Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Fam Relat. 2024 Feb 18;73(3):1823–1839. doi: 10.1111/fare.12995

Mother–child similarity during observed interactions: Links with mother and child effortful control

Yelim Hong 1, Martha Ann Bell 2, Kirby Deater-Deckard 1
PMCID: PMC11867609  NIHMSID: NIHMS1959729  PMID: 40028239

Abstract

Objective:

We examined whether mothers’ and child’s regulatory capacity, measured by effortful control (EC) and its facets, is associated with variance in mother–child within-dyad similarity in multiple aspects of positive emotions and behaviors during their interaction.

Background:

Both parents’ and children’s self-regulation capacities may help them to modulate their behaviors and emotions to be mutually responsive to and harmonious with their interaction partner.

Methods:

Participants were children of 3- to-7-year-olds and their mothers (n = 147). Mothers completed a set of questionnaires regarding themselves, their child, and demographics, and mother–child interactions were observed during three cooperative tasks. We estimated mother–child within-dyad similarity during their brief interaction using the Q-correlation method.

Results:

Mothers’ general EC was statistically associated with greater mother–child similarity, but children’s EC was not. When testing the subscales of EC, greater mother–child similarity was associated with mother’s higher attentional control, child’s better attention focusing, child’s lower levels of low intensity pleasure, and older child age.

Conclusion:

Mother’s higher attentional control and child’s better attention focusing are associated with greater mother and child within-dyad similarity during their interactions.

Implications:

This study highlights the importance of considering child and mother self-regulation for intervention efforts to better understand how dyads match and co-modulate their behaviors and emotions during their interactions.

Keywords: early and middle childhood, effortful control, mother–child similarity, regulation, temperament

Children develop within a family context, with parents being especially important socialization agents in that context. Parents play a primary role in providing direct support to develop children’s self-regulation during early childhood. Children’s early regulatory skills are acquired and developed in the context of parent–child interactions (Feldman, 2007). Children’s distinct individual characteristics can evoke different reactions from their parents, and these reactions in turn influence the child’s socioemotional and behavioral development including their regulation, temperament, personality, and behavior (Caspi, 1998; Jeannin & Van Leeuwen, 2015; Lam et al., 2012; van Tuijl et al., 2005). Specifically, both parents’ and children’s self-regulation capacities may help them modulate their behaviors and emotions be mutually responsive to and harmonious with their interaction partner (Davis et al., 2017). Therefore, the broad goal of the current study of 3- to 7-year-olds was to examine associations between mother and child effortful control (EC, a key indicator of self-regulation) and its various facets, with mother–child within-dyad similarity during observed interactions—while also controlling for mother and child emotional reactivity.

BIDIRECTIONAL PROCESSES LINKING PARENT AND CHILD BEHAVIORS

Parent–child relationships include bidirectional processes that continuously develop from infancy and across childhood (Combs-Ronto et al., 2009). Children are more likely to behave as expected by parents in the context of positive and reciprocal relationships with their parents (Kochanska et al., 2008). Also, children learn how they should focus attention and acquire relevant information through parents’ direction and guidance.

The within-dyad similarity in both partners’ behaviors and emotion expressions during dyadic interaction have been conceptualized in a variety of ways. At times, it is interpreted as dyadic synchrony (e.g., Davis et at., 2017; Feldman, 2003; Field et al., 1990; Scholtes et al., 2021), dyadic coregulation (e.g., Feldman, 2003), or behavioral matching (e.g., Field et al., 1990; Louwerse et al., 2012; Noe et al., 2015). Synchrony refers to the harmonious coordination of biological and behavioral responses between two individuals who are engaged in interaction with each other. It involves the mutual adaptation of behaviors and physiological processes, such as heart rate, between partners over the course of their interaction. For example, both mothers and children adjust their behavioral and physiological responses in a way that supports mutual regulation and connection (Bell, 2020; Feldman, 2012). By comparison, “similarity” or “matching” more simply indicates the occurrence of behavioral or physiological matching between two individuals. It focuses on the objective alignment of behavioral or physiological characteristics exhibited by the two individuals, indicating a degree of match of similarity between them.

Parent–child positive dyadic synchrony and coordination of social behaviors indicate that the parent and child are mutually regulated and are interacting reciprocally and harmoniously (Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Skowron et al., 2010). Investigating behavioral and affective synchrony/coregulation/matching is important because it indicates positive interaction dynamics that promote each partner’s attunement to the other (Davis et al., 2017). During positive and harmonious interactions, the parent and child engage in similar levels of positive and reciprocal verbal and nonverbal behaviors, such as expressions of positive affect (e.g., laughing and smiling) and responsiveness to each other’s behaviors and emotions (Beebe et al., 1982; Brazelton et al., 1974; Harrist & Waugh, 2002).

There are three considerations in the prior literature that we wish to bring to the fore. First, the majority of the prior research that has strived to operationalize within-dyad similarity has tended to require second-by-second or event-to-event time series or dynamical systems analysis (e.g., Lunkenheimer et al., 2020; Northrup & Iverson, 2020). This is an essential approach but is resource intensive, and it may not capture the overall within-dyad similarity that occurs across broad periods of time during and beyond an interaction period (many minutes or hours, for example) We would argue that our field also needs to refine and apply methods for examining within-dyad pair similarity in behaviors that can be used with broad “global” ratings of behavior—one of the very common observation coding methods in use today (e.g., Funamoto & Rinaldi, 2015; Morawska et al., 2015).

Second, although some prior studies have examined within-dyad similarity in multiple variables simultaneously, most of the prior within-dyad behavioral similarity research has focused on just one or a few variables at a time (e.g., eye gaze/joint attention; body movements; specific emotion expressions; e.g., Ravindran et al., 2021; van Dijk et al., 2022). Again, this approach is essential, but inferences about interaction partner similarity is often limited to each variable. Dyadic interaction involves a multitude of discernible (although often outside awareness) behavioral and other perceptual signals. Third, there are multiple coding systems in use that involve direct coding of dyadic cohesiveness, coordination, reciprocity, and so on (e.g., Feldman & Masalha, 2010; Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015). Once again, such methods are essential, but they do not quantify within-dyad similarity in an array of multiple behaviors of each individual and therefore only indirectly assess within-dyad similarity.

Our view is that our field also is in need of applying methods that examine multiple variables at a time and examine “within-dyad similarity” as opposed to “variable centered” approach to data analysis and interpretation. Little of the prior relevant research has examined overall parent–child similarity across multiple dyadic behavior and affect variables simultaneously, but instead has focused on one or two variables separately. This is a shortcoming because the parent and child exhibit a variety of intercorrelated behaviors individually in their dyadic interactions. Focusing on one or two variables at a time misses potentially important aspects of the overall and holistic within-dyad similarity in behavior and emotion. In the current study, we used a multidimensional approach to calculate overall within-dyad similarity in both individuals’ behaviors during interaction based on globally rated individual behaviors.

CHILD AND PARENT EFFORTFUL CONTROL

EC is an important aspect of temperament, and it is defined as the capacity to inhibit a dominant response and/or to activate a subdominant response, to plan, and to detect errors (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). It is a key construct within the broad constellation of self-regulation, linking attention and emotion, and it includes attentional and inhibitory control (along with a few other facets) in children and adults alike (Eisenberg et al., 2005, 2011; Putnam & Rothbart, 2006). EC is associated with a variety of adaptive developmental skills, including emotion regulation (Gartstein & Fagot, 2003; Hughes et al., 1998, 2000; Silk et al., 2003), social competence (Eisenberg et al., 2003; Fabes et al., 1999; Spinrad et al., 2006, 2007), sympathy/empathy (Eisenberg et al., 2007; Valiente et al., 2004), and lower levels of internalizing and externalizing disorders (Eisenberg et al., 2001, 2009). Very similar associations are seen with EC among adults, including sensitive caregiving behaviors that support the healthy development of children’s EC and other aspects of regulation (Bridgett et al., 2011; Bridgett et al., 2015; Cumberland-Li et al., 2003; Gartstein et al., 2013). Mothers with higher EC tend to be more attentive and less harsh in their parenting—and to interact with their children with more positive and reciprocal verbal and nonverbal behaviors (Bridgett et al., 2011; Chen & Johnston, 2007; Mokrova et al., 2010; Valiente et al., 2007). For example, Zeytinoglu and colleagues (2017) found that mothers who were higher in EC showed more emotionally supportive caregiving behaviors (e.g., focused attention on child needs, inhibition of negative responses toward the child); maternal EC and supportive behaviors both were related to better regulation in the child.

Mother–Child Similarity and Regulation

Most of the prior research on parenting and child self-regulation has focused on individual behaviors rather than dyad characteristics. Dyad-level measurement that captures key aspects of parent–child interaction should be considered as well because they capture synchronous, regulated, behavioral matching features of the relationship that can only be seen at the dyad level (Davis et al., 2017; Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Lowe et al., 2012). In an optimal mother–child dyad interaction, mothers are more likely to modulate their behaviors to their child to provide appropriate stimulation and arousal modulation (Field, 1987), and children are also more likely regulate their behaviors and listen to and attune to their caregivers. Thus, the mother and child’s attentive and affective states are more likely to be aligned (Field et al., 1990). In contrast, if the mothers easily lose their attentional control and are not able to focus their attention on the interaction with their child, the mother and child’s affective and attentive behaviors are not likely to be aligned (Field et al., 1990).

Why would within-dyad similarity matter? Greater similarity that may reflect behavioral and emotional matching during interactions may indicate greater efficiency in coregulation of behavior in the dyad’s interactions (Harrist & Waugh, 2002). Furthermore, matching and coordinating of behaviors and affect further elicits interpersonal empathy and social connectedness (Bell, 2020; Feldman, 2015; de Mendonça et al., 2011). This similarity may also be important to sustaining a secure attachment relationship (Provenzi et al., 2018) and play an important role in children’s socioemotional development by supporting social learning of self-regulation (Bell, 2020; Feldman, 2015). In these ways, mother–child similarity in positive emotions and behaviors during interactions may support positive social development of children and promote family wellbeing.

Although many previous studies have examined the association between parent and child behavioral synchrony and child’s self-regulation (e.g., Hinnant et al., 2013; Kochanska et al., 2008; Suveg et al., 2016), few studies have examined the link between parent–child positive behavioral and affective similarity (or matching) and parents’ and children’s abilities to regulate their behaviors and emotions based on situational demands. One study of infants and mothers found that higher levels of affective matching within the dyad was associated with better infant self-regulation, more positive affect, less negative affect, and higher levels of maternal positive affect (Noe et al., 2015). Other studies have found that the coregulation of emotions and behaviors during dyadic interaction is related to the positive affect by both parent and child during that interaction (Harrist & Waugh, 2002). There are several underutilized techniques for capturing overall mother–child similarity across multiple dimensions and variables during their interaction that are well suited for global ratings data. In the current study, we used a “Q correlation score” that quantifies overall within-dyad score profile similarity across multiple variables simultaneously (Gaunt, 2006; Heijkoop et al., 2009; van Tuijl et al., 2005). The Q-correlation can be used to compute profile similarity for each dyad and estimates the within-pair similarity as a correlation. For example, consider a dataset that has many mother–child dyads in it. Each mother and child have a set of scores on a set of relevant variables measured in the same way for both people, such that there are two sets of scores, one for each subject (Fleiss, 1972). This dataset is then transposed so that rows (dyads) become columns and columns (variables) become rows. That is, each mother and child is then treated as if he or she is a separate variable, and each behavior indicator is treated as an individual (Gaunt, 2006). The Q correlation is calculated between each mother and child as the usual product–moment correlation coefficient that spans all the behavior indicators. Its magnitude describes the degree and direction (positive or negative) similarity between two people across the set of variables, rather than the degree and direction of similarity between two variables across a set of individuals (Fleiss, 1972; Gaunt, 2006). The Q correlation functions like a score and has possible values ranging from –1 (complete profile dissimilarity) to 0 (no similarity or dissimilarity) to +1 (complete profile similarity).

CURRENT STUDY OF MOTHER–CHILD SIMILARITY IN EARLY AND MIDDLE CHILDHOOD

The current study focuses on identifying the potential association between the child’s and the mother’s EC and their within-dyad similarity on various aspects of positive interaction. We focus on early and middle childhood. There are a variety of ways that children learn and develop their regulatory skills, but in early childhood, most self-regulation skills develop in the context of parent–child relationships (Feldman, 2007) in which parents teach regulation strategies using direct interventions and actions (Hong et al., 2021). And in early as well as middle childhood, the parent and the child influence and regulate (or dysregulate) each other’s emotions and behaviors. Across early childhood and the transition to middle childhood, the child’s regulatory skills are acquired within an ongoing dyadic relationship process that is heavily dependent on the parent’s own self-regulation and behavior (Calkins, 2010; Lunkenheimer et al., 2017). As children develop regulation skills across early childhood and into middle childhood, they gain more autonomy in self-regulating (Hong et al., 2021; Morris et al., 2007). With this increasing autonomy in the transition to middle childhood, children also become more effective at initiating and redirecting their parent’s attention and behavior and play a larger role in the harmony of parent–child interaction (Harrist & Waugh, 2002; Im-Bolter et al., 2015). However, we know little about parent–child similarity in interaction behavior, or its associations with each partner’s EC, in this important developmental period spanning early childhood through the transition to middle childhood. Thus, we focus on this developmental period (3–7 years).

