The Family Stress Model, Harsh Parenting, Dyadic Syncrony, and Behavior Problems

• In Event: Pathways From Early Risk to Child Adjustment: A new Look at the Family, Neighborhoods, and Schools

Abstract

Numerous studies have sought to understand how family income relates to children’s socioemotional and behavior outcomes. The Family Stress Model (FSM) purports that low income is an emotionally distressing experience for parents (Elder et al., 1992; Donnellan et al., 2013). Parents’ emotional distress compromises their ability to provide sensitive caregiving and may increase their likelihood of using harsh parenting practices. Harsh parenting practices are associated with higher levels of children’s behavior problems (Conger et al., 2010; Davies & Woitach, 2008). However, the association between economic resources and children’s behavior problems tends to be small (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Gershoff et al., 2007; Letourneau et al., 2013), which suggests that there are families exhibiting resilience in the context of low economic resources. One way that parents and children may exhibit resilience is through dyadic synchrony, which is characterized by positive engagement, affective tone, and connectedness (Harrist et al., 1994). Breaks in synchrony (such as shouting, spanking, or other harsh parenting practices) and subsequent return to synchrony may be important because children learn to regulate their emotions (Feldman, 2020).
The present study used data from a randomized control trial of a home visiting program for first-time parents under age 21 and their children to investigate associations among mothers’ economic resources (basic needs and difficulties managing expenses), their use of harsh parenting practices, and their children’s conduct and emotional problems (see Figure 1 for conceptual model). An observational measure of dyadic synchrony was included as a buffer of harsh parenting.
Mothers completed questionnaires and participated in observational data collection with their children at six time points from infancy to early childhood. Table 1 contains key participant characteristics. Basic needs were measured using the Family Resource Scale (Dunst& Leet, 1987), difficulty managing expenses (DME) was measured by a single item developed for the current study, harsh parenting was measured using the Conflict Tactics Scale- Parent Child (Straus et al., 1998), dyadic synchrony was measured using the Interactional Synchrony Scale (Mize & Pettit, 1997), and conduct and emotional problems were measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman & Goodman, 2009).
Multivariate linear regression was used to test the relation between economic resources and children’s behavior problems and to test if harsh parenting mediated the relation between economic resources and children’s behavior problems. No direct effects were found for the association between basic needs and harsh parenting or between basic needs and children’s conduct and emotional problems. Harsh parenting predicted conduct, and emotional problems, and dyadic synchrony moderated the association between harsh parenting and conduct problems. Harsh parenting was not a significant mediator between basic needs and conduct or emotional problems. Analyses were repeated using DME instead of basic needs. The only difference in these models was that DME predicted emotional problems. We discuss our findings in the context of the FSM and the potential implications for understanding associations among economic resources, parenting, and children’s behaviors in early childhood.

Authors

• RoseMarie J Rohrs, Boston College
  Presenting Author

• Ann Easterbrooks, Tufts University