We investigated whether bidirectional associations between parental warmth and behavioral control and child aggression and rule‐breaking behavior emerged in 12 cultural groups. Study participants included 1,298 children (M = 8.29 years, standard deviation [SD] = 0.66, 51% girls) from Shanghai, China (n = 121); Medellín, Colombia (n = 108); Naples (n = 100) and Rome (n = 103), Italy; Zarqa, Jordan (n = 114); Kisumu, Kenya (n = 100); Manila, Philippines (n = 120); Trollhättan/Vänersborg, Sweden (n = 101); Chiang Mai, Thailand (n = 120); and Durham, NC, United States (n = 111 White, n = 103 Black, n = 97 Latino) followed over 5 years (i.e., ages 8–13). Warmth and control were measured using the Parental Acceptance‐Rejection/Control Questionnaire, child aggression and rule‐breaking were measured using the Achenbach System of Empirically‐Based Assessment. Multiple‐group structural equation modeling was conducted. Associations between parent warmth and subsequent rule‐breaking behavior were found to be more common across ontogeny and demonstrate greater variability across different cultures than associations between warmth and subsequent aggressive behavior. In contrast, the evocative effects of child aggressive behavior on subsequent parent warmth and behavioral control were more common, especially before age 10, than those of rule‐breaking behavior. Considering the type of externalizing behavior, developmental time point, and cultural context is essential to understanding how parenting and child behavior reciprocally affect one another.
Keywords: aggression; cultural differences; parent behavioral control; parent warmth; rule‐breaking
Externalizing problems (aggression, noncompliance, defiance, and rule‐breaking) are among the most common mental health referrals for children and adolescents (Merikangas, Nakamura, & Kessler, [
Given these distinct etiologies and susceptibilities to environmental influence, prevention scientists have called for studies that examine the differential impacts of one large environmental influencer, parenting behavior, on AGG and RB over ontogeny (Klahr et al., [
Though numerous reviews have investigated associations between parenting and externalizing behavior more generally (Dishion & Patterson, [
Specifically, we investigated whether parent warmth (i.e., acceptance, nurturing, and positive support of one's children; Pinquart, [
Yet, no investigations to our knowledge have examined the differential associations of these parenting behaviors with AGG and RB across time. However, extant work provides strong evidence that differential patterns of associations across AGG and RB should emerge. Therefore, we predicted environmental influencers like parent warmth and behavioral control to more often demonstrate associations with RB, as opposed to AGG, behavior. Furthermore, we expected these parenting effects to extend further into adolescence for RB, as opposed to AGG, behavior. Each of these hypotheses were tested in the current study.
Associations between parental warmth and behavioral control and child externalizing behavior are not unidirectional, but transactional in nature (Pinquart, [
In the present study, we expanded this investigation of evocative child effects on subsequent parenting behavior across the transition to adolescence (i.e., ages 8–13) and in association with new parenting behavioral phenotypes (parent warmth and behavioral control). In line with prior results, we predicted that child AGG behavior would evoke low parent warmth and parent behavioral over‐ or under‐control more frequently than RB behaviors. We also predicted that the evocative child effects of AGG would be more frequent than RB behavior in preadolescence, given that AGG behavior emerges earlier in childhood.
Given that prior work has demonstrated that RB is more responsive to environmental influences than AGG, associations between parenting practices and AGG/RB may differ across another environmental influencer: the larger cultural group within which such practices are embedded (Lansford, Godwin, et al., [
Examining how parent warmth and control differentially impact AGG and RB across cultures is especially important given our own prior cross‐cultural findings (Lansford, Rothenberg, et al., [
In the current study, we extended the existing literature examining AGG and RB behavior by examining associations between parental warmth and control and these behavior clusters in a sample of 1,298 children followed from 8 to 13 years old across 12 cultural groups. In so doing, we made three predictions. First, we expected parent warmth and behavioral control to more often demonstrate prospective associations with subsequent RB, as opposed to AGG behavior, and we expected associations between parenting behaviors and RB to extend later into adolescence than those between parenting and AGG. Second, we expected that child AGG behavior would evoke low parent warmth and parent behavioral over‐ or under‐control more frequently than RB behavior, and we expected such child AGG effects to be more frequent than RB effects in preadolescence. Third, we expected to see greater cross‐cultural variation in associations between parenting behaviors and RB, as opposed to AGG.
Participants included 1,298 children (M = 8.29 years, standard deviation [SD] = 0.66, 51% girls), their mothers (N = 1,275, M = 36.93 years, SD = 6.27), and their fathers (N = 1,032, M = 39.96 years, SD = 6.52) at wave 1 of 5 annual waves (Table 1). Families were recruited from 12 distinct ethnic/cultural groups across 9 countries comprising: Shanghai, China (n = 121); Medellín, Colombia (n = 108); Naples (n = 100) and Rome (n = 103), Italy; Zarqa, Jordan (n = 114); Kisumu, Kenya (n = 100); Manila, Philippines (n = 120); Trollhättan/Vänersborg, Sweden (n = 101); Chiang Mai, Thailand (n = 120); and Durham, NC, United States (split in analyses to examine n = 111 White, n = 103 Black, and n = 97 Latino cultural groups separately). Participants were recruited through letters sent from schools. Most parents (82%) were married and biological parents (97%); nonresidential and nonbiological parents were able to provide data. Sampling comprised families from the majority ethnic group in each country, except in Kenya where we sampled Luo (3rd largest ethnic group, 13% of population), and in the United States, where we sampled equal proportions of White, Black, and Latino families. Socioeconomic status and parental education were sampled in proportions representative of each recruitment area. Therefore, subsamples are representative of the cities from which they were recruited. This sample was designed to represent a wide range of sociocultural contexts and encompasses countries ranging from 8th to 145th in the 2015 Human Development Index Rankings. Differences in child age and gender were not statistically significant across cultural groups. Data for the present study were drawn from interviews during the first 5 study years.
1 TableDescriptive statistics for demographics by cultural group
Group Mother's age at recruitment Mother's education Father's age at recruitment Father's education Child gender (% girls) Child age at recruitment Shanghai, China 35.42 (3.24) 13.55 (2.88) 37.98 (3.88) 14.00 (3.07) 52 8.51 (0.34) Medellín, Colombia 37.03 (7.80) 10.64 (5.60) 40.75 (8.78) 9.91 (5.32) 56 8.22 (0.49) Naples, Italy 38.14 (5.62) 10.14 (4.35) 41.17 (5.67) 10.73 (4.16) 52 8.31 (0.49) Rome, Italy 40.24 (5.09) 14.14 (4.07) 43.52 (5.25) 13.75 (4.09) 50 8.34 (0.77) Zarqa, Jordan 36.43 (6.03) 13.13 (2.18) 41.77 (5.50) 13.24 (3.16) 47 8.47 (0.50) Kisumu, Kenya 32.45 (6.21) 10.69 (3.65) 39.28 (6.87) 12.29 (3.60) 60 8.45 (0.65) Manila, Philippines 37.936 (6.19) 13.61 (4.07) 40.21 (7.09) 13.90 (3.84) 49 8.03 (0.35) Trollhättan, Sweden 38.07 (4.82) 13.92 (2.48) 40.45 (5.68) 13.73 (2.98) 48 7.77 (0.42) Chiang Mai, Thailand 37.58 (6.18) 12.30 (4.76) 39.95 (7.28) 12.76 (4.22) 49 7.71 (0.63) U.S. Black 36.90 (8.41) 13.65 (2.36) 38.84 (8.02) 13.45 (2.66) 52 8.60 (0.61) U.S. White 40.95 (6.33) 16.95 (2.84) 42.21 (5.81) 17.29 (3.04) 41 8.63 (0.57) U.S. Latino 32.86 (5.59) 9.83 (4.08) 35.09 (7.05) 9.61 (3.90) 54 8.58 (0.74)
1 Note: Mother's and father's education = mean number of years of education completed. All numbers in parentheses are standard deviations.
