Introduction

Emotion lability and emotion regulation are two distinct, yet intertwined emotional processes. Emotion lability has been described as an individual’s reactivity or sensitivity to emotion eliciting events, and has been associated with greater emotional responses to negative and positive emotions (Dunsmore et al. 2013). High emotion lability in children has been associated with various negative outcomes including anxiety, attention difficulties, internalizing behaviour, externalizing behaviour, engaging in bullying behaviour, and poor social functioning (Carthy et al. 2010; Dunsmore et al. 2013; Eisenberg et al. 1995; Garner and Hinton 2010; Graziano and Garcia 2016). Emotion regulation, on the other hand, is described as an individual’s ability to identify, label and accept one’s emotions as well as their ability to inhibit, enhance, or maintain their emotional arousal through self-management strategies and external influences (Gratz and Roemer 2004; Thompson 1994). Poor emotion regulation abilities have been associated with negative behavioural, academic, and social outcomes in children (Graziano et al. 2007; McDowell et al. 2002; Trentacosta and Izard 2007; Zeman et al. 2006). Emotion lability, therefore, can be thought of as an individual’s emotional reactivity, while emotion regulation can be thought of as the management of said emotional reaction (Dunsmore et al. 2016). Interestingly, emotion lability and emotion regulation have been found to be inversely related, indicating that individuals who experience high emotion lability have greater difficulty regulating their emotions (Kim-Spoon et al. 2013). The relationship between these two processes also appears to be present over time with longitudinal research revealing that emotion lability at age seven was predictive of emotion regulation skills at age eight (Kim-Spoon et al. 2013).

Although the mechanisms by which emotion lability and regulation develop are not yet fully understood, research suggests that they are influenced by both biological and environmental processes (Thompson 1994). In terms of environmental influence, Morris and et al. (2007) have proposed a model through which parents contribute to their child's development of emotion regulation and lability via various parenting practices and behaviours, modeling and observation, and the emotional climate of the family. Both directly—via their reactions to their child’s negative emotions, and indirectly—through modeling and reinforcing the expression of positive emotions, parents are thought to exhibit a significant influence on the emotional experience of their child (Thompson 1994).

Parents who have greater emotional awareness of both their own emotions and those of their child, as well as parents who engage in the discussion of emotions with their child, have been described as having an “emotion-coaching philosophy” (Gottman et al. 1996). In contrast, parents who adopt a more emotionally dismissing philosophy tend to avoid or attempt to “fix” both their own and their child’s experience of negative emotions (i.e., promote emotional avoidance) rather than promoting healthy emotion coping strategies in their children, normalizing the experience of all emotions, and offering soothing comfort (Gottman et al. 1996). Preliminary research shows a link between parental emotion coaching strategies and improved child emotion regulation (Gottman et al. 1996). In addition, maternal emotion coaching has been found to be a protective factor in the relationship between high emotion lability and externalizing behaviour (Dunsmore et al. 2013).

Parents’ expression of emotion and the emotional climate of the family are also theorized to play a role in children’s emotional development through emotion contagion, social referencing, and modeling (Morris et al. 2007). Children observe and experience their parents’ vocal, facial, and gestural expression of emotions, which influences their understanding of emotions and how emotions should be expressed (Morris et al. 2007; Thompson 1991). Research has shown that children of parents who express more frequent and intense negative emotions are more likely to have difficulties with emotion regulation than children of parents who express more frequent and intense positive emotions (Zeman et al. 2006). In addition, mothers' use of positive emotion regulating strategies for coping with emotions (i.e., cognitive reappraisal) has been associated with decreased child emotion lability. In contrast, maternal beliefs and emotional reactions that involve minimizing the value of their children's emotions, such as expressing contempt related to the child's expression of emotion, have been associated with increased child emotion lability (Rogers et al. 2016).

Following this line of research, the influence of parental expression of emotions in parents who experience psychopathology is of much interest. Observational research has found that mothers who experience depression displayed significantly greater negative affect and significantly less positive affect, and match their child's negative affective state more often and match their child's positive affective state less often (Field et al. 1990; Hops et al. 1987). Given these changes in emotional expression, among other changes, parent psychopathology has a significant impact on children’s psychological, social, emotional, behavioural, and cognitive functioning (Cummings and Davies 1994; Leverton 2003; Luoma et al. 2001). Interestingly, recent research of these at-risk children shows that child emotion regulation abilities appear to act as a mediating link between maternal psychopathology and child internalizing and externalizing behaviour (Suveg et al. 2011). Despite this mediating link, research shows that increased maternal depressive symptomatology is shown to be associated with higher levels of emotion dysregulation and more passive emotion coping strategies in children (Blandon et al. 2008; Feng et al. 2008; Maughan et al. 2007; Silk et al. 2006). This pattern emphasizes the important role that parents play in the development of their child’s emotion regulation abilities, and the protective influence strong emotion regulation skills can provide.

In addition, it is important to note that both emotion and gender are highly socialized constructs. For example, an essential component of emotion regulation is the ability to express one’s emotions in a socially appropriate manner (Denham 2007). What is considered appropriate, however, is largely influenced by an individual’s social beliefs and expectations, which may in turn also be influenced by one’s gender (Brody and Hall 2010). Parents’ beliefs about the relationship between emotion and gender may therefore have an interesting influence on their emotion-related interactions with their children. In fact, research suggests that parents tend to not only associate feelings of anger with boys, but are also more accepting of the expression of anger by boys as compared to girls (Chaplin et al. 2010; van der Pol et al. 2015). In contrast, parents more readily associate and accept feelings of sadness and fear in girls and discourage the expression of these emotions in boys (Fivush and Buckner 2000; van der Pol et al. 2015). Furthermore, in preschool children, meta-analyses have revealed significant gender differences in externalizing emotions such as anger, disgust, and contempt, with boys displaying increased expression of these emotions as compared to girls (Chaplin and Aldao 2013). Beyond emotional expressivity, boys and girls have also been shown to differ in the specific emotion regulation strategies they employ. That is, boys tend to adopt more behaviourally-oriented or problem-focused strategies, whereas girls tend to employ strategies centered around seeking social support to regulate one’s emotions (Sala et al. 2014). These gender differences related to emotion expression and the use of emotion regulation strategies, results in unique emotion socialization experiences which have important implications when examining the underlying mechanisms that contribute to children’s emotional development.

Given the ways in which gender influences emotion, mothers and fathers may contribute differently to their child’s emotion socialization experience. Research has only recently begun to examine the role of fathers in children's emotional development. Although this has been recognized as an important future direction, research on fathers remains underdeveloped. (Katz et al. 2012). Within the limited current research, mothers have been shown to display greater emotion coaching behaviours and use more emotion words in conversation with their children than fathers (Fivush et al. 2000; Stocker et al. 2007). Given these findings and the importance of emotion coaching for children’s emotional development, perhaps mothers may have an increased influence on children’s emotion-related skills as compared to fathers. However, given the limited research in this area on fathers, this hypothesis remains to be tested. In regards to parental responses to specific emotions, research suggests that fathers are more likely to respond to their children’s internalizing emotions such as sadness by minimizing or dismissing the experience, while mothers are more likely to respond by encouraging the expression of the emotion or attempting to solve the problem (Cassano et al. 2007). When examining fathers’ unique socialization of sadness in boys and girls, fathers have been shown to respond more attentively to their young daughters' internalizing emotions such as sadness, but to their young sons' externalizing emotions such as anger (Chaplin et al. 2005). It is therefore important to consider that there may be an interaction between parent and child gender. It has also been suggested that children’s developmental stage may influence the role of parental emotion socialization, with fathers playing a more influential role in adolescence and mothers playing a more prominent role in earlier development (Katz et al. 2012; Hunter et al. 2011). Given these suggested differences in the ways in which mothers and fathers engage in emotion-related behaviour with their children, it is essential to explore whether parents’ gender has a distinct influence on preschool children’s emotional development.

It could be argued that parent-factors are important to explore in order to further our understanding of processes like child emotion lability and emotion regulation in children. Moreover, given our limited knowledge on how parent and child gender influence the socialization of these emotion processes, gender is also worth considering as we move our understanding of these emotional processes forward. To this end, the purpose of the present study is to examine the relationship between maternal and paternal emotional well-being (i.e., emotion regulation and psychological functioning) and child emotion lability and emotion regulation in preschool-aged boys and girls. We expected that maternal and paternal psychological functioning and emotion regulation would be positively correlated with child emotion regulation, and negatively correlated with child emotion lability. It was further hypothesized that the strength of these associations would be greater when examining maternal variables. We also examined whether maternal and/or paternal emotional well-being (i.e., psychological functioning and emotion regulation) would be predictive of child emotion lability or emotion regulation, hypothesizing that these relationships would be present for both models in boys and girls, but that the magnitude of the effect would again be larger when examining maternal emotional well-being.

Method

Participants

The current sample included ninety-three children (aged M = 41.60 months, SD = 5.00) and their parents (n = 93) with a proportional representation of boys (48%; M = 43.30 months, SD = 5.20) and girls (46%; M = 39.97 months, SD = 4.29). Participants who did not report the gender of their child were not included in analyses examining child gender (4%). The majority of maternal participants identified as heterosexual (92%), Caucasian (79%), biological mothers (93%), having an annual household income greater than 100,000 Canadian dollars (54%). A large proportion also reported having completed a graduate/professional degree (40%). The majority of paternal participants identified as heterosexual (99%), Caucasian (76%), biological fathers (96%), having an annual household income greater than 100,000 Canadian dollars (56%). A large proportion also reported having a graduate/professional degree (39%).

Procedure

Recruitment was facilitated through various daycares, parenting services, and community centres in a large Canadian city. Participants who identified that their child had been previously diagnosed with an Intellectual Disability or Autism Spectrum Disorder were not included in the study. Informed consent was obtained from parents. Verbal assent was obtained from children. As part of a larger scale study conducted at the University of Ottawa, parents completed self-report questionnaires regarding themselves and their child.

Measures

Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC)

The ERC measure is comprised of 24 items, consisting of two subscales that measure affect lability/negativity (LABILITY/NEGATIVITY; 15 items), and emotion regulation (EMOTION REGULATION; 8 items) (Shields and Cicchetti 1997). It should be noted that one item does not correspond to either subscale. For each item, participants rate a statement on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “Rarely/Never” to 4 “Almost always”. Possible scores on the emotion regulation subscale range from 8 to 32, with higher scores indicating greater emotion regulation abilities. In contrast, possible scores on the lability/negativity subscale range from 15 to 60, with higher scores reflecting greater emotional reactivity. The ERC is a widely-used measure of emotion regulation in children and has good psychometric properties (internal consistency for current sample α = 0.65; internal consistency based on previous research α = .98). Shields and Cicchetti (1997) also demonstrated that the ERC scale has good discriminant and convergent validity. The ERC was initially validated in a school age sample (age 6 to 12) and has since shown to be a promising and frequently used measure for preschool children (Shields and Cicchetti 1997; Shields et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2016).

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS)

The DERS is a self-report measure of emotion regulation abilities in adults (Gratz and Roemer 2004). This measure is comprised of six subscales that relate to aspects of emotion regulation: non-acceptance of emotional responses (NONACCEPT; six items), difficulty engaging in goal directed behaviour in the face of strong emotion (GOALS; five items), difficulties controlling impulses during strong emotions (IMPULSE; six items), lack of emotional awareness (AWARE; six items), limited access to emotion regulation strategies (STRATEGIES; eight items), and lack of clarity about one's emotional experience (CLARITY; five items). In total, this scale is comprised of 36 items. Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “Almost never” to 5 “Almost always”. Possible scores on the total scale range from 36 to 180. Higher scores reflect greater difficulty with emotion regulation. The DERS has good psychometric properties (internal consistency for current sample α = 0.86 for mothers and 0.76 for fathers; internal consistency based on previous research α = .80 to .89; test-retest reliability over 4 to 8-week period based on previous research = .57 to .89). Gratz and Roemer (2004) have also demonstrated that the DERS has adequate construct and predictive validity.

Symptom Checklist 90—Revised (SCL-90-R)

The SCL-90-R is a self-report measure consisting of nine subscales reflecting various symptoms of psychological difficulties in adults (Derogatis 1994). Subscales include: Somatization (SOM), Obsessive-Compulsive (O-C), Interpersonal Sensitivity (I-S), Depression (DEP), Anxiety (ANX), Hostility (HOS), Phobic Anxiety (PHOB), Paranoid Ideation (PAR), and Psychoticism (PSY). This measure is comprised of 90 items (12 that measure SOM, 10 that measure O-C, 9 that measure I-S, 13 that measure DEP, 10 that measure ANX, 6 that measure HOS, 7 that measure PHOB, 6 that measure PAR, 10 that measure PSY, and 7 additional items). Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 “Not at all” to 4 “Extremely”. Possible scores range from 0.0 to 4.0 with higher scores reflecting greater psychological distress. The SCL-90-R has good psychometric properties (internal consistency for current sample α = 0.98 for mothers and 0.97 for fathers; internal consistency based on previous research α = .77 to .90; test-retest over 1–10-week period based on previous research = .68 to .90). The SCL-90-R also has good convergent, divergent, predictive, and content validity (Derogatis 1994).

Data Analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between six variables — maternal/paternal psychological functioning, maternal/paternal emotion regulation, child emotion regulation, and child emotion lability. In addition, maternal and paternal psychological functioning and emotion regulation were examined as potential predictor variables of child emotion lability and emotion regulation. Preliminary correlational analyses were conducted to determine the presence and strength of the relationship between maternal/paternal psychological functioning (SCL-90-R), maternal/paternal emotion regulation (DERS), child emotion regulation (ERC), and child emotion lability (ERC). These same analyses were also conducted separately based on the child’s gender. Next, separate multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine whether maternal and/or paternal variables (i.e., psychological functioning and emotion regulation) predicted child emotion regulation or emotion lability in the overall sample, as well as in boys and girls separately.

Results

Descriptive analyses were conducted for all three measures. Results indicated that children’s mean emotion regulation (M = 25.93, SD = 6.06) and emotion lability (M = 27.56, SD = 3.25) were relatively similar, although more variability appeared evident in children’s emotion regulation ratings. In regards to parent variables, analyses revealed relatively similar descriptive statistics for both maternal (M = 68.65, SD = 17.80) and paternal (M = 71.91, SD = 16.21) ratings of overall difficulties in emotion regulation (DERS total), as well as maternal (M = 42.90, SD = 43.11) and paternal (M = 46.92, SD = 37.87) ratings of overall psychological difficulties (SCL-90-R Global Severity Index).

Parent and Child Variable Associations

No significant correlations were observed between child emotion regulation (ERC emotion regulation subscale), and either overall (Total DERS and SCL-90-R) or specific elements (i.e., subscales) of maternal emotion regulation and psychological functioning. Interestingly, child emotion lability was significantly positively correlated with overall maternal difficulties in emotion regulation (r = .48, p < .01) as well as several specific elements of maternal emotion regulation, including acceptance of one's emotional responses (r = .29, p < .05), difficulty engaging in goal directed behaviours (r = .37, p < .01), difficulty controlling impulses when experiencing an emotion (r = .44, p < .01), having poor clarity or understanding regarding one’s emotions (r = .30, p < .05), and mothers’ reports of having a lack of access to emotion regulation strategies (r = .46, p < .01). Analyses also indicated that child emotion lability was significantly positively correlated with mothers' overall reported experience of psychological distress (r = .49, p < .01), as well as mothers' reports of experience of symptoms of somatization (r = .36, p < .01), obsessive-compulsive disorder (r = .48, p < .01), anxiety (r = .41, p < .01), depression (r = .49, p < .01), interpersonal sensitivity (r = .34, p < .05), hostility (r = .30, p < .05), psychoticism (r = .38, p < .01), and additional symptomatology frequently associated with psychological distress (r = .44, p < .01).

In terms of paternal variables, consistent with maternal findings, no significant correlations were observed between child emotion regulation and either overall or specific elements of paternal emotion regulation and psychological functioning. Child emotion lability was significantly negatively correlated with fathers’ difficulty engaging in goal-directed behaviours (r = −.48, p < .01), positively correlated with paternal reported symptoms of anxiety (r = .38, p < .01). No additional significant correlations between child emotion lability and paternal variables were attained.

Relationships between maternal/paternal emotion regulation and psychological functioning, and child emotion regulation and lability were further examined by conducting analyses separately based on the child’s gender. Consistent with previous analyses, no significant relationships were observed between boys’ emotion regulation and mothers’ emotion regulation or psychological functioning (both overall and specific elements). Boys’ emotion lability was significantly positively correlated with mothers' overall difficulties in emotion regulation (r = .48, p < .05), as well as mothers’ lack of access to emotion regulation strategies (r = .58, p < .01). Furthermore, boys’ emotion lability was also significantly positively correlated with mothers’ overall psychological functioning (r = .59, p < .01), symptoms of somatization (r = .49, p < .05), obsessive-compulsive disorder (r = .41, p < .05), depression (r = .54, p < .01), anxiety (r = .47, p < .05), phobic anxiety (r = .46, p < .05), psychoticism (r = .51, p < .05), and additional symptoms frequently associated with psychological distress (r = .50, p < .05). In comparison, no significant correlations were observed between girls’ emotion regulation and mothers’ overall emotion regulation or psychological functioning. Girls’ emotion regulation was significantly negatively correlated with mothers’ difficulty engaging in goal directed behaviour (r = −.34, p < .05), and lack of emotional awareness (r = −.34, p < .05). Girls’ emotion lability, on the other hand, was significantly positively associated with mothers' overall difficulties in emotion regulation (r = .48, p < .01), difficulty engaging in goal directed behaviours (r = .37, p < .05), and difficulty controlling impulses (r = .52, p < .01). Significant positive correlations were also observed between girls’ emotion lability, and parents’ overall psychological functioning (r = .41, p < .05), obsessive-compulsive disorder (r = .56, p < .01), anxiety (r = .37, p < .05), depression (r = .45, p < .05), hostility (r = .46, p < .05), and additional symptoms often associated with psychological distress (r = .41, p < .05). The results from these analyses are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Maternal emotion regulation/psychological functioning and girls & boys emotion regulation/lability correlation matrix
Full size table

Interestingly, when examining the relationship between paternal variables and boys’ emotion lability and regulation, no significant correlations were observed with one exception. That is, a significant positive correlation was obtained between boys’ emotion lability and paternal anxiety (r = .61, p < .05). In regards to girls’ emotion regulation and paternal variables, girls’ emotion regulation was significantly positively correlated with fathers’ additional symptoms often associated with psychological distress (r = .46, p < .05). In contrast, girls’ emotion lability was significantly negatively correlated with fathers’ difficulty engaging in goal-directed behaviour (r = −.56, p < .01), and lack of access to emotion regulation strategies (r = −.54, p < .01), as well as with fathers’ paranoid ideation (r = −.50, p < .05) and additional symptoms frequently associated with psychological distress (r = −.60, p < .05). No additional significant correlations were observed. Results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Paternal emotion regulation/psychological functioning and girls and boys emotion regulation/lability correlation matrix
Full size table

Parent Emotional Well-being Predicting Child Variables

Multiple hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine whether maternal and/or paternal emotion regulation and psychological functioning predicted child emotion lability. Multiple regression analyses were conducted separately for maternal and paternal variables for the overall sample. Further multiple regression analyses for maternal and paternal variables were also conducted for boys and girls separately. Overall, results revealed that mothers’ emotional well-being (i.e., emotion regulation and psychological functioning) significantly predicted preschool children’s emotion lability in the present sample [F(2, 43) = 10.61, p < .001, R2 = .33]. When examined separately based on child gender, this model was significant for boys [F(2, 17) = 4.22, p < .05, R2 = .33] and girls [F(2,23) = 6.51, p < .01, R2 = .36]. Additional multiple regression analyses also revealed that fathers’ emotional well-being (i.e., emotion regulation and psychological functioning) did not significantly predict child emotion lability both when examined for the total sample, as well as separately based on child gender. Results are summarized in Tables 3–5. No significant models were observed with maternal or paternal emotion well-being predicting child emotion regulation for the total sample, or separately based on child gender. Results are summarized in Tables 3–8.

Table 3 Multiple regression analysis for maternal and paternal variables predicting child emotion lability
Full size table
Table 4 Multiple regression analysis for maternal and paternal variables predicting girls’ emotion lability
Full size table
Table 5 Multiple regression analysis for maternal and paternal variables predicting boys’ emotion lability
Full size table
Table 6 Multiple regression analysis for maternal and paternal variables predicting child emotion regulation
Full size table
Table 7 Multiple regression analysis for maternal and paternal variables predicting girls’ emotion regulation
Full size table
Table 8 Multiple regression analysis for maternal and paternal variables predicting boys’ emotion regulation
Full size table

Discussion

The current study examined maternal and paternal psychological functioning and emotion regulation as potential predictors of child emotion regulation and emotion lability. In partial support of our hypothesis, child emotion lability was significantly related to certain aspects of both maternal and paternal psychological functioning and emotion regulation. Contrary to our hypothesis, no statistically significant relationships were observed between maternal or paternal emotion regulation and child emotion regulation in the present sample, with the exception of the association between girls’ emotion regulation, and mothers' perceived ability to engage in goal-directed behaviours in the face of strong emotion, as well as mothers' perceived emotional awareness. This finding is generally inconsistent with previous research, which has found a significant relationship between the emotion regulation strategies used by mothers and their children (Bariola et al. 2012; Garber et al. 1991; Silk et al. 2006). Moreover, maternal and paternal psychological functioning were, overall, not related to child emotion regulation in the present sample. Contrary to our hypotheses, greater psychological-related symptoms in fathers were associated with greater emotion regulation abilities in girls. This finding is also inconsistent with the literature, which suggests children of parents who experience more psychological difficulties are more likely to experience poor emotion regulation skills and exhibit maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (Morris et al. 2007; Silk et al. 2006).

Although relationships between maternal/paternal and child emotion regulation were largely not observed, children’s emotional lability seemed to be highly related to various parental emotional variables. Specifically, child emotion lability was significantly related to mothers' overall psychological functioning, and to symptoms of obsession-compulsions, anxiety, depression, somatization, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility, and psychoticism, as well as to additional symptoms frequently associated with psychological distress. Child emotion lability was also significantly associated with mothers’ reported overall emotion regulation, difficulty accepting one’s emotions, ability to control their impulses when experiencing an emotion, access to emotion regulation strategies, engagement in goal-directed behaviours in the face of strong emotions, and clarity or insight into one’s emotions. In terms of the relationship to paternal emotion regulation and psychological functioning, child emotion lability was significantly inversely associated with fathers’ reported difficulty engagement in goal-directed behaviours in the face of strong emotions, but positively associated with fathers’ anxiety. While inconsistent with our hypotheses, it is possible that there may be mediating variables at play in the relationship between fathers' perceived ability to engage in goal-directed behaviours in the face of strong emotions and child emotion lability that would further clarify this relationship. For example, previous research has found that fathers’ unsupportive responses to children’s positive emotions is associated with higher emotion lability (Shewark and Blandon 2015). It is also possible that the unexpected findings can be explained by limited statistical power due to a small sample size when conducting analyses separately by parent gender. Future research should aim to replicate these findings in a larger sample while taking into consideration potential mediating variables.

Overall, these findings suggest that during the early preschool stages of development, mothers’ emotion regulation and psychological functioning are highly related with their child’s emotion lability. Interestingly, in the present sample, fathers’ emotion regulation and psychological functioning appear to play a less prominent role with the exception of fathers’ anxiety symptoms. Future research should aim to clarify and extend these findings beyond cross-sectional research in order to explore the directionality of these relationships. In addition, emotion regulation research should continue to explore child emotion lability within the conceptualization of emotion regulation, and further examine additional influences that contribute to the development of emotion lability in children.

When child gender was taken into account, girls’ emotion lability was significantly associated with mothers' overall difficulties in emotion regulation, ability to engage in goal-directed behaviours, and to control their impulses when experiencing an emotion, as well as their overall psychological functioning, symptoms of obsessions/compulsions, anxiety, depression, hostility, and additional symptomatology often associated with psychological distress. Contrary to our hypotheses, girls’ emotion regulation was positively associated with fathers’ additional symptomatology, while girls’ emotion lability was significantly inversely associated with fathers’ reported difficulty engaging in goal-directed behaviours, lack of access to emotion regulation strategies, paranoid ideation, and additional symptomatology frequently associated with psychological distress. Due to reduced sample sizes when conducting analyses separately based on parent and child gender, these unexpected findings may be explained by limited statistical power. Future research should aim to expand on and clarify these findings in a larger sample.

In comparison, boys’ emotion lability was associated with mothers’ overall reported emotion regulation, lack of access to emotion regulation strategies, overall psychological functioning, obsessions/compulsions, anxiety, somatization, depression, phobic anxiety, psychoticism, and additional symptomatology associated with psychological distress. Boys’ emotion lability was not associated with fathers’ emotion regulation skills, however, there was a significant association between boys’ emotion lability and fathers’ anxiety. Therefore, in the current sample, it appears that mothers’ psychological functioning is highly correlated with both boys’ and girls’ emotion lability, with subtle differences observed in the psychological symptom profile observed. That is, boys’ emotion lability appears to be uniquely associated with mothers’ phobic anxiety and psychoticism, while girls’ emotion lability appears to be uniquely associated with maternal hostility. Fathers’ psychological functioning appears to be less influential in the development of emotion lability, with the exception of paternal symptoms of anxiety which appears to be uniquely associated with boys’ emotion lability. In terms of mothers’ emotion regulation, in the present sample, girls’ emotion lability appeared to be associated with more aspects of mothers’ emotion regulation as compared to boys. This is consistent with previous research which suggests that mothers tend to engage in more elaborated emotional discussions with their daughters as compared to their sons, thus resulting in more rich emotion socialization experiences for girls (Eisenberg et al. 1998). In contrast, fathers’ emotion regulation was not associated with boys’ emotion lability, while unexpected relationships were observed between specific aspects of fathers’ emotion regulation and girls’ emotion lability. Taken together, mothers’ overall emotional well-being was shown to have a significant impact on the development of emotion lability for girls and boys, whereas fathers’ overall emotional well-being was not observed to have a significant effect. This finding is consistent with previous research which suggests that mothers engage in more emotion coaching behaviour and thus, may play a more influential role in the emotion socialization of their children as compared to fathers (Fivush et al. 2000; Stocker et al. 2007). Emotion regulation and psychological functioning are key components of parent’s own emotional well-being which consequently influences a parent’s emotional awareness and ability to engage in emotional experiences. In relation to Gottman and et al. (1996) meta-emotion philosophy, parents who have high levels of emotion well-being may be more able and likely to adopt an emotion coaching philosophy which may further contribute to an increased influence of the development of children’s emotion lability, as observed in the current sample for mothers and their children.

When interpreting the present findings, it is important to consider that the current sample consists of a young preschool-age population. Much of the research on child emotion regulation examines early infancy and middle childhood, and therefore the study of emotion regulation in the preschool years is still a relatively underdeveloped area of research (Shields and Cicchetti 1997). This is an important consideration when interpreting the current findings, as perhaps the relationship between parent and child emotion regulation is not as evident or is not effectively captured through the use of self-report measures in this stage of development. Although the ERC has shown to be a promising and frequently used measure for preschool samples, it has not yet been validated for this young age group (Shields and Cicchetti 1997; Shields et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2016). This is an important consideration for further research, which should focus on examining the development of emotion regulation across the lifespan and exploring the psychometric properties of the ERC in younger samples.

Another possible explanation for the general lack of significant relationships between parents’ emotion regulation and psychological functioning, and child emotion regulation, could be the conceptualization of emotion regulation used in the ERC measure. While both emotion lability and emotion regulation are intertwined emotional processes, emotion lability (defined by items such as “is prone to angry outburst/tantrums easily”) may perhaps be more apparent, more easily recognized, and require more attention by parents than children’s emotion regulation. The ways in which parents perceive emotion related behaviour in children, therefore, may correspond more to the Lability/Negativity subscale rather than the Emotion Regulation subscale. This may have contributed to the findings of the current study. Additional research conducted on preschool aged children, using the ERC measure, has obtained comparable emotion lability and emotion regulation mean item scores as the current study (Ellis et al. 2014). Previous research with preschool children using the ERC measure has also found the emotion lability subscale of this measure to be a more salient predictor of child symptomatology than the emotion regulation subscale. More specifically, Martin et al. (2010) found no associations between the emotion regulation subscale and externalizing symptoms in preschool aged children, and yet a direct relationship between the emotion lability subscale and these symptoms. These findings were inconsistent with research on these same variables in older children (Batum and Yagmurlu 2007). Participant age, therefore, may be an important consideration when interpreting the results. It could be that in young preschool aged children, parents are less able to recognize, and therefore report on, their child’s regulating behaviours, whereas emotion lability is more apparent. The measurement of emotion regulation, particularly in young children, poses a significant challenge to researchers. Our findings, along with those by Martin et al. (2010), suggest that the ERC may not fully capture emotion regulation processes in preschool children, and perhaps alternate measures should be explored.

Limitations and Future Research

This study serves as an initial step in the examination of parents' emotional well-being on child emotion lability and emotion regulation, but is not without limitations. The demographics of the current sample were fairly homogenous. Specifically, a large proportion of the families in the current sample were of high socio-economic status, with parents disproportionately reporting an annual household income greater than one hundred thousand Canadian dollars, and indicating that the highest level of education they obtained was a professional or graduate degree. These demographic characteristics are reflective of a large majority of individuals who choose to participate in scientific research (Galea and Tracy 2007). Given that previous research has found that socio-economic status is associated with the development of particular brain regions such as executive functioning, which is essential to the process of emotion lability and emotion regulation, this is an important consideration when interpreting the current findings (Hackman et al. 2010). The current sample of parents was also primarily heterosexual and Caucasian. Future research should aim to examine the emotional development of individuals within a sample that is more reflective of the general population. In addition, the sample size of the current study (N = 93), although sufficient when analysing the total sample, is relatively small when analysed separately based on child gender which may influence the statistical findings of the study, as a larger sample size allows for greater confidence in the results. In addition, the current study consisted of three self-report measures resulting in a small-scale study. It is also important to consider that investigation of these variables at the fine-grained subscale level could result in spurious correlations. Future research should aim to replicate and expand on the current research with a larger battery of measures and should seek to replicate findings in a larger and more diverse sample in order to draw more confident conclusions. Further limitations include the use of self-report measures in the current study. Self-reports are a common measure used in psychological research, however the reliability of self-reports measures is a limitation to this methodology (Kanfer 1970). Future studies should also include behavioural measures of emotion regulation to supplement self-report data.

According to our findings, maternal and paternal emotion regulation is, overall, not related to child emotion regulation in young preschool aged children. This study provides preliminary evidence that emotion lability may be an important construct to examine within emotion regulation research. In addition, this study contributes to current research that examines the development of emotion regulation, with a focus on early preschool development. Emotion regulation develops across the lifespan, and therefore, the early developmental period of the preschool years may provide important and unique contributions to current research. Furthermore, the results of this study suggest that although parents’ psychological functioning and emotion regulation play a significant role in both boys and girls emotion lability, maternal emotional well-being appears to play a more prominent role in this developmental process than fathers’ emotional well-being. This has important implications for future research to further explore the importance of targeting maternal emotional well-being to foster children’s positive emotional development. Given that the inclusion of fathers’ in the emotional development research is a relatively new direction, future research should aim to further examine fathers’ role in children’s emotion socialization. Further research and understanding on the role of parent emotional processes on children’s emotional development will be important to gain an in depth understanding of the development of emotion processes. With further understanding and critical knowledge, this area of research can be used to promote and facilitate positive emotional development in children, and consequently resiliency.