In addition, a thorough examination of EC may require consideration not only of the overall EC factor score but of the separate subscale facets as well. It is possible that each subcomponent of EC shows a distinct association with mother–child similarity (for an example, see Moriya & Tanno, 2008, who reported distinct EC subscale associations with negative emotionality). In the current study, although we did not have specific hypotheses regarding the individual subscales of EC, to be thorough in our analysis, we examined the general EC factor score as well as the subscale scores in separate analyses.

To distinguish the potential effect of mother–child similarity in positive behaviors, from one or both partners just being dispositionally high in positivity or low in negativity, we statistically controlled for both partners’ emotionally reactive aspects of temperament including positive affect and anger/frustration when investigating within-dyad similarity. In addition, another possibility is that it is not parent and child EC that explains the association with dyad similarity, but overall level of positive affect and behavior rated from observed interaction. Thus, we also controlled for both partners’ overall level of positive affect and behavior observed from their interactions.

The first aim of the current study was to examine whether the mother’s and child’s regulatory capacity, measured by overall EC and its facets, are associated with mother–child within-dyad similarity in multiple aspects of positive emotions and behaviors during their interaction. The second aim was to investigate whether any links between within-dyad similarity and both partners’ EC are still present even after controlling for the emotionally reactive aspects of temperament (i.e., mother’s and child’s indicators of positive affect and anger/frustration) and overall observed positivity.

Based on the prior literature and theory, we hypothesized that higher levels of both the mother’s and the child’s EC and its facets would be associated with a higher level of within-pair similarity in positive aspects of interaction, even after controlling for both partners’ temperament-based positive and negative emotional reactivity, as well as overall observed positivity in their dyadic interaction.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 3- to 7-year-olds and their mothers. All participants were recruited from two research locations in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States (a rural college town and a mid-sized city). Two thirds of the sample was recruited through community agencies and organizations and advertisements (via flyers in schools and common areas, a university website, and email announcements) from a small urban area. Individuals who had an interest in participating in the study contacted the project coordinator and were provided with a description of the study. If the mother was eligible based on the age of the child, the mother and child participated at our laboratory in the small city. The other third of the sample was in a cohort of families in an ongoing longitudinal community study and they participated in a visit to our rural university laboratory.

The child sample who had questionnaire data was 177, and the mother sample who had questionnaire data was 161, and the mother–child dyad sample who had observational data was 156. Regarding missing data treatment, we used Little’s algorithm to test for missing completely at random (MCAR) assumption (Rhemtulla & Little, 2012), and the data met the assumption of MCAR. Therefore, we used simple listwise-deletion and the final sample included 147 dyads who had both questionnaire data and observational data. Mothers were 33 years old on average (SD = 6.35). Children were 57.58 months old on average (SD = 15.64), and half of them were female. Families were educationally diverse. Sixty-nine percent of the mothers were cohabiting or married and living with the child’s biological father, 6% were separated or divorced, and the remaining 25% were single mothers who had not married the father. Parental education varied widely. Of the parents, 22% (mothers)/31% (fathers) had a high school diploma/GED or less, 28%/29% had some college or an associate degree, 30%/19% had a 4-year degree, and 20%/20% had a postgraduate degree. Mothers reported on race for themselves and the child’s biological father: 74% (mothers)/68% (fathers) Caucasian, 12%/18% African American, 1%/2% Asian, 8%/7% multiple races, 1%/1% other, and 4%/4% not specified. Four percent of mothers and 2% of fathers reported being Hispanic. Eighteen percent of the fathers were unemployed.

Procedure

The study was conducted in compliance with regulations from the institutional review board. At the beginning of the visit, signed consent was obtained from the mothers, and assent was obtained from the children. Before the visit, mothers completed a set of questionnaires regarding themselves, their child, and demographics. Mother–child interactions were recorded during three cooperative tasks including drawing with an Etch-A-Sketch, doing a puzzle, and building a model using Duplo blocks, and each task lasted 4 to 5 minutes. For the Etch-A-Sketch drawing task, the mother and child each were assigned a control knob and drew a simple line of a square and one complex line of a smiling face together without touching each other’s knob. For the puzzle task, the mother and child put together a puzzle of animal pictures. For the Duplo blocks, the mother was asked to show their child a model castle and only verbally instruct them on how to copy it. Participants received an honorarium.

Measures

Child and mother behaviors

Trained research assistants coded the videotaped parent–child interaction after each visit using the widely used Parent–Child Interaction System of global ratings (PARCHISY; see Deater-Deckard et al., 1997). They viewed the videotaped interaction and rated mothers’ and children’s behavior separately during the three structured tasks. We used 10 items (five for mother [m] and five for child [c]) for mother–child similarity analyses, including [m/c] positive affect, [m/c] negative affect, [m/c] on task, [m/c] verbalization/talkativeness, and [m/c] responsiveness to dyad partner. The items were rated on 7-point Likert-type scales (1 = no occurrence of the behavior to 7 = continual occurrence of the behavior).

Our method of coding emphasizes maintaining extremely high levels of interrater agreement using consensus coding. This resource-intensive method uses complete agreement between two coders for the final scores used for analysis. Training involves practicing with sample interaction videos. To continue as a coder, each person had to exceed overall average reliability (across the 18 codes that are part of the full PARCHISY) of .85 (interrater alpha coefficient). This approach is based on generalizability theory which, unlike item-by-item methods for estimating reliability, considers the variability in each coders’ ratings across ratings and dyads (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997). For coding the interactions, each family dyad was assigned a pair of randomly selected coders who would view the interaction silently and without looking at each other while they separately completed their ratings. This was followed by discussion to compare ratings and the registering of the final agreed-on score for each rating. If the coding pair disagreed by 1 point on the 7-point scale, their scores were averaged. If they disagreed by more than 1 point, they reached consensus on the most appropriate score.

Child and mother effortful control

Mothers completed the validated, reliable, and widely used Child Behavior Questionnaire Short Form (CBQ-SF; Putnam & Rothbart, 2006) and the Adult Temperament Questionnaire Short Form (ATQ-SF; Evans & Rothbart, 2007). The CBQ-SF questionnaire assesses children’s temperament according to the parent’s perceptions. The questionnaire has 94 items in total that fall into four broad dimensions and 15 subscales of five to seven items each; we used the EC factor (α = .66) and its four subscales (attention focusing [α = .73], inhibitory control [.64], perceptual sensitivity [.67], and low-intensity pleasure [.70]), as well as smiling and laughter [.70] and anger/frustration [.80]. Mothers were asked to rate how well the items describe their child on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely untrue of my child to 7 = extremely true of my child).

For mothers, we used the ATQ-SF questionnaire. It is a self-report questionnaire for adults aged 18 years and older, and it assesses constructs of temperament and personality. The questionnaire has 77 items that fall into four factors and 13 subscales of five to seven items each. We used the EC factor (α = .68) and its three subscales (attentional control [.75], inhibitory control [.50], and activation control [.75]), as well as positive affect [.65], and frustration [.73]. Mothers were asked to indicate how well the items describe themselves on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely untrue to 7 = extremely true).

Covariates

We controlled for child age and the gender of the child (1 = male, 2 = female). Also, in follow-up analyses, we controlled for both partners’ emotionally reactive aspects of temperament including positive affect and anger/frustration; we also controlled for overall composite score (i.e., overall observed positivity) that captures each mother and child’s mean scores of the five PARCHISY items we used to create “mother–child within-dyad similarity” score.

Calculating overall mother–child within-dyad similarity

To calculate overall mother–child within-dyad similarity, we estimated Q correlations as described above (Gaunt, 2006; Heijkoop et al., 2009; van Tuijl et al., 2005). For computing mother–child similarity in observer-rated behaviors, the PARCHISY items were used. The Q-correlation was computed using five identical PARCHISY items scored separately for each of the three tasks (i.e., a total of 15 scores per partner). These were scaled so that a higher score on each item was indicative of greater sociability, positive emotion and behavior, self-regulation, and less negative emotion and behavior: [mother/child] positive affect, [m/c] negative affect (reversed), [m/c] on-task behavior, [m/c] verbosity/talkativeness, and [m/c] responsiveness to partner).

Data analyses

To test the study hypotheses, we used multiple standard and hierarchical regression analyses to examine the association between mother’s and child’s EC and parent–child similarity during their interaction. Because the subscales of EC are highly correlated one another, we tested multicollinearity diagnostics, and the variance inflation factor (VIF) for all independent variables were less than 1.7, which was not severe enough to conclude that there was multicollinearity. Four sets of equations were estimated: one standard regression equation for testing mother’s and child’s EC as statistical predictors; a second standard regression equation for testing the mother’s and child’s subscales of EC (i.e., attentional control/attention focusing, inhibitory control, activational control, perceptual sensitivity, and low-intensity pleasure) as predictors; a third hierarchical regression equation that took the first equation and added other emotion temperament facets (i.e., frustration, anger, positive affect, and smiling/laughter) and overall PARCHISY composite score as covariates; and a fourth hierarchical regression equation that took the second equation and added other emotion temperament facets as well as the overall PARCHISY composite score as covariates in the fourth equation. We first ran each equation with covariates included (i.e., child age and child sex), then dropped nonsignificant covariates, reestimated the equation, and interpreted the equation with only significant covariates included. For the third and fourth equations, we used hierarchical multiple regression to control other covariates (i.e., emotion temperament facets and overall PARCHISY composite) as described earlier before entering the predictors and presented the results with all covariates included so as to examine if the predictors were significant even after controlling for other emotion temperament facets and the overall PARCHISY composite.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were computed and are reported in Table 1. All variables showed some skewness, but most approximated a normal distribution spanning the entire range of each scale. One variable (similarity of observed mother–child behavior) was highly positively skewed (min = .29, max = .99, M = .84, SD = .14), so the scores were reversed, log transformed and finally reversed again (min = 1.00, max = 1.53, M = 1.40, SD = .11) so that higher scores again represented greater similarity. Bivariate correlations between study variables showed that in general, there was positive covariation among child EC, mother EC, and the subscales of EC for mother and child (i.e., inhibitory control, attention focusing).

TABLE 1.

Correlations and descriptive statistics

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Child age (months) 1.00
2. Child gender (1 = male, 2 = female) –.24** 1.00
3. Child effortful control .03 .23** 1.00
4. Mother effortful control –.02 –.09 .20* 1.00
5. Child inhibitory control .07 .12 .81** .27** 1.00
6. Child attention focusing –.04 .21** .73** .15 .52** 1.00
7. Child low-intensity pleasure –.08 .29 .64** .09 .39** .32** 1.00
8. Child perceptual sensitivity .11 .05 .61** .03 .32** .11 .29** 1.00
9. Mother inhibitory control –.09 –.05 .21** .75** .29** .17* .12 –.02 1.00
10. Mother attentional control .05 –.07 .14 .86** .21** .11 .06 –.01 .47** 1.00
11. Mother activation control –.02 –.08 .13 .73** .12 .07 .05 .11 .32** .45** 1.00
12. Q score, parent–child similarity .19* .01 .14 .18* .16* .24** –.09 .00 .13 .21* .07 1.00
M 57.10 1.50 5.18 4.56 4.59 4.76 5.98 5.39 4.37 4.41 4.91 1.40
SD 15.69 .50 .60 .77 .91 1.00 .62 .90 .90 1.13 .88 .11
Open in a new tab

Note. N range = 156 ~177. Q score was a log-transformed value.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01. (all two-tailed tests).

Effortful control

Regarding our study hypothesis, standard regression equations were calculated to test the associations between both the mother’s and the child’s EC with mother–child within-dyad similarity during their interaction. With regard to the first equation, greater mother–child similarity was associated with mother’s higher EC and older child age. Results are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Standard regression, with child and mother effortful control predicting Q score

Q score, mother–child similarity B SE β t p
F(3,144) = 4.30, p = .006, R2 = .08
Child age .001 .001 .19 2.35 .020
Child effortful control .02 .02 .10 1.19 .235
Mother effortful control .03 .01 .17 2.35 .020
Open in a new tab

Subscales of effortful control

Regarding the second equation, greater mother–child similarity during their interaction was associated with mother’s higher attentional control (marginally significant), child’s better attention focusing, child’s lower levels of low-intensity pleasure, and the older child age. Results for the subscales of EC are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3.

