Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T19:28:52.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The association between parenting quality and offspring’s biological aging evaluated by telomere length: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2025

Shlomit Fogel-Yaakobi Open the ORCID record for Shlomit Fogel-Yaakobi [Opens in a new window] ,
Ilanit Gordon Open the ORCID record for Ilanit Gordon [Opens in a new window] ,
Michal Lavidor Open the ORCID record for Michal Lavidor [Opens in a new window] ,
Or Burstein Open the ORCID record for Or Burstein [Opens in a new window] ,
Neta Salomon  and
Dana Shai Open the ORCID record for Dana Shai [Opens in a new window]
Shlomit Fogel-Yaakobi*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Ilanit Gordon
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel The Gonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Michal Lavidor
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel The Gonda Multidisciplinary Brain Research Center, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Or Burstein
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Neta Salomon
Affiliation:
School of Behavioral Sciences, The Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo, Tel Aviv-Yaffo, Israel
Dana Shai
Affiliation:
School of Behavioral Sciences, The Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo, Tel Aviv-Yaffo, Israel
*
Corresponding author: Shlomit Fogel-Yaakobi; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is widespread agreement that offspring are shaped by the parenting they receive in early childhood. This development is intertwined with offspring’s biological functioning, evidenced by their telomeres length (TL)—a key biomarker of aging. Until recently, most studies have focused on the detrimental implications of negative parenting for offspring’s TL. Contemporary research is oriented toward exploring the possible resilience-promoting effect of positive parenting on the biological aging of the offspring. We conducted a meta-analysis synthesizing the findings regarding the association between parenting quality and offspring’s TL. It examines whether positive parenting delays aging processes and whether such processes are exacerbated by exposure to negative parenting. An analysis of 15 studies (k = 23; N = 3,599, Mmean cohort’s age = 15.5, SD = 17.5) revealed a significant association between positive parenting and offspring’s longer TL (r = .16, 95% CI [.11, .20]). Negative parenting was associated with an increased risk of TL erosion (r = −.17, 95% CI [−.28, −.06]). Moreover, this negative association became more robust as offspring grew older (β = −.01, p < .001). Future investigations would benefit from probing associations between parental quality and offspring’s development. Interventions fostering positive parenting might also scaffold these biological processes.

Keywords

parenting qualitypositive parentingnegative parentingbiological agingtelomere lengthstresschildren
Type
Regular Article
Information
Development and Psychopathology , First View , pp. 1 - 11
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Psychological, medical, and biological research has demonstrated beyond doubt that the parent-child relationship is a central aspect of human development, with parents having a significant impact on their offspring’s developmental trajectories—for better or worse (Belsky et al., Reference Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg and Van Ijzendoorn2007; Collins & Feeney, Reference Collins and Feeney2000; Landry et al., Reference Landry, Smith and Swank2006). The quality of early parenting has major effects on the child’s psychological, cognitive, physiological, and biological functions in the short and long terms (Dowd, Reference Dowd2017; Gershoff, Reference Gershoff2016; Shonkoff et al., Reference Shonkoff, Boyce and McEwen2009).

Most of the research thus far has concentrated on the unfavorable effects of negative and adverse parenting on offspring’s development. However, expanding the focus to the beneficial factors related to parenting might further illuminate the conduits for promoting resilience parenting. Positive, resilience parenting encompasses (1) sensitivity and responsiveness, which refer to parents’ attunement to their offspring’s cues, emotions, interests, and capabilities; (2) cognitive stimulation such as parents’ didactic efforts to enrich the child’s cognitive and language development); (3) warmth, meaning expressions of affection and respect toward the child; (4) emotional availability and accessibility that promote secure attachment; (5) positive relationships and communication; (6) consistency; and (7) the setting of realistic limits and boundaries (Gavidia-Payne et al., Reference Gavidia-Payne, Denny, Davis, Francis and Jackson2015; Lugo-Gil & Tamis-LeMonda, Reference Lugo-Gil and Tamis-LeMonda2008). Research has shown that positive parenting significantly impacts offspring’s resilience and well-being, affecting their cognitive, socio-emotional, and physical development (Hill & O’Neill, Reference Hill and O’Neill1994; Propper & Moore, Reference Propper and Moore2006).

Negative parenting lies on a continuum and can be classified as sub-optimal, maladaptive, poor, dysfunctional, and abusive or neglectful (Wolfe & McIsaac, Reference Wolfe and McIsaac2011). The last category includes maltreatment, abuse, or neglect and is associated with severe behavioral, cognitive, emotional, physical, biological, and mental disturbances. Poor parenting is common. It generally involves intrusiveness, overly controlling behaviors, coercion, hostility, anger, rejection, cold parenting, emotionally maladaptive strategies, insensitive parenting, and lack of availability and accessibility for the child’s attachment needs (Bailey et al., Reference Bailey, Hill, Oesterle and Hawkins2009; Crockenberg, Reference Crockenberg1987; May-Chahal & Cawson, Reference May-Chahal and Cawson2005; Neppl et al., Reference Neppl, Conger, Scaramella and Ontai2009). Research has shown that poor parenting can have a negative impact on offspring’s development and well-being (Newland, Reference Newland2015), including low self-esteem (Pinquart & Gerke, Reference Pinquart and Gerke2019), poor academic performance (Garcia & Serra, Reference Garcia and Serra2019), social difficulties, and physical and mental health problems (Mahdavi et al., Reference Mahdavi, Khalil and Vajiheh2013; Sansbury & Wahler, Reference Sansbury and Wahler1992).

Psychobiological studies suggest that the harmful effects of adverse parenting on offspring’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral development are also evident on the bio-physiological level (Beijers et al., Reference Beijers, Buitelaar and de Weerth2014; Bethell et al., Reference Bethell, Carle, Hudziak, Gombojav, Powers, Wade and Braveman2017; Dowd, Reference Dowd2017; Esteves et al., Reference Esteves, Jones, Wade, Callerame, Smith, Theall and Drury2020; Thijssen et al., Reference Thijssen, Muetzel, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Jaddoe, Tiemeier, Verhulst, White and Van Ijzendoorn2017). Examples include neuro-anatomical and neuro-functional abnormalities in offspring (Colich et al., Reference Colich, Williams, Ho, King, Humphreys, Price and Gotlib2017; Gershoff, Reference Gershoff2016; Thijssen et al., Reference Thijssen, Muetzel, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Jaddoe, Tiemeier, Verhulst, White and Van Ijzendoorn2017), and elevated cortisol levels that play an essential role in stress-related health outcomes (Essex et al., Reference Essex, Klein, Cho and Kalin2002; Shonkoff et al., Reference Shonkoff, Boyce and McEwen2009). There are even alterations in the child’s DNA by epigenetic processes (e.g., Trump et al., Reference Trump, Bieg, Gu, Thürmann, Bauer, Bauer, Ishaque, Röder, Gu, Herberth, Lawerenz, Borte, Schlesner, Plass, Diessl, Eszlinger, Mücke, Elvers, Wissenbach and Eils2016; Unternaehrer et al., Reference Unternaehrer, Meier, Bouvette-Turcot and Dass2021). It seems that there are a variety of biomarkers that highlight the link between adverse parenting and malchildhood development. These indicators are also considered biological aging markers that can accelerate certain aspects of offspring’s development (Belsky, Reference Belsky2019). The length of the offspring’s telomeres (TL) – is a well-known key biomarker of biological aging (Vaiserman & Krasnienkov, Reference Vaiserman and Krasnienkov2021).

Telomeres are repetitive DNA sequences (TTAGGG) located at the ends of chromosomes. They play a crucial role in preventing chromosome fusion and in maintaining genome stability (Bojesen, Reference Bojesen2013; López-Otín et al., Reference López-Otín, Blasco, Partridge, Serrano and Kroemer2013). When telomeres shorten and reach a critical point, cellular senescence is triggered, cell division ceases, and the cell dies (Bojesen, Reference Bojesen2013; López-Otín et al., Reference López-Otín, Blasco, Partridge, Serrano and Kroemer2013). TL is considered a heritable trait, with genetics contributing to approximately 70% of the variability, while 30% of the variability is due to external factors such as environmental factors (Broer et al., Reference Broer, Codd, Nyholt, Deelen, Mangino, Willemsen and Boomsma2013). Telomere shortening is a well-known hallmark of both cellular senescence and organismal aging. An accelerated rate of telomere attrition is also a common feature of age-related diseases. Therefore, TL has been recognized as one of the best biomarkers of aging (Müezzinler et al., Reference Müezzinler, Zaineddin and Brenner2013; Vaiserman & Krasnienkov, Reference Vaiserman and Krasnienkov2021). Emerging data from the last two decades has revealed that TL can also grow and be modified by genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors (Melicher et al., Reference Melicher, Buzas and Falus2015). Longer telomeres are more likely to emerge in a nurturing and secure environment (Asok et al., Reference Asok, Bernard, Roth, Rosen and Dozier2013; Beijers et al., Reference Beijers, Hartman, Shalev, Hastings, Mattern, de Weerth and Belsky2020; Robles et al., Reference Robles, Carroll, Bai, Reynolds, Esquivel and Repetti2016). However, the predictors and environmental modifications that can prevent or delay telomere shortening or even retard the aging process are still under debate (Buttet et al., Reference Buttet, Bagheri, Ugbolue, Laporte, Trousselard, Benson, Bouillon-Minois and Dutheil2022).

Examining the literature linking parenting quality to offspring’s TL reveals a consistent association between negative parenting and the offspring’s accelerated aging process (Ridout et al., Reference Ridout, Levandowski, Ridout, Gantz, Goonan, Palermo, Price and Tyrka2018). Specifically, maltreatment (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Lo, Chan, Leung and Ip2022; Coimbra et al., Reference Coimbra, Carvalho, Moretti, Mello and Belangero2017; Nelles-McGee et al., Reference Nelles-McGee, Khoury, Kenny, Joshi and Gonzalez2021), adversity (Blaze et al., Reference Blaze, Asok and Roth2015), and offspring’s acute traumatic experiences (Küffer et al., Reference Küffer, O’Donovan, Burri and Maercker2016; Lang et al., Reference Lang, McKie, Smith, McLaughlin, Gillberg, Shiels and Minnis2020) have all been linked to shorter TL in offspring.

Given this evidence, how does parenting quality impact offspring’s TL? Researchers have identified parental stress as a mechanism that interacts with parenting quality and a child’s TL. Some have suggested that stress may result in shortened telomere, thereby leading to negative development trajectories (Houben et al., Reference Houben, Moonen, van Schooten and Hageman2008; Shalev et al., Reference Shalev, Entringer, Wadhwa, Wolkowitz, Puterman and Lin2013). Indeed, even in utero, the mother’s stress levels influence the initial newborn programing of TL, and maternal psychological stress results in a shortening in the TL of the newborn (Shalev et al., Reference Shalev, Entringer, Wadhwa, Wolkowitz, Puterman and Lin2013). Post-natally, stress seems to mediate the associations between negative parenting patterns and a proportionate increase in the likelihood of disruptions in the child’s psychological, physiological, and biological development. Presumably, these disruptions result from exposure to ongoing stress that disrupts the establishment of emotional regulation (Wolfe & McIsaac, Reference Wolfe and McIsaac2011), resulting in elevated health risks imprinted in the child’s TL (Epel, Reference Epel2009; Sosnowski et al., Reference Sosnowski, Kliewer, Valrie, Winter, Serpell and Amstadter2021).

Although parenting is inherently stressful, there is a dose-response relationship between parental stress and harmful developmental outcomes. Negative parenting, characterized by toxic, chronic, acute stress, can lead to devastating effects (Boyce, Reference Boyce2016; Dohrenwend, Reference Dohrenwend2000; Shonkoff et al., Reference Shonkoff, Slopen and Williams2020). In contrast, low to moderate short-term stress could even have positive effects that strengthen the child’s biological functioning. It can improve the child’s immune system (Simon et al., Reference Simon, Walton, Bui, Prescott, Hoge, Keshaviah, Schwarz, Dryman, Ojserkis, Kovachy, Mischoulon, Worthington, DeVivo, Fava and Wong2015) and telomere functioning, evident in longer telomeres (e.g., Verner et al., Reference Verner, Epel, Lahti-Pulkkinen, Kajantie, Buss, Lin, Blackburn, Räikkönen, Wadhwa and Entringer2021).

Although there is extensive research regarding the consequences of high-risk, negative parenting and a child’s shorter TL, very few studies have focused on the role of typical, normative parenting and the child’s TL. Thus, investigating the impact of normative parenting, which can promote parental resilience and includes beneficial, regulated, anti-stressogenic practices and behaviors, on the child’s TL, is paramount.

The current meta-analysis examines normative parenting from a psychobiological perspective. Our goal is twofold. First, we seek to determine whether positive parental resilience is associated with advantageous biological developmental trajectories in offspring, evident in their longer telomeres. Second, we investigate whether negative, poor parenting is associated with sub-optimal biological developmental trajectories in offspring, evident in their shorter telomeres. Based on the research we reviewed, we hypothesize that positive parental resilience will be associated with longer TL in offspring, whereas poor, maladaptive, negative parenting will be associated with shorter TL in them.

Method

We followed the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines (Stroup et al., Reference Stroup, Berlin, Morton, Olkin, Williamson, Rennie, Moher, Becker, Sippe and Thacker2000). We included (1) peer-reviewed studies published in a scientific journal, (2) written in English, (3) published before June 31, 2024, (4) assessments and reports of at least one index of positive or negative parenting (maternal, paternal or both; trauma-related indices were not eligible), (6) quantitative polymerase chain reaction assessments and reports of offspring’s TL, and (7) reports on the association between parental quality and offspring’s TL.

Search strategy and selection process

We searched the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases using the terms «parenting» and «child’s telomeres». All terms related to parenting (i.e., parenting, parental, parents, parenthood, typical parenting, normative parenting, adaptive parenting, maternal, paternal, supportive parenting, sensitive parenting, positive parenting, responsiveness parenting, warmth parenting, maternal support, paternal support, attachment, family resilience, cold parenting, non-adaptive parenting, maladaptive parenting, non-supportive parenting, negative parenting, childhood maltreatment, adversity, and early life stress) were combined using the Boolean «OR». All terms related to offspring’s TL (i.e., telomere, telomeres, telomere length) were also combined. These two sets of terms were combined with the Boolean «AND». When appropriate, truncation symbols were used in word searches to capture variant endings or spellings of a word. Further efforts were made to trace records using Google Scholar and a manual search of the reference lists of relevant studies, and by contacting authors considered to be specialists in this area and asking them for pertinent references on the subject. We also contacted the authors of studies on parenting and offspring’s TL who did not report a statistic evaluating the association between the two and asked them for additional information.

Two of the authors of this study conducted the literature search independently. Both authors screened the titles, abstracts, and full articles of potentially relevant studies. Cases of conflict were resolved by dialog.

Data extraction

We collected data regarding parenting outcomes, offspring’s TL, and the association between the two. In addition, we gathered information relevant to our study that appeared in the research articles we selected. Examples include details about the offspring’s age, gender, the year of the article’s publication, the design of the study, and the sample type for the TL assessment. A standard data form was developed to record all relevant information. We also calculated Pearson’s r values for the main outcome (i.e., the association between the parenting index and the offspring’s TL). If other statistics were reported such as the means and standard deviations [SDs]; t or F statistics), they were converted into r values using the esc package (Lüdecke, Reference Lüdecke2019). In studies with multiple TL assessments that did not compute an average TL score, we considered the last TL measurement for the analysis. In cases of multiple assessments of parenting indices, we considered and synthesized all correlations to compute a single global estimate. Indices of parenting quality were classified into positive or negative (excluding traumatizing or abusive parenting indices). The included measures were obtained via observations, interviews, and maternal, paternal, or child reports.

Within-study risk of bias

We used a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to assess the quality of the cohort studies (Wells et al., Reference Wells, Shea, O’Connell, Peterson, Welch, Losos and Tugwell2000). All included studies were evaluated based on aspects of the sample selected and the studies’ outcome measures. Comparisons of the groups were irrelevant because the studies involved only one group. The modified scale consists of four items pertaining to the representativeness of the cohort, independence and reliability of the assessment, blinding, and data loss. Scores below 2 were considered indicative of a high risk of bias. See Table S1 for further details.

Data synthesis

To stabilize the variance and make it approximately normally distributed, each extracted correlation coefficient was converted to Fisher’s z (Fisher, Reference Fisher1921). Analyses were performed on the transformed z values and then transformed back to Pearson’s r for a more intuitive presentation of the results (Borenstein et al., Reference Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins and Rothstein2009). Given that factors related to the sample such as the participants’ age, country, and birth decade and those involving the methods used in the studies such as their design and measures of parenting very likely influenced the outcomes, we used random-effects meta-analyses with the restricted maximum likelihood method to assess the between-studies variance (Langan et al., Reference Langan, Higgins, Jackson, Bowden, Veroniki, Kontopantelis, Viechtbauer and Simmonds2019).

We utilized Cochran’s Q statistic to determine whether there was significant heterogeneity between the studies, with p < .10 indicating genuine heterogeneity. We also used the I 2 statistic to assess the extent of inconsistencies across the studies, with values above 50% and 75% indicating substantial and considerable heterogeneity, respectively (Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch2021). Moreover, we conducted moderation analyses to determine whether pertinent factors–including offspring mean age at TL assessment, offspring sex, sample type (i.e., blood or mucosal-associated fluids), parenting index (i.e., observational or questionnaire-based), and geographical region (i.e., America, Asia, Europe)– explained variability in study outcomes. We conducted sensitivity analyses to determine whether the results remained robust independent of study quality. Finally, we evaluated the risk of publication bias using the Egger regression test, which weighs the degree of asymmetry of the funnel plot (Egger et al., Reference Egger, Davey Smith, Schneider and Minder1997). All data were analyzed using the metafor package (Viechtbauer, Reference Viechtbauer2010) in RStudio v2023.12.1 + 402 (with R v4.3.3; Posit team, Reference team2024).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Of the 17,477 records we identified by screening the abstracts and titles, we chose 81 articles for full-text screening. Fifteen studies (Asok et al., Reference Asok, Bernard, Roth, Rosen and Dozier2013; Beijers et al., Reference Beijers, Hartman, Shalev, Hastings, Mattern, de Weerth and Belsky2020; Brody et al., Reference Brody, Yu and Shalev2017; Carroll et al., Reference Carroll, Mahrer, Shalowitz, Ramey and Dunkel Schetter2020; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zeng, Gong, Zhang, Wan, Tao and Sun2019; Daoust et al., Reference Daoust, Thakur, Kotelnikova, Kleiber, Singh and Hayden2023; Elam et al., Reference Elam, Johnson, Ruof, Eisenberg, Rej, Sandler and Wolchik2022; Enokido et al., Reference Enokido, Suzuki, Sadahiro, Matsumoto, Kuwahata, Takahashi, Goto and Otani2014; Esteves et al., Reference Esteves, Jones, Wade, Callerame, Smith, Theall and Drury2020; Hoferichter et al., Reference Hoferichter, Lohilahti, Hufenbach, Grabe, Hageman and Raufelder2024; Knutsen et al., Reference Knutsen, Filippov, Knutsen, Fraser, Lloren, Juma and Duerksen-Hughes2019; Pesca et al., Reference Pesca, Lo Iacono and Carola2023; Robles et al., Reference Robles, Carroll, Bai, Reynolds, Esquivel and Repetti2016; Sullivan et al., Reference Sullivan, Bozack, Cardenas, Comer, Bagner, Forehand and Parent2023; Verner et al., Reference Verner, Epel, Lahti-Pulkkinen, Kajantie, Buss, Lin, Blackburn, Räikkönen, Wadhwa and Entringer2021) were included in the meta-analysis, with 23 distinct effect sizes – 13 for positive and 10 for negative parenting outcomes. Figure 1 diagrams the screening process and the reasons for exclusion in each step.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process.

