The parent-child relationship is dynamic, and the quality of interactions is critical for early social, emotional, and cognitive development (Keller, 2018; Knauer et al., 2019). Evidence provides support for the important role parenting behaviors and caregiver interactions have on the quality of parent-child relationships (Brody et al., 2005). Mindful parenting and parental reflective functioning are two distinct parenting-related concepts that share theoretical and conceptual overlaps as well as key differences. Over the years, researchers have documented the associations of mindful parenting and parental reflective functioning, independently, with positive parenting (Alvarez-Monjarás et al., 2019; Parent et al., 2011).

Mindful parenting (MP) primarily emphasizes being fully present and attentive in the parenting role, with a focus on the present moment (Duncan et al., 2009a). MP is a multidimensional construct that bridges intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of parenting. It extends mindfulness, or “the awareness that emerges through paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 145)—drawn from Buddhist tradition—into parenting interactions. A commonly used framework for MP incorporates multiple dimensions of listening with full attention, nonjudgmental acceptance, emotional awareness, self-regulation, and compassion for both the child and for oneself as a parent (Duncan et al., 2009a). From this perspective, parents can learn to intentionally practice MP in their day-to-day, moment-to-moment parenting interactions. Intervention research in this area has taken a skills-building approach that involves varying degrees of informal mindfulness practice in daily life (e.g., Coatsworth et al., 2015) and/or training in formal mindfulness meditation (e.g., Potharst et al., 2019).

Parental reflective functioning (PRF), on the other hand, is a psychological construct that describes a parent's ability to mentalize, or to understand their own and their child's inner experiences—thoughts, emotions, and desires—and how those mental states drive behavior (Fonagy et al., 1991; Fonagy & Target, 1997; Sharp & Fonagy, 2008; Slade, 2005). It often involves a more in-depth exploration of the child's inner world and includes a parent's ability to think about and understand the motivations, emotions, and intentions behind their own and their child's behavior. In PRF, parents' reflections on their own and their child's mental and emotional experiences extend beyond the present moment. More specifically, parents draw connections between past experiences and current mental states. PRF is frequently used in therapeutic settings to promote a deeper understanding of parent-child dynamics and promote sensitive and responsive parenting (e.g., Slade et al., 2020; Suchman et al., 2018).

Shaver et al. (2007) proposed that mentalization, or reflective functioning, overlaps with mindfulness because both processes require cognitive resources to openly observe one’s own and the other’s thoughts, needs, and emotions. These overlapping processes are both associated with parenting as well, such that parents with higher MP and PRF are more likely to engage in responsive caregiving and greater sensitivity (Block-Lerner et al., 2007; Suchman et al., 2018). Despite theoretical and conceptual overlap between MP and PRF, there is a lack of research examining the two concepts concurrently in a single study. In one study, Falkenström et al. (2014) found a positive association between dispositional mindfulness and reflective functioning together. However, these constructs were not assessed in relation to parenting, specifically PRF and MP. Although consistent, but separate, bodies of evidence support MP and PRF as promoting positive parenting behaviors and parent-child relationships, a comprehensive scoping review summarizing the overlapping associations across research outcomes and correlates related to parenting is needed.

“Mindful parenting” was first described by Myla Kabat-Zinn and Jon Kabat-Zinn (1997) in their book, Everyday Blessings. Since then, researchers and practitioners have developed an array of interventions for improving parenting or parent-child relationships using mindfulness and MP approaches (e.g., Bögels et al., 2014; Duncan et al., 2009b; Singh et al., 2007). MP involves cultivating awareness of one's thoughts, feelings, and the child's needs, promoting a calm and compassionate parenting style through emotion regulation and values-based intention setting (Bögels & Restifo, 2014; Duncan et al., 2009a; Kabat-Zinn & Kabat-Zinn, 1997). MP is associated with a warm and nurturing parent-child relationship, reduced stress, and improved well-being for both parents and children (Chaplin et al., 2018; Gouveia et al., 2016; Parent et al., 2016a, b). MP is thought to address both intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects of parenting through five core aspects: (a) listening with full attention, (b) emotional awareness of self and child, (c) nonjudgmental acceptance of self and child, including greater awareness of expectations and attributions, (d) self-regulation in the parenting relationship, and (e) adopting compassion toward oneself as a parent and the struggles one’s child faces (Duncan et al., 2009a). From this perspective, the foundation of MP involves practicing moment-to-moment awareness of one’s thoughts and emotions and those of the child. MP also involves suspending judgmental attributions through an open and receptive stance and engaging in more intentional parenting behaviors.

MP is also reflected in parents’ ability to be fully present with their children and to bring an attitude of acceptance, kindness, and compassion to those interactions. Interpersonal processes targeted by mindfulness-based interventions include perspective-taking, empathic responding, communication, and anger management (Block-Lerner et al., 2007; Wachs & Cordova, 2007). MP thus can play an important role in promoting positive parent-child relationships. For example, MP is associated with greater use of authoritative (versus authoritarian or permissive) parenting styles (Gouveia et al., 2016), increased positive parenting behaviors, such as warmth and reinforcement (Parent et al., 2016a, b), and more positive emotions and affective behaviors during parent-child interactions (Duncan et al., 2015; Turpyn & Chaplin, 2016).

A different, but related, parenting construct is reflective functioning, or the operationalization of the mental process known as mentalizing. Mentalizing is the ability to understand our own and other’s behaviors in relation to underlying mental states and intentions (Fonagy et al., 1991; Fonagy & Target, 1997). Importantly, reflective functioning includes the ability to reflect on both one’s own and others’ mental states and connect those feelings to behavior, distinguishing it from similar concepts such as empathy or meta-cognition (Suchman et al., 2010). A high capacity for reflective functioning includes an understanding of the complexity of mental states—that they can be contradictory, ambiguous, changing, hidden, or disguised (Slade, 2005). Developmentally, reflective functioning is essential to affect regulation and the development and sustainability of social relationships, especially parent-child relationships. Parental reflective functioning (PRF) has been proposed as one mechanism that contributes to the intergenerational transmission of attachment, via parenting sensitivity (Fonagy et al., 1995; Fonagy & Target, 1997; Slade et al., 2005a, b).