Standard regression, with child and mother’s subscales of effortful control predicting Q score

Q score, mother–child similarity B SE β t p
F(8,139) = 3.27, p = .002. R2 = .16
Child age .001 .001 .17 2.16 .033
Child inhibitory control .003 .01 .03 .28 .779
Child attentional control .03 .01 .26 2.79 .006
Child low-intensity pleasure –.03 .02 –.19 –2.15 .033
Child perceptual sensitivity –.00 .01 –.001 –.01 .995
Mother inhibitory control .01 .01 .05 .54 .591
Mother attentional control .02 .01 .18 1.90 .059
Mother activation control –.002 .01 –.02 –.21 .834
Open in a new tab

Note. Two-tailed test.

Controlling for other temperament facets and overall observed positivity

There are at least two alternative explanations for the observed associations—that they are due to reactive affective aspects of temperament (i.e., not EC specifically) or that it is not dyad similarity but overall general positivity in the interactions that accounts for these associations. We estimated the regression equation again, this time controlling for reactive affective aspects of temperament (i.e., smiling/laughter or positive affect, anger or frustration) and for the overall average PARCHISY composite score of positive emotions and behaviors (i.e., overall observed positivity) of both partners.

Regarding the third equation, greater mother–child similarity was associated with mother’s higher EC and older child age even after including other affective aspects of temperament and the overall PARCHISY positive interaction composite score. Regarding the fourth equation, rreater mother–child similarity during their interaction was associated with mother’s higher attentional control, child’s better attention focusing and lower levels of low-intensity pleasure, and older child age, even after including other affective aspects of temperament and the overall PARCHISY positive interaction composite score. Results for the fourth equation are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4.

Hierarchical regression, child and mother’s subscales of effortful control predicting Q score controlling for emotion temperament facets and overall PARCHISY composite

Step 1 Step 2
B SE β t p B SE β t p
Step 1: covariates
F(5,142) = .14, p = .984. R2 = .01
 Overall PARCHISY composite .00 .03 .00 .004 .997 –.02 .03 –.04 –.52 .601
 Child anger –.01 .01 –.06 –.64 .521 .01 .01 .14 1.45 .149
 Child smiling/laughter .002 .01 .02 .19 .846 .00 .01 .003 .03 .973
 Mother frustration –.001 .01 –.01 –.14 .892 .01 .01 .12 1.25 .215
Mother positive affect .001 .01 .01 .05 .957 .01 .01 .06 .64 .525
Step 2: Adding predictors
F(13,134) = 2.32, p = .008. R2 = .18
 Child age .001 .001 .20 2.43 .016
 Child inhibitory control .01 .01 .06 .60 .548
 Child attentional control .03 .01 .29 3.05 .003
 Child low-intensity pleasure –.03 .02 –.19 –2.08 .039
 Child perceptual sensitivity –.004 .01 –.03 –.32 .752
 Mother inhibitory control .01 .01 .11 1.12 .264
 Mother attentional control .02 .01 .22 2.23 .027
 Mother activation control –.003 .01 –.02 –.26 .799
Open in a new tab

Note. Two-tailed test.

DISCUSSION

In the current study, we examined the association between mother’s and child’s EC and its facets and estimates of mother–child within-dyad similarity during mother–child interaction for children spanning the transition from early to middle childhood (ages 3 to 7 years). Overall mother–child similarity during their brief interaction was calculated using a Q correlation. It captures within dyad-level similarity efficiently and is a global rating of the dyad-level profile similarity on a set of values. Our interpretation is that a higher Q correlation reflects more effective coordination of mutually regulated and harmonious interaction and relationship processes within the dyad. The parent–child dyads’ similarity reflects the process of coregulation, because greater similarity likely requires both partners’ engagement and attunement to one another during the interaction. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the association between mother’s and child’s EC and its facets and variance in mother–child within-dyad similarity during observed interaction.

Our hypothesis was that mother and child EC and its facets would be associated with a higher degree of mother–child similarity in observed dyadic positive interaction. Results were mixed. Mothers’ EC was associated with greater mother–child similarity, but children’s EC was not (and the effect size was small).

Although several studies have examined the association between child regulation and parent–child synchrony, there is little prior research regarding children’s and mothers’ regulation, and its direct link with mother–child within-dyad similarity. Nevertheless, prior research has shown that maternal EC contributes to positive aspects of parenting that support the healthy development of child regulation (Bridgett et al., 2011, 2015; Cumberland-Li et al., 2003). Mothers with greater EC are more likely to employ supportive parenting practices by being better attentive to their child’s behaviors and emotions and less use harsh parenting, so they are able to interact with their children more harmoniously (Bridgett et al., 2011; Chen & Johnston, 2007; Mokrova et al., 2010). Our interpretation of the current results is that even during relatively brief interactions, better regulated mothers are more likely to modulate their behaviors and emotions to align with and be mutually responsive with those of their child, leading to dyadic displays of more similar positive verbal and nonverbal behaviors and emotions (e.g., expression of positive affect, responsiveness to each other’s behavior and emotions; Beebe et al., 1982; Brazelton et al. 1974; Davis et al., 2017; Harrist & Waugh, 2002). However, we did not find evidence for the effect of child overall EC on mother–child within-dyad similarity.

Thus, we then investigated EC facets to see if there were particular aspects of EC that were more or less strongly related to within-dyad similarity. We found that greater similarity was associated with both the mother’s attentional control (marginally significant) and the child’s higher levels of attentional control and lower levels of low-intensity pleasure (as well as older child age, a covariate in the analyses). However, it is worth noting that the effect sizes were small, and the overall averages of both partners’ EC subscale scores were high (which may be attenuating the effect sizes by restricting variance).

The results suggest that mothers who have higher attentional control are better able to modulate and attune their behaviors and emotions with their child to provide appropriate stimulation and arousal modulation, so that the mother and child’s behavioral and affective states are more likely to be aligned during their interaction (Field, 1987; Field et al., 1990). In contrast, mothers with less attentional control may be less readily able to focus their attention on their child and attune their behavior harmoniously with their child, so that the mother’s and child’s behavior and affective states are not as likely to be aligned (Field et al., 1990). Similarly, a child who has better attention regulation also may be more adept at adjusting their own positive emotion and behavior to be more similar and aligned with their mother during their interactions, reflecting the child’s contribution to the dyad for engaging in positive well-coordinated relationship processes.