The studies provided data about the direct assessment of the association between parenting quality and offspring’s TL for 3,599 participants. The youngest cohort was assessed near birth, and the oldest was assessed at a mean age of 70.6 years (M mean cohort’s age = 15.5, SD = 17.5). Most studies were conducted in North America (53.3%), followed by Asia (13.3%) and Europe (33.3%). Table 1 provides a comprehensive depiction of the studies’ characteristics. Table S2 lists the scores on the within-study risk of bias using the modified NOS.

Table 1. Studies included in meta-analysis

Note. TL = telomere length. Study designs: Cross-sectional = Parenting outcome and TL assessment were conducted at the same time; Prospective = Parenting outcome was assessed prior to TL assessment; Retrospective = Parenting outcome was assessed at the same time as TL but referred to the past.

Meta-analysis of all outcomes

We first conducted a meta-analysis of all outcomes, including the association between offspring’s TL and indices of either positive or negative parenting, to explore the broad effect of parenting and assess whether the two parenting constructs yielded different effects. In studies reporting the association between offspring’s TL and both positive and negative parenting indices in the same cohort, we adjusted the n to avoid double counting the participants (Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch2021). Further, for this analysis, we inverted the effect sizes of the association between the parenting indices and the offspring’s TL so that the magnitude of the association could be compared to studies involving positive parenting indices.

The overall meta-analysis indicated that higher positive and lower negative parenting scores were associated with longer TL (r = .166, 95% CI [.112, .219], k = 23). The analysis indicated that there was substantial heterogeneity between the studies (Q (22) = 56.5, p < .001; I 2 = 66.5%). However, the moderation analysis implied no differences in effect sizes between the outcomes of positive and negative parenting (Q (1) = .034, p = .855). These results suggested that the associations between offspring’s TL and both parenting indices are similar in magnitude (see Figure S1 in the online supplemental materials).

Subsequent moderation analyses revealed that mean age at TL assessment moderated (Q (1) = 26.7, p < .001) the association between positive parental behavior and longer offspring’s TL, indicating a stronger association in older ages (β = .004; see Figure S2) and accounting for 92.2% of inter-study variability. However, offspring sex (p = .49), sample type (p = .12), mode of parenting assessment (p = .24), and geographical location (p = .34) did not influence the association strength (see Table S3).

Positive parenting and offspring’s telomere length

Positive parenting was associated with offspring’s longer TL (r = .154, 95% CI [.113, .194], k = 13; see Figure 2), suggesting that positive, sensitive, warm, and more attuned parenting safeguards offspring from the risk of shorter TL. There were no indications of heterogeneity between the studies (Q (12) = 10.1, p = .612; I 2 = 0.1%) or any publication bias (t (11) = 0.58, p = .572), thus strengthening the validity of this finding. No significant moderation effects were detected (see Table S3).

Figure 2. Forest plot for the association between positive parenting and offspring’s telomere length. The analysis involved 2,050 participants. Squares represent the correlation coefficients, with size reflecting the studies’ weight and the horizontal lines representing the 95% CIs.

Negative parenting and offspring’s telomere length

Negative parenting was associated with shorter TL (r = −.171, 95% CI [-.273, −.065], k = 10; see Figure 3), suggesting that conflictual, cold, or more intrusive parenting intensifies shorter TL in offspring. The Egger test did not suggest the likelihood of any publication bias (t (8) = −0.41, p = .693). However, there was an indication of considerable heterogeneity between the studies (Q (9) = 46.4, p < .001; I 2 = 84.0%). Subsequent moderation analyses demonstrated that the mean age of TL assessment was significantly associated with differences between the studies in effect sizes (Q (1) = 42.4, p < .001), accounting for all of the variability (R 2 = 100%; I 2 = 0%). This result suggests that the association between negative parenting and decreased offspring’s TL becomes more robust in older ages (β = .01, p < .001; Figure 4). No additional moderation effects were detected (see Table S3).

Figure 3. Forest plot for the association between negative parenting and offspring’s telomere length. The analysis involved 2,505 participants. Squares represent the correlation coefficients, with size reflecting the studies’ weight and the horizontal lines representing the 95% CIs.

Figure 4. Moderation analysis of the effect of mean age at telomere length (TL) assessment on the association between negative parenting and offspring’s TL. Circles denote the correlation coefficients of individual studies, with their size corresponding to the study weight.

Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses revealed that results across all three meta-analyses remained robust in low-risk-of-bias studies, with no significant differences between high- and low-risk studies (see Table S4), thereby reinforcing the reliability of the observed effects.

Discussion

This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the research amassed up to June 2024 on the association between normative parenting and offspring’s TL, a biological marker of aging (Aubert & Lansdorp, Reference Aubert and Lansdorp2008). Considering the findings from 15 studies, including 3,599 participants, our review revealed that positive resilience parenting, characterized by attunement to offspring’s needs and warm, positive, responsive, sensitive parenting that gives them a sense of security is associated with delayed aging processes, evident in the offspring’s longer TL. In contrast, negative, poor, sub-optimal parenting, characterized by cold, harmful, insecure parental practices, is associated with an accelerated aging process, evident in the offspring’s shorter TL.

From an evolutionary perspective, poor, non-resilient parenting demands that offspring mature precociously, a process evident in their early puberty. This accelerated maturation, referred to as “growing up young” (e.g., Pinto, Reference Pinto2007), is probably also mirrored in the offspring’s TL, reflecting their biological age (Vaiserman & Krasnienkov, Reference Vaiserman and Krasnienkov2021). Stressful circumstances often act as a developmental task (Masten & Braswell, Reference Masten and Braswell1991), requiring people to cultivate the internal resources needed to cope with the situation and equipping them evolutionarily against future stress (Trad & Greenblatt, Reference Trad and Greenblatt1990). Indeed, Belsky and colleagues (1991) posit that stressful parenting catalyzes a child’s early puberty as a physiological response (Belsky et al., Reference Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine and Volling1991), and, in the current review—a biological one. In the presence of harmful stress, the child must develop survival skills, such as “growing up young,” because the parent cannot guarantee the child’s survival. Resilient parenting, on the other hand, provides offspring with the security they need to ensure their survival, enabling them to develop at their natural pace, as reflected in their biological age.

