Responding to Disruptive Child Behaviour
Parental Use of Direct Commands in a Stressful
Parenting Situation
Master thesis Forensic Child and Youth Care Science Graduate School of Child Development and Education
University of Amsterdam Name: V.L. Kruiswijk Student number: 10880089
Thesis Supervisor: Mw. Dr. P.H.O. Leijten Second evaluator: MSc. J. V. van Aar
2 Abstract
Background: Disruptive child behaviour is the primary predictor of conduct problems and
criminality in later life. Dysfunctional parenting can increase and maintain disruptive
behaviour. This study aimed to increase insight in how the experience of a stressful parenting situation shapes parental use of direct commands when providing instructions to children. In addition, it tested whether depressive symptoms and parental sense of competence moderate this effect. Methods: This experimental study included 110 parents-child dyads in a between-subjects design with two conditions: A frustration task to elicit disruptive child behaviour and a control task. A series of logistic regression analyses were used to test the effects of the manipulation on parental use of direct commands, and the moderating role of parental depression and their sense of competence. Results: Parents who experienced a stressful parenting situation used more direct commands than the parents in the control task. Parental depression and their sense of competence did not moderate the effect of the stressful parenting situation on the use of direct commands. Conclusion: Situations in which children show more disruptive behaviour influence parents’ behaviour in subsequent situations, specifically their use of direct commands.
Keywords: Direct commands; disruptive child behaviour; stressful parenting situation;
experimental study.
3 Responding to disruptive child behaviour: Parental use of direct commands in a stressful
parenting situation
Disruptive behaviour in early childhood, including oppositional, aggressive, and hyperactive behaviour, is the primary predictor of conduct problems, criminality and drug use in later development (Loeber, Burke, Lahey, Winters, & Zera, 2000; Shaw, Gilliom,
Ingoldsby, & Nagin, 2003). Delinquent peers showed disruptive behaviour in their childhood, displayed a greater variety and an early onset of such behaviour compared to non-delinquents (Loeber, 1982; Loeber 1990; Moffitt, 1993). In the last few years the Dutch government has spent 12,7 billion euro to fight criminality in the Netherlands, respectively 575 euro per person each year (Veiligheidsmonitor, 2015). Given this unfavourable prognosis and the enormous costs of disruptive child behaviour problems (Scott, Knapp, Henderson, &
Maughan, 2001), research on the early development of disruptive child behaviour problems is crucial for understanding the aetiology and developmental course of this behaviour and for guiding intervention strategies. Because dysfunctional parenting can increase and maintain disruptive child behaviour (Patterson, 1982; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey 1990), this study will investigate whether a parental stressful situation that elicits disruptive child behaviour indeed shapes parenting behaviour, and which parents seem particularly sensitive to these stressful situations.
Conflicts between parent and child are normative and occur in almost all relationships. However, if they become frequent and intense they can lead to negative developmental
outcomes (Stroolmiller, 2016). Disruptive child behaviour is strongly predicted and
maintained by coercive parent-child interactions in which parents and children continuously reinforce each other’s dysfunctional behaviour (Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1993; Smith et al., 2014). Coercive interaction patterns can start with the adult making a command to the child, such as the instruction to clear up their toys, the child may refuse by declining or ignoring this request. The parent may get irritated and tries a different, less
4 pedagogical way for this request, such as raising their voice. The response of the child might be to refuse again and continue to play for example, which may result in more parental frustration such as even more yelling and/or anger. Eventually, the parent either gives up, negatively reinforces the child’s behaviour, or become so angry, and/or even violent, that the child gives in to the parents’ request (i.e. negatively reinforced parental behaviour).
With this negative reinforcement for parent and child, the coercive interactions between both will continue and may become a cycle (Patterson, 2002). With this negative reinforcement for parent and child, the coercive interactions between both will continue and may become a cycle (Patterson, 2002). The beginning of a new cycle can be influenced by the previous one, because they did not solve this situation adequately. As a result, they learned to achieve their goal with wrong, compelling conducts, which results in the next less adequate instruction. While coercive cycles have been studied exhaustively, how specifically a
previous situation lead to less adequate formulation of an instruction in a subsequent situation is understudied. Yet, the way parents make this first command towards their child is an important aspect of those coercive interaction patterns. Giving a clear instruction is essential for children to succeed. If these instructions are too vague or hardly understandable, the child being instructed tends, unintentionally to carry out the wrong process, while the parent may think that the child does this intentionally. So, a better understanding of this last phase of the cycle, and how it may impact the first phase of a new cycle, is necessary to increase our understanding of how parents might be supported to break coercive patterns.
What is an adequate instruction?
Adequate parental communication includes giving clear and direct commands. Direct commands are stated positively and tell the child what to do, instead of what not to do. Direct commands also call for behaviour where the child is intellectually and physically capable of performing, and should be in the language that is age-appropriate (Eyberg, 2000). In addition, a direct command should instruct one behaviour at a time, because it is difficult for young
5 children to remember a string of orders tied together in a single command (Eyberg, 2000). For example, when a parent gives a child the instruction: “I want you to clear away those toys in the box”, the child knows exactly what he needs to clear away and where to put it. In contrast to the instruction: “Will you please clear everything away for me”, he only knows he has to clear up.
