Effects of Manipulating Parents’ Self-efficacy Beliefs
on Parents’ Positive Affect and Children’s Negative Affect in Parent-Child Interactions
Marsha Bos
Masterscriptie Opvoedingsondersteuning Pedagogische en Onderwijskundige Wetenschappen Universiteit van Amsterdam Student: M. Bos Studentnummer: 11082526 Begeleider: Dr. Prof. G. Overbeek Tweede beoordelaar: Dr. P. Hoffenaar Amsterdam, juli, 2016
Table of contents
Abstract ... 2
Introduction ... 3
Parental Self-Efficacy Beliefs ... 4
The Role of Parental Self-Efficacy in Child Externalizing Behavior ... 6
Experimental Studies on the Role of Parental Self-Efficacy ... 7
Present Study and Hypothesis ... 8
Method ... 9 Participants ... 9 Procedure ... 9 Instruments ... 12 Data analysis ... 13 Results ... 14 Discussion ... 15
Limitations and Strengths of the Study ... 18
Clinical Implications of the Findings and Future Research Needs ... 19
References ... 22 Table 1 ... 27 Table 2 ... 28 Table 3 ... 28 Table 4 ... 29 Figure 1 ... 30
Abstract
This randomized micro-trial examined the effects of manipulating parents’ self-efficacy beliefs on parents’ positive affect and children’s negative affect in parent-child interactions. Parental self-efficacy was experimentally manipulated by giving positive feedback on the areas of giving warmth, setting boundaries and regulating emotions, in comparison with others. Participants were 18 pairs of parents plus children between three and seven years old (M age = 5.63, SD = 1.05). In two home visits, the parents’ and children’s behaviors were assessed with free-play, frustration and clean-up tasks. Observational and self-report measures were used. Results from GLM univariate ANOVAs show that parents’ self-efficacy does not lead to increased positive affect in parents, nor decreased negative affect in children.
However, although these relationships were non-significant, differences between the
experimental and control group were in the expected direction (i.e., towards higher parental affect and lower negative affect in children in the experimental group), and high effect sizes indicated that potentially, a self-efficacy stimulation for parents might work well to improve parent-child interactions.
Keywords: self-efficacy, parenting, positive and negative affect preschoolers, experiment
Effects of Manipulating Parents’ Self-efficacy Beliefs
on Parents’ Positive Affect and Children’s Negative Affect in Parent-Child Interactions Problem behavior is quite common in young children. For preschoolers the prevalence rate of problem behavior lies between 14% and 26%, with severe problems in 9% to 12% of the cases (Martin, McConville, Williamson, Feldman, & Boekamp, 2013). Behavioral problems in preschool children are moderately stable over time and are associated with negative outcomes (Lavigne, LeBailly, Hopkins, Gouze, & Binns, 2009). Specifically, early externalized problems can predict difficulties in mental health, peer relations and academic performance in adulthood (Lunkenheimer, Olson, Hollenstein, Sameroff, & Winter, 2011). Furthermore, early behavioral problems imply not only problems for the individual, but also high costs for families and society (O’Neill, McGilloway, Donnelly, Bywater, & Kelly, 2013). Children with severe early onset conduct problems are more likely to receive remedial help, make use of primary care services, drop out of school and have more contact with the police in adolescence (Furlong et al., 2012).
Children’s mental health is related to parenting practices and may contribute to the development of children’s behavioral problems (Achtergarde, Postert, Wessing, Romer, & Müller, 2015). Positive parenting practices and child behavioral outcomes are related to the subjective experiences of parenting, such as parents’ self-efficacy beliefs: the way parents see themselves as capable in their parenting role. Children’s behavioral problems can be
challenging for parents and may lead to lower self-efficacy beliefs, which has been correlated with negative parenting behavior, such as negative affect and the use of coercive discipline (Coleman & Karraker, 1997). Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs can be manipulated and improved through interventions. This way the development of externalizing behavior problems of the child, such as aggressive behavior, non-compliance and irritability, can be reduced and prevented (Roskam, Brassart, Loop, Mouton, & Schelstraete, 2015).
Although there are a lot of correlational studies about the link between parental self-efficacy beliefs, parenting and children’s outcomes, it is still not clear what the causal relation is between these variables. Therefore, more research is needed to explore these relations and search for effective components in parenting interventions. Micro-trials are randomized experiments focused on a single component of an intervention and can be a good way to search for single effective parenting techniques and to test causality (Leijten et al., 2015). For this reason, we will examine the effect of parental self-efficacy beliefs on parents’ positive affect, and children’s negative affect and irritability in a micro-trial.
Parental Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Self-efficacy beliefs are the ways in which people perceive their capability to control their own level of functioning and exert control over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1993). Self-efficacy beliefs can develop in three ways. First, experiences based on
comparisons with capabilities of others can influence mastery expectations. Second, personal accomplishment history derived from one’s own previous experiences can influence the expectation of mastery. Third, verbal feedback regarding one’s potential of accomplishments in a given area can be defined as verbal persuasion (Coleman & Karraker, 1997). These developments towards self-efficacy are described in social learning theory, which suggests that people learn new behaviors through observation of models and the results of their actions. Self-efficacy, or the beliefs that people have about their ability to perform a specific task, is crucial to the effort people put into their actions (Bandura, 1977).
