This art icle was downloaded by: [ Debra Dunst an]

On: 26 May 2015, At : 14: 37

Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Education and Development

Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and
subscript ion inf ormat ion:
ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ heed20

Reliability of the Emotion-Related

Parenting Styles Scale Across Gender and
Parent Status Groups
a b a
Debra A. Dunst an , Donnah L. Anderson & Ant hony D. G. Marks
a
Discipline of Psychology, School of Behavioural, Cognit ive and
Social Sciences, Universit y of New England
b
Cent re f or Children and Young People, Sout hern Cross Universit y
Published online: 26 May 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Debra A. Dunst an, Donnah L. Anderson & Ant hony D. G. Marks (2015): Reliabilit y
of t he Emot ion-Relat ed Parent ing St yles Scale Across Gender and Parent St at us Groups, Early
Educat ion and Development , DOI: 10. 1080/ 10409289. 2015. 1039435

To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10409289. 2015. 1039435

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE

Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he
“ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis,
our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o
t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions
and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors,
and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent
should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources
of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s,
proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or
howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising
out of t he use of t he Cont ent .

This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s &
 Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s-
and- condit ions
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015
 Early Education and Development, 0: 1–17
Copyright # 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-9289 print/1556-6935 online
DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2015.1039435

Reliability of the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale

Across Gender and Parent Status Groups

Debra A. Dunstan
Discipline of Psychology, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences,
University of New England

Donnah L. Anderson
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University

Anthony D. G. Marks
Discipline of Psychology, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences,
University of New England

Research Findings: Emotional and social competence are critical to a child’s current and future
well-being. A. D. Paterson et al. (2012) studied a sample of mothers and proposed that an adult’s
approach to the socialization of a child’s emotions can be summarized in his or her parenting
style as measured by the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles (ERPS) scale. These styles are
emotion approving, emotion disapproving, active socialization, and uncertain/ineffective socia-
lization of negative emotions. This study aimed to determine whether the ERPS scale is a
reliable measure of the emotion socialization styles of parents and non-parents of both genders.
Participants were 521 undergraduate students—males (n ¼ 76), females (n ¼ 445), parents
(n ¼ 290), non-parents (n ¼ 231)—with a mean age of 32.26 years (SD ¼ 9.92, range ¼ 18–61
years). There were no significant differences between the ERPS subscale scores of parents
and non-parents, but males and younger adults showed higher disapproving and uncertain
responses. The factor structure of the ERPS was confirmed for females. One factor was found
to be unreliable for males. Practice or Policy: The ERPS is a reliable measure of the emotion
socialization styles of females. Further research is required to establish the scale’s reliability
with males.

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

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Debra A. Dunstan, Discipline of Psychology, School
of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale NSW, 2351, Australia. E-mail:
[email protected]
 2 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

GENDER, EMOTION, AND EXPRESSION

Although varying with culture, with context, and between individuals, males and females have
been noted to differ in their expression of and response to emotions; this includes type and range
as well as verbal and nonverbal intensity (Brody & Hall, 2000). Although some inconsistent
findings have been reported (e.g., McClure, 2000), the effects sizes of gender differences in
the following studies (calculated using estimates suggested by Ferguson, 2009) are medium
to large. These studies indicate that women rate themselves as more emotionally expressive than
men (Gross & John, 1998) and have been observed to be more verbally and nonverbally
expressive of positive and negative emotions, with the exception of anger (Dimberg &
Lundquist, 1990). Females have also been found to have greater sensitivity to emotions and
be superior to males at identifying emotions from verbal and nonverbal cues (Biele &
Grabowska, 2006).
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

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

GENDER AND PARENTING STYLE

In line with responses to emotions, gender differences in parenting style have also been
reported, but with limited and mixed findings. Most research has examined aspects of parental
affect and discipline represented in four parenting styles—authoritative, authoritarian, indul-
gent, and uninvolved—and has either assessed mothers only or averaged the scores of mothers
and fathers under the assumption that both genders parent in the same way (Simons & Conger,
2007). A quarter of a century ago, Baumrind (1991) opined that there are gender differences in
parenting styles and that it is common for mothers to be more nurturing (authoritative) than
controlling (authoritarian) and for fathers to more demanding (authoritarian) than responsive
(authoritative). This assertion has received partial support.
Research conducted in diverse cultural settings has demonstrated gender differences in par-
enting styles. For example, in a study of 451 intact Euro-American families, it was found that
mothers were more likely than fathers to parent in an authoritative manner (i.e., setting limits
and responding to emotional needs; Simons & Conger, 2007). However, there were no signifi-
cant differences in other parenting styles. In a Pakistani study (Kausar & Shafique, 2008) simi-
lar findings emerged, but an interaction between (a) child and parent gender and (b) parenting
style was noted. Involving 60 adolescents and equal numbers of each gender, the study found
that girls perceived their fathers as significantly more permissive and authoritative compared
to boys. In contrast, boys perceived their mothers as more authoritative compared to girls.
 EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 3

