Stressful Parenting and Disruptive Behavior in Toddlers
Master thesis Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences Graduate School of Child Development and Education University of Amsterdam
Name: M. M. Veltmaat Student number: 10876472 Thesis supervisor: Dr. P. Leijten Second evaluator: J. V. van Aar MSc. Amsterdam, February 2018
Abstract
Disruptive child behavior is the most persistent predictor of juvenile criminality, and this behavior is already seen in early childhood. Dysfunctional parenting practices can
augment disruptive child behavior. The aim of this study was to improve our understanding of how disruptive child behavior develops in different families, to ultimately guide the
strengthening of intervention programs to support children with disruptive behavior. This experimental study examined the extent to which children showed more disruptive child behavior after the parent and child experienced a stressful situation, and whether this effect was stronger in single-parent households and in families with parents who used fewer positive parenting techniques. It included 110 parent-child dyads, an experimental condition with a stressful situation, and a control task. Logistic regression analysis was used to test the effect of the manipulation on disruptive child behavior, as well as the moderating role of single-parent households and the use of fewer positive single-parenting techniques. The main findings of this study established that a stressful parenting situation did not increase disruptive child behavior. Furthermore, children did not become less compliant with parental requests. These findings were robust across single versus two-parent households, and across families who used fewer or more positive parenting techniques.
Keywords: Disruptive child behavior; stressful parenting situation; single-parent household, positive parenting techniques.
Stressful Parenting and Disruptive Behavior in Toddlers
In 2014, thirty-five percent of Dutch juveniles between the ages of 12 and 17 reported that they committed a crime (Weijters, Van der Laan & Kessels, 2016). Disruptive behavior in childhood is the most persistent predictor of juvenile criminality. It also contributes to an individual's cost to the government (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2001; Piquero, Farrington & Blumstein, 2003; Scott, Knapp, Henderson, & Maughan, 2001). This disruptive behavior in childhood includes destructive, aggressive and noncompliant behavior (Offord, Boyle & Racine, 1991). It is known that these disruptive child behaviors are already seen in early childhood. In toddlerhood, this includes walking away, changing a task, doing nothing, or struggling and resisting (Martin, 1981).
Dysfunctional parenting practices can augment disruptive child behavior (Patterson, 1982). Therefore, an important strategy to reduce juvenile criminality and its accompanying costs, is to implement parenting programs that prevent the development or maintenance of disruptive child behavior (Scott et al., 2001). However, what we do not know about these parenting programs is which family or child characteristics influence the efficacy of specific parenting intervention elements (Leijten et al., 2015). Subsequently, to implement parenting programs that prevent the development or maintenance of disruptive child behavior, it is first important to know which family or child characteristics influence the efficacy of specific parenting intervention elements. This study will investigate the extent to which a stressful parenting situation elicits disruptive behavior in children, and in which families these effects are strongest. The results of this study will help understand which family characteristics influence the efficacy of specific parenting intervention elements and assist developing evidence-based intervention programs that can prevent the development or maintenance of disruptive child behavior.
Coercive parent-child interactions take place in almost every parent-child relationship (Stroolmiller, 2016). However, if coercive interactions become more frequent and intense, it can cause and reinforce disruptive child behavior (McFadyen-Ketchum, Bates, Dodge & Pettit, 1996; Shaw & Bell, 1993; Smith et al., 2014; Stroolmiller, 2016). A step-by-step example of the coercive parent-child cycle in a daily life situation is as follows. First, when a parent requests a child to clear up its toys, the child may refuse by declining or ignoring the request. Second, the parent may get irritated and try a different, less pleasant method of requesting to clear up the toys such as yelling at the child. In reaction to this behavior, the child may refuse the request again and throw a tantrum. Third, the parent's frustration may escalate with more yelling or anger. Last, the parent either gives up, thereby reinforcing the child's disobedience; or alternatively, the parent becomes so angry or violent that ultimately, the child gives in to the parent’s request. In both cases, the disruptive behavior of the child and the negative behavior of the parent will be reinforced (Patterson, 1982). Because of this reinforcement, the coercive parent-child cycle will continue and likely become a pattern (Patterson, 1982).
