low perceived control as a mediator for maternal punitive ... · nivetha prabaharan abstract recent...

Inkblot • Vol. 5 • May 2016 | 27

Researchers have investigated the specific devel-opmental implications pertaining to negative par-enting styles. Punitive parenting negatively affects a child’s social and emotional functioning (Jones, Eisenberg, Fabes, & MacKinnon, 2002). Although literature presents evidence indicating the detrimen-tal effects imposed on a child by negative parent-ing (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang, 2003; Duncombe, Havighurst, Holland, & Frankling, 2012), little research has evaluated the conditions re-quired for the emergence of negative parenting styles.

The influential work conducted by Bell (1968) chal-lenges the previously established unidirectional ap-proach, which indicates that only parental behaviours can impact child behaviours. Instead, Bell suggested that influences within a parent-child dyad are bidirec-tional, and that children also play an integral role in in-fluencing parents’ behaviours and caregiving decisions (Bell, 1968). Therefore, beliefs that children are merely passive recipients to their environment have changed to indicate that they possess a more active role in the so-cialization process (Pardini, 2008). A child’s genetically heritable behaviours influence their social interactions, especially with their parents (Scarr & McCartney, 1993). Children possessing certain traits and dispositions may be more susceptible to receiving certain parenting styles

(Scarr & McCartney, 1993). For example, a parent may not exhibit positive parenting practices to a child who has an innate tendency to express oppositional, aggres-sive, and unresponsive behaviours. Instead this behav-iour may trigger negative emotions in parents, which may lead to the use of negative parenting practices, spe-cifically punishment as a means of controlling their child (Stormshak, Bierman, McMahon, & Lengua, 2000).

Present research focuses on evidence for Bell’s theory of the bidirectional influence between parents and children. In a study investigating parent-child re-ciprocal associations, negative control exhibited by the mother predicted elevated levels of noncompliance in their child during the ages of 2 to 4 (Smith, Calkins, Keane, Anastopoulos, & Shelton, 2004). However, the study also demonstrated that child noncompliance dur-ing this age range predicted increased rates of maternal negative control. These findings support Bell’s theory that parent-child relationships are bidirectional. In ad-dition to noncompliance, child disruptive behaviours in early childhood, such as hyperactivity, aggression, and opposition, have been linked to elevated levels of pu-nitive disciplinary actions, including spanking (Storm-shak et al., 2000). Thus, difficult behaviours expressed by a child influences the emergence of negative par-enting styles to cope with the child’s behaviour, which

Low perceived control as a mediator for maternal punitive

responses to hyperactive/inattentive children

Nivetha Prabaharan

Abstract

Recent research suggests that children who are perceived to be difficult to manage are more susceptible to receiving punitive parenting responses. This study will determine the specific difficulties in children which increase their likelihood to receive punitive parenting responses. The association between difficult children and punitive parenting responses may be mediated by low perceived balance of control over caregiving failure (PCF). To test the hypotheses, 92 mothers of preschool-age children (43 boys and 49 girls) completed three questionnaires: the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), the Parent Attribution Test (PAT), and the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES). Hyperactivity/inattention and total child difficulties positively correlated with maternal punitive responses. As predicted, the correlation between hyperactivity/inattention and maternal punitive responses was mediated by low PCF. The results provide a theoretical model to explain why children with ADHD experience more child abuse. Using these findings, it is important to educate mothers on how to effectively and appropriately respond to their children’s difficult behaviours.

Keywords: difficult children, hyperactivity and inattention, low perceived balance of control over caregiving failure, punitive parenting responses


28 | Inkblot • Vol. 5 • May 2016

may in turn exacerbate a child’s behavioural problems.Aside from a child’s disposition and behaviour,

another factor in the emergence of negative parenting styles is the parent’s perceived balance of control over caregiving failure (PCF). A person’s PCF can be de-termined by evaluating the importance they allocate to potential causes of caregiving success or failure. An individual who attributes high control to children and low control to themselves for caregiving failures has low PCF (Bugental, 1998). Therefore, these individu-als blame the child’s characteristics when a caregiving situation does not go as planned. Women with low PCF are more likely to use punitive parenting meth-ods, specifically abusive and coercive parenting tactics (Bugental, Blue, & Cruzcosa, 1989). This correlation is stronger when a woman perceives a child to be unre-sponsive and difficult to manage (Bugental et al., 1989).

Undergraduate women with low PCF are more reactive to difficult and unresponsive children than women with high PCF (Bugental & Cortez, 1988). Re-searchers measured reactivity in these women by their physiological reactions in the presence of either easy and responsive, or difficult and unresponsive, unrelat-ed children. These women’s heart rate increased, their skin conductance changed, and their skin temperature declined when anticipating interactions with difficult and unresponsive children. This physiological reactiv-ity expressed during anticipation and in the presence of unresponsive children can contribute to subjective feelings of fear and anxiety (Bugental & Cortez, 1988). Punitive, and even abusive, parenting methods may be used to compensate for the perceived loss of con-trol and for feelings of fear and anxiety, thus demon-strating a possible relationship between low PCF, dif-ficult children, and punitive parenting responses. This study did not examine why the undergraduate women were characterized with low PCF. Though this study has demonstrated increased physiological responses from undergraduate women in the presence of difficult and unresponsive children, it is important to examine whether the same pattern of physiological responses would be expressed by mothers who may have more caregiving experience than undergraduate women.

The current study predicted that children who were perceived as being difficult to manage by their moth-ers were more likely to receive punitive responses to

their negative emotions. Emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and peer relation-ship problems were among the behaviours examined to elicit maternal punitive responses. Mothers may exhibit punitive responses to the negative emotions of their difficult-to-manage child because they have low per-ceived control over caregiving failure. In other words, low maternal PCF should have a mediational effect on the link between difficult-to-manage children and ma-ternal punitive responses. In addition, this study will investigate why certain problematic child behaviours are more susceptible to receiving punitive responses.

Methods

Participants

Eighty-six mothers of preschool-aged children (46 girls and 40 boys) participated in the study. The mean age for both girls and boys was 5.1 years (SD = 0.6). The mean age for girls was 5.1 years (SD = 0.6, with a range of 4.0 - 6.2 years) and the mean age for boys was 5.2 years (SD = 0.6, with a range of 4.2 - 6.1 years). The mother’s demographics are presented in Table 1. Overall, the mothers were well-educated, with a majority of moth-ers (53.3%) having completed college or university and an additional 26.7% having completed or were in the progress of completing graduate school. In regards to cultural identification, the majority of mothers (79.1%) identified themselves as Anglo-Canadian/British.

The majority of the participants (84%) were re-cruited by phone from a University of Toronto re-search database. This database lists families who had previously agreed to be contacted for poten-tial participation in research on child development. The remaining participants were recruited via net-working. All mothers received a $5.00 Starbucks gift cer-tificate as a token of appreciation for their participation.

Measures

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. The moth-er’s perception of the child’s difficulties was measured us-ing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997), a parent-report instrument that pro-vides a balanced screening of the child’s behaviours, emotions, and relationships. This questionnaire con-sists of 25 attributes, 10 of which are generally assumed to be strengths, 14 of which are generally assumed to be difficulties, and one of which is a neutral attribute.



Mothers were asked to read and rate each attribute as being “not true”, “somewhat true”, or “certainly true” in regards to their child. These attributes can be cat-egorized into five subscales consisting of emotional symptoms (e.g., “often unhappy, downhearted or tear-ful”), conduct problems (e.g., “often lies and cheats”), hyperactivity/inattention (e.g., “easily distracted, con-centration wanders”), peer relationship problems (e.g., “picked on or bullied by other children”), and proso-cial behaviours (e.g., “considerate of other people’s feel-ings”). In addition to the 25 attributes, the question-naire requires the respondent to answer whether their child has difficulties with managing emotions, behav-iour, and ability to get along with others. If the parent responded to this question with a yes, the questionnaire proceeded to ask about the duration of the difficulties and whether the difficulties distress their child, inter-fere with their daily life, or put a burden on him, on her, or on their family. A total score of the child’s dif-ficulties was calculated using the scores for each of the

individual subscales, excluding prosocial behaviours. The SDQ is highly correlated with the Rutter

questionnaires (Elander & Rutter, 1996), which has well-established validity and reliability. This high cor-relation indicates the concurrent validity of the SDQ. Additional evidence for the questionnaire reliabil-ity and validity can be found in Goodman (1997).

Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale. The mothers’ responses to their child’s negative emo-tions were measured with a parent-report question-naire, Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; Fabes, Eisenberg, & Bernzweig, 1990). The questionnaire describes 12 scenarios in which chil-dren are likely to exhibit negative affect and distress (e.g., fear of social embarrassment, bullying or teas-ing by friends, etc.). For each scenario, mothers were asked to rate, on a 7-point scale, how likely they would respond in each of the following six ways: Distress Re-actions, Punitive Reactions, Minimization Responses, Expressive Encouragement, Emotion-Focused Reac-tions, and Problem-Focused Reactions. For the purpos-es of this study, only the score for Punitive Reactions will be analyzed. Punitive Reactions are when parents respond with verbal or physical punishment to control their child’s negative emotional displays (e.g., “tell my child to behave or we’ll have to go home right away”).

Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales were as follows: .65 (Distress Reaction), .78 (Punitive Reaction), .83 (Min-imization), .90 (Expressive Encouragement), .77 (Emo-tion-Focused Reactions), and .80 (Problem-Focused Reactions). Further evidence of the scale’s reliability and validity can be found in Fabes and colleagues (2002).

Parent Attribution Test. Maternal perceived balance of control over caregiving failure was measured using the Parent Attribution Test (PAT; Bugental et al., 1989). This self-report instrument determines an individual’s perceived balance of control between the caregiver and child by asking the parent to rate the importance he or she attributes to potential causes of caregiving suc-cess and failure. After reading a hypothetical babysit-ting scenario in which the interaction between the caregiver and child did not go well, the mothers were asked to rate, on a 7-point scale, the importance they would attribute to each of 12 factors as possible reasons for the unsuccessful interaction. The factors included six child-attributed reasons, three of which were con-

Demographics n [%]Mean age in years (range) 38.6 (22.2, 47.8)Mean number of children (range) 2.1 (1, 5)Level of educationElementary school 0 [0.0]Some high school 1 [1.2]Completed high school 3 [3.5]Some college or university 6 [7.0]Completed college or university 46 [53.5]Some or completed graduate school 23 [26.7]Other 7 [8.1]Marital statusSingle 4 [4.7]Married 75 [87.2]Living common-law 5 [5.8]Separated 1 [1.2]Divorced 1 [1.2]Widowed 0 [0.0]Cultural identificationAnglo 68 [79.1]Asian 7 [8.1]European 9 [10.9]Hispanic 1 [1.2]Russian 1 [1.2]

Table 1. Demographics of the Mothers


trollable (e.g., “how hungry the child was”) and three of which were uncontrollable (e.g., “the extent to which the child was stubborn and resisted your efforts”), and six caregiver-attributed reasons, three of which were controllable (e.g., “what kind of a mood you were in that day”) and three of which were uncontrollable (e.g., “whether or not she really enjoys children that much”). Adult Control over Failure (ACF) and Child Con-trol over Failure (CCF) scores were obtained by tak-ing the mean of the relevant factors for each subscale. A final Perceived Control over Failure (PCF) score was calculated by subtracting the CCF score from the ACF score for each mother. The PAT has established psychometric properties and has the advantage of be-ing fairly immune to self-presentation bias, maternal education, and maternal affect (Bugental et al., 1989; Bugental et al., 1998; Lovejoy, Verda, & Hays, 1997).

Procedure

Potential participants were contacted by telephone and were given an explanation of the study. Upon agree-ing to participate, a questionnaire package was sent to them at home via email or regular mail, depending on the mother’s preference, for the mothers to complete. Along with informed consent forms, the home pack-age included the Strengths and Difficulties Question-naire (SDQ), the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES), and the Parent Attribution Test (PAT), as well as detailed instructions for ques-tionnaire completion. Once completed, the question-naires were hand-delivered to the lab by the mother.

Results

Ranges, means, and standard deviations of the mother and child variables used in the study are pre-sented in Table 2.

