 

 

ﬂiwrﬂ".

5..
WV.
.oMF
.

.214

J.» g
3.51..

"5w .
h

3:. -,
s...
g V

y:
if
Ii
u

43;,
it:
:33:

 

a
'x

. .v
m: w. ma
5%”?
1K1».

r...
.2;

 

4.". P
. z
"I...

wﬁﬂﬂ .
‘ .41 ETA!
. ..: 4 ..4.0.-. 115‘...
4.;
1.... :4

 

 

{ Au. . 09:..WMJE .
kahuna... . . . .

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE EVALUATION OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPED
SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR
FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN:
THE “READY, SET, GROW!” PASSPORT PROGRAM

presented by

Jessica Virginia Barnes

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Psycholgy

 

 

q/WSTEM

Major Professy’s Signature
la I la [2003

Date

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

N0;3’31132'2008'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DaIeDuepGS-ots

 

 

THE EVALUATION OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPED SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR
FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN:
THE “READY, SET, GROW!” PASSPORT PROGRAM
By

Jessica Virginia Barnes

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2003

ABSTRACT

THE EVALUATION OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPED SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR
FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN

Jessica Virginia Barnes

This project used parent and child interviews to obtain data concerning the use of
community based prevention family support program and the effects of program use.
The Objectives of the project are to identify the effects Of program use and to explore the
construct of child emotional or affective competence. The effects of Passport use on
parent conﬁdence, parent knowledge of child development, parenting activities, and child
social competences were explored. The purpose Of this information is to make
recommendations to the program as to how they can better service their members and to
inform others as to how intervention programs such as Passport impact the lives of
children and families. In the examination of child affective competence, four different
models of the cognitive and affective components of social competence and social
information processing were tested. Results using SEM provide empirical evidence for
the construct of affective/emotional competence. Additionally, evidence was found for a
relationship between program use and parent knowledge of child development. Both
parent knowledge Of child development and conﬁdence were related to parent behavior,

and parent behavior was related to child affective competence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. v
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 44
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 59
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 81
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 88
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 92
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 103

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Model of Emotional Competence with Differentiated Emotion Regulation ......... 17
2. Model of Emotional Competence with Combined Emotion Regulation .............. l9
3. Model of Social Information Processing.............. ................................................. 21
4. Model of Combined Caregiver and Child Constructs ........................................... 41
5. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Caregiver Constructs ........................................... 69

6. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Emotional Competence/Differentiated Emotion
Regulation .............................................................................................................. 74

7. Path Coefficients for Model of Emotional Competence/Combined Emotion

Regulation .............................................................................................................. 76
8. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Social Information Processing ............................ 78
9. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Combined Caregiver and Child Constructs ......... 80

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Reasons for Exclusion from Current Study ........................................................... 44
2. Sample Characteristics as Compared to Passport Enrollee Characteristics .......... 45
3. Reliability of the Knowledge of Child Development Survey ............................... 47
4. Reliability of the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale ...................................... 48
5. Reliability of the Parent Behavior Scale ............................................................... 49
6. Description of Inhibitory Control Tasks ............................................................... 55
7. Correlations among Parent Construct and Demographic Variables ...................... 60
8. Correlations among Child Construct and Demographic Variables ....................... 63
9. Path Estimates from Manifest to Latent Variables for Parent Constructs ............. 68

10. Path Estimates from Manifest to Latent Variables for Child Variables ................ 71

INTRODUCTION

This dissertation addresses two goals: the evaluation of a commmrity prevention
program, and the testing of different models of affective and cognitive components of
social competence.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a community-developed and community-driven
prevention program is a challenging task due to methodological limitations. For
example, as is the case for this evaluation, the experimental approach is not appropriate in
many circumstances. However, scientiﬁc rigor in designing an evaluation model and
determining the methods for that model are of utmost importance. This paper describes
the evaluation approach and model used in a community-based prevention program and
proposes a method for examining program results. First, the rationale for and a
description of the prevention program are presented. Second, the evaluation philosophy
and model used in describing this prevention program are described. Third, a method is
proposed to examine the prevention program’s effects on family and child social
development.

Program Rationale

The prevention program being examined provides support services for families
with young children in Genesee County, Michigan. Genesee County, the fourth largest in
Michigan, is located in the southeast portion of the state. The county contains a major
metropolitan area, the city of Flint, as well as many suburban and rural areas. Because

the county contains rural and metropolitan areas, the area is rich in diversity. According

to the 2000 US. Census Bureau data, Genesee County has a higher percentage of African
American residents in comparison with other Michigan counties. In Genesee County,
74.1% of the population are white (non-Hispanic), 20.4% are black or African American,
2.3% are of Hispanic or Latino origin, 2.2% are multi-racial, 0.8% are Asian, 0.8% are of
a race not speciﬁed, and 0.6% are of Native American origin. Census Bureau data also
point to a higher percentage of residents living in poverty: 13.1% of residents in Genesee
County report living below poverty level versus 10.5% reported in Michigan.

Along with the high poverty levels, challenges facing Genesee County, Michigan
families have been clearly identiﬁed. High rates of young parents with low educational
attainment, high teenage and single parent birth rates, and a lack of health insurance have
led to high rates of poor pregnancy outcomes, high rates of infant and child morbidity,
and high rates of child abuse and neglect.

The Genesee County “Ready, Set, Grow!” Passport Initiative is a community-
wide collaboration that was designed to build a broad-based system of support to connect
families with existing services and to teach families the importance of the ﬁrst ﬁve years
of life. The goal is to enhance the well being of children age 0-6 in the county. The
Passport Initiative provides two basic services to participating families: information about
child development, and linkages with services and programs. See Appendix A for further
program details.

Evaluation Philosophy and Model

Program evaluation involves the use of social research procedures to investigate

the effectiveness of social programs (Rossi & Freeman, 1993). Four questions must be

answered in determining effectiveness:

o Is the program reaching its target population?

0 How well is the program being implemented?

0 How much does the program cost?

0 What are program beneﬁts and do they outweigh the costs?

Answering these questions is a dynamic, multi-faceted process (Gabriel, 2000).
The evaluators work with community members to deﬁne the questions and to establish
evaluation plans. As those plans are carried out, new issues and questions are identiﬁed
and addressed. Program evaluators report to the community about program strengths and
weaknesses. The community then responds by making adjustments in program policy
and delivery. The community and evaluators must address the evaluation plans again so
that programmatic changes are reﬂected in the evaluation model. This process allows for
greater community empowerment (Bartunek, Foster-Fishman, & Keys, 1996) because the
community is able to use evaluation reports to strengthen service delivery and the impact
these services have on community members. This enhances the community’s sense of
ownership of the program (Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman, 1993). Rather than
being conducted solely to determine the effectiveness of a program, this dynamic
approach to evaluation is utilization-focused (Patton, 1997) in that the evaluation is
conducted in order to inform the community. Altemately, some evaluations are not
designed to utilize results in order to increase program effectiveness.
The evaluation of Passport has been organized around the examination Of three

types of outcomes: Process Outcomes, Community Outcomes, and Individual Outcomes.

Data are collected by Passport on Process Outcomes continuously and by Michigan State

University on Individual Outcomes and Community Outcomes during sub-studies of the
evaluation.
Process Outcomes

The evaluation of process outcomes attempts to answer the following question: Is
the program providing the services they said they would provide to the people they said
they would provide these services? With this knowledge, we can understand how and
why the program fails or succeeds at reaching goals (Harachi, Abbott, Catalano,
Haggerty, & Fleming, 1999). In determining the components of process evaluation, one
must identify the program plan. For the Passport Initiative, process outcomes are
evaluated by the collection and analysis of enrollment indicators, service indicators, and
community involvement indicators.

Assessment of enrollment indicators consists of examining Passport’s
effectiveness in engaging all eligible residents of Genesee County. Passport enrollments
and Genesee County data allow for comparisons to be made.

In the assessment of services indicators, core services must be identiﬁed, and
family use of these services must be tracked. The core services provided to families are:
education/information about child development and incentives for using this knowledge,
and linkages to community services.

Indicators of community involvement pertain to Passport’s ability to initiate and
maintain involvement of businesses and organizations in the effort to improve the quality
of life for families with young children. Data collected by Michigan State University in
sub-studies, committee membership proﬁles, and community funding proﬁles are used to

determine community involvement.

Community Outcomes
Community outcomes are evaluated by the collection and analysis of population
indicators of child health. Population data on child health are being collected by
Michigan State University from the Genesee County Health Department and Priority
Children in order to examine changes in child health trends over a 15-year period. Data
are being collected for ﬁve years prior to and ten years after the inception of the Passport
Program (1993-2008). Examples of the types of data collected include:
o The number of children receiving regular health care checks
0 The number of pregnant women receiving prenatal care
0 The number of children entering school with complete immunizations
- The number of children and pregnant women with health insurance
These data will be used to track changes in the health of children in Genesee
County. It is understood that any changes identiﬁed may not be due to the Passport
Program but to changes in the overall climate of the community. Because Passport is a
community-wide initiative, its potential to change the lives of children in the community
is directly related to the collaboration of the community partners. The collaboration
initiated by Passport among agencies and businesses to assist families may be related to
changes in the community.
It should be noted that change in community level statistics is not expected until
the Passport Initiative reaches a larger percentage of the population (Gabriel, 2000).

Currently, about two out of seven children in Genesee County are enrolled.

Individual Outcomes

The assessment of individual outcomes informs the program about its effect on
children and families enrolled in Passport. The evaluators chose the child and family
outcomes used in the current evaluation based on two sources of information. First, the
community has identiﬁed the long-term goal of promoting positive child development.
Second, the evaluators have identiﬁed aspects of parenting that the program is likely to
affect directly and indirectly.

Rationale of Study

The primary goal identiﬁed by the community for Passport is to increase positive
social development in children by providing parents with knowledge about child
development, incentives to participate in activities with their children that promote
positive social and cognitive development, and case advocacy to identify family needs
and provide connections with community agencies to meet those needs. Based on the
services Passport provides to families, it is expected that involvement in Passport will
increase parent conﬁdence, knowledge of child development, and positive parent
practices. Changes in the parents are expected to inﬂuence the children’s development,
the community-identiﬁed outcome. In this study, I will ﬁrst examine theoretical views of
child social competence. Second, I will examine how use of the Passport program relates
to parent factors, and how these parent factors relate to child social competence as
deﬁned in the ﬁrst part of the study.

Child Social Competence
One of the Passport program’s goals is to provide parents with the tools necessary

to increase parent knowledge of child development, perceived competence, and parent

involvement in order to provide children with a home environment that will promote
positive social development. Thus, this section will deﬁne social competence for this
study. A description of the components of social competence will be described, and
different theoretical views concerning the relationship among these components will be
explored.
Social Competence and Aﬂect

The assessment of social competence in this study will involve the measurement
of social and cognitive skills that are important for positive social interactions and the
behaviors associated with socially competent interactions. The skills of social problem
solving, emotion knowledge, and emotion regulation will be discussed.

Social Problem Solving

At the heart of social competence lies the ability to resolve social conﬂict.
However, deﬁning positive or eﬂective social problem solving can be difficult. The
effectiveness of a solution most likely differs for each individual within a conﬂict. Thus,
for this study prosocial solutions to social problems are deﬁned as those that ﬁrrther the
advancement of one’s own goals while also being sensitive toward the needs and goals of
the other, serving to maintain the health of social relationships (Rubin & Rose-Krasnor,
1992). In order to assess the ability to solve social dilemmas with prosocial solutions,
many researchers utilize hypothetical social problem solving tasks (Webster-Stratton &
Lindsay, 1999). These tasks involve presenting hypothetical social conﬂict and
requesting the participant to verbalize all potential solutions. These solutions are usually

then coded and then categorized based on their quality. Rating schemes often differ, but

the most common involves the categorization of solutions as either prosocial or
aggressive/non—effective.

Children’s ability to identify prosocial solutions has been found to be an
important predictor of social acceptance (Brochin & Wasik, 1992; Erwin, 1994), behavior
adjustment (Pettit, Dodge, & Brown, 1988; Rudolph & Heller, 1997; Youngstrom et al.,
2000), and overall ratings of social competence (Gouze, 1987; Harden et al., 2000; Olson
& Rosenblum, 1998; Rubin & Clark, 1983).

However, a few earlier studies have failed to ﬁnd signiﬁcant relationships
between social problem solving and aspects of social competence. In a study by Spence
(1987), 60 children who were three to ﬁve years of age were interviewed and assessed on
their social problem solving, emotion recognition, and perspective taking skills.
Additionally, peer ratings were obtained as an indicator of social acceptance. Rather than
identifying the quality of the solutions, the author of the study calculated the total number
of solution, regardless of solution quality. The results failed to identify a relationship
between the total number of solutions and social ratings. However, perspective taking
and emotion recognition were related to sociometric ratings (Spence, 1987).

Those studies that examined both quality and quantity of solutions have found
that it is the quality of the solution (regardless of differences in coding schemes) that
predicts social competence in children rather than the total number of solutions (Capage
& Watson, 2001; Gouze, 1987). Capage and Watson (2001) assessed the quality of
solutions, quantity of solutions, and understanding of false beliefs in 51 children between
the ages of 42 and 83 months of age. Using hierarchical regression analysis, the authors

found evidence that children’s quality of solutions and understanding of false beliefs

rather than total number of solutions predicted behavior problems (Capage & Watson,
2001). These ﬁndings are in line with Rubin and Rose-Krasonor’s (1992) review of
social competence development. They state that as children mature, their solutions
develop and progress in quality rather than quantity.
Emotion Regulation
“ . . . we deﬁne emotion-related regulation as the process of
initiating, avoiding, inhibiting, maintaining, or modulating the
occurrence, form, intensity, or duration of internal feeling states,
emotion-related physiological processes, emotion-related goals,
and/or behavioral concomitants of emotion, generally in the
service of accomplishing one’s goals.”
The above deﬁnition was proposed by Eisenberg and Sheffield-Morris (2002, p.
191). As noted by the authors, this is a broad deﬁnition. Part of the reason for the
broadness of this deﬁnition is because emotion regulation has been deﬁned in many
different ways. While some have deﬁned emotion regulation in terms of a behavior
regulator, others have deﬁned emotion as a regulated phenomenon (Southam-Gerow &
Kendall, 2002). In deﬁning emotion regulation as behavior regulation, emotion
regulation is viewed as the result of intentional or unintentional self-regulatory
techniques (Izard & Kobak, 1991).
Emotion regulation as a regulated phenomenon is based on the distinction
between control and regulation (Southarn-Gerow & Kendall, 2002). In contrast to

emotion as behavior regulation, emotion as a regulated phenomenon is deﬁned as the

process by which we “attenuate, amplify, inhibit, or dissociate” the experience of

emotion (Izard & Kobak, 1991, p. 305). Researchers such as Eisenberg and Sheffield-
Morris (2002) and others (Izard & Kobak, 1991; Southam-Gerow & Kendall, 2002) have
attempt to create a broad deﬁnition of emotion regulation that captures both of these
critical components.

For this research, literature concerning behaviors that provide evidence of either
behavior regulation or control will be examined. In the literature concerning behavioral
exhibition of emotion control and regulation, there appear to be two distinct constructs
measured: effortful control and emotion display control. Research concerning both
constructs is plentiful and informative.

Eﬂortﬁd Control. Studies concerning children’s effortful control have typically
assessed children by either parent/caregiver report or behavioral Observation. Although
these two types of assessments are very different, studies that have used both
parent/caregiver report and behavior observation to assess effortful control have found
signiﬁcant and positive relations between data from the two types of assessments.
Therefore, for this study, research utilizing both methods was examined.

Studies examining inhibitory control have provided evidence that children display
an increase in the ability to control their behavior as they mature (Denham et al., 2003;
Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000; Murphy, Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, & Guthrie,
1999). In an examination of inhibitory control in 275 participants who ranged in age
from 6 to 81, reaction times to a stop signal while running was found to become faster
with increasing age throughout childhood with no change in reaction noted during

adulthood (Williams, Ponesse, Schachar, Logan, & Tannock, 1999).

10

Additionally, differences in inhibitory control found in preschool aged children
have been found to be predictive of later social outcomes (Eisenberg, Guthrie et al., 2000;
Fabes et al., 1999; Rydell, Berlin, & Bohlin, 2003; Smith & Walden, 2001). A plethora
of research reports by Eisenberg and her colleagues have provided evidence for a strong
relationship between inhibitory control and social outcomes (Eisenberg, F abes, Guthrie,
& Reiser, 2000; Eisenberg, Gershoff et al., 2001; Eisenberg, Guthrie et al., 2000;
Eisenberg, Losoya et al., 2001; Eisenberg, Valiente et al., 2003; Eisenberg, Zhou et al.,
2003; F abes et al., 1999). In a longitudinal study that followed 146 children from
kindergarten to ﬁfth grade, inhibitory control measured by a persistence task, teacher, and
parent report were found to be predictive of external behavior problems as rated by
teachers (Eisenberg, Guthrie et al., 2000).

Emotion Display Control. Children’s ability to control their emotion displays
during evocative events has long been touted as an early manifestation of emotion
regulation (Ekman & Friesen, 1976). The knowledge of the culturally appropriate
emotion to be expressed given a particular situation and context, called emotion display
rules, and the use of these rules are often studied as a proxy to understand emotion
regulation (Southarn—Gerow & Kendall, 2002). By giving children a broken or
undesirable toy, researchers are able to monitor what behaviors children exhibit in the
presence of an adult, and sometimes when not in the presence of an adult. Clever
methodologies have also been developed to identify children’s knowledge of display
rules before children are able to articulate such rules. Many studies of emotion display

rules assess both knowledge and use.

11

Studies assessing children’s display rule use and knowledge from a
developmental perspective have identiﬁed signiﬁcant age differences. It has been found
that children begin using display rules before they are able to fully understand the
concept of real versus apparent emotions (Josephs, 1994), and their attempt to control
emotion display during a disappointing situation increases with age (Cole, 1986). These
increases in the ability to modulate emotion expression during a disappointing task and
understand emotion display rules have been found to relate to later behavior (Bohnert,
Crnic, & Lirn, 2003; Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994; Hubbard, 2001; McDowell,
O'Neil, & Parke, 2000).

However, these relationships generally differ based on the sex of the child, and
these differences vary across studies. Although most ﬁnd that girls are less likely than
boys to express negative emotions (Bohnert et al., 2003), the relationship between
negative and positive emotion expression have been found to differ based on the context.
In a study of 98 fourth-grade children, sociability ratings by peers and teachers were
found to be related to greater knowledge and use of display rules, and this effect was
stronger for girls than it was for boys (McDowell et al., 2000). Thus, girls’ who
exhibited greater knowledge and use of display rules were more likely to be accepted by
peers.

In contrast to these results are the results from a study that examined the behavior
of 79 four and ﬁve year Old children both in the experimenter’s presence and absence
(Cole et al., 1994). The children in this study were identiﬁed as belonging in one of three
groups (high risk, moderate risk, or low risk) based on parent and teacher report of

behavior problems. For the boys in this study, expression of negative emotion in the

12

presence of the experimenter after the presentation Of a disappointing gift was found to be
predictive of risk status. Boys who displayed more negative emotion in the
experimenter’s presence were signiﬁcantly more likely to be at high risk for behavior
problems versus those boys at low risk. Altemately, for the girls, expression of negative
emotion in the experimenter’s absence was predictive of group status. Girls who
displayed less negative emotion in the experimenter’s absence were signiﬁcantly more
likely to be at risk for internalizing problems. The authors suggest that although there are
different expectations of negative emotion expression for girls and boys; the high risk
preschool aged girls’ continued minimization of negative emotion even when the
experimenter left the room is evidence of over-regularization of negative emotion.

Emotion Detection

Children’s ability to detect facial expressions of emotion has been clearly
identiﬁed in the literature as an important aspect of children’s knowledge of emotions.
Children’s ability to identify emotion has been related to their social acceptance (Collins
& Nowicki, 2001; Leppanen & Hietanen, 2001; Mostow, Izard, Fine, & Trentacosta,
2002; Nowicki & Duke, 1992), behavior (Brown & Dunn, 1996; Nowicki & DiGirolamo,
1989; Schultz, Izard, Ackerman, & Youngstrom, 2001), and general social competence
(Collins & Nowicki, 2001; Nowicki & Mitchell, 1998; Philippot & Feldman, 1990),
although sex differences in how this ability relates to child behavior have been debated.

