the mutual influence of parenting and boys' externalizing behavior problems

Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 151–164

The mutual influence of parenting and boys'externalizing behavior problems☆

Paula J. Fite a,⁎, Craig R. Colder a, John E. Lochman b, Karen C. Wells c

a Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo, United Statesb Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, United States

c Medical Center, Duke University, United States

Available online 30 January 2006

Abstract

The current study examined the mutual influence of parenting and boys' externalizing behavior from 4th to 8th grade, how theserelationships change as children develop, and the stability of parenting and child behavior in a sample of 122 boys. Child behaviorpredicted poor parental monitoring at 6th and 7th grade and inconsistent discipline at all grade levels examined. Parenting behaviorwas not related to child behavior above and beyond the stability of child behavior. Stability of child behavior decreased from 5th to6th grade and stability of parental monitoring decreased from 5th–6th and 6th–7th grade, suggesting that 6th grade was animportant transition point for both parenting and child behavior. Implications of these findings for prevention and intervention arediscussed.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Parenting; Child behavior; Mutual relationships; Externalizing behavior

1. Introduction

Parenting is often considered one of the most important mechanisms of socializing children (Maccoby, 1992). Therelationship between parenting and child behavior is complex, with some evidence supporting parenting influences onchild behavior, and other evidence supporting child behavior as an influence on parenting. A better understanding ofmutual influences between parenting and child externalizing behavior is important for the refinement of prevention andintervention strategies. Knowledge of developmental patterns that characterize the bidirectional parent–childrelationship or when parental influences are strongest can inform timing of interventions as well as appropriatecontent for parenting and child interventions. The current study examined the mutual influence of parenting and boys'externalizing behavior (aggression and delinquency), using caregiver reported measures from 4th to 8th grade.

☆ This paper was presented in the 37th Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy annual meeting held November 20–23, 2003 inBoston, MA. The collection of these data and the preparation of this paper were supported by a grant to the third author from the National Institute forDrug Abuse (DA 08453). We gratefully acknowledge all who helped with data collection and management of this project, and we especially thankTammy Barry for all her assistance with data management.⁎ Corresponding author. Box 604110, Buffalo, New York 14260.E-mail address: [email protected] (P.J. Fite).

0193-3973/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.12.011

152 P.J. Fite et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 151–164

1.1. The effect of parenting on child externalizing behavior

There are many lines of research that show support for parental influence on child behavior. Prospective studieshave found that negative parenting (e.g., inconsistent discipline, harsh discipline, low monitoring, and low warmth) ispositively related to child externalizing behavior problems (e.g., Bates, Pettit, & Dodge, 1995) and positive parenting(e.g., positive reinforcement, acceptance, responsiveness, synchrony, approval, and guidance) is negatively related tochild behavior problems (e.g., Smith, Landry, & Swank, 2000). Supportive parenting has also been found to bufferagainst some known risk factors of poor adjustment such as single-parent households and low SES (Pettit, Bates, &Dodge, 1997). Other research suggests that punitive discipline in early adolescence is predictive of juveniledelinquency, which in turn is related to poor job stability and criminal activity in adulthood (Laub & Sampson, 1995).Thus, parenting behavior is predictive of externalizing behavior problems in childhood, adolescence, and even intoadulthood.

1.2. Child behavior influences parenting

There is also evidence suggesting that child behavior influences parenting behavior (e.g., Ambert, 2001; Crouter &Booth, 2003). For example, children who have a genetic risk for antisocial behavior (i.e., biological mother had ahistory of antisocial behavior) receive more negative parenting from adoptive parents than non-genetically at riskchildren (O'Connor, Deater-Deckard, Fulker, Rutter, & Plomin, 1998). Observational studies suggest that children withexternalizing behavior problems evoke aversive, negative parenting behavior from their parents as well as other adults(e.g., Anderson, Lytton, & Romney, 1986; Brunk & Henggeler, 1984). Moreover, Kandel and Wu (1995) prospectivelyexamined the relationship between child behavior and parenting in a sample of children ranging from 3 to 11 years atthe first wave of data collection. They found that high levels of child aggression at time 1 predicted low levels ofparental closeness and monitoring 6 years later, but closeness and monitoring were not found to influence childaggression. In addition, Kerr and Stattin (2003) examined a 2-year cross-lagged model from 8th to 10th grade andfound that high levels of adolescent delinquency were associated with low parental control and support and badreactions to disclosure of delinquent behavior. However, parenting did not significantly influence adolescentdelinquency. The authors concluded that parenting was in reaction to adolescent delinquency. In sum, evidencesuggests that child externalizing problems influence parenting.

1.3. Mutual influence of parenting and child externalizing behavior

The evidence supporting parents' influence on children and children's influence on parents suggests that parentingand child externalizing behavior are reciprocally related. Several parent–child interaction models posit suchbidirectionality. Patterson's coercion model suggests that both parent and child are active participants in theirinteractions (Chamberlain & Patterson, 1995), and the model proposes a 4-step process of escape conditioning(Patterson, 1995; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Step 1 involves the parent commanding the child to perform abehavior or scolding the child for their misbehavior. In step 2 the child responds to the parent's request with an aversivebehavior (e.g., whining or yelling). Step 3 is the crucial stage where the negative parent–child interaction can occur. Ifthe parent stops the request, the child wins. The child has escaped from the parent's request. Step 4 involves the childwithdrawing their aversive behavior almost immediately after the parent terminates their request, thus reinforcing theparent's withdrawal of the request. As illustrated in these steps, the coercion model suggests that children influenceparents and parents influence children.

Bell's control system model of socialization is another theory that supports the bidirectional effects of parent andchild behavior. Bell proposes that there is an upper and lower limit of expectations set by each participant of the parent–child interaction (Bell, 1980; Bell & Chapman, 1986). When one participant's behavior reaches the upper or lower limitof the other participant, the other participant responds to bring the behavior back to an appropriate level. For example, ifa child is misbehaving (e.g., hitting the family pet), the parent disciplines the child to bring the child's behavior backdown to an appropriate level (e.g., stroking the pet).

