Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Oct 3.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Issues. 2023 Oct 3;45(10):2452–2472. doi: 10.1177/0192513x231204983

Development of the Culturally Affirming and Responsive Experiences (CARE) Measure: Observing Responsiveness and Ethnic-Racial Cultural Socialization in Mother-Child Interactions

Brianna Jaworski a, Jennifer LoCasale-Crouch a, Etomgi Okezie a, Aubrey Hill a, Kirsty Thompson a, Khara LP Turnbull a, Deiby Mayaris Cubides Mateus a, Dheepthi Ravikumar a
PMCID: PMC11448675  NIHMSID: NIHMS1937482  PMID: 39364182

Abstract

The existing literature on the importance of maternal responsiveness and the growing body of literature supporting early ethnic-racial cultural socialization highlight the need for an observational measure of how they co-occur during mother-child interactions. This study presents the development and initial validation of the Culturally Affirming and Responsive Experiences (CARE) measure, an observational measure of the presence and quality of responsiveness and ethnic-racial cultural socialization within early mother-child interactions. Pilot study results with 103 racially and ethnically diverse mother-child dyads demonstrated initial reliability and validity of the CARE measure. Implications of applying the CARE measure to early mother-child interactions to assess quality of responsiveness and ethnic-racial cultural socializations are discussed.

Keywords: Ethnic-Racial Socialization, Cultural Socialization, Responsiveness Mother-Child Interactions, Early Development

Introduction

A large body of literature demonstrates the importance of quality interactions with caregivers to children’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Shonkoff et al., 2009; Sroufe, 2000). Responsiveness during parent-child interactions represents one critical driver of development across several domains, including cognitive and social-emotional development (Kochanska & Aksan, 2004; Kochanska et al., 2019; Maccoby, 1992). Increasing evidence also suggests that ethnic-racial cultural socialization (E-RCS) practices are another key normative aspect of parenting (Coll et al., 1996; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020; Williams et al, 2020), and contribute to a range of developmental outcomes (Caughy et al, 2015; Coll et al., 1996; Hughes et al, 2006; Wang et al, 2020). However, despite understanding that responsive interactions between caregivers and children and E-RCS are associated with positive outcomes in numerous child development domains, there remains a lack of research examining how these practices occur in tandem in early childhood.

Although extensive research on responsiveness within mother-child interactions in early childhood exists, current E-RCS research focuses primarily on adolescents or young adults, and with racially/ethnically homogeneous samples (Hughes et al, 2006; Priest et al, 2014; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020). Additionally, most research focuses on responsive interactions and E-RCS practices separately, with much existing research having been conducted in laboratory settings (Loop et al., 2017; Kochanska & Aksan, 2004). New measurement tools and approaches are warranted to explore how young children experience E-RCS in tandem with responsive parenting interactions within everyday activities. Thus, this study describes the development and initial validation of an observational measure of parent-child interactions and ethnic-racial cultural socialization practices embedded within a normative setting: the Culturally Affirming and Responsive Experiences (CARE) measure. Specifically, this study aims to provide initial evidence for the CARE measure to serve as a valid, reliable, and practical measure of both responsive parenting interactions and E-RCS practices as measured during a parent-child book reading activity.

Responsive Parent-Child Interactions: A Key Contributor to Child Development

Abundant evidence points to early positive, high-quality parent-child interactions as key contributors to a child’s positive development (Maccoby, 1992; Shonkoff et al., 2009; Sroufe, 2000). High-quality parent-child interactions, characterized by warmth, responsiveness, and engagement, are positively associated with a wide range of developmental outcomes in the areas of language acquisition, social skills, and emotional competence (Schechter et al., 2017; Spruijt et al., 2020). Emotional availability, defined as the quality of emotional exchanges between parent and child and indicated through reciprocal and appropriate responsivity, is one contributor to high-quality parent-child interactions (Chirico et al., 2020). Responsive parenting practices also allow for sustained conversational turns between the child and adult, which contributes to development of language and social skills (Borairi et al., 2021; Chirico et al., 2020; Morris et al., 2017; Wade et al., 2018). Similarly, child responsiveness is indicated through sensitivity to the parent’s cues and pace-setting, expressions of warmth, and engagement in the interaction (Bornstein et al., 2007). When both the parent and child engage in sensitive and responsive behaviors, as marked by their joint engagement and mutuality, the quality of the interaction is enriched (Kochanska & Aksan, 2004).

Ethnic-Racial Cultural Socialization Begins in Early Childhood

Increasingly, ethnic-racial cultural socialization (E-RCS) is understood to be a normative multi-dimensional construct that occurs across the lifespan in all families (Hagerman, 2014; Hughes et al, 2006; Loyd & Gaither, 2018; Priest et al, 2014; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020; Vittrup, 2018; Williams et al, 2020). As primary socialization agents, parents convey beliefs about culture, theirs and others, to their children through various forms of E-RCS (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Cultural socialization, one dimension of ethnic-racial socialization (E-RS), is defined as the transmission of cultural pride, heritage, and knowledge (Hughes et al, 2006; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020; Williams et al, 2020). Cultural socialization can occur in intentional ways, such as having discussions about experiences, cultural traditions, and values, and by reading books with characters children can identify with (Hughes et al, 2006; McHale et al, 2006), or through less direct means, such as use of color-blind language to discuss ethnicity/race (Hagerman, 2014; Loyd & Gaither, 2018; Vittrup, 2018).

Despite theories that E-RCS practices begin in early childhood and extend throughout the lifespan for individuals of all races and ethnicities (Aguayo et al, 2021; Hughes et al, 2006; Loyd & Gaither, 2018; Quintana, 1998; Simon, 2021; Umaña-Taylor et al, 2014; Vittrup, 2018; Williams et al, 2020), empirical studies addressing this developmental process has mostly evaluated E-RCS in minoritized adolescents and young adults only (Caughy et al., 2002; Davis et al., 2017; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020). Some literature has examined E-RCS in early childhood, though with mixed findings. One of the first studies to examine E-RCS in socioeconomically diverse African American preschoolers found parents frequently engaged in ethnic-racial socialization with their children (Caughy et al., 2002), and similar to studies involving African American adolescents and young adults (Hughes et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2020), found that E-RCS contributes to increased academic achievement and decreased negative behaviors. Further, studies of African American and Latinx families with young children found positive associations between cultural socialization practices and children’s pre-academic skills, receptive language skills, and fewer behavioral problems (Brown et al., 2009; Caughy et al., 2002; Caughy & Owen, 2015). Dunbar and colleagues (2016) introduced a conceptual model to demonstrate the overlap of emotional socialization (how to understand and regulate emotions) and racial/ethnic socialization and hypothesized that emotional socialization can be a protective factor for experiences of racism and discrimination. However, other studies of 4- and 5-year-olds have found E-RCS to be less prevalent in early childhood (e.g., Spencer, 1991).

Given the limited amount of research on E-RCS in early childhood and remaining questions about the extent to which E-RCS is associated with positive child development outcomes, additional research exploring E-RCS and responsive parent-child interactions across diverse samples is warranted.

Measuring Parent-Child Interactions

Extensive research exists examining the complex ways in which parent-child interactions occur (Aspland & Gardner, 2003; Funamoto & Rinaldi, 2015; Gardner, 2000; Lytton, 1971). Although multiple methods have been used, observation of key parent-child interaction processes in naturalistic settings provides a valid context for studying complex processes in which these spontaneous interactions may occur (Loop et al., 2017). Given the increasing understanding of the importance of E-RCS for children’s development, and that it can occur in the context of parent-child interactions, multiple attempts have been made to capture this construct with varying levels of success (Aguayo et al., 2021; Yasui, 2015). Most empirical measures of E-RCS have used self-report surveys as the primary method, with only one study utilizing a method other than self-report (Yasui, 2015). Thus, there is more work needed in the field to better our understanding of E-RCS, specifically by integrating various research methods.

As with global parent-child interactions, direct observation may also serve as a useful methodology in exploring E-RCS practices in the context of parent-child interactions (Loop et al., 2017; Yasui, 2015). In a very recent study and the first of its kind to directly observe family patterns of cultural socialization, Aguayo and colleagues (2021) utilized the OMERS-Peds to systematically compare explicit socialization communications within and across families from three racial/ethnic groups. Contrary to previous findings (Yasui, 2015), Aguayo and colleagues found similar E-RCS practices among families, even though they identified differently by race/ethnicity.

Although the OMERS-Peds provides important insights into socialization processes, conducting the study in a laboratory setting limits the generalizability of findings. Thus, exploring observation in more naturalistic settings is warranted. Further, given the study sample was restricted to African American and Hispanic urban families, future studies of E-RCS processes across a more racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse set of families with young children is warranted.

Role of Socio-demographic Factors in Parent-Child Interactions

Parent-child interactions vary by individual and contextual factors, underscoring the need to examine characteristics of positive interactions and the socio-demographic factors that may enhance or hinder the quality of these important exchanges within natural settings (Bornstein et al., 2007; Hoff & Laursen, 2019; Justice et al., 2019). There is evidence that parent socioeconomic status supersedes differences in racial and ethnic backgrounds when considering the quality of a parent-child interaction (Hoff & Laursen, 2019). For instance, irrespective of race or ethnicity, parents of higher-SES backgrounds tend to provide more frequent exposure to learning opportunities and practices supportive of cognitive development than parents of lower-SES backgrounds (Henry et al., 2019). Likewise, there is evidence that suggests mothers with higher educational attainment are more likely to have sensitive and warm interactions and provide their child with stimulating and enriching learning activities, such as book readings (Davis-Kean et al., 2019). Thus, maternal education and socioeconomic status, rather than race and ethnicity, seem to be more predictive of the quality of parent-child interactions and children’s later development (Hoff & Laursen, 2019; Justice et al., 2019). Consequently, we will include them in our descriptive exploration of factors here.

The Current Study

Given the importance of parent responsiveness to child development, the growing understanding of ethnic-racial cultural socialization in the early years, and the critical role parent-child interactions play in shaping this trajectory, this study aims to fill the measurement gap in capturing these processes. This study represents an initial effort to develop the Culturally Affirming and Responsive Experiences (CARE) measure assessing the presence of responsiveness and early ethnic-racial cultural socialization within mother-child interactions through a reading task within families’ homes. Thus, the primary research aim is to describe the development and initial validation of the CARE measure. To that end, descriptive results from a pilot study will be explored.

Materials and Methods

Participants

Mother-child dyads were initially recruited at the time of the child’s birth for a study of infant care practices. All mothers were English-speaking, and all infants were born healthy at term between March 2015—May 2016 at eight hospitals across the US (for details, see Moon et al., 2017). All mothers who had expressed interest in continuing to be involved in studies and whose child was kindergarten eligible at the start of the 2020-2021 school year were eligible to participate in the current study, which was part of a larger study examining child health and wellbeing during 2020-21. All study procedures were conducted with Institutional Review Board approval.

Of the 117 consented participants, 103 mother-child dyads completed a structured book reading activity. See Table 1 for participant demographic information.

Table 1.

Demographic Descriptive Statistics

Child characteristics Mean/N SD/Percent Range
Age (months) 68.11 2.07 63-73
Gender
   Male 45 43.7
   Female 58 56.3
Child’s race/ethnicity
   Hispanic 28 27.2
   NH-Black or African American 23 22.3
   NH-White 42 40.8
   NH-Other 9 8.7
   Unreported 1 1.0
Family characteristics
Household annual income
   Less than $49,999 20 19.4
   $50,000-$79,999 18 17.5
   $80,000 or more 61 59.2
   Unreported 4 3.9
Mother's highest level of education
   Less than high school diploma, High school diploma or GED 12 11.7
   Some college 23 22.3
   College graduate 31 30.1
   Graduate school 37 35.9
Mother's race/ethnicity
   Hispanic
   NH-Black or African American 25 24.3
   NH-White 24 23.3
   NH-Other 47 45.6
   Unreported 7 6.8
Open in a new tab

Measure Development Procedures

The Culturally Affirming and Responsive Experiences (CARE) development was based on prior E-RCS and responsiveness research (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014; Wade et al., 2018), and previous observation work on interactions supporting children’s development (Aguayo et al., 2021; Downer et al., 2010; Loop et al., 2017; Pentimonti et al., 2021; Yasui, 2015). Following a comprehensive review of the literature and existing measures, researchers engaged in an iterative process of developing potential new codes to measure responsivity and E-RCS. Several content experts then reviewed the CARE measure’s preliminary codes to ensure face validity.

The research team utilized a book reading activity for the present study based on evidence that book readings encourage joint engagement in a task and provide an opportunity for E-RCS (Davis-Kean et al., 2019; Hughes et al, 2006; McHale et al, 2006; Spruijt et al., 2020), and because book readings represent an ecologically valid context to observe caregiver-child interactions. Several children’s books were piloted before selecting This is How We Do It: One Day in the Lives of Seven Kids from around the World by Matt Lamothe, for its length, complexity, and range of multi-ethnic characters. The research team then coded numerous recordings of pilot videos and refined the developing codes to incorporate a variety of parent and child behaviors observed.

Data collection occurred between January and August of 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, study activities were conducted virtually. Participating dyads received a copy of the book and instructions regarding how to prepare for the book reading activity prior to the virtual data collection session. To minimize dyads’ familiarity with the book prior to the session, mothers were encouraged to save the book for the study session. During the virtual meeting, the assessor assisted in positioning the mother-child dyad and book within the camera’s view. In cases where it was not possible to view the mother, child, and the book together, the assessor prioritized viewing of the dyad.

The assessor directed the mother and child to read as they would normally for ten minutes and reminded them the session would be recorded. During the activity, the assessor’s camera was off to minimize distractions. After ten minutes, the assessor turned their camera on again, and asked the following set of questions to the child, then the mother, designed to elicit direct links between the participants’ lives and those of the families in the book: Which family seemed the most like yours and why? Which family seemed the most different from yours and why? The assessor ended the recording after both the mother and the child responded to the questions. All extratextual conversation, including between the parent and child, and conversation in response to assessor questions, was coded offline using the CARE measure.

Measures

Culturally Affirming and Responsive Experiences (CARE)

The CARE measure comprises ten individual dimensions (items) organized in four conceptual domains, which in combination reflect responsive mother-child interactions and ethnic-racial cultural socialization practices in the context of a book reading task. The four CARE domains are: Parental Responsiveness, Mutuality, Child Responsiveness, and Ethnic-Racial Cultural Socialization (E-RCS). Each domain includes between one and four dimensions, rated on a three-point scale (Low, Mid, or High) based on the frequency and consistency of non-verbal, verbal, and/or physical indicators for each dimension. A rating of High is assigned to a dimension when there is evidence of frequent and/or consistent verbal and physical behavioral indicators for that dimension. By comparison, a rating of Mid is assigned to a dimension when there are occasional instances of verbal and physical behavioral indicators for that dimension. Finally, a rating of Low is assigned to a dimension that includes fewer than three instances of verbal and physical indicators. Each dimension includes between two and five verbal and physical behavioral indicators designed to be weighted evenly to inform a final code (Low, Mid, or High) for the dimension. See Table 2 for the mean score for each CARE dimension.

Table 2.

CARE Measure Descriptive Statistics

CARE Measure N Mean SD Range
Mutuality + Child Responsiveness 103 2.39 0.52 1-3
CARE Codes: Mutuality 103 2.48 0.64 1-3
CARE Codes: Child Responsiveness: Sensitivity 103 2.53 0.59 1-3
CARE Codes: Child Responsiveness: Engagement 103 2.39 0.66 1-3
CARE Codes: Child Responsiveness: Self-Reliance 103 1.95 0.68 1-3
CARE Codes: Child Responsiveness: Positive Control 103 2.59 0.63 1-3
Parental Responsiveness + Ethnic-Racial Cultural Socialization 103 2.02 0.61 1-3
CARE Codes: Parental Responsiveness: Sensitivity 103 2.49 0.74 1-3
CARE Codes: Parental Responsiveness: Positive Control 103 2.18 0.79 1-3
CARE Codes: E-RCS: Ethnic-Racial Diversity Perspective 103 1.78 0.70 1-3
CARE Codes: E-RCS: Cultural Knowledge 103 1.67 0.65 1-3
CARE Codes: E-RCS: Cultural Sensitivity 103 1.98 0.70 1-3
Open in a new tab

The Parental Responsiveness domain reflects the degree to which the parent responds to the child’s verbal or non-verbal signals, supports the child’s autonomy, and shows warmth (Wade et al., 2018). The Parental Responsiveness domain includes two dimensions: Sensitivity and Positive Control. Behavioral indicators for Sensitivity include providing contingent responses to the child’s non-verbal and verbal cues (e.g., responding to the child’s facial expressions, reading where the child points on the page), supporting the child’s autonomy, and showing evidence of warmth. Behavioral indicators for Positive Control include praising the child, using explanations to engage the child, and posing open-ended questions.

The Mutuality domain consists of the Mutuality dimension and reflects the degree to which the mother and child are mutually responsive to one another. Both the mother’s and child’s behaviors are considered when coding the Mutuality dimension, given that it is based on reciprocity. Behavioral indicators for Mutuality include reciprocal conversations, affect sharing, joint task engagement, open body posture, and proximate/overlapping body position of the mother-child dyad (Wade et al., 2018).

The Child Responsiveness domain measures the degree to which the child relevantly responds to the parent’s verbal and non-verbal cues, engages in the task, is self-reliant, and promptly cooperates with the parent’s directives (Downer et al., 2010; Wade et al., 2018). Within this domain are 4 dimensions: Sensitivity, Child Engagement, Self-Reliance, and Positive Control. Sensitivity is demonstrated when the child responds to the mother’s non-verbal and verbal cues (e.g., following along on the page, exhibiting warmth, and following the mother’s lead in pace setting). Child Engagement is evidenced when the child sustains attention and focus and displays interest and enthusiasm in the task. Self-Reliance is indicated through the child’s unprompted initiation, inquisitiveness, and linking of concepts to personal experiences or knowledge (Downer et al., 2010). Lastly, Positive Control is marked by appropriate child behavior (observable through frequency of mother’s behavior requests) and prompt cooperation to such requests.

The Ethnic-Racial Cultural Socialization domain captures the degree to which the mother responds to questions about or draws attention to ethnic-racial and/or cultural similarities or differences, shares cultural knowledge, and demonstrates cultural sensitivity (Foronda, 2008; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Although initial codes were derived from constructs in existing measures which addressed more components of E-RCS, such as preparation of bias and mistrust (Caughy et al., 2002), the coding team observed a much smaller range of E-RCS components in the book readings. Thus, the E-RCS domain seeks to measure deliberate and explicit discussion of ethnic, racial, or cultural topics as related to the mother or family’s cultural pride and values (including traditions and beliefs) and includes 3 dimensions: Ethnic-Racial Diversity Perspective, Cultural Knowledge, and Cultural Sensitivity. Ethnic-Racial Diversity Perspective (E-RDP) is indicated through the mother’s response to any child E-RDP-related questions and comments, initiating awareness about ethnic-racial and/or cultural similarities/differences, promoting one's own/other’s heritages, and positively acknowledging diversity. Mother’s E-RCS responsiveness is measured separately from Parental Responsiveness to illuminate whether the mother is welcoming or avoiding ethnic, racial, or cultural discussion. Cultural Knowledge is indicated by correct pronunciation of cultural terms in the book (e.g., country names, such as Uganda, bodies of water, such as the Ganges) and sharing of knowledge about culturally grounded values, beliefs, and practices. Cultural Sensitivity is displayed by explaining the significance of cultural practices, showing respect for ethnic-racial and/or cultural similarities or differences, and willingness to communicate about cultures through pronunciation and discussion efforts.

Researchers who were not involved in the initial development of the CARE completed a comprehensive training, which included reviewing the code book (code definitions and examples) and coding manual (description of coding processes), and independently coding one practice video and up to five training videos. Trainees had to be at least 80% reliable (coding 8 of 10 dimensions accurately) on three videos to be considered a reliable coder. Each ten-minute recording was randomly assigned to two coders, who first independently coded the video using the codebook and coding manual, then compared and discussed their codes via conference call. This process was implemented to improve reliability and ensure accurate data entry. The team maintained reliability via weekly coding assignments, dual coding each video with rotating partners and subsequently discussing and resolving any discrepancies, and by attending weekly team meetings to discuss (via group conference call) any challenges or necessary refinement of the coding scheme.

After coding the entire sample, to improve both overall and dimension interrater reliability, the team identified all videos with an exact interrater reliability of 60% or lower for recoding by two new individuals; the new codes were retained as the final codes if the reliability improved (N=17). Overall, the exact interrater reliability of the measure was 80.1%. See Table 3 for individual dimension reliability. Of the 103 videos, 12 were coded by the entire coding team, and do not contribute to the overall reliability or to the individual dimension reliability.

Table 3.

CARE Dimension Exact Interrater Reliability

Dimension Mean
Parental Responsiveness
 Sensitivity 81.3%
 Positive Control 83.5%
Mutuality 81.3%
Child Responsiveness
 Sensitivity 81.3%
 Engagement 79.1%
 Self-Reliance 75.8%
 Positive Control 87.9%
Ethnic-Racial Cultural Socialization
 Ethnic-Racial Diversity Perspective 76.9%
 Cultural Knowledge 73.6%
 Cultural Sensitivity 80.2%
Open in a new tab

Maternal and child demographics:

Mothers completed items on their and the child’s age, race, ethnicity, highest educational attainment, and annual household income.

Analysis Plan

To explore the initial validation of the CARE measure, several steps were taken. First, the factor structure of the CARE measure was explored. Bivariate correlations and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were run to identify the underlying structure for the ten CARE dimensions. Specifically, to determine the final factor solution, items were retained with correlation coefficients > 0.2, implemented the eigenvalue > 1.0 rule to define the number of factors, and kept items within factors if factor loadings >= 0.3. Second, internal consistency within the factors was examined. Cronbach’s alpha was estimated to assess internal consistency for each of the factors identified in the EFA. Mplus, version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) was used to estimate EFA, and Stata/SE version 15.1 (StataCorp, 2017) was used for other analyses.

Results

CARE Factor Structure

Correlations among items ranged between 0.26 and 0.75. This indicates that items shared a reasonable portion of the variance. The rule of thumb of eigenvalue > 1.0 suggested a two-factor solution. Table 4 presents factor loadings drawn from the EFA. All items had a factor loading > 0.3. Child Lead includes the five items that account for the mutuality and child responsiveness domains. Parent Lead comprises the five items from the parental responsiveness and ethnic-racial cultural socialization domains.

Table 4.

Factor Analysis for CARE Dimensions

Factor 1 Factor 2
P1 Parental Responsiveness: Sensitivity 0.194 0.701*
P2 Parental Responsiveness: Positive Control 0.093 0.802*
P3 Mutuality 0.552* 0.312*
P4 Child Responsiveness: Sensitivity 0.857* 0.048
P5 Child Responsiveness: Engagement 0.834* −0.006
P6 Child Responsiveness: Self-Reliance 0.555* 0.117
P7 Child Responsiveness: Positive Control 0.801* −0.076
P8 E-RCS: Ethnic-Racial Diversity Perspective 0.012 0.804*
P9 E-RCS: Cultural Knowledge −0.046 0.786*
P10 E-RCS: Cultural Sensitivity −0.105 0.878*
Open in a new tab

Note. * p<0.05

CARE Internal Consistency

To further confirm the revised structure of CARE from the EFA results, Cronbach’s alphas were examined for each factor. The internal consistency of the CARE measure was high. The Cronbach’s alpha for Child Lead was 0.87, and 0.90 for Parent Lead. Given this, composites were made for the two factors, Child Lead and Parent Lead. The correlation between the two factors was .56, showing they were related but also each exhibiting a unique component of the mother-child interactions. Child Lead had a mean of 2.39 and a standard deviation of .52. Parent Lead had a mean of 2.01 and a standard deviation of .61.

CARE Construct Validity

Finally, Pearson correlations between the two factors and family characteristics were calculated. Significant correlations between Parent Lead and family characteristics were in the expected direction. As shown in Table 5, the higher the reported household income and mothers’ education level, the higher Parent Lead was. No statistically significant correlations were found between measured family characteristics and Child Lead. Child race was not correlated with either factor, whereas child gender (i.e., male) was negatively correlated with Child Lead.

Table 5.

Pearson Correlations between CARE Factors and Socio-demographic Characteristics

Factor 1 Factor 2
Factor 1: Child Lead 1
Factor 2: Parent Lead 0.5635* 1
Child characteristics
Age (months) 0.132 0.1165
Gender (1=Male) −0.2899* −0.1575
Hispanic −0.0682 −0.1357
NH-Black or African American −0.0399 −0.096
NH-White 0.091 0.1882
NH-Other 0.0082 0.0283
Family characteristics
Household annual income
Less than $49,999 −0.0942 −0.2824*
$50,000-$79,999 −0.0975 −0.1152
$80,000 or more 0.1551 0.3245*
Mother's highest level of education
Less than high school diploma, High school diploma or GED −0.1904 −0.2914*
Some college −0.1139 −0.2866*
College graduate 0.1046 0.2166*
Graduate school 0.1262 0.2365*
Open in a new tab

Note. * p<0.05

Discussion

The importance of both responsiveness and ethnic-racial cultural socialization in early parent-child interactions suggests the need for an observational measure that accounts for both processes in combination. The CARE measure was developed to address this gap and shows initial promise in doing so. Findings indicated that observers were able to reliably apply the CARE measure to a book reading activity. Further, initial psychometric properties indicate CARE reliability and variation in the constructs as they occur in early parent-child interactions. This variation could be accounted for by certain family socio-demographic characteristics. We explore each finding below.

CARE Demonstrates Preliminary Reliability and Validity

Given that observation in naturalistic settings provides a valid context for studying complex, key parent-child interaction processes (Loop et al., 2017), it was critical to first establish the ability of coders to reliably apply CARE. Exploring reliability in multiple ways indicated that coders could, in fact, apply CARE to a recorded mother-child book reading activity. This provides initial evidence that the CARE measure allows researchers to examine responsiveness and E-RCS between a parent and child that may occur within a natural context, suggesting it could be implemented in future studies.

Following the establishment of coder reliability, exploration involved whether the CARE codes reflected the constructs under study. Based on prior literature, initial CARE domains were created. In their application and subsequent analysis, however, dimensions realigned to reflect two factors. The Child Lead factor reflected the child’s role and initiative in the interaction. The Parent Lead factor, on the other hand, reflected the parent’s initiative in the interaction, inclusive of E-RCS behaviors. As hypothesized, responsiveness and ethnic-racial cultural socialization, while typically seen as unique aspects of parents’ behavior in supporting children’s development, were related, and co-occurred within the observations. This is consistent with evidence that early parent-child interactions are a key context for developmental processes and supports emerging ideas that, in addition to responsiveness, E-RCS is a normative aspect of parenting within all families (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Maccoby, 1992; Shonkoff et al., 2009; Sroufe, 2000; Yasui, 2015). Thus, the findings allow us to understand more about the interconnection of parent responsiveness and E-RCS and their role in the quality of parent-child interactions.

Further, the Child Lead and Parent Lead factors were moderately correlated, reinforcing that parent-child interactions are bidirectional and that the child’s behavior during an interaction influences the parent’s response, and vice versa (Chirico et al., 2020; Kochanska & Aksan, 2004). This finding also suggests that families of all SES backgrounds have some level of mutuality in their interactions. Given that high-quality parent-child interactions are a key aspect of early development and related to positive outcomes (Maccoby, 1992; Shonkoff et al., 2009; Sroufe, 2000), they are a valid context to target inclusion and enhancement of responsive behaviors and E-RCS in parenting practices to enrich early interactions. The combination of these characteristics in an observational measure is unique, and findings that they are separate, but related, as well as occurring within all families, is an important addition to the field.

Findings suggest that the interactions observed by the CARE measure do vary based on maternal socio-demographic characteristics. Specifically, mothers with higher income and educational attainment exhibited higher levels of responsiveness during the book reading activity than mothers with lower income and educational attainment, which is consistent with the literature (Bornstein et al., 2007; Davis-Kean et al., 2019; Hoff & Laursen, 2019; Justice et al., 2019). Results also demonstrated that mothers with these same characteristics engaged in more ethnic-racial cultural socialization with their child during the task. Interestingly, child race was not significantly correlated with Child Lead, suggesting that maternal characteristics are more predictive of the quality of mother-child interactions than child characteristics. Though the sample size is small, findings add to the literature that maternal responsiveness and E-RCS occur in tandem during parent-child interactions in all families, yet more often with mothers of higher SES (Hughes et al, 2006; McHale et al, 2006; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020).

Limitations and Future Considerations

It is important to consider the limitations of the study sample and procedures. Specifically, the sample was small, and the restricted range of income limits our ability to examine patterns of responsiveness and E-RCS in families of varied incomes. Further, the sample was inclusive only of English-speaking mothers, and when reporting race and ethnicity, participants were limited to one selection for race and one selection for ethnicity. Thus, our sample lacks language diversity and information around multiracial and multi-ethnic backgrounds. Due to the rapidly increasing multi-ethnic/multiracial population in the United States, future analyses examining E-RCS practices might examine participant racial-ethnic backgrounds in ways that may be more generalizable to a broader demographic of family groups.

There are also limitations of the task and CARE measure. Due to the semi-structured nature of the task, there is a chance participating mothers were not reading with their children as they typically would. Given this study observed mother-child interactions, findings cannot be generalized to other proximal interaction contexts, including with non-maternal caregivers. Future research should examine responsiveness and E-RCS across more diverse contexts to supplement our findings. Further, the CARE measure focused on the mother’s role in E-RCS and did not address all components of E-RCS. Future work should incorporate codes that capture the child’s attempts to initiate or encourage conversations related to E-RCS and expand the codes to capture broader E-RCS. This extension could deepen our understanding of the roles both the parent and the child play in socialization efforts. And, given that exact interrater reliability was examined, the CARE domains were coded using a three-point scale rather than a 5- or 7-point scale to increase reliability, but the smaller range did reduce variability in domain and dimension scores.

Finally, due to the unexpected challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was adapted to align with COVID-safe protocols, including limiting access to participants’ homes, and therefore the team was unable to expand the coding scheme beyond the video-recorded structured reading task. Future work could incorporate a survey to account for cultural materials participants have in their homes (e.g., artwork, representative artifacts, foods, etc.) which are additional indicators of E-RCS.

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, this study adds novel information to our nuanced understanding of how E-RCS and responsiveness co-occur within parent-child interactions. The CARE Measure is one of the first of its kind, adding to existing observational work in the field. Although much of E-RCS work in the field focuses on families of color within laboratory settings, this study’s findings within a diverse sample supplement the limited existing literature and reinforce that both responsiveness and E-RCS are normative aspects of parenting and are present within early mother-child interactions across varying races and ethnicities. Future work that addresses the current study’s limitations could add to the field’s understanding of which family socio-demographic characteristics are predictive of socialization efforts and how both the mother and child contribute to high-quality early interactions.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to express our gratitude to the participating families.

Funding:

This work was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Grant 1R01HD091130.

Footnotes

Disclosure statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. Aguayo L, Hernandez IG, Yasui M, Estabrook R, Anderson EL, Davis MM, Briggs-Gowan MJ, Wakschlag LS, & Heard-Garris N (2021). Cultural socialization in childhood: Analysis of parent–child conversations with a direct observation measure. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(2), 138–148. 10.1037/fam0000663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aspland H, & Gardner F (2003). Observational Measures of Parent-Child Interaction: An Introductory Review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8(3), 136–143. 10.1111/1475-3588.00061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Borairi S, Fearon P, Madigan S, Plamondon A, & Jenkins J (n.d.). A mediation meta-analysis of the role of maternal responsivity in the association between socioeconomic risk and children’s language. Child Development, n/a(n/a). 10.1111/cdev.13695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bronfenbrenner U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown TL, Linver MR, Evans M, & DeGennaro D (2009). African-American Parents’ Racial and Ethnic Socialization and Adolescent Academic Grades: Teasing Out the Role of Gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(2), 214–227. 10.1007/s10964-008-9362-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Caughy MO, O’Campo PJ, Randolph SM, & Nickerson K (2002). The Influence of Racial Socialization Practices on the Cognitive and Behavioral Competence of African American Preschoolers. Child Development, 73(5), 1611–1625. 10.1111/1467-8624.00493 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caughy MO, & Owen MT (2015). Cultural Socialization and School Readiness of African American and Latino Preschoolers. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 391–399. 10.1037/a0037928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chirico I, Andrei F, Salvatori P, Malaguti I, & Trombini E (2020). The Focal Play Therapy: An Empirical Study on the Parent–Therapist Alliance, Parent–Child Interactions and Parenting Stress in a Clinical Sample of Children and Their Parents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22), 8379. 10.3390/ijerph17228379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coll CG, Lamberty G, Jenkins R, McAdoo HP, Crnic K, Wasik BH, & García HV (1996). An Integrative Model for the Study of Developmental Competencies in Minority Children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891–1914. 10.2307/1131600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis-Kean PE, Tang S, & Waters NE (2019). Parent Education Attainment and Parenting. In Handbook of Parenting (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429401459-12/parent-education-attainment-parenting-pamela-davis-kean-sandra-tang-nicholas-waters [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis BL, Smith-Bynum MA, Saleem FT, Francois T, & Lambert SF (2017). Racial Socialization, Private Regard, and Behavior Problems in African American Youth: Global Self-Esteem as a Mediator. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(3), 709–720. 10.1007/s10826-016-0601-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Downer JT, Booren LM, Lima OK, Luckner AE, & Pianta RC (2010). The Individualized Classroom Assessment Scoring System (inCLASS): Preliminary Reliability and Validity of a System for Observing Preschoolers’ Competence in Classroom Interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(1), 1–16. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.08.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dunbar AS, HaRim Ahn L, Coates EE, & Smith-Bynum MA (2022). Observed dyadic racial socialization disrupts the association between frequent discriminatory experiences and emotional reactivity among Black adolescents. Child Development, 93(1), 39–57. 10.1111/cdev.13680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Foronda CL (2008). A Concept Analysis of Cultural Sensitivity. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 19(3), 207–212. 10.1177/1043659608317093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Funamoto A, & Rinaldi CM (2015). Measuring Parent–Child Mutuality: A Review of Current Observational Coding Systems. Infant Mental Health Journal, 36(1), 3–11. 10.1002/imhj.21481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gardner H. (2000). Using Multiple Intelligences to Improve Negotiation Theory and Practice. Negotiation Journal, 16(4), 321–324. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2000.tb00760.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hagerman MA (2014). White families and race: Colour-blind and colour-conscious approaches to white racial socialization. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37(14), 2598–2614. 10.1080/01419870.2013.848289 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Henry DA, Votruba-Drzal E, & Miller P (2019). Chapter One - Child development at the intersection of race and SES: An overview. In Henry DA, Votruba-Drzal E, & Miller P (Eds.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior (Vol. 57, pp. 1–25). JAI. 10.1016/bs.acdb.2019.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hoff E, & Laursen B (2019). Socioeconomic Status and Parenting. In Handbook of Parenting (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hughes D, Rodriguez J, Smith EP, Johnson DJ, Stevenson HC, & Spicer P (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hughes D, Witherspoon D, Rivas-Drake D, & West-Bey N (2009). Received ethnic–racial socialization messages and youths’ academic and behavioral outcomes: Examining the mediating role of ethnic identity and self-esteem. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(2), 112–124. 10.1037/a0015509 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Justice LM, Jiang H, Purtell KM, Schmeer K, Boone K, Bates R, & Salsberry PJ (2019). Conditions of Poverty, Parent–Child Interactions, and Toddlers’ Early Language Skills in Low-Income Families. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 23(7), 971–978. 10.1007/s10995-018-02726-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kochanska G, & Aksan N (2004). Development of Mutual Responsiveness Between Parents and Their Young Children. Child Development, 75(6), 1657–1676. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00808.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kochanska G, Boldt LJ, & Goffin KC (2019). Early relational experience: A foundation for the unfolding dynamics of parent-child socialization. Child Development Perspectives, 13(1), 41–47. 10.1111/cdep.12308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Loop L, Mouton B, Brassart E, & Roskam I (2017). The Observation of Child Behavior During Parent-Child Interaction: The Psychometric Properties of the Crowell Procedure. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(4), 1040–1050. 10.1007/s10826-016-0625-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Loyd AB, & Gaither SE (2018). Racial/ethnic socialization for White youth: What we know and future directions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 59, 54–64. 10.1016/j.appdev.2018.05.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lytton H. (1971). Observation studies of parent-child interaction: A methodological review. Child Development, 42(3), 651–684. 10.2307/1127439 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Maccoby EE (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006–1017. 10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. McHale SM, Crouter AC, Kim J-Y, Burton LM, Davis KD, Dotterer AM, & Swanson DP (2006). Mothers’ and Fathers’ Racial Socialization in African American Families: Implications for Youth. Child Development, 77(5), 1387–1402. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00942.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Moon RY, Hauck FR, Kellams AL, Colson ER, Geller NL, Heeren TC, Kerr SM, & Corwin MJ (2017). Comparison of Text Messages Versus E-mail When Communicating and Querying with Mothers About Safe Infant Sleep. Academic pediatrics, 17(8), 871–878. 10.1016/j.acap.2017.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Morris AS, Criss MM, Silk JS, & Houltberg BJ (2017). The Impact of Parenting on Emotion Regulation During Childhood and Adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 11(4), 233–238. 10.1111/cdep.12238 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998, 2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. https://www.statmodel.com/HTML_UG/introV8.htm [Google Scholar]
  33. Pentimonti JM, Bowles RP, Zucker TA, Tambyraja SR, & Justice LM (2021). Development and validation of the Systematic Assessment of Book Reading (SABR-2.2). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 201–213. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.11.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Priest N, Walton J, White F, Kowal E, Baker A, & Paradies Y (2014). Understanding the complexities of ethnic-racial socialization processes for both minority and majority groups: A 30-year systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 139–155. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Quintana SM (1998). Children’s developmental understanding of ethnicity and race. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 7(1), 27–45. 10.1016/S0962-1849(98)80020-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Schechter JC, Brennan PA, Smith AK, Stowe ZN, Newport DJ, & Johnson KC (2017). Maternal prenatal psychological distress and preschool cognitive functioning: The protective role of positive parental engagement. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45(2), 249–260. 10.1007/s10802-016-0161-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Shonkoff JP, Duncan GJ, Yoshikawa H, Guyer B, Phillips D, Brooks-Gunn J, Raikes H, Magnuson K, Levitt P, Boyce WT, & McEwen BS (2009). National forum on early childhood program evaluation. 16. [Google Scholar]
  38. Simon C. (2021). The Role of Race and Ethnicity in Parental Ethnic-Racial Socialization: A Scoping Review of Research. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(1), 182–195. 10.1007/s10826-020-01854-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Spencer MB, Swanson DP, & Cunningham M (1991). Ethnicity, Ethnic Identity, and Competence Formation: Adolescent Transition and Cultural Transformation. The Journal of Negro Education, 60(3), 366–387. 10.2307/2295490 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Spruijt AM, Dekker MC, Ziermans TB, & Swaab H (2020). Educating parents to improve parent–child interactions: Fostering the development of attentional control and executive functioning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(S1), 158–175. 10.1111/bjep.12312 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sroufe LA (2000). Early relationships and the development of children. Tradition-a Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, 21, 67–74. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0355(200001/04)21:1/23.0.CO;2-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. StataCorp. (2017). Stata Statistical Software: Release 15, LLC, College Station, TX: StataCorp [Google Scholar]
  43. Umaña-Taylor AJ, & Hill NE (2020). Ethnic–Racial Socialization in the Family: A Decade’s Advance on Precursors and Outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 244–271. 10.1111/jomf.12622 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Umaña-Taylor AJ, Quintana SM, Lee RM, Cross WE, Rivas-Drake D, Schwartz SJ, Syed M, Yip T, Seaton E, & Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group. (2014). Ethnic and Racial Identity During Adolescence and Into Young Adulthood: An Integrated Conceptualization. Child Development, 85(1), 21–39. 10.1111/cdev.12196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Vittrup B. (2018). Color Blind or Color Conscious? White American Mothers’ Approaches to Racial Socialization. Journal of Family Issues, 39(3), 668–692. 10.1177/0192513X16676858 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wade M, Jenkins JM, Venkadasalam VP, Binnoon-Erez N, & Ganea PA (2018). The role of maternal responsiveness and linguistic input in pre-academic skill development: A longitudinal analysis of pathways. Cognitive Development, 45, 125–140. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2018.01.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang M-T, Henry DA, Smith LV, Huguley JP, & Guo J (2020). Parental ethnic-racial socialization practices and children of color’s psychosocial and behavioral adjustment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 75(1), 1–22. 10.1037/amp0000464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Williams CD, Bravo DY, Umaña-Taylor AJ, Updegraff KA, Jahromi LB, Martinez-Fuentes S, & de Jesus Elias M (2020). Intergenerational Transmission of Cultural Socialization and Effects on Young Children’s Developmental Competencies among Mexican-origin Families. Developmental Psychology, 56(2), 199–207. 10.1037/dev0000859 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yasui M. (2015). A review of the empirical assessment of processes in ethnic–racial socialization: Examining methodological advances and future areas of development. Developmental Review, 37, 1–40. 10.1016/j.dr.2015.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES