MARJOLEIN VERHOEVEN Utrecht University

MARIANNE JUNGER University of Twente*

CHANTAL VAN AKEN Utrecht University**

MAJA DEKOVIĆ Utrecht University***

MARCEL A. G. VAN AKEN Utrecht University****

Mothering, Fathering, and Externalizing

Behavior in Toddler Boys

This study examined the effects of reported Results suggest that the associations between
maternal and paternal support, psychological specific parenting dimensions and children’s
control, and spanking on externalizing behavior externalizing behavior need to be considered
of toddler boys. Questionnaires were adminis- within the context of other parenting dimensions
tered to both parents of 104 two-parent families that are displayed within the family.
with a 3-year-old son. Both maternal and pater-
nal psychological control was related to boys’ Research has consistently shown that toddlers
externalizing behavior. Interaction effects were displaying high levels of externalizing behaviors
found, in that the association between mater- are at risk for continuing behavioral problems
nal spanking and boys’ externalizing behavior throughout their life course (Campbell, Shaw,
was stronger when levels of maternal support & Gilliom, 2000), particularly in male toddlers
were high. High levels of paternal support (Alink et al., 2006), highlighting the importance
strengthened the association between mater- of studying these behaviors during early child-
nal support and boys’ externalizing behaviors. hood. A range of parenting behaviors has been
linked to children’s externalizing behaviors at
this early age (Maccoby, 2000). Direct empirical
Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, tests of the notion that the effects of individual
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
(J.C.T.Verhoeven@uu.nl).
parenting behaviors depend on the context of the
parent-child relationship are surprisingly scarce,
*University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands. however. Moreover, in spite of the acknowl-
**Department of Developmental Psychology, Utrecht edgment that children’s development occurs in
University, The Netherlands. the broader context of the family (Feinberg,
***Department of Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, 2003), there is little research examining com-
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. bined effects of mothering and fathering on
****Department of Developmental Psychology, Utrecht children’s externalizing behavior. The current
University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. study will expand existing knowledge on the
Key Words: antisocial behavior, early childhood, family role of parenting in externalizing behaviors of
interaction, fathers, mothers. 3-year-old boys by examining (a) the relative
Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (April 2010): 307 – 317 307
DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00701.x
308 Journal of Marriage and Family

importance of concurrent parenting dimensions, specific parenting dimensions by studying them

(b) whether one parenting dimension moder- simultaneously.
ates the effect of other parenting dimensions, Second, it may be that the association
(c) whether the effects of parenting on children’s between a parenting dimension and the child’s
problem behavior are similar for mothers and externalizing behavior varies as a function of the
fathers, and (d) the interaction effects between level of the other parenting dimensions the parent
mothering and fathering. displays (moderation). For example, supportive
Three parenting dimensions that have been mothers may use physical punishment based
the focus of many studies on the role of parents on child-oriented, rather than parent-oriented,
in children’s externalizing behavior are support, motives and combine spanking with follow-
psychological control, and spanking. Support through on disciplinary warnings and absence
(e.g., responsiveness, involvement) refers to of verbal insults and ridicule (Larzelere,
parents’ connectedness to the child and their 1996). Alternatively, the context of the parent-
interactional warmth and has been found to be child relationship may change the child’s
associated with lower levels of externalizing interpretation of behavior. Using the same
behaviors in toddlers (Smith, Landry, & Swank, example, children might be less likely to
2000). Psychological control refers to parents’ interpret physical punishment as an indication of
attempts to control the child’s behaviors through rejection when the relationship with the parent
psychological means, such as by intrusive behav- is generally warm and supportive (McLoyd
ior (Barber, 1996), by the withdrawal of love & Smith, 2002). Indeed, Caron, Weis, Harris,
(i.e., giving the message to the child that he is and Catron (2006) found that a frequent use
not loved when he misbehaves), or by yelling of psychological control was only related to
(i.e., intimidating the child). Although not often more externalizing problems in 9-year-olds in
studied in early childhood, a growing body the context of low levels of parental warmth. For
of evidence shows that this parenting dimen- children age 4 – 10 years, McLoyd and Smith
sion is associated with externalizing behavior showed that spanking was only associated with
in middle childhood and adolescence (Hart, an increase in externalizing behaviors when
Nelson, Robinson, Frost Olsen, & McNeilly- displayed in a context of low emotional support.
Choque, 1998; Mills & Rubin, 1998). Spanking Likewise, McKee and colleagues (2007) found
has repeatedly been shown to be linked with that parental warmth served to buffer the
high levels of externalizing behavior (DeKlyen, detrimental effects of verbal punishment (i.e.,
Speltz, & Greenberg, 1998; Stormshak, Bier- yelling) and harsh physical discipline (i.e.,
man, McMahon, & Lengua, 2000), although this slapping or hitting) on externalizing and
seems to apply mostly for middle-class White internalizing behavior of fifth- and sixth-
families and not necessarily for ethnic and racial grade children. We are not aware of studies
minorities (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997). that examined whether support, psychological
One of the gaps in the literature on the asso- control, and spanking interact in the prediction
ciations between parenting and child behavior is of children’s externalizing behaviors in early
that past research often studied parenting dimen- childhood. The second aim of our study was
sions separately, ignoring, first, the possibility to examine three two-way interaction effects of
that parenting dimensions may be interrelated parenting dimensions on toddler’s externalizing
and, second, the possibility that the effects of par- behaviors: support versus spanking, support
ticular parenting dimensions might be dependent versus psychological control, and spanking
on the broader context of the parent-child rela- versus psychological control. We hypothesized
tionship. This has limited existing knowledge in that the association between psychological
at least two ways. First, it becomes difficult to control/spanking and children’s externalizing
draw conclusions about the specificity of associ- behavior would be stronger in a context of low
ations between a particular parenting dimension support than in the context of high support.
and children’s behavior because studying parent- In addition, the relation between psychological
ing dimensions in isolation makes it impossible control and children’s externalizing behavior
to judge the importance of specific parenting was expected to be stronger in a context of high
dimensions relative to other parenting dimen- levels of spanking and vice versa.
sions. The first aim of the present study was Another gap in the literature on the associ-
therefore to examine the relative importance of ations between parenting and child behavior is
Parenting and Externalizing Behavior in Toddlers 309

