Psychology

A developmental model of maternal and child contributions to disruptive conduct:

the first six years

Grazyna Kochanska, Robin A. Barry, Nazan Aksan, and Lea J. Boldt The University of Iowa, USA

Background: The parent–child relationship is considered important for children’s future conscience, and conscience is seen as protecting them from disruptive behavior problems, but specific mechanisms of this developmental process are rarely studied. Methods: This multi-trait multi-method study examined, in a longitudinal design, paths linking early maternal responsiveness to the child with the child’s future conscience and disruptive behavior in 102 mother–child dyads. We tested a conceptual model where maternal responsiveness to the child, observed at 7 and 15 months, engenders a responsive stance in the child, observed at 25 and 38 months; that stance, in turn, becomes enduring and generalized, promoting multiple aspects of the child’s conscience, observed at 52 months. In turn, conscience serves as a protective factor from disruptive behavior problems, rated by mothers and fathers at 67 months. Results: The postulated paths were examined using sequential regressions and mediation effects were tested using bootstrapping analyses. Child responsive stance at 25–38 months fully mediated the link between maternal responsiveness in infancy and conscience at 52 months, and conscience fully mediated the link between child responsive stance and future disruptive behavior at 67 months. Conclusions: Examination of developmental links among early maternal behavior, the child’s responsive stance toward the mother, conscience, and disruptive behavior is a prom- ising step toward elucidating mechanisms of children’s adaptive and maladaptive trajectories. Keywords: Mother–child relationship, conscience, disruptive behavior, longitudinal studies.

The belief that early parental treatment of children has important implications for the children’s future development, including conscience and disruptive behavior, has been both questioned (Harris, 1998) and defended (Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hether- ington, & Bornstein, 2000; Maccoby, 2007). That controversy may be due, in part, to the surprising dearth of research on specific mechanisms that account for effects of parenting.

Children’s conscience, a complex system encom- passing moral emotions, conduct, cognition, and self, is critical for mental health in that it is perhaps the most powerful factor that prevents disruptive, callous, and antisocial conduct. Consequently, inquiry into developmental mechanisms that link early parenting, future conscience, and children’s disruptive conduct can substantially inform pre- vention and intervention programs.

In the attachment theory, caregivers’ early responsiveness was seen as promoting security, which, in turn, fostered the child’s positive orienta- tion toward the parent and willingness to please the parent and to embrace parental rules and values (Bretherton, Golby, & Cho, 1997; van IJzendoorn, 1997). Researchers inspired by the construct of mutuality and reciprocity, rooted in part in the attachment theory, proposed that even brief parental responsive play fosters child willingness to cooperate with the parent, assessed as compliance with

parental requests (Parpal & Maccoby, 1985; Lay, Waters, & Park, 1989). A cycle of exchange of com- pliance between the mother and the child lays grounds for a positive reciprocal set: The child be- comes receptive to and willing to embrace maternal socialization efforts (Maccoby, 2007). Recently, Bugental and Goodnow (1998) and Bugental and Grusec (2006) have proposed a separate mutuality domain within the parent–child relationship.

We have proposed a dyadic construct of early parent–child mutually responsive orientation (MRO) – a cooperative, mutually receptive, affectively positive relationship (Kochanska, 1997). MRO has been repeatedly shown to promote children’s future inter- nalization of parental values (Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2004; Kochanska, 2002; Kochanska, Forman, Aksan, & Dunbar, 2005b). That work, how- ever, has not elucidated specific contributions of each individual – the parent and the child – to the process of transmitting values. Even more importantly, we have never examined empirically the core assumption of this model: that children who eagerly embrace and internalize their parents’ rules and values are at a lower risk for disruptive behavior disorders, and consequently, that developmentally, a mature con- science indeed serves as a factor that protects young children from embarking on antisocial trajectories.

In the current article, we propose the following model: The mother’s early responsiveness to the child begets the child’s future ‘responsive stance’ toward the mother and her influence; that stance, inConflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49:11 (2008), pp 1220–1227 doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01932.x

� 2008 The Authors Journal compilation � 2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

turn, leads the child to accept, embrace, and internalize maternal values and standards – the formation of conscience. Finally, the child’s con- science then serves as a significant protective factor that reduces the risk of developing disruptive behavior problems, including manifestations of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct dis- order (CD), and related callous-unemotional traits.

The concept of the ‘responsive stance’ reflects our view of the child as an active agent who eagerly and proactively cooperates with the parent in socializa- tion. Such stance becomes enduring and general- ized, and it leads to the child’s broadly embracing and internalizing the parent’s rules, standards for conduct, and adaptive competencies (Kochanska, Aksan, & Carlson, 2005a).

To date, children’s active role in socialization has been mostly studied in the context of their resistance to parents. For example, a child’s difficult tempera- ment is seen as eliciting parental power assertion (Rothbart & Bates, 2006); toddlers’ emerging inter- personal skills are seen as underlying the children’s increasingly effective opposition to parental demands (Kuczynski & Kochanska, 1990).

In contrast, we have proposed that young children can actively cooperate in their socialization by adopting a responsive stance toward parents. One example of such stance is the child’s responsiveness to parental bids, signals, and cues in naturalistic interactions contexts – a willing, positive disposition toward parents’ social bids and eagerness to follow their lead. Generally, the child’s responsive, willing stance toward the parent has been robustly and broadly associated with successful socialization outcomes (Kochanska et al., 2005a).

In this article, in a new longitudinal sample, we tested the developmental model presented above. Maternal early responsiveness to the child, observed in infancy (7–15 months), was expected to promote the child’s responsive stance toward the mother observed at toddler age (25–38 months), and that stance, in turn, was expected to promote the child’s conscience at preschool age (52 months). Conscience was assessed using a multi-method multi-trait approach that included observing the child’s rule-compatible conduct in contexts free of surveillance and examining the child’s choices and judgments in response to hypothetical moral dilem- mas.

Furthermore, we tested the central premise that, thus formed, conscience serves as a powerful protect- ive factor against disruptive behavior disorders of childhood. To that end, we extended the just- described developmental chain to include clinically- relevant measures of children’s oppositional, defiant, antisocial, disruptive, and callous-unemotional characteristics at the kindergarten–early school age, 67 months, as rated by both mothers and fathers. Figure 1 presents this developmental mediational model.

Method

Participants and design

Families from a broad range of income and education volunteered for the study, and were seen at Time 1 (N = 102, 51 girls) at 7 months, at Time 2 (N = 101, 51 girls) at 15 months, at Time 3 (N = 100, 50 girls) at 25 months, at Time 4 (N = 100, 50 girls) at 38 months, at Time 5 (N = 99, 49 girls) at 52 months, and at Time 6 (N = 91, 45 girls) at 67 months. In terms of race distribution, 90% of mothers were White, 3% Hispanic, 2% African American, 1% Asian, 1% Pacific Islander, and 3% ‘other’ non-White. Among fathers, 84% were White, 8% Hispanic, 3% African American, 3% Asian, and 2% ‘other’. In 20% of families, one or both parents were non-White. This research fully complies with ethical guidelines, including the use of consent procedures, and has been annually reviewed by IRB.

At Time 1, there were two home sessions, one with each parent; at Time 2, Time 3, Time 5, and Time 6 there were two laboratory sessions, again one with each parent; at Time 4, there were two sessions, one at home and one in the laboratory, with each parent taking part in half of each. The sessions, lasting from 2 to 3 hours, were conducted by female experi- menters (‘Es’) and were videotaped.

Mothers’ responsiveness was observed at Times 1–2 (as well as at Times 3–4 to serve as a covariate). Children’s responsive stance toward the mothers was observed at Times 3–4 (as well as at Times 1–2 to serve as a covariate). Several behavioral manifesta- tions of child conscience were observed at Time 5, and child disruptive behavior traits were rated by mothers and fathers at Time 6.

Multiple coding teams used at least 20% of cases for reliability and frequently ‘realigned’ to prevent drift. Variables were substantially aggregated across coded segments, contexts, and occasions of meas- urements to yield robust final constructs.

Mothers’ responsiveness to their children, 7–15 months

Coded contexts. Mothers’ responsiveness to their children was assessed during naturalistic interac- tions at 7 and 15 months, in typical daily contexts: food preparation and cleanup, snack, play with and without toys, bath, free time, opening a gift, and other routine leisurely, chore-oriented, and care- giving activities. At each time, approximately 45 min of interaction were sampled. Analogous measures collected at 25 and 38 months (approximately 45 and 75 min, respectively) served as covariates.

Coding, reliability, data aggregation. Coding was based on Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall’s (1978) approach, although rather than rate the entire interaction, we rated each context (e.g., play, snack),

Responsiveness, conscience, disruptive behavior 1221

� 2008 The Authors Journal compilation � 2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

to increase the robustness of the scores. In the past, the scales of sensitivity–insensitivity, acceptance– rejection, and cooperation–interference had intercor- related above .70 (e.g., Kochanska et al., 2005a); thus, we combined them into one responsiveness rating (1 = highly unresponsive, 7 = highly responsive).

Reliability, alpha, ranged .91–.96. The scores were then aggregated across all the contexts into an overall responsiveness score at each age, at 7 months, M = 4.82, SD = .73, range 2.50–6.50, at 15 months, M = 4.95, SD = .78, range 3.00–6.33. The scores were longitudinally stable from 7 to 15 months, r(101) = .51, p < .001, and were stan- dardized and aggregated. Mothers’ responsiveness scores at 25 and 38 months (the covariates) were analogously coded and aggregated.

Children’s responsive stance toward mothers, 25–28 months

Coded contexts, reliability, data aggregation. Child- to-mother responsiveness was coded during natur- alistic interactions (approximately 45 min at 25 months and 75 min at 38 months), such as snack, play, free time, a craft project, etc. Coding paralleled that of maternal responsiveness, but was redesigned with developmental considerations in mind and extensively tailored to the developmental nature of child responsiveness. The judgment

encompassed dimensions such as being oriented toward the mother, being prompt and willing to re- spond to her social bids, the degree of positivity, wholeheartedness, coordination, and sincerity of response, eagerness to follow maternal lead, eager- ness to share attention, etc. Independent teams coded mother and child responsiveness.

Reliability, alpha, was .91. The scores were aggregated across all contexts into child overall responsive stance score at each age: at 25 months, M = 4.94, SD = .94, range 1.67–6.17, at 38 months, M = 5.13, SD = .53, range 3.27–6.25. The analogous scores at 7–15 months were obtained to serve as covariates.

Overall measure of children’s responsive stance

The scores were longitudinally stable from 25 to 28 months, r(99) = .48, p < .001, and thus were aggregated, M = .00, SD = .86, range )3.10–1.69.

Child conscience, 52 months

Observed internalization of maternal prohibition. Coded contexts. At the end of the lab session, the child was observed alone for 8 min with the off-limits toys. The mother reissued the prohibition, asked him/her to engage in a dull sorting task directly in front of the toys, and left.

Figure 1 The developmental mediational model Stage 1 model (black): M Responsiveness, 7–15 months fi C Responsive Stance, 25–38 months fi C Conscience, 52 months Stage 2 model (gray): C Responsive Stance, 25–38 months fi C Conscience, 52 months fi C Disruptive Behavior, 67 months Path a: the effect of the independent variable regressed on the mediator variable. Path b: the effect of the mediator variable regressed on the dependent variable. Path c: the unmediated effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. Path c’: the mediated effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable Stage 1 covariates: child gender, child responsiveness to mother at 7–15 months, mother responsiveness to child at 25–38 months Stage 2 covariates: child gender, child responsiveness to mother at 7–15 months, mother responsiveness to child at 25–38 months, mother responsiveness to child at 7–15 months Child age at each assessment is depicted above the variables at each time point. M = Mother, C = Child, mo. = months

1222 Grazyna Kochanska et al.

� 2008 The Authors Journal compilation � 2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Coding. Child behavior was coded for each of 96 5-s segments as: looking at toys without touching, other activity (e.g., snacking), sorting, touching toys gently, self-correcting (beginning to touch and terminating the attempt spontaneously), and deviating (playing with the toys). Reliability, kappa, was .95. Latencies to look, touch, and deviate were also coded; reliability, alpha, was 1.00.

Data reduction. The relative scores for each behavior (tallies divided by the number of coded segments) and the latencies were submitted to principal components analysis (PCA). PCA produced a factor reflecting the child’s internalization of maternal prohibition (Eigenvalue 3.59, 36% of vari- ance). Deviating loaded negatively, and looking, sorting, and the latencies to deviate and to touch loaded positively. This factor score was further used, M = .00, SD = 1.00, range )3.20–.79.

Observed rule-compatible behavior. E asked the child to play ‘Fish Game’, to follow the rules and ‘not cheat’, promised an attractive prize for winning, and left the room. The child was then observed alone for 3 min. To win, the child had to find a plastic fish in several jars covered with cloths, without looking or lifting the cloths, using haptic exploration only. The game was impossible to win if the rules were followed. E then returned, apologized for ‘using the wrong rules’, asked the child to play again using more re- laxed rules, until every child won a prize.

Coding. Behavior was coded for every 3-s segment (total of 60). ‘Legal’ behaviors (e.g., searching without lifting cloth) and ‘illegal’ behaviors (e.g., lifting cloth, uncovering jars) were coded, as were the latencies to the first illegal behaviors. Reliabilities, alphas, ranged .76–1.00.

Data reduction. We averaged latencies, the ‘legal’ behaviors, and the (reversed) ‘illegal behaviors’, all standardized, into a composite of the child’s rule- compatible conduct, alpha = .88, M = ).02, SD = .57, range ).83–1.35.

Prosocial moral judgments. Hypothetical dilemmas. Children were presented with four picture stories, each portraying the protagonist (child of the same gender as the participant) facing a conflict whether to give up an attractive resource or activity so as to benefit another child, or keep it to him/herself, depriving the other child of his/her share. The con- flict was inevitable, and the prosocial choice and the selfish choice were pitted against each other. The actual choices depicted in the stories were as follows: to let another child take a desired turn on a slide or to take it oneself, to help a hurt child or to rush to a birthday party, to let another child use paint needed to complete a picture or to use up the remaining paint for one’s own picture, and to share juice with another child or to drink it oneself. After the child responded, E challenged the response, pointing out the consequences of each choice, and gave the child

another chance to reply. In this article, we use the responses that reflected the child’s prosocial choices.

Coding and data aggregation. In each story, the prosocial choice score ranged from 0 to 3 (0 = absent, 1 = chosen as first choice but changed to selfish when challenged, 2 = second or changed choice, retained as final, and 3 = first choice and unchanged when challenged). Reliability, kappa, was .93. The scores were then summed across the four stories, M = 4.78, SD = 3.36, range 0–12.00.

Overall conscience measure. The children’s observed rule-compatible conduct in both contexts and their prosocial choices cohered (correlations ranged from .27 to .41, all p’s < .01) and were aggregated (with the prosocial scores standardized) into one overall conscience score at 52 months, M = ).02, SD = .77, range )2.43–1.37.

Child disruptive behavior, 67 months

Mothers and fathers rated the child using the 97-item Child Symptom Inventory-4, designed to correspond to DSM-IV (CSI-4; Gadow & Sprafkin, 2002; Gadow, Sprafkin, & Nolan, 2001; Sprafkin, Gadow, Salisbury, Schneider, & Loney, 2002). Using symptom severity scoring, where each item is rated from 0 (never) to 3 (very often), we obtained the scores for ODD (oppositional defiant disorder; mothers, M = 6.99, SD = 3.78, range 0–24, fathers, M = 6.28, SD = 3.23, range 0–17) and CD (conduct disorder; mothers, M = 1.37, SD = 2.19, range 0–11, fathers, M = 1.06, SD = 1.70, range = 0–12). Parents also completed the 24-item scale of callous-unemotional traits (ICU; Frick, 2003; Frick, Bodin, & Barry, 2000) that captures absence of guilt and empathy, and lack of concern about rules and standards of behavior. We computed the means of all items: mothers, alpha = .84, M = .80, SD = .32, range .13–1.63, fathers, alpha = .87, M = .81, SD = .32, range .13–1.63.

For each parent, the three scores (ODD, CD, ICU) were standardized and aggregated into a disruptive behavior score (average inter-correlation .39 for mothers, .43 for fathers; mothers, M = .00, SD = .77, range = )1.53–2.48, fathers, M = .00, SD = .79, range )1.43–3.99). Both parents’ scores correlated, r(88) = .46, p < .001, and were combined into a robust measure of the child’s disruptive behavior, M = .01, SD = .68, range )1.04–2.93. The correla- tions among the study’s measures are in Table 1.

Results

In the analyses, we applied Kenny, Kashy, and Bol- ger’s (1998) approach to testing mediation to our model in Figure 1. The analyses progressed in two stages.

In Stage 1, we tested the first part of the model, with the mother’s responsiveness to the child at

Responsiveness, conscience, disruptive behavior 1223

� 2008 The Authors Journal compilation � 2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

7–15 months as the predictor, the child’s responsive stance toward the mother at 25–38 months as the mediator, and the child’s conscience at 52 months as the outcome. Child gender, child responsiveness to the mother at 7–15 months, and mother respons- iveness to the child at 25–38 months were the covariates.

In Stage 2, we tested the second part of the model, with the child’s responsive stance at 35–38 months as the predictor, the child’s conscience at 52 months as the mediator, and the child’s disruptive behavior at 67 months as the outcome. Maternal responsive- ness to the child at 7–15 months (the predictor in Stage 1) was now added to the set of covariates described above.

In both Stage 1 and Stage 2, we tested consecu- tively each effect, as recommended by Kenny et al. (1998, pp. 259–260). The effects were tested in three separate regressions (see Figure 1 for the represen- tation of the paths). The first regression tested the effect of the predictor on the outcome (path c); the second regression tested the effect of the predictor on the mediator (path a); and the third regression tested simultaneously the effect of the mediator on the outcome, with the predictor controlled (path b), and the drop in the effect of the predictor on the outcome (path c’). The regressions employed the bootstrap- ping syntax for SPSS (Preacher & Hayes, 2007) to statistically control for the covariates and to test the indirect effects in the third regression. Table 2 presents B and SE, corresponding to each path, as depicted in Figure 1.

Stage 1 analyses: from maternal responsiveness in infancy, to child responsive stance at toddler age, to child conscience at preschool age

The four effects tested in Stage 1 were consistent with full mediation. Early maternal responsiveness pre-

dicted children’s responsive stance in the third year, which, in turn, predicted children’s conscience at 52 months. Early maternal responsiveness was no longer significant when entered together with the child’s responsive stance. The postulated indirect effect was significantly different from zero (p < .05, two-tailed) and thus determined to be statistically reliable.

Stage 2 analyses: from children’s responsive stance at toddler age, to child conscience at preschool age, to child disruptive behavior at kindergarten age

The four effects tested in Stage 1 were also consistent with full mediation. Children’s responsive stance in the third year predicted children’s conscience at 52 months, and it, in turn, predicted (negatively) the child’s disruptive behavior at 67 months. The child’s responsive stance was no longer significant when entered together with conscience. The postulated

Table 1 Correlations among the measures

Main measures Covariates

7–15 months 25–38 months 52 months 67 months 7–15 months 25–38 months

M fi C Resp C Responsive stance to M C Conscience

C Disruptive behavior C fi M Resp. M fi C Resp.

Main measures 7–15 months M fi C Resp. – .42**** .26*** ).22* .51**** .62****

25–38 months C Responsive stance to M – – .46**** ).39**** .40**** .44****

52 months C Conscience – – – ).42**** .18+ .10

67 months C Disruptive behavior – – – – ).19+ ).12

Covariates 7–15 months C fi M Resp. – – – – – .28***

+p < .10; *p < .05; ***p < .01; ****p < .001. C fi M Resp. = Child responsiveness to mother. M fi C Resp. = Mother responsiveness to child

Table 2 The results of the sequential regressions testing the developmental mediational model, Stage 1 and Stage 2

Stage of model Path tested B SE p

Stage 1 M Responsiveness to C, 7-15 Mo. fi C Responsive Stance, 25-38 Mo. fi C Conscience, 52 Mo.

c .23 .09 .05 a .30 .10 .01 b .30 .09 .001 c’ .14 .09 ns

Stage 2 C Responsive Stance, 25-38 Mo. fi C Conscience, 52 Mo. fi C Disruptive Behavior, 67 Mo.

c ).26 .10 .01 a .34 .10 .001 b ).21 .11 .05 c’ ).19 .10 ns

Note: Paths a, b, c, and c’ correspond to the paths in Figure 1. M = Mother, C = Child, mo. = months.

1224 Grazyna Kochanska et al.

� 2008 The Authors Journal compilation � 2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

indirect effect was significantly different from zero (p < .05, two-tailed) and thus determined to be stat- istically reliable.

Discussion

Leaving behind the discussions of whether or not parenting matters, socialization research has now been shifting toward exploring potential mechanisms that link early relationships with future outcomes. Such an approach can substantially enhance our understanding of socialization processes. This lon- gitudinal, multi-trait, multi-method study examined how early maternal behavior may influence the child’s future responsive stance toward the mother, and how that stance may lead to the child’s future conscience. Furthermore, we examined whether indeed the critical importance of child conscience lies in its ability to serve as a shield that significantly reduces the child’s risk of developing future disrupt- ive behavior problems that include opposition, defi- ance, indifference to and disregard for rules and others’ welfare, and compromised guilt and empathy.

Extensive evidence links MRO and related mutually positive reciprocal forms of parent–child orientation with adaptive child outcomes (Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000; Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Kochanska, 2002; Maccoby, 2007; Shaw, 2003). Parental responsiveness is often seen as the primary factor responsible for the emergence of such reciprocal relationships. Once MRO is established, presumably, parents and children become responsive to each other, smoothing the way for successful parental socialization efforts. Consequently, socialization becomes a mutual, cooperative parent–child enter- prise. However, few studies examined in more detail the developmental path implicit in such a model: that parental early responsiveness to the child engenders in the child a responsive stance toward the parent, and that stance becomes enduring and generalized so that it leads the child to embrace and internalize parental values and standards, or conscience. Con- science then protects from disruptive behavior prob- lems. We tested such developmental path across the first 6 years of life for in normally developing mother– child dyads.

The results were straightforward and consistent with the hypotheses: Maternal responsiveness in infancy predicted the child’s adoption of a responsive stance toward the mother at the toddler age, and that stance appeared to be enduring and generalized in that it led to the formation of conscience. In this study, child conscience, assessed at preschool age, encompassed his or her rule-compatible conduct, observed in two different contexts without surveil- lance, and his or her prosocial choices that favored the welfare of another over personal gain in several hypothetical dilemmas. The results emphasize the importance of the child’s responsive stance toward

the mother as a mechanism that accounts for the relations between the mother’s responsiveness in infancy and child conscience at preschool age. The child’s responsive stance in the third year appeared to fully mediate those relations.

Perhaps more importantly, the results supported the central premise that children’s conscience serves as a robust protective factor against disruptive behavior problems. Conscience at preschool age appeared to fully mediate the relations between children’s responsive stance toward their mothers in the third year and children’s manifestations of oppo- sitional, defiant, callous, and antisocial traits in the sixth year. Note that this latter age range marks a key developmental transition, when children’s lives expand from the relatively circumscribed family ecology to broader social contexts that include peer and academic settings. Multiple new challenges then impinge on the child, including, for example, the potentially detrimental influence of deviant peers (Deater-Deckard, 2001). How the child manages those emerging challenges has been often seen as an important point marking either an adaptive develop- mental trajectory or a trajectory toward disruptive behavior problems. One could argue that those children who as preschoolers wholeheartedly embrace their mothers’ rules and who consider others’ needs in their moral choices are less vulnera- ble to the influence of deviant peers as they enter school. Indeed, many parents believe that children benefit from a robust early socialization at home before they are exposed to multiple influences in expanded ecologies that parents cannot control. Par- ents further believe that such robust early socializa- tion can buffer children against the kinds of external influences that parents consider undesirable and contradictory to their own values. This study suggests that those preschoolers who have strongly internal- ized family standards of conduct are indeed likely to embark on the future adaptive developmental path- way in the sixth year.

Our findings dovetail with research on parenting interventions for mothers of children with conduct problems (e.g., ‘Child’s Game’) that focus on mater- nal responsiveness (Brinkmeyer & Eyberg, 2003; McMahon & Forehand, 2003, Kumpfer, Molgaard, & Spoth, 1996; Schuhmann, Foote, Eyberg, & Boggs, 1998). Positive parenting serves as a protective factor against conduct problems even for children at high risk (Shaw, 2003; Chronis et al., 2007). Research on families of antisocial children repeat- edly shows the absence of positive parent–child interactions (Patterson, 1982).

Whereas the results are consistent with the pos- tulated mediational chain, it is important to keep in mind that the correlational nature of this study precludes strong causal interpretations. To increase confidence in our inferences, we controlled statist- ically for child responsiveness to the mother in infancy and for mother responsiveness to the child at

Responsiveness, conscience, disruptive behavior 1225

� 2008 The Authors Journal compilation � 2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

toddler age, the potential alternative sources of the effects. Furthermore, we employed the bootstrapping approach to mediation, considered statistically more powerful than the Sobel test and particularly appropriate for relatively small and moderate sample sizes (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman West, & Sheets, 2002; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Nevertheless, experimental studies are needed to make stronger causal inferences. Several characteristics of this sample – the relatively low risk, small size, and limited ethnic diversity – are also sources of caution. An experimental randomized intervention study that tests this model in a large, ethnically diverse, and high-risk sample is currently under way.

Finally, future research will be well served by including biological and genetic variables. It is increasingly clear that genes may underpin parents’ and children’s behavior problems and parenting, as well as moderate the impact of parenting on children’s outcomes (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, in press; Belsky, Bakermans-Kran- enburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000)

Children’s conscience, a perennial topic of interest in basic development research, has recently resurged also as a central topic in developmental psycho- pathology. This work contributes to our increasingly sophisticated understanding of specific mechanisms of adaptive and maladaptive development.

Acknowledgements

This research has been sponsored by NIMH, RO1 MH63096 and KO2 MH01446 to the first author. We appreciate David Kenny’s feedback regarding the analytic approach. We also thank many students and staff for their contributions to data collection and coding, particularly Amanda Hollatz, Natasha Jimenez, Jessica O’Bleness, Sara Penney, Theresa Prisco, Sarah Stellern, and Jarilyn Woodard. We also thank the participants in the Family Study for their enthusiastic commitment to this research. Nazan Aksan is now at Koc University in Istanbul, Turkey.

Correspondence to

Grazyna Kochanska, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1407, USA; Tel: (319) 335-2409; Fax: (319) 335-0191; Email: [email protected]

References

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (In press). Research review: Genetic vulnerability or

differential susceptibility in child development: The case of attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.

Behar, L.B. (1977). The Preschool Behavior Question- naire. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 5, 265–275.

Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., & van IJzen- doorn, M.H. (2007). For better and for worse: Differ- ential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 300– 304.

Bretherton, I., Golby, B., & Cho, E. (1997). Attachment and the transmission of values. In J.E. Grusec, & L. Kuczynski, (Eds), Parenting and children’s interna- lization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 103–134). New York: Wiley.

Brinkmeyer, M.Y., & Eyberg, S.M. (2003). Parent–child interaction therapy for oppositional children. In A.E. Kazdin et al. (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (pp. 204–223). New York: Guilford Press.

Bugental, D.B., & Goodnow, J.J. (1998). Socialization processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 389– 462). New York: Wiley.

Bugental, D.B., & Grusec, J.E. (2006). Socialization processes. In W. Damon, & R.M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 366–428). New York: Wiley.

Chronis, A.M., Lahey, B.B., Pelham, W.E. Jr, Williams, S.H., Baumann, B.L., Kipp, H., Jones, H.A., & Rathouz, P.J. (2007). Maternal depression and early positive parenting predict future conduct problems in young children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 43, 70–82.

Collins, W.A., Maccoby, E.E., Steinberg, L., Hethering- ton, E.M., & Bornstein, M.H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218–232.

Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the role of peer relationships in the development of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 565–579.

Deater-Deckard, K., & O’Connor, T. G. (2000). Parent– child mutuality in early childhood: Two behavioral genetic studies. Developmental Psychology, 36, 561– 570.

Deater-Deckard, K., & Petrill, S.A. (2004). Parent–child dyadic mutuality and child behavior problems: An investigation of gene–environment processes. Jour- nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1171–1179.

Gadow, K.D., & Sprafkin, J. (2002). Child Symptom Inventory 4: Screening and norms manual. Stony Brook, NY: Checkmate Plus.

Gadow, K.D., Sprafkin, J., & Nolan, E.E. (2001). DSM- IV Symptoms in community and clinic preschool children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1383–1392.

Frick, P.J. (2003). The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Unpublished scale. University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA.

Frick, P.J., Bodin, S., & Barry, C.T. (2000). Psycho- pathic traits and conduct problems in community

1226 Grazyna Kochanska et al.

� 2008 The Authors Journal compilation � 2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

and clinic-referred samples of children: Further development of the psychopathy screening device. Psychological Assessment, 12, 382–393.

Harris, J.R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.

Harrist, A.-W., & Waugh, R.M. (2002). Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’s development. Developmental Review, 22, 555–592.

Kenny, D., Kashy, D.A., & Bolger, A.N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & L. Gardner (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (vol. 1, 4th edn, pp. 233–265). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: Implica- tions for early socialization. Child Development, 68, 94–112.

Kochanska, G. (2002). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: A context for the early development of conscience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 191–195.

Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., & Carlson, J.J. (2005a). Temperament, relationships, and young children’s receptive cooperation with their parents. Developmen- tal Psychology, 41, 648–660.

Kochanska, G., Coy, K.C., & Murray, K.T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72, 1091–1111.

Kochanska, G., DeVet, K., Goldman, M., Murray, K., & Putnam, S.P. (1994). Maternal reports of conscience development and temperament in young children. Child Development, 65, 852–868.

Kochanska, G., Forman, D.R., Aksan, N., & Dunbar, S.B. (2005b). Pathways to conscience: Early mother– child mutually responsive orientation and children’s moral emotion, conduct, and cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 19–34.

Kochanska, G., & Murray, K.T. (2000). Mother–child mutually responsive orientation and conscience development: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 71, 417–431.

Kuczynski, L., & Kochanska, G. (1990). Development of children’s noncompliance strategies from toddler- hood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 26, 398– 408.

Kumpfer, K.L., Molgaard, V., & Spoth, R. (1996). The Strengthening Families Program for the prevention of delinquency and drug use. In R.D. Peters, & R.J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, sub- stance abuse, and delinquency. Banff international behavioral science series (vol. 3, pp. 241–267). Thou- sand Oaks: Sage.

Lay, K.L., Waters, E., & Park, K.A. (1989). Maternal responsiveness and child compliance: The role of

mood as mediator. Child Development, 60, 1405– 1411.

Maccoby, E.E. (2007). Historical overview of socializa- tion research and theory. In J. Grusec, & P. Hastings, (Eds), Handbook of socialization (pp. 13–41). New York: Guilford Press.

MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.

McMahon, R.J., & Forehand, R.L. (2003). Helping the noncompliant child: Family-based treatment for oppo- sitional behavior. New York: The Guilford Press.

Parpal, M., & Maccoby, E.E. (1985). Maternal respon- siveness and subsequent child compliance. Child Development, 56, 1326–1334.

Patterson, G.R. (1982). Coercive family process. Oregon: Castalia.

Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2007). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator mod- els. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Rothbart, M.K., & Bates, J.E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon, & R.M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley.

Schuhmann, E., Foote, R., Eyberg, S.M., Boogs, S., & Algina, J. (1998). Parent–child interaction therapy: Interim report of a randomized trial with short-term maintenance. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 34–45.

Shaw, D.S. (2003). Innovative approaches and methods to the study of children’s conduct problems. Social Development, 12, 309–313.

Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experi- mental and nonexperimental studies: New proced- ures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

Sprafkin, J., Gadow, K.D., Salisbury, H., Schneider, J., & Loney, J. (2002). Further evidence of reliability and validity of the Child Symptom Inventory-4: Parent checklist in clinically referred boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 513–524.

Thompson, R.A. (2006). Early sociopersonality devel- opment. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, N. Eisenberg (Volume Ed.), Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 25–98). New York: Wiley.

van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1997). Attachment, emergent morality, and aggression: Toward a developmental socioemotional model of antisocial behavior. Interna- tional Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 703– 727.

Manuscript accepted 3 April 2008

Responsiveness, conscience, disruptive behavior 1227

� 2008 The Authors Journal compilation � 2008 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.