Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Child Abuse & Neglect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chiabuneg Do emotion regulation difficulties explain the association between executive functions and child physical abuse risk? Julie L. Crouch ⁎ , Erin R. McKay, Gabriela Lelakowska, Regina Hiraoka, Ericka Rutledge, David J. Bridgett, Joel S. Milner Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault, Northern Illinois University, United States ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Child Abuse Potential Inventory Working memory Inhibition/switching Emotion regulation Parenting ABSTRACT This study examined the associations between executive functioning problems, emotion regula- tion difficulties, and risk for perpetrating child physical abuse (CPA). It was hypothesized that: (a) poor executive functions (i.e., working memory problems and inhibition/switching problems) would be associated with higher levels of emotion regulation difficulties and CPA risk; (b) emotion regulation difficulties would be positively associated with CPA risk; and (c) emotion regulation difficulties would partially explain the association between executive functions (i.e., working memory problems and inhibition/switching problems) and CPA risk. To examine these predictions, a sample of 133 general population parents (31% fathers) completed self-report measures of CPA risk, emotion regulation difficulties, working memory problems, and a per- formance-based measure of inhibition/switching skills. Results revealed that executive func- tioning problems were linked with emotion regulation difficulties, which in turn were associated with CPA risk. Moreover, emotion regulation difficulties explained the relationship between executive functions (working memory, inhibition/switching) and CPA risk. The final model ac- counted for 41% of the variance in CPA risk. Although additional research is needed, the present findings suggest that enhancing parents’ executive functioning and teaching them effective emotion regulation skills may be important targets for CPA prevention efforts. 1. Introduction According to Wildeman et al. (2014), cumulative prevalence estimates suggest that over 10% of children in the U.S. will be the subject of a confirmed case of maltreatment by age 18. Unfortunately, confirmed cases of child maltreatment represent only the tip of the iceberg, as most cases of child abuse and neglect go undetected by authorities (Gilbert et al., 2009). Among confirmed child maltreatment cases nearly 20% of cases involve child physical abuse (CPA), which is defined as any action taken by an adult that results in nonaccidental injury to a child. Given that CPA is most often perpetrated by the victim’s parent(s) (U.S. Administration for Children & Families, 2018), parental risk factors for CPA have been the subject of considerable research designed to inform pre- vention and intervention practices (for a review see Stith et al., 2009). Of the various models that attempt to explain the occurrence of CPA (for a review see Milner & Crouch, 1999a, 1999b), cognitive/ information processing models have received considerable attention (Azar, Reitz, & Goslin, 2008; Bugental & Johnston, 2000; Milner, 1993; Milner, 2000). According to Milner’s Social Information Processing (SIP) model of child physical abuse, physically abusive parents have risk potentiating, pre-existing schemata that influence the way they process (i.e., perceive, interpret, evaluate) and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.03.003 Received 2 December 2017; Received in revised form 20 February 2018; Accepted 2 March 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Center for the Study of Family Violence and Sexual Assault, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, United States. E-mail address: jcrouch@niu.edu (J.L. Crouch). Child Abuse & Neglect 80 (2018) 99–107 0145-2134/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T