Correlations between Child Difficulties and Maternal Punitive Responses

To test the first hypothesis, a Pearson correlation test was conducted to examine which child difficul-ties were correlated with maternal punitive responses to negative emotions. The results of the analysis indi-cated that maternal punitive responses were signifi-cantly correlated with hyperactivity/inattention (r = .30, p = .005) and total child difficulties (r = .22, p = .042), and not significantly correlated with emotion-al symptoms, conduct problems, and peer problems. These correlations are presented in Table 3. The cor-relation between hyperactivity/inattention in children

CCNES - Punitive Responses

Emotional Symptoms (SDQ) -.10

Conduct Problems (SDQ) .17Hyperactivity/Inattention (SDQ) .30**

Peer Problems (SDQ) -.02

Total Difficulties (SDQ) .22*

*p < .05 **p < .01

Table 3. Pearson Correlations between Child Difficulties and Maternal Punitive Responses

Figure 1. Maternal Punitive Responses to Hyperactivity and Inat-tention in Children

Measure N Min Max Mean SDMother VariablesPercieved Control over Failure (PCS) 86 -1.67 2.50 .25 1.04Punitive Responses (CCNES) 86 1.00 4.08 2.15 .65Child VariablesHyperactivity/Inattention (SDQ) 86 .00 10.00 3.48 2.55Emotional Symptoms (SDQ) 86 .00 6.00 1.28 1.37Conduct Problems (SDQ) 86 .00 7.00 1.48 1.36Peer Problems (SDQ) 86 .00 6.00 1.22 1.35Total Difficulties 86 .00 18.00 7.45 4.05

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of All Variables in the Study


and maternal punitive responses is plotted in Figure 1, and the correlation between total difficulties in children and maternal punitive responses is plotted in Figure 2.

Mediational Effect of Low PCF

To test the second hypothesis, an enter-method re-gression analysis was conducted to examine whether the linkages between punitive responses and hyper-activity/inattention and total child difficulties were mediated by low maternal PCF. The computational tool, PROCESS, was used to determine whether low PCF had a mediational effect in the association be-tween total child difficulties and maternal punitive responses. A total of 10,000 bootstrap samples were used. The results of this analysis indicated that total child difficulties were not significantly related to PCF (β = -.0217, t(85) = -.7779, SE = .0279, p = .4388).

Next, we examined whether low PCF had a media-tional effect in the correlation between hyperactivity/inattention and maternal punitive responses. Hyperac-tivity and inattention were significantly related to PCF (β = -.0877, t(85) = -2.0122, SE = .0436, p = .0474) and to punitive parenting responses. Perceived control over failure was also related to punitive parenting respons-es (β = -.1834, t(85) = -2.8569, SE = .0642, p = .0054). When controlling for PCF, the direct effect between hy-peractivity/inattention and punitive parenting respons-es did not disappear, β = .0616, t(85) = 2.3484, SE = .0263, p = .0094. When calculating the indirect effect of PCF on the relation between hyperactivity/inattention

and punitive parenting responses, a partial mediation emerged. The analyses revealed that low PCF mediat-ed the link between a child’s hyperactivity/inattention and maternal punitive responses, β = .02, SE = .0096, 95% CI [0.0020, 0.0409]. As this confidence interval did not include zero, there was a significant mediation effect of low perceived control between child’s hyper-activity/inattention and maternal punitive responses. The interrelations between child hyperactivity/inatten-tion, maternal PCF, and maternal punitive responses are presented in Table 4 and are displayed in Figure 3.

Discussion

The present study examined the possible effects of child difficulties on punitive parenting responses. Children characterized by hyperactivity and inatten-tion are more susceptible than other children to re-ceiving punitive responses to their negative emotions

Figure 2. Maternal Punitive Responses to Total Difficulties in Children

Table 4. Interrelations between Child Hyperactivity/Inattention, Maternal PCF, and Maternal Punitive Responses

SDQ – Hyperactivity/ Inattention

PAT – Perceived Control over Failure

CCNES – Punitive Responses

SDQ – Hyperactivity/ Inattention --PAT – Perceived Control over Failure

-.214*(86)

--CCNES – Punitive Responses

.303**(86)

-.343**(86)

-- *p < .05 **p < .01

Figure 3. Model linking predictor variable (hyperactive/innaten-tive children), mediator variable (perceieved balance of control over caregiving failure), and criterion variable (maternal punitive responses)


from their mother, which supports the first hypothesis. As predicted, further analysis indicated that maternal PCF mediated this relationship. Mothers resorted to punitive parenting practices with their hyperactive/inattentive child because of their low PCF. These find-ings suggest that mothers perceive hyperactive children as exhausting and difficult to manage, especially if the child is inattentive to their mother’s parenting efforts. A mother will attribute caregiving failure to the child’s hyperactivity and inattention, which will lead her to use punitive responses as a means of controlling her child and improving her caregiving outcomes. Therefore, difficult children are more likely to receive maternal punitive responses because of the mother’s low PCF.

The results found that total child difficulties, in-cluding emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, and peer relationship problems, were positively correlated with maternal pu-nitive responses. However, PCF did not mediate this relationship. The significance of the correlation be-tween total child difficulties and maternal punitive re-sponses could be mostly attributed to the hyperactiv-ity/inattention subscale of the total difficulties score.

Of all the individual subscales for child difficulties, only hyperactivity/inattention predicted maternal puni-tive responses. Emotional symptoms and peer relation-ship problems are thought of as internalizing problems and may not pose a threat to parents. Hyperactivity/inattention and conduct problems; however, are often categorized as external behaviours, which have been shown to influence a parent’s likelihood to use punitive parenting methods (Stormshak et al., 2000). Conduct problems were not significantly correlated to maternal punitive responses; this may be due to the age range of the children used in this study (i.e., 4-6 years old). Conduct problems, characterized by stealing, bullying and cheating, often emerge in ages older than this sam-ple. Perhaps if this study were conducted on a sample of children with a larger age range, conduct problems would also be predictive of punitive parenting practices.

Conclusion

Implications and Future Directions

These results may explain the high parental child abuse reports in children diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), suggesting a

possible theoretical model (Briscoe-Smith & Hinshaw, 2006; Hadianfard, 2014). The hyperactivity/inattention subscale of the SDQ (Goodman, 1997) is strongly corre-lated with symptoms of ADHD (Muris, Meesters, & van den Berg, 2003). Children who suffer from ADHD are perceived as difficult to manage by their parents, which increases their susceptibility of receiving harsh physi-cal disciplinary responses (Hadianfard, 2014). Com-mon problems experienced by children with ADHD include externalizing behaviours, such as aggression and hyperactivity, and cognitive difficulties, specifically attention deficits (Briscoe-Smith & Hinshaw, 2006). I suggest that children with ADHD are more susceptible to child abuse because the parent attributes caregiving failure to the child, specifically their hyperactive and inattentive behaviours. Future studies should be con-ducted to examine whether low PCF has a mediational effect on this relationship. If low PCF can explain why children with ADHD experience more child abuse, par-ents can learn to balance their perception of control over caregiving outcomes. A mother’s negative parent-ing responses to early expression of their child’s exter-nalizing behaviour can increase future externalizing behaviour, creating a positive feedback loop (Combs-Ronto, Olson, Lunkenheimer, & Sameroff, 2009).

Research links detrimental child effects with puni-tive parenting styles; for example, punitive and coer-cive parenting methods decrease academic and social competence in children (Fletcher, Walls, Cook, Madi-son, & Bridges, 2008). The current study demonstrated how low PCF mediates the relationship between the child’s hyperactive/inattentional behavioural difficul-ties and the parent’s punitive responses. Parenting in-terventions could bring awareness to the parents’ low PCF and could teach them how to effectively and ap-propriately gain control of caregiving outcomes. In particular, the findings of this paper implicate that learning new techniques can help parents properly respond to hyperactive and inattentive behaviours, so parents can have a balanced perception of control. The vicious cycle of negative parenting responses and difficult, externalizing behaviours (Combs-Ronto, Ol-son, Lunkenheimer, & Sameroff, 2009) reiterates the importance of educating parents that punitive parent-ing methods do not decrease externalizing behaviours, such as hyperactivity/inattention, but instead increase


the possibility of future occurrences. This is why ap-propriate parenting responses should be implemented.

Limitations

The problem of shared methods variance lim-its the conclusions of this study. All the data collected for both the mother and child variables were maternal reports. To avoid this problem, teacher reports of the child’s difficulties could have been used. The sole use of maternal reports creates a bias and reduces the ob-jectivity of whether the child can truly be labeled as difficult. However, this study maintains that low PCF and punitive responses are contingent on the mother’s perception of how difficult the child is to manage. In other words, mothers would only resort to punitive parenting methods if they perceived their child to be difficult to manage. For example, if a teacher reported the child to be difficult but the mother did not share this concern, then the child is not likely to receive puni-tive responses from their mother. Therefore, only if the mother perceived their child to be hyperactive/inatten-tive, would they experience low PCF, which would lead to the mother’s punitive responses. Although shared methods variance limits this study, the results are not biased, as low PCF and punitive responses directly de-pend on the mother’s perception the child’s difficulty.

In this sample, the mothers’ education and cultural identification was very homogeneous. The majority of the mothers were well-educated and identified their back-ground as Anglo-Canadian/British. The homogeneity of this sample decreases the generalizability of the results to the general public. Also, I measured both the child’s hyperactive and inattentive behaviours and the mother’s punitive responses using questionnaires; I did not ob-serve the behaviours. Future research should determine whether this relationship persists when actual behav-iours are observed rather than reported by the parent.

Based on these findings, hyperactive and inatten-tive children appear to receive more punitive responses from their mothers as a result of low maternal per-ceived balance of control over caregiving failure. Inter-ventions should be implemented on target families to educate mothers regarding how to effectively and ap-propriately respond to their children’s difficult behav-iours, specifically their hyperactivity and inattention.

Acknowledgements

This study was done for an undergraduate develop-mental psychology lab course at the University of Toron-to. The author would like to thank Leah Lundell for her help and guidance in writing this paper. All data was col-lected by Leah Lundell for her doctoral thesis at the Uni-versity of Toronto under the supervision of Joan Grusec.

ReferencesBell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81-95.Briscoe-Smith, A. M., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2006). Linkages between child abuse and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in girls: Behavioral and social correlates. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 1239-1255.Bugental, D. B. (1998). Parent Attribution Test: Revised manual. Unpublished Research Measure. University of California, Santa Barbara.Bugental, D. B., Blue, J., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over caregiving outcomes: implications for child abuse. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 532-539.Bugental, D. B., & Cortez, V. L. (1988). Physiological reactivity to responsive and unresponsive children as moderated by perceived control. Child Development, 59, 686-693.Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 598-606.Combs-Ronto, L. A., Olson, S. L., Lunkenheimer, E. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2009). Interactions be-tween maternal parenting and children’s early disruptive behaviour: Bidirectional associations across the transition from preschool to school entry. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1151-1163.Duncombe, M. E., Havighurst, S. S., Holland, K. A., & Frankling, E. J. (2012). The contribution of parenting practices and parent emotion factors in children at risk for disruptive behaviour disorders. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 43, 715-733.Elander, J., & Rutter, M. (1996). Use and development of the Rutter Parents’ and Teachers’ Scales. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 6, 63-78.Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., & Bernzweig, J. (1990). Coping with children’s negative emotions scale (CCNES): Description and scoring. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.Fletcher, A. C., Walls, J. K., Cook, E. C., Madison, K. J., & Bridges, T. H. (2008). Parenting Style as a Moderator of Associations Between Maternal Disciplinary Strategies and Child Well-Being. Journal of Family Issues, 29(12), 1724-1744.Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586.Goodman, A., Lamping, D. L., & Ploubidis, G. B. (2010). When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1179-1191.Hadianfard, H. (2014). Child abuse in group of children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder in comparison with normal children. International Journal of Community Based Nursing and Midwifery, 2(2), 77-84.Jones, S., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2002). Parents’ reactions to elemen-tary school children’s negative emotions: relations to social emotional functioning at school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48(2), 133-159. Muris, P., Meesters, C., & van den Berg, F. (2003). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12(1), 1-8.Pardini, D. A. (2008). Novel insights into longstanding theories of bidirectional parent-child influences: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 627-631.Scaramella, L. V., & Leve, L. D. (2004). Clarifying parent-child reciprocities during early child-hood: the early childhood coercion model. Clinical Child and Family Review, 7, 89-107.Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: a theory of genotype-environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424-435.Smith, C. L., Calkins, S. D., Keane, S. P., Anastopoulos, A. D., & Shelton, T. L. (2004). Predicting stability and change in toddler behaviour problems: Contributions of maternal behaviour and child gender. Developmental Psychology, 40, 29-42.Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., & Lengua, L. J. (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive behaviour problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29(1), 17-29.

low perceived control as a mediator for maternal punitive ... · nivetha prabaharan abstract recent...

Documents