PSY620 Advanced Developmental - PowerPoint Presentation

1. PSY620Advanced Developmental Psychology

2. ParentingAttachment security: stability & instabilitySensitivitysecurityAttachment predictsAdult attachment interviewSensitivity/securityoutcomeEarly sensitivity(academic) outcomeIs sensitivity maximal responsivity?Preschool rule-breakingparental power assertionantisociality (effects on parenting)Spankingpoor academic & social outcomesSingle studyMeta-analysisMaternal warmth & intrusivenessInteraction in AA dyads (Ispa)

3. Significance of Early Security3FuttererGroh, et al., 2017

4. Messinger4Large scale study stability is modest but instability is predictableMLS Marginal stability for A, B, C, and D classifications from 18 to 36 monthsKappa = .06; p < .05 Seifer et alNICHD Modest stability for A, B, C, and D classifications from 15 to 36 monthsLow maternal sensitivity from 24 to 36 months  secure to insecure shiftHigher maternal sensitivity from 24 to 36 months  insecure to secure shiftNICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2001, Dev. Psy

5. Continuity of Attachment not significantAdolescents Mothers of secure adolescents showed more sensitive support at 14 years Overall, 39% showed secure, 61% showed insecureBichay5

6. Sensitivity predicts continuitySecure-secure had more sensitive mothers at 12 months and 14 years old than secure-insecureInsecure-insecure vs. insecure-secureInsecure-secure group had less supportive mothers at 12 months but more supportive mothers at 14 years old Stressful life events and temperament did not predict attachment continuityBichay6

7. Messinger7Attachment & emotional developmentIn 2nd and 3rd yrs, secure children  less angry. Higher attachment  less fear and anger at 33 moInsecure children's negative emotions increased:Avoidant children  fearfulResistant children were most fearful / least joyful, distress even in episodes designed to elicit joy. Disorganized/ unclassifiable children more angry. Kochanska, G. Child Development. 2001, 72 474-490

8. Messinger8Proviso: Insecure attachment may have positive functionsThe function of attachment is safetyAvoidance minimizes unfruitful attempts to elicit caregivingResistance maximizes attention to separation & minimizes separationEven disorganization balances exposure to a threatening but needed caregiverSecurity may not be the only way to ‘get it right.’Crittenden (Dahra Jackson)Age of menarche

9. Attachment-Maturation ModelEarly menarche: insecure over-represented?Is insecurity a better fit to certain environments?Mattsoncontrolled for mother’s age of menarcheBelsky, Houts, & Fearon 2010

10. What about attachment in adulthood? AAI

11. Messinger11How Speakers are CategorizedAs Autonomous (secure), Dismissing (avoidant), or Preoccupied (resistant)And, independently, as Unresolved/Disorganized Not based on experiences themselves But on speaker’s current relationship to the experienceshow they’ve processed their pastBased on the coherence of their discourse

12. Messinger12Validity of AAIClassifications are stable2 months, 3 months, 1.5 yearsNot related to IQ measures6 of 7 studiesDiscourse style relates to attachmentnot interviews about jobMachine learning shows some ability to distinguish adult attachment in AAI

13. Messinger13Parent-Infant Attachment CorrespondenceMeta-analysis of 13 studies using three major categories75% secure vs. insecure agreement (K=.49)70% three-way agreement (K=.46)Prebirth AAI show 69% three-way agreement (K=.44)Bakermans-kranenburg, M. J. & Vanijzendoorn, M. H. (1993). A Psychometric Study of the Adult Attachment Interview - Reliability and Discriminant Validity. Developmental Psychology, 29, 870-879.

14. Messinger14Parent-Infant Correspondence

15. Messinger15Breaking the LinkParental attachment is not formed by past experiences but by current orientation to past.Supportive experiences with a partner, friend or therapist can allow for earned autonomy in the face of experiences that would otherwise be associated with insecurity.

16. Messinger16InterviewInterview a partner about one attachment figure focusing on questions 2 through 4Each person analyzes their own responsesno comments form partnerOnly share what you want to share

17. Messinger17Adult Attachment Interview

18. Messinger18How to Think About What You’ve SaidScales associated with autonomous categorycoherence, metacognitive monitoringScales associated with dismissing categoryIdealization of attachment figures, insistence on lack of memory for childhood, dismissal of attachment-related experience/relationshipsScales associated with preoccupied categoryanger expressed toward attachment figure, passivity/vagueness in discourse

19. Attachment in the Early Life Course: Meta-Analytic Evidence for its Role in Socioemotional DevelopmentGroh et al., (2017)Futterer

20. Attachment ResearchAttachment securitySocioemotional outcomes20???Futterer

21. Current StudyDoes early (in)security have narrow or broad significance?Over time, what is the predictive significance of early attachment? Does it endure or diminish?Do effects vary by population?21Futterer

22. Significance of Early Security22Futterer

23. What about age?23FuttererPeer CompetenceInternalizing symptomsExternalizing problemsTemporal lagAge of outcome assessmentAttachment Security

24. What about age?24FuttererExternalizing problemsTemporal lagAge of outcome assessmentAttachment Security

25. What about age?25FuttererTemporal lagAny associationAttachment Security

26. Other possible factors???26Futterer

27. Other possible factors???27Futterer

28. What about insecurity?28Futterer

29. Security effects…moderated

30. OverallEarly attachment security:is only weakly associated with infant temperamenthas lasting significance for children’s socioemotional adjustmentMore strongly related to social competence and externalizing problems than internalizing problemsEarly attachment can inform models of psychopathology and adjustment, but it has its limits30Futterer

31. Messinger31Evidence for sensitivity  attachment effectsExperimental Irritable infantsSnuggliesObservational Meta-analysis of quasi-experiments

32. HudiburghBorstein & Manian (2013)

33. Sensitive responsiveness to infant signals and communicationRecurring and meaningful sequencesInfant action and parent reaction that generalizes across caregiving contextsCaslineWhat is Maternal Responsiveness?InfantActionParentReactionLook at motherEncourage attention to motherLook at objectEncourage attention to objectNondistress vocalizationSpeech to the infantSmile

34. Why does Maternal Responsiveness matter?Unpredictable ParentingIndiscriminateParentingInsecure ResistantIncreased aggression & disruptive behaviorGreater externalizingInsecure AvoidantIncreased stress & hypervigilanceLow self-reliance/sufficiencyAttachment StyleMaternal ResponsivenessLowMediumHighCaslineSensitive ResponsiveSecure AttachmentBehavioral IndependenceVerbal ability, intellectual achievement

35. Maternal Responsiveness LowMediumHighAim 3: Global Maternal Sensitivity?Aim 1: responsive to what? and how?Infant looks at object, mother looks at objectCurrent Study Aims & HypothesesAim 2: Can we do better?CaslineInfant looks at object, mother talks to infant

36. Participants335 European American mother-infant dyadsInfant age ranged from 4.7-6.5 months (M age = 5.4 months)Mother age ranged from 13.91-42.28 years (M age = 28.27 years)Heterogeneous in terms of of maternal education and family SESProcedureHour-long audiovisual recording conducted in the homeMothers were asked to go about their normal routineObservations included a variety of activities (feeding, diapering, bathing, playing)Recordings took place during a time when the child was awake and alert, when mothers were in view of the infant and solely responsible for the babyTapes were independently coding for micro-level infant/caregiver behaviors & macro-level maternal sensitivity & structuringHudiburgh, CaslineMethod

37. Micro-level coding of infant/maternal behaviors:Coded onset/offset of specific infant/mother behaviors (see table)Looked at each possible pairing of infant  mother behaviorMother’s behavior considered “contingent” if it occurred within 3 seconds of infant behavior onset or offset (depending on the pairing)Hudiburgh, CaslineCoding ResponsivityInfantActionParentReactionLook at motherEncourage attention to motherLook at objectEncourage attention to objectNondistress vocalizationSpeech to the infantSmile

38. Emotional Availability Scales: Infancy to Early Childhood Version (EA Scales; Biringen et al. 2014)Caregiver: sensitivity, structuring, non-intrusiveness, non-hostilityInfant: responsiveness to the caregiver & child’s involvement of the caregiverEmotional Availability = transactional, capacity of a dyad to share an emotionally healthy relationshipScored from 1 (highly insensitive) to 9 (highly sensitive)Optimal Sensitivity vs. Apparent SensitivityClear perception and appropriate respondingAttunement to timing and rhythm, flexibility, variation and creativity of play, parental acceptance of the childCaslineCoding Maternal Sensitivity

39. Correlations between BehaviorsHudiburgh,CaslineRaw frequencies of mother and infant behaviorsDoes not consider contingencies

