Arts, Faculty of
Sociology, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Hochbaum, Christine V.
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
Since the 1970’s, there has been a burgeoning interest about the potential effects of children on parents. Theoretical approaches that reflect this interest include Bell’s (1974, 1977) control theory, the writings of Ambert (1992, 2001), genetic-mediation models (Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomas, Price, & Taylor 2004; Knafo & Plomin, 2006; Reiss, 1995), and frameworks emphasizing parental cognition (Dix, 1991; Dix & Grusec, 1985; Dix, Ruble, & Zarnbarano, 1989; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Okagaki & Divecha, 1993; Peterson & Rollins, 1987).The “child effects” perspective focuses on understanding how and why children affect their parents. The objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which parental disciplinary behaviours are determined by child characteristics. It further sought to explore whether or not variations in child characteristics over time influence parental disciplinary behaviours. This study uses data from the first three cycles of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY, 1994-98). The sample was restricted to children 0-11 years old at Cycle 1 whose biological mother completed the survey in all three cycles (N = 11,780). Multiple linear regression was employed to test if the criterion measures of physical-psychological aggressive discipline, privilege deprivation-diversion, and reward were a function of child characteristics after accounting for parent, familial, and contextual covariates. The results showed that child social competence was negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion as well as positively associated with reward. In addition to experiencing less reward, children reported as high in externalizing problems and difficult temperament received one or both physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion more often than children reported as low in these behaviours. All measures of discipline were inversely related to social unresponsiveness and inactivity (i.e., dull temperament; Bates, Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979), while internalizing behaviours were negatively related only to privilege deprivation-diversion and reward. Child characteristics that represented slow development were negatively associated with privilege deprivation-diversion and reward. Preliminary evidence was obtained indicating that mothers administered increased physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion to children who developed high levels of externalizing behaviours compared to those who remained low in these behaviours.
EXPLORING THE DETERMINANTS OF PARENTAL DISCIPLINARY BEHAVIOUR: THE ROBUSTNESS OF CHILD CHARACTERISTICS by Christine V. Hochbaum B.A., The University of Winnipeg, 2004 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2008 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Sociology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2017 © Christine V. Hochbaum, 2017 ii Abstract Since the 1970’s, there has been a burgeoning interest about the potential effects of children on parents. Theoretical approaches that reflect this interest include Bell’s (1974, 1977) control theory, the writings of Ambert (1992, 2001), genetic-mediation models (Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomas, Price, & Taylor 2004; Knafo & Plomin, 2006; Reiss, 1995), and frameworks emphasizing parental cognition (Dix, 1991; Dix & Grusec, 1985; Dix, Ruble, & Zarnbarano, 1989; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Okagaki & Divecha, 1993; Peterson & Rollins, 1987).The “child effects” perspective focuses on understanding how and why children affect their parents. The objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which parental disciplinary behaviours are determined by child characteristics. It further sought to explore whether or not variations in child characteristics over time influence parental disciplinary behaviours. This study uses data from the first three cycles of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY, 1994-98). The sample was restricted to children 0-11 years old at Cycle 1 whose biological mother completed the survey in all three cycles (N = 11,780). Multiple linear regression was employed to test if the criterion measures of physical-psychological aggressive discipline, privilege deprivation-diversion, and reward were a function of child characteristics after accounting for parent, familial, and contextual covariates. The results showed that child social competence was negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion as well as positively associated with reward. In addition to experiencing less reward, children reported as high in externalizing problems and difficult temperament received one or both physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion more often than children reported as low in these iii behaviours. All measures of discipline were inversely related to social unresponsiveness and inactivity (i.e., dull temperament; Bates, Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979), while internalizing behaviours were negatively related only to privilege deprivation-diversion and reward. Child characteristics that represented slow development were negatively associated with privilege deprivation-diversion and reward. Preliminary evidence was obtained indicating that mothers administered increased physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion to children who developed high levels of externalizing behaviours compared to those who remained low in these behaviours. iv Lay Summary Parents might think they are the sole determinant of the way they discipline their child. This study focuses on the degree to which child behaviour and characteristics determine parental disciplinary behaviours. Analyzing Canadian survey data with a statistical method that controls out the effects of other determinants beyond those of the child, data revealed that as children show increasing social competence mothers used less physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion as well as more reward. In addition, children showing high overt problematic behaviours and difficult temperament received one or both physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion more often than children reported as low in these behaviours. Mothers responded to children exhibiting behavioural deficits, such as above average symptoms of emotional disorder-anxiety, with decreased privilege deprivation-diversion and reward. The findings of this study strongly suggest that child characteristics contribute significantly to parenting behaviour. v Preface This dissertation builds upon previous research I conducted for my Master’s thesis. One of the research questions raised in my thesis was the extent to which child health status was related to parenting techniques. The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) Cycle 4 2000-01 was the secondary data source for this research, which was accessed through the British Columbia Inter-university Data Centre (BCIRDC) operated by Statistics Canada at the University of British Columbia (UBC). The data showed that children with perfect health, relative to those with health impairments, experienced less ineffective and punitive-aversive parenting. The results from my Master’s thesis indicated that a more comprehensive research question concerning the general effect of children on parenting needed to be addressed. This dissertation investigated the effect of multiple child behaviours and characteristics on three dimensions of parental disciplinary behaviours. I developed the research questions and study design independently in this dissertation. The design involved the analysis of Cycle 1 (1994-95), Cycle 2 (1996-97), and Cycle 3 (1998-99) of the NLSCY in order to capture maturational changes and developmental transitions (e.g., entry into pre-school and elementary school). Data analysis was, once again, performed by myself at the BCIRDC at UBC. vi Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................. iv Preface............................................................................................................................................. v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ xi Dedication .................................................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1 Introduction. .................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 Parenting Children with Disabilities: A Primary Example of Child Effects. .............. 18 Chapter 3 Theoretical Models. ..................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 4 Research Problem and Hypotheses. ............................................................................ 35 Chapter 5 Methods. ...................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 6 Results. ........................................................................................................................ 89 Chapter 7 Discussion and Conclusion ....................................................................................... 194 Notes ........................................................................................................................................... 279 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 281 Appendix A Depression Score .................................................................................................... 330 Appendix B Family Functioning Score ...................................................................................... 331 Appendix C Social Support Score .............................................................................................. 332 Appendix D Neighbourhood Safety............................................................................................ 333 Appendix E Neighbourhood Cohesion ....................................................................................... 334 Appendix F Neighbourhood Problems – ASFHS7 ..................................................................... 335 Appendix G Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 3) ................................................................................................................................................. 336 Appendix H Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 1 ............. 339 vii Appendix I Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 3). ..... 344 Appendix J Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 2 .............. 347 Appendix K Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 3 ............. 352 Appendix L Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 3) .......... 357 Appendix M Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 3). ........................... 360 Appendix N Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, reward as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 3) .................................................. 363 Appendix O Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, reward as criterion by child characteristics, child age, and cycle (step 3). ................................................................ 369 Appendix P Physical-psychological Aggressive Discipline at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 3). ........................ 372 Appendix R Reward at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 3). .................................................................................... 376 viii List of Tables Table 1 Principal Component Loadings of Parental Discipline Scales ........................................ 57 Table 2 Discriminant Validity Correlation of Discipline Scales Cycles 1, 2, and 3 ..................... 61 Table 3 Correlations Between Parental Discipline Scales and Youth Reported Discipline Items at Cycle 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 62 Table 4 Descriptives and Correlations of Motor and Social Development (MSD), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R), Math Scale Score, and Reading Scale Score ........ 66 Table 5 Principal Component Loadings of Child Temperament Scales ....................................... 73 Table 6 Descriptives and Correlations of Parental Discipline, Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 1 .......................................................................................................................... 91 Table 7 Descriptives and Correlations of Parental Discipline, Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 2 .......................................................................................................................... 97 Table 8 Descriptives and Correlations of Parental Discipline, Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 3 ........................................................................................................................ 102 Table 9 Correlations of Parental Discipline at Cycle 2 and Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 1 ........................................................................................................................ 110 Table 10 Correlations of Parental Discipline at Cycle 3 and Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 2 ........................................................................................................................ 115 Table 11 Correlations of Parental Discipline at Cycle 3 and Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 1 ........................................................................................................................ 120 Table 12 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 2 to step 3). .............. 124 Table 13 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 2 to step 3) ................................ 134 Table 14 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 2 to step 3) .................................... 143 Table 15 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 2 to step 3) ..................................................... 151 ix Table 16 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child characteristics, child age, and cycle (step 2 to step 3) ................................................................ 160 Table 17 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 2 to step 3) ................................................................ 170 Table 18 Physical-psychological Aggressive Discipline at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 1 to step 3) .......................... 180 Table 19 Privilege Deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 1 to step 3).................................... 185 Table 20 20 Reward at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 1 to step 3) ....................................................................... 190 Table 21 Results Regarding Research Question 1.a.: Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis .... 198 Table 22 Results Regarding Research Question 1.b.: Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis .... 220 Table 23 Results Regarding Research Question 1.c.: Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis .... 243 x List of Figures Figure 1 A process model of the determinants of parenting. ........................................................ 29 Figure 2 Orienting Model of Child Characteristics as a Key Determinant of Parenting .............. 40 xi Acknowledgements I would like to convey immense gratitude to the individuals in my life who contributed to this dissertation. I also wish to express my appreciation to the institutions that funded this study. I was extremely blessed to have received multiple sources of support. As I reflect on the past nine years, it is inconceivable to imagine how any of this would have been possible without my supervisor, Dr. James M. White. There are no words that can fully express my feelings of gratitude toward him. I am indebted to him for his unwavering dedication to my success. He went above and beyond the call of duty for a dissertation supervisor. Through his mentoring I have learned a lot about research, scholarship, teaching, and life in general. I could not have asked for a better supervisor and mentor. It is to Dr. White that I owe this accomplishment, and many more to come. I would like to thank my examination committee members, Dr. Sean Lauer, Dr. Carrie Yodanis, and Dr. Wendy Roth, for their input, support, encouragement, and mentorship over the years. I appreciated the feedback each of them gave me while I developed my research questions and study design as well as for the dissertation in its entirety. I wish to convey my gratitude to Jay Belsky and Wiley for their kind permission to reproduce Belsky’s (1984) figure of the process model of the determinants of parenting in this dissertation. I would like to extend a sincere acknowledgement to the Faculty of Graduate Studies (FoGS) at UBC for showing support by granting me program extensions on multiple occasions. Special thanks to those staff at FoGS who offered words of encouragement. xii I am grateful to Statistics Canada for approving my study proposal so that I could access the NLSCY data. I further appreciated the granting of contract extensions. I am indebted to Mr. Lee Grenon and Dr. Cheryl Fu who work at the BCIRDC for their advice concerning the data vetting process. They were more than RDC staff to me, I saw and continue to see them as friends. My thanks to those RDC researchers who volunteered to help me with syntax coding when I was struggling with this task. I must also thank those who were hired by Access and Diversity at UBC to help me transfer my output data to the tables I created in my dissertation. I truly appreciated all their hard work (Canstance, Megan, and Sean). My thanks to Access and Diversity for allowing me access to the Crane Library computer lab on evenings and weekends. . My deepest appreciation to those institutions that financially supported this study. In particular, thank you to the University of British Columbia for awarding me the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Fellowship on several occasions and the Cordula and Gunter Paetzold Fellowship. I must also thank the CNIB for awarding me the Ross C. Purse Doctoral Fellowship. I am very appreciative of the emotional support I received from my family and friends. I am grateful to my parents, Valerie R. and George S. Hochbaum, for the inheritance I received from them, which I partially used to support my studies. While they walked this Earth, my parents helped me in countless ways throughout my educational career and it is because of that help (and unconditional love) that I have achieved this goal. xiii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mom and dad, Valerie R. and George S. Hochbaum. 1 Chapter 1. Introduction Theoretical perspectives regarding the significance of parenting to child development can be traced back to the 1930s, when Sigmund Freud proposed his psychosexual theory of human development (Shaffer, 2005). While few contemporary scholars are strong supporters of Freud’s theory, an influential contribution of his work is how it shed light on the importance of early experiences for later development. Since his pioneering work, controversies surrounding the process by which early experiences influence subsequent development continue. Currently, there are a variety of theoretically and empirically based models that elucidate the factors that directly or indirectly affect parenting which, in turn, shape child development (e.g., Belsky, 1984; Bronfenbrenner, 1995; Hoffman, 1988; Kohn & Schooler, 1982; Patterson, 1982; Straus & Donnelly, 2001). A shared theme among these theories is that child development cannot be completely understood without consideration of the broader social context within which it is embedded. Indeed, competence is a product of complex interactions between a child and his or her environment (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Parenting behaviours are one aspect of the environmental context which has received a substantial amount of attention from scholars studying child development (Peterson & Hann, 1999). As is the case with child development, parenting behaviours are multiply determined by factors emanating from systems of influence such as characteristics of the child (e.g., health impairment, temperament), parent characteristics (e.g., developmental history, psychological well-being, personality), and contextual factors (e.g., marital relations, social networks, work, neighbourhood) (Belsky, 1984; Belsky & Jaffee, 2006). Although, most contemporary theorists would agree that parenting is a complex concept and its 2 causes are multiple, theoretical perspectives differ in what mechanisms of influence are of greatest importance. The earliest theoretical work on parenting, referred to as the parent effects perspective, was shaped by the belief among many scholars that children are “empty vessels” to be filled with knowledge, with parents being primarily responsible for socializing their children (Baumrind, 1978; Green, 2002; Peterson & Hann, 1999). The origin of this belief can be traced back to the writings of social philosopher John Locke (1690/1913). Locke claimed that the mind of the infant is a tabula rasa, or “blank slate,” that is written upon by experience (as cited in Shaffer, 2005). Locke argued that parents are accountable for how their children turn out once they become adults. He advocated for disciplined child rearing as a technique to guarantee that children would grow into responsible, well-mannered adults. Consistent with Locke’s arguments, the parent effects perspective proposes that the role of a parent is to transmit social reality by “moulding” or “shaping” children into either functional or deviant citizens in society (Petersen & Hann, 1999). More specifically, Peterson and Hann (1999) wrote that parents “serve as social agents who are teachers of social norms, models of behavior, managers of conduct, and providers of children’s emotional support” (p. 327). Classical theories associated with this perspective are Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory and Bowlby’s (1973, 1980) attachment theory. Social learning theory posits that people are capable of preserving early images in memory for later modeling (Bandura, 1977). Modeling can operate in a reflexive way with little awareness after the learned behaviour becomes routinized. This learning occurs both by observing parental behaviours and through direct training which is a consequence of many parent-child interactions across time (Conger, Neppl, Kim, & Scaramella, 2003; Markowitz, 2001; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Chyi-In, 1991). In 3 contrast, attachment theory asserts that an infant develops an internal working model (i.e., a cognitive representational schemata) of its caregiver and surrounding environment through interactions with significant others from birth through adolescence (Bowlby, 1973, 1980). The infant uses this working model to anticipate the caregiver’s behaviour (e.g., responsive vs. unresponsive) and one’s own role in relationships (e.g., worthy of attention vs. unworthy of attention) across the lifespan. Thus, the infant acquires a feeling of security/insecurity and inevitably internalizes the attachment experience, learning childrearing practices as it receives care (Alexander, 1992). The internal working models that develop in parents’ own early childrearing experiences in their family of origin become cognitive templates that affect relationships with their children (e.g., George, 1996). A proposition that both these theories share is that early experiences (i.e. developmental history) during childhood fundamentally affects subsequent parenting behaviours during adulthood. During the last three decades, alternative theoretical perspectives, such as systemic-ecological models (e.g., Peterson & Rollins, 1987), have been proposed in response to research indicating that the intergenerational continuity in parenting can be disrupted by contextual and child-related factors (e.g., Scaramella & Conger, 2003). Although, these more comprehensive models incorporate child effects on parents, they typically accentuate parent characteristics or contextual factors more than child characteristics. For example, Belsky’s (1984) process model of the determinants of parenting states that child characteristics have a direct effect on parenting, but child characteristics are the least influential system in the model. Belsky’s explanation for the latter assertion is that the strongest evidence for the effects of child temperament on maternal behaviour was drawn from samples that appeared a priori at risk for parent-child relational 4 difficulties (Bates, 1980). Therefore, he concluded that parenting is unaffected by characteristics of the child when contextual supports or psychological resources are intact. I argue that Belsky’s conclusion is premature for two reasons. First, the underlying assumption of his conclusion is that only problematic child behaviours determine parenting competence. Yet, as Ambert (1992; 2001) suggests, children showing competence that exceeds the socially accepted average, including normative parental expectations, can have a positive influence on parents. She gives the example of parents of a musically gifted child who “may enjoy their child's performance; they may bask in the praise bestowed upon them by friends and teachers; they may compare themselves favorably to other parents; they may have fewer worries about the child's future” (Ambert, 2001, p. 36). These auspicious subjective experiences are likely to contribute to more competent parenting. Second, Belsky’s conclusion appears to be founded on his review of the literature on child temperament and parenting in mainly high-risk samples (e.g., impoverished homes). Even in low-risk populations, child temperament can affect parents. For instance, Prior, Sanson, Carroll, and Oberklaid (1989) reported that nearly twice as many significant correlations between temperament factors and parenting dimensions were found in a high-socioeconomic group than in a low-socioeconomic group. This finding supports the notion that mothers with higher socioeconomic status (SES) have a greater sensitivity to their children’s characteristics. It may be that this greater sensitivity partly stems from parental expectations concerning appropriate child behaviour being increased in high- relative to low-SES families. This idea seems to correspond with the finding from Prior et al.’s (1989) study showing that high-SES mothers were more bothered by difficult child behaviours, which suggests that their tolerance for these behaviours was lower. More generally, available literature indicates that parental expectations respecting child performance are elevated among parents with more 5 favourable socioeconomic characteristics (Davis-Kean, 2005; Marcus & Corsini, 1978; Zhan, 2006). Moreover, it is conceivable that more extra-familial pressure is exerted on high-SES parents to either curb their children’s deviant behaviours or promote child performance because it is assumed that these parents have increased material resources to draw from. Finally, it is possible that high-SES parents are increasingly committed to their parenting role and this leads to them being more vulnerable to child effects. There are other theoretical models, besides Belsky’s, that either minimize the effects of children or ignore them altogether and this bias is reflected in a substantial proportion of the literature on the determinants of parenting (e.g., Bailey, Hill, Oesterle, Hawkins, & the Social Development Research Group, 2009; Belsky, Jaffee, Sligo, Woodward, & Silva, 2005; Capaldi, Pears, Patterson, & Owen, 2003; Cowan, Cohn, Cowan, & Pearson, 1996). Hence, a palpable rationale for this study is to equalize and complement past and present research on parenting through lifting the perceptional blinders to “child effects”. Conceptualization of Parenting Parenting as a Process The term parent should be distinguished from the notion of a caregiver. A parent, unlike a caregiver (e.g., a nanny), is afforded special status through government legislation. Attached to this status are duties and responsibilities, parents are held legally accountable for their children’s behaviour (John Howard Society of Alberta, 1997). Parental liability laws have been established in Canada and the United States to make parents civilly and criminally responsible for their children’s behaviour. These laws function to encourage parents to actively participate in their children’s lives, foster improved parental control over children, and reduce adolescent crime. Under the Parental Responsibility Act (2000, c. 4) of the government of Ontario, a parent means, 6 (a) a biological parent of a child, unless section 158 of the Child and Family Services Act applies to the child, (b) an adoptive parent of a child, (c) an individual declared to be a parent of a child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, (d) an individual who has lawful custody of a child, and (e) an individual who has a lawful right of access to a child. (“père ou mère”) Society views parents as responsible for cultivating all areas of child development through nourishing, protecting, and guiding new life through the course of human development (Brooks, 1991; Sameroff & Chandler, 1975), this is the essence of the process of parenting. Broadly speaking, the process of parenting involves an ongoing series of parent-child interactions and these interactions change both partners. In her book, “The Process of Parenting,” Brooks outlines the primary responsibilities of parents as creating warm, nurturant, emotional relationships with children and supplying opportunities for the development of competence and individuality. By means of these processes, child development is affected by parental behaviour in numerous ways (Frabutt, 2001). Many decades of research on parenting and child socialization has been devoted to describing and understanding the many pathways through which parents shape their children. Parenting Practices and Parenting Styles Darling and Steinberg (1993) argued that to elucidate the processes through which parenting affects the growth of children scholars must distinguish between parenting practices and parenting style. According to Darling and Steinberg, parenting practices are specific, goal-directed behaviours performed by parents to socialize children in a specific way (e.g., toward high academic achievement). Parenting practices are behaviours defined by particular content 7 and socialization goals. Reviewing a child’s homework and attending school functions are two examples of parenting practices. Darling and Steinberg wrote that parenting practices “are best understood as operating in fairly circumscribed socialization domains, such as academic achievement, independence, or cooperation with peers” (p. 493). Scholars should focus on parenting practices that are most relevant to the developmental outcomes being investigated. For instance, if a researcher is interested in investigating children’s academic achievement, he or she might hypothesize that achievement is shaped by parenting practices like scheduling time for the child to complete homework, attending parent-teacher meetings, and inquiring about the child’s grades. Parenting practices work primarily independently of parenting style, to the extent that practices can be performed alongside opposing stylistic climates (Steinberg & Silk, 2002). For instance, in reviewing a child’s homework a parent may perform this act in an intrusive and hostile manner or in a relaxed and cheerful way. There is some research that suggests that the same parenting practice can have extremely different consequences depending on the parenting style it is combined with (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Therefore, parenting style can be conceptualized as moderating the relationship between parenting practices and child developmental outcomes through changing the nature of the parent-child interaction and by shaping the child’s personality. Parenting style refers to a set of attitudes toward the child that are communicated to the child and that establish the overall emotional climate for the parent-child relationship (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). A complete understanding of the parenting climate can only be achieved by considering multiple dimensions of parenting style simultaneously. The two main approaches to parenting style that have been used by scholars are the dimensional approach and the typological approach. 8 Approaches to Parenting Dimensional approach. The dimensional approach involves examining how child outcomes are affected by the independent, or interactive, dimensions of parenting (Herman, Dombusch, Herron, & Herting, 1997; Steinberg & Silk, 2002). This approach emerged from traditional psychoanalytic and behavioural learning conceptualizations of the role of parents in socializing their children and their focus on parental control and parent-created emotional climate (Teti & Candelara, 2002). Although, early parenting scholars were unable to determine any child outcomes of most particular dimensions of parenting, they did find that parental demandingness and parental responsiveness were significant qualitative dimensions of parenting linked to outcomes (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Parental demandingness is defined as the monitoring and supervision of the child by parents, as well as creating and enforcing household rules. Conversely, parental responsiveness is characterized as an emotional dimension of parenting and involves parents expressing their acceptance or warmth toward their children. In his classic study of 67 children, Baldwin (1948) found that democracy and control are two parenting dimensions based on ratings of parental behaviour by an independent investigator in the home. The former dimension is described as the level of verbal communication parents engage in with their child and supplying explanations for the house rules. The second dimension, control, is characterized by restrictions regarding the child’s behaviour which are communicated to the child and a low level of disagreement between parent and child about disciplinary policies. The study revealed all four combinations of high/low democracy and high/low control. Democracy, with control held constant, predicted higher child activity level and to yield an aggressive, fearless, and planful child but also increasingly cruel compared to other children in the nursery school setting. 9 Control, with democracy held constant, was associated with child conformity, as well as decreases in levels of disobedience and quarrelling while also decreases in levels of planfulness, tenacity, and fearlessness. Thus, both parental democracy and control were each related to positive and negative child characteristics. The results seemed to suggest that high levels of both democracy and control were associated with the most optimal outcomes for children (e.g., planfulness, curious, engaging, and cooperative). Although, most of the available research has focused primarily on responsiveness and demandingness as dimensions of parenting (Maccoby & Martin, 1983), there are several recent investigations that have applied three or more dimensions or have employed less traditional dimensions of parenting. For example, Schoppe-Sullivan, Schermerhorn, and Cummings (2007) examined the extent to which three dimensions of parenting (i.e., psychological autonomy, behavioural control, and warmth) would mediate the relationship between marital conflict and children’s adjustment. Using longitudinal data of families with children aged 8-16 years, these researchers found that parental behavioural control fully mediated the association between marital conflict and variation in children’s internalizing symptoms across time, but only had a partial mediating effect on externalizing behaviours. The emotional dimensions (psychological autonomy and warmth) of parenting were more consistent as mediators relative to behavioural control, as asserted by emotional security theory (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Specifically, psychological autonomy completely mediated the association between marital conflict and children’s adjustment, both internal and external symptoms. A large proportion of the research on parenting and child developmental outcomes is concerned with child behavioural difficulties. There is burgeoning evidence that externalizing problems in children is related to a number of parenting dimensions such as responsiveness, 10 inductive discipline, corporal punishment (Chang, Olson, Sameroff, & Sexton, 2011), control (Simons, Lin, Gordon, Brody, Murry, & Conger, 2002), inconsistent discipline (Gonzales, Pitts, Hill, & Roosa, 2000), and hostility/rejection (Simons, Simons, Chen, Brody, & Lin, 2007). The literature indicates that children are more likely to exhibit externalizing behaviour problems when they receive low level of parental warmth/acceptance and high levels of corporal punishment (Chang et al., 2011; Gonzales et al., 2000; Simons et al., 2002). Conduct problems are also more common among children whose parents express hostility and rejection toward them (Simons et al., 2007). Children have a higher probability of faring better in their behaviour when they receive consistent discipline and regular parental monitoring (Gonzales et al., 2000; Simons et al., 2002; Simons et al., 2007). Consistent with the above noted findings, Berg-Nielsen, Vikan, and Dahl (2002) concluded from their review of the literature that conduct-disordered children are more likely to experience inconsistent, disruptive parenting with a lack of parental monitoring than those who are not, while children with depressive/anxiety disorders are exposed to high levels of negative, affectionless parental control. The mental health outcomes of adolescents have also been studied using the dimensional approach to parenting. There is consensus among academics that a poor relationship with parents is significantly linked to the emergence of psychosocial problems in adolescents (Pedersen, 1994), but disagreement exists about what specific dimensions of parenting are associated with adolescent outcomes. Some scholars claim that adolescent depression is a product of conflict in the parent-adolescent relationship, when combined with hostile and contentious interactions (Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Others have observed that low levels of paternal support were associated with depression among African American adolescents, after accounting for the child’s age, grade-level, and family income level (Bean, Barber, & Crane, 2006). Yet, others have noted 11 that adolescents who perceive their parents as lacking in nurturance, support, and affection are more likely to score higher on measures of depression than adolescents not raised in this manner (Blatt, Wein, & Chevron, 1979). Furthermore, clinical studies have shown that depressed patients often describe being raised by parents who were insensitive, unavailable, or overly intrusive and unwilling to grant the adolescent autonomy and independence. Investigators have also studied the linkage between parenting dimensions and externalizing behaviours in adolescents, including delinquency. Although there is a large body of research showing that parental employment of corporal punishment leads to externalizing behaviours in adolescents (Straus, 1991; Straus & Donnelly, 2001), this association may be modified when other dimensions of parenting are taken into consideration. Indeed, Simons, Wu, Lin, Gordon, and Conger (2000) found that, in a Taiwanese sample, mothers exercise of corporal punishment was unrelated to conduct problems in youths when mothers scored high on warmth/control (i.e., support, monitoring, and inductive reasoning), whereas conduct problems were positively related to corporal punishment when mothers scored low on warmth/control. In addition, results from an American sample revealed no relationship between the moderate use of corporal punishment and level of adolescent delinquency following the inclusion of parental warmth/control in the model. The authors speculated that the latter finding may be an indication of a spurious relationship between moderate corporal punishment and delinquency because both are correlated with parental warmth/control or that high levels of parental warmth/control buffer the possible negative effects of corporal punishment. Studies show that parental control, such as monitoring and supervision, is significantly associated with lower levels of externalizing problems in adolescents (Curran & Chassin, 1996), although some researchers point out that excessive behavioural and psychological control exacerbates externalizing behaviours (Steinberg 12 & Silk, 2002). Moreover, the work of Weaver and Prelow (2005) illustrates that the relation between parental control (i.e., demandingness) and externalizing behaviour is more complicated than it appears, when one accounts for moderating effects. Using a sample of European Americans, these researchers observed that the negative relationship between parental responsiveness and adolescent problem behaviours was most profound at higher levels of demandingness, while this relationship was far weaker at lower levels of demandingness. In addition, problem behaviours were positively associated with demandingness at low levels of responsiveness, whereas this relationship transformed into an inverse association as the level of responsiveness increased. Other dimensions of parenting that have been cited as contributing to delinquent behaviours include the following: inconsistent discipline, parental reinforcement of aggression, and coercive parenting (Curran & Chassin 1996; Unnever, Cullen, & Agnew, 2006). It has been well established that involvement or harmony in the parent-adolescent relationship is essential in determining positive adjustment among adolescents (Herman, Dombusch, Herron, & Herting, 1997; Steinberg & Silk, 2002). Adolescents are more likely to be psychologically well-adjusted when the emotional connection between the parent and child is appropriately altered to meet the needs of young adults, as opposed to those of children (Youniss & Smollar, 1985). Research indicates that adolescents who have a moderately close relationship with their parents fair better in their psychosocial development, relative to their peers (Steinberg & Silk, 2002). In their comprehensive review of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, Smetana, Campione-Barr, and Metzger (2006) reported that interactions in the home that permit adolescents the space to assert their thoughts and feelings, combined with a close connection to parents, fosters greater self-esteem and less depression. Some work, such as Harris and Marmer (1996), has highlighted the importance of recognizing the conceptual distinction between 13 emotional and behavioural parental involvement when investigating adolescent well-being. Parental emotional involvement, as used in the studies cited above, refers to the extent of closeness and emotional involvement with children. In contrast, behavioural involvement is characterized by parental participation in joint activities and supportive forms of communication with adolescents. Using longitudinal data from the National Survey of Children, Harris and Marmer found that, irrespective of poverty status, the behavioural involvement of parents influences academic achievement among adolescences, while parental emotional involvement is associated with lower levels of adolescent depression and delinquency. Typological approach. The typological approach involves combining dimensions of parenting to create typologies of parents (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Currently, one of the most prominent typologies of parenting is founded on the work of Diana Baumrind (1967, 1978, 1991). Baumrind’s approach (1978) classifies parents into four typologies according to levels of responsiveness and demandingness. Parents who are both responsive and demanding are classified as authoritative. There is consensus among many researchers that authoritative parenting is composed of three dimensions of parenting: acceptance (the extent to which the child is love and accepted), strictness (the extent to which the child is supervised and has expectations and rules for his or her behaviour), and psychological autonomy (the extent to which parents accept and facilitate the child’s individuality) (Gray & Steinberg, 1999; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts, 1989; Steinberg & Silk; Taylor, R.D., Casten, R., & Flickinger, 1993). Another parenting typology is authoritarian which is characterized by parents who score high on the demandingness dimension and low on the responsiveness dimension (Baumrind, 1991). Authoritarian parents are oriented toward obedience and conformity and are apt to endorse more 14 punitive, forceful, and absolute disciplinary strategies (Baumrind, 1978). These parents are also inclined to restrict children’s autonomy and do not negotiate with children about house rules. A third parenting typology, identified by Baumrind (1991), is permissive parents who are described as very responsive but not at all demanding. They are apt to enforce few restrictions on children’s behaviour and, thus, permit a great deal of self-regulation. The final typology, rejecting/neglecting or disengaged parents, is regarded as neither demanding nor responsive. These parents tend to minimize, or even neglect, their responsibilities as parents such as providing structure and monitoring their children. Baumrind’s (1967, 1971) research suggests that authoritative parenting styles are typically beneficial to the development of children. Although Baumrind’s work has been profoundly influential in shaping research and theory about parenting for over 30 years, her typological approach has a number of noteworthy shortcomings. Some scholars have questioned the generalizeability of her approach to diverse populations such as African Americans (Tamis-LeMonda, Briggs, McClowry, & Snow, 2008). In fact, Baumrind herself (1972) acknowledged that black parents who are characterized as high in authoritarianism had girls who were the most self-assertive and independent. Another important weakness of this approach is that since the dimensions of parenting are aggregated, the individual effects of specific dimensions cannot be isolated and explored (Barber, Stolz, Olsen, Collins, & Burchinal, 2005). Furthermore, typological approaches are problematic because they may not capture all parenting processes (Bean, Barber, & Crane, 2006). The unrepresentative nature of typologies is evident when one considers that 50% to 70% percent of parents have been excluded from investigation as a result of not possessing a “pure” parenting style (e.g., Kim & Rohner, 2002). Given these criticisms of the typological approach, the present study will adopt a dimensional approach to parental disciplinary behaviour. 15 Sociology of Parent-child Interaction A number of renowned sociologists have studied dyadic interaction in the context of the family. Some of these scholars include White (1991) who published a book on the dynamics of family development, Collins (1975) who theorized about interactional ritual chains, Mead (1934) who articulated the notion of stages of interactional learning, Caplow (1968) who developed the idea of triangular interaction, Peterson and Rollins (1987) who used the symbolic interaction framework to integrate perspectives on socialization, Scanzoni (1972) who applied equity theory to the family context, and Simmel (1950) who described the unique properties and interactions within the family; Ambert (2001), another sociologist, argued that the effect of children on parents “is a valid topic of research and sociological inquiry” (p. 205). Children possess important sociological characteristics and perform essential social functions (Corsaro, 1997 as cited in Ambert, 2001). The social-cultural context defines abstract norms and values which can influence children, parents, and their interaction. Straus (1991), also a sociologist, expounded a bidirectional relationship in which cultural norms affect the incidence of physical punishment used by parents and physical punishment in turn shapes society and its members. Social constructionism is a theoretical orientation that both Ambert (2001) and Straus (1991) adopted. A second principle that these scholars share is that the characteristics thought to influence parenting in themselves change over time as well as their interaction with one another. As Ambert (2001, p. 30) stated the “nature” of children, parents, and their interaction “is not static but is subject to the socio-historical context in which it is embedded”. Like Ambert (2001) and Straus (1991), I view the characteristics of children and parental disciplinary methods as socially constructed within the socio-historical context. I also hold the opinion that both child and parent characteristics are dynamic. These tenets informed the design of this study. 16 Conclusion Despite, the consensus among most researchers that parenting is multidimensional, theoretical models of parenting tend to conceptualize parenting as a unidimensional concept. For example, Straus’s (1991) systems model is only concerned with the causes and consequences of corporal punishment. Furthermore, Belsky’s (1984) process model of the determinants of parenting refers to parental competence. While, this construct may include several dimensions of parenting, its use in the model is problematic because parental competence is defined by the child outcomes desired by a particular social group (Teti & Candelance, 2002). His model does not specify any child outcome, child development is simply stated. Teti and Candelaria noted that the issue of circularity is one of the limitations associated with the application of parental competence to socialization outcomes. This circularity has to do with the fact that parental competence is identified by its effects. In his article, Belsky (1984) cited Abernethy (1973) as defining parental competence as the “mother’s recognition of the malleability of her children, an appreciation of individual differences, and knowledge of how child-rearing practices need to be adjusted to match the child’s developmental capabilities” (p. 88). Clearly, this definition does not incorporate dimensions of discipline. The aim of this study is to examine the extent to which child characteristics predict three dimensions of parental disciplinary behaviour, while controlling for parent, familial, and contextual factors known to influence parenting. The dimensions of parental disciplinary behaviour assessed are physical-psychological aggressive discipline, privilege deprivation-diversion, and reward. The “child effects” perspective on socialization is utilized in this study. This perspective, views children as “socializing” or “shaping” their parents behaviour (Ambert, 1992, 1997; Bell & Chapman, 1986; Bell & Harper 1977; Lytton & Romney 1991; Peterson & 17 Hann, 1999; Russell & Russell, 1992). More specifically, it explores the way in which children affect the attitudes, values, behaviours, experiences, identities, and circumstances of parents (Ambert, 1992, 2001; Bell & Harper, 1977; Hastings & Rubin 1999; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Peterson & Rollins, 1987). Because this approach underscores the essential role of child characteristics to parenting, it operates as the “mirror-reverse orientation” for the assertion that socialization is a unidirectional process in which parents socialize their children (i.e., the parent effects perspective) (Ambert, 1992; Peterson & Hann, 1999). The following chapter delineates how parent-child interaction is shaped by a child’s disability. One reason why the examination of childhood disability in early childhood is important is that the inference of child causality is irrefutable. Early childhood disability clearly emanates from the child and prior socialization is not involved (Bell, 1977; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). 18 Chapter 2. Parenting Children with Disabilities: A Primary Example of Child Effects Much of the literature on the determinants of parenting emphasizes how temperament is a characteristic of the child that significantly influences parenting behaviour (Karraker & Coleman, 2005), although less is known about how temperament relates to forms of punishment other than physical discipline nor the effect of social unresponsiveness in the child. Yet, it often overlooks the role of child disability as a characteristic that has obvious implications for parent-child interaction. Research that examines parent-child interaction in which the children have disabilities provides overwhelming evidence for the assertion that child disability changes parenting behaviour (Hodapp, 2002; Hodapp & Ly, 2005). The aim of this chapter is to document research that supports this assertion. Conceptualizing Disability The conceptualization of disability is a contentious issue among scholars. There are several models in sociology that define chronic illness and disability. In the socio-medical model, impairment or change in health status due to disease is of central importance in the disablement process (Bury, 2000). This model views disability as occupying the space between the direct effects of chronic illness and impairment and the social contexts (micro and macro) in which people reside. In contrast, the social model argues that disability is not causally associated with impairment or disease, instead, disability is completely social in nature and origin. It asserts that disability is due to the effects of social exclusion and oppression with no relation to personal agency or physical abnormalities. Although, the social model of disability was pivotal to the British disability movement during the 1970s, some would argue that the model has run its course and that it creates more problems than it solves (Shakespeare & Watson, 2001) 19 Shakespeare and Watson suggested an alternative and more satisfactory model of disability politics which is founded on a materialist ontology of embodiment. This model involves the recognition that we are in some way impaired and, hence, there should no longer a distinction between ‘normals’ and the ‘disabled’ (meaning impaired). According to this reasoning, impairment is not the core component of disability but rather it is the inherent nature of humanity. Shakespeare and Watson concluded that while all human beings are impaired not everyone is oppressed on the basis of impairment. For the purposes of the quantitative portion of the current research, disability in children is defined as bodily impairment due to disease, genetic abnormalities, or chronic health conditions. I apply this definition of disability because it is most pertinent to the way in which child characteristics directly affect parenting. Social structures disable both children with impairments and their parents through unequal opportunities (Dowling & Dolan, 2001) and social stigma (Heng-hao, 2009). Birth of a Child with a Disability: Parental Responses In 2001, it was reported that of the 181,000 children with disabilities in Canada aged 0 to 14, 57.4% experienced a mild to moderate disability and 42%, a severe to very severe disability (Statistics Canada, 2001b). Hence, at the national level, 1.4% of children aged 0 to 14 had a severe or even very severe disability. Parents of children with disabilities are confronted with unique challenges. The birth of a child with disabilities often necessitates significant adjustments by parents and other family members (Hamner & Turner, 2001). Upon realization of a child’s impairment, parents may react with disbelief and this is especially the case when the impairment is highly visible. Some scholars, such as Moses (1983), have asserted that the diagnosis of disability in a child is equivalent to a death experience for parents. Parents typically undergo a process of grieving the loss of a healthy child and the hopes they held for the child. Moses 20 (1983) proposed that the grieving process involves detaching oneself from a significant lost dream and elicits feeling states that include denial, anger, anxiety, guilt, and depression. There is a great amount of variation among parents in their experiences of these feeling states. Parents may experience these feelings multiple times, sometimes the feelings overlap or occur simultaneously, and some may be intense while others are mild. Kurtzer-White and Luterman (2003), unlike Moses (1983), suggest that grief models based on death experience applied to the diagnosis of disability may not be appropriate given that death is terminal whereas parental grief is chronic. According to these authors, for families living with chronic illness or disability, grief occurs across the life-course, grief is non-finite. The grief that parents experience after diagnosis can negatively affect bonding and parent-child interaction. Indeed, Kekelis and Andersen (1984) found the greatest constrained communications in families that were most devastated by the diagnosis of visual impairment. In rural, agricultural economies, where the mother and children work in the fields, a child with a disability may be more readily “absorbed”. In addition, caregiving burden can be alleviated when extended family members take care of the routine care, feeding, and protection of the disabled child. Parent-Infant Interaction It is likely that the strongest evidence for child effects, such as disability or preterm status of infants, on parenting comes from research on the infancy years. Infancy is the period when children with impairments are most dissimilar to others and most demanding on their parents (Goldberg & DiVitto, 2002). Interaction patterns in populations with atypical infants are consistently shown to be different from those in families with normally developing infants (Clark, 1983). The following subsections outline the research on parent-infant interaction is two atypical populations, namely, preterm infants and infants with visual impairment/blindness. The 21 purpose of this literature review is to illustrate how child characteristics are important factors associated with parenting. Preterm infants In their review of the literature on parenting preterm infants, Goldberg and DiVitto (2002) reported that parental behaviours are affected by preterm infants physical appearance and behaviour, as well as their delay in reaching milestones (like smiling or reaching for a toy), relative to term infants. They also found that studies that compared preterm and term dyads supply inconsistent evidence as to the nature and degree of interactional differences. However, when the birth and the health status of infant participants is systematically varied, research suggests that maternal behaviour varies with the infant’s behaviour which is shaped by the birth status (preterm versus term) and health status (sick versus healthy) of infants, even after infant behaviour differences were no longer apparent (e.g., Greene, Fox, & Lewis, 1983; Javis, Myers, & Creasy, 1989; Schermann-Eizirik, Hagekull, Bohlin, Persson, & Sedin, 1997). For example, Javis, Myers, and Creasy (1989) investigated mother-infant interactions across three groups of preterms: those who were healthy (HP), those with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), and those whose early respiratory problems resulted in lasting difficulties with breathing, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). These groups were fairly well matched on gestational age and birthweight. Mother-infant interactions during teaching tasks were videotaped when the infants were 4 and 8 months old. While there were no identifiable differences in infant behaviour, mothers in the BPD group were rated lower relative to the others on sensitivity, response to distress, and growth-fostering activities, demonstrating the importance of severity of illness on mother-infant interactions. The research suggests that differences in parental behaviour 22 reflect adaptation of parents to the developmental skills and needs of infants (Goldberg & DiVitto, 2002). Interestingly, research has revealed that parental behaviour may also be affected by awareness of an infant’s status. For example, using videotaped presentations of infants, adults rated infants labelled premature as less developed, sociable, active, competent, and liked than infants labelled full-term (Stern, Hildebr, & Karraker, 1990). In addition, mothers behaved differently toward an infant labelled as preterm by touching less and providing more immature toys. This finding points to a “prematurity stereotype” of decreased expectations which could impact parental behaviour toward their preterm infants. Other work highlights how parents may become inappropriately overprotective when their children have experienced a life-threatening medical condition, even after the condition has been cured (Goldberg & DiVitto, 2002). Green and Solnit (1964) described this as the “vulnerable child syndrome.” Contemporary research shows that child vulnerability and parental overprotection are distinct clinical phenomena (Goldberg & DiVitto, 2002). There is evidence that parents of preterm infants perceive their children as vulnerable (Thomasgard & Metz, 1996) and to be overprotective of them (Miles, Holditch-Davis, & Shepherd, 1998). Infants with visual impairments/blindness Scholars have noted that vision plays an essential part in the creation of early synchronous and reciprocal parent-infant interactions (D'Odorico, L., & Levorato, 1990; Loots, Devise, & Sermijn, 2003). D'Odorico and Levorato, for instance, viewed mutual visual interaction, or shared gaze, as the earliest opportunity to establish an interactive exchange in which the parent and infant have equal control. Once objects and events in the immediate surrounding were incorporated in the mutual dyadic parent-infant interaction, eye contact 23 emerged as a prominent way of establishing joint attention. Joint attention is sustained through parental monitoring of infants’ gaze, adjusting their own gaze to where the infant is focused (Butterworth, 1995). Given the fact that infants who are blind or severely visually impaired are unable to establish eye contact, one would expect that there would be poor quality parent-infant interaction due to the child’s visual impairment. Indeed, classical studies founded on detailed observations of mothers interacting with their blind infants revealed that the mothers struggled to decipher communicative signals and ascribe communicative meaning to their infants’ behaviour (Fraiberg, 1977, 1979; Wills, 1979). Infants who are blind do not exhibit the clearly differentiated facial expressions of sighted infants (Hamner & Turner, 2001). These infants also smile less often and typically fail to smile despite the sound of their mother’s voice. The signals they express to their parents are more subdued and motorically related. Parents may wrongly assume that the infant is not curious about the outside world due to the infant’s lack of clear signs of involvement and attention (Urwin, 1984). Congruently, contemporary studies have shown the risk of incompatible interactions between mothers and their visually impaired infants (Baird, S. M., Mayfield, P., & Baker, 1997; Kekelis & Andersen, 1984; Rowland, 1983, 1984). These works highlight how mothers of visually impaired infants are confronted with the problem of interpreting their infants’ cues and are less responsive and more directive and intrusive, while their infants’ are less active and responsive relative to mothers and sighted infants. Moore and McConachie (1994), for instance, investigated parents’ communication across two groups of infants (13-25 months): those who were totally blind and those with severe visual impairment (SVI). Parent-infant interaction was video recorded when the infant was approximately 18 months old. The results showed that parents of blind infants initiated interactions more frequently and inclined to use verbal 24 communication without action more frequently, compared to the SVI group These parents were also less likely to describe objects which were at the child’s present focus of attention and tended to communicate the features of objects to the child in a generic manner (i.e., using pronouns or general nouns). Furthermore, these parents were directive insofar as they were disposed to request verbal information from their infants. In contrast, the parents of the SVI infants were more likely to describe objects to them or to request him/her to do something. Parents in both groups, however, communicated a smaller amount of information regarding qualities of objects/sounds that their infants were focused upon than did parents of sighted infants. Kekelis and Andersen (1984) reported congruent results in their study of interactions among parents of infants with visual impairments and those of parents with sighted infants. Using data gathered from video recorded interactions, these authors found that parents of infants with visual impairments had a significantly higher probability of labelling as opposed to communicating information about features of objects, unlike parents of sighted children. Mothers of visually impaired infants introduced significantly more topics and most of these topics were centered on the child as opposed to other persons or events in the environment. Relative to their sighted peers, these infants were more likely to be requested to respond, typically by performing tasks or answering questions about their behaviours and possessions. Kekelis and Andersen perceived the behaviours of the parents of visually impaired infants as negative and intrusive, which may harm children’s language development. For example, they describe a damaging cycle of behaviour in which excessive parental directiveness often leads to blind children withdrawing from interaction that, in turn, typically results in even greater intrusive input. The authors wrote that interactions of this kind can be characterized by “inequality of participation, rapid topic changes, and negation of the child’s actions, which can impair children’s development” (p. 61). 25 Other scholars, such as Conti-Ramsden and Pérez-Pereira (1999), argue that descriptive directives can be considered an adaptive parental behaviour in light of children’s sensory losses. Conti-Ramsden and Pérez-Pereira studied mother-infant interactions across three dyads of infants: one who was sighted, one who was visually impaired, and who was congenitally blind. Data was gathered through videotaped observations of dyadic interaction in the home when the infants were about 22, 23, and 25 months. While, interactional patterns were similar among the sighted and low vision dyads, the mother of the blind infant communicated more verbally and used more directives. Her directives consisted of more descriptions and had a greater likelihood to occur in clusters within sequences of dialogue than the other two mothers. Conti-Ramsden and Pérez-Pereira interpreted these findings as illustrating how descriptive directives can be especially significant in the creation of joint attention and participation in conversational interactions with respect to the development of language in children that are blind. Conclusion Parents alter their behaviour in response to personal characteristics of the child as illustrated in this review of families with preterm and visually impaired infants. Because of their impairment, infants with a disability seem to have a lower ability to initiate or respond to social behaviour. In his theoretical model of physical punishment, Straus (1991) argued that children with disabilities are recipients of more punishment than healthy children. The influence of childhood disability on normative parental disciplinary behaviours has not been thoroughly investigated, particularly in comparison to the research on child abuse. There is, nonetheless, evidence supporting Straus’s (1991) assertion (Hendricks, Lansford, Deater‐Deckard, & Bornstein, 2014; Knutson, Johnson, & Sullivan, 2004; for exception see Carey, Nicholson, & Fox, 2002; Norlin, Axberg, & Broberg, 2014; Perron, Lee, LaRoche, Ateah, Clément, & Chan, 26 2014). A variety of mechanisms to explain the relationship between childhood disability and physical punishment have been postulated and tested. For instance, parents may more frequently physically discipline children with disabilities than able-bodied children because rates of problematic behaviours are higher among these children (Ammerman & Patz, 1996). Moreover, severity of behaviour problems tends to be higher when rated by parents of children with disabilities compared to parents of able-bodied children (Norlin, Axberg, & Broberg, 2014); Evidence drawn from samples of parents of children with disabilities illustrates that child behaviour problems are significantly associated with harsh parenting (Norlin, Axberg, & Broberg, 2014) and child maltreatment (Sullivan & Knutson, 2000). Parents of children with disabilities may experience increased stress because traditional forms of correction and discipline may not be effective in reducing problematic behaviours in these children such as noncompliance, aggression, or communication problems (Hibbard, Desch, & Committee on Child Abuse and Neglectl 2007). The demands on parents resources are accentuated when a child has co-occurring medical concerns and difficult to manage behaviours and, in turn, raise the risk of elevated punitive discipline. Furthermore, the cultural belief that punitive methods are necessary and even beneficial to the general treatment and well-being of children with disabilities probably contributes to the disciplinary choices of parents of children with disabilities (Sullivan, 2009). The effect of childhood disability on parental disciplinary behaviours net of child behaviours, other child characteristics, familial, and contextual factors is investigated in the current study. 27 Chapter 3. Theoretical Models Child development occurs through processes of increasingly more complex reciprocal interaction between the individual child and his or her environment over time (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). Scholarly work on parenting has been the cornerstone of well-established attempts in social scientific research to understand socialization processes (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000). Some scholars argue that among the various influences on child development, parents are the “final common pathway” to children’s development and stature, adjustment, and success (Bornstein, 2002).This traditional view of a unidirectional model in which parents “mould” the development of children has received a great deal of criticism (Collins et al., 2000; Peterson & Hann, 1999). Critics have pointed out that there is little convincing evidence of parents’ influence on behaviour and personality in adolescence and adulthood (Harris, 1995). The parent effects perspective has also been undermined by several decades of research demonstrating alternative approaches such as child effects, reciprocal, and systemic perspectives on child development (Belsky, 1984; Peterson & Hann, 1999). These criticisms of socialization research mainly apply to work published prior to the early 1980s (Collins et al., 2000). Contemporary theoretical models capture multiples sources of influence on child development, which leads to both a more comprehensive and a more differentiated illustration of parenting and its probable influences (Collins et al., 2000). Indeed, a review of the literature in the past decade shows that genetically mediated models (Fearon et al., 2014; Watts & McNulty, 2016), developmental process or cascade models (DeLisi & Vaughn, 2014; Dodge et al., 2009; Walters, 2014), bidirectional paradigm (Brown, Granero, & Ezpeleta, 2016; Granic 28 & Patterson, 2006), and ecological models (Waller, Shaw, Forbes, & Hyde, 2015) are being tested. Belsky’s (1984) ecological process model of the determinants of parenting integrates multiple levels of theoretical analysis (individual, social-psychological, and sociocultural) into a single theoretical model. In their review of the family studies literature, Peterson and Hann (1999) argued that of all the theoretical approaches to socialization processes, the systemic-ecological perspective “is best suited to understand how social phenomena beyond the dyad redefine both the processes and the outcomes that emerge between parents and children” (p. 350). Theoretical models play an integral role in empirical research because they provide a guiding framework and help in interpreting findings (Straus & Donnelly, 2001). In this paper, I develop and test an integrated conceptual model of parental disciplinary behaviour by drawing on ecological frameworks of socialization (Belsky, 1984; Straus, 1991), reciprocal models (Granic & Patterson, 2006; Patterson, 1982; Patterson & Fisher, 2002; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992), and existing theories about child effects on parents (Ambert, 1992, 2001; Bell, 1968, 1977). Belsky’s ecological process model of the determinants of parenting provides a broad, overarching theoretical framework for understanding the interaction between characteristics of parents, child characteristics, and the social context on parenting behaviour which, in turn, have consequences for child development. This model describes three sources of influence on parenting behaviour: characteristics of the individual parent (e.g., personality and psychological well-being), characteristics of the child (e.g., temperament), and contextual influences of stress and support (e.g., marital relations, social networks, and occupational experiences of parents). 29 Belsky contends that some determinants of parenting exert more influence than others. In particular, he suggests that the parent’s characteristics are the most influential, that contextual sources of support and stress are less influential, and that the child’s characteristics are least influential. Of the contextual sources of stress and support, the marital relationship is the most influential in exerting the most positive or negative effects on parenting behaviour, followed by social networks. Belsky argues that optimal parental behaviour occurs when each subsystem operates in the supportive mode. Optimal care is adversely affected the most when the subsystem of parental characteristics is functioning in an unsupportive mode, even when the subsystems of context and the child are in a supportive mode. While, Belsky’s model identifies some important relationships and the direction of their effects, much greater theoretical depth can be achieved by integrating other relevant theories. Figure 1 A process model of the determinants of parenting. From Belsky, J. The determinants of parenting: A process model. Published by Wiley Reprinted by kind permission of Jay Belsky and Wiley; Child Development, 1984, 55, 83-96. © 1984 by the Society for Rese 30 Corporal punishment is a topic that has received relatively little attention from scholars (Straus & Donnelly, 2001). This observation may be explained, in part, by the belief in the scientific community that the real problem is harsh or incompetent parenting and that corporal punishment is merely a surface manifestation of that problem. In contrast, Straus argues that corporal punishment causes severe psychological harm to children and negatively affects society as a whole. His theoretical model assumes that corporal punishment and its effects is a product of other characteristics of the society and that corporal punishment, in turn, influences the society. It highlights the necessity of conceptualizing corporal punishment as connected to the dynamic interplay between the characteristics of the parents, the child, the family unit, features of parent-child interaction other than corporal punishment, the socio-cultural environment, and the place of the family in that social context. Using data from the second National Family Violence Survey conducted in 1985, Straus and Donnelly (2001) investigated the characteristics of children, parents, and family associated with the use of corporal punishment in the United States. They found that the exercise of corporal punishment was more frequent among young parents, white parents, and mothers relative to fathers. Parents were more likely to use corporal punishment when there was inter-spousal violence. Attitudes toward the use corporal punishment were only significantly related to the actual employment of corporal punishment in the case of adolescent children. In contrast, nearly all parents employed corporal punishment with toddlers, regardless of their attitudes. Finally, boys are exposed to a greater amount of corporal punishment relative to girls. In his system model of corporal punishment (Straus, 1991), child characteristics thought to influence parental administration of corporal punishment included: activity level, disabilities, aggressiveness, and “easy” or “difficult”. 31 Patterson and Fisher (2002) disagree with Straus’s (1991) assertion that the parent is a model of aggressive behaviour in combination with child anger is predictive of child aggression. According to a social interactional perspective, corporal punishment is typically effective in terminating a child’s aggressive behaviour in the short-term and this leads to an increased probability that the parent will employ corporal punishment in the future. On the other hand, if the child’s aggressive behaviour persists or escalates then parents have a greater likelihood of backing down and withdrawing from interaction with the child. These reinforcing contingencies work to raise the probability that the child will exhibit aggressive behaviour in the future (Patterson, 1982). Over time, aggressive behaviours of both the parent and the child escalate within an abusive relationship because the escalation or amplitude of coercion often “works” (i.e., consistently followed by the other individual backing off) (Patterson & Fisher, 2002). Thus, hostile and emotionally negative parent-child interaction can promote coercive interaction cycles through a process of mutual reinforcement (Patterson, 1982). In his research, Patterson (1982) found that parents of antisocial children ignore the child’s aggressive behaviour less and natter more, relative to parents of non-clinically referred children. This nattering contributes to continuous coercive episodes. Unless these parents employ extreme measures, they cannot terminate the coercive behaviours of their children. Patterson and Fisher (2002) stated that the aggressive behaviour of a child will persist even when parental frustration and the related parental harsh discipline are removed. They concluded that harsh discipline “is a prime example of a parenting practice that reflects the evocative contribution of the child as much as it does the parent as model. Simply reducing harsh discipline would not alter the contingencies supplied by family members and peers for the aggressive behaviour” (emphasis added) (Patterson & Fisher, 2002, p. 72). Coercion theory proposes that socially aggressive boys tend to react to maternal 32 control attempts with resistance or aversive behaviour and that these troublesome behaviours at least partly stem from the temperamental disposition of the child (Patterson, 1982). . Patterson, Reid, and Dishion (1992) add to this work by creating a cascade model for the development of antisocial behaviour among boys in which the mixture of temperamental characteristics (e.g., irritability) and poor parental disciplinary responses to child noncompliant behaviour can bring forth cycles of coercive family processes. The child effects perspective was pioneered by the work of Bell and colleagues (Bell, 1968, 1974; 1977, 1979; Bell & Chapman, 1986, Bell & Harper, 1977). Children “socialize” or “affect” their parents is the essential idea underlying this perspective (Ambert, 1992, 2001; Bell & Chapman, 1986; Bell & Harper, 1977). The phrase “child effects” refers to the effects of children on parents’ attitudes, behaviours, experiences, and circumstances (Ambert, 1992, 2001; Bell & Harper, 1977; Karraker & Coleman, 2005; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Peterson & Rollins, 1987). Bell (1974; 1977) was the first to delineate a theoretical model of child effects. Subsequent theoretical contributions to the child effects perspective include the writings of Ambert (1992, 2001), genetic-mediation models (Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomas, Price, & Taylor 2004; Knafo & Plomin, 2006; Reiss, 1995), and approaches emphasizing parental cognition (Dix, 1991; Dix & Grusec, 1985; Dix, Ruble, & Zarnbarano, 1989; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Okagaki & Divecha, 1993; Peterson & Rollins, 1987). Because this study does not use a genetically informed design nor test how child characteristics affect parenting via cognitive processes, the following summary of theories pertaining to the child effects perspective is restricted to those elaborated by Bell (1974, 1977) and Ambert (1992, 2001). Bell (1974) proposed a homeostatic model that expounds a reciprocal control system in which parents and children have upper and lower limits in their tolerance for each other’s 33 behaviour with respect to its frequency, intensity, or contextual appropriateness. An individual (parent or child) whose upper limit has been met responds with behavior designed to decrease or divert the excessive, inappropriate behaviour (e.g., aggression and noncompliance) (upper-limit control reaction). From the perspective of the parent, child behaviour that exceeds parental standards is handled with upper-limit control strategies (Bell, 1977). These strategies can consist of: distraction, quick tangible reinforcement or non-reinforcement, holding, prohibiting verbalizations, and physical punishment (Bell, 1977, p. 67). Conversely, when the lower limit is reached, the individual reacts with behaviour intended to stimulate or prime increases in behaviour that is deficient or absent (e.g., low activity and slow development) (lower-limit control reaction) (Bell. 1974). From the parental perspective, child behaviour that is below parental standards is managed with lower-limit control strategies (Bell, 1977). Parental lower-limit control strategies may include: drawing attention to stimuli, positively reinforcing increases in activity, urging, prompting, and demanding increased performance (Bell, 1977b, p. 67). Discipline strategies such as these are conceptually related to the parenting constructs of restriction and intrusiveness. The general idea here is that parental control strategies function to hold child behaviour within an ideal range. In her theoretical exposition, Ambert (1992) asserted that children are perceived by parents as deviating from the socially accepted average, including normative parental expectations, in personal characteristics in either positive or negative directions. Two of her propositions relevant to this study are (a) the greater the child deviates positively from the socially accepted average in personal characteristics, the stronger the positive child effect on parents; and (b) the greater a child deviates negatively from the socially accepted average in personal characteristics, the stronger the negative child effect on parents. Positive deviations 34 consist of child characteristics that parents perceive as (1) increasing the quality of their parenting experiences and (2) arousing feedback (behaviour) to children that mirrors the positive emotions of parents and aims to preserve the cherished child characteristic (Henry, Wilson, & Peterson, 1989 as cited in Peterson & Hann,1999). Negative deviations, on the other hand, cause (1) unpleasant subjective experiences for parents and (2) feedback to children that conveys either parents’ negative emotions or their struggles to cope with difficult conditions (Peterson & Hann, 1999). While Ambert (1992) claimed that parents are adversely influenced when children deviate negatively from the socially accepted “norm”, children that do so on a characteristic that is perceived by parents as beyond their (and their child’s) control and inexorable (unavoidable) shall view the deviation more favorably compared to a characteristic attributed to deficiency in parental competence and construed as avoidable. She provides the example of cerebral palsy as an unavoidable characteristic and juvenile delinquency as an avoidable characteristic. 35 Chapter 4. Research Problem and Hypotheses The literature on socialization can be divided into four major theoretical categories: (a) parent effects, (b) child effects, (c) bidirectionality, and (d) ecological-systemic factors (Peterson & Hann, 1999). The present study embraces the child effects perspective. In doing so, it challenges a common assumption that parenting is largely an unconscious mechanical process that is learned during childhood, as proposed by social learning theory. In addition, by centering attention on a particular system level – microsystem of the family - this study is relevant to ecological-systemic theories. Theories that explain the factors that contribute to parenting behaviour, such as Belsky’s (1984) ecological model, have shed light on the notion that parenting is affected by multiple sources of influence. Although this insight has led to a more comprehensive picture of the landscape of parenting behaviour, much of this work minimizes or even neglects the pivotal role of child characteristics. This observation is illustrated in the literature on the intergenerational transmission of parenting. Although, the research in this area has progressed beyond a psychopathological framework by including contextual sources of stress and support, there is a dearth of studies that consider the role of the child as influencing the intergenerational transmission process. Contextual factors cited in the literature that may affect the intergenerational transmission of parenting are parental social cognitions (i.e., attitudes toward forms of discipline) (Chung, Mathew, Rothkopf, Elo, Coyne, & Culhane, 2009), sociodemographic characteristics of parents (i.e., marital status) (Chung et al., 2009), culture or ethnicity (Quah, 2003), social class (Murphy-Cowan & Stringer, 1999), socioeconomic status (Capaldi, Pears, Kerr, & Owen, 2008; Lunkenheimer, Kittler, Olson, & Kleinberg, 2006), 36 financial stress (Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, & Smith, 2003), education (Chen, Liu, & Kaplan, 2008), working outside of the home (O’Brien, 2010), marital relations (i.e., marital satisfaction, marital support) (Lunkenheimer et al., 2006; Quinton, Rutter, & Liddle, 1984; Chen et al., 2008), and social networks (Chen & Kaplan, 2001; O’Brien, 2010). All of these works, except O’Brien, (2010), do not consider child characteristics in their statistical models. As a consequence, it is possible that the relationship between contextual factors and parenting is spurious because of their mutual association with child characteristics. Studies that employ Belsky’s (1984) process model of the determinants of parenting as a guiding framework should include child characteristics in their analysis because these characteristics are theorized to affect parenting directly. Yet I found in my review of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies that only 19 out 24 (79%) accounted for child characteristics. While the number of works that did not account for characteristics of children appears small, it is significant in light of the fact that this absence runs counter to the theoretical model directing the research. Another issue that arose from the review is that many of the studies merely considered one child characteristic and, therefore, we are unable to obtain a complete picture of the potential processes that are in operation. To my knowledge, we know little or nothing about how one child characteristic may moderate the association between a second child characteristic and parenting. For example, could we expect that the association between child disability and power-assertive discipline would be moderated by gender of the child? Furthermore, questions remain as to whether the relationship between a particular child characteristic and parental discipline is attenuated by another child characteristic. For example, the disability of a young child results in greater levels of power-assertive discipline; however, when the child’s temperament is accounted 37 for the above noted association decreases or disappears (thus the second characteristic can operate as a mediator). The most common child characteristic analyzed in the empirical work on the determinants of parenting is child temperament. Generally, studies have reported a significant association between difficult temperament and parenting. Some developmental scholars have argued that temperament is a major component of personality, as well as the foundation of personality (Digman & Shmelyov, 1996). Personality is typically defined as “the consistent pattern of thoughts, feelings, and actions that people demonstrate” (Maddi, 1989, p. 4). Personality, compared to temperament, is a concept of wider scope that likely subsumes the consistent patterns of an individual’s “emotional nature” (i.e., temperament) (Digman & Shmelyov, 1996). The Big Five (Openness, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness OCEAN) has been applied as an organizing structure for personality characteristics in studies of children and parents. With respect to the parenting literature, studies have shown that parental personality characteristics influence parenting behaviour (e.g., Belsky, Crnic, & Woodworth, 1995; Clark, Kochanska, & Ready, 2000; Kochanska, Clark, & Goldman, 1997). In contrast, there is a lack of research examining child personality as predictive of parenting. Therefore, although it is possible to make prediction about child temperament, we do not know how or to what extent child personality affects parenting. Another concept that has received minimal attention from scholars studying the determinants of parenting is child disability status. Of the studies reviewed employing Belsky’s (1984) model, there were only three that explored the effect of child disability (Crowell & Feldman, 1988; Dalla & Gamble, 1997; Luster, 1998). In a sample of adolescent mothers, Luster (1998) found that low birth weight of the infant (a proxy for health) was associated with 38 parenting when the infant was 12 months old. In particular, low birth weight infants tended to receive less supportive home environments, relative to healthier infants. Similarly, Crowell and Feldman (1988) observed variations in mothers’ behaviour during problem-solving tasks with their children according to the health status of the child: those with behavioural problems who were developmentally intact, those who were developmentally delayed, and a matched nonclinical group. Results revealed that mothers in the nonclinical group were most supportive and helpful to their children. In general, they were more calm and confident in their ability to control the situation, engaging in activities with interest and enthusiasm. Conversely, mothers of clinical children were less helpful and supportive to their children. Mothers of delayed children were highly performance conscious. These mothers were also more controlling and directive, discouraging the child from exploring the environment. Generally, they ignored the children’s efforts and achievements and pushed them to perform better. These studies suggest that the health of a child does have a unique effect on parenting, net of other factors, with the exception of Dalla and Gamble (1997). Yet, it remains to be determined whether parenting is differentially influenced by specific types of disabilities. Crowell & Feldman (1988) study does provide a starting point on this issue by reporting that mothers in the delayed group were less supportive and helpful with their children compared to mothers of children in the developmentally intact clinical group. Peterson and Hann (1999) commented that the theorizing about child effects has been quite limited. The current paper seeks to attend to this theoretical void by investigating the temporal nature of child characteristics and its relation to parental disciplinary behaviours. The literature documents the ways in which specific types of parenting behaviour (e.g., spanking) change over time as a function of the child’s age or developmental status. Yet, scholars know 39 little about the changing nature of child characteristics themselves over time and their effect on parenting. The significance of examining this issue is evident when we consider how parenting a child with a disability can change substantially after the child has received treatment that either cures the child of the condition or largely reduces the symptoms or difficult behaviour. Child disability, like other child characteristics, has been conceptually linked to parenting through parental cognitions. While this knowledge is significant, there is a paucity of theoretical attention to other intervening mechanisms of influence such as family well-being and work. For example, a child has a chronic medical condition that requires multiple visits to the doctor and, as a result, the mother’s hours of employment are reduced, the family experiences financial hardship, parents are feeling stressed about finances, parents decrease their use of inductive discipline and increase their use of power-assertive discipline. I theorize that the most influential pathways from the child to the parent are through parental cognitions and well-being, which is then followed by family well-being (e.g., family functioning), and finally contextual effects. The purpose of the present study is to provide evidence for a child effects perspective on parental disciplinary behaviours, a perspective that is often subordinate to other approaches. This study will also address gaps in the research on child characteristics as stated in the preceding paragraphs. I will test the relative strength of the relationship between child characteristics and parental discipline behaviours, controlling for parent, family, and contextual factors, by comparing beta weights. The primary questions this paper seeks to answer are the following: 1.a. Is physical-psychological aggressive discipline a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors? 1.b. Is privilege deprivation-diversion a product of child characteristics following control of parent, familial, and contextual factors? 40 1.c. Is reward determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors? 2. Do changes in developmental child characteristics affect parental disciplinary behaviours? Child Characteristics 2a 2b 3 4 1 6 7 5 8 9 Figure 2 Orienting Model of Child Characteristics as a Key Determinant of Parenting Parental Discipline Enduring Parental characteristics Parental Cognitions & Well-being Family Status Family well-being Contextual Effects 41 Figure 2 depicts an orienting model that emphasizes the role of child characteristics in shaping parental disciplinary behaviour. This section of the chapter describes the concepts and pathways within this model. Beginning with child characteristics, one manner for conceptualizing these is by categorizing them as episodic or static during the child’s developmental process. Episodic characteristics are typified by unpredictable fluctuating periods and degrees of a specific characteristic of the child. Short-term episodic - refers to an episodic characteristic that lasts for less than a year (e.g., colic, disability due to injury) while long-term episodic refers to an episodic characteristic that persists for at least one year (e.g., language delay, behavioural problems, and physical attractiveness). Stable/predictable characteristics are those that either change in a predictable manner (e.g., age, alterations in physical appearance associated with puberty) or those that remain immutable as the child develops (e.g., sex, born prematurely, placement in birth order, twin status, permanent disability, and temperament). Age is defined as the chronological age of the child. Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define males and females, but not to the socially constructed nature of sex (Deaux, 1985). This definition excludes the socially constructed nature of sex in order to distinguish it from the concept of gender. Gender, not measured in this study, refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that are associated with the biological states of male and females, assigned either by an observer or by the individual participant (Deaux, 1985). Childhood disability is operationalized as impairment in body function or structure, not activity limitation or participation restriction. I have excluded activity limitation, which refers to an individual’s difficulty in performing a task or action, because it is challenging to distinguish between whether a task is difficult to complete due to impairment or age-related factors (e.g., cognitive development) when studying children. I have also excluded 42 disability due to interactions with the environment, participation restriction, because I am concerned with characteristics of the child that affect parental discipline behaviours, rather than the environment. I use the term “health impairment” as opposed to “physical impairment” for the reason of conceptualizing disability as including conditions which may not be physically observable, such as respiratory dysfunction, digestive dysfunction, developmental delay, and psychiatric conditions. Hence, when I refer to disability it includes all forms of physical impairment in any bodily function or structure, both observable and invisible, as set out by the World Health Organization. Difficult temperament is typified by negative affect such as fussiness and crying, frequent and intense negative emotional behaviour, irregularity of biological functions, tendency to withdraw from new situations and stimuli, slow adaptability to change, and tendency to display intense expressiveness (Henderson & Wachs, 2007; Zentner & Bates, 2008). In the orienting model, child characteristics influence parental cognitions and well-being and these in turn affect parental discipline. Cognitions are defined as parents’ attitudes, beliefs, values, attributions, and perceptions. Well-being consists of both the parents’ psychological and physical functioning. Enduring parental characteristics are those that affect parental disciplinary behaviours but are independent of child characteristics (e.g., age, sex, race, developmental history, and personality). The operationalization of age and sex is the same as that presented in the preceding paragraph. Race refers to biological differences between individuals based upon racial or phenotypic characteristics (e.g., skin colour). Harawa and Ford (2009) argued that race is “a designation imposed on people, assigns them to one or more of the socially-constructed categories (i.e. races) established hundreds of years ago to divide humans into five major subpopulations” (as cited in Ford & Harawa, 2010, p. 251). Developmental history is defined as 43 the childrearing experiences the parents had while growing up. Personality of the parent may include yet not limited to the five major dimensions of personality: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. . Family status impacts parental disciplinary behaviour and includes factors such as family socioeconomic status, family structure, and number of children in the household). Child characteristics influence family well-being which, in turn, leads to parental discipline. Family well-being captures the level of functioning of the entire family unit (i.e., cohesion and flexibility). It further consists of the quality of marital and sibling relationships and degree of conflict within each of these subsystems. As portrayed in Figure 2, child characteristics lead to contextual factors and these are, then, related to parental discipline. Parental work is one concept embedded within contextual factors and can include constructs such as employment status, work schedule, and income. Another concept within this sphere is social network (e.g., social support). The last contextual concept is quality of the neighbourhood (e.g., neighbourhood safety). Inductive discipline involves the correction of the child’s behaviour through addressing the child’s cognitions and through positive reinforcement (Straus & Fauchier, 2007). It emphasizes cognitions surrounding right and wrong, particularly teaching children about the consequences of their misbehaviour for others (Hoffman, 1983). It consists of behaviours such as: explain/teach and reward (Straus & Fauchier, 2007), but excludes the dimension of discipline referred to as “ignore misbehaviour” because parents do not take action to increase the child’s understanding. As Burleson (1983) has pointed out, parents who use inductive discipline coach children by introducing claims and consequences and then supplying rationales that support them. This is done by limit setting, setting up logical consequences, explaining, and eliciting 44 ideas from the child rather than by focusing on coercive means to regulate behaviours. Power-assertive discipline (e.g., physical punishment, threats, belittling, stating directives with little or no justification), on the other hand, may serve to model aversive behaviour as an efficacious means of resolving interpersonal issues with others (Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992, p. 879). Power-assertive discipline emphasizes punishment like spanking, threats, and removal of privileges, in addition to the presence of anger, shaming, and humiliating (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). It includes behaviours such as: corporal punishment, psychological aggression, and deprivation of privileges (Straus & Fauchier, 2007). Theoretical pathways of influence are illustrated in Figure 2 and outlined below. 1. Child characteristics predicts parental disciplinary behaviours, while controlling for parent, family, and contextual effects (Figure 5, path 1). 2. Child characteristics affect parental cognitions and well-being, net of parent characteristics, family, and contextual effects (Figure 5, path 2a and 2b). 3. Child characteristics affect family well-being, net of family status, parent, and contextual effects (Figure 5, path 3). 4. Child characteristics affect contextual effects, net of parent and family effects (Figure 5, path 4). 5. Parental cognitions and well-being predict parenting behaviour, while controlling for child characteristics, parental characteristics, family, and contextual effects (Figure 5, path 5). 6. Family well-being predicts parenting behaviour, while controlling for child characteristics, family status, parent, and contextual effects (Figure 5, path 6). 45 7. Contextual effects predict parenting behaviour, while controlling for child characteristics, family, parent, and contextual effects (Figure 5, path 7). 8. Enduring parental characteristics predict parenting behaviour, while controlling for child characteristics, parental well-being and social cognitions, family, and contextual effects (Figure 5, path 8). 9. Family status predicts parenting behaviour, while controlling for child characteristics, family well-being, parent, and contextual effects (Figure 5, path 9). Research Questions and Hypotheses This study analyzes the effect of child characteristics on parental disciplinary behaviours in two subsamples. The younger subsample consists of children 3 years and younger while the older subsample includes children 4 to 11 years old as of Cycle 1. Hypotheses were developed for each of the subsamples but the research questions remain the same across the subsamples. To begin, the present study attends to the question of the extent to which physical-psychological aggressive discipline is a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors. Concerning the younger subsample, the following hypotheses are tested Hypothesis 1.a. Children with a health impairment receive more physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to healthy children. Hypothesis 1.b. Children with poor developmental attainment are exposed to greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those with normal attainment. Hypothesis 1.c. Those children identified as possessing a highly difficult temperament (NLSCY) receive increased levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children scoring low on difficult temperament. 46 Hypothesis 1.d.Dull temperament (NLSCY) is negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Hypothesis 1.e. Children exhibiting a high degree of problematic behaviours are more likely to receive higher levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 1.f. Prosocial behaviour is negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Hypothesis 1.g. Boys are exposed to greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to girls. Hypothesis 1.h. Premature children receive more physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to those children not born prematurely. Hypothesis 1.i. Children of higher order birth receive a higher level of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to first-born children and single children. For the older subsample, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2.a. Children with a health impairment receive greater physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to healthy children. Hypothesis 2.b. Gifted children are exposed to less physical-psychological aggressive discipline than non-gifted children. Hypothesis 2.c. Special needs children receive greater physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those who are not deemed as a special needs child. Hypothesis 2.d. Children with poor developmental attainment are at increased risk of physical-psychological aggressive discipline than children of normal or above normal attainment. 47 Hypothesis 2.e. Children showing a high level of problematic behaviours are more vulnerable to physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children scoring low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 2.f. Social competence is inversely associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Hypothesis 2.g. Youth who hold highly positive perceptions of themselves have a decreased probability of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those with low self-perceptions. Hypothesis 2.h. The employment of physical-psychological aggressive discipline is applied at elevated degrees among boys compared to girls. Hypothesis 2.i. Children of higher order birth experience more physical-psychological aggressive discipline than first-born and single children. The second research question examined in this study is the degree to which privilege deprivation-diversion is a product of child characteristics following control of parent, familial, and contextual factors. Hypotheses for the younger subsample are the following: Hypothesis 3.a. Children with a health impairment experience increased degrees of privilege deprivation-diversion than healthy children. Hypothesis 3.b. Children who show poor developmental attainment receive greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to those with children at or above normal attainment. Hypothesis 3.c. Children who score high on the difficult temperament scale are exposed to more privilege deprivation-diversion compared to children who score low. Hypothesis 3.d. Dull temperament is inversely correlated with privilege deprivation-diversion. 48 Hypothesis 3.e. Children displaying a high level of behaviour problems have a greater likelihood of receiving privilege deprivation-diversion than those scoring low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 3.f. Prosocial behaviour is negatively associated with privilege deprivation-diversion. Hypothesis 3.g. Boys experience increased levels of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to girls. Hypothesis 3.h. Children born prematurely are exposed to more privilege deprivation-diversion than those who are not. Hypothesis 3.i. Children of higher order birth receive higher levels of privilege deprivation-diversion compared to first-born children and single children. Hypotheses respecting the older subsample on this dimension of discipline include: Hypothesis 4.a. Children with a health impairment receive increased privilege deprivation-diversion compared to healthy children. Hypothesis 4.b. Privilege deprivation-diversion is lower among gifted children relative to non-gifted peers. Hypothesis 4.c. Special needs children are at greater risk for experiencing privilege deprivation-diversion compared to those who are not deemed as a special needs child. Hypothesis 4.d. Privilege deprivation-diversion is higher among children with poor developmental attainment than children of normal or above normal attainment. Hypothesis 4.e. Children showing a high level of problematic behaviours are more vulnerable to privilege deprivation-diversion relative to children scoring low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 4.f. Social competence is inversely related to privilege deprivation-diversion.. 49 Hypothesis 4.g. Youth who possess highly positive self-perceptions have a decreased probability of privilege deprivation-diversion compared to those with low self-perceptions. Hypothesis 4.h. The use of privilege deprivation-diversion is higher among boys than girls. Hypothesis 4.i. Privilege deprivation-diversion is employed more frequently with later-born children relative to first-born and single children. The third question investigated in this study is the level to which reward is determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors. For the younger subsample, the following hypotheses are tested: Hypothesis 5.a. Children with a health impairment experience less reward than healthy children. Hypothesis 5.b. Children with poor developmental attainment receive less reward than those with normal attainment. Hypothesis 5.c. Reward is lower among children rated high in difficult temperament relative to children rated low in difficult temperament. Hypothesis 5.d. Dull temperament is positively associated with reward. Hypothesis 5.e. Children showing a high degree of problematic behaviours are exposed to decreased levels of reward compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 5.f. Prosocial behaviour is positively correlated with reward. Hypothesis 5.g. Girls acquire higher degrees of reward relative to boys. Hypothesis 5.h. Reward is decreased among premature children compared to those children not born prematurely. 50 Hypothesis 5.i. Reward is lower among children of higher order birth than first-born children and single children. For the older subsample, the hypotheses studied are as follows: Hypothesis 6.a. Children with a health impairment experience less reward than healthy children. Hypothesis 6.b. Reward is increased among gifted children relative to non-gifted children. Hypothesis 6.c. Reward is decreased among special needs children compared to those who are not labeled special needs. Hypothesis 6.d. Children with poor developmental attainment receive less reward than those with normal attainment. Hypothesis 6.e. Children showing a high degree of problematic behaviours are exposed to decreased levels of reward compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 6.f. Social competence is positively correlated with reward. Hypothesis 6.g. Youth who embrace highly positive self-perceptions incur more reward than those with low self-perceptions. Hypothesis 6.h. Girls acquire higher degrees of reward relative to boys. Hypothesis 6.i. Reward is lower among children of higher order birth than first-born children and single children. Lastly, this study addressed the question of the extent to which changes in developmental child characteristics affect parental disciplinary behaviours. Because there is a paucity of knowledge regarding this topic, no specific hypotheses were formulated. The study of child trajectories in relation to parental discipline presented herein is primarily exploratory. However, it was hypothesized that physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-51 diversion is greater for children whose onset of highly problematic behaviour or low competence was delayed (degenerative group) compared to those who remained low in these problems or showing normal competence (typical group) and that parental reward is lower for the degenerative group relative to the typical group. 52 Chapter 5. Methods The aim of this chapter is to provide the details concerning the methodology employed in the current study. The methodology and procedures employed to collect data for the study are presented in this chapter. The chapter also contains information on sampling, instrumentation, validity, and reliability, and explanation of data analyses conducted. The aim of this dissertation was to explore the extent to which parental discipline behaviours are shaped by the characteristics of children after accounting for parent, familial, and contextual covariates. The following research questions guided the study: Research Questions 1.a. Is physical-psychological aggressive discipline a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors? 1.b. Is privilege deprivation-diversion a product of child characteristics following control of parent, familial, and contextual factors? 1.c. Is reward determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors? 2. Do changes in developmental child characteristics affect parental disciplinary behaviours? Study Design The research questions guided the design of this study. I performed a search of secondary datasets that would enable the research questions to be answered and the hypotheses to be tested. A necessary requirement for a dataset to qualify for this study was that it contained at least three cycles of data with parental discipline and child characteristic measures at each cycle. While two 53 cycles would permit estimating the effect of child characteristics “net of” the stability of parental discipline, three cycles better capture maturational changes and developmental transitions (e.g., entry into pre-school and elementary school). Hence, the timeframe was selected because the transition from early to late childhood was of particular interest. Data were procured from 3 collection cycles of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY)l 1994-1995 (Cycle 1), 1996-1997 (Cycle 2), and 1998-1999 (Cycle 3), employing a panel design1. There are two reasons why the NLSCY was selected as a data source for this study. First, to my knowledge other national surveys concerning child development (e.g., National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development),) do not include indicators of parent-reported inductive disciplinary behaviours. Because this study sought to conduct a broad and comprehensive investigation of the relation between child characteristics and parental discipline behaviours, a criterion for survey selection was that it evaluated both power-assertive and non-power assertive dimensions of discipline. Second, the NLSCY is the only national, prospective survey of Canadian children and their families that measures children’s social, cognitive and physical development. Households in the NLSCY were recruited from Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey (LFS which employs a stratified-multistage probability sample design to undertake monthly surveys of roughly 59,000 Canadian households that are representative of Canada’s population. Some segments of the Canadian population were excluded from the NLSCY since they are not targeted by the LFS, which were children living in institutions, on Aboriginal reserves, and in the Canadian territories (Statistics Canada, 1995a); The data collection started in 1994-1995 and households were surveyed biannually until the last collection period in 2008-2009 (Cycle 8). The NLSCY is a clustered probability sample of household with children 11 years and younger at Cycle 1. In each 54 eligible household, one child was randomly chosen. The Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) reported on the target child through computer-assisted, interviewer-administered questionnaires. Data was gathered from the target child’s school upon receipt of parental consent for children in grade 2 or above. Further information about the design, sampling frame, and methods of the NLSCY are available elsewhere (Statistics Canada, 1995a). Sample Data from Cycles 1, 2, and 3 of the NLSCY were chosen because the sample size and the response rates are greater in these cycles relative to subsequent cycles. In Cycle 1 (1994-1995), for example, the number of households surveyed was 13,439 (22,831 children) with a response rate of 86.7% whereas in Cycle 6 (2004-2005) the number of households was 4,684 (4,684 children) with a response rate of 81.3% (Statistics Canada, 2006). In addition, the age range of the children was larger in Cycle 1 relative to Cycle 6 with respondents reporting on children 0-11 and children 0-5 years old, respectively. Children aged 0-11 years whose biological mothers completed the survey at Cycles 1 through 3 were included in this study’s sample. Ninety percent of the PMK’s were the target child’s biological mother (Statistics Canada, 1995b). The reason for limiting the sample to mothers is because mothers are usually responsible for the majority of childrearing tasks, which is reflected in the percentage of responding mothers (91%) compared to fathers (8.2%). The number of biological mothers who responded in all the cycles examined was 11,780. The average age of these mothers was 34 years (SD = 5.73). The sample contains nearly equal proportions of girls (49%) and boys (51%), just over one third of the children (33%) were 3 years and younger. Single parent households were represented in16-17% of the sample over the cycles and the average number of children 18 years and younger in the household was 2. Slightly over one third of mothers (35%) had a high school diploma or less education as of Cycle 55 1. Among mothers who were employed at Cycle 1, roughly one quarter (27%) had an income of less than $10,000 and mothers worked an average of 31 hours per week. Ten percent of employed mothers had a non-standard work schedule. Measures Dependent Variables Parental discipline. The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) did not contain scales of dimensions of discipline behaviours of parents and, therefore, individual items from within the survey were used to develop the discipline measures. The selection of items was informed by the work of Straus and Fauchier (2007) in which they provide a Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (DDI). The DDI is an appropriate tool for guiding item selection because the DDI was founded on a review of previous instruments including the Parenting Scale (Arnold, O'Leary, Wolff, & Acker, 1993), Socolar's Discipline Survey (Socolar, Savage, Devellis, & Evans, 2004) , Dodge’s Discipline Interview (Lansford, Chang, Dodge, Malone, Oburu, et al., 2005), and the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Shelton, Frick, & Wootton, 1996). Furthermore, the DDI considers discipline as multidimensional in character insofar as discipline includes both power-assertive and inductive forms of discipline, unlike traditional instruments. According to Fauchier and Straus, “alternative” discipline methods “have received less research attention. An instrument such as the DDI can help close that gap in research. It can contribute descriptive data on the extent to which parents use different modes of correction” (p. 3). The DDI is a comprehensive, self-report questionnaire and consists of 26 questions on the most typically employed discipline behaviours of parents and these are roughly equally distributed between punitive and non-punitive methods (Straus & Fauchier, 2007). This instrument has 56 shown to have adequate construct validity and good internal consistency reliability in American (Fauchier & Straus, 2010; Straus & Fauchier, 2007), Spanish (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2010 as cited in Guadix, Straus, Carrobles, Rivas, & Almendros, 2010) and Belgian (Van Leeuwen, Fauchier, & Straus, 2012) samples of university students. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of eight parental behaviour items from the NLSCY was undertaken and revealed a three component structure that explained 57%, 56% and 56% of the variance at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This data reduction technique is suitable for the present study because, although there is pre-existing theory concerning the dimensions of discipline (Straus & Fauchier, 2007), the NLSCY does not contain all the indicators necessary to test for the theorized nine dimensional structure set out in the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (DDI). Hence, the only à priori assumption here was that any item could be related to any component and component loadings were used to inform the structure of the data (Jolliffe, 2002). Component loadings for the items are presented in Table 1. 57 Table 1 Principal Component Loadings of Parental Discipline Scales Item Physical-psychological Aggressive Discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward Cycle 1 Calmly discuss the problem 0.73 -0.14 0.35 Scolds, yells at child 0.63 0.38 -.10 Describe alternative ways of behaving 0.60 -0.36 0.42 Physically punish child 0.40 0.41 0.24 Tell child to stop 0.26 0.63 -0.03 Take away privileges or put child in room 0.06 0.58 -0.39 Do something special that child enjoys -0.36 0.28 0.69 Praise child -0.49 0.36 0.52 Cycle 2 Calmly discuss the problem 0.73 -0.15 0.27 Scolds, yells at child 0.61 0.42 0.12 Describe alternative ways of behaving 0.57 -0.49 0.30 Physically punish child 0.42 0.25 0.40 Tell child to stop 0.12 0.66 0.03 Take away privileges or put child in room 0.09 0.67 -0.17 Do something special that child enjoys -0.43 0.05 0.71 Praise child -0.55 0.18 0.53 Cycle 3 Calmly discuss the problem 0.71 -0.17 0.33 Scolds, yells at child 0.64 0.40 0.08 Describe alternative ways of behaving 0.51 -0.47 0.43 Physically punish child 0.43 0.28 0.18 Tell child to stop 0.24 0.66 -0.08 Take away privileges or put child in room 0.18 0.63 -0.21 Do something special that child enjoys -0.41 0.25 0.69 Praise child -0.50 0.37 0.49 Note. Principal component loadings > .40 are in boldface. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 58 As shown in Table 1, the first component represented physical-psychological aggressive discipline and consisted of four items which were: “When *name* breaks the rules or does things that *he/she* is not supposed to, how often do you: Calmly discuss the problem?”, “Describe alternative ways of behaving that are acceptable?”, “Raise your voice, scold or yell at *him/her*?”, and “Use physical punishment?” These questions were asked for children aged 2-11 years in Cycles 1 and 3 and children 2-13 years in Cycle 2. Response categories to the questions were:1 = Always; 2 = Often; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Rarely; 5 = Never. The last two items listed above were coded in reverse. The physical-psychological aggressive discipline scale ranged from 0 to 16 with a high score indicating greater frequency of aggressive discipline and lesser use of Explain/Teach discipline behaviours. There were two items which loaded on the second component and these items were “When *name* breaks the rules or does things that *he/she* is not supposed to, how often do you: Tell *him/her* to stop?” and “Take away privileges or put in room?” These questions were asked for children of the same age as those of the physical-psychological aggressive discipline scale and response categories were identical across the items. The items in the second component were reversely coded. The privilege deprivation-diversion scale was then constructed and had values ranging from 0 to 8 with a high value representing more use of discipline behaviours described by Straus and Fauchier (2007) as deprivation of privileges and diversion. The last discipline scale that was derived from the PCA signifies what Straus and Fauchier (2007) refer to as the reward dimension of discipline. The Reward Discipline scale was developed with two items which included: “How often do you: Do something special with *him/her* that *he/she* enjoys?” and “Praise *name*, by saying something like “Good for you!” or “What a nice thing you did!” or “That’s good going!”? Mothers’ provided responses to these items regarding children 0 months to 11 years in all the 59 cycles on a 5-point likert scale which was: 1 = Never; 2 = About once a week or less; 3 = A few times a week; 4 = One or two times per day; 5 = Many times each day. The reward scale had scores ranging from 0 to 8 with higher scores indicating more rewarding behaviours performed by mothers; In order to maintain consistency across the cycles, scale construction for subsequent cycles followed the same procedure as for Cycle 1. The distribution pattern of the discipline scales across Cycles 1 through 3 was analyzed by dividing the standard error by the skewness and kurtosis statistics, which revealed the scales to be not significantly skewed or kurtotic. The discipline scales across the cycles had an internal consistency alpha varying from .28 to .55. Although alpha coefficients of these sizes are generally considered inadequate, the scales developed here contain few items and alpha is somewhat a product of the number of items within a scale (Fauchier & Straus). The validity of a scale can be established by correlating two separate scales that are thought to measure the same construct (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Fauchier and Straus, for example, found agreement between the Aggressive Discipline factor score of the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (DDI) and the Corporal Punishment scale of the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales. A comparison such as this was not possible for the present investigation because of the reliance on secondary data. The validation of the discipline instruments used herein was tested through an analysis of interclass correlations between the scales across the cycles (see Table 2). Discriminant validity is demonstrated in Table 2 by the weak correlations among the discipline scales which are expected considering that there is little or no conceptual overlap of these constructs (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Fauchier & Straus). An example is the correlation of the physical-psychological aggressive discipline scale with the 60 privilege deprivation-diversion scale and reward discipline scales at Cycle 1 which are 0.10 and -0.17, respectively. 61 Table 2 Discriminant Validity Correlation of Discipline Scales Cycles 1, 2, and 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Cycle 1 (1) - .10** .17** .46** .10** -.15** .42** .09** -.16** Privilege deprivation-diversion Cycle 1 (2) - .00 .07** .38** -.02 .05** .35** -.00 Reward Discipline Cycle 1 (3) - -.11** .04** .48** -.11** .05** .34** Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Cycle 2 (4) - .10** -.22** .47** .07** -.15** Privilege deprivation-diversion Cycle 2 (5) - -.02 .07** .39** -.00 Reward Discipline Cycle 2 (6) - - -.14** .02 .45** Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Cycle 3 (7) - .12** -.21** Privilege deprivation-diversion Cycle 3 (8) - .04** Reward Discipline Cycle 3 (9) - Note. Each cell displays Pearson’s r for biological mothers N = 11,780. * p < .05; ** p < .01, *** p < .001 62 Another method for examining the validity of the discipline measures is by comparing ratings on the same measures by different respondents. Although the NLSCY does not include exact duplicates of discipline items across respondents, there are a few items asked of parents and youths whose content appears to be convergent. The youth-reported item phrased as “My parents hit me or threaten to do so” would be expected to be associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation diversion. One would also predict that the items “My parents speak of good things I do” and “My parents praise me” should be related to the parental reward measure. As seen in Table 3, the general direction of the relationships fit with these expectations but the strength is weak. These results are not that surprising, however, given that the content of the items are not identical. Table 3 Correlations Between Parental Discipline Scales and Youth Reported Discipline Items at Cycle 1 Item Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward My parents hit .18** .08** -.02 My parents speak of good things -.07** .11** .09** My parents praise -.09** -.00 .10** * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 63 Independent Variables Developmental characteristics. Health impairment: A variety of measures were employed to evaluate health impairment in children. The general health of children of all ages was measured with a single item which asked mothers to rate their child’s general health on a 5-point scale which included responses of excellent, very good, good, fair or poor. Consistent with common practice among health researchers (Newbold, 2009), this health indicator was transformed into a binomial variable that represented those individuals who were “healthy” (excellent, very good, or good health) and “unhealthy” (fair or poor health). The NLSCY includes a series of items that request the mother to report on whether or not their child has been diagnosed by a health professional as possessing a long-term health condition. Each long-term condition item was constructed with the coding of ‘1’ indicating the presence of the condition and ‘0’ for cases that did not have that specific condition or any long-term condition. The specific long-term conditions examined in this study were: (a) allergies, (b) bronchitis, (c) heart condition or disease, (d) epilepsy, (e) cerebral palsy, (f) kidney condition or disease, (g) mental retardation, (h) learning disability, (i) emotional, psychological or nervous difficulties. The eye conditions assessed were hyperopia (far-sightedness) and myopia (near-sightedness) among children greater than or equal to 4 years of age4; Hyperopia refers to the ability to clearly see far objects but not those that are near (CNIB, 2014a). Mothers were asked to respond as to whether or not their child is usually able to see well enough to read ordinary newsprint (children >= 6 years) or see clearly and without distortion the words in a story book (children 4 to 5 years) without glasses or contact lenses, with them, or no to both. An index variable was created with those children able to read clearly without glasses and contact lenses coded as the reference category ‘0’, children requiring glasses or contact 64 lenses as ‘1’, and children unable to read even with glasses or contact lenses as ‘2’. Myopia was also measured using a 3-level index variable. Myopia refers to the ability to clearly see objects up close but not those far away (CNIB, 2014b). Mothers indicated whether or not their child was able to see well enough to recognize a friend on the other side of the street without glasses or contact lenses, with them, or no to both. The same coding system was applied for this index as for the previous one. Indexes of visual impairment were constructed for Cycles 2 and 3 in the same manner as those for Cycle 1. The only notable change across the cycles is that the item concerning reading at Cycle 3 was revised to have identical wording for children 4 years and above, which was “Is *he/she* usually able to see clearly, and without distortion, the words in a story book”; Child injury was measured using as item which asked mothers whether or not their child had been injured in the previous 12 months. Nose and throat infection frequency was measured with a ordinal variable that had the following response categories: Never (0), Rarely (1), From time to time (2), Often (3), and Almost all the time (4); The incidence of ear infections was also assessed with the following response categories: Never (0), Once (1), 2 times (2), 3 times (3), and 4 or more times (4). Both infection items were asked of children less than or equal to 3 years old. Educational status and developmental attainment: The present study employed two binary indicators of educational status of school-aged children. The first indicator refers to whether or not the child has been identified by his/her teacher as gifted. Teachers were asked to respond to the question “Does this student receive enhanced or extra instruction at school because of his/her exceptionally advanced intellectual or artistic abilities?” The second variable, special needs, was assessed by teachers responding yes or no to the item “Does this student receive special education because a physical, emotional, behavioural, or some other problem limits the kind or 65 amount of school work he/she can do?” Indicators were coded so that a value of ‘1’ represented the child being identified as gifted or special needs. Poor developmental attainment (PDA) refers to a child developing atypically gradually compared to age-matched peers. More specifically, PDA was defined as scores greater than or equal to 1 SD below the age-standardized mean of 100 (approximately equivalent to a level below the 15th percentile) on the Motor and Social Development (MSD) Scale, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R), or Canadian Achievement Tests in mathematics and reading/comprehension, depending on the age of the child (Human Resources Development Canada and Statistics Canada,1997; To, Guttmann, Dick, Rosenfield, Parkin, Tassoudji, et al. 2004). The descriptive statistics of the Motor and Social Development (MSD) scale Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised, Math Scale Scores, and Reading Scale Scores which were used to inform the creation of the poor developmental attainment indicators are presented in Table 4. Details about the indicators used to define PDA are provided after this table. 66 Table 4 Descriptives and Correlations of Motor and Social Development (MSD), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R), Math Scale Score, and Reading Scale Score MSD PPVT-R Math Reading M SD Cycle 1 MSD - - - - 99.93 14.62 PPVT-R - - - 100.73 14.64 Math - - 418.78 91.32 Cycle 2 MSD - - - - 100.55 15.57 PPVT-R - - - 99.66 15.20 Math - .75*** 450.92 102.22 Reading - 252.43 47.42 Cycle 3 PPVT-R - - - 98.48 15.18 Math - .73*** 464.25 124.86 Reading - -253.79 45.02 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p <.001 67 The motor and social development (MSD) scale was created to assess dimensions of motor, social and cognitive development of children from birth to 3 years old in large, population-based surveys conducted by lay interviewers (Baker, Kech, Mott, & Quinlan, 1993; Center for Human Resource Research 1998; Pevalin, Wade, & Brannigan, 2003; Statistics Canada, 1995a)2. This instrument also captures physiological and socio-economic antecedents of development (Mott, Baker, Ball, Keck, & Lenhart, 1998) and is predictive of behaviour at 9 and 10 years of age (To, Cadarette, & Liu, 2001). The scale was constructed by Dr. Gail Poe of the U.S. National Centre for Health Statistics for employment in the Child Health Supplement of the 1981 National Health Interview Survey in the US (Morrongiello, 1998; Statistics Canada, 1995a). The items of the MSD scale were adopted from commonly used indicators of child development (Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Gessell, Denver Developmental Screening Test) that showed high reliability and validity (Baker, Kech, Mott, & Quinlan, 1993; Poe, 1986). The MSD has been applied in the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the British National Child Development Survey, and the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (Pevalin, Wade, & Brannigan, 2003; Statistics Canada, 1995a). Empirical evidence suggests that parental reports of child development have fairly good psychometric quality (Heiser, Curcin, Luhr, Grimmer, Metze, & Obladen, 2000; Knobloch, Stevens, Malone, Ellison, & Risenburg, 1979; Sonnander, 1987). The biological mother was asked to answer 15 age-appropriate questions about whether or not the child could perform a specific task (Statistics Canada, 1995b). The Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) measures receptive (hearing) vocabulary and serves as a swift tool to estimate verbal ability or scholastic aptitude (Dunn & Dunn, 1981; Statistics Canada, 1995a). The English version of this instrument was developed by Lloyd and 68 Leota Dunn at the University of Hawaii and has been commonly employed in large-scale surveys such as the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Ohio State University and the Better Beginnings, Better Futures Project in Ontario (Statistics Canada, 1995). For the NLSCY, the PPVT-R was administered to children aged 4 to 5 years in which they viewed an easel with pictures on it and were requested to nonverbally identify the picture that best corresponded to the word spoken by the interviewer. A French adaptation was created and normed independently for children who performed the test in French (Dunn, Theriault-Whalen, & Dunn, 1993 as cited in Geoffroy, Côté, Borge, Larouche, Séguin, & Rutter, 2007). The PPVT-R has been found to demonstrate reasonable internal consistency and construct validity with several intelligence tests and other vocabulary tests (Baker, Kech, Mott, & Quinlan, 1993; Dunn & Dunn, 1981; Dunn & Dunn, 1997; Goldstein, Collier, Dill, & Tilis, 1970). All children who finished the PPVT-R had a total raw score which was derived from correct responses (Statistics Canada, 1995b). In Cycles 1 to 3, a cognitive test was administered by teachers to children in Grade 2 and higher after parental consent was obtained. The Mathematics Skills Test (computation exercise), was created to assess basic skills such as a student’s comprehension of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division operations of whole numbers (Statistics Canada, 1995b). A selection of questions from the standardized Canadian Test Centre’s Canadian Achievement Test, second edition (CAT/2), were used to develop the test. The number of questions in the test was 10 for grades 2 and 3 and 15 for grade 4 and above. Test complexity depended on the child’s grade. Hence, there were several different versions of the test which varied by the school grade of students3. Evidence for the validity for the CAT/2 was noted by Haeck, Lefebvre, and Merrigan (2011). These authors stated that the CAT/2 is analogous to Murnane, Willett, and Levy’s (1995) multiple choice mathematics test. Furthermore, CAT/2 scores have been shown to predict adult 69 outcomes such as high school dropout, highest level of education completed and total personal income twelve years later (Haeck, Lefebvre, & Merrigan, 2011). Reading comprehension was added to the Mathematics Skills Test for students in grades 2 and above from Cycle 1 (Statistics Canada, 1997). The aim of the Reading Comprehension Test was to evaluate student’s ability to recall information, analyze passages, identify the primary theme, interpret different kinds of writing, and critical thinking. As was the case for the Mathematics Skill Test, the Reading Comprehension Test was based on items from the Canadian Test Centre’s Canadian Achievement Test, second edition (CAT/2). The reading passages in French, however, were selected by educators at Sherbrooke University. For each grade level, the test included four reading passages, half in English and the other half in French, with a total of 20 questions. In addition, two of the same passages (i.e., 10 items) were on the test per two consecutive grades. Temperament: The measurement of temperament in the NLSCY among children 3 to 5 months of age was undertaken through the use of items taken from the Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (ICQ) (Statistics Canada, 1998). This instrument was created by Bates at the University of Indiana and was designed to assess four dimensions of temperament which were: fussy-difficult, unadaptable, unpredictable and dull (Statistics Canada, 1998; Bates, Bennett Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979). Initial evidence for the psychometric properties of the ICQ was obtained in an investigation involving 4 to 6 month-old infants (Bates et al., 1979). This study revealed a sufficient four factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability and a weak but statistically significant interrater reliability between mother and research-observer ratings of temperament. Furthermore, construct validation was demonstrated by correlational results of the fussy-difficult subscale of the ICQ as reported by mothers and other conceptually-associated 70 measures such as the Carey Survey of Temperamental Characteristics. Other scholarly works provide corroborating evidence for the reliability and validity of the ICQ instrument (Bates, 1987; Bates & Bayles, 1984; Bates, Olson, & Bayles, 1982; Kohnstamm, 1984). The ICQ has been altered over subsequent years in order to assess the temperament of children up to the age of 24 months (Lee & Bates, 1985; Olson, S. L., Bates, J. E., & Bayles, 1982) and those up to the age of 4 years (Finegan, Niccols, Zacher, & Hood, 1989). The NLSCY items pertaining to the temperament of children 1 to 3 years of age measure the extent to which a child’s behaviour is seen by the parent to be difficult, irregular, unadaptable, affectively negative and persistent or unstoppable (Statistics Canada, 1998). A review of previous investigations that measured temperament using the NLSCY data showed that the most common practice has been restricting the assessment of temperament to the fussy-difficult subscale (Geoffroy, Côté, Borge, Larouche, Séguin, & Rutter, 2007; Grant, Bagnell, Chambers, & Stewart, 2009; Hejazi, 2007; Kohen, Hertzman, & Wiens, 1998; Moraes, 2009; Reid, Hong & Wade, 2009; Romano, Tremblay, Farhat, & Côté, 2006; To, Cadarette, & Liu, 2001). These studies appear to suggest that the fussy-difficult dimension of temperament has a robust factor loading while the loadings for other dimensions of temperament are inconclusive. Therefore, despite à priori evidence of ICQs factor structure (e.g., Bates, Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979), Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of nine temperament items from the NLSCY was undertaken and revealed a two component structure which explained 43% of the variance at Cycle 1 for children ranging in age from 3 months to 3 years. While holding consistency in scale construction was paramount, only five items at Cycle 2 were entered into the PCA because three items from the previous cycle were excluded. The PCA for the second cycle demonstrated a single component structure that explained 48% of the variance. Temperament 71 items entered into the PCAs were restricted to those items whose phrasing was the same for all ages. The reason for this decision is that the interpretation of the question remains consistent and, hence, the potential for measurement error associated with the wording of the items is avoided. In addition, a comparison of the PCA results between these selected items and those that included items according to age-group revealed that the former PCA had a factor structure that explained a greater amount of variance than the subsequent PCA. Component loadings for the items are displayed in Table 5 As seen in Table 5, the first component at Cycle 1 represented the Difficult dimension of temperament and included seven items such as: “How easy or difficult is it for you to calm or soothe *name* when *he/she* is upset?” and “How easily does *he/she* get upset?” Each item is scored on a 7-point scale from 1 (easy) to 7 (difficult). The Difficult temperament scale varied from 0 to 42 with a high score representing a greater level of child difficultness (Cronbach’s α = 0.69). There were two items that loaded on the second component which represented dull temperament (i.e., social unresponsiveness and activity level; Bates, Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979). The two items were “How excited does *he/she* become when people play with or talk to *him/her*?” and “How active is *name* in general?” Responses to the first question ranged from 1 (very excited) to 7 (not at all) and those for the second question varied from 1 (very calm and quiet) to 7 (very active and vigorous). Scores on the Dull temperament scale were distributed between the values of 0 and 12 and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.30. Evidence for discriminant validity is provided by the low interclass correlations between the Dull temperament scale and the Difficult temperament scale at Cycle 1 (r = -0.11) and Difficult temperament scale at Cycle 2 (r = -0.08).As stated above, a single component was derived from the PCA of temperament items at Cycle 2 and reflects the Difficult dimension of temperament 72 (see Table 5). The Difficult temperament scale at this cycle ranged from 0 to 30 with a higher score indicating greater child difficultness (Cronbach’s α = 0.72). There was a modest correlation for the Difficult scales at Cycle 1 and 2 (r = 0.34) but this does give some support to these scales reliability after considering the discrepancy in the amount of items in each scale and age-related effects. Univariate analysis of the difficult temperament scales at these cycles showed irregular distributions. At Cycle 1, the scale had a skew statistic of 0.29 (SE=0.00) and a mean of 12.10 (SD=6.31). At Cycle 2, the scale had a skew statistic of 0.74 (SE=0.00) and kurtosis statistic of 0.80 (SE=0.01) with a mean of 6.28 (SD=4.11). As a result, the difficult temperament scales were converted into binary variables using a median split in which the value of ‘1’ indicated a highly difficult temperament. The descriptives for these binary variables are given in Chapter 6. 73 Table 5 Principal Component Loadings of Child Temperament Scales Item Difficult Temperament Dull Temperament Cycle 1 Overall difficulty 0.74 -0.08 Changeable mood 0.70 0.01 Difficult to calm or soothe 0.67 0.01 Easily gets upset 0.64 0.06 Mood generally in 0.54 0.37 Plays well by self 0.42 -0.12 Responds to changes in routine 0.41 -0.02 Excited to play with others 0.13 0.76 General activity -0.33 0.70 Cycle 2 Overall difficulty 0.75 - Changeable mood 0.74 - Difficult to calm or soothe 0.70 - Easily gets upset 0.72 - Mood generally in 0.52 - Note. Principal component loadings > .40 are in boldface. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 74 Child behaviour problems and prosocial behaviour: The Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) is a widely used instrument for measuring child behaviour and has been shown to have satisfactory psychometric properties (Achenbach, 1993; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983; Bilenberg, 1999). A modified version of the CBCL was produced in the Ontario Child Health Study (Boyle, Offord, Hofmann, Catlin, Byles, Cadman, et al. 1987; Boyle, Offord, Racine, Szatmari, & Sanford, 1993) and the Montreal Longitudinal Study (Tremblay, Loeber, Gagnon, Charlebois, Larivee, & LeBlanc, 1991; Tremblay, Pihl, Vitaro, & Dobkin, 1994). The child behaviour scales in the NLSCY were primarily composed of items drawn from the above cited Canadian population-based surveys. Each behaviour item was scored by the child’s mother using a three-point Likert scale (never/not true; sometimes/somewhat true; often/very true). Statistics Canada methodologists’ conducted factor analysis on the behaviour items at Cycle 1 which led to five subscales for 2-3-year olds and six subscales for 4-11-year olds. The NLSCY User’s Guide provides more specific details on scale construction, item inclusion and procedures concerning missing data (Statistics Canada, 1995b). The items within the behaviour scales for children 4-11-years old were also answered by the selected child’s teacher and self-reported by youth 10-11-years old. While multi-informant data permits the evaluation of the construct validity of these measures, the present study will not assess the degree of correspondence between parent, teacher, and youth reports of child behaviour. This omission is warranted considering that interrater agreement for less observable child outcomes (e.g., emotional disorder) tends to be weak and this lack of correspondence is likely attributable to variations in context and informant characteristics (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Curtis, Dooley, & Phipps, 2002; De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005). Furthermore, this method of validation necessitates ratings made by both parent and 75 teacher and because a large volume of teacher reports were missing in the NLSCY this requirement was not fulfilled (Charach, Lin, & To, 2010). A description of each specific behaviour scale and its psychometric properties are outlined below. Hyperactivity-inattention: Seven items were used in the interview to derive hyperactivity-inattention scores for children 2-3 years old. These items were: (a) can’t sit still, is restless/hyperactive; (b) has trouble sticking to any activity; (c) fidgets; (d) can’t concentrate for long time; (d) is impulsive, acts without thinking; (e) can’t settle to anything for long; and (f) is inattentive (Cronbach α: 0.84 in Cycles 1 and 2); One additional item applied to 4-11 year olds which was “How often would you say that (name) has difficulty awaiting turn in games or groups?” (Cronbach α ranged from 0.84 to 0.86 across the three cycles). Higher scores represented more hyperactivity-inattention Emotional Disorder-anxiety: Six items were employed during the interview to create emotional disorder-anxiety scores for children 2-3 years old. These items were: (a) seems to be unhappy, sad or depressed; (b) is not as happy as other children; (c) is too fearful or anxious; (d) is worried; (e) is nervous, highstrung or tense; and (f) has trouble enjoying him/herself (Cronbach α: 0.73 Cycle 1 and 0.72 Cycle 2). For 4-11 year olds, there were two additional items: (a) cries a lot; and (b) miserable, unhappy, tearful, distressed (Cronbach α ranged from 0.78 to 0.79 across the three cycles). Higher values indicated greater emotional disorder-anxiety. Physical Aggression: During the interview, mothers rated each of the target children aged 2-3 years on physical aggression-opposition The physical aggression-opposition score consisted of the following items: (a) gets into many fights; (b) difficulty awaiting turn in games or groups; (c) reacts with anger and fighting; (d) is defiant; (e) punishment does not change behaviour; (f) has temper tantrums or hot temper; (g) has angry moods; and (h) kicks, bites, hits other children 76 (Cronbach α: 0.76 Cycle 1 and 0.77 Cycle 2). Six items were used in the interviews to derive a conduct disorder-physical aggression scale for children aged 4-11 years. The following items were included: (a) gets into many fights; (b) reacts with anger and fighting; (c) physically attacks people; (d) threatens people; (e) is cruel, bullies, or is mean to others; and (f) kicks, bites, hits other children (Cronbach α ranged from 0.76 to 0.78 across the three cycles). Increased scores symbolized more physical aggression-opposition and conduct disorder-physical aggression. . Separation Anxiety: Maternal reports were obtained on separation anxiety only for children 2-3 years old. Five items were included in the separation anxiety score which were: (a) cries a lot; (b) clings to adults or is too dependent; (c) doesn’t want to sleep alone; (d) constantly seeks help; and (e) too upset when separated from parents (Cronbach α: 0.53 Cycle 1 and 0.57 Cycle 2). Elevated values represented more separation anxiety. Indirect Aggression: Children aged 4-11 years old were evaluated on their exhibition of indirect aggression. The indirect aggression score consisted of the following items “How often would you say that (name) gets others to dislike someone? Becomes friends with another as revenge? Says bad things behind others backs? Tells others to avoid another child? Tells secrets to a third person?” (Cronbach α ranged from 0.78 to 0.80 across the three cycles). Higher scores indicated increased indirect aggression. Property Offences: Children aged 4-11 years were rated on their degree of committing property offences. The property offences score included the following items: “How often would you say that (name) destroys his/her own things? Steals at home? Destroys things belonging to others? Tells lies or cheats/ Vandalizes? Steals outside the home?” (Cronbach α ranged from 0.61 to 0.63 across the three cycles). Higher scores indicated increased rates of property offences. 77 Prosocial Behaviour: Five items were used during the interview to derive prosocial behaviour scores for children 2-3 years old. These items were: (a) will help someone who has been hurt; (b) offers to help other children with task; (c) comforts a child who is crying or upset; (d) helps other children who are sick; and (e) praises the work of less able children (Cronbach α: 0.82 in Cycle 1 and 0.80 in Cycle 2); For 4-11 year olds, there was five additional items: (a) shows sympathy; (b) volunteers to clear up a mess; (c) tries to stop a quarrel or dispute; (d) helps pick up objects for another child; and (e) will invite bystanders to join a game (Cronbach α ranged from 0.81 to 0.82 across the three cycles). Higher values represented greater prosocial behaviour. Social skills: Scales pertaining to the selected child as reported by grade school teachers were created by the Centre for Education Statistics (CES) of Statistics Canada in consultation with the NLSC Project Team and Drs. D. Willms and F. Echols of the University of British Columbia (Statistics Canada, 2001a). The list of skills and work habits within the Social Skills Index Score were drawn from Freeman and Hatch’s (1989) research into typically stated comments on report cards. Of the teacher-reported scores, it was only the Social Skills Index Score that was examined in this study. Nine items made up this score which were “How often does the student work well with other students? Plays well with other students? Follows rules? Follows instructions? Respects the property of others? Demonstrates self-control? Demonstrates respect for adults? Shows respect for children? Accepts responsibility?” (Cronbach α: 0.93 in Cycle 1 and 0.94 in Cycle 2). One additional item was added to this scale at Cycle 3 which was “How often does the student demonstrate self-confidence?” (Cronbach α: 0.94). Increased scores indicated better social skills. 