This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 10 November 2014, At: 23:54Publisher: 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

Strengthening child compliance through positiveparenting practices: What works?Robert G. Wahler & Kayce L. MeginnisPublished online: 07 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Robert G. Wahler & Kayce L. Meginnis (1997) Strengthening child compliance through positive parentingpractices: What works?, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26:4, 433-440, DOI: 10.1207/s15374424jccp2604_12

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2604_12

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

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 1997, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 433-440

Copyright O 1997 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Strengthening Child Compliance Through Positive Parenting Practices: What Works?

Robert G. Wahler i Department of Psychology, Ui

Examined the laboratory playroom bekav a competitive game in which the mothers The dyads were equally divided into a cor which mothers were taught to use positive The game activity was videotaped and (: maternal instructions, mirroring and pra~ to their children's full repertoire of beha were interviewed separately to assess th Results showed higher percentages of chi satisfaction for the experimental groups. to be the only significsnt predictor of 1

mirroring and praise are spec@ markt Implications of these results for parenting

Cooperative transactions between mothers and their young children constitute markers of children's proso- cial development over time (Pettit, Dodge, & Brown, 1988; Putallaz, 1987), leading to t h ~ question of how these transactions become stable features of early re- lationships. Answers to this question have been forth- coming through inspection of the mother-child re- sponse exchanges, revealing the importance of social contingencies orchestrated by the mother that lead to a child's willingness ta comply with maternal instruc- tions (Kuczynski, 1984; Westermqn, 1990). In es- sepce, a child's likelihood of compliance is increased when his or her mother repcts to child behavior in an appropriate and timely fashion. Given this maternal orchestration and a compliant youngster, cooperative transactions are usually assured (Radkp-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, & Chapman, 1983; Stayton, Hogan, & Ainsworth, 197 1).

These "appropriate and timely'' rnaterqd reactions have been characterized by r e ~ e ~ c h e i s ynder the rubric of positive parenting practices (see review by Dix, 1991). In concert with appro~qate discipline, positive parenting is; viewed as a basis for child compliance, given that the parenting reactions are appropriately contingent with respect to child behavior. Thus, the practice encompasses what a parept does a d when it is done, making the overall concept fairly complex in its definirig properties.

It is common for clinical researchers and practitio- ners t s define positive parenting within reinforcement

Requests for reprim should be sent to Robed G. Wahler, n e p G ment 07 Psycholop, 2 2 7 4 Austin Peay Building, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 3799fj-0900.

L

Kayce L. Meginnis ersity of Tennessee, Knoxville

o f 36 normal mother-child dyads during lve periodic instructions to their children. 01 group, and two experimental groups in lrenting in the form of mirroring orpraise. rervers coded rates of child compliance, , and the mothers' overall responsiveness ws. After the game, mothers and children r satisfaction with the game interaction. compliance and higher ratings of dyadic bwever, maternal responsiveness proved se dependent measures, suggesting that .for a more complex parenting process. .actices and parent training are discussed.

theory, usually meaning that parenting responses are specified as those with approval andlor information content offered s~dectively following the chil~d's proso- cial responses (Lavigueur, Tremblay, & Saucier, 1995; Shelton, Frick, & Wooten, 1996). The logic in fostering this practice is based on empirical evidence showing that maternal approval (e.g., "Good job!") or rnaternal mirroring (e,g., "I see that you finished your work.") often function as positive reinforcers (Wahler, 1976). Presumably, thosq parents who offer this feeback con- tingent on child prosocial behavior will strengthen this behavior, including the child's compliance.

dA broader definition of positive parenting is cited by develolpmental researchers who are inclined to view the contingency proms as responsiveness, as opposed to reinforcement (D&ling & Steinberg, 1993). Respon- siveness is a tern derived from sacial attachment theory and it highlights a wider range of parent responses as well a greater breadth in their contingent arrangement fallowing child bahgvior. Thus, Harrist, Pettit, Dodge, and Bates (19941, Martin (1981), and Parpal and Mac- coby (1985) ineluded maternal responses of neutral, positive, and sam4:times negative content, and consid- ered contingency as any "appropriate" offering of these responses following an equally wide range: d child responses. Presumably, the maternal congruence creates a harmony or synchrony that fosters child recilprocity, in general, as well as specifically fostering compliance.

Although reinforcement theorists are aware of the responsiveness construct and some investigators have interpreted it within an expanded reinforcement frame- work (see Snyder & Patterson, 1995, and VVahler, in pegs), the mosp narrow drlfinition of positive parenting continues to be popular in the practitioner and clinical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:54

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WAHLER & MEGINNIS

research arenas (e.g., Bierman & Smoot, 1991; Frick, Lahey, Stouthamer-Loeber, Christ, & Hanson, 1992; Shelton et al., 1996). This is peculiar in light of research showing that mothers of compliant children do not offer their attention as a consistent consequence for child compliance (Griest, Forehand, Wells, & McMahon, 1980; Lytton, 1979), and experimental evidence show- ing the weakness of maternal praise as a positive rein- forcer for conduct problem children' s compliance (Her- bert et d., 1973; Roberts, 1985).

The questionable influence of specific maternal feedback could mean that its potential impact is inher- ently governed by the resppnsiveness operation, sug- gesting that praiae atrd mirroring are simply compo- nents of overall mSponsiv'lenless. Thus, teaching a mother to provide a sMcxific form of social feedback for child prosocial pspo?nsi% highr occasionally "work" because the mather also genebates "synchrony" through orchestrating othsr appropriate social contingencies for her child's largei &pspertbite; of hesponses. Those cases in which approfirihdy c~xltingent maternal attention has no impact ob child comphi&ce might be due to the mother" lack of hponsive orchestration of other con- tingencies. Because maternal responsiveness is consis- tently correlated with child compliance (see review by Wahler, in press), it seems reasonable to pose the fol- lowing questions: (a) When normal mothers are taught to use specific forms of social feedback (i.e., praise and mirroring), do they also increase their overall rates of responsiveness? and (b) Given the dual operations of specific feedback and the more general responsiveness process, which of the two is most closely linked to child compliance? Based on the previous literature review, we expected responsiveness to be the more relevant facet of any such linkage.

This study was devised as a laboratory experiment geared to teaching normal mothers to provide praise and mirroring contingent on their normal children's posi- tive behavior. By measuring maternal responsiveness, as well as mothers' uses of praise and mirroring, it was possible to examine correlations between the measures and their respective associations with child compliance. In addition to using child compliance as a dependent measure, we also sought self-report measures of child and mother satisfaction with these laboratory social exchanges. In essence, we hoped to generate behavioral and consumer satisfaction data relevant to the pre- viously described conceptions of positive parenting.

Method

Participants

The participants were 36 first-, second-, and third- grade, Caucasian children and their mothers (16 boys and 20 girls M = 7.45 years; mothers M = 35.84 years).

These dyads were predominantly from upper middle class families and were recruited through the public school system by means of a letter to the parents.

Procedure

As mothers and their children announced a willing-

Verbal mirroring group. The mothers assigned to the verbal mirroring group listened to the trainer's description of verbal mirroring and then viewed a vide- otape showing a model using the tactic with a child during a Pick Up Sticks game. During the video, the traiher pointed out the model's neutral affect and brief descriptions or paraphrasing of the child's nonverbal and verbal behavior: (e.g., "So you prefer the red car"). Finally, the mother practiced mirroring with the trainer who enacted the child's role. Mirroring was limited to its verbal definition in order to equate its breadth with the praise category, and its crucial defining property was informational feedback delivered in neutral tone and content.

Praise gmup. The mothers in the praise group had the same basic training experience as those in the mirroring group, but focused instead on the global praise tactic. In this experience, the trainer emphasized use of positive affect presented through ambiguous statements (e,g., "Wow! That was terrific!"), and these mothers also watched an instructional video that mod- eled effective use of braise. In contrast to mirroring,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:54

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

POSITIVE PARENTING PRACTICES

praise was comprised solely of approval in tone and content, devoid of information about the child response it followed. Thus, mirroring and praise were defined in mutually exclusive fashion, in which information and affect were separated.