In the context of parenting, self-efficacy beliefs refer to the beliefs, thoughts, values and expectations that are activated when one is in charge of a child’s upbringing (Meunier & Roskam, 2009). Specifically, parental self-efficacy beliefs refer to the degree to which parents perceive themselves as being effective as a parent (Coleman & Karraker, 2003). Parental self-efficacy beliefs are important predictors of parenting behaviors, such as sensitivity, warmth
and concern for the children’s cognitive development. People with high self-efficacy beliefs consider themselves capable of defeating problems and they think in terms of challenges instead of threats. High feelings of efficacy diminish the perceived impact of uncontrollable environmental circumstances, such as infant temperament and social support (Coleman & Karraker, 1997). Furthermore, parental self-efficacy beliefs are related to positive parenting practices, positive parental affect, high parental satisfaction and lower parental stress and depression (Meunier & Roskam, 2009). Parental self-efficacy beliefs are linked to different aspects of parenting, for example role satisfaction, responsiveness, control and participation (Coleman & Karraker, 1997). Confident parents tend to be more secure in the interaction with their child and therefore find the interaction more enjoyable and want to spend more quality time with their child (Meunier, Roskam, & Browne, 2010). Finally, higher parental self-efficacy beliefs are related to better adjustment in children (Slagt, Dekovic, De Haan, Van den Akker, & Prinzie, 2012).
Higher parental self-efficacy beliefs are linked to positive parenting and positive parenting decreases the risk of children developing externalizing behavior. Externalizing problems in childhood can be defined as overactive, aggressive, noncompliant and poorly regulated behavior. Children who display certain behavior are at risk to develop continuing problems (Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000).
The relationship between parental self-efficacy beliefs and children’s problem behavior can be direct or mediated by other variables (Jones & Prinz, 2005). In an
intervention study there appeared to be a direct relation. Increasing parenting efficacy led to lower levels of disruptive behavior in children (O’Connor, Rodriguez, Cappella, Morris, & McClowry, 2012). Another study found an indirect effect of children’s externalizing behavior through parents’ self-efficacy beliefs on later parental behavior (Meunier et al., 2010). In the following sections we will discuss longitudinal studies and experimental studies to explain
these direct and indirect relations between parental self-efficacy beliefs, parenting and children’s problem behavior.
The Role of Parental Self-Efficacy in Child Externalizing Behavior
In a longitudinal study, parental self-efficacy beliefs correlated with childrearing behaviors and children’s externalizing behavior. Specifically, parents with high self-efficacy beliefs were more supportive and had more positive interactions with their child. On the contrary, parents with low self-efficacy beliefs tended to rely more on controlling than supportive childrearing behavior towards their child. High levels of externalizing behavior were related to increases of controlling childrearing behavior of parents (Roskam & Meunier, 2012). In yet another study there appeared to be a direct relationship between parental self-efficacy beliefs and children’s externalizing behavior. Here, the relationship between mothers’ self-efficacy on the development of children’s externalizing problem behavior in early childhood was significant, even after controlling for parenting behavior variables (Meunier, Roskam, Stievenart, Van de Moortele, Browne, & Kumar, 2011).
Although they provide valuable insights, longitudinal studies do not make clear the causal nature of the connection between parental self-efficacy beliefs and children’s behavior patterns. Notably, one study suggested that the relation between these two variables may not be indicative of a parenting effect, but rather a child effect. That is, children’s externalizing problems predicted parents’ sense of competence six years later, but parents’ sense of
competence did not predict subsequent externalizing behaviors (Slagt et al., 2012). In another correlational study, results indicated that parental self-efficacy beliefs were predicted by children’s problem behaviors and supportive or engaged parenting behaviors (Murdock, 2013). These results implicate that childrearing behavior depends, perhaps to a large extent, on the degree to which the child displays externalizing behavior. Mothers of children with challenging behavior are more controlling, and resort to a higher level of discipline,
punishment, material rewarding, ignoring the child and inconsistent parenting (Roskam & Meunier, 2012). Children with an easy temperament or personality evoke more positive parenting than children with a difficult temperament or personality (Meunier et al., 2010). Experimental Studies on the Role of Parental Self-Efficacy
The results in the study of Murdock (2013) and Slagt and colleagues (2012) showed that parenting could be a consequence of child behavior instead of child behavior being a consequence of parenting. Thus, at present we do not know whether parenting actually affects child behavior. To be able to determine the causal effect of parental self-efficacy beliefs on parental and child affect, it is crucial to carry out experimental studies. A micro-trial is a form of an experimental design, which focuses on the effectivity of particular components of an intervention (Howe, Beach, & Brody, 2010). Micro-trials are defined as “randomized experiments testing the effects of relatively brief and focused environmental manipulations designed to suppress specific risk mechanisms or enhance specific protective mechanisms, but not to bring about full treatment or prevention effects in distal outcomes” (Howe et al., 2010, p. 343). Until now, micro-trials have been rarely conducted in the context of parenting research, but they are important for determining which components in interventions truly work. The effectivity of enhancing the self-efficacy beliefs of parents on parenting and child behavior can be shown in micro-trials that actively manipulate parental self-efficacy beliefs.