Our analysis yielded slightly distinct patterns when comparing the EC composite with its individual facets. We did not find evidence supporting the effect of child overall EC on the within-dyad similarity. However, on closer examination of the specific subscales, certain aspects of the child’s EC, such as higher attentional control and lower intensity pleasure, may have played a role in shaping greater similarity. These particular facets of the child’s EC appeared to have a more pronounced impact on mother–child similarity compared with overall EC. This suggests that it is important to consider the individual facets of EC when examining their potential roles in mother–child behavioral similarity.

In addition, child age was a significant covariate, such that being older was associated with greater mother–child similarity. As children develop their emotional and cognitive skills across the transition from early into middle childhood, they are gaining skills that enable them to better match and regulate their behaviors and emotions as part of the dyad’s attunement process (Hong et al., 2021; Morris et al., 2007). Moreover, it is also reasonable to assume that parents undergo adjustments in their interactions as their children grow older. As children acquire skills with development, parents may adapt their parenting and communication styles to engage with and respond effectively to their older children. This reciprocal adaptation between parent and older child may foster mother–child similarity and enhance the quality of parent–child interaction.

We also considered some alternative explanations. We examined whether the observed significant associations would remain even after we controlled for key emotion facets of temperament (i.e., mother’s positive affect and frustration, and child’s anger and smiling & laughter). We also controlled for the overall observer-rated PARCHISY composite score, which captures the general level of positive affect and behavior reported from the interaction (but crucially, does not measure within-dyad similarity in those positive interaction variables). The significant effects of child attentional control remained even after controlling for these other variables, and the marginally significant effects of mother attentional control became significant after controlling for these other variables. This increased our confidence that the observed significant associations could be attributed to the regulatory aspects of attention and within-dyad similarity in observed interaction behaviors.

Caveats and conclusions

There are some limitations that should be considered. First, we only examined mothers and children; father–child similarity also should be examined to gain a better understanding of family systems holistically and the effects of father’s and child’s EC on father–child within-dyad similarity specifically. Also, the measures of mother and child temperament were all mother reported. The findings and effect sizes are likely to be affected by informant bias. Second, the cross-sectional correlational design does not permit inferences of causality. Although we have not yet envisioned an ecologically valid and ethical experiment that could be conducted to test our study hypothesis, at the very least, any future correlational research should use longitudinal data to test for potential causal patterns over time. Third, although the Q-correlation method is efficient for capturing similarity across a wide range of variables at one time, it does not test whether any particular behavioral dimension or dimensions are particularly important to the processes that we are examining. Fourth, the internal consistency coefficients for some of EC subscales were in the .5 or .6 range, which are below the standard threshold for what is considered a reliable measure (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). This means that our ability to detect significant effects might have been compromised and should be taken into consideration when interpreting our results. Fifth, although there were two coders who observed the interactive partners’ behaviors and conducted the consensus coding, the same coding pair rated both the mother and the child within each dyad, which introduces potential effects of coder bias on these ratings. Finally, the sample had socioeconomic diversity and some racial/ethnic diversity but was not representative of the broader population, and the findings may not generalize to other groups or to the United States generally.

Despite these limitations, the study has several strengths. We used a novel and rigorous computation method (i.e., Q correlation) to quantify profile-based similarity within each dyad. Moreover, we used multiple informants, including observations as well as mothers’ reports, which allowed us to take a comprehensive approach from multiple informants and reduce the possibility that informant bias would inflate the estimated associations between EC and within-dyad similarity during interactions. To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the mothers’ and child’s EC and its facets (using maternal reports) in association with parent–child within-dyad similarity using observers’ perceptions.

The current study adds to the growing literature on mother–child similarity and the child and mother self-regulation spanning across early to middle childhood. Our results suggest that mother’s higher attentional control and child’s better attention focusing are associated with greater mother and child within-dyad similarity during their interactions. These data provide preliminary evidence to fuel future research on the effects of mothers’ and children’s regulation on mother–child within-dyad similarity using longitudinal data. Also, this study highlights the importance of considering child and mother regulation for prevention and intervention efforts to understand how mother and child are mutually responsive to one another and otherwise modulate their behavior and emotion expressions during dyadic interaction. Targeting the mother and child’s regulatory skills may be a valuable focus for intervention aimed at enhancing parent–child dyad relationships. By improving these regulatory skills, interventions can potentially enhance mother–child similarity which can facilitate coregulation when engaging in joint activities that require cooperation and understanding of each other’s emotional cues. This can lead to increased communication competence and promote responsiveness between mother and child (Harris & Waugh, 2002). Mother–child similarity reflects a critical feature of a close dyadic relationship in the transition across early to middle childhood and captures the capacity to facilitate the emergence and extend the duration of each partner’s attunement to the other.

Acknowledgments

We thank the study participants and the research staff and students in the laboratories at Virginia Tech. The research was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), HD 60110 and HD 57319. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or NICHD. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Mental Research Institute (Menlo Park, CA).

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

  1. Bakeman R, & Gottman JM (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527685 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beebe B, Hertsman L, Carson B, Dolins M, Zigman A, Rosenweig H, Faughey K, & Korman M. (1982). Rhythmic communication in the mother–infant dyad. In Davis M. (Ed.), Interaction rhythms: Periodicity in communicative behavior (pp. 79–100). Human Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell MA (2020). Mother–child behavioral and physiological synchrony. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 58, 163–188. 10.1016/bs.acdb.2020.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brazelton TB, Koslowski B, & Main M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother–infant interaction. In Lewis M. & Rosenblum L. (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver (pp. 49–76). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bridgett DJ, Burt NM, Edwards ES, & Deater-Deckard K. (2015). Intergenerational transmission of self-regulation: A multidisciplinary review and integrative conceptual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 602–654. 10.1037/a0038662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bridgett DJ, Gartstein MA, Putnam SP, Lance KO, Iddins E, Waits R, Vanvleet J, & Lee L. (2011). Emerging effortful control in toddlerhood: The role of infant orienting/regulation, maternal effortful control, and maternal time spent in caregiving activities. Infant Behavior and Development, 34(1), 189–199. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2010.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Calkins SD (2010). Commentary: Conceptual and methodological challenges to the study of emotion regulation and psychopathology. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32(1), 92–95. 10.1007/s10862-0099169-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caspi A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In Damon W. (Series Ed.), & Eisenberg N. (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 311–388). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen M, & Johnston C. (2007). Maternal inattention and impulsivity and parenting behaviors. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 455–468. 10.1080/15374410701448570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Combs-Ronto LA, Olson SL, Lunkenheimer ES, & Sameroff AJ (2009). Interactions between maternal parenting and children’s early disruptive behavior: Bidirectional associations across the transition from preschool to school entry. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(8), 1151–1163. 10.1007/s10802-009-9332-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cumberland-Li A, Eisenberg N, Champion C, Gershoff E, & Fabes RA (2003). The relation of parental emotionality and related dispositional traits to parental expression of emotion and children’s social functioning. Motivation and Emotion, 27(1), 27–56. 10.1023/A:1023674308969 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis M, Bilms J, & Suveg C. (2017). In sync and in control: A meta‐analysis of parent–child positive behavioral synchrony and youth self‐regulation. Family Process, 56(4), 962–980. 10.1111/famp.12259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Deater-Deckard K, Pylas MV, & Petrill SA (1997). Parent–Child Interaction System (PARCHISY). Institute of Psychiatry. [Google Scholar]
  14. de Mendonça JS, Cossette L, Strayer FF, & Gravel F. (2011). Mother–child and father–child interactional synchrony in dyadic and triadic interactions. Sex Roles, 64(1), Article 132142. 10.1007/s11199-010-9875-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Spinrad TL, Fabes RA, Shepard S, Reiser M, ... Guthrie IK (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Development, 72(4), 1112–1134. 10.1111/1467-8624.00337 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eisenberg N, Michalik N, Spinrad TL, Hofer C, Kupfer A, Valiente C, Liew J, Cumberland A, Reiser M. (2007). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s sympathy: A longitudinal study. Cognitive Development, 22(4), 544–567. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Eisenberg N, Sadovsky A, Spinrad DL, Fabes RA, Losoya SH, Valiente C, Reiser M, Cumberland A, & Shepard SA (2005). The relations of problem behavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 193–211. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Eisenberg N, Smith CL, & Spinrad TL (2011). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In Baumeister RF & Vohs KD (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 259–282). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Eisenberg N, Valiente C, Fabes RA, Smith CL, Reiser M, Shepard SA, Losoya SH, Guthrie IK, Murphy BC, & Cumberland AJ (2003). The relations of effortful control and ego control to children’s resiliency and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39(4), 761–776. 10.1036/0012-1649.34.9.761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Eisenberg N, Valiente C, Spinrad TL, Cumberland A, Liew J, Resier M, Zhou Q, & Losoya SH (2009). Longitudinal relations of children’s effortful control, impulsivity, and negative emotionality to their externalizing, internalizing, and co-occurring behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 988. 10.1037/a0016213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans DE, & Rothbart MK (2007). Developing a model for adult temperament. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 868–888. 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fabes RA, Eisenberg N, Jones S, Smith M, Guthrie I, Poulin R, Shepard S, & Friedman J. (1999). Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers’ socially competent peer interactions. Child Development, 70(2), 432–442. 10.1111/1467-8624.00031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Feldman R. (2003). Infant–mother and infant–father synchrony: The coregulation of positive arousal. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 24(1), 1–23. 10.1002/imhj.10041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Feldman R. (2007). Parent–infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(3–4), 329–354. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01701.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Feldman R. (2012). Bio-behavioral synchrony: A model for integrating biological and microsocial behavioral processes in the study of parenting. Parenting, 12(2–3), 154–164. 10.1080/15295192.2012.683342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Feldman R. (2015). Mutual influences between child emotion regulation and parent–child reciprocity support development across the first 10 years of life: Implications for developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 27(4, Pt. 1), 1007–1023. 10.1017/S0954579415000656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Feldman R, & Masalha S. (2010). Parent–child and triadic antecedents of children’s social competence: Cultural specificity, shared process. Developmental Psychology, 46(2), 455–467. 10.1037/a0017415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Field T. (1987). Interaction and attachment in normal and atypical infants. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(6), 853–859. 10.1037/0022-006X.55.6.853 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Field T, Healy BT, Goldstein S, & Guthertz M. (1990). Behavior-state matching and synchrony in mother–infant interactions of nondepressed versus depressed dyads. Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 7–14. 10.1037/0012-1649.26.1.7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fleiss JL (1972). Classification of the depressive disorders by numerical typology. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 9(2), 141–153. 10.1016/0022-3956(72)90007-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Gartstein MA, Bridgett DJ, Young BN, Panksepp J, & Power T. (2013). Origins of effortful control: Infant and parent contributions. Infancy, 18(2), 149–183. 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00119.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gartstein MA, & Fagot BI (2003). Parental depression, parenting and family adjustment, and child effortful control: Explaining externalizing behaviors for preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(2), 143–177. 10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00043-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gaunt R. (2006). Couple similarity and marital satisfaction: Are similar spouses happier? Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1401–1420. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00414.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Harrist AW, & Waugh RM (2002). Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’s development. Developmental Review, 22(4), 555–592. 10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00500-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Heijkoop M, Semon Dubas J, & van Aken MA (2009). Parent–child resemblance and kin investment: Physical resemblance or personality similarity? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(1), 64–69. 10.1080/17405620802642306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hinnant JB, Nelson JA, O’Brien M, Keane SP, & Calkins SD (2013). The interactive roles of parenting, emotion regulation and executive functioning in moral reasoning during middle childhood. Cognition & Emotion, 27(8), 1460–1468. 10.1080/02699931.2013.789792 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hirsh-Pasek K, Adamson LB, Bakeman R, Owen MT, Golinkoff RM, Pace A, Yust PKS, & Suma K. (2015). The contribution of early communication quality to low-income children’s language success. Psychological Science, 26(7), 1071–1083. 10.1177/0956797615581493 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Hong Y, McCormick SA, Deater‐Deckard K, Calkins SD, & Bell MA (2021). Household chaos, parental responses to emotion, and child emotion regulation in middle childhood. Social Development, 30(3), 786–805. 10.1111/sode.12500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hughes C, Dunn J, & White A. (1998). Trick or treat?: Uneven understanding of mind and emotion and executive dysfunction in “hard-to-manage” preschoolers. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39(7), 981–994. 10.1111/1469-7610.00401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Hughes C, White A, Sharpen J, & Dunn J. (2000). Antisocial, angry, and unsympathetic: “Hard-to-manage” preschoolers’ peer problems and possible cognitive influences. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41(2), 169–179. 10.1017/S0021963099005193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Im-Bolter N, Anam M, & Cohen NJ (2015). Mother–child synchrony and child problem behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(7), 1876–1885. 10.1007/s10826-014-9989-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Jeannin R, & Van Leeuwen K. (2015). Associations between direct and indirect perceptions of parental differential treatment and child socio-emotional adaptation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(6), 1838–1855. 10.1007/s10826-014-9987-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kochanska G, Aksan N, Prisco TR, & Adams EE (2008). Mother–child and father–child mutually responsive orientation in the first 2 years and children’s outcomes at preschool age: Mechanisms of influence. Child Development, 79(1), 30–44. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01109.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lam CB, Solmeyer AR, & McHale SM (2012). Sibling differences in parent–child conflict and risky behavior: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 26(4), 523–531. 10.1037/a0029083 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Louwerse MM, Dale R, Bard EG, & Jeuniaux P. (2012). Behavior matching in multimodal communication is synchronized. Cognitive Science, 36(8), 1404–1426. 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01269.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lowe JR, MacLean PC, Duncan AF, Aragón C, Schrader RM, Caprihan A, & Phillips JP (2012). Association of maternal interaction with emotional regulation in 4-and 9-month infants during the Still Face Paradigm. Infant Behavior and Development, 35(2), 295–302. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.12.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lunkenheimer E, Hamby CM, Lobo FM, Cole PM, & Olson SL (2020). The role of dynamic, dyadic parent–child processes in parental socialization of emotion. Developmental Psychology, 56(3), 566–577. 10.1037/dev0000808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lunkenheimer E, Kemp CJ, Lucas‐Thompson RG, Cole PM, & Albrecht EC (2017). Assessing biobehavioural self‐regulation and coregulation in early childhood: The Parent–Child Challenge Task. Infant and Child Development, 26(1), Article e1965. 10.1002/icd.1965 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Mokrova I, O’Brien M, Calkins S, & Keane S. (2010). Parental ADHD symptomology and ineffective parenting: The connecting link of home chaos. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10(2), 119–135. 10.1080/15295190903212844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Morawska A, Basha A, Adamson M, & Winter L. (2015). Microanalytic coding versus global rating of maternal parenting behaviour. Early Child Development and Care, 185(3), 448–463. 10.1080/03004430.2014.932279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Moriya J, & Tanno Y. (2008). Relationships between negative emotionality and attentional control in effortful control. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(6), 1348–1355. 10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Morris AS, Silk JS, Steinberg L, Myers SS, & Robinson LR (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00389.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Noe D, Schluckwerder S, & Reck C. (2015). Influence of dyadic matching of affect on infant self-regulation. Psychopathology, 48(3), 173–183. 10.1159/000376586 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Northrup JB, & Iverson JM (2020). The development of mother–infant coordination across the first year of life. Developmental Psychology, 56(2), 221–236. 10.1037/dev0000867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Nunnally JC, & Bernstein IH (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  57. Provenzi L, di Minico GS, Giusti L, Guida E, & Muller M. (2018). Disentangling the dyadic dance: Theoretical, methodological and outcomes systematic review of mother–infant dyadic processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 348. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Putnam SP, & Rothbart MK (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 102–112. 10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Ravindran N, Zhang X, Green LM, Gatzke-Kopp LM, Cole PM, & Ram N. (2021). Concordance of mother–child respiratory sinus arrythmia is continually moderated by dynamic changes in emotional content of film stimuli. Biological Psychology, 161, Article 108053. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2021.108053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Rhemtulla M, & Little TD (2012). Planned missing data designs for research in cognitive development. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(4), 425–438. 10.1080/15248372.2012.717340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rothbart MK, & Bates JE (2006). Temperament. In Damon W. & Eisenberg N. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 105–176). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  62. Scholtes CM, Lyons ER, & Skowron EA (2021). Dyadic synchrony and repair processes are related to preschool children’s risk exposure and self-control. Development and Psychopathology, 33(3), 1072–1084. 10.1017/S0954579420000358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Silk JS, Steinberg L, & Morris AS (2003). Adolescents’ emotion regulation in daily life: Links to depressive symptoms and problem behavior. Child Development, 74(6), 1869–1880. 10.1046/j.1467-8624.2003.00643.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Skowron EA, Kozlowski JM, & Pincus AL (2010). Differentiation, self–other representations, and rupture–repair processes: Predicting child maltreatment risk. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(3), 304–316. 10.1037/a0020030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Spinrad TL, Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Fabes RA, Valiente C, Shepard SA, Reiser M, Losoya SH, & Guthrie IK (2006). Relation of emotion-related regulation to children’s social competence: A longitudinal study. Emotion, 6(3), Article 498510. 10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Spinrad TL, Eisenberg N, Gaertner B, Popp T, Smith CL, Kupfer A, Greving K, Liew J, & Hofer C. (2007). Relations of maternal socialization and toddlers’ effortful control to children’s adjustment and social competence. Developmental Psychology, 43(5), 1170–1186. 10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Suveg C, Shaffer A, & Davis M. (2016). Family stress moderates relations between physiological and behavioral synchrony and child self‐regulation in mother–preschooler dyads. Developmental Psychobiology, 58(1), 83–97. 10.1002/dev.21358 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Valiente C, Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Shepard SA, Cumberland AJ, & Losoya SH (2004). Prediction of children’s empathy-related responding from their effortful controls and parents’ expressivity. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 911–926. 10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.911 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Valiente C, Lemery‐Chalfant K, & Reiser M. (2007). Pathways to problem behaviors: Chaotic homes, parent and child effortful control, and parenting. Social Development, 16(2), 249–267. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00383.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. van Dijk M, Leonardi G, Pérez DL, & Rącząszek-Leonardi J. (2022). Co-regulation of movements during infant feeding. Infant Behavior and Development, 69, Article 101755. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2022.101755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. van Tuijl C, Branje SJ, Semon Dubas J, Vermulst AA, & Van Aken MA (2005). Parent–offspring similarity in personality and adolescents’ problem behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 19(1), 51–68. 10.1002/per.536 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zeytinoglu S, Calkins SD, Swingler MM, & Leerkes EM (2017). Pathways from maternal effortful control to child self-regulation: The role of maternal emotional support. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(2), 170–180. 10.1037/fam0000271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES