ABSTRACT
Early in development, children rely heavily on caregivers for assistance with the regulation of negative emotion. As such, it is important to understand parent characteristics that influence caregiver ability to attenuate infant negative affect and mediating factors by which this process may unfold. This study examined the relationship between parental emotional regulation strategies (ERs) and infants' negative affect and tested the mediating effects of parenting self-efficacy and knowledge of this association. Results indicated that higher maternal reappraisal was related to higher maternal self-efficacy whereas higher maternal suppression was related to lower knowledge of parenting practices. Maternal suppression was negatively related to infant frustration; maternal self-efficacy was positively related to infant falling reactivity and negatively related to sadness. There was a significant indirect effect between maternal reappraisal and infant falling reactivity through maternal self-efficacy. The mediation result suggests that mothers with higher use of reappraisal show higher self-efficacy and have infants with higher falling reactivity. Maternal knowledge about parenting practices was related to lower infant fear. Maternal knowledge of parenting practices did not mediate any associations between maternal emotion regulation strategies and infant negative affect. These findings contribute to the understanding early protective parenting mechanisms for supporting the external regulation of negative affect in infants and also in designing and implementing preventive parenting programs focused on the emotional needs of parents and children.
ABSTRACT
The Precautionary Principle is a guide to coping with scientific uncertainties in the assessment and management of risks. In recent years, it has moved to the forefront of debates in policy and applied ethics, becoming a key normative tool in policy discussions in such diverse areas as medical and scientific research, health and safety regulation, environmental regulation, product development, international trade, and even judicial review. The principle has attracted critics who claim that it is fundamentally incoherent, too vague to guide policy, and makes demands that are logically and scientifically impossible. In this paper we will answer these criticisms by formulating guidelines for its application that ensure its coherence as a useful normative guide in applied and policy ethics debates. We will also provide analyses of cases that demonstrate how our version of the principle functions in practice.