There were no differences in the perception of either parent as authoritarian. Although these
latter results were thought to reflect the relative strictness of mothers toward daughters and
fathers toward sons in Pakistani culture, they are consistent with findings from Western studies.
Several studies have demonstrated parental-contingent responses to boys’ and girls’
expression of emotions (e.g., Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998; Fivush, Brotman, Buck-
ner, & Goodman, 2000). A U.S. study of 60 preschool children (Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-Waxler,
2005) clarified the interaction effect by demonstrating differences in responses by fathers (but
not mothers) to the expression of particular emotions. Specifically, fathers were observed to
attend more to girls’ expressions of sadness or anxiety (submissive emotions) and boys’
expression of anger (disruptive emotions). Combined with other studies, these findings support
the positions that (a) results from the study of mothers cannot be generalized to fathers; and (b)
in at least some aspects of parenting, there are gender differences in parenting styles.
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

META-EMOTION PHILOSOPHY

It has been proposed that within the genders, it is parents’ meta-emotion philosophy—their
thoughts and feelings about their own emotions and those of their children—that ultimately
influences their responses to children’s emotions, particularly negative emotions such as sad-
ness, fear, and anger (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996). This may be one explanation for the
finding that older parents tend to raise more socially adjusted children (Mayer, 2002). Although
a higher income and extra resources are likely to support positive outcomes (Mayer, 2002),
older parents demonstrate and report less stress, use better coping strategies, and engage in more
positive emotional interactions with their children (Auyeung, Burdidge, & Minnes, 2011). Thus,
it may be that age and gender moderate meta-emotion philosophy, which in turn influences
parental responses.
Gottman, Katz, and Hooven (1997) have identified four meta-emotion parenting styles.
Ranging from most to least adaptive, these are emotion coaching, laissez-faire, dismissing,
and disapproving. Gottman et al. (1997) posited that the emotion coaching parenting style
accepts a child’s feelings; provides empathy and validation; and teaches the child how to label,
process, and regulate negative emotions. The laissez-faire parenting style also accepts and
validates the child’s emotional expression but provides no limits on behavior or guidance on
how to manage strong emotional responses. In contrast to these two styles, a dismissing
parenting style is not accepting of a child’s emotions and makes light of the child’s emotional
experience by disregarding, trivializing, or ignoring emotional expressions. The disapproving
parenting style goes one step further and rejects the expression of negative emotions by judging,
criticizing, reprimanding, or punishing the child. Research suggests that meta-emotion parent-
ing styles are temporarily stable in adults (Hakim-Larson, Parker, Lee, Goodwin, & Voelker,
2006) and are linked with differing social, physiological, and behavioral outcomes in children
(Katz, Maliken, & Stettler, 2012; Katz & Windecker-Nelson, 2004).

PARENTING EDUCATION

Although it is known that parenting style is important to children’s outcomes, the amount
of specific education received by parents is often variable and minimal (Ateah, 2003).
 4 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

This is despite parent education being associated with a change in knowledge and attitudes
related to parenting (Mann, Pearl, & Behle, 2004) and increased sensitivity to infant cues
(Magill-Evans, Harrison, Benzies, Gierl, & Kimak, 2007). In the 1970s, and in response to
the changing structure of family composition, Bronfenbrenner (1978) advocated for a public
health approach to parenting education. He proposed that education not be limited to parents
alone but be provided to any non-parent adults “who by decision or default, find themselves
responsible for the well-being and nurturance of the next generation” (p. 785). In his view,
teachers, child care workers, health professionals, and the like should know how to facilitate
a child’s emotional development. Almost 40 years later, and with increasing numbers of young
children being placed in early child care (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010) or served by the
child welfare system (Department of Social Services, 2011), it could be considered critical that
policymakers and educational institutions ensure that adults working in child services are
trained in the socialization of children’s emotions. On a related note, a reliable measure of
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

adults’ associated parenting skills should be developed and validated. In the late 1990s,
Gottman and colleagues began to address the latter need through the development of an
objective assessment of meta-emotion parenting styles.

MEASURING META-EMOTION PARENTING STYLES

From an original hour-long videotaped interview, Gottman et al. (1997) devised an 81-item
self-test scale whose items were constructed to measure the four meta-emotion parenting styles
in a true/false response format. Hakim-Larson and colleagues (2006) later named this the
Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Self Test (ERPSST-T/F) and used a sample of 89 mothers
and 11 fathers to examine its psychometric properties. Gender differences in responses were
noted, specifically that mothers had “higher emotion coaching and laissez-faire scores” and
“fathers report(ed) higher scores” on the dismissing parenting style and showed “higher
punitive reactions” (p. 242).
Based on participant feedback, Hakim-Larson et al. (2006) altered the ERPSST-T/F to allow
for dimensional responses on a 5-point Likert-type scale (ERPSST-Likert; Hakim-Larson et al.,
2006). In another study reported in the same article and using a sample of 21 mothers and 10
fathers, these researchers concluded that although the ERPSST-Likert held “some promise as a
reliable and valid tool, … further study and refinement” was required (p. 245). In particular,
they proposed that rather than measuring four categorical parenting styles, the ERPSST may
instead measure dimensional responses: approval–disapproval of emotional expression (i.e.,
emotion coaching and laissez-faire vs. dismissing and disapproving) and active–passive
socializing of emotional expression (i.e., emotion coaching and disapproving vs. dismissing
and laissez-faire).
With a sample of 214 mothers only, Paterson et al. (2012) explored Hakim-Larson et al.’s
(2006) notion of dimensional parenting responses and subsequently developed the Emotion-
Related Parenting Styles (ERPS) scale, a 20-item short form of the ERPSST-Likert. Factor
analyses of scores by mothers of typically developing children (n ¼ 107, ages 3–8 years), com-
bined with those of mothers of children with a developmental disability (n ¼ 107, ages 3–12
years), led to the extraction of four factors: Parental Acceptance (PA); Parental Rejection
(PR); Emotion Coaching (EC) or active socialization; and, Uncertain/Ineffective (UI) or passive
 EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 5

socialization of negative emotions. Together, these four factors explained 47.0% of the vari-
ance. The items retained for the ERPS scale were those that had a strong loading on the same
factor in both samples, plus items that were added or removed to achieve five items per factor.
In their psychometric evaluation of the ERPS scale, Paterson et al. (2012) found Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients ranging from .70 (PR subscale) to .80 (EC subscale). Evidence of validity was
shown though comparisons of the ERPS subscale scores with the subscale scores of the
ERPSST-Likert, behavioral indicators of empathy, emotion discussions, and standardized
measures of coping socialization and emotional expressiveness (i.e., the Self-Expressiveness
in the Family Questionnaire [Halberstadt, Cassidy, Stifter, Parke, & Fox, 1995], Coping with
Children’s Negative Emotions Scale [Fabes, Poulin, Eisenberg, & Madden-Derdich, 2002],
and Parent Attitude Towards Children’s Expressiveness Scale [Saarni, 1985]). Paterson and
colleagues (2012) concluded that “the ERPS appears to be a valid measure of emotion-related
parenting styles … suitable for use with parents of children of varying genders, ages and levels
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

of socio-emotional development” (p. 597). However, because they had studied mothers only,
and with research suggesting that there are gender differences in parents’ responses to chil-
dren’s emotions, testing of the ERPS in a sample of males was required. Furthermore, as
recommended by the authors, the factor structure of the ERPS scale needed to be confirmed.

THE PRESENT RESEARCH

In light of Bronfenbrenner’s (1978) call for a public health approach to parenting education, and
the first and third authors’ institution’s offering of a 13-week parenting class open to non-parents
as well as parents (PSYC103 Psychology in Society: Effective Parenting; University of New
England, 2011), we wanted a tool to assess the impact of parenting education on parenting style.
The ERPS scale was identified as a potentially suitable instrument, but first we needed to deter-
mine whether it was reliable for measuring the emotion-related parenting styles of males as well
as females and of non-parents as well as parents. If this were the case, then the scale could be used
as a screening tool or assessment measure in various contexts, including preservice training.
In the absence of specific education, there was no theoretical reason to suggest that adult non-
parents’ responses to children’s emotions would be different from those of parents. Therefore, we
anticipated no difference in the predominant emotion-related parenting style of each group. However,
as parents may benefit from experience, we explored the data for group differences. Based on exist-
ing empirical findings, we hypothesized that females and older adults would show more nurturing or
accepting responses to children’s emotions than males and younger adults. Conversely, males and
younger adults would show more demanding or rejecting responses than females and older adults.
Finally, to further extend previous research, we wanted to explore the factor structure of the
ERPS scale by gender and confirm this structure in mothers and non-mothers.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 521 undergraduate students enrolled in first-year psychology units (classes)
undertaken via online teaching modules. All students (n ¼ 182) in the Psychology in
 6 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Society: Effective Parenting class and 63% (n ¼ 339) in the Introductory Psychology class
participated. The total sample had the following demographic features: male (n ¼ 76), female
(n ¼ 445), mean age ¼ 32.26 years (SD ¼ 9.92, range ¼ 18–61 years), parents (n ¼ 290; males ¼ 32,
females ¼ 258,), non-parents (n ¼ 231; males ¼ 44, females ¼ 187). The university was a regional
Australian university and attracted a different demographic from metropolitan institutions, and the
sample was representative of the total student body: 73% studying externally (online), 66% female,
and 72% age 25 years or older (University of New England, 2014). Consistent with the general
population, parents were significantly older (M ¼ 37.55 years, SD ¼ 8.03) than non-parents
(M ¼ 25.64 years, SD ¼ 7.87), t(519) ¼ 16.97, p < .001; on average, they had 2.3 children. Consist-
ent with the university student body, the sample was well educated, with 38.1% of parents and
35.1% of non-parents already having a university degree or diploma. Data on ethnicity were limited
to those collected by the university and showed that 20 participants (3.8% of the sample) identified
as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Parent status was not related to ethnicity (p ¼ .198).
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

Measures

The following measures were completed via an online survey.

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

ERPS scale (Paterson et al., 2012). This 20-item scale, based on meta-emotion theory
(Gottman et al., 1997), contains four subscales, each measuring a different emotion-related
parenting style—that is, PA (parental acceptance of negative emotions [emotion approving]),
PR (parental rejection of negative emotions [emotion disapproving]), EC (emotion coaching of
negative emotions [active socialization), and UI (uncertain/ineffective socialization of negative
emotions [passive socialization]). Each subscale has five gender-neutral items. Examples include
the following: PA (“I want my child to experience sadness”), PR (“Children acting sad are usually
just trying to get adults to feel sorry for them”), EC (“When my child is angry, it’s time to
problem solve”), and UI (“When my child is sad, I’m not quite sure what he or she wants me
to do”). Responses are rated along a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (always false) to 5 (always
true). Total subscale scores are calculated by summing the items of each subscale. High scores
represent endorsement of the associated parenting style. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for
male and female parents and non-parents in this study are shown in Table 1. Internal consistency
was good for all subscales except PR, for which it was particularly low for male parents.
The instructions for the ERPS were adapted slightly to make it applicable for use with non-
parents (viz., “If you do not have children, try to imagine how you would feel and act. You may
like to inform your answers by thinking about your reactions to children you know”).