From a psychophysiological, genetic, and neural perspective, there are differences in the response to stress based on people’s individual temperaments (Almeida, Reference Almeida2005; Clauss et al., Reference Clauss, Avery and Blackford2015; Enlow et al., Reference Enlow, De Vivo, Petty, Cayon and Nelson2023). Not all offspring who are exposed to stress, in its variety of intensities and durations, will develop negative or accelerated developmental trajectories. Some offspring react and respond to stress in more adaptive ways. One possible explanation for this difference is the offspring’s ability to regulate their emotions and responses to stress (Troy & Mauss, Reference Troy and Mauss2011). Emotion regulation is a critically important factor in determining one’s resilience and vulnerability, as it plays a key factor in many psychopathologies (Loman & Gunnar, Reference Loman and Gunnar2010; Sheppes et al., Reference Sheppes, Suri and Gross2015).

Parenting is a crucial co-regulation mechanism that helps offspring develop self-regulatory capacities (Lobo & Lunkenheimer, Reference Lobo and Lunkenheimer2020). Beginning in the womb, parents scaffold their offspring’s development by providing external regulation while supporting the offspring’s development of their intrinsic capacity for self-regulation (Gianino & Tronick, Reference Gianino and Tronick2020; Hofer, Reference Hofer1978). Although the nature of parental involvement in offspring’s regulation shifts substantially as the latter develop, it remains a core contributor to the development of the intrinsic capacity for self-regulation from birth and throughout life (Cohodes et al., Reference Cohodes, Preece, McCauley, Rogers, Gross and Gee2022). Extraordinarily stressful parenting interferes with the child’s ability to establish emotion regulation, resulting in a range of emotional dysregulation and susceptibility and vulnerability to stress (Girme et al., Reference Girme, Jones, Fleck, Simpson and Overall2021). Parental resilience, in contrast, helps the child feel supported and emotionally safe and is a prerequisite for regulating emotions effectively (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Criss, Silk and Houltberg2017).

Thus far, a substantial body of research--including studies, review papers, and meta-analyses--has consistently highlighted the robust association between high-risk parenting and offspring’s shorter TL (Ridout et al., Reference Ridout, Levandowski, Ridout, Gantz, Goonan, Palermo, Price and Tyrka2018). Our findings are novel in exploring the association between positive and poor parenting and a child’s TL among typical, normative parents and their offspring. To our knowledge, no previous review study or meta-analysis has comprehensively investigated the relationship between typical parenting and a child’s TL, particularly in the context of positive resilient parenting. By identifying the importance of and cultivating parenting resilience, our meta-analysis demonstrates that parents can enhance their offspring’s positive development trajectories, also reflected in the latter’s biological functioning. These practices and behaviors provide offspring with the necessary framework to navigate and cope with life’s stressors effectively, potentially mitigating the aging process and safeguarding against its detrimental effects. Such parenting resilience has protective, therapeutic, and anti-aging qualities. Therefore, the most promising finding from our review is that positive parenting benefits the child’s biology. Adopting an integrative approach involving psychological and biological processes, our review emphasizes the importance of considering positive parenting as a resilience factor, beyond the factors associated with negative, risky, and poor parenting, in the broader context of a child’s development.

Lastly, the moderation analysis further revealed that the association between poor parenting and the child’s diminished TL becomes more robust with time. Poor parenting may have a long-term, imprinted, exponential effect that becomes programed in offspring’s developmental trajectories beyond their early development (e.g., Girme et al., Reference Girme, Jones, Fleck, Simpson and Overall2021). Moreover, it could be that poor parenting, including the lack of security it provides offspring, reinforces and paves the way for negative psychological, neuronal, biological, and physiological developmental paths that become more robust with time.

Limitations

Despite the promising findings of the current study, it is essential to consider its limitations. First, the demographic bias resulting from the overrepresentation of studies from North America (63.6%), followed by Asia and Europe (18.2% each), limited the ecological validity of the findings vis-à-vis other non-represented global populations. Second, the age range of the offspring examined in the study was broad, as the youngest offspring were near birth and the oldest were in their 70s, making it difficult to generalize the results.

In addition, we had to use moderating analyses to capture the extensive variation in the studies. Although we categorized the studies as a function of the quality of parenting, the studies still varied with regard to the various categories, populations, ages of the offspring, the studies’ measures, and the designs used. In particular, describing the differences between positive resilience parenting and poor, negative parenting is challenging. Despite the widely accepted definitions of these terms, the ability to capture all the terms, theories, and speculations in different studies regarding normative parenting in the normative population is an almost impossible mission. Additional work on the characteristics of “normative parents” will help us understand the developmental trajectory of resilience and non-resilience parenting, with the goal of establishing appropriate clinical interventions. Lastly, our review includes just a few studies focusing on normative parenting and the child’s TL. The link between parenting and the child’s TL is yet to be fully explored and understood.

Future directions

Meta-analytic procedures help us draw general conclusions regarding the validity of research hypotheses. However, several questions still need to be answered. Incorporating critical perspectives from theories such as Differential Susceptibility (Belsky, Reference Belsky2016), which posits that some offspring, for reasons of temperament or genetics, are more susceptible to both the adverse effects of unsupportive parenting and the beneficial effects of supportive rearing, may enable us to consider individual differences and whether and how they interact with environmental factors such as parenting behaviors. Doing so will provide a more comprehensive understanding of this triad interaction and the child’s biological and aging processes.

Lastly, exploring offspring’s TL in various cultures is an intriguing avenue for research, given the variations in parenting attitudes, perceptions, norms, and behaviors evident across countries and cultures (e.g., Pinquart, Reference Pinquart2021). By delving into cross-cultural comparisons, we can discern whether these parenting differences will manifest in the child’s TL, adding a layer of depth to our understanding of aging processes worldwide.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis introduces a novel psychobiological perspective on the association between positive and negative parenting and a child’s TL by focusing explicitly on normative parenting. The data suggest that negative parenting accelerates the aging process in offspring, as evidenced in their shorter TL. Conversely, the most promising finding from our review is that positive parenting is linked to the lengthening of the child’s TL, signifying a potential delay in the child’s aging process. Using an integrative approach involving psychological and biological processes, we produced findings underscoring the impact of normative parenting in influencing the child’s biological developmental trajectories. We also highlighted the importance of considering parental resilience in the broader context of all offspring’s development, not just offspring at risk.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457942500015X.