Five years after the initial interviews, 82% of the original sample continued to provide data, with rates ranging across culture from 63.85% of the original sample retained in Sweden to 93.00% of the original sample retained in Kenya. In all but two cultural groups (Sweden at 63.85% and China at 69.11%) retention rates exceeded 75% of the original sample at Year 5. Participants who provided follow‐up data did not differ from the original sample with respect to any demographic variables. Additionally, participants who continued to provide data did not differ from the original sample with respect to parent warmth, parent behavioral control, child aggression, or child delinquency in any culture except for in Rome, Italy and Colombia.
Specifically, in Rome, Italy participants with missing data had significantly (p < .05) higher levels of child aggression (M
Measures were administered in the predominant language of each country, following forward‐ and back‐translation. Interviews (approved by all pertinent Institutional Review Boards [IRBs]) lasted 2 hours and were conducted after parent consent and child assent were given in locations chosen by the participants. At the first assessment wave for parents, and until age 10 for children, all interviews were conducted orally. Subsequently, participants were given the choice of completing the measures in writing or orally. Families were given modest monetary compensation for participating or compensated in other ways deemed acceptable by local IRBs.
Child gender and number of years of mother and father education when children were 8 were included as covariates.
When children were ages 8–10, 12, and 13, mothers and fathers completed the Parental Acceptance‐Rejection/Control Questionnaire‐Short Form, a measure with excellent established reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity worldwide (Rohner, [
Mothers and fathers completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Rescorla, [
Consistent with prior work (Lansford, Rothenberg, et al., [
Then, four separate structural models exploring longitudinal associations between parent warmth and (a) child AGG and (b) child RB as well as identical (3–4) models for parent behavioral control were estimated utilizing full‐information maximum likelihood estimation procedures (Enders, [
Findings from each of the four final models are discussed in turn. Skewness and kurtosis estimates for all mean scores fell in acceptable ranges (skew < 2.0, kurtosis < 7.0). Evaluation of model fit was based on recommended fit index cut‐off values that indicate excellent fit (comparative fit index [CFI]/Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] > 0.95, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] < 0.05, standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR] < 0.08; Kline, [
2 TableDescriptive statistics for substantive measures, full sample (N = 1,298)
Mean Parental warmth Age 8 3.57 0.36 Age 9 3.59 0.35 Age 10 3.58 0.37 Age 12 3.56 0.38 Age 13 3.61 0.39 Parental control Age 8 2.98 0.41 Age 9 2.94 0.42 Age 10 2.88 0.41 Age 12 2.85 0.44 Age 13 2.83 0.51 Child aggression Age 8 8.25 4.24 Age 9 7.72 4.39 Age 10 7.34 4.49 Age 12 7.29 4.55 Age 13 6.33 5.27 Child rule‐breaking Age 8 1.94 1.46 Age 9 1.81 1.44 Age 10 1.67 1.41 Age 12 1.84 1.68 Age 13 1.66 2.12
- 2 Note: Parent warmth and control measured on a 1–4 scale with higher scores indicating higher warmth and control. Child aggression was measured on a 0–2 scale, and then scores on 19 items were summed (for a maximum score of 38). Child rule‐breaking was measured on a 0–2 scale, and then scores on 13 items were summed (for a maximum score of 26). Higher scores on aggression or rule‐breaking indicate more severe aggression or rule‐breaking.
- 3 Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
- 3 TableAutoregressive cross‐lagged associations between warmth and child aggressive behaviors across 12 different cultural groups
Aggression regressed on warmth (parent effects) Warmth regressed on aggression (child effects) 8 Warmth → 9 Aggression0003 9 Warmth → 10 Aggression0003 10 Warmth → 12 Aggression0003 12 Warmth → 13 Aggression0003 8 Aggression → 9 Warmth0003 9 Aggression → 10 Warmth0003 10 Aggression → 12 Warmth0003 12 Aggression → 13 Warmth0004 Country/culture China .02 0.03 −.070005 0.03 .04 0.04 −.05 0.04 −.050006 0.02 −.060006 0.01 −.060006 0.02 −.12 0.12 Colombia .01 0.01 −.050005 0.02 .02 0.02 −.03 0.02 −.080006 0.03 −.130006 0.03 −.080006 0.02 −.410006 0.10 Italy, Naples .01 0.02 −.050005 0.02 .02 0.02 −.03 0.02 −.080006 0.03 −.110006 0.02 −.080006 0.03 −.10 0.09 Italy, Rome .01 0.02 −.040005 0.02 .02 0.03 −.03 0.02 −.070006 0.02 −.090006 0.02 −.070006 0.02 .06 0.10 Jordan .01 0.02 −.040005 0.02 .02 0.02 −.03 0.02 −.060006 0.02 −.100006 0.02 −.090006 0.03 −.12 0.09 Kenya .02 0.03 −.080005 0.04 .04 0.03 −.02 0.02 −.050006 0.02 −.060006 0.01 −.090006 0.03 −.04 0.11 Philippines .01 0.02 −.040005 0.02 .03 0.02 −.02 0.02 −.070006 0.02 −.100006 0.02 −.110006 0.02 0.06 0.08 Sweden .02 0.02 −.040005 0.02 .02 0.02 −.03 0.02 −.100006 0.03 −.120006 0.03 −.090006 0.03 −.210005 0.11 Thailand .02 0.03 −.060005 0.03 .04 0.03 −.05 0.04 −.060006 0.02 −.070006 0.02 −.060006 0.02 .02 0.09 USB .01 0.02 −.030005 0.01 .01 0.01 −.02 0.01 −.120006 0.04 −.170006 0.04 −.120006 0.04 −.09 0.12 USL .01 0.02 −.030005 0.01 .02 0.02 −.03 0.02 −.080006 0.03 −.110006 0.02 −.110006 0.03 −.15 0.13 USW .01 0.01 −.030005 0.01 .01 0.01 −.02 0.02 −.120006 0.04 −.230006 0.05 −.160006 0.05 −.04 0.10
- 4 Note: Coefficients are standardized.
- 5 Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SE, standard error; SRMR, standardized root mean squared residual; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; USB , U.S. Black sample; USL, U.S. Latino sample; USW, U.S. White sample.
- 6 a Parameter was constrained to equality across cultural groups without significantly worsening model fit; slight variation in parameter estimates across cultural groups arises in the context of standardized coefficients.
- 7 b Parameter was not constrained to equality across cultural groups to improve model fit.
- 8 χ
2 [377 ] = 510.33, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.09. - 9 * p ≤ .01.
- 10 † p ≤ .05.
- 4 TableAutoregressive cross‐lagged associations between control and child aggressive symptoms across 12 different cultural groups
Aggression regressed on control (parent effects) Control regressed on aggression (child effects) 8 Control → 9 Aggression0003 9 Control → 10 Aggression0003 10 Control → 12 Aggression0003 12 Control → 13 Aggression0003 8 Aggression → 9 Control0003 9 Aggression → 10 Control0003 10 Aggressio → 12 Control0003 12 Aggression → 13 Control0003 Country/culture China −.01 0.02 .040006 0.02 −.01 0.03 −.03 0.03 .110005 0.03 .090005 0.03 .130005 0.03 .02 0.03 Colombia −.01 0.02 .040006 0.02 −.01 0.02 −.02 0.01 .120005 0.03 .100005 0.03 .130005 0.03 .02 0.03 Italy, Naples −.01 0.02 .040006 0.02 −.01 0.02 −.03 0.02 .110005 0.03 .100005 0.03 .110005 0.03 .02 0.03 Italy, Rome −.01 0.02 .040006 0.02 −.01 0.03 −.03 0.02 .090005 0.02 .080005 0.02 .120005 0.03 .02 0.02 Jordan −.01 0.02 .030006 0.01 −.01 0.02 −.02 0.02 .120005 0.03 .110005 0.03 .170005 0.04 .03 0.04 Kenya −.01 0.02 .040006 0.02 −.01 0.02 −.03 0.02 .110005 0.03 .100005 0.03 .100005 0.02 .02 0.03 Philippines −.01 0.02 .030006 0.01 −.01 0.02 −.03 0.02 .140005 0.03 .120005 0.03 .150005 0.03 .02 0.03 Sweden −.02 0.03 .060006 0.03 −.01 0.03 −.05 0.04 .080005 0.02 .060005 0.02 .070005 0.02 .01 0.02 Thailand −.01 0.02 .030006 0.02 −.01 0.02 −.03 0.03 .120005 0.03 .100005 0.03 .120005 0.03 .02 0.02 USB −.01 0.02 .030006 0.02 −.01 0.02 −.02 0.01 .130005 0.03 .100005 0.03 .150005 0.03 .02 0.03 USL −.01 0.02 .030006 0.02 −.01 0.02 −.03 0.02 .110005 0.03 .080005 0.02 .160005 0.04 .02 0.03 USW −.01 0.01 .040006 0.02 −.01 0.03 −.03 0.03 .110005 0.03 .090005 0.03 .120005 0.03 .02 0.03
- 11 Note: Coefficients are standardized.
- 12 Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SE, standard error; SRMR, standardized root mean squared residual; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; USB , U.S. Black sample; USL, U.S. Latino sample; USW, U.S. White sample.
- 13 a Parameter was constrained to equality across cultural groups without significantly worsening model fit; slight variation in parameter estimates across cultural groups arises in the context of standardized coefficients.
- 14 χ
2 [436 ] = 503.16, p = .01, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.07. - 15 * p ≤ .01.
- 16 † p ≤ .05.
- 5 TableAutoregressive cross‐lagged associations between warmth and child rule‐breaking behaviors across 12 different cultural groups
Rule‐breaking regressed on warmth (parent effects) Warmth regressed on rule‐breaking (child effects) 8 Warmth → 9 Rule‐Breaking0003 9 Warmth → 10 Rule‐Breaking0004 10 Warmth → 12 Rule‐Breaking0004 12 Warmth → 13 Rule‐Breaking0003 8 Rule‐Breaking → 9 Warmth0004 9 Rule‐Breaking → 10 Warmth0004 10 Rule‐Breaking → 12 Warmth0004 12 Rule‐Breaking → 13 Warmth0004 Country/culture China .02 0.10 −.090005 0.03 −.100006 0.05 .07 0.14 −.02 0.02 −.050005 0.01 −.080005 0.03 −.01 0.02 Colombia −.190006 0.08 −.110005 0.03 −.03 0.02 −.380005 0.11 −.04 0.03 −.120005 0.03 −.070005 0.02 −.02 0.04 Italy, Naples .09 0.08 −.100005 0.03 −.050006 0.02 .07 0.07 −.04 0.03 −.080005 0.02 −.080005 0.02 −.01 0.04 Italy, Rome −.06 0.08 −.070005 0.02 −.050006 0.03 .07 0.09 −.03 0.02 −.080005 0.02 −.090005 0.03 −.01 0.03 Jordan −.11 0.09 −.070005 0.02 −.040006 0.02 −.07 0.08 −.04 0.03 −.100005 0.03 −.110005 0.03 −.01 0.03 Kenya −.250006 0.10 −.140005 0.04 −.070006 0.04 .02 0.10 −.03 0.02 −.060005 0.02 −.100005 0.03 −.01 0.03 Philippines −.16 0.09 −.070005 0.02 −.050006 0.03 −.02 0.09 −.04 0.03 −.090005 0.02 −.110005 0.03 −.01 0.03 Sweden −.13 0.08 −.080005 0.02 −.05 0.03 −.16 0.11 −.05 0.03 −.110005 0.03 −.090005 0.03 −.01 0.03 Thailand −.12 0.08 −.120005 0.03 −.060006 0.03 −.06 0.10 −.03 0.02 −.060005 0.02 −.060005 0.02 −.01 0.02 USB −.220005 0.08 −.050005 0.02 −.03 0.01 −.05 0.10 −.06 0.04 −.140005 0.04 −.130005 0.04 −.01 0.05 USL .00 0.10 −.070005 0.02 −.05 0.03 −.300005 0.12 −.04 0.03 −.070005 0.02 −.090005 0.03 −.01 0.03 USW .08 0.08 −.060005 0.02 −.020006 0.01 −.07 0.09 −.05 0.03 −.130005 0.04 −.140005 0.04 −.02 0.04
- 17 Note: Coefficients are standardized.
