Parenting Practices Draft
This is the final draft, not the in-press version In-press at Early Education & Development Parenting Practices in Preschool Leading to Later Cognitive Competence: A Family Stress Model
M. Angela Nievar and Amanda Kay Moske University of North Texas
Deborah Jean Johnson Michigan State University
Qi Chen University of North Texas Abstract
Research Findings: This study investigates the effect of the early home environment on
self-regulation in preschoolers, and how self-regulation relates to later school achievement, while taking into account family resources. Participants were part of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD). Our model tested paths from family income and maternal depression through parenting to dyadic and child outcomes, including attachment, self-regulation, and child cognitive outcomes in the first grade. Findings indicate that family income and maternal depression had a substantial effect on parenting practices. Children whose parents did not display negative affect towards them during episodes of depression were more likely to maintain healthy attachment styles. Parenting, which was directly affected by family income, was the most importan t predictor of children’s cognitive development.
Practice or Policy: Regarding implications for practice, this research indicates that
parents who provide a safe and stimulating environment for their children, despite limited financial resources or mental health issues, are more likely to have children who are prepared for school. School counselors, child care administrators, and policymakers should be aware of the importance of parenting to school success and provide opportunities for parent education and involvement during the first years of life.
Parenting Practices in Preschool Leading to Later Cognitive Competence: A Family Stress
ModelMany parents have struggled to understand why their apparently intelligent and typically developing children have difficulty succeeding in the early elementary grades and beyond.
Parents are often unaware that intelligence alone is not sufficient to ensure success in the school setting (NAEYC, 2000). Researchers in the fields of psychology, human development, and education have shown that success in school is influenced by motivation (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998), social skills (Capara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo , 2000), self-concept (Ray & Elliott, 2006; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004), self-efficacy (Metallidou & Vlachou, 2007), self-regulation (Martinez-Pons, 1996), and other factors. In recent years, there has been growing interest among researchers and educators in the related concepts of emotional regulation, self-control, and self-regulation. Research has shown that children who can regulate their attention and emotions, control their behavior, and delay gratification perform better in school and in other important arenas of life (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989).
In the classic marshmallow studies, Mischel and his colleagues demonstrated that four- year-old children who could control their impulse to eat a marshmallow performed better than their peers who could not delay gratification, when they were tested a decade later (Mischel et al., 1989). Children who could delay gratification at age four were more attentive, planful, and able to cope with stress as adolescents. More current research shows that self-control buffers the impact of risk factors on later adjustment and behavior (Lengua, 2003).
Why are some children able to maintain self-control while others struggle? Biologically- behavior (Sanson, Hemphill, & Smart, 2004). In addition, children’s experiences help them learn to control attention, emotion, and behavior; several studies have documented the important role that parents play in helping their children to self-regulate (Brown & Dunn, 1996; Denham, Zoller, & Couchoud, 1994; Denham, von Salisch, Olthof, Kochanoff, & Caverly, 2003; Schwartz, Thigpen, & Montgomery, 2006). Theoretically, children who have developed a secure relationship with their parents may depend on their internal working model of the attachment relationship to reframe a stressful situation and regulate their emotions (Cassidy, 1994).
Researchers have focused less attention on the role of the early environment in promoting self- regulation of behavior, but some studies suggest that this contributes to the development of self- regulation as well (Bronson, 2000; Kopp, 2000; Supplee, Unikel & Shaw, 2007; Wilson & Gottman, 1996).
The purpose of this study is to investigate how early experiences in the home relate to self-regulation in three-year-old children, and how self-regulation relates to later school achievement, while taking into account the early environment. The conceptual model for our study is presented in Figure 1. We tested this model with data from the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (NICHD ECCRN, 2005). As shown in the model
, the child’s ability to regulate their behavior may develop through interactions with their caregivers, particularly in the relationship with the primary caregiver (Braungart-Reiker, Garwood, Powers, & Wang, 2001; Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey, & Cummings, 2002; Kochanska, 2001). In this study, we test the effect of family resources on parenting and the early home environment, which in turn are hypothesized to affect self-regulation and later cognition . We also test the hypothesis that secure attachment to the caregiver provides a foundation for developing self-regulation and that the
- Figure 1 about here
- Applications of Family Stress Theory
Family stress theory suggests that contextual stress overloads family members’ abilities to cope, thus resulting in poorer relationship quality and functional capacities over time in
comparison with families under less streSeveral studies have validated the effect of family resources on maternal stress, parenting skills, and parent availability, and in turn, how these factors affect child developme Brody, McBride, & Kim, 2002; Nievar & Luster, 2006). Economic hardship influences individual well-being and family functioning through the strains and pressures they create in daily living (i.e., being unable to purchase necessary goods and services, making significant cutbacks in daily expenditures because of limited resources, and being unable to pay monthly bills). A study of inner-city adolescents and their mothers indicated that stress and pressures associated with dangerous low-income neighborhoods may explain successful mothers’ encouragement and diligence in preventing problem behaviors (Ardelt & Eccles).
Some families beat the odds in at-risk situations through vigilant, proactive parenting and involvement in their child’s life. Yet, income does appear to make a difference in the likelihood of at-risk families having the resources to be successful, regardless of social address or cultural group. Positive parenting behaviors were demonstrated more frequently among higher-income, educated mothers than among low-income, less educated mothers within a sample of single- parent, rural African American families with 12-year-old children (Brody et al., 2002). Similarly, reducing maternal stress, which in turn, predicted parenting practices, and finally child outcomes during the school years (Conger et al., 2002; Lee, Lee, &
Thus, resources are important to parenting success. However, little research has examined the family stress model with a normative sample, and even fewer studies have examined this model during the early years of life.
More frequently research has investigated parenting as a predictor of later behavior. found children exposed to positive family experiences were more likely to grow into trusting and self-reliant adults. Yet, children in poverty are more likely to have negative family experiences. Parents with few economic resources are less likely to express warmth, nurturance, and responsiveness, and to be less consistent in their caregiving than economically advantaged parents (Easterbrooks & Graham, 1999; Hanson, McLanahan, & Thomson, 1997; McLoyd, 1998). Economically advantaged parents tend to spend more time talking to and reading to their infants and preschoolers than low-income parents (Bradley & Corwyn, 2003). Inadequate physical environments, associated with poverty, often contribute to child stress and subsequent behavioral problems, such as hyperactivity, helplessness, low frustration tolerance, and distractibility
In addition, rates of depression are higher among individuals living in poverty (McLoyd, 1998). M aternal depression adds a further risk factor to the development of children’s self- regulation through inadequate parenting (Lyons-Ruth, Lyubchik, Wolfe, & Bronfman, 2002). Specifically, depressed parents less frequently cuddled, played with, read to, or played music for their children; they were less able to provide regular daily routines, were more irritated by their children, and were more likely to be physically or verbally aggressive towards their average, are more negative, guilt-inducing, critical, unsupportive and intrusive with their children and demonstrate more negative affect than non-depressed parents (Cummings & Davies, 1999; Cummings, Keller, & Davies, 2005; Dix & Meunier, 2008).
Although research generally indicates negative outcomes for infants with depressed mothers, there is some variation in effects on children. Among clinically depressed mothers, mothers with securely attached children often appeared to limit their expression of depressed affect and anxiety when observed with their children, and maternal behavior predicted children’s security of attachment (Radke-Yarrow, 1991; Teti, Heaton, Benjamin, & Gelfand, 1995). In general, however, the literature suggests that maternal depression predicts insecure attachment and lower levels of self-regulation among children (Atkinson et al., 2000; Campbell et al., 2004; Hoffman, Crnic, & Baker, 2006; Raikes & Thompson, 2006), and rates of maternal depression are highest among families with low income and few resources.
Limited educational opportunities and a lower social status cause many low-income parents to feel a sense of powerlessness and lack of influence in their formal relationships outside of the home. For example, at work they must obey rules of others in positions of power and authority. When they return home, their parent-child interactions seem to duplicate these experiences with the parent in the position of authority (Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, 2000). A sense of powerlessness outside of the home and higher levels of stress combined with a stronger belief in the value of physical punishment may contribute to a greater use of coercive discipline among families in poverty.
As mentioned earlier, the process of developing attachment security and self-regulation in early childhood has been well-documented; however, little work has been done with low-income Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). Furthermore, studies that include low-income families often relegate income to a control variable, concealing developmental processes specific to low- income familiets may create different environments that fit with parental expectations for young children (Ogbu, 1985; Chen & French, 2008). Obviously, the contexts of children in poverty widely differ from those of their middle-class peers due to fewer resources and greater stress on the parents and children; processes may differ based on social class (Nievar & Becker, 2008). Previous studies of family stress often have a sample limited to at-risk families, but in this investigation we test family stress theorynational sample, viewing limited resources as a stressor and examining factors that mediate that stress to improve child outcomes. It is hypothesized that positive experiences and resources in the early years may help children overcome difficult circumstances, allowing them to succeed despite the odds.
Method
Participants Data source. The NICHD ECCRN longitudinal study was developed to answer questionsabout child care experiences for young children (NICHD, 2005). Domains of study included children’s health, language, cognitive growth and social-emotional development. Although not a nationally representative sample, demographic status of participants is roughly comparable to that of the nation as a whole (n = 1364). The sample was somewhat restricted, however, excluding a number of family types and contexts, including teen mothers less than 18 years old, families living in dangerous neighborhoods, and children with disabilities at birth.
Sample description. Because we only used participants with data collected in later differences related to attrition, however, on income, ethnicity, depression, parenting subscales, attachment, self-regulation, or cognitive outcomes. There were some slight changes in racial proportions that were not significant. For example, in the original data collection, 80% of the children were classified as White, which included Hispanics. In our sample, 82% of the children were classified as White. Most of the children had a father figure; 86% of the mothers reported living with a partner or spouse. Fifteen percent of the families were living in poverty. Additional demographics are presented in Table 1.
Measures The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES- Maternal depression.
D) was used as a measure of maternal depression. The CES-D is a widely-used measure of depression in non-clinical samples. When the participating child was 15 months old, mothers reported the occurrence of 20 symptoms over the past week. Sample items are: “I felt sad” and “I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me.” Possible responses to the items were: 0 (rarely or none of the time--less than 1 day), 1 (some or a little of the time
—1 - 2 days), 2
(occasionally or a moderate amount of time
—3 - 4 days), and 3 (most or all of the time—5 - 7 days). According to Radloff, r
aw scores ≥16 indicate depressive risk (1977). Within our sample, 16% exhibited depression risk. Previous research assessing community samples of men and women had equal or higher rates of depressive risk, ranging from 16-20% (Ritchey, Gory, Fitzpatrick, & Mullis, 1990).
Cronbach’s alpha was .85 in the general population (NICHD, 1999a; Radloff, 1977; Roberts, 1980); however, in this sample it was .90 at 15 months.
Home environment. The Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment
(HOME) Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 2000) assessed physical and social aspects of the home self-report survey items, is one of the most widely used measures of the home environment. The Research Triangle Institute created three subscales from the HOME for the 15-month data collection to enhance reliability, including Home Enrichment, Positive Parenting, and Lack of Negativity (Research Triangle Institute, 1993). The three subscales were derived from 45 items using exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation. Based on analyses results and a close examination of the items, the three-factor solution with some items eliminated was optimal. Items included did not measure the safety of the physical environment or family structure, but were limited to interactions or materials directly provided by the parent. The retained items loaded .40 or higher on each of the factors.
Cronbach’s alphas were, respectively, .56, .54, and .69.
Each item is scored in binary fashion (yes/no), resulting in somewhat lower alphas than traditional Likert scales. For example, one of the 8 items on the Home Enrichment Subscale is, “Parent provides toys for child.” Parents who provided toys for their child were given a “1,” and parents who did not provide toys for their child were given a “0.” The subscale ranged from 0 to
8. An example item from the Lack of Negativity Subscale (ranged from 0 to 6) is, “Parent neither slaps nor spanks the child during visit
.” One of the items on the Positive Parenting Subscale (ranged from 0 to 6) is,
“Parent’s voice conveys positive feelings toward child.” A high score reflects a more positive home environment for all three scales.
The Family Finances measure is a self-report measure created for this Family income.
study. This measure includes questions about income that may not always be reported, such as public assistance and total family income. Based on four questions, the NICHD SECCYD calculated poverty income-to-needs ratios for five data collection time points, when the child was the amount of income equal to federal poverty guidelines for participants, based on family size and location. For example, housing costs are generally higher in urban areas than in rural areas.
These ratios were averaged for the purpose of this study, and trimmed at 7 and above to reduce skewedness.
Attachment security in early childhood. The Attachment Behavior Q-Set (AQS)
(Waters & Deane, 1985) measured attachment security at 24 months. During a 2-hour home visit, trained observers made notes on child behavior in naturally occurring or semi-structured situations. Immediately afterwards, observers sorted 90 items pertaining to the mother-child relationship into a rank order on a 9-point Likert scale.
To determine whether an infant’s behavior is organized in ways similar to the secure base phenomenon, scores on each of the 90 items are correlated with a standardized sort with 90 items indicating optimal use of the caregiver as a secure base. This correlation results in a number ranging from
- –1 to +1, with +1 representing the most secure attachment possible.
In this study, average interrater reliability was .92, based on correlation of item rankings between observers. Before observers were allowed to rate items for participants, they went through an extensive training process administered by Brian Vaughn, an expert on attachment and q-sort methodology. Observers needed to have .55-.65 correlation between exact scores coded by Vaughn; they also needed to have no more than 10% of items coded more than 2 categories apart from Vaughn’s coding. Periodic tests retested reliability using videotapes after 2 weeks, 3 months, and 7 months from the initial training. A meta-analysis of 65 q-sort studies supported the validity of the Attachment Behavior Q-Set as a tool to assess the phenomena of attachment behavior (van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Riksen-Walraven,
The mean Attachment Q-Set score in this sample was lower than some typically developing samples. According to NICHD documentation, there were some discrepancies between sites due to either measurement methods or population differences. Post-hoc Tukey tests indicated that sites from three states were significantly different than average, with two of the three states being significantly lower than average. Although the total mean was lower than Waters’ (1995) normal sample, a test for differences between means indicated that there were no significant differences between Waters’ sample (M = .33) and the NICHD sample (M = .33.
Self-regulation. Researchers videotaped and coded chi
ldren’s performance on a self- regulation task at 36 months. In this task, a researcher in a laboratory setting asked the participating child to delay handling an attractive toy while their mother was occupied filling out surveys. Mothers were instructed to tell the child they were busy if the child requested help and to continue doing so with any additional requests from the child. After about an hour of free play, the researcher showed the child a new and exciting toy, a crocodile that moved quickly across the room. The researcher showed the child how to operate the toy but then told them not to touch the toy until given permission. Videotaping occurred during a waiting period of 2.5 minutes.
Coders scored videotapes of children at a central location with computer-based coding at one second intervals. Behaviors such as the length of time the child refrained from touching the toy following initial instructions from the experimenter, the amount of time the child spent actively playing with the toy after being asked not to touch it, the amount of time the child spent tentatively and/or furtively touching the toy, and the child’s focus of attention (social, elsewhere) when not touching the toy (NICHD, 1999a) were noted. A composite measure was created engagement, total away time, focus on toy, social focus, and a reverse-scored measure of time spent actively playing with the toy. These behaviors accounted for attempts to self-regulate and complete the task, in addition to the measure of self-control (time spent playing with the toy).
This five-item measure had an internal consistency reliability of .79. Coding reliability was measured in two ways. Most of the 5 behavior focus codes used percentage agreement.
Overall percentage agreement across behaviors was .84. The latency to first active engagement was an exception to percentage agreement due to the repeated measurement over time. This focus code used Pearson correlation for measuring interrater reliability, r = .97.
This measure is a computed average of the standard Cognitive outcomes in first grade. scores of subscales from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R) (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989; Woodcock, 1990). The WJ-R tests cognitive abilities, aptitude, and achievement. Subscales included applied problems, incomplete words, letter-word identification, memory for sentences, and picture vocabulary. These subscales measured cognitive factors and achievement such as short-term memory, comprehension, basic knowledge, and auditory processing. All subscales were standardized with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.
Results
The purpose of this study was to test a model explaining interrelations between the early home environment and parenting, self-regulation in preschool, and cognition in first grade.
Preliminary analyses included correlations of study variables (see Table 2) and tests of mediation (see Table 3). Longitudinal models tested the pathways between parent and family characteristics, the home environment at 15 months, children’s attachment security at 24 months, for site location, ethnicity and race, and child gender on endogenous variables.
Data Imputation
Structural equation modeling requires a set of complete data. Missing data are likely to result in less accurate computations than when data are replaced by estimation of maximum likelihood (Little & Rubin, 1989). Missing data also make inferences to the general population less meaningful. To address missingness in data, the models were analyzed using the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) method under Mplus, which applies the expectation maximization algorithm described in Little and Rubin (2002). This method estimates the best possible value for missing data through multiple iterations, while comparing cases with missing data to other cases with complete data. Only cases that had a child outcome variable, either self- regulation or attachment security, and at least one of the cognitive ability tests, were included in these analyses. Two additional cases were deleted because they were missing data on over 50% of the study variables. Only 1.9% of the data was actually computed as missing data, resulting in 1023 complete cases.
Preliminary Analyses
All preliminary analyses were conducted using SAS Release 9 (2003). The correlation matrix is presented in Table 2 along with means and standard deviations for study variables.
According to the cutoff values of 2 for skewedness and 7 for kurtosis (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995), only the scores for positive parenting were skewed. After identifying potential outliers and examining the frequencies and distribution of the skewed variable (Barnett & Lewis, 1994), all potential outliers’ responses on positive parenting were found to be within reasonable ranges and were kept in analyses.
Intercorrelations of factors of the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) ranged from small to medium in effect size (Cohen, 1988). All three HOME factors, Enrichment, Positive Parenting, and Lack of Negativity, showed medium effects in correlations with income. Although the subscales of the HOME were based on a continuous measure, in this sample the data violated assumptions of normality and were treated as ordinal variables. Although all correlations were significant, driven by the large sample size, only the relation between attachment and self-regulation did not reach an effect size considered to be substantive according to Cohen’s (1988) convention.
To assess mediation based on the literature and our theoretical model, we used the most common method for testing mediation in psychological research (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Judd & Kenny, 1981; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). First, we tested attachment as a mediator between subscales of the HOME (Enrichment, Positive Parenting and Lack of Negativity) and self- regulation. Second, we tested the parenting factors as mediators of depression and attachment. Finally, two additional mediation analyses were conducted with Enrichment as a mediator of income and cognitive outcomes, and self-regulation as a mediator of Enrichment and cognitive outcomes (see Table 3 for significant results). Six of the tests indicated significant mediation. The Sobel test determined if the change in coefficients was statistically significant (Sobel, 1982; see Table 3). Results of the Sobel test indicated attachment accounted for 11% of the total effect of the mediated relationship between Enrichment and self-regulation. All three factors of the HOME significantly mediated the relation between depression and attachment with Enrichment accounting for the largest percent of mediation (28%). The Enrichment subscale explained 27% of the mediational effect of income on cognitive outcomes while self-regulation accounted for
Structural Equation Models
Based on our theoretical model, we tested linkages among income and maternal depression, children’s home environment, and child outcomes (n = 1023). Structural equation
modeling (SEM) allows for simultaneous entry of factors into a regression-like analysis, but it also explains direct and indirect paths unlike linear regression models. SEM analyses were conducted using Mplus (v.6.12, Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2010) to test the hypothesized model. As the scores of positive parenting were skewed, maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) was used as the estimator in analyses, because it is robust to non- normality (Muthén & Muthén). Furthermore, nonnormality conditions had nearly no effect on the standard errors of parameter estimates especially with sample sizes larger than 100 (Lei & Lomax, 2005). Given the MLR estimator used and the sample size of 1,023, the parameter estimates and test of significance should be relatively unaffected even with the skewed variables.
The model investigated in this study consisted of one latent variable measured by three manifest indicator variables and five manifest variables. The latent variable, Parenting, was measured by constructed factors of the HOME focusing on parental provision of social and cognitive experiences: Enrichment, Lack of Negativity, and Positive Parenting. The five manifest variables included income, depression, attachment, self-regulation, and cognitive outcomes. Income and maternal depression were co-varying exogenous variables. As expected, maternal depression and income were significant predictors of the latent parenting variable, which in turn predicted self-regulation, attachment, and cognitive outcomes. Standard deviations and correlations for the study’s manifest variables were presented in Table 2.
Our model was estimated using the maximum likelihood method, and the chi-square statistic is sensitive to sample size and departures from multivariate normality, and will often result in the rejection of a well-fitting model (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989). Additional goodness of fit indices are provided in Table 4. The value of the CFI exceeds .9 in absolute magnitude and the RMSEA is below .05, indicating an acceptable fit between the model and data. The distribution of normalized residuals was symmetrical and centered near zero.
Figure 2 displays the model with standardized path coefficients. Both standardized and unstandardized coefficients and significance levels are shown in Table 4. Only one path was not statistically significant: depression to attachment. The R² values indicated income and depression accounted for 51% of the variance in parenting; depression and parenting accounted for 11% of the variance in attachment; parenting and self-regulation accounted for 33% of the variance in cognitive outcomes. In this model, the effect of income on cognitive outcomes was reduced from a correlation of .41, a medium effect, to a direct path of .13, a small effect, due to mediation of parenting and self-regulation.
We excluded controls on income and depression, assuming that these variables would not vary by child gender or site. The reasons for excluding ethnicity as a control for income and depression differ by variable. First, we excluded ethnicity as a control for income because of multi-collinearity. A previous model with ethnic-racial status controlled on the exogenous as well as endogenous variables reduced the effect of income on cognitive outcomes from .13 to .09 due to multi-collinearity. Income and ethnicity share variance, and holding ethnicity constant between all groups also reduces the impact of income on the model. As one purpose of our study is to examine the effect of income on families, we did not want to present an artificial picture of income-related stress. Second, we excluded the Center for Epidemiological Studies - Depression Scale (CES-D) because this widely-used self-report measure has been validated across racial- ethnic grou
Although income and race-ethnicity are related, the process model itself did not vary significantly by ethnicity in our multi-group test of African Americans and European Americans.
Only African Americans and European Americans had sufficient numbers to test for significant differences in process between groups. Although process models did not vary, individual mean differences in parenting exist by racial-ethnic groups, even with multiple demographic controls. Thus, the exclusion of controls on the exogenous variables of income and maternal depression is appropriate while controls were used on all endogenous variables within the model. As apparent from the model (Figure 2) and mediation analyses (Table 3), parenting variables have the strongest mediation effect on cognitive outcomes.
- Figure 2 about here
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test a process model with stressors affecting parenting and the home environment, which in turn may affect attachment, self-regulation, and cognition.
This study takes into account the association of income with psychosocial and environmental variables as a test of family stress theory By including income and associated variables, we are able to view processes of development within the context of the environment.
In general, the model explained the development of mother-child attachment and preschoolers’ self-regulation. Consistent with our theoretical model, income and maternal depression predicted parenting practices, which in turn predicted toddler attachment, self- regulation, and cognitive outcomes during the preschool years.
It is interesting, and somewhat unexpected, that attachment was not a substantive predictor of self-regulation in the model. We hypothesized that a secure attachment relationship would assist the child in controlling their impulses as preschoolers. In fact, one of the strategies that children often use in trying to resist the attractive object during the self-control procedure is that of looking to their mother for support. We theorized, therefore, that having a secure base present (the mother) would help children in this experimental setting. Yet, a contrasting tenet of attachment theory states that avoidantly attached children learn to self-regulate their negative emotions at an early age to avoid anger and negative repercussions from their caregivers (Cassidy, 1994). Thus, this may confound the relation between attachment and self-regulation skills. Although attachment was significantly correlated with self-regulation (r = .16, p < .01), there is no direct path between these two variables in the process model.
Mediational Processes
Previous research (Luijk et al., 2010) indicated that there would likely be a relation between maternal depression, attachment, and self-regulation. Our correlational findings did indicate significant links between these variables; yet when parenting processes were taken into account, there was no direct path between depression and attachment. Despite linkages between maternal depression and attachment across numerous studies, there is some evidence that if mothers manage their depression differently or have other unaffected parenting skills, children can thrive. As suggested by this model, appropriate and sensitive parenting, even with maternal depression present, results in no direct impact of maternal depression on child outcomes. Our Observation for the Measurement of the Environment (HOME). The inclusion of these highly influential parenting factors may reveal how some parents buffer their children from their depression.
Certainly, other factors are important in the development of self-regulation that also involve parenting and predict attachment. Our measure of the home environment, which includes positive parenting, the avoidance of negative discipline, and enriching, educational activities, explained a substantial amount of variance in children’s self-regulation. As parents work with their children in educational activities, they teach children to delay instant gratification and attend to th e task at hand. Parents who best facilitate children’s developing self-regulation are more likely to be sensitive and supportive in their parenting role. Children who are unafraid of negative responses from their parents are more likely to accept parental instruction at this early age, and more likely to explore their environment within reasonable bounds that the parent has set.
Self-regulation does, however, have components such as the ability to focus related to child temperament, and we note a child effect on cognitive outcomes through self-regulation in our test of mediation. Simply put, it is not only parenting that predicts children’s cognitive abilities, but the child’s innate ability to self-regulate also plays a part. This is consistent with literature on early temperament and later self-regulation (Sanson, Hemphill, & Smart, 2004).
The effect of self-regulation on cognitive outcomes is, however, minimal, when contrasted with the combined effect of parenting and family resources.
Family Resources and Resilience
In accordance with the literature, family resources substantially impact the parenting cognitive child development. Certain aspects of the environment associated with poverty, such as crowding and safety issues, may influence the process of children’s development (Evans,
2006; Gershoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007). Other factors associated with poverty, such as crime, noise, and pollution, may not be an issue in rural areas. However, unsafe housing is associated with poverty in both rural and urban settings
Safety hazards in the home prohibit infants from being free to fully explore their environment. Normal attachment development presumes that children separate from the mother to explore their home, and then return to a secure base. If freedom to explore is inhibited by unsafe environments, children may be kept in a playpen more often, held or carried for longer periods of time, or otherwise restricted in their efforts to learn about their world. Meta-analyses of maternal sensitivity and attachment have shown that sensitivity does not affect attachment security in low-income families as much as it does in middle-class families (De Wolff & van
Differences in the home environment may explain these disparities. Restrictions on floor freedom also affect the development of self-regulation through a lack of experiences and choices. Even a loving, sensitive mother may find it difficult to develop a positive teaching relationship with her child in a noisy, crowded, or unsafe home.
Parents who live in low-income neighborhoods are less likely to take their infant outside of the home for walks, trips to the grocery store, or excursions to the park (Bradley, Corwyn, McAdoo, & Coll, 2001). These experiences are certainly important to providing the infant with enriching and stimulating experience for cognitive development (Bradley, 1999), but they also allow a child to view how others interact and to develop the attachment relationship in an unfamiliar environment. Such outside trips are also excellent opportunities for teaching a child that they cannot touch everything or go anywhere; self-control becomes an important component for safely navigating the neighborhood or community.
Many parents raise well-adjusted and capable children regardless of income or neighborhood effects. We found that an enriched environment mediates over one fourth of the effect of income on children’s cognitive outcomes. More importantly, the final model shows only a small effect of income on cognitive outcomes when family and child socialization processes are taken into account. The simple association between income and cognitive outcomes was over 3 times as large as the final model’s path between income and cognitive outcomes. This finding indicates that some parents actively foster resilience in low-income families. Parents who sing songs, tell stories, name objects, teach counting, and provide opportunities for their children to draw pictures foster cognitive development even in developing countries where expensive play materials are often unavailable (Bornstein & Putnick, 2012). Similarly, parents in the United States can foster cognitive development with limited financial resources.
We also found that harsh parenting mediated the relation between depression and attachment; positive parenting only showed minimal mediation. Some studies with older children suggest that physical punishment may have no effect on or lead to preferred social-emotional outcomes in low-income, inner-city neighborhoods; other studies suggest similar cultural effects that may be confounded with income (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, Petit, 1996; Lansford et al., 2005; Schonberg & Shaw, 2007; Tolan, Sherrod, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2004). In this sample, however, it appears that avoidance of punishment is helpful to the development of a secure attachment relationship, particularly when mothers are depressed. It is possible that the their caregivers, than in later years, when that trust may be well-established and the meaning of disciplinary methods may be more easily understood.
Limitations and Future Directions
Certain limitations are inherent in secondary data analysis. In this particular study, the diversity of measurement methods and the quality of measures selected is above average. Yet, multiple measures for some of the constructs may have yielded different findings. This study focused on cognitive outcomes and self-regulation, yet our measure of self-regulation is based on an experimental procedure conducted at one time-point 3 years previous to children's entry into first grade. Having some additional observational or mother report measures of self-regulation at additional times would have been preferred. Our methods also presume a single direction of effects and base family effects on maternal parenting alone. We acknowledge the importance of siblings and fathers in the family environment. Indeed, the family environment is complex, and children may affect their parents
’ behavior as well as parents affecting their children (Cox, 2010).
We also wish to note that this study does not examine all of the many factors responsible for cognitive development. Our goal is not to create an overarching model of cognitive development, and there are certainly alternate explanations for children’s cognitive abilities. Instead, our focus is on the development of self-regulation in the context of the family environment and available resources, and the effect of self- regulation on children’s cognition. Another limitation is the sample itself. Although largely representative of demographics within the United States, participants were limited to ten localities, mostly in the Eastern United
States. A purposeful sampling plan included mothers who planned to use child care full-time importance, the sample excludes families living in unsafe neighborhoods, infants with perinatal problems requiring extensive hospitalization, underage mothers, and mothers with insufficient English skills. In addition, those who initially declined to participate (42%) may have had more difficulties in their families than those who agreed to participate. Thus, the sample is somewhat lower in risk level than the population as a whole.
Another limitation of the data was the high percentage of European American families. We controlled for ethnicity and race; however, we would like to note that previous research has found differences in the meaning of parenting and attachment styles across cultures (e.g., In general, these findings should not be applied to all groups; earlier research has indicated some cultural differences with respect to parenting between African Americans and Euro-Americans in this sample (NICHD, 1999b; Nievar & Moske, 2009). Although we found no differences in our process model between African Americans and European Americans, future research could investigate the culture and meaning of parenting. In addition, Hispanic and Asian families are too limited in number to analyze separately with this model. Attrition was relatively low for this study; however, attrition was substantially higher for ethnic minority groups.
Conclusion
In sum, our findings yielded some insight on the formation of attachment, self-regulation, and cognitive outcomes during the early years. In general, sufficient family income enabled parents to provide a stimulating and nurturing learning environment that in turn led to enhanced cognitive development. Although self-regulation and secure attachment are associated with cognitive development in this study, their import for directly predicting cognitive development is development, and that same environment provides a basis for the development of attachment and self-regulation. A stimulating, enriched home environment leads to children doing better in school, and this kind of environment buffers the effects of stressors that low-income families face. A positive, enriched environment aids in the development of self-regulation as well.
Given the importance of the early home environment and parenting skills, it is evident that parent education and programming are valuable tools for positive change. Home visiting programs have demonstrated success in predicting academic achievement (Nievar, Jacobson, Chen, Johnson, & Dier, 2011) and preventing child abuse (Eckenrode, Ganzel, Henderson et al., 2000). Other programs, such as Avance and Triple P, provide parent education to low-income or at-risk families in a group setting (Bayer, Hiscock, Scalzo et al., 2009; Schaller, Rocha, &
Barshinger, 2007). One program, Getting Ready, combines home visits with school-based programming to improve children’s social competence and parent engagement (Sheridan et al.
2010). Evidence-based programs have been shown to save government money in terms of special education, fewer children repeating grades, and high school retention leading to lifetime earnings and tax payment. This study explains the process behind the development of self- regulation and later cognitive outcomes, and the evidence confirms that early education provided by parents is an important contribution to academic ability and achievement.
References
Ardelt, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies on inner-city youth. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 944-972. Atkinson, L., Paglia, A., Coolbear, J., Niccols, A., Parker, K. C. H., Guger, S. (2000).
Attachment security: A meta-analysis of maternal mental health correlates. Clinical
Psychology Review, 20, 1019-1040. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00023-9 Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1994). Outliers in statistical data (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-
Berger, L. M. (2004). Children living out-of-home: Effects of family and environmental characteristics. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 158-179. Bayer, J., Hiscock, H., Scalzo, K., Mathers, M., McDonald, M., Morris, A., Birdseye, J., Wake, M. (2009).
Systematic review of preventive interventions for children’s mental health: What would work in Australian contexts? Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 43, 695-710. doi: 10.1080/00048670903001893
Bornstein, M. H., & Putnick, D. L. (2012), Cognitive and socioemotional caregiving in developing countries. Child Development, 83, 46