parenting score and positive coefficients indicate an increase

Assignment Instructions

Week 2

During weeks 1 and 2 you have explored how parenting expectations, experiences and styles are influenced by many factors. The learning resources suggest several ways to provide parenting information and related family supports. For Assignment 1 due Week 2 you will use this information to create an enticing flyer for a parenting class that is designed to help prepare new parents. Your flyer should include:

1. The purpose of the parenting class – including why it is important

2. At least 5 distinct topics that will be addressed in the class noting why each is important. Be sure to cite resources to back this up.

3. Be creative – how would you entice parents or parents to be to come?

Flyer length minimum 500 words, 2 academic references used, MS word or RTF format only.

  Possible grade Student grade
The paper addresses the issues specified by the assignment – 5 parenting topics described. 20  
The author shows insight and sophistication in thinking and writing 30  
Two academic references were used with corresponding citations in the body of the paper 20  
Paper was well organized and easy to follow. Paper was the required length. Cover page, paper body, citations and Reference list were in the American Psychological Association format. 20  
Few to no spelling, grammar, punctuation or other writing structure errors 10  
TOTAL 100  

 

HELPFUL CLASS REQUIRED READING

https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/education-common/Universal/CHFD/331/elf/lesson-1/elf_index.html

 

 

https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/education-common/Universal/CHFD/331/elf/lesson-2/elf_index.html

 

READING 2.pdf

 

PARENTING: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE, 12: 212–221, 2012 ISSN: 1529-5192 print / 1532-7922 online DOI: 10.1080/15295192.2012.683359

Cultural Approaches to Parenting

Marc H. Bornstein

SYNOPSIS

This article first introduces some main ideas behind culture and parenting and next addresses philosophical rationales and methodological considerations central to cultural approaches to parenting, including a brief account of a cross-cultural study of parenting. It then focuses on universals, specifics, and distinctions between form (behavior) and function (meaning) in parenting as embedded in culture. The article concludes by pointing to social policy implications as well as future directions prompted by a cultural approach to parenting.

INTRODUCTION

Every culture is characterized, and distinguished from other cultures, by deeply rooted and widely acknowledged ideas about how one needs to feel, think, and act as a functioning member of the culture. Cross-cultural study affirms that groups of people possess different beliefs and engage in different behaviors that may be normative in their culture but are not necessarily normative in another culture. Cultural groups thus embody particular characteristics that are deemed essential or advantageous to their members. These beliefs and behaviors tend to persist over time and constitute the val- ued competencies that are communicated to new members of the group. Central to a concept of culture, therefore, is the expectation that different cultural groups possess distinct beliefs and behave in unique ways with respect to their parenting. Cultural variations in parenting beliefs and behaviors are impressive, whether observed among different, say ethnic, groups in one society or across societies in different parts of the world. This article addresses the rapidly increasing research interest in cultural dif- ferences in parenting. It first takes up philosophical underpinnings, rationales, and methodological considerations central to cultural approaches to parenting, describes a cross-cultural study of parenting, and then addresses some core issues in cultural approaches to parenting, namely, universals, specifics, and the form-versus-function distinction. It concludes with an overview of social policy implications and future directions of cultural approaches to parenting.

THE CULTURE–PARENTING NEXUS

Culture is usefully conceived of as the set of distinctive patterns of beliefs and behaviors that are shared by a group of people and that serve to regulate their daily living. These beliefsandbehaviorsshapehowparentscare for theiroffspring.Thus,havingexperienced

This article not subject to US copyright law.

 

 

CULTURAL APPROACHES TO PARENTING 213

unique patterns of caregiving is a principal reason that individuals in different cultures are who they are and often differ so from one another. Culture helps to construct parents andparenting, and culture ismaintained and transmitted by influencingparental cognitions that in turn are thought to shape parenting practices (Bornstein & Lansford, 2010; Harkness et al., 2007). Children’s experiences with their parents within a cultural context consequently scaffold them to become culturally competent members of their society. For example, European American and Puerto Rican mothers of toddlers believe in the differential value of individual autonomy versus connected interdependence, a contrast that in turn relates to mothers’ actual caregiving (Harwood, Schoelmerich, Schulze, & Gonzalez, 1999): Where European American mothers use suggestions (rather than commands) andother indirectmeans of structuring their children’s behavior, Puerto Rican mothers use more direct means of structuring, such as commands, physical positioning and restraints, and direct attempts to recruit their children’s attention. Parents normally organize and distribute their caregiving faithful to indigenous cul-

tural belief systems and behavior patterns. Indeed, culturally constructed beliefs can be so powerful that parents are known to act on them, setting aside what their senses might tell them about their own children. For example, parents in most societies speak to babies and rightly see them as comprehending interactive partners long before infants produce language, whereas parents in some societies think that it is nonsensical to talk to infants before children themselves are capable of speech (Ochs, 1988). Cultural cognitions and practices instantiate themes that communicate consistent cul-

tural messages (Quinn & Holland, 1987). For example, in the United States personal choice is firmly rooted in principles of liberty and freedom, is closely bound up with how individuals conceive of themselves andmake sense of their lives, and is a persistent and significant construct in the literature on parenting (Tamis-LeMonda & McFadden, 2010). Moreover, culture-specific patterns of childrearing can be expected to adapt to each society’s specific setting and needs. For example, young infants among the nomadic hunter-gatherer Aka are more likely to be held and fed in close proximity to their care- givers than are infants from Ngandu farming communities who are more likely to be left by themselves, even though these two traditional groups live close to one another in central Africa (Hewlett, Lamb, Shannon, Leyendecker, & Schölmerich, 1998). Aka par- ents are reasoned to maintain closer proximity to infants because the group moves in search of food more frequently than do Ngandu. Generational, social, and media images—culture—of caregiving and childhood play

formative roles in generating parenting cognitions and guiding parenting practices (Bornstein & Lansford, 2010). Parenting thus embeds cultural models and meanings into basic psychological processes which maintain or transform the culture (Bornstein, 2009). Reciprocally, culture expresses and perpetuates itself through parenting. Parents bring certain cultural proclivities to interactions with their children, and parents inter- pret even similar characteristics in children within their culture’s frame of reference; parents then encourage or discourage characteristics as appropriate or detrimental to adequate functioning within the group.

CULTURAL STUDY AS A PRIMARY APPROACH IN PARENTING SCIENCE

The move toward a culturally richer understanding of parenting has given rise to a set of important questions about parenting (Bornstein, 2001). What is normative parenting

 

 

214 BORNSTEIN

and to what extent does it vary with culture? What are the historical, economic, social, or other sources of cultural variation in parenting norms? How does culture embed into parenting cognitions and practices and manifest and maintain itself through parenting? There is definite need and significance for a cultural approach to parenting science.

Descriptively it is invaluable for revealing the full range of human parenting. The study of parenting across cultures also furnishes a check against an ethnocentric world view of parenting. Acceptance of findings from any one culture as “normative” of parent- ing is too narrow in scope, and ready generalizations from them to parents at large are blindingly uncritical. Comparison across cultures is also valuable because it augments an understanding of the processes throughwhich biological variables fuse with environ- mental variables and experiences. Parenting needs to be considered in its socio-cultural context, and cultural study provides the variability necessary to expose process.

Cultural Methods in Parenting Science

Some culture research in parenting compares group means on variables of inter- est, like parenting cognitions and practices or their child outcomes, using analyses of variance statistics. Other research looks at how culture moderates patterns of associa- tions between variables across cultural groups. Both approaches require indicators that are clearly defined and measured in consistent ways. Cultural science, in addition to requirements of any good science, also brings with it unique issues and requirements (translation, sampling, and measurement equivalence, for example), and risks associ- ated with this research are enhanced when it is conducted without full awareness and sensitivity to these specific concerns. For example, studies that compare cultural groups often require the collection of data in different languages, and the instruments used in such comparisons must be rendered equally valid across cultural groups (Peña, 2007). Furthermore, with any test of between-group differences, there is a chance that mea- sures are not equivalent in the groups. Equivalences at many levels are important, and steps need to be taken to promote not only cross-linguistic appropriateness but also cross-cultural validity of instruments to achieve at least “adapted equivalence” (van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Indeed, failure to do so creates problems in interpretation of find- ings that are as serious as lack of reliability and validity (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). If test measurement invariance is not tested and ensured, additional empirical and/or conceptual justification that the measures used have the same meaning in different cultural groups is required. Cultural comparisons of parenting usually involve quasi-experimental designs, in

which samples are not randomly selected either from the world population or from national populations or (obviously) assigned to cultures. Interpreting findings is much more challenging in such designs than in experiments that are based on random assign- ment of participants. A major challenge that confronts cultural comparisons concerns how to isolate source(s) of potential effects and identify the presumed active cultural ingredient(s) that produced differences. Samples in different cultures can differ onmany personological or sociodemographic characteristics that may confound parenting differ- ences. For example, parents in different cultural groups may vary in modal patterns of personality, acculturation level, education, or socioeconomic status (Bornstein et al., 2007; Bornstein et al., 2012a). Various procedures are available to untangle rival expla- nations for cultural comparisons, such as the inclusion of covariates in the research design to confirm or disconfirm specific alternative interpretations. By ruling out com- plementary accounts, it is possible to draw conclusions that are more firmly situated in

 

 

CULTURAL APPROACHES TO PARENTING 215

culture. For example, culture influences teaching and expectations of children in moth- ers of Australian versus Lebanese descent all living in Australia apart from child gender, parity, and socioeconomic class (Goodnow, Cashmore, Cotton, & Knight, 1984). Other methodological questions threaten the validity of cultural comparisons

(Matsumoto & van de Vijver, 2011). For example, it matters who is doing the study, their culture, their assumptions in asking certain questions, and so forth. Whether collaborat- ing scientists are “on the ground” in the culture and undertake adequate preliminary study to generate meaningful questions are also pertinent.

Similarity and Difference in Parenting across Cultures

The “story” of the cultural investigation of parenting is largely one of similarities, differences, and their meaning. In an illustrative study, we analyzed and compared natural mother-infant interactions in Argentina, Belgium, Israel, Italy, and the United States (Bornstein et al., 2012b). Differences exist among the locales we recruited from in terms of history, beliefs, languages, and childrearing values. However, the samples were more alike than not in terms of modernity, urbanity, economics, politics, living standards, even ecology and climate. Thus, they created the possibility of identifying culture-unique and -general conclusions about childrearing. Mothers were primiparous, at least 18 years of age, and from intact families; infants were firstborn, term, healthy, and 5 months old. Our aims were to observe mothers and their infants under eco- logically valid, natural, and unobtrusive conditions, and so we studied their usual routines in the familiar confines of their own homes. We videorecorded mother–baby dyads and then used mutually exclusive and exhaustive coding systems to compre- hensively characterize frequency and duration of six maternal caregiving behavioral domains (nurture, physical, social, didactic, material, and language) and five corre- sponding infant developmental domains (physical, social, exploration, vocalization, and distress communication). One question we asked concerned cultural similarities and differences in base rates

of parenting in the six caregiving domains. We standardized maternal behavior fre- quency in terms of rate of occurrence per hour, pooled, normalized, and disaggregated the data by country, finally analyzing country means for parallel comparisons for dif- ferent domains. Mothers differed in every domain assessed. Moreover, mothers in no one country surpassed mothers in all others in their base rates of parenting across domains. The fact that maternal behaviors vary significantly across thesemodern, indus- trialized, and comparable places underscores the role of cultural influence on everyday human experiences, even from the start of life. Of course, even greater variation is often revealed in starker contrasts. For example, mothers in rural Thailand do not know that their newborns can see, and so during the day swaddle infants in fabric hammocks that allow babies only a slit view of ceiling or sky (Kotchabhakdi, Winichagoon, Smitasiri, Dhanamitta, & Valyasevi, 1987). Awareness of alternative modes of development also enhances understanding of the nature of variation across cultures; cross-cultural com- parisons show how. For example, U.S. mothers are often thought of as being highly verbal, but U.S. mothers actually fell at the bottom of our five-culture comparison. A second question we asked concerned relations between parent-provided experi-

ences and behavioral development in young infants (Bornstein et al., 2012b). Across cultures, mothers and infants showed a noteworthy degree of attunement and speci- ficity. Mothers who encouraged their infants’ physical development more had more

 

 

216 BORNSTEIN

physically developed infants as opposed to other outcomes; mothers who engaged infants more socially had infants who paidmore attention to them;mothers who encour- aged their infants more didactically had infants who explored more properties, objects, and events in the environment, as did babies whose mothers outfitted their environ- ments in richer ways. That is, mothers and infants are not only in tune with one another, but their correspondences tend to be domain specific. Thus, specific correspondences in mother–infant interaction patterns were widespread and similar in different cultural groups. This kind of study continues the story of cultural approaches to parenting in terms of

their traditional dual foci on similarities and differences. Mothers in different cultures differ in their mean levels of different domains of parenting infants, but mothers and infants in different cultures are similar in terms of mutual attunement of caregiving on the part of mothers and development in corresponding domains in infants. A shift in focus to the meaning of those similarities and differences advances the culture and parenting narrative.

CULTURAL UNIVERSALS, SPECIFICS, AND FORM–FUNCTION RELATIONS IN PARENTING

Culture-Common and Culture-Specific Parenting

The cultural approach to parenting has as one main goal to evaluate and com- pare culture-common and culture-specific modes of parenting. Evolutionary thinking appeals to the species-common genome, and the biological heritage of some psycho- logical processes presupposes their universality (Norenzayan & Heine, 2005) as do shared historical and economic forces (Harris, 2001). At the same time, cultural psychol- ogy explores variation in core psychological processes by investigating the competing influences of divergent physical and social environments (Bornstein, 2010; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Psychological constructs, structures, functions, and processes like parenting can be universal and simultaneously reflect cultural moderation of their quantitative level or qualitative expression. Language illustrates this essential duality. An evolutionary model posits a language instinct from the perspective of an inborn and universal acquisition device, but diversity of environmental input plays a strong role in the acquisition of any specific language (Pinker, 2007). Some demands on par- ents are universal. For example, parents in all societies must nurture and protect their young (Bornstein, 2006). Other demands vary greatly across cultural groups. For exam- ple, parents in some societies play with babies and see them as interactive partners, whereas parents in other societies think that it is senseless for parents to play with infants (Bornstein, 2007). Culture-specific influences on parenting begin long before children are born, and they

shape fundamental decisions about which behaviors parents should promote in their children and how parents should interact with their children (Bornstein, 1991; Whiting, 1963). Thus, caregiving varies among cultures in terms of opinions about the full range of caregiving and child development, including the significance of specific competencies for children’s successful adjustment, the ages expected for children to reach develop- mental milestones, when and how to care for children, and the like. For example, the United States and Japan are both child-centeredmodern societies with equivalently high

 

 

CULTURAL APPROACHES TO PARENTING 217

standards of living and so forth, but U.S. American and Japanese parents value differ- ent childrearing goals which they express in different ways (Bornstein, 1989; Bornstein et al., 2012a; Morelli & Rothbaum, 2007). American mothers try to promote auton- omy, assertiveness, verbal competence, and self-actualization in their children, whereas Japanese mothers try to promote emotional maturity, self-control, social courtesy, and interdependence in theirs. Many parenting cognitions and practices are likely to be similar across cultures;

indeed, similarities may reflect universals (in the sense of being common) even if they vary in form and the degree to which they are shaped by experience and influenced by culture. Such patterns of parenting might reflect inherent attributes of caregiving, historical convergences in parenting, or they could be a by-product of information dissemination via forces of globalization or mass media or migration that present par- ents today with increasingly similar socialization models, issues, and challenges. In the end, all peoples must help children meet similar developmental tasks, and all peo- ples (presumably) wish physical health, social adjustment, educational achievement, and economic security for their children, and so they parent in some manifestly sim- ilar ways. Furthermore, the mechanisms through which parents likely affect children are universal. For example, social learning theorists have identified the pervasive roles that conditioning and modeling play as children acquire associations that subsequently form the basis for their culturally constructed selves. By watching or listening to oth- ers who are already embedded in the culture, children come to think and act like them. Attachment theorists propose that children everywhere develop internal working mod- els of social relationships through interactions with their primary caregivers and that these models shape children’s future social relationships with others throughout the balance of the life course (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). With so much emphasis on identifi- cation of differences among peoples, it is easy to forget that nearly all parents regardless of culture seek to lead happy, healthy, fulfilled parenthoods and to rear happy, healthy, fulfilled children.

Form and Function in Cultural Approaches to Parenting

These general considerations of universals and specifics lead to a logic model that contrasts form with function in parenting. By form, I mean a parenting cognition or practice as instantiated; by function, I mean the purpose or construal or meaning attached to the form. A proper understanding of the function of parenting cognitions and practices requires situating them in their cultural context (Bornstein, 1995). When a particular parenting cognition or practice serves the same function and connotes the same meaning in different cultures, it likely constitutes a universal. For example, care- givers in (almost) all cultures routinely adjust their speech to very young children making it simpler and more redundant, presumably to support early language acqui- sition; child-directed speech constitutes a universal that adults find difficult to suppress (Papoušek & Bornstein, 1992). The same parenting cognition or practice can also assume different functions in different cultural contexts. Particular parental practices, such as harsh initiation rites, deemed less harmful to children in some cultures may be judged abusive in others. Conversely, different parenting cognitions and practices may serve the same function in different cultural contexts. For example, an authoritative parent- ing style (high warmth, high control) leads to positive outcomes in European American school children, whereas an authoritarian parenting style (low warmth, high control)

 

 

218 BORNSTEIN

leads to positive outcomes in African American and Hong Kong Chinese school chil- dren (Leung, Lau, & Lam, 1998). When different parenting cognitions or practices serve different functions in different settings, it is evidence for cultural specificity. Many dif- ferent parenting practices appear to be adaptive but differently for different cultural groups (Ogbu, 1993). Thus, cultural study informs not only about quantitative aspects but also about qualitative meaning of parents’ beliefs and behaviors.

SOCIAL POLICY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN CULTURAL APPROACHES TO PARENTING

It is imperative to learn more about parenting and culture so that scientists, educators, and practitioners can effectively enhance parent and child development and strengthen families in diverse social groups. Insofar as some systematic universal relations obtain between how people parent and how children develop, the possibility exists for identify- ing some “best practices” in how to promote positive parenting and child development. Differences attached to the cultural meanings of particular behaviors can cause prob- lems, however. For example, immigrant children may have parents who expect them to behave in one way that is encouraged at home (e.g., averting eye contact to show defer- ence and respect) but then find themselves in a context where adults of the mainstream culture attach a different (often negative) meaning to the same behavior (e.g., appearing disinterested and unengaged with a teacher at school). Other possible future directions for a cultural parenting science would consti-

tute a long agendum. Some will be procedural. Many studies rely on self-reports, and many survey parenting at only one point in time. Observations of actual prac- tices constitute a vital complementary data base (Bornstein, Cote, & Venuti, 2001), and a developmental perspective offers insights into temporal processes of encul- turation, parents tracking differential ontogenetic trajectories, and highlights inter- generational similarities and differences in parents and children from different cul- tures (Bornstein et al., 2010). Parenting modifies social and cognitive aspects of the developing individual and so the design of the brain. For example, assistance con- stitutes an important feature of family relationships for adolescents but has distinc- tive values in Latino and European heritage cultures. Youth in both ethnic groups show similar behavioral levels of helping but, via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), different patterns of neural activity within the mesolimbic reward system: Latinos show more activity when contributing to family, and European Americans show more activity when gaining cash for themselves (Telzer, Masten, Berkman, Lieberman, & Fuligni, 2010). A future behavioral neuroscience of parent- ing will profitably include cultural variation (Barrett & Fleming, 2011; Bornstein, 2012). Parenting is thought to differ in mothers and fathers (and for girls and boys), but

most parenting research still focuses on mothers. In many cultures, children spend large amounts of time with caregivers other than parents, and all contribute to the caregiving environment of the child. How caregiving is distributed amongst different stakeholders across cultures is not well understood, and future cultural research in parenting will benefit from an enlarged family systems perspective (Bornstein & Sawyer, 2006). Thinking about parent–child relationships often highlights parents as agents of

socialization; however, caregiving is a two-way street. Parent and child activities are

 

 

CULTURAL APPROACHES TO PARENTING 219

characterized by intricate patterns of sensitive mutual understandings and unfolding synchronous transactions (Bornstein, 2006, 2009). Moreover, children’s appraisals of their parents affect parenting and child adjustment. Future research needs to attend to child effects, cultural normativeness, and construals of parenting as well as how culture moderates each. Parenting styles that are congruent with cultural norms appear to be effective in transmitting values from parents to children, perhaps because parenting practices that approach the cultural norm result in a childrearing environment that is more positive, consistent, and predictable and in one that facilitates children’s accurate perceptions of parents; children of parents who behave in culturally normative ways are also likely to encounter similar values in settings outside the family (e.g., in religious institutions, in the community) that reinforce their parenting experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Research on dynamic relations between culture and parenting is increasingly focused on which aspects of culture moderate parenting cognitions and practices and how they do so, as well as on when and why links between parenting cognitions and practices and children’s development are culturally general versus culturally specific. These new directions will move the field toward a deeper understanding, not just of which simi- larities obtain and which differences can be identified, but also of why, in whom, and under which conditions. The cultural study of parenting is beneficially understood in a framework of nec-

essary versus desirable demands. A necessary demand is that parents and children communicate with one another. Normal interaction and children’s healthy mental and socioemotional development depend on it. Not unexpectedly, communication appears to be a universal aspect of parenting and child development. A desirable demand is that parents and children communicate in certain ways adapted and faithful to their cul- tural context. Cultural studies tell us about parents’ and children’s mutual adjustments in terms of universally necessary and contextually desirable demands. Assumptions about the specificity and generality of parenting, and relations between parents and children, are advantageously tested through cultural research because neither parenting nor children’s development occurs in a vacuum: Both emerge and grow in a medium of culture. Variations in what is normative in different cultures help us to question our assumptions about what is universal and informs our understanding of how parent– child relationships unfold in ways both culturally universal and specific. That admirable goal notwithstanding, methodological challenges unique to this line of research loom large. It has been said that only two kinds of information are transmitted across genera-

tions: genes and culture. Parents are the final common pathway of both. We can ask, however, Which is the more meaningful and enduring? The biological view is that we are “gene machines,” created to pass on our genes. A child, even a grandchild, may resem- ble a parent in facial features or in a talent for music. However, as each generation passes the contribution of any parent’s genes is halved and it is pooled with those of many other parents. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions. Genes may be immortal, but the unique collection of genes which is any one parent crum- bles away (Dawkins, 1976). Rather, what parents do, and how they prepare the next

 

 

220 BORNSTEIN

generation in their cultures, can live on, intact, long after their genes dissolve in the common pool.

AFFILIATION AND ADDRESS

Marc H. Bornstein, Child and Family Research, Eunice Kennedy ShriverNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Suite 8030, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda MD 20892-7971, USA. E-mail: Marc_H_Bornstein@nih.gov.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Research supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, NICHD. I thank P. Horn and C. Padilla.

REFERENCES

Barrett, J., & Fleming, A. S. (2011). All mothers are not created equal: Neural and psychobiological perspectives on mothering and the importance of individual differences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 368–397.

Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Cross-cultural developmental comparisons: The case of Japanese–American infant and mother activities and interactions. What we know, what we need to know, and why we need to know. Developmental Review, 9, 171–204.

Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). (1991). Cultural approaches to parenting. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bornstein, M. H. (1995). Form and function: Implications for studies of culture and human development.

Culture and Psychology, 1, 123–137. Bornstein, M. H. (2001). Some questions for a science of “culture and parenting” (… but certainly not all).

International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development Newsletter, 1, 1–4. Bornstein, M. H. (2006). Parenting science and practice. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and K. A. Renninger & I.

E. Sigel (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 893–949). New York, NY: Wiley.

Bornstein, M. H. (2007). On the significance of social relationships in the development of children’s ear- liest symbolic play: An ecological perspective. In A. Gönçü & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development (pp. 101–129). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bornstein, M. H. (2009). Toward a model of culture←→parent←→child transactions. In A. Sameroff (Ed.), The transactional model of development (pp. 139–161). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). (2010). The handbook of cultural developmental science. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Bornstein, M. H. (2012). Mother-infant attunement: A multilevel approach via body, brain, and behavior. In

M. Legerstee, D. Haley, &M.H. Bornstein (Eds.), The developing infant mind: Integrating biology and experience (pp. xx–xx). New York: Guilford.

Bornstein, M. H., Cote, L. R., Haynes, O. M., Suwalsky, J. T. D., & Bakeman, R. (2012a). Modalities of infant- mother interaction in Japanese, Japanese American Immigrant, and European American dyads. Child Development, 83(6).

Bornstein, M. H., Cote, L. R., & Venuti, P. (2001). Parenting beliefs and behaviors in northern and southern groups of Italian mothers of young infants. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 663–675.

Bornstein, M. H., & Lansford, J. E. (2010). Parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), The handbook of cross-cultural developmental science (pp. 259–277). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Bornstein, M. H., Park, Y., Haynes, O. M., & Suwalsky, J. T. D. with Azuma, H., Bali, S., Berti, E., De Houwer, A., de Zingman Galperin, C., Kabiru, M., Kwak, K., Maital, M., de Moura de Siedel, M. L., Nsamenang, A. B., Pêcheux, M.-G., Ruel, J., Toda, S., Venuti, P., & Vyt, A. (2012b). Infancy and Parenting in 11 Cultures: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, South Korea, and the United States. Unpublished manuscript, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

 

 

CULTURAL APPROACHES TO PARENTING 221

Bornstein, M. H., & Sawyer, J. (2006). Family systems. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 381–398). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Bornstein, M. H., Suwalsky, J. T. D., Putnick, D. L., Gini, M., Venuti, P., de Falco, S., . . . Zingman de Galperín, C. (2010). Developmental continuity and stability of emotional availability in the family: Two ages and two genders in child-mother dyads from two regions in three countries. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 385–397.

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Goodnow, J. J., Cashmore, J. A., Cotton, S., & Knight, R. (1984). Mothers’ developmental timetables in two

cultural groups. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 193–205. Harkness, S., Super, C. M., Moscardino, U., Rha, J., Blom, M., Huitrón, B., . . . Palacios, J. (2007). Cultural

models and developmental agendas: Implications for arousal and self-regulation in early infancy. Journal of Developmental Processes, 2, 5–39.

Harris, M. (2001). The rise of anthropological theory: A history of theories of culture. New York: Altamira Press. Harwood, R. L., Schoelmerich, A., Schulze, P. A., & Gonzalez, Z. (1999). Cultural differences inmaternal beliefs

and behaviors. Child Development, 70, 1005–1016. Hewlett, B. S., Lamb, M. E., Shannon, D., Leyendecker, B., & Schölmerich, A. (1998). Culture and early infancy

among central African foragers and farmers. Developmental Psychology, 34, 653–661. Kotchabhakdi, N. J., Winichagoon, P., Smitasiri, S., Dhanamitta, S., & Valyasevi, A. (1987). The integration of

psychosocial components in nutrition education in northeastern Thai villages. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 1, 16–25.

Leung, K., Lau, S., & Lam, W. (1998). Parenting styles and academic achievement: A cross-cultural study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 157–172.

Matsumoto, D., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (Eds.). (2011). Cross-cultural research methods in psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Morelli, G. A., & Rothbaum, F. (2007). Situating the child in context: Attachment relationships and self- regulation in different cultures. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 500–527). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals across cultures: What are they and how do we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 763–784.

Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16,

483–506. Papoušek, H., & Bornstein, M. H. (1992). Didactic interactions: Intuitive parental support of vocal and ver-

bal development in human infants. In H. Papoušek, U. Jürgens, & M. Papoušek (Eds.), Nonverbal vocal communication (pp. 209–229). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development, 78, 1255–1264.

Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought. New York: Viking. Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in

language and thought (pp. 1–40). New York, NY: Cambridge University. Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In W. Hartup & Z. Rubin

(Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 51–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Tamis-Lemonda, C. S., & McFadden, K. E. (2010). The United States of America. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),

Handbook of cultural developmental sciences (pp. 299–322). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Telzer, E. H., Masten, C. L., Berkman, E. T., Lieberman, M. D., & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). Gaining while giving:

An fMRI study of the rewards of family assistance among White and Latino youth. Social Neuroscience, 5, 508–518.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. H. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69.

van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Whiting, B. B. (Ed.). (1963). Six cultures: Studies of child rearing. New York, NY: Wiley.

 

 

Copyright of Parenting: Science & Practice is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

 

READING.pdf

 

Factors influencing parenting in early childhood: a prospective longitudinal study focusing on changecch_1037 198..207

A. Waylen* and S. Stewart-Brown†

*Department of Oral and Dental Science, Bristol Dental School, University of Bristol, Bristol, and †Health Sciences Research Institute, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Accepted for publication 7 August 2009

Keywords ALSPAC, causal factors, longitudinal analysis, parent–child relationship

Correspondence: Andrea Waylen PhD, Department of Oral and Dental Science, Bristol Dental School, Lower Maudlin Street, Bristol BS1 2LY, UK E-mail: andrea.waylen@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract Background Parenting influences child outcomes but does not occur in a vacuum. It is influenced

by socio-economic resources, parental health, and child characteristics. Our aim was to investigate

the relative importance of these influences by exploring the relationship between changing

parental health and socio-economic circumstances and changes in parenting.

Methods Data collected from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used to

develop an eight-item parenting measure at 8 and 33 months. The measure covered warmth,

support, rejection, and control and proved valid and reliable. Regression analysis examined changes

in financial circumstance, housing tenure, marital status, social support, maternal health and

depression, and their influence on parenting score. The final model controlled for maternal age,

education, and baseline depression.

Results Most mothers reported warm, supportive parenting at both times. Maternal depression was

the only variable for which both positive and negative change was associated with changes in

parenting score. Less depression was associated with better parenting scores and more depression

with worse parenting scores. Improvements in social support and maternal general health were both

associated with improved parenting scores, but for neither of these variables was deterioration asso-

ciated with deterioration in parenting scores.Worsening financial circumstances predicted deteriora-

tion in parenting score, but improvements were not predictive of improvements in parenting.

Conclusions Programmes aiming to improve parental health and social support are likely to return

greater dividends with regard to improving parenting than programmes that aim to reduce family

poverty.

Introduction

Parenting is important for a variety of child outcomes. Warm,

supportive parenting is associated with positive cognitive,

behavioural, emotional, and physical child outcomes (Bradley &

Caldwell 1995; Atzaba-Poria & Pike 2005; Barber et al. 2005;

Dallaire & Weinraub 2005; Seaman et al. 2005; Waylen et al.

2008) whereas harsh, abusive, and/or emotionally neglectful

parenting is associated with emotional, behavioural, mental,

and physical health problems in childhood and adulthood

(Repetti et al. 2002). Parenting accounts for 20–50% of the vari-

ance in some child outcomes (Elder et al. 1984), but child out-

comes and aspects of parenting are influenced by economic and

social factors and parental health. Economic hardship in par-

ticular is associated with deteriorating parent–child relation-

ships and increased behavioural problems (McLoyd 1998;

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Early Child Care Research Network 2005).

Parenting is also influenced by the parent’s life history,

culture, and neighbourhood (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Holden &

Miller 1999; Sellstrom et al. 2000), marital conflict (Bronstein

et al. 1993; Cummings et al. 2006), poor parental health (Frank

Child: care, health and development Original Article doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01037.x

© 2009 The Authors Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd198

 

 

1989; Armistead et al. 1995; Bugental & Happaney 2004) and

child characteristics, e.g. developmental age and temperament

(Bronfenbrenner 1979; Bradley & Corwyn 2002).

Epidemiological studies are important in defining possible

causal factors, but rarely prove causality, particularly where out-

comes are influenced by multiple risk factors and potentially

complex causal chains. However, if it can be shown that, e.g.

increasing economic hardship is followed by deterioration in

parenting and vice versa, it is reasonable to conclude that eco-

nomic hardship plays a causal role and that alleviating child

poverty would lead to improvements in parenting. Data

collected from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and

Children (ALSPAC) cohort provided an opportunity to identify

families exposed to changes in various socio-demographic

factors in early childhood and to examine the extent and direc-

tion of associated changes in parenting over time.

Methods

Participants

The ALSPAC (see http://www.alspac.bris.ac.uk) (Golding et al.

2001) is a geographically representative, population-based

study investigating social, environmental, biological, and

genetic influences on the health and development of children.

All pregnant women in the former Avon Health Authority (UK)

with an expected delivery date between April 1991 and Decem-

ber 1992 were invited to take part. The final cohort consisted of

14 541 pregnancies. Since enrolment, self-report information

has been collected from the mothers both ante- and post-natally

on an annual basis. In addition, mothers continue to complete a

bi-annual questionnaire about the study child’s health, behav-

iour, and development. Mothers consented to join the study at

recruitment and they consent to return each questionnaire. All

aspects of the study conform to the ethical regulations of both

the ALSPAC Law and Ethics Committee and local research and

ethics committees.

In this study we used parenting data collected at 8 and 33

months. At each of these timepoints, parenting and socio-

demographic data were gathered on all families participating in

the study and relevant items were asked in exactly the same way.

Data were available for 11 314 study children (78%) at 8 months

and for 9687 study children (67%) at 33 months.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were undertaken using Intercalated STATA 9.0

(1985). Correlational analyses measured the strength of associa-

tions between variables. Factor analysis was used to investigate

the feasibility of aggregating items to develop a parenting

measure. c2- and t-tests were used to examine differences in circumstance and parenting at 8 months between those who

dropped out of the study and those who continued to parti-

cipate. The strength of evidence for changes in parenting asso-

ciated with socio-demographic and health variables was

examined using c2-tests. Finally, to examine whether and how parenting changed over time and how any changes related to

changing social and health factors, univariate and multivariate

regression analyses were undertaken. The final models were

adjusted for maternal age, education, and parenting score and

maternal depression score at baseline. To account for multiple

testing, we used a conservative P-value of 0.008 (Bonferroni’s

a = 0.05/6 = 0.008).

Development of the parenting measure

The ALSPAC Study has collected data on a variety of behav-

ioural and developmental variables. We were interested in those

measuring warmth and support, rejection and control in early

parent–child relationships. Various items relating to parenting

quality were identified in data collected during the first 3 years

of life (see Appendix 1). From this list we identified eight mater-

nal self-report items administered in exactly the same way at

both 8 and 33 months, which were unambiguous in their inter-

pretation (see Table 1).

Parental warmth and support was measured according to

reported levels of enjoyment, confidence, pleasure, and fulfil-

ment with respect to caring for the child (items 1–4) and rejec-

tion and control was measured according to maternal report of

preferring not to have had the child at that time, dislike of the

child’s crying and surrounding mess and lack of time for herself

(items 5–8). Scores for items 1–4 were reverse coded so that, for

all items, a score of 4 represented warm, supportive parenting.

Scores for all items were added together (range = 8–32); higher scores indicated more supportive parenting. We were unable to

include other items listed in Appendix 1, e.g. measures of disci-

pline and time spent teaching the child because relevant ques-

tions were either asked only once, asked in a slightly different

way each time or did not reflect unequivocally positive or nega-

tive parenting.

Factor analysis of the eight items indicated a single factor

solution explaining 34% and 33% of the variance at 8 and 33

months, respectively. Factor loadings are shown in Table 1. In

Table 2 we report correlations between scores on the derived

parenting variable at 8 and 33 months with another parenting

measure collected on the cohort [HOME Inventory (Bradley &

Changes in parenting over time 199

© 2009 The Authors Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 36, 2, 198–207

 

 

Caldwell 1995)] and the Strengths and Difficulties Question-

naire (SDQ) (Goodman 2001) at 47 and 81 months.

The results of univariate linear regression analysis showed

that the derived parenting measure predicted SDQ scores at

both 47 and 81 months (P < 0.001) and remained predictive (P < 0.001) after adjusting for confounding variables (Appen- dices 2a & b). Negative coefficients indicate that, as parenting

score increased, child emotional and behavioural problems were

reduced: a point increase in parenting score predicted a reduc-

tion in SDQ score of 0.4–0.5 after adjustment for confounders.

To assess change over time, scores for the derived parenting

variable at 8 months were subtracted from scores at 33 months

giving a normally distributed change score ranging from -17 to +17. A negative score (higher at 8 than 33 months) indicates deterioration in parenting over time and vice versa.

Identification of factors predicting parenting

Correlations were obtained between parenting scores and

various socio-demographic and parental variables available for

the cohort children and indicated as relevant in the literature.

Key predictors of parenting score were maternal age and edu-

cation. Ethnic group was not a significant predictor possibly

because there were several ethnic categories with very small

membership. Amongst the range of potentially changeable

factors, financial circumstances, housing tenure, marital status,

social support (emotional, financial, and practical support from

partner, family, friends, or the state), and maternal general

health and depression [as measured by the Edinburgh Post-

Natal Depression Scale – EPDS (Matthey et al. 2001)] correlated

with parenting scores (P < 0.001). Each of these variables was dichotomized: (1) mothers either found it difficult to afford

three or more from a list of five items or not; (2) they owned

their own homes or not; (3) they were married or not; (4) they

perceived little or no social support (emotional, practical or

financial) or not; (5) they rated themselves as being always or

mostly well or not; and (6) they were depressed (scoring 12

or over on the EPDS) or not. Circumstances across time were

classified as having either: (1) remained stable; (2) worsened; or

(3) improved over time.

Table 1. Factor analysis: parenting measures and data collection time points

Concept

8 months 33 months

Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Factor loading Mean (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Factor loading

1. I really enjoy this child Warmth 1.31 (0.53) 1.49 4.51 0.70 1.31 (0.54) 1.57 4.77 0.70 2. I feel confident with my child Support 1.20 (0.47) 2.66 11.45 0.45 1.23 (0.52) 2.44 9.34 0.58 3. It is a great pleasure to watch

my child develop Support 1.08 (0.33) 4.58 28.02 0.50 1.14 (0.41) 3.45 17.02 0.52

4. Having this child makes me feel fulfilled

Warmth 1.81 (0.92) 0.86 2.70 0.57 1.78 (0.91) 0.86 2.69 0.57

5. I would have preferred that we had not had this baby / child when we did

Rejection 3.85 (0.45) -3.76 19.53 -0.39 3.85 (0.52) -4.05 20.30 -0.26

6. I can’t bear hearing the child cry

Control 3.20 (0.73) -0.90 4.11 -0.39 3.15 (0.77) -0.83 3.63 -0.29

7. I dislike / hate the mess that surrounds the child

Control 3.59 (0.61) -1.54 5.65 -0.35 3.30 (0.64) -0.63 3.70 -0.36

8. I feel I have no time to myself Rejection 2.94 (0.75) -0.72 3.72 -0.51 2.89 (0.76) -0.72 3.62 -0.44 Eigenvalues 2.71 2.64 Cronbach’s alpha 0.69 0.67

All responses were measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = feel exactly, 2 = often feel, 3 = sometimes feel, 4 = never feel) – items 1–4 reverse scored.

Table 2. Correlations between the derived parenting score and existing measures of parenting and child behaviour in the ALSPAC study

Derived parenting score (8 months)

HOME score (adapted)† (6 months)

SDQ (47 months)

SDQ (81 months)

Derived parenting score (8 months) – 0.10 0.20 0.19 Derived parenting score (33 months) 0.54 0.12 0.32 0.27

†Adapted from Bradley and Corwyn (2005). 6 items: (1) does the child have cuddly toys? (2) does the child have push and pull toys? (3) does the child have co-ordination toys? (4) does the child have books? (5) do you try to teach the child? (6) Do you talk to the child while you work in the home?

200 A. Waylen and S. Stwart-Brown

© 2009 The Authors Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 36, 2, 198–207

 

 

Maternal depression was moderately associated with general

health and social support at both 8 and 33 months. Associations

between depression and financial circumstance were somewhat

weaker (all P < 0.001) (see Appendix 3).

Results

Attrition analysis

At 8 months, mothers who would drop out of the study by 33

months were more likely than those who remained to have

financial difficulties [10.4% (N = 233) vs. 8.0% (N = 725), respectively; (c2 = 12.83, P < 0.001)]; be unmarried [6.8% (N = 153) vs. 5.0% (N = 451); (c2 = 9.92, P = 0.002)] and be living in rented accommodation [36.9% (N = 824) vs. 19.4% (N = 1750); (c2 = 300.18, P < 0.001)]; to perceive little or no social support for themselves [7.1% (N = 140) vs. 4.0% (N = 337); (c2 = 37.35, P < 0.001)]; and to be depressed [14.6% (N = 326) vs. 10.5% (N = 939); (c2 = 27.88, P < 0.001)]. Mothers who dropped out of the study had a slightly lower parenting

score at 8 months [28.1 vs. 28.3; (N = 11 068); (t = 2.95, P < 0.001)] than those who remained. There were no differences in

the general health of remaining mothers compared with those

who dropped out: 94.1% (N = 2138) compared with 94.6% (N = 8563) rated themselves as always or mostly well (c2 = 5.11, P = 0.164). Results reported here concern families with data at both 8 and 33 months.

Changes in circumstance over time

Between 8 and 33 months, marital status changed for 3% (N = 252) of mothers: 2% (163) were no longer in a marital rela-

tionship by 33 months whereas 1% (89) entered a relationship.

Depression status changed for 15% (1360) of mothers: 9.8%

(895) became depressed by 33 months whereas 5.1% (465)

recovered from depression. General health worsened over time

for 4% (358) of mothers and improved for 4% (344). Finan-

cial circumstances changed for 10% (930) of families between

8 and 33 months: circumstances worsened for 5.4% (492) and

improved for 4.8% (438). Housing tenure changed for 7% of

families: 3.1% (286) changed from owning their home to

renting whereas 3.6% (329) changed from tenants to owners.

Around 4% of mothers experienced changing social support

over the period: 1.8% (151) had less support by the end

compared with 2.5% (218) who reported increased levels of

support.

Changes in parenting as a function of changes in circumstance

Mean parenting scores were relatively stable over time and dif-

ferences by maternal age and educational level were small

(Table 3).

Table 4 shows the proportion of families for whom parenting

score decreased, remained stable, or improved between 8 and 33

months as socio-economic circumstances changed. c2-statistics and P-values are given in the table. Overall, parenting scores did

not vary with changes in financial circumstances and changes in

neither housing tenure nor marital status significantly predicted

changes in parenting.

Changes in social support influenced parenting but the level

of statistical significance failed to reach our conservative value

of 0.008. Changes in mother’s general health and depression

score had an influence with parenting score decreasing for the

majority of families when maternal health worsened. When

maternal general health or depression improved, parenting

score improved for most families.

Multi-variable modelling of changes in parenting over time

Table 5 shows the results of analyses predicting change in

parenting score over time using the original (non-categorized)

parenting score. Changes in financial circumstance, social

support, and maternal general health and depression were

entered into the model independently (univariate analysis) and

then together (adjusting for each other) and finally altogether

adjusting for maternal age, education, and baseline (8 month)

depression and parenting score. The coefficients given in each

table indicate changes in parenting score amongst mothers

whose circumstances changed compared with those whose

Table 3. Changes in parenting over time as a function of maternal age and education

Median parenting score (SD)

8 months 33 months

Age group <20 29 (2.9) 28 (3.2) 20–29 29 (2.7) 28 (2.9) 30–39 28 (2.8) 28 (2.9) >40 29 (3.0) 28 (2.9)

Education CSE 29 (3.0) 29 (3.0) Vocational 29 (2.9) 29 (3.0) O level 29 (2.8) 28 (2.9) A level 28 (2.7) 28 (2.8) Degree 28 (2.7) 28 (2.7)

Changes in parenting over time 201

© 2009 The Authors Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 36, 2, 198–207

 

 

Ta b

le 4

. P

ro po

rt io

n of

m ot

h er

s fo

r w

h om

pa re

n ti

n g

sc or

e ch

an ge

s as

a fu

n ct

io n

of ch

an ge

s in

ci rc

u m

st an

ce

P ar

en ti

n g

sc o

re

Fi n

an ci

al d

if fi

cu lt

ie s

H o

u si

n g

te n

u re

M ar

it al

st at

u s

So ci

al su

p p

o rt

P h

ys ic

al h

ea lt

h D

ep re

ss io

n

W o

rs en

St ab

le Im

p ro

ve W

o rs

en St

ab le

Im p

ro ve

W o

rs en

St ab

le Im

p ro

ve W

o rs

en St

ab le

Im p

ro ve

W o

rs en

St ab

le Im

p ro

ve W

o rs

en St

ab le

Im p

ro ve

D ec

re as

es 54

.9 13

.9 31

.2 50

.4 19

.8 29

.9 50

.8 17

.2 32

.0 57

.9 13

.5 28

.6 59

.8 13

.1 27

.1 64

.1 13

.9 22

.0 Re

m ai

n s

St ab

le 46

.6 18

.7 34

.8 46

.7 18

.4 34

.9 46

.4 18

.8 34

.9 46

.2 19

.0 34

.9 46

.7 18

.9 34

.4 45

.8 19

.2 35

.0

In cr

ea se

s 42

.7 19

.6 37

.7 47

.1 18

.2 34

.7 53

.3 18

.7 28

.0 42

.5 16

.2 41

.3 36

.9 13

.1 50

.0 31

.6 14

.9 53

.5 c2

2. 73

,P <

0. 59

8 3.

02 ,P

= 0.

55 5

2. 77

,P =

0. 59

8 10

.5 1,

P <

0. 03

3 58

.1 7,

P <

0. 00

1 17

7. 07

,P <

0. 00

1

Ta b

le 5

. P

re di

ct or

s of

ch an

ge in

pa re

n ti

n g

sc or

e be

tw ee

n 8

an d

33 m

on th

s (S

E )

C h

an g

e in

ci rc

u m

st an

ce si

n ce

ch ild

w as

8 m

o n

th s

o ld

O ve

ra ll

p ar

en ti

n g

sc o

re (u

n iv

ar ia

te )

O ve

ra ll

p ar

en ti

n g

sc o

re (m

u lt

i- va

ri at

e, ad

ju st

in g

fo r

ea ch

va ri

ab le

in tu

rn )

O ve

ra ll

p ar

en ti

n g

sc o

re (m

u lt

i- va

ri at

e, al

so ad

ju st

ed fo

r p

ar en

ti n

g an

d d

ep re

ss io

n at

8 m

,m at

er n

al ag

e an

d ed

u ca

ti o

n )

C o

ef f.

(9 5

% C

I) SE

P C

o ef

f. (9

5 %

C I)

SE P

C o

ef f.

(9 5

% C

I) SE

P

Fi n

an ci

al ci

rc u

m st

an ce

s d

et er

io ra

te -0

.1 3

(- 0.

06 to

-0 .2

0) 0.

04 <0

.0 01

-0 .1

3 (-

0. 04

to -0

.2 1)

0. 04

0. 00

4 -0

.1 4

(- 0.

05 to

-0 .2

2) 0.

04 0.

00 2

Fi n

an ci

al ci

rc u

m st

an ce

s im

p ro

ve 0.

05 (-

0. 13

to 0.

12 )

0. 04

0. 21

3 0.

04 (-

0. 13

to 0.

10 )

0. 04

0. 29

9 0.

02 (-

0. 11

to 0.

06 )

0. 04

0. 56

5

So ci

al su

p p

o rt

d et

er io

ra te

s -0

.0 1

(- 0.

12 to

0. 10

) 0.

06 0.

87 2

-0 .0

1 (-

0. 13

to 0.

11 )

0. 06

0. 86

4 -0

.0 2

(- 0.

10 to

0. 13

) 0.

06 0.

73 3

So ci

al su

p p

o rt

im p

ro ve

s 0.

17 (0

.0 4

to 0.

31 )

0. 07

0. 01

1 0.

14 (-

0. 01

to 0.

28 )

0. 07

0. 05

8 0.

16 (0

.0 2

to 0.

30 )

0. 07

0. 02

7 Ph

ys ic

al h

ea lt

h d

et er

io ra

te s

-0 .0

4 (-

0. 12

to 0.

04 )

0. 04

0. 34

0 -0

.0 1

(- 0.

10 to

0. 08

) 0.

05 0.

75 3

0. 03

(- 0.

06 to

0. 12

) 0.

05 0.

54 8

Ph ys

ic al

h ea

lt h

im p

ro ve

s 0.

19 (0

.1 1

to 0.

27 )

0. 04

<0 .0

01 0.

11 (0

.0 2

to 0.

20 )

0. 05

0. 02

0 0.

11 (0

.0 2

to 0.

20 )

0. 05

0. 02

4 D

ep re

ss io

n sc

o re

s d

et er

io ra

te -0

.1 0

(- 0.

17 to

-0 .0

3) 0.

04 0.

00 7

-0 .1

2 (-

0. 21

to -0

.0 4)

0. 04

0. 00

4 -0

.1 4

(- 0.

23 to

-0 .0

4) 0.

05 0.

00 4

D ep

re ss

io n

sc o

re s

im p

ro ve

0. 23

(0 .1

8 to

0. 29

) 0.

03 <0

.0 01

0. 19

(0 .1

3 to

0. 25

) 0.

03 <0

.0 01

0. 20

(0 .1

3 to

0. 26

) 0.

03 <0

.0 01

202 A. Waylen and S. Stwart-Brown

© 2009 The Authors Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Child: care, health and development, 36, 2, 198–207

 

 

financial status, health, or support remained stable between 8

and 33 months. Negative coefficients indicate a reduction in

parenting score and positive coefficients indicate an increase.

In the final, fully adjusted model, parenting score reduced by

0.14 [95% CI (-0.06–0.20); P < 0.001] when financial circum- stances deteriorated, but improving financial circumstances did

not predict an improvement in parenting score (P = 0.213). Increased social support predicted improvement in parenting

score by 0.16 [95% CI (0.02–0.30; P = 0.027)] but reduced social support was not predictive (P = 0.733). Improvements and dete- riorations in depression score predicted changes in parenting

as expected: an improvement in (lessening of) depression

increased parenting score by 0.20 [95% CI (0.18–0.29); P < 0.001] and worsening depression reduced the parenting score

by -0.14 [95% CI (-0.23–0.04); P = 0.004]. Parenting score increased by 0.11 [95% CI (0.02–0.20); P = 0.02] when general health improved, but there was no effect on parenting score

when general health worsened (P = 0.548).

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW