Journal of Youth and Adolescencehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0808-7

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Is Mindful Parenting Associated with Adolescents’ Well-being inEarly and Middle/Late Adolescence? The Mediating Role ofAdolescents’ Attachment Representations, Self-Compassion andMindfulness

Helena Moreira 1● Maria João Gouveia1 ● Maria Cristina Canavarro1

Received: 18 November 2017 / Accepted: 3 January 2018© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

AbstractThere is some evidence that mindful parenting, a parenting approach that involves the practice of bringing mindfulawareness to the parent-child relationship, is associated with several positive psychosocial outcomes in adolescents.However, only a few studies have investigated the mechanisms that may underlie that association. This study exploreswhether the link between mindful parenting and adolescents’ well-being is mediated by adolescents’ attachmentrepresentations, self-compassion and mindfulness skills. The sample comprised 563 parent-child dyads (95.6% mothers).Adolescents (61.5% girls) had a mean age of 14.26 years (SD= 1.66, range= 12–20). Parents completed a measure ofmindful parenting, and adolescents completed measures of attachment representations, self-compassion, mindfulness, andwell-being. Mindful parenting was indirectly associated with adolescents’ self-compassion and mindfulness through a moresecure perception of the relationship with the parents, and was indirectly associated with adolescents’ well-being throughperceived attachment security, self-compassion and mindfulness. The path model was invariant across stages of adolescencebut some relations in the model varied across gender. Self-compassion and mindfulness seem to develop within a parent-child relationship characterized by affection, self-regulation, and mindful awareness. These two resources, along withmindful parenting and positive representations of the parent-child relationship, are associated with adolescents’ well-being.

Keywords Mindful parenting ● Attachment representations ● Self-compassion ● Mindfulness ● Well-being ● Adolescence

Introduction

Mindful parenting is a particular way of parenting that hasbeen shown to foster a positive and secure parent-childrelationship (e.g., Duncan et al. 2009; Medeiros et al. 2016)and to contribute to the adolescents’ well-being (e.g.,Medeiros et al. 2016; Parent et al. 2016). Despite theincreasing research on mindful parenting, little is knownabout the factors that can help explain why this parentingapproach has an important role in the adolescents’ well-being and psychosocial functioning. In the current study, we

investigated the role of two important internal psychologicalresources that help adolescents’ cope with difficult situa-tions and emotions and can protect them against pooremotional outcomes—self-compassion and mindfulnessskills. Although it has been suggested that self-compassionand mindfulness skills grow within the family environment(e.g., Caldwell and Shaver 2015; Neff and McGehee 2010;Ryan et al. 2007), no study has investigated whethermindful parenting could contribute to the development ofthese resources, particularly through the promotion of asecure relationship between the parents and the adolescentsand, consequently, to the adolescents’ well-being.

Mindful Parenting and Adolescents’ Adjustment

Mindful parenting is a parental approach characterized bythe practice of bringing mindful awareness to parent-childinteractions (Bögels and Restifo 2014; Kabat-Zinn andKabat-Zinn 1997). It is a parenting style that involves being

* Helena Moreirahmoreira@fpce.uc.pt

1 Cognitive-Behavioral Center for Research and Intervention,University of Coimbra, Rua do Colégio Novo, 3030-115Coimbra, Portugal

1234

5678

90();,:

fully present in the parent-child interactions, adopting anattitude of non-judgmental acceptance and compassiontoward the self as a parent and toward the child, developingemotional awareness of the self and the child, and exertingself-regulation in the parenting relationship to choose par-enting behaviors that are in accordance with parentingvalues and goals (Duncan et al. 2009).

Research on mindful parenting has shown that this par-enting approach is associated with several positive parent-ing outcomes, including less parenting stress (Bögels et al.2014; Gouveia et al. 2016), more adaptive parenting stylesand practices (de Bruin et al. 2014b; Gouveia et al. 2016;Parent et al. 2016), and more positive parent-child interac-tions (Lippold et al. 2015). It has also been shown to pro-mote better psychosocial adjustment of children andadolescents in different contexts. For instance, higher levelsof mindful parenting were shown to be associated withlower levels of depression and anxiety symptoms in ado-lescents (Geurtzen et al. 2015), lower levels of internalizingand externalizing problems in children and adolescentsbetween the ages of 3 and 17 (Parent et al. 2016), andgreater well-being in children and adolescents between theages of 8 and 19 (Medeiros et al. 2016).

However, despite the increasing evidence demonstratingthe association between mindful parenting and positivepsychosocial outcomes in youth, only a few studies haveattempted to understand the mechanisms or mediators thatmay account for this relationship. For instance, Medeiroset al. (2016) found that mindful parenting was associatedwith greater well-being of children and adolescents throughthe perception of a more secure relationship with theirparents. Turpyn and Chaplin (2016) found that mindfulparenting predicted lower likelihood of adolescent sub-stance use through shared parent-adolescent positive emo-tion. Two other potential mediators of the link betweenmindful parenting and adolescents’ well-being that havenever been explored are adolescents’ self-compassion andmindfulness skills.

Adolescents’ Self-Compassion and MindfulnessSkills as Mediators of the Link between MindfulParenting and Adolescents’ Outcomes

Mindfulness was described by Kabat-Zinn (2003) as “theawareness that emerges through paying attention on pur-pose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to theunfolding of experience moment by moment” (p. 145).Mindfulness is both a practice (mainly through meditation)and a tendency or inner capacity of individuals to paynonjudgmental attention to experiences and events occur-ring in the present moment (dispositional mindfulness;Brown and Ryan 2003). Mindfulness is intrinsically relatedto self-compassion, which is an attitude of kindness toward

one’s difficult experiences that involves the desire to relieveone’s suffering with kindness and mindful awareness, whilerecognizing that all human beings share a common humancondition (Neff 2003, 2009). According to Neff (2003),self-compassion is an adaptive way of relating to the self ora state of mind that involves not only higher levels of self-kindness, mindfulness, and common humanity but alsolower levels of self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification. Gilbert (2005) also views self-compassionas a healthy intrapersonal relationship. According to thisauthor, self-compassion is associated with the activation ofa caregiving mentality in self-to-self relating, particularly intimes of suffering and failure, that is linked with thesoothing and affiliative system of affect regulation (Gilbert2009).

Both self-compassion and mindfulness skills are innerpsychological resources that were shown to have a protec-tive effect on adolescents’ adjustment. For instance, studieswith adolescents have shown that self-compassion is asso-ciated with greater life satisfaction and less perceived stress(Bluth and Blanton 2015; Bluth et al. 2017), lower levels ofdepression and anxiety symptoms (Muris et al. 2016), andhigher levels of well-being (Neff and McGehee 2010).There is also increasing evidence of the beneficial effects ofmindfulness-based interventions on the adolescents’ psy-chological adjustment (Bögels et al. 2008; Burke 2010;Metz et al. 2013) and of the positive associations betweenmindfulness skills and several indicators of adolescents’functioning, such as happiness, self-regulation, and qualityof life (de Bruin et al. 2011; de Bruin et al. 2014a).

Although no study has explored the association betweenmindful parenting and adolescents’ self-compassion andmindfulness skills, there is some evidence that this parentalapproach can promote these two positive qualities throughthe following processes: (1) observational learning (i.e.,parents can model adaptive self-to-self relating), and (2)direct learning of compassionate and mindfulness skills inparent-child interactions characterized by warmth, self-regulation, and emotional awareness. The hypothesizedassociation between mindful parenting and adolescents’self-compassion and mindfulness skills and these twohypothesized processes are based on attachment theory(Mikulincer and Shaver 2007; Shaver et al. 2017), currentconceptualizations of self-compassion (Gilbert 2010; Neff2009) and mindfulness (Brown et al. 2007), and recentstudies showing that parenting and attachment variables canbe associated with the development of self-compassion(e.g., Neff and McGehee 2010) and mindfulness skills (e.g.,Caldwell and Shaver 2015).

With regard to the first hypothesized process, moremindful parents may be more self-compassionate and havehigher levels of mindfulness skills, qualities that can man-ifest in the way they interact with their children and cope

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

with daily stressors that adolescents may learn throughobservation. Although the link between mindful parentingand these positive qualities has been rarely investigated,recent studies demonstrated that, among parents of school-aged children and adolescents, higher levels of mindfulparenting were associated with higher levels of self-compassion (Gouveia et al. 2016; Moreira et al. 2016)and dispositional mindfulness (Gouveia et al. 2016).

With regard to the second hypothesis, mindful parentscan also establish more positive interactions with theirchildren (Duncan et al. 2009; Medeiros et al. 2016), whichmay help children develop self-compassion and mind-fulness skills. With regard to self-compassion, it has beenargued that it develops within the context of positive andsecurity-boosting interactions with attachment figures (Gil-bert and Procter 2006; Neff and McGehee 2010; Shaveret al. 2017). Mindful parents tend to be more caring,available, and responsive to their child’s needs, allowingtheir child to develop a secure attachment (Duncan et al.2009; Medeiros et al. 2016), thereby creating the necessaryfoundations for an adequate development of the soothingsystem and for the development of self-compassion (Gilbert2005). In contrast, parents who are unresponsive or incon-sistently responsive, or are even neglectful or abusive, donot provide the fundamental conditions for the developmentof secure attachment (Mikulincer and Shaver 2007) and,consequently, for the development of self-compassion(Shaver et al. 2017). In such a relational context, thesoothing system is insufficiently developed, and the child/adolescent is more likely to be self-critical rather than self-compassionate in moments of suffering (Gilbert 2005;Gilbert and Procter 2006). Some empirical studies supportthese propositions, demonstrating that insecure attachmentis associated with lower levels of self-compassion, namely,among mothers of school-aged children (Moreira et al.2015) and adult couples (Neff and Beretvas 2013). How-ever, to the best of our knowledge, only the study of Neffand McGehee (2010) directly examined the role of attach-ment and of parental/family variables on adolescents’ self-compassion and well-being. These authors found thatmaternal support, family functioning, and attachment stylespredicted self-compassion and that self-compassion par-tially mediated the association between these variables andadolescents’ well-being. Based on these results, Neff andMcGehee (2010) concluded that self-compassion is an“internal reflection of the parent–child relationship” (p. 236)and that parents can impact their child well-being throughthe promotion of self-compassionate or self-critical innerdialogues.

