Marital Relationship Quality, Parenting, and Differentiated Self-Regulation: Understanding the Whole Picture
Self-regulation has been defined in a variety of ways. Some researchers label it as a dimension of temperament, a skill such as social competence, or a personality trait such as impulsivity (Calkins, 2004; Novak & Clayton, 2001; Smith & Hart, 2002). However, this study approaches self-regulation from a motivational perspective, emphasizing the importance of self-determination and initiation of choice. Grolnick and Farkas (2002) explain that self-regulation is manifest when children “monitor, plan, guide, and control their behavior” in the process of goal attainment (p. 90). The pursuit of personally relevant goals—in response to personal and environmental circumstances, cues, and feedback—appears to be salient in the majority of self-regulation definitions (Bandura, 1991; Demetriou, 2000; Novak & Clayton, 2001).
The delineation of self-regulation is further complicated by the existence of multiple constructs within self-regulation as a whole. As a multidimensional construct, self-regulation includes cognitive, behavioral, and affective elements that are interrelated, but distinct (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002; Moilanen, 2007), and clearly differentiated across the realms of child functioning (Bandura, 1997). Behavioral regulation refers to the child’s ability to control hyperactivity, aggression, and fidgeting; emotional regulation abilities include controlling extreme affect; and cognitive regulation includes resisting impulses, demonstrating attention to tasks, planning, and avoiding distractions (see Garnefski, Kraaij, & van Etten, 2005; Moilanen, 2007). However, despite evidence suggesting multidimensionality in self-regulation, researchers habitually explore only a single dimension without mention or regard of the other two. This is an unfortunate oversight given that these three constructs are interconnected and child strategies employed to regulate in one realm may foster further development of the others (Kopp, 1982; Moilanen, 2007). While underlying mechanisms for the three types of regulation are the same, more research is requisite to determine how inclusive representations of self-regulation are differentially promoted by socialization influences than are single dimensions. In this paper, I will evaluate how all three types of child self-regulation are influenced by mothering, fathering, and the quality of the marital relationship.
Importance of Self-Regulation
Self-regulation has been associated with a myriad of positive outcomes. Higher self-regulation in children has been linked to greater academic performance (Bandura, 1996; Hattie, Biggs, & Purdie, 1996), social competence (Patterson & Sanson, 1999; Smith & Hart, 2002), resilience and motivation (Kashdan, 2007), and general well-being (Kochanska, 1993). Scholars have also indicated a lack of self-regulation abilities to be associated with detrimental child outcomes including both internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 2004; Lengua, 2003; Silk, Steinberg, & Morris, 2003). Taken together, these findings substantiate the claim by Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, and Reiser (2000) that children with moderate to high self-regulation demonstrate the best overall outcomes.
Marital Relationship and Self-Regulation
Family systems theory explains the interrelatedness of family subsystems, suggesting that child development is influenced by parent-child relationships as well as the marital relationship (Bowen, 1978). Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey, and Cummings (2002) have identified marital conflict as a particularly salient aspect of the marital relationship for child adjustment. Other researchers have expounded on this notion, explaining the various deleterious effects of marital problems on adolescent maladjustment including internalizing problems, externalizing behaviors, social withdrawal, and antisocial behaviors (Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Grych, Harold, & Miles, 2003; Katz & Gottman, 1993).
In addition to the direct effects of marital relationship problems, marital troubles may influence the quality of parenting, which in turn influences child development. Cui and Conger (2008) suggested that parents experiencing marital problems are likely to display parenting problems as well, leading to an increased risk of adolescent maladjustment. For example, Harold and Conger (1997) found that marital conflict indirectly predicted internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescents through hostile parenting. From a more positive perspective, Fishman and Meyers (2000) linked marital satisfaction indirectly to positive child psychological adjustment through parental involvement in childrearing.
While marital conflict and relationship quality have been found to influence child externalizing and internalizing problems, most self-regulation researchers focus on the mother-child dyad and ignore the influence of relevant family subsystems (see Volling, Blandon, & Kolak, 2006). A review of literature yielded only one study that examined the relationships between the marital relationship, parenting, and self-regulation. In this study, Volling et al. (2006) used marital conflict and mutual responsiveness in the parent-child relationship to predict child regulation and explore risk and protective factors within the family. They found that a close father-child relationship may help protect children from the negative effects of parental conflict. The current study follows this systematic approach by examining the quality of the marital relationship and parenting on regulation.
Development of Self-Regulation
Given the wealth of positive benefits for children, determining socialization factors which improve and foster these skills in children is a worthwhile venture. Parenting has been indicated as one of these important contributors (Demetriou, 2000; Jennings et al., 2008). From a sociocultural perspective, which emphasizes the importance of interactions with parents or older adults with acquired skills and knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978), parenting plays a vital role in the development of child self-regulation. Indeed, it is through experience and interaction with adults that children receive the transfer of “cultural tools” necessary for self-regulation and develop higher order psychological functioning (Colman, Hardy, Albert, Raffaelli, & Crockett, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). Through emotional and behavioral scaffolding—the process of internalizing cultural tools or strategies (Wood, 1980)—parents gently teach their children at a developmentally appropriate level, encourage continued learning, and also are accessible for help when needed. By being aware of and responding to the child’s emotions during this process, parents act as emotional coaches and instruct the child how to appropriately regulate (Katz, Wilson, & Gottman, 1999). As a part of the socialization process, parents guide experiences in an attempt to transfer their goals and values to the child (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). The internalization of goals and values, through the parents’ scaffolding, is instrumental in children learning to initiate and intrinsically regulate their own behavior in order to reach specific goals.