Results from one experimental study confirmed that parents’ self-efficacy beliefs contribute to children’s behavioral outcomes. In this study, increases in self-efficacy beliefs were related to low externalizing behavior (Meunier & Roskam, 2009).
In another experimental study parents were verbally persuaded to have more positive beliefs about their parenting abilities. The results showed that giving positive feedback led to higher parenting self-efficacy beliefs. However, when parents received positive persuasion,
they were more sensitive to failure which decreased their self-efficacy (Cassé, Oosterman, & Schuengel, 2015).
Similar to increasing self-efficacy, increasing parents’ verbal responsiveness to their children’s initiatives can decrease child behavior problems (Brassart & Schelstraete, 2015). However, according to a micro-trial comparison study, increasing parents’ self-efficacy had an effect on children’s externalizing behavior across a larger spectrum than increasing parents’ verbal responsiveness. Enhancing parents’ verbal responsiveness only decreased children’s aggressiveness and non-compliance whereas enhancing parental self-efficacy reduced children’s aggressiveness, non-compliance but also children’s irritability (Roskam et al., 2015).
Finally, in a micro-trial about self-efficacy and parenting among 43 mothers and their four to five years old children, the relationship between mothers’ self-efficacy and children’s behavior was tested (Mouton & Roskam, 2014). The self-efficacy of mothers in the
experimental group was assessed in advance and manipulated by acknowledging their high parenting performance, by comparing them positively with other parents and by giving verbal persuasion. Directly after the manipulation, mothers were observed playing with their
children. The results showed that mothers’ self-efficacy was significantly improved by the manipulation. In addition, the results showed that mother’s increased self-efficacy beliefs affected parenting behavior and children’s behavior. Specifically, the manipulated mothers showed more positive affect, such as warmth, and the children showed less oppositional behavior (Mouton & Roskam, 2014).
Present Study and Hypothesis
The study of Mouton and Roskam (2014) was the first to show a causal relation between the manipulation of the mothers’ self-efficacy beliefs and children’s behavioral outcomes. The current study is in part set up to be a replication of the study of Mouton and
Roskam (2014), because we will also examine whether manipulating parental self-efficacy can lead to improvements in parents’ positive affect. However, the present study will be the first to perform a mediation test, by examining whether increases in parents’ self-efficacy lead to reduced negative affect and irritability in children, through improved (i.e., more positive) parental affect in parent-child interactions. In accordance, we expect that parents who get positive self-efficacy feedback will show more positive affect and that this positive affect mediates the relationship between increased parental self-efficacy and lower child negative affect.
Method Participants
This study was performed amongst 18 parents and 18 children. Targeted children were between the age of 3.45 and 7.03 (M age = 5.63, SD = 1.05) and 11 boys and 7 girls
participated (61.1% boys). All parents were between the ages of 33.97 and 46.75 (M age = 39.01, SD = 4.22). Fourteen mothers and four fathers participated in the research (77.8% female). The sample consisted almost exclusively of higher-educated parents: 15 parents had a college or university degree (83.3%). In total, 17 parents were born in the Netherlands (94.4%) and one parent was born in Sri Lanka (5.6%).
Procedure
Primary schools in the region of Amsterdam were called to ask for permission to distribute an invitation letter about the study to parents. Parents with children in the age of 4 to 6 were informed about the study with this letter. Schools were told that the study was about researching effective parenting practices. A total of 146 schools was approached and 15 schools (10.3%) participated in this study. Facebook was also used to reach parents from Amsterdam. A Facebook page was made and messages on five Facebook pages for parents in Amsterdam were posted. The message consisted of a flyer in which parents were briefly
informed about the content of the study and were asked to participate. Furthermore, we placed an advertisement in three local newspapers in Amsterdam. Finally, we put up posters in 22 different parent and child centers (“Ouder en Kind Teams”) in Amsterdam.
Five steps were taken in this procedure. First, the parents were informed about the home visits during a phone call and the questionnaires were filled out by the parents. Before the first home visit, the questionnaires were sent to the parents by e-mail and completed. Based on these questionnaires, we examined parents’ self-efficacy. The information received through these questionnaires was not used for allocation to the control or experimental conditions. All participants received small rewards for their participation. Specifically, every mother received 10 euros and every child received a small toy. In addition, participating families entered a lottery, for tickets to theme park ‘De Efteling’ for the whole family.
In the second step a first home visit took place. Parents and children were told that two home visits would take place, with the first home visit serving the purpose of getting a
baseline estimate of how they interacted with each other. Furthermore, this home visit served the purpose of making the manipulation more convincing for participating parents. In the first home visit, interaction between the parent and child was observed in a free play task. This information also was not used for allocation. The research assistant introduced herself and provided the parents with a standardized instruction about what the home visit entailed. The free play task consisted of playing with blocks and playing with a checkout. The parent and child were asked to choose to play with one of the toys first and after playing for 10 minutes, they could play with the other toy for 10 minutes. The interaction was filmed. All parents were told that experienced family researchers would examine the information from the observation in the university lab.
In the third step, the parents were randomly assigned to the experimental group or control group after the first home visit. An uninvolved staff member of Research Institute
Child Development and Education (RICDE) randomized parents across the experimental or control group by throwing a dice. The six parents (33.3%) who were allocated to the
experimental group received a text message with positive feedback about their parenting skills a day before the second home visit took place. This positive feedback message was repeated at the second home visit, to strengthen the manipulation effect (see Table 1). The
manipulation was adopted from the study of Mouton and Roskam (2014). Self-efficacy in this manipulation was emphasized in different ways: first, by an acknowledged performance attainment, second, by providing a positive comparison with other parents, and third, by a verbal persuasion that was supported by a bogus figure (see Figure 1). After the manipulation the research assistants performed the manipulation check. They told the parents that they would like them to answer a few short questions about their current mood and that they would keep the child busy while the parent shortly filled in this questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of mood items and hidden self-efficacy items. The 12 parents (66.7%) in the control group did not get feedback, but they were given a message thanking them again for their participation in the first home visit (see Table 1).
In the fourth step, the parents performed several interaction tasks with their children during the second home visit. The second session consisted of a free play task, a frustration task, another free play task and a clean-up task. In the observation the parent-child interaction was examined. The free play tasks where, like during the first home visit, playing with blocks and playing with a checkout. The parent and child were asked to choose what they wanted to do first and they played for ten minutes. Next, in the frustration task the children were told to solve a difficult puzzle in five minutes and the parents were told to help their children, but they were asked not to solve the puzzle themselves. After this the parent and child could play with the other toy from the free play task. In the beginning of the task the parent and child were told they could play for another five minutes and that the parent had to command the
child to clean up afterwards. However, after two minutes they were interrupted by the
assistant who asked the parents to instruct their child to clean up. The time that it took to clean up was a measure of the children’s compliance. The tasks were planned to elicit frustration and mild irritability in the child, because we expected that manipulating parents’ self-efficacy would most likely affect parenting behavior and child behavior during challenging situations. All parent-child interactions were filmed and the puzzle task and clean-up task were scored afterwards by the research assistants.
In the fifth and final step the insight check and debriefing was done. Parents were asked if they could express in their own words what they thought the study was about. None of the participating parents guessed the actual study purpose. Parents were debriefed – conform procedures described in Mouton and Roskam (2014). The study procedure was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Psychology department of the University of Amsterdam.
Instruments
Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs were assessed with the Parenting Sense of Competence scale (PSOC) and this instrument measures the dimensions Satisfaction and Efficacy. The Efficacy section examines the parents’ competence and capability of solving problems in their parenting role on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). High scores on the Efficacy dimension scale indicate high self-efficacy. The PSOC includes 17 items, and in this study we worked with only the self-efficacy section, which consisted of 8 items. Example items are: “The problems of taking care of a child are easy to solve once you know how your actions affect your child, and understanding I have acquired” and “Being a parent is manageable, and any problems are easily solved”. The internal consistency and validity of the PSOC are satisfactory (Johnston & Mash, 1989; Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2008). In our study, Cronbach’s alpha was .77 for the self-efficacy scale.
Parents’ positive affect was assessed with a dyadic coding system for the puzzle task and the clean-up task. The dyadic system for positive affect examines the positivity of facial expressions, body posture, and the emotional tone or quality of the verbal expressions, ranging from 1 (extremely not characteristic) to 5 (extremely characteristic). High scores indicate high positive affect from the parent towards the child.
Children’s negative affect was also assessed by using a dyadic coding system for the puzzle task and the clean-up task. The dyadic system for negative affect examines the
negativity of facial expressions, body posture, and the emotional tone or quality of the verbal expressions, ranging from 1 (extremely not characteristic) to 5 (extremely characteristic). High scores indicate high negative affect from the child towards the parent.
A code was given for every 30 seconds on positive and negative affect and included ten scores on the puzzle task and six scores on the clean-up task. Before coding, the research assistants were trained and 33 % of the episodes were double coded. Discrepancies in the codes were solved by discussions between the assistants and the episodes were given a joint score. Finally, mean scores were calculated for every parent-child interaction episode. Data Analysis
First, descriptive analyses were performed. Mean levels and standard deviations were examined for parents’ self-efficacy beliefs, and for positive affect of the parent and negative affect of the child during the parent-child interactions. The experimental and control groups were subsequently compared at baseline to check their equality on parents’ self-efficacy beliefs by an independent samples t-test. Next, we tested whether the data complied with the assumptions of normality of distribution and homogeneity of variance. Finally, we performed an a priori power calculation with the computer program G*Power 3.1. This analysis showed that with a p-value of .05 and an average effect size of .15, and power of 80%, we would need 68 participants.
To answer the research question whether the self-efficacy manipulation would lead to higher parental positive affect, and through this to higher positive affect in children, we performed a univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with a General Linear Model (GLM). Condition (i.e., yes/no manipulation of parental self-efficacy beliefs) was the predictor
variable, parental positive affect served as mediator variable, and children’s negative affect was the outcome variable. To test mediation, we first examined each individual statistical association. That is, the statistical association between the condition and children’s positive affect, between the condition and parental positive affect, and between parental positive affect and child negative affect were examined using ANOVA analysis in SPSS. As a potential second step, we aimed to test mediation in an ANOVA, to examine whether parents’ positive affect would explain the effect of the self-efficacy manipulation on children’s negative affect. The ANOVA analyses for parental positive affect and children’s negative affect were
separately performed for the puzzle task and the clean-up task. Results
First, we examined the characteristics of the present study sample. Overall, the level of self-efficacy of the participating parents was high (M = 4.43, SD = .65, minimum = 3.13, maximum = 5.50). In contrast, the level of negative affect of the children during the observed parent-child interactions was relatively low (M = 2.02, SD = .45, minimum = 1.31, maximum = 2.69), while the level of positive affect of the parents during these interactions was average (M = 2.52, SD = .49, minimum = 2.06, maximum = 2.94). Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of all means and standard deviations, split out by condition.
Second, we examined whether randomization was successful by comparing parents’ baseline scores on self-efficacy across the control and experimental condition. Table 3 shows that parents in the control group and in the experimental group had similar scores on self-efficacy. Importantly, no parent discovered the self-efficacy manipulation.
Third, we examined whether our data met the assumptions of normality of distribution and homogeneity of variance. We found that normality could be assumed for parental positive affect on the clean-up task, but not on the puzzle task. Also, we found that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated for children’s negative affect and parents’ positive affect in the clean-up task, but could be assumed for the puzzle task.
After this, the mediation analysis to test causality for the puzzle task and the clean-up task was done. To test the hypothesis that manipulation of self-efficacy would lead to less problem behavior of the child through better parenting practices, a univariate ANOVA was performed with a GLM. Condition (yes/no manipulation of parental self-efficacy beliefs) was the predictor variable, parents’ positive affect was the mediator variable, and children’s negative affect was the outcome variable.
The ANOVA results in Table 4 show that the condition did not predict children’s negative affect during the puzzle task, F (1,16) = 2.76, p = .12. Also, we found that condition did not predict positive affect of the parents during this task, F (1,16) = 1.03, p = .33. Finally, the positive affect of the parents did not predict negative affect of the children, F (1,16) = 1.30, p = .27. Because these relations were all not significant, the total mediation test was not performed for the puzzle task.
Next, we performed another ANOVA for the clean-up task. Similar results were found compared to the results of the puzzle task. Specifically, condition did not predict children’s negative affect, F (1,16) = 3.16, p = .10. Furthermore, condition did not predict parents’ positive affect, F (1,16) = .08, p = .79. Finally, the positive affect of parents did not predict negative affect of children, F (1,16) = 1.84, p = .19. Because these relations were all not significant, the total mediation analysis was not performed for the clean-up task. For both tasks the effect sizes were relatively large (see Table 4). The actual power of the current sample was .25 with 18 participants.
Based on the outcomes, we conclude that the current manipulation of parents’ self-efficacy beliefs neither produced more positive affect in the parents, nor produced less negative affect in the children.
Discussion
The aim of the current study was to clarify the link between parents’ self-efficacy beliefs, parenting, and children’s behavioral development. The study specifically examined the influence of manipulating parents’ self-efficacy beliefs on negative affect of children, through positive affect of parents with a micro-trial approach. By performing a brief
experimental manipulation, the causality between the mentioned variables could be examined. The results made clear that the manipulation of parents’ self-efficacy beliefs do not lead to increased positive affect in parents, nor to decreases of negative affect in the children.
These results are in contrast with the outcomes of previous studies. Self-efficacy beliefs are believed to play a major role in determining parenting practices and child
developmental outcomes (Meunier et al., 2010; Meunier et al., 2011). Many studies confirm a relation between these variables and point out that high self-efficacy beliefs correlate with positive parenting practices and few children’s problem behaviors (Murdock, 2013; Roskam & Meunier, 2012; Slagt et al., 2012). However, not a lot of experimental research has focused on parental self-efficacy beliefs. The study of Mouton and Roskam (2014) is an exception. The results in this experimental study about self-efficacy beliefs of mothers, showed that the manipulation of parental self-efficacy beliefs led to more positive parental behavior and more warmth of the mothers, and less oppositional child behavior (Mouton & Roskam, 2014). The current study also researched the influence of the manipulation of parents’ self-efficacy on parenting and children’s behavior with a micro-trial. Despite the similarities in the research design of Mouton and Roskam (2014) and results from former studies, we did not find similar results.
However, it is important to note that the experimental group did perform a little better than the control group (i.e. parents showed more positive affect, and children lower levels of negative affect), which is in line with the hypothesis that higher self-efficacy beliefs are related to positive changes in parent-child interactions. Even though we found no significant relationships, the effect sizes were relatively large (Cohen, 1988). Nevertheless, eta squared, the measure of the effect size, overestimates the population strength of the relationship and therefore it is unclear to what extent these findings can be generalized to the whole population (Olejnik & Algina, 2000).
There are several possible explanations for why these strong effects did not come out as statistically significant. First of all, the sample size was limited, which limits statistical power to find significant effects. It was difficult to find parents willing to participate in the study despite the multiple resources used to find participants. In addition, the parents did not show much positive affect towards their children, especially at the puzzle task. This could be due to the specific content of the task and the given time. Although the task was intended to serve as a frustration task for the children and parents were asked to help their children to solve the puzzle, we found that during the task the parents were more focused on the task itself instead of on interaction with the child. Many of the parents were solving the puzzle themselves and most children were not showing elevated levels of frustration. Normally this kind of task takes about 12 minutes and increases in difficulty (Keenan & Wakschlag, 2000). In the current study the single puzzle was given five minutes and was impossible for the children to solve. Parents might interact and help their children more if researchers were to allow the parent and child more time. In addition, the task might elicit more frustration in the children when adequate puzzles increasing in difficulty would be provided.
Another reason for the absent effect of the self-efficacy manipulation is the examined direction of effect. Self-efficacy in the current study is seen as a predictor of parenting and
children’s behavior (Coleman & Karraker, 1997). However, children’s behavior could also be a predictor of parenting and parents’ self-efficacy beliefs (Murdock, 2013; Slagt et al., 2012). This link could be explained by children’s temperament or personality: children with an easy temperament evoke more positive parenting practices (Meunier et al., 2010). Former
correlational studies mainly studied the influence of parents’ self-efficacy beliefs on parenting and children’s behavior, but more research is needed regarding the influence of children’s behavior on parenting and self-efficacy beliefs. Perhaps because of such potential child effects, we did not find an effect of the currently employed self-efficacy manipulation for parents.
Limitations and Strengths of the Study
Some limitations of the study have to be noted. In the first place, no manipulation check was performed among all parents. The parents in the control group did not fill in the post-manipulation questionnaire and therefore it is impossible to examine whether or not the manipulation worked. Secondly, it could be argued whether or not the manipulation was convincing enough. Because young research assistants were used who were performing an experiment for the first time, the manipulation might not have been taken seriously by the parents. Thirdly, the faces of the parents did not always appear clear on camera and correct coding was therefore difficult in some cases. Fourthly, there were few participants in the study and also few in the experimental group, so the power was limited and this makes the results not fully representative. As a final limitation can be mentioned that no follow-up measurement was done to research potential long term effects. It could be that a sudden change in parental behavior takes time to affect the child - a sleeper effect (Leijten, Overbeek, & Janssens, 2012). This means that the manipulation could have an effect on long term, but not on short term. A possible reason for this effect could be that parents need time to integrate
confidence in their ways of parenting (Sofronoff, Jahnel, & Sanders, 2011). It could be that children would profit from these changes on the long term.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study also includes several strengths. First of all, the ecological validity of the procedure used in this study is high. The study was performed in the natural environment of the parent and child. Free play and the natural home setting have found to be related positively to the quality of the parental interactive behavior (Van Bakel & Riksen-Walraven, 2002). By allowing parents and children to perform multiple tasks in the home setting, including free play tasks, it becomes more likely that results from this study reflect actual parenting practices and child behavior – thus making it easier to generalize our study results. Second, the parents in the groups were comparable in their self-efficacy beliefs due to the random allocation by throwing a dice. Third, the manipulation was based on theory. Three different aspects of self-efficacy were manipulated: an acknowledged performance attainment, a positive comparison with other parents and a verbal persuasion (Coleman & Karraker, 1997). By giving feedback on parenting performances, most of the aspects of enhancing self-efficacy, according to former studies, were covered. Finally,
parents’ self-efficacy beliefs were manipulated in the current study with a micro-trial and this is not often done. It is valuable to research the advantages of manipulating self-efficacy beliefs because of positive results from former studies (Mouton & Roskam, 2014; Roskam et al., 2015). These features give greater confidence that the study is valuable, despite the fact that it did not yield a significant parenting effect on child behavior.
Clinical Implications of the Findings and Future Research Needs
Micro-trials are unique research designs, because they search for single effective parenting components, as for example with our current examination of self-efficacy beliefs (Leijten et al., 2015). Micro-trial designs are brief, easy to implement and can be combined with usual sessions delivered by psychologists (Loop & Roskam, 2016). These designs are
still rarely conducted, but increasingly so – this is a promising trend in family research as it is a thorough means to prove causality in parenting effects on child outcomes (Roskam et al., 2015). Effective components found in micro-trials can eventually be used in large-scale parenting interventions. By performing a focused manipulation in an experiment, problem outcomes could be reduced, competencies could increase, causality could be examined and this allows us to design more effective interventions (Howe et al., 2010). Parental
self-efficacy beliefs as a potential effective component in parenting interventions could further be examined in future research with micro-trials.
Based on our present study, several recommendations for future research can be made. First, it is recommended to include more participants. By increasing the sample size,
statistical power will increase – leading to more certain conclusions about whether and how parental self-efficacy beliefs impact children’s behavioral problems. The sample would also be more representative if participants from different populations would be included, for example with lower and higher educational levels and with different ethnic backgrounds. In the current sample the majority of the parents were highly educated and from Dutch origin. Second, future work should focus on performing the experiment in a controlled setting. An advantage of a controlled setting is that the researcher can extend most external disturbing factors. This makes it easier to replicate the study because the circumstances under which the study is carried out can be controlled (Bryman, 2008). Third, it is crucial to perform the manipulation check for all parents. In this way, the effects of the manipulation can be examined. Fourth, using a follow-up could be useful to examine long term effects of the manipulation. In the study of Mouton and Roskam (2014), for instance, the positive feedback was directly effective in improving parenting techniques and child behavior. However, long term effects have not been examined and this could be an interesting subject for future research. Fifth, the direction of the relation could be examined the other way around.
Children’s behavior could influence parenting behavior and it is important to examine this relation again. As a final point, the manipulation of parents’ self-efficacy beliefs is because of the deception an ethical consideration that should be taken into account in future studies. Some parents may feel deceived by getting fake positive feedback on their parenting skills. It is possible to overcome this risk by fully debriefing them on the actual purpose and reward parents with a positive and beneficial learning experience (Oczak & Niedźwieńska, 2007), for example by giving real personal feedback on their way of parenting.
As mentioned above, the present study’s main results implicate no relation between manipulating self-efficacy beliefs on the one hand and parenting and child behavior on the other. However, because of methodological limitations in the study, it is impossible to
exclude the possibility that self-efficacy beliefs do play a role in parenting and child behavior. It could be that the relations do not exist, but more research is needed to explore these
relations before any firm conclusions can be drawn. For now, parents’ self-efficacy beliefs remain an important factor of inquiry, which could be studied with larger scale micro-trials in the future.
References
Achtergarde, S., Postert, C., Wessing, I., Romer, G., & Müller, J. M. (2015). Parenting and child mental health: Influences of parent personality, child temperament, and their interaction. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 23, 167-179. doi:10.1177/1066480714564316
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148. doi:10.1207/s1532695ep2802_3 Brassart, E. & Schelstraete, M. (2015). Enhancing the communication abilities of
preschoolers at risk for behavior problems. Infants & Young Children, 28, 337-354. doi:10.1097/IYC.0000000000000049
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (third edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems:
Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 467-488. doi:10.1017.S0954579400003114
Cassé, J. F. H., Oosterman, M., & Schuengel, C. (2015). Verbal persuasion and resilience of parenting self-efficacy: Preliminary findings of an experimental approach. Family Science, 6, 23-30. doi:10.1080/19424620.2015.1009933
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (second edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, P. K. & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and future applications. Developmental Review, 18, 47-85. doi:10.1006/drev.1997.0448
Coleman, P. K. & Karraker, K. H. (2003). Maternal self-efficacy beliefs, competence in parenting, and toddlers’ behavior and developmental status. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 126-148. doi:10.1002/imhj.10048
Furlong, M., McGilloway, S., Bywater, T., Hutchings, J., Smith, S. M., & Donnelly, M. (2012). Behavioural and cognitive-behavioural group-based parenting programmes for early-onset conduct problems in children aged 3 to 12 years. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, 318-692. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008225.pub2
Gilmore, L. A. & Cuskelly, M. (2008). Factor structure of the parenting sense of competence scale using a normative sample. Child Care, Health & Development, 38, 48-55. Howe, G. W., Beach, S. R. H., & Brody, G. H. (2010). Microtrials methods for translating
gene-environment dynamics into preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 11, 343-354. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0177-2
Johnston, C. & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and efficacy. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 167-175. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp1802_8
Jones, T. L. & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 341-363.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.12.004
Keenan, K & Wakschlag, L. S. (2000). More than the terrible twos: The nature and severity of behavior problems in clinic referred preschool children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 33-46. doi:10.1023/A:1005118000977
Lavigne, J. V., LeBailly, S. A., Hopkins, J., Gouze, K. R., & Binns, H. J. (2009). The prevalence of ADHD, ODD, depression, and anxiety in a community sample of 4-years-olds. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 315-328. doi:10.1080/15374410902851382
Leijten, P., Dishion, T. J., Thomaes, S., Raaijmakers, M. A. J., Orobio de Castro, B., & Matthys, W. (2015). Bringing parenting interventions back to the future: How randomized microtrials may benefit parenting intervention efficacy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 22, 47-57. doi:10.1111/cpsp.12087
Leijten, P., Overbeek, G., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (2012). Effectiveness of a parent training program in (pre)adolescence: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 833-842. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.11.009
Loop, L. & Roskam, I. (2016). Do children behave better when parents’ emotion coaching practices are stimulated? A micro-trial study. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 2223-2235. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0382-0
Lunkenheimer, E. S., Olson, S. L., Hollenstein, T., Sameroff, A. J., & Winter, C. (2011). Dyadic flexibility and positive affect in parent-child coregulation and the development of child behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 577-591.
