THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATERNAL AND PATERNAL INTRUSIVENESS AND TODDLER SELF REGULATION By Young-Eun Lee A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Human Development and Family Studies 2011 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATERNAL AND PATERNAL INTRUSIVENESS AND TODDLER SELF REGULATION By Young-Eun Lee The purposes of this study were to examine the associations between maternal and paternal intrusiveness and toddlers self regulation at approximately 24 months of age in the context of child gender in a sample of low-income families (N = 271). This study was a secondary analysis of data collected as part of the national Early Head Start Research and Evaluation (EHSRE) Project. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to examine whether two-way interactions between parental intrusiveness and child gender and a three-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness, paternal intrusiveness and toddler gender were related to toddlers’ self regulation at 24 months. Findings from this study suggested that boys and girls from low income families were differently susceptible to maternal and paternal intrusiveness in self regulation development. Boys may be more vulnerable to maternal or paternal intrusiveness than girls. Girls may benefit from maternal or paternal intrusiveness. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all I would like to thank to God. This thesis would not have been possible unless he gave me power and strength. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee chairperson, Dr. Holly Brophy-Herb for her guidance, valuable suggestions, and steady support throughout all stages of this progress. I would also like to show my appreciation to Dr. Griffore and Dr. Qin for their thoughtful advice and suggestions. I wish to express my thanks to my family and friends. In particular, I show my grateful thanks to Byung-Seok Lee, Youn-Suk Yoo, Esther Lee, Jun-Sup Lee, Sun-Im Kim and Jihun Kim for their constant encouragement, prayers and love. Finally I also express my appreciation to the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Consortium for providing me with their data for my thesis. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………..vi LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….…..……vii CHAPTER 1 Introduction……...………………………………………………………………………………...1 Statement of Problem………………...…………………………………………………..4 Significance of the Present Study…...……………………………………………………6 Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………………..7 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………….9 Conceptual and Operational Definitions………………..………………...…………….10 Self regulation………………….………………………………………………10 Parental intrusiveness…………..………………………………………………10 Child gender……………………………………………………………………11 Maternal cumulative risks……………………………………...………………11 Parental stress..…………………………………………………………………11 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review………………...………………………………………………………………12 Parents’ Intrusiveness………………………………………………………………...…12 Parents’ Intrusiveness and Children’s Self Regulation………………………...……..…13 Different Patterns of Child Emotion Regulation between Boys and Girls……………...14 Summary………………………………………………………………………………...16 CHAPTER 3 Method….…………………………………………………………………………......…………17 Procedures…………………………………………………………………….……...…17 Main study procedures……….…………………………………………...……17 Father sub-study procedures……………….……………………………......…18 Sample Description……………………………………………………..………………19 Measures………………………………………………………………………………...20 Parent-child interaction measures……….………………………………..……20 Child outcome measures………….……………………………………...….…21 Covariate measures……………………………………………………...…..…22 Missing Data………………………….…...……………………….……………………24 Hypotheses………………………………………………………………………...……25 Data Analysis Plan……………………...….……………………………………………26 CHAPTER 4 Study Results…….……………..…….………………...……………………………...……...…29 Preliminary Analyses………….……………………………………………..…….……29 Hierarchical Multiple Regression………………………………………………….……31 iv Model Model Model Model Model 1……..………………….………………………………………………31 2……..………………….………………………………………………31 3……..………………….………………………………………………32 4……..………………….………………………………………………32 5……..………………….………………………………………………33 CHAPTER 5 Discussion and Conclusion……………………………………………………….…...…………35 Discussion……………………………….………………………………..….………….35 Strengths…………..…………………….…………………..…………......……………40 Limitations & Implications.………...….….……..……………….…………..…………40 Conclusions…………………………….…….………………………..………..………42 APPENDIX……………………………………….…………………………….…………..……43 REFERENCES…………………………………….…………………………….…………..…..53 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Description of Sample…………………………………………………………………..44 Table 2 Description of All Variables…………………………………………………………….45 Table 3 Correlations for Study Variables………………………………………………………..46 Table 4.1 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting 24-Month Outcome (Model1-Model4)….………………….……………………………………………….47 Table 4.2 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting 24-Month Outcome (Model5)……………………………………………………………………………….48 Table 5 Summary of Hypothesis Testing………………………………………………………..49 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Conceptual Model……………………………………………….……………………..50 Figure 2 Relationship between Maternal Intrusiveness, Paternal Intrusiveness and Child’s Self Regulation….…………………...………………………………………………………………..51 Figure 3 Relationship between Maternal Intrusiveness, Paternal Intrusiveness and Child’s Self Regulation in Context of Child Gender….…………………………………………………..…..52 vii CHAPTER ONE Introduction The ability to cope successfully with challenging situations is one of the greatest developmental tasks during the early years. Self-regulation is the ability to manage attention, emotion, and behavior. It is necessary for successfully controlling emotional and cognitive states during stressful situations. Self regulation involves multiple processes, including the adjustment of affect and the capability to remember directives, as well as to monitor, inhibit, and direct their attention and behavior (Raikes, Robinson, Bradley, Raikes, & Ayoub, 2007). The time between one and three years is a particularly significant stage for developing self-regulation skills because toddlers are anticipated to begin regulating their emotional states (e.g., recovering from distress or diminishing the intensity of expressed distress) with less assistance from parents while simultaneously encountering greater environmental demands (Raikes et al., 2007). The importance of this stage of life for later self-regulation has been well reported. Children managing stress effectively at the age of three years show more successful self-control at the age of six years (Gilliom, Shaw, Beck, Schonberg, & Lukon, 2002), as well as more optimal adjustment in preschool (Shields, Dickstein, Seifer, Giusti, Magee, & Spritz, 2001). The development of self-regulation is also particularly crucial for children living in high-risk environments (Raikes et al., 2007). Low-income children are vulnerable to poor self regulatory skills and to the problems associated with low self regulation including behavior problems and less optimal academic outcomes (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Prior research has indicated that self-regulation is an essential element of resilience among youth growing up in poverty (Buckner, Mezzacappa, & Beardslee, 2003), and is specifically related to sociability in preschool classrooms (Mendez, Fantuzzo, & Cicchetti, 2002; Raver, Blackburn, Bancroft, & 1 Torp, 1999). Indeed, the ability to self-regulate may be one of the key features differentiating early academic achievement between low-income and higher-income children (Howse, Lange, Farran, & Boyles, 2003). During the first three years, several factors influence the development of self-regulation and contribute to individual differences in the self-regulation. Previous research hypothesized that mothers’ sensitive responses promote the development of children’s emotional regulation by supporting children in handling negative emotional states and distress, and, over time developing strategies to independently manage emotions and behaviors. Thus, the parent–child relationship promotes children’s self-regulation through parenting behaviors (Gilliom et al., 2002; Thompson, 1990), the synchrony of interactions (Feldman, Greenbaum, & Yirmiya, 1999) and children’s reactions toward negative parenting (Calkins, Smith, Gill, & Johnson, 1998; Garner & Spears, 2000; Thompson, 1994). Existing research also describes the development of self regulation as moving from an ‘other controlled’ process to a ‘self controlled’ process (Bronson, 2000; Schaffer, 1996). Parenting behaviors, in particular intrusiveness, may disrupt this developmental shift from other-controlled to self controlled process. Prior research has tended to typically define parents’ intrusiveness as a negative behavior. In the research, intrusiveness refers to behaviors that interrupt the synchrony interactions including parent control and the actions which the child wishes would stop. Parents’ intrusiveness may impact self regulation in two ways—first, it may prevent opportunities for children to practice their self regulation skills during interactions with their parents. Second, parents’ intrusiveness may trigger children’s negative reactions and affect toward their parents. Some research has suggested that children reacting negatively to their mothers tend to have poor regulation (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004; Rothbart & Bates, 1998). 2 Children’s negative affect towards their mothers may also have important implications for the development of self-regulation (Rodriguez, Ayduk, Aber, Mischel, Sethi, & Shoda, 2005). Thus, negativity in interaction with mothers is an important factor to consider when examining the development of self-regulation. Other researchers also reported that children’s proneness toward negativity contributes to behavior problems when parents provide unsympathetic parenting (Belsky, Hsieh, & Crnic, 1998; Rubin, Burgess, Dwyer, & Hastings, 2003). In addition, child gender and self-regulation are related in early childhood. Boys tend to display fewer self regulatory skills in the early years as compared to girls, and these differences are apparent in infancy (Cameron Ponitz, MacClelland, Jewkes, Connor, Farris, & Morrison, 2008; Weinberg, Tronick, Cohn, & Olson, 1999). Boys are also less skilled at self-regulation during their toddler years (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004) and in preschool (Lawson & Ruff, 2004; MacCabe, Cunnington, & Brooks-Gunn, 2004). These results are consistent with the outcomes reported by Morris and colleagues (2002), who found that girls are typically better regulated than boys in the early years. Gender differences in self regulation may come, in part, from the difference of parents’ emotion socialization for children. Indeed, several researchers have found evidence for gendertypical socialization of emotional behaviors. For example, some studies have suggested that parents encourage displays of fear and sadness in girls and expressions of anger in boys (Block, 1983; Chaplin, Cole, & Zahn-Waxler, 2005; Cassano, Perry-Parrish, & Zeman, 2007; Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998; Fivush, Brotman, Buckner, & Goodman, 2000; Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Klimes-Dougan, Brand, Zahn-Waxler, Usher, Hasting, Kendzior, & Garside, 2007). Parents tend to use relationship-oriented parenting styles including neglectful parenting, authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting, and authoritative parenting for girls’ emotion 3 regulation and more active and instrumental parenting styles including neglecting, teaching, modeling, and disciplining for boys’ emotion regulation (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Hops, 1995; Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1995; Sheeber, Davis, & Hops, 2002). Parents also show more encouragement of distraction and problem-solving strategies for boys than for girls (Eisenberg et al. 1998). Thus, it is important to consider the implications that parents’ responses which depends on parent gender, gender socialization and child gender in parent-child interaction influence the child self regulation. Despite the importance of child self-regulation and the influences of the parent’s responses in parent-child interactions, there is still relatively little empirical research regarding the effect of negative parent responses. Specifically few research show parental intrusiveness may interfere with more positive, less controlling and less critical interaction providing many opportunities to practice self regulation. Furthermore, there is a lack of existing empirical data specifically regarding the roles of mothers’ and fathers’ intrusiveness functioning and the child gender effect in influencing self regulation. Given the potential importance of parental negative responses for low-income children’s self regulation, more studies examining relationship between parental intrusiveness and child self-regulation in this population are needed. The purposes of this study are to examine the influence of maternal and paternal intrusiveness on children’s self-regulation at 24 months and to determine whether the association between parent’s intrusiveness and child selfregulation varies according to child gender. Statement of Problem Despite the richness of previous research on parent-child interaction, several basic issues remain to be addressed. First, few studies explicitly have measured parents’ intrusive interactions 4 as they relate to young children’s self regulation. Further, many studies related to parental control during parent-child interactions have involved preschool aged children or school aged children and their parents (e.g., Rubin, Burgess, & Hasting, 2002; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989) rather than focusing on toddlerhood when self regulation is developing rapidly. Many studies linked to intrusiveness have found mixed outcomes. Some have indicated intrusiveness is related to negative mother – child relationship outcomes such as the increase of toddlers’ negativity and the decrease of their engagement with mothers (e.g., Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Carlson & Harwood, 2003; Feldman, 2003; Holditch-Davis & Miles, 1997; Isabella & Belsky, 1991; Park, Belsky, Putnam, & Crnic, 1997; Pettit, Harrist, Bates, & Dodge, 1991; WhitesideMansell, Bradley, Owen, Randolph, & Cauce, 2003) but others have reported no such relationship (e.g., Eshel, Landau, Daniely, & Ben-Aaron, 2000). Moreover, Ispa and her colleagues found that the influence of parents’ intrusiveness on child social outcome varies across cultures (Ispa, Fine, Halgunseth, Harper, Robinson, Boyce, Brooks-Gunn, & Brady-Smith, 2004). Second, few studies have estimated the effects of both maternal and paternal behaviors on child outcomes. Most studies have focused on only mothers’ parenting practices, or fathers’ parenting practices. The research dealing with the both parents may provide new insights about the effect of parents’ behaviors on children’s self regulation. For instance, in cases where mothers and fathers are not married, fathers are more likely to be involved with child in the early childhood years than later on. Thus, it is important to examine how interactions with mothers and with fathers play a role in early self regulatory development. In addition, previous research has not indicated how different the effect of both parents’ negative behaviors on child self regulation is according to child gender. Much research has been shown that child gender differences of 5 parent’s emotion socialization. Those just focused on how mother’s and father’s responses to child’s emotion are different according to child gender. Third, few researchers have observed parent-child interactions in diverse and naturalistic contexts. Most studies investigating the relationship between parenting and child self-regulation have examined self regulation under laboratory contexts (e.g., Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004). Laboratory studies have been able to distinguish emotion activation from regulatory effects or efforts. Controlled conditions also are not possible or even desirable to study a particular question (Cole et al., 2004). In contrary, home observations are be able to show varied aspects of natural parent-child interaction in their daily lives, such as play, free time, routines, meals, and thus provide richly textured measures of the relationship. Fourth, few studies about parent’s intrusiveness have utilized a large sample to examine its influence on child self-regulatory development in low-income families (Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2007). Significance of the Present Study The present study sought to address the gaps in the literature described above. This study focused parents’ intrusive responses to child self regulation and child gender differences. It is important to consider the implications of child gender differences for children’s self regulation in parent-child interaction since previous research has shown that links between parents’ responses and child emotion display. The current study is particularly important for low-income families, as toddlers are at elevated risk for emotional difficulties such as emotion expression and regulation (Cicchetti & Cohen, 2006) and toddlers’ socialization affects later developmental outcomes (Thompson & Raikes, 2007). In addition, low-income families experience more life challenges (e.g., worries 6 about the lack of savings or other assets, uncomfortable home environments, poor nutrition) and have fewer educational and career opportunities (e.g., access to good school and job fair) than middle-income families. Given these multiple stressors, low-income parents may show more unsympathetic responses to their children than middle-income families, and these parent behaviors may have different effect for children’s self regulation than they would for middleincome families. Theoretical Framework Two theories were used to frame the current study of the association between parental (maternal and paternal) intrusiveness and child self regulation: 1) Family Systems Theory (Bowen, 1966, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988); 2) Dynamics of Paternal Influences on Children over the Life Course Model (Cabrera, Fitzgerald, Bradley, & Roggman, 2007). First, Family Systems Theory emphasizes the interactions between children, mothers, and fathers. The key tenet of Bowen’s family systems theory is that families are systems of interconnected and interdependent individuals, who cannot be understood in isolation from one another. In Bowen’s theory, a family is not only a system but also an emotional unit in which members are expected to respond to each other in a certain way according to their role, which is determined by relationship agreements. Within the boundaries of the system, patterns develop as certain family member’s behavior is caused by and causes other family member’s behaviors in predictable ways. During toddlerhood, the emergence of self-regulation requires that the toddlers’ role and identity be allowed to shift as toddlers’ begin to assert autonomy, often triggering reduced compliance, and to rely somewhat less on parents’ assistance in self regulation. One of the tasks of toddlerhood is to gradually assume more responsibility in initiating and maintaining selfregulatory attempts. As toddlers’ developmental needs change, parents, too, must shift their roles 7 in support of toddlers’ need for autonomy. Difficulties in making these adjustments in roles may manifest themselves as parental intrusiveness during interactions with toddlers. As noted, intrusiveness may disrupt opportunities for toddlers to practice and acquire self regulatory skills. Similarly, systems theory suggests that maternal and paternal intrusiveness are likely influenced by each other, and provide a context in which self regulatory skills are developing. Second, the current study was also guided by the Dynamics of Paternal Influences on Children over the Life Course Model to examine the interactions between children, mothers, and fathers. The model emphasizes the importance of father’s engagement in child’s life. Some dimensions of the model, particularly fathers’ engagement, fathers’ presence and fathers’ responsibility, are considered central to what fathers contribute for child such as time, play and resources. Other dimensions have been traditionally shown as central to what mothers provide to promote child development such as maternal sensitive and responsive caregiving. How fathers and mothers maintain the balance of parenting within families can be estimated by above both kinds of dimensions. The balance can depend not only on the gender of each parent but also on the roles of each parent. In addition, the Dynamics of Paternal Influences on Children over the Life Course Model focuses on fathers unlike the “other-parent” model in which father-child interaction has been viewed through the lens of what is known about mother-child interaction. Fathers may be engaged with children in ways that diverge from ways mothers are typically engaged. The model assumes that two parenting systems can coexist as interrelating systems. In other words, both mother-child and father-child relationships influence each other while they are each unique relationship in the system. In the current study, the relationship between parental intrusiveness and child self 8 regulation was examined in the context of child gender. Not only the association between maternal intrusiveness and child self regulation but also the association including paternal intrusiveness was examined. See Figure 1 for the relationship between parental intrusiveness and child self regulation in context of child gender. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were addressed in the current study. H 01 : There is no relationship between maternal intrusiveness and child self regulation. H a1 : Maternal intrusiveness would be related to less optimal child self regulation. H 02 : There is no relationship between paternal intrusiveness and child self regulation. H a2 : Paternal intrusiveness would be related to less optimal child self regulation. H 03 : Maternal intrusiveness does not have differential effects on self regulation as a function of child gender. H a3 : Maternal intrusiveness negatively influences girls’ and boys’ self regulation. The effect of maternal intrusiveness is more pronounced for girls’ self regulation than for boys’ self regulation. H 04 : Paternal intrusiveness does not have differential effects on self regulation as a function of child gender. H a4 : Paternal intrusiveness negatively influences girls’ and boys’ self regulation. The effect of paternal intrusiveness is more pronounced for boys’ self regulation than girls’ self regulation. 9 H 05 : The interaction of maternal and paternal intrusiveness does not have more robust effects on toddler self regulation than would either maternal or paternal intrusiveness alone. H a5 : The interaction of maternal and paternal intrusiveness has more robust effects on toddler self regulation than would either maternal or paternal stress alone. H a51 : Toddler self regulation, for boys and girls, is most compromised when both mothers and fathers demonstrate higher intrusiveness. H a52 : Lower paternal intrusiveness buffers the effects of higher maternal intrusiveness on toddler self regulation for boys and girls. Conceptual and Operational Definitions Self regulation. Self regulation, which is necessary during stressful situations, includes abilities to focus and sustain attention, the management of cognitive process to solve problems, the behavioral self-control in organized settings, and the emotional self-control that is entailed in sociability and cooperation (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000; Thompson et al., 2007). According to the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Second Edition (Bayley, 1993), in the current study self-regulation was indicated by seven items: (1) adaptation to change in materials (e.g., the children’s reaction when an interviewer takes one item from the child and exchanges it for another), (2) attention to tasks, (3) persistence in attempting to complete tasks, (4) cooperation with the interviewer, (5) activity level, (6) hypersensitivity to stimuli and (7) negative affection. Parental intrusiveness. 10 Parental intrusiveness was measured by Three Bag Assessment based on the NICHD Study of Early Child Care Mother-Child Interaction Rating Scales for the Three Boxes Procedure (Owen, Norris, Houssan, Wetzel, Mason, & Ohba, 1993) and on the Manual for Coding Freeplay - Parenting Styles from the Newark Observational Study of the Teenage Parent Demonstration (TPD; Brooks-Gunn, Liaw, Michael, & Zamsky, 1992; Spiker, Ferguson, & Brooks-Gunn, 1993). In the scale, intrusiveness includes the parent controlling the play agenda, not allowing the child to influence the focus or pace of play, grabbing toys away from the child, not taking turns in play with the child and persisting with or even escalating an action that the child clearly wishes would stop (Tamis-LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004). Child gender. Child gender indicates that whether the child is biologically male or female. Maternal cumulative risks. Risk variables, dichotomized and summed reflect: (1) being a teenage mother, (2) having less than a high school education, (3) receiving public assistance, (4) not being employed or in school or training, and (5) being a single mother (Love, Kisker, Ross, Schochet, Brooks-Gunn, Paulsell, Boller, Constantine, Vogel, Fuligni, & Brady-Smith, 2002). Parental stress. Parental Stress was measured by the Parental Distress (PD) subscale and the ParentChild Dysfunctional Interaction (P-CDI) subscale of Parenting Stress Index/Short Form (PSI/SF) (Abidin, 1983). In the PD subscales, parental distress means the distress a parent experiences, as a function of individual personal characteristics, in the role as a parent. The P-CDI subscale examines the parent’s perceptions that the child did not meet his or her expectations. 11 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review In the following literature review, the definition of parent’s intrusiveness was addressed, followed by a review of the association between parent’s intrusiveness and self regulation. Next, different patterns of child self regulation between boys and girls were addressed, as they related to maternal and paternal parenting styles. This literature review, in turn, concluded with issues surrounding parent’s intrusiveness and child self regulation in context of child gender. Parents’ Intrusiveness As seen in Family Systems Theory, children’s socio-emotional development is affected by parents’ behaviors. In particular, three types of parental socio-emotional behaviors have been related to children’s self-regulation: intrusiveness, supportiveness, and warmth (Cabrera et al., 2007; Bocknek, Brophy-Herb, & Banerjee, 2009; Ispa et al., 2004). The current study focuses on parental intrusiveness as this behavior is the least understood among these three aspects of parenting in relation to self regulation. Studies on parents’ intrusiveness have shown the particularly harmful effects of parent over control and interruptive behaviors (e.g., over-control, excessive use of rewards, non-synchrony) on child self regulation, while parent’s supportiveness and warmth generally have been related to positive effect on child self regulation (Salonen, Lepola, & Vauras, 2007). Specifically, parents’ intrusive behavior has also been shown to be related to a pattern of insecure attachment (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Swanson, Beckwith, & Howard, 2000) and low level of mutual regulation which is necessary for child to achieve self regulation (Reck, Hunt, Fuchs, Weiss, Noon, Moehler, Downing, Tronick, & Mundt, 2004). Since Ainsworth and her colleagues (1978) considered the influence of the parent’s 12 intrusiveness on child quality of attachment, many theorists identified intrusiveness as negative behavior to interfere with children’s exploration and autonomy or a mismatched situation where the parent’s intervention leads to the inhibition or disorganization of the children’s original activity (Salonen et al., 2007; Swanson et al., 2000). Parents’ Intrusiveness and Children’s Self Regulation Much of the research regarding the negative impact of parent’s intrusiveness has come from clinical studies such as Kashdan and his colleagues’ (2004) study of depressed parents who have children with ADHD. They identified maternal intrusiveness as excessive level of parental control which has repeatedly been shown to exacerbate psychiatric symptoms and perceived stress in parent-child interaction. Morrell and Murray (2003) reported the link between parental intrusiveness in infancy and ADHD of their children at preschool. In the study, the context of observation was a session of mother-child free play without toys. Landau and his colleagues (2009) observed a subsample of mothers who demonstrated an intrusive parenting below two behaviors: (1) improving the child’s sitting position when unnecessary or wiping the infant’s nose to frequently; and (2) physical intrusion in his play. The study found mothers were physically intrusive with their children but fathers rebuilt their children’s play significantly more frequently than mothers. The association between parents’ intrusiveness and child self regulation was found from observing nonclinical samples as well. Pursuant to conceptual models such as the Dynamics of Paternal Influences on Children over the Life Course Model, growing research has highlighted the father’s role in child development. Cabrera and her colleagues (2007) found parents’ intrusiveness was associated with children’s less regulated behavior differentially depending on parents’ gender and children’s age. Maternal intrusiveness was negatively related to children’s 13 emotional regulation at 2 years and pre-K. However paternal intrusiveness was inversely related to emotional regulation at 2 years but unrelated to children’s social and emotional outcomes at 3 years and pre-K. Maternal intrusiveness was link to paternal intrusiveness at 2 and 3 years but not at pre-K. Their findings suggested that older children accepted paternal intrusiveness as a more positive behavior than maternal intrusiveness. Shannon and his colleagues (2006) found that fathers interacted with infants in more positive ways and they were less intrusive as “rough and tumble but responsive and flexible” playmates. Results suggested that paternal intrusiveness may play a different role in its influence on development than does maternal intrusiveness. Different Patterns of Child Emotion Regulation between Boys and Girls Although emotional expression and behavior arousal and emotion have based on biology (Fox, 2004), the difference between boys and girls in emotional behaviors may also be affected by their environment, specifically parents (Chaplin, Casey, Sinha, & Mayes, 2010). Previous research has shown that differences in gender may exist because of parental socialization of emotion, such that girls receive greater supportive responses for their sadness, anxiety and fear and boys receive greater support for their anger (Chaplin et al., 2005; Klimes-Dougan et al., 2007; Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007; Cassano et al., 2007). Other studies have also reported gender differences in emotion regulation, with girls showing more adaptive emotion regulation than boys (Morris et al., 2002; Morris et al., 2007). In addition boys living in low-income family have shown more externalizing behaviors than do girls (Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000). Previous research also has shown that mothers and fathers have different play styles— mothers are more didactic and fathers are more rough and tumble. For example, when interacting with their infants and toddlers, mothers tend to engage in more conversational and symbolic toy 14 play, whereas fathers engage in non-object and more physically stimulating play (TamisLeMonda, 2004). Some research also has reported that mothers engage in cognitive object and pretend play more frequently with their daughters than fathers, whereas fathers engage primarily in vigorous physical play with their sons (Jacklin, DiPietro, & Maccoby, 1984; MacDonald & Parke,1986; Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1991). Different play styles of parents may affect children’s emotion regulation. According to Galyer and Evans (2001), pretend play with parents and peers was related to children’s regulation. Howes and the colleagues (1989) suggested pretend play as the reason that girls had more opportunities to engage in emotion regulation than boys. They also mentioned that qualitative difference in the pretend play might cause different emotion regulation skills between girls and boys. Therefore, girls may be more vulnerable to maternal intrusiveness in free-play because it interferes with the way that girls typically learn to regulation emotions. It may be that paternal intrusiveness is less problematic in play since fathers’ style of play is not typically to engage the child in didactic play such as three bag task. However, boys may be vulnerable to paternal intrusiveness since fathers adopt a more directive style with children than mothers in both physical and pretend play, especially with their sons (Farver & Wimbarti, 1995; Kazura, 2000). In addition, although most previous research has examined the role of mothers and father separately, researchers need to investigate fathers’ and mothers’ roles together. In this sense, father’s parenting may buffer the effects of higher maternal intrusiveness. Previous research has suggested that father’s rough and tumble play improve children’s anger regulation and modulation of intense affect by providing children opportunities to perceive other’s emotional cues (Carson, Burks, & Parke, 1993; Tamis-Lemonda, 2004). Fathers’ emotional 15 availability and responsiveness to child’s needs also prevented children’s negative socioemotional outcomes as well as develop self regulation and social competence (Cabrera, TamisLeMonda, Bradley, Hofferth, & Lamb, 1997; Silverstein, 2002). The reason may be that fathers’ play promotes autonomy which is essential in development of self regulation (Cabrera et al., 2000; Power & Shanks, 1989). According to Yogman (1994), fathers’ parenting may have an indirect and a direct effect on children’s behaviors. Fathers indirectly provided emotional and physical support to mothers during stressful periods. Fathers also directly helped toddlers to develop exploration and autonomy during non-stressful period. Therefore father’s behavior may be important for toddler’s emotional development, specifically when mom’s parenting was lacking. Summary The above literature review highlights that lack of research regarding the effect of maternal and paternal intrusiveness for boys’ and girls’ self regulation. Thus, the current study addressed key gaps by examining the association between parental intrusiveness and child self regulation in the 24 months of life and exploring different self regulation according to parent’s gender and toddler’s gender. Maternal cumulative risks, parental stress, child early self regulation, child emotionality and program status were included in the study because the factors related to the association between parenting behaviors and child outcomes in prior research (Appleyard, Egeland, Dulmen, & Alan Sroufe, 2005; Evans, 2004; Love, Kisker, Ross, Raikes, Constantine, Boller, Brooks-Gunn, Chazan-Cohen, Tarullo, Brady-Smith, Fuligni, Schochet, Paulsel, & Vogel, 2005). 16 CHAPTER THREE Method This chapter consists of the following sections: 1) procedures, 2) measures, 3) missing data, 4) hypotheses, 5) data analysis plan. Procedures Main study procedures. Participants in the current study are children, mothers and fathers who participated in Early Head Start Research and Evaluation (EHSRE) Project (see Boller, Bradley, Cabrera, Raikes, Pan, Shears, & Roggman, 2006; Love et al., 2005 and Love et al., 2002—the 2002 technical report—for full details of the main study procedures). For the EHSRE main study, participants were recruited from 17 community sites nationwide and were randomly assigned to an intent-to-treat Early Head Start program group (51%; n = 1,513) or to a comparison group (49%; n = 1,488). All families had to meet income eligibility for Early Head Start (incomes at or below the federal poverty level and use at least 10 % of available spaces provided to disabled children). They also had to agree to random assignment and be expecting a child or have a child under 12 months of age. Families in the Early Head Start program group were provided with home visits, child care comprehensive health and mental health services, parenting education, nutrition education, health care and referrals, and family support for enhancing development of children and support healthy family functioning. Comparison group families could not access Early Head Start Services, but they could receive other services in the community. Data were not available regarding the specifics of other resources comparison group families might have accessed. The EHSRE sample contained 3,001 children who were enrolled in the study at birth and 17 scheduled to be assessed near the time of their 14, 24 and 36 months birthdays (Love et al., 2005). However, because of the high risk nature of the sample, not all children were assessed at all time points, and for the children who were assessed, the schedule was somewhat variable. At 24 months, 53.5 % children and parents completed the data collection-parent interviews, the Bayley assessments and the video assessments (Love et al., 2002). After home visits, data collectors gave $20 and small gifts to mothers. The children’s actual ages at the time of assessment ranged from two months earlier than the scheduled assessment to eight months later, with a standard deviation from the scheduled assessment of approximately 1.5 months. The children’s mean age at the 24-month assessment was 25.14 months (SD = 1.52). The participants who completed assessments at all three time points were more likely to be enrolled in the Early Head Start program (vs. the comparison group members), and response rates were higher for mothers who were employed, who did not receive welfare and who were more educated. Because the children who had complete data were qualitatively different from those for whom some data were missing, and because the data analytic technique employed was able to estimate the means for the missing data, the present study uses all available cases in the analyses (Love et al., 2002). Father sub-study procedures. In order to collect father-child interaction data, 12 of the 17 research sites elected to participate in Father Involvement with Toddlers Study (FITS) (Boller et al., 2006). After interviewing mothers at the end of the 24- and 36-month, the interviewer explained the father study a sought permission to contact fathers. Approximately 800 fathers (n = 727) were interviewed in 12 research sites and videotaped observations of father-child interaction were collected in 7 research sites when the children were 24 (n = 318) and 36 (n = 340) months of age 18 (Boller et al., 2006; Raikes, Boller, vanKammen, Summers, Raikes, Laible, Wilcox, OntaiBrzebik, & Christensen, 2002). In the current study, cases with mother-child interaction data and father-child interaction data at 24 months were selected (n = 271). Sample Description Among the current sample (N = 271 cases with both mother-child and father-child interaction data), 40.1% of families were enrolled in the EHS program group (n = 133), and 50.9% (n = 138) were enrolled in the comparison group. Families had a mean gross annual income of $11,079.74 (SD = 10,055.99; median = 9,735.50; min = 0; max = 68,401). All fathers (n = 250) were employed. Fifty-five percent of fathers (n = 149) had completed high school or less; 45% of fathers (n = 122) had completed some college and some education beyond college. Mothers were, on average, 23.01 years old (SD = 6.15, range = 15 – 41 years). Fathers were, on average, 29.19 years old (SD = 7.92, range = 17 – 56 years). 5.3% of fathers (n = 14) were teenage fathers. 59.9% respondents (n = 154) were married to child mother while 27.6% (n = 71) were never married. 2.7% (n = 7) were separated from child mother and 6.6% (n = 17) were married to another partner. 3.1% (n = 8) were separated from another partner. Most fathers (67.8%; n = 181) were resident biological fathers, 14.6% of fathers were nonresidential biological fathers (n = 39), fifteen percent of fathers (n = 40) were residential other father figures and 2.6% of fathers were nonresidential other father figures (n = 7). At the time of the 24-month interview, children were, on average, 24.92 months old (SD = 1.31, range = 22.73 – 32.62 months). 53.5% of children (n = 145) were girls and 46.5% (n = 126) were boys. 61.2% of mothers (n = 164) were Caucasian; 25.4% of mothers (n = 68) were African American; 11.2% (n = 30) were Hispanic and 2.2% (n = 6) were other ethnic groups. Fifty-seven percent of fathers (n = 150) were Caucasian, 25.9% were African American (n = 68), 12.2% were Hispanic (n = 32) 19 and 4.9% (n = 13) were other ethnic groups (see Table 1 for the sample demographics). Measures Parent-child interaction measures. Parents’ intrusiveness. Parental intrusiveness was assessed by using scales adapted from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care’s Three Box scales (Clarke-Stewart, Vandell, Burchinal, O’Brien, & MacCartney, 2002; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2004). It is called Three Bag task in the EHS study. The videotaped sessions included a standardized parent–child free play task. During free play, trained examiners provided toys in three separate bags and instructed to play with their children by using them. Different set of toys were presented to each parent for being age appropriate and encouraging parents to engage in concrete and symbolic play. Mothers received a book in bag 1, a kitchen set in bag 2 and a large boat with animals in bag 3. Fathers received a book in bag 1, a pizza set and telephone in bag 2 and a farm with farm animals in bag 3. At all three ages, bag 1 contained a picture book. The tasks were conducted in Spanish or English according to parents’ preference and were coded by data collectors’ fluent language. Each parent was instructed to sit with his or her child in front of the camera, and to feel free and to do whatever. They also were prohibited to play all the toys from the three bags and asked to start with Bag 1, move on to Bag 2, and finish with Bag 3. They were able to divide the 10 minutes if they wanted. In addition, according to the instruction children were not able to be pacified by parents for the accurate assessment (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). Parental intrusiveness measured the degree to which the parent controlled the child’s play instead of allowing for the child’s preferences. In the current study, parent’s intrusiveness at 24 months was used as a main predictor. This 7-point rating scale was ranged from 1 (very low) to 7 20 (very high), with a maternal intrusiveness mean score of 1.76 (SD = .93) and a paternal intrusiveness mean score of 1.83 (SD = .88). Higher scores on intrusiveness indicate that the parent controlled the play agenda without letting children shape the focus or pace of play, not allowing the child to influence the focus or pace of play, grabbing toys away from the child, taking charge of the activity and not taking turns in play with the child. All videotapes were coded by an independent team from the Center for Children and Families, Columbia University, Teachers College. One coding team was comprised of one trained team leader and five to six members. Video tapes were randomly selected and assessed weekly to examine inter-rater reliability. Coders had to reach a level of reliability ranged from 84% to 100% agreement (exact and within 1-point agreement), with an average of 93%. All coders were unaware of the children’s score on the standardized tests (Bayley MDI and PPVT) (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004). Child outcome measures. Self regulation. Child self-regulation is measured by Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale (BBRS), which was selected for use in the national study from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID)-Second Edition (Bayley, 1993). It was administered during home visits at children’s 14, 24, and 36 month birth-related assessments. The BBRS scale contained items regarding the ability of the child to successfully change tasks and test materials; negative affect; and frustration with tasks during the assessment (Love, et al., 2002). The seven items included on the self regulation subscale were as follows: (1) adaptation to change in materials (e.g., the children’s reaction when an interviewer takes one item from the child and exchanges it for another), (2) attention to tasks, (3) persistence in attempting to complete tasks, (4) cooperation with the interviewer, (5) activity level, (6) hypersensitivity to stimuli and (7) negative affection. The interviewer assessed the children’s behavior by scoring items on a scale from 1 to 5. In 21 current study, 24 month child self regulation was used as a dependent variable with a mean score of 3.70 (SD = .82; min = 1.14; max = 5.00). High score indicated more positive behavior (e.g., more attention to tasks and less negative affect). Items indicating low score (e.g., more hypersensitivity and less cooperation) were then reverse-coded. Scores are the mean of the items in the subscale. Cronbach’s internal consistency reliability for the scale was .92. Covariate measures. The current study included several covariate variables known to predict parents’ behavior and child outcome. Program status. Program status indicates whether the child was included in the Early Head Start group or the comparison group. In the current sample, 40.1% received services from EHS as the program group. Previous research showed that the mothers in the comparison group were less supportive to their children (Bocknek et al., 2009; Love et al., 2005). However at 24 months of age, in the current sample of parents (n = 271), neither mothers nor fathers in the comparison and treatment groups did not differ on quality of parenting. Maternal cumulative risks. Risk factors which the mother faced include (1) being an adolescent mother, (2) having no high school degree, (3) receiving welfare, (4) not being employed or in school or training, and (5) being a single mother. Responses for each of the 5 risks were dichotomous reflecting the presence or absence of the risks. Scores were summed to create a risk composite. In the current sample overall (N = 271), mothers had a mean of 2.22 (SD = 1.29; min = 0; max = 5.00), with 44.2% of the sample indicating three or more risks at study enrollment (n = 120). Parenting stress. Parenting stress was assessed by two subscales from the Parenting Stress Index—Short Form (PSI-SF; Abidin, 1983). Parental Distress and Parent-Child 22 Dysfunctional Interaction were administered when children were 24-months age. Both subscales consisted of 12 items and each item is rated on a 5-point scale, with 1 as “strongly disagree” and 5 as “strongly agree.” The Parental Distress subscale assessed the level of distress the parent is feeling in his or her role as a parent stemming from the child’s challenging temperament, including a low sense of competence as a parent, stress because of perceived restrictions stemming from parenting, depression, and lack of social support. The parent responded whether he or she agrees or disagrees with statements such as, “You often have the feeling that you cannot handle things very well,” and “You feel trapped by your responsibilities as a parent,” and “You feel alone and without friends.” Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction measures the parent’s perception that the child does not meet the parent’s expectations and interactions with the child are not reinforcing the parent. The parent may perceive that the child is abusing or rejecting the parent or that the parent feels disappointed in or alienated from the child. The parent responded whether he or she agrees or disagrees with statements such as, “Your child rarely does things for you that make you feel good,” and “Most times you feel that your child does not like you and does not want to be close to you,” and “Your child seems to smile less than most children.” Internal consistency reliabilities were high with Cronbach alpha coefficients of .83 for Parental Distress, .80 for Mother-child Dysfunctional Interaction and .86 for the combined scales. In the current study, mothers had a total stress mean score of 24.36 (SD = 8.44; min = 12.00; max = 53.00). Fathers had a total stress mean score of 21.97 (SD = 7.53; min = 12.00; max = 52.36). Child early self regulation. Child early self-regulation was also measured by Bayley Behavioral Rating Scale (BRS), when children were 14 months old. All items and scores of this scale were the same as the 24 months child self regulation, with a mean score of 3.75 (SD = .67; 23 min = 1.14; max = 5.00). Child temperament. Children’s temperament was assessed by the Emotionality subscale of the EASI (Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impulsivity) temperament scales (Buss & Plomin, 1984) when children were 14 months old. The instrument included 20 items in four behavioral categories: Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, and Impulsivity. A parent was presented with individual patterns of behaviors and responses to daily events and is asked to rate the child on a five-point scale. Emotionality subscale involved items regarding general emotionality, fear and anger. In the current sample, respondents had a mean score of 2.92 (SD = .92). Child gender. In current study (N = 271), 53.5% (n = 145) were girls and 46.5% (n = 126) were boys. Coding categories of the child gender variable were girls = 1, boys = 0. At 24 months of age girls had higher mean scores than did boys on the measure of 24 month self regulation (F = 4.23, p = .04). Missing Data In current multivariate data set, missing values appeared on more than one variable. Current data set may be considered missing at random since the pattern of such absence is not related to a participant’s true status on a given variable for which data is missing (Acock, 2005; Musil, Warner, Yobas, & Jones, 2002). Consistent with previous research (Acock, 2005), such conditional randomness occurred in demographic variables, including maternal cumulative risks. Missing data were imputed prior to analyses in using PRELIS application of LISREL 8.8 because Listwise deletion tends to discard a large proportion of the data and may induce bias (du Toit & Mels, 2002). LISREL 8.7 implements ad hoc method which researchers frequently use (Schafer, 1997) and use the EM algorithm (Dempster, Laird, & Rubin, 1997; Schafer, 1997; 24 MacLachlan & Krishnan, 1997) and the Monte Carlo Markov chains (MCMC algorithm) (du Toit et al., 2002; Gilks, Richardson, & Spiegelhalter, 1995). In current study, the EM algorithm was chosen because there is no significant difference between EM algorithm and MCMC method in terms of accuracy for imputation (Lin, 2010). The Expectation Maximization implements a two-step iterative approach to examine the parameters in the model. In the EM method maximum likelihood approach is implemented by repeating Expectation (E-step) and Maximization (M-step) steps in parametric models for imputing the missing values. An E-step finds the distribution for the missing values based on the known values from the observed data and an M-step substitutes the missing data with the expected values. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were addressed in the current study. H 01 : There is no relationship between maternal intrusiveness and child self regulation. H a1 : Maternal intrusiveness would be related to less optimal child self regulation. H 02 : There is no relationship between paternal intrusiveness and child self regulation. H a2 : Paternal intrusiveness would be related to less optimal child self regulation. H 03 : Maternal intrusiveness does not have differential effects on self regulation as a function of child gender. H a3 : Maternal intrusiveness negatively influences girls’ and boys’ self regulation. The effect of 25 maternal intrusiveness is more pronounced for girls’ self regulation than for boys’ self regulation. H 04 : Paternal intrusiveness does not have differential effects on self regulation as a function of child gender. H a4 : Paternal intrusiveness negatively influences girls’ and boys’ self regulation. The effect of paternal intrusiveness is more pronounced for boys’ self regulation than girls’ self regulation. H 05 : The interaction of maternal and paternal intrusiveness does not have more robust effects on toddler self regulation than would either maternal or paternal intrusiveness alone. H a5 : The interaction of maternal and paternal intrusiveness has more robust effects on toddler self regulation than would either maternal or paternal stress alone. H a51 : Toddler self regulation, for boys and girls, is most compromised when both mothers and fathers demonstrate higher intrusiveness. H a52 : Lower paternal intrusiveness buffers the effects of higher maternal intrusiveness on toddler self regulation for boys and girls. Data Analysis Plan A series of hierarchical multiple regression models were performed to test study above hypotheses. The current study contained two main independent variables, maternal intrusiveness (MI) and paternal intrusiveness (PI), and one dependent variable, child’s self regulation at 24 months. Child gender was treated as a moderating variable (boy = 0; girl = 1) and six covariates were included in the study: 1) program status, 2) maternal cumulative risks, 3) maternal stress at 26 24 months, 4) paternal stress at 24 months, 5) child temperament (emotionality) at 14 months, and, 6) child’s early self regulation at 14 months. In addition two-way interaction terms (MI × child gender; PI × child gender; MI × PI) and a three-way interaction term (MI × PI × child gender) were included in these models. Prior to conduct the regression analyses, maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness variables were centered by subtracting the sample mean from all sample scores on the variables. Multicollinearity between predictors and any interaction terms was reduced through the centering (Holmbeck, 2002). Each of variables was examined separately and followed similar models. In the first step of each model, program status, maternal cumulative risks and maternal stress were entered followed by child temperament and child early self regulation at 14 months in step 2. These variables were entered into all five regression model to control for their effect on the child self regulation at 24 months. To address Hypothesis 1 Model 1 included maternal intrusiveness in step 3 as the primary predictor of child 24 months self regulation. To test Hypothesis 2 Model 2 included paternal variables instead of maternal variables, except for cumulative risks. Paternal cumulative risk variable was not computed due to insufficient data. Model 3 included an independent variable (maternal intrusiveness) and a moderator variable (child gender) at step 3 so a possible moderating effect could be examined at next step. Step 4 included a two-way interaction term (maternal intrusiveness × child gender) for Hypothesis 3, which predicted that child gender would moderate the relationship between maternal intrusiveness and child self regulation at 24 months. In the model 4, all maternal variables were replaced with paternal variables, except for cumulative risks to test Hypothesis 4. The Hypothesis was supported if a paternal intrusiveness × child gender variable is significantly associated with child self regulation at 24 months and follow-up tests of main effects revealed 27 that boy’s were more negatively affected than were girls. In the model 5 was constructed with both maternal variables and paternal variables. Program status, maternal cumulative risks, maternal stress and paternal stress were entered at step 1 followed by child temperament, child early self regulation at 14 months and child gender at step 2. Step 3 included maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness and all two-way interaction terms (MI × child gender; PI × child gender; MI × PI) were entered at Step 4. Lastly a three-way interaction variable (MI × PI × child gender) was included at Step 5 to test Hypothesis 5 1 and Hypothesis 5 2 . If a significant interaction was obtained in these models, it was graphed according to established procedures (Aiken & West, 1991; Dawson & Richter, 2006). For ease of interpretation, results of the hierarchical multiple regression models provided the change in 2 adjusted R with each addition to the model. Measure of effect size in the regression was 2 assessed via adjusted R , and the size of β weights for each predictor. 28 CHAPTER FOUR Study Results This chapter reports results related to hypotheses developed in Chapter 1. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted with independent variables (maternal and paternal intrusiveness), a moderator variable (child gender) and a dependent variable (child’s self regulation at 24 months old) to test five models (See Chapter 3). These analyses were used to determine if the parent’s intrusiveness and child self regulation relationship were moderated by child gender. Variables included in the five models are displayed below. Preliminary Analyses In order to show means, standard deviation and range, descriptive statistics of measures used five models are presented were in Table 2 (See appendix). In order to compare the means of some variables by child gender and program status, One-way ANOVA analyses were used. The results of the analyses indicated that the EHS program group did not significantly differ from comparison group on study assessments: the 14-month birth-related assessment on child temperament, F = .83, p = .36; the 14-month birth-related assessment on child self regulation, F =.05, p = .82; the 14-month birth-related assessment on maternal cumulative risks, F = .22, p =.64; the 24-month birth-related assessment on maternal stress, F = .11, p = .74; the 24-month birth-related assessment on paternal stress, F = .85, p = .36; the 24-month birth-related assessment on maternal intrusiveness, F = .53, p = .47; the 24-month birth-related assessment on paternal intrusiveness, F = .30, p = .59; the 24-month birth-related assessment on child self regulation, F = .67, p = .41. Additionally, girls and boys did not significantly differ on all other assessments: the 14-month birth-related assessment on child temperament, F = .53, p = .47; the 14-month birth-related assessment on child self regulation, F = 2.32, p = .13; the 14-month birth29 related assessment on maternal cumulative risk, F = .00 , p = .97; the 24-month birth-related assessment on maternal stress, F = .03, p = .88; the 24-month birth-related assessment on paternal stress, F = .03, p =.87; the 24-month birth-related assessment on maternal intrusiveness, F = .31, p = .58; the 24-month birth-related assessment on paternal intrusiveness, F = .66, p = .42. However girls significantly differed from boys at the 24-month birth-related assessment on child self regulation, F = 4.23, p =.04. As seen in Table 3, bivariate correlations were conducted to analyze the association among independent, dependent and control variables. Child self regulation at 14 months was negatively associated with child temperament (r = -.19, p = .001). Child self regulation at 24 months was positively correlated with child gender (r = .13, p = .032) and child self regulation at 14 months (r = .33, p < .001). Maternal cumulative risk variable was negatively associated with child self regulation at 14 months (r = -.23, p < .001) and child self regulation at 24 months (r = .33, p < .001) and positively associated with child temperament (r = .13, p = .031). Maternal stress was positively correlated with child temperament (r = .14, p = .018), maternal cumulative risks (r = .15, p = .017) and negatively correlated with child self regulation at 14 months (r = -.22, p < .001) and child self regulation at 24 months(r = -.13, p = .033). Maternal intrusiveness was negatively associated with child self regulation at 14 months (r = -.19, p = .001), child self regulation at 24 months (r = -.17, p = .004) and positively associated with (r = .19, p = .002). Paternal intrusiveness was positively correlated child temperament (r = .14, p = .020), maternal intrusiveness (r = .23, p < .001) and negatively correlated with child self regulation at 14 months (r = -.16, p = .008). Additionally, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to estimate multicollinearity. VIF scores ranged between 2.96 and 1.04. VIF scores of less than 10 suggest that it will not 30 affect the stability of the parameter estimates (Dielman, 1991). Hierarchical Multiple Regression The hypothesized results of five models will be separately presented below. Significant results indicated in hierarchical multiple regression analyses were shown in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 (See appendix). Model 1. Hypothesis 1 for Model 1 postulated that higher maternal intrusiveness at 24 months would have a negative effect on child self regulation at 24 months. The regression included program status, maternal cumulative risks and maternal stress at Step 1. Child temperament and child early self regulation were added at Step 2 and maternal intrusiveness was added as a main predictor at Step3. Model 1 was statistically significant, F (6, 264) = 9.69, p < .001, and accounted for 16 % of variance in child self regulation at 24 months. Maternal cumulative risks (β = -.24, p < .001) was negatively predicted child self regulation at 24 months and child self regulation at 14 month was positively predicted the dependent variable (β = .24, p < .001). However, maternal intrusiveness (β = -.10, p = .10) was not significantly associated with the dependent variable (See Table 4.1). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Model 2. The second regression model included child self regulation at 24 months as the dependent variable. Program status, maternal cumulative risks and paternal stress were included at Step 1. Child temperament and child self regulation at 14 months were added at Step 2. Paternal intrusiveness was included as a main predictor at Step3. Model 2 was statistically significant, F (6, 264) = 9.07, p < .001, and accounted for 15 % of variance in child self regulation at 24 months. Maternal cumulative risks (β = -.25, p < .001) was negatively related to 31 child self regulation at 24 months and child self regulation at 14 month was positively related to the dependent variable (β = .26, p < .001). Nonetheless, no significance was found for paternal intrusiveness (β = -.03, p = .637) (See Table 4.1). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Model 3. Third Regression analyses for Hypothesis 3 also included child self regulation at 24 months as the dependent variable. Program status, maternal cumulative risks and maternal stress were included at Step 1. Child temperament, child self regulation at 14 months and child gender were added at Step 2. Maternal intrusiveness was included at Step 3 and a two-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness and child gender was added at Step 4. Model 3 was statistically significant, F (8, 262) = 7.82, p < .001, and accounted for 17 % of variance in child self regulation at 24 months. Maternal cumulative risks (β = -.23, p < .001) was negatively associated with child self regulation at 24 months and child self regulation at 14 month was positively predicted the dependent variable (β = .23, p < .001). However, maternal intrusiveness (β = -.12, p = .149) and the two-way interaction (MI × child gender) (β = .03, p = .743) were not significantly associated with the dependent variable (See Table 4.1). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Model 4. Fourth regression model estimated Hypothesis 4. The model included child self regulation at 24 months as the dependent variable. Program status, maternal cumulative risks and paternal stress were included at Step 1. Child temperament, child self regulation at 14 months and child gender were added at Step 2. Paternal intrusiveness was included at Step 3 and a twoway interaction between paternal intrusiveness and child gender was added at Step 4. Model 4 was statistically significant, F (8, 262) = 7.35, p < .001, and accounted for 16 % of variance in 32 child self regulation at 24 months. Maternal cumulative risks (β = -.25, p < .001) was negatively predicted child self regulation at 24 months and child self regulation at 14 month was positively predicted the dependent variable (β = .25, p < .001). Nonetheless, paternal intrusiveness (β = -.06, p = .417) and the two-way interaction (PI × child gender) (β = .06, p = .431) were not related to the dependent variable (See Table 4.1). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. Model 5. Hypothesis 5 stated that child self regulation, for boys and girls, would be most compromised when children experienced both maternal and paternal intrusiveness. This model tested for Hypothesis 5 included child self regulation at 24 months as a dependent variable. Program status, maternal cumulative risks, maternal stress and paternal stress were included at Step 1. Child temperament, child self regulation at 14 months and child gender were added at Step 2. Maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness were included at Step 3. Step 4 was included three two-way interactions (MI × child gender; PI × child gender; MI × PI) and Step 5 was included a three-way interaction (MI × PI × child gender). Model 5 was statistically significant, F (13, 257) = 5.93, p < .001, and accounted for 19 % of variance in child self regulation at 24 months. Maternal cumulative risks (β = -.22, p < .001), early self regulation (β = .21, p = .001) and child gender (β = .16 p = .005) significantly predicted child’s self regulation at 24 months. Maternal intrusiveness (β = -.21, p = .016) also was statistically associated with the dependent variable but no significance was found for paternal intrusiveness (β = -.10, p = .192). A two-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness and child gender (β = .10, p = .269) and a two-way interaction between paternal intrusiveness and child gender (β = .10, p = .200) did not relate to the child’s self regulation at 24 months. However, a two-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness were significantly (β = .26, p = .001) related to 33 the dependent variable, suggesting that negative effect of maternal intrusiveness on child self regulation was significantly stronger when paternal intrusiveness was low rather than high. Figure 2 graphically displays the relationship between maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness on the child self regulation at 24 months. In addition, the three-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness, paternal intrusiveness and child gender was significant (β = -.14, p = .04) (See Table 4.2). In order for an accurate interpretation of the three-way interaction effect, a test for slope difference was conducted (Dawson & Richter, 2006). There were significant differences between slope (2) and slope (4) (p = .034); between slope (3) and slope (4) (p = .024). The difference between slope (1) and slope (4) was also marginally significant (p = .055) (See Figure 3). This finding suggested that being a girl was associated with higher self regulation than being a boy when maternal intrusiveness was high or when maternal intrusiveness was low and paternal intrusiveness was high. Figure 3 graphically displays the relationship among maternal intrusiveness, paternal intrusiveness and child gender. Thus, Hypotheses 5 was partially supported (See Table 5). 34 CHAPTER FIVE Discussion and Conclusion Discussion Parents’ behavior in free play may affect their children’s self regulation and self efficacy which may more improve positive relationship with their peers (Carson et al., 1993; Parke, MacDonald, Beitel, & Bhavnagri, 1988; Parke, MacDowell, Kim, Killian, Dennis, Flyr, & Wild, 2002; Paquette 2004; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). In particular, parents’ intrusiveness in free play has been identified by many researchers as an influential variable that impacts on the child development (Cabrera et al., 2007; Greenspan & Lieberman, 1989; Ispa et al., 2004). Prior research estimating parents’ intrusiveness has extensively investigated the effects of maternal intrusiveness on children’s outcomes. Little research has been conducted looking at relations between paternal intrusiveness and child development. Also few researchers have looked at a moderating effect of child gender in the relationship between parent’s intrusiveness and the child development. Results from the current study found interesting results for future research on relationship among maternal intrusiveness, paternal intrusiveness and child self regulation. An expanded review of the study findings will be presented below as well as strength, limitations and implication for future research. Overall, Hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 4 were not supported in Models 1 to 4 (See Chapter 4). Regression analyses in Model 1 to Model 4 did not show any significance of the relationship between parent’s intrusiveness and child self regulation, but a significant positive effect of early child self regulation at 14 months and a significant negative effect of maternal cumulative risks on child self regulation at 24 months were evident. Hypothesis 5, however, was partially supported in Model 5. Hypothesis 5 examined child gender as a moderator of relations between 35 maternal and paternal intrusiveness and children’s self regulation. This hypothesis was developed based on past studies emphasizing maternal or paternal intrusiveness predicted child socio emotional outcomes (Cabrera et al., 2007; Ispa et al., 2004). Model 5 was statistically significant and accounted for 19% of the variance in child self regulation. Although Cohen (1988) suggested that values equaling .10 or less may indicate a “small” effect, values around .30 may indicate a “moderate” effect and values equaling .50 or more may indicate a “large” effect, his guidelines may be broad. Some researchers have recently suggested different guidelines addressed to different measures, target population and intervention (Hill, Bloom, Black & Lipsey, 2008). Other research exploring Early Head Start Program impacts reported that effect sizes ranged from .10 to .20 on measures of parenting behavior and child outcomes (Love et al., 2005). These should be considered. In Model 5, significant and positive influences of child self regulation at 14 months and child gender on child self regulation at 24 months were evident. One-way ANOVA analyses also found the sample mean difference of toddler’s self regulation in child gender. This is consistent with previous research suggesting boys self regulation is lower than girls self regulation (Morris et al., 2002; Morris et al., 2007). The analysis of Model 5 also showed the significantly negative effect of maternal cumulative risks and maternal intrusiveness but no effect of paternal intrusiveness on child self regulation at 24 months. This is partially consistent with prior studies. Some research reported that cumulative risk is a powerful influence on child outcomes (Sameroff & Fiese, 2000) and especially within economically at-risk populations (e.g., Bocknek et al., 2009; Raikes, Pan, Luze, Tamis-LeMonda, Brooks-Gunn, Constantine, Tarullo, Raikes, & Rodriguez, 2006). In addition Cabrera and her colleagues found that maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness are negatively related to child emotional regulation at 24 months (Cabrera 36 et al., 2007). Results from Model 5 also indicated a significant two-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness and a significant three-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness, paternal intrusiveness and child gender. The three-way interaction will be main focus in this discussion but some potential process reflected in the two-way interaction will be discussed first as follows. As noted in the previous chapter, the two-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness was significantly related to the child self regulation at 24 months; interestingly, neither a two-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness and child gender nor a two-way interaction between paternal intrusiveness and child gender had impact on the child’s self regulation at 24 months. Unexpectedly, the significant effect of the two-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness and paternal intrusiveness on the child self regulation suggested that the negative effect of maternal intrusiveness on the child self regulation was significantly stronger when paternal intrusiveness was low rather than high. This result may be explained by fathers’ “rough and tumble play (RTP)”. Previous research found that fathers typically engaged in rough and tumble physical and social play (Roopnarine, Ahmeduzzaman, Hossain, & Riegraf, 1992). Studies regarding father-child interaction also indicated that fathers encouraged visual exploration and manipulation of activities during play with their children (Power, 1985). In current study, the fathers’ rough and tumble play style could be measured as intrusive behavior in the three bag assessment. In other words, father’s RTP may be one type of what might be interpreted as intrusiveness behavior. In fact, fathers’ RTP can connote double meanings: ‘I love you’ (warmth) and ‘I am stronger than you’ (control) (Paquette et al., 2004). For example, one indicator of intrusiveness in the three bag assessment was poking the child 37 with toys, fingers, or other objects. This behavior may be usually found in fathers’ rough and tumble play as a way to attract children’s attention. Most studies on the topic deal with RTP revealed that RTP can contribute to the children’s ability to regulation their emotion (Carson et al., 1993; Paquette, 2004; Paquette Carbonneau, Dubeau, Bigras, & Tremblay, 2003; Peterson & Flanders, 2005). These studies also suggested that fathers can teach their children self control to others through the play. Therefore, the negative effect of maternal intrusiveness on the child self regulation was significantly reduced when paternal intrusiveness was high. In addition, a three-way interaction between maternal intrusiveness, paternal intrusiveness and child gender was significantly associated with child self regulation at 24 months. This interaction suggests that child gender moderates the relation between maternal intrusiveness, paternal intrusiveness and child self regulation. Specifically, girls showed the most optimal self regulation when both maternal intrusiveness was high and paternal intrusiveness was high while boys seemed to benefit most from low maternal and paternal intrusiveness (See Figure 3). Boys seemed most vulnerable to any kind of intrusiveness. This finding is consistent with previous research (Osofsky & O’Connell, 1977; Weinberg et al., 1999). For instance, Weinberg et al. (1999) showed boys had greater difficulty than girls maintaining affective regulation when mothers showed lower levels of sensitivity. Furthermore, although mothers and sons tried to synchronize their behavior, boys had more difficulties than girls moving to joint states, and boys took longer repairing interactive errors (Weinberg et al., 1999). Such research could explain why parents’ intrusiveness in the child’s early life had a greater negative impact on boys than girls. The boys may be more vulnerable to any kind of intrusiveness because of greater difficulties with affective regulation. 38 Girls seemed to benefit from maternal intrusiveness or paternal intrusive behaviors. Three potential explanations for this finding can be addressed. First, research has shown that, in general, mothers tend to engage their children, particularly their daughters, in more structured, didactic play (Bornstein, Selmi, Haynes, Painter, & Marx, 1996; Brown, Rickards, & Bortoli, 2001; Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1991, 1994; Vibbert & Bornstein, 1989) and girls, overall, tend to be engaged in this manner (Gmitrova, Podhajecka, & Gmitrov, 2009). Girls also tend to high more mature linguistic abilities which likely support their self regulation (Cournoyer, Solomon, & Trudel, 1998; Vallotton & Ayoub, 2011). Thus, parental intrusiveness may feel more familiar to girls in that it may mimic the structured interactions to which they are already accustomed, as compared to boys who are less likely to experience these types of interactions with their parents. Second, intrusiveness could be explained as a positive behavior in varying contexts. Previous research suggests that intrusiveness has different meaning in diverse cultural groups (Grusec, Rudy, & Martini, 1997; Ispa et al., 2004). For example, intrusiveness might represent neutral and positive feelings in collectivistic cultural groups such as African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Hence, cultural differences, untapped in the current study, may be contributing to the model such that intrusiveness, possibly in interaction with child gender and culture, may relate to self regulation. Lastly, this finding might be explained by fathers’ different expectations and attention for boys’ and girls’ play. Fathers play in different ways with their sons and daughters (Jacklin et al., 1984; Snow, Jacklin, & Maccoby, 1983). Fathers may lead the play softly and more supportively when they play with daughters while fathers may control boys’ play more strongly rather than girl’s play (Lewis, 1997; Lovas, 2005). Thus, paternal intrusiveness may “look” differently during interactions with girls than with boys. Alternatively, fathers’ more rough and tumble interactions (as compared to mothers) may carry a different meaning in 39 interactions with girls. Prior studies found that fathers succeed more easily to obtain sons’ obedience through RTP (Lytton, 1979). Some research suggests that fathers might express rivalry toward their sons in a dominant-submissive relationship established through RTP (Paquette et al., 2004). Other studies found fathers can affect the ability to control aggressive behavior, particularly for boys (Herzog, 1992). In fact, MacDonald (1987) found that fathers of popular children engaged in more RTP with their sons than fathers of neglected children. Girls may particularly benefit from this type of interaction, particularly since they are less likely to experience this type of play interaction as compared to boys. Strengths Several strengths were evident in the current study. First, this study extended prior research by presenting findings related to how both maternal and paternal intrusiveness might differentially influence boys’ and girls’ outcomes. Few studies incorporated such the analyses. It filled the paucity of research on parent’s intrusiveness and allowed for a comparison of results. Second, the maternal and paternal intrusiveness was also measured by not self report but observation in naturalistic contexts. Most studies related to the relationship between parenting and child self-regulation have examined under laboratory control (e.g., Cole et al., 2004). The home observations showed varied aspects of natural parent-child interaction in an ecologically valid environment. Lastly, the current study used a relatively large sample size with both motherchild and father-child interaction data. The national EHSRE data provided children and their parents from varying regions, EHS programs and ethnic groups across the United States, in both rural and urban areas. Limitations & Implications Although this study had significance related to early regulatory development, several 40 limitations must be noted. Firstly, this study compared mother and child interactions with father and child interactions in a dyadic setting. That is, children with aged 24 months were separately videotaped with their mothers and fathers in order to measure the maternal and paternal intrusiveness. Examining triadic interactions between mothers, fathers, and toddlers would provide a rich insight into the role of parent-child interactions as a context for the development of self-regulation. Child self regulation also was measured with the Bayley Behavior Rating Scale as opposed to a battery of self regulation tasks and assessments. The current study only estimated the development of children from families who had an income at, or below the Federal poverty line. The current study cannot, therefore, be generalized to an economically diverse population. Although EHSRE is a longitudinal study, the design for this study is cross-sectional. Future research would also benefit from an understanding of pathways through which perceptions of parent’s role may affect maternal and paternal intrusiveness or the mediators which can influence the relationship between parent’s intrusiveness and child self regulation. Lastly, a paternal cumulative risks variable was not included in this study. Thus, the results of models in which paternal intrusiveness was used as a predictor may be slightly skewed. Future research could include other variables which may affect the results (e.g., a paternal cumulative risks and marital satisfaction) as covariates. Findings from the current study emphasize the role of fathers in parenting, specifically during toddlerhood. Findings also suggested that fathers may engage with boys differently than they do with girls. According to Lovas (2005), sons of fathers who have less emotional availability may become like their father in the future. In order to prevent the potential risks and improve child self regulation associated with academic achievement and successful social relationship, holistic policy or program enhancing fathers’ sense of their importance to the child 41 development would help father’s actual parenting. Conclusions In recent years, father-child relationship is emphasized in a larger ecology including mother-father relationship, family human and financial resources (Lamb, 2004). Findings from this study suggested that boys and girls from low income families were differently susceptible to maternal and paternal intrusiveness in self regulation development. Boys may be more vulnerable to maternal or paternal intrusiveness than girls. Girls may benefit from maternal or paternal intrusiveness. 42 APPENDIX 43 APPENDIX Tables and Figures Table 1 Description of Sample (N = 271) Program Status Program Group Comparison Group Paternal Employment Employed (n = 250) Unemployed Paternal Education ≤ High School ≥ College Paternal Marital Status Married to Child Mother (n = 257) Separated from Child Mother Never Married Married to Another Partner Separated from Another Partner Adolescent Father Status ≤ 19 Years Old (n = 264) ≥ 20 Years Old Father’s Residence Status Resident Biological Father (n = 267) Nonresident Biological Father Resident Other Father Figure Nonresident Other Father Figure Paternal Race European American (n = 263) African American Hispanic Other Maternal Race European American (n = 268) African American Hispanic Other Child Gender Girl Boy 44 % 40.1 50.9 100.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 59.9 2.7 27.6 6.6 3.1 5.3 94.7 67.8 14.6 15.0 2.6 57.0 25.9 12.2 4.9 61.2 25.4 11.2 2.2 53.5 46.5 N 133 138 250 0 149 122 154 7 71 17 8 14 250 181 39 40 7 150 68 32 13 164 68 30 6 145 126 Table 2 Description of All Variables (N = 271) M (SD) 14-Month Birth-Related Assessment Child Temperament Child Self Regulation 24-Month Birth-Related Assessment Child Self Regulation Maternal Cumulative Risks Maternal Stress Paternal Stress Maternal Intrusiveness Paternal Intrusiveness Minimum Maximum 2.92 (.92) 3.75 (.67) 1.00 1.14 5.00 5.00 3.70 (.82) 2.22 (1.29) 24.36 (8.44) 21.97 (7.53) 1.76 (.93) 1.83 (.88) 1.14 .00 12.00 12.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 53.00 52.36 5.00 5.00 45 Table 3 Correlations for Study Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 1. Program Status -.04 .03 -.04 .00 .09 -.19 -.10 8 9 10 1.00 4. Self Regulation at 14 Months 7 1.00 3. Child Temperament 6 1.00 2. Child Gender 5 5. Self Regulation at 24 Months -.06 * -.03 .13 .02 7. Maternal Stress .01 .02 8. Paternal Stress -.03 -.01 6. Maternal Cumulative Risks 9. Maternal Intrusiveness 10. Paternal Intrusiveness -.04 -.04 .05 .01 ** * .13 * .14 .10 .08 * .14 1.00 *** .33 *** -.23 *** -.22 -.08 ** -.19 ** -.16 * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. 46 1.00 *** -.33 * -.13 -.05 * -.17 -.10 1.00 * .15 .11 ** .19 .10 1.00 .10 1.00 .08 -.00 1.00 .08 .09 .23 *** 1.00 Table 4.1 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting 24-Month Outcome (Model 1-Model 4) Model 1 B SEB Model 4 B SEB β -.10 .09 -.08 .09 -.15 .04 -.06 *** -.24 -.16 .04 -.05 *** -.25 -.00 β Model 3 B SEB β .01 -.04 .00 .01 .03 .00 .05 .31 .07 .00 *** .25 .17 .09 .11 -.06 .07 -.06 .09 β Model 2 B SEB .11 .06 Step 1 Program -.09 .09 Maternal Risk -.15 .04 -.06 *** -.24 Maternal Stress -.00 .01 -.04 Paternal Stress -.09 .09 -.16 .04 -.05 *** -.25 .00 .01 .02 .00 .05 .32 .07 -.00 *** .26 Step 2 Temperament .00 .05 Early Self Regulation .30 .07 .00 *** .24 .05 .28 .07 .00 *** .23 .18 .09 .11 -.11 Child Gender .00 .07 -.12 Step 3 Maternal Intrusiveness (MI) -.08 .05 Paternal Intrusiveness (PI) -.10 -.03 .05 -.03 Step 4 MI × Child Gender PI × Child Gender MI × PI .03 .20 .03 Step 5 MI × PI × Child Gender 2 R 2 F for Change in R .16 .15 .17 .16 2.73 .22 .11 .62 * p < .05 ** p < .01. *** p < .001. 47 Table 4.2 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting 24-Month Outcome (Model5) B Model5 SEB Program -.08 .09 Maternal Risk Maternal Stress Paternal Stress -.14 -.00 .01 .04 .01 .01 Emotionality .00 .05 Early Self Regulation .26 .07 .01 ** .21 Child Gender .27 .09 .16 Maternal Intrusiveness (MI) Paternal Intrusiveness (PI) -.20 -.10 .08 .07 -.21 MI × Child Gender PI × Child Gender .12 .15 .11 .11 .10 .10 MI × PI .22 .06 .26 MI × PI × Child Gender 2 R -.24 .12 -.14 β Step 1 -.05 *** -.22 -.04 .03 Step 2 ** Step 3 * -.10 Step 4 ** Step 5 .19 * 4.27 2 F for Change in R * p < .05 ** p < .01. *** p < .001. 48 * Table 5 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Hypotheses 1. Maternal intrusiveness would be related to less optimal child self regulation. 2. Paternal intrusiveness would be related to less optimal child self regulation. 3. Maternal intrusiveness negatively influences girls’ and boys’ self regulation. The effect of maternal intrusiveness is more pronounced for girls’ self regulation than for boys’ self regulation. 4. Paternal intrusiveness negatively influences girls’ and boys’ self regulation. The effect of paternal intrusiveness is more pronounced for boys’ self regulation than girls’ self regulation. 5.1 Toddler self regulation, for boys and girls, is most compromised when both mothers and fathers demonstrate higher intrusiveness. 5.2 Lower paternal intrusiveness buffers the effects of higher maternal intrusiveness on toddler self regulation for boys and girls. Results The effect of parental intrusiveness Supported Maternal intrusiveness had negative effect on the child self regulation. Not supported - Not supported - Not supported - Partially supported Not supported 49 The effect of maternal intrusiveness on the child self regulation was significantly stronger when paternal intrusiveness was low rather than high. Being a girl was associated with higher self regulation than being a boy when maternal intrusiveness was high or when maternal intrusiveness was low and paternal intrusiveness was high. Figure 1 Conceptual model Gender Mother Intrusiveness Child Self Regulation Father Intrusiveness 50 Figure 2 Relationship between Maternal Intrusiveness, Paternal Intrusiveness and Child’s Self Regulation 3.5 3.4 24 months child self regulation 3.3 3.2 3.1 Low paternal intrusiveness 3 2.9 High paternal intrusiveness 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 Low maternal intrusiveness High maternal intrusiveness 51 Figure 3 Relationship between Maternal Intrusiveness, Paternal Intrusiveness and Child’s Self Regulation in Context of Child Gender 4 3.9 (1) High Maternal Intrusiveness, High Paternal Intrusiveness 24 months child self regulation 3.8 3.7 (2) High Maternal Intrusiveness, Low Paternal Intrusiveness 3.6 3.5 3.4 (3) Low Maternal Intrusiveness, High Paternal Intrusiveness 3.3 3.2 (4) Low Maternal Intrusiveness, Low Paternal Intrusiveness 3.1 3 Boy Girl 52 REFERENCES 53 REFERENCES Abidin, R. R. (1983). Parenting stress index: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological assessment resources, Inc. Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 1012-1028. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Appleyard, K., Egeland, B., Dulmen, M. H. M., & Alan Sroufe, L. (2005). When more is not better: The role of cumulative risk in child behavior outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 46(3), 235-245. Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley scales of infant development, second edition: Manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace & Company. Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering and infant negativity as antecedents of boys’ externalizing problems and inhibitions at age 3: Differential susceptibility to rearing influence? Development and Psychopathology, 10(2), 301–319. Block, J. H. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54(6), 1335. Bocknek, E. L., Brophy-Herb, H. E., & Banerjee, M. (2009). Effects of parental supportiveness on toddlers’ emotion regulation over the first three years of life in a low- income African American sample. Infant Mental Health Journal, 30(5), 452-476. Boller, K., Bradley, R., Cabrera, N., Raikes, H., Pan, B., Shears, J., & Roggman, L. (2006). The early head start father studies: Design, data collection, and summary of father presence in the lives of infants and toddlers. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6(2), 117-143. Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 7(5), 345-374. Bronson, M. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. New York: The Guilford Press. 54 Bornstein, M. H., Selmi, A. M., Haynes, O. M., Painter, K. M., & Marx, E. S. (1996). Solitary and collaborative pretense play in early childhood: Sources of individual variation in the development of representational competence. Child Development,70, 833-852. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. Future of Children, 7, 55–71. Brooks-Gunn, J., Liaw, F., Michael, R., & Zamsky, E. (1992). Manual for coding freeplay parenting styles. Newark observational study of the teenage parent demonstration project. New York: National Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, Columbia University. Brown, P. M., Rickards, F. W., & Bortoli, A. (2001). Structures underpinning pretend play and word production in young hearing children and children with hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6, 15-31. Buckner, J. C., Mezzacappa, E., & Beardslee, W. R. (2003). Characteristics of resilient youths living in poverty: The role of self-regulatory processes. Development and Psychopathology, 15(1), 139-162. Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developing personality traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., & Roggman, L. (2007). Modeling the dynamics of paternal influences on children over the life course. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 185-189. Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J. D., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (2007). Fathers’ influence on their children’s cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to pre-K. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 208-213. Cabrera, N. J, Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bradley, R. H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71(1), 127-136. Calkins, S. D., Smith, C. L., Gill, K. L., & Johnson, M. C. (1998). Maternal interactive style across contexts: Relations to emotional, behavioral and physiological regulation during toddlerhood. Social Development, 7(3), 350-369. Cameron Ponitz, C. E., MacClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M. D., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(2), 141-158. Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 12(3), 467-488. 55 Carlson, V. J., & Harwood, R. L. (2003). Attachment, culture, and the caregiving system: The cultural patterning of everyday experiences among Anglo and Puerto Rican mother–infant pairs. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 53-73. Carson, J., Burks, V., & Parke, R. D. (1993). Parent-child physical play: Determinants and consequences. In K. MacDonald (Ed.), Parent-child play: Descriptions and implications (pp. 197-220), Albany: State University of New York Press. Cassano, M., Perry-Parrish, C., & Zeman, J. (2007). Influence of gender on parental socialization of children’s sadness regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 210-231. Chaplin, T. M., Casey, J., Sinha, R., & Mayes, L. C. (2010). Gender differences in caregiver emotion socialization of low-income toddlers. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 128, 11-27. Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental socialization of emotion expression: Gender differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5(1), 80-88. Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. J. (2006). Developmental psychopathology: Theory and method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O’Brien, M., & MacCartney, K. (2002). Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children’s development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(1), 52-86. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75(2), 317-333. Cournoyer, M., Solomon, C. R., & Trudel, M. (1998). “Je parle donc j’attends?”: Language et autocontrole ches le jeune enfant [I speak then I expect: Language and self-control in the young child at home.]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences dur Comportement, 30, 69–81. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B: Methodological, 39(1), 1-38. 56 Dielman, T. E. (1991). Applied regression analysis for business and economics. Boston: PWSKent Publishing Company. Du Toit, S., & Mels, G. (2002). Supplementary notes on multiple imputation. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc. Available at http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/impuration.pdf. Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241-273. Eshel, Y., Landau, R., Daniely, A., & Ben-Aaron, M. (2000). Adult attunement and child availability: Interaction of mother and caregiver with three-year-old kibbutz children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 21(6), 411-427. Evans, G. W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73(4), 1238-1248. Farver, J. A. M., & Wimbarti, S. (1995). Paternal participation in toddlers’ pretend play. Social Development, 4(1), 17-31. Feldman, R. (2003). Infant–mother and infant–father synchrony: The coregulation of positive arousal. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 1-23. Feldman, R., Greenbaum, C. W., & Yirmiya, N. (1999). Mother–infant affect synchrony as an antecedent of the emergence of self-control. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 223. Fivush, R., Brotman, M. A., Buckner, J. P., & Goodman, S. H. (2000). Gender differences in parent–child emotion narratives. Sex Roles, 42(3), 233-253. Fox, N. A. (2004). Temperament and early social experience form social behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1038, 171-178. Fuchs, D., & Thelen, M. H. (1988). Children’s expected interpersonal consequences of communicating their affective state and reported likelihood of expression. Child Development, 59(5), 1314-1322. Galyer, K. T., & Evans, I. M. (2001). Pretend play and the development of emotion regulation in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 166(1), 93-108. Garner, P. W., & Spears, F. M. (2000). Emotion regulation in low-income preschoolers. Social Development, 9(2), 246-264. Gilks, W., Richardson, S., & Spiegelhalter, D.(1996). Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. London: Chapman and Hall. 57 Gilliom, M., Shaw, D. S., Beck, J. E., Schonberg, M. A., & Lukon, J. E. L. (2002). Anger regulation in disadvantaged preschool boys: Strategies, antecedents, and the development of self-control. Developmental Psychology, 38(2), 222-235. Gmitrova, V., Podhajecká, M., & Gmitrov, J. (2009). Children’s play preferences: implications for the preschool education. Early Child Development and Care, 179 (3), 339-351. Greenspan, S. I., & Lieberman, A. F. (1989). Infants, mothers, and their interaction: A quantitative clinical approach to developmental assessment. In S. I. Greenspan & G. H. Pollock (Eds.), The course of life: Vol. 1 Infancy (pp. 503-560). Washington, DC: International Universities Press. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143-154. Grusec, J. E., Rudy, D., & Martini, T. (1997). Parenting cognitions and child constructs: An overview and im- plications for children’s internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 259-282). New York: Wiley. Herzog, J. (1992). L’enseignement de la langue maternelle: Aspects du dialogue développemental fille-père. Journal De La Psychanalyse De l’Enfant, 11, 47-60. Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172-177. Holditch-Davis, D., & MILES, M. S. (1997). Parenting the prematurely born child. Annual Review of Nursing Research, 15(1), 3-34. Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 87-96. Hops, H. (1995). Age-and gender-specific effects of parental depression: A commentary. Developmental Psychology, 31(3), 428-431. Howes, C., Unger, O., & Seidner, L. B. (1989). Social pretend play in toddlers: Parallels with social play and with solitary pretend. Child Development, 60(1), 77-84. Howse, R. B., Lange, G., Farran, D. C., & Boyles, C. D. (2003). Motivation and self-regulation as predictors of achievement in economically disadvantaged young children. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(2), 151-174. Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of Infant‐Mother attachment: A replication study. Child Development, 62(2), 373-384. 58 Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Halgunseth, L. C., Harper, S., Robinson, J. A., Boyce, L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Brady-Smith, C. (2004). Maternal intrusiveness, maternal warmth, and Mother– Toddler relationship outcomes: Variations across low-income ethnic and acculturation groups. Child Development, 75(6), 1613-1631. Jacklin, C. N., DiPietro, J. A., & Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Sex-typing behavior and sex-typing pressure in child/parent interaction. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13(5), 413-425. Kashdan, T. B., Jacob, R. G., Pelham, W. E., Lang, A. R., Hoza, B., Blumenthal, J. D., & Gnagy, E. M. (2004). Depression and anxiety in parents of children with ADHD and varying levels of oppositional defiant behaviors: Modeling relationships with family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 169-181. Kazura, K. (2000). Fathers’ qualitative and quantitative involvement: An investigation of attachment, play, and social interactions. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 9(1), 41-57. Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. New York: Norton. Klimes-Dougan, B., Brand, A. E., Zahn-Waxler, C., Usher, B., Hastings, P. D., Kendziora, K., & Garside, R. B. (2007). Parental emotion socialization in adolescence: Differences in sex, age and problem status. Social Development, 16(2), 326-342. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1997). The role of the father in child development (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in child development (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Landau, R., Amiel-Laviad, R., Berger, A., Atzaba-Poria, N., & Auerbach, J. G. (2009). Parenting of 7-month-old infants at familial risk for ADHD during infant’s free play, with restrictions on interaction. Infant Behavior and Development, 32(2), 173-182. Lawson, K. R., & Ruff, H. A. (2004). Early attention and negative emotionality predict later cognitive and behavioural function. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(2), 157-165. Lewis, C. (1997). Fathers and preschoolers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 121-142). New York: Wiley. Lewis, M. (1999). The hair combing task: A new paradigm for research on African-American mother-child interaction. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 1-11. Lin, T. H. (2010). A comparison of multiple imputation with EM algorithm and MCMC method for quality of life missing data. Quality and Quantity, 44(2), 277-287. 59 Lovas, G. S. (2005). Gender and patterns of emotional availability in mother-toddler and fathertoddler dyads. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26(4), 327-353. Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Raikes, H., Constantine, J., Boller, K., Brooks-Gunn, J. Chazan-Cohen, R., Tarullo, L. B., Brady-Smith, C., Fuligni, A. S., Schochet, P. Z., Paulsell, D., & Vogel, C. (2005). The effectiveness of early head start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and programs. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 885-901. Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C., Schochet, P., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., Boller, K., Constantine, J., Vogel, C., Fuligni, A. S., & Brady-Smith, C. (2002). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of early head start. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Lytton, H. (1979). Disciplinary encounters between young boys and their mothers and fathers: Is there a contingency system? Developmental Psychology, 15(3), 256. MacCabe, L. A., Cunnington, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). The development of self-regulation in young children: Individual characteristics and environmental contexts. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory and application (pp. 340356). New York: The Guilford Press. MacDonald, K. (1987). Parent-child physical play with rejected, neglected, and popular boys. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 705-711. MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. D. (1986). Parent-child physical play: The effects of sex and age of children and parents. Sex Roles, 15(7), 367-378. MacLachlan, G. J., & Krishnan, T. (1997). The EM algorithm and extensions. New York: Wiley. Mendez, J. L., Fantuzzo, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Profiles of social competence among lowincome African American preschool children. Child Development, 73(4), 1085-1100. Morrell, J., & Murray, L. (2003). Parenting and the development of conduct disorder and hyperactive symptoms in childhood: A prospective longitudinal study from 2 months to 8 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 44(4), 489-508. Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Sessa, F. M., Avenevoli, S., & Essex, M. J. (2002). Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as interacting predictors of child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 461-471. Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361388. Musil, C. M., Warner, C. B., Yobas, P. K., & Jones, S. L. (2002). A comparison of imputation techniques for handling missing data. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 24(7), 815-829. 60 National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early child development. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2004). Affect dysregulation in the mother-child relationship in the toddler years: Antecedents and consequences. Development and Psychopathology, 16(1), 43-68. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 424-443. Osofsky, J. D., & O’Connell, E. J. (1977). Patterning of newborn behavior in an urban population. Child Development, 48(2), 532-536. Owen, M., Norris, C., Houssan, M., Wetzel, S., Mason, J., & Ohba, C. (1993). 24-month motherchild interaction rating scales for the three boxes procedure. Dallas, TX: NICHD Study of Early Child Care Research Consortium, Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47(4), 193-219. Paquette, D., Carbonneau, R., Dubeau, D., Bigras, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2003). Prevalence of father-child rough-and-tumble play and physical aggression in preschool children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(2), 171-189. Park, S. Y., Belsky, J., Putnam, S., & Crnic, K. (1997). Infant emotionality, parenting, and 3-year inhibition: Exploring stability and lawful discontinuity in a male sample. Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 218-227. Parke, R. D., MacDonald, K. B., Beitel, A., & Bhavnagri, N. (1988). The role of the family in the development of peer relationships. In R. DeV. Peters, & J. J. MacMaan (Eds.), Marriages and families: Behavioral treatments and processes (pp. 17-44). New York: Brunner-Mazel. Parke, R. D., MacDowell, D. J., Kim, M., Killian, C., Dennis, J., Flyr, M. L., & Wild, M. N. (2002). Fathers’ contributions to children’s peer relationships. In C.S. Tamis-LeMonda & N. Cabrera (Eds.), Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 141167). New Jersey & London: LEA. Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69(3), 577-598. Peterson, J. B., & Flanders J. L. (2005). Play and the regulation of aggression. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental Origins of Aggression (pp. 133-157). New York: The Guilford Press. 61 Pettit, G. S., Harrist, A. W., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1991). Family interaction, social cognition and children’s subsequent relations with peers at kindergarten. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(3), 383-402. Power, T. G. (1985). Mother- and father-infant play: A developmental analysis. Child Development, 56, 1514-1524. Power, T. G., & Shanks, J. A. (1989). Parents as socializers: Maternal and paternal views. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18(2), 203-220. Raikes, H., Boller, K., vanKammen, W., Summers, J. A., Raikes, A., Laible, D., Wilcox, B., Ontai-Brzebik, L., & Christensen, L. (2002). Father involvement in early head start programs: A practitioners study. Princeton, NJ: Mathemetica Policy Research. Raikes, H., Pan, B. A., Luze, G., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Brooks-Gunn, J., Constantine, J. , Tarullo, L. B., Raikes, H. A., & Rodriguez, E. T. (2006). Mother-child book reading in lowincome families: Correlates and outcomes during the first three years of life. Child Development, 77(4), 924-953. Raikes, H. A., Robinson, J. A. L., Bradley, R. H., Raikes, H. H., & Ayoub, C. C. (2007). Developmental trends in self-regulation among low-income toddlers. Social Development, 16(1), 128-149. Raver, C. C., Blackburn, E. K., Bancroft, M., & Torp, N. (1999). Relations between effective emotional self-regulation, attentional control, and low-income preschoolers’ social competence with peers. Early Education and Development,10(3), 333–350. Reck, C., Hunt, A., Fuchs, T., Weiss, R., Noon, A., Moehler, E., Downing, G., Tronick, E., & Mundt, C. (2004). Interactive regulation of affect in postpartum depressed mothers and their infants: An overview. Psychopathology, 37(6), 272-280. Rodriguez, M. L., Ayduk, O., Aber, J. L., Mischel, W., Sethi, A., & Shoda, Y. (2005). A contextual approach to the development of Self-regulatory competencies: The role of maternal unresponsivity and toddlers’ negative affect in stressful situations. Social Development, 14(1), 136-157. Roopnarine, J. L., Ahmeduzzaman, M., Hossain, Z., & Riegraf, N. B. (1992). Parent-infant rough play: Its cultural specificity. Early Education & Development, 3(4), 298-311. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series ed.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. ed.), Handbook of child psycholog: Vol. 3 Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105–176). New York: The Guilford Press. Rubin, K., Burgess, K., Dwyer, K., & Hastings, P. (2003). Predicting preschoolers’ externalizing behavior from toddler temperament, conflict, and maternal negativity. Developmental Psychology, 39, 164–176. 62 Rubin, K. H., Burgess, K. B., & Hastings, P. D. (2002). Stability and social–behavioral consequences of toddlers’ inhibited temperament and parenting behaviors. Child Development, 73(2), 483-495. Salonen, P., Lepola, J., & Vauras, M. (2007). Scaffolding interaction in parent-child dyads: Multimodal analysis of parental scaffolding with task and non-task oriented children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(1), 77-96. Sameroff, A. J., & Fiese, B. H. (2000). Models of development and developmental risk. In C. H. Zeanah, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of infant mental health (2nd ed., pp. 3-19). New York: Guilford Press. Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data, New York: Chapman & Hall. Schaffer, H. R. (1996). Social development. Oxford: Cambridge University Press. Shannon, J. D., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Cabrera, N. J. (2006). Fathering in infancy: Mutuality and stability between 8 and 16 months. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6(2), 167-188. Sheeber, L., Davis, B., & Hops, H. (2002). Gender-specific vulnerability to depression in children of depressed mothers. In S. H. Goodman & I. H. Gotlib (Eds.), Children of depressed parents: Mechanisms of risk and implications for treatment (pp. 253–274). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Shields, A., Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Giusti, L., Magee, K. D., & Spritz, B. (2001). Emotional competence and early school adjustment: A study of preschoolers at risk. Early Education & Development, 12(1), 73-96. Silverstein, L. B. (2002). Fathers and families. In J. P. MacHale & W. S. Grolnick (Eds.), Retrospect and prospect in the psychological study of families (pp. 35–64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Snow, M. E., Jacklin, C. N., & Maccoby, E. E. (1983). Sex-of-child differences in father-child interaction at one year of age. Child Development, 54(1), 227-232. Spiker, D., Ferguson, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1993). Enhancing maternal interactive behavior and child social competence in low birth weight, premature infants. Child Development, 64(3), 754-768. Swanson, K., Beckwith, L., & Howard, J. (2000). Intrusive caregiving and quality of attachment in prenatally drug-exposed toddlers and their primary caregivers. Attachment & Human Development, 2(2), 130-148. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2004). Conceptualizing fathers’ roles: Playmates and more. Human Development, 47(4), 220-227. 63 Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1991). Individual variation, correspondence, stability, and change in mother and toddler play. Infant Behavior and Development, 14(2), 143-162. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1994). Specificity in mother-toddler language-play relations across the second year. Developmental Psychology, 30, 283-292. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J. D., Cabrera, N. J. & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Fathers and mothers at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development. Child Development, 75(6), 1806-1820. Thompson, R. A. (1990). Emotion and self-regulation. In R. A. Thompson (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1988: Socioemotional development. Current theory and research in motivation Vol. 36 (pp. 367–467). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotional regulation: A theme in search of definition. In N. Fox (Ed.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development: Vol. 59 (Serial No. 240, pp. 25-52). Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, H. A. (2007). The social and emotional foundations of school readiness. In D. F. Perry, R. K. Kaufmann, & J. Knitzer (Eds.), Social and emotional health in early childhood: Building bridges between services and systems (pp. 13–35). Baltimore: Brookes. Vallotton, C., & Ayoub, C. (2011). Use your word: The role of language in the development of toddler’s self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(2), 169-181. Vibbert, M., & Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Specific associations between domains of mother-child interaction and toddler referential language and pretense play. Infant Behavior and Development, 12, 163-184. Weinberg, M. K., Tronick, E. Z., Cohn, J. F., & Olson, K. L. (1999). Gender differences in emotional expressivity and self-regulation during early infancy. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 175-188. Whiteside-Mansell, L., Bradley, R. H., Owen, M. T., Randolph, S. M., & Cauce, A. M. (2003). Parenting and children’s behavior at 36 months: Equivalence between African American and European American mother-child dyads. Parenting: Science and Practice, 3(3), 197234. Yogman, M. W. (1994). Observations on the father-infant relationship. In S. H. Cath, A. R. Gurwitt & J. M. Ross (Eds.), Father and child: Developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 101-122). Hillsdale: The Analytic Press. 64