infant day care and children's social competence

INFANT BEHAVIOR AND DEVELOPMENT 18, 177-l 88 (1995)

Infant Day Care and Children’s Social Competence

BRENDA L. VOLLING The University of Michigan

LYNNE V. FEAGANS The Pennsylvania State University

Although children enrolled in infant day care during their first year have sometimes been characterized as aggressive with their peers and more noncompliant with adults, they have been characterized as more sociable with their peers as well. Few studies have examined individual differences in day care children’s social competence nor have studies examined multiple influences on the nature of toddlers’ social interactions in day care. In this investigation, socioeconomic status, family relations, temperament, and day care quantity and quality were examined as predictors of toddlers’ social interactions using a sample of 36 children who had been enrolled in either a high- or low-quality day care center sometime during their first year. Quality of care served as a compensatory factor in decreasing the likelihood of social difficulties for temperamentally vulnerable children. Multiple-regression models revealed that day care quality was a consistent predictor of children’s nonsocial play and positive interactions with caregivers, whereas day care experience was not.

day care social competence temperament family environment peers

The recent increase in the number of employed mothers with infants under the age of 1 year (Hofferth & Phillips, 1987; Klein, 1985) and the current findings that extensive nonmatemal care started in the early years of infancy is associated with increased levels of peer aggression and noncompliance with adults during the preschool and school-age years (Baydar & Brooks-Gunn, 1991; Belsky, 1988; Belsky & Eggebeen, 1991; Haskins, 1985; Rubenstein, Howes, & Boyle, 1981; Schwarz, Strickland, & Krolick, 1974) have raised new concerns about the effects of infant day care on children’s socioemotional development. In addition to those studies cited as evidence of the negative consequences associated with extensive and early (before age 1) nonmatemal care experience, other investigations have noted that early and full-time care is associated with more posi-

This research was supported by grant MCJ-420565 from the Maternal and Child Health Program (Title V, Social Security Act), Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services to L.V.F. and Ingrid Blood. The authors are grateful for the assistance of Elizabeth Kipp, Lisa Berlin, Elizabeth Manlove, and Juliet Nuss, and to Jay Belsky for his com- ments on an earlier draft of this article.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Brenda L. Volling, The University of Michigan, Department of Psychology, 525 E. University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-l 109, or to Lynne V. Feagans, College of Health and Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.

tive affect, cooperative and social play with peers, and more socially competent behaviors in general (Andersson, 1989; Field, 1991; Field, Masi, Goldstein, Perry, & Parl, 1988).

Unfortunately, most of the studies on both sides of the issue have not controlled for important factors that might account for the different results. For instance, several studies have not been sensitive to alternate types of child care arrangements (e.g., center care, family day care, or babysitter) or the quality of those care arrangements. Therefore, day care experience (i.e., age of entry, hours in care), type of care (e.g., family day care, center), and quality of care are often confounded. Field and her col- leagues (Field, 1991; Field et al., 1988) attempted to overcome this problem by focusing on the preschool and elementary school outcomes of day care experience for children entering care within their 1st year and attending high-quality center care. Even though an examination of individual differences in this group of children attending high-quality infant day care centers suggested that early full-time care was associated with more cooperative play and positive affect in preschool as well as more leadership, popularity, assertiveness, and attendance in gifted school programs for elementary grade school children, there is no indication that similar findings would be found for samples of children attending poor-quality child care centers.

177

178 Volling and Feagans

In this investigation, we attempted to overcome some of the limitations of previous research by examining individual differences in preschoolers’ social competence using a sample of 36 children who had been enrolled in either a high- or low-quality day care center sometime during their 1st year, with most enrolled for more than 20 hours per week. Given the current quality of infant day care in the U.S. (Hayes, Palmer, & Zaslow, 1990) Belsky (1988, 1990) has claimed that extensive nonmaternal care (i.e., greater than 20 hours/week) and entry into nonmaternal care within the 1st year were risk factors associated with heightened aggression and noncompliance in the preschool years. As such, our sample could be considered a high- risk sample for subsequent social difficulties. Although children with extensive nonmaternal care starting in the 1 st year are clearly different in many ways from those reared at home in the 1st year, individual differences within this group of children are often quite large (e.g., Andersson, 1989). Therefore, the first purpose of this study was to examine whether individual differences in family social status, the family environment, child care experience, quality of care, and toddler temperament would account for individual differences in preschoolers’ social competence with peers and caregivers. Because so few studies have examined both day care experience (e.g., age of entry, hours/week in care) and day care quality in predicting young children’s social behavior, the second purpose of this study was to examine whether day care experience continued to predict children’s social behavior after controlling for day care quality.

MULTIPLE PREDICTORS OF SOCIAL COMPETENCE

In addition to those studies focusing on the association between day care characteristics and children’s social development, several recent investigations have addressed the role of family factors in predicting children’s social behavior in day care classrooms. Phillips, McCartney, and Starr (1987) reported that when families placed a high value on conformity, caregivers rated the children as more dependent. Conversely, caregivers rated children from homes low on conformity as more considerate, sociable, and anxious. Howes (1990) also found that for those infants enrolled in center

care prior to 12 months of age, higher family socialization was associated with more social pretend play, and children were rated by their teachers as more sociable, less distractable, more considerate, and more verbally intelligent as preschoolers than children from families with lower socialization scores.

Although several studies have now examined the contribution of child care and family characteristics for predicting day care children’s social development, very few studies have examined the effects of child characteristics and, in particular, temperamental differences between children in predicting children’s social functioning in day care. Kagan, Kearsley, and Zelazo (1978) have proposed that temperamentally inhibited and socially fearful children would be most stressed by early child care experiences and, thus, most adversely affected. A recent study by Belsky and Eggebeen (1991) examined whether shy children would be more adversely affected by early nonmaternal care experiences than other children. They concluded that the effect of early maternal employment was not particularly problematic for shy children because the extent of maternal employment predicted adjustment difficulties in their subsample of nonshy children and not in the subsample of shy children. As the authors pointed out, the quality of the caregiving environment was not addressed in the study, and, therefore, its role in moderating the association between temperament and social outcomes could not be examined. This is an important point given that several temperament researchers have stressed the “fit” between the child and the caregiving environment (Lemer, Baker, & Lemer, 1985; Thomas & Chess, 1977). The goodness-of-fit model proposes that it is not simply the possession of certain temperamental characteristics that con- tributes to psychosocial adjustment, but that these characteristics of the child must corre- spond to the demands of the context in order for healthy adjustment to occur. Moreover, it is not surprising that Belsky and Eggebeen found that early maternal employment status did not predict behavior problems of an externalizing nature for their subsample of shy children. In fact, recent peer research with older children suggests that withdrawn and shy children tend to have subsequent internalizing problems, not externalizing problems (Hymel. Rubin, Rowden.

Day Care and Social Competence 179

& LeMare, 1990; Rubin & Mills, 1988; Strauss, Forehand, Smith, & Frame, 1986). Thus, the third aim of this study was to examine the interaction between toddler temperament and the caregiving environment in predicting children’s social behavior with peers. Specifically, we hypothesized that the quality of the caregiving environment would moderate the relation between temperamental inhibition and social competence, such that poor social outcomes would be expected only when temperamentally inhibited or socially fearful children attended low-quality care. Furthermore, we expected this effect to be most pronounced in predicting solitary nonsocial activities (more indicative of internalizing behavior) and not necessarily aggressive or negative interactions with peers (associated more with externalizing behavior).

In sum, there were three aims to this research: (a) to examine whether child care experiences, quality of care, family characteristics, and child characteristics would account for individual differences in preschool children’s social competence with peers and caregivers; (b) to determine whether day care experience still predicted young children’s social competence once day care quality had been controlled; and (c) to test the moderating effect of child care quality in predicting social outcomes for temperamentally vulnerable children.

Subjects

METHOD

The children in this study were part of a study of health and day care in a semirural northeastern area of the U.S. All 36 children (17 males, 19 females) in the sample were Caucasian and attended one of three day care centers. The first was a nonprofit center located in a university setting but served the larger community population (n = 5); the second was a for-profit center located on the outskirts of the university town (n = 5). The third and largest center was a for-profit center located in a small industrial city (n = 26). This center was employer-sponsored day care located on- site in a large hospital and served only its employees.

At the time of enrollment, families were initially inter- viewed in their home about family background characteristics and their child’s history in day care. The average age of entry into center-based care was 3.02 months, with a range of 1 to 8 months. Thus, all children entered child care in the I st year of life. Hours in day care (M = 33.06, SD = 9.25) at the time of the interview indicated that almost all children were in day cam more than 20 hours per week. Mother’s age (M = 31.20, SD = 4.13) and father’s age (M = 33.98, SD = 5.44) indicated generally older and well-educated parents. All the mothers had at least a high school degree, and nearly half (44.4%) had at least a bachelor’s degree. All

fathers also had at least a high school degree, and over half (65.7%) had at least a bachelor’s degree. The mean family income was $45, 204 (SD = $14, 213). Family size was quite small: 55.6% had only one child in the home, and another 33.3% had only one other sibling. Only three fathers in the sample were not currently living in the home; two of whom were temporarily out of the home because they had been sent to the Persian Gulf War.

Design and Procedures

Questionnaires evaluating the family environment, family social status, day care experience, and temperament were completed by the mothers in their homes during the initial enrollment interview. Observations of children’s social behavior in the classrooms were collected approximately 1 year after the home interview when target children were approximately 2 l/2 years old (M = 29.70, SD = 9.44) ranging from 14 to 48 months of age. Additional observations of a book-reading task were also collected at regular 6.month intervals (e.g., 18 months, 24 months). Although these latter observations were not of central importance, information regarding the number of adult caregivers and children present over several sessions was used to estimate indicators of the quality of the caregiving environment.

Family Social Sfufus. Information pertaining to the mother’s education, the father’s education, and the family’s annual income was obtained from the initial family interview as indicators of the family’s social status. Parents’ education was classified as follows: (1) less than a high school education; (2) high school diploma or equivalent; (3) some college; (4) Bachelor’s degree; (5) some graduate or professional education; (6) Master’s or professional degree; (7) doctoral degree (e.g., Ph.D, M.D.).

Day Care Experience. Information on the age at which the child entered center care during the 1st year was also taken from the initial family interview, as was information pertaining to the number of hours the child was spending in out-of-home care.