the lack of knowledge concerning the effects of from either parent moderated the association
specific parenting dimensions within the con- between children’s externalizing behaviors and
text of the family. Evidence for the associations harsh physical discipline of the other parent
between parenting dimensions and externalizing (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997; McKee et al.,
behavior is largely derived from studies concern- 2007). The fourth aim of the current study was to
ing the mother-child relationship, on the basis move beyond the traditional dyadic parent-child
of the assumption that mothers are often the pri- relationship and to examine the effects of one
mary caregivers and will have the largest impact parent’s behavior on children’s development in
on children. The literature, however, is incon- the context of the other parent’s behavior.
clusive as to whether fathers have less influence On the basis of a sample of Dutch families,
on children’s development than mothers do. the current study examined the roles of concur-
Some studies reported that only maternal sup- rent maternal and paternal parenting dimensions
port affected children’s externalizing problems in externalizing behavior displayed by toddler
(Aunola & Nurmi, 2005; Brook, Zheng, White- boys. As in most Western cultures, in The
man, & Brook, 2001), whereas others found that Netherlands mothers are most often the primary
maternal and paternal support has similar effects caregivers during early childhood. Moreover,
on children’s externalizing behavior (Davidov & all forms of physical punishment (including
Grusec, 2006). Brook and colleagues found that spanking) have been forbidden by the Dutch
maternal, but not paternal, psychological control law since 2006. Because externalizing behav-
was positively related to aggression in toddlers. iors of children are likely to be influenced by
Casas and colleagues (2006), on the other hand, the family’s socioeconomic status (Patterson,
found a positive relationship between maternal Kupperschmidt, & Vaden, 1990), the hours of
psychological control and physical aggression nonparental care (National Institute of Child
in boys, whereas paternal psychological control Health and Human Development Early Child-
was negatively associated with this aggressive care Research Network, 2003), the family size
behavior. Given the inconsistencies in results, (Campbell et al., 2000), and the age of the
the third aim of the present study was to examine mother, we controlled for these variables.
whether maternal and paternal support, psy-
chological control, and spanking are similarly
related to children’s externalizing behaviors. METHOD
The importance of including both mothers Participants
and fathers is also emphasized by the growing
awareness that the association between parent- Data for the present study were collected as a
ing dimensions and children’s behavior may be part of a broader longitudinal project concerning
influenced by the interrelated components of the boys’ externalizing problems and family devel-
family system (Feinberg, 2003). According to opment. A sample of 104 two-parent families
family-system theories, the family is a complex, with a toddler son (mean age = 34.9 months,
integrated whole, wherein individual family range 33 – 37, SD = 0.71) was recruited. Only
members and subsystems (i.e., mother-child, families with a son were included because boys
father-child, mother-father dyads) are interde- displaying these early externalizing behaviors
pendent, exerting a continuous and reciprocal are at greater risk for continued behavior prob-
influence on one another (Cox & Paley, 1997). lems than girls (Alink et al., 2006). The parents
Although studies have been focusing on the pat- in this study were primarily Dutch (97%) and
terns of interactions across certain subsystems college-educated (65.6% of the mothers and
within the family (e.g., studies investigating the 89.5% of the fathers having a college degree or
influence of the quality of the marital relationship more). In 53.6% of the families, the target child
on parenting behavior), few studies have focused was the firstborn child, and the average number
on the combined effects of mothering and father- of children in the participating families was 1.96.
ing on children’s behavior. Two studies have
shown that the association between parenting
Procedure
behavior of one parent with children’s behavior
is moderated by the parenting behavior displayed The recruitment of these families was based on
by the other parent, finding that high levels the records of infant health clinics (i.e., clin-
of positive parenting (i.e., parental warmth) ics that monitor the growth and development of
310 Journal of Marriage and Family