In a study of 61 preschool aged children’s ability to identify emotion in facial
expressions, emotion expression identiﬁcation and emotion situation were assessed via
cloth puppets with prototypical facial expressions of happy, sad, angry and aﬁaid drawn

onto the face of the puppets (Denham, McKinley, Couchoud, & Holt, 1990). Peer ratings

13

were gathered as an indicator of social acceptance at the initial assessment and again nine
months later. General social competence and behavior problems were rated by teachers.
The results reported by the authors indicate a signiﬁcant error bias in emotion expression
identiﬁcation for children who were rated negatively by peers (Denham et al., 1990).

Similar results have been identiﬁed by others. In a longitudinal study of social
functioning in 143 children, attention and behavioral control were assessed during
preschool (Schultz et al., 2001). When the children were in ﬁrst grade, emotion situation
knowledge was assessed via stories of emotion eliciting events, and emotion expression
knowledge was assessed via photographs. Additionally, the ﬁrst grade teachers reported
on child behavior problems. Using regression analysis, the authors found that, aﬁer
controlling for verbal ability, attention control, and behavior control, both emotion
situation knowledge and emotion expression knowledge were signiﬁcantly related to
behavior problems (Schultz et al., 2001). However, no sex differences were examined in
these two studies.

Studies that have examined sex differences and emotion expression identiﬁcation
have not reported consistent ﬁndings. While some have reported that the relations
between social competence and emotion identiﬁcation are only signiﬁcant for girls
(Lancelot & Nowicki, 1997; Leppanen & Hietanen, 2001), others have found that the
effect of emotion identiﬁcation is signiﬁcant for different indices Of social competence,
such as depression, for boys and not girls (Nowicki & Carton, 1997).

Moreover, some reports have indicated that rather than question the importance of
emotion identiﬁcation in social competence based on sex, research should identify how

these relations may differ for boys and girls. Nowicki and Mitchell (1998) conducted a

14

two part study of 47 children between the ages of three and ﬁve. Children’s emotion
expression identiﬁcation was assessed via 48 photographs of children and adults
expressing an emotion of happy, sad, mad, or scared; each photograph ranged in intensity
(low, medium, and high intensity). Children’s social competence was assessed from
observations of peer interactions and interactions with adults. For the girls of this study,
the ability to identify high intensity emotions was related to social competence. For the
boys, accuracy in identifying low-intensity emotion was predictive of their social
competence (Nowicki & Mitchell, 1998).

Emotion Production

Despite a thorough review of the literature, very few reports of research
concerning children’s ability to voluntarily and purposefully produce facial displays Of
emotion were found. And the research that has been found is rather dated. However, the
existing research reports that were found do provide some evidence of the importance of
the construct. In the earliest of the examined studies, the abilities to identify and produce
emotion in 24 children in preschool, second grade, and ﬁfth grade were assessed
(Hamilton, 1973). In spite of a small sample size, the authors report a signiﬁcant age
difference for the children’s ability for both emotion production and identiﬁcation.
Furthermore, children’s ability to produce emotions was related to their ability to identify
emotions (Hamilton, 1973). This research provided some of the ﬁrst evidence that
emotion production is related to children’s emotion knowledge. Later research found that
children’s ability to pose facial emotions develops from the age of three on (Lewis,

Sullivan, & Vasen, 1987).

15

Research has also found evidence for a consistent progression in the development
of the ability to produce different emotions (Shields & Padawer, 1983). Similar to the
ﬁnding from research on emotion identiﬁcation, Shields and Padawer (1983) found that
for their sample of 81 three to seven year old children, happy was the easiest emotion to
produce while scared was the most difﬁcult. More recent research has corroborated this
ﬁnding (Shortt, Bush, McCabe, Gottman, & Katz, 1994). In a two part study of 56 four
and ﬁve year old children, the emotions of sadness and fear were found to be the most
difﬁcult for the children to produce.

Theoretical Viewpoints — Linking the Constructs of Social Competence

How are these constructs of social competence related? Each Of the constructs is
social and cognitive in nature, and their relations among each other have not yet been
clearly deﬁned. There are two theoretical views concerning these relations that are
explored in this research: affective/emotional competence and social information
processing. These two theoretical views were chosen because each conceptualized the
relationships among at least three of the four elements of social competence discussed
above: emotion regulation, emotion production, emotion identiﬁcation, and social
problem solving.

Aﬂective Social Competence

There are a variety of conceptions Of what social competence is and how it should
be measured. Social affective competence has been identiﬁed as a separate construct
related to the effectiveness of dealing with the affective component of social relationships
(Halberstadt, Denharn, & Dunsmore, 2001). Social affective competence has been

deﬁned as the identiﬁcation, production, and regulation of emotions. Altemately, Izard et

16

a1. (2001) has deﬁned emotion knowledge as consisting of both the ability to identify and
understand emotions in others and the self, and the ability to understand the regulation of
and consequences of emotions. However, how these skills are related to the children’s
ability to problem solve is generally not addressed.

I propose that if this model were to accurately represent the social functioning of
children, children’s ability to identify, produce, and regulate emotions would all be a part
of a single construct: affective social competence. Moreover, the overarching construct
of affective social competence should be correlated with social problem solving. These

relationships are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Emotional Competence

 

Emotion

Identiﬁcation

 

Emotional

Competence Effortful

Control

 

   
     

Emotion
Display
Control

Social

Problem
Solving

 

17

Additionally, the construction of emotion regulation is of question. As deﬁned in
the literature review presented earlier, emotion regulation is often measured by assessing
two different types of behavioral indicators: emotion display control and inhibitory
control. There are two conceptions of how these constructs of emotion regulation are
related: differentiated emotion regulatory process versus combined emotion regulatory
processes.

The model Of affective social competence displayed in Figure 1 shows the
relationships of the differentiated emotion regulatory processes within the overarching
affective competence model. If emotion display control and inhibitory control are
differentiated processes, then these processes would not be related to each other via an
overarching construct Of emotion competence. Rather, they would simply relate directly
to the overarching construct of affective social competence. Figure 2 displays the
alternate conceptions: if emotion display control and inhibitory control are a part of a
single process of emotion regulation, then the overarching construct of emotion

regulation would be related to affective social competence.

18

      
      
 
    
 
   
 
   
   
   

Figure 2. Affective Social Competence with

differentiated emotion regulation Emotion

Display

  

Emotion
Identiﬁcation

Emotional
Competence

 

Regulation

Emotion
Display
Control

Social

Problem
Solving

 

Social Information Processing

Social information processing has been deﬁned in the literature and used as a
research framework for quite some time. This framework identiﬁes Speciﬁc social
information processing steps, and deﬁciencies in one or more of the social information
processing steps are signiﬁcantly related to the exhibition of aggressive behavior. These

steps include perception of stimuli, encoding of stimuli, acquisition of potential solutions,

19

evaluations of solutions, enactment of solutions, and outcome evaluation (Akhtar &
Bradley, 1991; Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986;
Mott & Krane, 1994).

Rather than identifying the emotional components of social behavior separately,
emotion identiﬁcation, production, and regulation are embedded within each of these
steps of social information processing. For example, the abilities to perceive and encode
stimuli are dependent on the ability to regulate, identify, and understand emotion.
Additionally, the ability to enact potential solution involves the regulation and production
of emotion. At each step in the process, emotion knowledge is utilized and emotion must
be modulated in order to obtain one’s desired goal in the situation in a prosocial manner.

Because of the integration of affective processing and cognitive appraisal of
conﬂict found in social information processing, it is expected that if this theoretical view
is correct, social problem solving and the emotion related constructs would all comprise a
single overarching construct of social information processing. The relationships among

the constructs within social information processing are depicted in Figure 3.

20

Figure 3. Social Information Processing

     
 

Emotion
Display

Emotion

Identiﬁcation

 
  

       
   
 

Social
Information
Processing

Effortﬁrl
Control

 
   
     
 
   
   
 

Emotion
Display
Control

Social Problem
Solving

The Relations among Parent Factors, Prevention Eﬂorts, and Child Outcomes
Parent Knowledge of Child Development
The educational materials on child development, the incentives to participate in
particular activities with their children, and the family advocacy services are expected to
lead to an increased knowledge of child development.
For this study, knowledge of child development is deﬁned as knowledge of
normative development from birth to toddlerhood. Parent knowledge of development is

indicative of parents’ understanding of how to meet their child’s needs (Dichtelmiller,

21

Meisels, Plunkett, Bozynski, & et al., 1992). The effects of that understanding on
parental expectations and behaviors and on child development have been consistently
documented.

Parents who are more knowledgeable about child development have more positive
and more realistic expectations about their child’s behavior (Contreras, Rhodes, &
Mangelsdorf, 1995; Larsen & Juhasz, 1985). Additionally, there is evidence that the
unrealistic expectations associated with a lack Of parent knowledge leads to negative
interpretations of the child’s behavior and inappropriate use of child management
techniques (Rickard, Graziano, & Forehand, 1984). It has also been found that
knowledge of child development, in combination with age and maturity, is predictive of
the way parents interact with their children (Fry, 1985). Greater knowledge of child
development is signiﬁcantly predictive of mothers who are more stimulating and more
involved during interactions with their children.

Moreover, programs such as Passport aimed at increasing parent knowledge have
been found to inﬂuence parent behaviors and expectations. The evaluation of one
program found that training mothers with a curriculum that focused on improving
parent/child interactions and knowledge of child development led to a decrease in
unrealistic expectations and an increase in the appropriate use of discipline (Fewell &
Wheeden, 1998). Another research project using two different teaching methods to
increase knowledge of child development found that participation in the program led to
decreases in unrealistic expectations of their children and increases in the use of more

appropriate discipline (Wint & Brown, 1987).

22

The effects of parent knowledge of child development on child outcomes have
been less frequently documented than have the effects on parent outcomes. Nonetheless,
parent knowledge of child development has been related to child behavior problems,
cognitive and motor development, and risk of injury (Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, 1996;
Dichtelmiller et al., 1992; Pomerleau et al., 1998; Rickard et al., 1984; Rivara & Howard,
1982). It has been found that infants of mothers who have greater than average
knowledge of infancy score higher on indices of motor and cognitive development than
do infants of mothers who have less than average knowledge (Dichtelmiller et al., 1992;
Pomerleau et al., 1998). During childhood, greater parent knowledge is predictive of
higher levels of behavioral control (Stoiber & Houghton, 1993), fewer behavior
problems, and IQ in children (Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, 1996).

FTPerceived Parent Confidence

By providing parents with information about child development and access to
community resources, the Passport program is expected to lead to more realistic
appraisals of their parental skills. Thus, the evaluation of Passport will include the
measurement of parent conﬁdence.

In the literature, parent conﬁdence, or parent perception of competence, has been
deﬁned as “an estimation of the degree to which parents perceive themselves as capable
of performing the varied tasks associated with this highly demanding role” (Teti,
O'Connell, & Reiner, 1996, p. 23 8). Others have deﬁned parental conﬁdence as “parents'
beliefs in their competence and effectiveness in the parental role” (Coleman & Karraker,
2003, p. 127). Parent conﬁdence, in this study, is deﬁned as the parents’ perception of

their parenting skills and ability to care for their child.

23

Several studies have explored the relationship between parent conﬁdence and
parent characteristics. Parent conﬁdence has been related to parent depression, maternal
adjustment, and parent attitudes (East, Matthews, & Felice, 1994; Panzarine, Slater, &
Sharps, 1995; Williams, Joy, Travis, Gotowiec, & et al., 1987). Additionally, parent
conﬁdence has been identiﬁed as a goal for intervention and prevention programs (Miller
Heyl, MacPhee, & Fritz, 1998; Pisterrnan, Firestone, McGrath, Goodman, & etal., 1992;
Thompson, Ruma, Schuchmann, & Burke, 1996).

In a study examining parent conﬁdence, personal coping strategies, and parenting
practices in Mexican immigrant and European American mothers, evidence was found
that mother’s who are more conﬁdent exhibit a higher quality of mother/infant
interactions (Dumka, Stoerzinger, Jackson, & Roosa, 1996). For European American
mothers, greater sense of parent conﬁdence was predictive of higher levels of positive
coping strategies and parent acceptance, and lower levels of inconsistent discipline. For
the Mexican immigrants, parent conﬁdence was predictive of higher levels of positive
coping strategies and parent acceptance (Dumka et al., 1996). A study that examined
parent conﬁdence in depressed and non-depressed mothers found that mothers who are
more conﬁdent provide a better quality home (caregiver) environment and exhibited
higher quality of mother/infant interactions (Teti & Gelfand, 1991).

While some researchers have reported signiﬁcant and positive relations between
parent conﬁdence and the quality of parent/child interactions, others have not. A number
of researchers utilizing a variety of methodologies have failed to ﬁnd a signiﬁcant
relationship between parent behavior and parent conﬁdence (Coleman & Karraker, 2003;

Corapci & Wachs, 2002; Williams et al., 1987; Zahr, 1991). One such study found that

24

although parent conﬁdence was related to infant temperament, conﬁdence was not related
to parent behavior (Zahr, 1991).

How do we explain these discrepancies? One potential explanation is that there is
a discrepancy between the conﬁdence parents have in their ability and their true
competence. In support of this explanation, research has demonstrated that parents’
knowledge of child development interacts with parents’ conﬁdence to create such group
differences (Conrad, Gross, Fogg, & Ruchala, 1992). In this important study, neither
parent’s knowledge of child development nor parent’s conﬁdence related directly to
parent behavior. Instead, it was the interaction between the two that led to the signiﬁcant
prediction of the quality of mother/toddler interactions. It may be that parents’ who do
not know the basics of child development may be much less likely to critically evaluate
their performance and knowledge as parents, potentially because they do not understand
their err.
Parent Activities

The information about speciﬁc parent behaviors and activities provided in the
educational materials and encouraged by the incentive system are expected to increase
the amount of positive parent activities engaged in by Passport families. A number of
studies have shown the positive effects of prevention and intervention programs on parent
behavior and activities (Gross et al., 2003; Parker, Boak, Griffm, Ripple, & Peay, 1999).

Additionally, a plethora of studies have been conducted that examine the
relationship between a variety of parent behaviors and child outcomes. For this study, the

review of how parent activities/behaviors relate to child social competence will consist of

25

three aspects of child social competence: social problem solving skills, emotion and
behavior regulation, and emotion identiﬁcation/understanding.

Parent Behavior and Child Social Problem Solving

The literature concerning the effect of parent behavior on child social problem
solving can be grouped into three broad categories. First, child social problem solving
skills have been related to the child’s experience of abuse. Second, child social problem
solving skills have been related to the parents’ controlling/restrictive versus
warm/supportive behaviors. Third, child social problem solving skills have been related
to the parents’ conﬂict resolution behaviors/strategies.

Child Abuse and Social Problem Solving. Research concerning child social
problem solving and the experience Of abuse has consistently found that children who are
abused are more likely to experience difﬁculty in social problem solving than children
who have not been abused. The experience of abuse, especially for children ﬁve and
younger, is a strong predictor of early expressions of violence, and this early aggressive
behavior has been linked to deﬁciencies in social problem solving skills (Dodge et al.,
1990). In this seminal study by Dodge and his colleagues, social processing skills were
assessed in 309 children recruited at pre-kindergarten registration. The children watched
24 cartoon vignettes of a negative event and were asked a series of questions about each
story to assess patterns of social information processing. The interview addressed the
children’s attribution biases, ability to attend to social cues, identiﬁcation of solutions,
and evaluation of solutions. The children’s mothers were interviewed in the home to
assess the child’s experience of physical abuse and family ecological information. Six

months later, teacher, peer and researcher ratings Of child aggression were collected.

26

Results showed that assignment of hostile intentions to others in social conﬂict and the
tendency to generate fewer and less competent solutions were signiﬁcantly related to
child experience of abuse (Dodge et al., 1990).

More recent research assessing the relations among children’s emotion
knowledge, social problem solving skills, behavior problems, and social competence has
also shown that children’s experience of abuse is predictive of problem solving ability
(Smith & Walden, 1999). In this study, a maltreated group m=15), a non-maltreated high
risk group (n=15), and a low risk group (n=15) were tested in their preschools by a
researcher. Social problem solving skills were assessed by verbally presenting each child
with stories about a ﬁctional child involved in a social conﬂict. The children were asked
to identify how the ﬁctional child could solve the problem. The children’s responses
were coded based on the quality and number of solutions given. Child behavior was
rated by the children’s teachers and mothers, and social competence was rated by the
teachers. Results indicated that maltreated children were signiﬁcantly less likely to
identify competent solutions to social conﬂict and were rated as less competent than
either the high-risk or low-risk group children.

Parent Discipline/Support and Child Social Problem Solving. Much research has
been conducted to clarify the relation between child-rearing behaviors and child social
problem solving (Domitrovich & Bierman, 2001; Carlson-Jones, Rickel, & Smith, 1980).
In 1980, a study of child-rearing practices and social problem solving Skills of 72
preschoolers found that maternal nurturance and restrictiveness were related to the
quality of child solutions to hypothetical solutions (Domitrovich & Bierman, 2001;

Carlson-Jones et al., 1980). Speciﬁcally, greater levels of parent warmth positively

27

related to child use of prosocial solutions, and greater levels of maternal restrictiveness
were related to more frequent use of evasive solutions.

This research has been replicated and extended by Domitrovich and Bierman
(2001), in which child social behavior, social problem solving, and social distress in 140
fourth grade children were related to self-report of parent practices. Child social behavior
and social distress information was obtained from sociometric ratings of social behavior
(social and aggressive behavior) and peer evaluation of popularity and victimization.
Children also answered questions concerning perceptions of their own experience of
victimization and loneliness. Social problem solving skills were obtained from the
children’s proposed solutions to hypothetical problems, and their responses were coded
as aggressive or prosocial. For the parent information, a written interview containing
fourteen items describing warm behaviors and nine items describing negativism, harsh
punishment, and punitive control was completed by parents. Children were asked to
answer questions about peer support and parent practices.

Using hierarchical regression analysis, the researches found that although
maternal warmth behaviors were directly related to child social problem solving,
maternal harsh discipline and punitive control had an indirect link to social problem
solving via perceptions of peer support (Domitrovich & Bierman, 2001).

Parent Conﬂict Management and Child Social Problem Solving. Although the
information concerning child abuse and caregiver behaviors is informative in predicting
child social problem solving skills, the underlying mechanism behind these relations may
be addressed more fully in research examining caregiver conﬂict resolution style. A

number of studies examining the relation between how parents’ solve social conﬂict and

28

child social problem solving skills have found a strong relationship between them (Dunn
& Herrera, 1997; Fagot, 1998; Fagot & Gauvain, 1997; Goodman, Barfoot, Frye, & Belli,
1999; Pakaslahti, Asplund Peltola, & Keltikangas Jaervinen, 1996).

An earlier study in this area examined the social problem solving strategies of the
families of 27 aggressive and 28 non-aggressive boys in Finland. Children were
identiﬁed as aggressive or non-aggressive via peer ratings at nine to ten years of age.
Three years later, child aggression was assessed a second time via peer and teacher
ratings, and parent social problem-solving strategies were assessed. For the assessment
of parent social problem solving strategies, mothers m=53) and fathers m=3 8) were
presented with six hypothetical social conﬂicts typical of adolescents. The parents were
asked to identify what they would do if their child was engaged in the conﬂict.

Similar to research previously discussed on the relation between parent discipline
and support, parents of aggressive boys were more likely to identify punishment as a
solution to the child’s presentation of the conﬂict. Additionally, parents of aggressive
boys were signiﬁcantly more likely to identify diversion strategies (i.e., deny or divert
responsibility). One of the more unique ﬁndings of the study, however, was that it was
the fathers’ social problem solving skills that most strongly predicted child aggression.
The fathers of the non-aggressive boys produced a greater number of strategies that
focused on assisting the child in ﬁnding a solution to the problem. The fathers’ of
aggressive boys failed to identify solutions to the conﬂicts presented (Pakaslahti et al.,
1996)

Other research has shown that the mother’s conﬂict resolution style is also

predictive of child conﬂict resolution style (Dunn, Brown, & Beardsall, 1991; Goodman

29

et al., 1999). In a study of 57 families with children age 10-13 years, the relationship
between marital conﬂict and children’s social problem-solving skills was examined
(Goodman et al., 1999). The parents’ frequency of marital conﬂict, conﬂict resolution
style (using reasoning versus aggression), and the likelihood of type of outcome as the
result of conﬂict (escalation of conﬂict versus resolution and intimacy) were assessed via
maternal report. The children’s perceptions Of their parents’ conﬂict were derived from a
questionnaire that assesses children’s perceptions of conﬂict properties (intensity,
resolution, and frequency), threat (threat and coping efﬁcacy) and self-blame (self-blame
and content). Finally, children’s social problem solving skills were assessed by
measuring the effectiveness of solutions generated to hypothetical peer conﬂict
situations.

Negative conﬂict characteristics of the mother combined with a high frequency of
conﬂict were predictive of less effective problem solving skills for children. Less
frequent positive conﬂict characteristics for the mother in the context of lower frequency
of conﬂict also predicted less effective problem solving for children. The authors of the
study were surprised to ﬁnd that the children’s perceptions of their parents’ conﬂict did
not predict the children’s social problem-solving skills, despite moderate correlations
between parent and child reports of conﬂict. Goodman et al. (1999) concluded that
children learn problem-solving skills from their parents via modeling, and children’s
perceptions Of parental conﬂict were less important than modeling or emotional arousal.

In a longitudinal study of real-life caregiver and child conﬂict resolution style,
families of ﬁfty second-born Caucasian children of slightly above average

socioeconomic status were assessed (Dunn et al., 1991). At time 1, when the children

30

were 33 months of age, family conversations during unstructured observations were
recorded on audiotape. At time 2, when the children were 40 months Of age, they were
assessed for emotion understanding using puppets. At time 3, when the children were 47
months of age, family conversations were again recorded and coded. Children’s
interactions with a friend were similarly observed and coded at this time. At time 4,
when the child was 67 months of age, the child’s understanding of emotions was assessed
using hypothetical stories. Finally, at time 5, when the children were 72 months of age,
observations of peer/child interactions were again recorded and coded.

Using correlational analyses, a Signiﬁcant relationship between the mothers’
conﬂict resolution style during conﬂict with the child at Time 1 and the children’s
resolution style during conﬂict with a peer at Time 5 was found. Similarly, older
siblings’ resolution style during conﬂict with the child at Time 1 were found to be
signiﬁcantly and positively related to the children’s conﬂict resolution style with a peer at
Time 6. These relations remained signiﬁcant even when maternal positive behavior
(maternal responsiveness and affection), and sibling positive and negative behavior were
partialled out (Dunn et al., 1991).

The study by Dunn et al. (1991) provides support for the notion that children learn
to solve problems through interactions with signiﬁcant others. Children learn social
skills through interacting with others, not by merely observing others interact (Bandura,
1997). This view does not discount observational learning; rather, it extends the notion
of modeling to include the importance of the interaction. The dynamic process of
interacting within the parent-child relationship is the forum for organizing the developing

child’s social problem solving skills.

31

Parent Behavior and Child Emotion Regulation

As stated by Izard and Kobak (1991), children develop ways to regulate and
control emotions from maturation of the cognitive system in conjunction with
socialization. Research concerning parent socialization and child regulation has been
divided into two categories based on the type of child regulation: effortful control and
emotion display control.

Parent Behavior and Child Eﬂortﬁtl Control. Research has shown that parent
emotionality, beliefs about their own emotion, beliefs about child emotions, and
parent/child communication about emotions are related to child behavior and regulation.
Gottman and his colleagues have provided a philosophy of parental meta-emotion that
asserts that parents have deﬁnitive and consistent beliefs and behavior about emotions
that are predictive of child outcomes such as emotion regulation, effortful control, social
competence, and health (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996; Hooven, Gottman, & Katz,
1995)

In a longitudinal study that followed 56 families from age ﬁve to eight years,
parental meta-emotion was assessed via a semi-structured interview about the parent’s
experience of emotion (Hooven et al., 1995). These interviews were coded for the
parent’s awareness and acceptance of their own negative emotions, and their acceptance
of and assistance with their child’s negative emotions. Observational data were also
collected concerning social problem solving within the marital relationship, emotional
affect experienced and displayed within the marital relationship, and marital emotional
expressiveness. Indicators of peer/child and child/parent interaction, child emotion

display, behavior problems, child health, and the experience of emotions were collected

32

from parent ratings, teacher ratings, and observations. Assessments of child attention
regulation, child vagal tone, child emotion display, and child academic achievement were
conducted during child interviews.

Using structural equation modeling, the authors found that parent social skills
exhibited during parent/child interactions and marital conﬂict were related to meta-
emotion (understanding of emotion, beliefs about expression of emotion, emotion
display, emotion assistance with child). Additionally, parent meta-emotion had a direct
effect on the child’s regulation, and child regulation was predictive of child health
(Hooven et al., 1995). In later work on this longitudinal study, the authors identiﬁed a
relationship between parent meta-emotion and how the parent interacted with the child
(Gottman et al., 1996). Parent/child interactions were related to early childhood
regulatory physiology (vagal tone), which was related to later emotion regulation
abilities.

With these results from the Gottman study, other researchers further deﬁned and
explored the effect of parent meta-emotion on child regulation (Ramsden & Hubbard,
2002). Ramsden and Hubbard (2002) conducted a study of meta-emotion, child
regulation, and child aggression in 120 families of 4th grade children. Child effortful
control was identiﬁed from parent and teacher ratings; child aggression was identiﬁed
from teacher ratings alone. The mothers’ awareness of emotion and emotion acceptance
were identiﬁed through the meta-emotion interview used in the previously described
Gottman studies. The families’ frequencies of expression of positive emotions and of

negative emotions were assessed via mother ratings. The authors deﬁned three

33

dimensions of emotion coaching (Gottman’s meta-emotion): emotion awareness,
emotion acceptance, and expression of positive emotions.

Of the three dimensions of emotion coaching, only the mothers’ acceptance of the
child’s negative emotions was related to inhibitory control. Additionally, family
expression of negative emotion was negatively related to inhibitory control. Child
regulation was, in turn, related to child aggression (Ramsden & Hubbard, 2002). Thus, it
seems that the parents’ actions during conﬂict involving their child and the child’s
experience of negative emotions within the family have the most effect on the child’s
regulation. This hypothesis has been supported by other research ﬁndings as well (Smith
& Walden, 2001).

However, Eisenberg and her colleagues have identiﬁed strong relations between
both negative and positive maternal emotion expression and child regulation (Eisenberg,
Gershoff et al., 2001; Eisenberg, Valiente et al., 2003). In these studies, maternal
expressions of negative and positive emotion were assessed from observational measures
and self-report, and child inhibitory control was assessed via observations and mother
and teacher reports. Using structural equation modeling of the data from 202 families,
the researchers found evidence that there is a signiﬁcant and positive relationship
between maternal positive emotion expression and child regulation, and a signiﬁcant and
negative relationship between maternal negative emotion expression and child regulation
(Eisenberg, Gershoff et al., 2001).

Parent Behavior and Emotion Display Control. Research concerning emotion
display control in children has identiﬁed similar relations for this type of regulation and

parent behavior as found for inhibitory control. Relations between emotion display

34

control and the constructs of family expression of emotion (Garner, 1999; Carlson-J ones,
Abbey, & Cumberland, 1998), parent control, acceptance Of emotion (McDowell &
Parke, 2000), and frequency of parent discussion of emotion (Garner, 1999) have been
found.

Research concerning emotion display regulation and family expression has
identiﬁed a consistent relationship between family expression of negative emotion and
child display rule use and knowledge. Garner and Power (1996) examined the relation
between children’s reaction to a disappointing gift and maternal reports of positive and
negative emotion expression within the family. Within their sample of 82 families of
preschoolers, they found that the mothers of children who displayed more positive
emotions aﬂer being presented with a disappointing gift were signiﬁcantly more likely to
report less family expression of negative emotions. Additionally, children’s display of
negative emotions during the presentation of the disappointing gift was negatively related
to maternal report of positive emotion expressed in the home. However, a study by
Carlson-Jones, Abbey, and Cumberland (1998) of 121 kindergartener and third grade
children found that only maternal report of negative emotion was related to child
knowledge of display rules.

Another study of child knowledge Of display rules examined the effect of parent
acceptance and control of child emotions. This construct is similar to what Gottman and
his colleagues ﬁrst identiﬁed as meta-emotion. In a study of 61 families of third grade
children, child social competence as measured by teacher ratings and sociometric
interviews, child knowledge of display rules identiﬁed during child interview, and mother

and father control versus acceptance of child emotions as measured ﬁ'om self-report

35

ratings were examined. Results of the study provided evidence that child knowledge of
display rules for negative emotions, but not positive emotions, is signiﬁcantly and
negatively related to parent control of emotion. Thus, children of parents who are very
controlling and not accepting of child emotion are less likely to understand display rules
that are appropriate for use when experiencing negative emotions.

Parent expression of emotion has a potentially less direct effect on the child than
does parent acceptance/control of child emotion, and therefore may be informative of a
more direct of link between parent behavior and child emotion. If this is the case, than
understanding the frequency with which parents talk to their children about emotions
should also be informative of this more direct link to child emotion regulation.

In a longitudinal study of 50 families, child display rule knowledge and emotion
detection at the age of eight were related to maternal discourse about emotion four years
earlier (Garner, 1999). Data concerning maternal discourse about emotion were collected
via observation of a story-reading task in which the mother was instructed to read a
particular story to her child. The frequency of mother initiated discourse concerning
emotion causation or explanation of emotions was coded from these observations. Using
multiple regression analyses, the authors identiﬁed a signiﬁcant and positive relation
between the frequency of maternal discourse of emotions when the child was four and
child knowledge of emotion display rules at the age of eight.

Parent Behavior and Child Emotion Identiﬁcation and Understanding

The literature examining how the constructs comprising emotion knowledge
relate to parent behavior is rather limited. Much of the research concerning emotion

identiﬁcation and parent behavior fail to ﬁnd a direct relation between the two constructs

36

(Garner, 1999; Garner, Carlson-Jones, Gaddy, & Rennie, 1997). These have found a
connection between parent behavior and emotion identiﬁcation have focused on children
who were abused or neglected (Camras, Ribordy, Hill, Martino, & et al., 1988; Pollak,
Cicchetti, Homung, & Reed, 2000; Sullivan, Kirkpatrick, & MacDonald, 1995).

Altemately, the literature concerning the relationship between child emotion
knowledge and parent behavior is fairly robust. Much of the research in this area
examines parental (usually maternal) discussion of emotion with the child during semi-
structured tasks. Most reports from research utilizing this method identify a consistent
relation between parental communication of emotion and child knowledge of emotion
(Brown & Dunn, 1996; Dunn et al., 1991; Kuebli, Butler, & F ivush, 1995).

One such study found a relationship between caregiver discussion of emotions
and only one aspect of child emotion knowledge (Garner, 1999). In this study, maternal
discussion Of emotion during a wordless picture book-reading task was assessed in 45
low-income mothers of preschoolers. The children’s knowledge of emotions was
assessed during a structured interview. Three aspects of child knowledge of emotions
were assessed. First, children’s ability to identify emotion in facial expressions was
assessed via drawings. Second, children’s ability to identify the emotion most likely to
be elicited by emotionally charged situations was assessed via audiotapes of vignettes and
drawings without facial expressions. Third, the child’s ability to identify a person’s
emotion from their facial expression in spite Of a context that would normally elicit an
opposite emotion was assessed via drawings and audiotapes of vignettes (role-taking).

The authors of this study failed to ﬁnd a relationship between maternal discourse

of emotions and child emotion identiﬁcation from facial expressions or from situation

37

information; they did report ﬁnding a signiﬁcant relationship between the child’s role-
taking ability and maternal discourse of emotion (Garner, 1999). However, this study did
not examine how maternal discourse might be related to the child’s aggregate score of
emotion knowledge. More importantly, the children assessed were between the ages Of
36 to 70 months of age, and the study was not developmentally oriented. Most other
studies examining the relations between these constructs are longitudinal.

For example, an early study by Dunn, Brown and Beardsall (1991) examined
maternal discussions of emotion with their three year old children and an aggregate of
child knowledge of emotions at the age of six (N=4l). Knowledge of emotions was
assessed via the ability to accurately identify emotions and changes in emotions from
photographs and audiotapes of vignettes. A signiﬁcant relation was found between
maternal discussion of emotion at the age of three and the child’s knowledge of emotion
at the age of six (Dunn et al., 1991). Other studies examining maternal discourse of
emotions at an early age and later child emotion knowledge have found similar results
(Brown & Dunn, 1996; Denharn, Zoller, & Couchoud, 1994).

Providing further support for the hypothesis that maternal discourse about
emotions does not begin to inﬂuence child knowledge of emotions until later (after the
age of ﬁve) is a study that examined both mother and child discourse about emotions in
18 families (Kuebli et al., 1995). In this study, the mother was instructed to discuss with
the child three recent events expected to be salient to the child at three time periods: 40
months of age (Time 1), 58 months of age (Time 2), and 70 months of age (Time 3).
Both the child’s and mother’s use of emotion words during the discussion were counted.

No stable pattern of maternal discourse of emotions was detected between the Time 1 and

38

Time 2. However, between Time 2 and Time 3, maternal discourse of emotions became
consistent. Additionally, a stable pattern of the inﬂuence of maternal discourse about
emotions on child discourse about emotions was not found. A signiﬁcant relation
between maternal discussion of emotions and child discussion of emotions was found
only between:

0 Time 1 mother to Time 1 child

0 Time 1 mother to Time 2 child

0 Time 3 mother to Time 3 child

The authors report that their ﬁndings provide support for the notion that maternal
discourse about emotion inﬂuences the child’s developing ability to understand and
discuss emotion. While this may be true, their ﬁndings also point to a potentially
unstable relation between maternal discussion about emotion and the child’s emotion
understanding. However, the instability found here may also be attributed to the studies
low sample size.

A recent report of a dual study of 52 children seems to bring about a greater
understanding of why maternal discourse may have different effects on child emotion
understanding at different ages (Ontai & Thompson, 2002). In the ﬁrst study, maternal
discourse of emotions when the child was three years of age was not related to child
knowledge of emotion at that age or to attachment style. However, when the children
were ﬁve years of age, maternal discourse of emotions in combination with attachment
style were predictive of child knowledge of emotions.

It appears that the relationship between maternal discussion of emotions and child

knowledge of emotions is not a simplistic one. There are most likely other aspects of the

39

relationship and of the home environment that play a part in the child’s developing ability
to understand emotions, including but not limited to parent reactions to child emotions
and parent expression of emotion (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998).
Summary

In sum, the literature concerning the parent factors of knowledge of child
development, parent conﬁdence, and parent behaviors indicates these factors will be
related to the child’s social functioning. It was also expected that parent’s use of the
Passport Program services would positively inﬂuence these parent factors. Thus, an
indirect link between parent factors and the child factors was expected. Speciﬁcally,
because Passport’s services include providing families with knowledge of child
development and support services, it was expected that Passport use would positively
relate to the attributes of knowledge of child development and parent conﬁdence, and
these attributes in parents would be related to their behaviors and activities as parents.
Additionally, because of the literature reviewed, it was expected that parents’ behaviors
would be directly related to the child’s social competence. Much more consistency has
been found relating parent knowledge of child development and conﬁdence with parent
behaviors than with child outcomes. And there is much more support for the notion that
parent behaviors and activities inﬂuence child outcomes. Figure 4 illustrates these

relationships as hypothesized.

40

Figure 4. Parent and Child Factors

Passport Use

Parent 4

Knowledge

 

Conﬁdence

 
  
 

Emotional
Competence

   
  
 

Social
Problem
Solving

   
  
  

  

Parent
Behavior

   
     
  

Emotion
Display

Emotion
Identiﬁcation

 

Effortful
Control

 
   
 

Emotion
Display
Control

    

41

Hypotheses

There are three hypotheses tested. First, I proposed that affective social
competence as proposed by Halberstadt et al. (2001) would be an independent construct
that is separate from, but related to, social problem-solving. Second, I proposed that

Passport usage would predict parent knowledge Of child development and parent

conﬁdence, and that these would predict parent behavior. Third, I proposed that parent

use of the program would inﬂuence child affective/emotional competence and problem
solving via parent behavior.

Prediction 1: The identiﬁcation of the expression of emotion, the production of emotion,
the control of emotion display, and inhibition control were hypothesized to
comprise the latent construct of affective/emotional competence. It was
expected that the construct of affective/emotional competence would be
positively related to social problem solving skills. It was expected that
this conceptualization of the constructs under study would provide a better
ﬁt to the data than would either the model of social affective competence
that included a uniﬁed construct of regulation or the model of social
information processing.

Prediction 2: It was predicted that reports Of high Passport usage would relate to greater
parent knowledge of child development and parent conﬁdence. Higher
levels of parent knowledge of child development and conﬁdence were
predicted to relate to greater levels Of caregiver engagement in positive

activities with their children.

42

Prediction 3: It was predicted that greater use of the Passport program would positively
inﬂuence child affective/emotional competence and social problem

solving via the indirect effect of use on caregiver behavior.

43

METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES

Participants

The participants for the current study were 105 three to ﬁve year-Old children (53
boys, 52 girls) and their caregivers enrolled in the Passport Program. From this sample,
eight children were excluded from the analyses; Table 1 presents the reasons for
exclusion from the study.
Table 1

Eggsons for Exclusig from Current Study

 

Reason for Exclusion Number Of Children
Prior brain injury 2
Clinical psychiatric disorder 3
Language difﬁculty 2
Refusal to complete tasks 1

 

 

For the 97 families included in this sample, based on the demographics of
Passport families, it was expected that approximately 49% of the participants would be
Caucasian American, 42% would be African American, 6% would be multi-racial, 2%
would be Hispanic, and 1% would identify their ethnicity as either Asian, Native
American, or other. It was also expected that 25% of the participants would have not
graduated from high school, 46% would have graduated from high school, 18% would
have completed some college, and 11% would have completed a Bachelor’s degree or

graduate school.

44

 

As shown in Table 2, the demographic data concerning child ethnicity from the

obtained sample closely match the expected demographics. However, the sample for the

current study under represents Passport families with lower levels of education.

Table 2

Sample Characteristics as Compared to Passport Enrollee Characteristics

 

 

 

 

Passport Enrollees Sample
N = 8,536 _I\_I = 97
Child Ethnicity
Caucasian American 4,149 (48.6%) 41 (42.3%)
African American 3,602 (42.2%) 48 (49.5%)
Multi-racial 546 (6.4%) 7 (7.2%)
Hispanic 162 (1.9%) 1 (1.0%)
Asian, Native American, Other 77 (.9%) 0
Qaggiver Education
Less than High School 2,117 (24.8%) 9 (9.3%)
High School Diploma/GED 3,892 (45.6%) 33 (34.1%)
Some College 1,554 (18.2%) 35 (36.1%)

Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

973 (11.4%)

20 (20.6%)

 

The age of children in the sample ranged from 43 to 64 months; the mean age was

52.6 (5.1) months. The majority of the caregivers interviewed were mothers (N =84).

The rest of the caregivers were either a father (N=4), grandparent (N =5), relative (N=2),

foster-parent (N =1), or non-relative legal guardian (N=l). The age of the caregivers

45

ranged from 18 to 66 years. The mean age of the caregivers was 33.5 (9.2) years, and the
mode for age of caregiver was 29 years.
Data Collection and Design

In the collection of data for the evaluation of Passport, caregivers and their 3-4
year old children were interviewed at their home by a graduate student and an
undergraduate student. The interviewers explained the content of the interview and the
research objectives to the caregiver. Caregivers were informed of the voluntary nature of
participation and the conﬁdentiality of data. Informed consent was obtained.

Interviewers included the author, two graduate students, and eight undergraduates.
All interviewers completed a ten hour training on standardized procedures Of data
collection to ensure consistent administration of the interview. Follow-up trainings
occurred on a bi-monthly basis. Data collection for the evaluation of Passport occurred
between February 2003 and June 2003.
Measures

Measures were administered to the caregivers and children assessing Passport
usage, family factors and child factors.

Passport Usage

A series of questions concerning the utility of Passport usage were asked during
the interview with parents. Questions assessed the frequency of use of the educational
materials and the use Of assistance. Four aspects of use of the program were Obtained:
use of the resource guide, use of the newsletter, use of the incentive program, and family

initiated use of referral services. See Appendix B for the instrument.

46

Parent Knowledge of Child Development

Knowledge of child development was assessed using the Knowledge of Child
Development Inventory (KCDI) (Larsen & Juhasz, 1986). The KCDI is a 56-item
multiple-choice test that evaluates parent’s knowledge in four domains of child
development: emotional, cognitive, physical, and social. The KCDI was written at an 8th
grade reading level and has a minimal amount of technical terminology. The reported
coefficient alpha, a measure of the internal consistency of the items, of the instrument
was .93, and criterion validity was .80. Reported item difﬁculty ranged from .20 to 1.00.
Mean difficulty range for the emotional development scale was .80, for the cognitive
development scale was .75, for the physical development scale was .65, and for the social
development scale was .75 (Larsen & Juhasz, 1986). Coefﬁcient alpha for data from this
study are reported in Table 3. See Appendix C for the instrument.
Table 3

RelLaLbilitv of the Knowledge of Child Development Survey

 

Number Alpha
of Items
Knowledge of Emotional Development 14 .784
Knowledge of Social Development 14 .616
Knowledge of Physical Development 14 .392
Knowledge of Social Development 14 .554
Total Scale 56 .857

 

47

Perceived Parental Confidence

The Parenting Sense of Competence Scale (Gibaud-Wallston & Wandersman,
1978; Mash & Johnston, 1989) was used to assess parents’ perceptions of competence
and capability as parents (Mash & Johnston, 1989). Although the authors of the test only
identiﬁed two sub-scales for this instrument (caregiving and comfort), it was necessary to
identify at least three sub-scales for use of instrument in a structural model. Thus, the
two sub-scales were divided into four sub-scales based on content. The ﬁrst scale, the
caregiving scale, was divided into two sub-scales of caregiving: expectations Of
caregiving and beliefs about being a good caregiver. The second scale, the comfort scale,
was divided into a sub-scale for comfort with ability, and a subscale for interest and
comfort with the caregiving role. See Appendix D for the instrument. Reliability ratings
for each of the sub-scales are presented in Table 4.
Table 4

Reliability of the Parenting Sense of Competence Seal;

 

Number Alpha
of Items
Expectations of Caregiving 4 .659
Good Caregiver 4 .519
Comfort with Ability 5 .700
Interest/Comfort with Role 4 .580
Total Scale 17 .569

 

48

Parenting Activities

Caregivers’ activities with their preschool children were assessed with a 41 item
liken-type scale questionnaire to evaluate the extent to which caregivers used various
practices encouraged by the Passport program. For the purpose of this study, twenty
items were chosen to comprise three aspects of caregiver activities. Seven items
identiﬁed the frequency with which caregivers engaged in various educational activities
with their children. Five items identiﬁed the frequency with which caregivers engaged in
community or cultural events with their children. Eight items identiﬁed the frequency
with which caregivers communicated with their children about emotions and behavior.
Table 5 provides the reliability ratings for the sub-scales and the total scale. See
Appendix E for the instrument.
Table 5

Reliability of the Parent Behavior Scale

 

 

Number of Items Alpha

Educational Activities with Child 7 .662
Cultural Activities with Child 5 .714
Communication about Emotions and Behavior with 8 .852
Child

Total Scale 20 .825

 

Child Social Competence
Child social competence was assessed using multiple instruments. Although
direct observation of social interaction and sociometric status are important methods of

assessing social competence (McConnell & Odom, 1986; Webster-Stratton & Lindsay,

49

1999), they were not feasible for the current study. Instead, social affective competence
and social problem solving Skills were assessed.

Social Aﬂective Competence. Three aspects of child social affective competence
were assessed: identiﬁcation of emotions, production of emotions, and regulation of
emotions.

Production of emotions. The Emotion Display Task was designed to evaluate the
children’s ability to produce emotions. In this task, the child was asked to produce four
target emotions on the face: angry, sad, happy, and afraid (see Appendix F for the
instructions and scoring sheet). The researcher interviewing the child rated how
perceivable the child’s facial expressions were using the AFFEX system (Izard,
Dougherty, & Hembree, 1980). With the AF FEX system, the researcher identiﬁes the
degree to which the labeled affect is expressed based on the presence or absence of
appearance changes in the face. Although judgments based on AF FEX are not
completely free of subjective factors, careful training in applying AFFEX allows the
researcher to apply a systematic method of identifying emotion.

For the identiﬁcation of angry/mad (Anger-Rage in AF F EX), the experimenter
looked for eyebrows that were drawn down and together, broadened nasal root, narrow or
squinted eyes, raised cheeks, and a closed mouth with lips pressed tightly together or
clenched teeth. If the child displayed all of these facial movements when asked to
produce an angry face, the expression was rated as very detectable. If the child produced
three or four of the ﬁve facial movements, the expression was rated as somewhat

detectable. If the child produced only one or two of the facial movements, the expression

50

was rated as barely detectable. Additionally, the expression could be coded as tried, but
could not display emotion or did not try to display emotion.

For the identiﬁcation of sad (Sadness-Dejection in AF F EX), the experimenter
looked for eyebrows that were raised and triangular, narrowed nasal root, upper eyelid
pulled up at the inner corners with narrowed/squinted eyes, raised cheeks, and an open or
closed mouth with lips drawn downward and outward. If the child displayed all of these
facial movements when asked to produce a sad face, the expression was rated as very
detectable. If the child produced three or four of the ﬁve facial movements, the
expression was rated as somewhat detectable. If the child produced only one or two of
the facial movements, the expression was rated as barely detectable. Additionally, the
expression could be coded as tried, but could not display emotion or did not try to display
emotion.

For the identiﬁcation of happy (Enjoyment-Joy in AF FEX), the experimenter
looked for eyebrows in a normal or resting position, raised cheeks, and a mouth drawn up
and back. If the child displayed all of these facial movements when asked to produce a
happy face, the expression was rated as very detectable. If the child produced two of the
three facial movements, the expression was rated as somewhat detectable. If the child
produces only one of the facial movements, the expression was rated as barely
detectable. Additionally, the expression could be coded as tried, but could not display
emotion or did not try to display emotion.

For the identiﬁcation of afraid/scared (Fear-Terror in AF FEX), the experimenter
looked for straight or normally shaped eyebrows that were slightly raised and together,

narrowed nasal root, raised eyelids with eyes wide open, and an Open mouth with the

51

corners of the lips retracted straight back. If the child displayed all of these facial
movements when asked to produce a scared face, the expression was rated as very
detectable. If the child produced three of the four facial movements, the expression was
rated as somewhat detectable. If the child produced only one or two of the facial
movements, the expression was rated as barely detectable. Additionally, the expression
could be coded as tried, but could not display emotion or did not try to display emotion.
Intraclass correlation (ICC) was used to measure inter-rater reliability. Data for this task
were Obtained from a live coding task during which all data collectors recorded data for a
single interview conducted with an undergraduate. For the emotion display task, the
Interclass Correlation Coefﬁcient was .942 for a single rater and .988 for the average of
raters.

Identiﬁcation of emotions. In order to evaluate children’s ability to identify
emotions, the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy (Nowicki & Duke, 1994) was
administered to the children. The test consisted of 24 photographs of Caucasian children
making facial expressions of fear, sadness, anger and happiness. Support for the overall
construct validity of the DANV A2 was obtained in a study of 1,001 children between the
ages 6 to 10 (Nowicki & Duke, 1994) and in a study of 47 children between the ages 3 to
5 (Nowicki, Glanville, & Demertzis, 1998). Three major ﬁndings concerning the
DANV A2 have been found in several studies. First, mean accuracy increases with age
from age 3 to age 33. Second, DANV A2 scores are related to indices of social
competence for all age groups (from age 3 to college age). Third, DANVA2 scores are
not related to IQ as assessed by standardized IQ measures, but are related to academic

achievement (Nowicki & Duke, 1994).

52

For the purpose of this study, ﬁve subscale scores were Obtained from this
instrument. The total number of times the child correctly identiﬁed each emotion and the
total number of time the child attempted to identify a displayed emotion were calculated.

Regulation of emotions. In order to estimate children’s ability to regulate
emotions, children’s display rule use and inhibitory control was assessed. The child’s
emotion display control in a disappointing situation was assessed using the Three-bag-
task (McDowell et al., 2000). For this task, at the beginning of the interview session, the
experimenter gave an age- and sex-appropriate desirable gift in a paper bag (a small toy
and a lollipop). Children’s baseline reactions prior to and following removal of the gift
from the bag were observed and recorded. Similar to previous studies, the duration was
allowed to vary in order for the situation to unfold naturally (Saarni, 1984). Before
moving to the next task in the visit, the interviewer promised that another gift would be
given at the end of the interview in order to create the expectation for another pleasant
experience. At the end of the interview session, the interviewer presented another bag
containing an age- and sex-inappropriate gift (men’s black socks for girls and pink baby
booties for boys). Children’s reactions to this gift were Observed as described previously.
The interviewer then told the child that the gift was intended for someone else, and that
he or she would retrieve the correct gift. All children were given a second age- and sex-
appropriate desirable gift (toy and lollipop) to ameliorate any negative feeling associated
with the receipt of the inappropriate gift.

Reactions were coded for behaviors on ﬁve dimensions: positive, negative,
tension, social monitoring, and doing nothing (which is included as a potential indicator

of masking emotion). (See Appendix G for rating scales). For the purpose of this study,

53

the total number of negative and total number of tension behaviors were calculated for
the second (disappointing) gift and the third (last good) gift. Intraclass correlation (ICC)
was used to measure inter-rater reliability. Data for this task were obtained ﬁ'om a live
coding task during which all data collectors recorded data for a single interview
conducted with an undergraduate. For the three-bag task, the Interclass Correlation
Coefﬁcient was .895 for a single rater and .977 for the average of raters.

Behavioral regulation was assessed using four tasks developed by Kochanska,
Murray, and Harlan (2000). These tasks require the child to delay gratiﬁcation, slow
down motor activity, stop activity to signal, and lower voice during excitement. Five
scores were calculated for the behavior regulation tasks. These ﬁve scores are presented

in Table 6.

54

Table 6

Description of Inhibitog Control Tasks

 

 

 

Task P_u_rpgse Score Description
M&M Delay Total amount of time the child kept a piece of
Gratiﬁcation candy in mouth without eating it.

 

Rolling Car Speed of Motor

Total amount of time it took the child to roll the

 

Activity car three feet when instructed to roll the car fast
the ﬁrst time.

Speed of Motor Total amount of time it took the child to roll the

Activity car three feet when instructed to roll the car fast

the second time.

 

Slow Down of
Motor Activity

Mean Of the two difference times for the slow
and fast rolls.

 

Stop-Go Stop Motor
Activity

Total amount of time it took the child to stop
movement while running when a stop Sign was
presented.

 

 

Whisper Lower Voice
during Excitement

 

 

Total number of times the child did not whisper
a cartoon character’s name when instructed to
whisper.

 

Interrater reliability was obtained from a live coding task during which all data

collectors recorded data for a single interview conducted with an undergraduate.

Intraclass correlation (ICC) was used to measure the inter-rater reliability of the timed

tasks. The Interclass Correlation Coefﬁcient was .993 for a single rater and .996 for the
average of raters. For the whisper task, interrater agreement was .98. Of the two percent
of observations not agreed upon, all were disagreements on ratings of shouts versus aloud

or aloud versus part aloud/part whisper. Since the whisper variable for this study was

created based on the total number of times the child failed to whisper, these three

categories (shouts, aloud, part aloud/part whisper) were collapsed into one. Thus, there

55

 

was 100 percent interrater agreement for the whisper task as categorized in this study.
See Appendix H for the instructions for each Of these activities.

Social Problem Solving. Children’s social problem solving skills were assessed
using the WALLY game (Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1997). The WALLY game
was derived from Preschool Problem-Solving Test (Spivack & Shure, 1985) and the
Child Social Problem Solving Tests (Rubin & Krasnor, 1986). The game presents
children with illustrations of hypothetical problem situations related to obj ect acquisition
and ﬁiendship. Children’s solutions to the presented problems were recorded and later
were categorized as prosocial, agonistic. Three summary scores were derived: the total
number of different prosocial solutions given for conﬂict involving a ﬁiend or sibling, the
total number of different prosocial solutions give for conﬂict involving a non-familiar
peer, the total number of different prosocial solutions give for conﬂict involving an adult.
All observations were coded twice, once by the author and once by an undergraduate
assistant. Of 1,511 observations, the raters disagreed on 28 observations. Thus, the
interrater reliability for the coding of this task was .98. The raters reached agreement on
the 28 observations that the raters initially disagreed upon. See Appendix I for the Wally
items and Appendix J for the codes.

Data Entry Integrity

All data were entered into a Microsoft Access 2002 database and then converted
into an SPSS format data ﬁle for analysis with SPSS 11.5 and Systat 10.2. The accuracy
of entered data was assured by manually comparing the values entered into the database

with those recorded by the interviewer on the paper questionnaire.

56

Missing Data Estimation

Missing data were estimated using SYSTAT 10 EM method. The data for two of
the child behavior regulation tasks were imputed together using all of the behavior
regulation variables and child sex, age in months, and ethnicity. The two tasks that
required imputation of data were the stop-go task and the fast/slow task. For the stop-go
task, three of the interviewers consistently reported times that were implausible. For
these three interviewers, all reported times on this task were deleted and imputed m=12,
12%) due to experimenter error. In the fast/slow task, a few data points were missing due
to experiment error (g=3, 3%). The estimation of these data was based on MCAR of
44.90 (d_f=35, p=. 12), indicating the data were missing randomly.
Sample Size and Power Analysis

According to MacCallum and Austin (2000), few sound guidelines regarding
sample size in SEM are available. This is due in part to the fact that there are two issues
involved the determination of sample size in SEM. First, sample size is important for the
accurate acceptance or rejection of a structural model. Fit indexes are sensitive to sample
size, although different indexes are affected by sample size in different ways. Second,
sample size is an important factor in the accurate depiction of parameter estimates. A
sample size adequate to test model ﬁt may not be adequate for attaining accurate
parameter estimates (MacCallum & Austin, 2000).

Despite these difﬁculties, procedures have been developed to determine sample
size needed to Obtain speciﬁc level of power for a given model (MacCallum, Browne, &
Sugawara, 1996). The determination of sample size is made based upon the degrees of

freedom and the desired level of power. Because the degrees of freedom ﬁgure is

57

calculated based on the total number of distinct elements in the model minus the total
number of estimated parameters, a very high number of degrees of freedom can be
achieved with complex structural models in which comparatively few parameters are
estimated. In these cases, a very small sample size may be required in order to obtain an
adequate level of power (MacCallum et al., 1996). However, results of this procedure
should be treated with caution for two reasons (MacCallum et al., 1996). First, sample
size must be equal to or larger than the number of manifest variables in the model in
order to estimate parameters using maximum likelihood method. Second, this method of
determination of sample size and power is based on asymptotic distribution theory and
thus will only remain true with a sufﬁciently large sample size. Additionally, as
previously noted, this is a method of determining sample size to detect model ﬁt only.
Using these methods, a sample size of 480 is needed to have the power to detect good ﬁt
for the largest model. Since this sample size was not obtained for this study, the results

should be interpreted with caution.

58

RESULTS

The analyses presented below are divided into two sections. The ﬁrst section
describes descriptive statistics for the caregiver and the child variables. The second
section describes the structural equation models that were tested in order to address the
three hypotheses. Although multiple regression analysis can be used to analyze path
models, this approach does not provide an overall test of model ﬁt. It also makes
assumptions Often considered restrictive. For example, residual errors of the terms are
assumed to be uncorrelated when oftentimes they are not. Additionally, casual
relationships are assumed to be unidirectional when they are sometimes bi-directional,
and measurement error is assumed to be zero, which is never the case (Pedhazur, 1997).
The software Lisrel 8.53 was used to run all models, and all models were run using raw
data with Maximum Likelihood as the method of estimation.

Descriptive Statistics

Caregiver Variables and Characteristics

Analysis of the caregiver characteristics involved 15 measured variables across
ﬁve different constructs. Correlations between the demographic variables and the ﬁfteen

study variables are presented in Table 7.

59

Table 7

Correlations amongParent Construct and Demographic Variatbles

 

 

 

 

Variable Correlation

Education Ethnicity Income
Conﬁdence
Expectations of Caregiving .017 -.190 .063
Good Caregiver .020 -.232* .146
Comfort with Ability -. 192 .054 -.21 1 *
Interest/Comfort with Role -.191 .020 -.280**
Knowledge of Child Develgment
Knowledge of Emotional Development .511“ -.477** .326“
Knowledge of Cognitive Development .534" -.455** .347**
Knowledge of Physical Development .349“ -.232** .261 *
Knowledge of Social Development .551" -.282** .347”
Parent Engagement in Activities with Child
Educational Activities .304” -.242* .195
Cultural Activities .217* -.240* 209*
Communication about Emotions & Behavior .203* .007 .143
Use of Passport Services
Use of Resource Guide 0.019 -.065 -.026
Use of Newsletter .279“ -.295** .195
Use of Kid Cash 0.083 -.063 -.007
Use of Referral Services 0.111 .202* -.136

 

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level 2-tailed.
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level 2-tai1ed.

60

As shown in Table 7, a large number of the study variables differed signiﬁcantly
based on family demographics. For caregiver sense of competence, some aspects of
conﬁdence were correlated with ethnicity and income. White families were signiﬁcantly
less likely to report feeling like a good caregiver, and families with higher levels of
income were signiﬁcantly less likely to report feeling discomfort with their ability and
lack of interest or discomfort with their role as a caregiver.

Caregiver knowledge Of child development differed signiﬁcantly based on
ethnicity, income level, and education level. Families with higher levels of education,
families with higher incomes, and white families were more likely to have greater
knowledge of child development for each of the four domains.

The caregivers’ report of activities engaged in with their children substantially
differed based on education, ethnicity, and to a lesser extent, income. Families with
higher levels of education reported engaging in more educational activities, cultural
activities, and communication about emotion and behavior with their children. White
families reported engaging in more educational activities and cultural activities with their
children. Families with higher levels in income reported engaging in more cultural
activities with their children.

For use of Passport services, only use of the newsletter and use of referrals
differed based on demographic variables. Families with higher levels of education and
white families were signiﬁcantly more likely to report reading the newsletter. White

families were Signiﬁcantly less likely to utilize referral services than non-white families.

61

Child Variables
Analysis of the child variables consisted of 23 measured variables across ﬁve
different constructs. The correlations between the demographic variables of sex and

ethnicity for these ﬁfteen variables are presented in Table 8.

62

Table 8

Correlations amorg Child Construct and DemogLaphic Variables

 

 

 

 

Sex Ethnicity
Production of Emotion
Production of Happy .060 -.053
Production of Sad -.009 -.084
Production of Angry .043 -.147
Production of Scared -.011 -.260*
Identiﬁcation of Emotion
Identiﬁcation of Happy .249* -.194
Identiﬁcation of Sad .221 * -.427**
Identiﬁcation of Angry -.032 .088
Identiﬁcation of Scared .080 -.016
Number of Attempts to Identify Emotion .099 -.025
Emotion Display Regulation
Negative Behaviors Displayed for Disappointing Gift .023 -.017

Tension Behaviors Displayed for Disappointing Gift -.034 .005

Negative Behaviors Displayed for Last Good Gift .154 .018
Tension Behaviors Displayed for Last Good Gift .000 -.001
Total Number of Behaviors Displayed .060 .001

 

(table continues)

63

Table 8 (Continued)

Correlations among Child Construct and Demographic Variables

 

 

Sex Ethnicity
Behavior Regalation
M&M Task .064 -.035
Whisper Task -.161 .344*
First Fast Roll of Car .120 .084
Third Fast Roll of Car -.004 -.127
Total Difference between Fast and Slow rolls .110 -.042
Amount of Time to Stop in Stop-Go Task -.083 .196
Social Problem SolvirgS_ki_ll§
# of Prosocial Solutions with Familiar Peer .160 -.266**
# of Prosocial Solutions with Non-Familiar Peer .264" -.231*
# of Prosocial Solutions with Caregiver .097 -.127

 

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level 2-tailed.

* Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level 2-tailed.

64

As shown in this table, there are signiﬁcant group differences for the
identiﬁcation of happy and sad, the production of afraid, whispering ability, and total
prosocial solutions with familiar and non-familiar peers. White children were
signiﬁcantly more likely to produce a more discemable afraid face, correctly identify a
sad face, and produce more prosocial solutions to conﬂicts involving familiar and non-
farniliar peers. White children were also less likely to speak out-loud during the whisper
task. Girls were signiﬁcantly more likely to identify happy and sad correctly, and they
were signiﬁcantly more likely to identify a greater number of prosocial solutions to non-
familiar peers.

Structural Equation Models

The ﬁrst series of models tested the hypothesis that higher levels of Passport
usage are related to higher levels of parent efﬁcacy, knowledge of child development,
and positive parenting practices. The second series of models were constructed to test the
hypothesis that the child’s ability to identify, to produce, and to regulate emotions are
related to a latent construct of affective social competence. It was expected that this
latent construct is also related to the child’s social problem solving skills. The third
model tested the hypothesis that higher levels of parent efficacy, knowledge of child
development, and positive parenting practices are related to higher levels of social
competence and social problem solving. The correlation matrix for all variables used in
the structural equation models is presented in Appendix K.

Analytic Strategy for Structural Equation Modeling

A sequence of analyses based on the strategy previously outlined (Farrell, 1994)

were conducted in order to test the proposed hypotheses. The ﬁrst step in testing a

65

structural equation model is to test the relationships between observed/manifest variables
and latent variables (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). It is generally recommended that at
least three manifest variables serve as indicators for each latent variable (Bentler, 1990).
When a single instrument is proposed to compose a construct, the scale scores were
utilized. When multiple instruments were used for the assessment of a single construct,
the summary score for each instrument were used as individual manifest variables. Once
the measurement model was established, analyses examining the hypothesized
relationships among the latent variables were conducted.

Caregiver Models

The measurement model of the caregiver variables yielded a Chi-square of 168.07
(d_f = 89), p=.000 with a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation of .096. The
Comparative Fit Index was poor (.820). The P-value for Test Of Close Fit was .001,
indicating a lack of close ﬁt between the data and the hypothesized measurement model.
When the hypothesized relationships among the latent variables were added to the model,
Chi-square decreased ()52 (84) = 117.14) and the p-value increased slightly to .010. Root
Mean Square Error Of Approximation decreased to .064, and the P-value for Test of
Close Fit was .200. Comparative Fit Index increased to .92. The change in model ﬁt
indicates that the data from the parents ﬁt the hypothesized model better when the
relations among the latent factors are included. The only differentiation ﬁom the
hypothesized model is the inclusion of a correlation between the residuals for the two
comfort manifest factors. The t-value for this path was 8.67 (p_<.05). Additional support

for this model is provided by the distribution of standardized residuals. As shown in

66

Appendix L, the standardized residuals for this model are normally distributed and only
two values fall outside of the normal range.

Table 9 presents the estimates for the paths from the manifest to the latent
variables. As shown in this table, all paths are signiﬁcant except for the path from the

second comfort factor (Lack of Interest/Discomfort with Role) to parental conﬁdence.

67

Table 9

Path Estimates from Manifest to Latent Vagrbles for Parent Constructs

 

 

 

 

 

Estimate
Use of Passport Services
Use of Resource Guide .47*
Use Of Newsletter 129*
Use of Kid Cash .85*
Use of Referral Services .22*
Parent Engagement in Activities with Child
Educational Activities with Child 416*
Cultural Activities with Child 3.00*
Communication about Emotions and Behavior with Child 251*
Parent Knowledge of Child Development
Knowledge of Emotional Development 264*
Knowledge of Cognitive Development 154*
Knowledge of Physical Development 105*
Knowledge of Social Development 153*
P_arent Conﬁdence
Expectations of Caregiving 333*
Good Caregiver 107*
Comfort with Ability 1.86*
Interest/Comfort with Role .69

 

*Signiﬁcant T-value

68

Figure 5 presents the estimates for the factor loadings in the structural model. As
shown in this ﬁgure, the path from Passport Use positively and signiﬁcantly loads onto
Parent Knowledge of Child Development. The path from Passport Use to Parent
Conﬁdence is not signiﬁcant and is negative. However, there is a signiﬁcant and positive
path from Knowledge of Child Development to Parent Conﬁdence. Both Knowledge Of
Child Development and Parent Conﬁdence are signiﬁcantly related to Parent Behavior.
However, Parent Conﬁdence is negatively related to Parent Behavior while Knowledge
of Child Development is positively related to Parent Behavior. Thus, as Parent
Conﬁdence becomes more positive, their engagement in positive Parent Behavior

decreases.

Figure 5. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Caregiver Constructs

Passport Use

 

 

-0.24 0.57“

 

 

 

 

 
     
 

 

 

 

Parent 4 O 3 6*
Conﬁdence

Knowledge of
Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0,52* 032*

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent
Behavior

 

69

Child Models

The initial measurement model for the child variables included ﬁve latent
variables and 23 manifest variables. This measurement model yielded a Chi-square of
312 (d_f = 228, p_= .000) with a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation of .062. The
Comparative F it Index was poor (.850). The P-value for Test of Close Fit was .130,
indicating a close ﬁt between the data and the hypothesized measurement model. There
were two non-hypothesized paths included in the measurement model. For both the
identiﬁcation and production of emotion, correlations between the residuals for happy
and afraid were estimated (-.28 for identiﬁcation of emotion and -1.51 the display of
emotion). Table 10 presents the estimates for the paths from the manifest to the latent
variables. As shown in this table, all paths are signiﬁcant except for the path from
behavior regulation to the total amount of time it took the child to stop in the stop-go

task.

70

Table 10

Path Estimates from Manifest to Latent Variables for Child Variables

 

 

Estimate
Production of Emotion
Happy .49*
Sad .67*
Angry .68*
Aﬁaid .86*
Identiﬁcation of Emotion
Happy 1.57*
Sad .76*
Mad .64*
Afraid 1.31 *
Total Attempted 1.53 *
Emotion Display Regulation
Negative Behaviors for Disappointing Gift 1.02"“
Tension Behaviors for Disappointing Gift .29*
Negative Behaviors for Last Good Gift .43*
Tension Behaviors for Last Good Gift .26*
Total Number of Behaviors Exhibited 2.71 *

71

(table continues)

Table 10 (Continued)

Path Estimates from Manifest to Latent Variables for Child Vaﬂbles

 

 

 

Estimate
Mm Regulation
Inhibition Task 8.70*
Whisper Task -1.17*
Fast Motor Activity 1 -1.58*
Fast Motor Activity 2 -.34*
Slowed Motor Activity 392*
Stop Motor Activity ' .90
Social Problem Solving Skﬂa
Prosocial Solutions with Familiar Peer 8.70*
Prosocial Solutions with Non-familiar Peer l.17*
Prosocial Solutions with Caregiver 1.58“

 

T‘Signiﬁcant path

72

Once the measurement model was established, the three different hypothesized
models were tested: the social affective competence/differentiated regulation model, the
social affective competence/combined regulation model, and the social information
processing model.

For the model of social affective competence/differentiated regulation, the Chi-
square was 241.70 (CE: 223, p_= .186). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
decreased from the measurement model to .030, and the P-value for Test of Close Fit was
.92. Comparative F it Index increased to .94. The change in model ﬁt indicates that the

data from the children ﬁt this model better when these hypothesized relations among the
latent factors are included. Additional support for the model is provided by the Qplot of
standardized residuals. The standardized residuals were normally distributed and none
were beyond the normal range of H35 (Appendix M).

Figure 6 presents the estimates for the factor loadings in this structural model. As
shown in this ﬁgure, all the variables hypothesized to comprise emotional competence
are loaded onto signiﬁcantly and negatively from the second-order latent construct
labeled Emotional Competence with the exception of emotion regulation. This ﬁrst-order
latent variable is negative but not signiﬁcant. Additionally, the latent variable for social

Problem solving is signiﬁcantly and negatively correlated with emotional competence.

73

Figure 6. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Emotional Competence/Differentiated

Emotion Regulation

     
 

Emotion
Display

 

-0.68*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      
 

 

Emotion
Identiﬁcation
-0.71 *
Emotional
Competence . .
-0.60* Inhibitory

Control

 

 

 

 

 

-0.12

 

 

 

 

 

-0.63"‘

 
 

 

 

Social Problem
Solving

 

 
   
 

For the model of social affective competence/combined regulation, the Chi-square
Was 24 1 .47 (df = 222, p_= .176). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

decreased from the measurement model to .030, and the P-value for Test of Close Fit was

74

.91. Comparative Fit Index was .94. The model ﬁt indicates that the data from the
children also ﬁt this model better when these hypothesized relations among the latent

factors are included. The Qplot for this model was identical to the Qplot for the model of

social affective competence/differentiated regulation.

Figure 7 presents the estimates for the factor loadings in this structural model. As
shown in this ﬁgure, the paths from the second order construct of Regulation to Behavior
Regulation and Emotion Regulation were not Signiﬁcant. Additionally, the path from the

second order latent construct of Social Competence to Regulation was not signiﬁcant.

All other paths were signiﬁcant.

75

Figure 7. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Emotional Competence/Combined

Emotion Regulation

 
   
 

Emotion
Display

 

 
 
   
 

-.68*

 

 

 

  

Emotion
Identiﬁcation

 

-.71*

   

  

 

 

  
 

Emotional
Competence

 

   

 

Effortful
Control

 

 

 

 

l 0.05

Regulation

 

 

 

 

  

-0.05

 
 

Emotion
Display
Control

 

 

 

    

 

-.63*

 

 

 

Social
Problem
Solving

76

For the model of social information processing, the Chi-square was 241.70 (d_f =
223, p =.186). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation decreased from the
measurement model to .030, and the P-value for Test of Close Fit was .92. Comparative
Fit Index increased to .94. The change in model ﬁt indicates that the data from the
children ﬁt this model better when these hypothesized relations among the latent factors

are included. Again, the Qplot for this model was identical to the Qplot for the model of

social affective competence/differentiated regulation.

Figure 8 presents the estimates for the factor loadings in this structural model. As

shown in this ﬁgure, all the variables hypothesized to comprise social problem solving
are loaded onto signiﬁcantly from the second-order latent construct labeled Social

Problem Solving with the exception of emotion regulation. Note that the factor loadings

for Social Problem Solving were negative in this model.

77

Figure 8. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Social Information Processing

 
   
   
   
   
 

Emotion
Display

 

 

 

 

  

 

 
     
   
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-0.68*
Emotion
_0 71 ... Identiﬁcation
Social
Information
Processing -0.60* Effortful
Control
-0. 1 2
Emotion
Display Control
-0.63*

 

 

 
   
    

 

Social Problem
Solving

Combined Caregiver/Child Model. The combined model included all paths from
the caregiver model and the social affective competence/differentiated regulation model.
Additional paths included were a path from caregiver behavior to child emotional
competence and to social problem solving. This model yielded a Chi-square of 838.37
(d_f = 651), p = .015 with a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation of .036. The
Comparative Fit Index was poor (.860). The P-value for Test of Close Fit was .960,
indicating a close ﬁt between the data and the hypothesized model. Additional support

for this model is provided by the distribution of standardized residuals. As Shown in

78

Appendix N, the standardized residuals for this model are normally distributed and only
four values fall outside of the normal range.

Figure 9 presents the estimates for the factor loadings in the structural model. As
shown in this ﬁgure, all path loadings are similar to the path loadings in the previous
models (before the two were combined). However, the paths among the emotional
competence variables are reversed in direction, indicating a positive value of emotion
competence. The additional paths connecting the caregiver variables to the child
variables differ in signiﬁcance but not valence. The path from caregiver behavior to
child emotional competence is positive and signiﬁcant, whereas the path from caregiver

behavior to child social problem solving iS positive but insigniﬁcant.

79

Figure 9. Path Coefﬁcients for Model of Combined Caregiver and Child

Constructs

Parent
Conﬁdence

Passport Use

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.23

 

 

 

Social
Problem
Solving

  
   

 

 

 

 

   
   
 

Knowledge of
Development

 

 

0.32*

 

 

   
   

Emotion
Display

 

-0.24 0.57*
< 0.36*
-0.52*
Parent
Behavior
0.53* -0.68

 

 

 

Emotional
Competence

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

-0.71*

 

 

 

 

-0.60*

 

 

80

 

-0.12

 

 

 

  
   
 

  

Emotion
Identiﬁcation

Effortful
Control

   
   
   

Emotion
Display
Control

DISSCUSSION

Child Social Competence
A ﬁctive Social Competence
The current results support the hypothesis that children’s detection of emotion

expressions, display of emotion expressions, control of emotion expression, and control
of inhibition comprise a single overarching construct. This construct, labeled emotional
competence, relates to the construct of social aﬁ‘ective competence proposed by
Halberstadt et al. (2001) and the construct of emotion knowledge discussed by Izard
(2001). F urtherrnore, this construct is positively related with social problem solving
skills. The strength of the model of emotional competence supports the view that
children’s competencies at identifying emotions in others, displaying and controlling the
display of their own emotions, and controlling motor behavior inhibition are positively
related. Children’s overall competence across these different domains, furthermore, is
related to their ability to solve social problems in a variety of contexts in a prosocial
manner.

Because the relation between emotion competence and emotion display control is
not signiﬁcant, the role that emotion display control plays within this construct cannot be
clearly deﬁned. All that can be concluded is that emotion display control, as deﬁned and
assessed in this study, is not signiﬁcantly related to the variance in the other variables that
comprise emotional competence. There are at least three potential explanations for the
lack of support for this expected relationship. First, it could be that emotion display

control simply does not relate to the construct of emotion competence as hypothesized.

81

This explanation, however, seems unlikely given the evidence in the literature for
emotion display control’s relationships with emotional knowledge (Garner, 1999) and
aspects of social functioning (Carlson-J ones et al., 1998; McDowell & Parke, 2000).
Work by Garner (1999) and Carlson-Jones et al. (1998), however, assessed children’s
knowledge of appropriate emotion display during different situations rather than
children’s actual emotion display control. It could be, then, that the ability to control
one’s emotion display in a disappointing situation does not relate to emotion knowledge
in the same way knowledge of display rules relates to emotion knowledge.

A second potential explanation is that sex differences may exist in how emotion
display control relates to emotion knowledge and emotion competence. Research exists
that supports the notion that the relation between social competence and emotion display
rule use differs for boys and girls (Bohnert et al., 2003; Cole, 1986; Cole et al., 1994;
Hubbard, 2001; McDowell et al., 2000). Sex differences in the present study were not
assessed due to the small sample size for each sex.

Third, it could be that the way the data were collected in this study resulted in
invalid indices of emotion display control. Most studies examining emotion display
control utilize video recordings of the children’s reactions for coding. This study, due to
the ﬁnancial and practical limitations of video recording in families’ homes, did not do
so. Rather, data collectors recorded emotion display control as it occurred. Potentially,
because we lacked the ability to examine recordings of children’s reactions, which would
allow the use of slow-motion and rewind techniques, we may have missed the more
subtle behaviors that are indicative of social competence expressed by children.

However, it should be noted that the data collectors received extensive training using

82

video tapes and actors, and reliability ratings were collected from data during these

trainings.

Emotion Regulation

Considering the lack of shared variance among emotion display control and the
other variables of emotional competence, it is interesting to note that the model of
emotional competence with combined emotion regulation failed to provide support for
the overall construct of emotion regulation. In addition to the fact that the relationship
between emotion display control and inhibitory control did not explain the second-order
construct of emotion regulation, the relation between emotion regulation and emotional
competence also was not signiﬁcant. Thus, emotion display control did not relate to the

construct emotional competence as expected, nor did it relate to behavior inhibition in the
alternative model combining the two control variables.
Social Information Processing

The results ﬁom the model of social information processing do not provide
support for the superiority of the model of emotional competence over the model of
social information processing. Both models provided an equally good ﬁt with the data,
and all path loadings were the same. Thus, the data ﬁt equally well the model that
included social information processing as a part of the overarching construct. Because of
the existence of established theoretical views to support both emotion competence
(Halberstadt & Dunsmore, 2001; Izard et al., 2001) and social information processing

(Dodge, 1991), the preferred model, the model of emotional competence, was used in

further analyses.

83

Parent Factors, Prevention Eﬂorts, and Child Outcomes

Passport Use and Parent Factors

The hypothesized relations among the parent factors and Passport use were
generally supported by the results from the model of parent factors. As indicated by the
fit indices (e.g., RMSEA) the proposed relations among knowledge of child development,
parent conﬁdence, and parent behaviors/activities ﬁt the data fairly well. Parents who
used the program more frequently were more likely to have a greater knowledge Of child
development, and these parents were more likely to report participating in positive
activities with their children. However, the relationship between Passport use and parent
conﬁdence was negative and not signiﬁcant, and the relationship between parent
conﬁdence and parent behavior was signiﬁcant and negative. Altemately, the
relationship between knowledge of child development and parent conﬁdence was
signiﬁcant and positive.

Thus, parents who used the Passport program more were more likely to have a
low conﬁdence in their ability as a parent, and parents who had more positive
conceptions of their ability as a parent were less likely to report participating in activities
to promote their child’s social and cognitive development. Moreover, parents with
greater levels of knowledge of child development also were more likely to have a greater
sense of conﬁdence as a parent.

Although these ﬁndings may seem unexpected, they can be better understood in
light of Conrad et al.’s (1992) ﬁndings concerning the interaction between knowledge of
child development and parent conﬁdence. These researchers found that despite a

signiﬁcant and positive relationship between knowledge of child development and parent

84

conﬁdence, there were a group of caregivers who were unknowledgeable about child
development and conﬁdent about their parenting. These parents were much less likely to
have high quality interactions with their child. If such a group exists in our data, then the

variance from this group might be driving the negative relationship between parent

conﬁdence and behavior.
Passport Use, Parent Factors, and Child Outcomes

Although the sample size was quite low given the number of estimated paths,
certain ﬁt indices indicated that the hypothesized relationships among the parent factors
and the child factors ﬁt the data well. Support for an indirect path from Passport use to
parent knowledge and conﬁdence to parent behavior and ﬁnally, to child emotional
competence was found. It is interesting to note that while parent report of engagement in
positive activities with the child was found to relate signiﬁcantly and positively with
child emotional competence, parent behavior and child social problem solving were not
signiﬁcantly related.

These results are in line with the work by others examining social problem
solving skills and parenting, who have found consistent relations between child social
problem solving and parent/child interactions. While some have examined the effects of
abuse (Dodge et al., 1990; Smith & Walden, 1999) and discipline style (Domitrovich &
Bierman, 2001; Carlson-Jones et al., 1980), others have focused on parent/child conﬂict
resolution style (Dunn et al., 1991; Goodman et al., 1999). Dunn et al. (1991) found that
maternal and sibling resolution style during conﬂict with the child predicted the child’s

later resolution style during conﬂict with a peer, even when maternal positive behavior

85

(maternal responsiveness and affection), and sibling positive and negative behavior were
controlled (Dunn et al., 1991).

Work by Fogel (1993) provides a framework for considering how children learn
social problem solving from their parents. F ogel’s work, which typically focuses on the
parent-infant relationship and emphasizes the importance of communication in the
developmental process, identiﬁes a bi-directional communication process between the
infant and the parent that organizes the parent-child relationship.

Throughout infancy and childhood, the parent and caregiver regularly face
conﬂict. The manner in which the caregiver guides the resolution of the conﬂict, even
the resolution of seemingly insigniﬁcant conﬂict such as a discussion concerning the
child’s desire for candy before dinner, is important for the child’s developing social
skills. Since our data on parent behavior indicate the parents’ report of engagement in
educational activities, creative activities, and communication about emotion and
behavior, we are not able to identify the way caregivers’ deal with conﬂict. I propose
that it is not the activities the parent does with the child that inﬂuences how children
solve social problems, rather it is the style of the interactions that is important for the
development Of this skill.

In contrast to the development of social problem solving, the child’s emerging
knowledge and regulation of emotions does appear to be inﬂuenced by parent
engagement in activities with the child. Research has shown that how much parents
discuss emotion with their children is related to their understanding of emotion (Brown &
Dunn, 1996; Kuebli et al., 1995). It has also been shown that how often parents display

negative and positive emotions is related the child’s ability to regulate emotions (Garner,

86

1999; Ramsden & Hubbard, 2002). Considering these reports in the literature, it seems
logical that our parent report of frequency of engagement in activities is related to child

emotional competence.

87

CONCLUSION

There are two major conclusions that can be derived from the current work. First,
the results from this study provide evidence for an overarching construct Of emotional
competence, although it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the superiority of
either a model of emotional competence or a ;model of social information processing. It
was, however, useful to maintain separate constructs for emotional competence and
social problem solving for the examination of the relations between parent behavior and
the child factors. As previously discussed, while parent behaviors were signiﬁcantly
related to child emotional competence, they were not signiﬁcantly related to child social
problem solving.

Second, this work provides support for the notion that engagement in a parent
support program such as Passport is related to greater knowledge of child development,
and that greater knowledge of child development is related to parent engagement in
positive behaviors. Additionally, parent engagement in positive activities is related to
greater emotional competence in the children.

However, caution must be taken not to interpret causality from these ﬁndings.
This study was not longitudinal; data concerning parent use of the program were
collected at the same time as the data concerning parent factors and child competence.
Thus, it cannot be stated that parent use of Passport caused parents to have a greater
knowledge of child development, and that parents’ greater knowledge of child

development caused them to engage more frequently in positive activities with their

88

children. It also cannot be stated that the parents’ engagement in positive activities with
their children caused their children to have greater emotional competence.

The best way these statements can be directly tested is to conduct a longitudinal
study that tracks families across time. However, despite the limitations of the current
study, prior research has provided evidence that these relations typically occur in the
expected directions. Additionally, parents who were interviewed had been engaged in
the program for various periods of time. Approximately 58% of the families interviewed
had been involved with the program for at least three years, and 81% had been involved
with Passport for at least 2 years. If the sample size had been large enough, multi-group
models could have been tested to determine if the relationships found in this study
differed for families new to the program.

An additional concern about the current study is the small sample size.
Replication of these ﬁndings with a larger sample size is necessary in order to ascertain
the reliability of the results. However, the fact the models ﬁt the data as well as they did
with such a small sample size is strong support.

Future Directions

The results ﬁom the current study point to the need for much work in the future.
First, the current study results draw attention to the need for further examination of the
relationships concerning parent conﬁdence, knowledge of child development and parent
behavior. By identifying sub-groups of caregivers with various levels of knowledge of
child development, we can examine how Passport use, parent conﬁdence, and parent

behavior relate differently for these different sub-groups.

89

A great deal of additional work also needs to be conducted concerning the
construct of emotion regulation. First, the effect of child sex on emotion regulation must
be examined. Considering the reports from previous literature concerning how the sex of

the child may inﬂuence how the child’s emotion display rule use and knowledge relate to
social and emotional competence, the ﬁndings for emotion regulation in the current study
must be examined separately for males and females.

Also, exploring different methods of collecting data on emotion display control
and understanding how these different methods relate to the current ﬁndings are critical
steps toward furthering our understanding of emotion regulation. If the current method
of obtaining information concerning children’s emotion display regulation is providing
reliable and valid data, then the current ﬁndings provide evidence that emotion display
regulation may not be as important as inhibitory control in the child’s overall emotional
competence.

Third, as with emotion display control, further examination of the effect of sex
and ethnicity should be conducted. Due to sample size limitation, examination of group
differences in the models tested in this study is not feasible. However, more data are
being collected, and these analyses will be conducted when a large enough sample size is
0“aimed.

Finally, the fourth direction for future research involves the examination of
par etit/child interaction and child social problem solving. The lack of a signiﬁcant
relationship between parent behavior and child social problem solving raises interesting
questions concerning the development of social problem solving skills. Is it the quality

rather than the quantity of interactions between the parent and child that inﬂuences the

90

child’s social problem solving skills? How do family interactions exert their inﬂuence on
the child’s social problem solving skills? How do caregiver social problem solving skills

inﬂuence the child’s ability to resolve conﬂict? These questions are intriguing, and

future research should attempt to provide answers.

91

REFERENCES

Akhtar, N., & Bradley, E. J. (1991). Social information processing deﬁcits of aggressive
children: Present ﬁndings and implications for social skills training. Clinical
Psychology Review, 1 1(5), 621-644.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
41 1-423.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-eﬁ‘icacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman &
CO.

Bartunek, J. M., Foster Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1996). Using collaborative
advocacy to foster intergroup cooperation: A joint insider-outsider investigation.

Human Relations, 49(6), 701-733.

Benasich, A. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996). Maternal attitudes and knowledge of child-
rearing: Associations with family and child outcomes. Child Development, 67(3),
1 1 86-1205.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and
incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate-Behavioral-Research, 25(2),

163-172.

BOhnert, A. M., Crnic, K. A., & Lim, K. G. (2003). Emotional competence and
aggressive behavior in school-age children. Journal of A bnormal Child
Psychology, 31(1), 79-91.

BI‘0<:hin, H. A., & Wasik, B. H. (1992). Social problem solving among popular and
unpopular children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(4), 377-391.

Br OWn, J. R., & Dunn, J. (1996). Continuities in emotion understanding from three to six
years. Child Development, 67(3), 789-802.

Batterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R. M., & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community Coalitions
for Prevention and Health Promotion. Health Education Research, 8(3), 315-330.

Camras, L. A., Ribordy, S., Hill, J., Martino, S., & et al. (1988). Recognition and posing
of emotional expressions by abused children and their mothers. Developmental
Psychology, 24(6), 776-781.

capage, L., & Watson, A. C. (2001). Individual differences in theory of mind, aggressive

behavior, and social skills in young children. Early Education and Development,
12(4), 613-628.

92

Carlson-Jones, D., Abbey, B. B., & Cumberland, A. (1998). The development of display
rule knowledge: Linkages with family expressiveness and social competence.

Child Development, 69(4), 1209-1222.

Carlson-Jones, D., Rickel, A. U., & Smith, R. L. (1980). Maternal child-rearing practices
and social problem-solving strategies among preschoolers. Developmental

Psychology, 1 6(3), 241-242.

Cole, P. M. (1986). Children's spontaneous control of facial expression. Child
Development, 57(6), 1309-1321.

Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Smith, K. D. (1994). Expressive Control During a
Disappointment - Variations Related to Preschoolers Behavior Problems.

Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 835-846.

Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (2003). Maternal self-efﬁcacy beliefs, competence in
parenting, and toddlers' behavior and developmental status. Infant Mental Health

Journal, 24(2), 126-148.

Collins, M., & Nowicki, 8., Jr. (2001). African American children's ability to identify
emotion in facial expressions and tones Of voice of European Americans. Journal-

of-Genetic-Psychology, 162(3), 334-346.

Conrad, B., Gross, D., Fogg, L., & Ruchala, P. (1992). Maternal conﬁdence, knowledge,
and quality of mother/toddler interactions: A preliminary study. Infant Mental
Health Journal, 13(4), 353-362.

Contreras, J. M., Rhodes, J. E., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1995). Pregnant African American
teenagers' expectations of their infants' temperament: Individual and social
network inﬂuences. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16(2), 283-

295.

Corapci, F., & Wachs, T. D. (2002). Does parental mood or efﬁcacy mediate the
inﬂuence of environmental chaos upon parenting behavior? Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 48(2), 182-201.

Denharn, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J ., Sawyer, K., Auerbach Major, S.,
et al. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence?
Child Development, 74(1), 23 8-256.

Denharn, s. A., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E. A., & Holt, R. (1990). Emotional and
behavioral predictors of preschool peer ratings. Child Development, 61 (4), 1145-

1152.

Denharn, S. A., Zoller, D., & Couchoud, E. A. (1994). Socialization of preschoolers’
emotion understanding. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 928-936.

93

Dichtelmiller, M., Meisels, S. J ., Plunkett, J. W., Bozynski, M. E., & et al. (1992). The
relationship of parental knowledge to the development of extremely low birth
weight infants. Journal of Early Intervention, 16(3), 210-220.

Dodge, K. A. (1991). Emotion and social information processing. In J. Garber & K. A.
Dodge (Eds), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 159-
181). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence.
Science, 250(4988), 1678-1683.

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986). Social
competence in children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 51(2), 1-85.

Domitrovich, C. E., & Bierman, K. L. (2001). Parenting practices and child social
adjustment: Multiple pathways of inﬂuence. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 4 7(2),

235-263.

Dumka, L. E., Stoerzinger, H. D., Jackson, K. M., & Roosa, M. W. (1996). Examination
of the cross-cultural and cross-language equivalence of the parenting self-agency
measure. Family Relations, 45(2), 216-222.

Dunn, J ., Brown, J ., & Beardsall, L. (1991). Family Talk About Feeling States and
Childrens Later Understanding of Others Emotions. Developmental Psychology,

27(3), 448-455.

Dunn, J ., & Herrera, C. (1997). Conﬂict resolution with ﬁiends, siblings, and mothers: A
developmental perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 23(5), 343-357.

EaSt, P. L., Matthews, K. L., & Felice, M. E. (1994). Qualities of adolescent mothers'
parenting. Journal of Adolescent Health, 15(2), 163-168.

EiSenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of
emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241-273.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional
emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality Of social functioning.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 136-157.

Elserlberg, N., Gershoff, E. T., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A. J ., Losoya,
S. H., et al. (2001). Mothers' emotional expressivity and children's behavior
problems and social competence: Mediation through children's regulation.
Developmental Psychology, 3 7(4), 475-490.

94

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S., Losoya, S., Murphy, B. C., et al.
(2000). Prediction of elementary school children's externalizing problem

behaviors from attention and behavioral regulation and negative emotionality.
Child Development, 71(5), 1367-1382.

Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., Reiser, M., Murphy, B., et al.
(2001). Parental socialization of children's dysregulated expression of emotion
and externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(2), 183-205.

Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Morris, A. S., F abes, R. A., Cumberland, A., Reiser, M., et
al. (2003). Longitudinal relations among parental emotional expressivity,

children's regulation, and quality of socioemotional functioning. Developmental
Psychology, 39(1), 3-19.

Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., Losoya, S. H., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., et
al. (2003). The relations of parenting, effortful control, and ego control to
children's emotional expressivity. Child Development, 74(3), 875-895.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1976). Measuring facial movement. Environmental
Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 1(1), 56-75.

Erwin, P. G. (1994). Social problem solving, social behavior, and children's peer
popularity. Journal of Psychology, 128(3), 299-306.

F abes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I., Poulin, R., et al. (1999).
Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers' socially competent peer interactions.
Child Development, 70(2), 432-442.

F agot, B. I. (1998). Social problem solving: Effect of context and parent sex.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(2), 389-401.

Fagot, B. 1., & Gauvain, M. (1997). Mother-child problem solving: Continuity through
the early childhood years. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 480-488.

Farrell, A. D. (1994). Structural equation modeling with longitudinal data: Strategies for
examining group differences and reciprocal relationships. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 477-487.

Fewell, R. R., & Wheeden, C. A. (1998). A pilot study of intervention with adolescent
mothers and their children: A preliminary examination of child outcomes. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 18(1), 18-25.

Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and
culture. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press.

95

Fry, P. S. (1985). Relations between teenagers' age, knowledge, expectations and
maternal behaviour. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 47-55.

Gabriel, R. M. (2000). Methodological challenges in evaluating community partnerships
& coalitions: Still crazy after all these years. Journal of Community Psychology,
28(3), 339-352.

Garner, P. W. (1999). Continuity in emotion knowledge from preschool to middle-
childhood and relation to emotion socialization. Motivation and Emotion, 23(4),
247-266.

Garner, P. W., Carlson-Jones, D., Gaddy, G., & Rennie, K. M. (1997). Low-income
mothers' conversations about emotions and their children's emotional competence.
Social Development, 6(1), 37-52.

Goodman, S. H., Barfoot, B., Frye, A. A., & Belli, A. M. (1999). Dimensions of marital
conﬂict and children's social problem-solving skills. Journal of Family
Psychology, 13(1), 33-45.

Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and
the emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of
Family Psychology, 10(3), 243-268.

Gouze, K. R. (1987). Attention and social problem solving as correlates of aggression in
preschool males. Journal of A bnormal Child Psychology, 15(2), 181-197.

Gross, D., Fogg, L., Webster-Stratton, C., Garvey, C., Julion, W., & Grady, J. (2003).
Parent training of toddlers in day care in low-income urban communities. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 261-278.

Halberstadt, A. G., Denharn, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social
competence. Social Development, 10(1), 79-119.

Halberstadt, A. G., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Spinning the pinwheel, together: More
thoughts on affective social competence. Social Development, 10(1), 130-136.

Hamilton, M. L. (1973). Imitative behavior and expressive ability in facial expression of
emotion. Developmental Psychology, 8(1), 138.

Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (1999).
Opening the black box: Using process evaluation measures to assess

implementation and theory building. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 2 7(5), 71 1-73 1 .

96

Harden, B. J ., Winslow, M. B., Kendziora, K. T., Shahinfar, A., Rubin, K. H., Fox, N. A.,
et al. (2000). Externalizing problems in Head Start children: An ecological
exploration. Early Education and Development, 1 1(3), 357-3 85.

Hooven, C., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1995). Parental Meta-Emotion Structure
Predicts Family and Child Outcomes. Cognition & Emotion, 9(2-3), 229-264.

Hubbard, J. A. (2001). Emotion expression processes in children's peer interaction: The
role of peer rejection, aggression, and gender. Child Development, 72(5), 1426-
143 8.

Izard, C., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., & Youngstrom, E. (2001).
Emotion knowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in
children at risk. Psychological Science, 12(1), 18-23.

Izard, C. E., Dougherty, L. M., & Hembree, E. A. (1980). A System of Identifying Aﬂect
Expressions by Holistic Judgements (Affex).Unpublished manuscript, University
Media Services, University of Delaware, Newark.

Izard, C. E., & Kobak, R. R. (1991). Emotions system functioning and emotion
regulation. In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds), The development of emotion
regulation and dysregulation (pp. 303-322). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Josephs, I. E. (1994). Display rule behavior and understanding in preschool children.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18(4), 301-326.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early
childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social
development. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 220-232.

Kuebli, J ., Butler, 8., & Fivush, R. (1995). Mother-child talk about past emotions:
Relations of maternal language and child gender over time. Cognition and
Emotion, 9(2-3), 265-283.

Lancelot, C., & Nowicki, S., Jr. (1997). The association between receptive nonverbal

processing abilities and intemalizing/extemalizing problems in girls and boys.
Journal-of-Genetic-Psychology, 158(3), 297-302.

Larsen, J. J ., & Juhasz, A. M. (1985). The effects of knowledge of child development and
social-emotional maturity on adolescent attitudes toward parenting. Adolescence,
20(80), 823-839.

Larsen, J. J ., & Juhasz, A. M. (1986). The Knowledge of Child Development Inventory.
Adolescence, 21 (8 1), 39-54.

97

Leppanen, J. M., & Hietanen, J. K. (2001). Emotion recognition and social adjustment in
school-aged girls and boys. Scandinavian-.10urnal-of-Psychology, 42(5), 429-435.

Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., & Vasen, A. (1987). Making faces: Age and emotion
differences in the posing of emotional expressions. Developmental Psychology,
23(5), 690-697.

MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling
in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201-226.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 130-149.

McConnell, S. R., & Odom, S. L. (1986). Sociometrics: Peer-referenced measures and
the assessment of social competence. In P. S. Strain, M. Guralnick, J. & H. M.
Walker (Eds), Children 's Social Behavior: Development, Assessment and
Modiﬁcation (pp. 215-284). Orland, FL, USA: Academic Press, Inc.

McDowell, D. J ., O'Neil, R., & Parke, R. D. (2000). Display rule application in a
disappointing situation and children's emotional reactivity: Relations with social
competence. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 306-324.

McDowell, D. J ., & Parke, R. D. (2000). Differential knowledge of display rules for
positive and negative emotions: Inﬂuences from parents, inﬂuences on peers.
Social Development, 9(4), 415-432.

Miller Heyl, J., MacPhee, D., & Fritz, J. J. (1998). DARE to be you: A family-support,
early prevention program. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18(3), 257-285.

Mostow, A. J ., Izard, C. E., Fine, 8., & Trentacosta, C. J. (2002). Modeling emotional,
cognitive, and behavioral predictors of peer acceptance. Child Development,
73(6), 1775-1787.

Mott, P., & Krane, A. (1994). Interpersonal cognitive problem-solving and childhood
social competence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18(2), 127-141.

Murphy, B. C., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999).
Consistency and change in children's emotionality and regulation: A longitudinal
study. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 45(3), 413-444.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1992). The association of children's nonverbal decoding

abilities with their popularity, locus of control, and academic achievement.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153(4), 385-393.

98

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual diﬁerences in the nonverbal
communication Of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18(1), 9-35.

Nowicki, 8., Jr., & Carton, E. (1997). The relation of nonverbal processing ability of
faces and voices and children's feelings of depression and competence. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 158(3), 357-363.

Nowicki, 8., Jr., & DiGirolamo, A. (1989). The association of external locus of control,

nonverbal processing difﬁculties, and emotional disturbance. Behavioral
Disorders, 15(1), 28-34.

Nowicki, S., Jr., Glanville, D., & Demertzis, A. (1998). A test of the ability to recognize
emotion in the facial expressions of Aﬁican American adults. Journal of Black
Psychology, 24(3), 335-350.

Nowicki, S., Jr., & Mitchell, J. (1998). Accuracy in identifying affect in child and adult
faces and voices and social competence in preschool children. Genetic, Social,
and General Psychology Monographs, 124(1), 39-59.

Olson, S. L., & Rosenblum, K. (1998). Preschool antecedents of internalizing problems
in children beginning school: The role of social maladaptation. Early Education
and Development, 9(2), 117-129.

Ontai, L. L., & Thompson, R. A. (2002). Patterns of attachment and maternal discourse
effects on children's emotion understanding from 3 to 5 years of age. Social
Development, 11(4), 433-450.

Pakaslahti, L., Asplund Peltola, R L., & Keltikangas Jaervinen, L. (1996). Parents' social
problem-solving strategies in families with aggressive and non-aggressive boys.
Aggressive Behavior, 22(5), 345-356.

Panzarine, S., Slater, E., & Sharps, P. (1995). Coping, social support, and depressive
symptoms in adolescent mothers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 1 7(2), 113-119.

Parker, F. L., Boak, A. Y., Griffm, K. W., Ripple, C., & Peay, L. (1999). Parent-child
relationship, home learning environment, and school readiness. School
Psychology Review, 28(3), 413-425.

Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.).

Pedhazur, E. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research (3rd ed.). New York:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

99

Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Brown, M. M. (1988). Early family experience, social
problem solving patterns, and children's social competence. Child Development,
59(1), 107-120.

Philippot, P., & Feldman, R. S. (1990). Age and social competence in preschoolers'
decoding of facial expression. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(1), 43-54.

Pisterman, S., Firestone, P., McGrath, P., Goodman, J. T., & et al. (1992). The effects of
parent training on parenting stress and sense of competence. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 24(1), 41-58.

Pollak, S. D., Cicchetti, D., Homung, K., & Reed, A. (2000). Recognizing emotion in
faces: Developmental effects of child abuse and neglect. Developmental
Psychology, 36(5), 679-688.

Pomerleau, A., Malcuit, G., Seguin, R., Lamarre, G., Moreau, J ., & Jeliu, G. (1998).
Adolescent mothers' report of their nine-montlr-old infants' temperament:
Psychosocial variables, infants' neonatal characteristics, and psychomotor
development. Archives de Psychologie, 66(257), 67-84.

Ramsden, S. R., & Hubbard, J. A. (2002). Family expressiveness and parental emotion

coaching: Their role in children's emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychologi, 30(6), 657-667.

Rickard, K. M., Graziano, W., & Forehand, R. (1984). Parental expectations and
childhood deviance in clinic-referred and non-clinic children. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology, 13(2), 179-186.

Rivara, F. P., & Howard, D. (1982). Parental knowledge of child development and injury
risks. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 3(2), 103-105.

Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rubin, K. H., & Clark, M. L. (1983). Preschool teachers' ratings of behavioral problems:
Observational, sociometric, and social-cognitive correlates. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 11(2), 273-286.

Rubin, K. H., & Krasnor, L. R. (1986). Social-Cognitive and Social Behavioral
Perspectives on Problem-Solving (V 01. 18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

Rubin, K. H., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interpersonal problem solving and social
competence in children. In Van Hasselt, Vincent B. (Ed); Hersen, Michel (Ed).
(1992). Handbook of social development: A lifespan perspective. Perspectives in
developmental psychology. mp. 283-323). New York, NY, US: Plenum Press.

100

Rudolph, K. D., & Heller, T. L. (1997). Interpersonal problem solving, externalizing
behavior, and social competence in preschoolers: A knowledge-performance
discrepancy? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), 107-1 17.

Rydell, A. M., Berlin, L., & Bohlin, G. (2003). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and
adaptation among 5- to 8-year-old children. Emotion, 3(1), 30-47.

Saami, C. (1984). An observational study of children's attempts to monitor their
expressive behavior. Child Development, 55(4), 1504-1513.

Schultz, D., Izard, C. E., Ackerman, B. P., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2001). Emotion
knowledge in economically disadvantaged children: Self-regulatory antecedents
and relations to social difﬁculties and withdrawal. Development and
Psychopathology, 13(1), 53-67.

Shields, S. A., & Padawer, J. A. (1983). Children's standards for judging their own facial
expressions of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8(2), 109-125.

Shortt, J. W., Bush, L. K., McCabe, J. L. R., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1994).
Childrens Physiological-Responses While Producing Facial Expressions of

Emotions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly-Journal of Developmental Psychology,
40(1), 40-59.

Smith, M., & Walden, T. (1999). Understanding feelings and coping with emotional
situations: A comparison of maltreated and nonmaltreated preschoolers. Social
Development, 8(1), 93-116.

Smith, M., & Walden, T. (2001). An exploration of Aﬁ'ican American preschool-aged
children's behavioral regulation in emotionally arousing situations. Child Study
Journal, 31(1), 13-45.

Southam-Gerow, M. A., & Kendall, P. C. (2002). Emotion regulation and understanding -
Implications for child psychopathology and therapy. Clinical Psychology Review,
22(2), 189-222.

Spence, S. H. (1987). The relationship between social-cognitive skills and peer
sociometric status. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(4), 347-3 56.

Spivack, G., & Shure, M. B. (1985). ICPS and beyond: Centripetal and centrifugal forces.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(3), 226-243.

Stoiber, K. C., & Houghton, T. G. (1993). The relationship of adolescent mothers'

expectations, knowledge, and beliefs to their young children's coping behavior.
Infant Mental Health Journal, 14(1), 61-79.

101

Sullivan, L. A., Kirkpatrick, S. W., & MacDonald, P. M. (1995). Interpretations of facial
expressions of emotion by sexually abused and non-abused girls. Journal of Child
Sexual Abuse, 4(1), 45-61.

Teti, D. M., & Gelfand, D. M. (1991). Behavioral competence among mothers of infants
in the ﬁrst year: The mediational role of maternal self-efﬁcacy. Child
Development, 62(5), 918-929.

Teti, D. M., O'Connell, M. A., & Reiner, C. D. (1996). Parenting sensitivity, parental
depression and child health: The mediational role of parental self-efﬁcacy. Early
Development and Parenting, 5(4), 237-250.

Thompson, R. W., Ruma, P. R., Schuchmann, L. F., & Burke, R. V. (1996). A cost-
effectiveness evaluation of parent training. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
5(4), 415-429.

Webster-Stratton, C., & Lindsay, D. W. (1999). Social competence and conduct problems

in young children: Issues in assessment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
28( 1 ), 25-43.

Williams, B. R., Ponesse, J. S., Schachar, R. J ., Logan, G. D., & Tannock, R. (1999).
Development of inhibitory control across the life Span. Developmental
Psychology, 35(1), 205-213.

Williams, T. M., Joy, L. A., Travis, L., Gotowiec, A., & et al. (1987). Transition to
motherhood: A longitudinal study. Infant Mental Health Journal, 8(3), 251-265.

Wint, E., & Brown, J. (1987). Promoting effective parenting: A study of two methods in
Kingston, Jamaica. Child Welfare, 66(6), 507-516.

Youngstrom, E., Wolpaw, J. M., Kogos, J. L., Schoff, K., Ackerman, B., & Izard, C.
(2000). Interpersonal problem solving in preschool and ﬁrst grade:
Developmental change and ecological validity. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 29(4), 589-602.

Zahr, L. K. (1991). The relationship between maternal conﬁdence and mothemfant
behaviors in premature infants. Research in Nursing and Health, 14(4), 279-286.

102

APPENDIX A
Passport Program Details
Passport Enrollment Process and Member Benefits

The Passport Program is a population-based program. All Genesee County
parents of children born after the inception of the program have an Opportunity to enroll.
Most families enroll at distribution sites located throughout the community, including
physician ofﬁces, local hospitals, community fairs, schools, libraries, and businesses
frequented by parents, such as Babies-R-Us.

Families in the program receive information about child development and
parenting, case advocacy, and incentives for participating in activities that promote the
positive social, emotional, cognitive and physical development of their child.
Information and Education

All Passport members receive a Resource Manual that is both a record keeping
and an educational tool for parents. It includes a timetable for prenatal care, well-baby
check ups, and immunizations, as well as suggestions of activities for parents to do with
their infants at different developmental stages. The record-keeping section of the manual
is designed to make it simple and convenient for parents to record their child’s health
history from prenatal care to their sixth birthday. A safety section, added in 2000, guides
parents to document their child’s identifying information through the use of photographs,
ﬁngerprints, etc. Passport parents/caregivers also receive quarterly newsletters that
provide information concerning child development, parenting, and community resources.
The manual and newsletters are written at a seventh-grade level so that all members can

understand the information provided.

103

Case Management/Member Service Delivery

Through regular phone calls, Passport staff members communicate with families
in order to assess family needs. When needs are identiﬁed, staff members call agencies
to arrange for service delivery and provide members with the contact information for
these agencies. This procedure ensures that members are not placed on waiting lists.
Passport members receive case management services in two ways. First, staff members
contact families annually to ensure family well-being. Second, families can call the
ofﬁce to discuss speciﬁc needs.

The yearly calls by Passport staff are called Family Comfort Check Calls. Staff
members call families to identify family needs, make referrals to community agencies,
and to ﬁnd out whether previous services were useful. A Comfort Check Call
Questionnaire was developed by the community and is used to guide staff in contacting
families. The questionnaire includes a series of questions about: 1) the child’s and/or
pregnant mother’s health, availability and use of health care services, 2) the family’s use
of the program and 3) a simple developmental screening. There are separate forms for
pre- and post-natal stages.

Incentives

An incentive program was developed as a way to encourage parents to engage in
activities that will promote their child’s emotional and physical well being. The program
consists of Care Credit Cards (for prenatal to 6 years of age) and Kid Cash vouchers. The
Care Credit Cards, which are included in the manual, are prepaid postcards listing age-

appropriate activities for parents to do with their children.

104

The Passport Manager and an early childhood development expert from the
Institute for Clinical Social Work in Chicago developed the activities for the Care Credit
Cards. Some of the activities are self-reported, such as “participate in cultural events
with your child”; other activities require veriﬁcation by a health professional. For
example, a health care professional must conﬁrm any prenatal visits, postnatal check-ups,
and immunizations. As activities are completed, members ﬁll out the applicable Care
Credit Cards and mail them to the Passport Ofﬁce. The Kid Cash Staff Specialist reviews
the appropriateness of the activity. If valid, the caregiver is mailed the Kid Cash earned.
Kid Cash refers to the vouchers that can be redeemed at local businesses for services or
discounts donated by merchants. Each merchant determines the amount and type Of

discount to be provided.

105

APPENDIX B

PASSPORT USAGE INSTRUMENT

Please answer the following questions concerning how much you use or do not use
and how helpful or not helpful the different aspects Of the Passport program are.

1.

How often have you used/read your resource guide?

Never Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Very Often
I 2 3 4 5
How helpful has the resource guide been?
Somewhat
Not Helpful A Little Helpful Helpful Helpful Very Helpful
1 2 3 4 5
How often have you used/read the Passport newsletters?
Never Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Very Often
I 2 3 4 5
How helpful have the newsletters been?
Somewhat
Not Helpful A Little Helpful Helpful Helpful Very Helpful
1 2 3 4 5
How Often have you used the kid cash/care credit cards?
Never Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Very Often
1 2 3 4 5
How helpful have the kid cash/care credit cards been?
Somewhat
Not Helpful A Little Helpful Helpful Helpful Very Helpful
1 2 3 4 5
How often have you called Passport for help in dealing with a
problem?
Never Occasionally Sometimes Frequently Very Often
I 2 3 4 5
How helpful has it been to call Passport for help in dealing with a problem?
Somewhat Very
Not Helpful A Little Helpful Helpﬁrl Helpful Helpful
1 2 3 4 5

106

APPENDIX C
KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT INVENTORY

Directions: This is a test of knowledge of child development, from birth to age three.
Read each question carefully. Mark the box you believe best answers the question. There
is only one correct answer for each question.

For example:
0. When children ﬁrst begin to talk they usually
a) speak in complete sentences
b) say simple words such as “Mama” or “Dada”
c) say things such as, “I’m hungry. Give me a bottle”
(1) use adjectives, adverbs and propositions
Answer: b

1. It is important for the infant’s emotional development that his mother
a) teaches him not to be afraid of anything
b) touches him, loves him, and gives him attention
c) teaches him right from wrong
d) teaches him not to cry

2. Which of the following is basic in the infant’s emotional development? The
development of
a) a sense of patience
b) a sense of respect
c) a sense Of fear
d) a sense Of trust

3. What type of care causes a fearful, mistrustful child?
a) spoiling the baby by always comforting or meeting the baby’s needs
b) insensitive, irregular care
c) how the baby is cared for does not really matter since babies are born with
a natural tendency to trust
(1) any care outside the home, no matter how good, causes a fearful,
mistrustful child

4. A close relationship between a mother and child is most related to
a) the number of hours spent together
b) the quality of the hours spent together
0) how many children are in the family
d) birth order, whether the child is oldest, middle, youngest or an only child

107

. When a child becomes about two years old he has an important need to

a) remain dependent on his mother to do everything for him

b) learn to ride tricycles and color within lines

c) become more independent and begin to do things for himself
(1) play games with a group of children

. A two-year Old has begun to say “no” when he is asked to put his toys away. This
response
a) shows that he is spoiled
b) is typical of a normal two-year-old’s development toward independence
c) shows that he has not been properly disciplined
d) should be ignored

. What nright cause a child to feel worthless?

a) allowing the child to follow his own interests
b) allowing the child to make choices for himself
c) using shame as a method to control the child
(1) being ﬁrm, but kind when correcting the child

. When a six-month-old baby cries whenever a stranger comes near, the mother
Should
a) place the baby in the strangers arms so that he overcomes his fears
b) ask her doctor about the problem because this is not a normal reaction
c) scold the baby since the child has to learn not to be afraid
(1) direct attention away from the baby until he gets used to the stranger

. When a mother gives her baby new objects or toys, how would you expect the
baby to respond?

a) with no interest, because a baby only likes the familiar

b) with confusion, because the baby can learn only one thing at a time

c) with curiosity, because a baby enjoys exploring new things

d) with fear, because it is a natural reaction

108

10. Shortly after the arrival of his baby sister, a three-year-Old boy begins refusing to
feed and dress himself. His parents can best deal with the boy by
a) explaining to him that he is a big boy and should act like one
b) not giving the child treats until he starts to do these things for himself
agaln
c) promising him a special treat if he feeds or dresses himself
(1) showing him more love and spending more time with him

11. The keynote phrase of the two-year-old is
a) “look at me”
b) “will you do this for me?”
e) “me do”
(I) “leave me alone”

12. Cuddling and touching an infant
a) is not very important in the ﬁrst four weeks
b) is not very important after the ﬁrst four weeks
c) is very important during the ﬁrst four weeks and after
(1) often will spoil the child

13. If the child is to grow to be a happy, well-adjusted adult, he must
a) be protected from all unpleasant emotions
b) learn to cope with unpleasant emotions
0) learn to cope with his emotions
d) experience only pleasant emotions

14. The ability to respond emotionally
a) does not appear until the baby recognizes strangers
b) appears in the newborn infant
c) is the result of learning
d) is the result of conditioning

15. What are typical behaviors of a newborn baby?
a) rolls over from his back to his stomach
b) keeps his eyes shut because he cannot see
c) gets up on his hands and knees
d) watches things move and seeks the source of food

16. What can family members do to help the young baby’s development?
a) protect the child by keeping him in his crib
b) it is not necessary to do much of anything because the child will not learn
until much later
c) ﬁrmly correct the child each time he does something wrong
d) talk to, change position, provide toys, cuddle, and play with the baby

109

17. Which of the following is true of early childhood experience?
a) only educational toys should be bought for young children
b) children need to explore and examine all kinds of things
c) it does not really matter what they do because young children are too
young to learn
(1) children should be kept in their cribs so they don’t get hurt

18. When the mother plays the game of peek-a-boo with her baby, it most helps the
baby to
a) understand that his mother will come back after she leaves
b) see better
c) learn to close his eyes
(1) improve his ﬁne motor control

19. What should a parent do when the baby begins to crawl?
a) the child should be allowed to play with any Objects of interest
b) the child should be kept in his crib so he does not mess things up
c) the child should be spanked when he gets into things so that he learns not
to bother household items
(1) breakable and valuable things Should be removed but interesting things
should be left out for the child to play with

20. What can family members do to help a young child’s development?
a) allow the child to choose activities that interest him
b) always choose the child’s activities for him
c) control the child’s activities so that he doesn’t become too independent
d) family members need not do anything because the child is born either
bright or dull

21. When a child is interested in something, the mother should
a) tell the child to discuss it with his father when he arrives home
b) pretend to listen to the child while going on with the important household
work
c) attempt to understand the child and seriously listen to his thoughts
d) ignore the child so he learns not to interrupt her with his ideas

22. What advice should a mother be given to help her improve her child’s language?
a) restrict the child so that he does not hear improper language
b) correct the child every time he says something wrong
c) talk to the child and listen to the child
d) have the child repeat sentences after her

110

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

How does the idea that “children should be seen and not heard,” relate to
language development?
a) it is correct because this is a teaching passed down through generations
b) it is wrong because children should be listened to and talked to
c) it is correct because children do not need to be listened to and talked to
d) it does not really matter because children talk to each other

A child’s ﬁrst sentences include many
a) nouns
b) verbs
c) adverbs

d) propositions

Differences in the language development of young children are mainly due to
a) differences in desire to speak
b) differences in motor development
c) opportunities for learning
d) the child’s level of physical development

The young child who chooses the plate of four cookies over a plate Of two cookies
is showing

a) his ability to understand similarities

b) his ability to understand differences

c) his ability to understand numbers

d) his ability to count

The ﬁrst thing a child learns is usually
a) tied to stories from books
b) tied to dreams
c) tied to concrete things
d) tied to abstract things

Of all the things shown to young infants, which of the following does he ﬁnd
most interesting?

a) a bulls’ eye

b) an oval target with dots

c) stripes

d) a human face

29. Newborn babies do not

a) smile
b) reach for objects

c) make stepping movements
(1) thumb-suck

111

30. How great are differences among newborn babies?
a) no differences at all, all newborn babies are the same
b) slight differences in heart rate, level of arousal, depth Of sleep, hand mouth
contact
0) large differences in heart rate, level of arousal, depth of sleep, hand mouth
contact
d) no two newborn babies are alike in the same way

31. The introduction of solid foods before three months in most babies
a) is safe if limited to potato and gravy
b) may place strain upon the baby’s kidneys
c) is much better for the baby than breast milk
d) is not related to being overweight later in life

32. What does a baby learn to do ﬁrst?
a) hit a mobile
b) control his head
c) roll over
d) pull himself up

33. Is it important for a young child to get plenty of restful sleep?
a) yes, it can make up for missed meals
b) not really, however a sleeping child means relief for the mother
c) yes, restful sleep is important for proper growth and behavior
(I) no, restful sleep is not important for proper growth and behavior

34. About how many hours does an infant sleep in a twenty-four hour period?
a) 5
b) 8
c) 17
d) 23

35. Does poor nutrition affect the young child?
a) no, it really does not affect the young child very much
b) yes, but it can be made up later in life
c) maybe, it depends on the child
d) yes, it affects his growth and makes it easier for him to become ill

36. When a two-year-old child pushes off his wet pants
a) it indicates that the child is stubborn because he won’t keep his wet pants
on
b) it is a Sign that he is becoming aware of when he wets, and will soon be
ready to learn to use the toilet
c) it is a sign that the child is too lazy to use the toilet
d) none of the above, a two-year-Old should have already been toilet trained

112

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

If parent of a young child slaps his left hand when he uses it rather than his right
hand, this

a) will make sure the child is right handed when he gets older

b) will make no difference

c) might cause the child to be nervous about which hand to use

d) might cause the child to learn left from right, early in his development

If a two-year-old child tries to push a spoon handle into the electrical outlet, the
mother should,
a) let the baby push the spoon into the outlet so that he will get an electric
shock
b) push the spoon into the outlet herself so the baby will see what happens
c) explain to the child in great detail the dangers Of electricity
(1) stop the child immediately because he may be seriously injured

Why is supervision important for young children?
a) to correct misbehavior
b) to involve the mother in the child’s activities
c) to prevent accidents
d) to keep the child busy with planned activities

The meal most enjoyed by young children is
a) breakfast
b) lunch
c) afternoon snack
(1) dinner

What is the most frequent cause of death for young children in the United States?
a) pneumonia
b) accidents
c) cancer
(I) measles

The Moro Reﬂex is
a) a strong grasp on anything placed in an infant’s hand
b) the infant’s lifting of his legs as if walking
c) a laughing response to being tickled
d) an infant’s response to a loud noise

If a two-month-old child smiles at everyone, even strangers, the mother should
a) keep the child away from strangers
b) be concerned that the child is too trusting
c) realize this is normal and in time the child will recognize strangers
d) tell the child in a ﬁrm tone not to smile at strangers

113

44. When the baby ﬁngers his genitals, the mother should
a) scold him
b) slap his hand
c) permit the child to explore his body

45. Why might temper outbursts increase as a baby approaches two years of age?
a) because he is becoming more dependent on others
b) because he has a great need to do things for himself
c) because the child is spoiled and used to getting his own way
d) has nothing to do with age, it is just the way the baby is

46. The young child needs
a) harsh rules
b) rules that are clear and ﬁrm
e) no rules

d) rules that change often

47. If two boys, both two years old, seem to push and hit when they play together,
their mothers should
a) never allow them to play together
b) before play begins threaten them with punishment if they push and hit
c) realize that this is normal behavior for two-year-olds
d) be concerned that the boys are overly aggressive

48. If two girls, both two years old, play side by side rather than with each other, their
mothers should
a) be concerned that something is the matter with the girls
b) tell the girls to play together
e) have an older girl join the girls to show them how to play with each other
d) realize that this type of play is normal for their age

49. When a three-year-old child misbehaves, his mother should
a) compare his behavior with others
b) spank and remove the child from the situation
0) ﬁrmly, but calmly remind him of the rules and if then continues, remove
the child from the situation
(I) shame him and remove the child from the situation

50. In dealing with anger in their toddlers, parents can best help their children to
develop self-control by
a) giving choices within ﬁrm limits
b) giving plenty of opportunities for expressing anger
c) ignoring angry outbursts
d) punishing lightly but consistently after each outburst

114

51. Which of the following statement is true?
a) the sooner toilet training is begun the less time it will take
b) punishment and scolding shorten the time needed to complete toilet
training
c) when toilet training is begun is not important
d) children toilet trained after the age of 20 months tend to learn quickly

52. Parallel play means that
a) the children are not aware Of each other’s presence
b) the children play the same activity side by Side, but independently
c) the children play together cooperatively
d) the child plays alone

53. Cooperation
a) appears in children’s play by the time they are two years of age
b) is best developed by strict child-training methods
c) is uncommon in young children because they are too self-centered to
cooperate with others
(I) is uncommon in many young children because their parents do too much
for them

54. Aggression in young children is
a) always provoked by others
b) Often unprovoked by others
0) always in the form of physical attacks on others
d) usually in the form of physical attacks on others

55. Early social experiences are
a) more important in the home than outside the home
b) more important outside the home than in the home
c) limited to the mother
(1) more important with peers

56. Conformity to group expectations
a) is unimportant
b) is best achieved by strict child training
c) is necessary for the socialization of the child
(1) is best achieved by waiting until the child is older than four years of age

115

APPENDIX D

THE PARENTING SENSE OF COMPETENCE SCALE

Rating Scale:
Strongly Agree Slightly Slightly Disagree Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6

Expectations of Caregiving:
1. The problems of taking care of a baby are easy to solve once you know how your
actions affect your baby, an understanding I have acquired.
2. I meet my own personal expectations for expertise in caring for my child.
3. I would make a ﬁne model for a new mother to follow in order to learn what she
would need to know to be a good parent.
4. Being a parent is manageable, and any problems are easily solved.

Good Caregiver:
1. Being a good mother is a reward in itself.
2. If anyone can ﬁnd the answer to what is troubling my child, I am the one.
3. Considering how long I’ve been a mother, I feel thoroughly familiar with this
role.
4. I honestly believe I have all the skills necessary to be a good mother to my child.

Discomfort with Ability:
1. Even though being a parent can be rewarding, I was ﬁ'ustrated while my child was
only an infant.

2. I do not know why it is, but sometimes when I’m supposed to be in control, I feel
more like the one being manipulated.

My mother was better prepared to be a good mother than I am.

Sometimes I feel like I’m not getting anything done.

I go to bed the same way I wake up in the morning — feeling I have not
accomplished a whole lot.

SAPS"

Lack of Interest/Discomfort with Role:
1. My talents and interests are in other areas, not in being a parent.
2. If being a mother of an infant were only more interesting, I would be motivated to
do a better job as a parent.
3. Being a parent makes me tense and anxious.
4. A difﬁcult problem in being a parent is not knowing whether you’re doing a good
job or a bad one.

116

APPENDIX E
PARENTING QUESTIONNAIRE

Rating Scale for Educational Interactions:
Very Somewhat Slightly Slightly Somewhat Very
Untrue Untrue Untrue True True True
1 2 3 4 5 6

Rating Scale for Creative Engagements and Communication about Emotion and
Behavior:

Never Very Rarely Sometimes Often Almost all
Rarely the Time
1 2 3 4 5 6

Educational Interactions:
1. I keep a weekly calendar for my child's activities (such as birthdays, school days,
or special events).
I teach my child the names of the days of the week.
I teach my child the names of the months of the year.
I teach my child the names of the seasons of the year.
I have begun teaching my child about time.
I take my child to the library.
I read stories to my child every day.

$9999!"

Creative Engagements:
1. I take my child to community and cultural events like fairs, museums, and
children’s theater.
I do art projects with my child.
I listen to music with my child.
I play make-believe with my child.
I play games with my child.

PEEP!"

Communication about Emotion and Behavior:

1. I ask my child to tell me about his/her day.

2. I help my child talk about how he/she acts when different things happen
throughout the day.
I help my child talk about how he/she feels when different things happen
throughout the day.
I talk to my child about how his/her behavior might make other people feel.
I talk to my child about how to handle his/her emotions.
I tell my child behaviors that I am proud of.
I talk to my child about how to be polite to others.
I talk to my child about what to do when he/ she is angry or upset.

9’

$89.5"?

117

APPENDIX F
EMOTION PRODUCTION TASK

INSTRUCTIONS: Sometimes, when we feel certain ways, we show others how we feel
by the look on our face, so that they can know how we feel. Like when you are happy,
and you want your mom to know you are happy, you show her your happy face. Do you
understand?

Rating Scale:
Did not try Tried, but Displayed the Displayed the Displayed the
to display could not emotion: emotion: emotion:
emotion display Barely Somewhat Very
emotion detectable detectable detectable
0 l 2 3 4

1. Can you show me your happy face? (Like when you get a really great present.)

2. Can you show me your sad face? (Like when you ﬁnd out you can’t go play with your
friends.)

3. Can you Show me your angry face? (Like when somebody breaks your favorite toy.)

4. Can you show me your afraid face? (Like when you are watching a scary movie.)

118

APPENDIX G

THREE-BAG-TASK CODES

 

Positive

Smile

 

Raised eyebrows

 

Eye contact

 

Positive tone of voice

 

Positive verbal comments

 

Giggles or laughs

 

Forgiveness/apology

 

Leaning forward

 

Use of hand gestures while talking

 

Playing with gift

 

Negative

Down-turned mouth

 

Knit eyebrows

 

Avoids eye contact

 

Sharp breath exhalation

 

Sighing

 

Negative tone of voice

 

Negative verbal comments

 

Leaning back

 

Avoidance of gift

 

Tension

Jaw wrenching or tongue protrusion

 

Lip pressing, biting, pursing, sucking

 

Nose wrinkle

 

Rapid nervous blinking

 

Scanning the room

 

Hand ﬁdgeting or drumming

 

Object manipulation

 

Rubs eyes, mouth, face or body

 

Mouths Objects

 

Eating/drinking

 

Shoulder shrug or questioning behavior

 

 

Social monitoring

Abrupt onset or offset Of smile

 

Long staring at toy without expression

 

Long staring at experimenter without expression

 

Rapid glances at experimenter when not talking

 

Faint or mumbled “Thank you”

 

Questioning vocalization (i.e., “Um?”)

 

Displaying gift

 

 

Tilt of head

 

119

 

APPENDIX H

BEHAVIORAL REGULATION TASKS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TASK CODING

Keep the M&M or skittle on your tongue (or Total Time

between your teeth) for longer than I can (the

experimenter) or for up to one minute.

Roll the car as quickly as you can from here to Total Time

there.

Roll the car as slowly as you can from here to Total Time

there.

Again, roll the car as quickly as you can ﬁ'om Total Time

here to there.

Again, roll the car as slowly as you can from Total Time

here to there.

Your goal is to go from here to there as quickly Total Time for Last

as you can, but you can go only when I am Stop

holding the green sign. You cannot go when I

am holding the red Sign. Okay? (Alternate red

and green Sign twice each until child reaches

end — StopL Go, Stop, Go)

Again, your goal is to go from here to there as Total Time for Last

quickly as you can, but you can go only when I Stop

am holding the green Sign. You cannot go when

I am holding the red Sign. Okay? (Alternate red

and green sign twice each until child reaches

end.)

Name the cartoon characters in a whisper (10 Shouts

characters). Part Aloud
Part Whisper
Nothing
Whisper

 

 

120

 

APPENDIX I

WALLY ITEMS

#1. Suppose you ask a friend to play with you and (s)he refuses.
#2. Suppose you break something of your mother/father’s that (s)he really, really likes.

#3. Suppose your sister/brother (ﬁiend) started teasing you and you teased her/him back,
then your mother (father) sent you to your room.

#4. Suppose you are constantly teased and made fun of by another child in your
neighborhood.

#5. Suppose you really want this toy in the store but your father (mother) won’t let you
have it.

#6. Suppose you just ripped your brand new pair of pants that your mother/father bought
for a special event.

#7. Suppose another child calls you a baby for playing dolls.
#8. Suppose you are lonely and want to play with other kids on the playground.

#9. Suppose the cupcake that you’ve been saving has suddenly disappeared and you see
icing on your sister/brother/friend’s mouth.

#10. You worked really hard helping your mom in order to earn a toy. Right after you
ﬁnally get the toy, your brother/sister/friend wrecks it.

#11. Suppose there was only one piece of pizza left and you and your sister/brother/friend
both wanted it.

#12. Suppose your mom (dad) is mad at you because you didn’t come in from playing
outside on time.

#13. Suppose a child much younger than you started hitting you.

#14. Suppose a boy (girl) had been playing for a long, long time with a toy and you
wanted to play with it.

#15. Suppose you want to meet a new kid who has just come into your neighborhood.

121

APPENDIX J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WALLY CODES
Admission / Truth telling Prosocial
Apologize Prosocial
Ask for reason Prosocial
Ask or demand retribution Prosocial
Ask/ask again/try again Prosocial
Assert verbally Prosocial
Be punished by adult Prosocial
Bribe Agonistic
Claim for self Agonistic
Clean them up or inform Prosocial
Complain of physical ailment Agonistic
Comply Prosocial
Cry / Whine Agonistic
Defend self Prosocial
Deﬁance / Deny adult authority Agonistic
Delay Agonistic
Deny / Lie / Devious Agonistic
Destructive retaliation (to object) Agonistic
Devise other appropriate strategies Prosocial
Do nothirg Prosocial
Exert self control Prosocial
Explain / Give reason or excuse Prosocial
Express feelings of being rejected Agonistic
Express negative feelings Agonistic
Egpresgrositive feelings Prosocial
Find alternative activity Prosocial
Find alternative object Prosocial
Find alternative person Prosocial
Fix / Repair or make by self Prosocial
Generosity / Forgiveness Prosocial
Get (or make) some more Prosocial
Grab / Take (object) Agonistic
Hide evidence (object) Agonistic
ID negative emotion Agonistic
ID positive emotion Agonistic
Ignore Prosocial
Leave / Walk or run away / Hide Agonistic
Leave to chance Prosocial
Lie down/sleep/sit down Agonistic
Moralize / Criticize / Blame Agonistic
Negotiate Prosocial

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NO response/"I don't know" Agonistic
Offer suggestion or help Prosocial
Other takes it Agonistic
Other/"off the wall"/out of context Agonistic
Physical negative (to person) Agonistic
Play Prosocial
Play alone Prosocial
Please / Polite Prosocial
Punish another Agonistic
Punish self Prosocial
Reﬁrse to play or be ﬁiends Agonistic
Reject verbally Agonistic
Replace or make restitution Prosocial
Request Other give/ share Prosocial
Seek adult assistance Prosocial
Seek assistance from a child Prosocial
Share Prosocial
Spontaneous verbal expression Prosocial
Stay away in future Agonistic
Steal Agonistic
Tantrum Agonistic
Teasing/ Name calling / Sarcasm Agonistic
Threaten / Coerce Agonistic
Throw it away Prosocial
Trade Prosocial
Wait / Accept Prosocial
Yell / Scream / Stomp Agonistic

 

 

123

 

APPENDIX K

Pearson Correlations

 

 

 

VAR1 VAR2 VAR3 VAR4
VAR1 Use of Resource Guide 1
VAR2 Use of Newsletter .346“ 1
VAR3 Use of Kid Cash .325" .435“r 1
VAR4 Use of Referral Services .294” .129 .219" 1
VAR5 Educational Activities with Child .124 .162 .034 .006
VAR6 Creative/Cultural Activities with Child .247‘ .109 .207" .031
VAR7 Comm. of Emotions & Behavior .206" .052 .092 .261“
VAR8 Knowledge of Emotional Development .136 .504“ .243' .127
VAR9 Knowledge of Cognitive Development .017 .347“ .150 -.020
VAR10 Knowledge of Physical Development .140 .346“ .273“ .176
VAR11 Knowledge of Social Development .039 .281 ** .1 16 .139
VAR12 Expectations of Caregiving -.281** .044 .011 -.075
VAR13 Good Caregiver -.233* .1 1 1 -.034 -.104
VAR14 Discomfort with Ability -.226* -.105 -.044 -.010
VAR15 Lack of Interest/Discomfort with Role -.171 -.122 .085 -.209"
VAR16 Display Happy .028 -.009 -.011 -.039
VAR17 Display Sad -.061 -.134 -.140 -.150
VAR18 Display Angry .085 -.018 -.229* -.186
VAR19 Display Afraid -.018 .022 -.093 -.022
VAR20 Identify Happy .090 .012 -033 -.100
VAR21 Identify Sad .051 .112 -.061 -.160
VAR22 Identify Mad .070 -.024 -.008 .069
VAR23 Identify Afraid .000 .006 -.090 .057
VAR24 Total Attempts to Identify .063 -.162 -.157 -.026
VAR25 Negative Beh. for Disappointing Gift -.019 .052 .079 -.069
VAR26 Tension Beh. for Disappointing Gift -.076 .138 -.049 -.128
VAR27 Negative Beh. for Last Good Gift -.060 -.152 -.076 -.111
VAR28 Tension Behaviors for Last Good Gift -.035 -.005 .063 .006
VAR29 Total Number of Behaviors Exhibited -.036 .095 -.045 .014
VAR30 Inhibition Task -.039 .118 .162 .202"
VAR31 Whisper Task -.092 -.012 .099 .007
VAR32 Fast Motor Activity 1 -.005 -.098 .044 .134
VAR33 Fast Motor Activity 2 .019 .107 .126 .064
VAR34 Slowed Motor Activity -.046 -.119 -.053 -.056
VAR35 Stop Motor Activity -.132 -.258"’ -.091 -.116
VAR36 Prosocial Sol. with Familiar Peer .033 .007 .036 -.101
VAR37 Prosocial Sol. with Non-familiar Peer .176 -.004 -.052 -.064
VAR38 Prosocial Sol. with Caregiver .041 -.097 -.109 -.047

 

 

“ Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level 2-tailed.
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level 2-tailed.

124

 

 

VAR5 VAR6 VAR7 VAR8 VAR9 VAR10 VAR11 VAR12 VAR13
VAR1
VAR2
VAR3
VAR4
VAR5 1
VAR6 .530“ 1
VAR7 .296” .463“ 1
VAR8 .063 .124 .148 1
VAR9 .133 .098 .142 .671“ 1
VAR10 .089 .069 .062 .575” .430” 1
VAR11 .137 .125 .167 .675” .514” .389“ 1
VAR12 -.377** -.442"* -. 351 *" 225* .200' .103 .081 1
VAR13 -. 160 -.246" -.214* .094 .206" -.1 12 .019 .482” 1
VAR14 -.109 -.275”* -.219" -.218"’ -.047 -.124 -.247* .340" . 140
VAR1 5 -.050 -.199 -. 175 -.303*" -. 1 52 -.406** -.268** .209“ .258"
VAR16 .216" 208* .371“ .229* .245" .021 .218" -.120 -.127
VAR17 .091 .064 .161 -.056 .123 .061 .081 -.014 -.085
VAR18 .230' .1 98 .109 .077 .145 -.047 .096 -.030 -.064
VAR19 .090 .159 .018 .120 .110 .081 .127 -.008 -.183
VAR20 .407” .336” .038 .191 .245‘ .075 . 144 -.099 .016
VAR21 .433“ .212* -.006 .319” .412” .134 .272“ .081 .120
VAR22 .125 232* .054 .001 -.028 -.101 .033 -.180 -.091
VAR23 .213‘ .068 .040 .242" .301 “ .107 .195 .024 -.054
VAR24 .252" .210* -.009 .028 .070 .038 .015 -.027 -.088
VAR25 .018 .047 .012 .078 .119 -.015 .048 -.006 .125
VAR26 .056 -.122 -.040 .003 .095 .037 .061 .053 .039
VAR27 .059 -.046 -.108 -.231" -. 142 -.228" -.271** -.090 .129
VAR28 .118 -.068 -.039 -.054 -.003 -.003 -.072 -.014 .001
VAR29 .100 -.033 .040 .187 .138 .121 .1 13 -.057 .024
VAR30 .101 .149 .053 .138 .168 .121 .031 .105 -.023
VAR31 -.266** -.292** -.034 -.132 -.018 .044 -.105 .085 .096
VAR32 -.207* -.119 .062 .006 -.015 -.018 .144 -.006 .001
VAR33 -.135 -.080 -.054 .064 .012 -.102 -.006 .048 .146
VAR34 .298“ .133 -.053 -.055 -.027 .078 -. 160 .043 .001
VAR35 .025 .045 -.003 -.190 -.1 12 -.052 -.049 -.039 .039
VAR36 .250" .134 -.034 .153 .162 .053 .156 .011 .051
VAR37 .31 1 ** .076 .087 .168 .275“ .031 .072 -.041 .074
VAR38 .220” .147 -.008 .126 .157 .181 .165 -.101 -.O16

 

 

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level 2-tailed.
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level 2-tailed.

125

 

VAR14 VAR15 VAR16 VAR17 VAR18 VAR19 VAR20 VAR21 VAR22
VAR1
VAR2
VAR3
VAR4
VAR5
VAR6
VAR7
VAR8
VAR9
VAR10
VAR1 1
VAR 1 2
VAR13
VAR14 1
VAR15 .529” 1
VAR 1 6 -. 148 .009 1
VAR17 .031 -.040 .318“ 1
VAR18 -.012 -.123 .236“ .310“' 1
VAR19 -.012 -. 138 .1 14 .408“ .350” 1
VAR20 -.057 -.019 .348“ .254" .331 ** .153 1
VAR21 .074 -.004 .206” .174 .309” .257" .474“ 1
VAR22 -.009 -.050 .194 .095 . 167 .056 .381 ** .031 1
VAR23 -.076 -.011 .311” .108 .198 .198 .157 .305“ .297“
VAR24 -.074 .027 .253" .223‘ .212" .095 .571 ** .251 " .280“
VAR25 .004 .105 .003 .111 .074 -.090 .210" -.001 .102
VAR26 -.047 .034 -.005 .142 .1 77 .069 .01 1 .026 -.023
VAR27 .100 .228" -. 143 .002 -.009 -.124 .049 .004 .102
VAR28 .027 .099 -.1 12 -.049 .008 -.046 -.175 -.017 -.1 12
VAR29 -.130 .054 .189 .256“ .071 -.073 .207" .072 .1 19
VAR30 .065 -.075 -.021 -.026 .022 .121 .054 .103 .056
VAR31 .113 .069 -.173 -.286** -.154 -.184 -.340** -.151 -.169
VAR32 -.028 -.043 -.063 -.159 -.069 -.234* -.083 -.096 -.128
VAR33 .076 .136 -.201* -.143 -.237‘ -.126 -.101 -.058 -.158
VAR34 .070 .066 .089 .012 .205" -.037 .263“ . 145 .092
VAR35 -.170 .102 .274” -.016 -.092 -.259* -.002 -.159 -.015
VAR36 -.183 -.044 .113 .012 .102 .229“ .302” .291” -.010
VAR37 -.180 -.127 .276" .179 .273“ .130 .415“ .361“ .100
VAR38 -.209* -.326** .169 . 191 .155 .124 .287” . 169 .094

 

 

 

** Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level 2-tailed.
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level 2-tailed.

126

VAR23 VAR24 VAR25 VAR26 VAR27 VAR28 VAR29 VAR30 VAR31

 

VAR1

VAR2

VAR3

VAR4

VAR5

VAR6

VAR7

VAR8

VAR9

VAR 1 0
VAR1 1
VAR12
VAR 1 3
VAR 1 4
VAR1 5
VAR 1 6
VAR 1 7
VAR 1 8
VAR 1 9
VAR20
VAR21
VAR22
VAR23
VAR24
VAR25
VAR26
VAR27
VAR28
VAR29
VAR30
VAR31
VAR32
VAR33
VAR34
VAR35
VAR36
VAR37
VAR38

 

1
.305”
-.076
-.014
-.048
-.059
.031
.248"
-.198
-.184
-.128
223*
.103
.005
.203*
.033

1

.1 16 1

.069 .238* 1
-.013 244* -.039
-.106 230* .342“
245* .551 *"’ .287”
.055 -.020 -.105
-.266** -.018 .152
-.104 .034 .023
-.148 .142 -.032
.171 -.093 -.134
.083 -.003 -.060
.060 -.050 -.010
.1 17 .028 .071
.167 .060 -.036

1

.368“ 1

.254“ 260* 1

-.084 .044 -.015 1
-.029 .083 -.048 -.139
.017 -.007 -.033 -.314'*
259* .128 -.010 -.130
-.020 -. 129 -.008 .260*
.061 -.070 -.051 -.243*
-.060 .112 -.064 .088
-.055 .097 .043 .139
-.069 -.049 .032 .218*

1

230*
-.003
-.253*
.002
-.1 58
-.267**
-.278**

 

 

“ Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level 2-tailed.
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level 2-tailed.

127

VAR32 VAR33 VAR34 VAR35 VAR36 VAR37 VAR38

 

VAR 1
VAR2
VAR3
VAR4
VAR5
VAR6
VAR7
VAR8
VAR9
VAR1 0
VAR1 1
VAR1 2
VAR 1 3
VAR 1 4
VAR 1 5
VAR 1 6
VAR 1 7
VAR 1 8
VAR 1 9
VAR20
VAR21
VAR22
VAR23
VAR24
VAR25
VAR26
VAR27
VAR28
VAR29
VAR30
VAR31
VAR32 1

VAR33 238* 1

VAR34 -.289** -.269** 1

VAR35 .262” .020 .140 1

VAR36 -.155 -.011 .161 -.029 1

VAR37 -.107 -. 166 .210* -.054 .646” 1

VAR38 -. 165 -.186 .152 .036 .397“ .463“ 1

 

 

 

“ Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .01 level 2-tailed.
* Correlation is signiﬁcant at the .05 level 2-tailed.

128

APPENDIX L

Qplot of Standardized Residuals for Child Structural Model

 

 

-3.5 ......................................................................... 3 5
x
x
x
. i
. xx
x x
.x *x
.x*
*xx
N xxx*
o “I.
r I".
3 ﬁx.
a if
1 *xx
x*.
Q ii‘
u xx*.
3 x.
n xx
1: x*x
1 xi*
1 x**x
0 xx
3 x“.
*-
xxx
x*x.
*0
xx
xx
.x
.x
x
-3.5 3.

 

129

 

APPENDIX M

Qplot of Standardized Residuals for Caregiver Structural Model

 

Hnﬂnoz

IOPHH’DDCO

 

xx** .

iix
xx*x
* x

.5 ..........................................................................

 

130

 

APPENDIX N

Qplot Of Standardized Residuals for Caregiver and Child Structural Model

 

HDEHOZ

I o Hlﬁrfﬂ u :13

 

-3.5 .......................................................................... 3 5
. x
. xx
. . x xx .
. . x
. . xx*x
. . xxx
. . xx*

. .x*x
. .*x*
. iii
. x*x
. x*
. xxx
. iii
. xx*
. ii
. xii
. x*x
. ‘ii
. *x
. iii
. ii
. *itt
. xii
. **x.
. xx*
. x*x.
. xxx
. xx .
. *xx.
. *x .
. xxx.
. x xx .
. x* .
x x
x
-3.5 3 5

 

131

 

 

   

iiiiiiiiiijljiiiiiiiii