The Emergence of Problem Behavior: Analyzing Risk and Protective Pathways in the United Kingdom and Germany

• In Event: Explaining Family Effects on Early Child Development: Results Based on European Birth Cohort Studies

Abstract

Introduction. Risk factors in early childhood, such as inconsistent or harsh parenting behavior or child’s difficult temperament, have been shown to negatively impact on children’s early problem behavior. At the same time, protective factors, such as sensitive and supportive parenting behavior or advanced language skills in children, are associated with comparatively reduced problem behavior in children. However, it is unclear how both risk and protective factors at different time points affect later problem behavior in early childhood. Drawing on the attachment theory (i.e., sensitive parenting behavior provide children a secure basis to develop autonomy and self-regulating capacities that prevent children from developing early problem behavior), the scaffolding concept (i.e., a higher level of language provides children with essential means of communicating and self-regulating their behavior), and the family stress framework (i.e., parents who suffer psychological distress behave less consistent parenting that leads to children’s adverse behavioral outcomes), this study examined the underlying mechanism linking socioeconomic status (SES) and children’s problem behavior at age 5 by simultaneously considering both risk and protective pathways while using two longitudinal large-scale data sets from the UK and Germany.
Method. Data from the British Millennium Cohort Study (MCS: N = 13,053) and the Newborn Cohort Study of the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS: N = 2,022) were analyzed. Parents reported children’s problem behavior at age 5 on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Model 1 included SES as indicated by parental education and family net equivalent income and two risk factors (parental distress and children’s difficult temperament) in the first year of life as predictors. Parent-reported negative parenting practices at ages 3 (MCS) and 4 (NEPS) were modeled as mediators between those factors and children’s later problem behavior. Model 2 included supportive parenting behavior (observed at the ages of 26 months (NEPS) and 3 years (MCS)) and children’s vocabulary (both tested at age 3) as protective mediators between SES and children’s problem behavior. Model 3 combined these two models simultaneously. All models controlled for a series of family’s and children’s characteristics.
Results. The results indicated that simultaneously considering both risk and protective factors did not alter their unique effects on children’s problem behavior. In both countries, children who had a difficult temperament or if their parents suffered from psychological distress in children’s first year of life, exhibited more problem behavior at age 5. In addition, these effects were mediated by negative parenting practices at age 3 or 4. Conversely, children who experienced more supportive parenting or had comparatively advanced vocabulary skills in toddlerhood showed less problem behavior. Furthermore, children from higher-SES families exhibited less problem behavior. This effect was independently mediated by negative parenting practices and both protective factors.
Conclusion. The unique effects of risk and protective factors in both countries reinforce generalizability of the present findings (explaining about 20% of the total variance). The modeled pathways provide a better understanding of children’s problem behavior and suggest the appropriate preventive and intervening programs that help to reduce children’s early problem behavior.

Authors

• Wei Huang, Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories

• Sabine Weinert, University of Bamberg

• Manja Attig, Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories

• Jutta von Maurice, LIfBi Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories

• Hans-Guenther Rossbach, Otto Friedrich University Bamberg

• Helen Wareham, Newcastle University

• James Law, Newcastle University