Early Family Relationships Predict Children’s Emotion Regulation and Defense Mechanisms

SAGE Open October-December 2016: 1 –18 © The Author(s) 2016 DOI: 10.1177/2158244016681393 sgo.sagepub.com Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). Article Learning to regulate emotional experiences and impulses is one of the most important developmental tasks during child’s early years. There is robust evidence that both emotion regulation (Aldao, Nolen-Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010) and defense mechanisms (Bond, 2004) are important for one’s mental health and socioemotional functioning. However, few empirical studies have considered emotion regulation and defense mechanisms together, probably because of their different origins in cognitive versus psychodynamic and clinical research traditions (Sala, Testa, Pons, & Molina, 2015). Furthermore, whereas substantial empirical research is available on the development of emotion regulation (e.g., Calkins & Hill, 2007; Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010; Kopp & Neufeld, 2003), research on children’s defense mechanisms and their early predictors is more scarce (see Cramer, 2006). Thus, the present study aims to increase knowledge concerning the differences and similarities between early predictors of emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. We analyze how the quality of family relationships during infancy predicts children’s emotion regulation and defense mechanisms in middle childhood. We expand earlier research by considering emotion regulation and defense mechanisms together, and by testing the importance of timing of the family relationships during early and late infancy. Emotion Regulation and Defense Mechanisms Regulation of affective states, such as emotions, mood, stress, and motivational impulses, involves multiple processes which help to maintain, for example, goal-directed behaviors, positive mood, and sense of security (Gross & Thompson, 2007; Hart, 2014; Koole, 2009). According to Gross and Thompson, such affect regulation processes involve both emotion regulation and defense mechanisms (Gross, 1998; Gross & Thompson, 2007). Although the differences and similarities 681393SGOXXX10.1177/2158244016681393SAGE OpenLindblom et al. research-article2016 1University of Tampere, Finland 2University of Turku, Finland 3University of Helsinki, Finland 4Helsinki University Central Hospital, Finland Corresponding Author: Jallu Lindblom, School of Social Sciences and Humanities / Psychology, University of Tampere, FIN-33014, Finland. Email: [email protected] Early Family Relationships Predict Children’s Emotion Regulation and Defense Mechanisms Jallu Lindblom1, Raija-Leena Punamäki1, Marjo Flykt1, Mervi Vänskä1, Tapio Nummi1, Jari Sinkkonen2, Aila Tiitinen3,4, and Maija Tulppala3 Abstract Early family relationships have been suggested to influence the development of children’s affect regulation, involving both emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. However, we lack research on the specific family predictors for these two forms of affect regulation, which have been conceptualized to differ in their functions and accessibility to consciousness. Accordingly, we examine how the (a) quality and (b) timing of family relationships during infancy predict child’s later emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. Parents (N = 703) reported autonomy and intimacy in marital and parenting relationships at the child’s ages of 2 and 12 months, and the child’s use of emotion regulation and immature and neurotic defenses at 7 to 8 years. As hypothesized, the results showed that functional early family relationships predicted children’s efficient emotion regulation, whereas dysfunctional relationships predicted reliance on defense mechanisms in middle childhood. Further, results showed a timing effect for neurotic defenses, partially confirming our hypothesis of early infancy being an especially important period for the development of defense mechanisms. The findings are discussed from the viewpoints of attachment and family dynamics, emotional self-awareness, and sense of security. Keywords family relationships, emotion regulation, defense mechanisms, infancy, caregiving 2 SAGE Open between these two are inadequately understood, emotion regulation is conceptualized to focus on managing discrete emotional states (Gross, 1998; Gross & Thompson, 2007), and defense mechanisms on managing motivational impulses and needs (Hart, 2014; Vaillant, 1995). Furthermore, whereas emotion regulation has been suggested to operate both consciously and unconsciously (Gross & Thompson, 2007; Mauss, Bunge, & Gross, 2007), defense mechanisms are thought to operate unconsciously (Cramer, 2008; Gross & Thompson, 2007; Vaillant, 1995). Emotion regulation refers to the processes individuals use to influence which emotions they experience and when and how they experience and express them (Gross, 1998; Gross & Thompson, 2007). Voluntary emotion regulation typically occurs when an individual becomes aware of own emotional states and shapes them according to situational demands and personal goals (Gross, Richards, & John, 2006). Emotions can be regulated, for example, by attending toward less emotion-provoking aspects of the situation or by cognitively reappraising the meaning of the situation. Self-awareness of one’s own emotions fosters efficient emotion regulation, likely because this allows internal states to be better understood and modified (Herwig, Kaffenberger, Jäncke, & Brühl, 2010; Subic-Wrana et al., 2014). Interestingly, however, research suggests that emotion regulation can also occur automatically outside of awareness (Bargh, Schwader, Hailey, Dyer, & Boothby, 2012; Mauss, Bunge, & Gross, 2007). For example, Mauss, Cook, and Gross (2007) demonstrated that subliminally priming emotion regulation (by presenting words related to emotional control) helped participants to downregulate their emotional responses to anger provocation. Such automatic emotion regulation probably reflects the activation of previously learned and routinized emotion regulation strategies (Mauss, Bunge, & Gross, 2007). Defense mechanisms modulate emotional experiences unconsciously, without being consciously accessible (Cramer & Brilliant, 2001; Gross & Thompson, 2007). They aim to maintain psychological sense of security by producing cognitive distortions and by limiting the conscious experience of negative emotions (Hart, 2014; Steiner, Araujo, & Koopman, 2001). Research suggests that defensive self-deception, involving biased attention and memory, is inherently unconscious because awareness of it would impede its effectiveness (von Hippel & Trivers, 2011). For example, conscious and deliberate attempts to suppress unwanted thoughts often result in their reappearance into consciousness (Abramowitz, Tolin, & Street, 2001), whereas unconscious and automatic repression of unwanted thoughts is more efficient (Geraerts, Dritschel, Kreplin, Miyagawa, & Waddington, 2012; Lambie & Kevin, 2003). Thus, it seems essential for defense mechanisms to fulfill their function by operating unconsciously. From developmental perspective, Cramer and Brilliant (2001) found that children’s understanding of defense mechanisms increased from 7 to 11 years. Importantly, those children who understood the defensive function of denial and projection in vignettes were less likely to use these defenses themselves. Such findings support the view that children typically rely on primitive and cognitively simple defense mechanisms (e.g., denial) during infancy and early childhood (Fraiberg, 1982), but progress toward more complex defenses (e.g., projection and identification) as their cognitive abilities and self-awareness develop in middle childhood and beyond (Cramer, 2006). Vaillant (1971, 1995) categorized defenses according to their developmental maturity and mental complexity. Empirical studies have confirmed the existence of two to three defense dimensions among adults (e.g., Andrews, Pollock, & Stewart, 1989; Bond, 1995, 2004) and children and adolescents (Araujo, Medic, Yasnovsky, & Steiner, 2006; Steiner et al., 2001). Immature defenses produce severe cognitive distortions about self and others. For example, in projection, unacceptable emotions are attributed to emancipate from others, and in omnipotence, self is perceived superior in comparison with others. Neurotic defenses typically alter subjective experiences by dissociating emotional and cognitive mental contents. For example, in repression, a threatening thought is shut out of consciousness, and in reaction formation, it is transformed into its opposite. In contrast, mature defenses typically cause only minor cognitive distortions (Vaillant, 2000) and they have been suggested to be more conscious and deliberate (Conte & Plutchik, 1993; Cramer, 2006; Vaillant, 2000). Indeed, reliance on mature defenses has been found to associate with high emotional self-awareness and efficient emotion regulation (Besharat & Khajavi, 2013; Sala et al., 2015). As mature defenses cannot be clearly differentiated from emotion regulation, the present study focuses on immature and neurotic defenses. According to Hart’s (2014) integrative defense theory, reliance on self-deceptive defense mechanisms is primarily motivated by sense of insecurity, characterized by experiences of vulnerability and lack of confidence about one’s ability to cope with threats. Insecurity can stem from various sources, involving attachment relationships, selfesteem, and conflicts in beliefs. In line with the theory, studies have shown reliance on defense mechanisms to increase after being rejected by an important peer among 9to 11-year-old girls (Sandstrom & Cramer, 2003) and to associate with low emotional upset after traumatic event among 10to 13-year-old boys (Dollinger & Cramer, 1990). Furthermore, retrospective and cross-sectional adult studies have shown reliance on immature and neurotic defenses to associate with childhood experiences of harsh parenting (Finzi-Dottan & Karu, 2006), attachment insecurity (Besharat & Khajavi, 2013), and beliefs of abandonment (Walburg & Chiaramello, 2015) and one’s own emotions being unacceptable (Sala et al., 2015). While such associations have not been studied among children, they suggest that reliance on defense mechanisms can be shaped by early social and emotional experiences. Lindblom et al. 3 Early Family Relationships and Development of Affect Regulation During infancy, children rely heavily on their mothers and fathers for aid to regulate their arousal and distress (Ekas, Braungart-Rieker, Lickenbrock, Zentall, & Maxwell, 2011; Kopp & Neufeld, 2003). Sensitive and supportive caregiving facilitates children’s cognitive development, such as attention and executive skills (Bernier, Carlson, Deschênes, & Matte-Gagné, 2012; Evans & Porter, 2009), which in turn promotes efficient emotion regulation (Eisenberg et al., 2010). Furthermore, as depicted by attachment theory, sensitive caregivers foster children’s sense of security by providing emotional acceptance, expertise, and continuous support on which the child can rely on (Cassidy, 1994; Thompson & Meyer, 2007). This helps children to develop emotional awareness and effective emotion regulation with potentially long-term positive impact on later development (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011; Moutsiana et al., 2015). In contrast, insensitive caregiving impairs children’s cognitive development and sense of security (Bernier et al., 2012; Cassidy, 1994). Children with insecure attachment style tend to either exaggerate or suppress their emotional expressions to ensure parental proximity and protection (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Attachment research suggests that insecurely attached children and adults process attachment-related information defensively, to avoid psychological pain (for a review, see Dykas & Cassidy, 2011). For example, Kirsh and Cassidy (1997) found that insecurely attached 3-year-old children showed attentional avoidance of attachment cues (e.g., mother-child drawings) and deficits in remembering threatening information (e.g., story about maternal rejection). However, to the best of our knowledge, previous studies have not examined whether insensitive caregiving predicts children’s reliance on defense mechanisms during later development. To gain a comprehensive understanding about children’s developmental environment, it is important to broaden the focus from dyadic relationships to the wider family system (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007; Thompson & Meyer, 2007). According to emotional security theory, children adapt their regulatory strategies to fit the quality of family relationships, involving interparental conflicts and interactions (Davies & Martin, 2013). Children may, for example, suppress or exaggerate their expression of emotional distress to defuse or avoid interparental conflicts. In line with this, infant studies have demonstrated that interparental conflicts increase children’s emotion dysregulation and attentional avoidance of stress-provoking stimuli (Crockenberg, Leerkes, & Lekka, 2007; Du Rocher Schudlich, White, Fleischhauer, & Fitzgerald, 2011). In our previous study, we found that dysfunctional family systems during infancy, involving both parental and marital subsystems, predicted both children’s attentional avoidance and attentional bias toward threats (i.e., angry facial expressions) in middle childhood (Lindblom, et al., 2015). Altogether, these studies suggest that children’s development of emotion regulation and defense mechanism is malleable by the early interpersonal experiences within the family. Results of attachment and family studies concur with Hart’s (2014) integrative defense theory, by demonstrating that insecurity-provoking family relationships heighten children’s defensiveness, as indicated by their self-protective behaviors and information processing biases. Surprisingly, however, previous prospective studies have not examined how the quality of family relationships during infancy predicts children’s affect regulation during middle childhood or beyond. Furthermore, most research about affect regulation has focused on the quality of maternal caregiving, excluding fathers and interparental relationships. Thus, in the current prospective study, we assess the quality of children’s interactional environment at the family level, including both the parenting and the marital subsystems. Autonomy and intimacy, two of the very most basic relational dimensions (Byng-Hall, 1999), are applied to define the relationship quality in marital and parenting subsystems. In relationship with the spouse or child, autonomy refers to individuality and a sense of agency, reflecting functional family boundaries, and intimacy refers to feelings of love and sharing of emotions (Mattejat & Scholz, 1994). Low autonomy and intimacy in the marital subsystem indicate poor relationship quality and associate with interparental conflicts and verbal aggression (Gavazzi, McKenry, Jacobson, Julian, & Lohman, 2000; Rankin-Esquer, Burnett, Baucom, & Epstein, 1997), whereas low autonomy and intimacy in parenting indicate insensitive parenting and associate with overly hesitant, intrusive, and emotionally disengaged caregiving (Leung, Miller, Lumeng, Kaciroti, & Rosenblum, 2015; Sokolowski, Hans, Bernstein, & Cox, 2007). Age-Specific Development During Infancy Neurodevelopmental and behavioral studies suggest that sensitive periods exist in child development with potential longterm consequences on later functioning (Pechtel & Pizzagalli, 2011; Tottenham & Sheridan, 2010). As an example of sensitive period, animal studies have demonstrated that very early disruptions in maternal care can permanently alter attachment-related neural functioning and emotional learning (Rincón-Cortés & Sullivan, 2014). Furthermore, the studies of institutionalized and then adopted children suggest that the first 2 years of life are especially important for social skills (Almas et al., 2012), and the second year of life is especially important for executive functions (Merz, McCall, Wright, & Luna, 2013). However, research is lacking about the more normative social experiences within the infancy period. For example, one study found that high amount of maternal stroking at the infant’s age of 2 months was beneficial on children’s emotional well-being at the age of 2.5 years (Sharp, 4 SAGE Open Hill, Hellier, & Pickles, 2015). Yet, the study did not test whether the timing of maternal stroking (e.g., early vs. late infancy) would moderate the effect. To our knowledge, only one study has explicitly tested for the existence of age-specific timing effects during infancy. The person-oriented study analyzed the course of maternal psychological distress across the preand postpartum period, and found that children of mothers who were symptomatic at the child’s age of 2 months (but not during the pregnancy or the child’s age of 12 months) showed increased internalizing symptoms at 7 to 8 years, compared with children of mothers who were symptomatic only at pregnancy or at the child’s age of 12 months (Vänskä et al., 2011). The results are indicative of potential age-specific effects during infancy on the development of affect regulation. Neurodevelopmental research suggests that simple and involuntary functions, such as implicit emotional learning, develop earlier than complex and voluntarily controlled functions, such as executive skills (Pechtel & Pizzagalli, 2011). Considering the functional differences between emotion regulation and defense mechanisms, it can be hypothesized that the automatized processes related to defense mechanisms develop earlier than those of the more cognitively complex emotion regulation. Regarding defense mechanisms, it has been suggested that repression, that is, defensive exclusion of threatening thoughts from consciousness, is related to impaired memory formation and recall, involving altered amygdala and hippocampus function (Axmacher, Do Lam, Kessler, & Fell, 2010). Interestingly, developmental research suggests that the development of these brain structures is malleable to stress-induced alterations already during early infancy (Tottenham & Sheridan, 2010). Regarding emotion regulation, there is some evidence that the underlying brain structures, related to conscious monitoring of and controlling own emotions (e.g., orbitofrontal cortex and anterior cingulate gyrus), are malleable to experiences during the late infancy and later on (Moutsiana et al, 2014; Zelazo, Qu, & Kesek, 2010). Research Tasks and Hypotheses We examined how the quality and timing of early family relationships predict children’s later emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. Autonomy and intimacy in marital and parental family subsystems were assessed at the child’s age of 2 months and 12 months. Emotion regulation, immature defenses, and neurotic defenses were assessed when the children were 7 to 8 years old. As our first research task, we tested a different family preconditions hypothesis that the quality of family relationships during infancy predicts children’s later emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. We hypothesized that well-functioning family relationships, involving high levels of autonomy and intimacy, would predict children’s efficient emotion regulation, and dysfunctional family relationships, involving low level of autonomy and intimacy, would predict children’s reliance on immature and neurotic defenses. As our second research task, we tested an age-specific hypothesis that the timing of family relationship quality at the ages of 2 months and 12 months would differently predict emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. We hypothesized that relationship quality at 12 months would predict effectiveness of emotion regulation more strongly than at 2 months. Further, we hypothesized that family-relationship quality at 2 months would predict reliance on immature and neurotic defenses more strongly than at 12 months. Child’s early characteristics, involving temperamental traits and developmental achievements, can influence the quality of early parenting (e.g., Biringen, Emde, Campos, & Appelbaum, 1995) and child’s self-regulation development (e.g., Ursache, Blair, Stifter, Voegtline, & Family Life Project Investigators, 2013). Furthermore, half of the couples participating in our sample had achieved parenthood through assisted reproductive treatment (ART). Thus, we controlled for the potentially confounding effects of the first year developmental achievements and ART status in addition to other background variables. Finally, when modeling age-specific effects, we controlled for the effects of concurrent family relationships at the age of 7 to 8 years. Method Participants and Procedure The study sample consisted of 703 Finnish married or cohabitant couples. Of the participating couples, 56% had received successful ART (n = 392) and were recruited from five infertility clinics in Finland, whereas 44% were naturally conceiving couples (NC; n = 311) and were recruited at Helsinki University Central Hospital while participating in routine ultrasonographic examination. Couples with multiple pregnancies were excluded from the study sample and only women above the age of 25 years were included in the NC group. The participants provided informed consent at the beginning of the study and at T3. The ethics committees of the responsible clinics approved the study at each stage of the data collection. The ART couples were more often primiparous (65.70%) than the NC couples (34.30%), χ2(1, N = 703) = 49.91, p < .001. In the whole sample, the education level was relatively high: 29% of the mothers and 31% of the fathers had a university-level education, 40% of the mothers and 27% of the fathers had a college-level education, 14% of the mothers and 23% of the fathers had vocational training, and 17% of the mothers and 19% of the fathers had basic education or were students. The mean age of the mothers was 33.19 years (SD = 3.73) and fathers 34.60 (SD = 4.95). This study is based on questionnaires completed separately by mothers and fathers when their child was 2 months (T1), 12 months (T2), and 7 to 8 years (T3) of age. Response Lindblom et al. 5 rates (at least one parent participating) were 94% at T1 (n = 656), 78% at T2 (n = 547), and 60% at T3 (n = 420). Attrition at T2 and T3 was independent of the mothers’ or fathers’ level of education, the length of their relationship, the parents’ ages, and the child’s gender. Attrition at T2 and T3 was also independent of the ART status of the mothers, but it was greater among NC (8.9%) than ART (5.4%) fathers at T2, χ2(1, N = 656) = 3.18, p = .052. Measures Family relationships. Family relationships were measured by the Subjective Family Picture Test (SFPT; Mattejat & Scholz, 1994) at the child’s ages of 2 months (T1), 12 months (T2), and 7 to 8 years (T3). Both parents rated the quality of four family relationships: wife-to-husband, husband-to-wife, mother-to-child, and father-to-child. These relationships were rated in terms of autonomy (four pairs of items, e.g., determined–indecisive, shy–self-assured) and emotional intimacy (four pairs of items, e.g., rejecting–loving, warm– cool) using a 7-point scale. Higher scores on autonomy indicate relational self-assurance, agency, and independence, whereas high scores on intimacy indicate emotional attachment, interest, and acceptance. To measure autonomy or intimacy in the marital subsystem and in the family subsystem, the corresponding two items were averaged across parenting relationships (mother-to-child and father-to-child) and across marital relationships (wife-to-husband and husband-to-wife) separately for both parents’ reports. This averaging was justified as there were medium-sized correlations between the items (average r = .44, ranging from .27 to .79, all p < .001). However, the correlation was small for the item determined– indecisive between mothers’ reports of wife-to-husband and husband-to-wife relationships at T3, r = .15, p < .001. The resulting variables were used as indicator variables for latent constructs of marital autonomy, marital intimacy, parental autonomy, and parental intimacy, separately for fathers’ and mothers’ reports, at T1, T2, and T3. The validity and reliability of SFPT scales have been demonstrated, for example, by large correlations (average r = .60) with other family diagnostic questionnaires, and acceptable retest reliability over 2 weeks interval (r = .77; Mattejat & Scholz, 1994). Child’s emotion regulation. The child’s emotional self-regulation at the age of 7 to 8 years (T3) was assessed by the selfregulation subscale of the Emotion Questionnaire (EQ; Rydell, Berlin, & Bohlin, 2003). EQ consists of vignettes describing emotion-evoking situations for different emotions. For each vignette, parents estimated on a 5-point Likert scale how easily the child was able to calm down by himor herself (1 = doesn’t apply at all, 5 = applies very well to my child). We used nine vignettes for negative emotions of anger (e.g., My child gets into a conflict with a peer), sadness (e.g., A toy is lost or broken), and fear (e.g., My child gets frightened and worried). To include more complex emotions as well, we added six vignettes for shame/guilt (e.g., My child gets caught doing something forbidden). First, items were averaged separately for each emotion of anger (three items), sadness (three items), fear (three items), and shame/ guilt (six items). Second, these four variables were averaged to represent efficiency of emotion regulation separately for mothers (α = .84) and fathers (α = .93). These two variables were used as indicator variables in structural equation models. The validity and reliability of EQ has been demonstrated by showing high scores on EQ at the age of 6 years to predict low behavioral and emotional problems and prosocial behaviors at the age of 8 years, and acceptable retest reliability over 5 weeks interval (ranging from r = .74 to .97; Rydell et al., 2003). Child’s defense mechanisms. The child’s defense mechanisms were measured at the age of 7 to 8 years (T3) with the parent version of the Response Evaluation Measure for Parents (REM-P: Steiner et al., 2001; Yasnovsky et al., 2003). REM-P is based on Vaillant’s (1971, 1995) model of defense mechanisms and is similar to the widely studied Defense Style Questionnaire (Andrews et al., 1989; Bond, 1995). However, REM-P is modified to be suitable for adolescents and children and to avoid overly pathological wording. It comprises 71 items that describe 21 defenses ranging from immature to neurotic and mature defense mechanisms, such as repression (three items; e.g., My child doesn’t show his/ her true feelings), projection (three items; e.g., My child feels that s/he is always treated unfairly), and intellectualization (four items; e.g., My Child uses reason and logic, not feelings, to understand people). Both parents independently estimated the child’s typical defensive behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 9 = totally agree). Although defense mechanisms are considered to operate unconsciously, their operation can be assessed through their residuals in behavior and emotional responding (Bond, 1995). First, to obtain defense scores, 21 sum variables were computed by averaging the items representing each defense mechanism (three to four items per defense mechanism). Second, to examine the factor structure of parental reports of defense mechanisms in this age group of children, we performed exploratory factor analyses (using averaged values between the parents’ reports and the principal extraction method with oblimin rotation). The analysis yielded a threefactor solution: (a) immature defenses (22.19% variance explained; e.g., acting out, projection, displacement, omnipotence, passive aggression), (b) mature defenses (16.12%; e.g., humor, intellectualization, sublimation, reaction formation, altruism), and (c) neurotic defenses (8.17%; e.g., repression, denial, dissociation, withdrawal, suppression). Two sum variables of individual defense mechanisms had to be excluded from the analyses because of low variability (conversion) or low initial eigenvalues in factor analysis (<0.20 for somatization). Third, based on this three-factor solution, defense-style scores were computed by averaging the 6 SAGE Open corresponding sum variables to represent the child’s reliance on immature defenses (five variables; mother, α = .74; father, α = .72) and neurotic defenses (six variables; mother, α = .64; father, α = .67) separately for both parents’ reports. The resulting four variables were used as indicator variables in structural equation models. Mature defenses were excluded from the main analyses because our hypotheses did not concern them. The validity of the self-report version of the questionnaire has been demonstrated, for example, by showing correlations with anxiety and psychosocial functioning among 8to 15-year-old children (Araujo et al., 2006). However, the parent version has been previously used only in one study of 34 mothers and their 7to 10-year-old children (Yasnovsky et al., 2003). The study showed acceptable retest reliability over 2 weeks interval (r = .81), but only modest convergence with children’s self-reports of defense mechanisms (r = .36; immature and neurotic defenses were considered as a joint factor). Early developmental achievements. Early developmental achievements (or delays) were measured with parental reports. At child’s age of 2 months (T2), parents reported the emergence of the child’s contact smile (0 = no, 1 = yes), eye contact (0 = no, 1 = yes), and regularity of eating and sleeping rhythms (0 = no, 1 = yes). At the age of 12 months (T3), parents reported the child’s ability to walk without support (0 = no, 1 = yes), ability to stand (0 = no, 1 = yes), and regularity of sleeping rhythms (0 = no, 1 = yes). The six items were standardized and averaged to form a developmental achievement index. The reliability of this index was poor (α = .53), indicating that the developmental domains were independent of each other. Yet, to obtain a balanced assessment of developmental achievements during the first year, we decided to use this variable as a rough cumulative index (for a similar approach, see Appleyard, Egeland, van Dulmen, & Sroufe, 2005). Providing some validity for the index, we found in our previous study a highly similar index to associate negatively with birth complications and poor neonatal health (e.g., low agpar scores) (Punamäki et al., 2006). Background variables. Background variables were child’s gender, mothers’ age, ART status, parents’ average education level (academic level, college level, vocational training, basic education/student), and number of previous children (primior multiparity). Statistical Analyses Statistical analyses were carried out using structural equation modeling with the Mplus 5 program (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2007) using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors. This estimation method handles missing data using full information maximum likelihood. The overall fit of the models was evaluated with the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root mean square errors of approximation (RMSEA), and the chi-square (χ2). As a criterion of acceptable fit, we used values of >0.95 for CFI and TLI (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and <0.08 for RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). R-squared values were reported to indicate absolute (R2) and incremental (ΔR2) variance accounted by the independent variables over and above the control variables. Benjamini-Hochberg procedure was used to protect significance levels against false positive discoveries (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). In all models, child’s developmental achievements and background variables were used as covariates. The different family preconditions hypothesis was tested by regressing the latent variables of early family-relationship quality on emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. To examine whether the quality of family relationships decreased or increased the child’s efficacy of emotion regulation and reliance on the neurotic and immature defenses, regression coefficients were estimated separately for both assessments at 2 months (T1) and at 12 months (T2). To test the age-specific hypothesis, age-specific models were built separately for each family-relationship dimension predicting children’s affect regulation, that is, emotion regulation, neurotic defenses, and immature defenses (for a conceptual depiction, see Figure 1). Two criteria, adapted from Budescu (1993), were used to compare the relative importance of family relationships at 2 months and at 12 months. The age-specific predictor is more important than another predictor if it both (a) explains a larger proportion of the dependent variable when examined without the another predictor and (b) explains a unique proportion of the dependent variable when shared variance with another predictor is taken into account. As shown in Figure 1, the concurrent effects of family relationships at the child’s age of 7 to 8 years (T3) were controlled in all age-specific models. First, we used Akaike’s information criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1973) to test which of the two age-specific models (Model T1 or Model T2 in Figure 1) explained a larger proportion of emotion regulation and neurotic and immature defenses. A difference of ≥ |2.00| in AIC was used as a rule of thumb to indicate meaningful significance in the explanatory power between the non-nested age-specific models (Burnham & Anderson, 2002). Negative values indicate greater predictive power of family relationships at 2 months (Model T1) over 12 months (Model T2). Conversely, positive values indicate greater predictive power of family relationships at 12 months (Model T2) over 2 months (Model T1). Second, we used the Satorra-Bentler adjusted chi-square test (Δχ2; Satorra & Bentler, 2001) to test whether each of the age-specific model had unique predictive power over and above the other age-specific model. This was achieved by nested comparisons between the age-specific models (Model T1 and Model T2 in Figure 1) and the baseline model (Models T1 and T2). To test the unique contribution of 2 months over 12 months, the fit of Model T2 was tested against that of Models T1 and T2. Conversely, to test the Lindblom et al. 7 unique contribution of family relationships quality at 12 months over 2 months, the fit of Model T1 was tested against that of Models T1 and T2. Poorer fit of the age-specific (e.g., Model T1) model compared with that of the baseline model (Models T1 and T2) indicates unique predictive power of the excluded age-specific predictor (e.g., 12 months). Both non-nested and nested comparisons of age-specific models were based on the total fit of the models because this is not influenced by the possible problem of multicollinearity biasing individual path coefficients (e.g., Marsh, Dowson, Pietsch, & Walker, 2004). In other words, the comparisons reflect the combined total effects of both parents’ reports of family relationships. Results Measurement and Structural Model Family relationships. Figures 2 to 5 present the measurement models for marital autonomy, parental autonomy, marital intimacy, and parental intimacy. All models showed good fit, and tests of longitudinal factorial invariance confirmed stability over time, indicating that the latent constructs captured identical content across T1, T2, and T3. However, we had to exclude one indicator variable (independent–dependent) due to low factor loading from models of autonomy. Tests of factorial invariance between mothers’ and fathers’ reports showed similarity in reports of parental autonomy, marital autonomy, and marital intimacy, but not in reports of parental intimacy. The lack of interparental factorial invariance for parental intimacy indicates that mothers and fathers perceived the latent concept of parental intimacy differently. In all models, error terms were correlated across time (T1-T2, T2-T3, and T1-T3) within each respondent (mother or father) to control for item-related biases. These error correlations were constrained to be the same when this did not impair the model fit. Affect regulation. The measurement model for the child’s emotion regulation and defense mechanisms, presented in Figure 6, showed good fit, CFI = .99; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = [.00, .08]; χ2(3) = 2.83, p = .860. Efficient emotion regulation correlated negatively with use of both neurotic, r = −.40, p < .001, and immature, r = −.71, p < .001, defenses. Only a marginally significant positive correlation was found between immature and neurotic defenses, r = .21, p = .070. There was some fluctuation of factor loadings between mothers (.54-.81) and fathers (.66-.78). Thus, to ensure in subsequent analyses that both the fathers’ and the mothers’ reports contributed equally to affect regulation variables, the factor loadings for indicator variables were fixed at one. Despite this technical restriction, the resulting model showed good fit, CFI = .99; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .02, 90% CI = [.00, .09]; χ2(3) = 3.29, p = .907, and practically replicated the correlations between emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. Equality of structural models between subgroups. Before testing the research hypotheses, we examined whether modeling should be done separately for the mothers’ and fathers’ reports of family relationships, separately for families with a boy or a girl as the target child, or separately for families with or without fertility treatment history (ART or NC). The similarity of the latent correlations, that is, structural equality assumption, was tested in models combining the family relationships (Figures 2-5) and affect regulation (Figure 6). In these combined models, family relationships at T1, T2, and T3 were allowed to correlate with the child’s emotion regulation, neurotic defenses, and immature defenses at T3. Chi-square difference tests showed similar correlations between the mothers’ and fathers’ reports of family relationships and emotion regulation, neurotic defenses, and immature defenses regarding parental autonomy, χ2(9) = 12.76, p = .174; marital intimacy, χ2(9) = 10.02, p = .349; and marital autonomy, χ2(9) = 9.76, p = .371. However, the Figure 1. Conceptualization of the models used to test age-specific effects of family relationships on affect regulation. Note. T1, T2, and T3 refer respectively to child’s ages of 2 months, 12 months, and 7 to 8 years. Family relationships at T3 (marked with dashed lines) are included in all age-specific models as a covariate. T = time. 8 SAGE Open correlations differed between mothers’ and fathers’ reports of parental intimacy and emotion regulation, neurotic defenses, and immature defenses, χ2(9) = 17.06, p = .047. Thus, subsequent analyses were done separately for mothers’ and fathers’ reports of parental intimacy. The multi-group comparison between boys and girls showed similar correlations for all family relationships and emotion regulation, neurotic defenses, and immature defenses: parental autonomy, χ2(18) = 16.64, p = .549; parental intimacy, χ2(18) = 21.99, p = .233; marital autonomy, χ2(18) = 26.06, p = .100; marital intimacy, χ2(18) = 20.74, p = .293. Furthermore, the multi-group comparison between ART and NC families showed similar correlations for all family relationships and emotion regulation, neurotic defenses, and immature defenses: parental autonomy, χ2(18) = 8.82, p = .946; parental intimacy, χ2(18) = 24.29, p = .150; marital autonomy, χ2(18) = 9.26, p = .987; marital intimacy, χ2(18) = 18.36, p = .433. Therefore, these subgroups were analyzed together in subsequent analyses. Effects of Background Variables and Developmental Achievements Before testing our research hypotheses, we examined the influence of background variables and early developmental achievements on affect regulation. The model showed that children from multiparous families had more efficient emotion regulation, B = −0.20, SE = 0.07, p = .006, and used fewer neurotic defenses, B = −0.20, SE = 0.07, p = .005, and fewer immature defenses, B = −0.19, SE = 0.09, p = .024, than children in primiparous families. Boys used more immature defenses than girls, B = 0.27, SE = 0.08, p = .001, and there was also a non-significant trend for boys to have poorer emotion regulation, B = 0.10, SE = 0.07, p = .054, than girls. Higher early developmental achievements predicted more efficient emotion regulation, B = −0.13, SE = 0.08, p = .001, and less use of immature defenses, B = −0.21, SE = 0.10, p = .025. These variables accounted for 7.0% of the variance for emotion regulation, 10.6% for immature defenses, and 9.1% for neurotic defenses. ART status, mothers’ age, and parents’ level of education did not predict affect regulation. The model had acceptable fit, CFI = .973; TLI = .934; RMSEA = .03, 90% CI = [.02, .05]; χ2(21) = 36.45, p = .019. Family Relationships Predicting Emotion Regulation and Defense Mechanisms Table 1 presents the regression coefficients for each family relationship dimension separately predicting emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. The results, for the most part, confirmed our different family preconditions hypothesis. As Figure 2. Measurement model for mother’s and father’s reports of marital autonomy. Note. Mma1-mmal9 = mothers’ reports of marital autonomy; fma1-fma9 = fathers’ reports of marital autonomy. Error correlations are not shown. Model fit: χ2(129) = 200.861, p < .001, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.03, 90% CI = [0.02, 0.04]. T = time; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square errors of approximation; CI = confidence interval. *p < .05. ***p < .001. Lindblom et al. 9 hypothesized, high levels of marital autonomy and parental autonomy at the child’s ages of 2 and 12 months predicted children’s efficient emotion regulation (column “Emotion regulation” in Table 1). Further, as hypothesized, low levels of marital autonomy and parental autonomy at the child’s ages of 2 and 12 months predicted children’s high reliance on neurotic defenses and immature defenses (columns “Neurotic defenses” and “Immature defenses” in Table 1). Finally, low marital intimacy at the child’s age of 12 months predicted children’s reliance on immature defenses and on neurotic defenses. Marital autonomy accounted for an average of 4% of affect regulation, parental autonomy accounted for an average of 6% of affect regulation, and marital intimacy accounted for an average of 2% of affect regulation over and above children’s developmental achievements and background variables. Table 1 (rows with “Parental intimacy”) presents the regression coefficients for parental intimacy, analyzed separately for mothers’ and fathers’ reports because initial analyses indicated structural inequality between the parents’ reports. In line with our hypotheses, father’s reports of low parental intimacy at the child’s age of 12 months predicted reliance on immature defenses (accounting for 4% of the variance over and above the control variables). However, against our hypothesis, mothers’ or fathers’ reports of parental intimacy at the child’s age of 2 months did not predict emotion regulation, neurotic defenses, or immature defenses. Age Specificity in Family Relationships Predicting Emotion Regulation and Defense Mechanisms Table 2 shows the results of non-nested and nested comparisons to determine the relative importance of family relationships at the child’s ages of 2 months and 12 months in predicting emotion regulation and defense mechanisms (for a conceptual depiction, see Figure 1). In all age-specific models, we controlled for the effects of concurrent family relationships at the age of 7 to 8 years (T3), children’s developmental achievements, and background variables. The results confirmed the age-specific hypothesis only regarding neurotic defenses (column “Neurotic defenses” in Table 2). Non-nested comparisons showed that parental autonomy at 2 months (T1) explained a larger proportion of neurotic defenses, ΔAIC = –6.42, than parental autonomy at 12 months (T2). Further, nested comparisons showed that parental autonomy at 2 months (T1) explained a unique proportion of neurotic defenses, Δχ2 = 15.52, p < .001, over parental autonomy at 12 months (T2) and 7 to 8 years (T3). Thus, we concluded that parental autonomy at the age of 2 months was more important predictor of children’s reliance on neurotic defenses than parental autonomy at the age of 12 months. Against our hypotheses, non-nested comparisons suggested that both marital autonomy, ΔAIC = 6.38, and marital Figure 3. Measurement model for mother’s and father’s reports of parental autonomy. Note. Mpa1-mpa9 = mothers’ reports of parental autonomy; fpa1-fpa9 = fathers’ reports of parental autonomy. Error correlations are not shown. Model fit: χ2(127) = 164.61, p = .014, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02, 90% CI = [0.01, 0.03]. T = time; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square errors of approximation; CI = confidence interval. ***p < .001. 16 SAGE Open during early childhood. Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology, 7, 1-24. Du Rocher Schudlich, T. D., White, C. R., Fleischhauer, E. A., & Fitzgerald, K. A. (2011). Observed infant reactions during live interparental conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 221-235. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00800.x Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 19-46. doi:10.1037/a0021367 Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotionrelated self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495-525. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208 Ekas, N. V., Braungart-Rieker, J. M., Lickenbrock, D. M., Zentall, S. R., & Maxwell, S. M. (2011). Toddler emotion regulation with mothers and fathers: Temporal associations between negative affect and behavioral strategies. Infancy, 16, 266-294. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2010.00042.x Elliston, D., McHale, J., Talbot, J., Parmley, M., & KuerstenHogan, R. (2008). Withdrawal from coparenting interactions during early infancy. Family Process, 47, 481-499. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2008.00267.x Evans, C. A., & Porter, C. L. (2009). The emergence of motherinfant co-regulation during the first year: Links to infants’ developmental status and attachment. Infant Behavior & Development, 32, 147-158. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.12.005 Finger, B., Hans, S. L., Bernstein, V. J., & Cox, S. M. (2009). Parent relationship quality and infant-mother attachment. Attachment & Human Development, 11, 285-306. doi:10.1080/14616730902814960 Finzi-Dottan, R., & Karu, T. (2006). From emotional abuse in childhood to psychopathology in adulthood: A path mediated by immature defense mechanisms and self-esteem. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 194, 616-621. doi:10.1097/01. nmd.0000230654.49933.23 Fraiberg, S. (1982). Pathological defenses in infancy. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 51, 612-635. Gavazzi, S. M., McKenry, P. C., Jacobson, J. A., Julian, T. W., & Lohman, B. (2000). Modeling the effects of expressed emotion, psychiatric symptomology, and marital quality levels on male and female verbal aggression. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 669-682. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00669.x Geraerts, E., Dritschel, B., Kreplin, U., Miyagawa, L., & Waddington, J. (2012). Reduced specificity of negative autobiographical memories in repressive coping. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 43, S32-S36. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.05.007 Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1996). The social biofeedback theory of parental affect-mirroring: The development of emotional self-awareness and self-control in infancy. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 77, 1181-1212. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271-299. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271 Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 1335). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11468-001 Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3-24). New York, NY: Guildford Press. doi:10.1080/00140130600971135 Hart, J. (2014). Toward an integrative theory of psychological defense. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 19-39. doi:10.1177/1745691613506018 Herwig, I., Kaffenberger, T., Jäncke, L., & Brühl, A. B. (2010). Self-related awareness and emotion regulation. NeuroImage, 50, 734-741. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.089 Hoehl, S. (2014). Emotion processing in infancy. In K. H. Lagattuta (Ed.), Children and emotion. New insights into developmental affective sciences (pp. 1-12). Basel, Switzerland: Karger. doi:10.1159/000354346 Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Kirsh, S., & Cassidy, J. (1997). Preschoolers’ attention to and memory for attachment relevant information. Child Development, 68, 1143-1153. doi:10.2307/1132297 Koole, S. L. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 4-41. doi:10.1080/02699930802619031 Kopp, C. B., & Neufeld, S. J. (2003). Emotional development during infancy. In R. J. Davidson, L. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 347-374). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lambie, B., & Kevin, L. (2003). Intentional avoidance and social understanding in repressors and nonrepressors: Two functions for emotion experience? Consciousness and Emotion, 4, 17-42. doi:10.1075/ce.4.1.03lam Leung, C. Y. Y., Miller, A. L., Lumeng, J. C., Kaciroti, N. A., & Rosenblum, K. L. (2015). Maternal representations of their children in relation to feeding beliefs and practices among low-income mothers of young children. Appetite, 95, 176-181. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.021 Lindblom, J., Peltola, M. J., Vänskä, M., Hietanen, J. K., Laakso, A., Tiitinen, A., . . . Punamäki, R-L. (2015). Early family system types predict children’s emotional attention biases at school age. International Journal of Behavioral Development. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0165025415620856 Lyons-Ruth, K. (1999). The two-person unconscious: Intersubjective dialogue, enactive relational representation, and the emergence of new forms of relational organization. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 19, 576-617. doi:10.1080/07351699909534267 Marsh, H. W., Dowson, M., Pietsch, J., & Walker, R. (2004). Why multicollinearity matters: A reexamination of relations between self-efficacy, self-concept, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 518-522. doi:10.1037/00220663.96.3.518 Mattejat, F., & Scholz, M. (1994). Das subjektive Familienbild (SFB) [Subjective Family Image]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Mauss, I. B., Bunge, S. A., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Automatic emotion regulation. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 146-167. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00005.x Mauss, I. B., Cook, C. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Automatic emotion regulation during anger provocation. Journal of Lindblom et al. 17 Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 698-711. doi:10.1016/j. jesp.2006.07.003 Merz, E. C., McCall, R. B., Wright, A. J., & Luna, B. (2013). Inhibitory control and working memory in post-institutionalized children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 879890. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9737-9 Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361-388. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x Moutsiana, C., Fearon, P., Murray, L., Cooper, P., Goodyer, I., Johnstone, T., & Halligan, S. (2014). Making an effort to feel positive: Insecure attachment in infancy predicts the neural underpinnings of emotion regulation in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 999-1008. doi:10.1111/ jcpp.12198 Moutsiana, C., Johnstoke, T., Murray, L., Fearon, P., Cooper, P. J., Pliatsikas, C., . . . Halligan, S. L. (2015). Insecure attachment during infancy predicts greater amygdala volumes in early adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 540-548. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12317 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author. Pechtel, P., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2011). Effects of early life stress on cognitive and affective function: An integrated review of human literature. Psychopharmacology, 214, 55-70. doi:10.1007/s00213-010-2009-2 Punamäki, R-L., Repokari, L., Vilska, S., Poikkeus, P., Tiitinen, A., Sinkkonen, J., & Tulppala, M. (2006). Maternal mental health and medical predictors of infant development and health problems from pregnancy to one year: Does former infertility matter? Infant Behavior and Development, 29, 230-242. Rankin-esquer, L. A., Burnett, C. K., Baucom, D. H., & Epstein, N. (1997). Autonomy and relatedness in marital functioning. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 23, 175-190. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1997.tb00242.x Rincón-Cortés, M., & Sullivan, R. M. (2014). Early life trauma and attachment: Immediate and enduring effects on neurobehavioral and stress axis development. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 5, 1-15. doi:10.3389/fendo.2014.00033 Rydell, A., Berlin, L., & Bohlin, G. (2003). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and adaptation among 5to 8-year-old children. Emotion, 3, 30-47. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.30 Sala, M. N., Testa, S., Pons, F., & Molina, P. (2015). Emotion regulation and defense mechanisms. Journal of Individual Differences, 36, 19-29. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000151 Sandstrom, M. J., & Cramer, P. (2003). Girls’ use of defense mechanisms following peer rejection. Journal of Personality, 71, 605-627. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7104004 Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514. doi:10.1007/BF02296192 Sharp, H., Hill, J., Hellier, J., & Pickles, A. (2015). Maternal antenatal anxiety, postnatal stroking and emotional problems in children: Outcomes predicted from preand postnatal programming hypotheses. Psychological Medicine, 45, 269-283. doi:doi:10.1017/S0033291714001342. Sokolowski, M. S., Hans, S. L., Bernstein, V. J., & Cox, S. M. (2007). Mothers’ representations of their infants and parenting behavior: Associations with personal and social-contextual variables in a high-risk sample. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28, 344-365. doi:10.1002/imhj.20140 Steiner, H., Araujo, K. B., & Koopman, C. (2001). The response evaluation measure (REM-71): A new instrument for the measurement of defenses in adults and adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 467-473. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.3.467 Stroud, C. B., Durbin, C. E., Wilson, S., & Mendelsohn, K. A. (2011). Spillover to triadic and dyadic systems in families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 919-930. doi:10.1037/a0025443 Subic-Wrana, C., Beutel, M. E., Brähler, E., Stöbel-Richter, Y., Knebel, A., Lane, R. D., & Wiltink, J. (2014). How is emotional awareness related to emotion regulation strategies and self-reported negative affect in the general population? PloS ONE, 9(3), e91846. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091846 Thompson, R. A., & Meyer, S. (2007). Socialization of emotion regulation in the family. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 249-268). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Tottenham, N., & Sheridan, M. A. (2010). A review of adversity, the amygdala and the hippocampus: A consideration of developmental timing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3(68), 118. doi:10.3389/neuro.09.068.2009 Ursache, A., Blair, C., Stifter, C., Voegtline, K, & Family Life Project Investigators. (2013). Emotional reactivity and regulation in infancy interact to predict executive functioning in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 127-137. doi:10.1037/a0027728 Vaillant, G. E. (1971). Theoretical hierarchy of adaptive ego mechanisms: A 30-year follow-up of 30 men selected for psychological health. Archives of General Psychiatry, 24, 107-118. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1971.01750080011003 Vaillant, G. E. (1995). The wisdom of the ego. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vaillant, G. E. (2000). Adaptive mental mechanisms: Their role in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 89-98. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.89 von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 1-56. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10001354 Vänskä, M., Punamäki, R-L., Tolvanen, A., Lindblom, J., Flykt, M., Unkila-Kallio, L., . . . Tulppala, M. (2011). Maternal preand postnatal mental health trajectories and child mental health and development: Prospective study in a normative and formerly infertile sample. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36(5), 517-531. Walburg, V., & Chiaramello, S. (2015). Link between early maladaptive schemas and defense mechanisms. European Review of Applied Psychology, 65, 221-226. doi:10.1016/j. erap.2015.07.003 Yasnovsky, J., Araujo, K., King, M., Mason, M., Pavelski, R., Shaw, R., & Steiner, H. (2003). Defenses in school age children’s versus parents’ report. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 33, 307-323. doi:10.1023/A:1023088313470 Zelazo, P. D., Qu, L., & Kesek, A. C. (2010). Hot executive function: Emotion and the development of cognitive control. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 97-111). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12059-006 18 SAGE Open Author Biographies Jallu Lindblom, MA, is a university teacher at the School of Social Sciences / Psychology, University of Tampere, Finland. He is currently finalizing his dissertation about early family environments and their significance on children’s emotional development. Raija-Leena Punamäki, PhD, is professor of psychology at the School of Social Sciences/Psychology, University of Tampere, Finland. Her research topics are child and adolescent development and mental health, impacts of risk and traumatic environments and psychosocial interventions. Marjo Flykt, PhD, psychotherapist, is post-doctoral researcher at the School of Social Sciences and Humanities / Psychology, University of Tampere, Finland. Her research is about families at psychosocial and medical risk. Mervi Vänskä, MA, is a researcher at the School of Social Sciences / Psychology, University of Tampere, Finland. She is currently finalizing her dissertation about parental preand postnatal mental health and its impact on child development. Tapio Nummi, PhD, is an adjunct professor at the School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere. His research interest in statistics includes methods for the analysis of longitudinal data, growth curves, mixed models, nonparametricand mixture regression. Jari Sinkkonen, MD, is an adjunct professor of child psychiatry at the University of Turku, Finland. He has written, edited, and coedited seventeen books on child development. His research interests include attachment and adoptions. Aila Tiitinen, PhD, is a professor of Reproductive Medicine at University of Helsinki and Head of Department at Helsinki University Central Hospital. Maija Tulppala, MD, is a gynecologist with a subspeciality in reproductive endocrinology and a psychotherapist (individual, couple and family therapist) at the University of Helsinki, Finland.Her research interest is in the field of reproductive endocrinology and particularly in the psychological aspects of assisted reproduction.