To give direct commands is not easy. It may be especially hard for parents to provide adequate, direct commands when they have just encountered a stressful parenting situation, that potentially includes coercive interaction. Communication changes when people
experience stress. A variety of emotions overwhelming us, which results in a primarily reaction without thinking and thus in less effective communication. Parents’ instructions might become more global and indirect. Also, the use of nonspecific phrases such as ‘be careful’ or ‘be good’ seems to increase (Cheyne, 1972; Cooper, McLanahan, Meadows, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009). To understand the difference between families when they start a subsequent interaction, this study will not only investigate if parents, in the last phase of the coercive cycle, differ when they are in a stressful parenting situation. But also to which parents in particular this applies and whether this stressful parenting situation leads to the starting point of a potentially new coercive cycle Figure 1.
6
Figure 1. Knowledge gap in the coercive cycle. Adapted from Coercive family process door
G Patterson, 1982, Eugene: Castalia.
Do depressive symptoms influence a direct command?
Parental depression negatively affects fathers’ and mothers’ caregiving and is linked to behavioural problems for children of all ages (Downey & Coyne, 1990; Oberlander, Papsdorf, Brain, Misri, Roos, & Grunau, 2010; Ramchandani, & Murphy, 2013). Parents with
depressive symptoms have, more often than parents without depressive symptoms, poorer parenting skills and qualities, more negative interactions with their children and are associated to give less sensitive and consistent commands (England & Sim, 2009; MacStay,
Dissanayake, Scheeren, Koot, & Begeer, 2013). Moreover, exposure to stress has generally been associated with a wide range of poorer parenting qualities, such as more hostile, negative parenting, less warmth (Chrousos, 2009; Putnick, Bornstein, Hendricks, Painter, Suwalsky, & Collins, 2010; Garcia & Alampay, 2012). Since both depressive symptoms and stress are associated with less adequate parenting, I therefore expect that more indirect commands will be used by parents with depressive symptoms in a stressful parenting situation.
7 Has parental sense of competence influence on direct command giving?
Parental confidence, or the lack of it, in their own competence as parent seems to be related to both parental behaviour and child outcome (Johnston, 1996). Parents tend to be inconsistent, vague and more negative and restrictive towards their child (Janssens, 1994). Not surprisingly, their children tend to be more difficult to manage than children raised by more confident parents (Janssens, 1994). Moreover, exposure to stress has generally been associated with a wide range of poorer parenting qualities, such as more hostile, negative parenting, less warmth (Chrousos, 2009; Putnick et al., 2010; Garcia & Alampay, 2012). Because of this strengthening effect I therefore expect that more direct commands will be used by parents with more parental sense of competence, in a stressful parenting situation. Present study
The current study aims to identify whether parents use fewer direct commands after they had experienced a stressful parenting situations. I will test this in an experimental study that manipulates the parenting situation into, either more or less stress for the parent. By comparing the parents’ instructions in a ´clear-up´ task afterwards, I will be able to see the effect of stressful parenting situations on direct commands.
In addition, I will test whether depressive symptoms and parental sense of competence moderate the effects of the stressful parenting situation on parental use of commands. My hypotheses are: 1) Parents in a stressful parenting situation provide their children with fewer direct commands than parents who are not in a stressful parenting situation. 2) The effect of a stressful parenting situation on the use of direct commands is stronger for parents with fewer depressive symptoms than for parents with more depressive symptoms. And 3) The effect of a stressful parenting situation on the direct commands is stronger for parents with a low level of parental sense of competence than parents with a higher level of parental sense of
competence.
8 Method
Participants
The participants were 110 parent-child dyads. The majority of the parents were mothers (84.5%), and a small majority of the children were boys (53.6%). The children were between the age of 24 and 36 months old at the time of the lab visit (M = 30.89, SD = 3.90). The parents were between the age of 25 and 51 years old (M = 36.16, SD = 4.21). The majority of the participants were Dutch (82.2%). The highest education level of the participants was higher scientific education (68.2%), followed by higher professional education (25.2%).
The parent-child dyads were recruited through an established university database. The University of Amsterdam (UvA) sent letters to all parents living in the municipality of
Amsterdam who had a new child recently, in which they invited them to participate with their child in the studies at the UvA. Those who replied were entered in this database.
For the current study, parents with an (almost) two-year-old child from this database (N = 343), were contacted via email and asked to complete the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI), to assess their child’s disruptive behaviour. Scores from those parents who completed the questionnaire was analysed (N = 238). At this point the number of parent-child dyads were reduced to 120 children with the highest externalizing behaviour scores, in order to increase the chance of disruptive child behaviours in the experimental condition. All the parents who completed the questionnaire made chance to win entrance tickets for an amusement park. Parents who participated in the lab received a €10 gift voucher and their children received a small present.
Procedure
The current study is an experimental study with two conditions: One condition
received a frustration task and one did not. The frustration task consisted of a situation where the parents in the experimental group had to clear away the toys and fill in a questionnaire, in
9 contrast to the parents in the control group, who were able to continue to play with their children and their toys. This frustration task was designed to provoke disruptive child behaviour and parental stress. I expected that this experimental condition would be more stressful for parents because their children had neither toys nor attention and therefore had to entertain themselves.
The experiment was conducted at the UvA Family Lab. To ensure that parents would not influence the experimental outcomes with their knowledge about the real purpose of this study, the parents were briefed before the experiments and told this study was about
children’s behaviour in different play situations. This is also descripted as information bias (Sackett, 2004). Without parents knowing the real purpose of this study, they have no effect on the results and thereby the validity and reliability of the study. This briefing before the experiment was also to inform the parents about the experiment methods and they provided informed consent.
The experiment itself consisted of four steps, each step lasted five minutes. The first step was the warming up, which was a free parent-child play situation for both groups. The second step was the frustration task, which was different for both the experimental and the control group. After this second step, new toys were brought in for the child to play with and a brief questionnaire for the parent to complete. The end of this form contained the instruction for the next step, the compliance task. In this third step parents had to request their child to clear away the new toys, this first sentence parents use was observed and encoded as either a direct command or an indirect command. Parents were not allowed to help their child to clear away the toys in order to measure the presence of disruptive child behaviour. This step ended as soon as all toys were in the box or after a period of maximum five minutes. The fourth and last step was the recovery task, which included a pleasant free-play activity for parent and child, so that they finished the experiment with a pleasant feeling.
10 After completing the experiment parents were debriefed about the real study purposes and about the second task that could have been perceived as more stressful. The study
protocol was approved by the Faculty Ethics Review Board of the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (file number 2016-CDE-7533 of the department: Child Development and Education, 24th of January 2017).
Measures
Selection: Disruptive child behaviour. To select the children with the highest level of
disruptive child behaviour for the current study, parents completed the ECBI prior to the lab visit. The 120 children with a score above 90 were selected. The ECBI is a 36-item parent rating scale to assess the frequency of child disruptive behaviours (Eyberg, & Pincus, 1999). Each item is rated with a 7-point Likert scale (from never to always). A sample item is: “Refuses to go to bed on time”. The ECBI has shown good reliability (Robinson, Eyberg, Ross, 1980) and good convergent (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986) and discriminant validity (Baden & Howe, 1992; Eyberg & Ross, 1978). Internal consistency of the ECBI in the current study is α = .85
Depressive symptoms parents. Prior to the lab visit parents completed the Depression
subscale of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). This is a 14-item self-administered subscale designed to measure the magnitude of depressive symptoms in the last three weeks. Specifically, the scale includes items on low mood, motivation, and self-esteem on a 4-point Likert scale (from did not apply to me at all to
applied to me very much, or most of the time). A sample item is: “I couldn't seem to
experience any positive feeling at all.” Different studies showed an excellent internal consistency and inter-item range of this subscale of the DASS (De Beurs, Van Dyck,
Marquenie, Lange, & Blonk, 2001). Internal consistency of the depression scale in the current study is α = .87.
11
The levels of parental sense of competence. Prior to the lab visit parents completed the
self-efficacy subscale of the Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC; Gibaud-Wallston & Wandersman, 1978). This is a 7-item self-administered subscale designed to measure distinct aspects of parenting self-esteem symptoms in the last three weeks. Each item is rated with a 6-point Likert scale (from strongly agree to strongly disagree). A sample item is: “My mother was better prepared to be a good mother than I am.” Different studies showed an excellent internal consistency and a very good temporal stability of this subscales of the PSOC (Bui et al., 2017). Internal consistency of the PSOC in the current study is α = .76.
Stressful parenting situation. To make sure that the frustration manipulation elicited a
child’s disruptive behaviour and thus a stressful parenting situation, a manipulation check was conducted. Child behaviour in the frustration task was coded in 10-second-intervals. Each interval was coded whether the particular behaviour, that indicates if it was disruptive child behaviour (e.g., not following parents’ instructions or commands, crying, hitting or purposely trying to destroy objects), was present or not. This was blind coded by two coders, what means that neither of the coders was aware of the codes assigned by the other. The mean inter-rater reliability between those coders in this current study was κ = .99
Direct commands. The first sentence parents used to instruct their children to clear
away the toys was observed. This first instruction was encoded as either a direct command or an indirect command. In addition, I encoded the number of direct and indirect commands during the third task. The “direct command” item of the Dyadic Parent-Child Interaction Coding System (DPICS; Eyberg & Robinson, 1981) was used for both measures. To be coded as a direct command, the instruction needed to meet three criteria: Stated positive (what the child should do rather than what the child should not do), as a single instruction, and as command (not as a not question or suggestion) (Eyberg & Robinson, 1981). A sample direct command is: “You need to clear away that ball right now” and a sample indirect command is: “Will you clear away those toys for me?”. This was also blind coded by three coders, what
12 means that neither of the coders was aware of the codes assigned by the other. The mean inter-rater reliability between those coders in this current study was κ = .87.
