What Are the Effects of Family Dynamics on Children with Selective Mutism?

Abstract

Selective mutism (SM) is a childhood anxiety disorder characterized by a child’s inability to speak in specific social situations, despite speaking in other settings. This condition affects approximately 1 in 140 children under 8 years. This literature review aims to address the knowledge gap regarding the influence of family dynamics on the onset and persistence of SM, exploring how familial interactions can either support or hinder a child’s communication development. A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles, clinical studies, and theoretical frameworks was conducted. Databases such as PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar were utilized to identify relevant literature published in the last 20 years. Key themes concerning family influence, communication styles, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. The review revealed that family dynamics significantly impact the severity and management of SM. Positive family interactions, characterized by supportive communication and reduced stress, were linked to better outcomes. Conversely, negative family dynamics, including high levels of anxiety and poor communication, exacerbated the child’s difficulties in social settings. These findings underscore the necessity of incorporating family dynamics into the assessment and treatment of SM. By recognizing the role of families, practitioners can develop more effective, family- centered interventions, ultimately enhancing the social functioning and well-being of children with SM.

Keywords: Selective Mutism, Family Dynamics, Anxiety Disorders, Child Psychology

Introduction

Selective mutism (SM) is an anxiety disorder that typically manifests between the ages of 2 and 5, affecting approximately 1 in 140 children under 8 years¹’². If left unaddressed, this condition can lead to significant social, emotional, and academic challenges during childhood, as well as poor long-term outcomes³. Given that SM often develops at such a young age, the role of families becomes crucial in shaping the child’s experience, influencing both positive and negative outcomes⁴.

While existing literature acknowledges the importance of family dynamics in the context of SM, there is a notable gap in understanding the specific aspects of family interactions that contribute to the disorder’s development and persistence. Previous studies have primarily focused on individual factors, such as the child’s temperament or the efficacy of treatment methods, without adequately exploring how varying parenting styles, family communication patterns, and familial stress levels directly influence the child’s experience of SM⁵. This gap highlights the need for a more nuanced examination of the reciprocal relationship between SM and family dynamics.

Furthermore, as children with SM grow older, their symptoms often evolve. While a toddler might simply appear shy or reserved, a school-aged child is more likely to experience increased pressure to speak in structured educational and social environments. The transition into formal schooling introduces new demands, such as classroom participation, peer interaction, and performance-based evaluation, which can intensify the symptoms of SM⁶.

Older children may also develop more complex avoidance strategies or internalize feelings of inadequacy and fear of judgment, deepening the impact of the disorder. These age-related changes necessitate timely intervention and underscore the importance of family support as a buffer against worsening symptoms.

The purpose of this research is to investigate how specific family dynamics impact the development and management of SM in children. Key objectives include analyzing the effects of different parenting styles and family communication patterns on the child’s ability to communicate in social settings. By focusing on these dynamics, this study aims to provide a clearer understanding of the interplay between family interactions and the child’s experience of SM, addressing the limitations of existing research that often overlooks these critical factors.

The Impact of Selective Mutism on Children

Selective mutism (SM) significantly affects a child’s social, emotional, and behavioral development, often leading to withdrawal, anxiety, and academic challenges⁷. The inability to communicate verbally in specific situations limits social learning, hindering peer interactions and emotional expression, which can result in frustration, isolation, and low self-esteem⁷. Physically, children with SM may exhibit tense postures, limited facial expressions, and avoidance behaviors, reinforcing their social withdrawal and impeding their ability to engage with their environment⁸. These difficulties extend to academic settings, where verbal participation is often required, further limiting their opportunities for growth and reinforcing their silence⁶.

The persistent cycle of anxiety and avoidance exacerbates SM, making social and academic engagement increasingly difficult. Children with SM may struggle to form relationships, participate in group activities, or express their needs, often leading to misunderstandings and insufficient support from teachers and peers⁹. Although they may show fewer externalizing behaviors compared to children with generalized anxiety disorder¹⁰, their heightened withdrawal highlights the necessity of early, targeted interventions.

This relative absence of externalizing symptoms in children with SM, as compared to those with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), can be understood through developmental psychopathology frameworks that emphasize behavioral inhibition and social phobia. Children with SM often present with high levels of behavioral inhibition—a temperament marked by shyness, withdrawal, and a heightened sensitivity to novelty—which has been strongly linked to internalizing disorders rather than externalizing behaviors¹¹. In contrast, children with GAD may experience chronic worry that manifests in irritability or somatic complaints, which can occasionally spill over into more observable externalizing behaviors. SM, by its nature, is a condition rooted in avoidance rather than approach-related dysregulation, leading to internalized, silent suffering rather than disruptive conduct¹². This distinction underscores the unique clinical profile of SM and the importance of differentiating it from broader anxiety disorders when designing therapeutic interventions. 

Family Dynamics

Family dynamics refer to the patterns of interaction, roles, and relationships among family members, and the various factors that shape these interactions¹³. These family relationships play a crucial role in the development and persistence of selective mutism, affecting how children navigate their social and emotional worlds. In this section, I will explore how family dynamics and selective mutism influence each other, focusing on how parental behaviors, mother-child and father-child relationships, and the overall family environment contribute to the disorder. Research suggests that family interactions can both reinforce and be impacted by SM, creating cycles that sustain the child’s communication challenges. Understanding these connections is essential for developing effective interventions that address not only the child’s needs but also the family patterns that influence their development.

To facilitate our understanding, this framework is created which is we study the interplay between family dynamics and children with SM (see Figure 1).

Parental Behaviors

Parents’ behaviors are often learned by children through a process called parental modeling¹⁴, where children acquire attitudes, behaviors, and social skills by observing and imitating their caregivers¹⁵. This learning occurs through both verbal cues—such as parents expressing their beliefs or guiding social behavior— and non-verbal cues, including body language and facial expressions¹⁶.

In the context of selective mutism (SM), negative parental modeling can shape a child’s perceptions of social situations as threatening. For example, children may learn to avoid speaking or interacting if they observe similar avoidance or anxious behaviors in their parents¹⁷’¹⁸. Overprotective parenting or visible discomfort in social settings can signal to the child that the world is unsafe, reinforcing their mutism.

However, on the other hand, positive modeling can serve as a powerful protective factor. When parents demonstrate calm, confident social interactions, express emotions openly, and approach new situations with flexibility, children are more likely to internalize these adaptive behaviors. Parents who gradually encourage verbal expression, model effective coping strategies, and validate their child’s feelings without reinforcing avoidance can help reduce anxiety and support social engagement¹⁹’⁶. Positive modeling fosters resilience, encouraging children to take small communication risks and build confidence over time.

In addition to verbal cues, visual modeling also plays a crucial role in shaping the child’s behavior. Pustrom and Speers²⁰ argued that selective mutism can be viewed as a compromise expression of family conflict, emphasizing the complex interplay between familial relationships and the disorder. Children learn not only from what they hear but also from what they see—such as observing the physical withdrawal, avoidance, and tension in their parents’ interactions. This visual modeling contributes to the development of the child’s own anxious behaviors. Furthermore, families may create an environment where the child becomes overly dependent, inhibiting their ability to navigate social situations independently²¹. Understanding these environmental and familial dynamics is crucial for developing effective interventions that address both the child’s communication challenges and the behaviors that perpetuate them.

Broader Family Environment

The broader family environment includes immediate family members like parents and siblings, as well as extended family such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. It encompasses the overall social, emotional, and cultural dynamics that shape a person’s upbringing and well-being²². Over time, some adjustments, such as overprotectiveness or avoidance of social situations, may inadvertently reinforce the child’s mutism and anxiety. This bidirectional dynamic highlights the complex interplay between the child and their family environment, emphasizing the need for interventions that address both the child’s challenges and the family’s role in maintaining or mitigating the disorder.

Family relationships can often be characterized by conflict and isolation, with mothers frequently described as overprotective and controlling, while fathers may be perceived as detached or less involved in the emotional aspects of their children’s lives²³’²⁴. This imbalance underscores the need for family-centered approaches in treatment.

Moreover, the family’s belief systems, practices, and norms play a crucial role in shaping children’s behaviors and emotional responses. For instance, families that prioritize open communication and emotional expression may foster resilience in children, while those that emphasize conformity and obedience may inadvertently contribute to anxiety disorders, including Selective Mutism²⁵.

Meanwhile, since it is a two-way relationship, children with SM can significantly affect the broader family environment as well. Their struggles with communication can lead to increased stress and tension within the family unit. Parents may experience feelings of frustration, helplessness, or guilt, which can strain marital relationships and affect siblings who may feel neglected or burdened by the attention given to the child with SM²⁶. Additionally, the family’s social interactions may be limited, as parents might avoid situations where the child is expected to speak, leading to isolation from extended family and community activities²⁷.

On the other hand, it is important to note that most of the research conducted on SM and family dynamics has focused on families within Western cultures, where families are typically smaller. This creates a gap in understanding the experiences of children with SM in Eastern cultures, where families are often larger and live within different social and cultural structures. These differences in family size, roles, and interactions could have distinct impacts on children with SM, shaping their experiences in ways that are not fully captured by existing studies. Further research is needed to explore how these cultural variations influence the relationship between SM and family dynamics to develop more inclusive and culturally sensitive interventions²⁸.

Child-Parent Relationship Dynamics

The dynamics of child-parent relationships are critical in understanding selective mutism (SM) and its maintenance Research suggests that children with SM often perceive lower levels of family cohesion, identification, and autonomy—terms which, in this context, refer respectively to the emotional closeness and supportive bonds within the family, the child’s sense of belonging and alignment with family values, and their perceived ability to express independence within the family structure. These perceived deficits may manifest in observable behaviors such as emotional withdrawal, avoidance of verbal or nonverbal engagement during family interactions, and heightened dependence on caregivers when facing social or communicative demands²⁹. Parental responses to a child’s mutism, such as increased protectiveness or controlling behavior, may inadvertently reinforce the child’s anxiety and reliance on nonverbal communication. Additionally, heightened parental anxiety has been associated with a more stressful family environment, which can further complicate the child’s social and emotional development¹⁰’². These relational patterns may lead to conflict and feelings of isolation within the family, which disrupt the child’s ability to build confidence and engage in social interactions³⁰.

Mother-Child Relationship

The mother-child relationship plays a critical role in the development and maintenance of selective mutism (SM). Studies suggest that children with SM often experience a closer, more dependent relationship with their mothers, characterized by heightened protectiveness and emotional involvement. In contrast, their relationships with fathers tend to exhibit lower levels of cohesion and emotional closeness.

Melfsen et al.²⁹ found no significant differences in the perceived quality of mother-child relationships between children with SM and those without. However, the maternal role remains distinct in the context of SM. Mothers of children with SM are frequently described as overprotective and controlling²³’³¹, which may inadvertently reinforce the child’s anxiety and reliance on nonverbal communication. This heightened protectiveness often stems from the mother’s desire to shield the child from stressful social interactions but can unintentionally limit the child’s opportunities for independence and growth.

Children with SM can also impact their mothers, leading to increased emotional and psychological stress. Mothers often experience feelings of frustration, helplessness, and guilt as they navigate the challenges of raising a child with SM. They may feel responsible for their child’s social difficulties and worry about the long-term implications of SM on their child’s development²⁶.

Research indicates that mothers may have heightened stress levels and anxiety, which can exacerbate the child’s symptoms and create a cycle of anxiety within the family²⁷. Additionally, maternal psychopathology, such as anxiety disorders or obsessive- compulsive behaviors, can further complicate the caregiving dynamic. Anxious mothers may inadvertently model anxious behaviors, leading to increased avoidance in their children¹⁰. Thus, the emotional state of the mother can significantly influence the child’s ability to cope with social situations, as children often attune to their mother’s emotional cues, which may heighten their own anxiety and avoidance behaviors³².

Positive maternal reinforcement and gradual exposure to social situations can help create a more supportive environment, fostering the child’s confidence and communication skills. Addressing these dynamics is essential to ensure balanced emotional development and to reduce the risk of perpetuating the child’s mutism.

Father-Child Dynamics

Research highlights the significant role of father-child dynamics in the context of SM. In a comparative study by Melfsen et al.²⁹, researchers assessed 28 children and adolescents with SM against a control group of 33 children without the disorder, using self-report questionnaires. While no significant differences were observed in the quality of relationships with mothers, children with SM reported significantly lower levels of cohesion, identification, and autonomy in their relationships with fathers. This disparity underscores the pivotal role of father-child interactions in the development and maintenance of SM.

Fathers may find it challenging to engage meaningfully with their children, potentially due to cultural norms and emotional expression expectations that limit paternal involvement³³’³⁴. This difficulty can lead to mutual feelings of isolation. Additionally, children with SM often report reduced emotional closeness and support from their fathers, which can hinder their social and emotional development⁷.

Compounding this issue, fathers of children with SM have been observed to exhibit heightened levels of phobic anxiety¹⁰, which may further strain these interactions. The resulting lack of emotional attachment and autonomy can disrupt normal developmental trajectories, reinforcing the child’s withdrawal and communication challenges⁹.

Addressing father-child dynamics through targeted interventions is crucial for fostering a supportive environment and promoting positive outcomes for children with SM. Father-focused interventions might include strategies to enhance fathers’ emotional communication skills, reduce paternal anxiety through psychoeducation or counseling, and encourage active engagement in their child’s social development, ultimately helping to strengthen emotional bonds and mitigate symptoms of SM³³.

General Discussion

The critical role of family dynamics in the development and management of selective mutism (SM), an anxiety disorder that inhibits verbal communication in specific settings, is well established. Children with SM often face developmental, behavioral, and emotional challenges, including withdrawal, social isolation, and academic setbacks, which are exacerbated by cycles of anxiety and avoidance. Parental factors, particularly modeling of anxious behavior, have been identified as contributing to the development of selective mutism. Anxious parents may unintentionally reinforce their child’s avoidance of speech by modeling social withdrawal or intervening in social situations on their behalf. This dynamic, while not the sole cause, may compound existing vulnerabilities such as behavioral inhibition or speech/language delays, contributing to the maintenance of mutism across settings. Encouraging parents to demonstrate calm, adaptive social behavior and support gradual exposure to communication may reduce anxiety and promote verbal engagement in children with SM.

These findings suggest that interventions should extend beyond addressing the child’s symptoms to directly target parental behaviors—especially overcontrol and anxious reinforcement—which may serve as maintaining mechanisms for mutism. Therapeutic strategies promoting parental modeling of regulated emotional expression and supporting the child’s autonomy in communication could enhance treatment outcomes. Future research should further explore how positive parenting practices can buffer against the development or persistence of SM, providing a more balanced and hopeful framework for intervention and prevention.

The distinct relational patterns observed—heightened dependence in mother-child relationships and diminished emotional closeness and autonomy in father-child dynamics—underscore the necessity of tailored, family-centered intervention approaches. Involving both parents in therapeutic processes appears essential, challenging earlier assumptions that prioritized maternal influence. This paper contributes to the literature by emphasizing that avoidance behaviors are sustained not solely by the individual child but through dynamic family interactions. 

Addressing these relational patterns through family-focused interventions is crucial for fostering emotional resilience and social skills in children with SM. Specific therapeutic adaptations, such as including fathers in sessions to build emotional connection and employing communication- based joint activities, may directly mitigate relational deficits. Mechanisms such as controlling parenting, lack of autonomy, and inconsistent emotional responsiveness are likely to sustain anxiety cycles and inhibit spontaneous verbal expression in social contexts.

Finally, expanding research across diverse cultural contexts is necessary for developing inclusive, effective strategies to support children with SM. The findings highlight how parental roles, emotional dynamics, and broader familial structures interact with child-level vulnerabilities, offering a systemic understanding of the development and persistence of SM and informing clinical practice.

Limitations and Future Directions

While existing research on selective mutism (SM) has largely focused on parental dynamics, it is essential to consider the broader spectrum of familial interactions that may influence the condition. Sibling relationships, for instance, may play a role in either reinforcing or mitigating the child’s mutism, depending on the level of support or rivalry present. Similarly, extended family members, such as grandparents or cousins, can contribute to the child’s social environment, potentially shaping their anxiety and communication patterns in both positive and negative ways. These relationships have been relatively overlooked in current studies, leaving gaps in understanding the full range of family dynamics that may impact SM.

Another significant limitation is the predominantly Western focus of existing research. Most studies have examined families within cultural contexts where family units are smaller²⁸. Western cultures tend to emphasize individual autonomy³⁵. However, in more complex cultural settings, such as those found in Eastern or collectivist societies, family dynamics are likely to differ considerably³⁶. Larger, multigenerational households common in these cultures may introduce both unique challenges and opportunities . On one hand, a child with SM may experience increased pressure to conform to familial or societal expectations, potentially exacerbating their anxiety. On the other hand, the presence of diverse social models within the household may offer opportunities for gradual exposure to communication and interaction in a less formal setting.

Moreover, cultural attitudes towards mental health and communication can influence how SM is perceived and managed. In some cultures, anxiety disorders may carry a stigma, potentially leading families to avoid seeking professional help. Conversely, close-knit family structures might foster a more supportive environment, providing the child with a safety net that facilitates gradual progress. Understanding how these cultural variations shape the development and management of SM is crucial for developing more inclusive, culturally sensitive interventions.

Future research should investigate how sibling and extended family relationships influence the development and resolution of selective mutism, with hypotheses suggesting that positive family support reduces symptom severity. Additionally, cross-cultural differences in family structure and attitudes toward mental health warrant examination, particularly how stigma affects help- seeking behaviors. Methodologically, mixed-methods designs combining quantitative assessments and qualitative interviews, alongside longitudinal and cross-cultural comparative studies, can effectively address these gaps.

Conclusion

In conclusion, selective mutism (SM) is a multifaceted disorder influenced by a variety of factors, with family dynamics and relationships playing a crucial role in its development and persistence. The interplay between parental behaviors, the child’s emotional needs, and the broader family environment significantly impacts both the onset and maintenance of SM. It is essential to understand that the challenges associated with SM are deeply embedded within the family context and are not isolated. By fostering open communication and mutual understanding within families, it is possible to create a supportive environment that encourages children to overcome the challenges posed by selective mutism. Continued research and heightened awareness are critical to improving intervention strategies and developing stronger support systems for affected families. Ultimately, these efforts will lead to healthier familial relationships and improved outcomes for children with SM, enabling them to thrive both socially and emotionally.

References

1. Bergman, R. L., Piacentini, J., & McCracken, J. T. (2002). Prevalence and description of selective mutism in a school‐based sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(8), 938–946. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583- 200208000-00012 [↩]
2. Elizur, Y., & Perednik, R. (2003). Prevalence and description of selective mutism in immigrant and native families: A controlled study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(12), 1451–1459. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583- 200312000-00012 [↩] [↩]
3. Koskela, M., Ståhlberg, T., Yunus, W.M.A.W.M. et al. Long-term outcomes of selective mutism: a systematic literature review. BMC Psychiatry 23, 779 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05279-6 [↩]
4. Manassis K, Tannock R. Comparing interventions for selective mutism: a pilot study. Can J Psychiatry. 2008 Oct;53(10):700-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370805301010 [↩]
5. Cohan SL, Chavira DA, Stein MB. Practitioner review: Psychosocial interventions for children with selective mutism: a critical evaluation of the literature from 1990-2005. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006 Nov;47(11):1085-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14697610.2006.01662.x. [↩]
6. Viana AG, Beidel DC, Rabian B. Selective mutism: a review and integration of the last 15 years. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009 Feb;29(1):57-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.09.009. [↩] [↩] [↩]
7. Nowakowski ME, Tasker SL, Cunningham CE, McHolm AE, Edison S, Pierre JS, Boyle MH, Schmidt LA. Joint attention in parent-child dyads involving children with selective mutism: a comparison between anxious and typically developing children. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2011 Feb;42(1):78-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-010-0208-z. [↩] [↩] [↩]
8. Hartmann, B. Gesichter des Schweigens—Systemische Mutismus- Therapie/SYMUT als Therapiealternative; Schulz-Kirchner Verlag: Idstein, Germany, 2019 [↩]
9. Mattejat, F. Subjektive Familienstrukturen—Untersuchungen zur Wahrnehmung der Familienbeziehungen und zu ihrer Bedeutung für die Psychische Gesundheit von Jugendlichen; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 1993. [↩] [↩]
10. Capozzi F, Manti F, Di Trani M, Romani M, Vigliante M, Sogos C. Children’s and parent’s psychological profiles in selective mutism and generalized anxiety disorder: a clinical study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018 Jun;27(6):775- 783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017- 1075-y. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
11. Clauss, J. A., & Blackford, J. U. (2012). Behavioral inhibition and risk for developing social anxiety disorder: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51(10), 1066–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.08.002 [↩]
12. Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Snidman, N. (1988). Biological bases of childhood shyness. Science, 240(4849), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3353713 [↩]
13. Gunn, H. E., & Eberhardt, K. R. (2019). Family dynamics in sleep health and hypertension. Current Hypertension Reports, 21(5), 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906- 019-0944-9 [↩]
14. Hudson, J. L., & Rapee, R. M. (2001). Parent-Child Interactions and Anxiety Disorders: An Observational Study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 1411- 1427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00107-8 [↩]
15. Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1996). The social biofeedback theory of parental affect- mirroring: The development of emotional self-awareness and self-control in infancy. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 77(6), 1181–1212. [↩]
16. Runcan, Patricia & Constantineanu, Corneliu & Ielics, Brigitta & Popa, Dorin. (2012). The Role of Communication in the Parent-Child Interaction. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/46. 904- 908.10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.221. [↩]
17. Krysanski V. L. (2003). A brief review of selective mutism literature. The Journal of psychology, 137(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980309600597 [↩]
18. Goll K. (1979). Role structure and subculture in families of elective mutists. Family process, 18(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545- 5300.1979.00055.x [↩]
19. Burstein, M., & Ginsburg, G. S. (2010). The effect of parental modeling of anxious behaviors and cognitions in school-aged children: an experimental pilot study. Behaviour research and therapy, 48(6), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.02.006 [↩]
20. Pustrom, E., & Speers, R. W. (1964). Elective mutism in children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 3(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-7138(09)61923-3 [↩]
21. Hayden, T. L. (1980). Classification of elective mutism. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 19(1), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002- 7138(09)60657-9 [↩]
22. Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (2012). Understanding the developmental influences of the family environment. In L. Mayes & M. Lewis (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Environment in Human Development (pp. 299–314). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139016827.015 [↩]
23. Anstendig, K. D. (1999). Is selective mutism an anxiety disorder? Rethinking its DSM-IV classification. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(4), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887- 6185(99)00012-2 [↩] [↩]
24. Wright, H. H., & Cuccaro, M. L. (1994). Selective mutism continued. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(4), 593–594. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199405000-00024 [↩]
25. Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1997). The development of anxiety in children: A developmental psychopathology perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 25(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025794312525 [↩]
26. Kearney, C. A., & Silverman, W. K. (1990). A preliminary analysis of a functional model of assessment and treatment for school refusal behavior. Behavior modification, 14(3), 340–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455900143007 [↩] [↩]
27. Cohan SL, Chavira DA, Stein MB. Practitioner review: Psychosocial interventions for children with selective mutism: a critical evaluation of the literature from 1990-2005. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006 Nov;47(11):1085-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01662.x. [↩] [↩]
28. Slobodin, O. (2023). Beyond the language barrier: A systematic review of selective mutism in culturally and linguistically diverse children. Transcultural Psychiatry, 60(2), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615221146435 [↩] [↩]
29. Melfsen, S., Jans, T., Romanos, M., & Walitza, S. (2022). Family Relationships in Selective Mutism-A Comparison Group Study of Children and Adolescents. Children (Basel, Switzerland), 9(11), 1634. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111634 [↩] [↩] [↩]
30. Wichtmann, A. (2011). Mutism as part of the system—Systems of mutism? Logopedic- systemic views. Logopädie, 57(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1269880 [↩]
31. Wright, H. H., & Cuccaro, M. L. (1994). Selective mutism continued. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(4), 593–594. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199405000-00024 [↩]
32. Murray, L., et al. (2001). The impact of maternal depression on child development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(4), 573-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00739 [↩]
33. Lamb, M. E. (2010). The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). Wiley. [↩] [↩]
34. Cabrera, N. J., Volling, B. L., & Barr, R. (2018). Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12269 [↩]
35. Chirkov, V. I. (2008). Culture, personal autonomy and individualism: Their relationships and implications for personal growth and well-being. In G. Zheng, K. Leung, & J. G. Adair (Eds.), Perspectives and progress in contemporary cross-cultural psychology: Proceedings from the 17th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 247–263). China Light Industry Press. https://doi.org/10.4087/IFQE7624 [↩]
36. Lee, S. J., & Choi, H. (2015). Selective mutism and its relations to social anxiety disorder and autism spectrum disorder: A review. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.02.004 [↩]