Parenting
The specific parental factors that contribute to successful self-regulation in children have been examined frequently, pointing to a few key elements of parenting styles and behaviors that appear to foster self-regulation. Often researchers have claimed Baumrind’s (1971, 1991) authoritative style of parenting to be an important predictor of self-regulation (Purdie, Carroll, & Roche, 2004; Strage, 1998). However, it may be more useful to examine the dimensions of authoritative parenting separately in order to determine how each aspect individually impacts regulation. The authoritative parenting dimensions of parental warmth/involvement and control have both been independently linked to higher levels of self-regulation. First, parental warmth has been cited frequently as a predictor of self-regulation (e.g., Eiden, Edwards, & Leonard, 2007; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000). Parents who provide a nurturing and responsive environment for their children purportedly reduce negative feelings which interfere with regulatory skills and abilities (Brody & Ge, 2001). Warmth from parents introduces a secure socialization atmosphere for the child to explore and take confident steps toward self-regulating. The measure of warmth in this study is referred to as parental connectedness.
Often the dimension of warmth in Baumrind’s (1991) model includes parental involvement. For adolescents, this aspect appears to be the most important predictor of self-regulation (Bradley & Corwyn, 2007; Purdie et al., 2004). As parents get involved in the child’s life, it promotes a sense of relatedness that is crucial to the development of internalization and intrinsic motivation needed for self-regulation (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). The mutual collaboration often present with highly involved parents and their children may also encourage the child to model the values and goals of their parents, and in turn, their regulation displays (Brody, Ge, Katz, & Arias, 2000). Similar to warmth, parental involvement may help the child to feel secure in the relationship and more confident in abilities to work towards and reach goals.
Another dimension of authoritative parenting, behavioral control, fosters self-regulation in adolescence (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). In contrast, parents who utilize psychological control over their child undermine the development of regulation by limiting the child’s ability to experience autonomous regulation (Baumrind, 1991; Moilanen, 2007). In these cases, children cannot experiment and learn to regulate themselves because they are never given the freedom to do so. However, as children experiment and make mistakes, parents may provide control over their behavior, which helps them internalize important social and family values (Olson, Bates, & Bayles, 1990). Control may be conditionally related to self-regulation in that it must be positive control, focused on teaching, and coupled with high levels of parental involvement in order to promote self-regulation (Trusty & Lampe, 1997).
In addition to feeling secure, children have need of a structured environment in which they are taught and instructed by their parents. Grolnick and Farkas (2002) explain that for optimal self-regulation development, children need rules and guidelines to monitor their behavior. Parental feedback and proactive teaching of strategies may be helpful in scaffolding the learning experience of the child. Parents may effectively teach their children adaptive strategies through engaging in alternating behaviors during a waiting period (Grolnick, Bridges, & Connell, 1996), helping the child focus on a distraction to delay gratification (Holden, 1983) and attempting to guide future behavior (Gardner, Ward, Burton, & Wilson, 2003). Proactive parenting, or actively seeking to teach and prepare the child to handle difficulties before they occur (Padilla-Walker & Thompson, 2005), should also promote the development of regulation. Frequently taking opportunities to teach the child, provide structure, and arm them with effective strategies allows the child to create mental structure and more easily regulate internally.
Parenting for Distinct Regulation Types
While it is helpful to understand how parenting practices effectually improve child self-regulation skills, often researchers neglect to examine the different kinds of regulation, often only one aspect of self-regulation at a time. Through these studies, researchers provide valuable information about how parenting influences specific dimensions of self-regulation, but they do not provide a holistic picture of how parenting influences all three dimensions.
Previous work targeting only one dimension of regulation at a time has indicated, however, that differences may exist in the kind of parenting that influences the development of each type of regulation. For example, Colman et al. (2006) found high levels of maternal warmth and low levels of punitive discipline to be predictive of greater child behavioral regulation four years later (see also Jennings et al., 2008). Parental involvement also appears to be a salient factor for the development of behavioral regulation (e.g., Kochanska, 1997; Parpal & Maccoby, 1985). In a 2002 review of self-regulation literature, Grolnick and Farkas (2002) posited that parents who are involved, provide rules and guidelines, and foster individuality facilitate the development of behavioral regulation.
In terms of emotional regulation, Tronick (1989) found a responsive and involved parental environment to be conducive to emotional regulation development (see also Calkins & Johnson, 1998; Raver, 1996). Emotional regulation seems to be largely influenced by parental responsiveness and scaffolding as parents help teach their children how to work through their emotions (Cassano, Perry-Parrish, & Zeman, 2007; Grolnick & Farkas, 2002).
Research on the development of cognitive regulation is more focused on biological perspectives (e.g., Lewis and Todd, 2007) and gives a less clear delineation of relevant parental factors. However, researchers do argue the importance of parental influence (Novak & Clayton, 2001). For example, Brody and Ge (2001) have linked changes in harsh-conflicted parenting to cognitive regulation in children.
From the review of literature, there appears to be some overlap concerning what parenting behaviors influence of each type of regulation. In reality, there certainly exists overlap, but research focusing on all three regulation types in one model will help explain how specific parenting behaviors differentially affect the three types of self-regulation.
Fathering and Mothering
The majority of studies on self-regulation have focused solely on maternal influence, with relatively few studies examining the influence of fathers on the development of self-regulation (see Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, & Adams, 2008; Vogel, Bradley, Raikes, Boliler, & Shears, 2006). As explained previously, children with low regulation often display more internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Since research has shown father involvement to serve as a protective factor against internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Allen & Land, 1999; Baumrind, 1991; Buist, Dekovic, Meeus, & van Aken, 2004), father influence should play a unique role in the promotion of self-regulation. In a study on child emotional regulation, Cassano et al. (2007) found parental gender differences in parental responses to child emotion, indicating mother and father differences in the responding to regulation concerns. In an effort to better understand the impact of the family system as a whole, and how mother and fathers differentially influence self-regulation, this study will examine the influence of both mothers and fathers on adolescents’ self-regulation.
Purpose of this Study
In order to further the knowledge of the self-regulation field, the purpose of the current study is to take a holistic approach to self-regulation by examining, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive regulation in early adolescence. A structural equation model (SEM) will assess the quality of the marital relationship, measured by marital conflict and satisfaction, directly and indirectly through mother and father involvement, connectedness, and proactive parenting. My specific research questions are: (1) Does marital relationship quality influence parenting behaviors? (2) How are adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive self-regulation influenced by the quality of the marital relationship (directly and indirectly) and by parenting? (3) Do these relationships differ as a function of gender of the parents and the adolescents?
Method
Participants
The participants for this study were taken from Wave 1 of the Flourishing Families Project (FFP). The FFP is an ongoing, longitudinal study of inner family life involving families with a child between the ages of 10 and 14 at Wave 1. Families were interviewed in their homes, with each interview consisting of a one-hour video and a one-and-one-half hour self-administered questionnaire. For this study, only questionnaire data from the child, mother, and father were used.
This study consisted of a 300 family subset of two-parent (mother and father) families from the original 500 family FFP sample. Families had a child between the ages of 11 and 14 (M age of child = 11.21). Ninety-five percent of mothers and 90% of fathers reported being biological parents, 4% of mothers and 5% of fathers reported being adoptive parents, and 1% of mothers and 4% of fathers reported being step-parents. Seventy-five percent of families reported that all members of the family were European-American, 5% were all African American, 1% all Asian, and 20% of families reported that families members were multi-ethnic. Fourteen percent of families reported an income less than $25,000 per year, 16% made between $25,000 and $50,000 a year, and 70% made more than $50,000 per year. In terms of education, 73% of mothers and 70% of fathers reported having a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Procedure
Participant families for the FFP were selected from a large northwestern city and were interviewed during the first eight months of 2007. Families were primarily recruited using a purchased national telephone survey database (Polk Directories/ InfoUSA). This database claimed to contain 82 million households across the United States and had detailed information about each household, including presence and age of children. Families identified using the Polk Directory were selected from targeted census tracts that mirrored the socio-economic and racial stratification of reports of local school districts. All families with a child between the ages of 10 and 14 living within target census tracts were deemed eligible to participate in the FFP. Eligible families were subsequently contacted directly using a multi-stage recruitment protocol. First, a letter of introduction was sent to potentially eligible families. Second, interviewers made home visits and phone calls to confirm eligibility and willingness to participate in the study. Once eligibility and consent were established, interviewers made an appointment to come to the family’s home to conduct an assessment interview.
In addition to the random selection protocol used with the survey database, families were recruited into the study through family referral. At the conclusion of their in-home interviews, families were invited to identify two additional families in the recruitment area that matched study eligibility. This type of limited-referral approach permitted the identification of eligible families in the targeted area that were not found in the Polk Directory. The Polk Directory national database was generated using telephone, magazine, and internet subscription reports; therefore, families of lower socio-economic status were under-represented in the database. By broadening the approach and allowing for some limited referrals, the social-economic and ethnic diversity of the sample was significantly increased. It should be noted that there were no differences on any of the key variables in the current study as a function of recruitment strategy.
Through these recruitment protocols, a total of 692 potentially eligible families were identified within the survey database as living within the targeted census tracts. Of those, 372 were determined to have a child within the target age range. Of those, 64% agreed to participate (n = 238). Additionally, there were 372 families referred by participating families, 262 of whom agreed to participate (71%). The most frequent reasons cited by families for not wanting to participate in the study were lack of time and concerns about privacy. It is important to note that there were very little missing data. As interviewers collected each segment of the in-home interview, questionnaires were screened for missing answers and double marking.
Measures
Marital relationship quality. The latent variable, marital relationship quality, was created by mother and father reports of marital conflict and current relationship quality. To assess marital conflict, mothers and fathers responded to eight common problems experienced in the couple relationship in terms of how often each item is a problem. Items were selected from the RELATE assessment battery (Busby, Holman, & Taniguchi, 2001), including items such as, “Rearing children”, “Roles (Who does what)” and “Financial matters.” Responses were based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Previous reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for this measure were found to be .80 for males and .83 for females (Busby et al., 2001). The reliability for this sample (Cronbach’s α) was found to be .784 (fathers) and .703 (mothers). For this study, the scale was reversed so that higher scores represent less conflict.
Current relationship quality was assessed using a modified version of the Norton Quality Marriage Scale (Norton, 1983). Responses were based on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree). Mothers and fathers responded to five questions including, “My relationship with my partner makes me happy” and “My relationship with my partner is very stable.” Berg, Trost, Schneider, & Allison (2001) found reliability (Cronbach’s α coefficient) to be .95. The reliability tests for this sample indicated a Cronbach’s α coefficient of .947 (fathers) and .946 (mothers). Higher scores on the scale represent higher perceived marital quality.
In the SEM model for this study, mother and father reports of marital conflict and current relationship quality were analyzed as factors for the latent variable marital relationship quality. Factor loadings ranged from .68 to .78.
Parenting characteristics. The first parenting scale utilized was parental involvement for mothers and fathers. Parent involvement in the child’s life was measured using eight items from the Inventory of Father Involvement (Hawkins et al., 2002). Responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) to questions such as, “Help your child with homework?” and “Make it easy for your child to talk to you?” Hawkins et al. (2002) found Cronbach’s α coefficients ranging from .69 to .80 on five subscales. For this sample, overall scale reliability (Cronbach’s α coefficients) was .766 for fathers and .641 for mothers. Higher scores represent more perceived involvement with the child.
The second parenting construct examined was mother and father connectedness. The degree to which parents feel connected to the target child was assessed using nine items from the Social Connectedness Scale (Lee, Draper, & Lee, 2001). Parents responded on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (disagree) to 6 (agree). Items were reworded to focus on the parent-child relationship and parents were asked to respond in terms of their agreement or disagreement with statements such as “I feel distant from my child” and “I feel like an outsider with my child.” Higher scores represent greater perceived levels of connection between the parent and their child. Lee et al. (2001) found reliability (Cronbach’s α coefficient) to be 0.94, and for this sample it was found to be .878 for fathers and .841 for mothers.
The final parenting characteristic in the model was proactive parenting. Parents responded to 3 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often) to measure proactive versus reactive parenting (Padilla-Walker & Thompson, 2005). Sample questions include, “I talk to my child about how to stand up for what s/he believe when s/he has friends who behave in ways I might disapprove of” and “I talk to my child about how to avoid Internet content that I might disapprove of.” For this sample, reliability tests indicated a Cronbach’s α of .712 for fathers and .715 for mothers. In the final scale, higher scores represent higher levels of mother and father proactive parenting.
Self-regulation. The early adolescent’s ability to regulate behaviors, emotions, and cognitions was gathered from mothers’ reports, using a revised 13-item version of the Novak and Clayton (2001) self-regulation measure. Mothers responded on a 5-point Likert scale to how much they agreed or disagreed with statements about their child, such as “my child has difficulty controlling his/her temper,” “my child gets distracted by little things,” “my child slams doors when she/he is mad.” Responses ranged from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true), with higher scores representing the child’s ability to regulate behavior, emotions, and cognitions effectively. Cronbach’s α for this sample was found to be .780 (overall), .881 (behavioral subscale), .859 (emotional subscale), and .782 (cognitive subscale).
Means and standard deviations for all variables are reported in Table 1.
Analysis Strategy
Evaluation of the path model (seen in Figure 1), was conducted in AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2006). The initial evaluation began with a saturated model linking the latent variable of marital relationship quality to all parenting behaviors and child regulation variables, and all parenting behaviors to all three regulation types. This exploration was in an attempt to remove non-significant paths, because existing literature and theory did not provide specific hypotheses of which paths should be removed before the analyses. Modification indices were referenced and conceptually/theoretically relevant error terms were connected to improve the model fit. Connected error terms suggest that connected variables are influenced by similar outside sources not accounted for within the model. For ease in viewing the model, error terms have been removed. The model fit statistics of this initial model are reported in the results section. Non-significant path coefficients, with p values above .2, were removed from the model and analysis conducted again to examine the remaining regression weights. Next, all path coefficients above the significance level p = .05 were removed from the model, leaving only significant pathways. Analysis of this reduced model was conducted to determine the relationships and significant paths among the variables and is shown in Figure 1 with standardized coefficients and model fit indices. A comparison model using child-reported variables was contrasted with the parent-report model to determine differences by reporter. Also, a multi-group analysis was conducted to examine gender differences in adolescents. It should also be noted that ethnicity and income were controlled for in the initial model. However, since there were no significant paths (p < .05) to intervening or dependent variables, ethnicity and income were removed in further analyses for parsimony.
Results
Preliminary Analysis
Bivariate correlations were conducted to determine the individual relationships between variables in the model. Mother and father reports of marital conflict and relationship quality expectedly had significant correlations, ranging from r = .515 to r = .594, but were low enough that there were no concerns about multi-colinearity. Behavioral, emotional, and cognitive regulation measures were also significantly correlated (r = .346 to r = .476), demonstrating that they are interrelated, but yet distinct, areas of self-regulation. Father connectedness and father involvement were correlated at r = .487, and all other significant correlations were below r = .40. Correlations are reported in Table 2.
Model Analyses
The aforementioned model was created and analyzed to determine the relationships between quality of the marital relationship, three parenting characteristics (involvement, connectedness, and proactive parenting), and child self-regulation of behavior, emotions, and cognitions. Evaluation of the fit of the model to the sample data was done using multiple model fit indices. The χ² statistic was 53.07 with 33 degrees of freedom (p = .015). The comparative fit index (CFI) and goodness of fit index (GFI) were also reported (CFI = .978; GFI = .975). Each yields scores ranging from 0 to 1.00 with values close to or above .95 considered indicative of good model fit. Also, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .045. RMSEA values below .05 indicate good fit (Arbuckle, 2006).
The reduced model (seen in Figure 1), containing significant pathways between the variables, yielded the following model fit indices: χ²(48) = 64.55 (p = .056), CFI = .982, GFI = .970, RMSEA = .034. All path coefficients were examined to be sure they reached significance (p <.05). The model accounted for 11% of the variance in child behavioral regulation, 18% of the variance in emotional regulation, and 9% of the variance in cognitive regulation. Also of note was that marital relationship quality accounted for 11% of the variance in father connectedness to the adolescent.
Marital relationship quality directly influenced behavioral regulation (β = .167) and emotional regulation (β = .130) while only indirectly effecting cognitive regulation of the adolescent through mother connectedness, having a total effect of β = .035. The marital relationship quality also indirectly influenced behavioral and emotional regulation through mother and father connectedness. The total effect of marital relationship quality, including direct and indirect effects, on behavioral regulation was .229 and .220 for emotional regulation (see Decomposition Table in Table 3). Mother involvement significantly influenced cognitive regulation (β = .129), while father involvement had no significant paths to regulation. Mother connectedness significantly influenced all three regulation types; behavioral (β = .189), emotional (β = .349), and cognitive (β = .223). Father connectedness was significantly related to behavioral (β = .099) and emotional (β = .106) regulation. Mother proactive parenting was negatively related to behavioral regulation (β = -.141) and father proactive parenting had no significant influence on any regulation types. All significant regression weights and R² statistics for the model pathways are included in Figure 1.
Parent vs. Child Report
Preliminary analyses suggested discrepancies in parent and child reports of both parenting characteristics and child self-regulation. In order to examine parent and child report differences, the model was re-analyzed using child reports of the parenting characteristics and self reports of regulation. The model was an acceptable fit for the data, χ²(33) = 148.809 (p = .000), CFI = .944, GFI = .929, and accounted for less variance than the parent report model, namely, 8% of behavioral regulation, 11% of emotional regulation, and 9% of cognitive regulation variance. Many of the significant pathways in the child-report model were the same as the parent-report model, however there were also a handful of significant pathways that were different by reporter. One such pathway is worthy of noting. The pathway from marital relationship quality to mother involvement fell out in the parent-report model (β = .05, p = .426), but was significant in the child-report model (β = .19, p = .003).
Gender
After the initial model was tested, two nested models were created to determine gender differences for male and female adolescents. In order to have a clear understanding of all the pathways in these analyses, all pathways were left in the model, even though most of them were non-significant. Model comparisons indicated that the change in the χ² statistic was not significant, Δχ²(12) = 7.103, p = .851, indicating that the overall model for the two groups was not significantly different. No further examination of the individual paths or variances could be done because the overall model comparison indicated no significant differences between groups. However, for the sake of information, relevant differences between males and females appeared in the paths from martial relationship quality to the three types of regulation.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to take a holistic approach to self-regulation by examining, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive regulation in early adolescence. This study sought to answer the questions: (1) Does marital relationship quality influence parenting behaviors? (2) How are adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive self-regulation influenced by the quality of the marital relationship (directly and indirectly) and by parenting? (3) Do these relationships differ as a function of gender of the parents and the adolescents?
Marital Relationship Quality and Parenting
From the results shown in Figure 1, it is evident that the quality of the marital relationship influences mothers and fathers in their parenting roles, supporting the claim of Davies et al. (2002) that the quality of the marital relationship influences parenting behaviors. In the model, marital quality only significantly predicted mother and father connectedness and father involvement. Easterbrooks and Emde (1988) posited that the way for parents to be open and available for their children is to experience the same kind of relationship in the marriage. According to this theory, parents experiencing a positive, connected, and low-conflict marriage will likely develop the attributes needed to be a connected and involved parent.
Direct Influences on Differentiated Self-Regulation
Behavioral regulation. By examining all three types of self-regulation together in a model, the current study was able to examine which parenting factors appear to be most salient for each type of regulation in adolescence. Researchers have indicated that behavioral regulation is influenced predominately by parental involvement with the child (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). However, that was not the case for this sample. Mother involvement was only significantly related to cognitive regulation and father involvement was not significantly related to any type of regulation. This may be due to the inclusion of other parenting and marital variables that accounted for more of the variance in these relationships. Another explanation may be that previous scholars have largely focused on young children. Parental involvement with adolescents may function differently, especially as they are seeking more autonomy (see Karavasilis, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 2003).
For early adolescents, mother and father connectedness had salient direct influences on behavioral regulation. The strong influence of connectedness on regulation—given that mother connectedness influenced all three types of regulation and father connectedness two types—supports the ideas of scholars who have claimed the importance of parental warmth in regulation development (e.g., Eiden et al., 2007; Kochanska et al., 2000). The importance of the parent-child relationship may be explained further with attachment theory. Attachment theorists posit that secure attachment between parent and child allows safe exploration of the environment, which fosters self-regulation (Bretherton & Waters, 1985; Kochanska, 1995). Indicators of secure attachments, including shared positive affect and trust, help the child feel secure in the parent-child relationship and in their environment, and when this need is fulfilled, development of self-regulation begins to thrive (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). The measure of connectedness in this study likely captures elements of the attachment to mother and father. In addition, Kochanska and Aksan (1995) explained that when children develop a sense of relatedness to their parents their desire to engage in shared values and goals with the parents increases and children learn to internalize, which leads to intrinsic motivation to regulate behavior to achieve specific goals. By cultivating responsive relationships with their children, parents teach them how to regulate behaviors.
The quality of the marital relationship directly influenced the ability of the child to regulate behaviors. From the perspective of Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, children observe and model the behavior of those around them, specifically their parents. Children who witness marital conflict are given opportunities to observe and integrate negative methods for resolving conflict, namely the tendency to not self-regulate behaviors. On the other hand, as children observe adaptive strategies for regulating behaviors in their parents’ relationship, they may create a positive mental schema for regulation in relationships (Dodge, 1993). As children interact with the marriage relationship of the parents, they learn through observation how to integrate cultural tools and strategies (Vygotsky, 1978), which assist them in self-regulating behaviors.
Surprisingly, mother’s proactive parenting behaviors were also predictive of child behavior regulation, but this finding was negative. Given the positive benefits of parental inductive reasoning on child psychological adjustment (Krevans & Gibb, 1996), the induction and involvement of the parents with the child in proactive parenting techniques should lead to more self-regulated behaviors by the adolescent. One possible explanation for this negative finding is directionality. Grolnick, Weiss, McKenzie, and Wrightman (1996) concluded that mothers with difficult adolescents were more controlling than mothers who viewed their children as easier. Parents dealing with children who are unable to regulate behaviors may respond to the child with more control and less of the induction and reasoning inherent in proactive parenting.
Emotional regulation. Emotional regulation appeared to be directly influenced by similar aspects of the family system as behavioral regulation: mother and father connectedness and a positive marital relationship. The connectedness to parents is again supportive of past research. Grolnick and Farkas (2002) explained that a close parent-child relationship was important for emotional regulation development, and this model demonstrates this is true for both mothers and fathers. Further, this relationship may be explained by ideas presented by Thompson, Lewis, and Calkins (2008). In this recent publication on emotional regulation, the authors explained that emotional self-regulation may follow from activated emotion through systemic processes. As children experience positive emotions with their mothers and fathers they may learn to interpret and understand their own emotional processes. By activating emotions in a family system, children learn how to regulate their emotions to contribute to the well-being of the family system as a whole.
In regard to the marital relationship, Davies and colleagues (Davies, Hops, Alpert, & Sheeber, 1998) have explained the link between marital quality and emotional regulation, stating that when there are threats to the stability of family relationships, the emotional security of the child suffers. The authors argue that this insecurity leads to poor emotional regulation, negative mental schema, and ineffective coping mechanisms (Davies et al., 1998). In addition, a positive marital relationship may help create a family environment where children grow and learn (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007). Although the regression weight for the direct path from quality of the marital relationship to emotional regulation was not large (β = .13), it helps explain that problems in the marital dyad not only affect child internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Gottman & Notarius, 2000), but may make a difference in the child’s ability to internalize positive strategies for regulating emotions.
Cognitive regulation. While the quality of the marital relationship was influential in the development of adolescent behavioral and emotional regulation, it had no significant direct effect on cognitive regulation. Rather, the development of adolescent cognitive regulation in this model is fostered by mother connectedness and mother involvement. There has been less research conducted in the field focusing on cognitive regulation, but Garnefski et al. (2005) explained that the construct deals with hypothetical and abstract thinking. The significant path of mother involvement to cognitive regulation abilities may be attributed to the type of involvement mothers have with their children. Mothers tend to employ more induction and reasoning tasks with their children (Hart & Robinson, 1994), which may account for the development of higher level mental structuring of their children. Thus, mother involvement may teach the child effective strategies for dealing with cognitive tasks, including goal-setting.
Also, Blair and Diamond (2008) suggested that cognitive regulation develops best when emotions are linked to motivational arousal in activities that promote the use of mental processes. As primary care-givers, mothers may be in a unique position to foster the development of the child’s cognitive regulation abilities by being actively involved in the play and learning of the child.
Like behavioral and emotional regulation, cognitive regulation is influenced by a connected relationship with the mother. This relationship is probably best explained with attachment theories (Bretherton & Waters, 1985; Kochanska, 1995), where the positive parent-child relationship links the child to a secure base for exploration and development.
Indirect Effects on Differentiated Self-Regulation
Examination of the model shows that all indirect paths to adolescent regulation from marital relationship quality go through the medium of mother and father connectedness, supporting Cui and Conger’s (2008) claim that the marital relationship influences parenting, which in turn affects child outcomes. In the model, marital quality was only significantly predictive of mother and father connectedness and father involvement. Emery and O’Leary (1982) provide a helpful framework for interpreting these findings. In their “loss of love” hypothesis they suggest that marital problems lead to decreased warmth and support in parental roles, leading to child adjustment problems. The relationships in the current model seem to indicate that Emery and O’Leary’s (1982) hypothesis may also operate in a positive way. Parents who have satisfied and low-conflict marriages may experience a spillover effect in their parenting, creating increased warmth and support for their children. In the context of a supportive and connected relationship, children may then be assisted in developing improved self-regulatory abilities. Fishman and Meyers’ (2000) research on the links between marital satisfaction and positive child adjustment through parent involvement may also support this idea, but more research is needed to examine the complexity and directions these relationships.
Effects of Gender
Contrary to the claim by Cassano et al. (2007) that there were gender differences for parents in how they influence the child’s regulation abilities, there was not a large variation in pathways the influence of father and mother in this study. The mother influence appeared to be larger and more pervasive than the father influence, given more direct paths from mother variables to regulation items, as well as the larger regression weights. Possible reasons for this non-finding may included reporter bias and the age of the child. First, the reports of adolescent regulation were only reported by the mother. Reporter bias may cause mother parenting variables to be more closely correlated with the reports of regulation, thus making it difficult to clearly understand the influence of the father’s parenting characteristics. Secondly, Collins and Russell (1991) argued that few parental gender differences emerge before adolescence (age 13). The lack of different influences on regulation by mother and father may be because the children are not old enough for these types of effects to take place. Further analyses need to continue to study the effects of mothers and fathers to determine how eventual gender differences come about.
As seen in the results, there were no differences between boys and girls in this model. This is most likely due to the age of the sample. At age 11, early adolescents rarely demonstrate large gender differences in regulation abilities (Collins, Harris, & Susman, 1995).
Differences By Reporters
There were differences in the models of mother and child reports of parenting and self-regulation variables, suggesting that children’s perceptions may be influenced by the quality of the marital relationship more than the parents may realize. However, because parent and child reports have been found to vary significantly from one another on the same constructs (Cytryn, McKnew, & Bunney, 1980), it is difficult to determine the true relationship between these variables without further analysis. This presents an opportunity for future research to examine the influence of the marital relationship on children from the child’s perspective and determine how it differs from the parent perspective.
Limitations, Implications, and Conclusions
Significant limitations of this study include the cross-sectional nature of the data, the non-representative sample, and the small overall effect sizes of the variables on regulation measures. In addition, given the cross-sectional data, it is difficult to conclude the direction of effects from the model. Although I have set up the model with marital relationship and parenting characteristics impacting adolescent self-regulation, it is very possible these effects may be reversed (see Brody & Ge, 2001). Adolescent regulation may interfere with the parents’ ability to parent positively, grow close to the child emotionally, or model appropriate regulation themselves. Unregulated behaviors from a child may also be a source of conflict within the marital relationship, as perhaps illustrated by the negative relationship between mother proactive parenting and behavioral regulation in the model. In contrast, a well self-regulated child may also promote an atmosphere of peace, facilitating more positive parent-child relations, connectedness, and marital quality (see Cui & Conger, 2008).
Despite these limitations, this study provides an important first look at a systemic holistic understanding of development of early adolescent self-regulation. The quality of the marriage relationship was found to be important for behavioral and emotional regulation directly and through mother and father connectedness. It is clear that each type of regulation is influenced by different aspects of parenting. By studying all three types together it becomes clear which parenting and familial variables are most important for different aspects of development. Parents seeking to help a child regulate cognitively for example, may now understand that this will best be achieved by being involved with the child and building a positive relationship. With the positive outcomes and protective factors associated with proper regulation abilities in adolescents it is important to further the understanding of how to help children develop these important skills.
References
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 319-335). New York: Guilford Press.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2006). AMOS 7.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford, England: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.
Bandura, A. (1996). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Henry Holt & Co.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 1-103.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.
Berg, E. C., Trost, M., Schneider, I. E., & Allison, M. T. (2001). Dyadic exploration of the relationship of leisure satisfaction, leisure time, and gender to relationship satisfaction. Leisure Sciences, 23, 35-46.
Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 899-911.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2007). Externalizing problems in fifth grade: Relations with productive activity, maternal sensitivity, and harsh parenting from infancy through middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1390-1401.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 3-35.
Brody, G. H., & Ge, X. (2001). Linking parenting processes and self-regulation to psychological functioning and alcohol use during early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 82-94.
Brody, G. H., Ge, X., Katz, J., & Arias, I. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of internalization of parental alcohol-use norms and adolescent alcohol use. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 71-79.
Buist, K. L., Dekovic, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. G. (2004). The reciprocal relationship between early adolescent attachment and internalizing and externalizing problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 251-266.
Busby, D. M., Holman, T. B., & Taniguchi, N. (2001). RELATE: Relationship evaluation of the individual, cultural, and couple contexts. Family Relations, 50, 308-316.
Calkins, S. D. (2004). Temperament and emotional regulation: Multiple models of early development. In M. Beauregard (Ed.), Consciousness, emotional self-regulation and the brain (pp. 35-59). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Calkins, S. D., & Johnson, M. (1998). Toddler regulation of distress to frustrating events: Temperamental and maternal correlates. Infant Behavior & Development, 21, 379-395.
Cassano, M., Perry-Parrish, C., & Zeman, J. (2007). Influence of gender on parental socialization of children’s sadness regulation. Social Development, 16, 210-231.
Collins, W., Harris, M. L., & Susman, A. (1995). Parenting during middle childhood. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting (pp. 65-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother-child and father-child relationships in middle childhood and adolescence: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11, 99-136.
Colman, R. A., Hardy, S. A., Albert, M., Raffaelli, M., & Crockett, L. (2006). Early predictors of self-regulation in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 15, 421-437.
Cui, M., & Conger, R. D. (2008). Parenting behavior as mediator and moderator of the association between marital problems and adolescent maladjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 261-284.
Cytryn, L., McKnew, D. H., & Bunney, W. E. (1980). Diagnosis of depression in children: A reassessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 22-25.
Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(3, Serial No. 270).
Davies, P. T., Hops, H., Alpert, A., & Sheeber, L. (1998). Child responses to parental conflict and their effect on adjustment: A study of triadic relations. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 163-177.
Demetriou, A. (2000). Organization and development of self-understanding and self-regulation: Toward a general theory. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 209-251). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dodge, K. A. (1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct disorder and despression. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 559-584.
Easterbrooks, M. A., & Emde, R. N. (1988). Marital and parent-child relationships: The role of affect in the family system. In R. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families (pp. 83-103). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Eiden, R. D., Edwards, E. P., & Leonard, K. E. (2007). A conceptual model for the development of externalizing behavior problems among kindergarten children of alcoholic families: Role of parenting and children’s self-regulation. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1187-1201.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136-157.
Eisenberg, N., Gershoff, E. T., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A. J., Losoya, S. H,
Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54-68.
Emery, R. E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1982). Children’s perceptions of marital discord and behavior problems of boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 11–24.
Fishman, E. A, & Meyers, S. A. (2000). Marital satisfaction and child adjustment: Direct and mediated pathways. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 22, 437-452.
Gardner, F., Ward, S., Burton, J., & Wilson, C. (2003). The role of mother-child joint play in the early development of children’s conduct problems: A longitudinal observational study. Social Development, 12, 361-378.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & van Etten, M. (2005). Specificity of relations between adolescents’ cognitive emotion regulation strategies and internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 619-631.
Gottman, J. M., & Notarius, C. I. (2000). Decade review: Observing marital interaction. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 927-947.
Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1996). Emotion regulation in two-year-olds: Strategies and emotional expression in four contexts. Child Development, 67, 928-941.
Grolnick, W. S., & Farkas, M. (2002). Parenting and the development of children’s self regulation. Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5: Practical issues in parenting (2nd ed., pp. 89-110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Grych, J. H., Harold, G. T., & Miles, C. J. (2003). A prospective investigation of appraisals as
mediators of the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment. Child Development, 74, 1176-1193.
Harold, G. T., & Conger, R. (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: The role of adolescent awareness. Child Development, 68, 333-350.
Hart, C. H., & Robinson, C. C. (1994). Comparative study of maternal and paternal disciplinary strategies. Psychological Reports, 74, 495-498.
Hattie, J., Biggs, J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99–136.
Hawkins, A. J., Bradford, K. P., Palkovitz, R., Day, R. D., Christiansen, S. L., & Call, V. C. (2002). The inventory of father involvement: A pilot study of a new measure of father involvement. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10, 183-196.
Holden, G. W. (1983). Avoiding conflict: Mothers as tacticians in the supermarket. Child Development, 54, 233-240.
Jennings, K. D., Sandberg, I., Kelley, S. A., Valdes, L., Yaggi, K., Abrew, A., Macey-Kalcevic,
M. (2008). Understanding of self and maternal warmth predict later self-regulation in toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 108-118.
Karavasilis, L., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (2003). Associations between parenting style and attachment to mother in middle childhood and adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 153-164.
Kashdan, T. B. (2007). New developments in emotion regulation with an emphasis on the positive spectrum of human functioning. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 303-310.
Katz, L. F, & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Patterns of marital conflict predict children’s internalizing
and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 29, 940-950.
Katz, L. F., Wilson, B., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Meta-emotion philosophy and family
adjustment: Making an emotional connection. In M. J. Cox & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Conflict and cohesion in families: Causes and consequences (pp. 131-165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325-347.
Kochanska, G. (1995). Children’s temperament, mother’s discipline, and security of attachment: Multiple pathways to emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 597-615.
Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33, 228-240.
Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually positive affect, the quality of child compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early internalization. Child Development, 66, 236-254.
Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Prisco, T. R., & Adams, E. E. (2008). Mother-child and father-child mutually responsive orientation in the first 2 years and children’s outcomes at preschool age: Mechanisms of influence. Child Development, 79, 30-44.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220-232.
Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 199-214.
Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents’ use of inductive discipline: Relations to children’s empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67, 3263-3277.
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 310-318.
Lengua, L. J. (2003). Associations among emotionality, self-regulation, adjustment problems, and positive adjustment in middle childhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 595-618.
Lewis, M. D., & Todd, R. M. (2007). The self-regulating brain: Cortical-subcortical feedback and the development of intelligent action. Cognitive Development, 22, 406-430.
Moilanen, K. L. (2007). The Adolescent Self-Regulatory Inventory: The development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 835-848.
Morris, A., Silk, J., Steinberg, L., Myers, S., & Robinson, L. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16, 361-388.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 141-151.
Novak, S. P., & Clayton, R. R. (2001). The influence of school environment and self-regulation on transitions between stages of cigarette smoking: A multilevel analysis. Health Psychology, 20, 196-207.
Olson, S. L., Bates, J. E., & Bayles, K. (1990). Early antecedents of childhood impulsivity: The role of parent-child interaction, cognitive competence, and temperament. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 18, 317-334.
Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Thompson, R. A. (2005). Combating conflicting messages of values: A
closer look at parental strategies. Social Development, 14, 305-323.
Parpal, M., & Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal responsiveness and subsequent child compliance. Child Development, 56, 1326-1334.
Paterson, G., & Sanson, A. (1999). The association of behavioural adjustment to temperament, parenting and family characteristics among 5-year-old children. Social Development, 8, 293-309.
Purdie, N., Carroll, A., & Roche, L. (2004). Parenting and adolescent self-regulation. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 663-676.
Raver, C. C. (1996). Relations between social contingency in mother-child interaction and 2- year-olds’ social competence. Developmental Psychology, 32, 850-859.
Smith, P. K., & Hart, C. H. (2002). Blackwell handbook of childhood social development. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2003). Adolescents’ emotion regulation in daily fife: Links to depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child Development, 74, 1869-1880.
Strage, A. A. (1998). Family context variables and the development of self-regulation in college students. Adolescence, 33, 17-31.
Thompson, R. A., Lewis, M. D., & Calkins, S. D. (2008). Reassessing emotion regulation. Child Development Perspectives 2, 124-131.
Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44, 112-119.
Trusty, J., & Lampe, R. E. (1997). Relationship of high-school seniors’ perceptions of parental involvement and control to seniors’ locus of control. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 375-384.
Vogel, C. A., Bradley, R. H., Raikes, H. H., Boliler, K., & Shears, J. K. (2006). Relation between
father connectedness and child outcomes. Parenting: Science and Practice, 6, 189-209.
Volling, B. L., Blandon, A. Y., & Kolak, A. M. (2006). Marriage, parenting, and the emergence
of early self-regulation in the family system. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 493-506.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D. (1980). Teaching the young child: Some relationships between social interaction, language, and thought. In D. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought (pp. 280-296). New York: Norton.
Table 1
Mean Differences and Standard Deviations for Model Variables as a Function of Parent Gender
| Variables | Mother M (SD) | Father M (SD) |
| Marital Conflict | 3.63 (.51) | 3.64 (.56) |
| Current Relationship Quality | 5.60 (1.02) | 5.60 (.99) |
| Involvement | 4.34 (.44) | 4.06 (.54) |
| Connectedness | 4.98 (.55) | 4.78 (.70) |
| Proactive Parenting | 3.81 (.47) | 3.64 (.51) |
| Behavioral Regulation of Child | 2.84 (.67) | n/a |
| Emotional Regulation of Child | 2.95 (.66) | n/a |
| Cognitive Regulation of Child | 2.77 (.63) | n/a |
Table 2
Bivariate Correlations for Child Self-Regulation (SR), Parenting, and Marital Relationship Variables as a Function of Parent Gender
| BehavioralRegulation | EmotionalRegulation | CognitiveRegulation | Involvement | Connectedness | ProactiveParenting | MaritalConflict | RelationshipQuality | |
| BehavioralRegulation | — | n/a | n/a | .127* | .206** | .022 | .210** | .157** |
| EmotionalRegulation | .369** | — | n/a | .116* | .231** | .013 | .186* | .104 |
| CognitiveRegulation | .476** | .346** | — | .121* | .101 | -.021 | .058 | .007 |
| Involvement | .051 | .120* | .211** | — | .487** | .242** | .152** | .113 |
| Connectedness | .216** | .392** | .273** | .373** | — | .280** | .338** | .249** |
| ProactiveParenting | -.091 | .011 | .120* | .314** | .154** | — | .073 | .019 |
| MaritalConflict | .211** | .245** | .115* | .046 | .175** | .084 | — | .594** |
| RelationshipQuality | .148* | .209** | .147* | .116* | .193** | .038 | .587** | — |
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Note. Father variables are above the diagonal, mother reports are below the diagonal. Only mothers reported on child regulation items.
Table 3
Decomposition of Effects of Marital Relationship Quality on Child Regulation Scores
| Variable | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | ||||||
| Beh | Emo | Cog | Beh | Emo | Cog | Beh | Emo | Cog | |
| Marital Relationship | .167 | .130 | — | .062 | .090 | .035 | .229 | .220 | .035 |
| Mother Involvement | — | — | .129 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Mother Connectedness | .189 | .349 | .223 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Mother Proactive | -.141 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Father Involvement | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Father Connectedness | .099 | .106 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Father Proactive | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Final model illustrating the significant pathways to adolescent self-regulation.