Notice that maternal training in mirroring and praise could be construed as specific training in responsive- ness. Because both forms of feedback were taught as appropriate reactions to positive child responses, the two groups of mothers were encouraged to be respon- sive to their children in particular ways. However, because responsiveness is defined as any appropriate neutral, positive, or negative reaction to child behavior, mirroring and praise were only subsets of various ways in which ow parent could be responsive. Thus, a parent could also be responsive through appropriate nonverbal participation in the child's play or work, through neutral cmments (e.g., "uh huh."), and through compliance with child requests and disapproval of child antagonis- tic actions, The point to be made is that teaching appro priate use of minoring and prslise did not ansure gener ality of responsiveness in the groups of mothers.

Before beginning the play episode with her child, each mother was given examples of clear instructions for use upon hearing signals by the trainer (a clicking noise). Then, the trainer brought the ~h i ld to the play- roam after telling him or her about the forthcoming game arld the use of the video equipment. After the m~ther exjplain~d the gape and the @ticks were dumped on the floor, the video racording began and the trainer kept track of 2-min intervals to cue the mother's deliv- ery of instructions. At the eoncllusion of the 20-min game, molther and child were interviewed separately by tha trainer who verbally presented 10 incomplete state- mmts comprising the DIQS, a questionnaire devised for this study, This wals, to be described in the next siecti~n, wa6 usied to mmple mother and child satisfac- tion with game interaction.

Measures

For demographic purposes, the psychological ad- justvent of mothers and children was sampled through mothers' completion of the Bell Object Relations-Re- ality Tasting Inventory (BORRIT; Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). The BORRIT measures an adulps satisfaction with personal relationships and its reliability and validity have been documented (Be al., 1986; Hadley, Holloway, & Mallinckrodt, 19 Likewise, the GBCL has proven to yield reliable and valid indic~s of children's maladaptive internalizing and externalizing beHavior (Achenbach, 1991).

Mather-child interactions during the 20-min play sessions were assessed through the Standardized Ob- servation Codes-Revised (SOC-R; Cerezo, 1988). The

SOC-R has been used in a number of observational studies with demonstrated reliability and validity (see Cerezo, 1988). The behaviors assessed for this study were as follows: (a) mirroring (of child p~ositive re- sponses), which included mothers' verbal descriptions of child nonverbal behavior or paraphrasing of verbal behavior, delivered in neutral tone of voice ,and devoid of approval content; (b) praise (of child positive re- sponses), which included mothers' positive statements to the child that contained no references to the child's behavior; (c) instructions, or mothers' verbla1 requests to the child that specified acts of complianc~e; (d) re- spomiveness, or a summary score of mothers' appro- priate reactions (attention) to all child positive, neutral, play, and antagonistic responses divided by the sum of her appropriate: and inappropriate reactions; and (e) compliance, or children's compliance with maternal instructions.

SOC-R codes were recorded in brief time intervals (15 sec), makmg it possible to examine teimporal and sequential associations between maternal attention and child responses. Thus, appropriate and inappropriate offerings of maternal attention could be doc~urnented by examining occurrences of various matema1 attention codes following the various categories of child behav- ior. In addition to mirroring and praise, maternal atten- tion included pdcipat ion in play, vlautral comments not classified as mirroring or praise, compliance with child commands and requests, and disal;p,raval. As stated earlier, appropriata use of praise amd mirroring requjred these occurrences tr, follow ohild positive be- havior (i.e., coloperative play and positive verbaliza- tions), bu.t sho~~ld not follow child complaints or oppo- sitional behavior. Mothers' broader o,€krings of attention to their children were also consicle~red as ap- propriate and inappropriate in our computations of ma- ternal responsiveness. This measure was gieared to the full range of child behavior categaries (anta;gctnistic and cornandinghequesting responses as well a; play and positive or neutral verbalizations) and the full range of maternal attention codes (participation, nczu~tral com- ments, compliance and disapproval, as mlelll as mirror- ing and praise).

These two sets of child responses and maternal stimulus consequences were deemed appropriate or inappropriate based on a qcmmon valence nile formu- lated and tested by Dumas and Wahler (1985) and by Wahler, 7uVilliams, and Cerem (11)QO). According to the rule, child positive verbalization, play, requests, and neutral verbalizations should be followed by positive, neutral, compliant or participatory inaternall actions. These maternal consequences were deemed appropriate because they are congruent with the prosoc:i,al valence of the child behaviors. According to the same common valence rule, mothers' disapproval (i.e., cornrnands and aversive verbalizations) were deemed appropriate con- sequences for the children's antagonistic responses

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:54

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WAHLER & MEGINNIS

(i.e., opposition with maternal rules, such as "Don't do that" demands and complaints). Based on this rule, maternal offering of prosocial attention following child antagonistic responses or her offerings of disapproval following child prosocial responses were considered inappropriate. Instances of maternal nonreaction (i.e., ignoring) were not considered in applying the rule.

Using the common valence rule, Dumas and Wahler (1985) and Wahler et al. (1990) found correIations between an index of maternal unresponsiveness (called incwnsistency) and probabilities of child coercive be- havior. In addition, Dumas and Wahler (1985) found the index to differentiate clinic referred and normal mother+hild dyads, Thus, tham was reason to believe that our cursent rule might yield a valid measure of maternal responsiveness. Pially, it should be remem- bered that responsiveness was based on the percl~crrtcage of appropriate attentional offerings and, thus, had no direct correspondence with kiaquency meamres ofma- temal attention.

Data Analyses

Apart from the standard comparisons of demograph- ics across the three groups and reliability analyses of SOC-R and DIQS, the principal analyses were focused on measures of child compliance, mother praise, mir- roring, responsiveness, and mother and child satisfac- tion. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to compwe these measures across three groups; multiple regresiqion analyses were used with compliance; the two satisfaction measures wereused EB dependent variables; and p$&s&, mirmorihg, and resp~hsiveness were used as i d e p p d m t variables.

I

Res*

Reliability

Observer agreement in coding a 20% subset of the videotaped play sessions with the SOC-R was com-

puted through an Interval x Interval (15 sec) compari- son of occurrences and nonoccurrences of the relevant codes. Cohen's Kappa coefficient (Fleiss, 1981) was used to reflect agreement levels. Across pairs of ob- servers, Kappas for each code or group of codes were as follows: Mirroring = .69, Praise = .72, instructions = .91, compliance = 93, responsiveness = .71. According to Fleiss (1981), these coefficients reflect excellent to good agreement. Test-retest: roliabilities of the DIQS were assessed in a pilot study of 10 mother-child dyads, After playing a 20-min game of Pick Up Sticks, each membr campletad the DIQS with interviewer help. Then, 2 to 3 days lam, the interviewer went M the participwts' homes to again ask for ratings ofthe earl& game. Pearson I ~ S iE02 the mothers were .93 and for the children, 24. Internal consistency of the 10 DIQS items for the present sWple of pdoipantg was Alpha = $2 for the mother$ wd Alpha = "8 1 far the childraa. Thus, although both ckifldren and motbars *we consfster?xt in descrfblng their sxperiences, only the mothars' Llescirip- tions were dqmiddla aver time,

Comparison of Group Means

The three groups of participants did not differ in ANOVA comparisons of mean hge of mothers or chil- dren, mean education of mothers, mean family income, children's CBCL scores or mothers' BORRII scores, the latter two bejng in the normal range. The gender compositiofi of each group w a ~ as follows: control = 6 girls, mirroring = 7 girls, phige = 7 girls.

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for relevant measures of ehm dy&ds"l~yroom performance and satisfaction with that perfnrWnce. When mothers in all three groups us& ai2-rorifig and praise, they always did so Eullowi~rg chlld prosbcid beihavior. As expected, mothers in the mirroring group used the ver- bal mirroring tactic more frequanfly than did mothers in the praise and control groups, E(2, 33) = 7.07, P < .002; Scheffb test separqted verbal mirroring from praise and control, p = .05, anrl mothers in the praise group used genaral praise mork $ieq;ue;srtly than did the other two grcrctps, F(2, 33) * '21~13f7, p .= ,001; Sche?ff& test separated praise from niifmrhg and conw~l,~ p = .05. Means Em rnothm&$~dn;sivrsinbs~ Were idanticd for the mirroring a143 praiqe! glj&upsl hnd b& WRle more responsive to &&it+ &h11&& I t##h pH# conkd at;3Oup mothers, F(Z, $3) v P 3.5iqlilfi 4 .@lqi. Xd&@@;ia@, in these two frainimd grnuprr~4ir:d1t$4dr taati$~acti~ kith the play episbdie w q h I 1 ~ and hi@$& r(n& did idhe ~oatro1 group mothers, R(2,335 m 25,40i/@ < .D1001.