- 18 Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SE, standard error; SRMR, standardized root mean squared residual; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; USB , U.S. Black sample; USL, U.S. Latino sample; USW, U.S. White sample.
- 19 a Parameter was not constrained to equality across cultural groups to improve model fit.
- 20 b Parameter was constrained to equality across cultural groups without significantly worsening model fit; slight variation in parameter estimates across cultural groups arises in the context of standardized coefficients.
- 21 χ
2 [426 ] = 554.87, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.09. - 22 * p ≤ .01.
- 23 † p ≤ .05.
- 6 TableAutoregressive cross‐lagged associations between control and child rule‐breaking behaviors across 12 different cultural groups
Rule‐breaking regressed on control (parent effects) Control regressed on rule‐breaking (child effects) 00038 Control → 9 Rule‐Breaking 00039 Control → 10 Rule‐Breaking 000310 Control → 12 Rule‐Breaking 000312 Control → 13 Rule‐Breaking 00038 Rule‐Breaking → 9 Control 00039 Rule‐Breaking → 10 Control 000310 Rule‐Breaking → 12 Control 000312 Rule‐Breaking → 13 Control Country/culture China .050006 0.03 .03 .02 −.04 0.03 .02 0.03 .070005 0.02 .04 0.02 .120005 0.04 −.01 0.02 Colombia .040006 0.02 .04 .03 −.03 0.02 .02 0.02 .100005 0.03 .05 0.03 .080005 0.03 −.01 0.03 Italy, Naples .060006 0.03 .05 .03 −.03 0.03 .03 0.03 .090005 0.03 .04 0.02 .070005 0.02 −.01 0.03 Italy, Rome .050006 0.03 .04 .02 −.03 0.03 .02 0.01 .060005 0.02 .04 0.03 .090005 0.03 −.01 0.03 Jordan .040006 0.02 .03 .02 −.02 0.02 .01 0.02 .120005 0.04 .05 0.03 .130005 0.04 −.01 0.05 Kenya .040006 0.02 .04 .02 −.03 0.02 .02 0.02 .100005 0.03 .04 0.03 .070005 0.02 −.01 0.03 Philippines .040006 0.02 .03 .02 −.03 0.02 .02 0.02 .120005 0.04 .05 0.03 .110005 0.03 −.01 0.02 Sweden .080006 0.04 .06 .04 −.06 0.05 .04 0.05 .060005 0.02 .03 0.02 .050005 0.02 −.01 0.02 Thailand .040006 0.02 .04 .02 −.03 0.02 .02 0.03 .090005 0.03 .04 0.03 .080005 0.03 −.01 0.03 USB .050006 0.02 .03 .02 −.03 0.02 .01 0.01 .100005 0.03 .04 0.03 .110005 0.03 −.01 0.03 USL .060006 0.03 .04 .02 −.04 0.03 .02 0.03 .080005 0.03 .03 0.02 .090005 0.03 −.01 0.03 USW .070006 0.03 .04 .03 −.04 0.03 .03 0.03 .060005 0.02 .03 0.02 .070005 0.02 −.01 0.03
- 24 Note: Coefficients are standardized.
- 25 Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SE, standard error; SRMR, standardized root mean squared residual; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; USB , U.S. Black sample; USL, U.S. Latino sample; USW, U.S. White sample.
- 26 a Parameter was constrained to equality across cultural groups without significantly worsening model fit; slight variation in parameter estimates across cultural groups arises in the context of standardized coefficients.
- 27 χ
2 [376 ] = 448.94, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.07. - 28 * p ≤ .01.
- 29 † p ≤ .05.
Notably, effects of demographic covariates are not presented (available on request) because they were largely nonsignificant and space was limited. The few significant covariates did not display any noticeable patterns across time or culture. Child gender was occasionally associated with child behavior (but not parenting behavior) such that boys demonstrated higher levels of both AGG and RB behavior. Similarly, greater mother and father education were occasionally associated with greater warmth, less behavior control, and less child AGG and RB.
The final model (Figure 1 and Table 3) fit the data significantly better than the initial model that was constrained to be equal across cultures (χ
The final model (Figure 1 and Table 4) fit the data significantly better than the initial model that was constrained to be equal across cultures (χ
The final model (Figure 2 and Table 5) fit the data significantly better than the initial model that was constrained to be equal across cultures (χ
One parent effect was significant in all cultures; higher parental warmth at age 9 predicted lower child RB behavior at age 10. Additionally, three other parent effects were significant in specific cultures. High parental warmth at age 8 predicted lower child RB at age 9 in U.S. Black, U.S. Latino, and Colombian culture groups. Higher parental warmth at age 10 predicted lower child RB at age 12 in all groups except for U.S. Blacks, U.S. Latinos, Swedes, and Colombians. Finally, higher parental warmth at age 12 predicted lower child RB at age 13 in U.S. Latinos and Colombians. Two child effects were significant in all cultures: higher RB at ages 9 and 10 predicted lower parental warmth at ages 10 and 12, respectively.
The final model (Figure 2 and Table 6) fit the data significantly better than the initial model that was constrained to be equal across cultures (χ
Recent critiques of autoregressive, cross‐lagged models argue that if constructs modeled are more trait‐like in nature, then significant effects found in these models could be spurious (Hamaker, Kuiper, & Grasman, [
Our first hypothesis, that parent warmth and behavioral control would be more often associated with subsequent RB, as opposed to AGG behavior and that these parenting effects on RB would extend into adolescence, was largely supported. The effects of parent warmth and behavioral control each only impacted child AGG at one time point: age 9 warmth and control were each prospectively associated with age 10 AGG behavior in all cultures. These parenting effects may emerge at age 10 (and not earlier) for many children because aggressive behavior in many children begins to decrease at approximately age 10 and remain low after 10 (Campbell, Spieker, Vandergrift, Belsky, & Burchinal, [
In contrast to the age‐limited effects on AGG, the effects of these parenting behavior on child RB spanned all ages examined in the current study, with behavioral control at age 8 and warmth at ages 8 (in three cultures), 9 (in all cultures), 10 (in eight cultures), and 12 (in two cultures) all associated with subsequent RB behavior in at least some cultures. Moreover, in all but two cultural groups (Sweden and U.S. Black groups), the prospective associations of warmth extended into adolescence, with greater warmth at ages 10 or 12 predicting less severe RB behavior at ages 12 or 13 in 10 cultural groups. Importantly, in both the Swedish and U.S. Black samples greater age 10 warmth predicted less severe age 12 RB behavior as well, but the results were barely statistically nonsignificant (p = .055 in both groups), suggesting that these two samples generally (if not statistically significantly) conformed to these wider sample‐wide trends. One possible explanation for this difference in effects between RB and AGG behavior emerges from existing developmental and behavioral genetics research that indicates RB behaviors emerge in adolescence and are more susceptible to environmental influences than AGG behavior (Burt, [
The current investigation adds to this existing literature by demonstrating a similar pattern of RB environmental responsivity to other parenting behaviors (especially parent warmth), across a wide age range (i.e., ages 8–13), and in many different cultural groups around the world. These results also have implications for existing parenting interventions. Currently, evidence suggests parent training interventions that teach parents to reduce negativity, demonstrate warmth, and establish effective behavioral control are especially effective in preventing preadolescent (i.e.,
Additionally parent behavioral over‐control predicted greater subsequent rule‐breaking (at age 9) and aggression (at age 10) across cultures. Therefore, in our sample we only detected deleterious effects of parent behavioral over‐control, as opposed to deleterious effects of both over‐control and under‐control. We suspect this may be because our behavioral control questionnaire items were more likely to pick up effects of behavioral over‐control as opposed to under‐control. For instance "parents insist children do exactly as they are told" and "parents want to control whatever I do," were items on our questionnaire that indicated over‐control if scored higher. If these items were reworded to say "parents do not insist child follows directions" or "parents avoid controlling my actions" they may indicate under‐control more readily.
Our second hypothesis, that child AGG behavior would evoke low parent warmth and parent behavioral over‐ or under‐control more frequently than RB behavior, and that this would be especially true in preadolescence, was largely supported. Child AGG behavior was significantly associated with subsequent parental warmth or control on six out of eight possible developmental paths across all cultures, whereas child RB behavior only did so on four of eight possible paths. Moreover, in preadolescence (before age 10), this was true in four out of four possible AGG paths, whereas it was only true in two of four possible RB paths. Prior cross‐sectional work in preadolescent children ages 6–10 revealed that AGG behavior evoked maternal negativity to a greater extent than RB behavior (Klahr et al., [
Our third hypothesis, that we expected to see greater cross‐cultural variation in associations between parenting behavior and RB, as opposed to AGG behavior, was partially supported. Specifically, this hypothesis was especially well‐supported with regard to the effects of parental warmth on subsequent RB, as opposed to AGG. Whereas the effects of parent warmth on RB demonstrated cultural variation at three of four possible time points, no such cultural differences emerged when examining the effects of warmth on AGG. We suspect that these cultural variations may emerge due to a combination of etiological differences in RB versus AGG behavior, and cultural differences in the emphasis and impact of parental warmth. Specifically, prior work has demonstrated that the greater relative susceptibility of RB behavior to environmental influences (Burt, [
Parent warmth protected against child RB at age 8 in three of the four cultural groups (U.S. Blacks, Kenyans, and Colombians) that ranked highest for neighborhood danger in our sample (Skinner et al., [
An additional mechanism that may play a role in driving cultural differences in the effects of warmth on rule‐breaking is cultural normativeness of warmth. Specifically, two of the three cultures (i.e., U.S. Black and Colombian samples) that demonstrated protective effects of age 8 warmth on age 9 rule‐breaking had mean levels of age 8 parent warmth that were significantly higher than the sample average, and both cultures (i.e., U.S. Latino and Colombian samples) that demonstrated protective effects of age 12 warmth on age 13 rule‐breaking also had levels of age 12 warmth that were significantly higher than the sample average. In cultures where warmth is more normative, the protective effects of warmth on rule‐breaking behavior may be enhanced (as was found for other child adjustment measures in Lansford, Godwin, et al., [
Investigators examining the distinct etiologies of AGG and RB behavior have called for future investigations to examine associations between these types of behavior and parental warmth and control (Klahr et al., [
Despite these limitations, the present study generates several important insights that can guide understanding of the differing associations between parenting behavior and RB and AGG behavior in many cultural groups. It appears associations between parent warmth and subsequent RB behavior are more frequent across ontogeny, last longer into adolescence, and demonstrate greater variability across different cultures, than associations between warmth and subsequent AGG behavior. In contrast, evocative effects of child AGG behavior on subsequent parent warmth and behavioral control are much more common, especially before age 10, than those of RB. Overall, findings suggest that considering the type of externalizing behavior, developmental time point, and cultural context is essential to understanding how parenting and child behavior reciprocally affect one another.
By W. Andrew Rothenberg; Jennifer E. Lansford; Dario Bacchini; Marc H. Bornstein; Lei Chang; Kirby Deater‐Deckard; Laura Di Giunta; Kenneth A. Dodge; Patrick S. Malone; Paul Oburu; Concetta Pastorelli; Ann T. Skinner; Emma Sorbring; Laurence Steinberg; Sombat Tapanya; Liliana Maria Uribe Tirado; Saengduean Yotanyamaneewong; Liane Peña Alampay and Suha M. Al‐Hassan
Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author