PRF is important to parent-child relationships for several reasons. First, reflective capacity allows the child and the parent to see that behavior is both predictable and meaningful, and to understand each other’s mental states and intentions (Slade, 2005). Second, PRF has been consistently linked to higher parenting sensitivity (e.g., Buttitta et al., 2019; Slade et al., 2005a, b; Suchman et al., 2010, 2018), and secure attachment in children (e.g., Hoffman et al., 2006; Stacks et al., 2014). Third, reflective functioning helps decipher a person’s inner from outer reality. For example, a child can attribute their parent’s insensitive behaviors to the parent’s emotional or mental states, rather than to themselves as an unlovable child. Fourth, reflective functioning promotes effective communication, which is important in parenting and the parent-child relationship. Reflective functioning allows one to be open to others’ thoughts and emotions and that they may differ from oneself. Indeed, reflective functioning has been linked to perspective-taking (Fonagy et al., 2016a, b). Lastly, reflective functioning connects meaning to internal and external experiences. Children depend on their parents to facilitate processes such as affect regulation and self-organization of thoughts, feelings, and mental states. Parents enacting reflective functioning are actively helping the child construct their sense of self and others. In contrast, parents’ failure to accurately mirror or reflect the child’s emotional needs can lead their child to have a distorted representation of the self and others (Slade, 2005). High levels of PRF are associated with improved parent-child attachment, better child emotional regulation, and more sensitive parenting (e.g., Buttitta et al., 2019; Camoirano, 2017; Slade et al., 2005a, b).

Relatedly, it is important to clarify the focus on PRF independent of other elements of mentalization. Although different aspects of mentalization, including insightfulness and mind-mindedness are conceptually similar to PRF, this scoping review will focus only on PRF. As discussed in Camoirano’s (2017) review, these constructs may not tap into the same mental or cognitive capacity as PRF (Van Ijzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2019). PRF is thought to capture the capacity to mentalize, or an overall cognitive ability, while mind-mindedness and insightfulness captures the extent to which parents accept children's mental states and balance positive and negative aspects of children, as captured by insightfulness (Medrea & Benga, 2021). More research is needed to clearly delineate these constructs (Camoirano, 2017; Medrea & Benga, 2021). However, the mentalization construct most closely aligned with MP is PRF, because both involve reflective mental processes. Given the conceptual similarity, it is important to compare research evidence supporting these two sectors of research and examine their potential overlaps.

Following this framing of the theoretical and empirical backgrounds for MP and PRF, we describe our approach to conducting a scoping review of both literatures. This scoping review is necessary to map the depth and breadth of the existing evidence of MP and PRF in the parenting literature. The results from this review may inform future studies such as systematic reviews, research that compares MP and PRF directly, and the design of parenting programs. Scoping reviews examine the extent, variety, and characteristics of the evidence on a topic and findings from this type of review can help determine if there is value in conducting a systematic review on the same topic (Tricco et al., 2018). Lastly, a scoping review can identify gaps in the existing literature and in turn, present directions for future research. By conducting this study, we aim to cross MP and PRF sub-fields to allow for refinement in our understanding and the potential value of each approach. Our long-term goal is for researchers to consider examining these two constructs together to move our current understanding of their impacts on parenting and parent-child relationships forward. We describe the theoretical background of MP and PRF in the context of parenting in the sections. To begin, we highlight the limitations of existing PRF and MP reviews.

To date, scoping or systematic reviews in this area exist but not without limitations, specifically narrow inclusion criteria (Donovan et al., 2022; Shorey & Ng, 2021; Townshend et al., 2016). For example, the scoping review by Donovan et al. (2022) scoping review excluded qualitative studies and cross-sectional studies, whereas Hidayati and Hartini (2022) only included studies with parents of adolescents. Previous reflective functioning reviews exist, but with important limitations. For example, both Camoirano’s (2017) and Katznelson’s (2014) reviews focused on studies that used certain reflective functioning measures such as the Reflective Functioning Scale (RFS; Fonagy et al., 1998) and/or Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George et al., 1985), and excluded studies employing the Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (PRFQ; Luyten et al., 2017) or other reflective functioning measures, hence, providing an incomplete scope of the field. Additionally, Katznelson’s (2014) review focused primarily on reflective functioning and psychopathology, with a limited focus on adult and child attachment.

The present study focuses on conducting a scoping review, with wider inclusion criteria, to identify and map the existing evidence for MP and PRF from 2005 to mid-January 2020, summarize the study characteristics across both areas and identify future research questions to explore. Specifically, the rationale for this scoping review is to provide fuller coverage of the body of literature on MP and PRF to address the following questions within the parenting literature: (1) What are the overlapping or distinctive outcomes and correlates across the mindful parenting and parental reflective functioning literature? (2) To what extent should these separate theoretical and empirical lines of research be integrated (or not) in future research? What are the gaps in this area to inform future inquiry?

Method

The scoping review was designed and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018) criteria, which guided our methods and reporting of the findings. Fig. 1 depicts the PRISMA stages of our scoping review process: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. Detailed procedures for each stage of the process are explained below.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for the research and inclusion criteria in the review. MP=mindful parenting; PRF=parental reflective functioning

Full size image

Identification

The first step was to obtain consensus on the years to cover in our search (2005-Mid- January 2020), search engines and databases (Google Scholars, PubMed, PsychInfo, EBSCOHost, and MINDRxiv), and search terms to use when conducting the MP and PRF literature searches. Our search strategy included the following search terms, “parenting” “parent-child relationships” “parent-child dyads” with a combination of the search terms “parental reflective functioning,” “parental mentalization”, “paternal/maternal reflective functioning,” “paternal/maternal mentalization.” For the MP literature, we used the search terms, “mindful parenting,” “mindfulness,” and “parenting.” The fifth author (VC) conducted the first PRF and MP literature searches. Then, the first author (TH for PRF studies) and the third author (CK for MP studies) conducted additional literature searches. For the last step of the identification phase, we determined the key data to extract from each article during the full-text assessment such as sample size and demographic information.

Screening

Both TH (PRF studies) and CK (MP studies) independently screened the articles at the title-abstract level to remove duplicates before the full-text assessments of the articles, with guidance from the eligibility criteria for this scoping review.

Eligibility Criteria

To expand beyond past reviews (Camoirano, 2017; Katznelson, 2014), we did not restrict our eligibility criteria to studies using certain measurements of MP or PRF or specific dependent variables (e.g., child attachment or psychopathology). Instead, studies were included in the full-text assessments if they met the following criteria: (1) peer-reviewed (e.g., no dissertations/thesis) in an indexed journal; (2) published in English and between 2005-mid-January 2020; (3) key terms (see above) were included in the title or abstract; (4) empirical articles (e.g., no book chapters); (5) no study protocols; (6) in the scope of parenting (e.g., parent-child relationships; parenting behaviors); and (7) sampled primary caregivers (e.g., not child reflective functioning).

