Mediating Role of the Child’s Temperament on the Relationship Between Mother/Father’s Adoptive Parenting and Adoptee’s Social Skills: Hybrid Dyadic Analyses

Adop ion Qua e ly ISSN: (P in ) (Online) Jou nal homepage: www. and online.com/jou nals/wado20 Media ing Role o he Child’s Tempe amen on he Rela ionship Be ween Mo he /Fa he ’s Adop i e Pa en ing and Adop ee’s Social Skills: Hyb id Dyadic Analyses Joana Soa es, Ma ia Ba bosa-Ducha ne & Jesús Palacios To ci e his a icle: Joana Soa es, Ma ia Ba bosa-Ducha ne & Jesús Palacios (2023) Media ing Role o he Child’s Tempe amen on he Rela ionship Be ween Mo he /Fa he ’s Adop i e Pa en ing and Adop ee’s Social Skills: Hyb id Dyadic Analyses, Adop ion Qua e ly, 26:4, 389-413, DOI: 10.1080/10926755.2023.2198522 To link o his a icle: h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10926755.2023.2198522 © 2023 The Au ho (s). Published wi h license by Taylo & F ancis G oup, LLC. Published online: 21 Ap 2023. Submi you a icle o his jou nal A icle iews: 1668 View ela ed a icles View C ossma k da a Ci ing a icles: 1 View ci ing a icles Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a h ps://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode=wado20 Adop ion QuA e ly 2023, Vol. 26, no. 4, 389–413 Media ing Role o he Child’s Tempe amen on he Rela ionship Be ween Mo he /Fa he ’s Adop i e Pa en ing and Adop ee’s Social Skills: Hyb id Dyadic Analyses Joana Soa esa , Ma ia Ba bosa-Ducha nea and Jesús Palaciosb aG oup o esea ch and in e en ion in ou -o -Home Ca e and Adop ion, Cen e o psychology a uni e si y o po o, Facul y o psychology and educa ion Sciences, uni e si y o po o, po o, po ugal; bdepa men o de elopmen al and educa ional psychology, uni e si y o Se ilhe, Se illa, Spain ABSTRACT Adop ion p o ides a unique oppo uni y o s udy he concu - en e ec o child’s biology-based cha ac e is ics and en i on- men al in luences on he adop ees’ de elopmen . He ein, wo Hyb id Dyadic Models—an inno a ion in adop ion esea ch— we e es ed o s udy he media ing ole o he adop ees’ neg- a i e eac i i y on he ela ionship be ween mo he s/ a he s’ suppo i e (Model A) and unsuppo i e (Model B) pa en ing, and adop ees’ social skills. In a sample o 102 couples, mo he s’/ a he s’ epo s on adop ees’ social skills and nega i e eac- i i y, and sel - epo s o suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing we e s udied. Mo he s’ and a he s’ suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing we e independen ly assessed, whe eas he adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y and social skills we e ea ed as common a e a iables, wi h bo h pa en s’ sco es as indica o s o a la en cons uc . Resul s we e non-signi ican o Model A. Rega ding Model B, di e en ela ionship pa e ns we e ound depending on he in o man (mo he / a he ). Highe a he s’ (no mo he s’) unsuppo i e pa en ing was associa ed wi h highe nega i e eac i i y in adop ees, which, in u n, was associa ed wi h lowe adop ees’ social skills. Conside ing simul aneously unique and sha ed pe spec i es o bo h pa en s, his s udy ad ances adop- ion esea ch s eng hening he ele ance o dyadic analyses when s udying he adop i e amily dynamics and sugges s he need o conside mo he s’ and a he s’ di e en con ibu ions o adop i e pa en ing. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10926755.2023.2198522 © 2023 he Au ho (s). published wi h license by aylo & F ancis G oup, llC. CONTACT Joana Soa es joanala a@ pce.up.p Facul y o psychology and educa ion Sciences, uni e si y o po o, ua Al edo Allen, 4200-135 po o, po ugal his a icle is based on he ph.d. hesis comple ed by Soa es (2019). po ions o hese indings we e p esen ed as a symposium con ibu ion—Social compe ence, social in eg a ion, and ela ional compe ence in adop ed child en, eens, and young adul s—a he iCA 7 in e na ional Con e ence on Adop ion esea ch, Milan, i aly. We ha e no con lic s o in e es o disclose. his esea ch was suppo ed by he Founda ion o Science and echnology unde G an [SF H/Bd/77316/2011] and by a philan h opic p og am o independen pa ons. he au ho s g a e ully acknowledge he language help and p oo eading o he pape by Albina Sil a lou ei o and specially hank he adop i e amilies who pa icipa ed in he s udy. his is an open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion license (h p://c ea i ecommons. o g/licenses/by/4.0/), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed. he e ms on which his a icle has been published allow he pos ing o he Accep ed Manusc ip in a eposi o y by he au ho (s) o wi h hei consen . ARTICLE HISTORY Recei ed 8 Decembe 2021 Re ised 24 Oc obe 2022 Accep ed 19 Janua y 2023 KEYWORDS Adop ion; social skills; empe amen ; pa en ing; hyb id dyadic model 390 J. SOARES ET AL. A child’ de elopmen is he ou come o a complex in e play be ween indi idual cha ac e is ics and con ex ual in luences. Pa en ing p ocesses may be mode a ed o media ed by he child’s indi idual cha ac e is ics o , con e sely, hey may mode a e o media e he child’s indi idual cha ac- e is ics (Reiss, Le e, & Neide hise , 2013). Adop ion is a na u al esea ch design, allowing o he dis inc ion o indi idual and con ex -based p o- cesses and con ibu es o he knowledge o he mechanisms h ough which child en shape and a e shaped by hei ea ing en i onmen s (Palacios, 2018; Shewa k e  al., 2021). Howe e , esea ch in his ield has mos ly ocused on he child’s he i able cha ac e is ics ha in luence pa en ing (e.g., Le e e al., 2019), he in luence o child-e oked pa en ing on child’s de elopmen al ou comes (e.g., Ha old e  al., 2013), and he mode a ion o he child’s indi idual cha ac e is ics in he ela ionship be ween pa - en ing and he child’s ou comes (e.g., Reiss e al., 2013; Shewa k e al., 2021). The p esen c oss-sec ional s udy in ends o ad ance p e ious esea ch by explo ing how he child’s nega i e eac i i y (indi idual cha ac e is ic) is ela ed o suppo i e/unsuppo i e adop i e pa en s’ eac ions o he child’s nega i e emo ions (con ex -based) and o he adop ee’s social skills (child’s ou come). The heo e ical amewo k o his s udy is based on he di e en ial suscep ibili y model (e.g., Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bake mans- K anenbu g, & an Ijzendoo n, 2011), and in ends o explo e he ole o he child’s empe amen (nega i e eac i i y) as media o , no as mode a o as has been usual. As such, he p esen li e a u e e iew is o ganized o p esen e idence on he adop ees’ social skills (dependen a iable), he child en’s nega i e eac i i y (p oposed media o ) and suppo i e/unsup- po i e adop i e pa en ing (independen a iable). Mo eo e , his s udy is mul i-in o man , since i conside s bo h mo he s’ and a he s’ epo s o all he s udy a iables. Reso ing o a Hyb id Ac o -Pa ne and Common-Fa e Model (AP-CF Hyb id Model; Lede mann & Kenny, 2012; Lede mann & Macho, 2009; Wickham & Macia, 2019), i will simul aneously conside he in e dependence be ween he wo in o - man s and each in o man indi idually. Using a dyadic analysis in adop ion esea ch will be an ad ance allowing o a be e unde s anding o he impac o he adop i e amily dynamics on he adop ees’ social de elopmen . Adop ed child en’s social skills Social skills a e he building blocks o child en’s social compe ence and e e o socially app op ia e beha io s (G esham, Ellio , Vance, & Cook, 2011). These include coope a i e and p o-social abili ies, he capaci y o s a and main ain con e sa ions and social connec ions, lexibili y, and engagemen in social p oblem-sol ing, as well as empa hy o o he s’ needs and eelings (Halle & Da ling-Chu chill, 2016), which a e c i ical ADOPTIOn QuARTERLy 391 equi emen s o de eloping success ul social ela ionships. Gi en he impo ance o social in e ac ions in school and o he social con ex s, being socially skilled in middle childhood is pa icula ly impo an since his pe iod is cha ac e ized by e iden challenges in he social a ena equi ing lexible social adap a ion (C one e  al., 2020). The ea lies building blocks o social unc ioning lie in he quali y o he child’s a achmen ela ionships o ca egi e s (Guyon-Ha is, Humph eys, Fox, Nelson, & Zeanah, 2019). When in ancy is ma ked by mal ea men , neglec and/o expe ience o collec i e/g oup ca e (ins i u ionaliza ion), as is he case o mos adop ed child en, he o e all de elopmen and, pa - icula ly, he socio-emo ional one, is hea ily damaged by he lack o an indi idualized, esponsi e, suppo i e, and s able/pe manen ca e. Resea ch has shown ha ea ly ad e si y expe iences a ec social compe ence, spe- ci ically he acquisi ion and pe o mance o social skills (e.g., Cáce es, Mo eno, Román, & Palacios, 2021; Soa es e  al., 2019). Recen adop ion esea ch has shown ha mos adop ees p esen adequa e social unc ioning (e.g., DeLuca, Clax on, & Dulmen, 2019), signi ican ly be e han child en in ins i u ions (e.g., Ba oso, Ba bosa-Ducha ne, C uz, & Sil a, 2018; Cáce es e  al., 2021) despi e he he e ogenei y obse ed wi hin he adop ed-g oup, wi h a subg oup o adop ees being poo ly com- pe en , wi h less social skills and/o being mo e o en ejec ed o neglec ed by pee s (Ba bosa-Ducha ne, 2021). Child en wi h mo e ea ly ad e si y showed ewe social skills (e.g., Julian & McCall, 2016; Soa es e al., 2019), especially when adop ed a an olde age o om Eas e n Eu ope (e.g., Ba cons e  al., 2012; Cap in, Benedan, Balla in, & Gallace, 2017). Recen esea ch has also shown he posi i e in luence o pos adop ion pa en ing/ amily dynamics on adop ees’ social skills, as well as he e ec o he in e play be ween pas ad e si y and pos adop ion expe iences on adop ees’ social ou comes (e.g., DePasquale, Lawle , Koss, & Gunna , 2020; Soa es e  al., 2019). Ne e heless, mo e esea ch is needed o explo e he p ocesses ha unde lie he obse ed he e ogenei y in adop ees’ social compe ence. The p esen s udy aims o con ibu e o illing in his gap by s udying adop ees’ social skills as an ou come (dependen a iable). Since social compe ence is con ex and in o man -dependen , li e a u e has highligh ed he need o conside ing mul iple in o man s when s udying social ou comes (e.g., Hube , Plö ne , In-Albon, S adelmann, & Schmi z 2019). As such, in his s udy, adop ees’ social skills we e e alua ed by adop i e mo he s and a he s. Adop ed child en’s nega i e eac i i y Tempe amen e e s o physiologically based indi idual di e ences in eac- i i y and sel - egula ion in luenced by he en i onmen (Ro hba & Ba es, 392 J. SOARES ET AL. 2006). Tempe amen al beha io s a e no only biologically based bu can also de elop o e ime and be explained by he quali y o he in e ac ions/ ela ionships wi h pa en s/ca egi e s (Lipscomb e  al., 2011). Nega i e eac i i y (o nega i e emo ionali y) e e s o he in ensi y, du a ion, and equency wi h which he child exp esses nega i e emo ions, including ea and us a ion, and is conside ed a co e componen o empe amen (Pu nam & S i e , 2008). Acco ding o he di e en ial suscep ibili y model (Ellis e al., 2011), child en wi h eac i e empe amen s may be pa icula ly ulne able o en i onmen /pa en ing, o he wo se—su e ing om he impac o nega i e pa en ing p ac ices mo e—as well as o he be e — bene i ing om posi i e pa en ing mo e (Ellis e al., 2011; Tung, No oña, Lee, Langley, & Wa e man, 2018). In adop ion esea ch, nega i e eac i i y has o en been used as a a i- able accoun ing o a gene ic in luence (e.g., Le e e al., 2019), and i has been mos ly explo ed as a p edic o o speci ic pa en al esponses ha a ec he child’s ou comes (e.g., Ja a i-Bimmel, Ju e , an IJzendoo n, Bake mans-K anenbu g, & Mooijaa , 2006; Shewa k e al., 2021). Highe nega i e eac i i y has been associa ed wi h wo se social ou comes in adop ees (e.g., Shewa k e al., 2021; Tung e al., 2018). Following his line o esea ch, empe amen was he eby conside ed as a media o o he ela ionship be ween pa en ing and he child’s ou comes. Fu he mo e, his s udy ocused on middle childhood, ad ancing exis en esea ch on em- pe amen ha is mos ly cen e ed on in ancy and ea ly childhood (e.g., Paulussen-Hoogeboom, S ams, He manns, & Pee sma, 2007). Addi ionally, adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y was e alua ed by adop i e mo he s and a he s, o accoun o sha ed me hod a iance, i.e., educing he in o man - ela ed bias. Suppo i e/unsuppo i e adop i e pa en ing Pa en s’ emo ion socializa ion plays a cen al ole in he child’s socio-emo- ional de elopmen (Eisenbe g, Cumbe land, & Spin ad, 1998). Emo ion socializa ion b oadly e e s o he mul i ude o beha io s ha pa en s engage in o in luence child en’s abili ies o unde s and, expe ience, and egula e hei own and o he s’ emo ions (Denham, Basse , & Wya , 2007). Acco dingly, pa en s’ eac ions o child en’s nega i e emo ions ha e ecei ed signi ican a en ion om schola s. A widely used amewo k conside s ha some pa en s’ eac ions o child en’s nega i e emo ions (e.g., ac i ely engaging wi h child en’s emo ions and accep ing hei eelings), exp ess suppo i e pa en ing, whe eas minimizing, igno ing, denying, shaming, o punishing a child’s emo ional expe ience and exp essions a e unsuppo i e pa en ing beha io s (Eisenbe g, Fabes, & Mu phy, 1996). Consequen ly, h ough suppo i e pa en ing, pa en s may co- egula e, as well as guide ADOPTIOn QuARTERLy 393 child en’s hough s and beha io s, du ing hei nega i e emo ional expe- iences (Cas o, Halbe s ad , & Ga e ‐Pe e s, 2018; Mo is, C iss, Silk, & Houl be g, 2017). Con a ywise, unsuppo i e pa en ing in alida es chil- d en’s nega i e emo ions, in an explici (e.g., “S op c ying.”) o implici way (“You’ e ine.”; Cas o e  al., 2018). Resea ch has shown ha pa en ing a ec s and is a ec ed by he child’s empe amen (e.g., Ki , Lengua, & Zalewski, 2011). Speci ically, in ela ion o he link be ween suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing and he child’s nega i e eac i i y, a signi ican numbe o s udies has associa ed pa en s’ suppo i e/unsuppo i e esponses o he child’s egula o y capaci ies (e.g., Samdan e  al., 2020), which a e di ec ly ela ed o nega i e eac i i y. In a me a-analysis, Slag , Dubas, Deko ić, and an Aken (2016) explo ed whe he child en a y in sensi i i y o pa en ing depending on hei em- pe amen . Child en wi h a mo e di icul empe amen we e epo ed o be mo e ulne able o nega i e pa en ing bu also bene i ed om posi i e pa en ing mo e, which is consis en wi h he heo e ical amewo k o his s udy— he di e en ial suscep ibili y model (Ellis e al., 2011). The suppo o di e en ial suscep ibili y ega ding nega i e emo ionali y was, howe e , only p esen when his ai was assessed du ing in ancy (Slag e  al., 2016). The cu en s udy ad anced his line o esea ch by including middle childhood-aged adop ees. Slag and colleagues’ me a-analysis also showed ha empe amen ai s ha e been essen ially s udied as mode a o s o he pa en ing in luence (pa en ing-by- empe amen in e ac ion), no as media o s, as s udied he ein. Mo eo e , he connec ions be ween suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing and he child’s social ou comes ha e also been well documen ed, showing a posi i e ela ionship be ween suppo i e pa en ing and social skills/ compe ence, and a nega i e ela ionship wi h unsuppo i e pa en ing (e.g., Bake , Fenning, & C nic, 2011; Eisenbe g e  al., 1996). Howe e , ecen esea ch has b ough new e idence ques ioning i suppo i e pa en ing is always “good” o all child en and in all con ex s (Cas o & Nelson, 2018). Mi abile, Oe wig, and Halbe s ad (2018) and Nelson and Boye (2018) p esen ed e idence o an age- ela ed shi in he ole o suppo i e/ unsuppo i e pa en ing. These au ho s showed ha o olde child en, unsuppo i e esponses can play an au onomy-p omo i e ole (Mi abile e  al., 2018; Nelson & Boye , 2018). Acco ding o Cas o and Nelson (2018), pa en s’ suppo i e esponses o child’s nega i e emo ions may become less needed as child en become olde , mo e au onomous, and emo ionally skilled. In his line o esea ch, Cas o e al. (2018) and Mille - Slough, Dunsmo e, Zeman, Sande s, and Poon (2018) also showed how he con ex and he in o man may in luence he associa ion be ween suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing and child en’s socioemo ional compe- ence. Cas o e al. (2018) es ed associa ions be ween mo he s’ suppo i e 394 J. SOARES ET AL. eac ions and child en’s social skills epo ed by mo he s and eache s and showed ha mo he s’ suppo i e eac ions p edic ed mo e social skills in child en as epo ed by mo he s bu ewe social skills when epo ed by eache s. Mille -Slough e  al. (2018) s udied mo he s’ and a he s’ epo s o hei eac ions o child en’s nega i e emo ions and ound h ee di e en pa e ns o amilies. In one o hem, a he s p esen ed highe sco es o suppo i e and unsuppo i e pa en ing han mo he s. Despi e e idence p o ing he ele ance o suppo i e emo ion social- iza ion pa en ing, his a iable has ecei ed li le a en ion in adop ion esea ch (see He e a, 2014; Soa es e  al., 2019, as excep ions). In his s udy, suppo i e and unsuppo i e pa en ing we e explo ed as p edic o s o nega i e eac i i y (child’s indi idual cha ac e is ic—media o ) and social skills (child’s social ou come). The absence o unsuppo i e esponses o child en’s nega i e emo ions does no necessa ily imply suppo i e esponses (McElwain, Halbe s ad , & Volling, 2007), and his was he eason why, in he p esen s udy, wo sepa a e models, o suppo i e and unsuppo i e pa en ing, we e es ed. Mo eo e , in acco dance wi h e idence sugges ing ha pa en s’ emo ional socializa ion p ac ices ope a e di e en ly wi h child en in middle childhood compa ed o p eschoole s (Mi abile e  al., 2018; Nelson & Boye , 2018), he cu en s udy eso ed o an age-homo- geneous sample (8-10 yea s). Finally, i is wo h emphasizing ha he e ec o he mo he ’s and a he ’s suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing we e also sepa a ely conside ed. Recen esea ch has shown he unique con ibu ion o a he s o (un)suppo i eness in emo ion socializa ion (Che y & Ge s ein, 2021; Ge ha d e al., 2020; Maia & Pe ei a, 2021) and he dyadic na u e o mo he s’ and a he s’ esponses o child en’s nega i e emo ions du ing middle childhood, which a e p edic ed by hei own ea lie esponses and by hei pa ne s’ esponses as well (Nelson e  al., 2016). The p esen s udy The cu en s udy in ends o examine whe he suppo i e and unsup- po i e pa en ing (independen a iables) ela es o he child’s social skills (dependen a iable) h ough he child’s nega i e eac i i y (media o a iable). P e ious esea ch has p edominan ly used mo he -cen e ed epo s inducing his s udy o conside bo h mo he s and a he s as in o man s. Speci ically, he goals o his s udy a e o analyze he: (a) ela ionships be ween suppo i e/unsuppo i e adop i e pa en ing and adop ees’ social skills (e alua ed by bo h pa en s); (b) ela ionships be ween suppo i e/unsuppo i e adop i e pa en ing and he adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y (e alua ed by bo h pa en s); (c) ela ionship be ween he adop- ees’ nega i e eac i i y and hei social skills; (d) media ing ole o he adop ees’ eac i i y on he ela ionships be ween suppo i e/unsuppo i e ADOPTIOn QuARTERLy 395 pa en ing and child en’s social skills; (e) di e en ial e ec o mo he s’ and a he s’ suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing on he adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y and social skills. To accomplish hese goals an inno a i e me hodological p ocedu e— AP-CF Hyb id Model (Lede mann & Kenny, 2012; Lede mann & Macho, 2009; Wickham & Macia, 2019)—was pe o med. This is a holis ic app oach ha combines he Ac o -Pa ne In e dependence Model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) and he Common Fa e Model (CFM; Kenny & La Voie, 1985; Lede mann & Kenny, 2012), which a e models o dyadic anal- yses. This hyb id model allows o accessing he s udy a iables a an indi idual le el (mo he s a he ) and a g oup le el (pa en s o a child), which a e essen ial in unde s anding he complexi y o amily sys ems. Two models (A and B) we e es ed di e ing only in he independen a iable—suppo i e o unsuppo i e pa en ing. Figu e 1 p esen s he o e all concep ual model p oposed. Based on he e iewed e idence, i is hypo hesized ha : 1. The adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y media es he ela ionship be ween suppo i e pa en ing and adop ees’ social skills (indi ec e ec ). Highe suppo i e adop i e pa en ing will be ela ed o lowe neg- a i e eac i i y in adop ees, which, in u n, will be ela ed o mo e adop ees’ social skills. 2. The adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y media es he ela ionship be ween unsuppo i e pa en ing and adop ees’ social skills (indi ec e ec ). Figu e 1. Hyb id Ap-CF Model: concep ual model. 396 J. SOARES ET AL. Highe unsuppo i e adop i e pa en ing will be ela ed o highe adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y, which, in u n, will be ela ed o ewe adop ees’ social skills. 3. Suppo i e and unsuppo i e pa en ing ha e di e en ial pa e ns o ela ionships wi h child- ela ed a iables (nega i e eac i i y and social skills) depending on whe he i is he mo he ’s o he a he ’s pa en ing. Mo he s’ and a he s’ suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing will ha e di e en impac s on adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y and social skills, i.e., he ela ionship pa e ns among he a iables will a y acco ding o mo he s’ and a he s’ pa en ing sel - epo s. Me hod Pa icipan s Pa icipan s included 102 di e en -sex couples/dyads o adop i e pa - en s—102 mo he s and 102 a he s— om a la ge mul i-in o man s udy on domes ic adop ees’ social compe ence, in Po ugal (Soa es, 2019). Mo he s’ ages anged om 32 o 59 (M = 47.88 yea s, SD = 5.06) and a he s’ ages anged om 37 o 59 (M = 46.24, SD = 4.89). Mo he s had, on a e age, 12.11 yea s o o mal schooling (SD = 4.89, ange 4–23) and a he s p e- sen ed a mean o 11.86 yea s o schooling (SD = 4.85, ange 0–23). No signi ican di e ences be ween mo he s and a he s in age and schooling we e ound. All pa icipan s we e Caucasian. In each amily, bo h mo he and a he epo ed on one adop ee. Ou o a o al o 102 adop ees, 59 (57.8%) we e boys and 43 (42.2%) gi ls, aged 8 o 10 a da a collec ion (M = 8.79, SD = 0.78). Child en we e placed in he adop i e amily when aged, on a e age, 3.14 yea s (SD = 2.16, ange 0.2–8.00) and, a he ime o assessmen , had been in hei adop i e am- ilies be ween 1.0 and 9.4 yea s (M = 5.65, SD = 2.12). Be o e adop ion, chil- d en had spen on a e age 14.76 mon hs (SD = 19.02, ange 0–75) wi hin hei bi h amily and 23.05 mon hs (SD = 15.58, ange 1–66) in ca e (91% in ins i u ional ca e; 9% in os e amilies). Measu es Child’s social skills Adop ees’ social skills we e assessed using he social skills scale o he pa en s’ e sion o he Social Skills Imp o emen Sys em-Ra ing Scales (SSIS-RS; G esham & Elio , 2008). The social skills scale includes 46 i ems (e.g., “Makes eye con ac when alking.”; “Resol es disag eemen s wi h you calmly”) ha e alua e social beha io s in domains o communica ion, coope a ion, asse ion, esponsibili y, empa hy, engagemen , and ADOPTIOn QuARTERLy 403 hem ewe social skills. This is he only signi ican ela ionship obse ed in his model. The ela ionships be ween mo he s’ and a he s’ suppo i e pa en ing and child en’s nega i e eac i i y e ealed hemsel es as non-sig- ni ican (Table 2, Figu e 2). As such, he e we e no signi ican indi ec e ec s in his model. Hypo hesis 2: Tes ing di ec and indi ec links be ween unsuppo i e pa en ing and social skills (Model B) Figu e 3 p esen s he Hyb id AP-CF Model es ing links among unsup- po i e pa en ing, nega i e eac i i y and social skills (Model B). O e all, he model was i ed o he da a, p esen ing an excellen i , χ2(5) = 5.63; p = .344; χ2/d = 1.13; CFI = .997; TLI = .991; RMSEA = .035. The obse ed a iables a e eliable indica o s o he la en cons uc s—nega i e eac i i y and social skills—because hey explained a a iance equal o o highe han 50%. Eigh pe cen o he a iance on he child en’s nega i e eac i i y was explained by unsuppo i e pa en ing. The o al model explained 42% o he a iance in adop ees’ social skills (Figu e 3). Table 3 shows he uns anda dized coe icien s o di ec ela ions be ween a iables. Di ec ela ion pa hs be ween he mo he s’ and a he s’ unsup- po i e pa en ing and he child en’s social skills we e bo h non-signi ican . Adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y was di ec ly and nega i ely associa ed o hei social skills, sugges ing ha pa en s who epo ed highe sco es o hei child en’s nega i e eac i i y also epo ed lowe sco es o hei child en’s social skills (Table 3, Figu e 3). The ela ionship be ween unsuppo i e pa en ing and nega i e eac i i y was signi ican only o a he s, i.e., he highe he unsuppo i e pa en ing by a he s, he highe he child en’s nega i e eac i i y. Thus, he e was a signi ican ela ionship be ween a he s’ unsuppo i e pa en ing and child en’s social skills, as media ed by child en’s nega i e eac i i y. This indi ec ela ionship was nega i e and signi ican because CI do no c oss ze o (b = −0.04, 95% CI [–0.10, −0.01]). Highe a he s’ unsuppo i e pa en ing was ela ed o highe le els o adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y, which, in u n, was ela ed o lowe social skills. The esul s suppo he assump ion ha he associa ion be ween unsuppo i e adop i e pa en ing and adop ees’ social skills is o ally medi- a ed by hei nega i e eac i i y. The media ion was o al because he e Table 3. uns anda dized es ima es desc ibing di ec pa hs in Model B. e ec bSE p Mo he unsuppo i e pa en ing → Child social skills 0.05 0.03 .092 Fa he unsuppo i e pa en ing → Child social skills –0.03 0.03 .229 Mo he unsuppo i e pa en ing → Child nega i e eac i i y 0.03 0.06 .587 Fa he unsuppo i e pa en ing → Child nega i e eac i i y 0.12 0.06 .034 Child nega i e eac i i y → Child social skills –0.35 0.07 <.001 No e. Signi ican pa hs a e highligh ed in bold. 404 J. SOARES ET AL. was no signi ican di ec e ec be ween unsuppo i e pa en ing and social skills. Hypo hesis 3: Tes ing di e en ial e ec s o mo he s’ and a he s’ suppo i e/ unsuppo i e pa en ing Despi e being non-signi ican , he di ec ion o he links be ween he s udy a iables in Model A (Figu e 2) was di e en acco ding o whe he he suppo i e pa en ing was om he mo he s o a he s. Fa he s’ suppo i e pa en ing had no ela ionship (close o ze o) wi h he adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y; howe e , mo he s’ suppo i e pa en ing had a (non-signi ican ) nega i e associa ion wi h adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y (i.e., he e was a sligh signal o a mi iga ing e ec ). In ela ion o Model B (Figu e 3), al hough he di ec pa hs om he mo he s’ and a he s’ unsuppo i e pa en ing o child en’s social skills we e non-signi ican , hey had in e se signs o associa ion: mo he s’ unsuppo - i e pa en ing was posi i ely (non-signi ican ) ela ed o social skills and a he s’ unsuppo i e pa en ing was nega i ely (non-signi ican ) ela ed o social skills (Figu e 3). Fu he mo e, mo he s’ and a he s’ pa en ing ela ed di e en ly o he adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y. The a he s’ unsuppo i e pa en ing was posi i ely associa ed wi h hei child en’s nega i e eac i i y; con e sely, mo he s’ unsuppo i e pa en ing showed a non-signi ican ela- ionship wi h he adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y (close o ze o). The indi ec pa hway (unsuppo i e pa en ing—nega i e eac i i y—social skills) was s a is ically signi ican o a he s bu non-signi ican o mo he s. Discussion This s udy examined he ex en o which adop i e mo he s’ and a he s’ suppo i e and unsuppo i e pa en ing we e linked o adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y and social skills. Mo he s’ and a he s’ epo s we e used o s udying hese ela ionships wi h deepe complexi y, allowing o he com- pa ison be ween mo he s’ and a he s’ di e en in luences. A Hyb id AP-CF Model was pe o med, which has been an unde -used me hodology in adop ion esea ch. This model allowed o he simul aneous use o (a) la en a iables esul ing om bo h pa en s’ con ibu ions o e alua e child- ela ed a iables (common a e a iables) and (b) indi idual-le el a iables (mo he s’ and a he s’ independen indica o s). The choice o hese models was adequa e because hey p esen ed good i indexes and esponded o he goals o he s udy. Findings ega ding he indi idual con ibu ion o each pa en ’s epo o each la en a iable showed explained a iances equal o o highe han 50%, hus, con i ming he choice o using common a e ADOPTIOn QuARTERLy 405 a iables. Mo eo e , he di e en ial esul s ha we e ound o he e ec o suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing o mo he s and a he s on child- e- la ed a iables also a es he op ion o using hese a iables a an indi- idual le el. These indings a e cu ing-edge in adop ion esea ch, which has essen ially ocused on he epo s o mo he s, showing he ele ance o conside ing bo h pa en s o a mo e comple e unde s anding o adop- ees’ unc ioning, and aluing he ole o a he s in adop i e (un)suppo i e pa en ing as has been done in non-adop ion esea ch (e.g., Ge ha d e al., 2020; Maia & Pe ei a, 2021; Nelson e  al., 2016). Hypo hesis 1 was no con i med. The adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y did no media e he ela ionship be ween suppo i e pa en ing and adop ees’ social skills (i.e., he e is no indi ec e ec ). Di ec ly, suppo i e pa en ing was posi i ely, bu also non-signi ican ly, ela ed o social skills. Hypo hesis 2 was pa ially con i med. The adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y media ed he e ec o a he s’ (no mo he s’) unsuppo i e pa en ing on adop ees’ social skills. Highe unsuppo i e pa en ing by a he s was associa ed o lowe social skills in adop ed child en, ia inc easing/ac i a ing he adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y. Findings showed ha , in school-aged adop ees, unsup- po i e pa en ing had no di ec ela ionship wi h social skills, bu an indi ec one media ed by child en’s nega i e eac i i y. In con as wi h s udies in his a ea using empe amen as a mode a o (e.g., Le e e  al., 2013; Reiss e  al., 2013; Slag e  al., 2016), hese da a showed ha em- pe amen (child indi idual cha ac e is ic) can also be a media o in he ela ionship be ween adop i e pa en ing (en i onmen ) and adop ees’ ou comes. Since he media ional hypo hesis (Hypo hesis 1, Model A) was no e i ied when suppo i e pa en ing was used as he independen a iable, i can be concluded ha child en wi h a eac i e empe amen seem o be mo e ulne able o nega i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing. Howe e , hese da a only con i med he impac o nega i e en i onmen al in luences (unsuppo i e pa en ing) on he child’s ulne able cha ac e is ics. Since he same was no ue o posi i e en i onmen al in luences (suppo i e pa en ing), hey canno be aken as e idence o he di e en ial suscep i- bili y model (Ellis e  al., 2011). O e all, indings e ealed ha bo h suppo i e and unsuppo i e pa - en ing we e no di ec ly associa ed o child’s social ou comes. Fu he , esul s showed ha mo he s’ unsuppo i e esponses can be posi i ely associa ed o he child’s social skills. This con adic s some p e ious esea ch wi h non-adop ion samples (e.g., Bake e  al., 2011; Eisenbe g e al., 1996), bu aligns wi h ecen e idence, also in non-adop ion esea ch, showing ha he di ec ion o he ela ionship be ween suppo i e/unsup- po i e pa en ing and he child’s ou comes may shi as child en ge olde (Cas o & Nelson, 2018). Simila ly o he p esen s udy’s indings, p e ious 406 J. SOARES ET AL. esea ch also showed ha , in middle childhood, suppo i e pa en ing can be less aluable o child en, and unsuppo i e pa en ing can ha e an au onomy-p omo i e ole and a posi i e e ec on child en’s socio-emo ional skills (e.g., Mi abile e  al., 2018; Nelson & Boye , 2018). These indings also b ing new e idence on adop i e pa en ing p ocesses ha ha e an impac on adop ees’ biology-based cha ac e is ics. Model B p o ed ha 8% o he a iance in adop ees’ nega i e eac i i y was explained by adop i e pa en ing (unsuppo i eness). As pos ula ed by Ro hba and Ba es (2006), he e a e biology-based indi idual di e ences ha can be in luenced by he en i onmen — eac i i y seems o be one o hese indi- idual di e ences and suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing is one o hese en i onmen al p ocesses. These esul s a e pa icula ly ele an o in e - en ion in adop ion since adop ees do no g ow up wi h he amily wi h whom hey sha e gene ics. E en in olde child en (8-10 yea s old), an adop i e amily able o espond o he child’s speci ic cha ac e is ics can ha e a posi i e in luence on indi idual cha ac e is ics ha a e mo e esis- an o change. In ela ion o he e ec o nega i e eac i i y on social skills, indings con i med p e ious e idence (e.g., Le e e al., 2019; Shewa k e al., 2021; Tung e al., 2018). The ele ance o conside ing child en’s indi idual cha - ac e is ics when assessing hei ou comes in middle childhood is hen emphasized. Hypo hesis 3 was p o ed. The pa hs be ween he s udy a iables (di ec and indi ec ela ionships) a e di e en whe he conside ing he in luence o suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing o mo he s o a he s. This was ue in ela ion o he di ec ela ionship be ween suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing and social skills, he di ec ela ionship be ween suppo i e/ unsuppo i e pa en ing and nega i e eac i i y, and he indi ec ela ionship be ween suppo i e/unsuppo i e pa en ing and social skills. These indings add e idence o ecen esea ch aluing he a he s’ ole in emo ional socializa ion p ocess (e.g., Che y & Ge s ein, 2021; Maia & Pe ei a, 2021). In he p esen s udy, a he s made unique con ibu ions o hei child en’s socio-emo ional de elopmen . Gende is an impo an issue in app oaching how child en lea n abou emo ions, as men and women a e socialized o exp ess s. inhibi /supp ess emo ions acco ding o gende ed oles de ined by cul u al no ms ha a y ac oss communi ies and con ex s (Ge ha d e al., 2020). The p esen s udy p o ed ha mo he s’ and a he s’ emo ion socializa ion p ac ices may be di e en ly linked o he child’s social ou - comes. This is an impo an conside a ion o esea ch, since using only one in o man can bias he esul s, p o iding a limi ed iew o a complex p ocess. Finally, i is no ewo hy ha in his s udy, adop ees p esen ed, on a e - age, no ma i e sco es o social skills, which is consis en wi h p e ious ADOPTIOn QuARTERLy 407 esea ch ( o a mo e comple e esea ch e iew on his opic see Ba bosa- Ducha ne, 2021; DeLuca e  al., 2019). By explaining he ole o pa en ing (suppo i e/unsuppo i e) and he child’s empe amen (nega i e eac i i y) on he adop ees’ social skills, his s udy links con ex ual and indi idual a iables o a be e unde s anding o he social unc ioning o adop ed child en. Limi a ions Al hough his c oss-sec ional s udy p o ides an ad ance in he unde - s anding o he p ocesses ha unde lie he he e ogenei y among adop ees’ social compe ence, by explo ing he media ing ole played by he child en’s empe amen in he ela ionship be ween he pa en s’ emo ion socializa ion and he adop ees’ social skills, i p esen s some limi a ions. Fi s , due o he c oss-sec ional na u e o he s udy, he di ec ion o he ela ionships was heo e ically s a ed and s a is ically es ed. SEM was used o o e come his sho coming. Howe e , u he esea ch wi h a longi udinal design should con i m hese indings. Second, he s udy a iables we e ope a ionalized in speci ic measu es, equi ing some cau ion in he eading o he indings. Indeed, in his a icle, suppo i e and unsuppo i e pa en ing e e only o pa en s’ eac- ions o child en’s nega i e emo ions, and o he child’s empe amen , only he nega i e eac i i y ai was conside ed. In he same line, in his s udy, only he social skill componen o social compe ence was s udied. Child en’s beha io p oblems, which compe e wi h socially adjus ed pe - o mance, we e no included in he models ha we e analyzed. Fu u e esea ch can u he explo e he ole o empe amen ai s in he ela- ionship be ween pa en ing and child en’s beha io p o iding a mo e com- ple e app oach o child en’s social compe ence in ela ion o indi idual cha ac e is ics. Fu u e esea ch can also include he adop ees’ epo s/ oices and s udy he cong uence be ween pa en s and child en on hese s udied a iables. Mo eo e , he explo ed models did no include co a ia e a iables. Indeed, since no o he s udy a iable p esen ed signi ican ela ionships wi h he dependen one—adop ees’ social skills— he e was no need o add co a ia es o he models. Howe e , u u e esea ch can explo e o he co a ia es, and eplica e he models sea ching o di e ences acco ding o he child’s gende , and/o con olling o he e ec o he child’s beha io p oblems, o example. Finally, he sample o he s udy is a homogeneous one o domes ic adop ees and wo-pa en amilies only. In ac , he aim o he s udy was o cap u e he complexi y o bo h he mo he ’s and he a he ’s in luences on he child’s de elopmen al ou comes, which equi ed selec ing wo-pa en 408 J. SOARES ET AL. amilies ou o he sample o a la ge esea ch p ojec . I is unknown i pa en s’ suppo i e and unsuppo i e in luences emain he same in sin- gle-mo he o single- a he amilies. Conclusions Despi e hese limi a ions, his s udy makes a majo con ibu ion o he unde s anding o adop i e amily dynamics and hei in luence on he adop ees’ de elopmen al ou comes. Fi s ly, he s udy’s indings allowed o iden i ying ha adop i e mo he s and a he s play di e en oles in he emo ion socializa ion p ocess, which led o di e en in luences on adop ees’ social ou comes. Unsuppo i e pa en ing by adop i e a he s (no by mo h- e s) ac i a es he nega i e eac i i y o adop ed child en, which in u n educes hei abili y o show adequa e social beha io s. As such, secondly, his s udy showed ha adop ees’ social skills a e a ec ed bo h by he chil- d en’s nega i e eac i i y (di ec ly) and by he a he s’ minimiza ion, pun- ishmen and dis ess when aced wi h hei child en’s nega i e emo ions (indi ec ly). This is an impo an ad ance in unde s anding how pa en ing impac s child en since he e ec s a e bo h di ec and indi ec . Reso ing o a wi hin- amily app oach o emo ion socializa ion using an inno a i e me hodological p ocedu e, he cu en esea ch con ibu es wi h new e i- dence o a be e unde s anding o he p ocesses unde lying adop ed chil- d en’s social compe ence, which is s ill a ield in need o u he esea ch. Implica ions o p ac ice O e all, hese indings b ing e idence on pa en ing p ocesses ha in lu- ence, i.e., ac i a e o mi iga e, he child’s indi idual cha ac e is ics, showing ha he e a e biology-based indi idual di e ences, such as nega i e eac- i i y, ha can be in luenced by he en i onmen , such suppo i e/unsup- po i e pa en ing. This e idence has impo an implica ions o p o essional p ac ice wi h adop i e amilies, highligh ing he ele ance o conside ing pa en s’ emo ion socializa ion as a opic in bo h he p epa a ion o p o- spec i e adop e s, and he p o ision o pos -adop ion se ices. As he child’s emo ional lea ning needs change wi h age, aid in adop i e pa en s’ suppo i e/unsuppo i e esponses o hei child en’s nega i e emo ions becomes c i ical. Pa en s should adjus hei socializa ion p ac ices as hei child g ows and acco ding o his/he socializa ion challenges, needs and expec a ions. Fu he , indings also poin ed ou he impo ance o p o- mo ing pa en ing skills able o “coun e ac /mi iga e” eac i e empe amen s ha nega i ely impac he child’s ou comes. Finally, his s udy showed how c ucial he adop i e a he s’ in ol emen is in he p ocess o pa en ing adop ed child en. ADOPTIOn QuARTERLy 409 Funding This wo k was suppo ed by Fundação pa a a Ciência e a Tecnologia. ORCID Joana Soa es h p://o cid.o g/0000-0003-0135-9640 Ma ia Ba bosa-Ducha ne h p://o cid.o g/0000-0003-1024-9603 Jesús Palacios h p://o cid.o g/0000-0001-5819-9532 Re e ences Bake , J. K., Fenning, R. M., & C nic, K. A. (2011). Emo ion socializa ion by mo he s and a he s: Cohe ence among beha io s and associa ions wi h pa en a i udes and child en’s social compe ence. Social De elopmen (Ox o d, England), 20(2), 412–430. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2010.00585.x Ba cons, N., Ab ines, N., B un, C., Sa ini, C., Fumadó, V., & Ma e, D. (2012). Social ela ionships in child en om in e coun y adop ion. Child en and You h Se ices Re iew, 34(5), 955–961. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.childyou h.2012.01.028 Ba bosa-Ducha ne, M. (2021, July 6–9) Adop ees’ social compe ence om childhood o eme gen adul hood Adop ees’ social compe ence om childhood o eme gen adul hood. ICAR7 – 7 h In e na ional Con e ence on Adop ion Resea ch, Milan, I aly. h ps://doi. o g/10.13140/RG.2.2.30819.07206 Ba oso, R., Ba bosa-Ducha ne, M., C uz, O., & Sil a, A. (2018). Social skills in adop ed adolescen s: A compa a i e s udy wi h non-adop ed and in esiden ial ca e adolescen s. Análise Psicológica, 36(2), 185–197. h ps://doi.o g/10.14417/ap.1352 Cáce es, I., Mo eno, C., Román, M., & Palacios, J. (2021). The social compe ence o in- e na ionally-adop ed and ins i u ionalized child en h oughou childhood: A compa - a i e and longi udinal s udy. Ea ly Childhood Resea ch Qua e ly, 57(4), 260–270. h ps:// doi.o g/10.1016/j.ec esq.2021.07.002 Cap in, C., Benedan, L., Balla in, L., & Gallace, A. (2017). Social compe ence in Russian pos -ins i u ionalized child en: A compa ison o adop ed and non-adop ed child en. Child en and You h Se ices Re iew, 75, 61–68. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. childyou h.2017.02.020 Cas o, V. L., & Nelson, J. A. (2018). Social de elopmen qua e : When is pa en al sup- po i eness a good hing? The dynamic alue o pa en s’ suppo i e emo ion socializa ion ac oss childhood. Social De elopmen , 27(3), 461–465. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/sode.12299 Cas o, V. L., Halbe s ad , A. G., & Ga e ‐Pe e s, P. T. (2018). Changing ides: Mo he s’ suppo i e emo ion socializa ion ela es nega i ely o hi d‐g ade child en’s social ad- jus men in school. Social De elopmen (Ox o d, England), 27(3), 510–525. h ps://doi. o g/10.1111/sode.12251 Che y, K. E., & Ge s ein, E. D. (2021). Fa he ing and masculine no ms: Implica ions o he socializa ion o child en’s emo ion egula ion. Jou nal o Family Theo y & Re iew, 13(2), 149–163. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j .12411 C one, E. A., Ach e be g, M., Dobbelaa , S., Euse , S., an den Bulk, B., de Meulen, M. V., an D unen, L., Wie enga, L. M., Bake mans-K anenbu g, M. J., & an IJzendoo n, M. H. (2020). Neu al and beha io al signa u es o social e alua ion and adap a ion in childhood and adolescence: The Leiden conso ium on indi idual de elopmen (L-CID). De elopmen al Cogni i e Neu oscience, 45, 100805. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. dcn.2020.100805 410 J. SOARES ET AL. DeLuca, H. K., Clax on, S. E., & Dulmen, M. H. M. (2019). The pee ela ionships o hose who ha e expe ienced adop ion o os e ca e: A me a-analysis. Jou nal o Resea ch on Adolescence, 29(4), 796–813. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jo a.12421 Denham, S. A., Basse , H. H., & Wya , T. (2007). The socializa ion o emo ional com- pe ence. In J. E. G usec & P. D. Has ings (Eds.), Handbook o socializa ion: Theo y and esea ch (pp. 614–637). The Guil o d P ess. DePasquale, C. E., Lawle , J. M., Koss, K. J., & Gunna , M. R. (2020). Co isol and pa - en ing p edic pa hways o disinhibi ed social engagemen and social unc ioning in p e iously ins i u ionalized child en. Jou nal o Abno mal Child Psychology, 48(6), 797– 808. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10802-020-00633-8 Eisenbe g, N., Cumbe land, A., & Spin ad, T. L. (1998). Pa en al socializa ion o emo ion. Psychological Inqui y, 9(4), 241–273. h ps://doi.o g/10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1 Eisenbe g, N., Fabes, R. A., & Mu phy, B. C. (1996). Pa en s’ eac ions o child en’s neg- a i e emo ions: Rela ions o child en’s social compe ence and com o ing beha iou . Child De elopmen , 67(5), 2227–2247. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/1131620 Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bake mans-K anenbu g, M. J., & an Ijzendoo n, M. H. (2011). Di e en ial suscep ibili y o he en i onmen : An e olu iona y-neu ode el- opmen al heo y. De elopmen and Psychopa hology, 23(1), 7–28. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/ S0954579410000611 Ende s, C. K. (2010). Applied missing da a analysis. The Guil o d P ess. Fabes, R. A., Eisenbe g, N., & Be nzweig, J. (1990). Coping wi h Child en’s Nega i e Emo ions Scale (CCNES): Desc ip ion and sco ing. A izona S a e Uni e si y. h ps://ccnes.o g/ Galo an, A. M., Holmes, E. K., & P oulx, C. M. (2017). Theo e ical and me hodological issues in ela ionship esea ch: Conside ing he common a e model. Jou nal o Social and Pe sonal Rela ionships, 34(1), 44–68. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0265407515621179 Ge ha d , M., Feng, X., Wu, Q., Hoope , E. G., Ku, S., & Chan, M. H. (2020). A na u- alis ic s udy o pa en al emo ion socializa ion: Unique con ibu ions o a he s. Jou nal o Family Psychology: JFP: Jou nal o he Di ision o Family Psychology o he Ame ican Psychological Associa ion (Di ision 43), 34(2), 204–214. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/ am0000602 G esham, F. M., & Ellio , S. N. (2008). Social skills imp o emen sys em—Ra ing scales manual. Pea son Assessmen s. G esham, F. M., Ellio , S. N., Vance, M. J., & Cook, C. R. (2011). Compa abili y o he social skills a ing sys em o he social skills imp o emen sys em: Con en and psy- chome ic compa isons ac oss elemen a y and seconda y age le els. School Psychology Qua e ly, 26(1), 27–44. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0022662 Guyon-Ha is, K. L., Humph eys, K. L., Fox, N. A., Nelson, C. A., & Zeanah, C. H. (2019). Signs o a achmen diso de s and social unc ioning among ea ly adolescen s wi h a his o y o ins i u ional ca e. Child Abuse & Neglec , 88, 96–106. h ps://doi. o g/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.11.005 Halle, T. G., & Da ling-Chu chill, K. E. (2016). Re iew o measu es o social and emo- ional de elopmen . Jou nal o Applied De elopmen al Psychology, 45, 8–18. h ps://doi. o g/10.1016/j.appde .2016.02.003 Ha old, G. T., Le e, L. D., Ba e , D., Elam, K., Neide hise , J. M., Na suaki, M. N., Shaw, D. S., Reiss, D., & Thapa , A. (2013). Biological and ea ing mo he in luences on child ADHD symp oms: Re isi ing he de elopmen al in e ace be ween na u e and nu u e. Jou nal o Child Psychology and Psychia y, and Allied Disciplines, 54(10), 1038–1046. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jcpp.12100 He e a, A. M. (2014). Ex e nalizing beha io in pos -ins i u ionalized child en: An exam- ina ion o pa en emo ion socializa ion p ac ices, espi a o y-sinus a hy hmia, and skin conduc ance. (Doc o al disse a ion). A ailable om P oQues Disse a ions. ADOPTIOn QuARTERLy 411 Hube , L., Plö ne , M., In-Albon, T., S adelmann, S., & Schmi z, J. (2019). The pe spec i e ma e s: A mul i-in o man s udy on he ela ionship be ween social–emo ional compe ence and p eschoole s’ ex e nalizing and in e nalizing symp oms. Child Psychia y and Human De elopmen , 50(6), 1021–1036. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10578-019-00902-8 Ja a i-Bimmel, N., Ju e , F., an IJzendoo n, M. H., Bake mans-K anenbu g, M. J., & Mooijaa , A. (2006). Social de elopmen om in ancy o adolescence: Longi udinal and concu en ac o s in an adop ion sample. De elopmen al Psychology, 42(6), 1143– 1153. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1143 Julian, M., & McCall, R. (2016). Social skills in child en adop ed om socially-emo ion- ally dep i ing ins i u ions. Adop ion Qua e ly, 19(1), 44–62. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10 926755.2015.1088106 Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic da a analysis (1s ed.). Guil o d P ess. Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Sepa a ing indi idual and g oup e ec s. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, 48(2), 339–348. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0022- 3514.48.2.339 Ki , C. J., Lengua, L. J., & Zalewski, M. (2011). Na u e and nu u ing: Pa en ing in he con ex o child empe amen . Clinical Child and Family Psychology Re iew, 14(3), 251–301. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10567-011-0093-4 Lede mann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). The common a e model o dyadic da a: Va ia ions o a heo e ically impo an bu unde u ilized model. Jou nal o Family Psychology: JFP: Jou nal o he Di ision o Family Psychology o he Ame ican Psychological Associa ion (Di ision 43), 26(1), 140–148. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0026624 Lede mann, T., & Macho, S. (2009). Media ion in dyadic da a a he le el o he duads: A s uc u al equa ion modeling app oach. Jou nal o Family Psychology: JFP: Jou nal o he Di ision o Family Psychology o he Ame ican Psychological Associa ion (Di ision 43), 23(5), 661–670. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0016197 Le e, L. D., Neide hise , J. M., Ganiban, J. M., Na suaki, M. N., Shaw, D. S., & Reiss, D. (2019). The ea ly g ow h and de elopmen s udy: A dual- amily adop ion s udy om bi h h ough adolescence. Twin Resea ch and Human Gene ics: The O icial Jou nal o he In e na ional Socie y o Twin S udies, 22(6), 716–727. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/ hg.2019.66 Le e, L. D., Neide hise , J. M., Shaw, D. S., Ganiban, J., Na suaki, M. N., & Reiss, D. (2013). The ea ly g ow h and de elopmen s udy: A p ospec i e adop ion s udy om bi h h ough middle childhood. Twin Resea ch and Human Gene ics: The O icial Jou nal o he In e na ional Socie y o Twin S udies, 16(1), 412–423. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/ hg.2012.126 Lipscomb, S. T., Le e, L. D., Ha old, G. T., Neide hise , J. M., Shaw, D. S., Ge, X., & Reiss, D. (2011). T ajec o ies o pa en ing and child nega i e emo ionali y du ing in- ancy and oddle hood: A longi udinal analysis. Child De elopmen , 82(5), 1661–1675. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01639.x Li le, R. J. A. (1988). A es o missing comple ely a andom o mul i a ia e da a wi h missing alues. Jou nal o he Ame ican S a is ical Associa ion, 83(404), 1198–1202. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2290157 MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Con idence limi s o he indi ec e ec : Dis ibu ion o he p oduc and esampling me hods. Mul i a ia e Beha io al Resea ch, 39(1), 99–128. h ps://doi.o g/10.1207/s15327906mb 3901_4 Maia, S., & Pe ei a, A. I. (2021). Emo ion socializa ion pa en ing p ac ices o mo he and a he in adolescence: A sys ema ic e iew o li e a u e. Análise Psicológica, 39(1), 15–26. h ps://doi.o g/10.14417/ap.1786 412 J. SOARES ET AL. McClow y, G. (1995). The de elopmen o he school-age empe amen in en o y. Me il Palme Qua e ly, 41, 271–285. Re ie ed om h p://psycne .apa.o g/ eco d/1995-42412-001 McElwain, N. L., Halbe s ad , A. G., & Volling, B. L. (2007). Mo he - and a he - epo - ed eac ions o child en’s nega i e emo ions: Rela ions o young child en’s emo ional unde s anding and iendship quali y. Child De elopmen , 78(5), 1407–1425. h ps://doi. o g/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01074.x Mille -Slough, R. L., Dunsmo e, J. C., Zeman, J. L., Sande s, W. M., & Poon, J. A. (2018). Ma e nal and pa e nal eac ions o child sadness p edic child en’s psychosocial ou - comes: A amily‐cen e ed app oach. Social De elopmen , 27(3), 495–509. h ps://doi. o g/10.1111/sode.12244 Mi abile, S. P., Oe wig, D., & Halbe s ad , A. G. (2018). Pa en emo ion socializa ion and child en’s socioemo ional adjus men : When is suppo i eness no longe suppo i e. Social De elopmen , 27(3), 466–481. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/sode.12226 Mo is, A. S., C iss, M. M., Silk, J. S., & Houl be g, B. J. (2017). The impac o pa en ing on emo ion egula ion du ing childhood and adolescence. Child De elopmen Pe spec i es, 11(4), 233–238. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/cdep.12238 Nelson, J. A., & Boye , B. P. (2018). Ma e nal esponses o nega i e emo ions and child ex e nalizing beha io : Di e en ela ions o 5‐, 6‐, and 7‐yea ‐olds. Social De elopmen , 27(3), 482–494. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/sode.12296 Nelson, J. A., Pe y, N. B., O'B ien, M., Calkins, S. D., Keane, S. P., & Shanahan, L. (2016). Mo he s’ and a he s’ epo s o hei suppo i e esponses o hei child en’s nega i e emo ions o e ime. Pa en ing, Science and P ac ice, 16(1), 56–62. h ps://doi. o g/10.1080/15295192.2016.1116895 Palacios, J. (2018). Adop ion design. In M. E. Bo ns ein (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia o li e-span human de elopmen (pp. 45–49). Thousand Oaks. Paulussen-Hoogeboom, M. C., S ams, G. J., He manns, J. M., & Pee sma, T. T. (2007). Child nega i e emo ionali y and pa en ing om in ancy o p eschool: A me a-analy ic e iew. De elopmen al Psychology, 43(2), 438–453. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0012- 1649.43.2.438 Pu nam, S. P., & S i e , C. A. (2008). Reac i i y and egula ion: The impac o Ma y Ro hba on he s udy o empe amen . In an and Child De elopmen , 17(4), 311–320. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/icd.583 Reiss, D., Le e, L. D., & Neide hise , J. M. (2013). How genes and he social en i onmen mode a e each o he . Ame ican Jou nal o Public Heal h, 103(S1), S111–S121. h ps:// doi.o g/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301408 Ro hba , M. K., & Ba es, J. E. (2006). Tempe amen . In N. Eisenbe g, & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook o child psychology: Vol 3. Social, emo ional, and pe sonali y de elop- men (6 h ed., pp. 99–166). Wiley. Samdan, G., Kiel, N., Pe e mann, F., Ro hen uße , S., Zie ul, C., & Reinel , T. (2020). The ela ionship be ween pa en al beha io and in an egula ion: A sys ema ic e iew. De elopmen al Re iew, 57, 100923. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.d .2020.100923 Shewa k, E. A., Ramos, A. M., Liu, C., Ganiban, J. M., Fosco, G., Shaw, D. S., Reiss, D., Na suaki, M. N., Le e, L. D., & Neide hise , J. M. (2021). The ole o child nega i e emo ionali y in pa en ing and child adjus men : Gene–en i onmen in e play. Jou nal o Child Psychology and Psychia y, 62(12), 1453–1461. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/jcpp.13420 Sh ou , P. E., & Bolge , N. (2002). Media ion in expe imen al and nonexpe imen al s ud- ies: New p ocedu es and ecommenda ions. Psychological Me hods, 7(4), 422–445. h ps:// doi.o g/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422