These theoretical perspectives suggest that parenting and child behavior influence each other. Furthermore, thesetheories indicate that mutual influences between parent and child occur in sequence within short periods of time.These transactional processes imply that mutual influences should be most apparent from momentary observations

153P.J. Fite et al. / Applied Developmental Psychology 27 (2006) 151–164

of behavioral sequences. Thus, when analyzing longitudinal panel data that spans several years, these transactionalmodels suggest that mutual influences would be most apparent within a wave of assessment rather than acrosswaves.

Although decades of research has examined parental influences on child behavior and child influences onparenting, surprisingly little research has examined mutual influences (Kuczynski, 2003). Vuchinich, Bank, andPatterson (1992) examined the mutual influence of parental discipline (i.e., consistency, strictness, power assertion,and aversiveness) and antisocial behavior in a longitudinal study. Data were collected when the children were in 4thand 6th grade. They tested cross-lagged paths and reciprocal causal paths within grade. The cross-lagged paths (i.e.,4th grade parenting predicting 6th grade child behavior and vice versa) were not statistically significant, suggesting nosupport for prospective reciprocal relations. However, when examining mutual influences within grade (i.e., 6th gradeparenting predicting 6th grade child behavior and vice versa), a reciprocal relationship between parental discipline andboy's antisocial behavior was found at 6th grade, such that higher levels of good discipline practices elicited lowerlevels of antisocial behavior and lower levels of antisocial behavior elicited higher levels of good discipline practices.Mutual influences at grade 4 were not able to be examined, because the paths were not identified and thus could notbe estimated. It is important to note, however, that child behavior was found to significantly influence parenting, butthe influence of parenting behavior on child behavior only approached significance. The authors concluded thatantisocial behavior and parental discipline mutually influence and maintain one another. However, parenting effectson child behavior were weak. These findings suggest that mutual influences are most apparent within an assessmentperiod rather than across assessment periods in a longitudinal panel study, which is consistent with systems andcoercion theory.

Although theory and research suggest that parenting behavior and child externalizing behavior are reciprocallyrelated, few studies have examined how this bidirectional relationship may change as children develop. This is anotable omission, given that the influence of environmental factors (such as parenting) on behavior changes asindividuals develop (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Social cognitive theory suggests that the relationship betweenparent and child behavior becomes stronger as children developed. Dix, Ruble, Gursec, and Nixon (1986) foundthat as children develop, parents' beliefs about the child's behavior became increasingly attributed to the child (i.e.,misbehavior was due to the child's dispositions, intentional, and under the child's control). In addition, it has beenfound that hostile attributions of the child's misbehavior are likely to lead to harsh discipline (Nix et al., 1999).Thus, as children develop, parents' negative attributions may increase, leading to more extreme discipline, whichmay elicit further misbehavior. Some findings on the associations between parent and child behavior are consistentwith this notion. A meta-analysis of 47 studies found that the relationship between child externalizing behavior andparenting behavior such as coercion, approval, and motivational strategies (punishing, rewarding, and threatening)was stronger for older children (6–15 years) than for younger children (10 months–5 years), which is consistentwith a cumulative reciprocity model (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). Over time the relationship between parent andchild behaviors becomes stronger, which may lead to increases in problem behavior and more extreme parenting.Another study examined the reciprocal relationship between parental monitoring and adolescent delinquency from9th to 12th grade (Laird, Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 2003). They found that in adolescence, the strength of thereciprocal relationship increased with grade. However, it is unclear from these two papers whether the relationshipbetween parent and child behavior becomes stronger as children develop from childhood into adolescence becauselate childhood and adolescent studies were combined to form the older children group (6–15 years) in the meta-analysis and the Laird et al. (2003) study examined behavior in adolescence (9th to 12th grade). Nonetheless, basedon the cumulative reciprocity model, we tentatively hypothesized that mutual influences would become stronger aschildren developed from 4th to 8th grade.

Stability of parenting and child behavior was also of interest in the current study. Consistency of behavior may helpto explain the development of parent–child mutual influences. Child externalizing behavior has been found to bemoderately to highly stable over 1 to 6 year intervals (stability coefficients ranging from .55 to .91; e.g., Biederman,Monuteaux, Greene, Braaten, & Doyle, 2001; Verhulst & van der Ende, 1992; Vuchinich et al., 1992). Parentingbehavior (i.e., corporal punishment, discipline, parental supervision, and positive parenting) has also been found to bemoderately to highly stable (Loeber et al., 2000; Stoolmiller, 1994; Vuchinich et al., 1992). However, there is evidenceto suggest that parenting behavior and child behavior change during periods of transition (e.g., entering intoadolescence; Holmbeck, Paikoff, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995). Boys in the current study transitioned from elementary tomiddle school in 6th grade, which may cause a reduction in the stability of parenting and child behavior. Thus, it was


hypothesized that child externalizing behavior and parenting behavior would be relatively stable from 4th to 8th grade,but may be less stable around the 6th grade, as children transitioned into middle school.

1.4. The current study

The current study examined the mutual influence between parenting behavior (i.e., poor parental monitoring,inconsistent discipline, positive parenting, and involvement) and boys' externalizing behavior from 4th to 8th grade.The present study extends previous research by examining the parent–child reciprocal relationship over a broaderrange of parenting behaviors over a longer period of time. We used a high-risk sample of boys (where behaviorproblems have been found to be most prevalent; Coie and Dodge, 1998), with the hopes of bringing mutualrelationships into greater relief. We chose to focus on these parenting behaviors because these parenting behaviors havebeen found to be related to externalizing behavior problems (Shelton, Frick, & Wooton, 1996). Because reciprocalrelations between parenting behavior and boys' externalizing behavior have rarely been examined, we did not want toassume that all parenting behaviors would be similarly reciprocally related. Thus, the mutual relationship betweenboys' externalizing behavior and these parenting behaviors were examined separately.

Following systems and coercion theory, we used path analysis to examine mutual influences between parentingpractices and child behavior problems within assessment periods and controlled for the stability of these behaviors (seeFig. 1). This data analytic strategy replicates that of Vuchinich et al. (1992). In Fig. 1, paths labeled a represent 1-yearstabilities for boys' externalizing behavior, paths labeled b represent 1-year stabilities for parenting behavior, pathslabeled c represent the influence of parenting behavior on boys' externalizing behavior, and paths labeled d representthe influence of boys' externalizing behavior on parenting behavior.

Three specific questions were examined in the current study. First, do parenting behavior and boys' externalizingbehavior mutually influence one another? Based on the coercion and systems theory, high levels of poor parentalmonitoring, high levels of inconsistent discipline, low levels of positive parenting, and low levels of parentalinvolvement were expected to predict high levels of boys' externalizing behavior, and high levels of boys' externalizingbehavior were expected to predict high levels of poor parental monitoring, high levels of inconsistent discipline, lowlevels of positive parenting, and low levels of parental involvement. By simultaneously estimating the influence ofparenting behavior on boys' externalizing behavior and the influence of boys' externalizing behavior on parentingbehavior (c and d paths of Fig. 1) mutual influences could be examined.

The second question was whether the bidirectional relationship changed as children advanced in school. Consistent withthe cumulative reciprocity model, it was hypothesized that the strength of the mutual influence between parenting behaviorand boys' externalizing behavior would increase as children advanced in school. We addressed this question by testing theequality of parenting influences on child behavior (c paths) and child influences on parenting behavior (d paths) across grades.

Finally, the study examined whether parenting behavior and boys' externalizing behavior were stable from 4th to 8thgrade. It was hypothesized that boys' externalizing behavior and parenting behavior would be less stable around 6thgrade (as children transitioned into middle school), but would then become increasingly stable thereafter. In order toexamine whether stability paths (a and b paths) changed over time, we examined their equality across grades.

a1 a2 a3 a4

b1 b2 b3 b4

c1 c2 d2 d3

4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade

Child Child Child Child Child Extern. Extern. Extern. Extern. Extern. Problems Problems Problems Problems

Parenting Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavior Behavior Behavior

Parenting Behavior Behavior

Note: Child Extern. Problems = Child Externalizing Behavior Problems; a = 1-year child behavior stability; b = 1-year parenting

behavior stability; c = influence of parenting on child behavior; d = influence of child behavior on parenting behavior.

c3 c4 d1 d4

Problems

Fig. 1. Proposed nonrecursive path model.


2. Method

2.1. Participants

This sample came from a larger longitudinal intervention study of boys' aggression (for more details see Lochman &Wells, 2002a). Because boys are at greater risk for externalizing behavior problems (Coie & Dodge, 1998), theintervention targeted boys and only boys were recruited into the larger longitudinal study. Fourth and fifth gradeteachers from 11 schools were asked to rate each male student's physical aggression, verbal aggression, and disruptionon 3 items using a 5 point scale (1 = almost never to 5 = almost always). Boys who scored a 7 or above on the teacherrating were then screened using the aggression scale of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). Boys whoreceived a t-score of 60 or above on teacher reports and a 55 or above on caregiver (mostly mothers) reports wererecruited into the study and assigned to an aggressive group. Those who did not meet the initial teacher cutoff (b7)were recruited into the control group. Because of these selection criterion, the groups do not represent extremes onaggression. Rather the sample represents the entire continuum of aggressive behavior with an oversampling ofaggressive boys, which represents both clinical and sub-clinical levels of aggression. The sample was drawn to bedemographically representative of the schools that participated in the intervention.

Participants of the current study represent the untreated aggressive (n=63) group and the control group (n=63) ofthe larger study. We selected participants that did not receive the interventions (i.e., the control groups) so that ourfindings were not affected by the intervention. Data pertinent to the present study were missing for one participant inthe untreated aggressive group and three participants in the control group, resulting in a sample size of 122 boys andtheir caregivers. At baseline, 44% of the boys were in 4th grade and 56% were in 5th grade. Most (93.4%) of thecaregivers were biological parents (with the majority being mothers), 1.65% were stepparents, 1.65% were adoptiveparents, and 3.3% were another relative or guardian. Fifty-six percent of the caregivers were married, 13% were single,17.5% were divorced, 2.5% were widowed, 7% were separated, and 4% were cohabitating at baseline. Fifty-fourpercent of the boys were African American and 45% were Caucasian. According to the Hollingshead Index of SES(1975), 11% of the families were low-income families, 74.5 % were middle-income families, and 14.5% were high-income families. The sample maintained a 75% retention rate at Time 2, a 73% retention rate at Time 3, and a 61%retention rate at Time 4. There were no significant differences at Time 1 (all ps N .05) between those with and withoutmissing data for any study variables.

2.2. Procedure

Data were collected in face-to-face interviews that were conducted either in the family's home or in the study'soffice, depending on the family's preference (N90% in home). Interviewers were research staff who held at least aBachelor's degree and received interview training. Interview training consisted of interviewers reading instructions andinterviews, practicing interviews with other interviewers, and role-playing mock interviews with experiencedinterviewers. Caregivers and children were interviewed simultaneously by separate interviewers. Interviews wereconducted at baseline, and then 1, 2, and 3 years later. At baseline and Time 2 the families were paid $30.00 and at Time3 and Time 4 families were paid $40.00 for their participation.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Parenting behaviorAt each data collection point, caregivers reported their parenting behavior using 4 of the 5 scales from the Alabama

Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Shelton et al., 1996), which included measures of poor parental monitoring,inconsistent discipline, involvement, and positive parenting. Parental monitoring refers to knowledge of thewhereabouts, behaviors, and associations of the child. The poor monitoring/supervision scale consisted of 10 items(standardized Cronbach's alphas across years ranged from .64 to .71), including “Your child is out with friends you donot know”, “You get so busy that you forget where your child is and what they are doing” and “Your child is at homewithout adult supervision.” Inconsistent discipline refers to the consistency with which the parent uses their chosendiscipline strategies. The inconsistent discipline scale consisted of 6 items (standardized Cronbach's alphas across yearsranged from .61 to .68), including “You threaten to punish your child and then do not actually punish him/her” and


“The punishment you give your child depends on your mood.” Positive parenting refers to using positive reinforcementwith the child. The positive parenting scale consisted of 6 items (standardized Cronbach's alphas across years rangedfrom .65 to .76), including “You let your child know when he/she is doing a good job with something” and “You praiseyou child if he/she behaves well.” Involvement refers to being an active participant in the child's life. The involvementscale consisted of 10 items (standardized Cronbach's alphas across years ranged from .68 to .81), including “You have afriendly talk with your child” and “You play games or do other fun things with your child.” These subscales haveshown adequate validity, as they have been found to be related to externalizing behavior problems (Shelton et al., 1996).Parents used a 5-point frequency scale (1 = never, 2 = almost never, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5 = always) to indicatehow often each of the items typically occurred in their household. Items were averaged to form scale scores. In the currentsample, the highest correlation between the parenting dimensions over all assessments was for Parental Involvement andPositive Parenting (r = .62, p b .01). However, the other parenting dimensions were weakly to moderately correlated (rs =.0 to .46).

2.3.2. Child behaviorAt each data collection, the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991) was administered to caregivers to

assess child behavior problems. In the present study, the externalizing behavior scale (33 items) was used to assessexternalizing behavior problems. Caregivers used a 3-point frequency scale (0 = not true to 2 = very/often true) toindicate how true each of the items was of their child's behavior within the past six months. The CBCL is a valid andreliable measure of child behavior. This measure has been found to discriminate between clinically referred andnonreferred children and has shown good test–retest reliability (Achenbach, 1991). Achenbach (1991) recommendedusing raw scores of the CBCL for research purposes because they provide a broader range of scores than t-scores.Accordingly, raw scores of the items were summed to create a child behavior score in the current study. Internalconsistency ranged from .88 to .93, suggesting good reliability.

3. Results

3.1. Data analytic methods

Nonrecursive path models were estimated using MPLUS software (Muthén & Muthén, 2001). At 4th grade,parenting and child behavior were exogenous, meaning that no variables were predicting them.1 Therefore, reciprocalcausal paths could not be estimated at grade 4. Accordingly, reciprocal relations were examined from 5th to 8th grade.

Full-information maximum-likelihood estimation (FIMLE) was used because, as expected with a longitudinalmultiple cohort design, there were missing data at 4th and 8th grade as well as some attrition over time. FIMLE requiresestimation of means and intercepts as well as covariances and path coefficients, and uses all the data availablesimultaneously to calculate parameter estimates (Kline, 1998). FIMLE has been found to be less biased and moreefficient than other techniques used to handle missing data such as pairwise and listwise deletion (Arbuckle, 1996).This missing data approach assumes that data are missing at random (MAR; Arbuckle, 1996). MAR is difficult toevaluate. As mentioned above, we compared cases with and without missing data at Time 1, where little missing dataoccurred, and no significant differences (all ps N .05) were found. This suggests that MARwas a reasonable assumptionfor the current study. Nonetheless, models including only grades 5 through 7 were also tested, because there weresubstantial missing data at grades 4 and 8 because of the multiple cohort design. The pattern of findings was the same aswhen data from the 4th and 8th grade were included. Therefore, results reported here include grades 4 through 8.

Fit indices used to evaluate the path models included χ2, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and the Root Mean SquareError of Approximation (RMSEA). A model is considered a good fit when χ2 /df b 2.0, CFI N .95 and RMSEA b .06(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Nested χ2 tests were used to evaluate equality constraints. Separate models wereevaluated for each parenting dimension because of concerns about the large number of parameters being estimatedshould all parenting variables be included in the same model.

1 To enable estimation of mutual influences at 4th grade, child IQ and family SES were included as predictors of child and parenting behavior at4th grade, respectively. However, preliminary analysis suggested that verbal intelligence was not related to child behavior and SES was not relatedto parenting behavior. Therefore, IQ and SES were not considered further, and parenting and child behavior at grade 4 were considered correlatedexogenous variables predicting their grade 5 counterpart.


Because the current study used a high-risk sample, a multiple group model strategy was initially used to examinepotential differences between the untreated aggressive group and the control group. First, models were run with pathsfree to vary across groups. Then paths were constrained to be equal across groups. Constraining paths to be equal acrossgroups did not result in a decrement in model fit in all models, suggesting that findings are the same across thecontinuum of aggressive behavior. Therefore, the two groups were combined for analyses reported.

3.2. Descriptive statistics

At 4th grade, scores for boys' externalizing behavior ranged from 3 to 35 (M = 13.87, SD = 8.99), scores for poorparental monitoring ranged from 1 to 2.4 (M = 1.49, SD = .39), scores for inconsistent discipline ranged from 1.33 to3.67 (M = 2.38, SD = .58), scores for positive parenting ranged from 3.33 to 5.0 (M = 4.18, SD = .47), and scores forparental involvement ranged from 2.8 to 4.7 (M = 3.80, SD = .48).

3.3. Path analyses

The fit of the initial models, as depicted in Fig. 1, was fair to poor (poor monitoring model: χ2(34) = 71.15, p b .01,CFI = .92, and RMSEA = .10; inconsistent discipline model: χ2(34) = 78.82, p b .01, CFI = .90, and RMSEA = .10;positive parenting model:χ2(34) = 77.23, p b .01, CFI = .90, and RMSEA = .10; parental involvement model: χ2(34) =61.77, p b .01, CFI = .94, and RMSEA = .08). Modification indices were used to identify additional parameters that, iffitted, would improve model fit. Paths that reduced the model χ2 by 5.0 or more, producing significant improvement inthe model fit (p b .01), were estimated in the final models. These included lagged paths from 4th to 6th grade and 5th to7th grade for child behavior, lagged paths for parental involvement and positive parenting from 4th to 6th grade, andlagged paths from 5th to 7th grade for poor monitoring and inconsistent discipline. It is important to note, however, thatstabilities and mutual influence paths did not change when these 2-year lagged paths were included in the models.

