3Address all correspondence to Daniel S. Shaw, Department of. Psychology, 4015 O'Hara ..... disruptive behavior (Winslow & Shaw, 1996). Just as siblings ...
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2000
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited Daniel S. Shaw,1,3 Richard Q. Bell,2 and Miles Gilliom1
This paper revisits a developmental model of the origins of early conduct problems. Several of the model’s primary tenets have now been validated in two samples of at-risk children followed prospectively from infancy to school-age. In both cohorts, child, family, and sociodemographic factors all play a significant role in the development of early conduct problems. In particular, the quality of the caregiving environment during the child’s second year differentiates clinical impairment according to both parent and teacher report 6 years later. We conclude by making recommendations for future studies. Research that utilizes a developmental framework, incorporates more sophisticated measurement of infant negative emotionality, and addresses the influences of neighborhood and culture, is suggested. KEY WORDS: Externalizing problems; parenting; temperament; coercion.
INTRODUCTION
ment have proven to be difficult (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999; Reid, 1993). Our limited success to effectively treat conduct problems among school age children and adolescents may be due to our inability to fully understand either the developmental trajectories leading to the disorder or the most appropriate content and timing of the intervention. As an example, past research on treatment of conduct problems has shown that interventions implemented prior to school age have a higher probability of success (Dishion & Patterson, 1992). In response to the need to more fully understand the origins of early conduct problems (Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton, 1996; Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991), Shaw and Bell (1993) proposed a bridging model of early conduct problems beginning in early childhood.
The goal of this paper is to revisit a developmental model of early conduct problems proposed earlier this decade (Shaw & Bell, 1993). This task will be carried out by reviewing the model’s original tenets, examining its validity using two cohorts of at-risk families, and offering recommendations for future studies in the area, for both basic and applied research. The study of antisocial behavior in childhood is important because of the direct cost of such behavior to society not only in terms of damaged property and disruption of normal patterns of living, but also because of the difficulty of treating delinquent youth, and the potential emergence of later adult criminality and other serious disorders such as substance abuse (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998). Despite the plethora of research on the treatment of antisocial behavior in childhood, efforts to prevent its develop-
INITIAL BRIDGING MODEL OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
1
University of Pittsburgh. University of Virginia. 3 Address all correspondence to Daniel S. Shaw, Department of Psychology, 4015 O’Hara Street, 604 Old Engineering Hall, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260-0001. 2
The goal of the bridging model was to integrate theory and normative empirical work on young children’s development with studies of correlates of older 155 1096-4037/00/0900-0155$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
156 children’s conduct problems. The work of several investigators figured prominently in the development of the bridging model. At a broad level, Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory provided a mechanism from which to understand parental influence, as the antisocial child’s lack of self-control was postulated to emerge from his inability to form an attachment to parents in early development. Sroufe’s (1983) conceptualization and application of attachment theory to early conduct problems was also instrumental, describing how avoidant working models are formed during infancy and demonstrating how they predisposed children to show later noncompliant and hostile acting out behavior (Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985). Greenberg’s and Speltz’ (1988) cognitiveaffective model, also conceptualized from an attachment perspective, provided specific examples of how parent–child interchanges from ages 2 to 4 would lead to early disruptive behavior based on the dyad’s inability to form a goal-corrected partnership. Finally, Patterson’s (1982) model of coercion applied principles from social learning theory to explain how patterns of family interaction might produce conduct problems in school-age children, a model adapted and validated in early childhood by Martin (1981). Martin’s work provided the critical empirical link for the model by demonstrating longitudinal associations between unresponsive caregiving and coercive parent-child interaction, thereby establishing a bridge between attachment and social learning models. Methodologically, we adopted the reciprocal effects model of Bell (1968) and the transactional perspective of Sameroff (1990). We also considered it critical to incorporate the normal cognitive and emotional changes that children undergo from infancy to school entry. Thus, our framework considered (1) ongoing influences that parents and children have on each other (Bell, 1968), and (2) the previous behavior of both parents and children in accounting for their later behavior (Sameroff, 1990) within the context of children’s rapidly evolving development. As is evident from our use of several other earlier theoretical frameworks, the model is an attempt to combine and integrate previous perspectives on developmental psychopathology. Its novelty rests primarily on its ability to synthesize perspectives from disparate theoretical frameworks and different developmental periods to provide a cohesive framework for understanding processes leading to the antecedents of conduct problems in early childhood. The model was originally targeted for young boys from low-income families, capitalizing on the
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom greater risk of serious conduct problems among males from impoverished settings and the more developed research base on the emergence of boys’ externalizing disorders. The focus on boys from high-risk environments is maintained in this paper; however, because girls were included in our two longitudinal studies of early conduct problems, we provide input about the generalizability to girls when possible (Keenan & Shaw, 1997). The same approach is used in relating our model to children from higher socioeconomic strata. When possible, findings are integrated with studies investigating similar issues with less impoverished samples. As an example, we include a summary of results from a joint project comparing trajectories of our low-income infants with Campbell’s hard-to-manage, predominantly middleclass preschoolers (Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, in press).
INTEGRATION OF ATTACHMENT AND SOCIAL LEARNING MODELS A primary goal of the model was to account for sequencing of early disruptive behaviors using a developmental framework. One paradigm that has been used to understand the development of conduct problems is coercion, a process that Patterson (1982) utilized to describe the conflictual pattern of interaction exhibited by disruptive school-age children and their families. In a coercive cycle, parent and child each behave in a way that is aversive to the other in order to control the other’s behavior. As the child becomes increasingly irritating, the parent escalates power assertion techniques. As the child’s aversive behaviors increase in intensity and frequency, the parent acquiesces, unwittingly reinforcing them. These cycles eventually lead to the child’s open defiance and behavior problems that in later development include being away from home excessively, lying, stealing, and more serious behaviors such as firesetting. Patterson and colleagues (1991) formalized the ‘‘early starter model,’’ which is one of two pathways by which children may emerge as chronically offending delinquent adolescents and antisocial adults. The other pathway, the late starter trajectory, emerges in early adolescence and in most cases has been associated with less chronic and serious offending. According to Patterson’s early starter model, families provide direct training in antisocial behavior for young boys through their family management practices. While Patterson (1982) acknowl-
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited edges that children contribute to parent’s ineffective parenting, greater emphasis is placed on parent than child characteristics. Alternatively, Moffitt’s (1993) early-starter model emphasizes impairments in child’s early neuropsychological functioning, as manifested by the cognitive deficits associated with ADHD (inattention, poor organization, and planning), which in turn are postulated to elicit ineffective parent management strategies and a trajectory of persistent conduct problems. Attachment theory has also been used to provide a framework for understanding the origins of early conduct problems (see Greenberg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993). Psychoanalysts such as Anna Freud and Spitz were among the first to point out the importance of the social role played by the mother in socioemotional development. The mother’s interaction with the infant was seen as leading the infant to perceive her as accessible and supportive, thus promoting ego development and movement through the normative stages of socioemotional development. Ethological/evolutionary theory placed still greater emphasis on the communicative function of emotions and social relationships, as well as on the adaptive value of the mother–infant relationship. Bowlby (1969) extended this theory by pointing out that signals such as smiles and cries provide the foundation for attachment bonds that promote the infant’s proximity to protective adults and thus have survival value. Ainsworth’s and Wittig’s (1969) differential theory, in turn, applied Bowlby’s general theory to individual differences. She specified the characteristics of the caregiver, such as contingent and appropriate responsiveness, that are presumed to produce secure versus anxious attachments. Attachment security is thought to reflect the infant’s internal working schema or model. This model lays the groundwork for patterns of social information processing in early childhood, which in turn underlie the child’s social and antisocial behavior (Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986). Securely attached infants would also be expected to function more harmoniously with their mothers in compliance situations because they are motivated to please the mothers, and attend to what she approves or disapproves (Stayton, Hogan, & Ainsworth, 1971). Moving into the preschool period, Greenberg and Speltz (1988) contend that disruptive behavior is an attempt to get attention or control the behavior of unresponsive or unpredictable caregivers in the absence of a goal-corrected partnership. Accordingly, secure preschoolers and their parents should be working together effectively in household work and
157
problem situations as the child becomes more adept at managing his own emotions, and at enlisting the help of caregivers when emotions threaten to become disorganizing (Martin, 1981). In integrating attachment theory with Patterson’s coercion model, we believed it was important to account for the quality of the parent-infant affective relationship in influencing the course of social learning processes. Thus, infants who were shown less contingently sensitive caregiving in the first 12 months would be more oppositional and defiant in responding to parental requests for attention. The potential for dyadic conflict was thought to peak between 18 and 30 months (i.e., the terrible twos), when toddlers’ newfound mobility and potential for naive mischief would stimulate parents to use control strategies and increase demands for socially appropriate behavior. While coercion theory posits that parental use of inconsistent, permissive, or overly harsh discipline would reinforce children’s oppositional and aggressive behavior, attachment theory suggests that in the first two years the quality of the parent-child relationship would place specific dyads at greater risk for engaging in these aversive interchanges, which in turn would set the stage for escalating parent-child conflict and conduct problems at preschool-age.