Procedure

Subsequent to approval by the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee, information

about the study was provided online to students taking two first-year classes in psychology.
 EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 7

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

RESULTS

ERPS Descriptive Statistics

The means and standard deviations for males’ and females’ and for parents’ and non-parents’
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

(N ¼ 521) total scores and Cronbach’s alphas for each ERPS subscale are displayed in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, good internal consistency was noted for all subscales except PR, for which
it was poor for males. To retain the integrity of the ERPS, we utilized the whole scale for the pro-
posed analyses but were cognizant of the limitations in the reliability of the PR subscale for men.

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

Emotion coaching, or active socialization of negative emotions, was the predominant parenting
response (as indicated by the subscale with the highest total score) among both parents and non-
parents of each gender: mothers (n ¼ 214, 83%), fathers (n ¼ 23, 74%), non-mothers (n ¼ 146,
79%), and non-fathers (n ¼ 30, 68%).
To investigate differences in parenting styles among mothers, non-mothers, fathers, and non-
fathers, we conducted a 2 × 2 multivariate analysis of covariance with total scores on the four
ERPS subscales as dependent variables, parental status (parent vs. non-parent) and gender (males

TABLE 1
Means (SD) for Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale Total Scores and Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s
Alphas) by Gender and Parental Status for the Study Sample (N ¼ 521)

Males (n ¼ 76) Females (n ¼ 445)

Parent Non-parent Parent Non-parent

Subscale (n ¼ 32) (n ¼ 44) (n ¼ 258) (n ¼ 187)

Parental Acceptance Total score 17.18 (3.69) 17.61 (3.91) 18.08 (3.49) 18.19 (3.22)
Cronbach’s α .83 .78 .77 .76
Parental Rejection Total score 13.06 (2.42) 14.36 (2.89) 11.69 (2.93) 13.48 (3.07)
Cronbach’s α .28 .46 .56 .65
Emotion Coaching Total score 20.06 (3.06) 20.20 (3.29) 21.78 (2.53) 21.26 (2.79)
Cronbach’s α .83 .84 .74 .82
Uncertain/Ineffective Total score 13.71 (3.09) 13.59 (3.31) 12.29 (3.48) 12.73 (3.25)
Cronbach’s α .76 .77 .75 .80

The potential total score range per subscale is 5 (always false) to 25 (always true).
 8 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

vs. female) as the independent variables, and parental age as a covariate. As shown by Wilks’s
lambda, there was a significant main effect for gender on the combined dependent variables
(λ ¼ .95), F(4, 513) ¼ 6.67, p < .001, η2p ¼ :05. Neither the multivariate main effect for parent
status (p ¼ .241) nor the interaction effect (p ¼ .825) were significant. However, age significantly
predicted the combined dependent variables (λ ¼ .94), F(4, 513) ¼ 7.60, p < .001, η2p ¼ :06.
As shown in Table 2, follow-up analyses of covariance for gender differences across the four
parenting styles separately showed that females (M ¼ 21.57, SD ¼ 2.65) scored significantly
higher than males (M ¼ 20.14, SD ¼ 3.18) on emotion coaching/approval of emotions, but males
(M ¼ 13.82, SD ¼ 2.77) scored significantly higher than females (M ¼ 12.45, SD ¼ 3.11) on par-
ental rejection/dismissal of negative emotions. Males (M ¼ 13.64, SD ¼ 3.21) also scored sig-
nificantly higher than females (M ¼ 12.48, SD ¼ 3.40) on uncertain/ineffective socialization
of negative emotions. There were no significant differences between males (M ¼ 17.43, SD
¼ 3.80) and females (M ¼ 18.13, SD ¼ 3.38) on parental acceptance of negative emotions.
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

The effect sizes for all three significant results were small (Cohen, 1988). Also shown in Table
2 is that older parents were significantly less likely to endorse parental rejection and uncertain/
ineffective socialization, but age was not significantly associated with the emotion coaching or
parental acceptance parenting styles: parental rejection, r (519) ¼ .34, p < .001; uncertain/
ineffective socialization, r(519) ¼ .13, p ¼ .002.

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

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

Females. A principal component analysis was conducted on the 20-item ERPS for females
(n ¼ 445). Sampling adequacy was verified by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure ¼.77 and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which was significant (p < .001). Although five factors had eigen-
values over 1.0 (59% of the variance explained), the most meaningful analysis to interpret had

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

Parenting Style F p η2p

Gender
Emotion coaching 16.382† <.001 .031
Parental rejection 9.976† .002 .019
Uncertain/ineffective socialization 7.508† .006 .014
Parental acceptance 2.895 .089 .006
Age
Emotion coaching 0.002 .969 <.001
Parental rejection 25.983† <.001 .048
Uncertain/ineffective socialization 7.479† .006 .014
Parental acceptance 0.099 .753 <.001

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

 EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 9

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

Males. Although the male sample size (n ¼ 76) was relatively small for principal component
analysis, more than four of the loadings were above .60; thus, the solution can be considered
reliable regardless of sample size (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988). The sampling adequacy was
verified by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure at .65 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which

TABLE 3
Factor Loadings for the 20-Item Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale: Females (n ¼ 445)
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

Item Uncertain/ Emotion Parental Parental

No./ Ineffective Coaching Acceptance Rejection
Scale Item (UI) (EC) (PA) (PR)

7/UI When my child is angry, I’m not quite sure what he .76
or she wants me to do
17/UI When my child is sad, I’m not quite sure what he or .72
she wants me to do
20/UI When my child gets angry, I think, “Why can’t he or .64
she accept things as they are”
13/UI When my child gets angry, I think, “If only he or .63
she could just learn to roll with the punches”
18/UI When my child gets angry with me, I think, “I don’t .63
want to hear this”
15/EC When my child is sad, I try to help him or her figure .83
out why the feeling is there
3/EC When my child is sad, we sit down and talk over the .76
sadness
6/EC It’s important to help the child find out what caused .70
the child’s anger
8/EC When my child is sad, I try to help the child explore .69
what is making him or her sad
19/EC When my child is angry, it’s time to solve a problem .64
2/PA I want my child to experience anger .90
16/PA I think it’s good for kids to feel angry sometimes .84
5/PA I want my child to experience sadness .77
9/PA Children have a right to feel angry .46
12/PA A child’s anger is important .46
4/PR Children often act sad to get their way .71
1/PR Children acting sad are usually just trying to get .66
adults to feel sorry for them
10/PR I don’t mind dealing with a child’s sadness, so long .64
as it doesn’t last too long
11/PR When my child gets sad, I warn him or her about not .55
developing a bad character
14/PR When my child gets angry, my goal is to get him or .45
her to stop

Note. Item loadings above .40 are shown.

 10 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

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

TABLE 4
Factor Loadings for the 20-Item Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale: Males (n ¼ 76)
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

Item Uncertain/ Emotion Parental Parental

No./ Ineffective Coaching Acceptance Rejection
Scale Item (UI) (EC) (PA) (PR)

17/UI When my child is sad, I’m not quite sure what he or .88
she wants me to do
7/UI When my child is angry, I’m not quite sure what he .88
or she wants me to do
3/EC When my child is sad, we sit down and talk over the .86
sadness
19/EC When my child is angry, it’s time to solve a problem .82
6/EC It’s important to help the child find out what caused .75
the child’s anger
15/EC When my child is sad, I try to help him or her figure .72
out why the feeling is there
8/EC When my child is sad, I try to help the child explore .61 .46
what is making him or her sad
14/PR When my child gets angry, my goal is to get him or .44a
her to stop
16/PA I think it’s good for kids to feel angry sometimes .86
2/PA I want my child to experience anger .81
12/PA A child’s anger is important .75
5/PA I want my child to experience sadness .72
9/PA Children have a right to feel angry .44
18/UI When my child gets angry with me, I think, “I don’t .81a
want to hear this”
20/UI When my child gets angry, I think, “Why can’t he or .76a
she accept things as they are”
13/UI When my child gets angry, I think, “If only he or .75a
she could just learn to roll with the punches”
4/PR Children often act sad to get their way .59
11/PR When my child gets sad, I warn him or her about not .43
developing a bad character
10/PR I don’t mind dealing with a child’s sadness, so long .43
as it doesn’t last too long

Note. Item loadings above .40 are shown. Item 1 (from the PR subscale), “Children acting sad are usually just trying
to get adults to feel sorry for them,” did not load above .40 on any factors; its strongest loading was .26 on Factor 4, PR.
a
Factor loading is different from that of females.
 EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 11

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the ERPS Scale

To continue our examination of gender and parent status differences in ERPS scores, we con-
ducted confirmatory factor analysis using Amos 20 (Arbuckle, 2011) on the total mixed-gender
sample, then on subsamples of (a) all females (mothers and non-mothers) and (b) non-mothers
only. Our aim was to verify the construct validity of the four-factor model of the ERPS scale as
specified by Paterson et al. (2012). From the total sample (N ¼ 521), 10 multivariate outliers
(three female parents, three female non-parents, one male parent, and three male non-parents)
were identified using Mahalanobis distance scores at p < .001. These cases were deleted. As a
consequence, multivariate normality was within the limit specified by Kline (2005) of absolute
kurtosis index < 10.0.
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

Mixed-gender sample. To assess model fit, we followed the recommendations of Byrne

(2013) and Kline (2005) of χ 2/df < 3.0, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) > .90, comparative fit index
(CFI) > .90, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .06, and standardized
root-mean-square residual (SRMR) < .08. The initial analysis, including data from males and
females (n ¼ 511), showed that the model failed to fit the data, χ 2(170) ¼ 856.37, p < .001,
χ 2/df ¼ 5.04, GFI ¼ .86, CFI ¼ .79, RMSEA ¼ .09, SRMR ¼ .13. This was not surprising given
that Paterson et al. (2012) used data from mothers only, and our EFA produced different results
for males and females.

Female sample (mothers and non-mothers). This time we performed the analysis
using data from females only (n ¼ 439, comprising n ¼ 255 mothers and n ¼ 184
non-mothers). The model failed to fit the data, χ 2(170) ¼ 748.19, p < .001, χ 2/df ¼ 4.40,
GFI ¼ .85, CFI ¼ .79, RMSEA ¼ .09, SRMR ¼ .12. Modification indices suggested that
error terms associated with four pairs of items, all within factors, be allowed to covary.
These pairs of items involved overlapping item content and are designated with
superscripts in Table 4. The four latent factors were also allowed to covary. Rerunning
the model with these modifications showed that the four-factor model fit the data
well, χ 2(161) ¼ 364.97, p < .001, χ 2/df ¼ 2.27, GFI ¼ .93, CFI ¼ .93, RMSEA ¼ .05, SRMR
¼ .07. The standardized regression weights (factor loadings) and bootstrapped standard
errors are shown in Table 5. All items loaded significantly on their respective factors at
p < .01, and there were no cross-loadings. Correlations between factors are reported in
Table 6.

Non-mothers sample. In this analysis, we were interested to confirm that the four-factor
model as specified would remain invariant across mothers and non-mothers. To test multigroup
invariance we followed the recommendations of Byrne (2013). Goodness-of-fit statistics for the
model comparisons are shown in Table 7. The difference between the baseline model and one in
which all factor loadings, variances, and covariances were constrained to be equal was not sig-
nificant, Δχ 2 ¼ 21.49, Δdf ¼ 26, p ¼ .72. This supported the proposition that the four-factor
model, as specified by Paterson et al. (2012) and shown in our EFA, remains invariant across
both mothers and non-mothers.
 12 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

TABLE 5
Standardized Regression Weights (Factor Loadings) and Bootstrapped Standard Errors From the
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale for Female Participants (n ¼ 445)

Factor and Item β SE

Parental Acceptance
I want my child to experience sadness .72 .03
I want my child to experience anger .95 .03
I think it’s good for kids to feel angry sometimes .70 .03
A child’s anger is importanta .31 .05
Children have a right to feel angrya .35 .05
Parental Rejection
Children acting sad are usually just trying to get adults to feel sorry for them .65 .05
Children often act sad to get their way .75 .04
I don’t mind dealing with a child’s sadness, so long as it doesn’t last too long .44 .05
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

When my child gets sad, I warn him or her about not developing a bad character .43 .05
When my child gets angry, my goal is to get him or her to stop .40 .06
Emotion Coaching
When my child is sad, I try to help the child explore what is making him or her sad .66 .04
When my child is sad, we sit down and talk over the sadness .80 .03
When my child is sad, I try to help him or her figure out why the feeling is there .87 .03
When my child is angry, it’s time to solve a problemb .39 .05
It’s important to help the child find out what caused the child’s angerb .51 .05
Uncertain/Ineffective
When my child is sad, I’m not quite sure what he or she wants me to doc .32 .05
When my child is angry, I’m not quite sure what he or she wants me to doc .31 .05
When my child gets angry with me, I think, “I don’t want to hear this” .67 .04
When my child gets angry, I think, “If only he or she could just learn to roll with the punches” .83 .03
When my child gets angry, I think, “Why can’t he or she accept things as the are” .87 .03

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

TABLE 6
Correlations Between Factors of the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Scale (Female Participants, n ¼ 445)

Factor 1 2 3 4

1. Parental Acceptance —
2. Parental Rejection .16* —
3. Emotion Coaching .09 .21** —
4. Uncertain/Ineffective .16** .45** .27** —

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

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

Model Description χ2 df χ 2=df GFI CFI RMSEA SRMR

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

GFI ¼ goodness-of-fit index; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation;
SRMR ¼ standardized root-mean-square residual.
 EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 13

DISCUSSION

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

Predominant Parenting Style

As anticipated, we found that the predominant parenting style of males and females, parents and
non-parents, was not different from each other and was emotion coaching (the active socializa-
tion of negative emotions). This finding is consistent with results reported by Hakim-Larson et
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

al. (2006) when using a forerunner version of the ERPS scale (the ERPSST-T/F). These
researchers found that 91% of their sample of mothers and fathers (N ¼ 100) endorsed the
emotion coaching style. Although both sets of findings might be considered an artifact of the
participants being well educated—a link between socioeconomic status and adaptive parenting
styles being consistently demonstrated in the literature (Hoff, Laursen, & Tardiff, 2002)—they
are also consistent with other large studies that have found that the majority of parents use effec-
tive approaches to parenting (e.g., Ryan, Martin, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006 [N ¼ 237]; Simons &
Conger, 2007 [N ¼ 451]).

Gender Differences in Parenting Style

We found no significant difference between the parenting styles of parents and non-parents, but
there were some differences between the genders. Males and females accepted the expression of
negative emotions but differed in their responses to this expression. Females scored higher on
emotion coaching (an active socialization response), and males scored higher on rejection of
negative emotions (emotion disapproving) and uncertain/ineffective (a passive socialization
response) styles. Given our finding that the PR scale had poor reliability for males, some cau-
tion needs to exercised in accepting these results; however, they are again consistent with those
of Hakim-Larson et al. (2006) and the known similarities and differences between the genders
in their active response to emotions. That is, although both may accept the expression of
negative emotions, mothers tend to offer more verbal affirmations, whereas fathers can be
demanding and corrective (Cowan, Cowan, & Kerig, 1993; Kausar & Shafique, 2008; Sabattini
& Leaper, 2004).
In a comprehensive review of parental socialization of emotion, Eisenberg and colleagues
(1998) concluded, “It is hazardous to assume that the same pattern of findings will be obtained
for paternal and maternal reactions to children’s negative emotions” (p. 253). Accordingly,
research has shown that whereas mothers generally affirm and coach all emotions in children
of both genders, fathers’ responses are contingent on the gender of the child and the specific
emotions expressed (i.e., they are more attentive to anxiety and sadness in girls and to anger
and disruptive emotions in boys; Chaplin et al., 2005). According to evolutionary and social
theory, these differences may support some social-relational functions, such as affiliation, pro-
tection, and control (Archer, 1996). Furthermore, Simons and Conger (2007) found that as long
 14 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

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

Age and Parenting Style

In line with our predictions, we found that older age, independent of parent status, was associa-
ted with less uncertain/ineffective parenting responses and rejection of negative emotions.
Researchers with similar findings have proposed that this is a function of having older children
whose developmentally different behaviors influence parents’ socializing responses, but it may
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

also be that with maturity and experience, adults become more confident and less intolerant of
children’s emotional expressions (Halpenny, Nixon, & Watson, 2010). As this result included
non-parents in the sample and no effects were found based on parent status, perhaps it gives
support to Bronfenbrenner’s (1978) argument that adults do not need to be parents to gain skills
from parenting education. If life experience and maturity alone can reduce maladaptive or inef-
fective responses in adults in general, then how much more might be gained from specific edu-
cation around helping children to understand, experience, express, and regulate their emotions?

Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the ERPS Scale

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the ERPS confirmed the structure reported by
Paterson et al. (2012) for mothers and demonstrated that this was invariant across our sample of
females irrespective of their parent status. This result indicates that the ERPS scale is reliable
for use in the female population and may have applications in the assessment of mothers of chil-
dren displaying social or emotional problems and in the early childhood education sector. In the
latter context, in which the capacity to provide emotional support is a key competency, further
studies may reveal the utility of the ERPS to screen (the predominantly female) students for the
purpose of early additional training if needed.
Although the factor structure of the ERPS was the same for both gender samples, reliability
was not demonstrated for the PR subscale for males. Close examination of the males’ responses
revealed that in contrast to those of the females, three of the UI items—all eliciting responses to
anger (e.g., “When my child gets angry with me, I think, ‘I don’t want to hear this’”)—loaded
onto the PR subscale (instead of the UI subscale). This finding is consistent with other research
(e.g., Dimberg & Lundquist, 1990) demonstrating males’ differential response to the expression
of anger and indicates that a modified ERPS scale needs to be developed to assess males’
emotion-related parenting styles.

Limitations and Conclusions

A key limitation of this study is the potential for bias in our sample of predominantly well-educated
females studying undergraduate psychology. Such students are known to be high in emotional
 EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 15

intelligence (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000), a feature likely to influence emotion-related par-
enting style. Therefore, caution should be exercised before generalizing our findings to socioeco-
nomically diverse groups. In addition, it should be noted that we interpreted males’ responses on
the ERPS scale, even though only three of the four subscales showed reliability with this gender.
These limitations aside, we have confirmed the reliability of the ERPS scale for use with
mothers and shown it to be reliable with females in general. Furthermore, we have demonstrated
that there are gender differences in emotion-related parenting responses and that the ERPS is
not fully reliable for use with males. Our findings also suggest useful goals of future research.
These include revisiting the procedures used by Paterson et al. (2012) to develop a male-specific
ERPS scale and confirming the scale’s factor structure in parents and non-parents.

REFERENCES
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). Amos 20. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible?
American Psychologist, 51, 909–917. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.9.909
Ateah, C. A. (2003). Disciplinary practices with children: Parental sources of information, attitudes, and educational
needs. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 26(2), 89–101. doi:10.1080/01460860390197853
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior. Child Development, 76,
1144–1159. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00840.x-i1
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Child care 4102.0—Australian Social Trends, June 2010. Retrieved from http://
www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features50Jun+2010
Auyeung, K., Burdidge, J., & Minnes, P. (2011). Perceived parental stress: The relative contributions of child and parent
characteristics. Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 17(2), 10–20.
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn R. Lerner, & A. C. Peterson
(Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 746–758). New York, NY: Garland.
Biele, C., & Grabowska, A. (2006). Sex differences in perception of emotion intensity in dynamic and static facial
expressions. Experimental Brain Research, 171(1), 1–6. doi:10.1007/s00221-005-0254-0
Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2000). Gender, emotion and expression. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jone (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 338–367). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1978). Who needs parent education? Teachers College Record, 79, 767–787.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental socialization of emotion expression: Gender
differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5(1), 80–88. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.80
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct.
Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00119-1
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Kerig, P. K. (1993). Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gender differences in family
formation and parenting style. In P. A. Cowan D. Field D. A. Hansen A. Skolnick, & G. E. Swanson (Eds.), Family,
self, and society: Toward a new agenda for family research (pp. 165–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Department of Social Services. (2011). An outline of national standards for out-of-home care. Retrieved from https://
www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/publications-articles/an-outline-of-national-standards-for-
out-of-home-care-2011?HTML#sec_5
Dimberg, U., & Lundquist, L.-O. (1990). Gender differences in facial reactions to facial expressions. Biological
Psychology, 30(2), 151–159. doi:10.1016/0301-0511(90)90024-Q
Domes, G., Schulze, L., Böttger, M., Grossmann, A., Hauenstein, K., Wirtz, P. H., … Herpertz, S. C. (2010). The neural
correlates of sex differences in emotional reactivity and emotion regulation. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 758–769.
doi:10.1002/hbm.20903
 16 DUNSTAN, ANDERSON, AND MARKS

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4),
241–273. doi:10.2307/1449728
Eley, T. C., Bolton, D., O’Connor, T. G., Perrin, S., Smith, P., & Plomin, R. (2003). A twin study of anxiety-related beha-
viours in pre-school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 945–960. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00179
Fabes, R. A., Poulin, R. E., Eisenberg, N., & Madden-Derdich, D. A. (2002). The Coping with Children’s Negative
Emotions Scale (CCNES): Psychometric properties and relations with children’s emotional competence. Marriage
& Family Review, 34(3–4), 285–310. doi:10.1300/J002v34n03_05
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 40, 532–538. doi:10.1037/a0015808
Fivush, R., Brotman, M., Buckner, J., & Goodman, S. (2000). Gender differences in parent-child emotion narratives.
Sex Roles, 42(3–4), 233–253. doi:10.1023/a:1007091207068
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of families:
Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(3), 243–268. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.10.3.243
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah,
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

NJ: Erlbaum.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for a hierarchical model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 170–191. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.170
Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Sex differences in intensity of emotional experience: A social role interpretation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1010–1022. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1010
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 265–275.
Hakim-Larson, J., Parker, A., Lee, C., Goodwin, J., & Voelker, S. (2006). Measuring parental meta-emotion: Psycho-
metric properties of the Emotion-Related Parenting Styles Self-Test. Early Education & Development, 17, 229–251.
doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1702_2
Halberstadt, A. G., Cassidy, J., Stifter, C. A., Parke, R. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Self-expressiveness within the family
context: Psychometric support for a new measure. Psychological Assessment, 7(1), 93–103. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.7.1.93
Halpenny, A. M., Nixon, E., & Watson, D. (2010). Parents’ perspectives on parenting styles and disciplining children.
Dublin, Ireland: Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.
Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Tardiff, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting: Biology and ecology of parenting (Vol. 2, pp. 231–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Katz, L. F., Maliken, A. C., & Stettler, N. M. (2012). Parental meta-emotion philosophy: A review of research and
theoretical framework. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 417–422. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00244.x
Katz, L., & Windecker-Nelson, B. (2004). Parental meta-emotion philosophy in families with conduct-problem chil-
dren: Links with peer relations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(4), 385–398. doi:10.1023/b:
jacp.0000030292.36168.30
Kausar, R., & Shafique, N. (2008). Gender differences in perceived parenting styles and socioemotional adjustment of
adolescents. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 23(3/4), 93–105.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 686–703. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.686
Magill-Evans, J., Harrison, M., Benzies, K., Gierl, M., & Kimak, C. (2007). Effects of parenting education on first-time
fathers’ skills in interactions with their infants. Fathering, 5(1), 42–57. doi:10.3149/fth.0501.42
Mann, M. B., Pearl, P. T., & Behle, P. D. (2004). Effects of parent education on knowledge and attitudes. Adolescence,
39(154), 355–360.
Mayer, S. E. (2002). The influence of parental income on children’s outcomes. Wellington, New Zealand Knowledge
Management Group, Ministry of Social Development, Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora.
McClure, E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression processing and their development
in infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 424–453. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.424
Paterson, A. D., Babb, K. A., Camodeca, A., Goodwin, J., Hakim-Larson, J., Voelker, S., & Gragg, M. (2012).
Emotion-Related Parenting Styles (ERPS): A short form for measuring parental meta-emotion philosophy. Early
Education & Development, 23, 583–602. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.569316
 EMOTION-RELATED PARENTING STYLES SCALE 17

Reder, P., Duncan, S., & Lucey, C. (2003). Studies in the assessment of parenting. London, England: Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., Martin, A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Is one good parent good enough? Patterns of mother and father
parenting and child cognitive outcomes at 24 and 36 months. Parenting, 6(2–3), 211–228. doi:10.1080/
15295192.2006.9681306
Saarni, C. (1985). Indirect processes in affect socialization. In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (Eds.), The socialization of
emotions (pp. 187–209). New York, NY: Plenum.
Sabattini, L., & Leaper, C. (2004). The relation between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles and their division of
labor in the home: Young adults’ retrospective reports. Sex Roles, 50(3–4), 217–225. doi:10.1023/B:
SERS.0000015553.82390.f7
Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development,
81, 6–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x
Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother-father differences in parenting to a typology of family parenting
styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28(2), 212–241. doi:10.1177/0192513 × 06294593
University of New England. (2011). Courses and units catalogue: PSYC103 Psychology in Society: Effective Parenting.
Retrieved from https://my.une.edu.au/courses/2011/units/PSYC103
Downloaded by [Debra Dunstan] at 14:37 26 May 2015

University of New England. (2014). 2013 overview: Student demographics in 2013. Retrieved from http://planning.une.
edu.au/Statistics/overview/index.htm
Wager, T. D., Phan, K. L., Liberzon, I., & Taylor, S. F. (2003). Valence, gender, and lateralization of functional brain
anatomy in emotion: A meta-analysis of findings from neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 19, 513–531. doi:10.1016/
S1053-8119(03)00078-8