Parental stress
Coercive parent-child interaction patterns can mainly arise in situations where parents and children are under stress. Feelings of stress can arise from extra-familial factors such as unemployment, low socioeconomic status, work-family conflicts, and interpersonal stress factors such as marital distress and divorce (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz & Simons, 1994; Hart & Kelley, 2006; Pesonen et al., 2008; Webster-Stratton, 1990). In addition to these major stressors, subtle daily stressors such as combining different tasks (for instance combining housework and taking care of children), can also evoke coercive parent-child interactions. Parents who experience these major or daily life stressors, are more likely to report more stress and describe their child's behavior as more disruptive (Hart & Kelley, 2006). For
example, if parents are more stressed, this may compromise their time and patience with regard to parenting, and they might experience their child’s behavior as more negative. These parents may also become irritated towards their child more quickly than parents who do not experience these stress factors. It is also more likely that these parents will give up in stressful situations with their child sooner. The consequence of this behavior, from parents who
experience these stress factors, is the negative reinforcement of both the child’s disruptive behavior and the parents’ negative behavior (Conger et al., 1994; Hart & Kelley, 2006; Webster-Stratton, 1990). Therefore, stressful parenting situations can evoke coercive parent-child interaction patterns. It is important to note that not all the families may be affected equally by stress or stress-related factors. Several family characteristics may help explain why, in stressful situations, some families are more likely to show coercive behavior than other families.
Single-parents
One group of parents who are likely to experience more parental stress and
subsequently develop coercive parent-child interaction patterns, are single-parents, compared to parents of a two-parent household (Hope, Power & Rodgers, 1999; Mullins et al., 2011). Being a single-parent requires being not only responsible for parenting but also for
breadwinning. The main explanation for the increased stress that single-parents experience, compared to parents of a two-parent household, seems to be financial hardship (Hope, Power & Rodgers, 1999; Lipman, Macmillan & Boyle, 2001; Mullins et al., 2011). In addition to strained financial factors, single-parents seem to experience more stress since they sometimes have less contact with friends in social settings and, therefore, receive less emotional, and subsequently, parental support (Carney, Boyle, Offord & Racine, 2003; Hope, Power & Rodgers, 1999; Weinraub & Wolf, 1983). Besides these extra stress factors already
situation, they may react more negatively towards their child than parents of a two-parent household. This negative behavior of the parent might have an influence on the development of coercive parent-child interaction patterns and might, therefore, increase disruptive child behavior.
Positive parenting
Demonstrating limited positive parenting techniques could be a second risk factor that makes families more vulnerable to stressful parenting situations (Dadds, 1995; Patterson & Reid, 1984; Wymbs, 2011). An example of a positive parenting technique is when parents calmly explain to their child why their behavior was wrong when they misbehave (Clerkin, Halperin, Marks & Policaro, 2007). The lack of positive parenting techniques seems to explain the causal effect of disruptive child behavior and the negative communication from the parent (Wymbs, 2011). Negative communication from the parent could be the start of coercive parent-child interaction patterns. This is because a negative style of a parent’s request from their child can provoke greater negative child behavior (Patterson, 1982;
Wymbs, 2011). There is evidence suggesting that changing negative parenting techniques into positive parenting techniques can break the coercive parent-child pattern and, therefore, reduce disruptive child behavior (Denham et al., 2000; Gardner, Shaw, Dishion, Burton, & Supplee, 2007; Shaw, Bell & Gilliom, 2000). It seems likely that parents with limited positive parenting techniques become more vulnerable when they are exposed to a new stressful parenting situation. This may put them at risk of developing coercive parent-child interaction patterns and, therefore, increase disruptive child behavior.
The present study
The present study will investigate whether children show more disruptive child behavior after the parent and the child have experienced a stressful situation. It will also investigate whether the effect of a stressful situation on disruptive child behavior is
particularly strong in single-parent households as well as in families where parents use less positive parenting techniques in daily life. The results of this research can help improve our understanding of the development of disruptive child behavior in different families, and can guide the improvement of prevention programs in order to ultimately reduce juvenile
criminality. Three hypotheses are formulated: First, children will show more disruptive child behavior after the parent and the child have experienced a stressful situation. Second, the effect of a stressful parenting situation on children's disruptive behavior is stronger for single-parent households than for two-single-parent households. Third, the effect of a stressful single-parenting situation on children's disruptive behavior is stronger for parents who tend to adopt less positive parenting techniques, than for parents who tend to adopt more positive parenting techniques.
Method Participants
Participants were 110 parent-child dyads. Children were 24 to 36 months old at the time of the lab visit (M = 30.89, SD = 3.90); 53.6% were boys. The majority of the parents were mothers (84.5%); the youngest parent was 25 years old and the oldest was 51 years old (M = 36.16, SD = 4.21). The education level of the largest group of parents was a higher scientific education (68.2%), followed by a higher professional education (25.2%).
Participants in this sample were mainly Dutch (82.2%). Of all the parents, 93.6% were part of a two-parent household and 6.4% were part of a single-parent household.
Procedure
The parent-child dyads were recruited through an established university database at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Over the last few years, this database has been continually populated with data of new parents in Amsterdam. All parents with a newborn were invited via letters from the municipality of Amsterdam, to participate with their child in scientific
research. Upon the parents’ consent, they were added to the database. The recruitment of parent-child dyads in this study took part in two steps. First, parents who had a two-year-old child (N = 376) received an e-mail invitation and were asked to complete the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI) in order to assess children’s disruptive behavioral problems in their home situation. Participating parents had the chance to win tickets to an amusement park. One hundred and twenty parent-child dyads with the highest scores (a score above 90) were selected to participate, ensuring that children of this study would show disruptive behavior in the experimental condition. Second, of these 120 families, 110 ended up
participating in the experiment. Parents who dropped out either did not want to, or could no longer participate. Roughly a week prior to the lab visit, an e-mail was sent to the parents. This e-mail contained the appointment confirmation and a second questionnaire regarding their thoughts and feelings as a parent, with a request for the parent who was to accompany the child to the lab, requiring completion of the questionnaire prior to the lab visit.
The current study is an experimental study. In order to study whether children will show more disruptive child behavior after the parent and the child have experienced a stressful situation, the parent-child dyads were randomly assigned to the control or experimental condition. In regard to the experimental condition, a stressful situation was created, during the lab visit, by manipulating the second step of the experiment; the
Frustration Task. Parents of the experimental condition had to put away toys with which the child was playing at that moment, and complete a questionnaire. At this point, the child received no or less attention from their parent, and had no distractions form their toys. The expectation was that this situation would provoke disruptive child behavior. In contrast, parents assigned to the control condition continued with the free parent-child play.
To ensure standardized procedures, the experiment followed a strict protocol. Prior to the experiment, parents received information about the experiment and signed informed
consent documents. The experiment itself consisted of four steps, each having a duration of five minutes at most. Parents of both conditions received an explanation of the task before the experiment started. The first step of the experiment was the ‘Warming-up’ step. This was a free parent-child play situation in the experiment room with toys available in the room for both conditions, in order to ensure that the parent and the child felt comfortable in the experimental room before the manipulation started. As briefly mentioned above, the second step was the ‘Frustration Task’, where parents of the experimental condition needed to put away the toys and complete a self-made questionnaire. In contrast, parents of the control condition continued the free parent-child play. The third step was the ‘Compliance Task’, where parents of both conditions needed to request their child to clear up a new set of toys. This was to measure whether or not children showed more disruptive behavior after a stressful parenting situation. The fourth and final step was ‘Recovery’, which was intended to be a pleasant parent-child play session with another set of toys. This step was to ensure that the parent and child could recover from the experiment before leaving the lab room.
Lastly, the experiment leader debriefed the parent about the actual purpose of the study. Parents who participated in the lab received a small reimbursement of €10, with their children also receiving a small gift. The current study received permission on January 24th, 2017 from the ethical committee of the Child Development and Education department of the University of Amsterdam (Code: 2016-CDE-7533).
Measures
Disruptive child behavior (outcome measure). After the request from the parent to the child during the clear up task, three students coded whether the child immediately complied with the request within five seconds, as defined by starting to put the toys in the box
(dichotomous variable). If the child did not comply within five seconds, this would constitute disruptive behavior. This is a widely used measure (Martin, 1981; Keenan, Shaw & Aubele,
1993; Shaw et al., 1998). The mean inter-rater reliability between the three students was good; κ = .82.
Single-parent/Two-parent household. Parents completed a questionnaire prior to the lab visit (dichotomous variable). Parents had the following options ''my partner and I live together'', ''my partner and I live apart from each other'', ''I am single'', and ''otherwise, specify". The options ''my partner and I live apart from each other'' and ''I am single'' were labeled as constituting a single-parent household.
Positive parenting. Prior to the lab visit, parents completed the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire – Preschool Revision (APQ-PR) (Clerkin et al., 2007). The APQ-PR consists of all but ten items of the original Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Shelton, Frick & Wootton, 1996). The ten items that were removed were done so because these were age-inappropriate for toddlers (Clerkin et al., 2007). The Positive Parenting subscale consists of positive parenting techniques and involvement. This subscale includes twelve items rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always); example items are: ''You hug or kiss your child when he/she has done something well'', ''You play games or do other fun things with your child'' and ''You praise your child if he/she behaves well.'' Different studies showed a good internal consistency and temporal stability of the subscales of the APQ-PR, with α = .82 for the positive parenting scale (Clerkin et al., 2007; Osa, Granero, Penelo, Domènech & Lourdees, 2014). Internal consistency of the positive parenting scale of the APQ-PR in the current study is α = .75.