STAGES OF THE EARLY STARTER MODEL: INFANCY TO SCHOOL ENTRY At each age, the model is focused on relationships the child has in both his immediate and surrounding contexts and the challenges the child faces in these relationships. During the first year, interactions are primarily with the parents, and in most families the burden of this challenge is taken on by the mother. In these interchanges, the infant’s foremost challenge is to express his needs in a way that facilitates having them met. According to attachment theory, the challenge for the parent is to meet the infant’s needs in a sensitive and responsive manner. These goals are less likely to be met if the infant exhibits high irritability and/or the mother is unable to respond in a contingent and sensitive manner. From a transactional perspective, a year 1 antecedent of early coercive parent-child interactions would be an irritable or demanding infant coupled with an unresponsive mother. These conditions set the stage for the second year, where each partner finds interactions with the other aversive. This continued pattern produces a series of ‘‘hit or miss’’ dissociated interac-
158 tions, as the infant makes fewer and fewer overtures, and the mother further decreases her level of involvement. This pattern of negative interactions may be amplified by normative emotional and physical changes in the second year. For example, the infant moves from walking with assistance to ‘‘toddling,’’ thereby stressing the mother by moving into forbidden spaces and reaching for dangerous objects. Increases in undirected anger result in an increase of oppositional behavior, which in turn, may be reciprocated by the mother. Infants who show high rates of negative emotionality, particularly characterized by the persistent dysregulation of anger, would be expected to place exceptional burdens on caregivers (Calkins, 1994; Cole & Zahn-Waxler, 1992). With these developments, the infant’s behavior becomes more aversive and more in need of control during the second and third years. It is also important to recognize that by the end of the second year, maternal expectations for cooperation increase. As the infant fails to work with the mother cooperatively in joint tasks such as meal times, going to bed, and getting dressed, the dyad moves one step closer towards coercive behavior (Greenberg & Speltz, 1988). By age 3, the basic pattern of interaction and emotional attachment between the parent and child has been formed. The child has developed an internal working model of expected responsiveness from the mother. In turn, the mother has developed her own expectations and standards of appropriate responsiveness towards the child. Maternal responsiveness continues to play a salient role; however, with the child’s increased physical and cognitive maturity, a second parental factor begins to take on greater importance—parental insistence. Insistence refers to parent’s willingness to encourage children to step up the developmental ladder of social competence by gradually imploring them to take on more prosocial responsibilities and face adverse consequences for inappropriate behavior in a manner that is neither harsh or overly restrictive. In her study of early socialization practices with normal preschoolers, Baumrind (1972) found that early parental insistence was a vital component of the authoritative typology, the parenting style most preventive of later externalizing behavior problems. The other critical component of the authoritative typology was warmth and sensitivity, behaviors also associated with the formation of secure attachments during infancy. Unfortunately, in isolation warmth and sensitivity are generally insufficient to socialize children. Parents must actively pursue reasonable movement toward this goal, which is
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom further complicated by the normative developmental changes that occur from ages 2 to 3.5 including: (1) the child’s ability to distinguish the private self, and concomitant increases in a sense of separateness; (2) parents being seen as independent of the child and not obligated to comply with their children’s wishes (Ausebel’s ego crisis); (3) decreases in undirected angry outbursts, but increased retaliation; and (4) the child’s increased understanding of permitted (siblings, peers) and prohibited (parents, adults) aggression. Practically speaking, the child has become developed both verbally and physically, able to help with simple chores, but also capable of willful noncompliance and inflicting greater harm on siblings, peers, pets, and objects. Parents must walk a fine line between encouraging autonomy and simultaneously enforcing rules more closely. In dyads in which these challenges result in mistrust and acrimony, mother– child contact would begin to occur only when necessary and be characterized with a concern for reaching ends with whatever means are necessary and expedient. By age 3.5, mothers involved in dyads that follow the coercive sequence would be inconsistent and inflexible administrators of discipline. That is, those mothers who initially persisted in their requests for compliance may not be consistent in enforcing these demands as their children demonstrate that such efforts have little effect. In addition, they may resort to open hostility to gain submission from their children, sacrificing any semblance of a positive emotional bond. In both cases, it is reasoned that children characterized by low trust in caregivers and high rates of coercion would be noncompliant, negative, and unenthusiastic towards their parents. Such children would also be expected to interpret neutral or even friendly behavior as hostile, mirroring the linkage between insecure attachments and social information processing (SIP) described by Sroufe and Fleeson (1986) and the profile of school-age children with SIP biases described by Dodge and Schwarz (1997). The children might not trust their parents to adequately care for them or their needs. Thus, even if some mothers are able to maintain a consistent firmness in dealing with their children, they are likely to meet greater resistance than with the average child, who would have more to lose by maintaining noncompliant behavior (i.e., loss of love). Furthermore, it is likely that these parents view their children as hostile, based on their original perceptions of the child and on the child’s increasingly noncompliant behavior. With a growing percentage of 2- to 3-year olds
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited spending significant amounts of time in alternative care, it is also important to incorporate effects of the day care provider’s or teacher’s feedback on parental perceptions of the child. The child should apply to the alternative care setting the established pattern of aggression at home, which in turn, would elicit complaints about the level of disruptive behavior. Feedback from day care providers or preschool teachers may reinforce negative parental perceptions of the child as defiant and unmanageable, which would be reinforced at home by the ineffectiveness of disciplinary techniques to manage the child’s behavior. These experiences cumulatively reinforce a fatalistic attitude and set up a self-fulfilling prophecy: ‘‘he always was, and always will be, a bad child.’’ During the age period from 3.5 to 6 years, the dyadic processes between parent and child become consolidated and extend to other family members. Responsivity and insistence have become well established. Parents maintain the coercive intervention strategies used earlier, but now the conflict is more intense, and there is vacillation between ignoring rule violations and employing harsh or threatening punishments. There is also continuity in the mother’s image of her child as hostile, noncompliant, and aggressive, which continues to be reinforced from complaints by preschool teachers. Equally important for the development of later antisocial behavior, there is little internalization of parental and societal standards, even when compliance is secured (Hirschi, 1969). Rewards are infrequent and are used as a means of controlling behavior. All the at-risk child assimilates from his infrequent conformity to authority is an extrinsic motivational system. Patterson’s (1982) model of coercion also links sibling interaction to the development of conduct problems, hypothesizing that in homes in which family management practices were disrupted, the additional stress of an older sibling would reinforce and exacerbate the coercive style of the younger child. Data from Patterson’s 1984 study were consistent with the notion that siblings train younger children to be coercive by modeling and then reinforcing aversive behavior. However, this was a cross-sectional study of school-age children; research on sibling influence of early conduct problems is relatively limited (Volling & Belsky, 1992). CONTEXTUAL FACTORS Particularly in low-income families, the model would be incomplete without a discussion of factors
159
