Special Treatment or All the Same?
The Longitudinal Association between Parenting and Externalizing Problem Behavior, Moderated by Temperament
Anais Emma Elzinga Student Number: 12780952
Abstract
Multiple theoretical frameworks (e.g., diathesis stress, differential susceptibility, vantage sensitivity) have been produced to explain the moderating role of child temperament on the relationship between parenting behavior and externalizing problem behavior of a child. However, previous research has not focused on any specific parenting behavior or looked at the relationship over a longer period of time. I used a multiple linear regression to test whether child temperament moderates the longitudinal relationship between parenting
behavior and externalizing problem behavior in children. Participants (N = 156; child age 4-8,
M = 6.21, SD = 1.33) completed questionnaires at T1 and T2 (2.5 years apart) on child
temperament, child externalizing problem behavior, and specific parenting behaviors. The relationship between parenting behavior and externalizing problem behavior did not differ for children with different temperament dimensions, nor did temperament or parenting behavior predict externalizing problem behavior at a later time. Several explanations for these counter intuitive results are presented, and it is highlighted that more in-depth research on specific elements of parenting, temperament, and externalizing problem behavior should be
conducted to learn about the specifics in the longitudinal association between parenting and externalizing problem behavior, and the possible role of temperament in this relationship.
Keywords: diathesis stress, differential susceptibility, externalizing problem behavior,
Special Treatment or All the Same? The Longitudinal Association between Parenting and Externalizing Problem Behavior, Moderated by Temperament
Yelling, small acts of violence and temper tantrums are behaviors most parents come across at some point when raising a child. Even though this is considered a normal part of development, some children develop continuous and exceedingly disruptive behavior. The detrimental effects of these so-called externalizing problem behaviors in children have been widely studied. Persistent externalizing problem behavior has severe consequences that include antisocial behavior, internalizing problems, and problems at school, as well as
predicting violent behavior later in life (Fox, Dunlap, & Powell, 2002; Galán, Wang, Shaw, & Forbes, 2020). Furthermore, persistent externalizing problem behavior is costly for society when it leads to behaviors such as vandalism or theft (Rivenbark et al., 2018). Externalizing problem behavior is a broad concept, including different types of behavior, such as aggressive or disruptive behavior, with people often using terms interchangeably (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Research has shown that two factors most often linked with externalizing problem behavior are parenting practices and child temperament (Dougherty, Klein, Durbin, Hayden, & Olino, 2010; McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007). But a crucial question remains: Which children are especially affected by parenting, and how? Over the past few years, multiple theoretical frameworks have been developed to try and understand the relationship between parenting and externalizing problem behavior, specifically focused on how
temperament might moderate that relationship. These frameworks include the diathesis stress
model, the differential susceptibility model and the vantage sensitivity model.
Theoretical frameworks
The oldest theoretical framework is the diathesis stress model, which argues that children with a vulnerability (in this study children with specific temperament dimensions) are always more likely to be negatively affected by environmental stressors than children
without this vulnerability (Hankin & Abela, 2005). The diathesis stress model focusses exclusively on negative outcomes due to a stressor, with the model being developed to explain why certain people display symptoms of psychopathology after a stressor, whereas others do not (Hankin & Abela, 2005). In this framework, the vulnerability can be anything from temperament to a genetic disposition. These children do not benefit more from positive environments than their peers, but rather do worse than other children in negative
environments (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Evidence for the diathesis stress model includes children with higher negative emotions being more negatively affected by parental
unresponsiveness, leading to higher levels of externalizing behavior, whereas low levels of harsh parenting did not benefit them more—in terms of reduced externalizing behavior—than other children (Slagt, Dubas, & van Aken, 2016).
A more recently developed theoretical model is the differential susceptibility framework, which adds to the diathesis stress model. The differential susceptibility
framework suggests that children who are vulnerable to a negative environment, also benefit the most from a positive environment (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). The differential susceptibility framework has a lot of overlap with the biological-sensitivity-to-context model (Boyce & Ellis, 2005). Belsky and Pluess (2009) put an emphasis on nature, arguing that as a result of natural selection, children differ in their plasticity to certain environments. It is considered adaptive when siblings differ in malleability and susceptibility, evolutionarily speaking, as it spreads the chances of the offspring surviving in any given circumstance (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). On the other hand, Boyce and Ellis (2005) emphasize nurture, by arguing that, for adaptive reasons, children develop high levels of sensitivity when they are in an especially supportive or unsupportive environment early in their development (Boyce & Ellis, 2005). Ultimately, both views within this differential susceptibility framework hold that some children are more susceptible ´for better and for worse´ (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Some
evidence has been found for this conceptual framework, where toddler boys with difficult temperament portrayed the largest increase in externalizing behavior when their mothers used a lot of negative control, whereas they portrayed the smallest increase when mothers did not use negative control often (Van Aken, Junger, Verhoeven, van Aken, & Deković, 2007). Additionally, only highly frustrated children were influenced by maternal rejection. Their externalizing behavior increased when their mothers were rejecting them, but decreased when their mothers showed little rejection (Lengua, 2008). Other research showed that an
unsatisfactory environment increased behavioral problems the most in children with a
difficult temperament, whereas high quality environments decreased behavioral problems for this group of children the most as well (Pluess & Belsky, 2009). The differential
susceptibility framework also received support in intervention studies, where improvements in secure attachment were only found for infants high on negative reactivity (Velderman, Bakermans-Kraneburg, Juffer, & van den Ijzendoorn, 2006).
The last theoretical framework is the vantage sensitivity model, which holds that some children are more susceptible to positive experiences and advantages than others
(Pluess & Belsky, 2013). The environment exposure in the vantage sensitivity model does not range from positive to negative, but from positive to absence of positive, including enhanced positive behavior as well as a decline in problems such as externalizing behavior (Pluess & Belsky, 2013). This model has roots in positive psychology, with a focus on enrichment, rather than focusing on negative environmental exposures. Therefore, this model is not often used in research when examining negative outcomes. An example of some evidence found for this model was demonstrated in a study on highly reactive infant girls, who showed more prosocial behavior 6 years later, when their fathers were more involved in childcare, than children with lower reactivity (Ramchandani, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2010). Additionally, highly negative infants showed the highest self-regulation when the
relationship quality with their mother was high, whereas no association was found for children low on negativity (Kim & Kochanska, 2012). Figure 1 shows a clear representation of the three theoretical models.
Temperament
Research in the past decades has shown that temperament plays a key role in the development and course of externalizing problem behavior (Abulizi, Pryor, Michel, Melchior, & van der Waerden, 2017). Temperament can be defined as individual differences in emotion regulation and irritability (Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher 2001). These factors have been commonly differentiated in previous studies and theoretical models on temperament
development argue that temperament dimensions of negative affectivity and effortful control correlate with the Big Five personality factors neuroticism and conscientiousness,
respectively (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000). Effortful control includes dimensions such as attention focusing, persistence, and inhibitory control, whereas negative affectivity includes factors such as emotionality, sadness, and being difficult. Children with difficult
temperaments are harder for caregivers to manage and therefore puts the child at risk for later behavioral problems (Else-Quest, Shibley Hyde, Hill Godsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006).
Research on how effortful control relates to sensitivity to the environment has led to mixed results, where some argue that children with low effortful control are more sensitive to the environment (de Haan, Prinzie, & Deković, 2010), and others argue that children high on effortful control are more sensitive (Halpern, Garcia Coll, Meyer, & Bendersky, 2001). The explanation why either of the levels of effortful control would be more sensitive to the environment differs as well. Some argue that having little effortful control limits children in controlling their reactions to an environment, making these children more focused on
immediate rewards rather than long term plans (Derryberry & Rothhbart, 1997; MacDonald, 2008). Others, however, argue that being high on effortful control enables you to focus your
attention on the environment more, making you more sensitive as well (Posner & Rothbart, 2000). This shows that research on how, and why effortful control might moderate the relationship between parenting and externalizing problem behavior remains inconclusive.
Children with higher negative affectivity grapple with regulating their emotions and arousal (Albers, Beijers, Risken-Walraven, Sweep, & de Weert, 2016). Although early negative affectivity itself is linked to externalizing behavior, this link becomes even stronger when negative parenting is added to the equation (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Evidence whether negative affectivity follows a differential susceptibly or a diathesis stress model is mixed. Some studies argue that negative affectivity is most in line with the diathesis stress model when discussing sensitivity (Kochanska & Kim, 2013), whereas others argue that it is mostly in line with the differential susceptibility framework (Lengua, 2008). It is suggested that children with a high negative emotional temperament have an extremely sensitive nervous system, experiencing events, regardless of being positive or negative, more strongly than others (Belsky, 2005). In a recent meta-analysis, the two temperament factors were
investigated as moderators on the relationship between parenting behavior and externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Here, the patterns of effortful control and negative affectivity did not support any of the theoretical models (Slagt, Dubas, Deković, & van Aken, 2016).
Relationship between Parenting and Externalizing Problem Behavior
The way parents raise their child plays a crucial role in the development of the child. Children need a safe haven and secure base they can rely on to explore the world and develop (Madigan, Brumariu, Villani, Atkinson, & Lyons-Ruth, 2016). Parenting behavior needs to be affectionate, responsive, and sensitive (Verhoeven, Deković, Bodden, & van Laar, 2017). Also, it needs to be organized and consistent, so children are aware of what reactions they can expect from their parents, as parents that provide support and structure to their children often
have children with positive developmental outcomes (Zimmer-Gembeck & Thomas, 2010). However, parenting can also lead to negative child outcomes, such as externalizing problem behavior. For example, maternal insensitivity and unresponsiveness are associated with more externalizing behavior (Deater-Deckard, Ivy, & Petrill, 2006). Additionally, children with less sensitive and more harsh-discipline-prone mothers showed more externalizing behaviors (Miner & Clarke-Stewart, 2008). In addition, research also demonstrated that children only decreased in externalizing behavior when mothers reported no harsh disciplining (Spieker, Larson, Lewis, Keller, & Gilchrist, 1999).
The way parenting behavior is received and understood by children can depend on many factors, one of them being the child’s temperament. Substantial research has been done on the moderating role of temperament on parenting behavior related to negative outcomes of a child. An important notion is that the relationship between parenting, temperament and negative outcomes can form a negative spiral, as parents may show increased harsh or insensitive parenting when their child has a more difficult temperament. Therefore, children increase their conduct behavior, which in turn increases harsh parenting again, and so forth (Miner & Clarke-Stewart, 2008). This is seen when children with more difficult
temperaments have mothers who are less sensitive, as sensitivity decreases in mothers with children who score higher on negative affect (Mills-Koonce et al., 2007). The flipside of the coin of this negative spiral was also observed: after children decreased in externalizing
behavior, parents were rated as increased in their sensitivity (Miner & Clarke-Stewart, 2008). The Present Study
The interaction between child temperament and parenting behavior has been found to be especially predictive of child outcomes, where negative parenting behavior has an
increased detrimental effect on externalizing problem behavior for children with more difficult temperaments (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002). However, different frameworks
suggest different expectations about how temperament plays a role in the relationship between parenting behaviors and subsequent externalizing problems in children. Difficult temperament, as well as positive and negative parenting, are broad terms that need to be specified further in research. Furthermore, only little longitudinal research has been
conducted on this relationship. Therefore, this study will investigate the research question: To what extent, and how, is the longitudinal association between specific parenting behaviors and externalizing problem behavior in children, moderated by child temperament
dimensions? As the currently available research on this relationship between parenting and externalizing behavior, and on the moderating role of temperament is inconclusive, I did not put forward a specific hypothesis. Rather, I tested which of the three different theoretical models (i.e., diathesis stress, differential susceptibility, and vantage sensitivity) would best explain a potential moderating effect of temperament on the association between parenting and children’s externalizing problem behavior.
Method Participants
This study used data from 190 parents and children. The data stems from families who were part of the control group in a randomized control trial called ORCHIDS (Weeland et al., 2017). The pretest questionnaires were filled out by 189 people, however at the second round of data collection, only 156 families (82,1%) participated. No significant differences explained why these families dropped out of the study. The children of the participating families were between the ages of 4-8 years (M = 6.21, SD = 1.33), and about half were boys (50.3%). Almost all children were born in The Netherlands (97.5%). The sample of parents included mostly mothers (93%), aged between 23 and 51 years (M = 38.10, SD = 4.84). More than three quarters of the parents completed some form of higher education (76.1%): higher vocational education (MBO in The Netherlands), college of applied sciences, or university.
Parents reported child peer problems, conduct problems, emotional problems, prosocial behavior, and hyperactivity of their children at the pretest. Children were screened for externalizing problem behavior, with an inclusion criterium being that children scored above the 75th percentile on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) (Weeland et al., 2017). Procedure
Recruitment took place via community records from two Dutch health care organizations, receiving personalized information on the study and the screening
questionnaire; ECBI (Weeland et al., 2017). After participating families were recruited and screened, home visits took place, where researchers explained the study, answered questions, and asked parents to sign the informed consent. At each home visit, parents filled out online questionnaires, saliva samples were taken, and parent-child interactions were filmed. The study consisted of 5 different measurement points, but this study only used the data from the questionnaires from the first and last wave (T1 and T2). Families participated voluntarily in the study and could leave the study at any given time without having to state a reason or any consequences. Families received €20 for the first home visit and €40 for the last. The bigger study was approved by The Institutional Review Board in the Netherlands (METC, protocol no. 11-320/K) (Weeland et al., 2017).
Measures
Child Externalizing Problem Behavior. Child externalizing problem behavior was measured with the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI). The ECBI is a caregiver report measure that examines the frequency of disruptive behavior in children aged 2 to 16 years (Eyberg & Pincus, 1999). The ECBI consists of 31 items that measures the frequency of conduct behavior on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from never to always, called the intensity scale. The total score was calculated by adding the scores of every item together. Cronbach’s alpha was .84 for T1 and .93 for T2.
Specific Parenting Behavior. Specific parenting behavior was measured with the Parenting Practice Inventory (PPI). The PPI is a questionnaire that measures discipline styles and parenting measures of children up to 12 years of age (Webster-Stratton, Reid, &
Hammond, 2001). The questionnaire consists of 73 items, divided into 15 sections, and asks how parents respond to misbehavior and appropriate behavior. For example, “Get your child to correct the problem or make up for his/her mistake”. Parents then score each item on a 4 point scale, ranging from never to often. Fourteen items were not used in this study; 5 of these make up the scale monitoring, as these questions did not provide a clear answer on actual parenting behavior, and the other 9 are not used in any summary scale. The other items can be clustered into scales, including harsh and inconsistent discipline (15 items; Cronbach’s alpha was .78 for T1 and .82 for T2), positive verbal discipline (9 items; Cronbach's alpha was .71 for T1 and .74 for T5), physical punishment (6 items; Cronbach’s alpha was .81 for T1 and .78 for T5), appropriate discipline (12 items; Cronbach’s alpha was .76 for T1 and .71 for T5), clear expectations (6 items; Cronbach’s alpha was .53 for T1 and .61 for T5), and praise and incentives (11 items; Cronbach’s alpha was .72 for both T1 and T2). The scores for each subscale were calculated by adding the scores of every item together and dividing them by the number of items.
Child Temperament. Child temperament was assessed with the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ-VSF), which assesses temperament in children from 3 to 8 years (Rothbart et al., 2001). This instrument is a widely used caregiver-report questionnaire with 36 items, where parents score their children on a seven-point Likert scale. The CBQ-VSF measures the broad domains negative affectivity and effortful control, as well as surgency, however that subscale will not be used in this study. The subscale negative affectivity includes 12 items, an example being “Gets quite frustrated when prevented from doing something s/he wants to do.” Cronbach’s alpha was .71 for T1 and .73 for T5. The subscale
effortful control also consists of 12 items, with an example being “Is good at following instructions.” Cronbach’s alpha was .71 for T1 and .67 for T5. The scores were calculated by adding the scores of every item together and dividing them by the number of items.
Data Analysis
In total, across the different variables used in the analyses, 5 participants had scores higher than 3 standard deviations away from the mean. When an outlier was present, the score was changed to the near-highest or lowest score (winsorizing). The cumulative percentage of scores on the measure of physical punishment reached over 80% with a value of 1.50, whereas the minimum score was only 1. As this value is extremely low, and this variable was extremely skewed, I excluded physical punishment from further analyses. To create the moderator variables, I first centralized all independent variables and then constructed moderator variables by multiplying the centralized variables of each of the parenting behaviors with the two different temperament dimensions.
Before running the main analysis, I tested data assumptions. To test the assumption of normal distribution I performed the Test of Normality Shapiro-Wilk on all the variables. Positive verbal disciplining, W(153) = .96, p = .000 and clear expectations, W(153) = .932, p = .000 were significant, therefore violating the normality assumption. However, all values for skewness and kurtosis were below an absolute value of 2.0, the Q-Q plots did not deviate far from the expected normal, and the sample size was large enough to assume normality
(Rouaud, 2013; Scalë, 2020). I also tested for multicollinearity by looking at the Variance Inflation Factor, which were all well below 3, meaning that there was no multicollinearity. I tested for homoscedasticity by looking at the standardized and predicted residuals in a plot. No violations were identified. Furthermore, the differential susceptibility model assumes that the relationship between the variables is linear, possibly forcing non-linear effects in a linear prediction model (Roisman et al., 2012). Therefore, when conducting analyses, it is important
to make sure that there are no non-linear effects. This was done by visually inspecting the data using scatterplots. The scatter plots did not show any clear non-linear patterns, so the linearity assumption was met, and the analysis continued.
To examine how particular parenting behavior predicted externalizing problem behavior in children, moderated by temperament, a multiple linear regression model was conducted. Specifically, to test moderation, a regions of significance approach was used. By checking the regions of significance (RoS), which tests when, or at which data points, the moderator and the dependent variable are significantly related, it can become clear whether the evidence supports a diathesis stress or a differential susceptibility framework (Dearing & Hamilton, 2006). Therefore, if there is a significant effect of the interaction terms in the initial analysis, I prepared to calculate the RoS.
Results Descriptive Analysis
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the participant population. The mean ECBI score was 117.19, which is over the 75th percentile score (117 for boys; 109 for girls) for Dutch norms (Weeland, van Aar, & Overbeek, 2018). Hence, the current sample had
relatively high levels of externalizing problem behavior compared to Dutch norms. Boys had significantly higher mean levels of externalizing problem behaviors than girls F(1,155) = 9.63, p = .002. (Male M = 123.44, SD = 23.64, Female M = 110.78, SD = 27.25).
Furthermore, boys scored significantly lower on effortful control than girls F(1,154) = 18.41,
p = .00. (Male M = 4.55, SD = 0.76, Female M = 5.05, SD = 0.67).
Table 2 shows the table with the correlations between all studied variables. All autocorrelations were positive and significant, showing moderately high levels of stability in parenting behavior, temperament, and externalizing problem behavior over time. Both negative affect and effortful control at T1 correlated with praise and incentives at T1,
suggesting that children higher on negative affect or effortful control had parents who showed more praise and incentives. However, no further correlations between temperament dimensions and parenting behaviors at T1 were found. Appropriate disciplining at T1
correlated with externalizing problem behavior at T2, suggesting that when parents use more appropriate disciplining at T1, their children show more externalizing problem behavior at T2. None of the other parenting behaviors from T1 correlated with externalizing problem behavior at T2. For temperament, only negative affect at T1 correlated significantly and positively with externalizing problem behavior at T2. This means that children with higher levels of negative affect at T1 had more externalizing problem behavior at T2.
Main Analysis
To answer the research question, I used a multiple linear regressions analysis. I controlled for child gender, as well as for externalizing problem behavior at T1. The model without the moderators explained most of the variance in externalizing problem behavior, adjusted R2 = 32.7%. This is a large effect size and is statistically significant, F(9, 154) = 9.30, p = .000. When looking at the coefficients, only externalizing problem behavior at T1 was a significant predictor t(154) = 6.32, p = .000. This means that when a child’s
externalizing problem behavior was relatively high at T1, it would still be relatively high at T2, b = 0.73, 95% [0.50, - 0.96], β = 0.49. Table 3 shows all the regression statistics.
Appropriate disciplining reached marginal significance, whereas all other parental behaviors, as well as both temperament dimensions were also non-significant predictors of externalizing problem behavior at T2. Here again, it is suggested that specific parenting behaviors, as well as temperament, do not predict externalizing problem behavior at a later time.
The model without the use of negative affect and effortful control as moderators explained more variance than the model with the use of these temperament dimensions. Both temperament dimensions, as well as the different parenting behaviors did not predict
externalizing problem behavior at a later stage. The study also demonstrates that the
longitudinal association between parenting behavior and externalizing problem behavior was not moderated by temperament. As no moderation effect of temperament was found, no regions of significance analyses were performed.
Further Analyses
These results seemed counter intuitive, as shown by research that finds clear links between parenting and externalizing problem behavior (e.g. Miner & Clarke-Stewart, 2008; Spieker et al., 1999). Therefore, I conducted additional regression analyses; one with broader constructs of positive and negative parenting, and one with parents who scored one standard deviation above the mean for either positive of negative parenting. Positive parenting included the subscales positive verbal disciplining and praise and incentives, and negative parenting included the subscales harsh and inconsistent disciplining and physical punishment (cf. Weeland et al., 2017). The first additional regression analysis—using broader subscales of positive and negative parenting—showed similar results as in our main analysis. Thus, only externalizing problem behavior at T1 was a significant predictor of externalizing problem behavior at T2, and there were no significant predictive effects of either positive or negative parenting, nor of temperament and the parenting × temperament interaction.
For the second analysis-selecting the subgroup of parenting scoring above the 1 SD cut-off on either (low) positive or negative parenting-again, similar results were found as in the main analysis. Thus, there were no longitudinal associations between parenting behavior and temperament and externalizing problem behavior, nor was there a moderation of
temperament. Parents with particular problematic or particular positive parenting also did not predict their child’s externalizing problem behavior at a later stage.
In a third analysis, I then looked at the cross-sectional relationship between parenting behaviors, temperament, and externalizing problem behavior. Again, the model without the
moderators explained most of the variance in externalizing problem behavior (adjusted R2 = 24.5%) which is a moderate effect size and significant, F(8, 154) = 7.23, p = .000. Here, child sex (t(154) = -2.76, p = .007, b = -7.32, 95% [-12.57, -2.07], ß = -0.21), harsh and
inconsistent disciplining (t(154) = 3.14, p = .002, b = 5.69, 95% [2.10, 9.28], ß = 0.23), appropriate discipling (t(154) = 2.59, p = .011, b = 4.24, 95% [1.01, 7.48], ß = 0.22), negative affect (t(154) = 3.44, p = .001, b = 5.28, 95% [2.25, 8.31], ß = 0.25) and effortful control (t(154) = -2.62, p = .010, b = -4.70, 95% [-8.26, -1.15], ß = -0.20) were all significant
predictors for externalizing problem behavior at the same wave. Positive verbal disciplining, praise and incentives, and clear expectations were not significant predictors for externalizing problem behavior, nor was there a moderation effect of temperament on any of the parenting behavior variables. The results of this analysis demonstrate that boys have higher levels of externalizing problem behavior than girls. Furthermore, the results show that the use of more harsh and inconsistent disciplining, but also more appropriate disciplining, is
cross-sectionally linked to externalizing problem behavior. In addition, the results show that higher levels of negative affect are linked to more externalizing problem behavior and that higher levels of effortful control are linked to less externalizing problem behavior.
Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to see whether specific parenting behaviors influenced externalizing problem behaviors in children, and whether this relationship was moderated by child temperament (and if so, how). The results of the present study suggest that this link might not be as clear as previously thought. Children with different levels of negative affect or effortful control were not more or less at risk for increasing or decreasing their externalizing problem behavior, and were also not influenced differently by the different parenting behaviors. In this study, only previous externalizing problem behavior was
For decades, people have investigated the potentially devastating effects of negative parenting and the possible uplifting effects of positive parenting, especially in combination with temperament of children (O’Connor, 2002). This study does not support previous work on the influence of parenting behavior and temperament on externalizing problem behavior. It contradicts the findings of the meta-analysis by Slagt and colleagues (2016), which found small, but significant associations between parenting and externalizing problem behavior. It also contradicts individual study findings that found associations between factors such as harsh disciplining, insensitivity, and unresponsiveness, and externalizing problem behavior (Miner & Clarke-Stewart, 2008; Spieker et al., 1999).
Looking at all the analyses, although there was no moderation effect of temperament, neither longitudinally nor cross-sectionally, the cross-sectional findings do show that
parenting behaviors (harsh and inconsistent disciplining, appropriate disciplining), as well as negative affect and effortful control, predict externalizing problem behavior. This is in line with previous research suggesting that parenting behaviors and child´s temperament are linked to externalizing problem behavior (Abulizi et al., 2017; Miner & Clarke-Stewart, 2008; Spieker et al., 1999). Looking at the proportion of variance explained by the predictors, the model with only sex and externalizing problem behavior at T1 predicted 32.4% of the variance, whereas at the cross-sectional analysis, all predictors together explained 24.5% of the variance. This may suggest that past externalizing problem behavior has a stronger effect on current externalizing problem behavior; stronger than the effect of all the different
parenting behaviors and temperament trait measures. This could be due to the sample being an at-risk population, screened at baseline for elevated externalizing problem behavior in children. Especially for this subgroup of children, externalizing problem behavior may be highly stable—both across childhood and the life course (Moffitt, 2003)
An explanation for appropriate disciplining being associated with higher instead of lower levels of externalizing problem behavior could be that these parents employ more parenting strategies overall -both negative and positive- to deal with their child’s
externalizing problem behavior (Acker & O´Leary, 1996; Lunkenheimer, Lichtwarck-Aschoff, Hollenstein, Kemp, & Granic, 2016). The fact that results were found cross-sectionally, but not longitudinally, could also be because the sample includes an at-risk population, of which the levels of dysfunctional behaviors are already high. Therefore, there might be less variation in the different parenting behaviors and temperament dimensions, which could decrease the effect of both these predictive factors on externalizing problem behavior over time. Furthermore, the longitudinal analysis controlled for the stability in externalizing problem behavior, which is not possible in the cross-sectional analysis.
The results for the moderating role of temperament on externalizing problem behavior can be viewed in line with the results from a meta-analysis, that found no consistent
moderation effect of temperament on the relation between parenting and externalizing problem behavior –looking at negative affect and effortful control (Slagt et al., 2016). However, the meta-analysis found moderating effects of the two temperament dimensions, which this study did not. Results from the meta-analysis for negative affectivity seemed most in line with the differential susceptibility model, however only when examined in infancy (Slagt et al., 2016). In the current study, there was no evidence for any of the theoretical frameworks on any of the temperament dimensions. Where the diathesis stress model suggests that children with certain temperaments always do worse than other children, differential susceptibility suggests that these children do worse than other children under harsh circumstances, but do better in optimal circumstances (Belsky & Pluess, 2009; Hankin & Abela, 2005). Although other studies found moderating effects of temperament (e.g. Mills-Koonce et al., 2007; Putnam, et al., 2002), the current findings, together with the
meta-analysis by Slagt and colleagues (2016), suggest that there might not be very clear and strong evidence for a moderating role of temperament in the relationship between parenting and externalizing problem behavior.
As this study found results that are not in line with previous research, it is important to examine the reasons for this. The direction of the relationship between parenting,
temperament, and externalizing problem behavior has never become completely clear in research. Children’s temperament influences parental behavior, which in turn could influence their temperament, and this all influences their externalizing problem behavior
(Oppenheimer, Hankin, Jenness, Young, & Smolen, 2013). This could explain why no
longitudinal evidence was found for the association between temperament or parenting styles on externalizing problem behavior, as the relationship between the variables might actually be opposite. Possibly, externalizing problem behavior of the child influences parenting styles, rather than parenting styles influencing externalizing problem behavior. As this sample only included children high on externalizing problem behavior, it could be the case that the examined parenting behaviors were already influenced by preceding high levels of child externalizing problem behavior. Elaborating on this, another potential explanation for the found results is that parenting behavior is never solely made up of one construct. One previous study highlighted that the combination of different parenting styles influences external problem behavior, rather than one parenting style on its own (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005). For example, a Dutch study showed that impulsivity was linked with externalizing problems, but that positive paternal control buffered this relation (Karreman, de Haas, van Tuijl, van Aken, & Deković, 2010). This emphasizes the possible collaborative role different parenting styles have together, which could be especially important in a high externalizing problem behavior sample.
Another factor that could have interfered with the results is the age of the sample. A study examined the normative development of externalizing problem behavior in children up to 18 years, by using the Child Behavior Checklist (Bongers et al., 2003). In this study, aggressive behavior and externalizing behavior started decreasing from age four. Where aggressive behavior kept declining in a relatively stable matter across the different ages, other externalizing problem behavior decreased significantly faster at age four than at age eight (Bongers et al., 2003). As the current study is longitudinal, the decrease in externalizing problem behavior might be different for the younger part of the sample than the older part of the sample. Therefore, in the current sample, the difference in externalizing problem behavior between 4 and 8 year old children might already be present due to the general trajectory of externalizing problem behavior in children, where other variables such as temperament and parenting influence these specific points in the trajectory differently. As externalizing problem behavior was already stable at a young age in this sample, this could suggest that parenting and temperament play less of a role in such a sample. It could for instance be that children’s externalizing problem behavior is affected more by factors such as lack of physical affection, psychological control, and maternal hostility (Sheffield Morris et al., 2002; Olson, Sameroff, Kerr, Lopez, & Wellman, 2005).
Furthermore, this study tried to predict the association of parenting behavior with externalizing problem behavior over a relatively long time period, as T1 and T2 were spaced 2.5 years apart. It is possible that this relationship is clearer over a shorter period of time, which is also how it is often examined in other research (e.g. Hosokawa & Katsura, 2019; Linville et al., 2010).
A final explanation for these results could be that concepts such as temperament and externalizing problem behavior are too broad to analyze what exactly influences externalizing problem behavior in at-risk children. The meta-analysis emphasized that the term difficult
temperament is used as a broad concept in many studies, making it hard to examine what specific elements of temperament can moderate the relationship between parenting and child psychopathology (Slagt et al., 2016). Furthermore, the concept of externalizing problem behavior that the ECBI measures is also broad, so it might not be specific enough to pick up on relations between specific parenting behaviors or child temperament dimensions that leads to specific externalizing problem behavior in children. Behaviors such as aggression or symptoms related to ADHD are both considered externalizing behavior problems, but might actually differ immensely in what affects them (Weeland, Overbeek, Orobio de Castro, & Matthys, 2015). To further emphasize, the DSM-5 definition of conduct disorder focusses more on the refusal of compliance and irritable mood, whereas the definition of oppositional defiant disorder focuses more on behavior such as destruction and aggression (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). However, both these disorders include different types of externalizing behavior, making it hard to distinguish between different parenting behaviors and different externalizing problem behavior.
Strengths and Limitations
Several limitations of the present study warrant mentioning. First, the study is limited by the exclusive use of self-reported measures. Not only parenting behavior and child
temperament was assessed by the parents, also externalizing problem behavior was measured through the parents, without using observational measures. Although using self-report
measures is very inexpensive and time-efficient, it can often lead to social desirability biases, potentially even more so in situations where sensitive topics such as externalizing problem behavior and harsh parenting are discussed (Bornstein et al., 2014). Having parents report their own parenting behaviors might not give a very realistic image of their actual parenting, as a meta-analysis found only small associations between self-report and observed parenting behaviors (Hendriks, van der Giessen, Stams, & Overbeek, 2018), whereas other studies find
no association at all (Herbers, Garcia, & Obraovi, 2017; Moens, Weeland, van der Giessen, Chhangur, & Overbeek, 2017).
Another limitation is that temperament and externalizing problem behavior were both measured with relatively broad concepts. Temperament was measured with the broad
constructs of negative affect and effortful control, which contains multiple different sub elements such as impulsivity and attention focusing. With this study I was not in the position to look at individual elements that make up a temperament dimensions, as the CBQ-VSF only makes up 3 temperament dimensions, of which 2 were used in this study. In addition, the ECBI examines problem behavior as a broad construct, including many different behaviors such as externalizing behavior, but also aggressive behavior and problematic behavior at school. As one cannot look at different subscales within the ECBI, it cannot become exactly clear what types of externalizing problem behavior could be influenced by parenting
behaviors or temperament. Additionally, because the sample used in the current study was very homogenous, with most parents being born in the Netherlands, raising their children with a partner and most parents being higher educated and having higher SES, it is hard to generalize these findings to a larger audience (Weeland et al., 2017).
Although some limitations were present in this study, this study also provided some strengths, such as being longitudinal, which allows one to look at a relationship between factors over time. As externalizing problem behavior is a concept that is often not only seen at one specific time point, but changes and develops over time, it is important to do
longitudinal research into what affects externalizing problem behavior (Basten et al., 2015). This research contributes to this by looking at how parenting behaviors influence
externalizing problem behavior over a 2.5 year period, which has not frequently been done. Furthermore, the current sample included children that all score past the 75th percentile on externalizing problem behavior compared to Dutch children. This allows for research on a
very specific target group with children that are at risk for further externalizing problem behaviors (Galán et al., 2020). Therefore, it is important to include these results when discussing potential interventions to help parents deal with and manage their child’s externalizing problem behavior. Adding to this, although temperament and externalizing problem behavior were both measured with relatively broad concepts, parenting behavior was measured in much more detail. By looking at specific parenting behaviors it becomes clearer how these individual behaviors influence externalizing problem behavior, rather than looking at positive or negative parenting as a broad concept.
Implications for Research and Practice
As the current study, together with past research, cannot provide clear answers to questions such as how parenting behaviors and temperament influence externalizing problem behavior, further research is needed. Future research should focus on more specific elements of temperament, parenting and externalizing problem behavior, to see whether certain externalizing problem behavior can be predicted by specific temperament dimensions and parenting behaviors, or whether it might not be predictable at all. By examining this, the possible moderating role of temperament might become clearer, which could help the development of theoretical frameworks. Additionally, focusing on age-related trajectories of externalizing problem behavior and using smaller age-range samples will help identify how parenting behaviors and temperament might influence externalizing problem behavior differently at different developmental stages, and whether children at a certain age may be more or less susceptible to their parents. Research on this area will help the development of intervention programs, targeting parent behavior and teaching parents how to signal and better deal with this sort of externalizing problem behavior.
The current findings suggest that the link between parenting and externalizing problem behavior over time might not be as clear as previously thought, and the child’s temperament might not moderate that relationship in line with previously proposed theoretical frameworks on this phenomenon. Nevertheless, both parenting and child’s temperament are important aspects of child development and research needs to further
identify specific aspects of each of these factors that can help parents raise these children, and ultimately, help these children live a less problematic life. This research adds to this by examining the relationship between specific parenting, temperament, and externalizing problem behavior over a longer period of time, emphasizing the fact that externalizing problem behavior is not a fixed concept and can change depending on circumstances, with certain relationships being stronger than others. Furthermore, it is important to remember that the relationship between parenting, temperament and externalizing problem behavior will never be solely unilateral. With the gained knowledge, along with future research on the topic, successful interventions can be constructed, to help parents, but especially help
children themselves manage externalizing problem behavior. Ultimately, it is most important to look into “what works for whom” to be able to help as many children as possible (Weeland et al., 2017). Although the idealistic idea of having one theoretical framework that explains all cases of externalizing problem behavior sounds tempting, this will never be realistic in practice and will not benefit individual children with individual onsets and trajectories.
References
Abulizi, X., Pryor, L., Michel, G., Melchior, M., & van der Waerden, J. (2017). Temperament in infancy and behavioral and emotional problems at age 5.5: The eden mother-child cohort. PLoS One, 12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0171971
Acker, M. M., & O´Leary, S. G. (1996). Inconsistency of mothers´ feedback and toddlers´ misbehavior and negative affect. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 703-714. doi:10.1007/BF01664735
Albers, E. M., Beijers, R., Risken-Walraven, J. M. A., Sweep, F. C. G. J., & de Weerth, C. (2016). Coritsol levels of infants in center care across the first year of life: Links with quality of care and infant temperament. Stress: The International Journal on the
Biology of Stress, 19, 8-17. doi:10.3109/10253890.2015.1089230
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior.
Child Development, 76, 1144-1159. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00841.x
Basten, M., Tiemeier, H., Althoff, R. R., van de Schoot, R., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Hofman, A., … van der Ende, J. (2015). The stability of problem behavior across the preschool years: An empirical approach in the general population. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 44, 393-404. doi:10.1007/s10802-015-9993-y
Belsky, J. (2005). Differential susceptibility to rearing influences: An evolutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In B. Ellis & D. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind:
Evolutionary psychology and child development (pp. 139-163). New York, NY:
Bongers, I. L., Koot, H. M., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2003). The normative development of child and adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 112, 179-192. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.112.2.179
Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Lansford, J. E., Pastorelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Sorbing, E., …Oburu, P. (2014). Mother and father socially desirable responding in nine countries: Two kinds of agreement and relations to parenting self-reports. International Journal of
Psychology, 50, 174-185. doi:10.1002/ijop.12084
Boyce, T. W., & Ellis, B. J.(2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Developmental
Psychopathology, 17, 271-301. doi:10.1017/s0954579405050145
de Haan, A. D., Prinzie, P., & Deković, M. (2010). How and why children change in
aggression and delinquency from childhood to adolescence: Moderation of overreactive parenting by child personality. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 725-733. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02192.x
Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C. (2006). Contemporary approaches and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 71, 88-104. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00406.x
Deater-Deckard, K., Ivy, L., & Petrill, S. (2006). Maternal warmth moderates the link between physical punishment and child externalizing behavior problems: A parent-offspring behavior genetic analysis. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6, 59-78. doi:10.1207/s15327922par0601_3
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortful processes in the organization of temperament. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 633-652. doi:10.1017/S0954579497001375
Dougherty, L. R., Klein, D. N., Durbin, C. E., Hayden, E. P., & Olino, T. M. (2010). Temperamental positive and negative emotionality and children’s depressive
symptoms: A longitudinal prospective study from age three to age ten. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 29, 462-488. doi:10.1521/jscp.2010.29.4.462
Else-Quest, N. M., Shibley Hyde, J., Hill Godsmith, H., & Van Hulle, C. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33-72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33
Eyberg, S., & Pincus, D. (1999). Eyberg child behavior inventory & sutter-eyberg student behavior inventory-revised: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Powell, D. (2002). Young children with challenging behavior: Issues and considerations for behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 208-217. doi:10.1177/10983007020040040401
Galán, C. A., Wang, F. L., Shaw, D. S., & Forbes, E. E. (2020). Early childhood trajectories of conduct problems and hyperactivity/attention problems: Predicting adolescent and adult antisocial behavior and internalizing problems. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 49, 200-214. doi:10.1080/15374416.2018.1534206
Halpern, L. F., Garcia Coll, C. T., Meyer, E. C., & Bendersky, K. (2001). The contributions of temperament and maternal responsiveness to the mental development of small-for-gestational-age and appropriate-for-small-for-gestational-age infants. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 22, 199–224. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(01)00077-6
Hankin, B. L., & Abela, J. R. Z. (2005). Development of psychopathology: A
Hendriks, A. M., van der Giessen, D., Stams, J. J. J. M, & Overbeek, G. (2018). The association between parent-reported and observed parenting: A multi-level meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 30, 621-633. doi:10.1037/pas0000500 Herbers, J. E., Garcia, E. B., & Obradović, J. (2017). Parenting assessed by observation
versus parent-report: Moderation by parent distress and family socioeconomic status.
Journal of Child and Family studies, 26, 3339-3350. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0848-8
Hosokawa, R., & Katsura, T. (2019). Role of parenting style in children’s behavioral problems through the transition from preschool to elementary school according to gender in japan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
16, 21-38. doi:10.3390/ijerph16010021
Jolicoeur-Martineau, A., Belsky, J., Szekely, E., Widaman, K. F., Pluess, M., Greenwood, C., & Wazana, A. (2017). Distinguishing differential susceptibility, diathesis-stress, and vantage sensitivity: Beyond the single gene and environment model. Development and
Psychopathology, 32, p. 4. doi:10.1017/S0954579418001438
Karreman, A., de Haas, S., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A. G., & Deković, M. (2010). Relations among temperament, parenting and problem behavior in young children.
Infant Behavior & Development, 33, 39-49. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2009.10.008
Kim, S., & Kochanska, G. (2012). Child temperament moderates effects of parent-child mutality on self-regulation: A relationship-based path for emotionally negative infants.
Child Development, 83, 1275-1289. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01778.x
Kochanska, G., & Kim, S. (2013). Difficult temperament moderates links between maternal responsiveness and children’s compliance and behavior problems in low-income families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 323-332.
Lengua, L. J. (2008). Anxiousness, frustration, and effortful control as moderators of the relation between parenting and adjustment in middle-childhood. Social Development,
17, 554-577. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00438.x
Linville, D., Chronister, K., Dishion, T., Todahl, J., Miller, J., Shaw, D.,…Wilson, M. (2010). A longitudinal analysis of parenting practices, couple satisfaction, and child behavior problems. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 244-255. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00168.x
Lunkenheimer, E., Lichtenwarck-Aschoff, A., Hollenstein, T., Kemp, C. J., & Granic, I. (2016). Breaking down the coercive cycle: How parent and child risk factors influence real-time variability in parental responses to child misbehaviour. Parenting: Science
and Practice, 16, 237-256. doi:10.1080/15295192.2016.1184925
MacDonald, K. B. (2008). Effortful control, explicit processing, and the regulation of human evolved predispositions. Psychological Review, 115, 1012-1031. doi:10.1037/a0013327 Madigan, S., Brumariu, L. E., Villani, V., Atkinson, L., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2016).
Representational and questionnaire measures of attachment: A meta-analysis of
relations to child internalizing and externalizing problems. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 367-399. doi:10.1037/bul0000029
McLeod, B. D., Weisz, J. R., & Wood, J. J. (2007). Examining the association between parenting and childhood depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 986-1003. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.001
Mills-Koonce, W. R., Gariépy, J. L., Propper, C., Sutton, K., Calkins, S., Moore, G., & Cox, M. (2007). Infant and parent factors associated with early maternal sensitivity: A caregiver-attachment systems approach. Infant Behavior Development, 30, 114-126. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.11.010
Miner, J. L., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2008). Trajectories of externalizing behavior from age 2 to age 9: Relations with gender, temperament, ethnicity, parenting, and rater.
Developmental Psychology, 44, 771-786. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.771
Moens, M. A., Weeland, J., van der Giessen, D., Chhangur, R. R., & Overbeek, G. (2017). In the eye of the beholder? Parent-observer discrepancies in parenting and child disruptive behavior assessments. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46, 1147-1159.
doi:10.1007/s10802-017-0381-7
Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior: A 10-year research review and a research agenda. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (p. 49-75). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Parental and early childhood predictors of persistent physical aggression in boys from kindergarten to high school. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 58, 389-394. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.58.4.389
O’Connor, T. G. (2002). Annotation: The ‘effects’ of parenting reconsidered: Findings, challenges, and applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 555-572. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00046
Olson, S. L., Sameroff, A. J., Kerr, D. C. R., Lopez, N. L., & Wellman, H. M. (2005). Developmental foundations of externalizing problems in young children: The role of effortful control. Developmental Psychopathology, 17, 25-45.
doi:10.1017/s0954579405050029
Oppenheimer, C. W., Hankin, B. L., Jenness, J. L., Young, J. F., & Smolen, A. (2013). Observed positive parenting behaviors and youth genotype: Evidence for
gene-environment correlations and moderation by parent personality traits. Development and
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2009). Differential susceptibility to rearing experience: The case of childcare. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 50, 396-404. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01992.x
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901-916. doi:10.1037/a0030196 Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of
self-regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 427– 441. doi:10.1017/S0954579400003096
Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and parenting. In M. Bernstein (2nd Eds.), Handbook of parenting (pp.255-277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Ramchandani, P. G., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2010).
Differential susceptibility to fathers´ care and involvement: The moderating effect of infant reactivity. Family Science, 1, 93-101. doi:10.1080/19424621003599835 Rivenbark, J. G., Odgers, C. L., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Hogan, S., Houts, R. M., …
Moffitt, T. (2018). The high societal costs of childhood conduct problems: Evidence from administrative records up to age 38 in a longitudinal birth cohort. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 59, 703-710. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12850
Rouaud, M. (2013). Probability, Statistics, and Estimation. Propagation of Uncertainties in
Experimental Measurement. Retrieved from http://www.incertitudes.fr/book.pdf
Roisman, G. I., Newman, D. A., Fraley, R. C., Haltigan, J. D., Groh, A. M., & Haydon, K. C. (2012). Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis-stress:
Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Development and
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122–135.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.1.122
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fischer, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The children’s behavior questionnaire. Child
Development, 72, 1394-1408. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00355
Scalë. (2020). Skewness and kurtosis. Retrieved from scalelive.com/skewness-and-kurtosis.html
Sheffield Morris, A., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Sessa, F. M., Avenevoli, S., & Essex, M. J. (2002). Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as interacting predictors of child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 461-471. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00461.x
Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., Deković, M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2016). Differences in sensitivity to parenting depending on child temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
142, 1068-1110. doi:10.1037/bul0000061
Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2016). Differential susceptibility to parenting in middle childhood: Do impulsivity, effortful control and negative emotionality indicate susceptibility or vulnerability? Infant and Child Development, 25, 302-324. doi:10.1002/icd.1929
Spieker, S. J., Larson, N. C., Lewis, S. M., Keller, T. E., & Gilchrist, L. (1999).
Developmental trajectories of disruptive behavior problems in preschool children of adolescent mothers. Child Development, 70, 443-458. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00032 van Aken, C., Junger, M., Verhoeven, M., van Aken, M. A. G., & Deković, M. (2007). The interactive effects of temperament and maternal parenting of toddlers ’externalizing behaviors. Infant and Child Development, 16, 553-572. doi:10.1002/icd.529
Velderman, M. K., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2006). Effects of attachment-based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant attachment: Differential susceptibility of highly reactive infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 266-274. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.266
Verhoeven, M., Deković, M., Bodden, D., & van Baar, A. L. (2017). Development and initial validation of the comprehensive early childhood parenting questionnaire (cecpaq) for parents of 1-4 year-olds. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 233-247. doi:10.1080/17405629.2016.1182017
Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A parent and teacher training partnership in head start. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 30, 283-302.
doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_2.
Weeland, J., Chhangur, R. R., van der Giessen, D., Matthys, W., Orobio de Castro, B., & Overbeek, G. (2017). Intervention effectiveness of the incredible years: New insights into sociodemographic and intervention-based moderators. Behavior Therapy, 48, 1-18. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2016.08.002
Weeland, J., Overbeek, G., Orobio de Castro, B., & Matthys, W. (2015). Underlying
mechanisms of gene-environment interactions in externalizing behavior: A systematic review and search for theoretical mechanisms. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 18, 413-442. doi:10.1007/s10567-015-0196-4
Weeland, J., van Aar, J., & Overbeek, G. (2018). Dutch norms for the eyberg child behavior inventory: Comparisons with other western countries. Journal of Psychopathology and
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Thomas, R. (2010). Parents, parenting and toddler adaptation: Evidence from a national longitudinal study of australian children. Infant Behavior &
Figure 1
Conceptual Overview of Diathesis-Stress, Differential Susceptibility and Vantage Sensitivity Models
Reprinted from ‘Distinguishing differential susceptibility, diathesis-stress, and vantage sensitivity: Beyond the single gene and environment model’, by A. Jolicoeur-Martineau, J. Belsky, E. Szekely, K.F. Widaman, M. Pluess, C. Greenwood and A. Wazana, 2017,
Development and Psychopathology, 32, p. 4. Copyright 2019 Cambridge University Press.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Parenting Behavior, Temperament and Externalizing Problem Behavior
Variables n M (SD) M (SD) Male M (SD)
Female
ECBI score W5 156 117.19
(26.18) 123.44 (23.64) 110.78 (27.25) PPI appropriate discipline scale
W1 156 4.36 (0.93) 4.43 (0.92) 4.29 (0.95)
PPI harsh and inconsistent discipline scale W1
156 3.21 (0.72) 3.21 (0.72) 3.23 (0.74)
PPI positive verbal discipline scale W1
156 5.56 (0.68) 5.55 (0.67) 5.58 (0.69)
PPI praise and incentives scale W1
156 4.15 (0.70) 4.11 (0.77) 4.20 (0.62)
PPI clear expectations scale W1 156 3.79 (0.72) 3.79 (0.72) 3.77 (0.72) CBQ negative affect scale W1 156 4.08 (0.84) 3.98 (0.90) 4.17 (0.77) CBQ effortful control scale W1 155 4.80 (0.76) 4.55 (0.76) 5.05 (0.67)
Correlations Between Parenting Behaviors, Temperament and Externalizing Problem Behavior
ECBI 1 ECBI 5 HI 1 HI5 Ap1 Ap5 PV1 PV5 PI1 PI5 CE1 CE5 EC1 EC 5 NA1 NA 5
ECBI 1 .57** .29** .17* .26** .11 -.03 -.06 .07 .03 .03 -.07 -.22** -.26** .25** .26** ECBI 5 .15 .28** .27** .16* .06 -.10 .15 .14 .01 -.09 -.13 -.18* .17* .52** HI 1 .61** .20* .04 -.13 -.24** .09 -.01 .04 .02 .04 -.03 .10 .03 HI 5 .14 .25** -.04 -.25** .07 .01 .01 .05 .07 -.03 .06 .20* Ap1 .58** .32** .23** .12 .16* .43** .22** .04 .01 .07 .21** Ap5 .26** .27** .05 .06 .21** .35** .00 -.02 .07 .19* PV1 .48** .23** .12 .05 -.01 .20* .20* .01 .09 PV5 .22** .37** .05 .24** .03 .16* .03 .00 PI1 .51** .02 -.01 .06 -.01 .16* .20* PI5 .05 -.01 -.02 -.01 .13 .23** CE1 .49** .04 -.03 -.02 -.01 CE5 .01 .04 -.11 -.11 EF1 .56** .15 .02 EF5 .19* .06 NA1 .53** NA 5
Note. * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.
HI = Harsh & Inconsistent Discipline scale, Ap = Appropriate Discipline scale, PV = Positive Verbal scale, PI = Praise & Incentives scale,
CE = Clear Expectations, EC = Effortful Control, NA = Negative Affect 1 = wave 1, 5 = wave 5
Multiple Linear Regression Statistics for the Main Analysis (Outcome = Externalizing Problem Behavior) Model 3
t Sig. 95% CI ß B
Child sex -1.60 0.112 [-13.56 , 1.43] -0.12 -6.07
ECBI score W1 6.32 0.000 [0.50 , 0.96] 0.49 0.73
Appropriate discipline scale
W1 1.94 0.054
[-0.08 , 9.14] 0.16 4.53
Harsh and inconsistent discipline scale W1
-0.58 0.561 [-6.69 , 3.64] -0.04 -1.52 Positive verbal discipline
scale W1
-0.12 0.907 [-6.16 , 5.47] -0.01 -0.34 Praise and incentives W1 1.35 0.179 [-1.63 , 8.64] 0.09 3.51
Clear expectations W1 -0.95 0.346 [-7.90 , 2.79] -0.07 -2.56
Negative affect scale W1 0.68 0.499 [-2.89 , 5.90] 0.05 1.51
