Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Affective Disorders

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jad

Research paper

The relationship of recalled adverse parenting styles with maladaptive T

schemas, trait anger, and symptoms of depression and anxiety
Rosalyn Shutea, , Monica Maudb, Angus McLachlanc
⁎

a
College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, PO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, South Australia
b
Private Psychology Practice, Victoria, Australia
c
Federation University, Victoria, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Background: Young's contention that early maladaptive schemas mediate the relationship between adverse
Anger parenting and later emotional difficulties has been lrttle tested. Also, most relevant research focuses only on
Anxiety depression, and on maternal parenting.
Depression Methods: One hundred and fifty-five non-clinical adults completed the Young Parenting Inventory (YPI) re-
Parenting styles
garding both their mothers and fathers, Young's Schema Questionnaire (YSQ), the State/Trait Anger Scale
Maladaptive schemas
(STAS) and the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21).
Results: Young's suggested 17-factor YPI structure was not supported. Rather, participants differentiated be-
tween recalled paternal and maternal parenting, with rejecting and controlling components emerging for each
parent. There was an indirect effect of rejecting fathering on symptoms of depression, via the social isolation
schema, in support of Young's theory. However, despite some significant relationships between parenting and
schemas, and schemas and emotions, most effects of parenting on emotions were direct. Rejecting fathering had
a direct positive effect on trait anger, and controlling mothering on symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Controlling fathering had a negative effect on anxiety symptoms.
Limitations: The study was cross-sectional, limited to participants in a single city, and had a preponderance of
female respondents.
Conclusions: Most effects of adverse parenting seem to be direct rather than operating through schemas.
Prevention through early parenting programs, and adult cognitive therapies that draw on a broad range of
schemas, seem to be called for.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Depression, anxiety, and trait anger are emotional difficulties that
constitute serious problems for individuals and communities.
Depression and anxiety are high incidence mental health problems. For
example, 6.7% of US adults had at least one major depressive episode in
2016 (NIMH, 2017a), while almost a third experience an anxiety dis-
order at some stage (NIMH, 2017b). The economic impact of major
depression alone is estimated at $210.5 billion per year
(Greenberg et al., 2015). Trait anger – a tendency toward expressing
anger in uncontrolled and non-constructive ways – does not attract a
diagnosis of mental ill health. However, it results in frequent negative
consequences and plays an important role in societal problems such as
family violence (e.g., Deffenbacher et al., 1996; Wolf and Foshee,
2003). Understanding how such emotional difficulties arise is crucial
for prevention and intervention efforts.
Building upon Beck's (1976) cognitive model of psychopathology,
Young (1990) theorized that such emotional difficulties originate in
childhood experiences of ‘toxic’ parenting that lead to the development
of early maladaptive schemas (EMS) that act as a negative blueprint for
later perceptions of the world. These schemas were proposed to arise
‘from an interaction of the child's innate temperament with dysfunc-
tional developmental experiences with family members or caregivers’
(Young et al., 2001, p. 270), and to in turn give rise to disordered af-
fective and personality states (Young, 1990; Young et al., 2001).
Although not fully elaborating his model, Young implied that
schemas play a mediating role in the relationship between parenting
style experienced and later emotional difficulties. He surmised that

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ros.shute@flinders.edu.au (R. Shute), a.mclachlan@federation.edu.au (A. McLachlan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.048
Received 25 February 2019; Received in revised form 26 June 2019; Accepted 17 August 2019
Available online 19 August 2019
0165-0327/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Shute, et al. Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

Table 1 may lead to personality disorder in adulthood (Johnson et al., 2006).

Young's proposed parenting styles and corresponding maladaptive schemas. Studies have also shown relationships between cognitions and depres-
Young Parenting Inventory styles Young maladaptive schemas sion or anxiety (e.g., Beck, 1976; Cole et al., 2001; Gerlsma et al., 1990;
Golin et al., 1981; Ingram and Ritter, 2000; Maud et al., 2012). Re-
———– social isolation viewing the literature that has focused specifically on Young's theory,
emotional deprivation emotional deprivation
Oei and Baranoff (2007) concluded that depression, in particular, has
abandonment abandonment
mistrust/abuse mistrust/abuse
been shown to be linked to numbers of Young's proposed maladaptive
vulnerability to harm vulnerability to harm schemas, including insufficient self-control and social alienation.
defectiveness/shame defectiveness/shame Only one previous study has examined all three emotional diffi-
failure to achieve failure to achieve culties of interest here, in relation to Young's schemas.
subjugation subjugation
Maud et al. (2012) found that depression was associated with the
self-sacrifice self-sacrifice
dependence/incompetence functional dependence schemas of social alienation and enmeshment. Anxiety was associated
unrelenting standards unrelenting standards with vulnerability, which is in accord with Beck's (1976) view of an-
entitlement entitlement xiety as concerning imminent harm or loss. Trait anger showed greater
insufficient self-control insufficient self-control
complexity, being associated with schemas of mistrust/abuse, entitle-
enmeshment enmeshment
emotional inhibition emotional inhibition
ment, abandonment, subjugation and insufficient self-control. No other
punitiveness punitiveness studies have examined anger in relation to Young's schemas,
negativity/pessimism ———– A few studies do suggest a mediating role for some schemas, for
approval-seeking ———– example, in the relationship between recalled parenting and eating
pathology (Sheffield et al., 2009), and in that between both parental
care and overprotection, and depression (Harris and Curtain, 2002).
each maladaptive schema arises from a particular style of adverse
Haugh et al. (2017) identified a handful of other studies providing
parenting that fails to meet a child's emotional needs. For example,
support for schema mediation, particularly in the relationship between
children of critical parents may become overly sensitive to failure,
mothers’ parenting and offspring depression (e.g., Lumley and
while those of rejecting parents may become overly sensitive to aban-
Harkness, 2007). Young and collaborators recently identified certain
donment (Young, 1990).
schemas as mediating the relationship between aspects of recalled
Based on his clinical experience with adults, Young developed a
parenting and feelings of vulnerability in adulthood (Bach et al., 2018).
retrospective questionnaire, the Young Parenting Inventory, or YPI,
Their findings suggest that remembered adverse parenting might well
about adverse parenting experienced while growing up. In keeping with
be linked to certain maladaptive schemas which in turn are related to
his maladaptive schemas, Young proposed 17 parenting factors char-
current specific emotional difficulties in adults.
acterized by, for example, emotional deprivation, abandonment, mis-
The Haugh et al. (2017) study is the only one to date to include all
trust/abuse, vulnerability to harm and defectiveness/shame (see
aspects of Young's model, including not only schemas as mediators of
Table 1 for a complete list). However, a factor analysis of this instru-
the relationship between recalled (maternal) parenting and depression,
ment found only nine styles, common to both parents: emotionally
but also offspring temperament as a moderator of this relationship.
depriving; overprotective; belittling; perfectionist; pessimistic/fearful;
They found that schemas concerned with disconnection/rejection and
controlling; emotionally inhibited; punitive; and conditional/narcis-
impaired autonomy mediated the relationship between recalled par-
sistic (Sheffield et al., 2005). Even with nine parenting styles, Young's
enting and current depression, but only weak evidence that tempera-
approach contrasts with the main body of developmental research on
ment acts as a moderator. The potential mediating role of maladaptive
how parenting affects psychosocial outcomes for children. Much re-
schemas in the relationship between recalled parenting and a broader
search supports the existence of only four parenting styles, the less
range of current emotional difficulties has not been examined pre-
optimal, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved styles, and the op-
viously, and is the subject of the present study.
timal, authoritative style, (Baumrind, 1991), with effects that extend
An additional feature of the present study is that we examined re-
into adulthood (e.g., Gersho, 1999). Given the complexity of the
called parenting by fathers, as well as mothers. Bach et al. (2018) did so
structure of Young's parenting questionnaire, this was explored in the
in their mediation study, but did not report any major differences.
present study prior to utilizing it in further analyses.
Haugh et al. (2017) examined mothers’ parenting only, suggesting that
The YPI factors Young proposed broadly paralleled those of his
it would be useful in future to examine the role of recalled fathers’
Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ) (Young, 1990) that assessed 15
parenting when they had been the primary caregivers. However, it is
(later, 16) schemas, again derived from his clinical work with adults
not necessary for a parent to be a primary caregiver to affect offspring
(Table 1). He also devised a form of therapy (schema therapy, seen as a
outcomes. For example, low contact coupled with low father support
form of ‘limited re-parenting’) for personality disordered individuals,
after divorce is associated with later offspring internalizing and ex-
aimed at changing any unhelpful core beliefs (Bach et al., 2018). Al-
ternalizing problems (Elam et al., 2015). Retrospective parenting style
though there is preliminary evidence for the efficacy of the therapy for
studies show effects that may be similar between mothers and fathers in
mood and anxiety disorders (Hawke and Provencher, 2011) and bor-
some respects, but different in others (Olivari et al. (2018), so it is
derline personality disorder (Farrell et al., 2009), the underlying theory
important to examine both. In practical terms, a greater understanding
– that particular styles of adverse parenting give rise to specific schemas
of fathers’ parenting styles may be valuable for therapy with their
which in turn predispose the individual to pathology – has been little
children (Balottin et al., 2017).
examined.
Many studies, taken together, are suggestive that schemas may
1.2. Aims
mediate the relationship between parenting experienced and emotional
outcomes, but most only examine parts of the suggested process. For
A To explore the psychometric properties of the Young Parenting
example, there are relationships between parenting and offspring
Inventory (YPI).
emotions (Baumrind, 1971, 1989; Neuharth, 1998), and between
B To confirm the structure of the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ).
childhood experiences and adult depression or anxiety (Beck, 1976;
C To examine the relationship between YPI styles and YSQ schemas.
Gerlsma et al., 1990; Ingram and Ritter, 2000; Koeningsberg et al.,
D To examine the interrelationships between adverse parenting styles
2000; Novaco and Chemtob, 2002; Persons and Rao, 1985; Riggs et al.,
and current emotional difficulties.
1992). Longitudinal research has shown that adverse parenting styles
E To test whether maladaptive schemas mediate the relationship

338
R. Shute, et al. Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

Table 2
Items loading on the four parenting style principal components (factors).
Parenting Style Description Example Items

Mother Factors
1. Rejecting Mother
(24 items: M22, M24, M1, M23, M28, M11, M67, M2, M27, M9, M3, M13, M4, Mother was rejecting and abusive. 22. Made me feel unloved or rejected.
M29, M30, M21, M11, M12, M25, M5, M8. M68, M52, M7) 24. Made me ashamed of myself in important
details.
1. Loved me, treated me as someone special.
(Reverse scored)
23. Treated me as if there was something wrong
with me-
28. Expected me to be a failure in life.
11. Abused me physically, emotionally, or
sexually.
2. Controlling Mother
(24 items: M60, M43, M39, M54, M42, M71, M46, M20, M41, M53, M18, M17, Mother was demanding and 60. Had to have everything under control.
M57, M19, M31, M32, M40, M65, M59, M62, M70, M58, M69, M16) controlling. 43. Placed more importance on doing things well
than on having fun or relaxing.
39. Was a perfectionist in many areas; things had
to be ‘just so.’
54. I felt that I didn't have my own sense of
direction while I was growing up.

Father Factors
1. Rejecting Father
(33 Items: F22, F1, F3, F30, F4, F2, F29, F28, F67, F25, F9, F26, F23, F21, F48, Father did not show love to child or 22. Made me feel unloved or rejected.
F24, F5, F7, F47, F27, F11, F68, F57, F10, F49, F52, F40, F51, F13, F8, F12, F59, rejected his child. 1. Loved me, treated me as someone special.
F38, F54)., (Reverse scored)
3. Gave me helpful guidance and direction.
(Reverse scored)
30. Did what he/she wanted, regardless of my
needs.
4. Listened to me, understood me, shared
feelings with me. (Reverse scored)
2. Spent time with me and paid attention to me.
(Reverse scored)
2. Controlling Father
(21 Items: F41, F60, F43, F39, F31, F42, F18, F17, F65, F32. F20, F46, F71, F70, Father was strict and controlling and 41. Had strict, rigid rules of right and wrong.
F15, F66, F69, F19, F14, F72, F53) impatient and task oriented. 60. Had to have everything under control.
43. Placed more importance on doing things well
than on having fun or relaxing.
39. Was a perfectionist in many areas; things had
to be ‘just so.’

between recalled adverse parenting styles and current emotional
difficulties.
1.3. Hypotheses (labelled to correspond with aims)
A. As there is very little (and conflicting) information about the
structure and complexity of the YPI, an exploratory approach will be
taken rather than a confirmatory one, and therefore no hypothesis is
made about its structure.
B.1. A 16-factor structure of the YSQ will be confirmed (i.e., the
original 15 factors plus the newer Punitiveness scale).
C.1. In the event that the YPI factor structure emerges as Young
proposed, each factor will be significantly and positively correlated
with the corresponding YSQ factor (see Table 1).
Provided Hypothesis C.1 is confirmed (that the YPI factors match
those of the YSQ factors), it was expected that the associations be-
tween the three emotional difficulties and maladaptive schemas
identified by Maud et al. (2012) in a similar community sample
would also hold for the YPI factors. Therefore:
D.1. Depressive symptoms will be positively associated with YPI
social alienation and enmeshment.
D.2. Anxiety symptoms will be positively associated with YPI vul-
nerability.
D.3. Trait anger will be positively associated with YPI mistrust/
abuse, entitlement, abandonment, insufficient self-control and sub-
jugation.
Irrespective of the outcome of the exploration of the structure of the
YPI, it was predicted that the relationship between adverse parenting
styles, generally, and the three current emotional difficulties would be
mediated by specific maladaptive schemas as follows (Maud et al.,
2012):
E.1. YSQ social alienation and enmeshment will mediate the re-
lationship between recalled adverse parenting styles and depressive
symptoms.
E.2. YSQ vulnerability will mediate the relationship between re-
called adverse parenting styles and anxiety symptoms.
E.3. YSQ mistrust/abuse, entitlement, abandonment, subjugation
and insufficient self-control will mediate the relationship between
recalled adverse parenting styles and trait anger.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
These were non-clinical adults drawn from university students and
the wider community in a provincial city in Australia, with a population
of 100,000. The sample was sought in non-clinical settings as re-
commended by Garber and Hollon (1991). There were 155 adult par-
ticipants: 37 men (24%), 110 women (74%), and 8 who did not report
their gender. Participants were approached individually in public set-
tings: shops, libraries, canteens, offices, workplaces, tertiary

339
R. Shute, et al.
institutions, and in a soup kitchen (for homeless/ disadvantaged
people). Their ages ranged from 18 – 50 and over, with a median age of
40 years. Twelve indicated that their father had left the family home
permanently during their childhood, and two that their mother had
done so, but all nevertheless completed the YPI for both parents. Thirty
percent reported seeking help in the past for depression, and ten per-
cent for anxiety.
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Parenting measure: Young Parenting Inventory (YPI)
This inventory is scored on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from
‘completely untrue’ to ‘describes him/her perfectly’. The 72 items are
identical for both parents, and some sample items are shown in Table 2.
Young (1990) identified 17 styles of recalled adverse parenting and
related these to the YSQ schemas to which he thought the parenting
gave rise (Table 1). For example, he thought that if parents abandon a
child, either by not being available, or by leaving home, the child will
be likely to develop an Abandonment Schema. Young named the YPI
parenting styles almost identically to the YSQ schemas, though he
omitted Social Isolation and added Negativity and Approval Seeking. A
later factor analysis did not find Young's 17 factors, but only 9 adverse
parenting styles (Sheffield et al., 2005).
2.2.2. Schema measure: Young's Schema Questionnaire (YSQ-S1)
This self-report instrument assesses maladaptive schemas derived
from clinical experience with adults (Young, 1990). Although such
schemas normally operate at an unconscious level, it is assumed that
they can be accessed via self-report (Welburn et al., 2002). The 75-item
short version, scored on a 6-point Likert scale, was used. An example is,
‘I worry that people I feel close to will leave or abandon me’. Responses
range from ‘completely untrue of me’ to ‘describes me perfectly’. The
YSQ has adequate test-retest reliability (Lee et al., 2000; Schmidt et al.,
1995; Stein and Young, 1992) and convergent and discriminant validity
(Schmidt et al., 1995), and good internal consistency (Lee et al., 2000).
Factor analysis of the long (205-item) version has yielded 15 factors
(Lee et al., 2000; Schmidt et al., 1995; Stein, and Young, 1992), as has
the 75-item short form (Welburn et al., 2002) (see Table 1). The short
form is factorially ‘purer’, comprising the five highest loading items for
each factor. The importance of the Dependence and Enmeshment
schemas has been questioned, at least with student samples (Baranoff
et al., 2006; Oei and Baranoff, 2007), and some variability of factor
structure between samples has been observed (Calvete et al., 2005;
Maud et al., 2012). Some researchers (e.g., Calvete et al., 2005) have
identified higher-order clusters of schemas (domains), but these have
not been consistently identified, remain subject to change (e.g.,
Bach et al., 2018), and cause confusion in the literature (Maud et al.,
2012). Therefore, the original, more specific, schemas were used in this
study. This enabled comparison with the findings of Maud et al. (2012),
whose study addressed all three emotional difficulties in a similar
(community) sample. As several studies have supported the 15-factor
model, we sought to confirm this structure through a factor analysis,
with the addition of the Punitiveness scale that Young later proposed
(i.e., 16 factors in all).
2.2.3. Outcome measures
2.2.3.1. State Trait Anger Scale (STAS). The STAS (Spielberger et al.
1970, in Corcoran and Fischer (2000)) includes two 15-item self-report
4-point Likert scales to measure both enduring tendencies (Trait Anger)
and temporal and situational variations in anger (State Anger). Trait
Anger was of interest here, as a potential long-term consequence of
adverse parenting; questions are about how the respondent generally
feels, for example, ‘I am a hot-headed person’. Responses range from
‘almost never’ to ‘almost always’. The scale has good convergent
validity (Corcoran and Fischer, 2000; Riley and Treiber, 1989),
discriminant validity (Deffenbacher, 1992; Riley and Treiber, 1989),
340
Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348
concurrent validity (Spielberger et al., 1985), and internal consistency
(Corcoran and Fischer, 2000). Trait Anger reliability in the present
sample was 0.86 (Cronbach's alpha).
2.2.3.2. Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). The DASS-21
(Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995) has three 4-point Likert scales to
measure symptoms of Depression (e.g., ‘Over the past week, I felt
downhearted and blue’) and Anxiety (e.g., ‘Over the past week, I felt
scared without any good reason’), responses ranging from ‘did not
apply to me at all’ to ‘applied to me very much, or most of the time’.
Stress was not a variable of interest in the study, therefore those items
were omitted. Psychometrically, the scale is valid and reliable
(Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995), with adequate convergent and
discriminant validity (Crawford and Henry, 2003). In the present
sample, Cronbach's alpha was 0.87 for Depression and 0.73 for Anxiety.
2.3. Procedure
After ethics permission was granted by the relevant university au-
thority (institutional review board), participants were approached in-
dividually in public settings and invited to be involved in a study of
emotions. They were provided with written information to assist them
in giving informed consent. Those who agreed to participate were of-
fered a low-value ‘Scratch-and-win’ lottery ticket in acknowledgement
of their effort. They were asked to complete the questionnaire in private
and return it anonymously in a supplied stamped addressed envelope.
2.4. Data analyses
Initially, the structure of the YPI was explored using Principal
Components Analysis (PCA), as there was not a strong enough basis in
the literature to undertake a confirmatory analysis. By contrast, the
structure of the better-established YSQ was examined through
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Descriptive statistics for the STAS
(Trait Anger) and DASS (Depressive and Anxiety symptoms) were cal-
culated. Finally, path analyses were used to examine pathways between
adverse parenting styles and each of the three emotional outcomes, to
test whether schemas acted as mediators in the manner hypothesized.
Data were analyzed using SPSS 23 and AMOS Graphics
(Arbuckle, 2014).
3. Results
3.1. Principal Components Analysis of YPI
Initially, the PCA utilized all responses for both parents (144 items),
using Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization (eigenvalues ≥ 1).
This method seeks to minimize the number of variables which load
highly on each factor (Coakes and Steed, 1999). The model converged
in 26 iterations, producing 15 components with uneven item spread.
Most items loaded on the first five components (scree test). The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was very low
(0.19), indicating that components should not be sought (Coakes and
Steed, 1999).
One of the first two components consisted entirely of items re-
garding the mother, and the other comprised only items concerning the
father. It was therefore decided to analyze mothers’ and fathers’ data
separately. Using Varimax rotation as before, both analyses converged
in three iterations, providing 15 components. The KMO measure for
mothers’ scores was 0.87, and for fathers’ scores 0.89, both ‘meritor-
ious’ levels of sampling adequacy (Coakes and Steed, 1999). Again,
most items loaded onto the first five factors (especially the first two),
numerous lower-order factors consisting of just one item. Considering
the sample size, we decided to retain only two principal components for
each parent, even though this meant losing some of the data on spe-
cificity (i.e., some differences between parents). In addition, we
R. Shute, et al.
Table 3
Characteristics of the four adverse parenting styles, derived from YPI items clustering together in the Principal Components Analysis
(‘common themes’ refers to characteristics shared with at least one other parenting style).
removed all items with weaker extraction scores (below 0.40). With 18
items removed for mother's parenting, the KMO was 0.92. With 15
items removed for father's parenting, it was 0.93.
The PCAs were repeated, seeking two components. For both parents,
the two components could be characterized as Rejecting and Controlling
(Table 2), with many items in common across parents (see Table 3).
There were subtle differences, however, as indicated by the items that
loaded on each. Rejecting Mothers were seen as rejecting and abusive
and tending to see their children as defective, whereas Rejecting Fa-
thers did not show love to, or actively rejected, the child. Controlling
Mothers, while seen as demanding and controlling, were also negative,
whereas Controlling Fathers were seen as strict, controlling, impatient
and task oriented, as well as anxious and judgmental. The four newly-
identified parenting factors (Rejecting and Controlling for each parent)
were used as exogenous factors in the path analyses examining med-
iation.
As Young's posited parenting styles did not emerge, Hypothesis C.1.,
that corresponding YPI and YSQ factors would be correlated, was not
supported. Furthermore, Hypotheses D.1, 2, and 3 were not supported,
as these concerned associations between Young's YPI factors and spe-
cific maladaptive schemas.
3.2. Confirmatory factor analysis of YSQ
Before utilizing the YSQ in the analyses, AMOS was used to confirm
Young's 16-schema model with this sample (see Table 1 for the list of
proposed factors). Many authorities have developed fit indices, and
recommendations vary, but the RMSEA and CFI are commonly used
(Rigdon, 2009). The RMSEA was borderline at 0.08 (0.06 is preferred),
while the fit was very poor as indicated by the CFI of 0.69 (0.9 is ac-
ceptable, and 0.95 preferred). Item reduction has been shown to yield a
better fit for the YSQ (Maud et al., 2012), therefore an alternative
model was tested based on the strongest two items per schema as
341
Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348
previously identified for the 75-item version (Welburn et al., 2002).
There were no prior grounds for selecting any particular two items from
the previously untested Punitiveness scale, so we arbitrarily reduced
the 14 items to 7 by selecting every other item (even numbers). For this
model, RMSEA = 0.06 and CFI = 0.90, and this was regarded as an
acceptable fit, especially as the RMSEA is particularly relevant in con-
firmatory contexts (Rigdon, 2009). Hypothesis B.1 was therefore sup-
ported. Schema scores were calculated based on the items in this model
and used in further analyses.
3.3. Descriptive statistics for STAS and DASS (N = 155)
Total scores were calculated.
Trait Anger M = 23.38, SD = 5.78, skewness = 1.6, possible
range = 15–60, actual range = 15–39.
Depressive symptoms M = 3.22, SD = 3.42, skewness = 1.4, pos-
sible range = 0–20, actual range = 0–16.
Anxiety symptoms M = 2.08, SD = 2.43, skewness = 1.9, possible
range = 0–20, actual range = 0 = 11.
Transformations of the data to address skewness had no appreciable
effects on the distributions, so the original scores were used in further
analyses.
3.4. Path analyses
The relationships between adverse parenting styles, maladaptive
schemas and emotional difficulties were examined using path analyses.
Three recursive path models were developed, one for each emotional
difficulty: Anxiety symptoms, Depressive symptoms, and Trait Anger.
Each model had four exogenous variables, comprising the two mother
(Rejecting and Controlling) and two father (Rejecting and Controlling)
components identified in the PCAs of the YPI. Only four linkages were
possible between these four exogenous variables, because the two
R. Shute, et al.
Fig. 1. Paths from adverse parenting and schemas to Trait Anger
Note: Significant beta values are shown. * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001
Dashed line shows weak indirect effect. Heavy line shows significant direct effect of parenting. The other significant links do not reflect pathways from parenting to
Trait Anger.
mother components were orthogonal, as were the two father compo-
nents. There was a significant correlation between Controlling Father
and Controlling Mother (r = 0.44), and between Rejecting Father and
Rejecting Mother (r = 0.67).
The schemas identified previously for a similar community sample
as significant predictors of each emotional difficulty (Maud et al., 2012)
were selected as potentially endogenous/mediating variables. The
predictor variables were the four identified adverse parenting styles and
maladaptive schemas; the criterion variables were offspring Trait
Anger, Depressive symptoms, or Anxiety symptoms. All path analyses
are reported in terms of standardized scores to make units comparable
across variables (Klem, 1995). The path models supported by the ana-
lyses are shown in Figs. 1–3.
Bach et al. (2018) controlled for participant gender in their analyses
as they observed some significant associations between gender and
schemas, but in the present sample such relations were not apparent,
therefore gender was not included.
3.4.1. Adverse parenting styles in relation to maladaptive schemas
The direct effects of recalled adverse parenting on schemas, as de-
termined by the path analyses, are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that
all parenting styles except Controlling Father directly affected at least
some of the schemas previously found to be associated with each
342
Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348
emotion. Rejecting Father was the only type to be associated with all
three emotional difficulties.
3.4.2. Adverse parenting styles in relation to specific emotional difficulties
The three path analyses also explored the relationships between
mothers’ and fathers’ adverse parenting styles and each emotional dif-
ficulty (Table 5). Rejecting Father positively predicted Trait Anger,
while Controlling Father (negatively) and, more strongly, Controlling
Mother (positively), predicted Anxiety symptoms. Controlling Mother
positively predicted Depressive symptoms.
3.4.3. Maladaptive schemas in relation to emotional difficulties
Social Isolation, but not Enmeshment, positively predicted
Depressive symptoms, partially supporting Hypothesis E.1. Hypothesis
E.2 was supported, in that Vulnerability positively predicted Anxiety
symptoms. Three of the five schemas expected to be positive predictors
of Trait Anger (Mistrust/Abuse, Insufficient Self-control and
Entitlement) were confirmed to be so, while Abandonment and
Subjugation were not (Table 6); this partially supported Hypothesis E.3.
3.4.4. Adverse parenting styles in relation to emotional difficulties: total,
direct and indirect effects
The various associations between recalled parenting styles and
R. Shute, et al. Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