that compromise the quality of the caregiving environment. Parental and family adjustment and social support are believed to be mediated through the more proximal interactions parents have with children. Thus, the direct effects of such factors as parental adjustment (e.g., depressive symptoms, aggressive personality), parental conflict, and social support are believed to be at least partially accounted for by parenting practices (Patterson, 1982; Shaw & Bell, 1993). If childrearing methods place children at greater risk for conduct problems, factors which compromise quality of childrearing need to be examined. In fact, research on parental adjustment and intrafamily factors, such as parental depression (ZahnWaxler, Iannotti, Cummings, & Denham, 1990), parental conflict (Jouriles et al., 1991), parenting hassles (Crnic & Greenberg, 1990), and social support (Crnic, Greenberg, Ragozin, Robinson, & Basham, 1983) all indicate significant associations with child conduct problems. In low-income contexts, marked by sociodemographic risks such as impoverished housing, high crime, and limited community resources, it would be expected that the effects of within-family contextual factors would be exacerbated by sociodemographic risk. For example, tolerance of deviant behavior in the neighborhood may influence young children’s propensities to engage in disruptive behavior (Winslow & Shaw, 1996). Just as siblings reinforce power assertive methods parents model to resolve parent-child and parent-parent conflict in the home, neighborhood peers, particularly older ones, model coercive and conflictual behavior in the neighborhood and thereby reinforce children’s tendencies to show aggressive and hostile behavior within and outside of the family context. In summary, we concur with the observations of earlier investigators taking a developmental perspective toward childhood psychopathology that early conduct problems are generated as a result of transactions between children and their environments over time (Sameroff & Chandler, 1975; Thomas, Chess, & Birch, 1968). Particularly during early childhood, it is important to take into account transformations that occur in both child and parent behavior as the child matures. For example, temperamentally difficult infants might be more noncompliant as toddlers, compared to easy infants. Moreover, parents who are not responsive during infancy might be less involved and more permissive with their toddlers. At the same time, transactions between parent and child might help maintain continuity: persistently noncompliant behavior makes enforcing rules more difficult, and
160 hostile parenting reinforces child aggression. In addition to child and parent behavior, it is also necessary to consider the potential effects of stressors within and outside the family that compromise the quality of the caregiving environment. We now turn to examining the empirical validity of the model.
EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF THE MODEL Data from two sources have permitted us to test several of the model’s primary tenets from infancy to the early school-age period. These include examining direct, additive, and interactional effects of child, parenting, family, and contextual factors on the emergence of early conduct problems (e.g., for parenting, responsiveness during infancy and rejection during the toddler period). Cohort I involves a sample of 100 children (60% boys), recruited prior to 12 months of age and followed until school-age (Shaw et al., 1994a; Vondra et al., in press). Cohort II is a sample of 310 boys and 55 girls recruited prior to 18 months of age and at present, followed until age 8 (Shaw et al., 1998; Garcia, Shaw, Winslow, & Yaggi, 2000). Because of funding constraints, follow-up has been more intensive for boys than girls in Cohort II.
Participants In both cohorts, low-income mothers and their infants were recruited from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutritional Supplement Program of Allegheny County, PA. WIC provides monetary support for the purchase of nutritionally sound foods for low-income families with children ages 0 to 5. At the time of the infant’s birth, mothers in Cohort I ranged in age from 17 to 36, 46% were either married or living together, the majority of families were Caucasian (61%) and the remainder were African-American (39%). The mean family income in Cohort I was approximately $14,000 per year with 72.5% of the families having yearly earnings equal to or less than $12,000. Sociodemographic characteristics in Cohort II were comparable, but because families in this cohort were required to have an additional sibling living at home, mother’s age was higher (i.e., x ⫽ 28 years, range ⫽ 17 and 43 years). In addition, significantly more mothers in Cohort II were married or living together (62% versus 46% in Cohort I).
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom Procedures In Cohort I, mothers were recruited at WIC offices when infants were between 6 and 11 months old and first seen in our laboratory at age 1. Successive follow-ups for Cohort I occurred in the lab at age 2, and at participants’ homes at 1.25, 5, and 7–8 years, and through the mail at age 3. Because of Cohort II’s more intensive follow-up and larger sample size, for the purposes of the present paper, a review of data from Cohort I will be limited to assessments conducted in the child’s first three years. In Cohort II, families were recruited at WIC sites when infants were between 6 and 17 months old. A sub-sample of these families (n ⫽ 65 boys and 55 girls) were initially seen in our lab at age one. The remaining 245 boys were initially seen at 1.5 years in the lab, with all boys successively assessed at 2 (lab and home visit), 3.5 (lab), 5 and 5.5 (home), 6 (lab), and 8 (home) years of age. Follow-ups for girls included assessments at age 1.5 and 2, with questionnaires completed by mail at 3.5 years. Of those 100 subjects seen in Cohort I when infants were 1 year old, 89 participated in the age 1.5- and 2-year laboratory assessments and 82 returned completed reports on their child’s behavior problems at age 3. Within Cohort I, no significant differences were found when demographic characteristics of families who completed all assessments (82 of the 100) and those who did not (18 of the 100) were compared. In Cohort II, of the 310 families seen at the age 1.5-year visit, data were available for 306 participants at the age 2 visit and 279 participants at age 6 (10% attrition). Data collection is still ongoing for age 8 assessments in Cohort II but attrition remains comparable to the rate achieved at age 6. In both Cohorts, mothers and sons completed interactive tasks during laboratory and home assessments and mothers completed questionnaires on child and maternal functioning and family circumstances.
Testing the Model’s Primary Tenets A couple of issues are important to note before proceeding to a discussion of our results. First, in all cases experimenter-wise error was controlled for in testing associations to ensure results were not attributable to chance. The reader is referred to the specific journal articles in which each finding was originally reported for more details. Second, to date, nearly all of our results are based on measures of conduct problems that tap a heterogeneous constellation of
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited symptom patterns, including defiant, aggressive, impulsive, and hyperactive behaviors. We have not considered, for example, specific subtypes of children with co-occurring patterns of ADHD and/or oppositional/conduct problems or children who show covert versus overt conduct problems. There are exceptions to this trend (e.g., see results on aggressive behavior by Garcia and colleagues, 2000, and Shaw et al., 1999 below); however, we are still in the process of examining the antecedents of other specific patterns of conduct problems, including children with co-occurring externalizing and internalizing problems and those who show predominantly overt versus covert antisocial behavior. This represents a limitation of the research and its support of the model, which is primarily directed at uncovering antecedents of early onset conduct problems, characterized by high emotional reactivity and a pattern of overt and (eventually) covert antisocial activity. Maternal Responsivity and Conduct Problems Using these two samples of low-income boys, we have been able to test the predictive validity of several of the model’s primary hypotheses. A primary goal was to validate parental and child contributors of early conduct problems beginning in infancy. With regard to parental influences, the model’s focus during the first year has been on maternal unresponsiveness. In accord with attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) and coercion theory (Patterson, 1982), we pos-
161
tulated that a lack of sensitivity to the infant during the end of the first year would be related to later coercive exchanges between parents and children and ultimately to higher rates of children’s conduct problems. This issue has been investigated using two different observationally-based methodologies. The first strategy was to measure the mother’s contingent level of responsiveness in relation to infant bids for attention. Using Martin’s (1981) high-chair procedure, in which one-year olds are placed in a highchair with nothing to do while mothers are instructed to complete a questionnaire and attend to the infant, maternal unresponsiveness to the infant’s bids for attention was related to observed noncompliant and/ or aggressive behavior at age 2 and maternal report of conduct problems at ages 3 to 3.5 in both cohorts (Shaw et al., 1994a, 1998). Relations between responsiveness and maternal reports of CBCL Externalizing problems at 24 and 42 months are displayed for Cohort II in Fig. 1 below. This replicates the work of Martin (1981), who found maternal unresponsiveness associated with noncompliance at age 2 and coercive child behavior at 3.5. It is also consistent with the findings of Wakschlag and Hans (1999), who found an association between maternal unresponsiveness during infancy and later conduct problems. Interestingly, in both of our studies and Martin’s, these relations were valid only for boys. While both of our cohorts involve low-income boys, Martin’s used a middle-class sample, suggesting generalizability of the findings to lower risk populations of boys. The issue of sex differences is addressed later in the paper.
Fig. 1. Child and Parent Precursors of Boys’ Early Conduct Problems from 12 to 42 Months.
162 We also examined the construct of maternal responsivity using the Strange Situation. The infant’s behavior during the Strange Situation is believed to reflect the quality of the caregiver’s contingent sensitivity with the infant. Consistent with studies of highrisk samples (Erickson et al., 1985; Lyons-Ruth, Alpern, & Repacholi, 1993; Renken, Egeland, Marvinney, Mangelsdorf, & Sroufe, 1989), relations were found between infant attachment insecurity at 1 and 1.5 years and conduct problems when children were age 3 (Shaw & Vondra, 1995) and age 5 (Shaw, Owens, Vondra, Keenan, & Winslow, 1996). The magnitude of relations between infant attachment status and later conduct problems was stronger at age 5 than at age 3, particularly for infants with the disorganized pattern of attachment. This finding is consistent with a recent meta-analysis of the relation between the disorganized pattern and later conduct problems (van Ijzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1999).
Infant Characteristics, Parenting, and Conduct Problems Another primary component of the model is infant characteristics, particularly behaviors that would be directly linked to later disruptive behavior or be viewed as aversive by parents, thereby evoking coercive interchanges and escalating levels of conduct problems (Martin, 1981; Moffitt, 1993). Findings from both Cohorts I and II reveal direct and interactive effects of observed infant characteristics on later conduct problems. Infant persistence, a measure of how often the infant makes initial bids for attention and continues to fuss in relation to the mother’s unresponsiveness, was related to observed aggression at age 2 in Cohort I and maternal report of conduct problems at age 3.5 in Cohort II (see Fig. 1). In both cases, these relations were significant only for boys. Finally, in both Cohorts, observed aggression and noncompliance at age 2 have been significantly associated with maternal report of conduct problems at ages 3 to 3.5 (Figure 1, Shaw et al., 1994a, 1998). The model also postulates that the interaction of parent and infant characteristics should add unique variance to the prediction of early conduct problems after accounting for each factor’s direct effects. Evidence also supports this supposition. In Cohort I, the interaction between maternal responsiveness at age 1 and observed aggression at age
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom 2 contributed additional variance to maternal report of conduct problems at age 3 (Shaw et al., 1994). In Cohort II, the interaction between high infant persistence and low maternal responsiveness on the high-chair task also contributed unique variance to maternal report of age 3.5 conduct problems after accounting for each factor’s direct effects (Shaw et al., 1998). In both cases, more aversive child behavior coupled with unresponsive parenting appeared to heighten risk for later outcome, and in both cases the interaction was valid only for boys. A similar approach was applied to our findings regarding infant attachment status. In Cohort I, there was a strong association between the disorganized classification during infancy and preschool conduct problems (i.e., 6 out of 10 disorganized infants attained clinical-level symptomatology on the CBCL Aggression factor at age 5). When maternal perception of infant difficultness was examined in interaction with attachment security, prediction of risk status was further improved. Among mothers who rated their infant as being above the median in difficulty and who had infants with a disorganized attachment classification, rates of clinically-significant aggressivity were 100% (6 out of 6 cases), whereas those with disorganized attachments and below-median perceived difficulty were all below clinical threshold on aggression (Shaw et al., 1996). Moving from the first to second year, the model’s emphasis shifts to how parents respond to the infant’s increase in mobility and expression of anger. Unfortunately for parents, toddling is accompanied by an increased desire to ‘‘own’’ most toys the infant comes in contact with (i.e., ‘mine’), evoking frustration and expression of anger when these desires are not met. In addition to responding appropriately to the infant’s disruptive behavior, the parent must also set limits to protect the infant, other family members, pets, and valuable/dangerous objects from the infant’s limited cognitive understanding of such concepts as gravity, electricity, and differentiation of living versus nonliving organisms. Thus, a primary objective has been to assess parent’s ability to maintain a positive and nonhostile approach to these shaping and ‘coaching’ tasks during this challenging period. For both boys and girls, children whose parents were observed to be rejecting at age 2 during a laboratory-based cleanup task demonstrated a heightened risk for conduct problems at age 3.5 (see Fig. 1, Shaw et al., 1998). Furthermore, a composite score of observed rejecting parenting at ages 1.5 and 2 differentiated
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited clinically-significant levels of boys’ conduct problems at ages 5.5-6 and 8 according to both parent and teacher reports (Shaw, Garcia, Winslow, & Owens, 1999). These findings are consistent with previous studies on the effects of rejecting or overcontrolling parenting conducted with preschool-age children (Campbell, Pierce, Moore, Marakovitz, & Newby, 1996), school-age children and adolescents (see Loeber & Dishion, 1983; McCord, McCord, & Zola, 1959), and the model’s emphasis on the significance of parenting practices during the toddler period.
Coercion and Intra-Family Conflict Another primary goal has been to trace the spread of coercive and conflictual relationships within families to relationships in other contexts. According to Patterson (1982), coercive interactions should extend from the parent-child relationship to the behavior of siblings, then generalize to other adult-child and peer relationships outside of the home. We would add to this the significance of interparental conflict, which may provide modeling of conflict resolution strategies above and beyond the ‘direct’ training children receive from parents and siblings. In support of the spread-of-coercion hypothesis, interparental conflict at ages 2 and 3.5 and parent–child and inter-sibling conflict assessed at age 5 were related to parent-child conflict at age 5, and teacher-child and peer conflict at age 6. Both additive and interactive effects were found for these dyadic predictor variables according to both parental and teacher reports (Ingoldsby, Shaw, & Garcia, in press). Patterson also suggests that older siblings help in the ‘‘training’’ of younger sibling’s aggression. In support of this hypothesis, we found prolonged and aggressive sibling conflict to be associated with maternal report of aggressive child behavior at ages 5 and 6, after accounting for the influence of the target child’s early externalizing symptoms and rejecting parenting. Interactive effects of rejecting parenting, assessed at age 2, and sibling conflict assessed at age 5, were also found for both parent and teacher reports of age 6 aggressive behavior at school after accounting for main effects (Garcia, Shaw, Winslow, & Yaggi, 2000), the results of which are displayed in Figs. 2A and 2B below. According to both parental and teacher report, in cases where parental rejection at age 2 and sibling conflict at age 5 were high, reports of child aggressive behavior were elevated. These findings
163
suggest that in addition to direct relations between rejecting parenting, early disruptive behavior, sibling conflict, and conduct problems at school entry, the presence of more than one of these risk factors further increases children’s vulnerability for conduct problems at home and at school.
Early Predictors of School-Age Conduct Problems A further test of the model’s validity is to examine if early caregiving and contextual factors that compromise the quality of caregiving differentiate clinically-meaningful conduct problems across contexts during the school-age period. We employ a person-oriented approach for these analyses to trace the differential pathways of individuals sharing common risk factors or a common outcome. In the first study of this type, we identified groups of families who shared characteristics across four domains: child characteristics, maternal parenting behavior, family context, and sociodemographic characteristics (Campbell et al., in press). We then examined how such groups of children fared on measures of conduct problems according to both parents and teachers at school-age. Importantly, this study compared findings from our community sample of lowincome, ethnically diverse infants with those of Susan Campbell’s predominantly middle-class, European American (EA) preschoolers identified on the basis of ADHD symptomatology. In both samples, the children who showed the most consistent pattern of conduct problems at school-age (age 6 in the Shaw sample, age 9 in the Campbell sample) were marked by risk across child, parent, family, and sociodemographic domains. At the time of the study entry (age 1.5 in the Shaw sample, age 3 to 4 in the Campbell sample), in both cohorts the multiple risk group demonstrated elevated hyperactivity and aggression, more negative and less positive parenting, and higher rates of maternal depressive symptoms, stressful life events, and sociodemographic risk than families in clusters with fewer risk factors (e.g., no-risk group, child-risk-only group). In both samples, boys in the multi-problem group were observed to show the most disruptive behavior at study entry and display more conduct problems and lower social competence at follow-up relative to other risk groups. To test the validity of early starter models proposed by Moffitt (1990) and Patterson (1982), we identified clinically-meaningful cases at school-age and looked back at factors that discriminated group
164
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom
Fig. 2. (A) Two-way interaction between rejecting parenting and sibling conflict in predicting CBCL Aggression at ages 5 and 6 (composite). (B) Two-way interaction between rejecting parenting and sibling conflict predicting TRF Aggression at age 6.
status in early childhood (Shaw et al., 1999). The Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders - Epidemiologic Version (K-SADS-E, Puig-Antich et al., 1980) was administered to mothers about their 8-year-old sons, from which diagnoses of DSM-IV disruptive disorders were derived. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form (Achenbach, 1991) at age 8, from which scores greater than or equal to the 90th percentile on the Aggression factor were used to establish clinical impairment. This cutoff score was chosen to ensure that children in the clinical group were qualitatively and clinically distinct from their peers, but permitted a sufficiently large sub-sample of im-
paired children to conduct comparative analyses. Children who met criterion for Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Conduct Disorder (CD), or ODD or CD and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at age 8 according to K-SADS interviews were marked by early problem behavior and multiple family risk factors (e.g., maternal depression, low social support, rejecting parenting) that were evident in the second year of life. However, because many of the measures of early child and family functioning were derived from maternal report, the sole exception being observed rejecting parenting and quality of the home environment (i.e., the HOME Inventory), it
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited was important to corroborate the results using teacher reports. Maternal reports of infant negative emotionality and age 2 externalizing problems were not related to clinically-meaningful conduct problems at school-age as rated by teachers. However, teacheridentified aggressive children were more likely to live in families characterized by maternal depression, neighborhood dangerousness, low social support, and impaired parenting when children were 1.5 to 2 years old. Both sets of person-oriented analyses suggest that young children’s pathways leading to serious conduct problems across context are marked by multiple risk factors across domains rather than merely the perception of the child as difficult or behaviorally disruptive during infancy. These findings have implications for interventionists and preventionists interested in identifying target populations during early childhood. From our findings and those of others studying the early antecedents of conduct problems (Campbell, 1994; Renken et al., 1985), it is clear that the development of antisocial behavior in children is embedded within a context of biological characteristics of the child and caregiver, developmental history, and community disruption (Dishion, French, & Patterson, 1995). To be effective, interventions will need to address the ecology within which the most serious forms of antisocial behavior emerge. One must take seriously the reservations of others who have tried to intervene with high-risk families and failed because they neglected to address contextual factors (Kazdin, 1995). Salvador Minuchin, the founder of structural family therapy, gave up working with low-income, high-risk families because he concluded it was analogous to putting band-aids on people who require surgery (Malcolm, 1979). Interventions that adopt the principles of multi-systemic therapy (Henggeler & Bourdin, 1990), which address both within-family (e.g., parent-child relations, parental support and adjustment) and extra-familial issues (neighborhood safety, accessibility to resources), are recommended. It also is imperative that interventions are targeted to the developmental challenges of early childhood and tailored to the demands of the environments in which the child operates, including coordination of ‘parenting’ techniques with day care or preschool personnel. This latter approach is consistent with the recent work of Webster-Stratton (1998). In working with Head Start samples, her interventions have been coordinated to ensure parents and teachers employ similar techniques across setting.
165
Summary of Findings Overall there is broad support for the validity of the components of the model that have been tested. We have found that from ages 1 to 8, child and parenting variables contribute additively and interactively to an escalation in child conduct problems, distant and rejecting parenting, and coercive parentchild relationships. Parental and sibling conflict appear to exacerbate child and parenting risk factors in an additive and interactive manner, reinforcing patterns of disruptive behavior and conflictual relations with adults and peers.
New Directions for Basic and Applied Research While empirical support has been found for the validity and utility of the conceptual framework, there are significant gaps in our understanding that require further development. Some of these holes in our knowledge base have generated theoretical speculation but little empirical validation with young children because of methodological or substantive challenges. Others involve areas that have been studied more intensively but provided inconsistent or modest predictive validity.
Applying a Developmental Perspective Implicit in the model is an integration of developmental processes to the study of child psychopathology. Part of the marriage between developmental psychology and psychopathology has involved taking advantage of normative milestones of childhood to capture points of transition (Campbell et al., in press). The FAST Track Project (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1992) is a prime example of this approach, in which the transition to full-day schooling was used to study the onset and prevention of serious conduct problems. Several prospective studies have also been initiated in early childhood to take advantage of transitions in the parent-child relationship (e.g., Belsky, Woodworth, & Crnic, 1996). Still, there remains a dearth of treatment and prevention studies initiated in early childhood that have been guided by developmental theory. Interventions that capitalize on the challenges of parental responsiveness in the first year, and the integration of sensitive caregiving with firm, but not hostile, parenting in the second and third years are recommended. In addition and
166 as noted above, it behooves treatment researchers to consider the impact of all family members and to test their approach with families characterized by risk factors across child, parenting, family, and sociodemographic domains. Our research and that of several other investigative teams (Ackerman, Izard, Schoff, Youngstrom, & Kogos, 1999; Campbell et al., in press; Rutter, Cox, Tupling, Berger, & Yule, 1975; Sameroff, Seifer, & Bartko, 1997) suggest that children from multi-problem contexts pose the greatest likelihood of early onset and maintenance of psychopathology, particularly conduct problems. There is a need for developmentally sensitive studies initiated in early childhood that incorporate behavior genetic designs. Without a genetic design it is not possible to tease apart genetic from environmental influence. In particular, adoption studies have the potential to uncover evocative gene-environment correlations between heritable child characteristics (e.g., impulsivity, activity) and environmental responses (e.g., rejecting parenting). Additionally, they can identify gene ⫻ environment interactions which involve the potential moderating effects of the environment in relation to genetic risk for problem behavior (e.g., parenting of adoptive parents may increase or decrease the risk of infant negative emotionality) (O’Connor, Deater-Deckard, Fulker, Rutter, & Plomin, 1998). Adoption studies may pay greater dividends for prevention and treatment than twin studies (i.e., limited to heritability estimates) because they can advance our understanding of the potential and limits of the environment to modify genetic liability. Finally, our knowledge base of the development of conduct problem among girls is sparse. Girls are less likely to show serious conduct problems compared to boys in middle childhood and adolescence; however, sex differences do not emerge consistently until age 4 or 5 (Achenbach, 1991; Keenan & Shaw, 1997). Several hypotheses have been offered to account for girls’ more rapidly decreasing rates of oppositional and aggressive behavior from ages 2 to 5 (e.g., socialization pressures for girls to be more compliant and less physically aggressive), but longitudinal research is needed to test these suppositions. We also lack knowledge about the developmental trajectories of girls who continue to show clinically-significant rates of conduct problems throughout the preschool and school-age periods. In following our own two cohorts, we have been struck by sex differences in the magnitude of relations between early child and parenting risk factors and later conduct problems.
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom Boys consistently exhibit greater vulnerability to the effects of environmental adversity (e.g., parental unresponsiveness) and infant negative emotionality, findings that also have been replicated by Martin (1981). These results are consistent with sex differences found for neuropsychological disorders of early childhood such as ADHD, learning disabilities, and autism, for which boys outnumber girls by a wide margin (Keenan & Shaw, 1997).
Infant Temperament One of our most striking nonfindings has been the relation between maternal perceptions and laboratory observations of infant negative emotionality and later conduct problems. Consistent with the research of other investigators (Bates, Maslin, & Frankel, 1985; Sanson, Oberklaid, Pedlow, & Prior, 1991), we found statistically significant relations between infant temperament and later conduct (and internalizing) problems when maternal reports are used to measure both variables (Shaw et al., 1996, 1999). However, when observations of negative emotionality have been used to index temperament or teacher reports have been used to assess later conduct problems, relations have been nonsignificant. While research that has been initiated during the preschool period has found more convincing evidence of the effects of observed child behavior on later conduct problems (e.g., Caspi, Moffitt, Newman, & Silva, 1996), such studies have failed to account for the potential moderating effects of parenting on child behavior prior to the preschool period and often contain items that tap symptoms of disruptive behavior. These issues raise concerns about the direct influence of infant temperament on later conduct problems. However, there are reasons to justify the lack of predictive validity of infant negative emotionality compared to that shown by early caregiving characteristics (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000). The first issue is measurement. It is becoming clear that assessments of infant functioning should not be restricted to behavioral observations of negative emotionality. As stated above, predictive relations across informant are consistently modest when infant negative emotionality is considered in isolation. One possibility is that insufficient attention has been paid to how the infant’s negative emotionality affects the caregiving of individual parents and vice versa. For example, our own work (Shaw et al., 1994a, 1998) and that of Martin’s (1981) focus on the inter-
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited play between infant bids for attention and parental response. Unlike studies that treat infant negative emotionality as a static attribute, this approach considers negative emotionality as a dynamic process between the infant and the caregiver, as first described in Chess’ and Thomas’ (1968) goodness-offit model. We do not believe it is a coincidence that an interactive approach is one of the few used in the first year to demonstrate predictive validity across informant to later child coercive behavior and conduct problems. Individual differences in the expression of anger, assessed as early as the end of the first year, represent another potential direction for future investigators. However, we encourage investigators who are interested in the expression of anger and other infant attributes to conceptualize and measure it as a dynamic process that can be moderated by parental behavior. Another approach to the study of negative emotionality is the use of psychophysiological methods. While substantial evidence from behavioral genetic designs indicates significant genetic contributions to the development of early conduct problems (Leve, Winebarger, Fagot, Reid, & Goldsmith, 1998; Schmitz, Cherny, Fulker, & Mrazek, 1994), it is only recently that physiological measurements have been feasible to administer with young children (Campbell et al., in press). Psychophysiological measures that tap emotion regulation and impulse control appear to be the most promising candidates of study. For example, low resting heart rate, a general indicator of autonomic arousal, has been related to antisocial behavior (Raine, Venables, & Mednick, 1997) and attributes associated with conduct problems, including a lack of empathy (Zahn-Waxler, Cole, Welsh, & Fox, 1995) and fearlessness (Scarpa & Raine, 1997). Activity of the vagus nerve has also been explored. The vagus is the primary parasympathetic pathway to the heart and regulates cardiac output during environmental challenge. Porges, Doussard-Roosevelt, Portales, and Greenspan (1996) found poor vagal modulation at 9 months of age to be directly related to conduct problems at 3 years of age. More recently, Stifter (personal communication) found that irritable infants with low vagal tone demonstrate higher rates of conduct problems at age 2 than irritable infants with high vagal tone. Cortisol also provides information about the allocation of metabolic resources in the face of environmental stressors, and like heart rate and vagal tone, can be assessed in infancy. In support of this approach, Tout, de Haan, and Gunnar (1998) documented a relation between cortisol reac-
167
tivity and externalizing symptoms in preschool boys. Finally, individual differences in the activation of the left and right hemispheres of the cerebral cortex are thought to influence approach and withdrawal tendencies, which may moderate risk for aggressive behavior (Fox, Schmidt, Calkins, Rubin, & Coplan, 1996). As with the study of observed negative emotionality, it appears that physiological indicators are more likely to moderate risk status in conjunction with contextual factors than show direct relations with later conduct problems. Thus, it will be important for future investigators to consider how biological contributors transact with contextual factors over time to influence risk. While some physiological measures are still too invasive to administer to infants (e.g., electroencephalograms, magnetic imaging), procedures for assessing vagal tone and cortisol are already in place. Thus, longitudinal studies beginning in infancy that include multiple measures of neurobiological functioning and behavioral characteristics of the child and the caregiving environment afford the potential to advance our understanding of the mechanisms underlying relations between infant temperament and later conduct problems.
Neighborhood Influences In the Campbell and Shaw collaborative effort (Campbell et al., in press), there was a cluster of children, in addition to the multi-problem group, that showed impairment according to parent and teacher report at school entry. This group of 75 children demonstrated high-risk status in only one domain: sociodemographic risk, specifically in the form of belowmedian family income and high neighborhood dangerousness. In isolation, low income may be an inaccurate gauge of family context risk because of intraand extra-familial variability in financially-impoverished environments (i.e., housing and both intra- and extra-familial support may be adequate). However, high levels of neighborhood dangerousness nearly ensure that risk factors outside of the home are present, and, as is evident from our data, affect young children. At a direct level, young children living in such neighborhoods may be at an increased risk for conduct problems due to a greater exposure to antisocial attitudes and behaviors, which socialize children in deviant behaviors (W. Wilson, 1996).
168 Neighborhood quality may also influence the relationships among peers, parenting, and early conduct problems. It is only recently that researchers have recognized the importance of studying peer relations within the context of the neighborhood (Dishion et al., 1995; Kupersmidt, Burchinal, & Patterson, 1995), the effects of which appear to be more pronounced in impoverished settings. The vast majority of research related to peer influences on child conduct problems has been carried out with sameage classmates in school settings. However, it is in the neighborhood context in which young children have been shown to have the greatest amount of exposure to aggressive peers (Sinclair, Pettit, Harrist, Dodge, & Bates, 1994). Similarly, parents who are understandably worried about the influence of older peers in such neighborhoods may be overly restrictive and harsh in parenting their offspring. In the short term, this style of parenting may prove to keep children under control (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996), but in the long term promote the use of aggression and delinquent activities through modeling and negative reinforcement (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Direct neighborhood effects on children’s behavior would be expected to emerge as children become more involved with peers and adolescents in the neighborhood without supervision from parents (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Sealand, 1993). Research at the community level, which involves testing associations between rates of conduct problems and neighborhood characteristics (e.g., police crime records, census tract data on public housing), suggests that beginning around age 5 or 6, differences in conduct problems in children living in disadvantaged neighborhoods become more pronounced even after controlling for family sociodemographic characteristics (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1993; Chase-Landsdale & Gordon, 1996; Kupersmidt et al., 1995). However, few studies involving young children have examined the effects of neighborhood influence at the level of the individual neighborhood using family’s perception of neighborhood safety. In the few studies that have tested the effects of neighborhood quality at the individual level, support for its independent contribution on conduct problems has been found (Winslow & Shaw, 1996; Shaw et al., 1999). More research in this area is needed with young children to better understand the ways in which neighborhood contextual factors shape parenting and peer relations, and the mechanisms underlying relations with conduct problems.
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom Culture and Ethnicity In following our two cohorts over the past decade, the disparity in risk factors continues to impress upon us the need for more research and attention to the lack of resources within urban, minority communities. In our longitudinal studies, this inequality has been most evident among AA families in comparison to EA families. A large percentage of our AA families live in segregated housing projects marked by poor housing, high crime rates, low accessibility to resources (e.g., shopping, transportation, medical care) and employment opportunities. Thus, neighborhood quality and ethnicity are confounded because of the over-representation of AA families living in impoverished conditions. Nonetheless, it is worth discussing the issue of ethnicity separately because of idiosyncratic issues associated with minority status (Wilson, 1996). It is only recently that researchers have begun to seriously consider the effects of ethnicity on child conduct problems substantively, rather than as a factor to be ‘‘controlled.’’ In some studies, sociodemographic factors have been found to account for differences in antisocial behavior between European American (EA) and AA families (Hinshaw & Park, in press); however, in other cases differences persist (Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995; Winslow & Shaw, 1996). In terms of child characteristics, it has been shown that AA children demonstrate greater hostile attributional bias than EA school-age children, even after controlling for sociodemographic factors (Dodge, Lochman, Harnish, Bates, & Pettit, 1997). Differences in social information processing may be a consequence of living in a more hostile environment and accurately reflect the way AA youth are treated by peers, perhaps serving an adaptive function. It remains an empirical question whether such ‘‘biases’’ are associated with conduct problems as they are in EA children with similar attributional patterns. Differences in parenting styles and their relation to child conduct problems have also been noted between EA and AA families, potentially reflecting the disparity in living conditions. AA families are more likely to employ an authoritarian style that emphasizes the importance of control and child compliance over warmth (Baumrind, 1972). The authoritarian pattern has been associated with negative outcomes among predominantly EA, middle-class families (Baumrind, 1971). Baumrind (1972) was perhaps the first investigator to note that an authoritarian style
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited may have adaptive significance for AA families. It is only recently that other researchers have investigated differences in parenting between EA and AA families with respect to antisocial outcomes (Winslow & Shaw, 1996). Deater-Deckard and colleagues (1996) found that differences in the use of low to moderate corporal punishment were differentially related to risk of conduct problems for EA and AA children. For EA parents, any level of corporal punishment was associated with conduct problems; for AA parents, there was no relation between the use of corporal punishment and antisocial behavior unless the punishment reached severe levels. Neighborhood quality may help to explain the divergent outcomes associated with strict parenting in AA and EA families. It may be that parenting orientations that emphasize firm control over explicit warmth are more adaptive to the immediate risks of the neighborhood environment of low SES, AA families. This finding is consistent with AA children’s tendency to demonstrate higher rates of hostile information processing, which may also accurately reflect their greater likelihood of encountering dangerous situations and the influence of an authoritarian parenting style. However, our understanding of the processes involved is based more on conjecture than evidence, as few studies have been undertaken to investigate these issues prior to school entry. These processes require careful investigation in the coming years.
SUMMARY This paper has revisited a developmental model of early conduct problems, updating its conceptualization and reviewing tests of its validity with two samples of high-risk infants followed until schoolage. Major tenets of the model have been confirmed and advance our understanding of the processes by which early parent and child characteristics and other familial and extra-familial factors influence the development of child conduct problems at school entry. We also identified several gaps in our knowledge base and suggest greater emphasis be placed on studying the significance of culture and neighborhood stresses, as well as evaluating infant negative emotionality in a more dynamic framework and incorporating psychophysiological techniques. In terms of the implications of our findings for prevention, it is clear that children with risk factors in multiple domains face the greatest risk of becoming persistent early starters. Thus, successful interventions with
169
these families will need to be comprehensive and tailored to the issues that compromise individual parent’s abilities to provide safe and caring environments for their offspring. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported in this paper was supported by grants to Daniel Shaw from the National Institute of Mental Health, grants MH 46925 and MH 50907. We are grateful to the work of the staff of the Pitt Mother & Child Project for their years of service, and to our study families for making the research possible. We also appreciate the thoughtful feedback on the manuscript provided by Erin Ingoldsby and Monica Garcia. REFERENCES Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/ 4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Ackerman, B. P., Izard, C. E., Schoff, K., Youngstrom, E. A., & Kogos, J. (1999). Contextual risk caregiver emotionality, and the problem behaviors of six- and seven-year-old children from economically disadvantaged families. Child Development, 70, 1415–1427. Aguilar, B., Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (2000). Distinguishing the early onset/persistent and adolescence-onset antisocial behavior types: From birth to 16 years. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 109–132. Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Wittig, D. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4). London: Metheun. Bates, J. E., Maslin, C. A., & Frankel, K. A. (1985). Attachment security, mother-child interaction, and temperament as predictors of behavior-problem ratings at age three years. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, Nos. 1–2, 167–193. Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on black children: Some black-white comparisons. Child Development, 43, 261–267. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4 (1, Pt. 2). Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 81–95. Belsky, J., Woodworth, S., & Crnic, K. (1996). Trouble in the second year: Three questions about family interaction. Child Development, 67, 556–578. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P. K., & Sealand, N. (1993). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? American Journal of Sociology, 99, 353–395. Calkins, S. D. (1994). Origins and outcomes of individual differences in emotion regulation. In N. Fox (Ed.), The Development of Emotion Regulation, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3, Serial No. 240).
170 Campbell, S. B. (1994). Hard-to-manage preschool boys: Externalizing behavior, social competence, and family context at two-year-follow-up. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22, 147–166. Campbell, S. B., Pierce, E. W., Moore, G., Marakovitz, S., and Newby, K. (1996). Boys’ externalizing problems at elementary school: Pathways from early behavior problems, maternal control, and family stress. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 701–720. Campbell, S. B., Shaw, D. S., & Gilliom, M. (in press). Early externalizing behavior problems: Toddlers and preschoolers at risk for later maladjustment. Development and Psychopathology. Caspi, A., Henry, B., McGee, R. O., Moffitt, T., & Silva, P. A. (1995). Temperamental origins of child and adolescent behavior problems: From age three to age fifteen. Child Development, 66, 55–68. Chase-Landsdale, P. L., & Gordon, R. A. (1996). Economic hardship and the development of five- and six-year-olds: Neighborhood and regional perspectives. Child Development, 67, 3338– 3367. Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Emotional dysregulation in disruptive behavior disorders. In D. Cicchetti and S. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology: Developmental perspectives on depression. Rochester: University of Rochester Press. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1992). A developmental and clinical model for the prevention of Conduct Disorder: The FAST Track Program. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 509–527. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 631–647. Crnic, K. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (1990). Minor parenting stresses with young children. Child Development, 61, 1628–1637. Crnic, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Ragozin, A. S., Robinson, N. M., & Basham, R. B. (1983). Effects of stress and social support on mothers and premature and full-term infants. Child Development, 57, 209–217. Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: Links to children’s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065–1072. Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development and ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 421–471). New York: Wiley. Dishion, T., & Patterson, G. R. (1992). Age effects in parent training outcome. Behavior Therapist, 23, 719–729. Dodge, K. A., Lochman, J. E., Harnish, J. D., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 37–51. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 632–643. Dodge, K. A., & Schwartz, D. (1997). Social information processing mechanisms in aggressive behavior. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 171–180), New York: Wiley. Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, Nos. 1–2, 147–167.
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom Fox, N. A., Schmidt, L. A., Calkins, S. D., Rubin, K. H., & Coplan, R. J. (1996). The role of frontal activation in the regulation and dysregulation of social behavior during the preschool years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 89–102. Garcia, M., Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E. B., & Yaggi, K. (2000). Destructive sibling conflict and the development of conduct problems in young boys. Developmental Psychology, 36, 44–53. Greenberg, M. T., & Speltz, M. L. (1988). Contributions of attachment theory to the understanding of conduct problems during the preschool years. J. Belsky & T. Negworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 177–218). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Earlbaum. Greenberg, M. T., Speltz, M. L., & DeKlyen, M. (1993). The role of attachment in the early development of disruptive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 191–213. Henggeler, S. W., & Bourdin, C. M. (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A multisystemic approach to treating the behavior problems of children and adolescents. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Hinshaw, S. P., & Park, T. (in press). Research problems and issues: Toward a more definitive science of disruptive behavior disorders. In H. C. Quay & A. E. Hogan (Eds.), Handbook of disruptive behavior disorders. New York: Plenum Press. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Ingoldsby, E., Shaw, D. S., & Garcia, M. (in press). Intra-familial conflict in relation to boys’ adjustment at school. Development and Psychopathology. Jouriles, E. N., Murphy, C. M., Farris, A. M., Smith, D. A., Richters, J. E., & Waters, E. (1991). Marital adjustment, parental disagreements about child rearing, and behavior problems in boys: Increasing the specificity of the marital assessment. Child Development, 62, 1424–1433. Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (2nd Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. S. (1997). Developmental influences on young girls’ behavioral and emotional problems. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95–113. Kellam, S. G., Adams, R. G., Brown, C. H., & Ensminger, M. E. (1982). The long-term evolution of the family structure of teenage and older mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 539–554. Kohn, L. P., & Wilson, M. N. (1995). Social Support Networks in African American Family: Utility for Culturally Compatible. In M. N. Wilson (Issue Ed.), African American Family Life: Its Structural and Ecological Aspects. New Direction for Child Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M., & Patterson, C. J. (1995). Developmental patterns of childhood peer relations as predictors of externalizing behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 825–844. Leve, L. D., Winebarger, A. A., Fagot, B. I., Reid, J. B., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1998). Environmental and genetic variance in children’s observed and reported maladaptive behavior. Child Development, 69, 1286–1298. Loeber, R., & Stoughamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53, 242–259. Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68–99. Lyons-Ruth, K., Alpern, L., & Repacholi, B. (1993). Disorganized infant attachment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool classroom. Child Development, 64, 572–585. Malcolm, J. (1979). The one-way mirror. New Yorker. Martin, J. (1981). A longitudinal study of the consequences of early mother-infant interaction: A microanalytic approach.
A Truly Early Starter Model of Antisocial Behavior Revisited Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46. McCord, W., McCord, J., & Zola, I. K. (1959). Origins of crime. New York: Columbia University Press. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural history from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399–424. O’Connor, T. G., Deater-Deckard, K., Fulker, D., Rutter, M., & Plomin, R. (1998). Genotype-environment correlates in late childhood and early adolescence: Antisocial behavioral problems and coercive parenting. Developmental Psychology, 34, 970–981. Patterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach: 3. Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., & Bank, L. (1991). An early starter model for predicting delinquency. In D. Pepler, & R. K. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (1997). A developmental model for late-onset delinquency. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 44, 119–177. Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Supportive parenting, ecological context, and children’s adjustment: A seven-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 68, 908–923. Pierce, E. W., Ewing, L. J., & Campbell, S. B. (1999). Diagnostic status and symptomatic behavior of hard-to-manage preschool children in middle childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, Porges, S. W., Doussard-Roosevelt, J. A., Portales, L. A., & Greenspan, S. I. (1996). Infant regulation of the vagal ‘‘brake’’ predicts child behavior problems: A psychobiological model of social behavior. Developmental Psychobiology, 29, 697–712. Puig-Antich, J., Orvaschel, H., Tabrizi, M. A., & Chambers, W. (1980). The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-age Children-Epidemiologic Version, 3rd Edition. New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute and Yale University School of Medicine. Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (1997). Low resting heart rate at age 3 years predisposes to aggression at age 11 years: Evidence from the Mauritius Child Health Project. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1457–1464. Reid, J. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating interventions to developmental findings. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 243–262. Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, A. (1989). Early childhood antecedents of aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary school. Journal of Personality. 57, 257–281. Rutter, M., Cox, A., Tupling, C., Berger, M., & Yule, W. (1975). Attainment and adjustment in two geographical areas: 1. The prevalence of psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 493–509. Sameroff, A. J. (1990). Prevention of developmental psychopathology using the transactional model: Perspectives on host, risk agent, and environment interactions. Paper presented at the Conference on the Present Status and Future Needs of Research on Prevention of Mental Disorders, Washington, DC.
171
Sameroff, A. J., & Chandler, M. J. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking casualty. In F. D. Horowitz (Ed.), Review of child development research. (Vol. 4., pp. 187–241). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., & Bartko, T. (1997). Environmental perspective on adaptation during childhood and adolescence. In S. S. Luthar, J. A. Burack, D. Cicchetti, & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology (pp. 507–526). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sanson, A., Oberklaid, F., Pedlow, R., & Prior, M. (1991). Risk indicators: Assessment of infancy predictors of pre-school behavioural maladjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 609–626. Scarpa, A., & Raine, A. (1997). Psychophysiology of anger and violent behavior. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20, 375–394. Schmitz, S., Cherny, S. S., Fulker, D. W., & Mrazek, D. A. (1994). Genetic and environmental influences on early childhood behavior. Behavior Genetics, 24, 25–34. Shaw, D. S., & Bell, R. Q. (1993). Developmental theories of parental contributors to antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 493–518. Shaw, D. S., Garcia, M., Winslow, E. B., & Owens, E. B. (1999). Pathways leading to school-age externalizing disorders. Presented at the Conference of the Life History Research Society, Kuaui, Hawaii. Shaw, D. S., Keenan, K., & Vondra, J. I. (1994a). Developmental precursors of externalizing behavior: Ages 1 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 30, 355–364. Shaw, D. S., Owens, E. B., Vondra, J. I., Keenan, K., & Winslow, E. B. (1996). Early risk factors and pathways in the development of early disruptive behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 679–699. Shaw, D. S., & Winslow, E. B., & Flanagan, C. (1999). A prospective study of the effects of marital status and family relations on young children’s adjustment among African American and Caucasian families. Child Development, 70, 742–755. Shaw, D. S., Winslow, E. B., Owens, E. B., Vondra, J. I., Cohn, J. F., & Bell, R. Q. (1998). The development of early externalizing problems among children from low-income families: A transformational perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 95–107. Shaw, D. S., & Vondra, J. I. (1995). Attachment security and maternal predictors of early behavior problems: A longitudinal study of low-income families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 335–356. Shaw, D. S., Vondra, J. I., Dowdell Hommerding, K., Keenan, & Dunn, M. (1994b). Chronic family adversity and early child behavior problems: A longitudinal study of low income families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35, 1109– 1122. Sinclair, J. J., Pettit, G. S., Harrist, A. W., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Encounters with aggressive peers in early childhood: Frequency, age differences, and correlates of risk for behaviour problems. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 17, 675–696. Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in pre-school: The roots of maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium in child psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 41–81). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stayton D. J., Hogan, R., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1971). Infant obedience and maternal behavior: the origins of socialization reconsidered. Child Development, 42, 1057–1069. Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H. (1968). Temperament and
172 behavior disorders in children. New York: New York University Press. Tout, K., de Haan, M., Campbell, E. K., Gunnar, M. R. (1998). Social behavior correlates of cortisol activity in child care: Gender differences and time-of-day effects. Child Development, 69, 1247–1262. van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: Meta-analysis of precursors, concomitant, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225–250. Volling, B. L., & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of motherchild and father-child relationships to the quality of sibling interaction: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 63, 1209–1222. Vondra, J. I., Shaw, D. S., Chrisman, J., Cohen, L., Swearinger, E., & Owens, E. B. (in press). Continuity and change in attachment across the second year of life. Development and Psychopathology. Wakschlag., L., & Hans, S. (1999). Relation of maternal responsiveness during infancy and the development of behavior
Shaw, Bell, and Gilliom problems in high-risk youths. Developmental Psychology, 35, 569–579. Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in head start children: strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 715–730. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Winslow, E. B., & Shaw, D. S. (1996). Relations between early parenting and child externalizing behavior in families from different sociodemographic backgrounds. Presented at the convention of the International Society for Infant Studies, Providence, RI. Zahn-Waxler, C., Cole, P. M., Welsh, J. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Psychophysiological correlates of empathy and prosocial behaviors in preschool children with behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 27–48. Zahn-Waxler, C., Iannotti, R. J., Cummings, E. M., & Denham, S. (1990). Antecedents of problem behaviors in children of depressed mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 271–292.