The capacity for mindful awareness is also affected byexperiences in close relationships, particularly attachmentrelationships (Caldwell and Shaver 2013; Ryan et al. 2007).Recent studies have demonstrated that lower levels of

dispositional mindfulness are associated with attachmentinsecurity (Caldwell and Shaver 2013; Melen et al. 2017;Pepping et al. 2013; Shaver et al. 2007). For instance,Pepping and Duvenage (2016) found that, among twosamples of adolescents, parental warmth and parentalrejection were associated with dispositional mindfulnessvia attachment anxiety and avoidance, which highlightsthe relevance of parent-child interactions in the develop-ment of mindfulness. The link between mindfulness andattachment processes can be explained by the emotionregulation strategies and cognitive-emotional patternsassociated with attachment, such as though suppressionand rumination (Caldwell and Shaver 2013). Becausesecurely attached individuals have more adaptive emotionregulation strategies, they have more cognitive and emo-tional resources available to be mindfully aware. In contrast,insecure individuals (anxious or avoidant) deplete theseresources in maladaptive strategies, such as suppression orrumination strategies, which leaves them less capable ofmindful awareness (Caldwell and Shaver 2013; Peppinget al. 2013).

Developmental and Gender Differences inAdolescents’ Self-Compassion and Mindfulness

When exploring the role of self-compassion and mind-fulness in adolescents’ adjustment, it is important to adopt adevelopmental perspective and consider gender differences,as there is some evidence that self-compassion and mind-fulness skills may vary between stages of adolescence andbetween boys and girls. For instance, Bluth and Blanton(2015) found that although there was no significant differ-ence between girls and boys in early adolescence, highschool girls had significantly lower levels of self-compassion than either high school boys or middle schoolgirls and boys. These authors also found that the negativelink between self-compassion and negative affect wasstronger in older adolescents. In contrast, this link was notmoderated by adolescents’ gender, which suggests that theassociation between self-compassion and well-being wasequally strong for boys and girls. In a subsequent study,Bluth et al. (2017) confirmed these results and found thatolder girls had the lowest levels of self-compassion whencompared to younger girls and boys of all ages. In addition,the authors found that among older adolescents, those withlow and moderate levels of self-compassion reported higherlevels of depressive symptoms than those with higher levelsof self-compassion, which underlines the protective role ofself-compassion in this developmental stage. Similarly,Muris et al. (2016) found that among older adolescents (15to 17 years), girls reported lower levels of self-compassionthan boys. However, when the authors analyzed genderdifferences in the overall sample of adolescents (13 to 17

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

years), no significant differences were identified. Neff andMcGehee (2010) have also explored gender differences inself-compassion in a sample of adolescents aged between14 and 17 years but found no significant differencesbetween boys and girls. However, as they did not examinegender differences in specific stages of adolescence, definiteconclusions about the presence or absence of a gender effectcannot be drawn. In what concerns to mindfulness skills,although to the best of our knowledge no studies haveexplored developmental differences in this variable, there issome preliminary evidence that adolescent boys reporthigher levels of dispositional mindfulness than adolescentgirls (de Bruin et al. 2011; Royuela-Colomer and Calvete2016).

These studies underline the relevance of consideringdifferent stages of adolescence and investigating the inter-action between age and gender when exploring differencesin adolescents’ self-compassion and mindfulness skills aswell as the role of these variables in adolescents’ adjust-ment. The investigation of age and gender effects hasimplications for research and clinical practice, as it mayallow the identification of target groups of adolescents towhom self-compassion and mindfulness skills may be par-ticularly useful.

Current Study

If adolescents with mindful parents have a more positiveand secure relationship with their parents, one may supposethat they may more easily develop compassion and mind-fulness skills and, consequently, have greater levels of well-being. Nevertheless, this hypothesis has never been inves-tigated. Therefore, the goal of the current study was toexplore whether mindful parenting was positively asso-ciated with adolescents’ well-being and whether this asso-ciation was explained by higher levels of adolescents’perception of security in the relationship with their parentsand, consequently, higher levels of self-compassion andmindfulness skills. Additionally, because self-compassionand mindfulness skills may vary between boys and girls andstages of adolescence (e.g., Bluth et al. 2017), we investi-gated whether the path model was invariant across twogroups of adolescents (early versus middle/late adoles-cence) and the adolescents’ gender. We also explored meandifferences in study variables between adolescents in earlyand middle/late stages of adolescence and between boys andgirls. Of note, although three developmental stages wereconsidered (early adolescence—10–14 years of age; middleadolescence—15–16 years of age; and late adolescence—17–21 years of age) (Spano 2004), the middle and latestages of adolescence were merged into one category due tothe low number of adolescents in the late stage.

Based on previous studies showing that mindful parent-ing is associated with better adolescent psychosocial out-comes (e.g., Geurtzen et al. 2015; Medeiros et al. 2016),that self-compassion and mindfulness have roots in secureparent-child relationships (e.g., Caldwell and Shaver 2013;Shaver et al. 2017) and are associated with adolescents’adjustment (e.g., Bluth and Blanton 2015) and that a posi-tive family environment can promote adolescents’ well-being through increased levels of self-compassion (Neff andMcGehee 2010), we expected higher levels of mindfulparenting to be associated with higher levels of adolescents’well-being, both directly and indirectly through higherlevels of adolescents’ self-compassion and mindfulnessskills. With regard to age and gender differences, based onprevious investigations (e.g., Bluth et al. 2017) we expectadolescents in the early stage of adolescence to reporthigher levels of self-compassion and well-being than olderadolescents and boys to report higher levels of self-com-passion, mindfulness, and well-being than girls. Addition-ally, based on previous studies showing that the associationbetween self-compassion and well-being indicators tends tobe stronger among older adolescents but equal for boys andgirls (Bluth and Blanton 2015), we expected to find strongerassociations between self-compassion/mindfulness skillsand adolescents’ well-being among adolescents in themiddle/late stage of adolescence but invariance acrossgender.

Methods

Participants

The sample comprised 563 parent-child dyads. Of these,538 (95.6%) included mothers and 25 (4.4%) includedfathers. Adolescents (61.5% girls, n= 346) had a mean ageof 14.26 years (SD= 1.66, range= 12–20). The majority (n= 337, 59.9%) were in the early stage of adolescence (ages12 to 14), 209 (37.1%) were in the middle stage of ado-lescence (ages 15 to 17), and only 17 (3.0%) were in the latestage of adolescence (ages 18–21). Parents had a mean ageof 43.38 years (SD= 5.36, range= 30–61) and an averageof 1.88 children (SD= .75, range= 1–6). The majority ofparents were married or living with a partner (n= 476,84.5%), had completed basic or secondary education (n=434, 77.1%), and lived in rural areas (n= 423, 75.1%).With regard to the household monthly income, most parentsreported an income of 800€–2000€ (n= 320, 56.8%), 29%(n= 163) reported an income of less than 800€, 10.3% (n= 58) an income between 2000€ and 3500€, 1.4% (n= 8)an income above 3500€, and 2.5% (n= 14) did not provideincome information.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Procedure

The sample was collected from 9 public middle (from 7 to9th years) and secondary (from 10 to 12th years) schools infour school units of northern and central Portugal.Authorization for sample collection was obtained from thePortuguese Data Protection Authority, from the EthicCommittee of the Faculty of Psychology and EducationSciences of the University of Coimbra, and from the Boardof Directors of the School Units. From the participatingschools, several classes were randomly selected and enrol-led in the study. Researchers visited each class to explainthe study and request the students’ and their parents’ parti-cipation. In this first visit, researchers gave students a letterexplaining the study, the informed consent form for parents,and a packet with the parent and/or adolescent ques-tionnaires to be completed at home and returned a weeklater. In two school units, adolescents completed the ques-tionnaires at home and returned them to teachers orresearchers approximately one week later (n= 188). In theother two school units, adolescents whose parents allowedthem to participate completed the questionnaires in theclassroom (n= 375) one week after the first researchers’visit. During questionnaire administration, a researcher waspresent to assist students with any queries about completionprocedures. In both data collection procedures, informedconsent was obtained from parents, and informal assent wasobtained from students. Families were included in the cur-rent study if they had an adolescent aged between 12 and 21years old who was attending middle or secondary school.

Measures

Mindful parenting

The Portuguese version of the Interpersonal Mindfulness inParenting Scale (IM-P; Duncan 2007; Moreira and Cana-varro 2017) was used to assess mindful parenting. ThePortuguese scale contains 29 items scored on a 5-pointLikert scale, ranging from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true),and five subscales: (1) Listening with Full Attention (e.g., “Ipay close attention to my child when we are spending timetogether”), (2) Compassion for the Child (e.g., “I try to beunderstanding and patient with my child when he/she ishaving a hard time”), (3) Non-Judgmental Acceptance ofParental Functioning (e.g., “When I do something as aparent that I regret, I try to give myself a break”), (4) Self-Regulation in Parenting (e.g., “In difficult situations withmy child, I pause without immediately reacting”), and (5)Emotional Awareness of the Child (e.g., “I can tell what mychild is feeling even if he/she does not say anything”). In thecurrent study, the total score was also used as a globalindicator of mindful parenting. The total score (which

ranges from 29 to 145) and the subscales are obtained bycomputing the sum of all items, with higher scores indi-cating higher levels of mindful parenting. The IM-P scoreshave shown reliability and construct validity in Americanand Dutch samples (de Bruin et al. 2014b; Duncan 2007).The Portuguese version (Moreira and Canavarro 2017)demonstrated reliability and convergent and known-groupsvalidity among three different samples of parents from thegeneral community. In the present sample, Cronbach’salpha were .87 (total score), .81 (Compassion for the Child),.78 (Listening with Full Attention), .63 (EmotionalAwareness of the Child), .67 (Self-Regulation), and .58(Non-Judgmental Acceptance of Parental Functioning).

Adolescents’ representations of the relationship with theirparents

The adolescents’ representations of the relationship withtheir parents were assessed by the Attachment to Parentsscale of the Portuguese self-report version of the People inMy Life questionnaire (PIML; Moreira et al. 2017; Ride-nour et al. 2006). This scale measures positive and negativeaffective-cognitive experiences in the relationship withparents in terms of three dimensions (Trust, Communica-tion, and Alienation), with high levels of trust and com-munication and low levels of alienation characterizing asecure attachment, and low levels of trust and commu-nication and high levels of alienation characterizing inse-cure attachments (Armsden and Greenberg 1987). It has 21items answered on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1(almost never or never true) to 4 (always or almost alwaystrue), with higher scores indicating more positive repre-sentations of the parents as secure attachment figures.Although the scale has three subscales (Trust, Commu-nication, and Alienation), it is possible to obtain a globalscore of attachment representations by summing all items,after reverse-coding the items from the Alienation subscale.The original version of the PIML has shown adequatereliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha value for the total scoreabove .70, and adequate construct validity (Ridenour et al.2006). The Portuguese version confirmed the factor struc-ture of the original PIML and has also shown adequatereliability and construct validity (Moreira et al. 2017). In thecurrent study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .92.

Adolescents’ mindfulness

The Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM;Cunha et al. 2013; Greco et al. 2011) was used to assessadolescents’ mindfulness skills (i.e., adolescents’ present-moment awareness and their nonjudgmental, nonavoidantresponses to their thoughts and feelings). The CAMM has10 items (e.g., “I keep myself busy so I don’t notice my

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

thoughts or feelings” and “I get upset with myself for havingcertain thoughts”) rated on a 5-point Likert scale rangingfrom 0 (never true) to 4 (always true). The total score is thesum of the 10 items and ranges from 0 to 40, with higherscores indicating higher levels of mindfulness. The originalvalidation studies of the CAMM (Greco et al. 2011)demonstrated that the scale scores were reliable (Cronbach’salpha= .80) and valid (convergent and incremental). ThePortuguese version (Cunha et al. 2013) confirmed the uni-dimensional factor structure of the scale and demonstratedreliability (Cronbach’s alpha= .80), temporal stability (r= .46), and convergent and discriminant validity. In thecurrent study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .79.

Adolescents’ self-compassion

The short form of the Self-Compassion Scale (Castilho et al.2015; Raes et al. 2011) was used to assess adolescents’levels of self-compassion. This questionnaire has 12 items(e.g., “I try to be understanding and patient towards thoseaspects of my personality I don’t like”) rated on a five-pointLikert scale ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almostalways) and measures the six components of self-compassion (Self-kindness, Self-judgment, CommonHumanity, Isolation, Mindfulness, and Over-identification).After reverse-coding negative items, a global measure ofself-compassion was obtained by estimating the mean of the12 items, with higher scores indicating higher self-compassion. In the current study, only the total score forself-compassion was used. The original SCS-SF (Raes et al.2011) has shown good psychometric properties, includingreliability (Cronbach’s alpha for the total score= .86 (Dutchsample) and .89 (English sample)) and construct validity(convergent and discriminant). In the Portuguese popula-tion, the scale scores have also revealed adequate internalreliability and convergent validity (Castilho et al. 2015). Inthe current study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .74.

Adolescents’ well-being

The adolescents’ perception of their well-being was assessedby the Portuguese self-report version of the KIDSCREEN-10 index (Matos et al. 2012; Ravens-Sieberer et al. 2010).This unidimensional questionnaire assesses physical, emo-tional, mental, social, and behavioral components of chil-dren/adolescents’ well-being and functioning in the lastweek and includes 10 items (e.g., “Have you felt sad?”) thatare answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1(never/not at all) to 5 (always/extremely). The sum of allitems provides a global index of well-being or quality of lifeand ranges from 0 to 100 (standardized scores), with higherscores suggesting better well-being. The KIDSCREEN-10index is a psychometrically sound, cross-cultural and

standardized instrument (Ravens-Sieberer et al. 2010). Itdemonstrated good criterion and construct validity (con-vergent, discriminant, and known-groups), and its reliabilityand temporal stability were adequate. The validation studyof the Portuguese version (Matos et al. 2012) confirmed theoriginal unidimensional structure of the scale, demonstratedits invariance across age groups, nationalities, and socio-economic levels, and exhibited adequate reliability. In thepresent sample, the Cronbach’s alpha was .80.

Data Analyses

The data analyses were conducted using the StatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22.0; IBMSPSS, Chicago, IL) and the AMOS 20 (IBM® SPSS®AMOS™ Version 20.0; IBM Corporation, Meadville, PA,USA). Missing values were handled through the SPSSMissing Values Analysis. Items from the questionnaires hadno missing values or had less than 1% of missing values.Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) test wasconducted to test whether the data were MCAR. A non-significant result was obtained, χ2(2476)= 2437.74, p= .704, indicating that MCAR may be inferred (Tabachnickand Fidell 2013). Therefore, the expectation maximizationimputation approach was used for estimating missing values.

Descriptive statistics were computed for all socio-demographic and study variables. Since two different datacollection procedures were used and that the data collectionmethod can influence the adolescents’ responses to thequestionnaires, differences in study variables betweenadolescents that completed the questionnaires at home or atschool were analyzed. ANOVAs were used to examinethese differences. Due to the low number of adolescents inthe late stage (n= 17), middle and late stages of adoles-cence were merged into one category. Two-way ANOVAs,using the stage of adolescence (early versus middle/latestages) and gender categories as independent variables,were performed for all study variables.

Pearson correlations between study variables werecomputed. In addition, to identify potential covariates thatshould be introduced into the path model, correlationsbetween the sociodemographic variables [parents’ andchildren’s age and gender (0=male; 1= female), parents’education level (0= basic, middle, or secondary education;1= higher education), and marital status (0= not livingwith a partner; 1= living with a partner), number of chil-dren, and area of residence (0= rural; 1= urban)] and themediators and dependent variables were computed. Corre-lations between study variables and adolescents’ type ofparticipation in the study (0= questionnaires completed athome; 1= questionnaires completed at school) were alsoanalyzed. Cohen’s guidelines (1988) were used to describeand interpret the effect sizes of correlations (i.e., small for

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

correlations close to .10, medium for those near .30, andlarge for correlations at .50 or higher).

To examine whether mindful parenting was associated withadolescents’ well-being through adolescents’ attachment, self-compassion and mindfulness, a path model was tested usingthe maximum likelihood estimation method. The criteria for agood model fit were a non-significant χ2 (p> .05), CFI ≥ .95,RMSEA ≤ .06, and SRMR ≤ .08 (Hu and Bentler 1999). Thestatistical significance of the indirect effects was estimatedusing bootstrap resampling procedures with 2000 samples anda 90% bias-corrected confidence interval (BC90%CI). Thespecific indirect effects and the corresponding confidenceintervals were estimated using an AMOS user-defined esti-mand. To test the structural invariance of the path modelacross stages of adolescence and gender (i.e., whether differ-ences in the structural parameters across groups - early ado-lescence and middle/late adolescence, and boys and girls -were statistically significant), multi-group analyses were per-formed. These analyses involved comparing the baseline orunconstrained model (i.e., a model without equality constraintson parameters; configural invariance model) with a model inwhich structural weights were constrained to be equal acrossgroups. A non-significant chi-square difference (Δχ2) betweenthe two models indicated that the path model was invariantacross groups.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Comparison analyses between adolescents that completedthe questionnaires at home or at school revealed no differ-ences in attachment, F(1, 561)= .39, p= .534, η2p= .001;self-compassion, F(1, 561)= .03, p= .872, η2p= .000; andwell-being, F(1, 561)= .03, p= .873, η2p= .000. However,a significant difference was found in mindfulness, F(1, 561)= 19.64, p< .001, η2p= .034, with adolescents who com-pleted the questionnaires at school reporting higher levels ofmindfulness (M= 27.56, SD= 6.13) than those who com-pleted the questionnaires at home (M= 25.17, SD= 5.94).Despite this significant difference, the two groups wereanalyzed together in the subsequent analyses. Nevertheless,the type of participation in the study (i.e., at home or atschool) was introduced as a covariate of adolescent’smindfulness in the path model.

Differences in Study Variables between Early andMiddle/Late Adolescence and between Boys andGirls

Means and standard deviations for the study variables andthe comparison analyses are presented in Table 1. Ta

ble1

Com

parisons

betweenstages

ofadolescenceandgend

erson

stud

yvariablesandcorrelations

betweenstud

yvariables

Early

adolescencen=33

7Middle/Lateadolescencen=22

6Age

effect

Gendereffect

Interactioneffect

Boy

sn=13

8Girlsn=19

9Boy

sn=79

Girlsn=14

7

M(SD)

M(SD)

M(SD)

M(SD)

Fη2

pF

η2p

Fη2

p1

23

4

1.Mindful

parenting

108.09

(11.48

)10

6.83

(13.19

)10

6.95

(11.97

)10

5.71

(13.71

).99

.002

1.21

.002

.00

.000

–

2.Relationshiprepresentatio

ns67

.01(10.67

)65

.66(10.93

)66

.75(9.62)

64.67(12.24

).41

.001

3.04

.005

.14

.000

.31*

*–

3.Self-compassion

3.27

(.49

)3.29

(.68

)3.22

(.51

)3.18

(.62

)2.54

.004

.07

.000

.29

.001

.23*

*.46*

*–

4.Mindfulness

29.09(5.90)

26.80(6.33)

26.39(5.40)

24.67(5.87)

20.52*

**.035

14.11*

**.025

.28

.001

.15*

*.28*

*.41*

*–

5.Well-being

71.99(13.52

)67

.74(16.08

)68

.61(14.28

)63

.21(15.17

)8.76

**.015

13.04*

**.023

.18

.000

.22*

*.53*

*.50*

*.38*

*

Note.

Correlatio

nswereperformed

inthetotalsample

**p<.01;

***p

<.001

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Significant differences between adolescents in differentstages of adolescence were found in mindfulness and well-being, with adolescents in early adolescence reportinghigher levels of mindfulness and well-being than those inmiddle/late adolescence. Significant differences in thesevariables were also found between boys and girls, with boysreporting higher levels of mindfulness and well-being thangirls. No significant age and gender differences were foundin mindful parenting, adolescents’ attachment, and adoles-cents’ self-compassion. No significant interaction betweenage and gender was found in any variable.

Correlations between Study Variables and betweenStudy and Sociodemographic Variables

Correlations between mindful parenting and adolescents’attachment, self-compassion, mindfulness, and well-beingare presented in Table 1. Positive and small-to-moderatecorrelations were found between mindful parenting andadolescents’ attachment representations, mindful parentingand adolescents’ self-compassion, and mindful parentingand adolescents’ well-being. A positive and small correla-tion was found between mindful parenting and adolescents’mindfulness. Positive and moderate-to-strong correlationswere found between adolescents’ attachment representationsand adolescents’ self-compassion, adolescents’ attachmentrepresentations and adolescents’ well-being, adolescents’self-compassion and adolescents’ mindfulness, adolescents’self-compassion and adolescents’ well-being. Finally, thecorrelations between adolescents’ attachment representa-tions and adolescents’ mindfulness and between adoles-cents’ mindfulness and adolescents’ well-being weresignificant and moderate.

Correlations between sociodemographic variables andadolescent variables (attachment representations, self-com-passion, mindfulness and well-being) were also analyzed toidentify potential covariates that should be included in thepath model. Adolescents’ attachment representations andadolescents’ self-compassion were significantly associatedwith adolescents’ age (r=−.09, p= .040; r=−.10, p= .017, respectively). Adolescents’ mindfulness was sig-nificantly associated with the parents’ education level (r= .09, p= .027), adolescents’ age (r=−.22, p < .001),adolescents’ gender (r=−.17, p < .001), and type of par-ticipation in the study (r= .18, p < .001). Finally, well-being was significantly correlated with adolescents’ age (r=−.19, p < .001) and adolescents’ gender (r=−.16, p< .001). Parents’ marital status, number of children, andarea of residence were not significantly correlated with anystudy variable. Therefore, the parents’ education, adoles-cents’ age and gender, and type of participation in the studywere introduced as covariates in the model.

The Indirect Effect of Mindful Parenting onAdolescents’ Well-Being Through Adolescents’Attachment Representations, Self-Compassion, andMindfulness Skills

The initial model failed to present an adequate fit to thedata, χ2(9)=78.49, p< .001; CFI= .897; SRMR= .045;RMSEA= .117, p< .001; 90% CI= [.09, .14]. Therefore,modification indices were examined, suggesting that theresiduals belonging to self-compassion and mindfulnessmight be correlated. The re-specified path model (i.e., amodel in which the residuals of self-compassion andmindfulness were allowed to correlate) had a good fit to the

Mindful parenting Adolescents’

well-being

R2 = .410

Adolescents’ mindfulness

R2 = .175

.05

Adolescents’ self-

compassion

Adolescents’ attachment to

parents

R2 = .219

R2 = .102

.31***

.24***

.42***

.13***

.10**

.35***

.02

.28***

Fig. 1 Path model examining the associations between mindful par-enting and adolescents’ well-being through adolescents’ attachment,self-compassion and mindfulness. Note. Path values represent

standardized regression coefficients. For simplicity, covariates andmeasurement error terms are not shown. **p< .01, ***p< .001

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

data, χ2(8)=10.15, p= .255; CFI= .997; SRMR= .016;RMSEA= .022, p= .895; 90% CI= [.00, .90], andexplained 41% of the adolescents’ well-being variance (seeFig. 1). Direct and indirect effects are presented in Table 2.All direct effects were significant with the exception of thedirect effect of mindful parenting on adolescents’ mind-fulness and the direct effect of mindful parenting on ado-lescents’ well-being. With regard to the specific indirecteffects, mindful parenting had an indirect effect on ado-lescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion via adolescents’attachment representations. In addition, mindful parentinghad an indirect effect on adolescents’ well-being throughadolescents’ attachment representations and self-compassion (individually or sequentially). Mindfulnessalone did not act as a mediator of the link between mindfulparenting and adolescents’ well-being (i.e., mindfulness hasonly been shown to mediate this relationship when coupledwith attachment). Finally, adolescents’ attachment repre-sentations had an indirect effect on adolescents’

well-being through adolescents’ self-compassion andmindfulness.

Age and Gender Invariance Analyses

A multi-group analysis was performed to test the structuralinvariance of the path model across stages of adolescenceand gender. In these analyses we compared the uncon-strained model with a model in which structural weightswere fixed to be equal across groups. To perform the ana-lyses for the stage of adolescence, adolescents’ age were notintroduced as a covariate. First, we examined the baselinemodel for each group separately. The baseline model foreach stage of adolescence demonstrated a good fit to thedata (early adolescence: χ2(8)=6.44, p= .598; CFI= 1.00;SRMR= .019; RMSEA= .000, p= .925; 90% CI= [.00,.06]; middle/late adolescence: χ2(8)=9.71, p= .286; CFI= .993; SRMR= .033; RMSEA= .031, p= .642; 90% CI= [.00, .09]). Then we tested the configural invariance

Table 2 Direct and indirect effects of mindful parenting on adolescents’ well-being

BC90%CI

Unstandardizedcoefficients

Standardizedcoefficients

p value Lower/Upper

Direct effects

MP→Attachment 7.73 .31 .007 .24/.39

MP→Mindfulness .63 .05 .202 −.02/.12

MP→ Self-compassion .14 .10 .005 .43/.17

MP→Well-being .51 .02 .687 −.05/.08

Attachment→Mindfulness .13 .24 .009 .17/.32

Attachment→ Self-compassion .23 .42 .012 .35/.48

Attachment→Well-being .48 .35 .008 .29/.42

Mindfulness→Well-being .32 .13 .009 .07/.20

Self-compassion→Well-being 7.06 .28 .010 .20/.34

Indirect effects

MP→Mindfulness 1.03 .07 .012 .05/.10

MP→ Self-compassion .18 .13 .007 .10/.17

MP→Well-being 6.46 .19 .012 .15/.23

Attachment→Well-being .20 .15 .012 .11/.18

Specific indirect effects

MP→Attachment→Mindfulness 1.02 .008 .66/1.48

MP→Attachment→ Self-compassion .18 .009 .13/.22

MP→Attachment→Well-being 3.73 .005 2.81/5.09

MP→Mindfulness→Well-being .22 .201 −.05/.70

MP→ Self-compassion→Well-being .95 .004 .40/1.75

MP→Attachment→Mindfulness→Well-being .33 .011 .13/.55

MP→Attachment→ Self-compassion→Well-being 1.14 .006 .81/1.79

Attachment→Mindfulness→Well-being .04 .012 .02/.07

Attachment→ Self-compassion→Well-being .16 .006 .11/.21

MP mindful parenting

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

model, which exhibited a good fit to the data, χ2(16)=

16.15, p= .442; CFI= 1.00; SRMR= .019; RMSEA= .004, p= .993; 90% CI= [.00, .04]. Finally, we com-pared the unconstrained and the constrained (χ2(29)=27.93,p= .522; CFI= 1.00; SRMR= .026; RMSEA= .000, p=1.00; 90% CI= [.00, .03]) models. The difference betweenboth models was not significant, Δχ2(13)= 11.78, p= .546,which suggests that the relationships between variables inthe path model were invariant across groups.

To explore whether the hypothesized model was invar-iant across gender groups, another multi-group analysis wasperformed. In this analysis, adolescents’ gender was notintroduced as a covariate. The baseline model for eachgender demonstrated a good fit to the data (girls: χ2(6)=

9.96, p= .127; CFI= .991; SRMR= .023; RMSEA= .044, p= .525; 90% CI= [.00, .09]; boys: χ2(6)=5.14, p= .526; CFI= 1.000; SRMR= .030; RMSEA= .000, p= .785; 90% CI= [.00, .08]). The difference between theunconstrained (χ2(12)=15.10, p= .236; CFI= .995;SRMR= .030; RMSEA= .021, p= .946; 90% CI= [.00,.05]) and the constrained (χ2(27)=43.78, p= .022; CFI= .974; SRMR= .052; RMSEA= .033, p= .942; 90% CI= [.01, .05]) models was significant, Δχ2(15)= 28.69, p= .018, which suggests that the relationships betweenvariables in the path model were not invariant acrossgroups. Therefore, the critical ratios for differences betweenparameters were investigated to identify which parameterswere accounting for the noninvariance. This examinationevidenced that the association between mindful parentingand adolescents’ mindfulness (boys: β= .158, p= .012;girls: β=−.013, p= .809) and between adolescents’attachment representations and adolescents’ self-compassion (boys: β= .331, p< .001; girls: β= .457, p

< .001) were noninvariant. Specifically, the relationshipbetween mindful parenting and adolescents’ mindfulnesswas only significant for boys, and the relationship betweenadolescents’ attachment representations and adolescents’self-compassion was stronger for girls. In addition, wecompared the unconstrained model with several models inwhich the structural weight of a single path was fixed to beequal across groups. The difference between the uncon-strained model and the model in which the path linkingmindful parenting and adolescents’ mindfulness was con-strained was significant, Δχ2(1)= 5.63, p= .018, as well asthe difference between the unconstrained model and themodel in which the path linking adolescents’ attachmentrepresentations and adolescents’ self-compassion was con-strained, Δχ2(1)= 4.50, p= .034, which corroborates thedifferences suggested by the examination of critical ratios.The analysis of the indirect effects in each group revealedthat four indirect effects vary between groups. Specifically,the indirect effects of mindful parenting on adolescents’well-being through mindfulness (boys: b= 1.06, p= .033,90% IC= [.14, 1.94]; girls: b= .04, p= .695, 90% IC=[−.45, .24]) and through attachment representations fol-lowed by mindfulness (boys: b= .32, p= .006, 90% IC=[.10, .84]; girls: b= .26, p= .155, 90% IC= [−.02, .63])and the indirect effect of attachment representations onwell-being through mindfulness (boys: b= .06, p= .003,90% IC= [.02, .13]; girls: b= .03, p= .162, 90% IC=[−.00, .07]) were only significant for boys. In contrast, theindirect effect of mindful parenting on well-being throughself-compassion (boys: b= .31, p= .151, 90% IC= [−.07,1.36]; girls: b= 1.35, p= .035, 90% IC= [.33, 2.67]) wasonly significant for girls. The remaining indirect effectswere significant for both groups.

Listening with full attention

Adolescents’ well-being

Adolescents’ mindfulness

R2 = .183

.12**

Adolescents’ self-

compassion

Adolescents’ attachment to

parents

R2 = .215

R2 = .111 .03

Compassion for the child

R2 = .410

.06

.08

.27***

-.08

-.02

.02

.28**

.13**

.25**

.35***

.43***

.52***

Fig. 2 Path model examining the associations between mindful par-enting dimensions and adolescents’ well-being through adolescents’attachment, self-compassion and mindfulness. Note. Path values

represent standardized regression coefficients. For simplicity, covari-ates and measurement error terms are not shown. **p< .01, ***p< .001

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Exploring the Role of Mindful Parenting Dimensions

Secondary analyses were performed to explore the directand indirect effects of mindful parenting dimensions onadolescents’ well-being. A path model with the Compassion

for the Child and the Listening with Full Attention sub-scales of the IM-P was estimated (see Fig. 2). Only thesesubscales were included in the model because the remainingsubscales presented low Cronbach’s alphas. The parents’education, adolescents’ gender and age, and type of

Table 3 Direct and indirect effects of mindful parenting dimensions on adolescents’ well-being

BC90%CI

Unstandardizedcoefficients

Standardizedcoefficients

p value Lower/Upper

Direct effects

LFA→Attachment .28 .08 .070 .01/.15

LFA→Mindfulness .24 .12 .006 .05/.20

LFA→ Self-compassion .01 .06 .156 −.01/.13

LFA→Well-being .14 .03 .405 −.03/.09

CC→Attachment .81 .27 .001 .19/.35

CC→Mindfulness −.12 −.08 .130 −.16/.01

CC→ Self-compassion .00 .02 .659 −.06/.09

CC→Well-being −.07 −.02 .700 −.08/.03

Attachment→Mindfulness .14 .25 .001 .10/.18

Attachment→ Self-compassion .02 .43 .001 .02/.03

Attachment→Well-being .49 .35 .001 .39/.59

Mindfulness→Well-being .32 .13 .002 .14/.47

Self-compassion→Well-being 7.09 .28 .001 5.18/8.81

Indirect effects

LFA→Mindfulness .04 .02 .054 .00/.04

LFA→ Self-compassion .01 .03 .060 .01/.07

LFA→Well-being .35 .07 .007 .03/.12

CC→Mindfulness .11 .07 .001 .04/.10

CC→ Self-compassion .02 .12 .001 .08/.16

CC→Well-being .55 .13 .001 .09/.18

Attachment→Well-being .21 .15 .001 .12/.19

Specific indirect effects

LFA→Attachment→Mindfulness .04 .054 .01/.09

LFA→Attachment→ Self-compassion .01 .060 .00/.01

LFA→Attachment→Well-being .14 .072 .01/.27

LFA→Mindfulness→Well-being .08 .004 .03/.16

LFA→ Self-compassion→Well-being .08 .143 −.01/.19

LFA→Attachment→Mindfulness→Well-being .01 .037 .01/.03

LFA→Attachment→ Self-compassion→Well-being .05 .053 .00/.10

CC→Attachment→Mindfulness .11 .001 .07/.02

CC→Attachment→ Self-compassion .02 .001 .03/.00

CC→Attachment→Well-being .40 .001 .28/.54

CC→Mindfulness→Well-being −.04 .079 −.11/−.00

CC→ Self-compassion→Well-being .02 .634 −.06/.11

CC→Attachment→Mindfulness→Well-being .04 .001 .02/.07

CC→Attachment→ Self-compassion→Well-being .13 <.001 .09/.20

Attachment→Mindfulness→Well-being .04 .001 .02/.07

Attachment→ Self-compassion→Well-being .17 .001 .12/.22

LFA listening with full attention, CC compassion for the child

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

participation in the study were introduced as covariates inthe model. The model presented a good fit to the data, χ2(8)= 10.80, p= .213; CFI= .997; SRMR= .015; RMSEA= .025, p= .871; 90% CI= [.00, .06]. As presented inTable 3, listening with full attention had only a direct effecton adolescents’ mindfulness, whereas compassion for thechild had only a direct effect on adolescents’ attachmentrepresentations. Compassion for the child was indirectlyassociated with adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion via adolescents’ attachment representations,whereas listening with full attention was not indirectlyassociated with adolescents’ mindfulness and self-compassion. With regard to the indirect effects of mindfulparenting dimensions on adolescents’ well-being, listeningwith full attention was found to be indirectly associatedwith adolescents’ well-being through adolescents’ attach-ment representations and mindfulness and through theattachment representations → mindfulness sequence, but notthrough adolescents’ self-compassion. In contrast, compas-sion for the child was indirectly associated with adolescents’well-being through adolescents’ attachment as well asthrough the attachment representations → mindfulness andattachment representations → self-compassion sequences.

An Alternative Model: The Indirect Effect ofAdolescents’ Attachment Representations onAdolescents’ Well-Being

Given the cross-sectional design of this study, alternativemodels may be considered. To explore the possibility thatadolescents’ attachment representations are associated withadolescents’ well-being through adolescents’ self-compas-sion, adolescents’ mindfulness, and mindful parenting, wetested a reversed mediation model in which adolescents’attachment representations was the independent variable,adolescents’ well-being was the dependent variable, andadolescents’ self-compassion, adolescents’ mindfulness, andmindful parenting were the mediators (with mindfulnessand self-compassion prior to mindful parenting). We havefollowed the same procedures as described for the initialpath model. In addition to the covariates already introducedin the previous models, parents’ education was also intro-duced as a predictor of mindful parenting since it was sig-nificantly correlated with it (r= .13, p= .003). The modelpresented a good fit to the data, χ2(9)=9.78, p= .369; CFI= .999; SRMR= .026; RMSEA= .012, p= .950; 90% CI= [.00, .05], explaining 40% of the adolescents’ well-beingvariance. In this model, adolescents’ attachment repre-sentations had an indirect effect on mindful parentingthrough adolescents’ self-compassion and mindfulness (b= .06, p= .003, 90% CI= [.29, .92]) and on adolescents’well-being through adolescents’ self-compassion andmindfulness followed by mindful parenting (b= .16, p

= .011, 90% CI= [.12, .20]). However, the indirect effectsof adolescents’ self-compassion (b= .00, p= .586, 90% CI= [−.00, .01]) and of adolescents’ mindfulness (b= .00, p= .427, 90% CI= [−.00, .01]) on adolescents’ well-beingthrough mindful parenting were not significant.

Discussion

Although research on mindful parenting suggests that thisparental approach has a positive effect on adolescents’adjustment outcomes (e.g., Parent et al. 2016), the factorsthat may explain this association have rarely been investi-gated. This study explored whether mindful parenting couldbe associated with adolescents’ well-being through theadolescent’s perception of security in the relationship withtheir parents and their self-compassion and mindfulnessskills. Although it has been suggested that mindfulness andself-compassion develop in the context of a secure parent-child relationship (Caldwell and Shaver 2013; Neff andMcGehee 2010; Shaver et al. 2017), there are almost nostudies on the role of parental or family variables and,particularly, mindful parenting, on adolescents’ self-compassion and mindfulness skills. This study was alsoaimed at exploring whether the associations between thesevariables would vary according to the stage of adolescenceand the adolescent gender. The investigation of age andgender effects is of utmost importance because it may allowthe identification of target groups of parents to whom it maybe most useful to develop mindful parenting skills and oftarget groups of adolescents to whom it may be particularlyimportant to promote self-compassion and mindfulnessskills.

Mindful Parenting and Adolescents’ Outcomes

According to the expectations, higher levels of mindfulparenting were associated with higher levels of adolescents’well-being. However, this association was not direct butmediated by adolescents’ attachment representations, self-compassion, and mindfulness. Therefore, these findingssuggest that a mindful approach to parenting is associatedwith an increased perception of adolescents’ well-beingbecause it is associated with more positive and securerepresentations of the relationship with the parents andhigher levels of self-compassion and mindfulness. Mindfulparents tend to be more present, available and responsive totheir child’s needs and to be more warm and compassionatetoward themselves and toward their children. They also tendto be more accepting and aware of their emotions and oftheir child’s emotions and to have a less reactive stancetoward their child’s behaviors, which allow them to moreeasily break automatic and maladaptive cycles that can arise

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

during parent-child interactions (Bögels and Restifo 2014;Duncan et al. 2009). Hence, this particular way of inter-acting with the adolescent can foster a positive and securerelationship with the adolescent (Medeiros et al. 2016) andtherefore be an ideal ground for the development of thesetwo important psychological factors to the adolescents’adjustment: self-compassion and mindfulness.

The following two processes can explain the effect ofmindful parenting on the development of these positiveinner resources: observational learning and positiveexperiences within the family context. With regard toobservational learning, mindful parents are more likely tomodel adaptive coping with stressful life events and difficultthoughts and emotions. As found in previous studies, theytend to be more self-compassionate (Gouveia et al. 2016;Moreira et al. 2016) and to have higher levels of disposi-tional mindfulness (Gouveia et al. 2016). If adolescents seetheir parents coping with difficult situations in a mindfuland compassionate manner, they may learn this adaptiveself-to-self relating through observation. In contrast, ado-lescents whose parents usually cope with difficult situationsimpulsively or with self-criticism do not have a compas-sionate and mindful model to follow and, instead, may learnthat difficult situations and moments of suffering areunbearable and may only be handled with negative emo-tions and harsh self-judgments.

The way parents relate to their children may also have astrong impact on the development of adolescents’ mind-fulness and self-compassionate or self-critical inner dialo-gues and, therefore, a second process may be hypothesized(i.e., positive family experiences). Mindful parents arelikely to establish security-boosting interactions with theirchildren, which may allow adolescents develop a secureattachment (Medeiros et al. 2016) and, consequently,facilitate the development of self-compassion, through anadequate development of the soothing system (Gilbert2005). This hypothesis is supported by the results of thisstudy and is consistent with previous studies with adults thatdemonstrated the critical role of attachment orientations onthe development of self-compassion (e.g., Moreira et al.2016; Neff and Beretvas 2013). The findings are also inaccordance with the study of Neff and McGehee (2010),which suggested that the way individuals treat themselvesin moments of suffering is modeled by family experiences.According to these authors, children with cold and criticalparents may internalize a cold and critical internal dialogueand those with warm and caring parents likely internalize aself-compassionate way of relating to themselves.

Likewise, mindful parents may also foster the develop-ment of their children’s mindful awareness through thepositive interactions they establish with them. Ryan et al.(2007) argued that the development of reflective, regulatory,and self-observing capacities that characterize mindful

awareness are facilitated when the individual grows up inloving relational contexts with caregivers that are attuned to,mirror and resonate with the child’s experiences. In fact,previous studies emphasized that attachment security isassociated with higher levels of mindfulness (e.g., Caldwelland Shaver 2015; Shaver et al. 2007), an association thatmay be explained by the more adaptive emotion regulationstrategies securely attached individuals employ (Caldwelland Shaver 2013; Melen et al. 2017; Pepping et al. 2013)that allows them to have more cognitive resources availableand, consequently, an increased capacity for mindfulawareness. A similar process might explain the results ofthe present study. In fact, this study suggests that mindfulparents may be more likely to establish a secure relationshipwith their children, which may help adolescents develophigher levels of mindfulness. Based on these results it maybe hypothesized that adolescents with positive representa-tions of the relationship with their parents may have morecognitive resources available to focus their attention on thepresent experiences. Interestingly, the relationship betweenmindful parenting and adolescents’ mindfulness was onlyindirect, through adolescents’ attachment representations,which underlines the important role that attachment mayplay in the development of mindful awareness.

The significant associations between attachment repre-sentations, self-compassion and mindfulness skills, andadolescents’ well-being are also in agreement with previousstudies demonstrating the protective role of attachmentsecurity (Sroufe 2005) and of self-compassion and mind-fulness (e.g., Bluth and Blanton 2015) on the psychologicalfunctioning of adolescents. In fact, securely attached indi-viduals employs more adaptive strategies of emotion reg-ulation and report a better functioning in several areas of lifethan insecure individuals (Mikulincer and Shaver 2007).Therefore, although the PIML does not allow differentiatingbetween secure and insecure attachment, it may be hypo-thesized that adolescents with higher scores on this measureand, therefore, with a more positive and secure perceptionof the relationship with their parents, would also employmore adaptive strategies of emotion regulation and conse-quently report higher levels of well-being. In addition,adolescents with higher levels of mindfulness and self-compassion may be better able to access the soothing sys-tem of affect regulation and, consequently, they can moreeffectively balance negative emotions and thoughts bycalming and soothing themselves (Gilbert 2005), whichmay help them to experience higher levels of well-being.According to Neff and McGehee (2010), the three centralaspects of self-compassion may be particularly important tohelp adolescents cope better with the typical challenges ofthis developmental stage. For instance, self-kindness mayhelp adolescents have fewer harsh judgments when con-fronting the common negative and disliked aspects of

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

themselves. The ability to see one’s experience as part of acommon human condition may help adolescents cope withcommon fears of social rejection through the promotion of asense of interpersonal connectedness. Finally, mindfulnessmay help adolescents ruminate less on negative thoughtsand emotions, which could lead to psychological distress.

To better understand the role of mindful parenting onadolescents’ well-being, we analyzed whether the direct andindirect effects in the model varied according to the mindfulparenting dimension (listening with full attention andcompassion for the child). Listening with full attention wasfound to be indirectly associated with adolescents’ well-being through attachment representations and mindfulness,whereas compassion for the child was indirectly associatedwith this outcome through attachment representations orthrough attachment representations followed by mind-fulness or self-compassion. In addition, whereas listeningwith full attention had a direct effect on adolescents’mindfulness skills, compassion for the child had only adirect effect on adolescents’ attachment representations (i.e.,it was not directly associated with self-compassion ormindfulness). These results suggest that different dimen-sions of mindful parenting are associated with adolescents’well-being through different paths. Parents’ capacity to lis-tening to their child with full attention (i.e., of directingcomplete attention to the child and being fully presentduring parent-child interactions) seems to be the componentthat is associated with adolescents’ capacity for mindfulawareness. It also seems to be related with a secure rela-tionship between the parents and the adolescent, which inturn is associated with higher levels of adolescents’ mind-fulness and well-being. These findings suggest that thisattitude of being completely present in parent-child inter-actions may promote the development of mindfulnessskills in adolescents through the direct observation ofthis parental behavior and attitude or through the promotionof a positive and secure parent-child relationship, asexplained above. On the other hand, parents’ compassionfor the child (i.e., an attitude of kindness, sensitivity andresponsiveness to the child’s needs) seems to be associatedwith a more secure relationship between the parents and thechild, which in turn may contribute to higher levels ofmindfulness, self-compassion, and well-being in adoles-cents. These findings suggest that being a compassionateparent does not directly contribute to the self-compassion ormindfulness in adolescents. Instead, this parental attitudemay foster a positive relationship between the parents andthe adolescent, which, as previously explained, may pro-mote the development of these two internal resources inadolescents. In future studies, it would be interesting toexamine the role of the other mindful parenting dimensions(self-regulation, emotional awareness of the child, and non-judgmental acceptance of parental functioning) to better

understand how this parental approach may contribute tothese adolescents’ outcomes.

Age and Gender Differences

With regard to age differences, adolescents in the earlystage of adolescence reported higher levels of mindfulnessand well-being than those in middle/late adolescence.Concerning the adolescents’ well-being, this finding isconsistent with previous studies showing that older ado-lescents have lower levels of well-being and higher rates ofpsychiatric disorders than younger adolescents (Costelloet al. 2011). The transition from early to middle adolescencehas been identified as a period of increased vulnerability forthe development of psychological disorders (Abela andHankin 2011). This increased vulnerability may be asso-ciated with the greater challenges adolescents in middle/lateadolescence face, such as the transition from middle to highschool, which may be potentially stressful because of themultiple social and academic changes involved (e.g., newfriends, higher autonomy). The lower levels of well-beingof older adolescents might also be due to their lower levelsof mindfulness skills. Although the cross-sectional designof this study does not allow us to draw conclusions aboutcausal associations, the results of our model suggest thisassociation. Despite these differences, associations in thepath model seem to be equal across the stages of adoles-cence since the model was shown to be invariant acrossgroups. Although this study used a cross-sectional design,these findings suggest that the positive role of mindfulparenting and of attachment security, self-compassion andmindfulness skills is equally relevant and strong in allstages of adolescence. However, future longitudinal studiesare essential to confirm these hypotheses.

With regard to gender differences, boys reported higherlevels of mindfulness and well-being than girls in bothstages of adolescence, which is in accordance with previousinvestigations (de Bruin et al. 2011; Royuela-Colomer andCalvete 2016). Gender differences in adolescents’ psycho-logical adjustment can be explained by several biological(e.g., pubertal and hormonal changes in girls) and psycho-social (e.g., girl’s greater body dissatisfaction) factors thathave been shown to increase the likelihood of adolescentgirls presenting, for instance, higher levels of depression(Hyde et al. 2008) and, in general, higher levels of inter-nalizing symptoms (Hoffmann et al. 2004) than boys.Gender differences in mindfulness, as well as in their well-being, might be associated with a girls’ greater tendency toruminate (Rood et al. 2009). Mindful attention and rumi-nation may be considered two contrasting forms of attentionfocusing that are associated with different psychologicaloutcomes. In fact, rumination is an important cognitivevulnerability factor for poorer psychological adjustment

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

among adolescent girls (Rood et al. 2009) and it may alsobe considered a negative correlate of mindfulness abilities.Mindfulness involves a receptive attention to and clearawareness of present experience and events (internal orexternal) in a non-judgmental way (Brown and Ryan 2003),which contrasts with rumination, a cognitive process thatinvolves frequent, prolonged, repetitive, and difficult tocontrol thoughts (Nolen-Hoeksema et al. 2008). Therefore,it may be hypothesized that adolescent girls report lowerlevels of well-being and mindfulness than boys becausethey are more prone to ruminate and, therefore, to engage inan automatic chain of repetitive thoughts that prevent themto actually experience the present moment, an hypothesisthat is worth of attention in future research. Additionally,mindful parenting was found to operate differently for boysand girls. For boys, mindful parenting was linked to theirwell-being through attachment representations and mind-fulness, or through attachment representations followed bymindfulness or self-compassion, whereas for girls the effectof mindful parenting on their well-being was via attachmentrepresentations and self-compassion but not through mind-fulness. In addition, whereas the link between mindfulparenting and adolescent’s mindfulness was significant forboys, for girls this relationship was not significant. Theseresults suggest that mindful parenting might be particularlyimportant for the development of boys’ mindfulness skills.However, because of the cross-sectional design of thisstudy, this hypothesis should be further investigated infuture longitudinal studies.

Limitations

The current study has some limitations. The first limitationis the cross-sectional design. This design does not allow usto draw definite conclusions about the developmental dif-ferences in mindful parenting or in adolescents’ self-com-passion, mindfulness, and well-being. In addition, althoughthe direction of associations between variables in the modelwas supported by the literature, we cannot establish causalrelationships between the variables and exclude the possi-bility of alternative models. Therefore, we tested an alter-native model in which adolescents’ attachmentrepresentations were hypothesized to predict adolescents’well-being through mindfulness, self-compassion, andmindful parenting. Although this model presented a goodfit, our results suggest that our data is not entirely consistentwith this alternative model, since the associations betweenself-compassion and well-being and between mindfulnessand well-being were not mediated by mindful parenting.Although the present study has a cross-sectional design,these results provide stronger evidence for the direction ofassociations suggested in the originally proposed model.Nevertheless, future studies should employ a longitudinal

design to better examine the direction of the associations inthe model and the moderating role of the stage of adoles-cence and gender. Second, due to the low number of ado-lescents in the late stage of adolescence (aged between 18and 21 years), adolescents in the middle and late stageswere merged into one category. In future studies, it wouldbe interesting to study a higher number of adolescents in thelate stage to better analyze differences between stages.Third, some subscales of the IM-P presented Cronbach’salphas below .70, which limited its utilization. Fourth, themajority of participants were mothers (95.6%), which maycompromise the generalization of the results to fathers.Additionally, most of the parents were married or livingwith a partner, had completed only basic or secondaryeducation, and lived in rural areas, which may compromisethe generalizability of the results to parents with differentsociodemographic backgrounds. Fifth, adolescents wererecruited in School Units of only northern and centralPortugal, which may compromise the representativeness ofthe sample. Future studies should include participants fromdifferent areas and with different sociodemographic back-grounds (particularly, from urban areas in which is morelikely that parents have a college education).

Conclusions

The current study proposes an innovative and integrativemodel that helps explain why mindful parenting is asso-ciated with adolescents’ well-being. Specifically, this studysuggests that a mindful parenting style may contribute tomore positive representations of parents as secure attach-ment figures and to higher levels of self-compassion andmindfulness, which in turn can contribute to higher levels ofwell-being in adolescents aged between 12 and 20 years.The findings of this study concur with previous investiga-tions suggesting that self-compassion and mindful aware-ness have common roots and are psychological resourcesthat can be developed within a positive family environmentand a secure parent-child relationship. Adolescents raised insecure and supportive family environments may internalizethe soothing qualities of a responsive and compassionateattachment figure, such as a mindful parent, and develop ahealthy self-to-self relationship characterized by compas-sion toward the self. They may also develop adaptiveemotion regulation strategies and, consequently, develop ahigher capacity for mindful awareness. Both self-compassion and mindfulness were shown to be associatedwith higher levels of well-being, which corroborates theassumption that these variables are two important psycho-logical internal resources for adolescents in different stagesof adolescence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

The results also suggest the importance of consideringage and gender specificities. Boys reported higher levels ofwell-being and mindfulness in both stages of adolescence,and adolescents in the early stage of adolescence, regardlessof gender, reported higher levels of well-being and mind-fulness than adolescents in middle/late stages. Additionally,the path model was not invariant for boys and girls.Understanding the role of adolescents’ age and gender pro-vides important insights into the specific groups of parentsand adolescents who can benefit more from mindfulness-and self-compassion-based interventions. The results of thisstudy suggest that girls and adolescents in middle/late ado-lescence are particularly at risk of exhibiting lower psy-chological well-being and, consequently, are those whowould benefit more from developing adaptive emotion reg-ulation processes such as mindfulness and self-compassion.The results also suggest that girls and adolescents in middle/late adolescence are precisely those who present the lowestlevels of mindfulness skills, which emphasizes the relevanceof promoting these abilities among girls and during thisdevelopmental stage. In addition, as mindful parenting wasfound to be associated with adolescents’ outcomes, mindfulparenting programs (e.g., Bögels and Restifo 2014) may bean effective way to help parents develop a positive andsecure relationship with their children and provide an opti-mal family environment for the development of self-compassion and mindfulness skills, which seem to be cru-cial internal resources for adolescents’ well-being.

Authors’ Contributions H.M. conceived of the study, participated in itsdesign and coordination, performed the statistical analysis, and wrotethe manuscript; M.J.G. participated in the data collection and inter-pretation of the data; M.C.C. revised the manuscript. All authors readand approved the final manuscript.

Funding This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation forScience and Technology under Grant SFRH/BPD/70063/2010.

Data Sharing Declaration This manuscript’s data will not be deposited.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict ofinterest.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving humanparticipants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the insti-tutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinkideclaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individualparticipants (parents) included in the study. Informal assent wasobtained from adolescents.

References

Abela, J. R., & Hankin, B. L. (2011). Rumination as a vulnerabilityfactor to depression during the transition from early to middle

adolescence: A multiwave longitudinal study. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 120(2), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022796.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parentand peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationshipto psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 16(5), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02202939.

Bluth, K., & Blanton, P. W. (2015). The influence of self-compassionon emotional well-being among early and older adolescent malesand females. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3),219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.936967.

Bluth, K., Campo, R. A., Futch, W. S., & Gaylord, S. A. (2017). Ageand gender differences in the associations of self-compassion andemotional well-being in a large adolescent sample. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 46(4), 840–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0567-2.

Bögels, S., Hellemans, J., van Deursen, S., Römer, M., & van derMeulen, R. (2014). Mindful parenting in mental health care:Effects on parental and child psychopathology, parental stress,parenting, coparenting, and marital functioning. Mindfulness, 5(5), 536–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0209-7.

Bögels, S., Hoogstad, B., van Dun, L., de Schutter, S., & Restifo, K.(2008). Mindfulness training for adolescents with externalizingdisorders and their parents. Behavioural and Cognitive Psy-chotherapy, 36(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465808004190.

Bögels, S., & Restifo, K. (2014). Mindful parenting: A guide formental health practitioners. New York, NY: Springer.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness:Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects.Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298.

Burke, C. A. (2010). Mindfulness-based approaches with children andadolescents: A preliminary review of current research in anemergent field. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(2),133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9282-x.

Caldwell, J. G., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). Mediators of the link betweenadult attachment and mindfulness. Interpersona: An InternationalJournal on Personal Relationships, 7(2), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v7i2.133.

Caldwell, J. G., & Shaver, P. R. (2015). Promoting attachment-relatedmindfulness and compassion: A wait-list-controlled study ofwomen who were mistreated during childhood. Mindfulness, 6(3), 624–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0298-y.

Castilho, P., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, J. (2015). Evaluating themultifactor structure of the long and short versions of the Self-compassion Scale in a clinical sample. Journal of Clinical Psy-chology, 71(9), 856–870. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22187.

Costello, E. J., Copeland, W., & Angold, A. (2011). Trends in psy-chopathology across the adolescent years: What changes whenchildren become adolescents, and when adolescents becomeadults? Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 52(10),1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02446.x.

Cunha, M., Galhardo, A., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2013). Child andadolescent mindfulness measure (CAMM): Study of the psy-chometric properties of the portuguese version. Psicologia:Reflexão e Crítica, 26(3), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722013000300005.

de Bruin, E. I., Zijlstra, B. J. H., & Bögels, S. M. (2014a). Themeaning of mindfulness in children and adolescents: Furthervalidation of the Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

(CAMM) in two Independent samples from The Netherlands.Mindfulness, 5(4), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0196-8.

de Bruin, E. I., Zijlstra, B. J. H., Geurtzen, N., van Zundert, R. M. P.,van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., & Hartman, E. E., et al. (2014b).Mindful parenting assessed further: Psychometric properties ofthe Dutch version of the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parentingscale (IM-P). Mindfulness, 5(2), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0168-4.

de Bruin, E. I., Zijlstra, B. J. H., van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., & Bögels,S. M. (2011). The mindful attention awareness scale for adoles-cents (MAAS-A): Psychometric properties in a Dutch sample.Mindfulness, 2(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0061-6.

Duncan, L. (2007). Assessment of mindful parenting among parents ofearly adolescents: Development and validation of the Inter-personal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale. State College, PA: ThePennsylvania State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Duncan, L., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. (2009). A model ofmindful parenting: Implications for parent–child relationships andprevention research. Clinical Child and Family PsychologyReview, 12(3), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-009-0046-3.

Geurtzen, N., Scholte, R. J., Engels, R. M. E., Tak, Y., & van Zundert,R. P. (2015). Association between mindful parenting and ado-lescents’ internalizing problems: Non-judgmental acceptance ofparenting as core element. Journal of Child and Family Studies,24(4), 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9920-9.

Gilbert, P. (2005). Compassion and cruelty: A biopsychosocialapproach. In P. Gilbert (Ed.), Compassion: Conceptualisations,research and use in psychotherapy (pp. 3–74). London:Routledge.

Gilbert, P. (2009). Introducing compassion-focused therapy. Advancesin Psychiatric Treatment, 15, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.107.005264.

Gilbert, P. (2010). Compassion focused therapy. Hove, East Sussex:Routledge.

Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training forpeople with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilotstudy of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology & Psy-chotherapy, 13(6), 353–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.507.

Gouveia, M. J., Carona, C., Canavarro, M. C., & Moreira, H. (2016).Self-compassion and dispositional mindfulness are associatedwith parenting styles and parenting stress: The mediating role ofmindful parenting. Mindfulness, 7(3), 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0507-y.

Greco, L. A., Baer, R. A., & Smith, G. T. (2011). Assessing mind-fulness in children and adolescents: Development and validationof the Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM).Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 606–6014. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022819.

Hoffmann, M. L., Powlishta, K. K., & White, K. J. (2004). Anexamination of gender differences in adolescent adjustment: Theeffect of competence on gender role differences in symptoms ofpsychopathology. Sex Roles, 50(11/12), 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000029098.38706.b1.

Hu, Lt, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes incovariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus newalternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A MultidisciplinaryJournal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

Hyde, J. S., Mezulis, A. H., & Abramson, L. Y. (2008). The ABCs ofdepression: Integrating affective, biological, and cognitive mod-els to explain the emergence of the gender difference in depres-sion. Psychological Review, 115(2), 291–313.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context:Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science andPractice, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016.

Kabat-Zinn, J., & Kabat-Zinn, M. (1997). Everyday blessings: Theinner work of mindful parenting. New York, NY: Hyperion.

Lippold, M., Duncan, L., Coatsworth, J. D., Nix, R., & Greenberg, M.(2015). Understanding how mindful parenting may be linked tomother–adolescent communication. Journal of Youth and Ado-lescence, 44(9), 1663–1673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0325-x.

Matos, M. G., Gaspar, T., & Simões, C. (2012). Health-related qualityof life in Portuguese children and adolescents. Psicologia:Reflexão e Crítica, 25(2), 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722012000200004.

Medeiros, C., Gouveia, M. J., Canavarro, M. C., & Moreira, H. (2016).The indirect effect of the mindful parenting of mothers andfathers on the child’s perceived well-being through the child’sattachment to parents. Mindfulness, 7(4), 916–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0530-z.

Melen, S., Pepping, C. A., & O’Donovan, A. (2017). Social founda-tions of mindfulness: Priming attachment anxiety reduces emo-tion regulation and mindful attention. Mindfulness, 8(1),136–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0587-8.

Metz, S. M., Frank, J. L., Reibel, D., Cantrell, T., Sanders, R., &Broderick, P. C. (2013). The effectiveness of the Learning toBREATHE program on adolescent emotion regulation. Researchin Human Development, 10(3), 252–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2013.818488.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood:Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: The GuilfordPress.

Moreira, H., & Canavarro, M. C. (2017). Psychometric properties ofthe Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale in a sample ofPortuguese mothers. Mindfulness, 8(3), 691–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0647-0.

Moreira, H., Carona, C., Silva, N., Nunes, J., & Canavarro, M. C.(2016). Exploring the link between maternal attachment-relatedanxiety and avoidance and mindful parenting: The mediating roleof self-compassion. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 89(4),369–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12082.

Moreira, H., Fonseca, A., & Canavarro, M. C. (2017). Assessingattachment to parents and peers in middle childhood: Psycho-metric studies of the Portuguese version of the People in My LifeQuestionnaire. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(5),1318–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0654-3.

Moreira, H., Gouveia, M. J., Carona, C., Silva, N., & Canavarro, M. C.(2015). Maternal attachment and children’s quality of life: Themediating role of self-compassion and parenting stress. Journal ofChild and Family Studies, 24(8), 2332–2344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0036-z.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., Pierik, A., & de Kock, B. (2016). Good for theself: Self-compassion and other self-related constructs in relationto symptoms of anxiety and depression in non-clinicaly youths.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(2), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0235-2.

Neff, K. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measureself-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027.

Neff, K. (2009). Self-compassion. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp.561–573). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Neff, K., & Beretvas, S. (2013). The role of self-compassion inromantic relationships. Self and Identity, 12(1), 78–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.639548.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Neff, K., & McGehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and psychologicalresilience among adolescents and young adults. Self and Identity,9(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860902979307.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008).Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x.

Parent, J., McKee, L., Rough, J., & Forehand, R. (2016). The asso-ciation of parent mindfulness with parenting and youth psycho-pathology across three developmental stages. Journal ofAbnormal Child Psychology, 44(1), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-9978-x.

Pepping, C. A., Davis, P. J., & O’Donovan, A. (2013). Individualdifferences in attachment and dispositional mindfulness: Themediating role of emotion regulation. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 54, 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.006.

Pepping, C. A., & Duvenage, M. (2016). The origins of individualdifferences in dispositional mindfulness. Personality and Indivi-dual Differences, 93, 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.027.

Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construc-tion and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702.

Ravens-Sieberer, U., Erhart, M., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., Auquier, P.,& Bruil, J., et al. (2010). Reliability, construct and criterionvalidity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: A short measure forchildren and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality oflife. Quality of Life Research, 19(10), 1487–1500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9706-5.

Ridenour, T. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Cook, E. T. (2006). Structureand validity of People in My Life: A self-report measure ofattachment in late childhood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,35(6), 1037–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9070-5.

Rood, L., Roelofs, J., Bögels, S. M., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schou-ten, E. (2009). The influence of emotion-focused rumination anddistraction on depressive symptoms in non-clinical youth: Ameta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(7),607–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.07.001.

Royuela-Colomer, E., & Calvete, E. (2016). Mindfulness facets anddepression in adolescents: Rumination as a mediator.Mindfulness,7, 1092–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0547-3.

Ryan, R. M., Brown, K. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). How integrativeis attachment theory? Unpacking the meaning and significance offelt security. Psychological Inquiry, 18(3), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701512778.

Shaver, P. R., Lavy, S., Saron, C. D., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Socialfoundations of the capacity for mindfulness: An attachment per-spective. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598389.

Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Sahdra, B., & Gross, J. (2017).Attachment security as a foundation for kindness toward self andothers. In K. W. Brown & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The Oxfordhandbook of hypo-egoic phenomena. New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Spano, S. (2004). Stages of adolescent development. Retrivered fromthe ACT for Youth Upstate Center of Excellence website: http://www.actforyouth.net/resources/rf/rf_stages_0504.pdf

Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective,longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment & HumanDevelopment, 7, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500365928.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics.Boston, MA: Pearson.

Turpyn, C. C., & Chaplin, T. M. (2016). Mindful parenting and par-ents’ emotion expression: Effects on adolescent risk behaviors.Mindfulness, 7(1), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0440-5.

Helena Moreira is a Research Fellow at the Cognitive-BehavioralCenter for Research and Intervention, University of Coimbra,Portugal. Her major research interests include: parent-childrelationships, mindful parenting, attachment, and self-compassion.

Maria João Gouveia is a Doctoral Student at the Cognitive-Behavioral Center for Research and Intervention, University ofCoimbra, Portugal. Her major research interests include mindfulparenting and pediatric obesity.

Maria Cristina Canavarro is a Full Professor at the Faculty ofPsychology and Education Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal.Her major research interests include psychopathology, pregnancy andwomen’s health, parenting, and cognitive and behavioral interventions.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence