calkins (1996) indicated that emotion regulation can both foster resiliency and vulnerability among children at risk (e.g., children living with a parent who has depression, or who had experienced domestic violence or who is temperamentally inhibited). Thompson and Calkins (1996) described emotional regulation for children at risk enumerating several characteristic features which include 1) both intrinsic and extrinsic influences, i.e., both self-âr•‰egulated and managed by others; 2) serves goals for individuals which may be conflicting at times; 3) includes monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional experiences; 4) manages emotion by maintaining, heightening, or inhibiting emotional arousal; and 5) manages the tem- poral and intensity characteristics of emotions. More recent conceptualizations of emotional regulation appear simpler but still capture its complex nature. For example, Fosco and Grych (2012) conceptualized it “as a balance between adequate control of excessive or inappropriate expressions of emotions (e.g., losing control when angry) and the ability to express one’s emotional needs, rather than suppressing emotions” (p. 566). For Barish (2012), emotion regulation means thinking constructively about how to express and manage one’s feelings. For children in distress, this implies recognizing and expressing their feel- ings without being overwhelmed. For example, it is okay for children to feel angry without hurting others, to feel discouraged without giving up, and to be afraid without feeling immobilized. While it is generally true that the development of emotion regulation strategies can help in the development of healthy personality characteristics, this path may not always be the case for
83 338 Children of Divorce children who are in difficult circumstances or conditions of risk (Thompson et al., 1996). The complex processes involved in emotion regulation may be more pronounced when dealing with individuals who are at risk for displaying behavior problems due to their adverse circumstances including children of divorced or separated parents. They further noted that there may be no opti- mal means of regulating emotion (i.e., a child at risk might use a strategy that can result in both protection and vulnerability). Likewise, under adverse circumstances, children may have more difficulty regulating their emotions, not because they lack the strategies but because they employ coping strategies that are most appropriate given their situations. Influential factors Emotional regulation is indeed an important element that impacts children’s adjustment to their parents’ separation. A number of factors influence the development of emotion regulation, such as the child’s age, temperament, neurophysiology, cognitive development, and social context are said to influence emotion regulation (Morris, Silk, Steiberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007). A child’s ability for emotion regulation comes with neurological development, which is related to a child’s chronological age. Thus, school-âa•‰ ge children who experience the divorce at younger ages are generally more likely to have problems as they lack the scaffolds for grasping the experi- ence. However, infants and toddlers have little comprehension that a divorce has occurred and thus, do not directly react to this change in their family set-u╉ p. The risks for this age group are decreased interaction with the custodial parent and loss of contact with the noncustodial parent, who can fade entirely from their lives. The experience can leave a tenuous and unstable model of a parent, and a poor map for understanding and coping with emotions which is made possible by stable primary relationships. Thus, the child may benefit from frequent, short visits with the noncustodial parent that do not disrupt the stable daily routine and secure attachment to the custodial parent (Thompson, 1998). Wallerstein and Kelly’s (1980) observations, in which Piagetian influences are most notable, fur- ther illustrates this. According to their observation, three-╉to five-ây•‰ ear-o╉ ld children commonly are bewildered by divorce. Their limited cognitive capacity prevents them from fully understanding its meaning and implications, leading to poor emotion regulation that results in unusual fantasies, the fear of abandonment, emotional neediness, and aggressive acting out. The improved under- standing of children six-╉to eight years old allows for greater acceptance of divorce; thus, grief replaces denial. Adolescents have the most complete and abstract conception of the reasons for their parents’ divorce, which Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) assert, facilitates their adjustment. They suggest that perhaps the most difficult cognitive task for adolescents is to integrate the divorce experience with their developing self. In his paper, Gross (2002) described how reappraisal and suppression, as emotion regulation strategies, impact emotion experience and behavioral expression. While reappraisal decreases emotion experience and behavior expression, suppression decreases behavioral expression only and not emotion experience. The latter impairs memory while the former has little to no impact on memory (Gross, 2002). Similarly, a recent study claimed that recovery experiences depend on how people were able to utilize emotion regulation strategies (Schraub, Turgut, Clavairoly, & Sonntag, 2013). Importantly, such resulting behaviors and symptoms indicate emotion suppression, which refers to consciously inhibiting the ongoing expression of emotion-âr•‰elated behavior, as the com- mon form of emotion regulation used by children of divorce. Moreover, a repressive style may have adverse effects not only on subjective well-âb•‰ eing, but also on physical health (John & Gross, 2004). Another factor that has been shown to impact wellbeing outcomes following divorce is gender, such that divorced children living with the same-âs•‰ex parent showed fewer effects than children
93 Influential factors 339 living with the opposite-sex parent (Kelly, 1998). Children living in single mother families have attitudes that are more favorable to women, whereas, children living with single father families have attitudes less favorable to women’s rights and gender equality (Prokic & Dronkers, 2009). In addition, children living in single-p arent families tend to have less trust in societal institutions than children from two-p arent families, and tend to have higher level of civic participation in some countries. Such a relationship between the gender of children and the gender of the custo- dial parent seem to point to a unique socialization process, which may include extensive cognitive appraisal of gender roles, which is a core component of emotion regulation. One important factor that can influence children’s ability to regulate their emotions is their family, regardless of their individual and situational context. A tripartite model of familiar influ- ence on emotional regulation has been described by Morris et al. (2007). In this model, emo- tional regulation is developed through observational learning, modelling, and social referencing. The second aspect of the model talks about how parenting practices pertaining to expression and management of emotion can impact children’s emotion regulation. Thirdly, the emotional climate of the family and its correlates such as parenting style, attachment relationship, marital relationship and family expressiveness have been noted to impact emotion regulation. These factors are important for all types of families. It is certainly significant to look into how these different family variables and emotion regulation are affected with the change in family structure following the separation of their parents. Following the model presented by Morris et al. (2007), it is important to look at how each one can impact the emotion regulation of children of divorce in particular. Prior to the separation of their parents, children of divorce may have witnessed interparental conflict or experienced domestic violence (Davies & Cummings, 1995). In the same research of Davies and Cummings (1995), these stressors may trigger the development of problems in emo- tion regulation, as they have observed them in their parents. They further noted that interparental conflict may create negative affect for children, which may make them wish that their parents separate to end the conflict both as a way of managing their parents’ relationship and of regulating their own emotions. Numerous studies have looked into the parental roles in children’s emotional regulation. In a seminal review, Frankel, et al., (2012) enumerated different ways that parents can help their children regulate their emotions, namely modeling emotion, responding to children’s emotional expression, teaching emotion regulation strategies, and motivating through rewards and punish- ments. Another study highlighted the role of maternal emotional regulation on parenting behav- ior and how the latter can influence children’s emotional regulation (Morelen, Shaffer, & Suveg, 2014). Taken together, the findings from these studies suggest the critical role of parenting prac- tices and behaviors in emotion regulation which may mitigate the impact of the change in family structure brought on due to the parents’ separation. A variety of studies have established the important role of family functioning and process in the development of emotion regulation among children, including those who are in vulnerable situations. It is reported that their reactions may not necessarily be due to their parents’ separation or divorce but as a result of reduced social support from the father and the children’s perception of interparental conflict (Schick, 2002). However, this does not undermine the impact of parental influences on emotion regulation, it is also essential to look into other parent and child factors that can explain the differences in how children develop emotion regulation. Relatedly, Fosco and Grych (2012) described the family context of emotion regulation and explained how the family systems approach can explain the emotion regulation of children. Rather than looking into the impact of parents on their children’s development and adjustment, some examined inter-parental relationships and family functioning and emotional regulation.
043 340 Children of Divorce According to Clarke-âS•‰ tewart et al. (2000), more than parental separation, children’s psychological development is influenced by mother-âr•‰ elated characteristics such as income, education, ethnicity, childrearing beliefs, depressive symptoms, and behavior. On the other hand, Fosco and Grych (2012) found important family variables such as, family climate, maternal warmth, sensitivity, and interparental conflict as significant predictors of emotional regulation of children. It is important to note, however, that the relationship between interparental conflict and internalizing problems can be mediated by children’s perceived threat, i.e., negative parental conflict resolution styles may have greater impact on internalizing problems because of the children’s perceived threat of their current situation. Hence, it is recommended that family processes and functioning are included in order to have a more complete understanding of emotion regulation, especially emotional regulation of children (Fosco & Grych, 2012). These family processes and how they impact emotion regula- tion may help explain the behaviors and well-âb•‰ eing of children whose parents are separated or divorced. Emotion regulation as a protective adjustment When parents separate, children react and adjust differently. While parental separation generally puts children more at risk or vulnerable to adjustment problems, studies have revealed that path- ways to adjustment vary. Some of the key factors that appear to be different between children of divorce and non-âd•‰ ivorced parents are social anxiety and academic achievement (Schick, 2002). Social anxiety is often related to shame and shyness which may be due to the children’s negative perception of divorce and separation and these results highlighted the role of emotional factors in understanding the behaviors of children of divorced parents in comparison with their peers from intact families (Schick, 2002). There are many studies that have investigated the role of emotion regulation in adjustment behaviors of children at risk (Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002; Siffert & Schwarz, 2011; Thomson & Calkins, 1996). Emotion regulation can be an important factor in the adjustment process of chil- dren when their parents separate. Thomson and Calkins (1996) claimed that emotion regulation can both foster resiliency and vulnerability among children at risk (e.g., children living with a par- ent with depression, had experienced domestic violence or are temperamentally inhibited). Siffert and Schwarz (2011) further validated the role of emotion regulation as a mediator between inter- parental conflict and children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Relatedly, Maughan and Cicchetti (2002) determined, emotion regulation mediates the relationship between maltreatment and children’s anxious/âd•‰ epressed symptoms. Gross (2002) identified five points in his process model of emotion regulation, namely situ- ation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change, and response modulation. In this model, emotional regulation can be antecedent-f╉ocused (any of the first four points) or response-âf•‰ocused (behavior change). Many studies examined reappraisal (cognitive change) and suppression (response modulation) as emotion regulation strategies. According to Gross (2002), reappraisal decreases negative emotional experience and increases positive emo- tion experience. An example of reappraisal is when a child focuses on the positive aspects of their parents separation, for example, less intrapersonal conflict. On the other hand, suppression decreases positive emotion experience but has no impact on negative emotional experience. Given the emotional experiences of children of divorce, those who can reappraise their family situations may be able to handle the negative emotions brought about by the parental separation more adaptively, than those who suppress their negative thoughts and emotions.
143 INTERVENTIONS 341 Protective and risk factors and children’s adjustment to parental separation Aside from emotion regulation, there are other protective and risk factors that can impact the psychological well-b╉ eing and adjustment a child has to their parental separation. These factors include personality traits and may be directly or indirectly related to emotion regulation. They may be either minimized or exacerbated by emotion regulation. Aside from identifying individual factors such as personality traits and demographic variables, it may be important to consider familial and social factors. There are certain personality traits that are found to moderate the impact of separation on children’s adjustment and behaviors. For example, optimism was found to moderate the impact of parental separation on the academic achievement of adolescents (Tetzner & Becker, 2015). In gen- eral, optimism is directly related to academic achievement and the self-e╉ steem of adolescents such that the higher the level of optimism, the greater the achievement in school and the higher the self-âe•‰ steem. However, it is important to note that for children whose parents separated, optimism does not diminish the impact of separation on self-âe•‰ steem. In relation to resilience, social compe- tence (Kliewer & Sandler, 1993) and absence of depression (Weaver & Schofield, 2014) were found to be positively related with adaptive coping among children of divorce. Other protective factors include parental and peer relationships (Landstedt, Hammarström, & Winefield, 2015), and parental sensitivity (Weaver & Schofield, 2014). In the Northern Swedish Cohort Study of Landstedt, Hammarström, and Winefield, (2015), the quality of parental and peer relationships predicted mental (internalizing behaviors) and somatic (physical symptoms) health even 26 years later. In relation to parental sensitivity the study of Weaver and Scoffed (2014) was more direct in their findings stating that predivorce maternal sensitivity can serve as a pro- tective factor of children of divorce such that children of divorce are likely to display behavior problems when the mothers are less sensitive and more depressed. Interventions This section discusses the various intervention programs geared towards helping children of divorce and their families. While not necessarily targeting emotion regulation, key aspects of these programs nevertheless target important areas of children’s functioning that are associated with cultivating adaptive emotion regulation. Broadly speaking, skills for approaching, diffusing, or temporarily avoiding interparental conflict may point to adequate situation selection, while components of attentional deployment and cognitive change may occur in skill building sessions where children are taught to reappraise their situation, understand their divorce related thoughts and feelings better, and find better ways of solving problems related to these that are developmen- tally appropriate. Findings in the literature have demonstrated the impact of divorce on children, thus, interventions that are geared towards targeting crucial areas of potential disruption and reverse negative lifelong consequences are paramount. As emotion regulation involves multiple components, interventions that are dynamic and multi-âf•‰actorial are required. As the succeed- ing sections will show, most programs focus on children’s emotions, ensuring they are given the opportunity to express what they are experiencing, untangling the confusion brought about by this experience in order to help them derive support from others who are going through the same experience. However, there are also components of cognitive processing of the experience, which places the experience in perspective and provides opportunities for correcting maladaptive thought patterns and beliefs. Finally, skill building components are also embedded into many interventions, which target things such as coping, social competence, and stress management.
243 342 Children of Divorce Court-‰c•â onnected programs Court-c╉ onnected programs are spread throughout the United States (Pollet, 2009). According to Pollet (2009), these programs intend to reduce the experience of emotional pain in children whilst targeting better outcomes via a solution focused approach. Ten states in the US have court-╉ ordered or legislated parent-e╉ ducation programs for divorcing couples. On the other hand, 35 states have no such requirements. Basically, there are two streams of divorce programs: Those that are offered by the state governments and those that are offered in the community, such as through churches and schools. For example, in Alabama, a court judge may require attendance of a child of divorcing parents to a four-h╉ our program called “Families in transition” (for ages six to 16). For this program there is a cost for attendance per child and there is also a parent program that occurs simultaneously. Nevertheless, divorcing parties also have the option to file a motion to waive their attendance to these sessions (p. 532 in Pollet, 2009). However, as previ- ous literature and studies have shown, it may be in the best interest of the child for health care providers and lawmakers to ensure the high rate of attendance in parenting sessions during and after divorce. School-╉based programs A second category of interventions is those that are based in schools. Perhaps one of the most studied of these is the Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP), developed by Pedro-C╉ arrol and Cowen (1985) in the US, and now being run in various countries apart from the US, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. This program was designed with five goals, which serve to lessen the impact of divorce, to provide a supportive environment for children of divorce, to process divorce-r╉ elated feelings, to clarify and promote the under- standing of divorce-âr•‰elated concepts and misconceptions, to impart skills for problem-âs•‰olv- ing, and to foster positive self and family perceptions (Alpert-G╉ illis, Pedro-C╉ arroll, & Cowen, 1989). Looking at the components of the program, crucial elements of emotion regulation are addressed by its goals. For example, clarifying and promoting the understanding of divorce-╉ related concepts and potentially correcting misconceptions children may have surrounding this can be seen to target the cognitive change component of emotion regulation. The CODIP has been viewed as providing a multitude of advantages for children such as increasing their healthy adjustment and reducing internalizing (anxiety, somatic symptoms) and externaliz- ing (behavior) problems (Pedro-âC•‰ arroll, 2005). In more recent years, the program has been adapted for different age groups and countries. For instance, a feasibility study of the program was undertaken for Dutch children in the kindergarten and first grade, with generally positive results (Velderman, Cloostermans, & Pannebakker, 2014). Relatedly, the program was recently piloted in two South African Schools for ten-╉to 14-╉year old boys, using an experimental design; improvements in socio-e╉ motional and behavioral functioning were reported (Botha & Wild, 2013). Another popular school-b╉ ased intervention program provides support while also teaching chil- dren skills for coping. Stolberg and Mahler (1994) conducted a study of 103 students in the third to fifth grades, who had separated or divorced parents. They were assigned to one of three treat- ment conditions (i.e., support; support and skill building; or support, skill building, transfer and parent training procedures) with a no-ât•‰reatment group serving as control. Those who entered the support-a╉ lone condition experienced the most benefits, although the ones in the skill-âb•‰ uilding conditions experienced long-âl•‰asting improvements in affect. Effective coping skills have been seen in more recent literature to predict better emotion regulation skills in children going through stressful events (Zalewski, Lengua, Wilson, Trancik, & Bazinet, 2011).
34 Programs targeting parenting skills 343 Community-b•â‰ ased programs A third category of interventions is community-âb•‰ ased programs. One program that has received empirical support is the Kids’ Turn program, which was evaluated by Cookston and Fung (2011). This is a supportive, skills based program, the goals of which included providing emotional support for children and their families coming from a variety of cultures in processing nega- tive emotions, teaching skills for preventing children’s at-r╉ isk behaviors, and “demystifying” and “de-âs•‰tigmatizing” the process of separation. While the study by Cookston and Fung (2011) on 61 parents yielded no changes in parenting behaviors, improvements were reported in terms of interparental conflict, topics that parents fight about, parental alienation behaviors, anxiety and behavior, as well as children’s internalizing behaviors. In light of what the literature has revealed from this chapter on the benefits of ongoing positive parental relationships and child adjustment, this program may yield much benefit in offsetting the long-ât•‰erm negative consequences of divorce on children. Other interventions have targeted specific areas of thinking and feeling which may contribute to emotion regulation in the long term. One study used expressive art in the form of music, to successfully target children’s irrational beliefs about the divorce, which are thought to be related to depressive symptoms (DeLucia-W╉ aack & Gellman, 2007). Another study (Rossiter, 1988) targeted pre-s╉ choolers’ capacity to express their pain at their parents’ separation (which they may not have the cognitive wherewithal to comprehend yet), and increased their adjustment to the separation or divorce. A component of parent feedback (telling them what their children need) was also seen as germane to the program’s implementation. There are also significant relationships among pretend play, creativity, and emotion regulation among children (Hoffman & Russ, 2012), indicat- ing the potential use of play and storytelling in teaching children emotion regulation strategies indirectly. Programs targeting parenting skills While most programs target the interventions to the children themselves, there have also been a number of programs that focus on the parents, in as much as they are crucial in improving the child’s adjustment after divorce. A well-âr•‰esearched community based program that specifically targets parenting behaviors is the New Beginnings Program (NBP) which is conducted largely in Arizona, USA. This program was developed based on the theory that certain risk and protective factors may contribute to the development or prevention of children’s mental health and social adjustment problems. These factors include the quality of the parent-âc•‰ hild relationship, effective discipline, father-c╉ hild con- tact, parental conflict, children’s coping, and their assessment of their stressors (Sandler, Wolchik, Davis, Haine & Ayers, 2003 in Zhou, Sandler, Millsap, Wolchik, & Dawson-âM•‰ cClure, 2008), many of which also directly affect how well children regulate their emotions and behaviors. The ini- tial program specifically targeted mothers only, and looked at resilience developed in children as a result of their mothers’ participation in this preventive parenting program as early findings determined high maternal demoralization and low self-âr•‰ egulatory skills in children were seen to contribute to poor program gains (Hike, Wolchik, Sandler, & Braver, 2002). The program was seen to be effective as well in reducing problems in adolescents (e.g., substance use and risky sexual behaviors) six years after program participation, especially for those children who were at high risk for maladjustment at the outset of the program participation (baseline). Specifically, the qual- ity of the mother-âc•‰ hild relationships appeared to have a mediational effect on subsequent exter- nalizing and internalizing behavior problems of adolescents (Velez, Wolchik, Tein, & Sandler, 2011; Zhou, Sandler, Millsap, Wolchik, & Dawson-âM•‰ cClure, 2008). In other words, those children
43 344 Children of Divorce who are most at-âr•‰ isk for behavioral and emotional problems seem to benefit the most from these programs. Importantly, the program has been shown to have a transformative affect, as it has been linked to the intergenerational transmission of parenting behaviors (Mahrer, Winslow, Wolchik, Tein, & Sandler, 2014). The longitudinal study showed that children whose parents participated in the NBP program demonstrated a higher degree of warm parenting attitudes and lower levels of harsh discipline attitudes when they themselves became parents. This seems to show that inter- vention geared towards improving separated or divorced parents’ behaviors toward their children, had long-âl•‰asting positive effects in terms of the children’s own parenting behaviors again, stressing the crucial factor of adequate parenting in this time of crisis and change in the child’s life. Additional programs have been cited in literature which target positive parenting skills to improve child and adolescent behavior outcomes (Basson, 2013; Stallman & Sanders, 2014). Parenting through Change is one example, which is associated with positive outcomes in the literature. This program is designed to teach positive discipline and problem solving skills in par- ents (Forgatch, 1994). A large randomized study of 238 divorcing mothers tested the efficacy of this program. It determined effective parenting practices and teacher-r╉ eported school adjustment in the treatment group although no direct effects on child outcomes were observed (Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999). Online programs or website-b╉ ased programs In keeping with this era of the Internet, a final category of intervention programs for children of divorce falls into the category of on-l╉ine delivery learning. A number of online programs are available which are directed at improving children’s coping skills as well as helping parents going through a divorce or separation in the service of improving parent-c╉ hild relationships. One exam- ple is the Children of Divorce-C╉ oping with Divorce (Boring, Velez, Sandler, Tein, & Horan, 2015) an online coping skills program designed to help children and adolescents deal with the divorce or separation of their parents. 147 children and adolescents ranging in ages from 11 to 16 years old took part in the study. The program was shown to be most effective for youth at the highest risk for emotional problems. A second program is the sandcastles program, which was designed for children ages six to 17 years old. This program recognizes that children go through a variety of negative emotions in the aftermath of their parents’ separation or divorce; it has a three and a half hour—o╉ ne time format, targeting self-âe•‰ xpression, improvement of self-âc•‰ oncept, and better understanding of the divorce overall. Similar to most of the other programs mentioned, program one offers a support- ive atmosphere where children feel free to express themselves and gain knowledge that they are not alone. Relatedly, Kids First Center and Kids First offer support for children and families going through divorce, mitigating factors by offering a supportive atmosphere. Children of Divorce Coping with Divorce also has a similar focus to the other programs advertized on websites, geared for children. That is, they also promise to help normalize the divorce experience, help children deal with and manage difficult emotions that go with this experience, and develop tools for cop- ing, which appear to be skills that can help in emotion regulation (e.g., cognitive restructuring, using relaxation, cognitive distraction). In conclusion, studies on the impact of divorce and separation generally show that children go through emotional stress that may make them at risk for behavior and adjustment problems in the short-t╉erm following the divorce, while adjustment improves over time, with the majority of children falling within the normal range. In addition, research has shown mediating and protec- tive factors that can help children of divorce adjust and cope better with the new demands brought about by their parents’ separation. Studies that compare children of divorce and those coming
543 Programs targeting parenting skills 345 from intact families show that significant differences between the two groups are not the result of parental separation or divorce alone but also by other factors, such as interparental conflict, family and environmental factors. It is important to look at family factors in understanding emo- tion regulation of children, especially those who are considered to be at risk for adjustment and behavior problems as a result of parental separation. A crucial protective factor is the cultivation of adaptive emotion regulation competencies. The literature on different factors influencing outcomes of divorce do seem to point to ER as the inter- nal process underlying the capacity of a child to adjust to divorce and rise from it. In fact, the majority of interventions mentioned in this chapter, while not directly referring to the term emo- tion regulation in their targeted goals, nevertheless focus on common and crucial elements of this construct. Moreover, it is well worth mentioning that emotion regulation is not only something that the child learns from these programs, but from parents who undergo skills training in those programs that offer it. Family functioning and other family process variables more than family structure may also mediate the impact of separation on adjustment and behaviors of children of divorce. Again here, we stress the importance of lessened inter-parental conflict, increase in contact with both parents, especially with fathers, and in strengthening the ties even with extended relatives. This kind of emotional support provides a “safety net” by which the child can come to rely in a time of poten- tial upheaval in their lives. This safety net also provides the protective structure needed by the child to develop strategies (which all seem to address emotion regulation) in dealing with the challenges. Thus, while there is enough evidence in terms of the effectiveness of certain programs to help children of divorce adjust to their situations and cope with problems (Velez, et al, 2011), there may be a need to understand the emotion regulation process in interventions that tap family systems, in particular interparental conflicts. “It takes a village to raise a child” they say. But what happens when this formerly tight village (which the intact family and the extended networks that it weaves together represents) that the child has come to rely on for security and comfort disintegrates? As this chapter has demon- strated, the impact on the child’s life can be substantial, as their internal frame of reference is greatly challenged with the onset of divorce. Interventions that help them adjust to their new circumstance and help them regain some sense of control over their own lives are thus crucial. Much has been said and written about the phenomenon of divorce and its effects on the major players, particularly key family members. Likewise, sufficient attention and effort has been given to children who are by products of these separation and divorce experiences. With all that has been said and done, what else is left to be done? As has been shown by some well-researched intervention programs, incorporating ongoing research into the practice of mental health pro- fessionals working with children and families of divorce generates much valuable and relevant information that increases our knowledge of this complex issue as well as the most effective ways to deal with it. In terms of practice-b ased research, other countries where divorce or separation occurs fre- quently may do well to test the efficacy of the well-researched programs that help alleviate the potentially destructive aftermath of divorce on children and their families. For instance, we have not been able to find evidence of such programs in other Asian and most European countries where divorce or separation is socially sanctioned. The effects of divorce or separation in countries where they are not yet approved but where the instance of annulment is on the rise (as in the case of the Philippines), may benefit from such research on the impact and efficacy of intervention programs as well.
643 346 Children of Divorce Practitioners working with children and their families need to be able to approach the issue of divorce with high levels of compassion and cognitive know-h╉ ow regarding recent evidence in this field. For example, it is recommended that focusing on the role of emotion regulation in the adjustment of children of divorce or of separated parents be explored further. As highlighted by Deater-âD•‰ eckard et al. (2015), emotion regulation is best understood when all aspects are consid- ered, namely the physiological, cognitive, and temperament domains. Furthermore, in understanding emotion regulation of children of divorce, it is important to involve the children themselves in research, to get their perspective not only the perspective of their parents or the adults around them. One such research strategy is the use of Q methodol- ogy which has been found to be useful in drawing out children’s experiences and emotions that are going through difficult circumstances such as their parents’ divorce. (Ellingsen, Thorsen, & Størksen, 2014). This methodology was undertaken as a form of participatory research with chil- dren. The Q methodology which was developed by William Stephenson (in Ellingsen et al, 2014), looks at emerging patterns of people’s feelings, beliefs about a certain topic, and determines the degree of their agreement or disagreement with an issue or a point of view. Through the use of subjective statements and visual images, Q methodology may enable researchers to elicit sensitive feelings and issues from children participants in research. In the conduct of research on children of divorce, it is important that all perspectives are taken into account, parents, peers, teachers and the children of divorce themselves. Depending on their age and developmental stage, more appro- priate methodology can be used aside from the usual survey and interview. References Alpert-G‰•â illis, L., Pedro-‰Câ• arroll, J., & Cowen, E. (1989). The children of divorce intervention program: Development, interpretation, and evaluation of a program for young urban children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 583–•â5‰ 89. Allison, P., Furstenberg, F. (1989). How marital dissolution affects children: variations by age and sex. Developmental Psychology, 25, 540–‰•â549. Alubokin, B. & Akyina, K. O. (2015). Effects of divorce on the academic performance of some selected public senior high school students in the Bolgatanga municipality of Ghana. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 2, 375–‰3â• 81. Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1269–‰•1â 287. Amato, P. R. (1994). Life-s╉ pan adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce. Future Child, 4, 143–╉164. Amato, P. R., Keith, B (1991). Parental Divorce and Adult Well-B╉ eing: A Meta-A╉ nalysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 43–‰•5â 8. Ambert, A. M. (1989). Ex-s╉ pouses and new spouses: A study of relationships. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. American Psychological Association (2004). An Overview of the Psychological Literature on the Effects of Divorce on Children (May 2004). Retrieved from http://âw‰• ww.apa.org/âa‰• bout/â‰g• r/•â‰issues/•c‰â yf/•â‰divorce.aspx Arkes, J. (2015) (abs). The temporal effects of divorces and separations on children’s academic achievement and problem behavior. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 56, 25–4╉ 2. Barish, K. (2012). Emotions in Child Psychotherapy: An Integrative Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Basson, W. (2013). Helping Divorced Parents to Benefit Adolescent Children: A Prospective Enrichment Programme. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23, 675–‰•â678. Bauserman, R. (2002). (abs). Child adjustment in joint-c╉ ustody versus sole-c╉ ustody arrangements: A meta-╉ analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 91–•â‰102. Bergström, M., Fransson, E., Modin, B., Berlin, M., Gustafsson, P. & Hjern, A. (2015). Fifty moves a year: is there an association between joint physical custody and psychosomatic problems in children? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69, 769-•7‰â 74. doi:10.1136/•â‰jech-•â2‰ 014-â•2‰ 05058
743 Programs targeting parenting skills 347 Boring, J., Velez, C, Sandler, I., Tein, J., & Horan, J. (2015). Children of Divorce-C oping with Divorce: A randomized control trial of an online prevention program for Youth experiencing parental divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83, 999–1005. Botha, C. & Wild, L. (2013). Evaluation of a school-b ased intervention programme for South African children of divorce. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 25, 81–9 1. Bouchard, D. & Doucet, D. (2010). Parental Divorce and Couples’ Adjustment During the Transition to Parenthood: The Role of Parent–A dult Child Relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 1–21 Clarke-Stewart, K., Vandell, D., McCartney, K., Owen, M., & Booth, C. (2000). Effects of parental separation and divorce on very young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 304–326. Cookston, J. & Fung, W. (2011). The Kids’ Turn Program Evaluation: Probing change within a community- based intervention for separating families. Family Court Review, 49, 348–363. Cummings, E. M. & Davies, P. T. (1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of family dispute and resolution. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 73–122. Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387–4 11. De Graaf, P. M. & Fokkema, T. (2007). Contacts between divorced and non-divorced parents and their adult children in the Netherlands: An investment perspective. European Sociological Review, 23, 263–277. Deater-D eckard, K., Li, M., & Bell, M. A. (2015). Multifaceted emotion regulation, stress and affect of mothers of young children. Cognition and Emotion, 30(3), 444–457. doi:10.1080/ 02699931.2015.1013087 DeLucia-Waack, J., & Gellman, R. (2007). The efficacy of using music in children of divorce groups: Impact on anxiety, depression and irrational beliefs about divorce. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 11, 272–282. Divorcescience.org (2015). Updated World Divorce Statistics, 2012, 70 countries reporting. Retrieved October 2015 from https://d ivorcescience.files.wordpress.com/2 015/01/u pdate-world-divorce-rates- 2012-70-c ountries.jpg Dronkers, J. (1999). The effects of parental conflicts and divorce on the well-being of pupils in Dutch secondary education. European Sociological Review, 15, 195–2 12. Emery, R. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment. Thousand Oaks, California 91320: Sage Publications. Ellingsen, I. T., Thorsen, A. A., & Størksen, I. (2014). Revealing children’s experiences and emotions through Q methodology. Child Development Research, 22, 1–9 . doi:.org/10.1155/2014/910529 Emery, R. E, & Coiro, M. J. (1995). Divorce: consequences for children. Pediatric Review, 16, 306–3 10. Fergusson, D. M., McLeod, G. F. H., & Horwood, L. M. (2014). Parental separation/d ivorce in childhood and partnership outcomes at age 30. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 352–360. Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2012). Capturing the family context of emotion regulation: A family systems model comparison approach. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 558–5 78. doi:10.1177/0 192513X12445889 Frankel, L. A., Hughes, S. O., O’Connor, T. M., Power, T. G., Fisher, J. O., & Hazen, N. L. (2012). Parental influences on children’s self-r egulation of energy intake: Insights from developmental literature on emotion regulation. Journal of Obesity, 2012 1–1 2. doi:10.1155/2 012/327259 Furstenberg, F. F., & Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Divided families: what happens to children when parents part. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Furstenberg, F. F., & Teitler, J. O. (1994). Reconsidering the effects of marital disruption: What happens to children of divorce in early adulthood? Journal of Family Issues, 15, 173–1 90. Grätz, M. (2015). When growing up without a parent does not hurt: Parental separation and the compensatory effect of social origin. European Sociological Review, 2015, 1–12. doi:10.1093/esr/j cv057 Grillon, C., Quispe-E scudero, D., Mathur, A., & Ernst, M. (2015). Mental fatigue impairs emotional regulation. Emotion, 15, 383–389. doi.org/10.1037/emo0000058 Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39, 281–291. doi:10.1017.S0048577201393198
843 348 Children of Divorce Gruber, J. (2004). Is making divorce easier, bad for Children? The Long-Run Implications of Unilateral Divorce, Journal of Labor Economics, 22, 830. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 267–290. Hetherington, E. M & Stanley-Hagan, M. (1999). The adjustment of children with divorced parents: A risk and resiliency perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 129–140. Hike, K., Wolchik, S, Sandler, I. & Braver, S (2002). Predictors of Children’s Intervention-Induced Resilience in a Parenting Program for Divorced Mothers. Family Relations, 51, 121–129. Hoffman, J., & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play, creativity and emotion regulation in children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 175–1 84. doi:10.1037/a 0026299 John, O. P. & Gross, J. J. (2004), Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301–1334. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-6 494.2004.00298.x Kalmijn, M. (2016). Children’s divorce and parent–child Contact: A within-family analysis of older European parents. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 71(2), 332–3 43. doi:10.1093/g eronb/g bu141 Kelly, J. B. (1998). Marital conflict, divorce and children’s adjustment. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinics of North America, 7, 259–271. Kim, H. S. (2011). Consequences of parental divorce for child development. American Sociological Review, 20, 1–2 5 Kinard, E. M. & Reinherz, H. (1986). Effects of Marital Disruption on Children’s School Aptitude and Achievement, Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 289–290. Kliewer, W., & Sandler, I. (1993). Social competence and coping among children of divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 63, 432–440. Kurtz, L. (1994). Psychosocial coping resources in elementary school-age children of divorce. American Journal Orthopsychiatric, 64, 554–5 63. Lacey, R., Kumari, M. & McMunn, A. (2013). Parental separation in childhood and adult inflammation: The importance of material and psychosocial pathways. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38, 2476–2484. Landstedt, E., Hammarström, A., & Winefield, H. (2015). How well do parental and peer relationships in adolescence predict health in adulthood? Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 43, 460–4 68. Lee, B., & Bax, K. (2000). Children’s reactions to parental separation and divorce. Paediatric Child Health, 5, 217–2 18. Lewis, J. L., & Wallerstein, J. S. (1987). Methodological issues in longitudinal research on divorced families. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Family Intervention, Assessment and Theory, 4, 121–1 42. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Mahrer, R., Winslow, E., Wolchik, S., Tein, J., & Sandler, I. (2014). Effects of a Preventive Parenting Intervention for Divorced Families on the Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting Attitudes in Young Adult Offspring. Child Development, 85(5), 2091–2105 Marquardt, E. (2005). Between two worlds: The inner lives of children of divorce. NY: Three Rivers Press. Maughan, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Impact of child maltreatment and interadult violence on children’s emotion regulation abilities and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73, 1525–1 542. Morelen, D., Shaffer, A., & Suveg, C. (2016). Maternal emotion regulation: Links to emotion parenting and child emotion regulation. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 1891–1 916. doi:10.1177/0 192513X14546720 Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steiberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361–3 88. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x Pedro-Carroll, J. Fostering Resilience in the Aftermath of Divorce: The Role of Evidence-Based Programs for Children, 2005. Family Court Review, 43, 52–6 4.
943 Programs targeting parenting skills 349 Pollet, S. (2009) A Nationwide Survey of Programs for Children of Divorcing and Separating parents. Family Court Review, 47, 523–543. Potter, D. (2010). Psychosocial well-b eing and the relationship between divorce and children’s academic achievement, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 941. Prokic, T., Dronkers, J (2009). Parental Divorce and Attitudes about Society of their children. Paper Presented at the Seventh Meeting of the European Network for the Sociological and Demographic Study of Divorce, June 25–2 6, Antwerp Belgium: European University Institute, Retrieved October 2015 from http://apps.eui.eu/P ersonal/D ronkers/E nglish/Prokic.PDF Reiter, S. F., Hjörleifsson, S., Breidablik,H. J., Meland, E. (2013). Impact of divorce and loss of parental contact on health complaints among adolescents. Journal of Public Health, 35, 278–285. Rossiter, A. B. (1988). A model for group intervention with preschool children experiencing separation and divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 387–396. Sandler, I. N., Ayers, T. S., Wolchik, S. A., Tein, J., Kwok, & O. Haine, R. A. (2003). The Family Bereavement Program: Efficacy evaluation of a theory-b ased prevention program for parentally bereaved children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 587–6 00. Schick, A. (2002). Behavioral and emotional differences between children of divorce and children from intact families: Clinical significances and meditating process. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61, 5–1 4. Schraub, E. M., Turgut, S., Clavairoly, V., & Sonntag, K. (2013). Emotion regulation as determinant of recovery experiences and well-b eing: A day-level study. International Journal of Stress Management, 20, 309–3 55.doi:10.1037/a0034483 Sedghi, A & Rodgers, S. (2014). Divorce rates data, 1858 to now: how has it changed? The Guardian. Retrived from http://w ww.theguardian.com/n ews/d atablog/2 010/j an/2 8/d ivorce-r ates-marriage-o ns Siffert, A., & Schwarz, B. (2011). Parental conflict resolution styles and children’s adjustment: Children’s appraisals and emotion regulation as mediators. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 172, 21–3 9. Social Trends Institute (2012). Global Structure, Sustainable Demographic Dividend, What do marriage and fertility have to do with the economy? Retrieved from http://sustaindemographicdividend.org/articles/ international-family-i ndicators/g lobal-family-s tructure Stallman, H., & Sanders, M. (2014) (abs). A randomized controlled trial of family transitions triple p: a group-administered parenting program to minimize the adverse effects of parental divorce on children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 55, 33–48. Stolberg, A. & Mahler, J. (1994). Enhancing treatment gains in a school-b ased intervention for children of divorce through skill training, parental involvement, and transfer procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 147–156. Tetzner, J., & Becker, M. (2015). How being an optimist makes a difference: The protective role of optimism in adolescents’ adjustment to parental separation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 325– 333. doi:10.1177/1 948550614559605 Thomson, R. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1996). The double-edged sword: Emotion regulation in high risk children. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 163–1 82. Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B. & Robins, R. W. (2003). Stability of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 205–220. United Nations Statistical Division (UNSTAT) (2011). Divorces and crude divorce rates. Retrieved from http:// unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/d yb/dyb2011/Table25.pdf Velderman, M., Cloostermans, A., & Pannebakker, F. (2014). Child adjustment in divorced families: Can we successfully intervene with Dutch 4-to 6-y ear olds? Feasibility study Children of Divorce Intervention Program (CODIP) in the Netherlands. TNO report, TNO/CH 2014 R10697 Velez, C., Wolchik, S., Tein, J. & Sandler, I. (2011). Protecting Children from the Consequences of Divorce: A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Parenting on Children’s Coping Processes. Child Development, 82, 244–257. http://w ww.child-e ncyclopedia.com/d ivorce-a nd-separation/according- experts/interventions-help-p arents-and-c hildren-through/- separation
053 350 Children of Divorce Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women and children a decade after divorce. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How parents and children cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books. Wallerstein, J. S., Lewis, J. M., & Blakeslee, S. (2002). The unexpected legacy of divorce: A 25-year landmark study. New York: Hyperion. Weaver, J., & Schofield, T. (2014). Mediation and moderation of divorce effects on children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 39–4 8. Wolchik S. A., West S. G., Westover S., Sandler I. N., Martin A., Lustig J., et al (1993). The children of divorce parenting intervention: Outcome evaluation of an empirically based program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 293–331. Zalewski, M., Lengua, L., Wilson, A., Trancik, A., & Bazinet, A. (2011). Associations of coping and appraisal styles with emotion regulation during preadolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 141–1 58. Zhou, Q., Sandler, I., Millsap, R. Wolchik, S., & Dawson-McClure, S. (2008). Mother-Child relationship quality and effective discipline as mediators of the 6-year effects of the New Beginnings Program for Children from divorced families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 579–594.
153 Chapter 17 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration Janice Zeman & Danielle Dallaire “I felt so sad. I was just crying. It just made my head hurt, my brain hurt, my stomach hurt. It just got control of me. It got my mind twisted. I couldn’t focus on anything else. A whole lot of days I couldn’t go to sleep without my mum. I had some bad dreams, so my daddy gave me an invisible necklace. I couldn’t live without her. It was like a curse. It was like prison.” Jasmine (Zehr, 2011) Parental incarceration The United States (U.S.) incarcerates more individuals than any other country (Walmsley, 2013), and approximately half of U.S. prisoners are parents (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Accordingly, millions of U.S. children experience the collateral consequences of parental separation due to incarceration. It has been documented that children and adolescents with incarcerated parents are prone to a diverse array of maladaptive developmental outcomes, including aggressive and anti- social behavior (Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012), depression (Wilbur et al., 2007), attachment insecurity (Poehlmann, 2005a), and diminished educational attainment (Haskins, 2014; Trice & Brewster, 2004). Increasingly, evidence suggests that youth with a history of parental incar- ceration also evidence detrimental effects on physical health, including health disease and other chronic diseases (Gjelsvik, Dumont, & Nunn, 2013). What is strikingly absent from the literature on parental incarceration is an investigation into the possible mediators and moderators of the relationship between the experience of parental incarceration and the psychosocial and physical health outcomes. One such factor may be emotion-âr•‰ elated processes, such as emotion regulation. The primary focus of this chapter is to review the literature examining emotion processes in children and adolescents who have experienced parental incarceration with a specific focus on emotion regulation. Background information on parental incarceration within the U.S. penal sys- tem is presented first to provide the context from which to understand and interpret the research regarding emotion processes. The first section thus provides information describing the variety of contextual variables that characterize maternal and paternal incarceration and its sequaelae. Second, we provide an overview of the negative effects of parental incarceration on children’s aca- demic, social, and psychological functioning. Third, we discuss emotion processes and propose two important factors that may explain, in part, why parental incarceration confers additional risk for psychological maladjustment through:1) The disruption of the attachment relationship between the incarcerated parent and the child, and 2) the development of poor emotion regulation
253 352 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration skills. We also discuss how adaptive emotion regulation skills may be a potential protective factor that may help to lessen the impact of the negative outcomes associated with having an incarcer- ated parent. We conclude by highlighting the limitations of the current research in this area, the challenges inherent in conducting research in this area, and the implications and directions for future research. The context of parental incarceration Overview of incarceration types and incidence Incarceration is defined as confinement, typically within a jail or prison facility. There are some important differences between prison and jail incarcerations, which may impact children’s experi- ence of parental incarceration. Individuals incarcerated at jail facilities may be awaiting trial for pending charges or serving a relatively short sentence, typically less than one year, though this varies by state (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015). In contrast, prisons are long term facilities oper- ated by the state or the federal government and typically hold felons and inmates with sentences of more than one year (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015). Because jail stays can be relatively short, many more individuals cycle in and out of jail systems in a typical year (Minton, 2013; Wagner & Sakala, 2014). For example, although at any given time state and federal prisons house approxi- mately one-a╉ nd-a╉ -âh•‰ alf million individuals, jails typically only house about half that number. But, throughout the course of a year, almost 12 million people will cycle through local jails, a num- ber much higher than that of state and federal prisons (Minton, 2013; Wagner & Sakala, 2014). Jail facilities, in comparison to federal or state prisons, are often located in closer proximity to inmates’ homes and families making the possibility of visitation more likely. Additionally, because jail stays are usually of a shorter duration and may occur several times over the course of a year, they may cause considerably more family disruption than a single long-t╉erm prison sentence. Although the U.S. represents about 4.4% of the world’s population, it houses around 22% of the world’s prisoners (Walmsley, 2013). The extraordinarily high rates of incarceration in the U.S. are unprecedented in the history of the U.S. as well as internationally (Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014). There are a multitude of causes of mass incarceration (see Travis et al., 2014) including harsher sentencing laws and mandatory minimum sentencing implementation. Surprisingly, rates of incarceration have increased while crime rates have decreased (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015). Furthermore, the U.S. prison populations also show high levels of mental illness, particularly since the mass closings of the state-r╉ un mental hospitals in the 1960s and 1970s (Harcourt, 2011). Mass incarceration has resulted in the imprisonment of many parents. Over half of the nation’s federal and state prisoners report being a parent of a child under the age of 18 (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008), and there are even more individuals incarcerated in local community jails. Parental incar- ceration has far-âr•‰eaching consequences, particularly on communities and the health and well-╉ being of American families and children (Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, Hamilton, Uddin, & Galea, 2015). In some urban communities, it is more likely that a young man will go to jail or prison than to college (Justice Policy Institute, 2002). There are other impacts on communities as well, including a lack of social and human capital (e.g., skilled workers, thriving schools community infrastructure) and high rates of poverty (see Clear, 2008). Maternal vs paternal incarceration The empirical study of how parental incarceration impacts children and families has been a bur- geoning research topic for the last decade (Murray et al., 2012). This growing research base has yielded considerable insights into the family environment of children with incarcerated parents
35 The context of parental incarceration 353 and demonstrated the heterogeneous impact of parental incarceration on children (Turney & Wildeman, 2015). In particular, when considering the impact of parental incarceration, it is important to differentiate between incarceration in prison vs. jail as well as maternal vs. paternal incarceration. Even the ground-breaking Adverse Childhood Experiences study (see below) did not differentiate between parental incarceration in jail or prison, or maternal or paternal impris- onment, nor take into account the length of parental imprisonment (Anda et al., 2001; Felitti et al., 1998). Unfortunately, to date, no research that we are aware of has examined differences in children’s experience of parental incarceration in prison or jail or how the length of incarceration may impact child and family functioning. However, a growing body of research has examined the experience of paternal vs. maternal incarceration. Paternal incarceration is much more common than maternal incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). The U.S. jail and prison population is predominately male and therefore, there are more children impacted by paternal than maternal incarceration. However, maternal and paternal incarceration is more likely to co-o ccur when a mother is incarcerated (Dallaire, 2007). Thus, many children impacted by a mother’s incarceration may be experiencing separation from both their mother and their father. The heterogeneous impact of parental incarceration is well docu- mented in the literature (Murray et al., 2012) and may be partly a reflection of the diversity of the experience of paternal, maternal, or dual-parental incarceration. In comparison to incarcerated mothers, incarcerated fathers are less likely to report having lived with the child prior to their incarceration and are less likely to remain in contact with their chil- dren during their incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Conversely, most incarcerated moth- ers report living with their child during the month prior to arrest and/o r incarceration and being the child’s primary caregiver. According to incarcerated mothers’ report, their adult children are two-a nd-a -half times more likely to be incarcerated than adult children with incarcerated fathers (Dallaire, 2007), and three times as likely to be incarcerated as adults, compared to children whose mothers have never been incarcerated (Huebner & Gustafson, 2007). According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008), when fathers are incar- cerated, their children likely remain in the care of their biological mother. When mothers are incarcerated, their children are more likely to transition to the care of a grandparent or other relative. Most children whose parents are incarcerated remain in familial care. However, approxi- mately 3% of incarcerated parents report that their child is in the foster care system, with 11% of incarcerated mothers, compared to only 2% of incarcerated men reporting that one or more of their children are in state custody (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Thus, maternal incarceration, because of the increased likelihood of severed or limited contact with both biological parents, may serve as an additional or intensifying risk factor for these children. As previous research has demonstrated (e.g., Sameroff, Bartko, Baldwin, Baldwin, & Siefer, 1998), as the number of risk factors in children’s lives accumulate, children evidence increased likelihood of problematic outcomes, which may reflect the situation of children with an incarcer- ated mother. Dallaire (2007) found that as the number of risks accumulate in the lives of adult children of incarcerated parents, so too does their children’s risk for incarceration; the relation was particularly pronounced for children of incarcerated mothers. As contextual (e.g., large fam- ily size, single parenthood) and incarceration-specific (e.g., familial incarceration, number of previous incarcerations) risk factors increased, the likelihood of intergenerational incarceration increased as well. Specifically, Dallaire (2007) reported that: Of the 21% of mothers who reported that their adult child was incarcerated, two-thirds of these moth- ers had four or more risk factors. With 1 risk factor, 1% of mothers reported that their adult children were incarcerated; with 4 risk factors, the percentage of mothers with adult children incarcerated was
453 354 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration almost 6%. There was a similar trend for fathers, such that of the 8.5% of fathers who reported that their adult child was incarcerated, almost three-âq•‰ uarters of these fathers had four or more risk factors. With 1 risk factor almost no (0.1%) fathers reported that their adult child was incarcerated, but with 4 risk factors the percentage of incarcerated fathers with adult children incarcerated was 2%. (p. 448). General contextual risk vs. incarceration-s╉ pecific risk The negative effects of parental incarceration on children may be due, in part, to the fact that chil- dren are exposed to contextual risks, including parental substance abuse and mental illness. James and Glaze (2006) found that 25% of inmates in state and federal jails and prisons who participated in a clinical, diagnostic interview were likely to have a history of mental health problems—a╉ per- centage much higher than the estimated rate of 11% in the general population. Children’s experi- ence of other contextual risk factors, such as poverty, and substance abuse, when added to the stress of parental incarceration, may help explain why children with incarcerated parents may be at heightened risk for psychopathology and antisocial outcomes. Research examining the family environments of children with incarcerated parents has dem- onstrated that in comparison to children and youth whose parents are not involved with the criminal justice system, children of an incarcerated parent are more likely to be exposed to parental substance abuse, domestic violence, and poverty (Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth, 2004). Specifically with regard to poverty, analyses of the Fragile Families and Child Well Being (FFCWB) data set has demonstrated that children exposed to parental incarceration were more likely to experience poverty and family instability than children with no history of parental incarceration (Western & Wildeman, 2009). Mackintosh, Myers, and Kennon (2006) also found that caregivers (who included mothers and grandmothers) reported clinically significant levels of parenting stress. To summarize, first, with more individuals incarcerated in the U.S. than elsewhere in the world, more American children are separated from one or more parents because of parental incarcera- tion in jail and prison facilities. Second, although more children are impacted by a father’s impris- onment, maternal incarceration confers unique and specific risks and challenges for children and families. Third, children impacted by parental incarceration face numerous risks in their caregiv- ing environment, including parental mental illness, parental substance abuse, poverty, and harsh caregiving. Effects of parental incarceration on children The importance of studying parental incarceration is validated through the landmark study which identified key risk factors known as adverse child experiences (ACEs) that are thought to derail children’s optimal developmental trajectories (Anda et al., 2001; Feletti et al., 1998). Parental incar- ceration has been documented as an ACE along with general household dysfunction (i.e., parental substance abuse, parental divorce/âs•‰ eparation, parental mental illness), domestic violence, and the experience of childhood abuse and neglect. Research indicates that ACEs are highly inter-âr•‰ elated and are associated with health problems and depression (Anda et al., 2001; Chapman et al., 2004; Dube et al., 2001). In particular, parental incarceration has been demonstrated to co-o╉ ccur with other ACEs (Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002) and independently predict mental and physical health problems in adulthood (Gjelsvik et al., 2013; Gjelsvik, Dumont, Nunn, & Rosen, 2014). Adverse childhood experiences are thought to impair social and emotional development, leading to the adoption of health-âr•‰isk behaviors, which then predispose one to disease and other social prob- lems (including incarceration) and potentially early death. The impact of parental incarceration on psychopathology may vary based on the extent to which children’s emotion-r╉ elated process are affected by parental incarceration.
53 The context of parental incarceration 355 A body of research has indicated that numerous negative academic, social, and psychological outcomes are present in children with an incarcerated parent. With respect to cognitive function- ing, in a sample of children ages two-and-a-half to seven-a nd-a -half years of currently incarcer- ated mothers, Poehlmann (2005b) found that 42.4% of children were characterized by sub average cognitive functioning and delays as assessed by the Stanford-B inet. However, these findings were mediated by the quality of the home environment. That is, children who lived in environmental contexts with higher numbers of contextual risk (e.g., low education, unemployment) had poorer cognitive outcomes, but these outcomes were mediated by positive, safe, stimulating home envi- ronments. Hanlon et al. (2005) interviewed families of 88, nine to 14 year old youth in Baltimore City whose mothers were currently incarcerated and participating in a parenting program. The results indicated that although the youth did not show significant indications of psychological maladjustment, school behavior problems and associations with deviant peer groups were evi- dent. The authors posited that the longer term, consistent care provided by caregivers may have mitigated some of the anticipated negative outcomes. Regarding psychological outcomes associated with being a child of an incarcerated parent the findings are mixed. When children are first separated from parents because of incarceration they show many emotions, including sadness, worry, confusion, anger, loneliness, and sleep problems (Poehlmann, 2005a). However, over time children and families make adaptations and adjust- ments, and the relation between parental incarceration and psychopathology is less clear. Given the myriad of contextual risks in the caregiving environments of children of an incarcerated par- ent, it is difficult to disentangle the contribution of parental incarceration over and above the impact of other significant experiences to which these children have been exposed. Increasingly, it appears that there might not be a direct link between the experience of parental incarcera- tion and children’s psychopathology. A comprehensive meta-analysis by Murray and colleagues (2012) of 40 studies that examined the impact of parental incarceration in relation to a compari- son group of youth who did not have experience with parental incarceration yielded two main conclusions. First, the authors concluded that, “there are zero or only weak associations between parental incarceration and children’s poor mental health, drug use, and educational performance” (pp. 190–1 91). Second, they concluded that, “children with incarcerated parents are at signifi- cantly higher risk for antisocial behavior compared with their peers” (pp. 191). These findings compliment work conducted by researchers analyzing the FFCWB data set, which has indicated that the impact of parental incarceration may be negligible (Turney & Wildeman, 2015). Other researchers too have documented themes of resilience and adaptation among these children and youth (Miller, 2007; Siegel, 2007). It is well documented, however, that children with incarcerated parents experience high levels of risk in their environment, and they show high rates of antisocial behavior, delinquency, and have high rates of incarceration as youth and young adults (Huebner & Gustafson, 2007; Murray & Farrington, 2005). For example, Murray and Farrington (2005) analyzed the date from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development to investigate the effects of various types of parent-child separation including paternal incarcera- tion. The results indicated that the experience of paternal imprisonment for boys prior to age ten was related to future antisocial and delinquent outcomes, even up to age 40, even after controlling for other risk factors. However, this study was conducted from 1953–1 964 in Great Britain and the results may not replicate to present times and to the US In conclusion, based on the recent meta-analyses conducted by Murray and colleagues (2012), there appears to be no or little direct link between parental incarceration and psychopathology. Although there has been considerable research examining psychological outcomes for chil- dren of incarcerated parents, very few researchers have studied emotion-r elated processes in this sample. Emotion regulation and coping abilities in particular may help explain the diversity of
653 356 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration outcomes in this population and act as an intervening variable, which can help better explain why some children of parental incarceration demonstrate resilient outcomes; whereas, others evidence significant adjustment problems. The following sections of this chapter provides an in depth focus on the scant research that has examined the relations between the experience of parental incar- ceration and attachment relationships given its foundational role in the development of emotional processes, and the relation between parental incarceration and the development of children’s emo- tion regulation skills. Emotion processes Attachment in children with an incarcerated parent Attachment theory has been proposed as a useful theoretical framework to understand why chil- dren with incarcerated parents may be an at-âr•‰isk population, and also offers pathways to resil- ience that can serve as junctures for intervention or prevention efforts. A secure mother-âc•‰hild attachment relationship has been demonstrated to provide the necessary foundation for positive emotional development that is integrally related to functioning in cognitive and social domains (Cassidy, 1994; Sroufe, 2005). In particular, research has indicated that attachment security pro- motes the development of key emotional processes such as emotional awareness and empathetic responding in children (Kerns, 2008; Thompson, 2008). These emotion development skills are foundational for the developmental of more advanced emotional competencies including emo- tion regulation (Saarni, 1999). Infants and young children with incarcerated parents may not form secure attachment relationships with the incarcerated parent which has significant implica- tions for their risk of developing subsequent emotional and behavioral problems (Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-H╉ agen, & Kennon, 1999; Parke & Clark-âS•‰ tewart, 2001). Poehlmann (2005a) studied attachment relationships in a sample of 54 children ages two-âa•‰ nd-╉ a-‰•âhalf to seven-‰•âand-‰•âa-‰•âhalf years (M age = 56.8 months, 47% girls, 48% African American) with a currently incarcerated mother. One of the eligibility requirements for participation was that the mother had been the primary caregiver prior to incarceration. The average age of the child when separated from his or her mother due to incarceration was 33 months. Multiple methods of assessment and multiple informants (i.e., mothers, caregivers, children) were used to assess attachment. The primary assessment of attachment relationship was based on caregiver and mother report of the child’s initial two-w╉ eek response to the maternal separation as well as on children’s responses to an attachment story completion task in which children responded to four increasingly stressful hypothetical events concerning parent-c╉hild relationships (Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990). Results based on the story-âc•‰ompletion task indicated that most (63%) of the children were classified as having insecure relationships with mothers and caregiv- ers; 54% of children had insecure relationships with both mothers and caregivers, and 28% had secure relationships with both adults. Eighteen percent of children had one secure and one inse- cure parental representation. Interestingly, rates of insecurity in the Poehlmann (2005a) study were not significantly different than rates of insecurity in other high-r╉isk populations (Cassidy et al., 2007). In the Poehlmann (2005a) study, secure attachment relationships were more likely when children lived in a stable caregiving situation, were older, and evidenced sad rather than angry responses to the initial parental separation. These results indicate that parental incarcera- tion negatively impacts children’s ability to form and maintain stable, secure attachment repre- sentations with their incarcerated parent. To the extent that children with incarcerated parents may be able to form and/o╉ r maintain a secure, organized attachment relationship with their incarcerated parent or another caregiver, they may be protected from some of the other risks associated with the experience of parental incarceration.
753 Emotion processes 357 Specific aspects of children’s interactions with an incarcerated parent in the context of incar- ceration may stress the attachment and caregiving systems. In particular, attachment-related thoughts and feelings may be an important issue for these children and families in relation to the child’s level and quality of contact with the incarcerated parent (see also Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010). There is mounting evidence that children’s contact with an incarcerated parent may activate a child’s attachment system and that lack of contact may increase feelings of anger. Shlafer and Poehlmann (2010) examined attachment representations in 57 youth (M age = 9.1 years, range:four–1 5 years; 60% girls; 93% minority ethnicity/race) with an incarcer- ated parent (86% had incarcerated fathers). Children were interviewed about their relationships with their caregivers (primarily mothers) and their incarcerated parent using the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment Inventory (IPPA; Armsden, 1986; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Caregivers provided information about their perceptions of their relationship with the child. All families were involved in a mentoring program thus measures were administered at baseline and six months later. When asked directly about their relationship with the incarcerated parent, 39% provided no answer, 31% perceived the incarcerated parent negatively, and 41% reported a posi- tive relationship. Interestingly, for children who were older than eight years old and had no con- tact with the incarcerated parent, they reported feeling alienated and having negative feelings towards that parent. Children in this study who did have contact with their incarcerated parent reported significantly fewer feelings of anger and alienation toward the incarcerated parent. This suggests the importance of maintaining and developing the attachment relationship that may have been present prior to incarceration. Dallaire, Ciccone, and Wilson (2012) compared attachment security in a sample of 24 children (M age = 7.7 years, range: six to ten years; 42% girls; 58% African American) with an incarcerated parent (71% had incarcerated fathers) to a sample of 20 children (M age = 8.6 years, range: six to ten years; 30% girls; 85% African American) separated from a parent for another reason (e.g., divorce, abandonment, substance abuse recovery). The authors assessed attachment security through the use of the Attachment Family Drawing task (Fury, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1997) that was then related to the child’s experience of contact and visitation with the incarcerated parent. They found that greater contact and visitation with an incarcerated parent was associated with more depictions of role-reversal in their family drawings. Role reversal involved depictions of the mother as vulnerable or less important in the relationship than the child. The authors inter- preted this finding as suggesting that children with incarcerated parents perceived that their care- giver needed to be protected and it was their responsibility to be the protector. This research also examined specific dimensions in the children’s drawings with caregiver behaviors such as warmth and hostility. Children of incarcerated parents’ perceptions of caregiver hostility was related to increased global insecurity as depicted in the drawings, whereas, both child and caregiver per- ceptions of stress were associated with more child global pathology as well as “bizarreness/dis- sociation” depicted in the drawings (p. 178). Interestingly, these findings were not seen in the comparison group of children. This set of findings indicates that importance of considering the effect of parental incarceration on children’s attachment relationship with both the caregiver and the incarcerated parent. Not all children experience insecure attachment in this high risk context and thus, future research needs to uncover what factors may help to strengthen the relationship between the incarcerated parent and his or her child while incarcerated and also upon reunion and reintegration into the family upon release. In sum, attachment in the context of parental incarceration has been examined in two different ways. Poehlmann (2005a) assessed children’s current representations of attachment with mothers and caregivers and found high rates of insecurity. Other researchers have examined attachment- related thoughts and feelings in relation to children’s contact with their incarcerated parent.