After determining the best structure for the path models, the effects of grade on path coefficients were examined.Constraining paths to be equal across grades allows one to examine whether the paths are significantly different acrossgrades. For example, if constraining the influence of child behavior on parenting behavior to be equal across grades(d paths, Fig. 1) causes a significant decrement in the model fit, this indicates that the influence of child behavior onparenting behavior is different across grades (for more detail on this procedure, see Kline, 1998). These analysesproceeded in the following steps. First, models were run with all paths free to vary across grade. That is, stability ofchild behavior and stability of parenting behavior were allowed to be different from 4th to 5th grade, 5th to 6th grade,6th to 7th grade, etc. Similarly, the influence of child behavior on parenting behavior and the influence of parentingbehavior on child behavior were allowed to be different at each grade. Next, paths were constrained to be equal acrosseach grade. Child behavior stabilities (a paths, Fig. 1), parenting behavior stabilities (b paths, Fig. 1), influence of childbehavior on parenting behavior (c paths, Fig. 1), and influence of parenting behavior on child behavior (d paths, Fig. 1)were each constrained separately as blocks, and after each block of constraints was evaluated it was again allowed tofreely vary before the next block of constraints was evaluated. Constrained blocks that did not cause a significantdecrement (psN .05) in the model fit were then constrained in the final path models. Each model is reviewed in turn.

3.3.1. Poor parental monitoring modelConstraining the stabilities of child behavior to be the same across each grade resulted in a significant decrement in

the model fit, Δχ2(3) = 24.70, p b .01. Likewise, constraining the stabilities of poor monitoring to be the same acrosseach grade resulted in a significant decrement in the model fit, Δχ2(3) = 7.70, p V .05. Constraining the influence ofpoor monitoring on child behavior paths resulted in a nonsignificant change in the model χ2 [Δ(3) = 5.22, p N .05].However, constraining the influence of child behavior on poor monitoring to be equal across grade resulted in asignificant decrement in the model fit, Δχ2(3) = 10.44, p b .05. Accordingly, in the final poor parental monitoringmodel, stabilities of child behavior and parental monitoring were free to vary across grade and the influence of childbehavior on parenting behavior paths were free to vary across grade. However, the influence of parenting behavior onchild behavior paths were constrained to be equal across grade. This model fit the data well, χ2(24) = 28.81, p = .23,CFI = .99, and RMSEA = .04. As shown in Fig. 2, boys' behavior influenced parenting behavior at 6th and 7th grade,such that high levels of child externalizing behavior predicted increases in poor parental monitoring above and beyondprior levels of monitoring. Boys' behavior at 5th and 8th grade did not predict parenting behavior. Parenting behavior

.74 (.76)* .43 (.38)* .50 (.61)* .92 (1.0)*

.11 (.04)

.74 (.79)* .51 (.50)* .35 (.38)* .74 (.65)*

.01 (.02) .01 (.02) .01 (.02) .01 (.02) -.05 (-.02) .24 (.13)* .40 (.20)* .01 (.01)

.35 (.32)* .40 (.42)*

.29 (.31)*


Boys, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior

Poor Parental Monitoring





Note: Boys, Extern. Behavior = Boys, Externalizing Behavior; Standardized betas reported outside parentheses and unstandardized betas reported inside parentheses; *p < .05; Disturbance estimates not reported to simplify presentation of results.

Boys, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior

Fig. 2. Final poor parental monitoring model.


was not found to influence boys' behavior at any grade level. The stability of boys' behavior was high from 4th to 5thgrade, but declined from 5th to 6th grade, then increased each year thereafter. The stability of poor parental monitoringwas high from 4th to 5th grade, but dropped from 5th to 6th and 6th to 7th grade, then increased from 7th to 8th grade.

3.3.2. Inconsistent parent discipline modelConstraining the stabilities of child behavior to be the same across each grade resulted in a significant decrement in

the model fit, Δχ2(3) = 25.16, p b .01. However, constraining the stabilities of inconsistent discipline to be the sameacross each grade did not result in a significant decrement in the model χ2 [Δχ2(3) = 3.06, p N .05]. Likewise,constraining the influence of inconsistent discipline on child behavior, Δχ2(3) = 3.21, p N .05, and constraining theinfluence of child behavior on inconsistent discipline, Δχ2(3) = 1.83, p N.05, to be equal across grades resulted innonsignificant changes in the model χ2. Accordingly, in the final model of inconsistent discipline, stabilities of childbehavior were free to vary across grades, but stabilities of inconsistent discipline, the influence of parenting behavior onchild behavior, and the influence of child behavior on parenting behavior were constrained to be equal across grade. Thismodel fit the data well,χ2(30) = 49.48, p = .01,CFI = .95, andRMSEA = .07. As seen in Fig. 3, boys' behavior was foundto significantly predict parenting behavior at all grade levels, such that high levels of boys' externalizing behavior

.74 (.77)* .44 (.38)* .51 (.62)* .92 (1.0)*

.43 (.20)*

.46 (.47)* .54 (.47)* .39 (.47)* .54 (.47)*

.01 (.01) .01 (.01) .01 (.01) .00 (.01) .24 (.13)* .19 (.13)* .19 (.13)* .20 (.13)*

.35 (.31)* .39 (.41)*

.33 (.35)*

Inconsistent Discipline







Boys, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior

Fig. 3. Final inconsistent parent discipline model.

.74 (.76)* .43 (.38)* .52 (.62)* .92 (1.0)*

-.15 (-.06)

.59 (.67)* .61 (.67)* .68 (.67)* .71 (.67)*

.03 (.06) .04 (.06) .03 (.06) .03 (.06) -.02 (-.01) -.01 (-.01) -.01 (-.01) -.01 (-.01)

.36 (.33)* .39 (.41)*

.10 (.13)

Positive Parenting

Positive Parenting

Positive Parenting

Positive Parenting

Positive Parenting



Boys, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior

Fig. 4. Final positive parenting model.


predicted increases in inconsistent discipline above and beyond prior levels of inconsistent discipline. Parentingbehavior did not influence boys' behavior at any grade level. The stability of boys' behavior was high from 4th to 5thgrade, but declined from 5th to 6th grade, then increased each year thereafter. Inconsistent discipline was stable acrossgrade.