all Dutch 0 – 4-year-old children) in three cities Mothers reported slightly higher levels of exter-
situated in the central region of The Nether- nalizing behavior (M = 0.64, SD = 0.30) than
lands. A recruitment letter explaining the goals fathers (M = 0.57, SD = 0.28), t (103) = 2.68,
of the project was sent to 192 families and was p < .01. The correlation coefficient of .58, how-
followed up by a telephone call; 117 families ever, shows moderate to high agreement between
volunteered. A lack of time was the most com- mothers’ and fathers’ reports of boys’ exter-
mon reason for refusal to participate. Self-report nalizing behaviors. In order to obtain a more
inventories were administered to both mother complete picture of the child’s externalizing
and father when the child was approximately behavior (Goodman, Ford, Simmons, Gatward,
35 months of age. Completed questionnaires & Meltzer, 2000) and to reduce problems asso-
were collected by research assistants during ciated with informant bias, the mean scores of
home visits. Of the 117 families, 5 families maternal and paternal reports on their son’s
(4.3%) were excluded as mothers and fathers externalizing behavior were averaged.
lived separately, 4 families (3.4%) dropped out
because of relocation, and another 4 families Parenting. A threefold classification of parent-
(3.4%) were excluded as one parent (3 mothers, ing was used consisting of support, psycho-
1 father) did not return the questionnaire, leaving logical control, and spanking. This model was
complete data for 104 families (88.9%). confirmed by a confirmatory factor analysis and
was found to measure parenting invariant for
mothers and fathers. In addition, the dimensions
Instruments had satisfactory internal consistency and were
Control variables. The education and occupa- related to parental personality, contextual fea-
tion of both parents were used to classify the fam- tures (e.g., SES and marital satisfaction), and
ily’s socioeconomic status (SES; M = 11.10, children’s temperament in the predicted direc-
SD = 2.01), using the four-factor index devel- tion (Verhoeven, Junger, Van Aken, Deković,
oped by Brandis and Henderson (1970). Mothers & Van Aken, 2007). Scores were assigned by
were asked to indicate the number of hours spent computing mean scores of all items in the scales,
by the child in nonparental care (M = 14.77, with a high score indicating higher levels of the
SD = 8.57) and the number of children living at parenting dimensions.
home (family size: M = 2.0, SD = 0.89). When
the children were 17 months (the first wave of Support. Four items from the Nijmeegse Parent-
the longitudinal project), the age of mothers ing Questionnaire (Gerris et al., 1993) measur-
ranged from 23 to 45 years (mean age = 34.1, ing parental responsiveness and sensitivity (e.g.,
SD = 4.07). ‘‘When my child is upset, I am able to comfort
him’’) and five items from the Parent Practices
Child externalizing behavior. Parents filled out Scale (Strayhorn & Weidman, 1988) measur-
the complete version of the Child Behavior ing parental involvement in positive interactions
Checklist 1.5 – 5 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000), with the child (e.g., ‘‘How often do you do some-
a widely used measure of children’s problem thing special with your child that he enjoys?’’)
behavior with satisfactory reliability and valid- were combined to assess parental support. Par-
ity (Vignoe, Berube, & Achenbach, 2000). The ents rated the frequency of their parenting behav-
current study used the broad externalizing scale. ior on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = never
Parents responded on a 3-point scale, ranging to 5 = always and 1 = never to 5 = many times
from 0 = never to 2 = often, as to whether each day, respectively. Crohnbach’s alpha was
attention problems (5 items) and aggressive .63 for mothers and .73 for fathers.
behaviors (19 items) were indicative of their
child’s behavior. Raw scores were used to indi- Psychological control. Four items (Nijmeegse
cate each boy’s level of externalizing behavior. Parenting Questionnaire; Gerris et al., 1993)
The internal reliability of this scale was .89 and measuring love withdrawal (e.g., ‘‘When my
.87 for maternal and paternal reports, respec- child misbehaves, I stop talking to him until
tively. According to these reports, 19.3% of the he pleases me again’’) and five items (Parent
boys scored above the borderline clinical range Behavior Checklist; Fox, 1994) measuring
of externalizing behaviors, which is represen- parents’ tendency to raise their voice as a
tative for the Dutch population (Koot, 1993). response to their child’s misbehavior (e.g.,
Parenting and Externalizing Behavior in Toddlers 311

