Christopher J. Trentacosta, Kristin L. Moilanen,

Daniel S. Shaw, Thomas J. Dishion, Frances Gardner, & Melvin N. Wilson

Parenting and Trajectories of Inhibitory Control Across Early

Childhood in an At-Risk Prevention Research Sample

Inhibitory Control (IC)

IC = The capacity to actively prevent a behavioral response

A central component of models of executive functioning and temperamental effortful control (Nigg, 2000; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001)

Predicts behavioral, social, and cognitive functioning (e.g., Lunkenheimer et al., 2008)

o Deficient IC is a marker of psychopathology (e.g., Raaijmakers et al., 2008)

IC in Early Childhood

Self-regulatory capabilities improve during early childhoodo Increased attentional capacity (Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994)o Advancements in memory and language (Kopp, 1982)

Emergent IC reflects these self-regulatory gains

Moderate longitudinal stability and growth in IC across early childhood (Kochanska et al., 1996; Li-Grining, 2007)

Linear Growth in IC

Moilanen et al. (in press) Social Development

Age 2 Age 3 Age 43

3.5

4

4.5

5

Intercept = 3.97 ***Slope = .25 ***

σ2i = .36 ***

σ2i = .05 ***

ri,s = -.30 *

Trajectories of Early Childhood IC

Do all children show linear growth in IC across early childhood?

Some high-risk children may show little or no growth in IC, or a quadratic growth trend

Aim 1: Identify distinct developmental trajectories of IC from ages 2 to 5

Parenting and IC

Self-regulatory abilities develop within the context of the caregiving relationship

Parents can promote or hinder their child’s ability to inhibit impulses

Parenting constructs to consider: Positive behavior support Harsh parenting

Positive Behavior Support and IC

Positive behavior support (PBS) = Warmth and involvement, proactive responses

Sensitive responses to negative affect help child to learn strategies to manage affect and behavior

Empirical support for PBS as a predictor of increased IC during early childhood (e.g., Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000)

Harsh Parenting and IC

Harsh Parenting (HP) = Hostile, critical responses Not merely the inverse of positive behavior

support

May lead to compliance in the short-term, but could disrupt internalization of standards and capacity to manage negative affect

Empirical research on HP & IC is limited, especially in early childhood

Parenting and IC Trajectories

Aim 2: Examine parenting constructs at age 2 as predictors of trajectory group membership

Low PBS or high HP may predict little or no growth in IC across early childhood

Examined within the context of a prevention research trial targeting low-income families

Early Steps Multisite Study

Multisite prevention research trial (Charlottesville, VA; Eugene, OR; Pittsburgh)

731 families recruited from WIC centers Impoverished, high-risk families Assessed yearly, at child age 2, 3, 4, and 5

Treatment group received yearly “Family Check-up” (see Dishion et al., 2008) Treatment status did not predict IC trajectories

Sample Characteristics

Risk in at least 2 of 3 domains: Child behavior problems Primary caregiver problems (e.g., maternal

depression) Sociodemographic risk (e.g., low parental

education)36% of primary caregivers were married50% European American; 28% African-

American; 13% Hispanic49% girls; 51% boysMean age at first assessment = 29.9 months

IC Measure

Child Behavior Questionnaire (Rothbart et al., 2001) 13 items completed by primary caregivers 7-point scale (1 = extremely untrue of child; 7 =

extremely true of child) “Has difficulty waiting in line for something” “Can easily stop an activity when s/he is told ‘no’”

Collected at age 2, 3, 4, and 5 years 679 children had data at two or more time points

Observational Parenting Measures

Positive Behavior Support HOME Involvement Scale (Caldwell & Bradley,

1978) Relationship Process Code (RPC): positive

reinforcement and engagement Coder Impressions (COIMP): proactive parenting

index

Harsh Parenting RPC: negative verbal, directive, and physical

behavior COIMP: Anger, criticism, physical discipline,

ignoring/rejection of the child

Estimating IC Trajectories

SAS Proc Traj: A semiparametric, group-based modeling strategy (Nagin, 2005)

Identifies groups with distinct developmental trajectories

Estimates proportion of population that would be assigned to each trajectory group

Aim 1: Trajectories of IC

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 51

2

3

4

5

6

7

High Increasing (n = 101)

Moderate Increas-ing (n =273)

Low Increasing (n = 251)

Very Low Increasing (n = 30)

Very Low Flat (n =24)

Aim 1: Trajectories of IC

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 51

2

3

4

5

6

7

High Increasing (n = 101)

Moderate Increas-ing (n =273)

Low Increasing (n = 251)

Very Low Increasing (n = 30)

Very Low Flat (n =24)

IC Means reported in Rothbart et al.

(2001)

Summary of Aim 1

Identified five IC trajectory groups 4 Linear Trajectories 1 Flat Trajectory

The moderate group had IC levels that were comparable to Rothbart et al.’s (2001) samples

Two groups had very low initial levels of IC The “catch-up” group had moderate levels of IC by age

5 Both groups had small Ns

Aim 2: Parenting & IC Trajectories

Very Low Flat

Very LowIncreasing

Low Increasing

Moderate Increasing

High Increasing

PositiveBehaviorSupport (PBS)

M = -.70SD = 2.16

M = -.13SD = 2.38

M = -.49SD = 2.31

M = .42SD = 2.26

M = .38SD = 2.28

Harsh Parenting(HP)

M = 1.42SD = 5.97

M = -.07SD = 4.74

M = 1.00SD = 5.55

M = -.65SD = 5.02

M = -1.08SD = 3.43

Parenting Composite scores, by IC Trajectory group:

● ANOVA: PBS associated with trajectory group membership, F (4, 679) = 6.53, p < .001.

●Post-Hoc Analysis: o Low Increasing group: Less PBS than Moderate

and High Increasing Groups

o No statistically significant differences between the two lowest groups and the other groups●Very Low Flat vs. High Increasing Groups:

Cohen’s d = .48 [Medium effect size]

PBS & Trajectories

● ANOVA: HP associated with trajectory group membership, F (4, 593) = 4.50, p < .01

●Post-Hoc Analysis: o Low Increasing group: Higher levels of HP than

Moderate and High Increasing Groups.

o No statistically significant differences between the two lowest groups and the other groups. ●Very Low Flat vs. High Increasing Groups:

Cohen’s d = .51 [Medium effect size]

HP & Trajectories

Summary of Aim 2

Parenting at age 2 predicted early childhood IC trajectories

Both supportive and negative dimensions of parenting predict development of IC

Power limited ability to detect differences between “very low” IC groups and other groups

Strengths and Limitations

Observational measures of parenting

At-risk, diverse sample followed longitudinally

Relatively large sample

- Structured observation of IC would help+Ongoing coding of observed self-regulation tasks

- Some trajectory groups were small

Future Directions

Continue to track trajectories of IC into middle childhood

Examine interplay of IC and parenting over time

Examine outcomes of IC trajectories Externalizing and internalizing behavior problems Academic adjustment