3.3.3. Positive parenting modelConstraining the stabilities of child behavior to be the same across each grade resulted in a significant decrement in

the model fit,Δχ2(3) = 25.83, p b.01. However, constraining the stabilities of positive parenting to be the same acrosseach grade did not result in a significant decrement in the model χ2 [Δχ2(3) = 6.59, p N .05]. Likewise, constrainingthe influence of positive parenting on child behavior, Δχ2(3) = 1.03, p N .05, and constraining the influence of childbehavior on positive parenting, Δχ2(3) = .77, p N .05, to be equal across grades resulted in nonsignificant changes inthe modelχ2. Accordingly, in the final model of positive parenting, stabilities of child behavior were free to vary acrossgrades, but stabilities of positive parenting and reciprocal paths were constrained to be equal across grade. This modelfit the data well, χ2(30) = 34.33, p = .27, CFI = .99, and RMSEA = .04. As shown in Fig. 4, no reciprocal effects werefound between positive parenting and boys' behavior. The stability of boys' behavior was high from 4th to 5th grade,

.74 (.76)* .43 (.37)* .51 (.62)* .92 (1.0)*

-.41 (-.16)*

.66 (.68)* .62 (.68)* .65 (.68)* .71 (.68)*

.01 (.02) .02 (.02) .01 (.02) .01 (.02) -.01 (.00) -.01 (.00) -.01 (.00) -.01 (.00)

.38 (.34)* .39 (.41)*

.13 (.15)

Parental Involvement







Boys, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior Boys

, Extern.

Behavior

Fig. 5. Final parental involvement model.


but declined from 5th to 6th grade, then increased each year thereafter. Positive parenting was similarly stable acrossgrades.

3.3.4. Parental involvement modelConstraining the stabilities of child behavior to be the same across each grade resulted in a significant decrement in

the model fit, Δχ2(3) = 25.68, p b .01. However, constraining the stabilities of parental involvement to be the sameacross each grade did not result in a significant decrement in the model fit, Δχ2(3) = 4.97, p N .05. Likewise,constraining the influence of parental involvement on child behavior, Δχ2(3) = .37, p N .05, and constraining theinfluence of child behavior on parental involvement, Δχ2(3) = .23, p N .05, to be equal across grade resulted innonsignificant changes in the model χ2. Accordingly, in the final model of involvement, stabilities of child behaviorwere free to vary across grade, but stabilities of parental involvement and reciprocal paths were constrained to be equalacross grades. This final model fit the data well, χ2(30) = 25.66, p = 69, CFI = 1.00, and RMSEA = .00. As seen in Fig.5, no reciprocal effects were found between parental involvement and boys' behavior. The stability of boys' behaviorwas high from 4th to 5th grade, but declined from 5th to 6th grade, then increased each year thereafter. Stability ofparental involvement was similar across grade.

4. Discussion

The current study examined the bidirectional relationship between parenting and boys' externalizing behavior andthe stability of parenting and boys' externalizing behavior from 4th to 8th grade. Boys' behavior was found to influencepoor parental monitoring at 5th and 6th grade and inconsistent discipline above and beyond prior levels of parenting atall grade levels assessed. None of the parenting behaviors were found to influence boys' behavior at any grade level,suggesting that after taking into account the stability of boys' externalizing behavior, boys' externalizing behavior isindependent of parenting behavior from 4th to 8th grade in this community-recruited high-risk sample. In addition,patterns of stability for poor parental monitoring and child behavior suggested that 6th grade is a transitional point forchildren as well as parents. Each of these findings will be considered in turn.

4.1. Reciprocal effects of parenting and boys' behavior behavior

A reciprocal relationship between parenting and boys' behavior was not found in the present study. Parenting was notfound to influence boys' behavior above and beyond the stability of boys' behavior. Although this is contrary to ourhypothesis and inconsistent with the parental influence literature, these findings are not without precedent. For example,Kerr and Stattin (2003) found that 8th grade adolescent delinquency influenced parenting at 10th grade, and thatparenting did not influence adolescent delinquency. In addition, Kandel and Wu (1995) found that child aggressionelicited low levels of parental monitoring and closeness. However, parental monitoring and closeness did not have asignificant influence on child aggression. Furthermore, when examining reciprocal effects, Vuchinich et al. (1992) onlyfound that the influence of parental discipline on antisocial behavior at 6th grade approached the level of significance.Psychosocial factors other than parenting, such as peer relations, may play a more prominent role in the maintenance ofproblem behavior in middle childhood and early adolescence. It may be that parenting and child behavior are notreciprocally related during this developmental period (4th to 8th grade). That is, once the influence of prior behavior istaken into account (stability of externalizing behavior), parenting may not have any additional effect on boys' behaviorat the grades examined. Although parenting was not found to have a significant effect on child behavior above andbeyond prior levels of child behavior in our study, parents and children have a long history of interaction prior to 4thgrade. It could very well be the case that at younger (or older) ages parenting strongly influences boys' behavior. Thus, itis important that the current findings not be generalized to earlier (or later) developmental periods.

Boys' externalizing behavior was found to predict poor parental monitoring and inconsistent discipline, but notpositive parenting and parental involvement. There were no a priori hypotheses regarding differences in mutualrelationships across the parenting variables. Thus, caution should be taken when interpreting findings, as it is importantfor these findings to be replicated. With such caution in mind, we provide a discussion of child influences on parentingbehavior.

Boys' behavior was found to influence poor parental monitoring at 6th and 7th grade, such that higher levels of boys'externalizing behavior was associated with increases in poor parental monitoring above and beyond prior levels. These


findings are consistent with previous studies that have found that aggressive and delinquent behavior elicited decreasesin parental monitoring (i.e., Kandel &Wu, 1995; Laird et al., 2003). Perhaps parents of high behavior problem childrenbecome “fed up” or disenfranchised from their parenting role and therefore they are more likely to disengage from theirchild, which is partly expressed by low levels of supervision.

Boys' behavior was also found to influence inconsistent discipline above and beyond prior levels at all gradesexamined, and the strength of this relation did not change over time. Boys with high levels of behavior problems mayelicit inconsistent discipline from parents because parents are constantly changing their parenting behavior to try to finda strategy that works for their behavior problem child. Parents of behavior problem children may also feel hopeless thatdisciplining their child is not working, and therefore not worth their time. This may lead parents to not follow throughwith discipline.

A question remains as to why boys' behavior influenced poor parental monitoring and inconsistent discipline but notother parenting behaviors (positive parenting and parental involvement). Variables other than child behavior, such aslife stress (e.g., Morgan, Robinson, & Aldridge, 2002) and emotional distress (e.g., McLoyd & Wilson, 1991), mayconstrain and influence the use of positive parenting and parental involvement. Thus, positive parenting and parentalinvolvement may be more susceptible to influences other than child behavior relative to inconsistent discipline andparental monitoring.

4.2. Stability of boys' behavior and parenting behavior

4.2.1. Boys' behaviorIn all the models boys' externalizing behavior was highly stable from 4th to 5th grade, but declined in stability from

5th to 6th grade, and then increased each year thereafter. Thus, rank-order shifted at 6th grade, suggesting that this is atime of transition and adjustment. Most children of this age are experiencing puberty (American Academy ofPediatrics, 2002), and in the current sample, children transitioned into middle school in the 6th grade. These transitionslikely disrupt regular behavior patterns, including externalizing behavior problems. One possibility is that with thesetransitions come new contingencies on behavior, and some boys who typically exhibited externalizing behavior in thepast suspend this behavior until they learn the new contingencies, whereas others may respond to the newcontingencies with higher levels of externalizing behavior.

4.2.2. Parenting behaviorPositive parenting, inconsistent discipline, and parental involvement were all consistently stable from 4th to 8th

grade. Stability coefficients ranged from .59 to .72 for positive parenting and parental involvement, which is similar tothe trends that Loeber et al. (2000) found for positive parenting from 4th to 8th grade (rs = .64 to .74). However,stability coefficients of inconsistent discipline ranged from .39 to .54. The lower stabilities associated with inconsistentdiscipline are not attributable to low reliabilities because internal consistencies of inconsistent discipline werecomparable to other parenting behavior internal consistencies (see Measures section). One possibility is that parentsmay be trying to adapt their discipline strategies to changes during adolescence, resulting in lower consistency.

Stability of parental monitoring decreased from 5th to 6th and 6th to 7th grade. This may be due to some parentsreducing their monitoring because they view independence as appropriate for this developmental period, whereas otherparents may be reluctant to reduce monitoring and may in fact increase monitoring because of concerns about the risksassociated with adolescence and being in middle school with older peers. Thus, rank-order of parental monitoring mayshift during this period because some parents increase and other parents decrease their monitoring, resulting in lowerstability.

These findings concerning stability of parenting behavior indicate the need to consider parenting behaviorsseparately rather than as an aggregate to understand their development. Combining multiple parenting variables into acomposite would likely obscure important developmental trends. In addition, when examining how parentingbehavior influences child behavior, the dynamic nature of parenting behavior needs to be taken into consideration.For example, lack of monitoring/supervision has been repeatedly associated with later adjustment problems inchildren (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). Yet parental monitoring changes such that its stability shifts and mean levelsdecline as children age (Stoolmiller, 1994). Incorporating the dynamic nature of parental monitoring in etiologicalmodels might improve our understanding of adjustment problems more than simply examining the level of parentalmonitoring at one given time.


4.3. Limitations and conclusions

Several limitations of the present study should be noted. First, the sample consisted of all males. Previous studieshave found sex differences when examining relations between parenting and child behavior (McFayden-Ketchum,Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 1996; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994). Therefore, findings should not be generalized to girls. Asecond limitation of the study is that data only span 4th to 8th grade. Mutual influences between parenting and childbehavior might look quite different when children are younger or older. A third limitation of the study is the moderateinternal consistencies associated with the parenting subscales, which may have attenuated relations. Although internalconsistencies of all the parenting subscales were similar and relations were found with two of the four subscales in thecurrent study, it would be beneficial to replicate findings using parenting measures with high internal consistencies atall time points. Finally, using only parent-reported data may have biased the results. However, previous studies thathave examined reciprocal relationships have found similar trends with parent and child reported data (i.e., Kerr &Stattin, 2003; Laird et al., 2003). Furthermore, parent's perception of child behavior is of critical importance whenconsidering mutual influences. It is hard to imagine that child behavior problems influence parenting if parents are notaware of the problems. Nonetheless, some parents, although aware, may be motivated to minimize or exaggerate childbehavior problems. It would be useful for future studies to use multiple methods of measuring parenting behavior (i.e.,observation and child reports) along with collateral reports of child behavior problems. It would also be beneficial forfuture studies to examine potential moderators of parent–child mutual influences (i.e., parental anger, neighborhoodfactors, health of the parent and child, and parental stress). In addition, it would be fruitful for future studies to examineparental sources of knowledge in addition to a general measure of parental monitoring, as prior research hasdemonstrated the importance of assessing both parental knowledge of the child (whereabouts, behaviors, andassociations) and how the parent actually obtains this knowledge (i.e., child disclosure, parental solicitation, andparental control; Kerr & Stattin, 2000).

Despite these limitations, the current findings have implications for prevention and intervention. As boys age from4th to 8th grade, it appears that boys influence parenting behavior, but parents may not have a direct effect on childrenabove and beyond prior levels of child behavior. These findings suggest that behavioral parent training might not be aseffective in late childhood and adolescence as it is in earlier childhood. Although positive findings have been found forparent training programs for older children, families of older children are more likely to drop out of treatment (Dishion& Patterson, 1992). Such dropout may occur because the programs are not as effective for these parents. This is not tosay that the use of parent training programs for treating older children should be discontinued. Indeed the OregonSocial Learning Center group continues to advocate for parent training for older children (e.g., Patterson et al., 1992),even though they found results similar to the current study (Vuchinich et al., 1992). It may be that parent trainingprograms used to treat older children need to focus on teaching parents to not react to their child's externalizingbehavior, as well as emphasizing the importance of consistency and providing social support so that parents do notbecome disenfranchised from their parenting responsibilities. Findings may also indicate the need to combine parenttraining programs with interventions that target other child risk factors for older children and adolescents. Forexample, programs that combine parent training with a cognitive-behavioral treatment that teaches the child skillsneeded at each stage of information-processing may be more effective for older children (e.g., Lochman & Wells,1996, 2002a,b).

In addition, promoting awareness of important transitions and their effect on adjustment may be important. In thissample, parents and boys seem to be changing their behavior during the 6th grade, potentially to adjust to a new contextand new stressors (puberty, middle school, more time with peers, social and cognitive development). If parents andchildren adjust their behavior in such a way that is developmentally appropriate and is compatible with one another'sbehavior, the transition into adolescence may be less risky.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department ofPsychiatry.

American Academy of Pediatrics (2002). Retrieved September 24, 2002 from the website: http://www.aap.org/family/puberty.htmAmbert, A. (2001). The effect of children on parents, 2nd Ed. New York: Hawthorne Press.Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. (1986). Mothers' interactions with normal and conduct-disordered boys: Who affects whom?

Developmental Psychology, 22, 604−609.

http://www.aap.org/family/puberty.htm


Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R.E. Shumaker (Eds.), Advancedstructural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243−277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A. (1995). Family and child factors in stability and change in children's aggressiveness in elementary school. InJ. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 124−138). New York: Cambridge Press.

Bell, R. Q. (1980). Socialization findings reexamined. In R. Q. Bell & L.V. Harper (Eds.), Child effects on adults (pp. 53−84). Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.

Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. DevelopmentalPsychology, 22, 595−603.

Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Greene, R. W., Braaten, E., & Doyle, A. E. (2001). Long-term stability of the child behavior checklist in a clinicalsample of youth with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(4), 492−502.

Brunk, M. A., & Henggler, S. W. (1984). Child influences on adult controls: An experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 20,1074−1081.

Chamberlain, P., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). Discipline and child compliance in parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting:Appliedand practical parenting, Vol. 4 (pp. 205−225) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 779–862). New York: Wiley.

Crouter, A. C., & Booth, A. (2003). Children's influence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1992). Age effects in parent training outcome. Behavior Therapy, 23, 719−729.Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., Grusec, J. E., & Nixon, S. (1986). Social cognition in parents: Inferential and affective reactions to children of three age levels.

Child Development, 57, 879−894.Holmbeck, G. N., Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 1

(pp. 91−118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Hollingshead, A. B. (1975) Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, Department of Sociology.Kandel, D. B., & Wu, P. (1995). Disentangling mother–child effects in the development of antisocial behavior. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and

punishment in long-term perspectives (pp. 106−123). New York: Cambridge University Press.Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a

reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366−380.Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reaction? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children's influence on family

dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships, (pp. 121−151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford Press.Kuczynski, L. (2003). Handbook of dynamics in parent–child relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents' monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents' delinquent behavior:

Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752−768.Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1995). The long-term effect of punitive discipline. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term

perspectives (pp. 247−258). New York: Cambridge University Press.Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (1996). A social-cognitive intervention with aggressive children: Prevention effects and contextual implementation

issues. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency, (pp. 111−143). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2002a). Contextual social-cognitive mediators and child outcome: A test of the theoretical model in the CopingPower Program. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 971−993.

Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2002b). The coping power program at the middle school transition: Universal and indicated prevention effects.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16, S40−S54.

Loeber, R., Drinkwater, M., Yin, Y., Anderson, S. J., Schmidt, L. C., & Crawford, S. (2000). Stability of family interaction from ages 6 to 18. Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 353−369.

Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006−1017.McFayden-Ketchum, S. A., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Patterns of change in early childhood aggressive–disruptive behavior:

Gender differences in predictions from early coercive and affectionate mother–child interactions. Child Development, 67, 2417−2433.McLoyd, V. C., & Wilson, L. (1991). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support, and child mental health. In A. C. Huston (Ed.), Children in

poverty: Child development and public policy, (pp. 105−135). New York: Cambridge University Press.Morgan, J., Robinson, D., & Aldridge, J. (2002). Parenting stress and externalizing child behaviour. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 219−225.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2001). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and

Muthén.Nix, R. L., Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & McFayden-Ketchum, S. A. (1999). The relation between mothers' hostile

attribution tendencies and children's externalizing behavior problems: The mediated role of mothers' harsh discipline practices. ChildDevelopment, 70(4), 896−909.

O'Connor, T. G., Deater-Deckard, K., Fulker, D., Rutter, M., & Plomin, R. (1998). Genotype–environment correlations in late childhood and earlyadolescence: Antisocial behavioral problems and coercive parenting. Developmental Psychology, 34, 970−981.

Patterson, G. R. (1995). Coercion as a basis for early age of onset for arrest. In J. McCord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives,(pp. 81−105). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. E. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological context, and children's adjustment: A seven year longitudinal study.

Child Development, 68(5), 908−923.


Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 116, 55−74.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype–environment effects. Child Development, 54,424−435.

Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., &Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of ClinicalChild Psychology, 25(3), 317−329.

Smith, K., Landry, S., & Swank, P. (2000). The influence of early patterns of positive parenting on children's preschool outcomes. Early Educationand Development, 11, 147−169.

Stoolmiller, M. (1994). Antisocial behavior, delinquent peer association, and unsupervised wandering for boys: Growth and change from childhoodto early adolescence. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29(3), 263−288.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics, 4th edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Verhulst, F. C., & van der Ende, J. (1992). Six year developmental course of internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31(5), 924−931.Vuchinich, S., Bank, L., & Patterson, G. R. (1992). Parenting, peers, and the stability of antisocial behavior in preadolescent boys. Developmental

Psychology, 28(3), 510−521.

the mutual influence of parenting and boys' externalizing behavior problems

Documents