1 / 23

Christopher J. Trentacosta , Kristin L. Moilanen , Daniel S. Shaw, Thomas J. Dishion ,

Parenting and Trajectories of Inhibitory Control Across Early Childhood in an At-Risk Prevention Research Sample. Christopher J. Trentacosta , Kristin L. Moilanen , Daniel S. Shaw, Thomas J. Dishion , Frances Gardner, & Melvin N. Wilson. Inhibitory Control (IC).

kasa
Download Presentation

Christopher J. Trentacosta , Kristin L. Moilanen , Daniel S. Shaw, Thomas J. Dishion ,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Parenting and Trajectories of Inhibitory Control Across Early Childhood in an At-Risk Prevention Research Sample Christopher J. Trentacosta, Kristin L. Moilanen, Daniel S. Shaw, Thomas J. Dishion, Frances Gardner, & Melvin N. Wilson

  2. Inhibitory Control (IC) • IC = The capacity to actively prevent a behavioral response • A central component of models of executive functioning and temperamental effortful control (Nigg, 2000; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001) • Predicts behavioral, social, and cognitive functioning (e.g., Lunkenheimer et al., 2008) • Deficient IC is a marker of psychopathology (e.g., Raaijmakers et al., 2008)

  3. IC in Early Childhood • Self-regulatory capabilities improve during early childhood • Increased attentional capacity (Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994) • Advancements in memory and language (Kopp, 1982) • Emergent IC reflects these self-regulatory gains • Moderate longitudinal stability and growth in IC across early childhood (Kochanska et al., 1996; Li-Grining, 2007)

  4. Linear Growth in IC Intercept = 3.97 *** Slope = .25 *** σ2i = .36 *** σ2i = .05 *** ri,s= -.30 * Moilanen et al. (in press) Social Development

  5. Trajectories of Early Childhood IC • Do all children show linear growth in IC across early childhood? • Some high-risk children may show little or no growth in IC, or a quadratic growth trend • Aim 1: Identify distinct developmental trajectories of IC from ages 2 to 5

  6. Parenting and IC • Self-regulatory abilities develop within the context of the caregiving relationship • Parents can promote or hinder their child’s ability to inhibit impulses • Parenting constructs to consider: • Positive behavior support • Harsh parenting

  7. Positive Behavior Support and IC • Positive behavior support (PBS) = Warmth and involvement, proactive responses • Sensitive responses to negative affect help child to learn strategies to manage affect and behavior • Empirical support for PBS as a predictor of increased IC during early childhood (e.g., Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000)

  8. Harsh Parenting and IC • Harsh Parenting (HP) = Hostile, critical responses • Not merely the inverse of positive behavior support • May lead to compliance in the short-term, but could disrupt internalization of standards and capacity to manage negative affect • Empirical research on HP & IC is limited, especially in early childhood

  9. Parenting and IC Trajectories • Aim 2: Examine parenting constructs at age 2 as predictors of trajectory group membership • Low PBS or high HP may predict little or no growth in IC across early childhood • Examined within the context of a prevention research trial targeting low-income families

  10. Early Steps Multisite Study • Multisite prevention research trial (Charlottesville, VA; Eugene, OR; Pittsburgh) • 731 families recruited from WIC centers • Impoverished, high-risk families • Assessed yearly, at child age 2, 3, 4, and 5 • Treatment group received yearly “Family Check-up” (see Dishion et al., 2008) • Treatment status did not predict IC trajectories

  11. Sample Characteristics • Risk in at least 2 of 3 domains: • Child behavior problems • Primary caregiver problems (e.g., maternal depression) • Sociodemographic risk (e.g., low parental education) • 36% of primary caregivers were married • 50% European American; 28% African-American; 13% Hispanic • 49% girls; 51% boys • Mean age at first assessment = 29.9 months

  12. IC Measure • Child Behavior Questionnaire (Rothbart et al., 2001) • 13 items completed by primary caregivers • 7-point scale (1 = extremely untrue of child; 7 = extremely true of child) • “Has difficulty waiting in line for something” • “Can easily stop an activity when s/he is told ‘no’” • Collected at age 2, 3, 4, and 5 years • 679 children had data at two or more time points

  13. Observational Parenting Measures • Positive Behavior Support • HOME Involvement Scale (Caldwell & Bradley, 1978) • Relationship Process Code (RPC): positive reinforcement and engagement • Coder Impressions (COIMP): proactive parenting index • Harsh Parenting • RPC: negative verbal, directive, and physical behavior • COIMP: Anger, criticism, physical discipline, ignoring/rejection of the child

  14. Estimating IC Trajectories • SAS Proc Traj: A semiparametric, group-based modeling strategy (Nagin, 2005) • Identifies groups with distinct developmental trajectories • Estimates proportion of population that would be assigned to each trajectory group

  15. Aim 1: Trajectories of IC

  16. Aim 1: Trajectories of IC IC Means reported in Rothbart et al. (2001)

  17. Summary of Aim 1 • Identified five IC trajectory groups • 4 Linear Trajectories • 1 Flat Trajectory • The moderate group had IC levels that were comparable to Rothbart et al.’s (2001) samples • Two groups had very low initial levels of IC • The “catch-up” group had moderate levels of IC by age 5 • Both groups had small Ns

  18. Aim 2: Parenting & IC Trajectories Parenting Composite scores, by IC Trajectory group:

  19. PBS & Trajectories • ANOVA: PBS associated with trajectory group membership, F (4, 679) = 6.53, p < .001. • Post-Hoc Analysis: • Low Increasing group: Less PBS than Moderate and High Increasing Groups • No statistically significant differences between the two lowest groups and the other groups • Very Low Flat vs. High Increasing Groups: Cohen’s d = .48 [Medium effect size]

  20. HP & Trajectories • ANOVA: HP associated with trajectory group membership, F (4, 593) = 4.50, p < .01 • Post-Hoc Analysis: • Low Increasing group: Higher levels of HP than Moderate and High Increasing Groups. • No statistically significant differences between the two lowest groups and the other groups. • Very Low Flat vs. High Increasing Groups: Cohen’s d = .51 [Medium effect size]

  21. Summary of Aim 2 • Parenting at age 2 predicted early childhood IC trajectories • Both supportive and negative dimensions of parenting predict development of IC • Power limited ability to detect differences between “very low” IC groups and other groups

  22. Strengths and Limitations • Observational measures of parenting • At-risk, diverse sample followed longitudinally • Relatively large sample • Structured observation of IC would help • Ongoing coding of observed self-regulation tasks • Some trajectory groups were small

  23. Future Directions • Continue to track trajectories of IC into middle childhood • Examine interplay of IC and parenting over time • Examine outcomes of IC trajectories • Externalizing and internalizing behavior problems • Academic adjustment

More Related