# Profiles of Parental Burnout Around the Globe: Similarities and Differences Across 36 Countries

Marisa Matias, Joyce Aguiar, Anne Marie Fontaine, Ege Akgun, Gizem Arikan, Kaisa Aunola, Elizabeth Barham, Wim Beyers, Emilie Boujut, Anna Brytek-Matera, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

To cite this version:

Marisa Matias, Joyce Aguiar, Anne Marie Fontaine, Ege Akgun, Gizem Arikan, et al. "Profiles of Parental Burnout Around the Globe: Similarities and Differences Across 36 Countries." Cross-Cultural Research, 2023, 10.1177/10693971231174551. hal-04216923

HAL Id: hal-04216923

https://hal.science/hal-04216923v1

Submitted on 16 Oct 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Profiles of Parental Burnout Around the Globe: Similarities and Differences Across 36 Countries

Cross-Cultural Research
2023, Vol. 0(0), 1-40
© 2023 SAGE Publications

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10693971231174551
journals.sagepub.com/home/ccr

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Sage

Marisa Matias¹ ID, Joyce Aguiar² ID,
Anne Marie Fontaine¹, Ege Akgun³ ID, Gizem Arikan⁴,
Kaisa Aunola⁵ ID, Elizabeth Barham⁶, Wim Beyers⁷,
Emilie Boujut⁸, Anna Brytek-Matera⁹ ID,
Noémie Carbonneau¹⁰, Filipa César¹¹, Bin-Bin Chen¹²,
Géraldine Dorard¹³, Sandra Dunsmuir¹⁴,
Natalia Egorova¹⁵, Luciana Elias¹⁶, Nicolas Favez¹⁷ ID,
Heather M. Foran¹⁸, Kaichiro Furutani¹⁹,
Myrna Gannagé²⁰, Maria Gaspar²¹ ID, Lucie Godbout¹⁰,
James Gross²², Ogma Hatta²³ ID, Mai-Trang Huynh²⁴,
Nassima Kellou²⁵, Goran Knezevic²⁶,
Ljiljana Lazarevic²⁶, Sarah Le Vigouroux²⁷ ID,
Vanessa Leme²⁸, Denisse Manrique-Millones²⁹ ID,
Rosa Millones Rivalles³⁰,
María Isabel Miranda-Orrego³¹ ID, Marina Miscioscia³²,
Clara I. Morgades-Bamba³³,
Seyyedeh Fatemeh Mousavi³⁴ ID,
Badra Moutassem-Mimouni³⁵, Ana Muntean³⁶,
Hugh Murphy³⁷, Josué Ngnombouowo Tenkue³⁸ ID,
Fatumo Osman³⁹, Daniela Oyarce Cadiz⁴⁰,
Pablo A. Pérez-Díaz⁴¹ ID, Konstantinos Petrides¹⁴,
Céline Scola⁴², Alessandra Simonelli⁴³, Bart Soenens⁴⁴,
Emma Sorbring⁴⁵, Matilda Sorkkila⁴⁵,
Elena Stănculescu⁴⁶ ID, Elena Starchenkova⁴⁷,
Dorota Szczygiel⁴⁸ ID, Mélissa Tremblay<fnref n="10" />,⁴⁹,
A. Meltem Ustundag-Budak⁵⁰ ID, Hedwig van Bakel⁵¹,
Lesley Verhofstadt<fnref n="7" />, Jaqueline Wendland⁵²,
Moira Mikolajczak⁵³ ID, and Isabelle Roskam⁵⁴ ID

<footnote n="1">¹Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Center for Psychology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Center for Research in Higher Education Policies, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Department of Preschool Education, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Department of Psychology, Ozyegin Universitesi, Istanbul, Turkey</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Department of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Department of Psychology, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Developmental, Personality & Social Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Institute of Psychology, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw Faculty of Historical and Pedagogical Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Department of Education, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Department of Psychology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Laboratoire de Psychopathologie et Processus de Santé (UR 4057), Université Paris Cité, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵Psychiatrie adulte; EPSM de l'agglomération lilloise, Saint-Andre-lez-Lille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Department of Psychology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Health Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Faculty of Business Administration, Hokkai-Gakuen University, Sapporo, Japan</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰Department of Psychology, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences; Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³Département de psychologie et des sciences de l'éducation, Université de Kara, Kara, Togo</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴Department of Psychology, Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵Département of Psychology, University of Oran 2 Mohamed Ben Ahmed, Oran, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade, Beograd, Serbia</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷Department of Psychology, University of Nimes Library, Nimes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸Department of Psychology, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹Carrera de Psicología, Universidad Científica del Sur, Miraflores, Peru</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰Universidad Marcelino Champagnat, Lima, Peru</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹Faculty of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³²Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padua, Padova, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³Department of Social Psychology, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴Department of Psychology, Women Research Center, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵Département de Psychologie et d'Orthophonie, Université d'Oran 2 Mohamed Ben Ahmed, Oran, Algeria</footnote>
**Abstract**

Parental burnout (PB) is a pervasive phenomenon. Parenting is embedded in cultural values, and previous research has shown the role of individualism in PB. In this paper, we reanalyze previously collected data to identify profiles based on the four dimensions of PB, and explore whether these profiles vary across countries' levels of collectivistic-individualistic (COL-IND) values. Our sample comprised 16,885 individuals from 36 countries (73% women; 27% men), and we used a latent profile approach to uncover PB profiles. The findings showed five profiles: *Fulfilled, Not in PB, Low risk of PB, High risk of PB and Burned out*. The profiles pointed to climbing levels of PB in the total sample and in each of the three country groups (High COL/Low IND, Medium COL-IND, Low COL/High IND). Exploratory analyses revealed that distinct dimensions of PB had the most prominent roles in the climbing pattern, depending on the countries' levels of COL/IND. In particular, we found contrast to be a hallmark dimension and an indicator of severe burnout for individualistic countries. Contrary to our predictions, emotional distance and saturation did not allow a

Received: 18 October 2022; accepted: 19 April 2023

**Corresponding Author:**

Marisa Matias, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences;
Center for Psychology, University of Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, Porto 4200392, Portugal.
Email: marisa@fpce.up.pt

**Correction (July 2023):** Article has been updated to correct affiliations for authors Matilda Sorkkila, Elena Stănculescu and Elena Starchenkova.

<footnote n="36">³⁶Department of Sociology and Psychology, West University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷Health Psychology, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸Department of Psychology, Université de Yaoundé I, Yaounde, Cameroon</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹School of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰Carrera de Psicología, Universidad Santo Tomás, Santiago, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹Institute of Psychology, Sede Puerto Montt, Austral University of Chile, Puerto Montt, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴²PsyCLÉ, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University Library of Padova, Padova, Italy</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴Department of Social and Behavioural Studies, University West, Trollhattan, Sweden</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵Department of Psychology, Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyvaskyla, Finland</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Bucharest, Bucuresti, Romania</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷Department of Psychological Ensuring of Professional Activities, Saint Petersburg State University Faculty of Philology, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸Faculty in Sopot, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warszawa, Poland</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹Département de Psychologie, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivieres, QC, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰Department of Psychology, Bahcesehir Universitesi, Istanbul, Turkey</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹Department of Tranzo, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵²Institut de Psychologie, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³Department of Psychology, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴Psychological Sciences Research Institute, UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium</footnote>
clear differentiation across collectivistic countries. Our findings support several research avenues regarding PB measurement and intervention.

## Keywords

parental burnout, cultural values, individualism, collectivism, latent profile analyses

An impressive set of studies have been published in the past five to 10 years on the specific topic of parental burnout (PB). PB is characterized by i) an overwhelming sense of exhaustion related to the parental role, which leaves the parent feeling emotionally drained; ii) a strong contrast between how parents see themselves acting now compared to before—parents no longer recognize themselves in their parental role (Roskam et al., 2018); iii) saturation or feeling fed up with parenting—parents find their parental role burdensome, and no longer enjoy being with their children, and iv) emotional distancing of parents from their children, limiting interactions to functional or instrumental issues, without responding to their emotional needs (Roskam et al., 2018). Parental burnout has been shown to differ from other related constructs, such as job burnout and depressive symptoms, as reported by a recent study by Mikolajczak et al. (2020). In their study using factor analysis and associations with other constructs, the authors ascertained the distinctiveness of parental burnout in both axes: parental burnout is factorially distinct from job burnout and depressive symptomatology and has specific consequences which could not be predicted by job burnout and depression, such as parental neglect and violence (Mikolajczak et al., 2020).

Despite the reasons for taking a multifaceted approach to PB, the specific role of the four dimensions on its severity remains unexplored mainly because the validation study of the *Parental Burnout Assessment* (PBA, Roskam et al., 2018) found a high correlation between the four dimensions. This high association was further replicated in several samples and in several languages (e.g., Arikan et al., 2020; Aunola et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2020; Furutani et al., 2020; Gannać et al., 2020; Hamvai et al., 2022; Manrique-Millones et al., 2020; Matias et al., 2020; Mousavi et al., 2020; Sodi et al., 2020; Stănculescu et al., 2020; Szczygiel et al., 2020). Not surprisingly, most subsequent studies - with notable exceptions such as Hansotte et al. (2021), Roskam et al. (2021), and Roskam & Mikolajczak (2021)—have used the total score for PB, leaving the contribution of PB-specific dimensions largely unexplored.

However, PB is a developmental process. The symptoms (dimensions) do not appear altogether, and some dimensions, i.e., emotional distancing and a sense of inefficacy in the parental role, reinforce each other over time (Roskam & Mikolajczak, 2021). It is likely that, depending on where they are in the
process, parents do not experience high levels in all four dimensions. It is also likely that parents scoring high on PB could either be particularly exhausted and fed up with the parental role or instead, feel contrast with their previous parental self and emotional distance from their children. Therefore, different profiles of PB should occur and the specific role of the four dimensions in PB deserves better attention.

Studies of PB profiles are scarce. Apart from Roskam and Mikolajczak (2021), who studied the developmental process of PB with a variable-centered approach, Hansotte et al., (2021) is currently the only study that has taken a person-centered approach to disentangle PB profiles. Five profiles of parents were identified: two profiles (*not in parental burnout* and *inefficient*) that could be regarded as not representing PB since the scores on emotional exhaustion were low; a profile of emotionally exhausted parents (*at risk of parental burnout*); and two other profiles representing largely exhausted parents (*emotionally exhausted and distant* and *burned out parents*), in which the dimensions of PB were present but with different intensities. These findings were promising and pointed to the relevance of a person-centered approach.