40. Contingency of Mother BehaviorsCaslineLooks at MotherEncourage attention to motherEncourage attention to object Speech to InfantLooks at ObjectNondistressed VocalizationSmilesInfant ActionMaternal ReactionOdds Ratio (+3 secs)8.5***1.3**2.1***0.8**3.1***1.1**1.8***1.0 ns1.4***4.5***1.5*1.7***ORs >1 = more likely to occur after infant action than at other timesORs 0 - 1 = less likely

41. Contingency & SensitivityCaslineLooks at MotherEncourage attention to motherEncourage attention to object Speech to InfantLooks at ObjectNondistressed VocalizationSmilesInfant ActionMaternal ReactionCorrelation of Odds Ratio with maternal sensitivityMore contingent speech to looking at mother = less sensitiveMore contingent encouragement to looking at mother = more sensitive

42. Contingency & SensitivityCaslineOR = 1.17When maternal speech to infant is contingent on infant nondistress vocalizations, mothers are rated as more sensitiveWhen maternal speech contingency odds are beyond just significantly >1, are rated as less sensitive

43. Contingency & SensitivityCaslineLooks at MotherEncourage attention to motherEncourage attention to object Speech to InfantLooks at ObjectNondistressed VocalizationSmilesInfant ActionMaternal ReactionShows knots with change in slope before and after

44. Contingency of maternal responses & perceived maternal sensitivityContingency analyses better represent how coordinate infant and mother behaviors are than correlation analyses (92% vs 50%)For most infant-mother behavioral pairings, contingency odds ratios just greater than 1 were deemed “optimally sensitive”Developmental Implications: mastering contingencies helps developmentInnate “contingency detection module”?Imperfect maternal contingency may be adapativeClinical implications: parentingWithdrawn and vigilant parenting = nonoptimal child developmentHudiburgh, Casline

45. Discussion QuestionsCaregiver Characteristics: How might the contingencies and their relationship to sensitivity change if:Considered Psychopathology: maternal depression Had an ethnically diverse sample: cultural and contextual factors (e.g., race, SES, neighborhood). E.g., trauma and hypervigilance as a protective parenting strategy to protect children from racial oppressionLooked at nonmaternal caregivers: father’s and grandparentsConsidered who is the non-primary caregiver: intergenerational family households or non-familiar caretakersMethods QuestionsWould a head camera or maternal recording change the interaction?Data analysis: why one knot and only two slopes? Is there a better fitting model? Sweet spot vs. sweet zone?Future ApplicationDoes the “some is more” finding predict later childhood outcomes? Which outcomes do we think would be impacted?Is ideal responsivity, still ideal across the child’s lifespan (middle and high school)Can we use knowledge of contingencies to inform caregiver interventions. What would that look like? And what would be the target – maternal behavior or infant attachment?Casline

46. A curvilinear relationship?Past studies suggest that both over- and under-contingency to young infants may negatively impact developmentIntermediate levels of contingency  secure attachmentOver-/under-contingency  insecure attachmentHowever, these studies have focused on the relationship between responsiveness and child outcomesThe current study seeks to understand how maternal responsiveness is related to independent ratings of global maternal sensitivityHudiburghThe Role of Maternal Responsiveness

47. More specifically the current study seeks to address the following:How does maternal contingency vary by different responses and to different infant behaviors?How can levels of maternal contingency be quantified in ways that go beyond the usual qualitative attributions (e.g. “low”/”mid-range”/”high”)?What quantitative levels of maternal contingency are judged to be optimally sensitive?Hypothesis:Maternal over- and undercontingency will be rated as generally less sensitive, whereas levels surrounding significant maternal contingency will be rated optimally sensitive.HudiburghCurrent Study Aims & Hypotheses

48. Coding of maternal sensitivity:The same recordings were evaluated by independent codersSensitivity Scale from the Emotional Availability Scales: Infancy to Early Childhood Version (EA Scales)Maternal sensitivity scored from 1 (highly insensitive) to 9 (highly sensitive)HudiburghMethod

49. Contingency of Mother BehaviorsORs > 1: indicate that the mother’s behavior was more likely to begin within 3s of the infant behavior than at other timesORs = 0-1: indicate less likelihood Hudiburgh

50. Contingency & SensitivityHudiburgh

51. SummaryCurrent study sought to better understand the relationship between the contingency of maternal responses and perceived maternal sensitivityFor most infant-mother behavioral pairings, contingency odds ratios just greater than 1 were deemed “optimally sensitive”In other words, greater contingency did not translate into greater sensitivity ratings in a “dose-response” manner; rather, past a certain threshold of contingency, mothers who were more contingent received lower sensitivity ratingsHudiburgh

52. Responsivity  Disorganization:A u-shaped curvePredicting disorganized attachment  PredictorsB (SE)p-valueExp (B)Constant-1.35 (2.13).527.26Maternal responsivity(linear) -39.28 (13.04).003.00Maternal responsivity (quadratic) 283.50 (89.95).0022.1325E+123Maternal auto-correlation-0.79 (2.43).745.45Infant responsivity-0.61 (3.65).867.54Infant auto-correlation 0.85 (1.35).5282.34Disorganized attachment coded 1 (vs. 0).Mitsven & Prince et al., 2021

53. Messinger53Is security a ‘vaccination’?Most competent 3-yr-olds have both secure attachment (at 15 mo) & (relatively) high-sensitive mothering (at 24 mo)NICHD Study of Early Child CareAdditional influence of sensitivityInsecurely attached children who subsequently experienced high-sensitive mothering significantly outperformed secure children who subsequently experienced low-sensitive mothering. Belsky, J. and R. M. P. Fearon (2002). "Early attachment security, subsequent maternal sensitivity, and later child development: Does continuity in development depend upon continuity of caregiving?" Attachment & Human Development 4(3): 361-387.

54. Understanding developmentSecuritySensitivityOutcomeTime

55. Sensitivity  social competence55Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., & Haltigan, J. D. (2013). The legacy of early experiences in development: Formalizing alternative models of how early experiences are carried forward over time. Dev Psychol, 49(1), 109-126. through age 151st look

56. Maternal sensitivity

57. Are the effects of early relationship experiences enduring or transient?Two competing theoretical models Enduring EffectsRevisionist Difference: patterns of associationStable across time Increasingly smaller association

58. Are the effects of early relationship experiences enduring or transient?Enduring Effects ModelEarly relationship experiences organize early developmental adaptation and continue to shape adjustment across developmentRevisionist ModelEarly relationship experiences directly effect early childhood development but then only indirectly effect subsequent adaptation

59. Purpose of StudyDuplicate findings of Fraley et al., 2013That early maternal sensitivity has lasting effects on children’s social and cognitive development Extend findings of Fraley et al., 2013Does early maternal sensitivity’s effects extend into adulthood?Is there a more complex developmental process at work?Do covariates account for potential enduring effects?

60. Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation (MLSRA)N = 243 45% female, 65% White/Non-HispanicMaternal sensitivity Feeding observations (3 + 6 mo.)Play interactions (6 mo.)Problem-solving and Teaching tasks (24 + 42 mo.)Social CompetenceTeacher-rated competence with peers duringKindergartenGrades 1-3Grade 6Age 16Academic CompetencePeabody Individual Achievement TestGrades 1-3 and 6Woodcock-Johnson Tests of AchievementAge 16

61. OutcomesCompetence in Romantic RelationshipsSemi-structured interview regarding recent romantic relationship historyAges 23 and 32Educational Attainment6-point scale (no GED or high school diploma – a post-baccalaureate degree)Ages 23, 26, 28, and 32

62. Results: Enduring EffectsMaternal SensitivityTime 1Time 2Time 3Time 4Time 5Time 6Social and Academic CompetenceSocial competence:ΔΧ2 = 17.18, p <.001Academic Competence:ΔΧ2 = 15.03, p <.001

63. Results: TransactionalMaternal SensitivityTime 1Time 2Time 3Time 4Time 5Time 6Social and Academic Competence at Different TimesSocial competence:ΔΧ2 = 11.54, p <.001Academic Competence:ΔΧ2 = 9.96, p =.002

64. Results: CovariatesMaternal SensitivityTime 1Time 2Time 3Time 4Time 5Time 6Social and Academic Competence at Different TimesCovariatesSocial competence:ΔΧ2 = 1.72, p = .19Enduring effects of:Gender**Maternal Education**Socioeconomic StatusEthnicity

65. Results: CovariatesMaternal SensitivityTime 1Time 2Time 3Time 4Time 5Time 6Social and Academic Competence at Different TimesCovariatesAcademic Competence:ΔΧ2 = 9.96, p =.002Enduring effects of:Gender*Maternal Education*Socioeconomic Status*Ethnicity

66. Results: Transactional + CovariatesMaternal SensitivityTime 1Time 2Time 3Time 4Time 5Time 6Social and Academic Competence at Different TimesCovariatesAcademic Competence:ΔΧ2 = 3.96, p <.05Enduring effects of:Gender*Maternal Education*Socioeconomic StatusEthnicity

67. Sensitivity does not predict social competence (w covariates)Maternal SensitivityTime 1Time 2Time 3Time 4Time 5Time 6Social and Academic Competence at Different TimesCovariatesSocial Competence:ΔΧ2 = 0.82, p =.37Enduring effects of:Gender**Maternal Education**Socioeconomic StatusEthnicity

68. Sensitivity  Academic competence(with covariates)Maternal SensitivityTime 1Time 2Time 3Time 4Time 5Time 6Social and Academic Competence at Different TimesCovariatesAcademic Competence:ΔΧ2 = 3.96, p <.05Enduring effects of:Gender*Maternal Education*Socioeconomic StatusEthnicityWhy?

69. QuestionsWhy the continued association with academic competence but not social competence (with the inclusion of covariates)?

70. Father-Child Relationships (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004)MethodCharacteristics of Sample? Original sample (n=1168) vs. analyzed sample (n=290, n=111)MeasuresDyadic Interactions at 24 and 36 monthsThree Box TaskCoded dimensions: sensitivity, positive regard, cognitive stimulation, intrusiveness, detachment, negative regardCognitive Development (Bayley, PPVT)Demographics (education level, employment status, income, father residency)

71. Direct and indirect effects of fathers on developmentDyadic Interactions at 24 and 36 monthsThree Box Task: Coded sensitivity, positive regard, cognitive stimulation, intrusiveness, detachment, negative regard(Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004)

72. Direct and indirect effects of fathers on developmentDirect and indirect effects of fathers on developmentMom/Dad behaviors correlated at each ageDad predicts mom behaviors over time but mom less predictive of dadDad demographics (income/education) predict some aspects of parentingDad and mom supportive parenting independently predict children’s cognitive and language outcomes (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2004)

73. Huston & Aronson (2005) Associations between mothers’ time in employment and mother-child relationship & child development outcomesProblems with time in out-of-home care as proxy for time with mother?“Employed women apparently compensate for their absence by spending more time with their children during nonwork hours (Easterbrooks & Goldberg, 1985; Hill & Stafford, 1985; Nock & Kingston, 1988; Zaslow, Pederson, Suwalsky, Cain & Fivel, 1985).”

74. Greater infant time (but not proportion social) for nonemployed)

75. Employed mothers: less time with infantweekdays but more time weekends(what is infant’s experience?)Huston & Rosenkrantz Aronson (2005)

76. Maternal characteristics associated with time useMothers who spent more total time with children were:Older, White, higher psychological adjustment, had fewer children, lower incomes, high separation anxiety, believed maternal employment was not good for childrenMothers who spent more available time with children:Older, White, higher psychological adjustment, fewer children, high separation anxiety

77. Predicting time use, sensitivity, HOME

78. Messinger78ResultsExperimental infants 36/50 (72%) secureControl infants: 16/50 (32%) secureSensitivity training for mother decreases rates of insecurity among irritable infantsMeta-analysis of intervention studies showed a moderately large effect size, d = .48Van den Boom

79. Messinger79ResultsExperimental infants 36/50 (72%) secureControl infants: 16/50 (32%) secureSensitivity training for mother decreases rates of insecurity among irritable infantsMeta-analysis of intervention studies showed a moderately large effect size, d = .48Van den Boom

80. Beyond sensitivity: power and…

81. BackgroundHigh levels of disregard for rules in childhood may be early signs of a trajectory toward disruptive conduct problems.Link between children’s disregard for conduct rules and future antisocial behavior may be mediated through harsh or power-assertive discipline. Parental power assertion and antisocial behavior are closely linked.Little is known about the role of children’s SCL as a potential moderator.A conditional process model: developmental cascade from early disregard for rules to parental power assertion to future antisocial behavior is expected to occur for children who have low skin conductance level (SCL).

82. MethodsParticipantsTwo-parent families of typically developing infants (N = 102)MeasuresChildren’s disregard for rules of conduct at 4.5 yearsCoding: avoiding gaze, facial tension, bodily tension, and overall distressParental power-assertive discipline at 5.5-6.5 yearsCoding: no interaction, social exchange, gentle guidance, control, forceful control, physical assertive, and physical forcefulChildren’s SCL at age 8Children’s antisocial behavior at ages 10 and 12Parent report

83. Child disregard, parental power, child antisocial associated

84. Child disregard  parental power  child antisocial for low SCLChildren with high SCL may respond positively to subtle parental socialization before the pressure reaches a high level.

85. ExplanationEarly disregard for rules elicited increased parental power assertion, potentially due to those low-SCL children’s history of failing to respond to subtle, gentle punishment, and the increased power assertion resulted in future antisocial behavior.Children with high SCL presumably respond positively to subtle parental socialization before the pressure reaches a high level.

86. Parenting StylesBaumrind’s Model of Parenting Styles

87. American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against spanking as it may be “potentially deleterious to children”

88. Spanking=BADAmerican Academy of Pediatrics recommends against spanking as it may be “potentially deleterious to children”Garcia; Shaffer | MacKenzie et al., 2013Gershoff 2002: Meta-analysis of 88 studies shows spanking related to 10/11 outcomesNew meta-analyses will be discussed in Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor (2016) article

89. Limitations of Prior ResearchFew longitudinal studiesMissing measures of stress & SESNo study of paternal spankingLittle study of effects of spanking on children’s cognitive developmentShaffer | MacKenzie et al., 2013

90. Methods: SampleFragile Families and Child Well-Being Study~4200 children from 20 U.S. cities born between 1998 and 2000 in medium to large cities1933 families for externalizing behavior analyses1532 families for receptive vocabulary analysesIncluded families: may have more resources and/or be more stable at baseline than excluded familiesRemained a “disadvantaged urban sample”Garcia; Shaffer | MacKenzie et al., 2013

91. Methods: Measures – Primary PredictorMaternal & Paternal Spanking“In the past month, have you spanked (child) because (she/he) was misbehaving or acting up?”Shaffer | MacKenzie et al., 2013

92. Methods: Measures – OutcomesChild Externalizing BehaviorAge 9: Aggression & Rule-Breaking subscales of CBCLAge 3: Aggression & Destructive subscales of CBCL (ctrl)Child Receptive VocabularyAge 9: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)Age 3: PPVT (ctrl)Shaffer | MacKenzie et al., 2013

93. Methods: Measures – Child and Family Control VariablesCategoryVariableChild Risk FactorsGender; age; low birth weight; if first born; infant temperamentMaternal and Family CharacteristicsMaternal age; marital structure; mother’s race/ethnicity; maternal education; household income; mother foreign-born; mother’s residence at age 15; maternal employment, number of adults and children in homePrenatal RisksLate onset of prenatal care; risky health behavior; IPV; birth father’s supportivenessMaternal Risk FactorsMother’s parenting stress; mother depression or GAD dx; mother’s impulsivity; mother’s cognitive level; mother’s frequency of cognitively stimulating activities with childRumper | MacKenzie et al., 2013

94. Prevalence of SpankingMothersFathersAge 3Age 5Shaffer | MacKenzie et al., 2013Spanking child ≥2/week Spanking child <2/weekNo Spanking

95. Results: Spanking and Child Externalizing ProblemsShaffer | MacKenzie et al., 2013

96. Results: Spanking and Child Receptive VocabularyShaffer | MacKenzie et al., 2013

97. ConclusionsMaternal spanking at age 5 predicts children’s externalizing behavior at age 9 Extensive control variables increases confidence in effectHigh-frequency paternal spanking at age 5 affects children’s verbal capacity at age 9Effects hold across genders and race/ethnicityRumper| MacKenzie et al., 2013

98. DiscussionAre there any other variables that should have been included in this analysis?Any that could have been left out?Issues with conclusion about spanking verbal capacity?Are controls used sufficient to draw this conclusion?Differences between groups AKA null race/ethnicity interaction?Other possible moderating factors?Garcia | MacKenzie et al., 2013

99. Sara Wigderson

100. Background4 meta-analyses have been conducted recently with each coming to varied conclusionsGoals of this meta was to focus on two criticisms of previous metas:1) Is spanking associated with negative outcomes, or is it harsh or abusive methods that impact children?2) Are associations between spanking and adverse child outcomes only found in studies with weak methods (e.g., cross-sectional)? For this meta, physical punishment = noninjurious, open-handed hitting with the intention of modifying child behavior Wigderson | Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016

101. Method75 studies met inclusion criteria111 individual effect sizes representing over 160k children7 variables coded for moderator analyses 1) study design 2) measure of spanking 3) index of spanking 4) independence of the raters 5) time period in which spanking was done6) the country in which the study was conducted 7) child age at time of spankingWigderson | Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016

102. ResultsEffect sizes were consistentOut of 111 studies, 102 demonstrated detrimental child outcomes78 of these were statistically significantOnly 1 beneficial outcome was significantWigderson | Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 201699% of sig. outcomes were detrimental

103. Spanking significantly adversely associated with 13/17 outcomes Childhood:low moral internalization, aggression, antisocial behavior, externalizing behavior problems, internalizing behavior problems, mental health problems, negative parent– child relationships, impaired cognitive ability, low self-esteem, and risk of physical abuse from parentsAdulthood:adult antisocial behavior, adult mental health problems, and with positive attitudes about spankingWigderson | Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016

104. Spanking outcome meta-analysesWigderson | Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016

105. Spanking and physical abuse7 studies (10 effect sizes) that examined both spanking and physical abuseIn 3 cases, effect size for spanking was larger than physical abuse Overall effect sizes for both demonstrated detrimental outcomes (physical abuse = .38, spanking = .25) Wigderson | Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016

106. Table 4None were significant, indicating that effect sizes did not vary by study characteristics!Wigderson | Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016

107. DiscussionThoughts on moderator analyses?What does it mean for the field that longitudinal and cross-sectional studies did not produce different effect sizes? Weaknesses of the article:Were they overly selective in their inclusion criteria? Publication bias?What steps can be taken to inform parents and the public of these results?Wigderson | Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016

108. Huston & Aronson (2005) Associations between mothers’ time in employment and mother-child relationship & child development outcomesProblems with time in out-of-home care as proxy for time with mother?“Employed women apparently compensate for their absence by spending more time with their children during nonwork hours (Easterbrooks & Goldberg, 1985; Hill & Stafford, 1985; Nock & Kingston, 1988; Zaslow, Pederson, Suwalsky, Cain & Fivel, 1985).”

109. Greater infant time (but not proportion social) for nonemployed)

110. Maternal characteristics associated with time useMothers who spent more total time with children were:Older, White, higher psychological adjustment, had fewer children, lower incomes, high separation anxiety, believed maternal employment was not good for childrenMothers who spent more available time with children:Older, White, higher psychological adjustment, fewer children, high separation anxiety

111. Predicting time use, sensitivity, HOME

112.

113. Overall: Fear > Neutral areas

114. Spanked vs. not-spanked: Fear vs. neutral

115. Parenting StylesBaumrind’s Model of Parenting Styles

116. Cultural differences in association between intrusiveness and warmth at 15 months?(Ispa et al., 2004)Rubenstein

117. Sensitive Structuring

118. Control and warmth -- central dimensions of parentingIntrusiveness = a constellation of insensitive, interfering parenting behaviors rooted in mothers’ lack of respect for their infants’ autonomy.Warmth = mother’s physical and verbal expressions of love, attentiveness, and respect or admiration for the child.Intrusiveness generally associated with negative developmental outcomesBut mixed findings…..Why?Ispa et al. (2004)

119. Maternal control and maternal warmth are central to parentingRubensteinMaternal IntrusivenessA constellation of insensitive, interfering parenting behaviorsDominates a child’s play agenda so that the child has little or no influence on its content or paceMaternal WarmthA mother’s physical and verbal expressions of love, attentiveness, and respect or admiration for the childHow do parenting practices, particularly those engaged in by the mother, affect the nature of the parent-child relationship?

120. Maternal intrusiveness: same or different meaning across cultures?RubensteinMixed findings for maternal intrusiveness and mother-child relationship outcomesNegativeNeutralPositiveEuropean Americannon-European American

121. GoalsRubensteinExamine the extent to which maternal intrusiveness during play at 15 months affects child negativity, child engagement, and dyadic mutuality at 25 months.Does maternal warmth moderate the link between maternal intrusiveness and later quality of mother-child relationship?Do these relationships differ across ethnic groups? European American, African American, Mexican American (less acculturated), and Mexican American (more acculturated)

122. HypothesesRubensteinMaternal intrusivenessAfrican American, Mexican American > European AmericanMexican American (less acc) > Mexican American (more acc) Maternal intrusiveness, Maternal warmth (inverse relationship)European American No relationship in other ethnic groupsMaternal intrusiveness  Negative changes in relationshipEuropean AmericanNot predictive in other ethnic groups

123. Measures15 & 25 month mother-child playCoded dimensions of interest15 monthsIntrusivenessWarmth25 monthsChild negativityChild engagement of motherDyadic mutuality between mother and child

124. MethodRubensteinMother-infant pairs: European American (n = 579), African American (n = 412), less acculturated Mexican American (n = 131), more acculturated Mexican American (n=110)10-min parent-child play sessions (15 months, 25 months) 15 months25 monthsMaternal intrusiveness✔Maternal warmth✔Child negativity✔✔Child engagement✔✔Dyadic mutuality✔✔

125. ResultsRubensteinGroup DifferencesAll analyses controlled for maternal age, partner status, and educationEuropean American mothers had highest depression scores and less acculturated Mexican American mothers had lowest depression scoresEuropean American mothers displayed less intrusiveness and more warmth than mothers in any of the other groups

126. Cultural differences in parent & 15 month-old?

127. Child NegativityPredictors of change in child-mother relationship variables between 15 and 25 months?Child Negativity15 month intrusiveness15 month warmthCulture*Intrusiveness*WarmthEA intrusiveness predicted regardless of warmthAA intrusiveness predicted only at low levels of warmth

128. Maternal Intrusiveness predicted child negativity in all ethnic groups RubensteinEuropean American intrusiveness  negative changes in child engagement intrusiveness  decreases in dyadic mutualityAfrican American intrusiveness  child negativity [only if low maternal warmth]More acculturated Mexican American intrusiveness  decreases in dyadic mutuality

129. Child Engagement With MomPredictors of change in child-mother relationship variables between 15 and 25 months? Child Engagement With Mom15 month intrusiveness15 month warmthCulture*IntrusivenessEA intrusiveness negatively predictiveNon-EA groups, no association

130. Dyadic MutualityPredictors of change in child-mother relationship variables between 15 and 25 months?Dyadic Mutuality15 month WarmthCulture*IntrusivenessEA intrusiveness negatively predictiveNon-EA groups, no association

131. ConclusionsRubensteinMaternal intrusiveness predicted negative changes in two of the three relationship outcomes (negativity and engagement) 10-months-later. The intrusiveness-negative outcomes link was moderated by ethnicity and, for African Americans, by warmth.

132. Normativity of intrusivenesPost hoc AnalysesDoes intrusiveness have same origins/meaning across cultural groups?At 15 months, correlates with stress for EA onlyOnly contrast with less acculturated MA survives regressionOther ways to assess?

133. Two-dimensional model(Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991)Attachment-related avoidance“avoid emotional closeness &intimacy, do not feel comfortable opening up to /depending on partner, are reluctant to ask partner for comfort, advice, or help.” Picardi, 2010Attachment-related anxietypreoccupied with romantic relationships, worry about abandonment, desire to be very close to partner, ask the partner for more feeling/commitment.” Picardi, 2010Global vs. Domain specificRomantic relationships Carter

134. Experiences in Close Relationship ScaleThe ECR (Brennan et al., 1998) 36 5-point items“High Avoidance …tend to avoid emotional closeness and intimacy, do not feel comfortable opening up to or depending on their partner, and are reluctant to ask their partner for comfort, advice, or help. High Anxiety.. tend to be preoccupied with their romantic relationships, worry about being abandoned, desire to be very close to their partner, and ask the partner for more feeling and commitment. “ Picardi, et al. 2010Carter

135. Early care impacts later attachmentCarterEst. early sensitivity receivedEst. change in qual. of careMaternal SensitivityMaternal DepressionFather AbsenceSocial Competence (M)Social Competence (T)Friendship QualityFraley, et al., 2013

136. Regression FindingsAttachment-Related AvoidanceGlobal↑ MS = ↓ Avoidant↓ Dad = ↑ Avoidant↑ SC = ↓ Avoidant↑BFF = ↓ AvoidantRomantic↑ Avoidant ↓ Parental Sensitivity↓ Social competence↓ BFF’s Attachment-Related Anxiety Global↑ MD = ↑ Anxiety↑ SC = ↓ AnxietyRomantic↑ Anxiety↑ Maternal Depression ↓ Social competence↑ BFF’s CarterWeird!

137. Temperamental & Genetic FactorsTemperamentNo statistically significant temperamental antecedents of adult attachment styles Gene & Gene X EnvironmentNo main effects of genetic variables previously studied CarterC allele of HTR2A (serotonin receptor gene)Homozygous = ↑ global attachment related anxiety

138. Baker et al., 2011Attitudes about EmotionEmotion Socialization BehaviorsChild Social Competence

139. Baker et al., 2011

140. Baker et al., 2011