doi:10.1017/S095457941100006X
Martin, S. E., McConville, D. W., Williamson, L. R., Feldman, G., & Boekamp, J. R. (2013). Partial hospitalization treatment for preschoolers with severe behavior problems: Child age and maternal functioning as predictors of outcome. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 18, 24-32. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2012.00661.x
Meunier, J. C. & Roskam, I. (2009). Self-efficacy beliefs amongst parents of young children: Validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 495-511. doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9252-8
Meunier, J. C., Roskam, I., & Browne, D. T. (2010). Relations between parenting and child behavior: Exploring the children’s personality and parental self-efficacy as third variables. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 246-259. doi:10.1177/0165025410382950
Meunier, J. C., Roskam, I., Stievenart, M., Van de Moortele, G., Browne, D. T., & Kumar, A. (2011). Externalizing behavior trajectories: The role of parenting, sibling relationships and child personality. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 20-33. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.09.006
Mouton, B. & Roskam, I. (2014). Confident mothers, easier children: A quasi-experimental manipulation of mothers’ self-efficacy. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2485-2495. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0051-0
Murdock, K. W. (2013). An examination of parental self-efficacy among mothers and fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 314-323. doi:10.1037/a0027009
O’Connor, E., Rodriguez, E., Cappella, E., Morris, J., & McClowry, S. (2012). Child
disruptive behavior and parenting efficacy: A comparison of the effects of two models of insight. Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 555-572. doi:10.1002/jcop.21482 Oczak, M. & Niedźwieńska, A. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new
procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 3, 49-59. doi:10.1525/jer.2007.2.3.49
Olejnik, S. & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 241-286. doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1040
O’Neill, D., McGilloway, S., Donnelly, M., Bywater, T., & Kelly, P. (2013). A cost-effectiveness analysis of the Incredible Years parenting programme in reducing childhood health inequalities. European Journal of Health Economics, 14, 85-94. doi:10.1007/s10198-011-0342-y
Roskam, I., Brassart, E., Loop, L., Mouton, B., & Schelstraete, M. (2015). Stimulating parents’ self-efficacy beliefs or verbal responsiveness: Which is the best way to
decrease children’s externalizing behaviors. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 72, 38-48. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2015.06.012
Roskam, I. & Meunier, J. C. (2012). The determinants of parental childrearing behavior trajectories: The effects of parental and child time-varying and time-invariant predictors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 186-196. doi:10.1177/0165025411434651
Slagt, M., Dekovic, M., De Haan, A. D., Van den Akker, A. L., & Prinzie, P. (2012). Longitudinal associations between mothers’ and fathers’ sense of competence and children’s externalizing problems: The mediating role of parenting. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1554-1562. doi:10.1037/a0027719
Sofronoff, K., Jahnel, D., & Sanders, M. (2011). Stepping Stones Triple P seminars for parents of a child with a disability: A randomized controlled trial. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2253–2262. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.046
Van Bakel, H. J. A. & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2002). Parenting and development of one-year-olds: Links with parental, contextual, and child characteristics. Child Development, 73, 256-273. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00404
Table 1
Feedback for Experimental and Control Group
Condition Message to Parents
Experimental “As I briefly told you yesterday in the text message, we had the data from the last home visit and your questionnaires already analyzed in our lab. From previous research we know that certain parenting behavior like yours, works well in daily contact with children. In comparison with the average from our previous studies, you belong to the 20% parents who raise their child most effectively in the following areas: setting boundaries, regulating emotions and giving warmth. I will show you this according to the following graph. This is the average score for parents based on our formal studies, on the three areas just mentioned. The lines on the upper side of the bars show the relative high scores. You can see that your score in each of the areas falls in the range of the high scores. More specifically, you score in the top 20% of the most effective parents in every area of setting boundaries, regulating emotions and giving warmth.”
Control “As I briefly told you yesterday in the text message, we would like to thank you for your participation in the previous home visit.”
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations
Condition Experimental (n = 6) Control (n = 12) Combined (N = 18)
M SD M SD M SD
Puzzle task
Parents’ positive affect 2.57 .74 2.29 .42 2.38 .54
Children’s negative affect
1.83 .39 2.21 .50 2.09 .49
Clean-up task
Parents’ positive affect 2.83 .54 2.76 .52 2.78 .51
Children’s negative affect
1.63 .25 2.09 .60 1.93 .55
Table 3
Independent t-test for Parents’ Self-efficacy at Baseline Experimental (n = 6) Control (n = 12) t test M SD M SD t p df Parents’ self-efficacy 4.40 .47 4.45 .75 .16 .88 16
Table 4
Univariate ANOVA Results
Puzzle task Clean-up task
df F η2 p df F η2 p
Main effects
Condition on negative affect child 1 2.76 .15 .12 1 3.16 .17 .10 Condition on positive affect parent 1 1.03 .06 .33 1 .08 .01 .79 Positive affect parent on negative
affect child
Opvoedstudie Nederland Results for ..