‘‘I yell at my child for being too noisy at home’’) externalizing behavior and the three parent-
were combined to assess psychological control. ing dimensions were not significantly different
All items were measured on a 5-point scale for mothers and fathers, zSupport (102) = 1.68,
(1 = never to 5 = always). Crohnbach’s alpha p = .09, zSpanking (102) = −1.68, p = .09,
was .73 for mothers and .77 for fathers. zPsychological Control (102) = −1.55, p = .12.
Three hierarchical regression models exam-
Spanking. Five items drawn from the Parent ined the main effects and the interaction effects
Behavior Checklist (Fox, 1994) and three items of the three parenting dimensions: one model
from the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire for maternal behavior, one model for paternal
(Shelton, Frick, & Wootton, 1996) assessed behavior (Table 2), and a combined model to
parental use of spanking. Seven of these items examine the relative contributions of maternal
refer to light forms of spanking (i.e., a smack and paternal behavior (Table 3). Control vari-
on the bottom), and one item refers to using an ables were entered in the first step. In the second
object to spank with. On a 5-point scale, parents step, standardized measures of the three parent-
had to indicate how often they use spanking as a ing dimensions were added. In the third step, the
disciplinary technique, ranging from 1 = never multiplied term of the standardized measures
to 5 = always. Sample items are ‘‘When my of the parenting dimensions were added (Aiken
child has a temper tantrum, I spank him’’ and & West, 1991); for the maternal and paternal
‘‘You smack your child on the bottom when he model there were three interactive terms, and for
has done something wrong.’’ Chronbach’s alpha the combined model there were six interactive
was .77 for mothers and .70 for fathers. terms (three for mothers and three for fathers).
The maternal model accounted for 42% of
RESULTS the variance in boys’ externalizing behavior,
F (11, 98) = 5.71, p < .001 (Table 2). Maternal
Preliminary Analyses support was negatively related to externalizing
Descriptive statistics for the measures of exter- behavior and maternal psychological control
nalizing behavior and parenting are presented was positively related to externalizing behavior.
in Table 1. Approximately 3% of the data were A significant interaction effect was found for
missing, and missing value analysis indicated maternal support and spanking. To examine
these data were missing completely at ran- the nature of this interaction, the effects of the
dom, maternal data Little’s MCAR χ 2 (276) = parenting dimensions on externalizing behavior
283.94, ns, paternal data, and χ 2 (559) = are estimated at 1 SD below the mean and 1
586.32, ns (Little & Rubin, 1987). Missing val- SD above the mean of maternal support and
ues were imputed on the basis of all study vari- spanking (Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 1 shows
ables using the EM algorithm (Allison, 2002). that maternal spanking is positively related to
Paired t tests showed that the level boys’ externalizing behavior, but this association
of support differed significantly between is stronger in the context of high levels of
mothers and fathers, with mothers rating maternal support than in the context of low
themselves slightly higher on this parenting levels of maternal support.
dimension, t (103) = 5.52, p < .001. Fisher z The paternal model accounted for 15% of
tests showed that the correlations between the variance in boys’ externalizing behavior,

Table 1. Correlations Between Child’s Behavior Problems and Maternal and Paternal Behavior at 35 Months (N = 104)

Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. M SD Min Max

1. Externalizing behaviors — 0.60 0.26 0.02 1.17

2. Maternal support −.26∗∗ — 4.41 0.32 3.44 5.00
3. Maternal psychological control .45∗∗∗ −.21∗ — 1.87 0.43 1.00 2.78
4. Maternal spanking .27∗∗ −.11 .34∗∗∗ — 1.31 0.37 1.00 2.63
5. Paternal support −.03 .19∗ −.05 −.14 — 4.15 0.43 3.22 5.00
6. Paternal psychological control .26∗∗ −.03 .36∗∗∗ .17 −.33∗∗ — 1.87 0.48 1.00 3.22
7. Paternal spanking .04 .03 .16 .31∗∗ −.15 .32∗∗ — 1.38 0.43 1.00 2.88
∗p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
312 Journal of Marriage and Family

Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Maternal Behavior Predicting Child’s Externalizing Behavior (N = 104)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Socioeconomic status −.02 .02 −.13 −.01 .01 −.09 −.02 .01 −.11
Hours in care −.00 .00 −.06 −.00 .00 −.07 −.00 .00 −.09
Family size .06 .03 .21# .03 .03 .10 .02 .03 .07
Age mother −.01 .01 −.08 −.00 .01 −.02 .00 .01 .00
Support −.06 .02 −.24∗∗ −.05 .02 −.21∗
Psychological control .11 .02 .42∗∗∗ .11 .02 .42∗∗∗
Physical punishment .03 .02 .10 .02 .03 .08
Support × Psychological control .00 .03 .00
Support × Physical punishment .07 .03 .22∗
Psychological control × Physical punishment .03 .03 .11
R2 .07 .36∗∗∗ .41∗∗∗
F for change in R 2 1.72 13.96 2.40
#
p < .10; ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Paternal Behavior Predicting Child’s Externalizing Behavior
(N = 104)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Socioeconomic status −.02 .02 −.13 −.02 .02 −.15 −.02 .02 −.17
Hours in care −.00 .00 −.06 −.00 .00 −.06 .00 .00 −.03
Family size .06 .03 .21# .05 .03 .15 .05 .04 .17
Age mother −.01 .01 −.08 −.01 .01 −.07 −.01 .01 −.07
Support .03 .03 .10 .03 .03 .10
Psychological control .07 .03 .27∗ .07 .03 .28∗
Physical punishment −.02 .03 −.09 −.02 .03 −.07
Support × Psychological control −.00 .03 −.01
Support × Physical punishment .04 .03 .15
Psychological control × Physical punishment .00 .03 .02
R2 .07 .12 .14
F for change in R 2 1.72 1.98 0.66
#
p < .10; ∗ p < .05.

F (11, 98) = 1.38, p = .20 (Table 2). Although analysis (with paternal behavior entered first)
the overall model did not yield significance, led to similar results. Thus, maternal parenting
paternal psychological control was positively contributed to children’s externalizing behav-
related to externalizing behaviors of the child. ior above and beyond paternal parenting. Note
None of the interactive terms reached statistical that the effect of paternal psychological control,
significance. which was statistically significant in the father
The combined model accounted for 45% of model, no longer reached significance, indi-
the variance in children’s externalizing behavior, cating that paternal psychological control had
F (17, 98) = 3.89, p < .001 (Table 3). Mater- no unique effect on boys’ externalizing behav-
nal behavior predicted a significant portion of ior after controlling for the effects of maternal
the variance, R 2 = .34, p < .001, whereas parenting.
paternal behavior did not, R 2 = .03, p = .61. A fourth hierarchical regression model
Changing the order in which maternal and tested the interactive effects between maternal
paternal behavior was entered in the regression and paternal behavior. Control variables were
Parenting and Externalizing Behavior in Toddlers 313

FIGURE 1. CHILD’S EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR AS A levels maternal support, paternal support was
FUNCTION OF MATERNAL SUPPORT AND MATERNAL positively related to children’s externalizing
SPANKING. behavior (Table 4).
Child's Externalizing Behavior

0.8 Low Maternal

Support
0.7
High Maternal DISCUSSION
0.6 Support
0.5 The current study expanded existing knowl-
0.4 edge regarding the role of parenting in toddler’s
0.3 externalizing behavior by examining the effects
0.2 of three parenting dimensions in the context
0.1 of the parent-child relationship and the family.
0
Low High
Results indicated that boys’ levels of externaliz-
Mother's Use of ing behavior were positively related with mater-
Spanking
nal and paternal use of psychological control.
The association between maternal spanking and
boys’ externalizing behavior was stronger when
levels of maternal support were high. In addi-
FIGURE 2. CHILD’S EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIOR AS A tion, maternal and paternal support interacted
FUNCTION OF THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN MATERNAL AND when influencing boys’ externalizing behaviors,
PATERNAL SUPPORT. indicating the importance of viewing the family
from a system perspective. When interpreting
0.8 Low Paternal
these findings, it is important to keep in mind
Child's Externalizing Behavior