Funding statement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1978). The bowlby-ainsworth attachment theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(3), 436–438. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00075828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeida, D. M. (2005). Resilience and vulnerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00336.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asok, A., Bernard, K., Roth, T. L., Rosen, J. B., & Dozier, M. (2013). Parental responsiveness moderates the association between early-life stress and reduced telomere length. Development and Psychopathology, 25(3), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000011 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aubert, G., & Lansdorp, P. M. (2008). Telomeres and aging. Physiological Reviews, 88(2), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1152/PHYSREV.00026.2007 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailey, J. A., Hill, K. G., Oesterle, S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2009). Parenting practices and problem behavior across three generations: Monitoring, harsh discipline, and drug use in the intergenerational transmission of externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1214–1226. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016129 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 438–447. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beijers, R., Buitelaar, J. K., & de Weerth, C. (2014). Mechanisms underlying the effects of prenatal psychosocial stress on child outcomes: Beyond the HPA axis. In European child and adolescent psychiatry. (vol. 23, Issue 10, p. 943–956). Dr. Dietrich Steinkopff Verlag GmbH and Co. KG, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0566-3.Google Scholar
Beijers, R., Hartman, S., Shalev, I., Hastings, W., Mattern, B. C., de Weerth, C., & Belsky, J. (2020). Testing three hypotheses about effects of sensitive-insensitive parenting on telomeres. Developmental Psychology, 56(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000879 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belsky, J. (2016). The differential susceptibility hypothesis: Sensitivity to the environment for better and forworse. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(4), 321–322. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J. (2019). Early-life adversity accelerates child and adolescent development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419837670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(2), 487–498. https://doi.org/10.2307/352914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethell, C. D., Carle, A., Hudziak, J., Gombojav, N., Powers, K., Wade, R., & Braveman, P. (2017). Methods to assess adverse childhood experiences of children and families: Toward approaches to promote child well-being in policy and practice. Academic Pediatrics, 17(7), S51–S69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.04.161 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaze, J., Asok, A., & Roth, T. L. (2015). The long-term impact of adverse caregiving environments on epigenetic modifications and telomeres. In Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, (Vol. 9, Issue APR). Frontiers Media S.A. (https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00079 Google Scholar
Bojesen, S. E. (2013). Telomeres and human health. Journal of Internal Medicine, 274(5), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12083 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, W. T. (2016). Differential susceptibility of the developing brain to contextual adversity and stress. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41(1), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2015.294 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brody, G. H., Yu, T., & Shalev, I. (2017). Risky family processes prospectively forecast shorter telomere length mediated through negative emotions. Health Psychology, 36(5), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000443 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broer, L., Codd, V., Nyholt, D. R., Deelen, J., Mangino, M., Willemsen, G., & Boomsma, D. I. (2013). Meta-analysis of telomere length in 19 713 subjects reveals high heritability, stronger maternal inheritance and a paternal age effect. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21(10), 1163–1168. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttet, M., Bagheri, R., Ugbolue, U. C., Laporte, C., Trousselard, M., Benson, A., Bouillon-Minois, J. B., & Dutheil, F. (2022). Effect of a lifestyle intervention on telomere length: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, 206, 111694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2022.111694 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J. E., Mahrer, N. E., Shalowitz, M., Ramey, S., & Dunkel Schetter, C. (2020). Prenatal maternal stress prospectively relates to shorter child buccal cell telomere length. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 121, 104841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.104841 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, X., Zeng, C., Gong, C., Zhang, L., Wan, Y., Tao, F., & Sun, Y. (2019). Associations between early life parent-child separation and shortened telomere length and psychopathological outcomes during adolescence. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 103, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.01.021 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, X. Y., Lo, C. K. M., Chan, K. L., Leung, W. C., & Ip, P. (2022). Association between childhood exposure to family violence and telomere length: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12151. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912151 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clauss, J. A., Avery, S. N., & Blackford, J. U. (2015). The nature of individual differences in inhibited temperament and risk for psychiatric disease: A review and meta-analysis. In Progress in neurobiology Vols. 127-128, (pp. 23–45). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2015.03.001 Google Scholar
Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Turner, R. B., Alper, C. M., & Skoner, D. P. (2003). Emotional style and susceptibility to the common cold. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(4), 652–657. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000077508.57784.da CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohodes, E. M., Preece, D. A., McCauley, S., Rogers, M. K., Gross, J. J., & Gee, D. G. (2022). Development and validation of the parental assistance with child emotion regulation (PACER) questionnaire. Research On Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 50(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00759-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coimbra, B. M., Carvalho, C. M., Moretti, P. N., Mello, M. F., & Belangero, S. I. (2017). Stress-related telomere length in children: A systematic review. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 92, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.03.023 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colich, N. L., Williams, E. S., Ho, T. C., King, L. S., Humphreys, K. L., Price, A. N., & Gotlib, I. H. (2017). The association between early life stress and prefrontal cortex activation during implicit emotion regulation is moderated by sex in early adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 29(5), 1851–1864. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417001444 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. In Journal of personality and social psychology. vol. 78, Issue 6, p. 1053–1073. American Psychological Association Inc, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1053, ue 6 Google Scholar
Crockenberg, S. (1987). Predictors and correlates of anger toward and punitive control of toddlers by adolescent mothers. Child Development, 58(4), 964–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01432.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daoust, A. R., Thakur, A., Kotelnikova, Y., Kleiber, M. L., Singh, S. M., & Hayden, E. P. (2023). Associations between children’s telomere length, parental intrusiveness, and the development of early externalizing behaviors. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 54(3), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-021-01279-3 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohrenwend, B. P. (2000). The role of adversity and stress in psychopathology: Some evidence and its implications for theory and research. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676357 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowd, M. D. (2017). Early adversity, toxic stress, and resilience: Pediatrics for today. Pediatric Annals, 46(7), e246–e249. https://doi.org/10.3928/19382359-20170615-01 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egger, M., Davey Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elam, K. K., Johnson, S. L., Ruof, A., Eisenberg, D. T. A., Rej, P. H., Sandler, I., & Wolchik, S. (2022). Examining the influence of adversity, family contexts, and a family-based intervention on parent and child telomere length. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 13(1), 2088935. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2022.2088935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enlow, M. B., De Vivo, I., Petty, C. R., Cayon, N., & Nelson, C. A. (2023). Associations among temperament characteristics and telomere length and attrition rate in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 60(11), 2220–2232. https://doi.org/10.1037/DEV0001635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enokido, M., Suzuki, A., Sadahiro, R., Matsumoto, Y., Kuwahata, F., Takahashi, N., Goto, K., & Otani, K. (2014). Parental care influences leukocyte telomere length with gender specificity in parents and offsprings. BMC Psychiatry, 14(1), 277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0277-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epel, E. S. (2009). Psychological and metabolic stress: A recipe for accelerated cellular aging? Hormones, 8(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.14310/horm.2002.1217 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 147–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3333831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essex, M. J., Klein, M. H., Cho, E., & Kalin, N. H. (2002). Maternal stress beginning in infancy may sensitize children to later stress exposure: Effects on cortisol and behavior. Biological Psychiatry, 52(8), 776–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01553-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esteves, K. C., Jones, C. W., Wade, M., Callerame, K., Smith, A. K., Theall, K. P., & Drury, S. S. (2020). Adverse childhood experiences: Implications for offspring telomere length and psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 177(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.18030335 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eyberg, S., Nelson, M., Ginn, N., Bhuiyan, N., & Boggs, S. (2014). Dyadic Parent–Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS): Comprehensive manual for research and training (4th ed.). PCIT International.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1921). On the, probable error, of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron, 1, 3–32.Google Scholar
Garcia, O. F., & Serra, E. (2019). Raising children with poor school performance: Parenting styles and short-and long-term consequences for adolescent and adult development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), 1089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071089 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gavidia-Payne, S., Denny, B., Davis, K., Francis, A., & Jackson, M. (2015). Parental resilience: A neglected construct in resilience research. Clinical Psychologist, 19(3), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/CP.12053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gershoff, E. T. (2016). Should parents’ physical punishment of children be considered a source of toxic stress that affects brain development? Family Relations, 65(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12177 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianino, A., & Tronick, E. (2020). The mutual regulation model: The infant’s self and interactive regulation and coping and defensive capacities. In Stress and coping across development (pp. 63–84). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315825489-9 Google Scholar
Girme, Y. U., Jones, R. E., Fleck, C., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2021). Infants’ attachment insecurity predicts attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood. Emotion, 21(2), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000721 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child’s perspective: The children’s perception of interparental conflict scale. Child Development, 63(3), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131346 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2021). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated february 2021). www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.Google Scholar
Hill, M. A., & O’Neill, J. (1994). Family endowments and the achievement of young children with special reference to the underclass. Journal of Human Resources, 1064–1100. https://www.jstor.org/stable/146134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofer, M. A. (1978). Hidden regulatory processes in early social relationships (pp. 135–166). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2901-5_7 Google Scholar
Hoferichter, F., Lohilahti, J., Hufenbach, M., Grabe, H. J., Hageman, G., & Raufelder, D. (2024). Support from parents, teachers, and peers and the moderation of subjective and objective stress of secondary school student. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 1161. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51802-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houben, J. M. J., Moonen, H. J. J., van Schooten, F. J., & Hageman, G. J. (2008). Telomere length assessment: Biomarker of chronic oxidative stress? Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 44(3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2007.10.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knutsen, R., Filippov, V., Knutsen, S. F., Fraser, G. E., Lloren, J., Juma, D., & Duerksen-Hughes, P. (2019). Cold parenting is associated with cellular aging in offspring: A retrospective study. Biological Psychology, 145, 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.03.013 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kryski, K. R. (2014). Biological and contextual correlates of cortisol reactivity in early Childhood. The University of Western Ontario (Canada).Google Scholar
Küffer, A. L., O’Donovan, A., Burri, A., & Maercker, A. (2016). Posttraumatic stress disorder, adverse childhood events, and buccal cell telomere length in elderly swiss former indentured child laborers. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 7, 147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00147 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunter, M., Schümer, G., & Artelt, C. (2002). PISA 2000: dokumentation der erhebungsinstrumente.Google Scholar
Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 705–722. https://doi.org/10.2307/353824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006). Responsive parenting: Establishing early foundations for social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 627–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lang, J., McKie, J., Smith, H., McLaughlin, A., Gillberg, C., Shiels, P. G., & Minnis, H. (2020). Adverse childhood experiences, epigenetics and telomere length variation in childhood and beyond: A systematic review of the literature. In European child and adolescent psychiatry. vol. 29, Issue 10, p. 1329–1338). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-019-01329-1.Google Scholar
Langan, D., Higgins, J. P. T., Jackson, D., Bowden, J., Veroniki, A. A., Kontopantelis, E., Viechtbauer, W., & Simmonds, M. (2019). A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1316 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lobo, F. M., & Lunkenheimer, E. (2020). Understanding the parent-child coregulation patterns shaping child self-regulation. Developmental Psychology, 56(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loman, M. M., & Gunnar, M. R. (2010). Early experience and the development of stress reactivity and regulation in children. In Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. vol. 34, Issue 6, p. 867–876). NIH Public Access, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.05.007.Google Scholar
López-Otín, C., Blasco, M. A., Partridge, L., Serrano, M., & Kroemer, G. (2013). The hallmarks of aging. In Cell. vol. 153, Issue 6, p. 1194), Elsevier B.V, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039.Google Scholar
Lüdecke, D. (2019). esc: Effect size computation for meta analysis (Version 0.5.1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1249218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugo-Gil, J., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Family resources and parenting quality: Links to children’s cognitive development across the first 3 years. Child Development, 79(4), 1065–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01176.x CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahdavi, N., Khalil, E., & Vajiheh, K. (2013). Parenting styles and dimensions of children’s maladaptive behaviors. Practice in Clinical Psychology, 1(3), 163–168.Google Scholar
Masten, A. S., & Braswell, L. (1991). Developmental psychopathology: An integrative framework. In Handbook of behavior therapy and psychological science: An integrative approach (pp. 35–56).Google Scholar
May-Chahal, C., & Cawson, P. (2005). Measuring child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29(9), 969–984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.05.009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melicher, D., Buzas, E. I., & Falus, A. (2015). Genetic and epigenetic trends in telomere research: A novel way in immunoepigenetics. In Cellular and molecular life sciences. vol. 72, Issue 21, p. 4095–4109. Birkhauser Verlag AG, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-015-1991-2.Google Scholar
Morris, A. S., Criss, M. M., Silk, J. S., & Houltberg, B. J. (2017). The impact of parenting on emotion regulation during childhood and adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 11(4), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müezzinler, A., Zaineddin, A. K., & Brenner, H. (2013). A systematic review of leukocyte telomere length and age in adults. Ageing Research Reviews, 12(2), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2013.01.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelles-McGee, T., Khoury, J., Kenny, M., Joshi, D., & Gonzalez, A. (2021). Biological embedding of child maltreatment: A systematic review of biomarkers and resilience in children and youth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 14(S1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001162 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neppl, T. K., Conger, R. D., Scaramella, L. V., & Ontai, L. L. (2009). Intergenerational continuity in parenting behavior: Mediating pathways and child effects. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1241–1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014850 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newland, L. A. (2015). Family well-being, parenting, and child well-being: Pathways to healthy adjustment. Clinical Psychologist, 19(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Child care and mother–child interaction in the first three years of life. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1399–1413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.6.1399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesca, C., Lo Iacono, L., & Carola, V. (2023). The impact of childhood maltreatment on telomere length in cocaine use disorder. Journal of Substance Use, 29(6), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14659891.2023.2239345 Google Scholar
Pinquart, M. (2021). Cultural differences in the association of harsh parenting with internalizing and externalizing symptoms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(12), 2938–2951. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10826-021-02113-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinquart, M., & Gerke, D. C. (2019). Associations of parenting styles with self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(8), 2017–2035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01417-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, K. (2007). Growing up young: The relationship between childhood stress and coping with early puberty. Journal of Early Adolescence, 27(4), 509–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431607302936 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Propper, C., & Moore, G. A. (2006). The influence of parenting on infant emotionality: A multi-level psychobiological perspective. Developmental Review, 26(4), 427–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repetti, R. L. (1996). The effects of perceived daily social and academic failure experiences on school‐age children’s subsequent interactions with parents. Child Development, 67(4), 1467–1482. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131712 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridout, K. K., Levandowski, M., Ridout, S. J., Gantz, L., Goonan, K., Palermo, D., Price, L. H., & Tyrka, A. R. (2018). Early life adversity and telomere length: A meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry, 23(4), 858–871. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2017.26 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robles, T. F., Carroll, J. E., Bai, S., Reynolds, B. M., Esquivel, S., & Repetti, R. L. (2016). Emotions and family interactions in childhood: Associations with leukocyte telomere length. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 63, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.10.018 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, J. A. & ReissJr, A. J. (Eds.). (1994). Understanding and preventing violence, volume 3: social influences (Vol. 3). National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Sansbury, L. L., & Wahler, R. G. (1992). Pathways to maladaptive parenting with mothers and their conduct disordered children. Behavior Modification, 16(4), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455920164008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 413–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126465 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalev, I., Entringer, S., Wadhwa, P. D., Wolkowitz, O. M., Puterman, E., & Lin, J. (2013). Stress and telomere biology: A lifespan perspective. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(9), 1835–1842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.03.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheppes, G., Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11(1), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112739 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shonkoff, J. P., Boyce, W. T., & McEwen, B. S. (2009). Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood roots of health disparities: Building a new framework for health promotion and disease prevention. JAMA, 301(21), 2252–2259. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.754 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shonkoff, J. P., Slopen, N., & Williams, D. R. (2020). Early childhood adversity, toxic stress, and the impacts of racism on the foundations of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 42(1), 115–134. Annual Reviews Inc. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-101940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, N. M., Walton, Z. E., Bui, E., Prescott, J., Hoge, E., Keshaviah, A., Schwarz, N., Dryman, T., Ojserkis, R. A., Kovachy, B., Mischoulon, D., Worthington, J., DeVivo, I., Fava, M., & Wong, K. K. (2015). Telomere length and telomerase in a well-characterized sample of individuals with major depressive disorder compared to controls. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 58, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnowski, D. W., Kliewer, W., Valrie, C. R., Winter, M. A., Serpell, Z., & Amstadter, A. B. (2021). The association between adverse childhood experiences and child telomere length: Examining self-regulation as a behavioral mediator. Child Development, 92(2), 746–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/CDEV.13441 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, D., Rennie, D., Moher, D., Becker, B. J., Sippe, T. A., & Thacker, S. B. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA, 283(15), 2008–2012. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, A. D. W., Bozack, A. K., Cardenas, A., Comer, J. S., Bagner, D. M., Forehand, R., & Parent, J. (2023). Parenting practices may buffer the impact of adversity on epigenetic age acceleration among young children with developmental delays. Psychological Science, 34(10), 1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231194221 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
team, Posit (2024). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. Posit Software. Available at http://www.posit.co/ Google Scholar
Thijssen, S., Muetzel, R. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Tiemeier, H., Verhulst, F. C., White, T., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2017). Insensitive parenting may accelerate the development of the amygdala-medial prefrontal cortex circuit. Development and Psychopathology, 29(2), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000141 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trad, P., & Greenblatt, E. (1990). Psychological aspects of child stress: Development and the spectrum of coping responses. 24–49.Google Scholar
Troy, A. S., & Mauss, I. B. (2011). Resilience in the face of stress: Emotion regulation as a protective factor. In Resilience and mental health: Challenges across the lifespan (pp. 30–44). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511994791.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trump, S., Bieg, M., Gu, Z., Thürmann, L., Bauer, T., Bauer, M., Ishaque, N., Röder, S., Gu, L., Herberth, G., Lawerenz, C., Borte, M., Schlesner, M., Plass, C., Diessl, N., Eszlinger, M., Mücke, O., Elvers, H.-D., Wissenbach, D. K.…Eils, R. (2016). Prenatal maternal stress and wheeze in children: Novel insights into epigenetic regulation. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 28616. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28616 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unternaehrer, E., Meier, M., Bouvette-Turcot, A. A., & Dass, S. A. H. (2021). Long-term epigenetic effects of parental caregiving. In Developmental human behavioral epigenetics (pp. 105–117). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819262-7.00006-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaiserman, A., & Krasnienkov, D. (2021). Telomere length as a marker of biological age: State-of-the-art, open issues, and future perspectives. Frontiers in Genetics, 11, 630186.Google Scholar
Verner, G., Epel, E., Lahti-Pulkkinen, M., Kajantie, E., Buss, C., Lin, J., Blackburn, E., Räikkönen, K., Wadhwa, P. D., & Entringer, S. (2021). Maternal psychological resilience during pregnancy and newborn telomere length: A prospective study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 178(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.19101003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, G., Shea, B., O’Connell, D., Peterson, J., Welch, V., Losos, M., & Tugwell, P. (2000) The newcastle-ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis.Google Scholar
Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & McNamara, G. (1992). The role of life events, family support, and competence in adolescent substance use: A test of vulnerability and protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(3), 349–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00937914 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, D. A., & McIsaac, C. (2011). Distinguishing between poor/dysfunctional parenting and child emotional maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35(10), 802–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.12.009 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study selection process.

Figure 1

Table 1. Studies included in meta-analysis

Figure 2

Figure 2. Forest plot for the association between positive parenting and offspring’s telomere length. The analysis involved 2,050 participants. Squares represent the correlation coefficients, with size reflecting the studies’ weight and the horizontal lines representing the 95% CIs.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Forest plot for the association between negative parenting and offspring’s telomere length. The analysis involved 2,505 participants. Squares represent the correlation coefficients, with size reflecting the studies’ weight and the horizontal lines representing the 95% CIs.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Moderation analysis of the effect of mean age at telomere length (TL) assessment on the association between negative parenting and offspring’s TL. Circles denote the correlation coefficients of individual studies, with their size corresponding to the study weight.

Supplementary material: File

Fogel-Yaakobi et al. supplementary material

Fogel-Yaakobi et al. supplementary material
Download Fogel-Yaakobi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 851.3 KB