Children in the r n i ~ d f i g ~ ~ t $ p ~ ~ ~ s gQups w@re similar in their virrually ~jd@ntic# Ip'thrtxMwes of Cam- pliance and ra~aas l ~ f i &QP&& ~&t$~fk@\Qld~ Bath I &WUP$ were more tompjjmt ttit+~l /$S4ljldmn in the ~ f l t r o l group, F(2,33) 22.28, # .f. .QWnQil, ~ ~ d ' b a t h gKWs had

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:54

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

POSlTIVE PARENTING PRACTICES

higher ratings of satisfaction than did the control group children, F(2,33) = 13.3 1, p < .0001.

Correlational Analyses

Table 2 presents correlations between all pairs of the measures for the 36 children and the 36 mothers. In the midst of numerous significant coefficients, the three nonsignificant Pearson rs stand out. Notice that mater- nal use of praise and mirroring were unrelated, maternal use of praise did not correlate with child satisfaction (while maternal mirroring did), and mothers' mirroring was not significantly correlated with their own ratings of satisfaction while their use of praise was signifi- cantly correlated). Notice also that praise and mirroring were equally and significantly c~rrelated with maternal responsiveness that, in turn, was highly correlated with child compliance, child satisfaction, and maternal sat- isfaction.

Because maternal responsiveness appeared to be a key variable in these covariations, three hierarchical regression analyses were employed to examine its value in predicting the three dependent measures, compared to the predictive values of rhaternal mirroring and praise. Consistent with our bypoEhesi8 that responsive- ness would carry more influence than mirroring or praise, we. entered these latter variables first and respon- siveness last. In the prediction of child compliance, mirroring and praise accounted for 32% of the variance

Table 1. d4@ans and Standard Devi~tions for Six Measures

Behavior M SD

Mirroring 0.02 0.02 Praise 0.05 0.05 Responsiveness 0.79 0.09 Compliance 0.56 0.17 Child Satisfaction 30.08 4.96 Mother Satisfaction 29.08 5.38

Note: The first four measures are presented as percentage of time i positive self-ratings.

in the child behavior measure (R2 = .316), F(2, 33) = 7.65, p < .01, with the two variables c~ontributing equally (mirroring t = 2.51, p = .01; praise t = 2.86, p < .01). When responsiveness was entered, another 28% of the variance in child compliance was accounted for, boosting the total variance to 60% (RZ = .59'7), F(3,32) = 15.81, p < .0001. In addition, this entry removed the significance of both mirroring and praise in the overall predictive model (mirroring t = .688, p = .496; praise t = 1.19, p r 24; responsiveness t = 4.72, p <: .0001).

The next two hierarchial regression analyses were focused on predicting child and maternal satisfaction with the game activities, again based on our hypothesis that the mothers' responsiveness would be more influ- ential than would their use of either mirroring or praise. In reference to the children's satisfaction ratings, mir- roring and praise accounted for 33% of the v,ariance in these ratings ( R ~ = .332), F(2,33) = 8 . 2 0 , ~ <: ,001, with mirroring being the. only significant contributor (t = 3.54, p < -001; praise t = 1.77, p = .085). W1he:n respon- siveness was entered, another 25% of the variance in child satisfacti~an was accounted for, yieldiing a total varianceof 58% (Z?= SSO), F(3,32) = 14-73, p < ,0001. This entry also substantially lowered tj~e rrignificance of mirroring and left responsiveness as the only signifi- cant predictor mirroring t = 1.91, p = .065; praise t = 0,41, p = .967; responsiveness t = 4 . 3 5 , ~ =: .0001).

In the analysis of mothers' satisfaction ratings, mir- roring and praise accounted for 29% of the ri$ing vari- ance (R* = .287), F(2,33) = 6.66, p = .004, with praise

Mother and Child Pi!!roam Behavior

Group - Praise Mirroring -

0.05 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.28 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.97 0,02 0.97 0.03 0.88 0.13 0.90 0.11

39.08 6.47 40.33 4.25 42.93 5.39 41 .OL - 4.62

:rvaIs in which a behavior was recorded and the last two represent total

Table 2. Pearson rs for All Pairs ofMeasures Across the T tar Sample of Mothers and Children -

I Child Mother biimoring Praise R+ponsiveness Compliance Satisfaction Satisfaction

A

Mirroring Praise Responsiveness Compliance Child Satjsfaction Mo*r Satisfaction

*p < .05. *g < .01. ***p < .W1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:54

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WAHLER & MEGINNIS

being the only significant contributor (mirroring t = 1.43, p = .161; praise t = 3.27, p = .002). When respon- siveness was entered, another 23% of the variance was accounted for, increasing the total variance to 52% (R' = .517), F(3,32) = 11 .43 ,~ < .0001. Theresponsiveness entry also removed the significance of praise and once again left responsiveness as the only significant predic- tor (mirroring t = -.270; praise t = 1.77, p = .08; responsiveness t = 3.90, p < .0001).

Discussion

Training mothers in the appropriate use of mirroring or praise led them to use this feedback in appropriate ways during the interactive gme . Compared to a con- trol group of untrained mothers, mothers in the experi- mental groups offered supportive comments more fre- quently and their children reciprocated through higher probabilities of compliance, In addition, both children and mothers in the trained groups expressed higher levels of satisfaction with thair social exchanges com- pared to the control group dydds. Given this data set, it seems that mirroring and praise served as positive rein- forcers and that their conrcirigietrt offerings to the chil- dren may have strengthwed their compliance prob- abilities.

However, this explanation was compromised be- cause trained mothers also increased their levels of responsiveness to their childrein. That is, mothers with no trainihg reacted appropriately (responsively) to their children's complete range of verbal and nonverbal be- haviors about 80% of the time, while the trained moth- ers were on target 97% of the time. As the results showed, training in either practice had the same effect on matqrnal responsiveness and similar effects on child compliance, as well as on the children's and mothers' satisfaction with the play. Furthermore, the correla- tional analyses strongly suggestad that these training effects on compliance and satisfaction were driven by the mothers' overall responsiveness rather than their specific use of mirroring and praise. Although there were indications that the children's satisfaction co- varied with mirroring and mothem' satisfaction with praise, maternal' respiansivt?ness was clearly the major covariate. Of course, because the children's reports of satisfaction are not dependable over time, nothing can be said about the stability of this particular finding.

If these splecific forms of maternal feedback strengthened child compliance through differential re- inforcement, ons: or both of these social consequences should have contributed at least same unique variance to the child behavior Measure. The fact that maternal responsiveness was the sole contributor makes it diffi- cult to interpret these results within a traditional social reinforcement model. If reinforcement was relevant, its operation was context depeMdeqt as described in the experimental studies by Oreen and Freed (1993) and

Neef, Shade, and Miller (1994). These investigators were guided by the "matching law" interpretation of reinforcement (i.e., Hernnstein, 1974) in which stimu- lus context governs the reinforcement value of any particular stimulus. In our study, it might be argued that mirroring and praise attained reinforcement value as a function of the mothers' overall pattern of social stimu- lus consequences for their childfens' entire repertoires of behavior (i.e., responsiveness). This intapretation is similar to the "reciprocity" concept derived &om social attachment theory (Papal & Maocoby, 1ST8S) as defined by degree of interactional synchtony orchestrated through a mother's respomiveness. Although syn- chrony and matching are desmiptrm &om differept theories, they define similar ways in which chiIdren respond to patterns of maternal reactions. If the patterns are appropriate and cdnsistene in reference to the child behavior, the chifdrbn are apt to participate in ways at sustain this c~tiSiljXtiity. Cdnverrs~ly, if the phtterns are inconsistant m#or inrelevant to child behavior, there is no basis fbr ptimiciflatioll and thei childran $re apt to be noncompliant (e.g., nutmas 18r. W&l?ler, 1985; W&l@t, Williams, & Cireza, 1990).

It is not intuitively dbvious just how a pattern of appropriate maternal attt:dtion could increase child compliance rxs wdll as the@ pmk$pdts' tnutual sratis- faotion with ahair b o ~ M htecadtions. Followirig our previously presetq~d id& about resp~nsivct mothering as stimulus contlxt, bne &#hh%snl;sioe hfir ~pecific acts of pr'dae and dIrroririg W figural events set against a background made up of other categories of her aocial attention. If her habkpolllrd p h w n is colnpubnl: with a child" stream of belhavicrr (i.e., interactional syn- chrony), the congruence may enhance the valance of any prosocial acriqn she produces. Should this prow to be true, the red qvekqan centerg on why conpence might generate such zl fi@ure-ground phenomenon. From the standpoirzt of artaohment theory, childran perceive this mother-orabestrated conpence as Qvi- dence of care and safeti, while matching law teidorce- ment theorists woilzld view the otchesbation a6 settirng a normative standard $or the child bbibsewar. 1;m c;i$h@r theoretical case, the cYllld is pt&sumed to &ye tin observational judgwnt refereacing tble wlwgrrng df &a- ternal congruence and to rrzaporld in a mmtlatl cialed reciprocity by at@chmio?lnt tbaorists (e.g., P@4 &Mac- coby, 1985) and choice by th9 matching law theorists (e.g., Hernnstein, 1974).

Thus, the present findings suggest that specific ways of socially rewarditlg abildren for cooperative actions may have little abbtdute value, despite the papular appeal of such practi~eg. Although it may make parents feel good to cheer their ohildren on, the positive affect may be no more effective than information feedback, and neither seems to serve a reinforcemt?nt function independent of sacial context. Praise and dkirrorihg appear to function as figural markers painring to a more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:54

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

fundamental dyadic context that is largely created through the mother's responsiveness to child behavior. The implications of these results for mothers are impor- tant, especially to those who have reason to question the positivity of their parenting practices. Clearly, their search for answers will be most fruitful if they focus on a means of attaining interactional synchrony instead of pursuing a more narrow focus on refining their selective use of any particular practice. Although the mothers in this study increased their responsivity when they were taught to increase their use of more specific practices, this generalization should not be taken for granted. Our sample of participants were normal dyads whose moth-' ers were more responsive to their children than is true of conduct problem dyads (see Wahler, in press). Be- cause the latter usually do not benefit From parent training in specific positnve practices (e.g., the differen- tial use of praise; Roberts, 1985), there is little reason to expect these mothers to show generalized increments in responsiveness.

In a recent experimental analysis of two clinic-re- ferred m~other-child dyads, Wahler and Bellamy (in press) demonstrated a responsiveness training strategy. In essence these researchers taught the mothers a re- sponsiveness tactic (called joining), a praise tactic, and a time-out tactic. Results showed that time-out was associated with increased probabilities of child compli- ance by the two conduct problem children, and responJ siveness was associated with the children's spontane-l ous acts of responsiveness to their mothers. A; expected, praise had no singular associations with chilq complian~ce or child responsiveness. Because conductl problem children are rarely shown to be affected by' positive parenting practices, it is encouraging to again find sucln a function for maternd responsivness.

In summary, there is good reason to explore the; utility of maternal responsiveness & a basic process in eff~ctive parenting practices. Clearly there is correla- tional evidence pointing to its role in supporting child compliance and some experimental eviden~e showing its instrumental function in generating children's will, ingness tlo recipfocate. Although we have yet to devise a well-documented procedure to teach parent respon- siveness, the available evidence suggests that it is im- perative to do so.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manua1,for the Child Behavior Checklisl 4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Bell, M. E., Billington, R., & Becker, B. (1986). A scale for thq assessment of object relations: Reliability, validity, and factorial invariance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15,733-741.

Bierman, K . L., & Smoot, D. L. (1991). Linking family characteristics with poor peer relations: The mediating role of conduct probr lems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19,341-356.

POSITIVE PARENTING PRACTICES

Cerezo, M. A. (1988). Standardized observation codes. InM. Herson & A. Bellock (Eds.), Dictionary of behavioral assessment tech- niques @p. 442-445). New York: Pergamon.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.

Dix, T. (1991). The affective organizing of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. Psychological Bulletin, ,1110, 3-25.

Dumas, J. B., & Wahler, R. G. (1985). Indiscriminate mothering as a contextual factor in aggressive-oppositional child behavior: "Damned if you do and damned if you don't." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 1-17.

Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.

Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Christ, M. A. G., & Hanson, K. (19921. Familial risk factors to conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder; Pamtal psychopa- thology and maternal patenting. J o u m l of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 49-55.

Green, L., & Freeid, D. E. (1993). The substitutability of reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 141-158.

Griest, D. L., Forehand, R., Wells, K. C., & McMahan, R. J. (1980). An examination of differences between nonclinic and behavior problem clinic-referred children and their mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 89, 497-500.

Hadley, J. A., Holloway, E. L., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1993). Common aspects of object relations and self- representation:^ in offspring from dispara~te dysfunctional families. Journal' of Counseling Psychology, 40,348-356.

Hanist, A. W., Pettit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Dyadic synchrony in mother-child interaction^. .Family Rela- tions, 43, 41'7-424.

Herbert, E. W., Pinkston, E. M., Hayden, M. L., Sajwaj, T. E., P i s t o n , S., Cordua, G., &Jackson, C. (1973). Adverse effects of differentid parental attention. Journal of Appi'ied Behavior Analysis, 6, 15-30.

Herrnstein, R. J. (1974). Formal properties of the matching law. Journal ofthe Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21, 159-164.

Kuczynski, L. (1984). Socialization goals and mothex-child interac- tion: Strategies for long-term and short-term compliance. De- velopmental Psychology, 15, 256-268.

Lavigueur, S., Tremblay, R. E., & Saucier, J. F. (1995) Interactional processes in families with disruptive boys: Patterns of direct and indirect influence. Journal of A b n o d Child Psychology, 23, 359-378.

Lytton, H. (1979). ~isciplinary encounters between young boys and their mothers and fathers: Is there a contingency system? Devel- opmental Psychology, 15,256-268.

Martin, J. A. (1981). A longitudinal study of the consequences of early mother-infant interaction: A microanadytic approach. Monograph of the Society for Research in Chii'd .Development, 46(3, Serial No. 190).

Neef, N. A., Shade, D., &Miller, M. S. (1994). Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27,575-583.

Parpal, M., & Mmcoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal res~ponsiveness and subsequent child compliance. Child Dewei'opment, 56, 1326-1334.

Peltit, G. S., Dodge, K. A., & Brown, M. M. (1988). Early family experiences, social problem solving patterns and children's social competence Chikl Development, 59, 1U7-120.

Putallaz, M. (1987). Maternal behavior and ch'ildmn's sociometric status. Child Development, 58, 324-340.

Radke-Yarrow, hd., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, IM. (1983). Chil- dren's social dispositions and behavior. In P. 1-1. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed.; Vol. 4, pp. 504406). New York: Wiley.

Roberts, M. W. (1985). Praising child compliance: Reinforcement or ritual? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 61 1-629.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:54

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

WAHLER & MEGINNIS

Sheiton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wooten, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age chil- dren. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317-329.

Snyder, J. J., & Patte~an, G. R. (1995). Individual differences in social aggression: A test of areinforcement model of socializa- tion in the natural environment. Behavior Therapy, 26,371-391.

Stayton, D. J., Hogan, R., & Ainsworth, M. D. (1971). Infant obedi- ence and maternal behavior; The origins of socialization recon- sidered. Child Development, 42, 1057-1069.

Wahbc, R. G. (1976). Deviant child behavior within the family: Devel- opmentalspxulationandbehavior whangestrategies, In H. Leiten- berg (Ed.), Handbmk of behavior mod@c&n and behavior therupy (pp. 526-543). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wahler, R. G . (in press). Oh the origins of children's complianoe and opposition: Parnily context, reinforcem&nt, and rules. Jo~rnal of Child and Rmiiy Sfcrdies.

Wahler, R. G., & Bellamy, A. (in press). Generating reciprocity with conduct problem children and their mothers: The effectiveness of compliance teaching and responsive parenting. Journal af Social and Personal Relations.

Wahler, R. G., Williams, A. J., & Cerezo, A. (1990). The compliance and predictability hypotheses: Some sequential and correla- tional analyses of coercive mother-child interactions. Behav- ioral Assessmeni, 12, 391-407.

Westerman, M. A. (1990). Coordination of maternal directives with preschoolers' behavior in compliance-problem and healthy dy- ads. Developmental PsychaEogy, 26, 621-630.

Received February 13, 1997 Final revision received June 12, 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 2

3:54

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14