Family Environment. As part of the initial interview, mothers completed the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos & Moos, 1981). The FES has been widely used to measure the social-emotional characteristics of families. The questionnaire contains 90 items and 10 subscales, of which only 4 were used in this investigation due to the affective content of these scales and their relevance to previous work relating family characteristics and day care quality. This included the expressiveness scale which assesses the degree to which family members are encour- aged to act openly and to express feelings openly. The second scale, conflict, measures the extent of expressed anger and disagreement among family members, and the independence scale measures the degree to which family mem-

bers are self sufficient and make their own decisions. Finally, the control scale assesses the rigidity of family rules and the extent to which family members order each other around. Each item is answered with respect to a bivariate scale, such that the item either characterized or did not characterize the family. Items were then summed to create total scale scores, with high scores indicating more expressiveness, conflict, independence, and control. Test-retest reliability for each of the scales ranged from .68 to .86, and internal consistency was reported to range from .61 to .78 (Moos & Moos, 1976).


Duy Cure Quu/it_v. In order to assess the quality of the day care environment, information was gathered on the number of adults present and the group size as part of an observation of joint book reading in the classroom, and this was later used to calculate the child-to-caregiver ratio for each day care center. This system need not be discussed in detail here except to note that before each session, which was conducted in the day care during free play. the observer recorded the number of teachers and children present in the room. These data were collected on 48 children across all three centers over 75 sessions. Because most of the children in this investigation were toddlers at the time of the classroom observations of social interaction, we used the data for IS- and 24.month-old children to calculate the mean number of adults and the mean number of children present during the observation sessions. The child-to-caregiver ratio was then calculated by dividing the mean number of children present across observations by the mean number of adults available across observation sessions.

One-way analyses of variance with day care site (i.e., university, community, and hospital) as the between-groups factor were performed. Significant site differences emerged for the number of adult caregivers, F (2.74) = 19.S3, p < ,001, the group size, F (2.74) = 9.37, I, < ,001, and the child-to-caregiver ratio, F (2,74) = 33.68, p < .OOOl. Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons, p < .O5, revealed that there were significantly fewer adult caregivers in the hospital site compared to the other two sites (MS: hospital = 1.9, community = 2.7, university = 3.5). In addition. the child-to- adult ratio was much higher in the hospital site (MS: hospital = 1:8, community = I:?, university = 1:2). Finally, the group size was significantly larger in the hospital-based day care (M = 13.9) than in the university program (M = 6.9). The group size for the community center (M = 9.9) did not differ from the other two sites.

Accreditation criteria presented by Bredekamp (1987) considers a I:3 to I:5 ratio acceptable for high-quality care given a group size of 6 to IO toddlers. Thus, the hospital site wu\ deemed low-quality care (II = 26), and the other two sites were considered high-quality care (12 = 10). Other information available on these programs further supported this distinction into high- and low-quality programs. Even though there were no differences in the education levels of the caregivers across the sites, caregivers at the community and university centers were twice as likely to have had child care courses during their education (29%’ vs 59%) and twice as likely to have a child-care-related degree (33% vs 64%). Furthermore, over the course of the first year of the study, the head teacher for the hospital-based toddler program changed three times, whereas there was no turnover in the head caregiver staff during this period for the community and university centers. Demographic characteristics of the families choosing high- or low-quality care indicated no significant differences on income, fathers’ education and occupation, or mothers’ education and occupation. Thm. the fnmilies were comparable across day cam sites.

Child Temprrcrrrrrnf. For those children younger than I6 months at the initial interview, the Infant Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ; Rothbart, 1081) was completed by mothers in order to assess the child’s temperament. Mothers completed the Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire (TBAQ; Goldsmith, 1987) for all children 16 month\ of age and older. The TBAQ is adapted from Rothbart’s IBQ and intended for use with toddler-aged chil-

dren. The IBQ and the TBAQ have comparable scales. except the IBQ has an additional scale of aoothability. The comparable scales include activity level, pleasure, social fear, anger proneness. and interest. The IBQ and TBAQ scales are highly related to each other, with internal cott\is- tency estimates ranging from .78 to .83 (Goldsmith, 1987). The scales have been demonstrated to have good discriminant and convergent validity (Goldsmith, 1987; Goldsmith, Rieser-Danner, & Briggs, 1991).

Children’s Snciul Comperrnc~e. Two IO-min observations of each child were obtained during indoor free play in the classrooms on two separate occasions within several weeks. These observations were independent from the observation? of book reading described above, which were used to obtain indicators of quality. An observational system was developed to assess the social behavior of children in day care and was based on the work of Vandell and Powers (1983). The observational system required that behaviors be recorded into three broad categories (i.e., solitary behavior, behavior toward peers, and behavior toward adults) over a IO-min period using 20-s blocks of continuous recording. In order to increase construct validity, behavior categories were summed across the two observation sessions (Rushton, Brainerd, & Pressley, 1983). Any of the following behaviors were recorded if they were observed within the 20-s period. Within the category of solitary behavior, solitary play was recorded whenever the child was playing by him/herself with no interaction with another, whereas unoccupied behavior was recorded whenever the child was involved in aimless wandering with no dis- cernible intent or pmpose. A third behavior. onlooker behavior, was added to the solitary play category because of the frequency of this behavior observed during our pilot work and because Rubin (1982) had found it to be a part of young children’s solitary activity with peers. Onlooker behavior included watching, but not participating, in anotlt- er child’s or adult’s game. play. or other activity. A total composite of non~oc~icrl trc,tii+fy (M = 54.40, SD = 13.2 I) was then created by summing the solitary play. onlooker behavior, and unoccupied behavior categories.

Within the category of behavior toward peers, \evernl behaviors describing both positive and negative interactions with peers were included. These were: touch peer, show. give/share, request participation, comfort peer. join play. accept toy. po\itivc or neutral vocalization toward peer. parallel/joint fantasy play. hit, take toy, and negative vocalization. Based on the findings 01. Vandell and Powers (1983), two conceptually distinct composites of peer interaction were created. The first, po.siti~v prey inter-uc,tiorl (M = 25.50. SD = 19.00). was a sum of the categories of touch, show. give/share, request participation, comfort peer, join play, accept toy, positive or neutral vocalizations, and parallel or joint fantasy play. The second, labeled rlc,v~- tivr ,‘eer interuc,tion (M = 3.70, SD = 3.30). was the sum 01 the hit peer, take object, and negativ,e vocalization categories. In the broad category of behavior toward adults, the behaviors included: touch adult. give/share, request participation, positive or neutral vocalization. hit/kick. and nega tive vocalization. The adult-directed behaviors, too. were divided into a positive and negative composite. The /x~si- rirc, udulr infercrc~riorr (M = 16.00, SD = 14.50) compo\itc included a \um of touch. give/share. request participation, and positive or neutral vocalizations. The nc~guti~~c, &r/t itftrruction composite included hit/kick and negative voca-


izations. Due to the extremely low occurrence of negative adult interaction, this variable was dropped from further analysis. Interrater reliability was calculated on 10% of the observational data and revealed an overall Cohen’s kappa of .84.

RESULTS

In order to address whether individual differences in children’s social competence could be accounted for by differences in family, day care, or child characteristics, a series of correlations was conducted. Several multiple-regression models were then developed to test the independent contribution of day care experience and day care quality in predicting children’s social competence in day care. These were then followed by multiple-regression procedures in order to examine the moderating effect of child care quality in predicting children’s social competence for temperamentally vulnerable children. Because multivariate analyses of variance across all measures used in this report revealed no differences as a function of gender, the combined sample was used in all analyses. The means and standard deviations for all independent variables are in Table 1.

Intercorrelations between the observational measures of peer and caregiver interaction were computed, which revealed two significant associations. Friendly and positive interactions with peers were inversely related to children’s nonsocial activity, r = -.39, p < .05, and to

TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Family,

Dav Care. and Child Characteristics

Family Characteristics Expressiveness Conflict Independence Control

Day Care Characteristics Age of entry (months] Hours per week Number of Caregivers Group Size Child-to-Caregiver Ratio

Child Characteristics Activity Level Pleasure Social Fear Anger Proneness Interest

M SD

6.6 1.4 1.8 1.4 6.6 1.3 4.2 2.0

3.0 1.9 33.1 9.3

2.20 0.58 12.3 2.6

6.6 2.4

4.30 0.64 5.10 0.67 4.00 0.94 3.90 0.62 3.80 0.82

their positive interactions with their caregivers, r = -.52, p < .Ol. Thus, most of the observational measures were independent of each other.

Correlates of Children’s Social Behavior

Correlations were computed between the observational measures and the family, day care, and temperament measures, and these have been summarized in Table 2. These indicate that children from higher income families interacted in a more positive manner with their day care providers, and there was a tendency for children of more educated mothers to engage in less nonsocial activity.

Children attending day care for more hours per week were observed in less solitary play activity and marginally more friendly peer interaction, whereas children entering care at later ages in the 1st year were less likely to interact negatively with peers. The indicators of day care quality suggested that children engaged in more nonsocial play if the group size was larger, there were fewer adult caregivers in the classroom, and there was a larger child-to-caregiver ratio. In addition, children engaged in more positive interactions with their care providers if there were more adults available, fewer children in the group, and there was a smaller child-to-caregiver ratio. Finally, there was a tendency for children to have more negative peer interactions if the child-to-caregiver ratio was large.

Only two of the four FES scales yielded significant findings. Children were involved in more friendly peer interaction if their mothers reported more conflict occurring between family members and less friendly peer relations if the family stressed independence. Children tended to be more positive in interaction with their caregivers, however, if the family stressed independence.

With respect to child characteristics, children rated by mothers as more socially fearful of new situations were more likely to engage in negative peer interaction. In addition, the child’s age was significantly related to social interaction in the day care classroom. Older children were more likely to engage in more positive peer interaction and less positive interaction with caregivers.’ Given these strong rela-

’ Because of the high correlations between the children’s age and their positive interactions with peers and

182 Volling and Feaganr

TABLE 2 Correlations Between Obsewational Measures and Family, Day Care, and Child Characteristics

Family Characteristics Income Maternal Education Expressiveness Conflict Independence Control

Day Care Characteristics

Age of Entry Hours per Week

Number of Adults

Group Size

Child-to-Caregiver Ratio

Child Characteristics Child Age Activity Level Pleasure Social Fear

Anger Proneness

Interest

Positive Negative Peer Interaction Peer Interaction

-.19 -.16 -.06 -.25 -.05 -.08

.A1 ** .21 -.48”” -.17

.15 .15

-.25 -.35” .31* -.Ol

-.Ol -.22

.03 .25

.06 .30*

.71 l *** .31* -.07 -.17

.20 -.03 -.02 .38**

.02 .lA

-.31 .17

Positive Nonsocial Activity Adult Interaction

-.20 .A9”’ -.30* .27

.02 .Ol

.OA -.18

.07 .30*

.07 -.15

-.26 .17 -.47”’ .02 -.67”‘* .47””

.67**” -.50***

.67”** -,54””

-.08 -.Aq”’ -.oo -.l 1 -.36 .15

.06 -.2A

.05 -.17

.Ol .06

*p < .lO. **p < .05. ***p < .Ol ****p < ,001.

tions between the children’s age and their positive social behavior, age was included in the multiple-regression analyses reported below, in which we examined the independent contribution of day care experience and day care quality after controlling for the age of the child.

The Contributions of Day Care Experience and Day Care Quality

In an effort to examine the independent effect of day care experience and quality of care, multiple-regression procedures were conducted. Due to the small sample (n = 36), we were restricted to three variables for each regression model. Regression models were developed so that each model included the child’s age, an indicator of day care experience (either age of entry or hours/week in care), and an indicator

caregivers, we ran partial correlations between these two dependent variables and the family, temperament, SES, and quality indicators, paritalling out the age of the child. All significant associations reported remained. even after par- tialling out age. Only in two instances, where the initial associations had only been marginally significant, p < IO, did the asociations no longer emerge after controlling for the child’s age. Nonetheless, we included the child’s age in all the hierarchical regression models to follow.

of day care quality (i.e., the child-to-caregiver ratio). Thus, eight regression models were performed, four with age of entry as the indicator of day care experience and four with hours in care per week as the measure of day care experience. Due to the extremely small sample on which these analyses have been conducted, these results should be regarded with caution until they can be replicated with larger samples. The results of these analyses have been summarized in Table 3.

Of the eight regression models tested, four revealed significant findings, indicating that day care quality was an independent predictor of children’s social behavior, whereas day care experience was not. Table 3 shows that the child-to-caregiver ratio predicted children’s nonsocial play activity and positive interactions with adults even after controlling for the effects of the child’s age and the age of entry or hours/week in care. Also noteworthy is the fact that these four models explained from 40% to 52% of the variance in children’s social behavior. Thus, there is some evidence suggesting that quality of day care is a better predictor of children’s social functioning than quantity of day care (e.g., hours spent in care).


TABLE 3 The Contribution of Day Cure Experience and Quality to the Prediction of Children’s Social Competence

Predictors Positive Negative Positive

Peer lntemction Peer Interaction Nonsocial Activity Adult lntemction

Model 1: Child’s Age Age of Entv Quality of Care (Ratio)

Total R2 = F (3,33) =

Model 2: Child’s Age Hours/week Quality of Care (Ratio)

50”’ .30 -.17 -.33” -.17 -.21 .cQ -.16 -.22 .16 .74”*** -.54”’

- - - -

.29”’ .25** .52”**’ .40”” 4.15 3.26 10.97 6.75

.51 l ** .30 -.16 -.21

.05 .09 -.02 -.23 -.13 .30 .73”“’ -.62”’

Total R2 = .27” .21* .52”“’ .41**** F (3,33) = 3.76 2.73 10.98 7.04

note. Values are standardized betas. ‘p < .lO. **p < .05. l **p < .Ol l ***p < ,001. l ****p < .OOOl

Interactive Effect of Child Temperament With Quality of Care

Previous analyses revealed that socially fearful children, in general, were more likely to interact negatively with their peers. In addition, though, we hypothesized that the quality of the day care environment might moderate the effects of child characteristics on children’s social competence, such that high-quality care may act as a protective or compensatory factor which might buffer temperamentally “at-risk” children (e.g., socially fearful) from the adverse consequences often associated with infant day care in past research (e.g., increased aggression, solitary and unoccupied behavior). Conversely, low-quality care might exacerbate any existing risk conditions in the child’s life and further undermine his/her social competence. In order to examine the moderating effect of the quality of care, children were divided into two groups according to whether or not they attended one of the high-quality centers or the low-quality center. Multiple- regression models were performed which allowed us to fit separate regression lines for the prediction of children’s social competence from their scores on social fear as a function of their attendance in either high- or low-quality care. We restricted these analyses to the social fear scale of toddler temperament because (a) it was the only scale to reveal a significant association in the previous univariate analyses, and

(b) Kagan et al. (1978) specifically stated that it would be socially inhibited children who should be at greatest risk for social difficulties in alternate care.

The models required that quality of care (high vs. low) and the “risk” indicator of social fear be entered before the quality x social fear interaction term, which tests whether or not the slopes of the regression lines for the two groups of children are significantly different from each other (Pedhazur, 1982). Due to the relatively small sample size on which these analyses have been performed, these results should be considered preliminary until they can be replicated in future research.

Two of the four models tested yielded significant interaction terms. In the first, mother’s temperament reports of social fear interacted with quality of care in predicting positive peer interaction, F (1, 25) = 7.10, p < .Ol , and in the second, maternal reports of social fear interacted with quality of care to predict children’s nonsocial play with peers, F (1, 26) = 5.25, p < .05. As expected, social fear did not interact with the quality of care to predict negative or aggressive peer interactions.

The regression lines depicting the quality x

social fear interaction results for positive peer relations can be found in Figure 1, which shows the relation between positive peer interaction and social fear for high- and low-quality groups. The Johnson-Neyman procedure was


conducted as a follow-up in order to determine the regions of significance and nonsignificance around the regression lines (Johnson & Neyman, 1936; Pedhazur, 1982). This solution yielded a region of nonsignificance between 3.13 and 3.44 as indicated in Figure 1. Thus, for children with scores between 3.13 and 3.44 on social fear, there is no statistical difference in the regression lines predicting positive peer interactions for children in high- or low-quality care environments. However, when scores on social fear fall outside this range, statistically significant differences are found between children attending high- or low-quality care. For children in low-quality care, high scores above 3.44 on social fear are associated with lower levels of positive peer interaction, whereas scores below 3.13 are associated with more positive peer interaction. In contrast, for children in high-quality day care centers, social fear scores above 3.44 are associated with more positive peer interactions, and those below 3.13 are associated with lower levels of positive peer interaction. Thus, it would appear that high-quality care may act as a compensatory factor for socially fearful children, whereas attendance at a low-quality center may exacerbate the child’s social fear, which then leads to less positive interactions with peers.

A similar situation exists when we examine the findings from the interaction model involving nonsocial activity (see Figure 2). Johnson- Neyman solutions for regions of significance revealed that the region of nonsignificance for social fear scores was between 1.28 and 1.68. Thus, social fear scores greater than 1.68 are related to higher levels of nonsocial activity for those children attending low-quality care, whereas children with such scores are involved in lower levels of nonsocial activity if attending the high-quality centers. Once again, this underscores the buffering effect of high-quality care and the fact that socially fearful children may be vulnerable and less socially competent in low-quality care environments.

DISCUSSION

In this investigation, we attempted to expand the research on the effects of infant day care on children’s social development by examining multiple family, day care, and child characteristics which might account for individual differences in young children’s social competence with peers and caregivers. In addition, we were interested in whether day care experience or day care quality was a better predictor of children’s social behavior. Finally, we assessed whether the quality of care would moderate the effects of temperamental characteristics on children’s social behavior in the day care classroom.

5. Positive Peer Interactions “_ Nonsocial Activitv I

40

30

20

10

0

-10

B”

60 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Social Fear Social Fear

Figure 1. Interaction of social fear and quality of care in predicting positive peer interaction.

Figure 2. Interaction of social fear and quality of care in predicting nonsocial activities.


Explaining Individual Differences in Social Competence

Across all measures of social competence employed in this study, children’s social functioning was related to multiple factors (e.g., family environment, quality of care, temperament; see also Belsky, 1990, for a discussion of multiple influences) rather than one single source of influence. Furthermore, the findings revealed several consistencies with past research in the associations that were revealed. Children were more likely to engage in nonsocial activities with peers and less positive interactions with their adult caregivers if the group size was larger, there were fewer adults available, and the child-to-caregiver ratio was larger. These findings corroborate those by Howes (1983) in which smaller group sizes and child- to-caregiver ratios were related to more nurtu- rant and less restrictive caregiver-child interactions. In addition to the quality indicators of day care, age of entry and number of hours in day care also revealed significant relations with children’s social interactions in day care. Consistent with the work of Field et al. (1988), children enrolled in more hours of center care per week were observed in less nonsocial play and tended to be more friendly in their peer interactions. However, children who entered care later in their 1st year were less likely to interact negatively with their peers, which is similar to the recent findings of Baydar and Brooks-Gunn (199 1).

It is also noteworthy that the results from the multiple regressions suggested that when quality of care, hours of care, and age of entry had all been considered, only the quality of the day care environment emerged as an independent predictor of children’s social competence. In no instance did the number of hours nor age of entry add significantly to the prediction of day care children’s social interactions. Thus, the findings from this study suggest that it was the quality of the day care environment, rather than the day care experience (i.e., hours in care or age of entry), that had the most pronounced effect on these children’s social outcomes.

Aspects of the family environment did emerge as important correlates of children’s social behavior in the day care environment, but surprisingly, children were more involved in friendly peer interaction in day care if their

mothers reported more family conflict, and less friendly peer interactions if the family stressed independence. These findings appear to differ with those reported by Howes and her col- leagues (Howes & Olenick, 1986; Howes & Stewart, 1987) in which lower levels of family stress and life complexity were associated with toddlers’ compliance and more sophisticated levels of peer play. Why high levels of family conflict were related to more friendly peer relations in this study was not entirely clear. It should be noted that families in this study were not distressed or dysfunctional, as the mean score on family conflict (M = 1.75) was comparable to the mean score of the “ideal” family (M = 1.95) and substantially lower than the mean score (M = 4.28) found by Moos and Moos (1976) to characterize distressed families. This limited variability of family conflict in this relatively small, well-functioning sample may also explain the unexpected association between family conflict and positive peer interactions. In any case, further research examining the interface between the family and day care environment is clearly needed in order to clari- fy what processes may be responsible for the association between family conflict and children’s social competence in day care.

The second finding pertaining to the family environment suggested that when more independence was stressed in the dual-earner family, children tended to engage in less friendly interactions with their peers in the day care classroom. Prior research has often noted that parents in employed-mother households, in contrast to nonemployed-mother households, often use more independence training with their elementary school-aged children and that this is considered beneficial to young girls’ academic competence and self-concepts (Hoffman, 1984). Although additional work is needed, our findings suggest that stressing independence with toddler- and preschool-aged children was actually associated with less positive peer interactions. It may be that this relation between family independence and social competence will differ depending on the gender of the child, as it appears to be the case with older children (e.g., girls appear to benefit from independence training in the employed-mother family, whereas boys do not). In order to examine such a pos- sibility, regression analyses examining the moderating effect of gender revealed a signifi-


cant gender x independence interaction term for the prediction of positive peer interaction, F (1, 33) = 4.4 1, p < .05. This reported association between family independence and less positive peer interaction held for boys (p = -.80, p < .OOl), but not for girls (p = -.20, ns), which would appear consistent with Hoffman’s (1984) hypothesis that stressing too much independence in sons at an early age may have negative social consequences.

Although the day care and family environment emerged as important contributors to children’s social competence, characteristics of the child also played some part in determining social outcomes. Recall that the initial correlations between maternal assessments of toddler temperament and the child’s social behavior revealed only one significant association, suggesting that children rated by mothers as more socially fearful were more likely to engage in negative peer interactions. Recent studies examining risk and protective factors in the field of developmental psychopathology (e.g., Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Sameroff & Seifer, 1983) and the notions of goodness of fit proposed by some temperament theorists (Lemer et al., 1985) led us to consider the pos- sibility that developmental outcomes would be more a product of the interaction between the child and his/her environment than a simple additive or main effect model of influence. We were particularly interested in whether socially inhibited or withdrawn children were more vulnerable or at risk for social difficulties when placed in a low-quality care environment, and that it was reasonable to expect that socially inhibited children would have difficulties involving nonsocial activities, which are more reminiscent of internalizing problems, than with aggressive interaction, which is more in line with problems of an externalizing nature.

As expected, two of the four models tested yielded significant interactions which supported our initial predictions. That is, children rated by their mothers as socially fearful were more likely to engage in nonsocial play and less likely to have friendly interactions with their peers, only if they were enrolled in the low-quality day care center. For those children enrolled in the high-quality programs, children were actually involved more in friendly peer interaction and less in nonsocial play. These results do suggest that temperamentally vulnerable chil-

dren may indeed be at risk for social difficulties when placed in low-quality care programs, and that enrollment in a high-quality program may actually serve to protect the child from similar negative social outcomes. Because toddler temperament was assessed via maternal reports and not by an objective observer, this does raise the issue as to whether the ratings of temperament were characteristic of the child or some percep- tual bias of the mother which placed her child at risk for the negative social outcomes noted (Clarke-Stewart, 1989). Moreover, because mothers’ and caregivers’ reports of temperament often differ (e.g., Northam, Prior, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 1987), additional work is needed to determine whether children behave different- ly at home and in day care and if similar findings would emerge using the caregivers’ reports of temperament.

Given the moderating effect of quality in predicting social interaction for temperamentally vulnerable children, we must entertain at this point what aspect of high-quality care may be responsible for this compensatory process. It is quite likely that the smaller group -size and the greater number of adults available in the high- quality programs allowed more one-on-one attention as well as more time for positive and responsive caregiving tailored to the individual needs of the child (Phillips & Howe& 1987). Indeed, correlations between the quality indicators and positive interactions with adults indicated that there were more positive caregiver- child interactions when the group size was smaller, more caregivers were available, and the child-to-caregiver ratio was smaller. In day care centers with larger group sizes and fewer adult caregivers, time and patience must be bal- anced between the needs of many, and the probability that each child receives individual- ized and responsive care, as opposed to rou- tinized care, is reduced. In such an environment, where attention may be directed first and foremost to the distressed child, the aggressive child, or the more sociable and outgoing child, it is not difficult to imagine how the socially fearful and withdrawn child would be over- looked and consequently spend his/her time aimlessly wandering the classroom, unoccupied, and uninvolved in social activities.

Although we did not make the fine distinc- tions in the children’s play levels as did Rubin (1982) in his study of 4-year-old preschoolers,


it is worth noting that the frequencies of solitary-functional play (i.e., repetitive motor actions) and solitary-dramatic play (i.e., fantasy and pretense with one’s self) in his study were associated with a lack of competence in social, social-cognitive, and cognitive domains. Furthermore, Vandell, Henderson, and Wilson (1988) also reported that the unoccupied behavior of 4-year-olds in day care centers was negatively related to their social competence, peer acceptance, and ability to negotiate conflict as 8year-olds. These findings suggest that children’s involvement in solitary activity and aimless wandering in the day care environment may place children at risk for early social difficulties. The fact that the quality of day care was a strong predictor of this activity should sensitize both scientists and policy makers to the need for better quality child care in the U.S. if we wish to raise more socially competent children.

Because of the small sample employed in this investigation, we are unable to clearly articulate which combination of risk factors may play a more prominent role in undermin- ing young children’s social competence or what processes might be responsible for the associations found. In any case, these findings suggest that children’s social competence in day care is influenced by multiple factors, and that these factors interact to predict different social outcomes. Just as Bronfenbrenner (1989) under- scored the need to examine person x context x

process interactions in order to gain a fuller understanding of developmental outcomes, future research that examines the interplay between the family, the day care environment, and the child will provide greater insights into young children’s social and emotional development than simply asking the same old question: “Is day care good or bad for babies?”

REFERENCES

Andersson, B-E. (1989). Effects of public day-care: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 60, 857-866.

Baydar, N., & Brooks-Gunn, .I. (1991). Effects of maternal employment and child care arrangements on preschoolers’ cognitive and behavioral outcomes: Evidence from the children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Developmental Psychology, 27,932-945.

Belsky, J. (1988). The “effects” of infant day care reconsid- ered. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 235-212.

Belsky, J. (1990). Parental and nonparental child care and children’s socioemotional development: A decade

in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52,

885-903. Belsky, J., & Eggebeen, D. (1991). Early and extensive

maternal employment and young children’s socioemotional development: Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 1083-l 110.

Bredekamp, S. (1987). Accreditation criteria and proce-

dures of the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecology systems theory. In G.J. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of child development (Vol. 16). New York: JAI Press.

Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1989). Infant day care: Malignant or maligned? American Psychologist, 44, 266273.

Field, T. (1991). Quality infant day care and grade school behavior and performance. Child Development, 62,

863-870. Field, T., Masi, W., Goldstein, S., Perry, S., & Parl, S.

(1988). Infant day care facilitates preschool social behavior. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3. 341-359.

Gatmezy, N., Masten, A.S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A build- ing block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-l 11.

Goldsmith, H.H. (1987). The Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire: A preliminary manual. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Department of Psychology.

Goldsmith, H.H., Rieser-Danner, L.A., & Briggs, S. (1991). Evaluating convergent and discriminant validity of temperament questionnaires for preschoolers, toddlers, and infants. Developmental Psychology, 27, 566.579.

Haskins, R. (1985). Public school aggression among children with varying day-care experience. Child

Development, 56, 689-703.

Hayes, C.D., Palmer, J., & Zaslow, M. (1990). Who cares for America’s children? Child care policy for the 1990s. Report of the Panel on Child Care Policy, Committee on Child Development Research and Public Policy, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hofferth, S., & Phillips, D. (1987). Maternal labor force participation and child care: 1975-1995. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49. 559-511.

Hoffman, L.W. (1984). Maternal employment and the young child. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Howes, C. (1983). Caregiver behavior in center and family day care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4,99-107.

Howes, C. (1990). Can the age of entry into child care and the quality of child care predict adjustment in kinder- garten? Developmental Psychology, 26,292-303.

Howes, C., & Olenick, M. (1986). Family and child care influences on toddler’s compliance. Child Development, 57, 202-216.

Howes, C., & Stewart, P. (1987). Child’s play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child-care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23,423430.


Hymel, S., Rubin, K.H., Rowden, L., & LeMare, L. (1990). Children’s peer relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late childhood. Child Del,elopmenr, 61,200&2021.

Johnson, P.O., & Neyman, J. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 5, 57-93.

Kagan, J., Kearsley, R.B., & Zelazo, P.R. (1978). Infancy: Its place in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Klein. R. (1985). Caregiving arrangements by employed women with children under 1 year of age. Developmental Psyc,hology, 2/. 403406.

Lemer, J.V., Baker, N., & Lemer, R. (1985). A person-context goodness of fit model of adjustment. In T.C. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral researc,h and therapy (Vol. 4). New York: Academic.

Moos, R.H., & Moos, B.S. (1976). A typology of family social environments. Family Processes. IS. 351-372.

Moos, R.H.. & Moos, B.S. (1981). Family Environment Scale Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Northam, E., Prior, M., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (1987). Toddler temperament as perceived by mothers ver- sus day care givers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterl~~. 33. 2 13-229.

Pedhazur, E.J. (1982). Multiple regression in heha\iora/ research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt. Rinehart, and Winston.

Phillips, D.A., & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality in child care: Review of research. In D.A. Phillips (Ed.), Qua/$ in child care: What does research tell us? Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Starr, S. (1987). Child-care quality and children’s social development. Develop- mental Psychology, 23,537-543.

Rothbart, M.K. (1981). Measurement of temperament in infancy. Child Development. 52, 569-578.

Rubenstein, J.L., Howes, C., & Boyle, P. (1981). A two- year follow-up of infants in community-based day care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 22,209-218.

Rubin, K.H. (1982). Nonsocial play in preschoolers: Necessarily evil? Child Development. 53, 65 l-657.

Rubin, K.H., & Mills, R.S.L. (1988). The many faces of social isolation in childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,91&924.

Rushton, J.. Brainerd, C., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavior- al development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychologic,al Bulletin. 94. 18-38.

Sameroff, A.J., & Seifer. R. (1983). Familial risk and child competence. Child Development, 54. 1254-1268.

Schwarz, J.C., Strickland, R.G., & Krolick, G. (1974). Infant day care: Behavioral effects at preschool age. De~~elopmental Psychology. 10, 502-506.

Strauss. C.C., Forehand, R., Smith, K.. & Frame, C.L. (1986). The association between social withdrawal and internalizing problems of children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14. 525-535.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Vandell, D.L., Henderson, V.K., & Wilson, K.S. (1988). A longitudinal study of children with day-care experiences of varying quality. Child Development. 59. 1286-1292.

Vandell, D.L.. & Powers, C.P. (1983). Day care quality and children’s free play activity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatp. 53.493-500.

22 May 1993; Revised 14 April 1994 w

infant day care and children's social competence

Documents