Fig. 2. Paths from adverse parenting

and schemas to Depressive symptoms
Note: Significant beta values are
shown. * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, ***
p<.001
Heavy dashed line shows significant
indirect effect. Heavy solid line shows
significant direct effect. The other sig-
nificant links do not reflect paths from
parenting to Depressive symptoms.

Fig. 3. Paths from adverse parenting and schemas to Anxiety symptoms

Note: Heavy line shows direct predictor. Although Rejecting Father is a significant contributor to Vulnerability, this translates to only a weak, non-significant indirect
effect on Anxiety (dashed line). The effect of Controlling Father is negative and direct.

343
R. Shute, et al. Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348

Table 4 emotional difficulties are shown in Table 7, in terms of the direct, the
Direct Effects of Parenting on Schemas: Standardized Regression Weights. indirect or mediated effects, and the total effects of parenting on Trait
YSQ Schemas Rejecting Controlling Rejecting Controlling Anger, Depressive symptoms, and Anxiety symptoms. These figures
Relating to Mother Mother Father Father represent the unique contributions of each parenting style to each of the
Emotions emotional outcomes, taking all schemas of interest together in any one
model. Bootstrapping was used to estimate the significance of the
Trait Ange
Mistrust/Abuse .18 .05 .23* .15
various effects (number of bootstrap samples obtained was 500 for Trait
Insuff. Self- .21* .07 .08 .01 Anger and Depressive symptoms and 200 for Anxiety symptoms).
control For Trait Anger, the only indirect effect was from Rejecting Mother
Abandonment .17 .16 .23* .00 (through the schema of Insufficient Self-control) but it was weak and
Entitlement .20 .03 .00 .18
overall there was no effect of Rejecting Mother. By contrast, there was
Subjugation .21* .21* .12 .05
Depressive symptoms an effect of Rejecting Father on Trait Anger that was mainly direct.
Social Isolation .05 .21* .44*** −0.02 For Depressive symptoms, both Controlling Mother and Rejecting
Enmeshment .00 .43*** .03 −0.11 Father had a significant effect, though this was direct in the case of
Anxiety symptoms
Controlling Mother and indirect in the case of Rejecting Father (through
Vulnerability .12 .09 .34*** .08
the Social Isolation schema).
N = 155; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001. For Anxiety symptoms, Controlling Mother and Rejecting Father
were again significant predictors. The stronger effect was from
Table 5 Controlling Mother, and this was positive and direct, while for
Direct Effects of Parenting on Emotions: Unstandardized and Standardized Rejecting Father there was a direct, but negative, effect.
Regression Weights. The total effect of parenting and schemas accounted for 21% of the
variance in relation to offspring Trait Anger, 30% in relation to
Mother and Father YPI Components B SE B β
Depressive symptoms, and 34% in relation to Anxiety symptoms.
Trait Anger
Rejecting Mother −0.81 .60 −0.14 4. Discussion
Controlling Mother −0.15 .48 −0.03
Rejecting Father 1.44 .59 .26*
Controlling Father .16 .48 .03
4.1. Overview
Depressive symptoms
Rejecting Mother −0.12 .31 −0.04 This study has added to the very limited literature that tests Young's
Controlling Mother .59 .29 .17* theory that maladaptive schemas play a mediating role in the re-
Rejecting Father .20 .34 .06
lationship between recalled adverse parenting styles and emotional
Controlling Father −0.29 .26 −0.09
Anxiety symptoms difficulties in adulthood. Pathways to depression have been given some
Rejecting Mother .15 .22 .06 previous attention (Harris and Curtain, 2002; Haugh et al., 2017), but
Controlling Mother .82 .18 .34*** we expanded the range of emotions to also include anxiety and trait
Rejecting Father .12 .23 .05 anger, which also have a significant impact on individuals and com-
Controlling Father −0.41 .18 −0.17*
munities. We found relatively little evidence for a mediational process,
N = 155; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001. but rather for direct effects of parenting on emotions. Our findings
highlight the importance of considering adverse parenting by fathers, as
well as by mothers. We also added to the sparse body of available
Table 6 psychometric information on the Young Parenting Inventory (YPI).
Total Effect of Schemas on Trait Anger and Depressive and Anxiety symptoms: In the following discussion, the qualities of the YPI inventory and
Standardized Regression Weights. the styles of parenting it discerned are first examined. Then the inter-
YSQ schema Trait Anger Depressive symptoms Anxiety symptoms relationships between adverse parenting styles, maladaptive schemas
and emotional outcomes are explored. Finally, there is some discussion
Mistrust/Abuse .22* of Young's overall model and implications for early emotional devel-
Insuff. Self-control .17*
opment and clinical practice.
Abandonment .05
Entitlement .17*
Subjugation .01 4.2. Young's Parenting Inventory
Social Isolation .48***
Enmeshment .00
Young's 17-factor model of parenting styles did not emerge. Rather,
Vulnerability .43***
participants distinguished between mothers’ and fathers’ parenting,
N = 155; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001. with two main components obtained for each: Rejecting Mother and
Controlling Mother, and Rejecting Father and Controlling Father.

Table 7
Total, Direct and Indirect (Total minus Direct) Effects of Parenting on Emotional difficulties: Standardized Regression Weights.
Variable Trait Anger Depressive symptoms Anxiety symptoms
Exogenous Variables Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Rejecting Mother −0.03 −0.15 0.12* −0.01 −0.04 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.06
Controlling Mother 0.01 −0.03 0.04 0.27** 0.17* 0.10 0.38** 0.34* 0.04
Rejecting Father 0.33** 0.26* 0.08 0.27** 0.06 0.21** 0.20* 0.05 0.15
Controlling Father 0.09 0.03 0.06 −0.09 −0.09 −0.01 −0.13 −0.17* 0.04

N = 115; * p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p<.001.

344
R. Shute, et al.
A general feature of all the adverse parenting styles, as indicated by
the associated YPI items, was that their children saw them as critical
and selfish. Rejecting parents were seen as abusive, cruel, blaming, and
judgmental or, more moderately, as unaffectionate, dismissive, un-
loving and not interested in their children, and did not want to spend
time with them. Rejecting parents were also described in terms of at-
tributes such as laxity, moodiness, unpredictability, and being caught
up in their own emotions. In addition, rejecting fathers were seen as
unsupportive, remote, exploitative, and undisciplined, and rejecting
mothers as hurtful, self-absorbed, neglectful, and cold. The low
warmth, responsiveness and control of these parents is reminiscent of
Baumrind's (1989) category of uninvolved or neglecting/rejecting
parents.
Controlling parents were seen as demanding, controlling and im-
patient, as well as undermining, fearful, competitive, and status-
seeking. In addition, controlling fathers were seen as angry, impatient,
punitive and enmeshed, and controlling mothers as overpowering,
pessimistic and conservative. Both shared some of the characteristics of
Baumrind's (1989) authoritarian parents. They were, further, perceived
as somewhat anxious and fearful, which could explain their strong need
for control. For instance, controlling fathers were overprotective, per-
haps fearing their children would not manage alone, or might get hurt,
and also feared that their children might reflect badly on them. Con-
trolling parents were seen as concerned about whether they were ‘good
enough’, suggesting that their need for control arose from anxiety,
particularly regarding their relationships with others. Such anxious
behavior appears similar to that found in some categories of
Neuharth's (1998) controlling parents. Neuharth's observation that
controlling families are run to please or protect one or both parents,
rather than to foster children's optimal development, may be pertinent.
While there were a few shared characteristics between rejecting and
controlling parents, rejecting fathers and controlling mothers were
characteristically recalled as negative and overpowering, and these
parenting styles seem to be especially powerful in terms of their chil-
dren's emotional difficulties.
4.3. Parenting styles in relation to schemas and emotions
Adverse parenting styles and maladaptive schemas together ac-
counted for a considerable amount of variance in all three offspring
emotions, and both parenting and schemas made significant contribu-
tions. Perhaps paradoxically, however, there was relatively little evi-
dence that specific schemas mediated between recalled parenting and
offspring emotions, as Young's theory implies. This finding indicates the
importance of testing the theory as a whole (parenting, schemas and
emotional difficulties), as demonstrations of strong links between par-
enting and schemas, or between schemas and emotions, do not in
themselves amount to support for the theorized developmental pro-
cesses that underlie schema therapy.
There is one finding of this study that offers some support for
Young's theory, and that is in the case of symptoms of depression, the
emotional difficulty subject to most attention in previous research, and
found to be predicted by controlling parenting (e.g., Epkins and
Heckler, 2011; Soenens et al., 2005). In the present study, while con-
trolling mothering had a direct effect on depressive symptoms, the ef-
fect of fathering was indirect, via the schema concerned with social
isolation, and it was rejecting, not controlling, fathering that had this
effect. As we have noted, these two parenting styles do share the fea-
tures of being critical and overpowering. Haugh et al. (2017) found that
the higher-order schema domains of disconnection/rejection and im-
paired autonomy mediated between three selected parenting (mo-
thering) styles and offspring depression. Although that study and the
present one did not take the same approach to examining either par-
enting or schemas, themes of social disconnection and lack of autonomy
are common to both. Called by various names, these themes of con-
nectedness and power have been identified in a great deal of research as
345
Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348
the two major dimensions underlying interpersonal behaviors and
traits, including autobiographical memory and psychological problems
(e.g., Locke, 2003). These themes are also evident in analyses of society
more broadly, most prominently in Durkheim's notions of power and
solidarity (see, for example, Rueschemeyer, 1994). The present findings
on recalled parenting can therefore be theoretically linked to a large
and diverse body of previous research.
The only other indirect effect was a weak effect of rejecting mo-
thering on trait anger, through the schema of insufficient self-control.
However, this was offset by a nonsignificant direct effect such that,
overall, rejecting mothering did not contribute to trait anger.
Although the mediating effects suggested by Young's theory were
largely absent from this study, we did confirm that recalled adverse
parenting is associated with numbers of schemas previously found to be
associated with emotional difficulties (Maud et al., 2012). Recalling a
father as rejecting was associated with a sense of mistrust, abandon-
ment, social isolation and vulnerability, while recalling a controlling
mother was associated with subjugation, social isolation and enmesh-
ment. A rejecting mother tended to be associated with subjugation and
insufficient self-control. Although the parenting styles are not those
nominated by Young, these results are consistent with Young's claim
that different styles of parenting affect offspring cognitive development
differentially.
Furthermore, numbers of schemas were predictive of emotional
difficulties. In the case of trait anger, these were mistrust, insufficient
self-control and a sense of entitlement. Depressive symptoms were
strongly predicted by social isolation and anxiety by vulnerability, as
found in previous studies. However, with one exception, these schemas
did not act as clear mediators of the relationship between parenting and
emotions. Rather, several direct effects of parenting emerged: recalling a
mother as controlling and, to a lesser extent, recalling a father as low in
control was predictive of anxiety symptoms; recalling a father as re-
jecting was predictive of trait anger; and recalling a mother as con-
trolling was predictive of depressive symptoms.
Controlling parenting had opposing maternal and paternal effects
on anxiety. Maternal over-control may often be a form of over-protec-
tion, resulting from maternal anxiety; anxious mothers tend to have
inhibited and anxious children (e.g., Manassis et al., 1995); the child-
reported anxiety and pessimism of these mothers in the present study
may have set up their children to expect the worst. By contrast, over-
control by fathers had a slight negative effect on offspring anxiety. These
effects are perhaps explicable by stereotypical parenting roles and
children's expectations. Possibly by the age of four (Weinraub et al.,
1984), and certainly by seven, most children are aware of social roles,
such as the ‘mother role’ and the ‘father role,’ either through stories,
play, the media, or experience of other families (Goldman and
Goldman, 1983; Weinraub et al., 1984). Children are acculturated to
expect mothers to provide nurturance, and fathers to provide control.
As mothers typically take the primary caring role, their overcontrol may
have a strong inhibitory effect on children's confidence, while a father's
overcontrol may be a signal to the child that their father is at least
involved and protective of them. This suggests the involvement of
schemas about parenting that do not form part of Young's system.
Previous studies have shown a link between controlling parents and
anger. For example, Tronick et al. (1982) showed that mothers who
were overly controlling of their infants and persistently engaged with
them, produced stressed offspring who showed insecure-resistant at-
tachment patterns and, when in separation situations, were angry and
rejecting of their mothers, but there was no evidence for such an as-
sociation in the present study. Rather, it was recalling a father as re-
jecting that was associated with anger. A rejecting mother did not have
this effect, perhaps because expressing anger toward the parent on
whom one depends most directly is counterproductive in driving her
further away; while the child is likely to experience subjugation in the
face of a mother who is either rejecting or controlling, this did not
translate to emotional difficulties in adulthood, in this study. The
R. Shute, et al.
finding of distinctive effects of mothers’ and fathers’ adverse parenting
was not suggested by Young, but is consistent with previous research
showing that mothers exert specific influences on their 6-year old
children's cognitive behavior and school performance (Coates and
Lewis, 1984), and that fathers have specific effects on children's emo-
tional and cognitive behavior (Elam et al., 2015; Hannum, 2004).
4.4. Explaining the effects of adverse parenting styles
If, as this study suggests, the effects of adverse parenting on emo-
tional difficulties (in the case of anxiety symptoms and trait anger) and
of mothering on offspring depressive symptoms, are not mediated
through the schemas, as Young suggested they are, how are we to ac-
count for the direct effects of parenting on emotions? One possibility is
that the reduced numbers of items in the schemas, while representative
of the constructs as based on previous research and the confirmatory
factor analysis, may have eliminated some items of particular relevance
to mediation. Furthermore, the schemas examined in this study were
deliberately limited to those previously found to be associated with the
three emotional difficulties in a similar community sample (Maud et al.,
2012), and there may be others of Young's schemas, or other schemas
such as those about parenting roles, as mentioned previously, that could
potentially act as mediators.
Alternatively, the direct effects of parenting could be the result of
preverbal (classical) conditioning (Young et al., 2003) of emotional
responses in the face of an overpowering parent's tone or volume of
voice, facial expressions, or other body language (Wehrenberg and
Prinz, 2007), such that later encounters with these behaviors trigger the
emotion in the absence of intervening cognitions.
Another way of looking at the early establishment of emotional
repertoires is in terms of dynamic systems theory (Thelen and
Smith, 1994). This places emphasis on the ongoing interactions be-
tween the child, parent and other aspects of the environment, in an
iterative fashion. Infants show a range of proto-emotional expressions,
but negative emotions are not differentiated, and sensitive parents use
general indicators of distress in combination with contextual clues to
work out how to soothe an infant and address their needs
(Mesman et al., 2012). Overpowering parents would lack this sensi-
tivity, not playing well their part in the ongoing infant-parent ‘dance’
that would soothe an infant experiencing distress and help them to
learn self-regulation of emotions. Under this theory, while the child
may later develop certain schemas related to the adverse parenting they
receive, these may not be a necessary part of the path to emotional
difficulties, as the framework for these has already been laid down. At
this stage of development the physiological structure of the developing
brain is likely to be heavily influenced by experiences (Schore, 2003;
Schuengel et al., 1999), in accord with a neurocontructivist perspective
(Karmiloff-Smith, 2012). Perhaps high stress levels resulting from fre-
quent rejecting and controlling parental behaviors result in long-term
effects with clear changes in structure which are not subsequently
modified — changes such as parcelation when particular neurons in a
child's brain are destroyed by stressful experiences (LeDoux, 1996).
4.5. Clinical implications
The present findings suggest that schema therapy would often be
best focused on schemas shown to be directly associated with emotional
difficulties, rather than assuming a causal role for early parenting in the
development of the relevant schemas. The majority of variance in
emotional difficulties remains unaccounted for by either Young's
schemas or adverse parenting, and non-parental influences, such as
from peers, other adults and the media, come to influence schemas in
childhood and adolescence. For example, gendered schemas about the
self in relation to others account for half the variance in adolescent
girls’ depression (Tolman et al., 2006), so exploration of a wider range
of influences on emotion-related schemas is important.
346
Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348
As for the possible early direct influences of adverse parenting on
emotional difficulties, prevention seems to be the key here. An effective
intervention to promote more sensitive parenting in the early years is
the bug-in-the-ear system, whereby the therapist watches parent and
child interact from behind a one-way screen, and guides the parent, via
a small speaker in the ear, to notice and respond appropriately to the
child's behavior (e.g., Thomas and Herschell, 2013). The present results
suggest that it would be important to include fathers as well as mothers
in such programs. Dynamic systems theory suggests that, as a parent
becomes more responsive and more able to elicit rewarding behaviors
from their small child, a more positive developmental cascade could be
set in motion.
4.6. Limitations and future research
An important methodological issue was how to assess parenting
retrospectively. This is a perennial problem because there can be dif-
ferences in what parents and offspring report, particularly on the issue
of whether or not parents used physical aggression toward their chil-
dren (Jouriles et al., 1997). However, as in most time limited studies,
where a longitudinal design is impractical, the main means available for
exploring the legacy of parenting on adult children are retrospective
and taken from a single reporter, as done, for example, by
Bach et al. (2018) and by Olivari et al. (2018). The models examined in
such studies are ‘causal’ based on theoretical grounds. This entails the
possibility that some of the effects result from hindsight, or are the
product of state dependent memory (Weston, 1999), perhaps favoring
depressing, anxiety-provoking or anger-arousing memories. Likewise,
current adult expectations about fathers’ and mothers’ roles could re-
strict what memories a study participant accesses (Carlson, 1984).
Nevertheless, cross-sectional studies are a useful first stage for testing
theoretical models (Disabato, 2016), and Young's model has been little
examined. Furthermore, a cross-sectional study approach is consistent
with Young's clinical work with adults, which specifically draws upon
their memories and perceptions of their upbringing.
A further limitation of the study is that directional models, such as
Young's, fail to acknowledge that offspring may impact on parents, in
accord with studies of temperament (e.g., Kochanska, 1993) and with
dynamic systems theory.
This was a non-clinical sample, and levels of emotional difficulties
were relatively low. It would therefore be useful to replicate the present
study with a clinical sample. Futhermore, the sample was based in a
single city and had a greater number of female participants (males were
more likely to reject the invitation to participate). A larger sample
would allow a fuller testing of the YPI. Future research could also
compare it formally with other parenting measures such as those of
Baumrind and Neuharth.
We can also note that Young and colleagues’ recently published
study with a mixed clinical/nonclinical sample (Bach et al., 2018) did
find mediation effects, but there were many methodological differences
from Young's earlier work and the present study. As well as adding two
further schemas, they used higher-order schema domains, or clusters, a
reduced number of parenting styles from Young's original formulation,
and an unusual generic outcome measure (‘the vulnerable child’). It is
difficult to relate such a measure to the broader literature based on
well-established measures of emotional difficulties, as was done in the
present study. Theory in this area is therefore evolving, and further
psychometric work is required on the associated instruments.
5. Conclusions
While our results are consistent with the notion that recalled ad-
verse parenting affects offspring schemas, and schemas affect emotional
difficulties, we found little mediating role for schemas with respect to
anxiety symptoms, or for the effect of mothering on depressive symp-
toms, although rejecting fathering had its effect on depressive
R. Shute, et al.
symptoms via the social isolation schema, and rejecting mothering had
a very minor mediated role in trait anger. Effects of adverse parenting
on children's current emotions were mainly direct. Our findings also
suggest that Young's parenting scale (the YPI) may be more parsimo-
niously seen as identifying two types of adverse parenting (Controlling
and Rejecting), rather than 17, though further psychometric analyses
would be valuable. Our results show that it is important not to neglect
the role of fathers in children's psychological development. Indeed, the
only adverse parenting style to have an effect on all three emotional
difficulties was rejecting fathering. Dynamic systems theory and neu-
roconstructivism may help to account for how adverse early parenting
can lead to later emotional difficulties, but a wider range of influences
on emotions also needs to be considered.
Role of funding
This study was unfunded.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Rosalyn Shute: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft. Monica
Maud: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Project admin-
istration. Angus McLachlan: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing
- review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Acknowledgement
We are very grateful to all participants for taking the time to assist
with this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Ethical approval: All procedures were in accordance with the ethical
standards of the national research committee and with the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards. The study was approved by the institutional review board.
Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all in-
dividual participants included in the study.
References
Arbuckle, J.L., 2014. Amos (Version 23.0). [Computer program]. Chicago: IBM SPSS
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Develop. Psychol.
Monogr. 4 (1, pt. 2), 1–103.
Bach, B., Lockwood, G., Young, J., 2018. A new look at the schema therapy model: or-
ganization and role of early maladaptive schemas. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 47 (4),
328–349.
Balottin, L., Mannarini, S., Mensi, M.M., Chiapeddi, M., Gatta, M., 2017. Triadic inter-
actions in families of adolescents with anorexia nervosa and families of adolescents
with internalizing disorders. Front. Psychol. 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.
02046.
Baranoff, J., Oei, T.P.S., Kwon, S., Cho, S., 2006. Factor structure and internal consistency
of the Young schema questionnaire (Short form) in Korean and Australian samples. J.
Affect. Disord. 93, 133–140.
Baumrind, D., 1971. Current patterns of parental authority. Develop. Psychol. Monogr. 4.
Baumrind, D., 1989. Rearing competent children. In: Eamon, W. (Ed.), Child
Development Today and Tomorrow. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 378–439.
Baumrind, D., 1991. The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and
substance use. J. Early Adolesc. 11, 56–95.
Beck, A.T., 1976. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. Penguin, Reading, UK.
Calvete, E., Estevez, A., Lopez de Arroyabe, E., Ruiz, P., 2005. The schema questionnaire -
Short Form: structure and relationship with automatic thoughts and symptoms of
affective disorders. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 21 (2), 90–99.
Carlson, B.E., 1984. The father's contribution to child care: effects on children's percep-
tion of parental roles. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr. 45, 123–136.
Coakes, S.T., Steed, L.G., 1999. SPSS: Analysis Without anguish: Version 7.0, 7.5, 8.0 For
Windows. John Wiley, Brisbane.
Coates, T., Lewis, M., 1984. Early mother-infant interaction and infant cognitive status as
347
Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348
predictors or school performance and cognitive behavior in six-year-olds. Child. Dev.
55, 1219–1230.
Cole, D.A., Jacquez, F., Maschman, T.L., 2001. Social origins of depressive cognitions: a
longitudinal study of self-perceived competence in children. Cognit. Ther. Res. 25,
377–395.
Corcoran, K., Fischer, D., 2000. Measures For Clinical practice: A sourcebook Vol. 2, 3 ed.
Free Press, New York.
Crawford, J.R., Henry, J.D., 2003. The depression anxiety stress scale (DASS): normative
data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 42,
111–131.
Deffenbacher, J.L., 1992. Trait anger: theory, findings, and implications. In: Spielberger,
C.D., Butcher, J.N. (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment 9. Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
NJ, pp. 151–172.
Deffenbacher, J.L., Oetting, E.R., Thwaites, G.A., Lynch, R.S., Baker, D.A., Stark, R.S., …,
Eiswerth-Cox, L., 1996. State-trait anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale.
J. Couns. Psychol. 48 (2), 131–148.
Disabato, D. (2016). The double standard against cross-sectional mediation. Accessed 03.
10.2018 athttp://www.daviddisabato.com/blog/2016/5/22/the-double-standard-
against-cross-sectional-mediation.
Elam, K.K., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., Tein, J., 2015. Non-residential father involvement
with their children, interparental conflict and the mental health of children following
divorce: a person-focused approach. J. Youth Adolesc. 45, 581.
Epkins, C.C., Heckler, D.R., 2011. Integrating etiological models of social anxiety and
depression in youth: evidence for a cumulative interpersonal risk model. Clin. Child
Fam. Psychol. Rev. 14, 329–376.
Farrell, J.M., Shaw, I.A., Webber, M.A., 2009. A schema-focused approach to group
psychotherapy for outpatients with borderline personality disorder: a randomized
controlled trial. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 40 (2), 317–328.
Garber, J., Hollon, S.D., 1991. What can specificity designs say about causality in psy-
chopathology research? Psychol. Bull. 110, 129–136.
Gerlsma, C., Emmelkamp, P.M.G., Arrindell, W.A., 1990. Anxiety, depression, and per-
ception of early parenting: a meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251–277.
Gersho, B.F., 1999. Recalled parental authority and marital quality. Diss. Abstr. Int. Sect.
B: Physi. Sci. Engi. 60 (5–B), 2408.
Goldman, J.D.G., Goldman, R.J., 1983. Children's perceptions of parents and their roles: a
cross-national study in Australia, England, North America, and Sweden. Sex Roles 9
(7), 791–812.
Golin, S., Sweeny, P.D., Schaeffer, D.E., 1981. The causality of causal attributions in
depression: a cross-lagged panel correlation analysis. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 90, 14–22.
Greenberg, P.E., Fournier, A.A., Sisitsky, T., Pike, C.T., Kessler, R.C., 2015. The economic
burden of adults with major depressive disorder in the United States (2005 and
2010). J. Clin. Psychiatry 76, 155–162. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.14m09298.
Hannum, J.W., 2004. Effects of family conflict, divorce, and attachment patterns on the
psychological distress and social adjustment of college freshmen. J. Coll. Stud. Dev.
45, 27–42.
Harris, A.E., Curtain, L., 2002. Parental perceptions, early maladaptive schemas, and
depressive symptoms in young adults. Cognit. Ther. Res. 26 (3), 405–416.
Haugh, J.A., Miceli, M., DeLorme, J., 2017. Maladaptive parenting, temperament, early
maladaptive schemas, and depression: a moderated mediation analysis. J.
Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 39, 103–116.
Hawke, L.D., Provencher, M.D., 2011. Schema theory and schema therapy in mood and
anxiety disorders: a review. J. Cogn. Psychother. 25 (4), 257–276.
Ingram, R.E., Ritter, J., 2000. Vulnerability to depression: cognitive reactivity and par-
ental bonding in high-risk individuals. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 109, 588–596.
Johnson, J.G., Cohen, P., Chen, H., Kasen, S., Brook, J.S., 2006. Parenting behaviors
associated with risk for personality disorder during adulthood. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry
63, 579–587.
Jouriles, E.N., Meta, P., McDonald, R., Francis, D.J., 1997. Psychometric properties of
family members’ reports of parental physical aggression toward clinic-referred chil-
dren. J. Clin. Consult. Psychol. 65 (2), 309–318.
Karmiloff-Smith, A., 2012. Perspectives on the dynamic development of cognitive capa-
cities: insights from Williams syndrome. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 25, 106–111.
Klem, L., 1995. Path analysis. In: Grimm, L.G., Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.), Reading and
Understanding Multivariate Statistics. American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
Kochanska, G., 1993. Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament
in early development of conscience. Child. Dev. 64, 325–347.
Koeningsberg, H.W., Kernberg, O.F., Stone, M.H., Appelbaum, A.H., Yeomans, P.E.,
Diamond, D., 2000. Borderline patients: Extending the Limits of Treatability. Basic
Books, New York.
LeDoux, J.E., 1996. The Emotional Brain. Touchstone, New York.
Lee, C.W., Taylor, G., Dunn, J., 2000. Factor Structure of Schema Questionnaire in a Large
Clinical Sample. Workshop handout, Melbourne, Australia.
Locke, K.D., 2003. Status and solidarity in social comparison: agentic and communal
values and vertical and horizontal directions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84 (3), 619–631.
Lovibond, P.E., Lovibond, S.H., 1995. The structure of negative emotional states: com-
parison of depression, anxiety and stress scales with the beck depression and anxiety
inventories. Behav. Res. Ther. 33, 335–342.
Lumley, M.N., Harkness, K.L., 2007. Specificity in the relations among childhood ad-
versity, early maladaptive schemas, and symptom profiles in adolescent depression.
Cog. Ther. Res. 31 (5), 639–657.
Manassis, K., Bradley, S., Goldberg, S., Hood, J., Swinson, R.P., 1995. Behavioural in-
hibition, attachment and anxiety in children of mothers with anxiety disorders. Can.
J. Psychiatry 40 (2), 87–92.
Maud, M., Shute, R., McLachlan, A., 2012. Cognitive specificity in trait anger, in relation
to depression and anxiety in a community sample. Aust. Psychol. 47, 254–261.
R. Shute, et al.
Mesman, J., Oster, H., Camras, L., 2012. Parental sensitivity to infant distress: what do
discrete negative emotions have to do with it. Attach. Hum. Dev. 14 (4), 337–348.
National Institute of Mental Health, Mental health information, Statistics, Major de-
pression, 2017a, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/major-depression.
shtml, accessed 17.09.2018.
National Institute of Mental Health, Mental health information, Statistics, Any anxiety
disorder, 2017b, https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/any-anxiety-disorder.
shtml, accessed 17.09.2018.
Neuharth, D., 1998. If You Had Controlling parents: How to Make Peace With Your Past
and Take Your Place in the World. Harper Collins, New York.
Novaco, R.W., Chemtob, C.M., 2002. Anger and combat-related posttraumatic stress
disorder. J. Trauma. Stress. 15 (2), 123–152.
Oei, T.P.S., Baranoff, J., 2007. Young schema questionnaire: review of psychometric and
measurement issues. Aust. J. Psychol. 59 (2), 78–86.
Olivari, M.G., Cuccì, G., Bonanomi, A., Tagliabue, S., Confalonieri, E., 2018.
Retrospective paternal and maternal parenting styles, regulatory self-efficacy and
adolescent risk taking. Marriage Fam. Rev. 54 (3), 282–295.
Persons, J.B., Rao, P.A., 1985. Longitudinal study of cognitions, life events, and depres-
sion in psychiatric patients. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 94, 51–63.
Rigdon, E.E., 2009. CFI versus RMSEA: a comparison of two fit indices for structural
equation modeling. Str. Eq. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 3 (4), 369–379.
Riggs, D.S., Dancu, C.V., Gershuny, B.S., Greenberg, D., Foa, E.B., 1992. Anger and post-
traumatic stress disorder in female crime victims. J. Trauma Stress 5, 613–625.
Riley, W.T., Treiber, F.A., 1989. The validity of multidimensional self-report anger and
hostility measures. J. Clin. Psychol. 45 (3), 397–404.
Rueschemeyer, D., 1994. Variations on two themes in Durkheim's division du travail:
power, solidarity and meaning in division of labour. Sociol. Forum 9 (1), 59–71.
Schmidt, N.B., Joiner Jr., T.E., Young, J.E., Telch, M.J., 1995. The schema questionnaire:
investigation of psychometric properties and the hierarchical structure of a measure
of maladaptive schemas. Cognit. Ther. Res. 19 (3), 295–321.
Schore, A., 2003. The human unconscious: the development of the right brain and its role
in early emotional life. In: Green, V. (Ed.), Emotional Development in psychoanalysis,
Attachment Theory and Neuroscience. Bruner-Routledge, Hove, UK.
Schuengel, C., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., Van Ijzendoorn, M.H., 1999. Frightening
maternal behaviour linking unresolved loss and disorganized infant attachment. J.
Consult. Clin. Psychol. 67, 54–63.
Sheffield, A., Waller, G., Emanuelli, F., Murray, J., Meyer, C., 2005. Links between par-
enting and core beliefs: preliminary psychometric validation of the young parenting
inventory. Cognit. Ther. Res. 29 (6), 787–802.
Sheffield, A., Waller, G., Emanuelli, F., Murray, J., Meyer, C., 2009. Do schema processes
mediate links between parenting and eating pathology? Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 17 (4),
290–300.
Soenens, B., Elliot, A.J., Goossens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., 2005. The
348
Journal of Affective Disorders 259 (2019) 337–348
intergenerational transmission of perfectionism: parents’ psychological control as an
intervening variable. J. Fam. Psychol. 19, 358–366.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R.E., 1970. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Spielberger, C.D., Johnson, E.J., Russell, S.F., Crane, R.J., Jacobs, G.A., Wordern, T.J.,
1985. The experience and expression of anger: construction and validation of an
anger expression scale. In: Chensey, M.A., Rosenman, R.H. (Eds.), Anger and Hostility
in Cardiovascular and Behavioral Disorders. Hemisphere, Washington, USA.
Stein, D.J., Young, J.E., 1992. Schema approach to personality disorders. In: Woolfolk,
R.L., Lehrer, P.M. (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Stress Management. Guilford,
London, UK.
Thelen, E., Smith, L.B., 1994. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of
Cognition and Action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Thomas, R., Herschell, A.D., 2013. Parent-child interaction therapy: a manualized in-
tervention for the therapeutic child welfare sector. Child Abuse Negl. 37 (8),
578–584.
Tolman, D.L., Impett, E.A., Tracy, A.J., Michale, A., 2006. Looking good, sounding good:
femininity ideology and adolescent girls’ mental health. Psychol. Women Q. 30,
85–95.
Tronick, E.Z., Ricks, M., Cohn, J., 1982. Maternal and infant affective interchange: pat-
terns of adaptation. In: Field, T., Fogel, A. (Eds.), Emotion and Early Interaction.
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 57–82.
Wehrenberg, M., Prinz, S.M., 2007. The Anxious brain: The neurobiological Basis of
Anxiety Disorders and How to Effectively Treat them. W. W. Norton & Company, New
York.
Weinraub, M., Clemens, L.P., Sockloff, A., Etheridge, T., Gracely, E.J., Myers, B., 1984.
The development of sex role stereotypes in the third year: relationships to gender
labeling, gender identity, sex typed toy preference and family characteristics. Child
Dev. 55, 1493–1503.
Welburn, K., Coristine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., Jordan, S., 2002. The schema ques-
tionnaire-short form: factor analysis and relationship between schemas and symp-
toms. Cognit. Ther. Res. 26, 519–530.
Weston, D., 1999. Psychology, mind, Brain and Culture. John Wiley, New York.
Wolf, K.A., Foshee, V.A., 2003. Family violence, anger expression styles, and adolescent
dating violence. J. Fam. Viol. 18 (6), 309–316.
Young, J., 1990. Cognitive Therapy For Personality disorders: A schema Focused
Approach. Professional Resource Exchange, Inc, Sarasota, FL.
Young, J.E., Klosko, J.S., Weishaar, M.E., 2003. Schema Therapy: A practitioners’ Guide.
Guilford, New York.
Young, J.E., Weinberger, A.D., Beck, A.T., 2001. Cognitive therapy for depression. In:
Barlow, D.H. (Ed.), Clinical Handbook of Psychological disorders: A step-By-Step
Treatment Manual, 3 ed. Guilford, New York, pp. 264–308.