This article was downloaded by: [Illinois State University Milner Library]On: 21 October 2014, At: 12:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical Child PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcap19

Parenting Practices and Child Disruptive BehaviorProblems in Early Elementary SchoolElizabeth A. Stormshak , Karen L. Bierman , Robert J. McMahon & Liliana J. LenguaPublished online: 07 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Elizabeth A. Stormshak , Karen L. Bierman , Robert J. McMahon & Liliana J. Lengua (2000) ParentingPractices and Child Disruptive Behavior Problems in Early Elementary School, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29:1, 17-29,DOI: 10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_3

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Parenting Practices and Child Disruptive Behavior Problems inEarly Elementary School

Elizabeth A. StormshakDepartment of Applied Behavior and Communication Sciences, University of Oregon

Karen L. BiermanDepartment of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University

Robert J. McMahon and Liliana J. LenguaDepartment of Psychology, University of Washington

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group1

Examined the hypothesis that distinct parenting practices may be associated with typeand profile of a child’s disruptive behavior problems (e.g., oppositional, aggressive, hy-peractive). Parents of 631 behaviorally disruptive children described the extent towhich they experienced warm and involved interactions with their children and the ex-tent to which their discipline strategies were inconsistent and punitive and involvedspanking and physical aggression. As expected from a developmental perspective,parenting practices that included punitive interactions were associated with elevatedrates of all child disruptive behavior problems. Low levels of warm involvement wereparticularly characteristic of parents of children who showed elevated levels ofoppositional behaviors. Physically aggressive parenting was linked more specificallywith child aggression. In general, parenting practices contributed more to the predic-tion of oppositional and aggressive behavior problems than to hyperactive behaviorproblems, and parenting influences were fairly consistent across ethnic groups and sex.

Disruptive behaviors in early childhood (includingoppositional, aggressive, and hyperactive behaviors)are often stable and predictive of negative mentalhealth outcomes in later life, ranging from school fail-ure to substance abuse and criminality (e.g., Campbell& Ewing, 1990; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; West &

Farrington, 1973). Research focusing on the early de-velopment of disruptive behavior problems is crucial tounderstanding the etiology and developmental courseof these behaviors.

Although extensive empirical work exists linkingparenting practices to child disruptive behavior prob-lems, few studies have tested models linking specificparenting practices to specific profiles of child behav-iors. Instead, the focus has been on parenting practicesassociated with broadband patterns of child disruptivebehaviors. However, developmental theory and empir-ical assessment studies suggest that three narrowbanddimensions of child disruptive behavior can be differ-entiated: oppositional, aggressive, and hyperactive be-haviors (Hinshaw, Morrison, Carte, & Cornsweet,1987). Furthermore, these three types of behavior prob-lems may be associated with different etiological fac-tors and outcomes, including different parentingstrategies (Frick et al., 1993; Hoge & Andrews, 1992;Loeber & Lahey, 1987). The goal of this study was toexamine the relation between specific parenting prac-tices and these three narrowband dimensions of childbehavior problems.

This study focused on five parenting practices thathave been associated with the development of disrup-tive behavior problems in the literature: (a)punitive

17

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology Copyright © 2000 by2000, Vol. 29, No. 1, 17–29 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

This work was supported in part by a National Research ServiceAward predoctoral dissertation award (MH10528) from the National In-stitute of Mental Health (NIMH) to the Elizabeth A. Stormshak. Addi-tional support from NIMH came through Grants R18MH48083,R18MH50951, R18MH50952, and R18MH50953 to the Conduct Prob-lems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG). The Center for SubstanceAbuse Prevention also provided support for Families and SchoolsTogether Track through a memorandum of support with the NIMH.Support also came from Department of Education Grant S184430002and NIMH Grants K05MH00797 and K05MH01027.

We thank the parents, teachers, students, and school district per-sonnel who supported this research in the Durham, Nashville, centralPennsylvania, and Seattle areas.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Elizabeth A. Stormshak,Department of Applied Behavior and Communication Sciences,5251 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. E-mail: bstorm@darkwing.uoregon.edu

1Members of the CPPRG include, in alphabetical order, Karen L.Bierman, Pennsylvania State University; John D. Coie, Duke Univer-sity; Kenneth A. Dodge, Duke University; Mark T. Greenberg, Uni-versity of Washington; John E. Lochman, University of Alabama;Robert J. McMahon, University of Washington; and Ellen Pinder-hughes, Vanderbilt University.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

discipline(yelling, nagging, threatening), (b)inconsis-tency,(c) warmth and positive involvement,(d) physi-cal aggression(hitting, beating), and (e)spanking(Patterson, 1986; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber,1984). Although prior studies have not examined thedifferential relations among these five aspects ofparenting practices and the three narrowband childbehavior problems studied here (oppositional, ag-gressive, and hyperactive behavior), the literaturehighlightsseveral trends that provide a basis for hy-pothesis generation.

An extensive body of research has linked punitiveand inconsistent parenting practices with the emer-gence of child oppositional and aggressive behaviors(Danforth, Barkley, & Stokes, 1991; Hart, Ladd, &Burleson, 1990; Kuczynski, Kochanska, Radke-Yar-row, & Girnius-Brown, 1987). Much of the research inthis area has been conducted by Patterson and his col-leagues (Patterson, 1986), who coined the termnatter-ing to describe the frequent, irritable, and angryexchanges that occur as parents try to coerce compliancefrom their oppositional children. Although designed toengage compliance, frequent negative commands andthreats may be ignored by children, resulting in passivenoncompliance (Campbell, 1990), or may elicit moreaggressive acts of defiance (Danforth et al., 1991;Patterson, 1986). Parents may encourage child non-compliance or defiance by giving in or failing to followthrough with their commands.

Correspondingly, inconsistency is a second parentingpractice that has often been linked with elevated ratesof child oppositional and aggressive behavior (Wahler& Dumas, 1986). For example, in an observationalstudy, Gardner (1989) documented that mothers of pre-school children with behavior problems were more in-consistent in follow-through of their commands thanmothers of children without such problems. Patterson(1986) noted that parental failure to follow throughwith commands resulted in reinforcement of child non-compliance, thus increasing the likelihood that non-compliance would be repeated and might escalate. Inan alternative model labeled thepredictability hypothe-sis,Wahler and Dumas suggested that, when they arefaced with an unpredictable and inconsistent parent,children engage in oppositional and defiant behaviorsdesigned to elicit predictable (albeit often negative) re-sponses from their parent. Given these developmentalmechanisms, it was anticipated that both punitive andinconsistent parenting practices would be associatedwith elevated levels of oppositional and aggressive be-havior problems.

In this study, punitive discipline (nagging, yelling,and threatening) was differentiated from discipline thatinvolved physically aggressive and violent parental be-haviors (e.g., hitting, beating), based on theoreticalmodels that predict that more escalated and deviantchild outcomes will be associated with the latter form

of discipline (Patterson, 1986). Investigators havepostulated that many children follow a standard pro-gression in the development of disruptive behaviorproblems (Patterson, 1986; Stormshak, Bierman, &CPPRG, 1998). The developmental sequence beginswith child oppositional behaviors (e.g., whining, non-compliance, talking back), which, in some cases, prog-ress to more escalated forms of child aggression anddefiant acting out (e.g, hitting, physical fighting). Asargued earlier, past research suggests that punitive andinconsistent parenting may both be associated with theinitiation of this developmental sequence. Physicallyaggressive parenting, on the other hand, may be presentprimarily at the more advanced levels of the coercivedevelopmental sequence and, therefore, correlatedwith high levels of child aggressive behavior specifi-cally. That is, parents who rely on physically aggres-sive discipline to gain control of their children arelikely to have children who are engaging in more severeforms of aggressive behavior (George & Main, 1979;Salzinger, Feldman, Hammer, & Rosario, 1993;Salzinger, Kaplan, Pelcovitz, Samit, & Kreiger, 1984).Indeed, previous researchers have documented linksbetween physically aggressive parenting practices andelevated levels of child aggression in home and schoolsettings (Hart et al., 1990; Strassberg, Dodge, Pettit, &Bates, 1994). Reflecting escalation of parent–childconflict or specific modeling processes, we, therefore,hypothesized that specific associations would emergebetween physically aggressive parenting and child ag-gressive behaviors.

In this study, spanking was considered separatelyfrom other forms of physically aggressive punishmentbased on previous research suggesting that spankingand physically violent parenting are associated with in-cremental increases in aggressive behavior problems(Strassberg et al., 1994). Although spanking involvesuse of physically aggressive parental control tactics,some investigators have argued that “controlled”spanking may represent a low level of parental aggres-sion that in some cultural circles is a common and ac-cepted parenting practice (Peterson, Ewigman, &Vandiver, 1994). If so, spanking may function morelike a punitive discipline strategy, associated withoppositional as well as aggressive child behaviors, thanlike more extreme physically aggressive parentingstrategies that involve hitting a child in anger and theuse of physical beatings. Based on previous research,stronger associations were expected between spankingand oppositional and aggressive behaviors than be-tween spanking and hyperactive behaviors.

Although hyperactive behaviors are classified as dis-ruptive behaviors, along with aggressive and oppositionalbehaviors, developmental theory and empirical assess-ment studies suggest that they can be differentiated andmay be associated with somewhat different etiologicalfactors and outcomes (Frick et al., 1993; Hoge & An-

18

STORMSHAK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

drews,1992;Loeber&Lahey,1987).Forexample,cog-nitive control deficits have been implicated as keyfactors underlying the behavior problems of hyperac-tivechildren(Barkely,1990).At thesametime,childrenwho are highly active and impulsive may elicit control-oriented parenting (Anderson, Lytton, & Romney,1986; Campbell, Pierce, March, & Ewing, 1991). If fre-quent control attempts by parents become negativelytoned, inconsistent, and physically aggressive, theymay elicit escalations in concurrent child oppositionaland aggressive behaviors. Thus, although child hyper-active behavior alone may not necessarily be associatedwith inconsistent and physically aggressive discipline(Campbell et al., 1991), investigators have suggestedthat frequent co-occurrence of hyperactive and aggres-sive behaviors may reflect transactional processes inwhich punitive, inconsistent, and physically aggressiveparental strategies tocontrol childhyperactivebehaviorlead to the development of aggressive child behavior(Campbell, 1990; Loeber, Brinthaupt, & Green, 1990;Taylor, Schachar, Thorley, & Weiselberg, 1986). Onthe basis of these findings, we hypothesized that puni-tive discipline practices would be associated with ele-vated rates of hyperactive, oppositional, and aggressivebehaviors (reflecting the elevated control attempts ofparents of hyperactive children) but that other problem-atic parenting practices (inconsistency, spanking, phys-icallyaggressiveparenting)wouldbe lesscharacteristicof parents of hyperactive children and more strongly as-sociatedwithchildoppositional–aggressivebehaviors.

Finally, although research on disruptive behaviorproblems has emphasized negative parenting practices,lowlevelsofparentalwarmth,andpositive involvementmay also contribute to the development of problem be-haviors (Capaldi, 1991; East, 1991; Pettit & Bates,1989). Parent–child relationships characterized by lowlevels of warmth and supportiveness have been linkedwith child insecurity and emotion regulation difficul-ties, including frequentchild temper tantrums,whining,stubbornness and noncompliance, behaviors that arepart of the oppositional–defiant narrowband problemdimension (Keenan & Shaw, 1994; Pettit, Bates, &Dodge, 1997; Zahn-Waxler, Iannotti, Cummings, &Denham, 1990). Additionally, low levels of parentalpraisehavebeenassociatedwith internalizingbehavior,includingsocialwithdrawalandanxiety (Cole&Rehm,1986). Developmental researchers have postulated thathigh levels of parental warmth, involvement, and com-munication foster development of child negotiation andconflict-resolution skills, affording children skills tomanage interpersonal relationsand reducing their relianceon noncompliant or oppositional tactics (Kochanska,1993; Kuczynski et al., 1987; Pettit et al.,1988). Addi-tionally, Pettit et al. (1997) found that supportiveparenting in early childhood predicted reduced levels ofdisruptive behavior in grade school, even after control-ling for effects of harsh discipline. On the basis of these

findings, we predicted in this study that low levels ofparental warmth and positive involvement would be as-sociated with elevations in both oppositional and inter-nalizing behavior problems.

This Study

Using a large, at-risk, diverse, population-basedsample of first graders, this study focused on fiveparenting practices as differential correlates of threenarrowband dimensions of child disruptive behaviorproblems. Parent interviews were conducted to elicitreports of the five parenting practices and to elicit re-ports of child behavior problems. A confirmatory fac-tor analysis of the child behavior ratings demonstratedthat the three distinct narrowband dimensions of dis-ruptive child behaviors (oppositional, aggressive, andhyperactive behaviors) were well-differentiated in par-ent descriptions of child behavior. Internalizing prob-lems were also included in this study to provide acomparison with the externalizing behaviors.

On the basis of past research, punitive disciplinepractices were hypothesized to be associated with ele-vated rates of oppositional, aggressive, and hyperactivechild behavior. Inconsistency, on the other hand, wasexpected to be associated with oppositional and aggres-sive behavior problems but less highly associated withhyperactive behavior. It was unclear whether spankingwould be associated primarily with child aggression orwith child oppositional behavior and aggression; how-ever, stronger relations were expected betweenspanking and both of these problem dimensions thanwere expected between spanking and hyperactivity.Physically aggressive parenting, in contrast, was ex-pected to relate primarily to child aggression. Low lev-els of parental warmth and involvement were expectedtocorrelatewithchildoppositionaland internalizingbe-haviors. In addition, previous research suggests that thequantity as well as the quality of child behavior prob-lems may be related to parenting difficulties. For exam-ple, children who are hyperactive and aggressive (oroppositional) have greater parent–child relationshipdifficulties than children who are hyperactive alone(e.g, Barkley, Fischer, Edelbrock, & Smallish, 1991;Loeber et al., 1990; Moffit, 1990). Children who de-velop disruptive behavior problems during earlychildhood in the context of conflictual parent–childinteractions may have a greater variety of problems thatmay develop in a cumulative sequence than do childrenwho develop more specific patterns of conduct prob-lems at later points in time (e.g., Loeber et al., 1993;Patterson, 1982). Thus, the degree to which children areexposed to punitive, inconsistent, and aggressiveparenting practices may be related to the quantity of be-havior problems that they develop as well as the quality(e.g., the specific dimensions) of their behavior prob-

19

PARENTING AND CHILD BEHAVIOR

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

lems. We hypothesized that multiproblem profileswould be associated with all the parenting practices,whereas single problem profiles would be associatedwith specific types of parenting. Profiles of problem be-havior in this study were formed based on developmen-tal theory suggesting a progression in the developmentof behavior problems from hyperactive to oppositionaland aggressive behavior or from oppositional behaviorto aggression. The profiles included oppositional only,oppositional–aggressive, hyperactive only, and multi-problem, a combination of all three.

Last, the study examined ethnic–racial and sex dif-ferences in the relation between parenting and child be-havior. Based on previous research in this area, weanticipated that the links between parenting and be-havior problems would be strongest for EuropeanAmerican families (as compared to African Americanfamilies; Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit,1996). Sex, on the other hand, was not expected to im-pact the relations between parenting and behavior prob-lems (Parke & Slaby, 1983). Although externalizingbehavior may be more strongly linked to parenting inboys (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994), the pattern of rela-tions between the parenting dimensions and behaviorproblems was expected to be the same for boys andgirls.

Method

Participants

Target children included 631 kindergartners andtheir parents, selected for inclusion in a longitudinalproject designed to examine the developmental pro-gression of conduct problems and the effectiveness of apreventive intervention program (Fast Track; CPPRG,1992). The first two cohorts of participants were in-cluded in this study. Participants were selected fromfour areas of the country, each representing differentcross-sections of American culture. The areas included(a) Durham, North Carolina, a small city with a largelow- to middle-socioeconomic status (SES), predomi-nantly African American population; (b) Nashville,Tennessee, a moderate-sized city with a mix of low- tomiddle-SES African American and European Ameri-can families; (c) Seattle, Washington, a moderate-sizedcity with a low- to middle-SES and ethnically diversepopulation; and (d) central Pennsylvania, a mostly ruralarea with low- to middle-SES European American fam-ilies. SES was calculated with the Hollingshead Two-Factor Index, yielding the following breakdown fromhighest (1) to lowest (5): Class 1 (2%), Class 2 (13%),Class 3 (20%), Class 4 (26%), and Class 5 (39%). Thesample included 49% minority (predominantly AfricanAmerican) and 51% European American families, re-flecting the ethnic diversity of the populations at four

sites. Sex ratios in the high-risk sample reflected epide-miological data that document a higher prevalence ofdisruptive behavior in boys than in girls; 74% of thesample were boys, and 26% were girls. The mean age ofchildren in the sample was 6.45 years (SD= .50) withlimited range (range = 2.81 years).

A multiple-gating strategy was used to identify tar-get high-risk children. In the spring of their kindergar-ten year, all children in participating schools at the foursites of the Fast Track project were screened with theAuthority Acceptance scale of the Teacher Observa-tion of Classroom Adaptation–Revised (TOCA–R;Kellam, 1989), which assesses a range of behaviorproblems at school. The parents of children who scoredin the top 35% on this scale were contacted by tele-phone and, on consent, were administered a 24-itemscale of conduct problems drawn from the aggressionscales of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL;Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981) and the Revised Prob-lem Behavior Checklist (Quay & Peterson, 1987).Based on the average teacher and parent problemscores (combined), 631 behaviorally disruptive chil-dren were identified as the high-risk sample (out ofabout 6,000 total children across the four sites). The se-lected sample represented the top 10 to 15% of the sam-pling population in terms of their cross-situationalproblem behavior ratings. Overall, averaget scores onthe CBCL externalizing scale were near the 85% for thehigh-risk sample (M = 61, SD= 8.9). Children in thehigh-risk sample were then randomly assigned to inter-vention or control conditions, with school as the unit ofassignment. Once identified, families were sent a letterexplaining the study and contacted over the phone by atrained interviewer. If families agreed, a home visitorcontacted the families and an interview was conductedin their home. The project was discussed at this timeand consent forms were signed.

Although the majority of the analyses in this studyutilized participants from the high-risk sample (N =631), a normative sample (N= 387) of the same age wasused to standardize scores on behavioral dimensionswhen forming groups of children in later analyses. Thenormative sample contained 100 kindergarten childrenat each site (87 in Seattle) who were selected on the ba-sis of race, sex, and teacher ratings of behavior prob-lems (TOCA–R) to be representative of the schoolpopulation at each site (see Lochman & CPPRG, 1995,for more details on the screening process). Overall, thenormative sample showed fewer behavior problemsthan the high-risk sample on the TOCA–R (high-riskM= 30.7,SD= 10.2; normativeM = 16.7,SD= 11.6). Themean age of the normative sample at entrance into firstgrade was 6.52 years (SD = .44). The sample was51.2% male with 48.8% minority representation(42.5% African American and 6.3% other). The norma-tive and high-risk samples did not differ in terms ofSES,χ2(1, N = 1018) = 6.8,p > .10.

20

STORMSHAK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Measures

Home interviews were conducted with primarycaregivers (usually mothers) during the summer priorto their children’s first-grade year (prior to any inter-vention). Caregivers were asked about their parentingpractices in separate measures (described later), andthey also completed a rating scale to describe theirchild’s behavior problems. Each measure was collectedin an interview format lasting approximately 2 hr.

Assessment of narrowband child behaviors. Itemsfrom the CBCL–Parent Report Form (CBCL–PRF;Achenbach, 1991) were used to assess discrete narrow-band dimensions of problem behavior. The standardscoring system for the CBCL does not provide a cleardiscrimination between oppositional, aggressive, andhyperactive behavior problems, distinctions that are oftheoretical significance to early childhood. To providea clear discrimination among the narrowband dimen-sions of oppositional behaviors, aggressive conductproblems, and hyperactive–inattentive behaviors, aconfirmatory factor analysis was conducted usingitems from the CBCL–PRF using the same sample (n=631 for high-risk children). TheDiagnostic and Statis-tical Manual of Mental Disorders(4th ed.; AmericanPsychiatric Association, 1994) was used as a guidelineto create theoretically distinct scales. Items on theCBCL–PRF that reflected the same content as the vari-ous criteria for oppositional defiant disorder, conductdisorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorderwere used in the analyses. The confirmatory factoranalyses produced a model with a good fit to the data,χ2 (182) = 453.68,p < .01, goodness-of-fit index = .94,Bentler Bonett = .91. Details of this factor analysis anditem content were presented elsewhere (see Stormshaket al., 1998).

Correlations among the scales were moderate (meanr = .50) with acceptable internal reliability (αs = .68–.78) and supported using the factors separately in analy-ses. Items from the narrowband internalizing scalesAnxious/DepressedandWithdrawnwereused to formameasure of internalizing behavior problems. This scalewas moderately correlated with the three externalizingscales (oppositionalr = .53; hyperactiver = .36; aggres-sionr = .49).

TOCA–R (Kellam, 1989). The Authority Ac-ceptance scale includes 10 items describing disruptiveand aggressive school behaviors, which teachers rateon a 6-point scale (α = .85), ranging from 0 (almostnever) to 5 (almost always). The TOCA–R has beenfound to be related to both concurrent and later aca-demic and behavioral problems (Werthamer-Larsson,Kellam, & Wheeler, 1991). This measure was used as

the teacher screen in the first wave of the multiple-gating procedure.

Parenting measures. Parenting practices wereassessed using several measures. TheParent Question-naire (PQ), a 27-item adaptation of Strayhorn andWeidman’s (1988) Parent Practices Scale, was a self-report instrument that measured a variety of parentingpractices of theoretical and empirical significance tothe development of disruptive behavior problems, in-cluding warmth and involvement, consistency, and pu-nitive discipline tactics. Parents were asked to rate thefrequency of specific parenting techniques on a 5-pointLikert scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (many timeseach day).

The Parenting Practices Inventory(PPI) was de-vised specifically for the Fast Track Project (CPPRG,1996). This instrument also measured consistency andpunitive discipline tactics. Parents reported the fre-quency with which they used various parenting strate-gies on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 3(often).

A modified version of theConflict Tactics Scale(CTS; Straus, 1989) was used to assess punitive disci-pline, spanking, and physical aggression (Strassberg,Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1996; Straus, 1989). Parentsrated the frequency with which they engaged in variousparenting behaviors on a 7-point scale, ranging from 0(never) to 6 (almost every day). In this study, items fromthe CTS were used in a confirmatory factor analyses aspart of the Punitive Discipline construct. Additionally,separate scales of Spanking and Physical Aggressionwere used based on item content and previous researchwith this measure (Deater-Deckard et al., 1996).

Formation of parenting constructs. Five theo-retical constructs of parenting behavior were identifieda priori as relevant in this study and were modeled inseparate confirmatory factor analyses: Warmth/In-volvement (M = 24.6,SD = 4.9), Consistency (M =22.1,SD= 5.7), Punitive Discipline (M = 24.4,SD=9.0), Spanking (M = 8.1,SD= 4.2), and Physical Ag-gression (M = 3.4,SD= 4.8). Items from the self-reportmeasures (PQ, PPI, and CTS) were combined, based oncontent and theory, as measures of each construct. Sep-arate confirmatory factor analyses with one latent vari-able specified were estimated for each of the fiveconstructs. In each case, the fit of the model to the datawas adequate. These items and factor loadings are pre-sented in Table 1. Cronbach’s alphas for the Warmth/Involvement, Consistency, Punitive Discipline, Spank-ing, and Physical Aggression constructs were .73, .74,.72, .73, and .73, respectively, suggesting acceptableinternal reliability. The confirmatory factor analysis forthe Spanking construct produced a saturated model;

21

PARENTING AND CHILD BEHAVIOR

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

22

Table 1. Factor Loadings and Fit Indexes for the Five Parenting Constructs

Parenting Construct, Measure, and Item Factor Loadings

Warmth/Involvementa

Parent QuestionnaireHow often do you talk or play together? .63How often do you play sports or games with child? .60How often do you do something special with child? .48How often do you praise your child? .51How often do you play make-believe together? .50How often do you tell about your own experience? .42How often do you laugh together? .55Fraction of time you have fun with child .34Fraction of the time you are too worn out to play with child .19Fraction of the time you praise child .45

ConsistencyParent Questionnaireb

Fraction of the time you tell child to do something and make sure s/he does it .38If you tell child s/he will get punished, how often do you follow-through? .39How often does child get away with things? .54c

Punishment you use depends on mood .26Child is able to get out of punishment .53c

Parenting Practices InventoryHow often do you give up trying to get child to do something? .53If punishment is decided, how often does child get you to change it? .54How often does child get away with things? .62How often do you decide not to punish child even though rules were broken? .56

Punitive Disciplined

Conflict Tactics ScaleArgue angrily .35Yell, insult, or swear .56Sulk, refuse to talk .38c

Stomp out of room .33c

Throw something .33b

Parenting QuestionnaireTell your child you may leave is s/he doesn’t behave .29c

Tell your child s/he is bad .30c

Fraction of time you talk to your child with disapproval .21Fraction of time you get angry when punishing .48

Parenting Practices InventoryThreaten child with punishment .54Yell at child .62Lose temper .47

Spankinge

Conflict Tactics ScaleThreaten to spank your child .54Spank your child .98Spank your child with something .60

Physical Aggressionf

Conflict Tactics ScaleThreaten to throw something at your child .25c

Throw something at your child .30c

Push, grab, or shove your child .27Threaten to hit your child .73Hit or tried to hit child .91Hit or tried to hit your child with something .72Threaten to beat up child .30c

Beat up your child .24c

Note:Reverse items were scored to allow positive loadings. CFI = comparative fit index.aCFI = .87,χ2(35,N= 631) = 197.51.bCFI = .88,χ2(26,N= 631) = 136.35.cItem error correlations were estimated.dCFI = .89,χ2(51,N= 631) =155.25.eCFI = not applicable (fully identified model),χ2(0, N = 631) = 0.fCFI = .90,χ2(18,N = 631) = 216.53.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

hence no goodness-of-fit statistic was available. How-ever, although the Spanking scale had only three items,the loadings were moderate to strong and significant,and the scale demonstrated acceptable internal consis-tency compared to the other scales.

Results

Intercorrelations AmongParenting Constructs

To examine the independence of the five dimen-sions of parenting practices used in analyses, bivariatecorrelations were conducted to assess the degree of re-latedness among the measures. The results are pre-sented in Table 2. The highest correlation occurredbetween parent-reported Physical Aggression and Pu-nitive Discipline (r = .44,p< .001). However, based onprevious research suggesting that parents may movethrough a progression of parenting skills in which phys-ical aggression represents a final strategy (e.g., Patter-son, 1982), this correlation was expected. Similarly,although Spanking was related to both Punitive Disci-pline and Physical Aggression, we did not anticipatethat these parenting constructs would be mutually ex-clusive but rather differentially related to the narrow-band dimensions of behavior (Deater-Deckard et al.,1996). In fact, the correlation between Spanking andPhysical Aggression was surprisingly low given thatphysically aggressive parents likely use a great deal ofspanking (r = .33). Overall, the correlations suggestedmoderate to high level of independence of the parentingpractices and supported keeping them separate in lateranalyses.

Relation Between ParentingPractices and Child Behavior Problems

Next, to examine the specific variance accounted forby the parenting practices in the relation to narrowbandchild behavior problems, a series of correlations andmultiple-regression analyses were conducted. Internal-izing behavior was included in the analyses to provide acomparison with externalizing disruptive problemdimensions.

First, bivariate correlations were conducted betweeneach of the parenting practices and the narrowband be-havior problems. These correlations are presented inTable 3. Due to the large sample size, only correlationssignificant at p < .0025 were interpreted usingBonferroni’scorrection forTypeIerror (.05/20=.0025;approximater =.12).PunitiveDisciplinewascorrelatedwithall thenarrowbanddimensionsofbehavior, includ-ing internalizing behavior problems. Parents who re-ported high levels of any of the behavior problems alsoreported using punitive discipline tactics, such as yell-ingandverbal threats.Similarly,Spankingwasalsocor-related with all the behavioral dimensions but less sowith internalizing than with the disruptive behaviorproblems. Although Spanking and Punitive Disciplineshowed a similar pattern of correlations, they were keptseparate for lateranalyses toexamine thepotential inde-pendentcontributions toeachnarrowbanddimensionofbehavior. The other parenting constructs appeared toshow a specific pattern of correlations. Physical Ag-gression was most strongly associated with aggressivebehavior problems, whereas Warmth/Involvement wascorrelated (inversely) with oppositional behavior. Con-sistency was moderately correlated with all the childbehaviors.

Hierarchical multiple-regression analyses were thenconducted to examine the incremental and independentcontributions of each of the parenting constructs to thechild behaviors. Parenting dimensions were enteredintoeachequation in theorderdiscussed in the literaturereviewbasedondevelopmental theoryand thehypothe-ses for this study. First, Punitive Discipline was enteredin the equation given the anticipated correlation with allthe child behaviors. Next, Consistency and Spanking

23

PARENTING AND CHILD BEHAVIOR

Table2. BivariateCorrelationsBetweenParentingConstructs

Parenting Construct 1 2 3 4

1. Warmth/Involvement — — — —2. Consistency .12* — — —3. Punitive Discipline –.21** –.43** — —4. Spanking –.10* –.14* .41** —5. Physical Aggression .11* –.15* .44** .33**

*p < .01. **p < .001.

Table 3. Bivariate Correlations Between Parenting Practices and Narrowband Child Behaviors Problems

Child Behavior

Parenting Construct Oppositional Aggressive Hyperactive Internalizing

Warmth/Involvement –.17*** –.14** –.09* –.10**Consistency –.17*** –.18*** –.12** –.20***Punitive Discipline .40*** .38*** .31*** .36***Spanking .24*** .30a*** .32 a*** .17 b***Physical Aggression .19*** .26b*** .14 a** .18***

Note:Subscripts indicate that correlations within a row significantly differ at thep < .05 level using Fisher’sr-to-z transformations. All correla-tions were significant.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

were entered based on the hypotheses that theseparenting constructs would be associated with fewerchild behavioral problems (oppositional behavior andaggression). Lastly, Physical Aggression was entered,followed by Warmth/Involvement. To examine the in-cremental contribution of each parenting construct,change statistics were derived at each step in the equa-tion.However, toexaminethe independentcontributionof each of the parenting constructs, standardized betasfrom the final equation with each parenting constructcontrolling for the effects of the other variables are pre-sented in Table 4. Tests of multicollinearity were satis-factory,withallvariance inflationfactors lessthan10.

Consistent with the correlational analyses, PunitiveDiscipline predicted all the narrowband behaviors, in-cluding internalizing behavior problems. Spankingpre-dicted all three dimensions of disruptive behaviorproblems but did not predict internalizing behavior prob-lems. Differential predictions emerged for oppositionaland aggressive behavior, with low parental warmth/in-volvement predicting child oppositional behavior andparental use of physical aggression predicting child ag-gressive behavior. Consistency failed to contributeunique variance to the prediction of any dimension ofnarrowband behavior.

In summary, results suggest the presence of bothshared and unique contributions of various parentingpractices to the narrowband dimensions of disruptivebehavior and internalizing behavior problems. Punitivediscipline emerged as a common or shared predictor ofall the dimensions of child disruptive behaviors. Defi-cits in the warmth and responsiveness of the parent–child relationship emerged as a specific predictor ofoppositional child behavior, whereas the use of physi-cally aggressive punishment was related specifically toelevated rates of child aggression. Note that, althoughthe betas for oppositional and aggressive behavior wereat times small, these effects represent the independentcontribution of these variables to the specific childbehavior.

Sex and Ethnic–Racial GroupDifferences in the Relation BetweenParenting and Behavior Problems

To examine potential ethnic–racial group differ-ences in the relation between parenting and child be-havior problems, ethnic group (European American vs.African American) was entered into a series of separateanalyses as a main effect and as an interaction term withthe five parenting practices to predict each of the be-havior problems. Ethnic group significantly contrib-uted to the prediction of oppositional behavior (t = –5.33,p < .001), with European American parents re-porting higher levels of oppositional behavior prob-lems than African American families. The interactionbetween ethnic group and punitive parenting was sig-nificant in relation to oppositional behavior,F(11, 602)= 4.25,p< .05, as well as the interaction between physi-cally aggressive punishment and ethnic group in the re-lation to internalizing behavior problems,F(11, 602) =4.54,p < .05.2 In both cases, parenting practices weremore strongly associated with child behavior in Euro-pean American than African American families. Ethnicgroup did not predict any other behavior problems.When controlling for ethnic group in the model, no dif-ferences were found in the main effects of parentingstrategies that predicted behavior problems.

Similar analyses were conducted with sex. Sex sig-nificantly predicted aggression (t = –4.01,p < .001),with more boys than girls showing aggressive behaviorproblems. Sex did not predict other behavioral prob-lems or influence the pattern of predictions. No signifi-

24

STORMSHAK ET AL.

Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Relation Among Parenting Practices and Narrow-Band Dimensionsof Child Behavior Problems

Child Behavior

Oppositionala Aggressionb Hyperactivec Internalizing d

Parenting Practices β ∆ R2 β ∆ R2 β ∆ R2 β ∆ R2

Punitive Discipline .33** .16** .25*** .14*** .21*** .09** .31*** .13***Consistency .00 .00 –.03 .00 .00 .00 –.05 .00Spanking .09* .01* .16*** .03*** .24*** .05*** .02 .00Physical Aggression .01 .00 .09* .01* –.03 .00 .03 .00Warmth/Involvement –.09* .01* –.05 .00 –.02 .00 –.02 .00

Note:Beta refers to the standardized beta coefficients in the full model (controlling for the effects of the other variables).∆ R2 statistics reflect theincremental variance predicted by each of the parenting constructs (in the order presented).aFull-model adjustedR2= .18,F(5, 619) = 26.96***.bFull-model adjustedR2= .18,F(5, 619) = 27.31***.cFull-model adjustedR2= .14,F(5, 619)= 20.69***. aFull-model adjustedR2 = .13,F(5, 619) = 19.86***.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

2In both the ethnic–racial group and sex analyses, 5 interactionterms were tested in each of four models. Of these terms, only 2 (outof 20) were significant for ethnic group, and none reached signifi-cance for sex. Although consistent with other research on ethnic dif-ferences in parenting and child behavior problems, effects of ethnicgroup on the relation between parenting and behavior problems werenot strongly supported. SES was not tested as a possible mediator dueto the limited variance in SES in this sample.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

cant interactions were found between sex and parentingin the prediction of behavior problems.

Group Comparisons inParenting Strategies

The regression analyses provided some support forthe hypothesis that parenting skills were differentiallyrelated to various forms of child problem behavior. Pre-vious research has suggested that certain combinationsof externalizing behavior (e.g., hyperactivity with co-morbid aggression) may be important in predictingchild adjustment across a variety of domains (e.g., peerrelations, academic achievement; Bierman, Smoot, &Aumiller, 1993; Moffit, 1990; Pope, Bierman, &Mumma, 1989). The following set of analyses exam-ined the extent to which individual parenting practiceswere associated with particular subtypes or profiles ofexternalizing behavior problems.

To compare the parenting practices experienced bychildren with different behavioral profiles, four groupsof children were identified based on previous researchand developmental theory. To create the groups, chil-dren were designated as high on a given home-based di-mension of conduct problems if their score exceeded 1SDrelative to the normative sample. Using these crite-ria, 297 children (49% of the high-risk sample) fell intoone of the four target groups: (a) oppositional only (n=31; 5% of the sample), (b) aggressive and oppositional(n = 65; 10% of the sample), (c) hyperactive only (n =77; 12% of the sample), and (c) multiproblem childrenhigh on aggressive, hyperactive, and oppositional be-havior (n = 124; 20% of the sample). Other children inthe high-risk sample had elevated scores but did not ex-ceed 1SDon any of these home problem dimensions. Alow-problem group of children scoring below the meanon all three externalizing dimensions was also createdto provide a basis for comparison with the other profiles(n = 80; 13% of the sample). Although scoring belowthe mean of the normative sample on the three behaviordimensions, these children were still a subgroup of the

high-risk sample and thus a better comparison to high-risk participants than the normative group.

Toexaminedifferences in theparentingpracticesex-perienced by these children, one-way analyses of vari-ance were conducted using each of the five parentingconstructs as dependent variables. The results are pre-sented in Table 5. In this analyses, parenting constructswerestandardizedbasedonscoresderived fromthenor-mative comparison group. Consistent with the previousregression analyses, parenting practices were associ-ated with different profiles of behavior problems.

Overall, punitive discipline and low levels of consis-tency were associated with child problem profiles thatincluded oppositional behaviors, aggressive behaviors,or multiproblem profiles of oppositional, aggressive,and hyperactive behaviors. Although parents of hyper-active-onlychildren reportedusingmorepunitivedisci-pline than did parents of low-problem children, theywere not as punitive as parents of oppositional or ag-gressivechildren.Lowlevelsofparentalwarmthand in-volvement differentiated oppositional and aggressivechildren from low-problem children. Spanking wasmost characteristic of parents who had multiproblemchildren, although parents of oppositional, aggressive,and hyperactive children all used spanking more thanparents of low problem children. Finally, use of physi-cally aggressive parenting characterized parents ofoppositional, aggressive, and multiproblem childrenbut not parents of hyperactive-only children.

Discussion

This study had four distinct advantages over previ-ous studies that have investigated disruptive behaviorproblems in this age group. First, both positive and neg-ative dimensions of parenting were studied together sothat their separate and combined effects could be esti-matedandcompared.Second, thisstudyexaminedthreenarrowband dimensions of disruptive child behaviorproblems simultaneously and also included an exami-nation of concurrent levels of internalizing problems.

25

PARENTING AND CHILD BEHAVIOR

Table 5. Mean Levels of Parenting Practices for Children Showing Different Profiles of Conduct Problem Behavior

Problem Profile

Oppositionala Aggressiveb Hyperactivec Multiproblem d Low Probleme

Parenting Practice M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Ff

Warmth/Involvement –0.51b 0.99 –0.54b 0.81 –0.36a,b 0.91 –0.47a,b 0.89 –0.13a 1.05 2.34*Consistency –0.53c 1.01 –0.59c 0.95 –0.10a,b 0.95 –0.38b,c 1.16 0.14a 0.92 6.43**Punitive Discipline 0.89a 0.90 0.63a 0.68 0.30b 0.93 0.73a 1.06 –0.38c 0.67 24.09**Spanking 0.53a,b 0.91 0.44b 1.03 0.50a,b 0.86 0.80a 0.95 –0.11c 0.82 12.28**Physical Aggression 0.40a 1.07 0.38a 1.0 0.00b 0.87 0.44a 1.23 –0.27b 0.57 8.05**

Note:Parenting constructs are standardizedzscores based on the means and standard deviations of the normative sample. Different subscripts indi-cate significant mean differences between groups on the parenting practices using Duncan’s comparison test atp < .05.an = 31.bn = 70.cn = 78.dn = 124.en = 80.fdf = 4, 377.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Third, by using a large cross-site sample, this studytested the generalization of parental influences on childbehavior problems for African American and EuropeanAmericanchildrenandforboysandgirls.Finally,byex-amining the differential relations among parenting be-haviors and disruptive behavior problems, this studytested the theoretical assumption that parenting strate-gies contribute in different ways to the early emergenceof various dimensions and patterns of disruptive behav-ior problems.

Consistent with previous research and the hypothesesof the study, hyperactivity, aggression, and oppositionalbehaviorwereall related toelevated levelsofpunitivedis-ciplineandspanking (Barkley,Karlsson,&Pollard,1985;Campbell, Breaux, Ewing, & Szumowski, 1986; Hart etal., 1990;Patterson&Stouthamer-Loeber,1984).This re-lation held whenscores on these dimensions were usedas continuous variables and when profiles of behaviorwere formed and between group differences explored.Apparently, children with any one of the conduct prob-lems (hyperactivity, oppositional behavior, or aggres-sion) are difficult for parents to manage and are likely toreceive punitive discipline. In the analyses of problemprofiles, however, parents of hyperactive-only childrenreported levels of punitive discipline and spanking thatwere less severe than that reported by parents of hyper-active children who were also oppositional and aggres-sive, suggesting that these parenting practices may beassociated more with child oppositional and aggressivebehaviors than child hyperactive behaviors.

When spanking was examined as a separate pre-dictor, it was associated broadly with all of thenarrowband dimensions of externalizing behavior. Aspredicted, parental physical aggression was associ-ated only with aggressive child behavior. Thus, chil-dren who experienced punitive discipline, spanking,and physical aggression showed a pattern of increas-ing severity in the problems they displayed. These re-sults are consistent with other research suggestingthat spanking and physical aggression are related tochildhood aggression in a cumulative manner, withincreases in aggressive parenting relating to increasesin severity of problems (e.g., Strassberg et al., 1994)and violent forms of parenting associated exclusivelywith active, aggressive externalizing behaviors. Inter-estingly, whereas internalizing behavior was associ-ated with punitive discipline, it was not related tospanking. Apparently, the nattering and complainingthat comprises punitive discipline may be associatedwith internalizing behavior; however, more extensivepatterns of punitive parenting that also include spank-ing or physical aggression are more specifically asso-ciated with externalizing child behaviors.

Most researchon theparental correlatesofchildcon-duct problems has focused on the central role of nega-tive parent–child interactions; however, theoreticalmodels often include a construct reflecting deficits in

positive parent–child interactions as a predictor of con-duct problems (e.g., Denham, Renwick, & Holt, 1991;Greenberg&Speltz,1988;Pettit&Bates,1989).Paren-talwarmthand involvementwasonlymoderatelycorre-lated with punitive parenting and was not significantlycorrelated with spanking or physical aggression, sug-gesting a moderate level of independence of positiveandnegativedimensionsofparenting.Ashypothesized, inthe regression analyses, Warmth/Involvementemergedas a significant (inverse) predictor of oppositional be-havior, adding unique variance beyond the contribu-tions of both punitive and aggressive parenting. Whenprofilesofconductproblemswereexamined, low levelsof warmth and involvement were reported by parents ofoppositional and aggressive children. Notably, parentsof children with other single or comorbid patterns of be-havior problems did not report similar deficits in posi-tive parenting. Results suggest that early deficits inwarmth and involvement may be critical to the develop-ment and maintenance of oppositional and aggressivebehavior.

Basedonpreviousresearch linking lowlevelsofpos-itiveparentingwith internalizingbehavior,wehypothe-sized that a negative correlation would emerge betweenwarmth and involvement and internalizing behavior.However, in this study, parental warmth showed no re-lation to child internalizing behavior problems. Differ-ences in findings may reflect different measurementtechniques. For example, observations of parents (Cole& Rehm, 1986), child reports (Capaldi, 1991), and ret-rospective reports (Burbach & Borduin, 1986) have allbeenusedinpreviousresearch,whereasthisstudyreliedon parent reports of this construct.

Previous research has suggested that parenting strat-egies might be culturally specific in their relation tochild behavior problems. For example, the effects ofphysical discipline on child behavior problems at schoolhave been found to be stronger for European Americanthan for African American children(Baumrind, 1993;Deater-Deckard et al., 1996). Ethnic group differencesin this study support previous research, with strongerassociations between punitive discipline and behaviorproblems found for European American than AfricanAmerican children. Similarly, physically aggressivediscipline strategies were more strongly associatedwith internalizing behavior problems in EuropeanAmerican than in African American children. In eachcase, a variety of interpretations can be generated to ex-plain these data. Perhaps punitive discipline has differ-ent meanings across these two cultures, with punitivediscipline relating to authoritarian parenting in EuropeanAmerican families and authoritative parenting in Afri-can American families (Kelley, Power, & Wimbush,1992). With the exception of ethnic group differencesin the strength of the association between punitiveparenting and spanking and child behavior problems,no other ethnic group effects or sex differences in

26

STORMSHAK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

parenting and behavior problems were found, suggest-ing a relatively high degree of consistency in the influ-ence of various parenting strategies on subgroups ofAmerican youth.

These results do not speak to the possible roles thatethnicity and sex may play in moderating the impact ofparenting practices and child adjustment in settings out-side the home. As previous research has suggested,when the relation between parenting and child behaviorproblems is examined across contexts (to school), eth-nic group may play a more influential role in predictingchild adjustment (Deater-Deckard et al., 1996). Simi-larly, inanormativesample, sexeffectsmaybestrongerand parenting may be more predictive of problematicadjustment for boys than girls (Rothbaum & Weisz,1994). In this sample, there were more boys than girls,but the influences of parenting on child adjustment ap-peared similar.

One limitation of this research involves the relianceon parent reports for estimates both of parenting prac-tices and child behavior problems. The findings of thisstudy suggest that parents can provide internally con-sistent and well-differentiated accounts of both theirparenting practices and their children’s problem behav-iors. However, parental responses may reflect the ex-tent to which parents are socially aware of acceptableparenting. Future research in this area may benefit fromuse of multiple methods for assessing relations betweenparenting and child problems in addition to an exami-nation of parenting practices as predictors of child be-havior problems across contexts (e.g., school). Futureresearch may also benefit from examining differentprofiles of parenting strategies as predictors of child be-havior (e.g., Baumrind, 1971).

Although results from this study provide a start tounderstanding relations between parenting andnarrowband dimensions of child behavior problems,the correlational nature of this study limits interpreta-tion in terms of the predictive function of parenting inthe development of patterns of child behavior. Al-though previous longitudinal research has identifiedboth coercive parenting processes and low levels of pa-rental sensitivity and involvement as predictive of thedevelopment of later behavior problems (e.g.,Camp-bell et al., 1991; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1990), the reverseeffect may be true as well. For example, some researchsuggests that difficult child behavior may elicit poorparenting in mothers (Anderson et al., 1986). Addi-tionally, even the best linear combination of parent re-ported practices accounted for only 18% of the variancein child behavior in this study, suggesting that manyother contextual and individual factors impact the de-velopment of these behavior problems. The negativerelation between parenting constructs and specific pro-files of behavior may be due to a third variable, such asindividual child temperament. Parents may respond tochildren who are moody and irritable with detachment

and hostility, thus perpetuating the development of be-havior problems and further straining the parent–childrelationship (Sroufe, 1989). Research examining theinteraction between early temperament, specificparenting, and later adjustment is needed to help under-stand the development of these problems. Additionally,although the parenting constructs were uniquely asso-ciated with child behavior in some cases, punitive dis-cipline emerged consistently as a primary correlatewith all three child behavior problems. Punitive disci-pline is clearly a core parenting deficit and may be themost relevant parenting problem to work on with chil-dren and families in clinical settings. To expand onthese findings, future research should examine the de-velopmental sequence of maladaptive parenting andnarrowband profiles of child behavior in a longitudinaldesign to explicate the direction of effects more clearly.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991).Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile.Burlington: University of Vermont, De-partment of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1981).Manual for the Child Be-havior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile.Burling-ton, VT: University Associates in Psychiatry.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994).Diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1986). Mothers’ in-teractions with normal and conduct-disordered boys: Who af-fects whom?Developmental Psychology, 22,604–609.

Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention deficit disorders: History, defini-tion, and diagnosis. In M. Lewis & S. M. Miller (Eds.),Hand-book of developmental psychopathology(pp. 65–72). NewYork: Plenum.

Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Edelbrock, C., & Smallish, L. (1991).The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed byresearch criteria: III. Mother–child interactions, family con-flicts, and maternal psychopathology.Journal of Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry, 32,233–256.

Barkley, R. A., Karlsson, J., & Pollard, S. (1985). Effects of age onthe mother–child interactions of ADD–H and normal boys.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13,631–637.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority.Devel-opmental Psychological Monographs, 1(1, Pt. 2).

Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is notgood enough: A response to Scarr.Child Development, 64,1299–1317.

Bierman, K. L., Smoot, D. L., & Aumiller, K. (1993). Characteristicsof aggressive–rejected, aggressive (non-rejected) and rejected(non-aggressive) boys.Child Development, 64,139–151.

Burbach, D. J., & Borduin, C. M. (1986). Parent–child relations andthe etiology of depression: A review of major findings.ClinicalPsychology Review, 6,133–153.

Campbell, S. (1990).Behavior problems in preschool children: Clin-ical and developmental issues.New York: Guilford.

Campbell, S. B., Breaux, A. M., Ewing, L. J., & Szumowski, E. K.(1986). Correlates and predictors of hyperactivity and aggres-sion: A longitudinal study of parent-referred problem pre-schoolers.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14,217–234.

Campbell, S. B., & Ewing, L. J. (1990). Follow-up of hard to managepreschoolers: Adjustment at age 9 and predictors of continuing

27

PARENTING AND CHILD BEHAVIOR

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

symptoms.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31,871–889.

Campbell, S. B., Pierce, E. W., March, C. L., & Ewing, L. J. (1991).Noncompliant behavior, overactivity, and family stress as pre-dictors of negative maternal control with preschool children.Development and Psychopathology, 3,175–190.

Capaldi, D. M. (1991). Co-occurrence of conduct problems and de-pressive symptoms in early adolescent boys: I. Familial factorsand general adjustment at Grade 6.Development and Psychopa-thology, 3,277–300.

Cole, D. A., & Rehm, L. P. (1986). Family interaction patterns andchildhood depression.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,14,297–314.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1992). A developmen-tal and clinical model for the prevention of conduct disorders: TheFASTTrackprogram.DevelopmentandPsychopathology,4,509–527.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1996).ParentingPractices Inventory.Unpublished manuscript, University ofWashington.

Danforth, J. S., Barkley, R. A., & Stokes, T. F. (1991). Observationsof parent–child interactions with hyperactive children: Re-search and clinical implications.Clinical Psychology Review,11,703–727.

Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1996).Physical discipline among African-American and European-American mothers: Links to children’s externalizing behaviors.Developmental Psychology, 32,1065–1072.

Denham, S. A., Renwick, S. M., & Holt, R. W. (1991). Working andplaying together: Predictors of preschool social–emotionalcompetence from mother–child interaction.Child Develop-ment, 62,242–249.

East, P. L. (1991). The parent–child relationships of withdrawn, ag-gressive, and sociable children: Child and parent perspectives.Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 37,425–443.

Frick, P. J., Van Horn, Y., Lahey, B. B., Christ, M. G., Loeber, R.,Hart, E. A., Tannenbaum, L., & Hanson, K. (1993).Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: A meta-an-alytic review of factor analyses and cross-validation in a clinicsample.Clinical Psychology Review, 13,319–340.

Gardner, F. E. (1989). Inconsistent parenting: Is there evidence for alink with children’s conduct problems?Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology, 17,223–233.

George, C., & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abusedchildren: Approach, avoidance, and aggression.Child Develop-ment, 50,306–318.

Greenberg, M. T., & Speltz, M. L. (1988). Contributions of attach-ment theory to the understanding of conduct problems duringthe preschool years. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.),Clini-cal implications of attachment(pp. 177–218). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hart, C. H., Ladd, G. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1990). Children’s expec-tations of the outcomes of social strategies: Relations withsociometric status and maternal disciplinary styles.Child De-velopment, 61,127–137.

Hinshaw, S. P., Morrison, D. C., Carte, E. T., & Cornsweet, C.(1987). Factorial dimensions of the Revised Behavior Prob-lem Checklist: Replication and validation within a kindergar-ten sample.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15,309–327.

Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (1992). Assessing conduct problemsin the classroom.Clinical Psychology Review, 12,1–20.

Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1994). The development of aggression intoddlers: A study of low-income families.Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology, 22,53–77.

Kellam, S. G. (1989).Johns Hopkins Preventive Intervention Re-search Center[NIMH grant proposal]. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University.

Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G., & Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinantsof disciplinary practices in low-income Black mothers.ChildDevelopment, 63,573–582.

Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socializationand child temperament in early development of conscience.Child Development, 64,325–347.

Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., & Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A developmental interpretation of youngchildren’s noncompliance.Developmental Psychology, 23,799–806.

Lochman, J. E., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.(1995). Screening of child behavior problems for preventionprograms at school entry: Gender and race effects.Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 63,549–559.

Loeber, R., Brinthaupt, V. P., & Green, S. M. (1990). Attention defi-cits, impulsivity, and hyperactivity with and without conductproblems: Relationships to delinquency and unique contextualfactors. In R. J. McMahon & R. DeV. Peters (Eds.),Behaviordisorders of adolescence: Research, intervention, and policy inclinical school settings(pp. 39–62). New York: Plenum.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delin-quency: A review.Psychological Bulletin, 74,68–99.

Loeber, R., & Lahey, B. B. (1987). Recommendations for research ondisruptive behavior disorders of childhood and adolescence. InB. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.),Advances in clinical childpsychology(Vol. 12, pp. 221–251). New York: Plenum.

Loeber, R., Wung, P., Keenan, K., Giroux, B., Stouthamer-Loeber,M., Van Kammen, W. B., & Maughan, B. (1993). Developmen-tal pathways in disruptive child behavior.Development andPsychopathology, 5,103–134.

Moffit, T. E. (1990). Juvenile delinquency and attention deficit disor-der: Boys’ developmental trajectories from age 3 to age 15.Child Development, 61,893–910.

Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G. (1983). The development of aggression.In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),Handbook of child psychology: Social-ization, personality, and social development(Vol. 4, pp. 547–641). New York: Wiley.

Patterson, G. R. (1982).Coercive family process.Eugene, OR:Castalia.

Patterson, G. R. (1986). Performance models for antisocial boys.American Psychologist, 41,432–444.

Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlationof family management practices and delinquency.Child Devel-opment, 55,1299–1307.

Peterson, L., Ewigman, B., & Vandiver, T. (1994). Role of parentalanger in low-income women: Discipline strategy, perceptionsof behavior problems, and the need for control.Journal of Clini-cal Child Psychology, 23,435–443.

Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1989). Family interaction patterns andchildren’s behavior problems from infancy to 4 years.Develop-mental Psychology, 25,413–420.

Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportiveparenting, ecological context, and children’s adjustment: Aseven-year longitudinal study.Child Development, 68,908–923.

Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Brown, M. M. (1988). Early family ex-perience, social problem solving patterns, and children’s socialcompetence.Child Development, 59,815–829.

Pope, A. W., Bierman, K. L., & Mumma, G. H. (1989). Relations be-tween hyperactive and aggressive behavior in peer relations atthree elementary grade levels.Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-chology, 3,253–267.

Quay, H. C., & Peterson, D. R. (1987).Interim manual for the Re-vised Behavior Problems Checklist.Miami, FL: University ofMiami.

Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. (1994). Parental caregiving and childexternalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 116,55–74.

28

STORMSHAK ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4

Salzinger, S., Feldman, R., Hammer, M., & Rosario, M. (1993). Theeffects of physical abuse on children’s social relationships.Child Development, 64,169–187.

Salzinger, S., Kaplan, S., Pelcovitz, D, Samit, C., & Kreiger, R.(1984). Parent and teacher assessment of children’s behavior inchild maltreating families.Journal of the American Academy ofChild & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23,458–464.

Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Pathways to adaptation and maladaptation: Psy-chopathology as a developmental deviation. In D. Cicchetti(Ed.),Rochester symposium on development psychopathology(Vol. 1, pp. 13–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, Inc.

Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., & Conduct Problems PreventionResearch Group. (1998). The implications of different develop-mental patterns of disruptive behavior problems for school ad-justment.Development and Psychopathology, 10,451–467.

Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994).Spanking in the home and children’s subsequent aggression to-ward kindergarten peers.Development and Psychopathology, 6,445–461.

Straus, M. A. (1989).Manual for the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS).Durham: University of New Hampshire.

Strayhorn, J. M., & Weidman, C. S. (1988). A parent practices scaleand its relation to parent and child mental health.Journal of the

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27,613–618.

Taylor, E., Schachar, R., Thorley, G., & Wieselberg, M. (1986). Con-duct disorder and hyperactivity: I. Separation of hyperactivityand antisocial conduct in British child psychiatric patients.Brit-ish Journal of Psychiatry, 149,760–767.

Wahler, R. G., & Dumas, J. E. (1986). Maintenance factors in coer-cive mother–child interactions: The compliance and predict-ability hypothesis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19,13–22.

Werthamer-Larson, L., Kellam, S. G., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Effectsof first-grade classroom environment on shy behavior, aggres-sive behavior, and concentration problems.American Journalof Community Psychology, 19,585–602.

West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973).Who becomes delinquent?London: Heinemann Educational.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Iannotti, R. J., Cummings, M. E., & Denham, S.(1990). Antecedents of problems behaviors in children of de-pressed mothers.Development and Psychopathology, 2,271–291.

Manuscript received May 18, 1998Final revision received April 16, 1999

29

PARENTING AND CHILD BEHAVIOR

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Illin

ois

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Miln

er L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:49

21

Oct

ober

201

4