78 The examination of the descriptive statistics of the behavioural scales indicated that all had skewed distributions throughout the cycles with the exception of prosocial behaviour. As a result, all these scales were transformed through the median-split method into dichotomous variables at each cycle in which ‘1’ represented a high level of the behaviour. The percentages for these dichotomous variables are presented in Chapter 6. A description of the descriptive statistics for the behaviour scales are outlined here. For the hyperactivity-inattention scale of children 2-3 years, the value of the skew statistic was 0.48 (SE=0.06) and 0.55 (SE=0.06) and had a mean of 4.33 (SD=2.89) and 4.25 (SD=3.01) at Cycles 1 and 2, respectively. The hyperactivity-inattention scale for children 4-11 years at Cycles 1, 2, and 3 had a mean of 4.60 (SD=3.63), 4.57 (SD=3.63), and 4.57 (SD=3.63) and a skew statistic of 0.78 (SE=0.00), 0.84 (SE=0.00), and 0.78 (SE=0.00), respectively. The emotional disorder-anxiety scale for children 2-3 years had a mean of 1.19 (SD=1.43) and a skew statistic of 1.39 (SE=0.06) and kurtosis of 1.74 (SE=0.11) at Cycle 1 and a mean of 1.15 (SD=1.49) and a skew value of 1.59 (SE=0.06) and kurtosis of 2.77 (SE=0.12) at Cycle 2. The emotional disorder-anxiety scale for children 4-11 years at Cycle 1 had a skew statistic of 1.22 (SE=0.00) and kurtosis statistic of 1.38 (SE=0.00) with a mean of 2.66 (SD=2.64). At Cycle 2, the statistics of skewness and kurtosis were 1.29 (SE=0.00) and 1.88 (SE=0.00), respectively, with a mean of 2.54 (SD=2.55). At Cycle 3, the statistics of skewness and kurtosis were 1.23 (SE=0.00) and 1.47 (SE=0.00), respectively, with a mean of 2.53 (SD=2.55). For the physical aggression-opposition scale of children 2-3 years, the value of the skew statistic was 0.51 (SE=0.06) and 0.61 (SE=0.06) and had a mean of 5.21 (SD=3.08) and 5.07 (SD=3.07) at Cycles 1 and 2, respectively. The conduct disorder-physical aggression scale for children 4-11 years at Cycles 1, 2, and 3 had a mean of 1.45 (SD=1.92), 1.38 (SD=1.83) , and 1.46 (SD=1.86) and a skew and kurtosis statistic of 1.74 (SE=0.00) and 3.24 79 (SE=0.00), 1.79 (SE=0.00) and 3.71 (SE=0.00), and 1.69 (SE=0.00) and 3.05 (SE=0.00), respectively. The separation anxiety scale for children 2-3 years had a mean of 2.79 (SD=1.96) and a skew statistic of 0.46 (SE=0.06) at Cycle 1 and a mean of 2.81 (SD=2.04) and a skew value of 0.66 (SE=0.06at Cycle 2. The indirect aggression scale for children 4-11 years at Cycle 1 had a skew statistic of 1.61 (SE=0.00) and kurtosis statistic of 2.54 (SE=0.00) with a mean of 1.20 (SD=1.67). At Cycle 2, the statistics of skewness and kurtosis were 1.65 (SE=0.00) and 2.44 (SE=0.00), respectively, with a mean of 1.13 (SD=1.65). At Cycle 3, the statistics of skewness and kurtosis were 1.87 (SE=0.00) and 3.46 (SE=0.00), respectively, with a mean of 1.02 (SD=1.61). The property offences scale for children 4-11 years at Cycles 1, 2, and 3 had a mean of 0.84 (SD=1.23), 0.83 (SD=1.25) , and 0.87 (SD=1.25) and a skew and kurtosis statistic of 2.18 (SE=0.00) and 7.17 (SE=0.00), 2.37 (SE=0.00) and 8.35 (SE=0.00), and 2.04 (SE=0.00) and 5.57 (SE=0.00), respectively.. The social skills scale for school-age children at Cycle 1 had a skew statistic of -0.89 (SE=0.04) and kurtosis statistic of 1.48 (SE=0.08) with a mean of 29.16 (SD=5.22). At Cycle 2, the statistics of skewness and kurtosis were -0.71 (SE=0.04) and 0.50 (SE=0.07), respectively, with a mean of 28.10 (SD=5.67). At Cycle 3, the statistic of skewness was (-0.66 (SE=0.05) with a mean of 30.03 (SD=6.62). Self-esteem and Perceptions of Physical Appearance: Items from the Marsh Self-Description Questionnaire (Marsh, 1988; Marsh & O’Neill, 1984) informed the development of the General Self-Esteem and Perceptions of Physical Appearance scores for youth aged 10 to 11 years old. Youth provided responses to items on these scores on a 5-point scale which had the following categories: false, mostly false, sometimes false/sometimes true, mostly true, and true (scored 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). The Self-Esteem score consisted of four items “In general, I like the way I am”, “Overall I have a lot to be proud of”, “A lot of things about me are good” 80 and “When I do something, I do it well.”5 The score varied from 0 to 16 with higher scores considered to show greater self-esteem. The internal consistency of the measure was adequate at Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 (α = 0.74 and α = 0.76, respectively). Evidence for concurrent validity of the Self-Esteem score was found by Fagg, Curtis, Cummins, Stansfeld, and Quesnel-Vallée (2013) insofar as the NLSCY items corresponded well with those on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem questionnaire. Four items were applied to measure perceptions of physical appearance at Cycles 1 and 2 which included: “I am good looking”, “I have a pleasant looking face”, “Other kids think I am good looking”, and “.I have a good looking body.”4 The score for Perceptions of Physical Appearance ranged from 0 to 16 with a high score symbolizing positive self-image with regard to physical appearance. Internal consistency of this measure was good 0.88 at Cycle 1 and 0.87 at Cycle 2. In the case of Cycle 3, a single-item was merely available to assess perceptions of physical appearance with youths providing a response to the statement “I like the way I look”. Univariate analysis revealed irregular distributions for the general self-esteem scale in al cycles and perceptions of physical appearance scale in Cycles 1 and 2. In response to these results, the scales were transformed through the median-split method into binary variables in which ‘1’ symbolized high positive self-perceptions. The percentages for these binary variables are presented in Chapter 6. Descriptive statistics concerning the general self-esteem and perceptions of physical appearance scales are described here. The general self-esteem scale at Cycle 1 had a skew statistic of -1.21 (SE=0.06) and kurtosis statistic of 1.80 (SE=0.12), with a mean of 13.50 (SD=2.34). At Cycle 2, the statistics of skewness and kurtosis were -1.25 (SE=0.05) and 1.91 (SE=0.12), respectively, with a mean of 13.40 (SD=2.46). At Cycle 3, the statistics of skewness and kurtosis were -1.22 (SE=0.04) and 1.58 (SE=0.09), respectively, with a mean of 13.00 (SD=2.81). The perceptions of physical appearance scale had a mean of 11.71 (SD=3.71) and a 81 skew statistic of -0.93 (SE=0.06) at Cycle 1 and a mean of 11.31 (SD=3.73) and a skew value of -0.92 (SE=0.05) at Cycle 2. Innate child characteristics. A child sex indicator was coded so that ‘1’ designated females and ‘0’ designated males, A binary variable was created to indicate prematurity which was defined as children born at the gestational age of 258 days or less. Responses to this item were only provided for children 3 years and younger (Statistics Canada, 1995b). The value of ‘0’ represented children born in the normal range (259-293 days) and children born late (294 days or more) and the value of ‘1’ represented children born prematurely. Birth order was measured with a categorical variable with its values marked as: 0 = only child; 1 = first born; and 2 = higher order birth. Control Variables Control variables were chosen based on theory and the literature regarding the determinants of parenting (see for review, Luster & Okagaki, 2005). Instruments representing parent characteristics consisted of: maternal age, depression, chronic condition, activity restriction, and education; Measures representing familial characteristics included: marital conflict, family functioning, number of children less than or equal to 17 years old living in the household, and single parent household. Contextual factors were measured with the indicators of: maternal income, occupation, non-standard work schedule, hours per week worked, number of jobs currently held, social support, neighbourhood safety, neighbourhood cohesion, and neighbourhood problems. The items that were used to develop the maternal depression, family functioning, social support, neighbourhood safety, neighbourhood cohesion, and neighbourhood problems scores can be viewed in Appendix A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively. 82 Validation and Reliability A number of the variables in the NSLCY are scale variables. Scales include several questions that measure a specific concept when the answers to the questions are combined (Statistics Canada, 1995b). Many of the scales employed by the NSLCY have been used in other studies. Hence, the psychometric properties of the instruments were available with references. However, to ensure that the psychometric properties in the literature would be consistent for the NSLCY sample, an assessment was undertaken by Statistics Canada. This assessment involved a new factor analysis calculated on all scales to identify the constructs or factors within each scale. Thereafter, scale scores were generated based on the factor structure. Lastly, reliability analysis was performed by Statistics Canada to test the internal consistency of the scales. Statistical Analysis Children from birth to 11 years old from the original longitudinal cohort were selected in Cycle 1 (baseline) and followed through Cycle 3. Descriptive data was weighted with the Cycle 3 longitudinal child population weight supplied by Statistics Canada. Browne, Odueyungbo, Thabane, Byrne, and Smart (2010) define a weight as “a numerical value assigned to each individual that indicates the proportion of the census-based population that the respondent represents, making parameter estimates more generalizable and robust” (p. 5); A normalized weight was applied to all non-descriptive analyses; The reason for employing a normalized weight (i.e., a person’s weight-value divided by the mean weight for the whole sample) is that it ensures that the N remains identical to the sample size in statistical tests rather than an enormous N that would equal the number of Canadian children symbolized by the sample (Browne et al., 2010); Additional information on weighting methodology can be found elsewhere (Statistics 83 Canada, 1995b). Statistical tests were conducted at 5% level of significance. Data analyses were obtained from SPSS. Multiple linear regression was used to evaluate: (a) whether physical-psychological aggressive discipline is a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors; (b) whether privilege deprivation-diversion is a product of child characteristics following control of parent, familial, and contextual factors; and (c) whether reward is determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors; Regression models were conducted separately for children less or equal to 3 years old and children 4 years and older. The reason for stratifying the models by child age was because the composition of the child behavior scales varied according to age (e.g., physical aggression) and some indicators were restricted to specific developmental periods (e.g., temperament); Each model involved three steps. Step 1 estimated the association between child developmental characteristics and one of the discipline measures; In step 2, innate child characteristics were entered into the equation and inspected. The covariates of parent, familial, and contextual factors were inserted in the final step. I specify below the particular indicators included in each step of the regression models due to the inconsistencies in the availability of variables across the cycles. For children 3 years and younger at Cycle 1, in Step 1 parental discipline measures were regressed onto developmental child characteristics (unhealthy, long-term condition, visual impairment, nose or throat infection, ear infection, injury, poor developmental attainment, difficult temperament, dull temperament, hyperactivity-inattention, emotional disorder-anxiety, physical aggression-opposition, separation anxiety, and prosocial behaviour). In Step 2, innate child characteristics were introduced into the equation and these characteristics consisted of sex, prematurity, and 84 birth order. In Step 3, the control variables were added to the equation (maternal age, depression, chronic condition, activity restriction, marital conflict, number of children 17 and under living in the household, single parent status, family functioning, maternal education level, income, and occupation level, non-standardized workdays and hours, hours per week worked, number of jobs currently held, social support, neighbourhood safety, neighbourhood cohesion, and neighbourhood problems). To permit the accounting of effects associated with other forms of discipline, the two alternative discipline measures examined in this study were included in this final step. A single regression model at Cycle 2 was conducted as a result of only one dependent measure available for this subsample, which was reward, because it applied to children 0 months to 3 years of age at Cycle 1. The model, therefore, captures children who were 2 to 3 years old at Cycle 2. The first step of the model remained unchanged except that visual impairment and dull temperament were omitted. The reasoning for these omissions was that the visual impairment variable was unavailable at this cycle for children in this subsample and for dull temperament the PCA did not demonstrate evidence for this component at this cycle. While Step 2 was a replica of that employed in the previous cycle, the third step was comprised of fewer control variables than in Cycle 1 and those available were maternal age, depression, marital conflict, number of children 17 and under living in the household, single parent status, family functioning, maternal education level, income, and occupation. The final model for the 3 and younger subsample involved the analysis of the lagged effects of child characteristics on reward. Reward at Cycle 2, in this model, was regressed onto child developmental characteristics at Cycle 1 (Step 1), innate child characteristics (Step 2), and control variables and the other discipline measures at Cycle 1 (Step 3). This last step permits the examination of how Cycle 1 child characteristics predict 85 Cycle 2 reward above and beyond any cross-sectional association between these variables at Cycle 1. Hence, it represents the estimation of the change in reward during the period between Cycle 1 and Cycle 2. The following section summarizes the analytic strategy for the older subsample and is identical to the three-step procedure presented above except the specific indicators added or excluded in each step vary. With respect to children 4 years and older, the dependent measures differed in their age related applicability among the cycles. While the reward variable referred to children 4 to 11 years across all three cycles, the questions corresponding to the measures of physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion were responded to for children 4 to 11 at Cycle 1 and 4 to 13 years at Cycle 26. The panel data was censored at Cycle 3 insofar as the questions used to formulate these indicators were not asked for children exceeding the age of 11 and, hence, children aged 10 to 11 years at Cycle 2 were missing at Cycle 3. The ramifications of this censoring are that the final cycle represents the children who were 4 to 7 years old at Cycle 1. The regression model for each cycle, regardless of the age-applicability of the dependent measure, was structured in the same stepwise fashion. In the cross-sectional analyses, each criterion variable was regressed onto developmental characteristics in the first step (unhealthy, long-term condition, visual impairment, injury, giftedness, special need, poor developmental attainment, hyperactivity-inattention, emotional disorder-anxiety, conduct disorder-physical aggression, indirect aggression, property offences, prosocial behaviour, social skills, perceptions of physical appearance, and general self-esteem). Child sex and birth order, representing innate characteristics, were entered into the equation at Step 2. In the final step, the discipline measure was regressed onto the control measures which consisted of: maternal age, depression, chronic condition, activity restriction, marital conflict, 86 number of children 17 and under living in the household, single parent status, family functioning, maternal education level, income, and occupation level, non-standardized workdays and hours, hours per week worked, number of jobs, social support, neighbourhood safety, neighbourhood cohesion, and neighbourhood problems. There were scarcer control indicators in the cycles subsequent to Cycle 1 in which the variables inserted into the last step of the equation were maternal age, depression, marital conflict, number of children 17 and under living in the household, single parent status, family functioning, maternal education level, income, and occupation (Cycle 2) and maternal age, depression, marital conflict, number of children 17 and under living in the household, single parent status, family functioning, maternal education level, income, occupation, social support, and neighbourhood cohesion (Cycle 3). Three regression models per criterion variable were calculated for children 4 years and older to determine if there would be a lagged effect of child characteristics on discipline behaviours. In the first equation, Step 1, the parental discipline measures at Cycle 2 were regressed onto child developmental characteristics at Cycle 1 as listed in the preceding paragraph. The innate child characteristics of gender and birth order were added to the equation in step 2. In the last step the control variables and alternative discipline measures at Cycle 1 were inserted into the equation, which are described in the section on the younger subsample. This step-wise process was replicated for the analyses of regressing the criterion variables at Cycle 3 on child characteristics and controls at Cycle 2 and these criterion variables at Cycle 3 on child characteristics and controls at Cycle 1. There was, however, one important exception insomuch as the youth reported measures of perceptions of physical appearance and self-esteem were removed from Step 1 in the comparisons of Cycle 3 dependent variables with child characteristics and controls at Cycle2 and at Cycle 1. The explanation for this omission is that 87 the panel data of the subsample at Cycle 3 represents children who were 4 to 7 and 4 to 9 at Cycles 1 and 2, respectively, and the measures provided by youth apply to children older than or equal to 10 years of age. Multiple linear regression was further used to test the extent to which changes in developmental child characteristics affect child disciplinary behaviours. The following trajectory groups were constructed as a prelude to the evaluation of the effect of variation between Cycle 1 and 3 in developmental characteristics on dimensions of discipline at Cycle 3 among children aged 4-11 years. First, degenerative refers to the group of children who demonstrated a worsening in the characteristic (e.g., transition from below to above the median in behaviour problems, above to below the median in prosocial behaviour, shift from average or above average to PDA, and from excellent/good to fair/poor health). Second, ameliorative represents those who showed improvement (e.g., transition from above to below the median in behaviour problems, below to above the median in prosocial behaviour, shifted from PDA to average or above average attainment, and from fair/poor to excellent/good health). Third, exceptional represented the group of children who remained above the median in problematic behaviours and below the median in prosocial behaviour. It also included children who showed PDA and fair/poor health in both Cycles 1 and 3. Fourth, typical signifies the mirror reverse of the exceptional group8. A three-step multiple linear regression model was performed in which each criterion variable at Cycle 3 was regressed on the measures within the above described trajectory groups. The time-variant measures were entered into the first step of the regression equation. Some developmental characteristics could not be assessed in this manner because there was too little change over the cycles. In these cases, the characteristic was entered into the regression model as 88 measured at Cycle 1 if it was correlated at the bivariate level with the criterion variable at Cycle 3F6. The second step of the model introduced the time-invariant and innate characteristics. Control variables at Cycle 1 were the last to be entered in the model and the listing of these can be found in the section on the younger subsample. 89 Chapter 6. Results This investigation examines the degree to which parental disciplinary behaviours are a function of child characteristics. The aim of this chapter is to present findings concerning the direct effects of child characteristics on parental disciplinary behaviours. In particular, this chapter will respond to the research questions listed below. 1a. Is physical-psychological aggressive discipline a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors? 1.b. Is privilege deprivation-diversion a product of child characteristics following control of parent, familial, and contextual factors? 1.c. Is reward determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors? 2. Do changes in developmental child characteristics affect parental disciplinary behaviours? This chapter begins with an account on the descriptive analysis for parental disciplinary behaviours, child characteristics, and control variables. As mentioned in Chapter 5, there were a number of scales measuring developmental characteristics that showed skewed distributions. These scales were transformed into dichotomous variables using the median-split method9. The percentages for these dichotomous variables are given in this chapter. Subsequent to the descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations employing Pearson’s r were performed to evaluate the relationship between each of the parental disciplinary behaviours with unhealthy, long-term condition, visual impairment, nose or throat infection, ear infection, injury, giftedness, special need, poor developmental attainment, difficult temperament, dull temperament, hyperactivity-inattention, emotional disorder-anxiety, physical aggression, separation anxiety, indirect aggression, property offences, prosocial behaviour, social skills, perceptions of physical 90 appearance, general self-esteem, child age, child sex, prematurity, birth order, and control variables. The reason for conducting bivariate analysis was that it supplied the best opportunity for child characteristics to show an effect on disciplinary behaviours since parent, familial, and contextual covariates are not entered into the correlation formula. Correlational analysis was further justified because it informed the selection of child characteristics and control variables to enter into the linear regression models in order to ensure the models were parsimonious. The results of the descriptive and bivariate analyses can be viewed in tabular form in Tables 5 and 7 through 11. Those variables found to be significantly related to parental disciplinary behaviours at the bivariate level were included in the linear regression models. Linear regression analyses are presented for each of the parental disciplinary behaviours as dependent measures and child characteristics representing independent variables. Descriptive Statistics The descriptive statistics are provided in Tables 5, 7, and 8 for all study variables. The distributions of the dependent variables physical-psychological aggressive discipline, privilege deprivation-diversion, and reward for all cycles were relatively normal, which warrants these variables to remain as scales. Physical-psychological aggressive discipline had a mean 5.05, 4.82, and 4.65 and standard deviation of 2.08, 1.97, and 1.82 at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The means for privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycles 1, 2, and 3 were 5.32 (SD = 1.50), 5.11 (SD = 1.54), and 5.17 (SD=1.49), respectively. Reward, the last dependent measure, had a mean and standard deviation at Cycles 1, 2, and 3 of 5.38 (SD=1.54), 5.23 (SD =1.36), and 4.85 (SD-1.28), respectively. 91 Table 6 Descriptives and Correlations of Parental Discipline, Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 1 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % Developmental characteristics Unhealthy .05*** .02 .01 - - 1.7 Long-term condition -.01 -.03** -.01 - - 18.6 Visual impairment -.03* -.03* -.06*** - - 6.6 Nose or throat infection .03 .06* -.04** - - - Rarely - - - - - 11.0 From time to time - - - - - 5.5 Often - - - - - 1.4 Almost all the time - - - - - 0.3 Ear infection -.01 .03 -.00 - - 17.5 Injury .01 .01 -.01 - - 10.8 Giftedness -.02 .02 -.06*** - - 2.3 Special need .00 .02 -.00 - - 3.2 Poor developmental attainment .08*** -.01 -.03* - - 11.5 Difficult temperament .17*** .11*** -.14*** - - 17.1 Dull temperament -.14*** -.16*** -.09*** 3.49 2.38 - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr .22*** .06* -.06* - - 9.9 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr .08*** .05* -.05* - - 9.7 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr .28*** .18*** -.10*** - - 8.9 Separation anxiety 2-3 yr .11*** .06** -.11*** - - 8.6 Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr -.16*** .23*** .12*** 5.23 2.80 - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .23*** .12*** -.06*** - - 36.0 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .15*** .06*** -.10*** - - 37.7 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .26*** .15*** -.06*** - - 36.9 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr .15*** .05*** -.15*** - - 31.2 Property offences 4-11 yr .24*** .14*** -.05*** - - 30.7 92 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.22*** -.01 .14*** 12.32 3.81 - Social skills -.11*** -.08*** -.05** - - 16.5 Physical appearance -.02 .05* .02 - - 6.8 General self-esteem -.08** .05* .10*** - - 6.1 Innate characteristics Child age -.07*** .00 -.54*** 5.59 3.42 - Child age2 -.07*** -.01 -.51*** 42.92 39.71 - Female -.04*** -.09*** -.03** - - 48.8 Premature -.01 .03 -.02 - - 3.5 Birth Order .04*** .01 -.16*** - - - First born - - - - - 5.2 Higher order birth - - - - - 56.9 Control Variables Maternal age -.09*** -.04*** -.27*** 33.94 5.73 - Depression .18*** .01 -.04*** 4.87 5.42 - Chronic condition .04*** .07*** -.01* - - 42.8 Activity restriction -.00 .03** -.01 - - 8.3 Marital conflict .12*** .02 -.07*** - - - Seldom - - - - - 5.8 Sometimes - - - - - 1.3 Often - - - - - 0.3 Family functioning .26*** -.00 -.15*** 8.01 5.19 - Number of children <= 17 yr. .08*** .02 -.18*** 2.32 1.02 - Single parent .02* .02* -.02* - - 15.5 Maternal education level -.06*** .09*** .06*** 1.87 1.08 - Income -.02 .04*** -.03** 2.63 1.91 - Occupation level -.10*** .06*** .03* 7.08 4.44 - Non-standard workdays and hours .02 .02 -.03** - - 9.9 Hours per week worked -.00 -.05*** -.02 31.00 14.18 - 93 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % Number of jobs currently held .00 .06*** -.07*** 0.96 0.50 - Social support -.12*** .10*** .10*** 14.60 2.86 - Neighbourhood safety -.07*** -.01 -.02* 4.23 1.31 - Neighbourhood cohesion -.16*** .02* .06*** 10.66 2.77 - Neighbourhood problems .06*** .04*** -.00 1.27 1.65 - M 5.05 5.32 5.38 SD 2.08 1.50 1.54 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 94 The percentages for children described as unhealthy and possessing a long-term condition remained stable across cycles 1 through 3 (1.7%, 1.7%, and 1.6% and 18.6%, 18.3%, and 19.8%, respectively). While 778 (6.6%) children were considered visually impaired at Cycle 1, there were only 0.7% of children at both Cycles 2 and 3 which reflects the change in the age applicability of these items from children greater than or equal to 4 years to children 4 to 5 years old. The percentage of children who had a nose or throat infection at Cycles 1 and 2 almost all the time was 0.3% and 0.2%, often 1.4% and 0.6%, from time to time 5.5% and 2.7%, rarely 11.0% and 6.2%, and never 14.3% and 5.8%. The incidence of ear infections since birth among the 2057 and 1276 children reported to have had an ear infection since birth at Cycles 1 and 2 was 5.7% and 3.9% four or more times, 2.4% and 1.5% three times, 3.7% and 2.2% twice, and 5.5% and 3.2% once, respectively. The percentage of children reported to have experienced an injury in the past 12 months ranged across the cycles from 10.8% to 12.3%. The mean for the number of times injured was 1.19 (SD=0.59), 1.20 (SD=0.75), and 1.31 (SD=1.23) at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The percentage of children that were identified as gifted was consistent across time (2.3%, 2.8%, and 1.5% at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively). There were 3.2%, 4.9%, and 3.4% of children reported to be of special need status in school. Poor developmental attainment was found in 11.5%, 16.4%, and 10.2% of children at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The percentage of children showing a high difficult temperament was 17.1% in Cycle 1 and 8.9% in Cycle 2. The distribution of the dull temperament scale was normally distributed and had a mean of 3.50 (SD=2.38). The percentage of children 2-3 years rated as high in hyperactivity-inattention was 9.9% and 8.4% at Cycles 1 and 2, respectively. The percentage of children 4-11 years identified as high in hyperactivity-inattention was stable across Cycle 1 95 (36.0%), Cycle 2 (35.9%), and Cycle 3 (33.9%). The percentage of children 2-3 years rated as high in emotional disorder-anxiety was 9.7% and 8.1% at Cycles 1 and 2, respectively. The percentage of children 4-11 years scoring high on emotional disorder-anxiety was 37.7%, 37.9%, and 34.6% at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The percentage of children 2-3 years rated as high in physical aggression-opposition was 8.9% at Cycle 1 and 8.0% at Cycle 2. The percentage of children 4-11 years rated as high in conduct disorder-physical aggression was 37.0% in all cycles. The percentage of children 2-3 years rated as high in separation anxiety was 8.6% and 8.0% at Cycles 1 and 2, respectively. The percentage of children 4-11 years scoring high on indirect aggression was 31.2%, 29.1%, and 24.4% at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The percentage of children 4-11 years rated as high in property offenses was consistent across the cycles at a rate of 30.0%. The prosocial behaviour scale for children 2-3 years showed a mean of 5.23 (SD=2.80) at Cycle 1 and 5.56 (SD=2.71). The mean on the prosocial behaviour scale for children 4-11 years at Cycles 1, 2, and 3 was12.32 (SD=3.81), 12.72 (SD=3.76), and 13.00 (SD=3.80), respectively. The percentage of school-age children scoring high on social skills was 16.5%, 16.8%, and 10.4% at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The percentage of youth who rated themselves as high on general self-esteem was 6.1%, 7.7%, 10.5% at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Roughly 7.0% of youths scored high on perceptions of physical appearance in Cycles 1 and 2. Youths responded to the statement “I like the way I look” at Cycle 3 as follows: 1.1% false, 1.5% mostly false, 5.1% sometimes false sometimes true, 7.8% mostly true, and 11.6% true (M=3.00, SD=1.10). Table 6 presents the descriptive statistics of the innate child characteristics that are evaluated only at Cycle 1. The average age of the children was 5.59 (SD=3.42) and the squared 96 age was 42.92 (SD=39.71). The sample was composed of slightly fewer females relative to males (46.8% and 51.2%). Prematurity was seen in 3.5% of children. The percentage of children that were the first birth in their family was 25.2%, higher order birth 56.9%, and a single child 17.9%. 97 Table 7 Descriptives and Correlations of Parental Discipline, Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 2 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % Developmental characteristics Unhealthy -.00 .03** .01 - - 1.7 Long-term condition .01 .01 -.01 - - 18.3 Visual impairment -.01 -.01 .01 - - 0.7 Nose or throat infection .05* -.01 -.05* - - - Rarely - - - - - 6.2 From time to time - - - - - 2.7 Often - - - - - 0.6 Almost all the time - - - - - 0.2 Ear infection -.01 .06* .03 - - 10.8 Injury .03** .02* -.00 - - 11.8 Giftedness .00 -.01 -.02 - - 2.8 Special need .03* .01 -.03* - - 4.9 Poor developmental attainment .04*** .02 -.03** - - 16.4 Difficult temperament .18*** .09*** -.07** - - 8.9 Dull temperament - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr .19*** .15*** -.10*** - - 8.4 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr .14*** .07** -.07** - - 8.1 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr .25*** .16*** -.09*** - - 8.0 Separation anxiety 2-3 yr .11*** .-.00 -.03 - - 8.0 Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr -.16*** .11*** .14*** 5.56 2.71 - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .17*** .13*** -.03* - - 35.9 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .13*** .06*** -.08*** - - 37.9 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .20*** .17*** -.06*** - - 37.3 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr .12*** .07*** -.11*** - - 29.1 Property offences 4-11 yr .18*** .14*** -.05*** - - 30.9 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.20*** .03* .10*** 12.72 3.76 - Social skills -.03 .-.00 .03* - - 16.8- Physical appearance .02 .04 -.05 - - 7.5 General self-esteem .00 -.02 .01* - - 7.7 98 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % Innate characteristics Child age -.06*** -.06*** -.46*** - - - Child age2 -.06*** -.09*** -.42*** - - - Female -.05*** -.09*** -.03** - - - Premature -.02 -.05** .03* - - - Birth Order .04*** .01 -.13*** First born - - - - - - Higher order birth - - - - - - Control Variables Maternal age - - - - - - Depression .12*** .05*** -.02 4.56 5.49 - Chronic condition - - - - - - Activity restriction - - - - - - Marital conflict .12*** .02* -.06*** - - - Seldom - - - - - 5.9 Sometimes - - - - - 2.1 Often - - - - - 0.3 Family functioning .15 .01 -.12*** 8.13 5.05 - Number of children <= 17 yr. .07*** .05*** -.08*** 2.37 0.99 - Single parent -.00 .03*** -.02* - - 16.1 Maternal education level -.06*** .06*** .03** 1.98 1.03 - Income -.12 .04*** -.07*** 2.68 1.91 - Occupation level -.09*** .03** .02 7.04 4.49 - Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - Social support - - - - - - Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - - - Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - M 4.82 5.11 5.23 SD 1.97 1.54 1.36 99 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 100 The descriptive statistics for the control variables are shown in Tables 5, 7, and 8. The average age of mothers’ as assessed at Cycle 1 was 33.94 (SD=5.73). Maternal depression revealed a consistent mean and standard deviation across Cycles 1, 2, and 3 (M=4.87, SD=5.42; M=4.56, SD=5.49; M=4.62, SD=5.49, respectively). As measured at Cycle 1, the percentage of mothers’ with a chronic condition was 42.8% and those with activity restriction was 8.3%. Marital conflict occurred often in 0.3%, 0.3%, and 0.4% of cases, sometimes 1.3%, 2.1%, and 2.6%, and seldom 5.8%, 5.9%, and 6.1% at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean on the family functioning scale at Cycle 1 was 8.01 (SD=5.19), Cycle 2 was 8.13 (SD=5.05), and Cycle 3 was 8.53 (SD=4.92).Households contained an average of two children aged 0 to 17 years (SD=1.00), regardless of cycle. Single-parent households was found within 15.5%, 16.1%, and 17.4% of households at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The mean on the maternal education measure was 1.86 (SD=1.08) at Cycle 1, 1.98 (SD=1.03) at Cycle 2, and 2.02 (SD=1.03) at Cycle 3. Frequencies were calculated for each level of maternal education which revealed that 15.3% had less than secondary education, 19.5% obtained a high school diploma, 28.3% had education beyond high school, and 36.5% of mothers had a college or university degree as of Cycle 1. Frequency calculations were also conducted for levels of maternal income at Cycle 1 which showed that 10.1% of cases had an income of $40,000 or more, 10.4% $30,000 to $39,000, 15.8% $20,000 to $29,000, 9.7% $15,000 to $19,999, 15.3% $10,000 to $14,999, 26.8% less than $10,000, and 11.8% no income. The mean on this ordinal scale of maternal income was 2.63 (SD=1.91), 2.68 (SD=1.91), and 3.20 (SD=1.85) at Cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Maternal occupation level demonstrated an average value around 7.00 (SD=4.00) across the cycles. As of Cycle 1, the percentage of mothers who were self-employed professionals was 0.5 %, employed professionals 7.6%, high-level 101 managers 2.1%, semi-professionals 8.5%, technicians 1.2%, middle managers 5.1%, supervisors 1.9%, forewoman 0.4%, skilled clerical sales person 10.2%, skilled crafts and trade person 0.9%, farmer 0.5%, semi-skilled clerical sales person 12.1%, semi-skilled manual labourer 3.6%, unskilled clerical sales person 9.7%, unskilled manual labourer 4.2%, and farm labourer 0.7%. Non-standard workdays and hours for all jobs was found among 9.9% of mothers and the average number of hours per week worked was 31.00 (SD=14.18), at Cycle 1. At this same cycle, the mean on number of jobs currently held was 0.96 (SD=0.49). Descriptive statistics for the social support scale were calculated at Cycles 1 and 3 which showed an equivalent mean and standard deviation across these cycles (M=14.60, SD=2.86; M=14.52, SD=2.78, respectively). The neighbourhood safety scale, measured at Cycle 1, had a mean score of 4.23 (SD=1.31). A mean value on the neighbourhood cohesion scale at Cycle 1 was 10.66 (SD=2.77) and at Cycle 3 was 10.76 (SD=2.43). The last control variable, neighbourhood problems scale, had a mean of 1.27 and a standard deviation of 1.65 (Cycle 1). 102 Table 8 Descriptives and Correlations of Parental Discipline, Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 3 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % Developmental characteristics Unhealthy .01 .00 -.01 - - 1.6 Long-term condition .01 -.02 .02 - - 19.8 Visual impairment -.00 .01 .03 - - 0.7 Nose or throat infection - - - - - - Rarely - - - - - - From time to time - - - - - - Often - - - - - - Almost all the time - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - Injury .04*** .03* -.01 - - 12.3 Giftedness .05 .01 -.01 - - 1.5 Special need -.01 -.00 -.03 - - 3.4 Poor developmental attainment .05** -.01 -.03 - - 10.2 Difficult temperament - - - - - - Dull temperament - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .20*** .12*** -.03* - - 33.9 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .14*** .05*** -.08*** - - 34.6 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .26*** .16*** -.04*** - - 36.8 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr .15*** .04*** -.10*** - - 24.4 Property offences 4-11 yr .21*** .14*** -.08*** - - 29.9 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.19*** .05*** .13*** 13.00 3.80 - Social skills .05 .02 -.03 - - 10.4 Physical appearance .06* .01 .-.02 3.00 1.10 - General self-esteem -.02 -.01 .01 - - 10.5 103 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % Innate characteristics Child age -.04** -.06*** -.34** - - - Child age2 -.05*** -.07*** -.30*** - - - Female -.05*** -.08*** -.02 - - - Premature .00 -.02 .03 - - - Birth Order .02 .01 -.11*** - - - First born - - - - - - Higher order birth - - - - - - Control Variables Maternal age - - - - - - Depression .16*** .02 -.05*** 4.62 5.49 - Chronic condition - - - - - - Activity restriction - - - - - - Marital conflict .09*** .02 -.06*** - - - Seldom - - - - - 6.1 Sometimes - - - - - 2.6 Often - - - - - 0.4 Family functioning .23*** -.01 -.17*** 8.53 4.92 - Number of children <+ 17 yr. .03* .02 -.07*** 2.36 0.98 - Single parent .03** .02 .00 - - 17.4 Maternal education level -.05*** .10*** .05*** 2.02 1.03 - Income -.04** .03** -.04** 3.20 1.85 - Occupation level -.06*** .04** .05** 7.08 4.39 - Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - Social support -.12*** .10*** .10*** 14.52 2.78 - Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion -.12*** .06*** .10*** 10.76 2.43 - Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - M 4.65 5.17 4.85 SD 1.82 1.49 1.28 104 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward M SD % * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 105 Bivariate Analyses Using Pearson’s r, bivariate correlations were undertaken to investigate the extent to which parental disciplinary behaviours are associated with child characteristics and the control variables. These correlations are illustrated in Tables 5, 7, and 8 for the cross-sectional analyses and Tables 9 to 11 for the longitudinal analyses. In the following description of the correlational analyses, I discuss the results for each dependent variable separately and start with the physical-psychological aggressive discipline measure. In cycle 1, physical-psychological aggressive discipline was positively correlated with unhealthy (r = .05, p < .001), poor developmental attainment (r = .08, p < .001), difficult temperament (r = .17, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = .22, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 years (r = .08, p < .001), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .28, p < .001), separation anxiety 2-3 years (r = .11, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .23, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .15, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .26, p < .001), indirect aggression (r = .15, p < .001), and property offences (r = .24, p < .001). Inverse correlations were obtained between physical-psychological aggressive discipline and visual impairment (r = -.03, p < .05), dull temperament (r = -.14, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = -.16, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = -.22, p < .001), social skills (r = -.12, p < .001), general self-esteem (r = -.08, p < .01), and child age (r = -.07, p < .001). Physical-psychological aggressive discipline was more common among boys (r = -.04, p < .001) and those children who were a higher order birth (r = .04, p < .001).Control variables associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline were younger age of mothers (r = -.09, p < .001), higher levels of depression (r = .18, p < .001), presence of a chronic condition (r = .04, p < .001), greater marital conflict (r = .12, p < .001), more family dysfunction (r = .26, p < .001), higher number of children aged 17 years and 106 younger living in the household (r = .08, p < .001), being a single-parent (r = .02, p < .05), lower levels of education (r = -.06, p < .001) and occupation (r = -.10, p < .001), lesser social support (r = -.12, p < .001), lower levels of neighbourhood safety (r = -.07, p < .001) and neighbourhood cohesion (r = -.16, p < .001), and more neighbourhood problems (r = .06, p < .001). As displayed in Table 7, the cross-sectional correlations at Cycle 2 revealed that physical-psychological aggressive discipline was positively related to nose or throat infections (r = .05, p < .05), injury (r = .03, p < .01), special need (r = .03, p < .05), poor developmental attainment (r = .04, p < .001), difficult temperament (r = .18, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = .19, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 years (r = .14, p < .001), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .25, p < .001), separation anxiety 2-3 years (r = .11, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .17, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .13, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .20, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = .12, p < .001), and property offences (r = .18, p < .001). Negative associations emerged between physical-psychological aggressive discipline and prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = -.16, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = -.20, p < .001), and child age (r = -.20, p < .001). As was the case in the preceding cycle, physical-psychological aggressive discipline had a positive relationship with boys (r = -.05, p < .001) and higher order birth (r = .04, p < .001). Within Cycle 2, physical-psychological aggressive discipline was positively associated with depression (r = .12, p < .001), marital conflict (r = .12, p < .001), and number of children aged 17 years and younger living the household (r = .07, p < .001) while this discipline measure was negatively related to education (r = -.06, p < .001) and occupation (r = -.09, p < .001). Child characteristics that were positively correlated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3 included injury (r = .04, p < .001), poor developmental attainment (r = .05, p < .01), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r 107 = .20, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .14, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .26, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = .15, p < .001), property offences 4-11 years (r = .21, p < .001), and perceptions of physical appearance (r = .06, p < .01). There were inverse associations between physical-psychological aggressive discipline and prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = -.19, p < .001), child age (r = -.04, p < .01), and child sex (r = -.05, p < .001). This discipline measure was related to depression (r = .16, p < .001), marital conflict (r = .09, p < .001), family functioning (r = .23, p < .001), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = .03, p < .05), single parent (r = .03, p < .01), education (r = -.05, p < .001), maternal income (r = -.04, p < .01), occupation (r = -.06, p < .001), social support (r = -.12, p < .001), and neighbourhood cohesion (r = -.12, p < .001). The lagged bivariate relationships of child characteristics with physical-psychological aggressive discipline are presented in Tables 9 to 11. When physical-psychological aggressive discipline was evaluated at Cycle 2, it was negatively associated with visual impairment (r = -.03, p < .05), dull temperament (r = -.07, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = -.09, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = -.15, p < .001), social skills (r = -.06, p < .001), perceptions of physical appearance (r = -.06, p < .05), general self-esteem (r = -.07, p < .01), child age (r = -.06, p < .001), and child sex (i.e., boys, r = -.05, p < .001), which were all measured at Cycle 1. In the same comparison across cycles, it was observed that the discipline measure was positively correlated with ear infection (r = .05, p < .01), poor developmental attainment (r = .07, p < .001), difficult temperament (r = .11, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = .16, p < .001), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .18, p < .001), separation anxiety 2-3 years (r = .10, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .12, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .07, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .16, p < .001), 108 indirect aggression (r = .10, p < .001), property offences (r = .12, p < .001), and birth order (i.e., higher order birth, r = .04, p < .001). It was found that discipline was related to maternal age (r = -.05, p < .001), depression (r = .12, p < .001), marital conflict (r = .05, p < .001), family functioning (r = .15, p < .001), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = .06, p < .001), maternal education (r = -.06, p < .001), income (r = -.03, p < .001), occupation (r = -.04, p < .001), non-standard workday and hours (r = .02, p < .05), social support (r = -.07, p < .001), neighbourhood safety (r = -.06, p < .001), neighbourhood cohesion (r = -.09, p < .001), and neighbourhood problems (r = .03, p < .01). In the analysis examining the correlations between physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3 and child characteristics at Cycle 2, it was observed that discipline was positively related to injury (r = .03, p < .05), difficult temperament (r = .12, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = .13, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 years (r = .06, p < .01), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .17, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .14, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .11, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .15, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r - .10, p < .001), and property offences (r = .16, p < .001). Inverse associations were shown between discipline and prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = -.10, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = -.17, p < .001), social skills (r = -.06, p < .01), child age (r = -.04, p < .01), and child sex (r = -.05, p < .001). Control variables within Cycle 2 that were correlated with discipline at Cycle 3 included: depression (r = .10, p < .001), marital conflict (r = .06, p < .001), family functioning (r = .16, p < .001), single parent (r = .03, p < .05), education (r = -.06, p < .001), and occupation (r = -.08, p < .001). The final set of bivariate comparisons involved correlating physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3 with child characteristics and control variables at Cycle 1. Positive correlations were found among 109 physical-psychological aggressive discipline and long-term condition (r = .03, p < .05), nose or throat infection (r = .03, p < .05), poor developmental attainment (r = .05, p < .01), difficult temperament (r = .12, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = .12, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 years (r = .08, p < .001), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .19, p < .001), separation anxiety 2-3 years (r = .11, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .16, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .11, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .17, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = .05, p < .001), and property offences 4-11 years (r = .16, p < .001). Physical-psychological aggressive discipline was negatively related to visual impairment (r = -.05, p < .01), ear infection (r = -.04, p < .05), prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = -.07, p < .01), prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = -.14, p < .001), social skills (r = -.12, p < .001), child age (r = -.04, p < .01), and child sex (r = -.05, p < .001). Control variables associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline were maternal age (r = -.03, p < .01), depression (r = .14, p < .001), marital conflict (r = .05, p < .01), family functioning (r = .19, p < .001), single parent (r = .03, p < .05), education (r = -.05, p < .001), occupation (r = -.07, p < .001), non-standard workdays and hours (r = .04, p < .05), number of jobs currently held (r = -.03, p < .05), social support (r = -.10, p < .001), neighbourhood safety (r = -.04, p < .01), neighbourhood cohesion (r = -.10, p < .001), and neighbourhood problems (r = .03, p < .01). 110 Table 9 Correlations of Parental Discipline at Cycle 2 and Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 1 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward Developmental characteristics Unhealthy .02 .01 -.00 Long-term condition .01 -.01 -.01 Visual impairment -.03* -.04*** .02 Nose or throat infection -.01 .03 -.06** Ear infection .05** .05** .05** Injury -.00 .03** -.03** Giftedness -.00 -.01 -.01 Special need .03 .02 -.00 Poor developmental attainment .07*** -.00 .04** Difficult temperament .11*** .06** -.11*** Dull temperament -.07*** -.10*** -.06*** Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr .16*** .03 -.05* Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr .02 .03 .03 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr .18*** .11*** -.08*** Separation anxiety 2-3 yr .10*** .03 -.06** Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr -.09*** .18*** .09*** Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .12*** .12*** -.04** Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .07*** .03* -.05*** Physical aggression 4-11 yr .15*** .15*** -.02 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr .10*** .04** -.11*** Property offences 4-11 yr .12*** .13*** -.03* Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.15*** -.02 .07*** Social skills -.06*** -.15*** -.03 Physical appearance -.06* .01 - General self-esteem -.07** -.05* - Innate characteristics Child age -.06*** -.06*** -.46*** Child age2 -.06*** -.09*** -.42*** Child sex -.05*** -.09*** -.03** Premature -.02 -.05** .03* Birth Order .04*** .01 -.13*** Control Variables Maternal age -.05*** -.08*** -.22*** Depression .12*** .03** -.03** Chronic condition .02 .05*** .03* Activity restriction .01 .04*** -.01 Marital conflict .05*** .02 -.06*** Family functioning .15*** -.02 -.11*** Number of children <= 17 yr. .06*** .03*** -.13*** Single parent -.01 .03** -.03** Maternal education level -.06*** .06*** .05*** Income -.03*** .03*** -.03** Occupation level -.04*** .06*** .02 111 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward Control variables con’d Non-standard workdays and hours .02* -.01 .01 Hours per week worked .01 -.05*** -.01 Number of jobs currently held -.01 .02* -.04** Social support -.07*** .09*** .07*** Neighbourhood safety -.06*** -.04*** -.04*** Neighbourhood cohesion -.09*** .02 .05*** Neighbourhood problems .03** .02* -.00 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Significant, bivariate correlations were seen between the second dependent measure of privilege deprivation-diversion and child characteristics and control variables. Beginning with a cross-sectional analysis at Cycle 1, this dependent measure was inversely correlated with long-term condition (r = -.03, p < .01), visual impairment (r = -.03, p < .05), dull temperament (r = -.16, p < .001), social skills (r = -.08, p < .001), and child sex (i.e., boys, r = -.09, p < .001). Positive relationships were shown for privilege deprivation-diversion and nose or throat infections (r = .06, p < .05), difficult temperament (r = .11, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = .06, p < .05), emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 years (r = .05, p < .05), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .18, p < .001), separation anxiety 2-3 years (r = .06, p < .01), prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = .23, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .12, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .06, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .15, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = .05, p < .001), property offences 4-11 years (r = .14, p < .001), perceptions of physical appearance (r = .05, p < .05), and general self-esteem (r = .05, p < .05),. Privilege deprivation-diversion was related to being a younger mother (r = -.04, p < .001), chronic condition (r = .07, p < .001), activity restriction (r = .03, p < .01), single parent (r = .02, p < .05), greater levels of maternal education (r = .09, p < .001), more income (r = .04, p < 112 .001), higher occupation level (r = .06, p < .001), fewer hours per week worked (r = -.05, p < .001), more jobs currently held (r = .06, p < .001), greater social support (r = .10, p < .001), higher levels of neighbourhood cohesion (r = .02, p < .05), and more neighbourhood problems (r = .04, p < .001). Within Cycle 2, privilege deprivation-diversion demonstrated a positive correlation with unhealthy (r = .03, p < .01), ear infection (r = .06, p < .05), injury (r = .02, p < .05), difficult temperament (r = .09, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = .15, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 years (r = .07, p < .01), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .16, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = .11, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .13, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .06, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .17, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = .07, p < .001), property offences 4-11 years (r = .14, p < .001), and prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = .03, p < .05). This dimension of discipline was more common among younger children (r = -.06, p < .001), boys (r = -.09, p < .001), and those children who were not born premature (r = -.05, p < .01). Privilege deprivation-diversion was associated with maternal depression (r = .05, p < .001), marital conflict (r = .02, p < .05), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = .05, p < .001), single parent (r = .03, p < .001), education (r = .06, p < .001), income (r = .04, p < .001), and occupation (r = .03, p < .01). The correlational analysis at Cycle 3 showed that privilege deprivation-diversion was positively related to injury (r = .03, p < .05), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .12, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .05, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .17, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = .05, p < .001), property offences 4-11 years (r = .14, p < .001), and prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = .05, p < .001). There was an inverse correlation between privilege deprivation-diversion and child age (r = -.06, p < .001) and child sex (r = -.08, p < .001). Privilege 113 deprivation-diversion was related to education (r = .10, p < .001), income (r = .03, p < .01), occupation (r = .04, p < .01), social support (r = .10, p < .001), and neighbourhood cohesion (r = .06, p < .001). In the bivariate analysis examining the lagged effect child characteristics and control variables at Cycle 1 on privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 2, it was revealed that the dependent measure had a significant negative correlation with visual impairment (r = -.04, p < .001), dull temperament (r = -.10, p < .001), social skills (r = -.15, p < .001), general self-esteem (r = -.05, p < .05), age (r = -.06, p < .001), child sex (r = -.09, p < .001), and prematurely (r = -.05, p < .01). Positive relationships were seen between the privilege deprivation-diversion and ear infection (r = .05, p < .01), injury (r = .03, p < .01), difficult temperament (r = .06, p < .01), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .11, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = .18, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .12, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .03, p < .05), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .15, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = .04, p < .01), and property offences 4-11 years (r = .13, p < .001). Privilege deprivation-diversion showed an association with the following control variables: maternal age (r = -.08, p < .001), depression (r = .03, p < .01), chronic condition (r = .05, p < .001), activity restriction (r = .04, p < .001), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = .03, p < .001), single parent (r = .03, p < .01), maternal education (r = .06, p < .001), income (r = .03, p < .001), occupation (r = .06, p < .001), hours per week worked (r = -.05, p < .001), number of jobs currently held (r = .02, p < .05), social support (r = .09, p < .001), neighbourhood safety (r = -.04, p < .001), and neighbourhood problems (r = .02, p < .05). Child characteristics at Cycle 2 that had a significant, positive correlation with privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3 were injury (r = .03, p < .01), difficult temperament (r = .06, p < .05), 114 hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = .11, p < .001), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .13, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = .08, p < .01), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .10, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .15, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = .05, p < .001), property offences 4-11 years (r = .14, p < .001), and prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = .04, p < .01). Inverse associations were obtained for privilege deprivation-diversion and poor developmental attainment (r = -.08, p < .001), perceptions of physical appearance (r = -.05, p < .05), general self-esteem (r = -.10, p < .001), child age (r = -.06, p < .001), and child sex (r = -.08, p < .001). Privilege deprivation-diversion was related to depression (r = .03, p < .05), family functioning (r = -.03, p < .05), single parent (r = .04, p < .01), maternal education (r = .10, p < .001), and income (r = .04, p < .01). Lagged, negative associations were found between privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3 and child characteristics at Cycle 1 which included: visual impairment (r = -.05, p < .01), poor developmental attainment (r = -.04, p < .01), dull temperament (r = -.12, p < .001), and social skills (r - -.13, p < .001). The results showed that privilege deprivation-diversion was positively correlated with ear infection (r = .05, p < .01), injury (r = .04, p < .01), difficult temperament (r = .05, p < .01), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = .08, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = .15, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = .12, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = .07, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = .17, p < .001), and property offences (r = .12, p < .001). A greater amount of privilege deprivation-diversion was found among younger children (r = -.06, p < .001) and boys (r = -.08, p < .001). Privilege deprivation-diversion was related to maternal age (r = -.06, p < .001), chronic condition (r = .08, p < .001), family functioning (r = -.04, p < .001), single parent (r = .04, p < .01), education (r = .08, p < .001), income (r = .05, p < .001), occupation (r = 115 .06, p < .001), hours per week worked (r = -.07, p < .001), social support (r = .09, p < .001), neighbourhood safety (r = -.04, p < .01), and neighbourhood cohesion (r = .04, p < .01). Table 10 Correlations of Parental Discipline at Cycle 3 and Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 2 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward Developmental characteristics Unhealthy -.02 -.00 .02 Long-term condition -.00 .02 -.1 Visual impairment .02 -.02 .03 Nose or throat infection .04 .00 .02 Ear infection -.01 .02 .00 Injury .03* .03** .02 Giftedness .00 -.03 -.05* Special need .02 .03 -.06** Poor developmental attainment .01 -.08*** -.10*** Difficult temperament .12*** .06* -.05* Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr .13*** .11*** -.04 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr .06** .02 .-.01 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr .17*** .13*** -.02 Separation anxiety 2-3 yr .02 .02 .00 Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr -.10*** .08** .10*** Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .14*** .10*** -.02 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .11*** .01 -.07*** Physical aggression 4-11 yr .15*** .15*** -.05*** Indirect aggression 4-11 yr .10*** .05*** -.08*** Property offences 4-11 yr .16*** .14*** -.07*** Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.17*** .04** .13*** Social skills -.06** .-.00 .09*** Physical appearance -.01 -.05* -.07* General self-esteem -.00 -.10*** -.05* Innate characteristics Child age -.04** -.06*** -.34*** Child age2 -.05*** -.07*** -.30*** Child sex -.05*** -.08*** -.02 Premature .00 -.02 .03 Birth Order .02 .01 -.11*** Control Variables Maternal age - - - Depression .10*** .03* .01 Chronic condition - - - Activity restriction - - - Marital conflict .06*** .00 -.05*** 116 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward Family functioning .16*** -.03* -.11*** Number of children <= 17 yr. .02 .01 -.09*** Single parent .03* .04** -.01 Maternal education level -.06*** .10*** .05*** Income -.01 .04** -.02 Occupation level -.08*** .03 .03* Non-standard workdays and hours - - - Hours per week worked - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - Social support - - - Neighbourhood safety - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - - Neighbourhood problems - - - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 In cross-sectional analysis at Cycle 1, the final dependent measure, reward, was positively correlated with prosocial children 2-3 years (r = .12, p < .001), prosocial children 4-11 years (r = .14, p < .001), general self-esteem (r = .10, p < .001), child age (r = -.54, p < .001), child sex (r = -.03, p < .01), and birth order (r = -.16, p < .001). Reward was inversely correlated with visual impairment (r = -.06, p < .001), nose or throat infections (r = -.04, p < .01), giftedness (r = -.06, p < .001), poor developmental attainment (r = -.03, p < .05), difficult and dull temperament (r = -.14, p < .001; r = -.09, p < .001, respectively), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = -.06, p < .05), emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 years (r = -.05, p < .05), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = -.10, p < .001), separation anxiety 2-3 years (r = -.11, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = -.06, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = -.10, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = -.06, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = -.15, p < .001), property offences 4-11 years (r = -.05, p < .001), and social skills (r = -.05, p < .01). Reward was associated with maternal age (r = -.27, p < .001), depression (r = -.04, p < .001), chronic condition (r = -.01, p < .05), marital conflict (r = -.07, p < .001), family 117 functioning (r = -.15, p < .001), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = -.18, p < .001), single parent (r = -.02, p < .05), maternal education (r = .06, p < .001), income (r = -.03, p < .01), occupation (r = .03, p < .05), non-standard workdays and hours (r = -.03, p < .01), number of jobs currently held (r = -.07, p < .001), social support (r = .10, p < .001), neighbourhood safety (r = -.02, p < .05), and neighbourhood cohesion (r = .06, p < .001). Within Cycle 2, it was shown that reward was negatively related to nose or throat infection (r = -.05, p < .05), special need (r = -.03, p < .05), poor developmental attainment (r = -.03, p < .01), difficult temperament (r = -.07, p < .01), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = -.10, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 years (r = -.07, p < .01), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = -.09, p < .001), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = -.03, p < .05), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = -.08, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = -.06, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = -.11, p < .001), property offences 4-11 years (r = -.05, p < .001), child age (r = -.46, p < .001), child sex (r = -.03, p < .01), and birth order (r = -.13, p < .001). Positive correlations emerged for reward and prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = .14, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = .10, p < .001), social skills (r = .03, p < .05), and prematurity (r = .03, p < .05). Reward was associated with the following control variables: marital conflict (r = -.06, p < .001), family functioning (r = -.12, p < .001), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = -.08, p < .001), single parent (r = -.02, p < .05), education (r = .03, p < .01), and income (r = -.07, p < .001). Cross-sectional analysis of Cycle 3 demonstrated that reward was inversely related to hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = -.03, p < .05), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = -.08, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = -.04, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = -.10, p < .001), property offences (r = -.08, p < .001), child age (r = -.34, p < .01), and birth order (r = -.11, p < .001). The findings illustrated that 118 reward was positively associated with prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = .13, p < .001). Reward was correlated with depression (r = -.05, p < .001), marital conflict (r = -.06, p < .001), family functioning (r = -.17, p < .001), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = -.07, p < .001), education (r = .05, p < .001), income (r = -.04, p < .01), occupation (r = .05, p < .01), social support (r = .10, p < .001), and neighbourhood cohesion (r = .10, p < .001). The first lagged effect analysis for the dependent measure of reward involved correlating reward at Cycle 2 with child characteristics and controls at Cycle 1. In this analysis, reward was negatively correlated with nose or throat infections (r = -.06, p < .01), injury (r = -.03, p < .01), difficult and dull temperament (r = -.11, p < .001; r = -.06, p < .001, respectively), hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 years (r = -.05, p < .05), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = -.08, p < .001), separation anxiety 2-3 years (r = -.06, p < .01), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = -.04, p < .01), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = -.05, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = -.11, p < .001), and property offences 4-11 years (r = -.03, p < .05). The results showed that reward was positively related to ear infection (r = .05, p < .01), poor developmental attainment (r = .05, p < .01), prosocial children aged 2-3 years (r = .09, p < .001), prosocial children aged 4-11 years (r = .07, p < .001), child age (r = -.46, p < .001), child sex (r - -.03, p < .01), prematurity (r = .03, p < .05), and birth order (r = -.13, p < .001). Furthermore, greater levels of reward was seen for younger mothers (r = -.22, p < .001), those with low levels of depression (r = -.03, p < .01), chronic condition (r = .03, p < .05), couples with less marital conflict (r = -.06, p < .001), decreased values on family functioning (r = -.11, p < .001), fewer children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = -.13, p < .001), mothers who are not a single parent (r = -.03, p < .01), mothers with higher levels of education (r = .05, p < .001), lower amounts of 119 income (r = -.03, p < .01), fewer jobs currently held (r = -.04, p < .01), mothers with more social support (r = .07, p < .001), less neighbourhood safety (r = -.04, p < .001), and higher scores on neighbourhood cohesion (r = .05, p < .001). In the correlational analysis of reward at Cycle 3 and child characteristics and control variables at Cycle 2, it was found that reward was inversely related to giftedness (r = -.05, p < .05), special need (r = -.06, p < .01), poor developmental attainment (r = -.10, p < .001), difficult temperament (r = -.05, p < .05), emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = -.07, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = -.05, p < .001), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = -.08, p < .001), property offences 4-11 years (r = -.07, p > .001), perceptions of physical appearance (r = -.07, p < .05), and general self-esteem (r = -.05, p < .05). Reward at Cycle 3 showed a positive correlation with Cycle 2 characteristics which included: prosocial behaviour 2-3 years (r = .10, p < .001), prosocial behaviour 4-11 years (r = .13, p < .001), and social skills (r = .09, p < .001). It was found that increased scores on the reward scale was associated with the younger age of children (r = -.34, p < .001) and single or eldest child in the family (r = -.11, p < .001). Reward was related to marital conflict (r = -.05, p < .001), family functioning (r = -.11, p < .001), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = -.09, p < .001), education (r = .05, p < .001), and occupation (r = .03, p < .05). The last bivariate analysis conducted explored relationships between reward at Cycle 3 and child characteristics and control indicators at Cycle 1. In this analysis, the results showed that reward was negatively correlated with nose or throat infection (r - -.09, p < .001), ear infection (r = -.05, p < .01), injury (r = -.03, p < .05), giftedness (r = -.05, p < .05), poor developmental attainment (r = -.09, p < .001), difficult temperament (r = -.09, p < .001), dull temperament (r = -.12, p < .001), physical aggression 2-3 years (r = -.08, p < .001), separation anxiety 2-3 years (r = -.06, p < .05), hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 years (r = -.09, p < .001), 120 emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 years (r = -.06, p < .001), physical aggression 4-11 years (r = -.05, p < .01), indirect aggression 4-11 years (r = -.05, p < .01), property offences 4-11 years (r = -.08, p < .001), child age (r = -.34, p < .001), and birth order (r = -.11, p < .001). Prosocial behaviour 2-3 years was the only child characteristic positively related to reward (r = .05, p < .05). Control variables associated with reward consisted of maternal age (r = -.11, p < .001), chronic condition (r = .06, p < .001), marital conflict (r = -.05, p < .001), family functioning (r = -.11, p < .001), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (r = -.11, p < .001), maternal education (r = .07, p < .001), occupation (r = .05, p < .01), social support (r = .09, p < .001), neighbourhood safety (r = -.05, p < .001), and neighbourhood cohesion (r = .04, p < .001). Table 11 Correlations of Parental Discipline at Cycle 3 and Child Characteristics and Control Variables Cycle 1 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward Developmental characteristics Unhealthy -.00 -.02 .01 Long-term condition .03* .01 -.02 Visual impairment -.05** -.05** .02 Nose or throat infection .03* -.01 -.09*** Ear infection -.04* .05** -.05** Injury .00 .04** -.03* Giftedness .01 -.05 -.05* Special need .00 .00 -.03 Poor developmental attainment .05** -.04** -.09*** Difficult temperament .12*** .05** -.09*** Dull temperament -.02 -.12*** -.12*** Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr .12*** .03 -.01 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr .08** .-.02 -.04 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr .19*** .08*** -.08*** Separation anxiety 2-3 yr .11*** .00 -.06* Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr -.07** .15*** .05* Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .16*** .12*** -.09*** Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .11*** .07*** -.06*** Physical aggression 4-11 yr .17*** .17*** -.05** 121 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline Privilege deprivation-diversion Reward Indirect aggression 4-11 yr .05** -.01 -.05** Property offences 4-11 yr .16*** .12*** -.08*** Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.14*** -.01 .13 Social skills -.12*** -.13*** -.02 Physical appearance - - - General self-esteem - - - Innate characteristics Child age -.04** -.06*** -.34*** Child age2 -.05*** -.07*** -.30*** Child sex -.05*** -.08*** -.02 Premature .00 -.02 .03 Birth Order .02 .01 -.11*** Control Variables Maternal age -.03** -.06*** -.11*** Depression .14*** .01 .00 Chronic condition -.01 .08*** .06*** Activity restriction .02 .01 .02 Marital conflict .05** .02 -.05*** Family functioning .19*** -.04*** -.11*** Number of children <= 17 yr. .01 .00 -.11*** Single parent .03* .04** -.02 Maternal education level -.05*** .08*** .07*** Income -.01 .05*** .01 Occupation level -.07*** .06*** .05** Control variables con’d Non-standard workdays and hours .04* .02 -.03 Hours per week worked -.02 -.07*** -.01 Number of jobs currently held -.03* .02 -.00 Social support -.10*** .09*** .09*** Neighbourhood safety -.04** -.04** -.05*** Neighbourhood cohesion -.10*** .04** .04*** Neighbourhood problems .03** .02 .02 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 122 Multivariate Analyses Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) linear regression analyses were run with each of the parental disciplinary behaviours as the dependent variable. The aim of the first series of analyses, as shown in Tables 12 through 17, was to answer the following research questions: 1.a. Is physical-psychological aggressive discipline a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors? 1.b. Is privilege deprivation-diversion a product of child characteristics following control of parent, familial, and contextual factors? 1.c. Is reward determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors? Regression models were stratified by child age insomuch as equations were calculated for children 3 years and younger separately from those for children 4 to 11 years as of Cycle 1. Beginning with physical-psychological aggressive discipline, I describe the regression results by cycle in a sequential fashion for the younger subsample and then for the older subsample. The description of the cross-sectional results precedes the longitudinal analyses when these are available in the subsample. The regression analyses predicting physical-psychological aggressive discipline are presented in Tables 12 and 13. The first step in the analysis was used to test if the developmental characteristics of children significantly predicted ratings of this disciplinary behaviour among children equal to or younger than 3 years of age at Cycle 1. The results from this step indicated that developmental characteristics explained 16.7% of the variance (R2 = .17, F(9, 1022) = 22.69, p < .001, not shown in Table 12). Developmental characteristics found to be significantly predictive of physical-psychological aggressive discipline included difficult temperament, dull 123 temperament, hyperactivity-inattention, physical aggression, and prosocial behaviour (β = .07, p < .05; β = -.07, p < .05; β = .18, p < .001; β = .22, p < .001; β = -.16, p < .001, respectively). The purpose of the second step was to examine the predictive effect of innate child characteristics on this discipline behaviour. Innate characteristics accounted for a significant proportion of the variance (R2Δ = .01, FΔ (2, 1020) = 5.31, p < .01, see Table 12) and greater levels of discipline were observed in higher order birth children relative to eldest child or single child status children (β = .10, p < .01). After adjusting for these characteristics, physical-psychological aggressive discipline remained significantly associated with difficult temperament (β = 06, p < .05), dull temperament (β = -.08, p < .01), hyperactivity-inattention (β = .18, p < .001), physical aggression (β = .21, p < .001), and prosocial behaviour (β = -.15, p < .001). The last step of the analysis represents the contribution of parent, familial, and contextual factors to explaining physical-psychological aggressive discipline, which was significant (R2Δ = .05, FΔ (14, 1006) = 4.86, p < .001). The specific factors that had a significant effect on physical-psychological aggressive discipline were maternal age, marital conflict, family functioning, occupation, and reward (β = -.07, p < .05; β = .07, p < .05; β = .10, p < .01; β = -.07, p < .05; β = -.08, p < .05, respectively). Child characteristics related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline, net of these factors, consisted of dull temperament (β = -.07, p < .05), hyperactivity-inattention (β = .17, p < .001), physical aggression (β = .20, p < .001), prosocial behaviour (β = -.11, p < .01), and birth order (β = .14, p < .01). For the younger subsample, no further regression analyses were executed for physical-psychological aggressive discipline measure because of the age-applicability of this variable.124 Table 12 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 2 to step 3). Cycle 1 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 4.83*** 0.27 7.68*** 0.82 5.57*** 0.36 4.93*** 0.99 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy .05 0.56 -.34 0.55 -.05 1.21 -.06 1.17 Long-term condition - - - - - - - - Visual impairment - - - - .25 0.20 .08 0.20 Nose or throat infection - - - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - - - Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment -.01 0.19 -.05 0.19 -.76 1.22 -.93 1.18 Difficult temperament .30* 0.15 .22 0.22 - - - - Dull temperament -.08** 0.03 -.07* 0.03 - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr .82*** 0.15 .77*** 0.15 - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr -.13 0.14 -.22 0.14 - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr .95*** 0.15 .91*** 0.15 - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr -.11 0.14 -.13 0.14 - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr -.12*** 0.03 -.09*** 0.03 - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - .08 0.17 .01 0.16 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - .21 0.16 .20 0.16 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - .46** 0.16 .40* 0.16 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - .05 0.16 .04 0.16 Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - .75*** 0.16 .67*** 0.17 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - -.08** 0.02 -.03 0.03 Social skills - - - - -.59*** 0.16 -.57*** 0.16 Physical appearance - - - - - - - - 125 Table 12 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 2 to step 3). Cycle 1 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB General self-esteem - - - - -.00 0.15 .01 0.15 Innate characteristics Child sex -.10 0.13 -.13 0.13 -.06 0.16 .05 0.16 Premature - - - - - - - - Birth order .25** 0.08 .36** 0.11 - - - - Control variables Maternal age - - -.03* 0.02 - - -.01 0.02 Depression - - -.01 0.02 - - -.03* 0.01 Chronic condition - - - - - - -.13 0.15 Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict - - .60* 0.25 - - .08 0.19 Family functioning - - .04** 0.02 - - .08 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr. - - -.12 0.10 - - .18* 0.09 Single parent - - .10 0.21 - - - - Maternal education level - - -.04 0.08 - - -.10 0.07 Income - - - - - - - - Occupation - - -.04* 0.02 - - .03 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - - - Social support - - -.03 0.03 - - .01 0.03 Neighbourhood safety - - -.09 0.06 - - .06 0.07 Neighbourhood cohesion - - .03 0.02 - - -.04 0.03 Neighbourhood problems - - .02 0.05 - - .01 0.05 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - -.05 0.05 - - .01 0.05 Reward - - -.15* 0.06 - - -.19** 0.06 R2 (Adj. R2) .18 (.17) - .23 (.21) - .17 (.15) - .24 (.21) - F 19.69*** - 11.84*** - 9.87*** - 7.15*** - 126 Table 12 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 2 to step 3). Cycle 1 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB ∆R2 .01 - .05 - .00 - .08 - ∆F 5.31** - 4.86*** - .13 - 4.18*** - N 1031 - 1031 - 606 - 606 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 12 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by cycle and child age (step 2 to step 3) continued Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 5.03*** 0.26 6.9*** 0.55 5.01*** 0.21 4.60*** 0.52 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - - - Visual impairment - - - - - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - -.09 0.13 - - Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need .37* 0.15 .30* 0.15 - - - - Poor developmental attainment -.02 0.11 .02 0.11 .29* 0.12 .35** 0.12 Difficult temperament - - - - - - - - Dull temperament - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - - - .40*** 0.10 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - 127 Table 12 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by cycle and child age (step 2 to step 3) continued Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - - - -.06*** 0.01 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .30** 0.11 .29** 0.11 .51*** 0.10 - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .21 0.11 .11 0.11 .24* 0.10 .08 0.10 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .75*** 0.11 .62*** 0.11 .64*** 0.10 .58*** 0.10 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -.12 0.11 -.13 0.11 .20* 0.10 .10 0.10 Property offences 4-11 yr .41*** 0.11 .28* 0.11 -.20 0.11 -.13 0.10 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.07*** 0.02 -.06*** 0.02 -.09*** 0.01 - - Social skills - - - - - - - - Physical appearance - - - - - - - - General self-esteem - - - - - - - - Innate characteristics Child sex .09 0.11 -.01 0.10 .02 0.20 .07 0.09 Premature - - - - - - - - Birth order .01 0.08 -.05 0.08 - - - - Control variables Maternal age - - -.01 0.01 - - -.00 0.01 Depression - - .03* 0.01 - - .03** 0.01 Chronic condition - - - - - - - - Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict - - .04 0.13 - - .34** 0.11 Family functioning - - .01 0.01 - - .07*** 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. - - .07 0.06 - - - - Single parent - - - - - - - - Maternal education level - - .06 0.06 - - -.15** 0.05 128 Table 12 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by cycle and child age (step 2 to step 3) continued Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Income - - - - - - - - Occupation - - -.04** 0.01 - - -.01 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - - - Social support - - - - - - .07** 0.02 Control variables con’d Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - - - -.01 0.02 Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - - - Privilege deprivation-diversion - - .04 0.03 - - -.32*** 0.04 Reward - - -.42*** 0.04 - - -.32*** 0.04 R2 (Adj. R2) .12 (.11) - .22 (.20) - .14 (.14) - .26 (.25) - F 16.66*** - 17.39*** - 23.38*** - 22.43*** - ∆R2 .00 - .20 - .00 - .11 - ∆F .37 - 16.11*** - .05 - 18.60*** - N 1215 - 1215 - 1256 - 1256 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 129 The purpose of each step of the regression model in predicting physical-psychological aggressive discipline, as described above, were unchanged for the analyses of the subsample of children 4 to 11 years. At Cycle 1 in step 1, the percentage of variance predicted in physical-psychological aggressive discipline by developmental characteristics was 16.6% (R2 = .17, F(11, 595) = 10.77, p < .001, not shown in Table 12). It was found that prosocial behaviour was significantly and negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = -.14, p < .01), as did social skills (β = -.16, p < .001). Positive associations were obtained between physical-psychological aggressive discipline and physical aggression (β = .12, p < .01), and property offences (β = .19, p < .001). Step 2 contained the innate characteristic of child sex which did not explain a significant amount of variance (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (1, 594) = 0.13, p = .72, see Table 12) nor was it significantly related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = -.02, p = .72). While adjusting for child sex, physical-psychological aggressive discipline continued to be associated inversely with prosocial behaviour and social skills (β = -.13, p < .01; β = -.15, p < .001, respectively) and positively with physical aggression and property offences (β = .12, p < .01; β = .19, p < .001, respectively). The percentage of explained variance in physical-psychological aggressive discipline supplied by parent, familial, and contextual variables (step 3) was 7.6% (R2Δ = .08, FΔ (14, 580) = 4.18, p < .001). Physical-psychological aggressive discipline was shown to be related to maternal depression (β = -.08, p < .05), number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (β = .08, p < .05), family functioning (β = .22, p < .001), and reward (β = -.12, p < .01). Although no relationship existed among physical-psychological aggressive discipline and prosocial behaviour in this step (β = -.05, p = .26), physical-psychological aggressive discipline was correlated with social skills, physical 130 aggression, and property offences (β = -.15, p < .001; β = .10, p < .05; β = .17, p < .001, respectively). A slightly smaller degree of variance in physical-psychological aggressive discipline was explained by developmental characteristics in Cycle 2 compared to Cycle 1 (R2 = .12, R2 = .17, respectively) for the older subsample but this first step was statistically different from zero (F(8, 1207) = 20.76, p < .001, not shown in Table 12). The results of this step demonstrated that discipline was explained in a positive direction by special need (β = .07, p < .05), hyperactivity-inattention (β = .08, p < .01), emotional disorder-anxiety (β = .06, p < .05), physical aggression (β = .20, p < .001), and property offences (β = .10, p < .001). Physical-psychological aggressive discipline was affected in a converse manner by prosocial behaviour (β = -.13, p < .001). Innate characteristics, entered into the model at step 2 (see Table 12) did not add a significant extent of explained variance (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (2, 1205) = 0.37, p = .69) and neither child sex nor birth order were associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = .02, p = .39; β = .00, p = .92, respectively). Predictive effects on physical-psychological aggressive discipline were maintained by special need, hyperactivity-inattention, physical aggression, property offences, and prosocial behaviour (β = .07, p < .05; β = .08, p < .01; β = .20, p < .001; β = .11, p < .001; β = -.14, p < .001, respectively, following adjustment for innate characteristics. The value of explained variance in physical-psychological aggressive discipline derived from the control variables was 9.5% (R2Δ = .10, FΔ (9, 1196) = 16.11, p < .001), in step 3. It was revealed that physical-psychological aggressive discipline had a significant association with maternal depression (β = .07, p < .05), occupation (β = -.10, p < .01), and reward (β = -.28, p < .001). The same developmental characteristics that showed a significant relationship to physical-psychological aggressive discipline in step 2 continued to do so in step 3 (i.e., special need β = 131 .05, p < .05; hyperactivity-inattention β = .08, p < .01; physical aggression β = .17, p < .001; property offences β = .08, p < .05; prosocial behaviour β = -.12, p < .001). Data from Cycle 3 was used in the final cross-sectional analysis of physical-psychological aggressive discipline among children 4 to 11 years old. The first equation in which developmental characteristics were entered predicted 14.4% of the variance in discipline (R2 = .14, F(8, 1248 ) = 26.32, p < .001, not shown in Table 12). Positive relationships were observed between physical-psychological aggressive discipline and poor development attainment (β = .06, p < .05), hyperactivity-inattention (β = .15, p < .001), emotional disorder-anxiety (β = .07, p < .05), physical aggression (β = .18, p < .001), and indirect aggression (β = .06, p < .05). For each unit of increase in prosocial behaviour, physical-psychological aggressive discipline decreased by 0.18 units (β = .18, p < .001). Consistent with the findings of the previous two cycles among the older subsample, there was no significant contribution of innate characteristics to the proportion of explained variance (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (1, 1247) = 0.05, p = .83, see Table 12) and child sex was not associated with discipline in this step (β = .01, p = .83). Variables in this step that remained significant even with controlling for child sex included poor developmental attainment, hyperactivity-inattention, emotional disorder-anxiety, physical aggression, indirect aggression, and prosocial behaviour on physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = .06, p < .05; β = .15, p < .001; β = .07, p < .05; β = .18, p < .001; β = .06, p < .05; β = -.18, p < .001, respectively). A significant percentage of the variance in physical-psychological aggressive discipline was predicted by parent, familial, and contextual indicators (R2Δ = .11, FΔ (10, 1237) = 18.60, p < .001), as seen in the third step. The results indicated that physical-psychological aggressive discipline was significantly associated with maternal depression (β = .07, p < .01), marital conflict (β = .08, p < .01), family functioning (β = .20, p < .001), education (β = -.08, p < 132 .01), social support (β = .11, p < .01), privilege deprivation-diversion (β =.07, p < .01), and reward (β = -.22, p < .001). While control variables were present in the equation, physical-psychological aggressive discipline showed a unremitting relationship with poor developmental attainment (β =.08, p < .01), hyperactivity-inattention (β =.11, p < .001), physical aggression (β =.17, p < .001), and prosocial behaviour (β = -.12, p < .001). In the instance of emotional disorder-anxiety and indirect aggression, however, no significant effect was found for these variables on physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β =.02, p = .40; β =.03; p = .29, respectively). Table 13 presents the longitudinal regression results for the physical-psychological aggressive discipline measure among the older subsample of children. These regression analyses are employed to test the extent to which child characteristics have a lagged effect on physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Developmental characteristics assessed at Cycle 1 accounted for 5.7% of the variance in physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 2 (R2 = .06, F(11, 513) = 2.80, p < .01, not shown in Table 13). Developmental characteristics that showed a positive predictive effect on discipline were visual impairment (β = .11, p < .05), property offences (β = .12, p < .05) whereas prosocial behaviour was a negative determinant (β = -.10, p < .05). Innate characteristics did not explain a significant amount of variance (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (2, 511) = 0.00, p = 1.00, see Table 13) and neither child sex nor birth order were related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = -.00, p = .95; β = -.00; p = .95, respectively). After adjusting for innate characteristics, relationships were maintained from step 1 to 2 between physical-psychological aggressive discipline and visual impairment (β = .11, p < .05), property offences (β = .12, p < .05), and prosocial behaviour (β = -.10, p < .05). The third step of the model in which control variables measured at Cycle 1 were inserted was statistically different 133 from zero (R2Δ = .17, FΔ (14, 497) = 8.05, p < .001). The results of this step revealed that physical-psychological aggressive discipline was associated with number of children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (β = .12, p < .05), maternal education (β = -.12, p < .01), physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 1 (β = .38, p < .001), and privilege deprivation-diversion Cycle 1 (β = .12, p < .01). Although visual impairment, property offences, and prosocial behaviour no longer had an effect following the entry of control variables into the model (β = .07, p = .09; β = .00, p = .97; β = -.08, p = .10, respectively), perceptions of physical appearance became a significant factor in predicting physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 2 (β = -.10, p < .05). 134 Table 13 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 2 to step 3) Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 5.61*** 0.45 2.70* 1.10 5.37*** 0.28 3.40*** 0.60 Developmental characteristics Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Unhealthy - - - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - - - Visual impairment .53* 0.22 .36 0.21 - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - - - Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment -.17 1.38 .15 1.28 -.04 0.12 -.04 0.12 Difficult temperament - - - - - - - - Dull temperament - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -.15 0.18 -.20 0.17 .16 0.13 -.04 0.11 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .07 0.18 -.09 0.17 .12 0.13 .08 0.11 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .18 0.17 -.09 0.17 .53*** 0.13 .19* 0.12 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -.27 0.17 -.19 0.16 -.04 0.13 .04 0.11 Property offences 4-11 yr .44* 0.18 .01 0.18 .19 0.13 -.02 0.12 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.06* 0.03 - - -.08 0.13 -.05** 0.02 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 135 Table 13 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 2 to step 3) Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Social skills - - - - -.22 0.12 -.07 0.10 Physical appearance -.26 0.19 -.36* 0.18 - - - - General self-esteem -.18 0.19 -.18 0.18 - - - - Innate characteristics Child sex -.01 0.18 .04 0.17 -.22 0.12 -.20 0.11 Premature - - - - - - - - Birth order -.00 0.13 -.11 0.14 - - - - Control variables - - - - - - - - Maternal age - - .01 0.02 - - .00 0.01 Depression - - .01 0.12 - - -.01 0.01 Chronic condition - - - - - - - - Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict - - -.17 0.20 - - -.24 0.16 Family functioning - - -.03 0.02 - - .02 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. - - .26* 0.11 - - - - Single parent - - -.14 0.24 - - - - Maternal education level - - -.20** 0.07 - - -.05 0.06 Income - - - - - - - - Occupation - - - - - - -.01 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours - - .07 0.19 - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - - - Social support - - .05 0.04 - - - - Neighbourhood safety - - -.05 0.07 - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - .00 0.03 - - - - Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - .36*** 0.04 - - .44*** 0.03 136 Table 13 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 2 to step 3) Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - .14** 0.05 - - .01 0.04 Reward - - -.05 0.06 - - -.05 0.05 R2 (Adj. R2) .06 (.03) - .23 (.19) - .09 (.08) - .32 (.31) - F 2.36** - 5.53*** - 8.90*** - 20.72*** - ∆R2 .00 - .17 - .00 - .23 - ∆F .00 - 8.05*** - 3.42 - 29.59*** - N 524 - 524 - 786 - 786 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Table 13 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Constant 4.24*** 0.27 3.35*** 0.85 Developmental characteristics Cycle 1 Unhealthy - - - - Long-term condition - - - - Visual impairment - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - Ear infection - - - - Injury - - - - 137 Table 13 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Giftedness - - - - Special need - - - - Poor developmental attainment .08 0.14 -.20 0.13 Difficult temperament - - - - Inactive temperament - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .44** 0.15 .21 0.14 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -.14 0.14 -.12 0.13 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .60*** 0.15 .28** 0.14 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr .04 0.15 .00 0.13 Property offences 4-11 yr .47** 0.16 .02 0.15 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -.02 0.02 .06** 0.02 Social skills -.18 0.15 -.26* 0.13 Physical appearance - - - - General self-esteem - - - - Innate characteristics - - - - Child sex -.14 0.15 -.44** 0.14 Premature - - - - Birth order - - - - Control variables - - - - Maternal age - - .02 0.01 Depression - - .03 0.01 Chronic condition - - -.14 0.13 138 Table 13 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Activity restriction - - - - Marital conflict - - -.30 0.19 Family functioning - - .01 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr. - - - - Single parent - - - - Maternal education level - - -.10 0.07 Income - - - - Occupation - - -.03* 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - .30 0.17 Hours per week worked - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - Social support - - -.03 0.03 Neighbourhood safety - - -.30 0.06 Neighbourhood cohesion - - -.04 0.03 Neighbourhood problems - - -.07 0.04 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - .40*** 0.04 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - -.09 0.05 Reward - - -.05 0.05 R2 (Adj. R2) .12 (.11) - .34 (.32) - F 9.40*** - 13.31*** - ∆R2 .00 - .22 - ∆F .93 - 13.92*** - N 642 - 642 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 139 In the model where physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3 was regressed onto child developmental characteristics at Cycle 2, it was found that the percentage of variance explained by developmental characteristics was 8.9% (R2 = .09, F(8, 777) = 9.56, p < .001, not shown in Table 13). For each unit of increase in prosocial behaviour and social skills, physical-psychological aggressive discipline decreased by 0.17 units (β = -.17, p < .001) and 0.07 units (β = -.07, p < .05), respectively. A significant positive association was observed between physical aggression and physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = .15, p < .001). The second step of the model, constituting the innate characteristics, fell slightly above the .05 threshold of significance (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (1, 776) = 3.42, p = .07, see Table 13) and child sex was statistically not different from zero (β = -.07, p = .07). Despite the remission of the predictive effect of social skills after accounting for child sex (β = -.07, p = .06), physical-psychological aggressive discipline was related to prosocial behaviour and physical aggression (β = -.15, p < .001; β = .16, p < .001, respectively). Nearly one-quarter of the variance in discipline was explained by parent, familial, and contextual variables (R2Δ = 0.23, FΔ (9, 767) = 29.59, p < .001), however, physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 2 was the only significant predictor (β = .49, p < .001). After adjusting for these variables, prosocial behaviour continued to have an inverse effect on physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = -.10, p < .01) but physical aggression became insignificant (β = .06, p = .10). Step 1 of the final longitudinal model represents the lagged effect of developmental characteristics at Cycle 1 on physical-psychological aggressive discipline as evaluated at Cycle 3. This step provides 11.7% of the explained variance in discipline (R2 = .12, F(8, 633) = 10.46, p < .001, not shown in Table 13). Physical-psychological aggressive discipline was positively predicted by hyperactivity-inattention, physical aggression, and property offences (β = .13, p < 140 .01; β = .16, p < .001; β = .14, p < .01, respectively). As documented in Table 13, innate characteristics did not account for a significant volume of variance (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (1, 632) = 0.93, p = .34) and no association was found among child sex and discipline (β = -.04, p = .34). The inclusion of child sex the equation did not interfere with the significant relationships found in the previous step between physical-psychological aggressive discipline and hyperactivity-inattention (β = .12, p < .01), physical aggression (β = .17, p < .001), and property offences (β = .13, p < .01). The percentage of variance explained in step 3 by the control variables was 22.3% (R2Δ = .22, FΔ (15, 617) = 13.92, p < .001). While maternal occupation had a negative impact (β = -.09, p < .05), physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3 was predicted in a positive manner by physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 1 (β = .45, p < .001). Physical-psychological aggressive discipline, as measured at Cycle 3, remained significantly associated with physical aggression (β = .10, p < .01) but hyperactivity-inattention and property offences emerged as insignificant after the control variables were entered into the model (β = .06, p = .14; β = .01, p = .87, respectively). Dissimilar to the previous two steps, physical-psychological aggressive discipline was inversely related to prosocial behaviour, social skills, and child sex (β = -.12, p < .01; β = -.07, p < .05; β = -.12, p < .01, respectively). The next series of regression analyses for predicting privilege deprivation-diversion were implemented using the same procedures as were applied for physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Regression models were first run for children less than or equal to 3 years and then for children 4 to 11 years as of Cycle 1. The findings of the models are presented consecutively by cycle. In circumstances in which longitudinal data was available for the subsample, the longitudinal findings are provided after the cross-sectional analyses. In first step of the analyses for the younger subsample during Cycle 1, it was found that developmental characteristics 141 contributed 13.6% of the explained variance in privilege deprivation-diversion (R2 = .14, F(9, 964) = 16.84, p < .001, not shown in Table 14). Positive associations were observed between privilege deprivation-diversion and difficult temperament (β = .10, p < .01), prosocial behaviour (β = .25, p < .001), and physical aggression (β = .23, p < .001). Privilege deprivation-diversion was inversely related to hyperactivity-inattention (β = -.07, p < .05). Innate characteristics, inserted on the second step, added a significant amount of variance in the dependent measure (R2Δ = .01, FΔ (1, 963) = 7.61, p < .01, shown in Table 14). Within this step, children of higher order birth relative to eldest child and single child status receive greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion (β = .09, p < .01). While controlling for birth order, relationships were upheld from the previous step between privilege deprivation-diversion and difficult temperament, prosocial behaviour, physical aggression, and hyperactivity-inattention (β = .09, p < .01; β = .25, p < .001;β = .21, p < .001; β = -.07, p < .05, respectively). Dull temperament emerged as a negative predictor of privilege deprivation-diversion (β = -.07, p < .05). The variance in privilege deprivation-diversion explained by parent, familial, and contextual factors was less than 5% (R2Δ = .03, FΔ (6, 957) = 6.47, p < .001). It was observed that greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion was related to higher levels of maternal education (β = .10, p < .01), non-standard workdays and hours (β = .11, p < .001), fewer hours per week worked (β = -.08, p < .05), and more social support (β = .09, p < .01). Those child characteristics that demonstrated a significant effect in the previous step continued to do so in this final step, which accounted for the control variables. Specifically, association were found among privilege deprivation-diversion and difficult temperament, prosocial behaviour, physical aggression, hyperactivity-inattention, and dull temperament (β = .09, p < .01; β = .20, p < .001; β = .19, p < 142 .001; β = -.07, p < .05; β = -.09, p < .01, respectively).There were no longitudinal data available on privilege deprivation-diversion for this specific subsample. Cross-sectional data from Cycle 1 pertaining to the older subsample revealed that developmental characteristics explained 7.1% of the variance in privilege deprivation-diversion. (R2 = .07, F(10, 577) = 4.39, p < .001, not shown in Table 14). Property offences had a positive effect on privilege deprivation-diversion (β = .13, p < .01) as did general self-esteem (β = .09, p < .05); Privilege deprivation-diversion was negatively associated with social skills (β = -.12, p < .01). Child sex, which represented innate characteristics, was introduced in the second step and explained a significant degree of variance in privilege deprivation-diversion (R2Δ = .02, FΔ (1, 576) = 10.14, p < .01, shown in Table 14). The data showed that higher levels of privilege deprivation-diversion are found among boys compared to girls (β = -.14, p < .01). Privilege deprivation-diversion remained significantly related to property offences, general self-esteem, and social skills (β = .12, p < .01; β = .10, p < .05; β = -.09, p < .05, respectively), once child sex was controlled. The extent of explained variance in privilege deprivation-diversion accounted for by parent, familial, and contextual factors did not exceed that garnered from developmental characteristics (R2Δ = .07, FΔ (14, 562) = .3.13, p < .001). Higher scores on privilege deprivation-diversion were associated with more prestigious occupations (β = .21, p < .001), greater maternal use of physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = .10, p < .05), higher use of reward (β = .10, p < .05). As was the case in the previous step, privilege deprivation-diversion was affected by property offences and child sex (β = .10, p < .05; β = -.10, p < .05, respectively). The relationships of privilege deprivation-diversion with general self-esteem and social skills, however, disappeared after the control variables were entered into the model (β = .10, p = .05; β = -.08, p = .08). 143 Table 14 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 2 to step 3) Cycle 1 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 4.05*** 0.19 .29** 0.10 5.00*** 0.19 4.38*** 0.89 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - -.08 0.17 -.09 0.17 Visual impairment - - - - -.09 0.18 -.12 0.18 Nose or throat infection - - -.02 0.06 - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - - - Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment - - .06 0.13 - - - - Difficult temperament .29** 0.10 .29** 0.10 - - - - Dull temperament -.05* 0.02 -.06** 0.02 - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr -.23* 0.11 -.22* 0.12 - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr -.03 0.10 .03 0.10 - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr .65*** 0.10 .59*** 0.11 - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr .07 0.10 .10 0.10 - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr .14*** 0.02 .11*** 0.02 - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - .05 0.15 .10 0.15 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - .27 0.15 .23 0.15 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - .19 0.14 .13 0.14 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - -.02 0.14 -.09 0.14 Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - .38** 0.15 .33* 0.15 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - - - Social skills - - - - -.29* 0.15 -.25 0.15 Physical appearance - - - - .22 0.15 .13 0.15 General self-esteem - - - - .33* 0.15 .30 0.15 144 Cycle 1 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Innate characteristics Child sex - - - - -.44** 0.14 -.34* 0.14 Premature - - - - - - - - Birth order .15** .05 .16** 0.05 - - - - Control variables - - - - - - - - Maternal age - - - - - - -.03 0.02 Depression - - - - - - - - Chronic condition - - .13 0.10 - - .03 0.14 Activity restriction - - - - - - -.34 0.24 Marital conflict - - - - - - - - Family functioning - - - - - - - - Number of children <= 17 yr. - - - - - - - - Single parent - - - - - - -.02 0.20 Maternal education level - - .16** 0.05 - - .04 0.07 Income - - - - - - -.03 0.05 Occupation - - - - - - .08*** 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - .45*** 0.13 - - - - Hours per week worked - - -.01* 0.00 - - -.00 0.01 Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - .24 0.20 Social support - - .05** 0.02 - - -.00 0.03 Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - - - 4.15 0.03 Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - .04 0.05 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - .00 0.02 - - .09* 0.04 Reward - - - - .13* - .06 - R2 (Adj. R2) .14 (.13) - .18 (.16) - .09 (.07) - .15 (.12) - F 16.02*** - 12.78*** - 4.98*** - 4.05*** - ∆R2 .01 - .03 - .02 - .07 - 145 Cycle 1 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB ∆F 7.61** - 6.47*** - 10.14** - 3.13*** - N 974 - 974 - 587 - 587 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 14 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by cycle and child age (step 2 to step 3).continued Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 4.95*** 0.05 4.78*** 0.19 3.50*** 0.27 2.37*** 0.63 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy .06 0.17 -.02 0.17 - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - - - Visual impairment - - - - - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - .52* 0.20 .51* 0.20 Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment .12* 0.05 .11* 0.05 - - - - Difficult temperament - - - - - - - - Dull temperament - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .19*** 0.05 .19*** 0.05 .04 0.14 .19 0.14 146 Table 14 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by cycle and child age (step 2 to step 3).continued Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -.00 0.05 .00 0.05 .05 0.14 -.13 0.14 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .28*** 0.05 .22*** 0.05 .66*** 0.14 .56*** 0.14 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr .07 0.05 .07 0.05 - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr .21*** 0.05 .21*** 0.05 .16 0.14 .18 0.14 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - .08*** 0.02 .07*** 0.02 Social skills - - - - .25* 0.12 .24* 0.12 Physical appearance - - - - - - - - Developmental characteristics con’d General self-esteem - - - - - - - - Innate characteristics - - - - - - - - Child sex -.31*** 0.05 -.33*** 0.05 -.58*** 0.12 -.52*** 0.12 Premature - - - - - - - - Birth order - - - - - - - - Control variables - - - - - - - - Maternal age - - -.02*** 0.00 - - -.01 0.01 Depression - - .01 0.00 - - - - Chronic condition - - - - - - - - Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict - - -.04 0.06 - - - - Family functioning - - - - - - - - Number of children <= 17 yr. - - .13*** 0.02 - - .04 0.06 Single parent - - .21** 0.07 - - - - Maternal education level - - .17*** 0.02 - - .23** 0.07 Income - - .02 0.01 - - -.09** 0.04 Occupation - - - - - - .04** 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - - - 147 Table 14 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by cycle and child age (step 2 to step 3).continued Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - - - Social support - - - - - - .03 0.02 Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohestion - - - - - - .06* 0.03 Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - .01 0.01 - - .05 0.04 Reward - - - - - - - - R2 (Adj. R2) .05 (.05) - .08 (.07) - .17 (.15) - .24 (.22) - F 28.68*** - 21.87*** - 12.93*** - 10.25*** - ∆R2 .01 - .03 - .04 - .08 - ∆F 47.76*** - 14.34*** - 22.59*** - 6.48*** - N 4294 - 4294 - 526 - 526 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 148 The data analyzed within Cycle 2 indicated that 4.0% of the variance in privilege deprivation-diversion was explained by developmental characteristics R2 = .04, F(7, 4287 ) = 25.67, p < .001, not shown in Table 14). In this step of the model only positive associations materialised between privilege deprivation-diversion and poor development attainment (β = .04, p < .05), hyperactivity-inattention (β = .08, p < .001), physical aggression (β = .11, p < .001), and property offences (β = .08, p < .001). The percentage of variance explained by child sex, which symbolized innate characteristics, was 1.1% (R2Δ = .01, FΔ (1, 4286) = 47.76, p < .001, shown in Table 14). Higher values on the privilege deprivation-diversion scale were found among boys relative to girls (β = -.11, p < .001). While child sex was included in the equation, privilege deprivation-diversion sustained its positive relationship with poor developmental attainment, hyperactivity-inattention, physical aggression, and property offences (β = .04, p < .05; β = .07, p < .001; β = .10, p < .001; β = .07, p < .001, respectively). A significant amount of variance was accounted for by the control variables (R2Δ = .03, FΔ (8, 4278) = 14.34, p < .001). A single inverse association was obtained in which lower levels of privilege deprivation-diversion occurred with increasing maternal age β = -.06, p < .001). Privilege deprivation-diversion was related in a positive direction with number of children aged 17 years and under in the household (β = .09, p < .001), single parent status (β = .05, p < .01), and maternal education (β = .12, p < .001). The associations found in the previous step of the analysis remained staunch after the inclusion of the control variables. In particular, privilege deprivation-diversion was associated with poor developmental attainment, hyperactivity-inattention, physical aggression, property offences, and child sex (β = .03, p < .05; β = .07, p < .001; β = .08, p < .001; β = .07, p < .001; β = -.11, p < .001). 149 Results from the regression model at Cycle 3 revealed that 13% of the variance in privilege deprivation-diversion was explained by developmental characteristics (R2 = .13, F(7, 519) = 11.09, p < .001, not shown in Table 14). While negative relationships were absent in the first step of the model, privilege deprivation-diversion was positively associated with injury (β = .11, p < .01), physical aggression (β = .23, p < .001), prosocial behaviour (β = .18, p < .001), and social skills (β = .09, p < .05). Child sex, the innate characteristic, contributed an additional 3.6% of the variance (R2Δ = .04, FΔ (1, 516) = 22.59, p < .001, shown in Table 14) and possessed an inverse relationship to privilege deprivation-diversion (β = -.20, p < .001). Positive associations continued between privilege deprivation-diversion and injury, physical aggression, prosocial behaviour, and social skills (β = .11, p < .05; β = .22, p < .001; β = .20, p < .001; β = .08, p < .05, respectively) following adjustment for child sex. A significant percentage of the variance in privilege deprivation-diversion was explained by the control variables (R2Δ = .08, FΔ (8, 510) = 6.48, p < .001). Privilege deprivation-diversion was related to maternal income (β = -.12, p < .01), education (β = .15, p < .01), occupation (β = .12, p < .01), and neighbourhood cohesion (β = .09, p < .05). Despite the entrance of the control variables into the equation, privilege deprivation-diversion remained associated with injury, physical aggression, prosocial behaviour, social skills, and child sex (β = .10, p < .05; β = 18., p < .001; β = .17, p < .001; β = .08, p < .05; β = -.18, p < .001, respectively). Longitudinal regression analyses predicting privilege deprivation-diversion within the 4-11 year old subsample are shown in Table 15. These analyses are conducted to test the degree to which child characteristics have a lagged effect on privilege deprivation-diversion. In the model where privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 2 was regressed onto child characteristics at Cycle 1, it was observed in the first step that 9.1% of the variance was predicted by 150 developmental characteristics % (R2 = .09, F(8, 628) = 7.90, p < .001, not shown in Table 15). It was found that privilege deprivation-diversion was positively related to physical aggression (β = .10, p < .05) and property offences (β = .20, p < .001). An inverse association was seen between privilege deprivation-diversion and social skills (β = -.14, p < .01). The second step of the model that contained the innate characteristic of child sex was not statistically different from zero (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (1, 627) = 0.73, p = .39, shown in Table 15). Subsequent to controlling for child sex, the relationship of privilege deprivation-diversion to physical aggression, property offences, and social skills was maintained (β = .10, p < .05; β = .20, p < .001; β = -.14, p < .01, respectively). Unlike the first step, however, hyperactivity-inattention surfaced as a negative predictor (β = -.09, p < .05). The amount of variance provided by the control variables as evaluated at Cycle 1 was 13.4% (R2Δ = .13, FΔ (17, 610) = 6.24, p < .001). The data demonstrated that privilege deprivation-diversion was predicted by maternal age (β = -.10, p < .05), occupation (β = .11, p < .05), privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 1 (β = .25, p < .001), physical-psychological aggressive discipline Cycle 1 (β = .13, p < .01), and reward at Cycle 1 (β = .09, p < .05). The insertion of the control variables did not affect the significance of property offences and social skills to the explanation of privilege deprivation-diversion (β = .13, p < .01; β = -.10, p < .05, respectively). Nevertheless, the results from this equation suggested accepting the null hypothesis for the effects of physical aggression (β = .07, p = .11) and hyperactivity-inattention ((β = -.07, p = .09). One more noteworthy finding is that general self-esteem appeared to have a negative effect on privilege deprivation-diversion only in this final step (β = -.08, p < .05), albeit a weak one. 151 Table 15 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 2 to step 3) Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 4.89*** 0.18 2.42** 0.88 5.01*** 0.07 3.62*** 0.26 Developmental characteristics Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Unhealthy - - - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - - - Visual impairment -.05 0.17 -.09 0.16 - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - - - Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment - - - - -.12 0.07 -.18** 0.06 Difficult temperament - - - - - - - - Dull temperament - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -.29* 0.15 -.23 0.14 .15* 0.07 .08 0.07 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .27 0.14 .13 0.14 -.20** 0.07 -.17** 0.06 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .33* 0.14 .22 0.13 .43*** 0.07 .29*** 0.07 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -.06 0.13 -.01 0.13 .08 0.07 .07 0.06 Property offences 4-11 yr .66*** 0.14 .44** 0.14 .37*** 0.07 .25*** 0.07 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr Social skills -.32* 0.13 152 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Developmental characteristics con’d Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Physical appearance - - - - - - - - General self-esteem -.10 0.13 -.28* 0.13 - - - - Innate characteristics -.37*** 0.06 - - Child sex -.11 0.13 .08 0.13 - - -.25*** 0.06 Premature - - - - - - - - Birth order - - - - - - - - Control variables - - - - - - - - Maternal age - - -.04* 0.02 - - -.02** 0.01 Depression - - -.02 0.01 - - - - Chronic condition - - .06 0.13 - - - - Activity restriction - - -.35 0.23 - - - - Marital conflict - - - - - - .09 0.08 Family functioning - - - - - - - - Number of children <= 17 yr. - - .08 0.08 - - - - Single parent - - .08 0.19 - - -.04 0.09 Maternal education level - - -.08 0.06 - - .11** 0.03 Income - - .04 0.05 - - -.01 0.02 Occupation - - .04* 0.02 - - .01 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - - - - - Hours per week worked - - -.00 0.01 - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - .03 0.18 - - - - Social support - - .05 0.03 - - - - Neighbourhood safety - - .09 0.06 - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood problems - - -.00 0.05 - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - .12** 0.04 - - .03 0.02 153 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - .25*** 0.04 - - .35*** 0.02 Reward - - .12* 0.05 - - - - R2 (Adj. R2) .09 (.08) - .23 (.19) - .08 (.08) - .21 (.20) - F 7.10*** - 6.89*** - 25.82*** - 36.23*** - ∆R2 .00 - .13 - .02 - .13 - ∆F .73 - 6.24*** - 34.41*** - 41.74*** - N 636 - 636 - 2056 - 2056 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 15 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by cycle (step 2 to step 3).continued Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Constant 4.74*** 0.15 2.52*** 0.64 Developmental characteristics - - - - Cycle 1 Unhealthy - - - - Long-term condition - - - - Visual impairment - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - Ear infection - - - - Injury -.13 0.21 .15 0.20 Giftedness - - - - Special need - - - - Poor developmental attainment -.25* 0.12 -.19 0.11 Difficult temperament - - - - 154 Table 15 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by cycle (step 2 to step 3).continued Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Dull temperament - - - - Cycle 1 Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr .31* 0.13 .13 0.12 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr .29* 0.12 .09 0.12 Physical aggression 4-11 yr .37** 0.13 .10 0.12 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr .17 0.13 .08 0.13 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - Social skills .07 0.12 -.01 0.11 Physical appearance - - - - General self-esteem - - - - Innate characteristics Child sex -.28* 0.12 -.08 0.11 Premature - - - - Birth order - - - - Control variables Maternal age - - -.04*** 0.01 Depression - - - - Chronic condition - - -.16 0.11 Activity restriction - - - - Marital conflict - - - - Family functioning - - .02 0.01 155 Table 15 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by cycle (step 2 to step 3).continued Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Number of children <= 17 yr. - - - - Cycle 1 Single parent - - -.21 0.17 Maternal education level - - - - Income - - .07 0.04 Occupation - - .00 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours - - .53*** 0.15 Hours per week worked - - -.01 0.00 Number of jobs currently held - - - - Social support - - .05* 0.02 Neighbourhood safety - - .03 0.05 Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - Neighbourhood problems - - .02 0.04 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - .06 0.03 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - .44*** 0.04 Reward - - - R2 (Adj. R2) .09 (.08) - .28 (.26) - F 7.81*** - 11.64*** - ∆R2 .01 - .20 - ∆F 5.47* - 12.75*** - N 683 - 683 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 156 The second longitudinal model was conducted to examine the effect of the predictor variables at Cycle 2 on privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3. In the first step of the model, developmental characteristics predicted 6.0% of the variance in privilege deprivation-diversion (R2 = .07, F(6, 2050) = 24.00 p < .001, not shown in Table 15). For each unit of increase in emotional disorder-anxiety, privilege deprivation-diversion decreased by 0.18 units (β = -.18, p < .01). Privilege deprivation-diversion was related to hyperactivity-inattention (β = .06, p < .01), physical aggression (β = .16, p < .001), and property offences (β = .13, p < .001). Child sex, the innate characteristic entered in the second step of the model, provided an additional 1.5% explained variance in privilege deprivation-diversion (R2Δ = .02, FΔ (1, 2049) = 34.41, p < .001, shown in Table 15). The use of privilege deprivation-diversion was higher among boys relative to girls (β = -.13, p < .001). The associations that emerged in the previous step of the analysis were unaltered by the controlling of child sex. In particular, privilege deprivation-diversion was affected by hyperactivity-inattention, emotional disorder-anxiety, physical aggression, and property offences (β = .05, p < .05; β = -.07, p < .01; β = .15, p < .001; β = .12, p < .001, respectively). A significant volume of variance in privilege deprivation-diversion was accounted for by parent, familial, and contextual factors (R2Δ = .13, FΔ (8, 2041) = 41,74 p < .001). The results indicated that greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion was linked to younger age of the mother (β = -.07, p < .01), higher maternal education (β = .07 p < .01), and increased levels of privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 2 (β = .34, p < .001). While the influence of hyperactivity-inattention evaporated in the final step (β = .03, p = .22), associations were preserved between. privilege deprivation-diversion and emotional disorder-anxiety, physical aggression, and property offences (β = -.06, p < 01; β = .10, p < .001; β = .09, p < .001, (β = -08, 157 p < .001, respectively). Poor developmental attainment arose as a significant negative predictor of privilege deprivation-diversion (β = -.06, p < .011. In the model where privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3 was regressed onto child characteristics at Cycle 1, it was found that the percentage for variance explained by developmental characteristics was 7.7% (R2 = .08, F(7, 676) = 8.09, p < .001, not shown in Table 15). Children who were deemed as not having poor developmental attainment were more likely to receive higher levels of privilege deprivation-diversion (β = -.09, p < .05). Privilege deprivation-diversion was positively predicted by hyperactivity-inattention (β = .12, p < .01), emotional disorder-anxiety (β = .09, p < .05), and physical aggression (β = .12, p < .01). The innate characteristics of child sex provided an additional 1% of explained variance R2Δ = .01, FΔ (1, 674) = 5.47, p < .05, shown in Table 15) and showed a negative relationship with privilege deprivation-diversion (β = -.09., p < .05). Adjustment of child sex did not cause the relationships noted in step 1 to disappear. Privilege deprivation-diversion remained significantly related to poor developmental attainment, hyperactivity-inattention, emotional disorder-anxiety, and physical aggression β = -.08, p < .05; β = .10, p < .05; β = .09, p < .05; β = .12, p < .01, respectively). A significant amount of variance in privilege deprivation-diversion was supplied by the control variables evaluated at Cycle 1 (R2Δ = .20, FΔ (14, 660) = 12.75, p < .001). The data demonstrated that privilege deprivation-diversion was associated with maternal age (β = -.14, p < .001), non-standard workdays and hours (β = .12, p < .001), social support (β = .08, p < .05), and privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 1 (β = .41, p < .001). In this final step in which the control variables were entered, privilege deprivation-diversion was not significantly affected by poor developmental attainment, hyperactivity-inattention, emotional disorder-anxiety, and 158 physical aggression (β = -.06, p = .09; β = .04, p = .31; β = .03, p = .45; β = .03, p = .39, respectively). Applying identical procedures to those used for physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion, the regression analyses to test the effect of child characteristics on reward was stratified by child age. The results of the regression models are reported consecutively by cycle and starts with the cross-sectional analysis of the younger subsample of children 3 years and younger. Dissimilar to the previous dependent measures, data was available to predict reward cross-sectionally and longitudinally for both subsamples of children. It was found that, within the younger subsample, at Cycle 1 developmental characteristics explained 4.7% of variance in reward (R2 = .05, F(9, 881) = 4.80, p < .001, not shown in Table 16). While reward was positively associated with prosocial behaviour in this first step of the model (β = .13, p < .001), it had an inverse relationship with difficult temperament (β = -.11, p < .01) and emotional disorder-anxiety (β = -.07, p < .05). The second step of the model in which the innate characteristics of child sex and birth order were inserted was not statistically different from zero (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (2, 879) = 1.42, p = .24, shown in Table 16). Reward was unassociated with child sex and birth order (β = -.03, p = .39; β = -.05, p = .16). Following adjustment for child sex an birth order, relationships were sustained from the first step between reward and difficult temperament, prosocial behaviour, and emotional disorder anxiety (β = -.11, p < .01; β = .13, p < .001; β = -.08, p < .05, respectively). The percentage of variance explained by parent, familial, and contextual factors was 8.2% (R2Δ = .08, FΔ (10, 869) = 8.21, p < .001). The results revealed that higher values on the reward scale was associated with lower levels of education (β = -.10, p < .01), fewer hours per week worked by the mother (β = -.13, p < .001), greater levels of social support (β = .17, p < .001), and lower scores on the physical-159 psychological aggressive discipline scale (β = -.12, p < .01). Reward continued to be associated with difficult temperament and emotional disorder-anxiety net of the control variables (β = -.07, p < .05; β = -.08, p < .05, respectively), however, prosocial behaviour no longer had an effect (β = .07, p = .07). Child characteristics that showed a significant effect on the dependent measure exclusively after adjustment for control variables included dull temperament (β = -.09, p < .05) and birth order (β = -.11, p < .05). 160 Table 16 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child characteristics, child age, and cycle (step 2 to step 3) Children <= 3 years Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 6.45*** 0.16 6.65*** 0.40 6.49*** 0.10 6.92*** 0.23 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - - - Visual impairment - - - - - - - - Nose or throat infection -.02 0.05 -.05 0.05 -.08* 0.03 -.08* 0.03 Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - - - Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment .14 0.11 -.09 0.11 - - - - Difficult temperament -.26** 0.09 -.17* 0.09 -.07 0.06 -.02 0.06 Dull temperament -.03 0.02 -.04* 0.02 - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr -.01 0.09 -.02 0.09 -.08 0.06 -.02 0.06 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr -.19* 0.08 -.18* 0.08 -.21** 0.06 -.12* 0.06 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr -08 0.09 -.04 0.09 -.07 0.07 .06 0.06 Separation anxiety 2-3 yr .01 0.09 .01 0.08 - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - .05*** 0.01 .03** 0.01 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - - - - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - - - Social skills - - - - - - - - Physical appearance - - - - - - - - General self-esteem - - - - - - - - 161 Children <= 3 years Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Innate characteristics Child sex -.0-7 0.08 -.11 0.08 - - - - Premature - - - - .03 0.09 .05 0.09 Birth order -.07 0.05 -.14* .07 -.16*** 0.03 -.13** 0.04 Control variables Maternal age - - - - - - .03*** 0.01 Depression - - .00 0.01 - - -.01* 0.01 Chronic condition - - - - - - - - Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict - - -.11 0.15 - - .04 0.07 Family functioning - - -.01 0.02 - - -.02*** 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. - - .08 0.06 - - -.08* 0.03 Single parent - - - - - - -.08 0.09 Maternal education level - - -.12** 0.04 - - -.02 0.03 Income - - - - - - -.09*** 0.02 Occupation - - - - - - - - Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - - - - - Hours per week worked - - -.01*** 0.00 - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - .05 0.12 - - - - Social support - - .07*** 0.02 - - - - Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - -.02 0.02 - - - - Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - -.06** 0.02 - - -.12*** 0.01 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - - - - - .01 0.02 R2 (Adj. R2) .05 (.04) - .13 (.11) - .05 (.05) - .14 (.13) - F 4.19*** - 6.28*** - 10.78*** - 13.99*** - ∆R2 .00 - .08 - .02 - .09 - 162 Children <= 3 years Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB ∆F 1.42 - 8.21*** - 13.01*** - 15.74*** - N 890 - 890 - 1574 - 1574 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 16 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child age and cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 3.93*** 0.30 4.33*** 0.74 4.51*** 0.11 6.30*** 0.21 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - .37* 0.16 .25 0.16 Long-term condition - - - - -.20*** 0.06 -.18** 0.05 Visual impairment -.13 0.14 -.08 0.15 - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - - - Giftedness -.43* 0.19 -.41* 0.19 - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment -.49 0.91 -.76 0.90 .22*** 0.05 .22*** 0.05 Difficult temperament - - - - - - - - Dull temperament - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -.18 0.12 -.14 0.12 .01 0.05 .05 0.05 163 Table 16 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child age and cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -.01 0.12 .05 0.12 -.07 0.05 -.02 0.05 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -.04 0.11 .05 0.12 -.14** 0.05 -.05 0.05 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -.14 0.11 -.14 0.11 -.11* 0.05 -.10* 0.05 Property offences 4-11 yr -.08 0.12 .03 0.12 -.05 0.05 .00 0.05 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr .06*** 0.02 .04* 0.02 .04*** 0.01 .02** 0.01 Social skills -.17 0.11 -.23* 0.12 - - - - Physical appearance - - - - - - - - General self-esteem .19 0.11 .22* 0.11 - - - - Innate characteristics Child sex -.01 0.11 -.00 0.12 -.12** 0.05 -.10* 0.04 Premature -.02 0.09 - - - - - - Birth order - - -.03 0.10 -.04 0.03 .02 0.04 Control variables Maternal age - - .02 0.01 - - -.02*** 0.01 Depression - - -.01 0.01 - - .00 0.01 Chronic condition - - -.06 0.11 - - - - Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict - - .03 0.14 - - .09 0.05 Family functioning - - -.04** 0.01 - - -.02*** 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. - - -.02 0.07 - - -.03 0.03 Single parent - - - - - - - - Maternal education level - - -.06 0.05 - - - - Income - - -.04 0.04 - - -.04** 0.01 Occupation - - .01 0.02 - - .01* 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours - - -.12 0.13 - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - - - 164 Table 16 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child age and cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Social support - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood safety - - -.04 0.05 - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - .04 0.02 - - - - Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - -.10** 0.03 - - -.18*** 0.01 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - .06 0.03 - - - - R2 (Adj. R2) .07 (.04) - .15 (.10) - .04 (.04) - .13 (.12) - F 2.82** - 3.13*** - 11.37*** - 22.87*** - ∆R2 .00 - .08 - .00 - .09 - ∆F .03 - 3.24*** - 4.22* - 37.13*** - N 535 - 535 - 2953 - 2953 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Table 16 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child age and cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Children >= 4 years Cycle 3 Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Constant 3.26*** 0.39 3.44*** 0.70 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - Long-term condition .33* 0.17 - - Visual impairment - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - Ear infection - - - - 165 Table 16 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child age and cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Children >= 4 years Cycle 3 Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Injury - - - - Giftedness - - - - Special need - - - - Poor developmental attainment - - .27 0.18 Difficult temperament - - - - Dull temperament - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -.31 0.16 -.03 0.17 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -.17 0.17 -.21 0.17 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -.02 0.17 .15 0.16 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -.05 0.15 .17 0.15 Property offences 4-11 yr .16 0.17 .13 0.16 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr .10*** 0.02 .03 0.02 Social skills .25 0.14 .38** 0.13 Physical appearance - - - - General self-esteem - - - - Innate characteristics Child sex - - - - Premature - - - - Birth order - - -.06 0.11 Control variables - - - - Maternal age - - - - Depression - - .02 0.02 166 Table 16 Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child age and cycle (step 2 to step 3) continued. Children >= 4 years Cycle 3 Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB Chronic condition - - - - Activity restriction - - - - Marital conflict - - .06 0.15 Family functioning - - -.03* 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr. - - .07 0.11 Single parent - - - - Maternal education level - - -.01 0.08 Income - - - - Occupation - - .03 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - Social support - - .04 0.03 Neighbourhood safety - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - .04 0.04 Neighbourhood problems - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - -.19*** 0.04 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - - - R2 (Adj. R2) .14 (.11) - .20 (.25) - F 4.07*** - 5.54*** - ∆R2 .01 - .16 - ∆F 2.95 - 6.32*** - N 263 - 263 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 167 In the cross-sectional analysis of Cycle 2, the data indicate that developmental characteristics explained 3.6% of the variance in reward (R2 = .04, F(6, 1568 ) = 9.88, p < .001, not shown in Table 16). For each unit of increase in prosocial behaviour, reward increased by 0.14 units (β = .14, p < .001). Values on the reward scale were higher among children with fewer nose or throat infections (β = -.06, p < .05), those categorized as low in emotional disorder-anxiety (β = -.06, p < .05), and physical aggression (β = -.06, p < .05). The innate characteristics of prematurity and birth order were added in the second step which together yielded a significant increase in the explained variance in reward (R2Δ = .02, FΔ (2, 1566) = 13.01, p < .001, shown in Table 16). Reward scores were greater among single and first-born children relative to children of higher-order birth (β = -.13, p < .001). Control of birth order did not impede the associations cited in the preceding step between reward and nose and throat infections, prosocial behaviour, and emotional disorder-anxiety (β = -.06, p < .05; β = .12, p < .001; β = -.09, p < .01, respectively). Physical aggression, on the other hand, became an insignificant factor in this step (β = -.03, p = .26). In the third step, a significant degree of variance was accounted for by the control variables (R2Δ = .09, FΔ (10, 1556) = 15.74, p < .001). It was found that higher levels of reward were related to older maternal age (β = .10, p < .001), lower scores on depression (β = -.06, p < .05), fewer children aged 17 years and younger living in the household (β = -.07, p < .05), decreased family dysfunction (β = -.11, p < .001), lower maternal income (β = -.14, p < .001), and decreased values on the physical-psychological aggressive discipline scale (β = -.23, p < .001). Despite the effects of these variables, relationships persisted between reward and nose or throat infection, prosocial behaviour, emotional disorder-anxiety, and birth order (β = -.06, p < .05; β = .08, p < .01; β = -.05, p < .05; β = -.11, p < .01, respectively). 168 One longitudinal analysis was employed to test the lagged effect of child characteristics measured and controls at Cycle 1 on reward at Cycle 2 within the younger subsample of children 3 years and younger. Step 1 of the analysis unveiled that 8.1% of the variance in reward was attributable to developmental characteristics (R2 = .08, F(9, 889) = 8.75, p < .001, not shown in Table 17). Reward was positively predicted by the occurrence of an ear infection since birth (β = .09, p < .01) and prosocial behaviour (β = .11, p < .01). Reward was affected in a negative direction by difficult temperament, dull temperament, and physical aggression (β = -.11, p < .01; β = -.13, p < .001; β = -.08, p < .05, respectively). Innate characteristics, specifically prematurity and birth order, explained half as much variance as did the developmental characteristics in the previous step (R2Δ = .04, FΔ (2, 886) = 17.70, p < .001). As displayed in Table 17, the scores on the reward scale were greater among children that were born premature relative to those who were not (β = .11, p < .01) and single and first-born children compared to children of higher-order birth (β = -.15, p < .001). The predictive effects of difficult temperament, dull temperament, occurrence of an ear infection since birth, and prosocial behaviour on reward were maintained from the first step while controlling for prematurity and birth order (β = -.10, p < .01; β = -.10, p < .01; β = .08, p < .05; β = .09, p < .01, respectively). Nonetheless, the null hypothesis was accepted in the case of the relationship between physical aggression and reward (β = -.06, p = .13). Fourteen percent of the variance in reward was a product of the control variables (R2Δ = .14, FΔ (12, 874) = 13.70, p < .001). In this final step, reward was found to be associated with number of children 17 years and younger living in the household (β = .09, p < .05), family functioning (β = -.11, p < .01), maternal education level (β = .13, p < .001), non-standard workdays and hours (β = .16, p < .001), and reward at Cycle 1 (β = .28, p < .001). Subsequent to the inclusion of the control variables into the equation, explanatory influences on reward 169 remained for dull temperament, occurrence of an ear infection since birth, prematurity, and birth order (β = -.08, p < .05; β = .08, p < .05; β = .10, p < .01; β = -.17, p < .001, respectively). Incongruent with the previous equation, however, difficult temperament and prosocial behaviour were discovered to be insignificant predictors (β = -.06, p = .08; β = .03, p = .35, respectively) and a child’s lack of injury emerged as having a meaningful effect on reward (β = -.07, p < .05). 170 Table 17 Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression, reward as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 2 to step 3) Cycle 2 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 5.96*** 0.17 3.56** 0.47 4.63*** 0.10 3.32*** 0.26 Developmental characteristics - - - - - - - - Cycle 1 Unhealthy - - - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - - - Visual impairment - - - - - - - - Nose or throat infection .110 0.05 .08 0.05 - - - - Ear infection .21* 0.09 .20* 0.08 - - - - Injury -.20 0.12 -.25* 0.11 - - - - Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment - - - - - - - - Difficult temperament -.27** 0.09 -.15 0.08 - - - - Dull temperament -.06** 0.02 -.04* 0.02 - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr -.13 0.09 -.10 0.09 - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr -.14 0.09 -.13 0.09 - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr -.12 0.09 -.06 0.08 - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr .04** 0.02 .01 0.02 - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - .01 0.05 .08* 0.04 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - -.07 0.05 -.00 0.04 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - -.21*** 0.05 -.05 0.04 Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - -.02 0.05 .02 0.04 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - .03*** 0.01 .01* 0.01 Social skills - - - - - - - - Physical appearance - - - - - - - - General self-esteem - - - - - - - - 171 Cycle 2 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Innate characteristics Child sex - - - - -.12** 0.04 -.08 0.04 Premature .44** 0.14 .43** 0.13 - - - Birth order -.23*** 0.05 -.24*** 0.13 -.07* 0.03 .05 0.04 Control variables - Maternal age - - -.01 0.01 - - -.02*** 0.00 Depression - - -.00 0.01 - - -.01 0.00 Chronic condition - - - - - - .12** 0.04 Activity restriction - - - - - - - Marital conflict - - -.05 0.15 - - -.04 0.05 Family functioning - - - - - - .01 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. - - .12* 0.06 - - -.03 0.03 Single parent - - .21 0.13 - - - - Maternal education level - - .17*** 0.04 - - .05* 0.02 Income - - - - - - .01 0.01 Occupation - - - - - - - - Non-standard workdays and hours - - .56*** 0.11 - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - -.00** 0.00 Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - - - Social support - - .00 0.02 - - -.01 0.01 Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - .03 0.02 - - .02* 0.01 Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - .01 0.02 - - -.04** 0.01 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - - - - - - - Reward - - .30*** 0.03 - - .37** 0.02 R2 (Adj. R2) .12 (.11) - .26 (.24) - .03 (.02) - .20 (.19) - F 10.64*** - 13.11*** - 11.93*** - 39.53*** - 172 Cycle 2 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Unadjusted Adjusted Unadjusted Adjusted B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB ∆R2 .04 - .14 - .00 - .17 - ∆F 17.70*** - 13.70*** - 6.46** - 53.03*** - N 898 - 898 - 3216 - 3216 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 173 The results presented in Table 16 show the cross-sectional analyses with reward as the criterion variable within the older subsample of children 4 to 11 years of age. Analysis from the first cycle indicates that developmental characteristics entered in step 1 account for 6.5% of variance in reward (R2 = .07, F(11, 524) = 3.34, p < .001, not shown in Table 16). Scores on the reward scale were higher among children that were not gifted (β = -.10, p < .05) and children exhibiting increased levels of prosocial behaviour (β = .17, p < .001). The second step of the model containing the innate characteristics of child sex and birth order was not different from zero (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (2, 522) = 0.03, p = 1.00, shown in Table 16). Adjusting for these characteristics, reward remained significantly related to giftedness (β = .10, p < .05) and prosocial behaviour (β = .17, p < .001). The percentage of variance produced by parent, familial, and contextual factors was 8.2% (R2Δ = .08, FΔ (15, 507) = 3.24, p < .001). Reward values were greater when there was less family dysfunction (β = -.16, p < .01) and lower levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = -.16, p < .01). Significant effects of giftedness and prosocial behaviour on reward existed even while control variables were included in the equation (β = -.09, p < .05; β = .10, p < .05, respectively). The findings of this equation also illustrated that reward was positively related to general self-esteem (β = .09, p < .05) but inversely associated with social skills (β = -.10, p < .05). The examination of the Cycle 2 data identifies that 3.8% of the variance in reward can be explained by developmental characteristics (R2 = .04, F(9, 2944) = 12.93, p < .001, not shown in Table 16). It was observed that units on the reward scale were elevated among unhealthy children (β = .04, p < .05), children without a long-term health condition (β = -.07, p < .001), those with poor developmental attainment (β = .08, p < .001), and children low in physical and 174 indirect aggression (β = -05, p < .01; β = -.06, p < .01, respectively). For each unit of increase in prosocial behaviour, reward increased by 0.11 units (β = .11, p < .001). The second step consisting of innate characteristics was statistically different from zero (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (2, 2941) = 4.22, p < .05, presented in Table 16). Boys are more likely to receive increased levels of reward compared to girls (β = -.05, p < .01). As was the case in the first step, reward was associated with unhealthy, long-term condition, poor developmental attainment, prosocial behaviour, physical aggression, and indirect aggression (β = .04, p < .05; β = -.07, p < .001; β = .08, p < .001; β = .11, p < .001; β = -.06, p < .01; β = -.05, p < .005; respectively), net of child sex and birth order. A significant amount of variance was attributed to the control factors (R2Δ = .09, FΔ (8, 2933) = 37.13, p < .001). Reward was inversely related to maternal age (β = -.07, p < .001), family functioning (β = -.10, p < .001), maternal income (β = -.05, p < .01), and physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = -.28, p < .001). Conversely, reward scores increased as the levels of maternal occupation rose (β = .04, p < .05). Although unhealthy (β = .03, p = .10) and physical aggression (β = -.02, p = .31) were insignificant, reward and its association with long-term condition, poor developmental attainment, prosocial behaviour, indirect aggression, and child sex endured the introduction of the control variables into the model (β = -.06, p < .01; β = .08, p < .001; β = .05, p < .01; β = -.05, p < .05; β = -.05, p < .01, respectively). A slightly greater amount of variance in reward was explained by developmental characteristics in the model at Cycle 3 relative to Cycle 1 and 2 (R2 = .13; R2 = .07; R2 = .04, respectively). This first step of the model was statistically different from zero (F(9, 254) = 4.16, p < .001, not shown in Table 16) and illustrated positive relationships between the variables. Reward was positively related to long-term condition (β = .13, p < .05), poor developmental attainment (β = .14, p < .05), and prosocial behaviour (β = .27, p < .001). Birth order was the 175 only innate characteristic introduced into the model, which did not contribute a significant percentage of variance (R2Δ = .01, FΔ (1, 252) = 2.95, p = .09, presented in Table 16). Controlling for birth order did not interfere with the associations between reward and long-term condition, poor developmental attainment, and prosocial behaviour described in the preceding step (β = .12, p < .05; β = .15, p < .05; β = .26, p < .001, respectively). Sixteen percent of the variance was due to the effects of the control variables on reward as shown in step 3 (R2Δ = .16, FΔ (9, 243) = 6.32, p < .001). The control variables that reached significance included family functioning (β = -.16, p < .05) and physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3 (β = -.30, p < .001). Adjustment for these variables resulted in accepting the null hypothesis concerning the effects of long-term condition, developmental attainment, and prosocial behaviour on reward (β = .03, p = .58; β = .09, p = .13; β = .09, p = .19, respectively), although social skills surfaced as a significant covariate (β = .16, p < .01). Table 17 displays the longitudinal findings of the lagged effects of child characteristics and control variables on the dependent measure of reward within the older subsample. The data in the first model revealed that developmental characteristics at Cycle 1 predicted 2.1% of the variance in reward at Cycle 2 (R2 = .02, F(5, 3211) = 14.07, p < .001, not shown in Table 17). Reward was predicted in a positive direction by prosocial behaviour (β = .10, p < .001) whereas it was negatively affected by indirect aggression (β = -.09, p < .001). The explained variance attributable to innate characteristics was less than one percent, although this step was statistically different from zero (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (2, 3209) = 6.46, p < .01, shown in Table 17). The results demonstrate that reward levels are greater among boys compared to girls (β = -.05, p < .01) and single and first-born children relative to children of higher order birth (β = -.04, p < .05). The effects of prosocial behaviour and indirect aggression on reward persisted even after the 176 inclusion of child sex and birth order into the step (β = .11, p < .001; β = -.08, p < .001, respectively). Step 3 in which parent, familial, and contextual variables evaluated at Cycle 1 were entered was statistically different from zero (R2Δ = .17, FΔ (13, 3196) = 53.03, p < .001). It was found that scores on the reward scale were higher when maternal age was younger (β = -.07, p < .001), presence of a chronic condition in the mother (β = .05, p < .01), maternal education is greater (β = .04, p < .05), fewer hours per week worked (β = -.05, p < .01), neighbourhood cohesion was increased (β = .05, p < .05), reward at Cycle 1 was greater (β = .39, p < .001), and physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 1 was lower (β = -.06, p < .01). Prosocial behaviour had a positive explanatory effect on reward following adjustment for the control variables (β = .04, p < .05), however, other child characteristics were insignificant. Seven percent of the variance in reward at Cycle 3 was a function of developmental characteristics at Cycle 2 (R2 = .07, F(9, 1269) = 10.78, p < .001, not shown in Table 17). Children received lower levels of reward if they were a special needs child (β = -.09, p < .01), exhibited high levels of emotional disorder-anxiety (β = -.12, p < .001) and property offences (β = -.08, p < .01). Reward was predicted in a positive direction by prosocial behaviour and social skills (β = .16, p < .001; β = .07, p < .01, respectively). The innate characteristic of birth order explained a significant percentage of variance in reward (R2Δ = .00, FΔ (1, 1267) = 11.81, p < .01, presented in Table 17). Values on the reward scale were increased among single and first-born children compared to children of higher order birth (β = -.09, p < .01). Associations cited in step 1 between reward and special need, emotional disorder-anxiety, property offences, prosocial behaviour, and social skills were maintained (β = -.09, p < .01; β = -.12, p < .001; β = -.09, p < .01; β = .17, p < .001; β = .08, p < .01, respectively), regardless of birth order effects. The final step which consisted of the control variables measured at Cycle 2 was statistically different from 177 zero (R2Δ = .11, FΔ (6, 1261) = 29.20, p < .001). It was observed that reward was related to number of children 17 years and younger living in the household (β = -.07, p < .05), reward at Cycle 2 (β = .29, p < .001), physical-psychological aggressive discipline Cycle 2 (β = -.09, p < .01), and privilege deprivation-diversion Cycle 2 (β = .06, p < .05). While the coefficient for special need and birth order were not different from zero net of these factors (β = -.05, p = .05; β = -.05, p = .07, respectively), reward continued to be a product of emotional disorder-anxiety (β = .15, p < .0) property offences (β = -., p < .0). prosocial behaviour (β = .12, p < .001), and social skills (β = .09, p < .001). Step 1 of the final longitudinal model symbolizes the lagged effect of developmental characteristics at Cycle 1 on reward as measured at Cycle 3. This step produced 7.6% of the explained variance in reward (R2 = .08, F(8, 634) = 6.55, p < .001, not shown in Table 17). Children experienced increased levels of reward the more prosocially they behaved (β = .15, p < .001) and when their developmental attainment was not poor (β = -.17, p < .001). As portrayed in Table 17, variance explained by the innate characteristic of birth order was significant (R2Δ = .01, FΔ (1, 633) = 9.89, p < .01). Units on the reward scale were elevated for single and first-born children relative to children of higher order birth (β = -.12, p < .01). The introduction of birth order into the equation did not disrupt the relationships stated above between reward and prosocial behaviour (β = .14, p < .001) and poor developmental attainment (β = -.18, p < .001). A significant volume of variance was furnished by the control variables at Cycle 1 into the third equation (R2Δ = .11, FΔ (13, 620) = 6.46, p < .001). The results showed that reward was predicted by maternal education, reward at Cycle 1, and physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 1 {β = .09, p < .05; β = .14, p < .01; β = -.21, p < .001, respectively). Scores on the reward scale continued to vary with poor developmental attainment (β = -.11, p < .01) and 178 birth order (β = -.15, p < .01) after accounting for these variables, but this was not the scenario for prosocial behaviour (β = .05, p = .25). The regression analyses summarized to this point have tested the extent to which child characteristics evaluated at a single point in time determine parental disciplinary behaviours, while controlling for parent, familial, and contextual variables. The objective of the next section was to present the multiple linear regression results addressing the degree to which changes in developmental child characteristics from Cycle 1 to Cycle 3 affect parental disciplinary behaviours at Cycle 3 (see Tables18 through 20). In situations in which changes in a developmental characteristic could not be analyzed because of small cell counts yet related to the criterion at the bivariate level, the characteristic was entered in the first step as measured at Cycle 1F13. Time-variant characteristics explained 6.0% of the variance in physical-psychological aggressive discipline, see Table 18 (R2 = .06, F(10, 305) = 1.96, p < .05). Although no group effects emerged, physical-psychological aggressive discipline occurred more often among children who exhibited low social skills (β = -.16, p < .01). Explained variance increased by 17% after inclusion of time-invariant characteristics (R2Δ = .17, FΔ (14, 2901) = 4.58, p < .001). Children who were reported to have become high in physical aggression (degenerative) experienced greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to children who transitioned from high to low physical aggression (ameliorative) (β = -.20, p < .05). Children who committed few property offences in both cycles (typical) received lower levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children committing many (exceptional) (β = .16, p < .05), to those who no longer committed high levels of offences (ameliorative) (β = .13, p < .05), and those who shifted into the high range of scores (degenerative) (β = .14, p < .05). Adjustment for these group effects lead to social skills being an 179 insignificant predictor (β = -.05, p = .37). One quarter of the variance in the dependent measure was explained by parent, familial, and contextual factors at Cycle 1 (R2Δ = .25, FΔ (15, 275) = 8.94, p < .001). Physical-psychological aggressive discipline was a function of neighbourhood cohesion (β = -.18, p < .01), physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 1 (β = .43, p < .001), privilege deprivation-diversion Cycle 1 (β = -.16, p < .01), and reward Cycle 1 (β = -.17, p < .01). Of the group effects mentioned above, the dependent variable only varied significantly by degenerative and typical groups on property offences. Specifically, children who changed from below to above the median in property offences were exposed to greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to children who scored consistently low (typical) (β = .13, p < .05). Additional group differences in discipline arose which were not visible in the previous steps. Children who demonstrated poor developmental attainment across both cycles (exceptional) were recipients of more physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to those who moved from good to poor developmental attainment (degenerative) (β = .23, p < .01). Relative to children who shifted from high to low prosocial behaviour (degenerative), children who were characterized as stable in low prosocial behaviour experienced decreased levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline (β = -.18, p < .05). The final relationship of note is that scores on the dependent measure were increased for boys compared to girls (β = -.12, p < .05). 180 Table 18 Physical-psychological Aggressive Discipline at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 1 to step 3) Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 4.86*** 0.21 4.52*** 0.62 6.10*** 1.19 Time-variant Social skills -0.56** 0.21 -0.19 0.21 -0.30 -0.19 Degenerative Poor developmental attainment - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -0.16 0.28 -0.08 0.29 -0.09 0.25 Property offences 4-11 yr 0.43 0.37 0.90* 0.39 0.84* 0.34 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - Ameliorative Unhealthy - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment -0.16 0.24 -0.02 0.45 0.14 0.43 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 0.22 0.24 -0.41 0.41 -0.30 0.37 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -0.57 0.31 -0.01 0.38 -0.51 0.34 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.41 0.24 -0.46 0.35 -0.12 0.31 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -0.13 0.27 0.06 0.28 -0.12 0.26 Property offences 4-11 yr 0.43 0.25 0.56* 0.27 -0.11 0.25 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 0.05 0.25 0.07 0.36 -0.23 0.32 Time-invariant Child sex - - 0.15 0.22 -0.43* 0.20 Exceptional Unhealthy - - 2.36 4.98 1.89 4.21 Poor developmental attainment - - 0.69 0.56 1.59** 0.50 181 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - -0.37 0.40 -0.46 0.35 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - 0.44 0.29 0.29 0.26 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - 0.47 0.33 0.43 0.29 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - 0.42 0.26 0.05 0.24 Property offences 4-11 yr - - 0.64* 0.27 0.41 0.25 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - 0.02 0.35 -0.68* 0.32 Typical Unhealthy - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment - - -0.20 0.42 0.44 0.39 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - -0.61 0.37 -0.62 0.32 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.26 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - -0.85* 0.36 -0.21 0.33 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - -0.38 0.34 -0.32 0.31 Control variables Maternal age - - - - 0.01 0.02 Depression - - - - -0.01 0.02 Chronic condition - - - - 0.21 0.19 Activity restriction - - - - - - Martial conflict - - - - -0.44 0.26 Family functioning - - - - 0.02 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr - - - - - - Single parent - - - - - - Maternal education - - - - -0.05 0.10 Income - - - - - - Occupation - - - - -0.03 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - -0.20 0.25 Hours per week worked - - - - - - 182 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - Social support - - - - 0.00 0.04 Neighbourhood safety - - - - 0.11 0.09 Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - -0.12** 0.04 Neighbourhood problems - - - - -0.05 0.06 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - - - 0.40*** 0.06 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - - - -0.21** -0.07 Reward - - - - -0.24** 0.07 R2 (Adj. R2) .06 (.03) 1.77 .23 (.17) 1.64 .48 (.41) 1.38 F 1.96* - 3.62*** - 6.58*** - ∆R2 .06 - .17 - .25 - ∆F 1.96* - 4.58*** - 8.94*** - N 316 - 316 - 316 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Note. 183 Within the model where privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3 is regressed onto the predictors, the amount of variance produced by time-invariant characteristics was 4.9% (R2 = .05, F(5, 452) = 4.69, p < .001, shown in Table 19). Children who were rated as low on social skills were subjected to greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to children high in these skills (β = -.12, p < .05). Compared to children who discontinued elevated emotional disorder-anxiety behaviours (ameliorative), children who became highly emotional disorder-anxiety (degenerative) encountered less privilege deprivation-diversion (β = -.14, p < .01). Conversely, the dependent measure had decreased values among the children who changed their indirect aggressive behaviour from high to low (ameliorative) relative to those who developed more across the cycles (degenerative) (β = .12, p < .05). There was an increase of 14.5% in the explained variance of the dependent measure post-entry of the characteristics that were stable across time into the equation (R2Δ = .15, FΔ (11, 440) = 7.18, p < .001). Results from this equation indicated that children who were reported consistently high in emotional disorder-anxiety (exceptional) incurred greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion compared to those that altered their behaviour from high to low (ameliorative) (β = .16, p < .05). Units on the dependent measure were elevated among children who either became highly physically aggressive (degenerative) or who desisted highly aggressive behaviour (ameliorative) relative to the group of children reported as consistently low (typical) (β = -.19, p < .001). Similarly, the group of children who reliably committed few property offences (typical) received less privilege deprivation-diversion compared to children who either started committing numerous offences (degenerative) or ceased in committing many offences by Cycle 3 (ameliorative) (β = -.16, p < .01). Subsequent to the control of these effects, mean group differences appeared as significant strictly for indirect aggression in which children who were deemed as high in indirect aggression 184 as of Cycle 3 (degenerative) experienced more privilege deprivation-diversion relative to their counterparts who were classified as low by that cycle (ameliorative) (β = .09, p < .05). The last step of the equation which included the control variables was statistically different from zero (R2Δ = .20, FΔ (14, 426) = 7.19, p < .001). Privilege deprivation-diversion was related to maternal age, social support, and privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 1 (β = -.13, p < .05; β = .13, p < .05; β = .43, p < .001, respectively). Mean group differences on emotional disorder-anxiety and physical aggression endured the adjustment for the effects listed above. Values on the privilege deprivation-diversion scale were increased among children who were described as highly emotional disorder-anxiety in both cycles (exceptional) compared to the group of children that shifted from high to low (ameliorative) (β = .17, p < .01). The group of children who maintained a low level of physical aggression (typical) had lower scores on the dependent variable relative to the group who were ranked as high (degenerative) and/or those who were graded as low (ameliorative) at Cycle 3 only (β = -.16, p < .01). 185 Table 19 Privilege Deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 1 to step 3) Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 5.40*** 0.11 5.12*** 0.36 1.67* 0.79 Time-variant Injury -0.32 0.24 -0.10 0.24 0.21 0.23 Social skills -0.37** 0.15 -0.16 0.15 -0.13 0.13 Degenerative Poor developmental attainment - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -0.54** 0.19 -0.17 0.25 0.10 0.23 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 0.50* 0.19 0.37* 0.18 0.15 0.17 Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - Ameliorative Poor developmental attainment - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 0.04 0.18 0.15 0.28 0.01 0.26 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - Time-invariant Child sex - - -0.17 0.14 0.06 0.14 Exceptional Poor developmental attainment - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - 0.29 0.27 0.32 0.25 186 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - 0.50* 0.22 0.53** 0.20 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - 0.10 0.17 -0.02 0.16 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - -0.06 0.18 0.12 0.17 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - Typical Poor developmental attainment - - 0.22 0.14 0.09 0.13 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - 0.03 0.26 0.13 -.23 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - 0.22 0.24 0.37 0.22 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - -0.68*** 0.18 -0.55** 0.17 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - -0.48** 0.18 -0.23 0.17 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - 0.17 0.14 0.04 0.13 Control variables Maternal age - - - - -0.04* .01 Depression - - - - - - Chronic condition - - - - -0.27 0.14 Activity restriction - - - - - - Martial conflict - - - - - - Family functioning - - - - 0.02 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr - - - - - - Single parent - - - - -0.15 0.24 Maternal education - - - - 0.02 0.07 Income - - - - 0.07 0.05 Occupation - - - - 0.02 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - 0.22 0.18 Hours per week worked - - - - -0.00 0.01 Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - Social support - - - - 0.07* 0.03 187 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Neighbourhood safety - - - - 0.10 0.06 Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - - - Neighbourhood problems - - - - -0.03 0.05 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - - - -0.01 0.04 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - - - 0.47*** 0.05 Reward - - - - - - R2 (Adj. R2) 0.05 (0.04) - 0.19 (0.17) - 0.39 (0.35) - F 4.69*** - 6.63*** - 9.21*** - ∆R2 0.05 - 0.15 - 0.20 - ∆F 4.69*** - 7.19*** - 10.00*** - N 457 - 457 - 457 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Note. 188 Child characteristics that fluctuate across the two cycles predicted 9.2% of the variance in reward at Cycle 3 (R2 = .09, F(5, 321) = 6.49, p < .001, displayed in Table 20). Children who were recognized as gifted in the first cycle had decreased values on the reward scale compared to children considered ungifted (β = -.20, p < .001). Reward values were also decreased among children who transitioned from poor to normal developmental attainment (ameliorative) relative to children who either remained in the normal group (typical) or stayed in the poor group (exceptional) (β = -.25, p < .001). A significant degree of explained variance in reward was offered by fixed characteristics (R2Δ = .08, FΔ (12, 308) = 2.37, p < .01). Children who behaved in an overly hyperactive-inattentive manner in both cycles (exceptional) were exposed to lower levels of reward compared to children who remitted these behaviours (ameliorative) and/or those that commenced these behaviours at high levels (degenerative) (β = -.14, p < .05). It was found that scores on the reward scale were greater for children who consistently engaged in highly prosocial behaviour (typical) relative to either children who were no longer categorized as high (degenerative) or those reported as low (ameliorative) (β = .14, p < .05). The relationships identified in the previous step were unaffected by the inclusion of these group effects in the equation. In particular, compare to gifted children, children judged as ungifted at Cycle 1 witness greater amounts of reward (β = -.19, p < .01). In addition, children who moved from poor to normal developmental attainment (ameliorative) had lower values on the reward measure relative to children who steadily met normal developmental standards (typical) and/or those whose poor developmental attainment status was unchanged (exceptional) (β = -.24, p < .001). Sixteen percent of the explained variance in reward was a function of parent, familial, and contextual factors as of Cycle 1 (R2Δ = .16, FΔ (13, 295) = 5.46, p < .001). Values on the reward indicator increased in cases where maternal occupation was high (β = .12, p < .05), mothers’ worked 189 standard workdays and hours (β = -.14, p < .05), more jobs were held (β = .26, p < .001), and physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 1 was low (β = -.18, p < .01). Although the strength of the associations are weaker in this step versus the last, reward levels invariably demonstrated a relationship to giftedness and poor developmental attainment. Specifically, the ungifted group of children at Cycle 1 showed elevated levels of reward compared to the gifted group (β = -.16, p < .01). Furthermore, reward scores were smaller among children in the ameliorative group pertaining to poor developmental attainment relative to either the typical or exceptional groups (β = -.15, p < .05). A novel finding manifested in this final step was that children who unwaveringly performed excessive hyperactive-inattention acts (exceptional) were more likely to have low scores on the reward measure compared to children whose onset of highly hyperactive-inattentive behaviour was at Cycle 3 (degenerative) and/or children who belayed these behaviours in an overly nature at that cycle (exceptional) (β = -.13, p < .05). 190 Table 20 20 Reward at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 1 to step 3) Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 4.79*** 0.10 5.25*** 0.27 4.01*** 0.70 Time-variant Giftedness -1.12*** 0.29 -1.03** 0.30 -0.86** 0.28 Degenerative Unhealthy - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment -0.17 0.27 -0.09 -0.27 -0.11 0.26 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.07 0.19 -0.39 0.22 -0.20 0.21 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - Ameliorative Unhealthy - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment -0.63*** 0.14 -0.60*** 0.15 -0.37* 0.14 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.09 0.15 -0.29 0.19 -0.12 0.18 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - Time-invariant Birth Order - - -0.12 0.10 -0.06 0.12 191 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Exceptional Unhealthy - - -0.61 3.34 -0.71 3.07 Poor developmental attainment - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - -0.36* 0.16 -0.34* 0.15 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - -0.09 0.15 -0.03 0.15 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - -0.35 0.18 -0.07 0.18 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - 0.11 0.17 0.05 0.16 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - -0.11 0.16 -0.18 0.16 Typical Unhealthy - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - -0.02 0.16 -0.03 0.15 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - -0.19 0.16 -0.06 0.16 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.13 Property offences 4-11 yr - - 0.06 0.16 -0.14 0.15 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - 0.35* 0.16 0.20 0.15 Control variables Maternal age - - - - - - Depression - - - - - - Chronic condition - - - - -0.12 0.12 Activity restriction - - - - - - Martial conflict - - - - -0.26 0.18 Family functioning - - - - -0.01 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr - - - - -0.15 0.09 Single parent - - - - - - Maternal education - - - - -0.10 0.07 Income - - - - - - 192 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Occupation - - - - 0.03* 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - -0.45* 0.20 Hours per week worked - - - - -0.00 0.00 Number of jobs currently held - - - - 0.77*** 0.18 Social support - - - - 0.03 0.03 Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - 0.02 0.03 Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline - - - - -0.11** 0.04 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - - - - - Reward - - - - 0.10 0.05 R2 (Adj. R2) .09 (.08) 1.13 .17 (.12) 1.10 .33 (.26) 1.01 F 6.49*** - 3.68*** - 4.84*** - ∆R2 .09 - .08 - .16 - ∆F 6.49*** - 2.37** - 5.46*** - N 327 - 327 - 327 - * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Note. 193 The goal of this chapter was to deliver a textual description of the statistical results. This chapter discussed the descriptive statistics and bivariate relationships among the study variables. It further stated the findings surrounding hypothesis testing of the extent to which parental disciplinary behaviours are determined by child characteristics. The next chapter involves interpreting the meaning of the data. In doing so, it will address their relevance to theory on the topic of parental discipline. 194 Chapter 7 Discussion and Conclusion Copious theoretical perspectives regarding the determinants of parenting and the inter-generational transmission of parenting have given little credence to the effect that children have on their parents as well as on their own development. A guiding assumption underlying much of the theoretical and empirical literature is that children are primarily a product of the socialization they receive from their parents. The current study serves to create some degree of balance in the scholarship on parenting by showing how children affect their parents. More specifically, the purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which parental disciplinary behaviours are determined by the characteristics of children. This chapter summarizes the findings in a manner which responds to this study’s purpose. Organization of this chapter is according to the sequencing of research questions cited in earlier chapters. Subsequent to the restatement of each research question, the summary of findings will be presented by hypotheses associated with each dependent variable and subsample. The results will be discussed with reference to their congruency with and contribution to existing literature. I shall, then, delineate the way in which the overall results have implications for theory and research. The chapter concludes with sections about the limitations of this study and future directions for research. Research Question #1 To begin, this study seeks to answer the question, “Are parental disciplinary behaviours a function of child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors?” The simple answer is “Yes” but the degree to which any particular child characteristic has a significant effect 195 depends on the type of parental disciplinary behaviour being explained and the age of children. Physical-psychological aggressive discipline is the first disciplinary behaviour to be discussed. Discussion on Physical-psychological Aggressive Discipline Respecting the subsample of children 3 years and younger, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1.a. Children with a health impairment receive more physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to healthy children. Hypothesis 1.b. Children with poor developmental attainment are exposed to greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those with normal attainment. Hypothesis 1.c. Those children identified as possessing a highly difficult temperament are at increased risk of experiencing physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children scoring low on difficult temperament. Hypothesis 1.d.Dull temperament is negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Hypothesis 1.e. Children exhibiting a high degree of problematic behaviours are more likely to receive higher levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 1.f. Prosocial behaviour is negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Hypothesis 1.g. Boys are exposed to greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to girls. Hypothesis 1.h. Premature children are at increased risk of experiencing physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to those children not born prematurely. 196 Hypothesis 1.i. Children of higher order birth receive a higher level of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to first-born children and single children. Because the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis was restricted to a cross-sectional design for this subsample, the hypotheses are phrased as to indicate relationships between variables as opposed to predictive effects. Table 21 presents a tabular version of the textual description of the results. Only results that showed the rejection of the null hypothesis are discussed. Null results are dealt with in the limitations and future directions sections of this paper. As anticipated, dull temperament is negatively associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline after controlling for parent, familial, and contextual covariates (see Table 21 and Appendix G). The observation of this association lends support to Bell’s (1977) proposition that “Lower-limit control behaviour primes and stimulates child behaviour that is below parental standards” (p. 65). Examples of child behaviour in this circumstance are lethargy in the infant, low-activity, overly inhibited behaviour, and lack of competence (Bell, 1968, p. 88). Since dull temperament represents a low level of social responsiveness and activity in the child (Halpern, Anders, Coll, & Hua, 1994), it is logical to assume that parents will respond to children characterized as dull with lower-limit control behaviours such as drawing attention to stimuli, positively reinforcing increases in activity, urging, prompting, and demanding increased performance (Bell, 1977, p. 67). Hence, it makes sense that dull temperament is negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline because this dimension of discipline falls within the upper-limit control repertoire of parental behaviours, as defined by Bell (1977). Bell’s (1968) notion of congenital contributors to parental control strategies and subsequent child behaviour is relevant to the concept of dull temperament. His child-effect 197 system of explanation argues that “there are congenital contributors to child behaviour which (a) activate these repertoires, (b) affect the level of response within hierarchies, and (c) differentially reinforce parent behaviour which has been evoked” (Bell, 1968, p. 89). Bell (1968) discussed this system with reference to the research at that time. For example, he cited the work of Schaefer and Bayley (1963) who found that mothers of inactive children over a five year period were scored as intrusive and as elevated in achievement demand. This finding was interpreted by Bell (1968) as low assertiveness or sensory-motor capability in children provokes parental lower-limit control behaviours which correspond to intrusiveness and achievement demand. He noted another study which reported that infant lethargy (i.e., congenital contributor) was associated with later dependency in the child within a sample of large dense families (Waldrop & Bell, 1966). Reiss’s (1995) developmentally evocative covariances model, an extension of evocative gene-environment processes, resembles Bell’s (1968) child-effect system of congenital contributors. Both theorists assert that child temperament affects parental behaviour and child outcomes. Although the present study cannot test these hypotheses directly, the cross-sectional data indicates that dull temperament is correlated with decreased behaviour problems and prosocial behaviour in children less than or equal to 3 years (see Appendix H). 198 Table 21 Results Regarding Research Question 1.a.: Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis Research Question 1.a. Is physical-psychological aggressive discipline a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors? Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cross-sectional Longitudinal Cross-sectional Longitudinal Hypotheses Children with a health impairment receive more physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to healthy children. Accept - Accept Accept Gifted children have a lower likelihood of exposure to physical-psychological aggressive discipline than non-gifted children. - - Accept Accept Special needs children have a higher probability of experiencing physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those who are not deemed as a special needs child. - - Reject Accept Children with poor developmental attainment are exposed to greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those with normal attainment. Accept - Reject Accept Those children identified as possessing a highly difficult temperament are at increased risk of experiencing physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children scoring low on difficult temperament. Accept - - - Dull temperament is negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Reject - - - 199 Research Question 1.a. Is physical-psychological aggressive discipline a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors? Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cross-sectional Longitudinal Cross-sectional Longitudinal Hypotheses Children exhibiting a high degree of problematic behaviours are more likely to receive higher levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Reject - Reject Reject Social competence is inversely associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Reject - Reject Reject Youth who hold highly positive perceptions of themselves have a decreased probability of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those with low self-perceptions. - - Accept Reject Boys are exposed to greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to girls. Accept - Accept Reject Premature children are at increased risk of experiencing physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to those children not born prematurely. Accept - - - Children of higher order birth receive a higher level of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to first-born children and single children. Reject - Accept Accept 200 Congruent with the proposition that upper-limit control is elicited by excessive, inappropriate child behaviour (Bell, 1977, p. 65), the current data reveal that children exhibiting a high degree of problematic behaviour are more likely to receive greater levels of physical-psychological aggressive discipline (as shown in Table 21 and Appendix G). Despite this hypothesis being supported, it is found that not all problematic behaviours have a significant association with this dimension of discipline. Specifically, children deemed as high in hyperactivity-inattention relative to those who are low and children perceived as high in physical-aggression compared to those who are low are recipients of more physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Problematic behaviours not correlated with this dimension of discipline are emotional disorder-anxiety and separation anxiety. The data suggests that child behaviour problems are related in different ways to physical-psychological aggressive discipline, which may be a function of the nature of these behaviours. Although there is no consensus on a precise operational definition, a general definition of externalizing behaviour is pervasive within the literature on youth in child welfare settings. Externalizing behaviour is typified by a violation of societal norms, property offences, and harm towards others (Keil & Price, 2006, p. 762). Examples of these behaviours include impulsivity/hyperactivity, opposition/defiance, disruption, and aggression (Furlong, Morrison & Jimerson, 2004). Conversely, internalizing behaviours are behaviours that are directed inwardly toward the individual and symbolize overcontroled and inner-directed pattern of behaviour (Gresham & Kern, 2004, p. 262). Internalizing behaviours can consist of social withdrawal, depression/dysthymia, anxiety, somatization problems, obsessive-compulsive behaviours, and selective mutism. The Systematic Screening for Behaviour Disorders (SSBD) describes these behaviours as “often self-imposed and frequently involve behavioural deficits and patterns of social avoidance” (Muscott, 2008, p. 53). In light of 201 the characterizations of externalizing and internalizing child behaviours, it is reasonable to conclude that parents respond to child externalizing behaviours with upper-limit control behaviours yet they react to internalizing behaviours with lower-limit control behaviours. As Bell (1977, p. 65) purported, parental control behaviour functions to maintain child behaviour within an optimal range. Externalizing behaviours represent behaviours that exceed this optimal range while internalizing behaviours signify behaviours below this range. Parents of children exhibiting externalizing behaviours of hyperactivity-inattention and physical aggression would desire to divert the attention of the child or reduce these behaviours. These parents would work to achieve this goal via behaviours like distraction, quick tangible reinforcement or non-reinforcement, holding, prohibiting verbalizations, and physical punishment (Bell, 1977, p. 67). On the other hand, internalizing behaviours such as emotional disorder-anxiety and separation anxiety would evoke parental behaviours geared toward stimulating, priming, or elevating the inadequate or absent behaviour (Bell, 1977, p. 65). Therefore, the finding in this study that these internalizing behaviours are not associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline is not surprising. As illustrated in Table 21, the data corroborates the hypotheses that prosocial behaviour is negatively associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline (see also Appendix G). This result is in concert with Ambert’s (1992) assertion that the more the child deviates positively from the socially accepted average in personal characteristics, the higher the positive child effect on parents. In this sphere, the “positive child effect” is a reduction in the employment of physical-psychological aggressive discipline as a function of increased prosocial behaviour in children. One way in which this “positive child effect” by prosocial behaviour can manifest itself is via social recognition. Prosocial behaviour is a characteristic that is so highly valued in our 202 society that individual citizens and organizations are publically honoured for their good deeds (e.g., Scotiabank & United Way Community Spirit Awards). In a similar fashion, parents of children who deviate positively from the average in prosocial behaviour may earn praise from relatives, friends, and teachers, which could give rise to parental feelings of pride (Ambert, 1992). Parental positive affect towards their highly prosocial child would probably cause these parents to lessen their use of physical-psychological aggressive discipline with that particular child. The emotionality of parents, nonetheless, may be directly influenced by children’s prosocial behaviour as opposed to through social recognition. Evocative process occurs when the child’s prosocial behaviour elicits positive emotions in parents like fondness (Knafo & Plomin 2006). Although Knafo and Plomin (2006) found evidence for this notion, the strength of the association between prosocial behaviour and parental emotionality was greater for negativity than for positivity. The interpretation is that prosocial behaviour is inversely associated with negativity and, subsequently, to negative discipline. An alternative explanation, articulated by Knafo and Plomin (2006), for the relationship between prosocial behaviour and parental discipline is active process. Active process refers to the idea that children actively build their environments that enhance their genetic propensities. Prosocial children may participate in behaviours or select environments that can affect parental behaviour. A child may choose to listen to a story, for instance, that depicts a protagonist who helps others who are less fortunate, which complements the child’s prosocial disposition. Parents may develop more compassion for others as a product of reading such stories to their child and, thereby, engage in fewer aggressive and more positive disciplinary behaviours. 203 The hypotheses that parents of children of higher order birth adopt more physical-psychological aggressive discipline than parents of first-born and single children was supported (see Table 21 and Appendix G). The reasoning underlying this difference can be traced to Sulloway’s (1996; 2001) thesis that later-born children exhibit greater rebellious behaviour than first-born children. He describes childhood as a Darwinian competition in which children pursue opposing family niches. According to this idea, first-born children “receive undiluted parental attention and become supporters of the status quo. Laterborns must compete with their siblings for parental attention, and become more rebellious” (quoted in Townsend, 2000, p. 135). Evidence for this argument comes from studies showing that later-born children are more likely to be delinquent (Bègue & Roché, 2005; Heck & Walsh, 2000), use marijuana (Zweigenhaft, 2002), civilly disobedient (Zweigenhaft & Von, 2000), low in conformity and conscientiousness (Healey & Ellis , 2007), and high in openness to experience and agreeableness (Jefferson, Herbst, & McCrae, 1998) relative to first-born children. It is probable that these characteristics of later-born children make them increasingly vulnerable to maltreatment (Lee & Goerge 1999; Overpeck, Brenner, Trumble, Trifiletti, & Berendes, 1998) and recipients of higher degrees of punitive discipline than first- born children (Kidwell, 1981). Research has also found that parents engage in lower levels of warmth, reasonableness, supportiveness, monitoring, and quality time with their later-born children than with their first-born children (Bègue & Roché, 2005; Kidwell, 1981; Price, 2008; Someya, Uehara, Kadowaki, Tang, & Takahashi, 2000). Thus, the current results that parents of later-born children use more physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to parents of first-born and single children is explained by the differences in personality and behaviour across birth order. 204 As can be seen from the preceding discussion, some yet not all of the hypotheses were affirmed in the younger subsample. The discussion now turns to the findings pertaining to the older subsample of children 4 to 11 years. The aim of this analysis, just like that for the younger subsample, was to respond to the inquiry of the extent to which parental disciplinary behaviours are determined by child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors. In this subsample, the following hypotheses regarding physical-psychological aggressive discipline are made: Hypothesis 2.a. Children with a health impairment receive greater physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to healthy children. Hypothesis 2.b. Gifted children have a lower likelihood of exposure to physical-psychological aggressive discipline than non-gifted children. Hypothesis 2.c. Special needs children have a higher probability of experiencing physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those who are not deemed as a special needs child. Hypothesis 2.d. Children with poor developmental attainment are at increased risk of physical-psychological aggression discipline than children of normal or above normal attainment. Hypothesis 2.e. Children showing a high level of problematic behaviours are more vulnerable to physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children scoring low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 2.f. Social competence is inversely associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Hypothesis 2.g. Youth who hold highly positive perceptions of themselves have a decreased probability of physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to those with low self-perceptions. 205 Hypothesis 2.h. The employment of physical-psychological aggressive discipline is applied at elevated degrees among boys compared to girls. Hypothesis 2.i. Parents of later-born children adopt more physical-psychological aggressive discipline than parents of first-born and single children. The summary of the findings that follows is supplemented by data displayed in Appendix G and I (see also Table 21). Results are discussed in situations where the null hypothesis was rejected. . Evidence in favour of the hypothesis that children with special needs have a higher probability of experiencing physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to children without these needs is given in Table 21 and Appendix G. This evidence is restricted to the cross-sectional data in Cycle 2. A likely candidate for causing this restriction is the sample size. The percentage of cases identified as special needs children is markedly greater in Cycle 2 than in Cycle 1 and 3 (as seen in Tables 5, 7, and 8), which reflects changes in the number of valid cases in the bivariate analyses over time. Because of these variations in cases, it is difficult to conclude that the effect of special need status is merely a concurrent phenomenon with discipline. Hypothetically, if there are more valid cases at Cycle 3, the data might reveal that special need status at Cycle 2 significantly predicts physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3. Speculation aside, the data in Cycle 2 is harmonious with Ambert’s (1992) contention that child characteristics that deviate negatively from the socially accepted norm adversely affect parents. Parents are not only negatively influenced by their child being labeled “special needs” along with the stigma attached to it, but also these children are known to exhibit severe behaviour problems (Rosenthal, 1993). The results of the current study corroborates this statement by showing that special needs status is positively correlated with behavioural problems and inversely related to social skills (refer to Appendices H, J, and K). In addition, the results in 206 Appendices H and J depict a positive association between special needs status and health impairment. It is presumed that the majority of parents will break under the pressure of caring for their special needs child and, therefore, resort to employing physical-psychological aggressive discipline when the child misbehaves. Another interpretation for the regression results, however, is that parental use of this dimension of discipline predicts the extent to which children are identified as having special needs. Consistent with expectations, the results show that children with poor developmental attainment are at increased risk of physical-psychological aggressive discipline than children of normal or above normal attainment (see Table 21 and Appendix G). A question arising from the results is why this was found just within Cycle 3. Since the number of cases in the model at Cycle 3 is greater than that for the previous two, the significant finding may be an artifact of a large sample in the final cycle. Alternatively, the finding could be related to the fact that by Cycle 3 the children are nearing entry into middle-school. Arguably, parental concerns respecting children’s poor developmental attainment are accentuated during the time in which children prepare to transition to middle-school. The chance of improvement in developmental attainment at this time is likely to be low due to the various worries about what will happen when entry occurs. Studies report that the transitional process is associated with declines in academic achievement and student motivation (Anderman, 1998; Chung, Elias, & Schneider, 1998; Harter 1981). These developmental outcomes are not shocking seeing that entry into middle school is a life transition characterized by substantial “stress-inducing and pathogenic qualities” (Elias, Gara, & Ubriaco, 1985, p. 112). Thus, parents may be particularly worried by their child’s poor development attainment at such a difficult period in the child’s life. The positive association between poor developmental attainment and physical-psychological aggressive discipline 207 obtained herein supports Ambert’s (1992) proposition that child characteristics that deviate negatively from the average negatively affect parents. But, the association can be interpreted in the opposite direction because of the cross-sectional nature of the significant finding. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses supply results that are in agreement with the hypotheses that children showing a high level of problematic behaviours are more vulnerable to physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to children scoring low in these behaviours (see Table 21 and Appendix G and I). The pattern in the results is consistent with those that emerged for the younger subsample insofar as externalizing behaviours are positively associated with this dimension of discipline, while internalizing behaviours are not. The differential effect of problem behaviours, as stated earlier, is doubtlessly related to the extent to which they adversely impact others and break social norms. Externalizing behaviours are understood to negatively affect relationships with parents (Lytton, 1990), siblings (Rende, Slomkowski, Stocker, Fulker, & Plomin, 1992), peers (Dodge, 1983), teachers (Nelson, & Roberts, 2000), and the family system as a whole (Lindahl, 1998). Furthermore, these behaviours may hinder a family’s integration into the community, which perhaps is rooted in parental fear of embarrassment or ridicule by others. Parental motivation to reduce externalizing behaviours in children, therefore, is greater than it is for internalizing behaviours as the former endangers the well-being of the child as well as the family.The findings regarding externalizing behaviour problems and physical-psychological aggressive discipline are interpretable through the theoretical work of Ambert (1992) and Bell (1977), as delineated earlier in this paper. Other theoretical perspectives especially relevant to child physical aggression and property offences include Straus’s (1991; Straus & Donnelly, 2001) systems model of physical discipline, parental cognition frameworks (Dix & Grusec, 1985; Dix, Ruble, & Zarnbarano, 1989)., genetically-208 mediated models (Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomas, Price, & Taylor, 2004), and the social interactional approach (Patterson, 1982; Patterson & Fisher, 2002; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Snyder, Edwards, McGraw, Kilgore, & Holton, 1994). Descriptions of these theoretical perspectives on the determinants of discipline are found in Chapter 3. The data lend support to the hypothesis that social competence is inversely associated with physical-psychological aggressive discipline (see Table 21 and Appendix G and I for details). The predicted association is observable in cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Explanations for these associations are obtained from Ambert (1992) theoretical analysis and Knafo and Plomin’s (2006) genetic-mediation models of prosocial behaviour (see Chapter 3 for a summary of these perspectives). Prosocial behaviour, one measure of social competence, tends to be a more significantly correlate of physical-psychological aggressive discipline compared to social skills. This difference between these measures of social competence in their significance is likely attributable to common method variance. One important source of common method biases is when predictor and criterion variables are gathered from the same rater. Common rater effects are defined as “any artifactual covariance between the predictor and criterion variable produced by the fact that the respondent providing the measure of these variables is the same” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003, p. 881). While social skills was evaluated by the child’s teacher, mothers reported on their discipline strategies and the child’s prosocial behaviour and, thus, resulting in a common rater effect. Yet, it can be argued that the social skills noted by teachers in the school are not carried over to the home or that there is something about prosocial behaviour that is distinct from social skills. Although there is no question that both characteristics are valued by society, special weight may be granted to those who display highly prosocial behaviour because this behaviour is an observable indicator of a child’s moral 209 reasoning (Greener, 2000). Nonetheless, physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3 is predicted by social skills and prosocial behaviour as assessed at Cycle 1. One anomalous finding in the longitudinal analysis is that prosocial behaviour at Cycle 1 is positively related to this dimension of discipline after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors and when these factors are not accounted for prosocial behaviour is not significant. A tenable explanation for this finding is that prosocial behaviour and physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 1 interact insofar as physical-psychological aggressive discipline at Cycle 3 is positively affected under the condition that prosocial behaviour and physical-psychological aggressive discipline are elevated at Cycle 1. Conversely, this dimension of discipline at Cycle 3 is negatively affected when prosocial behaviour is high yet physical-psychological aggressive discipline is low at Cycle 1. An alternative explanation is borrowed from the work of Hoffman and Saltzskin (1967) who found in their sample of seventh graders that peer assessments of prosocial behaviour showed a positive association with power-assertive discipline applied by mothers, but only for boys. The authors speculated that the reason this association was limited to boys was because prosocial behaviour is valued less among boys than girls. Since children often adopt the values of their parents, it is assumed that parents respond to prosocial behaviour in girls with encouragement whereas this behaviour is punished for boys. The results from this study, however, primarily highlight a positive relationship between prosocial behaviour and physical-psychological aggressive discipline regardless of child sex. The assertion that youth who possess highly positive perceptions of themselves have a decreased probability of being subjected to physical-psychological aggressive discipline was supported in the longitudinal results, as illustrated in Table 21 and Appendix I. Specifically, 210 youth who thought they were physically attractive compared to those who did not at Cycle 1 have lower scores on this discipline scale at Cycle 2. It is presumed that compliments by parents on the youths’ appearance contribute to these positive self-perceptions and that the perceived attractiveness between youth and parents ought to be significantly correlated. If one assumes the latter is true, then, the question is how do parental perceptions of the youths’ attractiveness influence their tendency toward physical-psychological aggressive discipline. This question can be answered with three different lines of reasoning. One explanation comes from Berkowitz (1978) who argued that aversive events may trigger the initiation of aggressive behaviours. In their succinct summary of that work, Berkowitz and Frodi (1979I stated that given that these aversive events are assumed to be the “unconditioned stimuli to aggression-facilitating reactions, objects associated with them theoretically become conditioned aggressive stimuli, and could also elicit aggression-facilitating responses. As a consequence, there supposedly is an inclination to strike at people having aversive characteristics” (p. 420). This expectation was verified in two experimental studies conducted by Berkowitz and Frodi (1979) in which female participants were intentionally incited or not by a confederate and, subsequently, asked to discipline a 10-year-old who had either an attractive or unattractive appearance. The data from both experiments revealed that children considered unattractive were recipients of more severe discipline than their attractive counterparts. Relevant to these findings is Goffman’s (1963) theory on social stigma, he purported that individuals who are stigmatized, as may occur by birth defect and illness, are perceived by others as imperfect in some important manner and, hence, feel hostility toward them. 211 The reaction of people to the attractiveness level of an individual is inextricably tied to perception, according to some theorists. The “what is beautiful is good” stereotype articulated by Dion, Bershield, and Walster (1972), for example, suggests that people attribute desirable personality qualities to physically attractive individuals and perceive them as higher in competence relative to those who are less attractive. Using an experimental design, Dion (1972; 1974) observed that adult female participants showed more lenience toward and perceived identical transgressions as lesser in severity and greater in situationally-determined when the focal child was an attractive boy compared to an unattractive boy or attractive girl. Physical attractiveness of children further affects parental expectations and these, in turn, produce variations in parental disciplinary behaviours (Bersoheid & Walster, 1973 as cited in Adams & LaVoie, 1975). Stephan and Langlois (1984) concluded from their experimental study of adult participants appraisals of infant photographs that the attractiveness of infants shortly after birth provokes powerful and stable behavioural expectations of the infant and that these differential expectations result in differential treatment on the part of the parents. They propose a confirmatory behavioural process where variation in the real social behaviour of attractive and unattractive children is dependent on differential parental treatment with this treatment being guided by expectations of the child, which are partly derived from the attractiveness of the child. Parental expectations of children’s developmental competence may also be impacted by the degree of attractiveness in children. One hypothesis is that perceivers hold greater expectations for age-related competence of facially unattractive infants and perceive these infants as older and of increased developmental maturity relative to attractive infants (Ritter, Casey, & Langlois, 1991). Ritter, Casey, and Langlois (1991) not only observed confirmation of this hypothesis in three experimental studies but further found that parents’ repeatedly 212 overestimated the age of unattractive infants. In addition, parental overestimation of unattractive and older appearing infants’ developmental competence looked to symbolize unrealistic expectations as opposed to age-appropriate expectations in the spheres of communication, motor, and cognitive abilities. The authors claimed that these infants are “doubly disadvantaged” since they, while struggling to reach unrealistic expectations provoked by their older appearance, are appraised by parents to have a decreased level of competence compared to their attractive peers. I speculate that, because of their older appearance, unattractive children are disadvantaged in another way. Given that dispositional attributions surface when parents believe that their child’s behaviour as driven by knowledge and intention and when significant obstacles to the child’s freedom are nonexistent, parents are apt to attribute misbehaviour to dispositions in the child as the child grows older rather than to deficits in social knowledge and skills (Dix & Grusec, 1985). It is, therefore, plausible that older-looking, unattractive children are probably disciplined at an earlier chronological age and more often relative to their attractive peers. Table 21 reports that the employment of physical-psychological aggressive discipline is applied at elevated rates among boys compared to girls, as anticipated (see also Appendix I). In particular, as shown in Appendix I, this dimension of discipline at Cycle 3 was predicted by child sex as measured at Cycle 1. This finding is incongruous with those for the younger subsample in which the null hypothesis was accepted. Thus, the enquiry turns to why child sex had no effect in the younger subsample. A possible interpretation can be traced to changing cultural norms about the socialization of gender. Historical changes in technology, occupation, human rights, and family diversity have distorted or removed, to a strong degree, the traditional divisions of labour that has molded cultural sex roles (Schwartzman, Verlaan, Peters, & Serbin, 1995). Thus, the belief that males must fulfill the role of achiever, provider, and protector may be less salient 213 today than a century ago because of these societal forces. For example, the cultural belief that it is essential for boys to engage in fistfights during their childhood was endorsed by 75% of the US population in 1970 (Stark &McEvoy, 1970) while only 38% of parents held this belief in 1995, although the percentage was much higher for parents who used corporal punishment (84%) (Straus, 2010). Straus and Donnelly (2001) noted that some parents believe corporal punishment is an effective method to build a “thick skin” in boys (an attribute of masculinity) and to prepare them to physically defend themselves in adulthood. Data from the National Family Violence Survey, however, illustrates that the gap in the frequency of experiencing corporal punishment between boys and girls has shrunk over time, which is suggestive of this belief becoming obsolete. Specifically, hitting occurred 13.3 and 11.5 times for boys and girls, respectively, in 1975 whereas in 1985 it was 9.4 and 8.3 times (Straus & Donnelly, 2001). This convergence in chronicity rates of corporal punishment may reflect a rise in the belief that boys and girls should be treated equally. Although data gathered in 1995 showed significant variation in the chronicity of corporal punishment by child sex (Straus & Stewart, 1999), studies have reported that these sex differences in chronicity and prevalence are absent during the period before children enter elementary school (Anderson, 1936, 1972; Giles-Sims, Straus, & Sugarman, 1995; Straus & Stewart, 1999). Considering that nearly all parents employ corporal punishment with children 5 years and younger (Day, Peterson, & McCracken, 1998; Straus & Donnelly, 2001; Straus & Stewart, 1999), Straus and Stewart (1999) speculate that an absence of difference between boys and girls in their receipt of corporal punishment is due to a ceiling effect. As Straus and Donnelly (2001) succinctly delineate this effect “the unexpectedly small size of the difference between boys and girls suggests that the principle of hitting children when necessary is so firmly established that it largely overrides the principle of bringing up boys 214 to be real men and girls to be ladies” (p. 31). If there is, indeed, such an effect then it seems to be not an anomalous finding that no sex differences are observable in the subsample of children less than or equal to 3 years. Conclusions about Physical-psychological Aggressive Discipline The objective of the preceding section was to respond to the question: is physical-psychological aggressive discipline a function of child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors? In general, the answer is “Yes” but the persistence and magnitude of child effects differed by the concepts assessed (see Table 21 and Appendix G and I). The findings with the greatest robustness are externalizing behavioural problems and prosocial behaviour. Physical-psychological aggressive discipline is concurrently positively related to and caused by behaviour problems, which is consistent to previous research. Furthermore, this dimension of discipline is concurrently inversely associated with and predicted by prosocial behaviour and social skills. These findings complement the notion that power-assertive discipline, in this case physical-psychological aggressive discipline, is adopted to curb problematic behaviours of children that negatively impact others and their environment (Bell, 1977). Such a line of thought leads one to presume that parents refrain from using this dimension of discipline in response to socially competent child behaviour because these behaviours are cherished. Another behavioural characteristic that emerged as a significant correlate of physical-psychological aggressive discipline is dull temperament. As would be expected from Bell’s (1977), dull temperament is negatively associated with this dimension of discipline. The rationale for this expectation is that dull temperament represents a low level of activity and, hence, trigger lower-limit control behaviours in parents (Bell, 1977). Parents are likely to exhibit 215 these lower-limit control behaviours also if a child is displaying a degree of prosocial behaviour that is below parental expectations. The effects of child behaviours on physical-psychological aggressive discipline observed herein are further interpretable from a genetically-mediated perspective. According to this perspective, the “active” gene-environment process refers to when children actively seek out and attend to environmental stimuli that are contingent on their genotype and are indirectly related to those of their biological relatives (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). These genetically-influenced activities provoke parental responses and these, in turn, shape the trajectories of such activities. For example, children whose genotype directly or indirectly (e.g., in tandem with environmental stressors) elevates the probability that the children behave in a highly aggressive manner and select environmental stimuli that support this behaviour ought to elicit increased punitive discipline relative to children who do not possess that genotype (or the environmental stressors that facilitate the phenotypic expression of that genotype) (Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomas, Price, & Taylor, 2004). Punitive discipline, however, can be a response to genetically-influenced phenotypes, in this case aggression, without children’s activity selection bias (i.e., evocative process), which mirrors Bell’s (1968) conceptualization of “child effects”. Explanations for the association of parenting discipline behaviours with antisocial and prosocial behaviour in children applying a genetically-mediated perspective are available in articles by Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomas, Price, and Taylor (2004), Knafo and Plomin (2006), and O'Connor, Deater-Deckard, Fulker, Rutter, and Plomin (1998) (see for review, Reiss, 1995). While it remains questionable as to why their effects are apparent only in a single cross-sectional analysis, affirmation of the hypotheses are observed insomuch as children with special needs and those with poor developmental attainment are recipients of higher levels of physical-216 psychological aggressive discipline than children not in special education and those of normal or above normal attainment, respectively. These findings are interpretable through Ambert’s (1992) thesis that child characteristics that deviate negatively from the socially accepted norm adversely influence parents. Furthermore, in light of the knowledge that these children have severe behavioural problems (Rosenthal, 1993), they tend to be exposed to increased rates of physical-psychological aggressive discipline than their normal-achieving counterparts. One can identify multiple antecedents of problem behaviours, however, the label “special need” in itself likely does not help these children’s situation nor them being segregated in special classes or having a teaching assistant by their side in the classroom. Special needs children are stigmatized because they meet the criteria for stigmatization which is “the co-occurrence of its components-labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination” (Link & Phelan, 2001, p. 363 Link and Phelan (2001) claim that stigmatized individuals are more likely to have poorer life chances than non-stigmatized individuals in areas such as psychological well-being, housing, and employment. There are other characteristics that cause stigmatization and another that is seen in this study is perceived unattractiveness by others. The present study found that youths’ who perceived themselves as high in physical attractiveness have a lower risk of experiencing physical-psychological aggressive discipline relative to who did not. Goffman (1963) asserted that hostility is directed toward the stigmatized from non-stigmatized individuals. Aggressive responses elicited by stigmatized individuals can occur in an automatic fashion, as argued by Berkowitz (1978). Alternatively, negative reactions can be a function of cognitive attributions (Dion, 1972, 1974). Regardless of the theoretical lens one takes, these explanations imply that 217 children are treated differently based on their physical appearance and that those who are deemed less attractive will suffer the consequence of parental aggression. The findings of this study pertaining to physical-psychological aggressive discipline and child sex is mixed. On the one hand, support is found for the hypotheses that boys receive more of this dimension of discipline than girls within the subsample of children 4-11 years. On the other hand, child sex had no effect within the younger subsample. Existing literature, like these findings, has produced mixed results and there is no consensus as of yet as to whether child sex is related to physical punishment. Yet, Straus and his colleagues (Straus & Donnelly, 2001; Straus & Stewart, 1999) propose that the reasoning underlying the absence of sex differences, at least in young children, is due to the great prevalence in the use of physical punishment (i.e., ceiling effect). Discussion Regarding Privilege Deprivation-diversion This section of the discussion chapter addresses the enquiry of whether or not child characteristics have a significant effect on privilege deprivation-diversion after accounting for parent, familial, and contextual factors. Broadly speaking, the response to this enquiry is “Yes”, however, there is diversity in levels of significance across the child characteristics and subsamples (see Table 22). Within the subsample of children 3 years and younger, it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 3.a. Parents of children with a health impairment adopt increased degrees of privilege deprivation-diversion than those with healthy children. Hypothesis 3.b. Parents of children who show poor developmental attainment engage in greater privilege deprivation-diversion relative to those with children at or above normal attainment. 218 Hypothesis 3.c. Children who have a highly difficult temperament are at heightened risk of privilege deprivation-diversion compared to children who are low. Hypothesis 3.d. Dull temperament is inversely correlated with privilege deprivation-diversion. Hypothesis 3.e. Children displaying a high level of behaviour problems have a greater likelihood of receiving privilege deprivation-diversion than those scoring low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 3.f. Prosocial behaviour is negatively associated with privilege deprivation-diversion. Hypothesis 3.g. Boys experience increased levels of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to girls. Hypothesis 3.h. Children born prematurely are exposed to more privilege deprivation-diversion than those who are not. Hypothesis 3.i. Children of higher order birth receive higher levels of privilege deprivation-diversion compared to first-born children and single children. As was the situation for the first dependent measure of physical-psychological aggressive discipline within the younger subsample, the hypotheses stated above are articulated to represent significant associations rather than causal direction among variables. The prediction of significant associations can only be drawn since the regression analysis is restricted to the first cycle for this younger subsample. A summary of the findings in relation to these hypotheses is available in Table 22 (see also Appendix L and M). While details concerning null effects are mentioned in the limitations and future directions sections, the forthcoming section discusses the findings pertaining to those hypotheses where the null hypothesis is rejected. Among children 3 years and younger, children perceived as having a highly difficult temperament receive more privilege deprivation-diversion than children perceived as easy (see Table 22 and Appendix L). The difficult temperament measure used in this study primarily 219 represents negative emotionality. Children’s genetically influenced emotionality accounts for differential parenting behaviour (Bell, 1968; Scarr &McCartney, 1983) both in its quantity and quality (Belsky, 1984). After reviewing previous studies, Bell (1968) concluded that there are congenital contributors (e.g., negative emotionality) to early responses to social reinforcement. Early social reinforcers are responded to less favourably (i.e., less smiling, visual regard, more crying vocalizations) by emotionally negative, hyperactive, or restless infants relative to other infants. Bell (1968) proposed that “love-oriented” maternal behaviours are less effective in modulating the subsequent behaviour of these difficult infants. The “love-oriented” behaviours are contingent on the primary social bond which is characteristically weak in cases where the infant’s temperament is difficult and, as a result of this bond, difficult infants are likely to be lower in person-orientation. The average parent, Bell (1968) stated, would employ more upper-limit control techniques when managing the behaviour of a difficultly tempered infant (see Chapter 3 for a summary of Bell’s theory). 220 Table 22 Results Regarding Research Question 1.b.: Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis Research Question 1.b. Is privilege deprivation-diversion a product of child characteristics following control of parent, familial, and contextual factors? Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cross-sectional Longitudinal Cross-sectional Longitudinal Hypotheses Children with a health impairment receive more privilege deprivation-diversion compared to healthy children. Accept - Reject Accept Gifted children have a lower likelihood of exposure to privilege deprivation-diversion than non-gifted children. - - Accept Accept Special needs children have a higher probability of experiencing privilege deprivation-diversion relative to those who are not deemed as a special needs child. - - Accept Accept Children with poor developmental attainment are exposed to greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to those with normal attainment. Accept - Reject Reject Those children identified as possessing a highly difficult temperament are at increased risk of experiencing privilege deprivation-diversion compared to children scoring low on difficult temperament. Reject - - - Dull temperament is negatively related to privilege deprivation-diversion. Reject - - - Children exhibiting a high degree of problematic behaviours are more likely to receive higher levels of privilege deprivation-diversion compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Reject - Reject Reject Social competence is inversely associated with privilege deprivation-diversion. Reject - Reject Reject 221 Research Question 1.b. Is privilege deprivation-diversion a product of child characteristics following control of parent, familial, and contextual factors? Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cross-sectional Longitudinal Cross-sectional Longitudinal Hypotheses Youth who hold highly positive perceptions of themselves have a decreased probability of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to those with low self-perceptions. - - Accept Accept Boys are exposed to greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to girls. Accept - Reject Reject Premature children are at increased risk of experiencing privilege deprivation-diversion compared to those children not born prematurely. Accept - - - Children of higher order birth receive a higher level of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to first-born children and single children. Reject - Accept Accept 222 Similar to Bell’s (1968) formulation of congenital contributors to later child behaviour and parenting, Reiss (1995) built upon the evocative gene-environment process by adding a heritable temperamental characteristic to the developmental sequence. In his developmentally evocative covariance model, child temperament has the ability to elicit parental conflict and this conflict affects child antisocial behaviour. Several studies lend support to this model insofar as they suggest that child temperament provokes specific kinds of parental behaviour which, in turn, have implications for subsequent child behaviour outcomes (Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, & Stifter, 1997; Chang & Shaw, 2016; Kingston & Prior, 1995; Lee & Bates, 1985). For example, Lee and Bates (1985) found that children perceived by mothers as more temperamentally difficult had a greater probability of attempting to break household rules or causing mild damage to individuals or property than mothers of children perceived of as easy. Mothers of difficultly tempered children demonstrated increased rates of behaviours such as restraint or removal of the child, gave in after initially resisting, and infrequently provided the children options between alternative behaviours. Mothers control techniques were met with greater resistance in dyads where the child was identified as difficult, than those with an easy child, and these mothers applied higher intrusive control. The negative parent-child interactional pattern observed in the study just cited resembles Patterson’s (1982) coercion process in which socially aggressive boys are likely to respond to maternal control attempts with resistance or toxic behaviour and that these disruptive behaviours may be rooted in the temperamental disposition of the child. Expanding on this work, Patterson, Reid, and Dishion (1992) outlined a cascade model for the development of antisocial behaviour among boys in which the mixture of temperamental characteristics (e.g., irritability) and poor parental disciplinary responses to child noncompliant behaviour can bring forth cycles of 223 coercive family processes. The manner wherein temperamental characteristics operate together to influence parental behaviours is illustrated in an article by Bridgett et al. (2009) who investigated the transactional relationships between trajectories of negative emotions (NE) and regulatory capacity (RC) and their impact on negative parenting. The authors observed that greater NE in early infancy produced decreases in RC over time and negative parenting was a function of accelerated decreases in RC and increases in NE across measurement periods. These results, Bridgett et al. (2009) suggest, indicate that emotionally negative infants become more challenging to soothe over time and this, in turn, elicits increased adoption of negative parenting behaviours. Another explanation is that children’s heightened negative emotionality may elevate the prominence of poor RC with the implication that when children are upset parents are likely to be reactive and impatient. Hence, it is conceivable that when children are extremely negative their parents are further attuned to other unfavorable temperamental characteristics that are correlated with but independent of this disposition (Ganiban, Ulbricht, Saudino, Reiss, & Neiderhiser, 2011). Emotionally negative children are at risk of being assigned the role of the “difficult child” by their parents and such labeling may exacerbate and cause continuity in the appearance of “difficult” characteristics (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002). The results of the present study can also be situated within Belsky’s (1984) process model of parenting. In this model, the difficult temperament of children is a determinant of lower parental competence. Belsky, Robins, and Gamble (1984) suggested that, compared to parents of difficultly tempered children, parents of easy to care for children hold increased patience and physical strength to exercise their parenting behaviours. Consequently, these parents tend to show heightened commitment to the parenting role and increased levels of involvement and sensitivity. Conversely, previous studies indicate that difficult temperament, particularly negative 224 emotionality, is associated with maternal feelings of inadequacy, helplessness, frustration, guilt, and rejection (Ambert, 2001; Fujiwara, Barr, Brant, & Barr, 2011; Laukkanen, Ojansuu, Tolvanen, Alatupa, & Aunola, 2014), which are presumably attributable to parental cognitions about their own and their child’s behaviour. Unpleasant feelings, such as these, are likely to surface when parents perceive themselves as responsible for their child’s emotionality and believe that they are capable of changing the child’s disposition. To their disappointment, parents attempts to modify their child’s difficult temperament are unsuccessful, even in the face of best efforts. Parental perceived control is a concept that refers to attributions parents create about the causes of their failures and successes (Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989). Bugental, Blue, and Cruzcosa (1989) found that low perceived control over caregiving failure was related to the use of greater coercive parenting. Effective parenting may also be compromised in cases where parents believe that “difficultness” in the child is intentional as opposed to intrinsic (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002). Parental self-efficacy (PSE) has been noted as an important antecedent of parental competence and it refers to parent’s beliefs in their ability to affect their child and environment in a manner that would enhance the child’s development (Ardelt & Eccles, 2001). Jones and Prinz (2005) advance Bandura’s (1977) theory regarding self-efficacy in which they view self-efficacy as a probable antecedent, consequence, mediator or transactional factor within the socialization process. The proposed transactional model, grounded on their review of existing research, asserts that higher PSE is related to higher levels of parenting competence, despite problematic child behaviour. More specifically, parents with high PSE radiate confidence in developing and implementing effective parenting skills, while parents with low PSE may encounter increased challenges to parent effectively in light of difficult child circumstances. It 225 was further suggested that PSE mediates the association between child behaviour problems and parental competence. The transactional nature of Jones and Prinz (2005) model is transparent in their statement that “child temperament and behaviour can influence PSE as well as parents’ interpretations of their parenting and child response. Attributions of both parent and child behaviours can feed into a parent’s evaluation of their performance, the result of which can either increase or decrease their PSE” (p. 359). The work of these authors, in addition to those cited in the foregoing paragraph, underscore the essential part that parental cognitions play in linking difficult child temperament to parenting behaviours. The data shown in Appendix L give support to the hypothesis that dull temperament is negatively associated with privilege deprivation-diversion (see also Table 22). Bell’s (1977) concept of lower-limit control can situate this finding, just as it did for physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Lower-limit control is used by parents when children exhibit behaviours that exist below parent standards, in this case low social responsiveness and activity (i.e., dull temperament). Given that privilege deprivation-diversion symbolizes upper-limit control, the present finding of an inverse association with this dimension of discipline and dull temperament is understandable. Parents implement upper-limit control techniques to reduce excessive, inappropriate child behaviours (Bell, 1977). Data in the present study find support for this assertion insomuch as privilege deprivation-diversion is adopted more often by parents of children showing a greater level of problematic behaviours than those demonstrating less (see Table 22 and Appendix L). Although the direction of the effect for hyperactivity –inattention is anomalous, children scoring high on physical aggression have an increased chance of receiving privilege deprivation-diversion than those scoring low on this measure. Since hyperactivity-inattention scarcely 226 reached significance, its negative association with this dimension of discipline is probably spurious. An alternative explanation is that power-assertive discipline techniques, like privilege deprivation, tend to be used in response to non-universal rule violation (e.g., fighting may be acceptable in some situations) relative to other types of child misbehaviour (Grusec & Kuczynski, 1980). Although no significant group differences were obtained, Johnston and Behrenz (1985) found that conduct problems provoked greater punishing responses whereas misbehaviours related to attention deficit difficulties drew more proactive, preventive parental techniques. With the exception of hyperactivity-inattention, the results for privilege deprivation-diversion parallel those for physical-psychological aggressive discipline to the extent that child physical aggression, an externalizing behaviour, is significant but internalizing behaviours are not. As was mentioned in the section on physical-psychological aggressive discipline, parents are likely to react to externalizing behaviours in children with upper-limit control and to internalizing behaviours with lower-limit control because of the overt and covert nature of each, respectively. Indeed, previous research has revealed that power-assertive techniques which correspond to upper-limit control methods are those most associated with aggressive-defiant child problems (e.g., Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, 1996; Patterson, 1982) Contrary to a priori expectations, privilege deprivation-diversion is positively related to prosocial behaviour as presented in Appendix L and Table 22. Janssens and Deković (1997) noted that, from their review of previous studies, the association between child prosocial behaviour and parental control varied by type of measure used to evaluate control. Those studies which demonstrated a negative association usually operationalized control in the form of power-assertive techniques. While privilege deprivation is classified as a power-assertive technique, 227 Straus and Fauchier (2007) exclude diversion from their list of power-assertive dimensions of discipline. Because the privilege deprivation-diversion measure embodies a mixture of power-assertive and non-power-assertive dimensions, the finding that prosocial behaviour is positively related to this measure is not overwhelmingly unexpected. Yet, even if this measure encompasses power-assertive techniques, Baumrind (2012) argued that confrontive power-assertion does not compromise children’s well-being. Her concept of confrontive power, adopted by authoritative parents, is typified by parental behaviours that are reasoned, negotiable, outcome-oriented and operate to regulate behaviours (Baumrind, 2012, p. 35). The measure of privilege deprivation-diversion used here appears to correspond to confrontive power and, hence, positively associated with prosocial behaviour. The hypothesis that children of higher order birth are more vulnerable to privilege deprivation-diversion relative to first-born children and single children is supported (Appendix L and Table 22). An interpretation for this result is derived from Sulloway’s (1996; 2001) proposition that rebelliousness is higher in later-born children than first-born children, as explained in the discussion section on physical-psychological aggressive discipline and birth order in the younger subsample. Existing literature, also cited in that section, indicates that it is the personality and behaviours of later-born children that account for increased degrees of power-assertive discipline compared to their older counter-parts. Therefore, there is the possibility that it is not birth order per se but, instead, the characteristics of first, middle, and later-born children that predicts privilege deprivation-diversion, which represents a “selection effect”. A review of Table 22 reveals that within the younger subsample several hypotheses pertaining to privilege deprivation-diversion are supported, although others are not. The results 228 concerning the older subsample on this dependent measure will now be discussed. Likewise to the younger subsample, the objective of this analysis was to explore the degree to which privilege deprivation-diversion is impacted by child characteristics over and above the effects of parent, familial, and contextual factors. Hypotheses respecting the older subsample are listed below: Hypothesis 4.a. Children with a health impairment receive increased privilege deprivation-diversion compared to healthy children. Hypothesis 4.b. Privilege deprivation-diversion is lower among gifted children relative to non-gifted peers. Hypothesis 4.c. Special needs children are at greater risk for experiencing privilege deprivation-diversion compared to those who are not deemed as a special needs child. Hypothesis 4.d. Privilege deprivation-diversion is higher among children with poor developmental attainment than children of normal or above normal attainment. Hypothesis 4.e. Children showing a high level of problematic behaviours are more vulnerable to privilege deprivation-diversion relative to children scoring low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 4.f. Social competence is inversely related to privilege deprivation-diversion.. Hypothesis 4.g. Youth who possess highly positive self-perceptions have a decreased probability of privilege deprivation-diversion compared to those with low self-perceptions. Hypothesis 4.h. The use of privilege deprivation-diversion is higher among boys than girls. Hypothesis 4.i. Privilege deprivation-diversion is employed more frequently with later-born children relative to first-born and single children. Table 22 gives an overview of the findings specific to these hypotheses (see also Appendix L and M). The discussion of the results is restricted to instances where the null hypothesis was rejected. 229 As predicted, children with a health impairment receive more privilege deprivation-diversion compared to healthy children, although this was limited to the indicator of childhood injury in Cycle 3 (see Table 22 and Appendix L). There are no known theoretical models that explain how childhood injury is related to privilege deprivation-diversion. The literature on the determinants of unintentional childhood injury, however, supply some insight into understanding this relationship. The literature indicates that behaviour characteristics in children contribute to the likelihood of childhood injury (for review, see Morrongiello & Lasenby-Lessard, 2007). In particular, the risk for childhood injury is greater among children exhibiting externalizing behaviour problems (Bijur, Golding, Haslum, & Kurzon, 1988; Schwebel, Speltz, Jones, & Bardina, 2002). Correlational data in the present study corroborate these findings as shown in Appendices H, J, and K. It is possible that the relationship between externalizing behaviours and risk for injury is moderated by child sex given that the rate of externalizing behaviours are evidenced to be higher among boys than girls. Sex differences in injury rates may not only be attributable to variation in externalizing behaviour but also to parental responses to risk-taking in boys and girls (Morrongiello & Dawber, 1999; Morrongiello & Hogg, 2004). Parental reactions to risk-taking in boys are supportive in nature whereas those for girls tend to be expressions of discouragement and concern over injury vulnerability (Morrongiello & Lasenby-Lessard, 2007). Using a scenario methodology, Morrongiello and Dawber (1999) found that mothers intervened less often and slowly to halt risk-taking to sons as opposed to daughters. In addition, it was observed that maternal intervention was slowed in cases where children had been previously injured and frequently participated in risk-taking behaviours. The latter finding suggests that a history of injuries and high risk-taking behaviours leads to maternal desensitization to injury risk and tolerance for risk-taking which is likely followed by greater risk-taking performed by the 230 child (Morrongiello & Hogg, 2004). Morrongiello and Hogg (2004) who employed a scenario design observed that mothers showed concern in response to childhood injury but that active injury-prevention strategies were adopted more for daughters than for sons. The interpretation for this finding was that mothers believe that it is normative for boys to engage in risky misbehaviour and that such behaviour was attributed to immutable characteristics. Anger was the common emotional response of mothers to boys’ misbehaviour. This response may be tied to a sense of powerlessness in mothers to control their sons’ injury-risk play behaviour. Mothers also increasingly perceived the injury as a result of bad luck for sons yet held their daughters and themselves responsible for the injury for daughters. The implication of these findings is that in cases where parents perceive childhood injuries as inevitable in light of the child’s behavioural history or when the child is thought to be not accountable for the injury then parents likely use power-assertive discipline techniques to correct misbehaviour. The question remains as to why the present results are limited to Cycle 3 at which time the children are 8-11 years old. Although it is merely speculation, injury in late childhood could be associated with privilege deprivation-diversion because of child noncompliance with safety rules and parental cognitions. As children age, children increasingly believe risk-taking behaviours will not produce injury (Morrongiello & Rennie 1998) and that these behaviours in late childhood ought to be expected by parents. It is on these grounds that children would challenge parental authority and preventive discipline techniques would be ineffective in curtailing injury. Moreover, it is presumed parents rely less on preventive and more on corrective discipline with older children since they: (1) perceive risk-taking as normative for this developmental period; (2) desire greater independence and autonomy in their children; (3) believe children are cognitively mature enough to avoid injury should they wish to do so; and (4) 231 attribute the injury to peer influences. In summary, this study shows that childhood injury is positively related to privilege deprivation-diversion but this was limited to late childhood. The data presented in Appendix L is congruent with the prediction that privilege deprivation-diversion is higher among children with poor developmental attainment than children of normal or above normal attainment (see also Table 22). Yet, this result is restricted to Cycle 2 and the direction of the relationship is in the reverse direction in the longitudinal analysis (see Appendix M). Specifically, poor developmental attainment at Cycle 2 predicted a decrease in privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3. One way to interpret the anomalous finding is by linking it with the finding on physical-psychological aggressive discipline. Physical-psychological aggressive discipline is positively correlated with poor developmental attainment at Cycle 3 (see Appendix G). It appears that parents initially begin with privilege deprivation-diversion as a discipline method with children possessing poor developmental attainment but over time parents conclude that these methods are not effective in altering child behaviour. As a consequence, parents find themselves having to resort to more coercive methods of discipline (i.e., physical-psychological aggressive discipline). The progression from mild to severe discipline in response to poor attainment may also mirror changes in parental attributions of child behaviour as the child ages. Dix and Grusec (1985, p. 202) point out “parents faced with a behaviour may have grounds for making attributions that differ from previous ones if they believe that factors controlling the behaviour have changed as the child has grown”. Evidence suggests that children’s failure provokes more punishment when inferred to be a product of low effort as opposed to low ability and their success leads to higher reward when inferred to be a function of high effort than high ability (Dix & Grusec, 1985). In short, parental attributions of children’s controllability of their academic attainment predicts what types of discipline 232 techniques parents use with their children. I speculate that as children grow older, below average academic achievement is increasingly perceived by parents as under the child’s control (i.e., effort) and, thus, children are held accountable for their underachievement. Because of this perception, it is assumed that discipline techniques shift from confrontive to coercive discipline strategies in response to poor developmental attainment. The contradictory findings pertaining to poor developmental attainment and privilege deprivation-diversion can further be comprehended in relation to the design of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). Parents reported on their use of privilege deprivation-diversion with children 4 to 13 years in Cycle 2 whereas they did so for children 4 to 11 years in Cycle 3. With the reasoning outlined in the preceding paragraph on parental attribution of child control in mind, it would be expected that there would be a positive relationship between this dimension of discipline and poor developmental attainment when children are older rather than younger. Hence, the inverse association between this predictor and privilege deprivation-diversion may be artifact of the research methodology. The hypothesis that children demonstrating a high rate of problematic behaviours are more vulnerable to privilege deprivation-diversion relative to children rated low in these behaviours is tentatively supported, albeit to externalizing behaviours alone (see Appendix L and M and Table 22). This finding equivalents that obtained for the younger subsample on this dependent measure with physical aggression, as presented in Appendix L. Explanation for the results is derived from Bell’s (1977) control theory in which parents use upper-limit control (e.g., privilege deprivation-diversion) in response to child behaviours that exceed parental expectations (e.g., externalizing behaviour). Brunk and Henggeler (1984) undertook an experimental study to test Bell’s theory. Observations were made of mothers’ interacting with two 10-year-old child 233 confederates during a semi-structured play situation under two experimental conditions One condition involved the trained confederate playing the role of a child with conduct problems and in the other condition the confederate behaved in an anxious-withdrawn manner. Relative to the anxious-withdrawn condition, mothers’ in the conduct disorder condition showed increased rates of non-punitive discipline (e.g., stating the consequences of child’s behaviour) and commands (e.g., telling the child what she wants him to do specifically) in response to child noncompliance. Mothers’ also responded with higher rates of discipline to child compliance and no response in the conduct disorder condition than in the anxious-withdrawn condition. This latter finding supplies evidence for Chapman’s (1981) anticipatory discipline hypothesis that parental expectations of child misbehaviour produces a cognitive set that leads to anticipatory discipline (as cited in Brunk & Henggeler,1984). The finding that discipline was used more often in response to child compliance in the conduct disorder condition than the anxious-withdrawn condition suggests that the cognitive sets held by the mothers’ in each condition were different. Despite their compliance, mothers’ in the former condition disciplined the child because they anticipated misbehaviour from the child. Chapman’s (1981) anticipatory discipline hypothesis may help in explaining the findings of the present study as it identifies one mechanism, cognitive sets, that functions between child behaviour and parental discipline. While all three measures of externalizing behaviour for the older subsample were significant in at least one cycle in the cross-sectional analysis, cross-lagged effects emerged only for physical aggression and property offences. A cross-lagged effect also appeared for internalizing behaviour insofar as children reported to be high in emotional disorder-anxiety at Cycle 2 experience lower levels of privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3. Emotional disorder-anxiety is likely to elicit lower-limit rather 234 than upper-limit control techniques from parents because these behaviours fall below parental expectations. This conclusion is corroborated in the experimental study cited in the foregoing paragraph (Brunk & Henggeler, 1984). It was observed that child noncompliance evoked increased indirect commands (e.g., makes a suggestion and leaves the option of acceptance to child) in the anxious-withdrawn condition than in the conduct disorder condition. Compared to the conduct disordered condition, mothers’ showed more indirect commands and helping behaviour in response to child no response in the anxious-withdrawn condition. It is probable that the contrasting cognitive set held by the mothers’ in the anxious-withdrawn condition relative to the conduct disorder condition accounts for the variation in disciplinary behaviours. Parental expectations could function as a mediating mechanism on the relationship between internalizing child behaviour and disciplinary behaviour. Parents of children with emotional disorder-anxiety may expect that these children are not able to cope well with stressful circumstances like being a recipient of power-assertive discipline and, therefore, are reluctant to employ such methods. Relevant to this logic is Kortlander, Kendall, and Panichelli-Mindel’s (1997) experimental study that investigated differences in maternal expectations pertaining to their child’s ability to cope with a stressful situation between mothers of children diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and those of normal children. Both groups of mothers were informed their children would be performing a video-taped speech. The data revealed that mothers of anxious children expected their children to be increasingly upset and had decreased expectations for their children’s coping, including general and specific behavior. It was speculated that lowered expectations for coping by mothers of anxious children could be associated with protective parenting and, thereby, unintentionally reinforce anxious behaviour in their children. Protective parenting is conceptually related to Bell’s (1977) notion of lower-limit control which is typified 235 by behaviours that are restrictive and intrusive. Privilege deprivation-diversion, an upper-limit technique, is therefore expected to be inversely related to internalizing behaviour. Mixed results surfaced regarding the hypothesis that social competence is inversely correlated with privilege deprivation-diversion and varied by indicator of social competence (see Table 22 and Appendix L and M). On the one hand, children reported as high in social skills by teachers at Cycle 1 experienced decreased privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 2 compared to their less socially skilled peers (see Appendix M). On the other hand, children in this group received increased privilege deprivation-diversion within Cycle 3 (see Appendix L). The former finding complements Ambert’s (1992) thesis that the greater a child exceeds the socially accepted mean in social skills, the more positive effect on parents. The positive effect being the decreased use of privilege deprivation-diversion in response to the child’s high level of social skills. One possible explanation for the unexpected positive association between privilege deprivation-diversion and social skills relates to parental beliefs. Parents may adjust their beliefs about social skills as children develop. For example, Mills and Rubin (1992).undertook a longitudinal study that examined the degree to which maternal beliefs respecting children’s hypothetical social behaviours vary over the transition period from early to middle childhood. The pattern in the data illustrated that mothers believed that observation was the most important mechanism for learning social skills as children grow older. This result may symbolize the belief that older children have the cognitive capacity to independently solve problems and need lower parental direction. Parental beliefs concerning the importance of social skills or what specific social skills are expected could also change as children age. Rubin, Mills, and Rose-Krasnor (1989, p. 76) assert that social competence is related to “beliefs that parents have concerning 236 developmental timetables, causes of development, the importance that parents attach to certain aspects of development, and parental cognitions about how children should best be socialized”. Presumably, parents emphasize their children’s academic development more than social development as children reach late childhood. Furthermore, it is probable that the social skills expected at the age of 9 are different from those for a 5 year-old (e.g., leading or influencing others and making friends, respectively). The social skills that are contained in the instrument adopted in the current study may not reflect those skills expected for 9 to 11 year old children, which is the age of the children at Cycle 3. The interpretation, therefore, is that the positive relation between social skills and privilege deprivation-diversion is that the measure of social skills does not tap into those social skills that parents expect for this period of development. Similar to the results acquired for the younger subsample, the hypothesis that prosocial behaviour is negatively related to privilege deprivation-diversion was not supported (see Appendix L). As discussed earlier in the section on the younger subsample, the positive relationship observed seems to be a product of the privilege deprivation-diversion measure. This measure represents both power-assertive and non-power assertive discipline and it may be the latter component that is causing the positive association. It was also noted that some forms of power-assertion are not necessarily negatively correlated with competent child development (Baumrind, 2012). Therefore, it is reasonable to find a positive relationship between privilege deprivation-diversion and prosocial behaviour. The prediction that boys are exposed to greater levels of privilege deprivation-diversion relative to girls is confirmed (as presented in Table 22 and Appendix L and M). This finding can be understood in light of the fact that boys tend to be more active than girls (Straus & Donnelly, 2001) and that “agentic behaviour” (i.e., playing an active as opposed to passive role in the social 237 environment) is increasingly expected for boys compared to girls (Baumrind, 1980). Moreover, parents slightly support misbehavior in boys by saying “you little devil” with an approving smile (Straus & Donnelly, 2001, p.). Such parental behaviour is a function of gender role expectations in which boys are expected to misbehave to a larger extent compared to girls because of their natural dispositions and, hence, require greater discipline. Indeed, Morrongiello and Hogg (2004) found that sons’ misbehaviour was chiefly attributed by mothers to inherent characteristics while for daughters it was attributed to contextual factors. It was further reported that mothers emotional response to sons’ misbehaviour was anger but to daughters’ was disappointment; It has been shown that parental responses to children’s behaviour is associated with beliefs regarding the causes of their children’s behaviour (Dix, Ruble, Grusec, & Nixon, 1986; Dix, Ruble, & Zarnbarano, 1989) and that this association is mediated by parental emotionality (Dix, 1991; Dix & Grusec, 1985). Parents are inclined to discipline children with higher frequency when they perceive children as accountable for their own behaviour and, as a consequence, attribute misbehaviour to dispositional and intentional causes (Dix & Grusec, 1985). Attributions of this kind are probably linked to feelings of anger rather than sympathy among parents and parenting behaviours should echo this emotion. The present finding that boys are recipients of higher privilege deprivation-diversion relative to girls, therefore, is interpreted through a cognitive approach in which parents commonly attribute boys misbehaviour to internal factors. Conclusions about Privilege deprivation diversion The aim of the foregoing section was to respond to the question: is privilege deprivation-diversion predicted by child characteristics after adjusting for parent, familial, and contextual factors? Broadly speaking, the answer is affirmative, although the continuity and strength of child effects varied by the constructs measured (see Table 22). The null hypothesis was 238 frequently rejected for externalizing behaviours and social competence, however, the direction of their effects were not always in the expected direction (see Appendix L and M). As hypothesized, the externalizing behaviours of physical aggression and property offences predicted increases in privilege deprivation-diversion. Bell’s (1977) control theory was used to interpret these relationships. Contrary to expectations, social competence was positively related to privilege deprivation-diversion. An explanation pertaining to social skills was that parental expectations of children’s social skills will evolve as children grow older and that the present study’s social skills instrument excludes expectations applicable to children 9 to 11 years old. For prosocial behaviour, the anomalous finding was attributed to methodology. Specifically, privilege deprivation-diversion represents both power-assertive and non-power assertive dimensions of discipline and it could be the latter dimension that is producing the positive effect. Alternatively, highly prosocial children may commit conventional as opposed to moral transgressions more regularly because of their other-oriented disposition and, in turn, receive power-assertive discipline. It has been suggested that parents are apt to employ power-assertive discipline in response to conventional transgressions and inductive methods in response to moral transgressions. Future research is needed to test the proposed hypothesis that type of transgression mediates the association between prosocial behaviour and discipline methods. The data were in harmony with the hypothesis that privilege deprivation-diversion is positively related to difficult temperament. Interpretation for the effect of difficult temperament was derived from the theoretical work of Bell (1968) on congenital contributors to parental control, Reiss’s (1995) developmentally evocative covariance model of antisocial behaviour, Patterson, Reid, and Dishion’s (1992) cascade model of antisocial behaviour, Belsky’s (1984) 239 process model of parenting, and Jones and Prinz (2005) transactional model of parental self-efficacy. As hypothesized, dull temperament was negatively related to privilege deprivation-diversion. The explanation for this result was Bell’s (1977) claim that lower-limit control is elicited when children’s behaviour falls below parental expectations, which is the case for dull temperament. Logically, therefore, upper-limit control behaviour, like privilege deprivation-diversion, that operate to decrease child behaviour should be inversely associated with dull temperament. The results are somewhat inconclusive with reference to the association between privilege deprivation-diversion and poor developmental attainment. Although a positive association was found within Cycle 2, poor developmental attainment at Cycle 2 predicted a lowering of privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3. It was speculated that the latter finding is attributable to changes in discipline methods as children age. In particular, it was proposed that parents initially adopt privilege deprivation-diversion (Cycle 2) in response to poor attainment but parents observe that this method does not create the desired effect in children. Parents, then, resort to using physical-psychological aggressive discipline with these children (Cycle 3). Furthermore, it was proposed that parents are likely to attribute poor developmental attainment to children’s lack of effort (i.e., controllable) as children age and this cognition stimulates harsher discipline. The hypothesis that children with health impairments are increasingly vulnerable to privilege deprivation-diversion relative to healthy children was supported. This hypothesis, nevertheless, is restricted to injury as an indicator of impairment in Cycle 3. The reasoning supplied for this result was framed by research showing that externalizing behaviour problems contributes to the risk of unintentional injury (Bijur, Golding, Haslum, & Kurzon, 1988; 240 Schwebel, Speltz, Jones, & Bardina, 2002) and studies on parental responses to child risk-taking behaviours (Morrongiello & Dawber, 1999; Morrongiello & Hogg, 2004). It was speculated that parents engage in greater privilege deprivation-diversion in response to childhood injury when they perceive future injuries as unavoidable because of children’s behavioural history or when they view the child as not responsible for the injury. The results substantiate the hypothesis that boys receive more privilege deprivation-diversion than girls. One explanation for this result is that activity levels are generally higher in boys relative to girls (Straus & Donnelly, 2001) and parents encourage greater “agentic behaviour” in boys than girls (Baumrind, 1980). It was also noted that parents may increase their rates of discipline with boys because they expect greater misbehaviour from them as a consequence of their natural dispositions. (Morrongiello & Hogg, 2004). Anger is the probable emotional response to attributing boys’ behaviour to dispositional and intentional causes (Dix & Grusec, 1985) and this feeling should generate more privilege deprivation-diversion among parents. Discussion Pertaining to Reward This portion of the discussion chapter reports on the question of the extent to which reward is determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors. Results are, largely, in a favourable direction indicating “child effects” on levels of reward. Within the subsample of children 3 years and younger, it is expected that: Hypothesis 5.a. Children with a health impairment experience less reward than healthy children. Hypothesis 5.b. Children with poor developmental attainment receive less reward than those with normal attainment. 241 Hypothesis 5.c. Reward is lower among children rated high in difficult temperament relative to children rated low in difficult temperament. Hypothesis 5.d. Dull temperament is positively associated with reward. Hypothesis 5.e. Children showing a high degree of problematic behaviours are exposed to decreased levels of reward compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 5.f. Prosocial behaviour is positively correlated with reward. Hypothesis 5.g. Girls acquire higher degrees of reward relative to boys. Hypothesis 5.h. Reward is decreased among premature children compared to those children not born prematurely. Hypothesis 5.i. Reward is lower among children of higher order birth than first-born children and single children. Table 23 lists these hypotheses along with information on acceptability status of the null hypothesis (see also Appendix N and O for more detailed results). Reflections on null results will be addressed in the limitations and future directions areas of this chapter. The following discussion will be limited to cases where the null hypothesis is rejected. Some evidence was gathered in agreement with the hypothesis that children with a health impairment experience less reward than healthy children (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). This evidence, however, only applied to the impairment measures of nose and throat infection and injury. The work of Belsky, Robins, and Gamble (1984) on the determinants of parental competence serve as the theoretical tool to interpret these findings. These authors assert that parental competence is greater among parents of healthy children relative to unhealthy children because these parents have fewer demands that consume their energy and, as a result, show more patience while parenting and are increasingly committed to the parental role (p. 264). Reward is 242 one dimension of parental competence and should be negatively related to child health impairment. Parenting stress is a likely candidate as a mediating mechanism in this relationship, although other factors could also play a role (Coffey, 2006). There is copious evidence documenting that parents of children with disabilities report higher levels of parenting stress compared to those with able-bodied children (see for review, Cousino & Hazen, 2013; Pelchat, Lefebvre, & Levert, 2007). It seems probable that the development of parenting intervention programs targeting this population was partly rooted in societal concern over the negative impact of stress on parenting behaviour. Correspondingly, Tellegen and Sanders (2013) stated that an objective of behavioural family interventions, like Stepping Stones Triple P, is to decrease parenting stress. 243 Table 23 Results Regarding Research Question 1.c.: Accept or Reject the Null Hypothesis Research Question 1.c. Is reward determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors? Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cross-sectional Longitudinal Cross-sectional Longitudinal Hypotheses Children with a health impairment experience less reward than healthy children. Reject Reject Reject Accept Reward is increased among gifted children relative to non-gifted children. - - Reject - Accept Reward is decreased among special needs children compared to those who are not labeled special needs. - - Accept Accept Children with poor developmental attainment receive less reward than those with normal attainment. - - Reject Reject - Reward is lower among children rated high in difficult temperament relative to children rated low in difficult temperament. Reject - - - Dull temperament is positively associated with reward. Reject - Reject - - Children showing a high degree of problematic behaviours are exposed to decreased levels of reward compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Reject - Reject Reject Social competence is positively correlated with reward. Reject - Reject Reject Youth who embrace highly positive self-perceptions incur more reward than those with low self-perceptions. - - Reject Accept Girls acquire higher degrees of reward relative to boys. - - Reject Accept 244 Research Question 1.c. Is reward determined by child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors? Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cross-sectional Longitudinal Cross-sectional Longitudinal Hypotheses Reward is decreased among premature children compared to those children not born prematurely. - Reject Accept Accept Reward is lower among children of higher order birth than first-born children and single children. Reject Reject Accept Reject 245 Contradicting the above noted findings on health impairment, it was found that ear infection at Cycle 1 predicted increases in reward at Cycle 2. The directionality of this relationship is discrepant with Bluestone and Klein’s (1988 as cited in FORGAYS, Hasazi, & Wasserman, 1992) thesis that repeated episodes of otitis media (inflammatory diseases of the middle ear) could negatively influence parental attitudes and behaviours, as has been observed in children with chronic illnesses of greater severity. FORGAYS, Hasazi, and Wasserman (1992) add that chronic otitis media may cause higher levels of familial stress, perceiving the child as physically vulnerable, and overprotective parenting. Studies have reported that recurrent otitis media is predictive of decreased parental social-emotional behaviour (e.g., kissing, praising) (Black et al., 1988) and responsiveness (Roberts et al., 1998) as well as increased directiveness (Yont, Snow, & Vernon–Feagans, 2003). It has been suggested that chronic otitis media and related hearing loss could lead to lower rates of child responsiveness and initiation of social interaction (Roberts et al., 1998) and it is conceivable that parents respond by rewarding the child in order to elevate the child’s engagement in interaction. Bell (1977) argued that lower-limit control (e.g., positive reinforcement) is elicited when child behaviour deviates negatively from parental expectations. Social behaviour of children with otitis media seem to be in the negative direction and reward is a positive reinforcer employed by parents to facilitate interaction. Reward is lower among children rated high in difficult temperament relative to children rated low in difficult temperament, as hypothesized (see Table 23 and Appendix N). This finding harmonizes with the theoretical tenets of Bell (1968) on congenital contributors, Belsky (1984) on parental competence, and Ambert (1992) on child effects (see Chapter 3 for review of these theories). It also fits well with the existing literature indicating that difficult temperament is 246 associated with less supportive parenting (Campbell, 1979; Clark, Hyde, Essex, & Klein, 1997; Fish, Stifter, & Belsky, 1991; Simonds & Simonds, 1981; see for review Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Stams, Hermanns, & Peetsma, 2007). Similarly, the present study finds that privilege deprivation-diversion is increased among children with a highly difficult temperament (see Appendix L). It can be concluded, therefore, that children with a highly difficult temperament are at greater risk for lower reward and higher privilege deprivation-diversion. The data are inconsistent with the expectation that dull temperament is positively associated with reward (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). Instead, dull temperament predicts decreases in reward. This result may merely represent the fact that mothers have fewer opportunities to reward these children because of their low level of activity. A stronger interpretation is drawn from Belsky (1980) who claimed that a passive, lethargic infant can kindle maltreatment “especially in the form of neglect-simply by not demanding attention” (p. 324). Two experimental studies reveal how unresponsive children can affect adult behaviour. Cantor and Gelfand (1977) experimentally manipulated the responsiveness of children during art tasks conducted with adult research participants. In the unresponsive condition, the child confederates avoided looking at or interacting with the adult. In the responsive condition, the confederates started interaction, requested feedback on their performance, and smiled when praised. The authors found that responsive children elicited greater adult attention and helping behaviour than did unresponsive children. The adults further evaluated the responsive children as increasingly attractive, likable, and competent relative to the unresponsive group. Childhood responsiveness was also systematically varied in an experimental study undertaken by Bugental, Caporael, and Shennum (1980). Adult participants interacted with confederate children while performing a toy construction task. The results showed that adults tended to react to 247 unresponsive children with somewhat less assertive voice intonation during affective statements compared to neutral statements, although this was restricted to the group of participants who perceived low control (“externals”). The implication of these findings is that a lack of responsiveness in children has negative consequences for them. While dull temperament is not the same construct as responsiveness, the constructs are alike enough that their effects on parental behaviour should be comparable. Cultural values about activity could also help to explain the association between dull temperament and reward. Research suggests that in American culture activity in and of itself is valued (Caudill & Schooler, 1973). Using an American sample, Willerman and Plomin (1973) found that activity level in girls was positively related to indulgent parenting, but not statistically significant. Assuming that activity is desired in Canadian society, mothers may punish their dull tempered children for their behavioural deficit by reducing rewards as opposed to increasing power-assertive methods of discipline. The data in this study validate this conclusion since dull temperament was found to be negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion (see Appendix G and L, respectively). As expressed in Appendix N, children showing a high degree of problematic behaviours are exposed to decreased levels of reward compared to children rated low in these behaviours (see also Table 23). Emotional disorder-anxiety is the single indicator for which this pattern was significant. Likewise, previous research reports that parents often respond to children with emotional problems by decreasing their praise, affection, responsiveness, and attentiveness toward the child (Cole & Rehm, 1986; Dumas, LaFreniere, & Serketich, 1995; see for review, Ambert, 2001; Burbach & Borduin, 1986; McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007). In an observational laboratory study involving a standardized problem-solving interaction, Dietz et al. (2008) found 248 that mothers of depressed children exhibited more disengagement and less control when interacting with their children compared to mothers of non-depressed children. Elgar, McGrath, Waschbusch, Stewart, and Curtis’s (2004) transactional model of emotional distress argues that “child behavior worsens as the mother grows weary and withdrawn as a consequence to low mood, resulting ultimately in less effective discipline and more frustration for all family members” (p. 449). Genetic-mediation is another theoretical model that emphasizes to a larger extent the role of the child’s negative emotionality on parental discipline. Genetic-mediation of emotional or anxiety disorders has not been empirically tested. A passive gene-environment process could involve low maternal warmth and childhood emotional problems being determined by identical sets of genes with the implication that genetic factors relate decreased maternal warmth with internalizing problems (Reiss, 2005). Furthermore, borrowing from Knafo and Plomin’s (2006) active process model of prosocial behaviour and parenting described earlier, depressed children may engage in activities or seek out stimuli that resonate with their genetic inclinations and these behaviours influence parents. For example, children at genetic risk for depression may have a preference for watching videos, listening to music, or reading books that stimulate feelings of sadness. Maternal reactions to these behaviours would probably be avoiding the child and decreased reward. The hypothesis that social competence is positively correlated with reward is supported (see Table 23 and Appendix N). Existing literature also indicates a positive relationship between childhood prosocial behaviour and supportive parenting, although the concentration has been mostly on parent to child effects (Bar-Tal, Nadler, & Blechman, 1980; Brody, Stoneman, & MacKinnon, 1986; Fabes, Fultz, Eisenberg, May-Plumlee, & Christopher, 1989; Hart, DeWolf, Wozniak, & Burts, 1992; Hoffman, 1975; Janssens & Deković, 1997; Knafo, Israel, & Ebstein, 249 2011; Knafo & Plomin, 2006; Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Zahn-Waxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979). Knafo and Plomin, (2006) outline three process by which genetic factors explain this relationship. These authors gave an instance of the passive process in which genetic dispositions influence childhood prosocial behaviour but parents’ behaviour is impacted by their own genetically-determined personality characteristics. Given that there is some genetic overlap between children and their biological parents, their behaviour characteristics (prosocial and parenting, respectively) ought to be correlated. Evocative gene-environment correlations are exemplified when children’s prosocial behaviour triggers positive parental affect (e.g., fondness) and children’s helping behaviour elicits decreased harsh parenting. Because genes account for some variance in prosocial behaviour, the “child effect” on parental discipline is moderately produced by genetic tendencies. An active process, as summarized earlier in this paper, is depicted by a child who, as a result of their genetic inclination toward prosocial behaviour, favours stories that highlight social understanding and care. Parental exposure to these stories through reading to the child may provoke feelings of kindness and, in turn, encourage increased positive discipline. Thus, the child’s behaviour can be thought of as mediating the genetic influence because prosocial behaviour is somewhat a function of genetic factors. The pattern in the data is in disagreement with the expectations that reward is decreased among premature children compared to those children not born prematurely. Alternatively, prematurity causes increases in parental reward (see Table 23 and Appendix O). Some studies indicate the opposite effect insomuch as prematurity is related to lower parental competence (Feldman & Eidelman, 2007; Harrison & Magill‐Evans, 1996; Malatesta,, Grigoryev, Lamb, Albin, & Culver, 1986; Muller et al., 2004; Schmücker et al., 2005). Yet, Korja, Latva and Lehtonen (2012) found in their review of the literature that 5 of 18 studies of mother-infant 250 interaction documented an identical or even greater quality of interaction (e.g., responsiveness) in the preterm group than full-term group. The sundry findings offer little toward the interpretation of this study’s observation. Bell’s (1977) control theory, on the other hand, is suitable for affording an explanation. One of the principles of his theory is that parents respond to children showing slow development and deficit in overall competence with lower-limit control (e.g., positive reinforcement), which is meant to increase the lacking or absent child behaviour. Since the development of preterm infants is cited to be lagged during infancy, mothers may use reward in this manner to heighten their infants’ behaviour. Another explanation is that preterm infants are rewarded more because maternal standards of what behaviours are worthy of reward are lower for these infants compared to full-term infants. Relevant evidence for this argument comes from a study by Stern and Karraker (1988) who found that mothers provided toys to preterm infants that were lower in maturity compared to full-term infants and this could be associated with reduced developmental expectations for preterm infants. A final possible reason for the anomalous finding is that premature infants likely reached and maintained development equal to their full-term peers by the second cycle when children were between 2 and 3 years old and, as a consequence, greater parental reward should be released. Research reports that mother-infant interaction and infant behaviour do not generally significantly differ between preterm and full-term groups after the first year life (Korja, Latva, & Lehtonen, 2012; Montirosso, Borgatti, Trojan, Zanini, & Tronick, 2010). Thus, maternal reward could be a response to the premature infant “catching up” developmentally with their full-term counterparts. Both concurrent and lagged birth order effects surfaced in relation to reward. Specifically, reward is lower among children of higher order birth than first-born children and single children (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). Studies have noted that first-born children 251 relative to children of higher order birth are recipients of greater parental responsiveness (Cohen & Beckwith, 1977), supportiveness (Kidwell, 1981; Kidwell, 1982), warmth (McHale, Updegraff, Jackson‐Newsom, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000), attention (Cohen & Beckwith, 1977; Keller & Zach, 2002), and involvement (Jacobs & Moss, 1976; McHale, Updegraff, Jackson‐Newsom, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000; Rosen, 1964). The notion that a privilege status is assigned to the first-born (Sears et al. 1957 as cited in Kidwell, 1981) may be one explanation for why parents invest themselves more in these children. This conclusion is buttressed by Kidwell (1982} who stated that there is a “certain mystique often associated with being the firstborn, for whom there tends to be higher parental expectations for behaviour and performance” (p. 226). Furthermore, parents are liable to overestimate the competence of the first-born child because there are no other children to supply a realistic benchmark against which the child’s performance can be assessed (Rosen, 1964). Considering these parental cognitions, in all likelihood the behaviour of the first-born will deviate below parental expectations and, thereby, initiate parental lower-limit control (Bell, 1977). Behaviours representing lower-limit control have been cited to be associated with the first-born status. In particular, first-born children compared to children of higher order birth experience increased parental intrusiveness, stimulation, and directiveness (Cohen & Beckwith, 1977; Hilton, 1967; Rothbart, 1971). Reward, a lower-limit control technique, is adopted by mothers to positively reinforce elevations in the first-born’s behaviour. Table 23 shows that some yet not all of the hypotheses about reward in relation to child characteristics are verified within the younger subsample. The discussion will now turn to the results specific to the older-subsample. The goal of this analysis parallels that for the younger subsample, which was the evaluation of the level of effect in child characteristics on reward net 252 of parent, familial, and contextual variables. Hypotheses pertaining to the older subsample are outlined below: Hypothesis 6.a. Children with a health impairment experience less reward than healthy children. Hypothesis 6.b. Reward is increased among gifted children relative to non-gifted children. Hypothesis 6.c. Reward is decreased among special needs children compared to those who are not labeled special needs. Hypothesis 6.d. Children with poor developmental attainment receive less reward than those with normal attainment. Hypothesis 6.e. Children showing a high degree of problematic behaviours are exposed to decreased levels of reward compared to children rated low in these behaviours. Hypothesis 6.f. Social competence is positively correlated with reward. Hypothesis 6.g. Youth who embrace highly positive self-perceptions incur more reward than those with low self-perceptions. Hypothesis 6.h. Girls acquire higher degrees of reward relative to boys. Hypothesis 6.i. Reward is lower among children of higher order birth than first-born children and single children. A summary of the findings corresponding to these hypotheses is available in Table 23 (see also Appendix N and O). Findings are discussed in circumstances where the null hypothesis was rejected. Support was obtained for the hypothesis that children with a health impairment experience less reward than healthy children (see Table 23 and Appendix N). Although this finding was produced in both subsamples, the particular measures of health impairment that showed a significant effect varied by subsample. Reward was found to be negatively associated 253 with long-term condition in the older subsample whereas it was inversely related to nose and throat infection and injury in the younger subsample. Despite the differences across the measures, the logic underlying the association between health impairment and reward stated in discussion for the younger subsample applies. In that discussion, I cited the work of Belsky, Robins, and Gamble (1984) who claimed that parental competence is higher among parents of healthy children compared to unhealthy children since these parents have lower demands that consume their energy and, in turn, exhibit increased patience during parenting and are more committed to the parental role (p. 264). Because parental competence consists of behaviours like reward, health impairment in children ought to be inversely related with reward. Parenting stress was identified as a potential mediating factor in this relationship. There is wide consensus that parents of children with disabilities experience higher rates of parenting stress than parents of able-bodied children (see for review, Cousino & Hazen, 2013; Pelchat, Lefebvre, & Levert, 2007) and, therefore, are likely in need of extra-familial support. Parenting intervention programs, such as Stepping Stones Triple P, have been created to help parents of children with disabilities cope more effectively with parenting stress. Contrary to expectations, gifted children were rewarded less often relative to children not deemed gifted (see Table 23 and Appendix N). This finding conflicts with Ambert’s (2001) thesis that an increasing positive child effect on parents occurs when children deviate more positively from the socially accepted norm. As an illustration of this thesis, she described the positive effect of musically gifted children on their parents. Ambert (2001) acknowledged, however, that positive deviations can have a positive or negative effect on parents depending on parental characteristics and the social response. While the negative effect of a gifted child on poorly educated parents is fairly obvious, well-educated parents may feel stressed in response to 254 the additional burdens placed on them of raising a gifted child (e.g., private training) and the gifted child may, in turn, make explicit demands on parents for special attention and favours (Ambert, 2001). Regardless of parental education level, the literature indicates that parents of gifted children are confronted with novel difficulties (Alsop, 1997; Garn, Matthews, & Jolly, 2012; Jolly & Matthews, 2012; Renati, Bonfiglio, & Pfeiffer, 2016) and require direction and support with parenting techniques (Dangel & Walker, 1991; Huff, Houskamp, Watkins, Stanton, & Tavegia, 2005; Keirouz, 1990). Parenting gifted children may be especially challenging because of the characteristics these children tend to possess such as significant asynchronous development, elevated sensitivity in emotional spheres, and nonconformity (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002 as cited in Jolly & Matthews, 2012). Furthermore, parents of these children must grapple with difficulties surrounding family roles and adaptations, sibling relationships, parental self-concept, neighbourhood and community concerns, educational issues, and child development (Keirouz, 1990). Parents may view the identification of their child as gifted in a negative fashion when they feel that they lack the resources to meet the special needs of their gifted child or if the child’s advanced intellect threatens the parents’ ego (Renati, Bonfiglio, & Pfeiffer, 2016). The experiences of parents of gifted children are analogous to those of parents of children with disabilities insomuch as familial stress is partially caused by the special needs of these children. In a qualitative study, Silverman and Kearney (1989) found that parents’ reacted to the identification of their child as profoundly gifted in a similar manner to parents who are informed that their child has a severe developmental disability (e.g., sadness). Given the parallels among these two groups of parents, it is reasonable to assume that parental competence is compromised for parents of gifted children relative to parents of typically 255 developing children and the results from a study by Morawska and Sanders (2008) seem to buttress this assumption. Parents, in that study, were inclined to adopt an increasingly authoritarian parenting style typified by lecturing and a strong reaction to any difficulties. There is a recognized need for family interventions, like Stepping Stones Triple P, to increase the parenting competence of parents of gifted children (Morawska & Sanders, 2009a; Morawska & Sanders, 2009b). The data show a contradictory pattern concerning the relationship between reward and poor developmental attainment (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). On the one hand, cross-sectional data indicate a positive relationship between these variables and this result diverges from what was hypothesized. On the other hand, the hypothesis that children with poor developmental attainment receive less reward than those with normal attainment was confirmed in the longitudinal analysis. Inspection of the bivariate analysis of Cycle 2 data reveals a negative relationship between reward and poor developmental attainment (see Table 7) whereas the regression analysis for this cycle demonstrates a positive relationship (see Table 16). It would appear that one or more of the child characteristics in the regression model is causing the direction of the relationship to change. It is concluded that parents’ tend to decrease their use of reward with children with poor attainment in light of the bivariate result, the stronger effect size in the longitudinal compared to the cross-sectional regression analysis (step 1 β = -0.45*** and β = 0.22***, respectively), and previous research. Although the research is sparse in regards to the effect of poor developmental attainment on parental behaviour, the limited research that is available indicates that less competent parenting is associated with deficits in academic competence and parental cognitions might mediate this relationship. Knight (1981 as cited in Okagaki & Divecha. 1993) revealed that 256 parents of older children compared to those with younger children (before school entry) increasingly believed that (a) their child’s intelligence is primarily influenced by genetic factors and (b) their child’s academic achievement is chiefly impacted by child effort. Equally, parents of younger children relative to those of older children increasingly believed that (a) the effect parents have on their children’s intellectual development is more environmental than hereditary and (b) have a great degree of control over their children’s development. She concluded that, as children grow older, parental control over children’s development decreases and external influences like peers, teachers, and other adults become more significant. In addition, academic achievement among older children appears to be attributed to child internal factors (e.g., genetics and effort) than to external factors to the child (e.g., parenting), which may mirror further opportunities for parents of older children to evaluate their child’s standing with age-matched peers (e.g., report cards). In their review of the research, Dix and Grusec (1985) found that children’s failure provokes more punishment when inferred to be a product of low effort as opposed to low ability and their success leads to higher reward when inferred to be a function of high effort than high ability. Using an experimental design, Moorman and Pomerantz (2010) tested how mothers’ mindsets of the plasticity of children’s ability is related to their quality of involvement in their children’s learning. In one condition, mothers were made to possess an entity mindset where children’s ability was viewed as immutable. In the other condition, mothers were induced to hold an incremental mindset where children’s ability was perceived as alterable. Mothers’ in the entity mindset condition demonstrated increasing higher levels of unconstructive involvement (i.e., performance-oriented teaching, control, and negative affect) while working on a set of difficult problems with their children compared to mothers’ in the incremental mindset condition. Englund, Luckner, Whaley, and Egeland (2004) investigated the relationships between 257 children’s achievement, parental expectations, and involvement in a sample of low-income mothers and their children. The authors observed that children with higher versus lower achievement in first grade had parents who held greater educational expectations for them and were increasingly involved with their children’s school at third grade. During third grade, expectations for children’s educational attainment was positively associated with involvement in the children’s school. Other research indicates that poor attainment is correlated with more parental control (e.g., directives) and less autonomy support (e.g., encouragement) behaviours (Grolnick, Gurland, DeCourcey, & Jacob, 2002; Lakshmi & Arora, 2006; Wang, Chan, & Lin, 2012). These findings agree with the data in this study that poor developmental attainment predicts a decrease in parental reward. The hypothesis that children showing a high degree of problematic behaviours are exposed to decreased levels of reward compared to children rated low in these behaviours was verified. This finding was specific to the measures of indirect aggression, property offences, and emotional disorder-anxiety (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). Since Bell (1977) argued that upper-limit control is activated when child behaviour exceeds parental expectations, it is unsurprising that indirect aggression and property offences are negatively related to reward. Reward is a lower-limit control behaviour that positively reinforces increases in child behaviour. Brunk and Henggeler (1984) conducted an experimental study to evaluate Bell’s control theory. Mothers interacted with a 10-year-old child confederate during semi-structured play activities in two experimental conditions: (1) the confederate performed the role of a child with conduct difficulties and (2) performed the role of a child with anxious-withdrawn problems. Relative to the conduct difficulties condition, mothers interacting with the confederate in the anxious-withdrawn condition responded with increased rates of rewards and verbal helping. Furthermore, 258 maternal behaviour varied by experimental condition even when the confederate’s behaviour was constant, which provided evidence for Chapman’s (1981) anticipatory discipline hypothesis. Specifically, child compliance provoked less reward and more discipline in the conduct difficulties condition whereas it elicited more reward and less discipline in the anxious-withdrawn condition. The authors concluded that mothers’ in the conduct difficulties condition used greater discipline in response to child compliance “in an attempt to maintain firm control over anticipated misbehaviour” (Brunk & Henggeler, 1984, p. 1080). While their findings and Bell’s (1977) theory suggests that parents should respond to children with emotional disorder-anxiety problems with lower-limit control like reward, the current study shows an inverse relationship between this child characteristic and reward in both subsamples. Available literature, nonetheless, demonstrates that parents typically respond to children with emotional problems by decreasing their praise, affection, responsiveness, and attentiveness toward the child (Cole & Rehm, 1986; Dumas, LaFreniere, & Serketich, 1995; see for review, Ambert, 2001; Burbach & Borduin, 1986; McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007). Although the present data revealed that social skills was inversely related to reward within Cycle 1, the overwhelming pattern in the data support the hypothesis that social competence is positively correlated with reward (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). The latter finding is harmonious with Ambert’s (1992) argument that child characteristics that deviate positively from the socially accepted average will have positive effects on parents. Positive deviations consist of child characteristics that parents perceive as (1) increasing the quality of their parenting experiences and (2) arousing feedback to children that mirrors the positive emotions of parents and aims to preserve the valued child characteristic (Henry, Wilson, & Perterson, 1989 as cited in Peterson & Hann,1999). The outcomes for parents of such child 259 characteristics are positive subjective experiences and feedback (behaviour) that transmits these cognitions to children (Peterson & Hann, 1999). The mothers’ in the present study conveyed their favourable perceptions of social competence in children by rewarding them. As anticipated, youth who embrace highly positive self-perceptions incur more reward than those with low self-perceptions (see Table 23 and Appendix N). General self-esteem was the only measure that had a significant effect and this result was limited the Cycle 1 data. There are numerous studies that show a positive association between supportive parenting behaviour and the self-esteem of children and adolescents (e.g., Bámaca, Umaña‐Taylor, Shin, & Alfaro, 2005; Barber, Chadwick, & Oerter, 1992; Kernis, Brown, & Brody, 2000; Parker & Benson, 2004; Swenson & Prelow, 2005), but nearly all emphasize a parent-to-child effect. An exhaustive search of the literature produced a single study that tested the reciprocal association between parental support and child self-esteem. The study, undertaken by Felson and Zielinski (1989), collected child self-report data on these measures from fifth to eighth grade. Data indicated that child self-esteem impacted the rate of support parents bestowed on them. One interpretation of this finding is that parents’ actual behaviour could be caused by children’s self-esteem via children’s behaviour (Felson & Zielinski, 1989). Drawing on data from the Youth in Transition study, Rosenberg, Schooler, and Schoenbach (1989) examined the reciprocal relationships between boys’ self-esteem and three difficulties in adolescence: psychological depression, academic underachievement, and juvenile delinquency. While the extent of reciprocity varied by type of difficulty, the results suggested that: (a) depression affects low self-esteem and low self-esteem raises depression; (b) low self-esteem leads to academic underachievement but the effect of underachievement on low self-esteem is much greater; and (c) high self-esteem decreases delinquency yet greater delinquency increases self-esteem. Cycle 1 correlational data from the 260 current study reveals that high self-esteem is negatively associated with both internalizing and externalizing behaviour problems (see Appendix H). In light of these associations, it is plausible that parental reward is linked to high self-esteem through child behaviour. Divergent to expectations, the results show that boys acquire higher degrees of reward relative to girls (see Table 23 and Appendix N). This result emerged in a single cycle and the strength of the effect was weak. In general, therefore, the data indicate no effect of child sex on reward. Lytton and Romney (1991) reached a similar conclusion from their meta-analysis in which they found very few differences in the socialization practices applied to girls and boys with the exception of encouragement of sex-typed activities. A review of the literature since that publication does not provide any insight on the possible relationship between child sex and reward. Parental reward was observed to be decreased among children of higher order birth compared to first-born and single children, as hypothesized (see Table 23 and Appendix O). Identical findings were seen for the younger subsample of children. Sears et al. 1957 (as cited in Kidwell, 1981) claim that a privileged status is given to First-born children, which may account for the present findings. It is also conceivable that parents engage in more lower-limit control behaviours, like reward, with first-born children with the aim of increasing child performance. First-born children are likely to be perceived by parents as under-performing because parental expectations tend to be greater for these children (Kidwell, 1982). Conclusions Pertaining to Reward The goal of the preceding section was to answer the question: is reward a product of child characteristics net of parent, familial, and contextual factors? The simple answer to this question is positive, yet there is considerable variation in the strength and degree of significance across 261 the child characteristics evaluated (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). One finding that appears especially striking in both subsamples is that higher rates of reward are predicted by increased child social competence, with the exception of an inverse relationship between social skills and reward within Cycle 1. Genetic factors may account for the former positive results through a passive, evocative, or active gene-environment correlation (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Another interpretation is that high social competence, a positive deviation from the socially accepted average, has a favourable effect on parents (Ambert, 1992). Parents of children who deviate in this manner are motivated to convey behavioural feedback that reflects their positive emotions and cognitions (Henry, Wilson, & Perterson, 1989 as cited in Peterson & Hann,1999; Peterson & Hann,1999). In the current study, mothers’ expressed their favourable perceptions and emotions attached to their child’s social competence through rewarding their children. Data from the cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses show continuity in the negative effect of child problematic behaviour on reward (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). Specifically, reward is decreased among children who are rated as high in indirect aggression, property offences, or emotional disorder-anxiety than children rated low on these measures. The findings pertaining to indirect aggression and property offences can be understood through Bell’s (1977) control theory. Parents are apt to manage these child behaviours, which exceed parental standards, through upper-limit control as opposed to lower-limit control techniques. Given that reward is a lower-limit control technique, it should be inversely related to problematic behaviour. An experimental study undertaken by Brunk and Henggeler (1984) to test Bell’s (1977) theory lends some evidence for this interpretation. The results from that study also showed that mothers’ rewarded anxious-withdrawn children to a greater degree than they did conduct disorder children. Bell’s (1977) theory implies that emotional disorder-anxiety should stimulate 262 parental lower-limit control behaviours because these internalizing disorders represent behavioural deficits. Nonetheless, this study reveals a negative relationship between reward and emotional disorder-anxiety. Existing literature, however, is consistent with this finding insofar as parents usually respond to children with emotional problems by reducing their praise, affection, responsiveness, and attentiveness toward the child (Cole & Rehm, 1986; Dumas, LaFreniere, & Serketich, 1995; see for review, Ambert, 2001; Burbach & Borduin, 1986; McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007). A conceptual framework for these findings is drawn from Elgar, McGrath, Waschbusch, Stewart, and Curtis’s (2004) transactional model of emotional distress. These authors propose that “child behavior worsens as the mother grows weary and withdrawn as a consequence of low mood, resulting ultimately in less effective discipline and more frustration for all family members” (p. 449). A tentative conclusion ascertained by the foregoing summary is that children with emotional disorder-anxiety problems receive less reward than children without these problems, but they are rewarded more than children with externalizing behaviour problems. Similar to the findings respecting problematic behaviour children rated as possessing a highly difficult temperament are exposed to less reward relative to children rated as low (see Table 23 and Appendix N). Theoretical perspectives that explain this finding include Bell’s (1968) notion of congenital contributors, Belsky’s (1984) process model of parental competence, and Ambert’s (1992) formulation of child effects on parents (see Chapter 3 for review of these theories). Previous studies document an inverse correlation between difficult temperament and supportive parenting (Campbell, 1979; Clark, Hyde, Essex, & Klein, 1997; Fish, Stifter, & Belsky, 1991; Simonds & Simonds, 1981; see for review Paulussen-Hoogeboom, Stams, Hermanns, & Peetsma, 2007), which is in concert with the result attained in this study. 263 There is marked stability in the effect of birth order on reward across time and subsamples (see Appendix N and O). As hypothesized, reward is lower among children of higher order birth than first-born and single children. Compared to children of higher order birth, First-born children experience more parental responsiveness (Cohen & Beckwith, 1977), supportiveness (Kidwell, 1981; Kidwell, 1982), warmth (McHale, Updegraff, Jackson‐Newsom, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000), attention (Cohen & Beckwith, 1977; Keller & Zach, 2002), and involvement (Jacobs & Moss, 1976; McHale, Updegraff, Jackson‐Newsom, Tucker, & Crouter, 2000; Rosen, 1964). Because a privileged status is assigned to the first-born (Sears et al. 1957 as cited in Kidwell, 1981), commitment to the parental role could be stronger in the case of first-born as opposed to later born children. An alternative explanation for the current results is that parents administer a greater level of lower-limit techniques (e.g., reward) with the former group than the latter group of children in order to trigger increases in behaviour. Stimulation of behaviour is likely to be perceived by parents as necessary since parental expectations are often elevated for first-born than later-born children (Kidwell, 1982). Research indicates that first relative to later born children are at risk of increased parental stimulation, intrusiveness, and directiveness (Cohen & Beckwith, 1977; Hilton, 1967; Rothbart, 1971). Excluding the measure of ear infection, the overall pattern in the data show that children with a health impairment experience less reward than healthy children (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). The conceptual model of the determinants of parental competence, developed by Belsky, Robins, and Gamble (1984), bestows an organizing framework to interpret these results (as discussed earlier in this paper). Reward is one facet of parental competence that may be adversely impacted by child impairment via parenting stress. There is wide unanimity among scholars that parenting stress is elevated for parents of children with disabilities relative 264 to parents of able-bodied children (see for review, Cousino & Hazen, 2013; Pelchat, Lefebvre, & Levert, 2007). Societal concern about parental competence being compromised in this population likely inspired the growth of parenting and family interventions devoted to serving parents of children with disabilities. Evidence is found in favour of the hypothesis that children with poor developmental attainment receive less reward than those with normal attainment, with the exception of a positive effect in Cycle 2 (see Table 23 and Appendix N and O). While scholarship respecting parental behaviour as a function of poor developmental attainment in children is meagre, studies illustrate that children’s failure elicits greater punishment when attributed by parents to low effort rather than low ability and their success provokes more reward when inferred to be a result of high effort than high ability (Dix & Grusec, 1985). Furthermore, research shows that child poor attainment is correlated with more parental control (e.g., directives) and less autonomy support (e.g., encouragement) behaviours (Grolnick, Gurland, DeCourcey, & Jacob, 2002; Lakshmi & Arora, 2006; Wang, Chan, & Lin, 2012). The finding from this study not only fit with the available literature, but also agrees with Ambert’s (1992) theory on child effects. The present study finds that youth who report a high self-esteem incur more reward relative to those reporting a low self-esteem (see Table 23 and Appendix N). It has been well established that supportive parenting behaviour is positively correlated with the self-esteem of children and adolescents (e.g., Bámaca, Umaña‐Taylor, Shin, & Alfaro, 2005; Barber, Chadwick, & Oerter, 1992; Kernis, Brown, & Brody, 2000; Parker & Benson, 2004; Swenson & Prelow, 2005). Felson and Zielinski (1989) proposed that children’s self-esteem influences parental behaviour through child behaviour. Appendix H contains correlational data at Cycle 1 which reveals that high self-esteem is negatively associated with both internalizing and externalizing 265 behaviour problems. Considering these results, it is conceivable that the relationship between reward and child self-esteem is mediated by child behaviour. Trajectories of Developmental Child Characteristics The last research question that this study sought to answer was the degree to which changes in developmental child characteristics influence parental disciplinary behaviours, net of parent, familial, and contextual factors. Given that there is a dearth of knowledge about this topic, no particular hypotheses were developed. The examination of child trajectories in association with parental disciplinary behaviours in this study is mainly exploratory. It was, nonetheless, expected that physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion is increased for children whose onset of highly problematic behavior or low competence was delayed (i.e., degenerative trajectory) relative to those who remained low in these problems or evidenced normal competence (i.e., typical trajectory). It was further anticipated that parental reward is lower for the degenerative trajectory compared to the typical trajectory. The preliminary results suggest that mothers’ use greater physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion with children who developed high levels of externalizing behaviours relative to those who continued to score low in these behaviours, which is consistent with expectations (see Appendix P and Q). In general, the results underscore the importance of conceptualizing child characteristics as dynamic (see Appendix P through R). Most conceptualizations of “child effects” on parenting behavior routinely assume stability in child characteristics. The present investigation offers evidence that challenges this assumption. 266 Limitations There are several limitations of this study that need to be addressed. The first of these is misspecification, which influences the variance and mean square error of the regression estimates (Rao, 1971). Misspecification in this study is due to the exclusion of variables specified by the truth. Variables representing community level factors are missing in the regression analyses, although maternal reported neighbourhood safety, cohesion, and problems are adjusted for in cycles in which these indicators were available. According to Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, and Cutrona (2005), correlations are routinely observed between community- and family-level processes cross-level misspecification happens when the researcher neglects to control for both levels (Sampson & Lauritsel 1994 as cited in Simons et al., 2005). Copious studies demonstrate that quality of parenting is related to child behaviour, however, at least part of this effect may be a function of the correlation of both variables with context. Theories of child effects and those that integrate this perspective, that I reviewed, largely ignore community context. The theoretical work of Straus (1991) and Ambert (1992), however, include some consideration of societal effects. The absence of community-level variables in this study is likely attributable to the deficient theoretical attention to this level in the theories examined. Furthermore, these theories do not emphasize the role played by nonparental child care as a factor affecting parenting behaviour. Research, on the other hand, illustrates that nonparental child care is related to parenting behaviour, family management, and child behaviour (Belsky, 1999; Network, 2003; Strazdins, Clements, Korda, Broom, & D’Souza, 2006; for review see Lamb & Ahnert, 2006). This study did not adjust for nonparental child care, which is a second misspecification. The model tested in this study may be a simplified depiction of the numerous interacting factors that may better explain parental disciplinary behaviours 267 A common limitation cited in studies using the NLSCY is shared method variance (e.g., Benzies, Keown, & Magill-Evans, 2009; Browne, Odueyungbo, Thabane, Byrne, & Smart, 2010; Garner et al., 2013; Jenkins, Rasbash, & O'connor, 2003; Ram & Hou, 2005; Romano, Kohen, & Findlay, 2010; Romano, Tremblay, Boulerice, & Swisher, 2005), which arises when a single informant (usually the mother) reports on her behaviour and that of her child. Most of the measures used in this study are founded on maternal reports and, therefore, these measures are subject to single informant bias (Avolio, Yammarino, & Bass, 1991). Research designs in which child problematic behaviour is assessed by only one parent is a limitation because parents with mental health difficulties or those characterized as hostile and less supportive are apt to overestimate the severity of child problems (Najman et al., 2000 as cited in Elgar, Mills,, McGrath, Waschbusch, & Brownridge, 2007; Ram & Hou, 2005), although there is research that opposes this finding (for review see Richters, 1992). Even so, it is conceivable that this study exaggerated the significance of variables like child temperament and behaviour problems because of the reliance on maternal reports. Future studies could embrace a multi-rater (e.g., parent, the child, teacher) and multimethod (e.g., survey, observational) designs; Yet, as Vaillancourt, Miller, Fagbemi, Côté, and Tremblay (2007) point out, conducting a survey about child behaviour using a multi-informant design in a nationally representative sample of children is low in feasibility and economic reality. Moreover, a parent who perceives their child as exhibiting problematic behaviour will respond with behaviour that reflects that cognition, regardless of the child’s objective behaviour. A disadvantage of using the NLSCY is that it has a limited number parenting measures. It would have been ideal if the NLSCY had had a larger range of measures of parenting behaviour, particularly those representing lower-limit control (e.g., intrusiveness, restriction, and 268 demandingness). In general, the internal consistency of the disciplinary measures was fairly low (alpha ranged from 0.28 to 0.55) and this was especially the situation for the privilege deprivation-diversion variable. Previous studies employing the NLSCY have also reported less than adequate reliability for the parenting measures (Elgar, Mills, McGrath, Waschbusch, & Brownridge, 2007; Romano, Kohen, & Findlay, 2010; Romano, Tremblay, Farhat, & Côté, 2006; Strohschein, Gauthier, Campbell, & Kleparchuk, 2008).). The weak alpha coefficients may be attributed to the short length of the parenting scales as opposed to more error variance (Elgar et al., 2007). The number of items in the discipline scales assessed in this study varied from 2 to 4. As Fauchier and Straus (2010) point out the alpha coefficient is fairly contingent on the number of items within a scale. In addition to issues of reliability, the privilege deprivation-diversion scale likely did not represent a unified construct. One item in this measure asked about the deprivation of privileges and sending the child to their room each behaviour corresponds to power-assertive and non-power assertive dimensions of discipline (Straus & Fauchier. 2007). This issue, however, was unavoidable because of how the item was designed in the NLSCY. Another limitation that arose was that the age applicability of the items concerning physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion changed from Cycle 2 to Cycle 3. Parents of children 4 to 13 years were asked to respond to the items in Cycle 2 but in Cycle 3 the questions were posed only for children 4 to 11 years. As a result, the results may have been affected by the exclusion of 12 and 13 year olds in the last cycle and variation in the sample size. The sample in this study was restricted to the biological mother. Hence, the findings may not generalize to the disciplinary experiences of fathers. The foregoing section provided a summary of the limitations of this study. Limitations that were discussed consisted of misspecificity, design, reliability and validity of criterion 269 measures, sampling, and generalizability. In light of these limitations, the current results should be deemed tentative. Nonetheless, a strength of this investigation was that it used a large, representative sample of Canadians along with a longitudinal design. Furthermore, both subjective and objective measures of child characteristics and multiple dimensions of discipline were analyzed. Conclusion The objective of this study was to test the degree to which child characteristics determine parental disciplinary behaviour net of parent, familial, and contextual factors. This study lends support to the “child effects” paradigm insofar as children were found to have a unique, independent effect on their parents’ disciplinary behaviour. The contribution of children in shaping the behaviours of their mothers’ varied by the type of child characteristic and the dimension of discipline evaluated as well as by survey cycle. Analyses were conducted on cross-sectional and longitudinal data from Cycle 1 (1994-1995), Cycle 2 (1996-1997), and Cycle 3 (1998-1999) of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). The use of longitudinal data is important because inferences about causality are stronger than in cross-sectional designs. Longitudinal data also can account for maturational changes of both child and parent and developmental transitions (e.g., entry into pre-school and elementary school). Peterson and Rollins (1986, p. 496) suggested that as children age “parent-child interaction may be less a function of events occurring in immediately preceding time intervals and more a function of events that are remembered and responded to over longer periods of time”. Longitudinal designs can address such variation in parent-child interaction by response method and temporal fluctuations in the expectations and performance of parent-child roles. Changes in parent-child interaction over time are likely produced, at least in part, by sociohistorical 270 developments. In short, an advantage of employing longitudinal designs is that they enable the examination of the dynamic nature of parent-child interaction and the causes of it. Noteworthy patterns that surfaced in the longitudinal analysis in the present study probably reflect maturational changes in the children and mothers. As shown in Appendix M and O, when both privilege deprivation-diversion and reward at Cycle 3 were regressed on child characteristics at Cycle 2 there was a greater number of significant relationships than the other longitudinal models. Effects of cohort and period may account for this result, in addition to maturational changes. During that period, a normative practice likely was for parents to use more non-punitive discipline methods as children grow older. Parents may also assert their power less in the discipline context as children age because parents view the child as increasingly competent to self-regulate their behaviour. Dix and Grusec (1985) stated that alterations inin the child affect inferences regarding the child’s knowledge, ability, and motivation which, in turn, influence parental behaviour. While parental cognitions are not directly investigated, it is recognized that they undoubtedly played a role in the relationships found herein. The findings from the present study highlight that both negative and positive child characteristics are important to consider when attempting to explain parenting behaviour. A shortcoming of existing theory and research is an over-emphasis on negative or deviant child characteristics such as difficult temperament, behaviour problems, lack of competence, and health impairment (e.g., Bell, 1977; Belsky, 1984; Dix, Ruble, & Zarnbarano, 1989; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992; Reiss, 1995; Straus, 1991). Hence, a strength of the present study is that it adopts an increasingly balanced conceptualization of child characteristics. Moreover, it challenges the assumption made by numerous scholars that prosocial behaviour is a product as opposed to an antecedent of parenting behaviour. 271 Social competence, as represented by measures of prosocial behaviour and social skills, was found to be negatively related to physical-psychological aggressive discipline and positively related to reward. While there were a few exceptions to this pattern, there was marked continuity of this effect across the subsamples and time. Evidence is shown, therefore, for Ambert’s (1992) thesis that children who deviate positively from the socially accepted average in favorable personal characteristics will have a positive effect on parents. Typical parental responses to positive deviations are (1) favourable subjective experiences for parents and (2) feedback (behaviour) to children that conveys the parents’ positive emotions and aims to maintain the cherished child characteristic (Henry, Wilson, & Peterson, 1989 as cited in Peterson & Hann, 1999). Parental emotions may be elicited by social recognition of the child’s positive deviation (Ambert, 1992) or directly by the child (Knafo & Plomin 2006). Mothers’ in this study likely expressed their emotions by reducing their use of physical-psychological aggressive discipline and increasing reward. Alternatively, these maternal behaviours may have emerged through an active gene-environment process. As described earlier, Knafo and Plomin (2006) outlined an active process in which children are motivated to pursue stimuli that augment their genetic inclination toward prosocial behaviour and through such pursuits they influence parents. Behaviour problems was another child characteristic found to be consistently related to parental disciplinary behaviours. These problems were conceptualized as encompassing both externalizing and internalizing behaviours. The results from this study reveal that externalizing and internalizing problems are differentially related to parenting and should, therefore, be treated as separate concepts. Disciplinary behaviours were associated with externalizing behaviours in the intuitive direction. Children exhibiting high externalizing behaviour, relative to those rated as low, experienced simultaneously over time decreased reward administered by their mothers as 272 well as more physical-psychological aggressive discipline and increased privilege deprivation-diversion. Hence, children who manifest externalizing behaviour problems suffer over time a reduction in the protective factors and an increase in the risk factors created by quality parenting. Such children appear to stimulate increasingly reduced reward and increasingly harsher discipline. The data presented herein add to the wealth of knowledge in this area and validate the tenets of several theories on socialization (e.g., Ambert, 1992; Bell, 1977; Belsky, 1984; Reiss, 1995; Straus, 1991; Granic & Patterson, 2006). Children rated as high in internalizing problems compared to those rated as low received less reward but also decreased privilege deprivation-diversion. The former finding is congruent with previous research indicating that parents usually respond to children with emotional problems by decreasing their praise, affection, responsiveness, and attentiveness toward the child (Cole & Rehm, 1986; Dumas, LaFreniere, & Serketich, 1995; see for review, Ambert, 2001; Burbach & Borduin, 1986; McLeod, Weisz, & Wood, 2007). In their transactional model of emotional distress, Elgar, McGrath, Waschbusch, Stewart, and Curtis (2004) propose that “child behavior worsens as the mother grows weary and withdrawn as a consequence of low mood, resulting ultimately in less effective discipline and more frustration for all family members” (p. 449). Models of genetic-mediation could further shed light on the process by which internalizing behaviours impact parenting. The findings pertaining to child temperament are fairly similar to those obtained for externalizing and internalizing behaviour. Relative to children scoring low in difficult temperament, children with a highly difficult temperament were at greater risk of increased privilege deprivation-diversion and decreased reward. These children, therefore, were disciplined more often while concurrently positively reinforced less in response to their behaviour. Put 273 simply, parents respond in this manner because difficultly tempered children are increasingly challenging to care for and likely cause a reduction in parents’ satisfaction with childrearing. This reasoning fits with the principles articulated in existing theories (e.g., Ambert, 1992; Bell, 1968; Belsky, 1984; Belsky, Robins, & Gamble, 1984; Straus, 1991), although genetic-mediation is also a viable explanation for the findings (Reiss, 1995). Other mechanisms identified in the literature that link difficult temperament to less competent parenting are parental cognitions and negative emotionality. All the dimensions of parenting analyzed in this study were negatively associated with dull temperament. While mothers’ administer decreased physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion to increasingly dull tempered children, these children were rewarded less frequently by their mothers than decreasingly dull tempered children. Dull temperament represents a child behaviour that deviates below parental standards. According to Bell (1968; 1977), behavioural deviations of this kind should elicit lower-limit control as opposed to upper-limit control behaviours in parents. Reward was the only lower-limit control behaviour evaluated in this study. While the inverse relationship between dull temperament and reward contradicts what Bell (1968; 1977) proposed, it is plausible that dull temperament is positively related to other dimensions of lower-limit control. Bell (1977) claimed that lower-limit control is elicited by slow development or deficits in the competence of the child. The findings from the present study, however, illustrate a different story and one that agrees with theorizing of Ambert (1992). Mothers’ used more physical-psychological aggressive discipline with children who showed poor development attainment or those receiving special education than mothers of typically developing children. Children with a health impairment experienced increased privilege deprivation-diversion and decreased reward. 274 These child characteristics are conceptually related in a likely reciprocal fashion. Bivariate correlations illustrated significant, albeit weak, relationships between health impairment, special needs, and poor developmental attainment. Correlations further revealed that each of these characteristics were associated with multiple behaviour problems. These groups of children adversely impact parental competence due to the additional burdens they place on mothers’ resources and their hard to manage behaviour. Mothers’ may, in turn, be less patient and more frustrated during parenting activities and decreasingly committed to the parental role. Theoretical Ramifications Belsky’s (1984) process model of parenting was applied as a guiding theoretical framework in this study. As depicted in his model (see Chapter 3), this study found that child characteristics influence parenting behavior. One concept that is absent from his model is temporality, which was addressed in the current study through the analysis of longitudinal data. Although Belsky, Robins, and Gamble (1984) describe temperament as neither fixed nor utterly malleable, child characteristics appear to be conceptualized in Belsky’s (1984) model as static entities. Broadly speaking, child characteristics can be understood as social constructs that change in their number, labels, and quality over time and space (Hochbaum & White, 2016). Consequently, the emergence of characteristics of a child that would shape parenting might well be connected to period and cohort definitions. Ambert (2001, p. 29-30) stated that as society changes “different cohorts of parents are more or less affected by different cohorts of children”. She adds that the “nature” of children, parents, and parenting are not immutable but contingent on the sociohistorical context in which they exist. The implication in regards to this study is that the way in which the mothers responded to the NLSCY questionnaire across Cycles 1-3 could have changed because of sociohistorical developments. 275 From a long-term developmental perspective, child characteristics can be conceptualized as having various trajectories. Evidence in support of this idea was gathered in this study. In particular, mothers administered greater physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion with children who developed high levels of externalizing behaviours (degenerative) relative to those who continued to score low in these behaviours (typical). Rather than assuming high stability in child behaviour as illustrated in Belsky’s (1984) model, these findings highlight that discontinuity in child behaviour affects parental disciplinary behaviours and, hence, theories of socialization need to incorporate trajectories of child characteristics in their models. Another way in which to theorize about child characteristics is in their relation to temporal norms (Hochbaum & White, 2016). Temporal norms are expectations concerning ontological development that are widely shared and mostly consistent as well as time graded. Child characteristics are subject to timing social norms that can be conceptualized as progressive, on-time and off-time as in early achievement of developmental milestones and delayed development. In their paper, Hochbaum and White (2016) proposed that when children exceed timing norms of development there is a decrease in upper- and lower-limit control under the condition that parents perceive the early timing as positive. Preliminary evidence from this study suggested that parental reward, lower-limit control behavior, is negatively related to giftedness in the child. A second assertion made by these authors was that lagged development is inversely associated with lower-limit control and positively associated with upper-limit control in middle-childhood. Partial support for this assertion was obtained in this study. Mothers responded to children who showed poor developmental attainment was less reward relative to children with normal or above normal attainment. Furthermore, cross-sectional data indicated that mothers 276 used more physical-psychological aggressive discipline, an upper-limit control behavior, with children who exhibited poor developmental attainment and with children who were identified by the school as a “special needs” child. Taken together, these findings suggest that the extent to which children meet developmental expectations held by parents and society will significantly impact parental behaviour. In Belsky’s (1984) model, child development is a function of parenting and child characteristics. Parenting, however, is not illustrated to be caused by child development. This observation is surprising given that systemic approaches to socialization, like Belsky’s (1984) model, examine the complex transactions between the parent-child dyad and the surrounding social environment (Peterson & Rollins, 1987). Reciprocal socialization, a perspective embedded within systemic models, views socialization as a “mutual process through which parents and children serve as active social agents who influence both each other’s and their own development” (Peterson & Hann, 1999, p. 345). Several scholars have noted that the comparative effect of parents and children on parent-child interaction and socialization processes varies with developmental changes (Ambert, 1992; 2001; Peterson & Rollins, 1986; Russell & Russell, 1992). The consensus is that the effect of children on parents and the socialization practices they receive increase as children develop. According to Ambert (2001), while children begin the adolescent period, both child and societal characteristics may supersede parental characteristics in creating child effects on parents as well as child outcomes. An explanation for why child effects are stronger as children age is that the balance of power between parent and child becomes increasingly equalized (Peterson & Rollins, 1986). Children gain power as they acquire knowledge, skills, and resources. Child characteristics that are acquired as the child develops, via experience or the interaction between genetic and environmental forces, must therefore affect 277 parents. The present study corroborates this claim by showing that child characteristics that emerge as the child ages directly influence parental disciplinary behaviour. It is typical to find in the literature that prosocial behaviour and academic achievement in children are treated as developmental outcomes but this study suggests that we can also conceive of these concepts as antecedents to parental behaviour. In summary, Belsky’s (1984) process model of parenting was a useful theoretical framework to direct this research. The model, nonetheless, needs to be expanded to include temporality of child characteristics as well as illustrating the effect of developmental (acquired) child characteristics on parenting. Initial evidence from this study indicates that there is discontinuity in child characteristics which are related to parental disciplinary behaviours. It also clearly showed that disciplinary behaviours are a function of developmental characteristics. It is recommended that theorists of socialization concentrate their efforts on the dynamic nature of the characteristics of children and parents over time in addition to their interaction. Future Directions for Research The current investigation contributes to the body of knowledge respecting the effect of children on parents. It further clarifies theoretical issues in this area of research. Any particular child characteristic can be related to multiple dimensions of discipline concurrently and across time. Characteristics of a negative and positive nature are differentially related to parental disciplinary behaviours. Both objective and subjective measures of child characteristics are linked with parenting, although the effect of maternally reported child behaviours are more robust. Similar to many studies, this investigation raises questions and problems that require the attention of researchers. First, future research should incorporate experimental designs as such 278 designs permit the inference of true causality. Examples of experimental studies testing child effects on adults can be found in the work of Berkowitz and Frodi (1979), Brunk and Henggeler (1984), Bugental, Caporael, and Shennum (1980), Cantor and Gelfand (1977), Dion (1974), Keller and Bell (1979). Research using observational designs are also called for because these design allow for the assessment of parents actual behaviour rather than parents perceptions of their own behaviour. Samples representing disadvantaged populations should be included in future studies. It is plausible that the influence of child negative characteristics on parenting behaviour will be stronger and positive characteristics weaker in these populations. Positive child characteristics should be of greater focus than they have been in the past because these characteristics operate as protective factors against punitive forms of discipline. Researchers need to refine and improve upon the reliability and validity of available instruments of disciplinary behaviours. This is important given that, without such efforts, any conclusions gathered in research are not very tenable. Lastly, despite the potential for linear models to enhance predictive validity by enlarging the battery of predictors, these models explain a limited amount of variance and do not fully capture the complexity of the socialization process (Bates, Pettit, & Dodge, 1995). This statement is echoed by Deater-Deckard and Dodge (1997) who pointed out that “analytic methods relying exclusively on linear components may not provide an accurate or complete representation of the actual relation between harsh discipline and child aggression and externalizing problems” (p. 165). Hence, future studies should consider employing nonlinear, interactive models that aim to specify the conditions under which a child characteristics functions in qualitatively different ways. Exploration of mediating mechanisms that operate between a child characteristic and parental disciplinary behaviour is also a fruitful avenue for scholars to pursue. 279 Notes 1. The NLSCY data was accessed through the British Columbia Inter-university Data Centre (BCIRDC). This research was supported by funds to the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and Statistics Canada. Although the research and analysis are based on data from Statistics Canada, the opinions expressed do not represent the views of Statistics Canada. 2. As noted by Pevalin, Wade, and Brannigan (2003), the motor and social development (MSD) scale may not measure the development of children under the age of 4 as accurately as other commonly used instruments like the Bayley scales (see Morrongiello, 1998). It was, however, the decision of the NLSCY designers to employ the MSD scale as the primary developmental instrument for children of this age and, hence, instrument selection was restricted to what was available in the survey. 3. Perfect scores on the Mathematics Skill Test were found among a significant number of students in grades 3 and 5, which is known as a “ceiling effect” (at Cycle 1 of the survey) (Statistics Canada, 1995b). As a consequence, subsequent cycles included additional versions of the test. While these more recent versions of the test continued to be dependent on grade level as opposed to age of the child, these versions provided a greater distinction between grades. This may be problematic, however, given the possibility that children of different ages completed the same test in a specific cycle and that students of the same age passed different tests (Haeck, Lefebvre, & Merrigan 2011; Lefebvre & Merrigan, 2009). Indeed, negative period effects of noteworthy size were discovered which lead to the conclusion that there is a serious deterioration in math achievement Canada-wide. Another important limitation of the test was the low response rate with scores only available for roughly 50% and 54% of the responding children at Cycle 1 and Cycle 3, respectively (Statistics Canada, 1995b; Statistics Canada, 1999). Poor response rates have two possible implications which is that it can decrease the actual sample size and non-respondents could have alternative qualities from respondents (Statistics Canada, 1995b). 4. The indexes developed to measure hyperopia and myopia was based on maternal reports on the child’s vision. Hence, the indexes do not represent these eye conditions as diagnosed by a physician but, instead, should be interpreted as proxies of the conditions. 5. All the questions for the Self-Esteem and Perceptions of Physical Appearance scores are positively phrased which could introduce a positive response bias insofar as youth may be more likely to respond to all questions in the same manner (Fagg, Curtis, Cummins, Stansfeld, & Quesnel-Vallée, 2013). 6. I contacted Lee Grenon, a research data analyst, at the British Columbia Inter-university Data Centre (BCIRDC) concerning the age applicability of the questions used to construct my physical-psychological aggressive discipline and privilege deprivation-diversion scales. Lee responded by stating that "the flow pattern indicated in the questionnaire shows that the questions related to rational parenting style were asked for children age 2 to 13 years in cycle 2. The question flow in cycles 1 and 3 restricted these questions to children age 2 to 11 years. Your data is correct to include responses to this series of questions for children age 12 or 13 years for cycle 2." 7. Because most of the behaviour measures were restricted to children 2 to 3 years of age and the reference period for other variables, group comparisons of developmental child 280 characteristics from Cycle 1 to 2 and their effect on reward at Cycle 2 were not obtained for children younger than or equal to 3. Before the group variables were constructed for the older subsample, a chi square text was undertaken to determine whether there was a significant difference between the variable measured at Cycle 1 and 3. Some group transformations were not executed because there was an insignificant chi square (e.g., special need, long-term condition, social skills), no valid cases due to age-applicability of the variable (e.g., perceptions of physical appearance and self-esteem), less than the minimum cell count of 5 as required by Statistics Canada in at least one cell (e.g., gifted, visual impairment), a variable whose time-related measurement was not conducive to this analysis (e.g., child had an injury in the past 12 months). 8. The labels which I developed to categorize the time-sensitive child characteristics may be criticized by some scholars, especially with respect to the “typical” label. I am aware that this label is somewhat misleading since “typical” refers to the average but the scores representing this group are above the median in the subsample. My reasoning for using this label, despite this inconsistency in interpretation, is that I did not want to employ labels with particularly negative and positive connotations attached to them such as abnormal being bad and normal being good. 9. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), used in this study, treats the values of the scale variables as categories when calculating the median. The median produced by the software may be higher or lower than what the median would truly be if it was based on CONTINUOUS values.. As a result, the ratio of cases above and below the median may not be equal. In the median split calculation, all cases that were greater than or equal to the median were given the value of ‘1’ in the binary measures of difficult temperament, hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 and 4-11 years, emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 and 4-11 years, physical aggression 2-3 and 4-11 years, separation anxiety 2-3 years, indirect aggression 4-11 years, property offences 4-11 years, general self-esteem, perceptions of physical appearance, and social skills, which may have also caused the ratios to be uneven. 281 Bibliography Achenbach, T.M. (1993). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont. Achenbach, T.M. & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and RevisedChild Behavior Profile. Burlington, Vt: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213. Adams, G. R., & LaVoie, J. C. (1975). Parental Expectations of Educational and Personal-Social Performance and Childrearing Patterns as a Function of Attractiveness, Sex, and Conduct of Child. Child Study Journal, 5, 125-142. Alexander, P.C. (1992). Application of attachment theory to the study of sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 7, 147-178. Alsop, G. (1997). Coping or counseling: Families of intellectually gifted students. Roeper Review, 20(1), 28-34. Ambert, Anne-Marie. (1992). The effect of children on parents. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Ambert, Anne-Marie. (2001). The effect of children on parents (2nd ed.). Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Ambert, Anne-Marie (1997). Parents, children, and adolescents: Interactive relationships and development in context. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. Ammerman, R. T., & Patz, R. J. (1996). Determinants of child abuse potential: Contribution of parent and child factors. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(3), 300-307. 282 Anderman, E. M. (1998). The Middle School Experience Effects on the Math and Science Achievement of Adolescents with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 128-138. Anderson, J. E. (1936). The young child in the home: a survey of three thousand American families, report of the Committee on the infant and preschool child (Vol. 2). D. Appleton-Century Company. Anderson, J. E. (1972). The young child in the home. A survey of three thousand American families. Report of the committee on the infant and preschool child. White House Conference on Child Health and Protection. In D. J. Rothman & S. M. Rothman (Advisory Eds.), Family in America. New York: Amo Press/The New York Times. 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(8), 944-972. Arnold, D. S., O'Leary, S. G., Wolff, L. S., & Acker, M. M. (1993). The Parenting Scale: A measure of dysfunctional parenting in discipline situations. Psychological Assessment, 5, 137-144. Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17(3), 571-587. Bailey, J.A., Hill, K.G., Oesterle, S., Hawkins, J.D., & the Social Development Research Group. (2009). Parenting practices and problem behavior across three generations: Monitoring, harsh discipline, and drug use in the intergenerational transmission of externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1214–1226. 283 Baird, S. M., Mayfield, P., & Baker, P. (1997). Mothers' interpretations of the behavior of their infants with visual and other impairments during interactions. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 91, 467-483. Baker PC, Kech CK, Mott FL, & Quinlan SV. (1993). NLSY Child Handbook—Revised Edition:A Guide to the 1986-1990 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth—Child Data. Columbus: Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University. Baldwin, A.L. (1948). Socialization and the parent-child relationship. Child Development, 19, 127-136. Bámaca, M. Y., Umaña‐Taylor, A. J., Shin, N., & Alfaro, E. C. (2005). Latino Adolescents’ Perception of Parenting Behaviors and Self‐Esteem: Examining the Role of Neighborhood Risk. Family Relations, 54(5), 621-632. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall. Barber, B. K., Chadwick, B. A., & Oerter, R. (1992). Parental behaviors and adolescent self-esteem in the United States and Germany. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 128-141. Barber, B.K., Stolz, H.E., Olsen, J.A., Collins, W.A., & Burchinal, M. (2005). Parental support, psychological control and behavioural control: Assessing relevance across time, culture and method. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development, 70, 1-147. Bar-Tal, D., Nadler, A., & Blechman, N. (1980). The relationship between Israeli children's helping behavior and their perception of parents' socialization practices. Journal of Social Psychology, 111(2), 159. Bates, J. (1980). The concept of difficult temperament. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 299-319. Bates, J.E. (1987). Temperament in infancy. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development. (2nd ed., pp. 1101–1149). New York: Wiley. 284 Bates, J., & Bayles, K. (1984). Objective and subjective components in mothers' perceptions of their children from age 6 months to 3 years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30, 111-130. Bates, J., Bennett Freeland, C.A., & Lounsbury, M.L. (1979). Measurement of infant difficultness. Child Development, 50, 794-803. Bates, J., Olson, S., G., P., & Bayles, K. (1982). Dimensions of individuality in the motherinfant relationship at six months of age. Child Development, 53, 446-461. Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A. (1995). Family and child factors in stability and change in children’s aggressiveness in elementary school. In. J. McCord (Eds.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 124-136). New York; Cambridge University Press. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children: Some black-white comparisons. Child Development, 43(1), 261–267. Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth & Society, 9, 239-276. Baumrind, D. (1980). New directions in socialization research. American Psychologist, 35(7), 639. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95. Baumrind, D. (2012). Differentiating between confrontive and coercive kinds of parental power assertive disciplinary practices. Human Development, 55(2), 35-51. 285 Bean, R.A., Barber, B.K., & Crane, D.R. (2006). Parental support, behavioural control, and psychological control among African American youth: The relationship to academic grades, delinquency, and depression. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1335-1355. Bègue, L., & Roché, S. (2005). Birth order and youth delinquent behaviour testing the differential parental control hypothesis in a French representative sample. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 73-85. Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75(2), 81. Bell, R. Q. (1974). Contributions of human infants to caregiving and social interaction. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 1-20). New York; Wiley. Bell, R.Q. (1977). Socialization findings re-examined. In R. Q. Bell & L. V. Harper (Eds.), Child effects on adults (pp. 53-84). New Jersey; Lawrence Eribaum Associates Ing. . Bell, R.Q. (1979). Parent, child, and reciprocal influences. American Psychologist, 34, 821-826 Bell, R.Q., & Chapman. M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology. 22, 595-603. Bell. R.Q., & Harper. L.V. (1977). Child effects on adults. Hillsdale. NI: Erlbaum. Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: an ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35(4), 320. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96. Belsky, J. (1999). Quantity of nonmaternal care and boys’ problem behavior/adjustment at ages 3 and 5: Exploring the mediating role of parenting. Psychiatry, 62(1), 1-20. 286 Belsky, J., Crnic, K., & Woodworth, S. (1995). Personality and parenting: Exploring the mediating role of transient mood and daily hassles. Journal of Personality, 63, 905-929. Belsky, J., & Jaffee, S. (2006). The multiple determinants of parenting. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd., Vol. 3, pp. 38-85). New York: Wiley. Belsky, J., Jaffee, S.R., Sligo, J., Woodward, L., & Silva, P.A. (2005). Intergenerational transmission of warm-sensitive-stimulating parenting: A prospective study of mothers and fathers of 3-year-olds. Child Development, 76, 384-396. Belsky, J., Robins, E., & Gamble, W. (1984). The determinants of parental competence. In Beyond the dyad (pp. 251-279). Springer US. Benzies, K., Keown, L. A., & Magill-Evans, J. (2009). Immediate and sustained effects of parenting on physical aggression in Canadian children aged 6 years and younger. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(1), 55-64. Berg-Nielsen, T.U., Vikan, A., & Dahl, A.A. (2002). Parenting related to child and parental psychopathology: A descriptive review of the literature. Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 7, 529-552. Berkowitz, L.. 1978 “Whatever happened to the frustration- aggression hypothesis?” American Behavioral Psychologist 21,691—708. Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A. (1979). Reactions to a child's mistakes as affected by her/his looks and speech. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 420-425. Bijur, P., Golding, J., Haslum, M., & Kurzon, M. (1988). Behavioral predictors of injury in school-age children. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 142(12), 1307-1312. 287 Bilenberg, N. (1999). The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and related material: standardization and validation in Danish population based and clinically based samples. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 100(S398), 2-52. Black, M. M., Gerson, L. F., Freeland, C. A., Nair, P., Rubin, J. S., & Hutcheson, J. J. (1988). Language screening for infants prone to otitis media. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 13(3), 423-433. Blatt, S.J., Wein, S.J., & Chevron, E. (1979). Parental representations and depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 388-397. Bornstein, M.H. (2002). Preface. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. ix-xii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates Publishers. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. (Vol. 2.). London: Hogarth. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. (Vol. 3.).London: Hogarth. Boyle, M. H., Offord, D. R., Hofmann, H. G., Catlin, G. P., Byles, J. A., Cadman, D. T., & Szatmari, P. (1987). Ontario child health study: I. Methodology. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44(9), 826-831. Boyle, M.H., Offord, D.R., Racine, Y.A., Szatmari, P., & Sanford, M. (1993). Evaluation of the revised Ontario Child Health Study scales. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 34, 189–213. Braungart-Rieker, J., Garwood, M. M., & Stifter, C. A. (1997). Compliance and noncompliance: The roles of maternal control and child temperament. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(3), 411-428. Bridgett, D. J., Gartstein, M. A., Putnam, S. P., McKay, T., Iddins, E., Robertson, C., & Rittmueller, A. (2009). Maternal and contextual influences and the effect of temperament 288 development during infancy on parenting in toddlerhood. Infant Behavior and Development, 32(1), 103-116. Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & MacKinnon, C. E. (1986). Contributions of maternal Child-Rearing Practices and play contexts to sibling interactions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 7(3), 225-236. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Jr. Elder, & K. Lüscher (Editors), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development. (pp. 619-647). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Brooks, J.B. (1991). The process of parenting (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Brown, C. A., Granero, R., & Ezpeleta, L. (2016). The Reciprocal Influence of Callous Unemotional Traits, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Parenting Practices in Preschoolers. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 1-10. Browne, D. T., Odueyungbo, A., Thabane, L., Byrne, C., & Smart, L. A. (2010). Parenting-by-gender interactions in child psychopathology: attempting to address inconsistencies with a Canadian national database. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4(1), 5. Brunk, M. A., & Henggeler, S. W. (1984). Child influences on adult controls: An experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 20(6), 1074. Bugental, D. B., Blue, J., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over caregiving outcomes: Implications for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 532. 289 Bugental, D. B., Caporael, L., & Shennum, W. A. (1980). Experimentally produced child uncontrollability: Effects on the potency of adult communication patterns. Child Development, 520-528. Burbach, D. J., & Borduin, C. M. (1986). Parent-child relations and the etiology of depression: A review of methods and findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 6(2), 133-153. Burleson, B. R. (1983). Interactional antecedents of social reasoning development: Interpreting the effects of parent discipline on children. In D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, & J. R. Rhodes (Eds.), Argument in transition: Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation (pp. 597-610). Annandale, V.A.: Speech Communication Association. Bury, M. (2000). On chronic illness and disability. Handbook of medical sociology, 5, 173-183. Butterworth, G. (1995). Origins of mind in perception and action. In C. Moore & P. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 29-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Campbell, S. B. G. (1979). Mother-infant interaction as a function of maternal ratings of temperament. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 10(2), 67-76. Cantor, N. L., & Gelfand, D. M. (1977). Effects of responsiveness and sex of children on adults' behavior. Child Development, 232-238. Capaldi, D.M., Pears, K.C., Kerr, David C.R., & Owen, L.D. (2008). Intergenerational and partner influences on fathers’ negative discipline. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 36, 347-358. 290 Capaldi, D.M., Pears, K.C., Patterson, G.R., & Owen, L.D. (2003). Continuity of parenting practices across generations in an at-risk sample: A prospective comparison of direct and mediated associations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 127-142. Caplow, T. (1968). Two against one: Coalition in triads. Englewod Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Carey, L. K., Nicholson, B. C., & Fox, R. A. (2002). Maternal factors related to parenting young children with congenital heart disease. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 17(3), 174-183. Caudill, W. A., & Schooler, C. (1973). Child behavior and child rearing in Japan and the United States: an interim report. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 157(5), 323-338. Center for Human Resource Research (1998) 1996 NLSY: Child and Young Adult Data Users Guide. Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Chang, H., Olson, S.L., Sameroff, A.J., & Sexton, H.R. (2011). Child effortful control as a mediator of parenting practices on externalizing behaviour: Evidence for a sex-differentiated pathway across the transition from preschool to school. J. Abnorm Child Psychol, 39, 71-81. Chang, H., & Shaw, D. S. (2016). The Emergence of Parent–Child Coercive Processes in Toddlerhood. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 47(2), 226-235. Chapman, M. (1981). Isolating causal effects through experimental changes in parent-child interaction. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 9(3), 321-327. Charach, A., Lin, E., & To, T. (2010). Evaluating the hyperactivity/inattention subscales of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Health Reports, 21, 2, 45-52. Chen, Z., & Kaplan, H.B. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. Journal of Marriage & Family, 63, 17-31. 291 Chen, Z., Liu, R.X., & Kaplan, H.B. (2008). Mediating mechanisms for the intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1574-1599. Chung, E.K., Mathew, L., Rothkopf, A.C., Elo, I.T., Coyne, J.C., & Culhane, J.F. (2009). Parenting attitudes and infant spanking: The influence of childhood experiences. Pediatrics, 124, 278-286. Chung, H., Elias, M., & Schneider, K. (1998). Patterns of individual adjustment changes during middle school transition. Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 83-101. Clark, G.N. (1983). Facilitating mother-infant communication: A treatment model for high-risk and developmentally-delayed infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 4, 67-82. Clark, L.A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000). Mothers’ personality and its interaction with infant temperament as predictors of parenting behaviour. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79, 274-285. Clark, R., Hyde, J. S., Essex, M. J., & Klein, M. H. (1997). Length of maternity leave and quality of mother-infant interactions. Child Development, 364-383. CNIB (2014a). Far-sightedness (Hyperopia). Retrieved February 16, 2014 from http://www.cnib.ca/en/your-eyes/eye-conditions/Far-Sightedness/Pages/default.aspx CNIB (2014b). Near-sightedness (Myopia). Retrieved February 16, 2014 from http://www.cnib.ca/en/your-eyes/eye-conditions/near-sightedness/Pages/default.aspx Coffey, J. S. (2006). Parenting a child with chronic illness: a metasynthesis. Pediatric Nursing, 32(1), 51. Cohen, S. E., & Beckwith, L. (1977). Caregiving behaviors and early cognitive development as related to ordinal position in preterm infants. Child Development,48, 152-157. 292 Cole, D. A., & Rehm, L. P. (1986). Family interaction patterns and childhood depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14(2), 297-314. Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology: Toward an explanatory science. New York: Academic Press. Collins, W.A., Maccoby, E.E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E.M., & Bornstein, M.H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218-232. Conger R.D., Neppl T., Kim K.J., & Scaramella L. (2003). Angry and aggressive behavior across three generations: A prospective, longitudinal study of parents and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 143–160. Conti-Ramsden, G., & Pérez-Pereira, M. (1999). Conversational interactions between mothers and their infants who are congenitally blind, have low vision, or are sighted. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 93, 691-703. Cowan, P.A., Cohn, D.A., Cowan, C.P., & Pearson, J.L. (1996). Parents’ attachment histories and children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviours: Exploring the family systems models of linkage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 53-63. Cousino, M. K., & Hazen, R. A. (2013). Parenting stress among caregivers of children with chronic illness: a systematic review. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 38(8), 809-828. Crowell, J.A., & Feldman, S.S. (1988). Mothers’ internal models of relationships and children’s behavioural and developmental status: A study of mother-child interaction. Child Development, 59, 1273-1285. Curran, P.J., & Chassin, L. (1996). A longitudinal study of parenting as a protective factor for children of alcoholics. J. Stud. Alcohol, 57, 305-313. 293 Curtis, L., Dooley, M., & Phipps, S. (2002). Does parent or child know best? An assessment of parent/child agreement in the Canadian National Longitudional Survey of Children and Youth. Family and Labour Studies Division, 181. Ottawa, ON. Retrieved September 31, 2014 from http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/olc-cel/olc.action?ObjId=11F0019M2002181&ObjType=46&lang=en Dalla, R.L., & Gamble, W.C. (1997). Exploring factors related to parenting competence among Navajo teenage mothers: Dual techniques of inquiry. Family Relations, 46, 113-121. Dangel, H. L., & Walker, J. J. (1991). An assessment of the needs of parents of gifted students for parent education programs. Roeper Review, 14(1), 40-41. Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496. Davies, P.T., & Cummings, E.M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411. Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: the indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294. Day, R. D., Peterson, G. W., & McCracken, C. (1998). Predicting spanking of younger and older children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 79-94. Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 161-175. Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual review of psychology, 36(1), 49-81. 294 Dietz, L. J., Birmaher, B., Williamson, D. E., Silk, J. S., Dahl, R. E., Axelson, D. A., ... & Ryan, N. D. (2008). Mother-child interactions in depressed children and children at high risk and low risk for future depression. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(5), 574-582. DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). Foundation for a temperament-based theory of antisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(1), 10-25. De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: a critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 483. Digman, J.M., & Shmelyov, A.G. (1996). The structure of temperament and personality in Russian children. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71, 341-351. Dion, K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's transgressions. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 207-213. Dion, K. (1974). Children's physical attractiveness and sex as determinants of adult punitiveness. Developmental Psychology, 10, 772-778. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290. Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 3-25. Dix, T., & Grusec, J. E. (1985). Parental attribution processes in the socialization of children. In E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp. 201 234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 295 Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., Grusec, J. E., & Nixon, S. (1986). Social cognition in parents: Inferential and affective reactions to children of three age levels. Child Development, 879-894. Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., & Zarnbarano, R. J. (1989). Mother's implicit theories of discipline: Child effects, parent effects, and the attribution process. Child Development, 60, 1373-1391. Dodge, K. A. (1983). Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development, 1386-1399. Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Miller, S., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2009). A dynamic cascade model of the development of substance-use onset. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 74 (3), Serial No. 294. D'Odorico, L., & Levorato, M. (1990). Social and cognitive determinants of mutual gaze between mother and infant. In V. Volterra & C. Erting (Eds.), From gesture to language in hearing and deaf children (pp. 1-17). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Dowling, M., & Dolan, L. (2001). Families with children with disabilities – inequalities and the social model. Disability & Society, 16, 21-35. Dumas, J. E., LaFreniere, P. J., & Serketich, W. J. (1995). " Balance of power": A transactional analysis of control in mother-child dyads involving socially competent, aggressive, and anxious children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(1), 104. Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R). Circles Pines, MN: American Guidance Services. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Examiner’s Manual for the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- Third Edition (PPVT-III). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. 296 Elgar, F. J., McGrath, P. J., Waschbusch, D. A., Stewart, S. H., & Curtis, L. J. (2004). Mutual influences on maternal depression and child adjustment problems. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(4), 441-459. Elgar, F. J., Mills, R. S., McGrath, P. J., Waschbusch, D. A., & Brownridge, D. A. (2007). Maternal and paternal depressive symptoms and child maladjustment: The mediating role of parental behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(6), 943-955. Elias, M. J., Gara, M., & Ubriaco, M. (1985). Sources of stress and support in children's transition to middle school: An empirical analysis. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14(2), 112-118. Englund, M. M., Luckner, A. E., Whaley, G. J., & Egeland, B. (2004). Children's Achievement in Early Elementary School: Longitudinal Effects of Parental Involvement, Expectations, and Quality of Assistance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 723. Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Eisenberg, N., May-Plumlee, T., & Christopher, F. S. (1989). Effects of rewards on children's prosocial motivation: A socialization study. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 509. Fagg, J. H., Curtis, S. E., Cummins, S., Stansfeld, S. A., & Quesnel-Vallée, A. (2013). Neighbourhood deprivation and adolescent self-esteem: Exploration of the ‘socio-economic equalisation in youth’hypothesis in Britain and Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 91, 168-177. Fauchier, A., & Straus, M.A. (2010). Psychometric properties of the adult-recall form of the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory. Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. Retrieved May 31, 2011 from 297 http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/DD03M5%20Psychomerics%20of%20adult%20recall%20form.pdf Fearon, R. M., Reiss, D., Leve, L. D., Shaw, D. S., Scaramella, L. V., Ganiban, J. M., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2014). Child-evoked maternal negativity from 9 to 27 months: Evidence of gene–environment correlation and its moderation by marital distress. Development and Psychopathology, 27, 1251-1265. Feldman, R., & Eidelman, A. I. (2007). Maternal postpartum behavior and the emergence of infant–mother and infant–father synchrony in preterm and full‐term infants: The role of neonatal vagal tone. Developmental Psychobiology, 49(3), 290-302. Felson, R. B., & Zielinski, M. A. (1989). Children's self-esteem and parental support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 727-735. Finegan, J. A., Niccols, A., Zacher, J., & Hood, J. (1989). Factor structure of the Preschool Characteristics Questionnaire. Infant Behavior and Development, 12, 221-227. Fish, M., Stifter, C. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Conditions of continuity and discontinuity in infant negative emotionality: Newborn to five months. Child development, 62(6), 1525-1537. Ford, C. L., & Harawa, N. T. (2010). A new conceptualization of ethnicity for social epidemiologic and health equity research. Social Science & Medicine, 71(2), 251-258. Forgays, D. K., Hasazi, J. E., & Wasserman, R. C. (1992). Recurrent otitis media and parenting stress in mothers of two-year-old children. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 13(5), 321-325. Frabutt, J.M. (2001). Parenting and child development: Exploring the links with children’s social, moral, and cognitive competence. In T.C. Hunt, E.A. Joseph, & R.J. Nuzzi (Eds.), 298 Handbook of research on Catholic education (pp. 183-204). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Fraiberg, S. (1977). Insights from the blind. New York: Basic Books. Fraiberg, S. (1979). Blind infants and their mothers: An examination of the sign system. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of interpersonal communication (pp. 149-169). New York: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, E. B., & Hatch, J. A. (1989). What schools expect young children to know and do: An analysis of kindergarten report cards. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 595-605. Fujiwara, T., Barr, R. G., Brant, R., & Barr, M. (2011). Infant distress at five weeks of age and caregiver frustration. The Journal of Pediatrics, 159(3), 425-430. Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., & Jimerson, S. R. (2004). Externalizing behaviors of aggression and violence and the school context. In R. B. Rutherford, Jr., M. M. Quinn, S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioural disorders (pp. #-#). New York: Guilford Press. Gámez-Guadix, M., Straus, M.A., Carrobles, J.A., Mufioz-Rivas, M.J., & Almendros, C. (2010). Corporal punishment and long-term behavior problems: The moderating role of positive parenting and psychological aggression. Psicothema, 22, 529-536. Ganiban, J. M., Ulbricht, J., Saudino, K. J., Reiss, D., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2011). Understanding child-based effects on parenting: temperament as a moderator of genetic and environmental contributions to parenting. Developmental Psychology, 47(3), 676. Garn, A. C., Matthews, M. S., & Jolly, J. L. (2012). Parents' role in the academic motivation of students with gifts and talents. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 656-667. 299 Garner, R. E., Arim, R. G., Kohen, D. E., Lach, L. M., Mackenzie, M. J., Brehaut, J. C., & Rosenbaum, P. L. (2013). Parenting children with neurodevelopmental disorders and/or behaviour problems. Child Care, Health and Development, 39(3), 412-421. Geoffroy, M. C., Côté, S. M., Borge, A. I., Larouche, F., Séguin, J. R., & Rutter, M. (2007). Association between nonmaternal care in the first year of life and children's receptive language skills prior to school entry: the moderating role of socioeconomic status. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(5), 490-497. George, C. (1996). A representational perspective of child abuse and prevention: Internal working models of attachment and caregiving. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 411-424. Giles-Sims, J., Straus, M. A., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). Child, maternal, and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 170-176. Goffman, E. (1963). Sitgma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall. Goldberg, S., & DiVitto, B. (2002). Parenting children born preterm. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 329-354). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Goldstein, L. S., Coller, A. R., Dill, J., & Tilis, H. S. (1970). The effect of a special curriculum for disadvantaged children on test-retest reliabilities of three standardized instruments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(3), 171-174. Gonzales, N. A., Pitts, S. C., Hill, N. E., & Roosa, M. W. (2000). A mediational model of the impact of interparental conflict on child adjustment in a multiethnic, low-income sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(3), 365. 300 Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113(1), 101. Grant, V. V., Bagnell, A. L., Chambers, C. T., & Stewart, S. H. (2009). Early temperament prospectively predicts anxiety in later childhood. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(5), 320-330. Gray, M.R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage & Family, 61, 574-587. Green, L. (2002). Young children’s rights: Exploring beliefs, principles and practices. Child Abuse Review, 11, 129-131. Green, M., & Solnit, A.J. (1964). Reactions to the threatened loss of a child: A vulnerable child syndrome. Paediatrics, 34, 58-66. Green, M., & Solnit, A. (1964). Reactions to the threatened loss of a child: Vulnerable child syndrome. Pediatrics, 34, 58-66. Greene, J.G., Fox, N.A., & Lewis, M. (1983). The relationship between neonatal characteristics and three-month mother infant interaction in high risk infants. Child Development, 54, 1286-1296. Greener, S. H. (2000). Peer assessment of children's prosocial behaviour. Journal of Moral Education, 29(1), 47-60. Gresham, F. M., & Kern, L. (2004). Internalizing behavior problems in children and adolescents. In R. B. Rutherford, Jr., M. M. Quinn, S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioural disorders (pp. 262-281). New York: Guilford Press. 301 Grolnick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., DeCourcey, W., & Jacob, K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of mothers' autonomy support: an experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 143. Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (1980). Direction of effect in socialization: A comparison of the parent's versus the child's behavior as determinants of disciplinary techniques. Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 1. Haeck, C., Lefebvre, P., & Merrigan, P. (2011). The distributional impacts of a universal school reform on mathematical achievements: a natural experiment from Canada. Cahier de recherche/Working Paper, 11, 35. Halpern, L. F., Anders, T. F., Coll, C. G., & Hua, J. (1994). Infant temperament: Is there a relation to sleep-wake states and maternal nighttime behavior?. Infant Behavior and Development, 17(3), 255-263. Hamner, T. J., & Turner, P. H. (2001). Parenting in contemporary society (4th ed.). Needham. Harris, J.R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458-489. Harris, K.M., & Marmer, J.K. (1996). Poverty, paternal involvement, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 614-640. Harrison, M. J., & Magill‐Evans, J. (1996). Mother and father interactions over the first year with term and preterm infants. Research in Nursing & Health, 19(6), 451-459. Hart, C. H., DeWolf, D. M., Wozniak, P., & Burts, D. C. (1992). Maternal and paternal disciplinary styles: Relations with preschoolers' playground behavioral orientations and peer status. Child Development, 63(4), 879-892. 302 Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 300. Hastings, P.D., & Rubin, K.H. (1999). Predicting mothers’ beliefs about preschool-aged children’s social behaviour: Evidence for maternal attitudes moderating child effects. Child Development, 70, 722-741. Healey, M. D., & Ellis, B. J. (2007). Birth order, conscientiousness, and openness to experience: Tests of the family-niche model of personality using a within-family methodology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1), 55-59. Heck, C., & Walsh, A. (2000). The effects of maltreatment and family structure on minor and serious delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(2), 178-193. Heiser, A., Curcin, O., Luhr, C., Grimmer, I., Metze, B., & Obladen, M. (2000). Parental and professional agreement in developmental assessment of very‐low‐birthweight and term infants. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 42(1), 21-24. Hejazi, S. (2007). Temperament, parenting, and the development of childhood obesity (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). Henderson, H. A., & Wachs, T. D. (2007). Temperament theory and the study of cognition–emotion interactions across development. Developmental Review, 27(3), 396-427. Hendricks, C., Lansford, J. E., Deater‐Deckard, K., & Bornstein, M. H. (2014). Associations Between Child Disabilities and Caregiver Discipline and Violence in Low‐and Middle‐Income Countries. Child Development, 85(2), 513-531. 303 Heng-hao, C. (2009). From housewives to activists: Lived experiences of mothers for disability rights in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 15, 34-50. Herman, M.R., Dombusch, S.M., Herron, M.C., & Herting, J.R. (1997). The influence of family regulation, connection, and psychological autonomy on six measures of adolescent functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 34-67. Hibbard, R. A., Desch, L. W., & Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. (2007). Maltreatment of children with disabilities. Pediatrics, 119(5), 1018-1025. Hilton, I. (1967). Differences in the behavior of mothers toward first-and later-born children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(3p1), 282. Hochbaum, C. V., & White, J. M. (2016, November). Temporality in the relation between child characteristics and parental discipline. Paper presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology (TCRM) workshop at the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) conference. Minneapolis, MN. Hodapp, R.M., & Ly, T.M. (2005). Parenting children with developmental disabilities. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.). Parenting: An ecological perspective (2nd ed., pp. 177-204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates. Hodapp, R.M. (2002). Parenting children with mental retardation. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 355-379). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Hoff, E.B., Laursen, B., & Tardif, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 231-252). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 304 Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Altruistic behavior and the parent-child relationship. Journal of personality and social psychology, 31(5), 937. Hoffman, L.W. (1988). Cross-cultural differences in childrearing goals. New Directions for Child Development, 40, 99-122. Hoffman, M. L., & Saltzstein, H. D. (1967). Parent discipline and the child's moral development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(1), 45. Huff, R. E., Houskamp, B. M., Watkins, A. V., Stanton, M., & Tavegia, B. (2005). The experiences of parents of gifted African American children: A phenomenological study. Roeper Review, 27(4), 215-221. Human Resources Development Canada and Statistics Canada (1997). National LongitudinalSurvey of Children and Youth: User’s Handbook and Microdata Guide.Cycle 1, release 2. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Industry.. Jacobs, B. S., & Moss, H. A. (1976). Birth order and sex of sibling as determinants of mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 315-322. Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Polo-Tomas, M., Price, T. S., & Taylor, A. (2004). The limits of child effects: evidence for genetically mediated child effects on corporal punishment but not on physical maltreatment. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1047. Janssens, J. M., & Deković, M. (1997). Child rearing, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20(3), 509-527. Javis, PA., Myers, B.J., & Creasy, O.L. (1989). The effects of infants’ illness on mothers’ interactions with premature at 4 and 8 months. Infant Behavior & Development, 12, 25-35. 305 Jefferson, T., Herbst, J. H., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Associations between birth order and personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(4), 498-509. Jenkins, J. M., Rasbash, J., & O'Connor, T. G. (2003). The role of the shared family context in differential parenting. Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 99. John Howard Society of Alberta (1997). Parental liability laws. Retrieved May 31, 2011 from http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C11.htm#contents Johnston, C., & Behrenz, K. (1985). Childrearing Discussions in Families of Nonproblem Children and ADHD Children With Higher and Lower Levels of Aggresive-Defiant Behavior. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 9(1), 53-65. Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis (2nd edition) Springer. Jolly, J. L., & Matthews, M. S. (2012). A critique of the literature on parenting gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 0162353212451703. Jones, T. L., & Prinz, R. J. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(3), 341-363. Karraker, H., & Coleman, K. (2005). Effects of child characteristics on parenting. In T. Luster & L. Okagaki (Eds.). Parenting: An ecological perspective (2nd ed., pp. 147-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates. Keil, V., & Price, J. M. (2006). Externalizing behavior disorders in child welfare settings: Definition, prevalence, and implications for assessment and treatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(7), 761-779. Keirouz, K. S. (1990). Concerns of parents of gifted children: A research review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(2), 56-63. 306 Kekelis, L.S., & Andersen, E.S. (1984). Family communication styles and language development. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 78, 54-65. Keller, B. B., & Bell, R. Q. (1979). Child effects on adult's method of eliciting altruistic behavior. Child Development, 50, 1004-1009. Keller, H., & Zach, U. (2002). Gender and birth order as determinants of parental behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(2), 177-184. Kernis, M. H., Brown, A. C., & Brody, G. H. (2000). Fragile Self‐Esteem in Children and Its Associations With Perceived Patterns of Parent‐Child Communication. Journal of Personality, 68(2), 225-252. Kidwell, J. S. (1981). Number of siblings, sibling spacing, sex, and birth order: Their effects on perceived parent-adolescent relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 315-332. Kidwell, J. S. (1982). The neglected birth order: Middleborns. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 225-235. Kim, K., & Rohner, R. P. (2002). Parental warmth, control and involvement in schooling: Predicting academic achievement among Korean American adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 127-140. Kingston, L., & Prior, M. (1995). The development of patterns of stable, transient, and school-age onset aggressive behavior in young children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent psychiatry, 34(3), 348-358. Knafo, A., Israel, S., & Ebstein, R. P. (2011). Heritability of children's prosocial behavior and differential susceptibility to parenting by variation in the dopamine receptor D4 gene. Development and Psychopathology, 23(01), 53-67. 307 Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Parental discipline and affection and children's prosocial behavior: genetic and environmental links. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 147. Knobloch H, Stevens F, Malone A, Ellison P., & Risenburg, H. (1979). The validity of parental reporting of infant development. Pediatrics, 63, 872–878. Knutson, J. F., Johnson, C. R., & Sullivan, P. M. (2004). Disciplinary choices of mothers of deaf children and mothers of normally hearing children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(9), 925-937. Kochanska, G., Clark, L.A., & Goldman, M.S. (1997). Implications of mothers’ personality for their parenting and their young children’s developmental outcomes. Journal of Personality, 65, 387-420. Kohen, D. E., Hertzman, C., & Wiens, M. (1998). Environmental changes and children's competencies (p. 54). Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada. Kohn, M.L., & Schooler, C. (1982). Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 1257-1286. Kohnstamm, G. A. (1984, April 4-7). Bates' Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (ICQ) in the Netherlands.Paper presented at the fourth biennial International Conference on Infant Studies, New York, NY. Korja, R., Latva, R., & Lehtonen, L. (2012). The effects of preterm birth on mother–infant interaction and attachment during the infant's first two years. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 91(2), 164-173. 308 Kortlander, E., Kendall, P. C., & Panichelli-Mindel, S. M. (1997). Maternal expectations and attributions about coping in anxious children. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11(3), 297-315. Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents' use of inductive discipline: Relations to children's empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67(6), 3263-3277. Kurtzer-White, E., & Luterman, D. (2003). Families and children with hearing loss: Grief and coping. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 9, 232-235. Lakshmi, A. R., & Arora, M. (2006). Perceived parental behaviour as related to student’s academic school success and competence. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 32(1), 47-52. Lamb, M. E., & Ahnert, L. (2006). Nonparental child care: Context, concepts, correlates, and consequences. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol.3). NY: Wiley. Lansford, J. E., Deater‐Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Ethnic differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(4), 801-812. Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmérus, K., et al. (2005). Physical discipline and children's adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76, 1234-1246. Larzelere, R. E., Schneider, W. N., Larson, D. B., & Pike, P. L. (1996). The effects of discipline responses in delaying toddler misbehavior recurrences. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 18(3), 35-57. 309 Laukkanen, J., Ojansuu, U., Tolvanen, A., Alatupa, S., & Aunola, K. (2014). Child’s difficult temperament and mothers’ parenting styles. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 312-323. Lee, C. L., & Bates, J. (1985). Mother-child interaction at age two years and perceived difficult temperament. Child Development, 56, 1314. Lee, B. J., & Goerge, R. M. (1999). Poverty, early childbearing, and child maltreatment: A multinomial analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(9), 755-780. Lefebvre, P., & Merrigan, P. (2009). Public subsidies to private schools do make a difference for achievement in mathematics: Longitudinal evidence from Canada. Cahier de recherche/Working Paper, 9, 35. Lindahl, K. M. (1998). Family process variables and children's disruptive behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(3), 420. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385. Loots, G., Devise, I., & Sermijn, J. (2003). The interaction between mothers and their visually impaired infants: An intersubjective developmental perspective. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 403-17. Lunkenheimer, E.S., Kittler, J.E., Olson, S.L., & Kleinberg, F. (2006). The intergenerational transmission of physical punishment: Differing mechanisms in mothers’ and fathers’ endorsement? Journal of Family Violence, 21, 509-519. Luster, T. (1998). Individual differences in the caregiving of teenage mothers: An ecological perspective. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry, 3, 341-360. 310 Luster, T., & Okagaki, L. (2005). Parenting: An ecological perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys' conduct disorder: A reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology, 26(5), 683. Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1991). Parent's differential socia1ization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 267-296. Maccoby, E.E., & Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E.M. Hetherington, & P.H. Mussen (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley. Mfaddi, S. R. (1989). Personality theories: A comparative analysis. Dorsey Press. Malatesta, C. Z., Grigoryev, P., Lamb, C., Albin, M., & Culver, C. (1986). Emotion socialization and expressive development in preterm and full-term infants. Child Development, 316-330. Marcus, T. L., & Corsini, D. A. (1978). Parental expectations of preschool children as related to child gender and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 243-246. Markowitz, F. E. (2001). Attitudes and family violence: Linking intergenerational and cultural theories. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 205-218. Marsh, Herbert W. (1988), Self-Description Questionnaire, SDQ Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt Brace & Company. Marsh, H. W., & O'Neill, R. (1984). Self description questionnaire III: the construct validity of multidimensional self‐concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(2), 153-174. 311 Masten, A.S., & Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavourable environments. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220. McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., Jackson‐Newsom, J., Tucker, C. J., & Crouter, A. C. (2000). When does parents’ differential treatment have negative implications for siblings?. Social Development, 9(2), 149-172. McLeod, B. D., Weisz, J. R., & Wood, J. J. (2007). Examining the association between parenting and childhood depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(8), 986-1003. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society (C. Morris, Introduction and Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miles, M.S., Holditch-Davis, D., & Shepherd, H. (1998). Maternal concerns about parenting: Prematurely born children. MCN American Journal of Maternal and Child Nursing, 23, 70-75. Mills, R. S., & Rubin, K. H. (1992). A longitudinal study of maternal beliefs about children's social behaviors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), 494-512. Montirosso, R., Borgatti, R., Trojan, S., Zanini, R., & Tronick, E. (2010). A comparison of dyadic interactions and coping with still‐face in healthy pre‐term and full‐term infants. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(2), 347-368. Moore, V., & McConachie, H. (1994). Communication between blind and severely visually impaired children and their parents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 491-502. 312 Moorman, E. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2010). Ability mindsets influence the quality of mothers' involvement in children's learning: an experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1354. Moraes, S. C. (2009). Examining the impact of child characteristics and microsystem variables on developmental trajectories of prosocial behaviour in Canadian children: a longitudinal study using the NLSCY (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia). Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2008). Parenting gifted and talented children: what are the key child behaviour and parenting issues?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42(9), 819-827. Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. (2009a). An evaluation of a behavioural parenting intervention for parents of gifted children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(6), 463-470. Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2009). Parenting gifted and talented children: Conceptual and empirical foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 163-173. Morrongiello B. A. (1997). Tapping school readiness in the NLSCY: Measurement issues and solutions. (Technical Paper T-98-1E). Applied Research Branch of Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada. Retrieved October 15, 2011 from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/rhdcc-hrsdc/MP32-30-98-1-eng.pdf Morrongiello, B. A., & Dawber, T. (1999). Mothers' Responses to Boys and Girls Engaging in Injury-Risk Behaviors on a Playground: Implications for Sex Differences in Childhood Injuries; Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (Albuquerque, NM) 313 Morrongiello, B. A., & Hogg, K. (2004). Mothers' reactions to children misbehaving in ways that can lead to injury: Implications for gender differences in children's risk taking and injuries. Sex Roles, 50(1-2), 103-118. Morrongiello, B. A., & Lasenby-Lessard, J. (2007). Psychological determinants of risk taking by children: an integrative model and implications for interventions. Injury Prevention, 13(1), 20-25. Morrongiello, B. A., & Rennie, H. (1998). Why do boys engage in more risk taking than girls? The role of attributions, beliefs, and risk appraisals. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 23(1), 33-43. Moses, K.L. (1983). The impact of the initial diagnosis: Mobilizing family resources. In J.A., Mulick, & S.M. Pueschel (Eds.), Parent-Professional Partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Academic Guild Publishers. Mott, F. L., Baker, P. C., Ball, D. E., Keck, C. C. & Lenhart, S. M. (1998) The NLSY children : Description and Evaluation, Revised. Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Murnane, R. J., Willett, J. B., & Levy, F. (1995). The growing importance of cognitive skills in wage determination (No. w5076). National Bureau of Economic Research. Murphy-Cowan, T., & Stringer, M. (1999). Physical punishment and the parenting cycle: A Survey of Northern Irish Parents. Journal of Comm. and Applied Soc. Psych.,9, 61-71. Muscott, H. S. (2008). Implementing systematic screening for behavior disorders within a comprehensive system of behavior support in PBIS-NH- and MAST-NH schools. New Hampshire Center for Effective Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Retrieved April 20, 2012 from 314 https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjFir2dlnOAhVI1mMKHRw0DwUQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhcebis.seresc.net%2Fdocument%2Ffilename%2F406%2FSystematic_Screening_for_Summer_Institute_6_26_08.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEMBOhDh-6zqg75fGfTqajRqDiMTg&sig2=mm88NHvCl4ljadtLzoClPw&bvm=bv.131286987,d.cGc&cad=rja Nelson, J. R., & Roberts, M. L. (2000). Ongoing reciprocal teacher-student interactions involving disruptive behaviors in general education classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(1), 27-37. Network, E. C. C. R. (2003). Does amount of time spent in child care predict socioemotional adjustment during the transition to kindergarten?. Child Development, 74(4), 976-1005. Newbold, K. Bruce (2009). The short-term health of Canada’s new immigrant arrivals: Evidence from LSIC. Ethnicity & Health, 14, 315-336. Norlin, D., Axberg, U., & Broberg, M. (2014). Predictors of harsh parenting practices in parents of children with disabilities. Early Child Development and Care, 184(9-10), 1472-1484. O’Brien, Helen G. (2010). The intergenerational transmission of parenting styles of Irish immigrant mothers. Journal of Family Social Work, 13, 395-409. O'Connor, T. G., Deater-Deckard, K., Fulker, D., Rutter, M., & Plomin, R. (1998). Genotype–environment correlations in late childhood and early adolescence: Antisocial behavioral problems and coercive parenting. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 970. Okagaki, L., & Divecha. D. L. (1993). Development of parental beliefs. In T. Luster & L. Okagi (Eds.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 35-67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 315 Olson, S. L., Bates, J. E., & Bayles, K. (1982). Maternal perceptions of infant and toddler behavior: a longitudinal, construct validation study. Infant Behavior and Development, 5(2), 397-410. Overpeck, M. D., Brenner, R. A., Trumble, A. C., Trifiletti, L. B., & Berendes, H. W. (1998). Risk factors for infant homicide in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 339(17), 1211-1216. Parental Responsibility Act of Ontario (2000, c. 4). Retrieved March 22, 2011 from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/S00004 Parker, J. S., & Benson, M. J. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence, 39(155), 519. Paulussen-Hoogeboom, M. C., Stams, G. J. J., Hermanns, J., & Peetsma, T. T. (2007). Child negative emotionality and parenting from infancy to preschool: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 438. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Co. Patterson, G.R., & Fisher, P.A. (2002). Recent developments in our understanding of parenting: Bidirectional effects, causal models, and the search for parsimony. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 59-88). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. R., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Paulussen-Hoogeboom, M. C., Stams, G. J. J., Hermanns, J., & Peetsma, T. T. (2007). Child negative emotionality and parenting from infancy to preschool: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 438. 316 Pederson, W. (1994). Parental relations, mental health, and delinquency in adolescents. Adolescence, 29, 975-990. Pelchat, D., Lefebvre, H., & Levert, M. J. (2007). Gender differences and simililarities in the experience of parenting a child with a health problem: current state of knowledge. Journal of Child Health Care, 11(2), 112-131. Perron, J. L., Lee, C. M., LaRoche, K. J., Ateah, C., Clément, M. È., & Chan, K. (2014). Child and parent characteristics associated with Canadian parents’ reports of spanking. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 33(2), 31-45. Peterson, G.W., & Hann, D. (1999). Socializing children and parents in families. In M. Sussman, S. Steinmetz, & G. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and family (2nd ed., pp. 327-370). New York: Plenum Press. Peterson, G.W., & Rollins, B. C. (1987). Parent-child socialization. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage andthe family (pp. 471-507). New York: Plenum. Pevalin, D. J., Wade, T. J., & Brannigan, A. (2003). Parental assessment of early childhood development: Biological and social covariates. Infant and Child Development, 12(2), 167-175. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. Poe, G.S. (1986). Design and Procedures for the 1981 Child Health Supplement to theNational Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; Working Paper series. 317 Price, J. (2008). Parent-Child Quality Time Does Birth Order Matter? Journal of Human Resources, 43(1), 240-265. Prior, M., Sanson, A., Carroll, R., & Oberklaid, F. (1989). Social class differences in temperament ratings by mothers of pre-school children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 239-248. Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A. V., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and parenting. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol.1, 255-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Quah, Stella R. (2003). Ethnicity and parenting styles among Singapore families. Marriage & Family Review, 35, 63-83. Quinton, D., Rutter, M., & Liddle, C. (1984). Institutional rearing, parenting difficulties, and marital support. Psychological Medicine, 14, 107–124. Ram, B., & Hou, F. (2005). Sex differences in the effects of family structure on children's aggressive behavior. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36(2), 329-341. Rao, P. (1971). Some notes on misspecification in multiple regressions. The American Statistician, 25(5), 37-39. Reid, G. J., Hong, R. Y., & Wade, T. J. (2009). The relation between common sleep problems and emotional and behavioral problems among 2‐and 3‐year‐olds in the context of known risk factors for psychopathology. Journal of Sleep Research, 18(1), 49-59. Reiss, D. (1995). Genetic influence on family systems: Implications for development. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 543-560. 318 Reiss, D. (2005). The Interplay Between Genotypes and Family Relationships Reframing Concepts of Development and Prevention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 139-143. Renati, R., Bonfiglio, N. S., & Pfeiffer, S. (2016). Challenges raising a gifted child Stress and resilience factors within the family. Gifted Education International, 0261429416650948. Rende, R. D., Slomkowski, C. L., Stocker, C., Fulker, D. W., & Plomin, R. (1992). Genetic and environmental influences on maternal and sibling interaction in middle childhood: A sibling adoption study. Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 484. Richters, J. E. (1992). Depressed mothers as informants about their children: a critical review of the evidence for distortion. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 485. Ritter, J. M., Casey, R. J., & Langlois, J. H. (1991). Adults' responses to infants varying in appearance of age and attractiveness. Child Development, 62(1), 68-82. Roberts, J. E., Burchinal, M. R., Zeisel, S. A., Neebe, E. C., Hooper, S. R., Roush, J., ... & Henderson, F. W. (1998). Otitis media, the caregiving environment, and language and cognitive outcomes at 2 years. Pediatrics, 102(2), 346-354. Romano, E., Kohen, D., & Findlay, L. C. (2010). Associations among child care, family, and behavior outcomes in a nation-wide sample of preschool-aged children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(5), 427-440. Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., & Swisher, R. (2005). Multilevel correlates of childhood physical aggression and prosocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(5), 565-578. 319 Romano, E., Tremblay, R. E., Farhat, A., & Côté, S. (2006). Development and prediction of hyperactive symptoms from 2 to 7 years in a population-based sample. Pediatrics, 117(6), 2101-2110. Rosen, B. C. (1964). Family structure and value transmission. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 10(1), 59-76. Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., & Schoenbach, C. (1989). Self-esteem and adolescent problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 54, 1004-1018. Rosenthal, J. A. (1993). Outcomes of adoption of children with special needs. The Future of Children, 3,77-88. Rothbart, M. K. (1971). Birth order and mother-child interaction in an achievement situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 113. Russell, A., & Russell, G. (1992). Child effects in socialization research: Some conceptual and data analysis issues. Social Development, 1, 163-184. Rowland, C. (1983). Patterns of interaction between three blind infants and their mothers. In A. E. Mills (Ed.), Language acquisition in the blind child: Normal and deficient (pp. 114-132). London: Croom Helm. Rowland, C. (1984). Preverbal communication of blind infants and their mothers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 78, 297-302. Rubin, K. H., Mills, R. S., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1989). Maternal beliefs and children’s competence. In Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 313-331). Springer Netherlands. Sameroff, A. J., & Chandler, M. J. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaker casualty.(Vol. Vol. 4). 320 Scanzoni, J. (1972). Sexual bargaining. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Scaramella, L.V., & Conger, R.D. (2003). Intergenerational continuity of hostile parenting and its consequences: the moderating influence of children’s negative emotional reactivity. Social Development, 12, 420-439. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype→ environment effects. Child Development, 424-435. Schermann-Eizirik, L., Hagekull, B., Bohlin, G., Persson, K., & Sedin, G. (1997). Interaction between mothers and infants born at risk during the first six months of corrected age. Acta Pediatrica, 86, 864-872. Schmücker, G., Brisch, K. H., Köhntop, B., Betzler, S., Österle, M., Pohlandt, F. & Buchheim, A. (2005). The influence of prematurity, maternal anxiety, and infants' neurobiological risk on mother–infant interactions. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26(5), 423-441. Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J., Schermerhorn, A.C., & Cummings, E.M. (2007). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: Evaluation of the parenting process model. Journal of Marriage & Family, 69, 1118-1134. Schwartzman, A. E., Verlaan, P. Peters, P., & Serbin, L. A. (1995). Sex roles as coercion. In. J. McCord (Eds.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 362-376). New York; Cambridge University Press. Schwebel, D. C., Speltz, M. L., Jones, K., & Bardina, P. (2002). Unintentional injury in preschool boys with and without early onset of disruptive behavior. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(8), 727-737. Shaffer, D.R. (2005). Social and personality development. M. Sordi (Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. 321 Shakespeare, T., & Watson, N. (2001). The social model of disability: an outdated ideology?. In Exploring theories and expanding methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go (pp. 9-28). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317-329. Silverman, L. K., & Kearney, K. (1989). Parents of the extraordinarily gifted. Advanced Development, 1(1), 41-56. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. Wolff, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Simonds, M. P., & Simonds, J. F. (1981). Relationship of maternal parenting behaviors to preschool children's temperament. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 12(1), 19-31. Simons, R.L., Lin, Kuei-Hsiu, Gordon, L.C., Brody, G.H., Murry, V., & Conger, R.D. (2002). Community differences in the association between parenting practices and child conduct problems. Journal of Marriage & Family, 64, 331-345. Simons, R. L., Simons, L. G., Burt, C. H., Brody, G. H., & Cutrona, C. (2005). Collective efficacy, authoritative parenting and delinquency: A longitudinal test of a model integrating community‐and family‐level processes. Criminology, 43(4), 989-1029. Simons, R.L., Simons, L.G., Chen, Yi-Fu, Brody, G.H., & Lin, Kuei-Hsiu (2007). Identifying the psychological factors that mediate the association between parenting practices and delinquency. Criminology, 45, 481-517. Simons, R.L., Whitbeck, L.B., Conger, R.D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171. 322 Simons, R.L., Wu, Chyi-In, Lin, Kuei-Hsiu, Gordon, L., & Conger, R.D. (2000). A cross-cultural examination of the link between corporal punishment and adolescent antisocial behaviour. Criminology, 38, 47-80. Smetana, J.G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 255-284. Snyder, J., Edwards, P., McGraw, K., Kilgore, K., & Holton, A. (1994). Escalation and reinforcement in mother-child conflict: Social processes associated with the development of physical aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 6(02), 305-321. Socolar, R., Savage, E., Devellis, R. F., & Evans, H. (2004). The discipline survey: A new measure of parental discipline. Ambulatory Pediatrics, 4, 166-173. Someya, T., Uehara, T., Kadowaki, M., Tang, S. W., & Takahashi, S. (2000). Effects of gender difference and birth order on perceived parenting styles, measured by the EMBU scale, in Japanese two‐sibling subjects. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 54(1), 77-81. Sonnander, K. (1987). Parental developmental assessment of 18-month-old children: Reliability and predictive value. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29: 351–362. Stark, R., & McEvoy, J. (1970). Middle-class violence. Psychology Today, 4(6), 52. Statistics Canada (1995a). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 1 Overview, Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Division. Statistics Canada (1995b). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 1 User’s Guide, Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Division. Statistics Canada (1997). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 2 User’s Guide, Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Division. 323 Statistics Canada (1998). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 1 User’s Guide, Release 3, Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Division. Statistics Canada (1999). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 3 Microdata User Guide, Ottawa (ON): Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Division. Statistics Canada (2001a). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth Secondary File, Cycle 4 Microdata User’s Guide, Ottawa (ON). Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Division. Statistics Canada (2001b). Profile of disability among children. Retrieved June 1, 2011 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-577-x/4065023-eng.htm#tphp Statistics Canada (2005). National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth, Cycle 6 Microdata User’s Guide, Ottawa (ON). Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Division. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J.D., & Mounts, N.S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436. Steinberg, L. & Silk, J.S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 103-133). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Stephan, C. W., & Langlois, J. H. (1984). Baby beautiful: Adult attributions of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child Development, 576-585. Stern, M., Hildebr, K., & Karraker, T. (1990). The prematurity stereotype: Empirical evidence and implications for practice. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11(1), 1-11. Stern, M., & Karraker, K. H. (1988). Prematurity stereotyping by mothers of premature infants. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 13(2), 255-263. 324 Straus, M.A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and violence and other crimes in adulthood. Social Problems, 38, 133-152. Straus, M. A. (2010). Prevalence, societal causes, and trends in corporal punishment by parents in world perspective. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(2), 1-30. Straus, M.A., & Donnelly, D.A. (2001). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Straus, M.A. & Fauchier. A. (2007). Manual for the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory (DDI). Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/. Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (1999). Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalence, chronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(2), 55-70. Strazdins, L., Clements, M. S., Korda, R. J., Broom, D. H., & D’Souza, R. M. (2006). Unsociable work? nonstandard work schedules, family relationships, and children’s well‐being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(2), 394-410. Strohschein, L., Gauthier, A. H., Campbell, R., & Kleparchuk, C. (2008). Parenting as a dynamic process: A test of the resource dilution hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(3), 670-683. Sullivan, P. M. (2009). Violence exposure among children with disabilities. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12(2), 196-216. Sullivan, P. M., & Knutson, J. F. (2000). Maltreatment and disabilities: A population-based epidemiological study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(10), 1257-1273. 325 Sulloway, F. (1996). Born to rebel. New York: Pantheon. Sulloway, F. J. (2001). Birth order, sibling competition, and human behavior. In Conceptual challenges in evolutionary psychology (pp. 39-83). Springer Netherlands. Swenson, R. R., & Prelow, H. M. (2005). Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and perceived efficacy as mediators of the relation of supportive parenting to psychosocial outcomes among urban adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 28(4), 465-477. Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Briggs, R.D., McClowry, S.G., & Snow, D.L. (2008). Challenges to the study of African American parenting: Conceptualization, sampling, research approaches, measurement, and design. Parenting Science & Practice, 8, 319-358. Taylor, R.D., Casten, R., & Flickinger, S.M. (1993). Influence of kinship social support on the parenting experiences and psychosocial adjustment of adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 29, 382-388. Tellegen, C. L., & Sanders, M. R. (2013). Stepping Stones Triple P-Positive Parenting Program for children with disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(5), 1556-1571. Teti, D.M., & Candelara, M.A. (2002). Parenting competence. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 149-180). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Thomasgard, M., & Metz, W.P. (1996). A 2-year stability of parental perceptions of child vulnerability and parental overprotection. Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 17, 222-228. 326 Thornberry. T., Freeman-Gallant, A., Lizotte, A., Krohn, M., & Smith. C. (2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171-184. To, T., Cadarette, S. M., & Liu, Y. (2001). Biological, social, and environmental correlates of preschool development. Child: Care, Health and Development, 27(2), 187-200. To, T., Guttmann, A., Dick, P. T., Rosenfield, J. D., Parkin, P. C., Tassoudji, M., ... & Harris, J. K. (2004). Risk markers for poor developmental attainment in young children: results from a longitudinal national survey. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(7), 643. To, T., Cadarette, S. M., & Liu, Y. (2001). Biological, social, and environmental correlates of preschool development. Child: Care, Health and Development, 27(2), 187-200. Townsend, F. (2000). Birth Order and Rebelliousness: Reconstructing the Research in" Born to Rebel". Politics and the Life Sciences, 135-156. Tremblay, R. E., Loeber, R., Gagnon, C., Charlebois, P., Larivee, S., & LeBlanc, M. (1991). Disruptive boys with stable and unstable high fighting behavior patterns during junior elementary school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19(3), 285-300. Tremblay, R. E., Pihl, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P. L. (1994). Predicting early onset of male antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51(9), 732-739. Unnever, J.D., Cullen, F.T., & Agnew, R. (2006). Why is “bad” parenting criminogenic? Implications from rival theories. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 3-33. Urwin, C. (1984). Language for absent things: Learning from visually handicapped children Topics in Language Disorders, 4, 24-37. 327 Vaillancourt, T., Miller, J. L., Fagbemi, J., Côté, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2007). Trajectories and predictors of indirect aggression: Results from a nationally representative longitudinal study of Canadian children aged 2–10. Aggressive Behavior, 33(4), 314-326. Van Leeuwen, K. G., Fauchier, A., & Straus, M. A. (2012). Assessing Dimensions of Parental Discipline. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34(2), 216-231. Waldrop, M. F., & Bell, R. Q. (1966). Effects of family size and density on newborn characteristics. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 36(3), 544. Wallace, H.M. (1992). Early steps in the care of disabled children being taken in some developing countries. Infants & Young Children, 4, v-vii. Waller, R., Shaw, D. S., Forbes, E. E., & Hyde, L. W. (2015). Understanding early contextual and parental risk factors for the development of limited prosocial emotions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(6), 1025-1039. Walters, G. D. (2014). Pathways to early delinquency: Exploring the individual and collective contributions of difficult temperament, low maternal involvement, and externalizing behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 321-326. Wang, Q., Chan, H. W., & Lin, L. (2012). Antecedents of Chinese parents’ autonomy support and psychological control: The interplay between parents’ self-development socialization goals and adolescents’ school performance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(11), 1442-1454. Watts, S. J., & McNulty, T. L. (2016). Genes, parenting, self-control, and criminal behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(4), 469-491. 328 Weaver, S.R., & Prelow, H.M. (2005). A mediated-moderation model of maternal parenting style, association with deviant peers, and problem behaviours in urban African American and European American adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 14, 343-356. White, J. M. (1991). Dynamics of family development: A theoretical perspective. Guilford Press. Willerman, L., & Plomin, R. (1973). Activity level in children and their parents. Child Development, 854-858. Wills, D. M. (1979). The ordinary devoted mother and her blind baby. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 34, 31-49. Yont, K. M., Snow, C. E., & VERNON–FEAGANS, L. Y. N. N. E. (2003). Is chronic otitis media associated with differences in parental input at 12 months of age? An analysis of joint attention and directives. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(04), 581-602. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers and friends. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., & King, R. A. (1979). Child rearing and children's prosocial initiations toward victims of distress. Child Development, 319-330. Zentner, M., & Bates, J. E. (2008). Child temperament: An integrative review of concepts, research programs, and measures. International Journal of Developmental Science, 2(12), 7-37. Zhan, M. (2006). Assets, parental expectations and involvement, and children's educational performance. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(8), 961-975. Zweigenhaft, R. L. (2002). Birth order effects and rebelliousness: Political activism and involvement with marijuana. Political Psychology, 219-233. 329 Zweigenhaft, R. L., & Von Ammon, J. (2000). Birth order and civil disobedience: A test of Sulloway's “born to rebel” hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(5), 624-627. 330 Appendix A Depression Score How often you felt or behaved this way during the past week: I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing. I felt depressed. I felt that everything I did was an effort. I felt hopeful about the future. My sleep was restless. I was happy. I felt lonely. I enjoyed life. I had crying spells. I felt that people disliked me. 331 Appendix B Family Functioning Score Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements: Planning family activities is difficult because we misunderstand each other. In times of crisis we can turn to each other for support. We cannot talk to each other about sadness we feel. Individuals (in the family) are accepted for what they are We avoid discussing our fears or concerns. We express feelings to each other. There are lots of bad feelings in our family. We feel accepted for what we are. Making decisions is a problem for our family. We are able to make decisions about how to solve problems. We don't get along well together. We confide in each other. 332 Appendix C Social Support Score Do you strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree with the following statements: If something went wrong, no one would help me. I have family and friends who help me feel safe, secure and happy. There is someone I trust whom I would turn to for advice if I were having problems. There is no one I feel comfortable talking about problems with. I lack a feeling of closeness with another person. There are people I can count on in an emergency. Besides your friends and family, did any of the following help with your personal problems during the past 12 months? Community or social service professionals? Health professionals? Books or magazines? 333 Appendix D Neighbourhood Safety The Neighbourhood safety score was derived using the items ASFHQ05A and ASFHQ05B. 334 Appendix E Neighbourhood Cohesion If there is a problem around here, the neighbours get together to deal with it. There are adults in the neighbourhood that children can look up to. People around here are willing to help their neighbours. You can count on adults in this neighbourhood to watch out that children are safe and don't get in trouble. When I'm away from home, I know that my neighbours will keep their eyes open for possible trouble. 335 Appendix F Neighbourhood Problems – ASFHS7 Garbage, litter, or broken glass in the street or road, on the sidewalks, or in yards? Selling or using drugs? Alcoholics and excessive drinking in public? Groups of young people who cause trouble? Burglary of homes or apartments? 336 Appendix G Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 3) Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 7.68*** 0.82 4.93*** .99 6.92*** 0.55 4.60*** 0.52 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy -0.34 0.55 -0.6 1.17 - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - - - Visual impairment - - 0.08 .20 - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - -0.11 0.13 Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - 0.30* 0.15 - - Poor developmental attainment -0.05 0.19 -0.93 1.18 0.02 0.11 0.35** 0.12 Difficult temperament 0.22 0.15 - - - - - - Dull temperament -0.07* 0.03 - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 0.77*** 0.15 - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr -0.22 0.14 - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 0.91*** 0.15 - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr -0.13 0.14 - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr -0.09** 0.03 - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - 0.01 0.16 0.29** 0.11 0.40*** 0.10 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.10 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - 0.40 0.16* 0.62*** 0.11 0.59*** 0.10 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - 0.04 0.16 -0.13 0.11 0.10 0.10 Property offences 4-11 yr - - 0.67*** 0.17 0.28* 0.11 -0.13 0.10 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - -0.03 0.03 -0.06*** 0.02 -0.06*** 0.01 337 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Social skills - - -0.56*** 0.16 - - - - Physical appearance - - - - - - - - General self-esteem - - 0.01 0.15 - - - - Innate characteristics Child sex -0.13 0.14 0.05 0.16 -0.01 0.10 0.07 0.10 Premature - - - - - - - - Birth order 0.36** 0.11 - - -0.05 0.08 - - Control variables Maternal age -0.03* 0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.01 -0.00 0.01 Depression -0.01 0.02 -0.03* 0.01 0.03* 0.01 0.03** 0.01 Chronic condition - - -0.13 0.15 - - - - Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict 0.60* 0.25 0.08 0.19 0.04 0.13 0.34** 0.11 Family functioning 0.04** 0.02 0.08*** 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07*** 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. -0.12 0.10 0.18* 0.09 0.07 0.06 - - Single parent 0.10 0.21 - - - - - - Maternal education level -0.04 0.08 -0.10 0.07 0.06 0.06 -0.15** 0.05 Income - - - - - - - - Occupation -0.04* 0.02 0.03 0.02 -0.04** 0.01 -0.01 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - - - - - Hours per week worked - - - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - - - Social support -0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 - - 0.07* 0.02 Neighbourhood safety -0.09 0.06 0.06 0.07 - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion 0.03 0.03 -0.04 0.03 - - -0.01 0.02 Neighbourhood problems 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.05 - - - - Privilege deprivation-diversion -0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.08** 0.03 Reward -0.15* 0.06 -0.19** 0.06 -0.42*** 0.04 -0.32*** 0.04 R2 (Adj. R2) .23 (.21) 2.02 .24 (.21) 1.71 .22(.20) 1.66 .26 (.25) 1.52 F 11.84*** - 7.15*** - 17.39*** - 22.43*** - 338 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB ∆R2 .05 - .08 - .10 - .11 - ∆F 4.86*** - 4.18*** - 16.11*** - 18.60*** - N 1032 - 607 - 1216 - 1257 - Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 339 Appendix H Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 - .02* .05*** .16*** .05** .02* -.02 .03 .06*** .06*** Long-term condition 2 - .02* -.02 -.00 -.03** .01 .03 -.00 .03 Visual impairment 3 - - - -.00 -.01 .08*** .01 - Nose or throat infection 4 - .26*** .07*** - - .02 .18*** Ear infection 5 - .08*** - - .01 .13*** Injury 6 - -.02 -.01 .04*** .06*** Giftedness 7 - .01 -.05** - Special need 8 - .18*** - Poor developmental attainment 9 - .06** Difficult temperament 10 - Dull temperament 11 Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 Property offences 4-11 yr 21 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 340 Social skills 23 Physical appearance 24 General self-esteem 25 Innate characteristics Child age 26 Child age2 27 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 -.00 .06* .09*** .09*** .08** -.01 .09*** .09*** .07*** .05*** Long-term condition 2 .01 .04 .03 -.03 .00 .02 .031** -.01 -.01 -.01 Visual impairment 3 - - - - - - .00 .05*** -.02* .01 Nose or throat infection 4 .02 .03 .11*** .09*** .08*** .01 - - - - Ear infection 5 -.02 .05* .03 .07** .04 .05* - - - - Injury 6 -.04* .05* .02 .05* .03 -.01 .03** .05*** .06*** -.00 Giftedness 7 - - - - - - -.02 .01 -.01 .03* Special need 8 - - - - - - .14*** .07*** .06*** -.01 Poor developmental attainment 9 .07*** .07** .05* .03 .10*** -.17*** .12*** .06*** .07*** .04** Difficult temperament 10 -.11*** .34*** .30*** .46*** .30*** -.09*** - - - - Dull temperament 11 - -.30*** -.10*** -.22*** -.08*** -.15*** - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 - .36*** .56*** .37*** .03 - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 - .34*** .39*** .12*** - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 - .34*** .05* - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 - .07** - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 - .46*** .47*** .28*** Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 - .41*** .35*** 341 Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 - .41*** Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 - Property offences 4-11 yr 21 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 Social skills 23 Physical appearance 24 General self-esteem 25 Innate characteristics Child age 26 Child age2 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 .09*** -.01 -.06*** .01 .01 .00 -.00 -.00 .02 .03*** Long-term condition 2 -.01 .01 -.04* .07** .03 .01 .01 -.01 .03* -.01 Visual impairment 3 .01 .03** -.05** -.05* -.01** .13*** .13*** .06*** - -.03** Nose or throat infection 4 - - - - - .19*** .15*** .05** .03 .01 Ear infection 5 - - - - - .30*** .24*** -.05** .04* .04* Injury 6 .04*** .03* -.06*** .02 -.02 .07*** .06*** -.04*** .04* .01 Giftedness 7 -.02 -.02 .07*** .01 .08* .07*** .06*** -.01 - .02 Special need 8 .08*** .01 -.23*** .10** -.05 .05** .04* -.07*** - -.01 Poor developmental attainment 9 .10*** -.02 -.12*** .04 .02 -.05*** -.09*** -.01 .08*** .04*** Difficult temperament 10 - - - - - .20*** .17*** -.03 .04* .03 Dull temperament 11 - - - - - .07*** .08*** .05** .01 .16*** Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 - - - - - .01 .01 -.10*** -.04 .01 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 - - - - - .09*** .09*** -.05* .03 -.08*** Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 - - - - - .04 .04 -.06** .01 .12*** Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 - - - - - .07** .07** -.05* .01 .04 342 Appendix H Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 - - - - - .20*** .20*** .17*** .01 -.10*** Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 .46*** -.15*** -.40*** -.10*** -.18*** -.10*** -.10*** -.18*** - -.03** Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 .37*** -.03* -.14*** -.16*** -.19*** .12*** .11*** -.01 - -.08*** Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 .56*** -.21*** -.23*** -.12*** -.14*** -.09*** -.08*** -.15*** - .04** Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 .34*** -.07*** -.11*** -.09*** -.13*** .12*** .11*** .06*** - .04** Property offences 4-11 yr 21 - -.17*** -.28*** -.07** -.14*** -.11*** -.11*** -.13*** - .00 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 - .16*** .10*** .12*** .18*** .17*** .19*** - -.04*** Social skills 23 - .03 .17*** .10*** .10*** .27*** - .08*** Physical appearance 24 - .62*** .01 .01 .00 - .07** General self-esteem 25 - .04 .04 -.04 - .01 Innate characteristics Child age 26 - .97*** .00 .01 .12*** Child age2 27 - .01 .00 .10*** 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 Premature 29 Birth order 30 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 343 Premature 29 Birth order 30 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Appendix H Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 - -.04** .01 Premature 29 - -.01 Birth order 30 - 344 Appendix I Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, physical-psychological aggressive discipline as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 3). Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 2.70* 1.10 3.40*** 0.60 3.35*** .85 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - Visual impairment 0.36 .21 - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - Giftedness - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment 0.15 1.28 -0.4 0.11 -0.20 0.13 Difficult temperament - - - - - - Dull temperament - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -0.20 0.17 -0.04 0.11 0.21 0.14 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -0.09 0.17 0.08 0.11 -0.12 0.13 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.09 0.17 0.19 0.11 0.38** 0.14 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -0.19 0.16 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.13 345 Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Property offences 4-11 yr 0.01 0.18 -0.02 0.12 0.02 0.15 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -0.04 0.03 -0.05** 0.02 0.06** 0.02 Social skills 0.11 0.17 -0.07 0.10 -0.26* 0.13 Physical appearance -0.36* 0.18 - - - - General self-esteem -0.18 0.18 - - - - Innate characteristics Child sex 0.04 0.17 -0.20 0.11 -0.44** 0.14 Premature - - - - - - Birth order -0.11 0.14 - - - - Control variables Maternal age 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 Depression 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 Chronic condition - - - - -0.14 0.13 Activity restriction - - - - - - Marital conflict -0.17 0.20 -0.24 0.16 -0.30 0.19 Family functioning -0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr. 0.25* 0.11 - - - - Single parent -0.14 0.24 - - - - Maternal education level -0.20** 0.07 -0.05 0.06 -0.01 0.07 Income - - - - - - Occupation - - -0.01 0.01 -0.03* 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours 0.07 0.19 - - 0.30 0.17 Hours per week worked - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - Social support 0.05 0.04 - - -0.03 0.03 Neighbourhood safety -0.05 0.07 - - -0.03 0.06 Neighbourhood cohesion 0.00 0.03 - - -0.04 0.03 Neighbourhood problems - - - - -0.07 0.04 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline 0.36*** 0.04 0.44*** 0.03 0.40*** 0.04 346 Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Privilege deprivation-diversion 0.14** 0.05 0.01 0.04 -0.09 0.05 Reward -0.05 0.06 -0.05 0.05 -0.05 0.05 R2 (Adj. R2) .23 (.19) 1.64 .33 (.31) 1.41 .34 (.32) 1.47 F 5.53*** - 20.72*** - 13.31*** - ∆R2 .17 - .23 - .22 - ∆F 8.05*** - 29.59*** - 13.92*** - N 525 - 787 - 643 - Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 347 Appendix J Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 - -.02 - .13*** .05* .03** -.02 .02 .05*** .10*** Long-term condition 2 - -.01 -.05* -.03 -.00 .02 .05** .00 .00 Visual impairment 3 - - - -.04* -.05 .03 .04 - Nose or throat infection 4 - .17*** .08** .04 .01 .03 .11*** Ear infection 5 - -.01 .02 -.04 -.01 .06* Injury 6 - -.02 .08*** -.02 .02 Giftedness 7 - .04* -.03 .04 Special need 8 - -.04* .02 Poor developmental attainment 9 - .05* Difficult temperament 10 - Dull temperament 11 Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 Property offences 4-11 yr 21 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 Social skills 23 Physical appearance 24 348 General self-esteem 25 Innate characteristics Child age 26 Child age2 27 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 - .05* .05* .06* .09*** -.02 .07*** .13*** .08*** .08*** Long-term condition 2 - -.02 -.00 .04 -.02 -.01 .00 .00 .01 .03** Visual impairment 3 - - - - - - .04 -.02 -.02 .03 Nose or throat infection 4 - .09*** .07** .10*** .07** -.03 - - - - Ear infection 5 - .04 .06** .09*** .06* .03 - - - - Injury 6 - .03 -.02 .03 .01 -.00 .05*** .04** .04** .06*** Giftedness 7 - -.02 -.07 -.07 -.07 -.10* -.05* -.07** -.02 -.05** Special need 8 - .01 -.04 .03 -.05 -.02 .00 .01 .03 .07*** Poor developmental attainment 9 - .13*** .02 .06* .08** -.19*** .13*** .03** .04** .05*** Difficult temperament 10 - .39*** .33*** .52*** .33*** -.13*** - - - - Inactive temperament 11 - - - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 - .32*** .54*** .36*** -.06* - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 - .30*** .44*** .09*** - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 - .38*** -.01 - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 - -.02 - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 - .43*** .43*** .28*** Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 - .41*** .32*** Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 - .38*** Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 - 349 Property offences 4-11 yr 21 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 Social skills 23 Physical appearance 24 General self-esteem 25 Innate characteristics Child age 26 Child age2 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 .10*** .01 -.02 -.02 -.02 .01 .01 -.00 .02 -.01 Long-term condition 2 .02 .01 .02 -.04 -.03 .02 .02* .01 .01 .02* Visual impairment 3 -.00 -.03 .03 .01 -.06 -.01 -.01 -.01 .00 -.06** Nose or throat infection 4 - - .02 -.09 -.03 .03 .03 -.06* -.04 -.00 Ear infection 5 - - .05 .03 -.03 .06* .06* -.07** .05* .00 Injury 6 .05*** .01 -.04** .02 -.00 .06*** .07*** -.08*** -.04* .01 Giftedness 7 -.04* -.00 .09*** .00 .01 .01 .00 -.02 .01 -.00 Special need 8 .06*** -.03 -.33*** -.00 -.02 .01 .02 -.02 -.01 .07*** Poor developmental attainment 9 .09*** .01 .01 .01 .01 -.11*** -.18*** -.04*** .01 .02 Difficult temperament 10 - - .02 .07 .02 .10*** .10*** -.05* .00 -.03 Dull temperament 11 - - - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 - - .03 .01 -.01 .01 .01 -.07** -.00 -.06** Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 - - -.02 .05 .10 .12*** .12*** -.01 .04 -.20*** Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 - - -.02 .09 .06 .01 .01 -.06** .01 .13*** Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 - - .04 .06 .10 .04 .04 -.05* .02 -.05* Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 - - .06 .11* .06 .15*** .15*** .20*** .02 -.13*** 350 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 .47*** -.15*** .02 .06* .03 -.07*** -.08*** -.18*** -.01 -.05*** Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 .35*** -.04*** -.04* .00 -.05 .09*** .07*** -.02 .09*** -.08*** Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 .53*** -.20*** -.02 -.05* -.05 -.12*** -.12*** -.14*** -.01 .04*** Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 .33*** -.02 -.00 -.02 -.07* .11*** .10*** .10*** -.05* .03* Property offences 4-11 yr 21 - -.17*** -.01 -.03 .02 -.13*** -.14*** -.14*** .02 .02 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 - .03 -.00 -.04 .16*** .15*** .17*** .04 -.02 Social skills 23 - .03 -.04 -.02 -.03* -.01 .05* -.01 Physical appearance 24 - .61*** .00 -.01 -.03 .09* -.00 General self-esteem 25 - -.02 -.03 .00 .10** -.05* Innate characteristics Child age 26 - - - - - Child age2 27 - - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 Premature 29 Birth order 30 351 Appendix J Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 Premature 29 Birth order 30 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Appendix J Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 - - - Premature 29 - - Birth order 30 - 352 Appendix K Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 - .01 - - - .00 -.00 -.04 .03** - Long-term condition 2 - -.05 - - .02 -.00 -.00 .01 - Visual impairment 3 - - - -.02 -.02 .02 -.02 - Nose or throat infection 4 - - - - - - - Ear infection 5 - - - - - - Injury 6 - -.00 .01 -.03* - Giftedness 7 - .09*** -.02 - Special need 8 - .01 - Poor developmental attainment 9 - - Difficult temperament 10 - Dull temperament 11 Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 Property offences 4-11 yr 21 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 Social skills 23 353 Physical appearance 24 General self-esteem 25 Innate characteristics Child age 26 Child age2 27 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 - - - - - - .08*** .09*** .03** .04** Long-term condition 2 - - - - - - .02* .07*** .02 -.01 Visual impairment 3 - - - - - - -.03 -.01 .02 .00 Nose or throat infection 4 - - - - - - - - - - Ear infection 5 - - - - - - - - - - Injury 6 - - - - - - .06*** .03*** .05*** -.00 Giftedness 7 - - - - - - -.00 -.02 .01 .00 Special need 8 - - - - - - .03 .02 .04 -.01 Poor developmental attainment 9 - - - - - - .11*** .05** .04** .08*** Difficult temperament 10 - - - - - - - - - - Dull temperament 11 - - - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 - - - - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 - - - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 - - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 - .44*** .41*** .26*** Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 - .37*** .31*** Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 - .41*** 354 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 - Property offences 4-11 yr 21 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 Social skills 23 Physical appearance 24 General self-esteem 25 Innate characteristics Child age 26 Child age2 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy 1 .02* .01 -.03 -.06** -.05** .01 .01 .01 .06*** .00 Long-term condition 2 .00 .04** -.01 -.03 -.01 -.01 -.01 .00 .02 -.01 Visual impairment 3 .01 -.02 .00 -.04 -.03 -.02 -.02 -.02 .04 .00 Nose or throat infection 4 - - - - - - - - - - Ear infection 5 - - - - - - - - - - Injury 6 .03* .04** .01 -.00 .02 .10*** .10*** -.08*** .03 -.01 Giftedness 7 .03 -.12*** .04* .06* .05* -.02 -.02 .02 -.00 .02 Special need 8 .01 -.01 -.35*** -.02 -.00 .02 .02 -.00 -.01 .00 Poor developmental attainment 9 .05** -.07*** .04 .01 -.01 -.23*** -.27*** .00 .03 -.00 Difficult temperament 10 - - - - - - - - - - Dull temperament 11 - - - - - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr 12 - - - - - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 13 - - - - - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 14 - - - - - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 15 - - - - - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 16 - - - - - - - - - - 355 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 17 .43*** -.10*** -.01 .06** .05* -.07*** -.07*** -.18*** .00 -.06*** Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 18 .32*** .01 .03 .04 .04* .12*** .11*** -.01 .03* -.11*** Physical aggression 4-11 yr 19 .54*** -.17*** .01 .06* .04 -.09*** -.08*** -.12*** -.01 .07*** Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 20 .33*** -.03** .05* .05* .08** .13*** .11*** .11*** -.03 .08*** Property offences 4-11 yr 21 - -.15*** .03 .04 .04 -.15*** -.15*** -.11*** -.01 .01 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 22 - .03 -.03 -.07** .14*** .13*** .20*** -.02 -.05*** Social skills 23 - -.03 -.03 -.01 -.02 -.06** .05 .00 Physical appearance 24 - .69*** -.04* -.05* -.06** .08** .01 General self-esteem 25 - -.01 -.01 -.03 .03 -.01 Innate characteristics Child age 26 - - - - - Child age2 27 - - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 Premature 29 Birth order 30 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 356 Appendix K Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 3 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 Premature 29 Birth order 30 Appendix K Correlations of Developmental and Innate Child Characteristics Cycle 3 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Innate characteristics con’d Child sex 28 - - - Premature 29 - - Birth order 30 - 357 Appendix L Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 3) Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 3.33*** 0.38 4.38*** 0.89 4.78*** .19 2.37*** 0.63 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - -0.02 0.17 - - Long-term condition - - -0.09 0.17 - - - - Visual impairment - - -0.12 0.18 - - - - Nose or throat infection -0.02 0.06 - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - 0.51* 0.20 Giftedness - - - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment 0.06 0.13 - - 0.11* 0.05 - - Difficult temperament 0.29** 0.10 - - - - - - Dull temperament -0.06** 0.02 - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr -0.22* 0.11 - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr 0.03 0.10 - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr 0.59*** 0.11 - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 0.10 0.10 - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 0.11*** 0.02 - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - 0.10 0.15 0.19*** 0.05 0.19 0.14 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - 0.23 0.15 0.00 0.05 -0.13 0.14 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - 0.13 0.14 0.22*** 0.05 0.55*** 0.14 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - -0.09 0.14 0.07 0.05 - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - 0.33* 0.15 0.21*** 0.05 0.18 0.14 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - 0.07*** 0.02 Social skills - - -0.25 0.15 - - 0.24* 0.12 Physical appearance - - 0.13 0.15 - - - - General self-esteem - - 0.30 0.15 - - - - Innate characteristics 358 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Child sex - - -0.34* 0.14 -0.33*** 0.05 -0.52*** 0.12 Premature - - - - - - - - Birth order 0.16** 0.05 - - - - - - Control variables Maternal age - - -0.03 0.02 -0.02*** 0.00 -0.01 0.01 Depression - - - - 0.01 0.00 - - Chronic condition 0.13 0.10 0.03 0.14 - - - - Activity restriction - - -0.34 0.24 - - - - Marital conflict - - - - -0.04 0.06 - - Family functioning - - - - - - - - Number of children <= 17 yr. - - - - 0.13*** 0.02 0.04 0.06 Single parent - - -0.02 0.20 0.21** 0.07 - - Maternal education level 0.16** 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.17*** 0.02 0.23** 0.07 Income - - -0.03 0.05 0.02 0.01 -0.09** 0.04 Occupation - - 0.08*** 0.02 - - 0.04** 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours 0.45*** 0.13 - - - - - - Hours per week worked -0.01* 0.00 -0.00 0.01 - - - - Number of jobs currently held - - 0.24 0.20 - - - - Social support 0.05** 0.02 -0.00 0.03 - - 0.03 0.02 Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion - - 0.00 0.03 - - 0.06* 0.03 Neighbourhood problems - - 0.04 0.05 - - - - Privilege deprivation-diversion 0.00 0.02 0.09* 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.04 Reward - - 0.13* 0.06 - - - - R2 (Adj. R2) .18 (.16) 1.40 .15 (.12) 1.55 .08 (.07) 1.41 .24 (.22) 1.31 F 12.78*** - 4.05*** - 21.87*** - 10.25*** - ∆R2 .03 - .07 - .03 - .08 - ∆F 6.47*** - 3.13*** - 14.34*** - 6.48*** - N 975 - 588 - 4295 - 527 - Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the adjusted models presented in the results chapter. 359 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 360 Appendix M Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, privilege deprivation-diversion as criterion by child characteristics and cycle (step 3). Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 2.42** 0.88 3.61*** 0.26 2.52*** 0.64 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - - - Visual impairment -0.09 0.16 - - - - Nose or throat infection - - - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - Injury - - - - 0.15 0.20 Giftedness - - - - - - Special need - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment - - -0.18** 0.06 -0.19 0.11 Difficult temperament - - - - - - Dull temperament - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -0.23 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.13 0.12 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 0.13 0.14 -0.17** 0.06 0.09 0.12 Physical aggression 4-11 yr 0.22 0.13 0.29*** 0.07 0.10 0.12 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -0.01 0.13 0.07 0.06 - - Property offences 4-11 yr 0.44** 0.14 0.25*** 0.07 0.08 0.13 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - - - Social skills -0.32* 0.13 - - -0.01 0.11 Physical appearance - - - - - - General self-esteem -0.28* 0.13 - - - - 361 Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB Innate characteristics Child sex 0.08 0.13 -0.25*** 0.06 -0.08 0.11 Premature - - - - - - Birth order - - - - - - Control variables Maternal age -0.04* 0.02 -0.02** 0.01 -0.04*** 0.01 Depression -0.02 0.01 - - - - Chronic condition 0.06 0.13 - - -0.16 0.11 Activity restriction -0.35 0.23 - - - - Marital conflict - - 0.09 0.08 - - Family functioning - - - - 0.02 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. 0.08 0.08 - - - - Single parent 0.08 0.19 -0.04 0.09 -0.21 0.17 Maternal education level -0.08 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.06 Income 0.04 0.05 -0.01 0.02 0.07 0.04 Occupation 0.04* 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - 0.53*** 0.15 Hours per week worked -0.00 0.01 - - -0.01 0.00 Number of jobs currently held 0.03 0.18 - - - - Social support 0.05 0.03 - - 0.05* 0.02 Neighbourhood safety 0.09 0.06 - - 0.03 0.05 Neighbourhood cohesion - - - - - - Neighbourhood problems -0.00 0.05 - - 0.02 0.04 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline 0.25*** 0.04 0.35*** 0.02 0.44*** 0.04 Privilege deprivation-diversion 0.12** 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03 Reward 0.12* 0.05 - - - - R2 (Adj. R2) .23 (.19) 1.48 .21 (.20) 1.31 .28 (.26) 1.32 F 6.89*** - 36.23*** - 11.64*** - ∆R2 .13 - .13 - .20 - 362 Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB ∆F 6.24*** - 41.74*** - 12.75*** - n 637 - 2057 - 684 - Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 363 Appendix N Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, reward as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 3) Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 6.65*** 0.40 6.92*** 0.23 4.33*** 0.74 6.30*** 0.21 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - - - 0.25 0.16 Long-term condition - - - - - - -0.18** 0.05 Visual impairment - - - - -0.08 0.15 - - Nose or throat infection -0.05 0.05 -0.08* 0.03 - - - - Ear infection - - - - - - - - Injury - - - - - - - - Giftedness - - - - -0.41* 0.19 - - Special need - - - - - - - - Poor developmental attainment 0.09 0.11 - - -0.77 0.90 0.22*** 0.05 Difficult temperament -0.17* 0.09 -0.02 0.06 - - - - Dull temperament -0.04* 0.02 - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr -0.02 0.09 -0.02 0.06 - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr -0.18* 0.08 -0.12* 0.06 - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr -0.04 0.09 0.06 0.06 - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr 0.01 0.08 - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 0.03 0.02 0.03** 0.01 - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - - - -0.14 0.12 0.05 0.05 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - - - 0.05 0.12 -0.02 0.05 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - 0.05 0.12 -0.05 0.05 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - - - -0.14 0.11 -0.10* 0.05 Property offences 4-11 yr - - - - 0.03 0.12 0.00 0.05 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - - - 0.04* 0.02 0.02** 0.01 Social skills - - - - -0.23* 0.12 - - Physical appearance - - - - - - - - General self-esteem - - - - 0.22* 0.11 - - Innate characteristics 364 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Child sex -0.11 0.08 - - -0.00 0.12 -0.10* 0.04 Premature - - 0.05 0.09 - - - - Birth order -0.14* 0.07 -0.13** 0.04 -0.03 0.10 0.02 0.04 Control variables Maternal age - - 0.03*** 0.01 0.02 0.01 -0.02*** 0.01 Depression 0.00 0.01 -0.01* 0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Chronic condition - - - - -0.06 0.11 - - Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict -0.11 0.15 0.04 0.07 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.05 Family functioning -0.01 0.01 -0.02*** 0.01 -0.04** 0.01 -0.02*** 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. 0.08 0.06 -0.08* 0.03 -0.02 0.07 -0.03 0.03 Single parent - - -0.07 0.09 - - - - Maternal education level -0.12** 0.04 -0.02 0.03 -0.06 0.05 - - Income - - -0.09*** 0.02 -0.04 0.04 -0.04** 0.01 Occupation - - - - 0.01 0.02 0.01* 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours - - - - -0.12 0.13 - - Hours per week worked -0.01*** 0.00 - - - - - - Number of jobs currently held 0.05 0.12 - - - - - - Social support 0.07*** 0.02 - - -0.02 0.02 - - Neighbourhood safety - - - - -0.04 0.05 - - Neighbourhood cohesion -0.02 0.02 - - 0.04 0.02 - - Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline -0.06** 0.02 -0.12*** 0.01 -0.10** 0.03 -0.18*** 0.01 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.03 - - R2 (Adj. R2) .13 (.11) 1.10 .14 (.13) 1.09 .15 (.10) 1.15 .13 (.12) 1.14 F 6.28*** - 13.99*** - 3.13*** - 22.86*** - ∆R2 .08 - .09 - .08 - .09 - ∆F 8.21*** - 15.74*** - 3.24*** - 37.13*** - N 891 - 1575 - 536 - 2954 - 365 Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 366 Appendix N Cross-sectional Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, reward as criterion by child characteristics, cycle, and child age (step 3) Children >= 4 years Cycle 3 B SEB Constant 3.44*** 0.70 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - Long-term condition 0.09 0.17 Visual impairment - - Nose or throat infection - - Ear infection - - Injury - - Giftedness - - Special need - - Poor developmental attainment 0.27 0.18 Difficult temperament - - Dull temperament - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -0.03 0.17 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -0.21 0.17 Physical aggression 4-11 yr 0.15 0.160 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 0.17 0.15 Property offences 4-11 yr 0.13 0.16 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 0.03 0.02 Social skills 0.38** 0.13 367 Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Physical appearance - - General self-esteem - - Innate characteristics Child sex - - Premature - - Birth order -0.06 0.11 Control variables Maternal age - - Depression 0.02 0.02 Chronic condition - - Activity restriction - - Marital conflict 0.06 0.15 Family functioning -0.03* 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr. 0.07 0.11 Single parent - - Maternal education level -0.01 0.08 Income - - Occupation 0.03 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours - - Hours per week worked - - Number of jobs currently held - - Social support 0.04 0.03 Neighbourhood safety - - Neighbourhood cohesion 0.04 0.04 Neighbourhood problems - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline -0.19*** 0.04 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - R2 (Adj. R2) .30 (.25) 1.02 F 5.54*** - ∆R2 .16 - ∆F 6.32*** - N 264 - 368 369 Appendix O Longitudinal Multivariate Linear Regression Adjusted Models, reward as criterion by child characteristics, child age, and cycle (step 3). Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Constant 3.55*** 0.47 3.32*** 0.26 2.95*** 0.27 3.70*** 0.57 Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 1 Developmental characteristics Unhealthy - - - - - - - - Long-term condition - - - - 0.01 0.08 - - Visual impairment - - - - - - - - Nose or throat 0.08 0.05 - - - - - - Ear infection 0.20* 0.08 - - - - - - Injury -0.25* 0.11 - - 0.16 0.10 - - Giftedness - - - - - - -0.17 0.25 Special need - - - - -0.19 0.10 - - Poor developmental attainment - - - - - - -0.28** 0.10 Difficult temperament -0.15 0.08 - - - - - - Dull temperament -0.04* 0.02 - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 2-3 yr -0.10 0.09 - - - - - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 2-3 yr - - - - - - - - Physical aggression-opposition 2-3 yr -0.13 0.09 - - - - - - Separation anxiety 2-3 yr -0.06 0.08 - - - - - - Prosocial behaviour 2-3 yr 0.01 0.02 - - - - - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - 0.08 0.04 - - -0.07 0.11 370 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - -0.00 0.04 -0.23** 0.07 -0.01 0.10 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - - - 0.07 0.07 0.14 0.11 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - -0.05 0.04 0.10 0.07 -0.15 0.10 Property offences 4-11 yr - - 0.02 0.04 -0.17* 0.07 -0.03 0.11 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - 0.01* 0.01 0.04*** 0.01 0.02 0.01 Social skills - - - - 0.22*** 0.06 - - Physical appearance - - - - - - - - General self-esteem - - - - - - - - Innate characteristics Child sex - - -0.08 0.04 - - - - Premature 0.43** 0.13 - - - - - - Birth order -0.24*** 0.07 0.05 0.04 -0.09 0.05 -0.26** 0.09 Control variables Maternal age -0.01 0.01 -0.02*** 0.00 - - - - Depression -0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.00 - - - - Chronic condition - - 0.13** 0.04 - - -0.15 0.10 Activity restriction - - - - - - - - Marital conflict -0.05 0.15 -0.04 0.05 - - -0.13 0.15 Family functioning -0.03** 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.00 0.01 Number of children <= 17 yr. 0.12* 0.06 -0.03 0.03 -0.09* 0.03 0.05 0.07 Single parent 0.21 0.13 - - - - - - Maternal education level 0.17*** 0.04 0.05* 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.10* 0.05 Income - - 0.01 0.01 - - - - 371 Children <= 3 years Children >= 4 years Cycle 2 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 3 B SEB B SEB B SEB B SEB Occupation - - - - - - 0.01 0.01 Non-standard workdays and hours 0.56*** 0.11 - - - - -0.17 0.15 Hours per week worked - - -0.00** 0.00 - - -0.00 0.00 Number of jobs currently held - - - - - - 0.24 0.14 Social support 0.00 0.02 -0.01 0.01 - - 0.03 0.02 Neighbourhood safety - - - - - - - - Neighbourhood cohesion 0.03 0.02 0.02* 0.01 - - 0.02 0.02 Neighbourhood problems - - - - - - - - Physical-psychological aggressive discipline 0.01 0.02 -0.04** 0.01 -0.06** 0.02 -0.13*** 0.03 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - - - 0.04* 0.02 - - Reward 0.30*** 0.03 0.37*** 0.02 0.28*** 0.03 0.15** 0.04 R2 (Adj. R2) .26 (.24) 1.10 .20 (.19) 1.10 .19 (.18) 1.08 .20 (.17) 1.13 F 10.64*** - 39.53*** - 18.72*** - 7.00*** - ∆R2 .14 - .17 - .11 - .11 - ∆F 13.70*** - 53.03*** - 29.20*** - 6.46*** - N 899 - 3217 - 1279 - 644 - Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 372 Appendix P Physical-psychological Aggressive Discipline at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 3). Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years B SEB Constant 6.10*** 1.19 Time-variant Social skills -0.30 0.19 Degenerative Unhealthy - - Poor developmental attainment - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -0.09 0.25 Property offences 4-11 yr 0.84* 0.34 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - Ameliorative Unhealthy - - Poor developmental attainment 0.14 0.43 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -0.30 0.37 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -0.51 0.34 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.12 0.31 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr -0.12 0.26 Property offences 4-11 yr -0.11 0.25 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -0.23 0.32 Time-invariant Child sex -0.43* 0.20 Exceptional Unhealthy 1.89 4.21 Poor developmental attainment 1.59** 0.50 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -0.46 0.35 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 0.29 0.26 Physical aggression 4-11 yr 0.43 0.29 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 0.05 0.24 Property offences 4-11 yr 0.41 0.25 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -0.68* 0.32 Typical Unhealthy - - Poor developmental attainment 0.44 0.39 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -0.62 0.32 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 0.20 0.26 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.21 0.33 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -0.32 0.31 373 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years B SEB Control variables Maternal age 0.01 0.02 Depression -0.01 0.02 Chronic condition 0.21 0.19 Activity restriction - - Marital conflict -0.44 0.26 Family functioning 0.02 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr - - Single parent - - Maternal education -0.05 0.10 Income - - Occupation -0.03 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours -0.20 0.25 Hours per week worked - - Number of jobs currently held - - Social support 0.00 0.04 Neighbourhood safety 0.11 0.09 Neighbourhood cohesion -0.12** 0.04 Neighbourhood problems -0.05 0.06 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline 0.40*** 0.06 Privilege deprivation-diversion -0.21* 0.07 Reward -0.24** 0.07 R2 (Adj. R2) .48 (.41) 1.38 F 6.58*** - ∆R2 .25 - ∆F 8.94*** - N 316 - Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 Appendix Q Privilege deprivation-diversion at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 3). 374 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years B SEB Constant 1.67* 0.79 Time-variant Injury 0.21 0.23 Social skills -0.13 0.13 Degenerative Poor developmental attainment - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 0.10 0.23 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 0.15 0.17 Property offences 4-11 yr - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - Ameliorative Poor developmental attainment - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 0.01 0.26 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - Time-invariant Child sex 0.06 0.14 Exceptional Poor developmental attainment - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 0.32 0.25 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 0.53** 0.20 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.02 0.16 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - Property offences 4-11 yr 0.12 0.17 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - Typical Poor developmental attainment 0.09 0.13 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr 0.13 0.23 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr 0.37 0.22 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.55** 0.17 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - Property offences 4-11 yr -0.23 0.17 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 0.04 0.13 Control variables Maternal age -0.04* 0.01 Depression - - Chronic condition -0.27 0.14 Activity restriction - - 375 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years B SEB Marital conflict - - Family functioning 0.02 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr - - Single parent -0.15 0.24 Maternal education 0.02 0.07 Income 0.07 0.05 Occupation 0.02 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours 0.22 0.18 Hours per week worked -0.00 0.01 Number of jobs currently held - - Social support 0.07* 0.03 Neighbourhood safety 0.10 0.06 Neighbourhood cohesion - - Neighbourhood problems -0.03 0.05 Physical-psychological aggressive discipline -0.01 0.04 Privilege deprivation-diversion 0.46*** 0.05 Reward - - R2 (Adj. R2) .39 (.35) 1.25 F 9.21*** - ∆R2 .20 - ∆F 10.00*** - N 458 - Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 376 Appendix R Reward at Cycle 3 by Time-Variant and Invariant Child Characteristics Using Multivariate Linear Regression (step 3). Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years B SEB Constant 4.01*** 0.70 Time-variant Giftedness -0.86** 0.28 Degenerative Unhealthy - - Poor developmental attainment -0.11 0.26 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.20 0.21 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - Ameliorative Unhealthy - - Poor developmental attainment -0.37* 0.28 Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr - - Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr - - Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.12 0.18 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - Property offences 4-11 yr - - Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr - - Time-invariant Birth order -0.06 0.12 Exceptional Unhealthy -0.71 3.07 Poor developmental attainment - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -0.34* 0.15 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -0.03 0.15 Physical aggression 4-11 yr -0.07 0.18 Indirect aggression 4-11 yr - - Property offences 4-11 yr 0.05 0.16 Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr -0.02 0.16 Typical Unhealthy - - Poor developmental attainment - - Hyperactivity-inattention 4-11 yr -0.03 0.15 Emotional disorder-anxiety 4-11 yr -0.06 0.16 Physical aggression 4-11 yr - - Indirect aggression 4-11 yr 0.07 0.13 Property offences 4-11 yr -0.14 0.15 377 Cycle 3 Children >= 4 years B SEB Prosocial behaviour 4-11 yr 0.20 0.15 Control variables Maternal age - - Depression - - Chronic condition -0.12 0.12 Activity restriction - - Marital conflict -0.26 0.18 Family functioning -0.01 0.02 Number of children <= 17 yr -0.15 0.09 Single parent - - Maternal education -0.10 0.07 Income - - Occupation 0.03* 0.02 Non-standard workdays and hours -0.45* 0.20 Hours per week worked -0.00 0.00 Number of jobs currently held 0.77*** 0.18 Social support 0.03 0.03 Neighbourhood safety - - Neighbourhood cohesion 0.02 0.03 Neighbourhood problems Physical-psychological aggressive discipline -0.11** 0.04 Privilege deprivation-diversion - - Reward 0.10 0.05 R2 (Adj. R2) .33 (.26) 1.01 F 4.84*** - ∆R2 .16 - ∆F 5.46*** - N 327 - Note. The data in this appendix is a duplicate of the fully adjusted models presented in the results chapter. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Sociology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Exploring the determinants of parental disciplinary behaviour : the robustness of child characteristics
Text