Analyses
Preliminary
The data were analysed by using IMB SPSS Statistics (Version 20). Prior to the primary analyses, first, descriptive statistics were analysed, such as the age of children and parents, percentages boys and girls, fathers and mothers, ethnicity and education levels. Second, an independent t- test between the experimental and control group was conducted to analyse whether the frustration manipulation in the experimental group indeed provoked disruptive child behaviour and thus a stressful parenting situation. Third, an independent t-test was also used for all the continuous variables (i.e. age children and parents) and a chi-square test for all the dichotomous variables (i.e. gender children and parents, nationalities and education levels) to test if the randomization had led to equal groups. Prior to this analysis, the parents educational level needed to be converted into a dichotomous variable, and became higher professional education or different, because this was the largest group. Fourth, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was conducted to analyse if there was a significant relation between the moderators (i.e. depressive symptoms and levels of parental sense of competence). In case of a correlation, those moderators must be analysed at the same time, because there may arise an interaction between those moderators. This was not the case, so they will be analysed in a separated logistic regression analyse.
Primary Analyses
For the primary analyses, a logistic regression analysis was used to answer the research questions. To answer the first research question direct command was the dichotomous dependent variable. The manipulated stressful parenting situation was the dichotomous independent variable. For answering the second and third research question, first, the mean effect of direct command and stressful parenting situation was analysed. Then,
13 second, depressive symptoms and parental sense of competence were included as putative continuous moderators. For both moderators, interaction variables have been created with the moderator and the independent variable (X×M), namely stress × parental depression and stress × parental sense of competence.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
First, an independent t-test showed that the frustration manipulation in the
experimental group significantly provoked disruptive child behaviour (t (99) = 5.99, p = .00). This means that compared to children of the control group, children in the experimental group showed significantly more disruptive child behaviour during the second task. We can
therefore assume that the experimental condition was more stressful for parents. Second, an independent t-test and a chi-square test showed that the experimental and the control group did not differ on demographic characteristics, and thus the randomization resulted in equal groups (Table 1 and 2). Third, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient showed that the relation between depressive symptoms (as measured by the DASS) and parental sense of competence (as measured by the PCOS) was medium and negative (r = -.33, n = 104, p < .05). The R2 = .11. This means that only 11% of the variance in the level of depressive
symptoms would be explained by the level of parental sense of competence. Because of this limited variance, both constructs apparently measure another significant construct and therefore they will be analysed in a separated logistic regression analyse.
14 Table 1
Randomization Check: Continuous Demographic Characteristics
Experimental Group Control Group
Age N M SD n M SD
Child 56 30.76 3.76 54 31.03 4.07
Parent 54 36.46 3.99 53 35.85 4.44
Table 2
Randomization Check: Dichotomous Demographic Characteristics
Condition
Experimental Control Total
Gender Child Male Female 29 (26.4%) 24 (21.8%) 59 953.6%) 27 (24.5%) 30 (27.3%) 51 (46.4%) Gender Parent Male Female 7 (6.4%) 10 (9.1%) 17 (15.5%) 49 (44.5%) 44 (40.0%) 93 (84.5%)
Education Level Parent HSE Not – HSE 37 (34.6%) 36 (33.6%) 73 (68.2%) 17 (15.9%) 17 (15.9%) 34 (31.8%) Ethnicity Parent Dutch Not – Dutch 47 (43.9%) 41 (38.2%) 88 (82.2%) 7 (6.5%) 12 (11.2%) 19 (17.8%) Total 54 (50.9%) 53 (49.1%)
15
Relation between a stressful parenting situation and direct command giving
To investigate whether the stressful parenting situation led to less use of direct commands, a logistic regression was conducted. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of sample size, multicollinearity and outliers. The Enter-procedure with a α = .05 was used. This model has a Nagelkerke R2 of .08, which
suggest that the model explains 8.0% of the total variance of direct command. The
successfully predicted direct command was 80.2%. There is a significant relation between a stressful parenting situation and the use of fewer direct commands (Exp (B) = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.11 – 0.87, p < .05). In other words, the odds that a parent used a direct command to instruct their child was 3.2 times smaller when parents had not experienced a stressful parenting situation, than when parents had just experienced a stressful parenting situation. As shown in Table 3, in the total of first commands (N = 106), 19.8% were direct commands, which consist of 14.2% in the experimental group and 5.6% in the control group. The other 80.2% were indirect commands, which consist of 34.9% in the experimental group and 45.3% in the control group.
Table 3
Percentages’ First Command
Condition
Experimental Control Total
First command
Direct 15 (14.2%) 6 (5.7%) 21(19.8%) Indirect 37 (34.9%) 48 (45.3%) 85 (80.2%) Total 52 (49.1%) 54 (50.9%) 106 (100%)
16
Relation between a stressful situation and direct command giving moderated by parental depression
To investigate if parents with fewer depressive symptoms use more direct commands after they were exposed to a stressful parenting situation, than parents with more depressive symptoms, a logistic regression with interaction terms was conducted. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of sample size, multicollinearity and outliers. Only the outlier assumption was violated with seven participants. A sensitivity analyses was conducted to see whether these outliers impacted the results, by conducting the same analyses without these participants, but these analyses led to similar results. The Enter-procedure with an α = .05 was used. This model has a Nagelkerke R2 of .14, which suggest
that the model explains 14.0% of the total variance of parents’ use of direct commands. The successfully predicted direct command was 82.1%.
The first step of the analysis, which included stressful parenting situation and
depressive symptoms as predictors for the use of direct commands, indicated that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on the use of fewer direct commands hardly changed when levels of depressive symptoms were added.
Table 4 shows that the effect of the stressful parenting situation × depressive
symptoms interaction term did not significantly predict the use of direct commands (Exp (B) = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.15 – 1.10, p = .08). In other words, the manipulation worked similarly for parents with and without depressive symptoms: Parents with a low level of depressive
symptoms did not use more direct commands to instruct their child after they experienced a stressful situation, compared to parents with a high level of depressive symptoms.
17 Table 4
Stressful Parenting Situation, Direct Command Giving and Parental Depression
Variables B SE Sig. Exp (B) 95% C.I. for Exp(B)
Step 1 Constant -1.94 2.48 .44 0.14 Stress -1.08 .58 .06 0.34 0.11 – 1.06 Depression .06 .16 .72 1.06 0.78 – 1.44 Step 2 Constant -5.07 2.96 .09 0.01 (A) Stress 12.58 7.51 .09 1.94 0.12 – 7.16 (B) Depression .25 .18 .17 1.29 0.90 – 1.85 A*B -.89 .50 .08 0.41 0.15– 1.10
Note. N = 102. p = .41; R2= .76 (hosmer & Lemeshow), .09 (Cox & Snell), .14 (Nagelkerke); Exp (B): Odds
ratio; CI = confidence interval
Relation between a stressful parenting situation and direct command giving moderated by parental sense of competence.
To investigate if parents with a high level of parental sense of competence use more direct commands after they were exposed to a stressful parenting situation, than parents with a low level of parental sense of competence, a logistic regression with interaction terms was used. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of sample size, multicollinearity and outliers. A sensitivity analyses was conducted to see whether these outliers impacted the results, by conducting the same analyses without these participants, but these analyses led to similar results. The Enter-procedure with an α = .05 was used. This model has a Nagelkerke R2 of .09, which suggest that the model explains 9.0% of
18 the total variance of parents’ use of direct commands. The successfully predicted direct
command was 82.0%.
The first step of the analysis, which included stressful parenting situation and parental sense of competence as predictors of the use of direct commands, indicated that there was not a significantly relation between a stressful parenting situation and the use of less direct when levels of parental sense of competence were added. Table 5 shows that the effect of the stressful parenting situation × parental sense of competence interaction term did not
significantly predict the use of direct commands (Exp (B) = 1.025, 95% CI = 0.801 – 1.311, p = .844). This means that it is not statistically significant enough to make statements about an effect. In other words, the manipulation worked similarly for parents with a high or low level of parental sense of competence: Parents with a high level of parental sense of competence did not use more direct commands to instruct their child after they experienced a stressful situation, compared to parents with a low level of parental sense of competence.
Table 5
Stressful Parenting Situation, Direct Command Giving and Parental Sense of Competence
Variables B SE Sig.* Exp(B) 95% C.I. for Exp(B)
Step 1
Constant -1.22 1.93 .53 0.30
Stress -1.30 .57 .02* 0.27 0.09 – 0.84
Parental sense of competence 0.01 .06 .89 1.01 0.89 – 1.14
Step 2
Constant -.88 2.58 .73 0.41
(A) Stress -2.06 3.89 .60 0.13 0.00 – 2.52
(B) Parental sense of competence -.00 .08 .98 1.00 0.85 – 1.18
19 Note. N = 102. p = .18; R2=11.40 (hosmer & Lemeshow), .06 (Cox & Snell), .09 (Nagelkerke); Exp (B): Odds
ratio; CI = Confidence interval
Discussion
The aim of this study was to shed light on how the experience of a stressful parenting situation shapes parents’ initiation of a subsequent interaction with their child. This study investigated whether parents use fewer direct commands after they have been exposed to a stressful parenting situation, and to which parents this applies in particular.
The first hypothesis, that after a stressful parenting situation, parents provide their children with fewer direct commands than parents who are not in a stressful parenting situation, was not supported. In contrast, the opposite effect was found: After experiencing a stressful parenting situation, parents provided their children with more direct commands. This finding indicates that previous interactions (i.e., stressful situations that elicit more disruptive child behaviour) indeed influence parents’ initiation of subsequent interactions, but in a different way than expected.