853 358 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration Shlafer and Poehlmann (2010) found that lack of contact was associated with increased feelings of anger and alienation with the incarcerated parent, and Dallaire and colleagues (2012) reported that greater contact and visitation was associated with greater role reversal. These findings illus- trate the heterogeneity of the impact of parental incarceration on children and their attachment-╉ related thoughts and feelings. Specifically, some children, particularly those with a non-âr•‰ esidential incarcerated father, may not show attachment-r╉elated difficulties as they may have developed an attachment relationship with their mother or other caregiver. However, young children with an incarcerated mother may be at-âr•‰ isk for attachment-d╉ ifficulties as they are more likely to experi- ence separation from a primary attachment figure. To further complicate matters, children who wish to maintain an attachment relationship with their incarcerated parent via visitation and con- tact may experience attachment-âr•‰ elated distress following a visit or phone call with the incarcer- ated parent. Although it is difficult to isolate the impact of parental incarceration on children’s attachment relationships, attachment-âr•‰elated thoughts and feelings are important to consider, as they are foundational to emotional development and coping. Attachment-âf•‰ocused research with children of incarcerated parents has illustrated that they are at risk for developing insecure attach- ments and, as discussed more in the next section, visitation and contact (or lack thereof) can also impact the attachment system. Emotional experiences in visitation Only one study has examined children’s emotional responses to parental incarceration. One of the unique situations for children with an incarcerated parent is the emotional arousal they experience during the brief reunions when and if children are permitted to visit their incarcer- ated parent (Poehlmann-âT•‰ ynan et al., 2015). Research to date has primarily focused on the type (e.g., plexiglass barrier, video visitation, in person) and frequency of visitation, and has relied on the adult perspective of the visit (Arditti, Lambert-S╉ chute, & Joest, 2003). To address this gap in the literature, Poehlmann-âT•‰ ynan and colleagues (2015) observed the emotional and behavioral reactions of 20 children (M age = 3.9 years, range: two to six years; 55% girls; 40% African American) when they visited their incarcerated parent (90% were incarcerated fathers). Children were accompanied by their caregiver (75% mothers, 25% grandmothers) to the jail and visited with the incarcerated parent through a plexiglass barrier or by closed circuit tele- vision (video visit). In both situations, only one person could talk to and hear the parent at a time using a headset. The observer noted the children’s emotional reactions during the security procedures, the wait time, and the visit with the incarcerated parent. Among other variables, children’s affect (e.g., tired, fearful, sad, happy, angry, anxious), attachment behaviors toward caregiver (e.g., staying in close proximity, clinging, hitting adult), and their emotions towards the incarcerated parent (e.g., sad, happy, excited, confused, crying) were coded. The child’s overall level of emotional lability was rated on a five-âp•‰ oint scale. Behavioral measures were also observed but are not discussed here given the focus of this chapter. Overall, the observations indicated that most children exhibited two predominant emotions including happy and seri- ous/s╉omber facial expressions. The longer children visited their parent in jail, the more their distress increased as did their proximity seeking behaviors with the caregiver. Further, there was an increase in negative affect (i.e., fatigue, sadness, confusion, anger) over the course of the visit, although the children were also observed to express happiness and loving behaviors during the visit. The authors concluded that the children experienced the visit as mildly stressful as indicated by the increase in emotion dysregulation and the activation of the attachment system as evidenced by increased contact seeking and contact maintenance over the course of the visit. Thus, although
953 Emotion processes 359 there were positive emotional moments during the visit, there were stressful, emotionally nega- tive aspects as well. The findings from this research have important implications for interven- tion and policy for child-f╉riendly visitation to incarcerated parents. Further, from an emotional development perspective, the visitation context provides caregivers with a valuable opportunity to teach children how to manage emotional arousal in constructive ways. That is, drawing from meta-âe•‰ motion theory (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1997), adopting an emotion coaching stance in which instances of negative emotionality are viewed as “teachable moments” provides children with the necessary support and scaffolding to experience, validate, and learn adaptive problem-╉ solving responses to manage negative emotional arousal. The use of emotion coaching strategies has been demonstrated to result in positive psychosocial outcomes in low risk samples of children (Lunkenheimer, Shields, & Cortina, 2007). Importantly, to be an effective emotion coach, care- givers must be able to regulate their own negative emotionality, thereby providing the necessary attention to the child’s emotional needs (Cassano & Zeman, 2010). However, the stress of the visit not only affects children but also the caregivers who have their own set of emotional responses to the brief reunion. Thus, managing their own emotions in order to be emotionally available to their child is likely a challenging parenting task. Thus, future research needs to focus on devel- oping ways to assist caregivers in becoming effective emotion coaches to help guide their child through the myriad of emotional responses the child may experience when visiting the incarcer- ated parent. Emotion regulation in these children Overview The development of self-âr•‰ egulation, with emotion regulation as a key component (Sroufe, 2005), is a critical skill that is integrally involved in children’s social (e.g., Denham, Bassett, & Wyatt, 2007), academic (e.g., Trentacosta & Izard, 2007), cognitive (e.g., Blair, 2002; Simonds, Kieras, Rueda, & Rothbart, (2007), psychological (e.g., Zeman, Shipman, & Suveg, 2002), and physical health functioning (e.g., Whitson & El Sheikh, 2003). Definitional clarity regarding the term “emotion regulation” continues to be a topic of debate within the developmental psychology lit- erature (Campos, Frankel, & Camras, 2004; Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004). We adopt Thompson’s (1994) well-a╉ccepted definition which states that emotion regulation “consists of the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reac- tions, especially their intensive and temporal features, to accomplish one’s goals” (pp. 27–â2•‰ 8). Importantly, the regulation of emotion involves multiple forms of management (e.g., suppression, exaggeration, substitution of one emotion for another) that when implemented successfully, is sensitive to the demands of the social context in which the emotion is evoked. This perspective also acknowledges that emotion regulation efforts can originate from external sources from the child such as when a parent may protect or shield a child from particularly emotionally intense situations (e.g., watching a R-r╉ ated move when six years old) that may be too emotionally arous- ing and exceed the child’s coping resources (Zeman, Cassano, Perry-âP•‰ arrish, & Stegall, 2006). This latter point is particularly germane for children experiencing parental incarceration, a point that will be elaborated on more fully below. In contrast to emotion regulation, emotion dysregulation is considered to be a core component of most aspects of psychopathology (e.g., Bradley, 2003, Cicchetti, Ackerman, & Izard, 1995; Gross & Munoz, 1995; Keenan, 2000). Thus, understanding the processes that promote the adaptive management of emotion in children is key, particularly in high risk contexts in which emotion socializing agents such as parents, may be absent or poor models and teachers of emotion regulation skills.
063 360 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration Emotion regulation is a critical competency to examine in children of parental incarceration as they are exposed to a large number of stressors that likely elicit strong and frequent arousal of neg- ative affect. For example, youth may feel sadness and anger at the loss of the parental figure in their life due to incarceration and the resultant absences and support at key events or milestones in their lives as well as in their day-ât•‰o-âd•‰ ay ordinary events. For more optimal outcomes, youth must learn how to manage this emotional arousal in flexible ways that are sensitive to the demands of their school, home, and peer environments. It may be that children and adolescents who are capable of managing their emotions in constructive ways will be less susceptible to the negative consequences of parental incarceration. Because emotion regulation is a foundational skill that underlies competencies in other domains of functioning (e.g., social, cognitive), the benefits of adaptive emotion regulation may lessen the negative impact of parental incarceration through its indirect effects in these domains. That is, adaptive emotion regulation has been demonstrated to buffer against psychosocial maladjustment (e.g., Zeman, Cassano, & Adrian, 2013), promote academic success (Gumora & Arsenio, 2002; Izard et al., 2001), and is associated with constructive peer relations and social competence (Legerski, Biggs, Greenhoot, & Sampilo, 2015 Perry-âP•‰ arrish & Zeman, 2011). As discussed previously, emotion regulation is posited to be a transdiagnostic process that underlies many, if not all forms of psychopathology (Aldao, 2013; Kring & Sloan, 2010). Thus, learning adaptive emotion regulation skills may protect youth from the negative effects of PI through its indirect relations to psychosocial and academic functioning. Although the importance of studying emotion regulation in youth with an incarcerated parent is clear, little research has been conducted on this topic, with five exceptions. Given the focus of this chapter on emotion regulation processes, considerable detail about these five studies will be provided. Emotion regulation and problem behaviors Lotze, Ravidran, and Myers (2010) investigated the relations among poor emotion regulation, the experience of shame and guilt, and how these variables predicted callous-u╉nemotional traits and problem behaviors. These relations were examined with a sample of 50 children (M age = 9.8 years, range: six to 12 years; 62% girls; 55% African American) enrolled in a summer camp for children with a currently incarcerated mother. To assess emotion regulation, children answered questions assessing how they manage anger and frustration using two subscales from the Early Adolescent Temperament Scale-âR•‰ evised (Ellis & Rothbart, 1999). The camp counsel- ors completed the Emotion Regulation Checklist (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). Both reporters also completed versions of questionnaires to assess callous-âu•‰ nemotional traits as well as internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Only children completed the measures assessing shame and guilt. Using regression analyses with age and gender entered in the first step, based on child report data, poor regulation of anger and frustration, higher shame, and lower guilt predicted externalizing behaviors, whereas, only poor emotion regulation predicted internalizing behaviors. Lower levels of guilt predicted callous-u╉ nemotional traits. Based solely on adult report, low levels of adaptive emotion regulation predicted internalizing behaviors and callous-âu•‰ nemotional traits, whereas, emotional dysregulation predicted externalizing behaviors. When adult report was used to pre- dict child reported outcomes, only emotional dysregulation predicted externalizing behaviors. Gender and age were also significant predictors but because of the relatively small sample size, they were not considered as moderators. The findings mirror those found in the literature using community samples in which youth who have poor emotion regulation exhibit higher numbers of both internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Chaplin, 2006; Supplee, Skuban, Shaw, & Prout, 2009; Zeman et al., 2002). The authors posit that the subset of children in this summer camp who exhibited poor emotion regulation may have had poor models of effective emotion regulation at home. This speculation was based on research which indicates that emotional understanding is
163 Emotion processes 361 less developed in children who reside in families with high levels of stress (Dunn & Brown, 1994; Shipman & Zeman, 1999) and that experiencing a greater number of risk variables is associated with poorer emotion regulation (Lengua, 2002). Emotion regulation and children’s exposure to incarceration-r╉ elated risk Children of an incarcerated parent participated in a study examining the relation between socio-╉ demographic risk factors as well as incarceration-âs•‰pecific risk factors to emotion regulation skills and psychological functioning outcomes (Dallaire & Wilson, 2010). A sample of 32 fami- lies participated including children (M = 10.74, range: seven to 17 years; 47% boys, 60% African American), an incarcerated parent (57% incarcerated mothers and 43% incarcerated fathers), and the children’s caregivers (57% mothers). About half of the children (52%) were separated from both parents. To assess emotion regulation, children completed the How I Feel questionnaire (Walden, Harris, & Catron, 2003) in which ten items were used to assess children’s perceptions of how well they can control or change positive (i.e., happy, excited) and negative (i.e., scared, mad, sad) emotions. Caregivers evaluated the child’s psychological functioning, whereas, caregiv- ers and parents reported on incarceration-âr•‰elated risk events (e.g., exposure to parental crimi- nal activity). The results specifically pertaining to emotion regulation indicated that children’s exposure to incarceration-r╉elated events was associated with poorer emotion regulation, even after controlling for children’s age and self-r╉eported negative life events. Interestingly, emotion regulation was not significantly correlated with measures of psychological maladjustment but this may have been due to the relatively small sample size as the correlations were in the expected direction, albeit non-s╉ignificant, for externalizing types of problems. These findings illuminate the important association between children’s exposure to incarceration-s╉pecific experiences that are associated with poorer emotion regulation and increased psychological maladjustment above socio-âd•‰ emographic risk factors. Cross-sectional and longitudinal examination The potentially protective effects of emotion regulation coping in children with incarcerated moth- ers was examined using cross-s╉ ectional and longitudinal designs (Dallaire, Zeman, Borowski, & Poon, 2014). At Time 1, 154 children (M age = 9.8 years, range: six to 13 years; 54% boys, 62% African American), and their caregivers (62% grandparents) and incarcerated mothers partici- pated. Children completed the Children’s Emotion Management Scales (Zeman, Shipman, & Penza-C╉ lyve, 2001; Zeman, Cassano, Suveg, & Shipman, 2010) to assess the adaptive regulation of anger, sadness, and worry. Caregivers completed a measure of children’s internalizing and exter- nalizing behaviors. Mothers reported on their children’s exposure to an index of incarceration-╉ specific risk experiences (ISRE; Dallaire, Zeman, & Thrash, 2015). At Time 1, regression analyses indicated that anger regulation coping predicted fewer internalizing and externalizing behav- ior problems. Interestingly, sadness and worry regulation coping, and a global emotion coping scale (combination of anger, sadness, and worry coping scales) were not significant predictors of psychological functioning. The ISRE also was a significant predictor of externalizing problems but did not moderate the relation with anger regulation coping. The relations between emotion regulation and psychological functioning were then examined at Time 2, 18 months later, with 83 families participating from the original sample (M child age = 11.3 years). During this time period, 43% of children’s mothers had been re-âa•‰ rrested and 58% had been re-âi•‰ncarcerated. There was a significant effect of Time 1 global emotion coping as well as anger regulation coping predict- ing externalizing problems at Time 2 but no significant effect for internalizing problems. Maternal recidivism predicted externalizing behavior problems and the effect for internalizing problems approached significance.
