Maladaptive Parenting, Temperament, Early

0 downloads 0 Views 490KB Size Report
aversive parenting and temperament exert their impact on psychopathology via the development of early maladaptive schemas (EMSs). Building on Beck's ...
J Psychopathol Behav Assess DOI 10.1007/s10862-016-9559-5

Maladaptive Parenting, Temperament, Early Maladaptive Schemas, and Depression: A Moderated Mediation Analysis Jim A. Haugh 1 & Matt Miceli 1 & Jenny DeLorme 1

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract According to the Schema Therapy Model, maladaptive parenting styles interact with a child’s unique temperament in the development of early maladaptive schemas (EMSs), which in turn increase one’s risk for developing pathology. However, few authors have examined the comprehensive model. The purpose of this study was to assess the indirect effect of perceived parenting styles on depressive symptoms through EMSs. Furthermore, a series of moderated mediation analyses were conducted to examine whether the indirect effect varies as a function of temperament. A total of 403 undergraduate students completed measures of perceived parenting experiences, temperament, EMSs, and depressive symptoms. Results indicated that the schema domains of disconnection/rejection and impaired autonomy mediated the relationship between perceived parenting styles and depressive symptoms. Moderation of the indirect effect was only found in two of the twelve tested models. This study lends partial support to the Schema Therapy model and also offers a new way of looking at the interactive nature of the constructs. Keywords Schemas . Depression . Parenting . Temperament . Moderated mediation . Early maladaptive schemas A number of risk factors for the development of depressive disorders have been explored within the literature. One factor that has received considerable attention is the role of aversive parenting practices. Research within this area suggests that * Jim A. Haugh [email protected]

1

Department of Psychology, Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill Road, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA

aversive parenting increases vulnerability to the onset and maintenance of depressive symptoms (Harris and Curtain 2002; Avagianou and Zafiropoulou 2008; van Vlierberghe et al. 2007; Valiente et al. 2014). For example, results of a recent meta-analysis suggest that parenting explains a significant, but small amount of the variance in depressive symptoms (McLeod et al. 2007). A second factor that has been explored is the role of temperament. Research within this area suggests that the presence of certain temperamental traits increases vulnerability to the onset and maintenance of depressive symptoms (Watson et al. 2005; Wetter and Hankin 2009). However, similar to the results from studies examining parenting, results from these studies suggest that temperament explains a significant, yet small amount of variance in depressive symptoms. The modest ability of parenting and temperament to predict depressive symptoms in isolation has resulted in more complex mediational models being introduced in the literature in an attempt to more fully explain the relationship between putative factors such as parenting and temperament with depressive symptoms. One such model is Young’s Schema Theory (Young et al. 2003) which suggests that early factors such as aversive parenting and temperament exert their impact on psychopathology via the development of early maladaptive schemas (EMSs). Building on Beck’s (1976) cognitive model of psychopathology, Young defined an EMS as Ba broad, pervasive theme or pattern, comprised of memories, emotions, cognitions, and bodily sensations, regarding oneself and one’s relationships with others, developed during childhood or adolescence, elaborated throughout one’s lifetime and dysfunctional to a significant degree^ (Young et al. 2003, p. 7). Schema theory posits that such negative cognitive patterns develop during childhood as adaptive responses to one’s aversive environment. While the schema may serve as an adaptive defense mechanism to childhood maltreatment, an individual may carry the negative belief into the future where it then

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

becomes maladaptive. Young et al. (2003) identified 18 EMSs and further categorized these 18 EMSs into 5 higher order domains: Disconnection and Rejection (D&R), Impaired Autonomy and Performance (IA&P), Impaired Limits (IL), Other-directedness (OD), and Overvigilance and Inhibition (O&I). Schema theory further proposes that toxic early experiences are the primary origin of EMSs, with aversive parenting styles being one form of toxic early experience (Young et al. 2003). For example, a child who is deprived of emotional nurturing may be at risk for developing a belief that others will not fulfill their desire for emotional connection. Young et al. (2003) identified 17 maladaptive parenting styles which they hypothesized to be related to a corresponding EMS, with the only exception being the social isolation schema which is hypothesized to emerge later in life primarily as the result of experiences related to peer affiliation during adolescence. Although a number of studies have been conducted to examine aspects of schema theory, very few authors have attempted to examine aversive parenting and its role in schema theory using a more comprehensive framework. Thus, the goal of the current study was to examine the role of aversive parenting styles within the context of Young’s schema theory. More specifically, we sought to examine the hypothesis that aversive parenting practices interact with temperament and that the impact of these factors on depressive symptoms is mediated via EMSs.

Empirical Status of Young’s Schema Theory Since the introduction of schema theory, a number of studies have been conducted to examine various hypotheses that can be derived from schema theory. One of the first, and most well researched of these hypotheses is that EMSs are related to depression. Results from numerous studies have supported this theoretical relationship at both the individual schema (Renner et al. 2012; Riso et al. 2007; Oei and Baranoff 2007) and schema domain levels (Lumley and Harkness 2007; Saariaho et al. 2011). Taken together, these studies suggest that the presence of EMSs are a strong predictor of depressive symptoms. A second hypothesis generated by schema theory is that aversive parenting styles will lead to the development of EMSs. Although examined with less frequency, results of this research again support this relationship at both the individual schema (McCarthy and Lumley 2012; Cockram et al. 2010; Mason et al. 2005; Muris 2006; Shah and Waller 2000) and schema domain level (Calvete 2013; Thimm 2010). In addition, a link between parenting and depression has also been established. For example, Epkins and Heckler (2011) conducted a comprehensive review of etiological models of depression and suggested that low parental warmth/acceptance/support,

parental rejection, and controlling/overprotective parenting were all significantly associated with depression (see also McLeod et al. 2007 for a recent meta-analysis). However, the association between aversive parenting and depression tends to be smaller in magnitude than the associations between aversive parenting and EMSs, suggesting that the influence of parenting might be an indirect versus a direct one. A final, and more complex hypothesis derived from schema theory is that EMSs mediate the relationship between aversive parenting and depression. Although studied less extensively than the other hypotheses, the mediational model has received some support (Wright et al. 2009; Roelofs et al. 2011; Lumley and Harkness 2007; Cámara and Calvete 2012; Harris and Curtain 2002). For example, Lumley and Harkness (2007) found that schemas with themes of loss/worthlessness mediated the relationship between childhood adversity and anhedonic symptoms. Additionally, Harris and Curtain (2002) tested the mediation hypothesis using the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker et al. 1979), a self-report measure of parenting which measures two parenting factors- care (e.g., BCould make me feel better when I was upset^) and overprotection (e.g., BDid not want me to grow up^). Results of this study indicated that the defectiveness/shame, insufficient self-control and vulnerability EMSs mediated the relationship between both care and overprotection and depressive symptoms. In addition, the incompetence/inferiority EMS mediated the relationship between care and depressive symptoms, but not between overprotection and depressive symptoms. Taken together, these studies provide strong support for various components of schema theory. However, a number of issues arise when examining this literature. First, various authors have examined schemas at the individual schema level whereas other authors have used schema domains. This makes understanding the relationship between EMSs and other constructs more complex and even confusing at times. Calvete et al. (2013) recently provided a comprehensive review and psychometric evaluation of the Young Schema Questionnaire (YSQ-SF-3; Young and Brown 2003) which was developed by Young and colleagues to measure EMSs. Results supported the initial 18 factor EMS model, but suggested that these 18 EMSs are best organized into three higher order schema domains. More specifically, the 3-factor model included the D&R domain (comprised of the emotional deprivation, mistrust, defectiveness, social isolation, and emotional inhibition schemas), the IA domain (comprised of the abandonment, failure, dependence, vulnerability to harm/illness, enmeshment, subjugation, and insufficient self-control schemas), and a mixed factor domain (comprised of the selfsacrifice, approval seeking, unrelenting standards, negativity, punitiveness, and entitlement schemas). Results from the Calvete’s et al., study are consistent with other investigations of the factor structure of the YSQ (Sarıtaş-Atalar and Gençöz 2015; Calvete et al. 2005). Thus, in the current study, only the

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

D&R and IA&P domains were included. This decision was based on the consistency between the D&R and IA&P domains and other cognitive models of depression such as Beck et al. (1983) sociotropy and autonomy dimensions, both of which have been shown to be related to an individual’s vulnerability to depression (Sato 2003). A second and similar issue in the schema theory literature involves the definition and measurement of parenting within schema theory. Young et al. (2003) initially proposed 17 maladaptive parenting styles which they hypothesized to be related to the 17 corresponding EMSs. However, results from a factor analysis of the Young Parenting Inventory (YPI; Young 1999) yielded a shorter version of the questionnaire (YPI-R) which consisted of nine parenting styles (Sheffield et al. 2005). Results also indicated that these nine parenting styles were significantly correlated with EMSs, although not at the level of specificity suggested by schema theory. Three of these parenting styles (emotionally depriving, belittling, overprotective) strongly correspond to those found by Epkins and Heckler (2011) to be related to depressive symptoms: low parental warmth/acceptance/support, parental rejection, and controlling/overprotective parenting. Hence, in an attempt to provide consistency with previous literature, only the emotionally depriving, belittling, and overprotective parenting styles were included in the current study. A third and final issue in the schema theory literature is that Young et al. (2003) model proposes that a child’s temperament plays an interactive role with parenting in the development of schemas and psychopathology, yet this construct has received little attention throughout the schema literature. Briefly defined, temperament is described as innate and early emerging individual differences in emotional, motor, attentional, and self-regulation processes that influence how one reacts to the environment (Rothbart 2007). Temperament is seen as a subdomain of personality, but personality extends beyond temperament to include specific cognitions, beliefs and values (Evans and Rothbart 2007). Research supporting the link between temperament and EMSs is limited. In one study, Halvorsen et al. (2009) examined a sample of currently depressed, previously depressed, and never depressed individuals and found that the three groups differed significantly in regards to temperament and character dimensions as well as EMS severity. While more research is needed to assess the relationship between temperament and EMSs, the link between certain temperament traits and psychopathology has received considerable attention. Specifically, evidence suggests that high levels of negative affect and low levels of extraversion underlie and are specific vulnerability factors for depression (Watson et al. 2005; Wetter and Hankin 2009; for a review, see Epkins and Heckler 2011). Additionally, there is some evidence to suggest that an interaction between temperament and childhood maltreatment in the prediction of depressive symptoms exists (Kiff et al. 2011; Manfredi et al.

2011). Despite the relative contribution of these studies, the schema literature could benefit from more comprehensive examinations of the interaction between temperament and early adverse experiences and their influence on depressive symptoms via EMSs. To date, only one study in the literature has looked at all of these constructs together. Calvete et al. (2013) examined whether temperament and emotional abuse perpetrated by parents and peers, alone and interactively, contributed to the change of EMSs in adolescents. Overall, results indicated that emotional abuse by peers, but not parents predicted the worsening of schemas. However, results suggested that EMSs mediated the relationship between neuroticism and depression, although they were not found to mediate the relationship between parental abuse and depression. In addition, there was no significant interaction found between temperament dimensions and parental emotional abuse in the prediction of EMSs and/or symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Taken together, these results provide some support to the schema model by indicating the role of parental abuse and temperament traits in the development of EMSs. However, additional work is still needed to better understand how these complex mechanisms contribute to predicting depressive symptoms.

Current Study Various components of schema theory have been supported. Additionally, initial investigations of the model using more complex statistical modeling provides some promising results. The primary goal of the current study was to further examine Young’s schema theory which suggests that childhood maltreatment interacts with the child’s temperament in the formation of early maladaptive schemas, and that EMSs are then risk factors for the development of depressive symptoms. More specifically, the goal of the current study was to test the complete theory using a moderated mediation approach. As the mediating effect of schemas in the parenting-depression relationship has already been established, the ability of temperament to moderate the indirect effect was also examined.

Hypotheses The hypothesized conceptual model is depicted in Fig. 1. It was first hypothesized that EMSs would mediate the relationship between maladaptive parenting styles and depressive symptoms. Secondly, the mediating and moderating relationships together using a moderated mediation approach was examined. It was hypothesized that the indirect effect of maladaptive parenting on depressive scores through EMSs is moderated by temperament. Specifically, it was expected that the magnitude of the indirect effect would be greater for those with high

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

EMS (Mediator)

Maladaptive Parenting (Predictor)

Depressive Symptoms (Criterion)

Temperament (Moderator)

Maladaptive Parenting X Temperament (Interaction)

Fig. 1 Path diagram of hypothesized conceptual model. Conditional indirect effect of maladaptive parenting on depressive symptoms through early maladaptive schemas

negative affect compared to those with lower negative affect. Additionally, it was expected that the magnitude of the indirect effect would be greater for those with low levels of extraversion compared to individuals with higher levels of extraversion.

Method Participants The initial sample consisted of 657 undergraduate students from a mid-sized public University in the Northeastern United States. In return for participation, students received credit for the research requirement of their Essentials of Psychology course. The initial sample was reduced in two ways. First, participants with a considerable amount of incomplete data were removed from the sample. After screening for completion, all participants who did not classify their mother as the primary caregiver were also removed. The final sample consisted of 403 participants (52 % female) aged between 18 and 46 years (M = 19.58, SD = 2.24). The sample was predominantly Caucasian (60 %) with White/Hispanic being the second largest racial group (21 %). The majority of the participants were freshmen (50 %) and never married (69 %).

Measures Young Schema Questionnaire-Short Form-III (YSQ-SF-3; Young and Brown 2003). The YSQ-SF-3 contains 90 items and was developed to measure the 18 EMSs and 5 schema domains initially described by Young and Brown (1990;

Young 1999). Factor analytic studies of the YSQ have generally supported the existence of the 18 first-order factors (Calvete et al. 2013; Calvete et al. 2005; Hoffart et al. 2005). However, the five second-order domains have not been supported. Instead, a 3 factor, higher-order domain structure has been supported (Sarıtaş-Atalar and Gençöz 2015). The present study adopted an acceptable three-domain structure found in a recent study (Calvete et al. 2013). However, only two of the three domains were assessed. The disconnection/rejection domain (D&R) was comprised of the emotional deprivation, mistrust, defectiveness, social isolation, and emotional inhibition schemas. The impaired autonomy and performance domain (IA&P) included the schemas of abandonment, failure, dependence, vulnerability to harm/illness, enmeshment, subjugation, and insufficient self-control. Each item is rated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (completely untrue of me) to 6 (describes me perfectly). Scale scores were calculated by summing responses to the five corresponding questions for each scale, with total scale scores ranging from 0 to 30. Domain scores were then calculated by summing the scores of each subscale within the domain and then dividing by the number of subscales. The YSQ-SF has been found to possess adequate convergent and discriminant validity with respect to measures of general and specific measures of psychological distress (Stopa et al. 2001; Welburn et al. 2002; Calvete et al. 2005). Furthermore, the short and long forms of the YSQ have been shown to have similar levels of internal consistency and discriminant validity (Stopa et al. 2001). The scales of the YSQSF have been shown to demonstrate adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Calvete et al. 2013). In the current sample, the D&R and IA&P domains both demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .88 and .89, respectively). Young Parenting Inventory (YPI: Young 1999). The YPI is a 72-item self-report measure of perceived parenting experiences during childhood. This measure is designed to assess the parental origin of the early maladaptive schemas identified by Young (Young et al. 2003). There are a total of 17 parenting styles that correspond with each of the 18 EMS (as measured in the YSQ-SF), with the exception of the social isolation schema which Young et al. (2003) hypothesized to emerge later in life primarily as the result of experiences related to peer affiliation during adolescence. The YPI asks participants to look at statements and rate how well each statement describes their mothers and fathers (separately) on a scale from 1 (completely untrue) to 6 (describes him/her perfectly). Items are rated on two six-point Likert scales which represent a score on each parenting style for the participant’s mother and father. High scores (typically scores of 5 or 6) suggest that parenting behaviors likely influenced the development of the corresponding EMS (Young et al. 2003). Sheffield et al. (2005) conducted a preliminary psychometric evaluation of the YPI in a sample of students (n = 422; age range 18–61). Factor analyses yielded a shorter version of the

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

YPI (YPI-R), consisting of nine factors common in each parent. The nine factors of the YPI-R demonstrated good testretest reliability, for example with Spearman’s rho correlations ranging from .53 to .84. Furthermore, significant associations were found between the YPI and YSQ, supporting its construct validity. The scales also presented adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .67 to .92. For the purpose of the present study, only 3 of the 9 parenting styles of participants’ mothers were included in analyses: emotionally depriving, belittling, and overprotective. In the current sample, the three parenting scales demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .90, .92, and .82, respectively). Adult Temperament Questionnaire-Short Form (ATQ-SF: Evans and Rothbart 2007). The ATQ-SF is a 77-item questionnaire designed to measure 13 temperament subscales which are further categorized into four higher order factors. The Short Form is comprised of 77 questions presented as statements about the self, such as, BI become easily frightened.^ Participants pick from a 7-point Likert Scale ranging from 1 (extremely untrue of you) to 2 (extremely true of you). Total scores are calculated by summing the items for each trait and dividing by the total number of items. The four higher order scales include negative affect, extraversion, effortful control, and orienting sensitivity, with each scale containing three to four subscales. Internal consistency and test-retest correlations suggest satisfactory reliability, with Cronbach’s α coefficients ranging from .67 to .85, and correlations over a 4-week period ranging from .65 to .92 (Laverdière et al. 2010). The current study only incorporated the two higher-order scales of negative affect and extraversion. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the current sample were .80 and .74, respectively. Beck Depression Inventory – Second Edition (BDI-II; Beck et al. 1996). The BDI-II is a 21 item self-report questionnaire that measures acute depressive symptoms. The BDIII is used to assess the severity of depressive symptoms participants have been experiencing over the past two weeks. Participants are instructed to rate how much each symptom bothers them on a 4-point scale where a score of 0 indicates no symptoms and a score of 3 indicates severe symptoms. Scores on all items are summed and added to obtain a total score that ranges from 0 to 63, with higher scores indicating an increase in depressive symptoms. The BDI-II has demonstrated high internal consistency among college students and outpatients (α = .93 and .92, respectively) as well as adequate validity and diagnostic discrimination (Beck et al. 1996 in Dozois et al. 1998). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the current sample was .93.

Procedures Participants were recruited through an online survey tool. Participation was voluntary, and the college’s Institutional

Review Board approved this study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Each participant completed a questionnaire containing measures of early maladaptive schemas (YSQ-SF-3), parenting styles (YPI), temperament (ATQ-SF), and depressive symptoms (BDI-II).

Data Analysis Missing data was replaced with the mean of the individual’s responses to the supplementary items on that particular scale. Internal consistency for the YSQ-SF-3, YPI, ATQ-SF, and BDI-II scales was evaluated using the Cronbach’s alpha statistic. Pearson correlations were conducted in order to examine the relationships between all variables. To investigate the causal and conditional nature of the constructs, a moderated mediation analyses using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes 2013) was conducted. Moderated mediation, also referred to as the conditional indirect effect, is said to occur when an indirect effect varies across different levels of a moderator variable. Furthermore, evidence of moderated mediation implies that the conditional indirect effects estimated at different values of the moderator are statistically different from each other (Hayes 2013). Hayes (2013) discussed a method of formally testing whether the indirect effect depends linearly on the moderator. His test is based on an interval estimate of the parameter of a function linking the indirect effect to values of a moderator, a parameter he coined Bindex of moderated mediation.^ Hayes (2013) showed that a test as to whether the index of moderated mediation is different from zero serves as a formal test of moderated mediation. In other words, if the confidence interval includes zero, then there is no substantial evidence of moderation of the mediation process. However, if the confidence interval does not include zero, then one can conclude that the indirect effect is conditional on the moderator (moderated mediation). Additionally, Hayes (2013) suggested that if the test reveals that the indirect effect is moderated, then any two indirect effects estimated at different levels of the moderator are significantly different from each other. If the test reveals that the indirect effect is not moderated, then no two conditional indirect effects are statistically different. Our hypothesized moderated mediation model is illustrated in Fig. 2. It was hypothesized that the indirect effect of maladaptive parenting (X) on depressive symptoms (Y) through EMSs (M) is moderated by temperament (W). Specifically, an indirect relationship in which maladaptive parenting styles are associated with schema domain scores, and schema domain scores are related to depressive symptoms was expected. Furthermore, it was expected that maladaptive parenting styles would have a significant direct effect on BDI scores in addition to their indirect effect through schemas. Lastly, it was

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

eMi

were tested using the method described above. PROCESS estimated the parameters of the equations using OLS regression analyses.

1

a1i

Results

bi a2i

eY

Correlations among Study Variables

1

X

c'

Y

a3i

W XW Fig. 2 Conditional indirect effect of X on Y through Mi =(a1i + a3iW)bi. Direct effect of X on Y = c’. Note: Allows up to 10 mediators operating in parallel

expected that the magnitude of the indirect effects would be greater for those with high negative affect compared to those with lower negative affect. And it was expected the strength of the indirect effect would decrease for those with low levels of extraversion rather than high levels (i.e., buffering effect). Each of the hypothesized models contained a given maladaptive parenting style as the independent variable (X); level of depressive symptoms served as the outcome variable (Y); one of the two schema domains were tested as mediators (M); and the two temperament scales negative affect and extraversion were tested as moderators (W). Because the temperament scales were measured on a continuous scale, their simple effects were calculated at values of one standard deviation above and below the mean. This approach has been strongly recommended as a way to differentiate the outcome variable based on representative groups (Frazier et al. 2004; Cohen et al. 2003), and was automatically implemented by the PROCESS macro to produce three separate predictions of the outcome variable conditional on the level of the moderator. The PROCESS macro generated 95 % bootstrap confidence intervals to test the significance of the index of moderated mediation. If the confidence interval includes zero, then there is no substantial evidence of moderation of the mediation of X’s effect on Y through M. But if the confidence interval does not include zero, then a conclusion can be made that the indirect effect is conditional on the moderator (moderated mediation). Twelve moderated mediation models

The internal reliability, means, and standard deviations for all study variables, as well as the Pearson correlations among the variables are presented in Table 1. All maladaptive parenting styles, temperament factors, and EMS domains were significantly and positively associated with depressive symptoms, with the exception of extraversion which was significantly and negatively associated with depressive symptoms. In addition, the three maladaptive parenting styles were significantly and positively associated to both EMS domains. Finally, negative affect was significantly and positively correlated with both schema domains, while extraversion was significantly and negatively correlated with the same variables.

Tests of Mediation The presence of moderated mediation was tested in 12 integrated conditional process models using PROCESS. This allowed for the examination of (1) mediation, (2) moderation, and (3) moderated mediation (i.e., conditional indirect effects) all at once. In order to facilitate clarity, the findings from the three types of analyses are reported separately in a step-bystep fashion. The results from the mediation analyses are presented first, and they were conducted using ordinary least squares path analysis within PROCESS. The model involves two equations, one estimating M from X and the other estimating Y from both X and M: M ¼ i1 þ aX þ eM Y ¼ i2 þ c0 X þ bM þ eY (Preacher et al. 2007). Table 2 displays the indirect effects of parenting styles on depressive symptoms through EMS domains. As can be seen, both schema domains were found to mediate the relationship between each parenting style and depressive symptoms. Furthermore, all of the paths were in the expected direction. For instance, in the first model, a bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect of emotionally depriving parenting on depressive symptoms through the D&R domain (ab = 1.287) based on 5000 bootstrap samples did not contain zero (1.386 to 3.026). After controlling for the D&R domain, the effect of emotionally depriving

J Psychopathol Behav Assess Table 1 Cronbach’s alphas, means, standard deviations, and correlations among depressive symptoms, mother parenting style, temperament, and early maladaptive schema domains α

M

SD

1

1. BDI

0.92

10.63

9.42

x

2. ED

0.90

1.53

.86

.22**

x

3. BL 4. OP

0.92 0.82

1.27 2.70

.70 1.24

.18** .19**

5. NA

0.80

3.88

.71

6. EX 7. D&R

0.74 0.88

4.70 11.01

8.IA&P

0.90

10.86

2

3

4

5

6

7

.48** .10

x .30**

x

.46**

.09

.08

.15**

x

.76 4.11

−.26** .65**

−.20** .30**

−.20** .23**

−.13* .27**

−.22** .44**

x −.36**

3.65

.70**

.26**

.23**

.31**

x

.51**

−.26**

.80**

8

x

BDI BDI-II total score, ED emotionally depriving parenting, BL belittling parenting, OP Overprotective parenting, NA negative affect, EX extroversion, D&R disconnection and rejection domain, IA&P = impaired autonomy and performance domain **p < .01, *p < .05

parenting on depressive symptoms was no longer statistically significant (c’ = .238, p = .587).

Tests of Moderation Given evidence for the indirect effect of parenting style on depressive symptoms through schema domains, we then assessed whether the indirect effects were conditional on temperament. This was tested by examining the moderating effects of temperament on the relationship between parenting and schema domains (X → M). The model is expressed in the form of Y ¼ i1 þ b1 X þ b2 M þ b3 XM þ eY where X is the style of parenting, M is level of temperament, and Y is schema domain level. The effect of parenting on schema domain level is moderated by temperament if b3 is statistically different from zero (Hayes 2013). PROCESS generated unstandardized OLS regression coefficients for each model, which can be seen in Table 2. Three significant moderating effects can be observed in the 12 tested models. First, negative affect was found to positively moderate the effect of overprotective parenting on the impaired autonomy domain (a3 = 0.39, 95 % CI = 0.06 to 0.71, p = 0.02). Next, and in contrast with expectations, extraversion appeared to positively moderate the effect of belittling parenting on the disconnection and rejection domain (a3 = 0.77, 95 % CI = 0.12 to 1.43, p = 0.02). Lastly, and also unexpectedly, extraversion positively moderated the effect of belittling parenting on the impaired autonomy domain (a3 = 1.00, 95 % CI = 0.41 to 1.60, p = .001). As stated previously, evidence of moderation or lack thereof is not necessary in order to establish moderation of the indirect effect. Hence, to foreshadow the outcome of the formal tests of

moderated mediation below, we encourage the reader to place less emphasis on the results from the moderation analyses.

Tests of Moderation of Indirect Effects The formal test of moderated mediation was based on an inference about the index of moderated mediation. As stated previously, if the confidence interval for the index of moderated mediation includes zero, then there is no substantial evidence of moderation of the indirect effect. However, if the confidence interval does not include zero, then one can claim that the indirect effect is conditional on the moderator (moderated mediation). Based on a test of the index of moderated mediation, moderation of the indirect effect was revealed in two of the twelve tested models (See Table 3). First, in Model 7, the indirect effect of overprotective parenting on depressive symptoms through the impaired autonomy and performance domain was found to be positively moderated by negative affect. The 95 % bootstrap confidence interval for the index was 0.14 to 1.27. Specifically, higher levels of negative affect produced a stronger indirect effect of overprotective parenting on depressive symptoms through IA&P. Model 12 was the second significant model, in which the indirect effect of belittling parenting on depressive symptoms through the IA&P domain appeared to be positively moderated by extraversion. In this model, the 95 % bootstrap confidence interval based on 5000 bootstrap samples was 0.19 to 3.50. The positive lower bound indicates that the indirect effect of belittling parenting on depressive symptoms through the IA&P domain increased as levels of extraversion increased. Results of the moderated mediation analyses indicate that the indirect effect of parenting on depressive symptoms through EMSs is dependent on temperament factors in some cases, but not others.

J Psychopathol Behav Assess Table 2 Unstandardized OLS model coefficients (standard errors in parentheses) estimating disconnection and rejection and impaired autonomy and performance schema domains and depressive symptoms Criterion M (D&R) Predictor X (Emotionally depriving) M (D&R) W (Negative Affect) XxW Constant

a1 → a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.27

95% CI -1.49, 3.23

― 2.27*** (0.51) 0.10 (0.30) 0.25 (2.00)

― 1.26, 3.28 -0.50, 0.70 -3.69, 4.19

Criterion M (D&R)

Y (BDI Total)

a1 →

Coeff. 1.44 (1.32)

― -1.60** (0.52) a2 → -0.07 (0.29) a3 → 16.78 (2.42) iM → R2 = 0.18 F(3, 399) = 30.14, p = .001

95% CI -1.16, 4.03 ― -2.61, -0.58 -0.64, 0.51 12.01, 21.54

a1 →

95% CI -2.14, 1.95 ― 1.22, 2.97 -0.25, 0.78 -2.12, 4.70

Coeff. -0.06 (1.22) ― -1.38** (0.48) 0.23 (0.27) 15.84*** (2.25)

95% CI -2.47, 2.35 ― -2.32, -0.44 -0.31, 0.76 11.43, 20.26

Coeff. -0.48 (0.76) ― 1.57** (0.56) 0.31 (0.20)

95% CI -1.99, 1.02 ― 0.46, 2.38 -0.08, 0.70

a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.31 F(3, 399) = 58.39, p = .001

a1 →

a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.11 F(3, 399) = 17.19, p = .001

a1 → a2 → a3 →

Coeff. 0.24 (0.44) 1.48*** (0.09) ― ― -5.98*** (1.09)

95% CI -0.62, 1.10 1.30, 1.66 ― ― -8.11, -3.84

Coeff. 0.37 (0.41) 1.78*** (0.10) ― ― -9.25*** (1.11)

95% CI -0.43, 1.17 1.59, 1.97 ― ― -11.44, -7.06

Coeff. 0.37 (0.41) 1.78*** (0.10) ― ― -9.25*** (1.11)

95% CI -0.43, 1.17 1.59, 1.97 ― ― -11.44, -7.06

Coeff. 0.11 (0.30) 1.48*** (0.09) ― ―

95% CI -0.47, 0.70 1.30, 1.66 ― ―

iY → R2 = 0.42 F(2, 400) = 146.52, p = .001

c’ → b1 →

iY → R2 = 0.49 F(2, 400) = 191.27, p = .001

Y (BDI Total)

Criterion M (D&R) Predictor X (Over-protective) M (D&R) W (Negative Affect) XxW

c’ → b1 →

95% CI -0.62, 1.10 1.30, 1.66 ― ― -8.11, -3.84

Y (BDI Total) Coeff. -0.10 (1.04) ― 2.09*** (0.45) 0.27 (0.26) 1.29 (1.73)

Criterion M (IA&P) Predictor X (Emotionally depriving) M (IA&P) W (Extraversion) XxW Constant

iY → R2 = 0.42

Coeff. 0.24 (0.44) 1.48*** (0.09) ― ― -5.98*** (1.09)

F(2, 400) = 146.52, p = .001

Criterion M (IA&P) Predictor X (Emotionally depriving) M (IA&P) W (Negative Affect) XxW Constant

c’ → b1 →

F(3, 399) = 48.26, p = .001

Predictor X (Emotionally depriving) M (D&R) W (Extraversion) XxW Constant

Y (BDI Total) Coeff. 0.87 (1.20)

c’ → b1 →

iY → R2 = 0.49 F(2, 400) = 191.27, p = .001

Y (BDI Total) c’ → b1 →

J Psychopathol Behav Assess Table 2 (continued) Constant

2.92 (2.16) iM → R2 = 0.25 F(3, 399) = 43.43, p = .001

-1.33, 0.70

Criterion M (D&R) Predictor X (Over-protective) M (D&R) W (Extraversion) XxW Constant

a1 →

95% CI -0.80, 2.56 ― -2.84, -0.60 -0.38, 0.33 -0.38, 0.33

Coeff. -0.78 (0.64) ― 1.40** (0.48) 0.39* (0.17) 3.41 (1.82)

95% CI -2.05, 0.49 ― 0.46, 2.33 0.06, 0.71 -0.17, 7.00

Coeff. 1.08 (2.50) ― -0.91 (0.52) -0.05 (0.16) 12.90*** (2.50)

95% CI -0.45, 2.61 ― -1.93, 0.10 -0.37, 0.27 7.99, 17.82

Coeff. -0.79 (1.18) ― 1.80*** (0.47) 0.50 (0.30) 2.52 (1.82)

95% CI -3.11, 1.53 ― 0.88, 2.72 -0.09, 1.09 -1.07, 6.10

Coeff. -2.28 (1.41) ― -2.77*** (0.49) 0.77* (0.33) 22.36*** (2.24)

95% CI -5.05, 0.50 ― -3.74, -1.80 0.12, 1.43 17.97, 26.76

Coeff. -0.59 (1.01) ―

95% CI -2.58, 1.39 ―

a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.18 F(3, 399) = 29.72, p = .001

a1 →

a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.32 F(3, 399) = 63.21, p = .001

a1 →

a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.15 F(3, 399) = 22.66, p = .001

a1 →

a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.24 F(3, 399) = 41.93, p = .001

a1 →

a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.17 F(3, 399) = 26.55, p = .001

a1 →

Coeff. -0.22 (0.29) 1.82*** (0.10) ― ― -8.60*** (1.14)

95% CI -0.78, 0.34 1.63, 2.02 ― ― -10.85, -6.35

Coeff. -0.22 (0.29) 1.82*** (0.10) ― ― -8.60*** (1.14)

95% CI -0.78, 0.34 1.63, 2.02 ― ― -10.85, -6.35

Coeff. 0.46 (0.53) 1.47*** (0.09) ― ― -6.17*** (1.12)

95% CI -0.57, 1.50 1.30, 1.65 ― ― -8.36, -3.97

Coeff. 0.46 (0.53) 1.47*** (0.09) ― ― -6.17*** (1.12)

95% CI -0.57, 1.50 1.30, 1.65 ― ― -8.36, -3.97

Coeff. 0.26 (0.50) 1.79*** (0.09)

95% CI -0.72, 1.24 1.60, 1.98

iY → R2 = 0.42 F(2, 400) = 146.39, p = .001

c’ → b1 →

iY → R2 = 0.49 F(2, 400) = 191.01, p = .001

c’ → b1 →

iY → R2 = 0.49 F(2, 400) = 191.01, p = .001

c’ → b1 →

iY → R2 = 0.42 F(2, 400) = 146.94, p = .001

Y (BDI Total)

Criterion M (IA&P) Predictor X (Belittling) M (IA&P)

95% CI -0.47, 0.70 1.30, 1.66 ― ― -8.25, -3.71

Y (BDI Total)

Criterion M (D&R) Predictor X (Belittling) M (D&R) W (Extraversion) XxW Constant

Coeff. 0.11 (0.30) 1.48*** (0.09) ― ― -5.98*** (1.15)

Y (BDI Total)

Criterion M (D&R) Predictor X (Belittling) M (D&R) W (Negative Affect) XxW Constant

c’ → b1 →

Y (BDI Total)

Criterion M (IA&P) Predictor X (Over-protective) M (IA&P) W (Extraversion) XxW Constant

-8.25, -3.71

Y (BDI Total) Coeff. 0.88 (0.86) ― -1.72** (0.57) -0.02 (0.18) 17.02*** (0.18)

Criterion M (IA&P) Predictor X (Over-protective) M (IA&P) W (Negative Affect) XxW Constant

iY → -5.98*** (1.15) R2 = 0.42 F(2, 400) = 146.39, p = .001

c’ → b1 →

iY → R2 = 0.42 F(2, 400) = 146.94, p = .001

Y (BDI Total) c’ → b1 →

J Psychopathol Behav Assess Table 2 (continued) W (Negative Affect) XxW Constant

1.95*** (0.40) a2 → a3 → 0.42 (0.26) iM → 1.95 (1.56) R2 = 0.30 F(3, 399) = 56.22, p = .001

1.17, 2.74 -0.09, 0.92 -1.11, 5.02

Criterion M (IA&P) Predictor X (Belittling) M (IA&P) W (Extraversion) XxW Constant

a1 →

― ― -9.14*** (1.13)

― ― -11.35, -6.92

Coeff. 0.26 (0.50) 1.79*** (0.09) ― ― -9.14*** (1.13)

95% CI -0.72, 1.24 1.60, 1.98 ― ― -11.35, -6.92

iY → R2 = 0.49 F(2, 400) = 190.72, p = .001

Y (BDI Total) Coeff. -3.19** (1.29) ― -2.34*** (0.45) 1.00*** (0.30) 20.05*** (2.04)

a2 → a3 → iM → R2 = 0.12 F(3, 399) = 18.88, p = .001

95% CI -5.72, -0.66 ― -3.23, -1.46 0.41, 1.60 16.04, 24.05

c’ → b1 →

iY → R2 = 0.49 F(2, 400) = 190.72, p = .001

D&R Disconnection and Rejection, IA&P Impaired Autonomy and Performance *** p ≤ .001. ** p ≤ .01. * p ≤ .05

Discussion The central goal of the current study was to further examine Young’s schema theory which suggests that childhood maltreatment interacts with the child’s temperament in the formation of EMSs, and that EMSs are then risk factors for the development depressive symptoms. Prior studies have supported parts of this theory and have refined instruments developed to measure EMSs and maladaptive parenting. In the current study, we used the scales which are most psychometrically sound to assess the relationships between perceived maternal parenting styles, temperament, early maladaptive schemas, and depressive symptoms. Preliminary correlational analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between all study variables. Finally, a series of moderated mediation analyses were conducted to examine the hypothesis that the indirect effect of parenting styles on depressive symptoms through EMSs is moderated by temperament. Consistent with previous research, significant associations were found between maladaptive parenting styles and both EMS domains and depressive symptoms. The three parenting styles (emotionally depriving, belittling, and overprotective) were significantly and positively related to both EMS domains and BDI-II scores. Emotionally depriving parenting was most strongly correlated to the D&R domain, and overprotective parenting was most strongly correlated with the IA&P domain. These associations correspond to Young et al. (2003)schema theory in that people with schemas in the D&R domain typically come from families that were abusive, cold, and rejecting. Additionally, those with schemas in the IA&P domain were likely raised by parents who did everything for them and were overly protective of them and their activity. Since literature examining these specific parenting factors is limited, the current results add to the body of

research which has established parenting styles characterized by rejection, low warmth, and overprotection as potential predictors of depressive symptomology (McLeod et al. 2007; Avagianou and Zafiropoulou 2008). In addition, the negative affect and extraversion temperament factors were significantly related to depressive symptoms and EMS domains. Specifically, negative affect was positively correlated with depressive symptoms and both EMS domains, while extraversion was negatively correlated. This is in line with prior literature which has found high negative affect and low extraversion to be specific vulnerability factors for depression and other internalizing disorders (Epkins and Heckler 2011). Mediational analyses were conducted as a part of the larger moderated mediation analyses. In line with expectations, the influence of parenting on depressive symptoms was shown to be mediated by EMSs. Mediation occurred through the disconnection and rejection domain as well as the impaired autonomy and performance domain. The findings provide some evidence of how childhood maltreatment may lead to depressive symptoms in adulthood. According to schema theory, there are certain types of early life experiences that foster the acquisition of schemas. One of these experiences is when the child receives too little of a good thing, such as safety, love, or nurturance (Young et al. 2003). This can be observed in the case of the indirect effect of emotionally depriving parenting on depressive symptoms through the D&R domain. Another type of early life experience consists of the child receiving too much of a good thing. For instance, when a child is excessively coddled, indulged, and rarely mistreated, he/she may have an infringed sense of competence or identity. As can be seen within the current results, overprotective parenting indirectly influenced depressive symptoms through the IA&P domain, thus corresponding to schema theory. Taken together, results from previous studies have revealed mixed findings with

J Psychopathol Behav Assess Table 3

Conditional indirect effects of maladaptive parenting on depressive symptoms through schema domains for various values of temperament (W)

Conditional indirect effect (SE)

95 % CI

Index of ModMed (95 % CI)

Model 1 X (Emotionally Depriving) M (D&R) W (Negative Affect)

3.17 3.88 4.60

1.76 (.62) 1.86 (.38) 1.97 (.52)

.92, 3.25 1.20, 2.63 1.07, 3.17

― ― ― .15 (−1.21, 1.14)

Model 2 X (Emotionally Depriving) M (D&R) W (Extraversion)

3.94 4.70 5.46

1.74 (.52) 1.66 (.38) 1.59 (.55)

.78, 2.82 .99, 2.47 .59, 2.73

― ― ― -.10 (−1.06, .93)

Model 3 X (Emotionally Depriving) M (IA&P) W (Negative Affect)

3.17 3.88 4.60

1.33 (.57) 1.67 (.38) 2.00 (.54)

.50, 2.65 .95, 2.42 1.01, 3.15

― ― ― .47 (−.81, 1.42)

Model 4 X (Emotionally Depriving) M (IA&P) W (Extraversion)

3.94 4.70 5.46

1.47 (.55) 1.77 (.48) 2.08 (.79)

.39, 2.56 .85, 2.75 .50, 3.59

― ― ― .40 (−.83, 1.64)

Model 5 X (Overprotective) M (D&R) W (Negative Affect)

3.17 3.88 4.60

.74 (.25) 1.06 (.23) 1.39 (.35)

.28, 1.25 .64, 1.55 .75, 2.16

― ― ― .46 (−.08, 1.00)

Model 6 X (Overprotective) M (D&R) W (Extraversion)

3.94 4.70 5.46

1.17 (.40) 1.13 (.25) 1.11 (.25)

.39, 1.97 .66, 1.63 .65, 1.64

― ― ― -.04 (−.62, .54)

Model 7 X (Overprotective) M (IA&P) W (Negative Affect)

3.17 3.88 4.60

.83 (.27) 1.33 (.23) 1.84 (.34)

.33, 1.42 .90, 1.81 1.20, 2.54

― ― ― .71 (.14, 1.27)

Model 8 X (Overprotective) M (IA&P) W (Extraversion)

3.94 4.70 5.46

1.59 (.44) 1.52 (.28) 1.45 (.31)

.73, 2.47 1.00, 2.09 .85, 2.08

― ― ― -.10 (−.75, .59)

Model 9 X (Belittling) M (D&R) W (Negative Affect)

3.17 3.88 4.60

1.17 (.96) 1.70 (.63) 2.23 (.71)

.27, 3.97 .80, 3.04 1.14, 3.84

― ― ― .74 (−1.06, 2.21)

Model 10 X (Belittling) M (D&R) W (Extraversion)

3.94 4.70 5.46

1.14 (.80) 2.00 (.66) 2.87 (1.02)

-.05, 2.93 .96, 3.33 1.53, 5.38

― ― ― 1.14 (−.32, 3.03)

Model 11 X (Belittling) M (IA&P) W (Negative Affect)

3.17 3.88 4.60

1.30 (1.05) 1.83 (.64) 2.37 (.70)

.33, 4.48 .92, 3.08 1.39, 3.91

― ― ― .75 (−1.29, 2.35)

Model 12 X (Belittling) M (IA&P) W (Negative Affect)

3.94 4.70 5.46

1.34 (.81) 2.70 (.63) 4.06 (.96)

.17, 3.20 1.66, 4.07 2.44, 6.27

― ― ― 1.79 (.19, 3.5)

Note.D&R disconnection and rejection; IA&P impaired autonomy and performance

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

regard to the mediating role of EMSs in the parentingdepression relationship. Lumley and Harkness (2007) found that schemas with themes of loss/worthlessness mediated the relationship between childhood adversity and anhedonic symptoms. However, Calvete (2013) did not find any mediating effects of EMS domains pertaining to the relationship between parental emotional abuse and depressive symptoms. In addition, Sarıtaş-Atalar and Gençöz (2015) found that the Impaired Autonomy, but not Disconnection and Rejection domain mediated the relationship between perceived maternal rejection and depression. Despite previous inconsistent findings, results from the current study propose that the wellestablished link between parental maltreatment and depressive symptoms may occur through the development of negative core beliefs. The crux of the present study was the examination of our constructs using a moderated mediation approach. For the most part, the indirect effect of parenting on depressive symptoms through EMSs was not found to be conditional on temperament. This suggests that temperamental traits may not play a particularly significant role in the child’s reactivity to parental maltreatment and subsequent cognitive vulnerability in some instances. Young et al. (2003) state that a child’s environment, whether favorable or aversive, can override emotional temperament to a significant degree. The authors also claim that emotional temperament can override an ordinary environment and produce psychopathology. The current results appear to support the former, as most models were not dependent on temperament. However, in some cases, temperament was shown to have a significant influence on the indirect effect of parenting on depressive symptoms through EMSs. For instance, the indirect effect of overprotective parenting on depressive symptoms through the IA&P domain varied significantly across different levels of negative affect. Specifically, the mediating effect of IA&P was greater when levels of negative affect increased. Since the negative affect temperament factor is made up of the four sub-factors: fear, sadness, discomfort, and frustration, it is reasonable to expect that a child with high levels of negative affect who is also raised by an overprotective parent will be more at risk for developing expectations about the self and world that interfere with his or her perceived capacity to function independently or perform successfully. Consequently, if one carries this belief into adulthood, he/she is likely to experience depressive symptoms such as feelings of worthlessness. In another instance, and contrary to expectations, the indirect effect of belittling parenting on depressive symptoms through the IA&P domain increased as levels of extraversion increased. Thus, extraversion amplified the indirect effect rather than buffering the effect as anticipated. This finding is inconsistent with many studies that have established higher levels of extraversion to be a protective factor against depressive symptoms (Epkins and Heckler 2011; Verstraeten et al. 2009; Watson

et al. 2005). This may be due to the fact that those high in extraversion derive pleasure from social interaction, but they may not be able to find affiliation with others due to their negative perceptions of the self or world which were brought on by a belittling mother.

Limitations and Future Directions Although the present study provides a new way of looking at the mechanisms through which depressive symptoms develop, the findings should be interpreted with caution. First, we only included parenting, temperament, and schema factors that were most relevant to depression. Future studies might examine whether other parenting styles and temperament traits contribute to the development of EMS and other types of pathology. Another limitation of this study was that it exclusively used measures based on self-reports, which may have inflated or biased participants’ responses. In addition, the measure of parenting required the sample to report on experiences from when they were children, which might make recall bias possible. Sheffield et al. (2005) emphasize that participants’ recall might be influenced by one’s more recent experience of their parents, or influenced by schemas currently in operation. Also, Young et al. (2003) claim that a child’s emotional temperament interacts with toxic childhood experiences; however, the temperament measure used in the present study assessed participants’ temperament in adulthood. Nevertheless, temperament has been found to remain stable throughout one’s lifetime, which may alleviate some concern about the measure of temperament used in the present study (Zentner and Bates, 2008; Rothbart, 2011). An additional limitation of this study was the lack of diversity within our sample. The majority of the sample (60 %) identified as Caucasian and may not represent the general population. Furthermore, although we provided justification for only including participants who rated their mother as the primary caregiver, doing so limits the generalizability to only those individuals who identify their mothers as primary caregivers. Given the increasingly complex nature of family compositions in today’s society, replication with samples identifying fathers or others as primary caregivers is warranted. Finally, the study was conducted using a non-clinical population with depressive symptoms mostly in the minimummoderate ranges. Thus, future studies should examine this model with clinical samples or with samples experiencing higher levels of clinical distress. Summary In conclusion, this study suggests that maladaptive parenting indirectly influences the experience of depressive symptoms

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

through the development of EMSs. However, the indirect effect was found to be only partially conditional on one’s temperament. The use of the reduced factor structure renders this study unique and open to interpretation. Therefore, the hope is that future studies implement the same or similar factor structures in order to establish the viability of broader categories of the constructs. In addition, future examinations of the interactive nature of these constructs should test for the existence of covariates such as gender of the child, gender of the parents, and psychological health of the parent. Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following people in preparing this manuscript: Helen Cardoso, Juliana D’Onofrio, Kirsten Knodt, and Nikonia Fanourgakis. Parts of this data were collected and used for a thesis project prepared by the third author. Compliance with Ethical Standards Experiment Participants All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Conflicts of Interest Jim A. Haugh, Matt Miceli, and Jenny DeLorme declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References Avagianou, P. A., & Zafiropoulou, M. (2008). Parental bonding and depression: personality as a mediating factor. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 261–269. doi:10.1080 /13651500802095004. Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: Penguin Group. Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., & Harrison, R. (1983). Cognitions, attitudes, and personality dimensions in depression. British Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1, 1–16. Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., & Brown, G.K. (1996). Manual for Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation Calvete, E. (2013) Emotional abuse as a predictor of early maladaptive schemas in adolescents contributions to the development of depressive and social anxiety symptoms. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38(4), 735–746. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.014. Calvete, E., Estévez, A., López de Arroyabe, E., & Ruiz, P. (2005). The schema questionnaire– short form: structure and relationship with automatic thoughts and symptoms of affective disorders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 90–99. doi:10.1027 /1015-5759.21.2.90. Calvete, E., Orue, I., & González-Diez, Z. (2013). An examination of the structure and stability of early maladaptive schemas by means of the young schema questionnaire-3. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 283–290. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000158. Cámara, M., & Calvete, E. (2012). Early maladaptive schemas as moderators of the impact of stressful events on anxiety and depression in university students. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34(1), 58–68. doi:10.1007/s10862-011-9261-6.

Cockram, D. M., Drummond, P. D., & Lee, C. W. (2010). Role and treatment of early maladaptive schemas in Vietnam veterans with PTSD. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 17, 165–182. doi:10.1002/cpp.690. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dozois, D., Dobson, K., & Ahnberg, J. (1998). A psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory–II. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 83–89. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.83. Epkins, C. C., & Heckler, D. R. (2011). Integrating etiological models of social anxiety and depression in youth: Evidence for a cumulative interpersonal risk model. Clinical Child Family Psychology Review,, 14, 329–376. doi:10.1007/s10567-011-0101-8. Evans, D. E., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Developing a model for adult temperament. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 868–888. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.002. Frazier, P., Tix, A., & Barron, K. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115. Halvorsen, M., Wang, C.E., Richter, J., Myrland, I., Pederson, S.K., Eisemann, M., & Waterloo, K. (2009). Early maladaptive schemas, temperament and character traits in clinically depressed and previously depressed subjects. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 16, 394–-407. doi:10.1002/cpp.618 Harris, A. E., & Curtain, L. (2002). Parental perceptions, early maladaptive schemas, and depressive symptoms in young adults. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(3), 405–416. doi:10.1007/s10608-009-9259-5. Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York. Hoffart, A., Sexton, H., Hedley, L. M., Wang, C. E., Holthe, H., Haugum, J. A., & Holte, A. (2005). The structure of maladaptive schemas: a confirmatory factor analysis and a psychometric evaluation of factor-derived scales. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29(6), 627–644. doi:10.1007/s10608-005-9630-0. Kiff, C. J., Lengua, L. J., & Bush, N. R. (2011). Temperament variation in sensitivity to parenting: predicting changes in depression and anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 1199–1212. doi:10.1007/s10802-011-9539-x. Laverdière, O., Diguer, L., Gamache, D., & Evans, D. E. (2010). The French adaptation of the short form of the adult temperament questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 212–219. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000028. Lumley, M. N., & Harkness, K. L. (2007). Specificity in the relations among childhood adversity, early maladaptive schemas, and symptom profiles in adolescent depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31(5), 639–657. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9100-3. Manfredi, C., Caselli, G., Rovetto, F., Rebecchi, D., Ruggiero, G., Sassoroli, S., & Spada, M. (2011). Temperament and parenting styles as predictors of ruminative brooding and worry. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 186–191. doi:10.1016/j. paid.2010.09.023. Mason, O., Platts, H., & Tyson, M. (2005). Early maladaptive schemas and adult attachment in a UK clinical population. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 78(4), 549–564. doi:10.1348/147608304X21374 McCarthy, M. C., & Lumley, M. N. (2012). Sources of emotional maltreatment and the differential development of unconditional and conditional schemas. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41(4), 288– 297. doi:10.1080/16506073.2012.676669. McLeod, B. D., Weisz, J. R., & Wood, J. J. (2007). Examining the association between parenting and childhood depression: a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 986–1003. doi:10.1016/j. cpr.2007.03.001.

J Psychopathol Behav Assess Muris, P. (2006). ). Maladaptive schemas in non-clinical adolescents: relations to perceived parental rearing behaviours, big five personality factors and psychopathological symptoms. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13(6), 405–413. doi:10.1002 /cpp.506. Oei, T. S., & Baranoff, J. (2007). Young schema questionnaire: review of psychometric and measurement issues. Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(2), 78–86. doi:10.1080/00049530601148397. Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1010 /00273170701341316. Renner, L., Peters, A., & Huibers, M. (2012). Early maladaptive schemas in depressed patients; Stability and relation with depressive symptoms over the course of treatment. Journal of Affective Disorders, 136(3), 581–590. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.10.027. Riso, L., Maddux, R., & Santorelli, N. (2007). Early maladaptive schemas in chronic depression. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Roelofs, J., Lee, C., Ruijten, T., & Lobbestael, J. (2011). The mediating role of early maladaptive schemas in the relation between quality of attachment relationships and symptoms of depression in adolescents. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 39(4), 471–479. doi:10.1017/S1352465811000117. Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 207–212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00505.x Rothbart, M.K. (2011). Becoming who we are: temperament and personality in development. Guilford Press: New York. Saariaho, T., Saariaho, A., Karila, I., & Joukamaa, M. I. (2011). Early maladaptive scehma factors, chronic pain and depressiveness: A study with 271 chronic pain patients and 331 control participants. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19, 214–233. doi:10.1111 /j.1467-9450.2010.00849.x. Sarıtaş-Atalar, D., & Gençöz, T. (2015). The mediating role of early maladaptive schemas in the relationship between maternal rejection and psychological problems. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 26, 40–47. Sato, T. (2003). Sociotropy and autonomy: the nature of vulnerability. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137(5), 447–466. doi:10.2466/PR0.94.1.67-76. Shah, R., & Waller, G. (2000). Parental style and vulnerability to depression: The role of core beliefs. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,, 188(1), 19–25. Sheffield, A., Waller, G., Emanuelli, F., Murray, J., & Meyer, C. (2005). Links between parenting and core beliefs: preliminary psychometric validation of the young parenting inventory. C o g n i t i v e Th e r a p y a n d R e s e a rc h , 2 9 ( 6 ) , 7 8 7 – 8 0 2 . doi:10.1007/s10608-005-4291-6.

Stopa, L., Thorne, P., Waters, A., & Preston, J. (2001). Are the short and long forms of the young schema questionnaire comparable and how well does each version predict psychopathology scores? Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 15(3), 253–272. Thimm, J. (2010). Mediation of early maladaptive schemas between perceptions of parental rearing style and personality disorder symptoms. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 4(1), 52–59. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.07.005. Valiente, C., Romero, N., Hervás, G., & Espinosa, R. (2014). Evaluative beliefs as mediators of the relationship between parental bonding and symptoms of paranoia and depression. Psychiatry Research, 215(1), 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.10.014. van Vlierberghe, L., Timbremont, B., Braet, C., & Basile, B. (2007). Parental schemas in youngsters referred for antisocial behaviour problems demonstrating depressive symptoms. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 18, 515–533. doi:10.1080 /14789940701515442. Verstraeten, K., Vasey, M. W., Raes, F., & Bijttebier, P. (2009). Temperament and risk for depressive symptoms in adolescence: mediation by rumination and moderation by effortful control. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 349–361. doi:10.1007 /s10802-008-9293-x. Watson, D., Gamez, W., & Simms, L. J. (2005). Basic dimensions of temperament and their relation to anxiety and depression: a symptom-based perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 46–66. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.09.006. Welburn, K., Corstine, M., Dagg, P., Pontefract, A., & Jordan, S. (2002). The schema questionnaire-short form: factor analysis and relationship between schemas and symptoms. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26(4), 519–530. doi:10.1023/A: 101623 1902020. Wetter, E. K., & Hankin, B. L. (2009). Mediational pathways through which positive and negative emotionality contribute to anhedonic symptoms of depression: a prospective study of adolescents. J Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(4), 507–520. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9299-z. Wright, M., Crawford, E., & Del Castillo, D. (2009). Childhood emotional maltreatment and later psychological distress among college students: The mediating role of maladaptive schemas. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.007. Young, J.E. (1999). Young Parenting Inventory (YPI) (On-line). New York: Cognitive therapy center of New York. Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1990). Young schema questionnaire. New York: Cognitive therapy center of New York. Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (2003). Young schema questionnaire. New York: Cognitive therapy center of New York. Young, J. E., Klosko, J.S., & Weishaar, M.E. (2003). Schema therapy: a practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press. Zentner, M., & Bates, J. E. (2008). Child temperament: an integrative review of concepts, research programs and measures. European Journal of Developmental Science, 2, 7–37.