Associations between mutuality, household chaos, and child theory of mind in father-preschooler dyads

• In Event: Fathering and Father-Child Relationships

Abstract

Introduction: Early theory of mind (ToM) development is influenced by family members and parents in particular (Devine & Hughes, 2018). Parent-child relationships are bidirectional (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Dunn, 1997) and parent and child effects interact continuously across development. Parent-child dyadic mutuality refers to the bidirectional, reciprocal, and responsive quality of these parent-child interactions (Deater-Deckard & O’Connor, 2000). To date, no study has examined whether the particular bidirectional responsiveness of parent-child mutuality might influence ToM development. Additionally, social interactions between parents and children may be disrupted by aspects of the proximal home environment. Chaos in the home is an indicator of a lack of routine, chronic uncertainty, and ever-present distractors. Research has shown that household chaos is associated with a wide range of child and family outcomes (Marsh et al., 2020), and chaos may interfere with the proximal processes that occur continuously between the child and their immediate environment throughout development (Evans et al., 2005). The decreased predictability of the environment and social exchanges with caregivers may negatively impact the developing child’s ability to glean important information from social situations and impede a child’s ability to learn appropriate skills to interact with and respond to their immediate environment—an essential element of ToM development.

Hypothesis: We expect to find that greater observed dyadic mutuality is associated with higher child ToM scores. Additionally, we expect that associations between mutuality and ToM abilities will vary depending on levels of chaos reported in the household. Specifically, the association between mutuality and ToM is expected to be strongest in the context of low household chaos, and weakest in the context of high household chaos.

Method: Data were collected from a community sample of fathers and their 3- to 5-year-old children (N = 88 dyads, Mchildage = 51 months). Children completed tasks to assess ToM (Wellman & Liu, 2004). Fathers completed the abbreviated Chaos, Order, and Hubbub scale (CHAOS; Matheny et al., 1995). Father-child dyads completed two 5-minute interaction tasks which were videotaped and coded (PARCHISY; Deater-Deckard et al., 1997). Covariates include child expressive language, executive function, age, and sex, and family socioeconomic status.

Results: Regression analyses show no main effect of either dyadic mutuality or household chaos on child ToM. However, household chaos was found to moderate the association between observed dyadic mutuality during the interaction task and child ToM, controlling for child age and sex, executive function and language scores, and SES (β = -.188, p = .034). Simple slopes analysis at the mean and 1 and 2 SD above and below the mean of the moderator household chaos revealed that the association between dyadic mutuality and child ToM was significant at the mean and levels below the mean of household chaos (mean: β = .460; -1 SD: β = .711; -2 SD: β = .961, ps < .001), but not at levels above the mean (+2 SD: β = -.041; +1 SD: β = .209, ps = ns). Additional contextual variables, processes, and future directions are discussed.

Authors

• Sarah A McCormick, Northeastern University
  Presenting Author

• Mamatha Chary
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kirby Deater-Deckard, University of Massachusetts Amherst
  Non-Presenting Author