Support
0.7
High Paternal that this study was concerned with two-parent
0.6 Support
families with a toddler son. The results may not
0.5
generalize to other family types.
0.4
In line with findings for older children (Hart
0.3
et al., 1998), the current study found that toddler
0.2
boys of mothers and fathers who engage in
0.1 psychological control displayed higher levels
0 of externalizing behavior. Although the role of
Low High
Maternal psychological control in early childhood has not
Support often been investigated, these results suggest
that the use of psychological control is already
evidently related to children’s externalizing
behavior during this period. It is thought
that psychological control limits the child’s
entered in the first step. In the second opportunities to build a healthy self-image,
step, standardized measures of the six mater- which constrains the development of socially
nal and paternal dimensions were added. In accepted behavior (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005;
the third step, the nine multiplied terms of Brook et al., 2001). Toddlerhood is an important
the standardized measures of maternal and period in which self-image begins to develop
paternal parenting dimensions were added (Harter, 1998). It is therefore not surprising that
(SupportMother × SupportFather , SupportMother this parenting dimension plays a significant role
× SpankingFather , etc.). in toddlers’ externalizing behavior.
This model accounted for 46% of the It is important to note that, once maternal
variance in children’s externalizing behavior, behavior was controlled for, the effect of
F (19, 99) = 3.54, p < .001. A trend was found paternal psychological control no longer reached
for the interactive term of maternal and paternal significance. Maternal psychological control
support, β = −.17, p = .06. The two lines contributed uniquely to the boy’s externalizing
depicted in Figure 2 illustrate that the positive behavior above and beyond the behavior of
association between maternal support and boys’ father. Thus, maternal behavior seems a more
externalizing behavior is stronger in the context important predictor of the behavior of the child
of high paternal support than in the context of than paternal behavior, which is consistent with
low paternal support. In the context of lower previous findings (e.g., Aunola & Nurmi, 2005;
314 Journal of Marriage and Family

Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Maternal and Paternal Behavior Predicting Child’s
Externalizing Behavior at 35 Months (N = 104)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β

Socioeconomic status −.02 .02 −.13 −.02 .01 −.11 −.02 .01 −.15
Hours in care −.00 .00 −.06 −.00 .00 −.09 −.00 .00 −.11
Family size .06 .03 .21# .02 .03 .07 .03 .03 .12
Age mother −.01 .01 −.08 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00
Maternal parenting
Support −.05 .02 −.21∗ −.07 .03 −.26∗
Psychological control .11 .02 .42∗∗∗ .10 .03 .38∗∗∗
Physical punishment .02 .03 .08 .02 .03 .08
Support × Psychological control .00 .03 .00 .01 .03 .02
Support × Physical punishment .07 .03 .22∗ .06 .03 .18#
Psychological control × Physical punishment .03 .03 .11 .03 .03 .10
Paternal parenting
Support .03 .03 .11
Psychological control .02 .03 .09
Physical punishment −.02 .03 −.08
Support × Psychological control −.01 .03 −.03
Support × Physical punishment .03 .03 .12
Psychological control × Physical punishment −.01 .03 −.02
R2 .07 .41∗∗∗ .44∗∗∗
F for change in R 2 1.72 8.50 0.72
#p < .10; ∗ p < .05; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

Brook et al., 2001), suggesting that the primary are more open to parenting behavior and as such
roles of maternal and paternal psychological are more influenced by other parenting behavior
control differ. Children prefer to seek affection the parent displays (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
and warmth from mothers (Paquette, 2004). Maternal and paternal support interacted in
This may explain why the use of psychological the prediction of boys’ externalizing behavior.
control by mothers, which is characterized by High levels of paternal support strengthened the
rejection and manipulation, is more detrimental association between maternal support and boys’
to the child than when fathers use psychological externalizing behavior. Surprisingly, in the con-
control. text of low levels of maternal support, paternal
For mothering, we found that support and support was positively related to externalizing
spanking interacted in predicting children’s problems displayed by the child. One possible
externalizing behaviors. The nature of this explanation for this counterintuitive finding is
interactive effect, however, is counterintuitive; that mothers experience higher levels of stress
instead of diminishing the negative effects of than fathers when their child displays exter-
spanking, high levels of support strengthened nalizing problems, which then leads to lower
the association between maternal spanking and levels of support of these mothers (Baker &
boys’ externalizing behavior. It is possible that Heller, 1996). In addition to these increased
the ambiguous signals that mothers send to their stress levels, mothers might also feel more need
child by being both supportive and aggressive for assistance in dealing with their child (Baker
at the same time may negatively affect child & Heller). Mothers needing more help with child
adjustment by arousing internal distress and neg- rearing may spur fathers into becoming more
ative emotions leading to externalizing behav- involved and supportive in an effort to assist
iors (Olsen et al., 2002). Another explanation is the mother in dealing with a difficult child and
that children of warm and supportive mothers to compensate for the dysfunctional maternal
Parenting and Externalizing Behavior in Toddlers 315

