tal pai tal filho explorando como os eids passam de geração em geração

Prévia do material em texto

DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12602
OR I G I N A L A R T I C L E
Like parent, like child? Exploring the association between
early maladaptive schemas of adolescents involved with
Child Protective Services and their parents
Marian Zonnevijlle1 | Martin Hildebrand2
1Mutsaersstichting, Roermond, The
Netherlands
2Private Practice, Roermond, The Netherlands
Correspondence
Martin Hildebrand, Private Practice,
Walbreukergraaf 49, 6041 NW, Roermond,
The Netherlands.
Email: info@martinhildebrand.nl
Child & Family Social Work. 2018;1–11.
Abstract
Although early maladaptive schemas (EMS) have been successfully identified in a vari-
ety of adult samples and increasing evidence suggests that core maladaptive schemas
can also be retrieved in children and adolescents, there is a dearth of research exam-
ining the association between maladaptive schemas of parents and their children. We
designed the current exploratory study as a first step to investigate similarities and
differences in EMS of adolescents (n = 20) involved with Child Protective Services
and their parents (n = 20). Results demonstrated that there were some similarities in
the specific EMS endorsed by both groups and that most of the significant correla-
tions that were found between parents' and youths' EMS involved parent schemas
of the Impaired limits and Disconnection/rejection domains and youths' schemas of
the Disconnection/rejection and Impaired autonomy and performance domains. We
also found significant positive correlations between several children's EMS and per-
ceived parental rearing styles (i.e., rejection, control/overprotection, anxious rearing)
and attachment anxiety.
KEYWORDS
early maladaptive schemas, adolescents, parents, Child Protective Services
1 | INTRODUCTION
Compelling evidence suggests that maltreated children and
adolescents―whether or not involved with Child Protective Services
(CPS)―are at risk for a wide range of mental‐health‐related problems,
including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse, criminality, and
other forms of poorly regulated emotional behaviour (e.g., Arata,
Langhinrichsen‐Rohling, Bowers, & O'Farrill‐Swails, 2005; English
et al., 2005; Jaffee & Maikovich‐Fong, 2011; Turner, Finkelhor, &
Omrod, 2006; van Vugt, Lanctôt, Paquette, Collin‐Vézina, & Lemieux,
2014). It has also been well documented that parental characteristics
are associated with child maltreatment and contact with CPS, includ-
ing alcohol or substance abuse, domestic violence, and (severe) men-
tal‐health problems (e.g., Doidge, Higgins, Delfabbro, & Segal, 2017;
Freysteinsdóttir, 2007; Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005).
Although a considerable amount of research has established the rela-
tions among childhood maltreatment and subsequent adjustment, in
wileyonlinelibrary.co
recent years, studies have gone further to examine the underlying
mechanisms through which childhood maltreatment is linked to
adjustment outcomes. Young, Klosko, and Weishaar (2003) developed
a theoretical model to account for the relation between childhood
maltreatment experiences and adverse outcomes in adolescence and
adulthood. According to this model, the inability to meet one's core
emotional needs contributes to the development of early maladaptive
schemas (EMS), which are cognitive and behavioural patterns of view-
ing oneself and the world that result in substantial distress (Young
et al., 2003). By definition, childhood maltreatment victims' core emo-
tional needs are violated, which increases the likelihood that they will
develop (highly) dysfunctional beliefs about themselves, others, and
themselves in relation to others. Indeed, several (retrospective)
cross‐sectional studies reported significant relationships between
EMS and maltreatment by parents (e.g., Calvete, Orue, & Hankin,
2015; McCarthy & Lumley, 2012; Wright, Crawford, & Del Castillo,
2009). These findings generally support the idea that EMS are
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltdm/journal/cfs 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9228-6971
mailto:info@martinhildebrand.nl
https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12602
http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cfs
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1111%2Fcfs.12602&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-07-20
2 ZONNEVIJLLE AND HILDEBRAND
associated with child maltreatment and neglect. This may be particu-
larly true for adolescents involved with CPS and their parents. Shorey,
Anderson, and Stuart (2012) cogently argued that because EMS are
pervasive and enduring and cause noticeable personal and relation dis-
tress, it is possible that children and their parents may have (similar)
schemas that facilitate complex family dynamics that lead to conflict
and reduced healthy family functioning. However, there is only very
limited research that has investigated the EMS of parents and their
children and how they may be related to each other, and no research
has examined this relationship in the specific group of adolescents
involved with CPS and their parents. The current study addressed this
gap in the literature by exploring the association between EMS of
youth involved with CPS and their parents. Knowing the EMS of this
specific group is important because it can bring attention to the per-
sonal struggles that these adolescents involved with CPS and their
parents may be experiencing and may provide CPS workers, legal
guardians, or clinicians valuable information on enduring maladaptive
characteristics of both dyad members, which could provide direction
for (family‐level) interventions.
1.1 | Early maladaptive schemas
Schemas, whether adaptive or maladaptive, are cognitive templates
that individuals use for coding, screening, and interpreting information
that they encounter in their environment (Beck, 1967; Young, 1999;
Young et al., 2003); they are enduring and pervasive over an
individual's lifetime (Riso et al., 2006; Young et al., 2003). Although
the majority of schemas that individuals develop are adaptive through-
out their lives, EMS are (highly) dysfunctional. Young et al. (2003) have
defined EMS as “broad, pervasive themes or patterns, comprised of
memories, emotions, cognitions, and bodily sensations, regarding one-
self and one's relationships with others, developed during childhood or
adolescence, elaborated throughout one's lifetime, and dysfunctional
to a significant degree” (p. 7). More simply put, EMS are filters through
which the individual perceives and understands his or her reality. They
usually develop in (early) childhood through the interaction of the
child's temperament and childhood adverse experiences (e.g., abuse,
neglect, hostility, and rejection). In adulthood, EMS are triggered by
life events that individuals (unconsciously) perceive as similar to their
adverse childhood experiences, affecting emotional processing,
influencing interpretation of social signals, and guiding behaviour
(Young et al., 2003). For example, maltreatment during childhood
may lead to a Mistrust/abuse EMS; individuals with this schema hold
the strong and persistent belief that, given the opportunity, others will
abuse, take advantage of, or manipulate them for their own needs.
Young et al. stated that EMS are present for everyone to differing
degrees, and there is empirical evidence of their presence and stability
in children (e.g., Stallard, 2007). However, EMS are thought to mani-
fest in more rigid and extreme ways in cases of psychopathology. It
is conceptualized that the more “toxic” or extreme the experiences
of childhood adversity, the more severe the EMS developed. And
the more severe the EMS developed, the more easily and greater
the number of situations that activate it, and the more serious their
consequences (Rafaeli, Bernstein, & Young, 2010). Current conceptu-
alizations of EMS consist of 18 schemas (Young et al., 2003), clustered
in five schema domains corresponding to the frustration of the pro-
posed emotional core needs of a child: Disconnection/rejection,
Impairedof maladaptive schemas. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 33, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.007
Young, J. E. (1999). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema‐
focused approach (3rd ed.). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Young, J. E., & Brown, G. (1998). Young schema questionnaire short form.
New York: Cognitive Therapy Center.
Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. (2003). Schema therapy: A
practitioner's guide. New York: Guilford.
How to cite this article: Zonnevijlle M, Hildebrand M. Like
parent, like child? Exploring the association between early mal-
adaptive schemas of adolescents involved with Child Protec-
tive Services and their parents. Child & Family Social Work.
2018;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12602
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9453-y
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9453-y
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.10.027
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2004.08.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2004.08.005
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9015-z
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465811000117
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465811000117
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9589-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230402
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.01.018
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0091-y
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01249
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-012-9203-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-012-9203-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2012.12.001
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02875.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.2010.02009.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00216.x
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.511
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9077-2
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.10.001
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022574208366
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.030
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00217.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2007.00217.x
https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181e07d3d
https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(92)90004-L
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.546
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9283-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.015
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000038
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.007
https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12602autonomy and performance, Impaired limits, Other‐directed-
ness, and Overvigilance and inhibition. A brief description of EMS and
schema domains is provided in Table 1.
As described above, Young's schema model (Young et al., 2003)
proposed that EMS result from an interaction between innate temper-
ament and adverse relationship experiences. Several (retrospective)
studies have explored the associations between EMS and recollections
of trauma/abuse and perceived parental rearing style. In support of
theory, these studies revealed that EMS are (strongly) associated with
recollections of perceived parental malpractices, childhood trauma,
and insecure attachment in childhood (e.g., Bosmans, Braet, & van
Vlierberghe, 2010; Calvete & Orue, 2013; Cecero, Nelson, & Gillie,
2004; Crawford & O'Dougherty Wright, 2007; Lumley & Harkness,
2007; Muris, 2006; Roelofs, Onckels, & Muris, 2013; Simard, Moss,
& Pascuzzo, 2011; Thimm, 2010).
The associations between EMS and a wide range of mental‐health
problems have been investigated extensively, both in adult and―more
recently―in adolescent samples. For example, core maladaptive
schemas have been successfully identified in adult patients suffering
from various forms of psychopathology including personality disorders
(Barazandeh, Kissane, Saeedi, & Gordon, 2016), substance misuse
(Brotchie, Meyer, Copello, Kidney, & Waller, 2004; Shorey, Stuart, &
Anderson, 2013), aggression‐related disorders (Baker & Beech,
2004), anxiety disorders (Koerner, Tallon, & Kusec, 2015), depression
(Renner, Lobbestael, Peeters, Arntz, & Huibers, 2012), eating disorders
(Unoka, Tölgyes, Czobor, & Simon, 2010), and post‐traumatic stress
disorder (Cockram, Drummond, & Lee, 2010). With regard to adoles-
cents, EMS were also found to be related to a variety of psychological
symptoms in community adolescents (Roelofs, Lee, Ruijten, &
Lobbestael, 2011), referred and nonreferred depressed adolescents
(Lumley & Harkness, 2007), referred obese youth (van Vlierberghe &
Braet, 2007), and referred youth with various emotional and behav-
ioural problems (van Vlierberghe, Braet, Bosmans, Rosseel, & Bögels,
2010).
1.2 | The current study
Although EMS have been successfully identified in a variety of adult
(patient) samples and increasing evidence suggests that EMS can also
be retrieved in children and adolescents, there is a dearth of research
examining the association between EMS of parents and their children.
There are, however, a number of studies that suggest that family pro-
cesses (i.e., patterns of childrearing and parenting) continue across
generations (e.g., Madden et al., 2015; Serbin & Karp, 2003;
Thornberry, Freeman‐Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, & Smith, 2003; van
Ijzendoorn, 1992). Particularly, continuity across generations of harsh
and hostile or aggressive parenting (Bailey, Hill, Oesterle, & Hawkins,
2009; Conger, Neppl, Kim, & Scaramella, 2003; Hops, Davis, Leve, &
Sheeber, 2003) and parental monitoring (Capaldi, Pears, Patterson, &
Owen, 2003; Smith & Farrington, 2004) has been reported. Moreover,
continuities across generations are also found for attachment styles
(e.g., Seay, Jahromi, Umaña‐Taylor, & Updegraff, 2016; Verhage
et al., 2016).
TABLE 1 List and descriptions of schema domains and early maladaptive schemas (based on Young et al., 2003, pp. 14–17)
Domain/early maladaptive
schema Description
I. Disconnection/rejection The expectation that needs for security, safety, stability, nurturance, empathy, sharing of feelings, acceptance, and
respect will not be met, at least not in a predictable manner
Abandonment/instability Belief that significant others providing support are unstable, unreliable, or unpredictable
Mistrust/abuse Expectation that others will intentionally hurt, take advantage, abuse, and manipulate
Emotional deprivation Belief that one's need for nurturance, empathy, and protection will not be met by others
Defectiveness/shame Expectation that one is inherently flawed, defective, and unlovable
Social isolation/alienation Feeling that one is fundamentally different from other people, isolated, or no part of a community
II. Impaired autonomy and
performance
Expectations about oneself and the environment that interfere with one's perceived ability to be separate from
others and function independently
Dependence/incompetence Belief that one is dependent of others to handle everyday life
Vulnerability to harm/illness Exaggerated fear that imminent and unpreventable catastrophe will strike at any time
Enmeshment/undeveloped
self
Being excessively emotionally involved/connected with important people
Failure to achieve Belief that one has failed, will fail, or is fundamentally inadequate in areas of achievement
III. Impaired limits Lack of appropriate limits and sufficient self‐control to achieve one's goals, often leading to difficulty respecting
the rights of others, cooperating with others, making commitments, or setting and meeting realistic personal
goals
Entitlement/grandiosity Belief that one is superior to other people and deserves special privileges
Insufficient self‐control/
self‐discipline
Lack of self‐control and tolerance of frustration to achieve one's goals
IV. Other‐directedness Excessive focus on desires, feelings, and responses of others, at the expense of one's own needs, in order to gain
love and approval, maintain one's sense of connection, or avoid retaliation
Subjugation of needs Always surrendering control to others due to the belief that one is coerced
Self‐sacrifice Excessive focus on meeting the needs of others at the expense of one's own needs/well‐being
Approval seeking/
recognition seeking
Strong emphasis on achieving the attention, approval, and recognition of other people
V. Overvigilance and
inhibition
Excessive emphasis on suppressing one's spontaneous feelings, impulses and choices or on meeting rigid,
internalized rules and expectations about performance and ethical behaviour, often at the expense of happiness,
self‐expression, relaxation, close relationships, or health
Negativity/pessimism Pervasive focus on the negative aspects of life while minimizing the positive aspects
Emotional inhibition Belief that one must inhibit spontaneous feelings and actions
Unrelenting standards/
hypercriticalness
Expectation that one must strive to meet high internalized standards
Punitiveness Belief that people should be punished for making mistakes
Note. Schema domain names and descriptions are in bold.
ZONNEVIJLLE AND HILDEBRAND 3
Because significant relationships between EMS and parenting and
attachment styles have been reported (Bosmans et al., 2010; Muris,
2006; Roelofs et al., 2013), and continuities across generations have
been found for parenting as well as attachment, the question arises
whether EMS continue intergenerationally. To the best of our knowl-
edge, only two studies investigated the (association between) EMS of
parents and their offspring. Shorey et al. (2012) examined similarities
and differences in EMS among a sample of adult substance abusers
seeking for treatment and their parents. Results demonstrated that
the treatment seeking substance abusers scored significantly higher
than their parents on 17 of the 18 EMS, with most differences falling
into the large effect size range. Because parents did not endorse high
levels of most EMS, the authors concluded that their findings provide
preliminary evidence that EMS may not be continued
intergenerationally (Shorey et al., 2012). However, Shorey et al. stated
that it may be possible that children develop different EMS in
response to their parents' schemas. For example, a child may develop
the Unrelenting standards EMS due to a (very) demanding, punitive
parent. Mącik, Chodkiewicz, and Bielicka (2016), examining the
transgenerational transfer of EMS in a nonclinical group―the exclu-
sion criterion was the existence of any problems in the family con-
nected with the mental health of any member―of20 two‐parent
families with adult children (a daughter and a son), concluded that “it
does not seem that it is a relationship which consists of children
repeating their parents' schemas. Rather, children's schemas become
the answer to parents' schemas” (p. 144). However, extrapolating
these findings to other populations is difficult and this kind of research
should be replicated in a variety of other samples, including underage
children (2.5 were considered in
the clinical range (cf. Rijkeboer, van den Bergh, & van den Bout, 2005),
indicating that the individual likely struggles with that particular EMS.
The psychometric properties of the YSQ (both long and short forms)
are well supported in the research literature, both in community and
in clinical samples (for a review, see Oei & Baranoff, 2007).
Youths' perceptions of their parents' rearing behaviour were
assessed with a modified version of the Egna Minnen Beträffande
Uppfostran for Children (EMBU‐C; Castro, Toro, van der Ende, &
Arrindell, 1993), developed by Muris, Meesters, and van Brakel
(2003). The modified EMBU‐C (EMBU is the Swedish acronym for
“my memories of upbringing”) consists of 40 items that can be allo-
cated to four types of parental rearing (all 10 items): Emotional
warmth (e.g., “When you are unhappy, your parents console you and
cheer you up”), Rejection (e.g., “Your parents wish that you were like
somebody else”), Control/overprotection (e.g., “When you come
home, you have to tell your parents what you have been doing”),
and Anxious rearing (e.g., “Your parents are afraid that something
might happen to you”). For each item, the respondent first assesses
father's rearing behaviour and then mother's rearing behaviour, using
a 4‐point scale to rate the frequency of the particular behaviour
(1 = no, never; 4 = yes, most of the time). The modified EMBU‐C is
TABLE 2 Means,standard deviations (SD), and ranges of early mal-
adaptive schema scores, attachment quality, and perceived parenting
styles
Mean SD Range
YSQ‐SF
Abandonment C 2.7 1.2 1.0–5.0
P 2.3 1.0 1.0–4.2
Mistrust/abuse C 2.1 0.8 1.0–4.2
P 1.9 0.8 1.0–3.4
Emotional deprivation C 2.0 1.0 1.0–4.6
P 2.5 1.3 1.0–5.6
Defectiveness C 1.6 0.5 1.0–2.8
P 1.4 0.6 1.0–3.6
Social isolation C 1.9 0.9 1.0–4.4
P 1.8 0.9 1.0–4.6
Dependence C 2.0 0.7 1.0–3.8
P 1.5 0.6 1.0–3.0
Vulnerability to harm C 2.2 0.9 1.0–3.8
P 1.6 0.8 1.0–4.0
Enmeshment C 2.5 0.7 1.2–4.0
P 1.7 0.7 1.0–3.6
ZONNEVIJLLE AND HILDEBRAND 5
considered to be a reliable and valid self‐report to assess the
main aspects of parental rearing in children and adolescents
(Muris et al., 2003).
Children's and adolescents' attachment representations to their
parents were assessed with a child version of the Experiences in Close
Relationships Scale–Revised (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). The
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale–Revised Child version
(ECR‐RC; Brenning, Soenens, Braet, & Bosmans, 2011) consists of 36
statements about the children's mother or father, capturing the two
fundamental dimensions of attachment: Attachment anxiety and
Attachment avoidance. The Attachment anxiety scale (18 items) taps
into feelings of fear of abandonment and strong desires for interper-
sonal merger (e.g., “I worry that my mother/father does not really love
me”). The Attachment avoidance scale (18 items) taps into discomfort
with closeness, dependence, and intimate self‐disclosure (e.g., “I prefer
not to tell my mother/father how I feel deep down”). Items are rated
on a 7‐point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
Reliability and validity of the ECR‐RC have been confirmed in several
studies (e.g., Brenning et al., 2011).
Failure to achieve C 2.1 0.7 1.0–3.8
P 1.8 0.6 1.0–3.8
Entitlement C 2.4 0.7 1.2–4.0
P 1.9 0.5 1.0–2.8
Insufficient self‐control C 2.7 0.7 1.8–4.4
P 1.8 0.6 1.0–3.4
Subjugation of needs C 2.0 0.6 1.0–3.4
P 2.1 0.9 1.0–4.0
Self‐sacrifice C 3.3 1.3 1.4–6.0
P 3.6 1.4 1.2–6.0
Emotional inhibition C 2.2 0.7 1.0–3.8
P 2.0 0.9 1.0–4.2
Unrelenting standards C 2.8 1.1 1.2–5.8
P 2.7 0.9 1.0–4.6
ECR‐RC
Attachment anxiety 30.6 11.9 18–67
Attachment avoidance 52.4 23.0 18–90
EMBU‐C
Emotional warmth 32.1 5.5 22–40
Rejection 14.9 4.9 10–31
Overprotection 21.8 5.1 14–35
Anxious rearing 23.5 6.3 10–37
Note. YSQ‐SF: Young Schema Questionnaire–Short Form; ECR‐RC: Experi-
ences in Close Relationships Scale–Revised Child version; EMBU‐C: Egna
Minnen Beträffande Uppfostran–child version questionnaire (my memo-
ries of upbringing); C: children score; P: parent score.
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | Descriptive statistics self‐report measures
In Table 2, we present means and standard deviations of schema
scores (YSQ‐SF), perceived parenting rearing styles (EMBU‐C), and
quality of attachment (ECR‐RC). With regard to the YSQ‐SF, for ado-
lescents, schema scores in the clinical range (i.e., >2.5) were found
for Self‐sacrifice, Unrelenting standards, Abandonment, Insufficient
self‐control, and Enmeshment. In contrast, the schemas rated with
the lowest scores by youth were Defectiveness and Social isolation.
For parents, the highest scores―and in the clinical range―were found
for the Self‐sacrifice, Unrelenting standards, and Emotional depriva-
tion schemas and the lowest scores for the schemas Defectiveness,
Dependence, and Vulnerability to harm. Thus, of all the EMS, both
children and parents scored in the clinical range on Self‐sacrifice and
Unrelenting standards and lowest on Defectiveness.
3.2 | Association between parents' and supervised
youths' EMS
The results of the correlation analyses (alpha set at 0.05 level)
revealed that the Unrelenting standards schema was the only schema
for which a significant positive correlation between parents and chil-
dren scores was found (Table 3). Findings further showed that of the
remaining nine significant correlations between parents' and youth'
EMS, seven involved parent schemas that are grouped into the
Impaired limits (n = 4) and Disconnection/rejection (n = 3) domains.
For the Impaired limits domain, parents' Entitlement schema corre-
lated significantly positively with youths' Mistrust/abuse, Defective-
ness, and Vulnerability to harm schemas whereas the Insufficient
self‐control schema of parents correlated significantly negatively with
youths' Enmeshment schema. For Disconnection/rejection, the Mis-
trust/abuse schema of the parents correlated significantly positively
with the Abandonment and Self‐sacrifice schemas of the children,
and parents' Defectiveness schema was significantly positively corre-
lated with youths' Emotional deprivation schema. Moreover, signifi-
cant positive correlations were found between parents' Vulnerability
to harm and youths' Abandonment schemas, and between parents'
Subjugation and youths' Unrelenting standards schemas.
3.3 | Relation between supervised youths' EMS
scores, attachment, and perceived parental rearing
styles variables
The results of the correlations between supervised youths' EMS
scores and attachment (ECR‐RC) and perceived parental rearing styles
TABLE 3 Correlations between parents' and supervised youths' early maladaptive schemas (N = 20)
YSQ‐SF youth
YSQ‐SF parents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Disconnection/rejection
1. Abandonment 0.42 0.03 0.33 0.02 −0.14 0.04 −0.27 −0.08 0.07 −0.01 −0.29 0.20 0.35 −0.07 0.28
2. Mistrust/abuse 0.54* 0.35 0.28 0.32 0.31 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.05 0.14 −0.21 0.12 0.47* 0.11 0.22
3. Emotional deprivation 0.18 −0.07 0.24 0.02 −0.09 −0.04 −0.28 −0.34 0.04 −0.27 −0.38 −0.16 0.31 −0.03 0.26
4. Defectiveness 0.20 0.24 0.47* −0.01 −0.25 0.10 −0.01 −0.26 −0.04 0.12 −0.22 −0.07 0.23 −0.06 0.07
5. Social isolation 0.18 −0.23 0.35 0.01 −0.17 −0.02 −0.27 −0.42 0.36 −0.39 −0.21 0.01 0.09 0.02 −0.03
Impaired autonomy and performance
6. Dependence −0.06 0.24 0.17 0.05 −0.22 −0.01 0.14 −0.19 0.04 0.11 −0.27 0.03 0.08 −0.12 0.32
7. Vulnerability to harm 0.45* 0.20 0.37 0.11 −0.11 −0.13 −0.05 −0.04 0.17 −0.01 −0.26 −0.28 0.34 0.08 0.17
8. Enmeshment −0.01 −0.07 −0.26 −0.07 −0.23 0.02 −0.18 −0.12 −0.17 −0.11 −0.33 −0.02 0.22 −0.15 0.36
9. Failure to achieve −0.18 −0.13 −0.06 −0.03 −0.29 −0.29 0.00 −0.44 0.20 −0.24 −0.11 −0.34 −0.09 −0.11 −0.01
Impaired limits
10. Entitlement 0.31 0.51* 0.37 0.61** 0.38 0.32 0.46* 0.21 0.16 0.29 −0.20 0.30 0.15 0.27 0.30
11. Insufficient self‐
control
0.04 0.09 0.07 −0.02 −0.22 −0.11 −0.21 −0.48* 0.33 −0.07 −0.09 −0.22 0.03 −0.25 0.28
Other‐directedness
12. Subjugation of needs 0.26 0.38 0.19 0.27 −0.00 0.31 −0.08 0.05 −0.15 0.29 −0.28 0.22 0.30 −0.10 0.51*
13. Self‐sacrifice −0.00 0.08 −0.03 0.29 −0.07 −0.04 0.03 0.16 −0.07 0.03 −0.39 0.04 0.07 0.15 0.38
Overvigilance and inhibition
14. Emotional inhibition −0.08 0.13 0.05 0.14 −0.15 −0.22 −0.08 −0.17 0.20 −0.01 −0.08 −0.21 0.05 0.03 0.37
15. Unrelenting standards 0.23 0.07 0.19 0.18 −0.14 −0.01 −0.18 0.02 0.14 −0.09 −0.15 0.10 0.11 −0.02 0.49*
Note. Schema domain names are in bold. YSQ‐SF: Young Schema Questionnaire–Short Form.
*Pand Anxious rear-
ing and schemas of the Disconnection/rejection and Impaired auton-
omy domains. More specific, Rejection, Control/overprotection, and
Anxious rearing all correlated positively with Social isolation (Discon-
nection/rejection) and Enmeshment (Impaired autonomy), whereas
Anxious rearing was also positively associated with the Disconnec-
tion/rejection schemas Abandonment and Defectiveness, Control/
overprotection and Anxious rearing with Vulnerability to harm
(Impaired autonomy), and Rejection with Dependence (Impaired
autonomy). Additionally, Rejection was positively associated with Sub-
jugation (Other‐directedness) and Control/overprotection with Emo-
tional inhibition (Overvigilance). The Emotional warmth scale of the
EMBU‐C was not significantly related to a single EMS. Note further
that for the Unrelenting standards schema―the only schema for which
a significant positive correlation between children's and parents'
scores was found―no significant correlations with ECR‐RC and
EMBU‐C scales were found.
4 | DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this preliminary, exploratory study was to exam-
ine EMS among adolescents involved with CPS and their parents, how
they are associated with each other, and whether supervised youth
and parents had similar or different EMS. We also investigated the
associations between youths' EMS and perceived parental rearing
styles and (quality of) attachment. To the best of our knowledge, this
is the first study that investigated the association between EMS of
underage youth placed under (formal) supervision and their parents.
Overall, the results of our study can be summarized as follows. First,
results demonstrated that the children scored higher than their par-
ents on 12 of the 15 EMS. Second, both children and their parents
endorsed the Self‐sacrifice schema as the most problematic (i.e., the
highest mean scores were found for this schema), followed closely
by the Unrelenting standards schema. Third, the only EMS for which
a significant positive association between parents and children scores
was found was Unrelenting standards. Fourth, most of the significant
correlations (i.e., seven out of 10) between parents' and youths' EMS
were found between parents' schemas of the Impaired limits and Dis-
connection/rejection domains and youths' schemas of the Disconnec-
tion/rejection and Impaired autonomy and performance domains. Last,
significant positive correlations were found between several children's
TABLE 4 Correlations between youths' early maladaptive schema scores, attachment quality, and perceived parenting rearing styles (N = 21)
ECR‐RC EMBU‐C
YSQ‐SF
Attachment
anxiety
Attachment
avoidance
Emotional
warmth Rejection
Control/
overprotection
Anxious
rearing
Disconnection/rejection
1. Abandonment 0.31 −0.10 0.35 0.14 0.26 0.45*
2. Mistrust/abuse 0.34 −0.11 0.35 0.15 0.22 0.35
3. Emotional deprivation 0.36 −0.04 −0.13 0.19 0.15 0.23
4. Defectiveness 0.70** 0.17 −0.08 0.43 0.41 0.45*
5. Social isolation 0.73** 0.29 −0.06 0.64** 0.59** 0.49*
Impaired autonomy and performance
6. Dependence 0.61** 0.18 −0.15 0.46* 0.38 0.40
7. Vulnerability to harm 0.35 0.10 0.05 0.31 0.48* 0.53*
8. Enmeshment 0.44* 0.04 −0.09 0.61** 0.56** 0.61**
9. Failure to achieve −0.07 0.17 0.29 −0.16 −0.15 0.03
Impaired limits
10. Entitlement 0.24 −0.03 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.37
11. Insufficient self‐control −0.18 0.03 0.13 0.07 0.13 −0.04
Other‐directedness
12. Subjugation of needs 0.58** 0.32 −0.06 0.46* 0.34 0.38
13. Self‐sacrifice 0.21 0.05 0.35 0.05 0.15 0.23
Overvigilance and inhibition
14. Emotional inhibition 0.61** 0.36 −0.22 0.43 0.54* 0.34
15. Unrelenting standards −0.09 −0.33 0.31 −0.30 −0.04 0.19
Note. Schema domain names are in bold. ECR‐RC: Experiences in Close Relationships Scale–Revised Child version; EMBU‐C: Egna Minnen Beträffande
Uppfostran‐child version questionnaire (my memories of upbringing); YSQ‐SF: Young Schema Questionnaire–Short Form.
*Pstandards. A possible explanation for the association found may be
that children have internalized the high standards of their parents,
resulting in a continuously striving to meet these standards to the
extent that this is normal and familiar for them.
Correlation analyses further demonstrated that most of the signif-
icant correlations (i.e., four out of 10) that were found between
parents' and youths' EMS involved parent schemas of the Impaired
limits domain and youths' schemas of the Disconnection/rejection
and Impaired autonomy and performance domains. The Impaired limits
domain is characterized by a lack of responsibility to others, deficien-
cies in internal limits, a selfish attitude, and a lack of long‐term goals.
This schema domain is also associated with a limited ability to cooper-
ate with others (Young et al., 2003). As a result of this unpredictable,
detached, explosive, or even abusive family environment, the child
may expect that his or her needs for security, safety, stability, nurtur-
ance, and empathy will not be met easily in a consistent or predictable
way―core features of the Disconnection/rejection domain. This type
of parental behaviour can also lead to the child's belief that the world
is a dangerous place and that a catastrophe is “just around the corner,”
and the child will be powerless to do anything about it (i.e., Impaired
autonomy and performance). These findings seem to support the idea
of Shorey et al. (2012) that children may in fact develop different EMS
in response to their parents' schemas, as was also found by Mącik
et al. (2016), schemas that “answer” or respond to parents' schemas
rather than just replicate them.
Additionally, we found several significant correlations between
parents' and youths' EMS that involved parent schemas of the Discon-
nection/rejection domain and youths' schemas of the Disconnection/
rejection and Other‐directedness domains. Broadly speaking, this means
that (a) the more parents are convinced that they will be hurt, manipu-
lated, or taken advantage of, or believe that they are inadequate, and
that, if others get close, they will realize this and withdraw from the rela-
tionship, (b) the more their children expect that no one will pay attention
to them and/or that they will be abandoned, which may result in feelings
of anger, fear, loneliness, and grief. Moreover, when parents have strong
needs of their own, the child is likely to become a “parentified child”
(Earley & Cushway, 2002); he or she will give up own needs in order
to meet the needs of the parent(s). This could lead to the (core) belief
that own needs are not as important as the needs of others (i.e., parents)
and that if you make your own needs a priority, you must be selfish and
bad (Self‐sacrifice schema). These findings also indicate that the same
EMS are not simply passed on from parent to child but that children
develop maladaptive schemas in response to parents' EMS.
Although not the main objective of our study, we also explored
the associations between children's EMS and attachment and per-
ceived parental rearing styles. Most of the significant correlations of
attachment anxiety and EMS were with EMS of the Disconnection/
rejection and Impaired autonomy domains, domains with which it
shared the greatest conceptual similarity, namely, concerns about
abandonment or unavailability of parents or significant others. Gener-
ally speaking, these findings are in line with previous research on the
relation between EMS of children/adolescents and attachment.
Bosmans et al. (2010), for example, reported significant, unique asso-
ciations between Attachment anxiety and the Disconnection/rejection
and Other‐directedness domains in a nonclinical sample of late adoles-
cents, whereas McLean, Bailey, and Lumley (2014) found that in a
sample of undergraduate students, Attachment anxiety was related
to all the schemas comprising the Disconnection/rejection and
Impaired autonomy domains. More generally, the importance of the
Disconnection/rejection and Impaired autonomy domains in the crea-
tion and continuity of psychological disorders and behavioural abnor-
malities in adolescents is extensively studied (e.g., Roelofs et al., 2011,
2013; Sigre‐Leirós, Carvalho, & Nobre, 2013; van Vlierberghe & Braet,
2007). For example, the Disconnection/rejection domain plays an
important role in the aetiology of adolescents with emotional prob-
lems and insecure attachments (Roelofs et al., 2013), adolescents with
a history of sexual violence (Sigre‐Leirós et al., 2013), and depressed
antisocial adolescents (van Vlierberghe et al., 2010).
Youths' perceived parenting rearing style was also associated with
the presence of EMS in youth involved with CPS, especially with those
of the Disconnection/rejection and Impaired autonomy domains. This
suggests that negative parenting behaviour may contribute to the devel-
opment of EMS in these children. These findings support Young's
schema theory assumptions that when parents are unstable, rejecting,
and cold, the children's needs for safety, stability, empathy, connection,
and acceptance are not provided for in a predictable manner. Previous
research in (nonclinical) adolescent samples supported the importance
of parental rejection in the formation of EMS regarding the self and per-
ceived deficits in abilities needed to manage important relationships
(e.g., Quirk, Wier, Martin, & Christian, 2015). Additional research, obvi-
ously using much larger samples, is needed to investigate the influence
of attachment and parental rearing styles on the relation between EMS
of parents and their children. For example, it might be interesting for
future research to examine whether the associations between parent's
and youth's EMS may be mediated by (quality of) attachment and
parental rearing behaviour. Unfortunately, the small sample size of our
study did not allow for conducting mediation analyses.
The study has several limitations. The first and probably the most
significant limitation is the small sample size. At the very least, a larger
sample would have resulted in more stable estimates. Second, due to
the small sample size, we were forced to employ a correlational
approach, thereby making it impossible to draw conclusions on
cause–effect or cyclic relationships. An important caveat must be
noted regarding the number of correlations that were performed in
this exploratory study. With an increase in the number of significance
tests, the probability of making Type 1 errors (i.e., rejection of the null
hypothesis that is actually true) increases at a corresponding rate
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983). A common solution to the Type I error prob-
lem is to make a correction, such as the Bonferroni correction, to the
overall alpha (typically set at α = 0.05), by the number of significance
tests being performed and setting the alpha level of each test at the
resulting P value. Unfortunately, this minimizes the risk at Type I errors
at the expense of a substantial reduction in power, thus makingType II
errors (i.e., failing to reject a false null hypothesis) more likely.
ZONNEVIJLLE AND HILDEBRAND 9
Outcomes were not corrected for multiplicity (Harris, Reeder, & Hyun,
2009), and the overall alpha level was set at 0.05 in order to minimize
the reduction in power (i.e., probability of avoiding Type II errors).
Third, the fact that the entire sample was Caucasian limits the general-
izability of our findings to more diverse populations. Another generaliz-
ability issue is that our sample of children was primarily male and our
sample of parents was female (except one). Our results may therefore
not generalize to daughters and/or sons and their fathers, for example.
In fact, Mącik et al. (2016) reported that for the mother/daughter,
mother/son, father/daughter, and father/son dyads (n = 20 for all four
dyads), different sets of EMS are significantly correlated witheach
other. Finally, as with most self‐report measures, social desirability must
be taken into consideration, which was not controlled for in the current
study. Because it is believed that certain EMS are viewed as more desir-
able than others (e.g., Self‐sacrifice; Young et al., 2003), it is possible
that this may have affected reports on the YSQ‐SF. However, because
all subjects volunteered to participate in the study and were made clear
that their responses would only be used for research purposes (a low‐
stake application with no significant or public consequences), we think
that the results of our study were probably not greatly affected by
socially desirable responding.
Engaging parents in CPS is a difficult, continuing challenge for child
protection workers. They have to overcome “parents' fears, defensive-
ness, and reluctance to engage so that they can effectively assess child
safety, determine family needs, and make decisions about ongoing child
welfare services” (Schreiber et al., 2013, p. 707). Families involved with
CPS often experience multiple stressors, including criminal issues, men-
tal‐health problems, intimate partner violence, and substance abuse
(e.g., Brook,McDonald, Gregoire, Press, &Hindman, 2010; Choi &Ryan,
2006; Reich, 2005; Staudt, 2007). So far, a consensus has not been
reached on the most effective way to engage parents (e.g., Altman,
2008; Barth, 2008; Kemp, Marcenko, Hoagwood, & Vesneski, 2009;
Littell, 2001; Littell & Shlonsky, 2010; Platt, 2012). Although prelimi-
nary, the results from this small exploratory study suggest that screen-
ing for EMS among supervised youth and their parents may be useful
for CPS. Assessment of EMS, and the coping responses children and
parents use to help cope with their schemas, could, hopefully, aid in
engaging parents and, in the case conceptualization of individual super-
vised youth and their parents, and provide a better insight into the inter-
vention techniques that should be provided. Moreover, attempting to
determine how maladaptive schemas of maltreated, supervised youth
and their parents interact and may impact family dynamics could also
be useful for CPS workers. Before that, however, further empirical
research is required to understand the complex ways in which EMS
may be related intergenerationally and the relationship with attachment
and parenting styles in this specific sample.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted by M. Z. in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Mental Health
at Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. M. Z. wishes
to acknowledge Jeffrey Roelofs for his supervision. A special word
of thanks is in order for the adolescents and their parents who agreed
to voluntarily participate in this study.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
The ethical review committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Neu-
roscience of Maastricht University granted ethical approval to the data
collection, and all data collection procedures have been performed in
accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Decla-
ration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
INFORMED CONSENT
Letters describing the study to parents and their children were given
in person. Parents provided written consent, and children gave verbal
assent before they completed the set of questionnaires.
ORCID
Martin Hildebrand http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9228-6971
REFERENCES
Altman, J. C. (2008). Engaging families in child welfare services: Worker
versus client perspectives. Child Welfare, 87, 31–63.
Arata, C. M., Langhinrichsen‐Rohling, J., Bowers, D., & O'Farrill‐Swails, L.
(2005). Single versus multi‐type maltreatment: An examination of the
long‐term effects of child abuse. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 11, 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v11n04_02
Bailey, J. A., Hill, K. G., Oesterle, S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2009). Parenting
practices and problem behavior across three generations: Monitoring,
harsh discipline, and drug use in the intergenerational transmission of
externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1214–1226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016129
Baker, E., & Beech, A. R. (2004). Dissociation and variability of adult attach-
ment dimensions and early maladaptive schemas in sexual and violent
offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1119–1136. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269091
Barazandeh, H., Kissane, D. W., Saeedi, N., & Gordon, M. (2016). A system-
atic review of the relationship between early maladaptive schemas and
borderline personality disorder/traits. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 94, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.021
Barth, R. P. (2008). The move to evidence‐based practice: How well does it
fit child welfare services? Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2, 145–171.
https://doi.org/10.1090/15548730802312537
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical aspects.
New York: Harper and Row.
Bosmans, G., Braet, C., & van Vlierberghe, L. (2010). Attachment and symp-
toms of psychopathology: Early maladaptive schemas as a cognitive
link? Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 17, 374–385. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cpp.667
Brenning, K., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2011). An adaption of
the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale‐Revised for the use with
children and adolescents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
28, 1048–1072. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511402418
Brook, J., McDonald, T. P., Gregoire, T., Press, A., & Hindman, B. (2010).
Parental substance abuse and family reunification. Journal of Social
Work Practice in the Addictions, 10, 393–412. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1533256X.2010.521078
Brotchie, J., Meyer, C., Copello, A., Kidney, R., & Waller, G. (2004). Cogni-
tive representations in alcohol and opiate abuse: The role of core
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9228-6971
https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v11n04_02
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016129
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269091
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269091
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.021
https://doi.org/10.1090/15548730802312537
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.667
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.667
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407511402418
https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2010.521078
https://doi.org/10.1080/1533256X.2010.521078
10 ZONNEVIJLLE AND HILDEBRAND
beliefs. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 337–342. https://doi.
org/10.1348/0144665031752916
Calvete, E., & Orue, I. (2013). Cognitive mechanisms of the transmission of
violence: Exploring gender differences among adolescents exposed to
family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 73–84. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10896‐012‐9472‐y
Calvete, E., Orue, I., & Hankin, B. L. (2015). A longitudinal test of the vul-
nerability‐stress model with early maladaptive schemas for depressive
and social anxiety symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 37, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10862‐014‐9438‐x
Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Patterson, G. R., & Owen, L. D. (2003). Conti-
nuity of parenting practices across generations in an at‐risk sample: A
prospective comparison of direct and mediated associations. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1022518123387
Castro, J., Toro, J., van der Ende, J., & Arrindell, W. A. (1993). Exploring the
feasibility of assessing perceived parental rearing styles in Spanish chil-
dren with the EMBU. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 39,
47–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076409303900105
Cecero, J. J., Nelson, J. D., & Gillie, J. M. (2004). Tools and tenets of schema
therapy: Toward the construct validity of the Early Maladaptive
Schema Questionnaire–Research Version (EMSQ‐R). Clinical Psychology
& Psychotherapy, 11, 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.401
Choi,S., & Ryan, J. P. (2006). Completing substance abuse treatment in
child welfare: The role of co‐occurring problems and primary drug of
choice. Child Maltreatment, 11, 313–325.
Cockram, D. M., Drummond, P. D., & Lee, C. W. (2010). Role and treatment of
early maladaptive schemas in Vietnam veterans with PTSD. Clinical Psy-
chology & Psychotherapy, 17, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.690
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conger, R. D., Neppl, T., Kim, K., & Scaramella, L. (2003). Angry and aggres-
sive behavior across three generations: A prospective, longitudinal
study of parents and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
31, 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022570107457
Crawford, E., & O'Dougherty Wright, M. (2007). The impact of childhood
psychological maltreatment on interpersonal schemas and subsequent
experiences of relationship aggression. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7,
93–116. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v07n02_06
Doidge, J. C., Higgins, D. J., Delfabbro, P., & Segal, L. (2017). Risk factors for child
maltreatment in an Australian population‐based birth cohort. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 64, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.002
Earley, L., & Cushway, D. (2002). The parentified child. Clinical Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 7, 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1359104502007002005
English, D. J., Upadhyaya, M. P., Litrownik, A. J., Marshall, J. M., Runyan, D.
K., Graham, J. C., & Dubowitz, H. (2005). Maltreatment's wake: The rela-
tionship of maltreatment dimensions to child outcomes. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 29, 597–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.12.008
Fitzsimmons, K., Gallagher, S., Blayone, S., Chan, D., Leaitch, W., Veals, N.,
& Wilkinson, N. (2008). The Young Schema Questionnaire in group
therapy: A client‐focused approach. Social Work in Mental Health, 7,
176–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332980802072538
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response the-
ory analysis of self‐report measures of adult attachment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. https://doi.org/
10.1037//0022‐3514.78.2.350
Freysteinsdóttir, F. J. (2007). Characteristics of families who are repeatedly
reported to child protection services in Iceland. Nordisk Sosialt Arbeid,
27, 2–18.
Harris, A. H. S., Reeder, R., & Hyun, J. K. (2009). Common statistical and
research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high‐impact psy-
chiatry journals: What editors and reviewers want authors to know.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 1231–1234. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.04.007
Hops, H., Davis, B., Leve, C., & Sheeber, L. (2003). Cross‐generational
transmission of aggressive parent behavior: A prospective, mediational
examination. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 161–169.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022522224295
Jaffee, S. R., & Maikovich‐Fong, A. K. (2011). Effects of chronic maltreat-
ment and maltreatment timing on children's behavior and cognitive
abilities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 184–194.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469‐7610.2010.02304.x
Kemp, S. P., Marcenko, M. O., Hoagwood, K., & Vesneski, W. (2009).
Engaging parents in child welfare services: Bridging family needs and
child welfare mandates. Child Welfare, 88, 101–138.
Koerner, N., Tallon, K., & Kusec, A. (2015). Maladaptive core beliefs and
their relation to generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Ther-
apy, 44, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1042989
Kohl, P. L., Edleson, J. L., English, D. J., & Barth, R. P. (2005). Domestic vio-
lence and pathways into child welfare services: Findings from the
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well‐Being. Children and
Youth Services Review, 27, 1167–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2005.04.003
Littell, J. (2001). Client participation and outcomes of intensive family pres-
ervation services. Social Work Research, 25, 103–113. https://doi.org/
10.1093/swr/25.2.103
Littell, J. H., & Shlonsky, A. (2010). Toward evidence‐informed policy and
practice in child welfare. Research on Social Work Practice, 20,
723–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509347886
Lumley, M. N., & Harkness, K. L. (2007). Specificity in the relations among
childhood adversity, early maladaptive schemas, and symptom profiles
in adolescent depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 639–657.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608‐006‐9100‐3
Mącik, D., Chodkiewicz, J., & Bielicka, D. (2016). Trans‐generational trans-
fer of early maladaptive schemas—A preliminary study performed on a
non‐clinical group. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 4, 132–145.
https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2016.60411
Madden, V., Domoney, J., Aumayer, K., Sethna, V., Iles, J., Hubbard, I., …
Ramchandani, P. (2015). Intergenerational transmission of parenting:
Findings from a UK longitudinal study. European Journal of Public
Health, 25, 1030–1035. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv093
McCarthy, M. C., & Lumley, M. N. (2012). Sources of emotional maltreat-
ment and the differential development of unconditional and
conditional schemas. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 41, 288–297.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2012.676669
McLean, H. R., Bailey, H. N., & Lumley, M. N. (2014). The secure base
script: Associated with early maladaptive schemas related to attach-
ment. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice,
87, 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12025
Mirick, R. G. (2014). Engagement in Child Protective Services: The role of
substance abuse, intimate partner violence and race. Child and Adoles-
cent Social Work Journal, 31, 267–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10560‐013‐0320‐6
Muris, P. (2006). Maladaptive schemas in non‐clinical adolescents: Rela-
tions to perceived parental rearing behaviours, Big Five personality
factors and psychopathological symptoms. Clinical Psychology & Psycho-
therapy, 13, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.506
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & van Brakel, A. (2003). Assessment of anxious
rearing behaviors with a modified version of the ‘Egna Minnen
Beträffande Uppfostran’ (EMBU) questionnaire for children. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 25, 229–237. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1025894928131
Oei, T. P. S., & Baranoff, J. (2007). Young Schema Questionnaire: Review of
psychometric and measurement issues. Australian Journal of Psychology,
59, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530601148397
Platt, D. (2012). Understanding parental engagement with child welfare
services: An integrated model. Child & Family Social Work, 17,
138–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365‐2206.2012.00828x
Quirk, S. W., Wier, D., Martin, S. M., & Christian, A. (2015). The influence
of parental rejection on the development of maladaptive schemas,
https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752916
https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752916
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9472-y
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9472-y
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9438-x
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9438-x
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022518123387
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022518123387
https://doi.org/10.1177/002076409303900105
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.401
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.690
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022570107457
https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v07n02_06
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.002
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104502007002005
https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104502007002005
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.12.008
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332980802072538
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.350
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.350
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.04.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.04.007
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022522224295
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02304.x
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2015.1042989
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.04.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.04.003https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/25.2.103
https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/25.2.103
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509347886
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9100-3
https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2016.60411
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv093
https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2012.676669
https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-013-0320-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-013-0320-6
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.506
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025894928131
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025894928131
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530601148397
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00828x
ZONNEVIJLLE AND HILDEBRAND 11
rumination, and motivations for self‐injury. Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 37, 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10862‐014‐9453‐y
Rafaeli, E., Bernstein, D. P., & Young, J. (2010). Schema therapy: Distinctive
features. London: Routledge.
Reich, J. A. (2005). Fixing families: Parents, power and the child welfare sys-
tem. New York: Routledge.
Renner, F., Lobbestael, J., Peeters, F., Arntz, A., & Huibers, M. (2012). Early
maladaptive schemas in depressed patients: Stability and relation with
depressive symptoms over the course of treatment. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 136, 581–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.10.027
Rijkeboer, M. M., van den Bergh, H., & van den Bout, J. (2005). Stability
and discriminative power of the Young Schema Questionnaire in a
Dutch clinical versus nonclinical population. Journal of Behavior Therapy
and Experimental Psychiatry, 36, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbtep.2004.08.005
Riso, L. P., Froman, S. E., Raouf, M., Gable, P., Maddux, M. E., Turini‐
Santorelli, N., … Cherry, M. (2006). The long‐term stability of early mal-
adaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 515–529.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608‐006‐9015‐z
Roelofs, J., Lee, C., Ruijten, T., & Lobbestael, J. (2011). The mediating role
of early maladaptive schemas in the relation between quality of attach-
ment relationships and symptoms of depression in adolescents.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 39, 471–479. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S1352465811000117
Roelofs, J., Onckels, L., & Muris, P. (2013). Attachment quality and psycho-
pathological symptoms in clinically referred adolescents: The mediating
role of early maladaptive schemas. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
22, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐012‐9589‐x
Schmidt, N. B., Joiner, T. E., Young, J. E., & Telch, M. J. (1995). The Schema
Questionnaire: Investigation of psychometric properties and the hierarchi-
cal structure of a measure of maladaptive schemas. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 19, 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230402
Schreiber, J. C., Fuller, T., & Paceley, M. S. (2013). Engagement in child protective
services: Parent perceptions of worker skills. Children and Youth Services
Review, 35, 707–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.01.018
Seay, D. M., Jahromi, L. B., Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., & Updegraff, K. A. (2016).
Intergenerational transmission of maladaptive parenting strategies in
families of adolescent mothers: Effects from grandmothers to young
children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 1097–1109.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802‐015‐0091‐y
Serbin, L., & Karp, J. (2003). Intergenerational studies of parenting and the
transfer of risk from parent to child. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 12, 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8721.01249
Shorey, R. C., Anderson, S., & Stuart, G. L. (2012). An examination of early
maladaptive schemas among substance use treatment seekers and
their parents. Contemporary Family Therapy, 34, 429–441. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10591‐012‐9203‐9
Shorey, R. C., Stuart, G. L., & Anderson, S. (2013). Early maladaptive
schemas among young adult male substance abusers: A comparison
with a non‐clinical group. Journal of Substance Abuse, 44, 522–527.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2012.12.001
Sigre‐Leirós, V. L., Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2013). Early maladaptive
schemas and aggressive sexual behavior: A preliminary study with male
college students. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 1764–1772.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743‐6109.2012.02875.x
Simard, V., Moss, E., & Pascuzzo, K. (2011). Early maladaptive schemas and
child and adult attachment: A 15‐year longitudinal study. Psychology
and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 84, 349–366.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8341.2010.02009.x
Smith, C. A., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Continuities in antisocial behavior and
parenting across three generations. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-
atry, 45, 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469‐7610.2004.00216.x
Stallard, P. (2007). Early maladaptive schemas in children: Stability and differ-
ences between a community and clinic referred sample. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.511
Staudt, M. (2007). Treatment engagement with caregivers of at‐risk children:
Gaps in research and conceptualization. Journal of Child and Family Stud-
ies, 16, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826‐006‐9077‐2
Thimm, J. C. (2010). Mediation of early maladaptive schemas between per-
ceptions of parental rearing style and personality disorder symptoms.
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1, 52–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.10.001
Thornberry, T. P., Freeman‐Gallant, A., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., & Smith,
C. A. (2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antiso-
cial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171–184.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022574208366
Tremblay, P. F., & Dozios, D. J. A. (2009). Another perspective on trait
aggressiveness: Overlap with early maladaptive schemas. Personality
and Individual Differences, 46, 569–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2008.12.009
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., & Omrod, R. (2006). The effects of lifetime victim-
ization on the mental health of children and adolescents. Social Science &
Medicine, 62, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.030
Tuttle, A. R., Knudson‐Martin, C., Levin, S., Taylor, B., & Andrew, J. (2007).
Parents' experiences in Child Protective Services: Analysis of a dialog-
ical group process. Family Process, 46, 367–380. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1545‐5300.2007.00217.x
Unoka, Z., Tölgyes, T., Czobor, P., & Simon, L. (2010). Eating disorder
behavior and early maladaptive schemas in subgroups of eating disor-
ders. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198, 425–431.
https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181e07d3d
van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting:
A review of studies in nonclinical populations. Developmental Review,
12, 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273‐2297(92)90004‐L
van Vlierberghe, L., & Braet, C. (2007). Dysfunctional schemas and psycho-
pathology in referred obese adolescents. Clinical Psychology &
Psychotherapy, 14, 342–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.546
van Vlierberghe, L., Braet, C., Bosmans, G., Rosseel, Y., & Bögels, S. (2010).
Maladaptive schemas and psychopathology in adolescence: On the
utility of Young's schema theory in youth. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 34, 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608‐009‐9283‐5
van Vugt, E., Lanctôt, N., Paquette, G., Collin‐Vézina, D., & Lemieux, A.
(2014). Girls in residential care: From child maltreatment to trauma‐
related symptoms in emerging adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38,
114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.015
Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, R. M. P., Oosterman, M.,
Cassibba, R., … van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Narrowing the transmis-
sion gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational
transmission of attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 337–366.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000038
Wright, M. O. D., Crawford, E., & Del Castillo, D. (2009). Childhood emo-
tional maltreatment and later psychological distress among college
students: The mediating role