The focus of this systematic review was to analyse longitudinal studies that explore the effects of PBs on children/adolescents’ rumination, as well as the potential moderators of this effect. Our systematic review included empirical studies that focussed on multiple domains of PBs, using different assessment methods (i.e. self-reports, observations and interviews), samples and children’s/adolescents’ ages.

The association PBs have with rumination tends to vary depending on the assessed PB. Parenting control [20, 40], negative-submissive family expression [20], negative affectivity [41], authoritarian parenting [34] and emotional abuse [37] are associated with rumination in adolescents. These associations suggest that these PBs may constitute a risk factor for the development of this emotion regulation mechanism. In general, the results of the studies here included were dominated by positive associations. Yet, this might be due to the aims of the studies, since most of them intend to corroborate the existence of positive associations between specific PBs and rumination.

Data from eligible studies indicated that positive affectivity [41], authoritative parenting [34], low control [39] and parental solicitation (a dimension of parental monitoring) [38] are associated with lower rumination. Interestingly, parental solicitation is conceptualised as an active investment in obtaining information about the child/adolescent and their friends [45]. In western culture, this might be deemed as a form of parenting control, and therefore, a negative PB [46]. However, Li et al.’s study [38] was conducted in Chinese culture where parental solicitation is usually perceived as a supportive form of parenting [47]. This might explain its negative association with rumination, contrary to other studies conducted in western culture and assessing other forms of parenting control [20, 40]. However, the different outcomes might also be due to the nuanced differences between parenting control and parental solicitation. The first is restrictive, critical and engaged in monitoring [20, 40], making it a broader construct, whilst the latter is mostly engaged in monitoring by actively seeking information about the child/adolescent [45].

PBs such as parental involvement, family communication, mother affective expression, rejecting parenting, maternal behaviours (i.e. positive and negative on the event-planning interaction and problem-solving interaction) and permissive parenting were not associated with rumination [34, 35, 42]. Three of these variables were from the same study (i.e. parental involvement, family communication and mother affective expression) [42]. This outcome might be explained by the fact that the study modelled and analysed these three variables equally.

Amongst the parenting dimensions associated with less rumination in adolescents, one is affective (i.e. positive affectivity), one behavioural (i.e. low control) and the other is affective behavioural (i.e. authoritative parenting) [34, 39, 41]. Regarding the parenting dimensions associated with more rumination in adolescents, three are behavioural (i.e. parenting control, maltreatment severity and exposure and emotional abuse), two affective (negative-submissive family expression and negative affectivity) and another is affective behavioural (authoritarian parenting) [20, 37, 40, 41]. The behavioural dimension seems to reflect parenting practises that are both restrictive for and critical of the adolescent, and the affective dimension is mostly reflective of practises that are critical and rejecting of the adolescent.

The Ruminative Response Style Theory [1, 6, 18] suggests that highly critical, restrictive and intrusive parenting styles lead to the children’s/adolescent’s failure to learn active emotion regulation mechanisms and to the experience of hopelessness in controlling one’s environment. Because children/adolescents do not have the chance to actively solve their problems, due to restrictions on behaviour and emotional expressivity, they end up having to resort to passive cognitive emotion regulation mechanisms such as rumination. These review’s findings seem to support this theory by suggesting that PBs of overcontrol and emotional expression restriction, which are marked by criticism, intrusiveness and restriction, are associated with rumination [20, 37, 40, 41]. The Ruminative Response Style Theory [1, 18] also suggests that rejecting PBs may be involved in the development of rumination, because of the lack of positive involvement and orientation. Children/adolescents that are left on their own to deal with their problems and emotions may feel helpless when facing distress, and therefore rely on inward thinking. Findings support this theoretical claim by suggesting that rejecting PBs such as negative-submissive family expression [20] and permissive parenting [34] are associated with rumination.

In line with the Ruminative Response Style Theory [1, 18], nurturing, responsive and supportive PBs should set an environment that encourages engagement in a wide range of behaviours and emotions that lead to the development of problem-solving mechanisms. The reviewed findings seem to corroborate this assumption since low parenting control, high positive parental emotional expression and the exercise of authoritative parenting styles are associated with low rumination [34, 39, 41].

Effortful control, negative affectivity, inhibitory control, gender and environmental sensitivity were significant moderators of the relationship between PBs and rumination. The Ruminative Response Style Theory [1, 18] hypothesised that a difficult temperament and gender are associated with the development of rumination. It suggests that reactive individuals may consider states of negative affect more enthralling and, therefore, be more prone to direct their attention towards them. When comparing themselves to less-reactive individuals, who do not seem as often triggered, they may start questioning their emotional reactions. Also, children/adolescents that constantly direct their attention to their negative emotions and to the questioning of their affective states may develop rumination as a recurrent reaction to negative affect.

Similarly, children or adolescents with more effortful control can change their emotional and behavioural responses by directing their attention away from negative emotional states [48]. However, emotion regulation mechanisms partially develop through parenting encouragement [49]. In a high parenting control context, adolescents with high levels of effortful control might miss out on this encouragement and end up orienting their ability to sustain their attention towards inwards-directed emotion regulation mechanisms, such as rumination. Additionally, individuals more prone to negative affect and/or with higher environmental sensitivity seem to be more likely to focus their attention on negative emotional states and to try to make sense of them [1, 18]. People with high environmental sensitivity tend to avoid direct and instant engagement with new environments so that they can process the information in their own time [50]. This translates into behavioural inactivity, which is characteristic of the concept of rumination laid out by the Ruminative Response Style Theory [1, 18]. Regarding gender, parents might punish boys’ engagement in emotional expression based on their own gender expectations, and therefore make them engage in distracting responses when faced with a negative mood. This might promote the development of effortful control in boys and not in girls [1, 18]. Also, Pomerantz et al. [51] saw that parents exert more control practises on girls than on boys, making girls feel behaviourally restricted, and consequently resort to cognitive strategies such as rumination. The Diathesis-Stress Model of Environmental Action [52] also adds to this rationale by saying that individual differences, such as temperamental (e.g. effortful control) and genetic/identity (e.g. female gender) differences, influence how a person responds to the environment. Findings seem to support all of the above by showing that gender, effortful control, negative affect and environmental sensitivity moderate the relationship between PBs and children’s/adolescent’s rumination [20, 34, 41].