1. Elizabeth C. Shelleby, Daniel S. Shaw, & Brittany Miller
Parenting as a Moderator of Emotion Regulation
from Ages 3 to 4 in At-Risk Preschoolers
Elizabeth C. Shelleby, Daniel S. Shaw, & Brittany Miller
Rationale
Researchers hypothesize that emotion regulation (ER) develops from a very reliant process in early development to one that becomes more independently directed (Kopp, 1989; Cole et al., 2003)
Extrinsic factors related to the development of ER are especially important to consider during early childhood, when children are reliant upon others to assist in the management of their emotions
Parents have been implicated as one of the most important external factors affecting ER development in early childhood
Research on toddlers and preschool children suggests that the ways in which parents interact with them, whether supportive and warm versus harsh and controlling, affects their ability to cope with stressors (Gilliom et al., 2002)
Research Hypotheses
This study examines whether proactive parenting moderates the association between ER from age 3 to age 4, such that higher levels of proactive parenting at age 3 will be associated with higher levels of adaptive ER strategies at age 4
Method
Participants
731 families were recruited from WIC Clinics in Charlottesville, VA, Eugene, OR, and Pittsburgh, PA when children were age 2
49% female
28% African American, 50% European American, 13% biracial, 9% other
66.3% had an annual income < $20,000 at age 2
659 (90%) participated at the one year age 3 follow-up, and 619 (85%) participated at the two year age 4 follow-up
Measures
Proactive parenting at age 3: Coders rated each parent on his/her tendency to anticipate potential problems and provide prompts or other structural changes to avoid young children becoming upset or involved in problem behavior on six items: (1) gives choices for behavior change; (2) communicates to child in calm/simple/clear terms; (3) gives understandable/age-appropriate reasons for behavior change; (4) adjusts/defines situation to ensure child’s interest/success/comfort; (5) redirects child to more appropriate behavior if off tasks or misbehaves; (6) uses verbal structuring to make task manageable (alpha = .84)
Emotion regulation at ages 3 and 4: the delay task required children to wait for a cookie (at age 3) or a wrapped gift (at age 4) while their mother completed several questionnaires. Behaviors coded from 10-second intervals included: (1) distraction; (2) focus on delay object; (3) physical comfort seeking; (4) self-soothing; and (5) passive waiting (Kappas ranged from )
Separate factor analyses were conducted for the age 3 and age 4 ER data. At age 3, the factor used accounted for 36.2% of the variance and at age 4, the factor used accounted for 33.9% of the variance.
Results
Regression analyses were conducted and interactions probed (Aiken & West, 1991)
Higher levels of proactive parenting at age 3 were associated with higher levels of ER at age 4: the interaction term was significant (B = .09, SE = .045, t = 2.06, p = .04)
No direct association was found between the ER factor at age 3 and the ER factor at age 4
A positive association between age 3 and age 4 levels of ER was evident but only for children whose mothers demonstrated high levels of proactive parenting
For children whose mothers demonstrated mean or low levels of proactive parenting the association between age 3 and age 4 ER was not significant
Graph of the Interaction
Discussion
The results suggest that proactive parenting is a key parental behavior associated with the development of ER in early childhood
In the absence of high levels of proactive parenting, the stability of ER appears to be modest from age 3 to age 4
Further research should examine whether other aspects of parenting behavior are similarly associated with the development of ER in this developmental period
For more information, please contact Elizabeth C. Shelleby, M.S. Acknowledgements: Thank you to all of the children and families participating in the Early Steps Project. Research was supported by grant to Drs. Daniel S. Shaw, Thomas J. Dishion, and Melvin N. Wilson from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.