Inclusion

All studies that met our eligibility criteria were assessed at the full-text level by study authors. CK, MLK, and EF reviewed the MP literature while TH and MLK reviewed the PRF literature (Fig. 1 and 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Trends of Mindful Parenting and Parental Reflective Functioning Studies from 2005 through early 2020 (pre-COVID-19 pandemic)

Full size image

Results

Tables 1 and 2 present the key extracted data from the total articles included in this review. As mentioned in the stages used to identify and choose the articles for this review, we identified a total of 641 potential studies (n = 360 MP; n = 281 PRF) and removed duplicate articles (n = 6 MP, n = 2 PRF). Next, we ended up with 618 articles after the title-abstract screening (n = 345 MP; n = 273 PRF). After the second screen process, we eliminated 317 articles that did not fit our eligibility criteria (n = 165 MP; n = 152 PRF) (see Fig. 1). After analyzing the data extracted from the included studies (N = 301; n = 180 MP, n = 121 PRF), we identified the key characteristics, commonalities, and differences across the articles, which are described below and presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Content analysis of mindful parenting articles (N = 180)
Full size table
Table 2 Content Analysis of Parental Reflective Functioning Articles (N = 121)
Full size table

Characteristics of Included Studies

Timeline (Dates) for Research

Figure 2 depicts the patterns of empirical studies on MP and PRF published from 2005-2020. Although zero MP articles were found in 2005 (the year Dumas highlighted the value of a MP approach: Dumas, 2005), MP articles were steadily published from 2007 to 2014. Starting from 2015, there was a significant increase in MP empirical studies in 2015 (n = 16), 2016 (n = 15), 2017 (n = 19), 2018 (n = 31), 2019 (n = 32), and 2020 (n = 38).

For PRF, only three articles were published in 2005 and zero PRF articles were included in our scoping review for the years 2006, 2007, and 2009. In 2008, 2012, 2013, and 2014, 16 studies were published (4 each year) and two articles were published each in 2010 and 2011. However, after 2015, there was a substantial increase in PRF empirical articles: 2015 (n = 12), 2016 (n = 17), 2017 (n = 13), 2018 (n = 12), 2019 (n = 23), and 2020 (n = 21).

Country

The majority of the studies derived from the United States (n = 65; 36.1% for MP; n = 48; 40% for PRF). The remaining MP literature was from the Netherlands (n = 20; 11.1%), Portugal (n = 16; 8.9%), Canada and China (n = 10 per country; 5.6% each), the United Kingdom (n = 16; 8.9%), Australia (n = 6; 3.3%), Hong Kong (n = 5; 2.8%), Iran, (n = 4; 2.2%), Belgium, Chile, Croatia, Egypt, Jordan, Ireland, and Sweden (n = 2 per country; 1.1% each), and India, Israel, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and Vietnam (n = 1 per country; 0.6% each). Six studies did not report the country (3.3% total), and two studies included 36 countries (1.1% total).

The remaining 60% of the PRF studies were from Canada (n = 12; 10%), the United Kingdom (n = 9; 7%), Australia (n = 7; 6%), Italy (n = 7; 6%), the Netherlands (n = 5; 4%), Finland, Spain, Chile, and Norway (n = 4 per country; 3% each), Denmark (n = 3; 2%) and Switzerland, (n = 2; 3%), and Germany and Turkey (n = 2; 2%). The remaining PRF studies were from the Caribbean, Poland, Sweden, and Belgium (n =1 per country/region; 1% each), except one study for which the country was not reported (e.g., Væver et al., 2020).

Intervention

Results from this scoping review indicated that 57% (n = 104) of MP studies implemented a related intervention. Of the 103 studies, the most commonly implemented interventions (n = 23; 22%) were Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; e.g., Corthorn, 2018; Gannon et al., 2017; Neece, 2014), Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; n = 12; 12%, e.g., Evans et al., 2019; Ferraioli & Harris, 2013; Gurney-Smith et al., 2017), and 17 studies (16%) employed elements of both MBSR and MBCP (Bögels et al., 2014; Mah et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2017). In addition, Mindfulness-Based Childbirth and Parenting (MBCP; n = 9; 9%, e.g., Duncan & Bardacke, 2010; Price et al., 2019; Warriner et al., 2018), Mindfulness-Enhanced Strengthening Families Program (MSFP; n = 7; 7%, e.g., Coatsworth et al., 2018; Lippold et al., 2019), Mindfulness-Based Positive Behavior Support (MBPBS; n = 3; 3%; Singh et al., 2014) and MyMind (n = 2; 2%; Ridderinkhof et al., 2018) were studied. About 9% (n = 9) of studies adapted their interventions from more than three interventions listed above. The remaining studies either did not provide information about the source of the mindfulness-based intervention that was employed (n = 17; 16%) or used sources not identified in this review (n = 5; 5%). While most of the interventions were delivered in person, online interventions (Boekhorst et al., 2020; Shaffer et al., 2020) and app-based interventions (Hunter et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019) were introduced in 2019 and 2020.

Over one-quarter, or 27% (n = 33), of the PRF studies implemented a mentalization-related intervention. The most implemented interventions were Minding the Baby (15%; n = 5; e.g., Slade et al., 2020) and Circle of Security—Parenting (12%, n = 4; e.g., Huber et al., 2015). The remaining studies employed the Mothers and Toddlers/Mothering from the Inside Out (18%, n = 6; e.g., Suchman et al., 2012, 2016), Family Minds (6%, n = 2; e.g., Bammens et al., 2015), and 16 studies (48%; e.g., Byrne et al., 2019; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2019) used different programs such the Bright Program (Paris et al., 2015), Nurturing Attachments Program (Staines et al., 2019), Reflective Fostering Program (RFP; Midgley et al., 2019), or Baby Court (Stacks et al., 2019). Within these 16 studies, one study (Enav et al., 2019) mentioned using a mentalizing-based intervention for parents of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), however, the researchers did not report the name of the program.

Population Targeted

In the MP literature, 46% (n = 83) sampled mothers only, 47% (n = 85) both mothers and fathers with mothers being the majority, 2% (n = 4) with equal proportions of mothers and fathers, and 1% (n = 2) sampled parents but did not state the gender identity or gender role of the parents. Only one study sampled fathers only (MacDonald & Hastings, 2010) and 3% (n = 5) included caregivers/teachers/cohabiting partners along with parents. Of the total 180 studies, 8% (n = 14) studies sampled parents who were considered at high risk for poor outcomes. Seven studies (4%) recruited parents with mental health challenges including depression (Evans et al., 2019; Mann et al., 2016; Parent et al., 2011), anxiety (Goodman et al., 2014), stress (Turpyn et al., 2019), and difficulties with emotion regulation (Wilson & Donachie, 2018). The other seven studies (3.9%) recruited mothers with opioid and substance use disorder (Gannon et al., 2017; Short et al., 2017), methadone maintenance (Dawe & Harnett, 2007), FMR1 premutation (Hunter et al., 2019), preterm premature rupture of membranes (Korukcu & Kukulu, 2017), history of sexual trauma (Price et al., 2019), and parents who had been exposed to a high rate of violence (Hicks et al., 2018). In addition, 39% (n = 71) studies sampled parents of children who were at risk for intellectual and developmental disabilities, mental health problems, or internalizing and externalizing problems.

In the PRF literature, 26% (n = 32) sampled mothers, 2% (n = 3) fathers, 2% (n = 3) pregnant women, 2% (n = 3) couples, 2% (n = 3) parents (no specification), 11% (n = 13) parent or caregiver-child dyads, 39% (n = 47) mother-child and 1% (n = 1) father-child dyads. Of the studies that sampled mothers, four studies focused on mothers with substance-related abuse or treatment (e.g., Suchman et al., 2011), with four studies specifically on mothers with substance abuse disorder (Håkansson et al., 2018). The remaining articles sampled young mothers (Sadler et al., 2013), mothers from outpatient mental health clinics (Suchman et al., 2016), and mothers with postpartum depression (Cordes et al., 2017). Two of three studies that sampled fathers specifically targeted fathers who had committed intimate partner violence (IPV; Mohaupt & Duckert, 2016; Stover & Coates, 2016). Of the remaining articles, 4% (n = 5) sampled foster or adoptive parents (Bammens et al., 2015; Bunday et al., 2015; León et al., 2015), and one study (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2019) included mothers, fathers, and foster parents. Additionally, 2% (n = 3) did not report the gender identity or gender role of the parents (Ashton et al., 2016; Ensink et al., 2017b; Staines et al., 2019). Lastly, León and Olhaberry (2020) included a triad sample of mothers, fathers, and children while Mata López, Álvarez, and Gómez (2020) included parents, children, and teachers.

Conclusively, 38.2% (n = 115) of the included articles (N = 301) targeted mothers only, and only 2.3% (n = 7) focused exclusively on fathers. Across the MP and PRF studies, an overlap was identified with both areas of research sampling parents with specific, targeted characteristics including parents considered “at risk,” and those with psychopathology (e.g., depression), or substance use disorder.

Race/Ethnicity of Samples

Of the total 180 MP studies, 81 articles did not report the race or ethnicity of their sample. Across the remaining 99 studies, that did explicitly report their race or ethnicity of their sample, 41 studies had predominantly White (or self-identified as “Caucasian”) samples. Across all 99 studies, the average percentage of participants that identified as White or “Caucasian,” in each study was 71% (range: 0-100), 12% (range: 0-100) for Black/African American, 7.65% (range: 0-47.5) for Hispanic/ Latiné, 4.13% (range: 0-17) for Asian/Asian American, 0.50% (range: 0-6) for Native American/Hawaiian/Alaskan Native/Pacific Islander, 0.48% (range: 0-63) for Multiracial, and 3.75% (range: 0-21) for “Other.”

For PRF, 30 studies out of 121 total PRF studies did not report the race or ethnicity of their sample. Across the 91 studies that explicitly reported the race/ethnicity of their sample, 49 had predominantly White or self-identified “Caucasian” samples. More specifically, across all 93 studies the average percentage of participants who identified as White or “Caucasian,” was 60% (range: 0-100), 18.36% (range: 0-75) for Black/African American, 19.45% (range: 0-88) for Hispanic/Latiné, 1.75% (range: 0-22) for Asian/Asian American, 0.33% (range: 0-2) for Native American/Hawaiian/Alaskan Native/Pacific Islander, 2.24% (range: 0-18) for Multiracial, and 3.73% reported (range: 0-14) “Other.”

Measures Employed

In the MP articles, 40% (n = 72) MP articles used the original 10-item Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting (IM-P) short-form (Duncan, 2007) or the expanded 31-item IMP version (Duncan, 2023), while 26.6% (n = 48) of studies used the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Benn et al., 2012) (n = 48; 26.6%). These MP measures were most commonly used to assess MP specifically, and in general, mindfulness among parents in the MP literature. Another frequently used measure was the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; n = 30; 16.6%). Since 2014, a wider array of measures was used, including the Bangor Mindful Parenting Scale (BMPS; Jones et al., 2014) (n = 8; 4.4%), the Mindfulness in Parenting Questionnaire (MIPQ; Seidman et al., 2019) (n = 4; 2.2%), the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI; Walach et al., 2006) (n = 3; 1.7%), and the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R; Feldman et al., 2007; n = 2; 1.1%). Some measures were developed and only included in publications a handful of times. The Subjective Units of Use of Mindfulness (SUUM; Singh et al., 2006) (n = 2) and the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS; Lau et al., 2006) (n = 1) were used only in 2006 and 2007 and were not used in future studies in this review. In 2019, one study (Benton et al., 2019) employed an adapted version of the Mindful Parenting Observation Scale (MPOS; Geier, 2012) which assesses the observed behavior of MP. In addition, 23 studies (12.7%) utilized more than one measure. Particularly, 17 (9.4%) studies used the IM-P in tandem with the FFMQ (n = 10), the MAAS (n = 6), and FMI (n = 1). Moreover, of the total 180 MP studies, 33 studies (18.3%) did not employ any specific MP measures.

The most frequently used measures of PRF are the Parent Developmental Interview (PDI; Aber et al., 1985) (n = 41; 33.8%), the Parental Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (PRFQ; Luyten et al., 2017) (n = 26; 21.4%), the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George et al., 1985) (n = 17; 14%), Pregnancy Interview (PI-PDI; Smaling et al., 2015) (n = 10; 8.3%), PDI-Revised (PDI-R; Slade et al., 2004) (n = 7; 5.8%), Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ; Fonagy et al., 2016a, b) (n = 5; 4.1%), the PDI-Short Form (Stacks et al., 2014) (n = 4; 3.3%), Reflective Functioning Scale (RFS; Fonagy et al., 1998) (n = 2, 1.7%), or PDI-Modified (Steele et al., 2007) (n = 1; .8%). Notably, the Working Model of the Child Interview (WMCI; Zeanah et al., 1996) was used to assess PRF in 2005 (n = 1) and 2008 (n = 2), but not again until 2019 (n = 1) and 2020 (n = 2). More recently, new PRF measures were developed to assess PRF such as the Parental Embodied Mentalizing (PEM; Shai et al., 2017), the Limit Setting Interview (Möller et al., 2017), and the Mini-Parent Reflective Functioning Interview (Mini-PRFI; Ensink et al., 2019). Additionally, 13.2% (n = 16) of PRF studies employed more than one measure of PRF. For example, Hertzmann et al. (2016) used both the PDI and the PRFQ whereas 31.3% (n = 5) of those 16 studies used both the PDI and the PI-PDI in their study (Ordway et al., 2014; Pajulo et al., 2008, 2012; Sadler et al., 2013; Smaling et al., 2016). Möller et al. (2017) was the only study that employed three PRF measures (PDI, Limit Setting Interview, and RFQ). Lastly, the remaining PRF studies employed a different instrument to assess PRF such as the Rumination Reflection Questionnaire (e.g., Waldman-Levi et al., 2020), or Prenatal PRFQ (e.g., Røhder et al., 2020).

Independent Variables

More than half of the MP studies (n = 103; 57.2%) implemented mindfulness-based interventions and focused on pre- and post-assessments of the intervention. Studies with interventions mostly measured changes in parents’ levels of MP across time and groups (e.g., Chaplin et al., 2018; Potharst et al., 2019). Other common independent variables that were assessed in MP studies included dispositional mindfulness (e.g., Gouveia et al., 2016; Hicks & Dayton, 2019; Parent et al., 2016a, b; Zhang, Wang, & Ying, 2019b), anxiety (e.g., Henrichs et al., 2019), parenting stress (e.g., Chan & Neece, 2018; Laurent et al., 2017), parent-child related problems (e.g., Chan & Lam, 2017; Whitlock et al., 2018), and parent attachment (e.g., Moreira et al., 2016).

As noted earlier, 33 studies implemented a mentalization-based intervention. Not surprisingly, n = 33 (27.3%) focused on pre- and post-assessments of the program with a particular emphasis on changes in PRF scores (e.g., Sadler et al., 2013; Suchman et al., 2008). Other independent variables that were frequently examined in the remaining PRF studies (n = 90; 74.3%) varied, such as intimate partner violence (Mohaupt & Duckert, 2016), maternal and child attachment (Slade et al., 2005a, b), parenting reflectivity (Rosenblum et al., 2008), maternal accuracy (Ha et al., 2011), parenting sensitivity (Borelli et al., 2012), parenting behaviors (Ensink et al., 2017b), treatment fidelity of the mentalizing program (Suchman et al., 2012), eating disorder symptoms (Claydon et al., 2016), child sexual abuse (Ensink et al., 2016), and trauma and attachment (Cristobal et al., 2017).

Dependent Variables

Of the 180 MP studies, 47.2% (n = 85) of studies examined parent outcomes only, 18.8% (n = 34) focused on child outcomes only, and 33.3% (n = 60) included both parent and child outcomes. There was one study (Fernandes et al., 2020a) that did not examine either parent or child outcomes. This study assessed the usefulness of a MP intervention. The most commonly included parenting outcomes were: MP and mindfulness (n = 63; 74.1%; e.g., Lunsky et al., 2015; Potharst et al., 2018b; Rice et al., 2020), psychological distress including parenting stress (n = 71; 83.5%; e.g., Corthorn, 2018; Lo et al., 2017), depression (n = 27; 31.7%; e.g., Duncan et al., 2017; Pan, Gau, et al., 2019a; Pan, Chang, et al., 2019b), and anxiety (n = 18; 21.2%; e.g., Geurtzen et al., 2015; Rayan & Ahmad, 2017). For child outcome variables, child behavior challenges (n = 23; 67.6%; e.g., Beer et al., 2013; Srivastava et al., 2011) and internalizing and externalizing problems (n = 14; 41.2%; Haydicky et al., 2015; Parent et al., 2016a, b) were most commonly assessed.

From the 121 PRF studies, PRF was the dependent variable for half (47.9%; n = 58) of the articles, with 0.8% (n = 1) study focused on prenatal reflective functioning (Smaling et al., 2015) and 0.8% (n = 1) on postpartum reflective functioning (Rutherford et al., 2018). The remaining studies (n = 64) focused on a range of outcome variables—either in addition to PRF or separately—such as mothers’ representation of the children (Schechter et al., 2005), atypical maternal behavior (Schechter et al., 2008), child conduct problems (Ha et al., 2011), adolescent reflective functioning and behaviors (Benbassat & Priel, 2012), child anxiety (Esbjørn et al., 2013), maternal distress tolerance (Rutherford et al., 2013), infant attachment disorganization (Berthelot et al., 2015), parenting stress (Adkins et al., 2018), and child temperament (Vismara et al., 2020).

Overlaps in Correlates and Outcomes

Review of studies for both MP and PRF revealed overlap in four general constructs: (a) parent well-being; (b) child well-being; (c) parenting behaviors; and (d) attachment. Specifically, 58.3% of MP studies (n = 105) and 28.9% of the PRF studies (n = 35) included a variable related to parents’ well-being (e.g., parenting stress, anxiety, depression; e.g., Hertzman et al., 2016; Kohlhoff et al., 2016; Lo et al., 2017; Short et al., 2017; Wheeler et al., 2018). Further, 41.6% of MP (n = 75) and 23.1% PRF studies (n = 28) examined child well-being (e.g., internalizing and externalizing behaviors; e.g., Parent et al., 2016a, b; Mann et al., 2016; León et a., 2015) and 38.3% of MP (n = 69) and 38.8% PRF studies (n = 47) evaluated parenting behaviors (e.g., responsivity, sensitivity; e.g., Weitlauf et al., 2020, Rutherford et al., 2013; Borelli et al., 2012). Lastly, 1.6% of MP (n = 3) and 21.5% PRF studies (n = 26) focused on some attachment-related variables, such as parent attachment (e.g., Cristobal et al., 2017; Korukcu & Kukulu, 2017), child attachment (e.g., Ensink et al., 2019; Moreira et al., 2018), or attachment anxiety (e.g., Moreira et al., 2016; Nijssens et al., 2018).

Discussion

This scoping review covers empirical evidence from 2005 to mid-January 2020 linking MP and PRF with other positive parenting outcomes. We present conclusions regarding the research questions that guided this scoping review, discuss the conceptual and theoretical overlaps of MP and PRF based on the results of our study, and suggest future directions for these lines of research.

The results of the scoping review demonstrated a significant association between MP and other elements of positive parenting and parent and child well-being, including parental warmth and responsiveness (Campbell et al., 2017; Duncan et al., 2015), less parenting stress (Zeegers et al., 2019), and fewer child externalizing and internalizing problems (Han et al., 2019). About two-thirds of the studies included a mindfulness-based intervention aimed at increasing levels of mindfulness in parenting. Most of the interventions were based on MBSR and/or MBCT, which aimed to improve parents’ ability to cope more effectively and reduce psychological reactivity to stressful parenting situations by bringing mindful awareness to moment-to-moment parent-child interactions while being nonjudgmental of self and child. Participation in mindfulness-based interventions was found to significantly reduce various types of stress including stress related to parenting (Potharst et al., 2019; Zeegers et al., 2019), perceived stress (Seidman et al., 2019), and general stress (Townshend et al., 2018). Other notable advantages of MP were reported in parents’ psychological functioning, such as a reduction in overreactive parenting (Potharst et al., 2019) and reduced emotion dysregulation (Gershy et al., 2017; Lengua et al., 2018). Applying mindfulness in parenting can alter not only parents’ intrapersonal experiences as a parent but also interpersonal experiences between parent and child. Researchers reported an association between parental mindfulness with a more optimal parenting style (e.g., authoritative parenting, parental warmth; Williams & Wahler, 2010; Duncan et al., 2015), positivity (Jones et al., 2014), and less negative emotion expression toward the child (Turpyn & Chaplin, 2016).

Additionally, the effects of MP on parents’ psychological well-being and positive parenting outcomes were found promising for parents considered to be “at risk.” For example, scholars have targeted interventions for parents with depression (e.g., Mann et al., 2016), substance use disorder (e.g., Short et al., 2017), and mood, anxiety, and stress disorder (e.g., Zeegers et al., 2019). After participation in mindfulness-based interventions that focused on cultivating mindfulness in the parenting context, these parents reported improvements in both their clinical symptoms (e.g., reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms) and parenting-related outcomes (e.g., reduction in parenting stress and increase in acceptance toward child). Notably, these studies did not examine mechanistic changes in levels of mindfulness or MP in parents after the intervention. However, several cross-sectional studies found evidence that levels of dispositional mindfulness are significantly related to parents’ psychological well-being considered to be at “high risk” (Hicks et al., 2018; Parent et al., 2011). Through MP interventions, parents may improve their ability to manage negative emotions and stress that arise in their parenting role.

A stream of research that has examined the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for pregnant women at risk of perinatal depression or anxiety also found similar results (Goodman et al., 2014; Korukcu & Kukulu, 2017; Townshend et al., 2018). These studies demonstrated that developing mindfulness skills and applying them to parenting helped expectant mothers cope with anxiety and depression related to pregnancy, birth, and early parenthood, and significantly increased mindfulness and self-compassion. Perinatal mindfulness intervention studies with lower risk samples also indicate they may prevent postpartum depression symptoms (Duncan et al., 2017). Researchers have often focused on targeted samples of parents suffering from or at risk for depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders. However, a new stream of research has developed in examining more diverse groups such as parents with obesity (Jastreboff et al., 2018) and military-deployed parents (Zhang et al., 2018; Zhang, Zhang, & Gewirtz, 2019a).

Evidence from the studies in this review demonstrates that PRF has significant implications for parenting and child development. For example, PRF is associated with parenting sensitivity (Ensink et al., 2016), parenting stress (Nijssens et al., 2018), child attachment (Slade et al., 2005a, b), and child behavior problems (Suardi et al., 2020). One-quarter of the studies implemented mentalization-based interventions that sought to enhance parents’ capacities for reflective functioning. These programs help caregivers, via PRF, fully understand their view of their child, themselves, and their parenting. Specifically, reflective functioning enables parents to consider how their past (their own childhood memories) and present (perceptions of the child, current mental states) influence their caregiving behaviors, their child’s behavior, and the parent-child relationship. Parents’ failure to engage in high levels of PRF can result in less sensitive parenting and child attachment insecurity (Ensink et al., 2019). The intervention studies included in this review provided evidence that mentalization-based interventions improve parents’ capacity for reflective functioning, parenting sensitivity, and child attachment (e.g., Slade et al., 2020; Suchman et al., 2018).

Articles from our review of PRF also focused on parent psychopathology. For instance, scholars have targeted interventions toward mothers with substance abuse disorders (e.g., Suchman et al., 2008) and mothers from outpatient mental health clinics (e.g., Suchman et al., 2016). These studies have important clinical implications. Specifically, psychopathology can inhibit parents’ capacity to reflect on both their own and the child’s mental states, potentially resulting in negative child outcomes such as insecure attachment or psychopathology. Taken together, an increase in PRF through participation in mentalization-based programs (e.g., Mothering Inside Out) improves parents’ abilities to provide sensitive care to their children. In specific, parents can help their children identify and organize their mental states about external experiences when parents can recognize how their own feelings impact their behavior. These empirical results have significant clinical implications as it may be critical to target parents who are more vulnerable or susceptible to psychopathology and impaired mentalization.

Moving beyond interventions focused on enhancing PRF, there is also evidence that PRF may mitigate the association between parental stress and psychopathology and risks to healthy child development. In the past, PRF had been primarily tested as a mechanism explaining parenting sensitivity and behavior (e.g., Alvarez-Monjarás et al., 2019; Suchman et al., 2008). Theoretically, however, it should have buffering effects, especially on the association between parenting stress and indicators of parenting behavior or child well-being (e.g., attachment). First, several studies document an inverse association between PRF and parenting stress (León et al., 2015) and a significant reduction in parenting stress after participation in mentalization programs (Huber et al., 2016). Further, even when parents with higher RF are under stress, they may be able to respond with greater sensitivity to their child’s cues, which in turn, promotes child well-being and secure attachment. This theory is supported by several studies in our review, which demonstrated that PRF moderated associations between various risk factors (e.g., SES, stress) and parenting behavior or child outcomes (e.g., Benbassat & Priel, 2012; Borelli et al., 2020a; Buttitta et al., 2019). In sum, the expansive literature on PRF over the last 15 years suggests that it is an important factor in promoting healthy child development and parent-child relationships.

Our review identified several areas of overlap in studies on MP and PRF. Both MP and PRF consist of intrapersonal processes that impact interpersonal relationships between parent and child. Fostering greater MP and PRF in parenting can result in improved parent-child interactions. Studies of MP and PRF demonstrate a range of similar effects, including improvements in parent well-being (e.g., parenting stress, depression), child well-being (e.g., internalizing or externalizing behaviors), parenting behaviors (e.g., responsiveness), and other qualities of the parent-child relationship. Conceptually, both MP and PRF are reflective processes in parenting that may be important targets for understanding how a parent’s intra- and interpersonal relationship with childrearing may contribute to their parenting behaviors and impact on child well-being. Specifically, a commonality between MP and PRF is that both involve cognitive and affective processes in which the parent needs to engage in awareness of their feelings and thoughts to support their child’s emotional needs and thoughts behind their behaviors. To an extent, both MP and PRF entail some level of emotion coregulation and intentional awareness to establish a deeper understanding of the parent’s and child’s internal world (thoughts, feelings, mental states) within the parent-child relationship.

There are some characteristics that differentiate MP and PRF from one another. For example, PRF involves the parents’ capacity to reflect and establish insightful conclusions when discussing the caregiving they received in childhood and its impact on them and their caregiving. Thus, PRF involves deep reflections of the past, which assessment tools such as AAI and PDI aim to facilitate. In contrast, the construct of MP—rooted in mindfulness tenets—focuses on caregivers’ capacity to intentionally bring their attention and awareness to the present moment, allowing thoughts and difficult emotions to arise without judgment, providing compassion to self and the child, especially when the parent or the child are having a difficult interaction. One possible explanation for this difference is that MP is typically captured via self-report assessments while the majority of PRF studies use coded interviews. Evidenced in the attachment literature (Roisman et al., 2007), these different modalities may capture different facets of an overlapping construct. For instance, assessing PRF via coded interviews may capture underlying or more implicit concepts that parents lack enough awareness of to identify in a self-report measure, whereas MP assessed through self-report may capture parents’ more intentional efforts to bring awareness to a given moment in parenting. Future research may benefit from comparing these constructs using the same modality to reveal more about how measurement has impacted their conceptualization. Collectively, given the apparent benefits of MP and PRF interventions, they seem both worthy intervention targets, as they can change and improve through support and training, potentially with synergistic effects.

Findings from this scoping review clarify the need for future research incorporating MP and PRF to advance our current knowledge of reflective processes in parenting and the parent-child relationship. For example, much is unknown regarding the extent to which MP and PRF are correlated with each other and the direction of those associations. Notably, it is unclear whether PRF enhances MP, or vice versa, as rigorous, longitudinal, joint assessments of these constructs and their mechanisms of change do not exist. While there are inconsistencies in how MP has been assessed across the reviewed studies, the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting scale (IM-P; Duncan, 2007; Duncan, 2023) is the frequently used measure that explicitly assesses mindfulness in parenting, followed by the Mindfulness in Parenting Questionnaire (MIPQ; McCaffrey et al., 2017), which assesses MP of parents with children two-years-old or older. Because there are multiple robust instruments to measure PRF, an unanswered research question that warrants further investigation is how the IM-P relates to various PRF measures (e.g., AAI, PDI, and PRFQ).

Studies assessing attachment, MP, and PRF in a single research design are needed, given that both MP and parenting reflective functioning are correlated with parent and child attachment. Because PRF is grounded in attachment theory, there is a substantial body of research supporting the link between reflective functioning and attachment-related constructs. Although correlational studies have examined the association between MP and both parent attachment (Moreira et al., 2016) and adolescent attachment (Moreira et al., 2018), this research is limited. For example, existing studies utilize a variety of self-report attachment measures, but no studies have compared MP and attachment using “gold-standard” assessments of attachment security (e.g., Strange Situation, AAI).

Collectively examining attachment, PRF, and MP can further our understanding of how these constructs simultaneously influence child development. Specifically, new evidence can advance our understanding of parents’ mental representations of attachment influence MP, and the impact of MP on observed parenting sensitivity and child-attachment security, particularly in infancy and young childhood. There is ample evidence that increases in PRF, through interventions, can facilitate child attachment security (Huber et al., 2015) and parental sensitivity to a child’s cues (Suchman et al., 2008). Still, this evidence is limited to smaller and/or qualitative studies for MP. Moreover, it is still unclear what role MP plays in the association between attachment and PRF. For example, Cristobal et al. (2017) found that maternal insecure attachment was associated with lower PRF. It would be particularly interesting to examine whether MP significantly moderates or mediates the association between parental attachment and PRF as the specific effects of MP on this association are unknown. Given the associations between MP and stress, and that parental reflective capacities tend to be compromised under extreme stress or trauma (Fonagy & Target, 1997), one possibility is that MP buffers the effects of stress on PRF and parenting sensitivity.

One advantage of integrating these two lines of work is identifying unique strengths in each area that may benefit the other. For instance, while emotion regulation has been shown to improve MP interventions (Gershy et al., 2017; May et al., 2016; Wilson & Donachie, 2018), it has not been examined as an outcome of mentalization-based interventions, even though PRF should theoretically improve parents’ ability to regulate their emotions. A few studies have found positive associations between PRF and both parents’ distress tolerance (Rutherford et al., 2013; Rutherford et al., 2015), and emotion regulation skills (Schultheis et al., 2019), but this work is limited to self-report assessments of PRF. Campora et al. (2019) use the AAI to assess maternal reflective functioning but found no significant association with emotion regulation, thus this is an area for additional inquiry.

Parent well-being is important to consider in these studies, given the links between parental well-being and parenting behavior (Dix, 1991). Moreover, parent psychopathology and extreme stress can hinder both parent well-being and the capacity to engage in MP and PRF. There is some evidence that MP buffers the negative effects of life events on mother and infant cortisol levels (Laurent et al., 2017). However, research needs to be expanded to other developmental stages. Researchers have documented a significant improvement in parent well-being via reduction of stress (e.g., Fonagy et al., 2016a, b; Kohlhoff et al., 2016) after participation in a mentalization-based program. In contrast, others found a decrease in parenting stress at post-assessments but no significant effects of the intervention (Hertzman et al., 2016). However, including variables that assess parental well-being is limited and could benefit from additional investigation. Existing studies typically include measures of parenting stress or mental health (e.g., anxiety, depression). However, much is still unknown about how PRF and MP are associated with or impact other facets of parental well-being such as emotional experiences.

Another benefit of looking at these two lines of research together is that it illuminates gaps in targeted developmental stages. For example, there has been an examination of PRF during the prenatal period, with the development of the Pregnancy Interview (Slade et al., 2007), which was administered in 8.2% of the studies reviewed. On balance, MP has been more extensively studied in parents of adolescents (29.1%), whereas only a few studies have explored PRF in parents of adolescents. Additionally, it is necessary to note there are limitations to when MP can be evaluated. For instance, MP is specifically about the parent-child interaction, precluding examining MP before birth. It may only be possible to examine dispositional mindfulness prenatally for first-time parents, and then MP at postpartum. It is important for researchers to consider this limitation when examining changes in MP, especially after participating in an intervention with a sample of first-time parents.

There are more existing interventions focused on promoting MP than PRF. As such, more research is needed to examine how combining the strengths of MP and PRF informs parenting experiences and impacts the quality of parent-child relationships. There is empirical value in this integration, especially if changes or improvements in parenting behaviors via parenting reflective processes or capacities (MP and PRF) can positively enhance parent-child relationship quality. Interventions that aim to enhance both MP and PRF to promote positive parent-child relationships may yield impactful results as PRF can be promoted as early as the prenatal period. For example, Pajulo et al. (2008) found prenatal PRF was positively associated with maternal sensitivity at four months. Given the extensive evidence base of MP interventions and complementary processes, combining the two together in one intervention may yield effects greater than either one can alone.

Several gaps in the MP and PRF literature were identified through this scoping review. First, across both bodies of research, the sampling of fathers was lacking. Understanding how mothers, fathers, and gender-expansive parents may engage in MP and PRF differently is important. Compared to mothers, fathers tend to report lower levels of MP (Medeiros et al., 2016; Moreira & Canavarro, 2018b). However, studies found fathers also benefit from practicing MP. For example, Gershy et al. (2017) revealed that fathers of school-age children who developed interpersonal mindfulness skills were more likely to report improvement in the capacity for emotion regulation, reduced negative feelings, and reduced parental submission. For example, studies have also demonstrated that fathers’ MP is associated with greater emotional awareness of the child (Coatsworth et al., 2018) and less dismissive responses to the child’s emotions (McKee et al., 2018). No research among parents identifying with a gender-expansive parenting role was found in our review, highlighting a major gap in both bodies of literature.

From the PRF literature, Benbassat and Priel’s (2014) review revealed that fathers tend to score lower than mothers on reflective functioning, although other recent studies have found no differences (Borelli et al., 2016). Benbassat and Priel (2014) also reported that fathers’ reflective functioning is particularly important during adolescence as it is inversely correlated with adolescent behavior problems. However, more research that includes additional child outcomes and at different developmental stages is needed. It would be useful to identify whether reflective functioning in mothers and fathers is linked to the same parent and child outcomes. For example, Buttitta et al. (2019) found that fathers’ reflective functioning was linked to specific types of sensitivity, such as autonomy-supporting behaviors, which may be qualitatively different from mothers’ sensitive behaviors. Moreover, an unexplored research question is “How does mindful parenting differ based on parent gender identity/gendered parenting role (e.g., mother, father)? Rigorous assessment of MP and PRF in diverse samples of parents is necessary to answer this research question.

Diversifying the sample of caregivers continues to be a limitation as only 1.5% of the MP articles studied adoptive or stepparents, and an additional 2.7% of studies included a combination of parents with caregivers or teachers. In the PRF articles, only 4% studied adoptive or foster parents, and only one study included a combination of mothers, fathers, and foster parents. This limitation is concerning as family structure continues to change and family members such as grandparents, which some studies sampled, can take on the primary caregiver role in the family.

Another major sample limitation is the lack of racial and ethnic diversity. Surprisingly, over one-third of the studies (n = 111) did not even report the racial/ethnic makeup of their sample. Best standards in clinical trial reporting (e.g., CONSORT guidelines; Moher et al., 2012) require this level of detail. Particularly with the entrenched existence of racial/ethnic disparities due to systemic oppression and racism, research highlighting the potential benefit of MP and PRF for minoritized communities would be highly beneficial. Further, determining the cultural fit of mindfulness interventions for racial/ethnic minoritized communities is essential to creating effective interventions and understanding their impact (Black & Switzer, 2018). Among the studies that reported on the racial/ethnic makeup of their participants, the MP literature was more diverse than the PRF literature. However, there was little attention to the potential for iatrogenic effects or cultural mismatch of intervention approach with participants’ parenting values. A serious area of caution in parenting research led primarily by white researchers with predominantly white samples is an overgeneralization of parenting values based on white cultural ideology. Much could be learned by engaging scholars with expertise and life experience as members of Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other communities of color in this area of inquiry. Questions in this line of research could include consideration of other longstanding cultural traditions that emphasize reflective capacities that go beyond MP and PRF.

Both lines of work could also benefit from more rigorous assessments of their instruments. For example, despite sixteen studies from our review that employed two PRF measures simultaneously in their research, as of 2020, no studies had empirically compared these various PRF instruments. This is a critical next step in the reflective functioning literature, as these instruments may assess overlapping but distinct constructs, similar to the differences between self-reported and interview-based measures of attachment (Roisman et al., 2007). For MP, there are currently two primary self-report assessments (IM-P; MIPQ), but no interview measures exist, and the only observational coding system for MP (Geier, 2012) has not been adopted in the field. Perhaps one benefit of looking at these two constructs together is that researchers can identify the extent to which MP could be assessed in interview-based assessments, such as the Parent Development Interview-Revised (Slade et al., 2004), or another interview created specifically for MP. The IM-P has been linked with both mother-infant stress physiology (Laurent et al., 2017) and parent-adolescent communication assessed through observational methods (Duncan et al., 2015).

Limitations and Future Directions

Taken together, the studies reviewed here provide support for the critical influences of MP and PRF on the quality of parenting. Several strengths of this scoping review should be noted. To date, researchers have primarily investigated and viewed these two strands of parental reflective capacities separately. Hence, this is the first scoping review that comprehensively summarizes the MP and PRF literatures together to provide an initial conceptual link between these processes within a parenting framework. Ideally, the results from this review may bring potentially “siloed” MP and PRF functioning researchers’ attention to the existence of the other area of research. Second, our scoping review identified and summarized the distinct and overlapping empirical outcomes from MP and PRF studies published from 2005 to early 2020. Therefore, the results of this review can be used to identify future directions that address the existing gaps in the literature and present opportunities for further investigations (see the previous section). Lastly, this review highlights areas of growth for both MP and PRF research that may inspire new and important lines of work within these individual areas, such as the critical need to study more racially and ethnically diverse populations and to expand the research beyond mothers.

This scoping review is not without limitations. First, PRF is the only mentalization component focused on in this review. There are two additional components of mentalization—parental insightfulness and mind-mindedness—that were intentionally excluded from this scoping review. Future reviews may include these components to fully distinguish all the mentalization components from one another and their specific effects on parenting. Likewise, expanding the content search terms to include terms such as “parental insightfulness” and “parental mind-mindedness” is important to capture the full range of the existing mentalization literature. Second, this scoping review examined articles on PRF, not child reflective functioning. Thus, future reviews may include child reflective functioning as well as greater emphasis on child reports of parents’ MP (Coatsworth et al., 2015), given the bidirectional nature of the parent-child relationship. Lastly, we endorse the critical importance and value of qualitative research despite qualitative studies were beyond the scope of this review. Qualitative research is critically needed to understand more complex research questions and variables related to parenting.

Nonetheless, findings from this scoping review provide empirical evidence that MP and PRF play important roles in parenting. Specifically, our results support our suggestion of investigating these constructs concurrently as the evidence reported in our study establishes links between MP and PRF, overlapping outcomes, and independent contributions to parenting. The parent-child relationship is dynamic, and the quality of these interactions impact children’s emotional development and well-being over the short- and long-term. Thus, MP and PRF may be a critical faculty that promotes responsive caregiving as greater MP and PRF is associated with more positive parenting behaviors (Gershy et al., 2017; Krink et al., 2018) and higher quality parent-child interactions (Coatsworth et al., 2010; León et al., 2018). Our ability to understand and enhance parenting through intervention may be advanced when these two distinct streams of parenting research come together.

MP and PRF have different areas of focus and approaches, despite a similar goals of improving parenting and enhancing the parent-child relationship. MP emphasizes mindfulness practices to promote awareness, emotional regulation, and compassionate parenting in the present moment. PRF, on the other hand, is a psychological concept that specifically relates to a parent's capacity to understand and reflect on their child's inner world, with a focus on the child's mental and emotional experiences. Both can be valuable tools for effective and nurturing parenting, and they likely complement each other in helping parents better connect with and support their children through reflective processes.