Roles of recalled parenting experiences and effortful control in adult daily emotion regulation

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model regarding roles of recalled parenting experiences and effortful control in adult daily selection and implementation of emotion regulation.

Figure 2. Dynamic structural equation model for effects of recalled parenting experiences and effortful control on selection of emotion regulation and effectiveness of its implementation.

Notes. The bolded α_2i and β_2,1i parameters with grey background refer to the main outcome variables of random intercept of the ER strategy (i.e., selection) and the random cross-lagged slope of the ER strategy on emotions (i.e., the effectiveness of implementation), respectively. It should be noted that the effect of each between-level predictor on the random cross-lagged slope can also be interpreted as the cross-level interaction of the predictor and ER strategy on emotions. The φ_i and log(σ²_i) parameters refer to the random autoregressive slopes and residual variances, respectively. The residual variances were estimated using the log transformation to guarantee all individual variances to be positive, which is a standard approach in dynamic structural modelling. Emotions (i.e., within-level factor scores of negative and positive emotions) were handled as the within-level variables because they did not have between-level variance. Moreover, as the intercepts of emotions did not differ from zero, they were fixed to zero to simplify the models. All between-level predictors were grand-mean-centred. The secondary models for recalled fathering and mothering styles and effortful control subdimensions of activation, attention, and inhibitory control used the same structure. ER = emotion regulation.

Table 1. Correlations between study variables at between-person level for aggregated data.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
1. Reappraisal	–
2. Suppression	0.55	–
3. Rumination	0.36	0.53	–
4. Negative emotions	0.15	0.35	0.68	–
5. Positive emotions	0.43	0.10	−0.12	−0.16	–
6. Parental warmth	−0.03	−0.12	−0.19	−0.20	0.08	–
7. Parental rejection	0.15	0.12	0.20	0.23	0.15	−0.59	–
8. Parental overcontrol	0.20	0.15	0.17	0.17	−0.04	0.23	−0.01	–
9. Effortful control	−0.03	−0.06	−0.21	−0.30	0.09	0.04	−0.03	−0.19	–
10. Paternal warmth	0.03	−0.09	−0.18	−0.15	0.17	0.90	−0.51	0.16	0.09	–
11. Paternal rejection	0.16	0.15	0.16	0.18	0.10	−0.51	0.93	0.05	−0.07	−0.52	–
12. Paternal overcontrol	0.31	0.22	0.20	0.14	0.04	0.19	0.00	0.92	−0.15	0.17	0.10	–
13. Maternal warmth	−0.07	−0.12	−0.18	−0.24	0.02	0.90	−0.52	0.23	0.03	0.61	−0.37	0.16	–
14. Maternal rejection	0.12	0.07	0.23	0.28	0.15	−0.54	0.92	−0.03	−0.04	−0.40	0.68	−0.08	−0.55	–
15. Maternal overcontrol	0.11	0.05	0.12	0.14	−0.09	0.22	0.02	0.92	−0.18	0.12	0.03	0.68	0.26	0.03	–
16. Activation control	0.06	0.01	−0.23	−0.25	0.18	0.11	−0.03	−0.01	0.71	0.16	−0.10	−0.03	0.08	0.00	0.04	–
17. Attention control	−0.04	−0.12	−0.24	−0.32	0.11	0.01	−0.02	−0.19	0.78	0.06	−0.03	−0.11	−0.02	−0.03	−0.23	0.38	–
18. Inhibitory control	−0.10	−0.03	−0.02	−0.11	−0.09	−0.03	−0.03	−0.23	0.71	−0.02	−0.02	−0.19	0.00	−0.05	−0.22	0.14	0.43	–
19. Financial strain	0.06	−0.08	−0.18	−0.21	0.14	0.18	−0.04	0.04	0.19	0.18	−0.07	0.04	0.15	0.01	0.04	0.18	0.10	0.12	–
20. Age	−0.04	−0.02	0.01	−0.02	0.04	−0.55	0.27	−0.18	0.06	−0.42	0.21	−0.07	−0.54	0.24	−0.23	0.03	0.17	−0.05	−0.09	–

Notes. Negative and positive emotions are the between-level Bayesian plausible value factor scores based on the conducted multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (see Supplemental Material 1). The rounding is based on the IEC 60559 standard. In bolded values, p < .050.

Figure 3. Distributions for selection of emotion regulation strategies between participants.

Notes. The black- and grey-colour distributions present the Bayesian plausible value factor scores of participants' emotion regulation strategy intercepts (i.e., selection parameters) in the dynamic structural equation models for negative and positive emotions, respectively. As shown by the density plot lines (black and grey colour), the estimates were highly overlapping between the models. Five hundred imputations were used to estimate the factor scores.

Figure 4. Distributions for effectiveness of emotion regulation implementation between participants.

Notes. The distributions present the Bayesian plausible value factor scores of participants' emotion regulation strategy slopes on the change in the target emotions (i.e., implementation effectiveness parameters) in the dynamic structural equation models for negative (left column with black colour) and positive emotions (right column with grey colour). Five hundred imputations were used to estimate the factor scores.

Table 2. Unstandardised effects of recalled parenting experiences and effortful control on selection of reappraisal and effectiveness of its implementation.

Predictors	Models for negative emotions		Models for positive emotions
	Selection of reappraisal: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Implementation of reappraisal: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Selection of reappraisal: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Implementation of reappraisal: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]
Recalled parenting style model
Effortful control	0.05 [−0.12, 0.22]	−0.02 [−0.07, 0.04]	0.04 [−0.12, 0.20]	0.00 [−0.06, 0.06]
Parental warmth	−0.07 [−0.32, 0.18]	0.08 [0.00, 0.16]	−0.06 [−0.31, 0.19]	−0.07 [−0.17, 0.03]
Parental rejection	0.15 [−0.15, 0.46]	0.04 [−0.05, 0.14]	0.20 [−0.12, 0.52]	−0.01 [−0.12, 0.10]
Parental overcontrol	0.23 [−0.05, 0.50]	−0.03 [−0.11, 0.05]	0.21 [−0.07, 0.48]	0.06 [−0.03, 0.15]
Financial strain	0.13 [−0.53, 0.80]	0.10 [−0.12, 0.32]	0.11 [−0.53, 0.76]	−0.16 [−0.42, 0.10]
Age	−0.01 [−0.03, 0.00]	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]	−0.01 [−0.03, 0.00]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.00]
R^2	0.07	0.09	0.07	0.10
Recalled fathering style model
Effortful control	0.02 [−0.15, 0.19]	−0.02 [−0.08, 0.03]	0.02 [−0.15, 0.19]	0.01 [−0.06, 0.07]
Paternal warmth	0.02 [−0.18, 0.22]	0.05 [−0.01, 0.12]	0.00 [−0.20, 0.21]	−0.06 [−0.14, 0.03]
Paternal rejection	0.17 [−0.09, 0.44]	0.01 [−0.07, 0.10]	0.22 [−0.04, 0.48]	0.04 [−0.06, 0.14]
Paternal overcontrol	0.32 [0.09, 0.55]	−0.04 [−0.12, 0.03]	0.31 [0.08, 0.54]	0.06 [−0.02, 0.15]
Financial strain	0.06 [−0.59, 0.73]	0.11 [−0.12, 0.33]	0.05 [−0.61, 0.70]	−0.17 [−0.42, 0.09]
Age	−0.01 [−0.03, 0.00]	−0.02 [−0.08, 0.03]	−0.01 [−0.03, 0.00]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.00]
R^2	0.08	0.08	0.09	0.10
Recalled mothering style model
Effortful control	0.03 [−0.13, 0.19]	−0.01 [−0.07, 0.04]	0.01 [−0.14, 0.16]	0.00 [−0.07, 0.06]
Maternal warmth	−0.12 [−0.33, 0.10]	0.06 [−0.01, 0.14]	−0.09 [−0.30, 0.11]	−0.05 [−0.14, 0.04]
Maternal rejection	0.05 [−0.23, 0.33]	0.04 [−0.06, 0.13]	0.07 [−0.19, 0.33]	−0.02 [−0.13, 0.08]
Maternal overcontrol	0.06 [−0.18, 0.33]	−0.01 [−0.09, 0.06]	0.00 [−0.21, 0.23]	0.03 [−0.06, 0.12]
Financial strain	0.15 [−0.49, 0.82]	0.10 [−0.12, 0.33]	0.11 [−0.49, 0.73]	−0.18 [−0.44, 0.09]
Age	−0.01 [−0.03, 0.00]	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]	−0.01 [−0.03, 0.00]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.00]
R^2	0.06	0.08	0.05	0.08

Notes. Parenting Style Model: N_participants = 122; Fathering Style Model: N_participants = 118; Mothering Style Model: N_participants = 121. The links of recalled parenting styles with effortful control are presented in Table 5. The selection of reappraisal refers to the random intercept of reappraisal (α_2i), and the implementation of reappraisal refers to the random slope of reappraisal on the target emotions (β_2,1i). All parameters presented in Figure 2 were also estimated but are not reported here as these do not concern our research questions. The rounding is based on the IEC 60559 standard. In bolded values, the 95% credible interval (95% CrI) does not contain zero.

Table 3. Unstandardised effects of recalled parenting experiences and effortful control on selection of suppression and effectiveness of its implementation.

Predictors	Models for negative emotions		Models for positive emotions
	Selection of suppression: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Implementation of suppression: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Selection of suppression: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Implementation of suppression: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]
Recalled parenting style model
Effortful control	0.05 [−0.07, 0.17]	0.03 [−0.03, 0.08]	0.03 [−0.10, 0.16]	−0.03 [−0.09, 0.02]
Parental warmth	−0.19 [−0.37, 0.00]	0.00 [−0.08, 0.09]	−0.19 [−0.38, 0.00]	−0.02 [−0.10, 0.06]
Parental rejection	−0.05 [−0.26, 0.17]	0.03 [−0.06, 0.13]	−0.02 [−0.24, 0.21]	−0.03 [−0.12, 0.07]
Parental overcontrol	0.24 [0.06, 0.42]	0.00 [−0.08, 0.07]	0.25 [0.06, 0.43]	0.03 [−0.05, 0.10]
Financial strain	0.02 [−0.48, 0.51]	−0.01 [−0.22, 0.21]	0.05 [−0.46, 0.56]	0.04 [−0.17, 0.25]
Age	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.01]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.00]	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.01]	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]
R^2	0.06	0.05	0.06	0.08
Recalled fathering style model
Effortful control	0.04 [−0.08, 0.17]	0.03 [−0.03, 0.08]	0.03 [−0.10, 0.16]	−0.04 [−0.09, 0.02]
Paternal warmth	−0.11 [−0.26, 0.04]	0.03 [−0.04, 0.09]	−0.11 [−0.27, 0.05]	−0.04 [−0.11, 0.03]
Paternal rejection	−0.01 [−0.20, 0.19]	0.01 [−0.08, 0.10]	0.03 [−0.17, 0.24]	−0.01 [−0.10, 0.08]
Paternal overcontrol	0.24 [0.07, 0.41]	−0.02 [−0.09, 0.06]	0.25 [0.07, 0.42]	0.03 [−0.04, 0.10]
Financial strain	−0.03 [−0.53, 0.47]	0.00 [−0.23, 0.22]	0.00 [−0.51, 0.52]	0.04 [−0.17, 0.25]
Age	0.00 [−0.02, 0.01]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.00]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.01]	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]
R^2	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.08
Recalled mothering style model
Effortful control	0.04 [−0.09, 0.16]	0.03 [−0.02, 0.09]	0.02 [−0.11, 0.14]	−0.04 [−0.09, 0.01]
Maternal warmth	−0.19 [−0.35, −0.02]	−0.03 [−0.10, 0.05]	−0.20 [−0.37, −0.02]	0.02 [−0.05, 0.10]
Maternal rejection	−0.09 [−0.30, 0.12]	0.04 [−0.06, 0.13]	−0.06 [−0.28, 0.16]	−0.02 [−0.11, 0.08]
Maternal overcontrol	0.17 [0.00, 0.34]	0.01 [−0.06, 0.09]	0.17 [0.00, 0.35]	0.01 [−0.06, 0.08]
Financial strain	0.04 [−0.47, 0.54]	0.00 [−0.22, 0.22]	0.06 [−0.45, 0.58]	0.02 [−0.19, 0.23]
Age	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.01]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.00]	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.01]	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]
R^2	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.09

Notes. Parenting Style Model: N_participants = 122; Fathering Style Model: N_participants = 118; Mothering Style Model: N_participants = 121. The links of recalled parenting styles with effortful control are presented in Table 5. The selection of suppression refers to the random intercept of suppression (α_2i), and the implementation of suppression refers to the random slope of suppression on the target emotions (β_2,1i). All parameters presented in Figure 2 were also estimated but are not reported here as these do not concern our research questions. The rounding is based on the IEC 60559 standard. In bolded values, the 95% credible interval (95% CrI) does not contain zero.

Table 4. Unstandardised effects of recalled parenting experiences and effortful control on selection of rumination and effectiveness of its implementation.

Predictors	Models for negative emotions		Models for positive emotions
	Selection of rumination: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Implementation of rumination: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Selection of rumination: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]	Implementation of rumination: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]
Recalled parenting style model
Effortful control	−0.03 [−0.10, 0.06]	0.02 [−0.06, 0.10]	−0.03 [−0.11, 0.05]	−0.04 [−0.10, 0.03]
Parental warmth	−0.14 [−0.26, −0.02]	−0.04 [−0.15, 0.07]	−0.09 [−0.21, 0.04]	0.00 [−0.10, 0.10]
Parental rejection	−0.02 [−0.17, 0.12]	−0.01 [−0.14, 0.12]	0.01 [−0.13, 0.16]	−0.02 [−0.13, 0.10]
Parental overcontrol	0.07 [−0.04, 0.19]	0.00 [−0.11, 0.11]	0.06 [−0.06, 0.18]	0.02 [−0.07, 0.11]
Financial strain	−0.26 [−0.58, 0.06]	0.04 [−0.27, 0.34]	−0.28 [−0.59, 0.04]	−0.04 [−0.30, 0.22]
Age	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.00]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.01]	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.00]	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]
R^2	0.07	0.04	0.06	0.06
Recalled fathering style model
Effortful control	−0.02 [−0.10, 0.06]	0.02 [−0.06, 0.10]	−0.02 [−0.10, 0.06]	−0.03 [−0.10, 0.03]
Paternal warmth	−0.11 [−0.21, −0.01]	0.01 [−0.09, 0.10]	−0.08 [−0.18, 0.02]	−0.04 [−0.12, 0.05]
Paternal rejection	−0.04 [−0.16, 0.09]	0.00 [−0.12, 0.12]	0.01 [−0.12, 0.14]	−0.03 [−0.13, 0.08]
Paternal overcontrol	0.10 [−0.01, 0.20]	0.00 [−0.10, 0.11]	0.08 [−0.03, 0.19]	0.02 [−0.07, 0.11]
Financial strain	−0.26 [−0.57, 0.06]	0.02 [−0.29, 0.33]	−0.26 [−0.56, 0.05]	−0.03 [−0.30, 0.24]
Age	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.00]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.01]	−0.01 [−0.01, 0.00]	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]
R^2	0.07	0.03	0.06	0.06
Recalled mothering style model
Effortful control	−0.03 [−0.11, 0.05]	0.02 [−0.06, 0.10]	−0.03 [−0.11, 0.05]	−0.04 [−0.11, 0.02]
Maternal warmth	−0.09 [−0.20, 0.02]	−0.06 [−0.17, 0.04]	−0.06 [−0.17, 0.06]	0.04 [−0.06, 0.13]
Maternal rejection	0.02 [−0.12, 0.16]	−0.03 [−0.16, 0.10]	0.02 [−0.12, 0.17]	0.00 [−0.11, 0.11]
Maternal overcontrol	0.04 [−0.07, 0.15]	0.00 [−0.10, 0.10]	0.03 [−0.09, 0.14]	0.01 [−0.07, 0.10]
Financial strain	−0.29 [−0.61, 0.04]	0.06 [−0.25, 0.37]	−0.29 [−0.61, 0.03]	−0.06 [−0.33, 0.20]
Age	−0.01 [−0.02, 0.00]	0.00 [−0.01, 0.01]	−0.01 [−0.01, 0.00]	0.00 [0.00, 0.01]
R^2	0.06	0.05	0.05	0.07

Notes. Recalled Parenting Style Model: N_participants = 122; Recalled Fathering Style Model: N_participants = 118; Recalled Mothering Style Model: N_participants = 121. The links of recalled parenting styles with effortful control are presented in Table 5. The selection of rumination refers to the random intercept of rumination (α_2i), and the implementation of rumination refers to the random slope of rumination on the target emotions (β_2,1i). All parameters presented in Figure 2 were also estimated but are not reported here as these do not concern our research questions. The rounding is based on the IEC 60559 standard. In bolded values, the 95% credible interval (95% CrI) does not contain zero.

Table 5. Unstandardised effects of recalled parenting experiences on effortful control.

Predictors	Effortful control: Posterior Mdn [95% CrI]
Recalled parenting style model
Parental warmth	0.13 [−0.15, 0.40]
Parental rejection	0.02 [−0.30, 0.34]
Parental overcontrol	−0.28 [−0.55, −0.02]
Financial strain	0.74 [0.01, 1.46]
Age	0.01 [−0.01, 0.03]
R^2	0.07
Recalled fathering style model
Paternal warmth	0.13 [−0.10, 0.36]
Paternal rejection	0.01 [−0.27, 0.30]
Paternal overcontrol	−0.22 [−0.46, 0.02]
Financial strain	0.62 [−0.12, 1.35]
Age	0.01 [−0.01, 0.03]
R^2	0.06
Recalled mothering style model
Maternal warmth	0.09 [−0.16, 0.34]
Maternal rejection	0.00 [−0.31, 0.31]
Maternal overcontrol	−0.25 [−0.50, 0.00]
Financial strain	0.76 [0.03, 1.49]
Age	0.01 [−0.01, 0.03]
R^2	0.06

Notes. Parenting Style Model: N_participants = 122; Fathering Style Model: N_participants = 118; Mothering Style Model: N_participants = 121. These results were identical for the models concerning each ER strategy and negative and positive emotions. The rounding is based on the IEC 60559 standard. In bolded values, the 95% credible interval (95% CrI) does not contain zero.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R93SW.