behaviors (Lindsey, Caldera, & Collwell, 2005). externalizing behavior, supporting the notion
This result suggests that in two-parent fami- that concurrent parenting dimensions should be
lies, one parent may try to compensate for the studied simultaneously. Third, paternal support
dysfunctional behavior of the other parent. strengthened the association between maternal
The finding of our study that the relationship support and boys’ externalizing behaviors, sug-
between the caregiving of one parent and chil- gesting that future studies should examine triadic
dren’s behavior is influenced by the caregiving relationships. In conclusion, the results of the
of the other parent is in accordance with recent current study suggest that fathers as well as
findings by McKee and colleagues (2007) and mothers play an important role in understanding
suggests that processes at the family level are children’s externalizing behavior and that the
uniquely related to children’s development. To associations between specific parenting dimen-
gain a better understanding of the associations sions and children’s externalizing behavior need
between parenting and child behavior it seems to be considered within the context of other par-
important to look beyond dyadic parent-child enting dimensions that are displayed within the
relationships. Future studies focusing on triadic family.
relations are required to investigate these family-
level processes more thoroughly, for example,
by observing coparenting processes between NOTE
parents and children. This study was based on a part of the first author’s dissertation
When interpreting the results of this study at the University of Amsterdam. We are grateful to the
one should be aware of some limitations. First, mothers, fathers, and children for their valuable time and
information.
the sole reliance on questionnaires may have
resulted in parenting and children’s externalizing
behavior being not reliably assessed because REFERENCES
of social desirability effects (Nederhof, 1985)
and may have inflated the relationship between Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual
variables due to shared method bias. In addition, for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles.
Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.
our reliance on multiple reports regarding the Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regres-
child’s externalizing behavior decreases but sion: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thou-
does not eliminate the problem of reporter bias. sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Second, the data of this study were obtained at Alink, L. R. A., Mesman, J., Van Zeijl, J., Stolk, M. N.,
a single moment in time, limiting the ability to Juffer, F., Koot, H. M., Bakermans-Kranenburg,
determine the direction of the effects. Third, M. J., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2006). The
the results of the interaction effects should early childhood aggression curve: Development
be interpreted carefully given the number of of physical aggression in 10- to 50-month-old
statistical tests that were conducted. Fourth, children. Child Development, 77, 954 – 966.
the focus on a relatively homogeneous sample, Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
consisting of Dutch, two-parent, middle-class
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2005). The role of
families with a male toddler, limits the ability parenting styles in children’s problem behavior.
to generalize the results to families in different Child Development, 76, 1144 – 1159.
circumstances, such as one-parent families or Baker, B. L., & Heller, T. L. (1996). Preschool
stepfamilies. Future research with a larger and children with externalizing behaviors: Experience
more heterogeneous sample and samples from of fathers and mothers. Journal of Abnormal Child
different cultures is needed. Psychology, 24, 513 – 532.
This study is valuable in expanding our Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control:
knowledge regarding the associations between Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Develop-
three specific parenting dimensions and chil- ment, 76, 3296 – 3319.
dren’s externalizing behavior within the family Brandis, W., & Henderson, D. (1970). Primary
socialization, language and education: Social
context. First, parents’ use of psychological con- class, language and communication. Oxford, UK:
trol as a discipline technique was shown to be Sage.
related with more externalizing behaviors in Brook, J. S., Zheng, L., Whiteman, M., & Brook,
toddlers. Second, high levels of maternal sup- D. W. (2001). Aggression in toddlers: Associations
port did not deteriorate but strengthened the with parenting and marital relations. Journal of
association between spanking and children’s Genetic Psychology, 162, 228 – 241.
316 Journal of Marriage and Family

Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (2000). (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 553 –
Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers 617). New York: Wiley.
and preschoolers at risk for maladjustment. Koot, J. M. (1993). Problem behavior in Dutch
Development and Psychopathology, 12, 467 – 488. preschoolers. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Eras-
Caron, A., Weis, B., Harris, V., & Catron, T. (2006). mus University.
Parenting behavior dimensions and child psy- Larzelere, R. E. (1996). A review of the outcomes of
chopathology: Specificity, task dependency, and parental use of nonabusive or customary physical
interactive relations. Journal of Clinical Child and punishment. Pediatrics, 98, 824 – 828.
Adolescent Psychology, 35, 34 – 45. Lindsey, E. W., Caldera, Y., & Collwell, M. (2005).
Casas, J. F., Weigel, S. M., Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Correlates of coparenting during infancy. Family
Woods, K. E., Jansen Yeh, E. A., & Huddleston- Relations, 54, 346 – 359.
Casas, C. A. (2006). Early parenting and children’s Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analy-
relational and physical aggression in the preschool sis with missing data. New York: John Wiley.
and home context. Journal of Applied Develop- Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its effects on
mental Psychology, 27, 209 – 227. children: On reading and misreading behavior
Cox, M. J. & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 1 – 29.
Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243 – 267. McKee, L. Roland, E., Coffelt, N., Olson, A.L., Fore-
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style hand, R., Massari, C., Jones, D., Gaffney, C.A., &
as context: An integrative model. Psychological Zens, M.S. (2007). Harsh discipline and child
Bulletin, 113, 487 – 496. problem behaviors: The role of positive parent-
Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the ing and gender. Journal of Family Violence, 22,
links of parental responsiveness to distress and 187 – 196.
warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, McLoyd, V. C., & Smith, J. (2002). Physical disci-
77, 44 – 58. pline and behavior problems in African-American,
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Exter- European American, and Hispanic children: Emo-
nalizing behavior problems and discipline revis- tional support as a moderator. Journal of Marriage
ited: Nonlinear effects and variation by culture, and Family, 64, 40 – 53.
Mills, R. S. L, & Rubin, K. H. (1998). Are behavioural
context, and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8,
and psychological control both differentially
161 – 175.
associated with childhood aggression and social
DeKlyen, M., Speltz, M. L., & Greenberg, M. T.
withdrawal? Canadian Journal of Behavioural
(1998). Fathering and early onset conduct prob-
Science, 30, 132 – 136.
lems: Positive and negative parenting, father-son
National Institute of Child Health and Human
attachment, and the marital context. Clinical Child
Development Early Childcare Research Network.
and Family Psychology Review, 1, 3 – 21. (2003). Does amount of time spent in child care
Feinberg, M. E. (2003). The internal structure and predict socio-emotional adjustment during the
ecological context of coparenting: A framework transition to kindergarten? Child Development, 74,
for research and intervention. Parenting, Science 976 – 1005.
and Practice, 3, 95 – 131. Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social
Fox, R. A. (1994). Parent behavior checklist. Bran- desirability bias: A review. European Journal of
don, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Com- Social Psychology, 15, 263 – 280.
pany. Olsen, S. F., Yang, C., Hart, C. H., Robinson, C. C.,
Gerris, J. R. M., Van Boxtel, D. A. A. M., Vermulst, Wu, P., Nelson, D. A., Jin, S., & Wo, J. (2002).
A. A., Janssens, J. M. A. M., Van Zutphen, R. A. H., Maternal psychological control and preschool chil-
& Felling, A. J. A. (1993). Parenting in Dutch dren’s behavioral outcomes in China, Russia, and
families. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: University the United States. In B. K. Barber (Ed.), Intrusive
of Nijmegen, Institute of Family Studies. parenting: How psychological control affects chil-
Goodman, R., Ford, T., Simmons, H., Gatward, R., dren and adolescents (pp. 235 – 262). Washington,
& Meltzer, H. (2000). Using the Strengths and DC: American Psychological Association.
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child
child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. relationship: Mechanisms and developmental
British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 534 – 539. outcomes. Human Development, 47, 193 – 219.
Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Frost Patterson, C. J., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Vaden, N. A.
Olsen, S., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). (1990). Income level, gender, ethnicity, and
Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery- household composition as predictors of children’s
school-age children: Parenting style and marital school-based competence. Child Development, 61,
linkages. Development Psychology, 34, 687 – 697. 485 – 494.
Harter, S. (1998). The development of self- Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996).
representations. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg Assessment of parenting practices in families
Parenting and Externalizing Behavior in Toddlers 317

of elementary school-age children. Journal of child mental health. Journal of the American
Clinical Child Psychology, 12, 317 – 329. Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27,
Smith, K. E., Landry, S. H., & Swank, P. R. (2000). 613 – 618.
The influence of early patterns of positive parenting Verhoeven, M., Junger, M., Van Aken, C., Deković,
on children’s preschool outcomes. Early Education M., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2007). Parenting
and Development, 11, 147 – 169. during toddlerhood: Contributions of parental,
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., contextual and child characteristics. Journal of
& Lengua, L. J. (2000). Parenting practices and Family Issues, 28, 1663 – 1691.
child disruptive behavior problems in early Vignoe, D., Berube, R. L., & Achenbach, T. M.
elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child (2000). Bibliography of published studies using
Psychology, 29, 17 – 29. the Child Behavior Checklist and related materi-
Strayhorn, J. M., & Weidman, C. S. (1988). A parent als (1999 ed.). Burlington: University of Vermont,
practices scale and its relation to parent and Department of Psychiatry.