Manipulation check. To ensure that disruptive behavior was triggered by the stressful parenting situation for the experimental condition, a manipulation check was done. During the five minutes of the Frustration Task, two students blind coded, in ten-second intervals,
whether the child showed or did not show disruptive behavior (dichotomous variable). The following behaviors were considered disruptive behavior: being aggressive (physically and/or
verbally), crying, nagging, complaining, repeated negative verbal expressions, being destructive, or trying to leave the room. The sum of the ten-second intervals, (totaling 30 intervals in five minutes) was used to measure disruptive child behavior. The mean inter-rater reliability between the two students was good; κ = .99.
Analyses
Preliminary Analyses
First, independent t-tests and Chi-square tests were used to test whether the
experimental condition and the control condition differed on demographic characteristics. Independent t-tests were used for the variables of the age of the child and age of the parent (continuous variables). Chi-square tests were used for the variables of the gender of the child as well as the gender, living situation, education level and birthplace of the parents
(dichotomous variables). The education level of the parent was an ordinal variable. However, to use a Chi-square test, the education level was converted to a dichotomous variable with values of either ''Higher professional education'' or ''No higher professional education,'' since this was the largest group in the sample. Second, to examine whether the frustration
manipulation elicited more disruptive child behavior in the experimental condition than the control condition, an independent t-test was conducted. Third, to investigate whether there was a correlation between putative moderators (i.e., positive parenting and single versus two-parent households), a Person product-moment correlation coefficient was conducted. Finally, the positive parenting scale of the APQ-PR was analyzed on outliers.
Primary Analyses
To answer the research questions of this study, a logistic regression analysis was used. Disruptive child behavior was the dichotomous dependent variable. The manipulated stressful parenting situation was a dichotomous independent variable. Single versus two
moderators. The research questions were analyzed separately because it was not expected that the two putative moderators (i.e. single versus two-parent households and positive parenting) would correlate.
The main effect of the manipulated stressful parenting situation on disruptive child behavior, and the interaction effect between conditions (stressful and non-stressful parenting situations) and the two putative moderators (i.e. positive parenting and single versus two-parent households) were tested with an Enter procedure at a significance level of α = .05. The first step was to determine whether the model, including the predictor/predictors, was a significantly better predictor than the intercept-only model. The second step was to determine whether the predictor/predictors’ variables significantly contributed to the prediction of disruptive child behavior. In the third and final step, the interaction effect was tested to determine whether this also significantly contributed to the prediction of disruptive behavior.
Results Preliminary Analyses
First, the experimental and control condition did not differ on children’s age (p = .361), parents’ age (p = .361), children's gender (p = .692), parents’ gender (p = .383), living situation (p = .733), parents’ education level (p = .947) and parents’ country of birth (p = .190). In other words, randomization led to equal groups.
Second, the frustration manipulation in the experimental condition significantly elicited disruptive child behavior (t (97) = 5.99, p =.00). During the second task, children in the experimental condition showed more disruptive child behavior than children in the control condition. Therefore, we can assume that the second task was more stressful for parents and children in the experimental condition than for parents and children in the control condition. Third, the correlation between single versus two-parent household and positive parenting was not significant (r = .004, n = 102, p = .966). In other words, there is no
interaction between the two putative moderators’ positive parenting and single versus two-parent households. As a result, these putative moderators did not need to be analyzed together in a logistic regression analysis.
Last, one outlier with a standard deviation greater than three was found. This outlier was removed from the dataset based on the Empirical Rule, which states that 99.7% will be within three standard deviations of the mean. This outlier was removed for the reason that a case may be strongly predicted in this model to be in a certain category, however in reality, this case should be classified in another category.
Primary Analyses
Stressful Parenting Situation on Disruptive Child Behavior
None of the assumptions for logistic regression analysis of the first hypothesis, ''children will show more disruptive child behavior after the parent and the child have experienced a stressful situation'' were violated. The model, including the stressful parenting situation used as a predictor, was not a significantly better predictor than the intercept-only model; as a result X2(1) = 1.324, p = .25. Nagelkerke's R2 was .017. This suggests that the
model explains 1.7% of the total variance of disruptive child behavior.
Furthermore, the stressful parenting situation did not lead to more disruptive child behavior during the clean-up task, OR = 0.635, 95% CI = [0.293, 1.379], p = .251 (Table 1). The value of the odds ratio is 0.635, indicating that children in the control condition were 0.635 times as likely to comply as children in the experimental condition. As such, the null hypothesis, ''children will not show more disruptive child behavior after the parent and the child have experienced a stressful situation'' was not rejected. This result indicates that children did not show more disruptive behavior after the parent and the child experienced a stressful situation.
Logistic Regression: Stressful Parenting Situation on Disruptive Child Behavior
B SE Sig. OR CI 95%
Condition -.454 .396 .251 .635 [0.29, 1.38]
Constant -.077 .278 .782 .926
Note. N = 106. B = logits. SE = standard error. OR = odds ratio. CI = confidence interval. Single-parents and Stressful Parenting Situation on Disruptive Child Behavior
None of the assumptions for logistic regression analysis of the second hypothesis, ''the effect of a stressful parenting situation on children's disruptive behavior is stronger for single-parents than for single-parents in a two-parent household'' were violated. However, it is important to note that the single-parent household and two-parent household groupings were not equal in size. The total sample for analyzing this hypothesis was 106 parent-child dyads, with only seven of them belonging to a single-parent household; this may affect the analysis. The model, including the stressful parenting situation and single-parent households used as predictors, was not a significantly better predictor than the intercept-only model, X2(3) =
2.476, p = .48. Comparing the model, which included both stressful parenting situation and single-parenting as predictors, with the model that included only stressful parenting situations, there is an improvement of 1%. This result shows that including single-parents as a predictor explains 1% of the variance. Also, the Nagelkerke's R2 value of .031 suggested that the model explains 3.1% of the total variance of disruptive child behavior.
The effect of single-parent households also did not significantly contribute to the prediction of disruptive child behavior, OR = 1.087, 95% CI = [0.141, 8.360], p = .936 (Table 2). The value of the odds ratio was 1.087, indicating that the likelihood of the child showing disruptive behavior is 0.087 times higher for a single-parent household than for a two-parent household. The interaction effect was not significant; indicating that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on disruptive child behavior does not depend on a single-parent household
or two-parent household, OR = 3.373, 95% CI = [0.137, 82.939], p = .457 (Table 2). The wide confidence interval of the estimated odds ratio is the result of the small sample size of single-parent households. As such, the null hypothesis ''the effect of a stressful single-parenting situation on children's disruptive behavior is not stronger for single-parents than for parents in a two-parent household'' could not be rejected. This result indicates that children who live in a single-parent household did not show more disruptive behavior after the parent and child experienced a stressful situation, compared to children of two-parent households.
Table 2
Logistic Regression: Single-parents and Stressful Parenting Situation on Disruptive Child Behavior B SE Sig. OR CI 95% Condition -.523 .412 .204 .593 [0.27 - 1.33] Household .083 1.041 .936 1.087 [0.14 - 8.36] Condition*Household 1.216 1.634 .457 3.373 [0.14 - 82.94] Constant -.083 .289 .773 .920
Note. N = 106. B = logits. SE = standard error. OR = odds ratio. CI = confidence interval. Positive Parenting and Stressful Parenting Situation on Disruptive Child Behavior
None of the assumptions for logistic regression analysis of the third hypothesis, ''the effect of a stressful parenting situation on children's disruptive behavior is stronger for parents who use fewer positive parenting techniques at home, than for parents who use more positive parenting techniques at home'' were violated. The model, including the stressful parenting situation as well as positive parenting used as predictors, was not a significantly better
predictor than the intercept-only model X2(3) = 1.634, p = .652. Comparing the model which
included the stressful parenting situation and positive parenting used as predictors, with the model that only included stressful parenting situation, showed no improvement. Therefore, including single-parents as a predictor into the model adds no incremental value to explaining the variance. Also, the Nagelkerke's R2 value was .023, suggesting that the model explains
2.3% of the variance in predicting disruptive behavior.
The effect of positive parenting did not significantly contribute to the prediction of disruptive child behavior, OR = 1.016, 95% CI = [0.907, 1.137], p = .790 (Table 3). The value of the odds ratio was 1.016, indicating the likelihood of a child showing disruptive behavior is 0.016 times higher for parents who use fewer positive parenting techniques at home, than for parents who use more positive parenting techniques at home. The interaction effect was not significant, indicating that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on disruptive child behavior does not depend on the positive parenting techniques used at home, OR = 0.994, 95% CI = [0.839, 1.177], p = .942 (Table 3). The null hypothesis, ''the effect of a stressful parenting situation on children's disruptive behavior is not stronger for parents who tend to adopt less positive parenting techniques, than for parents who tend to adopt more positive parenting techniques,'' was not rejected. This result indicates that children of parents who use fewer positive parenting techniques did not show more disruptive behavior after the parent and child had experienced a stressful situation, when compared to parents who use more positive parenting techniques at home.
Table 3
Logistic Regression: Positive Parenting and Stressful Parenting Situation on Disruptive Child Behavior
B SE Sig. OR 95% C.I
4333.79] Positive Parenting .015 .058 .790 1.016 [0.91 - 1.14] Condition*Positive parenting -.006 .086 .942 0.994 [0.84 - 1.78] Constant -1.384 2.611 .596 .251
Note. N = 95. B = logits. SE = standard error. O.R. = odds ratio. CI = confidence interval. Discussion
This experimental study examined the extent to which children showed more disruptive child behavior after the parent and child experienced a stressful situation, and whether this effect is stronger in single-parent households as well as in families with parents who use fewer positive parenting techniques. The aim of the study was to help improve our understanding of how disruptive child behavior develops in different families, and to guide the strengthening of intervention programs to support children with disruptive behavior and ultimately reduce juvenile criminality. The main findings of this study established that a stressful parenting situation did not increase disruptive child behavior in the sense that children became less compliant with parental requests. This finding was robust across single versus two-parent households, as well as families who used fewer or more positive parenting techniques.
In contrast to the hypothesis that children would show more disruptive behavior after the parent and child experienced a stressful situation, child compliance in a subsequent task was not affected by experiencing a stressful situation. This finding was surprising, particularly because the study manipulation was successful in eliciting disruptive child behavior and stressful feelings in the parent. A possible explanation for failing to find support for this hypothesis could be that this study included both boys and girls. The theory of coercive
to the supporting research predominantly working with boys (Paterson, 1982; Patterson et al, 1992). In the current study however, approximately half of the participants were girls (and 53.6% were boys). Thus, as mentioned above, this may be a possible explanation for failing to find support for this hypothesis.
It was also expected that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on children's disruptive behavior would be stronger for single-parent households than for two-parent households. Results showed that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on disruptive child behavior did not depend on having a single-parent household. An explanation for failing to find support for this hypothesis, and perhaps the most obvious explanation, is the sample size of the single-parent household. The sample size for this hypothesis was 106 parent-child dyads and only seven of them were a single-parent household. For experimental research, the rule is to achieve a statistical power of at least 0.8 (Cohen, 1988), meaning there would be at least an 80% chance of detecting a significant result. Statistical power is influenced by several factors, including sample size (Brace, Kemp & Snelgar, 2016). The statistical power of this hypothesis, with the sample size of seven single-parent households, is lower than 0.2, meaning there was a lower than 20% chance of detecting a significant result. Having low statistical power is likely the most obvious explanation for failing to find support for this hypothesis.
Lastly, it was hypothesized that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on child disruptive behavior would be stronger for parents who use fewer positive parenting
techniques, than for parents who tend to adopt more positive parenting techniques. Results showed that the effect of a stressful parenting situation on disruptive child behavior did not depend on parents’ level of positive parenting techniques. A possible explanation for failing to find support for this hypothesis could be measurement related. Positive parenting was measured by using the positive parenting subscale of the APQ-PR. As mentioned earlier, this
is a questionnaire that parents completed prior to the lab visit. It is possible that the given answers were biased towards parents wanting to give a good impression prior to their visit, also referred to as 'social desirability bias'. A participant's admission of being involved in activities that violate the social norm could either cause personal embarrassment or social sanctions. These potential consequences often result in participants choosing to misreport sensitive topics (Krumpal, 2013). Socially desirable responses are provided when participants require social approval, have concerns over self-representation, or have strategies for positive impression management (Krumpal, 2013). These factors are likely to have also influenced the results of the study. It is possible therefore, that parents would be portrayed in this study as using positive parenting techniques from the questionnaire when they actually used less positive parenting techniques at home.
Some limitations should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. First, the sample size of a single-parent household was extremely small (n = 7) in order to generate significant and generalizable results. Besides the sample size, there were some limitations concerning the experiment itself. The 110 parent-child dyads completed the four different tasks in a lab environment. The room provided poor stimulation and was filled with cameras. This allowed for a controlled environment, but does not reflect a real-life parenting situation. For example, after the successful manipulation, parents request their child to clear up the toys. If the child refused by rejecting or ignoring the request, the parent may get irritated and try a different method of requesting. However, in a lab environment it is more likely that the parent tries an unusually subtle way of requesting the child to comply. The parents know they are being observed and are self-conscious of their behavior. This translates to parents exhibiting more patience than usual towards the child. This could be in stark contrast to parents’ behavior in their natural home environment where they may use less pleasant methods of requesting, such as yelling at their child. All in all, it is more likely that
parents in a natural home environment will exhibit a more coercive parent-child interaction pattern than parents in a lab environment. As a consequence, children in this study showed less disruptive behavior in the lab environment than in their home environment.
Lastly, there were some limitations concerning the measurement of disruptive child behavior. Whether or not the child demonstrated immediate compliance was coded after the request of the parent to clear up the toys. There were situations where the child started clearing up the toys immediately, but was stopped part-way upon showing disruptive or aggressive behavior (physically and/or verbally) such as crying, nagging, complaining, repeated negative verbal expressions, being destructive, or trying to leave the room. For example, there were children who complied to clear up but were throwing toys aggressively into the box, or were nagging and complaining about the fact that they needed to clear up the toys. The children in this study were dichotomously coded as showing either immediate compliance or not. However, when the behavior of the child was observed, some children who showed immediate compliance did show disruptive behavior later. Thus, coding
immediate compliance instead of observing disruptive child behavior may have influenced the results.
A strength of this study was the manipulation that successfully elicited disruptive behavior in the child and stressful feelings in the parent. In addition, the lab setting ensured standardization of the research setting; all parent-child dyads were exposed to the same circumstances and received the same information using a strict protocol. Another strength of this study was that children felt comfortable before starting the experiment. This was realized by allowing children whatever time they needed in the waiting area. As a result, we feel confident that children behaved to a large extent, the way they would usually.
A suggestion for future research is to examine the coercive parent-child interaction pattern as a mediator, once the manipulated stressful parenting situation is shown to elicit
disruptive child behavior. This research assumed that the stressful situation for the parent and child would initiate a coercive parent-child interaction pattern that in turn elicits disruptive child behavior, although results did not confirm this. In future research, observing and coding the interaction pattern of the parent and child after the stressful situation, will help uncover whether there is a coercive parent-child interaction pattern, and whether coercive parent-child interaction patterns provoke disruptive child behavior. It can also be used to examine whether the theory of coercive parent-child interaction patterns is indeed held more strongly for boys than for girls. In addition, it is also important to examine which families and child
characteristics are more likely to show coercive parent-child interaction patterns. This is needed to help understand which families and child characteristics influence the efficacy of specific parenting intervention elements.
In conclusion, a stressful parenting situation was shown to not increase disruptive child behaviour. This finding was robust across single versus two-parent households, and across families who used fewer or more positive parenting techniques. Despite these
conclusions, this study provides a valuable contribution to the search and discovery of which family characteristics influence the efficacy of specific parenting intervention elements.
References
Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2016). SPSS for psychologists (and everybody else) (6th edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carney, J., Boyle, M., Offord, D. R., & Racine, Y. (2003). Stress, social support and depression in single and married mothers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 442-449. doi: 10.1007/s00127-003-0661-0
Clerkin, S. M., Halperin, J. M., Marks, D. J., & Policaro, K. L. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire-Preschool Revision. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 19-28. doi:
10.1080/15374410709336565
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural science (2nd edn). New York: Academic Press.
Conger, R. D., Ge, Xiaojia, G., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994).
Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541-561. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00768.x
Dadds, M. R. (1995). Families, children, and the development of dysfunction [Adobe Digital Editions version]. doi: 10.4135/9781483345260.
Denham, S. A., Workman, E., Cole, P. M., Weissbrod, C., Kendziora, K. T., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2000). Prediction of externalizing behavior problems from early to middle
childhood: The role of parental socialization and emotion expression. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 23-45. doi: 10.1017/s0954579400001024
Gardner, F., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Burton, J., & Supplee, L. (2007). Randomized
prevention trial for early conduct problems: Effects on proactive parenting and links to toddler disruptive behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 398-406. doi:
Hart, M. S., & Kelley, M. L. (2006). Fathers' and mothers' work and family issues as related to internalizing and externalizing behavior of children attending day care. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 252−270. doi: 10.1177/0192513X05280992
Hope, S., Power, C., & Rodgers, B. (1999). Does financial hardship account for elevated psychological distress in lone mothers? Social Science & Medicine, 49, 1637-1649. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00251-8
Keenan, K., Shaw, D. S., & Aubele, M. (1993). The stability and correlates of aggression and noncompliance in toddlers: A study of low income families. Presented at the
convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario.
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025-2047. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9 Leijten, P., Dishion, T. H., Thomaes, S., Raaijmakers, M. A. J., Orobio de Castro, B., &
Walter, M. (2015). Brining parenting interventions back to the future: How randomized microtrials may benefit parenting intervention efficacy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 22, 47-57. doi: 10.1111/cpsp.12087
Lipman, E. L., Macmillan, H. L., & Boyle, M. H. (2001). Childhood abuse and psychiatric disorders among single and married mothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 73-77. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.1.73
Martin, J. (1981). A longitudinal study of the consequences of early mother-infant interaction: A microanalytic approach. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 46, 1-58. doi: 10.2307/1166014
McCord, J., Widom, C. S., & Crowell, N. E. (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Patterns of change in early childhood aggressive-disruptive behavior: Gender difference in
predictions from early coercive and affectionate mother-child interactions. Child development, 67, 2417-2433. doi: 10.2307/1131631
Mullins, L, L., Wolfe-Christensen, C., Chaney, J. M., Elkin, T. D., Wiener, L., Hullman, S. E., Fedele, D. A., & Junghans, A. (2011). The relationship between single-parent status and parenting capacities in mothers of youth with chronic health conditions: The mediating role of income. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36, 249-257. doi:
10.1093/jpepsy/jsq080
Offord, D. R., Boyle, M. C., & Racine, Y. A. (1991). The epidemiology of antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 31–54). Retrieved from
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=A5WTBtYsgR8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA31& dq=Offord,+D.+R.,+Boyle,+M.+C.,+%26+Racine,+Y.+A.+(1991).+The+epidemiolog y+of+antisocial+behavior+%09in+childhood+and+adolescence.+&ots=xu1IdaEPB0& sig=XvIHeGPOJm7JGXhF8gidENzVzs4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Osa, N., Granero, R., Penelo, E., Domènech, J., Ezpeleta, L. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting Quistionnaire-Preschool Revision (APQ-PR) in 2 year-old Spanish preschoolers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 776-784. doi:
10.1007/s10826-013-9730-5
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia
Patterson, G. R., & Reid, J. B. (1984). Social interactional processes within the family: The study of the moment-by-moment family transactions in which human social
development is imbedded. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 237–262. doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(84)90021-2
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys: A social interactional approach (Vol. 4). Eugene, OR: Castalia
Pesonen, A. -K., Räikkönen, K., Heinonen, K., Komsi, N., Järvenpää, A. -L., & Strandberg, T. (2008). A transactional model of temperamental development: Evidence of a relationship between child temperament and maternal stress over five years. Social Development, 17, 326-340. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00427.x
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). “The criminal career paradigm.” Crime and justice, 30, 359-506. doi: 10.1086/652234
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
Shaw, D., & Bell, R. (1993). Developmental theories of parental contributors to antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 493-518. doi
10.1007/BF00916316
Shaw, D., Bell, R., & Gilliom, M. (2000). A truly early-starter model of antisocial behavior revisited. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 155–172. doi:
10.1023/a:1009599208790
Shaw, D., Winslow, W., Owens, E., Vondra, J., Cohn, J., & Bell, R. (1998). The development of early externalizing problems among children from low-income families: A
transformational perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 95-107. doi: 10.1023/A:1022665704584
Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317–329. doi: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2503_8
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/S0954579414000196
Stroolmiller, M. (2016). An introduction to using multivarate multilevel survival analysis to study coercive family process. The Oxford Handbook of Coercive Relationship Dynamics, 363-421. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324552.013.27
Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). Stress: A potential disruptor of parent perceptions and family interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 302-312. doi:
10.1207/s15374424jccp1904_2
Weijters, G., van der Laan, A. M., & Kessels. (2016). De overeenstemming tussen
zelfgerapporteerde jeugdcriminaliteit en bij de politie bekende jeugdige verdachten. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum, Ministerie van Veiligheid en justitie. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gijs_Weijters/publication/305033374_De_overee nstemming_tussen_zelfgerapporteerde_jeugdcriminaliteit_en_bij_de_politie_bekende _verdachten/links/577f802608ae01f736e46f47.pdf
Weinraub, M., & Wolf, B. M. (1983). Effects of stress and social support on mother–child interactions in single- and two-parent families. Child Development, 54, 1297–1311. doi: 10.2307/1129683
Wymbs, B. T. (2011). Mechanisms underlying the influence of disruptive child behavior on interparental communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 873-884. doi: 10.1037/a0025372