Perhaps, after experiencing a more stressful situation, parents switch somewhat to an acute stress response, also called as “fight or flight response”. This is a fundamental
physiological response to stress, a primitive, automatic, inborn response that prepares our body to "fight" or "flee" (Steptoe, Hamer, & Chida, 2007). In addition to all physiological changes, extra oxygen is sent to the brain, increasing alertness. Sight, hearing, and other senses become sharper (Adamo, 2014). So, in contrast to the parents who were not exposed to stress, these parents were subjected to this automatic defence mechanism that activates the entire body to solve the stressful situation (Bondarenko, Guimaraes, Braga, & Nalivaiko, 2016). As a result of this mechanism, these parents may have been in a mode in which they are focused on de-escalation: they become clearer and more convincing in instructing their child, to prevent another stressful situation from occurring.
20 The second hypothesis, that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on the parent´s use of direct commands is stronger for parents with less depressive symptoms, than for parents with more depressive symptoms, was not confirmed. Thus, parents’ level of depressive symptoms did not influence the effect of the stressful parenting situation on parents’ use of direct commands. However, this strengthening effect and influence was
expected. Mainly because of previous research showed that parents with depressive symptoms have poorer parenting skills and qualities (England & Sim, 2009; MacStay et al., 2013), and exposure to stress has also been associated with a wide range of poorer parenting qualities, such as more hostile, negative parenting, less warmth (Chrousos, 2009; Putnick et al., 2010; Garcia & Alampay, 2012).
One possibility is that the relation between depressive symptoms and a stressful parenting situation on parents’ use of direct commands might be present in population, but could not be shown in this study because of restriction of range (i.e. variation). In this study, the range of the scores were between the 14 and 20, which according to the scoring table represents "normal" to "mild" depression. While the scores on this scale could range from 14 until 56, which, in addition to “normal” and “mild” also includes “moderate”, “severe” and “extremely severe” levels of depression (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). In other words, the depressive symptoms experienced by parents in this study varied less than that commonly observed in the population as a whole (Brown, Chorpita, Korotitscw, & Barlow, 1997). As a result, the correlation in this study could be lower than when than it would be if data from the entire possible range were analysed (Wainer & Braun, 2013).
The third hypothesis, that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on parents’ use of direct commands is stronger for parents with low level of parental sense of competence, than for parents with a higher level of parental sense of competence, is also not confirmed. For the outcome, this means that parental sense of competence did not influence the effect of the stressful parenting situation on parents’ use of direct commands. This strengthening effect
21 was expected. For most, because previous research showed that parents with a lack parental sense of competence tend to be inconsistent, vague and more negative and restrictive towards their (Janssens, 1994), and as said before, exposure to stress has also been associated with a wide range of poorer parenting qualities, such as more hostile, negative parenting, less warmth (Chrousos, 2009; Putnick et al., 2010; Garcia & Alampay, 2012).
A possible explanation for the absence of this finding is that levels of parental sense of competence only explain a part of parents’ actual parenting behaviour. According to previous studies it appears that a high level of competence is related to more positive parenting,
empathy, less punishment and inconsistency and more involvement in parenting (East, Matthews, & Felice,1994; Coleman & Karraker, 2000; Jones & Prinz, 2005). However, this study specifically examined whether the level of competence moderated the impact of a stressful parenting situation on the specificity by which parents instruct their child. Thus, level of competence may affect, as suggested in previous research, the educational behaviour of parents, such as less punishment and empathy. But the effect remains in this particular parental behaviour, namely the way parents instruct their children.
Despite the relatively large sample, randomization of participants into conditions, blind coding of direct commands and disruptive child behaviour (i.e. stressful parenting situation) and the use of valid questionnaires, this study has some limitations. These limitations should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.
The first limitation is that the study was based in a lab, and not in the natural environment of the parents and their child. The advantage of a lab setting is that this
controlled environment is the most accurate way of establishing whether, or not, one or more factors causes a change in the outcome. Therefore, the results are attributable to the exposer of stress, because the extraneous variables are controlled. As a result, the internal validity is very high (Druckman, Green, Kuklinski, & Lupia, 2011). However, in contrast to internal validity, the external validity may be low. For most because the environment might be too
22 controlled and does not necessarily reflect a real-life situation. For example, some children may not be interested in the selection of toys and are therefore more inclined to clear away the toys after they were instructed. So, the reaction of the parents and their children may not be true indicators of their behaviour in a non-experimental environment. As a result, this affects the extent to which the results of a study can be generalised to other situations and/or
environments (Druckman, et al., 2011).
A second limitation is that there was no a check for the children for further
behavioural disorders. Because of the manipulation of the stressful parenting situation, the difference in parental use of direct commands between the conditions, can be attributed to this independent variable. That said, underlying symptoms of behavioural disorders such as
ADHD or anxiety disorder may have strengthened or weakened the results on both the child- and parent behaviours. For example, being overactive (i.e. hyperactivity) of a child with ADHD could have influenced the way parents responded towards their child. As a result of their constantly busy behaviour, parents might be less tolerant. Contrary to externalizing behavioural problems, internalizing behavioural problems may have influenced the way children behaved when they had no parental attention or toys. Instead of the stress or instruction they could have behaved well as a result of those internalizing behaviour problems, such as introvert and/or scared attitude of a child with an anxiety disorder. In conclusion, the results may be affected by symptoms of other child disorder diagnoses, such as ADHD or anxiety disorder. Thus, several potentially relevant moderators were not included in this study.
A third limitation is, despite the relatively large sample size, the small number of fathers who participated. Only 15.5% of the participating parents were fathers. Fathers and mothers raise their children differently, not only the quantity of father-child interactions differ from the mother-child interaction, but also the quality (Ingalhalikara et al., 2013). In general, women (i.e. mothers) are focused on emotional care, empathize, they like to share experience
23 and ask questions, while men (i.e. fathers) tend to focus on the major lines, brief explanations and information rather than ask questions (Youniss & Smollar, 1985; Jaffee, Moffitt, Caspi & Taylor, 2003; Tomasi & Volkow, 2012a; Tomasi & Volkow, 2012b). Because of this
difference in the way men and women (i.e. fathers and mothers) communicate in general and have different educational skills and perceptions, fathers in stressful situations will be able to use direct commands more quickly than mothers. Given this fact, along with the fact that this study contains few men, means that the findings cannot be generalized to parents in general.
A first suggestion for further research is to overcome the limitations of this current study. By checking further child disorder diagnoses, better distributing of the demographic characteristics and a more natural environment instead of a lab research, the validity and reliability will increase, and because of this the results will be more accurate and
generalizable.
Another suggestion for further research is to focus on how children’s behaviour in a subsequent situation is shaped by a stressful parent-child interaction. The current study focused only on how parents’ behaviour, specifically their use of (in)direct commands. By looking at specific child behaviours, we get more insight in the impact and effects of a stressful parent-child interactions at the child level. This in turn improves our understanding of the differences between families in a subsequent interaction.
Despite these limitations, this study provides a valuable contribution by showing the influence of parental stress on the way parents instruct their child. In fact, there has been little research on the influence of stress in previous situations on the communication, and
specifically instructions, in a subsequent situation. Yet, it is important to know if the previous situations affect subsequent interactions, because this information provides key points to break these patterns. This study demonstrated that a stressful parenting situation indeed influences the start of a subsequent parent-child interaction. Parents who experienced a stressful parenting situation used more direct commands than the parents who did not
24 experienced a stressful parenting situation. Parental depression and their sense of competence did not moderate the effect of the stressful parenting situation on the use of direct commands.
25 References
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1986). Manual for the teacher’s report form and
teacher version of the child behavior profile. Burlington, VT: Author.
Adamo, S. A. (2014). The effects of stress hormones on immune function may be vital for
the adaptive reconfiguration of the immune system during fight-or-flight behavior.
Integrative and Comparative Biology, 54, 419 – 426. doi: 10.1093/icb/icu005
Baden, A. D., & Howe, G. W. (1992). Mothers’ attributions and expectancies regarding their conduct-disordered children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 467–485. doi:10.1007= BF00916810
Beurs, de, E., Dyck, van, R., Marquenie, L. A., Lange, A., & Blonk, R. W. B. (2001). De DASS: Een vragenlijst voor het meten van depressie, angst en stress.
Gedragstherapie, 34, 35-53.
Bondarenko, E., Guimarães, D. D., Braga, V. A., & Nalivaiko, E. (2016). Integrity of the dorsolateral periaqueductal grey is essential for the fight-or-flight response, but not the respiratory component of a defence reaction. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology,
226, 94 – 101. doi: 10.1016/j.resp.2015.10.010
Brown, T. A., Chorpita, B. F., Korotitscw, W., & Barlow, D. H. (1997). Psychometric properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical samples.
Behaviour research and therapy, 35, 79 – 89. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(96)00068-x
Bui, E., Zakarian, R. J., Laifer, L. M., Sager, J. C., Chen, Cohen, S., … Ohye, B. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale in treatment-seeking post-9/11 veterans. Journal Chid and Family Studies, 26, 464-470. doi: 10.1007/s10826-016-0580-9
26 R.D. Parke (Eds.), Recent trends in social learning theory (pp. 77-91). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Chrousos, G. P. (2009). Stress and disorders of the stress system. Nature reviews
endocrinology, 5, 374 – 381. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2009.106
Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (2000). Parenting self-efficacy among mothers of school age children: Conceptualization, measurement, and correlates. Family
Relations, 49, 13–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00013.x
Cooper, C., McLanahan, S., Meadows, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Family structure transitions and maternal parenting stress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 71, 558–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00619.x
Downey G, & Coyne, J.C. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative review.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 50–76. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.108.1.50
Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (2011). Cambridge Handbook
of Experimental Political Science. New-York: Cambridge University Press.
East, P. L., Matthews, K. L., & Felice, M. E. (1994). Qualities of adolescent mothers’ parenting. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15, 163-168. doi: 10.1016/1054-139x(94)90544-4
Eyberg, S. M., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory and Sutter-
Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Eyberg, S. M., & Robinson, E. A. (1981). Dyadic parent-child interaction coding system: A
manual. The parenting clinic department of family and child nursing: University of
Washington.
Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. (1978). Assessment of child behavior problems: The validation of a new inventory. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 7, 113–116.
27 England, M. J., & Sim, L. J. (2009). Depression in parents, parenting, and children.
Opportunities to improve identification, treatment, and prevention. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US).
Garcia, A. S., & Alampay, L. P. (2012). Parental efficacy, experience of stressful life events, and child externalizing behaviours as predictors of flipino mothers’ and fathers’ parental hostility and aggression. Philipp Journal Psychology, 45, 1 – 24.
Gibaud-Wallston, J., & Wandersman, L. P. (1978). Development and utility of the Parenting
Sense of Competence Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto.
Harold, G. T., Leve, L. D., Barrett, D., Elam, K., Neiderhiser, J. M., Natsuaki, M. N., … Thapar, A. (2013). biological and rearing mother influences on child ADHD
symptoms: revisiting the developmental interface between nature and nurture. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 1038 – 1046. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12100
Jaffee, S. R., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2003). Life with (or without) father: The benefits of living with two biological parents depend on the father’s antisocial
behavior. Child Development, 74, 109-126. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00524 Janssens, J. M. A. M. (1994). Authoritarian child rearing, parental locus of control, and the
child's behavior style. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 485–501. doi: 10.1177/016502549401700306
Johnston, C. (1996). Parent characteristics and parent-child interactions in families of non-problem children and ADHD children with higher and lower levels of
oppositional-defiant behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 85–104. doi: 10.1007/bf01448375
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:
28 Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child
Development, 53, 1431-1446. doi: 10.2307/1130070
Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behaviour and delinquency. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 1-41. doi:
10.1016/0272-7358(90)90105-J
Loeber, R., Burke, J. D., Lahey, B. B., Winters, A., & Zera, M. (2000). Oppositional defiant and conduct disorder: A review of the past 10 years, Part I. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1468-1484.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales
2nd ed. Sydney: Psychology Foundation.
MacStay, R. L., Dissanayake, C., Scheeren, A., Koot, H. M., & Begeer, S. (2014). Parenting stress and autism: The role of age, autism severity, quality of life and problem
behaviour of children and adolescents with autism. Autism, 18, 502-510. doi: 10.1177/1362361313485163
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.100.4.674
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R. (2002). The early development of coercive family process. In J. B. Reid
(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis
and model for intervention (pp. 25–44). Washington: American Psychological
Association.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B., & Ramsey, E. (1990). A developmental perspective on
29 Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1993). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR:
Castalia.
Putnick, D. L., Bornstein, M. H., Hendricks, C., Painter, K. M., Suwalsky, J. D., & Collins, W. (2010). Stability, continuity, and similarity of parenting stress in European
American mothers and fathers across their children’s transition to adolescence. Parenting: Science & Practice, 1, 60–77. doi: 10.1080/15295190903014638
Ramchandani, P. G., & Murphy, S. E. (2013). Parental depression and the challenge of preventing mental illness in children. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 202, 84-85. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.112.115659
Robinson, E. A., Eyberg, S. M., & Ross, A. W. (1980). The standardization of an inventory of child conduct problem behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 9, 22–28. doi:10.1080= 15374418009532938
Sackett, D. L. (2004). Bias in analytic research. Journal of chronic diseases, 32, 51-63. doi:
10.1016/B978-0-08-024907-0.50013-4
Shaw, D., Gilliom, M., Ingoldsby, E., & Nagin, D. (2003). Trajectories leading to school-age conduct problems. Developmental Psychology, 39, 189 –200. doi: 1649.39.2.189
Smith, J.D., Dishion, T.J., Shaw, D.S., Wilson, M.N., Winter, C.C., & Patterson, G.R. (2014). Coercive Family Process and Early-Onset Conduct Problems From Age 2 to School Entry. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 917 – 932. doi:
10.1017/S0954579414000169
Steptoe, A., Hamer, M., & Chida, Y. (2007). The effects of acute psychological stress on circulating inflammatory factors in humans: A review and meta-analysis. Brain,
30 Stroolmiller, M. (2016). An introduction to using multivariate multilevel survival analysis to
study coercive family process. In T.J. Dishion (Ed.), the Oxford handbook of coercive
relationship dynamics (pp.363 – 421). USA: Oxford University Press.
Scott, S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J., & Maughan, B. (2001). Financial cost of social exclusion: follow up study of antisocial children into adulthood. British Medical
Journal, 323, 191-193. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7306.191
Tomasi, D., & Volkow, N. D. (2012). Gender differences in brain functional connectivity density. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 849–860. Doi: 10.1002/hbm.21252
Tomasi, D., & Volkow, N. D. (2012). Laterality patterns of brain functional connectivity: Gender effects. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 1455–1462. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr230 Veiligheidsmonitor (2015). Veiligheidsmonitor 2014. Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de
Statistiek.
Wainer, H., &Braun, H. I. (2013). Test validity. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends.