Those two exceptional studies assessed the PB dimensions using the *Parental Burnout Inventory* (PBI, Roskam et al., 2017), a measure derived from the theoretical framework for job burnout. But researchers have questioned whether the items derived from the work context best represent burnout in the parenting context (see Roskam et al., 2018). The PBA was more recently developed using an inductive method, which constructed the items based on interviews with burned-out parents. In this way, the PBA overcame some of the PBI's important limitations by including two unidentified dimensions which surfaced in burned-out parents' testimonies, i.e., saturation in the parental role (feelings of being fed up) and contrast with previous parental self. Although saturation in the parental role is close to the loss of personal accomplishment dimension of the PBI, contrast is not evaluated by the PBI. This fundamental diagnostic criterion is only captured by the PBA. And in the absence of any contrast with the parent they once were, no parent can be said to be in burnout.

Based on its background and the excellent psychometric properties of its test score across studies (e.g., Arikan et al., 2020; Aunola et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Furutani et al., 2020; Matias et al., 2020; Mousavi et al., 2020; Roskam et al., 2018; Stănculescu et al., 2020; Szczygiel et al., 2020), the PBA is now considered the gold standard measure for parental burnout, i.e., the best single test and the preferred method of diagnosing parental burnout, against which other methods of diagnosing parental burnout should be compared. The current work aims to expand previous findings to a worldwide sample of parents, using a person-centered approach with the PBA.
Cultural Variation in Parental Burnout Profiles

Culture deeply influences parenting (Harkness & Super, 1996; Jose et al., 2000); thus, parenting cultures emerge around the globe (Lin et al., 2022). They are characterized by specific beliefs and norms about how one should feel, think, and behave as a parent (Bornstein, 2012). “Good parent” beliefs in different cultural contexts may translate not only into differences in the frequency of PB, as suggested by Roskam et al. (2021), but also into differences in how the four dimensions combine to form profiles of PB. Roskam et al. (2021) showed that PB as measured by the total score of the PBA was more prevalent in cultures with higher individualistic values. However, less is known about how the distinct facets of parental burnout vary according to individualistic cultural values. Shedding light on this may respond to the need identified by Roskam et al. (2021) to clarify why parents in more individualistic or less collectivistic countries are more exposed to parental burnout.

Individualism centralizes the personal and peripheralizes the social (Oyserman et al., 2002). In individualistic cultures, self-reliance is highly valued by parents, and they raise their children to be independent, self-interested and materially more successful than themselves (Harkness & Super, 2021; Super & Harkness, 2002). Furthermore, in such cultures where a preoccupation with performance and high standards prevail in most life domains, including parenting, adults, including mothers or fathers, are focused on personal autonomy and self-fulfillment as the basis of identity (Hofstede, 1983; Triandis, 1995). With the spread of a new ideology of intensive parenting in most Euro-American countries, the requirements for being a “good parent” became more demanding (Hays, 1996; Milkie et al., 2010). Parents who share individualistic values face tremendous pressure, exacerbating the risk of PB. In this context, it is likely that the contrast dimension of PB will be particularly salient when parents believe that they are no longer “good parents”, being unable to fulfill the social prescriptions for the parenting role. As Roskam et al. (2021) showed, such self-discrepancies are associated with higher parental burnout. We can thus expect that in individualistic cultures, contrast will be a stronger marker of burnout profiles. Testing this prediction will help us gain a deeper understanding of parental burnout and of the previous findings of Roskam et al. (2023) regarding the role of individualism.

Whereas individualistic cultures promote higher individuation and value independent construeds of self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), group membership and maintaining harmonious relationships with close others are central aspects of identity in collectivistic cultures (Oyserman et al., 2002). In such cultures, individuals consider themselves to be closely related to or connected with others. Collectivistic individuals are expressly motivated by the goals, norms and values of their cultural or social group (Mann & Cheng,
2013). Successful childrearing is more a collective than a personal challenge, and responsibility for the intensive demands of parenting is shared with other members of the community who are expected to support the parents. To achieve this kind of solidarity, parents in collectivist cultures rely on close relationships between family members. As closeness in relationships is the basis of society, feelings of emotional distance from one's children would be particularly harmful. We can thus expect that in collectivist cultures, Emotional Distance from the children will be the stronger marker of burnout profiles. Detailing the role of specific PB facets is an innovative approach that should yield a deeper understanding of the links between cultural values and PB.

# The Current Study

In the current study, we first explored the profiles of PB using the PBA completed by parents from 36 countries. Second, at the individual level, we explored the profiles according to the parents' sociodemographic characteristics. Third, at the country level, we explored the profiles of PB in collectivistic and individualistic countries separately. We then compared the mean levels of the dimensions in each profile according to the countries' level of collectivism-individualism.

# Method

## Participants and Data Collection Procedure

Using data from a previous study (Roskam et al., 2021) conducted by the IIPB Consortium, which covers 42 countries, we performed further analyses encompassing the parental burnout facets and the countries' levels of collectivism-individualism. Ethics approval was obtained in all participating countries before the data collection. To participate in the study, parents were required to have at least one child, regardless of age, still living at home.

In this study, however, we restricted the data to information from participants from 36 countries with scores on Hofstede's individualism scale, comprising 16,093 individuals. Data collection occurred between January 2018 and November 2019 with various recruitment procedures, including newspaper advertisement, word of mouth, social networks, door-to-door, and varied survey presentations, namely paper and pencil and online. See Table 1 for specific information regarding the data collection in each country. See Table 2 for detailed information about the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents in each country.

The majority of participants were part of two-parent families (79.2%), were women (73%), and were active in the labor market (82%). The other family
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Data Collection Procedures in Each Country.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Sampling Procedure</th><th>Location of Data Collection<sup>a</sup></th><th>Survey Type Online Versus Paper-Pencil (% Online)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Algeria</td><td>Snowball</td><td>Oran, Mostaganem, Tlemcen, Ain Temouchent, Relizane, Chlef, El Bayadh, Annaba, Constantine et Oum El Bouaghi</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Argentina</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>San Miguel de Tucumán</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>Snowball</td><td>New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Austria</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Undefined</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>Snowball</td><td>Flanders and Wallonia</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro states: Amazonas, Ceará, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paraíba, Paraná, Pernambuco, Piauí, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Sergipe</td><td>65.1</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>Snowball</td><td>Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec, Northwest Territories</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Chile</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Santiago, los Lagos (Puerto Montt), Del Maule (Talca)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>China</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Zhejiang</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Colombia</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Undefined</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Costa Rica</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>San José, San Ramon, Heredia, Cartago, Alajuela</td><td>94</td></tr><tr><td>Ecuador</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Quito, Latacunga, Ibarra Otavalo, Saquisilí, Salcedo, El Corazón, Guaranda, Tulcán, Cuenca, Guayaquil, Portoviejo, Esmeraldas, Lago</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Hyvinkää, Posio, Jyväskylä</td><td>86.3</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Ile-de-France</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>**Table 1. (continued)**</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Sampling Procedure</th><th>Location of Data Collection<sup>a</sup></th><th>Survey Type Online Versus Paper-Pencil (% Online)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Baden-Württemberg</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Tilburg</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Iran</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Tehran</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Padova</td><td>98</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>Quota sampling</td><td>The 47 prefectures in Japan</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Lebanon</td><td>Stratified</td><td>Mount Lebanon, Beirut, North Lebanon, South Lebanon, Nabatieh, Beqaa</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Pakistan</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Lahore</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Peru</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Lima, Arequipa, Cajamarca, San Martin, La Libertad, Lambayeque</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Warsaw</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Coimbra, Porto</td><td>81</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Bucharest, Timisoara</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Russia</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Undefined</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Serbia</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Belgrade</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Spain (undefined) and Basque country (Galdakao and Igorre, Azpeitia and Errenteria, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Leitza)</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Snowball</td><td>Undefined</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Canton of Vaud</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Thailand</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Chiand Mai</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td><td>Convenience</td><td>Ankara, Istanbul</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>UK</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Montevideo</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>Convenience and quota</td><td>Stanford, Florida</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>**Table 1.** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Sampling Procedure</th><th>Location of Data Collection<sup>a</sup></th><th>Survey Type Online Versus Paper-Pencil (% Online)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Vietnam</td><td>Snowball and convenience</td><td>Ho Chi Minh City, Thanh Hoa, Cam Ranh province, Lam Dong, Mekong Delta area</td><td>12.5</td></tr></tbody></table>

compositions were single-parent families (8.6%), step-families (6.1%), multigenerational families (4.3%), same-sex couple families (.4%), polygamous families (.1%) and other types of families (1.4%). The mean age of participants was around 39 years (M = 39.09; SD = 8.81), varying from 33.81 (SD = 6.47) years in Austria to 54.36 (SD = 14.65) in Japan. The average number of years of education was 15 (M = 15.06; SD = 4.3), varying from 10.28 (SD = 2.87) in China to 17.5 (SD = 3.5) in Poland. The average number of children in the household was two (M = 1.94; SD = 1.02). A more detailed sample description can be found in the seminal paper of the IIPB consortium by Roskam et al. (2021).

## Measures

*Sociodemographic Characteristics.* Age, gender, number of children, age of children, nationality, relationship status, type of family, and level of education.

*Parental Burnout.* Parental burnout was assessed with the Parental Burnout Assessment—PBA (Roskam et al., 2018), a 23-item questionnaire assessing the four core symptoms of PB: emotional exhaustion (9 items, e.g., “I feel completely run down by my role as a parent”), contrast (6 items, e.g., “I’m no longer proud of myself as a parent”), saturation or feelings of being fed up (5 items, e.g., “I can’t stand my role as father/mother anymore”), and emotional distancing (3 items, e.g., “I do what I’m supposed to do for my child(ren), but nothing more”). Items are rated on a 7-point frequency scale: never (0), a few times a year or less (1), once a month or less (2), a few times a month (3), once a week (4), a few times a week (5), every day (6).

In all participating countries, the instrument was translated, back-translated and adapted to local languages. In the past years, several validation studies of

<footnote><sup>a</sup>Location is larger for countries where online survey was used as the survey covered the whole country. The location that is mentioned is where the sampling and data collection started.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Sociodemographic Characteristics of Respondents in Each Country.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Sample Size</th><th>Age</th><th>Sex (% Mothers)</th><th>Educational Level</th><th>Working Status (% Paid Professional Activity)</th><th>No. of Children in the Household</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Algeria</td><td>318</td><td>41.62 (10.43)</td><td>60.4</td><td>14.02 (4.89)</td><td>70.1</td><td>2.66 (1.64)</td></tr><tr><td>Argentina</td><td>177</td><td>40.02 (9.88)</td><td>66.7</td><td>16.45 (4.08)</td><td>87.6</td><td>2.20 (1.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>212</td><td>44.80 (10.60)</td><td>51.4</td><td>13.17 (2.78)</td><td>56.6</td><td>1.75 (0.86)</td></tr><tr><td>Austria</td><td>185</td><td>33.81 (6.47)</td><td>89.2</td><td>13.27 (3.08)</td><td>70.8</td><td>1.58 (.82)</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>1689</td><td>38.41 (7.53)</td><td>86.3</td><td>16.55 (2.61)</td><td>90.9</td><td>2.09 (1.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Brazil</td><td>301</td><td>42.03 (9.09)</td><td>63.5</td><td>15.89 (4.22)</td><td>78.0</td><td>1.52 (0.76)</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>279</td><td>34.08 (6.66)</td><td>92.1</td><td>15.89 (2.80)</td><td>84.2</td><td>2.12 (0.86)</td></tr><tr><td>Chile</td><td>431</td><td>36.57 (6.56)</td><td>85.6</td><td>17.93 (3.36)</td><td>76.3</td><td>1.80 (1.33)</td></tr><tr><td>China</td><td>722</td><td>38.75 (4.68)</td><td>55.5</td><td>10.28 (2.87)</td><td>91.4</td><td>1.49 (0.59)</td></tr><tr><td>Colombia</td><td>95</td><td>—</td><td>74.7</td><td>—</td><td>84.2</td><td>1.57 (.72)</td></tr><tr><td>Costa Rica</td><td>248</td><td>37.79 (8.15)</td><td>58.9</td><td>16.41 (4.47)</td><td>84.7</td><td>1.51 (.72)</td></tr><tr><td>Ecuador</td><td>146</td><td>32.45 (7.50)</td><td>69.9</td><td>17.21 (3.0)</td><td>85.6</td><td>1.63 (.74)</td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td>1730</td><td>36.47 (6.49)</td><td>90.7</td><td>17.7 (3.4)</td><td>75.5</td><td>2.24 (1.29)</td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>1357</td><td>38.06 (8.42)</td><td>81.4</td><td>15.0 (2.8)</td><td>83.0</td><td>1.85 (.85)</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>204</td><td>35.63 (7.90)</td><td>68.6</td><td>13.5 (4.9)</td><td>74.0</td><td>1.70 (.89)</td></tr><tr><td>Netherlands</td><td>221</td><td>37.21 (8.82)</td><td>71.9</td><td>16.3 (2.4)</td><td>93.2</td><td>1.72 (.83)</td></tr><tr><td>Iran</td><td>448</td><td>40.33 (8.71)</td><td>50.4</td><td>13.7 (3.5)</td><td>67.6</td><td>1.73 (.77)</td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td>350</td><td>43.53 (8.97)</td><td>71.4</td><td>15.0 (3.9)</td><td>85.7</td><td>1.74 (.74)</td></tr><tr><td>Japan</td><td>500</td><td>54.36 (14.65)</td><td>50.0</td><td>14.3 (2.5)</td><td>59.6</td><td>1.56 (.73)</td></tr><tr><td>Lebanon</td><td>201</td><td>37.44 (8.43)</td><td>67.2</td><td>16.2 (3.7)</td><td>67.7</td><td>2.18 (1.03)</td></tr><tr><td>Pakistan</td><td>226</td><td>50.24 (10.24)</td><td>44.2</td><td>12.0 (3.7)</td><td>40.9</td><td>4.85 (2.85)</td></tr><tr><td>Peru</td><td>311</td><td>40.15 (10.68)</td><td>69.8</td><td>14.9 (4.8)</td><td>84.6</td><td>1.94 (1.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td>457</td><td>34.76 (6.89)</td><td>71.1</td><td>17.5 (3.5)</td><td>75.5</td><td>1.71 (.93)</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>407</td><td>41.85 (8.12)</td><td>50.4</td><td>14.9 (3.8)</td><td>92.8</td><td>1.66 (.71)</td></tr><tr><td>Romania</td><td>279</td><td>36.56 (5.12)</td><td>77.1</td><td>17.1 (2.7)</td><td>88.5</td><td>1.56 (.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Russia</td><td>365</td><td>34.41 (6.71)</td><td>72.1</td><td>14.5 (4.2)</td><td>83.6</td><td>1.71 (.83)</td></tr><tr><td>Serbia</td><td>228</td><td>38.10 (5.70)</td><td>77.2</td><td>14.9 (5.2)</td><td>86.0</td><td>1.63 (.69)</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>696</td><td>40.91 (8.13)</td><td>76.7</td><td>15.1 (4.1)</td><td>82.3</td><td>1.72 (.77)</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>796</td><td>40.66 (5.04)</td><td>93.0</td><td>15.4 (3.2)</td><td>87.3</td><td>2.15 (.94)</td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td>419</td><td>40.18 (6.86)</td><td>64.7</td><td>16.4 (3.6)</td><td>92.1</td><td>1.96 (.81)</td></tr><tr><td>Thailand</td><td>397</td><td>43.06 (5.99)</td><td>52.1</td><td>3.3 (1.1)</td><td>97.2</td><td>1.79 (.75)</td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td><td>452</td><td>36.77 (6.51)</td><td>59.7</td><td>13.7 (3.6)</td><td>74.8</td><td>1.66 (.65)</td></tr><tr><td>UK</td><td>271</td><td>39.15 (8.52)</td><td>60.1</td><td>15.4 (3.3)</td><td>83.4</td><td>1.72 (.73)</td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td>299</td><td>35.09 (6.37)</td><td>62.9</td><td>12.9 (4.8)</td><td>89.6</td><td>1.62 (.73)</td></tr><tr><td>USA</td><td>406</td><td>38.20 (9.03)</td><td>68.7</td><td>15.42 (3.51)</td><td>76.1</td><td>1.90 (1.03)</td></tr><tr><td>Vietnam</td><td>271</td><td>36.83 (7.81)</td><td>55.7</td><td>14.12 (4.14)</td><td>95.5</td><td>1.66 (1.05)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
the measure have been published (Aunola et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2020; Matias et al., 2020; Mousavi et al., 2020). Roskam et al. (2021) provide detailed data on the validation structure of the scale and establish the measurement invariance of the parental burnout measure according to language.

*Collectivism-Individualism*. The degree of collectivism-individualism was assessed using Hofstede's framework and classification (Hofstede, 2001). Cultural value scores, including collectivism-individualism, range between 0 and 100 (retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/). Highly collectivistic cultures are those with lower scores and highly individualistic cultures are those with higher scores. Individualism scores were divided into three levels (up to 33; 33-66; more than 66). The division into three groups was determined to allow comparisons of more contrasted groups alongside individualistic values. High Collectivism/Low Individualism (High COL-Low IND) aggregated 23.4% of the sample (Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Equator, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Thailand, Vietnam, Pakistan, Serbia); Medium Collectivism/Medium Individualism (Medium COL-IND) aggregated 38.1% of the sample (Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Finland, Iran, Japan, Lebanon, Poland, Russia, Spain, Turkey, Uruguay); and Low Collectivism/High Individualism (Low COL-High IND) encompassed 38.6% of the sample (Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA).

## Statistical Analyses

Latent profile analysis (LPA) was performed using Mplus version 8.5 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2020) and the robust maximum likelihood estimator (MLR) to explore the profiles of PB. Standardized scores for the four parental burnout dimensions were used as input data. To prevent converging on local solutions, latent profiles were estimated with 3000 random start values, 100 iterations, and 100 solutions retained for final stage optimization (see, e.g., Morin, 2016). One to six latent profiles were specified and the means of emotional exhaustion, saturation, emotional distancing and contrast were freely estimated across all profiles, but not their variances, which were constrained to equality. As variances are, by default, constrained to equality in Mplus, we constrained variances to be equal across latent classes to increase the models' parsimony and stability. To determine the optimal number of profiles, we relied on a set of indicators of fit: log-likelihood (LL), the Akaïke information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC), the sample-size adjusted BIC (SSA-BIC), Lo, Mendell and Rubin's adjusted likelihood ratio test (LMR-LRT), the bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT), and entropy (entropy scores closest to one suggest clear delineation of profiles: Celeux & Soromenho, 1996). (For further details, see Morin, 2016). Furthermore, the profile solution chosen also
needed to consider the substantive meaning of the retained profiles. LPA was
performed in the entire sample and replicated in each group of collectivistic-
individualistic countries.

Second, after the optimal number of profiles had been determined and
named, profiles were compared according to the parents’ sociodemographic
characteristics using ANOVAs and chi-square independence tests. Third, we
reran LPA in collectivistic countries and individualistic countries separately
and compared the mean of the dimensions in each profile, contrasting High
COL-Low IND countries and Low COL-High IND countries, using *t*-tests.

Results

The Parental Burnout Profiles

LPA was performed for one to six profiles. Across the models, the fit indices (see Table 3) suggested the addition of profiles without converging on a clear solution until the non-significant LMR-LRT (using an alpha level of .001) of the sixth profile pointed to the selection of a five-profile solution. It must be kept in mind that these statistical indicators are heavily influenced by sample size, so a stricter alpha level can be adopted. Moreover, to ensure that this would be the optimal choice, we also followed Morin et al.’s (2011) recommendations and plotted these indicators in the format of “elbow plots” to examine where the slope flattened, indicating the optimal number of latent profiles to retain. In order to keep a meaningful and parsimonious solution, considering the LMR-LRT indicator and the past work of Hansotte et al. (2020) we retained the five-profile solution. This solution showed good fit indicators: it showed satisfactory entropy and the average latent class probabilities varied from .87 (for Profile 2) to .97 (for Profile 5). All these probabilities were above the cut-off criterion of .80 proposed by Nylund et al. (2007).

In Table 4 and Figure 1, a characterization of the five profiles can be found. All profiles differed on all PB dimensions. Profile one was composed of around 61% of the sample and comprised parents who were *Fulfilled* and had scores lower than the mean in all four dimensions. Profile 2, *No parental burnout*, comprised around 22% of the sample. Parents had scores around the mean. Profile three was characterized by *Low risk of parental burnout* (around 10% of the sample). Profile four aggregated 5% of parents who were at *High risk of parental burnout*, with a high score on all dimensions. Profile five was the most risky profile, consisting of the 3% of parents who had higher scores on all PB dimensions and were considered to be *Burned out*.

To further validate these results, we identified the proportion of parents
scoring higher than the clinical cut-off of the PBA total score (i.e., 92/138) in
each profile (see Roskam et al., 2021 for further details). The first three profiles
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Fit Indicators of the LPA (n = 16,885).</caption><thead><tr><th>Profile n°</th><th>Log-Likelihood</th><th># Free Parameters</th><th>AIC</th><th>BIC</th><th>SSA-BIC</th><th>LMR-LRT</th><th>BLRT (p)</th><th>Entropy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>-95,826.01</td><td>8</td><td>191,668.03</td><td>191,729.90</td><td>191,704.48</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>-74,241.40</td><td>13</td><td>148,508.80</td><td>148,609.35</td><td>148,568.03</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.97</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>-66,222.11</td><td>18</td><td>132,480.22</td><td>132,619.44</td><td>132,562.23</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>-62,747.40</td><td>23</td><td>125,540.80</td><td>125,718.68</td><td>125,645.59</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>-61,210.04</td><td>28</td><td>122,476.09</td><td>122,692.64</td><td>122,603.66</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>-60,021.76</td><td>33</td><td>120,109.52</td><td>120,364.75</td><td>120,259.88</td><td>.005</td><td>.000</td><td>0.91</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SSA-BIC = sample-size adjusted BIC; LMR-LRT = Lo-Mendel-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio; BLRT = bootstrap likelihood ratio test.
<table><caption>**Table 4.** Profile Means for the Five-Profile Solution (n = 16,885).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Fulfilled (n = 10246)<br>60.68%</th><th>No PB (n = 3770)<br>22.33%</th><th>Low Risk of PB<br>(n = 1614)<br>9.56%</th><th>High Risk of PB<br>(n = 788)<br>4.67%</th><th>Burned out<br>(n = 467)<br>2.77%</th><th>F Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Emotional<br>exhaustion</td><td>-.61</td><td>.34</td><td>1.22</td><td>2.07</td><td>2.85</td><td>18909.72*</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>-.51</td><td>.11</td><td>.99</td><td>2.04</td><td>3.45</td><td>14532.49*</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>-.53</td><td>.11</td><td>1.00</td><td>2.20</td><td>3.67</td><td>27967.20*</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional distancing</td><td>-.48</td><td>.22</td><td>.90</td><td>1.63</td><td>3.02</td><td>6487.33*</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. All values are standardized means. *For all F-values, *p* < .001. All scores differ between profiles at *p* < .001.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Graphical depiction of the mean for the five profile solution (n = 16,885).</figcaption></figure>

had no parents in burnout, while Profile 4 (High risk of PB) had 20.7% and Profile 5 (Burned out) had 98.8% of parents in burnout. In the total sample 3.6% of parents could be said to be in PB.

## The Sociodemographic Characteristics of Parental Burnout Profiles

Details of parents in each profile according to background characteristics can be found in Appendix 1. As can be seen from Table 5, Chi-square independence tests showed that gender, number of children in the house, type of family and professional status were not independent from profile membership. Furthermore, inspecting the adjusted residuals we examined which profiles had the largest difference between the expected counts and the actual counts relative to sample size. Men were more represented in the *Fulfilled* profile and less represented in all remaining profiles than would be expected if their distribution was identical across all five profiles. In terms of the number of children at home, the *Fulfilled* profile was characterized by having more families with one child than the remaining profiles. The *Fulfilled* profile was also characterized by having more two-parent and multigenerational families than the remaining profiles. Finally, regarding work status, working parents were more frequent in the *Fulfilled* profile than would be expected in a uniform distribution of parents.

## Parental Burnout Profiles in Collectivistic and Individualistic Countries

Table 6 shows the fit indices of the LPA for the different solutions. For the High COL-Low IND group, a three-profile solution was selected, whereas for
<table><caption>**Table 5.** Background Differences in Parental Burnout Profiles.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Fulfilled</th><th>Not in PB</th><th>Low risk of PB</th><th>High risk for PB</th><th>PB</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender (%)</td><td>Male</td><td>54.9 (24.4)</td><td>25.2 (-14.3)</td><td>11.0 (-10.2)</td><td>5.5 (-8.2)</td><td>3.4 (-7.5)</td><td>604.32*</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>75.3 (-24.4)</td><td>15 (14.3)</td><td>5.9 (10.2)</td><td>2.5 (8.2)</td><td>1.3 (7.5)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">No. of children in house (%)</td><td>1</td><td>66.5 (12.4)</td><td>19.6 (-6.6)</td><td>7.9 (-5.6)</td><td>3.9 (-4.0)</td><td>2.0 (-4.8)</td><td>219.51*</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>59.2 (-3.0)</td><td>22.8 (1.3)</td><td>9.8 (0.9)</td><td>5.2 (2.8)</td><td>2.9 (.07)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3 or more</td><td>51.9 (-11.3)</td><td>26.6 (6.5)</td><td>12.2 (5.8)</td><td>5.2 (1.5)</td><td>4.1 (5.0)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Type of family (%)</td><td>Two-parent</td><td>61.4 (3.5)</td><td>22.5 (0.9)</td><td>9.2 (-2.7)</td><td>4.5 (-2.4)</td><td>2.5 (-4.6)</td><td>156.70*</td></tr><tr><td>Single-parent</td><td>52.6 (-6.8)</td><td>23.7 (1.3)</td><td>11.4 (2.7)</td><td>7.9 (6.3)</td><td>4.4 (3.9)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Step-family</td><td>55.0 (-3.9)</td><td>23.5 (0.9)</td><td>12.7 (3.6)</td><td>4.8 (0.1)</td><td>4.2 (2.7)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Multigenerational</td><td>72.8 (7.0)</td><td>15.8 (-4.5)</td><td>6.8 (-2.6)</td><td>1.7 (-4.1)</td><td>3.0 (0.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Working</td><td>62.0 (7.5)</td><td>22.3 (0.2)</td><td>9.1 (-4.7)</td><td>4.2 (-5.9)</td><td>2.4 (-6.9)</td><td>120.87*</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Not working</td><td>54.7 (-7.5)</td><td>22.2 (-0.2)</td><td>11.8 (4.7)</td><td>6.7 (5.99)</td><td>4.6 (6.9)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. *For all $\chi^2$ values, $p < .001$. Values in parentheses represent the adjusted residuals. Values higher than [1.96] indicate that there are more (or less, if negative) cases in the cell than there would be if the variables were independent, adjusting for sample size. Gray cells highlight when the actual counts were higher than would be expected if the parents were distributed identically across all profiles and bold values indicate when the actual counts were lower than would be expected.
<table><caption>**Table 6.** Fit Indicators of the LPA (n = 16,885) According to the Levels of Individualism and Collectivism.</caption><thead><tr><th>Profile n°</th><th>Log-likelihood</th><th># Free Parameters</th><th>AIC</th><th>BIC</th><th>Ssabic</th><th>LMR-LRT</th><th>BLRT (p)</th><th>Entropy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="9">High COL-low IND countries</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>-14,025.033</td><td>13</td><td>28,076.07</td><td>28,157.089</td><td>28,115.781</td><td>.001</td><td>.001</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>-12,031.119</td><td>18</td><td>24,098.24</td><td>24,210.423</td><td>24,153.227</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>-11,301.856</td><td>23</td><td>22,649.71</td><td>22,793.058</td><td>22,719.975</td><td>.050</td><td>.053</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>-10,874.537</td><td>28</td><td>21,805.07</td><td>21,979.582</td><td>21,890.611</td><td>.052</td><td>.054</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Medium COL-IND countries</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>-26,748</td><td>13</td><td>53,521.96</td><td>53,609.325</td><td>53,568.02</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>-23,977.1</td><td>18</td><td>47,990.17</td><td>48,111.14</td><td>48,053.94</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>-22,789.5</td><td>23</td><td>45,625.07</td><td>45,779.64</td><td>45,706.55</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>-22,215</td><td>28</td><td>44,486.04</td><td>44,674.21</td><td>44,585.24</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>-21,715.7</td><td>33</td><td>43,497.41</td><td>43,719.19</td><td>43,614.32</td><td>.117</td><td>.124</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Low COL-high IND countries</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>-28,749.4</td><td>13</td><td>57,524.811</td><td>57,612.34</td><td>57,571.03</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.97</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>-25,689.2</td><td>18</td><td>51,414.435</td><td>51,535.63</td><td>51,478.43</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>-24,389.4</td><td>23</td><td>48,824.708</td><td>48,979.57</td><td>48,906.48</td><td>.000</td><td>.000</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>-23,862.3</td><td>28</td><td>47,780.535</td><td>47,969.06</td><td>47,880.08</td><td>.003</td><td>.003</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>-23,442.9</td><td>33</td><td>46,951.794</td><td>47,173.98</td><td>47,069.12</td><td>.054</td><td>.057</td><td>0.89</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SSA-BIC = sample size adjusted BIC; LMR-LRT = Lo-Mendel-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio; BLRT = bootstrap likelihood ratio test.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Comparison of the mean levels on each PB dimension for the three-and five-profile solutions for high COL-low IND countries.</figcaption></figure>

the Medium COL-IND and High IND-Low COL groups a five-profile solution seemed to fit better. In Figure 2 we compare the three- and five-profile solutions for the High COL-Low IND group, showing that the profiles that emerged were rather parallel. Although the five-profile solution allowed for more refinement on each PB dimension, no PB dimension had a marked role in these profiles. We therefore used the five-profile solution for all groups of countries in the subsequent analyses.

Appendix 2 shows the five profiles according to each COL-IND group. Generally, the five profiles were repeated in each group of countries, i.e. a first profile comprised of most *Fulfilled* parents, a second profile with *No parental burnout*, a third profile with parents at *Low risk of burnout*, a fourth profile
<table><caption>**Table 7.** Standardized Mean Levels of PB Dimensions in Each Profile Across the Two Most Contrasting Groups—High COL-Low IND Versus Low COL-High IND Countries.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>High COL-Low IND<br>Collectivistic Countries</th><th>Low COL-High IND<br>Individualistic Countries</th><th>Increment on the Means<br>Between the Two Groups</th><th>t</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Profile 1 (fulfilled)</strong></td><td>n = 2594</td><td>n = 3465</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Emotional exhaustion</td><td>-0.69</td><td>-0.49</td><td>.20</td><td>-22.69***</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>-0.55</td><td>-0.46</td><td>.09</td><td>-12.10***</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>-0.60</td><td>-0.47</td><td>.13</td><td>-21.23***</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional distancing</td><td>-0.55</td><td>-0.46</td><td>.09</td><td>-8.81***</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Profile 2 (No PB)</strong></td><td>n = 723</td><td>n = 1493</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Emotional exhaustion</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.53</td><td>.28</td><td>-12.83***</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.18</td><td>.17</td><td>-7.56***</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.20</td><td>.25</td><td>-12.01***</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional distancing</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.16</td><td>-.01</td><td>.36ns</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Profile 3 (low risk of PB)</strong></td><td>n = 303</td><td>n = 673</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Emotional exhaustion</td><td>0.98</td><td>1.45</td><td>.47</td><td>-11.19***</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>0.77</td><td>1.17</td><td>.40</td><td>-8.33***</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>0.94</td><td>1.09</td><td>.15</td><td>-3.96***</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional distancing</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.92</td><td>.20</td><td>-3.24***</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Profile 4 (high risk of PB)</strong></td><td>n = 90</td><td>n = 339</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Emotional exhaustion</td><td>1.98</td><td>2.20</td><td>.22</td><td>-3.75***</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>2.00</td><td>2.01</td><td>.01</td><td>-0.11ns</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>2.17</td><td>2.41</td><td>.24</td><td>-3.06***</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional distancing</td><td>1.58</td><td>1.78</td><td>.20</td><td>-1.83ns</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>Table 7. (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>High COL-Low IND<br>Collectivistic Countries</th><th>Low COL-High IND<br>Individualistic Countries</th><th>Increment on the Means<br>Between the Two Groups</th><th>t</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Profile 5 (PB)</strong></td><td>n = 51</td><td>n = 234</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Emotional exhaustion</td><td>2.76</td><td>2.92</td><td>.16</td><td>-1.81<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>3.34</td><td>3.57</td><td>.23</td><td>-2.33<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>3.58</td><td>3.73</td><td>.15</td><td>-1.59<sup>ns</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Emotional distancing</td><td>3.27</td><td>3.10</td><td>.17</td><td>-1.17<sup>ns</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note. All values are standardized means. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
with a *High risk* of parental burnout and finally a fifth profile characterized by *burned-out* parents. The results of the mean comparisons of the dimensions in each profile between the most contrasting groups of countries, that is, the High COL-Low IND countries and the Low COL-High IND countries, are shown in Table 7. The most marked differences regularly observed in *all profiles* was that parents in individualistic countries had higher emotional exhaustion and higher saturation levels than parents in collectivistic countries for all profiles apart from *Burned out*. Additionally, parents in individualistic countries had higher levels of contrast than parents from the collectivistic countries with the exception of the *High risk of PB* parents. Moreover, for parents who belonged to the *Burned out profile*, there were only marked differences in the levels of contrast, which were particularly high for the individualistic countries. Finally, differences in emotional distancing were only observed when the risk of burnout was low or inexistent

In sum, as expected, contrast was the only dimension in the *Burned out parents* profile to show a significant difference between individualistic and collectivistic countries. Emotional distancing was significantly lower in collectivistic than in individualistic countries in Profile 3. However, the level of emotional distancing in the collectivistic countries was higher in Profile four and Profile 5. In the latter profile, it reached the level found in individualistic countries. A similar pattern of results occurred for both saturation and emotional exhaustion. These two dimensions were lower in collectivistic than in individualistic countries in Profile four and Profile 5. Again, in these latter profile, they both reached the level found in individualistic countries.

Discussion

In this study, we aimed to go deeper into the analyses of PB profiles and
examine how these profiles varied in prevalence and were shaped by different
cultural contexts. Using the gold-standard measure of assessing parental
burnout, the Parental Burnout Assessment (PBA) (Roskam et al., 2018), we
can first highlight that PB dimensions translated into five profiles. Of these,
one profile consisted of *Fulfilled* parents and another of parents who were not
in burnout; the remaining three were more related to different expressions of
PB. These expressions of PB are distinct from those found in the earlier study,
probably because the PBA allows a distinction to be made between saturation
and contrast, unlike the PBI (used in the earlier study). We were also able to
support the validity of these profiles, given that Profile 5, *Burned out parents*,
aggregated 99% of parents who could be said to be in clinical burnout.

Another remarkable finding is that most parents belonged to the *Fulfilled* profile. This profile also had a relatively high proportion of men, working parents of a single child and parents in two-parent or multigenerational families. These results are consistent with previous evidence in the field of PB.
Although socio-demographic variables explained a very low part of the variance, gender-related differences previously reported mean that the high proportion of men in this profile was not surprising: most parental tasks are still performed by women worldwide, and women report higher parental stress than men (Aguiar et al., 2021; Roskam et al., 2022). Although this finding was consistent with previous studies, it was interesting to note that working outside the home was a protective factor (working parents were more frequent in the *Fulfilled* profile). It seems helpful for parents to have another role to focus on and perhaps to derive satisfaction and self-esteem from. Belonging to a two-parent or multigenerational family also appeared to be a protective factor, probably because more support is available in such households (i.e., the task of parenting can be shared with the partner or other family members).

In the total sample, but also in both the High COL-Low IND and the Low COL-High IND country groups, the scores in each PB facet were progressively higher from one profile to another. Although we retained the five-profile solution for all groups, we noted that a three-profile solution would also fit the data in the High COL-Low IND group. Both the three- and five-profile solution pointed to the same progressive pattern. As the internal consistency between the four scales of the PBA and between the 23 items in general was very high, it was difficult to identify profiles that were anything other than levels of burnout. However, a closer look at the values of each PB facet in the two country groups showed that the absolute value of each facet was higher in the Low COL-High IND group. For this group of countries, the absolute values for emotional exhaustion and saturation were quite high in all profiles but the last, even in the *Fulfilled* profile. In the *Low* and *High risk of PB* profiles, besides these two facets, emotional distancing was also much higher in the Low COL-High IND group. Although the contrast dimension was higher in all profiles except for *High risk* of PB, it was noteworthy that in the *Burned out* profile, the contrast dimension was the only one which differentiated the parents from collectivistic and individualistic countries. These results supported our hypothesis that contrast was the hallmark for *burned out* parents in highly individualistic countries.

Considering the mean levels of each dimension within countries and across profiles, especially between the *High risk* of PB and *Burned out* profiles, we saw that in the individualistic countries, the dimension that increased the most between these two profiles was contrast (from 2.01 to 3.57). A larger mean difference was also observed for emotional exhaustion in both collectivistic and individualistic countries. This set of findings may be considered together with previous results using the PBI in a longitudinal perspective that suggested exhaustion as a first step in the PB process across different countries (Roskam & Mikolajczak, 2021).

We hypothesized that specific dimensions would play a particular role in the two cultural groups. Although we could not confirm our predictions of
different profiles for different cultural groups, we saw that being *Burned out* is the result of higher levels in all dimensions. However, a major increase of contrast seems to be the final sign of severe burnout, depending on the level of collectivism-individualism of the country. In the Low COL-High IND countries, the profiles were marked by the largest differences in contrast. This distinctive role of contrast seems to align with our prediction that in this type of country, as parents are more focused on their own achievement and autonomy, contrast is what increases the most in the *Burned out* profile. For these parents, it seems that this is the most relevant facet of the experience of burnout. Interestingly, this dimension, which is not present in the model of job burnout, emerged saliently from the testimonies of burned-out parents that were used to conceptualize parental burnout and develop the PBA. Such results are in line with previous studies that have suggested parental perfectionism as a major risk factor for parental burnout (Furutani et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2021; Sorkkila & Aunola, 2020; Stănculescu et al., 2020), and higher parental goals as a possible mediator between culture and parental burnout (Roskam et al., 2023). Our results also point in this direction. In a culture where concerns about performance and exacting standards prevail in most life domains, including parenting, feeling a contrast between the parent one is and the parent one was or wanted to be is a very salient aspect.

Our predictions regarding emotional distancing as the most relevant sign for severe burnout in High COL/Low IND countries were not supported. Emotional distancing showed an upward trend across profiles which was quite similar for both groups of countries. In Profile 4, emotional distancing was higher for Low COL/High IND countries, but in Profile five this difference was reversed, and emotional distancing was higher for High COL/Low IND countries. One methodological explanation for this finding could be that the number of participants from individualistic countries was much higher than that of participants from collectivist countries. Another explanation could be that parents' testimonies used to conceptualize parental burnout and to develop the PBA were collected from Western parents. There may be specific facets of parental burnout in collectivist cultures that the PBA does not fully assess. Although the PBA validation has been replicated in non-Western countries, there may be specific dimensions of parental burnout that are not present in these countries, and other culture-specific dimensions may not be fully grasped by the PBA. Therefore, despite our use of a new methodological approach on these data, we could not fully discern the role of specific facets in the most collectivist countries. If this interpretation is correct, inductive research needs to be conducted in the most collectivist countries to test whether the same or other new dimensions appear in parental burnout.

These findings add to our knowledge of the structure of parental burnout across the globe and also point to important practical implications regarding how the process unfolds. For individualistic countries, contrast seems to be
particularly disturbing. This disillusioned self-image may have important implications for individuals' wellbeing, self-esteem and life satisfaction. As this is likely the result of stringent parenting norms, an effort needs to be made in these countries to change the social discourse around parenting in order to reduce parental burnout. At the same time, emotional exhaustion seems to be the first dimension of parental burnout that pushes parents into the *Low risk* profile and remains high in the three profiles with higher risk of burnout. Thus, a preventive approach would imply the early identification of exhausted parents. If parental burnout is the result of a chronic lack of resources to meet parenting needs, emotional exhaustion can be seen as the first sign of energy depletion.

Our predictions regarding emotional distancing were not supported. As mentioned, inductive approaches to collectivist societies may help deepen the assessment of parental burnout. The PBA is currently the best instrument for measuring parental burnout due to the use of an inductive method in its development. Nevertheless, it was developed based on the emic perspective of more individualistic cultures. It will be important to consider in future studies how to make the instrument more flexible and ensure that it encompasses the experiences of parents in collectivist cultures.

## Limitations and Future Perspectives

Despite its rigor and the conclusions that can be drawn, our study is not without limitations. The first limitation is that the study lacks an outcome variable either for the parent (e.g., somatic complaints or addictive behaviors) or for the child (e.g., externalizing and internalizing behavior) to validate the profiles across all countries. Another limitation is due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, which prevented us from studying the process of PB across the five profiles. A third limitation derives from the collectivism-individualism dimension. The fact that levels of COL-IND were based on countries' scores prevented us from making inferences about individual parents' assessment of cultural values. By using data about individuals' endorsement of cultural values, we could combine the country level of COL-IND with individual assessments and disentangle the distinct effects of these two layers of social influence. A fourth limitation is the instrument used for assessing PB. Although the evidence for its psychometric properties is consistent even in collectivistic countries, the PBA is based on the views and experiences of parents from more individualistic cultures.

Finally, the sample was potentially biased both because the number of mothers was higher than the number of fathers, and because the number of parents was higher in Low COL-High IND than in High COL-Low IND countries. It is noteworthy that, despite these limitations, a great diversity of countries was included in the study, which allowed us to further explore the
links between collectivism-individualism and parental burnout profiles, highlighting the role of different PB facets across countries.

## Conclusions

The analyses performed in this study underscore the relevance of addressing parental burnout in its different facets. Our findings draw attention to the role of contrast in PB experiences, especially in more individualistic countries. However, the experience of parents in collectivistic countries includes facets that are not yet fully understood or covered by the available instruments. These reinforce the relevance of studying cultural aspects in the parenting experience and considering the cultural mediators of PB. In addition, given the negative consequences that pressure on parents to perform seems to entail, more awareness is needed in social discourses and social policies of the harmful effects of this pressure on parenting. In parallel, our findings may help initiate meaningful conversations about parental burnout facets and measurement in collectivistic countries, deepening our emic approach to this phenomenon which is less endemic in collectivistic cultures; this in turn may make it possible to encompass the complexities of parenting experiences more comprehensively.

## Appendix 1: Characterization of parents in each parental burnout profile

To increase our understanding of the link between profiles and background characteristics, bias in the distribution of profiles according to parents' gender, age, educational level, professional status, number and age of children living in the household, and type of family were tested (Table A1 and A2).

Men were more represented in the “Fulfilled” profile and were less represented in all remaining profiles. The “Fulfilled” profile is also characterized by having more two parents and multigenerational families and having only one child living in the household. Parents in this profile tend to be working, are younger, and less educated, and their younger children are the oldest when compared with the remaining profiles. Also, parents in this profile tend to spend less time with their children daily.

The “Low risk”, “High Risk” and “Burned out” profiles are characterized by having a higher number of single-parent families and by not having a paid professional activity. The “Low risk of PB” and “Burned out” parents also have more children living in the household (3 or more) and are part of stepfamilies at a higher degree.

The profile of “No PB” is further characterized by having three or more children living in the household, not having a multigenerational type of
<table><caption>**Table A1.** Background differences in parental burnout profiles.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>Fulfilled</th><th>No PB</th><th>Low risk of PB</th><th>High risk for PB</th><th>PB</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender (%)</td><td>Male</td><td>54.9<br>(24.4)</td><td><strong>25.2</strong><br>(-14.3)</td><td><strong>11.0</strong><br>(-10.2)</td><td><strong>5.5</strong><br>(-8.2)</td><td><strong>3.4</strong><br>(-7.5)</td><td rowspan="2">604.32*</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>75.3</td><td>15</td><td>5.9</td><td>2.5</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Nr of children in house (%)</td><td>1</td><td>66.5<br>(12.4)</td><td><strong>19.6</strong><br>(-6.6)</td><td><strong>7.9</strong><br>(-5.6)</td><td><strong>3.9</strong><br>(-4.0)</td><td><strong>2.0</strong><br>(-4.8)</td><td rowspan="3">219.51*</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td><strong>59.2</strong><br>(-3.0)</td><td>22.8<br>(1.3)</td><td>9.8<br>(0.9)</td><td>5.2<br>(2.8)</td><td>2.9<br>(.07)</td></tr><tr><td>3 or more</td><td><strong>51.9</strong><br>(-11.3)</td><td>26.6<br>(6.5)</td><td>12.2<br>(5.8)</td><td>5.2<br>(1.5)</td><td>4.1<br>(5.0)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Type of family (%)</td><td>Two parent</td><td>61.4<br>(3.5)</td><td>22.5<br>(0.9)</td><td><strong>9.2</strong><br>(-2.7)</td><td><strong>4.5</strong><br>(-2.4)</td><td><strong>2.5</strong><br>(-4.6)</td><td rowspan="4">156.70*</td></tr><tr><td>Single parent</td><td><strong>52.6</strong><br>(-6.8)</td><td>23.7<br>(1.3)</td><td>11.4<br>(2.7)</td><td>7.9<br>(6.3)</td><td>4.4<br>(3.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Step family</td><td><strong>55.0</strong><br>(-3.9)</td><td>23.5<br>(0.9)</td><td>12.7<br>(3.6)</td><td>4.8<br>(0.1)</td><td>4.2<br>(2.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Multigenerational</td><td>72.8<br>(7.0)</td><td><strong>15.8</strong><br>(-4.5)</td><td><strong>6.8</strong><br>(-2.6)</td><td><strong>1.7</strong><br>(-4.1)</td><td>3.0<br>(0.3)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Professional status (%)</td><td>Working</td><td>62.0<br>(7.5)</td><td>22.3<br>(0.2)</td><td><strong>9.1</strong><br>(-4.7)</td><td><strong>4.2</strong><br>(-5.9)</td><td><strong>2.4</strong><br>(-6.9)</td><td rowspan="2">120.87*</td></tr><tr><td>Not working</td><td>54.7</td><td>22.2</td><td>11.8</td><td>6.7</td><td>4.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: *For all χ² values, *p* < .001. Values in brackets represent the adjusted residuals. Values higher than | 1.96| indicate that there are more (or fewer) cases in the cell than if the variables were independent.
<table><caption>**Table A2.** Background differences in parental burnout profiles.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Fulfilled</th><th>No PB</th><th>Low risk of PB</th><th>High risk for PB</th><th>PB</th><th>F-value*</th><th>Bonferroni pairwise comparisons</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age</td><td>40.09</td><td>37.86</td><td>37.06</td><td>36.51</td><td>37.5</td><td>93.52</td><td>1&lt;2,3,4,5</td></tr><tr><td>M (SD)</td><td>(9.35)</td><td>(7.85)</td><td>(7.62)</td><td>(7.28)</td><td>(8.71)</td><td></td><td>2&lt;3,4</td></tr><tr><td>Educational Level</td><td>14.51</td><td>15.71</td><td>15.80</td><td>15.99</td><td>15.41</td><td>85.40</td><td>1&lt;2,3,4,5</td></tr><tr><td>M (SD)</td><td>(4.49)</td><td>(3.89)</td><td>(3.93)</td><td>(3.42)</td><td>(3.85)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age of the oldest child</td><td>11.25</td><td>9.03</td><td>8.64</td><td>8.48</td><td>9.41</td><td>83.77</td><td>1&gt;2,3,4,5</td></tr><tr><td>M (SD)</td><td>(8.76)</td><td>(7.41)</td><td>(7.15)</td><td>(6.78)</td><td>(7.62)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Age of the youngest child</td><td>7.48</td><td>5.54</td><td>4.98</td><td>4.96</td><td>5.16</td><td>88.23</td><td>1&gt;2,3,4,5</td></tr><tr><td>M (SD)</td><td>(6.71)</td><td>(5.69)</td><td>(5.3)</td><td>(5.31)</td><td>(5.98)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nr hours w. children/day</td><td>6.94</td><td>7.49</td><td>7.77</td><td>8.23</td><td>8.26</td><td>29.08</td><td>1&lt;2,3,4,5</td></tr><tr><td>M (SD)</td><td>(4.73)</td><td>(5.02)</td><td>(5.35)</td><td>(5.40)</td><td>(5.79)</td><td></td><td>2&lt;4,5</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: *For all F-values, *p* < .001

family, being younger than the “Low risk” and “High risk of PB” and spending a less number of hours per day with their children than the “High risk” and “Burned out” profiles.

Grey cells highlight when the distribution is higher than expected, and bold values indicate when the distribution is lower than expected if the variables were independent.

## Appendix 2: Characterization of Parental Burnout profiles according to each individualism group of countries

On the next table the prevalence of each profile according to the level of countries collectivism-individualism can be found. The High COL-Low IND and Low COL-High IND groups show an opposite pattern.
<table><caption>**Table A3.** Profile means for the five-profile solution according to each individualism group.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Fullfilled</th><th>No PB</th><th>Low risk of PB</th><th>High risk of PB</th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>High COL-Low IND</td><td>n=2594<br>68.97%</td><td>n=723<br>19.22%</td><td>n=303<br>8.06%</td><td>n=90<br>2.39%</td><td>n=51<br>1.36%</td><td>F value</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Exhaustion</td><td>-0.69</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.98</td><td>1.98</td><td>2.76</td><td>3388.75</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>-0.55</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.77</td><td>2.00</td><td>3.34</td><td>3029.57</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>-0.60</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.94</td><td>2.17</td><td>3.58</td><td>5160.51</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Distancing</td><td>-0.55</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.72</td><td>1.58</td><td>3.27</td><td>1213.64</td></tr><tr><td>Medium COL-IND</td><td>n=3810<br>62.17%</td><td>n=1300<br>21.21%</td><td>n=572<br>9.33%</td><td>n=300<br>4.90%</td><td>n=146<br>2.38%</td><td>F value</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Exhaustion</td><td>-0.63</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.18</td><td>2.06</td><td>2.91</td><td>6814.40</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>-0.51</td><td>0.19</td><td>1.11</td><td>2.22</td><td>3.38</td><td>5022.23</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>-0.53</td><td>0.13</td><td>1.00</td><td>2.20</td><td>3.74</td><td>10811.68</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Distancing</td><td>-0.47</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.95</td><td>1.63</td><td>2.95</td><td>2049.77</td></tr><tr><td>Low COL-High IND</td><td>n=3465<br>55.58%</td><td>n=1493<br>24.07%</td><td>n=673<br>10.85%</td><td>n=339<br>5.46%</td><td>n=234<br>3.77%</td><td>F value</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Exhaustion</td><td>-0.49</td><td>0.53</td><td>1.45</td><td>2.20</td><td>2.92</td><td>7649.63</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>-0.46</td><td>0.18</td><td>1.17</td><td>2.01</td><td>3.57</td><td>5691.58</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>-0.47</td><td>0.20</td><td>1.09</td><td>2.41</td><td>3.73</td><td>10177.32</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Distancing</td><td>-0.46</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.92</td><td>1.78</td><td>3.10</td><td>3351.39</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: All values are standardized means.

*For all F-values, *p* < .001. All scores differ per row at *p* < .001

<table><caption>**Table A4.** Parental burnout profiles and COL-IND groups (%).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Fulfilled</th><th>No PB</th><th>Low risk of PB</th><th>High risk of PB</th><th>PB</th><th>χ<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>High COL-Low IND</td><td>69.0<br>(11)</td><td>19.2<br>(-4.4)</td><td>8.1 (-3.7)</td><td>2.4 (-7.2)</td><td>1.4<br>(-5.7)</td><td>219.56*</td></tr><tr><td>Medium COL-IND</td><td>62.2<br>(1.7)</td><td>21.2<br>(-1.5)</td><td>9.3 (-1.0)</td><td>4.9 (1.7)</td><td>2.4 (-1.8)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Low COL-High IND</td><td>55.9<br>(-11.3)</td><td>24.1<br>(5.4)</td><td>10.8 (4.2)</td><td>5.5 (4.5)</td><td>3.8 (6.8)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: *For all χ² values, *p* < .001. Values in brackets represent the adjusted residuals. Values higher than |1.96| indicate that there are more (or fewer) cases in the cell than there would be if the variables were independent. Grey cells highlight when the distribution is higher than expected, and bold values indicate when the distribution is lower than expected if the variables were independent.
There are more parents on the *fulfilled profile* than expected in the High COL-Low IND countries and more parents on all other profiles in the Low COL-High IND group of countries. For the Medium COL-IND group the distribution across the five profiles is according to expected in a random distribution.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia under grant FCTUIDB/00050/2020.

ORCID iDs

Marisa Matias https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5755-5096

Joyce Aguiar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5462-4914

Ege Akgun https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7882-219X

Kaisa Aunola https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8866-6736

Anna Brytek-Matera https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5178-371X

Nicolas Favez https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1744-7602

Maria Gaspar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6680-9289

Ogma Hatta https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7320-7975

Sarah Le Vigouroux https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6655-7376

Denisse Manrique-Millones https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4602-5396

Maria Isabel Miranda-Orrego https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9882-2381

Seyyedeh Fatemeh Mousavi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4790-4010

Josue Ngnombouowo Tenkue https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7867-4601

Pablo A. Pérez-Díaz https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8303-9530

Elena Starchenkova https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6185-2827

Dorota Szczygiel https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9746-1505

A. Meltem Ustundag-Budak https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4159-8980

Moira Mikolajczak https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7333-1578

Isabelle Roskam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1449-1133

References

Aguiar, J., Matias, M., Braz, A. C., César, F., Coimbra, S., Gaspar, M. F., & Fontaine, A. M. (2021). Parental burnout and the COVID-19 pandemic: How Portuguese parents experienced lockdown measures. *Family Relations, 70*(4), 927–938.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12558
Arikan, G., Üstündag-Budak, A. M., Akgün, E., Mikolajczak, M., & Roskam, I. (2020). Validation of the Turkish version of the parental burnout assessment (PBA). *New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2020*(174), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20375

Aunola, K., Sorkkila, M., & Tolvanen, A. (2020). Validity of the Finnish version of the parental burnout assessment (PBA). *Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61*(5), 714–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12654

Bornstein, M. H. (2012). Cultural approaches to parenting. *Parenting, Science and Practice, 12*(2–3), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2012.683359

Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. *Journal of Classification, 13*(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01246098

Cheng, H., Wang, W., Wang, S., Li, Y., Liu, X., & Youngxin, L. (2020). Validation of a Chinese version of the parental burnout assessment (PBA). *Frontiers of Psychology, 11*, 321. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00321

Furutani, K., Kawamoto, T., Alimardani, M., & Nakashima, K. (2020). Exhausted parents in Japan: Preliminary validation of the Japanese version of the parental burnout assessment. *New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2020*(174), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20371

Gannagé, M., Besson, E., Harfouche, J., Roskam, I., & Mikolajczak, M. (2020). Parental burnout in Lebanon: Validation psychometric properties of the Lebanese Arabic version of the parental burnout assessment. *New Directions for Child and adolescent development, 2020*(174), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20383

Hamvai, Cs., Hidegkúti, I., Vargha, A., & Konkolý Thege, B. (2022). Parental burnout in Hungary: Development and psychometric evaluation of the Hungarian parental burnout assessment (PBA-HUN). *European Journal of Mental Health, 17*(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.5708/EJMH/17.2022.1.5

Hansotte, L., Nguyen, N., Roskam, I., Stinglhamber, F., & Mikolajczak, M. (2021). Are all burned out parents neglectful and violent? A latent profile analysis. *Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30*(1), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01850-x

Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1996). Introduction. In S. Harkness & C. M. Super (Eds.), *Parents' cultural belief systems: Their origins, expressions, and consequences* (pp. 1–24). Guilford Press.

Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (2021). Why understanding culture is essential for supporting children and families. *Applied Developmental Science, 25*(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1789354

Hays, S. (1996). *The cultural contradictions of motherhood*. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/76.3.1159

Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures revisited. *Behavior Science Research, 18*(4), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939718301800403

Hofstede, G. (2001). *Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations*. Sage Publications.
Jose, P. E., Huntsinger, C. S., Huntsinger, P. R., & Liaw, F. R. (2000). Parental values and practices relevant to young children's social development in Taiwan and the United States. *Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31*(6), 677-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031006002

Lin, G.-X., Mikolajczak, M., Keller, H., Akgun, E., Arikan, G., Aunola, K., Barham, E., Besson, E., Blanchard, M. A., Boujut, E., Brianda, M. E., Brytek-Matera, A., César, F., Chen, B. B., Dorard, G., dos Santos Elias, L. C., Dunsmuir, S., Egorova, N., Escobar, M. J., & Roskam, I. (2022). Parenting culture(s): Ideal-parent beliefs across 37 countries. *Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54*(1), 4-24. [In press] https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221123043

Mann, S. K., & Cheng, V. (2013). Responding to moral dilemmas: The roles of empathy and collectivist values among the Chinese. *Psychological Reports, 113*(1), 1119-1129. https://doi.org/10.2466/17.21.pr0.113x14z6

Manrique-Millones, D., Vasin, G. M., Dominguez-Lara, S., Millones-Rivalles, R., Ricci, T., Abregu Rey, M., Escobar, M. J., Oyarce, D., Pérez-Díaz, P., Santelices, M. P., Pineda-Marín, C., Tapia, J., Artavia, M., Valdés Pacheco, M., Miranda, M. I., Sánchez Rodríguez, R., Morgades-Bamba, C. I., Peña-Sarriondia, A., & Roskam, I. (2022). Parental burnout assessment (PBA) in different hispanic countries: An exploratory structural equation modeling approach. *Frontiers in Psychology, 13*, 827014. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827014

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. *Psychological Review, 98*, 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224

Matias, M., Aguiar, J., César, F., Braz, C. A., Barham, E. J., Leme, V., Elias, L., Gaspar, M. F., Mikolajczak, M., Roskam, I., & Fontaine, A. M. (2020). The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the parental burnout assessment: transcultural adaptation and initial validity evidence. *New directions for child and adolescent development, 2020*(174), 67-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20374

Mikolajczak, M., Gross, J. J., Stinglhamber, F., Lindahl Norberg, A., & Roskam, I. (2020). Is parental burnout distinct from job burnout and depressive symptoms? *Clinical Psychological Science, 8*(4), 673-689. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620917447

Milkie, M. A., Kendig, S. M., Nomaguchi, K., & Denny, K. (2010). Time with children, children's well-being, and work-family balance among employed parents. *Journal of Marriage and Family, 72*(5), 1329-1343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00768.x

Morin, A. J. (2016). Person-centered research strategies in commitment research. In J. P. Meyer (Ed.), *The handbook of employee commitment* (pp. 490-508). Edward Elgar.

Morin, A. J., Maiano, C., Nagengast, B., Marsh, H. W., Morizot, J., & Janosz, M. (2011). General growth mixture analysis of adolescents' developmental trajectories of anxiety: The impact of untested invariance assumptions on substantive
interpretations. *Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal*, **18**(4), 613–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.607714

Mousavi, S. F., Mikolajczak, M., & Roskam, I. (2020). Parental burnout in Iran: Psychometric properties of the Persian (farsi) version of the parental burnout assessment (PBA). *New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development*. **2020**(174), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20369

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998)-2020. Mplus users' guide (8th Ed.). Muthen & Muthen.

Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. *Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal*, **14**(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. *Psychological Bulletin*, **128**(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3

Roskam, I., Aguiar, J., Akgun, E., Arikan, G., Artavia, M., Avalosse, H., Aunola, K., Bader, M., Bahati, C., Barham, E. J., Besson, E., Beyers, W., Boujut, E., Brianda, M. E., Brytek-Matera, A., Carbonneau, N., César, F., & Chen, B. B., & Mikolajczak, M. (2021). Parental burnout around the globe: A 42-country study. *Affective Science*, **2**(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-020-00028-4

Roskam, I., Brianda, M. E., & Mikolajczak, M. (2018). A step forward in the conceptualization and measurement of parental burnout: The parental burnout assessment (PBA). *Frontiers in Psychology*, **9**, 758–812. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00758

Roskam, I., Gallée, L., Aguiar, J., Akgun, E., Arena, A., Arikan, G., Aunola, K., Bader, M., Barham, E. J., Besson, E., Beyers, W., Boujut, E., Brianda, M. E., Brytek-Matera, A., Carbonneau, N., César, F., Chen, B., Dorard, G., dos Santos Elias, L. C., & Mikolajczak, M. (2023). Three reasons why parental burnout is more prevalent in individualistic countries: A mediation study in 36-country study. *Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology*.

Roskam, I., & Mikolajczak, M. (2021). The slippery slope of parental exhaustion: A process model of parental burnout. *Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology*, **77**, 101354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101354

Roskam, I., Raes, M. E., & Mikolajczak, M. (2017). Exhausted parents: Development and preliminary validation of the parental burnout inventory. *Frontiers in Psychology*, **8**, 163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00163

Roskam, I., Raes, M. E., Mikolajczak, M., Akgun, E., Arena, A., Arikan, G., Aunola, K., Bader, M., Barham, E. J., Besson, E., Beyers, W., Boujut, E., Brianda, M. E., Brytek-Matera, A., Carbonneau, N., César, F., Chen, B., Dorard, G., dos Santos Elias, L. C., & Mikolajczak, M. (2022). Gender equality and maternal burnout: A 40-country study. *Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology*, **53**(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00163
Sodi, T., Kpassagou, L. B., Hatta, O., Ndayizigiye, A., Ndayipfukamiye, J.-M., Tenkué, J. N., & Sezibera, V. (2020). Parenting and parental burnout in Africa. *New Directions for Child and adolescent development*. 2020(174), 101–117
https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20386

Sorkkila, M., & Aunola, K. (2020). Risk Factors for Parental Burnout among Finnish Parents: The Role of Socially Prescribed Perfectionism. *Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29*(3), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01607-1

Stănculescu, E., Roskam, I., Mikolajczak, M., Muntean, A., & Gurza, A. (2020). Parental burnout in Romania: Validity of the Romanian version of the parental burnout assessment (PBA-RO). *New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2020*(174), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20384

Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for development. *Human Development, 45*(4), 270–274. https://doi.org/10.1159/000064988

Szczygiel, D., Sekulowicz, M., Kwiatkowski, P., Roskam, I., & Mikolajczak, M. (2020). Validation of the polish version of the parental burnout assessment (PBA). *New Directions for Child and adolescent development, 2020*(174), (pp. 137–158).
https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20385

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. *Psychological Review, 96*(3), 506–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.506

## Author Biographies

**Marisa Matias**, PhD, is a Professor at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences at University of Porto and a full member of the Center for Psychology at the same university. Her research interests include gender, work-family interface and parenting.

**Joyce Aguiar**, PhD, is a researcher at the Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies, Portugal. Her major research interests include comparative studies, mobility, and internationalization in higher education.

**Anne Marie Fontaine** is an Emeritus Professor in Psychology at the University of Porto. Her main research interests have been related to Differential Psychology, Intra-individual and Intergroup differences in major life and social transitions such as school transitions, transition to adulthood, to parenthood, and Intergenerational Solidarity.

**Ege Akgün**, PhD, is an associate professor at Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. Her research focuses on the parent child relationship and social-emotional development in early childhood.
**Gizem Arikan**, PhD, is a clinical psychologist and her research areas focus on attachment theory, parenting, traumatic stress and social media addiction. She works at Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey,

**Kaisa Aunola** is professor of developmental psychology at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research focuses on parenting, family relations, and the role of family in children's socio-emotional and academic learning.

**Elizabeth Barham** is a psychologist at the Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil. She studies emotion regulation, social skills, and planning and their effects on caregiving relationships and on perceptions of work-life balance.

**Wim Beyers** is professor in Developmental Psychology at Ghent University in Belgium. His research focuses on adolescent development, including topics on adolescents' autonomy, identity and sexuality. Recent research also focuses on important life transitions, such as transition from secondary school to university, and transition toward parenthood.

**Emilie Boujut** is working at the Université Paris Cité (Institut for Psychology). She focuses on adaptation to stressful situations in the fields of illness, education and work and the impact on mental health.

**Anna Brytek-Matera**, PhD, is a Professor of Medical and Health Sciences at University of Wroclaw. She is a Head of Nutritional Psychology Unit, Eat Lab and Postgraduate studies in Psychodietetics. Her research focuses on eating disorders, orthorexia nervosa and eating behaviour.

**Noémie Carbonneau**, PhD, is a professor at the Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada. Her primary areas of research include eating behaviors, body image, parental practices, close relationships, motivation, and well-being.

**Filipa César**, PhD, editorial assistant of the journal Educação, Sociedade & Culturas and works as an assistant at the Centre for Research and Intervention in Education (CIIE) at the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences of the University of Porto. Her research interests are motherhood, parenthood and qualitative research methods.

**Bin-Bin Chen**, PhD, is a Professor and Department Head in the Department of Psychology at Fudan University, China. His research interests include various aspects of family relationships and the social and emotional development of children and adolescents in Chinese contexts.

**Géraldine Dorard**, PhD, is an Associate Professor of psychopathology at Université Paris Cité, France. Her main areas of research are adolescent and young adult psychopathology, and adaptation to illness and disability in a family context.
**Sandra Dunsmuir** PhD, is Professor of Educational and Child Psychology at University College London.

**Natalia Egorova** is a clinical psychologist with spécialisation in individual psychotherapy and family and couples therapy.

**Luciana Carla S. Elias** PhD, is Professor of Psychology at University of São Paulo. She studies social skills, school psychology, school inclusion and a learning difficulties.

**Nicolas Favez** is full professor of clinical psychology at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and is Co-Director of the Research Unit of the Center for Family Study (IUP, Lausanne University Hospital). His research activities and teaching relate to family and couples relations, with a focus on the transition to parenthood.

**Heather M. Foran** is a full professor of psychology at the University of Klagenfurt, Austria. She is chair of the university Public research cluster and a licensed clinical psychologist. Her research interests are in prevention of mental health problems and family violence.

**Furutani K.** Ph.D, is Professor of faculty of Informatics at Kansai University.

**Myrna Gannagé** is full professor of clinical psychology at St Joseph's University in Beirut and Dean of the Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences at the same University. She is the Founder and Executive Director of the Psychological Consultation Centers for the Welfare of War Children in Lebanon, the first specialized outpatient units for children who had suffered from the war. She is the author of numerous scientific publications in the field of trauma.

**Maria Filomena Ribeiro da Fonseca Gaspar** is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the University of Coimbra, Portugal. Develops research activities and intervention in the context of parenting and co-parenting.

**Lucie Godbout** is a professor at Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada.

**James Gross** is the Ernest R. Hilgard Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, where he directs the Stanford Psychophysiology Laboratory (https://spl.stanford.edu/). His research focuses on emotion regulation, and he has 600 publications, which have been cited 200,000 times.

**Ogma Hatta** is a clinical and health psychologist practicing in Togo. He has a PhD in psychological and educational sciences and conducts research in the fields of clinical - health - social (family) psychology: substance use, quality of life, prosocial behaviour, parental burnout, etc.
**Mai-Trang Huynh** is professor, Department of Psychology, HCMC Uni-
versity of Education, Vietnam.

**Nassima Kellou** is Doctor in Clinical Psychology and na associate researcher at CRASC Oran Algérie.

**Goran Knezevic** is a professor of individual differences at the University of Belgrade. His research interest focuses predominantly on the structure of basic personality traits and psychotic-like experiences & behaviors.

**Ljiljana Lazarević** is senior research associate at the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia. Her research focus is on basic personality traits and their measurement. She also studies psychosis-proneness as basic personality trait.

**Sarah Le Vigouroux** is associate professor of clinical and developmental psychology at the University of Nîmes. Her research focuses on inter and intra individual differences in affective dynamics.

**Vanessa B R Leme** PhD, is Professor of Psychology, Department of Cog-
nition and Development at State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

**Denisse Manrique-Millones**, PhD, is professor at the Department of Psy-
chology, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru. Her main areas of research are family studies, positive youth development and psychological assessment.

**Rosa Millones-Rivalles** is professor and coordinator of the research de-
partment at the Universidad Marcelino Champagnat in Lima, Peru. Her re-
search interests are related to socio-educational aspects of university students in the Peruvian context.

**Maria Isabel Miranda-Orrego** is lecturer at Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador. PhD Student at Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté UFR SLHS Unité de Recherche de Psychologie UR3188 in France. She researches the relation between the containing function of the teams of crèches and the process of subjectivation of babies and young children in an intercultural context.

**Marina Miscioscia** is Assistant Professor of Dynamic Psychology at the University of Padua (Italy). Her research focuses mainly on Children and Adolescent Mental Health, Parenting (e.g.Coparenting, Desire and Intentions, Transition to Parenthood, LGBT+ parent families), Gender Identity and Transgender Health

**Clara Morgades-Bamba**, PhD, is a clinical psychologist and her research areas focus on mental health, wellbeing, attachment, upbringing, psycho-patology, anxiety, psychosis, extremist movements and violence. She works at her health center in Spain.
**Seyyedeh Fatemeh Mousavi** is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology at the Women Research Center in the only single-sex university of Iran, who has been studying and researching Iranian families for more than 10 years in the field of marital interactions and parenting. She has many books and papers in various fields of Gender, Marital and Parent-child Interactions. Since 2018, she has been active as a member of IIPB consortium in the field of Parental Burnout, and now she is a member of the editorial board and responsible director of the Journal of Women and Family Studies.

**Badra Moutassem-Mimouni**, PhD in clinical psychology, is Professor at the University of Oran2. She is a member of the editorial board of the Revue Insaniyat. Preferred areas of research: “childhood deprived of family” “child and adolescent psychopathology”. Associate researcher at the Center for Research in Social and Cultural Anthropology, she has been the head of several projects and a member of many projects that have resulted in the publication of books (suicide, family, drugs, education, violence against women, children deprived of families, parental burnout, divorce, etc.) and has contributed, within teams, to the development of public policies (family, violence against women, strategy to combat against drugs and drug addiction, etc.). His latest publications have focused on “Parental Burnout” and on “Covid19.

**Ana Muntean** works at the department of social work in the West University of Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania.

**Hugh Murphy** is a Doctoral student at the University of Klagenfurt. He has previously working on health-related topics (International Investigation of Parental Burnout and the RISE Parenting for Lifelong Health - Young Children program). Hugh completed his master’s degree in psychology and mental health at the University of Edinburgh. Before this, he studied child mental health in University College Dublin (UCD) and, prior to this had studied Addiction Therapy in UCD. In addition, he worked for nine years as a project/support worker in the mental health and addiction sector in Ireland providing services along a continuum of care from harm reduction to rehabilitation and integration. During this time, he also worked as an addiction therapist both in a private and public capacity.

**Josué Ngnombouowo Tenkue** is a PhD student at the University of Yaoundé 1. His research focuses on externalized disorders, in particular Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and bereavement support in palliative care.

**Fatumo Osman** is senior lecturer and associate professor in nursing at Dalarna University. Her research focuses on implementing and evaluating culturally tailored interventions for immigrant families.
**Daniela Oyarce Cadiz** is a clinical psychologist and has a PhD in Psychology from the Catholic University of Louvain. Her research interests are in childhood and parenting issues.

**Pablo A. Pérez-Díaz** holds a PhD in Psychology and Psychometrics from University College London, U.K. He is Assistant Professor and Director of the Institute of Psychology at Austral University of Chile, Campus Puerto Montt, Chile. He has researched on trait emotional intelligence, psychometrics, parental burnout, and positive youth development. He is the PI of the national Chilean research grant FONDECYT No 11230239.

**Konstantinos V. Petrides** is Founding Director of the London Psychometric Laboratory and the first-ever Professor of Psychometrics at UCL (the birthplace of psychometrics). He is the developer of Psychobionomy, trait emotional intelligence theory, and of the family of Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue) that are used globally in commercial, medical, and scientific research and applications.

**Céline Scola** is Associate professor at Aix Marseille University in Developmental psychology. Her research focuses on early interactions. She focuses on mother-child interactions and on the understanding of peer interactions.

**Alessandra Simonelli** is a professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of PAdova. Her research interest focuses predominantly on quality of the early adult-child interactions and their influence on infant development in typical and/or psychopathological conditions.

**Bart Soenens** is a professor in developmental psychology at Ghent University. His main research focus is on parent-child relationships and on the complex ways in which parenting affects children's and adolescents' psychosocial development.

**Emma Sorbring** is a professor of child- and youth studies at University West, Sweden, and academic supervisor at Campus Västervik. Her teaching and research focuses on parenting, children and youth.

**Matilda Sorkkila** is a Docent (Adjunct Professor) at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. She is specialized in the field of Psychology of Wellbeing and particularly interested in findings ways to prevent burnout across contexts.

**Elena Stănculescu** is a Professor at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. Her research interests include mental health applied in educational settings, with special focus on children and adolescents well-being, teacher and parental burnout, as well risk factors and outcomes of problematic use of online communication.
**Elena Starchenkova** is an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Psychology at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. Her main areas of research include occupational health, psychological stress, job burnout, parental burnout, and proactive coping behaviour.

**Dorota Szczygiel**, PhD, is a Lecturer at the SWPS University, Department of Psychology in Sopot, Poland. Her research focuses on emotional intelligence, emotion regulation, and parental burnout.

**Mélissa Tremblay** is a Doctoral student at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. Her research include parental burnout, executive function, neuro-psychology and child development.

**Dr Ü stündağ -Budak** is an adjunct Associate Professor at Bahçeşehir University. She is interested in clinical implications of AAI in her therapeutic work. Her research interest includes attachment, perinatal mental health, parenting styles, mindfulness and wellbeing. She teaches DBT skills set to improve individuals' wellbeing and help them to acquire secure attachment strategies.

**Hedwig van Bakel** is endowed professor Infant Mental Health at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. Her research includes parenting, parent-infant interactions.

**Lesley Verhofstadt** is Associate Professor of Family Psychology at Ghent University and Director of the UGent Familylab.

**Jaqueline Wendland**, Full Professor of infant and perinatal clinical psychology and psychopathology at the Institute of Psychology, University Paris Cité, France. She is head of two University Specializations Diplomas on Psychology and Psychopathology of Parenthood and on Early Development and Perinatal Psychopathology. Her research focuses mainly on the parenting process in its typical and atypical aspects, particularly in situations where the parent-child interactions are exposed to psychopathological, psychosocial and/or somatic risk factors.

**Moïra Mikolajczak**, Ph.D., is professor at the Department of Psychology of the Université Catholique de Louvain where she heads the Parental Burnout Research Lab with Isabelle Roskam.

**Isabelle Roskam** is full professor of developmental psychology at the UCLouvain, Belgium, and is Co-Director of the BParent Research Lab in the Psychological Sciences Research Institute (IPSY). Her research activities and teaching relate to child development and parenting, with a focus on externalizing behavior and parental burnout. She is with Prof. Moïra Mikolajczak the founder and leader of the International Investigation of Parental Burnout (IIPB) consortium.