263 362 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration These findings point to the potential protective effect of anger regulation in this high-r╉isk sample of children. That is, adaptive regulation of anger not only predicted fewer externalizing difficulties concurrently but also longitudinally. It is interesting that the regulation of anger but not the regulation of the internalizing types of emotions (i.e., sadness, worry) predicted fewer behavioral problems. Understanding the mechanisms underlying how children of incarcerated parents learn adaptive emotion regulation skills is of key importance as this information could be used in prevention and intervention programs. That is, it would be important to examine whether children with stronger emotion regulation skills have: 1) More secure attachment relationships with their incarcerated parent and/âo•‰ r caregiver thus setting the stage for more adaptive emotional development, 2) experienced more effective and adaptive emotion socialization efforts at home by their parent(s) or caregivers, or in the community (e.g., teachers, religious figures, sports coaches), 3) have been exposed to fewer numbers of risk variables, and/âo•‰ r (d) other variables that could account for the stronger anger regulation skills. Observations of emotion regulation and psychological outcomes Poon, Zeman, Dallaire, and Sanders (2012) used observational methods to evaluate children’s emotion regulation skills. The sample was the same as described in Dallaire et al. (2015), except that 15 children did not have complete data for the behavioral task due to technical glitches or noncompliance. The final sample was comprised of 139 children with a currently incarcerated mother (M age = 9.4 years, range: six to 13 years; 54% boys, 62% African American) with 76 children between the ages of six to nine years and 66 youth in the pre-âa•‰dolescent stage (ages ten to 13 years). Caregivers (n = 118) and 117 incarcerated mothers also participated. Mothers completed the Children’s Emotion Management Scales (Zeman et al., 2001, 2010) to assess their child’s inhibition, dysregulation, and adaptive coping with anger, sadness, and worry. Caregivers and mothers reported on their child’s psychological functioning and children reported on their symptoms of depression and anxiety. Children’s emotion regulation was assessed using the classic disappointment display rule paradigm (Cole, 1986; Saarni, 1979, 1984). Toward the beginning of the 60-âm•‰ inute research protocol, children were presented with eight gifts that they rank ordered from desirable (e.g., colored markers) to undesirable (e.g., binder clip). Children were then told that they would receive their preferred toy later in the session. Halfway through the session, the child was presented with his or her second least preferred gift. The interviewer then “realized” her mistake and gave the child his or her first-c╉ hoice gift. The child was then debriefed. A secure laptop with a webcam video-r╉ecorded children’s responses when they received the undesirable and desirable gifts. The first ten seconds of their videotaped response were coded by two graduate students. Use of a display rule was defined as inhibiting the expression of a negative feeling (e.g., dis- appointment, anger) by substituting a positive affect display (e.g., smiling, saying thank you). Responses were coded as indicating the presence, absence, or an attempt to use a display rule. The responses were also coded based on Saarni’s (1984) four categories of expressive behavior: Positive (e.g., smiling, saying “thank you”), negative (e.g., knit brow, negative comments), tension (e.g., lip biting, nervous blinking), and social monitoring responses (e.g., starting at researchers, mum- bling “thank you”). Regression analyses examining age, gender, and ethnicity differences yielded three main effects such that older children, girls, and Caucasian children were more likely to utilize display rules, although the ethnicity finding was marginally significant. Using analyses of variance, age, gender, and ethnicity differences in the frequency of positive, negative, social monitoring, and tension-╉ related behaviors were examined. Two main effects emerged in which younger children and boys exhibited higher frequencies of negative behaviors than older children and girls. A marginally
36 Emotion processes 363 significant trend indicated that non-C╉ aucasian children exhibited more social monitoring behaviors than Caucasian children. The use of display rules was examined in relation to other emotion management strategies. Children who used more anger and sadness coping responses were observed to use more display rules suggesting a higher level of emotional competence. Interestingly, children who inhibited their anger, sadness, and worry were less likely to use a dis- play rule. Although this may seem counter-i╉ntuitive, display rules are considered to be adaptive, emotionally competent behaviors that are sensitive to the demands of the social context whereas inhibition is a global strategy of suppression of negative emotion that has been linked to negative outcomes (Gross & Levenson, 1997). Thus, the inverse relations found between inhibition and display rule use found in this study are consistent with the emotion regulation literature. Finally, display rule use was examined in relation to psychological functioning and found to be significantly negatively correlated with social problems, and marginally negatively correlated with externalizing symptomatology. The number of positive behaviors displayed (another indication of display rule use) was significantly positively associated with self-âr•‰ eported anxiety, whereas, the number of negative behaviors displayed was marginally positively correlated with self-âr•‰eported depressive symptoms. Taken together, the findings from this study are consistent with those found in the literature that has used middle-c╉ lass, Caucasian samples (Cole, 1986; McDowell & Parke, 2000; Saarni, 1984). However, the patterns of findings relating display rule use to behavioral prob- lems was not as robust as indicated in other literature. Research indicates that norms for emo- tional responsiveness are sensitive to cultural variations (Cole, Tamang, & Shrestha, 2006; Markus & Kitayama, 1994). Thus, the violation of norms held in Caucasian, middle-c╉ lass samples (e.g., smile when you get a present you do not like) may not yield the same psychological or behavioral outcomes in non-âC•‰ aucasian samples, particularly for those children who live in high-âr•‰ isk contexts characterized by parental incarceration. Maternal socialization of emotion regulation In an effort to investigate one possible mechanism underlying the development of adaptive emotion regulation skills, Zeman, Dallaire, and Borowski (2016) examined children’s percep- tions of their incarcerated mother’s responses to their expressions of sadness and anger. Using the sample described above in Dallaire et al. (2015), 154 children, their currently incarcerated mothers, and the children’s caregivers participated in individual interviews. To assess perceived maternal socialization of emotion, children answered the question: “If your mom saw you look- ing (sad, angry), what would she do?” Children’s responses were coded based on the socializa- tion responses described in the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scales (Fabes, Poulin, Eisenberg, & Madden-D╉ erdich, 2002). The two mostly highly endorsed categories for sadness and for anger were used in the analyses including Problem-f╉ocused responses (e.g., help solve the problem), Emotion-âf•‰ocused responses (e.g., help alleviate distress through comfort) for sadness, and Problem-f╉ ocused responses and Negative Reactions (e.g., combination of punitive, minimiza- tion and neglect responses) for anger. Regarding outcomes, children reported depressive symp- toms and their participation in risky, externalizing behaviors. Mothers completed the Emotion Regulation Checklist (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997) to evaluate adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation, and a measure of their child’s psychological behavioral problems. Caregivers provided information to derive the ISRE (Dallaire et al., 2015), which was used as a moderator. The results indicated that at high levels of incarceration-âs•‰pecific risk, maternal socialization responses did not operate in the same way as has been summarized in the literature that primarily uses Caucasian, middle-c╉ lass samples of children (e.g., Fabes et al., 2002). Specifically, for sadness, at high levels of incarceration-s╉ pecific risk, maternal emotion-f╉ocused responses predicted poorer emotion regulation, more emotional lability, more depressive symptoms, and more psychological
463 364 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration problems. Interestingly, there were no significant findings for anger. Taken together, these find- ings point to the importance of discarding assumptions and conclusions about emotion processes based on data using low risk samples when investigating processes among unique samples such as children with an incarcerated parent. It also appears likely that children in this sample have a different emotion socialization history than children in low risk environments which may result in their developing emotion regulation skills that may not lead to adaptive outcomes. In sum, these five studies represent the scant knowledge base available on emotion regulation and associated processes in children of incarcerated parents. Notably, four of these studies have focused on children with an incarcerated mother and thus, it is not clear whether differences would exist in emotion regulation processes for children of incarcerated fathers or for children who have both parents incarcerated. Clearly, this field is ripe for additional inquiry, as the protec- tive effects of children’s adaptive emotion regulation appear to be a promising avenue of investiga- tion, with important implications for intervention programs. Limitations and future research directions Given the sociological and public health importance of understanding the effects of parental incarceration on children’s and adolescents’ functioning, it is surprising that the body of research examining this topic is sparse, although there has been steady growth in published work during the past decade (Johnson & Easterling, 2012). The field of developmental research examining emotion regulation in children living in more typical developmental contexts is still relatively new with a surge of interest and publication activity only witnessed since 2000 (Adrian, Zeman, & Veits, 2011). Thus, it is not surprising that the investigation of emotion regulation processes in a highly unique sample, such as children of incarcerated parents is lagging behind the general trends noted in the emotion and parental incarceration literatures. Further, conducting research with this sample has a unique set of methodological and logistical challenges that provide numer- ous avenues for future research. Five such areas of limitation and challenge are discussed next. First, much of the past research has used either small sample sizes or large community-âb•‰ ased databases which each incur their own set of limitations. One of the striking aspects of conducting research using incarcerated parent samples is the wide diversity inherent in this population. For example, incarcerated parents differ in their history of crime and incarceration with a wide range in the number of times they have been incarcerated, the type of facility in which they are held (jail vs. prison) which has implications for child visitation, the degree of contact with their child prior to and during incarceration, the amount of exposure the child had to the parent’s criminal activi- ties and so forth. Thus, the use of small samples inherently poses difficulties with generalization of results unless the samples are selected carefully based on specific criteria that are communicated clearly to other researchers. Further, the type of statistical analyses that can be conducted with small samples is limited. The use of large databases avoids some of the generalizability issues but the questions that can be answered are limited by the data that were collected, the methods used, and the length of time since the inception of the study given that some measures and methods may be outdated. Another issue related to generalizability is the use of datasets from different countries in which the practices related to incarceration, criminality, and delinquency differ in important ways. Much of the research examining the effects of paternal incarceration on sons’ function- ing has relied on the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (Murray & Farrington, 2005; Murray, Janson, & Farrington, 2007), yet this database relies on information collected during the 1960s in England and focuses solely on males. Given the significantly higher incarceration rate in the U.S. than England, and different sociocultural mores that may affect youth functioning, the findings from these studies may not generalize to American samples. The same argument can be
563 Limitations and future research directions 365 made for findings emerging from the use of American databases, such as the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (Wildeman, 2010) with respect to their applicability to other nations. Thus, future research endeavors examining the effects of parental incarceration on children’s emotional and psychological functioning must carefully report the demographics of their samples, elucidate the areas in which generalizability may be limited, and may be sensitive to cultural differences. Second, one of the most difficult issues facing researchers is that of selection bias (Johnson & Easterling, 2012). That is, children of an incarcerated parent differ from children without an incarcerated parent on numerous factors other than the incarceration dimension. Thus, differ- ences observed between incarcerated vs. non-incarcerated groups of individuals may not only be due to the incarceration itself but could also be due to a host of other factors (e.g., poverty, poor parenting, prior psychopathology). Some research has not employed comparison groups to determine whether maladaptive outcomes are due primarily to incarceration-s pecific experiences or whether they are the result of children living in environments characterized by high levels of stress and disadvantage that may explain differences seen between children of incarcerated vs. non incarcerated parents. Along these lines, it is very challenging to determine the appropriate comparison group. For example, does parental absence due to incarceration yield more deleteri- ous outcomes than parental absence due to other family variables, such as divorce or military deployment? Should the comparison group focus on controlling for living environments (e.g., high stress, parenting characteristics, housing, access to medical care) that approximate those of children with an incarcerated parent? Researchers have responded to these challenges in a variety of ways. Some research has not included a comparison group but instead examined high and low exposure to incarceration-specific risk experiences within a sample (e.g., Zeman et al., 2016). Other research has used large-scale databases and created comparisons between children with and without an incarcerated parent (e.g., Murray et al., 2007) or with various types of parental separation due to death, hospital, incarceration, or family discord (Murray & Farrington, 2005). Still, others have collected data from community-based samples to create multiple comparison groups based on different histories of parental separation (e.g., Dallaire & Zeman, 2013). Other research has not used a control group (e.g., Lotze et al., 2010). Although the decision about the nature of the comparison group(s) is ideally guided by the research question being investigated, practical considerations in this research field also play an important role. A third limitation concerns the reliance on self-r eport and on the use of paper and pencil mea- sures. Although self-report is often the appropriate source when obtaining information about private, internal processes (Zeman, Klimes-Dougan, Cassano, & Adrian, 2007), having multiple sources of information on the children’s and the incarcerated parent’s functioning adds strength to the validity of the findings and the conclusions that can be drawn (Adrian et al., 2011). Further, relying only on the incarcerated parents’ report of their incarceration history and the effects of their incarceration on family members may yield a biased perspective due to social desirability, retrospective memory concerns, and possible malingering (Houck & Loper, 2002). Further, due to a potentially erratic history of parental contact with the child before and during incarceration, parents’ report of their child’s functioning may not be accurate. The challenges of incorporating observational methods, often considered the gold standard in developmental research with young children and those in elementary school, pose considerable logistics issues, particularly if the observation is of an interaction between the child and the incarcerated parent. Many children have limited or no visitation with their incarcerated parent (Poehlmann-T ynan et al., 2015), thus, limiting the opportunity for incorporating observational methods. Further, the type of physical arrangement in the jail for parent-child visitation may preclude video-or audio-t aping (e.g., plexi- glass barrier), although Poehlmann-T ynan and colleagues (2015) were able to conduct an obser- vational study investigating children’s responses to visitation. Thus, it is evident why research to
63 366 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration date has relied primarily on self-or parent-report using survey methods, but researchers should endeavor to find creative ways to obtain data that provides a more complete perspective. For example, using momentary ecological assessment tools might provide real time indicators of chil- dren’s and caregivers’ emotional reactions and regulatory efforts when faced with exposure to stressors in the environment. Further, the use of psychophysiological indicators of stress and emo- tional reactivity would also supplement and add validity to the findings derived from self-and other-r eport concerning emotional processes. Fourth, greater attention to the moderating effect of parent and child gender is warranted. Regarding the importance of examining gender, much of the literature has examined parental incarceration without taking into consideration how maternal vs. paternal incarceration may exert unique effects on children. It is likely that sons and daughters may respond differently to the absence of a same-vs. opposite-sex parent. A body of research has indicated the negative outcomes for sons of incarcerated fathers including antisocial behavior as well as internalizing problems (Besemer, van der Geest, Murray, Bijleveld, & Farrington, 2011; Murray & Farrington, 2005, 2008). However, some of this research has not included girls in the samples and thus, it is not known if the antisocial outcomes are specific to all children or just boys. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Huebner and Gustafson (2007) identified 31 children with incar- cerated mothers and compared this sample to 1666 children with no incarcerated mother. They found that 26% of the children with incarcerated mothers were convicted in adulthood vs. 10% in the comparison group. However, research has yet to make direct comparisons within the same sample of the effects of maternal vs. paternal imprisonment on sons vs. daughters. Further, the research examining emotion regulation in incarcerated parent samples has primarily investigated these processes in children with incarcerated mothers, yet the emotion development literature indicates the importance of fathers as well as mothers in emotion socialization processes (e.g., Cassano & Zeman, 2010; Cassano, Perry-P arrish, & Zeman, 2007; Lunkenheimer et al., 2007). Relatedly, little research has considered the role of the caregiver in helping to ameliorate some of the negative sequalae associated with parental incarceration (Cecil, McHale, Strozier, & Pietsch, 2008). For example, children may have a more consistent relationship with the caregiver such as a grandparent when their mother is incarcerated. The nature of this relationship is key to understanding how some children with an incarcerated parent display more resilience than other children. For example, Mackintosh et al. (2006) found that when children perceived that their caregivers responded to them with warmth and support, fewer behavior problems emerged. Fifth, the negative effects of incarceration on emotional development may also differ depending on the developmental timing of the child’s exposure to and experience of parental separation due to incarceration. It may be that there are sensitive periods for emotional development in which parental separation is particularly pernicious. For example, the first 12–18 months of age are con- sidered critical for the development of attachment (Sroufe, 2005) and thus, maternal absence, in particular, at this stage could have detrimental effects that could have far reaching implications for all spheres of development. Although parental socialization of emotion is important through all stages of childhood and adolescence (Klimes-Dougan & Zeman, 2007), the groundwork for later emotional development occurs during the toddler and preschool years (Denham, 1998). Thus, parental, and particularly maternal absence during these years may have a lasting negative impact on emotional development. Further, having poor emotion socialization models during the early childhood years also has been shown to lead to negative psychological, social, and academic out- comes (Zeman et al., 2006). Given the difficulty with recruiting samples of youth with an incarcer- ated parent, many studies have used wide age ranges in their samples, which are not of sufficient size to allow for analyses by child age or developmental stage in order to answer these questions. Even the landmark ACEs study (Anda et al., 2001) did not take into account the age of youth at
763 Summary and conclusion 367 time of parental imprisonment. Thus, future research needs to carefully consider the role of devel- opmental status when investigating the effect of parental incarceration on children’s functioning. Summary and conclusion The effect of parental incarceration on children’s adjustment is a topic of societal importance given the high rates of incarceration in the US in particular, and the proportion of inmates who are parents. President Obama (2015) recently tweeted: “If we make investments early in our children, we will reduce the need to incarcerate those kids. One study found that for every dollar we invest in pre-K╉ , we save at least twice that in reduced crime. We recognize that every child deserves opportunity. Not just some. Not just our own.” A growing body of research clearly indicates that children of incarcerated parents are at risk for negative psychological socio-âe•‰motional, educa- tional, and health outcomes (Anda et al., 2001). Thus, understanding the processes that may lead to resilience in this population is of key importance so that the potential negative effects can be mitigated, and the intergenerational transmission of antisocial outcomes disrupted. One potential area for preventive intervention is in the domain of emotional development. Poor emotion management skills including emotion dysregulation have been linked to most forms of psychopathology as well as poorer health, educational, and social outcomes (e.g., Bradley, 2003, Cicchetti et al., 1995; Keenan, 2000; Zeman et al., 2013). The few studies conducted examin- ing emotion regulation skills in children of incarcerated parents (mostly incarcerated mothers) provides preliminary evidence that those children who evidence more adaptive emotional devel- opment skills exhibit fewer negative psychological outcomes. Although this body of research is small, these preliminary findings identify a pressing need to more fully investigate the types of emotional processes that may be critical for children living in the high-r╉isk context of parental incarceration. Although it is important to document the areas in which children of an incar- cerated parent may evidence less well developed skills in specific emotional competencies (e.g., emotion understanding, emotion identification), the focus of research should also include under- standing the mechanisms that underlie children’s under-âd•‰ eveloped or maladaptive emotion skills, and developing methods for bolstering these skills. Specifically, future research should examine how key socialization figures (e.g., caregivers, teachers, peers, siblings) socialize or teach children how to manage their negative and positive emotions in ways that are sensitive to the demands in different social contexts. Intervention programs that help children and caregivers learn to express and manage emotions constructively during high intensity emotional situations (e.g., visitations, family reunification) may help children to learn adaptive coping methods that can help them more successfully navigate the challenges present in their environments. References Adrian, M., Zeman, J., & Veits, G. (2011). Methodological implications of the affect revolution: A 35-ây•‰ ear review of emotion regulation assessment in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 171–‰•â197. doi:10.1016/╉j.jecp.2011.03.009 Aldao, A. (2013). The future of emotion regulation research: Capturing context. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 155–â1‰• 72. doi:10.1177/1≕ 745691613504116 Anda R. F., Felitti V. J., Chapman D. P., Croft J. B., Williamson, D. F., Santelli, J., … Marks, J. S. (2001). Abused boys, battered mothers, and male involvement in teen pregnancy. Pediatrics, 107, e19. doi:10.1542/╉peds.107.2.e19 Arditti, J. A., Lambert-âS•‰ hute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52, 195–2╉ 04. doi:10.1111/╉ j.1741-â•3‰ 729.2003.00195.x
863 368 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration Armsden, G. C. (1986). Attachment to parents and peers in late adolescence: Relationship to affective status, self-e steem, and coping with loss, threat and challenges (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International. (1987-54327-0 01). Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454. doi:10.1007/B F02202939 Besemer, S., van der Geest, V., Murray, J., Bijleveld, C. C. J. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). The relationship between parental imprisonment and offspring offending in England and the Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology, 51, 413–437. doi:10.1093/bjc/a zq072 Blair, C. B. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a n neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–1 27. doi:10.1080/1 5377900903379125 Bradley, S. J. (2003). Affect regulation and the development of psychopathology. New York: Guilford. doi:10.1097/00004583-2 00112000-00022 Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal working models of the attachment relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-y ear-o lds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 273– 308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1037/0 012-1649.28.5.759 Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). FAQ and Detail. Retrieved Sept. 13, 2015 from http://www.bjs.gov/ index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=322 Campos, J. J., Frankel C. N., & Camras, L. (2004). On the nature of emotion regulation. Child Development, 75, 377–394. doi:0009-3920/2 004/7 402-0010 Cassano, M., & Zeman, J. (2010). The role of parental expectations and gender in the socialization of sadness regulation in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1214–1226. doi:10.1037/ a0019851 Cassano, M., Zeman, J., & Perry-P arrish, C. (2007). Influence of gender on parental socialization of children’s sadness regulation. Social Development, 16, 210–2 31. doi:10.1111/j .1467-9507.2007.00381.x Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 228–249. doi:10.1111/j .1540-5834.1994.tb01287.x Cassidy, J., Ziv, Y., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K. T., Powell, B., & Karfgin, A. (2007, April). TAMAR’s Children: Enhancing attachment security in the infants of women in a jail-d iversion program. In J. Poehlmann (Chair), Incarcerated mothers, their children, and families: Attachment and parenting. Symposium at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA. Cecil, D. K., McHale, J., Strozier, A., & Pietsch, J. (2008). Female inmates, family caregivers, and young children’s adjustment: A research agenda and implications for corrections programming. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 513–521. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.09.002 Chaplin, T. M. (2006). Anger, happiness, and sadness: Associations with depressive symptoms in late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 977–986. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9033-x Chapman, D. P., Whitfield, C. L., Felitti, V. J., Dube, S. R., Edwards, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2004). Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of depressive disorders in adulthood. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, 217–2 25. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2003.12.013 Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 1–10. doi:10.1017/s 0954579400006301 Clear, T. R. (2008). Communities with high incarceration rates. Crime & Justice: A Review of Research, 37, 97–1 32. Cole, P. (1986). Children’s spontaneous control of facial expression. Child Development, 57, 1309–1321. doi:10.2307/1130411 Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T.A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75, 317–3 33. doi:0009-3920/2 004/ 7502-0002
963 Summary and conclusion 369 Cole, P. M., Tamang, B. L., & Shrestha, S. (2006). Cultural variations in the socialization of young children’s anger and shame. Child Development, 77, 1237–1251. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00931.x Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Family Relations, 56, 440–4 53. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3 729.2007.00472.x Dallaire, D. H., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. (2012). The family drawings of at-r isk children: Concurrent relations with contact with incarcerated parents, caregiver behavior and stress. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 161–1 83. doi:10.1080/1 4616734.2012.661232 Dallaire, D. H., & Wilson. L. (2010). The impact of exposure to parental criminal activity, arrest, and sentencing on children’s academic competence and externalizing behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 404–418. doi:10.1007/s10826-0 09-9311-9 Dallaire, D., & Zeman, J. (2013). Empathy as a protective factor for children with incarcerated parents. In J. Poehlmann & J. M. Eddy (Eds.), Relationship processes and resilience in children with incarcerated parents. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78, 7–2 5. doi:10.1111/ mono.12018 Dallaire, D., Zeman, J., Borowski, S., & Poon, J. (2014, March). Emotion coping strategies and externalizing behaviors in youth with an incarcerated mother. C. Cavanaugh (Chair). Families behind bars: Familial justice system contact and adolescent development. Talk presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Adolescence. Austin, TX. Dallaire, D., Zeman, J., & Thrash, T. (2015). Children’s experiences of maternal incarceration-s pecific risks: Predictions to psychological maladaptation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44, 109–122. doi:10.1080/1 5374416.2014.913248 Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Wyatt, T. (2007). The socialization of emotional competence. In J. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), The handbook of socialization (pp. 614–6 37). New York: Guilford Press. Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Chapman, D. P., Williamson, D. F., & Giles, W. H. (2001). Childhood abuse, household dysfunction, and the risk of attempted suicide throughout the life span: Findings from the adverse childhood experiences study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 3089– 3096. doi:10.1001/j ama.286.24.3089 Dunn, J., & Brown, J. (1994). Affect expression in the family, children’s understanding of emotions, and their interactions with others. Merrill-P almer Quarterly, 40, 120–1 37. Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (1999). Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire—R evised. Available from Mary Rothbart, University of Oregon, [email protected]. Fabes, R. A., Poulin, R. E., Eisenberg, N., & Madden-Derdich, D. A. (2002). The Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES): Psychometric properties and relations with children’s emotional competence. Marriage & Family Review, 34, 285–3 10. doi:10.1300/J002v34n03_0 5 Felitti, M. D., Vincent, J., Anda, M. D., Robert, F., Nordenberg, M. D., Williamson, M. S., … & James, S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258. doi:10.1016/S 0749-3 797(98)00017-8 Fury, G., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L.A. (1997). Children’s representations of attachment relationships in family drawings. Child Development, 68, 1154–1 164. doi:10.1111/j .1467-8624.1997.tb01991.x Gjelsvik, A., Dumont, D. M., & Nunn, A. (2013). Incarceration of a household member and Hispanic health disparities: Childhood exposure and adult chronic disease risk behaviors. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, E69. doi:10.5888/p cd10.120281 Gjelsvik A., Dumont D. M., Nunn A., & Rosen D. (2014). Adverse childhood events: Incarceration of household members and health-related quality of life in adulthood. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 25, 1169–1 182. doi: 10.1353/h pu.2014.0112 Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Bureau of Justice statistics special report: Parents in prison and their minor children. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
073 370 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gross, J. J., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 95. doi:10.1037/0 021-843X.106.1.95 Gross, J. J., & Muñoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 2, 151–1 64. doi:10.1111/j .1468-2 850.1995.tb00036.x Gumora, G., & Arsenio, W. F. (2002). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and school performance in middle school children. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 395–4 13. doi:10.1016/S 0022-4405(02)00108-5 Hanlon, T. E., Blatchley, R. J., Bennett-S ears, T., O’Grady, K. E., Rose, M., & Callaman, J. M. (2005). Vulnerability of children of incarcerated addict mothers: Implications for preventive intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 67–8 4. Harcourt, B. (2011). The illusion of free markets: Punishment and the myth of natural order. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haskins, A. R. (2014). Unintended consequences: Effects of paternal incarceration on child school readiness and later special education placement. Sociological Science, 1, 141–157. doi:10.15195/v1.a11 Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Keyes, K., Hamilton, A., Uddin, M., & Galea, S. (2015). The collateral damage of mass incarceration: Risk of psychiatric morbidity among nonincarcerated residents of high- incarceration neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 138–143. doi:10.2105/ AJPH.2014.302184 Houck, K., & Loper, A. B. (2002). The relationship of parenting stress to adjustment among mothers in prison. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 548–5 58. doi:10.1037/0 002-9432.72.4.548 Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The effect of maternal incarceration on adult offspring involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 283–2 96. Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., & Youngstrom, E. (2001). Emotion knowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in children at risk. Psychological Science, 12, 18–2 3. doi:10.1111/1467-9 280.00304 James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Bureau of Justice statistics special report: Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Johnson, E. I., & Esterling, B. (2012). Understanding unique effects of parental incarceration on children: Challenges, progress, and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 342–356. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00957.x Johnson E. I., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Parental incarceration: Recent trends and implications for child welfare. Social Service Review, 76, 460–479. doi:10.1086/341184 Justice Policy Institute (2002). Cellblocks or classrooms? The Funding of higher education and corrections and tis impact on African American men. Retrieved Sept. 13, 2015 from http://www.justicepolicy.org/ uploads/j usticepolicy/documents/02-09_rep_cellblocksclassrooms_b b-ac.pdf Keenan, K. (2000), Emotion dysregulation as a risk factor for child psychopathology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 418–4 34. doi:10.1093/clipsy.7.4.418 Kerns, K. A. (2008). Attachment in middle childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds), Handbook of Attachment (2nd edition, pp. 366–382). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Klimes-D ougan, B., & Zeman, J. (2007). Introduction to the Special Issue of Social Development: Emotion socialization in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 16, 203–2 09. Kring, A. M., & Sloan, D. S. (2010). Emotion regulation and psychopathology. New York: Guilford Press. Legerski, J. P., Biggs, B. K., Greenhoot, A. F., & Sampilo, M. L. (2015). Emotion talk and friend responses among early adolescent same-sex friend dyads. Social Development, 24, 20–38. doi:10.1111/sode.12079 Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self-regulation to the understanding of children’s response to multiple risk. Child Development, 73, 144–161. doi:10.1111/1 467-8624.00397 Lotze, G. M., Ravindran, N., & Myers, B. J. (2010). Moral emotions, emotion self-regulation, callous- unemotional traits, and problem behavior in children of incarcerated mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 703–7 13. doi:10.1007/s10826-0 10-9358-7
173 Summary and conclusion 371 Lunkenheimer, E. S., Shields, A. M., & Cortina, K. S. (2007). Parental emotion coaching and dismissing in family interaction. Social Development, 16, 232–248. doi:10.1111/j .1467-9507.2007.00382.x Mackintosh, V. H., Myers, B. J., & Kennon, S. S. (2006). Children of incarcerated mothers and their caregivers: Factors affecting the quality of their relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 579–5 94. doi:10.1007/s 10826-006-9030-4 Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994).The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 89–1 30). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10152-003 McDowell, D. J., & Parke, R. D. (2000). Differential knowledge of display rules for positive and negative emotions: Influences from parents, influences on peers. Social Development, 9, 83–104. doi:10.1111/ 1467-9507.00136 Miller, K. M. (2007). Risk and resilience among African American children of incarcerated parents. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 15(2-3), 25–3 7. doi:10.1300/J137v15n02_0 3 Minton, T. D. (2013). Jail inmates at midyear 2012—statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics 2013. Murray J., & Farrington D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269–1 278. doi:10.1111/j .1469-7610.2005.01433.x Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). The effects of paternal imprisonment on children. Crime and Justice, 37, 133–2 06. doi:10.1086/520070 Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012).Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 175–210. doi:10.1037/a0026407 Murray, J., Janson, C. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 133–1 49. doi:10.1177/ 0093854806289549 Myers, B. J., Smarsh, T., Amlund-Hagen, K., & Kennon, S. (1999). Children of incarcerated mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 11–2 5.doi:10.1023/A :1022990410036 Obama, B. (2015). http://w ww.bustle.com/articles/9 7376-the-b est-q uotes-from-president-o bamas- criminal-j ustice-reform-s peech-that-d emanded-a-long-overdue-s olution Parke, R. D., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2001). Effects of parental incarceration on young children. Paper presented at the National Policy Conference, From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities (January 30–3 1, 2002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Urban Institute. Perry-Parrish, C., & Zeman, J. (2011). Relations among sadness regulation, peer acceptance, and social functioning in early adolescence: The role of gender. Social Development, 20, 135–1 53. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-9507.2009.00568.x Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., & Barth, R. P. (2004). Parental arrest and children involved with child welfare services agencies. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 174. doi:10.1037/ 0002-9432.74.2.174 Poehlmann, J. (2005a). Representations of attachment relationships in children of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76, 679–6 96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8 624.2005.00871.x Poehlmann, J. (2005b). Children’s family environments and intellectual outcomes during maternal incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1275–1 285. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00216.x Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A. B., & Shear, L. D. (2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist, 65, 575–5 98. doi:10.1037/ a0020279 Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Runion, H., Burnson, C., Maleck, S., Weymouth, L., Pettit, K., & Huser M. (2015). Young children’s behavioral and emotional reactions to plexiglass and video visits with jailed parents. In J. Poehlmann-Tynan (Ed.), Children’s contact with incarcerated parents: Implications for policy and intervention (pp. 39–5 8). New York, NY: Springer, Inc.
273 372 Children’s and Adolescents’ Emotion Regulation in the Context of Parental Incarceration Poon, J., Zeman, J., Dallaire, D., & Sanders, W. (2012, August). Display rule usage in children of incarcerated mothers. Talk presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Orlando, FL. Saarni, C. (1979). Children’s understanding of display rules for expressive behavior. Developmental Psychology, 15, 424–429. doi:10.1037/0 012-1649.15.4.424 Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of children’s attempts to monitor their expressive behavior. Child Development, 55, 1504–1513. doi:0009-3920/84/5 504-0002S01.00 Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. Guilford Press. Sameroff, A. J., Bartko, W. T., Baldwin, A., Baldwin, C., & Siefer, R. (1998). Family and social influences on the development of child competence. In M. Lewis & C. Feiring (Eds.), Families, risk, and competence (pp. 161–1 85). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shlafer, R. J., & Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment and caregiving relationships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 395–415. doi:10.1080/ 14616730903417052 Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-s ort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33, 906–9 16. doi: http://psycnet. apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.906 Shipman, K., & Zeman, J. (1999). Emotional understanding: A comparison of physically maltreating and nonmaltreating mother-child dyads. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 407–4 17. doi:10.1207/ S15374424jccp280313 Siegel, D. J. (2007). The mindful brain: Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Simonds, J., Kieras, J. E., Rueda, M. R., & Rothbart, M. (2007). Effortful control, executive attention, and emotional regulation in 7-to 10-y ear-o ld children. Cognitive Development, 22, 474–4 88. doi:10.1016/ j.cogdev.2007.08.009 Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment & Human Development, 7(4), 349–367. doi:10.1080/14616730500365928 Supplee, L. H., Skuban, E. M., Shaw, D. S., & Prout, J. (2009). Emotion regulation strategies and later externalizing behavior among European American and African American children. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 393–415. doi:10.1017/S0954579409000224 Thompson, R. A. (2008). Attachment-related mental representations: Introduction to the special issue. Attachment and Human Development, 10, 347–3 58. doi:10.1080/1 4616730802461334 Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Biological and behavioral aspects. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 25–5 2. Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014). The growth of Incarceration in the U.S.: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington DC: National Research Council. Trentacosta, C. J., & Izard, C. E. (2007). Kindergarten children’s emotion competence as a predictor of their academic competence in first grade. Emotion, 7, 77–88. doi:10.1037/1 528-3 542.7.1.77 Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects of maternal incarceration on adolescent children. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19, 27–35. doi:10.1007/bf02802572 Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2015). Detrimental for some? Heterogeneous effects of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 125–156. doi:10.1111/1 745-9133.12109 Wagner, P. & Sakala, L. (2014). Mass incarceration: The whole pie. Retrieved Sept. 13, 2015 from http://www. prisonpolicy.org/r eports/p ie.html Walden, T. A., Harris, V. S., & Catron, T. F. (2003). How I Feel: A self-report measure of emotional arousal and regulation for children. Psychological Assessment, 15, 399–4 12. doi:10.1037/1 040-3 590.15.3.399 Walmsley, R. (2013). World prison population list. King’s College London: International Centre for Prison Studies. The Institute for Democracy and Conflict Resolution website.
37 Summary and conclusion 373 Western, B., & Wildeman, C. (2009). The black family and mass incarceration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 221–242. doi:10.1177/0 002716208324850 Whitson, S., & El Sheikh, M. (2003). Moderators of family conflict and children’s adjustment and health. Journal of Emotional Abuse: Interventions, Research and Theories of Psychological Maltreatment, Trauma and Nonphysical Aggression, 3, 47–7 3. doi:10.1300/J 135v03n01_0 3 Wilbur, M. B., Marani, J. E., Appugliese, D., Woods, R., Siegel, J. A., Cabral, H. J., & Frank, D. A. (2007). Socioemotional effects of fathers’ incarceration on low-income, urban, school-aged children. Pediatrics, 120(3), 678–6 85. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2 166 Wildeman, C. (2010). Paternal incarceration and children’s physically aggressive behavior: Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Social Forces, 89, 285–3 09. doi:10.1353/s of.2010.0055 Zehr, A. (2011). What Will Happen To Me? Good Books: New York City, NY. Zeman, J., Cassano, M., & Adrian, M. (2013). Socialization influences on children’s and adolescents’ emotional self-regulation processes: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In K. Barrett, G. Morgan, & N. Fox (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulatory Processes in Development: New Directions and International Perspectives (pp. 79–1 07). Routledge: NYC. Zeman, J., Cassano, M., Perry-Parrish, C., & Stegall, S. (2006). Emotion regulation in children and adolescents. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 27(2), 155–168. doi:10.1097/ 00004703-200604000-00014 Zeman, J., Cassano, M., Suveg, C., & Shipman, K. (2010). Initial validation of the Children’s Worry Management Scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 381–3 92. doi:10.1007/s10826-0 09-9 308-4 Zeman, J., Dallaire, D., & Borowski, S. (i2016). Maternal emotion socialization in children of incarcerated mothers. Social Development, 25(1), 66–8 1. Zeman, J., Klimes-Dougan, B., Cassano, M., & Adrian, M. (2007). Measurement issues in emotion research with children and adolescents. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, 377–401. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2007.00098.x Zeman, J., Shipman, K., & Penza-Clyve, S. (2001). Development and initial validation of the Children’s Sadness Management Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 187–2 05. doi:10.1023/A:1010623226626 Zeman, J., Shipman, K., & Suveg, C. (2002). Anger and sadness regulation: Predictions to internalizing and externalizing symptomatology in children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 393– 398. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3103_11
473 Chapter 18 Children Exposed to Traumatic Stress Brandon G. Scott & Carl F. Weems Traumatic stress Children may be exposed to several types of traumatic events across development, such as endur- ing abuse or maltreatment at the hands of relatives, authority figures, or peers (Chapter 15), living in negative, uncontrollable family environments (e.g., divorce, parental incarceration, bereave- ment; Chapters 16, 17, and 19), or experiencing mass trauma due to the widespread violence, war/╉ terrorism, or natural disasters within the child’s respective community (September 11th terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina). This chapter primarily focuses on this latter type of global traumatic stress, as it impacts a large number of youth at one time and across multiple ecologies (ontogenic, microsystem, or macrosystem; Weems & Overstreet, 2008). Research suggests that mass trauma exposure is related to several negative posttraumatic outcomes in youth (e.g., Aber, Gershoff, Ware, & Kotler, 2004; Eisenberg & Silver, 2011; La Greca, Silverman, Vernberg, & Roberts, 2002; Norris, Friedman, & Watson, 2002; Osofsky, Osofsky, Kronenberg, Brennan, & Hansel, 2009; Weems & Overstreet, 2008). In this chapter, we draw from previous child trauma models (La Greca, Silverman, Vernberg, & Prinstein, 1996; Lanius, Frewen, Vermetten, & Yehuda, 2010; Masten, & Narayan, 2012; Pynoos, Steinberg, & Piacentini, 1999; Weems & Overstreet, 2008), and past research findings (e.g., Jeney-╉ Gammon et al., 1993; Kithakye et al., 2010; Marsee, 2008; La Greca et al., 1996; Punamäki et al., 2014; Russoniello et al., 2002) to present a theoretical framework illustrating how youths’ emotion regulation in the aftermath of natural disasters, war, or terrorism may affect posttraumatic stress outcomes (e.g., resilience or posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, anxiety, depression, trau- matic grief, and aggression). Specifically, we propose that emotion regulation, at multiple levels of analysis (neurobiological, cognitive, and behavioral), is critical to understanding youth reactions and outcomes (both negative, such as the development of posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], but also resilience) following trauma exposure. We also provide a brief overview of evidence-╉ based interventions aimed at alleviating posttraumatic stress reactions and trauma-r╉ elated symp- tomology highlighting techniques that focus on increasing emotional self-e╉fficacy and helping youth acquire adaptive emotion regulation skills. Mass trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress outcomes Traumatic stress exposure The defining features of traumatic stress exposure and subsequent posttraumatic stress outcomes (e.g., posttraumatic stress disorder) were recently updated and revised in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual—F╉ ifth Edition (DSM-â5•‰ , APA 2013). The DSM-5╉ (APA, 2013) defines traumatic stress exposure as experiencing actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violation, which may result from, 1) “direct exposure” or witnessing a traumatic
573 Mass trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress outcomes 375 event in person; or 2) “indirect or remote exposure,” such as learning of a traumatic event that hap- pened to a close family member or friend, or experiences such as first-h╉ and, repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of a traumatic event. Note that the DSM-â5•‰ does not consider exposure to traumatic events via electronic media, such as broadcast over the internet or television, as a qualifying traumatic event. An important difference between the DSM-â5•‰ and its predecessor (i.e., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual—âF•‰ ourth Edition; DSM-I╉V-T╉ R [APA, 2000]) is that the pres- ence or absence of an emotional reaction (e.g., fear or horror; Criterion A2 in DSM-I╉V-T╉ R) does not determine whether an event is traumatic. Epidemiological studies in the United States have shown that 25% of children and adolescents in the general population will likely be exposed to at least one traumatic event by the age of 16 and that up to 20% of these trauma-âe•‰ xposed children also experience academic, emotional, and physical difficulties across development (Costello, Erkanli, Fairbank, Angold, 2002; Copeland, Keeler, Angold, & Constello, 2007). Prevalence rates of mass trauma exposure often depend on the type of event and geographic region (e.g., hurricanes and earthquakes have differential probability depending on where one lives). In terms of natural disaster exposure, Becker-âB•‰ lease, Turner, & Finkelhor (2010) found that the lifetime risk for disaster exposure was 13.9% among a representa- tive sample of youth (ages two to 17 years) from the United States, while another study among 1140 children in South Africa and 901 youth in Kenya showed 16% were exposed to a natu- ral disaster (e.g., earthquake, fire, flood; Seedat, Nymami, Njenga, Vythlingum, & Stein, 2004). Research among children living in countries that are prone to political violence or war exposure have shown higher rates of exposure with some estimates ranging from 90% (Crotia; Kuterovac, Dyregrov, & Stuvland, 1994) to 100% (Bosnia; Goldstein, Wampler, & Wise, 1995). Ultimately, mass trauma exposure is potentially highly prevalent among youth and is a global phenomenon. Posttraumatic stress outcomes Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) The most commonly studied of the posttraumatic stress outcomes are the symptoms of PTSD (Furr, Comer, Edmunds, & Kendall, 2010). PTSD is a complex disorder that involves chronic and persistent heightened emotional reactivity and arousal (subjectively and physiologically) to inter- nal and external trauma cues (e.g., faster heart rate, angry outbursts, and hypervigilance), maladap- tive ways of regulating this emotional reactivity (e.g., cognitive or behavioral avoidance), intrusive cognitions (e.g., memories or dreams of traumatic event) and negative cognitions and mood (e.g., memory loss, faulty ways of thinking, persistent negative affect and inability to experience positive emotions; DSM-â5•‰ ; APA, 2013). Although PTSD was classified as an anxiety disorder in previous versions of the DSM, the DSM-5╉ has relocated it to a new chapter titled trauma-╉and stress-r╉ elated disorders. One of the main reasons for this move was that the prominent features of PTSD are not always fear-╉or anxiety-b╉ ased, with many individuals mainly experiencing anhedonic or dysphoric symptoms, aggressive behavior, or even dissociative symptoms (DSM-â5•‰ ; APA, 2013). Prevalence rates of PTSD diagnosis following mass trauma exposure (September 11th, Hurricane Katrina) varies considerably and seems to mainly depend on the type of trauma experi- enced, physical proximity in relation to the trauma (personally experienced the event, versus wit- nessed a family member experiencing the trauma), dose of exposure, time elapsed since trauma exposure, number of traumatic events (e.g., home destroyed, separated from family) that pre- cede or follow trauma exposure, and the developmental period the child is currently progressing through at the time of trauma exposure (Furr et al., 2010; Attanakyake, et al., 2009). For example, Hoven et al. (2005) reported that 10.6% of children who were exposed to September 11th met criteria for probable PTSD at six months post-âa•‰ttack, but that this rate increased or decreased depending on the severity of exposure (i.e., 18.4% for severe, 10.0% for moderate, and 3.6% for
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
- 223
- 224
- 225
- 226
- 227
- 228
- 229
- 230
- 231
- 232
- 233
- 234
- 235
- 236
- 237
- 238
- 239
- 240
- 241
- 242
- 243
- 244
- 245
- 246
- 247
- 248
- 249
- 250
- 251
- 252
- 253
- 254
- 255
- 256
- 257
- 258
- 259
- 260
- 261
- 262
- 263
- 264
- 265
- 266
- 267
- 268
- 269
- 270
- 271
- 272
- 273
- 274
- 275
- 276
- 277
- 278
- 279
- 280
- 281
- 282
- 283
- 284
- 285
- 286
- 287
- 288
- 289
- 290
- 291
- 292
- 293
- 294
- 295
- 296
- 297
- 298
- 299
- 300
- 301
- 302
- 303
- 304
- 305
- 306
- 307
- 308
- 309
- 310
- 311
- 312
- 313
- 314
- 315
- 316
- 317
- 318
- 319
- 320
- 321
- 322
- 323
- 324
- 325
- 326
- 327
- 328
- 329
- 330
- 331
- 332
- 333
- 334
- 335
- 336
- 337
- 338
- 339
- 340
- 341
- 342
- 343
- 344
- 345
- 346
- 347
- 348
- 349
- 350
- 351
- 352
- 353
- 354
- 355
- 356
- 357
- 358
- 359
- 360
- 361
- 362
- 363
- 364
- 365
- 366
- 367
- 368
- 369
- 370
- 371
- 372
- 373
- 374
- 375
- 376
- 377
- 378
- 379
- 380
- 381
- 382
- 383
- 384
- 385
- 386
- 387
- 388
- 389
- 390
- 391
- 392
- 393
- 394
- 395
- 396
- 397
- 398
- 399
- 400
- 401
- 402
- 403
- 404
- 405
- 406
- 407
- 408
- 409
- 410
- 411
- 412
- 413
- 414
- 415
- 416
- 417
- 418
- 419
- 420
- 421
- 422
- 423
- 424
- 425
- 426
- 427
- 428
- 429
- 430
- 431
- 432
- 433
- 434
- 435
- 436
- 437
- 438
- 439
- 440
- 441
- 442
- 443
- 444
- 445
- 446
- 447
- 448
- 449
- 450
- 451
- 452
- 453
- 454
- 455
- 456
- 457
- 458
- 459
- 460
- 461
- 462
- 463
- 464
- 465
- 466
- 467
- 468
- 469
- 470
- 471
- 472
- 473
- 474
- 475
- 476
- 477
- 478
- 479
- 480
- 481
- 482
- 483
- 484
- 485
- 486
- 487
- 488
- 489
- 490
- 491
- 492
- 493
- 494
- 495
- 496
- 497
- 498
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 498
Pages:
