Fathers’ Self-Compassion and Child Attachment Quality: Testing a Sequential Indirect Effect via Emotion Regulation Difficulties, Loneliness, and Psychological Distress in Two Paternal Samples

Table 2 provides the bivariate correlations between study variables. Except for a statistically non-significant correlation between psychological distress and father-child closeness, all other pairs of variables reported statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05). The magnitude of these correlations ranged from small (r = − 0.13) to strong (r = 0.64) when benchmarked against effect size conventions described by Gignac and Szodorai (2016).

Descriptive statistics are also reported as part of Table 2. A series of independent sample t-tests were performed to identify whether significant mean differences between the two samples were present. The results revealed that fathers in Sample 2 (i.e., the more homogeneous group of US fathers whose child is aged between 5 and 12 years) reported significantly higher levels of self-compassion (p = 0.025, d = − 0.17), fewer emotion regulation difficulties (p < 0.001, d = 0.32), and less loneliness (p = 0.015, d = 0.19). A non-significant effect of participant age analysis of covariance suggested that these differences were not explained by participant age (noting that fathers in Sample 1 were, on average, significantly older than fathers in Sample 2). No significant differences were recorded for psychological distress, father-child closeness, or father-child conflict.

Regarding father-child closeness, self-compassion, emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychological distress explained a small-to-moderate, statistically significant, proportion of the variance in both Sample 1 (R² = 0.07) and Sample 2 (R² = 0.13). For Sample 1, only loneliness (β = − 0.26) and psychological distress (β = 0.17) explained unique variance in father-child closeness. The inverse was identified for Sample 2, where self-compassion (β = 0.69) and emotion regulation difficulties (β = − 0.32) explained unique variance in father-child closeness (Table 3).

Regarding father-child conflict, self-compassion, emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychological distress explained a moderate and statistically significant proportion of the variance in both Sample 1 (R² = 0.18) and Sample 2 (R² = 0.23). For Sample 1, loneliness (β = 0.19) and emotion regulation difficulties (β = 0.21) explained unique variance in father-child conflict. For Sample 2, only emotion regulation difficulties (β = 0.36) explained unique variance in father-child conflict (Table 3).

Regarding psychological distress, self-compassion, emotion regulation difficulties, and loneliness explained a large and statistically significant proportion of the variance in Sample 1 (R² = 0.54) and Sample 2 (R² = 0.50). Each variable accounted for unique variance in psychological distress. For Sample 1, lower rates of self-compassion (β = 0.22), higher emotion regulation difficulties (β = 0.34), and higher loneliness (β = 0.32) were associated with higher rates of psychological distress. A similar pattern was observed for Sample 2. For Sample 2, lower rates of self-compassion (β = − 0.22), higher emotion regulation difficulties (β = 0.37), and higher loneliness (β = 0.25) were associated with higher rates of psychological distress (Table 3).

Regarding loneliness, self-compassion and emotion regulation difficulties explained a large and statistically significant proportion of the variance in Sample 1 (R² = 0.34) and Sample 2 (R² = 0.30). Each variable accounted for unique variance in loneliness. For Sample 1, lower rates of self-compassion (β = − 0.34) and higher emotion regulation difficulties (β = 0.30) were associated with higher rates of loneliness. A similar pattern was observed for Sample 2. For Sample 2, lower rates of self-compassion (β = 0.31) and higher emotion regulation difficulties (β = 0.32) were associated with higher rates of loneliness (Table 3).

Regarding emotion regulation difficulties, self-compassion explained a large and statistically significant proportion of the variance in Sample 1 (R² = 0.38) and Sample 2 (R² = 0.29). Higher rates of self-compassion were associated with fewer emotion regulation difficulties for Sample 1 (β = − 0.62) and Sample 2 (β = − 0.53). These are presented as part of Table 3. All regression pathways are plotted visually for interpretability in Fig. 2.

When investigating the direct and indirect effects of self-compassion on father-child closeness, the proposed model comprises a total effect, and 7 indirect effects (Table 4). Three indirect effects include only one intermediary variable between self-compassion and father-child closeness (i.e., self-compassion → emotion regulation difficulties/loneliness/psychological distress → father-child closeness). Three indirect effects included a sequential process with two intermediary variables (i.e., self-compassion → any pair of emotion regulation difficulties/loneliness/psychological distress). The final indirect effect included a sequential process with each intermediary variable (i.e., self-compassion → emotion regulation difficulties → loneliness → psychological distress → father-child closeness). This model is also replicated for the father-child conflict dimension.

There was a significant total effect of self-compassion on father-child closeness for Sample 1 (B = 0.88, 95%CI [0.33, 1.42]) and Sample 2 (B = 1.32, 95%CI [0.81, 1.81]). For both samples, the direct effect of self-compassion on father-child closeness was smaller than these total effects. For Sample 1, the direct effect was non-significant (B = 0.58, 95%CI [− 0.16, 1.32]). For Sample 2, the direct effect was significant (B = 0.69, 95%CI [0.09, 1.32]).

For Sample 1, the total indirect effect was not statistically significant (B = 0.30, 95%CI [− 0.26, 0.85]), this was attributed to the mix of negative and positive indirect effects. Thus, individual indirect effects were inspected separately. Here, six of the seven indirect effects were statistically significant (Table 4). Though there was no significant independent indirect effect of self-compassion on father-child closeness via emotion regulation difficulties, the Sample 1 results demonstrated that self-compassion was indirectly associated with father-child closeness via (a) the independent indirect effects of loneliness (B = 0.45 [0.19, 0.76]) and (b) psychological distress (B = − 0.18 [− 0.44, − 0.01]), the sequential processes of (c) emotion regulation difficulties impacting loneliness (B = 0.25 [0.10, 0.44]), (d) emotion regulation difficulties impacting psychological distress (B = − 0.18 [− 0.39, − 0.01]), (e) loneliness impacting psychological distress (B = − 0.09 [− 0.21, − 0.00]), and (f) emotion regulation difficulties impacting loneliness impacting psychological distress (B = − 0.05 [− 0.12, − 0.00]).

When investigating the direct and indirect effects of self-compassion on father-child conflict, there was a significant total effect of self-compassion on father-child conflict for Sample 1 (B = − 2.16, 95%CI [− 3.00, − 1.34]) and Sample 2 (B = − 2.74, 95%CI [− 3.61, − 1.97]). For both samples, the direct effect of self-compassion on father-child conflict was smaller than these total effects and not statistically significant (Sample 1: B = 0.06, 95%CI [− 1.07, 1.20]; Sample 2: B = − 0.86, 95%CI [− 1.87, 0.19]). The Sample 1 results demonstrated that self-compassion was indirectly associated with father-child conflict via (a) the independent indirect effects of emotion regulation difficulties (B = − 0.98, 95%CI [− 1.65, − 0.33]) and (b) loneliness (B = − 0.48, 95%CI [− 0.97, − 0.07]), and (c) the sequential indirect effect of emotion regulation difficulties on loneliness (B = − 0.26, 95%CI [− 0.55, − 0.04]). Thus, higher levels of self-compassion in this group were associated with fewer emotion regulation difficulties and lower levels of loneliness, which were in turn associated with lower levels of conflict.

Consistent with the prior outcome (father-child closeness) for Sample 2, the only independent indirect effect of self-compassion on father-child conflict was via emotion regulation difficulties (B = − 1.59, 95%CI [− 2.34, − 0.91]). Here, increased self-compassion was associated with fewer emotion regulation difficulties, which was associated with reduced father-child conflict.

The analyses also produced outputs that looked at the effect of self-compassion on psychological distress via the individual and sequential indirect effects of emotion regulation difficulties and loneliness. The direction and significance of these indirect effects were consistent for both samples. There was a significant total effect of self-compassion on psychological distress for Sample 1 (B = − 2.20, 95%CI [− 2.57, − 1.84]) and Sample 2 (B = − 2.11, 95%CI [− 2.45, − 1.78]). The direct effect was reduced but remained statistically significant for Sample 1 (B = − 0.80, 95%CI [− 1.18, − 0.42]) and Sample 2 (B = − 0.92, 95%CI [− 1.30, − 0.58]). All indirect effects were statistically significant.

First, there was a significant indirect effect of self-compassion on psychological distress via emotion regulation difficulties for Sample 1 (B = − 0.78, 95%CI [− 1.13, − 0.47]) and Sample 2 (B = − 0.74, 95%CI [− 1.00, − 0.49]). Second, there was a significant indirect effect of self-compassion on psychological distress via loneliness for Sample 1 (B = − 0.40, 95%CI [− 0.61, − 0.22]) and Sample 2 (B = − 0.29, 95%CI [− 0.49, − 0.13]). Last, there was a significant indirect effect of self-compassion on psychological distress via a sequential indirect effect via emotion regulation difficulties and loneliness for Sample 1 (B = − 0.22, 95%CI [− 0.37, − 0.11]) and Sample 2 (B = − 0.16 95%CI [− 0.28, − 0.07]). These negative indirect effects describe an association whereby higher levels of self-compassion were associated with fewer emotion regulation difficulties and lower levels of loneliness, which were in turn associated with increased rates of psychological distress.

The analyses also produced outputs that looked at the effect of self-compassion on loneliness via emotion regulation difficulties (i.e., a single indirect effect). The pattern of results was consistent for both samples, describing a partial indirect effect whereby increased self-compassion was associated with fewer emotion regulation difficulties, which was in turn associated with lower levels of loneliness. First, there was a significant total effect of self-compassion on loneliness for Sample 1 (B = − 1.27, 95%CI [− 1.48, − 1.05]) and Sample 2 (B = − 1.09, 95%CI [− 1.30, − 0.89]). Second, the direct effect was reduced but remained statistically significant for Sample 1 (B = − 0.82, 95%CI [− 1.11, − 0.52]) and Sample 2 (B = − 0.71, 95%CI [− 0.97, − 0.45]). All indirect effects were statistically significant. Last, there was a significant indirect effect of self-compassion on loneliness via emotion regulation difficulties for Sample 1 (B = − 0.45, 95%CI [− 0.65, − 0.26]) and Sample 2 (B = − 0.38, 95%CI [− 0.55, − 0.24]).

The direct effect and total effect (the same value in the absence of a second predictor variable) of self-compassion on emotion regulation difficulties were statistically significant for Sample 1 (B = − 9.48, 95%CI [− 10.97, − 8.00]) and Sample 2 (B = − 7.80, 95%CI [− 9.03, − 6.58]).

Multi-group path analyses were conducted to investigate whether the sequential model was consistent across the two samples. Allowing all regressions to be freely estimated in both samples provided a better model fit than constraining the regressions to be equal across the samples, Δχ²(14) = 24.88, p = 0.036. Examining individual regressions within the model indicated that the samples showed no significant difference in their relationships, except for the relationship between emotion regulation difficulties and father-child closeness, Δχ²(1) = 7.20, p = 0.007 (B_Sample1 = − 0.03, β_Sample1 = − 0.09, p = 0.174; B_Sample2 = − 0.09, β_Sample2 = − 0.28, p < 0.001). Accordingly, the indirect effects of self-compassion on father-child closeness via emotion regulation difficulties were statistically smaller in Sample 1 (B = 0.25, 95%CI [− 0.11, 0.61]) than in Sample 2 (B = 0.79, 95%CI [0.41, 1.168]), B = − 0.54, 95%CI [− 0.94, − 0.21]. Overall, whilst one regression significantly differed across the samples, the sequential mediation model showed partial non-invariance, indicating that the model was mostly replicable across these two samples.

The present study sought to better understand how self-compassion in fathers relates to the reported quality of their relationship with their children. Through the integration of past conceptual and empirical evidence, we identified emotion regulation, loneliness, and psychosocial distress as three factors that were (a) salient for explaining variance in father-child quality, (b) influenced by self-compassion, and (c) have themselves been established to be related. These findings led us to conceptualise a potential model of paternal self-compassion and father-child relationship, visually represented in Fig. 1. The model describes a potential process, whereby the presence of self-compassion in fathers can optimise the father-child relationship — by promoting increased father-child closeness and reducing father-child conflict. This is hypothesised to transpire through a mostly indirect pathway, with increased self-compassion helping to reduce emotion regulation difficulties, which may help to alleviate a sense of isolation in the parenting journey (e.g., lower levels of loneliness), which can also reduce feelings of psychosocial distress — thus helping to optimise the father-child relationship. These proposed analyses were evaluated across two sufficiently sized samples of fathers, with the results from both studies producing — with some caveats — support for these hypothesised processes. The results help to shed light on the potential mechanisms through which fathers’ self-compassion may influence their emotional wellbeing and its downstream impact on their relationships with their children. The implications of our findings are discussed below.

The conceptual model we proposed in Fig. 1 is predicated on the assumption that self-compassion in fathers plays an important role in influencing the quality of the father-child relationship. This has been well-established within the parental intervention literature (e.g., Kirby et al., 2023). Our research is also congruent with this, as paternal self-compassion was found to account for a statistically significant proportion of the variability in father-child closeness and conflict. Moreover, the final model that included emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychosocial distress demonstrated that these variables could explain additional significant variance in both father-child closeness and conflict (hypotheses 1 and 2).

Different findings were observed for father-child closeness and conflict. Foremost, self-compassion, emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychosocial distress explained substantially less variance in closeness (7–13%) compared to conflict (18–23%). One way to interpret these findings is to consider that the absence of self-compassion might be more strongly predictive of father-child conflict when contrasted against how the presence of self-compassion is predictive of father-child closeness. This finding warrants further consideration, though past research may help to offer potential explanations for this. Considering the regression-based procedures used in the present study, the results suggest that other factors may be more salient to the experience of father-child closeness. Whilst our included variables do retain some predictive utility, there are likely other unaccounted factors not yet accounted for. This might include fathers’ own attachment style and the co-parenting relationship (Risi et al., 2021; Trahan et al., 2021). It might also be the case that fathers who themselves are experiencing psychosocial difficulties (e.g., poor self-compassion, emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and/or psychological distress) may have other qualities or circumstances that may offset the risk for sub-optimal closeness. For example, having a supportive co-parent, or a child who is affectionate toward their father, may help to preserve a sense of closeness — even despite the experience of psychosocial difficulties. Future research could seek to advance current knowledge by identifying what qualities can explain more substantial variability in father-child closeness.

Low levels of self-compassion, and higher levels of emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychosocial distress were able to explain almost three times as much variance in father-child conflict compared to closeness. This finding is expected, as many of these constructs are most often described as risk factors for poor functioning (rather than factors that promote optimal functioning) across psychological and social domains in the past literature. The parenting self-compassion literature often recruits samples that are predisposed to increased risk for parent–child conflict, by recruiting either parents with existing conditions where self-compassion is ostensibly low (e.g., diagnosed depressive disorders) or parents of children expressing behavioural difficulties or experiencing neurodevelopmental conditions that increase the risk for conflict — such as children with autism spectrum disorder (Jefferson et al., 2020). This may mean that parenting self-compassion interventions are potentially better predisposed to addressing parent–child conflict.

As self-compassion helps to enhance the capacity for parents to respond adaptively and non-critically to the inevitable difficulties caring for their children, an absence of self-compassion may understandably trigger a parental response that gives rise to increased conflict. For example, high levels of self-criticism can lead some parents to adopt harsher and more critical attitudes toward their children (Moreira et al., 2016). Additionally, low self-compassion constrains the ability to experience empathy for others, perhaps leading to difficulty empathising with their child’s needs which may further increase conflict (Yarnell et al., 2015). Critically, though self-compassion, emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychosocial distress explain a moderate proportion of variability in father-child conflict, we acknowledge that there remains variability that cannot be accounted for by these constructs. Thus, like father-child closeness, researchers may wish to identify what other factors are central to the experience of father-child conflict. This could include other paternal qualities (e.g., personality, beliefs about childrearing, or masculine norms), but would likely include the child’s attributes, and the broader socioecological system that surrounds the father-child dyad (e.g., co-parent involvement, employment factors). Accordingly, the inclusion of other salient factors known to shape parent–child relationships in future research may not only help to increase measurement precision but also increase ecological validity by incorporating the influence of other factors. For instance, incorporating dyadic data from both parents or using observational methods to capture real-time relational interactions could offer deeper insights into the dynamics of father-child closeness and conflict. Relatedly, the age of the child did not predict rates of father-child closeness or conflict in this study. However, it may nevertheless be a worthwhile consideration in future efforts oriented toward improving parental self-compassion, as the challenges of parenting will variably shift as children develop. Potential targets for future research are aptly described by Cabrera et al. (2014) as part of the ecological model of father-child relationships and may help to guide further targets beyond fathers’ self-compassion.

We sought to test how self-compassion may be related to father-child closeness and conflict (Hypotheses 3 and 4). Hypothesis 3 was partly supported — the effect of self-compassion on father-child closeness was completely explained by the indirect effects of emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychosocial distress in our first sample, and partially explained in our second sample. Hypothesis 4 was supported in both samples, as the direct effect of self-compassion on father-child conflict was no longer statistically significant once these intermediary variables were introduced.

Every possible combination of indirect pathways from self-compassion to father-child closeness was found to be statistically significant in at least one of our two study samples. For father-child conflict, the indirect effect was mostly attributable to the individual and sequential links between emotion regulation difficulties and loneliness. Taken together, these results are — to our knowledge — the first to test a proposed model that features these components and in the paternal population. Subject to further replication, our findings describe the potential processes through which self-compassion may account for the level of closeness and conflict present in the father-child relationship.

Importantly, we do not wish for these preliminary findings to be appraised as being either a complete or causal account of self-compassion and fathering, and further replication and development will be beneficial. Longitudinal studies may help to resolve potential causal mechanisms, though intervention studies may help to achieve similar causal evidence whilst simultaneously exposing participants to effective interventions. Our correlational findings, however, are congruent with prior theoretical and empirical literature that helped us to develop the proposed model. Specifically, fathers with increased self-compassion are less likely to report emotion regulation difficulties; this may independently enhance the father-child relationship but may also do so sequentially by reducing paternal loneliness and/or psychological distress. Through this potential process, we identified the potential for self-compassion in fathers to be associated with slightly increased levels of closeness and more moderately sized reductions in father-child conflict.

The capacity for self-compassion includes a positive cognitive-affective attitude toward oneself (Borawski & Nowak, 2022). As loneliness can be attributed to an antagonistic evaluation of self and others (Spithoven et al., 2017), the development of self-compassion may help fathers to accomplish more adaptive cognitions, which could help to promote connection to others and reduce unhelpful interpersonal expectations. Whilst the importance of meaningful social relationships and community for fathers should not be dismissed in the effort to combat loneliness, it is important to recognise that interventions that target social cognitions are more effective in reducing loneliness compared to interventions that promote social skills or social support (Masi et al., 2010). The promotion of self-compassion provides one promising way to accomplish this and that may — based on the current findings — have application among fathers. Similar logic applies to emotion regulation difficulties in the effort to treat loneliness. Interventions designed to enhance the regulation of emotion (including the promotion of self-compassion) may further equip individuals with opportunities to develop more constructive cognitive appraisals of interpersonal relationships (Preece et al., 2021).

The current findings offer value in helping to refine an understanding of the process that links fathers’ self-compassion to the quality of the father-child relationship. With some noteworthy exceptions (e.g., Mancini et al., 2023), the parenting self-compassion literature has seldom focussed on fathers. A meta-analysis of parenting self-compassion interventions by Jefferson et al. (2020) found that most studies were either entirely or disproportionately comprised of maternal samples. Where past research has found that men tend to report higher levels of self-compassion than women (Yarnell et al., 2015), how this shapes the father-child relationship has not yet been fully actualised. It is also not yet clear whether different strategies are required to cultivate self-compassion for fathers compared to mothers. However, these might be worthwhile considerations given that a need for gender-tailored approaches to self-compassion intervention is important (Helminen et al., 2021; Reilly et al., 2014). We also hypothesise that children in two-parent families may be more optimally positioned to form healthy parental relationships when both parents possess a healthy capacity for self-compassion. This further emphasises the benefits of paternal self-compassion interventions that can benefit the many children who are cared for by a male caregiver. The diversity of family structures should be acknowledged in future research, which might wish to examine whether certain compositions (e.g., single fathers, or non-resident fathers) may benefit from targeted interventions.

Shifting sociocultural paradigms have broadly seen modern-day fathers being more actively involved in attending to their child’s emotional needs and other forms of direct care, creating new opportunities for fathers to influence, and be influenced by, their children (Schoppe‐Sullivan & Fagan, 2020). Therefore, the benefits of approaching parenting with compassion for one’s self may not be reserved only for maternal cohorts — though mothers currently comprise most participants in parenting self-compassion interventions (Jefferson et al., 2020). Rather, the father-child relationship may also be enhanced through the cultivation of self-compassion among male caregivers. Our study highlights that self-compassion may yield downstream benefits to children by allowing fathers to more adaptively regulate their emotions, feel less lonely in their parenting journey, and report lower rates of distress.

The current study also afforded the opportunity to explore how self-compassion may be relevant to the broader experience of paternal mental health, independent of the father-child relationship. Mental health difficulties among men, including fathers, have emerged as a significant public health concern (Fisher et al., 2021; Seidler et al., 2017). In this study, we included loneliness as a potential risk factor for psychological distress (i.e., depressive symptoms), but also acknowledge that the experience of loneliness may itself be distressing. We had two motivations for including loneliness in the present study. First, loneliness has been shown to act as a key mechanism through which emotion regulation gives rise to psychosocial distress (as discussed by Preece et al., 2021). Thus, one may not be able to fully articulate the link between emotion regulation difficulties and psychosocial distress (a key pathway nested within our proposed model) without also accounting for the potential role of loneliness. The second motivation relates to the emerging research identifying the psychosocial risks associated with parenting — for both parents and children (Nowland et al., 2021). Parallel development within the men’s mental health research described in a meta-analysis by Lear and Dorstyn (2024) has also argued that loneliness is a “serious threat to men’s mental health” (p. 1). Therefore, men who are fathers may represent one group where the risk of loneliness may be compounded.

Understanding the persistence of mental health difficulties in the male population is a complex and multifactorial challenge. However, this may be partly attributed to a need to identify the psychosocial factors that serve to maintain these difficulties and to devise informed strategies to treat them effectively (Seidler et al., 2017).

The transdiagnostic risks associated with a lack of self-compassion and emotion regulation difficulties have implications for paternal mental health — including both loneliness and psychological distress. First, we found that self-compassion, emotion regulation difficulties, and loneliness explained more than half of the variance in fathers’ psychosocial distress (50–54%) supporting Hypothesis 5. Second, self-compassion and emotion regulation difficulties explained one-third of the variance in loneliness (30–34%), supporting Hypothesis 6. Last, self-compassion explained a large proportion of variance in emotion regulation difficulties (29–38%), congruent with Finlay-Jones’ (2017) self-compassion model of emotion regulation. Evidence for a partial indirect effect of self-compassion on fathers’ psychological distress via emotion regulation difficulties and loneliness provides partial support for Hypothesis 7, whilst a partial indirect effect of self-compassion on fathers’ loneliness via emotion regulation difficulties provides partial support for Hypothesis 8.

The current findings emphasise the potential utility of both self-compassion and emotion regulation in the prevention of mental health difficulties in fathers, which might ostensibly have generalisability to the broader male population. Self-compassion and emotion regulation have emerged as compelling intervention targets, not only due to their aforementioned transdiagnostic properties but also due to a substantive evidence base that suggests that these capacities can be enhanced through evidence-based interventions (Aldao et al., 2010; Ferrari et al., 2019). These interventions have been seldom tested within a paternal mental health context, but nevertheless have a substantial body of evidence that would support the potential utility as a transdiagnostic intervention that could yield mental health and parenting benefits.

The utility of self-compassion interventions is bolstered by evidence documenting the ability of self-compassion to also predict emotion regulation capacity (Finlay‐Jones, 2017; Paucsik et al., 2023). Even brief self-compassion interventions promote improved functioning among parents (Kirby et al., 2023). However, interventions that incorporate self-compassion and emotion regulation components may provide maximal benefit to participants.

The current findings highlight that (among two different samples of fathers) self-compassion explains significant variance in father-child closeness and conflict. This is largely attributed to the sequential indirect impact of emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychosocial distress. Though preliminary, these findings may help to inform policy and practice, including parenting-focussed self-compassion interventions. First, within the fathering literature exist calls to tailor parenting programs and interventions to the expressed needs and concerns of the paternal population (Cabrera et al., 2014; Schoppe‐Sullivan & Fagan, 2020). Past research has shown that general parenting interventions can, at times, be less frequently attended and less effective for fathers compared to mothers (Fletcher et al., 2011). One potential remedy to address these gaps might be to tailor interventions toward fathers by identifying the mechanisms that are most salient to their relationships with their children. The current study helps to move toward achieving this, highlighting that self-compassion, via emotion regulation difficulties, loneliness, and psychological distress, may have relevance to the father-child relationship (particularly for father-child conflict). Within existing parenting self-compassion literature, fathers are often underrepresented if not omitted from these programs entirely (Jefferson et al., 2020; Kirby et al., 2023). For existing intervention studies that do include fathers, sufficiently sized samples may permit the ability to examine gendered interaction effects that could help to resolve whether fathers extract similar benefits from these programs compared to mothers. If yes, then self-compassion practitioners may wish to invest in devising ways to increase rates of paternal participation. If not, then the field may first need to identify the mechanisms responsible for this difference.